The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About01-21-20 EO&WR Committee PacketOTAY WATER DISTRICT ENGINEERING, OPERATIONS & WATER RESOURCES COMMITTEE MEETING and SPECIAL MEETING OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS 2554 SWEETWATER SPRINGS BOULEVARD SPRING VALLEY, CALIFORNIA BOARDROOM TUESDAY January 21, 2020 1:00 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 BOARD ON ANY SUBJECT MATTER WITHIN THE BOARD'S JU- RISDICTION BUT NOT AN ITEM ON TODAY'S AGENDA DISCUSSION ITEMS 3. REJECT A BID FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE MELROSE AVENUE (CIP P2605) AND OLEANDER AVENUE (CIP P2627) 458/340 PRESSURE REDUCING STATIONS REPLACEMENT PROJECT (BEPPLER) [5 minutes] 4. APPROVE AN INCREASE TO THE OVERALL BUDGET OF CIP P2083 (870-2 PUMP STATION REPLACEMENT PROJECT) IN AN AMOUNT NOT-TO-EXCEED $600,000 (FROM $18,950,000 TO $19,550,000); AND, APPROVE CHANGE ORDER NO. 5 TO THE EXISTING CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT WITH PACIFIC HYDROTECH COR-PORATION IN AN AMOUNT NOT-TO-EXCEED $95,725 FOR THE 870-2 PUMP STATION REPLACEMENT PROJECT (MARTIN) [5 minutes] 5. APPROVE A SECOND AMENDMENT TO THE EXISTING CONTRACT WITH MI- CHAEL BAKER INTERNATIONAL, INC. FOR CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT AND INSPECTION SERVICES FOR THE 870-2 PUMP STATION PROJECT IN AN AMOUNT NOT-TO-EXCEED $289,222 [MARTIN] (5 minutes) 2 6. APPROVE A SIXTH AMENDMENT WITH CAROLLO ENGINEERS, INC. FOR DE-SIGN AND CONSTRUCTION SUPPORT OF THE 870-2 PUMP STATION PROJECT IN AN AMOUNT NOT-TO-EXCEED $19,681 (MARTIN) [5 minutes] 7. APPROVE CHANGE ORDER NO. 3 TO THE EXISTING CONSTRUCTION CON-TRACT WITH CASS CONSTRUCTION, INC. DBA CASS ARRIETA IN AN AMOUNT NOT-TO-EXCEED $1,998.18 FOR THE VISTA VEREDA AND HIDDEN MESA ROAD WATER LINE REPLACEMENT PROJECT (MARTIN) [5 minutes] 8. APPROVE CHANGE ORDER NO. 7 TO THE EXISTING CONSTRUCTION CON-TRACT WITH WIER CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION IN AN AMOUNT NOT-TO-EXCEED $74,997.24 FOR THE CAMPO ROAD SEWER REPLACEMENT PROJECT (MARTIN) [5 minutes] 9. APPROVE THE WATER SUPPLY ASSESSMENT AND VERIFICATION REPORT DATED DECEMBER 2019 FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO OTAY RANCH VIL-LAGE 14 AND PLANNING AREA 16/19 PROPOSED PROJECT AMENDMENT, AS REQUIRED BY SENATE BILLS 610 AND 221 (COBURN-BOYD) [5 minutes] 10. ADOPT THE 1655-1 RESERVOIR, ACCESS ROAD, AND 12-INCH PIPELINE PRO-JECT ADDENDUM TO THE 2016 FINAL PROGRAM ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE 2015 WATER FACILITIES MASTER PLAN UPDATE (COBURN-BOYD) [5 minutes] 11. PROPOSAL FEE SCORING EVALUATION FOR CONSULTANT SELECTION UP-DATE (KENNEDY) [5 minutes] 12. FIRST QUARTER OF FISCAL YEAR 2020 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM REPORT (MARTIN) [5 minutes] 13. ADJOURNMENT BOARD MEMBERS ATTENDING: Tim Smith, Chair Gary Croucher 3 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 through the District Secretary by contacting her at (619) 670-2280. If you have any disability that would require accommodation in order to enable you to partici-pate in this meeting, please call the District Secretary at 670-2280 at least 24 hours prior to the meeting. Certification of Posting I certify that on January 17, 2020 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 January 17, 2020. /s/ Susan Cruz, District Secretary STAFF REPORT TYPE MEETING: Regular Board MEETING DATE: February 5, 2020 SUBMITTED BY: Stephen Beppler Senior Civil Engineer PROJECT: P2605-001103 P2627-001103 DIV. NO. 2 APPROVED BY: Bob Kennedy, Engineering Manager Dan Martin, Assistant Chief of Engineering Rod Posada, Chief, Engineering Mark Watton, General Manager SUBJECT: Reject Construction Bid for the Melrose Avenue (CIP P2605) and Oleander Avenue (CIP P2627) 458/340 Pressure Reducing Stations Replacement Project GENERAL MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATION: That the Otay Water District (District) Board of Directors (Board) authorize the General Manager to reject the bid for the construction of the Melrose Avenue (CIP P2605) and Oleander Avenue (CIP P2627) 458/340 Pressure Reducing Stations (PRSs) Replacement Project (see Exhibit A for Project location). COMMITTEE ACTION: Please see Attachment A. PURPOSE: To obtain Board authorization for the General Manager to reject the bid for the construction of the Melrose Avenue (CIP P2605) and Oleander Avenue (CIP P2627) 458/340 PRSs Replacement Project. AGENDA ITEM 3 2 ANALYSIS: The 340 Pressure Zone (PZ), located in the City of Chula Vista south of E. Orange Avenue and along Main Street, is a closed potable water system served by three PRSs. The Melrose Avenue and Oleander Avenue PRSs were originally constructed in the 1960s and are near the end of their useable life cycle, requiring replacement. The 340 PZ requires at least two of the three PRSs to be operational to meet peak water demands of the system. The stations feature pressure relief valves to prevent the over-pressurization of the closed system. The discharge from the existing pressure relief valves do not currently meet State Health Department air gap requirements. The scope of work generally consists of the replacement of the two existing potable water pressure reducing stations, including construction of approximately 155 linear feet of 12-inch water line, connections to existing water lines and services, abandonment of existing water lines, pavement and surface restoration, testing, inspection, and all other associated work and appurtenances as required by the Contract Documents. The Project was advertised on November 6, 2019 using 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 out for bid were emailed directly to twenty-six (26) contractors that have previously worked for the District. A Pre-Bid Meeting was held on November 21, 2019, which was attended by two (2) contractors and vendors. 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. The District received one bid, which was publicly opened on December 12, 2019, with the following result: CONTRACTOR TOTAL BID AMOUNT 1 Charles King Company Signal Hill, CA $922,150.00 The Engineer's Estimate is $720,000. A review of the bid was performed by District staff for conformance with the contract requirements and determined that the Charles King Company’s bid was responsive. The bid amount though is 28% higher than the Engineer’s Estimate and would result in the CIP project budgets to be exceeded. Analysis of the bid found several bid item prices much higher than expected. These included unit prices for 12-inch PVC pipe of $900 3 and $1,100 per linear foot, restoration of about 10 linear feet of a 2’-8” high block wall at a cost of $27,700, and greater PRS vault costs. The Engineer’s Estimate for the work was based on a previous similar PRS project constructed four years ago with escalation by 25% to reflect current bid conditions, as well as considering other potable water line projects the District has advertised for bid in the past year. Staff reached out to several contractors that knew of the Project to determine what factors influenced their decision to not bid on the Project, with several explanations cited. These included their work force already committed to other projects, the type of work not a best fit with their construction abilities, and prioritizing other bid opportunities. Staff believes that rebidding the Project next fiscal year, potentially with another CIP project, may induce more competitive bids. Delaying the Project will not adversely affect the integrity of the facilities. The PRSs will still adequately serve the water system in the short-term. Staff is recommending to reject the bid since the sole bid exceeds the Project budgets and may not represent a competitive price. FISCAL IMPACT: Joe Beachem, Chief Financial Officer None. GRANTS/LOANS: Engineering staff researched and explored grants and loans and found none 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. 4 SB/BK/DM:jf P:\WORKING\CIP P2605-P2627 458-340 PRSs Repl Melrose-Oleander\Staff Reports\2020-02-05 Reject Bids\2-5-20 Staff Report Reject All Bids for P2605-P2627.docx Attachments: Attachment A – Committee Action Attachment B-1 – Budget Detail for P2605 Attachment B-2 – Budget Detail for P2627 Exhibit A – Project Location Map ATTACHMENT A SUBJECT/PROJECT: P2605-001103 P2627-001103 Reject Construction Bid for the Melrose Avenue (CIP P2605) and Oleander Avenue (CIP P2627) 458/340 Pressure Reducing Stations Replacement Project COMMITTEE ACTION: The Engineering, Operations, and Water Resources Committee (Committee) reviewed this item at a meeting held on January 21, 2020. 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-1 – Budget Detail for P2605 SUBJECT/PROJECT: P2605-001103 P2627-001103 Reject Construction Bid for the Melrose Avenue (CIP P2605) and Oleander Avenue (CIP P2627) 458/340 Pressure Reducing Stations Replacement Project ATTACHMENT B-2 – Budget Detail for P2627 SUBJECT/PROJECT: P2605-001103 P2627-001103 Reject Construction Bid for the Melrose Avenue (CIP P2605) and Oleander Avenue (CIP P2627) 458/340 Pressure Reducing Stations Replacement Project 458-340 PRS REPLACEMENT ATMELROSE AVE & OLEANDER AVE EXHIBIT A CIP P2605 & P2627F P:\WORKING\CIP P2605-P2627 458-340 PRSs Repl Melrose-Oleander\Graphics\Exhibits-Figures\Exhibit A, Location Map.mxd 0 260130 Feet 33 33 33 33 33 33 33 33 33 ©¨F 33 33 33 ¹r ¹r ¹r $R ¹r $R ¹r $R ¹r $R ¹r ¹r $R $R $R $R $R ¹r ¹r ¹r $R $R ¹r ¹r $R $R ¹r ¹r ¹r $R ¹r ¹r ¹r $R ¹r $R ¹r l?l? l?l? l? l? l? l? l? l? l?l?l? l? l? l?l?l?l?l? l? l? l?l?l?l?l?l?l? l?l?l?l?l? l?l? l? l?l?l?l?l? l?l?l? l? l?l? l? l? l? l? l? l? l? l? "Cé îîSRP îîSRP ©©ST ©©ST OTAY WATER DISTRICT Oleander Ave PRS1505 Oleander Ave Melrose Ave PRS1571 Melrose Ave I-805 S I-805 N Oleander Ave E O r a n g e A v e M elrose Ave Ocala Ave Olive Ave Marble Ct N o l a n C t Satinwood Way Slate St Sequoia St R i v e r a C t Olive Ct Slate Ct Teak Ct Sequoia Ct S andstone Ct P r i n c e s s M a n o r C t E O r a n g e A v e OTAY WATER DISTRICT STAFF REPORT TYPE MEETING: Regular Board MEETING DATE: February 5, 2020 SUBMITTED BY: Dan Martin Assistant Chief of Engineering PROJECT: P2083-001103 P2562-001103 DIV. NO. 2 APPROVED BY: Rod Posada, Chief, Engineering Mark Watton, General Manager SUBJECT: Approval to Increase the Overall Budget for CIP P2083 in an amount not-to-exceed $600,000.00 and Approval of Change Order No. 5 in an amount not-to-exceed $95,725.00 to the Construction Contract with Pacific Hydrotech Corporation for the 870-2 Pump Station Replacement Project GENERAL MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATION: That the Otay Water District (District) Board of Directors (Board): 1. Approve to increase the CIP P2083 budget (870-2 Pump StationReplacement Project) in an amount not-to-exceed $600,000.00 (from $18,950,000.00 to $19,550,000.00).2. Authorize the General Manager to execute a Change Order No. 5 tothe existing construction contract with Pacific HydrotechCorporation (Pacific Hydrotech) in the amount of $95,725.00 forthe 870-2 Pump Station Replacement Project (Project) (see Exhibits A and B for Project location). COMMITTEE ACTION: Please see Attachment A. PURPOSE: To increase the overall CIP P2083 budget in an amount not-to-exceed $600,000.00 and to obtain Board authorization for the General Manager to execute Change Order No. 5 in the amount of $95,725.00 to the construction contract with Pacific Hydrotech for the 870-2 Pump Station Replacement Project. AGENDA ITEM 4 2 ANALYSIS: The District’s existing High Head (870-1) and Low Head (571-1) Pump Stations constructed in 1962 and 1966, respectively, have reached the end of their useful lives. The 870-2 Pump Station Project will replace these facilities and includes replacement of existing Reservoir inlet/outlet piping, construction of recirculation system pumps, and a chloramine disinfection booster system. Improvements of the access road and the installation of utilities for electrical, gas, sewer, and communication services are also included. The 870-2 Pump Station Replacement Project also includes the replacement of the 571-1 Reservoir (36.7 MG) floating cover and liner. The 571-1 Reservoir was originally built in 1967. In 1993 the District retrofitted the existing Reservoir to install a reservoir liner and floating cover. The existing liner and floating cover were more than 24 years old and nearing the end of their useful lives. As part of the overall Project, the existing Reservoir outlet stub-out piping located beneath the Reservoir will be replaced, which will allow the new 870-2 Pump Station to simultaneously perform its primary function (pump from the 571-1 Reservoir to the 870-1 Reservoir), recirculate the 571-1 Reservoir, and also achieve a future function (pump from the 571-1 Reservoir to the 624 Pressure Zone). The replacement of the cover and liner under this Project mitigates having to take this critical Reservoir out of service a second time within the next few years. The demolition of the Low Head and High Head Pump Stations will be completed at a later date (not part of this Project) when the new 870-2 Pump Station has been brought on line and completed its warranty period. At the July 5, 2017 Board Meeting, the Board awarded a construction contract in the amount of $16,925,900.00 to Pacific Hydrotech. Since the award of the construction contract, four (4) change orders have been approved. Change Order No. 1, which totaled $26,269.83, compensated the contractor for changes associated with the 571-1 Reservoir cover and liner improvements. These changes included provisions for additional cover buoyancy floats; replacement of existing unsalvageable batten bar anchor bolts; contractor reservoir disinfection in lieu of contract specified District disinfection; weather related days; and an adjustment to the contract milestone date for the 571-1 Reservoir. In total, Change Order No. 1 added twenty-seven (27) days to the contract. 3 Change Order No. 2, which totaled $48,698.12, compensated the contractor for changes including the following: modifications to the new electric meter room to accommodate San Diego Gas & Electric accessibility requirements; modifications to provide two (2) 250-gallon aqueous ammonia tanks in lieu of one (1) 550-gallon tank to better serve Station operations; provisions for two (2) 30-inch magnetic flow meters in lieu of ultrasonic flow meters to provide more resiliency and flexibility with anticipated flow conditions; and repairs to an existing rectifier electrical conduit adjacent to the access road. Change Order No. 2 also addressed contract time including weather days. In total, Change Order No. 2 added sixteen (16) days to the contract. Change Order No. 3, which totaled $64,864.00, compensated the contractor for several changes including the following: modifications to the dimensions of the backup generator concrete foundation pad; addition of structural support members for the heating, ventilation, and air-conditioning (HVAC) equipment and emergency generator muffler; revisions to the Stations louvers and associated masonry; installation of door louvers for the compressor room doors; increasing the discharge piping on the 570 zone (recirculation) pumps to 18-inches; revisions to provide a sewn protective thermal insulation jacket with clips for the emergency generator muffler and exhaust piping; modifying the emergency generator exhaust roof penetration to simplify future muffler removal/servicing; and consolidation of exterior lighting controls in a new contactor and control panel. Change Order No. 3 also addressed contract time including weather days. In total, Change Order No. 3 added twenty-five (25) days to the contract. Change Order No. 4, which totaled $49,157.89, compensated the contractor for several changes including the following: surge protection for indoor devices; additional pipe supports; spare engine exhaust catalysts; modification to Victaulic couplings; and relocation of chemical analyzers. Change Order No. 4 also reconciled credits associated with the unused portions of the Environmental/Regulatory Compliance and Reservoir Improvement Allowance items. Change Order No. 4 also addressed contract time including weather days. In total, Change Order No. 4 added forty-four (44) days to the contract. Change Order No. 5, which is the subject of this staff report, provides for the following twenty-three (23) items, as detailed in the attached Exhibit C: 1. Profile and alignment revisions to the 66-inch and 30-inch discharge yard piping and suction header elevation; 2. Modifications to the Type D emergency batteries and test switch locations; 4 3. Addition of a fuel containment structure; 4. Provide position switches at the surge tank isolation valve; 5. Modifications to the thermal insulation for the pump engine coolant line piping; 6. Fire rate door hardware at door D-12; 7. Addition of bollards and a metal protective enclosure at the diesel fuel lines entrance location to the Pump Station; 8. Revisions to the suction header platform handrail; 9. Revisions to the pump engine natural gas pipe sizes; 10. Modifications to the cable tray support; 11. Ethernet communications to the pump engines; 12. Additional costs associated with dewatering existing vault No. 7; 13. Piping revisions to AVAR connections; 14. Elevation and layout modifications to the suction header walkway and engine platform structures; 15. Adjustments to contract time for weather (11 days); 16. Increase to the Monthly Cost Loaded Baseline CPM Schedule; 17. Credit for unused Rock Removal Allowance; 18. Credit for unused Unsuitable Soils Allowance; 19. Credit for unused Unknown or Unidentified Utilities Allowance; 20. Credit for unused Suspend and Demobilize/Remobilize Construction Operations Allowance; 21. Credit for Dewatering Allowance; 22. Credit for Disposal Regulated Waste Material Allowance; 23. Credit for Lift Station Holding Tank Allowance In total, the cost associated with the items in Change Order No. 5 is $95,725.00. Time impacts associated with this change are also provided in Exhibit C. The thirty-eight (38) additional days added to the contract will result in a revised total contract duration of 950 calendar days. As of December 2019, the physical construction of the 870-2 Pump Station is approximately 90% percent complete and Project startup is anticipated to begin in February 2020. It is anticipated that additional Change Orders for unforeseen items may occur during the completion of the remaining 10% of the construction contract work. The budget increase of $600,000.00 is requested to fund Change Order No. 5, provide for Project support, including construction management, inspection and design services, and reestablish a project contingency in anticipation of unforeseen items. If additional unforeseen items are encountered that result in a Change Order, staff will bring the Change Order forward for Board approval. 5 FISCAL IMPACT: Joe Beachem, Chief Financial Officer The total budget for CIP P2083, as approved in the FY 2020 budget, is $18,950,000. Total expenditures, plus outstanding commitments and forecast, are $19,549,510. See Attachment B-1 for the budget detail. Based on a review of the financial budget, the Project Manager anticipates that with a budget increase of $600,000, CIP P2083 will be completed within the new budget amount of $19,550,000. The total budget for CIP P2562, as approved in the FY 2020 budget, is $2,900,000. Total expenditures, plus outstanding commitments and forecast, including this contract, are $2,877,536. See Attachment B- 2 for the budget detail. Based on a review of the financial budget, the Project Manager anticipates that the budget is sufficient to support the Project. The Finance Department has determined that, under the current rate model, 100% of the funding is available from the Replacement Fund for CIP P2083 and for CIP P2562. GRANTS/LOANS: Engineering staff researched and explored grants and loans and found none 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 District’s Vision, “To be a model water agency by providing stellar service, achieving measurable results, and continuously improving operational practices.” LEGAL IMPACT: None. DM/RP:mlw P:\WORKING\CIP P2083 870-2 Pump Station Replacement\Staff Reports\BD 02-05-20 Pacific Hydrotech Change Order 5\BD 02-05-20 Staff Report CO No. 5 for 870-2 PS.docx Attachments: Attachment A – Committee Action Attachment B1 – P2083 Budget Detail Attachment B2 - P2562 Budget Detail Exhibit A – 870-2 Pump Station Project Location Exhibit B - 870-2 Pump Station Project Detail Map Exhibit C – Change Order No. 5 ATTACHMENT A SUBJECT/PROJECT: P2083-001103 P2562-001103 Approval to Increase the Overall Budget for CIP P2083 in an amount not-to-exceed $600,000.00 and Approval of Change Order No. 5 in an amount not-to-exceed $95,725.00 to the Construction Contract with Pacific Hydrotech Corporation for the 870-2 Pump Station Replacement Project COMMITTEE ACTION: The Engineering, Operations, and Water Resources Committee (Committee) reviewed this item at a meeting held on January 21, 2020. 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-1 – P2083 Budget Detail SUBJECT/PROJECT: P2083-001103 P2562-001103 Approval to Increase the Overall Budget for CIP P2083 in an amount not-to-exceed $600,000.00 and Approval of Change Order No. 5 in an amount not-to-exceed $95,725.00 to the Construction Contract with Pacific Hydrotech Corporation for the 870-2 Pump Station Replacement Project Date: 12/17/19 Budget 18,950,000 Planning Consultant Contracts 100,000 69,743 30,257 100,000 HELIX ENVIRONMNTL PLANNING INC 17,094 17,094 - 17,094 JONES & STOKES ASSOCIATES INC 211,034 211,034 - 211,034 ICF JONES & STOKES INC Regulatory Agency Fees 2,109 2,109 - 2,109 CA DEPT OF FISH & WILDLIFE 720 720 - 720 CALIFORNIA REGIONAL WATER 1,570 1,570 - 1,570 SAN DIEGO COUNTY WATER AUTH 2,286 2,286 - 2,286 STATE WATER RESOURCES Service Contracts 2,260 2,260 - 2,260 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO 164 164 - 164 SAN DIEGO DAILY TRANSCRIPT 505 505 - 505 THE SAN DIEGO UNION-TRIBUNE Standard Salaries 219,000 204,164 14,836 219,000 Fixed Asset 580,444 580,444 - 580,444 Total Planning 1,137,187 1,092,094 45,093 1,137,187 Design 001102 Consultant Contracts 136 136 - 136 THE WATCHLIGHT CORPORATION 4,850 4,850 - 4,850 BURKETT & WONG ENGINEERS INC 14,068 14,068 - 14,068 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA SOIL 3,034 3,034 - 3,034 RICK ENGINEERING COMPANY 4,625 4,625 - 4,625 ROGER B WOODHULL 22,149 22,149 - 22,149 NINYO & MOORE GEOTECHNICAL AND 10,484 10,484 - 10,484 HUNSAKER & ASSOCIATES 6,086 6,086 - 6,086 HDR ENGINEERING INC 682,870 682,870 - 682,870 CAROLLO ENGINEERS INC 7,974 7,974 - 7,974 AEGIS ENGINEERING MGMT INC Regulatory Agency Fees 3,694 3,694 - 3,694 SAN DIEGO GAS & ELECTRIC 20,000 18,348 1,652 20,000 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO Service Contracts 98 98 - 98 DAILY JOURNAL CORPORATION Standard Salaries 677,054 677,054 - 677,054 Supplier Contracts 5,350 5,350 - 5,350 INLAND AERIAL SURVEYS INC Total Design 1,462,472 1,460,820 1,652 1,462,472 Construction Construction Contracts - - - 13,844,569 12,343,576 1,500,992 13,844,569 PACIFIC HYDROTECH CORPORATION 95,725 - 95,725 95,725 Pacific Hydrotech Co. CO No. 5 728,662 649,662 79,000 728,662 PACIFIC WESTERN BANK 2,000 790 1,210 2,000 CLARKSON LAB Consultant Contracts 418,010 404,013 13,997 418,010 CAROLLO ENGINEERS INC 19,681 - 19,681 19,681 Carollo Engineers Inc AMENDMENT 6 1,319 1,319 - 1,319 NINYO & MOORE GEOTECHNICAL AND 9,225 9,225 - 9,225 NV5 INC 17,623 17,623 - 17,623 RBF CONSULTING 780,772 717,593 63,179 780,772 MICHAEL BAKER INT'L INC 289,222 - 289,222 289,222 Michael Baker Int'l Inc AMENDMENT 2 438 438 - 438 NINYO & MOORE GEOTECHNICAL OTHER AGENCY FEES 15,000 7,181 7,819 15,000 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO 166,304 166,304 - 166,304 SAN DIEGO GAS & ELECTRIC Professional Legal Fees 276 276 - 276 ARTIANO SHINOFF 280 280 - 280 STUTZ ARTIANO SHINOFF Service Contracts 3,628 3,628 - 3,628 MAYER REPROGRAPHICS INC 119 119 - 119 SAN DIEGO DAILY TRANSCRIPT Standard Salaries 240,000 181,128 58,872 240,000 60,000 - 60,000 60,000 Security System 15,000 - 15,000 15,000 Communications Connection Contingency 242,000 - 242,000 242,000 1.7% of Construction Contract Total Construction 16,949,851 14,503,155 2,446,697 16,949,851 Grand Total 19,549,510 17,056,068 2,493,441 19,549,510 Vendor/Comments Otay Water District p2083-PS -870-2 Pump Station Committed Expenditures Outstanding Commitment & Forecast Projected Final Cost ATTACHMENT B-2 – P2562 Budget Detail SUBJECT/PROJECT: P2083-001103 P2562-001103 Approval to Increase the Overall Budget for CIP P2083 in an amount not-to-exceed $600,000.00 and Approval of Change Order No. 5 in an amount not-to-exceed $95,725.00 to the Construction Contract with Pacific Hydrotech Corporation for the 870-2 Pump Station Replacement Project Date: 12/17/2019 Budget 2,900,000 Planning Regulatory Agency Fees 50 50 - 50 PETTY CASH CUSTODIAN Total Planning 50 50 - 50 Design 001102 Standard Salaries 51,320 51,320 - 51,320 Total Design 51,320 51,320 - 51,320 Construction Standard Salaries 30,000 15,916 14,084 30,000 129,300 129,300 - 129,300 MICHAEL BAKER INT'L INC 2,414,577 2,384,358 30,218 2,414,577 PACIFIC HYDROTECH CORPORATION 127,083 125,493 1,590 127,083 PACIFIC WESTERN BANK 206 206 - 206 CLARKSON LAB & SUPPLY Contingency 125,000 - 125,000 125,000 4.9% of Construction Contract Total Construction 2,826,166 2,655,273 170,893 2,826,166 Grand Total 2,877,536 2,706,643 170,893 2,877,536 Vendor/Comments Otay Water District p2562-Res - 571-1 Reservoir Cover/Liner Replac Committed Expenditures Outstanding Commitment & Forecast Projected Final Cost OTAY WATER DISTRICT870-2 PUMP STATIONLOCATION MAP EXHIBIT A CIP P2083F P:\WORKING\CIP P2083 870-2 Pump Station Replacement\Graphics\Exhibits-Figures\Exhibit A, Location Map, May 2016.mxd ROLLRESERVOIR(571-1) LOW HEADPUMP STATION HIGH HEADPUMPSTATION FOR PROJECT DETAILSEE EXHIBIT B ACCESS FROMALTA RD OWD PROPERTY LINE(APPROX) FirearmsTrainingFacility VICINITY MAP PROJECT SITE NTSDIV 5 DIV 1 DIV 2 DIV 4 DIV 3 !\ ?ò Aä ?Ë ;&s ?p F 0 250125 Feet OTAY WATER DISTRICT870-2 PUMP STATIONPROJECT DETAIL MAP EXHIBIT B CIP P2083F P:\WORKING\CIP P2083 870-2 Pump Station Replacement\Graphics\Exhibits-Figures\Exhibit B, Project Detail Map, May 2016.mxd 0 10050 Feet Legend ExistingEasementOWD ExistingParcelOWD ExistingEasementSDGE ProposedStructure ProposedWater ProposedStormDrain ProposedSewer ProposedGas ProposedSiteCivil ExistingWaterOWD OTAY WATER DISTRICT 2554 SWEETWATER SPRINGS BLVD., SPRING VALLEY, CA. 91978, (619) 670-2222 CONTRACT/P.O. CHANGE ORDER No. 5 PROJECT/ITEM: 870-2 Pump Station Replacement CONTRACTOR/VENDOR: Pacific Hydrotech Corporation REF.CIP No.: P2083/P2562 APPROVED BY: Board REF. P.O. No: 720067 DATE: 12/30/19 DESCRIPTION: See attached page 2 of 5 for continuation. REASON: See attached page 4 of 5 for continuation. CHANGE P.O. TO READ: Revise Contract to add $95,725.00 and add 38 days time for a total Contract amount of $17,210,614.84 with a Contract Duration of 950 Calendar Days. ORIGINAL CONTRACT/P.O. AMOUNT: $ 16,925,900.00 ADJUSTED AMOUNT FROM PREVIOUS CHANGE: $ 188,989.84 TOTAL COST OF THIS CHANGE ORDER: $ 95,725.00 NEW CONTRACT/P.O. AMOUNT IS: $ 17,210,614.84 ORIGINAL CONTRACT COMPLETION DATE: 10/4/19 CONTRACT/P.O. TIME AFFECTED BY THIS CHANGE: Yes REVISED CONTRACT COMPLETION DATE: 3/2/20 IT IS UNDERSTOOD WITH THE FOLLOWING APPROVALS, THAT THE CONTRACTOR/VENDOR IS AUTHORIZED AND DIRECTED TO MAKE THE HEREIN DESCRIBED CHANGES. IT IS ALSO AGREED THAT THE TOTAL COST FOR THIS CHANGE ORDER CONSTITUTES FULL AND COMPLETE COMPENSATION FOR OBLIGATIONS REQUIRED BY THE CONTRACT/P.O. ALL OTHER PROVISIONS AND REQUIREMENTS OF THE CONTRACT/P.O. REMAIN IN FULL FORCE AND EFFECT. CONTRACTOR/VENDOR: STAFF APPROVALS: SIGNATURE: PROJ. MGR: DATE: 12/30/19 NAME: David Power ASST CHIEF: DATE: TITLE: Project Manager DATE: 12/30/19 CHIEF: DATE: COMPANY & Pacific Hydrotech Corporation ADDRESS: 314 E. 3rd Street DISTRICT APPROVAL: Perris, CA 92570 GEN. MANAGER: DATE: COPIES:  FILE (Orig.),  CONTRACTOR/VENDOR,  CHIEF-ENGINEERING,  CHIEF-FINANCE,  ENGR. MGR.  ACCTS PAYABLE,  INSPECTION,  PROJ. MGR.,  ENGR. SECRETARY,  PURCHASING,  PROJECT BINDER Contract / P.O. Change Order No. 5 page 2 of 5 Description of Work Description Increase Decrease Time Item No. 1: Charges attributable to the 870-2 PS (CIP 2083). This Change Order provides for profile and alignment revisions to the 66-inch inlet and 30-inch discharge yard piping and suction header elevation per COR 29 and RFP 006. $71,543.00 10 Item No. 2: Charges attributable to the 870-2 PS (CIP 2083). This Change Order provides for modifications to the Type D emergency batteries and test switch locations per COR 59. $16,694.00 1 Item No. 3: Charges attributable to the 870-2 PS (CIP 2083). This Change Order provides for addition of a fuel containment structure per COR 78. $53,012.00 7 Item No. 4: Charges attributable to the 870-2 PS (CIP 2083). This Change Order provides position switches at the surge tank isolation valve per COR 79. $2,488.00 0 Item No. 5: Charges attributable to the 870-2 PS (CIP 2083). This Change Order provides for modifications to the thermal insulation for the pump engine coolant line piping per COR 80. $19,893.00 0 Item No. 6: Charges attributable to the 870-2 PS (CIP 2083). This Change Order provides for fire rated door hardware at door D-12 per COR 81. $1.920.00 0 Item No. 7: Charges attributable to the 870-2 PS (CIP 2083). This Change Order provides for bollards and a metal protective enclosure at the diesel fuel lines entrance location to the pump station per COR 82. $8,234.00 0 Item No. 8: Charges attributable to the 870-2 PS (CIP 2083). This Change Order provides revisions to the suction header platform handrail per COR 83. $3,259.00 0 Item No. 9: Charges attributable to the 870-2 PS (CIP 2083). This Change Order provides revisions to the pump engine natural gas pipe sizes per COR 84R1. $13,856.00 0 Item No. 10: Charges attributable to the 870-2 PS (CIP 2083). This Change Order provides modifications to the cable tray support per COR 85. $1,301.00 0 Item No. 11: Charges attributable to the 870-2 PS (CIP 2083). This Change Order provides ethernet communication to the pump engines per COR 87R2. $20,035.00 9 Item No. 12: Charges attributable to the 870-2 PS (CIP 2083). This Change Order provides for additional costs associated with dewatering vault 7 per COR 88. $4,629.00 0 Item No. 13: Charges attributable to the 870-2 PS (CIP 2083). This Change Order provides piping revisions to AVAR connections per COR 94. $966.00 0 Item No. 14: Charges attributable to the 870-2 PS (CIP 2083). This Change Order provides elevation and layout modifications to the suction header walkway and engine platform structures per COR 95. $29,695.00 0 Contract / P.O. Change Order No. 5 page 3 of 5 Item No. 15: Add eleven (11) calendar days due to weather impacts per Contract Specifications 00700-8.5. $0.00 $0.00 11 Item No. 16: Charges attributable to the 870-2 PS (CIP 2083). This Change Order increases the amount allocated for Bid Item 11b, Monthly Cost Loaded Baseline CPM Schedule, by $1,200 to a new authorized amount of $8,400.00. (Add 4 EA at $300/EA) $1,200.00 0 Item No. 17: Charges attributable to the 870-2 PS (CIP 2083). This Change Order decreases the amount allocated for Bid Item 12, Rock Removal, by $80,000.00 to a new authorized amount of $0.00. (Delete 800 CY at $100/CY) $80,000.00 0 Item No. 18: Charges attributable to the 870-2 PS (CIP 2083). This Change Order decreases the amount allocated for Bid Item 13, Unsuitable Soils, by $8,000.00 to a new authorized amount of $7,000.00. (Delete 160 CY at $50/CY) $8,000.00 0 Item No. 19: Charges attributable to the 870-2 PS (CIP 2083). This Change Order decreases the amount allocated for Bid Item 14, Unknown or Unidentified Utilities Allowance by $10,000.00 to a new authorized amount of $0.00. $10,000.00 0 Item No. 20: Charges attributable to the 870-2 PS (CIP 2083). This Change Order decreases the amount allocated for Bid Item 15, Suspend and Demobilize/Re-mobilize Construction Operations Allowance by $15,000.00 to a new authorized amount of $0.00. $15,000.00 0 Item No. 21: Charges attributable to the 870-2 PS (CIP 2083). This Change Order decreases the amount allocated for Bid Item 17, Dewatering Allowance by $10,000.00 to a new authorized amount of $0.00. $10,000.00 0 Item No. 22: Charges attributable to the 870-2 PS (CIP 2083). This Change Order decreases the amount allocated for Bid Item 18, Disposal Regulated Waste Material Allowance by $10,000.00 to a new authorized amount of $0.00. $10,000.00 0 Item No. 23: Charges attributable to the 870-2 PS (CIP 2083). This Change Order decreases the amount allocated for Bid Item 20, Lift Station Holding Tank Allowance by $20,000.00 to a new authorized amount of $0.00. $20,000.00 0 Sub Total Amount $248,725.00 $153,000.00 38 Total Net Change Order Amount $95,725.00 Contract / P.O. Change Order No. 5 page 4 of 5 Revisions to: BID SCHEDULE Item # Description Quantity Unit Unit Price Amount 11B Monthly Cost Loaded CPM Schedule 28 EA $300 $8,400.00 12 Rock Removal 0 CY $100 $0.00 13 Unsuitable Soils 140 CY $50 $7,000.00 14 Unknown or Unidentified Utilities Allowance 1 LS LS $0.00 15 Suspend and Demobilize/Re-mobilize Construction Operations Allowance 1 LS LS $0.00 17 Dewatering Allowance 1 LS LS $0.00 18 Disposal Regulated Waste Material Allowance 1 LS LS $0.00 20 Lift Station holding Tank Allowance 1 LS LS $0.00 Reason: Item No. 1: During excavation of the pump station it was determined that dimensional conflicts existed between installed yard piping and pump station piping. The engineer located the plan discrepancy and provided revised yard piping layout dimensions and suction header elevation. This Change Order is required to implement the required piping modifications resolving all costs associated with COR 29R2 and RFP 006. Item No. 2: The Contract specified Type D pump room light fixture provided hardwired factory cable between the light fixture and emergency batteries and test switch. The factory cable length required modification to mitigate the battery and test switch installation at the ceiling. This change order provides for relocation of emergency batteries and test switches to locations accessible without need of lift equipment resolving all costs associated with COR 059. Item No. 3: The Contract provided a double containment fuel tank in lieu of a “bathtub” type fuel containment. It was determined to incorporate a “bathtub” type fuel containment in addition to the specified fuel tank to provide additional safety for the storage tank and associated piping and pumps. This change order is required to implement the modification resolving all costs with COR 078. Item No. 4: During construction it was determined that the surge tank isolation valve (VAL-507) did not include position switches on the actuator required to provide position confirmation to the PLC. This change order is required to provide the required position switches resolving all costs with COR 079. Item No. 5: The Contract Documents provided unsewn protective thermal insulation wired to the pump engine coolant line piping. During submittal review it was determined that the project would benefit from a sewn and easily removable jacketed insulation to facilitate future servicing while increasing longevity. It was determined to modify the requirements to include a custom sewn insulation jacket with clips to facilitate maintenance removal while increasing service life. This change order is required to implement the modification resolving all costs with COR 080. Item No. 6: During construction it was determined that fire rated door hardware at emergency generator room door D-12 was not provided as required by fire code. This change order is required to provide and install the required fire rated door hardware in lieu of the specified passage door hardware. This change order is required to implement the modification resolving all costs with COR 081. Item No. 7: Resulting from modifications to the double containment fuel piping at the entrance to the pump station the incorporation of removable protective bollards and a metal protective enclosure was determined to be required to protect the piping from mechanical damage and ensure the long-term serviceability of the fuel lines. This change order is required to implement the modification and resolve all costs associated with COR 082. Item No. 8: Subsequent to handrail installation on the suction header platform it was determined that the provided chain openings in the handrail were not required resulting in the determination to remove the chain and replace with matching handrail. This change order is required to implement the modification and resolve all costs associated with COR 083. Contract / P.O. Change Order No. 5 page 5 of 5 Item No. 9: Subsequent to installation of the specified natural gas piping the pump engine vendor provided notice that the piping would not deliver the volume of gas required by the engines. This resulted in the determination to increase the size of the natural gas lines feeding the existing and future pump engines. This change order is required to implement the modification and resolve all costs associated with COR 084R1. Item No. 10: Subsequent to installation of the suction header platform it was determined that an electrical cable tray support posed a potential hazard to staff walking on the platform. It was determined to change the design and relocate the support away from the path of travel. This change order is required to implement the modification and resolve all costs associated with COR 085. Item No. 11: During submittal review it was determined to incorporate ethernet communication with both pump engine controllers. Ethernet communication will facilitate SCADA monitoring and trending of pump engine performance data required for APCD reporting eliminating manual acquisition of the data. This change order is required to implement the modification and resolve all costs associated with COR 87R2. Item No. 12: During installation of required cathodic modifications at Vault 7 existing valving could not control water flow as reasonably anticipated resulting in additional costs. This change order is required to implement the modification and resolve all costs associated with COR 088. Item No. 13: Subsequent to discussions with operations a request was initiated to modify the pipe material used to connect the AVAR’s to the piping. This change order is required to implement the modification and resolve all costs associated with COR 094 Item No. 14: Subsequent to piping modifications the elevation of the suction piping walkway was raised resulting in submittal revisions and fabrication modifications to account for suction header elevation revisions. Additionally, during submittal review, access and layout modifications were made to the pump engine platform increasing the available work area while simplifying access requiring additional submittal revisions, material and fabrication modifications. This change order is required to implement the modification and resolve all costs associated with COR 095. Item No. 15: Contract Documents Section 00700-8.5 provides for no cost time extensions due to weather impacts on the project progress. Weather impacted the project eleven (11) days between September 1, 2019 and December 15, 2019. The project was impacted on November 20, 21 and 22, December 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 9, 10 and 11, 2019 due to weather. Item No. 16: The Contract Bid Item No. 11b, Monthly Cost Loaded CPM Schedule, required a quantity adjustment resulting from project time extension. Item No. 17: The Contract Bid Item No. 12, Rock Removal, required a quantity adjustment resulting from field conditions. Item No. 18: The Contract Bid Item No. 13, Unsuitable Soils, required a quantity adjustment resulting from field conditions. Item No. 19: The Contract Bid Item No. 14, Unknown or Unidentified Utilities Allowance, has been used to the maximum extent practical and is no longer required. Item No. 20: The Contract Bid Item No. 15, Suspend and Demobilize/Re-mobilize Construction Operations Allowance, has been used to the maximum extent practical and is no longer required. Item No. 21: The Contract Bid Item No. 17, Dewatering Allowance, has been used to the maximum extent practical and is no longer required. Item No. 22: The Contract Bid Item No. 18, Disposal Regulated Waste Material Allowance, has been used to the maximum extent practical and is no longer required. Item No. 23: The Contract Bid Item No. 19, Lift Station Holding Tank Allowance, has been used to the maximum extent practical and is no longer required. 870-2 Pump Station Replacement Project Project: P2083/P2562 Consultant/Contractor: Pacific Hydrotech Corporation Subproject: 001103 APPROVED C.O. AMOUNT BY DATE DESCRIPTION TYPE C.O. 1 $26,269.83 GM 5/18/2018 Change order provides for additional buoyancy floats, anchor bolts, and a modified disinfection procedure for the 571-1 Reservoir. Also addresses contract time for weather. Contractor 2 $48,698.12 GM 1/29/2019 Electric service room modifications; ammonia storage modifications; replace ultrasonic flow meters with magnetic type; relocate existing rectifier power conduit; and weather days Contractor 3 $64,864.00 Board 4/4/2019 Bathroom fixtures; backup generator concrete foundation pad modifications; HVAC muffler support structural members; louver and pilaster modifications; door louvers; increase pump discharge pipe size to 18-inch; modify emergency generator thermal insulation; emergency generator exhaust roof penetration; exterior lighting controls modifications; weather days. Contractor 4 $49,157.89 Board 11/7/2019 Change order addresses 28 specific items including but not limited to surge protection for indoor devices, additional pipe supports, exhaust fan for EF-4, spare exhaust catalyst, modifications to Victaulic couplings, relocation of chemical analyzers. Also includes time adjustments and weather days. Contractor 5 $95,725.00 Board Change order addresses 23 specific items including but not limited to profile and alignment revisions to the 66-inch and 30-inch discharge yard piping; addition of a fuel containment structure; modifications to emergency batteries and test switch locations; modifications to the thermal insulation for the pump engine coolant line piping; Ethernet communication to the pump engines; modifications to the suction header walkway and engine platform structures; and credits for unused allowance items. Also includes time adjustments and weather days. Contractor 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 1415 Total C.O.'s To Date: $284,714.84 1.7% Original Contract Amount:$16,925,900.00 Current Contract Amount:$17,210,614.84 Month Net C.O.$ Limit Authorization Absolute C.O.$ C.O. % 12/19 $95,725.00 $2,000 Insp $95,725.00 0.6% $5,000 PM/Sr. Engr. 0.0% $15,000 Asst. Chief 0.0% $20,000 Chief 0.0% $75,000 GM 0.0% >$75,000 Board 0.0% CHANGE ORDER LOG P:\WORKING\CIP P2083 870-2 Pump Station Replacement\Construction\Change Orders\COLOG_1912301 12/30/2019 STAFF REPORT TYPE MEETING: Regular Board MEETING DATE: February 5, 2020 SUBMITTED BY: Dan Martin Assistant Chief of Engineering PROJECT: P2083-001103 P2562-001103 DIV. NO. 2 APPROVED BY: Rod Posada, Chief, Engineering Mark Watton, General Manager SUBJECT: Second Amendment to Michael Baker International, Inc. Professional Services Contract for Construction Management and Inspection Services for the 870-2 Pump Station Project GENERAL MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATION: That the Otay Water District (District) Board of Directors (Board) authorize the General Manager to execute a Second Amendment with Michael Baker International, Inc. (Michael Baker) for construction management and inspection services for the 870-2 Pump Station Project in an amount not-to-exceed $289,222.00 (see Exhibit A for Project location and Exhibit B for Project detail map). COMMITTEE ACTION: Please see Attachment A. PURPOSE: To obtain Board authorization for the General Manager to execute a Second Amendment with Michael Baker (see Exhibit C) for construction management and inspection services for the 870-2 Pump Station Project in an amount not-to-exceed $289,222.00. AGENDA ITEM 5 2 ANALYSIS: On July 30, 2014, the District entered into an agreement in the amount of $853,457 with Michael Baker for services in support of the delivery of the 870-2 Pump Station project. These services consist of pre-construction services, including value engineering and constructability review, project coordination services, Construction Management Services, and Inspection services. On June 8, 2017, the First Amendment to the agreement between the District and Michael Baker was executed in an amount of $74,238.00. The First Amendment, which was executed prior to the beginning of construction, addressed additional scope that was added to the overall construction project during the design phase, including the removal/replacement of the 571-1 Reservoir cover and liner, suction header piping, and access road paving. The First Amendment also adjusted the consultant’s rates and extended the agreement to December 31, 2019 to allow for completion of construction and associated construction contract closeout activities. Since the approval of the First Amendment, changes have occurred in the construction contract that have extended the time of completion from October 2019 to March 2020, which required additional construction management and inspection efforts. As of December 2019, the physical construction of the 870-2 Pump Station is approximately 90% percent complete and Project startup is anticipated to begin in February 2020. During the Station’s startup phase, the contractor will perform rigorous testing of the Station’s mechanical, electrical, and SCADA systems. This testing is witnessed and documented by the Construction Management and Inspection team and is vital to the successful commissioning of the Station. The proposed Second Amendment is to provide additional construction management and inspection during the Station’s startup phase, station commissioning, and closeout activities for the construction contract. This amendment will also extend contract time to June 30, 2020. FISCAL IMPACT: Joe Beachem, Chief Financial Officer The total budget for CIP P2083, as approved in the FY 2020 budget, is $18,950,000. Total expenditures, plus outstanding commitments and forecast, are $19,549,510. See Attachment B for the budget detail. 3 Based on a review of the financial budgets, the Project Manager anticipates that with a budget increase of $600,000 (reference February 5, 2020 staff report titled, “Approval to Increase the Overall Budget for CIP P2083 in an amount not-to-exceed $600,000.00 and Approval of Change Order No. 5 in an amount not-to-exceed $95,725.00 to the Construction Contract with Pacific Hydrotech Corporation for the 870-2 Pump Station Replacement Project”), CIP P2083 will be completed within the new budget amount of $19,550,000. The total budget for CIP P2562, as approved in the FY 2020 budget, is $2,900,000. Total expenditures, plus outstanding commitments and forecast, including this contract, are $2,877,536. See Attachment B-2 for the budget detail. Based on a review of the financial budget, the Project Manager anticipates that the budgets are sufficient to support the Project. The Finance Department has determined that, under the current rate model, 100% of the funding is available from the Replacement Fund for CIP P2083 and for CIP P2562. GRANTS/LOANS: Engineering staff researched and explored grants and loans and found none 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 District’s Vision, “To be a model water agency by providing stellar service, achieving measurable results, and continuously improving operational practices.” LEGAL IMPACT: None. DM/RP: P:\WORKING\CIP P2083 870-2 Pump Station Replacement\Staff Reports\BD 02-05-20 Michael Baker 2nd Amendment\BD-02-05-20 Michael Baker 2nd Amendment_CM and Inspection Services (DM).docx Attachments: Attachment A – Committee Action Attachment B1 – P2083 Budget Detail Attachment B2 - P2562 Budget Detail Exhibit A – Location Map Exhibit B – Project Detail Map Exhibit C – Second Amendment ATTACHMENT A SUBJECT/PROJECT: P2083-001103 P2562-001103 Second Amendment to Michael Baker International, Inc. Professional Services Contract for Construction Management and Inspection Services for the 870-2 Pump Station Project COMMITTEE ACTION: The Engineering, Operations, and Water Resources Committee (Committee) reviewed this item at a meeting held on January 21, 2020. 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-1 – P2083 Budget Detail SUBJECT/PROJECT: P2083-001103 P2562-001103 Second Amendment to Michael Baker International, Inc. Professional Services Contract for Construction Management and Inspection Services for the 870-2 Pump Station Project Date: 12/17/19 Budget 18,950,000 Planning Consultant Contracts 100,000 69,743 30,257 100,000 HELIX ENVIRONMNTL PLANNING INC 17,094 17,094 - 17,094 JONES & STOKES ASSOCIATES INC 211,034 211,034 - 211,034 ICF JONES & STOKES INC Regulatory Agency Fees 2,109 2,109 - 2,109 CA DEPT OF FISH & WILDLIFE 720 720 - 720 CALIFORNIA REGIONAL WATER 1,570 1,570 - 1,570 SAN DIEGO COUNTY WATER AUTH 2,286 2,286 - 2,286 STATE WATER RESOURCES Service Contracts 2,260 2,260 - 2,260 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO 164 164 - 164 SAN DIEGO DAILY TRANSCRIPT 505 505 - 505 THE SAN DIEGO UNION-TRIBUNE Standard Salaries 219,000 204,164 14,836 219,000 Fixed Asset 580,444 580,444 - 580,444 Total Planning 1,137,187 1,092,094 45,093 1,137,187 Design 001102 Consultant Contracts 136 136 - 136 THE WATCHLIGHT CORPORATION 4,850 4,850 - 4,850 BURKETT & WONG ENGINEERS INC 14,068 14,068 - 14,068 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA SOIL 3,034 3,034 - 3,034 RICK ENGINEERING COMPANY 4,625 4,625 - 4,625 ROGER B WOODHULL 22,149 22,149 - 22,149 NINYO & MOORE GEOTECHNICAL AND 10,484 10,484 - 10,484 HUNSAKER & ASSOCIATES 6,086 6,086 - 6,086 HDR ENGINEERING INC 682,870 682,870 - 682,870 CAROLLO ENGINEERS INC 7,974 7,974 - 7,974 AEGIS ENGINEERING MGMT INC Regulatory Agency Fees 3,694 3,694 - 3,694 SAN DIEGO GAS & ELECTRIC 20,000 18,348 1,652 20,000 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO Service Contracts 98 98 - 98 DAILY JOURNAL CORPORATION Standard Salaries 677,054 677,054 - 677,054 Supplier Contracts 5,350 5,350 - 5,350 INLAND AERIAL SURVEYS INC Total Design 1,462,472 1,460,820 1,652 1,462,472 Construction Construction Contracts - - - 13,844,569 12,343,576 1,500,992 13,844,569 PACIFIC HYDROTECH CORPORATION 95,725 - 95,725 95,725 Pacific Hydrotech Co. CO No. 5 728,662 649,662 79,000 728,662 PACIFIC WESTERN BANK 2,000 790 1,210 2,000 CLARKSON LAB Consultant Contracts 418,010 404,013 13,997 418,010 CAROLLO ENGINEERS INC 19,681 - 19,681 19,681 Carollo Engineers Inc AMENDMENT 6 1,319 1,319 - 1,319 NINYO & MOORE GEOTECHNICAL AND 9,225 9,225 - 9,225 NV5 INC 17,623 17,623 - 17,623 RBF CONSULTING 780,772 717,593 63,179 780,772 MICHAEL BAKER INT'L INC 289,222 - 289,222 289,222 Michael Baker Int'l Inc AMENDMENT 2 438 438 - 438 NINYO & MOORE GEOTECHNICAL OTHER AGENCY FEES 15,000 7,181 7,819 15,000 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO 166,304 166,304 - 166,304 SAN DIEGO GAS & ELECTRIC Professional Legal Fees 276 276 - 276 ARTIANO SHINOFF 280 280 - 280 STUTZ ARTIANO SHINOFF Service Contracts 3,628 3,628 - 3,628 MAYER REPROGRAPHICS INC 119 119 - 119 SAN DIEGO DAILY TRANSCRIPT Standard Salaries 240,000 181,128 58,872 240,000 60,000 - 60,000 60,000 Security System 15,000 - 15,000 15,000 Communications Connection Contingency 242,000 - 242,000 242,000 1.7% of Construction Contract Total Construction 16,949,851 14,503,155 2,446,697 16,949,851 Grand Total 19,549,510 17,056,068 2,493,441 19,549,510 Vendor/Comments Otay Water District p2083-PS -870-2 Pump Station Committed Expenditures Outstanding Commitment & Forecast Projected Final Cost ATTACHMENT B-2 – P2562 Budget Detail SUBJECT/PROJECT: P2083-001103 P2562-001103 Second Amendment to Michael Baker International, Inc. Professional Services Contract for Construction Management and Inspection Services for the 870-2 Pump Station Project Date: 12/17/2019 Budget 2,900,000 Planning Regulatory Agency Fees 50 50 - 50 PETTY CASH CUSTODIAN Total Planning 50 50 - 50 Design 001102 Standard Salaries 51,320 51,320 - 51,320 Total Design 51,320 51,320 - 51,320 Construction Standard Salaries 30,000 15,916 14,084 30,000 129,300 129,300 - 129,300 MICHAEL BAKER INT'L INC 2,414,577 2,384,358 30,218 2,414,577 PACIFIC HYDROTECH CORPORATION 127,083 125,493 1,590 127,083 PACIFIC WESTERN BANK 206 206 - 206 CLARKSON LAB & SUPPLY Contingency 125,000 - 125,000 125,000 4.9% of Construction Contract Total Construction 2,826,166 2,655,273 170,893 2,826,166 Grand Total 2,877,536 2,706,643 170,893 2,877,536 Vendor/Comments Otay Water District p2562-Res - 571-1 Reservoir Cover/Liner Replac Committed Expenditures Outstanding Commitment & Forecast Projected Final Cost OTAY WATER DISTRICT870-2 PUMP STATIONLOCATION MAP EXHIBIT A CIP P2083F P:\WORKING\CIP P2083 870-2 Pump Station Replacement\Graphics\Exhibits-Figures\Exhibit A, Location Map, May 2016.mxd ROLLRESERVOIR(571-1) LOW HEADPUMP STATION HIGH HEADPUMPSTATION FOR PROJECT DETAILSEE EXHIBIT B ACCESS FROMALTA RD OWD PROPERTY LINE(APPROX) FirearmsTrainingFacility VICINITY MAP PROJECT SITE NTSDIV 5 DIV 1 DIV 2 DIV 4 DIV 3 !\ ?ò Aä ?Ë ;&s ?p F 0 250125 Feet OTAY WATER DISTRICT870-2 PUMP STATIONPROJECT DETAIL MAP EXHIBIT B CIP P2083F P:\WORKING\CIP P2083 870-2 Pump Station Replacement\Graphics\Exhibits-Figures\Exhibit B, Project Detail Map, May 2016.mxd 0 10050 Feet Legend ExistingEasementOWD ExistingParcelOWD ExistingEasementSDGE ProposedStructure ProposedWater ProposedStormDrain ProposedSewer ProposedGas ProposedSiteCivil ExistingWaterOWD crP P2083 Contract No. 0001578 SECOND AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES BETWEEN BETWEEN OTAY WATER DISTRICT AND MICHAEL BAKER INTERNATIONAL, INC. FOR CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT AND INSPECTION SERVICES FOR THE 870-2 PUMP STATION This Second Amendment ("Amendment") to the Agreement for Professional Services between Otay Water District and Michael Baker lnternational, lnc. for Construction Management and lnspection Services dated July 30, 2014, is made and entered into as of the day of 2020, by and between OTAY WATER DISTRICT ("District"), and MICHAEL BAKER INTERNATIONAL, lNC. (formerly RBF CONSULTING), ("Consultant")(collectively referred to as "the Parties"). R E CTIALg A. District and Consultant entered into that certain Professional Services Agreement for Construction Management and lnspection Services dated July 30, 2AM $he "Original Agreement"), under which Consultant agreed to render certain technical and professional services therein described, for the 870-2 Pump Station (the "Services"). The Original Agreement was amended on June 8, 2017 (lhe "First Amendment"). B. The First Amendment will expire on December 31, 2019, and provided for compensation in an amount not to exceed Nine Hundred Twenty-Seven Thousand Six Hundred Ninety-Five Dollars ($927,695). However, construction of the 870-2 Pump Station is not complete and the District anticipates that the 870-2 Pump Station construction project will require Consultant to continue to provide Services beyond the current expiration date. C. District and Consultant desire to enter into this Second Amendment to extend the term for completion of the Services, increase the compensation payable to Consultant, and to amend certain specific terms and conditions of the Original Agreement, as amended by the First Amendment, as indicated below. 1 clP P2083 Contract No. 0001578 NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing and the mutual promises and covenants hereinafter contained, the Parties agree as follows: 1. Exhibit B to the Original Agreement and Exhibit B-1 to the First Amendment, setting for the Services to be provided by Consultant, is hereby amended and supplemented by the Consultant's letter proposal dated January 3, 2Q20, attached to this Amendment, and incorporated by reference. 2. The Parties agree that the aggregate amount paid by the District to the Consultant for the Services rendered by Consultant in excess of the Original Agreement, as amended by the First Amendment, shall not exceed Two Hundred Eighty-Nine Thousand Two Hundred Twenty-Two Dollars ($289,222). Accordingly, the total compensation paid by the District for Services described in the Original Agreement, as amended by the First Amendment and this Second Amendment shall not exceed One Million Two Hundred Sixteen Thousand Nine Hundred and Seventeen Dollars ($1,216,917). 3. Pursuant to the First Amendment, the Parties agreed that the Services would be completed on or prior to December 31,2Q19. The Parties hereby agree that the term of the Original Agreement, as amended, is hereby extended to June 3Q, 2020, and all Services and work contemplated under the Original Agreement, as amended, shall be completed to the District's satisfaction on or prior to that date. 4. The Parties agree that all terms and conditions of the Original Agreement, as amended by the First Amendment, not modified or amended by this Amendment including, without limitation, all indemnity and insurance requirements, are and shall remain in full force and effect. z ctP P2083 Contract No. 0001578 5. This Second Amendment is subject to the venue, choice of law and interpretation provisions of the Original Agreement. lN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have caused this Amendment to be executed as of the day and year first above written. OTAY WATER DISTRICT By: Its: Mark Watton General Manager Date CONSULTANT MICHAEL BAKER INTERNATIONAL, INC. By: Name Its: Date: {\Lì Vn t (-\ Approved as to form By: General Counsel Approved as to form: By Its 3 Michael Baker EXHIBIT B-2 WeMoke oDifference INTERNATIONAL January 3,2420 JN 142753 Mr. Dan Martin, PE Engineering Manager OTAY WATER DISTRIGT 2554 Sweetwater Springs Boulevard Spring Valley, CA 91978 Subject:Amendment2- Extension of Michael Baker Services 870-2 Pump Station Construction Management and lnspection Dear Mr. Martin: As we previously discussed, Michael Baker International (MBl) is approaching exhaustion of funds resulting from a schedule difference between the amended contract completion date and the current 870-2 PS construction schedule. MBI commenced work on the 870-2 PS project during the design phase in July 2014, originally anticipating contract completion in June of 2017. Resulting from permitting and design considerations the originally planned construction timeline shifted resulting in development of Amendment 1 in April of 2017 where June 2019 was anticipated to be revised contract completion. Currently, project completion is not anticipated prior to June of 2020. We therefore respectfully request a Contract Amendment in the amount 5289,222.00 to extend our current scope of construction services including resultant salary escalations. This amendment would extend our current scope of services through June 2020. As this work is proposed as time and materials, should the work complete quicker than anticipated, remaining unused monies will be credited back to the District. We appreciate this opportunity to provide additional services in pursuit of successful project delivery. Respectfully, Douglas Department Manager - Construction Management 9755 Clairemont Mesa Btvd, San Diego CA 9ztz4 Office:85&614-5ooo I Fax:85&614-500lMBAKERINTL.COM EXHIBIT E DESCRIPTION HRS/$'s RATE AMOUNT TOTALS Project Total 7,507 $1,216,917.00 TASK 1 : Pre-Construction (VE / Constructability)$58,427.00 Project Manager Papac 0 $185.00 $0.00 Construction Manager Cook 76 $171.00 $12,996.00 RE / Inspector Bassett 8 $135.00 $1,080.00 VE Leader Hill 134 $190.00 $25,460.00 Electrical / I&C Hudson 135 $125.00 $16,875.00 Stormwater Management Lucera 8 $185.00 $1,480.00 Admin. Assistant Buensuceso 8 $67.00 $536.00 TASK 2: Project Coordination Services $39,200.00 Project Manager Papac 0 $225.00 $0.00 Construction Manager Cook 120.00 $190.00 $22,800.00 Construction Manager (Amendment 2)Cook 80.00 $205.00 $16,400.00 TASK 3: Resident Engineering Services $264,950.00 Construction Manager Cook 900.00 $190.00 $171,000.00 Construction Manager (Amendment 2)Cook 374.00 $205.00 $76,670.00 R.E./Inspector Bassett 0 $150.00 $0.00 Electrical / I&C Hudson 0 $135.00 $0.00 Stormwater Management Lucera 0 $195.00 $0.00 Admin. Assistant Buensuceso 240 $72.00 $17,280.00 TASK 4: Construction Inspection $813,840.00 R.E./Inspector Bassett 3,504 $150.00 $525,600.00 R.E./Inspector (Amendment 2)Bassett 968 $165.00 $159,720.00 Electrical / I&C Hudson 952 $135.00 $128,520.00 TASK 4: Other Direct Costs $40,500.00 Vehicles, tools, etc.36 $1,125.00 $40,500.00 COST PROPOSAL (Amendment 2 Revised) 870-2 Pump Station Construction Manager and Inspection Project Michael Baker International | January 3, 2020 1 STAFF REPORT TYPE MEETING: Regular Board MEETING DATE: February 5, 2020 SUBMITTED BY: Dan Martin Assistant Chief of Engineering PROJECT: P2083-001103 DIV. NO. 2 APPROVED BY: Rod Posada, Chief, Engineering Mark Watton, General Manager SUBJECT: Sixth Amendment to Carollo Engineers, Inc. Professional Engineering Services Contract for Design and Construction Support of the 870-2 Pump Station Project GENERAL MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATION: That the Otay Water District (District) Board of Directors (Board) authorize the General Manager to execute a Sixth Amendment with Carollo Engineers, Inc. (Carollo) for design and construction support of the 870-2 Pump Station Project in an amount not-to-exceed $19,681.00 (see Exhibit A for Project location and Exhibit B for Project detail map). COMMITTEE ACTION: Please see Attachment A. PURPOSE: To obtain Board authorization for the General Manager to execute a Sixth Amendment with Carollo (see Exhibit C) for design and construction support of the 870-2 Pump Station Project in an amount not-to-exceed $19,681.00. AGENDA ITEM 6 2 ANALYSIS: On October 11, 2013, the District entered into an agreement in the amount of $624,910 with Carollo for preliminary and final design and construction support of the 870-2 Pump Station Project. The First Amendment, in the amount of $29,000, was executed June 16, 2014, for a three-dimensional model of the Pump Station building and associated mechanical and electrical equipment. The Second Amendment, in the amount of $106,500, was executed October 15, 2015, to perform additional surge analysis, prepare cost estimates, design a new Roll (571-1) Reservoir outlet, and perform additional survey and potholing work. The Third Amendment, in the amount of $42,700, was executed on July 7, 2016, for the design and preparation of cost estimates for a new Reservoir recirculation pipe for the Roll (571-1) Reservoir. The Roll (571-1) Reservoir recirculation and outlet piping was designed and included as part of the 870-2 Pump Station budget for the Station’s yard piping. The Fourth Amendment, in the amount of $209,418, was executed on July 19, 2017, provided additional design support during construction based on the advertised construction contract and specifications. That support included submittal review and responses to requests for information (RFIs). Examples of the critical items that have been reviewed by the designer during construction of the 870-2 Pump Station include, but are not limited to, the station pumps, engine drive systems, and building systems. The Fourth Amendment also provided budget for assistance during the startup and commissioning phase of the new 870-2 Pump Station. The Fifth Amendment, in the amount of $88,352.25, was executed on March 14, 2019. The purpose of the Fifth Amendment was to address an increased level of both RFIs and submittal review. The Fifth Amendment also extended the contract expiration date to December 31, 2019. As of December 2019, the physical construction of the 870-2 Pump Station is approximately 90% percent complete and Project startup is anticipated to begin in February 2020. In total, the construction team, which includes the Construction Manager, Project Design team, and District staff, have responded to 426 submittals and 221 RFIs from the contractor since July 2016. Due to the complexity of the Project, the approved increased level of submittal review and RFI response estimated for the Project has been exceeded. A review of the construction contact and specifications concludes that this level of response represents approximately 90 percent of the anticipated submittals and RFI’s needed to complete the Project. 3 The proposed Sixth Amendment is to provide additional design support during the construction of the Project and to extend contract time to June 30, 2020. The additional design support will provide an increased level of submittal review and responses to RFIs needed for contract completion. The Sixth Amendment also preserves remaining tasks, including support for startup and commissioning, change orders, and issuance of record drawings. FISCAL IMPACT: Joe Beachem, Chief Financial Officer The total budget for CIP P2083, as approved in the FY 2020 budget, is $18,950,000. Total expenditures, plus outstanding commitments and forecast, are $19,549,510. See Attachment B for the budget detail. Based on a review of the financial budgets, the Project Manager anticipates that with a budget increase of $600,000 (reference February 5, 2020 staff report titled, “Approval to Increase the Overall Budget for CIP P2083 in an amount not-to-exceed $600,000.00 and Approval of Change Order No. 5 in an amount not-to-exceed $95,725.00 to the Construction Contract with Pacific Hydrotech Corporation for the 870-2 Pump Station Replacement Project”), CIP P2083 will be completed within the new budget amount of $19,550,000. The Finance Department has determined that, under the current rate model, 100% of the funding is available from the Replacement Fund. GRANTS/LOANS: Engineering staff researched and explored grants and loans and found none available for this project. LEGAL IMPACT: 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 District’s Vision, “To be a model water agency by providing stellar service, achieving measurable results, and continuously improving operational practices.” DM/RP:mlw P:\WORKING\CIP P2083 870-2 Pump Station Replacement\Staff Reports\BD 02-05-20 Carollo 6th Amendment\BD-02-05-20 Carollo 6th Amendment_Construction Support (DM).docx 4 Attachments: Attachment A – Committee Action Attachment B – Budget Detail Exhibit A – Location Map Exhibit B – Project Detail Map Exhibit C – Sixth Amendment ATTACHMENT A SUBJECT/PROJECT: P2083-001103 Sixth Amendment to Carollo Engineers, Inc. Professional Engineering Services Contract for Design and Construction Support of the 870-2 Pump Station Project COMMITTEE ACTION: The Engineering, Operations, and Water Resources Committee (Committee) reviewed this item at a meeting held on January 21, 2020. 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: P2083-001103 Sixth Amendment to Carollo Engineers, Inc. Professional Engineering Services Contract for Design and Construction Support of the 870-2 Pump Station Project Date: 12/17/19 Budget 18,950,000 Planning Consultant Contracts 100,000 69,743 30,257 100,000 HELIX ENVIRONMNTL PLANNING INC 17,094 17,094 - 17,094 JONES & STOKES ASSOCIATES INC 211,034 211,034 - 211,034 ICF JONES & STOKES INC Regulatory Agency Fees 2,109 2,109 - 2,109 CA DEPT OF FISH & WILDLIFE 720 720 - 720 CALIFORNIA REGIONAL WATER 1,570 1,570 - 1,570 SAN DIEGO COUNTY WATER AUTH 2,286 2,286 - 2,286 STATE WATER RESOURCES Service Contracts 2,260 2,260 - 2,260 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO 164 164 - 164 SAN DIEGO DAILY TRANSCRIPT 505 505 - 505 THE SAN DIEGO UNION-TRIBUNE Standard Salaries 219,000 204,164 14,836 219,000 Fixed Asset 580,444 580,444 - 580,444 Total Planning 1,137,187 1,092,094 45,093 1,137,187 Design 001102 Consultant Contracts 136 136 - 136 THE WATCHLIGHT CORPORATION 4,850 4,850 - 4,850 BURKETT & WONG ENGINEERS INC 14,068 14,068 - 14,068 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA SOIL 3,034 3,034 - 3,034 RICK ENGINEERING COMPANY 4,625 4,625 - 4,625 ROGER B WOODHULL 22,149 22,149 - 22,149 NINYO & MOORE GEOTECHNICAL AND 10,484 10,484 - 10,484 HUNSAKER & ASSOCIATES 6,086 6,086 - 6,086 HDR ENGINEERING INC 682,870 682,870 - 682,870 CAROLLO ENGINEERS INC 7,974 7,974 - 7,974 AEGIS ENGINEERING MGMT INC Regulatory Agency Fees 3,694 3,694 - 3,694 SAN DIEGO GAS & ELECTRIC 20,000 18,348 1,652 20,000 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO Service Contracts 98 98 - 98 DAILY JOURNAL CORPORATION Standard Salaries 677,054 677,054 - 677,054 Supplier Contracts 5,350 5,350 - 5,350 INLAND AERIAL SURVEYS INC Total Design 1,462,472 1,460,820 1,652 1,462,472 Construction Construction Contracts - - - 13,844,569 12,343,576 1,500,992 13,844,569 PACIFIC HYDROTECH CORPORATION 95,725 - 95,725 95,725 Pacific Hydrotech Co. CO No. 5 728,662 649,662 79,000 728,662 PACIFIC WESTERN BANK 2,000 790 1,210 2,000 CLARKSON LAB Consultant Contracts 418,010 404,013 13,997 418,010 CAROLLO ENGINEERS INC 19,681 - 19,681 19,681 Carollo Engineers Inc AMENDMENT 6 1,319 1,319 - 1,319 NINYO & MOORE GEOTECHNICAL AND 9,225 9,225 - 9,225 NV5 INC 17,623 17,623 - 17,623 RBF CONSULTING 780,772 717,593 63,179 780,772 MICHAEL BAKER INT'L INC 289,222 - 289,222 289,222 Michael Baker Int'l Inc AMENDMENT 2 438 438 - 438 NINYO & MOORE GEOTECHNICAL OTHER AGENCY FEES 15,000 7,181 7,819 15,000 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO 166,304 166,304 - 166,304 SAN DIEGO GAS & ELECTRIC Professional Legal Fees 276 276 - 276 ARTIANO SHINOFF 280 280 - 280 STUTZ ARTIANO SHINOFF Service Contracts 3,628 3,628 - 3,628 MAYER REPROGRAPHICS INC 119 119 - 119 SAN DIEGO DAILY TRANSCRIPT Standard Salaries 240,000 181,128 58,872 240,000 60,000 - 60,000 60,000 Security System 15,000 - 15,000 15,000 Communications Connection Contingency 242,000 - 242,000 242,000 1.7% of Construction Contract Total Construction 16,949,851 14,503,155 2,446,697 16,949,851 Grand Total 19,549,510 17,056,068 2,493,441 19,549,510 Vendor/Comments Otay Water District p2083-PS -870-2 Pump Station Committed Expenditures Outstanding Commitment & Forecast Projected Final Cost OTAY WATER DISTRICT870-2 PUMP STATIONLOCATION MAP EXHIBIT A CIP P2083F P:\WORKING\CIP P2083 870-2 Pump Station Replacement\Graphics\Exhibits-Figures\Exhibit A, Location Map, May 2016.mxd ROLLRESERVOIR(571-1) LOW HEADPUMP STATION HIGH HEADPUMPSTATION FOR PROJECT DETAILSEE EXHIBIT B ACCESS FROMALTA RD OWD PROPERTY LINE(APPROX) FirearmsTrainingFacility VICINITY MAP PROJECT SITE NTSDIV 5 DIV 1 DIV 2 DIV 4 DIV 3 !\ ?ò Aä ?Ë ;&s ?p F 0 250125 Feet OTAY WATER DISTRICT870-2 PUMP STATIONPROJECT DETAIL MAP EXHIBIT B CIP P2083F P:\WORKING\CIP P2083 870-2 Pump Station Replacement\Graphics\Exhibits-Figures\Exhibit B, Project Detail Map, May 2016.mxd 0 10050 Feet Legend ExistingEasementOWD ExistingParcelOWD ExistingEasementSDGE ProposedStructure ProposedWater ProposedStormDrain ProposedSewer ProposedGas ProposedSiteCivil ExistingWaterOWD 1 6,;7+$0(1'0(1772$*5((0(17 %(7:((127$<:$7(5',675,&7$1' &$52//2(1*,1((56,1&5(/$7,9(72 35(/,0,1$5<$1'),1$/'(6,*1$1'&216758&7,216833257 )257+(380367$7,21352-(&7 7KLV6L[WK$PHQGPHQW³$PHQGPHQW´WRWKHRULJLQDO$JUHHPHQWIRU3UHOLPLQDU\DQG )LQDO'HVLJQDQG&RQVWUXFWLRQ6XSSRUW6HUYLFHVLVPDGHDQGHQWHUHGLQWRDVRIWKHBBBBBGD\ RI)HEUXDU\E\DQGEHWZHHQ27$<:$7(5',675,&7'LVWULFWDQG&$52//2 (1*,1((56,1&D&DOLIRUQLDFRUSRUDWLRQ&RQVXOWDQW 5(&,7$/6 $ 'LVWULFWDQG&RQVXOWDQWHQWHUHGLQWRWKDWFHUWDLQ$JUHHPHQWIRU3URIHVVLRQDO 6HUYLFHVGDWHG2FWREHUWKH2ULJLQDO$JUHHPHQWXQGHUZKLFK&RQVXOWDQWDJUHHGWR SURYLGHWKHVHUYLFHVWKHUHLQGHVFULEHGLQFRQQHFWLRQZLWKWKH'LVWULFW¶V3XPS6WDWLRQ 3URMHFWWKH³6HUYLFHV´7KH2ULJLQDO$JUHHPHQWZDVDPHQGHGRQ-XQHWKH ³$PHQGHG2ULJLQDO$JUHHPHQW´DQGRQ2FWREHUWKH³6HFRQG$PHQGHG2ULJLQDO $JUHHPHQW´DQGRQ-XO\WKH³7KLUG$PHQGHG2ULJLQDO$JUHHPHQW´DQGRQ-XO\ WKH³)RXUWK$PHQGHG2ULJLQDO$JUHHPHQW´DQGRQ0DUFKWKH³)LIWK$PHQGHG 2ULJLQDO$JUHHPHQW´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¶VOHWWHUSURSRVDOGDWHG 'HFHPEHUDWWDFKHGWRWKLV$PHQGPHQWDQGLQFRUSRUDWHGKHUHLQE\UHIHUHQFH 7KHSDUWLHVDJUHHWKDWWKHDJJUHJDWHDPRXQWSDLGE\WKH'LVWULFWWRWKH &RQVXOWDQWIRUWKH6HUYLFHVUHQGHUHGE\&RQVXOWDQWLQH[FHVVRIWKH2ULJLQDO$JUHHPHQWDV DPHQGHGE\WKH)LUVW6HFRQG7KLUG)RXUWKDQG)LIWK$PHQGPHQWVVKDOOQRWH[FHHG1LQHWHHQ 7KRXVDQG6L[+XQGUHG(LJKW\2QH'ROODUV$FFRUGLQJO\WKHWRWDOFRPSHQVDWLRQSDLG E\WKH'LVWULFWIRU6HUYLFHVGHVFULEHGLQWKH2ULJLQDO$JUHHPHQWDVDPHQGHGE\WKH)LUVW 6HFRQG7KLUG)RXUWKDQG)LIWK$PHQGPHQWVDQGWKLV6L[WK$PHQGPHQWVKDOOQRWH[FHHG2QH 0LOOLRQ2QH+XQGUHGDQG7ZHQW\7KRXVDQG)LYH+XQGUHG6L[W\2QH'ROODUV 3XUVXDQWWRWKH)LIWK$PHQGHG2ULJLQDO$JUHHPHQWWKHSDUWLHVDJUHHGWKDWWKH 6HUYLFHVZRXOGEHFRPSOHWHGRQRUSULRUWR'HFHPEHU7KHSDUWLHVKHUHE\DJUHHWKDW WKHWHUPRIWKH2ULJLQDO$JUHHPHQWDVDPHQGHGLVKHUHE\H[WHQGHGWR-XQHDQGDOO 6HUYLFHVDQGZRUNFRQWHPSODWHGXQGHUWKH2ULJLQDO$JUHHPHQWDVDPHQGHGVKDOOEH FRPSOHWHGWRWKH'LVWULFW¶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ϱϯϱϱDŝƌĂ^ŽƌƌĞŶƚŽWůĂĐĞ͕^ƵŝƚĞϮϳϬ͕^ĂŶŝĞŐŽ͕ĂůŝĨŽƌŶŝĂϵϮϭϮϭ W͘ϴϱϴ͘ϱϬϱ͘ϭϬϮϬ&͘ϴϱϴ͘ϱϬϱ͘ϭϬϭϱ December ͭͯ, ͮͬͭ͵ Mr. Dan Martin Otay Water District ͮͱͱͰ Sweetwater Springs Boulevard Spring Valley, CA ͵ͭ͵ͳʹ Subject: 870‐2 Pump Station Carollo Amendment #6 Request Dear Mr. Martin: The purpose of this letter is to request additional budget for RFI and submittal reviews for the ʹͳͬ‐ͮ Pump Station Project. Specifically, we are requesting to District to: ͭ.Add ͈ͳ,ͮͱͬ.ͬͬ to the Task ͮ (Request for Information review) budget. With this addition the new Task ͮ budget would be ͈ͭͮͰ,ͭͱͬ.ͬͬ. With this additional budget, Carollo will review ͯͱ additional RFI’s, for a total amended RFI review count of ͮͭͬ. ͮ.Add ͈ͭͮ,Ͱͯͭ.ͬͬ to the Task ͯ (Submittal review) budget. With this addition the new Task ͯ budget would be ͈ͭͯͲ,ͱʹͭ.ͬͬ. With this additional budget, Carollo will review Ͳͬ additional submittals, for a total amended submittal review count of ͯͲͬ. In total, this amendment would result in the addition of ͈ͭ͵,Ͳʹͭ.ͬͬ to Carollo’s amended Engineering Services During Construction budget for a total amended budget of ͈Ͱͯͳ,Ͳ͵ͭ.ͮͱ. We are also requesting that the term of our agreement with the District be extended to a contract end date of June ͯͬ, ͮͬͮͬ. Thank you for your consideration of this amendment request. Please do not hesitate to contact me directly with questions. Sincerely, Troy Hedlund, P.E. Vice President, Director of Internal Operations Carollo Engineers, Inc. ͵Ͱ͵‐Ͱͭͮ‐Ͳͱͯͮ (mobile) thedlund@carollo.com EXHIBIT A STAFF REPORT TYPE MEETING: Regular Board MEETING DATE: February 5, 2020 SUBMITTED BY: Dan Martin Assistant Chief of Engineering PROJECT: P2574-001103 P2625-001103 DIV. NO. 5 APPROVED BY: Rod Posada, Chief, Engineering Mark Watton, General Manager SUBJECT: Approval of Change Order No. 3 in an amount not-to-exceed $1,998.18 to the Construction Contract with Cass Arrieta for the Vista Vereda (CIP P2574) and Hidden Mesa Road (CIP P2625) Water Line Replacement Project GENERAL MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATION: That the Otay Water District (District) Board of Directors (Board) approve Change Order No. 3 to the existing construction contract with Cass Construction, Inc. dba Cass Arrieta (Cass Arrieta) in an amount not-to-exceed $1,998.18 for the Vista Vereda and Hidden Mesa Road Water Line Replacement Project (see Exhibit A for Project location). COMMITTEE ACTION: Please see Attachment A. PURPOSE: To obtain Board authorization for the General Manager to execute Change Order No. 3 in an amount not-to-exceed $1,998.18 to the construction contract with Cass Arrietta for the Vista Vereda and Hidden Mesa Road Water Line Replacement Project (Project). AGENDA ITEM 7 2 ANALYSIS: The District provides water distribution service and sanitary sewer collection service in the Jamacha drainage basin located in the northern area of the District. The existing 12-inch Cement Mortar Lined and Coated (CML&C) Steel pipe that serves as the distribution main for the western portion of the 978 Pressure Zone along Vista Vereda to Hidden Mesa Road was constructed in 1959. Several water main breaks have occurred in the area that have led to a determination that the pipeline has reached the end of its useful life and should be replaced. The original pipeline was constructed in easements prior to any development in the area. Over the years, with the subdivision of properties and construction of homes, the difficult to access easements are no longer a desirable location for placing an important transmission water main. This Project moves the transmission main for this area into Hidden Mesa Road. The Project scope of work generally consists of construction along Vista Vereda and Hidden Mesa Road of approximately 3,700 linear feet of 12-inch Polyvinyl Chloride (PVC) water line and 400 linear feet of 8-inch PVC water line, including appurtenances, restoration of services, surface restoration, traffic control, and all testing and inspection, as required by the Contract Documents. At the November 7, 2018 Board Meeting, the Board awarded a construction contract in the amount of $2,848,364.00 to Cass Arrieta. Since the award of the construction contract, there have been two (2) Change Orders approved. Change Order No. 1, which totaled $45,750.67, compensated the contractor for several items associated with the Hidden Mesa water line construction including: additional cut and cap of the existing mainline to minimize future customer impacts; realignment of the planned main to resolve utility conflicts; additional asphalt paving, as required by the County permit; and reconciliation of unused allowance items. Contract time was also adjusted for weather impacts and for impacts due to the added work. In total, Change Order No. 1 added twenty-nine (29) calendar days to the contract. Change Order No. 2, which totaled $115,213.59, compensated the contractor for several items associated with the Vista Vereda water line construction including: revisions to the alignment, profile, and sequence of connection for the planned water main tie-in at the Vista Vereda/Vista Grande intersection; encasement of the existing sewer to meet the State Water Resource Control Board – Division of Drinking Water separation requirements; mainline grade revisions to the profile of the planned water main within Vista Vereda due to existing 3 utilities; and credit adjustments for unused bid allowance items. Contract time was also adjusted for impacts resulting from the added work. In total, Change Order No. 2 added ninety-three (93) calendar days to the contract. Change Order No. 3 (Exhibit B), which is the subject of this staff report, serves to close out the construction contract and includes the following items associated with the water line work on Vista Vereda and Hidden Mesa: • Modification of the planned profile for the 12-inch connection to the 978 Reservoir pipeline on Vista Vereda. • Quantity adjustments to sixteen (16) contract bid items resulting from field conditions as described in the change order. In total, the cost associated with the items in Change Order No. 3 is $1,998.18. Time impacts associated with this change are also provided in Exhibit B. In total, the eighteen (18) additional calendar days added to the contract will result in a revised total contract duration of 350 calendar days. As of November 25, 2019, the Project was substantially complete with punch list items remaining. These punch list items include seal coat on Vista Grande and final restoration associated with a cellular concrete spill that occurred in early November 2019. The District has required the contractor to secure releases from affected property owners as a condition of contract acceptance. FISCAL IMPACT: Joe Beachem, Chief Financial Officer The total budget for CIP P2574, as approved in the FY 2020 budget, is $1,785,000. Total expenditures, plus outstanding commitments and forecast including this contract, are $1,784,694. See Attachment B1 for budget detail. Based on a review of the financial budget, the Project Manager anticipates that CIP P2574 will be completed within the budget amount of $1,785,000. The total budget for CIP P2625, as approved in the FY 2020 budget, is $2,210,000. Total expenditures, plus outstanding commitments and forecast including this contract, are $2,209,737. See Attachment B2 for budget detail. Based on a review of the financial budget, the Project Manager anticipates that CIP P2625 will be completed within the budget amount of $2,210,000. The Finance Department has determined that 100% of the funding for CIP P2574 and CIP P2625 will be available in the Replacement Reserve. 4 GRANTS/LOANS: Engineering staff researched and explored grants and loans and found none 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 responsive manner” and the District’s Vision, “To be a model water agency by providing stellar service, achieving measurable results, and continuously improving operational practices.” LEGAL IMPACT: None. DM/RP:mlw P:\WORKING\CIP P2574 12-Inch PL Replacement, 978 Zone, Vista Vereda\Staff Reports\Board 02-05-20\BD 02-05-20 Staff Report Vista Vereda-Hidden Mesa CO 3.docx Attachments: Attachment A – Committee Action Attachment B1 – P2574 Budget Detail Attachment B2 – P2625 Budget Detail Exhibit A – Location Map Exhibit B – Change Order No. 3 ATTACHMENT A SUBJECT/PROJECT: P2574-001103 P2625-001103 Approval of Change Order No. 3 in an amount not-to-exceed $1,998.18 to the Construction Contract with Cass Arrieta for the Vista Vereda (CIP P2574) and Hidden Mesa Road (CIP P2625) Water Line Replacement Project COMMITTEE ACTION: The Engineering, Operations, and Water Resources Committee (Committee) reviewed this item at a meeting held on January 21, 2020. 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 B1 – P2574 Budget Detail SUBJECT/PROJECT: P2574-001103 P2625-001103 Approval of Change Order No. 3 in an amount not-to-exceed $1,998.18 to the Construction Contract with Cass Arrieta for the Vista Vereda (CIP P2574) and Hidden Mesa Road (CIP P2625) Water Line Replacement Project 16-Dec-19 Budget 1,785,000 Planning Consultant Contracts 1,224 1,224 - 1,224 HELIX ENVIRONMNTL PLANNING INC 1,121 1,121 - 1,121 ICF JONES & STOKES INC 1,900 1,900 - 1,900 WATER SYSTEMS CONSULTING INC Regulatory Agency Fees 2,331 2,331 - 2,331 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO 50 50 - 50 PETTY CASH CUSTODIAN Service Contracts 154 154 - 154 STAR-NEWS PUBLISHING CO Standard Salaries 81,111 81,111 - 81,111 Total Planning 87,891 87,891 - 87,891 Design 001102 Consultant Contracts 147,150 147,150 - 147,150 RICK ENGINEERING COMPANY 3,487 3,487 - 3,487 NINYO & MOORE GEOTECHNICAL 28,582 28,582 - 28,582 NINYO & MOORE GEOTECHNICAL AND 2,612 2,612 - 2,612 HUNSAKER & ASSOCIATES 12,559 12,559 - 12,559 C BELOW INC - - - - Service Contracts 40 40 - 40 DAILY JOURNAL CORPORATION 1,000 1,000 - 1,000 CHICAGO TITLE COMPANY Standard Salaries 137,409 137,409 - 137,409 Total Design 332,839 332,839 - 332,839 Construction Construction Contracts 1,320 1,320 - 1,320 CLARKSON LAB & SUPPLY INC 1,153,168 792,342 360,826 1,153,168 CASS CONSTRUCTION INC 18,716 - 18,716 18,716 CHANGE ORDER NO 3 Consultant Contracts 6,860 6,860 - 6,860 RICK ENGINEERING COMPANY 12,000 8,715 3,285 12,000 ALYSON CONSULTING Regulatory Agency Fees - - - - COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO Service Contracts 900 900 - 900 MAYER REPROGRAPHICS INC Standard Salaries 159,000 149,399 9,601 159,000 12,000 - 12,000 12,000 Contingency (1.0%) Total Construction 1,363,964 959,536 404,428 1,363,964 Grand Total 1,784,694 1,380,266 404,428 1,784,694 Vendor/Comments Otay Water District P2574 - PL 12" 978 Zone, Vista Vereda Committed Expenditures Outstanding Commitment & Forecast Projected Final Cost ATTACHMENT B2 – P2625 Budget Detail SUBJECT/PROJECT: P2574-001103 P2625-001103 Approval of Change Order No. 3 in an amount not-to-exceed $1,998.18 to the Construction Contract with Cass Arrieta for the Vista Vereda (CIP P2574) and Hidden Mesa Road (CIP P2625) Water Line Replacement Project 16-Dec-19 Budget 2,210,000 Planning Standard Salaries 815 815 - 815 Total Planning 815 815 - 815 Design 001102 Consultant Contracts 12,559 12,559 - 12,559 C BELOW INC - - - 2,612 2,612 - 2,612 HUNSAKER & ASSOCIATES 118,540 118,540 - 118,540 RICK ENGINEERING COMPANY Service Contracts 40 40 - 40 DAILY JOURNAL CORPORATION Standard Salaries 77,043 77,043 - 77,043 Total Design 210,795 210,795 - 210,795 Construction Construction Contracts 1,856,161 1,759,225 96,936 1,856,161 CASS CONSTRUCTION INC (16,718) - (16,718) (16,718) CHANGE ORDER NO 3 4,416 4,416 - 4,416 CLARKSON LAB & SUPPLY INC Consultant Contracts 3,679 3,679 - 3,679 RICK ENGINEERING COMPANY 60,000 59,115 885 60,000 ALYSON CONSULTING For Ops Only - Contracted Services 2,000 2,000 - 2,000 RICK POST WELD & WET TAPPING Regulatory Agency Fees 11,000 10,690 - 10,690 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO Service Contracts 900 900 - 900 MAYER REPROGRAPHICS INC Standard Salaries 40,000 39,249 751 40,000 37,000 - 37,000 37,000 Contingency (2.0%) Total Construction 1,998,438 1,879,275 118,853 1,998,128 Grand Total 2,210,047 2,090,884 118,853 2,209,737 Vendor/Comments Otay Water District P2625 - PL - 12" 978 Zone in Hidden Mesa Road Committed Expenditures Outstanding Commitment & Forecast Projected Final Cost OTAY WATER DISTRICT 2554 SWEETWATER SPRINGS BLVD., SPRING VALLEY, CA. 91978, (619) 670-2222 CONTRACT/P.O. CHANGE ORDER No. 3 PROJECT/ITEM: Vista Vereda and Hidden Mesa Road Water Line Replacement CONTRACTOR/VENDOR: Cass Construction, Inc. dba Cass Arrieta REF.CIP No.: P2574/P2625 APPROVED BY: Board REF. P.O. No: 720647 DATE: 1/6/20 DESCRIPTION: See attached page 2 of 4 for continuation. REASON: See attached page 3 of 4 for continuation. CHANGE P.O. TO READ: Revise Contract to add $1,998.18 and add 18 day’s time for a total Contract amount of $3,011,326.44 with a Contract Duration of 350 Calendar Days. ORIGINAL CONTRACT/P.O. AMOUNT: $ 2,848,364.00 ADJUSTED AMOUNT FROM PREVIOUS CHANGE: $ 160,964.26 TOTAL COST OF THIS CHANGE ORDER: $ 1,998.18 NEW CONTRACT/P.O. AMOUNT IS: $ 3,011,326.44 ORIGINAL CONTRACT COMPLETION DATE: 7/8/19 CONTRACT/P.O. TIME AFFECTED BY THIS CHANGE: Yes REVISED CONTRACT COMPLETION DATE: 11/25/19 IT IS UNDERSTOOD WITH THE FOLLOWING APPROVALS, THAT THE CONTRACTOR/VENDOR IS AUTHORIZED AND DIRECTED TO MAKE THE HEREIN DESCRIBED CHANGES. IT IS ALSO AGREED THAT THE TOTAL COST FOR THIS CHANGE ORDER CONSTITUTES FULL AND COMPLETE COMPENSATION FOR OBLIGATIONS REQUIRED BY THE CONTRACT/P.O. ALL OTHER PROVISIONS AND REQUIREMENTS OF THE CONTRACT/P.O. REMAIN IN FULL FORCE AND EFFECT. CONTRACTOR/VENDOR: STAFF APPROVALS: SIGNATURE: PROJ. MGR: DATE: NAME: Wes Wise DIV. MGR: DATE: TITLE: President DATE: CHIEF: DATE: COMPANY & Cass Construction, Inc. dba Cass Arrieta ADDRESS: P.O. Box 309 DISTRICT APPROVAL: El Cajon, CA 92022 GEN. MANAGER: DATE: COPIES:  FILE (Orig.),  CONTRACTOR/VENDOR,  CHIEF-ENGINEERING,  CHIEF-FINANCE,  ENGR. MGR.  ACCTS PAYABLE,  INSPECTION,  PROJ. MGR.,  ENGR. SECRETARY,  PURCHASING,  PROJECT BINDER Contract / P.O. Change Order No. 3 page 2 of 4 Description of Work Description Increase Decrease Time Item No. 1: This Change Order provides for revisions to connection materials, alignment and grade revisions per field revisions, RFI 014 and COR 012. (CIP P2574) $31,419.13 18 Item No. 2: This Change Order decreases the amount allocated for Bid Item 25, 12-Inch Connections to Existing System by $14,200.00 to a new authorized amount of $28,400.00. (Delete 1 EA at $14,200.00/EA) (CIP P2574) $14,200.00 0 Item No. 3: This Change Order decreases the amount allocated for Bid Item 27, Water Service Reconnections by $4,690.00 to a new authorized amount of $187,600.00. (Delete 1 EA at $4,690.00/EA) (CIP P2574) $4,690.00 0 Item No. 4: This Change Order increases the amount allocated for Bid Item 28, New 1-inch Water Meter Service and Connection by $5,100.00 to a new authorized amount of $15,300.00. (Add 1 EA at $5,100.00/EA) (CIP P2574) $5,100.00 0 Item No. 5: This Change Order decreases the amount allocated for Bid Item 31, Install Chain Link Gate 12-Ft Wide (H=4 to 6-ft) by $4,400.00 to a new authorized amount of $39,600.00. (Deduct 1 EA at $4,400.00/EA) (CIP P2574) $4,400.00 0 Item No. 6: This Change Order decreases the amount allocated for Bid Item 32, Reinstall Chain Link Fence (H=4 to 6-Ft) by $15,318.00 to a new authorized amount of $32,782.00. (Deduct 207 LF at $74.00/LF) (CIP P2574) $15,318.00 0 Item No. 7: This Change Order decreases the amount allocated for Bid Item 34, Reconstruct AC Dike by $1,079.00 to a new authorized amount of $2,951.00. (Deduct 83 LF at $13.00/LF) (CIP P2574) $1,079.00 0 Item No. 8: This Change Order increases the amount allocated for Bid Item 36, Concrete Driveway Repair and Replacement by $6,631.00 to a new authorized amount of $11,761.00. (Add 349 SF at $19.00/SF) (CIP P2574) $6,631.00 0 Item No. 9: This Change Order increases the amount allocated for Bid Item 37, Reconstruct Concrete Cross Gutter by $4,410.00 to a new authorized amount of $7,650.00. (Add 245 SF at $18.00/SF) (CIP P2574) $4,410.00 0 Item No. 10: This Change Order increases the amount allocated for Bid Item 38, Trench Resurfacing (County Roadway) by $3,168.00 a new authorized amount of $206,228.00. (Add 288 SF at $11.00/SF) (CIP P2574) $3,168.00 0 Item No. 11: This Change Order decreases the amount allocated for Bid Item 39, Trench Resurfacing (Private Roadway) by $4,102.00 to a new authorized amount of $21,518.00. (Deduct 293 SF at $14.00/SF) (CIP P2574) $4,102.00 0 Item No. 12: This Change Order decreases the amount allocated for Bid Item 40, Additional Pavement Restoration (Cold Plane) by $16,718.00 to a new authorized amount of $0.00. (Deduct 6,430 SF at $2.60/SF) (CIP P2625) 16,718.00 0 Contract / P.O. Change Order No. 3 page 3 of 4 Item No. 13: This Change Order increases the amount allocated for Bid Item 42, Slurry Seal by $1,836.00 to a new authorized amount of $14,382.00. (Add 1,020 SF at $1.80/SF) (CIP P2574) $1,836.00 0 Item No. 14: This Change Order increases the amount allocated for Bid Item 43, Reconstruct Concrete Channel by $3,750.00 to a new authorized amount of $9,750.00. (Add 25 SF at $150.00/SF) (CIP P2574) $3,750.00 0 Item No. 15: This Change Order increases the amount allocated for Bid Item 45, Cold Plane and Overlay by $2,681.05 to a new authorized amount of $48,906.05. (Add 1,247 SF at $2.15/SF) (CIP P2574) $2,681.05 0 Item No. 16: This Change Order increases the amount allocated for Bid Item 46, Reconstruct Block Wall (H=2 Ft) by $3,600.00 to a new authorized amount of $9,000.00. (Add 20 LF at $180/LF) (CIP P2574) $3,600.00 0 Item No. 17: This Change Order decreases the amount allocated for Bid Item 47, Rock Removal by Hydraulic Breaker Method by $90.00 to a new authorized amount of $5.00. (Delete 18 CY at $5.00/CY) (CIP P2574) $90.00 0 Sub Total Amount $62,595.18 $60,597.00 18 Total Net Change Order Amount $1,998.18 Revisions to: BID SCHEDULE Item # Description Quantity Unit Unit Price Amount 25 12-Inch Connections to Existing System 2 EA $14,200.00 $28,400.00 27 Water Service Reconnections 40 EA $4,690.00 $187,600.00 28 New 1-Inch Water Meter Service and Connection 3 EA $5,100.00 $15,300.00 31 Install Chain Link Gate 12-Ft Wide (H-4 to 6-Ft) 9 EA $4,400.00 $39,600.00 32 Reinstall Chain Link Fence (H=4 to 6-Ft) 443 LF $74.00 $32,782.00 34 Reconstruct AC Dike 227 LF $13.00 $2,951.00 36 Concrete Driveway Repair and Replacement 619 SF $19.00 $11,761.00 37 Reconstruct Concrete Cross Gutter 425 SF $18.00 $7,650.00 38 Trench Resurfacing (County Roadway) 18,748 SF $11.00 $206,228.00 39 Trench Resurfacing (Private Roadway) 1,537 SF $14.00 $21,518.00 40 Additional Pavement Restoration (Cold Plane) 0 SF $2.60 $0.00 42 Slurry Seal 7,990 SF $1.80 $14,382.00 43 Reconstruct Concrete Channel 65 SF $150.00 $9,750.00 45 Cold Plane and Overlay 22,747 SF $2.15 $48,906.05 46 Reconstruct Block Wall (H=2 Ft) 50 LF $180.00 $9,000.00 47 Rock Removal by Hydraulic Breaker Method 1 CY $5.00 $5.00 Contract / P.O. Change Order No. 3 page 4 of 4 Reason: Item No. 1: Subsequent to pothole information for the 12-inch connection to the reservoir pipeline, RFI 014 was issued to requesting information on resolution of utility conflicts. The additional utility information resulted in the determination to modify the pipeline profile increasing the depth as shown in the RFI response. Additionally, during implementation of the RFI response additional existing thrust restraints were revealed requiring further field directed modification as shown on the final as-built drawing. This Change Order is necessary to resolve all costs and time associated with implementation of this work scope. Item No. 2: The Contract Bid Item No. 25, 12-Inch Connections to Existing System, required a quantity adjustment resulting from field conditions. Item No. 3: The Contract Bid Item No. 27, Water Service Reconnections, required a quantity adjustment resulting from field conditions. Item No. 4: The Contract Bid Item No. 28, New 1-Inch Water Meter Service and Connection, required a quantity adjustment resulting from field conditions. Item No. 5: The Contract Bid Item No. 31, Install Chain Link Gate 12-Ft Wide (H=4 to 6-Ft), required a quantity adjustment resulting from field conditions. Item No. 6: The Contract Bid Item No. 32, Reinstall Chain Link Fence (H=4 to 6-Ft), required a quantity adjustment resulting from field conditions. Item No. 7: The Contract Bid Item No. 34, Reconstruct AC Dike, required a quantity adjustment resulting from field conditions. Item No. 8: The Contract Bid Item No. 36, Concrete Driveway Repair and Replacement, required a quantity adjustment resulting from field conditions. Item No. 9: The Contract Bid Item No. 37, Reconstruct Concrete Cross Gutter, required a quantity adjustment resulting from field conditions. Item No. 10: The Contract Bid Item No. 38, Trench Resurfacing (County Roadway), required a quantity adjustment resulting from field conditions. Item No. 11: The Contract Bid Item No. 39, Trench Resurfacing (Private Roadway), required a quantity adjustment resulting from field conditions. Item No. 12: The Contract Bid Item No. 40, Additional Pavement Restoration (Cold Plane), required a quantity adjustment resulting from field conditions. Item No. 13: The Contract Bid Item No. 42, Slurry Seal, required a quantity adjustment resulting from field conditions. Item No. 14: The Contract Bid Item No. 43, Reconstruct Concrete Channel, required a quantity adjustment resulting from field conditions. Item No. 15: The Contract Bid Item No. 45, Cold Plane and Overlay, required a quantity adjustment resulting from field conditions. Item No. 16: The Contract Bid Item No. 46, Reconstruct Block Wall (H=2 Ft), required a quantity adjustment resulting from field conditions. Item No. 17: The Contract Bid Item No. 47, Rock Removal by Hydraulic Breaker Method, required a quantity adjustment resulting from field conditions. 870-2 Pump Station Replacement Project Project: P2574/P2625 Consultant/Contractor: Cass Construction, Inc. dba Cass Arrietta Subproject: 001103 APPROVED C.O. AMOUNT BY DATE DESCRIPTION TYPE C.O. 1 $45,750.67 GM 10/8/2019 Change order No. 1 addresses 13 items including the cut and cap of mainline, several minor field modifications, interconnect piping revisions west of Hidden Mesa Trail, additional trench resurfacing as required by the County of San Diego, credits for unused allowances, and adjustments in contract time due to changes and weather. Contractor 2 $115,213.59 Board 11/7/2019 Change Order No. 2 addresses 10 items including revisions to the alignment due to utility conflicts in Vista Vereda; utility conflicts at the intersection of Vista Vereda and Vista Grande; and credits for unused allowances. The change order also provides an adjustments in contract time. Contractor 3 $1,998.18 Board Change Order No. 3 addresses 17 items including revisions to the 12-inch connection to the reservoir pipeline and adjustments to contract bid item quantities due to field conditions. Contractor 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 1920 Total C.O.'s To Date: $162,962.44 5.7% Original Contract Amount:$2,848,364.00 Current Contract Amount:$3,011,326.44 Month Net C.O.$ Limit Authorization Absolute C.O.$ C.O. % 1/20 $1,998.18 $2,000 Insp $1,998.18 0.1% $10,000 PM/Sr. Engr. 0.0% $20,000 DivM 0.0% $25,000 Chief 0.0% $35,000 AGM 0.0% $75,000 GM 0.0% >$75,000 Board 0.0% CHANGE ORDER LOG P:\WORKING\CIP P2574 12-Inch PL Replacement, 978 Zone, Vista Vereda\Construction\Change Orders\200106_COLOG 1 1/6/2020 STAFF REPORT TYPE MEETING: Regular Board MEETING DATE: February 5, 2020 SUBMITTED BY: Dan Martin Assistant Chief of Engineering PROJECT: S2024-001103 DIV. NO. 5 APPROVED BY: Rod Posada, Chief, Engineering Mark Watton, General Manager SUBJECT: Approval of Change Order No. 7 in an amount not-to-exceed $74,997.24 to the Construction Contract with Wier Construction Corporation for the Campo Road Sewer Replacement Project GENERAL MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATION: That the Otay Water District (District) Board of Directors (Board) approve Change Order No. 7 to the existing construction contract with Wier Construction Corporation (Wier Construction) in an amount not-to-exceed $74,997.24 for the Campo Road Sewer Replacement Project (see Exhibit A for Project location). COMMITTEE ACTION: Please see Attachment A. PURPOSE: To obtain Board authorization for the General Manager to execute Change Order No. 7 in an amount not-to-exceed $74,997.24 to the construction contract with Wier Construction for the Campo Road Sewer Replacement Project. AGENDA ITEM 8 2 ANALYSIS: The District’s Campo Road Sewer Replacement project is replacing an existing 10-inch sewer pipeline, located within and south of Campo Road between Avocado Boulevard and Singer Lane, which is undersized to handle current sewer flows. To accommodate current and future flows, approximately 7,420 linear feet of 15-inch gravity sewer main will be installed to replace the existing 9,225 feet of 10-inch sewer main. The eastern terminus of the new 15-inch sewer main will be located at the intersection of Avocado Boulevard/Rancho San Diego Village Shopping Center driveway. The new main’s western terminus will be located in the Rancho San Diego Towne Center where it will connect to the existing 27-inch sewer main within the shopping center’s parking lot. Sewer laterals stemming from the existing pipe will be reconnected to the proposed new pipeline. The majority of the pipeline was installed with open trench construction except in two (2) locations where horizontal auger boring was used for crossing Campo Road. These two (2) locations are Campo Road east of Via Mercado, and at the intersection of Campo Road/Jamacha Boulevard. The existing sewer will be abandoned in place with the exception of a 210-feet long section of aboveground pipeline and seven (7) supporting pillars that will be removed. At the May 3, 2017 Board Meeting, the Board awarded a construction contract in the amount of $7,816,645.95 to Wier Construction. Since the award of the construction contract, there have been six (6) Change Orders approved for the contract. Change Order No. 1, which totaled $74,266.00, compensated the contractor for a realignment of the planned sewer main due to a utility conflict. This Change Order also increased the quantity for rock removal and disposal due to rock encountered on the Project and provided for additional Class 2 base due to field conditions at the Rancho San Diego Town Center parking lot. Lastly, this Change Order issued a credit for modifications to traffic control requirements. In total, Change Order No. 1 added forty-six (46) days to the contract as a result of the added work. Change Order No. 2 provided for modifications to the planned grade of the jack and bore pipe at the Campo Road West Bore crossing, which is located east of Via Mercado. This change also included the removal of the internal beading, which is generated during the field construction of the fusible pipe. This was a no-cost change and did not include adjustments to contract time. Board approved Change order No. 3, which totaled $156,192.12, compensated the contractor for realignment of the East Bore launch pit due to a communications utility conflict with the shoring limits 3 indicated on the contract plans. This Change Order also included addressing other unmarked utilities found to be in conflict with the planned sewer installation. Lastly, Change Order No. 3 increased bid item quantity for rock removal and disposal due to rock encountered on the Project. Change Order No. 3 added twenty-nine (29) days to the contract as a result of the added work. Board approved Change order No. 4, which totaled $70,970.00, compensated the contractor for removal and disposal of unmarked utilities; removal and replacement of a Caltrans fiber optic traffic signal interconnection not shown on the plans; and additional trench excavation and backfill associated with field conditions. Change Order No. 4 added fifty-three (53) additional days to the contract. Board approved Change Order No. 5, was for a contractor requested change to the horizontal and vertical alignment of the planned East Bore sewer main located at the intersection of Jamacha Boulevard and Campo Road. This change also included the removal of the internal beading, which is generated during the field construction of the fusible pipe. This was a no-cost change and did not include adjustments to contract time. Change Order No. 6, which totaled $289,908.63 compensated the contractor for removal and disposal of rock encountered within the planned alignment, substitution of pavement seal in the Rancho San Diego Village Shopping Center as requested by the shopping center management, repair of an unmarked irrigation main line and irrigation controller within the Rancho San Diego Village Shopping Center and reimbursement to the District for costs associated with the District’s response to a contractor caused sewer spill. Change Order No. 6 added one hundred and seven (107) additional days to the contract. Change Order No. 7 (Exhibit B), which is the subject of this staff report includes the following items: • Reconciliation of contract bid item quantities resulting from field conditions. • Realignment of the planned sewer between Manhole No. 7 and Manhole No. 4 due to several unmarked dry utilities within Via Mercado. • Repair of unmarked electrical conduits within the Rancho San Diego Village parking lot. In total, the cost associated with the items in Change Order No. 7 is $74,997.24. Time impacts associated with this change are also provided in Exhibit B. The fifteen (15) additional days added to the contract by Change Order No. 7 will result in a revised total contract duration of 880 calendar days. 4 As of December 31, 2019, the Campo Road Sewer project is complete including all punch list items. Change order No. 7 will serve to close out the construction contract. FISCAL IMPACT: Joe Beachem, Chief Financial Officer The Fiscal Year 2020 budget for CIP S2024 is $10,980,000. Total expenditures, plus outstanding commitments and forecast, including this contract Change Order, are $10,979,499. See Attachment B for budget detail. Based on a review of the financial budget, the Project Manager anticipates that the budget for CIP S2024 is sufficient to support the Project. The Finance Department has determined that, under the current rate model, 50% of the funding is available from the Betterment ID 18 fund and 50% of the funding is available from the Replacement Fund for CIP S2024. GRANTS/LOANS: Engineering staff researched and explored grants and loans and found none 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 District’s Vision, “To be a model water agency by providing stellar service, achieving measurable results, and continuously improving operational practices.” LEGAL IMPACT: None. DM/RP:jf P:\WORKING\CIP S2024 Campo Road Sewer Replacement\Staff Reports\BD 02-05-20\BD 02-05-20, Staff Report Campo Road Sewer Replacement - CO No. 7.docx Attachments: Attachment A – Committee Action Attachment B – S2024 Budget Detail Exhibit A – Project Location Map Exhibit B – Change Order No. 7 ATTACHMENT A SUBJECT/PROJECT: S2024-001103 Approval of Change Order No. 7 in an amount not-to-exceed $74,997.24 to the Construction Contract with Wier Construction Corporation for the Campo Road Sewer Replacement Project COMMITTEE ACTION: The Engineering, Operations, and Water Resources Committee (Committee) reviewed this item at a meeting held on January 21, 2020. 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 – S2024 Budget Detail SUBJECT/PROJECT: S2024-001103 Approval of Change Order No. 7 in an amount not-to-exceed $74,997.24 to the Construction Contract with Wier Construction Corporation for the Campo Road Sewer Replacement Project 11/26/2019 Budget 10,980,000 Planning Consultant Contracts 20,020 20,020 - 20,020 AEGIS ENGINEERING MGMT INC 4,881 4,881 - 4,881 HELIX ENVIRONMNTL PLANNING INC Regulatory Agency Fees 2,260 2,260 - 2,260 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO 1,588 1,588 - 1,588 STATE WATER RESOURCES 132 132 - 132 US BANK Service Contracts 43 43 - 43 EAST COUNTY GAZETTE 162 162 - 162 SAN DIEGO DAILY TRANSCRIPT Standard Salaries 150,029 150,029 - 150,029 Total Planning 179,114 179,114 - 179,114 Design 001102 Consultant Contracts 9,315 9,315 - 9,315 WATER SYSTEMS CONSULTING INC 4,025 4,025 - 4,025 MICHAEL D KEAGY REAL ESTATE 3,508 3,508 - 3,508 NINYO & MOORE GEOTECHNICAL AND 691,074 691,074 - 691,074 RICK ENGINEERING COMPANY 735 735 - 735 AIRX UTILITY SURVEYORS INC Professional Legal Fees 182 182 - 182 STUTZ ARTIANO SHINOFF 1,910 1,910 - 1,910 ARTIANO SHINOFF Regulatory Agency Fees 956 956 - 956 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO Service Contracts 158 158 - 158 SAN DIEGO DAILY TRANSCRIPT 62 62 - 62 DAILY JOURNAL CORPORATION Settlements 190,000 190,000 - 190,000 VESTAR CALIFORNIA XVII LLC 144,950 144,950 - 144,950 GRI-REGENCY LLC Standard Salaries 299,842 299,842 - 299,842 Total Design 1,346,718 1,346,718 - 1,346,718 Construction Construction Contracts 420,399 417,798 2,601 420,399 WESTERN ALLIANCE BANK 7,987,584 7,938,159 49,425 7,987,584 WIER CONSTRUCTION CORP 74,997 - 74,997 74,997 Change Order No. 7 1,272 1,272 - 1,272 CLARKSON LAB & SUPPLY INC. Consultant Contracts 8,444 8,444 - 8,444 AIRX UTILITY SURVEYORS INC 17,400 17,400 - 17,400 ALYSON CONSULTING 8,112 8,112 - 8,112 HUNSAKER & ASSOCIATES 101,500 97,095 4,405 101,500 RICK ENGINEERING COMPANY 12,258 12,258 - 12,258 NINYO & MOORE GEOTECHNICAL AND 472,431 457,044 15,387 472,431 VALLEY CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT Regulatory Agency Fees 10,000 9,802 198 10,000 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO 20,000 19,034 966 20,000 CALTRANS PERMIT FEE Service Contracts 3,270 3,270 - 3,270 MAYER REPROGRAPHICS INC Standard Salaries 316,000 312,131 3,869 316,000 - - - - Total Construction 9,453,667 9,301,820 151,848 9,453,667 Grand Total 10,979,499 10,827,652 151,848 10,979,499 Vendor/Comments Otay Water District S2024-Campo Road Sewer Main Replacement Committed Expenditures Outstanding Commitment & Forecast Projected Final Cost SKYLINEWESLEYANCHURCH ?Ë AV O C A D O B L V D FURY LANE JAMA C H A B L V D JAMAC H A R D CUYAMACACOLLEGE C A M P O R D C A M P O R D ?Ë PROJECTALIGNMENT OWDREGULATORYSITE Ralph W. ChapmanWater ReclamationFacility SINGER L N RANCHOSAN DIEGOVILLAGE RANCHOSAN DIEGOTOWNECENTER Existing 10-inchGravity Sewer tobe Replaced VICINITY MAP PROJECT SITE NTS DIV 5 DIV 1 DIV 2 DIV 4 DIV 3 ?ò Aä;&s ?p ?Ë !\ OTAY WATER DISTRICTCAMPO ROAD SEWER MAIN REPLACEMENTLOCATION MAP EXHIBIT A CIP S2024 0 1,000500 Feet F F P: \ W O R K I N G \ C I P S 2 0 2 4 C a m p o R o a d S e w e r R e p l a c e m e n t \ 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 , O c t 2 0 1 5 . m x d Legend Proposed 15-Inch Sewer Main Alignment Existing 10-inch Gravity Sewer to be Replaced Existing Sewer Mains CIP S2024 - Campo Road Sewer Replacement Project Project: S2024 Consultant/Contractor:Wier Construction Corporation Subproject: 001103 C.O. AMOUNT BY DATE DESCRIPTION TYPE C.O. 1 $74,266.00 GM 1/12/2018 Utility Conflict per RFI #10 and PCO #1A, Traffic control credit per RFI #4 and PCO #2. Base material at RSD Towne Center parking lot. Rock removal and disposal increase in quantity. Add 46 days. Contractor 2 $0.00 RP 4/5/2018 Revise sewer slope between MH #7 and MH# 8 to a minimum of 1%.Contractor 3 $156,192.12 Board 11/8/2018 East Bore Pit Realignment PCO #3, Cut and Cap Irrigation PCO #5, Sewer Main Realignment MH #18A to MH 17A PCO #7, Remove abandoned utilities PCO #8, Repair Offset Pipe at MH #20 PCO #9, and Increase Bid Item No. 43 Rock Removal and Disposal. Contractor 4 $70,970.00 Board 5/2/2019 Unmarked 24-inch storm drain, abandoned storm drain along SR 94, Increased excavation due to existing sewer alignment, removal and replacement of Caltrans traffic signal interconnect conduit and fiber optic cable, weather days. Contractor 5 $0.00 Board 5/2/2019 No cost/time contractor requested change to revise the horizontal and vertical alignment for the sewer main between MH 12A and MH 14 due to East Pit Jack and Bore. Contractor 6 $289,908.63 Board 9/4/2019 Rock removal and disposal in excess of 200% of bid allowance item, temporary striping along Campo Road, Guard Top pavement seal in lieu of slurry seal at RSD Village Shopping Center, Credit of District costs associated with sewer spill, unmarked irrigation repair at RSD Village Shopping Center, time adjustments for rock impacts and work outside of environmental breeding season. Contractor 7 $74,997.24 Board Unmarked utilities between MH #5 and MH #6 at Via Mercado, unmarked electrical at Sta. 10+24 in the Rancho San Diego Village Shopping Center, reconciliation of bid item quantities to reflect field conditions. Contractor 8 Total C.O.'s To Date: $666,333.99 8.5% Original Contract Amount:$7,816,645.95 Current Contract Amount:$8,482,979.94 Month Net C.O.$ Limit Authorization Absolute C.O.$ C.O. % 11/19 $74,997.24 $2,000 Insp $74,991.24 1.0% $10,000 PM/Sr. Engr.0.0% $20,000 DivM 0.0% $25,000 Chief 0.0% $75,000 GM 0.0% >$75000 Board 0.0% CHANGE ORDER LOG APPROVED P:\WORKING\CIP S2024 Campo Road Sewer Replacement\Construction\Change Orders\S2024_COLOG_191126 1 11/26/2019 STAFF REPORT TYPE MEETING: Regular Board MEETING DATE: February 5, 2020 SUBMITTED BY: Lisa Coburn-Boyd Environmental Compliance Specialist Bob Kennedy Engineering Manager CIP./G.F. NO: D0956- 090324 DIV. NO. 5 APPROVED BY: Bob Kennedy, Engineering Manager Dan Martin, Assistant Chief, Engineering Rod Posada, Chief, Engineering Mark Watton, General Manager SUBJECT: Approval of Water Supply Assessment and Verification Report (December 2019) for the County of San Diego Otay Ranch Village 14 and Planning Area 16/19 Proposed Project Amendment GENERAL MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATION: That the Otay Water District (District) Board of Directors (Board) approve the Water Supply Assessment Report and Verification (WSA&V Report) dated December 2019 for the County of San Diego Otay Ranch Village 14 and Planning Area 16/19 Proposed Project Amendment, as required by Senate Bills (SB) 610 and 221 (see Exhibit A for Project location). COMMITTEE ACTION: Please see Attachment A. PURPOSE: To obtain Board approval of the December 2019 WSA&V Report for the County of San Diego Otay Ranch Village 14 and Planning Area 16/19 Proposed Project Amendment, as required by Senate Bill 610 and Senate Bill 221 (SB 610 and SB 221). AGENDA ITEM 9 2 ANALYSIS: The County of San Diego submitted a request to the District for a WSA&V Report, pursuant to SB 610 and SB 221. SB 610 and SB 221 require that, upon the request of a City or County, a water purveyor, such as the District, prepare a water supply assessment and verification report to be included in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) environmental documentation. SB 610 requires the city or county to evaluate whether water supplies will be sufficient to meet the projected water demand for certain “projects” that are otherwise subject to the requirement of the CEQA. SB 221 requires written verification from the water purveyor of the public water system that sufficient water supplies are planned to be available for certain residential subdivisions of property. The requirements of SB 610 and SB 221 are addressed by the December 2019 WSA&V Report for this Project Amendment. The WSA&V Report was prepared by the District in consultation with Dexter Wilson Engineering, Inc., the San Diego County Water Authority (Water Authority), and the County of San Diego (County). Prior to transmittal to the County, the WSA&V Report must be approved by the Board of Directors. An additional explanation of the intent of SB 610 and SB 221 is provided in Exhibit B. The County of San Diego Otay Ranch Village 14 and Planning Area 16/19 Proposed Project Amendment WSA&V Report is provided as Exhibit C. District staff had prepared a WSA&V Report for the Village 14 and Planning Areas 16/19 Project in November 2017. The WSA&V report was approved by the District Board in January 2018 and the Project was approved by the County Board of Supervisors on June 26, 2019. On June 27, 2019, the owner/applicant (Jackson Pendo Development Company) of the Approved Project entered into a Dispute Resolution Agreement with the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and the County, which resulted in an amendment of the proposed Project. The changes proposed in the amendment require the preparation of a new WSA&V Report concurrent with the Specific Plan Amendment and revised Tentative Map processing through the County of San Diego. The Proposed Project Amendment proposes 1,266 residential units within a project area of 1,543 acres. The Proposed Project Amendment development footprint would be approximately 578.6 acres, which would consist of approximately 513.1 acres within Otay Ranch Village 14, 25.3 acres within Otay Ranch Planning 3 Area 19, and 40.1 acres of offsite improvements (Proctor Valley Road). Of the 1,266 residential units, 1,253 units would be within Village 14 and 13 units would be located in Planning Area 19. Non-residential development would consist of a mixed-use commercial site, a school, parks, and open space. The Proposed Project Amendment would include a land exchange between the owner/applicant and CDFW, which would require the owner/applicant to transfer 339.7 acres to CDFW and record a conservation easement over 191.5 acres. In exchange, CDFW would transfer 219.4 acres in Village 14 to the owner/applicant to create a consolidated development footprint. The Proposed Project Amendment requires a Specific Plan Amendment and Revised Tentative Map that must be approved by the County. The expected potable water demand for the Otay Ranch Village 14 and Planning Areas 16/19 Proposed Project Amendment is 755,060 gallons per day (GPD) or about 845.8 acre-feet per year (AFY). This is less than the Approved Project that had a projected water use of 797,970 GPD, or about 893.8 AFY. As discussed in the previous WSA&V report for the Project, the entire watershed of the Otay Ranch Village 14 and Planning Areas 16/19 Proposed Project Amendment is tributary to the Upper and Lower Otay Reservoirs that are used as supply for potable domestic water uses by the City of San Diego (City). The City will not allow the use of recycled water within watersheds tributary to these Reservoirs. For this reason, the projected water use within the Otay Ranch Village 14 and Planning Areas 16/19 Proposed Project Amendment has been estimated without the use of recycled water within the Project area. The District prepared the WSA&V Report in consultation with Dexter Wilson Engineering, Inc., the Water Authority, and the County, which demonstrates and documents that sufficient water supplies are planned for and are intended to be made available over a 20-year planning horizon under normal supply conditions, in single and multiple-dry years to meet the projected demand of the County of San Diego Otay Ranch Village 14 and Planning Area 16/19 Proposed Project Amendment and other planned development projects within the District. FISCAL IMPACT: Joe Beachem, Chief Financial Officer The District has been reimbursed $8,000 for all costs associated with the preparation of the County of San Diego Otay Ranch Village 14 and Planning Area 16/19 Proposed Project Amendment 4 WSA&V Report. The reimbursement was accomplished via an $8,000 deposit the Project proponents placed with the District. GRANTS/LOANS: Not applicable. STRATEGIC GOAL: The preparation and approval of the WSA&V Report for the County of San Diego Otay Ranch Village 14 and Planning Area 16/19 Proposed Project Amendment 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: Approval of a WSA&V Report for the County of San Diego Otay Ranch Village 14 and Planning Area 16/19 Proposed Project Amendment in form and content satisfactory to the Board of Directors would allow the District to comply with the requirements of Senate Bills 610 and 221. LC-B/BK:jf P:\WORKING\WO D0956-090248 Proctor Valley Village 14 and Preserve \Staff Report\BD 02-05-20, Staff Report, County of SD Village 14 & PA 16-19 WSA&V Report(LCB-BK).doc Attachments: Attachment A – Committee Action Exhibit A – Location Map Exhibit B – Explanation of the Intent of SB 610 & SB 221 Exhibit C – County of San Diego Otay Ranch Village 14 and Planning Area 16/19 Proposed Project Amendment WSA&V Report Exhibit D – PowerPoint Presentation ATTACHMENT A SUBJECT/PROJECT: D0956-090324 Approval of Water Supply Assessment and Verification Report (December 2019) for the County of San Diego Otay Ranch Village 14 and Planning Area 16/19 Proposed Project Amendment COMMITTEE ACTION: The Engineering, Operations, and Water Resources Committee (Committee) reviewed this item at a meeting held on January 21, 2020. 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. EXHIBIT A LOCATION MAP 1 EXHIBIT B Background Information The Otay Water District (District) prepared the December 2019 Water Supply Assessment and Verification (WSA&V) Report for the County of San Diego Otay Ranch Village 14 and Planning Area 16/19 Proposed Project Amendment at the request of the County of San Diego (County). The County’s WSA&V request letter dated November 25, 2019 was received by the District on November 26, 2019 so the 90-day deadline for the District to provide the Board an approved WSA&V Report to the County ends February 24, 2020. The County of San Diego Otay Ranch Village 14 and Planning Area 16/19 Proposed Project Amendment is located within the jurisdictions of the District, the San Diego County Water Authority (Water Authority), and the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (MWD). See Exhibit A for Project location. To obtain permanent imported water supply service, land areas are required to be within the jurisdictions of the District, Water Authority, and MWD. The December 2019 WSA&V Report for the County of San Diego Otay Ranch Village 14 and Planning Area 16/19 Proposed Project Amendment has been prepared by the District in consultation with Dexter Wilson Engineering, Inc., the Water Authority, and the County, pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21151.9 and California Water Code Sections 10631, 10656, 10910, 10911, 10912, and 10915 referred to as Senate Bill (SB) 610 and Government Code Sections 65867.5, 66455.3, and 66473.7 referred to as SB 221. SB 610 and SB 221 amended state law, effective January 1, 2002, intending to improve the link between information on water supply availability and certain land use decisions made by cities and counties. SB 610 requires that the water purveyor of the public water system prepare a water supply assessment to be included in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) environmental documentation and approval process of certain proposed projects. SB 221 requires affirmative written verification from the water purveyor of the public water system that sufficient water supplies are to be available for certain residential subdivision of property. The requirements of SB 610 and SB 221 are addressed in the December 2019 WSA&V Report for the County of San Diego Otay Ranch Village 14 and Planning Area 16/19 Project. The expected potable water demands for the County of San Diego Otay Ranch Village 14 and Planning Area 16/19 Proposed Project Amendment are 755,060 gallons per day (GPD) or about 845.8 acre-feet per year (AFY). Therefore, based on the findings from the Otay WD’s 2015 UWMP and the Water Authority’s 2015 UWMP, this Project will result in no unanticipated demands. The District currently depends on the Water Authority and the MWD for all of its potable water supplies and regional water resource planning. The District’s 2015 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) relies heavily on the UWMP’s and Integrated Water Resources Plans (IRPs) of the Water Authority and MWD for documentation of supplies available to meet projected demands. These plans are developed to manage the 2 uncertainties and variability of multiple supply sources and demands over the long-term through preferred water resources strategy adoption and resource development target approvals for implementation. MWD, in January 2016, approved the update of their Integrated Water Resources Plan (IRP). The 2015 IRP Update describes an adaptive management approach to mitigate against future water supply uncertainty. The new uncertainties that are significantly affecting California’s water resources include: • The State Water Project (SWP) supplies which are affected by a changing climate and the operational constraints in the ecologically struggling Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. • Periodic extended drought conditions. These uncertainties have rightly caused concern among Southern California water supply agencies regarding the validity of the current water supply documentation. MWD is currently involved in several proceedings concerning Delta operations to evaluate and address environmental concerns. In addition, at the State level, the Delta Vision and Bay-Delta Conservation Plan processes are defining long-term solutions for the Delta. The SWP represents approximately 9% of MWD’s 2025 Dry Resources Mix, with the supply buffer included. A 22% cutback in SWP supply represents an overall 2% (22% of 9% is 2%) cutback in MWD supplies in 2025. Neither the Water Authority nor MWD has stated that there is insufficient water for future planning in Southern California. Each agency is in the process of reassessing and reallocating their water resources. Under preferential rights, MWD can allocate water without regard to historic water purchases or dependence on MWD. Therefore, the Water Authority and its member agencies are taking measures to reduce dependence on MWD through development of additional supplies and a water supply portfolio that would not be jeopardized by a preferential rights allocation. As calculated by MWD, the Water Authority’s current preferential right is 18.27% of MWD’s supply, while the Water Authority accounted for approximately 22% of MWD’s total revenue. So MWD could theoretically cut back the Water Authority’s supply and theoretically, the Water Authority should have alternative water supply sources to make up for the difference. In the Water Authority’s 2010 UWMP, they had already planned to reduce reliance on MWD supplies. This reduction is planned to be achieved through diversification of their water supply portfolio. The 2017 Water Shortage Contingency Plan provides the Water Authority and its member agencies with a series of potential actions to take when faced with a shortage of imported water supplies from MWD due to prolonged drought or other supply shortfall 3 conditions. Such actions help avoid or minimize impacts of shortages and ensure an equitable allocation of supplies throughout the San Diego County region. The Otay Water District Board of Directors could acknowledge the ever-present challenge of balancing water supply with demand and the inherent need to possess a flexible and adaptable water supply implementation strategy that can be relied upon during normal and dry weather conditions. The responsible regional water supply agencies have and will continue to adapt their resource plans and strategies to meet climatological, environmental, and legal challenges so that they may continue to provide water supplies to their service areas. The regional water suppliers (i.e., the Water Authority and MWD), along with the District, fully intend to maintain sufficient reliable supplies through the 20-year planning horizon under normal, single, and multiple-dry year conditions to meet projected demand of the County of San Diego Otay Ranch Village 14 and Planning Area 16/19 Proposed Project Amendment, along with existing and other planned development projects within the District’s service area. If the regional water suppliers determine additional water supplies will be required, or in this case, that water supply portfolios need to be reassessed and redistributed with the intent to serve the existing and future water needs throughout Southern California, the agencies must indicate the status or stage of development of actions identified in the plans they provide. MWD’s 2015 IRP update will then cause the Water Authority to update its IRP, which will then provide the District with the necessary water supply documentation. Identification of a potential future action in such plans does not by itself indicate that a decision to approve or to proceed with the action has been made. The District’s Board approval of the Approval of Water Supply Assessment and Verification Report (December 2019) for the County of San Diego Otay Ranch Village 14 and Planning Area 16/19 Proposed Project Amendment WSA&V Report does not in any way guarantee water supply to the Project. Alternatively, if the WSA&V Report is written to state that water supply is or will be unavailable; the District must include, in the assessment, a plan to acquire additional water supplies. At this time, the District should not state there is insufficient water supply. At the present time, based on the information available, the District is able to clearly describe the current water supply situation, indicating intent to provide supply through reassessment and reallocation by the regional, as well as, the local water suppliers. In doing so, it is believed that the Board has met the intent of the SB 610 statute, that the land use agencies and the water agencies are coordinating their efforts in planning water supplies for new development. With District Board approval of the County of San Diego Otay Ranch Village 14 and Planning Area 16/19 Proposed Project Amendment WSA&V Report, the County of San Diego Otay Ranch Village 14 and Planning Area 16/19 Proposed Project Amendment proponents can proceed with the draft environmental documentation required for the CEQA review process. The water supply issues will be addressed in these environmental documents, consistent with the WSA&V Report. 4 The District, as well as others, can comment on the draft EIR with recommendations that water conservation measures and actions be employed on the County of San Diego Otay Ranch Village 14 and Planning Area 16/19 Proposed Project Amendment. Some recent actions regarding water supply assessments and verification reports by Otay Water District are as follows: • The Board approved the water supply assessment report for the Otay Ranch Planning Area 12 Freeway Commercial Project on April 1, 2015. • The Board approved the water supply assessment report for the Otay 250 Sunroad East Otay Mesa Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Project on July 6, 2016. • The Board approved the water supply assessment report for the City of Chula Vista University Innovation District Project on October 5, 2016. • The Board approved the water supply assessment report for the Otay Ranch Resort Village Project on May 2, 2018. Water supplies necessary to serve the demands of the proposed County of San Diego Otay Ranch Village 14 and Planning Area 16/19 Proposed Project Amendment, along with existing and other projected future users, as well as the actions necessary to develop these supplies, have been identified in the water supply planning documents of the District, the Water Authority, and MWD. The WSA&V Report includes, among other information, an identification of existing water supply entitlements, water rights, water service contracts, or agreements relevant to the identified water supply needs for the proposed County of San Diego Otay Ranch Village 14 and Planning Area 16/19 Proposed Project Amendment. The WSA&V Report demonstrates and documents that sufficient water supplies are planned and are intended to be available over a 20-year planning horizon, under normal conditions and in single and multiple-dry years, to meet the projected demand of the proposed and the existing and other planned development projects within the District. Accordingly, after approval of a WSA&V Report for the County of San Diego Otay Ranch Village 14 and Planning Area 16/19 Proposed Project Amendment by the District's Board of Directors, the WSA&V Report may be used to comply with the requirements of the legislation enacted by Senate Bills 610 and 221 as follows: Senate Bill (SB) 610 Water Supply Assessment: The District's Board of Directors approved WSA&V Report may be incorporated into the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) compliance process for the County of San Diego Otay Ranch Village 14 and Planning Area 16/19 Proposed Project Amendment as a water supply assessment report consistent with the requirements of the legislation enacted by SB 610. The County of San Diego, as lead agency under the CEQA for the County of 5 San Diego Otay Ranch Village 14 and Planning Area 16/19 Proposed Project Amendment environmental documentation, may cite the approved WSA&V Report as evidence that a sufficient water supply is planned and intended to be available to serve the County of San Diego Otay Ranch Village 14 and Planning Area 16/19 Proposed Project Amendment. Senate Bill (SB) 221 Water Supply Verification: The District's Board of Directors approved WSA&V Report may be incorporated into the County of San Diego Otay Ranch Village 14 and Planning Area 16/19 Proposed Project Amendment as a water supply verification report, consistent with the requirements of the legislation enacted by SB 221. The County, within their process of approving the County of San Diego Otay Ranch Village 14 and Planning Area 16/19 Proposed Project Amendment, may cite the approved WSA&V Report as verification of intended sufficient water supply to serve the Project. OTAY WATER DISTRICT WATER SUPPLY ASSESSMENT AND VERIFICATION REPORT for the County of San Diego Otay Ranch Village 14 and Planning Areas 16/19 Proposed Project Amendment Prepared by: Lisa Coburn-Boyd Environmental Compliance Specialist and Bob Kennedy, P.E. Engineering Manager Otay Water District In consultation with Dexter Wilson Engineering, Inc. And San Diego County Water Authority December 2019 D0956-090324 EXHIBIT C Otay Water District Water Supply Assessment and Verification Report Otay Ranch Village 14 and Planning Areas 16/19 Proposed Project Amendment Otay Water District Water Supply Assessment and Verification Report December 2019 Otay Ranch Village 14 and Planning Areas 16/19 Proposed Project Amendment Table of Contents Executive Summary .................................................................................................................. 1 Section 1 - Purpose .................................................................................................................... 6 Section 2 - Findings ................................................................................................................... 7 Section 3 - Project Description .............................................................................................. 10 Section 4 – Otay Water District ............................................................................................. 11 Section 5 – Historical and Projected Water Demands ........................................................ 14 5.1 Demand Management (Water Conservation) ..................................................... Section 6 - Existing and Projected Supplies ......................................................................... 22 6.1 Metropolitan Water District of Southern California 2015 Urban Water Management Plan ......................................................................................... 22 6.1.2 MWD Capital Investment Plan .......................................................... 24 6.2 San Diego County Water Authority Regional Water Supplies ................ 24 6.2.1 Availability of Sufficient Supplies and Plans for Acquiring Additional Supplies ............................................................................................. 25 6.2.1.2 All-American Canal and Coachella Canal Lining Projects .. 33 6.2.1.3 Carlsbad Seawater Desalination Project ............................... 37 6.2.2 Water Authority Capital Improvement Program and Financial Information ........................................................................... 40 6.3 Otay Water District ...................................................................................... 41 6.3.1 Availability of Sufficient Supplies and Plans for Acquiring Additional Supplies ............................................................................................. 42 6.3.1.1 Imported and Regional Supplies ........................................... 43 6.3.1.2 Recycled Water Supplies ...................................................... 45 Section 7 – Conclusion: Availability of Sufficient Supplies ................................................ 50 Source Documents ................................................................................................................... 56 Appendices Appendix A: Otay Ranch Village 14 and Planning Areas 16/19 Proposed Project Amendment Vicinity Map Appendix B: Otay Ranch Village 14 and Planning Areas 16/19 Proposed Project Amendment Development Plan Otay Water District Water Supply Assessment and Verification Report Otay Ranch Village 14 and Planning Areas 16/19 Proposed Project Amendment Otay Water District Water Supply Assessment and Verification Report Otay Ranch Village 14 and Planning Areas 16/19 Proposed Project Amendment 1 Otay Water District Water Supply Assessment and Verification Report December 2019 Otay Ranch Village 14 and Planning Areas 16/19 Proposed Project Amendment Executive Summary The Otay Water District (Otay WD) prepared this Water Supply Assessment and Verification Report (WSA&V Report) at the request of the County of San Diego (County) for the Otay Ranch Village 14 and Planning Areas 16/19 Proposed Project Amendment. Otay WD prepared a WSA&V Report for the Otay Ranch Village 14 and Planning Areas 16/19 Project in November 2017 and the project was approved by the County Board of Supervisors on June 26, 2019. On June 27, 2019, the owner/applicant (Jackson Pendo Development Company) of the Approved Project entered into a Dispute Resolution Agreement with the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and the County. Pursuant to this agreement, the owner/applicant would seek a land exchange with CDFW through a process overseen by the California Wildlife Conservation Board. The proposed land exchange, if approved by the Wildlife Conservation Board, would require the owner/applicant to transfer 147.3 acres in Village 14 and 192.4 acres in Planning Area 16 to CDFW, and record a conservation easement over 191.5 acres in Planning Area 16. In Exchange, CDFW would transfer 219.4 acres in Village 14 to the owner/applicant. The Proposed Project Amendment would then be implemented upon the lands within the applicant’s ownership, including those received via the Wildlife Conservation Board land exchange. Because the Proposed Project Amendment assumes the above described land exchange, it would result in a different development footprint than the Approved Project’s development footprint. Therefore, a Specific Plan Amendment to the Village 14 and Planning Areas 16/19 Specific Plan and a revised Tentative Map are required processes for the Proposed Project Amendment. This WSA&V Report is being prepared for the Proposed Project Amendment concurrent with the Specific Plan Amendment and revised Tentative Map processing through the County of San Diego. Otay Ranch Village 14 and Planning Areas 16/19 Proposed Project Amendment Overview and Water Use The Otay Ranch Village 14 and Planning Areas 16/19 Proposed Project Amendment is located within the jurisdictions of the Otay WD, the San Diego County Water Authority (Water Authority), and the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (MWD). In Otay Water District Water Supply Assessment and Verification Report Otay Ranch Village 14 and Planning Areas 16/19 Proposed Project Amendment 2 order to obtain permanent imported water supply service, land areas are required to be within the jurisdictions of the Otay WD, Water Authority, and MWD. The proposed project entitlement includes a Specific Plan entitled “Otay Ranch Village 14 and Planning Areas 16/19 Specific Plan”, General Plan Amendments, EIR, Rezone, Tentative Map, and an Otay Ranch Resource Management Plan Amendment. The County prepared an EIR for the Approved Project that was approved by the County Board of Supervisors on June 26, 2019 and is evaluating the Proposed Project Amendment in conformance with the Dispute Resolution Agreement. The Proposed Project Amendment land use plan proposes a transitional village between the City of Chula Vista and community of Jamul with up to 1,266 residential units. The project is located within the Otay Ranch General Development Plan along Proctor Valley Road, just east of the City of Chula Vista. The Proposed Project Amendment proposes 1,266 residential units within a project area of 1,543 acres. The Proposed Project Amendment development footprint would be approximately 578.6 acres, which would consist of approximately 513.1 acres within Otay Ranch Village 14, 25.3 acres within Otay Ranch Planning Area 19, and 40.1 acres of offsite improvements (Proctor Valley Road). Of the 1,266 residential units, 1,253 units would be within Village 14 and 13 units would be located in Planning Area 19. Non-residential development would consist of a mixed use commercial site, a school, parks, and open space. The Proposed Project Amendment would include a land exchange between the owner/applicant and CDFW, which would require the owner/applicant to transfer 339.7 acres to CDFW and record a conservation easement over 191.5 acres. In exchange, CDFW would transfer 219.4 acres in Village 14 to the owner/applicant to create a consolidated development footprint. The Proposed Project Amendment requires a Specific Plan Amendment and Revised Tentative Map that must be approved by the County. The Revised Tentative Map would replace that certain Tentative Map TM#5616, approved by the County on June 26, 2019. The Specific Plan Amendment would amend the Specific Plan 16-002 to reflect the Proposed Project Amendment, including the revised Tentative Map and the land exchange with CDFW. The expected potable water demand for the Otay Ranch Village 14 and Planning Areas 16/19 Proposed Project Amendment is 755,060 gallons per day (gpd) or about 845.8 acre feet per year (AFY). This is less than the Approved Project that had a projected water use of 797,970 gpd, or about 893.8 AFY. The entire watershed of the Otay Ranch Village 14 and Planning Areas 16/19 Project is tributary to the Upper and Lower Otay Reservoirs. The use of recycled water within watersheds tributary to surface water storage reservoirs that provide supply for potable domestic water uses must be approved by the owners of the reservoirs in order to protect water quality in these reservoirs. The Applicants for other projects within this watershed have met with and discussed the use of recycled water with the City of San Diego, the operator of the reservoirs. The City of San Diego has requested all projects not use recycled water Otay Water District Water Supply Assessment and Verification Report Otay Ranch Village 14 and Planning Areas 16/19 Proposed Project Amendment 3 because they are concerned about the runoff from the project entering the reservoirs and increasing nutrients and salinity. For this reason, the projected water use within the Otay Ranch Village 14 and Planning Areas 16/19 Proposed Project Amendment has been estimated with the assumption that the use of recycled water within the project will not be allowed. Planned Imported Water Supplies from the Water Authority and MWD The Water Authority and MWD have an established process that ensures supplies are being planned to meet future growth. Any annexations and revisions to established land use plans are captured in the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) updated forecasts for land use planning, demographics, and economic projections. SANDAG serves as the regional, intergovernmental planning agency that develops and provides forecast information. The Water Authority and MWD update their demand forecasts and supply needs based on the most recent SANDAG forecast approximately every five years to coincide with preparation of their UWMP’s. Prior to the next forecast update, local jurisdictions with land use authority may require water supply assessment and/or verification reports for proposed land developments that are not within the Otay WD, Water Authority, or MWD jurisdictions (i.e. pending or proposed annexations) or that have revised land use plans with either lower or higher development intensities than reflected in the existing growth forecasts. Proposed land areas with pending or proposed annexations, or revised land use plans, typically result in creating higher demand and supply requirements than previously anticipated. The Otay WD, Water Authority, and MWD next demand forecast and supply requirements and associated planning documents would then capture any increase or decrease in demands and required supplies as a result of annexations or revised land use planning decisions. An important planning document utilized by MWD, the Water Authority and Otay WD is the Integrated Resources Plan (IRP) which describes an agency’s long term water plan. MWD’s 2015 IRP offers an adaptive management strategy to protect the region from future supply shortages. This adaptive management strategy has five components: achieve additional conservation savings, develop additional local water supplies, maintain Colorado River Aqueduct supplies, stabilize State Water Project supplies, and maximize the effectiveness of storage and transfer. MWD’s 2015 IRP has a plan for identifying and implementing additional resources that expand the ability for MWD to meet future changes and challenges as necessary to ensure future reliability of supplies. The proper management of these resources help to ensure that the southern California region, including San Diego County, will have adequate water supplies to meet long-term future demands. Another important planning document is the UWMP. The California Urban Water Management Planning Act (Act), which is included in the California Water Code, requires all urban water suppliers within the state to prepare an UWMP and update it every five years. The purpose and importance of the UWMP has evolved since it was first required 25 years ago. State agencies and the public frequently use the document to determine if agencies are planning adequately to reliably meet future demands. As such, UWMPs serve as an important Otay Water District Water Supply Assessment and Verification Report Otay Ranch Village 14 and Planning Areas 16/19 Proposed Project Amendment 4 element in documenting supply availability for the purpose of compliance with state laws, Senate Bills 610 and 221, linking water supply sufficiency to large land-use development approval. Agencies must also have a UWMP prepared, pursuant to the Act, in order to be eligible for state funding and drought assistance. MWD’s 2015 UWMP Findings state that MWD has supply capabilities that would be sufficient to meet expected demands from 2020 through 2040. MWD has plans for supply implementation and continued development of a diversified resource mix including programs in the Colorado River Aqueduct, State Water Project, Central Valley Transfers, local resource projects, and in-region storage that enables the region to meet its water supply needs. The County Water Authority Act, Section 5 subdivision 11, states that the Water Authority “as far as practicable, shall provide each of its member agencies with adequate supplies of water to meet their expanding and increasing needs.” As part of preparation of a written water supply assessment report, an agency’s shortage contingency analysis should be considered in determining sufficiency of supply. Section 11 of the Water Authority’s 2015 UWMP Update contain a detailed shortage contingency analysis that addresses a regional catastrophic shortage situation and drought management. The analysis demonstrates that the Water Authority and its member agencies, through the Integrated Contingency Plan, Emergency Storage Project, and Water Shortage Contingency Plan are taking actions to prepare for and appropriately handle an interruption of water supplies. The Water Shortage Contingency Plan, provides the Water Authority and its member agencies with a series of potential actions to take when faced with a shortage of imported water supplies from MWD due to prolonged drought or other supply shortfall conditions. The actions will help the region avoid or minimize the impacts of shortages and ensure an equitable allocation of supplies. Water supply agencies throughout California continue to face climate, environmental, legal, and other challenges that impact water source supply conditions, such as the court rulings regarding the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta issues and reoccurring droughts impacting the western states. Even with these ever present challenges, the Water Authority and MWD, along with Otay WD fully intend to have sufficient, reliable supplies to serve demands. Otay Water District Water Supply Development Program In evaluating the availability of sufficient water supply, the Otay Ranch Village 14 and Planning Areas 16/19 Proposed Project Amendment will be required to participate in the water supply development program being implemented by the Otay WD. This is intended to be achieved through financial participation in several local and/or regional water supply development projects envisioned by the Otay WD. These water supply projects are in addition to those identified as sustainable supplies in the current Water Authority and MWD UWMP, IRP, Master Plans, and other planning documents, and are in response to the Otay Water District Water Supply Assessment and Verification Report Otay Ranch Village 14 and Planning Areas 16/19 Proposed Project Amendment 5 regional water supply issues. These new water supply projects are not currently developed and are in various stages of the planning process. Imported water supplies along with the development of these additional Otay WD water supply development projects supplies are intended to increase water supplies to serve the Otay Ranch Village 14 and Planning Areas 16/19 Proposed Project Amendment water supply needs and that of other similar development projects. The Otay WD water supply development program includes but is not limited to projects such as the Middle Sweetwater River Basin Groundwater Well project, and the Rosarito Ocean Desalination Facility project. The Water Authority and MWD’s next forecasts and supply planning documents would capture any increase in water supplies resulting from any new water resources developed by the Otay WD. Findings The WSA&V Report identifies and describes the processes by which water demand projections for the proposed Otay Ranch Village 14 and Planning Areas 16/19 Proposed Project Amendment will be fully included in the water demand and supply forecasts of the Urban Water Management Plans and other water resources planning documents of the Water Authority and MWD. Water supplies necessary to serve the demands of the proposed project, along with existing and other projected future users, as well as the actions necessary and status to develop these supplies, have been identified in the Otay Ranch Village 14 and Planning Areas 16/19 Proposed Project Amendment WSA&V Report and will be included in the future water supply planning documents of the Water Authority and MWD. This WSA&V Report includes, among other information, an identification of existing water supply entitlements, water rights, water service contracts, water supply projects, or agreements relevant to the identified water supply needs for the proposed Otay Ranch Village 14 and Planning Areas 16/19 Proposed Project Amendment. The WSA&V Report demonstrates and documents that sufficient water supplies are planned for and are intended to be available over a 20-year planning horizon, under normal conditions and in single and multiple dry years to meet the projected demand of the proposed Otay Ranch Village 14 and Planning Areas 16/19 Proposed Project Amendment and the existing and other planned development projects to be served by the Otay WD. Accordingly, after approval of a WSA&V Report for the Otay Ranch Village 14 and Planning Areas 16/19 Proposed Project Amendment by the Otay WD Board of Directors (Board), the WSA&V Report may be used to comply with the requirements of the legislation enacted by Senate Bills 610 and 221 as follows: 1. Senate Bill 610 Water Supply Assessment: The Otay WD Board approved WSA&V Report may be incorporated into the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Environmental Impact Report (EIR) compliance process for the Otay Ranch Village 14 and Planning Areas 16/19 Proposed Project Amendment as a water supply assessment report consistent with the requirements of the legislation enacted by SB Otay Water District Water Supply Assessment and Verification Report Otay Ranch Village 14 and Planning Areas 16/19 Proposed Project Amendment 6 610. The County, as lead agency under CEQA for the Otay Ranch Village 14 and Planning Areas 16/19 project EIR and Alternatives, may cite the approved WSA&V Report as evidence that a sufficient water supply is planned for and is intended to be made available to serve the Otay Ranch Village 14 and Planning Areas 16/19 Proposed Project Amendment. 2. Senate Bill 221 Water Supply Verification: The Otay WD Board approved WSA&V Report may be incorporated into the County’s Tentative Map approval process for the Otay Ranch Village 14 and Planning Areas 16/19 Proposed Project Amendment as a water supply verification report, consistent with the requirements of the legislation enacted by SB 221. The County, within their process of approving the Otay Ranch Village 14 and Planning Areas 16/19 Proposed Project Amendment Revised Tentative Map, may cite the approved WSA&V Report as verification of intended sufficient water supply to serve the Otay Ranch Village 14 and Planning Areas 16/19 Proposed Project Amendment. Section 1 - Purpose The County of San Diego prepared an environmental impact report (EIR) for the development of the 1283.6 acre project (Otay Ranch Village 14 and Planning Areas 16/19 Project) that was approved by the County Board of Supervisors on June 26, 2019. The project is located within the Otay Ranch General Development Plan along Proctor Valley Road between the City of Chula Vista and the community of Jamul. On June 27, 2019, the owner/applicant (Jackson Pendo Development Company) of the Approved Project entered into a Dispute Resolution Agreement with the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and the County. Pursuant to this agreement, the owner/applicant would seek a land exchange with CDFW through a process overseen by the California Wildlife Conservation Board. The proposed land exchange, if approved by the Wildlife Conservation Board, would require the owner/applicant to transfer 147.3 acres in Village 14 and 192.4 acres in Planning Area 16 to CDFW, and record a conservation easement over 191.5 acres in Planning Area 16. In Exchange, CDFW would transfer 219.4 acres in Village 14 to the owner/applicant. The Proposed Project Amendment would then be implemented upon the lands within the applicant’s ownership, including those received via the Wildlife Conservation Board land exchange. Because the Proposed Project Amendment assumes the above described land exchange, it would result in a different development footprint than the Approved Project’s development footprint. Therefore, a Specific Plan Amendment to the Village 14 and Planning Areas 16/19 Specific Plan and a revised Tentative Map are required processes for the Proposed Project Amendment. Otay Water District Water Supply Assessment and Verification Report Otay Ranch Village 14 and Planning Areas 16/19 Proposed Project Amendment 7 The County requested that the Otay WD prepare a Water Supply Assessment and Verification (WSA&V) Report for the Otay Ranch Village 14 and Planning Areas 16/19 Proposed Project Amendment. This WSA&V Report is being prepared for the Proposed Project Amendment concurrent with the Specific Plan Amendment and revised Tentative Map processing through the County of San Diego. The Otay Ranch Village 14 and Planning Areas 16/19 Proposed Project Amendment description is provided in Section 3 of this WSA&V Report. This WSA&V Report for the Otay Ranch Village 14 and Planning Areas 16/19 Proposed Project Amendment has been prepared by the Otay WD in consultation with Dexter Wilson Engineering, Inc., the Water Authority, and the County pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21151.9 and California Water Code Sections 10631, 10656, 10910, 10911, 10912, and 10915 referred to as Senate Bill (SB) 610 and Business and Professions Code Section 11010 and Government Code Sections 65867.5, 66455.3, and 66473.7 referred to as SB 221. SB 610 and SB 221 amended state law, effective January 1, 2002, is intended to improve the link between the information on water supply availability and certain land use decisions made by cities and counties. SB 610 requires that the water purveyor of the public water system prepare a water supply assessment to be included in the CEQA documentation and approval process of certain proposed projects. SB 221 requires affirmative written verification from the water purveyor of the public water system that sufficient water supplies are to be available for certain residential subdivisions of property prior to approval of a tentative map. The requirements of SB 610 and SB 221 are being addressed by this WSA&V Report. The County also requested, since the requirements of SB 610 and SB 221 are substantially similar, that Otay WD prepare both the water supply assessment and verification concurrently. This WSA&V Report evaluates water supplies that are planned to be available during normal, single dry year, and multiple dry water years during a 20-year planning horizon to meet existing demands, expected demands of the Otay Ranch Village 14 and Planning Areas 16/19 Proposed Project Amendment, and reasonably foreseeable planned future water demands to be served by Otay WD. The Otay Water District Board of Directors approved WSA&V Report is planned to be used by the County in its evaluation of the Otay Ranch Village 14 and Planning Areas 16/19 Project under the CEQA approval process procedures. Section 2 - Findings The Otay WD prepared this WSA&V Report at the request of the County for the Otay Ranch Village 14 and Planning Areas 16/19 Proposed Project Amendment. Jackson Pendo Development Company submitted an entitlement application to the County for the project and has entered into a Dispute Resolution Agreement with CDFW and the County. The Proposed Project Amendment is being processed in accordance with that agreement. Otay Water District Water Supply Assessment and Verification Report Otay Ranch Village 14 and Planning Areas 16/19 Proposed Project Amendment 8 The Otay Ranch Village 14 and Planning Areas 16/19 Proposed Project Amendment is located within the jurisdictions of the Otay WD, the Water Authority, and MWD. To obtain permanent imported water supply service, land areas are required to be within the jurisdictions of the Otay WD, Water Authority, and MWD to utilize imported water supply. The expected potable water demand for the Otay Ranch Village 14 and Planning Areas 16/19 Proposed Project Amendment is 755,060 gallons per day (gpd) or about 845.8 acre feet per year (AFY). This is less than the Approved Project that had a projected water use of 797,970 gpd, or about 893.8 AFY. Recycled water is not proposed to be used on the project due to its proximity to Upper Otay Reservoir. The Water Authority and MWD have an established process that ensures supplies are being planned to meet future growth. Any annexations and revisions to established land use plans are captured in the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) updated forecasts for land use planning, demographics, and economic projections. SANDAG serves as the regional, intergovernmental planning agency that develops and provides forecast information. The Water Authority and MWD update their demand forecasts and supply needs based on the most recent SANDAG forecast approximately every five years to coincide with preparation of their urban water management plans. Prior to the next forecast update, local jurisdictions may require water supply assessment and/or verification reports for proposed land developments that are not within the Otay WD, Water Authority, or MWD jurisdictions (i.e. pending or proposed annexations) or that have revised land use plans with lower or higher land use intensities than reflected in the existing growth forecasts. Proposed land areas with pending or proposed annexations, or revised land use plans, typically result in creating higher demand and supply requirements than anticipated. The Otay WD, the Water Authority, and MWD next demand forecast and supply requirements and associated planning documents would then capture any increase or decrease in demands and required supplies as a result of annexations or revised land use planning decisions. This process is utilized by the Water Authority and MWD to document the water supplies necessary to serve the demands of the Otay Ranch Village 14 and Planning Areas 16/19 Proposed Project Amendment, along with existing and other projected future users, as well as the actions necessary to develop any required water supplies. Through this process the necessary demand and supply information is thus assured to be identified and incorporated within the water supply planning documents of the Water Authority and MWD. This WSA&V Report includes, among other information, an identification of existing water supply entitlements, water rights, water service contracts, proposed water supply projects, and agreements relevant to the identified water supply needs for the proposed Otay Ranch Village 14 and Planning Areas 16/19 Proposed Project Amendment. This WSA&V Report incorporates by reference the current Urban Water Management Plans and other water resources planning documents of the Otay WD, the Water Authority, and MWD. The Otay WD prepared this WSA&V Report to assess and document that sufficient water supplies are planned for and are intended to be acquired to meet projected water demands of the Otay Otay Water District Water Supply Assessment and Verification Report Otay Ranch Village 14 and Planning Areas 16/19 Proposed Project Amendment 9 Ranch Village 14 and Planning Areas 16/19 Proposed Project Amendment as well as existing and other reasonably foreseeable planned development projects within the Otay WD for a 20- year planning horizon, in normal supply years and in single dry and multiple dry years. The Otay Water District 2015 UWMP includes a water conservation component to comply with Senate Bill 7 of the Seventh Extraordinary Session (SBX 7-7), which became effective February 3, 2010. This new law was the water conservation component to the Delta legislation package, and seeks to achieve a 20 percent statewide reduction in urban per capita water use in California by December 31, 2020. Specifically, SBX 7-7 from this Extraordinary Session requires each urban retail water supplier to develop urban water use targets to help meet the 20 percent reduction goal by 2020 (20x2020), and an interim water reduction target by 2015. Otay WD adopted Method 1 to set its 2015 interim and 2020 water use targets. Method 1 requires setting the 2020 water use target to 80 percent of baseline per capita water use target as provided in the State’s 20x2020 Water Conservation Plan. The Otay WD 2015 target was 172 gpcd which it met (2015 actual was 124 gpcd) and the 2020 gpcd target (80 percent of baseline) is 153 gpcd. The Otay WD’s recent per capita water use has been declining and current water use meets the 2020 target as calculated using Method 1. The decline in per capita water use was due to drought water use restrictions, increased water costs, and economic conditions. Otay WD’s effective water use awareness campaign and enhanced conservation mentality of its customers has resulted in long-term carryover of these reduced consumption rates. Based on a normal water supply year, the five-year increments for a 20-year projection indicate projected potable and recycled water supply is being planned for and is intended to be acquired to meet the estimated water demand targets of the Otay WD (42,720 acre-feet (ac-ft) in 2020 to 57,582 ac-ft in 2040) per the Otay Water District 2015 UWMP. Based on dry year forecasts, the estimated water supply is also being planned for and is intended to be acquired to meet the projected water demand, during single dry and multiple dry year scenarios. On average, the dry-year demands are about 6.64 percent higher than the normal year demands. The Otay WD recycled water supply is assumed to be drought-proof and not subject to reduction during dry periods. Together, these findings assess, demonstrate, and document that sufficient water supplies are planned for and are intended to be acquired for the Otay Ranch Village 14 and Planning Areas 16/19 Project. In addition, the actions necessary to develop these supplies are and will be further documented, to serve the proposed project and the existing and other reasonably foreseeable planned development projects within the Otay WD in both normal and single and multiple dry year forecasts for a 20-year planning horizon. Otay Water District Water Supply Assessment and Verification Report Otay Ranch Village 14 and Planning Areas 16/19 Proposed Project Amendment 10 Section 3 - Project Description The Otay Ranch Village 14 and Planning Areas 16/19 Proposed Project Amendment is located along Proctor Valley Road within the Proctor Valley Parcel of the Otay Ranch Development. Refer to Appendix A for a vicinity map of the proposed Otay Ranch Village 14 and Planning Areas 16/19 Proposed Project Amendment. The project is proposed to be located on 1,543 acres within the Otay Ranch General Development Plan. Although the proposed development is located within the County and subject to the County’s land use jurisdiction, the Otay WD is the potable water purveyor. The Otay Ranch Village 14 and Planning Areas 16/19 Proposed Project Amendment is within the jurisdictions of the Otay WD, the Water Authority, and MWD. The Proposed Project Amendment proposes 1,266 residential units within a project area of 1,543 acres. The Proposed Project Amendment development footprint would be approximately 578.6 acres, which would consist of approximately 513.1 acres within Otay Ranch Village 14, 25.3 acres within Otay Ranch Planning Area 19, and 40.1 acres of offsite improvements (Proctor Valley Road). Of the 1,266 residential units, 1,253 units would be within Village 14 and 13 units would be located in Planning Area 19. Non-residential development would consist of a mixed use commercial site, a school, parks, and open space. The Proposed Project Amendment would include a land exchange between the owner/applicant and CDFW, which would require the owner/applicant to transfer 339.7 acres to CDFW and record a conservation easement over 191.5 acres. In exchange, CDFW would transfer 219.4 acres in Village 14 to the owner/applicant to create a consolidated development footprint. The Proposed Project Amendment requires a Specific Plan Amendment and Revised Tentative Map that must be approved by the County. The Revised Tentative Map would replace that certain Tentative Map TM#5616, approved by the County on June 26, 2019. The Specific Plan Amendment would amend the Specific Plan 16-002 to reflect the Proposed Project Amendment, including the revised Tentative Map and the land exchange with CDFW. The County has discretionary authority on land use decisions for the Otay Ranch Village 14 and Planning Areas 16/19 Proposed Project Amendment and can establish actions and/or permit approval requirements. The projected potable water demands associated with the Otay Ranch Village 14 and Planning Areas 16/19 Proposed Project Amendment EIR has considered the anticipated County discretionary actions and/or permit approvals and are incorporated into and used in this WSA&V Report. The Proposed Project Amendment has a lower projected water use than the Approved Project and corresponding November 2017 WSA&V report. The water demands for the proposed Otay Ranch Village 14 and Planning Areas 16/19 Proposed Project Amendment are included in the projected water demand estimates provided in Section 5 – Historical and Projected Water Demands. Otay Water District Water Supply Assessment and Verification Report Otay Ranch Village 14 and Planning Areas 16/19 Proposed Project Amendment 11 Section 4 – Otay Water District The Otay WD is a municipal water district formed in 1956 pursuant to the Municipal Water District Act of 1911 (Water Code §§ 71000 et seq.). The Otay WD joined the Water Authority as a member agency in 1956 to acquire the right to purchase and distribute imported water throughout its service area. The Water Authority is an agency responsible for the wholesale supply of water to its 24 public agency members in San Diego County. The Otay WD currently meets all its potable demands with imported treated water from the Water Authority. The Water Authority is the agency responsible for the supply of imported water into San Diego County through its membership in MWD. The Water Authority currently obtains about 40% of its imported supply from MWD, but is in the process of further diversifying its available supplies. The Otay WD provides water service to residential, commercial, industrial, and agricultural customers, and for environmental and fire protection uses. In addition to providing water throughout its service area, Otay WD also provides sewage collection and treatment services to a portion of its service area known as the Jamacha Basin. The Otay WD also owns and operates the Ralph W. Chapman Water Reclamation Facility (RWCWRF) which has an effective treatment capacity of 1.2 million gallons per day (mgd) or about 1,300 acre feet per year to produce recycled water. On May 18, 2007, an additional source of recycled water supply of up to 6 mgd, or about 6,720 acre feet per year, became available to Otay WD from the City of San Diego’s South Bay Water Reclamation Plant (SBWRP). The Otay WD jurisdictional area is generally located within the south central portion of San Diego County and includes approximately 125 square miles. The Otay WD serves portions of the unincorporated communities of southern El Cajon, La Mesa, Rancho San Diego, Jamul, Spring Valley, Bonita, and Otay Mesa, the eastern portion of the City of Chula Vista and a portion of the City of San Diego on Otay Mesa. The Otay WD jurisdiction boundaries are roughly bounded on the north by the Padre Dam Municipal Water District, on the northwest by the Helix Water District, and on the west by the South Bay Irrigation District (Sweetwater Authority) and the City of San Diego. The southern boundary of Otay WD is the international border with Mexico. The planning area addressed in the Otay WD WFMP Update and the Otay WD 2015 UWMP includes both the land within the jurisdictional boundary of the Otay WD and those areas outside of the present Otay WD boundaries considered to be in the Area of Influence of the Otay WD. Figure 3-1 contained within the Otay WD 2015 UWMP shows the jurisdictional boundary of the Otay WD and the Area of Influence. The planning area is approximately 143 square miles, of which approximately 125 square miles are within the Otay WD current boundaries and approximately 18 square miles are in the Area of Influence. The area east of Otay WD is rural and currently not within any water purveyor jurisdiction and potentially Otay Water District Water Supply Assessment and Verification Report Otay Ranch Village 14 and Planning Areas 16/19 Proposed Project Amendment 12 could be served by the Otay WD in the future if the need for imported water becomes necessary, as is the case for the Area of Influence. The City of Chula Vista, the City of San Diego, and the County of San Diego are the three land use planning agencies within the Otay WD jurisdiction. Data on forecasts for land use planning, demographics, economic projections, population, and the future rate of growth within Otay WD were obtained from the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG). SANDAG serves as the regional, intergovernmental planning agency that develops and provides forecast information through the year 2050. Population growth within the Otay WD service area is expected to increase from the 2015 figure of 217,339 to an estimated 285,340 by 2040. Land use information used to develop water demand projections are based upon Specific or Sectional Planning Areas, the Otay Ranch General Development Plan/Sub- regional Plan, East Otay Mesa Specific Plan Area, San Diego County Community Plans, and City of San Diego, City of Chula Vista, and County of San Diego General Plans. The Otay WD long-term historic growth rate has been approximately 4 percent. The growth rate had slowed due to economic conditions and is expected to slow as the inventory of developable land is diminished. Climatic conditions within the Otay WD service area are characteristically Mediterranean near the coast, with mild temperatures year round. Inland areas are both hotter in summer and cooler in winter, with summer temperatures often exceeding 90 degrees and winter temperatures occasionally dipping to below freezing. Most of the region’s rainfall occurs during the months of December through March. Average annual rainfall is approximately 10.08 inches per year. Historic climate data were obtained from the Western Regional Climate Center for Station 042706 (El Cajon). This station was selected because its annual temperature variation is representative of most of the Otay WD service area. While there is a station in the City of Chula Vista, the temperature variation at the City of Chula Vista station is more typical of a coastal environment than the conditions in most of the Otay WD service area. Urban Water Management Plan In accordance with the California Urban Water Management Planning Act and recent legislation, the Otay WD Board of Directors adopted an UWMP in June 2016 and subsequently submitted the plan to the California Department of Water Resources (DWR). As required by law, the Otay Water District 2015 UWMP includes projected water supplies required to meet future demands through 2040. In accordance with Water Code Section 10910 (c)(2) and Government Code Section 66473.7 (c)(3), information from the Otay WD 2015 UWMP along with supplemental information from the Otay WD WFMP Update have been utilized to prepare this WSA Report and are incorporated herein by reference. Otay Water District Water Supply Assessment and Verification Report Otay Ranch Village 14 and Planning Areas 16/19 Proposed Project Amendment 13 The state Legislature passed Senate Bill 7 as part of the Seventh Extraordinary Session (SBX 7-7) on November 10, 2009, which became effective February 3, 2010. This new law was the water conservation component to the Delta legislation package and seeks to achieve a 20 percent statewide reduction in urban per capita water use in California by December 31, 2020. Specifically, SBX 7-7 from this Extraordinary Session requires each urban retail water supplier to develop urban water use targets to help meet the 20 percent reduction goal by 2020 (20x2020), and an interim water reduction target by 2015. The SBX 7-7 target setting process includes the following: (1) baseline daily per capita water use; (2) urban water use target; (3) interim water use target; (4) compliance daily per capita water use, including technical bases and supporting data for those determinations. In order for an agency to meet its 2020 water use target, each agency can increase its use of recycled water to offset potable water use and also step up its water conservation measures. The required water use targets for 2020 and an interim target for 2015 are determined using one of four target methods – each method has numerous methodologies. In 2015, urban retail water suppliers were required to report interim compliance followed by actual compliance in 2020. Interim compliance is halfway between the baseline water use and 2020 target. Baseline, target, and compliance-year water use estimates are required to be reported in gallons per capita per day (gpcd). Failure to meet adopted targets will result in the ineligibility of a water supplier to receive grants or loans administered by the State unless one (1) of two (2) exceptions is met. Exception one (1) states a water supplier may be eligible if they have submitted a schedule, financing plan, and budget to DWR for approval to achieve the per capita water use reductions. Exception two (2) states a water supplier may be eligible if an entire water service area qualifies as a disadvantaged community. Otay WD adopted Method 1 to set its 2015 interim and 2020 water use targets. Method 1 requires setting the 2020 water use target to 80 percent of baseline per capita water use target as provided in the State’s 20x2020 Water Conservation Plan. The Otay WD was well below its required 2015 target of 172 gpcd, with an actual 2015 gpcd of 124. The 2020 gpcd target which is 80 percent of baseline is 153 gpcd. The Otay WD’s recent per capita water use has been declining to the point where current water use meets the 2020 target for Method 1. This recent decline in per capita water use was due to drought water use restrictions, increased water costs, and economic conditions. Otay WD’s effective water use awareness campaign and the enhanced conservation mentality of its customers has resulted in long-term carryover of these reduced consumption rates. Otay Water District Water Supply Assessment and Verification Report Otay Ranch Village 14 and Planning Areas 16/19 Proposed Project Amendment 14 Section 5 – Historical and Projected Water Demands The projected demands for Otay WD are based on Specific or Sectional Planning Areas, the Otay Ranch General Development Plan/Sub-regional Plan, the East Otay Mesa Specific Plan Area, San Diego County Community Plans, and City of San Diego, City of Chula Vista, and County of San Diego General Plans. This land use information is also used by SANDAG as the basis for its most recent forecast data. This land use information was utilized for the preparation of the Otay Water District WFMP Update and Otay Water District 2015 UWMP to develop the forecasted demands and supply requirements. In 1994, the Water Authority selected the Institute for Water Resources-Municipal and Industrial Needs (MAIN) computer model to forecast municipal and industrial water use for the San Diego region. The MAIN model uses demographic and economic data to project sector-level water demands (i.e. residential and non-residential demands). This econometric model has over a quarter of a century of practical application and is used by many cities and water agencies throughout the United States. The Water Authority’s version of the MAIN model was modified to reflect the San Diego region’s unique parameters and is known as CWA-MAIN. The foundation of the water demand forecast is the underlying demographic and economic projections. This was a primary reason why, in 1992, the Water Authority and SANDAG entered into a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) in which the Water Authority agreed to use the SANDAG current regional growth forecast for water supply planning purposes. In addition, the MOA recognizes that water supply reliability must be a component of San Diego County’s regional growth management strategy required by Proposition C, as passed by the San Diego County voters in 1988. The MOA ensures a strong linkage between local general plan land use forecasts and water demand projections and resulting supply needs for the San Diego region. Consistent with the previous CWA-MAIN modeling efforts, on October 15, 2013, the SANDAG Board of Directors accepted the Series 13: 2050 Regional Growth Forecast. The 2050 Regional Growth Forecast will be used by SANDAG as the foundation for the next Regional Comprehensive Plan update. SANDAG forecasts were used by local governments for planning, including the Water Authority 2015 UWMP update. The municipal and industrial forecast also included an updated accounting of projected conservation savings based on projected regional implementation of the California Urban Water Conservation Council (CUWCC) Best Management Practices and SANDAG demographic information for the period 2015 through 2050. These savings estimates were then factored into the baseline municipal and industrial demand forecast. Agricultural demand projections were developed through a cooperative effort between Water Authority staff, Water Authority member agencies, SANDAG, County of San Diego Otay Water District Water Supply Assessment and Verification Report Otay Ranch Village 14 and Planning Areas 16/19 Proposed Project Amendment 15 Agricultural Weights and Measures, and the California Avocado Commission. Forecast driver variables include irrigated acreage within the Water Authority’s service area, estimated crop type distribution, and calculated historic water-use factors. SANDAG’s projection of agricultural land conversions to other land use categories provides the long-term trend in acreage used to forecast agricultural water use. The total agricultural forecast is then separated into two categories: (1) projected demands in the Water Authority’s Transitional Special Agricultural Water Rate (TSAWR) program and (2) demands under the Water Authority M&I rate or agricultural demands met through local supplies. The Water Authority and MWD update their water demand and supply projections within their jurisdictions utilizing the SANDAG most recent growth forecast to project future water demands. This provides for the important strong link between demand and supply projections to the land use plans of the cities and the county. This provides for consistency between the retail and wholesale agencies water demand projections, thereby ensuring that adequate supplies are and will be planned for the Otay WD existing and future water users. Existing land use plans, any revisions to land use plans, and annexations are captured in the SANDAG updated forecasts. The Water Authority and MWD update their demand forecasts based on the SANDAG most recent forecast approximately every five years to coincide with preparation of their urban water management plans. Prior to the next forecast update, local jurisdictions may require water supply assessment and/or verification reports consistent with Senate Bills 610 and 221 for proposed land use developments that either have pending or proposed annexations into the Otay WD, Water Authority, and MWD or that have revised land use plans than originally anticipated. The Water Authority and MWD’s next forecasts and supply planning documents would then capture any increase or decrease in demands caused by annexations or revised land use plans. In evaluating the availability of sufficient water supply, the Otay Ranch Village 14 and Planning Areas 16/19 Proposed Project Amendment proponents are required to participate in the development of alternative water supply project(s). This can be achieved through payment of the New Water Supply Fee adopted by the Otay WD Board in May 2010. These water supply projects are in addition to those identified as sustainable supplies in the current Water Authority and MWD UWMP, IRP, Master Plans, and other planning documents. These new water supply projects are in response to the regional water supply issues related to the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta and the current ongoing western states drought conditions. These additional water supply projects are not currently developed and are in various stages of the planning process. A few examples of these alternative water supply projects include the Middle Sweetwater River Basin Groundwater Well project and the Otay WD Rosarito Ocean Desalination Facility project. The Water Authority and MWD next forecast and supply planning documents would capture any increase in water supplies resulting from verifiable new water resources developed by the Otay WD. In addition, MWD’s 2015 UWMP identified potential reserve supplies in the supply capability analysis (Tables 2-4, 2-5, and 2-6), which could be available to meet any unanticipated demands. The Water Authority and MWD’s next forecasts and supply planning Otay Water District Water Supply Assessment and Verification Report Otay Ranch Village 14 and Planning Areas 16/19 Proposed Project Amendment 16 documents would capture any increase in necessary supply resources resulting from any new water supply resources. Demand Methodology The Otay WD water demand projection methodology in the WFMP Update utilizes a component land use approach. This is done by applying representative values of water use to the acreage of each land use type and then aggregating these individual land use demand projections into an overall total demand for the Otay WD. This is called the water duty method, and the water duty is the amount of water used in gallons per day per acre per year. This approach is used for all the land use types except residential development where a demand per dwelling unit was applied. In addition, commercial and industrial water use categories are further subdivided by type including separate categories for golf courses, schools, jails, prisons, hospitals, etc. where specific water demands are established. To determine water duties for the various types of land use, the entire water meter database of the Otay WD is utilized and sorted by the appropriate land use types. The metered consumption records are then examined for each of the land uses, and water duties are determined for the various types of residential, commercial, industrial, and institutional land uses. For example the water duty factors for commercial and industrial land uses are estimated using 1,785 and 893 gallons per day per acre (gpd/acre) respectively. Residential water demand is established based on the same data but computed on a per-dwelling unit basis. The focus is to ensure that for each of the residential land use categories (very low, low, medium, and high densities), the demand criteria used is adequately represented based upon actual data. This method is used because residential land uses constitute a substantial percentage of the total developable planning area of the Otay WD. The WFMP Update calculates potable water demand by taking the gross acreage of a site and applying a potable water reduction factor (PWRF), which is intended to represent the percentage of acreage to be served by potable water and that not served by recycled water for irrigation. For industrial land use, as an example, the PWRF is 0.95 (i.e., 95% of the site is assumed to be served by potable water, 5% of the site is assumed to be irrigated with recycled water, if available). The potable net acreage is then multiplied by the unit demand factor corresponding to its respective land use. This approach is used in the WFMP Update for all the land use types except residential development where a demand per dwelling unit is applied. In addition, commercial and industrial water use categories are further subdivided by type including separate categories for golf courses, schools, jails, prisons, hospitals, etc. where specific water demands are allocated. Otay Water District Projected Demand By applying the established water duties to the proposed land uses, the projected water demand for the entire Otay WD planning area at ultimate development is determined. Otay Water District Water Supply Assessment and Verification Report Otay Ranch Village 14 and Planning Areas 16/19 Proposed Project Amendment 17 Projected water demands for the intervening years were determined using growth rate projections consistent with data obtained from SANDAG and the experience of the Otay WD. The historical and projected potable water demands for Otay WD are shown in Table 1. Table 1 Historical and Projected Potable Water Fiscal Year Demands (acre-feet) Water Use Sectors 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 Single Family Residential 17,165 16,228 17,072 19,806 20,752 20,649 23,224 Multi-Family Residential 3,605 3,460 5,557 6,732 7,342 7,585 8,837 Commercial, Industrial & Institutional 4,110 4,953 6,577 7,949 8,653 8,923 10,378 Landscape 3,732 4,079 4,400 4,600 4,700 4,900 5,200 AFG* - University I. D. 11.7 11.7 11.7 11.7 11.7 AFG – PA 12 46 46 46 46 46 AFG – Otay 250 836 836 836 836 836 Near-term Annexations 2,973 2,973 2,973 2,973 2,973 Other 2,563 1,578 470 470 470 470 470 Totals 31,175 30,298 37,943 43,424 45,784 46,394 51,976 Source: Otay Water District 2015 UWMP. *Accelerated Forecasted Growth Increment Otay Ranch Village 14 and Planning Areas 16/19 Project Proposed Projected Amendment Water Demand Using the land use demand projection methodology noted above, the projected potable water demand for the proposed Otay Ranch Village 14 and Planning Areas 16/19 Proposed Project Amendment is shown in Table 2. The projected potable water demand is 755,060 gpd, or about 845.8 ac-ft/yr. This is less than the Approved Project that had a projected water use of 797,970 gpd, or about 893.8 AFY. Otay Water District Water Supply Assessment and Verification Report Otay Ranch Village 14 and Planning Areas 16/19 Proposed Project Amendment 18 Table 2 Otay Ranch Village 14 and Planning Area 16/19 Proposed Project Amendment Projected PotableWater Annual Average Demands Neighborhood Land Use Designation Gross Acres Quantity, Units Water Duty Factor Total Average Water Demand, GPD 980 Zone R-1 SF Residential 33.1 103 435 gpd/unit 44,805 R-2 (portion) SF Residential 34.1 96 700 gpd/unit 67,200 R-3 (portion) SF Residential 2.2 7 435 gpd/unit 3,045 R-6 (portion) SF Residential 15.3 32 700 gpd/unit 22,400 R-7 SF Residential 12.7 150 200 gpd/unit 30,000 R-8 SF Residential 21.1 116 435 gpd/unit 50,460 R-9 SF Residential 33.0 96 700 gpd/unit 67,200 R-10 SF Residential 8.5 31 435 gpd/unit 13,485 R-11 (portion) SF Residential 22.0 103 435 gpd/unit 44,805 R-12 (portion) SF Residential 6.2 21 435 gpd/unit 9,135 MU-C Mixed Use-Com 2.7 --- 1,785 gpd/ac 4,820 P-1 Park 6.2 --- 1,900 gpd/ac 11,780 P-2 Park 3.9 --- 1,900 gpd/ac 7,410 PP-2 Private Park 2.1 --- 1,900 gpd/ac 3,990 PP-3 Private Park 1.9 --- 1,900 gpd/ac 3,615 PP-4 Private Park 1.5 --- 1,900 gpd/ac 2,850 Irrigated OS Open Space 8 --- 1,900 gpd/ac 15,200 PS-1 Public Safety 2.3 --- 1,785 gpd/ac 4,105 S-1 School 9.9 --- 1,785 gpd/ac 17,670 Subtotal 980 Zone 755 423,970 1296 Zone R-2 (portion) SF Residential 14.2 40 700 gpd/unit 28,000 R-3 (portion) SF Residential 33.6 105 435 gpd/unit 45,675 R-4 SF Residential 31.5 73 700 gpd/unit 51,100 R-5 SF Residential 51.7 121 700 gpd/unit 84,700 R-6 (portion) SF Residential 7.2 15 700 gpd/unit 10,500 R-11 (portion) SF Residential 3.4 16 435 gpd/unit 6,960 R-12 (portion) SF Residential 21.4 73 435 gpd/unit 31,755 R-13 SF Residential 14.9 13 1,000 gpd/unit 13,000 Otay Water District Water Supply Assessment and Verification Report Otay Ranch Village 14 and Planning Areas 16/19 Proposed Project Amendment 19 Neighborhood Land Use Designation Gross Acres Quantity, Units Water Duty Factor Total Average Water Demand, GPD R-17 SF Residential 7.4 10 700 gpd/unit 7,000 R-18 SF Residential 27.8 45 700 gpd/unit 31,500 PP-1 Private Park 2.8 --- 1,900 gpd/ac 5,320 PP-5 Private Park 0.9 --- 1,900 gpd/ac 1,520 PP-6 Private Park 0.4 --- 1,900 gpd/ac 760 Irrigated OS Open Space 7 --- 1,900 gpd/ac 13,300 Subtotal 1296 Zone 511 331,090 TOTAL 1,266 755,060 5.1 Demand Management (Water-Use Efficiency) Demand management, or water-use efficiency is a critical part of the Otay Water District’s 2015 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) and its long-term strategy for meeting the water supply needs of its customers. Water conservation is frequently the lowest cost resource available to any water agency. The Otay WD’s water conservation program objectives are to: • Reduce the demand for more expensive, imported water. • Ensure a reliable water supply. The Otay WD was one of the original signatories to the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) regarding Urban Water Conservation in California, which created the California Urban Water Conservation Council (CUWCC) in 1991 in an effort to reduce California's long-term water demands. The Otay WD has been a long-standing supporter of the CUWCC through its implementation of Best Management Practices (BMPs), which required the District to submit biannual reports that detailed the implementation of its conservation programs. As a result of the 2014-2017 drought and the state’s changing regulatory, political, social, economic, and environmental climate, CUWCC members and its Board, in 2017, restructured the organization and renamed it the California Water Efficiency Partnership (CWEP). The new framework allows the organization to better fulfill its members’ needs, quickly adapt to the changing climate, provide resources about water-use efficiency issues in California, and foster collaboration among a wide variety of stakeholders. The Otay WD is currently a member of CWEP as part of its effort to continue upholding its long-term commitment in reducing the state’s water demands, diversifying local water supply, and encouraging its customer to make conservation a way of life. In addition to meeting customer demands during a drought, Otay Water District Water Supply Assessment and Verification Report Otay Ranch Village 14 and Planning Areas 16/19 Proposed Project Amendment 20 the District consistently advocates for state policies and legislation that include supply development and water-use efficiency. The District continues to work closely with the Water Authority, the Association of California Water Agencies, and other water agencies in the region to ensure that the targets and measures in the State Water Resources Control Board’s (SWRCB) long-term framework support a balanced approach and reflect local water supply investments and conditions. Water conservation programs are developed and implemented on the premise that water conservation increases the local water supply by reducing the demand on available imported supply, which is vital to the optimal utilization of a region's water supply resources. The Otay WD participates in many water conservation programs designed and typically operated on a shared cost-participation program basis among the Water Authority, MWD, and their member agencies. The demands shown in Tables 1 and 2 take into account implementation of water conservation measures within Otay WD. As part of the preceding CUWCC’s BMPs requirements, the Otay WD implemented water conservation programs and provided services to its customers to promote water-use efficiencies and water savings. It continues to do so today. As a member of the Water Authority, Otay WD also benefits from regional programs performed on behalf of its member agencies. In partnership with the Water Authority, the County of San Diego, City of San Diego, City of Chula Vista, and developers, the Otay WD water-use efficiency efforts are expected to grow and expand. The resulting savings directly relate to additional available water in the San Diego County region for beneficial use within the Water Authority service area, including the Otay WD. Additional conservation or water-use efficiency measures or programs practiced by the Otay WD include the following: Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition System The Otay WD implemented and has operated for many years a Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA) system to control, monitor, and collect data regarding the operation of the water system. The major facilities that have SCADA capabilities are the water-flow control supply sources, transmission network, pumping stations, and water storage reservoirs. The SCADA system allows for many and varied useful functions. Some of the functions they provide for operating personnel are the ability to monitor the water supply source flow rates, reservoir levels, tum on or off pumping units, etc. The SCADA system aids in the prevention of water reservoir overflow events and increases energy efficiency. Water Conservation Ordinance California Water Code Sections 375 et seq. permit public entities, which supply retail water to adopt and enforce a water conservation program to reduce the quantity of water used by Otay Water District Water Supply Assessment and Verification Report Otay Ranch Village 14 and Planning Areas 16/19 Proposed Project Amendment 21 the customers, resulting in the conservation of water supplies for that public entity. In 1988, the Otay WD Board of Directors established a comprehensive water conservation program pursuant to California Water Code Sections 375 et seq., based upon the need to conserve water supplies and to avoid or minimize the effects of any future shortage. A water shortage could exist based upon the occurrence of one or more of the following conditions: 1. A general water supply shortage due to increased demand or limited supplies. 2. Distribution or storage facilities of the Water Authority or other agencies become inadequate. 3. A major failure of the supply, storage, and distribution facilities of MWD, Water Authority, and/or Otay WD. The Otay WD water conservation ordinance specifies that the conditions prevailing in the San Diego County area require that the available water resources be put to maximum beneficial use to the extent to which they are capable, and that the waste or unreasonable use, or unreasonable method of use, of water be prevented. In addition, the ordinance encourages the conservation of such water with a view to the maximum reasonable and beneficial use thereof in the interests of the people of the Otay WD and for the public welfare. Otay WD continues to promote water-use efficiency and conservation at community and business events, including those involving developers in its service area. In addition, Otay WD, working with the Water Authority and MWD manages a number of programs. Otay WD is currently engaged in a number of conservation and water-use efficiency activities. Listed below are programs that either are current or have been concluded: • Residential Water Surveys • Large Landscape Surveys • Cash for Water Smart Plants Landscape Retrofit Program • Rotating Nozzles Rebates • Residential Weather-Based Irrigation Controller (WBIC) Incentive Program • Residential High Efficiency Clothes Washers • Residential ULFT/HET Rebate Program • Outreach Efforts to Otay WD Customers - the Otay WD promotes its conservation programs through outreach at community and business events, bill inserts, articles in the Otay WD's quarterly customer Pipeline newsletter, direct mailings to Otay WD customers, the Otay WD's webpage and social media platforms, and through the Water Authority's marketing efforts. • School Education Programs - the Otay WD funds school tours of the Water Conservation Garden and school assemblies, co-funds Splash Labs, and maintains school-age appropriate water-themed books, DVDs, and videos. • Water efficiency in new construction through Cal Green and the Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance Otay Water District Water Supply Assessment and Verification Report Otay Ranch Village 14 and Planning Areas 16/19 Proposed Project Amendment 22 • Focus on Commercial/Institutional/Industrial through Promoting MWD's Save a Buck (Commercial) Program in conjunction with the Otay WD's own Commercial Process Improvement Program • Landscape Contest for homeowners in the Otay WD’s service area The county’s residents and businesses also exceeded the SWRCB’s emergency water-use reduction mandates during 2015 and 2016, and they continue to use less water than they did in 2013 even though drought conditions have ended. Since the SWRCB’s conservation mandate began in June 2015, Otay customers have saved an average of 14 percent more water compared to 2013 water-use totals. Section 6 - Existing and Projected Supplies The Otay WD currently does not have an independent raw or potable water supply source. The Otay WD is a member public agency of the Water Authority and the Water Authority is a member public agency of MWD. The statutory relationships between the Water Authority and its member agencies, and MWD and its member agencies, respectively, establish the scope of the Otay WD entitlement to water from these two agencies. The Water Authority currently supplies the Otay WD with 100 percent of its potable water through two delivery pipelines, referred to as Pipeline No. 4 and the Helix Flume Pipeline. The Water Authority in turn, currently purchases the majority of its water from MWD. Due to the Otay WD reliance on these two agencies, this WSA&V Report includes referenced documents that contain information on the existing and projected supplies, supply programs, and related projects of the Water Authority and MWD. The Otay WD, Water Authority, and MWD are actively pursuing programs and projects to further diversify their water supply resources. The description of local recycled water supplies available to the Otay WD is also discussed below. 6.1 Metropolitan Water District of Southern California 2015 Urban Water Management Plan MWD has prepared its 2015 UWMP which was adopted on May 9, 2016. The 2015 UWMP provides MWD’s member agencies, retail water utilities, cities, and counties within its service area with, among other things, a detailed evaluation of the supplies necessary to meet future demands, and an evaluation of reasonable and practical efficient water uses, recycling, and conservation activities. During the preparation of the 2015 UWMP, MWD utilized the previous SANDAG regional growth forecast in calculating regional water demands for the Water Authority service area. Otay Water District Water Supply Assessment and Verification Report Otay Ranch Village 14 and Planning Areas 16/19 Proposed Project Amendment 23 6.1.1 Availability of Sufficient Supplies and Plans for Acquiring Additional Supplies MWD is a wholesale supplier of water to its member public agencies and obtains its supplies from two primary sources: the Colorado River, via the Colorado River Aqueduct (CRA), which it owns and operates, and Northern California, via the State Water Project (SWP). The 2015 UWMP documents the availability of these existing supplies and additional supplies necessary to meet future demands. MWD’s IRP identifies a mix of resources (imported and local) that, when implemented, will provide 100 percent reliability for full-service demands through the attainment of regional targets set for conservation, local supplies, State Water Project supplies, Colorado River supplies, groundwater banking, and water transfers. The 2015 update to the IRP (2015 IRP Update) describes an adaptive management strategy to protect the region from future supply shortages. This adaptive management strategy has five components: achieve additional conservation savings, develop additional local water supplies, maintain Colorado River Aqueduct supplies, stabilize State Water Project supplies, and maximize the effectiveness of storage and transfer. MWD’s 2015 IRP Update has a plan for identifying and implementing additional resources that expand the ability for MWD to meet future changes and challenges as necessary to ensure future reliability of supplies. The proper management of these resources help to ensure that the southern California region, including San Diego County, will have adequate water supplies to meet long-term future demands. In May 2016, MWD adopted its 2015 UWMP in accordance with state law. The resource targets included in the preceding 2015 IRP Update serve as the foundation for the planning assumptions used in the 2015 UWMP. MWD’s 2015 UWMP contains a water supply reliability assessment that includes a detailed evaluation of the supplies necessary to meet demands over a 20-year period in average, single dry year, and multiple dry year periods. As part of this process, MWD also uses the current SANDAG regional growth forecast in calculating regional water demands for the Water Authority’s service area. As stated in MWD’s 2015 UWMP, the plan may be used as a source document for meeting the requirements of SB 610 and SB 221 until the next scheduled update is completed in 5 years (2020). The 2015 UWMP includes a “Justifications for Supply Projections” in Appendix A.3, that provides detailed documentation of the planning, legal, financial, and regulatory basis for including each source of supply in the plan. A copy of MWD’s 2015 UWMP can be found on the internet at the following site address: http://www.mwdh2o.com/PDF_About_Your_Water/2015_UWMP.pdf The UWMP updates for both MWD and the Water Authority included the increase in demand projections included in SANDAG’s Series 13 Update and from the projections from Otay Water District WFMP Update. Otay Water District Water Supply Assessment and Verification Report Otay Ranch Village 14 and Planning Areas 16/19 Proposed Project Amendment 24 Water supply agencies throughout California continue to face climate, environmental, legal, and other challenges that impact water source supply conditions, such as the court rulings regarding the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta and the current western states drought conditions. Challenges such as these essentially always will be present. The regional water supply agencies, the Water Authority and MWD, along with Otay WD nevertheless fully intend to have sufficient, reliable supplies to serve demands. 6.1.2 MWD Capital Investment Plan MWD prepares a Capital Investment Plan as part of its annual budget approval process. The cost, purpose, justification, status, progress, etc. of MWD’s infrastructure projects to deliver existing and future supplies are documented in the Capital Investment Plan. The financing of these projects is addressed as part of the annual budget approval process. MWD’s Capital Investment Plan includes a series of projects identified from MWD studies of projected water needs, which, when considered along with operational demands on aging facilities and new water quality regulations, identify the capital projects needed to maintain infrastructure reliability and water quality standards, improve efficiency, and provide future cost savings. All projects within the Capital Investment Plan are evaluated against an objective set of criteria to ensure they are aligned with the MWD’s goals of supply reliability and quality. 6.2 San Diego County Water Authority Regional Water Supplies The Water Authority has adopted plans and is taking specific actions to develop adequate water supplies to help meet existing and future water demands within the San Diego region. This section contains details on the supplies being developed by the Water Authority. A summary of recent actions pertaining to development of these supplies includes:  In accordance with the Urban Water Management Planning Act, the Water Authority adopted their 2015 UWMP in June 2016. The updated Water Authority 2015 UWMP identifies a diverse mix of local and imported water supplies to meet future demands. A copy of the updated Water Authority 2015 UWMP can be found on the internet at: http://www.sdcwa.org/sites/default/files/UWMP2015.pdf  As part of the October 2003 Colorado River Quantification Settlement Agreement (QSA), the Water Authority was assigned MWD’s rights to 77,700 acre feet per year of conserved water from the All-American Canal (AAC) and Coachella Canal (CC) lining projects. Deliveries of this conserved water from the CC reached the region in 2007 and Otay Water District Water Supply Assessment and Verification Report Otay Ranch Village 14 and Planning Areas 16/19 Proposed Project Amendment 25 deliveries from the AAC reached the region in 2010. Expected supplies from the canal lining projects are considered verifiable Water Authority supplies.  Deliveries of conserved agricultural water from the Imperial Irrigation District (IID) to San Diego County have increased annually since 2003, with 70,000 acre feet per year of deliveries in Fiscal Year (FY) 2010. The quantities will increase annually to 200,000 acre feet per year by 2021, and then remain fixed for the duration of the transfer agreement.  Development of seawater desalination in San Diego County assists the region in diversifying its water resources; reduces dependence on imported supplies; and provides a new drought‐proof, locally treated water supply. The Carlsbad Desalination Project is a fully operational seawater desalination plant and conveyance pipeline developed by Poseidon, a private investor–owned company that develops water and wastewater infrastructure. The Carlsbad Desalination Project, located near the Carlsbad Energy Center, began commercial operation on December 23, 2015, and can provide a highly reliable local supply of up to 56,000 AF/YR for the region. Of the total Carlsbad Desalination Plant production, Vallecitos Water District has a direct connection and a contract to receive 4,083 AFY. Carlsbad MWD has agreed to a take or pay of 2,500 AFY. Through implementation of the Water Authority and member agency planned supply projects, along with reliable imported water supplies from MWD, the region anticipates having adequate supplies to meet existing and future water demands. To ensure sufficient supplies to meet projected growth in the San Diego region, the Water Authority uses the SANDAG most recent regional growth forecast in calculating regional water demands. The SANDAG regional growth forecast is based on the plans and policies of the land-use jurisdictions with San Diego County. The existing and future demands of the member agencies are included in the Water Authority’s projections. 6.2.1 Availability of Sufficient Supplies and Plans for Acquiring Additional Supplies The Water Authority currently obtains imported supplies from MWD, conserved water from the AAC and CC lining projects, an increasing amount of conserved agricultural water from IID, and desalinated seawater from the Carlsbad desalination plant. Of the twenty-seven member agencies that purchase water supplies from MWD, the Water Authority is MWD’s largest customer. Section 135 of MWD’s Act defines the preferential right to water for each of its member agencies. Currently, the Water Authority pays about 22 percent of MWD's total revenue, but has preferential rights to only 18.27 percent of MWD's water supply. Under preferential Otay Water District Water Supply Assessment and Verification Report Otay Ranch Village 14 and Planning Areas 16/19 Proposed Project Amendment 26 rights, MWD could allocate water without regard to historic water purchases or dependence on MWD. The Water Authority and its member agencies are taking measures to reduce dependence on MWD through development of additional supplies and a water supply portfolio that would not be jeopardized by a preferential rights allocation. MWD has stated, consistent with Section 4202 of its Administrative Code that it is prepared to provide the Water Authority’s service area with adequate supplies of water to meet expanding and increasing needs in the years ahead. When and as additional water resources are required to meet increasing needs, MWD stated it will be prepared to deliver such supplies. In Section ES-5 of their 2015 UWMP, MWD states that MWD has supply capacities that would be sufficient to meet expected demands from 2020 through 2040. MWD has plans for supply implementation and continued development of a diversified resource mix including programs in the Colorado River Aqueduct, State Water Project, Central Valley Transfers, local resource projects, and in-region storage that enables the region to meet its water supply needs. The Water Authority has made large investments in MWD’s facilities and will continue to include imported supplies from MWD in the future resource mix. As discussed in the Water Authority’s 2015 UWMP, the Water Authority and its member agencies are planning to diversify the San Diego regions supply portfolio and reduce purchases from MWD. As part of the Water Authority’s diversification efforts, the Water Authority is now taking delivery of conserved agricultural water from IID, water saved from the AAC and CC lining projects and desalinated seawater from the Carlsbad desalination plant. Table 3 summarizes the Water Authority’s supply sources with detailed information included in the sections to follow. Deliveries from MWD are also included in Table 3, which is further discussed in Section 6.1 above. The Water Authority’s member agencies provided the verifiable local supply targets for groundwater, recycled water, potable reuse and surface water, which are discussed in more detail in Section 5 of the Water Authority’s 2015 UWMP. Otay Water District Water Supply Assessment and Verification Report Otay Ranch Village 14 and Planning Areas 16/19 Proposed Project Amendment 27 Table 3 Projected Verifiable Water Supplies – Water Authority Service Area Normal Year (acre feet)1 Water Supply Sources 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 Water Authority Supplies MWD Supplies 136,002 181,840 207,413 224,863 248,565 Water Authority/IID Transfer 190,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 AAC and CC Lining Projects 80,200 80,200 80,200 80,200 80,200 Regional Seawater Desalination 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 Member Agency Supplies Surface Water 51,580 51,480 51,380 51,280 51,180 Water Recycling 40,459 43,674 45,758 46,118 46,858 Seawater Desalination 6,000 6,000 6,000 6,000 6,000 Brackish GW Recovery 12,100 12,500 12,500 12,500 12,500 Groundwater 17,940 19,130 20,170 20,170 20,170 Potable Reuse 3,300 3,300 3,300 3,300 3,300 Total Projected Supplies 587,581 648,124 676,721 694,431 718,773 Source: Water Authority 2015 Urban Water Management Plan – Table 9-1. 1Normal water year demands based on 1960-2013 hydrology. Section 5.6.1 of the Water Authority’s 2015 UWMP also includes a discussion on the local supply target for seawater desalination. Seawater desalination supplies represent a significant local resource in the Water Authority’s service area. The Carlsbad Desalination Project (Project) is a fully-permitted seawater desalination plant and conveyance pipeline designed to provide a highly reliable local supply of up to 56,000 acre-feet (AF) per year for the region. In 2020, the Project would account for approximately 8% of the total projected regional supply and 30% of all locally generated water in San Diego County. The project became operational in late 2015 and it more than doubles the amount of local supplies developed in the region since 1991. The desalination plant itself was fully financed, built, by Poseidon Resources (Channelside) LC. The equity owner of the plant, Orion Water Partners LLC, entered into an agreement to sell its ownership to Aberdeen Standard Investments. Poseidon Water LLC is the Project Manager to perform the management and administrative functions at the plant for the new owner. The Water Authority purchases water from the plant under a water purchase agreement. The new pipeline connecting the desalination plant with the Water Authority’s Second Aqueduct is owned and operated by the Water Authority, but Poseidon had the responsibility for design and construction through a separate Design-Build Agreement. The Water Authority was responsible for aqueduct improvements, including the relining and rehabilitation of Pipeline 3 to accept desalinated water under higher operating pressures, modifications to the San Marcos Vent that allows the flow of water between Pipelines 3 and 4, and improvements at the Twin Oaks Valley Water Treatment Plant necessary to integrate desalinated water into the Water Authority’s system for optimal distribution to member agencies. Otay Water District Water Supply Assessment and Verification Report Otay Ranch Village 14 and Planning Areas 16/19 Proposed Project Amendment 28 The Water Authority’s existing and planned supplies from the IID transfer, canal lining, and desalination projects are considered “drought-proof” supplies and should be available at the yields shown in Table 4 in normal water year supply and demand assessment. Single dry year and multiple dry year scenarios are discussed in more detail in Section 9 of the Water Authority’s 2015 UWMP. As part of preparation of a written water supply assessment and/or verification report, an agency’s shortage contingency analysis should be considered in determining sufficiency of supply. Section 11 of the Water Authority’s 2015 UWMP contains a detailed shortage contingency analysis that addresses a regional catastrophic shortage situation and drought management. The analysis demonstrates that the Water Authority and its member agencies, through the Integrated Contingency Plan, Emergency Storage Project, and Water Shortage Contingency Plan are taking actions to prepare for and appropriately handle an interruption of water supplies. The Water Authority’s Board of Directors approved the Drought Management Plan (DMP) in 2006. The DMP outlined a series of orderly, progressive steps for the Water Authority and its member agencies to take during shortages to minimize impacts to the region’s economy and quality of life. It also included an allocation methodology to equitably allocate water supplies to the member agencies. The DMP was first activated in 2007 in response to MWD drawing water from storage to meet demands, and deactivated in 2011 when supply conditions improved. In 2008, the Water Authority’s Board approved another drought management document, the Model Drought Response Conservation Program Ordinance. The model ordinance focuses on core water use restrictions and is intended to assist the member agencies when updating or drafting local drought response ordinances. The intent of the model ordinance is to provide regional consistency in drought response levels and messaging to the public and media. Also in 2008, the Water Authority’s Board adopted Resolution 2008-11, that established procedures to administer the supply allocation methodology contained in the DMP. In 2012, the DMP’s supply allocation methodology was updated, using lessons from the previous shortage periods, and the DMP was renamed the Water Shortage and Drought Response Plan (WSDRP). In 2014, the WSDRP was activated due to critically dry weather in California and the impact on water supply conditions. It deactivated in 2016 when supply conditions improved. In each instance when the DMP and WSDRP were activated, a smooth transition into and out of water allocations for the member agencies was possible due to the advanced planning of the Water Authority and its member agencies. Those planning efforts also resulted in an approach that allowed for regional consistency in public drought messaging. On August 24, 2017, the Water Authority’s Board approved proposed revisions of the WSDRP and renamed it the Water Shortage Contingency Plan (WSCP) to align the WSCP with the framework outlined in the April 2017 Final Report, Making Water Conservation a Otay Water District Water Supply Assessment and Verification Report Otay Ranch Village 14 and Planning Areas 16/19 Proposed Project Amendment 29 California Way of Life, Implementing Executive Order B-37-16 in the areas of water use efficiency and shortage response planning. The WSCP continues a proactive and comprehensive approach to shortage response planning for the region. The plan will be reviewed and potentially updated at least every five years in coordination with the preparation of the Water Authority’s Urban Water Management Plan for 2020, which will include any final requirements approved through legislation implementing the state’s framework report. The approval of the WSCP does not require the member agencies to update their planning document or conservation ordinance at this time. 6.2.1.1 Water Authority-Imperial Irrigation District Water Conservation and Transfer Agreement The QSA was signed in October 2003, and resolves long-standing disputes regarding priority and use of Colorado River water and creates a baseline for implementing water transfers. With approval of the QSA, the Water Authority and IID were able to implement their Water Conservation and Transfer Agreement. This agreement not only provides reliability for the San Diego region, but also assists California in reducing its use of Colorado River water to its legal allocation. On April 29, 1998, the Water Authority signed a historic agreement with IID for the long-term transfer of conserved Colorado River water to San Diego County. The Water Authority-IID Water Conservation and Transfer Agreement (Transfer Agreement) is the largest agriculture-to- urban water transfer in United States history. Colorado River water will be conserved by Imperial Valley farmers who voluntarily participate in the program and then transferred to the Water Authority for use in San Diego County. Implementation Status On October 10, 2003, the Water Authority and IID executed an amendment to the original 1998 Transfer Agreement. This amendment modified certain aspects of the Transfer Agreement to be consistent with the terms and conditions of the QSA and related agreements. It also modified other aspects of the agreement to lessen the environmental impacts of the transfer of conserved water. The amendment was expressly contingent on the approval and implementation of the QSA, which was also executed on October 10, 2003. Section 6.2.1, “Colorado River,” contains details on the QSA. On November 5, 2003, IID filed a complaint in Imperial County Superior Court seeking validation of 13 contracts associated with the Transfer Agreement and the QSA. Imperial County and various private parties filed additional suits in Superior Court, alleging violations of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the California Water Code, and other laws related to the approval of the QSA, the water transfer, and related agreements. The lawsuits were coordinated for trial. The IID, Coachella Valley Water District, MWD, the Water Authority, and Otay Water District Water Supply Assessment and Verification Report Otay Ranch Village 14 and Planning Areas 16/19 Proposed Project Amendment 30 state are defending these suits and coordinating to seek validation of the contracts. In January 2010, a California Superior Court judge ruled that the QSA and 11 related agreements were invalid, because one of the agreements created an open-ended financial obligation for the state, in violation of California’s constitution. The QSA parties appealed this decision and on July 2013, a Sacramento Superior Court judge entered a final judgment validating the QSA and rejecting all of the remaining legal challenges. The judge affirmed all of the contested actions, including the adequacy of the environmental documents prepared by the IID. In May 2015, the state Court of Appeal issued a ruling that dismissed all remaining appeals. Expected Supply Deliveries into San Diego County from the transfer began in 2003 with an initial transfer of 10,000 acre feet per year. The Water Authority received increasing amounts of transfer water each year, according to a water delivery schedule contained in the transfer agreement The quantities will increase annually to 200,000 acre feet per year by 2021 then remain fixed for the duration of the transfer agreement. The initial term of the Transfer Agreement is 45 years, with a provision that either agency may extend the agreement for an additional 30-year term. During dry years, when water availability is low, the conserved water will be transferred under IID’s Colorado River rights, which are among the most senior in the Lower Colorado River Basin. Without the protection of these rights, the Water Authority could suffer delivery cutbacks. In recognition for the value of such reliability, the 1998 contract required the Water Authority to pay a premium on transfer water under defined regional shortage circumstances. The shortage premium period duration is the period of consecutive days during which any of the following exist: 1) a Water Authority shortage; 2) a shortage condition for the Lower Colorado River as declared by the Secretary; and 3) a Critical Year. Under terms of the October 2003 amendment, the shortage premium will not be included in the cost formula until Agreement Year 16. Transportation The Water Authority entered into a water exchange agreement with MWD on October 10, 2003, to transport the Water Authority–IID transfer water from the Colorado River to San Diego County. Under the exchange agreement, MWD takes delivery of the transfer water through its Colorado River Aqueduct. In exchange, MWD delivers to the Water Authority a like quantity and quality of water. The Water Authority pays MWD’s applicable wheeling rate for each acre- feet of exchange water delivered. Under the terms of the water exchange agreement, MWD will make delivery of the transfer water for 35 years, unless the Water Authority and MWD elect to extend the agreement another 10 years for a total of 45 years. Otay Water District Water Supply Assessment and Verification Report Otay Ranch Village 14 and Planning Areas 16/19 Proposed Project Amendment 31 Cost/Financing The costs associated with the transfer are financed through the Water Authority’s rates and charges. In the agreement between the Water Authority and IID, the price for the transfer water started at $258 per acre-feet and increased by a set amount for the first seven years. In December 2009, the Water Authority and IID executed a fifth amendment to the water transfer agreement that sets the price per acre-feet for transfer water for calendar years 2010 through 2015, beginning at $405 per acre-feet in 2010 and increasing to $624 per acre-feet in 2015. For calendar years 2016 through 2034, the unit price will be adjusted using an agreed-upon index. The amendment also required the Water Authority to pay IID $6 million at the end of calendar year 2009 and another $50 million on or before October 1, 2010, provided that a transfer stoppage is not in effect as a result of a court order in the QSA coordinated cases. Beginning in 2035, either the Water Authority or IID can, if certain criteria are met, elect a market rate price through a formula described in the water transfer agreement. The October 2003 exchange agreement between MWD and the Water Authority set the initial cost to transport the conserved water at $253 per acre-feet. Thereafter, the price is set to be equal to the charge or charges set by MWD’s Board of Directors pursuant to applicable laws and regulation, and generally applicable to the conveyance of water by MWD on behalf of its member agencies. The Water Authority is providing $10 million to help offset potential socioeconomic impacts associated with temporary land fallowing. IID will credit the Water Authority for these funds during years 16 through 45. In 2007, the Water Authority prepaid IID an additional $10 million for future deliveries of water. IID will credit the Water Authority for this up-front payment during years 16 through 30. As part of implementation of the QSA and water transfer, the Water Authority also entered into an environmental cost sharing agreement. Under this agreement the Water Authority is contributing a total of $64 million to fund environmental mitigation projects and the Salton Sea Restoration Fund. Written Contracts or Other Proof The supply and costs associated with the transfer are based primarily on the following documents: Agreement for Transfer of Conserved Water by and between IID and the Water Authority (April 29, 1998). This Agreement provides for a market-based transaction in which the Water Authority would pay IID a unit price for agricultural water conserved by IID and transferred to the Water Authority. Otay Water District Water Supply Assessment and Verification Report Otay Ranch Village 14 and Planning Areas 16/19 Proposed Project Amendment 32 Revised Fourth Amendment to Agreement between IID and the Water Authority for Transfer of Conserved Water (October 10, 2003). Consistent with the executed Quantification Settlement Agreement (QSA) and related agreements, the amendments restructure the agreement and modify it to minimize the environmental impacts of the transfer of conserved water to the Water Authority. Amended and Restated Agreement between MWD and Water Authority for the Exchange of Water (October 10, 2003). This agreement was executed pursuant to the QSA and provides for delivery of the transfer water to the Water Authority. Environmental Cost Sharing, Funding, and Habitat Conservation Plan Development Agreement among IID, Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD), and Water Authority (October 10, 2003). This Agreement provides for the specified allocation of QSA-related environmental review, mitigation, and litigation costs for the term of the QSA, and for development of a Habitat Conservation Plan. Quantification Settlement Agreement Joint Powers Authority Creation and Funding Agreement (October 10, 2003). The purpose of this agreement is to create and fund the QSA Joint Powers Authority and to establish the limits of the funding obligation of CVWD, IID, and Water Authority for environmental mitigation and Salton Sea restoration pursuant to SB 654 (Machado). Fifth Amendment to Agreement Between Imperial Irrigation District and San Diego County Water Authority for Transfer of Conserved Water (December 21, 2009). This agreement implements a settlement between the Water Authority and IID regarding the base contract price of transferred water. Federal, State, and Local Permits/Approvals Federal Endangered Species Act Permit. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) issued a Biological Opinion on January 12, 2001, that provides incidental take authorization and certain measures required to offset species impacts on the Colorado River regarding such actions. State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) Petition. SWRCB adopted Water Rights Order 2002-0016 concerning IID and Water Authority’s amended joint petition for approval of a long- term transfer of conserved water from IID to the Water Authority and to change the point of diversion, place of use, and purpose of use under Permit 7643. Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for Conservation and Transfer Agreement. As lead agency, IID certified the Final EIR for the Conservation and Transfer Agreement on June 28, 2002. U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service Draft Biological Opinion and Incidental Take Statement on the Bureau of Reclamation's Voluntary Fish and Wildlife Conservation Measures and Associated Conservation Agreements with the California Water Agencies (12/18/02). The U. S. Fish and Otay Water District Water Supply Assessment and Verification Report Otay Ranch Village 14 and Planning Areas 16/19 Proposed Project Amendment 33 Wildlife Service issued the biological opinion/incidental take statement for water transfer activities involving the Bureau of Reclamation and associated with IID/other California water agencies' actions on listed species in the Imperial Valley and Salton Sea (per the June 28, 2002 EIR). Addendum to EIR for Conservation and Transfer Agreement. IID as lead agency and Water Authority as responsible agency approved addendum to EIR in October 2003. Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for Conservation and Transfer Agreement. Bureau of Reclamation issued a Record of Decision on the EIS in October 2003. CA Department of Fish and Game California Endangered Species Act Incidental Take Permit #2081-2003-024-006). The California Department of Fish and Game issued this permit (10/22/04) for potential take effects on state-listed/fully protected species associated with IID/other California water agencies' actions on listed species in the Imperial Valley and Salton Sea (per the June 28, 2002 EIR). California Endangered Species Act (CESA) Permit. A CESA permit was issued by California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) on April 4, 2005, providing incidental take authorization for potential species impacts on the Colorado River. 6.2.1.2 All-American Canal and Coachella Canal Lining Projects As part of the QSA and related contracts, the Water Authority was assigned MWD’s rights to 77,700 acre-feet per year of conserved water from projects that will line the All-American Canal (AAC) and Coachella Canal (CC). The projects will reduce the loss of water that currently occurs through seepage, and the conserved water will be delivered to the Water Authority. This conserved water will provide the San Diego region with an additional 8.5 million acre-feet over the 110-year life of the agreement. Implementation Status The CC lining project began in November 2004 and was completed in 2006. Deliveries of conserved water to the Water Authority began in 2007. The project constructed a 37-mile parallel canal adjacent to the CC. The AAC lining project was begun in 2005 and was completed in 2010. The lining project constructed a concrete-lined canal parallel to 24 miles of the existing AAC from Pilot Knob to Drop 3. In July 2005, a lawsuit (CDEM v United States, Case No. CV-S-05-0870-KJD-PAL) was filed in the U. S. District Court for the District of Nevada on behalf of U.S. and Mexican groups challenging the lining of the AAC. The lawsuit, which names the Secretary of the Interior as a defendant, claims that seepage water from the canal belongs to water users in Mexico. California water agencies note that the seepage water is actually part of California's Colorado Otay Water District Water Supply Assessment and Verification Report Otay Ranch Village 14 and Planning Areas 16/19 Proposed Project Amendment 34 River allocation and not part of Mexico's allocation. The plaintiffs also allege a failure by the United States to comply with environmental laws. Federal officials have stated that they intend to vigorously defend the case. Expected Supply The AAC lining project makes 67,700 acre-feet of Colorado River water per year available for allocation to the Water Authority and San Luis Rey Indian water rights settlement parties. The CC lining project makes 26,000 acre-feet of Colorado River water each year available for allocation. The 2003 Allocation Agreement provides for 16,000 acre-feet per year of conserved canal lining water to be allocated to the San Luis Rey Indian Water Rights Settlement Parties. The remaining amount, 77,700 acre-feet per year, is to be available to the Water Authority, with up to an additional 4,850 acre-feet per year available to the Water Authority depending on environmental requirements from the CC lining project. For planning purposes, the Water Authority assumes that 2,500 acre-feet of the 4,850 acre-feet will be available each year for delivery, for a total of 80,200 acre-feet per year of that supply. According to the Allocation Agreement, IID has call rights to a portion (5,000 acre-feet per year) of the conserved water upon termination of the QSA for the remainder of the 110 years of the Allocation Agreement and upon satisfying certain conditions. The term of the QSA is for up to 75 years. Transportation The October 2003 Exchange Agreement between the Water Authority and MWD provides for the delivery of the conserved water from the canal lining projects. The Water Authority pays MWD’s applicable wheeling rate for each acre-foot of exchange water delivered. In the Agreement, MWD will deliver the canal lining water for the term of the Allocation Agreement (110 years). Cost/Financing Under California Water Code Section 12560 et seq., the Water Authority received $200 million in state funds for construction of the canal lining projects. In addition, $20 million was made available from Proposition 50 and $36 million from Proposition 84. The Water Authority was responsible for additional expenses above the funds provided by the state. The rate to be paid to transport the canal lining water will be equal to the charge or charges set by MWD’s Board of Directors pursuant to applicable law and regulation and generally applicable to the conveyance of water by MWD on behalf of its member agencies. In accordance with the Allocation Agreement, the Water Authority is responsible for a portion of the net additional Operation, Maintenance, and Repair (OM&R) costs for the lined canals. Any costs associated with the lining projects as proposed are to be financed through the Water Authority’s rates and charges. Otay Water District Water Supply Assessment and Verification Report Otay Ranch Village 14 and Planning Areas 16/19 Proposed Project Amendment 35 Written Contracts or Other Proof The expected supply and costs associated with the lining projects are based primarily on the following documents: U.S. Public Law 100-675 (1988). Authorized the Department of the Interior to reduce seepage from the existing earthen AAC and CC. The law provides that conserved water will be made available to specified California contracting water agencies according to established priorities. California Department of Water Resources - MWD Funding Agreement (2001). Reimburse MWD for project work necessary to construct the lining of the CC in an amount not to exceed $74 million. Modified by First Amendment (2004) to replace MWD with the Authority. Modified by Second Amendment (2004) to increase funding amount to $83.65 million, with addition of funds from Proposition 50. California Department of Water Resources - IID Funding Agreement (2001). Reimburse IID for project work necessary to construct a lined AAC in an amount not to exceed $126 million. MWD - CVWD Assignment and Delegation of Design Obligations Agreement (2002). Assigns design of the CC lining project to CVWD. MWD - CVWD Financial Arrangements Agreement for Design Obligations (2002). Obligates MWD to advance funds to CVWD to cover costs for CC lining project design and CVWD to invoice MWD to permit the Department of Water Resources to be billed for work completed. Allocation Agreement among the United States of America, The MWD Water District of Southern California, Coachella Valley Water District, Imperial Irrigation District, San Diego County Water Authority, the La Jolla, Pala, Pauma, Rincon, and San Pasqual Bands of Mission Indians, the San Luis Rey River Indian Water Authority, the City of Escondido, and Vista Irrigation District (October 10, 2003). This agreement includes assignment of MWD’s rights and interest in delivery of 77,700 acre-feet of Colorado River water previously intended to be delivered to MWD to the Water Authority. Allocates water from the AAC and CC lining projects for at least 110 years to the Water Authority, the San Luis Rey Indian Water Rights Settlement Parties, and IID, if it exercises its call rights. Amended and Restated Agreement between MWD and Water Authority for the Exchange of Water (October 10, 2003). This agreement was executed pursuant to the QSA and provides for delivery of the conserved canal lining water to the Water Authority. Agreement between MWD and Water Authority regarding Assignment of Agreements related to the AAC and CC Lining Projects. This agreement was executed in April 2004 and assigns MWD's rights to the Water Authority for agreements that had been executed to facilitate funding and construction of the AAC and CC lining projects: Otay Water District Water Supply Assessment and Verification Report Otay Ranch Village 14 and Planning Areas 16/19 Proposed Project Amendment 36 Assignment and Delegation of Construction Obligations for the Coachella Canal Lining Project under the Department of Water Resources Funding Agreement No. 4600001474 from the San Diego County Water Authority to the Coachella Valley Water District, dated September 8, 2004. Agreement Regarding the Financial Arrangements between the San Diego County Water Authority and Coachella Valley Water District for the Construction Obligations for the Coachella Canal Lining Project, dated September 8, 2004. Agreement No. 04-XX-30-W0429 Among the United States Bureau of Reclamation, the Coachella Valley Water District, and the San Diego County Water Authority for the Construction of the Coachella Canal Lining Project Pursuant to Title II of Public Law 100-675, dated October 19, 2004. California Water Code Section 12560 et seq. This Water Code Section provides for $200 million to be appropriated to the Department of Water Resources to help fund the canal lining projects in furtherance of implementing California’s Colorado River Water Use Plan. California Water Code Section 79567. This Water Code Section identifies $20 million as available for appropriation by the California Legislature from the Water Security, Clean Drinking Water, Coastal, and Beach Protection Fund of 2002 (Proposition 50) to DWR for grants for canal lining and related projects necessary to reduce Colorado River water use. According to the Allocation Agreement, it is the intention of the agencies that those funds will be available for use by the Water Authority, IID, or CVWD for the AAC and CC lining projects. California Public Resources Code Section 75050(b) (1). This section identifies up to $36 million as available for water conservation projects that implement the Allocation Agreement as defined in the Quantification Settlement Agreement. Federal, State, and Local Permits/Approvals AAC Lining Project Final EIS/EIR (March 1994). A final EIR/EIS analyzing the potential impacts of lining the AAC was completed by the Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) in March 1994. A Record of Decision was signed by Reclamation in July 1994, implementing the preferred alternative for lining the AAC. A re-examination and analysis of these environmental compliance documents by Reclamation in November 1999 determined that these documents continued to meet the requirements of the NEPA and the CEQA and would be valid in the future. CC Lining Project Final EIS/EIR (April 2001). The final EIR/EIS for the CC lining project was completed in 2001. Reclamation signed the Record of Decision in April 2002. An amended Record of Decision has also been signed to take into account revisions to the project description. Mitigation, Monitoring, and Reporting Program for Coachella Canal Lining Project, SCH #1990020408; prepared by Coachella Valley Water District, May 16, 2001. Otay Water District Water Supply Assessment and Verification Report Otay Ranch Village 14 and Planning Areas 16/19 Proposed Project Amendment 37 Environmental Commitment Plan for the Coachella Canal Lining Project, approved by the US Bureau of Reclamation (Boulder City, NV) on March 4, 2003. Environmental Commitment Plan and Addendum to the All-American Canal Lining Project EIS/EIR California State Clearinghouse Number SCH 90010472 (June 2004, prepared by IID). Addendum to Final EIS/EIR and Amendment to Environmental Commitment Plan for the All-American Canal Lining Project (approved June 27, 2006, by IID Board of Directors). 6.2.1.3 Carlsbad Seawater Desalination Project Development of seawater desalination in San Diego County has assisted the region in diversifying its water resources, reduce dependence on imported supplies, and provide a new drought-proof, locally treated water supply. The Carlsbad Desalination Project is a fully- permitted seawater desalination plant and conveyance pipeline developed by Poseidon, a private investor–owned company that develops water and wastewater infrastructure. The project, located near the Carlsbad Energy Center, has been in development since 1998 and was incorporated into the Water Authority’s 2003 Water Facilities Master Plan and the 2015 UWMP. The Carlsbad Desalination Project has obtained all required permits and environmental clearances and starting in late 2015 provides a highly reliable local supply of 48,000 to 56,000 acre-feet per year for the region. Implementation Status The Project has obtained all required permits and environmental clearances, including the following:  National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Discharge Permit (Regional Water Quality Control Board)  Conditional Drinking Water Permit (California Department of Health Services)  State Lands Commission Lease (State Lands Commission)  Coastal Development Permit (California Coastal Commission) IDE Technologies, a worldwide leader in the design, construction, and operation of desalination plants, was the desalination process contractor for the Project. On July 22, 2010, the Board approved a Term Sheet between the Water Authority and Poseidon Resources that outlined the key terms and conditions that would be detailed and incorporated in a comprehensive Water Purchase Agreement (WPA). Beginning in October 2011 and under the direction of the Board’s Carlsbad Desalination Project Advisory Group, staff began developing and negotiating with Poseidon a WPA consistent with the July 22, Otay Water District Water Supply Assessment and Verification Report Otay Ranch Village 14 and Planning Areas 16/19 Proposed Project Amendment 38 2010 Board approved Term Sheet. The July 2010 Term Sheet also identified specific conditions precedent to Board consideration of the WPA. On November 29, 2012, the Water Authority Board adopted a resolution approving the Design-Build Agreement between the Water Authority and Poseidon. The Design-Build Agreement established the commercial and technical terms for implementation of the desalination product pipeline improvements. These improvements consisted of an approximate 10-mile long, 54-inch diameter conveyance pipeline connecting the Desalination Plant to the Water Authority’s Second Aqueduct. The pipeline was generally be constructed within improved streets in commercial and industrial areas in the cities of Carlsbad, Vista, and San Marcos. The Water Authority owns the Project Water Pipeline Improvements and has assumed operational control of all pipeline improvements. This system was placed into service in late 2015. Expected Supply The Project provides a highly reliable local supply of 48,000 to 56,000 acre-feet per year of supply for the region, available in both normal and dry hydrologic conditions. In 2020, the Project would account for approximately 10% of the total projected regional supply and 30% of all locally generated water in San Diego County. The project more than doubles the amount of local supplies developed in the region since 1991. Transportation On November 29, 2012, the Water Authority Board adopted a resolution approving the Design-Build Agreement between the Water Authority and Poseidon. The Design-Build Agreement establishes the commercial and technical terms for implementation of the desalination product pipeline improvements. These improvements consisted of an approximate 10-mile long, 54-inch diameter conveyance pipeline connecting the Desalination Plant to the Water Authority’s Second Aqueduct. The pipeline was generally constructed within improved streets in commercial and industrial areas in the cities of Carlsbad, Vista, and San Marcos. The Water Authority owns the Project Water Pipeline Improvements and has assumed operational control of all pipeline improvements. The Water Authority was responsible for aqueduct improvements, including the relining and rehabilitation of Pipeline 3 to accept desalinated water under higher operating pressures, modifications to the San Marcos Vent that allows the flow of water between Pipelines 3 and 4, and improvements at the Twin Oaks Valley Water Treatment Plant necessary to integrate desalinated water into the Water Authority’s system for optimal distribution to member agencies. Cost/Financing Otay Water District Water Supply Assessment and Verification Report Otay Ranch Village 14 and Planning Areas 16/19 Proposed Project Amendment 39 The plant and the offsite pipeline is being financed through tax exempt government bonds issued for the Water Authority by the California Pollution Control Financing Authority (CPCFA). On November 29, 2012, the Water Authority Board adopted a resolution approving agreements to accomplish tax exempt project financing through the CPCFA. Based on current electricity cost estimates, the Water Purchase Agreement sets the price of the water from the Carlsbad Desalination Project at $2,131 to $2,367 per acre foot in 2016. The Water Authority’s water purchase costs would be financed through Water Authority rates and charges. Poseidon is financing the capital cost of the Project with a combination of private equity and tax-exempt Private Activity Bonds. Written Contracts or Other Proof The expected supply and costs associated with the Carlsbad Desalination Project are based primarily on the following documents: Development Agreement between City of Carlsbad and Poseidon (October 2009). A Development Agreement between Carlsbad and Poseidon was executed on October 5, 2009 Agreement of Term Sheet between the Water Authority and Poseidon Resources (July 2010). The Water Authority approved the Term Sheet at its July 2010 Board Meeting. The Term Sheet outlines the terms and conditions of a future Water Purchase Agreement with Poseidon and allocates the resources to prepare the draft Water Purchase Agreement. Federal, State, and Local Permits/Approvals Carlsbad Desalination Project Final EIR The City of Carlsbad, acting as lead agency for Carlsbad Seawater Desalination Plant and appurtenant facilities proposed by Poseidon (the “Project”) prepared an Environmental Impact Report for the Project in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”), which the City of Carlsbad certified on June 13, 2006. http://www.sdcwa.org/rwfmp-peir Regional Water Facilities Master Plan EIR On November 20, 2003, the Water Authority Board of Directors adopted Resolution No. 2003-34 certifying the Final Program Environmental Impact Report (State Clearinghouse No. 2003021052) for the Water Authority’s Regional Water Facilities Master Plan Project (the “Master Plan EIR”), which evaluated, among other things, potential growth inducing impacts associated with new water supplies to the region including, but not limited to, up to 150 million gallons per day (“MGD”) of new supplies from seawater desalination. This certification included a 50 MGD plant located in the City of Carlsbad. The environmental documents and permits are found at the following links: http://www.sdcwa.org/rwfmp-peir Sub regional Natural Community Conservation Plan/Habitat Conservation Plan (NCCP/HCP) Otay Water District Water Supply Assessment and Verification Report Otay Ranch Village 14 and Planning Areas 16/19 Proposed Project Amendment 40 On December 8, 2010, the Board adopted Resolution No. 2010-18 certifying a Final environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement for the San Diego County Water Authority Subregional Natural Community Conservation Plan/Habitat Conservation Plan (State Clearinghouse No. 2003121012) (the “Habitat Conservation Plan EIR/EIS”), which Plan was implemented on December 28, 201. The environmental documents and permits are found at the following links: http://www.sdcwa.org/nccp-hcp Twin Oaks Valley Water Treatment Plant EIR On September 8, 2005, the Board adopted Resolution No. 2005-31 certifying a Final Environmental Impact Report for the Twin Oaks Valley Water Treatment Plant Project (State Clearinghouse No. 20040071034) (the “Twin Oaks EIR”), which project was constructed as a 100 MGD submerged membrane water treatment facility, including treated water holding tanks and distribution pipelines and other facilities, consistent with the conditions and mitigation measures included in the Twin Oaks EIR. http://www.sdcwa.org/twin-oaks-valley-treatment-plant-final-eir Drinking Water Permit (October 2006). The California Department of Health Services approved the Conditional Drinking Water Permit on October 19, 2006. 6.2.2 Water Authority Capital Improvement Program and Financial Information The Water Authority’s Capital Improvement Program (CIP) can trace its beginnings to a report approved by the Board in 1989 entitled, The Water Distribution Plan, and a Capital Improvement Program through the Year 2010. The Water Distribution Plan included ten projects designed to increase the capacity of the aqueduct system, increase the yield from existing water treatment plants, obtain additional supplies from MWD, and increase the reliability and flexibility of the aqueduct system. Since that time the Water Authority has made numerous additions to the list of projects included in its CIP as the region’s infrastructure needs and water supply outlook have changed. The current list of projects included in the CIP is based on the results of planning studies, including the 2015 UWMP and the 2013 Regional Water Facilities Master Plan. These CIP projects, which are most recently described in the Water Authority’s Adopted Multi-Year Budget Fiscal Years 2018 and 2019, include projects valued at $118 million. These CIP projects are designed to meet projected water supply and delivery needs of the member agencies. The projects include a mix of new facilities that will add capacity to existing conveyance, storage, and treatment facilities, as well as repair and replace aging infrastructure: Otay Water District Water Supply Assessment and Verification Report Otay Ranch Village 14 and Planning Areas 16/19 Proposed Project Amendment 41  Asset Management – The primary components of the asset management projects include relining and replacing existing pipelines and updating and replacing metering facilities.  New Facilities – These projects will expand the capacity of the aqueduct system and evaluate new supply opportunities.  Emergency Storage Project – Projects remaining to be completed under the ongoing ESP include the San Vicente Dam Raise, the Lake Hodges projects, and a new pump station to extend ESP supplies to the northern reaches of the Water Authority service area.  Other Projects – This category includes out-of-region groundwater storage, increased local water treatment plant capacity, and projects that mitigate environmental impacts of the CIP. The Water Authority Board of Directors is provided a semi-annual and annual report on the status of development of the CIP projects. As described in the Water Authority’s biennial budget, a combination of long and short term debt and cash (pay-as-you-go) will provide funding for capital improvements. Additional information is included in the Water Authority’s biennial budget, which also contains selected financial information and summarizes the Water Authority’s investment policy. 6.3 Otay Water District The Otay Water District WFMP Update and the 2015 UWMP contain comparisons of projected supply and demands through the year 2040. Projected potable water resources to meet planned demands as documented were planned to be supplied entirely with imported water received from the Water Authority. Recycled water resources to meet projected demands are planned to be supplied from local wastewater treatment plants. The Otay WD currently has no local supply of raw water, potable water, or groundwater resources. The development and/or acquisition of potential groundwater, recycled water market expansion, and seawater desalination supplies by the Otay WD have evolved and are planned to occur in response to the regional water supply issues. These water supply projects are in addition to those identified as sustainable supplies in the current Water Authority and MWD UWMP, IRP, Master Plans, and other planning documents. These new additional water supply projects are not currently developed and are in various stages of the planning process. These local and regional water supply projects will allow for less reliance upon imported water and are considered a new water supply resource for the Otay WD. The supply forecasts contained within this WSA Report do consider development and/or acquisition of potential groundwater, recycled water market expansion, and seawater desalination supplies by the Otay WD. Otay Water District Water Supply Assessment and Verification Report Otay Ranch Village 14 and Planning Areas 16/19 Proposed Project Amendment 42 6.3.1 Availability of Sufficient Supplies and Plans for Acquiring Additional Supplies The availability of sufficient potable water supplies and plans for acquiring additional potable water supplies to serve existing and future demands of the Otay WD is founded upon the preceding discussions regarding MWD’s and the Water Authority’s water supply resources and water supplies to be acquired by the Otay WD. Historic imported water deliveries from the Water Authority to Otay WD and recycled water deliveries from the Otay WD Ralph W. Chapman Water Reclamation Facility (RWCWRF) are shown in Table 4. Since the year 2000 through mid-May 2007, recycled water demand has exceeded the recycled water supply capability typically in the summer months. The RWCWRF is limited to a maximum production of about 1,300 acre-feet per year. The recycled water supply shortfall had been met by supplementing with potable water into the recycled water storage system as needed by adding potable water supplied by the Water Authority. On May 18, 2007 an additional source of recycled water supply from the City of San Diego’s South Bay Water Reclamation Plant (SBWRP) became available. The supply of recycled water from the SBWRP is a result of completing construction and the operation of the transmission, storage, and pump station systems necessary to link the SBWRP recycled water supply source to the existing Otay WD recycled water system. Table 4 Otay Water District Historic Imported and Local Water Supplies Calendar Year Imported Water (acre-feet) Recycled Water (acre-feet) Total (acre-feet) 1980 12,558 0 12,558 1985 14,529 0 14,529 1990 23,200 0 23,200 1995 20,922 614 21,536 2000 29,901 948 30,849 2005 37,678 1,227 38,905 2010 29,270 4,090 33,270 2015 26,494 3,777 30,271 2016 27,289 3,888 31,177 2017 28,045 4,007 32,052 2018 29,286 3,967 33,253 Source: Otay Water District operational records. Otay Water District Water Supply Assessment and Verification Report Otay Ranch Village 14 and Planning Areas 16/19 Proposed Project Amendment 43 6.3.1.1 Imported and Regional Supplies The availability of sufficient imported and regional potable water supplies to serve existing and planned uses within Otay WD is demonstrated in the above discussion on MWD and the Water Authority’s water supply reliability. The County Water Authority Act, Section 5 subdivision 11, states that the Water Authority “as far as practicable, shall provide each of its member agencies with adequate supplies of water to meet their expanding and increasing needs.” The Water Authority provides between 75 to 95 percent of the total supplies used by its 24 member agencies, depending on local weather and supply conditions. Potable Water System Facilities The Otay WD continues to pursue diversification of its water supply resources to increase reliability and flexibility. The Otay WD also continues to plan, design, and construct potable water system facilities to obtain these supplies and to distribute potable water to meet customer demands. The Otay WD has successfully negotiated two water supply diversification agreements that enhance reliability and flexibility, which are briefly described as follows.  The Otay WD entered into an agreement with the City of San Diego, known as the Otay Water Treatment Plant (WTP) Agreement. The Otay WTP Agreement provides for raw water purchase from the Water Authority and treatment by the City of San Diego at their Otay WTP for delivery to Otay WD. The supply system link to implement the Otay WTP Agreement to access the regions raw water supply system and the local water treatment plant became fully operational in August 2005. This supply link consists of the typical storage, transmission, pumping, flow measurement, and appurtenances to receive and transport the treated water to the Otay WD system. The City of San Diego obligation to supply 10 mgd of treated water under the Otay WTP Agreement is contingent upon there being available 10 mgd of surplus treatment capacity in the Otay WTP until such time as Otay WD pays the City of San Diego to expand the Otay WTP to meet the Otay WD future needs. In the event that the City of San Diego’s surplus is projected to be less than 10 mgd the City of San Diego will consider and not unreasonably refuse the expansion of the Otay WTP to meet the Otay WD future needs. The Otay WTP existing rated capacity is 40 mgd with an actual effective capacity of approximately 34 mgd. The City of San Diego’s typical demand for treated water from the Otay WTP is approximately 20 mgd. It is at the City of San Diego’s discretion to utilize either imported raw water delivered by the Water Authority Pipeline No. 3 or local water stored in Lower Otay Reservoir for treatment to supply the Otay WD demand. The Otay WD entered into an agreement with the Water Authority, known as the East County Regional Treated Water Improvement Program (ECRTWIP Agreement). The ECRTWIP Agreement provides for transmission of raw water to the Helix WD R. M. Levy WTP for treatment and delivery to Otay WD. The supply system link to implement the ECRTWIP Agreement is complete allowing access to the regions raw water supply Otay Water District Water Supply Assessment and Verification Report Otay Ranch Village 14 and Planning Areas 16/19 Proposed Project Amendment 44 system and the local water treatment plant. This supply link consists of the typical transmission, pumping, storage, flow control, and appurtenances to receive and transport the potable water from the R. M. Levy WTP to Otay WD. Cost and Financing The capital improvement costs associated with water supply and delivery are financed through the Otay WD water meter capacity fee and user rate structures. The Otay WD potable water sales revenue are used to pay for the wholesale cost of the treated water supply and the operating and maintenance expenses of the potable water system facilities. Written Agreements, Contracts, or Other Proof The supply and cost associated with deliveries of treated water from the Otay WTP and the R.M. Levy WTP is based on the following documents. Agreement for the Purchase of Treated Water from the Otay Water Treatment Plant between the City of San Diego and the Otay Water District. The Otay WD entered into an agreement dated January 11, 1999 with the City of San Diego that provides for 10 mgd of surplus treated water to the Otay WD from the existing Otay WTP capacity. The agreement allows for the purchase of treated water on an as available basis from the Otay WTP. The Otay WD pays the Water Authority at the prevailing raw water rate for raw water and pays the City of San Diego at a rate equal to the actual cost of treatment to potable water standards. Agreement between the San Diego County Water Authority and Otay Water District Regarding Implementation of the East County Regional Treated Water Improvement Program. The ECRTWIP Agreement requires the purchase of potable water from the Helix WD R.M. Levy WTP at the prevailing Water Authority treated water rate. The ECRTWIP Agreement is dated April 27, 2006. Agreement between the San Diego County Water Authority and Otay Water District for Design, Construction, Operation, and Maintenance of the Otay 14 Flow Control Facility Modification. The Otay WD entered into the Otay 14 Flow Control Facility Modification Agreement dated January 24, 2007 with the Water Authority to increase the physical capacity of the Otay 14 Flow Control Facility. The Water Authority and Otay WD shared the capital cost to expand its capacity from 8 mgd to 16 mgd. Federal, State, and Local Permits/Approvals The Otay WD acquired all the permits for the construction of the pipeline and pump station associated with the Otay WTP supply source and for the 640-1 and 640-2 water storage reservoirs project associated with the ECRTWIP Agreement through the typical planning, environmental approval, design, and construction processes. Otay Water District Water Supply Assessment and Verification Report Otay Ranch Village 14 and Planning Areas 16/19 Proposed Project Amendment 45 The transmission main project constructed about 26,000 feet of a 36-inch diameter steel pipeline from the Otay 14 Flow Control Facility to the 640-1 and 640-2 Reservoirs project. The Otay 14 Flow Control Facility modification increased the capacity of the existing systems from 8 mgd to 16 mgd. CEQA documentation is complete for both projects. Construction of both of these projects was completed October 2010. The City of San Diego and the Helix Water District are required to meet all applicable federal, state, and local health and water quality requirements for the potable water produced at the Otay WTP and the R.M. Levy WTP respectively. 6.3.1.2 Recycled Water Supplies Wastewater collection, treatment, and disposal services provided by the Otay WD is limited to a relatively small area within what is known as the Jamacha Basin, located within the Middle Sweetwater River Basin watershed upstream of the Sweetwater Reservoir and downstream of Loveland Reservoir. Water recycling is defined as the treatment and disinfection of municipal wastewater to provide a water supply suitable for non-potable reuse. The Otay WD owns and operates the Ralph W. Chapman Water Reclamation Facility, which produces recycled water treated to a tertiary level for landscape irrigation purposes. The recycled water market area of the Otay WD is located primarily within the eastern area of the City of Chula Vista. The Otay WD distributes recycled water to a substantial market area that includes but is not limited to the Elite Athlete Training Center, the Eastlake Golf Course, Otay Ranch, and other development projects. The Otay WD projects that annual average demands for recycled water will increase to 6,500 acre-feet per year by 2050. About 1,300 acre-feet per year of supply is generated by the RWCWRF, with the remainder planned to be supplied to Otay WD by the City of San Diego’s SBWRP. Recycled Water System Facilities The Otay WD has constructed recycled water storage, pumping, transmission, and distribution facilities and will continue to construct these facilities to meet projected recycled water market demands. The Supply Link project consisting of a transmission main, storage reservoir, and a pump station to receive and transport the recycled water from the City of San Diego’s SBWRP was completed in 2007 and recycled water deliveries began on May 18, 2007. Cost and Financing The capital improvement costs associated with the recycled water supply and distribution systems are financed through the Otay WD water meter capacity fee and user rate structures. The Otay WD recycled water sales revenue, along with MWD and the Water Authority’s Otay Water District Water Supply Assessment and Verification Report Otay Ranch Village 14 and Planning Areas 16/19 Proposed Project Amendment 46 recycled water sales incentive programs are used to help offset the costs for the wholesale purchase and production of the recycled water supply, the operating and maintenance expenses, and the capital costs of the recycled water system facilities. Written Agreements, Contracts, or Other Proof The supply and cost associated with deliveries of recycled water from the SBWRP is based on the following document. Agreement between the Otay Water District and the City of San Diego for Purchase of Reclaimed Water from the South Bay Water Reclamation Plant. The agreement provides for the purchase of at least 6,721 acre-feet per year of recycled water from the SBWRP at an initial price of $350 per acre-foot. The Otay Water District Board of Directors approved the final agreement on June 4, 2003 and the San Diego City Council approved the final agreement on October 20, 2003. Effective January 1, 2016, the City of San Diego raised the cost of recycled water 116% to $754 per acre-foot. Federal, State, and Local Permits/Approvals The Otay WD has in place an agreement with MWD for their recycled water sales incentive program for supplies from the RWCWRF and the SBWRP. Also, the Otay WD has in place an agreement with the Water Authority for their recycled water sales incentive program for supplies from the RWCWRF and the SBWRP. The Water Authority sales incentive agreement was approved by Water Authority on July 26, 2007 and by Otay WD on August 1, 2007. All permits for the construction of the recycled water facilities to receive, store, and pump the SBWRP supply have been acquired through the typical planning, environmental approval, design, and construction processes. The California Regional Water Quality Control Board San Diego Region (RWQCB) “Master Reclamation Permit for Otay Water District Ralph W. Chapman Reclamation Facility” was adopted on May 9, 2007 (Order No. R9-2007-0038). This order establishes master reclamation requirements for the production, distribution, and use of recycled water in the Otay WD service area. The order includes the use of tertiary treated water produced and received from the City of San Diego‘s SBWRP. Recycled water received from and produced by the SBWRP is regulated by Regional Board Order No. 2000-203 and addenda. The City of San Diego is required to meet all applicable federal, state, and local health and water quality requirements for the recycled water produced at the SBWRP and delivered to Otay WD in conformance with Order No. 2000-203. 6.3.1.3 Potential Groundwater Supplies The Otay Water District WFMP Update, 2015 UWMP, and the 2015 Integrated Water Resources Plan Update all contain a description of the development of potential groundwater supplies. Over the past several years, Otay WD has studied numerous potential groundwater supply options that have shown, through groundwater monitoring well activities, poor quality Otay Water District Water Supply Assessment and Verification Report Otay Ranch Village 14 and Planning Areas 16/19 Proposed Project Amendment 47 water and/or insufficient yield from the basins at a cost effective level. The Otay WD has developed capital improvement program projects to continue the quest to develop potential groundwater resources. Local Otay WD groundwater supply development is currently considered as a viable water supply resource to meet projected demands. The development and/or acquisition of potential groundwater supply projects by the Otay WD have been on hold in response to the regional water supply issues related to water source supply conditions. Local ground water supply projects will allow for less reliance upon imported water, achieve a level of independence of the regional wholesale water agencies, and diversify the Otay WD water supply portfolio consistent with the Otay Water District 2015 IRP Update. In recognition of the need to develop sufficient alternative water supplies, the Otay WD has taken the appropriate next steps towards development of production groundwater well projects. The Otay WD is actively pursuing the Middle Sweetwater River Basin Groundwater Well project. Middle Sweetwater River Basin Groundwater Well The Middle Sweetwater River Basin Groundwater Well is an additional water supply project that was thoroughly studied and documented in the 1990s. The Middle Sweetwater River Basin is located within the Sweetwater River watershed and that reach of the river extends from Sweetwater Reservoir to the upstream Loveland Reservoir. The next step in development of the Middle Sweetwater River Basin Groundwater Well is the implementation of a pilot well project. The ultimate objective of the Otay WD is to develop a groundwater well production system within the Middle Sweetwater River Basin capable of producing a sustainable yield of potable water as a local supply. The purpose of the Middle Sweetwater River Basin Groundwater Well Pilot project is to identify the feasibility of developing a groundwater resource production system and then determine and assess any limitations or constraints that may arise. The Middle Sweetwater River Basin Groundwater Well Pilot Project will accomplish six primary goals:  Update project setting  Update applicable project alternatives analysis  Prepare groundwater well pilot project implementation plan  Construct and test pilot monitoring and extraction wells  Provide recommendations regarding costs and feasibility to develop a groundwater well production system within the Middle Sweetwater River Basin capable of producing a sustainable yield of potable water  Prepare groundwater well production project implementation plan and scope of work Otay Water District Water Supply Assessment and Verification Report Otay Ranch Village 14 and Planning Areas 16/19 Proposed Project Amendment 48 The groundwater conjunctive use concept is described as the extraction of the quantity of water from the groundwater basin that was placed there by customers of the Otay Water District, Helix Water District, and Padre Dam Municipal Water District by means of their use of imported treated water that contributed to the overall volume of groundwater within the basin. An estimated quantity was developed to be approximately 12.5 percent of the total consumption of the Otay WD customers within that basin, as measured by water meters. In the 1994-1995 period, the quantity of water that was returned to the groundwater basin by Otay WD customers was estimated to be 810 acre-feet per year. Currently, that 12.5 percent quantity could be on the order of 1,000 acre-feet per year. A future scope of work will need to addresses this concept while considering further development of the groundwater basin as an additional supply resource. If it is deemed that a Middle Sweetwater River Basin Groundwater Well Production Project is viable then the consultant will develop and provide a groundwater well production project implementation plan, cost estimate, and related scope of work. Further development of the groundwater basin to enhance the total groundwater production could be accomplished by the Otay WD by means of additional extraction of water from the basin that is placed there by means of either injection and/or spreading basins using imported untreated water as the resource supply. The existing La Mesa Sweetwater Extension Pipeline, owned by the Water Authority, once converted to an untreated water delivery system, could be the conveyance system to transport untreated water for groundwater recharge in support of this conjunctive use concept. These two distinct water resource supply conjunctive use concepts will be addressed so they may coexist and to allow for their development as separate phases. The scope of work to complete Middle Sweetwater River Basin Groundwater Well Pilot Project consists of many major tasks and is to address the groundwater supply concepts outlined above. It is anticipated that the cost for the entire scope of work, will be on the order of $2,000,000, which includes a contingency and may take up to one and a half years to complete. The primary desired outcome of the Middle Sweetwater River Basin Groundwater Well Pilot Project is for the engineering consultant to determine and make recommendations if it is financially prudent and physically feasible to develop a Phase I groundwater well production system within the Middle Sweetwater River Basin capable of producing a sustainable yield of up to 1,500 ac-ft/yr of potable water for the Otay WD. If it is deemed that a Middle Sweetwater River Basin Groundwater Well Production Project is viable then the consultant will develop and provide a groundwater well production project implementation plan and related scope of work. 6.3.1.4 Otay Water District Desalination Project Otay Water District Water Supply Assessment and Verification Report Otay Ranch Village 14 and Planning Areas 16/19 Proposed Project Amendment 49 The Otay WD is currently investigating the feasibility of purchasing desalinated water from a seawater reverse osmosis plant that is planned to be located in Rosarito, Mexico, known as the Otay Mesa Desalinated Water Conveyance System (Desalination) project. The treatment facility is intended to be designed, constructed, and operated in Mexico by a third party. The Otay WD’s draft Desalination Feasibility Study, prepared in 2008, discusses the likely issues to be considered in terms of water treatment and monitoring, potential conveyance options within the United States from the international border to potential delivery points, and environmental, institutional, and permitting considerations for the Otay WD to import the Desalination project product water as a new local water supply resource. While the treatment facility for the Desalination project will not be designed or operated by the Otay WD , it is important that the Otay WD maintain involvement with the planning, design, and construction of the facility to ensure that the implemented processes provide a product water of acceptable quality for distribution and use within the Otay WD’s system as well as in other regional agencies’ systems that may use the product water, i.e. City of San Diego, the Water Authority, etc. A seawater reverse osmosis treatment plant removes constituents of concern from the seawater, producing a water quality that far exceeds established United States and California drinking water regulations for most parameters, however, a two-pass treatment system may be required to meet acceptable concentrations of boron and chlorides, similar to the levels seen within the existing Otay WD supply sources. The Desalination Feasibility Study addresses product water quality that is considered acceptable for public health and distribution. The Otay WD, or any other potential participating agencies, will be required to get approval from the DDW in order to use the desalinated seawater as a water source. Several alternative approaches are identified for getting this approval. These alternatives vary in their cost and their likelihood of meeting DDW approval. The Rosarito Desalination Facility Conveyance and Disinfection System Project report addresses two supply targets for the desalinated water (i.e. local and regional). The local alternative assumes that only Otay WD would participate and receive desalinated water, while the regional alternative assumes that other regional and/or local agencies would also participate in the Rosarito project. On November 3, 2010, the Otay WD authorized the General Manager to enter into an agreement with AECOM for the engineering design, environmental documentation, and the permitting for the construction of the conveyance pipeline, pump station, and disinfection facility to be constructed within the Otay WD. The supply target is assumed to be 50 mgd while the ultimate capacity of the plant will be 100 mgd. The Otay WD is proceeding with negotiations among the parties. Otay Water District Water Supply Assessment and Verification Report Otay Ranch Village 14 and Planning Areas 16/19 Proposed Project Amendment 50 6.3.2 Otay Water District Capital Improvement Program The Otay WD plans, designs, constructs, and operates water system facilities to acquire sufficient supplies and to meet projected ultimate demands placed upon the potable and recycled water systems. In addition, the Otay WD forecasts needs and plans for water supply requirements to meet projected demands at ultimate build out. The necessary water facilities and water supply projects are implemented and constructed when development activities proceed and require service to achieve timely and adequate cost effective water service. New water facilities that are required to accommodate the forecasted growth within the entire Otay WD service area are defined and described within the Otay Water District WFMP Update. These facilities are incorporated into the annual Otay WD Six Year Capital Improvement Program (CIP) for implementation when required to support development activities. As major development plans are formulated and proceed through the land use jurisdictional agency approval processes, Otay WD prepares water system requirements specifically for the proposed development project consistent with the Otay WD WFMP Update. These requirements document, define, and describe all the potable water and recycled water system facilities to be constructed to provide an acceptable and adequate level of service to the proposed land uses, as well as the financial responsibility of the facilities required for service. The Otay WD funds the facilities identified as CIP projects. Established water meter capacity fees and user rates are collected to fund the CIP project facilities. The developer funds all other required water system facilities to provide water service to their project. Section 7 – Conclusion: Availability of Sufficient Supplies The Otay Ranch Village 14 and Planning Areas 16/19 Proposed Project Amendment is currently located within the jurisdictions of the Otay WD, Water Authority, and MWD. To obtain permanent imported water supply service, land areas are required to be within the jurisdictions of the Otay WD, Water Authority, and MWD to utilize imported water supply. The Water Authority and MWD have an established process that ensures supplies are being planned to meet future growth. Any annexations and revisions to established land use plans are captured in the SANDAG updated forecasts for land use planning, demographics, and economic projections. SANDAG serves as the regional, intergovernmental planning agency that develops and provides forecast information. The Water Authority and MWD update their demand forecasts and supply needs based on the most recent SANDAG forecast approximately every five years to coincide with preparation of their urban water management plans. Prior to the next forecast update, local jurisdictions with land use authority may require water supply assessment and/or verification reports for proposed land developments that are not within the Otay WD, Water Authority, or MWD jurisdictions (i.e. pending or proposed annexations) or that have revised land use plans with either lower or higher development intensities than reflected in the existing growth forecasts. Proposed land areas with pending Otay Water District Water Supply Assessment and Verification Report Otay Ranch Village 14 and Planning Areas 16/19 Proposed Project Amendment 51 or proposed annexations, or revised land use plans, typically result in creating higher demand and supply requirements than previously anticipated. The Otay WD, Water Authority, and MWD next demand forecast and supply requirements and associated planning documents would then capture any increase or decrease in demands and required supplies as a result of annexations or revised land use planning decisions. MWD’s IRP identifies a mix of resources (imported and local) that, when implemented, will provide 100 percent reliability for full-service demands through the attainment of regional targets set for conservation, local supplies, State Water Project supplies, Colorado River supplies, groundwater banking, and water transfers. The 2015 IRP Update describes an adaptive management strategy to protect the region from future supply shortages. This adaptive management strategy has five components: achieve additional conservation savings, develop additional local water supplies, maintain Colorado River Aqueduct supplies, stabilize State Water Project supplies, and maximize the effectiveness of storage and transfer. MWD’s 2015 IRP has a plan for identifying and implementing additional resources that expand the ability for MWD to meet future changes and challenges as necessary to ensure future reliability of supplies. The proper management of these resources help to ensure that the southern California region, including San Diego County, will have adequate water supplies to meet long-term future demands. MWD adopted its 2015 UWMP, in accordance with state law, on May 9, 2016. The resource targets included in the preceding 2015 IRP Update serve as the foundation for the planning assumptions used in the 2015 UWMP. MWD’s 2015 UWMP contains a water supply reliability assessment that includes a detailed evaluation of the supplies necessary to meet demands over a 20-year period in average, single dry year, and multiple dry year periods. As part of this process, MWD also uses the current SANDAG regional growth forecast in calculating regional water demands for the Water Authority’s service area. As stated in MWD’s 2015 UWMP, the plan may be used as a source document for meeting the requirements of SB 610 and SB 221 until the next scheduled update is completed in 5 years (2020). The 2015 UWMP includes a “Justifications for Supply Projections” in Appendix A.3, that provides detailed documentation of the planning, legal, financial, and regulatory basis for including each source of supply in the plan. In the Findings Section of the Executive Summary (Page ES-5) of their 2015 UWMP, MWD states that MWD has supply capacities that would be sufficient to meet expected demands from 2020 through 2040 under the single dry-year and multiple dry-year conditions. MWD has plans for supply implementation and continued development of a diversified resource mix including programs in the Colorado River Aqueduct, State Water Project, Central Valley Transfers, local resource projects, and in-region storage that enables the region to meet its water supply needs. MWD’s 2015 UWMP identifies potential reserve supplies in the supply capability analysis (Tables 2-4, 2-5 and 2-6), which could be available to meet the unanticipated demands. Otay Water District Water Supply Assessment and Verification Report Otay Ranch Village 14 and Planning Areas 16/19 Proposed Project Amendment 52 The County Water Authority Act, Section 5 subdivision 11, states that the Water Authority “as far as practicable, shall provide each of its member agencies with adequate supplies of water to meet their expanding and increasing needs.” As part of preparation of a written water supply assessment report, an agency’s shortage contingency analysis should be considered in determining sufficiency of supply. Section 11 of the Water Authority’s 2015 Updated UWMP contains a detailed shortage contingency analysis that addresses a regional catastrophic shortage situation and drought management. The analysis demonstrates that the Water Authority and its member agencies, through the Integrated Contingency Plan, Emergency Storage Project, Carlsbad Desalination Project, and Water Shortage Contingency Plan are taking actions to prepare for and appropriately handle an interruption of water supplies. The 2017 Water Shortage Contingency Plan provides the Water Authority and its member agencies with a series of potential actions to take when faced with a shortage of imported water supplies from MWD due to prolonged drought or other supply shortfall conditions. The actions will help the region avoid or minimize the impacts of shortages and ensure an equitable allocation of supplies. The WSA&V Report identifies and describes the processes by which water demand projections for the proposed Otay Ranch Village 14 and Planning Areas 16/19 Proposed Project Amendment will be fully included in the water demand and supply forecasts of the Urban Water Management Plans and other water resources planning documents of the Water Authority and MWD. Water supplies necessary to serve the demands of the proposed Otay Ranch Village 14 and Planning Areas 16/19 Proposed Project Amendment, along with existing and other projected future users, as well as the actions necessary and status to develop these supplies, have been identified in the Otay Ranch Village 14 and Planning Areas 16/19 Proposed Project Amendment WSA&V Report and will be included in the future water supply planning documents of the Water Authority and MWD. This WSA&V Report includes, among other information, an identification of existing water supply entitlements, water rights, water service contracts, water supply projects, or agreements relevant to the identified water supply needs for the proposed Otay Ranch Village 14 and Planning Areas 16/19 Proposed Project Amendment. This WSA Report assesses, demonstrates, and documents that sufficient water supplies are planned for and are intended to be available over a 20-year planning horizon, under normal conditions and in single and multiple dry years to meet the projected demand of the proposed Otay Ranch Village 14 and Planning Areas 16/19 Proposed Project Amendment and the existing and other planned development projects to be served by the Otay WD. Table 5 presents the forecasted balance of water demands and required supplies for the Otay WD service area under average or normal year conditions. The total actual demand for FY 2015 was 30,271 acre feet. The demand for FY 2015 is 2,999 acre feet lower than the demand in FY 2010 of 33,270 acre feet. The drop in demand is a result of the unit price of water, the conservation efforts of users as a result of the prolonged drought, and the economy. Otay Water District Water Supply Assessment and Verification Report Otay Ranch Village 14 and Planning Areas 16/19 Proposed Project Amendment 53 Table 5 presents the forecasted balance of water demands and supplies for the Otay WD service area under single dry year conditions. Table 6 presents the forecasted balance of water demands and supplies for the Otay WD service area under multiple dry year conditions for the three year period ending in 2019. The multiple dry year conditions for periods ending in 2025, 2030, and 2035 are provided in the Otay Water District 2015 UWMP. The projected potable demand and supply requirements shown the Tables 5 and 6 are from the Otay WD 2015 UWMP. Hot, dry weather may generate urban water demands that are about 6.4 percent greater than normal. This percentage was utilized to generate the dry year demands shown in Table 6. The recycled water supplies are assumed to experience no reduction in a dry year. Table 5 Projected Balance of Water Demands and Supplies Normal Year Conditions (acre feet) Description FY 2020 FY 2025 FY 2030 FY 2035 FY 2040 Demands Otay WD Demands 47,328 54,771 57,965 59,279 65,913 Active Conservation Savings (2,111) (1,844) (1,585) (1,538) (1,587) Accelerated Forecast Growth (AFG) – Planning Area 12 46 46 46 46 46 AFG – Otay Sunroad EOM SPA 836 836 836 836 836 AFG University Innovation District 11.7 11.7 11.7 11.7 11.7 Passive Conservation Savings (2,497) (4,497) (5,489) (6,040) (6,744) Total Demand 43,613.7 49,323.7 51,784.7 52,594.7 58,475.7 Supplies Water Authority Supply 37,943.7 43,423.7 45,784.7 46,394.7 51,975.7 Recycled Water Supply 5,670 5,900 6,000 6,200 6,500 Total Supply 43,613.7 49,323.7 51,784.7 52,594.7 58,475.7 Supply Surplus/(Deficit) 0 0 0 0 0 Table 6 presents the forecasted balance of water demands and supplies for the Otay WD service area under single dry year and multiple dry year conditions from the Otay Water District 2015 UWMP. Otay Water District Water Supply Assessment and Verification Report Otay Ranch Village 14 and Planning Areas 16/19 Proposed Project Amendment 54 Table 6 Projected Balance of Water Demands and Supplies Single Dry and Multiple Dry Year Conditions (acre feet) Normal Year Single Dry Year Multiple Dry Years FY 2011 FY 2017 FY 2017 FY 2018 FY 2019 Demands Otay WD Demands 37,176 38,749 38,844 40,378 42,430 Total Demand 37,176 38,749 38,844 40,378 42,430 Supplies Water Authority Supply 33,268 33,877 33,972 35,240 37,026 Recycled Water Supply 3,908 4,872 4,872 5,138 5,404 Total Supply 37,176 34,639 38,844 40,378 42,430 Supply Surplus/(Deficit) 0 0 0 0 0 District Demand totals with SBX7-7 conservation target achievement plus single dry year increase as shown. The Water Authority could implement its DMP. In this instances, the Water Authority may have to allocate supply shortages based on it equitable allocation methodology in its DMP. Dry year demands assumed to generate a 7% increase in demand over normal conditions for a single dry year. For multiple dry years an 8% increase in demand over normal conditions is projected in the first year, 14% in the second year and 21% increase is projected in the third year in addition to new demand growth. In evaluating the availability of sufficient water supply, the Otay Ranch Village 14 and Planning Areas 16/19 Proposed Project Amendment development proponents will be required to participate in the development of alternative water supply project(s). This can be achieved through payment of the New Water Supply Fee adopted by the Otay WD Board in May 2010. These water supply projects are in addition to those identified as sustainable supplies in the current Water Authority and MWD UWMP, IRP, Master Plans, and other planning documents. These new water supply projects are in response to the regional water supply issues related to climatological, environmental, legal, and other challenges that impact water source supply conditions, such as the court rulings regarding the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta and the current ongoing western states drought conditions. These new additional water supply projects are not currently developed and are in various stages of the planning process. The Otay WD water supply development program includes but is not limited to projects such as the Middle Sweetwater River Basin Groundwater Well projectand the Otay WD Desalination project. The Water Authority and MWD’s next forecasts and supply planning documents would capture any increase in water supplies resulting from any new water resources developed by the Otay WD. The Otay WD acknowledges the ever-present challenge of balancing water supply with demand and the inherent need to possess a flexible and adaptable water supply implementation strategy that can be relied upon during normal and dry weather conditions. The responsible regional water supply agencies have and will continue to adapt their resource Otay Water District Water Supply Assessment and Verification Report Otay Ranch Village 14 and Planning Areas 16/19 Proposed Project Amendment 55 plans and strategies to meet climate, environmental, and legal challenges so that they may continue to provide water supplies to their service areas. The regional water suppliers along with Otay WD fully intend to maintain sufficient reliable supplies through the 20-year planning horizon under normal, single, and multiple dry year conditions to meet projected demand of the Otay Ranch Village 14 and Planning Areas 16/19 Proposed Project Amendment, along with existing and other planned development projects within the Otay WD service area. This WSA&V Report assesses, demonstrates, and documents that sufficient water supplies are planned for and are intended to be acquired, as well as the actions necessary and status to develop these supplies, to meet projected water demands of the Otay Ranch Village 14 and Planning Areas 16/19 Proposed Project Amendment as well as existing and other reasonably foreseeable planned development projects within the Otay WD for a 20-year planning horizon, in normal and in single and multiple dry years. Otay Water District Water Supply Assessment and Verification Report Otay Ranch Village 14 and Planning Areas 16/19 Proposed Project Amendment 56 Source Documents Otay Ranch Village 14 and Planning Areas 16/19 Proposed Project Amendment SB 610 and SB 221 Compliance request letter received November 25, 2019. CH2M and Otay Water District, “Otay Water District 2015 Urban Water Management Plan Update”, May 2016. City of Chula Vista, “Otay Ranch General Development Plan/Sub-regional Plan, The Otay Ranch Joint Planning Project,” October 1993 amended June 1996. Otay Water District, “2015 Water Facilities Master Plan Update,” dated March 2016. Carollo and Otay Water District, 2015 Integrated Water Resources Plan Update, June 2015. San Diego County Water Authority, “Final 2015 Urban Water Management Plan, June, 2016. MWD Water District of Southern California, “2015 Urban Water Management Plan,” June 2016. Camp Dresser & McKee, Inc., “Rosarito Desalination Facility Conveyance and Disinfection System Project,” June 21, 2010. PBS&J, “Draft Otay Water District North District Recycled Water System Development Project, Phase I Concept Study,” December 2008. NBS Lowry, “Middle Sweetwater River System Study Water Resources Audit,” June 1991. Michael R. Welch, “Middle Sweetwater River System Study Alternatives Evaluation,” May 1993. Michael R. Welch, “Middle Sweetwater River Basin Conjunctive Use Alternatives,” September 1994. Geoscience Support Services, Inc., “Otay Mesa Lot 7 Well Investigation,” May 2001. Boyle Engineering Corporation, “Groundwater Treatment Feasibility Study Ranch del Rey Well Site,” September 1996. Agreement for the Purchase of Treated Water from the Otay Water Treatment Plant between the City of San Diego and the Otay Water District. Otay Water District Water Supply Assessment and Verification Report Otay Ranch Village 14 and Planning Areas 16/19 Proposed Project Amendment 57 Agreement between the San Diego County Water Authority and Otay Water District regarding Implementation of the East County Regional Treated Water Improvement Program. Agreement between the San Diego County Water Authority and Otay Water District for Design, Construction, Operation, and Maintenance of the Otay 14 Flow Control Facility Modification. Agreement between the Otay Water District and the City of San Diego for Purchase of Reclaimed Water from the South Bay Water Reclamation Plant. Otay Water District Water Supply Assessment and Verification Report Otay Ranch Village 14 and Planning Areas 16/19 Proposed Project Amendment 58 Appendix A Otay Ranch Village 14 and Planning Areas 16/19 Project Vicinity Map Otay Water District Water Supply Assessment and Verification Report Otay Ranch Village 14 and Planning Areas 16/19 Proposed Project Amendment 59 Appendix B Otay Ranch Village 14 and Planning Areas 16/19 Proposed Project Amendment Development Plan Otay Water District Board of Directors Meeting February 5, 2020 Water Supply Assessment & Verification Report for the Otay Ranch Village 14 and Planning Area 16/19 Proposed Project Amendment SB 610 & SB 221 Compliance EXHIBIT D BACKGROUND•Senate Bills 610 and 221, effective on 1/1/2002, with the intent to improve the link between water supply availability and land use decisions. •SB 610 requires a Water Supply Assessment (WSA) and SB 221 requires a Water Supply Assessment & Verification (WSA&V) to be included in the CEQA documents for a project. •Board approval required for submittal of the WSA&V Report to the County of San Diego. Otay Ranch Village 14 & Planning Area 16/19 Proposed Project Amendment •Original project WSA&V report approved by Board in January, 2018 and project was approved by the County in June, 2019. •After County approval,the developer (Jackson Pendo) entered into a Dispute Resolution Agreement with CDFW, USFWS,&the County,amending the project. •The changes proposed in the amendment of the project require the preparation of a new WSA&V report. •Project amendment has 1,266 residential units (1,253 units in Village 14, 13 units in PA 19) within a development area of 579 acres out of a total project area of 1,543 acres. Potable Water Demand•Expected potable water demand is 845.8 acre-feet per year (AFY) (755,060 GPD) . This is 48 AFY less than the original approved project. •Recycled water use is not planned because the project is tributary to the Upper and Lower Otay Reservoirs. Otay Water DistrictProjected Balance of Supply and Demand Description FY 2020 FY 2025 FY 2030 FY 2035 FY 2040 Demands Otay WD Demands 47,328 54,771 57,965 59,279 65,913 Active Conservation Savings (2,111)(1,844)(1,585)(1,538)(1,587) Accelerated Forecast Growth (AFG) - Planning Area 12 46 46 46 46 46 AFG –Otay Sunroad EOM SPA 836 836 836 836 836 AFG –University Innovation District 11.7 11.7 11.7 11.7 11.7 Passive Conservation Savings (2,497)(4,497)(5,489)(6,040)(6,744) Total Demand 43,613.7 49,323.7 51,784.7 52,594.7 58,475.7 Supplies Water Authority Supply 37,943.7 43,423.7 45,784.7 46,394.7 51,975.7 Recycled Water Supply 5,670 5,900 6,000 6,200 6,500 Total Supply 43,613.7 49,323.7 51,784.7 52,594.7 58,475.7 Supply Surplus/(Deficit)0 0 0 0 0 CONCLUSION•Water demand and supply forecasts are included in the planning documents of Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, San Diego County Water Authority, and the Otay Water District. •Actions necessary to develop the identified water supplies are documented. •The SB 610 & SB 221 WSA&V Report documents that sufficient water supplies are planned for and available over the next 20 years. •The Board has met the intent of the SB 610 and SB 221 statutes. Questions? STAFF REPORT TYPE MEETING: Regular Board MEETING DATE: February 5, 2020 SUBMITTED BY: Lisa Coburn-Boyd Environmental Compliance Specialist PROJECT: P2040-001101 DIV. NO. 5 APPROVED BY: Bob Kennedy, Engineering Manager Dan Martin, Assistant Chief, Engineering Rod Posada, Chief, Engineering Mark Watton, General Manager SUBJECT: Adoption of an Addendum to the 2015 Water Facilities Master Plan Update 2016 Final Program Environmental Impact Report for the 1655-1 Reservoir Project GENERAL MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATION: That the Otay Water District (District) Board of Directors (Board) approve and adopt the 1655-1 Reservoir, Access Road, and 12-inch Pipeline Project (1655-1 Reservoir Project) Addendum to the 2016 Final Program Environmental Impact Report (Final PEIR) for the 2015 Water Facilities Master Plan Update (2015 WFMP Update)(see Exhibit A for Project location). COMMITTEE ACTION: Please see Attachment A. PURPOSE: To obtain Board approval for the adoption of the 1655-1 Reservoir Project Addendum to the Final PEIR 2015 WFMP Update. AGENDA ITEM 10 2 ANALYSIS: The 1655-1 Reservoir Project consists of a 0.5 million gallon (MG) concrete potable water reservoir, associated 12-inch diameter pipeline, and 22-foot-wide access road. Previous environmental review has been conducted for the project including the following: • A Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) was prepared and adopted for the reservoir component of the proposed project in 1994. At that time, the reservoir was proposed to be 1.0 MG and two sites were analyzed. • An addendum to the original MND was prepared in 1996 and approved by the Board. The addendum was prepared to analyze a reduction in the size of the reservoir to 0.5 MG and a change in the project site to one of the sites analyzed in the original MND, but at a different elevation. • In 1998, a second addendum was prepared and approved by the Board. This second addendum analyzed a further reduction in the size of the reservoir to 0.4 MG and with a slightly different impact area. The proposed project is also included in the District’s 2015 WFMP Update and was analyzed in the associated Final PEIR. The Final PEIR for the 2015 WFMP Update was certified by the District Board on January 4, 2017. The Final PEIR analyzed, at a programmatic level, the potential environmental impacts of implementing various Capital Improvement Program (CIP) projects associated with the 2015 WFMP Update, including the 1655-1 Reservoir Project. The Addendum provides additional project-specific details from what was described and evaluated in the 2016 Final PEIR. The Addendum documents that none of the conditions outlined in the State CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162 or 15163 requiring the preparation of a subsequent or supplemental Environmental Impact Report (EIR) are present in the proposed project. Additionally, the proposed project meets the conditions in the State CEQA Guidelines Section 15164, which allows for the approval of an addendum to a previous environmental document to demonstrate CEQA compliance. The proposed project would not result in any new significant impacts or substantially increase the severity of impacts that were previously identified in the Final PEIR, and no previously infeasible mitigation measures or alternatives are now feasible but have been declined for adoption. None of the other factors set forth in the State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a)(3) are applicable. Therefore, an addendum is appropriate. The District is the Lead Agency under CEQA and with the assistance of ICF, has prepared the Addendum to analyze the environmental effects of 3 the proposed changes to the approved project. The Final PEIR and the Addendum serve as the environmental review of the proposed project. The proposed project has been analyzed in the Addendum to ensure that it would not result in new or substantially more severe impacts or require new mitigation measures that were not previously identified in the Final PEIR. As described in the environmental analysis, impacts resulting from the proposed project would be less than significant, and there would be no new significant impacts or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified impacts. The changes would not require any new mitigation measures that were not already required as part of the Final PEIR. The Final PEIR included mitigation measures, standard construction practices (SCPs), and/or project design features (PDFs) specific to the proposed project to reduce potentially significant environmental impacts. Appendix A of the Addendum, Mitigation, Monitoring, and Reporting Program, provides a complete list of the applicable mitigation measures, SCPs, and PDFs for the project from the Final PEIR. 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." GRANTS/LOANS: Not applicable. LEGAL IMPACT: None. LC-B/BK:jf P:\WORKING\CIP P2040 1655-1 Reservoir 0.5 MG\Staff Reports\BD_02-05-20_1655-1 Reservoir Addendum Staff Report (LCB-BK).docx Attachments: Attachment A – Committee Action Attachment B – 1655-1 Reservoir Project Addendum Exhibit A – Location Map ATTACHMENT A SUBJECT/PROJECT: P2040-001101 Adoption of an Addendum to the 2015 Water Facilities Master Plan Update 2016 Final Program Environmental Impact Report for the 1655-1 Reservoir Project COMMITTEE ACTION: The Engineering, Operations, and Water Resources Committee (Committee) reviewed this item at a meeting held on January 21, 2020. 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. 1655-1 RESERVOIR, ACCESS ROAD, AND 12-INCH PIPELINE PROJECT ADDENDUM TO THE FINAL PROGRAM ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE 2015 WATER FACILITIES MASTER PLAN UPDATE (SCH NO. 2015061091) PREPARED FOR: Otay Water District 2554 Sweetwater Springs Boulevard Spring Valley, CA 91978 Contact: Lisa Coburn-Boyd 619-670-2219 PREPARED BY: ICF 525 B Street, Suite 1700 San Diego, CA, 92101 Contact: Charlie Richmond 858-444-3911 October 2019 ATTACHMENT B ICF. 2019. 1655-1 Reservoir, Access Road, and 12-inch Pipeline Project, Addendum to the Final Program Environmental Impact Report for the 2015 Water Facilities Master Plan Update. October. (ICF 25.19). Prepared for Otay Water District, Spring Valley, CA. Addendum to the Final PEIR for the 2015 Water Facilities Master Plan Update i October 2019 ICF 00025.19 Contents List of Figures .......................................................................................................................................... ii List of Acronyms and Abbreviations ...................................................................................................... iii Chapter 1 Introduction and Summary .............................................................................................. 1-1 1.1 Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 1-1 1.2 Previous Environmental Review ...................................................................................... 1-1 1.3 Determination .................................................................................................................. 1-2 Chapter 2 Project Description .......................................................................................................... 2-1 2.1 Project Location and Setting ............................................................................................ 2-1 2.2 Summary of Approved Project ......................................................................................... 2-1 2.3 Project Description .......................................................................................................... 2-2 Chapter 3 Environmental Impact Analysis ........................................................................................ 3-1 3.1 Aesthetics ......................................................................................................................... 3-1 3.2 Agricultural and Forestry Resources ................................................................................ 3-4 3.3 Air Quality ........................................................................................................................ 3-4 3.4 Biological Resources ........................................................................................................ 3-7 3.5 Cultural Resources ......................................................................................................... 3-13 3.6 Energy ............................................................................................................................ 3-16 3.7 Geology and Soils ........................................................................................................... 3-17 3.8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions ............................................................................................ 3-22 3.9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials ................................................................................. 3-23 3.10 Hydrology and Water Quality ........................................................................................ 3-27 3.11 Land Use and Planning ................................................................................................... 3-29 3.12 Mineral Resources ......................................................................................................... 3-31 3.13 Noise .............................................................................................................................. 3-32 3.14 Population and Housing ................................................................................................. 3-34 3.15 Public Services................................................................................................................ 3-35 3.16 Recreation ...................................................................................................................... 3-36 3.17 Transportation and Traffic ............................................................................................. 3-37 3.18 Utilities and Service Systems ......................................................................................... 3-38 Chapter 4 Conclusions ..................................................................................................................... 4-1 Appendix A Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Appendix B Biological Technical Report Appendix C Cultural Resources Survey Addendum to the Final PEIR for the 2015 Water Facilities Master Plan Update ii October 2019 ICF 00025.19 Figures Figure Page 2-1 Regional Vicinity Map ........................................................................................................................................ 2-3 2-2 Project Location.................................................................................................................................................... 2-4 2-3 Project Site Plan.................................................................................................................................................... 2-5 Addendum to the Final PEIR for the 2015 Water Facilities Master Plan Update iii October 2019 ICF 00025.19 Acronyms and Abbreviations AB Assembly Bill ARB California Air Resources Board BMO Biological Mitigation Ordinance BMPs best management practices Board Board of Directors CBC California Building Code CDFW California Department of Fish and Wildlife CEQA California Environmental Quality Act CFR Code of Federal Regulations CIP Capital Improvement Program CO2e carbon dioxide equivalent dBA A-weighted decibels District Otay Water District DTSC Department of Toxic Substances Control EIR Environmental Impact Report EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency GHGs greenhouse gases HCPs Habitat Conservation Plans HMA Habitat Management Area HMBP Hazardous Materials Business Plan MG million gallon MLD most likely descendant MND Mitigated Negative Declaration MRZ Mineral Resource Zone MSCP Multiple Species Conservation Program MT metric tons NAHC Native American Heritage Commission NCCPs Natural Community Conservation Plans NOX nitrogen oxide OWD Otay Water District PAMA preapproved mitigation area PDF Project Design Feature PEIR Program Environmental Impact Report PM10 particulate matter less than 10 microns in diameter PM2.5 particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in diameter PRC Public Resources Code RAQS Regional Air Quality Standards RWQCB Regional Water Quality Control Board Addendum to the Final PEIR for the 2015 Water Facilities Master Plan Update iv October 2019 ICF 00025.19 SANDAG San Diego Association of Governments SDAPCD San Diego Air Pollution Control District SCP Standard Construction Practice SDCWA San Diego County Water Authority SIP State Implementation Plan SR-94 State Route 94 SWPPP Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan SWRCB State Water Resources Control Board TACs toxic air contaminants UBC Unified Building Code USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service USTs underground storage tanks VOC volatile organic compounds WFMP Water Facilities Master Plan Addendum to the Final PEIR for the 2015 Water Facilities Master Plan Update 1-1 October 2019 ICF 00025.19 Chapter 1 Introduction and Summary 1.1 Introduction The Otay Water District (OWD or District) is proposing the 1655-1 Reservoir, Access Road, and 12- inch Pipeline Project, which consists of a 0.5 million gallon (MG) concrete potable water reservoir, associated 12-inch diameter pipeline, and 22-foot-wide access road (proposed project). This Addendum provides additional project-specific details for from what was described and evaluated in the 2016 Final Program Environmental Impact Report (PEIR) for the 2015 Water Facilities Master Plan Update, as further detailed below. The District, as the lead agency under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), has prepared this Addendum to the Final PEIR. This Addendum documents that the proposed project would not meet the conditions outlined in State CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162 or 15163 requiring the preparation of a subsequent or supplemental Environmental Impact Report (EIR), respectively, and would meet the conditions in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15164, which allows for the approval of an addendum to a previous environmental document to demonstrate CEQA compliance. The proposed project would not exceed the capacity of the reservoir described and analyzed in the Final PEIR. This section includes a summary of the previous environmental documentation associated with the proposed project, descriptions of the existing site conditions and project details, an overview of applicable State CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162 and 15164 that permit the preparation of an addendum to a previous environmental document, and a determination by the District that an addendum to the Final PEIR is appropriate for the proposed project. The District’s determination in Section 1.3 below is supported by the analysis in Chapter 3, Environmental Impact Analysis, of this Addendum. 1.2 Previous Environmental Review A Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) was prepared and adopted for the reservoir component of the proposed project in 1994. At that time, the reservoir was proposed to be 1.0 MG and two sites were analyzed. An addendum to the original MND was prepared in 1996 and approved by the District Board of Directors (Board). The addendum was prepared to analyze a reduction in the size of the reservoir to 0.5 MG and a change in the project site. The reservoir analyzed in the 1996 addendum was located at one of the sites analyzed in the original MND but at a different elevation. In 1998, a second addendum was prepared and approved by the Board. The second addendum was prepared to analyze a further reduction in the size of the reservoir to 0.4 MG and with a slightly different impact area. In 2000, design of the reservoir, pipeline, and access road was started. The proposed project is also included in the District’s 2015 Water Facilities Master Plan (WFMP) Update and was analyzed in the associated Final PEIR (August 2016). The Final PEIR for the 2015 WFMP Update was certified by the District Board on January 4, 2017. The Final PEIR analyzed, at a programmatic level, the potential environmental impacts of implementing various Capital Improvement Program (CIP) projects associated with the 2015 WFMP Update. The purpose of the Otay Water District Chapter 1. Introduction and Summary Addendum to the Final PEIR for the 2015 Water Facilities Master Plan Update 1-2 October 2019 ICF 00025.19 2015 WFMP Update was to revise the 2009 Water Resources Management Plan, update planning criteria and the District’s hydraulic system models, map out water and recycled water facility improvements; update the District’s CIP, and identify adaptive responses to changed conditions. The 2015 WFMP Update identified the necessary potable and recycled water CIP facilities and associated probable cost estimates, as well as developed a phased approach to implement the CIP projects. The CIP projects identified in the 2015 WFMP Update are intended to ensure an adequate, reliable, flexible, and cost-effective potable and recycled water delivery system. The projects were classified into five general categories: storage, pump station, pipeline, water supply, and miscellaneous CIP projects. The proposed project was identified as a Phase II (2017–2022) potable water storage CIP project (project number P2040) with a storage capacity of 0.5 MG in the Final PEIR. The project as currently proposed would be located on the same site analyzed in the 1998 second addendum to the MND. The Final PEIR included mitigation measures, standard construction practices (SCPs), and/or project design features (PDFs) specific to the proposed project to reduce potentially significant impacts related to aesthetics, air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, energy, geology and soils, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, land use and planning, noise, and transportation and traffic. See Appendix A, Mitigation, Monitoring, and Reporting Program, for a complete list of the applicable mitigation measures, SCPs, and PDFs from the Final PEIR. 1.3 Determination When an MND or EIR has been previously adopted or certified, any later discretionary actions must be reviewed by the Lead Agency, taking into consideration the prior environmental document, to determine if additional analysis is needed. State CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162 and 15164 set forth criteria to assess what document is appropriate. The criteria for determining whether an addendum or subsequent EIR or MND is required are outlined below; if the criteria below are not met, then an addendum is the appropriate document.  Substantial changes to a project are proposed that will require major revisions to the previous EIR or MND because of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects.  Substantial changes will occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken that will require major revisions to the previous EIR or MND because of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects.  New information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous EIR was certified as complete or the MND was adopted, indicates any of the following: A. The project will have one or more significant effects that were not discussed in the previous EIR or MND; B. Significant effects that were previously examined will be substantially more severe than indicated in the previous EIR; Otay Water District Chapter 1. Introduction and Summary Addendum to the Final PEIR for the 2015 Water Facilities Master Plan Update 1-3 October 2019 ICF 00025.19 C. Mitigation measures or alternatives that were previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but the project proponents have declined to adopt the mitigation measures or alternatives; or D. Mitigation measures or alternatives that are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the project proponents have declined to adopt the mitigation measures or alternatives. Based on the information provided in Chapter 3 below, the District has determined that an addendum to the 2015 WFMP Update Final PEIR is appropriate for the proposed project. The proposed project would not result in any new significant impacts or substantially increase the severity of impacts that were previously identified in the Final PEIR, and no previously infeasible mitigation measures or alternatives are now feasible, but have been declined for adoption. None of the other factors set forth in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a)(3) are applicable. Therefore, an addendum is appropriate. The District is the Lead Agency under CEQA and has prepared this Addendum to analyze the environmental effects of the proposed changes to the approved project. The Final PEIR and this Addendum, together with other documents that are incorporated herein by reference, serve as the environmental review of the proposed project. Otay Water District Chapter 1. Introduction and Summary Addendum to the Final PEIR for the 2015 Water Facilities Master Plan Update 1-4 October 2019 ICF 00025.19 This page intentionally left blank. Addendum to the Final PEIR for the 2015 Water Facilities Master Plan Update 2-1 October 2019 ICF 00025.19 Chapter 2 Project Description 2.1 Project Location and Setting The proposed project is located in the Rancho Jamul Estates area in the unincorporated community of Jamul, San Diego County, California (see Figures 2-1 and 2-2). Regional access is provided by State Route 94 (SR-94), which travels in an east–west direction. Local access is provided via Rancho Jamul Drive and Presilla Drive. The project site is located east of the north end of Presilla Drive in relatively undeveloped land. 2.2 Summary of Approved Project The Final PEIR programmatically analyzed the potential environmental impacts associated with construction and operation of several CIP projects, including the proposed project. The Final PEIR analyzed both proposed near-term (Phase II) and subsequent long-term (Phase III) activities associated with implementation of the 2015 WFMP Update. The CIP projects identified in the 2015 WFMP Update were classified into five general categories: storage, pump station, pipeline, water supply, and miscellaneous CIP projects. As described in the Final PEIR, the potable water system improvements recommended in the 2015 WFMP Update would consist of several major pump stations, reservoirs, and transmission mains to expand service throughout the District and resolve existing storage, pumping, and water supply deficiencies. The CIP potable water storage projects shown on Figure 3-2a and listed in Table 3-2 of the Final PEIR were identified as being necessary to meet the Phase II, Phase IIIA, and Phase IIIB storage needs of the District’s potable water system. The following describes the potable water CIP phasing for the 2015 WFMP Update, as defined in the Final PEIR.  Phase I (2105–2016): projects that are currently in design or under construction. An example of such a project is the 870‐2 pump station replacement project under design. These projects are noted but are not included in the PEIR because environmental review has been addressed in previous documents.  Phase II (2017–2022): high priority projects necessary to address a current water system deficiency and provide backbone infrastructure to support development projects. These projects are budgeted over a 6-year revenue cycle for the District and are included in the current water rate structure and capacity fee program. An example of such a project is the 980-3 reservoir expansion project necessary to increase storage in the 980 zone which is currently deficient.  Phase IIIA (2023–2050): projects that may not be urgent but are critical to meeting future growth and water system design criteria, and for which the District has sufficient time to implement. The horizon year for sizing infrastructure is San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) Series 13 population for year 2050. These projects present a long‐term CIP that may be used by the District in formulating a 10‐year revenue plan. An example of such a project is the 980-2 pump station expansion project necessary to increase pumping capacity based on forecasted water demand increases. It was assumed under Phase IIIA that the District’s Otay Water District Chapter 2. Project Description Addendum to the Final PEIR for the 2015 Water Facilities Master Plan Update 2-2 October 2019 ICF 00025.19 “baseline” assumption for water supply includes either the Rosarito Desalinated Water Conveyance Project or San Diego’s Pure Water.  Phase IIIB (2023–2050): under this phase, the District’s “baseline” assumptions for water supply, the Rosarito Desalinated Water Conveyance Project, and San Diego’s Pure Water are not implemented and the District continues to rely on the San Diego County Water Authority (SDCWA) for water supply. These are primarily system reliability projects necessary to meet SDCWA outages and District system design criteria. An example of such a project is the 870‐2 reservoir in Otay Mesa. The proposed project was identified in the Final PEIR as a Phase II (2017–2022) potable water storage CIP project (project number P2040) with a storage capacity of 0.5 MG. 2.3 Project Description The proposed project includes the construction and operation of a 0.5 MG concrete potable water reservoir, associated 1,500 feet of 12-inch-diameter pipeline, and a 22-foot-wide access road to the reservoir (see Figure 2-3). The proposed access road would extend from Presilla Drive on the west to the proposed reservoir on the east. The proposed pipeline would be located within the footprint of the proposed access road and would also extend from Presilla Drive to the new reservoir. These improvements are collectively identified as CIP project number P2040 in the 2015 WFMP Update and associated Final PEIR (August 2016). As noted above, the proposed project was identified as a Phase II (2017–2022) CIP project in the Final PEIR. These CIPs typically represent the high priority projects necessary to address a current water system deficiency and provide backbone infrastructure to support development projects. The District’s potable water infrastructure consists of five primary operating systems located within two larger independent transmission systems known as the North and South Districts. The five primary systems include the La Presa, Hillsdale, Regulatory, Central Area, and Otay Mesa systems. The La Presa, Hillsdale, and Regulatory systems make up the North District, while the Central Area and Otay Mesa systems form the South District. The proposed project is within the Regulatory system service area of the North District. The Regulatory water system is generally a low-density service area and serves the more hilly and rural areas of the District. The proposed project would increase both system reliability and service capabilities and provide adequate fire protection for the Rancho Jamul Estates area within the 1655 Pressure Zone of the Regulatory water system. The existing system is currently served with a hydro-pneumatic pump station. In addition to these improvements, the proposed project includes the installation of multiple catch basins and storm drains to direct stormwater runoff from the proposed reservoir and access road. Riprap would be placed at the outlets of the new storm drains. Figure 2-1Regional Vicinity Map1655-1 Reservoir, Access Road, and 12-inch Pipeline Project \\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 0 2 5 . 1 9 _ 1 6 5 5 _ 1 _ R e s e r v o i r \ F i g u r e s \ D o c \ B R R \ F i g 0 1 _ P r o j e c t L o c a t i o n . m x d 8 / 2 6 / 2 0 1 9 3 7 3 1 6 ±0 10.5 Miles Legend Project Area Figure 2-2 Project Location1655-1 Reservoir, Access Road, and 12-inch Pipeline Project \\ 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 0 2 5 . 1 9 _ 1 6 5 5 _ 1 _ R e s e r v o i r \ F i g u r e s \ C u l t u r a l \ O W D _ 1 6 5 5 R e s e r v o i r _ F i g - 2 . m x d ; U s e r : 3 8 7 1 0 ; D a t e : 3 / 1 8 / 2 0 1 9 0 2,0001,000 Feet LegendProject AreaSource: USGS-ESRI Imagery, 20191:24,000N San Diego County, CA Project Area Mexico Figure 2-3 Project Site Plan1655-1 Reservoir, Access Road, and 12-inch Pipeline Project \\ 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 0 2 5 . 1 9 _ 1 6 5 5 _ 1 _ R e s e r v o i r \ F i g u r e s \ D o c \ B R R \ F i g 0 3 _ R e g i o n a l _ A e r i a l . m x d D a t e : 8 / 2 9 / 2 0 1 9 2 0 2 3 6 LegendProject SiteStudy Area BoundaryProject Component Access Road and Reservoir Site Catch basin / Stormdrain Grading Limit Riprap Temporary Work Area ±0 150 30075 Feet Otay Water District Chapter 2. Project Description Addendum to the Final PEIR for the 2015 Water Facilities Master Plan Update 2-6 October 2019 ICF 00025.19 This page intentionally left blank. Addendum to the Final PEIR for the 2015 Water Facilities Master Plan Update 3-1 October 2019 ICF 00025.19 Chapter 3 Environmental Impact Analysis This chapter provides an analysis of the potential changes to the environmental impacts identified in the Final PEIR that could occur as a result of the proposed changes to the approved project. Each discussion begins with an overview of what was analyzed and concluded in the Final PEIR, and identifies what, if any, impacts were concluded for that topic, followed by a summary of the changes in the project and changes in circumstances or new information of substantial importance as it relates to that topic. These details are then the focus of the rest of the environmental analysis, in accordance with State CEQA Guidelines Section 16162(a). Mitigation measures, standard construction practices (SCPs), and project design features (PDFs) from the Final PEIR are incorporated into the proposed project, as applicable.1 3.1 Aesthetics Summary of Final PEIR Findings The Final PEIR described the existing conditions in the project area as largely undeveloped. Approximately 35 percent of the North District, where the project site is located, is disturbed or developed. The majority of the area (approximately 57 percent) is coastal scrub and chaparral communities. The proposed project is specifically within the Regulatory System, which contains the most undeveloped land of the five service areas within the North District. The Final PEIR noted that the proposed project would be visible to existing and future residents of the Rancho Jamul Estates. The Final PEIR identified impacts on scenic vistas related to the construction and operation of aboveground structures. However, the Final PEIR did not identify significant impacts for the proposed project related to scenic vistas or vista areas because it is not located in an area that is designated as a public scenic vista. The Final PEIR concluded that the proposed project could result in temporary visual impacts on visual character and quality related to construction activities, primarily through the removal or alteration of vegetation; and permanent impacts on visual character and quality related to placement of facilities at higher elevations, such as hillsides, hilltops, or ridges. However, impacts were concluded to be less than significant with implementation of Aes- PDF-1. In addition, the Final PEIR concluded that potential impacts associated with glare would primarily occur from sunlight reflecting from the reservoir. Daytime views that could be subject to the effects of new sources of glare include residential uses at Rancho Jamul Estates. The Final PEIR included Aes-PDF-1 to reduce impacts associated with daytime glare to less than significant. The Final PEIR concluded the proposed project would not substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway. No officially designated state scenic highways occur within the District’s planning area. SR- 94, which provides regional access to the project site is considered to be an “eligible” state scenic 1 Note that not all of the mitigation measures, PDFs, and SCPs are applicable to the proposed project. Otay Water District Chapter 3. Environmental Impact Analysis Addendum to the Final PEIR for the 2015 Water Facilities Master Plan Update 3-2 October 2019 ICF 00025.19 highway, although it is not yet officially designated as such. Therefore, the Final PEIR concluded no impact on views from state scenic highways would occur. Impacts of the Proposed Project The proposed project was identified and analyzed in the Final PEIR as currently proposed, and there would not be any substantial changes in the project from what was previously analyzed in the Final PEIR. As such, there are no changes associated with the proposed project that could result in any new or more severe impacts related to aesthetics. Due to the location of the proposed project, the aboveground structure would be visible to viewers south of the reservoir. However, the project site is not located in an area that is designated as a public scenic vista. Therefore, the proposed project would result in a less-than-significant impact on a scenic vista. This conclusion is consistent with the findings of the Final PEIR, which did not identify any significant impacts on scenic vistas associated with the proposed project. No officially designated state scenic highways are present within the vicinity of the proposed project, and no new scenic highways have been identified within the project vicinity since certification of the Final PEIR. The changes to the project would not require major revisions to the Final PEIR or result in new significant effects related to scenic resources along a scenic highway. Additionally, the proposed aboveground reservoir structure would be visible from the nearby single-family residences at the Rancho Jamul Estates. Construction of the proposed project would result in temporary visual impacts, primarily through the removal or alteration of existing vegetation. Construction of the proposed project would involve the disturbance of ground cover, grading, excavation, material stockpiles, and the presence of construction equipment, all of which would temporarily degrade the pre-existing visual character at the project site and surrounding area. The proposed project could also result in permanent impacts on visual character and quality due to the proposed reservoir’s location on a hillside. However, implementation of Aes-PDF-1 would reduce the proposed project’s impacts related to degrading the existing visual charter or quality of the site and its surroundings to a less-than-significant level. Regarding light and glare, nighttime lighting associated with the proposed project would be limited to emergency lighting that would typically be activated only in emergency situations, such as the repair of a leak that occurs at night. Therefore, the proposed project is not anticipated to create a new source of substantial nighttime lighting that would adversely affect nighttime views. Furthermore, implementation of Ene-PDF-2, which requires such lighting to be of low illumination (i.e., light emitting diodes with motion-sensor lighting controls), shielded, and directed downwards would further reduce the potential for light spillover that could adversely affect nighttime views. Potential impacts from glare would primarily occur as a result of the sunlight reflecting from the reservoir building, which would be visible from the residential uses south of the project site. However, with implementation of Aes-PDF-1, low-reflective paint and glass would be used, reducing impacts from glare. Therefore, impacts on light and glare would be less than significant. Based on the above, the proposed project would not result in any new or more severe significant impacts related to aesthetics; therefore, the proposed project would not meet the conditions outlined in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 requiring the preparation of a subsequent EIR, and the proposed project would meet the conditions outlined in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15164, Otay Water District Chapter 3. Environmental Impact Analysis Addendum to the Final PEIR for the 2015 Water Facilities Master Plan Update 3-3 October 2019 ICF 00025.19 which allows the preparation of an addendum to a previously certified EIR to achieve CEQA compliance. Applicable Mitigation Measures, Standard Construction Practices, and/or Project Design Features Aes-PDF-1: In accordance with Water Agencies’ Standards and standard operating procedures, the following design, landscaping and irrigation measures will be implemented for the proposed project: i. Reservoirs, pump station buildings, and groundwater wells will use appropriate building materials and color palettes that visually blend the structures in with their surroundings (natural and urban). ii. Reservoirs, pump station buildings, and groundwater wells will use low-reflective paint and glass. iii. For portions of pipeline projects installed in naturally vegetated areas, the disturbance footprints for the pipeline corridor and associated staging areas will be hydroseeded, following backfilling and recontouring, using a non-irrigated native plant mix consistent with original site conditions and surrounding vegetation. iv. For CIP reservoirs, pump stations, and groundwater wells in naturally vegetated settings, any disturbed unpaved areas following construction will be revegetated (hydroseeding and/or plantings) using native plant materials consistent with original site conditions and surrounding vegetation. A temporary irrigation system will be installed and maintained by the District, or watering trucks shall be used at a frequency to be determined by the District to maintain successful plant growth. Temporary irrigation will be discontinued upon the District’s determination that the landscaping has permanently established, without the need for supplemental watering. v. For CIP reservoirs, pump stations and groundwater projects in urban settings, any disturbed unpaved areas following construction will be landscaped using plant materials consistent with original site conditions and/or surrounding ornamental vegetation. A permanent irrigation system will be installed and maintained by the District. Ene-PDF-2: All outdoor (security) lighting installed at the above-ground CIP facilities (i.e., storage reservoirs/tanks and pump stations) under the 2015 WFMP Update will use energy efficient light emitting diodes, with motion sensor lighting controls to limit usage. Lighting adjacent to native vegetation communities will be of low illuminations, shielded, and directed downwards and away from these areas to avoid potential effects to nocturnal wildlife from increased predation that would occur from “spill-over” of nighttime light levels into the adjacent habitats. Otay Water District Chapter 3. Environmental Impact Analysis Addendum to the Final PEIR for the 2015 Water Facilities Master Plan Update 3-4 October 2019 ICF 00025.19 3.2 Agricultural and Forestry Resources Summary of Final PEIR Findings The Final PEIR determined that there are no agricultural or forestry resources, including farmlands or forestry resources, Williamson Act contract lands, or areas zoned for agricultural uses or forestry uses, within the District’s planning area. As a result, the Final PEIR concluded that the CIP projects, including the proposed project, would result in no impacts on agricultural and forestry resources. Impacts of the Proposed Project The proposed project was identified and analyzed in the Final PEIR as currently proposed, and there would not be any substantial changes in the project from what was previously analyzed in the Final PEIR. As such, there are no changes associated with proposed project that could result in any new or more severe impacts related to agricultural and forestry resources. The proposed project would generally be in the same location that was analyzed in the Final PEIR. The proposed project is not on land designated as Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance. Additionally, the project site is not within or adjacent to a Williamson Act contract. According to review of land use and zoning maps for San Diego County, the project site is not on land zoned as forest land, timberland, or timberland production. Furthermore, pursuant to Section 53091 of the California Government Code, local agency zoning ordinances do not apply to the location or construction of facilities for the production, generation, storage, treatment, or transmission of water; therefore, agricultural zoning would not apply to the proposed project. Because there are no changes in project circumstances or new information relevant to agricultural or forestry resources, the proposed project would not result in any new or more severe significant impacts related to the conversion of farmland, conflicts with zoning for agricultural or forestry uses, the loss of forest land, or other changes that could result in the conversion of farmland. Therefore, the proposed project would not meet the conditions outlined in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 requiring the preparation of a subsequent EIR, and the proposed project would meet the conditions outlined in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15164, which allows the preparation of an addendum to a previously certified EIR to achieve CEQA compliance. Applicable Mitigation Measures, Standard Construction Practices, and/or Project Design Features There are no mitigation measures, SCPs, or PDFs from the Final PEIR identified to reduce impacts related to agriculture and forestry resources. 3.3 Air Quality Summary of Final PEIR Findings The Final PEIR did not identify significant impacts related to conflicts or obstruction of implementation of an air quality plan. The Final PEIR identified the 2009 Regional Air Quality Otay Water District Chapter 3. Environmental Impact Analysis Addendum to the Final PEIR for the 2015 Water Facilities Master Plan Update 3-5 October 2019 ICF 00025.19 Standards (RAQS) as the most current air quality planning document for the San Diego Air Pollution Control District (SDAPCD) and thus the applicable air quality plan to the 2015 WFMP Update. The 2009 RAQS was developed based on growth assumptions, land use, and other information from SANDAG. Growth assumptions made within the 2015 WFMP Update to determine appropriate future service requirements were also derived from SANDAG growth assumptions and land use information. Therefore, the Final PEIR concluded the 2015 WFMP Update would be consistent with the applicable SDAPCD air quality management plan and the California State Implementation Plan (SIP), as these documents utilized the same growth assumptions and would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of an applicable air quality plan. The Final PEIR concluded that the District was not listed in the 2007 Air Toxics “Hot Spots” Program Report for San Diego County as a company or organization considered capable of posing possible health risks to the community of San Diego with regards to toxic air contaminants (TACs) and would therefore only expose sensitive receptors to carbon monoxide. However, the Final PEIR concluded that the 2015 WFMP Update would not have a potential to form carbon monoxide “hotspots” and would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. In addition, the Final PEIR concluded that due to the dispersed nature of the CIP projects, objectional odors associated with chemicals such as diesel exhaust would not be expected to affect a substantial number of people. No impacts associated with exposing sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations or objectional odors were identified in the Final PEIR and additional analysis was not included. Impacts of the Proposed Project The proposed project was identified and analyzed in the Final PEIR as currently proposed, and there would not be any substantial changes in the project from what was previously analyzed in the Final PEIR. As such, there are no changes associated with proposed project that could result in any new or more severe impacts related to air quality. As noted in the Final PEIR, the 2015 WFMP Update would be consistent with the applicable SDAPCD air quality management plan and the California SIP, as these documents utilized the same growth assumptions and would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of an applicable air quality plan. As one of the projects contemplated in the 2015 WFMP Update and associated Final PEIR, the proposed project would also be consistent with the RAQS and SIP, and therefore and would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of an applicable air quality plan. Therefore, similar to the conclusions in the Final PEIR, impacts would be less than significant. Construction of the proposed project would generate temporary air pollutant emissions in the form of fugitive dust (particulate matter less than 10 and 2.5 microns in diameter [PM10 and PM2.5, respectively]) and ozone precursors (nitrogen oxide [NOX], volatile organic compounds [VOC]). Operation of heavy equipment and vehicles during construction would generate exhaust emissions from fuel combustion. Fugitive dust emissions would be generated from earth disturbance during site grading, as well as from construction vehicles operating on dirt roadways at the project site. However, consistent with the Final PEIR, potential construction-related air quality impacts would be reduced to less than significant with implementation of Air-SCP-1 and Air-SCP-2. Air-SCP-1 requires project construction to adhere to standard construction practices for controlling fugitive dust emissions, while Air-SCP-2 requires that all construction vehicles meet the requirements of the relevant air quality agencies, the SDAPCD, California Air Resources Board (ARB), and the U.S. Otay Water District Chapter 3. Environmental Impact Analysis Addendum to the Final PEIR for the 2015 Water Facilities Master Plan Update 3-6 October 2019 ICF 00025.19 Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) with regards to tuning, maintenance, and operation of the vehicles. Moreover, air quality emission estimates provided in the Final PEIR were based on a worst-case scenario with 100 acres of industrial uses constructed at a given time. The activity estimates in the Final PEIR were based on CalEEMod defaults, which are based on construction acreage. Final PEIR mitigation measure AQ-1 requires future projects to demonstrate construction activity will be less than or equal to the activity assumed in the Final PEIR. The proposed project includes construction on a 3.9-acre site, which is much less than assumed in the Final PEIR. Because default construction assumptions scale with acreage, proposed project construction activity will be much less than the activity assumed in the Final PEIR and, as such, mitigation measure Air-1 is satisfied as well. During project operations, the proposed project does not include any components that would be a source of air pollutant emissions. The Final PEIR noted that pump stations are the only CIP projects that would be considered stationary sources of pollutant emissions from diesel-powered emergency generators. Storage projects, such as the proposed project, would not require the use of emergency generators or any other type of fuel-consuming operating equipment once constructed. Additionally, any mobile sources of pollutant emission would be primarily associated with employee vehicular trips by employees. However, operation of the proposed project would not generate a significant volume of new vehicle trips. As noted in the Final PEIR, maintenance for most of the CIP projects would require approximately one visit per day. Therefore, similar to the conclusions in the Final PEIR, operation-related impacts associated with the proposed project would be less than significant. Furthermore, the proposed project would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations or create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people. As noted in the Final PEIR, the District is not listed within the 2007 Air Toxics “Hot Spots” Program Report for San Diego County as a company or organization considered capable of posing possible health risks to the community of San Diego with regards to toxic air contaminants. Additionally, the Final PEIR determined that implementation of the 2015 WFMP Update would not result in any significant impacts related to traffic congestion, and therefore would not have the potential to form carbon monoxide “hotspots” that could expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. Similarly, the Final PEIR determined that none of the CIP projects would generate objectionable odors due to their dispersed nature. Therefore, similar to the conclusions of the Final PEIR, the proposed project would not result in any impacts related to exposing sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations or creating objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people. Based on the above, the proposed project would not result in any new or more severe significant impacts related to air quality; therefore, the proposed project would not meet the conditions outlined in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 requiring the preparation of a subsequent EIR, and the proposed project would meet the conditions outlined in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15164, which allows the preparation of an addendum to a previously certified EIR to achieve CEQA compliance. Otay Water District Chapter 3. Environmental Impact Analysis Addendum to the Final PEIR for the 2015 Water Facilities Master Plan Update 3-7 October 2019 ICF 00025.19 Applicable Mitigation Measures, Standard Construction Practices, and/or Project Design Features Air-SCP-1: Prior to construction of CIP projects, the following measures shall be taken to reduce fugitive dust emissions (PM2.5 and PM10). Measures shall be implemented during construction, including but not limited to, the following actions: i. During grading and site preparation activities, exposed soil areas shall be watered as necessary (at least twice per day) to prevent dust emissions. During windy days or when fugitive dust can be observed leaving construction sites, additional applications of water shall be required. Under windy conditions where wind velocities are forecast to exceed 25 miles per hour, all ground disturbing activities shall be halted until the winds are forecast to be less than 25 miles per hour. ii. Where visible soil material is carried onto adjacent public paved roads, the paved roads shall be swept or washed down at the end of the day to avoid vehicles from pulverizing the dirt into fine particles. iii. Trucks transporting materials to and from the site shall allow for at least two feet of freeboard (i.e., minimum vertical distance between the top of the load and the top of the trailer). Alternatively, trucks transporting materials shall be covered. Air-SCP-2: Prior to construction of CIP projects, the following measures shall be taken to reduce potential emissions of ozone precursors (NOX and VOCs) associated with construction equipment. Measures shall be implemented during construction, including but not limited to the following action: i. All construction equipment utilized for the construction of proposed CIP projects shall be maintained, tuned, and operated in accordance with all relevant SDAPCD, ARB, and EPA standards. 3.4 Biological Resources Summary of Final PEIR Findings The Final PEIR identified the potential for the proposed project to result in direct and indirect impacts on sensitive species and habitats. In addition, the Final PEIR identified that implementation of some features of the proposed project would have the potential to result in direct and indirect impacts on riparian habitat and other sensitive natural communities, as well as impacts associated with wildlife movement corridors. The Final PEIR identified the potential for some CIP projects to result in impacts on federally protected wetlands; however, the proposed project was not identified as being within an area where federal wetlands are present. With implementation of mitigation/performance measures Bio-1A through Bio-1G, the Final PEIR concluded all biological resources impacts would be reduced to a less-than-significant level. The Final PEIR concluded that implementation of the 2015 WFMP Update would not conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, Habitat Conservation Plans (HCPs), or Natural Community Conservation Plans (NCCPs), and no further analysis was included. Otay Water District Chapter 3. Environmental Impact Analysis Addendum to the Final PEIR for the 2015 Water Facilities Master Plan Update 3-8 October 2019 ICF 00025.19 Impacts of the Proposed Project The proposed project was identified and analyzed in the Final PEIR as currently proposed, and there would not be any substantial changes in the project from what was previously analyzed in the Final PEIR. As such, there are no changes associated with proposed project that could result in any new or more severe impacts related to biological resources. The Final PEIR identified the potential for construction of potable water storage projects located in sensitive habitats to result in direct and impacts on sensitive biological resources from temporary and permanent vegetation removal. Sensitive habitat types identified in the PEIR as being potentially present within the project site included Diegan coastal sage scrub and chaparral. The Final PEIR also identified the potential for CIP projects to result in indirect impacts on sensitive species and habitat during construction and operation, including impaired water quality (e.g., erosion, sedimentation from graded areas, stormwater runoff pollution), fugitive dust, noise, night lighting, staging areas, and introduction of invasive plant species from graded areas. To address potential impacts on sensitive species and habitat, the PEIR identified mitigation measure Bio-1A, which requires the District to retain a qualified biologist to conduct biological surveys as part of the tiered CEQA document for the proposed project. In accordance with mitigation measure Bio-1A, field surveys were conducted by Helix and ICF biologists in 2016 and 2019, respectively, and the results of these surveys are provided in the Biological Resources Technical Report (BTR) prepared for the proposed project (Appendix B). As detailed in the BTR, the proposed project would result in direct permanent impacts through conversion of existing habitat on the proposed reservoir and access road. Permanent impacts would also occur where the District would place riprap at the outlets to storm drains that would be constructed to direct stormwater runoff from the reservoir site and access road. The installation of the proposed pipeline would result in direct temporary impacts on existing habitat. Temporary workspace areas are also proposed around the stormwater infrastructure (e.g., riprap, storm drains) to allow construction crews to install these facilities. Indirect impacts associated with the proposed project may include construction noise and dust, vehicle traffic and noise, and the introduction of invasive nonnative plant species. As described in the project BTR, temporary, construction-related impacts from fugitive dust would be reduced to less-than-significant levels through implementation of Air-SCP-1, which requires dust control best management practices (BMPs) during construction. Additionally, potential impacts associated with the establishment and spread of invasive nonnative plant species from graded areas into adjacent native vegetation communities would be reduced to less-than-significant levels through implementation of the measures listed in Bio-SCP-1. Additionally, as described in the project BTR, temporary and permanent impacts on Diegan coastal sage scrub would be offset through the deduction of available credits at the District’s San Miguel Habitat Management Area (HMA). Permanent impacts on southern mixed chaparral would be consistent with the mitigation ratios outlined in the Biological Mitigation Ordinance (BMO) for San Diego County and would also be offset through the deduction of available credits at the District’s San Miguel HMA. Impacts on sensitive wildlife species would be mitigated through implementation of Final PEIR mitigation measures Bio-1B through Bio-1G, which would reduce project impacts 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 (CDFW) or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) to less than significant. Otay Water District Chapter 3. Environmental Impact Analysis Addendum to the Final PEIR for the 2015 Water Facilities Master Plan Update 3-9 October 2019 ICF 00025.19 The project BTR also identified that the proposed project would result in the placement of new riprap within a small portion of the northern drainage in order to direct stormwater flow away from the reservoir site. The placement of riprap would result in a permanent impact on 32 square feet of waters under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) and 95 square feet of impacts on CDFW Streambed. However, aquatic resource permits would be secured prior to construction for permanent and temporary impacts on a non-wetland drainage. Compensatory mitigation and permit conditions would be required as a condition of permit approvals, which would ensure impacts would be less than significant. Regarding wildlife corridors and core wildlife area, the project BTR determined that permanent impacts within the project site are relatively small compared to the available open space in the vicinity of the project and would not fragment or impact wildlife movement with the region. Therefore, the proposed project is not anticipated to significantly change the overall movement and foraging areas for wildlife in the project area. Lastly, the proposed project is within the boundary of the County’s Multiple Species Conservation Program (MSCP) Subarea Plan. Although the District is not subject to the requirements of the MSCP, the proposed project would not conflict with the implementation of the MSCP South County Subarea Plan or the assemblage of the conservation land required for MSCP species to be considered fully covered. The proposed project was not identified in the Final PEIR as being within or adjacent to the “Conserved (Subject to Agreement with Wildlife Agencies)” areas under the County’s MSCP. The project site is located within the Metro-Lakeside-Jamul Segment of the South County Subarea Plan specifically, outside the preapproved mitigation area (PAMA) and hardline preserve areas. The proposed project would occur on a relatively small parcel, not identified for conservation efforts, adjacent to exurban development to the south. As a result, the development of the proposed project would not conflict with the preservation goals established for the Metro–Lakeside–Jamul segment. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. Based on the above, the proposed project would not result in any new or more severe significant impacts related biological resources and would not meet the conditions outlined in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 requiring the preparation of a subsequent EIR, and the proposed project would meet the conditions outlined in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15164, which allows the preparation of an addendum to a previously certified EIR to achieve CEQA compliance. Applicable Mitigation Measures, Standard Construction Practices, and/or Project Design Features Air-SCP-1, which would be implemented per Section 3.3, Air Quality. Bio-SCP-1: After completion of final grading for CIPs located adjacent to native vegetation, the construction documents will require that all graded areas within 100 feet of native vegetation are hydroseeded and/or planted with native plant species similar in composition to the adjacent undisturbed vegetation communities. OWD or the construction contractor will retain a qualified biologist to monitor these activities to ensure non-native or invasive plant species are not used in the hydroseed mix or planting palettes. The hydroseeded/planted areas will be watered via a temporary drip irrigation system or watering truck. Irrigation will cease at some time after successful plant establishment and growth, to be determined by the biologist. No fertilizers or Otay Water District Chapter 3. Environmental Impact Analysis Addendum to the Final PEIR for the 2015 Water Facilities Master Plan Update 3-10 October 2019 ICF 00025.19 pesticides will be used in the hydroseeded/planted areas. Any irrigation runoff from hydroseeded/planted areas will be directed away from adjacent native vegetation communities, and contained and/or treated within the development footprint of individual projects. All planting stock will be inspected for exotic invertebrate pests (e.g., argentine ants) and any stock found to be infested with such pests will not be allowed to be used in the hydroseeded/planted areas. Bio-1A: During the design phase, OWD shall retain a qualified biologist to conduct biological surveys as part of the “tiered” CEQA documentation for these projects, following the program described in Section 1.2 (Intended Use and Purpose) of the Final PEIR. Bio-1B: If the biological surveys identified in performance measure Bio-1A determine the presence of special-status species and/or sensitive or critical habitats on or adjacent to the CIP site, then OWD shall map and quantify the impacts in a Biological Technical Report as part of the “tiered” CEQA documentation referenced in Bio-1A. Detailed project-specific avoidance and mitigation measures for significant impacts to biological resources shall be negotiated between OWD and the regulatory agencies, as part of the approval and certification process for the subsequent CEQA documentation. In addition, the following measures shall be implemented, as applicable: i. Six (6) weeks prior to vegetation clearing, grading and/or construction activities that are scheduled to occur between February 15 and August 30, a qualified biologist shall commence focused surveys in accordance with USFWS protocols to determine the presence or absence of the California gnatcatcher. Documentation of the survey results shall be provided to OWD and USFWS within 45 days of completing the final survey, as required pursuant to FESA Section 10(a)(1)(A). If the survey results are negative, then no further mitigation for California gnatcatcher is necessary and vegetation clearing can occur at any time in the year following the survey; only mitigation for the habitat loss shall be required (refer to Bio-1B(iv) below). If surveyed habitat is determined to be occupied by California gnatcatcher, then the following measures shall be implemented: a. Coastal sage scrub/gnatcatcher habitat shall not be removed during the gnatcatcher breeding season (February 15 through August 30). Work that has commenced prior to the breeding season shall be allowed to continue without interruption. If gnatcatchers move into an area within 500 feet of ongoing construction noise levels and attempt to nest, then it can be deduced that the noise is not great enough to discourage gnatcatcher nesting activities. If work begins prior to the breeding season, the contractor(s) should maintain continuous construction activities adjacent to coastal sage scrub that falls within 500 feet, until the work is completed. However, if clearing, grading and/or construction activities are scheduled to begin during the gnatcatcher breeding season, then updated pre-construction surveys are necessary as defined above. In addition, if these activities are initiated prior to, and extend into, the breeding season, but they cease for any period of time and the contractor wishes to restart work within the breeding season window, then updated pre- construction surveys are also necessary. If these surveys indicate no nesting birds occur within the coastal sage scrub that falls within 500 feet of the proposed work, then the adjacent construction activities shall be allowed to commence. However, if the birds are observed nesting within these areas, then the adjacent construction activities shall be postponed until all nesting has ceased. b. Noise monitoring shall be conducted if construction activities are scheduled during the gnatcatcher breeding season; if the construction-related noise levels would exceed 60 dB Otay Water District Chapter 3. Environmental Impact Analysis Addendum to the Final PEIR for the 2015 Water Facilities Master Plan Update 3-11 October 2019 ICF 00025.19 Leq (i.e., the noise threshold suggested by the USFWS for indirect impacts to gnatcatcher); and if gnatcatchers are found within 500 feet of the noise source. Noise monitoring shall be conducted by a biologist experienced in both the vocalization and appearance of California gnatcatcher, and in the use of noise meters. Construction activities that generate noise levels over 60 dB Leq may be permitted within 300 feet of occupied habitat if methods are employed that reduce the noise levels to below 60 dB Leq at the boundary of occupied habitat (e.g., temporary noise attenuation barriers or use of alternative equipment). During construction activities, daily testing of noise levels shall be conducted by a noise monitor with the help of the biologist to ensure that a noise level of 60 dB Leq at the boundary of occupied habitat is not exceeded. Documentation of the noise monitoring results shall be provided to OWD and USFWS within 45 days of completing the final noise monitoring event. ii. Ten (10) days prior to vegetation clearing, grading and/or construction activities that are scheduled to occur between February 1 and August 15, surveys for nesting bird species other than the California gnatcatcher, including those protected by the MBTA, shall be conducted by a qualified biologist following applicable USFWS and/or CDFW guidelines. If no active avian nests are identified within the disturbance limits, then no further mitigation is necessary. However, if active nests for avian species of concern are found within the disturbance limits, then species- specific measures prescribed by the MBTA shall be implemented by a qualified biologist; a minimum buffer of 300 feet for passerine and 500 feet for raptor species will be incorporated in order to minimize potential disturbances to nesting birds from construction activities. Documentation of the mitigation measures shall be provided to OWD and USFWS within 10 days after implementation. iii. Ten (10) days prior to vegetation clearing, grading and/or construction activities that are scheduled to occur during the raptor nesting season (generally January 15 through July 31), and where suitable trees (such as Eucalyptus spp.) for raptor nesting occur within 500 feet of such activities, pre-construction surveys for raptor nests shall be performed by a qualified biologist. If no occupied raptor nests are identified in suitable trees on or within 500 feet of the construction site, then no further mitigation is necessary. Construction activities within 500 feet of occupied nests shall not be allowed during the raptor breeding season until a qualified biologist determines that the nests are no longer active. Documentation of the raptor surveys and any follow-up monitoring, as necessary, shall be provided to OWD and USFWS within 10 days of completing the final survey or monitoring event. iv. For CIPs that would affect non-listed sensitive species and sensitive vegetation communities, the measures listed below shall be implemented prior to vegetation clearing, grading and/or construction activities. In addition, applicable regulatory agency permits and/or authorizations shall be obtained for CIPs that would affect federal and state-listed species, and the conditions of such permits and/or authorizations shall be implemented prior to vegetation clearing, grading and/or construction activities. a. Special-status species (and any corresponding USFWS-designated critical habitats), sensitive vegetation communities and MSCP resources shall be avoided through project design or site selection, to the extent practicable. b. For unavoidable impacts to special-status species (and any corresponding USFWS designated critical habitats), sensitive vegetation communities and MSCP resources, off-site mitigation shall be provided by one, or a combination of, the following measures, in consultation with the USFWS and CDFW: 1) Debit credits from the San Miguel HMA (Table Otay Water District Chapter 3. Environmental Impact Analysis Addendum to the Final PEIR for the 2015 Water Facilities Master Plan Update 3-12 October 2019 ICF 00025.19 4.2-10 shows the status of the mitigation bank credits, as of the date of this Final PEIR); 2) Contribute to the preserve system of other agency MSCPs through land acquisition or purchase of mitigation banking credits; and 3) Enhance, restore, create, and preserve in perpetuity off-site habitat areas at locations and mitigation ratios to be approved by the appropriate regulatory agencies and in compliance with the mitigation ratios, guidelines, and standards required by the applicable MSCP subarea plans. Typical mitigation ratios for direct impacts to sensitive vegetation types include 2:1 for coastal sage scrub; 3:1 for maritime succulent scrub; 3:1 for native grassland; 2:1 for oak woodlands; 3:1 for southern interior cypress forest; 3:1 for riparian woodlands/forests; 3:1 for coastal freshwater marsh; 2:1 for riparian scrubs (absent threatened or endangered species); 5:1 for San Diego mesa claypan vernal pools; 3:1 for Gabbroic chaparrals; and 0.5:1 for nonnative grassland (absent threatened or endangered species). These ratios will be decreased or increased depending on whether the impacts and mitigation would occur inside or outside an MSCP preserve area. For example, these ratios are typically doubled if impacts occur within previously conserved lands. Plans for habitat enhancement, restoration and creation shall be prepared by persons with expertise in southern California ecosystems and native plant revegetation techniques. Such plans shall include, at a minimum: (a) location of the mitigation site(s); (b) plant species to be used, container sizes, and seeding rates; (c) schematic depicting the mitigation area(s); (d) planting schedule; (e) description of the irrigation methodology; (f) measures to control exotic vegetation at the mitigation site(s); (g) specific success criteria (e.g., percent cover of native and non-native species, species richness); (h) detailed monitoring program; (i) contingency measures should the success criteria not be met; and (j) identification of the party responsible for meeting the success criteria and preserving the mitigation site(s) in perpetuity (including conservation easements and management funding). In addition, OWD shall negotiate and implement long- term maintenance requirements to ensure the success of the mitigation site(s). c. If federal permits or funding are required for CIPs (and listed species) that occur within USFWS-designated critical habitat, then Section 7 Consultations with the USFWS shall be initiated by the appropriate federal nexus-permitting agency. Bio-1C: Prior to vegetation clearing, grading, and/or construction activities for CIPs that have the potential to impact sensitive vegetation communities or special-status species (and any corresponding USFWS-designated critical habitats), a qualified biologist shall attend a preconstruction meeting to inform construction crews of the sensitive species and habitats within and/or adjacent to these project sites. Bio-1D: Prior to vegetation clearing, grading, and/or construction activities, a qualified biologist shall oversee installation of appropriate temporary fencing and/or flagging to delineate the limits of construction and the approved construction staging areas for protection of identified sensitive resources outside the approved construction/staging zones: All construction access and circulation shall be limited to designated construction/staging zones. The fencing shall be checked weekly to ensure that fenced construction limits are not exceeded. This fencing shall be removed upon completion of construction activities. Construction staging areas shall be located a minimum of 100 feet from drainages, wetlands and areas supporting sensitive habitats or species. Fueling of equipment shall occur in designated fueling zones within the construction staging areas. All equipment used within the approved construction limits shall be maintained to minimize and Otay Water District Chapter 3. Environmental Impact Analysis Addendum to the Final PEIR for the 2015 Water Facilities Master Plan Update 3-13 October 2019 ICF 00025.19 control fluid and grease leaks. Provisions to contain and clean up unintentional fuel, oil, fluid and grease leaks/spills shall be in place prior to construction. Bio-1E: During vegetation clearing, grading, and/or construction, a qualified biologist shall monitor these activities: If sensitive species and/or habitats adjacent to these project sites are inadvertently impacted by these activities, then the biologist shall immediately inform the onsite construction supervisor who shall temporarily halt or redirect work away from the area of impact. OWD shall immediately be notified of the impact and shall consult with the appropriate regulatory agencies to determine the required mitigation, according to Bio- 1B(iv)(b) and (c) above. The biologist shall also ensure that all construction night lighting adjacent to sensitive habitat areas is of low illumination, shielded, and directed downwards and away from these areas. Bio-1F: Construction equipment will be checked by the biological monitor prior to use each morning to ensure no sensitive wildlife species sheltered in or around any equipment left on site overnight. Bio-1G: Trenches associated with pipe installation will be backfilled with earth at the end of each work day to prevent wildlife access, with the exception of the end of the open pipe, which will be left exposed. During installation, the area surrounding the end segment of exposed open pipe will be sloped at the end of each work day at an angle to allow wildlife to easily escape. Also, the open end of the exposed pipe will be covered at the end of each work day with a material flush with the open pipe entrance such as a wooden board or cap such that no wildlife, including smaller species like lizards, can enter the pipe. Should wildlife become trapped in the vicinity of the open exposed pipe, the qualified biologist(s) will remove and relocate the individual outside the construction zone. 3.5 Cultural Resources Summary of Final PEIR Findings The Final PEIR identified three structures that would be demolished, including two reservoirs and a chlorine disinfection facility. The chlorine disinfection facility was built in 1993; therefore, the Final PEIR concluded the structure would not qualify as an historical resource. The reservoirs were of age to potentially be considered historical resources. The Final PEIR identified an assessment would be conducted by a qualified architectural historian prior to their demolition and if they are determined to be potentially historic, then Historic American Buildings Survey/Historic American Engineering Record (HABS/HAER) documentation and additional mitigation measures would be implemented, as necessary. Therefore, the Final PEIR concluded implementation of Cul-PDF-1 and Cul-PDF-2 would reduce any impacts on potential historical resources to a less-than-significant level. The Final PEIR identified that impacts on potential archaeological resources could occur from ground-disturbing activities (e.g., grading, trenching, excavation) and equipment/material staging areas associated with construction of CIP reservoirs. The Final PEIR concluded construction of these projects would have the potential to damage or destroy archaeological resources that may be present on or below the ground surface, particularly in areas that have not been previously developed. However, the Final PEIR determined that implementation of Cul-2A, Cul-2B, Cul-2C, and Cul-2D would reduce impacts on archaeological resources to less than significant. Otay Water District Chapter 3. Environmental Impact Analysis Addendum to the Final PEIR for the 2015 Water Facilities Master Plan Update 3-14 October 2019 ICF 00025.19 The Final PEIR concluded that although unlikely, Native American human remains could be discovered during ground disturbance (e.g., grading, trenching, excavation) associated with construction of CIP projects under the 2015 WFMP Update. The Final PEIR identified that if human remains were encountered, then the finds would be addressed in accordance with California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 and Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 5097.98 which require the County Coroner be notified immediately to determine the origin and disposition of the remains. If the human remains were determined to be prehistoric, the Coroner would notify the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) and most likely descendant (MLD) who would complete the inspection within 48 hours and confer with OWD over reasonable options for treatment. Therefore, the Final PEIR concluded implementation of Cul-SCP-1 would reduce potential impacts on Native American human remains encountered during ground disturbance associated with construction activities to a less-than-significant level. Impacts of the Proposed Project The proposed project was identified and analyzed in the Final PEIR as currently proposed, and there would not be any substantial changes in the project from what was previously analyzed in the Final PEIR. As such, there are no changes associated with proposed project that could result in any new or more severe impacts related to cultural resources. The Final PEIR identified two historical resources that would be demolished under the 2015 WFMP Update. The proposed project does not involve the demolition of any structures and would be constructed in an undeveloped area where historical resources have not been identified. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in any impacts on historical resources. Regarding archaeological resources, the Final PEIR identified the potential for ground-disturbing activities (e.g., grading, trenching, excavation) and equipment/material staging areas associate with construction of CIP reservoir projects, including the proposed project, to damage or destroy archaeological resources that may be present on or below the ground surface, particularly in areas that have not been previously developed. Because the proposed project is within an undeveloped area, ground-disturbing activities associated with project construction would have the potential to damage or destroy archaeological resources that may be present on or below the ground surface. In accordance with Final PEIR mitigation measure Cul-2A, a pedestrian survey and inventory within the project area was performed by ICF staff on February 15, 2019, to identify the presence of new sites since certification of the Final PEIR and is included as Appendix C. The survey identified one surface-exposed artifact and one surface-exposed feature at locations where no archaeological resources were previously documented. Because the potential for previously undocumented and spatially isolated significant archaeological deposits exists within the project site, unanticipated discoveries could occur during construction. Therefore, the proposed project would potentially cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource, similar to the impacts analyzed in the Final PEIR. However, similar to the conclusions in the Final PEIR, implementation of mitigation measures Cul-2A2, Cul-2C, and Cul-2D, which outline the protocols for archaeological and Native American monitoring, would reduce impacts to less than significant. Furthermore, the proposed project would involve soil-disturbing construction activities, which may have the potential to disturb Native American human remains and unknown human burial sites. 2 Note that Appendix C satisfies mitigation measure Cul-2A. Otay Water District Chapter 3. Environmental Impact Analysis Addendum to the Final PEIR for the 2015 Water Facilities Master Plan Update 3-15 October 2019 ICF 00025.19 However, implementation of Cul-SCP-1 would reduce potentially significant impacts related to human remains, as specified by State Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5, which requires that no further disturbance would occur should human remains be uncovered during construction, until the County Coroner has made the necessary findings as to the origin and disposition pursuant to 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 NAHC, who would appoint the MLD. Additionally, if the bones are determined to be Native American, a plan would be developed regarding the treatment of human remains and associated burial objects, and the plan would be implemented under the direction of the MLD. Therefore, implementation of Cul-SCP-1 would reduce potential impacts on Native American human remains encountered during ground disturbing activities associated with the proposed project to less than significant. Based on the above, the proposed project would not result in any new or more severe significant impacts related to cultural resources; therefore, the proposed project would not meet the conditions outlined in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 requiring the preparation of a subsequent EIR, and the proposed project would meet the conditions outlined in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15164, which allows the preparation of an addendum to a previously certified EIR to achieve CEQA compliance. Applicable Mitigation Measures, Standard Construction Practices, and/or Project Design Features Cul-SCP-1: The OWD will implement the provisions of California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 and PRC Section 5097.98 which establish procedures to be followed if Native American or other skeletal remains are discovered during construction of a project, including the treatment of remains prior to, during, and after evaluation, and reburial procedures. Cul-2C: 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. ii. The archaeologist shall (at that meeting or subsequently) submit to the OWD a copy of the site/grading plan that identifies areas to be monitored. iii. The archaeologist shall coordinate with the construction supervisor and OWD on the construction schedule to identify when and where monitoring is to begin, including the start date for monitoring. iv. The archaeologist shall be present during grading/excavation and shall document such activity on a standardized form. A record of monitoring activity shall be submitted to OWD each month and at the end of monitoring. Cul-2D: In the event archaeological resources are discovered during ground-disturbing activities, the on-site construction supervisor shall be notified and shall redirect work away from the location Otay Water District Chapter 3. Environmental Impact Analysis Addendum to the Final PEIR for the 2015 Water Facilities Master Plan Update 3-16 October 2019 ICF 00025.19 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. 3.6 Energy Summary of Final PEIR Findings The Final PEIR identified that the construction of CIP projects would result in the consumption of energy; however, this consumption would be similar to other projects in the region and would not be wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary. The Final PEIR determined that the operation of pipeline projects and storage projects, once constructed, would not require the use of electricity, emergency generators, or any other type of fuel-consuming operating equipment. However, with the implementation of Ene-PDF-1 through Ene-PDF-4, impacts were concluded to be less than significant. Otay Water District Chapter 3. Environmental Impact Analysis Addendum to the Final PEIR for the 2015 Water Facilities Master Plan Update 3-17 October 2019 ICF 00025.19 Impacts of the Proposed Project The proposed project was identified and analyzed in the Final PEIR as currently proposed, and there would not be any substantial changes in the project from what was previously analyzed in the Final PEIR. As such, there are no changes associated with proposed project that could result in any new or more severe impacts related to energy use. The proposed project includes the installation of a reservoir, pipeline, and access road that, once constructed, would not require the use of electricity, emergency generators, or any other type of fuel-consuming operating equipment. In addition, any transportation-related energy demand during operations and maintenance would be minimal. As detailed in the Final PEIR, CIP projects located within the Regulatory potable water system may require up to 5 to 10 trips per day for maintenance purposes. However, because the proposed project is a reservoir, it is anticipated that no more than 3 trips per day would be required for maintenance purposes. As such, vehicle trips associated with maintenance would not represent a significant source of energy consumption. Other sources of operational energy consumption include security lighting. However, implementation of Ene-PDF-2, which would require the installation of energy-efficient lighting at aboveground CIP facilities (i.e., storage reservoirs/tanks), would reduce potential impacts related to energy consumption during operations. Therefore, similar to the Final PEIR, implementation of Ene-PDF-2 would reduce potential impacts related to energy consumption to less than significant. Based on the above, the proposed project would not result in any new or more severe significant impacts related to energy consumption; therefore, the proposed project would not meet the conditions outlined in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 requiring the preparation of a subsequent EIR, and the proposed project would meet the conditions outlined in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15164, which allows the preparation of an addendum to a previously certified EIR to achieve CEQA compliance. Applicable Mitigation Measures, Standard Construction Practices, and/or Project Design Features Ene-PDF-2: All outdoor (security) lighting installed at the above-ground CIP facilities (i.e., storage reservoirs/tanks and pump stations) under the 2015 WFMP Update will use energy efficient light emitting diodes, with motion sensor lighting controls to limit usage. Lighting adjacent to native vegetation communities will be of low illuminations, shielded, and directed downwards and away from these areas to avoid potential effects to nocturnal wildlife from increased predation that would occur from “spill-over” of nighttime light levels into the adjacent habitats. 3.7 Geology and Soils Summary of Final PEIR Findings The Final PEIR identified CIP projects within areas where substantial adverse effects associated with seismically induced groundshaking, ground failure, liquefaction potential, and landslides would potentially occur. The Final PEIR concluded that with implementation of Geo-PDF-1 and Geo-SCP-1, impacts would be less than significant. The Final PEIR also identified potentially significant impacts Otay Water District Chapter 3. Environmental Impact Analysis Addendum to the Final PEIR for the 2015 Water Facilities Master Plan Update 3-18 October 2019 ICF 00025.19 associated with soil erosion and topsoil loss as a result of soil-disturbing construction and post- construction activities. However, with the implementation of Geo-PDF-1, Geo-SCP-2, and Geo-SCP-3, impacts were concluded to be less than significant. Additionally, the Final PEIR identified impacts associated with geologic formation/soil instability that could result in on or off-site landslides, lateral spreading, subsidence, or liquefaction/collapse and the potential to encounter expansive soils throughout large portions of the planning area. However, with the implementation of Geo-SCP- 1 and Geo-SCP-4, impacts were concluded to be less than significant. The proposed project is not located in areas where geologic hazards were identified. The Final PEIR identified that portions of the District’s planning area are underlain by geologic formations that have potential to contain fossils. As discussed in the Final PEIR, grading and excavation activities associated with the CIP reservoirs, pump stations, and related activities that would occur within the “high,” “moderate,” “low,” and “marginal” paleontological sensitivity areas would have significant impacts on potential paleontological resources. The proposed project was identified in an area with “zero” paleontological sensitivity. The Final PEIR did not identify any impacts related to soils incapable of supporting septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems, and no further analysis was included. Impacts of the Proposed Project The proposed project was identified and analyzed in the Final PEIR as currently proposed, and there would not be any substantial changes in the project from what was previously analyzed in the Final PEIR. As such, there are no changes associated with proposed project that could result in any new or more severe impacts related to geology and soils. The proposed project includes the installation of a reservoir, pipeline, and access road that would be designed in accordance with Unified Building Code (UBC) and California Building Code (CBC) regulations regarding seismic hazards. Impacts related to geologic impacts would be the same as those evaluated in the Final PEIR. Implementation of Geo-PDF-1, which would require compliance with the UBC and CBC, would reduce potential impacts associated with exposure to seismic-related hazards. Because the proposed project was not identified as being in an area susceptible to landslides or liquefaction, Geo-SCP-1 would not be applicable. Therefore, similar to the Final PEIR, implementation of Geo-PDF-1 would reduce the potential for the proposed project to expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving rupture of a known earthquake fault; strong seismic ground shaking; seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction; and landslides, and impacts would be less than significant. Although the proposed project would involve soil-disturbing construction activities that may result in the potential for soil erosion or the loss of topsoil, implementation of Geo-SCP-2, which would identify areas of severely erodible soils as part of a site-specific geotechnical investigation and Geo-SCP-3, which would include the preparation of either a 90 percent Erosion Control Plan or a 90 percent Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), as well as Geo-PDF-1 would reduce potential impacts to a less-than-significant level. Regarding potential geologic formation/soil instability, the proposed project was not identified in the Final PEIR as being within an area susceptible to landslides, lateral spreading, subsidence, or liquefaction. As such, the proposed project would not have the potential to exacerbate these geological Otay Water District Chapter 3. Environmental Impact Analysis Addendum to the Final PEIR for the 2015 Water Facilities Master Plan Update 3-19 October 2019 ICF 00025.19 hazards as a result of being located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project. Impacts would be less than significant. However, the proposed project was identified in the Final PEIR as being within an area underlain by potentially expansive soils. With implementation of Geo-SCP-1 and Geo-SCP-4, potential impacts associated with expansive soils would be reduced to a less-than-significant level. The geotechnical study would include soil sampling of the final sub-grade areas and excavation sidewalls for their expansion index. For areas where the expansion index is found to be greater than 20, appropriate techniques to minimize the shrink/swell potential would be designed and implemented, including, but not limited to, removal of expansive soils and replacement with properly compacted fill, management of oversized materials, over-excavation for deeper fills, or placement of foundations and larger pipelines outside of cut/fill transition zones and landscaped irrigation zones. Therefore, similar to the Final PEIR, implementation of Geo-SCP-1 and Geo-SCP-4 would reduce impacts associated with expansive soils to a less-than-significant level. Although construction of the proposed project would include grading or excavation, the project site is not located within an area that has been identified as a “high,” “moderate,” “low,” or “marginal” paleontological sensitivity area. As shown on Figure 4.5-5 of the Final PEIR, the proposed project was identified in an area with “zero” paleontological sensitivity. Therefore, the proposed project would not directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature. Impacts on paleontological resources would be less than significant. The Final PEIR did not identify any impacts related to soils incapable of supporting septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems and did not identify mitigation measures, SCPs, or PDFs. The proposed project would not involve the use of septic tanks or other alternative wastewater disposal systems. Therefore, similar to the Final PEIR, the proposed project would not result in any impacts related to this issue. Based on the above, the proposed project would not result in any new or more severe significant impacts related to geology and soils; therefore, the proposed project would not meet the conditions outlined in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 requiring the preparation of a subsequent EIR, and the proposed project would meet the conditions outlined in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15164, which allows the preparation of an addendum to a previously certified EIR to achieve CEQA compliance. Applicable Mitigation Measures, Standard Construction Practices, and/or Project Design Features Geo-PDF-1: At the time of the proposed project design, OWD will implement the relevant requirements of the UBC and CBC, as updated or amended, and the CDMG Special Publication 117. Geo-SCP-1: Prior to construction of the proposed project, areas of liquefaction and/or landslides will be identified as part of site-specific geotechnical investigations. The investigations will specifically address foundation and slope stability in liquefiable and landslide areas proposed for construction. Recommendations made in conjunction with the geotechnical investigations will be implemented during construction, including but not limited to the following actions: i. Over-excavate unsuitable materials and replace them with engineered fill. Otay Water District Chapter 3. Environmental Impact Analysis Addendum to the Final PEIR for the 2015 Water Facilities Master Plan Update 3-20 October 2019 ICF 00025.19 ii. For thinner deposits, remove loose, unconsolidated soils and replace with properly compacted fill soils, or apply other design stabilization features (i.e., excavation of overburden). iii. For thicker deposits, implement applicable techniques such as dynamic compaction (i.e., dropping heavy weights on the land surface), vibro-compaction (i.e., inserting a vibratory device into the liquefiable sand), vibro-replacement (i.e., replacing sand by drilling and then vibro- compacting backfill in the bore hole), or compaction piles (i.e., driving piles and densifying surrounding soil). iv. Lower the groundwater table to below the level of liquefiable soils. v. Perform in-situ densification of soils or other alterations to the ground characteristics. vi. For landslides, implement applicable techniques such as stabilization (i.e., construction of buttress fills, retaining walls, or other structural support to remediate the potential for instability of cut slopes composed of landslide debris); remedial grading and removal of landslide debris (e.g., over-excavation and recompaction); or avoidance (e.g., structural setbacks). Geo-SCP-2: Prior to construction of the proposed project, areas of severely erodible soils will be identified as part of site-specific geotechnical investigations. The investigations will specifically address foundation and slope stability in erodible soils proposed for construction. Recommendations made in conjunction with the geotechnical investigations will be implemented during construction, including but not limited to the following actions: i. Minimize disturbance to existing vegetation and slopes. ii. Construct drainage control devices (e.g., storm drains, brow ditches, subdrains, etc.) to direct surface water runoff away from slopes and other graded areas. iii. Provide temporary hydroseeding of cleared vegetation and graded slopes as soon as possible following grading activities for areas that will remain in disturbed condition (but will not be subject to further construction activities) for a period greater than two weeks during the construction phase. Geo-SCP-3: The construction bid documents for each CIP project will include either a 90 percent Erosion Control Plan (for projects that would result in less than one acre of land disturbance) or a 90 percent Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) (for projects that would result in one acre or greater of land disturbance). The Erosion Control Plan will comply with the storm water regulations or ordinances of the local agency jurisdiction within which the CIP project occurs, while the SWPPP will comply with the NPDES General Construction Permit. These plans will be based on site-specific hydraulic and hydrologic characteristics and identify a range of BMPs to reduce impacts related to storm water runoff, including sedimentation BMPs to control soil erosion. The construction contractor will identify the specific storm water BMPs to be implemented during the construction phase of a given CIP project, and will prepare and implement the final Erosion Control Plan or SWPPP for that project. Typical BMPs to be implemented as part of the Erosion Control Plan or SWPPP may include, but may not be limited to, the actions listed below. For protection of finished graded areas and manufactured slopes, the construction contractor will implement OWD Standard Specifications for Slope Protection and Erosion Control (Section 02202). Otay Water District Chapter 3. Environmental Impact Analysis Addendum to the Final PEIR for the 2015 Water Facilities Master Plan Update 3-21 October 2019 ICF 00025.19 i. Implement a “weather triggered” action plan during the rainy season involving installation of enhanced erosion and sediment control measures prior to predicted storm events (i.e., 40 percent or greater chance of rain). ii. Use erosion control/stabilizing measures in cleared areas and on graded slopes of 3:1 (horizontal to vertical) gradient or steeper, such as geotextiles, mats, fiber rolls, soil binders, or temporary hydroseeding. iii. Use sediment controls to protect the site perimeter and prevent off-site sediment transport, such as filtration devices (e.g., temporary inlet filters), silt fences, fiber rolls, gravel bags, temporary sediment basins, check dams, street sweeping, energy dissipaters, stabilized construction access points (e.g., temporary gravel or pavement) and sediment stockpiles (e.g., silt fences and tarps), and properly fitted covers for sediment transport vehicles. iv. Divert runoff from uphill areas around disturbed areas of the construction site. v. Protect storm drain inlets on-site or downstream of the construction site to eliminate entry of sediment. vi. Store BMP materials in on-site areas to provide “standby” capacity adequate to provide complete protection of exposed areas and prevent off-site sediment transport. vii. Train personnel responsible for BMP installation and maintenance. viii. Implement solid waste management efforts such as proper containment and disposal of construction debris. ix. Install permanent landscaping (or native vegetation in areas adjacent to natural habitats) and irrigation as soon as feasible after final grading or construction. x. Implement appropriate monitoring and maintenance efforts (e.g., prior to and after storm events) to ensure proper BMP function and efficiency. xi. Implement sampling/analysis, monitoring/reporting and post-construction management programs per NPDES requirements. xii. Implement additional BMPs as necessary (and as required by appropriate regulatory agencies) to ensure adequate erosion and sediment control. Geo-SCP-4: Prior to construction of the proposed project, areas of geologic/soil instability will be identified as part of site-specific geotechnical investigations. The investigations will specifically address foundation and slope stability within unstable geologic units/soils proposed for construction. Recommendations made in conjunction with the geotechnical investigations will be implemented during construction, including but not limited to the following actions: i. Perform site-specific settlement analyses in areas deemed appropriate by the geotechnical engineer and evaluate the potential for groundwater-related subsidence. ii. Over-excavate unsuitable materials and replace them with engineered fill. iii. To minimize or avoid lateral spreading of on-site soils, remove compressible soils and replace them with properly compacted fill, perform compaction grouting or deep dynamic compaction, or use stiffened conventional foundation systems. Otay Water District Chapter 3. Environmental Impact Analysis Addendum to the Final PEIR for the 2015 Water Facilities Master Plan Update 3-22 October 2019 ICF 00025.19 iv. To minimize or avoid differential compression or settlement of on-site soils, manage oversized material (i.e., rocks greater than 12 inches) via off-site disposal, placement in non-structural fill, or crushing or pre-blasting to generate material less than 12 inches. Oversized material greater than 4 feet will not be used in fills, and will not be placed within 10 feet of finished grade, within 10 feet of manufactured slope faces (measured horizontally from the slope face), or within 3 feet of the deepest pipeline or other utilities. v. To minimize or avoid shrinking/swelling of on-site expansive soils, over-excavate for deeper fills (at least five feet below finished grade). vi. Locate foundations and larger pipelines outside of cut/fill transition zones and landscaped irrigation zones. 3.8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Summary of Final PEIR Findings The Final PEIR identified potential impacts associated with the construction of CIP projects that would result in temporary emissions of greenhouse gases (GHGs) from the operation of construction equipment and from worker and building supply vendor vehicles. The Final PEIR concluded that the construction of CIP projects could result in construction emissions above the annual 2,500 metric tons (MT) of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e) County threshold; however, with implementation of mitigation measure GHG-1 and Air-SCP-3, impacts would be less than significant. In addition, the Final PEIR concluded operational GHG emissions would not exceed the 2,500 MT CO2e County threshold, and impacts would be less than significant. The Final PEIR identified Assembly Bill (AB) 32 as the applicable policy adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions. In addition, the Final PEIR identified that the County’s Guidelines for Determining Significance for Climate Change is utilized to ensure that new development achieves required emissions reductions in order to comply with AB 32. The Final PEIR concluded that with implementation of mitigation measure GHG-1, impacts would be less than significant. Impacts of the Proposed Project The proposed project was identified and analyzed in the Final PEIR as currently proposed, and there would not be any substantial changes in the project from what was previously analyzed in the Final PEIR. As such, there are no changes associated with the proposed project that could result in any new or more severe impacts related to greenhouse gas emissions. Construction of the proposed project would result in temporary GHG emissions from the operation of construction equipment as well as worker and material delivery vehicles. GHG emission estimates in the Final PEIR are based on worst-case scenario with 100 acres of industrial uses constructed at a given time. The activity estimates in the Final PEIR were based on CalEEMod defaults, which are based on construction acreage. Final PEIR mitigation measure GHG-1 requires future projects to demonstrate construction activity will be less than or equal to the activity assumed in the Final PEIR. The proposed project includes construction on a 3.9-acre site, which is much less than assumed in the Final PEIR. Because default construction assumptions scale with acreage, proposed project construction activity will be much less than the activity assumed in the Final PEIR. As such, Otay Water District Chapter 3. Environmental Impact Analysis Addendum to the Final PEIR for the 2015 Water Facilities Master Plan Update 3-23 October 2019 ICF 00025.19 mitigation measure GHG-1 is satisfied. Additionally, implementation of Air-SCP-3, which requires incorporation of BMPs during construction to reduce emissions associated with diesel equipment, would further reduce the generation of GHG emissions from the project site. Impacts during construction would be less than significant. Once constructed, the only operational sources associated with the proposed project would be periodic operations and maintenance, such as worker trips and upkeep. However, activity is expected to be minimal and would be far below any relevant thresholds. Impacts during operations would be less than significant. Based on the above, the proposed project would not result in any new or more severe significant impacts related to greenhouse gas emissions; therefore, the proposed project would not meet the conditions outlined in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 requiring the preparation of a subsequent EIR, and the proposed project would meet the conditions outlined in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15164, which allows the preparation of an addendum to a previously certified EIR to achieve CEQA compliance. Applicable Mitigation Measures, Standard Construction Practices, and/or Project Design Features Air-SCP-3: During project construction activities, the CIP Project Construction Manager will supervise the following BMPs to reduce emissions associated with diesel equipment: i. Properly operate and maintain all diesel-powered vehicles and equipment. ii. Retrofit diesel-powered equipment with “after-treatment” products (e.g., diesel oxidation catalysts, diesel particulate filters). iii. Use electric or natural gas-powered construction equipment in lieu of gasoline or diesel- powered engines. iv. Turn off all diesel-powered vehicles and gasoline-powered equipment when not in use for more than five minutes. v. Support and encourage ridesharing and transit incentives for the construction crew. vi. Encourage the use of locally available building materials, such as concrete, stucco, and interior finishes. vii. Use light-colored or a high-albedo (reflectivity) concrete and asphalt paving materials with a Solar Reflectance Index of 29 or higher. viii. Establish a construction management plan with the local waste hauler that diverts a minimum of 50% of construction, demolition, and site clearing waste. 3.9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials Summary of Final PEIR Findings Potential hazards and hazardous materials impacts associated with the 2015 WFMP Update were analyzed in Section 4.11, Public Safety, of the Final PEIR. The Final PEIR identified potentially Otay Water District Chapter 3. Environmental Impact Analysis Addendum to the Final PEIR for the 2015 Water Facilities Master Plan Update 3-24 October 2019 ICF 00025.19 significant impacts associated with hazards and hazardous materials due to the transportation, storage, use, and disposal of hazardous materials; through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the likely release of hazardous materials into the environment; or through hazardous emissions within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school. The Final PEIR also identified potentially significant impacts associated with CIP construction activities that could be located on or near listed hazardous materials sites resulting in a significant hazard to the public or the environment. In addition, the Final PEIR identified potentially significant impacts related to construction activities that would involve lane or roadway closures that may temporarily interfere with emergency response vehicles, or that may temporarily impair implementation of adopted emergency response/emergency evacuation plans contained within the San Diego County Emergency Operations Plan. The Final PEIR concluded that implementation of Haz-SCP-1, Haz-SCP- 2, Haz-PDF-1, and Haz-PDF-2, and mitigation measure Haz-2A would reduce impacts associated with these hazards and hazardous materials to a less-than-significant level. The Final PEIR identified three CIPs located within 2 miles of a public airport or in the vicinity of a private airstrip. As there would be no human occupation associated with the CIPs, the Final PEIR concluded proximity to a public airport or a private airstrip would not result in a public safety hazard. Therefore, no impacts were identified, and no further analysis was included. Impacts of the Proposed Project The proposed project was identified and analyzed in the Final PEIR as currently proposed, and there would not be any substantial changes in the project from what was previously analyzed in the Final PEIR. As such, there are no changes associated with proposed project that could result in any new or more severe impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials. Construction of the proposed project would involve the use of limited amounts of hazardous materials, such as diesel fuel, oils, paints, and solvents. However, implementation of Haz-SCP-1, which would require preparation of a Hazardous Materials Business Plan that discloses the type, quantity, and storage location of materials during construction, would reduce any potential impacts to less than significant. Additionally, project operations could involve the use of limited amounts of hazardous materials, such as chlorine gas, sodium hypochlorite, and aqueous ammonia for water disinfecting purposes. With the implementation of Haz-PDF-1 and Haz-PDF-2, which require preparation of a post-construction Hazardous Materials Business Plan and Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasure Plan, respectively, potential operation-related hazardous materials impacts would be reduced to less than significant. These conclusions are consistent with those disclosed in the Final PEIR. The Final PEIR identified potentially significant impacts associated with the construction of CIP projects that could be located on or near listed hazardous materials sites. As such, the potential exists for the project site to have been contaminated by hazardous substances as a result of former uses of the site, leaks from unidentified underground storage tanks (USTs), or unidentified buried debris that could contain hazardous substances or hazardous by-products. However, a review of Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) EnviroStor database and State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) GeoTracker database did not identify the presence of any hazardous materials sites on the project site or in the project vicinity. Furthermore, implementation of mitigation measure Haz-2A, which would require a hazardous materials database search as part of the geotechnical investigations required under Geo-SCP-1 through Geo-SCP-4 (see above under 3.7, Otay Water District Chapter 3. Environmental Impact Analysis Addendum to the Final PEIR for the 2015 Water Facilities Master Plan Update 3-25 October 2019 ICF 00025.19 Geology and Soils) would reduce potential impacts associated with listed hazardous materials sites to a less-than-significant level. These conclusions are consistent with those disclosed in the Final PEIR. The Final PEIR noted that construction of CIP projects could involve lane or roadway closures that may temporarily interfere with emergency response vehicles and temporarily impair implementation of adopted emergency response/emergency evacuation plans contained within the Emergency Operations Plan, which applies to the entire planning area of the District. The new reservoir, access road, and pipeline would be constructed off of an existing private, paved road within the Rancho Jamul Estates. The proposed project does not involve any changes that would permanently affect emergency access to these existing residences. In the event that a lane or roadway closure would occur during project construction, implementation of Haz-SCP-2, which requires implementation of a traffic control plan to ensure that adequate emergency access and egress is maintained around the construction site, would reduce potential impacts associated with emergency response and evacuation plans to less than significant. These conclusions are consistent with those disclosed in the Final PEIR. Regarding wildland fire hazards, the proposed project would be designed and constructed in accordance with the Uniform Fire Code (Title 24, Code of Federal Regulations [CFR], Part 9), which requires installation of sprinkler systems, fire-resistant building materials, standard driveway widths, and other features to ensure that structures are constructed with all reasonable fire safety features. Additionally, the proposed project is a water storage project, and does not include any elements that would exacerbate potential wildfire risk. Therefore, similar to the conclusions of the Final PEIR, implementation of required fire safety features would reduce potential impacts associated with wildland fires to a less-than-significant level. Lastly, the project site was not identified in the Final PEIR as being within 2 miles of a public airport or in the vicinity of a private airstrip. Because the proposed project is generally in the same location identified in the Final PEIR, no impacts related to a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area would occur. Based on the above, the proposed project would not result in any new or more severe significant impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials; therefore, the proposed project would not meet the conditions outlined in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 requiring the preparation of a subsequent EIR, and the proposed project would meet the conditions outlined in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15164, which allows the preparation of an addendum to a previously certified EIR to achieve CEQA compliance. Applicable Mitigation Measures, Standard Construction Practices, and/or Project Design Features Haz-SCP-1: Prior to construction of the proposed project, the construction contractor will prepare and submit a HMBP to OWD. The procedures in the HMBP will comply with USDOT (Office of Hazardous Materials Safety) as it pertains to the transportation, storage, use, and disposal of hazardous materials and CHP regulations for the transportation of hazardous materials along state highways. Haz-SCP-2: In the event that CIP construction activities would require a lane or roadway closure, or could otherwise substantially interfere with traffic circulation, the contractor will obtain a Traffic Otay Water District Chapter 3. Environmental Impact Analysis Addendum to the Final PEIR for the 2015 Water Facilities Master Plan Update 3-26 October 2019 ICF 00025.19 Control Permit from the local land use agency and/or state agencies such as Caltrans, prior to construction as necessary, and implement a traffic control plan to ensure that adequate emergency access and egress is maintained and that traffic will move efficiently and safely in and around the construction site. The traffic control plan may include, but not be limited to, the following measures: i. Install traffic control signs, cones, flags, flares, lights, and temporary traffic signals in compliance with the requirements of local jurisdictions, and relocate them as the work progresses to maintain effective traffic control. ii. Provide trained and equipped flag persons to regulate traffic flow when construction activities encroach onto traffic lanes. iii. Control parking for construction equipment and worker vehicles to prevent interference with public and private parking spaces, access by emergency vehicles, and owner’s operations iv. Traffic control equipment, devices, and post settings will be removed when no longer required. Any damage caused by equipment installation will be repaired. v. For CIP construction activities near schools, the contractor will coordinate with schools prior to commencement of construction activity to minimize potential disruption of traffic flows during school day peak traffic periods. Haz-PDF-1: OWD will continue to prepare and implement a post-construction HMBP for long-term operations at CIP reservoirs, pump stations and groundwater wells involving the transportation, storage, use, and disposal of hazardous materials. The procedures in the HMBP will comply with USDOT (Office of Hazardous Materials Safety) and CHP regulations for the transportation of hazardous materials along state highways. Haz-PDF-2: OWD will continue to prepare and implement SPCC plans for long-term operations at CIP pump stations that store fuel on site and meet the criteria of requiring an SPCC plan. The procedures in the SPCC will comply with US EPA’s regulations for stored fuel and oils to prevent any discharge of oil into or upon navigable waters of the United States or adjoining shorelines. Haz-2A: As part of geotechnical investigations conducted prior to ground-disturbing activities for CIPs, a database search of hazardous materials sites shall be performed within a one-mile radius surrounding the CIP site pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5. In the event such sites are identified within the search parameters, OWD shall retain a registered environmental assessor to prepare a Remediation Plan for any contaminated soils or groundwater encountered within the construction area. The Remediation Plan shall be incorporated into the construction documents. If contamination is encountered during ground-disturbing activities, the on-site construction supervisor shall redirect work away from the location of the contamination and shall notify OWD, County DEH and RWQCB. The contamination remediation and removal activities shall be conducted in accordance with the Remediation Plan and pertinent regulatory guidelines, under the oversight of the appropriate regulatory agency. Otay Water District Chapter 3. Environmental Impact Analysis Addendum to the Final PEIR for the 2015 Water Facilities Master Plan Update 3-27 October 2019 ICF 00025.19 3.10 Hydrology and Water Quality Summary of Final PEIR Findings The Final PEIR identified potentially significant impacts associated with potential violations of water quality standards or waste discharge requirements and potential surface water quality degradation resulting from construction, development and long-term operations of CIP projects under the 2015 WFMP Update. The Final PEIR concluded that implementation of Geo-SCP-2, Geo-SCP-3, Hyd-SCP-1, and Hyd-PDF-1 would reduce impacts associated with potential violations of water quality standards or waste discharge requirements and potential surface water quality degradation resulting from construction, development, and long-term operations of CIP projects under the 2015 WFMP Update to a less-than-significant level. The Final PEIR also identified potentially significant impacts on groundwater quality due to stormwater runoff pollution associated with construction, development, and long-term operation of the CIP projects. To reduce this potentially significant impact, the Final PEIR included Geo-SCP-2 and Geo-SCP-3 (refer to Section 3.7, Geology and Soils) and Hyd-SCP-1 and Hyd-PDF-1 that would reduce water quality impacts to less than significant. The Final PEIR identified potentially significant impacts associated with potential stormwater runoff pollution (including erosion/siltation), flooding, and exceedance of capacity of stormwater drainage facilities due to alteration of localized drainage patterns. The Final PEIR concluded that implementation of Geo-SCP-2, Geo-SCP-3, and Hyd-PDF-2 would reduce impacts to a less-than- significant level. Additionally, the Final PEIR identified potentially significant impacts associated with mudflow due to the presence of relatively steep topography and the underlying San Diego and Otay geologic formations, which would result in potential for seismically induced landslides and mudflows to occur. The Final PEIR concluded that implementation of Geo-SCP-1 would reduce impacts associated with mudflow to a less-than-significant level. The Final PEIR did not identify any potentially significant impacts related to groundwater supplies and recharge; the placement of structures within a 100-year flood hazard area which would impede or redirect flood flows; the potential to be inundated by tsunami or seiche; or risk for inundation as a result of the failure of a levee or dam. These potential impacts were deemed insignificant due to the location of the CIP project sites. Impacts of the Proposed Project The proposed project was identified and analyzed in the Final PEIR as currently proposed, and there would not be any substantial changes in the project from what was previously analyzed in the Final PEIR. As such, there are no changes associated with proposed project that could result in any new or more severe impacts related to hydrology and water quality. The proposed project involves construction of the same reservoir analyzed in the Final PEIR and would be in the same general location identified in the Final PEIR. Construction of the proposed project would potentially result in stormwater pollutants including, but not limited to, sediments, oil and grease, and organic compounds. However, similar to what was described in the Final PEIR, implementation of Geo-SCP-2, Geo-SCP-3, and Hyd-SCP-1 would reduce potential construction- related water quality impacts to less than significant by requiring implementation of construction and post-construction BMPs, as well as implementation of a safety plan to minimize downstream water quality degradation from runoff pollution during project construction. Once operational, the Otay Water District Chapter 3. Environmental Impact Analysis Addendum to the Final PEIR for the 2015 Water Facilities Master Plan Update 3-28 October 2019 ICF 00025.19 proposed project would also potentially result in operational pollutants identified in the Final PEIR including sediment discharges, nutrients from fertilizers, heavy metals, organic compounds, trash and debris deposited in drain inlets, oxygen demanding substances, oil and grease, bacteria and viruses, and pesticides from landscaping. Additionally, long-term operations could involve the transport, storage, use, and disposal of hazardous materials. However, implementation of Hyd-SCP- 1, which requires preparation and implementation of a site-specific Hazardous Materials Business Plan (HMBP) and compliance with the County Department of Environmental Health permit for the use of hazardous substances, in combination with Geo-SCP-2, Geo-SCP-3, and Hyd-SCP-1 would reduce potential operation-related water quality impacts to less than significant. These conclusions are consistent with those of the Final PEIR. Regarding groundwater, the Final PEIR noted that none of the CIP projects would be located within the Sweetwater or Otay Valley groundwater basins, and the proposed project was not identified as being adjacent to either of these groundwater basins. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in any construction or operational impacts on groundwater quality or groundwater recharge. The proposed project would potentially result in the localized alteration of drainage patterns through topographic modifications that may increase the rate or amount of surface runoff discharging from the project site, which could result in substantial erosion, siltation, or flooding on- or off-site, or substantial additional sources of polluted runoff. However, implementation of Geo- SCP-2, Geo-SCP-3, Hyd-SCP-1, Hyd-PDF-1, and Hyd-PDF-2, included in the Final PEIR, would reduce potential impacts from stormwater runoff pollution (including erosion/siltation), flooding, and exceedance of capacity of stormwater drainage facilities due to alteration of localized drainage patterns associated with construction and operation of the proposed project to a less-than- significant level. Additionally, the proposed project was not identified in the Final PEIR as being within an area susceptible to damage from mudflows, tsunamis, or seiches. Lastly, the proposed project is not within a 100-year flood hazard area or Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)-designated 100-year floodplain or floodway. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in any significant impacts related to these issues. Based on the above, the proposed project would not result in any new or more severe significant impacts related to hydrology or water quality; therefore, the proposed project would not meet the conditions outlined in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 requiring the preparation of a subsequent EIR, and the proposed project would meet the conditions outlined in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15164, which allows the preparation of an addendum to a previously certified EIR to achieve CEQA compliance. Applicable Mitigation Measures, Standard Construction Practices, and/or Project Design Features Geo-SCP-2 and Geo-SCP-3, which would be implemented per Section 3.7, Geology and Soils. Hyd-SCP-1: In accordance with the Water Agencies’ Standards, the construction contractor is required to implement a safety plan at each CIP construction site that would involve the transport, storage, use, and disposal of hazardous materials. Such plans will also specify storm water BMPs, to be consistent with those identified in Geo-SCP-3 (refer to Section VI, Geology and Soils, above), to Otay Water District Chapter 3. Environmental Impact Analysis Addendum to the Final PEIR for the 2015 Water Facilities Master Plan Update 3-29 October 2019 ICF 00025.19 minimize downstream water quality degradation from runoff pollution associated with CIP construction activities. Hyd-PDF-1: For each CIP facility that would involve the transport, storage, use, and disposal of hazardous materials during project operation, OWD will implement a site-specific Hazardous Materials Business Plan (HMBP), including BMPs to prevent downstream water quality degradation from runoff pollution associated with CIP post-construction operations. In addition, OWD is required to obtain a permit from the County Department of Environmental Health (DEH) allowing for the use of specified hazardous substances during the CIP post-construction operation of these sites. Typical BMPs to be implemented as part of the HMBP may include, but are not limited to, the actions listed below. i. Minor chemical spills will be contained by absorbent, using trained employees in proper protective equipment, and waste will be placed in a properly labeled container for disposal. ii. For major chemical spills, employees will notify the local fire department. Prior to arrival by emergency responders, trained employees using proper protective equipment will attempt to contain the spill using absorbent, physical barriers, or other methods as specified in the HMBP, and prevent it from entering the storm drain and from discharging off-site as runoff. Hyd-PDF-2: At the time of CIP project design, the OWD will implement the relevant requirements of the 2013 UBC and CBC for all above-ground CIP projects (reservoirs, pump stations, and facilities for groundwater production wells), including the design of appropriately sized drainage facilities, where necessary, to capture runoff from each project site to reduce the risk of flooding. 3.11 Land Use and Planning Summary of Final PEIR Findings The Final PEIR concluded that development of several CIP projects, including the proposed project, would be constructed in undeveloped areas and thus would not physically divide an established community. Therefore, no further analysis was included. In addition, the Final PEIR concluded that Subsections (d) and (e) within Section 53091 of the California Government Code state that local agency building and zoning ordinances (and by inference the planning policies of local land use agencies) do not apply to the location or construction of facilities for the production, generation, storage, treatment, or transmission of water. Therefore, conflicts with any land use plan, policy, or regulation would not occur, and no further analysis was included. The Final PEIR identified that portions of the District’s planning area are within the boundaries of the County of San Diego, City of Chula Vista, and City of San Diego MSCPs, and that CIP projects located within or adjacent to MSCP preserves could result in impacts on these preserve areas. The Final PEIR concluded that implementation of LU-PDF-1 through LU-PDF-3, Noi-PDF-1, and mitigation measure Bio-1C would incorporate the respective land use adjacency guidelines of the County of San Diego, City of Chula Vista, City of San Diego MSCP Subarea Plans, including but not limited to, landscaping with native plants indigenous to the area, fencing or other barriers to prevent uncontrolled human access, installation of drainage features to prevent discharge of stormwater runoff pollutants, installation of acoustical louvers in pump station buildings to reduce operational noise levels, and temporary noise walls or berms to reduce construction noise levels. Otay Water District Chapter 3. Environmental Impact Analysis Addendum to the Final PEIR for the 2015 Water Facilities Master Plan Update 3-30 October 2019 ICF 00025.19 The Final PEIR concluded that implementation of LU-PDF-1 through LU-PDF-3, Noi-PDF-1, and mitigation measure Bio-1C would reduce potential indirect impacts on biological resources in and adjacent to the MSCP preserves, and potential conflicts with these HCPs/NCCPs, to below a level of significance. Impacts of the Proposed Project The proposed project was identified and analyzed in the Final PEIR as currently proposed, and there would not be any substantial changes in the project from what was previously analyzed in the Final PEIR. As such, there are no changes associated with proposed project that could result in any new or more severe impacts related to land use. The proposed project is located in an undeveloped area and would not result in any new or more severe significant impacts related to physically dividing an established community. Impacts would be less than significant. This conclusion is consistent with the findings of the Final PEIR, which determined that implementation of the 2015 WFMP Update would not physically divide an established community and did not identify mitigation measures, SCPs, or PDFs Additionally, the proposed project is within the Jamul/Dulzura community planning area in unincorporated San Diego County. Subsections (d) and (e) within Section 53091 of the California Government Code state that local agency building and zoning ordinances (and by inference the planning policies of local land use agencies) do not apply to the location or construction of facilities for the production, generation, storage, treatment, or transmission of water. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation of the County of San Diego. Impacts would be less than significant. This conclusion is consistent with the findings of the Final PEIR, which determined that none of the CIP projects, including the proposed project, would conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation and did not identify mitigation measures, SCPs, or PDFs. The proposed project is within the boundary of the County’s MSCP Subarea Plan.3 Although the District is not subject to the requirements of the MSCP, the proposed project would not conflict with the implementation of the MSCP South County Subarea Plan or the assemblage of the conservation land required for MSCP species to be considered fully covered. The proposed project was not identified in the Final PEIR as being within or adjacent to the “Conserved (Subject to Agreement with Wildlife Agencies)” areas under the County’s MSCP. The project site is located within the Metro- Lakeside-Jamul Segment of the MSCP South County Subarea Plan specifically, outside the PAMA and hardline preserve areas. The proposed project would occur on a relatively small parcel, not identified for conservation efforts, adjacent to exurban development to the south. As a result, the development of the proposed project would not conflict with the preservation goals established for the Metro–Lakeside–Jamul segment. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. Based on the above, the proposed project would not result in any new or more severe significant impacts related to land use and planning and would not meet the conditions outlined in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 requiring the preparation of a subsequent EIR, and the proposed project 3 LU-PDF-2 does not apply because the project is not within Hardline Preserve or Pre-Approved Mitigation areas under the City of San Diego’s MSCP. Similarly, LU-PDF-3 does not apply because the project is not within or adjacent to conserved areas identified under the City of Chula Vista MSCP. Otay Water District Chapter 3. Environmental Impact Analysis Addendum to the Final PEIR for the 2015 Water Facilities Master Plan Update 3-31 October 2019 ICF 00025.19 would meet the conditions outlined in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15164, which allows the preparation of an addendum to a previously certified EIR to achieve CEQA compliance. Applicable Mitigation Measures, Standard Construction Practices, and/or Project Design Features LU-PDF-1: The design of CIP reservoirs, pump stations and water supply projects located within and adjacent to the “Conserved (Subject to Agreement with Wildlife Agencies)” areas under the County of San Diego MSCP will incorporate the following guidelines: i. Plant materials used for landscaping will consist of native species similar/compatible with the adjacent habitat, and those species should be based on plants with genetic materials of the area. ii. Fencing will be installed along the reserve boundary to prevent uncontrolled human access. iii. Lighting within 100 feet of reserve boundary will be confined to areas necessary for public safety. 3.12 Mineral Resources Summary of Final PEIR Findings The Final PEIR did not identify significant impacts related to mineral resources and did not identify any mitigation measures, SCPs, or PDFs. As detailed in Section 6.1 of the Final PEIR, the majority of the western portion of the District is designated as Mineral Resource Zone (MRZ) 3 (mineral resources potentially present) by the County of San Diego. In addition, the Final PEIR identified that portions of the Sweetwater and Otay River valleys and some of the minor drainages feeding into these rivers are designated as MRZ 2 (mineral resources present). The Final PEIR concluded that any CIPs constructed on undeveloped land would retain small development footprints and would not result in a significant loss of known mineral resources or locally important mineral resource recovery sites. Impacts of the Proposed Project The proposed project was identified and analyzed in the Final PEIR as currently proposed, and there would not be any substantial changes in the project from what was previously analyzed in the Final PEIR. As such, there are no changes associated with proposed project that could result in any new or more severe impacts related to mineral resources. The proposed project is not located within an area that contains mineral resources and therefore would not result in any new or more severe significant impacts related to the loss of availability of a known mineral resource. Therefore, the proposed project would not meet the conditions outlined in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 requiring the preparation of a subsequent EIR, and the proposed project would meet the conditions outlined in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15164, which allows the preparation of an addendum to a previously certified EIR to achieve CEQA compliance. Otay Water District Chapter 3. Environmental Impact Analysis Addendum to the Final PEIR for the 2015 Water Facilities Master Plan Update 3-32 October 2019 ICF 00025.19 Applicable Mitigation Measures, Standard Construction Practices, and/or Project Design Features There are no mitigation measures, SCPs, or PDFs from the Final PEIR identified to reduce impacts related to mineral resources. 3.13 Noise Summary of Final PEIR Findings The Final PEIR concluded that the 2015 WFMP Update could include blasting, which would have the potential to generate excessive groundborne vibration that may affect nearby vibration-sensitive uses. However, the Final PEIR concluded that compliance with the District’s Standard Specifications for Explosives and Blasting (Section 02200), as specified in Noi-SCP-2 of the Final PEIR, would reduce impacts associated with groundborne vibration due to blasting activities to a less-than- significant level. For construction noise impacts, the Final PEIR discusses construction noise ordinance thresholds; potential construction equipment identified in the Final PEIR included dozers, rollers, dewatering pumps, backhoes, loaders, and delivery and haul trucks. The Final PEIR identified that CIP projects under the 2015 WFMP Update were still in the design phase, and, as such, information regarding the specific number and type of construction equipment required as well as the duration of construction activities was unknown. Therefore, construction noise impacts would potentially exceed the noise levels limits established by applicable noise ordinances. The Final PEIR concluded that temporary impacts related to construction noise would be reduced to less than significant with the incorporation of Noi-SCP-1 and Noi-SCP-2, which would ensure that noise from construction activity would remain within the limits established by applicable jurisdictions, and would reduce impacts to less than significant. For operational noise impacts, the Final PEIR references the County of San Diego’s Noise Ordinance, which restricts one-hour average sound levels (in A-weighted decibels [dBA]) in residential areas to 50 dBA during the daytime (7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.), and 45 dBA during nighttime hours (10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.). The Final PEIR concluded that development of CIP projects located adjacent to residential land uses that would involve the use of pumps, emergency generators, or any other motorized equipment would result in significant permanent increases in ambient noise. The Final PEIR concluded that impacts associated with permanent increases in ambient noise would be reduced to less than significant with the incorporation of Noi-PDF-1. The Final PEIR concluded that implementation of the 2015 WFMP Update would not result in impacts associated with the exposure of people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels resulting from aircraft. Therefore, the Final PEIR concluded no impacts related to aircraft operations would occur, and no further analysis was included. Otay Water District Chapter 3. Environmental Impact Analysis Addendum to the Final PEIR for the 2015 Water Facilities Master Plan Update 3-33 October 2019 ICF 00025.19 Impacts of the Proposed Project The proposed project was identified and analyzed in the Final PEIR as currently proposed, and there would not be any substantial changes in the project from what was previously analyzed in the Final PEIR. As such, there are no changes associated with proposed project that could result in any new or more severe impacts related to noise. Construction of the proposed project would result in temporary increases in ambient noise levels. Construction activities would involve the use of heavy equipment for land clearing and installation of access roads. However, any temporary construction noise impacts would be reduced through implementation of Noi-SCP-1, which would ensure compliance with the County of San Diego’s noise ordinances and regulations. Noi-SCP-1 also requires additional measures such as outfitting construction equipment with manufacturer-recommended noise reduction features and locating generators at least 100 feet from the nearest noise sensitive land uses. Additionally, the Final PEIR noted that blasting and rock removal may be required for construction of certain CIP projects, which would include drilling a hole, filling the hole with explosive material, capping the hole, and detonating the material. However, any temporary noise impacts associated with blasting activities would be reduced through implementation of Noi-SCP-2, which would ensure compliance with the District’s Standard Specifications for Explosives and Blasting (Section 02200). Therefore, similar to the conclusions in the Final PEIR, implementation of Noi-SCP-1 and Noi-SCP-2 would reduce temporary noise impacts during construction to less than significant. Construction of the proposed project could also result in temporary sources of vibration that could impact nearby structures and vibration-sensitive uses. In addition to being a source of temporary noise, blasting also has the potential to generate excessive groundborne vibration that could affect nearby vibration-sensitive uses. However, similar to the conclusions in the Final PEIR, implementation of Noi-SCP-1 and Noi-SCP-2 would reduce temporary vibration impacts during construction to less than significant. During operations, the proposed project does not include any elements that would be a source of vibration. Therefore, operation-related vibration impacts would be less than significant. Transportation noise sources for the proposed project would primarily be associated with employee commute trips, as well as vehicle trips from ongoing maintenance activities. As noted previously, operation of the proposed project may require up to 3 trips per day for maintenance purposes due to its location in the Regulatory potable water system. Due to the minimal number of vehicle trips, audible transportation noise increases in comparison to existing conditions would be negligible. Although the proposed project is within 0.25 mile of residential uses, the new reservoir is a passive facility and would not require the use of pumps, motors, or other noise-generating machinery once constructed. Therefore, similar to the conclusions in the Final PEIR, operational noise impacts would be less than significant. Lastly, the proposed project is not within 2 miles of a public use airport or private airstrip, and therefore would not expose people working in the project area to excessive noise levels from aircraft. Therefore, no impact would occur, similar to the conclusions in the Final PEIR. Otay Water District Chapter 3. Environmental Impact Analysis Addendum to the Final PEIR for the 2015 Water Facilities Master Plan Update 3-34 October 2019 ICF 00025.19 Applicable Mitigation Measures, Standard Construction Practices, and/or Project Design Features Noi-SCP-1: Construction activities shall comply with applicable local noise ordinances and regulations specifying sound control, including the County of San Diego. Measures to reduce construction noise to the maximum extent feasible shall be included in contractor specifications and shall include, but not be limited to, the following: i. Construction activity shall be restricted to the hours specified within the County of San Diego Municipal Code, as follows: - Construction activity shall occur between hours of 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m., Monday through Saturday; construction shall be prohibited on Sundays and holidays. ii. Construction noise for projects located within San Diego County shall not exceed an average sound level of 75 dBA for an eight-hour period at the project’s property boundary. iii. All construction equipment shall be properly outfitted and maintained with manufacturer- recommended noise-reduction devices. Noi-SCP-2: For any construction activities which include blasting, the construction contractor shall implement the OWD Standard Specifications for Explosives and Blasting (Section 02200). Subject to these standard specifications, a qualified blasting consultant and geotechnical consultant shall prepare all required blasting plans and monitor all blasting activities. Prior to blasting, the contractor shall secure all permits required by law for blasting operations and provide notification at least five work days in advance of blasting activities within 300 feet of a residence or commercial building. Monitoring of all blasting activities shall be in conformance with the Standards of the State of California, Department of Mines and in no case shall blasting intensities exceed the safety standards of PPV established by the U.S. Department of Mines. 3.14 Population and Housing Summary of Final PEIR Findings The Final PEIR concluded that the 2015 WFMP Update would not directly induce substantial growth, or displace substantial numbers of existing housing or people, otherwise necessitating the construction of new or replacement housing elsewhere. Facilities identified in the 2015 WFMP Update would be developed in stages corresponding to planned population growth and development within the District’s service area. Therefore, no impacts on population and housing were identified in the Final PEIR, and no further analysis was included. Impacts of the Proposed Project The proposed project was identified and analyzed in the Final PEIR as currently proposed, and there would not be any substantial changes in the project from what was previously analyzed in the Final PEIR. As such, there are no changes associated with proposed project that could result in any new or more severe impacts related to population and housing. Otay Water District Chapter 3. Environmental Impact Analysis Addendum to the Final PEIR for the 2015 Water Facilities Master Plan Update 3-35 October 2019 ICF 00025.19 The Final PEIR did not identify significant impacts related to population and housing and did not identify mitigation measures, SCPs, or PDFs. The proposed project is a potable water infrastructure project that would serve existing residential uses and does not include any elements that would induce substantial population growth. Additionally, the proposed reservoir, pipeline, and access road would be constructed on an undeveloped parcel and therefore would not displace existing housing or people. As such, the proposed project would not result in any new or more severe significant impacts related to the inducement of substantial population growth in the project area or the displacement of existing housing or people; therefore, the proposed project would not meet the conditions outlined in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 requiring the preparation of a subsequent EIR, and the proposed project would meet the conditions outlined in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15164, which allows the preparation of an addendum to a previously certified EIR to achieve CEQA compliance. Applicable Mitigation Measures, Standard Construction Practices, and/or Project Design Features There are no mitigation measures, SCPs, or PDFs from the Final PEIR identified to reduce impacts related to population and housing. 3.15 Public Services Summary of Final PEIR Findings The Final PEIR concluded that implementation of the 2015 WFMP Update would not result in impacts associated with maintaining acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for fire protection services, police protection services, schools, parks, or any other public facilities. The Final PEIR identified that each respective planning jurisdiction’s General Plan within the District’s service area provides a policy framework for providing public services and that the policies address maintaining and improving necessary response times, maintaining a sufficient number of police officers and firefighters per capita, maintaining adequate amounts and types of equipment to provide necessary levels of service, maintaining and constructing adequate new firefighting infrastructure, incorporating public safety in design of structures and services, maintaining sufficient levels of fire flow, and coordinating development with planning for fire services, etc. Therefore, the Final PEIR concluded the 2015 WFMP Update would not require provision of new or physically altered fire protection, police protection, school, and park facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts. No impacts on public services were identified and no further analysis was included. Impacts of the Proposed Project The proposed project was identified and analyzed in the Final PEIR as currently proposed, and there would not be any substantial changes in the project from what was previously analyzed in the Final PEIR. As such, there are no changes associated with proposed project that could result in any new or more severe impacts related to public services. Otay Water District Chapter 3. Environmental Impact Analysis Addendum to the Final PEIR for the 2015 Water Facilities Master Plan Update 3-36 October 2019 ICF 00025.19 The Final PEIR did not identify significant impacts related to public services and did not identify mitigation measures, SCPs, or PDFs. The proposed project would not result in any new or more severe significant impacts related to the provision of new or physically altered public service facilities because construction and operations would include the installation of new reservoir and associated pipeline and access road, which would not increase demand for public services such that new or expanded public facilities would be required. Therefore, the proposed project would not meet the conditions outlined in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 requiring the preparation of a subsequent EIR, and the proposed project would meet the conditions outlined in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15164, which allows the preparation of an addendum to a previously certified EIR to achieve CEQA compliance. Applicable Mitigation Measures, Standard Construction Practices, and/or Project Design Features There are no mitigation measures, SCPs, or PDFs from the Final PEIR identified to reduce impacts related to public services. 3.16 Recreation Summary of Final PEIR Findings The Final PEIR concluded that implementation of the 2015 WFMP Update would not impact the use of parks or other recreational facilities, such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated, nor would it include require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which may have an adverse physical effect on the environment. Therefore, the Final PEIR concluded that there would be no impact on recreational facilities, and no further analysis was included. Impacts of the Proposed Project The proposed project was identified and analyzed in the Final PEIR as currently proposed, and there would not be any substantial changes in the project from what was previously analyzed in the Final PEIR. As such, there are no changes associated with proposed project that could result in any new or more severe impacts related to recreation. The Final PEIR did not identify significant impacts related to recreation and did not identify mitigation measures, SCPs, or PDFs. The proposed project is a potable water infrastructure project, and therefore would not generate any population that could increase the use of existing park facilities. In addition, the proposed project does not include the construction or expansion of any recreational facilities. As such, the proposed project would not result in any new or more severe significant impacts related to increases in the use of existing parks or construction or expansion of recreational facilities that could result in significant environmental effects; therefore, the proposed project would not meet the conditions outlined in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 requiring the preparation of a subsequent EIR, and the proposed project would meet the conditions outlined in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15164, which allows the preparation of an addendum to a previously certified EIR to achieve CEQA compliance. Otay Water District Chapter 3. Environmental Impact Analysis Addendum to the Final PEIR for the 2015 Water Facilities Master Plan Update 3-37 October 2019 ICF 00025.19 Applicable Mitigation Measures, Standard Construction Practices, and/or Project Design Features There are no mitigation measures, SCPs, or PDFs from the Final PEIR identified to reduce impacts related to recreation. 3.17 Transportation and Traffic Summary of Final PEIR Findings The Final PEIR did not identify significant impacts related to safety hazards due to a design feature or incompatible uses, conflicts with traffic plans, congestion management plans, or alternative transportation plans, or emergency access; however, potential impacts related to circulation system performance and level or services standards were identified. The Final PEIR identified that CIP projects under the 2015 WFMP Update would temporarily generate a minor amount of daily construction-related trips from trucks hauling soil and/or demolition materials from the proposed project construction sites, trucks delivering equipment and materials to/from the construction sites, and construction workers driving to/from the construction sites. The Final PEIR identified implementation of 2015 WFMP Update would result in traffic associated with operation of the CIP projects, including employee commutes and maintenance activities. However, the Final PEIR concluded operation of CIP projects would not generate a significant volume of new vehicle trips. The maintenance for most of the CIP projects may require approximately one visit per day by OWD employees, and CIP projects located within the regulatory potable water operating system may require up to approximately 5 to 10 trips per day. Such incremental increases in vehicle trips would not be substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of intersections, street segments, and freeways within the planning area; therefore, impacts were concluded to be less than significant. The Final PEIR did not identify any applicable mitigation measures, SCPs, or PDFs. Impacts of the Proposed Project The proposed project was identified and analyzed in the Final PEIR as currently proposed, and there would not be any substantial changes in the project from what was previously analyzed in the Final PEIR. As such, there are no changes associated with proposed project that could result in any new or more severe impacts related to transportation and traffic. Similar to what was described in the Final PEIR, construction the proposed project would generate a minor amount of daily construction-related trips from trucks hauling soil and/or demolition materials from the project site, trucks delivering equipment and materials to/from the project site, and construction workers driving to/from the project site. These localized increases in construction traffic would be temporary. In addition, the project site is in a relatively undeveloped area within the Rancho Jamul Estates, and therefore would not contribute vehicle trips to already congested roadways. Therefore, construction-related traffic impacts would be less than significant. During operations, the proposed project would generate minimal amounts of vehicle trips associated with employee commutes and ongoing maintenance activities. As noted previously, operation of the proposed project may require up to 3 trips per day for maintenance purposes due Otay Water District Chapter 3. Environmental Impact Analysis Addendum to the Final PEIR for the 2015 Water Facilities Master Plan Update 3-38 October 2019 ICF 00025.19 to its location within the Regulatory potable water system. These vehicle trips would not be substantial compared to the overall traffic volumes on the roadways, intersections, and freeways that provide access to the project site. Therefore, operation-related traffic impacts would be less than significant. The proposed project does not include any elements that would substantially increase hazards due to a design feature. The new access road would be located off of an existing private, paved roadway and would be intended to provide access for District employees only. Uses of the new access road and existing roads would continue to be compatible with District operations and maintenance of CIP facilities. In addition, the new pipeline would be constructed within the footprint of the new access road and therefore would not require open trenching in existing roadways. Furthermore, traffic control measures, as required under Haz-SCP-2, would be implemented during construction and the roads would be designed as to not increase hazards to the public. Therefore, no impact would occur. There are no elements of the proposed project that would affect alternative modes of transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle parking). Lastly, compliance with applicable building codes would ensure that any driveways or other emergency access points would be adequately provided. Therefore, similar to the conclusions in the Final PEIR, there would be no impacts related to these issues. Based on the above, the proposed project would not result in any new or more severe significant impacts related to transpiration and traffic and would not meet the conditions outlined in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 requiring the preparation of a subsequent EIR, and the proposed project would meet the conditions outlined in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15164, which allows the preparation of an addendum to a previously certified EIR to achieve CEQA compliance. Applicable Mitigation Measures, Standard Construction Practices, and/or Project Design Features Haz-SCP-2, which would be implemented per Section 3.9, Hazards and Hazardous Materials. No other mitigation measures, SCPs, or PDFs were required for this issue area in the Final PEIR. 3.18 Utilities and Service Systems Summary of Final PEIR Findings The Final PEIR identified that the 2015 WFMP Update would not require increased capacity for wastewater treatment or sewer conveyance facilities or require or result in the construction or expansion of new wastewater treatment facilities, and therefore would not exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the San Diego RWQCB. The Final PEIR analyzed the construction of new, and expansion of existing, the District’s water facilities, the environmental effects of which were addressed throughout the Final PEIR. The Final PEIR analyzed the construction of any required stormwater drainage facilities included in the overall disturbance footprints for the new CIP reservoirs and pump stations, for which the corresponding environmental effects were addressed throughout the Final PEIR. The Final PEIR identified that the primary purpose of the 2015 WFMP Update is to ensure an adequate, reliable, flexible, and cost-effective potable and recycled water storage and delivery system commensurate with growth within the planning area and adjacent areas of influence, Otay Water District Chapter 3. Environmental Impact Analysis Addendum to the Final PEIR for the 2015 Water Facilities Master Plan Update 3-39 October 2019 ICF 00025.19 consistent with SANDAG forecasts, through 2050. Because the 2015 WFMP Update would be in response to projected growth in the region, the Final PEIR concluded the CIPs would not result in the need for new or expanded water supplies. The Final PEIR identified all demolition debris and construction waste associated with construction of CIPs would be properly handled and disposed of in accordance with federal, state and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste. Moreover, the Final PEIR concluded that long-term operations of CIP reservoirs and pump stations under the 2015 WFMP Update would not generate solid waste that would impact the permitted capacity of area landfills. Impacts of the Proposed Project The proposed project was identified and analyzed in the Final PEIR as currently proposed, and there would not be any substantial changes in the project from what was previously analyzed in the Final PEIR. As such, there are no changes associated with proposed project that could result in any new or more severe impacts related to utilities and service systems. The Final PEIR did not identify significant impacts related to utilities and service systems and did not identify mitigation measures, SCPs, or PDFs. The proposed project would not require increased capacity for wastewater treatment or sewer conveyance facilities or require or result in the construction or expansion of new wastewater treatment facilities, and therefore would not exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the San Diego RWQCB. The proposed project includes the construction of a new water facility, the environmental effects of which were analyzed in the Final PEIR. The proposed project would not result in any new or more severe significant impacts related to utilities and service systems. As a result, the proposed project would not meet the conditions outlined in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 requiring the preparation of a subsequent EIR, and the proposed project would meet the conditions outlined in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15164, which allows the preparation of an addendum to a previously certified EIR to achieve CEQA compliance. Applicable Mitigation Measures, Standard Construction Practices, and/or Project Design Features There are no mitigation measures, SCPs, or PDFs from the Final PEIR identified to reduce impacts related to utilities and service systems. Otay Water District Chapter 3. Environmental Impact Analysis Addendum to the Final PEIR for the 2015 Water Facilities Master Plan Update 3-40 October 2019 ICF 00025.19 This page intentionally left blank. Addendum to the Final PEIR for the 2015 Water Facilities Master Plan Update 4-1 October 2019 ICF 00025.19 Chapter 4 Conclusions The proposed project involves the construction and operation of a 0.5 MG reservoir, access road, and 12-inch pipeline. These proposed changes and additional project details are analyzed in this Addendum to ensure that the proposed project would not result in new or substantially more severe impacts or require new mitigation measures that were not previously identified in the Final PEIR. As described in the analysis above, impacts resulting from the proposed project would be less than significant, and there would be no new significant impacts or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified impacts. The changes would not require any new mitigation measures that were not already required as part of the Final PEIR. Otay Water District Chapter 4. Conclusions Addendum to the Final PEIR for the 2015 Water Facilities Master Plan Update 4-2 October 2019 ICF 00025.19 This page intentionally left blank. Appendix A Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM FOR THE OTAY WATER DISTRICT 1655-1 RESERVOIR, ACCESS ROAD, AND 12-INCH PIPELINE PROJECT ADDENDUM TO THE FINAL PROGRAM ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE 2015 WATER FACILITIES MASTER PLAN UPDATE State Clearinghouse No. 2015061091 Prepared for: Otay Water District 2554 Sweetwater Springs Boulevard Spring Valley, California 91978-2096 Prepared by: ICF 525 B Street, Suite 1700 San Diego, California 92101 October 2019 1 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM OTAY WATER DISTRICT 1655-1 RESERVOIR, ACCESS ROAD, AND 12-INCH PIPELINE PROJECT Mitigation measures have been identified in the Addendum to 2015 Water Facilities Master Plan Update Final Program Environmental Impact Report (PEIR) for the 1655-1 Reservoir, Access Road, and 12-inch Pipeline project to reduce or avoid potential environmental impacts. To ensure compliance, the following mitigation monitoring and reporting program (MMRP) has been formulated. This program provides a checklist of mitigation measures, standard construction practices, and project design features and monitoring requirements, including the responsible party and when these measures will be implemented. The Addendum prepared for the proposed project tiers from the Final PEIR for the 2015 Water Facilities Master Plan Update; therefore, the mitigation measures, standard construction practices, and project design features identified in this MMRP were all included in that PEIR. Table 1 summarizes the mitigation measures, standard construction practices, and project design features for the 1655-1 Reservoir, Access Road, and 12-inch Pipeline project. Information contained within the checklist clearly identifies the measure, delineates the monitoring schedule, and defines the conditions required to verify compliance. The following list is an explanation of the five columns that constitute the checklist. Column 1 Mitigation Measure: Each measure is numbered and provided with a brief description of mitigation to reduce an impact to a below a level of significance. Column 2 Monitor: Identifies the public agency or private entity that is responsible for determining compliance with the mitigation measure and for informing the Otay Water District (OWD) about compliance. Column 3 Schedule: The monitoring schedule depends upon the progression of the overall project. Therefore, specific dates are not used within the "Schedule" column. Instead, scheduling describes a logical succession of events (e.g., prior to construction, annual) and if necessary, delineates a follow-up program. Column 4 Verification of Compliance: Verification by the responsible monitor that the mitigation measure has been completed. The District, as the lead agency, will be ultimately responsible for ensuring the implementation of all mitigation measures, standard construction practices, and project design features. These measures are provided within this MMRP to ensure inclusion within the appropriate future construction documents to confirm implementation. 2 Table 1 MMRP Checklist Mitigation Measure, Standard Construction Practice, or Project Design Feature Implementer/Monitor Schedule Verification of Compliance (Date/Notes) Aesthetics To avoid potential impacts on aesthetics, the following measure(s) shall be implemented. Aes-PDF-1: In accordance with Water Agencies’ Standards and standard operating procedures, the following design, landscaping and irrigation measures will be implemented for the proposed project: i. Reservoirs, pump station buildings, and groundwater wells will use appropriate building materials and color palettes that visually blend the structures in with their surroundings (natural and urban). ii. Reservoirs, pump station buildings, and groundwater wells will use low-reflective paint and glass. iii. For portions of pipeline projects installed in naturally vegetated areas, the disturbance footprints for the pipeline corridor and associated staging areas will be hydroseeded, following backfilling and recontouring, using a non-irrigated native plant mix consistent with original site conditions and surrounding vegetation. iv. For CIP reservoirs, pump stations, and groundwater wells in naturally vegetated settings, any disturbed unpaved areas following construction will be revegetated (hydroseeding and/or plantings) using native plant materials consistent with original site conditions and surrounding vegetation. A temporary irrigation system OWD/Engineering Design, Landscape Contractor/On- site Construction Supervisor Pre-construction, post-construction 3 Mitigation Measure, Standard Construction Practice, or Project Design Feature Implementer/Monitor Schedule Verification of Compliance (Date/Notes) will be installed and maintained by the District, or watering trucks shall be used at a frequency to be determined by the District to maintain successful plant growth. Temporary irrigation will be discontinued upon the District’s determination that the landscaping has permanently established, without the need for supplemental watering. v. For CIP reservoirs, pump stations and groundwater projects in urban settings, any disturbed unpaved areas following construction will be landscaped using plant materials consistent with original site conditions and/or surrounding ornamental vegetation. A permanent irrigation system will be installed and maintained by the District. Ene-PDF-2: All outdoor (security) lighting installed at the above-ground CIP facilities (i.e., storage reservoirs/tanks and pump stations) under the 2015 WFMP Update will use energy efficient light emitting diodes, with motion sensor lighting controls to limit usage. Lighting adjacent to native vegetation communities will be of low illuminations, shielded, and directed downwards and away from these areas to avoid potential effects to nocturnal wildlife from increased predation that would occur from “spill-over” of nighttime light levels into the adjacent habitats. On-site Construction Supervisor/OWD, Construction Contractor During construction Air Quality To avoid potential impacts on air quality, the following measure(s) shall be implemented. 4 Mitigation Measure, Standard Construction Practice, or Project Design Feature Implementer/Monitor Schedule Verification of Compliance (Date/Notes) Air-SCP-1: Prior to construction of CIP projects, the following measures shall be taken to reduce fugitive dust emissions (PM2.5 and PM10). Measures shall be implemented during construction, including but not limited to, the following actions: i. During grading and site preparation activities, exposed soil areas shall be watered as necessary (at least twice per day) to prevent dust emissions. During windy days or when fugitive dust can be observed leaving construction sites, additional applications of water shall be required. Under windy conditions where wind velocities are forecast to exceed 25 miles per hour, all ground disturbing activities shall be halted until the winds are forecast to be less than 25 miles per hour. ii. Where visible soil material is carried onto adjacent public paved roads, the paved roads shall be swept or washed down at the end of the day to avoid vehicles from pulverizing the dirt into fine particles. iii. Trucks transporting materials to and from the site shall allow for at least two feet of freeboard (i.e., minimum vertical distance between the top of the load and the top of the trailer). Alternatively, trucks transporting materials shall be covered. On-site Construction Supervisor and/or Contractor/OWD Pre-construction, during construction Air-SCP-2: Prior to construction of CIP projects, the following measures shall be taken to reduce potential emissions of ozone precursors (NOX and VOCs) associated with construction equipment. Measures shall be implemented On-site Construction Supervisor and/or Contractor/OWD Pre-construction, during construction 5 Mitigation Measure, Standard Construction Practice, or Project Design Feature Implementer/Monitor Schedule Verification of Compliance (Date/Notes) during construction, including but not limited to the following action: i. All construction equipment utilized for the construction of proposed CIP projects shall be maintained, tuned, and operated in accordance with all relevant SDAPCD, ARB, and EPA standards. Biological Resources To avoid potential impacts biological resources, the following measure(s) shall be implemented. Air-SCP-1: Prior to construction of CIP projects, the following measures shall be taken to reduce fugitive dust emissions (PM2.5 and PM10). Measures shall be implemented during construction, including but not limited to, the following actions: i. During grading and site preparation activities, exposed soil areas shall be watered as necessary (at least twice per day) to prevent dust emissions. During windy days or when fugitive dust can be observed leaving construction sites, additional applications of water shall be required. Under windy conditions where wind velocities are forecast to exceed 25 miles per hour, all ground disturbing activities shall be halted until the winds are forecast to be less than 25 miles per hour. ii. Where visible soil material is carried onto adjacent public paved roads, the paved roads shall be swept or washed down at the end of the day to avoid vehicles from pulverizing the dirt into fine particles. On-site Construction Supervisor and/or Contractor/OWD Pre-construction, during construction 6 Mitigation Measure, Standard Construction Practice, or Project Design Feature Implementer/Monitor Schedule Verification of Compliance (Date/Notes) iii. Trucks transporting materials to and from the site shall allow for at least two feet of freeboard (i.e., minimum vertical distance between the top of the load and the top of the trailer). Alternatively, trucks transporting materials shall be covered. Bio-SCP-1: After completion of final grading for CIPs located adjacent to native vegetation, the construction documents will require that all graded areas within 100 feet of native vegetation are hydroseeded and/or planted with native plant species similar in composition to the adjacent undisturbed vegetation communities. OWD or the construction contractor will retain a qualified biologist to monitor these activities to ensure non-native or invasive plant species are not used in the hydroseed mix or planting palettes. The hydroseeded/planted areas will be watered via a temporary drip irrigation system or watering truck. Irrigation will cease at some time after successful plant establishment and growth, to be determined by the biologist. No fertilizers or pesticides will be used in the hydroseeded/planted areas. Any irrigation runoff from hydroseeded/planted areas will be directed away from adjacent native vegetation communities, and contained and/or treated within the development footprint of individual projects. All planting stock will be inspected for exotic invertebrate pests (e.g., argentine ants) and any stock found to be infested with such pests will not be allowed to be used in the hydroseeded/planted areas. Landscape Contractor/Biologist Pre-construction, post-construction Bio-1A: During the design phase, OWD shall retain a qualified biologist to conduct biological surveys as part of the “tiered” OWD/Biologist Pre-construction 7 Mitigation Measure, Standard Construction Practice, or Project Design Feature Implementer/Monitor Schedule Verification of Compliance (Date/Notes) CEQA documentation for these projects, following the program described in Section 1.2 (Intended Use and Purpose) of the Final PEIR. Bio-1B: If the biological surveys identified in performance measure Bio-1A determine the presence of special-status species and/or sensitive or critical habitats on or adjacent to the CIP site, then OWD shall map and quantify the impacts in a Biological Technical Report as part of the “tiered” CEQA documentation referenced in Bio-1A. Detailed project-specific avoidance and mitigation measures for significant impacts to biological resources shall be negotiated between OWD and the regulatory agencies, as part of the approval and certification process for the subsequent CEQA documentation. In addition, the following measures shall be implemented, as applicable: i. Six (6) weeks prior to vegetation clearing, grading and/or construction activities that are scheduled to occur between February 15 and August 30, a qualified biologist shall commence focused surveys in accordance with USFWS protocols to determine the presence or absence of the California gnatcatcher. Documentation of the survey results shall be provided to OWD and USFWS within 45 days of completing the final survey, as required pursuant to FESA Section 10(a)(1)(A). If the survey results are negative, then no further mitigation for California gnatcatcher is necessary and vegetation clearing can occur at any time in the year following the survey; only mitigation for the habitat loss shall be required (refer to Bio-1B(iv) below). If surveyed habitat is determined to be OWD/Biologist/Noise Monitor, OWD/Engineering Design, Landscape Architect, Restoration Ecologist, Landscape Contractor Pre-construction, during construction, post-construction 8 Mitigation Measure, Standard Construction Practice, or Project Design Feature Implementer/Monitor Schedule Verification of Compliance (Date/Notes) occupied by California gnatcatcher, then the following measures shall be implemented: a. Coastal sage scrub/gnatcatcher habitat shall not be removed during the gnatcatcher breeding season (February 15 through August 30). Work that has commenced prior to the breeding season shall be allowed to continue without interruption. If gnatcatchers move into an area within 500 feet of ongoing construction noise levels and attempt to nest, then it can be deduced that the noise is not great enough to discourage gnatcatcher nesting activities. If work begins prior to the breeding season, the contractor(s) should maintain continuous construction activities adjacent to coastal sage scrub that falls within 500 feet, until the work is completed. However, if clearing, grading and/or construction activities are scheduled to begin during the gnatcatcher breeding season, then updated pre- construction surveys are necessary as defined above. In addition, if these activities are initiated prior to, and extend into, the breeding season, but they cease for any period of time and the contractor wishes to restart work within the breeding season window, then updated pre-construction surveys are also necessary. If these surveys indicate no nesting birds occur within the coastal sage scrub that falls within 500 feet of the proposed work, then the adjacent construction activities shall be allowed to commence. However, if the birds are observed nesting within these areas, then the adjacent construction activities shall be postponed until all nesting has ceased. 9 Mitigation Measure, Standard Construction Practice, or Project Design Feature Implementer/Monitor Schedule Verification of Compliance (Date/Notes) b. Noise monitoring shall be conducted if construction activities are scheduled during the gnatcatcher breeding season; if the construction-related noise levels would exceed 60 dB Leq (i.e., the noise threshold suggested by the USFWS for indirect impacts to gnatcatcher); and if gnatcatchers are found within 500 feet of the noise source. Noise monitoring shall be conducted by a biologist experienced in both the vocalization and appearance of California gnatcatcher, and in the use of noise meters. Construction activities that generate noise levels over 60 dB Leq may be permitted within 300 feet of occupied habitat if methods are employed that reduce the noise levels to below 60 dB Leq at the boundary of occupied habitat (e.g., temporary noise attenuation barriers or use of alternative equipment). During construction activities, daily testing of noise levels shall be conducted by a noise monitor with the help of the biologist to ensure that a noise level of 60 dB Leq at the boundary of occupied habitat is not exceeded. Documentation of the noise monitoring results shall be provided to OWD and USFWS within 45 days of completing the final noise monitoring event. ii. Ten (10) days prior to vegetation clearing, grading and/or construction activities that are scheduled to occur between February 1 and August 15, surveys for nesting bird species other than the California gnatcatcher, including those protected by the MBTA, shall be conducted by a qualified biologist following applicable USFWS and/or CDFW guidelines. If no active avian nests 10 Mitigation Measure, Standard Construction Practice, or Project Design Feature Implementer/Monitor Schedule Verification of Compliance (Date/Notes) are identified within the disturbance limits, then no further mitigation is necessary. However, if active nests for avian species of concern are found within the disturbance limits, then species-specific measures prescribed by the MBTA shall be implemented by a qualified biologist; a minimum buffer of 300 feet for passerine and 500 feet for raptor species will be incorporated in order to minimize potential disturbances to nesting birds from construction activities. Documentation of the mitigation measures shall be provided to OWD and USFWS within 10 days after implementation. iii. Ten (10) days prior to vegetation clearing, grading and/or construction activities that are scheduled to occur during the raptor nesting season (generally January 15 through July 31), and where suitable trees (such as Eucalyptus spp.) for raptor nesting occur within 500 feet of such activities, pre-construction surveys for raptor nests shall be performed by a qualified biologist. If no occupied raptor nests are identified in suitable trees on or within 500 feet of the construction site, then no further mitigation is necessary. Construction activities within 500 feet of occupied nests shall not be allowed during the raptor breeding season until a qualified biologist determines that the nests are no longer active. Documentation of the raptor surveys and any follow-up monitoring, as necessary, shall be provided to OWD and USFWS within 10 days of completing the final survey or monitoring event. 11 Mitigation Measure, Standard Construction Practice, or Project Design Feature Implementer/Monitor Schedule Verification of Compliance (Date/Notes) iv. For CIPs that would affect non-listed sensitive species and sensitive vegetation communities, the measures listed below shall be implemented prior to vegetation clearing, grading and/or construction activities. In addition, applicable regulatory agency permits and/or authorizations shall be obtained for CIPs that would affect federal and state-listed species, and the conditions of such permits and/or authorizations shall be implemented prior to vegetation clearing, grading and/or construction activities. a. Special-status species (and any corresponding USFWS-designated critical habitats), sensitive vegetation communities and MSCP resources shall be avoided through project design or site selection, to the extent practicable. b. For unavoidable impacts to special-status species (and any corresponding USFWS designated critical habitats), sensitive vegetation communities and MSCP resources, off-site mitigation shall be provided by one, or a combination of, the following measures, in consultation with the USFWS and CDFW: 1) Debit credits from the San Miguel HMA (Table 4.2-10 shows the status of the mitigation bank credits, as of the date of this Final PEIR); 2) Contribute to the preserve system of other agency MSCPs through land acquisition or purchase of mitigation banking credits; and 3) Enhance, restore, create, and preserve in perpetuity off-site habitat areas at locations and mitigation ratios to be approved by the appropriate regulatory agencies and in compliance with the 12 Mitigation Measure, Standard Construction Practice, or Project Design Feature Implementer/Monitor Schedule Verification of Compliance (Date/Notes) mitigation ratios, guidelines, and standards required by the applicable MSCP subarea plans. Typical mitigation ratios for direct impacts to sensitive vegetation types include 2:1 for coastal sage scrub; 3:1 for maritime succulent scrub; 3:1 for native grassland; 2:1 for oak woodlands; 3:1 for southern interior cypress forest; 3:1 for riparian woodlands/forests; 3:1 for coastal freshwater marsh; 2:1 for riparian scrubs (absent threatened or endangered species); 5:1 for San Diego mesa claypan vernal pools; 3:1 for Gabbroic chaparrals; and 0.5:1 for nonnative grassland (absent threatened or endangered species). These ratios will be decreased or increased depending on whether the impacts and mitigation would occur inside or outside an MSCP preserve area. For example, these ratios are typically doubled if impacts occur within previously conserved lands. Plans for habitat enhancement, restoration and creation shall be prepared by persons with expertise in southern California ecosystems and native plant revegetation techniques. Such plans shall include, at a minimum: (a) location of the mitigation site(s); (b) plant species to be used, container sizes, and seeding rates; (c) schematic depicting the mitigation area(s); (d) planting schedule; (e) description of the irrigation methodology; (f) measures to control exotic vegetation at the mitigation site(s); (g) specific success criteria (e.g., percent cover of native and non-native species, species richness); (h) detailed monitoring program; (i) contingency measures should the success criteria not be met; and (j) identification of the party responsible 13 Mitigation Measure, Standard Construction Practice, or Project Design Feature Implementer/Monitor Schedule Verification of Compliance (Date/Notes) for meeting the success criteria and preserving the mitigation site(s) in perpetuity (including conservation easements and management funding). In addition, OWD shall negotiate and implement long- term maintenance requirements to ensure the success of the mitigation site(s). c. If federal permits or funding are required for CIPs (and listed species) that occur within USFWS- designated critical habitat, then Section 7 Consultations with the USFWS shall be initiated by the appropriate federal nexus-permitting agency. Bio-1C: Prior to vegetation clearing, grading, and/or construction activities for CIPs that have the potential to impact sensitive vegetation communities or special-status species (and any corresponding USFWS-designated critical habitats), a qualified biologist shall attend a preconstruction meeting to inform construction crews of the sensitive species and habitats within and/or adjacent to these project sites. OWD, On-site Construction Supervisor/Biologist Pre-construction Bio-1D: Prior to vegetation clearing, grading, and/or construction activities, a qualified biologist shall oversee installation of appropriate temporary fencing and/or flagging to delineate the limits of construction and the approved construction staging areas for protection of identified sensitive resources outside the approved construction/staging zones: All construction access and circulation shall be limited to designated construction/staging zones. The fencing shall be checked weekly to ensure that fenced construction limits are not exceeded. This fencing shall be removed upon completion On-site Construction Supervisor, Construction Contractor/Biologist Pre-construction, during construction 14 Mitigation Measure, Standard Construction Practice, or Project Design Feature Implementer/Monitor Schedule Verification of Compliance (Date/Notes) of construction activities. Construction staging areas shall be located a minimum of 100 feet from drainages, wetlands and areas supporting sensitive habitats or species. Fueling of equipment shall occur in designated fueling zones within the construction staging areas. All equipment used within the approved construction limits shall be maintained to minimize and control fluid and grease leaks. Provisions to contain and clean up unintentional fuel, oil, fluid and grease leaks/spills shall be in place prior to construction. Bio-1E: During vegetation clearing, grading, and/or construction, a qualified biologist shall monitor these activities: If sensitive species and/or habitats adjacent to these project sites are inadvertently impacted by these activities, then the biologist shall immediately inform the onsite construction supervisor who shall temporarily halt or redirect work away from the area of impact. OWD shall immediately be notified of the impact and shall consult with the appropriate regulatory agencies to determine the required mitigation, according to Bio- 1B(iv)(b) and (c) above. The biologist shall also ensure that all construction night lighting adjacent to sensitive habitat areas is of low illumination, shielded, and directed downwards and away from these areas. OWD, On-site Construction Supervisor, Construction Contractor/Biologist During construction Bio-1F: Construction equipment will be checked by the biological monitor prior to use each morning to ensure no sensitive wildlife species sheltered in or around any equipment left on site overnight. Construction Contractor, On-site Construction Supervisor/Biological Monitor During construction 15 Mitigation Measure, Standard Construction Practice, or Project Design Feature Implementer/Monitor Schedule Verification of Compliance (Date/Notes) Bio-1G: Trenches associated with pipe installation will be backfilled with earth at the end of each work day to prevent wildlife access, with the exception of the end of the open pipe, which will be left exposed. During installation, the area surrounding the end segment of exposed open pipe will be sloped at the end of each work day at an angle to allow wildlife to easily escape. Also, the open end of the exposed pipe will be covered at the end of each work day with a material flush with the open pipe entrance such as a wooden board or cap such that no wildlife, including smaller species like lizards, can enter the pipe. Should wildlife become trapped in the vicinity of the open exposed pipe, the qualified biologist(s) will remove and relocate the individual outside the construction zone. On-site Construction Supervisor, Construction Contractor/Biological Monitor During construction Cultural Resources To avoid impacts on cultural resources, the following measure(s) shall be implemented. Cul-SCP-1: The OWD will implement the provisions of California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 and PRC Section 5097.98 which establish procedures to be followed if Native American or other skeletal remains are discovered during construction of a project, including the treatment of remains prior to, during, and after evaluation, and reburial procedures. OWD, On-site Construction Supervisor/Archaeologist, Native American Monitor During construction 16 Mitigation Measure, Standard Construction Practice, or Project Design Feature Implementer/Monitor Schedule Verification of Compliance (Date/Notes) Cul-2C: 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. 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. OWD, On-site Construction Supervisor/Archaeologist, Native American Monitor Pre-construction, during construction Cul-2D: In the event archaeological resources are discovered during ground-disturbing activities, the on-site construction supervisor shall be notified and shall redirect work away from the location of the discovery to allow for preliminary evaluation of potentially significant archaeological resources. The OWD shall consult with the archaeologist to consider means of avoiding or reducing ground disturbance within the OWD, On-site Construction Supervisor/Archaeologist, Native American Monitor During construction 17 Mitigation Measure, Standard Construction Practice, or Project Design Feature Implementer/Monitor Schedule Verification of Compliance (Date/Notes) 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: 18 Mitigation Measure, Standard Construction Practice, or Project Design Feature Implementer/Monitor Schedule Verification of Compliance (Date/Notes) 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. Energy To avoid impacts on energy, the following measure(s) shall be implemented. Ene-PDF-2: All outdoor (security) lighting installed at the above-ground CIP facilities (i.e., storage reservoirs/tanks and pump stations) under the 2015 WFMP Update will use energy efficient light emitting diodes, with motion sensor lighting controls to limit usage. Lighting adjacent to native vegetation communities will be of low illuminations, shielded, and directed downwards and away from these areas to avoid potential effects to nocturnal wildlife from increased predation that would occur from “spill-over” of nighttime light levels into the adjacent habitats. On-site Construction Supervisor/OWD, Construction Contractor During construction Geology and Soils 19 Mitigation Measure, Standard Construction Practice, or Project Design Feature Implementer/Monitor Schedule Verification of Compliance (Date/Notes) To avoid impacts on geology and soils, the following measure(s) shall be implemented. Geo-PDF-1: At the time of the proposed project design, OWD will implement the relevant requirements of the UBC and CBC, as updated or amended, and the CDMG Special Publication 117. OWD/Engineering Design Pre-construction Geo-SCP-1: Prior to construction of the proposed project, areas of liquefaction and/or landslides will be identified as part of site-specific geotechnical investigations. The investigations will specifically address foundation and slope stability in liquefiable and landslide areas proposed for construction. Recommendations made in conjunction with the geotechnical investigations will be implemented during construction, including but not limited to the following actions: i. Over-excavate unsuitable materials and replace them with engineered fill. ii. For thinner deposits, remove loose, unconsolidated soils and replace with properly compacted fill soils, or apply other design stabilization features (i.e., excavation of overburden). iii. For thicker deposits, implement applicable techniques such as dynamic compaction (i.e., dropping heavy weights on the land surface), vibro-compaction (i.e., inserting a vibratory device into the liquefiable sand), vibro- replacement (i.e., replacing sand by drilling and then vibro-compacting backfill in the bore hole), or compaction piles (i.e., driving piles and densifying surrounding soil). OWD/Geologist, On-site Construction Supervisor/Grading Contractor Pre-construction, during construction 20 Mitigation Measure, Standard Construction Practice, or Project Design Feature Implementer/Monitor Schedule Verification of Compliance (Date/Notes) iv. Lower the groundwater table to below the level of liquefiable soils. v. Perform in-situ densification of soils or other alterations to the ground characteristics. vi. For landslides, implement applicable techniques such as stabilization (i.e., construction of buttress fills, retaining walls, or other structural support to remediate the potential for instability of cut slopes composed of landslide debris); remedial grading and removal of landslide debris (e.g., over-excavation and recompaction); or avoidance (e.g., structural setbacks). Geo-SCP-2: Prior to construction of the proposed project, areas of severely erodible soils will be identified as part of site-specific geotechnical investigations. The investigations will specifically address foundation and slope stability in erodible soils proposed for construction. Recommendations made in conjunction with the geotechnical investigations will be implemented during construction, including but not limited to the following actions: i. Minimize disturbance to existing vegetation and slopes. ii. Construct drainage control devices (e.g., storm drains, brow ditches, subdrains, etc.) to direct surface water runoff away from slopes and other graded areas. iii. Provide temporary hydroseeding of cleared vegetation and graded slopes as soon as possible following grading activities for areas that will remain in disturbed condition (but will not be subject to further construction activities) OWD/Geologist, On-site Construction Supervisor/Grading, Construction, Landscape Contractors Pre-construction, during construction 21 Mitigation Measure, Standard Construction Practice, or Project Design Feature Implementer/Monitor Schedule Verification of Compliance (Date/Notes) for a period greater than two weeks during the construction phase. Geo-SCP-3: The construction bid documents for each CIP project will include either a 90 percent Erosion Control Plan (for projects that would result in less than one acre of land disturbance) or a 90 percent Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) (for projects that would result in one acre or greater of land disturbance). The Erosion Control Plan will comply with the storm water regulations or ordinances of the local agency jurisdiction within which the CIP project occurs, while the SWPPP will comply with the NPDES General Construction Permit. These plans will be based on site-specific hydraulic and hydrologic characteristics and identify a range of BMPs to reduce impacts related to storm water runoff, including sedimentation BMPs to control soil erosion. The construction contractor will identify the specific storm water BMPs to be implemented during the construction phase of a given CIP project, and will prepare and implement the final Erosion Control Plan or SWPPP for that project. Typical BMPs to be implemented as part of the Erosion Control Plan or SWPPP may include, but may not be limited to, the actions listed below. For protection of finished graded areas and manufactured slopes, the construction contractor will implement OWD Standard Specifications for Slope Protection and Erosion Control (Section 02202). i. Implement a “weather triggered” action plan during the rainy season involving installation of enhanced erosion and sediment control measures prior to predicted storm events (i.e., 40 percent or greater chance of rain). On-site Construction Supervisor/Construction Contractor/Landscape Contractor/Restoration Ecologist Pre-construction, during construction, post-construction 22 Mitigation Measure, Standard Construction Practice, or Project Design Feature Implementer/Monitor Schedule Verification of Compliance (Date/Notes) ii. Use erosion control/stabilizing measures in cleared areas and on graded slopes of 3:1 (horizontal to vertical) gradient or steeper, such as geotextiles, mats, fiber rolls, soil binders, or temporary hydroseeding. iii. Use sediment controls to protect the site perimeter and prevent off-site sediment transport, such as filtration devices (e.g., temporary inlet filters), silt fences, fiber rolls, gravel bags, temporary sediment basins, check dams, street sweeping, energy dissipaters, stabilized construction access points (e.g., temporary gravel or pavement) and sediment stockpiles (e.g., silt fences and tarps), and properly fitted covers for sediment transport vehicles. iv. Divert runoff from uphill areas around disturbed areas of the construction site. v. Protect storm drain inlets on-site or downstream of the construction site to eliminate entry of sediment. vi. Store BMP materials in on-site areas to provide “standby” capacity adequate to provide complete protection of exposed areas and prevent off-site sediment transport. vii. Train personnel responsible for BMP installation and maintenance. viii. Implement solid waste management efforts such as proper containment and disposal of construction debris. ix. Install permanent landscaping (or native vegetation in areas adjacent to natural habitats) and irrigation as soon as feasible after final grading or construction. 23 Mitigation Measure, Standard Construction Practice, or Project Design Feature Implementer/Monitor Schedule Verification of Compliance (Date/Notes) x. Implement appropriate monitoring and maintenance efforts (e.g., prior to and after storm events) to ensure proper BMP function and efficiency. xi. Implement sampling/analysis, monitoring/reporting and post-construction management programs per NPDES requirements. xii. Implement additional BMPs as necessary (and as required by appropriate regulatory agencies) to ensure adequate erosion and sediment control. Geo-SCP-4: Prior to construction of the proposed project, areas of geologic/soil instability will be identified as part of site-specific geotechnical investigations. The investigations will specifically address foundation and slope stability within unstable geologic units/soils proposed for construction. Recommendations made in conjunction with the geotechnical investigations will be implemented during construction, including but not limited to the following actions: i. Perform site-specific settlement analyses in areas deemed appropriate by the geotechnical engineer and evaluate the potential for groundwater-related subsidence. ii. Over-excavate unsuitable materials and replace them with engineered fill. iii. To minimize or avoid lateral spreading of on-site soils, remove compressible soils and replace them with properly compacted fill, perform compaction grouting or deep dynamic compaction, or use stiffened conventional foundation systems. OWD/Geologist, On-site Construction Supervisor/Construction Contractor Pre-construction, during construction 24 Mitigation Measure, Standard Construction Practice, or Project Design Feature Implementer/Monitor Schedule Verification of Compliance (Date/Notes) iv. To minimize or avoid differential compression or settlement of on-site soils, manage oversized material (i.e., rocks greater than 12 inches) via off-site disposal, placement in non-structural fill, or crushing or pre- blasting to generate material less than 12 inches. Oversized material greater than 4 feet will not be used in fills, and will not be placed within 10 feet of finished grade, within 10 feet of manufactured slope faces (measured horizontally from the slope face), or within 3 feet of the deepest pipeline or other utilities. v. To minimize or avoid shrinking/swelling of on-site expansive soils, over-excavate for deeper fills (at least five feet below finished grade). vi. Locate foundations and larger pipelines outside of cut/fill transition zones and landscaped irrigation zones. Greenhouse Gas Emissions To avoid impacts on greenhouse gas emissions, the following measure(s) shall be implemented. Air-SCP-3: During project construction activities, the CIP Project Construction Manager will supervise the following BMPs to reduce emissions associated with diesel equipment: i. Properly operate and maintain all diesel-powered vehicles and equipment. ii. Retrofit diesel-powered equipment with “after-treatment” products (e.g., diesel oxidation catalysts, diesel particulate filters). Contractor/On-site Construction Supervisor During construction 25 Mitigation Measure, Standard Construction Practice, or Project Design Feature Implementer/Monitor Schedule Verification of Compliance (Date/Notes) iii. Use electric or natural gas-powered construction equipment in lieu of gasoline or diesel-powered engines. iv. Turn off all diesel-powered vehicles and gasoline-powered equipment when not in use for more than five minutes. v. Support and encourage ridesharing and transit incentives for the construction crew. vi. Encourage the use of locally available building materials, such as concrete, stucco, and interior finishes. vii. Use light-colored or a high-albedo (reflectivity) concrete and asphalt paving materials with a Solar Reflectance Index of 29 or higher. viii. Establish a construction management plan with the local waste hauler that diverts a minimum of 50% of construction, demolition, and site clearing waste. Hazards and Hazardous Materials To avoid impacts on hazards and hazardous materials, the following measure(s) shall be implemented. Haz-SCP-1: Prior to construction of the proposed project, the construction contractor will prepare and submit a HMBP to OWD. The procedures in the HMBP will comply with USDOT (Office of Hazardous Materials Safety) as it pertains to the transportation, storage, use, and disposal of hazardous materials and CHP regulations for the transportation of hazardous materials along state highways. Construction Contractor/ OWD, On-site Construction Supervisor Pre-construction, during construction 26 Mitigation Measure, Standard Construction Practice, or Project Design Feature Implementer/Monitor Schedule Verification of Compliance (Date/Notes) Haz-SCP-2: In the event that CIP construction activities would require a lane or roadway closure, or could otherwise substantially interfere with traffic circulation, the contractor will obtain a Traffic Control Permit from the local land use agency and/or state agencies such as Caltrans, prior to construction as necessary, and implement a traffic control plan to ensure that adequate emergency access and egress is maintained and that traffic will move efficiently and safely in and around the construction site. The traffic control plan may include, but not be limited to, the following measures: i. Install traffic control signs, cones, flags, flares, lights, and temporary traffic signals in compliance with the requirements of local jurisdictions, and relocate them as the work progresses to maintain effective traffic control. ii. Provide trained and equipped flag persons to regulate traffic flow when construction activities encroach onto traffic lanes. iii. Control parking for construction equipment and worker vehicles to prevent interference with public and private parking spaces, access by emergency vehicles, and owner’s operations iv. Traffic control equipment, devices, and post settings will be removed when no longer required. Any damage caused by equipment installation will be repaired. v. For CIP construction activities near schools, the contractor will coordinate with schools prior to commencement of construction activity to minimize potential disruption of traffic flows during school day peak traffic periods. Local Agency, Caltrans, Construction Contractor/ OWD, On-site Construction Supervisor Pre-construction, during construction 27 Mitigation Measure, Standard Construction Practice, or Project Design Feature Implementer/Monitor Schedule Verification of Compliance (Date/Notes) Haz-PDF-1: OWD will continue to prepare and implement a post-construction HMBP for long-term operations at CIP reservoirs, pump stations and groundwater wells involving the transportation, storage, use, and disposal of hazardous materials. The procedures in the HMBP will comply with USDOT (Office of Hazardous Materials Safety) and CHP regulations for the transportation of hazardous materials along state highways. OWD/Maintenance Personnel Post-construction Haz-PDF-2: OWD will continue to prepare and implement SPCC plans for long-term operations at CIP pump stations that store fuel on site and meet the criteria of requiring an SPCC plan. The procedures in the SPCC will comply with US EPA’s regulations for stored fuel and oils to prevent any discharge of oil into or upon navigable waters of the United States or adjoining shorelines. OWD/County DEH As-needed for sites with regulated quantities Haz-2A: As part of geotechnical investigations conducted prior to ground-disturbing activities for CIPs, a database search of hazardous materials sites shall be performed within a one-mile radius surrounding the CIP site pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5. In the event such sites are identified within the search parameters, OWD shall retain a registered environmental assessor to prepare a Remediation Plan for any contaminated soils or groundwater encountered within the construction area. The Remediation Plan shall be incorporated into the construction documents. If contamination is encountered during ground-disturbing activities, the on-site construction supervisor shall redirect work away from the location of the contamination and shall OWD, On-site Construction Supervisor, County DEH, RWQCB/Construction Contractor, Registered Environmental Assessor Pre-construction, during construction 28 Mitigation Measure, Standard Construction Practice, or Project Design Feature Implementer/Monitor Schedule Verification of Compliance (Date/Notes) notify OWD, County DEH and RWQCB. The contamination remediation and removal activities shall be conducted in accordance with the Remediation Plan and pertinent regulatory guidelines, under the oversight of the appropriate regulatory agency. Hydrology and Water Quality To avoid impacts on hydrology and water quality, the following measure(s) shall be implemented. Geo-SCP-2: Prior to construction of the proposed project, areas of severely erodible soils will be identified as part of site-specific geotechnical investigations. The investigations will specifically address foundation and slope stability in erodible soils proposed for construction. Recommendations made in conjunction with the geotechnical investigations will be implemented during construction, including but not limited to the following actions: i. Minimize disturbance to existing vegetation and slopes. ii. Construct drainage control devices (e.g., storm drains, brow ditches, subdrains, etc.) to direct surface water runoff away from slopes and other graded areas. iii. Provide temporary hydroseeding of cleared vegetation and graded slopes as soon as possible following grading activities for areas that will remain in disturbed condition (but will not be subject to further construction activities) for a period greater than two weeks during the construction phase. OWD/Geologist, On-site Construction Supervisor/Grading, Construction, Landscape Contractors Pre-construction, during construction 29 Mitigation Measure, Standard Construction Practice, or Project Design Feature Implementer/Monitor Schedule Verification of Compliance (Date/Notes) Geo-SCP-3: The construction bid documents for each CIP project will include either a 90 percent Erosion Control Plan (for projects that would result in less than one acre of land disturbance) or a 90 percent Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) (for projects that would result in one acre or greater of land disturbance). The Erosion Control Plan will comply with the storm water regulations or ordinances of the local agency jurisdiction within which the CIP project occurs, while the SWPPP will comply with the NPDES General Construction Permit. These plans will be based on site-specific hydraulic and hydrologic characteristics and identify a range of BMPs to reduce impacts related to storm water runoff, including sedimentation BMPs to control soil erosion. The construction contractor will identify the specific storm water BMPs to be implemented during the construction phase of a given CIP project, and will prepare and implement the final Erosion Control Plan or SWPPP for that project. Typical BMPs to be implemented as part of the Erosion Control Plan or SWPPP may include, but may not be limited to, the actions listed below. For protection of finished graded areas and manufactured slopes, the construction contractor will implement OWD Standard Specifications for Slope Protection and Erosion Control (Section 02202). i. Implement a “weather triggered” action plan during the rainy season involving installation of enhanced erosion and sediment control measures prior to predicted storm events (i.e., 40 percent or greater chance of rain). ii. Use erosion control/stabilizing measures in cleared areas and on graded slopes of 3:1 (horizontal to vertical) On-site Construction Supervisor/Construction Contractor/Landscape Contractor/Restoration Ecologist Pre-construction, during construction, post-construction 30 Mitigation Measure, Standard Construction Practice, or Project Design Feature Implementer/Monitor Schedule Verification of Compliance (Date/Notes) gradient or steeper, such as geotextiles, mats, fiber rolls, soil binders, or temporary hydroseeding. iii. Use sediment controls to protect the site perimeter and prevent off-site sediment transport, such as filtration devices (e.g., temporary inlet filters), silt fences, fiber rolls, gravel bags, temporary sediment basins, check dams, street sweeping, energy dissipaters, stabilized construction access points (e.g., temporary gravel or pavement) and sediment stockpiles (e.g., silt fences and tarps), and properly fitted covers for sediment transport vehicles. iv. Divert runoff from uphill areas around disturbed areas of the construction site. v. Protect storm drain inlets on-site or downstream of the construction site to eliminate entry of sediment. vi. Store BMP materials in on-site areas to provide “standby” capacity adequate to provide complete protection of exposed areas and prevent off-site sediment transport. vii. Train personnel responsible for BMP installation and maintenance. viii. Implement solid waste management efforts such as proper containment and disposal of construction debris. ix. Install permanent landscaping (or native vegetation in areas adjacent to natural habitats) and irrigation as soon as feasible after final grading or construction. x. Implement appropriate monitoring and maintenance efforts (e.g., prior to and after storm events) to ensure proper BMP function and efficiency. 31 Mitigation Measure, Standard Construction Practice, or Project Design Feature Implementer/Monitor Schedule Verification of Compliance (Date/Notes) xi. Implement sampling/analysis, monitoring/reporting and post-construction management programs per NPDES requirements. xii. Implement additional BMPs as necessary (and as required by appropriate regulatory agencies) to ensure adequate erosion and sediment control. Hyd-SCP-1: In accordance with the Water Agencies’ Standards, the construction contractor is required to implement a safety plan at each CIP construction site that would involve the transport, storage, use, and disposal of hazardous materials. Such plans will also specify storm water BMPs, to be consistent with those identified in Geo-SCP-3 (refer to Section VI, Geology and Soils, above), to minimize downstream water quality degradation from runoff pollution associated with CIP construction activities. OWD, On-site Construction Supervisor/Construction Contractor Hyd-PDF-1: For each CIP facility that would involve the transport, storage, use, and disposal of hazardous materials during project operation, OWD will implement a site-specific Hazardous Materials Business Plan (HMBP), including BMPs to prevent downstream water quality degradation from runoff pollution associated with CIP post-construction operations. In addition, OWD is required to obtain a permit from the County Department of Environmental Health (DEH) allowing for the use of specified hazardous substances during the CIP post- construction operation of these sites. Typical BMPs to be implemented as part of the HMBP may include, but are not limited to, the actions listed below. OWD, On-site Construction Supervisor, County DEH, Local Fire Department/Construction Contractor, OWD Maintenance Personnel (long-term operations) During construction, post-construction 32 Mitigation Measure, Standard Construction Practice, or Project Design Feature Implementer/Monitor Schedule Verification of Compliance (Date/Notes) i. Minor chemical spills will be contained by absorbent, using trained employees in proper protective equipment, and waste will be placed in a properly labeled container for disposal. ii. For major chemical spills, employees will notify the local fire department. Prior to arrival by emergency responders, trained employees using proper protective equipment will attempt to contain the spill using absorbent, physical barriers, or other methods as specified in the HMBP, and prevent it from entering the storm drain and from discharging off-site as runoff. Hyd-PDF-2: At the time of CIP project design, the OWD will implement the relevant requirements of the 2013 UBC and CBC for all above-ground CIP projects (reservoirs, pump stations, and facilities for groundwater production wells), including the design of appropriately sized drainage facilities, where necessary, to capture runoff from each project site to reduce the risk of flooding. OWD/Engineering Design Pre-construction Land Use and Planning To avoid impacts on land use and planning, the following measure(s) shall be implemented. LU-PDF-1: The design of CIP reservoirs, pump stations and water supply projects located within and adjacent to the “Conserved (Subject to Agreement with Wildlife Agencies)” areas under the County of San Diego MSCP will incorporate the following guidelines: Landscape Contractor/On- site Construction Supervisor, Grading and/or Construction Pre-construction, during construction, post-construction 33 Mitigation Measure, Standard Construction Practice, or Project Design Feature Implementer/Monitor Schedule Verification of Compliance (Date/Notes) i. Plant materials used for landscaping will consist of native species similar/compatible with the adjacent habitat, and those species should be based on plants with genetic materials of the area. ii. Fencing will be installed along the reserve boundary to prevent uncontrolled human access. iii. Lighting within 100 feet of reserve boundary will be confined to areas necessary for public safety. Contractor/On-site Construction Supervisor Noise To avoid impacts on noise, the following measure(s) shall be implemented. Noi-SCP-1: Construction activities shall comply with applicable local noise ordinances and regulations specifying sound control, including the County of San Diego. Measures to reduce construction noise to the maximum extent feasible shall be included in contractor specifications and shall include, but not be limited to, the following: i. Construction activity shall be restricted to the hours specified within the County of San Diego Municipal Code, as follows: - Construction activity shall occur between hours of 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m., Monday through Saturday; construction shall be prohibited on Sundays and holidays. ii. Construction noise for projects located within San Diego County shall not exceed an average sound level of 75 dBA Construction Contractor/On-site Construction Supervisor During construction 34 Mitigation Measure, Standard Construction Practice, or Project Design Feature Implementer/Monitor Schedule Verification of Compliance (Date/Notes) for an eight-hour period at the project’s property boundary. iii. All construction equipment shall be properly outfitted and maintained with manufacturer-recommended noise- reduction devices. Noi-SCP-2: For any construction activities which include blasting, the construction contractor shall implement the OWD Standard Specifications for Explosives and Blasting (Section 02200). Subject to these standard specifications, a qualified blasting consultant and geotechnical consultant shall prepare all required blasting plans and monitor all blasting activities. Prior to blasting, the contractor shall secure all permits required by law for blasting operations and provide notification at least five work days in advance of blasting activities within 300 feet of a residence or commercial building. Monitoring of all blasting activities shall be in conformance with the Standards of the State of California, Department of Mines and in no case shall blasting intensities exceed the safety standards of PPV established by the U.S. Department of Mines. Construction Contractor, Blasting Geotechnical Consultants/OWD, On-site Construction Supervisor Pre-construction, during construction Transportation and Traffic To avoid impacts on transportation and traffic, the following measure(s) shall be implemented. Haz-SCP-2: In the event that CIP construction activities would require a lane or roadway closure, or could otherwise substantially interfere with traffic circulation, the contractor will obtain a Traffic Control Permit from the local land use Local Agency, Caltrans, Construction Contractor/OWD, On-site Construction Supervisor Pre-construction, during construction 35 Mitigation Measure, Standard Construction Practice, or Project Design Feature Implementer/Monitor Schedule Verification of Compliance (Date/Notes) agency and/or state agencies such as Caltrans, prior to construction as necessary, and implement a traffic control plan to ensure that adequate emergency access and egress is maintained and that traffic will move efficiently and safely in and around the construction site. The traffic control plan may include, but not be limited to, the following measures: i. Install traffic control signs, cones, flags, flares, lights, and temporary traffic signals in compliance with the requirements of local jurisdictions, and relocate them as the work progresses to maintain effective traffic control. ii. Provide trained and equipped flag persons to regulate traffic flow when construction activities encroach onto traffic lanes. iii. Control parking for construction equipment and worker vehicles to prevent interference with public and private parking spaces, access by emergency vehicles, and owner’s operations iv. Traffic control equipment, devices, and post settings will be removed when no longer required. Any damage caused by equipment installation will be repaired. v. For CIP construction activities near schools, the contractor will coordinate with schools prior to commencement of construction activity to minimize potential disruption of traffic flows during school day peak traffic periods. Appendix B Biological Technical Report OTAY WATER DISTRICT 1655-1 RESERVOIR BIOLOGICAL TECHNICAL REPORT PREPARED FOR: Otay Water District 2554 Sweetwater Springs Blvd. Spring Valley, CA 91978 Contact: Lisa CoburnBoyd lisa.coburnboyd@otaywater.gov 619.670.2219 PREPARED BY: ICF 525 B Street, Suite 1700 San Diego, CA 92101 Contact: Makela Mangrich makela.mangrich@icf.com 858.444.3959 September 2019 OWD 1655-1 Biological Resources Report i September 2019 ICF 00025.19 Contents Page List of Tables ..................................................................................................................................... iii List of Acronyms and Abbreviations ................................................................................................. iv Executive Summary .................................................................................................................. ES-1 Introduction ............................................................................................................... 1-1 1.1 Project Location .......................................................................................................... 1-1 1.2 Project Description ..................................................................................................... 1-4 1.3 Background Information ............................................................................................. 1-4 Survey Methodology .................................................................................................. 2-1 2.1 Literature and Records Search .................................................................................... 2-1 2.2 Vegetation Mapping ................................................................................................... 2-1 2.3 Jurisdictional Delineation ............................................................................................ 2-1 2.4 Coastal California Gnatcatcher (Polioptila californica californica) Protocol Surveys . 2-2 2.5 Quino Checkerspot Butterfly (Euphydryas editha quino) Protocol Surveys ............... 2-3 2.6 Hermes Copper Butterfly (Lycaena hermes) Presence/Absence Surveys .................. 2-4 2.7 Special-Status Plant Species Surveys .......................................................................... 2-5 Environmental Setting (Existing Conditions) ................................................................ 3-1 3.1 Regional Context ......................................................................................................... 3-1 3.2 Habitat Types/Vegetation Communities .................................................................... 3-1 3.2.1 Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub (32500) ............................................................................ 3-3 3.2.2 Southern Mixed Chaparral (37120) ............................................................................ 3-3 3.2.3 Disturbed Habitat (11000) .......................................................................................... 3-3 3.2.4 Urban/Developed (12000) .......................................................................................... 3-4 3.3 Common Wildlife ........................................................................................................ 3-4 3.4 Special-Status Plant Species ........................................................................................ 3-4 3.4.1 Sensitive Plant Species Observed ............................................................................... 3-6 3.5 Special-Status wildlife Species .................................................................................... 3-6 3.5.1 Habitat Connectivity and Wildlife Corridors ............................................................. 3-10 3.5.2 Jurisdictional Waters and Wetlands ......................................................................... 3-10 3.6 Applicable Regulations .............................................................................................. 3-13 3.6.1 Federal Environmental Regulations .......................................................................... 3-13 3.6.2 Local Environmental Regulations .............................................................................. 3-14 Project Effects ............................................................................................................ 4-1 Otay Water District Contents OWD 1655-1 Biological Resources Report ii September 2019 ICF 00025.19 4.1 Impact Definitions ....................................................................................................... 4-1 4.2 Project Impacts ........................................................................................................... 4-1 4.2.1 Riparian Habitat and Sensitive Vegetation Communities ........................................... 4-1 4.2.2 Special-Status Plant Species ........................................................................................ 4-3 4.2.3 Special-Status Wildlife Species ................................................................................... 4-4 4.2.4 Wetlands and Jurisdictional Waters ........................................................................... 4-7 4.2.5 Core Wildlife Area/Wildlife Corridors ......................................................................... 4-8 4.2.6 Local Policies, Ordinances, and Adopted Plans .......................................................... 4-8 4.3 Summary of Project Impacts and Mitigation .............................................................. 4-9 References ................................................................................................................. 5-1 APPENDICES Appendix A 2018 Helix Biological Resources Letter Report Appendix B Coastal California Gnatcatcher 45-Day Report Appendix C Quino Checkerspot Butterfly 45-Day Report Appendix D Hermes Copper Butterfly 45-Day Report Appendix E Plants Species Observed Appendix F Wildlife Species Observed Appendix G Plant and Wildlife Species Evaluated for Potential to Occur Otay Water District Contents OWD 1655-1 Biological Resources Report iii September 2019 ICF 00025.19 Tables and Figures Page Table 1. CAGN Survey Dates and Conditions ........................................................................................ 2-2 Table 2. QCB Survey Dates and Conditions ........................................................................................... 2-3 Table 3. HCB Survey Dates and Conditions ........................................................................................... 2-4 Table 4. Special-Status Plant Species Survey Dates and Conditions ..................................................... 2-6 Table 5. Habitat/Vegetation Communities and Impacts ...................................................................... 4-2 Table 6: Impacts on Special-Status Plant Species ................................................................................. 4-3 Table 7. Habitat/Vegetation Communities Impacts and Mitigation ................................................... 4-10 Page Figure 1. Regional Vicinity Map ............................................................................................................ 1-2 Figure 2. Project Vicinity ....................................................................................................................... 1-3 Figure 3. Project Components .............................................................................................................. 1-5 Figure 4. Vegetation Communities ....................................................................................................... 3-2 Figure 5. Special Status Plant Survey Results ........................................................................................ 3-5 Figure 6. Special-Status Wildlife Survey Results ................................................................................... 3-7 Figure 7. Waters of the U.S. and State ................................................................................................ 3-11 Figure 8. CDFW Streambed ................................................................................................................. 3-12 Otay Water District Contents OWD 1655-1 Biological Resources Report iv September 2019 ICF 00025.19 Acronyms and Abbreviations amsl above mean sea level BMO Biological Mitigation Ordinance BMPs Best Management Practices BO Biological Opinion CAGN coastal California gnatcatcher CDFW California Department of Fish and Wildlife CEQA California Environmental Quality Act CESA California Endangered Species Act CIP Capital Improvement Projects CmrG Cieneba soil CNDDB California Natural Diversity Data Base CNPS California Native Plant Society CRPR California Rare Plant Ranking CWA Clean Water Act FESA Federal Endangered Species Act HCB Hermes copper butterfly HMA San Miguel Habitat Management Area ITP incidental take permit JD jurisdictional delineation LrE Las Posas MBTA Migratory Bird Treaty Act MG million gallon MM mitigation measures MND Mitigated Negative Declaration MSCP Multiple Species Conservation Program NCCP Natural Community Conservation Planning OHWM Ordinary High Water Mark PAMA preapproved mitigation area PEIR Program Environmental Impact Report PorterCologne PorterCologne Water Quality Control Act QCB Quino Checkerspot butterfly RWQCB Regional Water Quality Control Board SDNHM San Diego Natural History Museum Distribution Mapper SSC Species of Special Concern USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service USGS California U.S. Geological Survey WFMP Water Facilities Master Plan WL Watch List OWD 1655-1 Biological Resources Report ES-1 September 2019 ICF 00025.19 Executive Summary The Otay Water District (OWD) proposes to construct and operate a 0.5 million gallon (MG) concrete potable water reservoir and an associated 1,500 feet of 12inch diameter pipeline in the Rancho Jamul Estates area in Jamul, CA (proposed project). The pipeline would be located within the footprint of a proposed 22foot wide access road to the reservoir that will also be built as part of the project. The project would increase both system reliability and service capabilities and provide increased fireflow service for the Rancho Jamul Estates area within the District’s 1655 Pressure Zone. The Project Site encompasses approximately 3.9 acres. The Study Area includes the Project Site plus a 100foot buffer. Vegetation communities located within the Study Area include disturbed habitat, Diegan coastal sage scrub, southern mixed chaparral, and urban/developed. Sensitive plant species observed in the Study Area include chaparral rein orchid (Piperia cooperia), Brewer’s calandrinia (Calandrinia breweri) and San Diego County viguiera (Bahiopsis laciniata). No other plant species were identified as having a high potential after focused rare plant surveys were conducted. Three sensitive animal species were observed within the Study Area, including Quino checkerspot butterfly (Euphydryas editha quino), red diamond rattlesnake (Crotalus ruber), and Southern California rufouscrowned sparrow (Aimophila ruficeps canescens). Fourteen sensitive animal species were determined to have a high potential to occur onsite, none of them state or federally listed. Permanent impacts to sensitive vegetation communities including 0.7 acres of Diegan coastal sage scrub and 0.1 acre of southern mixed chaparral would be mitigated through a withdrawal of 2.35 acres of Diegan coastal sage scrub at the District’s San Miguel Habitat Management Area (HMA). 0.8 Permanent impacts on 32 square feet of USACE/RWQCB nonwetland waters and 95 square feet of CDFW nonwetland waters would result in a significant impact. Aquatic resource permits would be secured prior to construction and mitigation would be provided as required in those permits. As a result, these impacts would be considered less than significant after mitigation is applied. This project was included in the Otay Water District’s 2015 Water Facilities Master Plan (WFMP) Update (Atkins 2015) and impacts from the WFMP were analyzed in the 2016 Program Environmental Impact Report (PEIR) (Atkins 2016). As such, this Biological Resources Report and associated California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) document is “tiering” from that PEIR. Implementation of measures Bio1A through Bio1G from the PEIR would reduce project impacts on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or specialstatus 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 to a level less than significant. No new significant impacts on biological resources from the proposed project, other than those envisioned in the PEIR, would occur. OWD 1655-1 Biological Resources Report 1-1 September 2019 ICF 00025.19 Introduction 1.1 Project Location The project site is located in the community of Jamul, San Diego County, California (Figure 1) off Presilla Drive. The project site occurs within Sections 11 and 12, Township 17 South, Range 1 East of the Dulzura, California U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5minute topographic quadrangle (Figure 2). The project site is located outside U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) designated critical habitat and also occurs within a designated Survey Area for Quino checkerspot butterfly (USFWS 2014). Otay Water District Introduction OWD 1655-1 Biological Resources Report 1-2 September 2019 ICF 00025.19 Figure 1. Regional Vicinity Map Otay Water District Introduction OWD 1655-1 Biological Resources Report 1-3 September 2019 ICF 00025.19 Figure 2. Project Vicinity Otay Water District Introduction OWD 1655-1 Biological Resources Report 1-4 September 2019 ICF 00025.19 1.2 Project Description The District proposes to construct and operate a 0.5 million gallon (MG) concrete potable water reservoir and an associated 1,500 feet of 12inch diameter pipeline in the Rancho Jamul Estates area in Jamul, CA (proposed project) (Figure 3). The pipeline would be located within the footprint of a proposed 22foot wide access road to the reservoir that will also be built as part of the project. The project would increase both system reliability and service capabilities and provide increased fireflow service for the Rancho Jamul Estates area within the District’s 1655 Pressure Zone. 1.3 Background Information An original Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) was prepared and adopted for the reservoir in 1994. As analyzed, the reservoir was to be 1.0 MG and included two possible sites. In 1996, an addendum to the 1994 MND was prepared and approved by the Board to address a reduction in the size of the reservoir to 0.5 MG and a change in location. In 1998, a second addendum was prepared and approved by the Board to address a further reduction in the size of reservoir to 0.4 MG and with a slightly different area of impact. The current plan is for the reservoir to be sized at 0.5 MG and placed on the same site as the 1998 addendum. Moreover, the proposed project (as designed for 0.5 MG) is included as a project in the District’s 2015 Water Facilities Master Plan (WFMP) and analyzed in the associated Final Program Environmental Impact Report (PEIR; ICF 2016). This Biological Resources Report satisfies Mitigation Measure Bio1A contained in the PEIR, specifically calling for a projectspecific impact analysis to be conducted during projects’ environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) as a tiered document. The proposed project was also included in the 1994 Biological Opinion (BO) from the USFWS (1694F42) addressing the effects of 21 separate Capital Improvement Projects (CIP) on the federally listed threatened coastal California gnatcatcher (Polioptila californica; CAGN). In 1999, additional CIP modifications/refinements were added to a reinitiated BO (1694F42R1), including refinements to the project description for the proposed project. In both BOs, the proposed project was referred to as the Rancho Jamul Reservoir or CIP 040. Otay Water District Introduction OWD 1655-1 Biological Resources Report 1-5 September 2019 ICF 00025.19 Figure 3. Project Components OWD 1655-1 Biological Resources Report 2-1 September 2019 ICF 00025.19 Survey Methodology The Study Area includes the approximately 3.9acre Project Site and 100foot buffer, located in the Rancho Jamul Estates area in Jamul, near the northern terminus of Presilla Drive. (Figure 2). 2.1 Literature and Records Search A literature and records search was conducted to establish the existence or potential occurrence of sensitive, or special interest, biological resources (i.e., plant or animal species) on or within the vicinity of the Study Area. The following databases/resources were reviewed:  California Natural Diversity Data Base (CNDDB), which is administered by the CDFW Biogeographic Data Division. This database covers sensitive animal and plant species, as well as sensitive natural communities that occur within California (CDFW 2019). A search of the database was conducted within a 1mile radius of the Project Site centered on the Dulzura USGS 7.5’ Quadrangle.  The California Native Plant Society’s (CNPS) Online Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants, 8th Edition (CNPS 2019), which identifies four specific designations (California Rare Plant Ranking [CRPR]) of sensitive plant species and summarizes regulations that provide for the conservation of sensitive plants. A search of the inventory was conducted within a 1mile radius of the project area centered on the Otay Mesa USGS 7.5’ Quadrangle. Field surveys were conducted by Helix and ICF biologists in 2016 and 2019. Tables 1–4 provide a summary of the biological surveys/assessments conducted within the Study Area. 2.2 Vegetation Mapping Vegetation mapping within the Study Area was conducted by Helix biologists on April 6, 2018, by walking meandering transects and from selected vantage points that allowed an expansive view of the Study Area (Appendix A). Vegetation communities were mapped within the Project Site and a 100foot buffer. Vegetation communities were classified according to Oberbauer et al. (2008). During 2019, ICF confirmed the vegetation boundaries remained unchanged from the 2016 Helix vegetation mapping. 2.3 Jurisdictional Delineation Prior to beginning fieldwork for the jurisdictional delineation (JD), aerial photographs (1”=80’ scale), and topographic maps (1”=80’ scale) were reviewed to determine the location of potential jurisdictional areas that may be affected by the various alternatives within the Study Area. Data were collected in areas that were suspected to be jurisdictional habitats by Helix biologists Mr. Kurnow and Ms. Edgley on April 6, 2018 (Appendix A). Otay Water District Survey Methodology OWD 1655-1 Biological Resources Report 2-2 September 2019 ICF 00025.19 Based on a review of Google Earth (2018), it was apparent that the drainage features did not support wetland vegetation, and as a result would not be considered a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) wetland. The focus of the USACE delineation was on nonwetland boundaries. These boundaries were determined using methods suggested by the USACE in A Field Guide to the identification of the Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM) in the Arid West Region of the Western United States (USACE 2008). Furthermore, the OHWM is defined in 33 Code of Federal Regulations Section 329.11 as “that line on the shore established by the fluctuations of water and indicated by physical characteristics such as a clear, natural line impressed on the bank; shelving; changes in the character of the soil; destruction of terrestrial vegetation; the presence of litter or debris; or other appropriate means that consider the characteristics of the surrounding areas.” The same methods were used to determine potential Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) jurisdiction in the form of waters of the State. Potential California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) jurisdictional boundaries were determined based on the presence of regular surface flow. Streambeds within CDFW jurisdiction were delineated based on the definition of streambed as “a body of water that flows at least periodically or intermittently through a bed or channel having banks and supporting fish or other aquatic life. This includes watercourses having a surface or subsurface flow that supports riparian vegetation” (Title 14, Section L.72). 2.4 Coastal California Gnatcatcher (Polioptila californica californica) Protocol Surveys The Study Area exists within the County of San Diego’s approved Multiple Species Conservation Program (MSCP) South County Subarea Plan; thus, in accordance with USFWS (1997) survey protocol, three surveys were conducted for the project. The presence/absence focused survey for coastal California gnatcatcher (CAGN) was conducted for the project between April 4 and May 3, 2019, under the authorization of permitholder and ICF biologist Brian Lohstroh (TE0636086). Recorded CAGN vocalizations were broadcast only to initially locate CAGN, and the surveys were conducted on foot with the aid of binoculars. The survey was conducted according to the schedule provided below in Table 1. The 45Day Report for CAGN surveys is provided in Appendix B. Table 1. CAGN Survey Dates and Conditions Date Survey Personal Weather Time Onsite 4/4/2019 Brian Lohstroh Cloudy, 54–63 °F 2 hours 4/18/2019 Brian Lohstroh Sunny, 73–76 °F 1 hour 5/3/2019 Brian Lohstroh Partly Cloudy, 48–53 °F 1 hour Otay Water District Survey Methodology OWD 1655-1 Biological Resources Report 2-3 September 2019 ICF 00025.19 2.5 Quino Checkerspot Butterfly (Euphydryas editha quino) Protocol Surveys Survey methodology follows the December 15, 2014, USFWS Quino Checkerspot butterfly (QCB) Survey Guidelines (USFWS 2014). A site assessment was conducted by ICF biologist, James Hickman on February 7, 2019, before the first QCB survey, to conduct a general field survey of the site and mapped excluded areas and QCB Study Areas. A total of 11 protocol surveys for adult QCB were conducted by ICF biologists between February 26 and May 1, 2019. Survey visits were conducted by Brian Lohstroh (TE0636086) and James Hickman (TE 60218B0). The surveys were conducted on a weekly basis under acceptable weather conditions as defined in the USFWS protocol (Table 1) (USFWS 2014). In rainy weeks without appropriate weather conditions, two surveys were conducted in the following week with at least one day between surveys. Each survey involved walking transects throughout all nonexcluded portions of the Study Area. The surveys were conducted at rate of no more than 15 acres per hour. The surveyors stopped periodically to scan adjacent areas for moving butterflies, identifying them by sight with the aid of closefocus binoculars. All butterfly species observed were recorded. A list of all species of, butterflies observed during each weekly survey is provided in the QCB 45Day Report (Appendix C). Plant species flowering during the survey period were documented and assessed as potential QCB nectar plants, butterfly identification and nomenclature is based on Shiraiwa (2009). Vegetation communities are mapped based on Holland (1986) and Oberbauer et al. (2008), and plant nomenclature is based on Baldwin et al. (2012). Table 2. QCB Survey Dates and Conditions Date Survey Personal Weather Time Onsite 2/7/2019 James Hickman Sunny, 60–62 °F 2 hours 2/26/2019 Brian Lohstroh Partly Cloudy 63–64 °F 2 hours 2/28/2019 Brian Lohstroh Partly Cloudy, 66 °F 1 hour 3/5/2019 Brian Lohstroh Partly Cloudy, 70–73 °F 1 hour 15 minutes 3/13/2019 James Hickman Sunny, 69–75 °F 1 hour, 15 minutes 3/18/2019 Brian Lohstroh Sunny, 72–74 °F 1 hour, 30 minutes 3/25/2019 Brian Lohstroh Sunny, 69–73 °F 1 hour 4/1/2019 Brian Lohstroh Sunny, 77–82 °F 2 hours 4/10/2019 Brian Lohstroh Sunny, 69–70 °F 1 hour, 15 minutes 4/18/2019 Brian Lohstroh Partly Cloudy, 76–80 °F 1 hour, 15 minutes 4/25/2019 Brian Lohstroh Sunny, 79–81 °F 1 hour, 30 minutes 5/1/2019 Brian Lohstroh Sunny, 70–72 °F 1 hour, 30 minutes Otay Water District Survey Methodology OWD 1655-1 Biological Resources Report 2-4 September 2019 ICF 00025.19 2.6 Hermes Copper Butterfly (Lycaena hermes) Presence/Absence Surveys Based on recent updates to the biology of the species and consensus of Hermes copper butterfly (HCB) surveyors, focused surveys for HCB followed a modified version of the guidelines prepared by the County of San Diego for evaluating the potential impacts within their jurisdiction (2010), combined with relevant portions of the USFWS QCB Survey Guidelines (2014). The County guidelines indicate that surveys for HCB need only be conducted in areas where their larval host plant, spiny redberry (Rhamnus crocea), occurs in close proximity (within 15 feet) to California buckwheat (Eriogonum fasciculatum), their primary nectar plant (i.e., suitable habitat). It should be noted that HCB has been observed using various other species as a nectar source (Klein & Faulkner 2012), therefore, suitable habitat for HCB has been modified to include areas where the HCB’s host plant occurs, regardless of whether it is found in proximity to California buckwheat. The HCB surveys were conducted by QCBpermitted biologists because of their familiarity with the QCB survey protocol, as well as the local butterfly species. The HCB surveys followed the same survey frequency and weather requirements as the USFWS 2014 survey guidelines for QCB (e.g., weekly surveys, air temperature at least 60 °F on clear days and 70 °F on cloudy days, winds below 15 mph). Surveys were conducted during the HCB flight season, which spans from the third full week of May and with the last survey being during the first full week of July. A total of seven surveys for HCB were conducted by ICF biologists Brian Lohstroh (QCB permit #TE0636086), and James Hickman (QCB permit #TE60218B0) (Table 3). HCB surveys were conducted on foot with the aid of closefocus binoculars. A list of plant species flowering within the Study Area during the surveys (i.e., potential nectar sources) is provided in HCB 45Day Report (Appendix D), butterfly identification and nomenclature is based on Shiraiwa (2009). Vegetation communities are mapped based on Holland (1986), and Oberbauer et al.(2008), and plant nomenclature is based on Baldwin et al. (2012). Table 3. HCB Survey Dates and Conditions Date Survey Personal Weather Time Onsite 5/24/2019 Brian Lohstroh Sunny, 61–66 °F 2 hours 5/28/2019 Brian Lohstroh Partly Cloudy 69–75 °F 1 hour, 20 minutes 6/3/2019 Brian Lohstroh Partly Cloudy, 66–73 °F 50 minutes 6/10/2019 Brian Lohstroh Partly Cloudy, 91–94 °F 2 hours, 40 minutes 6/18/1019 James Hickman Sunny, 7375 °F 1 hour 45 minutes 6/24/2019 Brian Lohstroh Sunny, 75–77 °F 1 hour, 50 minutes 7/2/2019 Brian Lohstroh Sunny, 77–81 °F 1 hour 45 minutes Otay Water District Survey Methodology OWD 1655-1 Biological Resources Report 2-5 September 2019 ICF 00025.19 2.7 Special-Status Plant Species Surveys Focused specialstatus plant surveys were performed within the Study Area on April 6, 2016, as well as April 23 and May 31, 2019 (Table 4). Surveys were conducted in accordance with survey protocols set forth by Guidelines for Conducting and Reporting Botanical Inventories for Federally Listed, Proposed, and Candidate Plants (USFWS 2000), Protocols for Surveying and Evaluating Impacts to Special Status Native Plant Populations and Natural Communities (CDFG 2009), and CNPS Botanical Survey Guidelines (CNPS 2001). All plant species observed within the Study Area were recorded and identified to species, subspecies, or variety as applicable using The Jepson Manual Vascular Plants of California Second Edition (Baldwin et al. 2012). Plant taxonomy and nomenclature followed the Checklist of The Vascular Plants of San Diego County Fifth Edition (Rebman and Simpson 2014). The location of specialstatus plants was mapped with a handheld submeteraccuracy GPS unit. Subsequent to the field survey, data were downloaded from the GPS unit, postprocessed, and brought into GIS for analysis. Otay Water District Survey Methodology OWD 1655-1 Biological Resources Report 2-6 September 2019 ICF 00025.19 Table 4. Special-Status Plant Species Survey Dates and Conditions Date Survey Personnel Weather Time Onsite 4/6/2016 Kurnow and Edgley (Helix) N/A N/A 4/23/2019 Shawn Johnston, Kelsey Dix Partly cloudy, 76 °F 4 hours 5/31/2019 Shawn Johnston, Kelsey Dix Partly cloudy 73 °F 5 hours OWD 1655-1 Biological Resources Report 3-1 September 2019 ICF 00025.19 Environmental Setting (Existing Conditions) 3.1 Regional Context The Study Area is located in eastern San Diego County, in Jamul. The Study Area is located south of Loveland Reservoir and the Sweetwater River, adjacent to and north of the Mexican border and east of the Rancho San Diego land development. The Study Area is located on a steep westfacing slope. Elevation ranges from approximately 1,445 feet above mean sea level (amsl) in the western portion of the Study Area to 1,719 feet amsl in the eastern portion. Two soil types have been mapped in the Study Area (NRCS 2018a). The soil type covering most area is Cieneba, very rocky coarse sandy loam, 30 to 75 percent slopes (CmrG). The other soil type is Las Posas, stony fine sandy loam, 9 to 30 percent slopes (LrE). Neither soil type is listed as hydric (NRCS 2018b; Helix 2018). 3.2 Habitat Types/Vegetation Communities A total of four vegetation communities/land cover types were mapped within the Study Area during the April 6, Helix 2018 survey: Diegan coastal sage scrub, southern mixed chaparral, disturbed habitat, and urban/developed (Figure 4). A brief description of each is described below. All vascular plant species observed are listed in Appendix E. Otay Water District Environmental Setting (Existing Conditions) OWD 1655-1 Biological Resources Report 3-2 September 2019 ICF 00025.19 Figure 4. Vegetation Communities Otay Water District Environmental Setting (Existing Conditions) OWD 1655-1 Biological Resources Report 3-3 September 2019 ICF 00025.19 3.2.1 Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub (32500) Diegan coastal sage scrub consists of low, softwoody subshrubs (to approximately 1 meter high) that grow most actively in winter and early spring. Many taxa are facultatively droughtdeciduous. This plant community typically occurs on low moistureavailability sites: steep, xeric slopes or clayrich soils that are slow to release stored water. Diegan coastal sage scrub (including disturbed) is considered a sensitive natural community due to its relative scarcity and high number of sensitive species associated with the habitat (Oberbauer et al. 2008). This is the most abundant vegetation community within the study area. It is dominated by California sagebrush (Artemisia californica) and California buckwheat (Eriogonum fasciculatum). Other Diegan coastal sage scrubassociated species occurring within this vegetation community include deerweed (Acmispon glaber), laurelleaf sumac (Malosma laurina), and white sage (Salvia apiana). Red berry (Rhamnus crocea) also occurs infrequently, but throughout this community. Where found, this species occurs in close proximity to California buckwheat. 3.2.2 Southern Mixed Chaparral (37120) Southern mixed chaparral is composed of broadleaved sclerophyllous shrubs that can reach 6 to 10 feet in height and form dense often nearly impenetrable stands with poorly developed understories. In this mixed chaparral the shrubs are generally tall and deep rooted, with a welldeveloped soil litter layer high canopy coverage, low light levels within the canopy, and lower soil temperatures (Keeley and Keeley 1988). This vegetation community occurs on dry, rocky, often steep northfacing slopes with little soil. As conditions become more mesic, broadleaved sclerophyllous shrubs that resprout from underground root crowns become dominant. Depending upon relative proximity to the coast, southern mixed chaparral is dominated by chamise (Adenostoma fasciculatum), mission manzanita (Xylococcus bicolor), coast white lilac (Ceonothus verrucosus), Ramona lilac (Ceanothus tomentosus), whitestem wildlilac (Ceanothus leucodermis), bigberry manzanita (Arctostaphylos glouca), and scrub oak (Quercus dumosa). This vegetation community provides important habitat for wideranging species such as mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus), mountain lion (Puma concolor), and golden eagle (Aquila chrysoetos). This vegetation community is considered sensitive. Characteristic species within the study area include chamise, mission manzanita, and Ramona lilac. 3.2.3 Disturbed Habitat (11000) Disturbed habitat is characterized by areas that have been physically disturbed (by previous legal human activity) and are no longer recognizable as a native or naturalized vegetation association but continue to retain a soil substrate. Typically, vegetation, if present, is nearly exclusively composed of nonnative plant species such as ornamentals or ruderal exotic species that take advantage of disturbance, or shows signs of past or present animal uses that removes any capability of providing viable natural habitat for uses other than dispersal (Oberbauer et al. 2008). Within the study area disturbed habitat is located along a maintained road shoulder, dirt trail, and maintained fuel modification zone associated with a residence. Otay Water District Environmental Setting (Existing Conditions) OWD 1655-1 Biological Resources Report 3-4 September 2019 ICF 00025.19 3.2.4 Urban/Developed (12000) Developed land applies to areas that have been constructed upon or otherwise physically altered to an extent that native vegetation is no longer supported. Developed land is characterized by permanent or semipermanent structures, pavement, or hardscape, and landscaped areas that often require irrigation. Areas where no natural land is evident due to a large amount of debris or other materials being placed upon it may also be considered developed (Oberbauer et al. 2008). Within the study area, this is associated with Presilla Drive and the associated landscape areas located on either side of this road. 3.3 Common Wildlife Several wildlife species commonly associated with the habitat types identified within the Study Area and parcel were observed. Overall, one reptile, 25 bird, and 15 invertebrate species were observed or otherwise detected in the Study Area during the field surveys. All wildlife species observed or detected are listed in Appendix F. 3.4 Special-Status Plant Species No federally listed endangered or threatened plant species were observed within the parcel or Study Area. Two chaparral rein orchid individuals (Piperia cooperi, CRPR 4.2), 51 Brewer’s calandrinia individuals (Calandrinia breweri, CRPR 4.2), and 178 San Diego County viguiera (Bahiopsis laciniata, CRPR 4.2) were mapped throughout the Study Area (Figure 5). Sixtysix sensitive plant species identified from the CNDDB search and CNPS search within the Otay Mesa Quad were evaluated for their potential to occur within the Study Area and are discussed in Appendix G. Otay Water District Environmental Setting (Existing Conditions) OWD 1655-1 Biological Resources Report 3-5 September 2019 ICF 00025.19 Figure 5. Special Status Plant Survey Results Otay Water District Environmental Setting (Existing Conditions) OWD 1655-1 Biological Resources Report 3-6 September 2019 ICF 00025.19 3.4.1 Sensitive Plant Species Observed Chaparral Rein Orchid (Piperia cooperi), CRPR 4.2 Chaparral rein orchid is a perennial herb that occurs from the coast to the foothills of the transverse and peninsular mountain ranges from Los Angeles to San Diego County and Santa Catalina Island. This species grows in chaparral, cismontane woodland, and valley and foothill grassland habitats, and its blooming period is from March to June. Two individuals were recorded in the center of the Study Area (Figure 5). Brewer’s Calandrinia (Calandrinia breweri), CRPR 4.2 Brewer’s calandrinia is an annual herb that occurs mostly along the coast from the San Francisco Bay Area to San Diego. This species grows in sandy or loamy soils, most commonly from burns or other types of disturbance, in chaparral and coastal sage scrub habitats, and its blooming period is from January to June. The species was recorded near the paved road and in the eastern portion of the Study Area (Figure 5). San Diego County Viguiera (Viguiera laciniata), CRPR 4.2 San Diego County viguiera is a perennial shrub that occurs in the coastal and foothills regions of San Diego County. This species grows in chaparral and coastal sage scrub habitats and its blooming period is from February to August. Over a hundred individuals were recorded throughout the Study Area (Figure 5). 3.5 Special-Status wildlife Species QCB (Euphydryas editha quino), a federally endangered butterfly species, was observed during protocol surveys conducted in the Study Area (Appendix G; Figure 6). Red diamond rattlesnake (Crotalus ruber), a California Species of Special Concern (SSC), was observed along the southern border of the study area (Figure 6). Southern California rufouscrowned sparrow (Aimophila ruficeps canescens), a California watch list species, was observed in the eastern portion of the Study Area (Appendix G; Figure 6). Otay Water District Environmental Setting (Existing Conditions) OWD 1655-1 Biological Resources Report 3-7 September 2019 ICF 00025.19 Figure 6. Special-Status Wildlife Survey Results Otay Water District Environmental Setting (Existing Conditions) OWD 1655-1 Biological Resources Report 3-8 September 2019 ICF 00025.19 Special-status wildlife Species Observed Quino Checkerspot Butterfly (Euphydryas editha quino) Federally Endangered QCB inhabit openings on clay soils within or in the vicinity of shrublands, grasslands, meadows, vernal pools, and lake margins. QCB is closely tied to its larval host plants, dotseed plantain (Plantago erecta), nectar plants fringed linathus (Linanthus dianthiflorus), and sweet alyssum (Lobularia maritima). Larvae may also use desert Indian wheat (Plantago ovata), woolly plantain (Plantago patagonica), Coulter’s snapdragon (Antirrhinum coulterianum), purple owl’s clover (Castilleja exserta), threadleaved bird’sbeak (Cordylanthus rigidus), and Chinese houses (Collinsia sp.). These plants grow in or near grasslands and may extend into upland shrub communities of sparse chaparral and coastal sage scrub. In the chaparral and coastal sage scrub habitats where this species survives, it is most likely to be found at sites where high densities of the host plants occur. Within such areas, the QCB may preferentially select sites where exposure to winter sun is the greatest. The elevational distribution of this butterfly has historically ranged from near sea level to about 3,000 feet. One adult female QCB was observed during the sixth survey visit on March 25, 2019, nectaring on ornamental sweet alyssum growing along a road easement before it departed to the west across the road and offsite (Appendix C). The QCB larval host plant, dotseed plantain, is present in two patches along the southern boundary of the project site. The QCB observation was not directly associated with any host plant patches, and the nearest known larval host plant patch on the site was over 300 feet away to the east. It is possible that this QCB observation was of a transient individual, moving through the site and nectaring on the irrigated, ornamental flowers growing along the roadside. No additional QCB observations (larval or adult) were made during the surveys. Appendix C provides more information on the QCB habitat present on site. Red Diamond Rattlesnake (Crotalus ruber) California Species of Special Concern The red diamond rattlesnake is a heavybodied rattlesnake with a tan, brickred, or reddish dorsal color with a tail that is marked with broad evenly spaced distinct black rings. Its range extends from near Morongo Valley (San Bernardino County), south along the coast and desert sides of the Peninsular Range to Loreto, Baja California, Mexico. Found in a variety of habitats, although generally associated with habitats with thick brush and large rocks or boulders. Typical habitats include chamise and redshank habitats, as well as coastal sage scrub and desert slope scrub. Its elevation range extends from sea level to around 5,000 feet amsl. An individual was observed along the southern boundary of the Study Area. It has high potential to occur in all the natural habitats occurring within the Study Area. Southern California Rufous-Crowned Sparrow (Aimophila ruficeps canescens) California Watch List The Southern California rufouscrowned sparrow is fairly common, widespread, and generally a fairly conspicuous resident of rocky grassland and patchy shrub habitats. This often includes areas Otay Water District Environmental Setting (Existing Conditions) OWD 1655-1 Biological Resources Report 3-9 September 2019 ICF 00025.19 with disturbance from fire, soil compaction and nonnative vegetation. One individual was observed within the Study Area during the CAGN surveys. It has high potential to occur in all the natural habitats occurring within the Study Area. Special-status wildlife Species with High Potential to Occur Eleven sensitive reptile, bird, and mammal species were evaluated to have high potential to occur within the Study Area (Appendix G). These include including Belding’s orangethroated whiptail (Aspidocelis hyperythra hyperythra), Blainville’s horned lizard (Phrynosoma blainvillii), coast patchnosed snake (Salvadora hexalepis virgultea), coastal tiger whiptail (Aspidoscelis tigris stejnegeri), loggerhead shrike (Lanius ludovicianus), Bell’s sage sparrow (Artemisiospiza belli belli), pallid San Diego pocket mouse (Chaetodipus fallax pallidus), Northwestern San Diego pocket mouse (Chaetodipus fallax fallax), Dulzura pocket mouse (Chaetodipus californicus femoralis), San Diego woodrat (Neotoma lepida internedia), San Diego blacktailed jackrabbit (Lepus californicus bennettii. These 11 species are locally frequent species with limited distributions and/or with restricted nesting and foraging habitats. Appendix G provides details on each of these 11 species. Special-status wildlife Species with Low Potential to Occur Coastal California Gnatcatcher No CAGN were detected during the protocol surveys at the Study Area, and no CAGN were incidentally detected during various other biological surveys of the site (specialstatus plant surveys, butterfly surveys). Although somewhat recovered, there is some evidence that the site burned within the last 5–10 years, which may be a reason for the absence of CAGN onsite. Representative site photos and a list of avian species detected are included in the 45Day Report for CAGN surveys provided in Appendix B. The 1994 BO determined that no CAGN were present onsite during surveys immediately preceding publication of the BO. However, the 1999 BO documents that one pair of CAGN were present on the proposed project site in the 1996 survey season. This indicates that CAGN have a sporadic history of occupancy on the proposed project site. Hermes Copper Butterfly No HCB were detected within the Study Area boundary during the surveys in 2019. Spiny redberry, the larval host plant of HCB, is distributed throughout the Study Area, as well as dense patches of California buckwheat. The 45Day Report for HCB Survey Results is provided in Appendix D. A total of 16 butterfly species were observed during the surveys, with checkered white (Pontia protodice), Behr’s metalmark (Apodemia mormo virgulti), dainty sulphur (Nathalis iole), Marine blue (Leptotes marina), and San Bernardino blue (Euphilotes bernardino bernardino) among the most common during the HCB flight period (Table 2, Appendix D). The HCB’s primary nectar plant, California buckwheat, was observed flowering during the surveys. Other potential nectar sources, such as chamise, golden yarrow (Eriophyllum confertiflorum), and shortpod mustard (Hirshfeldia incana), were also in flower (Appendix D). Otay Water District Environmental Setting (Existing Conditions) OWD 1655-1 Biological Resources Report 3-10 September 2019 ICF 00025.19 3.5.1 Habitat Connectivity and Wildlife Corridors Wildlife movement corridors are areas that connect suitable wildlife habitat areas in a region otherwise fragmented by rugged terrain, changes in vegetation, or human disturbance. Natural features, such as canyon drainages, ridgelines, or areas with vegetative cover, provide corridors for wildlife movement, which are important because they provide access to mates, food, and water, allow the dispersal of individuals away from high population density areas, and facilitate the exchange of genetic traits between populations. Although the project site provides habitat for many wildlife species and is connected through large areas of undeveloped land and open space, it is located directly adjacent to and north of residential development. As a result, wildlife movement likely occurs in an easternwestern direction through this site. Undeveloped lands that likely serve as migration corridors and habitat linkages are located to the north, east, and west of the Study Area. The nearest designated open space, located approximately 1 mile south of the Study Area, is the 6,100acre Hollenbeck Canyon Wildlife Area. This area is managed by CDFW and provides a wildlife corridor between Otay Mountain and the Jamul Mountains. 3.5.2 Jurisdictional Waters and Wetlands In the context of this assessment, jurisdictional waters and wetlands include waters of the U.S., including wetlands, regulated by the USACE, pursuant to CWA Section 404; waters of the State regulated by the RWQCB, pursuant to Section 401 of the CWA and State PorterCologne Water Quality Control Act; and streambed and riparian habitat regulated by the CDFW, pursuant to Sections 16OO et seq. of California Fish and Game Code. Waters of the U.S./State Two drainage features occur within the Study Area, both of which are under USACE/RWQCB jurisdiction. Potential USACE/RWQCBjurisdiction within the Study Area is limited to nonwetland waters of the U.S./State (Figure 7). Both features flow in an easternwestern direction. The southern feature flows to the southwest after leaving the Study Area and enters a culvert just east of Presilla Drive, south of the Study Area. The northern drainage also flows into a culvert on the east side of Presilla Drive, just north of the Study Area. Streambed The two features described above are also under CDFW jurisdiction. Potential CDFW jurisdiction within the Study Area is limited to streambed (Figure 8). There is no riparian vegetation associated with either drainage. Otay Water District Environmental Setting (Existing Conditions) OWD 1655-1 Biological Resources Report 3-11 September 2019 ICF 00025.19 Figure 7. Waters of the U.S. and State Otay Water District Environmental Setting (Existing Conditions) OWD 1655-1 Biological Resources Report 3-12 September 2019 ICF 00025.19 Figure 8. CDFW Streambed Otay Water District Environmental Setting (Existing Conditions) OWD 1655-1 Biological Resources Report 3-13 September 2019 ICF 00025.19 3.6 Applicable Regulations 3.6.1 Federal Environmental Regulations Federal Endangered Species Act The Federal Endangered Species Act (FESA) was enacted in 1973 to provide protection to threatened and endangered species and their associated ecosystems. Take of a listed species is prohibited except when authorization has been granted through a permit under Section 4(d), 7 or 10(a) of the Act. Take is defined as to harass, harm, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to attempt to engage in any of these activities without a permit. No species listed as threatened or endangered were detected during surveys, but habitat assessments for listed species were conducted. Migratory Bird Treaty Act The Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) was enacted in 1918 for the purpose of prohibiting the kill or transport of native migratory birds or any part, nest, or egg of any such bird, unless allowed by another regulation adopted in accordance with the MBTA. There is a list of species that are protected by this act, and the nests of birds protected by MBTA occur on site. Clean Water Act In 1948, Congress first passed the Federal Water Pollution Control Act. This Act was amended in 1972 and became known as the Clean Water Act (CWA). The CWA regulates the discharge of pollutants into the waters of the U.S. Under Section 404, permits must be obtained from the USACE for discharge of dredge or fill material into waters of the U.S. Under Section 401 of the Act, Water Quality Certification from the RWQCB needs to be obtained if there are to be any to impacts to waters of the U.S. There are several areas within the Study Area that may be regulated as waters of the U.S. State Environmental Regulations California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) CEQA requires that biological resources be considered when assessing the environmental impacts resulting from proposed actions. CEQA does not specifically define what constitutes an adverse effect on a biological resource. Instead, lead agencies are charged with determining what specifically should be considered an impact. California Fish and Game Code California Endangered Species Act The California Endangered Species Act (CESA) prohibits the take of any species that the California Fish and Game Commission determines to be a threatened or endangered species and is administered by the CDFW. Incidental take of these listed species can be approved by the CDFW. Otay Water District Environmental Setting (Existing Conditions) OWD 1655-1 Biological Resources Report 3-14 September 2019 ICF 00025.19 “Take” is defined as to hunt, pursue, catch, capture, or kill, or attempt to hunt, pursue, catch, capture, or kill. Habitat assessments for potential sensitive species were conducted for this project. Lake and Streambed Alteration Program The Lake and Streambed Alteration Program is administered by the CDFW and is found in Section 1600 et seq. of the California Fish and Game Code. The CDFW is to be notified if the project will affect lake or streambed resources. The project has been designed to avoid streams and other waterways. Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act The PorterCologne Water Quality Control Act (PorterCologne) is the California equivalent of the Federal CWA. It provides for statewide coordination of water quality regulations through the establishment of the California State Water Resources Control Board and nine separate RWQCBs that oversee water quality on a daytoday basis at the regional/local level. The project has been designed to avoid streams and other waterways. Natural Community Conservation Planning Act of 1991 The Natural Community Conservation Planning (NCCP) Act is designed to conserve natural communities at the ecosystem scale, while accommodating compatible land use. The CDFW is the principal state agency implementing the NCCP program. NCCP plans developed in accordance with the Act provide for comprehensive management and conservation of multiple wildlife species and identify and provide for the regional or areawide protection and perpetuation of natural wildlife diversity while allowing compatible and appropriate development and growth. The Study Area is within the MSCP South County Subarea Plan. 3.6.2 Local Environmental Regulations Multiple Species Conservation Program The MSCP is a longterm regional conservation plan designed to establish connected preserve systems to ensure the longterm survival of sensitive plant and animal species and to protect the native vegetation found throughout San Diego County. The MSCP addresses the potential impacts of urban growth, natural habitat loss, and species endangerment and creates a plan to mitigate for the potential loss of sensitive species and their habitats. The MSCP covers 582,243 acres over 12 jurisdictions. Each jurisdiction has its own subarea plan, which describes specific implementing mechanisms for the MSCP. The District is not a participant in the MSCP and is not subject to the provisions of that plan. OWD 1655-1 Biological Resources Report 4-1 September 2019 ICF 00025.19 Project Effects 4.1 Impact Definitions Biological resource impacts can be considered direct, indirect, or cumulative. They will also be either permanent or temporary in nature.  Direct: Direct impacts occur when biological resources are altered, disturbed, or destroyed during project implementation. Examples include clearing vegetation, encroaching into wetland buffers, diverting surface water flows, and the loss of individual species and/or their habitats.  Indirect: Indirect impacts occur when projectrelated activities affect biological resources in a manner that is not direct. Examples include elevated noise and dust levels, increased human activity, decreased water quality, and the introduction of invasive wildlife (domestic cats and dogs) and plants.  Cumulative: Cumulative impacts occur when biological resources are either directly or indirectly impacted to a minor extent as a result of a specific project, but the projectrelated impacts are part of a larger pattern of similar minor impacts. The overall result of these multiple minor impacts from separate projects is considered a cumulative impact to biological resources.  Temporary: Temporary impacts can be direct or indirect and are considered reversible. Examples include the removal of vegetation from areas that will be revegetated, elevated noise levels, and increased levels of dust.  Permanent: Permanent impacts can be direct or indirect and are not considered reversible. Examples include the removal of vegetation from areas that will have permanent structures placed on them or landscaping an area with nonnative plant species. 4.2 Project Impacts The proposed project would result in direct permanent impacts through conversion of existing habitat to the proposed reservoir and proposed access road. Permanent impacts are also proposed where the District would place riprap at the outlets to storm drains that would be constructed to direct storm water runoff from the reservoir site and access road. The installation of the proposed pipeline would result in direct temporary impacts to existing habitat. Temporary workspace areas are also proposed around the stormwater infrastructure (e.g., riprap, storm drains, etc.) to allow construction crews to install these facilities. Indirect impacts associated with the proposed project may include the construction noise and dust, vehicle traffic and noise, and the introduction of invasive nonnative plant species. All potential projectrelated impacts (i.e., direct, indirect, and cumulative) were evaluated as a part of this assessment. 4.2.1 Riparian Habitat and Sensitive Vegetation Communities Based on guidance provided in Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines, a project would have a potentially significant effect on biological resources if the project would have a substantial adverse Otay Water District Project Effects OWD 1655-1 Biological Resources Report 4-2 September 2019 ICF 00025.19 effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations, or by the CDFG or USFWS. Analysis of Project Effects Construction of the proposed project would directly and permanently impact 0.8 acre, including 0.7 acre of Diegan coastal sage scrub and an additional 0.1 acre of southern mixed chaparral habitat (Table 5; Figure 4). The project proposes temporary impacts to 0.9 acre of Diegan coastal sage scrub (Table 5; Figure 4). No riparian habitat would be affected as a result of the proposed project. Table 5 summarizes all proposed project impacts to habitat types/vegetation communities. Table 51. Habitat/Vegetation Communities and Impacts Habitat/Vegetation Community (Holland Code) Permanent Impacts (acres) Temporary Impacts (acres) Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub (32500) 0.7 0.9 Southern Mixed Chaparral (37120) 0.1 <0.1 Developed Habitat (12000) <0.1 <0.1 Disturbed Habitat (11000) <0.1 <0.1 Total 0.8 1.0 Indirect impacts on sensitive vegetation communities may include the increased exposure to exotic plant seed. Nonnative exotic plant species are opportunistic and often occupy disturbed soils, such as those within construction sites, and areas of exposed bare ground that may occur within the disturbance area. Once introduced, these exotic plant species often outcompete natives for resources, resulting in a reduction in growth, future dispersal, and recruitment of native species, and the eventual degradation of the vegetation community. Erosion and storm water contaminant runoff also may degrade adjacent vegetation communities. Finally, dust deposition on leaf surfaces may result from construction traffic on dirt roads or lots, thus reducing the photosynthetic vigor of plants comprising sensitive natural communities. Based on guidance provided in Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines, a project would have a potentially significant effect on biological resources if the project would have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations, or by the CDFG or USFWS. Permanent impacts on 0.8 acres of sensitive habitats would be considered significant. No impacts on riparian habitat would occur. Mitigation Measures The proposed project has been designed to avoid impacts to sensitive natural communities to the maximum extent practicable and mitigation of impacted habitat will occur. All equipment staging will occur within proposed development areas. Impacts to sensitive upland communities would be fully mitigated at standard ratios through one or a combination of the following: preservation or restoration of offsite habitat and/or offsite purchase of mitigation credits at an approved mitigation bank. Otay Water District Project Effects OWD 1655-1 Biological Resources Report 4-3 September 2019 ICF 00025.19 Temporary, constructionrelated impacts from fugitive dust impacts would be reduced to less than significant levels through implementation of dust control BMPs during construction (refer to MM AirSCP1 in Section 4.1.3.2, Air Quality, of the WFMP PEIR). Potential impacts due to establishment and spread of invasive nonnative plant species from graded areas into adjacent native vegetation communities would be reduced to less than significant levels through implementation of the measures listed in MM BioSCP1 in the WFMP PEIR. Temporary impacts on coastal sage scrub would be further reduced through implementation of the Terms and Conditions of the 1999 BO, specifically terms 3a. and 3b., which require revegetation an annual monitoring of temporarily impacted coastal sage scrub areas. As a result, these impacts would be considered less than significant after mitigation is applied. Conclusion Mitigation for impacts on sensitive vegetation communities will reduce any project related impacts to a level less than significant. 4.2.2 Special-Status Plant Species Based on guidance provided in Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines, a project would have a potentially significant effect on biological resources if the project would have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or specialstatus species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the CDFW or USFWS. Analysis of Project Effects Table 6 summarizes the total impacts on specialstatus species as a result of the proposed project. The anticipated impact area, expressed as a percentage of the mapped occurrence area, is also provided. Table 6: Impacts on Special-Status Plant Species Species CRPR Listing Status Total Individuals Mapped in the Study Area Individuals within Temporary Impact (% of total) Individuals within Permanent Impact (% of total) Brewer’s calandrinia 4.2 51 51 (100) 0 (0) Chaparral rein orchid 4.2 2 0 (0) 2 (100) San Diego County viguiera 4.2 178 14 (8) 0 (0) The proposed project would result in permanent impacts to two chaparral rein orchid individuals within the Study Area. These two individuals would be permanently impacted as a result of the construction of the access road leading to the reservoir site. These minor impacts will not significantly affect the regional longterm survival of this species due to the small project footprint. Chaparral rein orchid individuals occur in multiple counties in southern California, 12 different USGS quadrangles (CNPS 2019), and the San Diego Natural History Museum Distribution Mapper (SDNHM 2019) identifies multiple occurrences of this species throughout San Diego County. Otay Water District Project Effects OWD 1655-1 Biological Resources Report 4-4 September 2019 ICF 00025.19 The proposed project would result in temporary impacts to approximately 51 Brewer’s calandrinia and approximately 14 San Diego County viguiera individuals (Figure 5). These individuals would be removed during grading activities, but some may recover naturally on their own after construction. Brewer’s calandrinia, a fairly widespread species throughout scattered locations in southern California, is an annual species whose seeds may be able to germinate following construction. San Diego County viguiera is a widespread species in central and southern areas in cismontane regions of San Diego County, often occurring in large numbers at the landscape level. This species, although a shrub, also may be able to recolonize areas disturbed by the project. Even if these species are not able to recolonize the area, impacts to this small of a number would not result in a regional decline in the species due to the small project footprint and relatively abundant numbers of the species elsewhere. Temporary indirect impacts on specialstatus plant species could result from constructionrelated dust, sedimentation, and erosion, which have the potential to alter site conditions, degrading the quality of the habitat. Invasive species also could spread as a result of disturbance during construction activities, and the spread of invasive species could negatively affect the longterm success of these specialstatus plant species. Temporary, constructionrelated impacts from fugitive dust impacts would be reduced through implementation of dust control BMPs during construction (refer to MM AirSCP1 in Section 4.1.3.2, Air Quality, of the WFMP PEIR). Potential impacts due to establishment and spread of invasive nonnative plant species from graded areas into adjacent native vegetation communities would be reduced through implementation of the measures listed in MM BioSCP1 in the WFMP PEIR. As a result, these impacts would be considered less than significant. Conclusion Impacts on specialstatus plant species would be less than significant because neither permanent nor temporary impacts would result in a threat to the longterm regional survival of these species. 4.2.3 Special-Status Wildlife Species Based on guidance provided in Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines, a project would have a potentially significant effect on biological resources if the project would have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or specialstatus species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the CDFW or USFWS. Analysis of Project Effects Temporary Impacts Temporary direct impacts may result from the temporary removal of upland habitat, including Diegan coastal sage scrub, due to installation of the proposed pipeline. Temporary indirect impacts on specialstatus wildlife species could occur due to construction noise and ground vibration, as animals may be deterred from inhabiting or foraging in areas near such activities. Additional indirect impacts could occur from constructionrelated dust, sedimentation, and erosion, which have the potential to alter site conditions and use of the site by certain species. In addition, temporary impacts associated with nighttime construction activities may result in temporary avoidance of construction areas due to lighting. Furthermore, the proposed project may result in impacts on these species if noxious weed seeds are spread within occupied habitats during construction; if Otay Water District Project Effects OWD 1655-1 Biological Resources Report 4-5 September 2019 ICF 00025.19 allowed to establish and spread, these weeds could alter the habitat for these species. The shortterm constructionrelated impacts are significant and mitigation measures are proposed below to reduce these significant impacts. The proposed project will not result in longterm indirect impacts to the site. The proposed project is clustered near existing development and fencing and signage will limit human access to adjacent sensitive communities. As a result, there would be no adverse longterm impacts on specialstatus wildlife species as a result of these indirect impacts and as such, these are less than significant. Permanent Impacts The proposed project would directly and permanently impact 0.8 acre of suitable habitat (i.e., coastal sage scrub and southern mixed chaparral) known to support, or likely to support, specialstatus wildlife species. Specialstatus wildlife species that were observed within the Study Area include QCB, red diamondback rattlesnake, and rufouscrown sparrow. Other wildlife species with a high potential to occur include Belding’s orangethroated whiptail, coast patchednosed snake, coastal tiger whiptail, coast horned lizard, Bell’s sage sparrow, loggerhead shrike, Dulzura pocket mouse, northwestern San Diego pocket mouse, pallid San Diego pocket mouse, San Diego desert woodrat, and San Diego blacktailed jackrabbit. Permanent direct impacts on the habitat of these species are anticipated as a result of the permanent removal of upland habitat, such as Diegan coastal sage scrub, due to the construction of the reservoir and access road. Permanent direct impacts could also occur to individuals as a result of vehicular (i.e., construction equipment) strikes. The significance of these permanent impacts on specialstatus wildlife are analyzed below by taxonomic class. Quino Checkerspot Butterfly QCB is a federally endangered species that has been observed one time on site. Patches of the host plant, dotseed plantain, occur along the southern border of the project and abundant nectar sources are on site. Development of the project would result in the loss of suitable and potentially occupied habitat, which would have significant impacts on QCB. The proposed project was included in the BO from 1994. In that BO, the USFWS determined that the USACE and District would need to initiate formal Section 7 consultation if any impacts on QCB from the project would occur. As a result, it is anticipated that formal Section 7 consultation and a separate Incidental Take Permit process will be required to address impacts on QCB resulting from this project. Special-Status Avian Species and Birds Protected under the MBTA Loggerhead shrike, a California SSC with high potential to occur onsite, is a predatory songbird that nests in chaparral and trees. Development of the project has the potential to impact nesting and foraging habitat. Therefore, the project would have a potentially significant impact on this species because it would result in the loss of suitable nesting and foraging habitat. Southern California rufouscrowned sparrow and Bell’s sage sparrow are both California Watch List (WL) species that have a high potential to occur within the project area. These species nest and forage in chaparral and Diegan coast sage scrub habitats. Development of the project has the potential to impact nesting and foraging habitat. Therefore, the project would have a potentially significant impact on these species. The project would also result in the direct permanent impacts to habitat for nesting birds protected under the MBTA. Grading, vegetation clearing, and/or noise generating activities could result in nest Otay Water District Project Effects OWD 1655-1 Biological Resources Report 4-6 September 2019 ICF 00025.19 failures if they are conducted during the nesting season (generally February 15–August 31). Such impacts could result in removal of active nests or disruption in breeding success due to disturbance of breeding behaviors. Such impacts would be considered significant. Special-Status Reptiles Coast horned lizard, coastal tiger whiptail, coast patchnosed snake, and red diamond rattlesnakes are California SSC. These reptiles are strongly associated with Diegan coastal sage scrub and southern mixed chaparral habitats. Although none of these species was observed during field surveys, they have a high potential to occur within the project site, and development of the project would reduce the habitat for these species. Therefore, the development of the project will have a significant impact on coast horned lizard, coastal tiger whiptails, coast patchnosed snakes, and red diamond rattlesnakes because it would result in the loss of suitable habitat. Special-Status Mammals Dulzura pocket mouse, northwestern San Diego pocket mouse, pallid pocket mouse, San Diego desert woodrat, and San Diego blacktailed jackrabbit are California SSC. These mammals were evaluated to have a high potential to occur onsite. Development of the project would have potentially significant impact to these species because it would result in the loss of suitable habitat. Mitigation Measures The proposed project would result in direct, permanent impacts to suitable habitats for sensitive plant and animal species. Unmitigated impacts to sensitive species habitat would be significant. The Otay Water District developed mitigation measures in the 2015 WFMP PEIR related to specialstatus species. The proposed project is envisioned in the 2015 WFMP PEIR, and, as such, the mitigation measures described in the PEIR will be applicable to the proposed project. Implementation of PEIR mitigation measures MM Bio1B through MM Bio1G would reduce project impacts on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or specialstatus species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the CDFW or USFWS to a level less than significant. Applicable Coastal California Gnatcatcher Mitigation Measures from BO Because this project was covered under the 1994 and 1999 BOs, it is subject to the Terms and Conditions included in those documents. This includes a restriction on vegetation clearance to protect coastal California gnatcatcher. Specifically, conditions in the 1999 BO documents state that “No construction shall occur within occupied gnatcatcher habitat from February 15 through August 30 except as authorized in this Biological Opinion or otherwise authorized in writing by the Service.” Furthermore, Terms and Conditions 1c states: “All construction corridors must be cleared of vegetation at least one month prior to the initiation of the gnatcatcher nesting season, except for the Rancho Jamul Reservoir site, which may be cleared up to February 20…” The proposed project is referred to as the Rancho Jamul Reservoir site in the BO. Because the 2019 surveys determined that no CAGN were present onsite, and that this site has an infrequent history of CAGN occupancy as described in the 1994 BO and 1999 BO, it cannot be confirmed that the proposed project site is “occupied”, which is the trigger for this requirement per the 1999 BO conditions. As such, it is recommended that preconstruction avian surveys are conducted as part of the WFMP PEIR mitigation measures discussed above. If CAGN is observed during those surveys, the vegetation clearing mitigation measure would apply, and if it is Otay Water District Project Effects OWD 1655-1 Biological Resources Report 4-7 September 2019 ICF 00025.19 determined that CAGN are not present, then vegetation clearing may proceed within the CAGN breeding season with an avian monitor present. Quino Checkerspot Butterfly The proposed project has a federal nexus due to impacts to a waters of the U.S. under the jurisdiction of the USACE (See Section 4.2, Analysis of Project Effects, below). As a result, it is anticipated that the District would apply for a Section 7 incidental take permit (ITP) through the USFWS for impacts on QCB. As part of that ITP, compensatory mitigation and other mitigation measures to avoid impacts on QCB would be required, and the District would implement those mitigation measures. Temporary Impacts Temporary constructionrelated impacts from fugitive dust impacts would be reduced to less than significant levels through implementation of dust control Best Management Practices (BMPs) during construction (refer to MM AirSCP1 in Section 4.1.3.2, Air Quality, of the WFMP PEIR). Potential impacts due to establishment and spread of invasive nonnative plant species from graded areas into adjacent native vegetation communities would be reduced to less than significant levels through implementation of the measures listed in MM BioSCP1 in the WFMP PEIR. The proposed project would not result in any additional significant impacts not already envisioned in the WFMP PEIR, and therefore no additional mitigation measures, other than those provided in the WFMP PEIR are required. Temporary impacts on coastal sage scrub, which is habitat for specialstatus species either observed or with some potential to occur on site, would be further reduced through implementation of conditions 3a. and 3b. from the 1999 BO. These conditions require revegetation and annual monitoring to ensure revegetation success for areas temporarily impacted. Conclusion Mitigation for impacts on specialstatus wildlife species will reduce any projectrelated impacts to a level less than significant. 4.2.4 Wetlands and Jurisdictional Waters Based on guidance provided in Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines, a project would have a potentially significant effect on biological resources if the project would have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the C (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means. Analysis of Project Effects No wetlands are present on the project site, and as such, no wetlands would be impacted by the project. The project was designed to avoid impacts to nonwetland jurisdictional features to the extent possible and will entire avoid the southern drainage. The proposed project would result in the placement of new riprap within a small portion of the northern drainage in order to direct stormwater flow away from the reservoir site. The placement of riprap would result in a permanent Otay Water District Project Effects OWD 1655-1 Biological Resources Report 4-8 September 2019 ICF 00025.19 impact to 32 square feet of waters under the jurisdiction of the USACE and RWQCB and 95 square feet of impacts to CDFW Streambed. Mitigation Measures Aquatic resource permits would be secured prior to construction for permanent and temporary impacts on a nonwetland drainage. Compensatory mitigation and permit conditions would be required as a condition of permit approvals. Conclusion Impacts on jurisdictional nonwetland waters would be considered less than significant after mitigation is applied. 4.2.5 Core Wildlife Area/Wildlife Corridors Based on guidance provided in Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines, a project would have a potentially significant effect on biological resources if the project would interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites. Analysis of Project Effects The proposed project will not affect a wildlife corridor or core wildlife area. Permanent impacts within the project site are relatively small compared to the available open space in the vicinity of the project and will not fragment or impact wildlife movement with the region. The proposed project is not anticipated to significantly change the overall movement and foraging areas for wildlife in the area for the following reasons:  The project is clustered near existing development and would not prevent wildlife access to undeveloped habitat near the Study Area or interfere with habitat connectivity.  The project would not create artificial wildlife corridors or constrain existing corridors.  The project would not increase noise or nighttime lighting within a wildlife corridor.  The project would not impact visual continuity. As a result, the proposed project would not result in significant impacts to wildlife corridors and linkages and mitigation is not proposed. Conclusions The proposed project would not result in significant impacts to wildlife corridors and linkages. 4.2.6 Local Policies, Ordinances, and Adopted Plans Based on guidance provided in Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines, a project would have a potentially significant effect on biological resources if the project would conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance; or conflict with the provisions of an adopted HCP, NCCP, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation Plan. Otay Water District Project Effects OWD 1655-1 Biological Resources Report 4-9 September 2019 ICF 00025.19 Analysis of Project Effects The District is not subject to the requirements of the MSCP but affirms that the proposed project would not conflict with the implementation of the MSCP South County Subarea Plan or the assemblage of the conservation land required for MSCP species to be considered fully covered. The project site is located within the MetroLakesideJamul Segment of the South County Subarea Plan specifically, outside the preapproved mitigation area (PAMA) and hardline preserve areas. The MSCP preserve will be assembled in the MetroLakesideJamul Segment through federal, state, and local agency acquisition and through the directed mitigation of discretionary project impacts. There are several large properties in the Metro–Lakeside–Jamul Segment that have already been acquired and some planned for acquisition that will contribute to the assemblage of the preserve (e.g., Crestridge Conservation Bank and Open Space, Singing Hills Mitigation Banks, etc.). The 16551 reservoir project would occur on a relatively small parcel, not identified for conservation efforts, adjacent to exurban development to the south. As a result, the development of the 16551 reservoir project would not conflict with the preservation goals established for the Metro–Lakeside–Jamul segment. Conclusions The proposed project, along with the proposed mitigation measures, would reduce potential conflicts with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources. 4.3 Summary of Project Impacts and Mitigation In total, 0.8 acre will be impacted by the proposed project (Table 7). Mitigation is required for impacts on Diegan coastal sage scrub and southern mixed chaparral. Permanent impacts on 0.7 acre of Diegan coastal sage scrub will be offset through the deduction of available credits at the District’s San Miguel Habitat Management Area (HMA) at a 2:1 ratio, which is consistent with the mitigation ration required in the 1999 BO, which included the proposed project. Temporary impacts on 0.9 acre of Diegan coastal sage scrub will be offset through the deduction of available credits at the District’s HMA at a 1:1 ratio, also consistent with the mitigation ration required in the 1999 BO. Mitigation for impacts on southern mixed chaparral will be consistent with the mitigation ratios outlined in the Biological Mitigation Ordinance (BMO) for San Diego County. The BMO uses tiered mitigation ratios that are determined by vegetation community. The BMO states that mitigation must occur within a habitat tier equal to or lower than the habitat tier impacted. Southern mixed chaparral is a Tier III and coastal sage scrub is a Tier II. Therefore, permanent impacts on 0.1 acre of southern mixed chaparral will be offset through the “uptiering” of mitigation credits available at the District’s HMA for coastal sage scrub at a 1:1 ratio. A 1:1 mitigation ratio is appropriate because both the proposed project site and HMA both meet the criteria outlined in the BMO to qualify as a Biological Resource Core Area. As a result, a total of 2.4 acre of coastal sage scrub mitigation credits will be deducted from the District’s HMA to offset impacts on sensitive habitats. Impacts on sensitive wildlife species will be offset with the habitatbased mitigation and avoidance of the breeding/flight season for specialstatus avian species and birds/raptors protected under the MBTA. Otay Water District Project Effects OWD 1655-1 Biological Resources Report 4-10 September 2019 ICF 00025.19 Table 7. Habitat/Vegetation Communities Impacts and Mitigation Habitat Types (Vegetation Communities) Permanent Impact Area (acres) Permanent Mitigation Ratio Temporary Impact Area (acres) Temporary Mitigation Ratio Total Offsite Mitigation Required (acres) Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub 0.7 2:1 0.9 1:1 2.3 Southern Mixed Chaparral 0.1 1:1 <0.1 N/A 0.1 Disturbed Habitat 0.6 N/A 0 N/A N/A Developed Habitat 0.3 N/A 0 N/A N/A Total 0.8 N/A 1.0 N/A 2.4 Potentially significant impacts to a federally listed invertebrate, QCB, could occur, thus requiring a Section 7 ITP. Permit conditions and compensatory mitigation would be required and will be implemented as required. Aquatic resource permits would be secured prior to construction to address permanent impacts on 32 square feet of USACE/RWQCB nonwetland waters and 95 square feet of CDFW nonwetland waters. Compensatory mitigation and permit conditions would be implemented as required in those permits. OWD 1655-1 Biological Resources Report 5-1 September 2019 ICF 00025.19 References Atkins. 2015. Otay Water District Water Facilities Master Plan Update. Prepared for Otay Water District. ———. 2016. Otay Water District Water Facilities Master Plan Update Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Report. Prepared for Otay Water District. Baldwin, B.G., D.H. Goldman, D.J. Keil, R. Patterson, T.J. Rosatti, and D.H. Wilken, eds. 2012. The Jepson Manual: Vascular Plants of California. 2nd edition. University of California Press. California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG). 2009. Protocols for Surveying and Evaluating Impacts to Special Status Native Plant Populations and Natural Communities. Available: https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=25772. Accessed: 2018. California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). 2019. California Natural Diversity Database, RareFind 4. Available: https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Data/CNDDB/. Accessed: August 2019. California Native Plant Society (CNPS). 2001. CNPS Botanical Survey Guidelines. California Native Plant Society’s Inventory of Rare and Endangered Vascular Plants of California (D.P. Tibor, editor). 6th edition. Special Publication No. 1, California Native Plant Society, Sacramento, pp. 38–40. ———. 2019. Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants. 8th Edition. Available: https://www.cnps.org/rareplants/cnpsinventoryofrareplants. County of San Diego. 1997. Multiple Species Conservation Program County of San Diego Subarea Plan. Available at http://www.sdcounty.ca.gov/pds/mscp/sc.html. ———. 2010. Report Format and Content Requirements Biological Resources. Land Use and Environment Group. Fourth Revision. September 15. Google Earth (Google) 2018. Aerial and historical lmagery. Retrieved from: April 2018. Helix Environmental. 2018. Biological Resources Letter Report for the 1655-1 Reservoir Project. Prepared for Otay Water District. Holland, R. F. 1986. Preliminary Descriptions of the Terrestrial Natural Communities of California. NongameHeritage Program, California Department of Fish and Game. Keeley, J. and S. Keeley. 1988. Chaparral. North American Vegetation. Eds. M. Barbourand W. Billings. Klein, M. and D. Faulkner. 2012. Sensitive Butterflies of San Diego County, California. FLITE Tours, Inc. Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). 2O18a. Web Soil Survey. United States Department of Agriculture. Retrieved from: http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov. Accessed April 2018. Otay Water District References OWD 1655-1 Biological Resources Report 5-2 September 2019 ICF 00025.19 ———2018b. State Sil Data Access (SDA) Hydric Soil List. United States Department of Agriculture. Available at https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/lnternet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/nrcseprd13L6619.html. Retrieved from: April 2018. Oberbauer, T., M. Kelly, and J. Buegge. 2008. Draft Vegetation Communities of San Diego County. Based on “Preliminary Descriptions of the Terrestrial Natural Communities of California,” Robert F. Holland, Ph.D., October 1986. 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. San Diego Natural History Museum (SDNHM) Distribution Mapper. 2019. Available at: https://www.sdnhm.org/science/botany/collections/distributionmapping/. August 2019. Shiraiwa, K. 2009. The Butterflies of San Diego County Introduction and Identification Guide. May. Shiraiwa. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 2008. A Field Guide to the identification of the Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM) in the Arid West Region of the Western United States. R.W. Lichvar and S.M. McColley. ERDC/EL TR0812. Hanover, NH. U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development USFWS. 1997. Coastal California Gnatcatcher (Polioptila californica californica) Presence/Absence Survey Protocol. July 28, 1997. ———.2000. Guidelines for Conducting and Reporting Botanical Inventories for Federally Listed Proposed and Candidate Plants. Available at: https://www.fws.gov/ventura/docs/species/protocols/botanicalinventories.pdf. Accessed: 2016. ———. 2014. Quino Checkerspot Butterfly Survey Guidelines. Available at: https://www.fws.gov/cno/es/Recovery_Permitting/insects/quino_checkerspot_butterfly/QuinoCheckerspotButterfly_SurveyGuidelines_20141215.pdf. Accessed: December 2014. Appendix A 2018 Helix Biological Resources Letter Report HELIX Environmental Planning, lnc. 7578 El Cajon Boulevard La Mesa, CA91942 619.462.1515 tel 619.462.0552Íax www. hel¡xep¡.com HEL'X Environmental Planning May 31, 20L8 owD-05.05 Ms. Lisa Coburn-Boyd Otay Water District 2554 Sweetwater Springs Boulevard Spring Valley, CA 9L978 Subject: Biological Resources Letter Report for the 1655-L Reservoir Project Dear Ms. Coburn-Boyd: HELIX Environmental Planning, lnc. (HELIX) completed a preliminary biological resources review for the L655-L Reservoir Project (project) located in the community of Jamul, San Diego County, California. A Biological Resources Report (Merkel & Associates 1996) was prepared for a previous version of the project, which was not implemented. This letter summarizes the site's existing conditions, potential survey requirements, assessment of regulatory requirements (constraints), and recommendations as to whether an updated Biological Resources Report is warranted. PROJECT TOCATION The project site is located in the community of Jamul, San Diego County, California (Figure 1). More specifically, the site is located off Presilla Drive (Figure 2). The project site occurs within Sections L1 and 12, Township L7 South, Range 1 East of the Dulzura, California U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle (Figure 3). The site is located within the boundaries of the adopted South County Multiple Species Conservation Program (MSCP) Subarea Plan (County of San Diego L997); however, the Otay Water District is not a s¡gnatory to this plan; it also does not have its own adopted habitat conservation plan. The site is located outside U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) designated critical habitat. lt occurs within a designated survey area for Quino checkerspot butterfly (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service IUSFWS] 20L7). METHODS Generql Biologicol Survey HELIX biologists Jason Kurnow and Samantha Edgley performed a general biological survey on April 6, 2018 to map existing vegetation communities/habitat types, assess the suitability of habitat for sensitive Letter Report to Ms, Lisa Coburn-Boyd May 3L, 2018 Page 2 of 7 plant and animal species, and document existing conditions within the study area. The study area includes the project site plus a 100-foot buffer (Figure 2). lnformation reviewed for the general biological survey included maps, databases, and literature pertaining to biological resources known to occur within the study area. Recent and historical aerial imagery, topographic maps, soils maps (Natural Resources Conservation Service [NRCS] 2018a), and other maps of the study area were acquired and reviewed to obtain updated information on the natural environmental setting. A query of sensitive species and habitats databases was conducted, including the USFWS species records and California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB). J urisdictionol Delineolion Prior to beginning fieldwork for the jurisdictional delineation (JD), aerial photographs (L"=80' scale), and topographic maps (1"=80' scale) were reviewed to determine the location of potentialjurisdictional areas that may be affected by the various alternatives within the study area. Data were collected in areas that were suspected to be jurisdictional habitats by Mr. Kurnow and Ms. Edgley on April 6,2018. Based on a review of Google Earth (201-8) and a previous Biological Resources Report (Merkel & Associates 1996), it was apparent that the drainage features did not support wetland vegetation, and as a result would not be considered a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) wetland. The focus of the USACE delineation was on non-wetland boundaries. These boundaries were determined using methods suggested by the USACE in A Field Guide to the ldentification of the Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM) in the Arid West Region of the Western United States (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers IUSACE] 2008b). Furthermore, the OHWM is defined in 33 Code of Federal Regulations Section 329.11as "that line on the shore established by the fluctuations of water and indicated by physical characteristics such as a clear, natural line impressed on the bank; shelving; changes in the character of the soil; destruction of terrestrial vegetation; the presence of litter or debris; or other appropriate means that consider the characteristics of the surrounding areas." The same methods were used to determine potential Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) jurisdiction in the form of waters of the State. Potential California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW)jurisdictional boundaries were determined based on the presence of regular surface flow. Streambeds within CDFW jurisdiction were delineated based on the definition of streambed as "a body of water that flows at least periodically or intermittently through a bed or channel having banks and supporting fish or other aquatic life. This includes watercourses having a surface or subsurface flow that supports riparian vegetation" (Title 14, Section L.72). EXISTING CONDITIONS TOPOGRAPHY AND SOITS The study area is located on a steep west-facing slope. Elevation ranges from approximately 1,445 feet above mean sea level (amsl) in the western portion of the study area to 1.,719 feet amsl in the eastern portion. Two soil types have been mapped in the study area (NRCS 2018a). The soil type covering the most area is Cieneba very rocky coarse sandy loam, 30 to 75 percent slopes (CmrG). The other soil type is Las Posas stony fine sandy loam, 9 to 30 percent slopes (LrE). Neither soil type is listed as hydric (NRCS 2018b). HEL'X Env ¡ ron n e nta¡ Plann¡ng Letter Report to Ms. Lisa Coburn-Boyd May 31, 2018 Page 3 of 7 VEGETATION TYPES Vegetation communities or habitat types are classified in this report according to Oberbauer (2008). A total of four vegetation communities/land cover types were mapped within the study area during the April 6, 2018 general biological survey: Diegan coastal sage scrub, southern mixed chaparral, disturbed habitat, and urban/developed (Figure 4). A brief description of each is described below. Diegon Cooslol Soge Scrub Diegan coastal sage scrub consists of low, soft-woody subshrubs (to ca. 1 meter high) that grow most actively in winter and early spring. Many taxa are facultatively drought-deciduous. This plant community typically occurs on low moisture-availability sites: steep, xeric slopes or clay-rich soils that are slow to release stored water. Diegan coastal sage scrub (including disturbed) is considered a sensitive natural community due to its relative scarcity and high number of sensitive species associated with the habitat (Oberbauer 2008). This is the most abundant vegetation community within the study area. lt is dominated by California sagebrush (Artemisio californico) and California buckwheat (Eriogonum fasciculotum). Other Diegan coastal sage scrub-associated species occurring within this vegetation community include deerweed (Acmispon glober),laurel-leaf sumac (Molosmo laurinal, and white sage (Solvia apiono). Red berry {Rhomnus croceo) also occurs infrequently, but throughout this community. Where found, this species occurs in close proximity to California buckwheat. Soulhern Mixed Choporrol Southern mixed chaparral is composed of broad-leaved sclerophyllous shrubs that can reach 6 to 10 feet in height and form dense often nearly impenetrable stands with poorly developed understories. ln this mixed chaparral the shrubs are generally tall and deep rooted, with a well-developed soil litter layer, high canopy coverage, low light levels within the canopy, and lower soil temperatures (Keeley and Keeley L988). This vegetation community occurs on dry, rocky, often steep north-facing slopes with little soil. As conditions become more mesic, broad-leaved sclerophyllous shrubs that resprout from underground root crowns become dominant. Depending upon relative proximity to the coast, southern mixed chaparral is dominated by chamise (Adenostoma fosciculotuml, mission manzanita (Xylococcus bicolor), coast white lilac (Ceonothus verrucosus), Ramona lilac (Ceonothus tomentosus), white-stem wild-lilac (Ceanothus leucodermis), big-berry manzanita (Arctostaphylos glouco), and scrub oak(Quercus dumosa). This vegetation community provides important habitat for wide-ranging species such as mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus), mountain lion (Felrs concolorl, and golden eagle (Aquila chrysoetos). This vegetation community is considered sensitive. Characteristic species within the study area include chamise, mission manzanita, and Ramona lilac. Dislurbed Hobitot Disturbed habitat is characterized by areas that have been physically disturbed (by previous legal human activity) and are no longer recognizable as a native or naturalized vegetation association but continue to retain a soil substrate. Typically, vegetation, if present, is nearly exclusively composed of non-native plant species such as ornamentals or ruderal exotic species that take advantage of disturbance, or shows HEL'X Env ¡ronn ental Plann¡ng Letter Report to Ms. Lisa Coburn-Boyd May 3L, 2018 Page 4 of 7 signs of past or present animal uses that removes any capability of providing viable natural habitat for uses other than dispersal (Oberbauer 2008). Within the study area disturbed habitat is located along a maintained road shoulder, dirt trail, and maintained fuel modification zone associated with a residence. Urbqn/Developed Developed land applies to areas that have been constructed upon or otherwise physically altered to an extent that native vegetation is no longer supported. Developed land is characterized by permanent or semi-permanent structures, pavement or hardscape, and landscaped areas that often require irrigation. Areas where no natural land is evident due to a large amount of debris or other materials being placed upon it may also be considered developed (Oberbauer 2008). Within the study area this is associated with Pricilla Drive and the associated landscape areas located on either side of this road. SENSITIVE PTANT AND ANIMAL SPECIES Sensitive Plqnl Species Sensitive plant species are those listed as federally threatened or endangered by the USFWS; State listed as threatened or endangered or considered sensitive by the CDFW; and/or are California Native Plant Society (CNPS) California Rare Plant Rank (CRPR) List 14, tB, or 2 species, as recognized in the CNPS' lnventory of Rare and Endangered Vascular Plants of California and consistent with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines. Special-status plant species also include those identified in the adopted MSCP. One sensitive plant species was observed within the study area, including the project site: San Diego su nflower (Vig u iero la ci n ioto). SENSITIVE ANIMAT SPEC¡ES No sensitive animal species were observed/detected during the April 6,2OI8 survey JURISDICTIONAT WATERS AND WETTANDS ln the context of this assessment, jurisdictional waters and wetlands include waters of the U.S., including wetlands, regulated by the USACE pursuant to CWA Section 404; waters of the State regulated by the RWQCB pursuant to Section 401" of the CWA and State Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act; and streambed and riparian habitat regulated by the CDFW pursuant to Sections L6OO et seq. of California Fish and Game Code. Wolers of lhe U.S./Slote Two drainage features occur within the study area, which were analyzed for USACE/RWQCB jurisdiction The northern of these features encroaches within the northern boundary of the project s¡te. Potential HEL'X Env¡ron nental Pl ann¡ng Letter Report to Ms. Lisa Coburn-Boyd May 31, 20L8 Page 5 of 7 USACE/RWQCB-jurisdiction within the study area is limited to non-wetland waters of the U.S./State (Figure 5). Slreombed Two drainage features occur within the study area, which were analyzed for CDFW jurisdiction. The northern of these features encroaches within the northern boundary of the project site. Potential CDFW-jurisdiction within the project site is limited to streambed (Figure 6). POTENTIAT BIOTOGICAT CONSTRAINTS Based on the general biological survey and jurisdictional delineation, the follow regulatory permits and focused surveys discussed below may be required. Although the District is not a permittee or participating entity of the MSCP Subarea Plan, proposed impacts to the study area will need to be consistent with MSCP Subarea Plan conservation goals and objectives. The following items may present constraints to the project. Sensilive Plqnt Species The project site contains at least one sensitive plant species (San Diego sunflower). Based on site conditions, there is the potential for other sensitive plant species to occur on the site. lf work would impact Diegan coastal sage scrub or southern mixed chaparral, HELIX recommends presence/absence rare plant surveys during the spring (late March or early April) and early summer (late May or early June). Sensilive Animol Species The study area and project site have the potential to support the following sensitive animal species: Quino checkerspot butterfly, Hermes copper, and coastal California gnatcatcher. HELIX recommends presence/a bsence, protocol-level su rveys for these species. Sensilive Nqlurol Communilies The study area supports the following sensitive habitat types requiring compensatory mitigation for impacts under CEQA: Diegan coastal sage scrub and southern mixed chaparral. JurÍsdiclionol Wolers ond Wellqnds The unnamed drainage that enters the project site would qualify as a non-wetland waters of the U.S. lsubject to the regulatory jurisdiction of the USACE pursuant to Clean Water Act (CWA) Section 404; \ non-wetland waters of the State subject to the regulatory jurisdiction of the RWQCB pursuant to CWA f Section 401; and riparian-vegetated streambed subject to the regulatory jurisdiction of the CDFW Jpursuant to Sections L6OO et seq. of California Fish and Game Code. HELIX ê,an*hi1 bø avoid4 z Env ¡ronnental Plan ning Letter Report to Ms. Lisa Coburn-Boyd May 3L,2018 Page 6 of 7 coNcrus¡oN The most significant biological resources-related constraints for the project are impacts to sensitive upland vegetation communities, which might support sensitive plant/animal species. lmpacts should be verified once the availability of a project design and construction footprint. Some of the constraints were addressed in the previous Biological Assessment Report was completed in L996. However, the Biological Assessment Report is outdated and precedes the approval of the County MSCP Subarea Plan in L997. lt also will need to be updated to reflect the latest project plans. Since the District is a non-participating entity in the MSCP, impacts to federally-listed species (if they occur on site) will require an independent authorization process with the USFWS. We appreciate the opportunity to provide you with this information. Please do not hesitate to contact me at (6L9) 462-LSLS orJasonK@helixepi.com if you have any quest¡ons. Sincerely, Jason Kurnow Senior Scientist Attachments: Figure 1: Figure 2: Figure 3: Figure 4: Figure 5: Figure 6: Regional Location Project Vicinity (Aerial Photograph) Project Vicinity (USGS Topography) Vegetation and Sensitive Resources Waters of the U.S. CDFW Jurisdiction HEL'X Env¡rcnmental Plann¡ng Letter Report to Ms. Lisa Coburn-Boyd May 3L, 2018 PageT of7 REFERENCES County of San Diego. 1997. Multiple Species Conservation Program County of San Diego Subarea Plan October. Google Earth (Google) 2018. Aerial and historical lmagery. Retrieved from: April 2018. Keeley, J. and S. Keeley. 1-988. Chaparral. North American Vegetation. Eds. M. Barbourand W. Billings Cambridge University Press, pp. L65-207. Merkel & Associates, lnc. 1996. Report of a Biological Assessment of the 11.67-acre Rancho Jamul Tank Site. August. Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). 2OL8a. Web Soil Survey. United States Department of Agriculture. Retrieved from: http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov. Accessed April 2018. 2018b. State Sil Data Access (SDA) Hydric Soil List. United States Department of Agriculture. Available at https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/lnternet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/nrcseprd13L6619.html. Retrieved from: April 2018. Oberbauer, T. 2008. Terrestrial Vegetation Communities in San Diego County Based on Holland's Descriptions. Revised from 1996 and 2005. July. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 2008. A Field Guide to the ldentification of the Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM) in the Arid West Region of the Western United States. R.W. Lichvar and S.M. McColley. ERDC/EL TR-08-12. Hanover, NH. U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center. August. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 20L7. Critical Habitat Portal. Retrieved from http://critha b.fws.gov/ HEL'X Env¡rcnmental PÍann¡ng qi lìo 1655-1 Reservoir Source: Ease Map Layers (SanGlS,2016) HEL'X Regionql Locqtion DEt MAR Pøclflc Acean IMPERIAT BEACH SOIANA BEACH Project Site 0 8 Miles Env¡rcnmen&n Phnning Figure 1 @ erc.iecsite Q stuayar"" Sourcer Aeriål {5åncl5, 20I7}, Proiecl Vicinity (Aeriol Pholosrqph)HEL'X Figure 2 t Õ c.¡"*siæ O *oro*. @ FeetI Projecl Vicinity (USGS Topogrophy)HEL'X Figure 3 Vegetat¡on Clmmunlty/land Cover fypes Developed O D¡egan coastalsagescrub @ oisturbedttabitat 4þ southern M¡xed chaparal Other * no.kou,.rop Plants Vlê saô DiegoSunff owt lnguiero taciniatøl Prcject S-rte Study A¡€ OO -r---]:- HEL'X 5ou(e. Aeri¿l (SanClS, 2017) Vegelqlion qnd Sensilive Resources Figure 4 1555-1 Reservoir Õ e.¡"asit" Q strdvnr"" Non-retland Wateß of the U.S. (w¡dth shown in feet) HEL'X Wolers of lhe U.S. Figure 5 - - Streambed(widthshownìnfeet) O p-i.",siæ Q s,roya,"" Reservoir CDFW JurisdiclionHEt!"I*^,, Figure 6 Appendix B Coastal California Gnatcatcher 45-Day Report August 12, 2019 Stacey Love Recovery Permit Coordinator Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2177 Salk Avenue, Suite 250 Carlsbad, California 92008 Subject: Coastal California Gnatcatcher 45-Day Summary Report for the Otay Water District Reservoir 1655-1, Jamul, California. Permit #TE-063608-6 Dear Ms. Love: This report documents the results of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) protocol presence/absence surveys for coastal California gnatcatcher (Polioptila californica californica; CAGN) conducted by ICF in 2019 for the Otay Water District Reservoir 1655-1 Project (Project). Project Location and Description The approximately 3.5-acre project is located in the Rancho Jamul Estates area in Jamul, near the northern terminus of Presilla Drive. (Figure 1). The proposed project includes portions of APN 597- 101-15 and would involve the construction of a 500,000-gallon concrete potable water reservoir, 1,500 feet of 12-inch diameter pipeline, and an access road within an undeveloped area (Figure 2). The proposed Project exists within the Dulzura U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5 Minute Quadrangle, and ranges in elevation from approximately 1460 feet at the western edge of the site to approximately 1700 feet above mean sea level at the eastern edge. There is approximately 2.9 acres of suitable CAGN habitat within the project study area. Habitat Description The habitat within the study area consists primarily of dense Diegan coastal sage scrub (CSS), with areas of chamise chaparral in the central and northeastern portion of the site (Figure 3). The CSS onsite is dominated by California sagebrush (Artemisia californica), California buckwheat (Eriogonum fasciculatum) and laurel sumac (Malosma laurina), with occasional spiny redberry (Rhamnus crocea) and chaparral candle (Hesperoyucca whipplei). The chamise chaparral habitat is dominated by chamise (Adenostema fasciculatum), Ramona lilac (Ceanothus tomentosus) and whiteflower currant (Ribes indecorum). Methods The Project study area exists within the County of San Diego’s approved South County Multiple Habitat Conservation Program (MHCP); thus, in accordance with USFWS (USFWS 1997) survey protocol, three surveys were conducted for the project. The presence/absence focused survey for CAGN was conducted for the project between April 4 and May 3, 2019 under the authorization of permit holder Brian Lohstroh (TE-063608-6). Recorded CAGN vocalizations were broadcast only to initially locate CAGN, and the surveys were conducted on foot with the aid of binoculars. The survey was conducted according to the schedule provided below in Table 1. Table 1. Survey Dates and Conditions Results No CAGN were detected during the protocol surveys at the project site, and no CAGN were incidentally detected during various other biological surveys of the site (rare plant surveys, butterfly surveys). Although more or less recovered, there is some evidence that the site burned within the last 5-10 years, and this may be a reason for the absence of CAGN onsite. Representative site photos and a list of avian species detected are attached. Certification I certify that the information in this survey report fully and accurately represents my work. Please do not hesitate to contact me at (858) 750-9300 or brian@lohstrohbio.com with any questions. Sincerely, Brian Lohstroh Senior Biologist TE-063608-6 References Cited USFWS. 1997. Coastal California Gnatcatcher (Polioptila californica californica) Presence/Absence Survey Protocol. July 28, 1997. Date 4/4/2019 4/18/2019 5/3/2019 Time on site 0745-0945 0945-1045 0710-0815 Temp (ºF)54-63 73-76 48-53 Sky Cover (%)100-95 10 0-70 Wind Speed (MPH)0-2 0-3 0-2 Personnel B. Lohstroh B. Lohstroh B. Lohstroh Figure 1Vicinity MapOtay Water District - Reservoir 1655-1 \\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 0 2 5 . 1 9 _ 1 6 5 5 _ 1 _ R e s e r v o i r \ F i g u r e s \ D o c \ C A G N _ 4 5 D a y \ F i g 0 1 _ P r o j e c t L o c a t i o n . m x d 6 / 1 8 / 2 0 1 9 3 8 8 3 4 ±0 10.5 Miles Legend Survey Area Figure 2Project Location MapOtay Water District - Reservoir 1655-1 \\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 0 2 5 . 1 9 _ 1 6 5 5 _ 1 _ R e s e r v o i r \ F i g u r e s \ D o c \ C A G N _ 4 5 D a y \ F i g 0 2 _ R e g i o n a l V i c i n i t y . m x d 6 / 1 8 / 2 0 1 9 3 8 8 3 4 ±0 2,0001,000 Feet Legend Survey Area Figure 3VegetationOtay Water District - Reservoir 1655-1 \\ 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 0 2 5 . 1 9 _ 1 6 5 5 _ 1 _ R e s e r v o i r \ F i g u r e s \ D o c \ C A G N _ 4 5 D a y \ F i g 0 3 _ V e g . m x d D a t e : 6 / 1 8 / 2 0 1 9 3 8 8 3 4 Legend Survey Area Developed Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub Disturbed Habitat Southern Mixed Chaparral ± Source: SANGIS Imagery (2014);Carollo (2014) 0 150 30075 Feet Site Photographs Photo 1. (4/1/19) View facing west from the eastern boundary of the survey area. CSS habitat is visible in the foreground. The road cut above center is the western boundary of the site. Photo 2. (2/28/19) View facing east from the central portion of the site. CSS species are visible in the foreground (California sagebrush, California buckwheat), with chaparral species visible left of center (Ramona lilac). Wildlife Species List Common Name Scientific Name Status Mourning Dove Zenaida macroura Anna's Hummingbird Calypte anna Costa's Hummingbird Calypte costae Red-tailed Hawk Buteo jamaicensis Ash-throated Flycatcher Myiarchus cinerascens California Scrub-Jay Aphelocoma californica Common Raven Corvus corax Bushtit Psaltriparus minimus Canyon Wren Catherpes mexicanus Bewick's Wren Thryomanes bewickii Blue-gray Gnatcatcher Polioptila caerulea Wrentit Chamaea fasciata California Thrasher Toxostoma redivivum Northern Mockingbird Mimus polyglottos House Finch Haemorhous mexicanus Lesser Goldfinch Spinus psaltria Yellow-rumped Warbler Setophaga coronata Wilson's Warbler Cardellina pusilla Spotted Towhee Pipilo maculatus Rufous-crowned Sparrow Aimophila ruficeps CA-WL California Towhee Melozone crissalis Black-chinned Sparrow Spizella atrogularis Lark Sparrow Chondestes grammacus White-crowned Sparrow Zonotrichia leucophrys Lazuli Bunting Passerina amoena CA-WL: California Watch List Species Appendix C Quino Checkerspot Butterfly 45-Day Report August 12, 2019 Stacey Love Recovery Permit Coordinator Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2177 Salk Avenue, Suite 250 Carlsbad, California 92008 Subject: Quino Checkerspot Butterfly 45-Day Summary Report for the Otay Water District Reservoir 1655-1, Jamul, California. Dear Ms. Love: This report documents the results of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) protocol presence/absence surveys for Quino checkerspot butterfly (Euphydryas editha quino; QCB) conducted by ICF in 2019 for the Otay Water District Reservoir 1655-1 Project (Project). Project Location and Description The approximately 3.5-acre project is located in the Rancho Jamul Estates area in Jamul, near the northern terminus of Presilla Drive. (Figure 1). The proposed project includes portions of APN 597- 101-15 and would involve the construction of a 500,000-gallon concrete potable water reservoir, 1,500 feet of 12-inch diameter pipeline, and an access road within an undeveloped area (Figure 2). The proposed Project exists within the Dulzura U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5 Minute Quadrangle, and ranges in elevation from approximately 1460 feet at the western edge of the site to approximately 1700 feet above mean sea level at the eastern edge. The entire 3.5-acre site is considered suitable habitat for QCB. Habitat Description The habitat within the study area consists primarily of dense Diegan coastal sage scrub (CSS), with an area of chamise chaparral in the north-central portion of the site (Figure 3). The CSS onsite is dominated by California sagebrush (Artemisia californica), California buckwheat (Eriogonum fasciculatum) and laurel sumac (Malosma laurina), with occasional spiny redberry (Rhamnus crocea) and chaparral candle (Hesperoyucca whipplei). The chamise chaparral habitat is dominated by chamise (Adenostema fasciculatum), Ramona lilac (Ceanothus tomentosus) and whiteflower currant (Ribes indecorum). Methods Survey methodology follows the December 15, 2014 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Quino Checkerspot Butterfly Survey Guidelines (USFWS 2014). Page 2 of 4 A site assessment was conducted by James Hickman on February 7, 2019, before the first QCB survey, to conduct a general field survey of the site and mapped excluded areas and QCB survey areas. A total of eleven protocol surveys for adult QCB were conducted by ICF biologists between February 26 and May, 1 2019. Survey visits were conducted by Brian Lohstroh (TE-063608-6), and James Hickman (TE 60218B-0). The surveys were conducted on a weekly basis under acceptable weather conditions as defined in the USFWS protocol (Table 1) (USFWS 2014). In rainy weeks without appropriate weather conditions, two surveys were conducted in the following week with at least one day between surveys. Each survey involved walking transects throughout all non-excluded portions of the survey area. The surveys were conducted at rate of no more than 15 acres per hour. The surveyors stopped periodically to scan adjacent areas for moving butterflies. Butterflies were identified by sight with the aid of close-focus binoculars. All butterfly species observed were recorded. A list of all species of butterflies observed during each weekly survey are provided as an appendix to this report (Appendix A). Plant species flowering during the survey period were documented and assessed as potential QCB nectar plants. Butterfly identification and nomenclature is based on Shiraiwa (2009). Vegetation communities are mapped based on Holland (1986) and Oberbauer (2008), and plant nomenclature is based on Baldwin et al. (2012). Table 1. Survey Dates and Conditions Survey Type Date Temp (ºF) Sky Cover (%) Wind (MPH) Personnel Start 1230 62 0 4-7 End 1415 60 0 4-7 Start 1145 63 40 0-2 End 1330 64 30 0-3 Start 1520 66 10 3-5 End 1630 66 15 2-6 Start 1300 73 20 0-3 End 1445 70 80 2-6 Start 1600 75 0 0-3 End 1745 69 0 0-3 Start 1400 72 0 1-3 End 1530 74 0 1-5 Start 1425 73 0 1-3 End 1615 69 0 0-4 Start 1345 82 0 2-5 End 1530 77 0 2-6 Start 1515 70 0 2-5 End 1630 69 0 1-5 Start 1045 76 10 0-2 End 1200 80 10 0-4 Start 1230 79 0 0-2 End 1400 81 0 2-4 Start 1400 70 0 1-6 End 1530 72 0 1-5Protocol Survey 1-May-2019 B. Lohstroh Protocol Survey 18-Apr-2019 B. Lohstroh Protocol Survey 25-Apr-2019 B. Lohstroh B. Lohstroh B. Lohstroh B. Lohstroh J. Hickman B. Lohstroh B. Lohstroh B. Lohstroh J. Hickman B. Lohstroh Protocol Survey 5-Mar-2019 13-Mar-2019 18-Mar-2019 25-Mar-2019 1-Apr-2019 10-Apr-2019 Protocol Survey Protocol Survey Protocol Survey Protocol Survey Protocol Survey Time Onsite 7-Feb-2019 26-Feb-2019 28-Feb-2019 Habitat Assessment Protocol Survey Protocol Survey Page 3 of 4 Results One adult female QCB was observed during the sixth survey visit on March 25, 2019 nectaring on ornamental sweet alyssum (Lobularia maritima) growing along a road easement before it departed to the west across the road and offsite (Figure 2). The individual had some minor wear on the hindwing. The QCB larval host plant dot-seed plantain (Plantago erecta) is present in two patches along the southern boundary of the project site (Figure 3). The QCB observation was not directly associated with any host plant patches, and the nearest known larval host plant patch on the site was over 300 away to the east. It is possible that this QCB observation was of a transient individual, moving through the site and nectaring on the irrigated, ornamental flowers growing along the roadside. The habitat is fairly dense, especially along the western boundary of the site. Openings within the scrub and chaparral habitat became more prevalent in the central and eastern portion of the site, where potential QCB nectar sources such as ground pink (Linanthus dianthiflorus) and popcorn flower (Cryptantha intermedia) were commonly observed. QCB surveys continued at the request of the project proponent to gather more data regarding QCB use of the site. No additional QCB observations (larval or adult) occurred after six additional survey visits, when the surveys were concluded on May 1, 2019. No survey visit was conducted on the final protocol survey week, which occurs during the second week of May, due to week-long adverse weather conditions. Certification We certify that the information in this survey report fully and accurately represents my work. Please do not hesitate to contact me at (858) 750-9300 or brian@lohstrohbio.com with any questions. Sincerely, Brian Lohstroh Senior Biologist TE-063608-6 James Hickman Senior Biologist Permit No TE-60218B-0 Page 4 of 4 References Cited 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. University of California Press, Berkeley. Holland, R.F. 1986. Preliminary Descriptions of the Terrestrial Natural Communities of California. Nongame-Heritage Program, California Department of Fish and Game. Oberbauer, Thomas, Meghan Kelly, and Jeremy Buegge. March 2008. Draft Vegetation Communities of San Diego County. Based on “Preliminary Descriptions of the Terrestrial Natural Communities of California,” Robert F. Holland, Ph.D., October 1986. Shiraiwa, Kojiro. 2009. The Butterflies of San Diego County Introduction and Identification Guide. May. Shiraiwa. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2014. Quino Checkerspot Butterfly Survey Protocol. Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office. December 15. Figure 1Vicinity MapOtay Water District - Reservoir 1655-1 \\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 0 2 5 . 1 9 _ 1 6 5 5 _ 1 _ R e s e r v o i r \ F i g u r e s \ D o c \ Q C B \ F i g 0 1 _ P r o j e c t L o c a t i o n . m x d 8 / 1 / 2 0 1 9 2 5 1 1 9 ±0 10.5 Miles Legend Survey Area #* Figure 2Survey Area and Quino Checkerspot Butterfly ObservationOtay Water District - Reservoir 1655-1 \\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 0 2 5 . 1 9 _ 1 6 5 5 _ 1 _ R e s e r v o i r \ F i g u r e s \ D o c \ Q C B \ F i g 0 2 _ R e g i o n a l V i c i n i t y . m x d 8 / 2 / 2 0 1 9 2 5 1 1 9 ±0 2,0001,000 Feet Legend #*Quino Checkerspot Butterfly (3/25/19) Survey Area !(!( !(!( !( #* Ufano DrUfano Dr Vista la Q u e b r a d a Vista la Q u e b r a d a Pr e s i l l a D r Pr e s i l l a D r 300 plants10 plants Figure 3Vegetation and Hermes Copper Butterfly Host Plant LocationsOtay Water District - Reservoir 1655-1 \\ 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 0 2 5 . 1 9 _ 1 6 5 5 _ 1 _ R e s e r v o i r \ F i g u r e s \ D o c \ Q C B \ F i g 0 3 _ V e g . m x d D a t e : 8 / 4 / 2 0 1 9 2 5 1 1 9 Legend #*Quino Checkerspot Butterfly (3/25/19) !(Plantago erectaPlantago erectaNectar Source Concentrations !( Linanthus dianthiflorus !(Lobularia maritima Survey Area Developed Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub Disturbed Habitat Southern Mixed Chaparral ± Source: DigitalGlobe (2018);Carollo (2014) 0 100 20050 Feet Butterfly Species Observed 7-Feb-2019 26-Feb-2019 28-Feb-2019 5-Mar-2019 13-Mar-2019 18-Mar-2019 25-Mar-2019 1-Apr-2019 10-Apr-2019 18-Apr-2019 25-Apr-2019 1-May-2019 Checkered White Pontia protodice 1 1 2 2 9 5 9 Pacific Sara Orangetip Anthocharis sara sara 1 2 3 4 9 13 7 1 8 13 Harford's Sulphur Colias harfordii 1 2 2 2 Dainty Sulphur Nathalis iole 2 2 2 2 Brown Elfin Callophrys augustinus 1 1 1 Gray Hairstreak Strymon melinus pudica 1 1 1 Marine Blue Leptotes marina 2 1 2 Southern Blue Glaucopsyche lygdamus australis 1 2 2 1 4 2 Acmon Blue Plebejus acmon 1 1 1 Behr's Metalmark Apodemia mormo virgulti 1 1 6 8 32 27 32 41 19 9 41 Quino Checkerspot* (FE)Euphydryas editha quino 1 1 1 Painted Lady Vanessa cardui 5 6 55 125 60 35 19 6 1 1 10 125 Common Buckeye Junonia coenia grisea 1 1 1 Common California Ringlet Coenonympha californica californica 3 1 2 3 Funereal Duskywing Erynnis funeralis 11 4 22 3 4 22 1 1 1 2 5 8 6 7 3 7 5 6 5 6 1 56 132 86 51 81 42 53 52 34 Observed:15 Number of Species Observed Per Survey Total Number of Butterflies Observed Per Survey Survey Date Subfamily Anthocharinae: Marbles & Orangetips Subfamily Coliadinae: Sulphurs FAMILY LYCAENIDAE: Gossamer-wing Common Name Scientific Name Total Number of Species Subfamily Nymphalinae: True Brushfoots Subfamily Satyrinae: Satyrs FAMILY HESPERIIDAE: The Skippers Subfamily Pyrginae: Spread-wing Skippers FAMILY PIERIDAE: Whites and Sulphurs Subfamily Pierinae: Whites Subfamily Melitaeinae: Crescents and Checkerspots No. Surveys Observed Subfamily Theclinae: Hairstreaks Subfamily Polyommatinae: Blues FAMILY RIODINIDAE: Metalmarks Subfamily Riodinidae: Metalmarks FAMILY NYMPHALIDAE: Brushfoots Max No. Observed Site Photographs Photo 1. (4/1/19) View facing west from the eastern boundary of the survey area. Coastal sage scrub habitat is visible in the foreground. The road cut above center is the western boundary of the site. Photo 2. (2/28/19) View facing east from the central portion of the site. CSS species are visible in the foreground (California sagebrush, California buckwheat), with chaparral species visible left of center (Ramona lilac). Site Photographs Photo 3. (3/25/19) Adult female QCB nectaring on sweet alyssum growing along roadside onsite. Photo 4. (3/25/19) Large dot-seed plantain patch growing in the central portion of the site near the southern boundary. Ground pink is also visible in this photo. Plant Species In Flower During QCB Survey Scientific Name Common Name Status Dicots Apiaceae - Carrot Family Apiastrum angustifolium Mock-Parsley Daucus pusillus Rattlesnake Weed Sanicula arguta Sharp-Tooth Sanicle Asteraceae - Sunflower Family Bahiopsis laciniata San Diego Sunflower CRPR 4.2 Deinandra fasciculata Fascicled Tarweed Dimorphotheca sinuata Blue-Eye Cape-Marigold Eriophyllum confertiflorum var. confertiflorum Long-Stem Golden-Yarrow Gutierrezia californica California Matchweed Hypochaeris glabra Smooth Cat's Ear Lasthenia coronaria Southern Goldfields Lasthenia gracilis Common Goldfields Sonchus asper subsp. asper Prickly Sow-Thistle Boraginaceae - Borage Family Cryptantha intermedia Nievitas Cryptantha Pectocarya linearis subsp. ferocula Slender Combseed Brassicaceae - Mustard Family Caulanthus heterophyllus San Diego Jewelflower Hirschfeldia incana Short-Pod Mustard Lepidium nitidum Shining Peppergrass Lobularia maritima Sweet Alyssum Raphanus sativus Wild Radish Caryophyllaceae - Pink Family Silene gallica Common Catchfly Convolvulaceae - Morning Glory Family Calystegia macrostegia subsp. cyclostegia Coast Morning-Glory Cucurbitaceae - Gourd Family Marah macrocarpa Manroot, Wild-Cucumber Fabaceae - Legume Family Acmispon glaber var. glaber Coastal Deerweed Acmispon micranthus Grab Lotus Acmispon strigosus Bishop's/Strigose Lotus Lathyrus vestitus San Diego Sweet Pea Lupinus hirsutissimus Stinging Lupine Vicia hassei Slender Vetch Gentianaceae - Gentian Family Zeltnera venusta Canchalagua Geraniaceae - Geranium Family Erodium cicutarium Red-Stem Filaree/Storksbill Grossulariaceae - Gooseberry Family Ribes malvaceum var. viridifolium Chaparral Currant Hydrophyllaceae - Waterleaf Family Emmenanthe penduliflora var. penduliflora Whispering Bells Eucrypta chrysanthemifolia var. chrysanthemifolia Common Eucrypta Phacelia cicutaria var. hispida Caterpillar Phacelia Phacelia parryi Parry's Phacelia Plant Species In Flower During QCB Survey Scientific Name Common Name Status Lamiaceae - Mint Family Salvia columbariae Chia Scutellaria tuberosa Danny's Skullcap Malvaceae - Mallow Family Malacothamnus fasciculatus var. fasciculatus Chaparral Bushmallow Montiaceae - Purselane Family Calandrinia breweri Brewer's Calandrinia CRPR 4.2 Calandrinia menziesii Red Maids Myrsinaceae - Myrsine Family Anagallis arvensis Scarlet Pimpernel Onagraceae - Evening Prinrose Family Camissoniopsis hirtella Field Sun Cup Orobanchaceae - Broom Rape Family Castilleja affinis subsp. affinis Coast Paintbrush Papaveraceae - Poppy Family Eschscholzia californica California Poppy Papaver californicum Fire Poppy Plantaginaceae - Plantain Family Antirrhinum nuttallianum subsp. nuttallianum Nuttall's Snapdragon Keckiella antirrhinoides var. antirrhinoides Yellow Bush Penstemon Nuttallanthus texanus Large Blue Toadflax Polemoniaceae - Phlox Family Eriastrum sapphirinum subsp. sapphirinum Sapphire Woolly-Star Gilia sp. Gilia Linanthus dianthiflorus Farinose Ground Pink Navarretia hamata subsp. hamata Hooked Skunkweed Polygonaceae - Buckwheat Family Eriogonum fasciculatum var. fasciculatum Coast California Buckwheat Rhamnaceae - Buckthorn Family Ceanothus tomentosus Ramona-Lilac Rosaceae - Rose Family Adenostoma fasciculatum var. fasciculatum Chamise Verbenaceae - Vervain Family Verbena lasiostachys var. lasiostachys Western Vervain Monocots Agavaceae - Agave Family Hesperoyucca whipplei Chaparral Candle Liliaceae - Lily Family Calochortus splendens Splendid Mariposa Lily Orchidaceae - Orchid Family Piperia cooperi Cooper's Rein Orchid CRPR 4.2 Themidaceae - Brodiaea Family Dichelostemma capitatum subsp. capitatum Blue Dicks CRPR 4.2: California Rare Plant Rank Plants of limited distribution, Moderately threatened in California Appendix D Hermes Copper Butterfly 45-Day Report RESULTS OF THE 2019 HERMES COPPER BUTTERFLY SURVEYS FOR THE OTAY WATER DISTRICT 1655-1 RESERVOIR PROJECT P REPARED FOR: Otay Water District P REPARED BY: Brian Lohstroh ICF 525 B Street, Suite 1700 San Diego, California 92101 August 2019 ICF. 2019. 2019 Hermes Copper Butterfly Surveys for the Otay Water District 1655‐1 Reservoir Project. Prepared for Otay Water District. San Diego, CA. August. 2019 Hermes Copper Butterfly Surveys OWD 1655‐1 Reservoir Project i August 2019 Contents Page Chapter 1 Introduction ...................................................................................................................... 1-1 Chapter 2 Methods ........................................................................................................................... 2-1 Chapter 3 Results .............................................................................................................................. 3-1 Chapter 4 References ........................................................................................................................ 4-1 Chapter 5 Certifications ..................................................................................................................... 5-1 List of Tables Page Table 1. Survey Dates and Conditions ......................................................................................................................... 2‐2 Table 2. Butterflies Observed by Week ...................................................................................................................... 3‐2 List of Figures Follows Page 2019 Hermes Copper Butterfly Surveys OWD 1655‐1 Reservoir Project 1‐1 August 2019 Chapter 1 Introduction ICF was retained by the Otay Water District to conduct protocol surveys for the Hermes Copper butterfly (Lycaena hermes; HCB) in support of their 1655‐1 Reservoir Project. HCB is listed as a Candidate species for Threatened or Endangered status by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), but it does not have a federal survey protocol. Therefore, these HCB surveys followed a modified version of the County of San Diego Survey Guidelines to Hermes Copper (2010) combined with relevant portions of the USFWS Quino Checkerspot Butterfly (Euphydryas editha quino, QCB) Survey Guidelines (2014). The approximately 3.5‐acre project is located in the Rancho Jamul Estates area in Jamul, near the northern terminus of Presilla Drive. (Figure 1). The proposed project includes portions of APN 597‐ 101‐15 and would involve the construction of a 500,000‐gallon concrete potable water reservoir, 1,500 feet of 12‐inch diameter pipeline, and an access road within an undeveloped area (Figure 2). The proposed Project exists within the Dulzura U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5 Minute Quadrangle, and ranges in elevation from approximately 1460 feet at the western edge of the site to approximately 1700 feet above mean sea level at the eastern edge. The entire parcel was inspected and determined to be suitable habitat for HCB. This report documents the results of the 2019 HCB focused surveys conducted at the site. The study area consists primarily of dense Diegan coastal sage scrub (CSS), with an area of chamise chaparral in the north‐central portion of the site (Figure 3). HCB larval host plant populations of spiny redberry (Rhamnus crocea) were documented throughout the site. No HCB were observed during the surveys onsite. 2019 Hermes Copper Butterfly Surveys OWD 1655‐1 Reservoir Project 2‐1 August 2019 Chapter 2 Methods Based on recent updates to the biology of the species and consensus of HCB surveyors, focused surveys for HCB followed a modified version of the guidelines prepared by the County of San Diego for evaluating the potential impacts within their jurisdiction (2010), combined with relevant portions of the USFWS QCB Survey Guidelines (2014). The County guidelines indicate that surveys for HCB need only be conducted in areas where their larval host plant, spiny redberry (Rhamnus crocea), occurs in close proximity (within 15 feet) to California buckwheat (Eriogonum fasciculatum), their primary nectar plant (i.e., suitable habitat). It should be noted that HCB has been observed using various other species as a nectar source (Klein & Faulkner 2012), therefore, suitable habitat for HCB has been modified to include areas where the HCB’s host plant occurs, regardless of whether it is found in proximity to California buckwheat. The HCB surveys were conducted by QCB‐permitted biologists because of their familiarity with the QCB survey protocol, as well as the local butterfly species. The HCB surveys followed the same survey frequency and weather requirements as the USFWS 2014 survey guidelines for QCB (e.g., weekly surveys, air temperature at least 60ºF on clear days and 70ºF on cloudy days, winds below 15 mph). Surveys were conducted during the HCB flight season, which spans from the third full week of May and with the last survey being during the first full week of July. A total of seven surveys for HCB were conducted by ICF biologists Brian Lohstroh (QCB permit #TE‐063608‐6), and James Hickman (QCB permit #TE‐60218B‐0) (Table 1). HCB surveys were conducted on foot with the aid of close‐ focus binoculars. A list of plant species flowering within the survey area during the surveys (i.e., potential nectar sources) is provided in Appendix A. Butterfly identification and nomenclature is based on Shiraiwa (2009). Vegetation communities are mapped based on Holland (1986) and Oberbauer (2008), and plant nomenclature is based on Baldwin et al. (2012). 2019 Hermes Copper Butterfly Surveys OWD 1655‐1 Reservoir Project 2‐2 August 2019 Table 1. Survey Dates and Conditions Date Time Onsite Temp (ºF) Sky Cover (%) Wind (MPH) Personnel 24-May- 2019 Start 0940 61 0 1-3 B. Lohstroh End 1130 66 0 0-3 28-May- 2019 Start 1210 69 0 1-4 B. Lohstroh End 1330 75 10 1-5 3-Jun-2019 Start 1240 66 20 1-4 B. Lohstroh End 1430 73 10 3-5 10-Jun- 2019 Start 1040 91 2 0-2 B. Lohstroh End 1220 94 5 0-1 18-Jun- 2019 Start 1315 73 20 3-5 J. Hickman End 1500 75 10 3-5 24-Jun- 2019 Start 1420 75 0 2-6 B. Lohstroh End 1610 77 0 3-7 2-Jul-2019 Start 1030 77 0 2-5 B. Lohstroh End 1215 81 0 2-5 2019 Hermes Copper Butterfly Surveys OWD 1655‐1 Reservoir Project 3‐1 August 2019 Chapter 3 Results No HCB were detected within the project site boundary during the surveys in 2019. Spiny redberry, the larval host plant of HCB is distributed throughout the project site, as well as dense patches of California buckwheat. A total of 16 butterfly species were observed during the surveys, with checkered white (Pontia protodice), Behr’s Metalmark (Apodemia mormo virgulti), Dainty Sulphur (Nathalis iole), Marine Blue (Leptotes marina) and San Bernardino Blue (Euphilotes bernardino bernardino) being among the most common during the HCB flight period (Table 2). The habitat within the study area consists primarily of dense Diegan coastal sage scrub (CSS), with an area of chamise chaparral in the north‐central portion of the site (Figure 3). The CSS onsite is dominated by California sagebrush (Artemisia californica), California buckwheat (Eriogonum fasciculatum) and laurel sumac (Malosma laurina), with occasional spiny redberry (Rhamnus crocea) and chaparral candle (Hesperoyucca whipplei). The chamise chaparral habitat is dominated by chamise (Adenostema fasciculatum), Ramona lilac (Ceanothus tomentosus) and whiteflower currant (Ribes indecorum). 49plants were observed in flower, including the HCB’s primary nectar plant, California buckwheat, as well as other potential nectar sources such as chamise, golden yarrow (Eriophyllum confertiflorum), and short‐pod mustard (Hirshfeldia incana). (Appendix A). Site photographs are provided in Appendix B. 2019 Hermes Copper Butterfly Surveys OWD 1655‐1 Reservoir Project 3‐2 August 2019 Table 2. Butterflies Observed by Week 24-May-2019 28-May-2019 3-Jun-2019 10-Jun-2019 18-Jun-2019 24-Jun-2019 2-Jul-2019 Checkered White Pontia protodice 5828649 79 Pacific Sara Orangetip Anthocharis sara sara 11 21 Orange Sulphur Colias eurytheme 13 23 Dainty Sulphur Nathalis iole 2121152 Brown Elfin Callophrys augustinus 111 Marine Blue Leptotes marina 239711 511 Edward's Blue Hemiargus ceraunus gyas 212 Reakirt's Blue Hemiargus isola alce 212 San Bernardino Blue Euphilotes bernardino bernardino 39 64 49 Southern Blue Glaucopsyche lygdamus australis 111 Clemence's Blue Plebejus lupini monticola 111 Behr's Metalmark Apodemia mormo virgulti 12 9 2 13 18 9 7 7 18 Painted Lady Vanessa cardui 11 21 West Coast Lady Vanessa annabella 111 Gray Buckeye Junonia coenia grisea 111 Funereal Duskywing Erynnis funeralis 13 3 33 4499378 20 20 16 49 31 33 28 Observed:16 Subfamily Theclinae: Hairstreaks Subfamily Polyommatinae: Blues FAMILY RIODINIDAE: Metalmarks Number of Species Observed Per Survey Total Number of Butterflies Observed Per Survey Survey Date Subfamily Anthocharinae: Marbles & Orangetips Subfamily Coliadinae: Sulphurs FAMILY LYCAENIDAE: Gossamer-wing Common Name Scientific Name Total Number of Species FAMILY HESPERIIDAE: The Skippers Subfamily Pyrginae: Spread-wing Skippers FAMILY PIERIDAE: Whites and Sulphurs Subfamily Pierinae: Whites FAMILY NYMPHALIDAE: Brushfoots Max No. Observed No. Surveys Observed 2019 Hermes Copper Butterfly Surveys OWD 1655‐1 Reservoir Project 4‐1 August 2019 Chapter 4 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. University of California Press, Berkeley. County of SD. 2010. Guidelines for Hermes Copper (Lycaena hermes). Department of Planning and Land Use. San Diego County. California. Holland, R.F. 1986. Preliminary Descriptions of the Terrestrial Natural Communities of California. Nongame‐Heritage Program, California Department of Fish and Game. Klein, Michael. Faulkner, David. 2012. Sensitive Butterflies of San Diego County, California. FLITE Tours, Inc. Oberbauer, Thomas, Meghan Kelly, and Jeremy Buegge. March 2008. Draft Vegetation Communities of San Diego County. Based on “Preliminary Descriptions of the Terrestrial Natural Communities of California,” Robert F. Holland, Ph.D., October 1986. Opler, P. A., and A. B. Wright. 1999. A Field Guide to Western Butterflies. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Co. Shiraiwa, Kojiro. 2009. The Butterflies of San Diego County Introduction and Identification Guide. May. Shiraiwa. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2014. Quino Checkerspot Butterfly Survey Protocol. Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office. December 15. 2019 Hermes Copper Butterfly Surveys OWD 1655‐1 Reservoir Project 5‐1 August 2019 Chapter 5 Certifications We certify that the information in this survey report and attached exhibits fully and accurately represents my work. Brian Lohstroh USFWS Permit No. TE‐063608‐6 James Hickman USFWS Permit No. TE‐60218B‐0 Appendix A Plant Species in Flower During HCB Surveys Family Scientific Name Common Name CRPR Dicots Asteraceae Bahiopsis laciniata San Diego Sunflower 4.2 Centaurea melitensis Tocalote Chaenactis artemisiifolia White Pincushion Deinandra fasciculata Fascicled Tarweed Dimorphotheca sinuata Blue‐Eye Cape‐Marigold Erigeron foliosus var. foliosus Leafy Daisy Eriophyllum confertiflorum var. confertiflorum Long‐Stem Golden‐Yarrow Gutierrezia californica California Matchweed Hypochaeris glabra Smooth Cat's Ear Stephanomeria diegensis San Diego Wreath‐Plant Boraginaceae Cryptantha intermedia var. intermedia Nievitas Cryptantha Hirschfeldia incana Short‐Pod Mustard Lobularia maritima Sweet Alyssum Caryophyllaceae Silene laciniata subsp. laciniata Southern Pink Convolvulaceae Calystegia macrostegia subsp. cyclostegia Coast Morning‐Glory Euphorbiaceae Euphorbia melanadenia Rattlesnake Spurge Fabaceae Acmispon glaber Deerweed Trifolium repens White Clover Gentianaceae Zeltnera venusta Canchalagua Geraniaceae Erodium cicutarium Red‐Stem Filaree/Storksbill Hydrophyllaceae Emmenanthe penduliflora var. penduliflora Whispering Bells Phacelia cicutaria var. hispida Caterpillar Phacelia Phacelia parryi Parry's Phacelia Lamiaceae Salvia apiana White Sage Salvia columbariae Chia Malvaceae Malacothamnus fasciculatus var. fasciculatus Chaparral Bushmallow Myrsinaceae Anagallis arvensis Scarlet Pimpernel Onagraceae Camissoniopsis bistorta California Sun Cup Camissoniopsis hirtella Field Sun Cup Orobanchaceae Castilleja affinis subsp. affinis Coast Paintbrush Oxalidaceae Oxalis californica California Wood‐Sorrel Appendix A Continued Papaveraceae Eschscholzia californica California Poppy Phrymaceae Diplacus brevipes Slope Semiphore Diplacus longiflorus Bush Monkey Flower Plantaginaceae Antirrhinum nuttallianum subsp. nuttallianum Nuttall's Snapdragon Keckiella antirrhinoides var. antirrhinoides Yellow Bush Penstemon Nuttallanthus texanus Large Blue Toadflax Polemoniaceae Eriastrum sapphirinum subsp. sapphirinum Sapphire Woolly‐Star Gilia angelensis Grassland Gilia Linanthus dianthiflorus Farinose Ground Pink Navarretia hamata subsp. leptantha Hooked Pincushion Plant Polygonaceae Chorizanthe fimbriata var. fimbriata Fringed Spineflower Eriogonum fasciculatum var. fasciculatum Coast California Buckwheat Ranunculaceae Delphinium parryi subsp. parryi Parry's Larkspur Rhamnaceae Ceanothus tomentosus Ramona‐Lilac Rosaceae Adenostoma fasciculatum var. fasciculatum Chamise Rubiaceae Galium angustifolium subsp. angustifolium Narrow‐Leaf Bedstraw Monocots Liliaceae Calochortus splendens Splendid Mariposa Lily Calochortus weedii var. weedii Weed's Mariposa Lily CRPR: California Rare Plant Rank Appendix B Representative Photographs . Photo 1: Site overview facing west with spiny redberry and California buckwheat in the foreground. Photo taken June 10, 2019. Photo 2: View facing north across steeper, eastern portion of site. Spiny redberry and California buckwheat are visible at center. Photo taken June 10, 2019. Figure 1Vicinity MapOtay Water District - Reservoir 1655-1 \\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 0 2 5 . 1 9 _ 1 6 5 5 _ 1 _ R e s e r v o i r \ F i g u r e s \ D o c \ C A G N _ 4 5 D a y \ F i g 0 1 _ P r o j e c t L o c a t i o n . m x d 6 / 1 8 / 2 0 1 9 3 8 8 3 4 ±0 10.5 Miles Legend Survey Area Figure 2Project Location MapOtay Water District - Reservoir 1655-1 \\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 0 2 5 . 1 9 _ 1 6 5 5 _ 1 _ R e s e r v o i r \ F i g u r e s \ D o c \ C A G N _ 4 5 D a y \ F i g 0 2 _ R e g i o n a l V i c i n i t y . m x d 6 / 1 8 / 2 0 1 9 3 8 8 3 4 ±0 2,0001,000 Feet Legend Survey Area !( !( !(!(!( !(!(!(!( !(!(!( !( !( !(!(!(!(!( !(!( !( !(!( !(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!( !(!(!(!(!(!(!(!( !(!( !(!(!(!(!(!(!(!( !(!(!(!( !( !(!( Ufano DrUfano Dr Vista la Q u e b r a d a Vista la Q u e b r a d a P r e s i l l a D r Pr e s i l l a D r Figure 3Vegetation and Hermes Copper Butterfly Host Plant LocationsOtay Water District - Reservoir 1655-1 \\ 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 0 2 5 . 1 9 _ 1 6 5 5 _ 1 _ R e s e r v o i r \ F i g u r e s \ D o c \ H C B \ F i g 0 3 _ V e g . m x d D a t e : 8 / 4 / 2 0 1 9 2 5 1 1 9 Legend !(Rhamnus crocea Survey Area Developed Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub Disturbed Habitat Southern Mixed Chaparral ± Source: DigitalGlobe (2018);Carollo (2014) 0 100 20050 Feet Appendix E Plants Species Observed Appendix E ‐ Plant Species Observed Scientific Name Common Name Special Status LYCOPHYTES Selaginellaceae ‐ Spike‐moss family Selaginella bigelovii Bushy spike‐moss FERNS Pteridaceae ‐ Brake family Pellaea sp.Cliff‐brake EUDICOTS Anacardiaceae ‐ Sumac Or Cashew family Malosma laurina Laurel sumac Rhus ovata Sugar bush Apiaceae ‐ Carrot family Apium graveolens Celery * Conium maculatum Poison hemlock * Daucus pusillus Rattlesnake weed Sanicula arguta Sharptooth sanicle Asteraceae ‐ Sunflower family Acourtia microcephala Sacapellote Artemisia californica California sagebrush Baccharis salicifolia ssp. salicifolia Mule fat Centaurea melitensis Tocalote * Chaenactis artemisiifolia White pincushion Corethrogyne filaginifolia Common sand aster Deinandra fasciculata Fascicled tarplant Erigeron canadensis Horseweed Eriophyllum confertiflorum Golden woolly sunflower Gnaphalium palustre Western marsh cudweed Gutierrezia californica California matchweed Hazardia squarrosa Saw toothed goldenbush Hedypnois cretica Crete weed * Hypochaeris glabra Smooth cat's‐ear * Lasthenia coronaria Common goldfields Logfia filaginoides California cottonrose Logfia gallica French cottonrose * Scientific Name Common Name Special Status Porophyllum gracile Slender odora Rafinesquia californica California chicory Sonchus oleraceus Common sow thistle * Stylocline gnaphaloides Everlasting neststraw Uropappus lindleyi Silver puffs Boraginaceae ‐ Borage family Cryptantha intermedia Clearwater cryptantha Emmenanthe penduliflora Whispering bells Pectocarya linearis ssp. ferocula Narrow‐toothed pectocarya Phacelia cicutaria Caterpillar phacelia Phacelia parryi Parry's phacelia Plagiobothrys canescens Valley popcornflower Plagiobothrys collinus Hill popcornflower Brassicaceae ‐ Mustard family Hirschfeldia incana Shortpod mustard * Lepidium virginicum ssp. virginicum Virginia pepper‐grass Caryophyllaceae ‐ Pink family Silene antirrhina Sleepy catchfly Silene gallica Windmill catchfly * Cistaceae ‐ Rock‐rose family Crocanthemum scoparium Peak rush‐rose Crassulaceae ‐ Stonecrop family Dudleya pulverulenta Chalk dudleya Cucurbitaceae ‐ Gourd family Marah macrocarpa Large fruit wild cucumber Euphorbiaceae ‐ Spurge family Croton setigerus Doveweed Fabaceae ‐ Legume family Acmispon glaber Deerweed Acmispon strigosus Strigose lotus Lathyrus sp.Pea Lupinus sp.Lupine Melilotus indicus Indian sweetclover * Trifolium sp.Clover Scientific Name Common Name Special Status Gentianaceae ‐ Gentian family Zeltnera venusta California centaury Geraniaceae ‐ Geranium family Erodium cicutarium Redstem filaree * Lamiaceae ‐ Mint family Salvia apiana White sage Salvia columbariae Chia Scutellaria tuberosa Danny's skullcap Malvaceae ‐ Mallow family Malacothamnus fasciculatus Chaparral bush‐mallow Montiaceae ‐ Purslane family Calandrinia breweri Brewer's calandrinia CRPR 4.2 Calyptridium monandrum Common pussypaws Myrsinaceae ‐ Myrsine family Anagallis arvensis Scarlet pimpernel * Nyctaginaceae ‐ Four O'clock family Mirabilis laevis Wishbone plant Onagraceae ‐ Evening Primrose family Camissoniopsis robusta Robust suncup Eulobus californicus False‐mustard Orobanchaceae ‐ Broom‐rape family Castilleja exserta Purple owl's clover Papaveraceae ‐ Poppy family Eschscholzia californica California poppy Eschscholzia minutiflora ssp. minutiflora Pygmy poppy Phrymaceae ‐ Lopseed family Mimulus aurantiacus Bush monkeyflower Mimulus brevipes Widethroat yellow monkeyflower Plantaginaceae ‐ Plantain family Antirrhinum nuttallianum Nuttall's snapdragon Polemoniaceae ‐ Phlox family Gilia angelensis Chaparral gilia Linanthus dianthiflorus Fringed linanthus Navarretia hamata Hooked navarretia Scientific Name Common Name Special Status Polygonaceae ‐ Buckwheat family Chorizanthe fimbriata Fringed spineflower Eriogonum fasciculatum California buckwheat Rhamnaceae ‐ Buckthorn family Ceanothus tomentosus Woollyleaf ceanothus Rhamnus crocea Spiny redberry Rosaceae ‐ Rose family Adenostoma fasciculatum Chamise Prunus sp.Plum Rubiaceae ‐ Madder family Galium angustifolium ssp. angustifolium Narrow leaved bedstraw MONOCOTS Agavaceae ‐ Century Plant family Chlorogalum parviflorum Smallflower soap plant Hesperoyucca whipplei Chaparral yucca Liliaceae ‐ Lily family Calochortus splendens Splendid mariposa lily Orchidaceae ‐ Orchid family Piperia cooperi Chaparral rein orchid CRPR 4.2 Poaceae ‐ Grass family Avena fatua Wild oat * Bromus hordeaceus Soft brome * Bromus madritensis Compact brome * Festuca myuros Rattail fescue * Melica imperfecta Coast range onion grass Schismus barbatus Mediterranean schismus * Stipa coronata Crested needle grass Themidaceae ‐ Brodiaea family Dichelostemma capitatum Blue dicks Scientific Name Common Name Special Status Legend Special Status: Federal: FE = Endangered FT = Threatened State: SE = Endangered ST =Threatened SR = Rare *= 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 F Wildlife Species Observed Appendix F ‐ Willdife Species Observed Scientific Name Common Name Special Status INVERTEBRATES Moths, Skippers and Butterflies Euphydryas editha quino Quino Checkerspot FE Plebejus lupini monticola Clemence's Blue Pontia Protodice Checkered White Strymon melinus pudica Gray Hairstreak Vanessa annabella West Coast Lady Anthocharis sara sara Pacific Sara Orangetip Hemiargus isola Reakirt’s Blue Hemiargus ceraunus gyas Edward's Blue Junonia coenia grisea Common Buckeye Nathalis iole Dainty Sulphur Plebejus acmon Acmon Blue Vanessa cardui Pink Lady Glaucopsyche lygdamus australis Southern Blue Leptotes marina Marine Blue Erynnis funeralis Funereal Duskywing Apodemia mormo virgulti Behr's Metalmark Colias harfordii Harfords Sulfer Colias eurytheme Orange Sulphur Junonia coenia grisea Gray Buckeye Callophrys augustinus Brown Elfin Euphilotes bernardino allyni San Bernardino Blue Coenonympha californica Common California Ringlet VERTEBRATES Birds Buteo jamaicensis Red‐tailed Hawk Zenaida macroura Mourning Dove Calypte anna Anna's Hummingbird Calypte costae Costa's Hummingbird Myiarchus cinerascens Ash‐throated Flycatcher Corvus corax Common Raven Scientific Name Common Name Special Status Psaltriparus minimus Bushtit Catherpes mexicanus Canyon Wren Thryomanes bewickii Bewick's Wren Polioptila caerulea Blue‐gray Gnatcatcher Chamaea fasciata Wrentit Aimophila ruficeps Rufous‐crowned Sparrow WL Toxostoma redivivum California Thrasher Mimus polyglottos Northern Mockingbird Setophaga coronata Yellow‐rumped Warbler Aphelocoma californica California Scrub‐Jay Pipilo maculatus Spotted Towhee Spizella atrogularis Black‐chinned Sparrow Chondestes grammacus Lark Sparrow Zonotrichia leucophrys White‐crowned Sparrow Passerina amoena Lazuli Bunting Haemorhous mexicanus House Finch Carduelis psaltria Lesser Goldfinch Legend Special Status: Federal: FE = Endangered FT = Threatened State: SE = Endangered ST =Threatened CSC = California Species of Special Concern CFP = California Fully Protected Species *= Non‐native or invasive species Appendix G Plant and Wildlife Species Evaluated for Potential to Occur Potential to Occur Otay Water District 1655-1 Reservoir Project E-1 August 2019 Appendix G – Sensitive Species Potential to Occur Common Name (Scientific Name) Sensitivity Status Habitat Verified On-Site Potential to Occur Rationale INVERTEBRATES Hermes Copper Butterfly (Lycaena hermes) CT Mesa habitats; chaparral, mixed woodlands. Larval host plant is spiny redberry. No Low Species was not observed during HCB surveys conducted in 2019. Suitable habitat for the species is present. Spiny redberry was observed within the Study Area. 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 plants, dotseed plantain (Plantago erecta) and nectar plants fringed linathus (Linanthus dianthiflorus) and sweet alyssum (Lobularia maritima). Yes High One adult female QCB was observed during surveys conducted in 2019. Host plant is present in two patches along the southern project boundary. San Diego Fairy Shrimp (Branchinecta sandiegoensis) FE Vernal pools. All known localities are below 701m (2,300 ft) and are within 64km (40 miles) of the Pacific Ocean. No None Suitable vernal pool habitat not present within the Study Area AMPHIBIANS Arroyo Toad (Bufo 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. No None Neither of the drainages within the Study Area supports suitable habitat (e.g., sandy substrate with stable, sandy terraces) for the species. REPTILES Belding’s Orange-throated Whiptail (Aspidoscelis hyperythra beldingi) CDFW WL Closely tied to coastal sage scrub and chaparral habitats. No High Suitable coastal sage scrub and chamise chaparral habitats occurs throughout the Study Area. Coast Horned Lizard (Phrynosoma blainvillii) SSC Grasslands, brushlands, woodlands, and open coniferous forest with sandy or loose soil; requires abundant ant colonies for foraging. No High Suitable coastal sage scrub and chamise chaparral habitats occurs throughout the Study Area. Coast Patched-Nosed Snake (Salvadora hexalepis virgultea) SSC Inhabits semi-arid brushy areas and chaparral in canyons, rocky hillsides, and plains. No High Suitable coastal sage scrub and chamise chaparral habitats occurs throughout the Study Area. Potential to Occur Otay Water District 1655-1 Reservoir Project E-2 August 2019 Common Name (Scientific Name) Sensitivity Status Habitat Verified On-Site Potential to Occur Rationale Coastal Tiger Whiptail (Aspidoscelis tigris stejnegeri) SSC Found in open brushland in semiarid habitats. No High Suitable coastal sage scrub and chamise chaparral habitats occurs throughout the Study Area. Red Diamond Rattlesnake (Crotalus ruber) SSC Occurs from sea level to 914m (3,000 ft) in chaparral, woodland, and arid desert habitats with rocky areas and dense vegetation. Yes High Suitable coastal sage scrub and chamise chaparral habitats occurs throughout the Study Area. BIRDS Bell’s Sage Sparrow (Artemisiospiza belli belli) CDFW WL Open chaparral and sage scrubs. No Nesting: High Foraging: High Suitable nesting and foraging habitat in the eastern portion of the Study Area. Coastal Cactus Wren (Campylorhynchus brunneicapillus sandiegensis) SSC Cactus thickets of Opuntia or Cylindropuntia species, preferably over 1m tall. No Nesting: None Foraging: None Suitable cactus habitat is lacking within the Study Area. Coastal California Gnatcatcher (Polioptila californica californica) FT SSC Prefer open scrubby habitats such as coastal sage scrub and some forms of chaparral. No Nesting: Low Foraging: Low No CAGN were detected within the Survey Area during surveys conducted in 2019. Suitable nesting habitat is present within the Study Area, the site likely burned within the last 5-10 years. Golden Eagle (Aquila chrysaetos) FP Nest on cliff ledges or trees on steep slopes. Forage in grasslands, sage scrub or broken chaparral. No Nesting: None Foraging: Low Suitable nesting habitat is lacking in the Study Area; suitable foraging habitat is present. Swainson’s Hawk (Buteo swainsoni) ST Open country of the western US and Canada for breeding, from low to moderate elevations. Prairies, rangelands, meadows, open areas with scattered trees. Cultivated lands attract this hawk in some areas, where the human disturbance of agriculture causes concentrations of insects ad rodents. No Nesting: None Foraging: Low Not known to breed in San Diego County, may soar over or forage within the Study Area during migration. Least Bell's Vireo (Vireo bellii pusillus) FE SE Riparian thickets either near water or in dry portions of river bottoms; nests along margins of bushes and forages low to the ground; may also be found using mesquite and arrow weed in desert canyons. No Nesting: None Foraging: None Suitable riparian habitat is lacking within the Study Area. 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. No Nesting: High Foraging: High Suitable nesting and foraging habitat present within the Study Area. Potential to Occur Otay Water District 1655-1 Reservoir Project E-3 August 2019 Common Name (Scientific Name) Sensitivity Status Habitat Verified On-Site Potential to Occur Rationale Southern California Rufous-crowned Sparrow (Aimophila ruficeps canescens) CDFW WL Fairly common, widespread and generally a fairly conspicuous resident of rocky grassland and patchy shrub habitats, often including areas with disturbance from fire, trash, soil compaction and non-native vegetation. Yes Nesting: High Foraging: High Species was observed within the Study Area during CAGN surveys. Southwestern Willow Flycatcher (Empidonax trallii extimus) FE SE Will forage over a variety of habitats; however, species does not breed in California. No Nesting: None Foraging: None Suitable riparian habitat is lacking within the Study Area. MAMMALS American Badger (Taxidea taxus) SSC Inhabit a diversity of habitats with principal requirements of sufficient food, friable soils, and relatively open, uncultivated ground. Grasslands, savannas, mountain meadows, and desert scrub. No Low Suitable coastal sage scrub and chamise chaparral habitats occur throughout the Study Area. Dulzura Pocket Mouse (Chaetodipus californicus femoralis) SSC Occurs in arid coastal and desert habitats including coastal scrub, chaparral, chamise-redshank, desert scrub, and annual grassland No High Suitable coastal sage scrub and chamise chaparral habitats occur throughout the Study Area. Northwestern San Diego Pocket Mouse (Chaetodipus fallax fallax) SSC Occurs in arid coastal and desert habitats including coastal scrub, chaparral, chamise-redshank, desert scrub, pinyon-juniper, and annual grassland No High Suitable habitat occurs throughout the Study Area. Pallid San Diego Pocket Mouse (Chaetodipus fallax pallidus) SSC Occurs in arid coastal and desert habitats including coastal scrub, chaparral, chamise-redshank, desert scrub, and annual grassland No High Suitable coastal sage scrub and chamise chaparral habitats occurs throughout the Study Area. Townsend’s Big-eared Bat (Corynorhinus townsendii) CT Species can be found in a variety of habitats throughout the state where appropriate roosting habitat exists. Primarily roosts in caves and cavern-like spaces; also include in abandoned buildings, mines, culverts, box-like spaces in bridges and other structures, and large hollows in trees. Very sensitive to human disturbances. No Roosting: None Suitable roosting habitat is lacking within the Study Area. 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. No High Suitable coastal sage scrub and chamise chaparral habitats occurs throughout the Study Area. San Diego Desert Woodrat (Neotoma lepida intermedia) SSC Variety of shrub and desert habitats primarily associated with rock outcroppings, boulders, cacti, or areas of dense undergrowth. No High Suitable coastal sage scrub and chamise chaparral habitats occurs throughout the Study Area. Potential to Occur Otay Water District 1655-1 Reservoir Project E-4 August 2019 Common Name (Scientific Name) Sensitivity Status Habitat Verified On-Site Potential to Occur Rationale Stephen’s Kangaroo Rat (Dipodomys stephensi) FE ST Uses annual grasslands with sparse perennial vegetation No None Suitable habitat is lacking in the Study Area. This species is also not known from this far south in San Diego County. PLANTS San Diego thorn-mint (Acanthomintha ilicifolia) FT, SE CRPR 1B.1 Annual Herb. Clay openings in chaparral, coastal sage scrub, valley and foothill grasslands, and vernal pools; 33 - 3,150 ft. (10 – 960 m). Blooming period: April – June. No Low Suitable clay openings do not occur within the survey area. California adolphia (Adolphia californica) CRPR 2B.1 Perennial Herb. Clay soils in chaparral, coastal sage scrub and valley and foothill grasslands; 33 – 2, 428 ft. (10 – 740 m). Blooming period: December – May. No Low Suitable clay habitat does not occur within the survey area. Survey area is outside known range of the species. San Diego bur-sage (Ambrosia chenopodifolia) CRPR 2B.1 Perennial shrub. Coastal sage scrub; 180 – 509 ft. (55 – 155 m) Blooming period: April – June. No Low Survey area outside of species range. Singlewhorl burrobrush (Ambrosia monogyra) CRPR 2B.2 Perennial shrub. Sandy soils in chaparral and Sonoran desert scrub; 33 – 1,640 ft. (10 – 500 m) Blooming period: August – November. No Low Suitable sandy soils do not occur within the survey area. Otay manzanita (Arctostaphylos otayensis) CRPR 1B.2 Perennial evergreen shrub. Metavolcanic soils in chaparral and cismontane woodlands; 902 – 5,578 ft. (375 – 1,700 m). Blooming period: January – April. No Low Suitable metavolcanic soils do not occur within the survey area. Western spleenwort (Asplenium vespertinum) CRPR 4.2 Perennial rhizomatous herb. Rocky soils in chaparral, cismontane woodland and coastal sage scrub; 591 – 3,281 ft. (180 – 1,000 m). Blooming period: February – June. No Low Potentially suitable habitat occurs within the survey area; however, species was not observed while surveying during its blooming period. Coulter’s saltbush (Atriplex coulteri) CRPR 1B.2 Perennial herb. Alkaline or clay soils in coastal bluff scrub, coastal dunes, coastal sage scrub and valley and foothills grassland; 10 – 1,509 ft. (3 – 460 m) Blooming period: March – October. No Low Suitable alkaline or clay soils do not occur within the survey area. Survey area is outside known range of the species. South Coast saltscale (Atriplex pacifica) CRPR 1B.2 Annual herb. Coastal bluff scrub, coastal dunes, coastal sage scrub and playas; 0 – 459 ft. (0 -140 m). Blooming period: March – October. No Low Survey area is outside of species range. Golden-spined cereus (Bergerocactus emoryi) CRPR 2B.2 Perennial stem succulent. Sandy soils in closed-cone conifer forests, chaparral and coastal sage scrub; 10 – 1,296 ft. (3 – 395 m). Blooming period: May – June. No Low Suitable sandy soils do not occur within survey area. Survey area is outside known range of the species. Potential to Occur Otay Water District 1655-1 Reservoir Project E-5 August 2019 Common Name (Scientific Name) Sensitivity Status Habitat Verified On-Site Potential to Occur Rationale San Diego goldenstar (Bloomeria clevelandii) CRPR 1B.1 Annual herb. Clay soils in chaparral, coastal sage scrub, valley and foothill grasslands and vernal pools; 164 – 1,526 ft. (50 – 465 m). Blooming period: April – May. No Low Suitable clay soils do not occur within the survey area. Orcutt’s brodiaea (Brodiaea orcuttii) CRPR 1B.1 Perennial bulbiferous herb. Mesic and clay soils in closed-cone coniferous forests, chaparral, cismontane woodland, meadows and seeps, valley and foothill grasslands and vernal pools; 98 – 5,551 ft. (30 – 1,692 m). Blooming period May – July. No Low Suitable mesic and clay soils do not occur within the survey area. Calandrinia breweri (Calandrinia breweri) CRPR 4.2 Annual herb. Sandy or loamy, disturbed sites and burned areas in chaparral and coastal sage scrub; 32 – 4,003 ft. (10 – 1,220 m). Blooming period: January – June. Yes Observed Individuals were recorded near the paved road and in the center of the parcel. Dunn’s mariposas lily (Calochortus dunnii) CRPR 1B.2 Perennial bulbiferous herb. Gabbroic or metavolanic, rocky soils in closed-cone conifer forests, chaparral and valley and foothill grasslands; 607 – 6,004 ft. (185 – 1,830 m). Blooming period: February – June. No Low Suitable soils do not occur within the survey area. Lewis’ evening-primrose (Camissoniopsis lewisii) CRPR 3 Annual herb. Sandy or clay soils in coastal bluff scrub, cismontane woodland, coastal dunes, coastal scrub and valley and foothill grassland; 0 – 984 ft. (0 – 300 m). Blooming period: March – June. No Low Suitable soils do not occur within the survey area. Lakeside ceanothus (Ceanothus cyaneus) CRPR 1B.2 Perennial evergreen shrub. Closed-cone coniferous forest and chaparral; 771 – 2, 543 ft. (235 – 755 m). Blooming period: April – June. No Low Survey area outside of species range. Otay Mountain ceanothus (Ceanothus otayensis) CRPR 1B.2 Perennial evergreen shrub. Metavolcanic or gabbroic soils in chaparral; 1,969 – 3,609 ft. (600 – 1,100 m). Blooming period: January – April. No Low Suitable soils do not occur within the survey area. Survey area is outside known range of the species. Southern mountain misery (Chamaebatia australis) CRPR 4.2 Perennial evergreen shrub. Gabbroic or metavolcanic soils in chaparral; 985 – 3,346 ft. (300 – 1,020 m). Blooming period: November – May. No Low Suitable soils do not occur within the survey area. Long-spined spineflower (Chorizanthe polygonoides var. longispina) CRPR 1B.2 Annual herb. Often clay soils in chaparral, coastal sage, meadows and seeps, valley and foothill grassland and vernal pools; 98 – 5,020 ft. (30 - 1,530 m) Blooming period: April – July. No Low Suitable clay soils do not occur within the survey area. Potential to Occur Otay Water District 1655-1 Reservoir Project E-6 August 2019 Common Name (Scientific Name) Sensitivity Status Habitat Verified On-Site Potential to Occur Rationale Seaside cistanthe (Cistanthe maritima) CRPR 4.2 Annual herb. Sandy soils in coastal bluff scrub, coastal sage scrub and valley and foothill grassland; 16 – 984 ft. (5 – 300 m). Blooming period: February – August. No Low Suitable sandy soils do not occur within the survey area. Survey area is outside known range of the species. Summer holly (Comarostphylis diversifolia ssp. diversifolia) CRPR 1B.2 Perennial evergreen shrub. Chaparral and cismontane woodland; 98 – 2,592 ft. (30 – 790 m). Blooming period: April – June. No Low Survey area outside of species range. Small-flowered morning-glory (Convolvulus simulans) CRPR 4.2 Annual herb. Clay and serpentiite seeps in chaparral openings, coastal sage scrub and valley and foothill grassland; 98 – 2,428 ft. (30 – 740 m). Blooming period: March – July. No Low Suitable soils do not occur within the survey area. Snake cholla (Cylindorpuntia californica var. californica) CRPR 1B.1 Perennial stem succulent. Chaparral and coastal sage scrub; 98 – 492 ft. (30 – 150 m). Blooming period: April – May. No Low Survey area is outside known range of the species. Otay tarplant (Deinandra conjugens) FT, SE CRPR 1B.1 Annual herb. Clay soils in coastal sage scrub and valley and foothill grassland; 82 – 984 ft. (25 – 300 m). Blooming period: April – June. No Low Suitable clay soils do not occur within the survey area. Survey area is outside known range of the species. Tecate tarplant (Deinandra floribunda) CRPR 1B.2 Annual herb. Chaparral and coastal sage scrub; 230 – 4, 003 ft. (70 – 1,220 m). Blooming period: August – October. No Low Survey area outside of species range. Paniculate tarplant (Deinandra paniculata) CRPR 4.2 Annual herb. Usually vernally mesic, sometimes sandy soils in coastal sage scrub, valley and foothill grassland and vernal pools; 82 – 3,084 ft. (25 – 940 m). Blooming period: March – December. No Low Suitable soils do not occur within the survey area. Western dichondra (Dichondra occidentalis) CRPR 4.2 Perennial rhizomatous herb. Chaparral, cismontane woodland, coastal scrub and valley and foothill grassland; 164 – 1,640 ft. (50 – 500 m). Blooming period: January – July. No Low Survey area is outside known range of the species. Orcutt’s bird’s-beak (Dicranostegia orcuttiana) CRPR 2B.1 Annual herb (hemiparasitic). Coastal sage scrub; 33 – 1,148 ft. (10 – 350 m). Blooming period: March – September. No Low Survey area is outside known range of the species. Variegated dudleya (Dudleya variegata) CRPR 1B.2 Perennial herb. Clay soils in chaparral, cismontane woodland, coastal sage scrub, valley and foothill grassland and vernal pools; 10 – 1,903 ft. (3 – 580 m). Blooming period: April – June. No Low Suitable clay soils do not occur within the survey area. Potential to Occur Otay Water District 1655-1 Reservoir Project E-7 August 2019 Common Name (Scientific Name) Sensitivity Status Habitat Verified On-Site Potential to Occur Rationale San Diego button-celery (Eryngium aristulatum var. parishii) FE, SE CRPR 1B.1 Annual/perennial herb. Mesic areas in coastal sage scrub, valley and foothill grassland and vernal pools; 66 – 2, 034 ft. (20 – 620 m). Blooming period: December – October. No Low Suitable mesic soils do not occur within the survey area. Cliff spurge (Euphorbia misera) CRPR 2B.2 Perennial shrub. Rocky soils in coastal bluff scrub, coastal sage scrub and Mojavean desert scrub; 32 – 1,640 ft. (10 – 500 m). Blooming period: December – October. No Low Survey area is outside known range of the species. San Diego barrel cactus (Ferocactus viridescens) CRPR 2B.1 Perennial stem succulent. Chaparral, coastal sage scrub, valley and foothill grassland and vernal pools; 10 – 1,476 ft. (3 – 450 m). Blooming period: May – June. No Low Survey area is outside known range of the species. Mexican flannelbush (Fremontodendron mexicanum) FE CRPR 1B.1 Perennial evergreen shrub. Gabbroic, metavolcanic and serpentinite soils in closed-cone coniferous forest, chaparral and cismontane woodland; 32 – 2,349 ft. (10 – 716 m). Blooming period: March – June. No Low Suitable soils do not occur within the survey area. Palmer’s grapplinghook (Harpagonella palmeri) CRPR 4.2 Annual herb. Clay, open grassy areas within shrubland in chaparral, coastal sage scrub, valley and foothill grassland; 65 – 3,133 ft. (20 – 955 m). Blooming period: March – May. No Low Suitable microhabitat does not occur within the survey area. Tecate cypress (Hesperocyparis forbesii) CRPR 1B.1 Perennial evergreen tree. Clay, gabbroic or metavolcanic soils in closed-cone coniferous forest and chaparral; 262 – 4,921 ft. (80 – 1,500 m). No Low Suitable soils do not occur within the survey area. Graceful tarplant (Holocarpha virgate ssp. elongata) CRPR 4.2 Annual herb. Chaparral, cismontane woodland, coastal sage scrub and valley and foothill grassland; 197 – 3,609 ft. (60 – 1,100m). Blooming period: May – November. No Low Survey area is outside known range of the species. Vernal barley (Hordeum intercedens) CRPR 3.2 Annual herb. Coastal dunes, coastal scrub, saline flats and depressions in valley and foothill grassland and vernal pools; 16 – 3,281 ft. (5 – 1,000 m). Blooming period March – June. No Low Survey area is outside known range of the species. Otay Mountain lotus (Hosackia crassifolia var. otayensis) CRPR 1B.1 Perennial herb. Metavolcanic soils in often disturbed areas of chaparral; 1,246 – 3,298 ft. (380 – 1,005 m). Blooming period: May – August. No Low Suitable soils do not occur within the survey area. Survey area is outside known range of the species. Decumbent goldenbush (Isocoma menziesii var. decumbens) CRPR 1B.2 Perennial shrub. Chaparral and sandy, often disturbed areas of coastal sage scrub; 32 – 443 ft. (10 – 135 m). Blooming period: April – November. No Low Survey area is outside known range of the species. Potential to Occur Otay Water District 1655-1 Reservoir Project E-8 August 2019 Common Name (Scientific Name) Sensitivity Status Habitat Verified On-Site Potential to Occur Rationale San Diego marsh-elder (Iva hayesiana) CRPR 2B.2 Perennial herb. Marshes, swamps and playas; 32 – 1,640 ft. (10 – 500 m). Blooming period: April – October. No Low Suitable habitat does not occur within the survey area. Southwestern spiny rush (Juncus acutus ssp. leopoldii) CRPR 4.2 Perennial rhizomatous herb. Mesic coastal dunes, alkaline seeps and coastal salt marshes; 10 – 2,953 ft. (3 – 900 m). Blooming period: March – June. No Low Suitable habitat does not occur within the survey area. Gander’s pitcher sage (Lepechinia ganderi) CRPR 1B.3 Perennial shrub. Gabbroic or metavolcanic soils in closed-cone coniferous forest, chaparral, coastal sage scrub and valley and foothill grassland; 1,000 – 3,297 ft. (305 – 1,005 m). Blooming period: June – July. No Low Suitable soils do not occur within the survey area. Robinson’s pepper-grass (Lepidium virginicum var. robinsonii) CRPR 4.3 Annual herb. Chaparral and coastal sage scrub; 3 – 2,904 ft. (1 – 885 m). Blooming period January – July. No Moderate Potentially suitable habitat occurs within the survey area; however, species was not observed while surveying during its blooming period. Ocellated Humboldt lily (Lilium humboldtii ssp. ocellatum) CRPR 4.2 Perennial bulbiferous herb. Openings in chaparral, cismontane woodland, coastal sage scrub, lower montane coniferous forest, and riparian woodland; 98 – 5,906 ft. (30 -1,800 m). Blooming period: March – August. No Low Survey area is outside known range of the species. California box-thorn (Lycium californicum) CRPR 4.2 Perennial shrub. Coastal bluff scrub and coastal sage scrub; 16 – 492 ft. (5 – 150 m). Blooming period: December, March, June, July, and August. No Low Survey area is outside known range of the species. Felt-leaved monardella (Monardella hypoleuca ssp. lanata) CRPR 1B.2 Perennial rhizomatous herb. Chaparral and cismontane woodland; 98 – 5,167 ft. (30 – 1,575 m). Blooming period: June – August. No Moderate Potentially suitable habitat occurs within the survey area; however, species was not observed while surveying during its blooming period. Jennifer’s monardella (Monardella stoneana) CRPR 1B.2 Perennial herb. Usually rocky, intermittent streambeds in closed-cone coniferous forest, chaparral, coastal sage scrub and riparian scrub; Blooming period: 32 – 2,591 ft. (10 – 790 m). June – September. No Low Survey area is outside known range of the species. California spineflower (Mucronea californica) CRPR 4.2 Annual herb. Sandy soils in chaparral, cismontane woodland, coastal dunes, coastal sage scrub and valley and foothill grassland; 0 – 4,593 ft. (0 – 1,400 m). Blooming period: March – August. No Low Sandy soils do not occur within the survey area. Little mousetail (Myosurus minimus ssp. apus) CRPR 3.1 Annual herb. Valley and foothill grassland and alkaline vernal pools; 65 – 2,100 ft. (20 – 640 m). Blooming period: March – June. No Low Suitable habitat does not occur within the survey area. Potential to Occur Otay Water District 1655-1 Reservoir Project E-9 August 2019 Common Name (Scientific Name) Sensitivity Status Habitat Verified On-Site Potential to Occur Rationale Spreading navarretia (Navarretia fossalis) FT CRPR 1B.1 Annual herb. Chenopod scrub, assorted shallow freshwater marshes and swamps, playas and vernal pools; 98 – 2,149 ft. (30 – 655 m). Blooming period: April – June. No Low Suitable habitat does not occur within the survey area. Dehesa nolina (Nolina interrata) CE CRPR 1B.1 Perennial herb. Gabbroic, metavolcanic or sandy soils in chaparral; 607 – 2,904 ft. (185 – 855 m). Blooming period: June – July. No Low Suitable soils do not occur within the survey area. California adder’s-tongue (Ophioglossum californicum) CRPR 4.2 Perennial rhizomatous herb. Mesic habitats in chaparral, valley and foothill grassland and margins of vernal pools; 197 – 1,722 ft. (60 – 525 m). Blooming period: December – June. No Low Suitable habitat does not occur within the survey area. California Orcutt grass (Orcuttia californica) CRPR 1B.1 Annual herb. Vernal pools; 49 – 2,165 ft. (15 – 660 m). Blooming period: April – August. No Low Suitable habitat does not occur within the survey area. Golden-rayed pentachaeta (Pentachaeta aurea ssp. aurea) CRPR 4.2 Annual herb. Chaparral, cismontane woodland, coastal sage scrub, lower montane coniferous forest, riparian woodland and valley and foothill grassland; 262 – 6,070 ft. (80 – 1,850 m). Blooming period: March – July. No Low Survey area is outside known range of the species. Wooly chaparral-pea (Pickeringia montna var. tomentosa) CRPR 4.3 Evergreen shrub. Gabbroic, granitic and clay soils in chaparral; 0 – 5,577 ft. (0 – 1,700 m). Blooming period: May – August. No Low Survey area is outside known range of the species. Chaparral rein orchid (Piperia cooperi) CRPR 4.2 Perennial herb. Chaparral, cismontane woodland and valley and foothill grassland; 49 – 5,200 ft. (15 – 1,585 m). Blooming period: March – June. Yes Observed Two individuals were recorded in the center of the parcel. Otay Mesa mint (Pogogyne nudiuscula) FE, CE CRPR 1B.1 Annual herb. Vernal pools; 295 – 820 ft. (90 – 250 m). Blooming period: May – July. No Low Suitable habitat does not occur within the survey area. Survey area is outside known range of the species. Nuttall’s scrub oak (Quercus dumosa) CRPR 1B.1 Perennial evergreen shrub. Sandy, clay loam in closed-cone coniferous forest, chaparral and coastal sage scrub; 49 – 1,312 ft. (15 – 400 m). Blooming period: February – August. No Low Suitable habitat does not occur within the survey area. Survey area is outside known range of the species. Engelmann oak (Quercus engelmannii) CRPR 4.2 Perennial deciduous tree. Chaparral, cismontane woodland, riparian woodland and valley and foothill grassland; 164 – 4,265 ft. (50 – 1,300 m). Blooming period: March – June. No Low Trees would’ve been visible during surveys. Coulter’s matilija poppy (Romneya coulteri) CRPR 4.2 Perennial rhizomatous herb. Often in previously burned areas of chaparral and coastal sage scrub; 65 – 3,937 ft. (20 – 1,200 m). Blooming period: March – August. No Low Suitable habitat does not occur within the survey area. Potential to Occur Otay Water District 1655-1 Reservoir Project E-10 August 2019 Common Name (Scientific Name) Sensitivity Status Habitat Verified On-Site Potential to Occur Rationale Small-leaved rose (Rosa minutifolia) CRPR 2B.1 Perennial deciduous shrub. Chaparral and coastal sage scrub; 492 – 525 ft. (150 – 160 m). Blooming period: January – June. No Low Survey area is outside known range of the species. Munz’s sage (Salvia munzii) CRPR 2B.2 Perennial evergreen shrub. Chaparral and coastal sage scrub; 377 – 3,494 ft. (115 – 1065 m). Blooming period: February – April. No Low Survey area is outside known range of the species. Ashy spike-moss (Selaginella cinerascens) CRPR 4.1 Perennial rhizomatous herb. Chaparral and coastal sage scrub; 65 – 2,099 ft. (20 – 640 m). No Low Survey area is outside known range of the species. Chaparral ragwort (Senecio aphanactis) CRPR 2B.2 Annual herb. Sometimes alkaline soils in chaparral, cismontane woodland and coastal sage scrub; 49 – 2,625 ft. (15 – 800 m). Blooming period: January – May. No Low Survey area is outside known range of the species. Purple stemodia (Stemodia durantifolia) CRPR 2B.1 Perennial herb. Often mesic, sandy areas of Sonoran desert scrub; 262 – 984 ft. (80 – 300 m). Blooming period: January, April, June, August, September, October, December. No Low Suitable habitat does not occur within the survey area. Survey area is outside known range of the species. San Diego County needle grass (Stipa diegoensis) CRPR 4.2 Perennial herb. Rocky, often mesic soils in chaparral and coastal sage scrub; 32 – 2,625 ft. (10 – 800 m). Blooming period: February – June. No Low Survey area is outside known range of the species. Laguna Mountains jewelflower (Streptanthus bernardinus) CRPR 4.3 Perennial herb. Chaparral and lower montane coniferous forest; 2,198 – 8,202 ft. (670 – 2,500 m). Blooming period: May – August. No Low Survey area is outside known range of the species. Parry’s tetracoccus (Tetracoccus dioicus) CRPR 1B.2 Perennial deciduous shrub. Chaparral and coastal sage scrub; 541 – 3,280 ft. (165 – 1,000 m). Blooming period: April – May. No Low Survey area is outside known range of the species. San Diego County viguiera (Viguiera laciniata laciniata) CRPR 4.3 Perennial shrub. Chaparral and coastal sage scrub; 196 – 2,460 ft. (60 – 750 m). Blooming period: February – August. Yes Observed Individuals are widely scattered throughout the parcel. Stephen’s Kangaroo Rat (Dipodomys stephensi) FE ST Uses annual grasslands with sparse perennial vegetation No None Suitable habitat is lacking in the Study Area. Potential to Occur Otay Water District 1655-1 Reservoir Project E-11 August 2019 Common Name (Scientific Name) Sensitivity Status Habitat Verified On-Site Potential to Occur Rationale LEGEND: STATUS: Federal FE - listed as endangered under the federal Endangered Species Act. FT - listed as threatened under the federal Endangered Species Act. FP – listed as fully protected F Delisted = Delisted State SE - listed as endangered under the California Endangered Species Act. ST- listed as threatened under the California Endangered Species Act. CT- candidate threatened S Delisted - Delisted CDFW FP – fully protected species in California. SSC – species of special concern in California. WL – Watch List California Rare Plant Rank 1A = presumed extirpated in California and either rare or extinct elsewhere 1B = rare, threatened, or endangered in California and elsewhere 2A = presumed extirpated in California but common elsewhere 2B = rare, threatened, or endangered in California but more common elsewhere 3 = more information needed 4 = limited distribution .1 = seriously threatened in California .2 = moderately threatened in California .3 = not very threatened in California Appendix C Cultural Resources Survey CULTURAL RESOURCES SURVEY FOR THE OWD 1655-1 RESERVOIR, ACCESS ROAD, AND 12- INCH PIPELINE PROJECT, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA P R E P A RE D F O R : Otay Water District 2554 Sweetwater Springs Blvd. Spring Valley, California 91978-2096 Contact: Lisa Coburn-Boyd 619.670.2219 P R E P A RE D BY : ICF 525 B Street, Suite 1700 San Diego, CA 92101 Contact: Patrick McGinnis 858.444.3947 March 2019 ICF. 2019. Cultural Resources Survey for the OWD 1655-1 Reservoir, Access Road, and 12-inch Pipeline Project, San Diego County, California. March. (ICF #00025.19). Prepared for Otay Water District, Spring Valley, CA. Author(s): Patrick McGinnis, MA, RPA and Nara Cox, BA Consulting Firm: ICF 525 B Street, Suite 1700 San Diego, CA 92101 858.444.3928 Client: Otay Water District Report Date: March 2019 Report Title: Cultural Resources Survey for the OWD 1655-1 Reservoir, Access Road, and 12-inch Pipeline Project, San Diego County, California Type of Study: Phase I Field Survey and Impacts Assessment New Sites: ICF-OWD-ISO-001, ICF-OWD-ISO-002 Updated Sites: CA-SDI-013702 USGS Quadrangle: Dulzura, California: 7.5' series (1:24,000) Acreage: 6.2 acres, pedestrian surveyed; 0.8-acre visually inspected Keywords: Cultural Resources Survey and Inventory This page intentionally left blank. Cultural Resources Survey for the OWD 1655-1 Reservoir, Access Road, and 12-inch Pipeline Project San Diego County, California ES-1 March 2019 ICF 00025.19 Executive Summary ICF has been contracted to assist the Otay Water District (OWD) with the preparation of an Addendum to the 2015 Water Facilities Master Plan Update (WFMP) Final Program Environmental Impact Report (PEIR) and associated technical studies for the 1655-1 Reservoir, Access Road, and 12-inch Pipeline Project (project). OWD is proposing to construct and operate a 0.5 million gallon (MG) concrete potable water reservoir and an associated 1,500 feet of 12-inch-diameter pipeline in the Rancho Jamul Estates area in Jamul, California. The pipeline would be located within the footprint of a proposed 22-foot-wide access road to the reservoir that will also be built as part of the project. The project must comply with 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 proposed project for its 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: CA-SDI-013702. ICF archaeologists Nara Cox and Jordan Menvielle performed a pedestrian survey and inventory within the project area on February 15, 2019. The survey identified one surface-exposed artifact and one surface-exposed feature at locations where no archaeological resources were previously documented (temporary designation ICF-OWD-ISO-001 and ICF-OWD-ISO-002). No resources associated with previously documented site CA-SDI-013702 were identified within the plotted site boundary during the survey. CA-SDI-013702 was not re-located within the survey area, possibly due to dense vegetation of leaf litter. ICF recommends that a Native American monitor and archaeologists monitor project-related ground disturbance that occurs in or within 30 meters of ICF-OWD-ISO-001 and ICF-OWD-ISO-002, as well as in the recorded location of CA-SDI-013702. Archaeological and Native American monitoring is recommended at these locations because the possibility remains that previously undocumented and spatially isolated significant archaeological deposits may be present. 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, which outlines procedures for the unanticipated discovery of archaeological resources during ground-disturbing activities. Otay Water District Executive Summary Cultural Resources Survey for the OWD 1655-1 Reservoir, Access Road, and 12-inch Pipeline Project San Diego County, California ES-2 March 2019 ICF 00025.19 This page intentionally left blank. Cultural Resources Survey for the OWD 1655-1 Reservoir, Access Road, and 12-inch Pipeline Project San Diego County, California i March 2019 ICF 00025.19 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 ........................................................................................................................... 1-8 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 CA DPR 523 Forms Cultural Resources Survey for the OWD 1655-1 Reservoir, Access Road, and 12-inch Pipeline Project San Diego County, California ii March 2019 ICF 00025.19 Tables and Figures Table Page 1 Cultural Resources within 0.25 Mile of the Project Area .................................................................... 2-2 2 Cultural Resource Studies within 0.25 Mile of the Project Area ...................................................... 2-3 Figure Page 1 Project Vicinity ...................................................................................................................................................... 1-2 2 Project Location.................................................................................................................................................... 1-3 3 Survey Results (Confidential) ......................................................................................................................... 4-4 Acronyms and Abbreviations BP before present CCR California Code of Regulations CEQA California Environmental Quality Act CFR Code of Federal Regulations cm centimeter CRHR California Register of Historical Resources MG million gallons NAHC Native American Heritage Commission NRHP National Register of Historic Places OWD Otay Water District PRC Public Resources Code project 1655-1 Reservoir, Access Road, and 12-inch Pipeline Project USGS U.S. Geological Survey Cultural Resources Survey for the OWD 1655-1 Reservoir, Access Road, and 12-inch Pipeline Project San Diego County, California 1-1 March 2019 ICF 00025.19 Chapter 1 Introduction ICF has been contracted to assist the Otay Water District (OWD) with the preparation of an Addendum to the 2015 Water Facilities Master Plan Update (WFMP) Final Program Environmental Impact Report (PEIR) and associated technical studies for the 1655-1 Reservoir, Access Road, and 12-inch Pipeline Project (project). OWD is proposing to construct and operate a 0.5 million gallon (MG) concrete potable water reservoir and an associated 1,500 feet of 12-inch-diameter pipeline in the Rancho Jamul Estates area in Jamul, California. The pipeline would be located within the footprint of a proposed 22-foot-wide access road to the reservoir that will also be built as part of the project. The existing system is currently served with a hydro-pneumatic pump station that does not have sufficient capacity to meet fire flow demand. The project will increase both system reliability and service capabilities, and provide adequate fire protection for the Rancho Jamul Estates area within OWD’s 1655 Pressure Zone. The project must comply with 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 proposed project for its potential to cause significant impacts on archaeological resources. 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 Jamul in eastern San Diego County. The project area is located in Township 17 South, Range 1 East in Sections 11 and 12 on the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Dulzura 7.5 minute quadrangle. The project area consists of the parcel for facilities associated with the project and a 50-foot buffer. The 7–acre project area is located east of the north end of Presilla Drive in relatively undeveloped land (Figures 1 and 2). Figure 1Project Vicinity \\PDCCITRDSGIS1\Projects_1\OtayWaterDistrict\00025.19_1655_1_Reservoir\Figures\Cultural\OWD_1655Reservoir_Fig-1.mxd; User: 38710; Date: 3/18/2019 0 42 Miles LegendProject AreaSource: USGS-ESRI Imagery, 20191:250,000N San Diego County, CA Project Area Mexico Figure 2Project Location \\PDCCITRDSGIS1\Projects_1\OtayWaterDistrict\00025.19_1655_1_Reservoir\Figures\Cultural\OWD_1655Reservoir_Fig-2.mxd; User: 38710; Date: 3/18/2019 0 2,0001,000 Feet LegendProject AreaSource: USGS-ESRI Imagery, 20191:24,000N San Diego County, CA Project Area Mexico Otay Water District Chapter 1. Introduction Cultural Resources Survey for the OWD 1655-1 Reservoir, Access Road, and 12-inch Pipeline Project San Diego County, California 1-4 March 2019 ICF 00025.19 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 (§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. Otay Water District Chapter 1. Introduction Cultural Resources Survey for the OWD 1655-1 Reservoir, Access Road, and 12-inch Pipeline Project San Diego County, California 1-5 March 2019 ICF 00025.19 CEQA also contains provisions regarding the protection of Native American remains (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 Americans as identified by the Native American Heritage Commission 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 Native American Heritage Commission. 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 area vicinity. Geology and Soils The project area is located on the western foothills of the Peninsular Ranges physiographic province, a province characterized by a series of north-to-south–trending mountain ranges that gradually slope west to the coastal plain and sharply slope east to the Salton trough (Norris and Webb 1990). The Peninsular Ranges comprise metavolcanic, metasedimentary, and plutonic rock that formed during the Jurassic and Cretaceous periods (200 million to 65 million years ago) and were transported to their current location and uplifted via tectonic forces (Jahns 1973). Over time, this uplifted bedrock has been incised by streams. The project area lies near the contact of the Santiago Peak Metavolcanic Formation (San Ysidro Mountain, Jamul Mountain, and San Miguel Mountain) and the uplifted Peninsular batholith. Although the project area is near the contact of these two formations the project area itself is underlain by batholithic granitic rock, as indicated by the density of granite outcrops in the area. The project area is located on a steep west-facing slope. Elevation ranges from approximately 1,445 feet above mean sea level in the western portion of the study area to 1,719 feet above mean sea level in the eastern portion. Based on previous biological studies performed by Helix Environmental in 2018, two soil types have been mapped in the study area. The soil type covering the eastern portion of the project area is Cieneba very rocky coarse sandy loam, 30 to 75 percent slopes (CmrG). The soil type found in the western extent is Las Posas stony fine sandy loam, 9 to 30 percent slopes (LrE) (Helix Environmental 2018). Otay Water District Chapter 1. Introduction Cultural Resources Survey for the OWD 1655-1 Reservoir, Access Road, and 12-inch Pipeline Project San Diego County, California 1-6 March 2019 ICF 00025.19 Flora Based on previous floristic studies performed by Helix Environmental in 2018, four vegetation communities and land cover types were documented within the project area, including Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub, Southern Mixed Chaparral, Disturbed Habitat, and Urban/Developed Areas (Helix Environmental 2018). Additionally, in 1998 Laguna Mountain Environmental documented flora within the project area that would have been important resources to Native Americans, including chamise (Adenostoma fasciculatum), coastal sage brush (Artemisia californica), buckwheat (Eriogonum fasciculatum), and laurel sumac (Malosma laurina) (Pigniolo and Baksh 1998). 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. 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 (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. Otay Water District Chapter 1. Introduction Cultural Resources Survey for the OWD 1655-1 Reservoir, Access Road, and 12-inch Pipeline Project San Diego County, California 1-7 March 2019 ICF 00025.19 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) 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 Otay Water District Chapter 1. Introduction Cultural Resources Survey for the OWD 1655-1 Reservoir, Access Road, and 12-inch Pipeline Project San Diego County, California 1-8 March 2019 ICF 00025.19 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 The project area 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). 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. Otay Water District Chapter 1. Introduction Cultural Resources Survey for the OWD 1655-1 Reservoir, Access Road, and 12-inch Pipeline Project San Diego County, California 1-9 March 2019 ICF 00025.19 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 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). Otay Water District Chapter 1. Introduction Cultural Resources Survey for the OWD 1655-1 Reservoir, Access Road, and 12-inch Pipeline Project San Diego County, California 1-10 March 2019 ICF 00025.19 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. 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). Otay Water District Chapter 1. Introduction Cultural Resources Survey for the OWD 1655-1 Reservoir, Access Road, and 12-inch Pipeline Project San Diego County, California 1-11 March 2019 ICF 00025.19 Historic Land Use in the Project Area and Vicinity Jamul Rancho The project area lies within Jamul Rancho, a land grant covering 8,926.22 acres, granted to Pio Pico in 1829 by Governor Jose Maria Echeandia. Pio Pico later became the last Mexican governor and was granted several additional ranchos, including in modern day Julian and Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton. The title to Jamul Rancho was confirmed in 1831, and Pio Pico and his brother Andres Pico built an adobe home and used the land for cattle grazing. In 1837 an attack on the adobe home resulted in the deaths of Juan Levia and his son and the kidnapping of two daughters; most accounts place this attack on the Jamul Rancho, although others place it on the nearby San Ysidro Rancho (Pigniolo and Baksh 1998, Rush 1965). In 1853 General Henry S. Burton and his wife María Amparo Ruiz de Burton bought Rancho Jamul from Pio Pico, but by 1859 they had moved to the east coast in support of Henry Burton’s military assignments. While the owners of Rancho Jamul were away squatters occupied many portions of the rancho, an activity made legal by the California Land Act of 1851. Eviction of the squatters took several decades. A grant for Rancho Jamul was confirmed in 1876 by the United States Land Commission to General Burton's heirs, including his wife María Amparo Ruiz de Burton and their children Nellie Burton Pedorena and Henry H. Burton. María Amparo Ruiz de Burton was the author of The Squatter and the Don, the first fictional narrative written and published in English from the perspective of the Californio population (Ruiz de Burton et al. 1992). From 1891 to 1895 the rancho was leased to Ed T. Aiken, then moved through the hands of John D. Spreckles in the late 1890s and Louis J. Wilde in 1915, before being taken over in 1929 by George R. Daley who ran a very successful Aberdeen-Angus cattle ranch (Pigniolo and Baksh 1998, Rush 1965). Further Research Review of historical maps, aerial images, and documents reveals that the project vicinity has been subjected to limited development. Although a few structures and dirt roads were located along watercourses within a quarter to a half mile from the project area during the early twentieth century, no development beyond private residences and one paved road have occurred in the immediate vicinity of the project area to date. Ground disturbance dating to the mid-1990s and covering approximately 1.5 acres is visible within the project area when viewed on Google Earth. The T17S R1E plat map, surveyed in 1881, shows no roads or structures within the project area (GLO 1881). The first development in the vicinity predates 1904 when several isolated structures and dirt roads are shown outside the project area, ranging from 0.5 to 1.0 or more miles away to the south and west (USGS 1903, 1943). The terrain was steep and cut by many equally steep gulches. These topographic challenges appear to have discouraged development well into the twentieth century. Between 1955 and 1988 several residences, driveways and roads were constructed less than 0.10 mile from the project area (USGS 1955, 1988), and today paved Presilla Drive passes directly south of the project area. Otay Water District Chapter 1. Introduction Cultural Resources Survey for the OWD 1655-1 Reservoir, Access Road, and 12-inch Pipeline Project San Diego County, California 1-12 March 2019 ICF 00025.19 This page intentionally left blank. Cultural Resources Survey for the OWD 1655-1 Reservoir, Access Road, and 12-inch Pipeline Project San Diego County, California 2-1 March 2019 ICF 00025.19 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 Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) on February 2, 2019. NAHC responded on February 6, 2019, with positive results indicated for cultural resources in the vicinity. The NAHC also provided a list of tribal contacts who may be able to provide additional information. ICF sent letters to these tribal contacts on February 14, 2019 notifying them of the project and requesting a response indicating if they had comments or concerns about the project. An email response was received from Mr. Clint Linton of the Iipay Nation of Santa Ysabel on February 19, 2019, deferring comments to Jamul Indian Village and supporting any recommendations they might have. Ms. Lisa Cumper of Jamul Indian Village responded by letter on February 20, 2019, noting that the project area is within their traditional use area and asking to be updated on the project as it progresses. The Tribe requested a copy of the report and asked that a Native American monitor be present during project-related ground disturbing activities. No other responses were received from the 16 other tribal contacts who were sent outreach letters. In February 2019, ICF archaeologist Nara Cox performed a literature review at the South Coastal Information Center to identify previously documented archaeological, historic, and architectural resources and previous studies in and within 0.25 mile of the project area. The South Coastal Information Center contains all cultural resources records from Imperial and San Diego Counties. The literature review revealed that nine archaeological sites and isolates have been documented within 0.25 mile of the project area (Table 3-1). One is a historic site comprising a structure foundation and associated refuse scatter. Of the eight precontact resources, one is a lithic scatter, three are milling features, one is a stacked rock feature, and one is an isolated metate fragment. The remaining two precontact sites consist of multiple loci including extensive milling features, lithic and ceramic artifacts, and some alteration of the soil, which is associated with human activity. Of the sites described above, only one (CA-SDI-013702) intersects with the project area. No historic addresses or built environment resources have been previously recorded within the study area. A brief summary of CA-SDI-013702 is provided below. CA-SDI-013702: This site consists of a light lithic scatter over a 40 by 30 meter area. At the time of its recordation, 20 to 25 basalt flakes were observed at the surface. The site is described as being on a spur surrounded by heavy brush. Seasonal drainages lie 10–20 meters north and south of the site. (Brian F. Smith and Associates 1994 ). The site was subsequently tested by Tierra Environmental Services in 1998 to determine its northern boundary. No subsurface component was observed at that time. One isolated flake was observed at the surface within the testing area; however, the site boundary was not extended to include it as it was representative of sheet wash from upslope and not in its primary location of deposition (Pigniolo and Baksh 1998). The site has not been evaluated for its eligibility for listing in the NRHP or CRHR. Otay Water District Chapter 2. Native American Outreach and Literature Review Cultural Resources Survey for the OWD 1655-1 Reservoir, Access Road, and 12-inch Pipeline Project San Diego County, California 2-2 March 2019 ICF 00025.19 Table 1. Cultural Resources within 0.25 Mile of the Project Area Primary No. (P-37-) Trinomial (CA-SDI-) Resource Type Description Recorder(s) Date Recorded 005394 005394 Prehistoric Site Resource procurement and processing site comprised by two loci and a rock shelter a. Berryman b. Eckhardt c. Westec d. Brian F. Smith and Associates a. 1976 b. 1977 c. 1979 d. 2008 005399 005399 Prehistoric Site A seasonal campsite comprised by four adjacent loci a. Berryman b. Eckhardt c. Westec d. Brian F. Smith and Associates a. 1976 b. 1977 c. 1979 d. 2008 005409 005409 Site Structure foundation and associated refuse, one isolated prehistoric tool a. Eckhardt b. Westec a. 1977 b. 1979 009778 009778 Prehistoric Site One bedrock milling feature Polan 1983 019010 013702 Prehistoric Site Lithic scatter Brian F. Smith and Associates 1994 029883 019106 Prehistoric Site One bedrock milling feature Brian F. Smith and Associates 2008 029884 019107 Prehistoric Site One bedrock milling feature Brian F. Smith and Associates 2008 029890 Isolated Prehistoric artifact Metate fragment Brian F. Smith and Associates 2008 029891 Isolated Prehistoric feature Stacked rock cairn Brian F. Smith and Associates 2008 *Shaded lines indicate those resources which are located within or directly adjacent to the project area. A total of 18 cultural resources studies have been conducted within a 0.25-mile radius of the study area. The oldest of these was conducted in 1976 and the most recent in 2015. One (SD-04194) is missing from the record center; as such, no data is available. Table 2 lists all of the cultural studies conducted for a 0.25-mile radius of the entire study area. Otay Water District Chapter 2. Native American Outreach and Literature Review Cultural Resources Survey for the OWD 1655-1 Reservoir, Access Road, and 12-inch Pipeline Project San Diego County, California 2-3 March 2019 ICF 00025.19 Table 2. Cultural Resource Studies within 0.25 Mile of the Project Area Study No. Year Author Title SD-00158 1976 Berryman, Stanley R. Archaeological Investigation of Jamul Subdivision SD-00159 1976 Berryman, Stanley R. Archaeological Investigation of PTPM 558, PTPM 559 SD-00160 1976 Berryman, Stanley R. Archaeological Investigation of Jamul Subdivision SD-00366 1979 Carrico, Richard, Randy Franklin, and Susan H. Carrico Phase II Archaeological Investigations at Rancho Jamul Estates Unit I, Jamul, California SD-00396 1979 Carrico, Richard Phase I Archaeological Investigations at Rancho Jamul Estates Unit 3, Jamul, California SD-00620 1978 Eckhardt, William Phase I Archaeological Investigations at Rancho Jamul Estates Unit 2, Jamul California SD-00621 1977 Eckhardt, William Archaeological - Historical Survey of the Rancho Jamul Estates Jamul, California SD-01120 1980 Hector, Susan M. The Cultural Resources of Proposed Access Roads to the Barrett-to Cameron 69 KV Transmission Line SD-01576 1980 Smith, Brian F. and Larry J. Pierson A First Level Mitigation of Site SDM-W-2700 (SDI- 8220) at the Phillips Lot Split Project Jamul, California TPM 15944, Log # 79-19-38 SD-01700 1984 Polan, H. Keith Genessee Lot Split TPM 17789 Log# 82-19-22 Cultural Resource Survey Report Form County of San Diego, California SD-02796 1992 County of San Diego Jamul-Dulzura Community Plan A70 Use Regulation Tm 4900 Log # 90-19-03, San Diego County SD-03035 1996 Baker, Todd and Brian Smith Results of a Cultural Resource Survey for the Reservoir-Rancho Jamul 0.32 MG. Project for the Otay Municipal Water District SD-03539 1998 Pigniolo, Andrew R and Michael Baksh 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 SD-04194 N/A Carrico, Richard Missing at Record Center SD-08518 1979 Smith, Brian F. Archaeological, Biological and Groundwater Studies - Philips Lot Split SD-08625 1976 Berryman, Stanley Archaeological Reconnaissance of the Rancho Jamul Estates SD-10562 1979 Smith, Brian Archaeological Survey Report for the Phillips Lot Split TPM #15944, EAD Log #79-19-38 SD-15539 2015 Brian F. Smith Cultural Resources Monitoring Report for the Knudson Residence Private Driveway and Residence Pad Project (Grading Permit No. PDS2014-LDGRMN-0005), San Diego County, California *Shaded lines indicate those studies which intersect with or encompass portions of the project area Otay Water District Chapter 2. Native American Outreach and Literature Review Cultural Resources Survey for the OWD 1655-1 Reservoir, Access Road, and 12-inch Pipeline Project San Diego County, California 2-4 March 2019 ICF 00025.19 This page intentionally left blank. Cultural Resources Survey for the OWD 1655-1 Reservoir, Access Road, and 12-inch Pipeline Project San Diego County, California 3-1 March 2019 ICF 00025.19 Chapter 3 Research Design Objectives The objectives of this study include the following.  Re-locating previously documented archaeological resources.  Identifying previously undocumented archaeological and historic built resources.  Evaluating all resources within the project area for their eligibility for listing in the NRHP based on surface-exposed and subsurface artifacts and features.  Considering 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. The easternmost 0.80 acre of the project area consists of slopes over 40%, a landform that has 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 area vicinity has a history of precontact use. The presence of seasonal campsites, lithic and ceramic artifact scatters, and resource processing stations in the vicinity of the project area, including sites with substantial subsurface components, suggests that the project area vicinity served as a resource collection and processing area and contained temporary camps or habitation areas. Given the documented presence of sites, features, and artifact scatters in the vicinity, it was considered likely 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.  Ground disturbance dating to the mid-1990s and covering approximately 1.5 acres is visible within the central portion of the project area when viewed on Google Earth. Based on the observed disturbances, the central portion of the project area has limited potential to contain in- situ surface-exposed or buried archaeological deposits. Based on an examination of the existing data, the likelihood for encountering archaeological sites in the project area is considered to be low. Across much of the project area, there is limited potential Otay Water District Chapter 3. Research Designs Cultural Resources Survey for the OWD 1655-1 Reservoir, Access Road, and 12-inch Pipeline Project San Diego County, California 3-2 March 2019 ICF 00025.19 for encountering buried archaeological sites. However, the westernmost portion of the project area retains the potential to contain buried archaeological sites. Methods In order to accomplish the objectives of this study, an intensive pedestrian survey and inventory was conducted. The purpose of the survey was to re-locate documented archaeological resources and identify previously undocumented archaeological and historic built resources based on surface- exposed artifacts and features. Cultural Resources Survey and Inventory ICF archaeologists performed an intensive pedestrian survey in the project area, which consisted of walking transects spaced at 10-meter intervals across the entire parcel and a 50-foot buffer (approximately 7 acres) when vegetation and topography permitted. When necessary, meandering transects were employed for safety at steep drop offs or slopes, or due to dense vegetation where special attention was given to areas of clear ground. During the survey, ICF archaeologists carefully inspected the ground surface, stream-cuts, and animal burrows and back dirt to identify artifacts, features, and infrastructure. In areas within or directly adjacent to previously documented archaeological sites, ICF archaeologists walked transects spaced at 5-meter intervals. The project footprint, access routes, and record search information were loaded onto an iPad tablet with Collector software. Collector software allowed the survey team to navigate to and within the survey area as well as record existing conditions and field observations. Any resources or important landscape features were documented via photography and handheld global positioning system units. The survey crew noted considerable ground disturbance including modified drainages, push piles, and other highly disturbed sediments and boulder outcrops. Cultural Resources Survey for the OWD 1655-1 Reservoir, Access Road, and 12-inch Pipeline Project San Diego County, California 4-1 March 2019 ICF 00025.19 Chapter 4 Results This chapter summarizes the results of the Cultural Resources Survey field investigation. The investigation documented one surface-exposed artifact and one surface-exposed feature temporarily designated as ICF-OWD-ISO 001 and ICF-OWD-ISO 002, respectively. Archaeological resource forms associated with these sites are included in Appendix C. Cultural Resources Survey and Inventory On February 15, 2019, ICF archaeologists Nara Cox and Jordan Menvielle performed an intensive pedestrian survey of the 7-acre project area. During the survey, one surface-exposed artifact and one surface-exposed feature were identified at locations where no archaeological resources were previously documented (temporary designations ICF-OWD-ISO 001 and ICF-OWD-ISO 002). No resources associated with previously documented site CA-SDI-013702 were identified within the plotted site boundary during the survey, possibly due to dense vegetation of leaf litter. Figure 3 shows the locations of these archaeological resources relative to the project area. No other archaeological sites or historic built resources were identified during the survey. A brief summary of each of these resources follows. ICF-OWD-ISO 001: This resource consists of a single isolated fine-grained grey metavolcanic interior flake. The flake displays less than 15% cortex and measures 3.0 centimeters (cm) long by 2.5 cm wide by 0.7 cm thick. No patination, usewear, or modification was present. The isolated flake was not collected. As an isolate, the artifact does not possess the characteristics necessary for inclusion in the NRHP or CRHR. Plate 1: Detail View of Dorsal Surface of ICF-OWD-ISO 001, Plan View Otay Water District Chapter 4. Results Cultural Resources Survey for the OWD 1655-1 Reservoir, Access Road, and 12-inch Pipeline Project San Diego County, California 4-2 March 2019 ICF 00025.19 ICF-OWD-ISO 002: This resource consists of a single feature, a resource processing station formed from one of many granitic boulders in the area. The boulder is roughly rectangular with subrounded corners and measures 135 cm (north/south) by 95 cm (east/west) by 85–100 cm (exposed height). The boulder displays a natural basin measuring 60 cm (north/south) by 35 cm (east/west) by 15 cm (deep). Any ground surface at the base of the basin has degraded beyond perception; however, slicks extend from the basin along a natural approximately 20% slope forming a sort of slanted surface, up and over the raised lip of the boulder. No associated artifacts were present. The resource is not recommended eligible for listing in the NRHP or CRHR. Plate 2: Overview View of Processing Station ICF-OWD-ISO 002, View East Otay Water District Chapter 4. Results Cultural Resources Survey for the OWD 1655-1 Reservoir, Access Road, and 12-inch Pipeline Project San Diego County, California 4-3 March 2019 ICF 00025.19 CA-SDI-013702: This site consists of a light lithic scatter of 20 to 25 basalt flakes over a 40 by 30 meter area (Brian F. Smith and Associates 1994). The site was subsequently tested by Tierra Environmental Services in 1998 to determine the site’s northern boundary. No subsurface component was observed at that time (Pigniolo and Baksh 1998). ICF returned to the recorded northern boundary of the site during the 2019 survey; however, no cultural materials were observed within the survey area. The site may have been misplotted, or dense brush or leaf litter may have obscured cultural components. Based on the site type and subsurface testing the site does not appear to be eligible for listing in the NRHP or CRHR. Plate 3: Overview View of Plotted Northern Boundary of CA-SDI-013702, View East A portion of the project area at its eastern edge (0.80 acre) could not be accessed because it was fenced and composed of slopes of 40% or more. This area was visually inspected from the fence line for outcrops or features that might indicate the presence of archaeological resources such as rock shelters, rock art, or stacked rock features. None were observed. Figure 3 Survey Results CONFIDENTIAL FIGURE; Not for Public Review Cultural Resources Survey for the OWD 1655-1 Reservoir, Access Road, and 12-inch Pipeline Project San Diego County, California 5-1 March 2019 ICF 00025.19 Chapter 5 Conclusions and Recommendations Conclusions The cultural resources survey identified two previously undocumented isolated archaeological resources (ICF-OWD-ISO-001 and ICF-OWD-ISO-002). No component of the previously recorded resource (CA-SDI-013702) was identified within the project area, and no other archaeological or historic built resources were identified as a result of the 2019 pedestrian survey. None of these resources qualify for listing in either the NRHP or CRHR. Recommendations ICF recommends that a Native American monitor and archaeologists monitor project-related ground disturbance that occurs in or within 30 meters of ICF-OWD-ISO-001 and ICF-OWD-ISO-002, as well as in the recorded location of CA-SDI-013702. Archaeological and Native American monitoring is recommended at these locations because the possibility remains that previously undocumented and spatially isolated significant archaeological deposits may be present. 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, which outlines procedures for the unanticipated discovery of archaeological resources during ground-disturbing activities. Otay Water District Chapter 5. Conclusions and Recommendations Cultural Resources Survey for the OWD 1655-1 Reservoir, Access Road, and 12-inch Pipeline Project San Diego County, California 5-2 March 2019 ICF 00025.19 This page intentionally left blank. Cultural Resources Survey for the OWD 1655-1 Reservoir, Access Road, and 12-inch Pipeline Project San Diego County, California 6-1 March 2019 ICF 00025.19 Chapter 6 Bibliography 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 1994 Archaeological Site Record CA-SDI-013702. 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 (ed. J. M. Erlandson and R. H. Colten) 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 for the OWD 1655-1 Reservoir, Access Road, and 12-inch Pipeline Project San Diego County, California 6-2 March 2019 ICF 00025.19 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. General Land Office (GLO) 1881 Township 17 South, Range 1 East, San Bernardino Meridian. U.S. Department of the Interior, Surveyor’s General Office, San Francisco, California. 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. Hedges, Kenneth 1975 Notes on the Kumeyaay: A Problem of Identification. The Journal of California Anthropology 2(1):71–83. Helix Environmental 2018 Biological Resources Letter Report for the 1655-1 Reservoir Project. On file at Otay Water District. 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 Jahns, R. H. 1973 A Profile of Southern California Geology: Guidebooks for American Association of Petroleum Geologists. Society of Exploration Geophysicists, 1973 Annual Meeting in Anaheim, California, SEG Trip 1, pp. 1-26. 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. Otay Water District Chapter 6. Bibliography Cultural Resources Survey for the OWD 1655-1 Reservoir, Access Road, and 12-inch Pipeline Project San Diego County, California 6-3 March 2019 ICF 00025.19 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. 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. Norris, R. M., and R. W. Webb 1990 Geology of California. Second Edition. John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 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. 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. 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. Ruiz de Burton, María Amparo, Rosaura Sánchez, and Beatrice Pita. 1992 The Squatter and the Don. Houston: Arte Público Press. Rush, Philip S. 1965 Some Old Ranchos and Adobes. University of California. San Diego, CA. Otay Water District Chapter 6. Bibliography Cultural Resources Survey for the OWD 1655-1 Reservoir, Access Road, and 12-inch Pipeline Project San Diego County, California 6-4 March 2019 ICF 00025.19 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. 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. United States Geological Survey (USGS) 1903 Cuyamaca, Calif. 30 minute quadrangle. 1943 Jamul, 15 minute quadrangle. 1955 Jamul, 15 minute quadrangle. 1988 Dulzura, 7.5 minute quadrangle. 1997 Dulzura, 7.5 minute quadrangle. Vaughan, S. J. 1982 A Replicative Systems Analysis of the San Dieguito Component at the C.W. Harris Site. Masters 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. Appendix A CA DPR 523 Forms Confidential Information: Not For Public Review This page intentionally left blank. OTAY WATER DISTRICT1655-1 RESERVOIRLOCATION MAP EXHIBIT A CIP P2040F P:\WORKING\CIP P2040 1655-1 Reservoir 0.5 MG\Graphics\Exhibits-Figures\Exhibit A - Staff Report.mxd 5970905000 5970901000 5971011400 5972612200 5970903300 5972612400 59726 11400 5971000600 5971011500 5971000800 5972610200 5 9 7 2 6 1 1 3 0 0 5972611100 5972610500 5972610600 5972612000 5972611900 5972610400 5 9 7 2 6 1 0 3 0 0 5972611500 5972611200 5972610700 59 7 2 6 1 2 1 00 5972621900 5 9 7 2 6 2 0 1 0 0 5971010500 !\ VICINITY MAP PROJECT SITE DIV 5 DIV 1 DIV 2 DIV 4 DIV 3 ÃÅ54 ÃÅ125 ÃÅ94 ÃÅ905 §¨¦805 FNTS PROJECT SITE P R E S IL L A D R OTAY WATER DISTRICT COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO VISTA U F A N O D R L A Q U E B R A D A 0 400200 Feet STAFF REPORT TYPE MEETING: Regular Board MEETING DATE: February 5, 2020 SUBMITTED BY: Bob Kennedy Engineering Manager CIP/G.F. NO: P1210-001000 DIV. NO. ALL APPROVED BY: Dan Martin, Assistant Chief of Engineering Rod Posada, Chief, Engineering Mark Watton, General Manager SUBJECT: Informational Item – Proposal Fee Scoring Evaluation for Consultant Selection GENERAL MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATION: No recommendation. This is an informational item only. COMMITTEE ACTION: Please see Attachment A. PURPOSE: The August 23, 2019 Engineering, Operations and Water Resources (E, O, & WR) Committee (Committee) inquired about the method the District uses to evaluate consultants fee proposals during the selection process. The Committee also asked staff to look at alternative scoring methods for the fee proposal score and report back to the Committee. AGENDA ITEM 11 2 ANALYSIS: Staff presented a brief overview of the consultant selection process at the October 23, 2019 E, O, & WR Committee meeting along with the results of a review of the scoring for the last eleven (11) consultant selections. Staff also presented information on how sensitive these selections were to changes in the total fee score value and reviewed alternative methods of scoring on the evaluation of the fees proposed by consultants. The Committee asked staff to evaluate methodologies that considers scenarios where slight differences in consultant’s submitted fees exist and the methodologies’ results on the selection process and to report back to the Committee. Presently, staff assigns a maximum of fifteen (15) points for fee scoring. Exhibit “A” analyses the results if fee scoring were assigned ten (10) points and twenty (20) points, respectively. Exhibit “A” also analyzes the results if the point score methodology was adjusted to address submitted fees between consultants where submitted total fees are less than $2.00. In reviewing the results of these potential methods, a significant majority of the selections under the proposed methodology would have resulted in the same final selection when compared to the current Board approved fee methodology used as part of the consultant selection process. FISCAL IMPACT: Joe Beachem, Chief Financial Officer No fiscal impact as this is an informational item only. 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. BK/DM/RP:jf P:\Bob Kennedy\Staff Report\Policy 21 Update\Fee Summary\Staff Report - Information of Fee Rating and Scoring for Consultants 01-21-20.doc Attachments: Attachment A – Committee Action Exhibit A – Fee Scoring Evaluation Summary ATTACHMENT A SUBJECT/PROJECT: P1210-001000 Informational Item – Proposal Fee Scoring Evaluation for Consultant Selection COMMITTEE ACTION: The Engineering, Operations, and Water Resources Committee (Committee) reviewed this item at a meeting held on January 21, 2020. 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. 1 Current Method 2 Firm Name Weighted Fee Total Score Before Fee is Scored Fee Score (15 Point Prorated) With 10 Point Prorated Fee Score With 20 Point Prorated Fee Score Fee Score With 20 Points Based on % of Lowest Fee With 15 Point Prorated Fee Score With 10 Point Prorated Fee Score With 20 Point Prorated Fee Score Fee Score With 20 Points Based on % of Lowest Fee 3 As-Needed Traffic Engineering Services (FY 2016-2018) 4 Advantec Consulting Engineers 755$ 69 78 75 81 79 70 70 70 87 5 Darnell & Associates, Inc.650$ 71 83 79 87 85 72 72 72 89 6 Dokken Engineering 818$ 79 87 84 89 89 80 80 80 97 7 Lin Consulting, Inc.630$ 72 84 80 88 88 73 73 73 90 8 Linscott Law & Greenspan Enginee 525$ 68 83 78 88 88 83 78 88 88 9 Kimley Horn & Associates, Inc.1,075$ 76 77 77 77 76 77 77 77 94 10 Nasland Engineering 670$ 70 81 78 85 70 71 71 71 88 11 Rick Engineering Company 585$ 77 90 86 95 93 78 78 78 95 12 STC Traffic, Inc.600$ 73 86 82 90 89 74 74 74 9113 14 As-Needed Engineering Design Consulting Services (FY 2020-2022) 15 B&J HBK 152$ 68 16 Carollo 150$ 114 122 120 125 130 115 115 115 132 17 Hazen and Sawyer 169$ 69 18 Horrocks Engineers 154$ 74 19 Hydroscience Engineers 154$ 108 115 113 117 124 109 109 109 126 20 Lee & Ro 166$ 68 21 NV5 137$ 118 131 127 135 136 133 128 138 138 22 Rick Engineering 131$ 111 126 121 131 131 112 112 112 129 23 Wood Rodgers 157$ 116 121 120 123 116 117 117 117 13424 25 As-Needed Appraisal Services (FY 2019-2021) 26 Anderson & Brabant, Inc.575$ 78 93 88 98 98 93 88 98 98 27 Curtis-Rosenthal, Inc.1,050$ 75 76 76 76 75 76 76 76 93 28 Cushman & Wakefield 600$ 77 91 87 96 95 78 78 78 95 29 Epic Land Solutions, Inc.600$ 78 92 88 97 96 79 79 79 96 30 Hendrickson Appraisal Company, In 580$ 79 94 89 99 97 80 80 80 9731 32 As-Needed Construction Management (FY 2019-2020) 33 Alyson Consulting 142$ 123 131 129 134 139 124 124 124 141 34 G7ei Inc.126$ 102 117 112 122 122 117 112 122 122 35 Louis Berger 161$ 117 118 118 118 131 118 118 118 135 36 Valley, CM 136$ 111 122 119 126 129 112 112 112 129 37 Wallace & Associates 139$ 101 111 108 114 117 102 102 102 11938 August Committee Alternate Methods October Committee Alternate Methods (Assume a $2 Difference in the Weighted Fee) EXHIBIT A1 1 Current Method 2 Firm Name Weighted Fee Total Score Before Fee is Scored Fee Score (15 Point Prorated) With 10 Point Prorated Fee Score With 20 Point Prorated Fee Score Fee Score With 20 Points Based on % of Lowest Fee With 15 Point Prorated Fee Score With 10 Point Prorated Fee Score With 20 Point Prorated Fee Score Fee Score With 20 Points Based on % of Lowest Fee August Committee Alternate Methods October Committee Alternate Methods (Assume a $2 Difference in the Weighted Fee) 39 As-Needed Plan Check Services for Developer Potable and Recycled Water Projects for Fiscal Years 2020, 2021, and 2022 40 AEGIS ENGINEERING MANAGEM 102$ 65 80 75 85 85 80 75 85 85 41 MURRAYSMITH 148$ 81 82 82 82 91 82 82 82 9942 43 As-Needed Hydraulic Modeling (FY 2019-2020) 44 Akel 168$ 67 68 68 68 81 68 68 68 85 45 Hazen 154$ 66 73 71 75 82 67 67 67 84 46 Mission Consulting Services 135$ 67 82 77 87 87 82 77 87 87 47 Wood Rodgers 149$ 77 86 83 89 93 78 78 78 95 48 WSC 155$ 80 87 85 89 96 81 81 81 9849 50 As-Needed Electrical Engineering Consulting Services (FY 2020-2022) 51 BSE Engineering, Inc.895$ 74 75 75 75 92 75 75 75 92 52 Engineering Partners, Inc. (EPI)835$ 67 82 77 87 87 82 77 87 87 53 Linkture Consulting Engineers, Inc 843$ 68 81 77 85 86 81 81 81 98 54 Moraes/Pham & Associates 860$ 77 86 83 89 95 86 86 86 10355 56 As-Needed Hydraulic Modeling (FY 2018-2019) 57 Akel 155$ 67 75 72 77 77 68 68 68 85 58 Arcadis 145$ 71 80 77 83 83 72 72 72 89 59 Hazen 142$ 75 85 82 88 87 76 76 76 93 60 NCS 106$ 66 81 76 86 86 81 76 86 86 61 West Yost 200$ 73 74 74 74 75 74 74 74 91 62 WSC 152$ 77 85 83 88 87 78 78 78 9563 64 As-Needed Asset Management Services (FY 2018-2020) 65 Carollo 179$ 71 80 77 82 85 72 72 72 89 66 Hazen and Sawyer 143$ 76 91 86 96 96 91 86 96 96 67 HDR 143$ 72 87 82 92 90 73 73 73 90 68 Tata & Howard 224$ 71 72 72 72 79 72 72 72 8969 70 As-Needed Utility Locating Services (FY 2018-2020) 71 AIRX UTILITY SURVEYORS 1,000$ 80 95 90 100 100 95 90 100 100 72 CBELOW SUBSURFACE IMAGING 1,330$ 73 74 74 74 85 74 74 74 91 73 CABLE PIPE AND LEAK DETECTIO 1,120$ 54 64 61 67 70 55 55 55 7274 75 As-needed Environmental Services (FY 2020-2022) 76 Chambers Group 118$ 71 77 EI 126$ 71 78 Helix 114$ 125 140 135 145 125 140 135 145 145 79 ICF 126$ 127 134 132 136 127 128 128 128 145 80 RECON 135$ 115 116 116 116 115 116 116 116 133 81 Rincon 124$ 112 121 118 123 112 113 113 113 130 83 Deviations from Current Method 3.5 0 0.5 1 2 4 3 7 3 84 Total Consultants Scored 5885 86 Consistent with Final Selection 81% 100% 97% 94% 89% 78% 83% 61% 83% EXHIBIT A2 STAFF REPORT TYPE MEETING: Regular Board MEETING DATE: February 5, 2020 SUBMITTED BY: Dan Martin Assistant Chief of Engineering PROJECT: Various DIV. NO. ALL APPROVED BY: Rod Posada, Chief, Engineering Mark Watton, General Manager SUBJECT: Informational Item – First Quarter Fiscal Year 2020 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 CIP project expenditures and to highlight significant issues, progress, and milestones on major 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's reimbursement projects. The First Quarter Fiscal Year 2020 update is intended to provide a detailed analysis of progress in completing these projects within the allotted time and budget of $17.22 million. Expenditures through the AGENDA ITEM 12 2 First Quarter totaled approximately $5.04 million. Approximately 29% of the Fiscal Year 2020 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 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. DM/RP:jf P:\Forms\D-Construction\CIP Quarterly Reports\CIP Qtr Reports\FY 2020\Q1\Staff Report\BD 02-05-20 Staff Report First Quarter FY 2020 CIP Report (DM-RP).docx Attachments: Attachment A – Committee Action Attachment B - Fiscal Year 2020 First Quarter CIP Expenditure Report Attachment C – Presentation ATTACHMENT A SUBJECT/PROJECT: VARIOUS Informational Item – First Quarter Fiscal Year 2020 Capital Improvement Program Report COMMITTEE ACTION: The Engineering, Operations, and Water Resources Committee (Committee) reviewed this item at a Committee Meeting held on January 21, 2020. 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 2020 1ST QUARTER REPORT (Expenditures through 9/30/2019)($000) ATTACHMENT B 2020 09/30/19 CIP No.Description Project Manager FY 2020 Budget Expenses Balance Expense to Budget %Budget Expenses Balance Expense to Budget %FY 2020 Q1 CommentsCAPITAL FACILITY PROJECTS - P2040 Res - 1655-1 Reservoir 0.5 MG Cameron 30$ 23$ 7$ 77%4,500$ 620$ 3,880$ 14%The remaining budget will be used for environmental work. P2405 PL - 624/340 PRS, Paseo Ranchero and Otay Valley Road Cameron 5 - 5 0%1,500 - 1,500 0% This project is tied to P2553 and is driven by the City of Chula Vista. Construction is scheduled for FY 2022. P2451 Otay Mesa Desalination Conveyance and Disinfection System Kennedy 10 - 10 0%3,975 3,823 152 96% EIR/EIS complete and Presidential permit issued. Continue meetings with DDW and AdR. P2453 SR-11 Utility Relocations Marchioro 270 3 267 1%3,000 1,916 1,084 64% Schedule driven by Caltrans. Caltrans awarded construction contract FY 2019 Q4. Completion of construction anticipated for FY 2021. P2460 I.D. 7 Trestle and Pipeline Demolition Beppler 80 1 79 1%600 11 589 2% Environmental surveys proposed to be performed in spring of FY 2020; with demolition proposed for FY 2022.P2485 SCADA - Infrastructure and Communications Replacement Kerr 60 71 (11) 118%2,428 2,205 223 91%Currently on target with Project expenditure. P2494 Multiple Species Conservation Plan Coburn-Boyd 30 - 30 0%1,000 928 72 93%This budget may be used in the second half of the fiscal year. P2516 PL - 12-Inch, 640 Zone, Jamacha Road - Darby/Osage Marchioro - - - 0%1,000 - 1,000 0%No expenditures anticipated in FY 2020. Completion of construction anticipated FY 2025. P2521 Large Meter Vault Upgrade Program Carey 100 - 100 0%620 328 292 53%Most work to occur in Q3 & Q4. P2553 Heritage Road Bridge Replacement and Utility Relocation Cameron 40 6 34 15%3,500 35 3,465 1% Project is driven by the City of Chula Vista's schedule for replacement; the City has delayed the design. The City provided design parameters to the District in June 2019. Design will begin in FY 2020. P2584 Res - 657-1 and 657-2 Reservoir Demolitions Marchioro - - - 0%51 - 51 0% No expenditures anticipated in FY 2020. These Reservoirs are scheduled to be removed at the end of their useful life.P2608 PL - 8-inch, 850 Zone, Coronado Ave, Chestnut/Apple Cameron 50 13 37 26%820 35 785 4%Project is currently in design. P2611 Quarry Road Bridge Replacement and Utility Relocation Cameron 75 13 62 17%1,300 63 1,237 5%This is a County of San Diego driven project. Project is currently in design. P2612 PL - 12-inch, 711 Zone, Paso de Luz/Telegraph Canyon Rd Cameron 50 36 14 72%500 77 423 15%Project is in planning stage, and is expected to start design in late FY 2020.P2614 485-1 Reservoir Interior/Exterior Coating Cameron - - - 0%895 - 895 0%No expenditures in FY 2020. P2617 Lobby Security Enhancements Payne 150 47 103 31%225 103 122 46% Final phase solicitation resulted in no-bid. New solicitation expected mid FY 2020 with close out at the close of FY 2020. P2619 PS - Temporary Lower Otay Pump Station Redundancy Marchioro 2,000 26 1,974 1%3,200 423 2,777 13% Notice to proceed to install redundant trailer was issued FY 2020, Q1. Delivery of redundant trailer scheduled for FY 2020, Q3. Completion of construction anticipated FY 2020, Q4. P2623 Central Area to Otay Mesa Interconnection Pipelines Combination Air/Vacuum Valve Replacements Marchioro 50 - 50 0%500 214 286 43% Easement offer sent to property owner FY2019, Q4. Design phase for valve relocations scheduled to commence FY2020, Q3. Completion of construction anticipated FY 2021. P2626 803-4 Reservoir Water Quality Improvements – PAX System Purchase Coburn-Boyd 150 - 150 0%325 - 325 0%This budget is on track; expenditures to begin in the second quarter.P2630 624-3 Reservoir Automation of Chemical Feed System Cameron 5 - 5 0%505 - 505 0%Budget for preliminary planning. P2638 Buildings and Grounds Refurbishments Payne 89 5 84 6%114 15 99 13%Admin paint solicitation in development; grounds work to be complete end of FY 2020. P2639 Vista Diego Hydropneumatic Pump Station Replacement Marchioro 25 - 25 0%2,800 - 2,800 0% Advance planning work scheduled to commence FY2020, Q3. Completion of construction anticipated FY 2022.P2640 Portable Trailer Mounted VFD Pumps Marchioro 458 3 455 1%550 59 491 11%Trailer delivery anticipated FY 2020 Q3. P2642 Rancho Jamul Pump Station Replacement Marchioro 5 - 5 0%2,500 - 2,500 0% Project will be coordinated with P2040, 1655-1 Reservoir. Completion of construction currently scheduled for FY 2024. P2646 North District Area Cathodic Protection Improvements Marchioro - - - 0%1,200 - 1,200 0%No expenditures anticipated in FY 2020. Completion of construction anticipated FY 2024. P2647 Central Area Cathodic Protection Improvements Marchioro - - - 0%1,300 - 1,300 0%No expenditures anticipated in FY 2020. Completion of construction anticipated FY 2024. P2648 Otay Mesa Area Cathodic Protection Improvements Marchioro 100 16 84 16%430 47 383 11% Completion of design phase scheduled for FY 2020, Q4. Completion of construction anticipated FY 2021. P2649 HVAC Equipment Purchase Payne 44 - 44 0%130 10 120 8%Five year schedule; OPS scheduled for calendar 2019.P2652 520 to 640 Pressure Zone Conversion Cameron 20 - 20 0%250 - 250 0%Planning to begin in Q2 FY 2020. P2654 Heritage Road Interconnection Improvements Marchioro 65 9 56 14%200 9 191 5% Completion of design phase scheduled for FY 2020, Q4. Completion of construction anticipated FY 2021. P2658 832-1 Pump Station Modifications Cameron 15 - 15 0%600 - 600 0%Planning to begin in Q2 FY 2020. FISCAL YEAR-TO-DATE, 09/30/19 LIFE-TO-DATE, 09/30/19 Y:\Board\CurBdPkg\ENGRPLAN\2020\02-05-2020\First Quarter FY 2020 CIP Report(DanM)\Copy of FY20 1st qtr exp Page 1 of 16 1/13/2020 FISCAL YEAR 2020 1ST QUARTER REPORT (Expenditures through 9/30/2019)($000) ATTACHMENT B 2020 09/30/19 CIP No.Description Project Manager FY 2020 Budget Expenses Balance Expense to Budget %Budget Expenses Balance Expense to Budget %FY 2020 Q1 Comments FISCAL YEAR-TO-DATE, 09/30/19 LIFE-TO-DATE, 09/30/19 P2659 District Boardroom Improvements Kerr 180 - 180 0%200 - 200 0%Will seek Board approval in Jan 2020. P2660 Camino Elevado Drive OWD and SWA Interconnection Upgrade Beppler 3 - 3 0%250 - 250 0% Assessments will be implemented during the fiscal year. No work performed in Q1. P2663 Potable Water Pressure Vessel Program Marchioro 50 - 50 0%1,500 - 1,500 0% Advanced planning work for Rancho Jamul Hydropneumatic station, hydropneumatic tank replacement began FY 2020 Q2. P2664 Otay Mesa Dual Piping Modification Program Beppler 10 - 10 0%350 - 350 0%Assessments will be implemented during the fiscal year. No work performed in Q1. R2116 RecPL - 14-Inch, 927 Zone, Force Main Improvements Marchioro 25 13 12 52%2,250 2,205 45 98%Post construction mitigation work anticipated to complete FY 2020, Q4.R2118 Steele Canyon Sewer PS Large Solids Handling Improvements Beppler 5 - 5 0%175 174 1 99%Project in warranty until Q3.R2120 RWCWRF Filtered Water Storage Tank Improvements Cameron 390 10 380 3%575 42 533 7%This project was delayed until FY 2021. R2125 RecPRS - 927/680 PRS Improvements, Otay Lakes Road Marchioro 45 25 20 56%225 47 178 21%Project scope reduced. Completion of construction anticipated FY2020, Q4. R2146 Recycled Pipeline Cathodic Protection Improvements Marchioro 40 - 40 0%700 - 700 0% Advanced planning work scheduled to commence FY 2020 Q3. Completion of construction anticipated FY 2022.R2150 RWCWRF - Secondary Chlorine Analyzer and Feed System Beppler 1 - 1 0%55 53 2 96%Project in warranty until Q3. S2012 San Diego County Sanitation District Outfall and RSD Outfall Replacement Beppler 50 - 50 0%1,800 1,111 689 62%Annual County invoicing covers this project. No District involvement in design and construction.S2027 Rancho San Diego Pump Station Rehabilitation Beppler 5 - 5 0%3,060 3,050 10 100%Project in warranty in Q1. S2043 RWCWRF Sludge Handling System Beppler 100 22 78 22%390 76 314 19% Draft report on whether the District should perform solids handling on-site was prepared in Q1. Final report to be completed in Q2.S2047 Asset Management - Info Master Sewer Implementation Zhao 5 - 5 0%58 38 20 66%No expenditures planned in Q1. S2061 RWCWRF Aeration Controls Consolidation & Optimization Upgrades (S)Beppler 30 - 30 0%220 2 218 1%Plant staff has started reaching out to vendors to assess control modification options in Q1. S2067 RWCWRF Roofing Replacement and Natural Light Enhancement Payne 145 - 145 0%165 16 149 10% Consultant report is in and it is above budget. Adjustment to budget is being considered for next fiscal year. S2071 San Diego Metro Wastewater Capital Improvements Kennedy 132 33 99 25%1,546 33 1,513 2%Annual City of S.D invoicing covers this project. No District involvement in design and construction. Total Capital Facility Projects Total:5,192 375 4,817 7%54,037 17,768 36,269 33% REPLACEMENT/RENEWAL PROJECTS P2083 PS - 870-2 Pump Station Replacement Marchioro 4,700 1,697 3,003 36%18,950 16,226 2,724 86%Construction on track for completion in FY 2020, Q3. P2174 PS - 1090-1 Pump Station Upgrade Beppler 350 1 349 0%2,000 35 1,965 2% Mechanical design occurred in Q1. Design of electrical portion of the project will begin in Q2 with As-Needed Electrical Engineer contract executed. P2507 East Palomar Street Utility Relocation Cameron 4 - 4 0%735 728 7 99%Budget is for staff time to collect final reimbursement. P2508 Pipeline Cathodic Protection Replacement Program Marchioro 50 22 28 44%1,250 1,231 19 98%Construction completed FY 2020, Q1. Project one year warranty scheduled to complete FY 2021 Q1. P2533 1200-1 Reservoir Interior & Exterior Coating Cameron 25 3 22 12%895 27 868 3%Budget is for planning and design late FY 2020.P2534 978-1 Reservoir Interior & Exterior Coating Cameron 5 1 4 20%650 603 47 93%Remaining budget is for warranty repairs. P2539 South Bay Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) Utility Relocations Cameron 20 20 - 100%1,090 972 118 89%Project is driven by SANDAG. Expenditures within overall project budget.P2543 850-1 Reservoir Interior/Exterior Coating Cameron 810 18 792 2%940 26 914 3%This project was delayed until FY 2021. P2544 850-2 Reservoir Interior/Exterior Coating Cameron 5 26 (21) 520%980 867 113 88%Project was in litigation, which has now concluded. Remaining budget is for warranty repairs. P2546 980-2 Reservoir Interior/Exterior Coating Cameron 5 - 5 0%1,705 1,686 19 99%Project accepted in November 2018, and is in the 2 year warranty period.P2555 Administration and Operations Parking Lot Improvements Cameron 30 27 3 90%935 889 46 95%Budget is for warranty and ancillary items. P2561 Res - 711-3 Reservoir Cover/Liner Replacement Marchioro 50 34 16 68%2,300 2,123 177 92%Completion of construction anticipated FY 2020, Q2. P2562 Res - 571-1 Reservoir Cover/Liner Replacement Marchioro 20 - 20 0%2,900 2,707 193 93% As part of the larger 870-2 Pump Station project, the 571-1 Reservoir was placed back into service April 2018. P2563 Res - 870-1 Reservoir Cover/Liner Replacement Marchioro 5 - 5 0%1,250 6 1,244 0% Advanced planning work scheduled to commence FY 2020, Q2. Completion of construction anticipated FY 2022. P2565 803-2 Reservoir Interior/Exterior Coating & Upgrades Cameron 125 237 (112) 190%1,200 917 283 76% The contractor on the project was delayed due to the release of water from Loveland Reservoir. More work was completed in FY 2020 than anticipated. Project completed and in the 2 year warranty period.P2567 1004-2 Reservoir Interior/Exterior Coating & Upgrades Cameron - - - 0%965 - 965 0%No expenditures in FY 2020. Y:\Board\CurBdPkg\ENGRPLAN\2020\02-05-2020\First Quarter FY 2020 CIP Report(DanM)\Copy of FY20 1st qtr exp Page 2 of 16 1/13/2020 FISCAL YEAR 2020 1ST QUARTER REPORT (Expenditures through 9/30/2019)($000) ATTACHMENT B 2020 09/30/19 CIP No.Description Project Manager FY 2020 Budget Expenses Balance Expense to Budget %Budget Expenses Balance Expense to Budget %FY 2020 Q1 Comments FISCAL YEAR-TO-DATE, 09/30/19 LIFE-TO-DATE, 09/30/19 P2573 PL - 12-Inch Pipeline Replacement, 803 Zone, Hillsdale Road Beppler 5 - 5 0%2,580 2,572 8 100%Warranty period expired in Q1. No further expenditures are anticipated at this time. P2574 PL - 12-Inch Pipeline Replacement, 978 Zone, Vista Vereda Beppler 230 267 (37) 116%1,640 1,336 304 81%Construction continued in Q1. Substantial completion expected in Q2. P2578 PS - 711-2 (PS 711-1 Replacement and Expansion) - 14,000 gpm Marchioro - - - 0%13,000 - 13,000 0% No expenditures anticipated in FY 2020. Replacement scheduled for FY 2023-2025 to coincide with development of Villages 4, 8, 9, & 3. P2593 458-1 Reservoir Interior/Exterior Coating & Upgrades Cameron - - - 0%1,050 - 1,050 0%No expenditures in FY 2020.P2594 Large Meter Replacement Carey 60 2 58 3%650 455 195 70%On target; most work will occur after Q2. P2604 AMR Change-Out Carey 1,300 1,087 213 84%6,290 5,482 808 87%Change-out project set to begin in Nov; product purchased in Q1. P2605 458/340 PRS Replacement, 1571 Melrose Ave Beppler 295 24 271 8%475 69 406 15%Design services occurred in Q1. Final design and bidding to be completed in Q2. P2607 Douglas Ave SWA and OWD Interconnection Upgrade Beppler 20 - 20 0%50 3 47 6%Project being designed by SWA; design expected to be completed this fiscal year. P2609 PL - 8-inch, 1004 Zone, Eucalyptus St, Coronado/Date/La Mesa Cameron 225 36 189 16%800 77 723 10% Project is currently in design. Construction to begin in Q4 FY 2020P2610Valve Replacement Program - Phase 1 Cameron 50 - 50 0%275 22 253 8%Operations is taking the lead on this project. P2615 PL - 12-Inch Pipeline Replacement, 803 PZ, Vista Grande Beppler 25 7 18 28%2,200 26 2,174 1% Preliminary design report to be completed this fiscal year. Further design needs to wait for paving restriction to elapse. P2616 PL - 12-Inch Pipeline Replacement, 978 Zone, Pence Dr/Vista Sierra Dr Beppler 170 43 127 25%3,300 110 3,190 3%Preliminary design report to be completed in Q2. Design to begin in Q3. P2625 PL - 12-inch, 978 Zone, Hidden Mesa Road Beppler 200 13 187 7%2,210 2,074 136 94%Construction continued in Q1. Substantial completion expected in Q2. P2627 458/340 PRS Replacement, 1505 Oleander Ave Beppler 300 28 272 9%475 95 380 20%Design services occurred in Q1. Final design and bidding to be completed in Q2.P2631 1485-2 Reservoir Interior/Exterior Coating & Upgrades Cameron - - - 0%1,055 - 1,055 0%No expenditures in FY 2020. P2653 1200 Pressure Zone Improvements Marchioro 200 31 169 16%325 31 294 10% Phase 1 design completed FY 2020, Q2. Completion of Phase 1 construction scheduled for FY 2020, Q4. Completion of Phase 2 construction scheduled for FY 2021. P2655 La Presa Pipeline Improvements Cameron 15 5 10 33%1,750 5 1,745 0% Budget is for pre-planning and geotechnical investigation. P2656 Regulatory Site Desilting Basin Improvements Beppler 40 - 40 0%150 - 150 0%No design work performed in Q1. Obtain structural design scope of work in Q3.P2657 1485-1 Reservoir Interior/Exterior Coating & Upgrades Cameron - - - 0%30 - 30 0%No expenditures in FY 2020. P2661 Replacement of Backflow Prevention Devices on Pipeline Interconnections on Otay Mesa Beppler 10 - 10 0%375 - 375 0%Engineering staff to coordinate with Operations' staff in Q3 to evaluate the system.P2662 Potable Water Meter Change Out Carey - - - 0%1,950 - 1,950 0%No expenditures in FY 2020. R2121 Res - 944-1 Reservoir Cover/Liner Replacement Marchioro 60 - 60 0%1,800 19 1,781 1% Completion of design phase scheduled for FY 2020, Q4. Completion of construction anticipated FY 2021. R2139 RWCWRF - Filter Troughs Replacement Beppler 1 - 1 0%40 34 6 85%Project in warranty until Q3. R2143 AMR Change-Out Carey 130 65 65 50%525 314 211 60%Change-out project set to begin in Nov; product purchased in Q1.R2145 RWCWRF - Filter Media and Nozzles Replacement Beppler 1 - 1 0%130 117 13 90%Project in warranty until Q3. R2147 RWCWRF Fuel Lines Replacement Marchioro 10 36 (26) 360%225 222 3 99%Construction completed FY 2020, Q1. Project one year warranty scheduled to complete FY 2021 Q1. R2148 Large Meter Replacement - Recycled Carey 12 - 12 0%58 - 58 0%On target; most work will occur after Q2. R2151 RWCWRF - Bulk Chlorine Vapor Scrubber System Refurbishment Lintner 1 - 1 0%40 39 1 98%This project is complete and will be closed at the end of the fiscal year.R2152 Recycled Water Meter Change-Out Carey - - - 0%70 - 70 0%No expenditures in FY 2020.R2153 Recycled Water Pressure Vessel Program Marchioro 1 - 1 0%50 - 50 0%No expenditures anticipated in FY 2020. S2024 Campo Road Sewer Main Replacement Beppler 1,500 713 787 48%10,980 10,343 637 94%Construction continued in Q1. Substantial completion expected in Q2. S2045 Fuerte Drive Sewer Relocation Beppler 20 - 20 0%370 278 92 75%Warranty period expired in Q1. No further expenditures are anticipated at this time.S2046 RWCWRF - Aeration Panels Replacement Beppler 5 - 5 0%250 250 - 100%Project in warranty until Q3. S2048 Hillsdale Road Sewer Repairs Beppler 5 - 5 0%720 692 28 96%Warranty period expired in Q1. No further expenditures are anticipated at this time. S2049 Calavo Basin Sewer Rehabilitation - Phase 2 Beppler 40 22 18 55%1,000 60 940 6%Design services occurred in Q1. Final design not expected to be completed until FY 2021. S2050 Rancho San Diego Basin Sewer Rehabilitation - Phase 2 Beppler 5 - 5 0%820 7 813 1%Planning services to be performed during FY 2020 as time allows.S2051 RWCWRF - Headworks Improvements Beppler 5 - 5 0%250 246 4 98%Project in warranty until Q3.S2053 RWCWRF - Sedimentation Basins Weirs Replacement Beppler 1 - 1 0%60 53 7 88%Project in warranty until Q3.S2054 Calavo Basin Sewer Rehabilitation - Phase 3 Beppler - - - 0%10 - 10 0%No work planned for FY 2020.S2060 Steele Canyon Pump Station Replacement Beppler - - - 0%200 - 200 0%No work planned for FY 2020.S2066 Rancho San Diego Basin Sewer Rehabilitation - Phase 3 Beppler - - - 0%10 - 10 0%No work planned for FY 2020. Y:\Board\CurBdPkg\ENGRPLAN\2020\02-05-2020\First Quarter FY 2020 CIP Report(DanM)\Copy of FY20 1st qtr exp Page 3 of 16 1/13/2020 FISCAL YEAR 2020 1ST QUARTER REPORT (Expenditures through 9/30/2019)($000) ATTACHMENT B 2020 09/30/19 CIP No.Description Project Manager FY 2020 Budget Expenses Balance Expense to Budget %Budget Expenses Balance Expense to Budget %FY 2020 Q1 Comments FISCAL YEAR-TO-DATE, 09/30/19 LIFE-TO-DATE, 09/30/19 S2069 Cottonwood Sewer Pump Station Renovation Beppler 10 4 6 40%1,800 4 1,796 0%Planning services to be performed during FY2020 as time allows. S2070 Hidden Mountain Sewer Pump Station Wet Well Renovation Beppler 130 17 113 13%150 17 133 11%Design services occurred in Q1. Final design and bidding to be completed in Q2. Total Replacement/Renewal Projects Total:11,286 4,486 6,800 40%98,933 54,095 44,838 55% CAPITAL PURCHASE PROJECTS P2282 Vehicle Capital Purchases Rahders 439 161 278 37%6,000 4,640 1,360 77% $59,994 expensed Q1 for the purchase of CP items 8 & 10 compact trucks. Expecting $223,354 Q2 for the purchase of CP items 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 replacement trucks and Q3 $130,000 for the purchase of CP item 9 replacement truck. P2286 Field Equipment Capital Purchases Rahders 203 12 191 6%2,250 1,830 420 81% $45,270 expensed Q1 for the purchase of CP Item 11 Fuel trailers and CP item 2 flow meter. Expecting $156,155 Q2 for the purchase of CP items 2 (chlorine pump) and 12 (portable genset). P2571 Data Center Network Data Storage and Infrastructure Enhancements Kerr 100 2 98 2%200 114 86 57%Remaining funds will be utilized FY2020, Q2/Q3. P2572 Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) Replacement Kerr - - - 0%130 - 130 0%Will commence project FY 2020, Q3. Total Capital Purchase Projects Total:742 175 567 24%8,580 6,584 1,996 77% DEVELOPER REIMBURSEMENT PROJECTS P2595 PL - 16-inch, 624 Zone, Village 3N - Heritage Road, Main St/Energy Way Beppler 1 - 1 0%150 - 150 0%Project under construction, awaiting developer submission for reimbursement. R2084 RecPL - 20-Inch, 680 Zone, Village 2 - Heritage/La Media Beppler 1 - 1 0%365 1 364 0%Project under construction, awaiting developer submission for reimbursement. Total Developer Reimbursement Projects Total:2 - 2 0%515 1 514 0% 113 GRAND TOTAL 17,222$ 5,036$ 12,186$ 29%162,065$ 78,448$ 83,617$ 48% Y:\Board\CurBdPkg\ENGRPLAN\2020\02-05-2020\First Quarter FY 2020 CIP Report(DanM)\Copy of FY20 1st qtr exp Page 4 of 16 1/13/2020 Otay Water District Capital Improvement Program Fiscal Year 2020 First Quarter (through September 30, 2019) ATTACHMENT C 870-2 Pump Station Looking South –Final Yard Piping 09-12-2019 Background The approved CIP Budget for Fiscal Year 2020 consists of 113 projects that total $17.2 million. These projects are broken down into four categories. 1.Capital Facilities $ 5.2 million 2.Replacement/Renewal $11.3 million 3.Capital Purchases $ 0.7 million 4.Developer Reimbursement $ 2.0 thousand Overall expenditures through the First Quarter of Fiscal Year 2020 totaled $5.0 million, which is approximately 29% of the Fiscal Year budget. 2 Fiscal Year 2020 First Quarter Update ($000) CIP CAT Description FY 2020 Budget FY 2020 Expenditures % FY 2020 Budget Spent Total Life-to-Date Budget TotalLife-to-Date Expenditures % Life-to-Date Budget Spent 1 Capital Facilities $5,192 $375 7%$54,037 $17,768 33% 2 Replacement/Renewal $11,286 $4,486 40%$98,933 $54,095 55% 3 Capital Purchases $742 $175 24%$8,580 $6,584 77% 4 Developer Reimbursement $2 $0 0%$515 $1 0% Total: $17,222 $5,036 29%$162,065 $78,448 48% 3 Fiscal Year 2020 First Quarter CIP Budget Forecast vs. Expenditures 4 $5,036,000 $- $2,000,000 $4,000,000 $6,000,000 $8,000,000 $10,000,000 $12,000,000 $14,000,000 $16,000,000 $18,000,000 $20,000,000 Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun FISCAL YEAR PERIOD IN MONTHS Budget Forecast Total Expenditures $17,222,000 5 CIP Projects in Construction 870-2 Pump Station Replacement Project (P2083/P2562) Replacement of existing 870 High Head and Low Head Pump Stations. Remove and Replace the existing 571-1 Reservoir liner and cover. $21.65M Budget Start: July 2017 Completion: March 2020 870-2 Pump Station Interior –Engine Walkway Division No. 2 Location: North East corner of Otay Mesa. Existing 571-1 Reservoir and High Head/Low Head Pump Station site. 6 09-09-2019 CIP Projects in Construction 803-2 Reservoir Interior/Exterior Coating & Upgrades Project (P2565) Remove and replace existing interior and exterior coatings. Construct structural upgrades to increase the service life. $1.20M Budget Start: December 2018 Completion: September 2019 803-2 (2.0 MG) –Reservoir in testing Division No. 5 Location: 803-2 Reservoir is located adjacent to Willow Glen Drive. 7 08-27-2019 CIP Projects in Construction 711-3 Floating Cover and Liner Replacement (P2561) Remove and replace existing floating cover and liner with new reinforced Chlorosulfonated Polyethylene (CSPE) geomembrane cover and liner. $2.3M Budget Start: August 2018 Completion: November 2019 711-3 (16.0 MG) –Reservoir in Testing Division No. 5 Location: 711-3 is located at the north end of Hunte Parkway in Chula Vista. 8 09-09-2019 CIP Projects in Construction Campo Road Sewer Replacement Project (S2024) Replace existing 10- inch sewer with 7,420 linear feet of new 15- inch sewer. Reconnection of sewer laterals. Night work. $10.98M Budget Start: July 2017 Estimated Completion: December 2019 Campo Road -Manhole Connection Avocado Blvd. Sta. 10+00 Division No. 5 Location: Campo Road (SR 94) between Rancho San Diego Village Shopping Center and Rancho San Diego Towne Center. 9 09-23-2019 CIP Projects in Construction Vista Vereda and Hidden Mesa Road Water Line Replacement (P2574/P2625) Replace existing waterlines. Construct 3,700 LF of new 12-inch waterline. Construct 400 LF of new 8-inch waterline. $3.17M Budget Start: December 2018 Estimated Completion: December 2019 Vista Vereda –Service Lateral Installation Division No. 5 Location: Hidden Mesa Road and Vista Vereda in El Cajon. 10 08-14-2019 Construction Contract Status 11 PROJECT TOTAL % P2508 Pipeline CP Improvements - Phase II M-Rae Engineering Inc.$329,500 $347,000 $16,267 4.9%$349,386 $340,736 0.7%97.5%August 2019 P2561 Reservoir 711-3 Floating Cover and Liner Replacement Layfield USA Corporation $1,947,000 $1,997,000 $0 0.0%$1,957,000 $1,822,250 -2.0%93.1%November 2019 P2565 803-2 Reservoir Interior/Exterior Coating & Upgrades Advanced Industrial Services Inc.$737,690 $951,690 $0 0.0%$807,440 $665,940 -15.2%82.5%September 2019 P2574/ P2625 Vista Vereda and Hidden Mesa Road Water Line Replacement Cass-Arrieta Construction $2,718,239 $2,848,364 $0 0.0%$2,724,699 $2,551,567 -4.3%93.6%December 2019 R2147 RWCWRF Fuel System Improvements Jauregui & Culver, Inc.$153,092 $158,092 $1,781 1.2%$154,873 $154,873 -2.0%100.0%September 2019 FY 2020 CIP CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS CURRENT CONTRACT AMOUNT TOTAL EARNED TO DATE CIP NO.PROJECT TITLE CONTRACTOR BASE BID AMOUNT CONTRACT AMOUNT W/ ALLOWANCES % CHANGE ORDERS W/ ALLOWANCE CREDIT** % COMPLETE EST. COMP. DATE NET CHANGE ORDERS LTD* Construction Contract Status 12 PROJECT TOTAL % FY 2020 CIP CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS CURRENT CONTRACT AMOUNT TOTAL EARNED TO DATE CIP NO.PROJECT TITLE CONTRACTOR BASE BID AMOUNT CONTRACT AMOUNT W/ ALLOWANCES % CHANGE ORDERS W/ ALLOWANCE CREDIT** % COMPLETE EST. COMP. DATE NET CHANGE ORDERS LTD* S2024 Campo Road Sewer Replacement Project Wier Construction Corporation $7,623,146 $7,816,646 $591,337 7.8%$8,328,483 $7,909,229 6.5%95.0%December 2019 P2619 Temporary Lower Otay Pump Station Redundancy Tharsos, Inc.$1,600,500 $1,647,000 $0 0.0%$1,600,500 $0 -2.8%0.0%June 2020 P2083 P2562 870-2 Pump Station Replacement/ 571-1 Reservoir Liner and Cover Replacement Pacific Hydrotech Corporation $16,500,900 $16,925,900 $139,832 0.8%$16,714,153 $14,775,184 -1.3%88.4%March 2020 TOTALS:$31,610,067 $32,691,692 $749,217 2.4%$32,636,533 $28,219,779 -0.2% **THIS CHANGE ORDER RATE INCLUDES THE CREDIT FOR UNUSED ALLOWANCES *NET CHANGE ORDERS DO NOT INCLUDE ALLOWANCE ITEM CREDITS. IT'S A TRUE CHANGE ORDER PERCENTAGE FOR THE PROJECT Consultant Contract Status 13 Consultant Contract Status 14 Consultant Contract Status 15 QUESTIONS? 16