HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-21-24 EO&WR Committee Packet
1
OTAY WATER DISTRICT ENGINEERING, OPERATIONS, & WATER RESOURCES COMMITTEE MEETING and
SPECIAL MEETING OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS
2554 SWEETWATER SPRINGS BOULEVARD
SPRING VALLEY, CALIFORNIA
BOARDROOM
TUESDAY
MAY 21, 2024 12:00 P.M.
This is a District Committee meeting. This meeting is being posted as a special meeting in order to comply with the Brown Act (Government Code Section §54954.2) in the event that a quorum of the Board is present. Items will be deliberated, however, no formal board actions will be taken at this meeting. The committee makes recommendations to the full Board for its consideration and formal action.
AGENDA
1. ROLL CALL
2. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION – OPPORTUNITY FOR MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC TO SPEAK TO THE BOARD ON ANY SUBJECT MATTER WITHIN THE BOARD’S JU-RISDICTION INCLUDING AN ITEM ON TODAY’S AGENDA. DISCUSSION ITEMS
3. APPROVE THE FOURTH AMENDMENT TO THE JOINT EXERCISE OF POWERS AGREEMENT FOR THE METRO WASTEWATER JOINT POWERS AUTHORITY (BETH GENTRY) [5 MINUTES]
4. APPROVE AND ADOPT THE 870-1 AND 870-2 RESERVOIRS PROJECT ADDEN-
DUM TO THE OTAY WATER DISTRICT 2015 WATER FACILITIES MASTER PLAN UPDATE PROGRAM ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (PEIR). THIS IS ADDEN-DUM NO. 2 TO THE FINAL PEIR (JULIANA LUENGAS / BETH GENTRY) [5 MINUTES]
5. AWARD A PROFESSIONAL PLANNING SERVICES AGREEMENT TO AARC CON-SULTANTS, LLC (AARC) AND AUTHORIZE THE GENERAL MANAGER TO EXE-CUTE THE AGREEMENT WITH AARC TO PREPARE A CLIMATE ADAPTATION AND RESILENCE PLAN IN AN AMOUNT NOT-TO-EXCEED $219,015
(JULIANA LUENGAS / BETH GENTRY) [5 MINUTES] 6. AWARD TWO PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENTS FOR AS-NEEDED COATING INSPECTION SERVICES AND AUTHORIZE THE GENERAL MANAGER
TO EXECUTE THE AGREEMENTS WITH COATING SPECIALISTS AND INSPEC-
TION SERVICES, INC. AND RUSTY PAULS INSPECTIONS, LLC. DBA MCS IN-SPECTION IN AN AMOUNT NOT-TO-EXCEED $175,000 DURING FISCAL YEARS 2025-2026 (ENDING JUNE 30, 2026) (KEVIN CAMERON / MICHAEL LONG) [5 MINUTES]
2
7. THIRD QUARTER FISCAL YEAR 2024 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM RE-
PORT (KEVIN CAMERON / MICHAEL LONG) [10 MINUTES] 8. ADJOURNMENT BOARD MEMBERS ATTENDING:
Mark Robak, Chair Ryan Keyes
All items appearing on this agenda, whether or not expressly listed for action, may be de-
liberated and may be subject to action by the Board. The agenda, and any attachments containing written information, are available at the Dis-trict’s website at www.otaywater.gov. Written changes to any items to be considered at the open meeting, or to any attachments, will be posted on the District’s website. Copies of the
agenda and all attachments are also available by contacting the District Secretary at (619) 670-2253.
If you have any disability which would require accommodation in order to enable you to
participate in this meeting, please call the District Secretary at 619-670-2253 at least 24 hours prior to the meeting.
Certification of Posting
I certify that on May 17, 2024, 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 May 17, 2024.
/s/ Tita Ramos-Krogman, District Secretary
STAFF REPORT
TYPE MEETING: Regular Board MEETING DATE: June 5, 2024
SUBMITTED BY: Beth Gentry
Engineering Manager
PROJECT: Various DIV. NO.ALL
APPROVED BY: Michael Long, Chief of Engineering
Jose Martinez, General Manager
SUBJECT: Fourth Amendment of the Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement for
the Metro Wastewater Joint Powers Authority
GENERAL MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATION:
That the Otay Water District (District) Board of Directors (Board)
approve an amendment to the Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement for
the Metro Wastewater Joint Powers Authority. The proposed Fourth
Amendment removes the restriction that the Metro JPA legal advisor,
treasurer, and auditor must be concurrently performing similar duties
for a Participating Agency. The Metro JPA Board of Directors
approved the proposed amendment at the February 1, 2024, Metro JPA
meeting.
COMMITTEE ACTION:
See “Attachment A.”
PURPOSE:
To request that the Board amend the Joint Exercise of Powers
Agreement (Agreement) for the Metro Wastewater Joint Powers Authority
(the “Metro JPA”) to allow the Metro JPA additional flexibility in
appointing the treasurer and auditor in Section 3.02 and in
appointing the legal advisor in Section 3.05. The existing Agreement
requires the treasurer and auditor to be, either the finance manager
or director of one of the Participating Agencies; the legal advisor
is required to be the legal counsel of one of the Participating
Agencies. The change would allow the Metro JPA Board to appoint
AGENDA ITEM 3
2
these positions without the requirement of concurrent duties for one
of the Participating Agencies. At the February 1, 2024 Metro JPA
meeting, the Participating Agencies present unanimously voted to
approve the amendment. Per California Contract Law and the Joint
Powers of Exercise Act (Gov. Code 6500 et seq.), the signatory
parties (e.g., Otay Water District) of a contract are the parties
allowed to amend terms for the new terms to be effective.
ANALYSIS:
The Fourth Amendment proposes to amend Section 3.02, Treasurer and
Auditor, by removing the restriction that the Metro JPA legal
advisor, treasurer, and auditor be concurrently performing similar
duties for a Participating Agency. At the February 1, 2024 Metro JPA
meeting, the Participating Agencies present, including the City of
Chula Vista (Director Preciado), City of Coronado (Director Downey),
City of Del Mar (Director Worden), City of Imperial Beach (Director
McKay), City of Lemon Grove (Director Jones), City of National City
(Director Yamane), City of Poway (Director De Hoff), and County of
San Diego (Director Anderson), unanimously voted to approve the
proposed amendment.
The strikeout shows the old language in comparison to the new
language.
3.02 Treasurer and Auditor. Pursuant to Section 6505.6 of the
Government Code, the finance manager or director of one of the
Participating Agencies shall be designated as the Auditor and
Treasurer of the JPA. The Auditor and Treasurer shall be the
depository, shall have custody of all of the accounts, funds, and
money of the JPA from whatever source, shall have the duties and
obligations set forth in Section 6505 and 6505.5 of the Government
Code and shall assure that there shall be strict accountability of
all funds and reporting of all receipts and disbursements of the JPA.
3.02 Treasurer and Auditor. The Treasurer and Auditor may be any
person(s) duly appointed by the Board and permitted to serve as the
JPA Treasurer and/or Auditor pursuant to Government Code Sections
6505.5 and/or 6505.6. The Treasurer shall be the depository, shall
have custody of all of the accounts, funds, and money of the JPA from
whatever source, shall have the duties and obligations set forth in
Government Code sections 6505, 6505.5, and/or 6505.6 as applicable,
and shall assure that there shall be strict accountability of all
funds and reporting of all receipts and disbursements of the JPA.
The officer performing the duties of Auditor shall have the duties
and obligations set forth in Government Code section 6505, 6505.5,
and/or 6505.6, as applicable.
3
The Fourth Amendment includes changes to Section 3.05 by striking the
provision that requires the Metro JPA’s legal advisor to also be
counsel to one of the Participating Agencies. This strikeout is
proposed to avoid potential or perceived conflicts of interest,
although it does not preclude the Metro JPA’s legal advisor from also
being legal counsel to one of the Participating Agencies. Neither
amendment changes either of the current appointments for treasurer,
auditor, or legal advisor. The proposed change is shown in the
strikeout below.
3.05 Legal Advisor. The Board shall have the power to appoint the
legal advisor of the JPA, who shall perform such duties as may be
prescribed by the Board. Such legal advisor shall be legal counsel to
one of the Participating Agencies.
In summary, the Fourth Amendment to the Metro JPA Agreement allows
for increased flexibility in appointing positions in the Metro JPA
and thus is recommended for approval.
FISCAL IMPACT: Joe Beachem, Chief Financial Officer
None.
STRATEGIC GOAL:
This action supports the District’s goal of improving operational
effectiveness.
LEGAL IMPACT:
None.
BG/MJL:jf
Attachments: Attachment A – Committee Action
Attachment B – Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement for
the Metro Wastewater Joint Powers
Authority through Amendment 3
Attachment C – Amendment 4 of Joint Exercise of Powers
Agreement for the Metro Wastewater Joint
Powers Authority
ATTACHMENT A
SUBJECT/PROJECT:
Various Fourth Amendment of the Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement
for the Metro Wastewater Joint Powers Authority
COMMITTEE ACTION:
The Engineering, Operations, and Water Resources Committee (Committee)
reviewed this item at a meeting held on May 21, 2024. 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 by the Committee prior to
presentation to the full Board.
Metro Wastewater JPA Agreement and Bylaws
In 2001 the Metro Joint Powers Authority ("Metro JPA'') was formed to
provide the PAs with a stronger voice in the operations of the Metro
System, for which they collectively pay approximately 35% of the operation and capital costs. When the Metro JPA was created, all but
three of the PAs joined the Metro JPA. As of October 2007, with the
addition of the City of Chula Vista, all PAs are members of the Metro
JPA
As a legal entity, the Metro JPA can hire consultants to carry out audits of the City of San Diego Metro System operations.
Included in this section are the Metro JPA Agreement and the Metro
JPA's Bylaws. The Metro JPA maintains a website which includes all
agenda packets and minutes for the Metro Commission/JPA, Metro
TAC, and Finance Committee meetings. Other information such as
pertinent reports and studies are also posted to the website and members are notified that they are available for download and/or review.
ATTACHMENT B
··•, ,
SDPUB\CMa235 I 97
October 25, 2000
JOINT EXERCISE OF POWERS AGREEMENT
METRO WASTEWATER JP A
WHEREAS, in enacting the Bond Law, the Legislature of the State of California declared, in Section 6584.5 of the Government Code of the State of California, that (a) there is a critical need within the State of California to expand, upgrade and otherwise improve the public capital facilities of local government necessary to support the rehabilitation and construction of residential and economic development; and (b) that it is (was) the intent of the Legislature to assist in the reduction improvements and promote greater use of existing and new financial instruments and mechanisms such as bond pooling by local agencies; and
WHEREAS, the Participating Agencies have determined that it is in the best interest of the communities which they serve that a joint exercise of powers agency be formed pursuant to the Act for the purposes of financing needed public capital improvements and reducing local borrowing costs for financing such improvements as authorized therein, and that the formation of such an authority will be consistent with and in furtherance of the intent and purposes of the Bond Law.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the above premises and of the mutual promises herein contained, the Participating Agencies agree as follows:
ARTICLE I
DEFINITIONS
Section 1.01. Defmitions. Unless the context otherwise requires, the words and terms { defined in this Article shall, for the purpose �ereof, have th� meanings herem specified.
"Act" means Articles 1 through 4 ( commencing with Section 6500) of Chapter 5, Division 7, Title 1 of the Government Code of the State of California.
"Agreement" means this agreement.
"Bond Law" means the Marks-Roos Local Bond Pooling Act of 1985, being Article 4 of the Act (commencing with Section 6584 of the Government Code), as now in effect or hereafter amended, or any other law available for use by the JP A in the authorization and issuance of certificates of participation, bonds or other evidence of indebtedness to provide for the financing of Obligations and/or Public Capital Improvements.
· "Bond Purchase Agreement" means an agreement between the JP A and a Participating
Agency, pursuant to which the JP A agrees to purchase Obligations from said Participating Agency.
''Board" means the Board of Directors referred to in Section 2.04, which shall be the governing body of the JP A.
"Bonds" means the bonds of the JPA issued pursuant to the Bond Law.
''Directors" means the members of the Board appointed to the Board pursuant to Section 2.03.
ARTICLED
GENERAL PROVISIONS
Section 2.01. Purpose. This Agreement is made pursuant to the Act providing for the joint exercise of powers common to the Participating Agencies, and for other purposes as permitted under the Act, the Bond Law and as agreed by one or more of the Participating Agencies. The purpose of this Agreement is to create a Public Agency with the authority to talce action pertaining to the Participating Agencies' responsibilities and obligations to provide for the financing of public capital improvements for the Metro Sewerage System which are constructed pursuant to the Metro Agreement and to take such other actions as are necessary for the Participating Agencies to fulfill the obligations and responsibilities and obtain rights and benefits set forth in the Metro Agreement.
Section 2.02. Creation of JP A . Pursuant to the Act, there is hereby created a public entity to be known as the "Metro Wastewater JP A . " The JP A shall be a public entity separate and apart from the Participating Agencies, and shall administer this Agreement.
Section 2.03. Board. The JP A shall be administered by a Board of nine (9) Directors, unless and until changed by amendment of this Agreement. The Board shall be composed of one appointee from each of the Participating Agencies. The Board shall be called the "Board of
Directors of the Metro Wastewater JP A ." All voting power of the JP A shall reside in the Board.
Section 2.04. Meetings of the Board.
(a)Regular Meetings. The Board shall provide for its regular meetings; provided,however, that at least one regular meeting shall be held each month, The date, hour and place of the holding of regular meetings shall be fixed by resolution of the Board and a copy of such resolution shall be filed with each Participating Agency. The Board may meet in joint session with other public agencies and advisory bodies, including the Metro Commission, in accordance with s�te law.
(b)Special Meetings. Special meetings of the Board may be called in accordance withthe provisions of Section 54956 of the Government Code.
( c)Call, Notice and Conduct of Meetings. All meetings of the Board, including withoutlimitat.ion, regular, adjourned regular and special meetings, shall be called, noticed, held and conducted in accordance with the provisions of Sections 54950 et seq. of the Government Code.
Section 2.05. Minutes. The Secretary shall cause to be kept minutes of the meetings of the Board and shall, as soon as possible after each meeting, cause a copy of the minutes to be foiwarded to each Director and to each Participating Agency.
Section 2.06. Voting. Each Director shall have one vote.
-4-
(c)to finance and refinance the acquisition or construction of Public CapitalImprovements acquired or constructed pursuant to the Regional Wastewater Disposal Agreement;
( d)to sue and be sued in its own name;
( e)to issue Bonds and otherwise to incur debts, liabilities or obligations,provided that no such Bonds, debt, liability or obligation shall constitute a debt, liability or obligation of the Participating Agencies;
(f)to apply for, accept, receive and disburse grants, loans and other aid from anyagency of the United States of America or of the State of California;
(g)to invest any money in the treasury of the JP A pursuant to Section 6505 .5 ofthe Government Code that is not required for the immediate necessities of the JP A , as the JP A determines is advisable, in the same manner and upon the same conditions as local agencies, pursuant to Section 53601 of the Government Code;
(h)to apply for letters of credit or other forms of financial guarantees in order tosecure the repayment of Bonds, certificates of participation and/or other evidences of indebtedness and enter into agreements in connection therewith;
(i)to carry out and enforce all the proyisions of this Agreement;
(j)to make and enter into Bond Purchase Agreements;
(le) to purchase Obligations of the Participating Agencies; and
(1)to exercise any and all powers which are provided for in tl:ie Act and inSection 6588 of the Government Code, as they exist on the date of this Agreement and as they may hereafter be amended.
Section 4.04. Restrictions on Exercise of Powers. The powers of the JP A shall be exercised in the manner provided in the Act and in the Bond Law, and, except for those powers set forth� the Bond Law, shall be subject (in accordance with Section 6509 of the Government Code) to the restrictions upon the manner of exercising such p·owers that are imposed upon the Participating Agencies in the exercise of similar powers.
Section 4.05. Obligations of JP A. The debts, liabilities and obligations of the JP A shall not be the debts, liabilities and obligations of the Participating Agencies or any of them.
ARTICLEV
METHODS OF PROCEDURE; CREDIT TO MEMBERS
Section 5.01. Assumption of Responsibilities by the JPA. As soon as practicable after the date of executJon u.t this Agrt.;;;;menc, the l.Jireetor;:, shaH 6i v;.; 1J1.1t1c� tin th.: nianncr ;·cq,.,:; "'·1 t:;
/
Section 6.05. Annual Budget and Administrative Expenses. The Board may adopt a budget for administrative expenses, which shall include all expenses not included in any financing transaction of the JP A , annually prior to July 1 of each year. These expenses shall be designated Administrative Expenses of the JP A and shall be allocated by the Board proportionately to each of
the Participating Agencies based on its Proportionate Flow in the Metropolitan Sewerage System and the strength of its wastewater as determined by the City of San Diego pursuant to the Regional Wastewater Disposal Agreement.
Section 6.06. Financing Expenses. The estimated annual expenses of the JP A to administer any financing transaction of the JP A shall be designated Financing Expenses and shall be allocated by the Board proportionately to each Participating Agency which is a participant in the financing being administered by the JP A proportionately to each Participating Agency's share of the amount of the Bonds issued by the JP A .
ARTICLE VII
TERM
Section 7.01. Term. This Agreement shall become effective as of the date hereof and shall continue in full force and effect so long as any Bonds, certificates of participation and/or other evidences of indebtedness of the JP A remain outstanding.
Section 7.02. Disposition of Assets. Upon termination of this Agreement, all property of the JP A , both real and personal, shall be divided among the parties hereto in such manner as shall
be agreed upon by the parties.
ARTICLE VIII
MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS
Section 8.01. Notices. Notices hereunder shall be in writing and shall be sufficient if delivered to the notice address of each party hereto for legal notices or as otherwise provided by a party hereto in writing to the other party.
·Section 8.02. Section Headings. All section headings in this Agreement are forconvenience of reference only and are not to be construed as modifying or governing the language in the section referred to or to define or limit the scope of any provision of this Agreement.
Section 8.03. Consent. Whenever in this Agreement any consent or approval is required the same shall not be unreasonably withheld.
Section 8.04. Law Governing. This Agreement is made in the State of California under the Constitution and laws of the State of California and is to be so construed.
Section 8.05. Amendments. This Agreement may be amended at any time, or from time to time, except as limited by contract with the owners of Bonds issued by the JP A or certificates of _pa1t1cipat1un in p<1yw...:ms tu ::_c m;t,:;c !,y �he: Tr'.\ ·_.,. the Participating Agcnck:-: ·.1, hy 1pplicab1r
A
I
. ·• ,. l •
)
regulations or laws of any jurisdiction having authority, by one 0£ more supplemental agreements executed by both of the parties to this Agreement or for any other purpose including, without limitation, addition of new parties (including any legal entities or taxing areas heretofore or hereafter creatoo) in pursuance of the pWJ>Oses of Ibis �ent.
Section 8.06. Enforcement by 1P A. The JP A is hereby authorized to take my or all legal
or equitable actions, including but not limited to injunciion and specific performance, n� or peonitted by law to enforce this Agreement.
Section 8.07. Severabllity. Should any section or provision of this Agreement be decided by any court of competent jwisdiction to be illegal or in conflict with any law of the State of California. or otherwise be rendered unenforceable or ineffectual, the validity of the remaining
section& and provisions hereof shall not be affected thereby.
Section 8.08. Successors. This Agreement sba11 be binding upon and shall inure to the benefit of the successors of each Participating A�Y-None of the PRl'licipating Agencie� may assign any right or obligation hereunder without the written consent of all of the others.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be exOC\lted and attested by their proper officers thereunto duly authorized and their official seals to be hereto affixed, on the day and year first set forth above.
��
2.CITY OF DBL MAR
by _________ _
3.CITY OF EL CAJON
by ______ ...... __ _
4.CITY OF IMPERIAL BEACH
by _________ _
5.CITY OF LA MESA
by _________ _
6.LEMON GROVE SANITATIONDISTRICT
by _________ _
ATTEST
AITBST
ATl'EST
ATTEST
-10-
" ,. ' .. I •
7.CITY OF POWAY ATTEST
by
8.PADRE DAM MUNICIPAL ATIEST WATER DISTRICT
by
9.COUNTY OF SAN DIBGO on behalf ofWINTER GARDENS SEWERMAlNl'ENANCE DISTRICT. LAKESIDE/ALPINE SANITATION DISTRICT AND SPRING V ALLBY SANITATION DISTRICT ATIBST
by
!lDPUB\CMc.23�19? -11-
I
: : �. �
• I :;• .:_�;-_· 1
-L '
-' -: ..:_.,
r..,;-;� ,:.,.:.! 1 ti-. -... .. , •1
L,_ ·L.(
.. I ■;,I� .•.::!I -■ -�- • ■ • � ,I, ·;: , ' -- •' r • ■ -
•
-' � I
T ·.-',� .,.. 11 �,_; . - -=�••H.-!i
·-=--,;-;; •.� ... n ,.
, .• I, .... ,_ ·•._Q I'
� �-... ",·
,. , __ ..U}';-·-'.
_,
■ ·:·1
=-=- � � ■ ;_= ;..-.
. -�: r lo'. , .. .r
.r-;;1 I •■ � •
,.
� �. ' -, 11 ' I. i I. 't •.ir � I '111 .. '
·.". '.
• ._. r I •4
·, ·1' .;;.-. -
•T
-J.,-,
,,
,,-·•
,., . + -:r.'
II ,.
': I �-,J:
I' .i'
J... I·
... !' t,•1; -■ •.
I•·• •• ,�I II . 'fr .... . -·· ' -
... �r. .. r· •• ..... 1_.I•
• 11',, '. ,· t ,· I. IT �R_I• p
.i,i.-' I,, t I ' (
•·
',ii ,1: I
' '. -· f-'., ...
' . . ·'
I'. ·L
.
I
....
r
. , .
:1 ,1 ,,_ • r .,
'·ii
I' . �I
' I
� ' ■ ■ i'
11 11
''
... ...
� ■ 1 I I
• I
, I'
f .,
,. lJ_ ;, �• 1 1 , .. j, I .,
' I 11· •
'.
1····1 I-.
j■ -,
,r 'I
p• • � � I ,
',,
( '
'·
: :� '. ,t ,. : I•--1 • ' I .. d I■ ;I
.. r'• ,.J, ,. � -�� � ...... ... - I '-·. L: .• � , "';' �
; .. ,l' ·I I ;,-1 1 ...
• I p ''
. ·• l·
1 •
,·1 )I _,
' ..t : .;• ,.. ... : � I • .,
...
II-=•• :._..
.• 1 ·•' .
t"'I,, 1·
--
.. -"
IJ I':';�''.,
. � , ; 1i•1I , ,� :: --
-
•■ -L . � • �J
• • .p I ' ..- � . , H·•!� :J ··, ·.. , c.•.;J J t � � J.. '+, r I .... 'II■
�, ' • I
. -. -�·.!,=.!!�• � -<\
:..
I·'' '.
·-
-
I ... L II �. I,, r.
I■ � •�• ' 11
, .. : .. ·f" �
_.
I.
-I
·-
• i
i•
_,
... · I� 1 � I ■
i •.
' . . '. -.... _
'I r ::�1·
., ,,r
• •
..�
·r...
AGREEMENT
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS AGREED AS FOLLOWS:
l.Pursuant to Article 8 of the Agreement, the Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement for
the Metro Wastewater JP A is hereby amended to add Otay as a JP A Participating Agency.
2.AJI other terms and conditions of the Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement for theMetro Wastewater JPA shall remain in full force and effect and shall be binding upon Otay.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this First Amendment as of the date first written above, which date shall be the date of the last signature affixed hereto.
2
3
4
CITY OF DEL MAR
By.
Date
CITY OF EL CAJON
By
Date
CITY OF Ilv1PERIAL BEACH
By:
Date: ____________ _
s.CITY OF LA MESA
By:
Date. ____________ _
SDPUB\PDS\27297 Iv I
ATTEST
ATTEST
ATTEST
ATTEST
ATTEST
0 ..
,. : { �-
,r
. ii 't . .-.,_, . �-�r •••
(Qi
I J , .. !
.,., V • 14:.,:
., '-=··. ' .,�. I I• I
l._j�} 1 ... }·.. � '' , ., _.,. . �I • _�;;}pi, a "� •�� ... =---'""· • • •' � -•-::-, . �•i ◄-��
' o·... i 1> ,, .. ,.
IE!�,¥ •or ·.·
:_IT•:' r•�ll
Ii :. •.
,,
:
r
,I
�-<-'.:, .... I . •
:·. •• I r:
: -. . ,..,. . . : .. , '� ' ..
Ii
j f·
f . .,. ...
l;
l• • ,1 ' ',,'-
, .
..• ----r
14 "-::
-� t:. ► -• t I . �f .' '
,, Eif t:f .Jr t •I' I,. . ,�J. t.. ••
◄ ... r
,.I
!Jr.�
I• ·�
•!.,
j -� ,· -.. I �, �➔
_.: .... ·1r . ,• ..
11.. ,
r· •
- I"
•
=
-....·
'
., ' =-:. ' .. , . ,� � -1 ,.
;1 ;! .. :! .... �-I ' ':•fi, µ .... -..
:::.� t: ,, .•
" n r ..... �i1t I • .,
•
,.
, I .. -:tl. ,--.. \ .. ·•�-_-l. F· , Htt L .t ( ••. --1 .. , ... :�j ..� I••'• ..
I'' . ' I' I : Y •I• �I i• ,,, (rt:il',� ... ....._I +• r .-·f"'fTT ...' . _ii.""C' ..... ,1 . 11 l I ,�· ty!. f ,,,,. '•:: ·,1 \ . I ;: ..._. .. '
·-=�,t�.11-,-.: 4 .. ':: I ':. ••• -I. ., �
� I ,·'• .
. ... '
•'"!lji l-
.
,., u..
l1
,. .
'•ta"·"\
I'.
I" -1·
.i. .,
4 -
I •
.I
, ..
. _·, ';. . .:�.· .. ·.. ,
.... �--. ;1 r ( _ • '. ' .,.
,· ..... ..
II .. I la
,. I
., I, ,1 I '
"
.i ' I
� ;;-: -, :.;,i, -· •• 1 .
t, -..�
� I
..
..
l.·
It :•., �al I I'
r· '
I... l. .... �..
. l-
�,
�!i
.
;
f! ,..
II • r• • 1' I• •
i
�. .l'' •..
f: ..i:11'. r. ·� ! 1
•'r • ' I":I ?If,
,t --·
,, l t-""
,I ,-
••
AGREEMENT
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS AGREED AS FOLLOWS:
1.Pursuant to Article 8 of the Agreement, the Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement for
the Metro Wastewater JPA is hereby amended to add National City as a JPA Participating Agency.
2.All other terms and conditions of the Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement for the
Metro Wastewater JPA shall remain in full force and effect and shall be binding upon National City.
fN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Second Amendment as of the date first written above, which date shall be the date of the last signature affixed hereto.
2.
By:
Date:
3.
By:
Date:
4.
By:
Date:
5.
By:
Date:
CITY OF DEL MAR
CITY OF EL CAJON
CITY OF IMPERIAL BEACH
CITY OF LA MESA
SDPUBIPDS\276631
ATT�T. Xi��
ATTEST
ATTEST
ATTEST
ATTEST
SDl'I.IB\FDESOUSA \335624. 2
WHEREAS, each of the Participaling Agencies have approved lhe addition of Chula Vista as a Participating Agency of the JPA, and have approved additional modifications to the
Agreement as set forth herein.
AGREEMENT
NOW, THEREFORE, IT lS AGREED AS FOLLOWS:
A.Pursuant to Article Vlll, Section 8.05 of the Agreement, the Joint Exercise of PowersAgreement for lhc Metro Wastewater JPA is hereby amended to add Chula Vista as a .f PA
Participating Agency.
13.Pursuant to Article VIII, Section 8.05 orthe Agreement, each of the Partic.ipating Agem:ic:sand City of Chula Vista hereby amend the Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement for the Metro
Wastewater JPA, as follows:
I.The Seventh Recital is amended to read as follmvs:
WHEREAS, in enacting lhe Bond Law, the Legislature of the State of Californiadeclared in Section 6584.5 of the Government Code of the Stale of California, that
(a)there is a critical need within the State of California to expand, upgrade andother.vise improve the public capital facilities of local govemment necessary lo
support the rehabilitation and construction ofresidcntial and economic development;and (b) that it is (was) the intent of the Legislature to assist in the reduction of loc.ilbon-owing costs, help accelerate the construction, repair, and maintenance of public
capital improvements, and promote greater use of existing and new financialinstruments and mechanisms, such as bond pooling by local agencies.
2.Article l, Section 1.0 I, definition of "Board" is revised as follows:
''Board" means the Board of Directors referred to in Section 2.03, which shall he the
governing body of the JPA.
3.Article J, Section l.01, definition of "'Members' and 'Participating Agencies'" is
revised as follows:
''Members" and "Participating Agencies" means the City of Coronado, the City orDel Mar, the City of El Cajon, the City oflmperial Beach, the City of La Mesa, theLemon Grove Sanitation District, the City of Poway, the Padre Dam Municipal Water
District, lhe County of San Diego on behalf of the Winter Gardens Sewer
Maintenance District, the Alpine Sanitation District, the Lakeside Sanitation Districtand the Spring Valley Sanitation District, the Olay Water District, the City of
Sl>l'lllJ•PDESOlJS,\\JJ5624.2
National City and the City of Chu In Vista.
4.Article ll, Section 2.03 is amended to read as follows:
Section 2.03. Board. The JPA shall be administered by a Board of Directors. The
Board shall be composed of one appointee from each of the Participating Agencies. In addition lo appointing its member to the Board, each Participating Agency shall
appojnt one alternate. The alternate appointed by a Participating Agency shall have the authority to attend, participate in and vote at any meeting of the Board when the
regular member is absent. The Board shall be called the "Board of Directors of the
Mclro Wastewater JP/\." All voting power of the .IPA shal.l reside in the Board.
5.Article VII is amended to add Section 7.03 as follows:
Section 7.03. Withdrawal of a Participating Agency from the JPA.
(a)Notice of Withdrawal. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary set forth in
this Agreement, and subject to the tenns and conditions set forth in thisSection and any other terms and conditions required by law or contract. a
Participating Agency may withdraw from the JPA at any lime by providingthe Board with written notice of its intent to withdraw in accordance with the
notice provisions set forth in Section 8.01. The withdrav,,al shall hecomeeffective ninety (90) days after such notice is given. The ,vithdrawal of any
Participating Agency from the JPA shall not tem1inate this Agreement.
(b} Surviving Liability.
S[)PI IB'.J'l)l'S( llJSA\.335(,24.2
(!) The withdrawing Participating Agency shall remain liable for its
share of the budgeted and administrative expenses of the JPA
pursuant to Section 6.05, Annual Budget and Administrative
Expenses, for the fiscal year in which the withdrawal is effective.
(2)If the J PA has issued Bonds or incurred any other form ofincebtedness at the e)e(:tion of the withdrnwing Participating Agency
to finance all or some portion of such agency's share of PublicCapital Improvements acquired or constructed pursuant to the
Regional Wastewater Disposal Agreement and all or some portion ofsuch Bonds or other indebtedness of the .TPA remains outstanding at
the time of such agency's "vithdrawal from the JP/\, such
withdrmving Participating Agency shall remain liable for andobligated to make (i) the scheduled payments of its proportionate
share of the revenues pledged to repay such Bonds or other
indebtedness of the JPA pursuant to any lease, installment sale orpurchase agreement, loan agreement or other agreement or contract
entered into by such agency to evidence, provide for and/or secure
such payment and (ii) pursuant to Section 6.06, its proportionate share of Financing Expenses, if any, related to the administration of such Bonds or other evidence of indebtedness of the JPA.
(c)Credit to Withdrawing Participating Agency. A withdrawing PmiicipatingAgency is entitled to any sum due that Participating Agency pursuant to
Section 5.02, Credit to the Participating Agencies, at the end of the fiscal year
in which the Participating Agency's withdrawal is effective; provided,
however, nothing herein sha11 be construed to entitle a withdrawing
Participating Agency to any interest accrued by any investments of JPA
surplus funds if the maturity date of said investment occurs later than thefiscal year in which the Participating Agency's withdrawal is effective.
(d)Acknmvledgement of Surviving Liabilities and Obligations. APmiicipating
Agency wishing to withdraw from the JPA shall provide the JPA with awritten acknO\vledgement, acceptable in a form and content to the JPA, of the
liabilities and obligations of the withdrawing Participating Agency, asspecified in this Section, which shall survive the withdrawal of the
Participating Agency from the JP A. The withdrawing Participating Agencyshall also provide the JPA with a written opinion from its counsel that anysuch surviving liabilities and obligations of the withdrawing Participating
Agency described in Section 7.03(b)(2) of this Agreement, will (assumingthat the JPA is not in breach or default of any material term of the lease,
installment sale or purchase agreement, loan agreement or other agreement orcontract entered into by such agency, described in Section 7 .03(b )(2)) remain
legal, valid and binding obligations of the withdrawing Participating Agency,enforceable in accordance with their respective terms, subject to bankruptcy,
insolvency, reorganization, moratorium and other laws affecting the
enforcement of creditors' rights in general and to the application of equitableprinciples, if equitable remedies are sought, and to the limitations on legal
remedies against local public entities, such as the withdrawing ParticipatingAgency, in the State of California.
6.Article VIll, Section 8.05 is amended to read as follows:
Article 8, Section 8.05. Amendments. This Agreement may be amended at any time, or from time to time, except as limited by contract \Vith the owners of Bonds
issued by the JP A or certificates of participating in payments to be made by the JPA or the Participating Agencies or by applicable regulations or laws of any jurisdiction
having authority, by one or more supplemental agreements executed by all of the
parties to this Agreement or for any other purpose, including, without limitation, addition of new parties (including any legal entities or taxing areas heretofore or Sl>PUJ3\pDESOUSl\\l35624-2
hereafter created) in pursuant of the purposes of this Agreement.
C.All other tenns and conditions of the Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement for the MetroWastewater JPA shall remain in full force and effect and shall be binding upon each of the
Participating Agencies and upon Chula Vista.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Third Amendment as of the date
first written above.
By: ---------------
3.CITY OF EL CAJON
By: ---
4.CJTY OF lMPERlAL BEACH
By: ----
5.ClTY Of LA MESA
By; ---------------
6. LEMON GROVE SANITATIONDISTRICT
By: ---------------
7.CITY OF POWAY
By: ---------------
8.PADRE DAM MUNlClPAL WATERDISTRICT
By: ---------------
S DPUI l\f'DESOlJSA '-335624. 2
ATTEST
ATTEST
ATTEST
ATTEST
ATTEST
ATTEST
ATTEST
ATTEST
FOURTH AMENDMENT TO JOINT EXERCISE OF POWERS AGREEMENT
FOR THE METRO WASTEWATER JOINT POWERS AUTHORITY
TO AMEND SECTIONS 3.02 AND 3.05 OF THE JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT
This Fourth Amendment to the Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement for the Metro
Wastewater Joint Powers Authority is made effective as of the date of the last signature by a
Participating Agency (defined below), in the County of San Diego, State of California by each of the
Participating Agencies of the Metro Wastewater JPA, a Joint Powers Agency (“JPA”) existing and
organized pursuant to the provisions of Government Code section 6500 et seq.
RECITALS
WHEREAS, on October 25, 2000, the City of Coronado, a municipal corporation; the
City of Del Mar, a municipal corporation; the City of El Cajon, a municipal corporation; the City of
Imperial Beach, a municipal corporation; the City of La Mesa, a municipal corporation; the Lemon
Grove Sanitation District, a political subdivision of the State of California, the City of Poway, a
municipal corporation; Padre Dam Municipal Water District, a political subdivision of the State of
California; and the County of San Diego (on behalf of: the Winter Gardens Sewer Maintenance
District, a maintenance district established pursuant to California Streets & Hwys. Code section
5820 et seq.; the Lakeside/Alpine Sanitation District, a political subdivision of the State of
California; and the Spring Valley Sanitation District, a political subdivision of the State of
California) (the “Participating Agencies”) entered into a Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement
(“Agreement”), creating the JPA for the purpose of taking responsibility, actions, and decisions
pertaining to the Regional Waste Water Disposal Agreement; and
WHEREAS, on February 12, 2003, the Otay Water District was added as a
Participating Agency of the JPA; and
WHEREAS, on June 4, 2003, the City of National City was added as a Participating
Agency of the JPA; and
WHEREAS, on October 17, 2007, the City of Chula Vista was added as a
Participating Agency of the JPA; and
WHEREAS, Article VIII, Section 8.05 of the Agreement allows for amendments of
the Agreement; and
WHEREAS, the Participating Agencies wish to make certain amendments to reflect
updates in officers and employees of the organization.
AGREEMENT
ATTACHMENT C
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS AGREED AS FOLLOWS:
A. Pursuant to Article VIII, Section 8.05 of the Agreement, each of the Participating Agencies
hereby amend the Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement for the Metro Wastewater JPA, as
follows:
1. Article III, Section 3.02 is hereby revised in its entirety to read as follows:
3.02 Treasurer and Auditor. The Treasurer and Auditor may be any person(s) duly
appointed by the Board and permitted to serve as the JPA Treasurer and/or Auditor
pursuant to Government Code Sections 6505.5 and/or 6505.6. The Treasurer shall be
the depository, shall have custody of all of the accounts, funds, and money of the
JPA from whatever source, and shall have the duties and obligations set forth in
Government Code sections 6505, 6505.5 and/or 6505.6 as applicable, and shall
assure that there shall be strict accountability of all funds and reporting of all receipts
and disbursements of the JPA. The officer performing the duties of Auditor shall
have the duties and obligations set forth in Government Code section 6505, 6505.5
and/or 6505.6, as applicable.
2. Article III, Section 3.05 is hereby revised in its entirety to read as follows:
3.05 Legal Advisor. The Board shall have the power to appoint the legal advisor of
the JPA who shall perform such duties as may be prescribed by the Board.
B.. All other terms and conditions of the Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement for the Metro
Wastewater JPA shall remain in full force and effect and shall remain binding upon each of
the Participating Agencies.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Fourth Amendment as of the date
first written above.
1. CITY OF CORONADO ATTEST
By:
2. CITY OF DEL MAR
ATTEST
By:
3. CITY OF EL CAJON
ATTEST
By:
4. CITY OF IMPERIAL BEACH
ATTEST
By:
5. CITY OF LA MESA
ATTEST
By:
6. LEMON GROVE SANITATION
DISTRICT
ATTEST
By:
7. CITY OF POWAY
ATTEST
By:
8. PADRE DAM MUNICIPAL WATER
DISTRICT
ATTEST
By:
9.
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO on behalf of
WINTER GARDENS SEWER
MAINTENANCE DISTRICT, LAKESIDE
SANITATION DISTRICT, ALPINE
SANITATION DISTRICT, AND SPRING
VALLEY SANITATION DISTRICT
ATTEST
By:
10. OTAY WATER DISTRICT
ATTEST
By:
11. NATIONAL CITY
ATTEST
By:
12. CHULA VISTA
ATTEST
By:
STAFF REPORT
TYPE MEETING: Regular Board MEETING DATE: June 5, 2024
SUBMITTED BY: Juliana Luengas
Environmental Compliance
Specialist
PROJECT: P2228-001101
P2653-001101
DIV. NO.2
APPROVED BY: Beth Gentry, Engineering Manager
Michael Long, Chief, Engineering
Jose Martinez, General Manager
SUBJECT: Approve and Adopt Addendum to the 2015 Water Facilities Master
Plan Update Program Environmental Impact Report for the 870-1
and 870-2 Reservoirs Project (CIP P2228 and P2563)
GENERAL MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATION:
That the Otay Water District (District) Board of Directors (Board)
approve and adopt the 870-1 and 870-2 Reservoirs Project Addendum to
the Otay Water District 2015 Water Facilities Master Plan (WFMP)
Update Program Environmental Impact Report (PEIR). This is Addendum
No. 2 to the PEIR. The full Addendum can be found in Attachment B.
See Exhibit A location maps.
COMMITTEE ACTION:
Please see Attachment A.
PURPOSE:
To obtain Board approval for the adoption of the 870-1 and 870-2
Reservoir Projects Addendum to the 2015 WFMP Update PEIR.
AGENDA ITEM 4
2
ANALYSIS:
The 870-1 and 870-2 Reservoirs Project is located in Otay Mesa,
unincorporated San Diego County. Specifically, the site is northeast
of Alta Road and the East Mesa Juvenile Detention Facility. The
project consists of the construction of a new 3.4-million-gallon AWWA
Type 1 – cast in place concrete reservoir, yard piping, improvements
to the existing 11-million-gallon earthen embankment reservoir,
including existing floating cover and liner replacement and below
grade pipe replacements, and existing access road improvement.
The proposed project was included in the District’s 2015 WFMP Update
and was analyzed in the associated PEIR. The PEIR evaluated, at a
programmatic level, the potential environmental impacts of
implementing various Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Projects. The
2016 PEIR concluded that the WFMP Update could result in potentially
significant environmental impacts related to: air quality; biological
resources; cultural resources; geology, soils, and paleontological
resources; global climate change; and public safety; however, impacts
would be less than significant upon implementation of the mitigation
measures specified in the PEIR. The PEIR was approved by the Board on
January 4, 2017. Subsequently, Addendum No. 1, which was specific to
the 1655-1 Reservoir Project (P2040), was approved by the Board on
February 5, 2020.
As outlined in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
Guidelines Section 15164(a), an addendum to a previously certified EIR
may be prepared if only minor technical changes or additions are
necessary or none of the conditions described in Section 15162 calling
for the preparation of a subsequent EIR have occurred. Addendum No. 2,
which is specific to the 870-1 and 870-2 Reservoirs Project, documents
that none of the conditions outlined in the State CEQA Guidelines
Sections 15162 or 15163 requiring the preparation of a subsequent or
supplemental 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 PEIR, and no previously infeasible mitigation
measures or alternatives are now feasible but have been declined for
adoption. The previously approved PEIR adequately discusses the
potential impacts of the projects; however, minor changes require the
preparation of an addendum. Per State CEQA Guidelines Section
15164(c), the addendum does not need to be circulated for public review
and the prior statute of limitations applies.
3
The District is the Lead Agency under CEQA and Helix Environmental
Planning has prepared Addendum No. 2. The PEIR and Addendum No. 2
serve as the environmental review of the proposed project. The
proposed project has been analyzed in Addendum No. 2 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 PEIR.
The PEIR includes mitigation measures, standard construction practices
(SCPs), and/or project design features (PDFs) specific to the proposed
project to reduce potentially significant environmental impacts.
Section 6 of Addendum No. 2, SUMMARY OF APPLICABLE STANDARD
CONSTRUCTION PRACTICES, PROJECT DESIGN FEATURES, AND MITIGATION
MEASURES, provides a complete list of the applicable mitigation
measures, SCPs, and PDFs for the projects from the 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.
JL/BG:jf
Attachments: Attachment A – Committee Action
Attachment B – 870-1 and 870-2 Reservoirs Project
Addendum
Exhibit A – Location Maps
ATTACHMENT A
SUBJECT/PROJECT:
P2228-001101
P2563-001101
Approve and Adopt Addendum to the 2015 Water Facilities
Master Plan Update Program Environmental Impact Report for
the 870-1 and 870-2 Reservoirs Project (CIP P2228 and
P2563)
COMMITTEE ACTION:
The Engineering, Operations, and Water Resources Committee (Committee)
reviewed this item at a meeting held on May 21, 2024. 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 by the Committee prior to
presentation to the full Board.
Prepared for:
Otay Water District
2554 Sweetwater Springs Boulevard
Spring Valley, CA 91978-2096
Prepared by:
HELIX Environmental Planning, Inc.7578 El Cajon BoulevardLa Mesa, CA 91942
870-1 and 870-2 Reservoirs
Project
Addendum No. 2 to the Otay Water District
2015 Water Facilities Master Plan Update
Program Environmental Impact Report
SCH No. 2015061091
May 2024 | 00623.00019.007
ATTACHMENT B
This page intentionally left blank
i
Table of Contents
Section Page
1.0 Introduction .......................................................................................................................... 1
2.0 Project Description ................................................................................................................ 1
3.0 Purpose of the Addendum ..................................................................................................... 2
4.0 Determination ....................................................................................................................... 3
5.0 Environmental Analysis .......................................................................................................... 5
5.1 Air Quality ........................................................................................................................... 7
5.2 Biological Resources ......................................................................................................... 10
5.3 Cultural Resources ............................................................................................................ 14
5.4 Energy ............................................................................................................................... 16
5.5 Geology, Soils, and Paleontological Resources ................................................................. 16
5.6 Global Climate Change ...................................................................................................... 19
5.7 Hydrology and Water Quality ........................................................................................... 21
5.8 Landform Alteration and Visual Aesthetics ...................................................................... 22
5.9 Land Use and Planning ...................................................................................................... 23
5.10 Noise ................................................................................................................................. 24
5.11 Public Safety ...................................................................................................................... 26
5.12 Transportation/Traffic ...................................................................................................... 27
6.0 Summary of Applicable Standard Construction Practices, Project Design Features, and
Mitigation Measures ............................................................................................................ 28
6.1 Air Quality ......................................................................................................................... 28
6.2 Biological Resources ......................................................................................................... 28
6.3 Cultural Resources ............................................................................................................ 32
6.4 Energy ............................................................................................................................... 33
6.5 Geology, Soils, and Paleontological Resources ................................................................. 33
6.6 Global Climate Change ...................................................................................................... 35
6.7 Hydrology and Water Quality ........................................................................................... 35
6.8 Landform Alteration and Visual Aesthetics ...................................................................... 36
6.9 Land Use and Planning ...................................................................................................... 36
6.10 Noise ................................................................................................................................. 37
ii
Table of Contents (cont.)
6.11 Public Safety ...................................................................................................................... 37
6.12 Transportation/Traffic ...................................................................................................... 37
7.0 References ........................................................................................................................... 38
8.0 Preparers ............................................................................................................................. 39
iii
Table of Contents (cont.)
LIST OF ATTACHMENTS
No. Title
A Air Quality Emissions Calculations
B Biological Resources Report
C Cultural Resource Assessment
LIST OF FIGURES
No. Title Follows Page
1 Regional Location ............................................................................................................................. 2
2 Project Location (Aerial) .................................................................................................................. 2
3 Site Plan ........................................................................................................................................... 2
iv
Acronyms and Abbreviations
BMP best management practice
CAAQS California Ambient Air Quality Standards
CalEEMod California Emissions Estimator Model
CARB California Air Resources Board
CBC California Building Code
CDFW California Department of Fish and Wildlife
CDMG California Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology
CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
CFG California Fish and Game
CIP Capital Improvement Program
CNPS California Native Plant Society
CO carbon monoxide
CO2 carbon dioxide
CO2e carbon dioxide equivalent
CRHR California Register of Historical Resources
CRPR California Rare Plant Rank
dBA A-weighted decibels
EIR Environmental Impact Report
GHG greenhouse gas
HELIX HELIX Environmental Planning, Inc.
HMBP Hazardous Materials Business Plan
LEQ time-averaged noise level
LUST leaking underground storage tank
MBTA Migratory Bird Treaty Act
MG million gallon(s)
MMRP Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
MT metric ton(s)
NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards
NOX nitrogen oxides
NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
NRHP National Register of Historic Places
OWD Otay Water District
PEIR Program Environmental Impact Report
PM10 particulate matter less than 10 microns in diameter
v
Acronyms and Abbreviations (cont.)
PM2.5 particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in diameter
PRC Public Resources Code
RAQS Regional Air Quality Strategy
SANDAG San Diego Association of Governments
SCAQMD South Coast Air Quality Management District
SDAB San Diego Air Basin
SDAPCD San Diego County Air Pollution Control District
SO2 sulfur dioxide
SPCC Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasure Plan
SWPPP Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan
UBC Uniform Building Code
USEPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
VOC volatile organic compound
WFMP Water Facilities Master Plan
vi
This page intentionally left blank
870-1 and 870-2 Reservoirs Project | May 2024
1
1.0 INTRODUCTION
This document is an Addendum to Otay Water District’s (OWD’s) 2015 Water Facilities Master Plan
(WFMP) Update Program Environmental Impact Report (PEIR) (State Clearinghouse No. 2015061091).
The PEIR evaluated potential impacts associated with implementation of the WFMP Update. The PEIR
and supporting documents are hereby incorporated by reference and are available for review at OWD’s
headquarters at 2554 Sweetwater Springs Boulevard, Spring Valley, CA 91978 and on OWD’s website at
www.otaywater.gov. The PEIR concluded that the WFMP Update could result in potentially significant
environmental impacts related to: air quality; biological resources; cultural resources; geology, soils, and
paleontological resources; global climate change; and public safety; however, impacts would be less
than significant upon implementation of the mitigation measures specified in the PEIR. As such, no
significant and unavoidable impacts were identified in the PEIR.
2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
OWD is proposing the 870-1 and 870-2 Reservoirs Project (Project), located in unincorporated San Diego
County, California (Figure 1, Regional Location). The Project site is located north of the United States-
Mexico Border, south of Lower Otay Reservoir, east of State Route 125, and northeast of the Otay Mesa
community of the City of San Diego. Specifically, the site is northeast of Alta Road and the East Mesa
Juvenile Detention Facility (Figure 2, Project Location [Aerial]). The site contains an existing 11-million
gallon (MG) in-ground reservoir (870-1 Reservoir) that was built in 1962 to increase potable water
storage capacity for anticipated future water demand. The existing 870-1 Reservoir is an earthen
embankment reservoir with a geomembrane liner and floating cover.
The Project entails modifications to the potable water storage Capital Improvement Program (CIP)
project that was included, described, and analyzed in the PEIR as project P2228 (870-2 Reservoir). In the
PEIR, the proposed 870-2 Reservoir was identified as having a capacity of 7.0 MG. As currently proposed
under the Project, it would have a capacity of 3.4 MG. The new 870-2 Reservoir would be constructed
within the grounds of the existing 870-1 Reservoir site, immediately south of the 870-1 Reservoir (Figure
3, Site Plan). The new reservoir would be a cylindrical concrete tank with a height of 24 feet and an
inside diameter of 170 feet. Appurtenance facilities that would be provided in association with the tank
include a 30-inch-diameter inlet pipe, 30-inch-diameter outlet pipe, 30-inch-diameter overflow pipe, 30-
inch-diameter distribution pipe, and 12-inch-diameter storm drain. A paved access road would be
provided around the tank.
To allow the 870-1 and 870-2 Reservoirs to fill at the same time during operations, the existing 30-inch-
diameter inlet pipe for the 870-1 Reservoir would be relocated as part of the Project. The existing 36-
inch-diameter outlet pipe for the 870-1 Reservoir would also be replaced. These relocations would
involve trenching/excavating within the earthen embankment of the 870-1 Reservoir. Following
relocation of the inlet pipe and replacement of the outlet pipe, the embankment would be restored.
Additional improvements that would occur in association with the Project would include replacing site
access roads and replacing the existing 870-1 Reservoir geomembrane liner and floating cover.
In regard to Project phasing, improvements associated with the proposed 870-2 Reservoir would occur
first. Improvements would involve clearing and grubbing, demolition of existing pavements and
belowground utilities, grading, installation of yard piping, construction of the tank, and paving the
access road surrounding the tank, as well as the site perimeter road. An existing on-site building
870-1 and 870-2 Reservoirs Project | May 2024
2
containing chlorine tanks, chemical feed pumps, a backup generator, a flow meter, and other
appurtenances associated with the 870-1 Reservoir would be renovated to remove the chlorine tanks,
chemical feed pumps, and other small appurtenances. The existing backup generator would remain.
Once the 870-2 Reservoir has been placed into service, the 870-1 Reservoir would be taken offline, and
the inlet pipe relocated and the outlet pipe replaced via trenching/excavation methods. The earthen
embankment would then be restored and the access road atop the embankment replaced. Finally, the
existing 870-1 Reservoir geomembrane liner and floating cover would be replaced.
Upon completion of construction, the reservoirs would be passively operated, with site activity limited
to occasional maintenance trips.
3.0 PURPOSE OF THE ADDENDUM
As outlined in California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15164(a), an Addendum
to a previously certified Environmental Impact Report (EIR) may be prepared if only minor technical
changes or additions are necessary or none of the conditions described in Section 15162 calling for the
preparation of a subsequent EIR have occurred.
Under CEQA, an Addendum to a previously adopted EIR may be prepared by either a lead or responsible
agency if the conditions described above are satisfied. As a result, once an EIR has been certified, a
subsequent or supplemental EIR may only be prepared if one of the following conditions has been met
(State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a)):
(1) Substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the EIR due
to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the
severity of previously identified significant effects;
(2) Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is
undertaken which will require major revisions of the EIR due to the involvement of new
significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified
significant effects; or
(3) 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 EIR was adopted, shows any of
the following:
A. The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the EIR;
B. Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in
the EIR;
C. Mitigation measures or alternatives 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 decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative; or
D. Mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those in the
EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but
the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative.
!!
!!
!!!
!
!!
!
!!!
!!!!
!!
!!!!
!!
!!!
!
!
!!
!!!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!!!
!!
!!!!!!
!!!!
!!!!!!!!
!!
!!!!!!
!!!!!!
!!!!!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!!!
!!
!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!!!!!
!!
!!!!
!!!!!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!!!!!!!
!!!!
!!
!!
!!
!!!!
!!
!!
!!!!
!!
!!
!!
!!!!!!
!!!!
!!
!!!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!!!
!!
!!
!!
!!!!
!!
!!
!!!
!!!!!!!!
!
!!!!!!
!!
!!!!
!!!!!!
!!!!
!!!!
!!
!!
!!!!
!!!!!!!
!!
!
!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!
!!!!!!
!!!!
!!
!!
!!!!
!!
!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!!!!!
!!
!!!!
!!
!!
!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!!!
!!
!!
!!!!!!
!!!!!!
!!
!!!!
!!!!!!
!
!!!
!!
!!
!!!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!!!!!
!!
!!!!!!!
!!
!!
!!!!
!!!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!!!
!
!
!
!
!!
!!!!
!!!!
!!!!!!
!!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!!!!!
!!
!!!!
!!!!
!!!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!!!
!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!
!!
!
WÊ
!"^$
!"^$
!"^$
!"^$
WÌ
WÌ
!"_$
!"_$
!"a$
!"a$
!"a$
?n
?p
?p
?t
?¦
?¦
?³
?¸
?¸
?¸
?¹
?¹
?Ë
?Ë
Aä
Aä
Ag
%&s(
%&s(
%&u(
VAIL LAKE
O NEILL LAKE
LAKE HENSHAW
LAKE WOHLFORD
LAKE SANMARCOS SUTHERLAND
RESERVOIR
HODGES
RESERVOIR
LAKE RAMONA
LAKE POWAY
CUYAMACA
RESERVOIR
EL CAPITAN
RESERVOIR
SAN VICENTE
RESERVOIRMIRAMAR
RESERVOIR
LAKE JENNINGSSANTEE LAKES
LOVELANDRESERVOIR
MURRAY
RESERVOIR
BARRETT
RESERVOIR
SWEETWATER
RESERVOIR
UPPER OTAY
RESERVOIR
LOWER OTAYRESERVOIR
SAN DI E G O
CO U N T Y
ORAN G E
COU N T Y
Pacific
Ocean
CARLSBAD
DEL
MAR
LA MESA
SAN DIEGO
IMPERIAL
BEACH
NATIONAL CITY
SOLANA BEACH
CORONADO
SAN MARCOS
OCEANSIDE
CHULA VISTA
VISTA
SANTEE
ENCINITAS
ESCONDIDO
EL CAJON
LEMON
GROVE
POWAY
MEXICO
Project
Location
0 8 Miles K
Figure 1
Regional Location
I:
\
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
S
\
O
\
O
t
a
y
W
a
t
e
r
D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t
_
0
0
6
2
3
\
0
0
0
1
9
_
A
s
N
e
e
d
e
d
E
n
v
S
e
r
v
\
0
0
7
_
O
W
D
8
7
0
-
2
R
e
s
e
r
v
o
i
r
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
\
M
a
p
\
A
d
d
e
n
d
\
A
d
d
e
n
d
.
a
p
r
x
F
i
g
1
_
R
e
g
i
o
n
a
l
:
0
0
6
2
3
.
1
9
.
7
.
:
3
/
1
5
/
2
0
2
4
-
S
A
B
Source: Base Map Layers (SanGIS, 2016)
870-1 and 870-2 Reservoirs Project
East Mesa Juvenile
Detention Facility
Alta
R
d
0 400 Feet K
Figure 2
Project Location (Aerial)
I:
\
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
S
\
O
\
O
t
a
y
W
a
t
e
r
D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t
_
0
0
6
2
3
\
0
0
0
1
9
_
A
s
N
e
e
d
e
d
E
n
v
S
e
r
v
\
0
0
7
_
O
W
D
8
7
0
-
2
R
e
s
e
r
v
o
i
r
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
\
M
a
p
\
A
d
d
e
n
d
\
A
d
d
e
n
d
.
a
p
r
x
F
i
g
2
_
A
e
r
i
a
l
:
0
0
6
2
3
.
1
9
.
7
:
4
/
3
0
/
2
0
2
4
-
S
A
B
Source: Aerial (NearMap, 2023)
870-1 and 870-2 Reservoirs Project
Project Site
870-1 and 870-2 Reservoirs Project
I:
\
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
S
\
O
\
O
t
a
y
W
a
t
e
r
D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t
_
0
0
6
2
3
\
0
0
0
1
9
_
A
s
N
e
e
d
e
d
E
n
v
S
e
r
v
\
0
0
7
_
O
W
D
8
7
0
-
2
R
e
s
e
r
v
o
i
r
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
\
M
a
p
\
A
d
d
e
n
d
\
F
i
g
3
_
S
i
t
e
P
l
a
n
.
i
n
d
d
0
0
6
2
3
.
1
9
.
7
3
/
1
5
/
2
0
2
4
-
S
A
B
Site Plan
Figure 3
Source: Wood Rodgers, 2024
ww
OR
I
G
I
N
A
L
S
C
A
L
E
I
N
I
N
C
H
E
S
0
1
2
3
4
2251 SAN DIEGO AVE, SUITE A-130 Tel 619.819.9240
Fax 619.512.5599San Diego, CA 92110
ww
OR
I
G
I
N
A
L
S
C
A
L
E
I
N
I
N
C
H
E
S
0
1
2
3
4
2251 SAN DIEGO AVE, SUITE A-130 Tel 619.819.9240
Fax 619.512.5599San Diego, CA 92110
ww
OR
I
G
I
N
A
L
S
C
A
L
E
I
N
I
N
C
H
E
S
0
1234
2251 SAN DIEGO AVE, SUITE A-130 Tel 619.819.9240
Fax 619.512.5599San Diego, CA 92110
870-1 and 870-2 Reservoirs Project | May 2024
3
This Addendum has been prepared by OWD because the construction and operation of the proposed
Project is consistent with the overall project evaluated in the PEIR and does not require major revisions
to the PEIR due to new significant impacts or substantial increases in the severity of previously identified
significant impacts. The anticipated environmental impacts of the proposed Project, as explained in
detail in the following analysis, have been analyzed and mitigated accordingly in the PEIR, and there
have been no new circumstances since that time that would result in new or more severe significant
environmental impacts. As evaluated in the supporting analysis of this Addendum, mitigation measures
that were previously identified in the PEIR would continue to ensure that impacts are reduced to less
than significant levels.
Per CEQA Guidelines Section 15164(c), an Addendum need not be circulated for public review, but can
be included in or attached to the PEIR. Prior to its consideration of the proposed Project, OWD will
review and consider this Addendum together with the PEIR when making a decision regarding the
Project.
4.0 DETERMINATION
The subject areas checked below were determined to be new significant environmental effects or to be
previously identified effects that have a substantial increase in severity either due to a change in Project,
change in circumstances, or new information of substantial importance, compared to the PEIR, as
indicated by the checklist and discussion on the following pages.
☒ None
☐ Air Quality ☐ Biological Resources ☐ Cultural Resources ☐ Energy
☐ Geology, Soil, and
Paleontological
Resources
☐ Global Climate
Change
☐ Hydrology and
Water Quality
☐ Landform
Alteration and
Visual Aesthetics
☐ Land Use and
Planning
☐ Noise ☐ Public Safety ☐ Transportation/
Traffic
870-1 and 870-2 Reservoirs Project | May 2024
4
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
☐ No substantial changes are proposed in the Project and there are no substantial changes in the
circumstances under which the Project will be undertaken that will require major revisions to
the previously certified PEIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or
a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects. Also, there is no
“new information of substantial importance” as that term is used in CEQA Guidelines Section
15162(a)(3). Therefore, the previously certified PEIR adequately discusses the potential impacts
of the Project without modification.
☒ No substantial changes are proposed in the Project and there are no substantial changes in the
circumstances under which the Project will be undertaken that will require major revisions to
the previously certified PEIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or
a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects. Also, there is no
“new information of substantial importance” as that term is used in CEQA Guidelines Section
15162(a)(3). Therefore, the previously certified PEIR adequately discusses the potential impacts
of the Project; however, minor changes require the preparation of an ADDENDUM.
☐ Substantial changes are proposed in the Project or there are substantial changes in the
circumstances under which the Project will be undertaken that will require major revisions to
the previously certified PEIR due to the involvement of significant new environmental effects or
a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects. Or, there is "new
information of substantial importance," as that term is used in CEQA Guidelines Section
15162(a)(3). However, all new potentially significant environmental effects or substantial
increases in the severity of previously identified significant effects are clearly reduced to below a
level of significance through the incorporation of mitigation measures agreed to by the Project
applicant. Therefore, a SUBSEQUENT EIR is required.
Signature
Date
Printed Name
Otay Water District
For
870-1 and 870-2 Reservoirs Project | May 2024
5
5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
Documents containing the environmental analysis supporting OWD’s action in approving the proposed
Project include the PEIR and associated Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP), Air
Quality Emissions Calculations (Attachment A), Biological Resources Report (HELIX Environmental
Planning, Inc. [HELIX] 2024a; Attachment B), and Cultural Resources Constraints Assessment
(HELIX 2024b; Attachment C).
This Addendum considers the 12 environmental issue areas that were analyzed in the PEIR, and
discusses whether the proposed Project described above would trigger criteria identified in the CEQA
Guidelines, Section 15162 and 15163, in each of these areas:
• Air Quality
• Biological Resources
• Cultural Resources
• Energy
• Geology, Soils, and Paleontological Resources
• Global Climate Change
• Hydrology and Water Quality
• Landform Alteration and Visual Quality
• Land Use and Planning
• Noise
• Public Safety
• Transportation/Traffic
CEQA checklist items associated with the above-listed environmental issue areas that were determined
to be not applicable to the WFMP Update or have no impact in the PEIR are not considered herein.
Similarly, environmental issue areas that were found to have no potential for a significant impact
(Agricultural Resources, Mineral Resources) or are not applicable to the 2015 WFMP Update (Population
and Housing, Public Services, Recreation, Utilities and Service Systems) are not considered.
For each environmental issue area, this Addendum provides a comparative analysis of the impacts
presented in the PEIR to impacts that would occur from the Project as revised. The analysis includes a
determination regarding the occurrence of new significant impacts or an increase in the severity of
previously identified impacts. Finally, an analysis is presented to determine whether there are changed
circumstances or new information relative to the proposed modifications for the Project that would
result in new or substantially more severe environmental impacts.
1. A finding of “New Significant Impact due to Change in the Project, Unusual Circumstances or
Substantial New Information” means that the Project may have a new potentially significant impact
on the environment or a substantially more severe impact than analyzed in the previously certified
PEIR that cannot be mitigated to below a level of significance or be avoided.
2. A finding of “Less Than Significant with New Mitigation Incorporated” applies where the inclusion of
new mitigation measures and/or Project elements have reduced an effect from “Potentially
Significant Impact” to a “Less Than Significant Impact.” All mitigation measures and Project elements
870-1 and 870-2 Reservoirs Project | May 2024
6
that reduce the potential effects of the Project are described, including a brief explanation of how
the measures or elements reduce the effect to a less than significant level.
3. A finding of “Less Than Significant with Previous Mitigation Incorporated” applies where the
inclusion of mitigation measures and/or Project elements from previous environmental
documentation for the Project have reduced an effect from “Potentially Significant Impact” to a
“Less Than Significant Impact.” All mitigation measures that reduce the potential effects of the
Project are described, including a brief explanation of how the measures or elements reduce the
effect to a less than significant level. Mitigation measures from earlier analyses may be cross-
referenced.
4. A finding of “Less than Significant Impact/No Impact” means that the potential impact was fully
analyzed and/or mitigated in the prior PEIR and no new or different impacts will result from the
proposed Project. A “Less than Significant Impact/No Impact” answer should be explained where it
is based on Project-specific factors as well as general standards (e.g., the Project will not expose
sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a Project-specific screening analysis).
5. All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site,
cumulative as well as Project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational
impacts.
6. Earlier analyses may be used where an effect has been adequately analyzed in the PEIR per CEQA
Guidelines Section 15063(c)(3)(D). The PEIR has been incorporated by reference into this document
and may be referenced for previous analysis related to the currently proposed action.
7. Supporting Information Sources. A source list is attached, and other sources used or individuals
contacted are cited in the discussion.
8. The explanation of each issue identifies:
a. The significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question;
b. Differences between the proposed Project and the previously approved project described in
the certified PEIR;
c. The previously approved standard construction practices (SCPs) and project design features
(PDFs) identified, if any, to reduce the severity of impacts; and
d. The previously approved mitigation measure(s) identified, if any, to reduce the impact to
below a level of significance.
870-1 and 870-2 Reservoirs Project | May 2024
7
5.1 AIR QUALITY
Summary of the PEIR Analysis
Analysis of air quality impacts is provided in PEIR Section 4.1, pages 4.1-1 through 4.1-16. As discussed in
the PEIR, because the 2015 WFMP Update used the same growth projections from the San Diego
Association of Governments (SANDAG) that were used in developing the Regional Air Quality Strategy
(RAQS), the 2015 WFMP Update would not conflict with the applicable air quality plan. Daily emissions
associated with construction of CIP projects were assessed as potentially significant due to the unknown
variables related to the specific number and type of construction equipment and duration of
construction activities for individual CIP projects. Mitigation measure Air-1 requires the completion of a
project-specific air quality analysis for each CIP to determine whether potential air pollutant emissions
associated with construction activities would be less than the San Diego County Air Pollution Control
Districts (SDACPD’s) screening thresholds. Daily operational emissions, which would be associated with
stationary (e.g., generators) and mobile sources, were determined to be negligible and less-than-
significant. No impacts were determined to occur related to exposing sensitive receptors to substantial
pollutant concentrations and creating objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people.
Analysis of Proposed Project
Issue 1 – Consistency with Applicable Air Quality Plan
The Project is located within the San Diego Air Basin (SDAB) under the jurisdiction of SDAPCD. The most
current air quality planning documents for the SDAPCD and thus the applicable air quality plans for the
Project are SDAPCD’s 2020 Plan for Attaining the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Ozone in
San Diego County (Attainment Plan; SDAPCD 2020) for the National Ambient Air Quality Standards
(NAAQS) and SDAPCD’s 2022 RAQS (SDAPCD 2022) for the California Ambient Air Quality Standards
(CAAQS). These plans address emissions from all sources, including natural sources, through
implementation of control measures, where feasible, on stationary sources to attain the NAAQS and
CAAQS. Mobile sources are regulated by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) and
California Air Resources Board (CARB), and the emissions and reduction strategies related to mobile
sources are considered in the Attainment Plan and RAQS.
The Attainment Plan and RAQS rely on information from CARB and SANDAG, including mobile and area
source emissions, as well as information regarding projected growth in the County, to project future
emissions and then determine from that the strategies necessary for the reduction of emissions through
regulatory controls. CARB mobile source emission projections and SANDAG growth projections are
based on population and vehicle trends and land use plans developed by the cities and by the County. As
such, projects that propose development that is consistent with the growth anticipated by the local
jurisdictions’ general plans would be consistent with the Attainment Plan and RAQS.
As discussed in the PEIR, growth assumptions made within the 2015 WFMP Update to determine
appropriate future service requirements were also derived from SANDAG growth assumptions and land
use information. As such, the 2015 WFMP Update, and therefore the proposed Project, would be
consistent with the applicable SDAPCD air quality management plans. Impacts would be less than
significant.
870-1 and 870-2 Reservoirs Project | May 2024
8
Issue 2 – Consistency with Air Quality Standards
The Project would generate emissions of criteria pollutants during construction and operation. Criteria
pollutants include carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen oxides (NOX), ozone, particulate matter less than 10
microns in diameter (PM10), particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in diameter (PM2.5), sulfur dioxide
(SO2), and lead. To determine whether the Project would exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone
precursors (i.e., NOX and volatile organic compounds [VOCs]) or contribute substantially to a projected
air quality violation, Project emissions were evaluated based on the quantitative emission thresholds
established by the SDAPCD. As part of its air quality permitting process, the SDAPCD has established
thresholds in Rules 20.2 and 20.3 for the preparation of Air Quality Impact Assessments. In the absence
of a SDAPCD adopted threshold for PM2.5, the South Coast Air Quality Management District’s (SCAQMD)
screening threshold of 55 pounds per day or 10 tons per year was used.1
The screening criteria were developed by SDAPCD and SCAQMD with the purpose of attaining the
NAAQS and CAAQS. The NAAQS and CAAQS identify concentrations of pollutants in the ambient air
below which no adverse effects on the public health and welfare are anticipated. Therefore, for CEQA
purposes, these screening criteria can be used as numeric methods to demonstrate that a project’s total
emissions would not result in a significant impact to air quality. The screening thresholds used in this
analysis are presented in Table 1, Screening-level Thresholds for Air Quality Impact Analysis.
Table 1
SCREENING-LEVEL THRESHOLDS FOR AIR QUALITY IMPACT ANALYSIS
Criteria Pollutant
Emission Threshold
(pounds per day)
Construction
Emission Threshold
(pounds per day)
Operation
Particulate Matter (PM10) 100 100
Particulate Matter (PM2.5) 55 55
Oxides of Nitrogen (NOX) 250 250
Oxides of Sulfur (SOX) 250 250
Carbon Monoxide (CO) 550 550
Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) 55 55
Source: San Diego Air Pollution Control District Rules 20.2 and 20.3; SCAQMD 2023.
Construction
The Project would result in temporary increases in air pollutant emissions during construction. These
emissions would be generated in the form of fugitive dust emissions (PM10 and PM2.5) and ozone
precursor emissions (NOX and VOCs). Operation of heavy equipment and vehicles during construction
activities would generate exhaust emissions from fuel combustion. Fugitive dust emissions would be
generated from earth disturbance during site clearing, grading, demolition, and trenching/excavation as
well as from construction vehicles operating on open fields or dirt roadways within the Project site.
In accordance with PEIR mitigation measure Air-1, criteria pollutant and ozone precursor emissions from
Project construction were assessed using the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod), Version
2020.4.0. Construction emission calculations presented herein assume the implementation of standard
1 This is appropriate as the SDAB is located adjacent to and has similar attainment status as the South Coast Air Basin, which is
under jurisdiction of the SCAQMD.
870-1 and 870-2 Reservoirs Project | May 2024
9
dust control best management practices (BMPs), including watering two times daily during grading, per
Air-SCP-1.
The Project’s estimated maximum daily emissions are shown in Table 2, Estimated Maximum Daily
Construction Emissions. Maximum daily emissions would occur during overlapping demolition and
grading activities.
Table 2
ESTIMATED MAXIMUM DAILY CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS
Phase Pollutant Emission (pounds per day)
PM10 PM2.5 NOX SOX CO VOCs
Construct New 870-2 Reservoir
Clear and Grub 3.08 1.73 10.41 <0.5 9.69 1.09
Demolish Pavements and
Utilities
1.35 0.57 11.71 <0.5 10.82 1.27
Grade Site 3.81 2.05 15.64 <0.5 15.12 1.60
Install Yard Piping 0.17 0.11 2.91 <0.5 4.82 0.30
Construct Tank 0.38 0.27 6.93 <0.5 8.06 0.78
Pave Access/Perimeter Roads 0.38 0.21 4.30 <0.5 5.57 0.57
Relocate/Replace Existing 870-1 Reservoir Inlet/Outlet Pipes
Excavate/trench, Relocate
Pipe, Backfill
0.58 0.31 7.52 <0.5 8.73 0.88
Restore Earthen Embankment 3.52 1.92 13.4 <0.5 14.16 1.49
Maximum Daily Emissions 5.16 2.62 27.3 <0.5 25.9 2.87
SDAPCD Regional Thresholds 100 55 250 250 550 55
Significant Impact? No No No No No No
CalEEMod outputs provided in Appendix A.
VOCs = volatile organic compounds; NOX = oxides of nitrogen; CO = carbon monoxide; SOX = oxides of sulfur;
PM10 = particulate matter less than 10 microns in diameter; PM2.5 = particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in diameter
As shown in Table 2, criteria pollutant and ozone precursor emissions would be well below the
respective screening thresholds. There is potential that other CIP projects, including construction of the
1655-1 Reservoir (0.5 MG), upgrades to the 711-1 Pump Station, and construction of nine pipelines,
could occur concurrently with the proposed Project. Based on their size and the associated construction
activities required, these projects are expected to involve less-intensive construction than the proposed
Project, and are not expected to generate emissions that would combine with the proposed Project’s
emissions to exceed thresholds. In addition, it is unlikely that all of these projects would be constructed
simultaneously. As such, construction period impacts would be less than significant.
Operations
As discussed in the PEIR, the primary sources of operational criteria pollutants associated with CIP
projects include stationary sources (e.g., emergency generators) and mobile sources. The Project would
not require the provision of a new emergency generator or other type of fuel-consuming operating
equipment (there is an existing emergency generator within an on-site building that would remain).
Mobile sources would be limited to occasional maintenance trips. Due to the minimal number of
vehicular trips associated with maintenance, mobile-source air pollutant emissions would be negligible.
Therefore, the Project would not violate air quality standards or contribute substantially to an existing or
projected air quality violation during operations. Impacts would be less than significant.
870-1 and 870-2 Reservoirs Project | May 2024
10
Conclusion
No new significant air quality impacts or substantial increase in the severity of previously identified
significant air quality impacts would occur as a result of the Project. In addition, no changes in
circumstances and no new information of substantial importance relative to air quality have been
identified. The conclusions identified in the PEIR remain accurate and applicable to the proposed
Project. See Section 6 for a summary of applicable PEIR standard construction practices, project design
features, and mitigation measures that apply to the Project.
5.2 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Summary of the PEIR Analysis
Analysis of biological resources impacts is provided in PEIR Section 4.2, pages 4.2-1 through 4.2-44. The
PEIR determined that implementation of the 2015 WFMP Update would have the potential to result in
direct impacts to special-status plant and wildlife species, sensitive habitats, wetlands, and wildlife
corridors from clearing, grubbing, and other initial land disturbance activities within sensitive habitats,
including Diegan coastal sage scrub, chaparral, marsh, riparian, vernal pool, oak woodland, and
grassland habitats. Potential indirect impacts to sensitive species and habitats from implementation of
CIPs under the 2015 WFMP Update could include impaired water quality, fugitive dust, noise, night
lighting, staging areas, and establishment and spread of invasive non-native plant species from graded
areas. Mitigation measure Bio-1A requires biological surveys for individual CIP projects. Mitigation
measure Bio-1B requires that if the biological surveys determine the presence of special-status species
and/or sensitive habitats on or adjacent to CIP project sites, impacts be identified in a biological
technical report and detailed project-specific avoidance and mitigation measures be developed.
Mitigation measure Bio-1B also requires: (1) conducting surveys for and avoiding coastal California
gnatcatcher, other nesting bird species, and nesting raptor species; (2) obtaining regulatory agency
permits/authorizations; and (3) providing off-site compensatory mitigation for impacts to sensitive
habitats. Additional mitigation measures include pre-construction meetings with a qualified biologist
(Bio-1C), construction fencing/flagging (Bio-1D), biological monitoring (Bio-1E), checking equipment left
overnight for sheltering sensitive wildlife species (Bio-1F), and backfilling trenches to avoid inadvertent
wildlife trapping (Bio-1G). Implementation of mitigation measures, as well as PDFs and SCPs identified
throughout the PEIR, would reduce potential impacts to special-status plant and wildlife species,
sensitive habitats, wetlands, and wildlife corridors to less-than-significant levels. In addition, with
implementation of mitigation measures Bio-1A through Bio-1E, the 2015 WFMP Update would not
conflict with local policies and ordinances pertaining to the protection of biological resources.
Analysis of Proposed Project
In accordance with PEIR mitigation measures Bio-1A and Bio-1B, a Biological Resources Report was
prepared for the Project (HELIX 2024a), which included a literature review, general biological survey,
focused coastal California gnatcatcher surveys, and a jurisdictional assessment of the study area, which
encompassed the Project site and an additional 100 feet adjacent to the site. The results of the report
are incorporated into the analysis below.
870-1 and 870-2 Reservoirs Project | May 2024
11
Issue 1 – Sensitive Species and Habitats
Special-status Plant Species
Special-status plant species are those listed as federally threatened or endangered by the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (USFWS); State listed as threatened or endangered or considered sensitive by the
California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW); and/or are California Native Plant Society (CNPS)
California Rare Plant Rank (CRPR) List 1A, 1B, or 2 species, as recognized in the CNPS Inventory of Rare
and Endangered Vascular Plants of California and consistent with the CEQA Guidelines.
One special status plant species was observed in the Project study area: San Diego County viguiera.
Diego County viguiera is a CRPR List 4.3 plant species, which include watch list plants of limited
distribution or those that are infrequent throughout a broader range in California. San Diego County
viguiera occurs as a natural population in the habitat outside of the Project site, while the plants within
the Project site likely are a result of restoration seeding following construction of the 870-1 Reservoir.
However, construction activities and disturbances would impact only a small number of individuals and
would not impact the overall population, either within the Project site or in the region.
As a CRPR List 4.3 plant, the species is relatively widespread in the local and regional area. The majority
of the individuals observed in the study area and immediate vicinity (i.e., local populations) would be
avoided by the Project. Furthermore, individuals adjacent but outside of impact areas would be avoided
through implementation of PEIR mitigation measure Bio-1D. Temporary impact areas would be restored
and revegetated with native species, including San Diego County viguiera, consistent with pre-existing
conditions. Project impacts would not jeopardize the long-term survival of the species and impacts
would be less than significant with implementation of the mitigation identified in the PEIR.
No other special status plant species have high potential to occur in the Project site. Several species,
including Cleveland’s goldenstar (Bloomeria clevelandii) and Robinson’s peppergrass (Lepidium
virginicum var. robinsonii), have high potential to occur within the study area but outside the boundaries
of the Project site. The Project site is clearly defined in the field, contained inside existing fencing and a
dirt road, dominated by non-native plants, and routinely mowed. No construction-related impacts are
anticipated to occur outside the Project site. Therefore, special-status plant species with high potential
to occur outside the Project site, but within the study area, are not anticipated to be impacted by
Project construction activities.
Special-status Animal Species
Special-status animal species are those listed as threatened or endangered, proposed for listing, or
candidates for listing by the USFWS and considered sensitive animals by the CDFW.
Four special-status animal species were observed in the study area: Cooper’s hawk (Accipiter cooperii);
southern California rufous-crowned sparrow (Aimophila ruficeps canescens); coastal California
gnatcatcher (Polioptila californica californica); and least Bell’s vireo (Vireo bellii pusillus). Suitable
gnatcatcher habitat occurs within and surrounding the Project site, and gnatcatcher were detected
approximately 350 feet north of the Project site during the surveys. Implementation of the Project is
anticipated to impact approximately 0.4 acre of disturbed Diegan coastal sage scrub, none of which was
observed to be utilized by gnatcatcher during the non-breeding season protocol surveys. In addition,
based on the characteristics of the on-site Diegan coastal sage scrub vegetation, gnatcatcher are not
likely to use the habitat for breeding. However, PEIR mitigation measures Bio-1B, Bio-1C, and Bio-1E
870-1 and 870-2 Reservoirs Project | May 2024
12
would be required to ensure impacts are avoided if vegetation trimming and/removal occurs during the
gnatcatcher breeding season. With implementation of these measures, potential direct impacts to
gnatcatcher would be less than significant.
Least Bell’s vireo were incidentally observed within the disturbed southern riparian woodland
community immediately northwest of the Project site. Implementation of the Project is not anticipated
to result in direct impacts to the federal and State listed endangered least Bell’s vireo or its
habitat/territory, as suitable nesting and foraging habitat for this species does not occur within the
impact area.
Potentially significant indirect impacts to gnatcatcher and least Bell’s vireo may occur if noise levels at
occupied suitable habitat adjacent to the Project’s construction activities exceed a level of 60
A-weighted decibels (dBA) hourly average (LEQ) or ambient (whichever is greater) as measured from the
location of nests. Specifically, construction-related noise could cause breeding birds to temporarily or
permanently leave their territories to avoid disturbances from human activities, which could lead to
reduced reproductive success and increased mortality. In addition, if utilized, night lighting that extends
onto adjacent wildlife habitat can discourage use of the habitat by nocturnal wildlife and can also
provide nocturnal predators with an unnatural advantage over their prey, resulting in a potentially
significant impact. Temporary lighting would be required to be oriented downward, and the lighting
source would be required to be shielded to minimize light spill and avoid adverse effects on adjacent
wildlife habitat. PEIR mitigation measures Bio-1B, Bio-1C, and Bio-1E would be required and would
reduce potential indirect impacts to gnatcatcher and least’s Bell vireo to below a level of significance.
Pursuant to the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) and California Fish and Game (CFG) Code,
development of the proposed Project could disturb or destroy active migratory bird nests if vegetation
clearing occurs during the general bird nesting season (February 15 through September 15) and/or
raptor nesting season (January 15 through July 15). Disturbance to or destruction of migratory bird
nests, including sensitive species such as Cooper’s hawk or southern California rufous-crowned sparrow,
would violate the MBTA and CFG Code and is, therefore, considered to be a potentially significant
impact. Implementation of PEIR mitigation measures Bio-1B and Bio-1G would ensure that potential
impacts to birds protected under the MBTA and CFG Code are avoided during construction.
Several other listed and non-listed special-status animal species occur or have the potential to occur on
and in the immediate vicinity of the Project site, including the State candidate for endangered Crotch’s
bumblebee and the special-status species Belding’s orange-throated whiptail, San Diego tiger whiptail,
Baja California coachwhip, red-diamond rattlesnake, Blainville’s horned lizard, two-striped garter snake,
grasshopper sparrow, burrowing owl, California horned lark, and San Diego black-tailed jackrabbit.
Potential impacts on these species would be limited to temporary displacement of individuals during
Project construction. In addition, based on the quality and size of the habitat that could be impacted,
the study area is not expected to support locally or regionally significant populations of these listed and
non-listed sensitive species. Therefore, impacts to the species would be considered less than significant.
Issue 2 – Riparian Habitat and Other Sensitive Natural Communities
Sensitive natural communities include land that supports unique vegetation communities or the habitats
of rare or endangered species or subspecies of animals or plants as defined by Section 15380 of the
CEQA Guidelines.
870-1 and 870-2 Reservoirs Project | May 2024
13
Sensitive vegetation communities/habitat types mapped in the study area include Diegan coastal sage
scrub (including disturbed) and disturbed southern riparian woodland. The Project site contains 1.3
acres of disturbed Diegan coastal sage scrub, with the remainder of site the including developed land
(3.2 acres) and non-native vegetation (3.9 acres). Developed land and non-native vegetation are not
considered sensitive under CEQA.
On-site impacts to disturbed Diegan coastal sage scrub from the Project would include approximately
0.1 acre of permanent impacts and 0.3 acre of temporary impacts. This on-site community was
revegetated following construction of the existing 870-1 Reservoir and is composed primarily of dense
stands of tall shrubs such as laurel sumac, lemonade berry, coyote brush, and broom baccharis with
small numbers of California sagebrush. Characteristic coastal sage scrub species such as California
buckwheat, Menzies’s goldenbush, black sage, and white sage are absent or only occur as a few
scattered individuals. Therefore, the disturbed coastal sage scrub lacks the structural composition and
species diversity of undisturbed coastal sage scrub. Impacts to disturbed Diegan coastal sage scrub are
anticipated to occur along the edge of the existing 870-1 Reservoir and access road and are anticipated
to involve trimming and removal of native shrubs. Impacts to disturbed Diegan coastal sage scrub are
considered significant. PEIR mitigation measure Bio-1B would be implemented to reduce impacts to a
less-than-significant level. In addition, PEIR mitigation measure Bio-1D would be implemented to avoid
inadvertent impacts to Diegan coastal sage scrub through construction fencing/flagging.
Issue 3 – Federally Protected Wetlands
The Project site occurs within uplands, and no potential wetlands or waters of the U.S., waters of the
State, or CDFW jurisdictional habitats occur on the Project site. Therefore, no impacts to such resources
would occur.
Issue 4 – Wildlife Movement Corridors and Nursery Sites
While the Project site and adjacent native habitats support localized use by wildlife, particularly birds,
the majority of the Project site is surrounded by an existing fence and does not function as a wildlife
corridor or habitat linkage for non-avian terrestrial wildlife. Furthermore, the Project site is a relatively
small size in the context of larger habitat areas to the north, east, and south. As such, the Project would
not interfere with wildlife movement or impede the use of nursery sites. Impacts would be less than
significant.
Conclusion
No new significant biological resources impacts or substantial increase in severity of previously
identified significant biological resources impacts would occur as a result of the Project. In addition, no
changes in circumstances and no new information of substantial importance relative to biological
resources have been identified. The conclusions identified in the PEIR remain accurate and applicable to
the proposed Project. See Section 6 for a summary of applicable PEIR standard construction practices,
project design features, and mitigation measures that apply to the Project.
870-1 and 870-2 Reservoirs Project | May 2024
14
5.3 CULTURAL RESOURCES
Summary of the PEIR Analysis
Analysis of cultural resources impacts is provided in PEIR Section 4.3, pages 4.3-1 through 4.3-16. The
PEIR identified three structures that would be demolished under the 2015 WFMP Update, including two
reservoirs on one site P2584 (Reservoirs 657-1 and 657-2) and a chlorine disinfection facility on the site
of P2228 (Reservoir 870-2). The chlorine disinfection facility was built in 1993 and therefore would not
qualify as a historical resource. Reservoirs 657-1 and PS 657-2 are both more than 45 years of age and
are therefore of the age to potentially be considered historical resources. PDFs Cul-PDF-1 and Cul-PDF-2,
which involve a historical resource assessment and treatment program, if necessary, would avoid
significant impacts to historical resources associated with demolition of Reservoirs 657-1 and 657-2.
Potential impacts to archaeological resources from grading and excavation activities associated with
individual CIP projects would be avoided though implementation of mitigation measures Cul-2A, Cul-2B,
Cul-2, and Cul-2D, which involve site-specific cultural resource reviews and surveys, monitoring during
ground-disturbing activities, and avoidance or curation of discovered resources. Potential impacts
associated with the discovery of human remains would be reduced to a less-than-significant level
through implementation of Cul-SCP-1, which requires implementation of the provisions of the California
Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 and Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 5097.98 to 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.
Analysis of Proposed Project
In accordance with PEIR mitigation measure Cul-2A, a Cultural Resource Assessment was conducted for
the Project (HELIX 2024b) to determine if significant cultural or historic resources are within, or likely to
be within, the Project area. The assessment included a review of in-house records search data, geology
and soil data, aerial photographs, and topographic maps, as well as a site visit and historic significance
evaluation of the existing 870-1 Reservoir. The results of the assessment are incorporated into the
analysis below.
Issue 1 – Historical Resources
Two previously recorded cultural resources occur within one-quarter mile of the Project area, both of
which are documented at the South Coastal Information Center as extending into the Project site. These
resources, P-37-010668 (CA-SDI-10668) and P-37-024827 (CA-SDI-16450), are multi-component
resources containing both prehistoric and historic site components. P-37-010688 (CA-SDI-10668) was
initially recorded as isolated flakes along a flat ridgetop located to the south of the existing 870-1
Reservoir. In the 1980s, the site was updated as containing several loci, and was described as a large
quarry site with associated lithic scatters and flaking stations. P-37-024827 (CA-SDI-16450) consists of
two prehistoric bedrock milling features, a historic concrete structure, an artifact scatter containing
prehistoric debitage and cores, and historic glass fragments. Further research into each of the sites
revealed that while P-37-010668 (CA-SDI-10668) does indeed extend into the Project site, P-37-024827
(CA-SDI-16450) was documented to the northeast, outside of the Project site. P-37-010668 (CA-SDI-
10668) has been previously tested and determined to not be significant.
870-1 and 870-2 Reservoirs Project | May 2024
15
The Project would involve renovation of an existing chlorine disinfection facility present at the site. As
identified in the PEIR, the existing chlorine disinfection facility was built in 1993 and therefore would not
qualify as a historic resource. The Project would also involve modifications to the existing 870-1
Reservoir, including trenching/excavating through portions of earthen embankment to relocate the inlet
pipe and replace the outlet pipe and replacing the floating liner and cover. The 870-1 Reservoir was
constructed in 1962 and therefore meets the age criterion to quality as a historic resource. However, the
resource is recommended not eligible for the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) or California
Register of Historical Resources (CRHR) for the following reasons (as summarized from the Cultural
Resource Assessment prepared for the Project [HELIX 2024b]): (1) it does not appear to be directly
associated with a pattern of events or a historic trend that made a significant contribution to the
development of the community, the State, or the nation (NRHP/CRHR Criterion A/1); (2) research to
date does not indicate direct association between people who have been associated with the reservoir
and any demonstrably important contributions to local, State, or national history (NRHP/CRHR Criterion
B/2); (3) the facility does not embody the distinctive characteristic of a method of construction,
represent the work of a master, or possess high artistic values (NRHP/CRHR Criterion C/3); and (4)
further study of the facility would not add any new information to the historic record (NRHP/CRHR
Criterion D/4). As such, no adverse impacts to historic resources from the development of the proposed
Project are anticipated.
Issue 2 – Archaeological Resources
No areas of young alluvium are present within the Project area, which typically have a higher likelihood
of containing buried archaeological material. Within the Project area, it is likely that cultural artifacts
present are surface material only. While a review of aerial photographs indicated that the location of
the proposed 870-2 Reservoir has been cleared and possibly lightly graded multiple times since the
1960s, no evidence could be obtained indicating that mass or heavy grading in this area has occurred. As
such, there is potential for unknown archaeological resources to be present at the site, impacts to which
could be potentially significant. As such, PEIR mitigation measure Cul-2 would be implemented for initial
clearing and grading activities within the proposed 870-2 Reservoir site as well as for
trenching/excavation for the 870-1 Reservoir inlet and outlet pipes that extend into undisturbed soil.
Issue 3 – Human Remains
As determined in the PEIR, although unlikely, Native American human remains could be discovered
during the Project’s ground-disturbing activities. In accordance with Cul-SCP-1, OWD would 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. With Cul-SCP-1, impacts would be less than significant.
Conclusion
No new significant cultural resources impacts or substantial increase in previously identified cultural
resources impacts would occur as a result of the Project. In addition, no changes in circumstances and
no new information of substantial importance relative to cultural resources have been identified. The
conclusions identified in the PEIR remain accurate and applicable to the proposed Project. See Section 6
for a summary of applicable PEIR standard construction practices, project design features, and
mitigation measures that apply to the Project.
870-1 and 870-2 Reservoirs Project | May 2024
16
5.4 ENERGY
Summary of the PEIR Analysis
Analysis of energy usage is provided in PEIR Section 4.4, pages 4.4-1 through 4.4-6. The PEIR determined
that construction fuel consumption associated with CIP projects would not be more inefficient, wasteful,
or unnecessary than at other construction sites in the region. Operationally, transportation energy
demand would be minimal and electricity demand associated with pump station projects would be
reduced through implementation of Ene-PDF-1 through Ene-PDF-4, which ensure that new mechanical
components are energy efficient and operate efficiently. Therefore, the proposed pump stations would
not result in the wasteful, inefficient, and unnecessary consumption of energy during operations.
Pipeline projects and storage projects, once constructed, would not require the use of electricity,
emergency generators, or other types of fuel-consuming operating equipment.
Analysis of Proposed Project
Issue 1 – Energy Consumption
The Project would consume energy during construction, primarily consisting of petroleum-based fuels in
the forms of gasoline and diesel. Heavy-duty off-road construction equipment, haul trucks delivering
and removing construction materials, and worker commute vehicles would consume these fuels.
Project-related consumption of such energy resources for construction would be temporary, typical for
this type of construction, and cease upon the completion of construction. As indicated in the PEIR, there
are no unusual project site characteristics that would necessitate the use of construction equipment
that would be less energy-efficient than at comparable construction sites in other parts of the region
and the State. Therefore, construction fuel consumption associated with the Project would not be
inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary.
During operations, the Project’s energy usage would be limited to security lighting. In accordance with
Ene-PDF-2, lighting would be energy efficient and controlled by motion sensors to limit usage. As such,
the Project would not result in the inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary use of energy during operations,
and impacts would be less than significant.
Conclusion
No new significant energy impacts or substantial increase in the severity of previously identified
significant energy impacts would occur as a result of the Project. In addition, no changes in
circumstances and no new information of substantial importance relative to energy have been
identified. The conclusions identified in the PEIR remain accurate and applicable to the proposed
Project. See Section 6 for a summary of applicable PEIR standard construction practices, project design
features, and mitigation measures that apply to the Project.
5.5 GEOLOGY, SOILS, AND PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Summary of the PEIR Analysis
Analysis of geology, soils, and paleontological resources impacts is provided in PEIR Section 4.5, pages
4.5-1 through 4.5-22. The PEIR determined that CIP projects could be subject to seismic hazards
870-1 and 870-2 Reservoirs Project | May 2024
17
associated with fault rupture, ground shaking, seismic-related ground failure and liquefaction, and
landslides. With implementation of Geo-PDF-1, which requires compliance with the Unform Building
Code (UBC), California Building Code (CBC), and California Department of Conservation, Division of
Mines and Geology (CDMG) Special Publication 117, and Geo-SCP-1, which requires site-specific
geotechnical investigations in areas of liquefaction and/or landslides and the implementation of
recommendations from the investigations, potential impacts related to seismic hazards would be less
than significant. Similarly, implementation of Geo-SCP-2, which requires site-specific geotechnical
investigations to identify severely erodible soils and provide recommendations to address such soils, and
Geo-SCP-3, which requires inclusion of an erosion control plan or Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan
(SWPPP), potential impacts related to soil erosion would be less than significant. Implementation of
Geo-SCP-4, which requires site-specific geotechnical investigations to identify areas of geologic/soil
instability and provide recommendations to address such areas of instability, potential impacts related
to landslides, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction/collapse, and expansive soils would be less than
significant. The PEIR identified that portions of the 2015 WFMP Update planning area are underlain by
geologic formations that have potential to contain fossils, and that excavation and grading within such
areas could result in impacts to paleontological resources. As such, mitigation measures Geo-5A,
Geo-5B, Geo-5C, and Geo-5D, which involve a review of native soils at the CIP site, paleontological
monitoring, and evaluation and curation of discovered paleontological resources, are required to reduce
potential impacts to less-than-significant levels. No impacts were determined to occur related to septic
tanks.
Analysis of Proposed Project
In accordance with Geo-SCP-1, Geo-SCP-2, and Geo-SCP-4, Geotechnical Evaluations were prepared for
the 870-2 Reservoir construction (Atlas Technical Consultants LLC 2023a) and the 870-1 Reservoir inlet
pipe relocation (Atlas Technical Consultants LLC 2023b). The results of these evaluations are
incorporated into the analysis below, as appropriate.
Issue 1 – Exposure to Seismic-Related Hazards
Fault Rupture
The closest known active fault to the site is the Rose Canyon Fault Zone, located approximately 15 miles
to the northwest. The potentially active La Nacion Fault Zone is located approximately 3 miles west of
the site. The site is not located in an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone. No active faults are known to
underlie or project towards the site. The probability of fault rupture is considered negligible (Atlas
Technical Consultants LLC 2023a, 2023b), and impacts would be less than significant.
Ground Shaking
Ground shaking could occur at the site as a result of movement along an active fault zone in the vicinity.
The proposed facilities would be designed and constructed to withstand seismic ground shaking via
compliance with the recommendations provided in the Geotechnical Evaluations prepared for the
Project (Atlas Technical Consultants LLC 2023a, 2023b), as well as relevant requirements from the UBC,
CBC, and the “Greenbook” Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction, in accordance with
Geo-PDF-1. In addition, the proposed 870-2 Reservoir tank would be designed in accordance with 16.6.5
Secondary Containment Systems of American Society of Civil Engineers 7-16. Through compliance with
applicable requirements, impacts associated with ground shaking would be less than significant.
870-1 and 870-2 Reservoirs Project | May 2024
18
Ground Failure and Liquefaction
Liquefaction occurs when loose, saturated, generally fine sands and silts are subjected to strong ground
shaking. The soils lose shear strength and become liquid, potentially resulting in large total and
differential ground surface settlements, as well as possible lateral spreading during an earthquake.
Given the relatively dense nature of the materials beneath the site and the relatively deep groundwater,
the potential for liquefaction and dynamic settlement to occur is negligible (Atlas Technical Consultants
LLC 2023a, 2023b). Impacts would be less than significant.
Landslides
Evidence of landslides or slope instabilities was not observed during the Geotechnical Evaluations nor
have landslides been mapped within the site. Based on the highly resistant formational sandstones
encountered at shallow depths on the site and the relatively gentle topography, the potential for
landslides or slope instabilities to occur at the site is considered low (Atlas Technical Consultants LLC
2023a, 2023b). Impacts would be less than significant.
Issue 2 – Soil Erosion or Topsoil Loss
There is potential for erosion and loss of topsoil during construction as a result of removing existing
structures and stabilizing vegetation. Potential erosion/topsoil impacts would be avoided or reduced
below a level of significance through compliance with Geo-SCP-3 and the associated implementation of
a SWPPP by the contractor during construction pursuant to the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES) General Construction Permit. The SWPPP would identify BMPs to control soil erosion,
such as erosion control/stabilizing measures in cleared areas and on graded slopes (e.g., geotextiles,
mats, fiber rolls, soil binders, temporary hydroseeding); sediment controls (e.g., temporary inlet filters,
silt fences, fiber rolls, gravel bags, temporary sediment basins, check dams, street sweeping, energy
dissipaters); and stabilized construction access points (e.g., temporary gravel or pavement) and
sediment stockpiles (e.g., silt fences and tarps). Upon completion of construction activities, portions of
the Project site would be developed/paved, while others would be revegetated consistent with existing
conditions. The Project would not result in the potential for substantial soil erosion or loss of topsoil
compared to existing conditions. Impacts would be less than significant.
Issue 3 – Geologic/Soil Instability
As described above for Issue 1, the site is not subject to geologic/soil instability based on the relatively
dense nature of the materials beneath the site and the relatively deep groundwater (Atlas Technical
Consultants LLC 2023a, 2023b). In addition, the site is not located in an area of known subsidence
associated with fluid withdrawal, and the potential for subsidence is considered negligible (Atlas
Technical Consultants LLC 2023a, 2023b). Impacts would be less than significant.
Issue 4 – Expansive Soils
Expansive soils are attributable to the water holding capacity of clay materials. Such behavior can
adversely affect structural integrity (including underground facilities) through shifting of support
materials during the shrink-swell process. The colluvium encountered at the site at the ground surface
or below fill and extending to approximately five feet below ground surface, which consists of stiff,
moist, sandy fat clay with various amounts of gravel, is considered to have a high expansion potential
(Atlas Technical Consultants LLC 2023a, 2023b). Through incorporation of recommendations provided in
870-1 and 870-2 Reservoirs Project | May 2024
19
the Geotechnical Evaluations related to grading and foundations, impacts associated with expansive
soils would be less than significant.
Issue 5 – Paleontological Resources
The Project is listed in Table 4.5-3 of the PEIR as being located in an area of “marginal” paleontological
sensitivity. As determined in the PEIR, grading and excavation activities associated with CIP projects
occurring within “high,” “moderate,” “low,” and “marginal” paleontological sensitivity could have
significant impacts to potential paleontological resources. As such, PEIR mitigation measures Geo-5B,
Geo-5C, and Geo-5D would be required to reduce potential impacts to less-than-significant levels.
Conclusion
No new significant geology, soils, and paleontological resources impacts or substantial increase in the
severity previously identified significant geology, soils, and paleontological resources impacts would
occur as a result of the Project. In addition, no changes in circumstances and no new information of
substantial importance relative to geology, soils, and paleontological resources have been identified.
The conclusions identified in the PEIR remain accurate and applicable to the Project. See Section 6 for a
summary of applicable PEIR standard construction practices, project design features, and mitigation
measures that apply to the Project.
5.6 GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE
Summary of the PEIR Analysis
Analysis of global climate change impacts is provided in PEIR Section 4.6, pages 4.6-1 through 4.6-16.
The PEIR determined that construction of CIP projects would result in temporary greenhouse gas (GHG)
emissions that could exceed the annual screening level threshold of 2,500 metric tons (MT) of carbon
dioxide equivalent (CO2e). Mitigation measure GHG-1 requires OWD to prepare annual construction
activity estimates to demonstrate that the annual construction equipment use would be less than or
equal to the construction scenario included in the PEIR. Stationary (e.g., generators) and mobile source
operational GHG emissions were determined to be marginal. The largest source of GHG emissions would
be indirect GHG emissions resulting from electricity usage to power pump stations. As stated in the PEIR,
based on Statewide requirements, electricity usage will continue to become increasingly efficient and
generated by renewable sources, and therefore operational emissions would be unlikely to exceed the
2,500-MT CO2e threshold.
Analysis of Proposed Project
Issue 1 – Generation of Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Construction
Project construction would generate GHG emissions associated with equipment operation and earth
movement at the site, the transport of construction materials and equipment to the site, and worker
vehicles traveling to and from the site. Carbon dioxide (CO2) from gasoline and diesel fuel combustion
would be the primary GHG emissions during the construction period. Generation of these emissions
would be temporary.
870-1 and 870-2 Reservoirs Project | May 2024
20
Annual GHG emissions from Project construction are presented in Table 3, Estimated Annual
Construction GHG Emissions.
Table 3
ESTIMATED ANNUAL CONSTRUCTION GHG EMISSIONS
Year Emissions (MT CO2e)
2025 324
2026 209
Threshold 2,500
Significant Impact? No
CalEEMod outputs provided in Appendix A.
MT = metric tons; CO2e = carbon dioxide equivalent
As shown in Table 3, the proposed construction activities are estimated to contribute a maximum of
324 MT of CO2e per year. This would be well below the 2,500-MT CO2e per year threshold identified in
the PEIR. There is potential that other CIP projects, including construction of the 1655-1 Reservoir (0.5
MG), upgrades to the 711-1 Pump Station, and construction of nine pipelines, could occur in the same
year(s) as the proposed Project. Based on their size and the associated construction activities required,
these projects are expected to involve less-intensive construction activities than the proposed Project,
and are not expected to generate emissions that would combine with the proposed Project’s emissions
to exceed the annual threshold. As such, construction impacts would be less than significant.
Operations
As discussed in the PEIR, the primary sources of operational GHG emissions associated with CIP projects
include stationary sources (e.g., emergency generators), mobile sources, and electricity sources. The
Project would not require the provision of a new emergency generator or other type of fuel-consuming
operating equipment (there is an existing emergency generator within an on-site building that would
remain). Similarly, the Project, as a storage project, would not require substantial new electricity usage.
Mobile sources would be limited to occasional maintenance trips. Due to the minimal number of
vehicular trips associated with maintenance, mobile-source air pollutant emissions would be negligible.
Therefore, the Project would not generate GHG emissions during operations that would exceed the
applicable 2,500-MT CO2e threshold. Impacts would be less than significant.
Issue 2 – Conflicts with Applicable Plan, Policy, or Regulation
As demonstrated above, the Project would not exceed the applicable GHG emissions threshold, which
was developed to meet Statewide goals related to GHG emissions reductions. In addition, the Project’s
construction emissions would be temporary and its operational emissions would be negligible. As such,
impacts would be less than significant.
Conclusion
No new significant global climate change impacts or substantial increase in the severity of previously
identified significant global climate change impacts would occur as a result of the Project. In addition, no
changes in circumstances and no new information of substantial importance relative to global climate
change have been identified. The conclusions identified in the PEIR remain accurate and applicable to
the proposed Project. See Section 6 for a summary of applicable PEIR standard construction practices,
project design features, and mitigation measures that apply to the Project.
870-1 and 870-2 Reservoirs Project | May 2024
21
5.7 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
Summary of the PEIR Analysis
Analysis of hydrology and water quality impacts is provided in PEIR Section 4.7, pages 4.7-1 through
4.7-22. The PEIR concluded that construction-period surface and ground water quality impacts would be
avoided through implementation of BMPs in accordance with either an Erosion Control Plan (for
projects that would result in less than one acre of land disturbance) or a SWPPP (for projects that would
result in greater than one acre of land disturbance) per Geo-SCP-3. In addition, per Hyd-SCP-1,
contractors would be required to submit a health and safety plan to identify BMPs to reduce impacts to
water quality due to storm water runoff from construction sites. During operations, a Hazardous
Materials Business Plan (HMBP) would be implemented in accordance with Hyd-PDF-1 that would
identify post-construction BMPs to reduce potential impacts to surface and ground water quality due to
storm water pollution from developed sites. The PEIR identified that CIP reservoir and pump stations
would not be placed over groundwater basins and would therefore not increase impermeable surface
areas that would substantially prohibit groundwater recharge. Through implementation of Geo-SCP-2,
Geo-SCP-3, Hyd-SCP-1, and Hyd-PDF-1 mentioned above, as well as Hyd-PDF-2, which requires
appropriately designed drainage facilities for above-ground CIP projects, impacts associated with
drainage alteration would be less than significant. Similarly, potential mudflow impacts would be
addressed through completion of a geotechnical study per Geo-SCP-1. No impacts were determined to
occur related to floods, tsunamis, seiches, and dam failure.
Analysis of Proposed Project
Issue 1 – Water Quality
As disclosed in the PEIR, storm water pollutants associated with construction activities could include, but
would not be limited to, sediments, oil and grease, and organic compounds. In accordance with
Geo-SCP-3, a SWPPP would be implemented by the contractor during construction pursuant to the
NPDES Construction General Permit. The SWPPP would identify BMPs to control soil erosion. In addition,
the existing HMBP for the site would be updated for Project construction and stormwater BMPs related
to the transport, storage, use, and disposal of hazardous materials would be implemented in accordance
with Hyd-SCP-1 to minimize downstream water quality degradation from runoff pollution associated
with construction activities. Construction-related water quality impacts would therefore be less than
significant.
During operations, potential stormwater pollutants could include, but would not be limited to, sediment
discharges, nutrients from fertilizers, heavy metals, organic compounds, trash and debris, oxygen
demanding substances, oil and grease, bacteria and viruses, and pesticides from landscaping. However,
operation of the Project would be similar to existing conditions at the site and would not result in
increased potential to violate water quality standards or substantially degrade water quality. As such,
operational impacts would be less than significant.
Issue 2 – Groundwater Quality, Supplies, and Recharge
The Project would not be located within or adjacent to the Sweetwater or Otay Valley groundwater
basins, as identified in the PEIR. As such, the Project would not have the potential to affect groundwater
quality. The Project would not require the extraction of groundwater. In addition, the relatively small
870-1 and 870-2 Reservoirs Project | May 2024
22
footprint of the proposed development would not substantially affect groundwater recharge
capabilities. Impacts would be less than significant.
Issue 3 – Alteration of Drainage Patterns
The Project would result in an increase in impervious surfaces associated with the new 870-2 Reservoir
tank and access road surrounding the tank. In accordance with Hyd-PDF-2, these components have been
designed to include an adequately sized storm drain that would accommodate surface runoff generated
by these facilities. Based on the relatively small size of the new development footprint (and associated
limited potential for runoff generation) and provision of adequate storm drain facilities, the Project
would not result in significant impacts related to flooding, exceedance of storm water drainage capacity,
or generation of polluted runoff during operations. The potential for polluted runoff during construction
would be addressed through implementation of Geo-SCP-3 and Hyd-SCP-1. As such, impacts would be
less than significant.
Issue 4 – Mudflows
Based on the highly resistant formational sandstones encountered at shallow depths on the site and the
relatively gentle topography, the potential for landslides, mudflows, or slope instabilities to occur at the
site is considered low (Atlas Technical Consultants LLC 2023a, 2023b). Impacts would be less than
significant.
Conclusion
No new significant hydrology and water quality impacts or substantial increase in the severity of
previously identified significant hydrology and water quality impacts would occur as a result of the
Project. In addition, no changes in circumstances and no new information of substantial importance
relative to hydrology and water quality have been identified. The conclusions identified in the PEIR
remain accurate and applicable to the proposed Project. See Section 6 for a summary of applicable PEIR
standard construction practices, project design features, and mitigation measures that apply to the
Project.
5.8 LANDFORM ALTERATION AND VISUAL AESTHETICS
Summary of the PEIR Analysis
Analysis of landform alteration and visual aesthetics impacts is provided in PEIR Section 4.8, pages 4.8-1
through 4.8-18. The PEIR identified that permanent aboveground projects have the potential to impact
scenic vistas and scenic visual character and quality. Implementation of Aes-PDF-1, which sets forth
standards for design, landscaping, and irrigation, would reduce visual impacts to less-than-significant
levels. Lighting impacts were determined to be less than significant since nighttime lighting associated
with permanent aboveground projects would be limited to emergency lighting that would not create a
new source of substantial nighttime lighting that would adversely affect nighttime views. Potential glare
impacts would be addressed through Aes-PDF-1. No impacts were determined to occur related to State
scenic highways.
870-1 and 870-2 Reservoirs Project | May 2024
23
Analysis of Proposed Project
Issue 1 – Scenic Vistas
The Project would introduce new permanent aboveground components. The most prominent
component that would be visible is the 870-2 Reservoir tank, which would have a height of 24 feet. As
identified in the PEIR, the 870-2 Reservoir would be located in proximity to the Lower Otay Reservoir
and Otay River Valley, both of which are identified as scenic resources; however, as determined in the
PEIR, the 870-2 Reservoir would not affect scenic vistas associated with these resources due to distance
and intervening topography. In addition, Aes-PDF-1 would be implemented for the proposed tank. As
such, impacts would be less than significant.
Issue 2 – Visual Character and Quality
As identified in the PEIR, construction of the Project would involve disturbance of land cover, grading,
excavation, material stockpiles, and the presence of construction equipment, all of which would
temporarily degrade the existing visual character of the site; however, these impacts would be
temporary, and implementation of Aes-PDF-1 would ensure disturbed areas of the site that remain
undeveloped following construction would be revegetated consistent with pre-existing conditions.
During operations, the 24-foot-tall tank would be the primary new component that would have the
potential to affect the visual character and quality of the site; however, the tank would be constructed
at a site that includes water storage facilities (the 870-1 Reservoir and associated components) in the
existing condition and would therefore not result in a substantial change to the existing visual character
of the site. In addition, Aes-PDF-1 would be implemented for the proposed tank. As such, impacts would
be less than significant.
Issue 3 – Lighting and Glare
The Project may require security lighting, which would not represent a substantial new source of lighting
that could affect nighttime views. In accordance with Aes-PDF-1, low-reflective paint would be used for
the new 870-2 Reservoir tank, resulting in less-than-significant impacts related to glare.
Conclusion
No new significant landform alternation or visual aesthetics impacts or substantial increase in the
severity of previously identified significant landform alternation or visual aesthetics impacts would occur
as a result of the Project. In addition, no changes in circumstances and no new information of
substantial importance relative to landform alternation or visual aesthetics have been identified. The
conclusions identified in the PEIR remain accurate and applicable to the Project. See Section 6 for a
summary of applicable PEIR standard construction practices, project design features, and mitigation
measures that apply to the Project.
5.9 LAND USE AND PLANNING
Summary of the PEIR Analysis
Analysis of land use and planning impacts is provided in PEIR Section 4.9, pages 4.9-1 through 4.9-12.
The PEIR determined that certain CIP projects would be located within or adjacent to Multiple Species
Conservation Plan (MSCP) preserves. Implementation of LU-PDF-1, LU-PDF-2, LU-PDF-3, Noi-PDF-1, and
870-1 and 870-2 Reservoirs Project | May 2024
24
mitigation measure Bio-1C would incorporate applicable land use adjacency guidelines to reduce
potential impacts to less-than-significant levels. No impacts were determined to occur related to
physically dividing an established community and conflict with land use plans.
Analysis of Proposed Project
Issue 1 – Conflicts with Habitat Conservation and Natural Communities Conservation Plans
The Project site is adjacent to conserved areas of the County of San Diego MSCP. However, the Project
would be confined to the existing OWD-owned site, which is developed and includes fencing separating
the site from the conserved areas. Nonetheless, while OWD is not a participating entity, PEIR LU-PDF-1
and mitigation measure Bio-1C would be implemented as part of the Project to incorporate applicable
land use adjacency guidelines, which would avoid potentially significant impacts.
Conclusion
No new significant land use and planning impacts or substantial increase in the severity of previously
identified significant land use and planning impacts would occur as a result of the Project. In addition, no
changes in circumstances and no new information of substantial importance relative to land use and
planning have been identified.
5.10 NOISE
Summary of the PEIR Analysis
Analysis of noise impacts is provided in PEIR Section 4.10, pages 4.10-1 through 4.10-16. The PEIR
determined that permanent noise generation would occur primarily from the operation of pump
stations near residential uses, and that associated potentially significant impacts would be avoided
through implementation of Noi-PDF-1, which requires the enclosure of mechanical equipment. Storage
and pipeline projects would be passive and would not have the potential to result in operational noise
impacts. Construction of CIP projects would result in temporary increases in noise levels associated with
the use of heavy equipment and blasting/rock removal. It was concluded that construction-period
impacts would be less than significant through implementation of Noi-SCP-1 and Noi-SCP-2, which
require compliance with applicable jurisdictional noise limits and compliance with standard
specifications related to blasting, respectively. Implementation of Noi-SCP-2 would also reduce
potentially significant impacts related to vibration from blasting to less than significant levels. No
impacts were determined to occur related to aircraft noise.
Analysis of Proposed Project
Issue 1 – Substantial Permanent Increases in Ambient Noise Levels
Consistent with the analysis in the PEIR, the proposed 870-2 Reservoir would be passive and would not
generate permanent increases in ambient noise levels. No impacts would occur.
Issue 2 – Temporary Increases in Ambient Noise Levels
Construction for the Project would occur throughout the site for the various proposed components and
could result in elevated noise levels at the East Mesa Juvenile Detention Facility located to the
870-1 and 870-2 Reservoirs Project | May 2024
25
southwest of the site. Per the County of San Diego Noise Ordinance Section 36.408 and 36.409,
construction would be restricted to the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. and a noise level limit of 75 dBA
LEQ (8-hour) at the receiving occupied property. Table 4, Construction Noise Levels, presents the Project’s
prominent noise-generating construction activities, the closest distance from the activity to use areas at
the East Mesa Juvenile Detention Facility, the expected construction equipment for each activity, and
the resulting noise levels. It is conservatively assumed that all pieces of equipment for each activity
would be operating simultaneously at a given location.
Table 4
CONSTRUCTION NOISE LEVELS
Activity Distance Equipment Noise Level
(dBA LEQ)
Construct New 870-2 Reservoir
Clear and Grub 450 feet Rubber Tired Dozer,
Tractor/Loader/Backhoe 60.1
Demolish Pavements and
Utilities 450 feet Rubber Tired Dozer, Excavator,
Concrete/Industrial Saw 65.5
Grade Site 450 feet Grader, Excavator, Rubber Tired
Dozer, Tractor/Loader/Backhoe 65.0
Install Yard Piping 450 feet Excavator, Skid Steer Loader,
Tractor/Loader/Backhoe 60.1
Construct Tank 530 feet Forklift, Generator Set, Crane,
Tractor/Loader/Backhoe 59.7
Pave Access Road 450 feet Paver, Paving Equipment, Roller 59.5
Relocate/Replace Existing 870-1 Reservoir Inlet/Outlet Pipes
Excavate/trench,
Relocate Pipe, Backfill 700 feet Excavator, Crane, Generator Set,
Tractor/Loader/Backhoe 59.2
Restore Earthen
Embankment 700 feet Grader, Excavator, Rubber Tired
Dozer, Tractor/Loader/Backhoe 61.4
Source: U.S. Department of Transportation Roadway Construction Noise Model
As shown in Table 4, noise levels would not exceed 75 dBA LEQ at the use areas at the East Mesa Juvenile
Detention Facility. In addition, the Project would implement Noi-SCP-1, which requires compliance with
allowable construction hours per the local noise ordinance. Temporary construction-related noise
impacts would be less than significant.
Issue 3 – Excessive Groundborne Vibration and Noise
The Project would have the potential to temporarily generate vibration from the use of heavy
construction equipment; however, as identified in the PEIR, there are no vibration-sensitive uses located
within proximity to the site that could be adversely affected. Blasting would not be required, and
associated vibration impacts would not occur.
Conclusion
No new significant noise impacts or substantial increase in the severity of previously identified
significant noise impacts would occur as a result of the Project. In addition, no changes in circumstances
and no new information of substantial importance relative to noise have been identified. The
conclusions identified in the PEIR remain accurate and applicable to the proposed Project. See Section 6
870-1 and 870-2 Reservoirs Project | May 2024
26
for a summary of applicable PEIR standard construction practices, project design features, and
mitigation measures that apply to the Project.
5.11 PUBLIC SAFETY
Summary of the PEIR Analysis
Analysis of public safety impacts is provided in PEIR Section 4.11, pages 4.11-1 through 4.11-10. The PEIR
determined that construction and operation of CIPs would involve a limited amount of hazardous
materials such as diesel fuel, oils, paints, and solvents during construction and chlorine gas, sodium
hypochlorite, and aqueous ammonia for water disinfecting purposes during operations. Implementation
of Haz-SCP-1 (preparation of a HMBP during construction), Haz-PDF-1 (preparation of a HMBP during
operations), and Haz-PDF-2 (preparation of a Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasure Plan [SPCC]
for operation of pump stations that store fuel on site) would result in less-than-significant impacts
associated with the transport, storage, use, disposal, and accidental release of hazardous materials. The
potential exists for CIP sites to have been contaminated by hazardous substances as a result of former
uses of the sites, leaks from unidentified underground storage tanks, or unidentified hazardous
substances. Impacts were determined to be potentially significant, and mitigation measure Haz-2A
would be required to reduce impacts to a less-than-significant level through a database search of listed
sites and implementation of a remediation plan, as necessary. Potential impacts related to emergency
response and evacuation plans that could occur as a result of construction occurring within roadways
would be avoided through Haz-SCP-2, which requires implementation of a traffic control plan. No
impacts were determined to occur related to airport hazards and wildland fires.
Analysis of Proposed Project
Issue 1 – Transport, Use, and Disposal of Hazardous Materials and Accidental Releases
Consistent with what was identified in the PEIR, the Project would involve a limited amount of
hazardous materials such as diesel fuel, oils, paints, and solvents during construction. In accordance with
Haz-SCP-1, the existing HMBP for the site would be updated to incorporate the Project and would be
implemented during Project construction, which would ensure potential impacts related to the
transport, use, disposal, and accidental releases of hazardous materials remain at less-than-significant
levels. The Project is not expected to require the use of hazardous materials during operations, as the
existing chlorine facilities on site would be removed.
Issue 2 – Listed Hazardous Materials Sites
Pursuant to PEIR mitigation measure Haz-2A and Government Code Section 65962.5 (Cortese List)
requirements, the State Water Resources Control Board GeoTracker database (2024) and the California
Department of Toxic Substances Control EnviroStor database (2024) were searched for hazardous
materials sites in proximity to the Project site. There are no listed sites within or immediately adjacent
to the Project site. The nearest listed site is a leaking underground storage tank (LUST) cleanup site
associated diesel contamination of soil at the East Mesa Adult Detention Center; however, the cleanup
was completed, and the case was closed in December 2007. As such, this site does not represent a
hazard to the proposed Project, and impacts would be less than significant.
870-1 and 870-2 Reservoirs Project | May 2024
27
Issue 3 – Emergency Response and Evacuation Plans
Project construction would occur within the site, which is an existing OWD property, and would not
involve lane or roadway closures that may temporarily interfere with emergency response vehicles or
impair implementation of adopted emergency response/emergency evacuation plans. Upon completion
of construction, site operations would be consistent with existing conditions and would not result in
impacts related to emergency response and evacuation.
Conclusion
No new significant public safety impacts or substantial increase in the severity of previously identified
significant public safety impacts would occur as a result of the Project. In addition, no changes in
circumstances and no new information of substantial importance relative to public safety have been
identified. The conclusions identified in the PEIR remain accurate and applicable to the Project. See
Section 6 for a summary of applicable PEIR standard construction practices, project design features, and
mitigation measures that apply to the Project.
5.12 TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC
Summary of the PEIR Analysis
Analysis of transportation/traffic impacts is provided in PEIR Section 4.12, pages 4.12-1 through 4.12-6.
The PEIR determined that development of CIP projects would generate minor amounts of daily trips
associated with construction and operations. Construction-related trips would include trucks hauling soil
and/or demolition materials, trucks delivering equipment and materials, and worker vehicles. Traffic
associated with operations would be primarily from employee commutes and maintenance activities.
The minor addition of localized trips would generally be in infrequently used locations and would not
result in significant impacts related to the circulation system. Similarly, no impacts were determined to
occur related to hazardous design features, alternative transportation, and emergency access.
Analysis of Proposed Project
Issue 1 – Circulation System Performance and Level of Service Standards
As assessed in the PEIR, construction of the Project would generate a minor amount of daily
construction-related trips from hauling soil and demolition materials from the site, hauling construction
materials to the site, and construction workers commuting to the site. The localized increase in
construction traffic would be temporary and would not affect the circulation system. Traffic associated
with operation of the Project would be consistent with existing conditions and would be limited to
occasional maintenance trips that would not affect the circulation system. Impacts would be less than
significant.
Conclusion
No new significant transportation/traffic impacts or substantial increase in the severity of previously
identified significant transportation/traffic impacts would occur as a result of the Project. In addition, no
changes in circumstances and no new information of substantial importance relative to
transportation/traffic have been identified. The conclusions identified in the PEIR remain accurate and
applicable to the proposed Project.
870-1 and 870-2 Reservoirs Project | May 2024
28
6.0 SUMMARY OF APPLICABLE STANDARD CONSTRUCTION
PRACTICES, PROJECT DESIGN FEATURES, AND
MITIGATION MEASURES
The following standard construction practices, project design features, and mitigation measures from
the certified PEIR Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) are applicable to the Project.
6.1 AIR QUALITY
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.
6.2 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
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:
870-1 and 870-2 Reservoirs Project | May 2024
29
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 USFWS within 45 days of completing the
final survey, as required pursuant to FESA Section 10(a)(1)(A). If the survey results
are negative, then no further mitigation for California gnatcatcher is necessary
and vegetation clearing can occur at any time in the year following the survey;
only mitigation for the habitat loss shall be required (refer to Bio-1B(iv) below). If
surveyed habitat is determined to be occupied by California gnatcatcher, then the
following measures shall be implemented:
a. Coastal sage scrub/gnatcatcher habitat shall not be removed during the
gnatcatcher breeding season (February 15 through August 30). Work that has
commenced prior to the breeding season shall be allowed to continue without
interruption. If gnatcatchers move into an area within 500 feet of ongoing
construction noise levels and attempt to nest, then it can be deduced that the
noise is not great enough to discourage gnatcatcher nesting activities. If work
begins prior to the breeding season, the contractor(s) should maintain
continuous construction activities adjacent to coastal sage scrub that falls
within 500 feet, until the work is completed. However, if clearing, grading
and/or construction activities are scheduled to begin during the gnatcatcher
breeding season, then updated pre-construction surveys are necessary as
defined above. In addition, if these activities are initiated prior to, and extend
into, the breeding season, but they cease for any period of time and the
contractor wishes to restart work within the breeding season window, then
updated pre-construction surveys are also necessary. If these surveys indicate
no nesting birds occur within the coastal sage scrub that falls within 500 feet
of the proposed work, then the adjacent construction activities shall be
allowed to commence. However, if the birds are observed nesting within
these areas, then the adjacent construction activities shall be postponed until
all nesting has ceased.
b. Noise monitoring shall be conducted if construction activities are scheduled
during the gnatcatcher breeding season; if the construction-related noise
levels would exceed 60 dB LEQ (i.e., the noise threshold suggested by the
USFWS for indirect impacts to gnatcatcher); and if gnatcatchers are found
within 500 feet of the noise 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
870-1 and 870-2 Reservoirs Project | May 2024
30
monitoring results shall be provided to 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 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 USFWS within 10 days of completing the final survey or monitoring
event.
iv. For CIPs that would affect non-listed sensitive species and sensitive vegetation
communities, the measures listed below shall be implemented prior to vegetation
clearing, grading and/or construction activities. In addition, applicable regulatory
agency permits and/or authorizations shall be obtained for CIPs that would affect
federal and State-listed species, and the conditions of such permits and/or
authorizations shall be implemented prior to vegetation clearing, grading and/or
construction activities.
a. Special-status species (and any corresponding USFWS-designated critical
habitats), sensitive vegetation communities and MSCP resources shall be
avoided through project design or site selection, to the extent practicable.
b. For unavoidable impacts to special-status species (and any corresponding
USFWS-designated critical habitats), sensitive vegetation communities and
MSCP resources, off-site mitigation shall be provided by one, or a combination
of, the following measures, in consultation with the USFWS and CDFW: 1)
Debit credits from the San Miguel HMA (Table 4.2-10 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
870-1 and 870-2 Reservoirs Project | May 2024
31
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).
Bio-1C Prior to vegetation clearing, grading, and/or construction activities that have the
potential to impact sensitive vegetation communities or special-status species (and any
corresponding USFWS-designated critical habitats), a qualified biologist shall attend a
pre- construction meeting to inform construction crews of the sensitive species and
habitats within and/or adjacent to these project sites.
Bio-1D Prior to vegetation clearing, grading, and/or construction activities, a qualified biologist
shall oversee installation of appropriate temporary fencing and/or flagging to delineate
the limits of construction and the approved construction staging areas for protection of
identified sensitive resources outside the approved construction/staging zones: All
construction access and circulation shall be limited to designated construction/staging
zones. The fencing shall be checked weekly to ensure that fenced construction limits are
not exceeded. This fencing shall be removed upon completion of construction activities.
Construction staging areas shall be located a minimum of 100 feet from drainages,
wetlands and areas supporting sensitive habitats or species. Fueling of equipment shall
occur in designated fueling zones within the construction staging areas. All equipment
used within the approved construction limits shall be maintained to minimize and
870-1 and 870-2 Reservoirs Project | May 2024
32
control fluid and grease leaks. Provisions to contain and clean up unintentional fuel, oil,
fluid and grease leaks/spills shall be in place prior to construction.
Bio-1E During vegetation clearing, grading, and/or construction, a qualified biologist shall
monitor these activities: If sensitive species and/or habitats adjacent to these project
sites are inadvertently impacted by these activities, then the biologist shall immediately
inform the on- site construction supervisor who shall temporarily halt or redirect work
away from the area of impact. OWD shall immediately be notified of the impact and
shall consult with the appropriate regulatory agencies to determine the required
mitigation. 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-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.
6.3 CULTURAL RESOURCES
Cul-2 Prior to grading of CIP projects, OWD shall retain a qualified archaeologist to monitor all
ground-disturbing activities in coordination with a Kumeyaay Native American monitor
(as applicable). Before beginning any work that requires cultural resources monitoring:
i. A pre-construction 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-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,
870-1 and 870-2 Reservoirs Project | May 2024
33
including the treatment of remains prior to, during, and after evaluation, and reburial
procedures.
6.4 ENERGY
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.
6.5 GEOLOGY, SOILS, AND PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Geo-PDF-1 At the time of CIP project design, OWD will implement the relevant requirements of the
2013 UBC and CBC, as updated or amended, and the CDMG Special Publication 117.
Geo-SCP-3 The construction bid documents for each CIP project will include either a 90 percent
Erosion Control Plan (for projects that would result in less than one acre of land
disturbance) or a 90 percent Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) (for
projects that would result in one acre or greater of land disturbance). The Erosion
Control Plan will comply with the storm water regulations or ordinances of the local
agency jurisdiction within which the CIP project occurs, while the SWPPP will comply
with the NPDES General Construction Permit. These plans will be based on site-specific
hydraulic and hydrologic characteristics, and identify a range of BMPs to reduce impacts
related to storm water runoff, including sedimentation BMPs to control soil erosion. The
construction contractor will identify the specific storm water BMPs to be implemented
during the construction phase of a given CIP project, and will prepare and implement
the final Erosion Control Plan or SWPPP for that project. Typical BMPs to be
implemented as part of the Erosion Control Plan or SWPPP may include, but may not be
limited to, the actions listed below. For protection of finished graded areas and
manufactured slopes, the construction contractor will implement OWD Standard
Specifications for Slope Protection and Erosion Control (Section 02202).
i. Implement a “weather triggered” action plan during the rainy season involving
installation of enhanced erosion and sediment control measures prior to predicted
storm events (i.e., 40 percent or greater chance of rain).
ii. Use erosion control/stabilizing measures in cleared areas and on graded slopes of
3:1 (horizontal to vertical) gradient or steeper, such as geotextiles, mats, fiber rolls,
soil binders, or temporary hydroseeding.
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
870-1 and 870-2 Reservoirs Project | May 2024
34
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-5B Prior to grading for CIP projects, OWD shall retain a qualified paleontologist to monitor
all ground-disturbing activities for all CIP projects described under Section 4.5.3.5 (Issue
5 Impact Analysis) of the PEIR. A record of monitoring activity shall be submitted to
OWD each month and at the end of monitoring.
Geo-5C In the event fossils are discovered during ground-disturbing activities, the on-site
construction supervisor shall be notified and shall redirect work away from the location
of the discovery, so that the fossils can be removed by the paleontologist for
significance evaluations. The onsite construction supervisor shall be notified by the
paleontologist when the fossils have been removed, at which time the construction
supervisor shall direct work to continue in the location of the fossil discovery.
Geo-5D For fossils removed from the construction site in accordance with measure Geo-5C that
are determined to be significant, the following measures shall be implemented:
i. The paleontologist shall ensure that all significant fossils collected are cleaned,
identified, catalogued, and permanently curated with an appropriate institution
with a research interest in the materials;
870-1 and 870-2 Reservoirs Project | May 2024
35
ii. The paleontologist shall ensure that specialty studies are completed, as appropriate,
for any significant fossil collected; and
iii. The paleontologist shall ensure that curation of fossils are completed in consultation
with OWD. A letter of acceptance from the curation institution shall be submitted to
OWD.
6.6 GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE
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.
6.7 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
Geo-SCP-3 (see Section 6.5)
Hyd-SCP-1 In accordance with the Water Agencies’ Standards, the construction contractor is
required to implement a safety plan at each CIP construction site that would involve the
transport, storage, use, and disposal of hazardous materials. Such plans will also specify
storm water BMPs, to be consistent with those identified in Geo-SCP-3 (refer to Section
4.5, Geology, of this PEIR), to minimize downstream water quality degradation from
runoff pollution associated with CIP construction activities.
Hyd-PDF-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
870-1 and 870-2 Reservoirs Project | May 2024
36
drainage facilities, where necessary, to capture runoff from each project site to reduce
the risk of flooding.
6.8 LANDFORM ALTERATION AND VISUAL AESTHETICS
Aes-PDF-1 In accordance with Water Agencies’ Standards and standard operating procedures, the
following design, landscaping and irrigation measures will be implemented for CIP
projects:
i. Reservoirs, pump station buildings, and groundwater wells will use appropriate
building materials and color palettes that visually blend the structures in with their
surroundings (natural and urban).
ii. Reservoirs, pump station buildings, and groundwater wells will use low-reflective
paint and glass.
iii. For portions of pipeline projects installed in naturally vegetated areas, the
disturbance footprints for the pipeline corridor and associated staging areas will be
hydroseeded, following backfilling and recontouring, using a non-irrigated native
plant mix consistent with original site conditions and surrounding vegetation.
iv. For CIP reservoirs, pump stations, and groundwater wells in naturally vegetated
settings, any disturbed unpaved areas following construction will be revegetated
(hydroseeding and/or plantings) using native plant materials consistent with original
site conditions and surrounding vegetation. A temporary irrigation system will be
installed and maintained by OWD, or watering trucks shall be used at a frequency to
be determined by OWD to maintain successful plant growth. Temporary irrigation
will be discontinued upon OWD’s determination that the landscaping has
permanently established, without the need for supplemental watering.
v. For CIP reservoirs, pump stations and groundwater projects in urban settings, any
disturbed unpaved areas following construction will be landscaped using plant
materials consistent with original site conditions and/or surrounding ornamental
vegetation. A permanent irrigation system will be installed and maintained by OWD.
6.9 LAND USE AND PLANNING
LU-PDF-1 The design of CIP reservoirs, pump stations and water supply projects located within
and adjacent to the “Conserved (Subject to Agreement with Wildlife Agencies)” areas
under the County of San Diego MSCP (refer to Figure 4.2-2 of this PEIR) will incorporate
the following guidelines:
i. Plant materials used for landscaping will consist of native species
similar/compatible with the adjacent habitat, and those species should be based
on plants with genetic materials of the area.
ii. Fencing will be installed along the reserve boundary to prevent uncontrolled
human access.
870-1 and 870-2 Reservoirs Project | May 2024
37
iii. Lighting within 100 feet of reserve boundary will be confined to areas necessary
for public safety.
6.10 NOISE
Noi-SCP-1 Construction activities shall comply with applicable local noise ordinances and
regulations specifying sound control, including the County of San Diego, City of San
Diego, and the City of Chula Vista. Measures to reduce construction/demolition noise to
the maximum extent feasible shall be included in contractor specifications and shall
include, but not be limited to the following:
i. Construction activity shall be restricted to the hours specified within each respective
Municipal Code, depending on the location of the specific CIP project, as follows:
- Construction activity for CIP projects located within San Diego County and the
city of San Diego shall occur between hours of 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m., Monday
through Saturday; construction shall be prohibited on Sundays and holidays.
- Construction activity for CIP projects located within Chula Vista shall occur
between hours of 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, and
between the hours of 8:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m., Saturday and Sunday.
ii. Construction noise for projects located within San Diego County and the city of San
Diego shall not exceed an average sound level of 75 dBA for an eight-hour period at
the project’s property boundary.
iii. All construction equipment shall be properly outfitted and maintained with
manufacturer-recommended noise-reduction devices.
6.11 PUBLIC SAFETY
Haz-SCP-1 Prior to construction of CIP projects, the construction contractor will prepare and
submit a HMBP to OWD. The procedures in the HMBP will comply with USDOT (Office of
Hazardous Materials Safety) as it pertains to the transportation, storage, use, and
disposal of hazardous materials and CHP regulations for the transportation of hazardous
materials along State highways.
6.12 TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC
No applicable standard construction practices, project design features, or mitigation measures have
been identified.
870-1 and 870-2 Reservoirs Project | May 2024
38
7.0 REFERENCES
Atlas Technical Consultants
2023a Geotechnical Evaluation, 870 Reservoir, San Diego, California. January 9.
2023b Geotechnical Evaluation, 870 Reservoir, San Diego, California. January 25.
California Department of Toxic Substances Control
2024 EnviroStor. Available at: https://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/.
HELIX Environmental Planning, Inc. (HELIX)
2024a Biological Resources Report. March.
2024b Cultural Resources Constrains Assessment. March.
San Diego County Air Pollution Control District (SDAPCD).
2022 2022 Regional Air Quality Strategy.
2020 2020 Plan for Attaining the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Ozone in San
Diego County.
South Coast Air Quality Management District
2023 South Coast AQMD Air Quality Significance Thresholds. March.
State Water Resources Control Board
2024 GeoTracker. Available at:
https://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/profile_report.asp?global_id=T0607399050.
870-1 and 870-2 Reservoirs Project | May 2024
39
8.0 PREPARERS
Hunter Stapp Environmental Project Manager
Andrea Bitterling Principal Planner, Quality Assurance Reviewer
Katie Duffield Biology Project Manager
Shawn Carroll Senior Scientist
Karl Osmundson Principal Biologist
Stacie Wilson, RPA Principal Investigator
James Turner, RPA Senior Archaeologist
Nelson White Senior Architectural Historian
Sean Bohac GIS Specialist
870-1 and 870-2 Reservoirs Project | May 2024
40
This page intentionally left blank
Air Quality Emissions Calculations
Addendum Attachment A
870-1 and 870-2 Reservoirs Project Detailed Report, 3/15/2024
1 / 61
870-1 and 870-2 Reservoirs Project Detailed Report
Table of Contents
1. Basic Project Information
1.1. Basic Project Information
1.2. Land Use Types
1.3. User-Selected Emission Reduction Measures by Emissions Sector
2. Emissions Summary
2.1. Construction Emissions Compared Against Thresholds
2.2. Construction Emissions by Year, Unmitigated
2.3. Construction Emissions by Year, Mitigated
3. Construction Emissions Details
3.1. Demolition (2025) - Unmitigated
3.2. Demolition (2025) - Mitigated
3.3. Clear and Grub (2025) - Unmitigated
3.4. Clear and Grub (2025) - Mitigated
3.5. Grading (2025) - Unmitigated
870-1 and 870-2 Reservoirs Project Detailed Report, 3/15/2024
2 / 61
3.6. Grading (2025) - Mitigated
3.7. Restore Embankment (2026) - Unmitigated
3.8. Restore Embankment (2026) - Mitigated
3.9. Tank Construction (2025) - Unmitigated
3.10. Tank Construction (2025) - Mitigated
3.11. Tank Construction (2026) - Unmitigated
3.12. Tank Construction (2026) - Mitigated
3.13. Pave Access Road (2026) - Unmitigated
3.14. Pave Access Road (2026) - Mitigated
3.15. Yard Piping (2025) - Unmitigated
3.16. Yard Piping (2025) - Mitigated
3.17. Relocate Inlet Pipe (2026) - Unmitigated
3.18. Relocate Inlet Pipe (2026) - Mitigated
4. Operations Emissions Details
4.10. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type
4.10.1. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Unmitigated
4.10.2. Above and Belowground Carbon Accumulation by Land Use Type - Unmitigated
870-1 and 870-2 Reservoirs Project Detailed Report, 3/15/2024
3 / 61
4.10.3. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Unmitigated
4.10.4. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Mitigated
4.10.5. Above and Belowground Carbon Accumulation by Land Use Type - Mitigated
4.10.6. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Mitigated
5. Activity Data
5.1. Construction Schedule
5.2. Off-Road Equipment
5.2.1. Unmitigated
5.2.2. Mitigated
5.3. Construction Vehicles
5.3.1. Unmitigated
5.3.2. Mitigated
5.4. Vehicles
5.4.1. Construction Vehicle Control Strategies
5.5. Architectural Coatings
5.6. Dust Mitigation
5.6.1. Construction Earthmoving Activities
870-1 and 870-2 Reservoirs Project Detailed Report, 3/15/2024
4 / 61
5.6.2. Construction Earthmoving Control Strategies
5.7. Construction Paving
5.8. Construction Electricity Consumption and Emissions Factors
5.18. Vegetation
5.18.1. Land Use Change
5.18.1.1. Unmitigated
5.18.1.2. Mitigated
5.18.1. Biomass Cover Type
5.18.1.1. Unmitigated
5.18.1.2. Mitigated
5.18.2. Sequestration
5.18.2.1. Unmitigated
5.18.2.2. Mitigated
6. Climate Risk Detailed Report
6.1. Climate Risk Summary
6.2. Initial Climate Risk Scores
6.3. Adjusted Climate Risk Scores
870-1 and 870-2 Reservoirs Project Detailed Report, 3/15/2024
5 / 61
6.4. Climate Risk Reduction Measures
7. Health and Equity Details
7.1. CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Scores
7.2. Healthy Places Index Scores
7.3. Overall Health & Equity Scores
7.4. Health & Equity Measures
7.5. Evaluation Scorecard
7.6. Health & Equity Custom Measures
8. User Changes to Default Data
870-1 and 870-2 Reservoirs Project Detailed Report, 3/15/2024
6 / 61
1. Basic Project Information
1.1. Basic Project Information
Data Field Value
Project Name 870-1 and 870-2 Reservoirs Project
Construction Start Date 1/2/2025
Lead Agency Otay Water District
Land Use Scale Project/site
Analysis Level for Defaults County
Windspeed (m/s)2.50
Precipitation (days)21.8
Location 32.592036259368655, -116.91521406106153
County San Diego
City Unincorporated
Air District San Diego County APCD
Air Basin San Diego
TAZ 6133
EDFZ 12
Electric Utility San Diego Gas & Electric
Gas Utility San Diego Gas & Electric
App Version 2022.1.1.22
1.2. Land Use Types
Land Use Subtype Size Unit Lot Acreage Building Area (sq ft)Landscape Area (sq
ft)
Special Landscape
Area (sq ft)
Population Description
User Defined
Industrial
1.00 User Defined Unit 8.00 22,698 0.00 ———
870-1 and 870-2 Reservoirs Project Detailed Report, 3/15/2024
7 / 61
1.3. User-Selected Emission Reduction Measures by Emissions Sector
Sector #Measure Title
Construction C-10-A Water Exposed Surfaces
Construction C-10-C Water Unpaved Construction Roads
2. Emissions Summary
2.1. Construction Emissions Compared Against Thresholds
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual)
Un/Mit.TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
Unmit.3.48 2.87 27.3 25.9 0.05 1.13 8.36 9.48 1.04 3.67 4.71 —5,602 5,602 0.25 0.24 3.44 5,684
Mit.3.48 2.87 27.3 25.9 0.05 1.13 4.03 5.16 1.04 1.58 2.62 —5,602 5,602 0.25 0.24 3.44 5,684
%
Reduced
——————52%46%—57%44%———————
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Unmit.3.48 2.87 27.3 25.8 0.05 1.13 8.36 9.48 1.04 3.67 4.71 —5,593 5,593 0.25 0.24 0.09 5,672
Mit.3.48 2.87 27.3 25.8 0.05 1.13 4.03 5.16 1.04 1.58 2.62 —5,593 5,593 0.25 0.24 0.09 5,672
%
Reduced
——————52%46%—57%44%———————
Average
Daily
(Max)
——————————————————
Unmit.1.10 0.91 8.47 9.34 0.02 0.33 1.76 2.10 0.31 0.81 1.12 —1,936 1,936 0.08 0.06 0.40 1,955
Mit.1.10 0.91 8.47 9.34 0.02 0.33 0.83 1.16 0.31 0.35 0.65 —1,936 1,936 0.08 0.06 0.40 1,955
870-1 and 870-2 Reservoirs Project Detailed Report, 3/15/2024
8 / 61
%
Reduced
——————53%45%—57%42%———————
Annual
(Max)
——————————————————
Unmit.0.20 0.17 1.54 1.70 < 0.005 0.06 0.32 0.38 0.06 0.15 0.20 —321 321 0.01 0.01 0.07 324
Mit.0.20 0.17 1.54 1.70 < 0.005 0.06 0.15 0.21 0.06 0.06 0.12 —321 321 0.01 0.01 0.07 324
%
Reduced
——————53%45%—57%42%———————
2.2. Construction Emissions by Year, Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual)
Year TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e
Daily -
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
2025 3.48 2.87 27.3 25.9 0.05 1.13 8.36 9.48 1.04 3.67 4.71 —5,602 5,602 0.25 0.24 3.44 5,684
2026 1.58 1.45 11.8 14.3 0.03 0.44 0.52 0.95 0.40 0.11 0.51 —3,308 3,308 0.14 0.13 1.97 3,351
Daily -
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
2025 3.48 2.87 27.3 25.8 0.05 1.13 8.36 9.48 1.04 3.67 4.71 —5,593 5,593 0.25 0.24 0.09 5,672
2026 1.78 1.49 13.4 14.2 0.02 0.58 7.26 7.85 0.53 3.47 4.01 —2,819 2,819 0.12 0.08 0.03 2,845
Average
Daily
——————————————————
2025 1.10 0.91 8.47 9.34 0.02 0.33 1.76 2.10 0.31 0.81 1.12 —1,936 1,936 0.08 0.06 0.40 1,955
2026 0.67 0.56 4.88 5.60 0.01 0.18 0.53 0.71 0.17 0.22 0.39 —1,249 1,249 0.05 0.03 0.21 1,260
Annual ——————————————————
2025 0.20 0.17 1.54 1.70 < 0.005 0.06 0.32 0.38 0.06 0.15 0.20 —321 321 0.01 0.01 0.07 324
2026 0.12 0.10 0.89 1.02 < 0.005 0.03 0.10 0.13 0.03 0.04 0.07 —207 207 0.01 0.01 0.04 209
870-1 and 870-2 Reservoirs Project Detailed Report, 3/15/2024
9 / 61
2.3. Construction Emissions by Year, Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual)
Year TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e
Daily -
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
2025 3.48 2.87 27.3 25.9 0.05 1.13 4.03 5.16 1.04 1.58 2.62 —5,602 5,602 0.25 0.24 3.44 5,684
2026 1.58 1.45 11.8 14.3 0.03 0.44 0.52 0.95 0.40 0.11 0.51 —3,308 3,308 0.14 0.13 1.97 3,351
Daily -
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
2025 3.48 2.87 27.3 25.8 0.05 1.13 4.03 5.16 1.04 1.58 2.62 —5,593 5,593 0.25 0.24 0.09 5,672
2026 1.78 1.49 13.4 14.2 0.02 0.58 2.94 3.52 0.53 1.38 1.92 —2,819 2,819 0.12 0.08 0.03 2,845
Average
Daily
——————————————————
2025 1.10 0.91 8.47 9.34 0.02 0.33 0.83 1.16 0.31 0.35 0.65 —1,936 1,936 0.08 0.06 0.40 1,955
2026 0.67 0.56 4.88 5.60 0.01 0.18 0.28 0.46 0.17 0.10 0.27 —1,249 1,249 0.05 0.03 0.21 1,260
Annual ——————————————————
2025 0.20 0.17 1.54 1.70 < 0.005 0.06 0.15 0.21 0.06 0.06 0.12 —321 321 0.01 0.01 0.07 324
2026 0.12 0.10 0.89 1.02 < 0.005 0.03 0.05 0.08 0.03 0.02 0.05 —207 207 0.01 0.01 0.04 209
3. Construction Emissions Details
3.1. Demolition (2025) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual)
Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e
Onsite ——————————————————
870-1 and 870-2 Reservoirs Project Detailed Report, 3/15/2024
10 / 61
——————————————————Daily,
Summer
(Max)
Off-Road
Equipment
1.48 1.24 11.5 10.4 0.02 0.47 —0.47 0.43 —0.43 —1,764 1,764 0.07 0.01 —1,770
Demolitio
n
——————0.78 0.78 —0.12 0.12 ———————
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Off-Road
Equipment
1.48 1.24 11.5 10.4 0.02 0.47 —0.47 0.43 —0.43 —1,764 1,764 0.07 0.01 —1,770
Demolitio
n
——————0.78 0.78 —0.12 0.12 ———————
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Average
Daily
——————————————————
Off-Road
Equipment
0.16 0.14 1.26 1.14 < 0.005 0.05 —0.05 0.05 —0.05 —193 193 0.01 < 0.005 —194
Demolitio
n
——————0.09 0.09 —0.01 0.01 ———————
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Annual ——————————————————
Off-Road
Equipment
0.03 0.02 0.23 0.21 < 0.005 0.01 —0.01 0.01 —0.01 —32.0 32.0 < 0.005 < 0.005 —32.1
Demolitio
n
——————0.02 0.02 —< 0.005 < 0.005 ———————
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Offsite ——————————————————
870-1 and 870-2 Reservoirs Project Detailed Report, 3/15/2024
11 / 61
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
Worker 0.03 0.03 0.02 0.35 0.00 0.00 0.06 0.06 0.00 0.01 0.01 —71.2 71.2 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.27 72.2
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Hauling 0.01 < 0.005 0.19 0.07 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 0.04 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 —144 144 0.01 0.02 0.31 151
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Worker 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.30 0.00 0.00 0.06 0.06 0.00 0.01 0.01 —67.2 67.2 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 68.1
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Hauling 0.01 < 0.005 0.20 0.07 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 0.04 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 —144 144 0.01 0.02 0.01 151
Average
Daily
——————————————————
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 —7.43 7.43 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 7.54
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Hauling < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 —15.8 15.8 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 16.5
Annual ——————————————————
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 —1.23 1.23 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.25
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Hauling < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 —2.61 2.61 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 2.74
3.2. Demolition (2025) - Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual)
Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e
Onsite ——————————————————
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
870-1 and 870-2 Reservoirs Project Detailed Report, 3/15/2024
12 / 61
1,770—0.010.071,7641,764—0.43—0.430.47—0.470.0210.411.51.241.48Off-Road
Equipment
Demolitio
n
——————0.78 0.78 —0.12 0.12 ———————
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Off-Road
Equipment
1.48 1.24 11.5 10.4 0.02 0.47 —0.47 0.43 —0.43 —1,764 1,764 0.07 0.01 —1,770
Demolitio
n
——————0.78 0.78 —0.12 0.12 ———————
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Average
Daily
——————————————————
Off-Road
Equipment
0.16 0.14 1.26 1.14 < 0.005 0.05 —0.05 0.05 —0.05 —193 193 0.01 < 0.005 —194
Demolitio
n
——————0.09 0.09 —0.01 0.01 ———————
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Annual ——————————————————
Off-Road
Equipment
0.03 0.02 0.23 0.21 < 0.005 0.01 —0.01 0.01 —0.01 —32.0 32.0 < 0.005 < 0.005 —32.1
Demolitio
n
——————0.02 0.02 —< 0.005 < 0.005 ———————
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Offsite ——————————————————
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
870-1 and 870-2 Reservoirs Project Detailed Report, 3/15/2024
13 / 61
Worker 0.03 0.03 0.02 0.35 0.00 0.00 0.06 0.06 0.00 0.01 0.01 —71.2 71.2 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.27 72.2
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Hauling 0.01 < 0.005 0.19 0.07 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 0.04 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 —144 144 0.01 0.02 0.31 151
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Worker 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.30 0.00 0.00 0.06 0.06 0.00 0.01 0.01 —67.2 67.2 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 68.1
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Hauling 0.01 < 0.005 0.20 0.07 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 0.04 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 —144 144 0.01 0.02 0.01 151
Average
Daily
——————————————————
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 —7.43 7.43 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 7.54
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Hauling < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 —15.8 15.8 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 16.5
Annual ——————————————————
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 —1.23 1.23 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.25
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Hauling < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 —2.61 2.61 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 2.74
3.3. Clear and Grub (2025) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual)
Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e
Onsite ——————————————————
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
870-1 and 870-2 Reservoirs Project Detailed Report, 3/15/2024
14 / 61
1,674—0.010.071,6681,668—0.41—0.410.44—0.440.029.4210.21.071.27Off-Road
Equipment
Dust
From
Material
Movement
——————6.55 6.55 —3.37 3.37 ———————
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Average
Daily
——————————————————
Off-Road
Equipment
0.15 0.12 1.17 1.08 < 0.005 0.05 —0.05 0.05 —0.05 —192 192 0.01 < 0.005 —193
Dust
From
Material
Movement
——————0.75 0.75 —0.39 0.39 ———————
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Annual ——————————————————
Off-Road
Equipment
0.03 0.02 0.21 0.20 < 0.005 0.01 —0.01 0.01 —0.01 —31.8 31.8 < 0.005 < 0.005 —31.9
Dust
From
Material
Movement
——————0.14 0.14 —0.07 0.07 ———————
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Offsite ——————————————————
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Worker 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.20 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.04 0.00 0.01 0.01 —44.8 44.8 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 45.4
870-1 and 870-2 Reservoirs Project Detailed Report, 3/15/2024
15 / 61
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Hauling 0.01 < 0.005 0.19 0.07 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 0.04 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 —140 140 0.01 0.02 0.01 147
Average
Daily
——————————————————
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 —5.20 5.20 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 5.28
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Hauling < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 —16.1 16.1 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 16.9
Annual ——————————————————
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 —0.86 0.86 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.87
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Hauling < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 —2.67 2.67 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 2.80
3.4. Clear and Grub (2025) - Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual)
Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e
Onsite ——————————————————
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Off-Road
Equipment
1.27 1.07 10.2 9.42 0.02 0.44 —0.44 0.41 —0.41 —1,668 1,668 0.07 0.01 —1,674
Dust
From
Material
Movement
——————2.56 2.56 —1.31 1.31 ———————
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
870-1 and 870-2 Reservoirs Project Detailed Report, 3/15/2024
16 / 61
——————————————————Average
Daily
Off-Road
Equipment
0.15 0.12 1.17 1.08 < 0.005 0.05 —0.05 0.05 —0.05 —192 192 0.01 < 0.005 —193
Dust
From
Material
Movement
——————0.29 0.29 —0.15 0.15 ———————
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Annual ——————————————————
Off-Road
Equipment
0.03 0.02 0.21 0.20 < 0.005 0.01 —0.01 0.01 —0.01 —31.8 31.8 < 0.005 < 0.005 —31.9
Dust
From
Material
Movement
——————0.05 0.05 —0.03 0.03 ———————
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Offsite ——————————————————
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Worker 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.20 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.04 0.00 0.01 0.01 —44.8 44.8 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 45.4
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Hauling 0.01 < 0.005 0.19 0.07 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 0.04 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 —140 140 0.01 0.02 0.01 147
Average
Daily
——————————————————
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 —5.20 5.20 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 5.28
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
870-1 and 870-2 Reservoirs Project Detailed Report, 3/15/2024
17 / 61
Hauling < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 —16.1 16.1 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 16.9
Annual ——————————————————
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 —0.86 0.86 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.87
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Hauling < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 —2.67 2.67 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 2.80
3.5. Grading (2025) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual)
Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e
Onsite ——————————————————
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
Off-Road
Equipment
1.82 1.53 14.1 14.1 0.02 0.64 —0.64 0.59 —0.59 —2,378 2,378 0.10 0.02 —2,387
Dust
From
Material
Movement
——————7.09 7.09 —3.43 3.43 ———————
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Off-Road
Equipment
1.82 1.53 14.1 14.1 0.02 0.64 —0.64 0.59 —0.59 —2,378 2,378 0.10 0.02 —2,387
Dust
From
Material
Movement
——————7.09 7.09 —3.43 3.43 ———————
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
870-1 and 870-2 Reservoirs Project Detailed Report, 3/15/2024
18 / 61
Average
Daily
——————————————————
Off-Road
Equipment
0.20 0.17 1.54 1.54 < 0.005 0.07 —0.07 0.06 —0.06 —261 261 0.01 < 0.005 —262
Dust
From
Material
Movement
——————0.78 0.78 —0.38 0.38 ———————
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Annual ——————————————————
Off-Road
Equipment
0.04 0.03 0.28 0.28 < 0.005 0.01 —0.01 0.01 —0.01 —43.2 43.2 < 0.005 < 0.005 —43.3
Dust
From
Material
Movement
——————0.14 0.14 —0.07 0.07 ———————
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Offsite ——————————————————
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
Worker 0.04 0.04 0.03 0.46 0.00 0.00 0.08 0.08 0.00 0.02 0.02 —94.9 94.9 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.36 96.3
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Hauling 0.09 0.03 1.51 0.56 0.01 0.02 0.30 0.32 0.02 0.08 0.10 —1,150 1,150 0.06 0.18 2.50 1,208
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Worker 0.04 0.04 0.03 0.41 0.00 0.00 0.08 0.08 0.00 0.02 0.02 —89.6 89.6 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 90.8
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Hauling 0.09 0.02 1.56 0.57 0.01 0.02 0.30 0.32 0.02 0.08 0.10 —1,150 1,150 0.06 0.18 0.06 1,206
870-1 and 870-2 Reservoirs Project Detailed Report, 3/15/2024
19 / 61
——————————————————Average
Daily
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 —9.91 9.91 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 10.1
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Hauling 0.01 < 0.005 0.17 0.06 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.03 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 —126 126 0.01 0.02 0.12 132
Annual ——————————————————
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 —1.64 1.64 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.66
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Hauling < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 —20.9 20.9 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 21.9
3.6. Grading (2025) - Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual)
Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e
Onsite ——————————————————
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
Off-Road
Equipment
1.82 1.53 14.1 14.1 0.02 0.64 —0.64 0.59 —0.59 —2,378 2,378 0.10 0.02 —2,387
Dust
From
Material
Movement
——————2.77 2.77 —1.34 1.34 ———————
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Off-Road
Equipment
1.82 1.53 14.1 14.1 0.02 0.64 —0.64 0.59 —0.59 —2,378 2,378 0.10 0.02 —2,387
870-1 and 870-2 Reservoirs Project Detailed Report, 3/15/2024
20 / 61
———————1.341.34—2.772.77——————Dust
From
Material
Movement
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Average
Daily
——————————————————
Off-Road
Equipment
0.20 0.17 1.54 1.54 < 0.005 0.07 —0.07 0.06 —0.06 —261 261 0.01 < 0.005 —262
Dust
From
Material
Movement
——————0.30 0.30 —0.15 0.15 ———————
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Annual ——————————————————
Off-Road
Equipment
0.04 0.03 0.28 0.28 < 0.005 0.01 —0.01 0.01 —0.01 —43.2 43.2 < 0.005 < 0.005 —43.3
Dust
From
Material
Movement
——————0.06 0.06 —0.03 0.03 ———————
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Offsite ——————————————————
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
Worker 0.04 0.04 0.03 0.46 0.00 0.00 0.08 0.08 0.00 0.02 0.02 —94.9 94.9 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.36 96.3
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Hauling 0.09 0.03 1.51 0.56 0.01 0.02 0.30 0.32 0.02 0.08 0.10 —1,150 1,150 0.06 0.18 2.50 1,208
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
870-1 and 870-2 Reservoirs Project Detailed Report, 3/15/2024
21 / 61
Worker 0.04 0.04 0.03 0.41 0.00 0.00 0.08 0.08 0.00 0.02 0.02 —89.6 89.6 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 90.8
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Hauling 0.09 0.02 1.56 0.57 0.01 0.02 0.30 0.32 0.02 0.08 0.10 —1,150 1,150 0.06 0.18 0.06 1,206
Average
Daily
——————————————————
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 —9.91 9.91 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 10.1
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Hauling 0.01 < 0.005 0.17 0.06 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.03 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 —126 126 0.01 0.02 0.12 132
Annual ——————————————————
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 —1.64 1.64 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.66
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Hauling < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 —20.9 20.9 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 21.9
3.7. Restore Embankment (2026) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual)
Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e
Onsite ——————————————————
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Off-Road
Equipment
1.72 1.44 12.9 13.6 0.02 0.58 —0.58 0.53 —0.53 —2,379 2,379 0.10 0.02 —2,387
Dust
From
Material
Movement
——————7.09 7.09 —3.43 3.43 ———————
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
870-1 and 870-2 Reservoirs Project Detailed Report, 3/15/2024
22 / 61
Average
Daily
——————————————————
Off-Road
Equipment
0.10 0.08 0.74 0.78 < 0.005 0.03 —0.03 0.03 —0.03 —137 137 0.01 < 0.005 —137
Dust
From
Material
Movement
——————0.41 0.41 —0.20 0.20 ———————
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Annual ——————————————————
Off-Road
Equipment
0.02 0.02 0.14 0.14 < 0.005 0.01 —0.01 0.01 —0.01 —22.7 22.7 < 0.005 < 0.005 —22.7
Dust
From
Material
Movement
——————0.07 0.07 —0.04 0.04 ———————
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Offsite ——————————————————
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Worker 0.04 0.04 0.03 0.38 0.00 0.00 0.08 0.08 0.00 0.02 0.02 —87.8 87.8 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 89.0
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Hauling 0.03 0.01 0.47 0.18 < 0.005 0.01 0.09 0.10 < 0.005 0.03 0.03 —352 352 0.02 0.06 0.02 369
Average
Daily
——————————————————
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 —5.10 5.10 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 5.17
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
870-1 and 870-2 Reservoirs Project Detailed Report, 3/15/2024
23 / 61
Hauling < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 —20.2 20.2 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 21.3
Annual ——————————————————
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 —0.84 0.84 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.86
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Hauling < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 —3.35 3.35 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 3.52
3.8. Restore Embankment (2026) - Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual)
Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e
Onsite ——————————————————
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Off-Road
Equipment
1.72 1.44 12.9 13.6 0.02 0.58 —0.58 0.53 —0.53 —2,379 2,379 0.10 0.02 —2,387
Dust
From
Material
Movement
——————2.76 2.76 —1.34 1.34 ———————
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Average
Daily
——————————————————
Off-Road
Equipment
0.10 0.08 0.74 0.78 < 0.005 0.03 —0.03 0.03 —0.03 —137 137 0.01 < 0.005 —137
Dust
From
Material
Movement
——————0.16 0.16 —0.08 0.08 ———————
870-1 and 870-2 Reservoirs Project Detailed Report, 3/15/2024
24 / 61
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Annual ——————————————————
Off-Road
Equipment
0.02 0.02 0.14 0.14 < 0.005 0.01 —0.01 0.01 —0.01 —22.7 22.7 < 0.005 < 0.005 —22.7
Dust
From
Material
Movement
——————0.03 0.03 —0.01 0.01 ———————
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Offsite ——————————————————
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Worker 0.04 0.04 0.03 0.38 0.00 0.00 0.08 0.08 0.00 0.02 0.02 —87.8 87.8 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 89.0
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Hauling 0.03 0.01 0.47 0.18 < 0.005 0.01 0.09 0.10 < 0.005 0.03 0.03 —352 352 0.02 0.06 0.02 369
Average
Daily
——————————————————
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 —5.10 5.10 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 5.17
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Hauling < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 —20.2 20.2 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 21.3
Annual ——————————————————
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 —0.84 0.84 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.86
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Hauling < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 —3.35 3.35 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 3.52
870-1 and 870-2 Reservoirs Project Detailed Report, 3/15/2024
25 / 61
3.9. Tank Construction (2025) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual)
Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e
Onsite ——————————————————
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
Off-Road
Equipment
0.94 0.78 7.04 7.62 0.02 0.28 —0.28 0.26 —0.26 —1,584 1,584 0.06 0.01 —1,590
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Off-Road
Equipment
0.94 0.78 7.04 7.62 0.02 0.28 —0.28 0.26 —0.26 —1,584 1,584 0.06 0.01 —1,590
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Average
Daily
——————————————————
Off-Road
Equipment
0.39 0.33 2.93 3.18 0.01 0.12 —0.12 0.11 —0.11 —660 660 0.03 0.01 —663
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Annual ——————————————————
Off-Road
Equipment
0.07 0.06 0.54 0.58 < 0.005 0.02 —0.02 0.02 —0.02 —109 109 < 0.005 < 0.005 —110
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Offsite ——————————————————
870-1 and 870-2 Reservoirs Project Detailed Report, 3/15/2024
26 / 61
——————————————————Daily,
Summer
(Max)
Worker 0.04 0.04 0.03 0.44 0.00 0.00 0.08 0.08 0.00 0.02 0.02 —90.4 90.4 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.34 91.8
Vendor 0.01 < 0.005 0.12 0.06 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.03 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 —93.1 93.1 < 0.005 0.01 0.24 97.4
Hauling 0.01 < 0.005 0.09 0.04 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 —71.9 71.9 < 0.005 0.01 0.16 75.5
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Worker 0.04 0.04 0.03 0.39 0.00 0.00 0.08 0.08 0.00 0.02 0.02 —85.4 85.4 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 86.5
Vendor 0.01 < 0.005 0.13 0.06 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.03 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 —93.2 93.2 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 97.2
Hauling 0.01 < 0.005 0.10 0.04 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 —71.9 71.9 < 0.005 0.01 < 0.005 75.4
Average
Daily
——————————————————
Worker 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.16 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.03 0.00 0.01 0.01 —35.9 35.9 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.06 36.4
Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 0.05 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 —38.8 38.8 < 0.005 0.01 0.04 40.5
Hauling < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 —30.0 30.0 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 31.4
Annual ——————————————————
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 —5.95 5.95 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 6.03
Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 —6.43 6.43 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 6.71
Hauling < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 —4.96 4.96 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 5.20
3.10. Tank Construction (2025) - Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual)
Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e
Onsite ——————————————————
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
870-1 and 870-2 Reservoirs Project Detailed Report, 3/15/2024
27 / 61
1,590—0.010.061,5841,584—0.26—0.260.28—0.280.027.627.040.780.94Off-Road
Equipment
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Off-Road
Equipment
0.94 0.78 7.04 7.62 0.02 0.28 —0.28 0.26 —0.26 —1,584 1,584 0.06 0.01 —1,590
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Average
Daily
——————————————————
Off-Road
Equipment
0.39 0.33 2.93 3.18 0.01 0.12 —0.12 0.11 —0.11 —660 660 0.03 0.01 —663
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Annual ——————————————————
Off-Road
Equipment
0.07 0.06 0.54 0.58 < 0.005 0.02 —0.02 0.02 —0.02 —109 109 < 0.005 < 0.005 —110
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Offsite ——————————————————
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
Worker 0.04 0.04 0.03 0.44 0.00 0.00 0.08 0.08 0.00 0.02 0.02 —90.4 90.4 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.34 91.8
Vendor 0.01 < 0.005 0.12 0.06 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.03 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 —93.1 93.1 < 0.005 0.01 0.24 97.4
Hauling 0.01 < 0.005 0.09 0.04 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 —71.9 71.9 < 0.005 0.01 0.16 75.5
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Worker 0.04 0.04 0.03 0.39 0.00 0.00 0.08 0.08 0.00 0.02 0.02 —85.4 85.4 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 86.5
870-1 and 870-2 Reservoirs Project Detailed Report, 3/15/2024
28 / 61
Vendor 0.01 < 0.005 0.13 0.06 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.03 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 —93.2 93.2 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 97.2
Hauling 0.01 < 0.005 0.10 0.04 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 —71.9 71.9 < 0.005 0.01 < 0.005 75.4
Average
Daily
——————————————————
Worker 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.16 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.03 0.00 0.01 0.01 —35.9 35.9 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.06 36.4
Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 0.05 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 —38.8 38.8 < 0.005 0.01 0.04 40.5
Hauling < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 —30.0 30.0 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 31.4
Annual ——————————————————
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 —5.95 5.95 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 6.03
Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 —6.43 6.43 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 6.71
Hauling < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 —4.96 4.96 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 5.20
3.11. Tank Construction (2026) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual)
Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e
Onsite ——————————————————
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
Off-Road
Equipment
0.90 0.75 6.69 7.56 0.02 0.25 —0.25 0.23 —0.23 —1,584 1,584 0.06 0.01 —1,590
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Off-Road
Equipment
0.90 0.75 6.69 7.56 0.02 0.25 —0.25 0.23 —0.23 —1,584 1,584 0.06 0.01 —1,590
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
870-1 and 870-2 Reservoirs Project Detailed Report, 3/15/2024
29 / 61
Average
Daily
——————————————————
Off-Road
Equipment
0.32 0.27 2.37 2.68 0.01 0.09 —0.09 0.08 —0.08 —561 561 0.02 < 0.005 —563
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Annual ——————————————————
Off-Road
Equipment
0.06 0.05 0.43 0.49 < 0.005 0.02 —0.02 0.02 —0.02 —92.9 92.9 < 0.005 < 0.005 —93.2
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Offsite ——————————————————
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
Worker 0.04 0.03 0.03 0.41 0.00 0.00 0.08 0.08 0.00 0.02 0.02 —88.6 88.6 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.31 90.0
Vendor 0.01 < 0.005 0.12 0.06 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.03 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 —91.4 91.4 < 0.005 0.01 0.22 95.6
Hauling 0.01 < 0.005 0.09 0.03 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 —70.3 70.3 < 0.005 0.01 0.15 73.9
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Worker 0.04 0.03 0.03 0.36 0.00 0.00 0.08 0.08 0.00 0.02 0.02 —83.7 83.7 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 84.8
Vendor 0.01 < 0.005 0.12 0.06 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.03 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 —91.4 91.4 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 95.5
Hauling 0.01 < 0.005 0.09 0.04 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 —70.4 70.4 < 0.005 0.01 < 0.005 73.8
Average
Daily
——————————————————
Worker 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.13 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.03 0.00 0.01 0.01 —29.9 29.9 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.05 30.3
Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 —32.4 32.4 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 33.8
Hauling < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 —24.9 24.9 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 26.2
Annual ——————————————————
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 —4.95 4.95 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 5.02
870-1 and 870-2 Reservoirs Project Detailed Report, 3/15/2024
30 / 61
Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 —5.36 5.36 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 5.60
Hauling < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 —4.13 4.13 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 4.33
3.12. Tank Construction (2026) - Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual)
Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e
Onsite ——————————————————
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
Off-Road
Equipment
0.90 0.75 6.69 7.56 0.02 0.25 —0.25 0.23 —0.23 —1,584 1,584 0.06 0.01 —1,590
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Off-Road
Equipment
0.90 0.75 6.69 7.56 0.02 0.25 —0.25 0.23 —0.23 —1,584 1,584 0.06 0.01 —1,590
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Average
Daily
——————————————————
Off-Road
Equipment
0.32 0.27 2.37 2.68 0.01 0.09 —0.09 0.08 —0.08 —561 561 0.02 < 0.005 —563
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Annual ——————————————————
Off-Road
Equipment
0.06 0.05 0.43 0.49 < 0.005 0.02 —0.02 0.02 —0.02 —92.9 92.9 < 0.005 < 0.005 —93.2
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
870-1 and 870-2 Reservoirs Project Detailed Report, 3/15/2024
31 / 61
Offsite ——————————————————
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
Worker 0.04 0.03 0.03 0.41 0.00 0.00 0.08 0.08 0.00 0.02 0.02 —88.6 88.6 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.31 90.0
Vendor 0.01 < 0.005 0.12 0.06 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.03 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 —91.4 91.4 < 0.005 0.01 0.22 95.6
Hauling 0.01 < 0.005 0.09 0.03 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 —70.3 70.3 < 0.005 0.01 0.15 73.9
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Worker 0.04 0.03 0.03 0.36 0.00 0.00 0.08 0.08 0.00 0.02 0.02 —83.7 83.7 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 84.8
Vendor 0.01 < 0.005 0.12 0.06 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.03 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 —91.4 91.4 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 95.5
Hauling 0.01 < 0.005 0.09 0.04 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 —70.4 70.4 < 0.005 0.01 < 0.005 73.8
Average
Daily
——————————————————
Worker 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.13 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.03 0.00 0.01 0.01 —29.9 29.9 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.05 30.3
Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 —32.4 32.4 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 33.8
Hauling < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 —24.9 24.9 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 26.2
Annual ——————————————————
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 —4.95 4.95 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 5.02
Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 —5.36 5.36 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 5.60
Hauling < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 —4.13 4.13 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 4.33
3.13. Pave Access Road (2026) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual)
Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e
Onsite ——————————————————
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
870-1 and 870-2 Reservoirs Project Detailed Report, 3/15/2024
32 / 61
Off-Road
Equipment
0.45 0.38 3.56 4.97 0.01 0.16 —0.16 0.15 —0.15 —755 755 0.03 0.01 —758
Paving —0.15 ————————————————
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Average
Daily
——————————————————
Off-Road
Equipment
0.03 0.02 0.22 0.31 < 0.005 0.01 —0.01 0.01 —0.01 —47.6 47.6 < 0.005 < 0.005 —47.8
Paving —0.01 ————————————————
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Annual ——————————————————
Off-Road
Equipment
0.01 < 0.005 0.04 0.06 < 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 —7.88 7.88 < 0.005 < 0.005 —7.91
Paving —< 0.005 ————————————————
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Offsite ——————————————————
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
Worker 0.03 0.03 0.02 0.32 0.00 0.00 0.06 0.06 0.00 0.01 0.01 —69.7 69.7 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.24 70.8
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Hauling 0.04 0.01 0.72 0.28 < 0.005 0.01 0.15 0.16 0.01 0.04 0.05 —563 563 0.03 0.09 1.18 592
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Average
Daily
——————————————————
870-1 and 870-2 Reservoirs Project Detailed Report, 3/15/2024
33 / 61
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 —4.19 4.19 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 4.25
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Hauling < 0.005 < 0.005 0.05 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 —35.5 35.5 < 0.005 0.01 0.03 37.2
Annual ——————————————————
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 —0.69 0.69 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.70
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Hauling < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 —5.87 5.87 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 6.17
3.14. Pave Access Road (2026) - Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual)
Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e
Onsite ——————————————————
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
Off-Road
Equipment
0.45 0.38 3.56 4.97 0.01 0.16 —0.16 0.15 —0.15 —755 755 0.03 0.01 —758
Paving —0.15 ————————————————
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Average
Daily
——————————————————
Off-Road
Equipment
0.03 0.02 0.22 0.31 < 0.005 0.01 —0.01 0.01 —0.01 —47.6 47.6 < 0.005 < 0.005 —47.8
Paving —0.01 ————————————————
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
870-1 and 870-2 Reservoirs Project Detailed Report, 3/15/2024
34 / 61
Annual ——————————————————
Off-Road
Equipment
0.01 < 0.005 0.04 0.06 < 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 —7.88 7.88 < 0.005 < 0.005 —7.91
Paving —< 0.005 ————————————————
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Offsite ——————————————————
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
Worker 0.03 0.03 0.02 0.32 0.00 0.00 0.06 0.06 0.00 0.01 0.01 —69.7 69.7 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.24 70.8
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Hauling 0.04 0.01 0.72 0.28 < 0.005 0.01 0.15 0.16 0.01 0.04 0.05 —563 563 0.03 0.09 1.18 592
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Average
Daily
——————————————————
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 —4.19 4.19 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 4.25
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Hauling < 0.005 < 0.005 0.05 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 —35.5 35.5 < 0.005 0.01 0.03 37.2
Annual ——————————————————
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 —0.69 0.69 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.70
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Hauling < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 —5.87 5.87 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 6.17
3.15. Yard Piping (2025) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual)
Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e
Onsite ——————————————————
870-1 and 870-2 Reservoirs Project Detailed Report, 3/15/2024
35 / 61
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
Off-Road
Equipment
0.32 0.27 2.80 4.43 0.01 0.09 —0.09 0.09 —0.09 —677 677 0.03 0.01 —679
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Off-Road
Equipment
0.32 0.27 2.80 4.43 0.01 0.09 —0.09 0.09 —0.09 —677 677 0.03 0.01 —679
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Average
Daily
——————————————————
Off-Road
Equipment
0.14 0.11 1.18 1.87 < 0.005 0.04 —0.04 0.04 —0.04 —286 286 0.01 < 0.005 —287
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Annual ——————————————————
Off-Road
Equipment
0.02 0.02 0.22 0.34 < 0.005 0.01 —0.01 0.01 —0.01 —47.3 47.3 < 0.005 < 0.005 —47.4
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Offsite ——————————————————
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
Worker 0.03 0.03 0.02 0.35 0.00 0.00 0.06 0.06 0.00 0.01 0.01 —71.2 71.2 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.27 72.2
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Hauling 0.01 < 0.005 0.09 0.04 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 —71.9 71.9 < 0.005 0.01 0.16 75.5
870-1 and 870-2 Reservoirs Project Detailed Report, 3/15/2024
36 / 61
——————————————————Daily,
Winter
(Max)
Worker 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.30 0.00 0.00 0.06 0.06 0.00 0.01 0.01 —67.2 67.2 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 68.1
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Hauling 0.01 < 0.005 0.10 0.04 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 —71.9 71.9 < 0.005 0.01 < 0.005 75.4
Average
Daily
——————————————————
Worker 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.13 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.03 0.00 0.01 0.01 —28.6 28.6 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.05 29.0
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Hauling < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 —30.3 30.3 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 31.8
Annual ——————————————————
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 —4.74 4.74 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 4.80
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Hauling < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 —5.02 5.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 5.27
3.16. Yard Piping (2025) - Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual)
Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e
Onsite ——————————————————
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
Off-Road
Equipment
0.32 0.27 2.80 4.43 0.01 0.09 —0.09 0.09 —0.09 —677 677 0.03 0.01 —679
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
870-1 and 870-2 Reservoirs Project Detailed Report, 3/15/2024
37 / 61
Off-Road
Equipment
0.32 0.27 2.80 4.43 0.01 0.09 —0.09 0.09 —0.09 —677 677 0.03 0.01 —679
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Average
Daily
——————————————————
Off-Road
Equipment
0.14 0.11 1.18 1.87 < 0.005 0.04 —0.04 0.04 —0.04 —286 286 0.01 < 0.005 —287
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Annual ——————————————————
Off-Road
Equipment
0.02 0.02 0.22 0.34 < 0.005 0.01 —0.01 0.01 —0.01 —47.3 47.3 < 0.005 < 0.005 —47.4
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Offsite ——————————————————
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
Worker 0.03 0.03 0.02 0.35 0.00 0.00 0.06 0.06 0.00 0.01 0.01 —71.2 71.2 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.27 72.2
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Hauling 0.01 < 0.005 0.09 0.04 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 —71.9 71.9 < 0.005 0.01 0.16 75.5
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Worker 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.30 0.00 0.00 0.06 0.06 0.00 0.01 0.01 —67.2 67.2 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 68.1
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Hauling 0.01 < 0.005 0.10 0.04 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 —71.9 71.9 < 0.005 0.01 < 0.005 75.4
Average
Daily
——————————————————
Worker 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.13 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.03 0.00 0.01 0.01 —28.6 28.6 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.05 29.0
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
870-1 and 870-2 Reservoirs Project Detailed Report, 3/15/2024
38 / 61
Hauling < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 —30.3 30.3 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 31.8
Annual ——————————————————
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 —4.74 4.74 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 4.80
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Hauling < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 —5.02 5.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 5.27
3.17. Relocate Inlet Pipe (2026) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual)
Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e
Onsite ——————————————————
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
Off-Road
Equipment
1.00 0.83 7.40 8.16 0.02 0.27 —0.27 0.25 —0.25 —1,733 1,733 0.07 0.01 —1,739
Demolitio
n
——————0.18 0.18 —0.03 0.03 ———————
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Off-Road
Equipment
1.00 0.83 7.40 8.16 0.02 0.27 —0.27 0.25 —0.25 —1,733 1,733 0.07 0.01 —1,739
Demolitio
n
——————0.18 0.18 —0.03 0.03 ———————
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Average
Daily
——————————————————
Off-Road
Equipment
0.18 0.15 1.36 1.50 < 0.005 0.05 —0.05 0.05 —0.05 —318 318 0.01 < 0.005 —319
870-1 and 870-2 Reservoirs Project Detailed Report, 3/15/2024
39 / 61
Demolitio ——————0.03 0.03 —0.01 0.01 ———————
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Annual ——————————————————
Off-Road
Equipment
0.03 0.03 0.25 0.27 < 0.005 0.01 —0.01 0.01 —0.01 —52.7 52.7 < 0.005 < 0.005 —52.9
Demolitio
n
——————0.01 0.01 —< 0.005 < 0.005 ———————
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Offsite ——————————————————
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
Worker 0.05 0.05 0.03 0.54 0.00 0.00 0.11 0.11 0.00 0.02 0.02 —116 116 0.01 < 0.005 0.41 118
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Hauling 0.01 < 0.005 0.09 0.03 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 —70.3 70.3 < 0.005 0.01 0.15 73.9
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Worker 0.05 0.04 0.04 0.48 0.00 0.00 0.11 0.11 0.00 0.02 0.02 —110 110 0.01 < 0.005 0.01 111
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Hauling 0.01 < 0.005 0.09 0.04 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 —70.4 70.4 < 0.005 0.01 < 0.005 73.8
Average
Daily
——————————————————
Worker 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.09 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 —20.3 20.3 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 20.6
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Hauling < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 —12.9 12.9 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 13.6
Annual ——————————————————
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 —3.36 3.36 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 3.41
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
870-1 and 870-2 Reservoirs Project Detailed Report, 3/15/2024
40 / 61
Hauling < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 —2.14 2.14 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 2.24
3.18. Relocate Inlet Pipe (2026) - Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual)
Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e
Onsite ——————————————————
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
Off-Road
Equipment
1.00 0.83 7.40 8.16 0.02 0.27 —0.27 0.25 —0.25 —1,733 1,733 0.07 0.01 —1,739
Demolitio
n
——————0.18 0.18 —0.03 0.03 ———————
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Off-Road
Equipment
1.00 0.83 7.40 8.16 0.02 0.27 —0.27 0.25 —0.25 —1,733 1,733 0.07 0.01 —1,739
Demolitio
n
——————0.18 0.18 —0.03 0.03 ———————
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Average
Daily
——————————————————
Off-Road
Equipment
0.18 0.15 1.36 1.50 < 0.005 0.05 —0.05 0.05 —0.05 —318 318 0.01 < 0.005 —319
Demolitio
n
——————0.03 0.03 —0.01 0.01 ———————
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
870-1 and 870-2 Reservoirs Project Detailed Report, 3/15/2024
41 / 61
Annual ——————————————————
Off-Road
Equipment
0.03 0.03 0.25 0.27 < 0.005 0.01 —0.01 0.01 —0.01 —52.7 52.7 < 0.005 < 0.005 —52.9
Demolitio
n
——————0.01 0.01 —< 0.005 < 0.005 ———————
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Offsite ——————————————————
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
Worker 0.05 0.05 0.03 0.54 0.00 0.00 0.11 0.11 0.00 0.02 0.02 —116 116 0.01 < 0.005 0.41 118
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Hauling 0.01 < 0.005 0.09 0.03 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 —70.3 70.3 < 0.005 0.01 0.15 73.9
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Worker 0.05 0.04 0.04 0.48 0.00 0.00 0.11 0.11 0.00 0.02 0.02 —110 110 0.01 < 0.005 0.01 111
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Hauling 0.01 < 0.005 0.09 0.04 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 —70.4 70.4 < 0.005 0.01 < 0.005 73.8
Average
Daily
——————————————————
Worker 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.09 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 —20.3 20.3 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 20.6
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Hauling < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 —12.9 12.9 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 13.6
Annual ——————————————————
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 —3.36 3.36 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 3.41
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Hauling < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 —2.14 2.14 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 2.24
870-1 and 870-2 Reservoirs Project Detailed Report, 3/15/2024
42 / 61
4. Operations Emissions Details
4.10. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type
4.10.1. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual)
Vegetatio
n
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
Total ——————————————————
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Total ——————————————————
Annual ——————————————————
Total ——————————————————
4.10.2. Above and Belowground Carbon Accumulation by Land Use Type - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual)
Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
Total ——————————————————
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Total ——————————————————
870-1 and 870-2 Reservoirs Project Detailed Report, 3/15/2024
43 / 61
Annual ——————————————————
Total ——————————————————
4.10.3. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual)
Species TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
Avoided ——————————————————
Subtotal ——————————————————
Sequest
ered
——————————————————
Subtotal ——————————————————
Remove
d
——————————————————
Subtotal ——————————————————
———————————————————
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Avoided ——————————————————
Subtotal ——————————————————
Sequest
ered
——————————————————
Subtotal ——————————————————
Remove
d
——————————————————
Subtotal ——————————————————
———————————————————
870-1 and 870-2 Reservoirs Project Detailed Report, 3/15/2024
44 / 61
Annual ——————————————————
Avoided ——————————————————
Subtotal ——————————————————
Sequest
ered
——————————————————
Subtotal ——————————————————
Remove
d
——————————————————
Subtotal ——————————————————
———————————————————
4.10.4. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual)
Vegetatio
n
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
Total ——————————————————
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Total ——————————————————
Annual ——————————————————
Total ——————————————————
4.10.5. Above and Belowground Carbon Accumulation by Land Use Type - Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual)
Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e
870-1 and 870-2 Reservoirs Project Detailed Report, 3/15/2024
45 / 61
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
Total ——————————————————
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Total ——————————————————
Annual ——————————————————
Total ——————————————————
4.10.6. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual)
Species TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
Avoided ——————————————————
Subtotal ——————————————————
Sequest
ered
——————————————————
Subtotal ——————————————————
Remove
d
——————————————————
Subtotal ——————————————————
———————————————————
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Avoided ——————————————————
Subtotal ——————————————————
870-1 and 870-2 Reservoirs Project Detailed Report, 3/15/2024
46 / 61
Sequest ——————————————————
Subtotal ——————————————————
Remove
d
——————————————————
Subtotal ——————————————————
———————————————————
Annual ——————————————————
Avoided ——————————————————
Subtotal ——————————————————
Sequest
ered
——————————————————
Subtotal ——————————————————
Remove
d
——————————————————
Subtotal ——————————————————
———————————————————
5. Activity Data
5.1. Construction Schedule
Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Days Per Week Work Days per Phase Phase Description
Demolition Demolition 3/3/2025 4/25/2025 5.00 40.0 —
Clear and Grub Site Preparation 1/2/2025 2/28/2025 5.00 42.0 —
Grading Grading 3/3/2025 4/25/2025 5.00 40.0 —
Restore Embankment Grading 10/2/2026 10/30/2026 5.00 21.0 —
Tank Construction Building Construction 6/2/2025 6/30/2026 5.00 282 —
Pave Access Road Paving 7/1/2026 7/31/2026 5.00 23.0 —
Yard Piping Trenching 4/29/2025 11/28/2025 5.00 154 —
870-1 and 870-2 Reservoirs Project Detailed Report, 3/15/2024
47 / 61
Relocate Inlet Pipe Trenching 7/1/2026 10/1/2026 5.00 67.0 —
5.2. Off-Road Equipment
5.2.1. Unmitigated
Phase Name Equipment Type Fuel Type Engine Tier Number per Day Hours Per Day Horsepower Load Factor
Demolition Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 367 0.40
Demolition Excavators Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 36.0 0.38
Demolition Concrete/Industrial
Saws
Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 33.0 0.73
Clear and Grub Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 367 0.40
Clear and Grub Tractors/Loaders/Backh
oes
Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 84.0 0.37
Grading Graders Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 148 0.41
Grading Excavators Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 36.0 0.38
Grading Tractors/Loaders/Backh
oes
Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 84.0 0.37
Grading Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 367 0.40
Restore Embankment Graders Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 148 0.41
Restore Embankment Excavators Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 36.0 0.38
Restore Embankment Tractors/Loaders/Backh
oes
Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 84.0 0.37
Restore Embankment Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 367 0.40
Tank Construction Forklifts Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 82.0 0.20
Tank Construction Generator Sets Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 14.0 0.74
Tank Construction Cranes Diesel Average 1.00 7.00 367 0.29
Tank Construction Welders Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 46.0 0.45
Tank Construction Tractors/Loaders/Backh
oes
Diesel Average 1.00 7.00 84.0 0.37
870-1 and 870-2 Reservoirs Project Detailed Report, 3/15/2024
48 / 61
Pave Access Road Pavers Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 81.0 0.42
Pave Access Road Paving Equipment Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 89.0 0.36
Pave Access Road Rollers Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 36.0 0.38
Yard Piping Excavators Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 36.0 0.38
Yard Piping Tractors/Loaders/Backh
oes
Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 84.0 0.37
Yard Piping Skid Steer Loaders Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 71.0 0.37
Relocate Inlet Pipe Excavators Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 36.0 0.38
Relocate Inlet Pipe Tractors/Loaders/Backh
oes
Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 84.0 0.37
Relocate Inlet Pipe Cranes Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 367 0.29
Relocate Inlet Pipe Generator Sets Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 14.0 0.74
Relocate Inlet Pipe Welders Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 46.0 0.45
5.2.2. Mitigated
Phase Name Equipment Type Fuel Type Engine Tier Number per Day Hours Per Day Horsepower Load Factor
Demolition Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 367 0.40
Demolition Excavators Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 36.0 0.38
Demolition Concrete/Industrial
Saws
Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 33.0 0.73
Clear and Grub Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 367 0.40
Clear and Grub Tractors/Loaders/Backh
oes
Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 84.0 0.37
Grading Graders Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 148 0.41
Grading Excavators Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 36.0 0.38
Grading Tractors/Loaders/Backh
oes
Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 84.0 0.37
Grading Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 367 0.40
Restore Embankment Graders Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 148 0.41
870-1 and 870-2 Reservoirs Project Detailed Report, 3/15/2024
49 / 61
Restore Embankment Excavators Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 36.0 0.38
Restore Embankment Tractors/Loaders/Backh
oes
Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 84.0 0.37
Restore Embankment Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 367 0.40
Tank Construction Forklifts Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 82.0 0.20
Tank Construction Generator Sets Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 14.0 0.74
Tank Construction Cranes Diesel Average 1.00 7.00 367 0.29
Tank Construction Welders Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 46.0 0.45
Tank Construction Tractors/Loaders/Backh
oes
Diesel Average 1.00 7.00 84.0 0.37
Pave Access Road Pavers Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 81.0 0.42
Pave Access Road Paving Equipment Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 89.0 0.36
Pave Access Road Rollers Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 36.0 0.38
Yard Piping Excavators Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 36.0 0.38
Yard Piping Tractors/Loaders/Backh
oes
Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 84.0 0.37
Yard Piping Skid Steer Loaders Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 71.0 0.37
Relocate Inlet Pipe Excavators Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 36.0 0.38
Relocate Inlet Pipe Tractors/Loaders/Backh
oes
Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 84.0 0.37
Relocate Inlet Pipe Cranes Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 367 0.29
Relocate Inlet Pipe Generator Sets Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 14.0 0.74
Relocate Inlet Pipe Welders Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 46.0 0.45
5.3. Construction Vehicles
5.3.1. Unmitigated
Phase Name Trip Type One-Way Trips per Day Miles per Trip Vehicle Mix
Demolition ————
870-1 and 870-2 Reservoirs Project Detailed Report, 3/15/2024
50 / 61
Demolition Worker 7.50 12.0 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Demolition Vendor —7.63 HHDT,MHDT
Demolition Hauling 2.00 20.0 HHDT
Demolition Onsite truck ——HHDT
Clear and Grub ————
Clear and Grub Worker 5.00 12.0 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Clear and Grub Vendor —7.63 HHDT,MHDT
Clear and Grub Hauling 1.95 20.0 HHDT
Clear and Grub Onsite truck ——HHDT
Grading ————
Grading Worker 10.0 12.0 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Grading Vendor —7.63 HHDT,MHDT
Grading Hauling 16.0 20.0 HHDT
Grading Onsite truck ——HHDT
Tank Construction ————
Tank Construction Worker 9.53 12.0 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Tank Construction Vendor 3.72 7.63 HHDT,MHDT
Tank Construction Hauling 1.00 20.0 HHDT
Tank Construction Onsite truck ——HHDT
Pave Access Road ————
Pave Access Road Worker 7.50 12.0 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Pave Access Road Vendor —7.63 HHDT,MHDT
Pave Access Road Hauling 8.00 20.0 HHDT
Pave Access Road Onsite truck ——HHDT
Restore Embankment ————
Restore Embankment Worker 10.0 12.0 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Restore Embankment Vendor —7.63 HHDT,MHDT
870-1 and 870-2 Reservoirs Project Detailed Report, 3/15/2024
51 / 61
Restore Embankment Hauling 5.00 20.0 HHDT
Restore Embankment Onsite truck ——HHDT
Yard Piping ————
Yard Piping Worker 7.50 12.0 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Yard Piping Vendor —7.63 HHDT,MHDT
Yard Piping Hauling 1.00 20.0 HHDT
Yard Piping Onsite truck ——HHDT
Relocate Inlet Pipe ————
Relocate Inlet Pipe Worker 12.5 12.0 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Relocate Inlet Pipe Vendor —7.63 HHDT,MHDT
Relocate Inlet Pipe Hauling 1.00 20.0 HHDT
Relocate Inlet Pipe Onsite truck ——HHDT
5.3.2. Mitigated
Phase Name Trip Type One-Way Trips per Day Miles per Trip Vehicle Mix
Demolition ————
Demolition Worker 7.50 12.0 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Demolition Vendor —7.63 HHDT,MHDT
Demolition Hauling 2.00 20.0 HHDT
Demolition Onsite truck ——HHDT
Clear and Grub ————
Clear and Grub Worker 5.00 12.0 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Clear and Grub Vendor —7.63 HHDT,MHDT
Clear and Grub Hauling 1.95 20.0 HHDT
Clear and Grub Onsite truck ——HHDT
Grading ————
Grading Worker 10.0 12.0 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
870-1 and 870-2 Reservoirs Project Detailed Report, 3/15/2024
52 / 61
Grading Vendor —7.63 HHDT,MHDT
Grading Hauling 16.0 20.0 HHDT
Grading Onsite truck ——HHDT
Tank Construction ————
Tank Construction Worker 9.53 12.0 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Tank Construction Vendor 3.72 7.63 HHDT,MHDT
Tank Construction Hauling 1.00 20.0 HHDT
Tank Construction Onsite truck ——HHDT
Pave Access Road ————
Pave Access Road Worker 7.50 12.0 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Pave Access Road Vendor —7.63 HHDT,MHDT
Pave Access Road Hauling 8.00 20.0 HHDT
Pave Access Road Onsite truck ——HHDT
Restore Embankment ————
Restore Embankment Worker 10.0 12.0 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Restore Embankment Vendor —7.63 HHDT,MHDT
Restore Embankment Hauling 5.00 20.0 HHDT
Restore Embankment Onsite truck ——HHDT
Yard Piping ————
Yard Piping Worker 7.50 12.0 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Yard Piping Vendor —7.63 HHDT,MHDT
Yard Piping Hauling 1.00 20.0 HHDT
Yard Piping Onsite truck ——HHDT
Relocate Inlet Pipe ————
Relocate Inlet Pipe Worker 12.5 12.0 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Relocate Inlet Pipe Vendor —7.63 HHDT,MHDT
Relocate Inlet Pipe Hauling 1.00 20.0 HHDT
870-1 and 870-2 Reservoirs Project Detailed Report, 3/15/2024
53 / 61
Relocate Inlet Pipe Onsite truck ——HHDT
5.4. Vehicles
5.4.1. Construction Vehicle Control Strategies
Non-applicable. No control strategies activated by user.
5.5. Architectural Coatings
Phase Name Residential Interior Area Coated
(sq ft)
Residential Exterior Area Coated
(sq ft)
Non-Residential Interior Area
Coated (sq ft)
Non-Residential Exterior Area
Coated (sq ft)
Parking Area Coated (sq ft)
5.6. Dust Mitigation
5.6.1. Construction Earthmoving Activities
Phase Name Material Imported (Cubic Yards)Material Exported (Cubic Yards)Acres Graded (acres)Material Demolished (Building
Square Footage)
Acres Paved (acres)
Demolition 0.00 0.00 0.00 31,500 —
Clear and Grub —655 21.0 0.00 —
Grading 6,373 —40.0 0.00 —
Restore Embankment —1,020 21.0 0.00 —
Pave Access Road 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.30
Relocate Inlet Pipe 0.00 0.00 0.00 12,150 —
5.6.2. Construction Earthmoving Control Strategies
Non-applicable. No control strategies activated by user.
5.7. Construction Paving
Land Use Area Paved (acres)% Asphalt
User Defined Industrial 1.30 100%
870-1 and 870-2 Reservoirs Project Detailed Report, 3/15/2024
54 / 61
5.8. Construction Electricity Consumption and Emissions Factors
kWh per Year and Emission Factor (lb/MWh)
Year kWh per Year CO2 CH4 N2O
2025 0.00 589 0.03 < 0.005
2026 0.00 589 0.03 < 0.005
5.18. Vegetation
5.18.1. Land Use Change
5.18.1.1. Unmitigated
Vegetation Land Use Type Vegetation Soil Type Initial Acres Final Acres
5.18.1.2. Mitigated
Vegetation Land Use Type Vegetation Soil Type Initial Acres Final Acres
5.18.1. Biomass Cover Type
5.18.1.1. Unmitigated
Biomass Cover Type Initial Acres Final Acres
5.18.1.2. Mitigated
Biomass Cover Type Initial Acres Final Acres
5.18.2. Sequestration
870-1 and 870-2 Reservoirs Project Detailed Report, 3/15/2024
55 / 61
5.18.2.1. Unmitigated
Tree Type Number Electricity Saved (kWh/year)Natural Gas Saved (btu/year)
5.18.2.2. Mitigated
Tree Type Number Electricity Saved (kWh/year)Natural Gas Saved (btu/year)
6. Climate Risk Detailed Report
6.1. Climate Risk Summary
Cal-Adapt midcentury 2040–2059 average projections for four hazards are reported below for your project location. These are under Representation Concentration Pathway (RCP) 8.5 which assumes GHG
emissions will continue to rise strongly through 2050 and then plateau around 2100.
Climate Hazard Result for Project Location Unit
Temperature and Extreme Heat 12.3 annual days of extreme heat
Extreme Precipitation 3.75 annual days with precipitation above 20 mm
Sea Level Rise —meters of inundation depth
Wildfire 47.5 annual hectares burned
Temperature and Extreme Heat data are for grid cell in which your project are located. The projection is based on the 98th historical percentile of daily maximum/minimum temperatures from observed
historical data (32 climate model ensemble from Cal-Adapt, 2040–2059 average under RCP 8.5). Each grid cell is 6 kilometers (km) by 6 km, or 3.7 miles (mi) by 3.7 mi.
Extreme Precipitation data are for the grid cell in which your project are located. The threshold of 20 mm is equivalent to about ¾ an inch of rain, which would be light to moderate rainfall if received over a full
day or heavy rain if received over a period of 2 to 4 hours. Each grid cell is 6 kilometers (km) by 6 km, or 3.7 miles (mi) by 3.7 mi.
Sea Level Rise data are for the grid cell in which your project are located. The projections are from Radke et al. (2017), as reported in Cal-Adapt (Radke et al., 2017, CEC-500-2017-008), and consider
inundation location and depth for the San Francisco Bay, the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta and California coast resulting different increments of sea level rise coupled with extreme storm events.
Users may select from four scenarios to view the range in potential inundation depth for the grid cell. The four scenarios are: No rise, 0.5 meter, 1.0 meter, 1.41 meters
Wildfire data are for the grid cell in which your project are located. The projections are from UC Davis, as reported in Cal-Adapt (2040–2059 average under RCP 8.5), and consider historical data of climate,
vegetation, population density, and large (> 400 ha) fire history. Users may select from four model simulations to view the range in potential wildfire probabilities for the grid cell. The four simulations make
different assumptions about expected rainfall and temperature are: Warmer/drier (HadGEM2-ES), Cooler/wetter (CNRM-CM5), Average conditions (CanESM2), Range of different rainfall and temperature
possibilities (MIROC5). Each grid cell is 6 kilometers (km) by 6 km, or 3.7 miles (mi) by 3.7 mi.
6.2. Initial Climate Risk Scores
Climate Hazard Exposure Score Sensitivity Score Adaptive Capacity Score Vulnerability Score
870-1 and 870-2 Reservoirs Project Detailed Report, 3/15/2024
56 / 61
Temperature and Extreme Heat N/A N/A N/A N/A
Extreme Precipitation N/A N/A N/A N/A
Sea Level Rise 1 0 0 N/A
Wildfire 1 0 0 N/A
Flooding 0 0 0 N/A
Drought N/A N/A N/A N/A
Snowpack Reduction N/A N/A N/A N/A
Air Quality Degradation N/A N/A N/A N/A
The sensitivity score reflects the extent to which a project would be adversely affected by exposure to a climate hazard. Exposure is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest
exposure.
The adaptive capacity of a project refers to its ability to manage and reduce vulnerabilities from projected climate hazards. Adaptive capacity is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the
greatest ability to adapt.
The overall vulnerability scores are calculated based on the potential impacts and adaptive capacity assessments for each hazard. Scores do not include implementation of climate risk reduction measures.
6.3. Adjusted Climate Risk Scores
Climate Hazard Exposure Score Sensitivity Score Adaptive Capacity Score Vulnerability Score
Temperature and Extreme Heat N/A N/A N/A N/A
Extreme Precipitation N/A N/A N/A N/A
Sea Level Rise 1 1 1 2
Wildfire 1 1 1 2
Flooding 1 1 1 2
Drought N/A N/A N/A N/A
Snowpack Reduction N/A N/A N/A N/A
Air Quality Degradation N/A N/A N/A N/A
The sensitivity score reflects the extent to which a project would be adversely affected by exposure to a climate hazard. Exposure is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest
exposure.
The adaptive capacity of a project refers to its ability to manage and reduce vulnerabilities from projected climate hazards. Adaptive capacity is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the
greatest ability to adapt.
The overall vulnerability scores are calculated based on the potential impacts and adaptive capacity assessments for each hazard. Scores include implementation of climate risk reduction measures.
870-1 and 870-2 Reservoirs Project Detailed Report, 3/15/2024
57 / 61
6.4. Climate Risk Reduction Measures
7. Health and Equity Details
7.1. CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Scores
The maximum CalEnviroScreen score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects a higher pollution burden compared to other census tracts in the state.
Indicator Result for Project Census Tract
Exposure Indicators —
AQ-Ozone 63.7
AQ-PM 45.9
AQ-DPM 0.26
Drinking Water 64.3
Lead Risk Housing 29.5
Pesticides 8.76
Toxic Releases 54.6
Traffic 2.98
Effect Indicators —
CleanUp Sites 0.00
Groundwater 54.5
Haz Waste Facilities/Generators 10.2
Impaired Water Bodies 77.3
Solid Waste 75.7
Sensitive Population —
Asthma 19.9
Cardio-vascular 28.2
Low Birth Weights 46.8
Socioeconomic Factor Indicators —
870-1 and 870-2 Reservoirs Project Detailed Report, 3/15/2024
58 / 61
Education 56.5
Housing 47.6
Linguistic 10.4
Poverty 41.2
Unemployment 52.5
7.2. Healthy Places Index Scores
The maximum Health Places Index score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects healthier community conditions compared to other census tracts in the state.
Indicator Result for Project Census Tract
Economic —
Above Poverty 61.6963942
Employed 0.243808546
Median HI 70.20402926
Education —
Bachelor's or higher 33.13229822
High school enrollment 0.834081868
Preschool enrollment 10.27845502
Transportation —
Auto Access 80.12318748
Active commuting 44.95059669
Social —
2-parent households 89.87552932
Voting 87.42461183
Neighborhood —
Alcohol availability 92.92955216
Park access 39.30450404
Retail density 1.013730271
870-1 and 870-2 Reservoirs Project Detailed Report, 3/15/2024
59 / 61
Supermarket access 2.399589375
Tree canopy 44.27049917
Housing —
Homeownership 90.55562684
Housing habitability 72.321314
Low-inc homeowner severe housing cost burden 56.14012575
Low-inc renter severe housing cost burden 60.15655075
Uncrowded housing 35.32657513
Health Outcomes —
Insured adults 50.62235339
Arthritis 0.0
Asthma ER Admissions 96.4
High Blood Pressure 0.0
Cancer (excluding skin)0.0
Asthma 0.0
Coronary Heart Disease 0.0
Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease 0.0
Diagnosed Diabetes 0.0
Life Expectancy at Birth 52.0
Cognitively Disabled 29.3
Physically Disabled 60.6
Heart Attack ER Admissions 95.1
Mental Health Not Good 0.0
Chronic Kidney Disease 0.0
Obesity 0.0
Pedestrian Injuries 64.6
Physical Health Not Good 0.0
870-1 and 870-2 Reservoirs Project Detailed Report, 3/15/2024
60 / 61
Stroke 0.0
Health Risk Behaviors —
Binge Drinking 0.0
Current Smoker 0.0
No Leisure Time for Physical Activity 0.0
Climate Change Exposures —
Wildfire Risk 82.1
SLR Inundation Area 0.0
Children 96.5
Elderly 73.9
English Speaking 86.2
Foreign-born 22.8
Outdoor Workers 7.2
Climate Change Adaptive Capacity —
Impervious Surface Cover 96.6
Traffic Density 3.7
Traffic Access 23.0
Other Indices —
Hardship 51.7
Other Decision Support —
2016 Voting 82.0
7.3. Overall Health & Equity Scores
Metric Result for Project Census Tract
CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Score for Project Location (a)31.0
Healthy Places Index Score for Project Location (b)14.0
Project Located in a Designated Disadvantaged Community (Senate Bill 535)No
870-1 and 870-2 Reservoirs Project Detailed Report, 3/15/2024
61 / 61
Project Located in a Low-Income Community (Assembly Bill 1550)No
Project Located in a Community Air Protection Program Community (Assembly Bill 617)No
a: The maximum CalEnviroScreen score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects a higher pollution burden compared to other census tracts in the state.
b: The maximum Health Places Index score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects healthier community conditions compared to other census tracts in the state.
7.4. Health & Equity Measures
No Health & Equity Measures selected.
7.5. Evaluation Scorecard
Health & Equity Evaluation Scorecard not completed.
7.6. Health & Equity Custom Measures
No Health & Equity Custom Measures created.
8. User Changes to Default Data
Screen Justification
Land Use 8-acre site
Construction: Construction Phases Phasing info based on input from OWD.
Construction: Off-Road Equipment Equipment type and number based on similar types of projects.
Construction: Demolition Pavement demolition.
Construction: Trips and VMT Trip number by phase provided by project engineer.
Construction: Paving Paved area provided by engineer.
Biological Resources Report
Addendum Attachment B
HELIX Environmental Planning, Inc. 7578 El Cajon Boulevard
La Mesa, CA 91942 619.462.1515 tel 619.462.0552 fax
www.helixepi.com/
May 3, 2024 00623.00019.007
Ms. Juliana Luengas
Environmental Compliance Specialist
Otay Water District
2554 Sweetwater Springs Blvd.
Spring Valley, CA 91978
Subject: Biological Resources Report for the 870-1 and 870-2 Reservoirs Project
Dear Ms. Luengas:
This report documents the results of a biological resources technical study completed by HELIX
Environmental Planning, Inc. (HELIX) for the 870-1 and 870-2 Reservoirs Project (project) located
northeast of the community of Otay Mesa in unincorporated San Diego County, California (Figure 1,
Regional Location). The Otay Water District (OWD) proposes to construct a new, aboveground
3.4-million-gallon (MG) reservoir (Reservoir 870-2) within the grounds of an existing water storage
facility (Reservoir 870-1) to increase water storage capacity for anticipated future water demand. In
addition, the project will relocate the existing 870-1 inlet pipe, replace the existing 870-1 outlet pipe,
restore the eastern embankment of the reservoir as well as the components at the top of the
embankment, and replace the existing floating cover and liner. This report has been prepared consistent
with OWD’s Program Environmental Impact Report (PEIR) and is intended to summarize the existing
biological resources within the project site and provide an analysis of the proposed impacts in
accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and applicable federal, state, and local
policies.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND LOCATION
OWD is proposing the 870-1 and 870-2 Reservoirs Project, located in unincorporated San Diego County,
California (Figure 1, Regional Location). The Project site is located north of the United States-Mexico
Border, south of Lower Otay Reservoir, and east of State Route 125 in the City of San Diego. The project
area is located within section 19 of Township 18 South, Range 1 East, on the U.S. Geological Survey
(USGS) 7.5' Otay Mesa topographic quadrangle (Figure 2, USGS Topography). Specifically, the site is
northeast of Alta Road and the East Mesa Juvenile Detention Facility (Figure 3, Project Location [Aerial]).
The project would construct a new, aboveground 3.4-million-gallon (MG) 870-2 Reservoir within the
grounds of an existing water storage facility site containing an existing 11-MG in-ground 870-1 Reservoir
built in 1963 to increase water storage capacity for anticipated future water demand. The project would
Letter to Juliana Luengas Page 2 of 24
May 3, 2024
also involve the demolition of several existing belowground utilities; relocation of the existing 870-1
Reservoir inlet pipe, replacement of the existing 870-1 Reservoir outlet pipe, and subsequent restoration
of the earthen embankment of the 870-1 Reservoir; repaving of site access roads; and replacement of
the existing 870-1 Reservoir floating cover and liner. Staging areas would be located within the fenced
area of the existing 870-1 Reservoir, and access to the site and project components would utilize existing
paved and dirt roads.
METHODS
Literature Review
Before conducting the general biological survey, HELIX performed an updated search of the California
Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB; California Department of Fish and Wildlife [CDFW] 2023a-c), U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Threatened & Endangered Species Active Critical Habitat Report
(USFWS 2023a), USFWS Environmental Conservation Online System (USFWS 2023b), USFWS National
Wetlands Inventory (USFWS 2023c), USFWS Information for Planning and Conservation (IPaC)(USFWS
2023d), and SanBIOS (County of San Diego 2023), database applications to obtain information regarding
sensitive biological resources known to occur within the vicinity of the study area.
General Biological Survey
HELIX biologist Shawn Carroll conducted an initial general biological survey of the project study area
(i.e., the project site and an additional 100 feet adjacent to the site) on April 5, 2023, and a subsequent
survey on April 26, 2023, in accordance with PEIR mitigation measure Bio-1A. Vegetation was mapped
on a 1"=90' scale aerial of the site. A minimum mapping unit size of 0.1 acre was used when mapping
upland habitats, and 0.01 acre was used when mapping wetland and riparian habitats. The study area
was surveyed on foot and with the aid of binoculars. During the general biological surveys, Mr. Carroll
assessed the habitat and site conditions for the potential to support sensitive plant and wildlife species.
Plant and animal species observed or otherwise detected were recorded in field notebooks. Animal
identifications were made in the field by direct, visual observation or indirectly by detection of calls,
burrows, tracks, or scat. Plant identifications were made in the field or in the lab through comparison
with voucher specimens or photographs. The locations of special-status plant and animal species
incidentally observed or otherwise detected were mapped. Photographs of the site are included in
Attachment A, Representative Site Photographs.
Coastal California Gnatcatcher Surveys
HELIX biologist Dane Van Tamelen conducted focused surveys for coastal California gnatcatcher within
the study area. The survey consisted of nine survey visits spaced at least two weeks apart, conducted
between October 30, 2024 and February 28, 2024, in accordance with the Coastal California
Gnatcatcher Presence/Absence Survey Protocol (USFWS 1997). The gnatcatcher survey area consisted of
all potential coastal California gnatcatcher habitat (i.e., Diegan coastal sage scrub including disturbed)
occurring within the study areas. The surveys were conducted by walking through the vegetation or on
adjacent paths, and viewing avian species with the aid of binoculars, where necessary. If the coastal
California gnatcatcher was not detected passively, a digital coastal California gnatcatcher call prompt
was briefly played.
Letter to Juliana Luengas Page 3 of 24
May 3, 2024
Coastal California gnatcatcher locations, along with other special status species locations encountered
during the survey, were mapped on an aerial photograph. The coastal California gnatcatcher survey
report is included as Attachment B, 2024 Coastal California Gnatcatcher Survey Report.
Jurisdictional Assessment
The project site and survey area were examined for evidence of potential jurisdictional aquatic
resources during the general biological survey. Potential jurisdictional aquatic resources include waters
of the U.S. and wetlands regulated by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) pursuant to the Clean
Water Act (CWA) Section 404; waters of the State regulated by the Regional Water Quality Control
Board (RWQCB) pursuant to Section 401 of the CWA and State Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act
(Porter-Cologne); and/or streambed and riparian habitat regulated by the CDFW pursuant to Sections
1600 et seq. of the California Fish and Game Code (CFG Code).
Before beginning fieldwork, aerial photographs (1"= 100' scale), topographic maps and data
(1"= 100' scale), and National Wetlands Inventory maps were reviewed to assist in determining the
location of potential jurisdictional areas in the project site. Areas generally characterized by depressions,
drainage features, and riparian and wetland vegetation were evaluated. Field conditions observed
within the survey area indicated that the preliminary assessment was sufficient to identify all waters and
wetlands and that a complete jurisdictional assessment would not be necessary.
Survey Limitations
Not all plant species would have bloomed during the survey period, and it is possible that detection of
some special-status plant species may not have been possible due to the timing of the general biological
survey and variable seasonal conditions (e.g., rainfall and temperatures) that influence growth and
flowering (Attachment C, Plant Species Observed). Noted animal species were identified by direct
observation, vocalizations, or the observance of scat, tracks, or other signs (Attachment D, Animal
Species Observed or Otherwise Detected). The lists of plants and animal species identified during the
biological survey are not necessarily comprehensive accounts of all species that utilize the project site,
as species that are nocturnal, secretive, or seasonally restricted may not have been observed or
detected.
Nomenclature
The nomenclature for this report follows Baldwin et al. (2012) for Latin names of plants, and Holland
(1986) and Oberbauer (2008) for vegetation communities. Animal nomenclature follows the North
American Butterfly Association (2017) for butterflies, the Center for North American Herpetology
(Taggart 2015) for reptiles and amphibians, the American Ornithological Society (2022) for birds, and
Bradley et al. (2017) for mammals. Sensitive plant and animal statuses are from the CDFW’s CNDDB
(2023a-c).
Letter to Juliana Luengas Page 4 of 24
May 3, 2024
ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
Existing Conditions
Regional Context
The study area is located in the southeastern foothills of San Diego County, northeast of the industrial
area within the Otay Mesa community of the City of San Diego. The Otay Mountain Wilderness Area,
conserved by the Bureau of Land Management, occurs within 1,500 feet north and east of the study
area.
Important biological resources in the region include the Otay Mountain Wilderness Area and large tracts
of undeveloped land between the project site and the Wilderness boundary. These areas provide high-
quality breeding and foraging habitat for a variety of sensitive and native species. The region also
supports sections of designated critical habitat for five federally listed species, including three animals
(San Diego fairy shrimp [Branchinecta sandiegonensis], Quino checkerspot butterfly [Euphydryas editha
quino], and coastal California gnatcatcher [Polioptila californica californica]), and two plant species (Otay
tarplant [Deinandra conjugens] and spreading navarretia [Navarretia fossalis]) (Figure 4, Regional
Context). The project site does not occur within designated critical habitat for any of the above-listed
species; however, the project site does occur within the USFWS recommended Quino checkerspot
butterfly survey area. Occurrence potential for all species with critical habitat in proximity of the project
site, in addition to all species with occurrence records within five miles, was evaluated in the
preparation of this report and is detailed is Attachment E, Special-Status Plant Species Observed or with
Potential to Occur and Attachment F, Special-Status Animal Species Observed or with Potential to Occur.
Disturbance
Historic aerial photographs dating from 1953 to 2020 (NETR Online 2023) were reviewed. These records
show that in 1953, the western half of the project site had been cleared of vegetation. By 1964, the
existing 11 MG reservoir had been built, with the surrounding area showing mostly bare ground. While
vegetation around the existing reservoir was allowed to remain, the majority of the site has been
maintained in subsequent years to keep vegetation to a minimum. The project site has experienced
substantial disturbance throughout the years since the initial development, including the paving of the
perimeter road between 2014 and 2016. Although most of the project site has been disturbed and
altered, Diegan coastal sage scrub has re-established along the perimeter of the existing reservoir and
west of the maintenance building.
Outside the existing fence encapsulating the project site, the surrounding undeveloped land to the north
and east is relatively undisturbed, while the area to the east of the project site is minimally fragmented
by dirt roads used by U.S. Border Patrol. The East Mesa Juvenile Detention Facility is located southwest
of the project site.
Topography and Soils
Elevations within the study area range from approximately 810 feet above mean sea level (AMSL) to
880 feet above AMSL. Two soil types, as mapped by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (2005), occur
within the study area (Figure 5, Soils). The following soils occur within the alignment: Huerhuero loam,
2 to 9 percent slopes (HrC); and Huerhuero loam, 9 to 15 percent slopes (HrD).
Letter to Juliana Luengas Page 5 of 24
May 3, 2024
Vegetation Communities/Habitat Types
Three vegetation communities and land cover types occur within the approximately 8.4 acres of the
project site: disturbed Diegan coastal sage scrub, non-native vegetation, and developed land, as shown
on Figures 6, Vegetation and Sensitive Resources. Table 1, Vegetation Communities Within the Project
Site, lists the vegetation communities and land cover types within the project site along with their
corresponding Holland (1986) code, as modified by Oberbauer (2008), and acreages.
Table 1 VEGETATION COMMUNITIES WITHIN THE PROJECT SITE
Vegetation Community/Land Uses1 Acres2
Developed (12000) 3.2
Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub – Disturbed (32510) 1.3
Non-Native Vegetation (11000) 3.9
TOTAL 8.4
1 Vegetation categories and numerical codes are from Holland (1986) and Oberbauer (2008). In some cases,
vegetation names were modified by HELIX.
2 Rounded to the nearest tenth for upland communities.
Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub – Disturbed
Coastal sage scrub is one of the two major shrub types that occur in southern California, occupying xeric
sites characterized by shallow soils (the other is chaparral). Four distinct coastal sage scrub geographical
associations (northern, central, Venturan, and Diegan) are recognized along the California coast. Coastal
sage scrub is dominated by subshrubs with leaves that abscise during drought and are replaced by a
lesser amount of smaller leaves. This adaptation of drought evasion allows these species to better
withstand the prolonged drought period in the summer and fall in areas of low precipitation. Coastal
sage scrub may be dominated by a variety of species depending on soil type, slope, and aspect. The
habitat type is considered a sensitive natural community.
Disturbed Diegan coastal sage scrub is found within the project site surrounding most of the existing
reservoir and in a small area southwest of the maintenance area and appears to have been revegetated
following the construction of the existing reservoir. It contains many of the same shrub species as
undisturbed coastal sage scrub, but these species are present in different proportions, densities, and
structures than undisturbed coastal sage scrub. This community is dominated by dense, nearly
continuous stands of tall shrubs (generally five feet or taller) such as laurel sumac (Malosma laurina),
lemonade berry (Rhus integrifolia), broom baccharis, and coyote brush (Baccharis pilularis). Two non-
native trees, Peruvian pepper trees (Schinus molle) and tamarisk (Tamarix ramosissima), also occur in
this community, as well as a small number of shorter native shrubs, including California sagebrush and
San Diego County viguiera. Characteristic coastal sage scrub species such as sages (Salvia spp.),
California buckwheat, and Menzies’s goldenbush (Isocoma menziesii) are notably absent or only present
in small numbers. Approximately 1.3 acres of disturbed Diegan coastal sage scrub occur within the
project site.
Letter to Juliana Luengas Page 6 of 24
May 3, 2024
Non-Native Vegetation
Non-native vegetation is a category describing stands of naturalized plants, many of which are also used
in landscaping. These areas include land containing a preponderance of non-native, ornamental plant
species. In the study area, non-native herb and forb species including mustards, tocalote (Centaurea
melitensis), redstem filaree (Erodium cicutarium), and others, account for more than 50 percent of the
total cover within this vegetation community. Non-native grasses are also present, including slender
wild oat (Avena barbata), and brome grasses (Bromus diandrus, B. madritensis); 3.9 acres of non-native
vegetation occur within the project site.
Developed
Developed or urban/developed includes land that has been constructed upon or otherwise physically
altered to an extent that native vegetation is no longer supported are considered developed land.
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.
The project site includes paved roads, an existing reservoir, a maintenance building, and associated
reservoir infrastructure. Approximately 3.2 acres of developed land characterized by these elements
occur within the project site.
Other Communities within the Study Area
Three additional communities, Diegan coastal sage scrub, non-native grassland, and disturbed southern
riparian woodland, occur within the study area but outside of the project site.
Diegan coastal sage scrub occurs within the study area north and east of the project site and, with the
exception of dirt roads, appears to be undisturbed. The community is dominated by California
buckwheat (Eriogonum fasciculatum) with California sagebrush (Artemisia californica), San Diego County
viguiera (Bahiopsis [=Viguiera] laciniata, with other sage scrub species scattered throughout.
Non-native grassland is a mixture of annual grasses and other herbaceous species. This community is
found within the study area but outside of the project site and is not regularly maintained by mowing or
grazing. Dominant species in this community include wild oats (Avena spp.), ripgut brome (Bromus
diandrus), Italian rye grass (Festuca perennis), and other annual grasses along with non-native forbs such
as mustards (Brassica nigra, Hirschfeldia incana). Native forbs found in this community include goldfields
(Lasthenia californica), blue dicks (Dipterostemon capitatus), and splendid mariposa lily (Calochortus
splendens).
Disturbed southern riparian woodland consists of moderate-density woodland dominated by small trees
or shrubs with scattered taller riparian trees. Disturbed southern riparian woodland is found in the
northwest corner of the study area, but outside of the project site. Runoff from the existing reservoir
facility provides an artificial water source for the community; without this artificial water source, the
disturbed southern riparian woodland community would likely not persist. This community shows
disturbance by non-natives such as tamarisk, Mexican fan palm (Washingtonia robusta), and pampas
grass (Cortaderia jubata). Natives found within the community include Goodding’s black willow (Salix
gooddingii) and broom baccharis (Baccharis sarothroides).
Letter to Juliana Luengas Page 7 of 24
May 3, 2024
Plants
HELIX identified a total of 37 plant species in the study area, of which 22 (60 percent) are non-native
species (Attachment C).
Animals
A total of 39 animal species were observed or otherwise detected in the study area during the biological
surveys, including 34 birds and five mammals (Attachment D).
Sensitive Biological Resources
Sensitive Natural Communities
Sensitive natural communities include land that supports unique vegetation communities or the habitats
of rare or endangered species or subspecies of animals or plants as defined by Section 15380 of the
CEQA Guidelines.
Sensitive vegetation communities/habitat types mapped in the study area include Diegan coastal sage
scrub (including disturbed) and disturbed southern riparian woodland. Non-native vegetation and
developed land are not considered sensitive under CEQA.
Special-Status Plant and Animal Species
Special-Status Plant Species
Special-status 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 1A, 1B, or 2 species, as recognized in the
CNPS Inventory of Rare and Endangered Vascular Plants of California and consistent with the CEQA
Guidelines.
Special-Status Plant Species Observed
One special-status plant species was observed in the study area. The species is described below and is
shown on Figure 6.
San Diego County Viguiera(Bahiopsis [=Viguiera] laciniata)
Listing: --/--; CRPR List 4.3
Distribution: San Diego and Orange County; Baja California, Mexico
Habitat: Diegan coastal sage scrub. Generally, shrub cover is more open than at mesic, coastal locales
supporting sage scrub. Occurs on a variety of soil types.
Status on site: Occurs in disturbed DCSS primarily along the southern perimeter as well as two smaller
locations on the west and northeast sides of the existing reservoir with approximately 400 individuals.
The individuals within the project site are likely the result of revegetation following previous
construction activities at the site. Additional individuals occur within the study area outside of the
project site and likely represent a native population.
Letter to Juliana Luengas Page 8 of 24
May 3, 2024
Special-Status Plant Species with Potential to Occur
Special-status plant species that were not observed but may have the potential to occur in the project
site are listed in Attachment E. No special-status plant species have a high potential to occur in the
project site. Several species, including Cleveland’s goldenstar (Bloomeria clevelandii) and Robinson’s
peppergrass (Lepidium virginicum var. robinsonii), have a high potential to occur outside the boundaries
of the project site but within the study area. Project site boundaries are clearly defined in the field,
contained inside existing fencing and a dirt road, dominated by non-native plants, and routinely mowed;
no construction-related impacts are anticipated to occur outside the project site. Therefore, special-
status plant species with high potential to occur outside the project site, but within the study area, are
not anticipated to be impacted by reservoir construction activities.
Special-Status Animal Species
Special-status animal species are those listed as threatened or endangered, proposed for listing, or
candidates for listing by the USFWS, and considered sensitive animals by the CDFW. The following
special-status animal species were observed in the study area during the 2023 and 2024 surveys.
Special-Status Animal Species Observed or Otherwise Detected
Four special-status animal species were observed in the study area. The species are described below and
are shown on Figure 6.
Copper’s Hawk (Accipiter cooperii)
Status: CDFW Watch List
Distribution: In California, breeds from Siskiyou County south to San Diego County and eastwards to
Owens Valley at elevations below 9,000 feet.
Habitat(s): Forests, riparian areas, and more recently, suburban and urban areas. Nests within dense
woodlands and forests and isolated trees in open areas.
Status on Site: One Cooper’s hawk was detected within the disturbed southern riparian woodland
northwest of the project site (Figure 6). Suitable nesting habitat does not occur within the project site,
but this species may utilize the project site and surrounding areas for foraging.
Southern California rufous-crowned sparrow (Aimophila ruficeps canescens)
Status: CDFW Watch List
Distribution: Observed throughout coastal lowlands and foothills of San Diego County
Habitat(s): Coastal sage scrub and open chaparral, as well as shrubby grasslands
Status on site: This species was detected on several occasions north, east, and south of the project site
during surveys in 2023 and 2024 (Figure 6). The project site and surrounding areas contain suitable
Diegan coastal sage scrub habitat to support nesting.
Coastal California Gnatcatcher (Polioptila californica californica)
Status: Federal Threatened, CDFW Species of Special Concern
Distribution: Year-round resident of California occurring from Ventura County south to San Diego
County, and east to the western portions of San Bernardino and Riverside Counties.
Habitat(s): Typically occurs in arid, open sage scrub habitats on gently slopes hillsides to relatively flat
areas at elevations below 3,000 feet. Composition of sage scrub in which gnatcatchers are found varies,
though California sagebrush is present as a dominant or co-dominant species. Mostly absent from areas
Letter to Juliana Luengas Page 9 of 24
May 3, 2024
dominated by black sage (Salvia mellifera), white sage (Salvia apiana), or lemonade berry, though may
occur more regularly in inland regions dominated by black sage.
Status on site: One male and one female California gnatcatcher were observed during the fourth and
fifth protocol California gnatcatcher surveys on December 14, 2023, and January 2, 2024. The
observations on both days were located roughly in the same location, approximately 350 feet north of
the project site (Figure 6).
Least Bell’s Vireo (Vireo bellii pusillus)
Status: Federal Endangered, State Endangered, USFWS Bird of Conservation Concern
Distribution: In California, breeds along the coast and western edge of the Mojave Desert from Santa
Barbara County south to San Diego County, and east to Inyo, San Bernardino, and Riverside Counties.
Habitat(s): Breeding habitat consists of early to mid-successional riparian habitat, often where flowing
water is present, but also found in dry watercourses within the desert. A structurally diverse canopy and
dense shrub cover is required for nesting and foraging. Dominant species within breeding habitat
include cottonwood (Populus spp.) and willows (Salix spp.) with mule fat (Baccharis salicifolia), oaks
(Quercus ssp.), and sycamore (Platanus racemosa), and mesquite (Prosopis spp.) and arrowweed
(Pluchea sericea) within desert habitats. Least Bell’s vireo can be tolerant of the presence of non-native
species such as tamarisk (Tamarix spp.).
Status on site: One individual was detected singing from disturbed southern riparian woodland
vegetation within the study area, approximately 30 feet outside the northwest corner of the project site
on April 26, 2023, and a notably late individual was detected at the same location on October 30, 2023.
(Figure 6). Disturbed southern riparian woodland within the study area may support nesting least Bell’s
vireo.
Special-Status Animal Species with Potential to Occur
Special-status animal species that were not observed but may have the potential to occur in the study
area are listed in Attachment F. One special-status animal species that was not observed but is still
considered to have a high potential to occur in the study area (characterized by suitable habitat and a
historical record in the immediate vicinity of the survey area) is grasshopper sparrow (Ammodramus
savannarum).
Quino Checkerspot Butterfly
The project site occurs within the USFWS recommended Quino checkerspot butterfly survey area,
immediately to the south and west of designated critical habitat for Quino checkerspot butterfly, and is
within one mile of multiple recent species occurrence records. However, surveys were not conducted
because all project impacts would be restricted to lands with no potential to support the species. While
the study area does support potential Quino checkerspot butterfly habitat as defined by USFWS
guidelines, the project site is subject to regular and routine vegetation maintenance, and host plants,
including the preferred host plant California dwarf plantain (Plantago erecta), were not detected during
project surveys. In addition, other necessary habitat features for the species are also absent from the
project site, including open vegetation, areas of bare ground, raised sites for hill-topping, and available
foraging species of the sunflower (Asteraceae) family. Goldfields (Lasthenia californica) was observed
within the study area but is unlikely to support foraging Quino checkerspot butterflies in the absence of
other habitat elements (USFWS 2002). Therefore, despite the proximity with recent records and
adjacent critical habitat, Quino checkerspot butterfly are not anticipated to occur within the project site.
Letter to Juliana Luengas Page 10 of 24
May 3, 2024
Nesting Birds and Raptors
The project site, including staging areas, contains and is adjacent to suitable nesting habitat for multiple
common bird species, including raptors, protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) and
CFG Code. Potential nesting habitat is located in vegetated areas throughout the project site, as well as
in undeveloped habitat outside project fencing.
Jurisdictional Waters and Wetlands
The project site occurs within uplands, and no potential wetlands or waters of the U.S., waters of the
State, or CDFW jurisdictional habitats occur on the project site. Disturbed southern riparian woodlands
that are potential wetlands or waters of the U.S., waters of the State, or CDFW jurisdictional habitats
occur within the study area, northwest of the project site, as shown in Figures 6 and 7. This area
contains non-native species such as pampas grass (Cortaderia jubata), Mexican fan palm, and tamarisk
with several native Gooding’s black willow.
Wildlife Corridors and Linkages
Wildlife corridors connect isolated habitat and allow movement or dispersal of plant materials and
animals. Local wildlife corridors allow access to resources such as food, water, and shelter within the
framework of the wildlife’s daily routine and life history. For example, animals can use these corridors to
travel between their riparian breeding habitats and their upland burrowing habitats. Regional corridors
provide these functions over a larger scale and link two or more large habitat areas, allowing the
dispersal of organisms and the consequent mixing of genes between populations. A corridor is a specific
route that is used for the movement and migration of species; it may be different from a linkage in that
it represents a smaller or narrower avenue for movement. A linkage is an area of land that supports or
contributes to the long-term movement of animals and genetic exchange by providing live-in habitat
that connects to other habitat areas. Many linkages occur as stepping-stone linkages that are made up
of a fragmented archipelago arrangement of habitat over a linear distance.
The disturbance level and isolation of habitats within the project site indicate that the area may not
constitute a suitable wildlife corridor. Furthermore, an existing chain link fence surrounds the majority
of the project site except for a small area just outside of the fence line in the northwest corner,
separating the area from undeveloped land to the north and east. Within project fencing, the project
site itself lacks the resources necessary to support breeding or foraging activity for most species known
to occur in the adjacent wilderness. Additionally, the project site does not substantially divide existing
habitat; migrating and dispersing animals are able to move through undeveloped land and protected
wilderness to the north and east without needing access through the project site.
APPLICABLE REGULATIONS
Based on the findings of this report, activities affecting the biological resources determined to exist or
have the potential to exist within the project site could be subject to the federal, state, and local
regulations discussed below.
Letter to Juliana Luengas Page 11 of 24
May 3, 2024
Federal
Federal Endangered Species Act
The Federal Endangered Species Act (ESA) (7 United States Code [USC] 136; 16 USC 460 et seq. [1973])
extends legal protection to plants and animals, listed as endangered or threatened by the USFWS and
gives authorization to the USFWS to review proposed federal actions to assess potential impacts to
species listed as endangered or threatened. The ESA generally prohibits the “taking” of a federally listed
species and adverse modification of designated critical habitat.
“Taking” of a threatened or endangered species is deemed to occur when an intentional or negligent act
or omission results in any of the following actions: “to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, kill, trap,
capture, or collect, or attempt to engage in any such conduct.” Such acts may include significant habitat
modification or degradation if they result in death or injury. Likewise, import, export, interstate, and
foreign commerce of listed species are all prohibited. Sections 7 and 10 of the ESA allow “incidental
take” of a listed species via a federal or private action, respectively, through formal consultation with
the USFWS. In lieu of a separate Section 10a Permit, an applicant may be included in a local Habitat
Conservation Plan.
Migratory Bird Treaty Act
All migratory bird species that are native to the United States or its territories are protected under the
federal MBTA as amended under the Migratory Bird Treaty Reform Act of 2004 (Federal Record [FR]
Doc. 05-5127). The MBTA is generally protective of migratory birds but does not actually stipulate the
type of protection required. In common practice, USFWS places restrictions on disturbances allowed
near active raptor nests.
Clean Water Act
The USACE regulates impacts to waters of the U.S. under Section 404 of the CWA (33 USC 401 et seq.;
33 USC 1344; USC 1413; and Department of Defense, Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers
33 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] Part 323). The purpose of the CWA is to restore and maintain the
chemical, physical, and biological integrity of all waters of the U.S. A federal CWA Section 404 Permit
would be required for a project to place fill in waters of the U.S. Projects impacting waters of the U.S.
can be permitted on an individual basis or be covered under one of several approved nationwide
permits. Individual permits are assessed individually based on the type of action, amount of fill, etc.
Individual permits typically require substantial time (often longer than one year) to review and approve,
while nationwide permits are pre-approved if a project meets appropriate conditions. Utility line
activities may be authorized under CWA Section 404 Nationwide Permit 12, which does not place a limit
on impacts to linear feet of waters of the U.S. A CWA Section 401 Water Quality Certification
administered by the RWQCB must be issued before the issuance of a Section 404 Permit.
Letter to Juliana Luengas Page 12 of 24
May 3, 2024
State
California Environmental Quality Act
Primary environmental legislation in California is found in the CEQA and its implementing guidelines
(State CEQA Guidelines), requiring that projects with potential adverse effects or impacts on the
environment undergo environmental review. Adverse impacts to the environment are typically
mitigated as a result of the environmental review process in accordance with laws and regulations.
Although threatened and endangered species are protected by specific federal and state statutes, CEQA
Guidelines Section 15380(d) provides that a species not listed on the federal or state list of protected
species may be considered rare or endangered if the species can be shown to meet certain specified
criteria. These criteria have been modeled after the definition in ESA and the section of the CFG Code
dealing with rare or endangered plants and animals. CEQA Guideline Section 15380(d) allows a public
agency to undertake a review to determine whether a significant effect would occur on species that
have not yet been listed by either the USFWS or CDFW (i.e., species of concern). Thus, if warranted
under special circumstances, CEQA provides an agency with the ability to protect a species from a
project’s potential impacts until the respective government agencies have an opportunity to designate
the species as formally protected.
Pursuant to the requirements of CEQA, an agency reviewing a proposed project within its jurisdiction
must determine whether any state-listed endangered or threatened species may be present in the
project area and determine whether the proposed project will have a potentially significant impact on
such species.
California Fish and Game Code
The CFG Code regulates the taking or possession of birds, mammals, fish, amphibians, and reptiles, as
well as natural resources such as lakes and streams. Section 1600 et seq. of the CFG Code includes
definitions and provisions for the protection of lake and streambed resources. The CDFW requires
notification for any activity that could result in an alteration of lake or streambed resources. Pursuant to
CFG Code Section 3503, it is unlawful to take, possess, or needlessly destroy the nest or eggs of any bird,
except as otherwise provided by the code or any regulation made pursuant thereto. Raptors (birds of
prey) and owls and their active nests are protected by CFG Code Section 3503.5, which states that it is
unlawful to take, possess, or destroy any birds of prey or to take, possess, or destroy the nest or eggs of
any such bird unless authorized by the CDFW. In common practice, CDFW places timing restrictions on
the clearing of potential nesting habitat (e.g., vegetation), as well as restrictions on disturbances allowed
near active raptor nests.
SIGNIFICANCE OF PROJECT IMPACTS AND PROPOSED MITIGATION
For the purpose of evaluating potential project effects (i.e., impacts) and as prescribed by the Issues in
CEQA Appendix G Section IV Biological Resources, the proposed project would result in a significant
impact if it would:
1. Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any
candidate, sensitive, or special-status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations or
by the USFWS or CDFW;
Letter to Juliana Luengas Page 13 of 24
May 3, 2024
2. Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community
identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by USFWS or CDFW;
3. Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Clean Water Act
Section 404 (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct
removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means;
4. Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident, migratory fish, or wildlife
species, or established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors; or impede the use of
native wildlife nursery sites;
5. Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree
preservation policy or ordinance; or
6. Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community
Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state conservation plan.
The significance of impacts to biological resources present, or those with the potential to occur, was
determined based on the sensitivity of the resource and the extent of the anticipated impacts. For
certain highly sensitive resources (e.g., a federally listed species), impacts would be significant.
Conversely, other resources that are of low sensitivity (e.g., species with a large, locally stable
population in the County but declining elsewhere) could sustain some impact with a less than significant
effect. Analyses of project impacts to biological resources are discussed in detail below.
IMPACTS
This section describes potential direct and indirect effects (impacts) on biological resources associated
with the proposed project. Direct impacts are immediate impacts and typically result in permanent
removal. Indirect impacts are actions by the project that are not direct removal of resources but affect
the surrounding resources either as a secondary effect of the direct impacts (e.g., construction noise,
runoff, nighttime lighting, fugitive dust, etc.) or as the cause of degradation of a biological resource over
time (e.g., edge/adjacency effects). The magnitude of an indirect impact can be the same as a direct
impact; however, the effect usually takes longer to become apparent. Mitigation measures are
consistent with those in the PEIR.
Issue 1 – Sensitive Species
Would the project have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on
any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special-status species in local or regional plans,
policies, or regulations, or by the CDFW or USFWS?
Issue 1 Analysis of Project Effects
Special-status Plants
Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated.
Letter to Juliana Luengas Page 14 of 24
May 3, 2024
San Diego County Viguiera
The general biological surveys conducted in 2023 detected the presence of one special-status plant
species within the potential disturbance limits of the project: San Diego County viguiera. San Diego
County viguiera is a CRPR List 4.3 plant species, which includes watch list plants of limited distribution or
those that are infrequent throughout a broader range in California. San Diego County viguiera occurs as
a natural population in the habitat outside of the project site, while the plants within the project site
likely are a result of restoration seeding following the construction of Reservoir 870-1. However,
construction activities and disturbances would impact only a small number of individuals and would not
impact the overall population, either within the project site or in the region.
As a CRPR List 4.3 plant, the species is relatively widespread in the local and regional areas. The majority
of the individuals observed in the study area and immediate vicinity (i.e., local populations) would be
avoided by the project. Furthermore, individuals adjacent, but outside of impact areas would be avoided
through the implementation of PEIR mitigation measure Bio-1D. Temporary impact areas will be
restored and revegetated with native species, including San Diego County viguiera, as discussed further
in Issue 2. Project impacts would not jeopardize the long-term survival of the species, and impacts
would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.
Special-status Animals
Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated.
Coastal California Gnatcatcher
Nine non-breeding season protocol surveys for coastal California gnatcatcher were conducted between
October 30, 2023 and February 28, 2024. Suitable gnatcatcher habitat occurs within and surrounding the
project site, and gnatcatcher were detected during the surveys approximately 350 feet north of the
project site. Implementation of the project is anticipated to impact approximately 0.4 acre of disturbed
Diegan coastal sage scrub, none of which was observed to be utilized by gnatcatcher during the non-
breeding season protocol surveys. The approximately 0.4 acre of disturbed Diegan coastal sage scrub to
be impacted is dominated by taller sage scrub species (averaging two to three meters), such as laurel
sumac and lemonade berry, that form a closed canopy with little spacing between shrubs; California
gnatcatchers show a preference for open canopy stands of coastal sage scrub up to 1.2 meters in height
where California sagebrush or California buckwheat are dominant (Atwood and Bontrager 2020).
Although the species was not observed using the impacted habitat during surveys and is not likely to use
the habitat for breeding, the project would be required to implement avoidance measures if vegetation
trimming and/or removal occurs within the gnatcatcher breeding season to avoid potential take of
individuals during these activities. Implementation of PEIR mitigation measures Bio-1B, Bio-1C, and
Bio-1E would reduce the potential direct impacts to coastal California gnatcatcher to less than
significant.
Indirect impacts to gnatcatcher may occur where they are present within suitable habitat adjacent to
and within 500 feet of project construction activities that could generate loud noise. Specifically,
construction-related noise could cause breeding birds to temporarily or permanently leave their
territories to avoid disturbances from human activities, which could lead to reduced reproductive
success and increased mortality. Noise effects would be considered potentially significant if noise levels
generated during construction exceed a level of 60 A-weighted decibels (dBA) hourly average (LEQ) or
Letter to Juliana Luengas Page 15 of 24
May 3, 2024
ambient (whichever is greater) as measured from the location of nests belonging to sensitive nesting
bird species such as the coastal California gnatcatcher. If utilized, night lighting that extends onto
adjacent wildlife habitat can discourage the use of the habitat by nocturnal wildlife and can also provide
nocturnal predators with an unnatural advantage over their prey, resulting in a potentially significant
impact. Temporary lighting would be required to be oriented downward, and the lighting source would
be required to be shielded to minimize light spill and avoid adverse effects on adjacent wildlife habitat.
With the implementation of PEIR mitigation measures Bio-1B, Bio-1C, and Bio-1E, potential indirect
impacts to coastal California gnatcatcher would be avoided or reduced to below a level of significance.
Least Bell’s Vireo
Least Bell’s vireo were incidentally observed during surveys in 2023 within the disturbed southern
riparian woodland community immediately northwest of the project site on two separate occasions.
While the species composition of the riparian woodland is marginally suitable with a high percentage of
non-native plant species, the presence of a least Bell’s vireo in late April may indicate that the species is
utilizing the site for breeding; however, only a single individual was detected at any given time during
project surveys. Additionally, the riparian woodland is directly connected to the Otay River, which
contains higher quality habitat and is known to support a large population of least Bell’s vireo.
Implementation of the project is not anticipated to result in direct impacts to the Federal and State
listed endangered least Bell’s vireo or its habitat/territory, as suitable nesting and foraging habitat for
this species does not occur within the impact area.
Indirect impacts to least Bell’s vireo may occur if the species is nesting within suitable habitat adjacent
to project construction activities. Specifically, construction-related noise could cause breeding birds to
temporarily or permanently leave their territories to avoid disturbances from human activities, which
could lead to reduced reproductive success and increased mortality. Noise effects would be considered
potentially significant if noise levels generated during construction exceed a level of 60 A-weighted
decibels (dBA) hourly average (LEQ) or ambient (whichever is greater) as measured from the location of
nests belonging to sensitive nesting bird species such as the least Bell’s vireo. If utilized, night lighting
that extends onto adjacent wildlife habitat can discourage the use of the habitat by nocturnal wildlife
and can also provide nocturnal predators with an unnatural advantage over their prey, resulting in a
potentially significant impact. Temporary lighting would be required to be oriented downward, and the
lighting source would be required to be shielded to minimize light spill and avoid adverse effects on
adjacent wildlife habitat. With the implementation of PEIR mitigation measures Bio-1B, Bio-1C, and
Bio-1E, potential indirect impacts to least Bell’s vireo would be avoided or reduced to below a level of
significance.
Nesting Birds
Pursuant to the MBTA and CFG Code, the development of the proposed project could disturb or destroy
active migratory bird nests if vegetation clearing occurs during the general bird nesting season
(February 15 through September 15) and/or raptor nesting season (January 15 through July 15).
Disturbance to or destruction of migratory bird nests, including sensitive species such as Cooper’s hawk
or southern California rufous-crowned sparrow, are in violation of the MBTA and CFG Code and are,
therefore, considered to be a potentially significant impact. Implementation of PEIR mitigation measures
Bio-1B and Bio-1G would ensure that potential impacts to birds protected under the MBTA and CFG
Code are avoided during construction.
Letter to Juliana Luengas Page 16 of 24
May 3, 2024
Other Special-status Animals
Several other listed and non-listed, special-status animal species occur or have the potential to occur on
and in the immediate vicinity of the project site. During the general biological surveys, a southern
California rufous-crowned sparrow, a CDFW Watch List species, was detected singing from northeast of
the project site. Other sensitive species with the potential to occur include the State candidate for
endangered Crotch’s bumblebee and the special-status species Belding’s orange-throated whiptail, San
Diego tiger whiptail, Baja California coachwhip, red-diamond rattlesnake, Blainville’s horned lizard,
two-striped garter snake, grasshopper sparrow, burrowing owl, California horned lark, and San Diego
black-tailed jackrabbit. Potential impacts on these species would be limited to temporary displacement
of individuals during project construction; in addition, based on the quality and size of the habitat that
could be impacted, the study area is not expected to support locally or regionally significant populations
of these listed and non-listed sensitive species. Therefore, impacts to the species would be considered
less than significant.
Issue 1 Mitigation Measures
The following PEIR mitigation measures would reduce potential significant impacts related to special-
status species to a less than significant level.
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 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 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 the 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 before
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 before 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
Letter to Juliana Luengas Page 17 of 24
May 3, 2024
breeding season, then updated pre-construction surveys are necessary, as defined
above. In addition, if these activities are initiated before, 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 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 USFWS within 45 days of completing
the final noise monitoring event.
ii. Ten days before 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 to minimize potential disturbances to
nesting birds from construction activities. Documentation of the mitigation measures shall
be provided to USFWS within 10 days after implementation.
iii. Ten days before 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 USFWS
within 10 days of completing the final survey or monitoring event.
Letter to Juliana Luengas Page 18 of 24
May 3, 2024
iv. For CIPs that would affect non-listed sensitive species and sensitive vegetation communities,
the measures listed below shall be implemented before 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 before
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 mitigation
ratios, guidelines, and standards required by the applicable MSCP subarea plans. Typical
mitigation ratios for direct impacts to sensitive vegetation types include 2:1 for coastal
sage scrub, 3:1 for maritime succulent scrub, 3:1 for native grassland, 2:1 for oak
woodlands, 3:1 for southern interior cypress forest, 3:1 for riparian woodlands/forests,
3:1 for coastal freshwater marsh, 2:1 for riparian scrubs (absent threatened or
endangered species), 5:1 for San Diego mesa claypan vernal pools, 3:1 for Gabbroic
chaparrals, and 0.5:1 for non-native grassland (absent threatened or endangered
species). These ratios will be decreased or increased depending on whether the impacts
and mitigation would occur inside or outside an MSCP preserve area. For example, these
ratios are typically doubled if impacts occur within previously conserved lands. Plans for
habitat enhancement, restoration, and creation shall be prepared by persons with
expertise in southern California ecosystems and native plant revegetation techniques.
Such plans shall include, at a minimum: (a) location of the mitigation site(s); (b) plant
species to be used, container sizes, and seeding rates; (c) schematic depicting the
mitigation area(s); (d) planting schedule; (e) description of the irrigation methodology;
(f) measures to control exotic vegetation at the mitigation site(s); (g) specific success
criteria (e.g., percent cover of native and non-native species, species richness);
(h) detailed monitoring program; (i) contingency measures should the success criteria
not be met; and (j) identification of the party responsible for meeting the success
criteria and preserving the mitigation site(s) in perpetuity (including conservation
easements and management funding). In addition, OWD shall negotiate and implement
long-term maintenance requirements to ensure the success of the mitigation site(s).
Bio-1C Before vegetation clearing, grading, and/or construction activities that have the potential to
impact sensitive vegetation communities or special-status species (and any corresponding
USFWS-designated critical habitats), a qualified biologist shall attend a pre- construction
meeting to inform construction crews of the sensitive species and habitats within and/or
adjacent to these project sites.
Letter to Juliana Luengas Page 19 of 24
May 3, 2024
Bio-1D Before vegetation clearing, grading, and/or construction activities, a qualified biologist shall
oversee the installation of appropriate temporary fencing and/or flagging to delineate the limits
of construction and the approved construction staging areas for the protection of identified
sensitive resources outside the approved construction/staging zones: All construction access
and circulation shall be limited to designated construction/staging zones. The fencing shall be
checked weekly to ensure that fenced construction limits are not exceeded. This fencing shall be
removed upon completion of construction activities. Construction staging areas shall be located
a minimum of 100 feet from drainages, wetlands, and areas supporting sensitive habitats or
species. Fueling of equipment shall occur in designated fueling zones within the construction
staging areas. All equipment used within the approved construction limits shall be maintained to
minimize and control fluid and grease leaks. Provisions to contain and clean up unintentional
fuel, oil, fluid, and grease leaks/spills shall be in place before construction.
Bio-1E During vegetation clearing, grading, and/or construction, a qualified biologist shall monitor
these activities: If sensitive species and/or habitats adjacent to these project sites are
inadvertently impacted by these activities, then the biologist shall immediately inform the
on-site construction supervisor who shall temporarily halt or redirect work away from the area
of impact. OWD shall immediately be notified of the impact and shall consult with the
appropriate regulatory agencies to determine the required mitigation. 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-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, so 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.
Issue 2 – Sensitive Natural Communities
Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural
community identified in local or regional plans, policies, and regulations or by the CDFW or USFWS?
Issue 2 Analysis of Project Effects
Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated.
Impacts to disturbed coastal Diegan coastal sage scrub would include approximately 0.1 acre of
permanent impacts and 0.3 acre of temporary impacts (Figure 7). This community was revegetated
following the construction of the existing reservoir and is composed primarily of dense stands of tall
shrubs such as laurel sumac, lemonade berry, coyote brush, and broom baccharis with small numbers of
California sagebrush. Characteristic coastal sage scrub species such as California buckwheat, Menzies’s
goldenbush, black sage, and white sage are absent or only occur as a few scattered individuals.
Therefore, the disturbed coastal sage scrub lacks the structural composition and species diversity of
Letter to Juliana Luengas Page 20 of 24
May 3, 2024
undisturbed coastal sage scrub. Impacts to disturbed Diegan coastal sage scrub are anticipated to occur
along the edge of the existing reservoir and access road and are likely due to trimming or removal of
native shrubs; however, the removal of individual shrubs may be required. Impacts to disturbed Diegan
coastal sage scrub are considered significant and would require mitigation.
Impacts to non-native vegetation and developed lands are not considered significant, and, therefore, do
not require mitigation.
Permanent impacts are limited to areas of non-native vegetation and developed lands. Permanent
impacts would consist of direct effects that alter the pre-construction condition permanently, whereas
temporary impacts reflect areas of the project that would be directly impacted but replaced to a pre-
construction condition following construction. Permanent impacts from the proposed project would
occur from the construction of the reservoir. Temporary impacts would primarily occur within the
pipeline alignment. Additionally, construction access and staging areas are considered temporary
impacts as they also reflect areas that would be impacted but replaced to a pre-construction condition
following construction. Figure 7, Vegetation and Sensitive Resources/Impacts, presents the spatial
distribution of project impacts and impact footprint.
Implementation of mitigation measure BIO-1 would clearly demarcate sensitive natural communities,
minimizing and avoiding accidental temporary impacts to the adjacent habitats. Permanent and
temporary construction areas are located entirely within an existing chain-link fence, further minimizing
incidental incursions into adjacent sensitive natural communities.
Potential indirect impacts to natural communities as a result of the project are not expected.
Construction operating procedures/commitments and typical construction BMPs would be installed for
the project per compliance with National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System and Storm Water
Pollution Prevention Plan requirements before the onset of construction activities and throughout
construction to reduce potential water quality impacts. These may include, but not limited to
(1) installing erosion and sediment control devices such as silt fences, fiber rolls, bonded fiber matrix,
and gravel bags in appropriate locations; (2) placing temporary filters at storm drain inlets (e.g., gravel
bags/filter fabric); (3) designating containment areas for material storage (e.g., covering/berming of soil
stockpiles); and (4) providing containment areas for solid waste storage and concrete washout.
Issue 2 Mitigation Measures
Implementation of PEIR mitigation measures Bio-1B and Bio-1D would reduce impacts to sensitive
natural communities to a less-than-significant level. No additional mitigation is required.
Issue 3 – Wetlands
Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by
Section 404 of the federal Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal,
etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means?
Issue 3 Analysis of Project Effects
No impact. Impacts to wetland communities, including freshwater marshes and vernal pools, are not
anticipated to occur as a result of the project. Therefore, no mitigation measures are required.
Letter to Juliana Luengas Page 21 of 24
May 3, 2024
Issue 3 Mitigation Measures
Implementation of PEIR mitigation measure Bio-1D would reduce potential inadvertent construction
impacts to a less-than-significant level. No additional mitigation is required.
Issue 4 – Wildlife Movement and Nursery Sites
Would the project interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or
wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of
native wildlife nursery sites?
Issue 4 Analysis of Project Effects
No impact. While the project site and adjacent native habitats support localized use by wildlife,
particularly birds, the majority of the project site is surrounded by an existing fence and does not
function as a wildlife corridor or habitat linkage for non-avian terrestrial wildlife. Furthermore, the
project site is a relatively small size in the context of larger habitat areas to the north, east, and south.
The project would not interfere with wildlife movement or impede the use of nursery sites. Therefore,
no mitigation measures are required.
Issue 4 Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is required.
Issue 5 – Local Policies and Ordinances
Would the project conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a
tree preservation policy or ordinance?
Issue 5 Analysis of Project Effects
No impact. According to Section 53091 of the California Government Code, zoning ordinances (and, by
inference, the planning policies of local land use agencies) do not apply to the location or construction
of facilities used for the production, generation, storage, or transmission of water. Nevertheless, with
the implementation of performance measures Bio-1B through Bio-1E and Bio-1G, the project would not
conflict with local policies and ordinances pertaining to the protection of biological resources, such as
the County of San Diego Habitat Loss Permit Ordinance and the MSCP for the County of San Diego.
Issue 5 Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is required.
Letter to Juliana Luengas Page 22 of 24
May 3, 2024
Issue 6 – Adopted Conservation Plans
Would the project conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural
Conservation Community Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?
Issue 6 Analysis of Project Effects
No Impact. The project will be designed to comply with all approved local, regional, state, and federal
regulations, policies, and ordinances. OWD is not a participating entity of the San Diego County MSCP
Subregional Plan and is not subject to the provisions of that plan. The Otay subarea plan is not yet
developed or approved. Nevertheless, with the implementation of performance measures Bio-1B
through Bio-1E and Bio-1G, the project would not conflict with any approved regional, state, or federal
regulations, policies, ordinances, or plans.
Issue 6 Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is required.
CLOSING
We appreciate the opportunity to provide you with this letter report. Please do not hesitate to contact
me at (619) 929-8341 or ShawnC@helixepi.com, or Biology Project Manager Katie Duffield at
KatieD@helixepi.com if you have any questions or require further assistance.
Sincerely,
Shawn Carroll
Senior Scientist
Attachments:
Figure 1: Regional Location
Figure 2: USGS Topography
Figure 3: Project Location (Aerial)
Figure 4: Regional Context
Figure 5: Soils
Figure 6: Vegetation and Sensitive Resources
Figure 7: Vegetation and Sensitive Resources/Impacts
Attachment A: Representative Site Photographs
Attachment B: Coastal California Gnatcatcher Survey Report
Attachment C: Plant Species Observed
Attachment D: Animal Species Observed or Otherwise Detected
Attachment E: Special-Status Plant Species Observed or with Potential to Occur
Attachment F: Special-Status Animal Species Observed or with Potential to Occur
Figures
!!
!!
!!!
!
!!
!
!!!
!!!!
!!
!!!!
!!
!!!
!
!
!!
!!!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!!!
!!
!!!!!!
!!!!
!!!!!!!!
!!
!!!!!!
!!!!!!
!!!!!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!!!
!!
!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!!!!!
!!
!!!!
!!!!!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!!!!!!!
!!!!
!!
!!
!!
!!!!
!!
!!
!!!!
!!
!!
!!
!!!!!!
!!!!
!!
!!!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!!!
!!
!!
!!
!!!!
!!
!!
!!!
!!!!!!!!
!
!!!!!!
!!
!!!!
!!!!!!
!!!!
!!!!
!!
!!
!!!!
!!!!!!!
!!
!
!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!
!!!!!!
!!!!
!!
!!
!!!!
!!
!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!!!!!
!!
!!!!
!!
!!
!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!!!
!!
!!
!!!!!!
!!!!!!
!!
!!!!
!!!!!!
!
!!!
!!
!!
!!!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!!!!!
!!
!!!!!!!
!!
!!
!!!!
!!!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!!!
!
!
!
!
!!
!!!!
!!!!
!!!!!!
!!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!!!!!
!!
!!!!
!!!!
!!!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!!!
!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!
!!
!
WÊ
!"^$
!"^$
!"^$
!"^$
WÌ
WÌ
!"_$
!"_$
!"a$
!"a$
!"a$
?n
?p
?p
?t
?¦
?¦
?³
?¸
?¸
?¸
?¹
?¹
?Ë
?Ë
Aä
Aä
Ag
%&s(
%&s(
%&u(
VAIL LAKE
O NEILL LAKE
LAKE HENSHAW
LAKE WOHLFORD
LAKE
SAN MARCOS
SUTHERLAND
RESERVOIR
HODGES
RESERVOIR
LAKE RAMONA
LAKE POWAY
CUYAMACA
RESERVOIR
EL CAPITAN
RESERVOIR
SAN VICENTE
RESERVOIRMIRAMARRESERVOIR
LAKE JENNINGSSANTEE LAKES
LOVELANDRESERVOIR
MURRAY
RESERVOIR
BARRETT
RESERVOIR
SWEETWATER
RESERVOIR
UPPER OTAY
RESERVOIR
LOWEROTAY
RESERVOIR
RIVERSIDE
COUNTY
SAN DIEGO
COUNTY
SAN DI E G O
CO U N T Y
ORAN G E
COU N T Y
Pacific
Ocean
CARLSBAD
DEL
MAR
LA MESA
SAN DIEGO
IMPERIAL
BEACH
NATIONAL CITY
SOLANA
BEACH
CORONADO
SAN MARCOS
OCEANSIDE
CHULA VISTA
VISTA
SANTEE
ENCINITAS
ESCONDIDO
EL CAJON
LEMON
GROVE
POWAY
MEXICO
Project
Location
0 8 Miles K
Figure 1
Regional Location
I:
\
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
S
\
O
\
O
t
a
y
W
a
t
e
r
D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t
_
0
0
6
2
3
\
0
0
0
1
9
_
A
s
N
e
e
d
e
d
E
n
v
S
e
r
v
\
0
0
2
_
R
e
s
8
7
0
-
2
\
M
a
p
\
B
i
o
\
B
i
o
.
a
p
r
x
F
i
g
1
_
R
e
g
i
o
n
a
l
:
0
0
6
2
3
.
1
9
.
7
.
:
1
/
1
6
/
2
0
2
4
-
S
A
B
Source: Base Map Layers (SanGIS, 2016)
870-1 and 870-2 Reservoirs Project
Project
Location
0 2,000 Feet K
Figure 2
USGS Topography
I:
\
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
S
\
O
\
O
t
a
y
W
a
t
e
r
D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t
_
0
0
6
2
3
\
0
0
0
1
9
_
A
s
N
e
e
d
e
d
E
n
v
S
e
r
v
\
0
0
2
_
R
e
s
8
7
0
-
2
\
M
a
p
\
B
i
o
\
B
i
o
.
a
p
r
x
F
i
g
2
_
U
S
G
S
:
0
0
6
2
3
.
1
9
.
7
:
4
/
3
0
/
2
0
2
4
-
S
A
B
Source: OTAY MESA 7.5' Quad (USGS)
870-1 and 870-2 Reservoirs Project
East Mesa Juvenile
Detention Facility
Alta
R
d
0 400 Feet K
Figure 3
Project Location (Aerial)
I:
\
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
S
\
O
\
O
t
a
y
W
a
t
e
r
D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t
_
0
0
6
2
3
\
0
0
0
1
9
_
A
s
N
e
e
d
e
d
E
n
v
S
e
r
v
\
0
0
2
_
R
e
s
8
7
0
-
2
\
M
a
p
\
B
i
o
\
B
i
o
.
a
p
r
x
F
i
g
3
_
A
e
r
i
a
l
:
0
0
6
2
3
.
1
9
.
7
:
4
/
3
0
/
2
0
2
4
-
S
A
B
Source: Aerial (NearMap, 2019)
870-1 and 870-2 Reservoirs Project
Project Site
AltaRd
BoyScoutCamp
R
d
OtayMountainTktl
PerimeterR
d
0 1,500 Feet K
Figure 4
Regional Context
I:
\
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
S
\
O
\
O
t
a
y
W
a
t
e
r
D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t
_
0
0
6
2
3
\
0
0
0
1
9
_
A
s
N
e
e
d
e
d
E
n
v
S
e
r
v
\
0
0
2
_
R
e
s
8
7
0
-
2
\
M
a
p
\
B
i
o
\
B
i
o
.
a
p
r
x
F
i
g
4
_
R
e
g
C
o
n
t
e
x
t
:
0
0
6
2
3
.
1
9
.
7
:
4
/
3
0
/
2
0
2
4
-
S
A
B
Source: Aerial (NearMap, 2019)
870-1 and 870-2 Reservoirs Project
Project Site
Quino Checkerspot Butterfly Recommended Survey Area
USFWS Final Critical Habitat
Coastal California Gnatcatcher
Otay Tarplant
Quino Checkerspot Butterfly
San Diego Fairy Shrimp
Spreading Navarretia
HrC
HrD
HrD
0 200 Feet K
Figure 5
Soils
I:
\
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
S
\
O
\
O
t
a
y
W
a
t
e
r
D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t
_
0
0
6
2
3
\
0
0
0
1
9
_
A
s
N
e
e
d
e
d
E
n
v
S
e
r
v
\
0
0
2
_
R
e
s
8
7
0
-
2
\
M
a
p
\
B
i
o
\
B
i
o
.
a
p
r
x
F
i
g
5
_
S
o
i
l
s
:
0
0
6
2
3
.
1
9
.
2
:
4
/
3
0
/
2
0
2
4
-
S
A
B
Source: Aerial (NearMap, 2019)
870-1 and 870-2 Reservoirs Project
Project Site
Mapped Soils
HrC, Huerhuero loam, 2 to 9 percent slopes
HrD, Huerhuero loam, 9 to 15 percent slopes
!
#*
#*
#*#*
#*
#*
#*
0 180 Feet K
Figure 6
Vegetation and Sensitive Resources
I:
\
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
S
\
O
\
O
t
a
y
W
a
t
e
r
D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t
_
0
0
6
2
3
\
0
0
0
1
9
_
A
s
N
e
e
d
e
d
E
n
v
S
e
r
v
\
0
0
2
_
R
e
s
8
7
0
-
2
\
M
a
p
\
B
i
o
\
B
i
o
.
a
p
r
x
F
i
g
6
_
V
e
g
:
0
0
6
2
3
.
1
9
.
2
:
4
/
3
0
/
2
0
2
4
-
S
A
B
Source: Aerial (NearMap, 2019)
870-1 and 870-2 Reservoirs Project
Project Site
Survey Area
Vegetation
Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub
Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub - disturbed
Baccharis Scrub - disturbed
Non-native Grassland
Southern Riparian Woodland – Disturbed
Non-native Vegetation
Disturbed Habitat
Developed
Sensitive Species Observation
Flora
San Diego County Viguiera
Fauna
#*Coastal California Gnatcatcher
#*Cooper's Hawk
#*Least Bell's Vireo
#*Southern California Rufous-crowned Sparrow
!
#*
#*
#*#*
#*
#*
#*
0 180 Feet K
Figure 7
Vegetation and Sensitive Resources/Impacts
I:
\
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
S
\
O
\
O
t
a
y
W
a
t
e
r
D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t
_
0
0
6
2
3
\
0
0
0
1
9
_
A
s
N
e
e
d
e
d
E
n
v
S
e
r
v
\
0
0
2
_
R
e
s
8
7
0
-
2
\
M
a
p
\
B
i
o
\
B
i
o
.
a
p
r
x
F
i
g
7
_
V
e
g
I
m
p
s
:
0
0
6
2
3
.
1
9
.
7
:
4
/
3
0
/
2
0
2
4
-
S
A
B
Source: Aerial (NearMap, 2019)
870-1 and 870-2 Reservoirs Project
Project Site
Survey Area
Permanent Impacts
Temporary Impacts
Vegetation
Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub
Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub - disturbed
Baccharis Scrub - disturbed
Non-native Grassland
Southern Riparian Woodland – Disturbed
Non-native Vegetation
Disturbed Habitat
Developed
Sensitive Species Observation
Flora
San Diego County Viguiera
Fauna
#*Coastal California Gnatcatcher
#*Cooper's Hawk
#*Least Bell's Vireo
#*Southern California Rufous-crowned Sparrow
Attachment A
Representative Site Photographs
G:
\
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
S
\
O
\
O
t
a
y
W
a
t
e
r
D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t
_
0
0
6
2
3
\
0
0
0
1
9
_
O
W
D
A
s
N
e
e
d
E
n
v
S
v
c
s
\
0
0
2
_
O
W
D
A
s
N
e
e
d
G
e
n
e
r
a
l
S
u
r
v
e
y
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
\
8
7
0
-
2
R
e
s
e
r
v
o
i
r
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
\
B
i
o
l
o
g
y
\
P
h
o
t
o
s
\
P
h
o
t
o
_
a
p
p
e
n
d
i
x
Representative Site Photos
Appendix A
870-1 and 870-2 Reservoirs Project
Photo 1: View of north side of proposed reservoir location, looking south.
Photo 2: View of west side of proposed reservoir location and existing reservoir infrastructure, looking south.
G:
\
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
S
\
O
\
O
t
a
y
W
a
t
e
r
D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t
_
0
0
6
2
3
\
0
0
0
1
9
_
O
W
D
A
s
N
e
e
d
E
n
v
S
v
c
s
\
0
0
2
_
O
W
D
A
s
N
e
e
d
G
e
n
e
r
a
l
S
u
r
v
e
y
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
\
8
7
0
-
2
R
e
s
e
r
v
o
i
r
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
\
B
i
o
l
o
g
y
\
P
h
o
t
o
s
\
P
h
o
t
o
_
a
p
p
e
n
d
i
x
Representative Site Photos
Appendix A
870-1 and 870-2 Reservoirs Project
Photo 3: View of disturbed southern riparian woodland northwest of project site, looking west.
Photo 4: View of southern side of proposed reservoir location, looking northeast.
G:
\
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
S
\
O
\
O
t
a
y
W
a
t
e
r
D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t
_
0
0
6
2
3
\
0
0
0
1
9
_
O
W
D
A
s
N
e
e
d
E
n
v
S
v
c
s
\
0
0
2
_
O
W
D
A
s
N
e
e
d
G
e
n
e
r
a
l
S
u
r
v
e
y
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
\
8
7
0
-
2
R
e
s
e
r
v
o
i
r
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
\
B
i
o
l
o
g
y
\
P
h
o
t
o
s
\
P
h
o
t
o
_
a
p
p
e
n
d
i
x
Representative Site Photos
Appendix A
870-1 and 870-2 Reservoirs Project
Photo 5: View of proposed overflow pipeline location along western fence line, looking northeast.
Photo 6: View of San Diego County viguiera within disturbed Diegan coastal sage scrub bordering the existing 870-1 reservoir, looking north.
Attachment B
Coastal California Gnatcatcher
Survey Report
HELIX Environmental Planning, Inc.
7578 El Cajon Boulevard
La Mesa, CA 91942
619.462.1515 tel
619.462.0552 fax
www.helixepi.com
March 21, 2024 00623.00019.007
Stacey Love
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
2177 Salk Ave., Suite 250
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Subject: 2023 Coastal California Gnatcatcher (Polioptila californica californica) Survey Report for the
870-2 Reservoir Project
Dear Ms. Love:
This letter presents the results of a U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) protocol presence/absence
survey for the federally listed as threatened coastal California gnatcatcher (Polioptila californica
californica; CAGN) conducted by HELIX Environmental Planning, Inc. (HELIX) for the 870-2 Reservoir
Project. This report describes the methods used to perform the survey and the results. It is being
submitted to the USFWS pursuant to HELIX’s 10(a)(1)(A) Threatened and Endangered Species Permit (ES-
778195-15) for the species.
PROJECT LOCATION
The 870-2 Reservoir Project (project) is located in unincorporated San Diego County (County), California
(Figure 1, Regional Location). The project site is located within Section 19 of Township 18 South, Range 1
East, on the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5’ Otay Mesa topographic quadrangle (Figure 2, USGS
Topography). The project site is generally located north of the United States-Mexico Border, south of
Otay Reservoir, east of State Route 125, and west of the San Ysidro Mountains. Specifically, the project
site is located northeast of Alta Road and the East Mesa Juvenile Detention Facility (Figure 3, Aerial
Photograph). The project site is not located within the USFWS-designated critical habitat for the species.
METHODS
The survey consisted of nine visits performed by HELIX permitted biologist Dane van Tamelen (ES-
778195-15) between October 30, 2023, and February 28, 2024 (Table 1, Survey Information), in
accordance with the current USFWS protocol1. The visits were conducted at least two weeks apart,
between 6 a.m. and 12 p.m. The project proponent, Otay Water District, is not a participating entity in
the Natural Communities Conservation Plan program. For non-participating agencies, the USFWS
requires that a minimum of nine surveys be conducted, at least two weeks apart, during the non-
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1997. Coastal California Gnatcatcher (Polioptila californica californica)
Presence/Absence Survey Protocol. 5pp.
1
Letter to Stacey Love Page 2 of 4
March 21, 2024
breeding season (July 1 to March 14). The survey area encompassed approximately 1.3 acres of suitable
habitat within the project site and immediately surrounding suitable habitat within a 500-foot buffer,
totaling approximately 25.0 acres of potentially suitable habitat for CAGN (Figure 4, 2024 Coastal
California Gnatcatcher Survey Results).
The surveys were conducted by walking within and along the perimeter of suitable CAGN habitat
present within the survey area. HELIX did not enter the portions of the survey area that occur on private
property. The survey routes were arranged to ensure complete visual and audible coverage of suitable
habitat for CAGN. Surveys were conducted with binoculars to aid in bird detection. Recorded CAGN
vocalizations were played sparingly and only if other means of detection had failed. If a CAGN was
detected before playing recorded vocalizations, the recordings were not played. Once CAGN was initially
detected in an area, the use of playback was discontinued. The approximate survey routes are depicted
in Figure 4. The details of the survey dates, times, and conditions are presented in Table 1 below.
Table 1
SURVEY INFORMATION
Site
Visit #
Survey
Date Biologist(s) Start/Stop
Times
Approx. Acres
Surveyed/
Acres per Hour2
Start/Stop
Weather Conditions3
1 10/30/2023 Dane van Tamelen1 0800/0945 25.0 ac/
14.3 ac per hr
55F, wind 1-3 mph, 0% cc
67F, wind 0-1 mph, 0% cc
2 11/13/2023 Dane van Tamelen1 0830/1015 25.0 ac/
14.3 ac per hr
66F, wind 1-3 mph, 35% cc
74F, wind 1-2 mph, 50% cc
3 11/27/2023 Dane van Tamelen1 0830/1030 25.0 ac/
12.5 ac per hr
63F, wind 1-3 mph, 25% cc
72F, wind 2-4 mph, 40% cc
4 12/14/2023 Dane van Tamelen1 0900/1130 25.0 ac/
10.0 ac per hr
63F, wind 1-3 mph, 10% cc
72F, wind 2-4 mph, 5% cc
5 1/2/2024 Dane van Tamelen1 0930/1130 25.0 ac/
12.5 ac per hr
59F, wind 1-3 mph, 5% cc
63F, wind 2-4 mph, 5% cc
6 1/17/2024 Dane van Tamelen1 0830/1000 25.0 ac/
16.7 ac per hr
56F, wind 2-4 mph, 100% cc
58F, wind 0-2 mph, 100% cc
7 1/31/2024 Dane van Tamelen1 0800/1015 25.0 ac/
11.1 ac per hr
55F, wind 2-5 mph, 90% cc
65F, wind 1-3 mph, 40% cc
8 2/14/2024 Dane van Tamelen1 0830/1030 25.0 ac/
12.5 ac per hr
51F, wind 1-3 mph, 5% cc
58F, wind 1-3 mph, 15% cc
9 2/28/2024 Dane van Tamelen1 0900/1045 25.0 ac/
14.3 ac per hr
59F, wind 2-4 mph, 0% cc
63F, wind 1-3 mph, 35% cc
1 USFWS Permit ES-778195‐15
2 ac – acre; hr – hour
3 F – degrees Fahrenheit; mph – miles per hour; % cc – percent cloud cover
COASTAL CALIFORNIA GNATCATCHER HABITAT
Potentially suitable habitat for CAGN in the survey area consisted of one type of sage scrub: Diegan
coastal sage scrub, including the disturbed form (Figure 4).
Letter to Stacey Love Page 3 of 4
March 21, 2024
Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub (including disturbed)
Coastal sage scrub is one of the two major shrub types that occur in southern California, occupying xeric
sites characterized by shallow soils (the other is chaparral). Four distinct coastal sage scrub geographical
associations (northern, central, Venturan, and Diegan) are recognized along the California coast. Diegan
coastal sage scrub may be dominated by a variety of species depending upon soil type, slope, and
aspect. Typical species found within Diegan coastal sage scrub include California sagebrush (Artemisia
californica), California buckwheat (Eriogonum fasciculatum), laurel sumac (Malosma laurina), and black
sage (Salvia mellifera). Disturbed coastal sage scrub contains many of the same shrub species as
undisturbed Diegan coastal sage scrub but is sparser and has a higher proportion of non-native annual
species. Baccharis dominated Diegan coastal sage scrub is a subtype of coastal sage scrub that is
dominated by broom baccharis (Baccharis sarothroides) or coyote brush (B. pilularis). It often occurs on
disturbed sites and areas with nutrient-poor soils, and on upper terraces of streams and in detention
basins, where it may include goldenbush (Isocoma menziesii).
Diegan coastal sage scrub within the survey area is dominated primarily by California buckwheat,
California sagebrush, laurel sumac, broom baccharis, and goldenbush. Disturbed Diegan coastal sage
scrub within the survey area includes the same species but is dominated by non-native grasses.
Baccharis scrub within the survey area occurs as a highly disturbed form dominated by fennel
(Foeniculum vulgare) with individuals of broom baccharis interspersed, and for this reason is not
included as suitable CAGN habitat.
RESULTS
Two individual CAGN were detected within the survey area during the focused survey, although most of
the survey visits were negative. Neither of the individuals were observed within the project site but
were instead observed within the surrounding habitat adjacent to the project site. The approximate
locations of the CAGN and the number of individuals observed during each survey are presented on
Figure 4. Descriptions of the CAGN observations and locations from each bi-weekly survey are included
below.
CAGN Male No. 1 was detected offsite in the northern portion of the survey area (Figure 4). During the
fourth survey, the male was observed foraging within a California sagebrush bush and was detected
calling back and forth with Female No. 1 as detailed below. During the fifth survey, Male No. 1 was
briefly detected calling within the same general area before it was observed flying further north beyond
the survey area. Male No. 1 was not observed nor detected during surveys one through three, nor
surveys six through nine.
CAGN Female No. 1 was detected offsite in the northern portion of the survey area (Figure 4). During
the fourth survey, the female was observed foraging within a California sagebrush bush and was
detected calling back and forth with Male No. 1 as detailed above. During the fifth survey, Female No. 1
was detected calling and observed perched on a laurel sumac bush within the same general area before
flying further north beyond the survey area. Female No. 1 was not observed nor detected during surveys
one through three, nor surveys six through nine.
Letter to Stacey Love Page 4 of 4
March 21, 2024
CERTIFICATION
I certify that the information in this survey report and enclosed exhibit fully and accurately represent my
work. Please contact Shelby Howard or Katie Duffield at (619) 462-1515 if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
Dane van Tamelen
Biologist
(ES-778195‐15)
Attachments:
Figure 1: Regional Location
Figure 2: USGS Topography
Figure 3: Aerial Photograph
Figure 4: 2024 Coastal California Gnatcatcher Survey Results
E---3 E---3
HELIX. Environmental Planning
!!
!!
!!!
!
!!
!
!!!
!!!!
!!
!!!!
!!
!!!
!
!
!!
!!!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!!!
!!
!!!!!!
!!!!
!!!!!!!!
!!
!!!!!!
!!!!!!
!!!!!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!!!
!!
!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!!!!!
!!
!!!!
!!!!!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!!!!!!!
!!!!
!!
!!
!!
!!!!
!!
!!
!!!!
!!
!!
!!
!!!!!!
!!!!
!!
!!!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!!!
!!
!!
!!
!!!!
!!
!!
!!!
!!!!!!!!
!
!!!!!!
!!
!!!!
!!!!!!
!!!!
!!!!
!!
!!
!!!!
!!!!!!!
!!
!
!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!
!!!!!!
!!!!
!!
!!
!!!!
!!
!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!!!!!
!!
!!!!
!!
!!
!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!!!
!!
!!
!!!!!!
!!!!!!
!!
!!!!
!!!!!!
!
!!!
!!
!!
!!!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!!!!!
!!
!!!!!!!
!!
!!
!!!!
!!!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!!!
!
!
!
!
!!
!!!!
!!!!
!!!!!!
!!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!!!!!
!!
!!!!
!!!!
!!!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!!!
!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!
!!
!
WÊ
!"^$
!"^$
!"^$
!"^$
WÌ
WÌ
!"_$
!"_$
!"a$
!"a$
!"a$
?n
?p
?p
?t
?¦
?¦
?³
?¸
?¸
?¸
?¹
?¹
?Ë
?Ë
Aä
Aä
Ag
%&s(
%&s(
%&u(
VAIL LAKE
O NEILL LAKE
LAKE HENSHAW
LAKE WOHLFORD
LAKE SANMARCOS SUTHERLAND
RESERVOIR
HODGES
RESERVOIR
LAKE RAMONA
LAKE POWAY
CUYAMACA
RESERVOIR
EL CAPITAN
RESERVOIR
SAN VICENTE
RESERVOIRMIRAMAR
RESERVOIR
LAKE JENNINGSSANTEE LAKES
LOVELANDRESERVOIR
MURRAY
RESERVOIR
BARRETT
RESERVOIR
SWEETWATER
RESERVOIR
UPPER OTAY
RESERVOIR
LOWER OTAYRESERVOIR
SAN DI E G O
CO U N T Y
ORAN G E
COU N T Y
Pacific
Ocean
CARLSBAD
DEL
MAR
LA MESA
SAN DIEGO
IMPERIAL
BEACH
NATIONAL CITY
SOLANA BEACH
CORONADO
SAN MARCOS
OCEANSIDE
CHULA VISTA
VISTA
SANTEE
ENCINITAS
ESCONDIDO
EL CAJON
LEMON
GROVE
POWAY
MEXICO
Project
Location
0 8 Miles K
Figure 1
Regional Location
I:
\
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
S
\
O
\
O
t
a
y
W
a
t
e
r
D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t
_
0
0
6
2
3
\
0
0
0
1
9
_
A
s
N
e
e
d
e
d
E
n
v
S
e
r
v
\
0
0
2
_R
e
s
8
7
0
-
2
\
M
a
p
\
C
A
G
N
\
C
A
G
N
.
a
p
r
x
F
i
g
1
_
R
e
g
i
o
n
a
l
:
0
0
6
2
3
.
1
9
.
7
.
:
2
/
2
7
/2
0
2
4
-
S
A
B
Source: Base Map Layers (SanGIS, 2016)
870-2 Reservoir Project
HELIX
Environmental Planning--------------------------------------------------
Project
Location
0 2,000 Feet K
Figure 2
USGS Topography
I:
\
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
S
\
O
\
O
t
a
y
W
a
t
e
r
D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t
_
0
0
6
2
3
\
0
0
0
1
9
_
A
s
N
e
e
d
e
d
E
n
v
S
e
r
v
\
0
0
2
_R
e
s
8
7
0
-
2
\
M
a
p
\
C
A
G
N
\
C
A
G
N
.
a
p
r
x
F
i
g
2
_
U
S
G
S
:
0
0
6
2
3
.
1
9
.
7
:
2
/
2
7
/
2
0
2
4
-
S
A
B
Source: OTAY MESA 7.5' Quad (USGS)
870-2 Reservoir Project
E---3 E---3
HELIX
Environmental Planning --------------------------------------------------------
East Mesa Juvenile
Detention Facility
Alta
R
d
0 400 Feet K
Figure 3
Project Location (Aerial)
I:
\
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
S
\
O
\
O
t
a
y
W
a
t
e
r
D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t
_
0
0
6
2
3
\
0
0
0
1
9
_
A
s
N
e
e
d
e
d
E
n
v
S
e
r
v
\
0
0
2
_R
e
s
8
7
0
-
2
\
M
a
p
\
C
A
G
N
\
C
A
G
N
.
a
p
r
x
F
i
g
3
_
A
e
r
i
a
l
:
0
0
6
2
3
.
1
9
.
7
:
2
/
2
7
/
2
02
4
-
S
A
B
Source: Aerial (NearMap, 2019)
870-2 Reservoir Project
Project Site
Survey Area
E---3 E---3
HELIX
Environmental Planning ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
#*#*
Al
t
a
R
d
Female No. 1
12/14/2023 - Calling/foraging
1/2/2024 - Perched/calling before flying offsite to the north
Male No. 1
12/14/2023 - Calling/foraging
1/2/2024 - Calling before flying offsite to the north
0 200 Feet K
Figure 4
2024 Coastal California Gnatcatcher Survey Results
I:
\
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
S
\
O
\
O
t
a
y
W
a
t
e
r
D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t
_
0
0
6
2
3
\
0
0
0
1
9
_
A
s
N
e
e
d
e
d
E
n
v
S
e
r
v
\
0
0
2
_R
e
s
8
7
0
-
2
\
M
a
p
\
C
A
G
N
\
C
A
G
N
.
a
p
r
x
F
i
g
4
_
S
u
r
v
e
y
R
e
s
u
l
t
s
:
0
0
6
2
3
.
1
9
.
7
:
2/
2
8
/
2
0
2
4
-
S
A
B
Source: Aerial (SanGIS, 2023)
870-2 Reservoir Project
Project Site
Survey Area
Approximate Survey Route
Coastal California Gnatcatcher Habitat
Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub
Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub - disturbed
Coastal California Gnatcatcher Sightings
#*Female No. 1
#*Male No. 1
Attachment C
Plant Species Observed
Attachment C: Plant Species Observed for the 870-1 and 870-2 Reservoirs Project
C-1
Family Scientific Name*,† Common Name Habitat1
Anacardiaceae Malosma laurina laurel sumac DCSS
Rhus integrifolia lemonade berry DCSS
Schinus molle* Peruvian pepper tree DCSS
Apiaceae Foeniculum vulgare* fennel NNG, NNV
Arecaceae Washingtonia robusta Mexican fan palm DW
Asteraceae Artemisia californica California sagebrush DCSS
Baccharis pilularis coyote brush DCSS
Baccharis sarothroides broom baccharis DCSS
Bahiopsis [=Viguiera] laciniata† San Diego County viguiera DCSS
Carduus pycnocephalus* Italian thistle DCSS, NNV
Centaurea melitensis* tocalote DCSS, NNG, NNV
Corethrogyne filaginifolia common sandaster NNV
Encelia californica bush sunflower DCSS
Glebionis coronaria* crown daisy NNV
Hedypnois cretica* crete weed NNV
Isocoma menziesii coastal goldenbush DCSS
Lasthenia californica goldfields NNG, NNV
Sonchus asper* spiny sowthistle NNV
Brassicaceae Brassica nigra* black mustard NNV
Hirschfeldia incana* mustard NNV
Fabaceae Melilotus indicus* annual yellow sweetclover NNV
Geraniaceae Erodium cicutarium* redstem filaree DEV, NNV
Lamiaceae Marrubium vulgare* white horehound NNV
Liliaceae Calochortus splendens splendid mariposa lily DCSS, NNG
Malvaceae Malva parviflora* cheeseweed NNV
Poaceae Avena barbata* slender wild oat NNG, NNV
Bromus diandrus* ripgut brome NNG, NNV
Bromus madritensis ssp. rubens* foxtail brome NNG, NNV
Cortaderia jubata* pampas grass DW
Festuca perennis* Italian rye grass NNG, NNV
Hordeum murinum* foxtail barley NNG, NNV
Polypogon monspeliensis* annual beard grass NNV
Solanaceae Datura wrightii jimsonweed DEV, NNV
Solanum nigrum* black nightshade DCSS, NNV
Tamaricaceae Tamarix ramosissima* tamarisk DW
Themidaceae Dipterostemon capitatus blue dicks NNV, DCSS
Typhaceae Typha sp. cattail DW
† Special Status Species
* Non-native Species
1 DCSS = Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub - Disturbed; DEV = Developed; NNG = Non-Native Grassland; NNV = Non-Native Vegetation;
DW = Disturbed Wetland
Attachment D
Animal Species Observed or
Otherwise Detected
Attachment D: Animal Species Observed or Detected for the 870-1 and -2 Reservoir Project
D-1
Order Family Scientific Name Common Name
VERTEBRATES
Birds
Accipitriformes Accipitridae Accipiter cooperii† Cooper's hawk
Buteo jamaicensis red-tailed hawk
Apodiformes Trochilidae Calypte anna Anna's hummingbird
Columbiformes Columbidae Zenaida macroura mourning dove
Cuculiformes Cuculidae Geococcyx californianus greater roadrunner
Falconiformes Falconidae Falco sparverius American kestrel
Passeriformes Aegithalidae Psaltriparus minimus Bushtit
Corvidae Corvus brachyrhynchos American crow
Corvus corax common raven
Fringillidae Haemorhous mexicanus house finch
Spinus psaltria lesser goldfinch
Hirundinidae Hirundo rustica barn swallow
Mimidae Mimus polyglottos northern mockingbird
Toxostoma redivivum California thrasher
Parulidae Geothlypis trichas common yellowthroat
Setophaga coronata yellow-rumped warbler
Passerellidae Aimophila ruficeps
canescens†
southern California
rufous-crowned sparrow
Chondestes grammacus lark sparrow
Melozone crissalis California towhee
Pipilo maculatus spotted towhee
Zonotrichia leucophrys white-crowned sparrow
Polioptilidae Polioptila caerulea blue-gray gnatcatcher
Polioptila californica
californica†
coastal California
gnatcatcher
Sylviidae Chamaea fasciata Wrentit
Troglodytidae Salpinctes obsoletus rock wren
Thryomanes bewickii Bewick’s wren
Troglodytes aedon house wren
Turdidae Catharus guttatus hermit thrush
Tyrannidae Myiarchus cinerascens ash-throated flycatcher
Sayornis nigricans black phoebe
Sayornis saya Say's phoebe
Tyrannus verticalis western kingbird
Tyrannus vociferans Cassin’s kingbird
Vireonidae Vireo bellii pusillus† least Bell's vireo
Mammals
Artiodactyla Cervidae Odocoileus hemionus mule deer
Carnivora Felidae Lynx rufus Bobcat
Procyonidae Procyon lotor Raccoon
Lagomorpha Leporidae Sylvilagus audubonii desert cottontail
Rodentia Sciuridae Otospermophilus beecheyi California ground squirrel
† Sensitive
Attachment E
Special-Status Plant Species
Observed or with Potential to Occur
Attachment E: Special-Status Plant Species Observed or with Potential to Occur for the 870-1 and 870-2 Reservoirs Project
E-1
Scientific Name Common Name Status Habitat, Ecology and Life History Potential to Occur
Ambrosia
chenopodiifolia
San Diego bursage
CRPR 2B.1
Perennial shrub. Found in coastal scrub within
southwestern San Diego County. Flowering period: April to June. Elevation: below 850 feet 260
meters).
None. The study area is inside an elm
occurrence from 2005, described as scarce by surveyor and needing map detail by
CNDDB. The small area of native coastal
sage scrub within the project site is unlikely
to constitute suitable habitat. Conspicuous
shrub that would have been observed if
present.
Ambrosia
monogyra
singlewhorl
burrobrush
CRPR 2B.2 Perennial shrub. Found on sandy soils within
washes and dry riverbeds within chaparral and
Sonoran desert scrub. Flowering period: August to
November. Found in San Bernardino, Riverside,
and San Diego counties Elevation: 30 to 1,640 feet
(10 to 500 meters).
None. Suitable sandy soils within chaparral
and Sonoran desert scrub habitats are not
present within the study area. Conspicuous
shrub that would have been observed if
present.
Arctostaphylos
otayensis
Otay manzanita
CRPR 1B.2
Perennial shrub. Grows on metavolcanics soils
within chaparral and cismontane woodland in San
Diego County. Flowering period: January to April.
Elevation: 900 to 5,580 feet (275 to 1,700 meters).
None. Chaparral and cismontane habitats
associated with the species are not present
within the study area. Conspicuous shrub
that would have been observed if present.
Asplenium
vespertinum
western
spleenwort
CRPR 4.2
Perennial rhizomatous herb. Occurs in chaparral,
cismontane woodland, and coastal scrub along
rocky bluffs. Found along the coastal regions from
Ventura County south San Diego County and east
to San Bernardino and Riverside counties.
Flowering period: February to June. Elevation: 590
to 3,280 feet (180 to 1,000 meters).
None. Although a small area of coastal
scrub habitat is present within the study
area, well-shaded, rock faces and bluffs
associated with the species are not
documented.
Atriplex pacifica south coast
saltscale
CRPR 1B.2
Annual herb. Found coastally on dunes and within
playas in alkali sinks, sage scrub, and wetland and
riparian habitats. Found along the coastal regions
from Santa Barbara County south to San Diego
County, western portions of San Bernardino and
Riverside counties, and the Channel Islands.
Flowering period: March to October. Elevation:
below 460 feet (140 meters).
None. The study area is above the known
elevation limit for the species, and lacks
suitable dune, alkali sink, and riparian
habitats.
Attachment E: Special-Status Plant Species Observed or with Potential to Occur for the 870-1 and 870-2 Reservoirs Project
E-2
Scientific Name Common Name Status Habitat, Ecology and Life History Potential to Occur
Bahiopsis[=Viguier
a] laciniata
San Diego County
viguiera
CRPR 4.3
Perennial shrub. Occurs on a variety of soil types
within coastal sage scrub in San Diego County. Generally, shrub cover is more open than at mesic,
coastal locales supporting sage scrub. Found along
the coastal regions from Ventura County south to
San Diego County and western Riverside County.
Flowering period: February to August. Elevation:
295 to 2,461 feet (90 to 750 meters).
Present. Documented in disturbed Diegan
coastal sage habitat south and east of existing reservoir. Abundant.
Bergerocactus
emoryi
golden-spined
cereus
CRPR 2B.2
Stem succulent shrub. Occurs coastally on sandy
open hills within chaparral, coastal scrub, and
closed-cone pine forests. Found in Los Angeles and
San Diego counties, and San Clemente and Santa
Catalina Islands. Flowering period: May to June.
Elevation: below 1,295 feet (395 meters).
None. Suitable coastal scrub habitat is
present within the study area, but sandy
microhabitat preferred by the species was
not observed. One record is present 0.4
miles south of Study area, although the
record is described as needing field work to
confirm location. Conspicuous succulent
shrub that would have been observed if
present.
Bloomeria
clevelandii
San Diego
goldenstar
CRPR 1B.1
Perennial bulbiferous herb. Occurs in valley
grasslands and coastal scrub, particularly near
mima mound topography or in the vicinity of
vernal pools, on clay soils. Found in Riverside and
San Diego counties. Flowering period: April to May.
Elevation: 160 to 1,525 feet (50 to 465 meters).
Low. Suitable grassland and coastal scrub
associated with the species comprise the
majority vegetation within the Study Area.
Multiple records occur within 1 mile to the
north, east, and south of the Study Area;
however, habitat within the project site is
heavily disturbed and is not suitable for the
species.
Brodiaea orcuttii Orcutt's brodiaea
CRPR 1B.1
Perennial bulbiferous herb. Occurs within closed-
cone coniferous forest, chaparral, cismontane
woodland, meadows and seeps, valley and foothill
grassland, and vernal pools. Prefers mesic or clay
soils. Found in Riverside San Diego counties.
Flowering period: May to July. Elevation: 98 to
5,550 feet (30 to 1,692 meters).
Low. Clay soils associated with the species
are not present in the study area. The
species has strong affinity for wetland
environments; the small, disturbed wetland
within the project site does not contain
sufficient habitat elements to support the
species.
Attachment E: Special-Status Plant Species Observed or with Potential to Occur for the 870-1 and 870-2 Reservoirs Project
E-3
Scientific Name Common Name Status Habitat, Ecology and Life History Potential to Occur
Calochortus dunnii Dunn’s mariposa
lily
CRPR 1B.2
Perennial herb. Found in closed-cone coniferous
forest, chaparral, and valley and foothill grassland, typically on gabbroic, metavolcanics, or rocky soils.
Found in San Diego County. Flowering Period: Feb
to June. Elevation: 605 to 6,005 feet (185 to 1,830
meters).
Low. The grassland habitat present within
the study area lacks the grabbroic, rocky, metavolcanic soils most often associated
with the species.
Ceanothus cyaneus Lakeside
ceanothus
CRPR 1B.2
Perennial shrub. Occurs on slopes and ridgelines in
closed-cone coniferous forests and chaparral.
Found in Riverside and San Diego counties.
Flowering period: April to June. Elevation: 770 to
2,540 feet (235 to 755 meters).
None. Coniferous forest and chaparral
habitats associated with the species are not
present within the study area. Conspicuous
shrub that would have been observed if
present.
Ceanothus
otayensis
Otay Mountain
ceanothus
CRPR 1B.2 Perennial shrub. Found in chaparral dominated by
chamise and ceanothus species on metavolcanics
or gabbroic soils. Mild soil disturbances may
enable this plant to pioneer on road cuts and in
burn areas. Only known from Otay Mountain in
San Diego County. Flowering Period: January to
April. Elevation: 1,965 to 3,610 feet (600 to 1,100
meters).
None. The study area is below the species’
known elevation range and does not
contain suitable chaparral habitat.
Conspicuous shrub that would have been
observed if present.
Comarostaphylis
diversifolia ssp.
diversifolia
summer holly
CRPR 1B.2
Perennial shrub. Occurs in chaparral and
cismontane woodland. Found in Santa Barbara,
Orange, Riverside, and San Diego counties.
Flowering period: April to June. Elevation: 95 to
2,590 feet (30 to 790 meters).
None. Chaparral and cismontane habitats
associated with the species are not present
within the study area. Conspicuous shrub
that would have been observed if present.
Convolvulus
simulans
small-flowered
morning glory
CRPR 4.2 Annual herb. Occurs in seeps in coastal sage,
grassland, and open chaparral habitats with clay
and serpentine soils. Strong ultramafic indicator.
Found throughout southern and central California.
Flowering period: March to July. Elevation: 100 to
2,430 feet (30 to 70 meters).
None. Coastal sage scrub and grassland are
present within the study area but lack the
clay and serpentine soils strongly
associated with the species.
Cylindropuntia
californica var.
californica
snake cholla
CRPR 1B.1
Perennial succulent. Occurs within coastal sage
scrub and coastal chaparral communities in San
Diego County. Flowering period: April to May.
Elevation: 95 to 490 feet (30 to 150 meters).
None. No cactus species were identified
during field surveys. Coastal sage scrub is
present within the study area, but it is
unlikely that the species would have
escaped detection within the small project
site.
Attachment E: Special-Status Plant Species Observed or with Potential to Occur for the 870-1 and 870-2 Reservoirs Project
E-4
Scientific Name Common Name Status Habitat, Ecology and Life History Potential to Occur
Deinandra
conjugens
Otay tarplant FT/SE
CRPR 1B.1
Annual forb/herb. Occurs in clay soils within
coastal scrub and valley and foothill grassland habitats. Somewhat tolerant of disturbance;
possibly benefits from low levels of grazing and
vegetation maintenance activities. Known in only
42 extant occurrences, all of which are in southern
San Diego County. Flowering period: April to June.
Elevation: 80 to 985 feet (25 to 300 meters).
Low. Coastal scrub and grassland habitats
associated with the species are present within the study area, and the Otay Mesa
region is known to support many extant
populations. However, the species is well-
studied and only known in 42 extant
occurrences, none of which are within the
study area. The closest recorded
observation is within 1 mile to the
northwest.
Dichondra
occidentalis
western dichondra
CRPR 4.2
Perennial herb. Found among rocks and shrubs
within grasslands, coastal sage scrub, chaparral,
and oak woodlands. Often proliferates on recently
burned slopes. Found along the coastal regions
from San Luis Obispo County south to San Diego
County. Flowering period: March to July. Elevation:
165 to 1,640 feet (50 to 500 meters).
Low. Coastal sage scrub and grassland
habitats are present within the study area,
but are fragmented and disturbed within
the project site. Habitats within the project
site do not feature the rocks or shrub cover
associated with the species.
Dudleya variegata variegated dudleya
CRPR 1B.2
Perennial herb succulent. Occurs on clay soils of
dry hillsides and mesas within chaparral, valley
grassland, foothill woodland and coastal sage scrub
communities. Found in San Diego County.
Flowering period: April to June. Elevation: 5 to
1,905 feet (3 to 580 meters).
None. Clay soils associated with the species
are not present in the study area.
Eryngium
aristulatum var.
parishii
San Diego button
celery
FE/SE
CRPR 1B.1
Annual or perennial herb. Grows in vernal pools
and other mesic areas, such as marshes. Found in
Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, and San Diego
counties. Flowering period: April to June.
Elevation: 65 to 2,035 feet (20 to 620 meters).
None. Vernal pool and marsh habitats
associated with the species are not present
within the study area.
Ferocactus
viridescens
San Diego barrel
cactus
CRPR 2B.1
Perennial (stem succulent) shrub. Grows in sandy
to rocky areas within chaparral, valley grassland
and coastal sage scrub communities. Found in San
Diego County. Flowering period: May to June.
Elevation: 5 to 492 feet (3 to 150 meters).
None. The study area is outside the known
elevation range for the species.
Attachment E: Special-Status Plant Species Observed or with Potential to Occur for the 870-1 and 870-2 Reservoirs Project
E-5
Scientific Name Common Name Status Habitat, Ecology and Life History Potential to Occur
Fremontodendron
mexicanum
Mexican
flannelbush
FE/SR
CRPR 1B.1
Perennial shrub. Occurs on gabbroic, metavolcanic,
and serpentinite soils within chaparral, foothill woodland and closed-cone pine forest
communities. Found in San Diego County.
Flowering period: March to June. Elevation: 30 to
2,350 feet (10 to 716 meters).
None. Chaparral, foothill woodland, and
closed-cone pine forest vegetation associated with the species is not present
within the study area. Conspicuous shrub
that would have been observed if present.
Harpagonella
palmeri
Palmer's
grapplinghook
CRPR 4.2
Annual herb. Grows on clay soils within openings
of grasslands, coastal sage scrub, and chaparral.
Found in Los Angeles, Orange, San Diego, and
Riverside counties. Flowering Period: March to
May. Elevation: 65 to 3,135 feet (20 to 955
meters).
Low. Although coastal sage scrub
associated with the species is present
within the study area, the available
vegetation within the project site is dense
and without openings to support the
species. Soils within the study area do not
contain the clay content typically
associated with the species.
Hesperocyparis
forbesii
Tecate cypress
CRPR 1B.1
Perennial tree. Occurs within closed-cone
coniferous forest and chaparral on clay, gabbroic,
or metavolcanics soils. Found in Orange, Riverside,
and San Diego counties. Flowering period: none.
Elevation: 260 o 4,920 feet (80 to 1,500 meters).
None. Coniferous forest and chaparral
communities associated with the species
are not present in the study area.
Conspicuous tree that would have been
observed if present.
Holocarpha virgata
ssp. elongata
graceful tarplant
CRPR 4.2
Annual herb. Occurs in grasslands, coastal scrub,
chaparral, and cismontane woodland. Found along
the southern coast of California and Peninsular
Ranges. Flowering period: May to November.
Elevation: 195 to 3,600 feet (60 to 1,100 meters).
Low. The grassland and coastal sage scrub
habitats associated with the species are
present within the study area but are
fragmented and highly disturbed within the
project site. The closest occurrence records
are approximately 2 miles west of study
area.
Hosackia
crassifolia var.
otayensis
Otay Mountain
lotus
CRPR 1B.1
Perennial herb. Occurs on metavolcanic soils
within chaparral; often in disturbed areas. Found in
San Diego County. Flowering period: May to
August. Elevation: 1,245 to 3,295 feet (380 to
1,005 meters).
None. The chaparral and metavolcanic soils
associated with the species are not present
in the study area.
Attachment E: Special-Status Plant Species Observed or with Potential to Occur for the 870-1 and 870-2 Reservoirs Project
E-6
Scientific Name Common Name Status Habitat, Ecology and Life History Potential to Occur
Isocoma menziesii
var. decumbens
decumbent
goldenbush
CRPR 1B.2
Perennial shrub. Occurs in sandy soil and disturbed
areas on the inland side of dunes, hillsides, and arroyos within coastal sage scrub and chaparral.
Found in along the coast of southern California,
Peninsular Ranges, and Channel Islands. Flowering
period: July to November. Elevation: below 656
feet (200 meters).
None. Although disturbed coastal sage
scrub and wetland habitats in the study area may be suitable for the species, the
study area occurs above the species’ known
elevation range. Conspicuous shrub that
would have been observed if present.
Iva hayesiana San Diego marsh-
elder
CRPR 2B.2
Perennial herb. Found in alkaline flats,
depressions, and streambanks within wetland
habitats in San Diego County. Flowering period:
April to October. Elevation: 30 to 1,640 feet (10 to
500 meters).
Low. This species is a large, conspicuous
herb that would have been detected in the
small area of suitable habitat during
surveys. Furthermore, suitable habitat is
not present within the project site.
Juncus acutus ssp.
leopoldii
southwestern
spiny rush
CRPR 4.2
Perennial herb. Found along the coastal regions
from San Luis Obispo County south to San Diego
County. Flowering period: May to June. Elevation:
below 984 feet (300 meters).
None. Suitable habitat is not present within
the project site. Furthermore this
conspicuous species would have been
observed during surveys.
Lepechinia ganderi Gander's pitcher
sage
CRPR 1B.3
Perennial shrub. Occurs on gabbroic or
metavolcanic soils within coastal sage scrub,
chaparral, coniferous forest, and grasslands in San
Diego County. Flowering period June to July.
Elevation: 1,000 to 3,295 feet (305 to 1,005
meters).
None. The study area lacks gabbroic and
metavolcanic soils and is below the species’
known elevation range. Conspicuous shrub
that would have been observed if present.
Lepidium
virginicum var.
robinsonii
Robinson’s pepper-
grass
CRPR 4.3
Annual herb. Grows in openings of sage scrub and
chaparral at the coastal and foothill elevations
throughout California. Typically observed in
relatively dry, exposed locales rather than beneath a shrub canopy. Also, found in disturbed areas.
Flowering period: March to June. Elevation: below
9,186 feet (2,800 meters).
Moderate. The dry, exposed openings in
coastal sage scrub associated with the
species are present within the study area,
but vegetation within the project site may be too small and fragmented to support
the species. The closest occurrence record
is present 0.5 miles to the west of the study
area.
Attachment E: Special-Status Plant Species Observed or with Potential to Occur for the 870-1 and 870-2 Reservoirs Project
E-7
Scientific Name Common Name Status Habitat, Ecology and Life History Potential to Occur
Lilium humboldtii
ssp. ocellatum
ocellated
Humboldt lily
CRPR 4.2
Perennial herb. Grows in openings of coastal scrub,
chaparral, riparian woodlands, cismontane woodland, and coniferous forests. Found along the
coastal regions from Santa Barbara County south
to San Diego County, western Riverside and San
Bernardino counties, and the northern Channel
Islands. Flowering period: March to July. Elevation:
98 to 5,905 feet (30 to 1,800 meters).
None. Species is most commonly found in
chaparral, woodland, and coniferous forest habitats, but may also occur in coastal
scrub. Coastal scrub vegetation in the
project site may be too fragmented and
disturbed to support the species, and
nearest records occur over 1 mile in more
intact, mountainous habitats.
Microseris
douglasii ssp.
platycarpha
small-flowered
microseris
CRPR 4.2
Annual herb. Found on clay soils within coastal
sage scrub, woodlands, and grasslands. Often near
vernal pools or serpentine outcrops. Found in Los
Angeles, Orange, Riverside, and San Diego counties
and the Channel Islands. Flowering period: March
to May. Elevation: 49 to 3,510 feet (15 to 1,070
meters).
None. The study area does not contain
vernal pools, serpentine outcrops, or soils
with high clay content.
Monardella
stoneana
Jennifer's
monardella
CRPR 1B.2
Perennial herb. Usually grows in rocky intermittent
streambeds within coastal scrub, chaparral,
riparian scrub, or close-cone coniferous forests.
Found within San Diego County. Flowering period:
June to September. Elevation: 30 to 2,590 feet (10
to 790 meters).
Low. Chaparral, riparian scrub, and closed-
cone coniferous forest habitats are not
present within the study area, and the
present coastal sage scrub does not contain
rocky, intermittent streambeds associated
with the species. The disturbed wetland
habitat is adjacent coastal sage scrub, but is
likely too small and disturbed to support
the species.
Monardella
viminea
willowy
monardella
FE/SE
CRPR 1B.1
Perennial herb. Associated with riparian scrub,
usually at sandy locales in seasonally dry washes.
Generally, there is no canopy cover and river
cobbles may lie in close proximity. Found in San
Diego County. Flowering period: June to August.
Elevation: 160 to 740 feet (50 to 225 meters).
None. Riparian scrub is not present within
the study area. The small area of disturbed
wetland in the project site lacks the sandy
soils, river cobbles, and absence of canopy
cover associated with the species.
Myosurus minimus
ssp. apus
little mousetail
CRPR 3.1
Annual herb. Occurs in alkaline vernal pools within
native grassland. Flowering period: March to June.
Found within San Joaquin Valley south to San
Diego County and east to western Riverside and
San Bernardino counties. Elevation: 65 to 2,100
feet (20 to 640 meters).
None. Alkaline vernal pools within native
grassland are not present within the study
area.
Attachment E: Special-Status Plant Species Observed or with Potential to Occur for the 870-1 and 870-2 Reservoirs Project
E-8
Scientific Name Common Name Status Habitat, Ecology and Life History Potential to Occur
Navarretia fossalis spreading
navarretia
FT/--
CRPR 1B.1
Annual herb. Occurs in vernal pools, vernal swales,
roadside depressions, playas, marshes and swamps, and chenopod scrub. Population size is
strongly correlated with rainfall. Depth of pool
appears to be a significant factor as this species is
rarely found in shallow pools. Found in the Mojave
Desert, desert mountains, Channel Islands, and the
Transverse and Peninsular Ranges. Flowering
period: April to June. Elevation: 98 to 4,265 feet
(30 to 1,300 meters).
None. The study area lacks the vernal pool,
playa, marsh, swap, and chenopod scrub environments associated with the species.
While road ruts are present around the
perimeter of the project site, the available
soils do not facilitate the vernal pool
conditions needed to support the species.
Ophioglossum
californicum
California adder’s-
tongue
CRPR 4.2
Perennial herb. Grows on the marginals of vernal
pools and mesic areas within grasslands and
chaparral. Found within the Sacramento and San
Joaquin Valleys, Sierra Nevada and Peninsular
Ranges, and along the central and southern coasts.
Flowering period: January to June. Elevation: 195
to 1,725 feet (60 to 525 meters)
None. Suitable vernal pool, chaparral, and
valley grassland habitats are not present in
the study area. The non-native grassland in
the study area is highly disturbed and
unlikely to support the species.
Pentachaeta aurea
ssp. aurea
golden-rayed
pentachaeta
CRPR 4.2
Annual herb. Occurs in grassy areas within coastal
scrub, chaparral, cismontane woodland, lower
montane coniferous forest, riparian woodland.
Found within Riverside and San Diego counties.
Flowering period: March to July. Elevation: 260 to
6,100 feet (80 and 1,850 meters).
Moderate. Grassy areas within coastal
scrub vegetation are present within the
project site. Multiple records for the
species occur approximately 1 mile north of
the Study area.
Piperia cooperi chaparral rein
orchid
CRPR 4.2
Perennial herb. Typically grows on dry sites within
grasslands, chaparral, and cismontane woodland.
Found along the coast regions of southern
California, San Gabriel and San Jacinto Mountains,
Peninsular Ranges, and the Channel Islands.
Flowering period: March to June. Elevation: 50 to
5,200 feet (15 to 1,585 meters).
Low. Scrub and grassland habitats within
the project site are significantly disturbed
and may not offer suitable habitat to
support the species. Multiple records occur
within 1 mile to the northeast, in less
disturbed habitat.
Pogogyne
nudiuscula
Otay mesa mint
FE/SE
CRPR 1B.1
Annual herb. Grows in vernal pools of San Diego
County. Flowering period: May to July. Elevation:
295 to 820 feet (90 to 250 meters).
None. Vernal pool habitats associated with
the species are not present within the
study area. The study area also occurs
above the maximum recorded elevation for
the species.
Attachment E: Special-Status Plant Species Observed or with Potential to Occur for the 870-1 and 870-2 Reservoirs Project
E-9
Scientific Name Common Name Status Habitat, Ecology and Life History Potential to Occur
Quercus dumosa Nuttall’s scrub oak
CRPR 1B.1
Perennial shrub. Occurs on sandy or clay loam soils
near the coast within coastal scrub, chaparral, cismontane woodland, and riparian woodland.
Found along the coast, San Jacinto Mountains, and
Peninsular Ranges of southern California.
Flowering period: March to May. Elevation: below
1,310 feet (400 meters).
None. Coastal sage scrub habitat is present
within the study area, but sandy and clay loam soils associated with the species are
absent. Conspicuous shrub that would have
been observed if present.
Quercus
engelmannii
Engelmann oak
CRPR 4.2
Perennial tree. Occurs on slopes and foothills
within grasslands, chaparral, oak woodland, and
riparian woodlands. Found from Los Angeles
County south to San Diego County, western
Riverside and San Bernardino counties, and the
Channel Islands. Flowering period: March to June.
Elevation: 160 to 4,300 feet (50 to 1,300 meters).
None. Suitable grassland is present within
the study area, but the species is a
distinctive, large tree that would have been
detected during surveys.
Romneya coulteri Coulter's matilija
poppy
CRPR 4.2 Perennial herb. Occurs in dry washes and canyons
coastal scrub and chaparral, often in burned areas.
Found along the coastal regions from San Luis
Obispo County south San Diego County and east to
western Riverside and San Bernardino counties.
Flowering period: March to August. Elevation: 65
to 3,900 feet (20 to 1,200 meters).
Low. Coastal sage scrub habitat is present
within the study area, but the small area
within the project site lacks the dry washes,
canyons, and burned areas associated with
the species. It is unlikely that the species, a
large, showy plant that would have been
blooming at the time, would have been
missed during surveys.
Rosa minutifolia small-leaved rose
--/SE
CRPR 2B.1
Perennial shrub. Occurs within coastal sage scrub
and chaparral of San Diego County. Flowering
period: January to June. Elevation: 490 to 525 feet
(150 to 160 meters).
None. Coastal sage scrub is present within
the project site, but may too small and
disturbed to constitute suitable habitat.
Although two 2020 records exist within 1.5
miles of the study area, the species is
known to exist in three occurrences in the
U.S, only one of which is in Otay Mesa.
Conspicuous shrub that would have been
observed if present.
Salvia munzii Munz's sage
CRPR 2B.2
Count List B
Perennial shrub. Occurs within chaparral and
coastal scrub of San Diego County. Flowering
period: February to April. Elevation: 370 and 3,500
feet (115 to 1,065 meters).
None. Suitable coastal sage scrub habitat is
present within the project site, although
the available vegetation occurs within a
small area and is not high-quality.
Conspicuous shrub that would have been
observed if present.
Attachment E: Special-Status Plant Species Observed or with Potential to Occur for the 870-1 and 870-2 Reservoirs Project
E-10
Scientific Name Common Name Status Habitat, Ecology and Life History Potential to Occur
Selaginella
cinerascens
ashy spike-moss
CRPR 4.1
County List D
Perennial herb. Grows in sunny spots or under
shrubs within coastal sage scrub and chaparral. Often associated with “red clay” soils. Found in
coastal regions from southern Los Angeles County
south to San Diego County. Flowering period:
none. Elevation: below 1,804 feet (550 meters).
Low. Suitable coastal sage scrub is present
within the study area, although the preferred microhabitats (sunny openings in
red clay soils) were not documented in the
project site. Species is locally abundant,
with multiple records within 1 mile of the
study area.
Senecio aphanactis chaparral ragwort
CRPR 2B.2
County List B
Annual herb. Occurs on alkali flats and dry, open,
rocky areas within grasslands, coastal scrub, and
cismontane woodland. Found along the coastal
regions from San Francisco Bay south to San Diego
County and eastern Riverside and San Bernardino
counties. Flowering period: February to May.
Elevation: 45 to 2,625 feet (15 to 800 meters).
Low. The coastal sage scrub vegetation
within the study area lacks the alkali flats
and dry, open, rocky areas associated with
the species.
Stemodia
durantifolia
purple stemodia
CRPR 4.2
County List B
Perennial herb. Grows on wet sand or rocks and
drying streambeds within riparian habitats. Found
in the San Jacinto Mountains and Peninsular
Ranges of southern California and Sonoran Desert.
Flowering period: year-round. Elevation: 590 to
985 feet (180 to 300 meters).
Low. The small area of disturbed wetland
within the project site lacks rocky or sandy
areas and is unlikely to provide sufficient
riparian habitat to support the species.
Multiple occurrence records are present
within 2 miles of the study area, the closest
being 0.2 miles to the south.
Stipa diegoensis San Diego County
needle grass
CRPR 4.2
County List D
Perennial herb. Occurs in rocky, mesic soils near
streams or along the coast within coastal scrub and
chaparral. Found in Santa Barbara, Orange, and
San Diego counties and the Channel Islands.
Flowering period: February to June. Elevation: 30
to 2,600 feet (10 and 800 meters).
Low. Suitable coastal sage scrub habitat is
present within the project site, but lacks
the rocky, mesic soils and stream banks
associated with the species.
Streptanthus
bernardinus
Laguna Mountains
jewelflower
CRPR 4.3 Perennial herb. Occurs in chaparral and yellow
pine forest. Found in San Diego, Riverside, San
Bernardino, and Orange counties. Flowering
period: March to August. Elevation: 1,200 to 2,500
feet (3,900 to 8,200 meters).
None. Chaparral and yellow pine forest
habitats associated with the species are not
present within the study area. The study
area, at 800 to 900 feet, is significantly
outside the known elevation range for the
species. The study area is inside one 1930’s
occurrence record that covers the general
Otay Mesa area.
Attachment E: Special-Status Plant Species Observed or with Potential to Occur for the 870-1 and 870-2 Reservoirs Project
E-11
Scientific Name Common Name Status Habitat, Ecology and Life History Potential to Occur
Tetracoccus dioicus Parry's tetracoccus
CRPR 1B.2
County List A MSCP Covered
Perennial shrub. Occurs on dry slopes within
coastal sage scrub and chaparral. Found in southern Orange and San Diego counties.
Flowering period: April to May. Elevation: 540 to
3,280 feet (165 to 1,000 meters).
None. Suitable coastal sage habitat is
present within the project site, but may be too small to constitute adequate habitat to
support the species. The study area is
within a 1998, 5-mile radius occurrence
record for the species, but the record is
mapped without location specificity beyond
“within the general vicinity of Otay Mesa
and the San Ysidro Mountains”. No other
records exist within 5 miles of the study
area. Conspicuous shrub that would have
been observed if present.
1 Listing codes as follows: F = Federal; S = State of California; E = Endangered; T = Threatened; C = Candidate for listing; R = Rare.
CRPR = California Native Plant Society 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 more common elsewhere; 2B – rare, threatened, or endangered in California, but more
common elsewhere; 3 – plants for which more information needed (review list); 4 – watch list for species of limited distribution. Extension codes: .1 – seriously endangered; .2
– moderately endangered; .3 – not very endangered.
2 Potential to Occur is assessed as follows – None: There are no recent or historical records of the species occurring on or in the immediate vicinity (within 5 miles) of the study
area and the diagnostic habitats and soils associated with the species do not occur on or in the immediate vicinity of the study area; Low: Suitable habitat is present in the
study area and a recent or historical record of the species occurs in the immediate vicinity (within 5 miles) but existing conditions such as elevation, soils, density of cover,
prevalence of non-native species, evidence of disturbance, limited habitat area, and/or isolation reduce the possibility that the species may occur; Moderate: The diagnostic
habitats associated with the species occur on or in the immediate vicinity of the study area but there is not a recorded occurrence of the species within the immediate vicinity,
or recorded occurrences are limited to historical records. Some species that contain extremely limited distributions may be considered moderate, even if there is a recorded
occurrence in the immediate vicinity; High: Suitable habitat occurs in the study area and the species has been recorded recently on or in the immediate vicinity but the species
was not observed during project surveys; Presumed Absent: Species would be visible all year and would have been observed if present; Present: The species was observed
within the study area during biological surveys for the project.
Attachment F
Special-Status Animal Species
Observed or with Potential to Occur
Attachment F: Special-Status Animal Species Observed or with Potential to Occur for the 870-1 and 870-2 Reservoirs Project
F-1
Scientific Name Common Name Status Habitat Associations Potential to Occur
INVERTEBRATES
Bombus crotchii Crotch’s bumble
bee
--/SCE Found throughout southwestern California from
the Central Valley south to the U.S./Mexico
border. Inhabits open grasslands and scrub
habitats. Primarily nests underground and
forages on a wide variety of flowers, but a short
tongue renders it best suited to open flowers
with short corollas. Most commonly observed
on flowering species in the Fabaceae,
Asteraceae, and Lamiaceae families. Occurrence
has also been linked to habitats containing
Asclepias, Chaenactis, Lupinus, Medicago,
Phacelia, and Salvia genera.
Low. Open grassland habitat is present
within the study area, but similar
habitats within the project site are
disturbed by vegetation management
activities and the abundance of non-
native species. Few forage species (open
flowers with short corollas) were
observed during surveys, and no species
in the associated genera Asclepias,
Chaenactis, Lupinus, Medicago, Phacelia,
and Salvia were recorded.
Branchinecta
sandiegonensis
San Diego fairy
shrimp
FE/--
Restricted to vernal pools and other ephemeral
basin in southern California from coastal Orange
County to San Diego County. Found in
seasonally astatic pools which occur in tectonic
swales or earth slump basins and other areas of
shallow, standing water often in patches of
grassland and agriculture interspersed in coastal
sage scrub and chaparral.
None. Soils within the study area do not
contain the clay content or other
restrictive layer necessary for vernal pool
conditions. Although road ruts are
present in dirt roads surrounding the
study area, soils indicate that any
depressions will not remain inundated
for a long enough duration to support
fairy shrimp breeding.
Attachment F: Special-Status Animal Species Observed or with Potential to Occur for the 870-1 and 870-2 Reservoirs Project
F-2
Scientific Name Common Name Status Habitat Associations Potential to Occur
Euphydryas editha
quino
Quino checkerspot
butterfly
FE/--
Occurs in California from western Riverside
County southwards to southern San Diego County. Inhabits open and sparsely vegetated
areas that contain larval host plant species
(principally dot-seed plantain [Plantago erecta],
woolly plantain [Plantago patagonia] but also
Coulter’s snapdragon [Antirrhinum
coulterianum], Chinese houses [Collinsia spp.],
and rigid bird’s beak [Cordylanthus rigidus]) and
nectar sources. Often found on rounded
hilltops, ridgelines, and occasionally rocky
outcrops. Occurs within a wide range of open-canopied habitats including vernal pools, sage
scrub, chaparral, grassland, and open oak and
juniper woodland communities.
None. Species host plants (dosteed and
woolly plantago, Coulter’s snapdragon, Chinese houses, and rigid bird’s beak)
were not observed during surveys.
Although coastal sage scrub and
grassland habitats do occur within the
study area, open areas associated with
the species and its host plants are
absent, indicating that conditions do not
support breeding Quino checkerspot
butterfly. If construction occurs during
the species’ flight season (February through June), the species is highly likely
to pass through the study area due to
close proximity of suitable habitat and
multiple recent occurrence records
within 1 mile.
Streptocephalus
woottoni
Riverside fairy
shrimp
FE/--
In California, occurs from Los Angeles County
south to coastal San Diego County, and east to
western Riverside County. Found in deep
seasonal vernal pools, ephemeral ponds, stock
ponds, and other human modified depressions
at least 30 centimeters deep. Associated with
grasslands, which may be interspersed through chaparral or coastal sage scrub vegetation.
None. Soils within the study area do not
contain the clay content or other
restrictive layer necessary for vernal pool
conditions. Although road ruts are
present in dirt roads surrounding the
study area, soils indicate that any
depressions will not remain inundated for a long enough duration to support
fairy shrimp breeding.
Attachment F: Special-Status Animal Species Observed or with Potential to Occur for the 870-1 and 870-2 Reservoirs Project
F-3
Scientific Name Common Name Status Habitat Associations Potential to Occur
VERTEBRATES
Amphibians
Spea hammondii western spadefoot
toad
--/SSC
County Group 2
Occurs from northern California southward to
San Diego County, west of the Sierra Nevada at
elevations below 4,500 feet. Terrestrial species
requiring temporary pools for breeding. Suitable
upland habitats include coastal sage scrub,
chaparral, and grasslands. Most common in
grasslands with vernal pools or mixed grassland-
coastal sage scrub areas. Breeds in temporary
pools formed by heavy rains but may also be
found in riparian habitats with suitable water
resources. Breeding pools must lack exotic
predators such fish, bullfrogs, and crayfish for
the species to successfully reproduce. Estivates
in burrows within upland habitats adjacent to
potential breeding sites.
None: Suitable grassland and coastal
sage scrub upland habitats are present
within the study area; however, suitable
breeding pools do not occur within the
project site or study area.
Reptiles
Aspidoscelis
hyperythra beldingi
Belding’s orange-
throated whiptail
--/WL
Found within the southwestern portion of
California in southern San Bernardino, western
Riverside, Orange, and San Diego counties on
the western slopes of the Peninsular Ranges at
elevations below 3,500 feet. Suitable habitat
includes coastal sage scrub, chaparral, juniper
woodland, oak woodland, and grasslands along
with alluvial fan scrub and riparian areas. Occurrence of the species is correlated with the
presence perennial plants which provide a food
base for its major food source, termites.
Low. Coastal sage scrub and grassland
habitats associated with the species are
present within the study area, but lack
the loose soils, open stream banks, and
rocky hillsides that indicate high-quality
habitat. Habitat within the project site is
less suitable. Few records occur within 5
miles of the study area, all from over 1 mile away, in habitat that more closely
fits the species requirements.
Aspidoscelis tigris
stejnegeri
San Diego tiger
whiptail
--/SSC
Occurs along the coastal region of southern
California from San Luis Obispo south to San
Diego County. Inhabits a wide variety of
habitats, primarily in hot and dry open areas
with sparse vegetation, from sea level up to
4,900 feet. Suitable habitat includes coastal sage
scrub, chaparral, riparian areas, woodlands, and
rocky areas with sandy or gravelly substrates.
Low. Coastal sage scrub habitat is
present within the project site, but lacks
the rocky areas, sandy or gravelly
substrates, and sparse vegetation
associated with the species.
Attachment F: Special-Status Animal Species Observed or with Potential to Occur for the 870-1 and 870-2 Reservoirs Project
F-4
Scientific Name Common Name Status Habitat Associations Potential to Occur
Coluber fuliginosus Baja California
coachwhip
--/SSC Occurs from extreme southern San Diego
County at elevations below 7,700 feet. Habitat generalist found in open terrain but more
common in grasslands, scrublands, and coastal
sand dunes.
Low. Although the grassland and
scrubland habitats present within the study area may support this habitat
generalist, only one modern, specific
record occurs within vicinity of the
project, over 3 miles to the northeast.
Crotalus ruber red diamond
rattlesnake
--/SSC
Occurs in southwestern California from San
Bernardino County south to San Diego County at
elevations below 5,000 feet. Has a wide
tolerance for varying environments including
the desert, dense foothill chaparral, warm
inland mesas and valleys, and cool coastal
zones. Most commonly found near heavy brush
with large rocky microhabitats. Chamise and red
shank chaparral associations may offer better
structural habitat for refuges and food
resources.
Moderate. Coastal scrub habitat within
the study area lacks the microhabitat
characteristics preferred by the species,
including large rocks, dense heavy brush,
and red shank and chamise associations.
The species is tolerant and occurs in
varying conditions, suggesting that the
absence of preferred microhabitats does
not eliminate its potential to occur within
the study area.
Phrynosoma
blainvillii
Blainville’s horned
lizard
--/SSC
In California, predominately occurs from Kern
County south to San Diego County, west of the
desert at elevations below 8,000 feet. Inhabits a
wide variety of vegetation types including
sagebrush scrub, chaparral, grasslands, forests,
and woodlands but is restricted to areas with
suitable sandy, loose soils with open areas for
basking. Diet primarily composed of native
harvester ants (Pogonmyrmex spp.) and are
generally excluded from areas invaded by
Argentine ants (Linepithema humile).
Low. Grassland and scrub habitats are
present within the study area but lack
the sandy, loose soils and open basking
sites associated with the species. Native
harvester ants were not observed during
surveys.
Salvadora hexalepis
virgultea
coast patch-nosed
snake
--/SSC
Occurs in the coastal regions of California from
the northern Carrizo Plains in San Luis Obispo
County south to San Diego County at elevations
below 7,000 feet. Inhabits semi-arid shrubby
areas such as chaparral and desert scrub. Also
found along washes, sandy flats, canyons, and
rocky areas. Takes refuge and overwinters in
burrows and woodrat nests.
None. Preferred chaparral and desert
scrub habitats are not present in the
study area. The small area of shrubby
coastal sage scrub vegetation in the
study area does not feature the washes,
sandy flats, canyons, or rocky areas
associated with the species.
Attachment F: Special-Status Animal Species Observed or with Potential to Occur for the 870-1 and 870-2 Reservoirs Project
F-5
Scientific Name Common Name Status Habitat Associations Potential to Occur
Thamnophis
hammondii
two-striped garter
snake
--/SSC
Found in California from Monterey County south
along the coast to San Diego County at elevations below 7,000 feet. Commonly inhabits
perennial and intermittent streams with rocky
beds bordered by riparian habitats dominated
by willows (Salix spp.) and other dense
vegetation. Has also been found in stock ponds,
and other artificially created aquatic habitats, if
bordered by dense vegetation and potential
prey, such as amphibians and fish, are present.
Low. The small area of disturbed wetland
habitat within the study area may provide low-quality habitat for the
species. Runoff from the existing
reservoir flows through the disturbed
wetland, suggesting that the wetland
may function as an intermittent stream,
although with heavy disturbance and low
habitat quality. The existing reservoir is
inaccessible to wildlife and no other
artificial water sources are present in the
study area.
Birds
Accipiter cooperii Cooper’s hawk
--/WL
In California, breeds from Siskiyou County south
to San Diego County and eastwards to Owens
Valley at elevations below 9,000 feet. Inhabits
forests, riparian areas, and more recently
suburban and urban areas. Nests within dense
woodlands and forests and isolated trees in
open areas.
Present. This species was detected
during surveys outside of the project site
within the southern riparian woodland
community.
Aimophila ruficeps
canescens
southern California
rufous-crowned
sparrow
--/WL
Year-round resident of southwestern California
occurring from Santa Barbara County south to
San Diego County at elevations below 5,000
feet. Generally found on moderate to steep
slopes vegetated with grassland, coastal sage
scrub, and chaparral. Prefers areas with
California sagebrush (Artemisia californica) but
generally absent from areas with dense stands
of coastal sage scrub.
Present. Documented during field
surveys. Sloping areas with sparse coastal
sage scrub are present within the study
area.
Attachment F: Special-Status Animal Species Observed or with Potential to Occur for the 870-1 and 870-2 Reservoirs Project
F-6
Scientific Name Common Name Status Habitat Associations Potential to Occur
Ammodramus
savannarum
grasshopper
sparrow
--/SSC
Occurs west of the Cascade and Sierra Nevada
Ranges from Mendocino County south to San Diego County at elevations below 5,000 feet.
Prefers moderately open grasslands and prairies
with scattered shrubs, generally avoiding
grasslands with extensive shrub cover.
High. Open grassland habitat with low
shrub cover is present within the study area. The study area is also inside one of
five remaining regions where the species
is known to breed in San Diego County.
The project site does not contain high-
quality habitat for the species, but close
proximity to nesting habitat within the
study area indicates that grasshopper
sparrow has a high potential to occur.
Aquila chrysaetos golden eagle
--/FP, WL
Uncommon year-round resident and migrant
throughout California, except the center of the
Central Valley. More common in southern
California than in northern regions. Inhabits a
variety of habitats over rugged terrain. Nests on
cliffs or trees. Forages over plains, grasslands,
and low and open shrublands including
chaparral and coastal sage scrub. Typically
absent from heavily forested areas or on the
immediate coast, and almost never detected in
urbanized environments.
None. Suitable nesting habitat with
remote, steep cliffs is not present within
or immediately adjacent the study area.
Although the species has a low potential
to pass over area, perching, roosting, or
foraging during construction activities is
not expected due to the species’ aversion
to disturbance and human activity.
Athene cunicularia burrowing owl
BCC/SSC
Found from central California east to the
Mojave Desert and south to coastal San Diego
County. Primarily a grassland species that
prefers areas with level to gentle topography
and well-drained soils. Also occupies agricultural
areas, vacant lots, and pastures. Requires
underground burrows for nesting and roosting
that are typically dug by other species such as
the California ground squirrel (Spermophilus
beecheyi). Will also utilize natural rock cavities,
debris piles, culverts, and pipes for nesting and
roosting.
Low. No mammal burrows were
observed in open habitat within the
Study area. Present grassland/non-native
vegetation habitat is small and
disconnected from occupied habitat
within 5 miles of the Study area,
indicating that the species has a low
potential to occur.
Attachment F: Special-Status Animal Species Observed or with Potential to Occur for the 870-1 and 870-2 Reservoirs Project
F-7
Scientific Name Common Name Status Habitat Associations Potential to Occur
Campylorhynchus
brunneicapillus sandiegensis
coastal cactus wren
BCC/SSC
(San Diego and Orange
Counties)
One of seven subspecies occurring restricted to
southern California from southern Orange County and San Diego County. Occupies native
scrub vegetation with thickets of mature cacti
consisting of cholla (Cylindropuntia spp.) or
prickly-pear cactus (Opuntia littoralis). Cacti
must be tall enough to support and protect the
bird’s nest (typically 3 feet or more in height).
Surrounding vegetation usually consists of
coastal sage scrub habitat with shrubs normally
below the level of nest placement.
None. Thickets of mature cacti do not
occur within the study area. .
Circus cyaneus northern harrier --/SSC
Occurs as a year-round resident in California
breeding throughout most of the state at
elevations below 9,000 feet, though generally
absent from the eastern desert regions.
Breeding populations in southern California
occurring from Ventura County to San Diego
County are highly fragmented with many local
populations extirpated, mostly likely a result of
habitat loss and degradation. Inhabits open
areas including wetlands, marshes, marshy
meadows, grasslands, riparian woodlands,
desert scrub, and pastures and agricultural
areas. Nests on the ground in wetlands and uplands within patches of dense, often tall,
vegetation in undisturbed areas.
Low. The disturbance level, fragmented
nature of available habitat, and absence
of recent nesting records (most recent in
2002, 1.3 miles from study area) indicate
that the study area has no potential to
provide breeding habitat for northern
harrier. The species has a moderate
potential to pass over the study area, and
grassland/non-native vegetation habitats
may support foraging.
Coccyzus
americanus
occidentalis
western yellow-
billed cuckoo
FT, BCC/SE
Uncommon summer resident of California.
Current breeding range is restricted to isolated
sites in Sacramento, Amargosa, Kern, Santa Ana,
and Colorado River Valleys. Riparian obligates
that nest in riparian woodlands with native
broadleaf trees and shrubs, such as
cottonwoods (Populus ssp.) and willows (Salix
spp.) at least 50 acres or more in size within arid
to semiarid landscapes. Typically found in
patches of riparian habitat greater than 200 acres.
None. Riparian woodland habitat greater
than 50 acres is not present within or
adjacent the study area.
Attachment F: Special-Status Animal Species Observed or with Potential to Occur for the 870-1 and 870-2 Reservoirs Project
F-8
Scientific Name Common Name Status Habitat Associations Potential to Occur
Elanus leucurus white-tailed kite
--/FP
Year-round resident of California residing along
the coasts and valleys west of the Sierra Nevada foothills and southeast deserts; has also been
documented breeding in arid regions east of the
Sierra Nevada and within Imperial County.
Inhabits low elevation grasslands, wetlands, oak
woodlands, open woodlands, and is often
associated with agricultural areas. Breeds in
riparian areas adjacent to open spaces nesting
in isolated trees or relatively large stands.
Low. Riparian woodland habitat
necessary for nesting is not present in the study area; however, suitable
foraging habitat occurs within the study
area.
Eremophila alpestris
actia
California horned
lark
--/WL
In California occurs along the coastal ranges of
from San Joaquin Valley south to U.S./Mexico
border. Inhabits a wide variety of open habitats
with low, sparse vegetation where trees and
large shrubs are generally absent. Suitable
habitats include grasslands along the coast,
deserts within the inland regions, shrub habitat
at higher elevations, and agricultural areas.
Low. Disturbed grassland habitat is
present within the study area, but the
small extent is dominated by non-native
vegetation and is disconnected from
higher quality, occupied habitat 1.6 miles
southwest of the study area. The project
site is separated from occupied habitat
by continuous, unsuitable scrub and
developed land, indicating that the
species has a low potential to occur.
Falco peregrinus
anatum
American peregrine
falcon
--/FP
In California, breeds and winters throughout the
state except for desert areas. Active nesting
sites are known from along the coast north of
Santa Barbara, in the Sierra Nevada, and other
mountains of northern California. Few nest sites
are known anecdotally for southern California
mostly at coastal estuaries and inland oases.
Inhabits a large variety of open habitats
including marshes, grasslands, coastlines, and
woodlands. Typically nest on cliff faces in
remote rugged sites where adequate food is
available nearby, but the species can also be
found in urbanized areas nesting on artificial
structures.
None. Remote, rugged habitat with steep
cliff faces to support nesting is not
present in the study area.
Attachment F: Special-Status Animal Species Observed or with Potential to Occur for the 870-1 and 870-2 Reservoirs Project
F-9
Scientific Name Common Name Status Habitat Associations Potential to Occur
Icteria virens yellow-breasted
chat
--/SSC
In California, occurs as a migrant and summer
resident breeding from the coastal regions in northern California, east of the Cascades, and
throughout the central and southern portions of
the state. Breeds in early successional riparian
habitats with well-developed shrub layer and an
open canopy nesting on the borders of streams,
creeks, rivers, and marshes.
None. The small area of disturbed
wetland habitat in the study area does not constitute suitable riparian nesting
habitat for the species.
Polioptila californica
californica
coastal California
gnatcatcher
FT/SSC
Year-round resident of California occurring from
Ventura County south to San Diego County, and
east to the western portions of San Bernardino
and Riverside Counties. Typically occurs in arid,
open sage scrub habitats on gently slopes
hillsides to relatively flat areas at elevations
below 3,000 feet. Composition of sage scrub in
which gnatcatchers are found varies though
California sagebrush (Artemisia californica)
present as dominant or co-dominant species.
Mostly absent from areas dominated by black
sage (Salvia mellifera), white sage (Salvia
apiana), or lemonade berry (Rhus integrifolia),
though may occur more regularly in inland
regions dominated by black sage.
Present. This species was detected
approximately 350 feet northeast of the
project area during protocol surveys in
December 2023 and January 2024.
Setophaga petechia yellow warbler --/SSC
Common to locally abundant species breeding
throughout California at elevations below 8,500
feet; excluding most of the Mojave Desert and
all of the Colorado Desert. Breeds in riparian
areas dominated by willows (Salix spp.) and
cottonwoods (Populus spp.), near rivers
streams, lakes, and wet meadows. Also breeds
in montane shrub and conifer forests in higher
elevation areas.
Low. Riparian habitat associated with
breeding at lower elevations is not
present in the study area. The disturbed
wetland in the northwest corner of the
project lacks suitable woodland
vegetation and is too small to constitute
suitable nesting habitat.
Attachment F: Special-Status Animal Species Observed or with Potential to Occur for the 870-1 and 870-2 Reservoirs Project
F-10
Scientific Name Common Name Status Habitat Associations Potential to Occur
Vireo bellii pusillus least Bell’s vireo
FE, BCC/SE
In California, breeds along the coast and
western edge of the Mojave Desert from Santa Barbara County south to San Diego County, and
east to Inyo, San Bernardino, and Riverside
Counties. Breeding habitat consists of early to
mid-successional riparian habitat, often where
flowing water is present, but also found in dry
watercourses within the desert. A structurally
diverse canopy and dense shrub cover is
required for nesting and foraging. Dominant
species within breeding habitat includes
cottonwood (Populus spp.) and willows (Salix spp.) with mule fat (Baccharis salicifolia), oaks
(Quercus ssp.), and sycamore (Platanus
racemosa), and mesquite (Prosopis spp.) and
arrowweed (Pluchea sericea) within desert
habitats. Can be tolerant of the presence of
non-native species such as tamarisk (Tamarix
spp.).
Present. Least Bell’s vireo was detected
during surveys, with one individual head singing from disturbed wetland habitat,
approximately 30-feet outside the fence
near the northwestern corner of the
study area. Although the disturbed
wetland is small and disconnected from
more established habitat to the
northwest, the available shrub cover and
diverse canopy may support nesting least
Bell’s vireo.
Mammals
Euderma
maculatum
spotted bat
--/SSC
In California, found in a small number of
localities in the foothills, mountains, and desert
regions at elevations below 10,000 feet. Inhabits
rocky arid and semi-arid environments including
forested mountains, open shrublands, and
deserts. Roosts in rock crevices along cliffs
adjacent to wide expanses of open habitat.
Occasionally roosts in caves and buildings.
None. Rock crevices necessary for
roosting are not present in the study
area.
Eumops perotis
californicus
western mastiff bat
--/SSC
In California, occurs from Monterey County to
San Diego County from the coast eastward to
the Colorado Desert. Found in open, semi-arid
to arid habitats including coastal and desert
scrub, grasslands, woodlands, and palm oases.
Prefers to roost in high situations above the
ground on vertical cliffs, rock quarries, outcrops
of fractured boulders, and occasionally tall
buildings.
None. Roosting habitat, including vertical
cliffs, rock quarries, rocky outcrops, and
tall buildings, is not present within the
study area.
Attachment F: Special-Status Animal Species Observed or with Potential to Occur for the 870-1 and 870-2 Reservoirs Project
F-11
Scientific Name Common Name Status Habitat Associations Potential to Occur
Lasiurus blossevillii western red bat
--/SSC
In California, locally common occurring from
Shasta County south to San Diego County and west of the Cascade and Sierra Nevada Ranges
and deserts. Mainly occurs in riparian
woodlands populated by willows, cottonwoods,
sycamores, and oak trees but can be found in
non-native vegetation such as tamarisk,
eucalyptus, and orchards. Primarily roosts in
trees preferring heavily shaded areas which are
open underneath.
None. The disturbed wetland habitat in
the study area features tamarisk and non-native vegetation sometimes
associated with the species. The small
extent and high disturbance level of the
available habitat indicates that the
species has a low potential to occur
within the study area.
Leptonycteris
yerbabuenae
lesser long-nosed
bat
FD/SSC Primarily found within the desert regions of
southwestern U.S. with only two locations
reported in California: one in San Bernardino
County and one in San Diego County. Roosts
primarily in caves and cave-like structures.
Feeds on flowers of various agave and cacti
species. Species likely subsidized by landscaping
with nectar-producing plants near artificial
structures that function as cave-root analogs.
None. Caves and cave-like structures for
roosting are not present in the study
area. Forage species, including agave,
cactus, and ornamental landscape plants,
were not observed within the study area.
Lepus californicus
bennettii
San Diego black-
tailed jackrabbit
--/SSC
Occurs along the coastal regions of southern
California. Found in arid regions preferring
grasslands, agricultural fields, and sparse scrub.
Typically absent from areas with high-grass or
dense brush, such as closed-canopy chaparral,
primarily occupying short-grass and open scrub
habitats.
Moderate. Grassland habitat with sparse
shrub cover and short grass is present in
the study area; however, the entire
project site is surrounded by a chain link
fence and primarily consists of non-
native vegetation and developed land.
This species has a low potential to occur
within the project site.
Attachment F: Special-Status Animal Species Observed or with Potential to Occur for the 870-1 and 870-2 Reservoirs Project
F-12
Scientific Name Common Name Status Habitat Associations Potential to Occur
Nyctinomops
femorosaccus
pocketed free-tailed
bat
--/SSC
Rare in California occurring from Los Angeles
County east to San Bernardino County and south to San Diego County. Closely associated with
their preferred roosting habitats consisting of
vertical cliffs, quarries, and rocky outcrops.
Sometimes roosts under tiled roofs and
observed utilizing bat boxes. Habitat generalists
foraging in grasslands, shrublands, riparian
areas, oak woodlands, forests, meadows, and
ponds favoring larger water bodies for drinking.
None. Closely associated roosting
habitats, including rocky outcrops, quarries, and vertical cliffs, are not
present in the study area.
1 Listing codes are as follows: FE = Federally Endangered; FT = Federally Threatened; FC= Federal Candidate species; BCC = Birds of Conservation Concern; SE = State of
California Endangered; FP = State of California Fully Protected; WL = State of California Wait-Listed; SSC = State of California Species of Special Concern.
2 Potential to Occur is assessed as follows – None: The study area is located outside of the species known range and distribution, the species is so limited to a particular habitat
that it cannot disperse on its own, and/or habitat suitable for species establishment and survival does not occur in the study area; Not Expected: There are no recent or
historical records of the species occurring on or in the immediate vicinity (within 3 miles) of the study area and the suitable habitats associated with the species do not occur
on or adjacent to the study area. The species moves freely and might disperse through or across the study area, but suitable habitats for residence or breeding do not occur; Low: There is a recent or historical record of the species on or in the immediate vicinity of the study area (within 3 miles) and potentially suitable habitats associated with the species occur in or adjacent to the study area, but existing conditions such as elevation, species composition, density of cover, prevalence of non-native species, evidence of
disturbance, limited habitat area, and/or isolation may substantially reduce the possibility that the species may occur; Moderate: Suitable habitats associated with the
species occur on or adjacent to the study area but there is not a documented occurrence of the species within the immediate vicinity (within 3 miles), or recorded occurrences are limited to historical records. Some species that contain extremely limited distributions may be considered moderate, even if there is a recorded occurrence in
the immediate vicinity; High: Suitable habitats associated with the species occur in the study area and the species has been recently recorded on or in the immediate vicinity (within 3 miles) of the study area; Present: The species was observed in or adjacent to the study area during biological surveys or during a previous survey.
Letter to Juliana Luengas Page 23 of 24
May 3, 2024
REFERENCES
American Ornithological Society (AOS). 2022. AOU Checklist of North and Middle American Birds.
Retrieved from: http://checklist.aou.org/.
Atwood, J.L. and D.R. Bontrager. 2020. California Gnatcatcher (Polioptila californica), version 1.0. In Birds
of the World (A.F. Poole and F.B. Gill, Editors). Cornell Lab of Ornithology, Ithaca, NY.
https://doi.org/10.2173/bow.calgna.01.
Baldwin, B.G., et al editors. 2012. The Jepson manual: vascular plants of California, second edition.
University of California Press, Berkeley.
Bradley, R.D., Ammerman, L.K., Baker, R.J., Bradley, L.C., Cook, J.A., Dowler, R.D. Jones, C., Schmidly,
D.J., Stangi, F.B., Van De Bussche, R.A., Wursig, B. (2014). Revised checklist of North American
mammals north of Mexico. Museum of Texas Tech University Occasional Papers. 327:1-27.
California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). 2023a. California Natural Diversity Database
(CNDDB). RareFind 5.2.14 (Internet) Data updated November 3.
2023b. California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB). Special Animal List. April. Retrieved from:
https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=109406&inline.
2023c. California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB). State and Federally Listed Endangered,
Threatened, and Rare Plants of California. State of California, The Resources Agency,
Department of Fish and Game Habitat Conservation Division, Wildlife & Habitat Data Analysis
Branch. Retrieved from: http://www.dfg.ca.gov/whdab/pdfs/TEPlants.pdf. April.
County of San Diego. 2023. SanBIOS Database. Retrieved from: https://www.sangis.org.
Holland R.F. 1986. Preliminary Descriptions of the Terrestrial Natural Communities of California.
Nongame-Heritage Program, State of California, Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento.
156 pp.
NETR Online. 2023. Historical Aerials. Retrieved from: https://www.historicaerials.com/viewer.
North American Butterfly Association. 2017. Checklist of North American Butterflies Occurring North of
Mexico, Edition 2.3. Retrieved from: https://www.naba.org/pubs/enames2_3.html.
Oberbauer, T. 2008. Terrestrial Vegetation Communities in San Diego County Based on Holland’s
Descriptions. Revised from 1996 and 2005. July.
Taggart, T.W. 2015. The Center for North American Herpetology (CNAH): The Academic Portal to North
American Herpetology. Retrieved from: http://www.cnah.org/.
U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). 2005. Natural Resource Agency. Web Soil Survey. Retrieved
from: http://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/app/WebSoilSurvey.aspx.
Letter to Juliana Luengas Page 24 of 24
May 3, 2024
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2023a. Critical Habitat Portal. Retrieved from:
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/report/table/critical-habitat.html.
2023b. ECOS Environmental Conservation Online System. Retrieved from:
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/report/species.
2023c. National Wetlands Inventory. Retrieved from: http://www.fws.gov/wetlands/.
2023d. Information for Planning and Consultation (IPaC). Retrieved from:
https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/.
2002. Quino Checkerspot Butterfly Survey Protocol.
1997. Coastal California Gnatcatcher (Polioptila californica californica) Presence/Absence Survey
Protocol.
Cultural Resource Assessment
Addendum Attachment C
HELIX Environmental Planning, Inc.
7578 El Cajon Boulevard
La Mesa, CA 91942
619.462.1515 tel
619.462.0552 fax
www.helixepi.com
May 3, 2024 00623.00019.007
Ms. Juliana Luengas
Environmental Compliance Specialist
Otay Water District
2554 Sweetwater Springs Blvd
Spring Valley, CA 91978
Subject: Cultural Resource Assessment for the 870-1 and 870-2 Reservoirs Project
Dear Ms. Luengas:
At the request of the Otay Water District (OWD; District), HELIX Environmental Planning, Inc. (HELIX)
prepared this cultural resource desktop assessment and historical resource evaluation for the District’s
870-1 and 870-2 Reservoirs Project (project), located northeast of the community of Otay Mesa in
unincorporated San Diego County, California. As required by the 2016 Program Environmental Impact
Report (2016 PEIR), mitigation measures Cul-PDF-1 and Cul-2A, HELIX conducted a cultural and historic
resource assessment for the project to determine if significant cultural or historic resources are within,
or like to be within, the project area. This assessment includes a review of in-house records search data,
geology and soil data, aerial photographs, and topographic maps, as well as a site visit and historic
significance evaluation of the existing 870-1 Reservoir. In summary, while two cultural resources are
documented as extending into the project area, it is unlikely that intact cultural subsurface deposits are
present within the proposed project site due to geological and soil conditions of the project area and
previous episodes of clearing and grading. Additionally, HELIX recommends that the existing 870-1
Reservoir not to be a significant resource. While no impacts to significance cultural resources are
anticipated, cultural resources monitoring is recommended for initial clearing and grading activities
related to the installation of the proposed new reservoir per mitigation measure Cul-2C.
PROJECT LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION
The project is located north of the United States-Mexico Border, south of Otay Reservoir, east of State
Route (SR) 125, and northeast of the Otay Mesa community of the City of San Diego (Figure 1, Regional
Location). The project area is located within section 19 of Township 18 South, Range 1 East, on the U.S.
Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5’ Otay Mesa topographic quadrangle (Figure 2, USGS Topography). The
project is located northeast of Alta Road and the East Mesa Juvenile Detention Facility (Figure 3, Project
Location [Aerial]).
Letter to Ms. Luengas Page 2 of 10
May 3, 2024
The project would construct a new, aboveground 3.4-million-gallon (MG) reservoir (870-2 Reservoir)
within the grounds of an existing water storage facility site containing an existing 11-MG in-ground
reservoir (870-1 Reservoir) built in 1962 to increase water storage capacity for anticipated future water
demand (Figure 3, Site Plan). The project would also involve demolition of existing belowground utilities;
relocation of the existing 870-1 Reservoir inlet pipe, replacement of the existing 870-2 Reservoir outlet
pipe, and subsequent restoration of the earthen embankment of the 870-1 Reservoir; replacement of
site access roads; and replacement of the existing 870-1 Reservoir floating cover and liner.
REGULATORY FRAMEWORK
Cultural resources are defined as buildings, sites, structures, or objects, each of which may have
historical, architectural, archaeological, cultural, and/or scientific importance. The California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Public Resources Code (PRC) 21084.1, and California Code of
Regulations (CCR) Title 14 Section 15064.5, address determining the significance of impacts to
archaeological and historic resources and discuss significant cultural resources as “historical resources,”
which are defined as:
• resource(s) listed or determined eligible by the State Historical Resources Commission for listing
in the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR; 14 CCR Section 15064.5[a][1])
• resource(s) either listed in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) or in a “local register
of historical resources” or identified as significant in a historical resource survey meeting the
requirements of Section 5024.1(g) of the PRC, unless “the preponderance of evidence
demonstrates that it is not historically or culturally significant” (14 CCR Section 15064.5[a][2])
• resources determined by the Lead Agency to meet the criteria for listing on the CRHR (14 CCR
Section 15064.5[a][3])
For listing in the CRHR, a historical resource must be significant at the local, state, or national level under
one or more of the following four criteria:
1. It is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of
local or regional history, or the cultural heritage of California or the United States;
2. It is associated with the lives of persons important to local, California, or national history;
3. It embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction,
or represents the work of a master or possesses high artistic values; and/or
4. It has yielded or has the potential to yield information important to the prehistory or history of
the local area, California, or the nation.
Under 14 CCR Section 15064.5(a)(4), a resource may also be considered a “historical resource” for the
purposes of CEQA at the discretion of the lead agency.
Significant resources must retain enough of their historic character or appearance to be recognizable as
historical resources and to convey the reasons for their significance. Resource integrity, which is the
authenticity of a historical resource’s physical identity evidenced by the survival of characteristics that
Letter to Ms. Luengas Page 3 of 10
May 3, 2024
existed during the resource’s period of significance, is evaluated with regard to the retention of location,
design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association. In an archaeological deposit, integrity
is assessed with reference to the preservation of material constituents and their culturally and
historically meaningful spatial relationships. A resource must also be judged with reference to the CRHR
criteria under which it is proposed for eligibility.
METHODS
HELIX reviewed in-house records search data for the area containing the proposed project site. The in-
house search included the identification of previously recorded cultural resources within a quarter mile
of the project area. Historical maps and aerial photographs were reviewed to assess the potential for
historical structures and land use, as well as to assess the previous disturbances that have occurred
within and near the project site. Maps and aerials reviewed include the 1903 15’ Cuyamaca USGS
topographic maps the 1943 and 1955 (1:62,500) Jamul USGS topographic map; the 1955, 1971, and
1996 7.5’ Otay Mesa USGS topographic maps; and historic aerials from 1953, 1964, 1968, 1978, 1990,
1999, 2000, 2002, and 2010 (NETR Online 2023; University of California, Santa Barbara [UCSB] Digital
Library 2023).
The significance evaluation of the existing 870-1 Reservoir was conducted and completed in accordance
with the practices described in the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards and Guidelines for Historic
Preservation, including standards for planning, identifying, evaluating, and documenting resources
(National Park Service 2002). Reservoir-specific research was performed to confirm and/or inform
construction dates, and broader research into water storage and conveyance systems was conducted to
understand the history and development of the reservoir within its larger historic context. Specifically,
the U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Reclamation’s “Design Standards No. 13: Embankment
Dams” and the “San Diego Source Warter System Historic Context Statement” were used to inform
context and evaluation of the reservoir (U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau 2012; Dudek 2020). In
addition to reviewing construction and alteration plans on file with OWD and relevant background
materials, the following resources were consulted:
• Calisphere
• Online Archive of California
• National Register of Historic Places
• California Register of Historic Resources
• OWD As-Builts, including, including Construction Plans for Unit “C” Open Reservoir (1961), Lining
and Covering of Upper Reservoir Plans (1987), and Access Road Paving (2014)
• University of Southern California Digital Library
RESULTS
Geologically, the project area is underlain by the Otay Formation, a combination of sandstone and
claystone which dates to the Oligocene (Todd 2004). The area within and surrounding the project area
Letter to Ms. Luengas Page 4 of 10
May 3, 2024
contains soils from the Huerhuero, Olivenhain, and San Miguel-Exchequer series: the Huerhuero series is
comprised of moderately well-drained loams that have a clay subsoil; the Olivenhain series consists of
well-drained, moderately deep to deep cobbly loams that have a very cobble clay subsoil; and the San
Miguel-Exchequer series contains well-drained shallow to moderately deep silt loams (Bowman 1973).
The majority of the project area contains soils from the Huerhuero series, with slopes ranging from 2 to
9 percent, 9 to 15 percent, and 15 to 30 percent (United States Department of Agriculture 2023).
No roads or structures are recorded in the area on the 1903 Cuyamaca topographic map or the 1943 or
1955 Jamul topographic maps. However, a jeep trail is recorded to the northeast, and the O’Neal
Canyon is recorded to the south and southwest. These features are also recorded on the 1955 Otay
Mesa topographic map. The 1971 Otay Mesa topographic map depicts the existing 870-1 reservoir and
access roads. No other structures in the immediate project vicinity are recorded on this map. The
existing juvenile detention facility is recorded on the 1996 Otay Mesa topographic map to the south of
the project area – no other changes within the are present on this map when compared to the 1971
topographic map.
Aerial photographs show the area containing the project as undeveloped before the early 1960s, with
the existing 870-1 reservoir and access roads first visible on the 1964 aerial (NETR Online 2023; UCSB
Digital Library 2023). On this aerial, the soil excavated for the installation of the reservoir appears to be
used as fill to create an artificial berm, or side wall, around the reservoir perimeter. The 1968 aerial
shows the area of the proposed new reservoir location to the south of the existing reservoir as having
been lightly graded or cleared. No major changes to the area are visible until the 1990 aerial, when the
existing juvenile detention facility was constructed to the south and the project area appears again to
have been recently cleared (NETR Online 2023). The project area was cleared again and possibly lightly
graded in the early 2000s, when the detention facility was expanded. On this aerial, the location of the
proposed new reservoir appears to be used as a staging area for construction equipment. In 2014, the
project area again appears to have been recently cleared, and between 2014 and 2016, the paving of
the perimeter road occurred.
The in-house records search identified two previously recorded cultural resources within one-quarter
mile of the project area, both of which are documented at the South Coast Information Center (SCIC) as
extending into the project site. These resources, P-37-010668 (CA-SDI-10668) and P-37-024827 (CA-SDI-
16450), are multi-component resources containing both prehistoric and historic site components.
P-37-010688 (CA-SDI-10668) was initially recorded in 1979 by J. Thesken as isolated flakes along a flat
ridgetop located to the south of the existing 870-1 reservoir. In the 1980s, the site was updated as
containing several loci, and was described as a large quarry site with associated lithic scatters and flaking
stations (Kyle 1986). Recorded historic components were dated to circa 1930 and included an artifact
scatter (broken glass and metal), a cistern, and a cement trough. A testing program was conducted as
part of a 1988 study for the construction of the East Mesa Detention Facility; this testing program
determined that the prehistoric component of CA-SDI-10668 was not significant (Kyle et al. 1988).
Additionally, a testing program of the historic component implemented in 1991 noted that the
recovered historic materials were associated with farming activities related to a historic homestead
established by Henry Schott in 1901, with no household items being recovered during testing (Gallegos
and Phillips 1991; Gallegos and Associates 1994). A field check undertaken for a study in the 1990s
indicated extensive damage to site CA-SDI-10668 from construction activities related to the
development of the juvenile detention facility (Gallegos and Associates 1994). Further, in 2010, a site
Letter to Ms. Luengas Page 5 of 10
May 3, 2024
record update conducted by HDR|e2M notes that much of the site has been destroyed by the
construction of East Mesa Detention Complex, with prehistoric artifacts only being observed along a
north-south access road adjacent to the west side of the detention complex in areas where native soil
still exists.
The loci boundary map included with the site form for CA-SDI-10668 indicates that Locus A encompasses
the southwestern portion of the project area. As described above, the area containing the proposed
new reservoir location has been cleared multiple times since the late 1960s. However, it is unclear
whether any of the clearing events involved anything more than light grading of the area. As such, there
is a potential for cultural artifacts associated with CA-SDI-10668 to still be present within the proposed
new reservoir location. However, any remnants of the resource immediately surrounding the existing
reservoir were likely destroyed by the construction and installation of the reservoir in the 1960s.
P-37-024827 (CA-SDI-16450) consists of two prehistoric bedrock milling features, a historic concrete
structure, and an artifact scatter containing prehistoric debitage and cores, and historic glass fragments
(Gallegos and Associates 1998). While the site boundary on file at the SCIC shows the resource
encompassing the northeast corner of the existing 870-1 reservoir, the site form clearly indicates that all
features and artifacts were observed to the north and northeast of the reservoir. As such, the site is
located entirely to the northeast of the project area and would not be impacted by the proposed
project.
OWD Reservoir 870-1
The subject 870-1 reservoir is owned and operated by OWD. The California legislature authorized the
establishment of the District in 1956 as a California Special District under the provisions of the Municipal
Water District Law of 1911. The District originated as two separate districts: the Otay Municipal Water
District, founded in 1956, and the La Presa County Water District, founded in 1957. Both were
established to bring water to a then-arid region of southeastern San Diego County. Because they served
some of the same areas (La Presa and Spring Valley), the two companies consolidated in 1962 by
entering into a joint powers agreement. This served to make the best use of equipment, labor, and
management, resulting in the construction of a joint-use facility and savings for customers. La Presa
County Water District was officially dissolved seven years later, in 1969. Today, the District acquires
imported water from multiple sources that is then transferred through large-diameter pipelines owned
and operated by the SDCWA. The District is divided into five divisions. It provides water, recycled water,
and sewer service (District 2024). The District has 40 potable water reservoirs and four recycled water
reservoirs. Out of the 40 potable water reservoirs, four are earth embanked like 870-1. Out of the four
recycled water reservoirs, two are earth-embanked. This reservoir is the ninth of 40 that the OWD built
(Jeff Marchioro, personal communication 2024).
Reservoir 870-1 is a potable water reservoir with earthen embankments and a geomembrane liner,
capped by a geomembrane floating cover. Constructed in 1962, the reservoir measures approximately
360 feet by 270 feet from ring wall to ring wall, with a depth of approximately 23 feet from bottom to
overflow. Known alterations since its original construction include the replacement of the liner and
cover in 1988, as well as improvements to the ring wall, silt drain, underdrain, cover drain, overflow, and
interior stairs that same year; the access road (but not the perimeter road) was reconstructed in 2014.
Letter to Ms. Luengas Page 6 of 10
May 3, 2024
Criteria used to determine whether a resource is significant or eligible for listing on the NRHP or CRHR
are described above; the significance evaluation for the 870-1 Reservoir used these criteria is below.
NRHP/CRHR Criteria A/1. Reservoir 870-1 was constructed by the District in 1962 as a potable water
storage reservoir. It is one of four earthfill reservoirs, and the ninth one overall, owned and managed by
the District. It is located in and serves the residents of the District’s Division 2. Following the larger trend
of population growth within San Diego County, the facility follows residential expansion rather than
influencing it. Although it arguably played a role in further expansion, it does not appear to be directly
associated with a pattern of events or a historic trend that made a significant contribution to the
development of the community, the state, or the nation. Therefore, reservoir 870-1 does not possess
historic significance under Criteria A/1 and thus is recommended not eligible for the NRHP and CRHR.
NRHP/CRHR Criteria B/2. Although many District employees and contractors have been associated with
reservoir 870-1 over its six decades, research to date does not indicate any direct association between
any of these people who have been associated with the reservoir and any demonstrably important
contributions to local, state, or national history. Therefore, reservoir 870-1 does not possess historic
significance under Criteria B/2 and thus is recommended not eligible for the NRHP and CRHR.
NRHP/CRHR Criteria C/3. Reservoir 870-1 is one of four earthfill reservoirs owned and managed by the
District. It exhibits typical mid-twentieth century utilitarian earthfill embankments and overall design
and does not embody distinctive engineering characteristics. It was designed by Boyle Engineering (now
AECOM) and was one of many public works projects undertaken by the firm in the mid-twentieth-
century. Research to date does not indicate this project was considered a highlight or masterpiece by
the firm. As such, the facility does not embody the distinctive characteristic of a method of construction,
represent the work of a master, or possess high artistic values. Therefore, reservoir 870-1 does not
possess historic significance under Criteria B/2 and thus is recommended not eligible for the NRHP and
CRHR.
NRHP/CRHR Criterion D/4. This Criterion is most relevant for archaeological sites, but it can be applied
to built environment resources if further study has the potential to yield information that cannot be
obtained from other sources. However, historical information about water storage facilities is prevalent,
and further study of the facility would not add any new information to the historic record. The subject
facility does not possess historic significance under Criterion D/4 and, therefore, is recommended not
eligible for the NRHP and CRHR.
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The review of in-house records indicates that two multi-component cultural resources, P-37-010668
(CA-SDI-10668) and P-37-024827 (CA-SDI-16450), have been documented as extending into the project
area. As described above, further research into each of the sites reveals that while Locus A of CA-SDI-
10668 does indeed extend into the project area, P-37-024827 (CA-SDI-16450) was documented to the
northeast, outside of the project site. P-37-010668 (CA-SDI-10668) has been previously tested and
determined to not be significant (Kyle et al. 1988). Additionally, as documented above, HELIX
recommends that the existing reservoir, 870-1 reservoir, as not eligible for listing on the NRHP or CRHR
and, thus, is not considered a significant cultural resource.
Letter to Ms. Luengas Page 7 of 10
May 3, 2024
As such, no adverse impacts to historic resources from the development of the proposed project are
anticipated. Further, no areas of young alluvium are present within the project area, which typically
have a higher likelihood of containing buried archaeological material. Within the project area, it is likely
that any cultural artifacts present are surface material only. While the review of aerial photographs
indicated that the location of the proposed new reservoir has been cleared and possibly lightly graded
multiple times since the 1960s, no evidence could be obtained indicating that mass or heavy grading in
this area has occurred.
Because all cultural material is important to the Native American community, a cultural resources
monitoring program is recommended for initial clearing and grading activities within the proposed 870-2
Reservoir site as well as for trenching/excavation for the 870-1 Reservoir inlet pipe relocation and outlet
pipe replacement that extends into undisturbed soil. The monitoring program would follow the
protocols in the 2016 PIER Mitigation Measure CUL-2C:
Before the grading of CIP projects, OWD shall retain a qualified archaeologist to monitor all
ground-disturbing activities in coordination with a Kumeyaay Native American monitor (as
applicable). Before beginning any work that requires cultural resources monitoring:
i. A pre-construction 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.
If you have any questions regarding this cultural resource assessment, please contact Stacie Wilson at
(619) 462-1515 or StacieW@helixepi.com.
Sincerely,
James Turner, RPA Stacie Wilson, RPA
Senior Archaeologist Principal Investigator
Letter to Ms. Luengas Page 8 of 10
May 3, 2024
Attachments:
Figure 1: Regional Location
Figure 2: USGS Topography
Figure 3: Project Location (Aerial)
OWD Reservoir 870-1 Site Form
Letter to Ms. Luengas Page 9 of 10
May 3, 2024
References
Bowman, Roy H.
1973 Soil Survey: San Diego Area. United States Department of Agriculture.
Beltsville, Maryland.
Dudek
2020 City of San Diego Source Water System Historic Context Statement. Encinitas, California.
Gallegos and Associates
1994 Cultural Resource Survey and Test of Five Sites for the Otay Water District Central Area
and Otay Mesa Interconnection Pipeline Alignments. Prepared for RBF/Sholders &
Sanford.
1998 Site record for P-33-024827. Form on file at the South Coastal Information Center, San
Diego State University.
Gallegos, Dennis R. and Roxana Phillips
1991 Results of a Monitoring Program for the East Mesa Detention Facility, The Schott
Farmstead (SDI-10668-H), San Diego County. Unpublished report on file at the South
Coastal Information Center, San Diego State University.
Kyle, Carolyn
1986 Site record for P-33-010668. Form on file at the South Coastal Information Center, San
Diego State University.
Kyle, Carolyn E., Dennis R. Gallegos, and Roxana Phillips
1988 Cultural Resource Survey and Testing Program for the East Mesa Detention
Facility, San Diego, California. Unpublished report on file at the South Coastal
Information Center, San Diego State University.
National Park Service
2002 National Register Bulletin 15: How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation.
Washington, D.C.
NETR Online
2023 Historic Aerials. Nationwide Environmental Title Research, LLC. Electronic document
available at: http://www.historicaerials.com, accessed March 24, 2023.
Otay Water District
2024 About Otay. Otay Water District. Electronic document available at:
https://otaywater.gov, accessed February 15, 2024.
Todd, Victoria R.
2004 Preliminary Geologic Map of the El Cajon 30’ x 60’ Quadrangle, California. Digital
preparation by Rachel M. Alvarez and TGS, Techni Graphic Systems, Inc. Department of
Conservation, California Geological Survey.
Letter to Ms. Luengas Page 10 of 10
May 3, 2024
United States Department of Agriculture (USDA)
2023 Natural Resources Conservation Service. Web Soil Survey. Electronic document available
at http://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/App/HomePage.htm, accessed March 27,
2023.
United States Department of the Interior Bureau of Reclamation
2012 Reclamation: Managing Water in the West, Design Standards No. 13: Embankment
Dams.
University of California, Santa Barbara (UCSB) Digital Library
2023 UCSB Frame Finder. University of California, Santa Barbara Digital Library. Electronic
document available at https://mil.library.ucsb.edu/ap_indexes/FrameFinder, accessed
March 24, 2023.
!!
!!
!!!
!
!!
!
!!!
!!!!
!!
!!!!
!!
!!!
!
!
!!
!!!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!!!
!!
!!!!!!
!!!!
!!!!!!!!
!!
!!!!!!
!!!!!!
!!!!!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!!!
!!
!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!!!!!
!!
!!!!
!!!!!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!!!!!!!
!!!!
!!
!!
!!
!!!!
!!
!!
!!!!
!!
!!
!!
!!!!!!
!!!!
!!
!!!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!!!
!!
!!
!!
!!!!
!!
!!
!!!
!!!!!!!!
!
!!!!!!
!!
!!!!
!!!!!!
!!!!
!!!!
!!
!!
!!!!
!!!!!!!
!!
!
!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!
!!!!!!
!!!!
!!
!!
!!!!
!!
!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!!!!!
!!
!!!!
!!
!!
!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!!!
!!
!!
!!!!!!
!!!!!!
!!
!!!!
!!!!!!
!
!!!
!!
!!
!!!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!!!!!
!!
!!!!!!!
!!
!!
!!!!
!!!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!!!
!
!
!
!
!!
!!!!
!!!!
!!!!!!
!!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!!!!!
!!
!!!!
!!!!
!!!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!!!
!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!
!!
!
WÊ
!"^$
!"^$
!"^$
!"^$
WÌ
WÌ
!"_$
!"_$
!"a$
!"a$
!"a$
?n
?p
?p
?t
?¦
?¦
?³
?¸
?¸
?¸
?¹
?¹
?Ë
?Ë
Aä
Aä
Ag
%&s(
%&s(
%&u(
VAIL LAKE
O NEILL LAKE
LAKE HENSHAW
LAKE WOHLFORD
LAKE
SAN MARCOS
SUTHERLAND
RESERVOIR
HODGES
RESERVOIR
LAKE RAMONA
LAKE POWAY
CUYAMACA
RESERVOIR
EL CAPITAN
RESERVOIR
SAN VICENTE
RESERVOIRMIRAMARRESERVOIR
LAKE JENNINGSSANTEE LAKES
LOVELANDRESERVOIR
MURRAY
RESERVOIR
BARRETT
RESERVOIR
SWEETWATER
RESERVOIR
UPPER OTAY
RESERVOIR
LOWEROTAY
RESERVOIR
RIVERSIDE
COUNTY
SAN DIEGO
COUNTY
SAN DI E G O
CO U N T Y
ORAN G E
COU N T Y
Pacific
Ocean
CARLSBAD
DEL
MAR
LA MESA
SAN DIEGO
IMPERIAL
BEACH
NATIONAL CITY
SOLANA
BEACH
CORONADO
SAN MARCOS
OCEANSIDE
CHULA VISTA
VISTA
SANTEE
ENCINITAS
ESCONDIDO
EL CAJON
LEMON
GROVE
POWAY
MEXICO
Project
Location
0 8 Miles K
Figure 1
Regional Location
I:
\
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
S
\
O
\
O
t
a
y
W
a
t
e
r
D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t
_
0
0
6
2
3
\
0
0
0
1
9
_
A
s
N
e
e
d
e
d
E
n
v
S
e
r
v
\
0
0
2
_
R
e
s
8
7
0
-
2
\
M
a
p
\
B
i
o
\
B
i
o
.
a
p
r
x
F
i
g
1
_
R
e
g
i
o
n
a
l
:
0
0
6
2
3
.
1
9
.
7
.
:
1
/
1
6
/
2
0
2
4
-
S
A
B
Source: Base Map Layers (SanGIS, 2016)
870-1 and 870-2 Reservoirs Project
Project
Location
0 2,000 Feet K
Figure 2
USGS Topography
I:
\
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
S
\
O
\
O
t
a
y
W
a
t
e
r
D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t
_
0
0
6
2
3
\
0
0
0
1
9
_
A
s
N
e
e
d
e
d
E
n
v
S
e
r
v
\
0
0
2
_
R
e
s
8
7
0
-
2
\
M
a
p
\
B
i
o
\
B
i
o
.
a
p
r
x
F
i
g
2
_
U
S
G
S
:
0
0
6
2
3
.
1
9
.
7
:
4
/
3
0
/
2
0
2
4
-
S
A
B
Source: OTAY MESA 7.5' Quad (USGS)
870-1 and 870-2 Reservoirs Project
East Mesa Juvenile
Detention Facility
Alta
R
d
0 400 Feet K
Figure 3
Project Location (Aerial)
I:
\
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
S
\
O
\
O
t
a
y
W
a
t
e
r
D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t
_
0
0
6
2
3
\
0
0
0
1
9
_
A
s
N
e
e
d
e
d
E
n
v
S
e
r
v
\
0
0
2
_
R
e
s
8
7
0
-
2
\
M
a
p
\
B
i
o
\
B
i
o
.
a
p
r
x
F
i
g
3
_
A
e
r
i
a
l
:
0
0
6
2
3
.
1
9
.
7
:
4
/
3
0
/
2
0
2
4
-
S
A
B
Source: Aerial (NearMap, 2019)
870-1 and 870-2 Reservoirs Project
Project Site
Page 1 of 4 *Resource Name or #: (Assigned by recorder) Otay Water District Reservoir 870-1
P1. Other Identifier: N/A
DPR 523A (9/2013) *Required information
State of California The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
PRIMARY RECORD Trinomial
NRHP Status Code
Other Listings
Review Code Reviewer Date _
*P2. Location: Not for Publication ◼ Unrestricted
*a. County San Diego and
*b. USGS 7.5' Quad Otay Mesa, CA-BCN Date 1996 T 18S; R 1E Sec 19.
c. Address Alta Road City San Diego Zip 92158
d. UTM: (Give more than one for large and/or linear resources) Zone 11S, 508009 mE/ 3606124 mN
e. Other Locational Data:
Immediately northeast of the East Mesa Juvenile Detention Facility
*P3a. Description:
This resource is a potable water reservoir consisting of earthen embankments with a geomembrane liner. It measures
approximately 360 feet by 270 feet from ring wall to ring wall. Its depth is approximately 23 feet from bottom to overflow.
From the bottom up the reservoir consists of compacted soil. Asphalt fill, geotextile fabric (Poly Felt TS-750), geomembrane
liner (high-density polyethylene). It is capped by a geomembrane floating cover (chlorosulfonated polyethylene).
*P3b. Resource Attributes: (List attributes and codes) HP22. Reservoir
*P4. Resources Present: Building ◼Structure Object Site District Element of District Other (Isolates, etc.)
P5b. Description of Photo: View southwest,
October 30, 2023. IMG_9981.
*P6. Date Constructed/Age and Source:
◼ Historic Prehistoric Both
1962 (As-Built Plans)
*P7. Owner and Address:
Otay Municipal Water District
2554 Sweetwater Springs Blvd.
Spring Valley, CA 91978-2004
*P8. Recorded by:
Nelson White, M.S.H.P.
HELIX Environmental Planning
7578 El Cajon Blvd.
La Mesa, CA 91942
*P9. Date Recorded: February 20, 2024
*P10. Survey Type: Intensive Survey
*P11. Report Citation: HELIX. 2024. Cultural Resource Assessment for the 870-1 and 870-2 Reservoirs Project. Report prepared
for Otay Water District.
*Attachments: NONE ◼Location Map Continuation Sheet ◼Building, Structure, and Object Record
Archaeological Record District Record Linear Feature Record Milling Station Record Rock Art Record
Artifact Record Photograph Record ◼ Other (List): Continuation sheet
P5a. Photograph or Drawing
Page 2 of 4 *Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder) Otay Water District Reservoir 870-1
*Map Name: Otay Mesa, CA-BCN *Scale: 1:24,000 *Date of map: 1996
DPR 523J (9/2013) * Required information
State of California - The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#
LOCATION MAP Trinomial
*Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder) Otay Water District Reservoir 870-1 *NRHP Status Code 6Z
Page 3 of 4
DPR 523B (9/2013) *Required information
State of California The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#
BUILDING, STRUCTURE, AND OBJECT RECORD
(This space reserved for official comments.)
(Sketch Map with north arrow required.)
B1. Historic Name: N/A
B2. Common Name: Otay Water District Reservoir 870-1
B3. Original Use: Reservoir B4. Present Use: Reservoir
*B5. Architectural Style: N/A
*B6. Construction History:
Known alterations since its original construction in 1962 include in 1988 the replacement of the liner and cover; also, in 1988
improvements to the ring wall, silt drain, underdrain, cover drain, overflow, and interior stairs; and in 2014 the access road
(but not the perimeter road) was reconstructed.
See Continuation Sheet
*B7. Moved? ◼No Yes Unknown Date: N/A Original Location: N/A
*B8. Related Features:
Chlorination Station
B9a. Architect: Boyle Engineering b. Builder: unknown
*B10. Significance: Theme N/A Area N/A
Period of Significance N/A Property Type N/A Applicable Criteria N/A
See Continuation Sheet
B11. Additional Resource Attributes: N/A
*B12. References:
Dudek, City of San Diego Source Water System Historic Context Statement, Prepared for the City of City of San Diego
Public Utilities Department, 2020.
Marchioro, Jeff, interview by Nelson White. 2024. Otay Water District (February).
Otay Water District. n.d. About Otay. Accessed February 15, 2024. https://otaywater.gov/.
Otay Water District. Construction plans:
Construction Plans (1961)
Lining and Covering of Upper Reservoir Plans (1987)
Access Road Plans (2014)
B13. Remarks: N/A
*B14. Evaluator: Nelson White, M.S.H.P.; HELIX Environmental
Planning
*Date of Evaluation: February 20, 2024
Page 4 of 4 *Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder) Otay Water District Reservoir 870-1
*Recorded by: Nelson White, M.S.H.P. *Date February 20, 2024 ◼ Continuation Update
DPR 523L (9/2013
State of California - The Resources Agency Primary#
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
Trinomial
CONTINUATION SHEET
*B6. Construction History
Otay Municipal Water District
The Otay Water District (District) is located in San Diego County, to the south and east of the City of San Diego, and purchases
water from the SDCWA. The subject 870-1 reservoir is owned and operated by the District. The California legislature authorized
the establishment of the Otay Water District in 1956 as a California Special District under the provisions of the Municipal Water
District Law of 1911. The District originated as two separate districts: the Otay Municipal Water District, founded in 1956, and the
La Presa County Water District, founded in 1957. Both were established to bring water to a then an arid region of southeastern
San Diego County. Because they served some of the same areas (La Presa and Spring Valley), the two companies consolidated
in 1962 by entering into a joint powers agreement. This served to make the best use of equipment, labor, and management,
resulting in the construction of a joint use facility and savings for customers. La Presa County Water District was officially
dissolved seven years later in 1969. Today the District acquires imported water from multiple sources that is then transferred
through large diameter pipelines owned and operated by the SDCWA. The District is divided into 5 divisions. It provides water,
recycled water, and sewer service (District n.d.). The District has 40 potable water reservoirs and four recycled water reservoirs.
Out of the 40 potable water reservoirs, four are earth embanked like 870-1. Out of the four recycled water reservoirs, two are
earth embanked. Reservoir 870-1 is the ninth one constructed by the District (Marchioro 2024)
*B10. Significance:
NRHP/CRHR Criteria A/1. Reservoir 870-1 was constructed by the District in 1962 as a potable water storage reservoir. It is
one of four earthfill reservoirs, and the ninth one overall, owned and managed by the District. It is located in and serves the
residents of the District’s Division 2. Following the larger trend of population growth within San Diego County, the facility
follows residential expansion rather than influencing it. Although it arguably played a role in further expansion, it does not
appear to be directly associated with a pattern of events or a historic trend that made a significant contribution to the
development of the community, the state, or the nation. Therefore, reservoir 870-1 does not possess historic significance under
Criteria A/1 and thus is recommended not eligible for the NRHP and CRHR.
NRHP/CRHR Criteria B/2. Although many District employees and contractors have been associated with reservoir 870-1 over
its six decades, research to date does not indicate any direct association between any of these people who have been associated
with the reservoir and any demonstrably important contributions to local, state, or national history. Therefore, reservoir 870-1
does not possess historic significance under Criteria B/2 and thus is recommended not eligible for the NRHP and CRHR.
NRHP/CRHR Criteria C/3. Reservoir 870-1 is one of four earthfill reservoirs owned and managed by the District. It exhibits
typical mid-twentieth century utilitarian earthfill embankments and overall design and does not embody distinctive engineering
characteristics. It was designed by Boyle Engineering (now AECOM) and was one of many public works projects undertaken by
the firm in the mid-twentieth century. Research to date does not indicate this project was considered a highlight or masterpiece
by the firm. As such, the facility does not embody the distinctive characteristic of a method of construction, represent the work
of a master, or possess high artistic values. Therefore, reservoir 870-1 does not possess historic significance under Criteria B/2
and thus is recommended not eligible for the NRHP and CRHR.
NRHP/CRHR Criterion D/4. This Criterion is most relevant for archaeological sites, but it can be applied to built environment
resources if further study has the potential to yield information that cannot be obtained from other sources. However, historical
information about water storage facilities is prevalent, and further study of the facility would not add any new information to the
historic record. The subject facility does not possess historic significance under Criterion D/4 and therefore is recommended not
eligible for the NRHP and CRHR.
!!
!!
!!!
!
!!
!
!!!
!!!!
!!
!!!!
!!
!!!
!
!
!!
!!!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!!!
!!
!!!!!!
!!!!
!!!!!!!!
!!
!!!!!!
!!!!!!
!!!!!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!!!
!!
!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!!!!!
!!
!!!!
!!!!!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!!!!!!!
!!!!
!!
!!
!!
!!!!
!!
!!
!!!!
!!
!!
!!
!!!!!!
!!!!
!!
!!!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!!!
!!
!!
!!
!!!!
!!
!!
!!!
!!!!!!!!
!
!!!!!!
!!
!!!!
!!!!!!
!!!!
!!!!
!!
!!
!!!!
!!!!!!!
!!
!
!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!
!!!!!!
!!!!
!!
!!
!!!!
!!
!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!!!!!
!!
!!!!
!!
!!
!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!!!
!!
!!
!!!!!!
!!!!!!
!!
!!!!
!!!!!!
!
!!!
!!
!!
!!!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!!!!!
!!
!!!!!!!
!!
!!
!!!!
!!!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!!!
!
!
!
!
!!
!!!!
!!!!
!!!!!!
!!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!!!!!
!!
!!!!
!!!!
!!!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!!!
!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!
!!
!
WÊ
!"^$
!"^$
!"^$
!"^$
WÌ
WÌ
!"_$
!"_$
!"a$
!"a$
!"a$
?n
?p
?p
?t
?¦
?¦
?³
?¸
?¸
?¸
?¹
?¹
?Ë
?Ë
Aä
Aä
Ag
%&s(
%&s(
%&u(
VAIL LAKE
O NEILL LAKE
LAKE HENSHAW
LAKE WOHLFORD
LAKE SANMARCOS SUTHERLAND
RESERVOIR
HODGES
RESERVOIR
LAKE RAMONA
LAKE POWAY
CUYAMACA
RESERVOIR
EL CAPITAN
RESERVOIR
SAN VICENTE
RESERVOIRMIRAMAR
RESERVOIR
LAKE JENNINGSSANTEE LAKES
LOVELANDRESERVOIR
MURRAY
RESERVOIR
BARRETT
RESERVOIR
SWEETWATER
RESERVOIR
UPPER OTAY
RESERVOIR
LOWER OTAYRESERVOIR
SAN DI E G O
CO U N T Y
ORAN G E
COU N T Y
Pacific
Ocean
CARLSBAD
DEL
MAR
LA MESA
SAN DIEGO
IMPERIAL
BEACH
NATIONAL CITY
SOLANA BEACH
CORONADO
SAN MARCOS
OCEANSIDE
CHULA VISTA
VISTA
SANTEE
ENCINITAS
ESCONDIDO
EL CAJON
LEMON
GROVE
POWAY
MEXICO
Project
Location
0 8 Miles K
Figure 1
Regional Location
I:
\
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
S
\
O
\
O
t
a
y
W
a
t
e
r
D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t
_
0
0
6
2
3
\
0
0
0
1
9
_
A
s
N
e
e
d
e
d
E
n
v
S
e
r
v
\
0
0
7
_O
W
D
8
7
0
-
2
R
e
s
e
r
v
o
i
r
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
\
M
a
p
\
A
d
d
e
n
d
\
A
d
d
e
n
d
.
a
p
r
x
F
i
g
1
_
R
e
g
i
o
n
a
l
:
0
0
6
2
3
.
1
9
.
7
.
:
3
/
1
5
/
2
0
2
4
-
S
A
B
Source: Base Map Layers (SanGIS, 2016)
870-1 and 870-2 Reservoirs Project
EXHIBIT A-1
East Mesa Juvenile
Detention Facility
Alta
R
d
0 400 Feet K
Figure 2
Project Location (Aerial)
I:
\
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
S
\
O
\
O
t
a
y
W
a
t
e
r
D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t
_
0
0
6
2
3
\
0
0
0
1
9
_
A
s
N
e
e
d
e
d
E
n
v
S
e
r
v
\
0
0
7
_O
W
D
8
7
0
-
2
R
e
s
e
r
v
o
i
r
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
\
M
a
p
\
A
d
d
e
n
d
\
A
d
d
e
n
d
.
a
p
r
x
F
i
g
2
_
A
e
r
i
a
l
:
0
0
6
2
3
.
1
9
.
7
:
4
/
3
0
/
2
0
2
4
-
S
A
B
Source: Aerial (NearMap, 2023)
870-1 and 870-2 Reservoirs Project
Project Site
EXHIBIT A-2
STAFF REPORT
TYPE MEETING: Regular Board MEETING DATE: June 5, 2024
SUBMITTED BY: Juliana Luengas
Environmental Compliance
Specialist
PROJECT: P1253-
009000
DIV. NO.All
APPROVED BY: Beth Gentry, Engineering Manager
Michael Long, Chief, Engineering
Jose Martinez, General Manager
SUBJECT: Award of a Professional Planning Services Agreement for the
Preparation of a Climate Adaptation and Resilience Plan for
the Otay Water District
GENERAL MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATION:
That the Otay Water District (District) Board of Directors (Board)
award a Professional Planning Services Agreement to AARC Consultants,
LLC (AARC) and authorize the General Manager to execute a
Professional Planning Services Agreement with AARC for the
Preparation of a Climate Adaptation and Resilience Plan in an amount
not-to-exceed $219,015.
COMMITTEE ACTION:
Please see Attachment A.
PURPOSE:
To obtain Board authorization for the General Manager to enter into a
Professional Planning Services Agreement with AARC for the
Preparation of a Climate Adaptation and Resilience Plan (CARP) in an
amount not-to-exceed $219,015.
AGENDA ITEM 5
2
ANALYSIS:
In February 2022, the District submitted a Notice of Interest (NOI)
to California Governor's Office of Emergency Services (Cal OES). The
NOI was reviewed by Cal OES to determine if the project was eligible
for FEMA’s Hazard Mitigation Grant Program. The NOI was approved on
March 1, 2022. In April 2022, a full sub application was submitted
to FEMA, which included the Project Scope of Work, Project Schedule,
Project Cost Estimate, and a Match Commitment Letter. In November
2023, FEMA formally approved and issued the funds for the preparation
of a CARP for the District. FEMA has obligated 90% Federal Share,
with the District providing 10% Match Share.
The CARP will be used to protect, modify, or relocate critical assets
that are vulnerable to the risks of climate change, identify long
term adaptation projects that will increase the reliability of the
systems, as well as reduce economic and environmental risks. AARC will
work in conjunction with District staff to prepare the CARP. The
District is in need of a comprehensive planning study that addresses
future climate change. The CARP will also address several Strategic
Plan objectives, which include:
• Conducting an assessment on District’s system and
infrastructure.
• Evaluating energy efficiency and alternative energy
opportunities.
• Using existing District Plans to analyze future water needs and
prescribe approaches to meeting future requirements.
• Developing the District’s long-term water supply strategies and
planning efforts with regional partnerships, evaluating the City
of San Diego’s recycled water purchase agreement.
• Identifying and evaluating new opportunities for recycled water
including potential for potable reuse.
• Developing a long-term strategic operations and maintenance
program.
• Evaluating new disaster recovery solutions.
The CARP will include a climate risk and vulnerability assessment as
a baseline for focusing efforts to address the impacts of climate
change. The risk assessment will focus on potential effects, such as
drought, extreme heat, wildfires, flooding, and altered precipitation
patterns, and their impacts on water and energy supplies and
infrastructure, as well as on water demand and policies.
3
The CARP will also identify critical assets that are vulnerable to
the risks of climate change, develop climate adaptation and
resilience strategies, and prioritize greenhouse gas reduction
activities by exploring conservation and renewable energy
technologies for the water industry. In general, the scope of work
for the Plan will include the following:
• Review District Planning and Operations Documents
• Energy Analysis and Development of Energy Optimization
• Climate Change Risk/Hazard Assessment Preparation
• Development of Resilience and Action Plan Strategy
• Stakeholder Engagement
• Preparation of Draft and Final Climate Adaptation and Resilience
Plan
Finally, the District must be able to respond effectively to the
climate adaptation and mitigation requirements of the State of
California. California Government Code § 65302 as amended by SB 379
and SB 1035 requires Cities and Counties to include climate
adaptation and resiliency and new information related to flood and
fire hazards in the safety element to their planning efforts.
Although these requirements do not yet apply to water districts, the
District is capitalizing on funds available by FEMA/CalOES to
prepare.
The District followed Policy 21 throughout the process. Services
were solicited by placing an advertisement on the Otay Water
District’s website and in the Daily Transcript on January 9, 2024.
The solicitation was also posted on PlanetBids. In total, six (6)
firms submitted a Letter of Interest (LOI) and a Statement of
Qualifications (SOQ). The Request for Proposal (RFP) for
Environmental Services was sent to three (3) firms resulting in three
(3) proposals received by March 15, 2024. They are as follows:
• AARC (Century City, CA)
• SOMOS Group (Los Angeles, CA)
• SSG (Vancouver, BC, Canada)
Three firms submitted a Letter of Interest (LOI) but did not end up
proposing.
In accordance with the District’s Policy 21, staff evaluated and
scored all written proposals and then interviewed the top two (2)
firms on April 10, 2024. AARC received the highest scores based on
their experience, understanding of the scope of work, proposed method
to accomplish the work, and their composite hourly rate. AARC has
completed similar projects for local water districts and public
agencies. Some of their clients include Sweetwater Authority, Rancho
4
California Water District, Western Municipal Water District, and the
City of Poway. AARC is readily available to provide the services
required. A summary of the complete evaluation is shown in
Attachment B.
AARC submitted the Company Background Questionnaire, as required by
the RFP, and staff found both satisfactory. In addition, staff
checked their references and performed an internet search on the
company. Staff found the references to be excellent and did not find
any outstanding issues with the internet search.
FISCAL IMPACT: Joe Beachem, Chief Financial Officer
The Fiscal Year (FY) 2025 operating budget for this Project for
Outside Services is approximately $80,000 annually starting in FY
2025 through FY 2027. Staff anticipates the Project will be
completed in FY 2027.
The District’s six-year rate model, as part of the FY 2025 budget,
includes a sufficient future planned budget associated with this
Project. The exact expenditures were not clearly known at the time
of the FY 2025 budget approval. This Project includes the
preparation of the CARP only and does not include any specific
project implementation at this time.
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:
Engineering staff identified FEMA’s Hazard Mitigation Grant Program
as a potential source of funding for this project. In November 2023,
FEMA approved and issued funds for the preparation of a Climate
Adaptation and Resilience Plan for the District. FEMA authorized up
to $232,139.70 in project costs with an additional $12,800.00 in
supplemental management costs. The total project cost was estimated
to be $257,933.00. FEMA has obligated 90% Federal Share in project
costs, with the District providing 10% Match Share. There is no
matching required for supplemental management costs.
5
The full grant sub application was submitted on April 8, 2022. As
part of the grant process, a Non-Federal Share (Match) of the total
project is required. By submitting the application, the District has
committed to meeting the match funding request.
LEGAL IMPACT:
None.
JL/BG:jf
Attachments: Attachment A – Committee Action
Attachment B – Summary of Proposal Rankings
ATTACHMENT A
SUBJECT/PROJECT:
P1253-009000
Award of a Professional Planning Services Agreements for
the Preparation of a Climate Adaptation and Resilience Plan
for the Otay Water District
COMMITTEE ACTION:
The Engineering, Operations, and Water Resources Committee
(Committee) reviewed this item at a meeting held on May 21, 2024.
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 by the Committee prior to
presentation to the full Board.
Qualifications of
Team
Responsiveness
and Project
Understanding
Technical and
Management
Approach
INDIVIDUAL
TOTAL -
WRITTEN
AVERAGE
WRITTEN
TOTAL
Consultant's
Commitment to
DBE
Additional
Creativity and
Insight
Strength of
Project Manager
Presentation &
Communication
Skills
Responses to
Questions
INDIVIDUAL
TOTAL - ORAL
AVERAGE
ORAL TOTAL
TOTAL SCORE
WITHOUT FEE Proposed Fee1 TOTAL
SCORE
30 25 30 85 85 Y/N 15 15 10 10 50 50 135 15 150 Poor/Good/
Excellent
Juliana Luengas 27 22 26 75 12 13 9 8 42
Charles Mederos 27 23 26 76 12 13 8 9 42
Emilyn Zuniga 27 23 26 76 12 13 9 9 43
Jake Vaclavek 27 22 24 73 12 12 9 9 42
Marissa Dychitan 26 22 28 76 14 14 9 9 46
Juliana Luengas 22 18 21 61
Charles Mederos 23 24 23 70
Emilyn Zuniga 24 24 24 72
Jake Vaclavek 25 18 18 61
Marissa Dychitan 22 17 18 57
Juliana Luengas 26 21 23 70 10 9 8 7 34
Charles Mederos 25 23 23 71 10 11 7 6 34
Emilyn Zuniga 26 25 23 74 10 11 8 8 37
Jake Vaclavek 25 20 19 64 10 10 9 8 37
Marissa Dychitan 24 20 27 71 9 9 7 7 32
Notes:
Consultant Weighted Fee Score 1. Review Panel does not see or consider proposed fee when scoring other categories. The proposed fee is scored by Engineering staff not on the Review Panel.
AARC $219,015.00 15
Somos $367,157.50 1
SSG $216,214.00 15
118
FEE SCORING CHART
MAXIMUM POINTS
Somos
ATTACHMENT B
SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL RANKINGS
OTAY WATER DISTRICT'S CLIMATE ADAPTATION AND RESILIENCE PLAN
WRITTEN ORAL
1
AARC 75
SSG 10535N
FIRM NOT INTERVIEWED
REFERENCES
64 N
70
Y 15
64
12015
Excellent
65
43 133
STAFF REPORT
TYPE MEETING: Regular Board MEETING DATE: June 5, 2024
SUBMITTED BY: Kevin Cameron
Engineering Manager
PROJECT: Various DIV. NO.All
APPROVED BY: Michael Long, Chief, Engineering
Jose Martinez, General Manager
SUBJECT: Award of Two (2) Professional Services Contracts for As-Needed
Coating Inspection Services to Coating Specialists and
Inspection Services, Inc. and Rusty Pauls Inspections, LLC dba
MCS Inspection for Fiscal Years 2025-2026
GENERAL MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATION:
That the Otay Water District (District) Board of Directors (Board)
award two professional services agreements for As-Needed Coating
Inspection Services and to authorize the General Manager to execute
two agreements with Coating Specialists and Inspection Services, Inc.
(CSI Services) and Rusty Pauls Inspections, LLC dba MCS Inspection
(MCS Inspection) in an amount not-to-exceed $175,000 during Fiscal
Years 2025-2026 (ending June 30, 2026).
COMMITTEE ACTION:
Please see Attachment A.
PURPOSE:
To obtain Board authorization for the General Manager to enter into
two (2) professional services contracts for As-Needed Coating
Inspection Services with CSI Services and MCS Inspection, each in an
amount not-to-exceed $175,000 for Fiscal Years 2025-2026. The total
amount of tasks under the two contracts will not exceed $175,000.
AGENDA ITEM 6
2
ANALYSIS:
The District will require the services of a professional coating
inspection consultant in support of the District’s Capital
Improvement Program (CIP), and more specifically, the Corrosion
Control Program for steel reservoirs, for the next three (3) fiscal
years. Due to the strict requirements for the surface preparation
and coating application on potable water storage tanks, the District
uses a third-party coating inspector to monitor, document, and verify
coatings are applied per the coating manufacturer’s specifications.
The District requires the coating inspector be certified by the
National Association of Corrosion Engineers (NACE) as a Level III
Coating Inspector. The Coating Inspector’s tasks include, but are
not limited to, submitting daily reports detailing the contractor’s
activities, periodic testing, and overall quality control for the
recoating procedures.
It is more efficient and cost effective to issue an as-needed
contract for coating inspection services, which will provide the
District with the ability to obtain consulting services in a timely
and efficient manner. This concept has also been used in the past
for other disciplines such as design engineering, construction
management, geotechnical, and environmental services.
The District staff will identify tasks for specific projects and
request cost proposals from the two (2) consultants during the
contract period. Each consultant will prepare a detailed scope of
work, schedule, and fee for each task order, with the District
evaluating the proposals based upon qualifications and cost. Upon
written task order authorization from the District, the selected
consultant shall then proceed with the project as described in the
scope of work.
The CIP projects that will require coating inspection services for
the duration of this contract are listed below:
The coating inspection scope of work for each of the above CIP
projects is estimated from preliminary information and past CIP
projects. Therefore, staff believes that a $175,000 cap on the As-
CIP DESCRIPTION
ESTIMATED
COST
P2657 1485-1 Reservoir Interior/Exterior Coating & Upgrades $65,000
P2631 1485-2 Reservoir Interior/Exterior Coating & Upgrades $65,000
P2614 485-1 Reservoir 2-year Warranty Inspection & Repairs $10,000
P2567 1004-2 Reservoir 2-year Warranty Inspection & Repairs $10,000
TOTAL: $150,000
3
Needed Coating Inspection Services contract is adequate, while still
providing additional capacity for unforeseen support needs by the
District.
The As-Needed Coating Inspection Services contract does not commit
the District to any expenditure until a task order is approved to
perform work on a CIP project. The District does not guarantee work
to the consultant, nor does the District guarantee that it will
expend all of the funds authorized by the contract on professional
services.
The District solicited for coating inspection services by placing an
advertisement on the Otay Water District’s website and using
PlanetBids, the District’s online bid solicitation website on
February 21, 2024. The advertisement was also placed in the Daily
Transcript. Three (3) firms submitted a letter of interest and a
statement of qualifications. All three (3) firms, submitted a
proposal on the due date of April 3, 2024.
• CSI Services, Santa Clarita, CA
• Diversified Project Services, Bakersfield, CA
• MCS Inspection, Paso Robles, CA
In accordance with the District’s Policy 21, staff evaluated and
scored all written proposals. CSI Services and MCS Inspection
received the highest scores based on their experience, understanding
of the scope of work, proposed method to accomplish the work, and
their hourly rates. CSI Services and MCS Inspection were the most
qualified consultants with the best overall proposals. A summary of
the complete evaluation is shown in Attachment B.
CSI Services and MCS Inspection both submitted the Company Background
Questionnaire, as required by the RFP, and staff did not find any
significant issues. In addition, staff checked their references and
performed an internet search on the company. Staff found the
references to be excellent and did not find any outstanding issues
with the internet search.
FISCAL IMPACT: Joe Beachem, Chief Financial Officer
The funds for this contract will be expended on a variety of CIP
projects, as previously noted above. This contract is for as-needed
professional services based on the District's need and schedule, and
expenditures will not be made until a task order is approved by the
District for the consultant's services on a specific CIP project.
4
Based on a review of the CIP budgets, the Project Manager anticipates
that the CIP budgets will be sufficient to support the professional
as-needed services required.
The Finance Department has determined that funding will be available
from the Replacement fund, as outlined in the individual CIP project
budgets described above.
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.
KC/MJL:jf
Attachments: Attachment A – Committee Action
Attachment B – Summary of Proposal Rankings
ATTACHMENT A
SUBJECT/PROJECT:
Various Award of Two (2) Professional Services Contracts for As-
Needed Coating Inspection Services for Fiscal Years 2025-
2026
COMMITTEE ACTION:
The Engineering, Operations, and Water Resources Committee (Committee)
reviewed this item at a meeting held on May 21, 2024. 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 by the Committee prior to
presentation to the full Board.
Qualifications of
Team
Responsiveness
and Project
Understanding
Technical and
Management
Approach
INDIVIDUAL
TOTAL -
WRITTEN
AVERAGE
WRITTEN
TOTAL
Consultant's
Commitment to
DBE
Proposed Fee TOTAL
SCORE
30 25 30 85 85 Y/N 15 100 Poor/Good/
Excellent
KEVIN CAMERON 28 24 28 80
BRANDON DIPIETRO 28 24 29 81
AARON HAZARD 25 22 25 72
LITO SANTOS 28 24 27 79
STEPHANIE CHEN 28 23 28 79
KEVIN CAMERON 26 23 26 75
BRANDON DIPIETRO 26 23 25 74
AARON HAZARD 25 22 24 71
LITO SANTOS 23 20 24 67
STEPHANIE CHEN 23 20 25 68
KEVIN CAMERON 27 20 26 73
BRANDON DIPIETRO 26 22 27 75
AARON HAZARD 25 20 22 67
LITO SANTOS 26 21 25 72
STEPHANIE CHEN 25 15 18 58
Consultant Fee Score
CSI SERVICES $281 15
DPSI, INC $820 1
MCS INSPECTION GROUP $311 14
Notes:
1. Review Panel does not see or consider proposed fee when scoring other categories. The proposed fee is scored by Engineering staff not on the Review Panel.
2. The fees were evaluated by comparing rates for two catagories. The sum of the two rates are noted on the scoring formula Tab
FEE SCORING CHART
MCS INSPECTION
GROUP
DPSI, INC
CSI SERVICES
14
71 Y 1
78 Y 15
Excellent69Y83
93 Excellent
72
MAXIMUM POINTS
ATTACHMENT BSUMMARY OF PROPOSAL RANKINGS
As-Needed Coating Inspection Services - Fiscal Years 2025 - 2026
WRITTEN
REFERENCES
STAFF REPORT
TYPE MEETING: Regular Board MEETING DATE: June 5, 2024
SUBMITTED BY: Kevin Cameron,
Engineering Manager
PROJECT: Various DIV. NO. ALL
APPROVED BY: Michael J. Long, Chief of Engineering
Jose Martinez, General Manager
SUBJECT: Informational Item – Third Quarter Fiscal Year 2024 Capital
Improvement Program Report
GENERAL MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATION:
No recommendation. This is an informational item only.
COMMITTEE ACTION:
Please see Attachment A.
PURPOSE:
To update the Board about the status of all Capital Improvement
Program (CIP) expenditures and to highlight significant issues,
progress, and milestones on major active construction projects.
ANALYSIS:
To keep up with growth and to meet our ratepayers' expectations to
adequately deliver safe, reliable, cost-effective, and quality water,
each year the District staff prepares a Six-Year CIP Plan that
identifies the District’s infrastructure needs. The CIP is comprised
of four categories consisting of backbone capital facilities,
replacement/renewal projects, capital purchases, and developer
reimbursement projects.
The third Quarter Fiscal Year 2024 update is intended to provide a
detailed analysis of progress in completing these projects within the
allotted time and budget of $15.411 million. Expenditures through
AGENDA ITEM 7
2
the third quarter totaled approximately $4.150 million.
Approximately 27% of the Fiscal Year 2024 expenditure budget was
spent (see Attachment B).
FISCAL IMPACT: Joe Beachem, Chief Financial Officer
No fiscal impact as this is an informational item only.
STRATEGIC GOAL:
This Program supports the District’s Mission statement, “To provide
exceptional water and wastewater service to its customers, and to
manage District resources in a transparent and fiscally responsible
manner” and the General Manager’s Vision, "To be a model water agency
by providing stellar service, achieving measurable results, and
continuously improving operational practices."
LEGAL IMPACT:
None.
KC/MJL:jf
Attachments: Attachment A – Committee Action
Attachment B - Fiscal Year 2024 Third Quarter CIP
Expenditure Report
Attachment C – Presentation
ATTACHMENT A
SUBJECT/PROJECT:
VARIOUS
Informational Item – Third Quarter Fiscal Year 2024 Capital
Improvement Program Report
COMMITTEE ACTION:
The Engineering, Operations, and Water Resources Committee (Committee)
reviewed this item at a meeting held on May 21, 2024. 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 2024 3RD QUARTER REPORT
(Expenditures through 3/31/24)
($000)
2024 03/31/24
CIP No.Description
Project
Manager
FY 2024
Budget Expenses Balance
Expense to
Budget %
Overall
Budget Expenses Balance
Expense to
Budget %Comments
CAPITAL FACILITY PROJECTS -
P2040 Res - 1655-1 Reservoir 0.5 MG Marchioro 100$ 4$ 96$ 4%7,300$ 1,116$ 6,184$ 15%
The construction schedule for this project was
pushed out to the FY 2028-2029 timeframe as part
of the FY 2024 budget cycle. Subsequently, other
design phase efforts have been prioritized.
P2228 Res - 870-2 Reservoir 3.4 MG Marchioro 200 225 (25) 113%11,000 763 10,237 7%
100% design completed Q3 FY 2024. Final design
and public advertisement for construction bid is
scheduled for Q4 FY 2024. Expenditures on track.
P2405 PL - 624/340 PRS, Paseo Ranchero and Otay Valley Road Santos 35 - 35 0%1,000 65 935 7%
Related to P2553 - Heritage Bridge. See P2553 for
comments.
P2451 Otay Mesa Desalination Conveyance and Disinfection System Gentry 1 - 1 0%35,700 3,823 31,877 11%
No activities in Q3 FY 2024; limited planning work
anticipated in FY 2024.
P2460 I.D. 7 Trestle and Pipeline Demolition Gentry 50 26 24 52%900 268 632 30%
Delayed due to staffing. CEQA documents are
complete; additional surveys were completed in
April 2024. Meeting with USFWS/CDFW this
quarter and a Habitat Loss Permit may be required.
P2485 SCADA - Infrastructure and Communications Replacement Kerr 35 - 35 0%2,550 2,503 47 98%Project closed 6/30/2023.
P2516 PL - 12-Inch, 640 Zone, Jamacha Road - Darby/Osage Marchioro 5 - 5 0%1,000 - 1,000 0%No expenditures anticipated in FY 2024.
P2521 Large Meter Vault Upgrade Program Carey 40 - 40 0%710 476 234 67%
Staffing shortages have not allowed staff to work
on these upgrades. Some work may be done in
Q4 FY 2024.
P2553 Heritage Road Bridge Replacement and Utility Relocation Santos 200 3 197 2%5,050 282 4,768 6%
Awaiting City of Chula Vista to schedule
advertisement and award.
P2584 Res - 657-1 and 657-2 Reservoir Demolitions Marchioro - - - 0%720 - 720 0%No expenditures anticipated in FY 2024.
P2608 PL - 8-inch, 850 Zone, Coronado Avenue, Chestnut/Apple Santos 30 5 25 17%1,820 408 1,412 22%
30% plan review complete. Sending comments to
NV5 May 2024.
P2611 Quarry Road Bridge Replacement and Utility Relocation Gentry 1 - 1 0%3,600 124 3,476 3%
This is a County of San Diego driven project. The
County has had this on hold but plans to restart it.
P2612 PL - 12-inch, 711 Zone, Paso de Luz/Telegraph Canyon Road Gentry 500 120 380 24%1,250 872 378 70%
One year maintenance period for revegetation
began Q2 FY 2024.
P2614 485-1 Reservoir Interior/Exterior Coating Santos 375 545 (170) 145%1,375 1,054 321 77%Warranty period.
P2617 Lobby Security Enhancements Payne 1 12 (11) 1200%225 191 34 85%
FY 2024 Public Service enhancements; FY 2025
closeout.
P2623 Central Area to Otay Mesa Interconnection Pipelines Combination Air/Vacuum Valve Replacements Marchioro 5 - 5 0%600 219 381 37%No expenditures anticipated in FY 2024.
P2630 624-3 Reservoir Automation of Chemical Feed System Gentry 15 - 15 0%675 16 659 2%
No activity in Q3 FY 2024; project on hold until
additional resources are made available.
P2638 Buildings and Grounds Refurbishments Payne 175 24 151 14%745 280 465 38%FY 2025: Admin Phase II upgrade.
P2639 Vista Diego Hydropneumatic Pump Station Replacement Marchioro 175 130 45 74%3,700 617 3,083 17%
60% design completed Q1 FY 2024. Final design
and public advertisement for construction bid is
scheduled for Q2 FY 2025. Expenditures on track.
P2642 Rancho Jamul Pump Station Replacement Marchioro 25 - 25 0%2,500 142 2,358 6%
Project coordinated with 1655-1 Reservoir (P2040).
See P2040 for updates.
P2646 North District Area Cathodic Protection Improvements Marchioro 15 21 (6) 140%1,200 22 1,178 2%
Anode replacement along Willow Glen Drive
(PL100) completed by District in-house forces Q3
FY 2024. Expenditures on track.
P2647 Central Area Cathodic Protection Improvements Marchioro 75 78 (3) 104%2,000 218 1,782 11%
Anode replacements completed along Hunte
Parkway (PL215) Q1 FY 2024. Expenditures on
track.
P2649 HVAC Equipment Purchase Payne 43 47 (4) 109%279 152 127 54%FY 2024 Engineering; FY 2025 install.
P2652 520 to 640 Pressure Zone Conversion Marchioro 5 - 5 0%250 37 213 15%
Project is on hold until PDR for P2195 & P2196 is
completed.
P2654 Heritage Road Interconnection Improvements Marchioro 10 - 10 0%200 40 160 20%
No expenditures anticipated in FY 2024. Project
on hold pending coordination with City of San
Diego.
P2658 832-2 Pump Station Modifications Marchioro 5 - 5 0%600 10 590 2%No expenditures anticipated in FY 2024.
P2659 District Boardroom Improvements Kerr 50 - 50 0%300 185 115 62%
Working with Safety and Purchasing to enhance
physical safeguards.
P2663 Potable Water Pressure Vessel Program Marchioro 100 164 (64) 164%3,200 499 2,701 16%
Rolling Hills Hydropneumatic tank accelerated.
Completion of Rolling Hills Hydro Tank
Replacement scheduled for Q2 FY 2025.
FISCAL YEAR-TO-DATE, 03/31/24 LIFE-TO-DATE, 03/31/24
https://otaywater365.sharepoint.com/sites/engcip/Shared Documents/X-CIP Quarterly Reports/CIP Qtr Reports/FY 2024/Q3/Expenditures/FY2024 3rd Qtr CIP Exp - Final - Copy.xlsx Page 1 of 5 5/9/2024
ATTACHMENT B
FISCAL YEAR 2024 3RD QUARTER REPORT
(Expenditures through 3/31/24)
($000)
2024 03/31/24
CIP No.Description
Project
Manager
FY 2024
Budget Expenses Balance
Expense to
Budget %
Overall
Budget Expenses Balance
Expense to
Budget %Comments
FISCAL YEAR-TO-DATE, 03/31/24 LIFE-TO-DATE, 03/31/24
P2664 Otay Mesa Dual Piping Modification Program Gentry 25 - 25 0%350 36 314 10%
No activity in Q3 FY 2024. Alternatives have been
identified; coordination with Finance is required to
consider financial implications of potential
changes.
P2665 PL - 12-inch Pipeline Replacement, 870 Zone, Cactus Road Marchioro 5 - 5 0%200 - 200 0%
No expenditures anticipated in FY 2024.
Completion of construction scheduled beyond six-
year planning budget.
P2666 Low Head and High Head Pump Stations Demolition Marchioro 5 - 5 0%750 - 750 0%
No expenditures anticipated in FY 2024.
Completion of construction scheduled beyond six-
year planning budget.
P2674 System Pressure Reducing Program Gentry 10 - 10 0%100 16 84 16%
Updates to hydraulic modeling of hydropneumatic
zones has corrected several potential high
pressure areas. Additional areas will be
researched as time and budget allows. No activity
in Q3 FY 2024.
P2676 980-2 PS Motors and Motor Control Center Replacements Marchioro 100 6 94 6%3,242 650 2,592 20%
Expenditures will be accelerated in FY 2024 since
Pump #2 motor will be replaced rather than rebuilt.
P2683 Pump Station Safety, Monitoring, and Automation Improvements Marchioro 40 16 24 40%500 32 468 6%Completion of construction scheduled for FY 2029.
P2684 Zero Emission Vehicles and Charging Infrastructure Santos 175 58 117 33%2,000 78 1,922 4%
30% master submitted and in review. Designed
and applied for Clean Air For All (CAFA) Grant for
operation buildings first 5 charging station. If
awarded could be up to $156,000 reimbursable.
P2688 Standby Power Renovations - Potable Water Rahders 150 26 124 17%1,500 37 1,463 2%No further expenditures FY 2024.
P2693 PL – 12 & 16-inch, 1296 Zone, Jefferson Rd., Lyons Valley Rd to Jamul Dr.Santos 20 - 20 0%3,950 - 3,950 0%No expenses anticipated in FY 2024.
P2694 Operations Replacement Communication Radios Rahders 75 - 75 0%155 - 155 0%
Up to $75K in expenditures anticipated Q4 FY
2024.
P2696 1296-1 Reservoir Interior/Exterior Coating Santos - - - 0%1,400 - 1,400 0%No activity in FY 2024.
P2698 Improve Fire Sprinkler Protection System at RWCWRF (P)Payne 5 - 5 0%75 - 75 0%FY 2024 Engineering; FY 2025 install.
R2117 RWCWRF Disinfection System Improvements Santos 200 194 6 97%4,275 844 3,431 20%
Submittals - 120 completed, RFI responses - 20.
Notice to Proceed issued 4/8/2024, contractor
mobilized and began construction.
R2146 Recycled Pipeline Cathodic Protection Improvements Marchioro 35 5 30 14%1,200 841 359 70%
Construction completed Q1 FY 2024. End of one
year warranty period scheduled for Q1 FY 2025.
Anode replacements adjacent to 944-1R Pump
Station are scheduled to be completed by in-house
forces Q4 FY 2024. Expenditures on track.
R2153 Recycled Water Pressure Vessel Program Marchioro 5 - 5 0%1,000 29 971 3%No expenditures anticipated in FY 2024.
R2165 Recycled HVAC Equipment Purchase Payne 1 - 1 0%75 - 75 0%FY 2024 Engineering; FY 2025 install.
R2166 RWCWRF Effluent Pump Station Compressors Marchioro 60 12 48 20%175 12 163 7%
A purchase order to replace compressors will be
issued Q4 FY 2024. The compressors are
scheduled to be replaced either Q4 FY 2024 or Q1
FY 2025. Expenditures on track.
R2168 Improve Fire Sprinkler Protection System at RWCWRF (R)Payne 5 - 5 0%75 - 75 0%FY 2024 Engineering; FY 2025 install.
s2012 San Diego County Sanitation District Outfall and RSD Outfall Replacement Gentry 200 - 200 0%3,550 1,355 2,195 38%County invoicing usually received in Q4 FY 2024.
S2043 RWCWRF Sludge Handling System Gentry 1 - 1 0%1,500 129 1,371 9%
No activities in Q3 FY 2024; limited planning work
anticipated in FY 2024.
S2061 RWCWRF Aeration Controls Consolidation & Optimization Upgrades (S)Gentry 20 - 20 0%220 78 142 35%
Project implementation is complete; operation
being monitored to ensure system is acceptable;
should be able to close CIP at end of FY 2024.
S2071 San Diego Metro Wastewater Capital Improvements Gentry 80 48 32 60%8,300 302 7,998 4%
Annual City of San Diego invoicing covers this
project. No District involvement in design and
construction.
S2081 Improve Fire Sprinkler Protection System at RWCWRF (S)Payne 5 - 5 0%75 - 75 0%FY 2024 Engineering; FY 2025 install.
Total Capital Facility Projects Total:3,493 1,769 1,724 51%125,116 18,821 106,295 15%
REPLACEMENT/RENEWAL PROJECTS
P2058 PL - 20-Inch, 1296 Zone, Proctor Valley Road from Melody Road to Highway 94 Santos 120 57 63 48%2,750 98 2,652 4%
30% design reviewed and will give comments to
consultant May 2024.
https://otaywater365.sharepoint.com/sites/engcip/Shared Documents/X-CIP Quarterly Reports/CIP Qtr Reports/FY 2024/Q3/Expenditures/FY2024 3rd Qtr CIP Exp - Final - Copy.xlsx Page 2 of 5 5/9/2024
FISCAL YEAR 2024 3RD QUARTER REPORT
(Expenditures through 3/31/24)
($000)
2024 03/31/24
CIP No.Description
Project
Manager
FY 2024
Budget Expenses Balance
Expense to
Budget %
Overall
Budget Expenses Balance
Expense to
Budget %Comments
FISCAL YEAR-TO-DATE, 03/31/24 LIFE-TO-DATE, 03/31/24
P2171 PL - 20-Inch, 1296 Zone, Proctor Valley Road from Pioneer Way to Melody Road Santos 160 36 124 23%3,600 80 3,520 2%
30% design reviewed and will give comments to
consultant May 2024.
P2195 PL - 24 - Inch, 640 Zone, Campo Road - Regulatory Site/Millar Ranch Santos 20 7 13 35%9,500 24 9,476 0%Planning Study in progress.
P2196 PL - 24 - Inch, 640 Zone, Millar Ranch Road to 832-1 Pump Station Santos 20 8 12 40%5,100 25 5,075 0%Planning Study in progress.
P2533 1200-1 Reservoir Interior & Exterior Coating Santos 5 - 5 0%1,275 1,171 104 92%Project is under warranty.
P2543 850-1 Reservoir Interior/Exterior Coating Santos 5 - 5 0%1,270 1,087 183 86%Project is under warranty.
P2563 Res - 870-1 Reservoir Cover/Liner Replacement Marchioro 50 95 (45) 190%3,500 211 3,289 6%
Project will be designed as part of the larger 870-2
Reservoir Project (CIP P2228). See P2228 for
updates.
P2567 1004-2 Reservoir Interior/Exterior Coating & Upgrades Santos 325 366 (41) 113%1,375 1,328 47 97%Project is under warranty.
P2578 PS - 711-2 (PS 711-1 Replacement and Expansion) - 14,000 GPM Marchioro 100 - 100 0%8,000 53 7,947 1%
Design of a cost savings solution to restore Pump
#3 original capacity in progress.
P2593 458-1 Reservoir Interior/Exterior Coating & Upgrades Santos 10 - 10 0%1,050 922 128 88%Project is under warranty.
P2594 Large Meter Replacement Carey 25 68 (43) 272%815 618 197 76%
Staff has had to replace failing registers on more
meters than budgeted, in addition, aging temporary
meters have had to be replaced.
P2605 458/340 PRS Replacement, 1571 Melrose Ave Gentry 5 - 5 0%750 669 81 89%
Project warranty completed in Q4 FY 2023. Project
can be closed at end of FY 2024.
P2609 PL - 8-inch, 1004 Zone, Eucalyptus Street, Coronado/Date/La Mesa Santos 20 1 19 5%2,100 1,133 967 54%
Phase I of project accepted by the District FY
2021; Phase II starts after 3 year paving
moratorium and additional resources are made
available.
P2610 Valve Replacement Program - Phase 1 Mederos 325 - 325 0%2,325 1,826 499 79%
CIP is complete and within budget. Total
expenditures were $1.8M.
P2615 PL - 12-Inch Pipeline Replacement, 803 PZ, Vista Grande Santos 250 40 210 16%2,600 111 2,489 4%
30% design reviewed and will give comments to
consultant May 2024.
P2616 PL - 12-Inch Pipeline Replacement, 978 Zone, Pence Drive/Vista Sierra Drive Gentry 600 61 539 10%4,200 1,686 2,514 40%
Phase 1 of project is substantially complete and
project warranty period began in Q1 FY 2024. Old
pipeline video inspection performed and work on
Phase 2 pushed out to FY 2025.
P2627 458/340 PRS Replacement, 1505 Oleander Avenue Gentry 5 - 5 0%750 702 48 94%
Project warranty completed in Q4 FY 2023.
Project can be closed at end of FY 2024.
P2631 1485-2 Reservoir Interior/Exterior Coating & Upgrades Santos 40 2 38 5%1,450 2 1,448 0%
Planning and design anticipated to be completed
Q4 FY 2024.
P2655 La Presa Pipeline Improvements Gentry 25 - 25 0%1,750 281 1,469 16%
No activity in Q3 FY 2024; project on hold until
additional resources are made available.
P2656 Regulatory Site Desilting Basin Improvements Gentry 5 - 5 0%150 7 143 5%
No activities occurred during Q3 FY 2024.
Operations to implement improvements as time
allows.
P2657 1485-1 Reservoir Interior/Exterior Coating & Upgrades Santos 5 2 3 40%1,150 2 1,148 0%No activity in FY 2024.
P2661 Replacement of Backflow Prevention Devices on Pipeline Interconnections on Otay Mesa Gentry 25 128 (103) 512%400 289 111 72%
Work is substantially complete. Project to be
closed at end of FY 2024.
P2662 Potable Water Meter Change Out Carey 1,000 30 970 3%17,100 30 17,070 0%RFP will be released in Q4 FY 2024.
P2670 Administration and Operations Roof Repairs and Replacement Payne 20 - 20 0%350 - 350 0%
Ongoing maintenance; replacements FY 2025-
2028.
P2671 980 Reservoirs Altitude Valve Vaults Renovation Gentry 25 - 25 0%682 679 3 100%
Project warranty completed in Q4 FY 2023.
Project can be closed at end of FY 2024.
P2672 District Roof Repairs and Replacement Program Payne 35 - 35 0%340 - 340 0%
Ongoing maintenance; replacements FY 2025-
2028.
P2673 803-4 Reservoir Interior/Exterior Coating Santos - - - 0%2,350 - 2,350 0%No activity in FY 2024.
P2675 458-1 and 458-2 Reservoirs Site Pavement Refurbishment Cameron 150 - 150 0%450 15 435 3%Design is at 50%. Project paused.
P2677 PL - 16-Inch, 870 Zone, La Media Road and Airway Road Utility Relocations Gentry 700 48 652 7%3,100 2,323 777 75%
Ongoing maintenance; replacements FY 2025-
2028.
P2678 Jamacha Boulevard Utility Relocation Gentry 25 - 25 0%250 - 250 0%
Project warranty completed in Q4 FY 2023.
Project can be closed at end of FY 2024.
P2680 PL - 12-inch Pipeline Replacement, 1530 Zone, Vista Diego Road Marchioro 40 7 33 18%425 77 348 18%
Ongoing maintenance; replacements FY 2025-
2028.
P2681 PL-12-Inch, 1655 Zone, Presilla Drive Pipeline Replacement Marchioro 25 - 25 0%1,800 130 1,670 7%No activity in FY 2024.
P2682 AMI Project Carey 70 39 31 56%650 591 59 91%On track.
P2685 980/711 PRS Renovation - Proctor Valley Rd Marchioro 5 - 5 0%850 - 850 0%No expenses anticipated in FY 2024.
P2686 870 PZ Seismic Vault Renovation Gentry 5 - 5 0%400 - 400 0%
No activity in Q3 FY 2024; project on hold until
additional resources are made available.
https://otaywater365.sharepoint.com/sites/engcip/Shared Documents/X-CIP Quarterly Reports/CIP Qtr Reports/FY 2024/Q3/Expenditures/FY2024 3rd Qtr CIP Exp - Final - Copy.xlsx Page 3 of 5 5/9/2024
FISCAL YEAR 2024 3RD QUARTER REPORT
(Expenditures through 3/31/24)
($000)
2024 03/31/24
CIP No.Description
Project
Manager
FY 2024
Budget Expenses Balance
Expense to
Budget %
Overall
Budget Expenses Balance
Expense to
Budget %Comments
FISCAL YEAR-TO-DATE, 03/31/24 LIFE-TO-DATE, 03/31/24
P2687 Steele Canyon Rd Bridge 803 PZ 20-inch WL Renovation Gentry 100 29 71 29%600 65 535 11%
Sample repair performed in Q2 FY 2023.
Evaluation of the work delayed by water in
Sweetwater River. Work in FY 2024 limited to
preservation of existing condition in Q4 (e.g.,
anticorrosion work). Depending on engineering
resources availability, early design/options planning
to commence.
P2689 944-1-9 Pump Station Meter Vault Renovation Gentry 20 - 20 0%200 - 200 0%
No activity in Q3 FY 2024; project on hold until
additional resources are made available.
P2690 850-4 Reservoir Interior/Exterior Coating Santos - - - 0%1,850 - 1,850 0%No activity in FY 2024.
P2691 City of San Diego - Otay 2nd Pipeline Phase 4 Interconnections Relocation Gentry 50 24 26 48%1,000 24 976 2%
City of San Diego driving overall relocation.
Interconnection facilities for Otay to be discussed
at later design stage.
P2692 1485-2 PS Yard Piping Modifications Santos 1 - 1 0%600 - 600 0%No expenses anticipated in FY 2024.
P2695 Relocation of Data Center Kerr 25 - 25 0%250 - 250 0%
Relocation no longer required; staff met with
contractor to redesign data center.
P2697 Valve Replacement Program - Phase 2 Mederos 350 139 211 40%12,000 139 11,861 1%
CIP allocated budget for FY 2024 is almost
complete and within budget.
P2699 Miscellaneous Replacements and Improve Fire Sprinkler Protection System in the Warehouse Payne 25 36 (11) 144%325 36 289 11%
FY 2024 misc. upgrades & Fire Sprinkler
Protection - Engineering; FY 2025 install.
P2700 Pump Station Equipment Replacement Program Mederos 150 7 143 5%1,250 7 1,243 1%
CIP allocated budget for FY 2024 is almost
complete and within budget.
R2121 Res - 944-1 Reservoir Cover/Liner Replacement Marchioro 5 - 5 0%3,500 25 3,475 1%Replacement scheduled for FY 2028.
R2148 Large Meter Replacement - Recycled Carey 10 5 5 50%135 59 76 44%On track.
R2152 Recycled Water Meter Change-Out Carey 10 - 10 0%550 - 550 0%RFP will be released in Q4 FY 2024.
R2156 RecPL - 14-inch RWCWRF Effluent Force Main Improvements Marchioro 10 4 6 40%1,300 259 1,041 20%No further expenses anticipated in FY 2024.
R2157 RWCWRF Backwash Supply Pumps Upgrade Gentry 220 13 207 6%500 94 406 19%See R2117.
R2158 RWCWRF Stormwater Pond Improvements (R)Gentry 10 - 10 0%175 - 175 0%
No activities occurred during Q4 FY 2024.
Planning to be coordinated with R2117 to
determine impacts.
R2159 RecPL - 16-Inch, 680 Zone, Olympic Parkway Recycled Pipeline Replacement Gentry 3,500 2 3,498 0%6,000 468 5,532 8%
Delayed materials were shipped in April 2024.
Construction expected to begin in Q4 FY 2024.
R2161 450-1R Reservoir Interior/Exterior Coating & Upgrades Santos - - - 0%2,500 - 2,500 0%No activity in FY 2024.
R2163 450-1 RW Res Disinfection Injection Vault Renovation Marchioro - - - 0%300 - 300 0%No expenses anticipated in FY 2024.
R2164 450-1 RW Res Stormwater Improvements Marchioro 70 57 13 81%800 63 737 8%
GM authorization to advance CIP R2167 was
provided Q1 FY 2024.
R2167 RecPL - 14-Inch, 927 Zone, Force Main Road Improvements and Erosion Repairs Marchioro 25 5 20 20%225 5 220 2%
A possible long-term solution, which exceeds the
current CIP budget, will be vetted during the FY
2025 budget cycle.
R2169 Pump Station Equipment Replacement Program (R)Mederos 50 21 29 42%600 21 579 4%
CIP allocated budget for FY 2024 is almost
complete and within budget.
S2024 Campo Road Sewer Main Replacement Gentry 25 10 15 40%11,130 11,077 53 100%
Revegetation completed. Notice of Completion
submitted to Caltrans. Still waiting on final
approval from Caltrans as of April 2024.
S2049 Calavo Basin Sewer Rehabilitation - Phase 2 Gentry 50 11 39 22%1,150 79 1,071 7%
No activity in Q3 FY 2024; project on hold until
additional resources are made available.
https://otaywater365.sharepoint.com/sites/engcip/Shared Documents/X-CIP Quarterly Reports/CIP Qtr Reports/FY 2024/Q3/Expenditures/FY2024 3rd Qtr CIP Exp - Final - Copy.xlsx Page 4 of 5 5/9/2024
FISCAL YEAR 2024 3RD QUARTER REPORT
(Expenditures through 3/31/24)
($000)
2024 03/31/24
CIP No.Description
Project
Manager
FY 2024
Budget Expenses Balance
Expense to
Budget %
Overall
Budget Expenses Balance
Expense to
Budget %Comments
FISCAL YEAR-TO-DATE, 03/31/24 LIFE-TO-DATE, 03/31/24
S2050 Rancho San Diego Basin Sewer Rehabilitation - Phase 2 Gentry 20 - 20 0%1,100 7 1,093 1%
No activity in Q3 FY 2024; project on hold until
additional resources are made available.
S2054 Calavo Basin Sewer Rehabilitation - Phase 3 Gentry - - - 0%1,300 - 1,300 0%No activity in FY 2024.
S2060 Steele Canyon Pump Station Replacement Gentry 10 - 10 0%1,900 - 1,900 0%
No activity in Q3 FY 2024; project on hold until
additional resources are made available.
S2066 Rancho San Diego Basin Sewer Rehabilitation - Phase 3 Gentry - - - 0%950 - 950 0%No activity in FY 2024.
S2069 Cottonwood Sewer Pump Station Renovation Santos 300 66 234 22%3,000 467 2,533 16%Re-startup of project is anticipated in Q4 FY 2024.
S2072 RWCWRF Rotary Screen Replacement Santos 100 - 100 0%600 2 598 0%No expenditures FY 2024.
S2074 RWCWRF Stormwater Pond Improvements (S)Gentry 5 - 5 0%175 - 175 0%
No activities occurred during Q4 FY 2024.
Planning to be coordinated with R2117 to
determine impacts.
S2076 RWCWRF Grit Chamber Improvements Gentry 5 - 5 0%250 - 250 0%
No expenditures in Q3 FY 2024; planning level
work may occur in FY 2024.
S2077 RWCWRF Blowers Renovation Gentry 120 - 120 0%400 - 400 0%
No expenditures in Q3 FY 2024. Scheduling of the
refurbishment of the first blower to start in Q4 FY
2024.
S2079 Steele Canyon Rd Bridge 6-inch Sewer FM Renovation Gentry 50 - 50 0%350 - 350 0%
Reference P2687, the two projects will be designed
together.
S2080 Standby Power Renovations - Sewer Rahders 10 26 (16) 260%200 26 174 13%
No expenses Q3, anticipate up to $11K to be
expensed in Q4 FY 2024.
Total Replacement/Renewal Projects Total:9,571 1,450 8,121 15%141,772 29,093 112,679 21%
CAPITAL PURCHASE PROJECTS
P2282 Vehicle Capital Purchases Rahders 1,821 711 1,110 39%12,000 6,333 5,667 53%
CP#4 - $330,363 expensed Q3 FY 2024.
Anticipate $355,359 in Q4 FY 2024.
P2286 Field Equipment Capital Purchases Rahders 219 194 25 89%3,500 2,539 961 73%
$77K expensed Q3 FY 2024. No further
expendatures expected in FY 2024.
P2571 Data Center Network Data Storage and Infrastructure Enhancements Kerr 15 9 6 60%530 464 66 88%
Nearing completion of project; staff anticipates
completion by 2025.
P2572 Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) Replacement Kerr 280 17 263 6%795 17 778 2%Implementation of financial module underway.
R2160 Recycled Water Field Equipment Capital Purchases Rahders - - - 0%700 221 479 32%No expenditures FY 2024.
R2162 Vehicle Capital Purchases - Recycled Rahders - - - 0%500 93 407 19%No expenditures FY 2024.
S2078 Vehicle Capital Purchases - Sewer Rahders - - - 0%750 - 750 0%No expenditures FY 2024.
Total Capital Purchase Projects Total:2,335 931 1,404 40%18,775 9,667 9,108 51%
DEVELOPER REIMBURSEMENT PROJECTS
P2595 PL - 16-inch, 624 Zone, Village 3N - Heritage Road, Main St/Energy Way Cameron 1 - 1 0%336 - 336 0%This is a developer reimbursement project.
P2596 PL – 16-inch, 624 Zone, Village 3N – Main St, Heritage Rd/Wolf Canyon Cameron 1 - 1 0%900 - 900 0%This is a developer reimbursement project.
P2598 PL-16-Inch, 624 Zone, Village 8W – Main St, La Media/Village 4 Cameron 1 - 1 0%280 - 280 0%This is a developer reimbursement project.
P2599 PL-16-Inch, 624 Zone, Village 8W- Otay Valley Rd, School/Village 8E Cameron 1 - 1 0%500 - 500 0%This is a developer reimbursement project.
P2602 PL - 16-inch, 624 Zone, Otay Valley Road, SR 125 Bridge Cameron 1 - 1 0%280 - 280 0%This is a developer reimbursement project.
P2603 PL - 16-inch, 711 Zone, Hunte Parkway, SR 125 Bridge Cameron 1 - 1 0%340 - 340 0%This is a developer reimbursement project.
R2028 RecPL – 8-in, 680 Zone, Heritage Road to Main Street Cameron 1 - 1 0%900 - 900 0%This is a developer reimbursement project.
R2037 RecPL – 8-in, 680 Zone, Main Street/Otay Valley Road – Village 8W Cameron 1 - 1 0%620 - 620 0%This is a developer reimbursement project.
R2038 RecPL – 8-in, 680 Zone, Village 3N – Main St, Heritage Rd/Wolf Canyon Cameron 1 - 1 0%470 - 470 0%This is a developer reimbursement project.
R2047 RecPL – 12-in, 680 Zone, La Media Road - Birch/Main St Cameron 1 - 1 0%550 - 550 0%This is a developer reimbursement project.
R2136 RecPL – 8-in, 680 Zone, Otay Valley Rd, SR 125 Bridge Cameron 1 - 1 0%140 - 140 0%This is a developer reimbursement project.
R2137 RecPL - 8-in, 815 Zone, Hunte Parkway, SR 125 Bridge Cameron 1 - 1 0%170 - 170 0%This is a developer reimbursement project.
Total Developer Reimbursement Projects Total:12 - 12 0%5,486 - 5,486 0%
139 GRAND TOTAL 15,411$ 4,150$ 11,261$ 27%291,149$ 57,581$ 233,568$ 20%
https://otaywater365.sharepoint.com/sites/engcip/Shared Documents/X-CIP Quarterly Reports/CIP Qtr Reports/FY 2024/Q3/Expenditures/FY2024 3rd Qtr CIP Exp - Final - Copy.xlsx Page 5 of 5 5/9/2024
Otay Water District
Capital Improvement Program
Fiscal Year 2024 Third Quarter
(through 3/31/2024)
ATTACHMENT C
R.W. Chapman Recycled Water Facility
Background
The approved CIP Budget for Fiscal Year 2024
consists of 139 projects that total $15.41 million.
These projects are broken down into four categories.
1.Capital Facilities $ 3.49 million
2.Replacement/Renewal $ 9.57 million
3.Capital Purchases $ 2.33 million
4.Developer Reimbursement $ 12 thousand
Overall expenditures through the Third Quarter of
Fiscal Year 2024 totaled nearly $4.15 million, which is
approximately 27% of the Fiscal Year budget.
2
Fiscal Year 2024
Third Quarter Update
($000)
CIP
CAT Description FY 2024 Budget FY 2024 Expenditures
%
FY 2024 Budget
Spent
TotalLife-to-Date
Budget
TotalLife-to-Date
Expenditures
%
Life-to-Date
Budget
Spent
1 Capital Facilities $3,493 $1,724 51%$125,116 $18,821 15%
2 Replacement/Renewal $9,571 $1,450 15%$141,772 $29,093 21%
3 Capital Purchases $2,335 $931 40%$18,775 $9,667 51%
4 Developer Reimbursement $12 $0 0%$5,486 $0 0%
Total:
$15,411 $4,150 27%$291,149 $57,581 20%
3
Fiscal Year 2024
Third Quarter
CIP Budget Forecast vs. Expenditures
4
Reasons for Underspending
◦Material Delays
◦Staff Turnover
◦Outside Agency Projects
Projects:
◦R2159 – Olympic Pkwy
- Valves delayed 9 months (delivery mid-May 2024)
FY 2024 Budget: $3.5M
FY 2024 Forecast: $0.5M
Difference: $3.0M
5
Reasons for Underspending
◦P2662 – Potable Water Meter Change-Out
- Delayed to get consultant onboard
FY 2024 Budget: $1.0M
FY 2024 Forecast: $100K
Difference: $900K
◦P2282– Vehicle Capital Purchases
- EV vehicles delay in delivery
FY 2024 Budget: $1.8M
FY 2024 Forecast: $1.1M
Difference: $700K
6
Reasons for Underspending
◦P2616 – Pence Drive PL Replacement
- Phase II on hold
FY 2024 Budget: $600K
FY 2024 Forecast: $60K
Difference: $540K
◦S2069 – Cottonwood Sewer Pump Station
Replacement
- Paused
FY 2024 Budget: $300K
FY 2024 Forecast: $60K
Difference: $240K 7
Reasons for Underspending
Outside Agency Delays
◦P2553 – Heritage Road Bridge – City of CV driven project. PM retired Oct. 2023. CV still working on Caltrans clearance. OWD deposit due after low bidder approved.
Board approved reimbursement agreement at March 2023 Board Meeting
OWD Engr. Estimate in Jan. 2023 = $2.9M
FY 2024 Budget: $200K
FY 2024 Forecast: $10K
Difference: $190K
◦P2677 – La Media Road & Airway Road Utility Relocation – City of San Diego driven
- Delayed due to numerous rain events
- Otay’s portion has been minimal so far
FY 2024 Forecast: $700K
FY 2024 Forecast: $70K
Difference: $630K
8
9
CIP Projects in Construction
1004-2 & 485-1
Reservoir Coating and
Upgrades (P2567 &
P2614)
Work includes removing
and replacing the interior
and exterior coatings of
the welded steel
reservoirs and structural
modifications.
Combined Budget:
$2.75M
1004-2 was returned to
service on Oct. 6, 2023
485-1 was returned to
service on Nov. 9, 2023
Project Acceptance
January 5, 2024 10
Division No. 3, 4
Location:
Spring Valley &
Chula Vista
CIP Projects in Construction
Olympic Parkway
Recycled Water Pipeline
Replacement (R2159)
Project will install
approximately 5,730
linear feet of 16-inch
recycled water line in
Olympic Parkway, and
removal/abandonment of
the existing 20-inch
recycled water line.
Budget: $6,000,000
NTP: March 25, 2024
Lead-time for high
pressure valves is longer
than expected. Received
mid-May.
Project is within budget 11
Chula Vista
Otay Ranch
High School
CIP Projects in Construction
RWCWRF Disinfection
System Improvements
(R2177 & R2157)
Project will replace existing
chlorine system
with Trojan UV system and
replacement of existing
filter backwash supply
pumps.
Combined
Budget: $4,775,000
NTP: April 8, 2024
Trojan UV system delivery
anticipated August 2024
Project is within budget
12
13
Mark outs
CIP Projects in Construction
2-28-24
2-28-24
Construction Contract Status
14
PRIOR YEARS Q1 Q2 Q3 %YTD %PROJECT TOTAL %
R2146 Recycled Water Pipeline Cathodic Protection Project
M-Rae Engineering, Inc.$537,560 $552,060 ($1,986)$0 $0 $0 0.0%$0 0.0%($1,986)-0.4%$535,574 $535,574 -3.0%100.0%July 2023
P2612 &
P2616
Paso de Luz/Telegraph
Canyon and Vista
Grande/Vista Sierra
Water Line Replacement
CCL
Contracting, Inc.$1,573,540 $1,627,440 $54,906 $0 $62,366 $0 0.0%$62,366 4.0%$117,272 7.5%$1,744,712 $1,744,712 7.2%100.0%October
2023
P2567 & P2614 1004-2 & 485-1 Reservoir Coating & Upgrades Unified Field Services Corp.$1,768,609 $1,857,865 $1,528 $0 $0 ($109,288)-6.2%($109,288)-6.2%($107,760)-6.1%$1,675,790 $1,675,789 -9.8%100.0%Feb 2024
P2682 Advanced Metering Infrastructure (AMI) Project OT Electrical $470,350 $495,650 $8,626 $0 $0 $0 0.0%$0 0.0%$8,626 1.8%$478,976 $478,976 -3.4%100.0%October 2023
R2159
Olympic Parkway
Recycled Water Pipeline
Replacement
Burtech
Pipeline, Inc.$3,756,210 $3,945,035 $0 $0 $0 $0 0.0%$0 0.0%$0 0.0%$3,756,210 $25,000 -4.8%0.7%Nov 2024
R2117 & R2157 RWCWRF Disinfection
System Improvements
GSE
Construction
Company, Inc.
$3,375,400 $3,491,400 $0 $0 $0 $0 0.0%$0 0.0%$0 0.0%$3,375,400 $53,336 -3.3%1.6%Dec 2025
TOTALS:$11,481,669 $11,969,450 $63,074 $0 $62,366 ($109,288)-1.0%($46,922)-0.4%$16,152 0.1%$11,566,662 $4,513,387 -3.4%
**THIS CHANGE ORDER RATE INCLUDES THE CREDIT FOR UNUSED ALLOWANCES
NET CHANGE ORDERS FY 2024*
*NET CHANGE ORDERS DO NOT INCLUDE ALLOWANCE ITEM CREDITS. IT'S A TRUE CHANGE ORDER PERCENTAGE FOR THE PROJECT
% CHANGE
ORDERS W/
ALLOWANCE
CREDIT**
%
COMPLETE
EST.
COMP.
DATE
NET CHANGE ORDERS LTD*
FY 2024 CIP CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS as of March 31, 2023
CURRENT
CONTRACT
AMOUNT
TOTAL
EARNED
TO DATE
CIP NO.PROJECT TITLE CONTRACTOR BASE BID
AMOUNT
CONTRACT
AMOUNT W/
ALLOWANCES
Consultant Contract Status
15
Consultant Contract Status
16
Consultant Contract Status
17
Consultant Contract Status
18
QUESTIONS?
19