Orange County Water District Groundwater Replenishment System Final Expansion Project
Addendum No. 6 Final Program Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement & CEQA-PLUS Federal Consultation Review
State Clearinghouse Number 98111030
Prepared By
Orange County Water District 18700 Ward Street Fountain Valley, CA 92708
August 2016
Orange County Water District Groundwater Replenishment System Final Expansion Project Addendum No. 6 Final Program Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement & CEQA-PLUS Federal Consultation Review State Clearinghouse Number 98111030
Prepared By Orange County Water District 18700 Ward Street Fountain Valley, CA 92708 Contact: Daniel Bott (714) 378-3256 [email protected]
In Association With Orange County Sanitation District Environmental Science Associates Pam Daily Associates Table of Contents
SECTION 1.0 INTRODUCTION...... 1-1 1.1 Purpose ...... 1-1 1.2 CEQA Review ...... 1-1 1.3 CEQA-Plus Federal Consultation Review ...... 1-2 1.4 Previous Environmental Documentation ...... 1-3 SECTION 2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ...... 2-1 2.1 Groundwater Replenishment System Overview ...... 2-1 2.2 Existing Study Area Setting ...... 2-1 2.3 Proposed Project ...... 2-3 2.4 Construction Phasing Plan ...... 2-11 2.5 Construction Equipment Mix ...... 2-12 2.4 Approval and Permits ...... 2-14 SECTION 3.0 CEQA ENVIRONMENTAL CHECK LIST ...... 3-1 SECTION 4.0 Environmental Analysis ...... 4-1 4.1 AESTHETICS ...... 4-2 4.1.1 Environmental Setting...... 4-2 4.1.2 Project Impacts ...... 4-17 4.1.3 Level of Impact ...... 4-27 4.2 AGRICULTURE/FOREST RESOURCES ...... 4-28 4.2.1 Environmental Setting...... 4-28 4.2.2 Project Impacts ...... 4-28 4.2.3 Level of Impact ...... 4-29 4.3 AIR QUALITY ...... 4-30 4.3.1 Environmental Setting...... 4-30 4.3.2 Project Impacts ...... 4-38 4.3.3 Level of Impact ...... 4-47 4.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ...... 4-48 4.4.1 Environmental Setting...... 4-48 4.4.2 Project Impacts ...... 4-54 4.4.3 Level of Impact ...... 4-58 4.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES ...... 4-59 4.5.1 Environmental Setting ...... 4-59 4.5.2 Project Impacts ...... 4-76 4.5.3 Level of Impact ...... 4-83 4.6 GEOLOGY/SOILS ...... 4-87 4.6.1 Environmental Setting...... 4-87 4.6.2 Project Impacts ...... 4-88 4.6.3 Level of Impact ...... 4-91 4.7 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS ...... 4-92
OCWD GWRS Final Expansion Project – Addendum No. 6 Final EIR/EIS & CEQA-PLUS Federal Consultation Review I
4.7.1 Environmental Setting...... 4-92 4.7.2 Project Impacts ...... 4-97 4.7.3 Level of Impact ...... 4-100 4.8 HAZARDS/HAZARDOUS MATERIALS ...... 4-101 4.8.1 Environmental Setting...... 4-101 4.8.2 Project Impacts ...... 4-102 4.8.3 Level of Impact ...... 4-105 4.9 HYDROLOGY/WATER QUALITY ...... 4-106 4.9.1 Environmental Setting...... 4-106 4.9.2 Project Impacts ...... 4-112 4.10.1 Environmental Setting ...... 4-123 4.10.2 Project Impacts ...... 4-124 4.10.3 Level of Impact ...... 4-127 4.11 MINERAL RESOURCES ...... 4-129 4.11.1 Environmental Setting ...... 4-129 4.11.2 Project Impacts ...... 4-129 4.11.3 Level of Impact ...... 4-130 4.12 NOISE ...... 4-131 4.12.1 Environmental Setting ...... 4-131 4.12.2 Project Impacts ...... 4-138 4.13 POPULATION/HOUSING ...... 4-150 4.13.1 Environmental Setting ...... 4-150 4.13.2 Project Impacts ...... 4-150 4.13.3 Level of Impact ...... 4-150 4.14 PUBLIC SERVICES ...... 4-152 4.14.1 Environmental Setting ...... 4-152 4.14.2 Project Impacts ...... 4-152 4.15 RECREATION ...... 4-155 4.15.1 Environmental Setting ...... 4-155 4.15.2 Project Impacts ...... 4-155 4.15.3 Level of Impact ...... 4-155 4.16 TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC ...... 4-156 4.16.1 Environmental Setting ...... 4-156 4.16.2 Project Impacts ...... 4-157 4.17 UTILITY SERVICE SYSTEMS ...... 4-161 4.17.1 Environmental Setting ...... 4-161 4.17.2 Project Impacts ...... 4-162 4.17.3 Level of Impact ...... 4-164 4.18 MANDANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE ...... 4-165
OCWD GWRS Final Expansion Project – Addendum No. 6 Final EIR/EIS & CEQA-PLUS Federal Consultation Review II
SECTION 5.0 ADDENDUM NO. 6 DETERMINATION ...... 5-1 SECTION 6.0 CEQA-Plus Federal Consultation Review ...... 6-1 6.1 Purpose ...... 6-1 6.2 Federal Endangered Species Act (ESA), Section 7 ...... 6-1 6.3 Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, Essential Fish Habitat: ...... 6-6 6.4 National Historic Preservation Act, Section 106 ...... 6-6 6.5 Federal Clean Air ...... 6-17 6.6 Coastal Zone Management Act ...... 6-19 6.7 Coastal Barriers Resources Act ...... 6-20 6.8 Farmland Protection Policy Act ...... 6-20 6.9 Flood Plain Management ...... 6-20 6.10 Migratory Bird Treaty Act ...... 6-21 6.11 Protection of Wetlands ...... 6-22 6.12 Wild and Scenic Rivers Act ...... 6-22 6.13 Safe Drinking Water Act, Sole Source Aquifer Protection ...... 6-23 6.14 Environmental Justice ...... 6-23 SECTION 7.0 REFERENCES ...... 7-1
TABLES
Table 1: Phase 1 – OCWD Treatment Capacity Expansion Construction Equipment Mix 2-12 Table 2: Phase 2 – OCSD Plant No. 2 Pump Station Construction Equipment Mix ...... 2-13 Table 3: Phase 3 – OCSD Pipeline Slip-Line Construction Equipment Mix ...... 2-13 Table 4: Phase 4 – OCSD Plant No.2 Headworks and Bypass Pipeline Construction Equipment Mix ...... 2-13 Table 5: Study Area Air Quality Data Summary 2012-2014 ...... 4-31 Table 6: South Coast Air Basin Attainment Status ...... 4-32 Table 7: SCAQMD Regional Air Quality Significance Thresholds ...... 4-37 Table 8: SCAQMD Localized Significance Thresholds ...... 4-37 Table 9: Proposed Regional Construction Emissions ...... 4-39 Table 10: Mitigated Regional Construction Emissions ...... 4-40 Table 11: Operational Emissions ...... 4-41 Table 12: Unmitigated Localized Daily Construction Emissions ...... 4-43 Table 13: Localized Operational Emissions ...... 4-44 Table 14: Special Status Plant Species ...... 4-49 Table 15: Special Status Wildlife Species ...... 4-51 Table 16: Estimated Total Construction-Related GHG Emissions ...... 4-97 Table 17: Estimated Construction and Operational related GHG Emissions ...... 4-98 Table 18: Beneficial Uses ...... 4-110
OCWD GWRS Final Expansion Project – Addendum No. 6 Final EIR/EIS & CEQA-PLUS Federal Consultation Review III
Table 19: Beneficial Uses Santa Ana River/Orange County Groundwater Basin ...... 4-111 Table 20: Water Quality Objectives (mg/L) ...... 4-112 Table 21: OCWD Water treatment Site Impervious Replaced ...... 4-115 Table 22: OCSD Wastewater Treatment Facility Site Impervious Replaced ...... 4-116 Table 23: Noise Levels and Human Response ...... 4-132 Table 24: City of Fountain Valley Exterior Noise Standards ...... 4-134 Table 25: City of Fountain Valley Interior Noise Standards ...... 4-135 Table 26: City of Huntington Beach Exterior Noise Standards ...... 4-136 Table 27: City of Huntington Beach Interior Noise Standards ...... 4-137 Table 28: Typical Maximum Construction Noise Levels ...... 4-139 Table 29: GWRS Site Construction Activity Noise Impacts ...... 4-140 Table 30: OCSD Plant No. 2 Construction Activity Noise Impacts ...... 4-141 Table 31: OCSD Easement Corridor Construction Activity Noise Impacts ...... 4-142 Table 32: GWRS Final Expansion Construction Truck Trips ...... 4-145 Table 33: Peak Particle Velocity (PPV) of Vibration Impacts ...... 4-146 Table 34: Decibel Notation (VDB) Levels of Vibration Impacts ...... 4-147 Table 35: GWRS Final Expansion Project Traffic Trips ...... 4-157 Table 36: Capacity of Orange County Landfills ...... 4-162 Table 37: Federal Listed Plant Species ...... 6-3 Table 38: Federal Listed Wildlife Species ...... 6-4 Table 39: Orange County Attainment Status ...... 6-18 Table 40: SIP Conformity Evaluation ...... 6-19
FIGURES
Figure 1: Study Area ...... 2-2 Figure 2: OCWD Water Treatment Site ...... 2-4 Figure 3: OCSD Plant 2 Wastewater Treatment Site ...... 2-5 Figure 4: Pipeline Access Locations ...... 2-9 Figure 5: Existing View ...... 4-3 Figure 6: Existing View ...... 4-4 Figure 7: OCSD Plant No. 2 Existing View ...... 4-6 Figure 8: Santa Ana River Bike Path Existing View ...... 4-7 Figure 9: Santa Ana River Bike Path Existing View ...... 4-8 Figure 10: Santa Ana River Bike Path Existing View ...... 4-9 Figure 11: OCSD Plant No. 2 Existing View ...... 4-10 Figure 12: OCSD Plant No. 2 Existing View ...... 4-11 Figure 13: Pipeline Access Existing View ...... 4-12 Figure 14: Pipeline Access Existing View ...... 4-13 Figure 15: Pipeline Access Existing View ...... 4-15 Figure 16: Pipeline Access Existing View ...... 4-16
OCWD GWRS Final Expansion Project – Addendum No. 6 Final EIR/EIS & CEQA-PLUS Federal Consultation Review IV
Figure 17: Project Viewsheds Santa Ana River Trail ...... 4-19 Figure 18: Project Viewsheds Santa Ana River Trail ...... 4-20 Figure 19: Project Viewsheds Talbert Park ...... 4-21 Figure 20: Project Viewsheds Pacific Coast Highway ...... 4-23 Figure 21: GWRS Microfiltration Building Expansion Proposed View ...... 4-25 Figure 22: Area of Potential Effects ...... 4-69 Figure 23: Existing Pump Station OCSD Plant 2 Wastewater Treatment Site ...... 4-78 Figure 24: FEMA Flood Hazard Areas OCSD Plant 2 Wastewater Treatment Site .. 4-118 Figure 25: FEMA Flood Hazard Areas OCWD Water Treatment Site ...... 4-119 Figure 26: FEMA Flood Hazard Areas Pipeline Access Locations ...... 4-120
Appendices
Appendix A Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Technical Report Appendix B Biological Assessment Appendix C Cultural Resources Study
OCWD GWRS Final Expansion Project – Addendum No. 6 Final EIR/EIS & CEQA-PLUS Federal Consultation Review V Executive Summary
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Purpose This document is Addendum No. 6 to the Program Environmental Impact Report/Tier I Environmental Impact Statement (Final EIR/EIS) and a CEQA-PLUS Federal Consultation Review for the Orange County Water District (OCWD) Groundwater Replenishment System (GWRS) Final Expansion Project. The GWRS is a joint water reclamation project sponsored by OCWD and the Orange County Sanitation District (OCSD) that takes secondary treated wastewater from OCSD Wastewater Treatment Facility Plant No. 1 and treats it to meet drinking water standards. The purpose of Addendum No. 6 is to evaluate the impacts associated with modifications to the GWRS Project involved with receiving treating wastewater flows from OCSD Plant No. 2 wastewater treatment site. Proposed Project The GWRS Final Expansion Project would produce approximately 25,000 AF of water supplies per year to help replenish the Orange County Groundwater basin. The additional wastewater flows from Plant No. 2 would increase the total water supplies of the GWRS to 128,000 acre feet per year. The GWRS Final Expansion Project involves seven construction activities; 1) increasing microfiltration capacity, 2) increasing reverse osmosis treatment capacity, 3) increasing ultraviolet treatment capacity, 4) increasing final product water capacity, 5) construction of an effluent pump station, 6) conversion of existing gravity pipeline to a pressurized pipeline and 7) demolition of existing plant pump station and construction of a new product pump station, separate headworks and bypass pipeline. The improvements proposed in the GWRS Final Expansion Project are shown in Figure 2 and Figure 3. Project Impacts Table ES-1 provides a summary of project impacts and mitigation measures and a determination on the level of project impacts after the incorporation of mitigation measures.
OCWD GWRS Final Expansion Project – Addendum No. 6 Final EIR/EIS & CEQA-PLUS Federal Consultation Review E-1 Executive Summary
Table ES-1 Executive Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures Impact Mitigation Measures Level of Impact After Mitigation Aesthetics AR-A Would the project have a substantial adverse No mitigation measures required. Less than significant impact effect on a scenic vista? AR-B: Would the project damage scenic resources, No mitigation measures required. Less than significant impact including but limited to trees, rock outpourings, and historic buildings within a State Highway?
AR-C: Would the project substantially degrade the AS-2: Provide compatible exterior architectural design Less than significant impact existing visual character or quality of the site and its treatments to pump stations, Ultra Violet treatment Buildings, surrounding? Reverse Osmosis Treatment Building, and the Microfiltration Treatment Building. Designs should blend well with existing office facilities onsite and surrounding uses.
AR-D: Would the project create a new source of AS-3: All onsite lighting shall be directed away from adjacent Less than significant impact substantial light or glare which would adversely residential, business uses and away from the Santa Ana River affect day or nighttime views in the area? right-of-way.
AS-4: During operation of the project if the onsite lighting creates a light and glare issue for sensitive receptors properties, OCWD will implement corrective measures to resolve the issue. Such corrective measures may include providing additional shielding on light fixtures, relocating lighting fixtures or reducing the lighting intensity.
Agriculture/Forest Resources
AG-A: Would the project convert Prime Farmland, No mitigation measures required. No impact Unique Farmland or Farmland of Statewide Importance to non-agriculture use as shown on the
OCWD GWRS Final Expansion Project – Addendum No. 6 Final EIR/EIS & CEQA-PLUS Federal Consultation Review E-2 Executive Summary
maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resource Agency?
AG-B: Would the project be in conflict with existing No mitigation measures required. No impact zoning for agriculture use or a Williamson Contract?
AG-C: Would the project be in conflict with existing No mitigation measures required. No impact zoning for, or cause rezoning of forest land, timberland, or timberland zoned for Timberland Production?
I AG-D: Would the project result in the loss of forest No mitigation measures required. No impact land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
AG-E: Would the project involve other changes in No mitigation measures required. No impact the existing environment, which due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of farmland to non-agriculture use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
AIR Quality
AIR-A: Would the project be in conflict with or No mitigation measures required. Less than significant impact obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan?
AIR-B: Would the project violate any air quality AQ-1: Construction Contractors shall use low Less than significant impact standard or contribute substantially to an existing or emission mobile construction equipment where projected air quality violation? feasible to reduce the release of undesirable emissions. Construction equipment shall use low sulfur fuels and shall be maintained in proper tune. Electric power shall be used to extend feasible.
OCWD GWRS Final Expansion Project – Addendum No. 6 Final EIR/EIS & CEQA-PLUS Federal Consultation Review E-3 Executive Summary
AQ-2: construction equipment on-site. Equipment shall be properly serviced and maintained in accordance with the manufacturer’s recommendations. Construction contractors shall ensure that all nonessential idling of construction equipment is restricted to five minutes or less in compliance with California Air Resources Board’s Rule 2449. AQ-3: Construction Contractors shall water active grading sites at least twice a day, and clean appropriate construction equipment in the morning and/or evening to reduce particulate emissions reduce (sic) the release of fugitive dust. AQ-4: Construction Contractors shall, as necessary, wash truck tires leaving the site to reduce the amount of particulate matter transferred to paved streets as required by SCAQMD Rule 403. AQ-6: Construction Contractors shall sweep on and off site streets if silt is carried over to adjacent public thoroughfares, as determined by the City Engineers in the affected jurisdictions to reduce the amount of particulate matter on public streets. AQ-7: Construction Contractors shall limit traffic speeds on all unpaved road surfaces to 15 miles per hour or less to reduce the release of fugitive dust. AQ-8: Construction Contractors shall suspend grading operations during first and second stage smog alerts and suspend all grading operations when wind speeds (as instantaneous gusts) exceed 25 miles per hour. AQ-9: Construction Contractors shall develop a traffic plan to minimize traffic flow interference from construction activities.
OCWD GWRS Final Expansion Project – Addendum No. 6 Final EIR/EIS & CEQA-PLUS Federal Consultation Review E-4 Executive Summary
AQ-11: All hauling trucks on and exiting the project site shall be covered and shall have at least one foot of free board. AQ-12a: Fleet Modernization for Construction During Schedule A: The construction contractor shall ensure that all off-road equipment with a horse power greater than 50 is certified as USEPA Tier 4 final engines or that engines are certified to meet or exceed the Tier 4 final emissions standards for USEPA Tier 4 final engines. Any emissions control device used by the contractor shall achieve emissions reductions that are no less than what can be achieved by a Level 4 diesel emissions control strategy for a similarly sized engine, as defined by CARB regulations. During construction, the contractor shall maintain a list of all operating equipment in use on the Project site for verification. The construction equipment list shall state the makes, models, and numbers of construction equipment on- site. Equipment shall be properly serviced and maintained in accordance with the manufacturer’s recommendations. Construction contractors shall ensure that all nonessential idling of construction equipment is restricted to five minutes or less in compliance with California Air Resources Board’s Rule 2449. AQ-12b: Fleet Modernization for Construction During Schedule B: The construction contractor shall ensure that all off-road equipment with a horse power greater than 50 is certified as USEPA Tier 4 interim engines or that engines are certified to meet or exceed the Tier 4 interim emissions standards for USEPA Tier 4 interim engines. Any emissions control device used by the contractor shall achieve emissions reductions that are no less than what can be achieved by a Level
OCWD GWRS Final Expansion Project – Addendum No. 6 Final EIR/EIS & CEQA-PLUS Federal Consultation Review E-5 Executive Summary
4 diesel emissions control strategy for a similarly sized engine, as defined by CARB regulations. During construction, the contractor shall maintain a list of all operating equipment in use on the Project site for verification. The construction equipment list shall state the makes, models, and numbers of construction equipment on-site. Equipment shall be properly serviced and maintained in accordance with the manufacturer’s recommendations. Construction contractors shall ensure that all nonessential idling of construction equipment is restricted to five minutes or less in compliance with California Air Resources Board’s Rule 2449.
AIR-C: Would the project result in cumulatively No mitigation measures required. Less than significant impact considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard?
AIR-D: Would the project expose sensitive receptors No mitigation measures required. Less than significant impact to substantial pollutant concentrations?
AIR-E: Would the project create objectionable odors No mitigation measures required. Less than significant impact affecting a substantial number of people?
Biological Resources
BIO-A: Would the project have a substantial adverse No mitigation measures required. Less than significant impact impact, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a
OCWD GWRS Final Expansion Project – Addendum No. 6 Final EIR/EIS & CEQA-PLUS Federal Consultation Review E-6 Executive Summary
candidate, sensitive or special status species in local or regional plans, policies or regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services?
BIO-B: Would the project have a substantial adverse No mitigation measures required. No impact impact on any riparian habitat or natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, and regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
BIO-C: Would the project adversely impact federally No mitigation measures required. No impact protected wetlands either individually or in combination with the known or probable impacts of other activities through direct removal, filling hydrological interruption, or other means?
BIO-D: Would the project interfere substantially with No mitigation measures required. Less than significant impact 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?
BIO-E: Would the project conflict with any local No mitigation measures required. No impact policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as tree preservation policy or ordinance?
BIO-F: Would the project be in conflict with No mitigation measures required. No impact provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local regional or state habitat conservation plan.
OCWD GWRS Final Expansion Project – Addendum No. 6 Final EIR/EIS & CEQA-PLUS Federal Consultation Review E-7 Executive Summary
Cultural Resources
CR-A: Would the project cause a substantial No mitigation measures required. No impact adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in Section 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines?
CR-B: Would the project cause a substantial CR-11: An Orange County Certified archaeologist shall be Less than significant impact adverse change in the significance of an present at the program pre-grading meeting to discuss the archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5 monitoring, collecting and safety procedures for the project. At of the CEQA Guidelines? that time, the archeologist shall review the construction plans and ensure that no construction activity will affect identified archeological of historic resources. CR-12: During program grading activities and Orange County Certified archaeologist shall be retained to conduct full-time monitoring in archaeologically sensitive areas to observe and retrieve any buried artifacts that may be uncovered. CR-14: If prehistoric artifacts or a buried deposit is uncovered, construction activities in the immediate area shall halt until a qualified archaeologist can evaluate the significance of the find. CR-15: A final monitoring report, including an itemized and pertinent field data, shall be sent to the OCWD/OCSD as well as copies of the report to the South Central Coastal Information at California State University Fullerton, Department of Anthropology (MH-426), and to the County of Orange, Public Facilities and Resources Department – Harbors Beaches & Parks Division. CR-16: Any recovered artifacts shall be properly collected with locations plotted on a USGS 7.5 topographic quadrangle with photographs and field notes of the find. Artifacts will be
OCWD GWRS Final Expansion Project – Addendum No. 6 Final EIR/EIS & CEQA-PLUS Federal Consultation Review E-8 Executive Summary
identified, and artifact catalog prepared, and artifacts stabilized for curation. Any recovered artifacts shall be offered, or a first right-of–refusal basis, to a repository with a retrievable collection system and an educational and research interest in the materials. The Anthropology Museum at California State University Fullerton would be an appropriate repository to receive any artifacts collected in the study area. CR-17: Prior to earth moving activities, a qualified archaeologist meeting the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards for archaeology (U.S. Department of the Interior, 2008) will conduct cultural resources sensitivity training for all construction personnel. Construction personnel shall be informed of the types of cultural resources that may be encountered, and of the proper procedures to be enacted in the event of an inadvertent discovery of archaeological resources or human remains. OCWD will ensure that construction personnel are made available for and attend the training and retain documentation demonstrating attendance. CR-18: Prior to the start of any ground-disturbing activities, OCWD will retain an archaeological monitor to observe all ground-disturbing activities. Archaeological monitoring will be conducted by a monitor familiar with the types of archaeological resources that could be encountered and shall work under the direct supervision of the qualified archaeologist. Monitoring may be reduced or discontinued by the qualified archaeologist, in coordination with OCWD, based on observations of subsurface soil stratigraphy and/or the presence of older C-horizon deposits. The monitor will be empowered to halt or redirect ground-disturbing activities away from the vicinity of a discovery until the qualified archaeologist has evaluated the discovery and determined appropriate treatment. The monitor will keep daily logs
OCWD GWRS Final Expansion Project – Addendum No. 6 Final EIR/EIS & CEQA-PLUS Federal Consultation Review E-9 Executive Summary
detailing the types of activities and soils observed, and any discoveries. After monitoring has been completed, the qualified archaeologist shall prepare a monitoring report that details the results of monitoring. The report shall be submitted to OCWD, SCCIC, and any Native American groups who request a copy. CR-20: In the event of the discovery of archaeological materials, OCWD or its contractor shall immediately cease all work activities in the area (within approximately 100 feet) of the discovery until it can be evaluated by the qualified archaeologist. Prehistoric archaeological materials might include obsidian and chert flaked-stone tools (e.g., projectile points, knives, scrapers) or tool-making debris; culturally darkened soil (“midden”) containing heat-affected rocks, artifacts, or shellfish remains; and stone milling equipment (e.g., mortars, pestles, handstones, or milling slabs); and battered stone tools, such as hammerstones and pitted stones. Historic-period materials might include stone or concrete footings and walls; filled wells or privies; and deposits of metal, glass, and/or ceramic refuse. Construction shall not resume until the qualified archaeologist has conferred with OCWD on the significance of the resource. SWRCB shall be afforded the opportunity to determine whether the discovery requires addressing under Section 106 Post-Review Discoveries provisions provided in 36 CFR 800.13. If it is determined that the discovered archaeological resource constitutes a historic property under Section 106 of the NHPA or a historical resource under CEQA, avoidance and preservation in place shall be the preferred manner of mitigation. Preservation in place maintains the important relationship between artifacts and their archaeological context and also serves to avoid conflict with traditional and religious
OCWD GWRS Final Expansion Project – Addendum No. 6 Final EIR/EIS & CEQA-PLUS Federal Consultation Review E-10 Executive Summary
values of groups who may ascribe meaning to the resource. Preservation in place may be accomplished by, but is not limited to, avoidance, incorporating the resource into open space, capping, or deeding the site into a permanent conservation easement. In the event that preservation in place is demonstrated to be infeasible and data recovery through excavation is the only feasible mitigation available, an Archaeological Resources Treatment Plan that provides for the adequate recovery of the scientifically consequential information contained in the archaeological resource shall be prepared and implemented by the qualified archaeologist in consultation with OCWD. The appropriate Native American representatives shall be consulted in determining treatment for prehistoric or Native American resources to ensure cultural values ascribed to the resource, beyond that which is scientifically important, are considered.
CR-C: Would the project disturb any human CR-13: If human remains are found during excavation the Less than significant impact remains, including those interred outside of formal steps listed below following the Native American Graves cemeteries? Protection Act guidelines and state law shall be followed: • Halt the work in the immediate area • Leave the remains in place • Contact the Orange County Water District project personnel and the Orange County Coroner • The remains are not to be removed until a representative of the Coroner’s office reviews the remains in the field • If the Coroner determines that the remains are prehistoric, the Coroner shall contact the Native American Heritage Commission and the most likely descendent from the Native American Community is
OCWD GWRS Final Expansion Project – Addendum No. 6 Final EIR/EIS & CEQA-PLUS Federal Consultation Review E-11 Executive Summary
to be informed • The final deposition of remains shall be coordinated by representatives of the property owner and the most likely descendent CR-19: Prior to issuance of a grading permit and prior to start of any ground-disturbing activities, OCWD will retain a Native American monitor to observe all ground-disturbing activities. The monitor shall be obtained from a Tribe that is traditionally and culturally affiliated with the area, according the NAHC list. The monitor shall be empowered to halt or redirect ground- disturbing activities away from the vicinity of a discovery until the qualified archaeologist has evaluated the discovery and determined appropriate treatment. Monitoring may be reduced or discontinued, in coordination with OCWD and the qualified archaeologist, based on observations of subsurface soil stratigraphy and/or the presence of older C-horizon deposits.
OCWD GWRS Final Expansion Project – Addendum No. 6 Final EIR/EIS & CEQA-PLUS Federal Consultation Review E-12 Executive Summary
CR-D: Would the project directly or indirectly disturb CR-1: An Orange County Certified paleontologist shall be Less than significant impact or destroy a unique paleontological resource or site? retained to produce a mitigation plan for the proposed project. CR-2: The paleontologist shall attend the pre-grading meeting to discuss the monitoring, collecting and safety procedures for the project and shall supervise the paleontological monitoring during earthmoving activities, including well boring in sensitive areas. CR-3: Historic peat bog deposits are not considered paleontological resources. However, should peat bogs be found during project construction activities, the area should be reviewed by a qualified archaeologist. The areas mapped as Quaternary or Holocene Alluvium shall be monitored on a periodic basis to insure older underlying sediments are not being penetrated. Artificial fill, disturbed soils and rock and slopewash will not require monitoring. CR-4: Screening of sediments shall also be conducted under the supervision of the paleontologist during monitoring because many significant vertebrate remains are small. Up to a six thousand pound matrix sample may be processed for any single locality as recommended in the guidelines in the Society of Vertebrate Paleontologists. CR-5: The paleontological monitor shall have the authority to temporarily divert or redirect grading to allow time to evaluate any exposed fossil material. CR-6: During monitoring any scientifically significant specimens shall be properly salvaged after evaluation by, and under the supervision of the paleontologist. During fossil salvage contextual stratigraphic data shall also be collected. This will include lithologic descriptions, localities plotted on a USGS 7.5 Series topographic quadrangle, photographs and field notes. Specimens shall be prepared tot eh point of
OCWD GWRS Final Expansion Project – Addendum No. 6 Final EIR/EIS & CEQA-PLUS Federal Consultation Review E-13 Executive Summary
identification , stabilized, identified and curated, suck as the Interpretive Center at Ralph Clark Regional park, an Orange County Facility, which shall have the first right-of-refusal of the collection, or the Los Angeles County Museum of Natural History. CR-7: A final report shall be prepared at the end of earth moving activities and shall include an itemized inventory of recovered fossils and appropriate stratigraphic and locality data. This report shall be sent to the Lead Agency, signifying the end of mitigation. Another copy shall accompany any recovered fossils, along with field logs and photographs, to the designated repository. CR-8: Full time monitoring shall be conducted during earth moving activities, including well drilling in any Pleistocene deposits. CR-21: Prior to the start of any ground-disturbing activities, OCWD shall retain a qualified paleontologist meeting the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology (SVP) Standards (SVP, 2010). The qualified paleontologist shall contribute to any construction worker cultural resources sensitivity training either in person or via a training module provided to the qualified archaeologist. The training session shall focus on the recognition of the types of paleontological resources that could be encountered within the project site and the procedures to be followed if they are found. The qualified paleontologist shall also conduct periodic spot checks in order to ascertain when older deposits are encountered and where monitoring shall be required. CR-22: Prior to the start of any ground-disturbing activities, OCWD shall retain a paleontological monitor to observe all ground-disturbing activities within older Quaternary deposits. Paleontological resources monitoring shall be performed by a
OCWD GWRS Final Expansion Project – Addendum No. 6 Final EIR/EIS & CEQA-PLUS Federal Consultation Review E-14 Executive Summary
qualified paleontological monitor, or cross-trained archaeological/paleontological monitor, under the direction of the qualified paleontologist. The monitor shall have the authority to temporarily halt or divert work away from exposed fossils in order to recover the fossil specimens. Monitoring may be reduced or discontinued by the qualified paleontologist, in coordination with OCWD, based on observations of subsurface soil stratigraphy and/or other factors and if the qualified paleontologist determines that the possibility of encountering fossiliferous deposits is low. The monitor shall prepare daily logs detailing the types of activities and soils observed, and any discoveries. The qualified paleontologist shall prepare a final monitoring a report to be submitted to OCWD and filed with the local repository. Any recovered significant fossils shall be curated at an accredited facility with retrievable storage. CR-23: If construction or other project personnel discover any potential fossils during construction, regardless of the depth or presence of a monitor, work in the vicinity (within 100 feet) of the find shall cease until the qualified paleontologist has assessed the discovery and made recommendations as to the appropriate treatment.
Geology
GEO-A1: Would the project expose people or No mitigation measures required. No impact structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury or death involving rupture of an unknown earthquake fault, as delineated on the most Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map?
GEO-A2: Would the project expose people or G-1: The OCWD will ensure that all structures for the selected Less than significant impact
OCWD GWRS Final Expansion Project – Addendum No. 6 Final EIR/EIS & CEQA-PLUS Federal Consultation Review E-15 Executive Summary
structures to potential substantial adverse effects, Groundwater Replenishment System, including the treatment including the risk of loss, injury or death involving and conveyance, components, are designed and constructed strong seismic ground shaking? in compliance with current engineering practices, including the California Uniform Building Code and all applicable seismic
engineering guidelines.
GEO-A3: Would the project expose people or Mitigation Measure G-1 required. Less than significant impact structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury or death involving liquefaction?
GEO-A4: Would the project expose people or No mitigation measures required. No impact structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury or death involving landslides?
IMPACT GEO-B: Would the project result in SW-7: Best Management Practices, including sandbagging Less than significant impact substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? manufactured channels or swales, diversion velocity dissipaters, de-silting basins, detention/retention ponds shall
be used to prevent sedimentation from the construction of the Groundwater Replenishment System. SW-9: Prior to the start of construction OCWD will obtain coverage under the General Construction Permit and will file Notice of Intent with the State Water Resources Control Board and prepare and implement a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan.
GEO-C: Would the project be located on a geologic Mitigation Measure G-1 required. Less than significant impact unit or soil that is unstable or that would become unstable as a result of the project and potentially result in on-or-off site landslide, lateral spreading liquefaction or collapse?
OCWD GWRS Final Expansion Project – Addendum No. 6 Final EIR/EIS & CEQA-PLUS Federal Consultation Review E-16 Executive Summary
GEO-D: Would the project be located on expansive Mitigation Measure G-1 required. Less than significant impact soil, as defined in Table 18-1 of the Uniform Building Code, creating substantial risks to life or property.
GEO-E: Would the project have soils incapable of No mitigation measures required. No impact adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater.
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
GHG-A: Would the project generate GHG emissions, No mitigation measures required. Less than significant impact either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?
GHG-B: Would the project conflict with plans and No mitigation measures required. Less than significant impact policies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions?
Hazards
HAZ-A: Would the project create a significant hazard HZ-1: The OCWD shall properly site, design, operate and Less than significant impact to the public or the environment through the routine maintain sodium hypochlorite storage tanks so as to minimize transport, use or disposal of hazardous materials? the potential for sudden releases in the event of a tank failure caused by seismic or other reasons in the project area. At a minimum the design of the tanks shall conform to standards and codes of the State of California and local jurisdictions affected by the project. HZ-2: The OCWD shall ensure that the proposed pipeline features, including pumping stations, recharge basins and water treatment facilities shall be designed, constructed, operated and maintained according to the most appropriate seismic standards and guidelines. At a minimum the design of
OCWD GWRS Final Expansion Project – Addendum No. 6 Final EIR/EIS & CEQA-PLUS Federal Consultation Review E-17 Executive Summary
the pipelines shall conform to standards and codes of the State of California and local jurisdictions affected by the project. HZ-6: Any use of hazardous materials involved with the GWRS Final Expansion Project must be conducted in accordance with applicable federal, state and local regulations.
HAZ-B: Would the project create a significant hazard HZ-3: An adequate seismic Emergency response Plan shall Less than significant impact to the public or the environment through reasonably be prepared by OCWD for each feature of the proposed foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving project including pipeline segment and injections wells. The the release of hazardous materials into the plan shall be approved by local agencies prior to operation of environment. each project phase. HZ-4: An adequate Emergency Response Plan shall be developed by the OCWD and approved by appropriate agencies to address disinfectant chemicals and other hazardous materials which will be used, stored and/or transported in association with the construction and operation of the proposed project. HZ-7: The OCWD shall develop an emergency response plan to address major release of chemicals used on the site. The emergency response plan shall be approved by the City of Fountain Valley Fire Department and Orange County Fire Department Hazardous Materials Response Units.
HAZ-C: Would the project emit hazardous emissions Mitigation Measure HZ-6 required. Less than significant impact or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substance or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?
OCWD GWRS Final Expansion Project – Addendum No. 6 Final EIR/EIS & CEQA-PLUS Federal Consultation Review E-18 Executive Summary
HAZ-D: Would the project be located on a site which No mitigation measures required. No impact is included on a list of hazardous material sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and as a result, would create significant hazard to the public or the environment?
HAZ-E: For a project located within an airport land No mitigation measures required. Less than significant impact use plan or where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project the result in a safety hazard for people residing or working within the project area?
HAZ-F: For a project within the vicinity of a private No mitigation measures required. No impact airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area.
HAZ-G: Would the project impair implementation of No mitigation measures required. No impact or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
HAZ-H: Would the project expose people or No mitigation measures required. No impact structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wild land fires, including where wild lands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wild lands?
Hydrology/Water Quality
HWQ-A: Would the project violate Regional Water No mitigation measures required. No impact Quality Control Board Water Quality standards or waste discharge standards?
OCWD GWRS Final Expansion Project – Addendum No. 6 Final EIR/EIS & CEQA-PLUS Federal Consultation Review E-19 Executive Summary
HWQ-B: Would the project substantially deplete GW-1: Should modeling and field studies indicate that any No impact groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with production wells are within the minimum distance and travel groundwater recharge such that there would be a time criteria for proximity to reclaimed water recharge or net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local injection, these wells shall be abandoned or limited to groundwater table? approved non-potable uses. Wells which are abandoned shall be replaced by new wells constructed outside to the area of influence.
HWQ-C: Would the project substantially alter the SW-7: Best Management Practices, including sandbagging Less than significant impact existing drainage pattern of the site or area, manufactured channels or swales, diversion velocity including through the alteration of the course of a dissipaters, de-silting basins, detention/retention ponds shall stream or river, in a manner which would result in be used to prevent sedimentation from the construction of the substantial erosion or siltation on-or off-site? Groundwater Replenishment System. SW-9: Prior to the start of construction OCWD will obtain coverage under the General Construction Permit and will file Notice of Intent with the State Water Resources Control Board and prepare and implement a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan.
HWQ-D: Would the project substantially alter the No mitigation measures required. Less than significant impact existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface run-off in a manner which would result in flooding on-or off-site?
HWQ-E: Would the project create or contribute Mitigation Measures SW-7 and SW-9 required Less than significant impact runoff which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff?
HWQ-F: Would the project otherwise degrade water Mitigation Measures SW-7and SW-9 required Less than significant impact
OCWD GWRS Final Expansion Project – Addendum No. 6 Final EIR/EIS & CEQA-PLUS Federal Consultation Review E-20 Executive Summary
quality?
HWQ-G: Would the project place housing within a No mitigation measures required. No impact 100-year floodplain, as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood insurance Rate map or other flood hazard delineation map?
HWQ-H: Would the project place within a 100-year No mitigation measures required. No impact floodplain structures which impedes or redirect flows?
HWQ-I: Would the project expose people or No mitigation measures required. Less than significant impact structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam?
HWQ-J: Would the project be exposed to inundation No mitigation measures required. Less than significant impact by seiche, tsunami or mudflow?
Land Use
L-A: Would the project physically divide an LU-9: The OCWD will provide residents, business and Less than significant impact established community? industry owners adjacent to the streets and the Santa Ana River levees where the project improvements are installed with a notice that project improvements will be made adjacent to their homes, businesses or industries. The project construction contractor will provide access to all residences, business and industries impacted by project activities. LU-14: Final construction documents and a copy of the project plans will be made available by the OCWD to interested and impacted Federal, State, County and City agencies to ensure compatibility with future land use scenarios. LU-15: The OCWD will notify appropriate County and City
OCWD GWRS Final Expansion Project – Addendum No. 6 Final EIR/EIS & CEQA-PLUS Federal Consultation Review E-21 Executive Summary
parks departments where the project will traverse or be directly adjacent to a County or City park. The parks department shall be provided with a written schedule for completion of project improvements adjacent to the park and the project contractor will provide access to the park during project construction activities. LU-16: The OCWD will notify appropriate school facilities where the project will potentially impact a school or access to a school. The school district shall be provided with a written schedule for completion of project improvements adjacent to the school and the project contractor will provide access to the school during project construction activities. LU-17: OCWD will negotiate construction easements with any affected property owners. Compensation for relocation or temporary relocation of property owners during project construction activities shall also be addressed in this agreement if necessary. LU-18: The OCWD will provide residents and business owners adjacent to streets and the Santa Ana Levees where the project improvements are installed with a written project construction schedule. The project construction shall provide access to these land uses during project construction activities.
L-B: Would the project be in conflict with any LU-19: Prior to construction of the project OCWD will obtain a Less than significant impact applicable land use plan, policy or regulation of an Coastal Development Permit from the City of Huntington agency with jurisdiction over the project adopted for Beach. the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?
L-C: Would the project be in conflict with any No mitigation measures required. No impact applicable habitat conservation plan or natural
OCWD GWRS Final Expansion Project – Addendum No. 6 Final EIR/EIS & CEQA-PLUS Federal Consultation Review E-22 Executive Summary
community conservation plan?
Mineral Resources
M-A: Would the project result in the loss of No mitigation measures required. No impact availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state?
M-B: Would the project result in the loss of No mitigation measures required. No impact availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use?
Noise
N-A: Would the project expose persons to or N-1: The construction Contractor shall be required to adhere Less than significant impact generation of noise levels in excess of standards to all Noise Ordinance provisions of the Cities of Fountain established in the local general plan or noise Valley and Huntington Beach. Additionally, noisy construction ordinance or applicable standards of other within 500 feet of existing homes shall be limited to the hours agencies? of 7 AM and 7 PM on weekdays, 7 AM to 6 PM on Saturdays and not any time on Sunday or Federal holidays. N-2: Barriers shall be installed around the noise sources or directly between the construction area and the nearest homes to shield these residents from direct noise exposure from construction activities. The height of the barriers is crucial in terms of effectiveness, the higher the barrier the more the noise reduction. Types of shielding include leaded blankets, an acoustic blanket, or several layers of plywood. N-3: Mufflers shall be used on all construction equipment. N-4: Construction techniques designed to reduce noise shall be implemented where feasible. Loud equipment shall be
OCWD GWRS Final Expansion Project – Addendum No. 6 Final EIR/EIS & CEQA-PLUS Federal Consultation Review E-23 Executive Summary
separated and grouped in one location. Areas reserved for testing and fixing of equipment shall be placed away from sensitive receptors. N-5: A detailed noise control plan shall be required to determine the need for any additional noise mitigation at the treatment plant site. The plan shall include post-construction monitoring to determine if the plan’s noise goals have been met. N-6: Prior to the commencement of construction and ongoing during construction, property owners/residents/businesses within and adjacent to construction activity shall be notified of the specific construction activity and associated schedule. Additionally, signs shall be posted at strategic locations within the project area. The notifications and signs shall identify the address, hotline number, and name of designated person to contact for the purpose of responding to questions or complaints during the construction period. The notifications and signs shall also identify the hours of permissible construction work and estimated duration.
N-B: Would the project result in a substantial Mitigation Measure N-5 required. Less than significant impact permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project?
N-C: Would the project result in a substantial Mitigation Measure N-1, N-2, N-3, N-4, and N-6 required. Significant impact temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project?
N-D: Would the project expose persons to or No mitigation measures required. Less than significant impact generation of excessive groundborne vibration or
OCWD GWRS Final Expansion Project – Addendum No. 6 Final EIR/EIS & CEQA-PLUS Federal Consultation Review E-24 Executive Summary
groundborne noise levels?
N-E: For a project located within an airport land use No mitigation measures required. Less than significant impact plan or where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?
N-F: For a project within the vicinity of a private No mitigation measures required. Less than significant impact airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?
Population/Housing
P-A: Would the project induce substantial population No mitigation measures required. No impact growth in an area, either directly or indirectly?
P-B: Would the project displace substantial numbers No mitigation measures required. No impact of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
Public Services
PS-A: Would the project result in substantial adverse PS-1: All school districts and private schools affected by Less than significant impact physical impacts associated with the provision of construction activities will be notified of construction schedules new or physically altered governmental facilities, to lessen potential impacts to instructional and transportation need for new or physically altered governmental services. Ample time will be provided so affected schools can facilities, the construction of which could cause prepare and plan for possible disruptions caused by project significant environmental impacts, in order to construction. maintain acceptable service ratios, response times PS-2: Construction contractors shall ensure that adequate or other performance objectives for fire protection barriers will be established to prevent pedestrians from police protection, schools, parks or other public entering open trenches of an active construction area.
OCWD GWRS Final Expansion Project – Addendum No. 6 Final EIR/EIS & CEQA-PLUS Federal Consultation Review E-25 Executive Summary
facilities? Warnings shall also be posted sufficient distances from the work area to allow pedestrians to cross the street at controlled intersections rather than having to jaywalk. PS-3: At the end of the work day, the construction contractor shall ensure that the work area has been secured to prevent pedestrians from waling into open trenches or other potentially dangerous environments. Measures may include covering the trenches and/or installing temporary fencing and safety lights. LU-15: The OCWD will notify appropriate County and City parks departments where the project will traverse or be directly adjacent to a County or City park. The parks department shall be provided with a written schedule for completion of project improvements adjacent to the park and the project contractor will provide access to the park during project construction activities. LU-16: The OCWD will notify appropriate school facilities where the project will potentially impact a school or access to a school. The school district shall be provided with a written schedule for completion of project improvements adjacent to the school and the project contractor will provide access to the school during project construction activities.
Recreation
R-A: Would the project increase the use of existing No mitigation measures required. Less than significant impact neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated?
R-B: Does the project include recreational facilities No mitigation measures required. No impact or require the construction or expansion of
OCWD GWRS Final Expansion Project – Addendum No. 6 Final EIR/EIS & CEQA-PLUS Federal Consultation Review E-26 Executive Summary
recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment?
Traffic/Transportation
T-A: Would the project be in conflict with an No mitigation measures required. Less than significant impact applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation including mass transit and non- motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrians and bicycle paths and mass transit.
T-B: Would the project be in conflict with an No mitigation measures required. Less than significant impact applicable congestion management program, including but not limited to level of service standards and travel demand measures, or other standards established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways?
T-C: Would the project result in a change in air traffic No mitigation measures required. No impact patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks?
T-D: Would the project increase hazards to a design TR-2: The construction contractor will be responsible for Less than significant impact feature or incompatible uses or equipment? preparing adequate detour and access plans to ensure the safe movement of vehicles and pedestrians during the construction period. These plans must ensure access to private property at all times.
OCWD GWRS Final Expansion Project – Addendum No. 6 Final EIR/EIS & CEQA-PLUS Federal Consultation Review E-27 Executive Summary
T-E: Would the project result in inadequate Mitigation Measure TR-2 required. Less than significant impact emergency access?
T-F: Would the project result in conflicts with Mitigation Measure TR-2 required. Less than significant impact adopted policies, plans or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities?
Utility Service Systems
US-A: Would the project exceed wastewater No mitigation measures required. No impact treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board?
US-B: Would the project require or result in the No mitigation measures required. No impact construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects?
US-C: Would the project require or result in the No mitigation measures required. Less than significant impact construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects?
US-D: Are sufficient water supplies available to No mitigation measures required. No impact serve the project from existing entitlements and resources or new or expanded entitlements needed?
US-E: Would the project result in the determination No mitigation measures required. No impact by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate
OCWD GWRS Final Expansion Project – Addendum No. 6 Final EIR/EIS & CEQA-PLUS Federal Consultation Review E-28 Executive Summary
capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the providers existing commitments?
US-F: Is the project served by a landfill with U-9: OCWD and OCSD shall investigate all available Less than significant impact sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the alternatives, and then select the best method of solid waste project solid waste disposal need? disposal and reduction of solid waste stream as required in the California Integrated Waste Management Act prior to the start of construction.
US-G: Would the project comply with federal, state Mitigation Measure U-9 required. Less than significant impact and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste?
OCWD GWRS Final Expansion Project – Addendum No. 6 Final EIR/EIS & CEQA-PLUS Federal Consultation Review E-29 Section 1
SECTION 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Purpose This document is Addendum No. 6 to the Program Environmental Impact Report/Tier I Environmental Impact Statement (Final EIR/EIS) and a CEQA-PLUS Federal Consultation Review for the Orange County Water District (OCWD) Groundwater Replenishment System (GWRS) Final Expansion Project. The GWRS is a joint water reclamation project sponsored by OCWD and the Orange County Sanitation District (OCSD) that takes secondary treated wastewater from OCSD Wastewater Treatment Facility Plant No. 1 and treats it to meet drinking water standards. The purpose of Addendum No. 6 is to evaluate the impacts associated with modifications to the GWRS Project involved with receiving treating wastewater flows from OCSD Plant No. 2 wastewater treatment site and comparing them to the level of impacts identified in the Final EIR/EIS. 1.2 CEQA Review Addendum No. 6 to Orange County Water District Groundwater Replenishment System Final EIR/EIS has been prepared in accordance with Section 15164 California Environmental Quality Act CEQA Guidelines. Pursuant to Section 15367 of the CEQA Guidelines, OCWD is the Lead Agency and has the principal responsibility of approving and implementing the GWRS Final Expansion Project. The State CEQA Guidelines, 14 Cal. Code Regs. §15164, provides that an addendum is the appropriate document to identify and analyze minor modifications to a project for which an EIR has been prepared and certified. An addendum may be prepared if the minor modifications do not pose additional significant impacts or require the preparation of a Subsequent or Supplemental EIR: “The lead agency or responsible agency shall prepare an addendum to a previously certified EIR if some changes or additions are necessary but none of the conditions described in Section 15162 calling for the preparation of a subsequent EIR have occurred.” (CEQA Guidelines Section 15164 (a)) CEQA Guidelines Section 15164(e) requires that an addendum to a previously certified EIR include an explanation as to why a subsequent EIR or a supplement to a previously certified EIR is not necessary. CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a) sets forth the following three criteria that require the preparation of a subsequent EIR or supplement to EIR: (1) Substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions in the previous EIR or negative declaration due to the involvement
OCWD GWRS Final Expansion Project – Addendum No. 6 Final EIR/EIS & CEQA-PLUS Federal Consultation Review 1-1 Section 1
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 previous EIR or negative declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects. (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 previous EIR, was certified as complete or the negative declaration was adopted, shows any of the following: (A) The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR; (B) Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the previous 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 analyzed in the previous EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative. 1.3 CEQA-Plus Federal Consultation Review The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency sponsors the State Revolving Fund (SRF) Loan Program to provide funding for construction of public-owned treatment facilities and water reclamation projects. This funding for capital for wastewater treatment and water recycling facilities is authorized under the Clean Water Act. As a water recycling project, the proposed GWRS Final Expansion Project is eligible for SRF funding. In order to comply with requirements of the SRF Loan Program, which is administered by State Water Resources Control Board in California, a CEQA document must fulfill additional requirements known as CEQA-Plus. The CEQA-Plus requirements have been established by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and are intended to supplement the CEQA Guidelines with specific requirements for environmental documents acceptable to the State Water Resources Control Board when reviewing applications for SRF loans. Federal consultation must be completed before an SRF funding agreement can be approved by the State Water Resources Control Board. The
OCWD GWRS Final Expansion Project – Addendum No. 6 Final EIR/EIS & CEQA-PLUS Federal Consultation Review 1-2 Section 1
CEQA-Plus Federal Consultation Review analysis provided in Section 6.0 has been prepared to supplement Addendum No. 6 to the Final EIR/EIS prepared for the GWRS Final Expansion Project. 1.4 Previous Environmental Documentation CEQA The Final EIR/EIS for the GWRS was certified by OCWD and OCSD in March of 1999. Since certification of the Final EIR/EIS minor modifications have occurred during the design of the GWRS Project. To respond these minor modifications a series of Addendums to the Final EIR/EIS have been approved. Addendum No. 1 Addendum 1 was approved in March of 2001. Addendum No. 1 evaluated potential impacts associated with the following modifications to the GWRS Project: • Construction of discharge pipeline that extends from the OCWD and OCWD treatment plant to the Santa Ana River. • Construction of an outfall structure along the Santa Ana River. Addendum No. 2 Addendum No. 2 was approved in January of 2002. Addendum No.2 evaluated potential impacts associated with the following modifications to the GWRS Project: • Constructing the GWRS pipeline along the western levee of the Santa Ana River as opposed to constructing it along the eastern levee. • Connecting the seawater barrier system to an existing potable water supply pipeline located within the Adams Avenue right-of-way. • Establishment of a construction staging area and temporary staging area and temporary mobile office park on OCWD property. • Amending the maximum height of silos within reverse osmosis treatment facility from 40 feet to 55 feet. Addendum No. 3 Addendum No. 3 was approved in November 2003. Addendum No. 3 evaluated potential impacts associated with the following changes to the GWRS Project: • Incorporation of hydrogen peroxide storage and feed facilities into the treatment process. • The use of piles for the foundation of major treatment facilities. • The incorporation of two additional injection wells into the project.
OCWD GWRS Final Expansion Project – Addendum No. 6 Final EIR/EIS & CEQA-PLUS Federal Consultation Review 1-3 Section 1
• Connection of Santa Ana River discharge pipeline to OCWD treated wastewater pipelines discharging to the ocean outfall. Addendum No. 4 Addendum No. 4 was approved in February 2005. Addendum 4 evaluated potential impacts associated with the construction of a 41,000 square foot laboratory facility on the OCWD water treatment site. Addendum No. 5 CEQA-Plus Federal Consultation Review CEQA-Plus Federal Consultation Review was prepared in February of 2011 to supplement Addendum No. 5 the GWRS Final EIR/EIS. The CEQA-Plus Federal Consultation Review 5 evaluated a design modification to the GWRS that involved the construction of two flow equalization storage tanks on the Orange County Sanitation District Plant 1 wastewater treatment facility site. Addendum No. 6 CEQA-Plus Federal Consultation Review Addendum No. 6 evaluated a design modification to the GWRS that involved treating wastewater flows from OCSD Plant 2 water treatment site. The additional wastewater flows from Plant 2 would provide an additional 25,000 acre feet of new water supplies and would increase the total water supplies of the GWRS to 128,000 acre feet per year.
OCWD GWRS Final Expansion Project – Addendum No. 6 Final EIR/EIS & CEQA-PLUS Federal Consultation Review 1-4 Section 2
SECTION 2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 2.1 Groundwater Replenishment System Overview The Groundwater Replenishment System (GWRS) is an advanced water treatment facility constructed by the Orange County Water District (OCWD) and the Orange County Sanitation District (OCSD) that supplements local water supplies by providing reliable, high quality source of treated water to recharge the Orange County Groundwater Basin and to protect the Orange County Groundwater Basin from seawater intrusion. The GWRS consists of three major components: an advanced water purification facility and pumping stations, a major pipeline connecting the treatment facilities to existing recharge basins and an existing seawater intrusion barrier. The GWRS has been designed to be implemented in three construction phases. Phase I was implemented and produced approximately 70,000 acre feet per year (AFY) of new water supplies from 2008 through 2014. Phase 2 is currently operational and produces with Phase 1, approximately 103,000 AFY new water supplies to help replenish the Orange County Groundwater Basin. The GWRS Final Expansion Project would produce approximately 25,000 AF of water per year. Together Phase I through Phase III (Final Expansion) would produce up to 128,000 AFY of new water supplies. The GWRS Final Expansion Project proposes; 1) increasing microfiltration capacity, 2) increasing reverse osmosis treatment capacity, 3) increasing ultraviolet treatment capacity, 4) increasing final product water capacity, 5) construction of an effluent pump station, 6) conversion of existing gravity pipeline to a pressurized pipeline and 7) demolition of existing plant pump station and construction of product pump station, separate headworks and bypass pipeline. 2.2 Existing Study Area Setting The proposed GWRS Final Expansion Project would occur on the existing OCWD GWRS water treatment site and OCSD Plant No. 2 wastewater treatment site and along OCSD utility easement corridor. As shown in Figure 1, these three locations collectively comprise the study area for the GWRS Final Expansion Project. The OCWD GWRS water treatment site (GWRS Site) is located at 18700 Ward Street within the City of Fountain Valley. The site is bounded by Ward Street to the east, Ellis Avenue to the north and OCSD Plant No. 1 wastewater treatment site to the south and east. The GWRS Site encompasses 22 acres of area and includes a mix of single story and multiple story structures, water treatment facilities and supporting access ways and parking areas. The GWRS Site is situated within an urbanized area and is surrounded by a mixture of commercial, residential and wastewater treatment land uses. The surrounding area is generally built out.
OCWD GWRS Final Expansion Project – Addendum No. 6 Final EIR/EIS & CEQA-PLUS Federal Consultation Review 2-1 SUNFLOWER AVE ELLIS AVE ELLIS AVE
SOUTH COAST DR WARD ST WARD
NEWLANDST GARFIELD AVE GISLER AVE OCSD OCWD Plant No. 1 MAGNOLIA AVE GWRS Facility
D YORKTOWN AVE E R BAKER ST RD VE A S E M BROOKHURSTST ADAMS AVE OCSD Easement Corridor
HARBORBLVD INDIANAPOLIS AVE
FAIR DR BUSHARDST
NEWLANDST
ATLANTA AVE
WILSON ST
Santa Ana River
MAGNOLIA AVE
VICTORIA ST HAMILTON AVE
BANNING AVE 19TH ST
PLACENTIA AVE NEWPORT BLVD
1 17TH ST 17TH ST
OCSD Plant No. 2
15TH ST Path: I:\SS\Bott\GWRS_Expansion\F1_SiteLocation.mxd
0 1,000 2,000 GWRS Final Expansion Project Feet Study Area Figure 1 Section 2
The OCSD Plant No. 2 Site is located at 22212 Brookhurst Street within the City of Huntington Beach. OCSD Plant No. 2 site is composed of 110 acres, and is developed with wastewater treatment structures, offices and paved parking areas and roadways. The site is bounded by Hamilton Avenue to the north, Brookhurst Street to the west, Talbert Marsh and Talbert Marsh Bike Trail to the south and the Santa Ana River and the Santa Ana River Trail to the east. The OCSD easement corridor is 3.5 mile utility easement that extends from OCSD Plant No. 2 Site to OCSD Plant No. 1 Site. The easement corridor is vacant and is composed of mostly of bare land and non-native weeds. To the east of easement is the Santa Ana River Trail. To the west of the easement corridor are a combination of public utilities, community gardens, container plant nursery, and park sites. 2.3 Proposed Project The GWRS Final Expansion Project involves seven construction activities; 1) increasing microfiltration capacity, 2) increasing reverse osmosis treatment capacity, 3) increasing ultraviolet treatment capacity, 4) increasing final product water capacity, 5) construction of an effluent pump station, 6) conversion of existing gravity pipeline to a pressurized pipeline and 7) demolition of existing plant pump station and construction of product pump station and construction of a separate headworks and bypass pipeline. The improvements proposed in the GWRS Final Expansion Project are shown in Figure 2 and Figure 3. Microfiltration Capacity The GWRS Final Expansion Project would increase the microfiltration (MF) treatment capacity by approximately 45 MGD. The expansion of the MF facility involves construction of twelve new treatment basins increasing the overall number of treatment basins from thirty-six (36) to forty-eight (48). The proposed expansion would extend the 40 foot tall microfiltration building into an adjacent existing parking area. The construction of the twelve new basins would occur by increasing the size of the microfiltration building and basement, which houses most of the actual MF equipment. The MF basement includes all piping, valves, pumps, instruments, and control panels. The basement would be expanded by excavating an area of approximately 88-feet in length by 165-feet wide to a depth of 25-feet from the finished grade. A total of 13,500 cubic yards of material would be exported offsite. It is estimated that a total 6 dump trumps, each doing 4 round trips, would occur over an 8 week period (total of 960 round trip truck trips) to haul the excavated soil.
OCWD GWRS Final Expansion Project – Addendum No. 6 Final EIR/EIS & CEQA-PLUS Federal Consultation Review 2-3 ST ID CL EU ELLIS AVE
MF Building Expansion Orange County & Equipment Installation Water District
RO Transfer Pump (Install) Orange County Sanitation District
Chemical Tank & Pump Expansion
RO Equipment (Install)
WARD ST WARD
Finished Product Water Pump (Install)
Decarb Tower (Install)
UV Equipment (Install)
GARFIELD AVE GISLER AVE
OCSD Pipe Connection to Existing Facilities Path: I:\SS\Bott\GWRS_Expansion\F2_OCWDImprovements.mxd
GWRS Final Expansion Project 0 500 1,000 Proposed Expansion Improvements Feet OCWD Water Treatment Site Figure 2 ST ORIA HAMILTON AVE VICT
ST
RD
A
H
S
U
B
Contractor Laydown Area
BANNING AVE
URST ST
Construction: OOKH BR Headworks r e
iv
Construction: Ana R a t OCSD Pipeline Bypass Pipeline an S Connection
Demolition: Existing Pump Station Construction: OCSD Plant No 2 Pump Station Orange County Sanitation District Construction: OCSD Plant Water Pump Station
1 Path: I:\SS\Bott\GWRS_Expansion\SplitProject\F3_OCSDArea.mxd
Excavation Structure GWRS Final Expansion Project Staging Pipeline Area Map OCSD Plant 2 Wastewater Treatment Site
0 500 1,000 Figure 3 Feet Section 2
In the excavated area, a foundation would be built including installation of foundation piles. To construct the foundation pilings, 12-inch diameter holes would be drilled into the ground with an auger drill rig. Once the pile drilling is completed, the rebar support cages for the piles would be installed into the drilled holes with a crane. Twelve new concrete treatment basins would then be constructed on this foundation. The foundation piles would be comprised of approximately 50 piles at 12-inch diameter each and approximately 70-feet deep. This equates to a total of 2,765 CY of concrete for the piles. For the piles, five concrete trucks, six round trips per day over a period of 10 days would be required. Each basin would be installed with a centrifugal pump, associated piping, and other appurtenances. These twelve new treatment basins would make up a one and a half new treatment trains that would be added to the existing two trains within the MF West Building. Additionally, at this time most of the electrical equipment associated with the new treatment basins would be added to the new expanded MF West Electrical Building. This equipment includes control panels, motor control centers, switchgear, and variable frequency drives. The total building construction period would be 70 weeks of which 30 weeks would involve the use of heavy construction equipment. The construction of the facility would require the use of various types of construction equipment including, two excavators, one mobile crane, two bull dozers, four fork lifts, five man lifts, ten dump trucks, one cast-in place pile driver machine, and two water trucks. To build the basement facility, 1,600 CY of concrete would be required, which correlates to approximately five trucks that each do four round truck trips per day over a 2 week period. Therefore, a total of 200 round trip truck trips would be needed to haul the concrete. The MF product water or effluent would be discharged into an existing 2 million gallon underground concrete reservoir commonly referred to as a break tank. This reservoir contains two sets of vertical turbine pumps. One set (6 existing pumps) would be used for pumping MF product water back to the MF facility for a backwashing process. The other set of pumps (6 existing pumps) would be used to transfer the MF product water from the reservoir to the Reverse Osmosis (RO) Facility. As part of the final expansion, two new 200 horsepower vertical turbine pumps would be installed in the existing break tank facility to pump MF product water back to the MF facility for the backwash process. The break tank facility already has pump slots constructed for these two new pumps, and therefore the construction work for these pumps only involves lifting the pumps into the slots and connecting up the piping and electrical. The mix of construction equipment and hours of operation are shown in Table 1. Reverse Osmosis Treatment Capacity The GWRS Final Expansion Project would increase the Reverse Osmosis (RO) treatment capacity by approximately 30 MGD. The GWRS Initial Expansion Project (Phase II) included the construction of the new RO building. For the GWRS Final
OCWD GWRS Final Expansion Project – Addendum No. 6 Final EIR/EIS & CEQA-PLUS Federal Consultation Review 2-6 Section 2
Expansion Project, there would be room inside the existing building to install the six new RO treatment trains. The building basement would also have room to house all the process equipment piping and electric cables for operating the trains. The treatment train equipment includes pressure vessels, RO membranes, RO feed pumps, and associated piping for each train. The new equipment for the six new trains would be tied into the existing piping for the expansion. The RO electric building would have space to house the new control panels, motor control centers, switchgear and variable frequency drives for the new trains. Equipment required for this phase would include; one crane, two fork lifts and a man lift. The mix of construction equipment and hours of operation are shown in Table 1. Ultraviolet Treatment Capacity The GWRS Final Expansion Project would increase the Ultraviolet Light (UV) Treatment capacity by approximately 30 MGD. The GWRS Final Expansion Project would involve the installation of three additional treatment trains. Each train would consist of three steel vessels containing 432 total ultraviolet light lamps. Each vessel would be equipped with two electrical panels, feed and product piping, valves and instruments. For the final expansion project, the existing concrete pad and canopy would be sized to house the three new trains. Therefore, only the equipment for each of the three trains would need to be installed in their designated areas. Equipment required for this phase would include one crane, one fork lift and two man lifts. The mix of construction equipment and hours of operation are shown in Table 1. Final Product Water Capacity In addition to the main process area expansion, the GWRS Final Expansion Project would also expand in the chemical and final product water facilities. As part of the final expansion project, one additional decarbonation tower would be added to the existing decarbonation area. The concrete pad for the decarbonation tower is already constructed and coated and to install the equipment only a crane would be required. An additional pump would also be added to the existing product water pump station. The pump would be a 2,000 horsepower vertical turbine pump installed within an existing pump station building with a slot already in place. The construction activities for the pump would require lifting the pump into the slot with a crane and connecting the piping and electrical components. Additionally, as part of the GWRS Final Expansion Project, a new sulfuric acid 32,000 gallon chemical tank and associated chemical pump would be added. The existing chemical containment area has a concrete tank pad dedicated for the new tank and pump. The construction activities for the tank and pump would require lifting the tank and pump into the existing chemical containment area and connecting the piping and electrical components. The mix of construction equipment and hours of operation are shown in Table 1.
OCWD GWRS Final Expansion Project – Addendum No. 6 Final EIR/EIS & CEQA-PLUS Federal Consultation Review 2-7 Section 2
Construction of OCSD Plant No. 2 Effluent Pump Station To convey water flows within the existing OCSD pipeline to the GWRS Site, a pump station would need to be constructed. This is the OCSD Plant No. 2 Effluent Pump Station. The location of the pump station is shown in Figure 3. The Effluent Pump Station would have 4 pumps (3-duty and 1-standby) with the capacity to pump 30 MGD each. The pumps would be housed in a new concrete pump house, approximately 100- feet length x 50-feet in width x 20-feet in height with a 25-foot deep wet well. In addition to the Effluent Pump Station and second smaller Plant Water Pump Station would need to be constructed during this construction phase. The Plant Water Pump Station serves OCSD’s Plant No. 2 with water for their centrifuge operations. The Plant Water Pump Station would have 4-plant water pumps housed in a 48-ft x 58-ft x 20-ft high concrete building. The concrete wet well for the pumps is estimated to be 25-ft deep. In addition to the building, the Plant Water Pump Station requires a 1-ft thick 30-ft x 42-ft concrete pad for the strainer equipment. The construction of the these two pump station facilities would require the use of various types of construction equipment including, excavators, mobile cranes, compactor, bull dozers, fork lifts, man lifts, dump trucks, concrete trucks and a water truck. For the clearing and excavation of both pump station sites, approximately 4760 CY of soil would need to be hauled off-site. This would require 4 dump trucks doing five round trips each a day for 17 days to complete the excavation. To build both pump station facilities, 340 CY of concrete would be required, which correlates with approximately 3 concrete trucks doing three round trips per day over a 4 day period. The mix of construction equipment and hours of operation are shown in Table 2. Existing OCSD Slip-Lining Pipeline The source water for the GWRS Final Expansion Project would come from both of the treatment plants owned and operated by the Orange County Sanitation District (OCSD). Facilities are already in place to receive source water, secondary effluent, from OCSD’s Plant No. 1 wastewater treatment facility site. However, to provide up to an additional 60 MGD of source water for the GWRS Final Expansion Project, OCWD would need to receive additional wastewater flows from OCSD Plant No. 2 wastewater treatment facility site. To convey the wastewater flows to GWRS water treatment site an existing 3.5 mile 66-inch gravity concrete reinforced pipe (CRP) would be slip-lined to become a 58-inch HDPE (High Density Polyethylene) pressure pipeline. The existing pipeline is located along an OCSD easement corridor which extends west of the Santa River levee. The slip-lining of the pipeline would be completed by excavating a10 feet wide x 10 feet long x 5 feet in depth area to expose the pipeline to allow entry into the pipe to slip-line the existing pipeline. As shown in Figure 4, a total of eight access locations are proposed. To connect the pipeline to the new pump station on the OCSD Plant No. 2,
OCWD GWRS Final Expansion Project – Addendum No. 6 Final EIR/EIS & CEQA-PLUS Federal Consultation Review 2-8 PUA DR SUNTAN CIR LAPWORTH
LN CIR
KIPAHULU KUKUI DR BIKINI LN SIGNET CIR
AQUATICLN MOOREA LN UPLAND DR DRAGON CIR ENDEVER DR SPINDRIFT LN 8 EL CAPITAN LN
STARBOARD NATIONALLN CHANCE CIR KAMUELA DR CIR
N L
SPARKMAN LN KITE DR SKIMMER LN E
HALAWA DR G
ATLANTA R
QUEENSPARK LN
U
AVE S
WARD ST WARD COOK CIR ATLANTA AVE
FIJI LN PAGO TOBAGO LN PAGO CIR
MAUNA LN
CIR PITCAIRN LN CORNERBROOK DR DANA DR GALBAR
CHRISTMAS DR HAGERSTOWN CIR
STRATHMOOR LN COCOBANA LN SPRIT CIR 3 FORRESTAL YORKTOWN AVE DR MONITOR DR
AMBERWICK LN SPAR CIR
VALLEY SHANGRI CIR FORGE DR LA DR ARAGON EFFINGHAM DR
BINGHAMPTONCIR
INDEPENDENCE LN
MERRIMAC DR BLUE REEF DR MONTE SEACOVE LAS ARENAS WY CANBERRA LN CARLO CIR 7 KORNAT DR DR CONSTITUTION DR PACIFICAVE PORT JAMAICA CONSTELLATIONLN ROYAL CIR CIR VILLA LEMNOS DR PACIFIC DR LURLINE DR INROZ BROOKHAVEN HARBOR DR VICTORIA ST SHALOM DR Santa Ana River CIR POINT CIR BALTRA PL
N MATSONIALN CUTTY SARK DR L MAURETANIA SUNSTAR
HULL N CIR BROOKBAY CIR CIR
T DR O
T
VERDE MAR DR S T GREENSPRAYLN G BALEARIC DR S
N VALLEY RD
I T RIA X ORONSAY CIR O S SEA E CT EUROPA DR I L V N CAPELLA CT HAMILTON AVE R BLUFF DR
RAMSGATE LN
MARGATE LN U 2 G L H E N K A E S CAPELLA CT V T AG O I E L RANGER LN E ES M R
O
CARMANIALN T O E R
SAINTJOHN LN E
SHANTARDR R 6 CALVERT AVE R
B PICCADILLY LN ADAMS AVE
VALLEY ADAMS AVE RD
N FLAMINGO DR
L
E M
N T
A
A O
R L
I AN G S IC L EL L P C A W GOLDENEYE PL L O P R
A ALBATROSS DR
C
L NIAGARA DR R D
D D JILL DR R R OCEANCREST DR WESLEY E MANDARIN DR
CIR P I VIVA CIR SHOREBREEZE P MIDLAND LN D DR BAYBREEZE N
TANBARK A DR CIR S PHALAROPE CT MEREDITH DR
SWAN DR JON DAY DR LN
BROOK DR ONY N ST L
D HARBORBREEZE
N O D DR L O O R HWO W 5 C E N BIR BANNING M E I
V A A AVE R DR R ILET C CRA
WARWICK DR
CYNTHIA DR
BEVERLY DR
THESEUS DR LAVONNE LN
EDYE DR 4 1
CLIFF DR
Santa Ana River
SPINDRIFT LN Path: I:\SS\Bott\GWRS_Expansion\F4_PipelineAccessLocations.mxd
GWRS Final Expansion Project Pipeline Access Locations Pipeline Access Locations
0 1,000 2,000 Figure 4 Feet Section 2 approximately 100-feet of 54-inch steel pipe would need to be constructed. Additionally, to connect the pipeline to the GWRS Site, approximately 100 feet of 54-inch steel pipe would need to be installed by trenching and backing filling on GWRS water treatment facility. The construction equipment to slip-line and install new portions of the pipeline would include; an excavator, backhoe, and a portable welding machine on a pick-up truck. Delivery of the pipeline materials would come to the site in a flatbed truck. A total of two flatbed truck trips per day would occur over a 25 day period for 50 total haul trips. To minimize construction noise impacts at school facilities within the study area, the operation of heavy equipment near school sites would only occur when school would not be in cession. The mix of construction equipment and hours of operation are shown in Table 3. OCSD Plant No. 2 Demolition of Existing Plant Pump Station, Construction of Separate Headworks and Bypass Pipeline The majority of the wastewater flows from OCSD Plant No. 2 Site are needed as source water to meet the demands of the GWRS Final Expansion Project. Currently, OCSD Plant No. 2 receives reject concentrated brine waters from treatment processes from the Inland Water Agencies. These concentrated reject flows, i.e. brines, are currently not allowed to be recycled through the GWRS project per the Division of Drinking Water Permit for GWRS. Therefore, a separate headworks facility and a bypass pipeline would need to be constructed on OCSD’s Plant No. 2 that would segregate the brine flows from the typical influent domestic wastewater flows to Plant No. 2. The bypass pipeline would be a 66-inch Reinforced Concrete Pipe (RCP) with an alignment that runs approximately 200-feet around the existing headworks for Plant No. 2. Connected to the bypass pipeline would be a new separate headworks facility, including a screenings building (65-ft x 55-ft x 20-ft deep) and a grit basin building (40-ft x 65-ft x 20-ft deep). Also along the bypass pipeline alignment would be a 20-ft deep concrete metering vault with vault dimensions of 100-ft x 14-ft. The excavation and site preparation work for these facilities would include demolition of the existing Plant Water Pump Station at Plant No. 2 and the removal of approximately 6135 CY of dirt. Once the site has been excavated, approximately 250 CY of concrete would need to be poured to construct the buildings. Once the buildings are constructed, the screening, grit basin and metering equipment would need to be installed. Construction equipment required to construct the separate headworks facility and bypass pipeline would include excavators, backhoes, dump trucks, concrete trucks, cranes, flatbed trucks, and fork lifts. Table 4 below summarizes the construction equipment mix for this phase of work. The mix of construction equipment and hours of operation are shown in Table 4.
OCWD GWRS Final Expansion Project – Addendum No. 6 Final EIR/EIS & CEQA-PLUS Federal Consultation Review 2-10 Section 2
2.4 Construction Phasing Plan The project would be implemented in four construction phases beginning in August 2019 and concluding in December of 2022. The sequence of construction activities is shown below. Phase 1: OCWD Treatment Capacity Expansion Timeframe August 2019 to August 2020 Activities: 1A, 1B and 1C would be constructed separately. Phase 1 activities 1D and 1E would be constructed concurrently 1A: Excavation, Grading, Dewatering for Microfiltration Basement 1B: Construction of Piles for Microfiltration Basement 1C: Forming, Concrete Pours for Microfiltration Basement 1D: Equipping Microfiltration Building, Equipping Reverse Osmosis Building, Equipping Ultra Violet Building, 1E: Installation of Pumps, Chemical Tanks and Decarbonation Equipment Phase 2: OCSD Plant No. 2 Effluent Pump Station Timeframe August 2019 to December 2022 All Phase 2 activities will be constructed separately. 2A: Site Prep: Excavation, Hauling, Grading Pump Station 2B: Concrete Pours for Pump Station Building 2C: Pumps Installation & Equipping Phase 3: Construction of Pipeline Entry Pits & Pipeline Slip-Lining Project Timeframe August 2019 to December 2022 All Phase 3 activities would be constructed separately This phase includes slip-lining the existing pipeline along OCSD easement corridor and pipeline connections to GWRS Site and OCSD Plant No.2 Site. 3A: Excavation, Hauling for Pipeline Entry Pits & Connection to OCSD 3B: Equipment for Slip-lining Pipeline 3C: Excavation, Hauling for Pipeline Connection at OCWD Phase 4: OCSD Plant No. 2 Separate Headworks and Bypass Pipeline Timeframe August 2019 to December 2022 – All Phase 4 activities would be constructed separately This phase includes the construction of a bypass pipeline and new headworks structure at OCSD Plant No. 2.
OCWD GWRS Final Expansion Project – Addendum No. 6 Final EIR/EIS & CEQA-PLUS Federal Consultation Review 2-11 Section 2
4A: Excavation, Hauling, Site Prep 4B: Concrete Building/Vault Construction 4C: Facilities Equipping 2.5 Construction Equipment Mix The mix of construction equipment for each construction phase is shown in Tables 1 to 4 below.
TABLE 1: PHASE 1 – OCWD TREATMENT CAPACITY EXPANSION CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT MIX
Equipment Equipment Time Total Total HP Activity Description Quantity (Hrs/Day) (Days) (Hours) Rating MF West Excavation (1A) Excavators 2 4 40 320 200 Dump Trucks 6 5 40 1200 350 Bull Dozer 2 5 40 400 250 Backhoe 1 5 40 200 150 Pick-Up Truck 1 8 40 320 300 Crane 1 6 10 60 300
MF West Piles (1B) Pile Driver 1 6 20 120 500 Backhoe 1 6 20 120 150 Concrete Trucks 5 4 10 200 350 Water Truck 2 4 25 200 350
MF West Basement Concrete Pours (1C) Concrete Trucks 5 5 10 250 350 Man Lifts 5 6 70 2100 75 Fork Lifts 4 6 70 1680 120 Compactor 1 6 20 120 200
MF West Equipment (1D) Fork Lifts 4 5 170 3400 120 (Electrical, Piping, Racks) Man Lifts 5 5 170 4250 75
RO Transfer Pump Station (1D) Crane 1 6 1 6 300 Fork Lift 1 6 1 6 120
RO Equipment (1D) Fork Lift 2 6 90 1080 120 Man Lifts 1 6 90 540 75 Crane 1 6 10 60 300
UV Equipment (1D) Fork Lift 1 6 10 60 120 Man Lift 2 6 40 480 75 Crane 1 6 10 60 300
Final Water Capacity (1E) Crane 1 6 2 12 300 Fork Lift 1 6 2 12 120 Man Lift 1 6 15 90 75
Chemical Tanks/Pumps (1E) Crane 1 5 1 5 300 Fork Lift 1 6 5 30 120
Decarbonation Equipment (1E) Crane 1 6 1 6 300 Man Lift 1 6 15 90 75
OCWD GWRS Final Expansion Project – Addendum No. 6 Final EIR/EIS & CEQA-PLUS Federal Consultation Review 2-12 Section 2
TABLE 2: PHASE 2 – OCSD PLANT NO. 2 PUMP STATION CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT MIX Equipment Equipment Time Total Total HP Activity Description Quantity (Hrs/Day) (Days) (Hours) Rating OCSD Plant No. 2 Effluent Pump Station Site Prep (2A) Bull Dozer 2 6 30 360 250 Compactor 1 6 10 60 200 Excavator 2 6 20 240 200 Dump Trucks 4 6 17 408 350 Water Trucks 1 8 25 200 350
OCSD Plant No. 2 Pump Station Bldg (2B) Concrete Trucks 3 3 4 36 350 Crane 1 6 3 18 300
OCSD Plant No. 2 Pump Station Equipping (2C) Crane 1 6 10 60 300 Fork Lift 4 6 30 720 120 Man Lift 5 6 15 450 75
TABLE 3: PHASE 3 – OCSD PIPELINE SLIP-LINE CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT MIX Equipment Equipment Time Total Total HP Activity Description Quantity (Hrs/Day) (Days) (Hours) Rating OCSD Pipeline (3A) Backhoe 1 6 25 150 150 Excavator 2 6 25 300 200 Asphalt Paver 1 6 10 60 175 Compactor 1 6 10 60 200
Welding Eq. (Truck OCSD Pipeline (3B) Mounted) 1 8 80 640 300 Excavator 2 6 40 480 200 Flatbed truck 1 4 25 100 270
OCSD Pipeline (3C) Backhoe 1 6 25 150 150 Excavator 2 6 25 300 200 Asphalt Paver 1 6 10 60 175 Compactor 1 6 10 60 200
TABLE 4: PHASE 4 – OCSD PLANT NO.2 HEADWORKS AND BYPASS PIPELINE CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT MIX
OCWD GWRS Final Expansion Project – Addendum No. 6 Final EIR/EIS & CEQA-PLUS Federal Consultation Review 2-13 Section 2
2.4 Approval and Permits Addendum No. 6 to Groundwater Replenishment System EIR/EIS would be used as the supporting environmental documentation for the following permits and approvals.
Agency Approvals/Discretionary Actions
Orange County Water District • Project Approval • Approval for Construction Contracts • Agreement with Orange County Sanitation District for the development, operation and maintenance of Groundwater Replenishment System facilities on Orange County Sanitation District Plant 1, Plant 2 and along the pipeline easement corridor between Plant 1 and Plant 2. Orange County Sanitation District • Project Approval • Approval for Construction Contracts • Agreement with Orange County Water District for the development, operation and maintenance of Groundwater Replenishment System facilities on Orange County Sanitation District Plant 1, Plant 2 and along the pipeline easement corridor between Plant 1 and Plant 2. State Regional Water Quality Control Board, Approval of amendment to Regional Water Santa Ana Region Control Board Producer/User Water Recycling Permit Orange County Water District Groundwater Replenishment System (R8-2008-0058) State Water Resources Control Board State Revolving Fund Loan City Huntington Beach Coastal Development Permit
OCWD GWRS Final Expansion Project – Addendum No. 6 Final EIR/EIS & CEQA-PLUS Federal Consultation Review 2-14 Section 3
SECTION 3.0 CEQA ENVIRONMENTAL CHECK LIST
I. Project Title: GWRS Final Expansion Project
II. Lead Agency Name and Address: Orange County Water District 18700 Ward Street Fountain Valley, CA 92708 III. Project Contact: Daniel Bott
IV. Location: 18700 Ward Street Fountain Valley, 22212 Brookhurst Street, Huntington Beach, OCSD Easement Corridor between Plant 1 and Plant 2
Environmental Determination On the basis of this initial evaluation, I find that:
a) The proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
b) Although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions to the project have been made by or agreed to by the applicant. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
c) The proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
d) Although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR (EIR No. - ) pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the project, nothing further is required.
e) X Pursuant to Section 15164 of the CEQA Guidelines, an EIR (EIR No.88111030) has been prepared earlier and only minor technical changes or additions are necessary to make the previous EIR adequate and these changes do not raise important new issues about the significant effects on the environment. An ADDENDUM to the EIR shall be prepared.
f) Pursuant to Section 15162 of the CEQA Guidelines, an EIR (EIR No. - ) has been prepared earlier; however, subsequent proposed changes in the project and/or new information of substantial importance will cause one or more significant effects no previously discussed. A SUBSEQUENT EIR shall be prepared.
__ SIGNATURE DATE
______Printed Name
OCWD GWRS Final Expansion Project – Addendum No. 6 Final EIR/EIS & CEQA-PLUS Federal Consultation Review 3-1 Section 3
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT POTENTIALLY WITH LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT MITIGATION SIGNIFICANT NO V. ISSUES & SUPPORTING INFORMATION SOURCES IMPACT INCORPORATED IMPACT IMPACT I. Aesthetics – Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic X vista? b) Damage scenic resources, including but not X limited to, trees, rock outpourings and historic buildings within a state highway? c) Substantially degrade the existing visual X character or quality of the site and its surroundings? d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare X which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? II. AGRICULTURAL AND FOREST RESOURCES: In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model prepared by the California Department of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agricultural farmland. In determining whether impacts to forest resources, including timerberland, are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to information compiled by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the state’s inventory of forest land, including the Forest and Range Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy Assessment project; and forest carbon measurement methodology provided in Forest Protocols adopted by the California Air Resources Board. Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland or X Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland) to non-agricultural use? (The Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program in the California Resources Agency, Department of Conservation, maintains detailed maps of these and other categories of farmland.) b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use X or a Williamson Contract? c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause X rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g))
d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of X forest land to non-forest use?
OCWD GWRS Final Expansion Project – Addendum No. 6 Final EIR/EIS & CEQA-PLUS Federal Consultation Review 3-2 Section 3
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT POTENTIALLY WITH LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT MITIGATION SIGNIFICANT NO V. ISSUES & SUPPORTING INFORMATION SOURCES IMPACT INCORPORATED IMPACT IMPACT e) Involve other changes in the existing X environment which, due to their location or nature, could individually or cumulatively result in loss of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? III Air Quality – Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality . management or pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of X applicable Air Quality Attainment Plan? b) Violate any stationary source air quality standard X or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation? c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net X increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial X pollutant concentrations? e) Create objectionable odors affecting a X substantial number of people? IV Biological Resources – Would the project: . a) Have a substantial adverse impact, either directly X or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive or special status species in local or regional plans, policies or regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services? b) Have a substantial adverse impact on any X riparian habitat or natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, and regulations or by the California Department of fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? c) Adversely impact federally protected wetlands X (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) either individually or in combination
OCWD GWRS Final Expansion Project – Addendum No. 6 Final EIR/EIS & CEQA-PLUS Federal Consultation Review 3-3 Section 3
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT POTENTIALLY WITH LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT MITIGATION SIGNIFICANT NO V. ISSUES & SUPPORTING INFORMATION SOURCES IMPACT INCORPORATED IMPACT IMPACT with the known or probable impacts of other activities through direct removal, filling hydrological interruption, or other means? d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any X native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances X protecting biological resources, such as tree preservation policy or ordinance?
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat X Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? V. Cultural Resources – Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the X significance of a historical resource as defined in Section 15064.5? b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the X significance of a unique archaeological resource pursuant to define Section 15064.5? c) Directly or indirectly disturb or destroy a unique X paleontogical resource or site? Disturb any human remains, including those d) X interred outside of formal cemeteries? VI Geology and Soils – Would the project: . a) Expose people or structures to potential X substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: . Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as X delineated on the most recent on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Strong seismic ground shaking? X . Seismic-related ground failure, including X liquefaction?
OCWD GWRS Final Expansion Project – Addendum No. 6 Final EIR/EIS & CEQA-PLUS Federal Consultation Review 3-4 Section 3
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT POTENTIALLY WITH LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT MITIGATION SIGNIFICANT NO V. ISSUES & SUPPORTING INFORMATION SOURCES IMPACT INCORPORATED IMPACT IMPACT Landslides? X b) Would the project result in substantial soil X erosion or the loss of topsoil? c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is X unstable or that would become unstable as a result of the project and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in X Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting X the use of septic tanks or alternative waste disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater?
VII GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS — Would the project? . a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either X directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or X regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? VII HAZARDOUS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS – Would the project: I. a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the X environment through the routine transport, use or disposal of hazardous materials? b) Create a significant hazard to the public or X environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous X or acutely hazardous materials, substance or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? d) Be located on a site which is located on a list of X hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to
OCWD GWRS Final Expansion Project – Addendum No. 6 Final EIR/EIS & CEQA-PLUS Federal Consultation Review 3-5 Section 3
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT POTENTIALLY WITH LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT MITIGATION SIGNIFICANT NO V. ISSUES & SUPPORTING INFORMATION SOURCES IMPACT INCORPORATED IMPACT IMPACT Government Code Section 659662.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? e) For a project located within an airport land use X plan or where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles where of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private X airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere X with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk X of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? VIX. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY – Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste X discharge requirements? b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or X interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern X of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern X of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of
OCWD GWRS Final Expansion Project – Addendum No. 6 Final EIR/EIS & CEQA-PLUS Federal Consultation Review 3-6 Section 3
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT POTENTIALLY WITH LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT MITIGATION SIGNIFICANT NO V. ISSUES & SUPPORTING INFORMATION SOURCES IMPACT INCORPORATED IMPACT IMPACT surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site? e) Create or contribute runoff water which would X exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? X g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard X area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area X structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk X of loss, injury, or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? (j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? X X. LAND USE AND PLANNING – Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? X b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, X policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? c) Conflict with any applicable habitat X conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? XI. MINERAL RESOURCES – Would the project: a) Would the project result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally- X important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan?
OCWD GWRS Final Expansion Project – Addendum No. 6 Final EIR/EIS & CEQA-PLUS Federal Consultation Review 3-7 Section 3
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT POTENTIALLY WITH LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT MITIGATION SIGNIFICANT NO V. ISSUES & SUPPORTING INFORMATION SOURCES IMPACT INCORPORATED IMPACT IMPACT XII. NOISE – Would the project result in: a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise X levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? b) A substantial permanent increase in ambient X noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? c) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in X ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without project? d) For a project located within an airport land use X plan or where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? e) For a project within the vicinity of a private X airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? f) Exposure of persons to or generation of X excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? XIII. POPULATION AND HOUSING – Would the project: a) Induce substantial population growth in an X area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and business) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? b) Displace substantial numbers of existing X housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? c) Displace substantial numbers of people, X necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
XIV. PUBLIC SERVICES a) Would the project result in substantial adverse X physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental
OCWD GWRS Final Expansion Project – Addendum No. 6 Final EIR/EIS & CEQA-PLUS Federal Consultation Review 3-8 Section 3
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT POTENTIALLY WITH LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT MITIGATION SIGNIFICANT NO V. ISSUES & SUPPORTING INFORMATION SOURCES IMPACT INCORPORATED IMPACT IMPACT facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service rations, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public service: Fire protection? X Police protection? X Schools? X Parks? X Other public facilities? X XV. RECREATION a) Would the project increase the use of existing X neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b) Does the project include recreational facilities X or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? XVI. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC Would the project: a) Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or X policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation including mass transit and non-motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit? b) Conflict with an applicable congestion X management program, including but limited to level of service standards and travel demand measures, or other standards established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways?
OCWD GWRS Final Expansion Project – Addendum No. 6 Final EIR/EIS & CEQA-PLUS Federal Consultation Review 3-9 Section 3
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT POTENTIALLY WITH LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT MITIGATION SIGNIFICANT NO V. ISSUES & SUPPORTING INFORMATION SOURCES IMPACT INCORPORATED IMPACT IMPACT
c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, X including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? d) Substantially increase hazards to a design X feature (e.g. sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g. farm equipment)? e) Result in inadequate emergency access? X f) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or X programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities? XVII. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS – Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of X the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? b) Require or result in the construction of new X water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? c) Require or result in the construction of new X storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? d) Are sufficient water supplies available to serve X the project from existing entitlements and resources or are new or expanded entitlements needed? e) Result in the determination by the wastewater X treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments? f) Is the project served by a landfill with sufficient X permitted capacity to accommodate the project’s sold waste disposal needs?
OCWD GWRS Final Expansion Project – Addendum No. 6 Final EIR/EIS & CEQA-PLUS Federal Consultation Review 3-10 Section 3
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT POTENTIALLY WITH LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT MITIGATION SIGNIFICANT NO V. ISSUES & SUPPORTING INFORMATION SOURCES IMPACT INCORPORATED IMPACT IMPACT
g) Comply with federal, state and local statutes X and regulations related to solid waste? XVIII MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE – . a) Does the project have the potential to degrade X the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have impacts that are X individually limited but cumulatively considerable? (“Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, effects of other current projects and the effects of probable future projects). c) Does the project have environmental effects X which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?
Note: Authority cited: Sections 21083, 21083.05, Public Resources Code. Reference: Section 65088.
OCWD GWRS Final Expansion Project – Addendum No. 6 Final EIR/EIS & CEQA-PLUS Federal Consultation Review 3-11 Section 4
SECTION 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS The following analysis evaluates potential impacts to the environment associated with the GWRS Final Expansion Project and compares them with the level of impact identified in the GWRS Final EIR/EIS. The environmental analysis describes the environmental setting, thresholds of significance, project impacts and level of impact. Environmental Setting: The environmental setting provides an overview of the baseline physical environmental conditions of the study area and surrounding areas. Project Impacts: The project impacts describes the environmental changes to the existing physical conditions that could occur from the implementation of the GWRS Final Expansion Project. The thresholds of significance used in the evaluation are derived from Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines, as amended. In evaluating potential project impacts the level of impact is determined by applying the significance criteria for each environmental issue. The following terms are used to describe each impact: • No Impact: No Impact determination indicates that the construction, operation and maintenance of the project would not have any direct or indirect adverse effects on the environment. • Less than significant Impact: A less than significant adverse impact determination would be given when a project activity would result in an adverse change to the environment. However, it would occur at level that would not be substantial. • Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation: A less than significant impact with mitigation determination would be given when the project activities could create a potential significant adverse change to the environment, but would be reduced to a less than significant level with the implementation of feasible mitigation measures from the GWRS Final EIR/EIS. • Significant Impact: A significant impact determination would be given when the project activity would cause a substantial adverse change to the environment that would result in the permanent loss of a resource, resulting in a change to the environment that could jeopardize • Levels of Impact: The level of impact compares the GWRS Final Expansion Project impacts with the level of impact identified in the Final EIR/EIS and determines if the GWRS Final Expansion Project would cause any new significant impact, substantially increase or result in more severe impacts, or requires additional mitigation measures to mitigate potential impacts to a less than significant level.
OCWD GWRS Final Expansion Project – Addendum No. 6 Final EIR/EIS & CEQA-PLUS Federal Consultation Review 4-1 Section 4
4.1 AESTHETICS 4.1.1 Environmental Setting GWRS Site The GWRS Site is located within the southeast area of the City of Fountain Valley. The site is bounded by Ellis Avenue to the north, OCSD Plant No. 1 Site to the south and east and Ward Street to the west. The GWRS Site contains a mix of administrative offices, water treatment facilities, parking areas and a network of onsite roads. The tallest structure onsite would be the lime treatment facility silos at a height of 55 feet. The GWRS Site is situated within urbanized area and impacted with a variety lighting sources from the surrounding the area. The lighting from these surrounding sources generally diminishes the quality of nighttime sky. The GWRS Site as controlled onsite security lighting in its parking areas and buildings which has been designed to minimize spill-over light and glare impacts to surrounding area. Sensitive visual receptors near the GWRS Site would include residential uses located west of Ward Street and from trail users along the Santa Ana River Trail. As shown in Figure 5, the majority of the views into the GWRS Site from Ward Street are screened by a combination of existing landscaping and perimeter block walls. The Santa Ana River Trail is located east to the GWRS Site. As shown in Figure 6, along the trail are partial views of the GWRS Site and the OCSD Plant No. 1 Site. OCSD Plant No. 2 Site The OCSD Plant No. 2 Site is located within the southeast industrial area of the City of Huntington Beach. The OCSD Plant No. 2 Site is surrounded by the Santa Ana River Trail to the east, Talbert Park to the northeast, Brookhurst Street and to the west, multiple family homes to the north and the Talbert Marsh to the south. OCSD Plant No. 2 Site is currently developed with numerous structures that vary in height, mass and function. The tallest onsite structure would be the surge tower at a height of 86 feet, located at the southwestern end of the site. Other notably sized structures include the existing sludge storage silos at approximately 50 feet in height and trickling filters at a height of approximately 40 feet. The OCSD Plant No. 2 Site is situated within urbanized area and is impacted from a variety lighting sources from the surrounding the site. The lighting from these surrounding sources generally diminishes the quality of the nighttime sky. The OCSD Plant No. 2 Site also has controlled onsite security lighting which has been designed to minimize spill-over light and glare impacts to surrounding area.
OCWD GWRS Final Expansion Project – Addendum No. 6 Final EIR/EIS & CEQA-PLUS Federal Consultation Review 4-2 Existing view of GWRS Water Treatment Site Ward St North of OCWD Entrance
Existing view of GWRS Water Treatment Site Ward St South of OCWD Entrance Path: I:\SS\Bott\GWRS_Expansion\SplitProject\WardSt.mxd
GWRS Final Expansion Project GWRS Water Treatment Site Existing View Figure 5 Existing view of GWRS Treatment Plant Santa Ana River Bike Trail South of Garfield Ave
Existing view of GWRS Treatment Plant Santa Ana River Bike Trail North of Garfield Ave Path: I:\SS\Bott\GWRS_Expansion\SplitProject\GWRSBikeTrail.mxd
GWRS Final Expansion Project Santa Ana River Bike Path Existing View Figure 6 Section 4
Sensitive visual receptors near the OCSD Plant No. 2 Site include; residential uses located west of Brookhurst Street, trail users along the Santa Ana River Trail, along Pacific Coast Highway and Talbert Regional Park. The area west of Brookhurst Street between Bushard Avenue and Hamilton Avenue consists predominately of single family homes, many of which are two stories. As shown in Figure 7, existing views of the OCSD Plant No. 2 Site from along Brookhurst Street are visually screened by an existing 8-foot block wall and a row of towering eucalyptus trees. The height of the wall and eucalyptus trees visually screens both close and distant views into Plant No. 2. The Santa Ana River Trail extends along the eastern boundary of the OSCD Plant No. 2 Site. A shown in Figures 8 to10, from along Santa Ana River Trail there are intermittent views of Plant No. 2 structures. The views are partially obstructed by existing landscaping and topography. Pacific Coast Highway is located south of OCSD Plant No. 2. As shown in Figure 11, from along Pacific Coast Highway are sweeping views of the Santa Ana River and of Plant No. 2. The dominant visual structure on Plant No. 2 would be the 86-foot surge towers. Overlooking from the bluffs near Talbert Regional Park are distant views of the Pacific Ocean, Banning Ranch wetlands, oil drilling operations and various structures located OCSD Plant No. 2. As shown in Figure12, the long distance views are partially obstructed by topography, trees and dense vegetation. OCWD Easement Corridor The OCSD Easement Corridor extends from OCSD Plant No. 2 Site to OCSD Plant No. 1 Site. Immediately east of the easement corridor is the Santa Ana River Trail. Along the trail are intermittent views of the easement corridor. The GWRS Final Expansion project includes modifications to the existing pipeline located along the OCSD easement corridor. The pipeline modifications are proposed at eight different access locations along the easement corridor. Pipeline access locations 1 and 2 are located between OCSD Plant No. 2 and Hamilton Avenue. As shown in Figure 13, along this segment of the easement corridor are views of OCSC Plant No.2 and existing multiple-family residential and commercial land uses. Pipeline access locations 3, 4, and 5 are located between Hamilton Avenue and Adams Avenue. As shown in Figure 14 and Figure 15, the views along this segment of the easement corridor are dominated with electrical substations, expansive areas of grass, single family residents with community gardens and Lebard Park.
OCWD GWRS Final Expansion Project – Addendum No. 6 Final EIR/EIS & CEQA-PLUS Federal Consultation Review 4-5 Proposed Improvements Screened by Existing Building
Proposed Improvements Screen by Existing Landscaping Path: I:\SS\Bott\GWRS_Expansion\SplitProject\OCSDexpansion.mxd
GWRS Final Expansion Project Orange County Sanitation District Existing View from Brookhurst St Figure 7 Existing Construction Laydown Area Santa Ana River Bike Trail
Existing view of OCSD Plant No. 2 Trickling Filters Santa Ana River Bike Trail Path: I:\SS\Bott\GWRS_Expansion\SplitProject\BikeView1.mxd
GWRS Final Expansion Project Santa Ana River Bike Path Existing View Figure 8 Existing view of OCSD Plant No. 2 Odor Control Facility Santa Ana River Bike Trail
Existing view of OCSD Plant No. 2 Ocean Outfall Booster Station & Primary Clarifier Santa Ana River Bike Trail Path: I:\SS\Bott\GWRS_Expansion\SplitProject\BikeView2.mxd
GWRS Final Expansion Project Santa Ana River Bike Path Existing View Figure 9 Existing view of OCSD Plant No. 2 Primary Clarifier Santa Ana River Bike Trail
Existing view of OCSD Plant No. 2 Talbert Marsh Bike Trail Path: I:\SS\Bott\GWRS_Expansion\SplitProject\BikeView3.mxd
GWRS Final Expansion Project Santa Ana River Bike Path Existing View Figure 10 Existing view of OCSD Plant No. 2 Wastewater Treatment Site Entrance to Banning Bikeway near PCH
Existing view of OCSD Plant No. 2 Wastewater Treatment Site Santa Ana River & PCH Path: I:\SS\Bott\GWRS_Expansion\SplitProject\PCHPlant2.mxd
GWRS Final Expansion Project OCSD Plant No. 2 Existing View Figure 11 Existing view of OCSD Plant No. 2 Wastewater Treatment Site Talbert Park
Existing view of OCSD Plant No. 2 Wastewater Treatment Site Hamilton St Bridge Path: I:\SS\Bott\GWRS_Expansion\SplitProject\TalbertParkPlant2.mxd
GWRS Final Expansion Project OCSD Plant No. 2 Existing View Figure 12 Access Point
Pipeline Acces 1 Location
Access Point
Pipeline Acces 2 Location Path: I:\SS\Bott\GWRS_Expansion\SplitProject\PipelineAccess1.mxd
GWRS Final Expansion Project Pipeline Access Existing View Figure 13 Access Point
Pipeline Acces 3 Location
Access Point
Pipeline Acces 4 Location Path: I:\SS\Bott\GWRS_Expansion\SplitProject\PipelineAccess2.mxd
GWRS Final Expansion Project Pipeline Access Existing View Figure 14 Section 4
Pipeline access locations 6, 7, and 8 are located between Adams Avenue and Garfield Avenue. As shown in Figure 15 and Figure 16 the views along this segment of the easement corridor consist mostly of single family residents with community gardens, a container plant nursery with greenhouses, an electrical substation and Alevalos Park. Regulatory Framework State State Scenic Highways Program The Scenic Highway Program was created in 1963 by the California legislature and was established to protect scenic highway corridors from changes that would diminish the aesthetic value of adjacent lands. The segment of Pacific Coast Highway that extends near OCSD Plant No. 2 is not officially designated as State Scenic Highway, but is designated as eligible for the Scenic Highways Program. California Coastal Act The California Coastal Act defines the coastal zone and establishes land use control for the designated zone. The California Coastal Act, (1) sets specific uses, including restoration, in which wetlands may be permitted in the coastal zone; (2) provides for additional review and approvals for proposed actions located within designated sensitive coastal areas; and (3) requires cities or counties located within the coastal zone to prepare a Local Coastal Program. The California Coastal Act has also identified and requires the protection of important scenic and visual qualities of the coastal areas. All of OCSD Plant No.2 is located within the Coastal Zone. Regional/Local County of Orange General Plan The Orange County Master Plan of Scenic Highways designates the segment of Pacific Coast Highway near OCSD Plant No.2 as a County Scenic Highway and as a View scape Corridor. City of Fountain Valley The City of Fountain Valley General Plan does not identify any scenic resources or designate any scenic corridors within the study area. The General Plan does identify Santa Ana River Trail has open space resource and identifies policies that encourage the conservations of views along the trail.
OCWD GWRS Final Expansion Project – Addendum No. 6 Final EIR/EIS & CEQA-PLUS Federal Consultation Review 4-14 Access Point
Pipeline Acces 5 Location
Access Point
Pipeline Acces 6 Location Path: I:\SS\Bott\GWRS_Expansion\SplitProject\PipelineAccess3.mxd
GWRS Final Expansion Project Pipeline Access Existing View Figure 15 Access Point
Pipeline Acces 7 Location
Access Point
Pipeline Acces 8 Location Path: I:\SS\Bott\GWRS_Expansion\SplitProject\PipelineAccess4.mxd
GWRS Final Expansion Project Pipeline Access Existing View Figure 16 Section 4
City of Huntington Beach General Plan Coastal Element The purpose of the Coastal Element is to meet the requirements of the Coastal Act and guide civic decisions regarding growth, development, enhancement and preservation of the City’s Coastal Zone and its resources. The Coastal Element identifies the segment of Pacific Coast Highway near Plant No. 2 as a Major Urban Scenic Corridor and Landscape Corridor. The Coastal Element further identifies visual resources within the coastal zone which includes; Huntington State Beach, Pacific Ocean, Talbert Marsh, and the Santa Ana River. City of Newport Beach Local Coastal Program Although the study area is not located in the City of Newport Beach, it is located in proximity to the City of Newport Beach’s city limit. The City of Newport Beach is presently in the process of preparing an Implementation Plan for the City’s Coastal Land Study Area and as identified Pacific Coast Highway as a Coastal View Road. 4.1.2 Project Impacts IMPACT AR-A Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? GWRS Site According to the City of Fountain Valley General Plan there are no designated scenic vistas on the GWRS Site. Therefore, implementation of the GWRS Final Expansion Project would not have any adverse impact on any designated scenic vistas. The Santa Ana River Trail is located east of the GWRS Site. Along the trail are partial views of the GWRS Site. The majority of the proposed GWRS Final Expansion Project Improvements would occur at the western end of the site and would not be discernible from the Santa Ana River Trail. Some pipeline construction would occur near Garfield Avenue that would be viewable from the Santa Ana River Trail. The construction activity would be for a short period of time and once completed the area would be returned to its pre-project condition. Potential construction related view impacts along the Santa Ana River Trail would be less than significant. OCSD Plant No. 2 Site Within the vicinity of OCSD Plant No. 2 Site, scenic resource views are provided from the Santa Ana River Trail, Talbert Marsh Trail, Talbert Park and Pacific Coast Highway. There would be the potential that the construction and operation of the GWRS Final Expansion Project improvements could encroach into the view shed of nearby scenic resources. To help measure potential view shed impacts along surrounding scenic resources, a view shed analysis was prepared in the vicinity of where the final expansion improvements would occur. Ground and structure elevations were identified
OCWD GWRS Final Expansion Project – Addendum No. 6 Final EIR/EIS & CEQA-PLUS Federal Consultation Review 4-17 Section 4
in Plant No. 2 and along the Santa Ana River Trail, along Pacific Coast Highways and from the Hamilton Avenue Bridge entrance to Talbert Park and were visually modeled based on the views of a six foot tall person. Santa Ana River Trail The Santa Ana River Trail extends along the eastern boundary of OCSD Plant No 2. As shown in Figure 17, the proposed Plant No. 2 Pump Station and the Plant Water Pump Station structures would be within the view shed of trail users along an approximate 1,000 foot long segment of the Santa Ana River Trail in the vicinity of where the pump station structures would be constructed. This is largely because the two pump stations would be located near the edge of the Plant No. 2 property and would be not visually screened. As shown in Figure 18, the proposed headworks structure would also be within view shed of trail users along an approximate 100 foot long segment of the Santa Ana River Trail. This is largely because of the presence of an existing road that provides unobstructed line of sight view to the headworks structure from the Santa Ana River Trail. Because of the height and mass of existing surrounding structures, it would be unlikely that the headworks structure would be within views shed from other segments of the trail that are further away from where the headworks structure would be located. Along the Santa Ana River Trail there are existing intermittent views OCSD Plant No. 2 facilities and structures. The proposed pump station and headworks structures would intermittently be within the view shed of trail users along certain segments of the Santa Ana River Trail. The intermittent visual presence of the pump stations and headworks structures would not substantially change existing views along the Santa Ana River Trail, compared to the current view condition. Potential view impacts along the Santa Ana River Trail would be less than significant. Talbert Marsh Trail The Talbert Marsh Trail is located along the southern boundary OCSD Plant No. 2. As shown in Figure 10, along the trail is there is an existing landscaped wall that provides a visual barrier between the Talbert Marsh Trail and Plant No. 2. The existing landscaped wall would also visually screen the final expansion improvements proposed on Plant No. 2. Existing views from the Talbert Marsh Trail would not substantially change from their current condition. Potential view impacts would be less than significant. Talbert Regional Park Talbert Regional Park is located northeast of OCSD Plant No. 2. The park provides distant sweeping views towards the Pacific Ocean. Presently from Talbert Park are distant views of OCSD Plant No. 2 structures, the most noticeable being the 86-foot surge towers. As shown in Figure 19, final expansion improvements would not be
OCWD GWRS Final Expansion Project – Addendum No. 6 Final EIR/EIS & CEQA-PLUS Federal Consultation Review 4-18 Contractor Laydown Area
Headworks Height: 20 ft
OCSD Pipeline Connection
OCSD Plant Water Pump Station Height: 20 ft
OCSD Plant No 2 Pump Station Height: 25 ft Path: I:\SS\Bott\GWRS_Expansion\SplitProject\ObsPoint3.mxd
Location Pump Station Visible from Bike Path GWRS Final Expansion Project Project Viewsheds Visible Area from Bike Path Santa Ana River Trail 0 500 1,000 Figure 17 Feet Contractor Laydown Area
Headworks Height: 20 ft
OCSD Pipeline Connection
OCSD Plant Water Pump Station Height: 20 ft OCSD Plant No 2 Pump Station Height: 25 ft Path: I:\SS\Bott\GWRS_Expansion\SplitProject\ObsPoint2.mxd
Location Headworks Visible from Bike Path GWRS Final Expansion Project Project Viewsheds Visible Area from Bike Path Santa Ana River Trail 0 500 1,000 Figure 18 Feet Contractor Laydown Area
Headworks Height: 20 ft
OCSD Pipeline Connection
OCSD Plant Water Pump Station OCSD Plant No 2 Height: 20 ft Pump Station Height: 25 ft Path: I:\SS\Bott\GWRS_Expansion\SplitProject\ObsPoint5.mxd
Observation Point GWRS Final Expansion Project Project Viewsheds Visible Area Talbert Park 0 500 1,000 Figure 19 Feet Section 4
within view shed from Talbert Park. A combination of the distance between Talbert Park and Plant No.2 and the presence of existing surrounding structures, would make very difficult to discern any changes to existing views from Talbert Park. Existing views from Talbert Park would not substantially change from the current conditions. Potential view impacts would be less than significant. Pacific Coast Highway Pacific Coast Highway (PCH) is located approximately ¼ mile south from the OCSD Plant No. 2 wastewater treatment site. Situated between Pacific Coast Highway and Plant No. 2 is the Talbert Marsh Wetlands which provides an open space visual buffer for motorist and bicyclist along PCH. As shown in Figure 20, because of the presence of existing surrounding structures, the proposed final expansion improvements would not encroach into the view shed along the Pacific Coast Highway. Existing views from Pacific Coast Highway would not substantially change from the current conditions. Potential view impacts would be less than significant. OCSD Easement Corridor The Santa Ana River Trail extends along the length of the levee above OCSD easement corridor. The proposed pipeline improvements along the easement corridor would be underground and would not have any long-term aesthetic impact. However, during construction operations, trail users along the Santa Ana River Trail could experience intermittent views of construction activity along the easement corridor. The construction activity view impacts would be short-term and once the construction activity is completed the area would be returned to its pre-project condition. Potential view impacts along the OCSD easement corridor would be less than significant. IMPACT AR-B: Would the project damage scenic resources, including but limited to trees, rock outpourings, and historic buildings within a State Highway? GWRS Site According to the California Department of Transportation Scenic Highways Program, there are no State Scenic Highways or Eligible State Scenic Highways near the GWRS Site. There would be no adverse impacts to scenic resources along a State Highway. OCSD Plant No. 2 Site According to the California Department of Transportation Scenic Highways Program, the closest State Scenic Highway to the OCSD Plant No. 2 Site would be Pacific Coast Highway. As shown in Figure 20, a combination of existing block wall, landscaping and existing structures on Plant No. 2 would visually screen the GWRS Final Expansion Project improvements. Existing views along Pacific Coast Highway would not change substantially from their current conditions. Potential impacts to scenic resources along a State Highway would be less than significant.
OCWD GWRS Final Expansion Project – Addendum No. 6 Final EIR/EIS & CEQA-PLUS Federal Consultation Review 4-22 Contractor Laydown Area
Headworks Height: 20 ft
OCSD Pipeline Connection OCSD Plant Water Pump Station Height: 20 ft OCSD Plant No 2 Pump Station Height: 25 ft Path: I:\SS\Bott\GWRS_Expansion\SplitProject\ObsPoint4.mxd
Observation Point GWRS Final Expansion Project Project Viewsheds Visible Area Pacific Coast Highway 0 500 1,000 Figure 20 Feet Section 4
OCSD Easement Corridor According to the California Department of Transportation Scenic Highways Program, there are no State Scenic Highways or Eligible State Scenic Highways near the OCSD easement corridor. There would be no adverse impacts to scenic resources along a State Highway. IMPACT AR-C: Would the project substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surrounding? GWRS Site The majority of the proposed final expansion improvements would occur within existing buildings with no changes to the existing aesthetic environment. The only structural changes would be from the expansion of the Microfiltration Building. As shown in Figure 21, the existing building wall fronting along Ward Street would be extended into an existing parking area and driveway. A substantial amount of the extended building would be visually screened by landscaping. The expanded building would be similar in scale and mass compared to other buildings on the GWRS site. The GWRS Final EIR/EIS includes Mitigation Measure AS-23 which requires that proposed buildings and structures constructed as part of the GWRS Final Expansion Project be similar in scale and design with the existing buildings and structures on the GWRS Site. After the GWRS Final Expansion Project is completed the visual character of the study area would not be substantially different than the current conditions. With the implementation of Mitigation Measure AS-2 the proposed final expansion improvements would not substantially degrade the existing visual character of the study area. The GWRS is an existing water treatment facility. It would be common to have construction activity occurring as part of ongoing maintenance activities for the GWRS and other OCWD facilities and structures. The construction activities associated with the GWRS Final Expansion would not substantially change the existing character of the study area. OCSD Plant No. 2 Site The GWRS Final Expansion Project improvements include the construction of two pump stations and a headworks structure. The proposed structures would be housed in block buildings and would be similar in scale and mass compared to several existing structures located on Plant No. 2. The proposed final expansion improvements would be visually compatible and would not substantially degrade the existing visual character of the study area. With the implementation of Mitigation Measure AS-2 the proposed final expansion improvements would not substantially degrade the existing visual character of the study area.
OCWD GWRS Final Expansion Project – Addendum No. 6 Final EIR/EIS & CEQA-PLUS Federal Consultation Review 4-24 Extension of Existing Building Wall
Existing view of GWRS Microfiltration Building with proposed expansion marked
Extension of Existing Building Wall
Existing view of GWRS Microfiltration Building with proposed expansion marked Path: I:\SS\Bott\GWRS_Expansion\SplitProject\MFExpansion.mxd
GWRS Final Expansion Project GWRS Microfiltration Building Expansion Proposed View Figure 21 Section 4
The OCSD Plant No. 2 is an existing wastewater treatment facility. It is common to have construction activity occurring as of the ongoing maintenance activities for Plant No. 2. The construction activities associated with the GWRS Final Expansion would not substantially change the existing character of the study area. OCSD Easement Corridor The GWRS final expansion improvements would not involve the construction of any structures that would change the long term visual character of the study area. The construction activity associated with the pipeline improvements along the easement corridor would temporary replace existing visual character of the study area with construction activity and equipment. The potential aesthetic impact would only occur at a few locations along the easement corridor for a short period of time. Once the improvements are completed the disturbed areas would be returned to their pre-project condition. The short-term aesthetic impacts to the easement corridor would not substantially degrade the existing visual character of the study area. IMPACT AR-D: Would the project create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? Implementation of the GWRS Final Expansion Project would not involve the construction of any new structures that would permanently introduce substantial amounts of new sources of light and glare into the study area. Similar to the existing buildings on the GWRS site and on OCSD Plant No. 2 Site, the proposed new structures would have some low voltage outdoor security lighting. The outdoor lighting would be confined to the immediate area and would not spill over into adjacent areas. The GWRS Final EIR/EIS contains mitigation measure AS-3 which requires that onsite security lighting be directed away from adjacent residential and business land uses and away from the Santa Ana River right-of-way. This mitigation measures would continue to be implemented as part of the GWRS Final Expansion Project at the GWRS Site and OCSD plant No. 2 Site. With the implementation Mitigation Measures AS-3 and AS-4 potential light and glare impacts associated with the operation of the GWRS Final Expansion Project would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures The following mitigation measures from the GWRS Final EIR/EIS will be implemented for the GWRS Final Expansion Project. AS-3 has been incorporated into the project to ensure the effectiveness of Mitigation Measure AS-3. AS-2: Provide compatible exterior architectural design treatments to pump stations, Ultra Violet treatment Buildings, Reverse Osmosis Treatment Building, and the Microfiltration Treatment Building. Designs should blend well with existing office facilities onsite and surrounding uses.
OCWD GWRS Final Expansion Project – Addendum No. 6 Final EIR/EIS & CEQA-PLUS Federal Consultation Review 4-26 Section 4
AS-3: All onsite lighting shall be directed away from adjacent residential, business uses and away from the Santa Ana River right-of-way. AS-4: During operation of the project if the onsite lighting creates a light and glare issue for sensitive receptors properties, OCWD will implement corrective measures to resolve the issue. Such corrective measures may include providing additional shielding on light fixtures, relocating lighting fixtures or reducing the lighting intensity. 4.1.3 Level of Impact Implementation of the GWRS Final Expansion Project would not result in any unavoidable significant aesthetic impacts and potential aesthetic impacts associated with the project would not be substantially more severe than the level of impact analyzed in the GWRS Final EIR/EIS. With the implementation of Mitigation Measures AS-2, AS-3 and AS-4 the construction and operation of the GWRS Final Expansion Project would result in the same level of aesthetic impacts that were identified in the GWRS Final EIR/EIS. The implementation of the GWRS Final Expansion Project would not cause any new, substantially increase or result in more severe aesthetic impacts, and no additional mitigation measures would be necessary to mitigate potential aesthetic impacts to a less than significant level.
OCWD GWRS Final Expansion Project – Addendum No. 6 Final EIR/EIS & CEQA-PLUS Federal Consultation Review 4-27 Section 4
4.2 AGRICULTURE/FOREST RESOURCES 4.2.1 Environmental Setting The proposed GWRS Final Expansion Project improvements would occur on the GWRS Site, OCSD Plant No. 2 Site and along OCSD easement corridor. There are no agriculture activities currently occurring on the GWRS Site, or the OCSD Plant No. 2 Site. Within the vicinity of where the proposed GWRS Final Expansion Project improvements would occur along the OCSD easement corridor there are series of community gardens and a container plant nursery. According to the State Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program, the area where the OCSD easement corridor area is located is not classified as Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, Farmland of Statewide Importance, Forest Land, or Timberland. 4.2.2 Project Impacts IMPACT AG-A: Would the project convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland or Farmland of Statewide Importance to non-agriculture use as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resource Agency? According to the State of California Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program, the GWRS Site, the OCSD Plant No. 2 Site, and the OCSD easement corridor does not contain Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance. Therefore, no adverse impacts to Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance would occur from the implementation of the GWRS Final Expansion Project. IMPACT AG-B: Would the project be in conflict with existing zoning for agriculture use or a Williamson Contract? According to the City of Fountain Valley Zoning Code and City of Huntington Beach Zoning Code, the GWRS Site, the OCSD Plant No. 2 Site and the OCSD easement corridor are not zoned for agriculture uses. Additionally, the General Plan for both cities does not identify that there are any existing Williamson Contracts on any of the properties. Therefore, implementation of the GWRS Final Expansion Project would not be in conflict with any existing agriculture zoning. IMPACT AG-C: Would the project be in conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of forest land, timberland, or timberland zoned for Timberland Production? According to the City of Fountain Valley Zoning Code and City of Huntington Beach Zoning Code, the GWRS Site, the OCSD Plant No. 2 Site and the OCSD easement corridor are not zoned for forest land or timberland. Therefore, implementation of the
OCWD GWRS Final Expansion Project – Addendum No. 6 Final EIR/EIS & CEQA-PLUS Federal Consultation Review 4-28 Section 4
GWRS Final Expansion Project would not cause change of zone of existing forest or timberland to other land uses. IMPACT AG-D: Would the project result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? The GWRS Site, the OCSD Plant No. 2 Site and the OCSD easement corridor do not contain forest lands. Therefore, the implementation of the GWRS Final Expansion Project would not convert existing forest land to non-forest land. IMPACT AG-E: Would the project involve other changes in the existing environment, which due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of farmland to non-agriculture use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? The study area does not contain forest land. Therefore, the implementation of the GWRS Final Expansion Project would not directly or indirectly result in the loss of any forest land or result in the conversion of forest lands to non-forest lands. Additionally, because there is not any existing farmland within the study area, the implementation of the GWRS Final Expansion Project would not convert existing farmland to non- agriculture land uses. Mitigation Measures No mitigation measures are required. 4.2.3 Level of Impact The implementation of the GWRS Final Expansion Project would not result in any unavoidable significant impacts to agricultural and forest resources. The construction and operation of the GWRS Final Expansion Project would result in the same of level of impact to agriculture resources and timberland that were identified in the GWRS Final EIR/EIS. Implementation of the GWRS Final Expansion Project would not cause any new, substantially increase or result in more severe impacts to agricultural or timberland resources and no additional mitigation measures would be necessary to mitigate potential impacts to agriculture or timberland resources to a less than significant level.
OCWD GWRS Final Expansion Project – Addendum No. 6 Final EIR/EIS & CEQA-PLUS Federal Consultation Review 4-29 Section 4
4.3 AIR QUALITY The following analysis is based on the Air Quality/Greenhouse Gas Impact Study prepared for the GWRS Final Expansion Project by Environmental Science Associates in July 2016. The Air Quality Impact Study is presented in Appendix A. 4.3.1 Environmental Setting The study area is located in the City Fountain Valley and the City of Huntington Beach. Both cities are located within the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB), which is under the jurisdiction of the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). The SCAB is a 6,600-square-mile coastal plain bounded by the Pacific Ocean to the southwest and the San Gabriel, San Bernardino, and San Jacinto Mountains to the north and east. The SCAB includes the non-desert portions of Los Angeles, Riverside, and San Bernardino Counties, and all of Orange County. The topography and climate of southern California combine to make the SCAB an area of high air pollution potential. The SCAB is a coastal plain with connecting broad valleys and low hills, bounded by the Pacific Ocean to the west and high mountains around the rest of the perimeter. The general region lies in the semi-permanent high-pressure zone of the eastern Pacific, resulting in a mild climate tempered by cool sea breezes with light average wind speeds. The usually mild climatological pattern is disrupted occasionally by periods of extremely hot weather, winter storms, or Santa Ana winds. During the summer months, a warm air mass frequently descends over the cool, moist marine layer produced by the interaction between the ocean’s surface and the lowest layer of the atmosphere. The warm upper layer forms a cap over the cool marine layer and inhibits the pollutants in the marine layer from dispersing upward. In addition, light winds during the summer further limit ventilation. Furthermore, sunlight triggers the photochemical reactions that produce ozone. Ambient Air Quality Standards Federal Regulation of air pollution is achieved through both federal and state ambient air quality standards and emission limits for individual sources of air pollutants. As required by the federal Clean Air Act (CAA), the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) has identified criteria pollutants and has established National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) to protect public health and welfare. NAAQS have been established for ozone
(O3), carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), sulfur dioxide (SO2), particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5), and lead (Pb). These pollutants are called “criteria” air pollutants because standards have been established for each of them to meet specific public health and welfare criteria.
OCWD GWRS Final Expansion Project – Addendum No. 6 Final EIR/EIS & CEQA-PLUS Federal Consultation Review 4-30 Section 4
Regional and Local The NAAQS establish the level for an air pollutant above which detrimental effects to public health or welfare may result. The NAAQS are defined as the maximum acceptable concentrations that, depending on the pollutant, may not be equaled or exceeded more than once per year or in some cases as a percentile of observations. California has generally adopted more stringent ambient air quality standards for the criteria air pollutants (i.e., California Ambient Air Quality Standards [CAAQS]) and has adopted air quality standards for some pollutants for which there is no corresponding national standard, such as sulfates, hydrogen sulfide, vinyl chloride, and visibility- reducing particles. Existing Air Quality SCAQMD maintains monitoring stations within district boundaries that monitor air quality and compliance with associated ambient standards. The study area is located in the North Orange County Coastal Air Monitoring Subregion. Currently, the nearest monitoring station to the study area would be the Costa Mesa – MesaVerde Drive Station (2850 Mesa Verde Dr. East, Costa Mesa, CA). This station monitors ambient concentrations of ozone, NO2, CO, and SO2, but does not monitor PM2.5 or PM10. The nearest monitoring station that monitors ambient concentrations of PM2.5 and PM1 would be the Anaheim station located at 1630 W. Pampas Lane. Historical data of ambient ozone, NO2, CO, SO2, PM10 and PM2.5 concentrations from these monitoring stations for the most recent three years (2012 – 2014) are shown in Table 5.
TABLE 5: STUDY AREA AIR QUALITY DATA SUMMARY 2012-2014 Monitoring Data by Year Pollutant Standarda 2012 2013 2014 Ozone – Costa Mesa Highest 1 Hour Average (ppm) 0.090 0.095 0.096 Days over State Standard 0.09 ppm 2 1 1 Highest 8 Hour Average (ppm) 0.076 0.083 0.079 Days over National Standard 0.075 ppm 1 0 4 Days over State Standard 0.070 ppm 1 2 6 Carbon Monoxide – Costa Mesa Highest 8 Hour Average (ppm) 1.7 2 1.9 Days over National Standard 9.0 ppm 0 0 0 Days over State Standard 9.0 ppm 0 0 0 Nitrogen Dioxide – Costa Mesa Highest 1 Hour Average (ppm) 0.0744 0.0757 0.061 Days over National Standard 0.100 ppm 0 0 0 Days over State Standard 0.18 ppm 0 0 0 Annual Average (ppm) 0.0104 0.0116 0.011
OCWD GWRS Final Expansion Project – Addendum No. 6 Final EIR/EIS & CEQA-PLUS Federal Consultation Review 4-31 Section 4
Days over National Standard 0.053 ppm 0 0 0 Days over State Standard 0.030 ppm 0 0 0 Sulfur Dioxide – Costa Mesa Highest 24 Hour Average (ppm) 0.0062 0.0042 0.009 Days over State Standard 0.04 ppm 0 0 0
Particulate Matter (PM10) – Anaheim Highest 24 Hour Average (µg/m3)b 48 77 85 Days over National Standard 150 g/m3 0 0 0 (measured)c Days over State Standard 50 g/m3 0 1 2 (measured)c 3 Annual Average (µg/m3)b 20 g/m 22.4 25.4 26.8
Particulate Matter (PM2.5) – Anaheim Highest 24 Hour Average (µg/m3)b 50.1 37.8 56.2 Days over National Standard 35 g/m3 4 1 6 (measured)c 3 Annual Average (µg/m3)b 12 g/m 10.81 10.1 10.3
NOTES: ppm = parts per million; µg/m3 = micrograms per cubic meter. * = Insufficient data available to determine the value. a Generally, state standards and national standards are not to be exceeded more than once per year. b Concentrations and averages represent federal statistics. State and federal statistics may differ because of different sampling methods. c Measurements are usually collected every six days. Days over the standard represent the measured number of days that the standard has been exceeded.
Both CARB and USEPA use this type of monitoring data to designate areas according to their attainment status for criteria air pollutants. The purpose of these designations is to identify the areas with air quality problems and thereby initiate planning efforts for improvement. The three basic designation categories are nonattainment, attainment, and unclassified. Unclassified is used in an area that cannot be classified on the basis of available information as meeting or not meeting the standards. In addition, the California designations include a subcategory of nonattainment-transitional, which is given to nonattainment areas that are progressing and nearing attainment. The current attainment status for the SCAB is provided in Table 6.
TABLE 6: SOUTH COAST AIR BASIN ATTAINMENT STATUS Attainment Status Pollutant California Standards Federal Standards
Ozone Extreme Nonattainment Severe Nonattainment CO Attainment Unclassified/ Attainment
NO2 Attainment Unclassified/ Attainment
SO2 Attainment Attainment
OCWD GWRS Final Expansion Project – Addendum No. 6 Final EIR/EIS & CEQA-PLUS Federal Consultation Review 4-32 Section 4
PM10 Nonattainment Attainment
PM2.5 Nonattainment Nonattainment Lead Attainment Nonattainment Sensitive Receptors Sensitive receptors are individuals who are considered more sensitive to air pollutants than others. The reasons for greater than average sensitivity could include pre-existing health problems, proximity to emissions sources, or duration of exposure to air pollutants. Schools, hospitals, and convalescent homes are considered to be relatively sensitive to poor air quality because children, elderly people, and the infirm are more susceptible to respiratory distress and other air quality-related health problems than the general public. Residential areas are considered sensitive to poor air quality because people usually stay home for extended periods of time, with associated greater exposure to ambient air quality. Recreational uses are also considered sensitive due to the greater exposure to ambient air quality conditions because vigorous exercise associated with recreation places a high demand on the human respiratory system. Currently, sensitive uses located in the study area vicinity include residential uses located directly east of Ward Street across from the GWRS Site, residential uses west of Brookhurst Street from OCSD Plant No. 2 Site and residential uses west of the OCSD easement corridor. Regulatory Setting Federal The principal air quality regulatory mechanism at the federal level is the CAA and in particular, the 1990 amendments to the CAA and the NAAQS that it establishes. These standards identify the maximum ambient (background) concentration levels of criteria pollutants that are considered to be safe, with an adequate margin of safety, to protect public health and welfare. As discussed previously, the criteria pollutants include ozone,
CO, NO2 (which is a form of NOX), SO2 (which is a form of SOX), PM10, PM2.5, and lead. The CAA also requires each state to prepare an air quality control plan, referred to as a state implementation plan (SIP). The CAA Amendments of 1990 (CAAA) added requirements for states with nonattainment areas to revise their SIPs to incorporate additional control measures to reduce air pollution. The SIP is modified periodically to reflect the latest emissions inventories, planning documents, and rules and regulations of the air basins, as reported by their jurisdictional agencies. USEPA is responsible for reviewing all SIPs to determine whether they conform to the mandates of the CAA and its amendments, and to determine whether implementing the SIPs would achieve air quality goals.
OCWD GWRS Final Expansion Project – Addendum No. 6 Final EIR/EIS & CEQA-PLUS Federal Consultation Review 4-33 Section 4
The USEPA also has regulatory and enforcement jurisdiction over emission sources beyond state waters (outer continental shelf), and those that are under the exclusive authority of the Federal government, such as aircraft, locomotives, and interstate trucking. USEPA’s primary role at the state level is to oversee the state air quality programs. USEPA sets federal vehicle and stationary source emissions standards and provides research and guidance in air pollution programs. General Conformity Rule The General Conformity Rule (40 CFR Part 93) requires that federal agencies demonstrate that federal actions conform with the applicable State Implementation Plan (SIP) in order to ensure that federal activities do not hamper local efforts to control air pollution. The EPA general conformity rule applies to federal actions occurring in nonattainment or maintenance areas when the total direct and indirect emissions of nonattainment pollutants (or their precursors) exceed specified thresholds. The de minimis emission thresholds are based on the attainment status of each air basin. Since the study area is located in an air basin that is designated attainment for all federal criteria pollutants, it would not subject to the General Conformity emissions thresholds. State California Air Resources Board (CARB) CARB, a department of the California Environmental Protection Agency (Cal/EPA), oversees air quality planning and control throughout California by administering the SIP. Its primary responsibility lies in ensuring implementation of the 1989 amendments to the CCAA, responding to the federal CAA requirements, and regulating emissions from motor vehicles sold in California. It also sets fuel specifications to further reduce vehicular emissions. The amendments to the CCAA establish CAAQS, and a legal mandate to achieve these standards by the earliest practical date. These standards apply to the same criteria pollutants as the federal CAA, and also include sulfates, visibility reducing particulates, hydrogen sulfide and vinyl chloride. They are also generally more stringent than the federal standards. CARB is also responsible for regulations pertaining to TACs. The Air Toxics “Hot Spots” Information and Assessment Act was enacted in 1987 as a means to establish a formal air toxics emission inventory risk quantification program. Assembly Bill (AB) 2588, as amended, establishes a process that requires stationary sources to report the type and quantities of certain substances their facilities routinely release. California Green Building Standard Code In January 2010, the State of California adopted the 2010 California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen), which became effective in January 2011. Building off of
OCWD GWRS Final Expansion Project – Addendum No. 6 Final EIR/EIS & CEQA-PLUS Federal Consultation Review 4-34 Section 4
the initial 2008 California Green Building Code, the 2010 CALGreen Code represents a more stringent building code that requires, at a minimum, that new buildings and renovations in California meet certain sustainability and ecological standards. The 2010 CALGreen Code has mandatory Green Building provisions for all new residential buildings that are three stories or fewer (including hotels and motels) and all new non- residential buildings of any size that are not additions to existing buildings.
Local-South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) Criteria Air Pollutants SCAQMD attains and maintains air quality conditions in the SCAB through a comprehensive program of planning, regulation, enforcement, technical innovation, and promotion of the understanding of air quality issues. The clean air strategy of SCAQMD includes preparation of plans for attainment of ambient air quality standards, adoption and enforcement of rules and regulations concerning sources of air pollution, and issuance of permits for stationary sources of air pollution. SCAQMD also inspects stationary sources of air pollution and responds to citizen complaints; monitors ambient air quality and meteorological conditions; and implements programs and regulations required by the CAA, CAAA, and CCAA. Air Quality Management Plan SCAQMD and the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) are responsible for preparing the air quality management plan (AQMP), which addresses federal and state CAA requirements. The AQMP details goals, policies, and programs for improving air quality in the SCAB. The 2012 AQMP was adopted by the SCAQMD Governing Board on December 12, 2012. The purpose of the 2012 AQMP for the SCAB is to set forth a comprehensive and integrated program that will lead the region into compliance with the federal 24-hour
PM2.5 air quality standard, and to provide an update to the SCAB’s commitment towards meeting the federal 8-hour ozone standards (SCAQMD, 2013b). The AQMP would also serve to satisfy recent USEPA requirements for a new attainment demonstration of the revoked 1-hour ozone standard, as well as a vehicle miles travelled (VMT) emissions offset demonstration.1 Specifically, the AQMP would serve as the official SIP submittal
for the federal 2006 24-hour PM2.5 standard, for which USEPA has established a due
1 Although the federal 1-hour ozone standard was revoked in 2005, the USEPA has proposed to require a new 1-hour ozone attainment demonstration in the South Coast extreme ozone nonattainment area as a result of a recent court decision. Although USEPA has replaced the 1-hour ozone standard with a more health protective 8-hour standard, the CAA anti- backsliding provisions require that California have approved plans for attaining the 1-hour standard.
OCWD GWRS Final Expansion Project – Addendum No. 6 Final EIR/EIS & CEQA-PLUS Federal Consultation Review 4-35 Section 4
date of December 14, 2012.2 In addition, the AQMP updates specific new control measures and commitments for emissions reductions to implement the attainment strategy for the 8-hour ozone SIP. The 2012 AQMP sets forth programs which require integrated planning efforts and the cooperation of all levels of government: local, regional, state, and federal. Currently, SCAQMD staff has already begun initiating an early development process for the next AQMP. SCAQMD Rules and Regulations All projects are subject to SCAQMD rules and regulations in effect at the time of construction. Specific rules applicable to the construction anticipated under the proposed Project would include the following: Rule 401 – Visible Emissions. A person shall not discharge into the atmosphere from any single source of emission whatsoever any air contaminant for a period or periods aggregating more than three minutes in any 1 hour that is as dark or darker in shade as that designated No. 1 on the Ringelmann Chart, as published by the United States Bureau of Mines. Rule 402 – Nuisance. A person shall not discharge from any source whatsoever such quantities of air contaminants or other material that cause injury, detriment, nuisance, or annoyance to any considerable number of persons or to the public, or that endanger the comfort, repose, health, or safety of any such persons or the public, or that cause, or have a natural tendency to cause, injury or damage to business or property. The provisions of this rule do not apply to odors emanating from agricultural operations necessary for the growing of crops or the raising of fowl or animals. Rule 403 – Fugitive Dust. This rule is intended to reduce the amount of particulate matter entrained in the ambient air as a result of anthropogenic (human-made) fugitive dust sources by requiring actions to prevent, reduce, or mitigate fugitive dust emissions. Rule 403 applies to any activity or human-made condition capable of generating fugitive dust. Rule 1113 – Architectural Coatings. No person shall apply or solicit the application of any architectural coating within the SCAQMD with VOC content in excess of the values specified in a table incorporated in the Rule. Significant Impact Threshold The OCWD and the Cities of Huntington Beach and Fountain Valley have not developed specific air quality thresholds for air quality impacts. However, as stated in Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality
2 Although the 2012 AQMP was approved by the SCAQMD Board on December 7, 2012, the plan did not get submitted to the USEPA by December 14, 2012 as it first required approval from CARB. The 2012 AQMP was subsequently approved by CARB on January 25, 2013, and as of February 13, 2013 the plan has been submitted by CARB to the USEPA.
OCWD GWRS Final Expansion Project – Addendum No. 6 Final EIR/EIS & CEQA-PLUS Federal Consultation Review 4-36 Section 4
management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the above determinations. As such, the significance thresholds and analysis methodologies in SCAQMD’s CEQA Air Quality Handbook are used in evaluating project impacts. SCAQMD has established daily mass thresholds for regional pollutant emissions, which are shown in Table 7. Aside from regional air quality impacts, projects in the SCAB are also required to analyze local air quality impacts. As discussed previously, SCAQMD has developed LSTs that represent the maximum emissions from a project that are not expected to cause or contribute to an exceedance of the most stringent applicable federal or state ambient air quality standards, and thus would not cause or contribute to localized air quality impacts. LSTs are developed based on the ambient concentrations of that pollutant for each of the 38 source receptor areas (SRAs) in the SCAB. The localized thresholds, which are found in the mass rate look-up tables in SCAQMD’s Final Localized Significance Threshold Methodology document, were developed for use on projects that are less than or equal to five acres in size and are only applicable to the
following criteria pollutants: NOx, CO, PM10, and PM2.5. The construction and operational LSTs for a one-acre site in SRA 18 (North Costal Orange County), which is where the study area is located, are shown in Table 8.
TABLE 7: SCAQMD REGIONAL AIR QUALITY SIGNIFICANCE THRESHOLDS Pollutant Mass Daily Thresholds (lbs/day)
Construction Operations
Oxides of Nitrogen (NOX) 100 55 Reactive Organic Gases (ROG) 75 55
Respirable Particulate Matter (PM10) 150 150
Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5) 55 55
Oxides of Sulfur (SOX) 150 150 Carbon Monoxide (CO) 550 550
TABLE 8: SCAQMD LOCALIZED SIGNIFICANCE THRESHOLDS One-Acre Site
Pollutant Monitored Within SRA 18 – Allowable emissions (pounds/day) as a function North Coastal Orange County of receptor distance (feet) from site boundary
25 (m) 50 (m) 100 (m) 200 (m) 500 (m) Construction Thresholds a Nitrogen Oxides (NOx) 92 93 108 140 219 Carbon Monoxide (CO) 647 738 1,090 2,096 6,841
Respirable Particulate Matter (PM10) 4 13 27 54 135
Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5) 3 5 9 22 76
OCWD GWRS Final Expansion Project – Addendum No. 6 Final EIR/EIS & CEQA-PLUS Federal Consultation Review 4-37 Section 4
Operational Thresholds a Nitrogen Oxides (NOx) 92 93 108 140 219 Carbon Monoxide (CO) 647 738 1,090 2,096 6,841
Respirable Particulate Matter (PM10) 1 4 7 13 33
Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5) 1 2 3 6 19 4.3.2 Project Impacts IMPACT AIR-A: Would the project be in conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? The proposed project is located within the SCAB, which is under the jurisdiction of the SCAQMD. As such, SCAQMD’s 2012 AQMP is the applicable air quality plan for the GWRS Final Expansion Project. Projects that are consistent with the regional population, housing, and employment forecasts identified by SCAG are considered to be consistent with the AQMP growth projections, since the forecast assumptions by SCAG forms the basis of the land use and transportation control portions of the AQMP. Additionally, because SCAG’s regional growth forecasts are based upon, among other things, land uses designated in general plans, a project that is consistent with the land use designated in a general plan would also be consistent with the SCAG’s regional forecast projections, and thus also with the AQMP growth projections. The proposed project expands the GWRS but does not increase the number of jobs that would result in the creation of new housing demands or potential residential growth. Because the land use would not change, and has been in operation since before the creation of the 2012 AQMP, the proposed project would not change the regional growth forecasts as identified in the local General Plan or those of the 2012 AQMP. Therefore, the GWRS Final Expansion Project would not conflict with, or obstruct, implementation of the AQMP and the impact would be less than significant. IMPACT AIR-B: Would the project violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? Air pollutant emissions would result from the construction and operation of the GWRS Final Expansion Project. Construction Construction activities associated with the GWRS Final Expansion Project would generate pollutant emissions from the following construction activities: (1) site preparation including, grading, demolition and excavation; (2) construction workers traveling to and from work site; (3) delivery and hauling of construction supplies to, and debris from, the work site; (4) fuel combustion by on-site construction equipment; (5) building construction and the application of architectural coatings. These construction activities would temporarily create emissions of dust, fumes, equipment exhaust, and
OCWD GWRS Final Expansion Project – Addendum No. 6 Final EIR/EIS & CEQA-PLUS Federal Consultation Review 4-38 Section 4
other air contaminants. The amount of emissions generated on a daily basis would vary, depending on the intensity and types of construction activities occurring simultaneously. The construction activities would generate air pollutant emissions within the study area and on roadways resulting from construction-related traffic. The net increase in emissions generated by these activities and other secondary sources have been estimated and compared to the applicable thresholds of significance recommended by SCAQMD. Table 9 summarizes the modeled peak daily emissions of criteria air pollutants and ozone precursors associated with the GWRS Final Expansion for each individual phase as well as for overlaps where construction of different phases occurs at the same time. As shown in Table 9, the maximum daily construction emissions generated by the GWRS Final Expansion Project worst-case construction scenario would exceed SCAQMD’s daily significance threshold for NOx and would therefore would require mitigation. Emissions for the other criteria pollutants do not exceed the SCAQMD’s daily significance thresholds.
TABLE 9: PROPOSED REGIONAL CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS Construction Estimated Maximum Daily Emissions (lbs/day) Activities ROG NOX CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5
Individual Phase Emissions 1A 3.58 48.52 23.82 0.10 6.46 3.60 1B 2.16 25.77 18.05 0.05 1.46 0.93 1C 1.39 18.12 19.73 0.04 1.18 1.43 1D 22.93 36.73 37.44 0.06 1.93 2.59 1D1 0.70 9.09 11.98 0.02 0.51 0.98 1D2 1.38 17.09 15.50 0.02 0.86 0.84 1D3 0.67 8.54 8.10 0.01 0.41 0.62 1D1A* 20.18 2.01 1.85 0.00 0.15 0.15 1E 2.43 30.14 26.97 0.04 1.50 1.64 1E1 1.27 15.83 14.27 0.02 0.78 0.92 1E2 1.16 14.31 12.70 0.02 0.73 0.72 2A 4.06 52.40 22.92 0.10 7.30 4.23 2B 0.61 7.65 6.02 0.01 0.48 0.29 2C 1.21 15.89 17.27 0.03 0.72 1.34 3A 1.19 13.89 9.16 0.02 2.66 1.63 3B 1.09 11.19 5.25 0.02 2.43 1.47 3C 1.19 13.89 9.16 0.02 2.66 1.63 4A 1.50 17.40 11.28 0.03 2.99 1.78
OCWD GWRS Final Expansion Project – Addendum No. 6 Final EIR/EIS & CEQA-PLUS Federal Consultation Review 4-39 Section 4
4B 2.81 40.17 22.26 0.10 5.01 2.60 4C 0.41 4.99 3.75 0.01 2.43 1.30 4D 0.96 11.80 9.66 0.02 2.61 1.58
Phase Overlap Emissions Schedule A 1D1, 1D2, 1D3, 1E1, 33.42 173.32 118.75 0.33 18.40 12.69 1E2, 2A,3A,4B 1D1, 1D2, 11.20 144.24 90.61 0.29 16.83 10.84 1E2,2A,3B,4B 1D1, 2B,3B,4C 2.82 32.92 26.99 0.07 5.85 4.04 2B,3B,4D 2.67 30.64 20.93 0.05 5.52 3.34 2C,3B,4D 3.26 38.88 32.18 0.07 5.76 4.39 Phase Overlap Emissions Schedule B 1B, 1D2, 1D3, 1E1, 6.64 81.54 68.63 0.13 4.23 4.02 1E2 1C, 1D2, 1E1, 4A 5.54 68.43 60.78 0.12 5.80 4.96
1D1, 2A,3A,4B 28.94 117.55 68.18 0.25 15.63 9.59
1D1, 2A,3B, 4B 28.85 114.85 64.27 0.25 15.40 9.43
Maximum Daily Emissions Schedule A 33.42 173.32 118.75 0.33 18.40 12.69
Schedule B 28.94 117.55 68.18 0.25 15.63 9.59
Regional 75 100 550 150 150 55 Significance Threshold Significant Impact? No YES No No No No *Architectural Coating emissions Source: ESA, 2016.
As shown in Table 10, with the implementation of mitigation measures potential emission impacts of overlapping phases would be below the regulatory requirements for NOx. Therefore, with the implementation of Mitigation Measure AQ-1a or Mitigation Measure AQ-1b potential regional air quality impacts would be less than significant.
TABLE 10: MITIGATED REGIONAL CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS Construction Estimated Maximum Daily Emissions (lbs/day) Activities ROG NOX CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5
Phase Overlap Emissions Schedule A
OCWD GWRS Final Expansion Project – Addendum No. 6 Final EIR/EIS & CEQA-PLUS Federal Consultation Review 4-40 Section 4
1D1, 1D2, 1D3, 1E1, 25.03 54.74 126.92 0.33 13.46 6.70 1E2, 2A,3A,4B 1D1, 1D2, 4.34 50.49 102.69 0.29 12.99 6.42 1E2,2A,3B,4B Phase Overlap Emissions Schedule B 1D1, 2A,3A,4B 25.00 77.07 87.43 0.25 12.83 6.43 1D1, 2A,3B, 4B 24.29 76.08 85.68 0.25 12.78 6.41 Maximum Emissions Schedule A 25.03 54.74 126.92 0.33 13.46 6.70 Schedule B 25.00 77.07 87.43 0.25 12.83 6.43
Regional Significance 75 100 550 150 150 55 Threshold Significant Impact? No No No No No No *Architectural Coating emissions Source: ESA, 2016.
Operation Implementation of the GWRS Final Expansion Project would result in long-term regional emissions of criteria air pollutants and ozone precursors associated with natural gas consumption. Operations emissions associated with the final expansion improvements were modeled using CalEEMod model. Model defaults were used to develop a conservative estimate of emissions. Modeled operations emissions are presented in Table 11. As shown in Table 11, the GWRS Final Expansion Project would result in long-term regional emissions of criteria air pollutants and ozone precursors that would be below SCAQMD’s applicable thresholds. Therefore, the GWRS Final Expansion Project operational emissions would not result in or substantially contribute to emissions concentrations that exceed the SCAQMD thresholds and no mitigation would be required.
TABLE 11: OPERATIONAL EMISSIONS Emissions Source Estimated Emissions (lbs/day)
ROG NOX CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5 Total Operational 0.4712 0.1991 0.4638 2.2e- 0.1141 0.0384 Emissions 3 Regional Significance 55 55 550 150 100 55 Threshold Significant Impact? No No No No No No
OCWD GWRS Final Expansion Project – Addendum No. 6 Final EIR/EIS & CEQA-PLUS Federal Consultation Review 4-41 Section 4
IMPACT AIR-C: Would the project result in cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard? The study area is located within the SCAB, which is considered the cumulative study area for air quality. Because the SCAB is currently classified as a state nonattainment
area for ozone, PM10, and PM2.5, cumulative development consisting of the GWRS Final Expansion Project along with other reasonably foreseeable future projects in the SCAB as a whole could violate an air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation. However, based on SCAQMD’s cumulative air quality impact methodology, SCAQMD recommends that if an individual project results in air emissions of criteria pollutants (ROG, CO, NOx, SOx, PM10, and PM2.5) that exceed the SCAQMD’s recommended daily thresholds for project-specific impacts, then it would also result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of these criteria pollutants for which the proposed project region is in non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard. As shown in Table 10, with mitigation the GWRS Final Expansion Project construction emissions would not exceed SCAQMD’s daily thresholds during construction. Thus, because the proposed construction-period impact would be less than significant, the GWRS Final Expansion Project would not result in a significant cumulative impact, when considered with other past, present and reasonably foreseeable projects. Additionally, the operational emissions associated with the GWRS Final Expansion Project would also not exceed the SCAQMD’s thresholds of significance for any of the criteria pollutants. Furthermore, the GWRS Final Expansion Project would also be consistent with SCAQMD’s AQMP. Thus, the GWRS Final Expansion Project would not conflict with SCAQMD’s air quality planning efforts for nonattainment pollutants and would not lead to a cumulatively considerable net increase in nonattainment pollutants during operations. Overall, the GWRS Final Expansion Project construction and operational emissions contribution to cumulative air quality impacts would be less than significant. IMPACT AIR-D: Would the project expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? The daily on-site construction emissions generated by the GWRS Final Expansion Project were evaluated against SCAQMD’s LSTs for a one-acre site to determine whether the emissions would cause or contribute to adverse localized air quality impacts.3 The nearest sensitive receptors to the OCSD Plant No. 2 Site would be residential neighborhoods located west of Brookhurst Street. The nearest sensitive receptors to GWRS Site would be residential neighborhoods located west of Ward
3 According to SCAQMD’s LST methodology, LSTs are only applicable to the on-site construction emissions that are generated by a project and do not apply to emissions generated offsite such as mobile emissions on roadways from worker, vendor, and haul truck trips.
OCWD GWRS Final Expansion Project – Addendum No. 6 Final EIR/EIS & CEQA-PLUS Federal Consultation Review 4-42 Section 4
Street. The nearest residential buildings are located over 50 meters away from where the construction activities would occur. Since the mass rate look-up tables provided by SCAQMD only provides LSTs at receptor distances of 25, 50, 100, 200, and 500 meters, the LSTs for a receptor distance of 50 meters are used to evaluate the potential localized air quality impacts associated with the peak day construction emissions. Because the emissions are localized (within 500 feet of the source) at the GWRS Site they would not impact receptors adjacent to the OCSD Plant No. 2 Site, or adjacent to the pipeline pit/connection locations. Therefore, the phase overlaps for which the localized emissions are compared differ from those for the regional pollutants. Since Phases 2 and 4 would occur on OCSD Plant No. 2 Site, they would not overlap with Phase 1 which occurs strictly on the GWRS Site. Additionally as Phase 3 would be located along the almost 3 mile corridor between the OCWD and OCSD sites, the access location area receptors would not be the same as those of the other phases. Table 12 identifies the daily unmitigated, localized on-site emissions that are estimated to occur during the Project’s worst-case construction scenarios based on receptor distance and phase. As shown in Table 12, the daily unmitigated emissions generated onsite by the GWRS Final Expansion Project worst-case construction scenario would not exceed the applicable SCAQMD LST for any criteria pollutants. As the final expansion’s worst-case construction emissions would not exceed SCAQMD’s applicable LSTs, the GWRS Final Expansion Project would be less than significant for localized construction impacts.
TABLE 12: UNMITIGATED LOCALIZED DAILY CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS Estimated Maximum Daily On-Site Construction Phase Emissions (lbs/day) a a NOX CO PM10 PM2.5
50 meters to receptor Max Phase 1 35.74 35.02 4.25 2.77 1D, 1E overlap 65.21 60.24 2.77 4.03 Localized Significance 93 738 13 5 Thresholdb Significant Impact? No No No No 200 meters to Receptor Max Phase 2 33.99 16.83 5.50 3.54 2A, 4B Overlap 51.15 24.33 8.22 5.27 2B, 4C Overlap 7.92 4.81 2.33 1.39 2B, 4D Overlap 16.85 12.62 2.71 1.74 2C, 4D Overlap 27.27 25.81 3.15 2.87 Max Phase 3 13.78 8.71 2.56 1.61
OCWD GWRS Final Expansion Project – Addendum No. 6 Final EIR/EIS & CEQA-PLUS Federal Consultation Review 4-43 Section 4
Max Phase 4 17.16 10.59 2.71 1.73 Localized Significance 140 2,096 54 22 Thresholdb Significant Impact? No No No No
a Emissions account for implementation of dust control measures as required by SCAQMD Rule 403—Fugitive Dust. b LSTs for a one-acre site in SRA 18 at a receptor distance of 50 meters and 200 meters. Source: ESA 2016 Localized Operational Air Quality Impacts – Criteria Air Pollutants During project operations, the daily amount of localized pollutant emissions generated onsite by the project would not be substantial. The GWRS Final Expansion Project net increase in on-site operational emissions (operational emissions minus mobile sources from worker commute trips) is shown in Table 13. As shown, the project’s total net operational-related emissions generated onsite would not exceed SCAQMD’s applicable operational LSTs. Thus, localized air quality impacts during project operations would be less than significant.
TABLE 13: LOCALIZED OPERATIONAL EMISSIONS Estimated Emissions (lbs/day) Emissions Source
NOX CO PM10 PM2.5 Total Net Operational 0.1268 0.1087 0.0096 0.0096 Emissions Localized Significance 93 738 4 2 Threshold Significant Impact? No No No No
Localized Construction Air Quality Impacts – TACs Project construction would result in short-term emissions of diesel PM, a TAC. Diesel PM poses a carcinogenic health risk that is measured using an exposure period of 70 years. The exhaust of off-road heavy-duty diesel equipment would emit diesel PM during demolition, site preparation (e.g., clearing); site grading and excavation; paving; installation of utilities, materials transport and handling; building construction; and other miscellaneous activities. SCAQMD has not adopted a methodology for analyzing such impacts and has not recommended that health risk assessments be completed for construction-related emissions of TACs. The dose to which receptors are exposed is the primary factor used to determine health risk (i.e., the potential exposure to TACs to be compared to applicable standards). Dose is a function of the concentration of a substance or substances in the environment and the duration of exposure to the substance. Dose is positively correlated with time,
OCWD GWRS Final Expansion Project – Addendum No. 6 Final EIR/EIS & CEQA-PLUS Federal Consultation Review 4-44 Section 4 meaning that a longer exposure period would result in a higher exposure level for the maximally exposed individual. Thus, the risks estimated for a maximally exposed individual are higher if a fixed exposure occurs over a longer period of time. According to the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA), carcinogenic health risk assessments, which determine the exposure of sensitive receptors to TAC emissions, should be based on a 70-year exposure period; however, such assessments should be limited to the period or duration of activities associated with the proposed project. The construction period for the GWRS Final Expansion Project would be much less than the 70-year period used for risk determination (4 years spread out over a large area). Because off-road heavy-duty diesel equipment would be used only for short time periods, project construction would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial emissions of TACs. This impact would be less than significant. Project Operations – TACs Typical sources of acutely and chronically hazardous TACs include industrial manufacturing processes, automotive repair facilities, and dry cleaning facilities. The GWRS Final Expansion Project would not include any of these potential sources, although minimal emissions could result from the use of consumer products. There would be a new back-up generator installed for the pump systems, however it would only be used during emergencies and could be turned on periodically for maintenance and inspection purposes. Further, emergency back-up generators are subject to SCAQMD regulatory requirements which limit the allowable emissions to a level below that which would result in an impact. As such, the periodic operation of the backup generator at the work site would not expose surrounding sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant or TAC emissions. IMPACT AIR-E: Would the project create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? During construction of the GWRS Final Expansion Project, exhaust from equipment and activities associated with the application of architectural coatings and other interior and exterior finishes could produce discernible odors typical of most construction sites. Such odors would be a temporary source of nuisance to adjacent uses, but would not affect a substantial number of people. As odors associated with the construction activities would be temporary and intermittent in nature, the odors would not be considered to be a significant environmental impact. Therefore, impacts associated with objectionable odors would be less than significant. Land uses that are associated with odor complaints typically include agricultural uses, wastewater treatment plants, food processing plants, chemical plants, composting, refineries, landfills, dairies, and fiberglass molding. The current project is expanding the
OCWD GWRS Final Expansion Project – Addendum No. 6 Final EIR/EIS & CEQA-PLUS Federal Consultation Review 4-45 Section 4
GWRS groundwater recharge facility. While it would be acquiring water processed at the OCSD’s waste water treatment plant, it would not increase the throughput of the wastewater treatment plant. Additionally, neither the OCSD wastewater treatment facility nor the OCWD water treatment facility has had any odor complaints in the last twenty years for these facilities filed with the SCAQMD. The OCWD had one odor complaint filed in 1990 but that case has been closed since 1991. Therefore, because the GWRS Final Expansion Project would not increase the throughput of a land use type that is associated with nuisance odors, and there have been no odor complaints within the last two decade, this impact would be less than significant and no mitigation is required. Mitigation Measures The following mitigation measures from the GWRS Final EIR/EIS will be implemented for the GWRS Final Expansion Project. Mitigation Measure AR-12 is a recommended measure that would implement Mitigation Measure AQ-1 in the GWRS Final EIR/EIS and has been incorporated into the GWRS Final Expansion Project. AQ-1: Construction Contractors shall use low emission mobile construction equipment where feasible to reduce the release of undesirable emissions. Construction equipment shall use low sulfur fuels and shall be maintained in proper tune. Electric power shall be used to the extend feasible. AQ-2: construction equipment on-site. Equipment shall be properly serviced and maintained in accordance with the manufacturer’s recommendations. Construction contractors shall ensure that all nonessential idling of construction equipment is restricted to five minutes or less in compliance with California Air Resources Board’s Rule 2449. AQ-3: Construction Contractors shall water active grading sites at least twice a day, and clean appropriate construction equipment in the morning and/or evening to reduce particulate emissions reduce (sic) the release of fugitive dust. AQ-4: Construction Contractors shall, as necessary, wash truck tires leaving the site to reduce the amount of particulate matter transferred to paved streets as required by SCAQMD Rule 403. AQ-7: Construction Contractors shall limit traffic speeds on all unpaved road surfaces to 15 miles per hour or less to reduce the release of fugitive dust. AQ-8: Construction Contractors shall suspend grading operations during first and second stage smog alerts and suspend all grading operations when wind speeds (as instantaneous gusts) exceed 25 miles per hour. AQ-9: Construction Contractors shall develop a traffic plan to minimize traffic flow interference from construction activities.
OCWD GWRS Final Expansion Project – Addendum No. 6 Final EIR/EIS & CEQA-PLUS Federal Consultation Review 4-46 Section 4
AQ-11: All hauling trucks on and exiting the project site shall be covered and shall have at least one foot of free board. AQ-12a: Fleet Modernization for Construction during Schedule A: The construction contractor shall ensure that all off-road equipment with a horse power greater than 50 is certified as USEPA Tier 4 final engines or that engines are certified to meet or exceed the Tier 4 final emissions standards for USEPA Tier 4 final engines. Any emissions control device used by the contractor shall achieve emissions reductions that are no less than what can be achieved by a Level 4 diesel emissions control strategy for a similarly sized engine, as defined by CARB regulations. During construction, the contractor shall maintain a list of all operating equipment in use on the Project site for verification. The construction equipment list shall state the makes, models, and numbers of construction equipment on-site. Equipment shall be properly serviced and maintained in accordance with the manufacturer’s recommendations. Construction contractors shall ensure that all nonessential idling of construction equipment is restricted to five minutes or less in compliance with California Air Resources Board’s Rule 2449. AQ-12b: Fleet Modernization for Construction during Schedule B: The construction contractor shall ensure that all off-road equipment with a horse power greater than 50 is certified as USEPA Tier 4 interim engines or that engines are certified to meet or exceed the Tier 4 interim emissions standards for USEPA Tier 4 interim engines. Any emissions control device used by the contractor shall achieve emissions reductions that are no less than what can be achieved by a Level 4 diesel emissions control strategy for a similarly sized engine, as defined by CARB regulations. During construction, the contractor shall maintain a list of all operating equipment in use on the Project site for verification. The construction equipment list shall state the makes, models, and numbers of 4.3.3 Level of Impact With the implementation of Mitigation Measures AQ-1, AQ-2, AQ-3, AQ-4, AQ-6, AQ-7, AQ-8, AQ-9, AQ-11 and AQ-12 the construction and operation of the GWRS Final Expansion Project would not result in any unavoidable significant air quality impacts. Additionally, the construction of the GWRS Final Expansion Project would not increase or result in more severe air quality impacts and no additional mitigation measures are necessary to mitigate potential air quality impacts to a less than significant level.
OCWD GWRS Final Expansion Project – Addendum No. 6 Final EIR/EIS & CEQA-PLUS Federal Consultation Review 4-47 Section 4
4.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES The following analysis is based on a Biological Assessment prepared for the GWRS Final Expansion Project by the Orange County Water District Natural Resources Department in June of 2016. The Biological Assessment is presented in Appendix B 4.4.1 Environmental Setting GWRS Site The GWRS Site is located within the USGS Newport Beach Quadrangle at Township 5 South, Range 10 West, and Section 32. The site is currently developed with water treatment facilities, office buildings, paved roadways and parking areas. A site survey of the study area did not identify any sensitive biological resources on the GWRS Site or in surrounding area. OCSD Plant No.2 Site The OCSD Plant No.2 Site is located within USGS Newport Beach Quadrangle at Township 6 South, Range 10 West, and Section 20. The site is currently developed with wastewater treatment structures, offices, paved parking areas and roadways. A site survey of the study area did not identify any sensitive biological resources on Plant No. 2. Within close vicinity to Plant No.2 are two biological resources; the Talbert Marsh and the California Least Tern Natural Preserve Colony. The Talbert Marsh is a tidal marsh that has been restored to full tidal action. The water within Talbert Marsh is seawater from the ocean inlet located south of the marsh property that fluctuates in height up to 8 feet from tidal flows. Talbert Marsh provides habitat for both migratory and resident bird species. South of Pacific Coast Highway is the location the California Least Tern Natural Preserve Area. The California Least Tern Natural Preserve Area was first established under the Huntington State Beach General Development Plan in 1976. It was originally dedicated on 2.5 acres and was fenced off with a cyclone fence (a heavy-duty, chain- link fence topped with barbed wire) to prevent predators from harassing the birds. Over the years, the California least tern’s nesting area has expanded beyond the fenced area, State Parks has erected additional picket fencing to protect the birds. Currently, the cyclone fence area covers approximately 8.9 acres and the picket fence “front-yard” area is 3.8 acres. California State Parks protects the nesting area by limiting access, conducting trash removal, grooming the sand periodically, and conducting predator management. OCSD Easement Corridor The OCSD easement corridor is in highly disturbed condition and consists of bare ground and non-native vegetation. The non-native vegetation includes; Five-hook
OCWD GWRS Final Expansion Project – Addendum No. 6 Final EIR/EIS & CEQA-PLUS Federal Consultation Review 4-48 Section 4
Bassia (Bassia hyssopifolia), Black Mustard (Brassica nigra) and Spanish Sunflower (Pulicaria paludosa). There were no sensitive vegetation communities identified along the OCSD easement corridor where the proposed construction activities would occur. Within the vicinity of where the pipeline improvements would occur are ornamental grasses, community gardens, container plant nursery, park sites and electrical substations. The Santa Ana Trail is located along a levee above the easement corridor. The shoulder of trail has been planted with upland native vegetation. Special Status Plant Species To determine the potential for special status plant species to be present within the study area, a database search with the United States Fish and Wildlife information and Planning Database and the California Department Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) Natural Diversity Database was conducted. A listing of special status plant species with potential to occur within the Newport Beach USGS Quadrangle is shown in Table 14. Subsequent to the database search, OCWD conducted a survey of the study area to determine the potential for special status plant species to present within the study area. The determination on the potential for the special status plant species to occur within the study area was based on the following criteria: • Present: The species was observed within the study area within the last year. • High: The study area supports suitable habitat and the species has been observed within the last year. • Moderate: The study area supports suitable and the species has not been observed within last two years. • Low: The study area lacks suitable habitat for the species.
TABLE 14: SPECIAL STATUS PLANT SPECIES Species Federal State CNPS General Potential for Habitat/Recent Occurrence Study Occurrence Area Chaparral sand- NL NL 1B.1 Coast Scrub Low Verbena Chaparral. Species presumed (Abronia Villosa var. extirpated aurita) . Aphanisma NL NL 1B.2 Coastal Scrub, Low (Aphanisma blitoides) Coastal Bluff Scrub, Study Area lacks Coastal Dunes suitable habitat Ventura Marsh Milk- E NL Marshes, Swamps, Low vetch Coastal Dunes, Study Area lacks (Astragalus Coastal Scrub suitable habitat pycnostachy var. Lanosissimus
OCWD GWRS Final Expansion Project – Addendum No. 6 Final EIR/EIS & CEQA-PLUS Federal Consultation Review 4-49 Section 4
Coulter’s Saltsbush NL NL 1B.2 Coastal Scrub, Low (Atriplex coulteri) Coastal Bluff Scrub, Study Area lacks Coastal Dunes suitable habitat South Coast Saltscale NL NL 1B.2 Coastal Scrub, Low (Atrplex pacifica) Coastal Bluff Scrub Study Area lacks suitable habitat Davidson’s Saltscale NL NL 1B.2 Coastal Scrub, Low (Atriplex serenana Coastal Bluff Scrub Study Area lacks var. davidsonii) suitable habitat Southern Tarplant NL NL 1B.1 Marshes and Low (centromadia parryi swamps Study Area lacks ssp. Australis) suitable habitat Salt Marsh Birds-beak E E 1B.2 Coastal Salt marsh, Low (Chloropyron Coastal Dunes Study Area lacks maritimum ssp. suitable habitat Maritimum) Many Stemmed NL NL 1B.2 Chaparral, Coastal Low Dudleya Scrub Study Area lacks (Dudleya Multicaulis) suitable habitat San Diego Button- E E 1B.1 Vernal pools, Coastal Low Celery Scrub, Valley and Study Area lacks (Eryngium aristulatum Foothill Grasslands suitable habitat var. parishii) Los Angeles NL NL 1A Marshes and Low Sunflower Swamps Study Area lacks (Helianthus nuttallii suitable habitat ssp. Parishii) Coulter’s Goldfield NL NL 1B.1 Coastal Salt marshes Low (Lasthenia glabrata Study Area lacks ssp. Coulteri) suitable habitat Mud nama NL NL 2.2 Marshes and Low (Nama stenocarpum) swamps Project area lacks suitable habitat Gambels Water Cress E T 1B.1 Marshes and Low (Nasturtium gambelii) swamps Study Area lacks suitable habitat Prostrate Vernal Pool NL NL 1B.1 Vernal pools, coastal Low Navarretia scrub Study Area lacks (Navarretia prostrate) suitable habitat Coast woollyheads NL NL 1B.2 Coastal Dunes Low (Nemacaulis Study Area lacks denudate var. suitable habitat denudate) Estuary Seablite NL NL 1B.2 Marshes and Low (Suaeda Esteroa) swamps Study Area lacks suitable habitat San Bernardino Aster NL NL 1B.2 Marshes and Low
OCWD GWRS Final Expansion Project – Addendum No. 6 Final EIR/EIS & CEQA-PLUS Federal Consultation Review 4-50 Section 4
(Symphyotrichum swamps, coastal Study Area lacks defoliatum) scrub suitable habitat
Federal State Listing (California California Native Plant Society CNPS E- Endangered Endangered Species Act, CDFG 1A-Plants presumed extinct in California T-Threatened FP-Fully Protected 1B- Plants rare, threatened, or endangered in SSC- Special Species of Concern E-Endangered California and elsewhere C-Candidate for Listing T-Threatened 2-Plants rare, threatened, or endangered in NL-Not Listed S-Sensitive California but more common elsewhere SSC-Special Species of Concern 3-Plants about which we need more review WL-Watch List 4-Plants of limited distribution NL-Not Listed CNPS Threat Rank .1 Seriously Endangered .2 Fairly Endangered .3 Not Very Endangered
Special Status Wildlife Species To determine the potential for special status wildlife species to be present within the study area, a database search with the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) information and Planning Database and the Department of California Fish and Wildlife Natural Diversity Database was conducted. A listing of special status wildlife species with potential to occur within the Newport Beach USGS Quadrangle is shown in Table 15. Subsequent to the database search, OCWD conducted a survey of the study area to determine the potential for the species to be present within the study area. The determination on the potential for the special status wildlife species to occur within the study area was based on the following criteria: • Present: The species was observed within the study area within the last year. • High: The study area supports suitable habitat and the species has been observed within the last year. • Moderate: The study area supports suitable and the species has not been observed within last two years. • Low: The study area lacks suitable habitat for the species.
TABLE 15: SPECIAL STATUS WILDLIFE SPECIES Species Federal State General Potential Occurrence Habitat/Recent Study Area Occurrence Orange throat NL SSC Low level coastal Low Whiptail scrub, sandy areas with Study Area lacks (Aspidoscelis patches of scrub suitable habitat hyperythra) Burrowing owl NL SSC Open growing low Low (Athene grasslands Study Area lacks
OCWD GWRS Final Expansion Project – Addendum No. 6 Final EIR/EIS & CEQA-PLUS Federal Consultation Review 4-51 Section 4 cunicularia) suitable habitat San Diego Fairy E SSC Vernal pools Low Shrimp Study Area lacks (Branchinecta suitable habitat sandiegonensis) Western Snowy T SSC Sandy Beaches Low Plover Study Area lacks (Charadrius suitable habitat alexandrines nivosus) Southwestern E E Riparian woodlands Low Willow Flycatcher Study Area lacks (Empidonax trailli suitable habitat extimus) Western Mastiff Bat NL SSC Roosts in cliffs, tall Low (Eumops perotis buildings, trees and Study Area lacks californicus) tunnels suitable habitat
Big free Bat NL SSC Roosts in cliffs, tall Low (Nyctinomops buildings, trees and Study Area lacks macrotis) tunnels suitable habitat
Pacific Pocket E SSC Coastal Plains Low Mouse Study Area lacks (perognathus suitable habitat longimembris pacifus) Coast Horned NL SSC Low lands along sandy Low Lizard washes with scattered Study Area lacks (Phrynosoma brush suitable habitat blainvillii) Coastal California T SSC Coastal sage scrub Low Gnatcatcher Study Area lacks (Polioptila suitable habitat californica californica) Light-Footed E E Salt marshes Low Clapper Rail Study Area lacks (Rallus longirostris suitable habitat levipes) Southern California NL SSC Coastal Marshes Low Saltmarsh Shrew Study Area lacks (Sorex oratus) suitable habitat California Least E E Sandy Beaches Low Tern Study Area lacks (Sterna antillarum) suitable habitat
OCWD GWRS Final Expansion Project – Addendum No. 6 Final EIR/EIS & CEQA-PLUS Federal Consultation Review 4-52 Section 4
Least Bell’s vireo E E Low growing riparian Low (Vireo bellii habitats Study Area lacks pusillus) suitable habitat
Legend Federal Endangered Species Act E- Endangered T-Threatened SSC- Special Species of Concern C-Candidate for Listing California Endangered Species Act/California Department Fish Game FP-Fully Protected E-Endangered T-Threatened S-Sensitive SSC-Special Species of Concern WL-Watch List
Critical Habitat The Federal Endangered Species Act requires the federal government to designate Critical Habitat for any species it lists under the Federal Endangered Species Act. Critical Habitat is defined as 1) specific areas within the geographical area occupied by the specie at the time of listing, if they contain physical or biological features essential to conservation, and those features may require special management considerations or protection and 2) specific areas outside the geographical area occupied by the species if the agency determines that the area itself is essential for conservation. According to the of USFWS Information, Planning, and Conservation System Database and the California Department of Fish and Wildlife Natural Diversity Database, the study area is not located on lands that are designated as Critical Habitat. Waters of the United States A water body is considered Waters of the U.S. if it is: (1) traditional navigable water (TNW); (2) wetlands adjacent to a TNW; (3) non-navigable tributaries of TNW that have perennial or seasonal flow of water; and (4) wetlands that are adjacent to non-navigable tributaries of TNW that have perennial or seasonal flow of water. There are no waters of the U.S. on the GWRS Site, on the OCSD Plant No. 2 Site or along the OCSD easement corridor. The nearest Waters of the U.S. to the study area would be the Santa Ana River. The Federal jurisdiction along the Santa Ana River extends to the ordinary high water mark and to any adjacent wetland vegetation. Waters of the State of California According to the State Water Code, Waters of the State are defined as any surface water, groundwater or wetlands within the boundary of the state. There are no waters of the State on the GWRS Site, on the OCSD Plant No. 2 Site or along the OCSD easement corridor. The nearest Waters of the State to the study area would be the
OCWD GWRS Final Expansion Project – Addendum No. 6 Final EIR/EIS & CEQA-PLUS Federal Consultation Review 4-53 Section 4
Santa Ana River. The State jurisdiction along the Santa Ana River extends to the top of the slope and to any adjacent wetland vegetation. Wetland Waters of the United States and State California Wetland Waters are a subset of jurisdictional Waters of the U.S. and the State. Generally, wetlands are lands where saturation with water is the dominant factor determining the nature of soil development and the types of plant and animal communities living in the soil and on its surface. Wetlands generally include swamps, freshwater marshes, brackish water and saltwater marshes, bogs, vernal pools, periodically inundated salt flats, intertidal mudflats, wet meadows, wet pastures, springs and seeps, portions of lakes, ponds, rivers and streams and all areas which are periodically or permanently covered by shallow water, or dominated by hydrophilic vegetation, or in which the soils are predominantly hydric in nature. Presently, there is no single definition for wetlands. However, all resource agencies recognize that wetlands must demonstrate the following three essential elements: (1) the site periodically supports hydrophytic vegetation, (2) the site contains hydric soil and (3) the site periodically contains water or the soil is saturated with water at some time during the growing season of each year. A preliminary wetland assessment conducted at the GWRS Site, OCSD Plant No.2 Site and the OCSD easement corridor did not identify wetland habitat indicator elements. 4.4.2 Project Impacts IMPACT BIO-A: Would the project have a substantial adverse impact, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive or special status species in local or regional plans, policies or regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services? Onsite Impacts Based on a review of databases from United State Fish and Wildlife Service and California Department of Fish and Wildlife and biological surveys conducted within the study area, it has been determined that there would be low potential for special status plant species or special status wildlife species to be present. As shown in Table 14 and Table 15 the study area lacks suitable habitat to support special status plant species or special status wildlife species that were identified in the database search. Additionally, no indications were found that any special status species were ever present. Therefore, implementation of the GWRS Final Expansion Project would not result in adverse impacts to any special status plant species or special status wildlife species.
OCWD GWRS Final Expansion Project – Addendum No. 6 Final EIR/EIS & CEQA-PLUS Federal Consultation Review 4-54 Section 4
Offsite Impacts Located south of OCSD Plant No. 2 is the Talbert Marsh and south of Pacific Coast Highway is the California Least Tern Colony. Both of these biological resources provide suitable habitat for special status wildlife species. The proposed GWRS Final Expansion Project improvements would be confined to the GWRS Site, OCSD Plant No. 2 and along the OCSD easement corridor. No construction activities would occur at the Talbert Marsh or at the California Least Tern Colony. Therefore, no direct impacts to special status plant or wildlife species would occur. The construction activities for the GWRS Final Expansion Project would involve the operation of heavy construction equipment that could operate during nesting season. If the construction activity was to occur in close proximity to nesting birds at the Talbert Marsh or at the California Least Tern Colony there would be the potential that breeding patterns could be disturbed. The United States Fish and Wildlife Service as established a noise impact threshold of 60 dBA to identify potential adverse impacts to nesting birds. The Talbert Marsh is located approximately 2,200 feet from where the construction activities would occur and the California Least Tern Colony is located approximately 2,700 feet from where the construction activities would occur. Based on the noisiest piece of construction equipment that would be operate at OCSD Plant No. 2 Site the estimated noise level at Talbert Marsh and at the California Least Tern Colony would be below 55 dBA. Additionally, with the presence of the block wall around Plant No. 2 and the traffic noise along Pacific Coast Highway, it would be very unlikely that construction noise would herd at either location. Potential indirect noise impacts to special status wildlife species would be less than significant. IMPACT BIO-B: Would the project have a substantial adverse impact on any riparian habitat or natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, and regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? The majority of GWRS Site and the OCSD Plant No. 2 Site are improved with paved surfaces. No sensitive vegetation communities were identified in the locations where the final expansion improvements would occur. The OCSD easement corridor where the pipeline construction activities would occur consists of bare ground and non-native weeds. No sensitive natural communities were identified along the OCSD easement corridor. Therefore, implementation of the GWRS Final Expansion Project would not result in adverse impacts to sensitive natural communities. Impact BIO-C: Would the project adversely impact federally protected wetlands either individually or in combination with the known or probable impacts of other activities through direct removal, filling hydrological interruption, or other means?
OCWD GWRS Final Expansion Project – Addendum No. 6 Final EIR/EIS & CEQA-PLUS Federal Consultation Review 4-55 Section 4
GWRS Water Treatment Site/OCSD Plant No. 2 Wastewater Treatment Site The GWRS Site and the OCSD Plant No. 2 Site are both improved and developed with water and wastewater treatment facilities. The locations where the final expansion improvements would occur are paved and in a disturbed condition. A preliminary site survey conducted at the GWRS Site and at the OCSD Plant No.2 Site did not identify any potential wetland areas. Because of the improved conditions at both sites wetland delineation was not conducted. OCSD Easement Corridor The OCSD easement corridor is currently vacant and consists of bare ground and non- native weeds. Wetland delineation was conducted in accordance with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual to determine if wetland habitat was present in the location where the pipeline improvements would occur. A three parameter approach was used to identify Wetland Waters of the U.S. and State. These three parameters include; (1) the presence of wetland vegetation, (2) the presence of wetland hydrology and (3) the presence of hydric soils. Vegetation: The locations where the construction activities would occur did not contain any wetland vegetation that would meet the wetland vegetation parameter. Hydrology: The only source of water to the easement corridor would be seasonal rainfall. The ground surface where the construction activities would occur consists of compacted soils that would not saturate with rainfall. The study area would not meet the wetland hydrology parameter. Hydric Soils: The study area soils consist of compacted fill material and would not meet the hydric soil parameter. Wetland Waters Determination The GWRS Site, the OCSD Plant No. 2 Site and the OCSD easement corridor all lack the required parameters that define Wetland Waters of the U.S. or State. Therefore, the implementation of the GWRS Final Expansion Project would not adversely impact Wetland Waters of the U.S or State. IMPACT BIO-D: 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? The GWRS Final Expansion Project improvements would occur on the GWRS Site, OCSD Plant No. 2 Site and along the OCSD easement corridor. The GWRS Site and the OCSD Plant No. 2 Site are both developed properties that have been improved with buildings, water and wastewater treatment facilities, roadways and parking areas. Both
OCWD GWRS Final Expansion Project – Addendum No. 6 Final EIR/EIS & CEQA-PLUS Federal Consultation Review 4-56 Section 4
sites lack suitable habitat or provide linkages to suitable habitat to support wildlife movement. Along the perimeter of Plant No.2 are a row of eucalyptus trees that could provide potential nesting opportunities for migratory birds. The construction activities for the proposed project would not involve the removal of any trees. Therefore, potential direct impacts to nesting migratory birds would be avoided. Additionally, construction activities would occur a distance from the eucalyptus trees where the construction noise would not significantly impact nesting birds. The Talbert Marsh is located approximately 2,200 feet from the construction activities and the California Least Tern Colony is located approximately 2,700 feet from where the construction would occur. At the distance the construction noise levels would be minimal and would not pose a potential disruption to nesting birds. The implementation of the proposed project would not result in significant adverse impacts to migratory birds or result in significant adverse impacts to wildlife movement. The OCSD easement corridor is disturbed condition from ongoing maintenance activities. The area does not contain any vegetation or trees that would provide suitable habitat for migratory birds. The OCSD easement corridor does provide an open space connection between OCSD Plant No. 1 Site and the OCSD Plant No. 2 Site. However, the easement corridor does not contain suitable habitat or provide linkages to suitable habitat areas to function has a wildlife movement corridor. Therefore, the implementation of the GWRS Final Expansion Project would not result in significant adverse impacts to migratory birds or result in significant adverse impacts to wildlife movement. IMPACT BIO-E: Would the project conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as tree preservation policy or ordinance? The City of Fountain Valley and the City of Huntington Beach both do not have local policies or ordinances that would apply to the study area and provide for the protection and management of biological resources Therefore, implementation of the GWRS Final Expansion Project would not be in conflict with local polices or ordinances that provide for the protection of biological resources. IMPACT BIO-F: Would the project be in conflict with provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local regional or state habitat conservation plan. The construction and operation of the GWRS Final Expansion Project would occur on the GWRS Site, OCSD Plant No. 2 Site and OCSD easement corridor. None of the sites are included within adopted Habitat Conservation Plan or Natural Communities Conservation Plan.
OCWD GWRS Final Expansion Project – Addendum No. 6 Final EIR/EIS & CEQA-PLUS Federal Consultation Review 4-57 Section 4
Mitigation Measures No mitigation measures are required. 4.4.3 Level of Impact The construction and operation of the GWRS Final Expansion Project would not result in avoidable significant impacts to biological resources and would result in the same of level of potential impacts to biological resources that were identified in the GWRS Final EIR/EIS. Additionally, the implementation of the GWRS Final Expansion Project would not cause any new, substantially increase or result in more severe impacts to biological resources and no additional mitigation measures would be necessary to mitigate impacts to biological resources to a less than significant level.
OCWD GWRS Final Expansion Project – Addendum No. 6 Final EIR/EIS & CEQA-PLUS Federal Consultation Review 4-58 Section 4
4.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES The following analysis is based on a Phase 1 Cultural Resources Report prepared for the GWRS Final Expansion Project by Environmental Science Associates in August of 2016. The Phase 1 Cultural Resources Report is presented in Appendix C. 4.5.1 Environmental Setting The study area is located in the cities of Huntington Beach and Fountain Valley, Orange County, in southern California. The topography of Orange County includes a combination of mountains, hills, flatlands, and shorelines. Urbanized Orange County is predominantly within an alluvial plain, semi-enclosed by the Puente and Chino Hills to the north, the San Joaquin Hills to the south, and the Santiago Foothills and the Santa Ana Mountains to the east. The Puente and Chino Hills, which identify the northern limit of the plains, extend for 22 miles and reach a peak height of 7,780 feet. To the east and southeast of the plains are the Santa Ana Mountains, which have a peak height of 5,691-feet. The Santa Ana River is located adjacent to and just east of the study area. Prehistoric Setting The prehistory of the region has been summarized within four major horizons or cultural periods: Early [10,000 to 8,000 before present (B.P.)], Millingstone (8,000 to 3,000 B.P.), Intermediate (3,000 to 1,500 B.P.), and Late Prehistoric (1,500 B.P to A.D. 1769) (Wallace, 1955; Warren, 1968). Early Period (10,000 to 8,000 B.P.) The southern California coast may have been settled as early as 10,000 years ago (Jones, 1992). These early inhabitants were likely maritime adapted groups exploiting shellfish and other marine resources found along the coastline (Dixon, 1999; Erlandson, 1994; Vellanoweth and Altschul, 2002). One site located in Newport Bay, Orange County (CA-ORA-64) dates to approximately 9,500 years B.P. and suggests early intensive utilization of shellfish, fish, and bird resources (Drover et al., 1983; Macko, 1998). Millingstone Period (8,000 to 3,000 B.P.) The Millingstone Period dates to about 8,000 to 3,000 B.P. The transition from the Early Period to the Millingstone Period is marked by an increased emphasis on the processing of seeds and edible plants. The increased utilization of seeds is evident by the high frequencies of handstones (manos) and milling slabs (metates). Around 5,000 B.P., mortar and pestles appear in the archaeological record. Mortars and pestles suggest the exploitation of acorns (Vellanoweth and Altschul, 2002). Millingstone Period sites in Orange County generally date to between 8,000 and 4,000 B.P. Archaeological evidence suggests a low, stable population centered around semi-permanent residential bases. These sites are located along coastal marine terraces, near the shoreline, bays,
OCWD GWRS Final Expansion Project – Addendum No. 6 Final EIR/EIS & CEQA-PLUS Federal Consultation Review 4-59 Section 4 or estuaries. Satellite camps were used to take advantage of seasonally available resources. Marine resources were supplemented by seeds and small terrestrial mammals. Later Millingstone Period sites indicate a growing reliance on shellfish (Cleland et al., 2007). Intermediate Period (3,000 to 1,500 B.P.) The Intermediate Period dates to between 3,000 to 1,500 B.P. Archaeological sites indicate a broader economic base, with increased reliance on hunting and marine resources. An expanded inventory of milling equipment is found at sites dated to this period. Intermediate Period sites are characterized by the rise of the mortar and pestle and small projectile points (Cleland et al., 2007). The number of Intermediate Period sites in Orange County declined over time, particularly around Newport Bay. Climate changes and drier conditions led to the congregation of populations near freshwater sources. Settlement patterns indicate greater sedentism, with reduced exploitation of seasonal resources and a lack of satellite camps. Coastal terrace sites are not reoccupied during this time period. These shifts in settlement and subsistence strategies led to growing population densities, resource intensification, higher reliance on labor-intensive technologies, such as the circular fishhook, and more abundant and diverse hunting equipment. Rises in disease and inter-personal violence, visible in the archaeological record, may be due to the increased population densities (Cleland et al., 2007; Raab et al., 1995). Late Prehistoric Period (1,500 B.P. to A.D. 1769) The Late Prehistoric Period began around 1,500 B.P. and lasted until Spanish contact in 1769. The Late Prehistoric Period resulted in concentration of larger populations in settlements and communities, greater utilization of the available food resources, and the development of regional subcultures (Cleland et al., 2007). Artifacts from this period include milling implements, as well as bone and shell tools and ornaments. Newport Bay and San Joaquin Hills, abandoned during the Intermediate Period, were reoccupied during the Late Prehistoric Period. These settlements were smaller than in the Intermediate. Village sites were located in areas with a multitude of resources. Small collector groups moved between a small number of these permanent settlements (Cleland et al., 2007). Ethnographic Setting The study area is located at the southern extent of Gabrielino-Tongva territory, near the boundary with the Juaneño, or more properly Acjachemen, to the south. Traditionally, the boundary between the two is identified as either Aliso Creek or the drainage divide to the north of the creek, roughly 20 miles south of the study area. Both are included here.
OCWD GWRS Final Expansion Project – Addendum No. 6 Final EIR/EIS & CEQA-PLUS Federal Consultation Review 4-60 Section 4
Gabrielino-Tongva Prior to European colonization, the Gabrielino-Tongva, a Takic-speaking group, occupied a diverse area that included: the watersheds of the Los Angeles, San Gabriel, and Santa Ana rivers; the Los Angeles basin; and the islands of San Clemente, San Nicolas, and Santa Catalina (Kroeber, 1925). The Gabrielino-Tongva are reported to have been second only to the Chumash in terms of population size and regional influence (Bean and Smith, 1978). The Gabrielino-Tongva were hunter-gatherers and lived in permanent communities located near the presence of a stable food supply. Community populations generally ranged from 50-100 inhabitants, although larger settlements may have existed. The Gabrielino-Tongva are estimated to have had a population numbering around 5,000 in the pre-contact period, with many recorded villages along the drainages mentioned above and in the Los Angeles basin proper (Kroeber, 1925). Beginning with the Spanish Period and the establishment of Mission San Gabriel Arcángel, Native Americans throughout the Los Angeles area suffered severe depopulation and their traditional culture was radically altered. Nonetheless, Gabrielino- Tongva descendants still reside in the greater Los Angeles and Orange County areas and maintain an active interest in their heritage. Juaneño-Acjachemen The Juaneño or Acjachemen, also Takic-speaking, occupied a more restricted area extending across southern Orange County and northern San Diego County. Juaneño territory extended along the Pacific coast from midway between Arroyo San Onofre and Las Pulgas Canyon in the south to Aliso Creek in the north, and continued east into the Santa Ana Mountains from Santiago Peak in the northwest to the headwaters of Arroyo San Mateo in the southeast (Kroeber 1925). The Juaneño were bounded by the Gabrielino-Tongva to the north, and the Luiseño to the east and south. The Juaneño-Acjachemen, like the Gabrielino-Tongva, subsisted on small game, coastal marine resources, and a wide variety of plant foods such as grass seeds and acorns. Their houses were conical thatched reed, brush, or bark structures. The Juaneño inhabited permanent villages centered around patrilineal clans, with each village headed by a chief, known as a nu (Kroeber 1925; Sparkman 1908). Seasonal camps associated with villages were also used. Each village or clan had an associated territory and hunting, collecting, and fishing areas. Villages were typically located in proximity to a food or water source, or in defensive locations, often near valley bottoms, streams, sheltered coves or canyons, or coastal strands (Bean and Shipek 1978). The Juaneño-Acjachemen population was estimated to have numbered approximately 1,000 at the time of European contact. Beginning with the Spanish Period and the
OCWD GWRS Final Expansion Project – Addendum No. 6 Final EIR/EIS & CEQA-PLUS Federal Consultation Review 4-61 Section 4 establishment of Mission San Juan Capistrano, the Juaneño-Acjachemen suffered severe depopulation and their traditional culture was radically altered. Nonetheless, descendants still reside in the Orange County area and maintain an active interest in their heritage. Historic Setting The historic setting for the study area is divided into three primary periods: the Spanish Period (A.D. 1769-1821), the Mexican Period (A.D. 1821-1846), and the American Period (A.D. 1846 to present). Spanish Period (A.D. 1769-1821) The first European exploration of Orange County began in 1769 when the Gaspar de Portola expedition passed through on its way from Mexico to Monterey. A permanent Spanish presence was established with the founding of Mission San Juan Capistrano in 1776 (Hoover et al., 2002). The mission was founded to break the long journey from Mission San Diego to Mission San Gabriel (near Los Angeles). A large, ornate church was constructed at the mission from 1797 to 1806, but was destroyed only six years later in an earthquake. The church was not rebuilt. In an effort to promote Spanish settlement of Alta California, Spain granted several large land concessions from 1784 to 1821. At this time, Spain retained title to the land; individual ownership of lands in Alta California was not granted. The parts of Orange County that would become the City of Huntington Beach and the City of Fountain Valley began as a Spanish land concession, known as Rancho Los Nietos. A grant of 300,000 acres was given to Manuel Nieto in 1784 in consideration of his military service (City of Huntington Beach, 2000; Logan, 1990). Mexican Period (A.D. 1821-1846) In 1821, Mexico won its independence from Spain. Mexico continued to promote settlement of California with the issuance of land grants. In 1833, Mexico secularized the missions, reclaiming the majority of mission lands and redistributing them as land grants. During this time, Rancho Los Nietos was divided into five smaller ranchos. The area of Huntington Beach became part of Rancho Las Bolsas, a 33,460-acre rancho granted to Maria Catarina Ruiz in 1834 (County of Orange, 2011). Maria was the widow of Jose Antonio Nieto, Manuel Nieto’s son. Many ranchos continued to be used for cattle grazing by settlers during the Mexican Period. Hides and tallow from cattle became a major export for Californios (Hispanic Californians), many of whom became wealthy and prominent members of society. These Californios led generally easy lives, leaving the hard work to vaqueros (Hispanic cowhands) and Indian laborers. Californios lives centered primarily around enjoying the
OCWD GWRS Final Expansion Project – Addendum No. 6 Final EIR/EIS & CEQA-PLUS Federal Consultation Review 4-62 Section 4 fruits of their labors, throwing parties and feasting on Catholic holidays (Pitt, 1994; Starr, 2007). American Period (A.D. 1846 to present) Mexico ceded California to the United States as part of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hildalgo, which ended the Mexican-American War (1846-1848). The treaty also recognized right of Mexican citizens to retain ownership of land granted to them by Spanish or Mexican authorities. However, the claimant was required to prove their right to the land before a patent was given. The process was lengthy and costly, and generally resulted in the claimant losing at least a portion of their land to attorney’s fees and other costs associated with proving ownership (Starr, 2007). The Gold Rush (1849-1855) saw the first big influx of American settlers to California. Most of these settlers were men hoping to strike it rich in the gold fields. The increasing population provided an additional outlet for Californios’ cattle (Bancroft, 1890). As demand increased, the price of beef skyrocketed and Californios reaped the benefits. The culmination of the Gold Rush, followed by devastating floods in 1861 and 1862 and droughts in 1863 and 1864, led to the rapid decline of the cattle industry (Bancroft, 1890). Many Californios lost their lands during this period, and former ranchos were subsequently divided and sold for agriculture and residential settlement. Following the admission of California into the United States in 1850, the region of modern day Orange County was originally part of Los Angeles County. Orange County was established in 1889, with the City of Santa Ana as County Seat (Armor, 1921). History of the Study Area The study area was once part of a 300,000-acre Spanish land grant, Rancho Los Nietos, a part of which became Rancho Las Bolsas during the Mexican Period. Abel Stearns later acquired the land for ranching and cultivation of barley. During the land boom of the 1880s, the area was subdivided for agricultural and residential development (County of Orange, 2011; Milkovich, 1986). Previously called Shell Beach and later Pacific City, the town changed its name to Huntington Beach in 1904 when Henry E. Huntington extended Pacific Electric Railway service to the little community (Carlberg and Epting, 2009; Milkovich, 1986). Discovery of oil in the 1920s led to a population explosion in the town. In one month, the population of Huntington Beach went from 1,500 to 6,000.
OCWD GWRS Final Expansion Project – Addendum No. 6 Final EIR/EIS & CEQA-PLUS Federal Consultation Review 4-63 Section 4
History of OCSD Plant No. 1 and No. 2 and OCWD GWRS OCSD In 1921, the cities of Santa Ana and Anaheim agreed to construct a sewer outfall extending into the Pacific Ocean, thus forming the Orange County Joint Outfall Sewer (JOS), and marking the beginning of the OCSD. In 1924, JOS construction was completed and the first sewage from member cities was discharged into the system. Three years later, the outfall was extended to a distance of 3,000 feet from shore, and a new screening plant and pumping station was constructed. In 1941, the first units of the Primary Treatment Plant, now referred to as Plant No. 1) were constructed. In 1954, OCSD assumed the duties of JOS and officially commenced operations. Over the next 50 years, additional services and facilities were constructed at OCSD Plant No. 1. The portion of the existing facility where the proposed OCSD pipe connection would connect was constructed within the last 10 years. In 1954, Plant No. 2 was constructed near the ocean and adjoining Santa Ana River and the second ocean outfall was constructed. OCSD is currently a public agency that provides wastewater collection, treatment, and disposal services for approximately 2.6 million people in central and northwest Orange County. OCSD is a special district that is governed by a Board of Directors consisting of 25 board members appointed from 2 cities, for sanitary water districts, and one representative from the Orange County Board of Supervisors. OCSD has two operating facilities (Plants 1 and 2) that treat wastewater from residential, commercial and industrial sources (ocsd.com). OCWD GWRS In the 1950s, traces of salt water were detected in the Orange County Groundwater Basin as far as 5 miles inland, although the area of intrusion was focused primarily across a 3-mile stretch between the cities of Newport Beach and Huntington Beach. In order to protect the basin from further seawater intrusion, the OCWD constructed the Water Factory 21 (WF-21) in 1978. This facility treated wastewater utilizing a purification process including RO, and injected it into 23 multi-casing injection wells along the Talbert Gap forming a hydraulic barrier to seawater intrusion. (gwrsystem.com). In 2004, WF-21 discontinued production and was demolished in February 2007 to provide space for the construction of GWRS. GWRS provides new technology and is a larger water purification plant compared to the previous WR-21. Construction of the GWRS broke ground in September 2004 and was completed in late 2007. The GWRS consists primarily of membrane processes, replacing the physical-chemical processes of WF-21. Unlike WF-21, the GWRS utilizes MF as pre-treatment prior to RO and UV light with hydrogen peroxide. The GWRS product water not only supplies water to an expanded seawater barrier, but is also pumped to two of OCWD’s recharge basins where it blends with Santa Ana River and imported waters and naturally filters into the
OCWD GWRS Final Expansion Project – Addendum No. 6 Final EIR/EIS & CEQA-PLUS Federal Consultation Review 4-64 Section 4 groundwater basin, ultimately becoming part of north and central Orange County’s drinking water supply (gwrsystem.com). Federal Regulatory Framework Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act Archaeological resources are protected through the NHPA of 1966, as amended (54 United States Code of Laws [USC] 300101 et seq.), and its implementing regulation, Protection of Historic Properties (36 CFR Part 800), the Archaeological and Historic Preservation Act of 1974, and the Archaeological Resources Protection Act of 1979. Prior to implementing an “undertaking” (e.g., issuing a federal permit), Section 106 of the NHPA requires federal agencies to consider the effects of the undertaking on historic properties and to afford the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation and the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) a reasonable opportunity to comment on any undertaking that would adversely affect properties eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (National Register). As indicated in Section 101(d)(6)(A) of the NHPA, properties of traditional religious and cultural importance to a tribe are eligible for inclusion in the National Register. Under the NHPA, a resource is considered significant if it meets the National Register listing criteria at 36 CFR 60.4. National Register of Historic Places The National Register was established by the NHPA of 1966, as “an authoritative guide to be used by federal, State, and local governments, private groups and citizens to identify the Nation’s historic resources and to indicate what properties should be considered for protection from destruction or impairment” (36 CFR 60.2). The National Register recognizes both historic-period and prehistoric archaeological properties that are significant at the national, state, and local levels. To be eligible for listing in the National Register, a resource must be significant in American history, architecture, archaeology, engineering, or culture. Districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects of potential significance must meet one or more of the following four established criteria (U.S. Department of the Interior, 2002): • Are associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history; • Are associated with the lives of persons significant in our past; • Embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction or that represent the work of a master, or that possess high artistic values, or that represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction; or,
OCWD GWRS Final Expansion Project – Addendum No. 6 Final EIR/EIS & CEQA-PLUS Federal Consultation Review 4-65 Section 4
• Have yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history. Unless the property possesses exceptional significance, it must be at least 50 years old to be eligible for National Register listing (U.S. Department of the Interior, 2002). In addition to meeting the criteria of significance, a property must have integrity. Integrity is defined as “the ability of a property to convey its significance” (U.S. Department of the Interior, 2002). The National Register recognizes seven qualities that, in various combinations, define integrity. The seven factors that define integrity are location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association. To retain historic integrity a property must possess several, and usually most, of these seven aspects. Thus, the retention of the specific aspects of integrity is paramount for a property to convey its significance. State Regulatory Framework California Environmental Quality Act CEQA is the principal statute governing environmental review of projects occurring in the state and is codified at Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 21000 et seq. CEQA requires lead agencies to determine if a proposed project would have a significant effect on the environment, including significant effects on historical or unique archaeological resources. Under CEQA (Section 21084.1), a project that may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an historical resource is a project that may have a significant effect on the environment. An archaeological resource may qualify as an “historical resource” under CEQA. The CEQA Guidelines (Title 14 California Code of Regulations [CCR] Section 15064.5) recognize that an historical resource includes: (1) a resource listed in, or determined to be eligible by the State Historical Resources Commission, for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources (California Register); (2) a resource included in a local register of historical resources, as defined in PRC Section 5020.1(k) or identified as significant in a historical resource survey meeting the requirements of PRC Section 5024.1(g); and (3) any object, building, structure, site, area, place, record, or manuscript which a lead agency determines to be historically significant or significant in the architectural, engineering, scientific, economic, agricultural, educational, social, political, military, or cultural annals of California by the lead agency, provided the lead agency’s determination is supported by substantial evidence in light of the whole record. The fact that a resource does not meet the three criteria outlined above does not preclude the lead agency from determining that the resource may be an historical resource as defined in PRC Sections 5020.1(j) or 5024.1.
OCWD GWRS Final Expansion Project – Addendum No. 6 Final EIR/EIS & CEQA-PLUS Federal Consultation Review 4-66 Section 4
California Register of Historical Resources The California Register is “an authoritative listing and guide to be used by State and local agencies, private groups, and citizens in identifying the existing historical resources of the State and to indicate which resources deserve to be protected, to the extent prudent and feasible, from Register are based upon National Register criteria (PRC Section 5024.1[b]). Certain resources are determined by the statute to be automatically included in the California Register, including California properties formally determined eligible for, or listed in, the National Register. To be eligible for the California Register, a prehistoric or historic-period property must be significant at the local, state, and/or federal level under one or more of the following four criteria: • Is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of California’s history and cultural heritage; • Is associated with the lives of persons important in our past; • Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or represents the work of an important creative individual, or possesses high artistic values; or • Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history. A resource eligible for the California Register must meet one of the criteria of significance described above, and retain enough of its historic character or appearance (integrity) to be recognizable as a historical resource and to convey the reason for its significance. It is possible that a historic resource may not retain sufficient integrity to meet the criteria for listing in the National Register, but it may still be eligible for listing in the California Register. California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 require that in the event human remains are discovered, the County Coroner be contacted to determine the nature of the remains. In the event the remains are determined to be Native American in origin, the Coroner is required to contact the California Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) within 24 hours to relinquish jurisdiction. California Public Resources Code Section 5097.98 California PRC Section 5097.98, as amended by Assembly Bill 2641, provides procedures in the event human remains of Native American origin are discovered during project implementation. PRC Section 5097.98 requires that no further disturbances occur in the immediate vicinity of the discovery, that the discovery is adequately protected according to generally accepted cultural and archaeological standards, and
OCWD GWRS Final Expansion Project – Addendum No. 6 Final EIR/EIS & CEQA-PLUS Federal Consultation Review 4-67 Section 4
that further activities take into account the possibility of multiple burials. PRC Section 5097.98 further requires the NAHC, upon notification by a County Coroner, designate and notify a Most Likely Descendant (MLD) regarding the discovery of Native American human remains. Once the MLD has been granted access to the site by the landowner and inspected the discovery, the MLD then has 48 hours to provide recommendations to the landowner for the treatment of the human remains and any associated grave goods. In the event that no descendant is identified, or the descendant fails to make a recommendation for disposition, or if the land owner rejects the recommendation of the descendant, the landowner may, with appropriate dignity, reinter the remains and burial items on the property in a location that will not be subject to further disturbance. California Public Resources Code Section 21080.3.1 California PRC Section 21080.3.1, as amended by Assembly Bill (AB) 52, requires lead agencies to consider the effects of projects on tribal cultural resources and to conduct consultation with federally and non-federally recognized Native American Tribes early in the environmental planning process and applies specifically to projects for which a Notice of Preparation (NOP) or a notice of Negative Declaration or Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) will be filed on or after July 1, 2015. The goal is to include California Tribes in determining whether a project may result in a significant impact to tribal cultural resources that may be undocumented or known only to the Tribe and its members and specifies that a project that may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource is a project that may have a significant effect on the environment. Tribal cultural resources are defined as “sites, features, places, cultural landscapes, sacred places, and objects with cultural value to a California Native American Tribe” that are either included or determined to be eligible for inclusion in the California Register or included in a local register of historical resources (PRC Section 21074 (a)(1)). Archival Research Area of Potential Effects An Area of Potential Effects (APE) was established for the project according to Section 106 of the NHPA in coordination with the OCWD. The APE is shown in Figure 22 and is defined as: …the geographic area or areas within which an undertaking may directly or indirectly cause alterations in the character or use of historic properties, if any such properties exist. The APE is influenced by the scale and nature of an undertaking and may be different for different kinds of effects caused by the undertaking (36 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] 800.16[d]).
OCWD GWRS Final Expansion Project – Addendum No. 6 Final EIR/EIS & CEQA-PLUS Federal Consultation Review 4-68 Archaeological Area of Potential Effects OCSD Plant No. 1 and OCSD Plant No. 2
OCWD GWRS Facility
OCWD GWRS Facility
SUNFLOWER AVE
Ellis Ave Ellis Ave
T
S
RD A 405
W OCSD Plant No. 1
Garfield Ave
Yorktown Ave
Adams Ave Pipeline
t
S
St
d
ia
r
St
t
a s
nol
ur
g
kh
a
o
M o
r
Bush
B
Atlanta Ave
Hamilton Ave
Contractor D
V
L
B Laydown Area
R
RBO D
A V L H B RT OCSD Plant No. 2 O
WP E OCSD Pipeline N Construction: Headworks Connection & Bypass Pipeline
AVE E E G N AV Construction: OCSD RA NA Plant No 2 Pump Station O A NTA A & Water Pump Station S E AV Demolition: IN T
Existing Pump TUS Station
0 2,000
Feet Path: I:\SS\Bott\GWRS_Expansion\SplitProject\F22_AreaOfPontentialEffectsEdit.mxd
GWRS Final Expansion Project Area of Potential Effects Figure 22 Section 4
The horizontal APE encompasses the MF Building Expansion (about 0.50-acre), 3.5- mile long existing pipeline, the excavation area for OCSD pipeline (about 650 square feet), the contractor laydown area (about 0.70-acre), the area encompassing the Effluent Pump Station, Product Pump Station (about 0.28 acre), and the area encompassing the headgates and bypass pipeline (about 0.5 acre). The vertical APE includes the anticipated maximum depth of ground disturbance of 25 feet below ground surface and the maximum height of the flow equalization tank of 30 feet above ground surface. South Central Coastal Information Center Records Search A records search for the APE and a ½-mile radius was conducted on June 21, 2016 at the South Central Coastal Information Center (SCCIC), located at California State University, Fullerton. The records search included a review of all recorded cultural resources within a ½-mile radius of the project APE, as well as a review of cultural resource reports on file. The Historic Properties Directory was also examined for any documented historic-period built resources within or adjacent to the project APE. The results of the SCCIC records search are included in Appendix C. Previous Cultural Resources Investigations A total of 61 cultural resources studies have been conducted within a ½-mile radius of the project APE. Of the 61 previous studies, five studies included a pedestrian survey of portions of the APE, and four included archival research for the APE. A complete list of the 61 studies located within ½-mile of the project APE is located in Appendix C. Less than 50 percent of the project APE has been included in previous cultural resources surveys. Previously Recorded Cultural Resources The records search indicated that nine cultural resources have been previously recorded within a ½-mile radius of the project APE. No cultural resources have been previously recorded within the project APE. However, two historic-age Southern California Edison (SCE) transmission towers (30-177464 and 30-177612) are located adjacent to the pipeline alignment. Several prehistoric sites have been recorded within the search radius along the east bluffs of the Santa Ana River approximately 2,000 feet east of the project APE. Resource 30-177464 SCE Transmission Tower M2-T6 (30-177464), consists of one of a pair of SCE high- lead electrical transmission towers that run general north-south tying into the SCE power plant located along the Pacific Coast Highway (PCH) near Brookhurst Street. The riveted steel, truncated pair of towers was built in 1964 and each stand approximately 121 feet tall, resting on concrete piers, and having three arms with porcelain insulators
OCWD GWRS Final Expansion Project – Addendum No. 6 Final EIR/EIS & CEQA-PLUS Federal Consultation Review 4-70 Section 4
conducting electricity along wires affixed to each arm. The tower parallels the Santa Ana River flood control channel immediately to the east. This resource was previously evaluated for its historical significance. While the tower appeared to retain very good integrity of design, materials, location, setting, association, and feeling, this resource was found to be a ubiquitous property type constructed in 1964 to provide additional electrical power to the expanding suburban communities of west Orange County, including Huntington Beach. This resource was not associated with any significant events (Criterion A), nor did it appear to embody distinctive construction techniques or represent the work of a master (Criterion C), and it was recommended not eligible for listing in the National Register (Supernowicz, 2012). Resource 30-177612 SCE Transmission Tower M2-T5 (30-177612) consists of a steel lattice type, 122-foot tall transmission tower. The base of the tower measures 30 feet on each side. The footings are rectangular shaped concrete bases. The transmission tower was constructed with bolted steel L-shaped profiles. The tower was installed by SCE as part of its expansion of electrical service in the Huntington Beach area. The center of the tower base contains a square, concrete block building. The building has a hipped roof with Spanish tile. The transmission tower was constructed as part of the overall development of electrical power in Southern California in the 1940s in the post-World War II period. This resource was previously evaluated for its historical significance. While the tower appeared to retain integrity of design, materials, location, setting, association, feeling, and workmanship, the tower was not associated with any significant events or persons (Criterion A and B), it did not represent distinctive construction techniques or the work of a master (Criterion C), and it was not the principal source of information about this property type and did not have the potential to yield information important in prehistory or history (Criterion D). Thus it was recommended not eligible for the National Register (Crawford, 2007). It has not been previously evaluated for listing in the California Register. Historic Map and Aerial Review Historic maps and aerial photographs were examined in order to provide historical information about the APE and to contribute to an assessment of the APE’s archaeological sensitivity. Available maps include: the 1868 U.S. Surveyor General’s survey plat map of Townships 5 and 6 South, Range 10 West the 1895 and 1901 Santa Ana 1:62,500 topographic quadrangles; the 1902 Corona 1:125,000 topographic quadrangle; and the 1935 Newport Beach 1:31,600 topographic quadrangles; and 1965 and 1975 Newport Beach 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle. Historic aerial photographs of the APE from 1938, 1953, 1963, 1972, 1994, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2009, and 2010 were also examined (historicaerials.com, 2016).
OCWD GWRS Final Expansion Project – Addendum No. 6 Final EIR/EIS & CEQA-PLUS Federal Consultation Review 4-71 Section 4
The 1868 U.S. Surveyor General’s survey plat map shows the APE as being located within Rancho Las Bolsas. The plat map indicates salt marshes within the current location of OCSD Plant No. 2. The available historic maps and aerial photographs indicate that the APE and surrounding area was largely used for agricultural purposes throughout the 20th century, and did not become urbanized until the latter half of the century. The Santa Ana River is shown confined with artificial levees in the 1938 historic aerial photograph. The OCSD Plant No. 1 is visible on the 1953 aerial photograph. The southern portion of OCSD Plant No. 1 was undeveloped until The OCWD GWRS and OCSD Plant No. 2 are not shown on the 1953 aerial. The OCSD Plant No. 2 facility is shown on the 1965 Newport Beach 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle. The OCWD GWRS facility is shown on the 1972 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle. Based on a detailed review of the 1972 and 2016 aerials of the OCSD Plant No.2, there are structures shown on the 1972 aerial that remain visible on the 2016 aerial photograph. Native American Heritage Commission In 2014, the project environmental documentation, including a cultural resources study, was initiated, and it was put on hold shortly after. However, Native American outreach was completed. The Native American outreach was restarted as part of the project and new project features. Native American Outreach – 2016 On June 2, 2016, a SLF search request letter was sent to the NAHC in an effort to determine whether any sacred sites are listed on SLF for the APE. A response was provided on June 6, 2016 indicating negative results for Native American cultural resources within the project APE. The NAHC recommended outreach to 12 specific tribal authorities who may want to comment on our search request. A letter to the NAHC-listed tribal authorities was mailed on June 20, 2016. Phone calls were made to each of the named tribal members on June 28, 2016. Responses from each tribe is provided in Appendix C. The representatives from Tongva Acenstral Terrotorial Tribal Nation, Gabrieleno/Tongva San Gabriel Band of Mission, Gabrielino Tongva Tribe, Gabrielin Tongva Nation, and Juaneno Band of Mission Indians Acjachemen Nation recommended that because of the culutuial and spiritual sensitivity of the study area that the project incorporate Native American and Archeological Monitoring. AB 52 In August 2016, OCWD sent letters to two Native American representatives who have requested to be informed on activities conducted by the OCWD, under PRC Section 21080.3.1. The OCWD reached out to the Juaneño Band of Mission Indians
OCWD GWRS Final Expansion Project – Addendum No. 6 Final EIR/EIS & CEQA-PLUS Federal Consultation Review 4-72 Section 4
Acjachemen Nation and Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation. Consultation efforts are currently on-going. Geoarchaeological Review Chris Lockwood, Ph.D., R.P.A., conducted a desktop geoarchaeological review of the project APE and vicinity in order to evaluate the potential for buried archaeological resources within the APE. The following section presents the results of Dr. Lockwood’s analysis. Geology and Geomorphology The APE is located in Fountain Valley and Huntington Beach on the Santa Ana coastal plain in Orange County, California. It is immediately west of a stretch of the Santa Ana River that is confined to a flood control channel. OCSD Plant No. 1 The portion of the APE at OCSD Plant No. 1 is situated on a landform dominated by a low-gradient, sandy alluvial fan that merges with marine deposits at the coast. During the late Pleistocene, sea-level was approximately 120 meters below present level, leaving the vicinity of the APE approximately 9.3 miles (15.0 km) inland. Sea level rose throughout the Holocene, attaining near present conditions by approximately 2,000 to 4,000 years ago. Near surface deposits within the portion of the APE where new piping would be installed between OCSD Plant No. 1 and the existing pipeline are mapped as late Holocene to latest Pleistocene alluvial fan deposits (Morton 2004; Morton and Miller 2006), and consist of gravel, sand, and silt transported and deposited by the Santa Ana River. The APE is covered by a paved surface that likely is underlain by fill and required grading prior to construction. OCWD GWRS Facility The portion of the APE at OCWD GWRS Facility APE is on the same landform as the portion of the APE at OCSD Plant No. 1 and therefore shares similar geomorphological characteristics. The OCWD GWRS Facility APE has been previously developed. OCSD Plant No. 2 The portion of the APE at OCSD Plant No. 2 is on the distal portion of the alluvial fan that also contains the portion of the APE at the OCSD Plant No. 1 and the portion of the APE at the OCWD GWRS Facility. During the late Pleistocene, the portion of the APE at OCSD Plant No. 2 was approximately 5.5 miles (9.0 km) inland. Historically, the APE consisted largely of salt marsh, which would have been at or just above sea level, and was divided by small channels. The area was for celery agriculture in historic times. The OCSD Plant No. 2 was initially developed for sanitation in 1954, but the parcel, including the APE, was progressively developed towards the north over the next five
OCWD GWRS Final Expansion Project – Addendum No. 6 Final EIR/EIS & CEQA-PLUS Federal Consultation Review 4-73 Section 4 decades. The APE is covered with a paved surface that is at elevation 3-4 meters above mean sea level (amsl), suggesting the APE contains several meters of fill overlying the native salt marsh deposits. Some of the fill material may have originated as dredge spoils from channelization of the Santa Ana River. Near surface geology the APE is mapped as late Holocene to latest Pleistocene alluvial fan deposits (Morton 2004; Morton and Miller 2006). These deposits consist of gravel, sand, and silt transported and deposited by the Santa Ana River. To the south of the APE, the OCSD Plant No. 2 site contains unconsolidated eolian dune deposits. Soils OCSD Plant No. 1 Soils within the portion of the APE at OCSD Plant No. 1 are mapped as Metz loamy sand (NRCS 2016). The Metz soil series consists of very deep, somewhat excessively drained soils. Metz soils are formed in alluvial parent material on floodplains and alluvial fans with slopes of 0 to 15 percent. Since Metz soils are commonly cultivated, the typical soil pedon possesses a shallow plowzone A-horizon (Ap) overlying multiple layers of sandy loam to sand parent material (C1, C2, C3, C4 horizons). The absence of a B-horizon is likely due to the short geological time that has passed since deposition of the last unit of parent material (C1), although agricultural activity has the potential to have partially disrupted B-horizon development. The sequence of several units of parent material (C-horizon) reflects changes over time in the behavior of the Santa Ana River, including periodic overbank flooding. Because the C-horizons represent vertical accretion (i.e., building) on the floodplain, there is a potential that successive fluvial deposits covered and preserved archaeological resources that had accumulated between depositional events. Therefore, Metz soils are considered to have a high sensitivity for buried archaeological resources. OCWD GWRS Facility Soils within the portion of the APE at the OCWD GWRS Facility are mapped as Hueneme fine sandy loam (NRCS 2016). The Hueneme soils series are formed on alluvial fans in stratified alluvium derived from sedimentary rock. The typical soil pedon consists of a plowed A-horizon (Ap1, Ap2) developed at the top of relatively unaltered alluvial parent material (C1 through C5) extending more than 70 inches deep. The absence of a B-horizon is likely due to the short geological time that has passed since deposition of parent material, although agricultural activity has the potential to have disrupted the development of a recognizable B-horizon as well. The sequence of several units of parent material (C-horizon) reflects changes over time in the behavior of the Santa Ana River, including periodic overbank flooding. Because the C-horizons represent vertical accretion (i.e., building) on the floodplain, there is a potential that successive fluvial deposits covered and preserved archaeological resources that had
OCWD GWRS Final Expansion Project – Addendum No. 6 Final EIR/EIS & CEQA-PLUS Federal Consultation Review 4-74 Section 4
accumulated between depositional events. Therefore, Hueneme soils are considered to have a high sensitivity for buried archaeological resources. OCSD Plant No. 2 Soils within the portion of the APE at OCSD Plant No. 2 are mapped primarily as Bolsa silt loam (NRCS 2016). Bolsa series soils are deep, somewhat poorly drained soils developed in mixed alluvium parent material on flood plains and basins. The typical soil pedon consists of a plowed A-horizon (Ap1, Ap2) developed at the top of relatively unaltered alluvial parent material (C1 through C6) extending more than 69 inches deep. The absence of a B-horizon is likely due to the short geological time that has passed since deposition of the parent material, although agricultural activity has the potential to have disrupted the development of a recognizable B-horizon as well. The A-horizon in Bolsa soils ranges from sandy loam to silty clay loam, while the C-horizon is mainly silt loam and silty clay loam but may contain thin strata of sandier material (USDA 1997). Significantly, many Bolsa soil pedons contain buried A-horizons (paleosols). These buried A-horizons represent periods of time in the past during which landform conditions were relatively stable, and during which deposition and erosion were sufficiently balanced to allow for development and retention of a soil weathering profile. From an archaeological perspective, periods of landform stability, such as those signified by buried A-horizons, should be correlated with the accumulation and preservation of cultural remains. Therefore, Bolsa soils are considered to have a high sensitivity for buried archaeological resources. Archaeological Potential Although paved and filled, the portion of the APE at the OCSD Plant No. 2 appears to retain high sensitivity for buried archeological resources. During the latest Pleistocene and Holocene, the geomorphic setting of the portion of the APE at the OCSD Plant No. 2 changed from inland to coastal, and rising sea level resulted in fluvial deposition capable of burying archaeological resources. The portion of the APE at the OCSD Plant No. 2 was largely salt marsh into the early 20th century, but this is an area that would have offered important resources. Owing to its marshy environment, this area may not have been favored for any substantial occupation, but nonetheless is likely to have been visited for resource procurement and could contain artifacts associated with those activities. Additionally, the saturated conditions offered within this setting may have aided in the preservation of relatively rare organic artifacts. Although paved and filled, the portion of the APE where new piping would be installed between OCSD Plant No. 1 and the existing pipeline appears to retain high sensitivity for buried archaeological resources. During the latest Pleistocene and Holocene rising sea levels reduced fluvial downcutting and increased deposition capable of burying archaeological resources. Historically, the APE was north of a large salt marsh, an area
OCWD GWRS Final Expansion Project – Addendum No. 6 Final EIR/EIS & CEQA-PLUS Federal Consultation Review 4-75 Section 4
that would have offered important resources. Owing to its proximity to both the salt marsh and the Santa Ana River, the APE may have been selected for occupation, and could contain buried artifacts and features associated with such use. Cultural Resources Survey and Results A cultural resources pedestrian survey of the APE was conducted on June 16, 2016 by Arabesque Said-Abdelwahed to identify the presence of surface archaeological materials. Intensive-level survey was conducted of areas with greater surface visibility with intervals spaced at 10 meter. Survey of the OCWD GWRS Facility showed that the entire project APE has been previously developed and is completely paved. The buildings that exist on the OCWD site were constructed after 1972. No cultural resources were observed during the survey at the OCWD GWRS Facility. A pedestrian survey was conducted on June 16, 2016 of the existing pipeline alignment for rehabilitation is located along an OCSD easement corridor that extends west of the Santa Ana River levee. The pipe would connect to existing facilities at the OCSD Plant No. 1 and proposed facilities in OCSD Plant No. 2. The soils were previously disturbed during placement of the existing pipeline located 5 feet below the existing ground surface. The corridor consists of fill material and is elevated approximately 2-4-feet above natural grade (OCWD, pers. comm.). No cultural resources were observed during the survey of the existing pipeline route. Cultural resources were not observed during the survey of the pipe connection locations to existing facilities. The OCSD Plant No. 2 consists of existing tanks and waste water treatment buildings. The locations of the proposed facility improvements on Plant No. 2 are currently paved and natural ground was not visible. No archaeological or historic built resources were observed within the APE. Potential historic-period buildings/structures were noted at the OCSD Plant No. 2 outside of the APE. A photographic narrative of the survey results can be found in the attached Appendix C. 4.5.2 Project Impacts IMPACT CR-A: Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in Section 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines? Two historic built resources (30-177464 – SCE Transmission Tower M2-T6 Ellis- Huntington Beach No. 2 and 30-177612 – SCE Transmission Tower M2-T5 Ellis/HB No. 2) were identified adjacent to the existing pipeline portion of the project APE. Both resources were previously recommended not eligible for the National Register and therefore do not qualify as historic properties under Section 106 of the NHPA. Additionally, these resources do not appear to meet the criteria for listing in the
OCWD GWRS Final Expansion Project – Addendum No. 6 Final EIR/EIS & CEQA-PLUS Federal Consultation Review 4-76 Section 4
California Register and they do not qualify as historical resources under CEQA. No further work or treatment is recommended for these two resources. Two potential historic built resources, OCSD Plant No. 1 and OCSD Plant No. 2, were identified as a result of this study. Both plants were initially constructed more than 45 years ago4, although none of the historic-age buildings/structures appear to be within the APE5. Project-related activities OCSD Plant No. 1 would be limited to installation of a below-ground piping to connect to existing facilities. No above-ground facilities would be constructed at this location and existing potential historic buildings/structures are not located near the pipeline. Therefore, the project does not have the potential to result in a significant impact to any potential historic resources on OCSD Plant No. 1. The improvements proposed within OCSD Plant No. 2 for the GWRS Final Expansion Project are shown in Figure 3. The proposed construction activities would mostly be comprised of underground construction activities having no impact on aboveground built-environment resources. The activities would be located in areas where there are no known historical resources dating from before 1971; where the area is currently only graded and paved or; where project activities would be concerned with the removal, replacement or installation of pipes, conduits, or other features that are commonly found within a water treatment facility less than 45-years old. The construction activities would demolish an existing water pump station structure. The existing Water Pump Station structure shown in Figure 23 was constructed 1in 1977, and was designed by John Carollo Engineers, and Greeley and Hansen Environmental Engineers. (Sheet 90 or 511, As-Builts of Plant Water Pump Station, OCSD 75 MGD Improved Treatment at Plant. Historic Context An article in the Los Angeles Times, dated January 3, 1960, reported that the local and County governments in Orange County wanted to undertake a variety of infrastructure projects to address the population boom that had caused a “one-time sleepy, agricultural county erupt into an almost-frightening frenzy of growth”.1 The article went on to say that water projects were one of the most important to the County, and most municipalities. By the late 1960s, it was apparent that the population boom in many cities across the United States was having an adverse effect of the ecological health of lakes, rivers, and oceans. In California, cities were dumping sewage directly into the Pacific Ocean with little or no treatment. The U.S. Congress passed the Clean Water
4 The California OHP recommends including all resources over 45 years of age in the planning process given the lag time between environmental documentation and project implementation. Generally, resources more than 50 years of age require evaluation for listing in the National Register and California Register to assess impacts to historic properties under Section 106 of the NHPA and historical resources under CEQA. 5 The project may require creation of a separate architectural APE in order to adequately address direct/indirect effects to historic built resources.
OCWD GWRS Final Expansion Project – Addendum No. 6 Final EIR/EIS & CEQA-PLUS Federal Consultation Review 4-77 OCSD Plant No. 2, existing pump station view looking northwest.
OCSD Plant No. 2, existing pump station view looking southwest. Path: I:\SS\Bott\GWRS_Expansion\SplitProject\F23_OCSDPumpStation.mxd
GWRS Final Expansion Project Existing Pump Station OCSD Plant 2 Wastewater Treatment Site Figure 23 Section 4
Act in 1972 to control the health of fresh water and the safe disposal of pollutants and waste into natural ecosystems. Evaluation Pamela Daly, M.S.H.P., Principal Architectural Historian of Daly & Associates, performed a study to identify any potential historical resources within OCSD Plant No. 2 that could be impacted by implementation of the GWRS Final Expansion Project, and to facilitate initial environmental compliance of the project, under Federal and State criteria. The investigation consisted of a pedestrian survey of the project area, and limited research into the history of ODSC Plant No. 2. OCSD Plant No. 2 is just one of many similar water treatment and pump systems that were installed all through California in response to the Clean Water Act of 1972, as a solution to treat sewer waste and protect the health of our ocean. The research did not reveal that the installation of OCSD Plant No. 2 represented any technologic advancement or attainment of engineering knowledge not previously identified in the process of treating waste water. We have not found that OCSD Plant No. 2 is directly associated with important events in the history of pumping or treating water, or with the lives of persons significant in the history of water systems in Orange County. The Water Pump Station structure within ODSC Plant No. 2 is not currently listed in either the National Register or the California Register. The subject Water Pump Station structure does not appear to be eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) under Criterion A, B, C, or D, as it has not reached a sufficient age to be evaluated for significance. Also, the structure does not appear to be eligible for listing in the NRHP under Criterion G as the structure has not demonstrated significance due to any discovery of exceptional importance. Under Section 15064.5 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) the Plant Water Pump Station structure does not appear to have reached sufficient age to be evaluated for significance as potential historical resource. The implementation of the GWRS Final Expansion Project would not adversely impact any historic or potentially historic resource. IMPACT CR-B: Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines? As a result of this study, no archaeological resources were identified within the APE. However, based on the results of study, the project APE should be considered highly sensitive for subsurface archaeological resources. Since the project includes ground- disturbing activities, there is a potential for discovery of subsurface archaeological deposits that could qualify as historic properties under Section 106 of the NHPA and/or historical or unique archaeological resources under CEQA. This potential impact to
OCWD GWRS Final Expansion Project – Addendum No. 6 Final EIR/EIS & CEQA-PLUS Federal Consultation Review 4-79 Section 4
unknown archaeological resources would be considered significant. Mitigation Measures CR-11, CR-12, CR-14, CR-15 , CR-16, CR-17, CR-18, and Cr-20 are recommended to ensure that the project would result in No Historic Properties Affected under Section 106 of the NHPA and less than significant impacts to historical or unique archaeological resources under CEQA. IMPACT CR-C: Would the project disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? Native American respondents indicated sensitivity for archaeological resources in the APE and surrounding area given the proximity to the Santa Ana River corridor. In addition, the geoarchaeological review indicates that the portion of the APE within OCSD Plant No. 2 was largely salt marsh into the early 20th century and would have offered important resources. Owing to its marshy environment, this area may not have been favored for any substantial occupation, but nonetheless it is likely to have been visited for resource procurement and could contain artifacts associated with those activities. Additionally, the saturated conditions offered within this setting could have aided in the preservation of relatively rare organic artifacts. Mitigation Measures CR-13, CR-19 are recommended to ensure that the project would result in No Historic Properties Affected under Section 106 of the NHPA and less than significant impacts to historical or unique archaeological resources under CEQA. Mitigation Measures The following mitigation measures from the GWRS Final EIR/EIS would be implemented for the GWRS Final Expansion Project. Mitigation Measure CR-17, CR-18 CR-19, and CR-20 are recommended measures that would implement mitigation measures in the GWRS Final EIR/EIS and have been incorporated into the GWRS Final Expansion Project. CR-11: An Orange County Certified archaeologist shall be present at the program pre- grading meeting to discuss the monitoring, collecting and safety procedures for the project. At that time, the archeologist shall review the construction plans and ensure that no construction activity will affect identified archeological of historic resources. CR-12: During program grading activities and Orange County Certified archaeologist shall be retained to conduct full-time monitoring in archaeologically sensitive areas to observe and retrieve any buried artifacts that may be uncovered. CR-13: If human remains are found during excavation the steps listed below following the Native American Graves Protection Act guidelines and state law shall be followed: • Halt the work in the immediate area • Leave the remains in place
OCWD GWRS Final Expansion Project – Addendum No. 6 Final EIR/EIS & CEQA-PLUS Federal Consultation Review 4-80 Section 4
• Contact the Orange County Water District project personnel and the Orange County Coroner • The remains are not to be removed until a representative of the Coroner’s office reviews the remains in the field • If the Coroner determines that the remains are prehistoric, the Coroner shall contact the Native American Heritage Commission and the most likely descendent from the Native American Community is to be informed • The final deposition of remains shall be coordinated by representatives of the property owner and the most likely descendent CR-14: If prehistoric artifacts or a buried deposit is uncovered, construction activities in the immediate area shall halt until a qualified archaeologist can evaluate the significance of the find. CR-15: A final monitoring report, including an itemized and pertinent field data, shall be sent to the OCWD/OCSD as well as copies of the report to the South Central Coastal Information at California State University Fullerton, Department of Anthropology (MH- 426), and to the County of Orange. CR-16: Any recovered artifacts shall be properly collected with locations plotted on a USGS 7.5 topographic quadrangle with photographs and field notes of the find. Artifacts will be identified, and artifact catalog prepared, and artifacts stabilized for curation. Any recovered artifacts shall be offered, or a first right-of–refusal basis, to a repository with a retrievable collection system and an educational and research interest in the materials. The Anthropology Museum at California State University Fullerton would be an appropriate repository to receive any artifacts collected in the study area. CR-17: Prior to earth moving activities, a qualified archaeologist meeting the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards for archaeology (U.S. Department of the Interior, 2008) will conduct cultural resources sensitivity training for all construction personnel. Construction personnel shall be informed of the types of cultural resources that may be encountered, and of the proper procedures to be enacted in the event of an inadvertent discovery of archaeological resources or human remains. OCWD will ensure that construction personnel are made available for and attend the training and retain documentation demonstrating attendance. CR-18: Prior to the start of any ground-disturbing activities, OCWD will retain an archaeological monitor to observe all ground-disturbing activities. Archaeological monitoring will be conducted by a monitor familiar with the types of archaeological resources that could be encountered and shall work under the direct supervision of the qualified archaeologist. Monitoring may be reduced or discontinued by the qualified archaeologist, in coordination with OCWD, based on observations of subsurface soil
OCWD GWRS Final Expansion Project – Addendum No. 6 Final EIR/EIS & CEQA-PLUS Federal Consultation Review 4-81 Section 4
stratigraphy and/or the presence of older C-horizon deposits. The monitor will be empowered to halt or redirect ground-disturbing activities away from the vicinity of a discovery until the qualified archaeologist has evaluated the discovery and determined appropriate treatment. The monitor will keep daily logs detailing the types of activities and soils observed, and any discoveries. After monitoring has been completed, the qualified archaeologist shall prepare a monitoring report that details the results of monitoring. The report shall be submitted to OCWD, SCCIC, and any Native American groups who request a copy. CR-19: Prior to issuance of a grading permit and prior to start of any ground-disturbing activities, OCWD will retain a Native American monitor to observe all ground-disturbing activities. The monitor shall be obtained from a Tribe that is traditionally and culturally affiliated with the area, according the NAHC list. The monitor shall be empowered to halt or redirect ground-disturbing activities away from the vicinity of a discovery until the qualified archaeologist has evaluated the discovery and determined appropriate treatment. Monitoring may be reduced or discontinued, in coordination with OCWD and the qualified archaeologist, based on observations of subsurface soil stratigraphy and/or the presence of older C-horizon deposits. CR-20: In the event of the discovery of archaeological materials, OCWD or its contractor shall immediately cease all work activities in the area (within approximately 100 feet) of the discovery until it can be evaluated by the qualified archaeologist. Prehistoric archaeological materials might include obsidian and chert flaked-stone tools (e.g., projectile points, knives, scrapers) or tool-making debris; culturally darkened soil (“midden”) containing heat-affected rocks, artifacts, or shellfish remains; and stone milling equipment (e.g., mortars, pestles, handstones, or milling slabs); and battered stone tools, such as hammerstones and pitted stones. Historic-period materials might include stone or concrete footings and walls; filled wells or privies; and deposits of metal, glass, and/or ceramic refuse. Construction shall not resume until the qualified archaeologist has conferred with OCWD on the significance of the resource. SWRCB shall be afforded the opportunity to determine whether the discovery requires addressing under Section 106 Post-Review Discoveries provisions provided in 36 CFR 800.13. If it is determined that the discovered archaeological resource constitutes a historic property under Section 106 of the NHPA or a historical resource under CEQA, avoidance and preservation in place shall be the preferred manner of mitigation. Preservation in place maintains the important relationship between artifacts and their archaeological context and also serves to avoid conflict with traditional and religious values of groups who may ascribe meaning to the resource. Preservation in place may be accomplished by, but is not limited to, avoidance, incorporating the resource into open space, capping, or deeding the site into a permanent conservation easement. In
OCWD GWRS Final Expansion Project – Addendum No. 6 Final EIR/EIS & CEQA-PLUS Federal Consultation Review 4-82 Section 4
the event that preservation in place is demonstrated to be infeasible and data recovery through excavation is the only feasible mitigation available, an Archaeological Resources Treatment Plan that provides for the adequate recovery of the scientifically consequential information contained in the archaeological resource shall be prepared and implemented by the qualified archaeologist in consultation with OCWD. The appropriate Native American representatives shall be consulted in determining treatment for prehistoric or Native American resources to ensure cultural values ascribed to the resource, beyond that which is scientifically important, are considered. 4.5.3 Level of Impact Implementation of the GWRS Final Expansion Project would not result in unavoidable significant impacts to cultural resources. With the continued implementation of Mitigation Measures CR-11, CR-12, CR-13, CR-14, CR-15, CR-16, CR-17, CR-18, CR- 19 and CR-20 the construction and operation of the GWRS Final Expansion Project would result in the same of level of potential impacts to cultural resources that were identified in the Final EIR/EIS. Additionally, the implementation of the GWRS Final Expansion Project would not cause any new, substantially increase or result in more severe impacts, and no additional mitigation measures are necessary to mitigate potential impacts to cultural resources to a less than significant level. Paleontological Resources IMPACT CR-D: Would the project directly or indirectly disturb or destroy a unique paleontological resource or site? Dr. Samuel A. McLeod, Ph.D., of the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County, Vertebrate Paleontology Section, conducted a thorough search on June 16, 2016 of the paleontology collection records for the locality and specimen data for the proposed project. No vertebrate fossil localities lie within the project APE; however, there are localities nearby from the same sedimentary units that may occur subsurface in the project APE. The closest vertebrate fossil locality from Quaternary Terrace deposits is LACM 7366, approximately 2.6 miles west at Huntington Drive and north of PCH. LACM 7366 produced specimens of marine, freshwater, and terrestrial specimens including leopark shark, Triakis, three-spined stickleback, Gasterosteus, garter snake, Thamnophis, desert shrew, Notiosorex, and most prominently, pocket gopher, Thomomys. A series of fossil localities, LACM 7422-7425, are located a few hundred feet north-northwest of LACM 7366. These localities produced fossil specimens of mammoth, Mammuthus, bison, Bison, and horse, Equus, from Alluvium or dune deposits. The closest vertebrate fossil locality from Quaternary deposits is LACM 6370 located approximately 1.6 miles southeast at the Hoag Hospital lower campus parcel near the intersection of Superior Avenue and PCH. LACM 6370 produced a specimen of a fossil horse, Equus. Fossil locality LACM 3267 located approximately 2 miles
OCWD GWRS Final Expansion Project – Addendum No. 6 Final EIR/EIS & CEQA-PLUS Federal Consultation Review 4-83 Section 4
northeast, near the intersection of 19th Street and Anaheim Avenue, produced a specimen of a fossil elephant, Proboscidea in Quaternary deposits. Fossil locality LACM 4219, located approximately 3.3 miles along the Newport Freeway (State Route 55) near Santa Isabel Avenue, produced fossil specimens of turtle, Chelonia, and camel, Camelidae. Towards the northern portion of the APE, east of the Santa Ana River near the top of the mesa bluffs along Adams Avenue, vertebrate fossil locality LACM 1339 produced fossil specimens of mammoth, Mammuthus, and camel, Camelidae, bones from sands approximately 15 feet below the top of the mesa that is overlain by shell bearing silts and sands. The entire APE has surface deposits of younger Quaternary Alluvium, derived as fluvial deposits from the Santa Ana River to the east of the project APE. No fossil vertebrate localities are located nearby these deposits, and they are unlikely to contain significant vertebrate fossils, at least in the uppermost layers. Small hills and bluffs both east and west of the project APE, however, define the Santa Ana River floodplain drainage and are mapped as having exposures of marine Quaternary Terrace deposits. These or other older Quaternary deposits may occur in the project APE at unknown depth. There is a low potential to uncover significant vertebrate fossil remains during surface grading or shallow excavations in the APE. However, excavations that extend down into the older Quaternary deposits may encounter significant fossil vertebrate specimens. Since the project includes ground-disturbing activities, there is a potential for discovery of fossils that may be considered significant paleontological resources. This potential impact to unknown paleontological resources would be considered significant. The following mitigation measures are recommended to ensure that the project would result in less than significant impacts to unique paleontological resources under CEQA. Mitigation Measures The following mitigation measures from the GWRS Final EIR/EIS would be implemented for the GWRS Final Expansion Project. Mitigation Measure CR-21, CR-22 and CR-23 are recommended measures that would implement mitigation measures provided in the GWRS Final EIR/EIS and have been incorporated into the GWRS Final Expansion Project. CR-1: An Orange County Certified paleontologist shall be retained to produce a mitigation plan for the proposed project. CR-2: The paleontologist shall attend the pre-grading meeting to discuss the monitoring, collecting and safety procedures for the project and shall supervise the paleontological monitoring during earthmoving activities, including well boring in sensitive areas. CR-3: Historic peat bog deposits are not considered paleontological resources. However, should peat bogs be found during project construction activities, the area
OCWD GWRS Final Expansion Project – Addendum No. 6 Final EIR/EIS & CEQA-PLUS Federal Consultation Review 4-84 Section 4
should be reviewed by a qualified archaeologist. The areas mapped as Quaternary or Holocene Alluvium shall be monitored on a periodic basis to insure older underlying sediments are not being penetrated. Artificial fill, disturbed soils and rock and slopewash will not require monitoring. CR-4: Screening of sediments shall also be conducted under the supervision of the paleontologist during monitoring because many significant vertebrate remains are small. Up to a six thousand pound matrix sample may be processed for any single locality as recommended in the guidelines in the Society of Vertebrate Paleontologists. CR-5: The paleontological monitor shall have the authority to temporarily divert or redirect grading to allow time to evaluate any exposed fossil material. CR-6: During monitoring any scientifically significant specimens shall be properly salvaged after evaluation by, and under the supervision of the paleontologist. During fossil salvage contextual stratigraphic data shall also be collected. This will include lithologic descriptions, localities plotted on a USGS 7.5 Series topographic quadrangle, photographs and field notes. Specimens shall be prepared tot eh point of identification , stabilized, identified and curated, suck as the Interpretive Center at Ralph Clark Regional park, an Orange County Facility, which shall have the first right-of-refusal of the collection, or the Los Angeles County Museum of Natural History. CR-7: A final report shall be prepared at the end of earth moving activities and shall include an itemized inventory of recovered fossils and appropriate stratigraphic and locality data. This report shall be sent to the Lead Agency, signifying the end of mitigation. Another copy shall accompany any recovered fossils, along with field logs and photographs, to the designated repository. CR-8: Full time monitoring shall be conducted during earth moving activities, including well drilling in any Pleistocene deposits. CR-21: Prior to the start of any ground-disturbing activities, OCWD shall retain a qualified paleontologist meeting the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology (SVP) Standards (SVP, 2010). The qualified paleontologist shall contribute to any construction worker cultural resources sensitivity training either in person or via a training module provided to the qualified archaeologist. The training session shall focus on the recognition of the types of paleontological resources that could be encountered within the project site and the procedures to be followed if they are found. The qualified paleontologist shall also conduct periodic spot checks in order to ascertain when older deposits are encountered and where monitoring shall be required.
OCWD GWRS Final Expansion Project – Addendum No. 6 Final EIR/EIS & CEQA-PLUS Federal Consultation Review 4-85 Section 4
CR-22: Prior to the start of any ground-disturbing activities, OCWD shall retain a paleontological monitor to observe all ground-disturbing activities within older Quaternary deposits. Paleontological resources monitoring shall be performed by a qualified paleontological monitor, or cross-trained archaeological/paleontological monitor, under the direction of the qualified paleontologist. The monitor shall have the authority to temporarily halt or divert work away from exposed fossils in order to recover the fossil specimens. Monitoring may be reduced or discontinued by the qualified paleontologist, in coordination with OCWD, based on observations of subsurface soil stratigraphy and/or other factors and if the qualified paleontologist determines that the possibility of encountering fossiliferous deposits is low. The monitor shall prepare daily logs detailing the types of activities and soils observed, and any discoveries. The qualified paleontologist shall prepare a final monitoring a report to be submitted to OCWD and filed with the local repository. Any recovered significant fossils shall be curated at an accredited facility with retrievable storage. CR-23: If construction or other project personnel discover any potential fossils during construction, regardless of the depth or presence of a monitor, work in the vicinity (within 100 feet) of the find shall cease until the qualified paleontologist has assessed the discovery and made recommendations as to the appropriate treatment. Level of Impact Implementation of the GWRS Final Expansion Project would not result in unavoidable significant impacts to paleontological resources. With the continued implementation of Mitigation Measures CR-1, CR-2, CR-3, CR-4, CR-5, CR-6, CR-7, CR-8, CR-21, CR-22 and CR-23 the construction and operation of the GWRS Final Expansion Project would result in the same of level of potential impacts to paleontological resources that were identified in the Final EIR/EIS. Additionally, the implementation of the GWRS Final Expansion Project would not cause any new, substantially increase or result in more severe impacts, and no additional mitigation measures are necessary to mitigate potential impacts to cultural resources to a less than significant level.
OCWD GWRS Final Expansion Project – Addendum No. 6 Final EIR/EIS & CEQA-PLUS Federal Consultation Review 4-86 Section 4
4.6 GEOLOGY/SOILS 4.6.1 Environmental Setting Regional Geology The study area is located in the Peninsular Ranges Geomorphic Province. The province traverses the southwestern end of California and is bounded by the Transverse Range province to the north, the Colorado Desert province to the east, and the Pacific Ocean to the west. The topography of the province is characterized as alternating northwest trending ridges and valleys with the bedrock geology most closely resembling the Sierra Nevada with granitic intrusions into-older metamorphic rocks. Near surface geologic units within the study area include well-sorted, fine grained sand and silt, medium to fine grained sand deposit in the late Holocene by the Santa Ana River, sandy, silty and clayey organic-rich estuarine deposits and modern sandy wash deposits confined within the Santa Ana River channel. Local Topography Elevations within the study area range from sea level near the OCSD Plant No. 2 Site to 25 feet near the GWRS Site. Due to minor elevation changes, the slope gradients within the study area are relatively flat. Faulting and Seismicity There are no active faults traversing the study area and the study area is not located within an Alquist-Priolo Fault Zone. However, the study area is located within a seismic active region and would be susceptible to ground shaking from several active and potentially active faults in the region, including the Newport Inglewood Fault, San Joaquin Hills Fault, Elsinore Fault, Palos Verdes Fault and the San Andreas Fault. Liquefaction Hazards According to the California Department of Geologic Survey Seismic Hazard Zone Map, the study area is located within an area that would be susceptible to the occurrence of liquefaction. Landslide Hazards According to the California Department of Geologic Survey Landslide Hazard Map, the study area is not located within an area that would be susceptible to landslides. Soils The predominate soil association within the study area is the Heuneme-Bolsa Association, a nearly level, excessively drained fine sand loams located on alluvial fans and floodplains. The soils are characterized has having a moderate-to-high shrink-swell potential.
OCWD GWRS Final Expansion Project – Addendum No. 6 Final EIR/EIS & CEQA-PLUS Federal Consultation Review 4-87 Section 4
4.6.2 Project Impacts IMPACT GEO-A1: Would the project expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury or death involving rupture of an unknown earthquake fault, as delineated on the most Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map? According to the California Geologic Survey Seismic Hazard Zone Map, the study area is not located within a designated Alquist-Priolo Fault-Rupture Zone. Therefore, it is unlikely that the locations where the GWRS Final Expansion Project improvements would occur would be subject to ground rupture impacts. IMPACT GEO-A2: Would the project expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury or death involving strong seismic ground shaking? The study area is located within a seismically active region and could be subject to seismic shaking impacts from several surrounding faults in the region. The closest active fault would be the Newport Inglewood Fault Zone. The Newport-Inglewood Fault Zone has a probability of approximately 1 percent of producing an earthquake larger than magnitude 6.7 in the next 30 years (USGS, 2008). An earthquake of this magnitude could subject the study area to periodic shaking, possibly of considerable intensity. The degree of shaking felt would depend on the distance from the earthquake source and size of earthquake and type of subsurface material on which the site is situated. The seismic conditions within the study area would be similar to other areas in the southern California region and the potential seismic risks at the study area would be comparable to other locations in the region. The GWRS Final Expansion Project would be designed and constructed in compliance with current engineering practices, including the California Uniform Standard Building Code and all applicable seismic engineering guidelines to withstand anticipated ground shaking caused by an earthquake within an acceptable level of risk. With implementation of Mitigation Measure G-1 potential seismic impacts would be less than significant. IMPACT GEO-A3: Would the project expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury or death involving liquefaction? According to the California Geologic Survey, the study area is located within a liquefaction hazard area. In the event a significant seismic event occurs, the study area could be subject to liquefaction impacts. The potential liquefaction risks at the study area would be comparable to other locations in the region. The GWRS Final Expansion Project would be designed and constructed in compliance with current engineering practices, including the Uniform Building Code and all applicable seismic engineering
OCWD GWRS Final Expansion Project – Addendum No. 6 Final EIR/EIS & CEQA-PLUS Federal Consultation Review 4-88 Section 4
guidelines. With the implementation Mitigation Measure G-1 potential liquefaction impacts would be less than significant. IMPACT GEO- A4: Would the project expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury or death involving landslides? According to the California Geologic Survey, the study area is not located in a landslide hazard area. Therefore, implementation of the GWRS Final Expansion Project would not be subject to potential landslide hazards. IMPACT GEO-B: Would the project result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? Erosion can occur by varying processes and may occur where bare soil is exposed to wind or moving water. The processes of erosion are generally a function of material type, terrain steepness, rainfall or irrigation levels, and surface water drainage conditions. The excavation and grading activities associated with the GWRS Final Expansion Project improvements would uncover soils which could increase the potential for erosion impacts to occur. Additionally, construction equipment mobilization/demobilization and construction worker traffic could transport soil to streets and into local and regional drainage systems and wind erosion occurring on unprotected soils could blow dust particles offsite onto adjacent streets and drainage systems. To minimize erosion impacts, construction projects which disturb one or more acres of soil are required to obtain coverage under General Construction Permit by the State Water Resources Control Board. The General Construction Permit requires the filing of a Notice of Intent (NOI) with the State Water Resources Control Board and the preparation of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) that includes a series of Best Management Practices to minimize potential erosion impacts. GWRS Site The Final GWRS Final Expansion Project construction activities would uncover approximately 15,500 sq. ft. of soil. To reduce potential erosions impacts during earth disturbing activities to a less than significant level OCWD would file a NOI with the State Water Resources Control Board, prepare and implement a SWPPP and implement a series of Best Management Practices identified in Mitigation Measure SW-7. With the implementation of Mitigation Measures SW-7 and SW-9, potential erosion impacts would be less than significant. OCSD Plant No. 2 Site The Final GWRS Final Expansion Project improvements would uncover approximately 13, 959 square feet of soil. To reduce potential erosion impacts to a less than significant level, OCWD would file a NOI with the State Water Resources Control Board, prepare
OCWD GWRS Final Expansion Project – Addendum No. 6 Final EIR/EIS & CEQA-PLUS Federal Consultation Review 4-89 Section 4
and implement a SWPPP and implement a series of Best Management Practices identified in Mitigation Measure SW-7 during earth disturbing activities to ensure that any erosion occurring on Plant No. 2 would be retained onsite. With the implementation of Mitigation Measures SW-7 and SW-9, potential erosion impacts would be less than significant. OCSD Easement Corridor The proposed pipeline improvements would uncover approximately 800 sq. ft. of soil. To reduce potential erosion impacts during earth disturbing activities to a less than significant level, OCWD would file a Notice of Intent with the State Water Resources Control Board, prepare and implement a SWPPP and implement a series of Best Management Practices identified in Mitigation Measure SW-7 during earth disturbing activities. With the implementation of Mitigation Measures SW-7 and SW-9, potential erosion impacts would be less than significant. IMPACT GEO-C: Would the project be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable or that would become unstable as a result of the project and potentially result in on-or-off site landslide, lateral spreading liquefaction or collapse? The GWRS Final Expansion Project involves an expansion of existing water treatment facilities and wastewater treatment facilities on existing improved building sites. There are no onsite geologic hazards that would cause the proposed final expansion improvements to become unstable. The GWRS Final Expansion Project would be designed and constructed in compliance with current engineering practices, including the California Uniform Building Code and all applicable seismic engineering guidelines. With the implementation Mitigation Measure G-1 potential liquefaction impacts would be less than significant. IMPACT GEO-D: Would the project be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1 of the Uniform Building Code, creating substantial risks to life or property. The soils within the study area are characterized has having a moderate-to-high shrink- swell potential. All earthwork activities conducted for the GWRS Final Expansion Project would be in compliance with geotechnical requirements identified in site specific geotechnical studies and the California Uniform Building Code. With the implementation of Mitigation Measure G-1 potential geotechnical impacts would be less than significant. IMPACT GEO-E: Would the project have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater.
OCWD GWRS Final Expansion Project – Addendum No. 6 Final EIR/EIS & CEQA-PLUS Federal Consultation Review 4-90 Section 4
The GWRS Final Expansion Project would not propose the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems. Therefore, the construction and operation of the GWRS Final Expansion Project would not result in adverse impacts in regards to the use of septic tanks or alternative disposal systems. Mitigation Measures The following mitigation measures from the GWRS Final EIR/EIS will be implemented for the GWRS Final Expansion Project. Mitigation Measure SW-9 is a State Water Resources Control Board Regulatory requirement that would implement the Best Management Practices identified in Mitigation Measure SW-7 and has been incorporated into the GWRS Final Expansion Project. G-1: The OCWD will ensure that all structures for the selected Groundwater Replenishment System, including the treatment and conveyance, components, are designed and constructed in compliance with current engineering practices, including the California Uniform Building Code and all applicable seismic engineering guidelines. SW-7: Best Management Practices, including sandbagging manufactured channels or swales, diversion velocity dissipaters, de-silting basins, detention/retention ponds shall be used to prevent sedimentation from the construction of the Groundwater Replenishment System. SW-9: Prior to the start of construction OCWD will obtain coverage under the General Construction Permit and will file Notice of Intent with the State Water Resources Control Board and prepare and implement a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan. 4.6.3 Level of Impact Implementation of the GWRS Final Expansion Project would not result in unavoidable significant geologic impacts. With the implementation of Mitigation Measure G-1, SW-7 and SW-9 the construction and operation of the GWRS Final Expansion Project would result in the same of level of potential geologic impacts that were identified in the GWRS Final EIR/EIS. Additionally, the implementation of the GWRS Final Expansion Project would not cause any new, substantially increase or result in more severe impacts to geologic resources and no additional mitigation measures would be necessary to mitigate impacts to geologic resources to a less than significant level.
OCWD GWRS Final Expansion Project – Addendum No. 6 Final EIR/EIS & CEQA-PLUS Federal Consultation Review 4-91 Section 4
4.7 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS The following analysis is based on the Air Quality/Greenhouse Gas Impact Study prepared by Environmental Science Associates in July 2016. The Greenhouse Gas Emission analysis is presented in Appendix A. 4.7.1 Environmental Setting “Global warming” and “global climate change” are the terms used to describe the increase in the average temperature of the earth’s near-surface air and oceans since the mid-20th century and its projected continuation. According to the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) warming of the climate system is now considered unequivocal (IPCC, 2007). Natural processes and human actions have been identified as the causes of this warming. The IPCC has concluded that variations in natural phenomena such as solar radiation and volcanoes produced most of the warming from pre-industrial times to 1950 and had a small cooling effect afterward. After 1950, increasing GHG concentrations resulting from human activity such as fossil fuel burning and deforestation are believed to be responsible for most of the observed temperature increase. Increases in GHG concentrations in the earth’s atmosphere are thought to be the main cause of human- induced climate change. Certain gases in the atmosphere naturally trap heat by impeding the exit of solar radiation that is reflected back into space after striking the earth. This is sometimes referred to as the “greenhouse effect” and the gases that cause it are called “greenhouse gases.” Some GHGs occur naturally and are necessary for keeping the earth’s surface inhabitable. However, increases in the concentrations of these gases in the atmosphere during the last 100 years have decreased the amount of solar radiation that is reflected back into space, intensifying the natural greenhouse effect and increasing average global temperatures.
Carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6) are the principal GHGs. When concentrations of these gases exceed natural concentrations in the atmosphere, the
greenhouse effect may be intensified. CO2, CH4 and N2O occur naturally, and through human activity. Emissions of CO2 are largely by-products of fossil fuel combustion,
whereas CH4 results from off-gassing6 associated with agricultural practices and landfills. Other human-generated GHGs include fluorinated gases such as SFCs, PFCs
and SF6, which have much higher heat-absorption potential than CO2, and are byproducts of certain industrial processes.
CO2 is the reference gas for climate change because it is the predominant GHG emitted. The effect that each of the aforementioned gases can have on global warming is a combination of the mass of their emissions and their global warming potential
6 Off-gassing is defined as the release of chemicals under normal conditions of temperature and pressure.
OCWD GWRS Final Expansion Project – Addendum No. 6 Final EIR/EIS & CEQA-PLUS Federal Consultation Review 4-92 Section 4
(GWP). GWP indicates, on a pound-for-pound basis, how much a gas contributes to global warming relative to how much warming would be caused by the same mass of
CO2. For example, CH4 and N2O are substantially more potent GHGs than CO2, with GWPs of 21 and 310 times that of CO2, respectively. In emissions inventories, GHG emissions are typically reported in terms of pounds or
metric tons of CO2 equivalents (CO2e). CO2e is calculated as the product of the mass emitted of a given GHG and its specific GWP. While CH4 and N2O have much higher GWPs than CO2, CO2 is emitted in such vastly higher quantities that it accounts for the majority of GHG emissions in CO2e, both from residential/commercial developments and human activity in general. Regulatory Framework Federal The federal CAA does not specifically regulate GHG emissions; however, the U.S. Supreme Court has determined that GHGs are pollutants that can be regulated under the federal CAA. There are currently no federal regulations that set ambient air quality standards for GHGs. State Executive Order S-3-05 In 2005, in recognition of California’s vulnerability to the effects of climate change, Governor Schwarzenegger established Executive Order S-3-05, which set forth a series of target dates by which statewide emissions of GHGs would be progressively reduced, as follows: • By 2010, reduce GHG emissions to 2000 levels; • By 2020, reduce GHG emissions to 1990 levels; and • By 2050, reduce GHG emissions to 80 percent below 1990 levels. Assembly Bill 32 – California Global Warming Solutions Act California Assembly Bill 32 (AB 32), the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, requires CARB to establish a statewide GHG emissions cap for 2020 based on 1990 emission levels. AB 32 required CARB to adopt and enforce programs and regulations that identify and require selected sectors or categories of emitters of GHGs to report and
verify their statewide GHG emissions. In December 2007 CARB adopted 427 MT CO2e as the statewide GHG emissions limit equivalent to the statewide levels for 1990. This is approximately 28 percent below forecasted 2020 “business-as-usual” emissions of
596 MMT of CO2e, and about 10 percent below average annual GHG emissions during the period of 2002 through 2004 (CARB, 2009b).
OCWD GWRS Final Expansion Project – Addendum No. 6 Final EIR/EIS & CEQA-PLUS Federal Consultation Review 4-93 Section 4
CARB published the Expanded List of Early Action Measures To Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions In California Recommended For Board Consideration in September 2007 (CARB, 2007). CARB adopted nine Early Action Measures for implementation, including Ship Electrification at Ports, Reduction of High Global-Warming-Potential Gases in Consumer Products, Heavy-Duty Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Emission Reduction (Aerodynamic Efficiency), Reduction of Perfluorocarbons from Semiconductor Manufacturing, Improved Landfill Gas Capture, Reduction of Hydrofluorocarbon-134a from Do-It-Yourself Motor Vehicle Servicing, Sulfur Hexaflouride Reductions from the Non-Electric Sector, a Tire Inflation Program, and a Low Carbon Fuel Standard. As of January 1, 2012, the GHG emissions limits and reduction measures adopted in 2011 by CARB became enforceable. In designing emission reduction measures, CARB must aim to minimize costs, maximize benefits, improve and modernize California’s energy infrastructure, maintain electric system reliability, maximize additional environmental and economic co-benefits for California, and complement the state’s efforts to improve air quality. Climate Change Scoping Plan In December 2008, CARB approved the AB 32 Scoping Plan outlining the state’s strategy to achieve the 2020 GHG emissions limit (CARB, 2009b). This Scoping Plan, developed by CARB in coordination with the Climate Action Team (CAT), proposes a comprehensive set of actions designed to reduce overall GHG emissions in California, improve the environment, reduce dependence on oil, diversify California’s energy sources, save energy, create new jobs, and enhance public health. As required by AB 32, the Scoping Plan must be updated at least every five years to evaluate the mix of AB 32 policies to ensure that California is on track to meet the targets set out in the legislation. In October 2013, a draft Update to the initial Scoping Plan was developed by CARB in collaboration with the California Climate Action Team (CCAT). The draft Update builds upon the initial Scoping Plan with new strategies and expanded measures, and identifies opportunities to leverage existing and new funds to drive GHG emission reductions through strategic planning and targeted program investments. The draft Update to the initial Scoping Plan was presented to CARB’s Board for discussion at its February 20, 2014 meeting. Subsequently, the first update to the AB 32 Scoping Plan was approved on May 22, 2014 by CARB. As part of the proposed update to the Scoping Plan, the emissions reductions required to meet the 2020 statewide GHG emissions limit were further adjusted. The primary reason for adjusting the 2020 statewide emissions limit was based on the fact that the original Scoping Plan relied on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) 1996 Second Assessment Report (SAR) to assign the global warming potentials
OCWD GWRS Final Expansion Project – Addendum No. 6 Final EIR/EIS & CEQA-PLUS Federal Consultation Review 4-94 Section 4
(GWPs) of greenhouse gases. Recently, in accordance the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), international climate agencies have agreed to begin using the scientifically updated GWP values in the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) that was released in 2007. Because CARB has begun to transition to the use of the AR4 100-year GWPs in its climate change programs, CARB recalculated the Scoping Plan’s 1990 GHG emissions level with the AR4 GWPs. As the recalculation
resulted in 431 MMTCO2e, the 2020 GHG emissions limit established in response to AB 32 is now slightly higher than the 427 MMTCO2e in the initial Scoping Plan. Considering that the proposed update also adjusted the 2020 BAU forecast of GHG emissions to
509 MMTCO2e, a 15 percent reduction below the estimated BAU levels was determined to be necessary to return to 1990 levels by 2020 (CARB, 2014b). Executive Order S-1-07 Executive Order S-1-07, which was signed by Governor Schwarzenegger in 2007, proclaims that the transportation sector is the main source of GHG emissions in California. It establishes a goal to reduce the carbon intensity of transportation fuels sold in California by at least 10 percent by 2020. As a result of this order, CARB approved a proposed regulation to implement the low carbon fuel standard (LCFS) on April 23, 2009, which will reduce GHG emissions from the transportation sector in California by about 16 MMT in 2020. The LCFS is designed to reduce California’s dependence on petroleum, create a lasting market for clean transportation technology, and stimulate the production and use of alternative, low-carbon fuels in California. The LCFS is designed to provide a durable framework that uses market mechanisms to spur the steady introduction of lower carbon fuels. The framework establishes performance standards that fuel producers and importers must meet each year beginning in 2011. Senate Bill 375 SB 375, which establishes mechanisms for the development of regional targets for reducing passenger vehicle greenhouse gas emissions, was adopted by the State on September 30, 2008. On September 23, 2010, California ARB adopted the vehicular greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets that had been developed in consultation with the metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs); the targets require a 7 to 8 percent reduction by 2020 and between 13 to 16 percent reduction by 2035 for each MPO. SB 375 recognizes the importance of achieving significant greenhouse gas reductions by working with cities and counties to change land use patterns and improve transportation alternatives. Through the SB 375 process, MPOs, such as the Southern California Council of Governments (SCAG) will work with local jurisdictions in the development of sustainable communities strategies (SCS) designed to integrate development patterns and the transportation network in a way that reduces greenhouse gas emissions while meeting housing needs and other regional planning objectives.
OCWD GWRS Final Expansion Project – Addendum No. 6 Final EIR/EIS & CEQA-PLUS Federal Consultation Review 4-95 Section 4
SCAG’s reduction target for per capita vehicular emissions is 8 percent by 2020 and 13 percent by 2035 (CARB 2010). The MPOs will prepare their first SCS according to their respective regional transportation plan (RTP) update schedule with the SCAG RTP/SCS adopted on April 4, 2012. Senate Bill 97 Senate Bill (SB) 97, enacted in August 2007, required the Office of Planning and Research (OPR) to develop guidelines for the mitigation of GHG emissions, or the effects related to releases of GHG emissions. On April 13, 2009, the OPR submitted proposed amendments to the Natural Resources Agency in accordance with SB 97 regarding analysis and mitigation of GHG emissions. As directed by SB 97, the Natural Resources Agency adopted Amendments to the CEQA Guidelines for greenhouse gas emissions on December 30, 2009. On February 16, 2010, the Office of Administrative Law approved the Amendments, and filed them with the Secretary of State for inclusion in the California Code of Regulations. The Amendments became effective on March 18, 2010. California Green Building Standard Code In early 2013 the California Building Standards Commission adopted the 2013 California Building Standards Code that also included the latest 2013 CALGreen Code, which became effective on January 1, 2014. The mandatory provisions of the code are anticipated to reduce 3 MMT of GHG emissions by 2020, reduce water use by 20 percent or more, and divert 50 percent of construction waste from landfills. The 2013 California Energy Code (Title 24, Part 6), which is also part of the CALGreen Code (Title 24, Part 11, Chapter 5.2), became effective on July 1, 2014. Local South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) As a method for determining significance under CEQA, SCAQMD developed a draft tiered flowchart in 2008 for determining significance thresholds for GHGs for industrial projects where SCAQMD is acting as the lead agency. In December 2008, SCAQMD adopted a 10,000 MTCO2e/year for industrial facilities, but only with respect to projects where SCAQMD is the lead agency. SCAQMD has not adopted a threshold for residential or commercial projects at the time of this writing. The SCAQMD flowchart uses a tiered approach in which a proposed project is deemed to have a less than significant impact related to GHG emissions when any of the following conditions are met: • GHG emissions are within GHG budgets in an approved regional plan;
OCWD GWRS Final Expansion Project – Addendum No. 6 Final EIR/EIS & CEQA-PLUS Federal Consultation Review 4-96 Section 4
• Incremental increases in GHG emissions due to the project are below the defined Significance Screening Levels, or Mitigated to Less than the Significance Screening Level; • Performance standards are met by incorporating project design features and/or implementing emission reduction measures; and • Carbon offsets are made to achieve target significance screening level. 4.7.2 Project Impacts IMPACT GHG-A: Would the project generate GHG emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? The GWRS Final Expansion Project would generate GHG emissions from a variety of sources. First, GHG emissions would be generated during construction. Once fully operational, the GWRS operations would generate GHG emissions from direct sources such as natural gas consumption and indirect sources such as electrical consumption and solid waste generation. As indicated, there are no new employees and therefore no new mobile source emissions. Construction Emissions Construction-related GHG emissions for the GWRS Final Expansion Project were estimated using the same assumptions as the air quality analysis. Total estimated construction-related GHG emissions for the GWRS Final Expansion are shown in Table 16. As shown, the total estimated unmitigated and mitigated GHG emissions during construction would be approximately 7,202 MTCO2e. This would equal to approximately 240 MTCO2e per year after amortization over 30 years per SCAQMD methodology.
TABLE 16: ESTIMATED TOTAL CONSTRUCTION-RELATED GHG EMISSIONS CO CH Estimated CO e Emission Source 2 4 2 Emissions Unmitigated Construction Emissions 1A 3,014.92 0.04 1B 336.79 0.02 1C 420.83 0.09 1D 656.54 0.20 1E 69.06 0.02 2A 937.90 0.03 2B 11.49 0.00 2C 97.57 0.03 3A 32.03 0.01 3B 87.67 0.01 3C 32.03 0.01
OCWD GWRS Final Expansion Project – Addendum No. 6 Final EIR/EIS & CEQA-PLUS Federal Consultation Review 4-97 Section 4
4A 17.37 0.00 4B 1,471.24 0.02 4C 10.81 0.00 4D 11.13 0.00 Total1 7,207.38 12.14 7,219.05 (MT) Annual Construction (Amortized over 30 years) 240.65 (MT/yr)
NOTES: CO2e= carbon dioxide equivalent; MT =metric tons; MT/yr = metric tons per year. 1 Total Emissions take into account the global warming potential of CH4 which is 25. Therefore the total CH4 emissions will not equal the sum of the individual phase emissions as shown in the table.
Operational Emissions The estimated operational GHG emissions resulting from the GWRS Final Expansion Project are shown in Table 17. Additionally, in accordance with SCAQMD’s recommendation, the amortized construction-related GHG emissions from Table 16 are added to the operational emissions estimate in order to determine the total annual GHG emissions. As shown in Table 17, the GWRS Final Expansion Project total net annual
GHG emissions would be approximately 347 MTCO2e per year, which would not exceed SCAQMD’s proposed screening level of 3,000 MTCO2e per year 2020 threshold or the 1,800 MTCO2e per year 2030 threshold. Therefore, the net increase in GHG emissions resulting from the GWRS Final Expansion Project would be less than significant.
TABLE 17: ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATIONAL RELATED GHG EMISSIONS Estimated
Emission Source Emissions CO2e (MT/yr) Construction Annual Mitigated Construction 240.07 (Amortized over 30 years) Project Operations Energy Consumption 103.64 Solid Waste 3.32 Total (Operational Emissions) 106.93 Total Net Increase in Emissions 347.03
Greater than 3,000 MTCO2e per year? No
Greater than 1,800 MTCO2e per year? No
NOTES: CO2e= carbon dioxide equivalent; MT/yr = metric tons per year; %=percent. Source: ESA 2016
IMPACT GHG-B: Would the project be in conflict with an applicable plan, policy or
OCWD GWRS Final Expansion Project – Addendum No. 6 Final EIR/EIS & CEQA-PLUS Federal Consultation Review 4-98 Section 4 regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? Consistency with AB 32 As discussed under Impact GHG-A above, the GWRS Final Expansion Project would not result in annual GHG emissions exceeding the SCAQMD’s 3,000 MTCO2e threshold which was designed to help the region attain the goals of AB 32. Therefore, the GWRS Final Expansion Project would be consistent with the goals of AB 32. Consistency with EO B-30-15 As discussed under Impact GHG-1 above, the proposed GWRS Final Expansion
Project would not result in annual GHG emissions exceeding 1,800 MTCO2e, or the bright line threshold adjusted to reduce emissions to 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030. Therefore, the GWRS Final Expansion Project would be consistent with the goals of EO-B-30-15 and no mitigation is required. Consistency with City of Huntington Beach Energy Action Plan The City of Huntington Beach Energy Action Plan addresses GHG reductions through 2020, consistent with AB 32’s goal of reducing GHG emissions to 1990 levels. As demonstrated under GHG-A above, the GWRS Final Expansion Project would not exceed the SCAQMD’s 3,000 MT bright line threshold developed to help the region attain 1990 GHG emission levels by 2020. Therefore, the GWRS Final Expansion Project would not interfere with the City of Huntington Beach Energy Action Plan as the Project would not excessively increase GHG emissions within the City. Consistency with SB 375 The key goal of the Sustainable Communities Standard (SCS) is to achieve GHG emission reduction targets through integrated land use and transportation strategies. The focus of these reductions is on transportation and land use strategies that influence vehicle travel. The GWRS Final Expansion Project would not increase vehicle traffic within the City or the region. Therefore, the GWRS Final Expansion Project would not conflict with the implementation of SB 375. As discussed above, the proposed project would be consistent with the CARB Scoping Plan, EO-B-30-15, SB 375 and with the City’s Energy Action Plan. Therefore, the GWRS Final Expansion Project would have a less than significant impact related to applicable GHG plans and policies. Mitigation Measures No mitigation measures are required.
OCWD GWRS Final Expansion Project – Addendum No. 6 Final EIR/EIS & CEQA-PLUS Federal Consultation Review 4-99 Section 4
4.7.3 Level of Impact The construction and operation of the GWRS Final Expansion Project would not result in unavoidable significant greenhouse gas emission impacts.
OCWD GWRS Final Expansion Project – Addendum No. 6 Final EIR/EIS & CEQA-PLUS Federal Consultation Review 4-100 Section 4
4.8 HAZARDS/HAZARDOUS MATERIALS 4.8.1 Environmental Setting Exposure Hazardous Materials Title 22 of the California Code of Regulations (CCR), Division 4.5, Chapter 11, Article 3 classifies hazardous materials into the following four categories based on their properties: toxic (causes human health effects), ignitable (has the ability to burn), corrosive (causes severe burns or damage to materials), and reactive (causes explosions or generates toxic gases). Hazardous materials have been and are commonly used in commercial, agricultural and industrial applications as well as in residential areas to a limited extent. Hazardous wastes are hazardous materials that no longer have practical use, such as substances that have been discarded, discharged, spilled, contaminated, or are being stored prior to proper disposal. The health impacts of hazardous materials exposure are based on the frequency of exposure, the exposure pathway, and individual susceptibility. The GWRS Final Expansion Project would be constructed and operated on the GWRS Site and the OCSD Plant No.2 Site. Both sites currently involve the handling and storage of limited amounts hazardous materials as part of the treatment system processes and maintenance activities. Fire Hazard According to the City of Fountain Valley General Plan and the City of Huntington Beach General Plan the study area is not located in a high fire hazard zone. Contaminated Soils Regulatory databases provided by federal, State, and local agencies provide information of past and present usage, storage and disposal of hazardous materials. A database search of hazardous materials sites was performed to identify potential contaminated sites in the study area using the online State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) GeoTracker Database and Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) EnviroStor Database. The databases did not identify any hazardous waste sites on GWRS Site or on the OCSD Plant No. 2 Site. On the OCSD Plant No. 2 Site two closed leaking underground storage tanks were identified. However, both sites were determined to not pose significant risks to human health or the environment. Airport Hazards The Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) of Orange County assists local agencies to ensure that here are no direct conflicts with land uses, noise or other issues that would impact the functionality and safety of airport and heliport operations. The ALUC requires that local jurisdictions general plans and zoning ordinances be consistent with Airport
OCWD GWRS Final Expansion Project – Addendum No. 6 Final EIR/EIS & CEQA-PLUS Federal Consultation Review 4-101 Section 4
Environs Land Use Plans (AELUP’s), which contain noise contours, restrictions for types of construction and building heights in navigable air space, as well as requirements impacting the establishment or construction of sensitive uses within close proximity to airports. The closest public airport is John Wayne Airport located approximately 5 miles from the study area. State Emergency Response Act The State Emergency Response Act requires local jurisdictions establish a Standardize Emergency Management System Multi-Hazard Functional Plan. Accordingly, the Office of Emergency Services, in coordination with all interested State and local agencies, jointly establish a standardized emergency management system for use by all emergency response agencies. 4.8.2 Project Impacts IMPACT HAZ-A: Would the project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use or disposal of hazardous materials? The GWRS Site and OCSD Plant No. 2 Site both currently involve the handling and storage of limited amounts hazardous materials as part of their treatment system processes and maintenance activities. The implementation of the GWRS Final Expansion Project would slightly increase hazardous material use and deliveries. The handling and storage of all hazardous materials would be done in compliance with local, state and federal laws and regulations to ensure that they would not create a hazard to the public. With the implementation of Mitigation Measures HZ-1, HZ-2 and HZ-6 the potential impact for the GWRS Final Expansion Project to create hazard to the public would be less than significant. The construction operations associated with the GWRS Final Expansion Project would involve the handling of incidental amounts of hazardous materials, such as fuels and oil. The construction activities would be required to comply with local, state and federal laws and regulations regarding the handling and storage of hazardous materials. Additionally, during construction operations Best Management Practices would be implemented that would include hazardous material spill prevention and management practices. With the implementation of Mitigation Measure HZ-1, HZ-2 and HZ-6 potential hazardous material safety impacts would be less than significant. IMPACT HAZ-B: Would the project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment. To avoid the release hazardous materials into the environment, the handling, storage and transportation of hazardous materials would be done in compliance local, state and
OCWD GWRS Final Expansion Project – Addendum No. 6 Final EIR/EIS & CEQA-PLUS Federal Consultation Review 4-102 Section 4 federal laws and regulations and mitigation measures. Additionally, both GWRS Site and OCSD Plant No. 2 Site both have emergency evacuation plans to address the onsite storage and handling of hazardous materials and corrective measures in the event of the inadvertent release of hazardous materials into the environment. With the implementation of Mitigation Measures HZ-3 and HZ-4 the potential impact for the release of hazardous materials into the environmental would be less than significant. IMPACT HAZ-C: Would the project emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substance or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? The study area is situated within an urbanized area and there are several schools within vicinity of the study area. The closest school to the GWRS Site would be Gisler Elementary School located approximately ¼ mile to the west. The closest school to the OCSD Plant No. 2 Site would be Eder Elementary School located approximately ½ mile to the west. The closest school to the OCSD easement corridor would be the Pegasus School approximately .10 mile to the west. The construction and operation of the GWRS Final Expansion Project would not emit hazardous emissions or involve the handling of acutely hazardous materials within close proximity to Gisler Elementary School, Eder Elementary School or the Pegasus School. The construction activities for the GWRS Final Expansion Project would involve the handling and storage of small quantities of hazardous materials such fuels, oils and solvents. The handling of these small amounts construction-related hazardous materials would not expose any school in the study area to hazard emission impacts. With the implementation of Mitigation Measure HZ-6 the potential impact to expose school facilities to hazardous emission impacts would be less than significant. IMPACT HAZ-D: Would the project be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous material sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and as a result, would create significant hazard to the public or the environment? There is no known hazardous material sites, pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 located on the GWRS Site, the OCSD Plant No. 2 Site or along the OCSD easement corridor. IMPACT HAZ-E: For a project located within an airport land use plan or where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project the result in a safety hazard for people residing or working within the project area? The closest public airport facility to the study area would be John Wayne Airport. According to the Airport Environs Land Use Plan for John Wayne Airport, the GWRS
OCWD GWRS Final Expansion Project – Addendum No. 6 Final EIR/EIS & CEQA-PLUS Federal Consultation Review 4-103 Section 4
Site, the OCSD Plant No. 2 Site and the OCSD easement corridor are not located within a Clear Zone or Accident Potential Zone. Therefore, implementation of the GWRS Final Expansion Project would not result in airport related safety hazards to people residing and/or working within the study area. IMPACT HAZ-F: For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area. There are no private air strips within the vicinity of the study area. Therefore no potential safety hazards associated with the private air strip would occur. IMPACT HAZ-G: Would the project impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? The proposed improvements would not conflict with emergency evacuation plans or emergency procedures established at the GWRS Site or at the OCSD Plant No. 2 Site. The GWRS Final Expansion Project improvements would be constructed on the GWRS Site, OCSD Plant No. 2 Site and along the OCSD easement corridor and would not require any offsite road closures that could adversely interfere with adopted emergency plans. IMPACT HAZ-H: Would the project expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wild land fires, including where wild lands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wild lands? According to the City of Fountain Valley General Plan and City of Huntington Beach General Plan, the GWRS Site, OCSD Plant No. 2 Site or the OCSD easement corridor would not be subject to wild land fire risks. Additionally, the study area is not adjacent to or intermixed with wild lands. Therefore, implementation of the GWRS Final Expansion Project would not expose people or structures to wild land fire risks. Mitigation Measures The following mitigation measures from GWRS Final EIR/EIS will be implemented for the GWRS Final Expansion Project. HZ-1: The OCWD shall properly site, design, operate and maintain sodium hypochlorite storage tanks so as to minimize the potential for sudden releases in the event of a tank failure caused by seismic or other reasons in the project area. At a minimum the design of the tanks shall conform to standards and codes of the State of California and local jurisdictions affected by the project. HZ-2: The OCWD shall ensure that the proposed pipeline features, including pumping stations, recharge basins and water treatment facilities shall be designed, constructed,
OCWD GWRS Final Expansion Project – Addendum No. 6 Final EIR/EIS & CEQA-PLUS Federal Consultation Review 4-104 Section 4
operated and maintained according to the most appropriate seismic standards and guidelines. At a minimum the design of the pipelines shall conform to standards and codes of the State of California and local jurisdictions affected by the project. HZ-3: An adequate seismic Emergency response Plan shall be prepared by OCWD for each feature of the proposed project including pipeline segment and injections wells. The plan shall be approved by local agencies prior to operation of each project phase. HZ-4: An adequate Emergency Response Plan shall be developed by the OCWD and approved by appropriate agencies to address disinfectant chemicals and other hazardous materials which will be used, stored and/or transported in association with the construction and operation of the proposed project. HZ-6: Any use of hazardous materials involved with the GWRS Final Expansion Project must be conducted in accordance with applicable federal, state and local regulations. 4.8.3 Level of Impact The implementation of the GWRS Final Expansion Project would not result in any unavoidable significant hazard impacts. With the implementation of Mitigation Measure HZ-1, HZ-2, HZ-3, HZ-4, and HZ-6 the GWRS Final Expansion Project would result in the same of level of potential geologic impacts that were identified in the GWRS Final EIR/EIS. Additionally, the implementation of the GWRS Final Expansion Project would cause any new, substantially increase or result in more severe hazard impacts and no additional mitigation measures would be necessary to mitigate potential hazard impacts to a less than significant level.
OCWD GWRS Final Expansion Project – Addendum No. 6 Final EIR/EIS & CEQA-PLUS Federal Consultation Review 4-105 Section 4
4.9 HYDROLOGY/WATER QUALITY 4.9.1 Environmental Setting The study area is located in the lower Santa Ana River Watershed. The Santa Ana River Watershed is the largest watershed in coastal Southern California, consisting of over 2,800 square miles and encompassing parts of Riverside, San Bernardino and Orange Counties. The primary surface water body within the study area is the Santa Ana River. The study area also overlies the Orange County Groundwater Basin. Santa Ana River The Santa Ana River is the most prominent hydrologic feature within the watershed. The Santa Ana River is over 100 miles in length and has over 50 contributing tributaries. The headwaters for the Santa Ana River are in the San Bernardino Mountains. The river extends westerly from the San Bernardino Mountains through the Santa Ana Valley to the Prado Basin where it is joined by several tributaries near Prado Dam. Downstream of Prado Dam, the Santa Ana River flows through the Santa Ana Mountain Canyon into Orange County before discharging into the Pacific Ocean. The flows of the Santa Ana River consist of storm flows and perennial flow (base flow) that increases in the winter and decreases in the summer. The base flow of the Santa Ana River consists almost entirely of treated wastewater discharged from upstream wastewater treatment plants. The base flow of the Santa Ana River is the primary source of water to recharge the Orange County Groundwater Basin. Since 1933, OCWD has been diverting water from the Santa Ana River for groundwater recharge. Surface water flows of the Santa Ana River are diverted into a series of recharge basins to replenish the groundwater basin. Virtually all of the base flow of the Santa Ana River is captured by OCWD for groundwater recharge and only a portion of the total storm flow of the Santa Ana River is captured by OCWD for groundwater recharge. The storm water that is not captured by OCWD is lost to the ocean. Orange County Groundwater Basin The Orange County Groundwater Basin underlies central and northern Orange County and is bordered by the Santa Ana Mountains to the east, the Pacific Ocean to the west, the Newport-Inglewood Fault to the southwest and Coyote Hills to the north. The basin is contiguous and directly connected with the Central Basin of Los Angeles County to the northwest. The basin reaches depths of over 2,000 feet and is comprised of a complex series of interconnected sand and gravel deposits. The aquifer is divided into three sections, shallow, principal and deep. Most of the water in the basin is extracted from the Principal Aquifer.
OCWD GWRS Final Expansion Project – Addendum No. 6 Final EIR/EIS & CEQA-PLUS Federal Consultation Review 4-106 Section 4
Flood Hazards The GWRS Site, the OCSD Plant No. 2 Site and the OCSD easement corridor are located in Flood Zone X. This area is protected from the one-percent-annual-chance flood by levee, dike, or other structures subject to possible failure or overtopping during larger floods. Seiche, Tsunami and Mudflow Hazards Earthquakes can cause flooding due to tsunamis, seiches, or dam failure. Tsunamis are a potential hazard at this site due to the close proximity of the coast and low elevation. According to the City of Huntington Beach General Plan the OCSD Plant No. 2 Site is classified as a Moderate Tsunami Run-Up Area. The study area is located within the Prado Dam Inundation Area. Seiches are earthquake-induced waves in an enclosed or partially enclosed body of water, which may produce flooding in local areas. The study area is not located near a body of water that could experience seiches. Water Quality Regulations The following is discussion of Federal, State and local water resource programs that would be applicable to the GWRS Final Expansion Project. Federal Clean water Section 402 Section 402 of the Clean Water Act established the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) to control water pollution by regulating point sources that discharge pollutants into Waters of the United States. In the State of California, the EPA has authorized the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) as the permitting authority to implement the NPDES program. The State Water Resources Control Board issues two baseline general permits, one for industrial discharges and one for construction activities (General construction Permit). Additionally, NPDES Program includes the long-term regulation of storm water discharge from medium and large cities (MS4 Permit). The County of Orange is the primary permit holder of the MS4 Permit and the City of Fountain Valley and the City of Huntington Beach are both co- permittees. Short-Term Storm Water Management Under the General Construction Permit, storm water discharges from construction sites with a disturbed area of one or more acres would be required to either obtain individual NPDES permits for storm water discharges or be covered by the Construction General Permit. Coverage under the Construction General Permit would be accomplished by
OCWD GWRS Final Expansion Project – Addendum No. 6 Final EIR/EIS & CEQA-PLUS Federal Consultation Review 4-107 Section 4 completing and filing a Notice of Intent with the SWRCB and preparing and implementing a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). The primary objective of the SWPPP is to identify, construct, implement, and maintain Best Management Practices (BMPs) to reduce or eliminate pollutants in storm water discharges and authorized non-storm water discharges from the construction site during construction. Long-Term Storm Water Management The GWRS Final Expansion Project would be implemented in the City of Fountain Valley and the City of Huntington Beach. Both the City of Fountain Valley and the City of Huntington Beach are co-permittees to the County of Orange NPDES MS4 Storm Water Permit and would responsible for the implementation of the permit requirements. Under the NPDES MS4 Storm Water Permit, construction projects are defined as Priority Projects or Non-Priority Projects based on the type of project and/or level of development intensity. Based on the classification of the project, a Priority Project Water Quality Management Plan, Project Water Quality Management Plan or no water quality management plan may be required. Priority Projects A Project is considered a Priority Project if it meets any one of the following criteria; • New development projects that create 10,000 square feet or more of impervious surface. • Automotive repair shops. • Restaurants where the land area of development is 5,000 square feet or more including parking area. • Hillside development greater than 5,000 square feet. • Impervious surface of 2,500 square feet or more located within, directly adjacent to (within 200 feet), or discharging directly into receiving waters within Environmentally Sensitive Areas. • Parking lots 5,000 square feet or more including associated drive aisle, and potentially exposed to urban storm water runoff. • Streets, roads, highways, and freeways. This category includes any paved surface that is 5,000 square feet or greater used for the transportation of automobiles, trucks, motorcycles, and other vehicles. • All significant redevelopment projects, where significant redevelopment is defined as the addition or replacement of 5,000 or more square feet of impervious surface on an already developed site. If the redevelopment results in the addition or replacement of less than 50 percent of the impervious area on-site
OCWD GWRS Final Expansion Project – Addendum No. 6 Final EIR/EIS & CEQA-PLUS Federal Consultation Review 4-108 Section 4
and the existing development was not subject to WQMP requirements, the numeric sizing only applies to the addition or replacement area. If the addition or replacement accounts for 50 percent or more of the impervious area, the Project WQMP requirements apply to the entire development. • Retail Gasoline Outlets This category includes Retail Gasoline Outlets that meet the following criteria: 5,000 square feet or more, or (b) a projected Average Daily Traffic (ADT) of 100 or more vehicles per day. OCSD Individual NPDES Permit Presently, OCSD Plant No. 1 and Plant No. 2 have a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Individual Permit for discharges of storm water associated with their construction and industrial activities. The Individual Permit regulates activities that may affect storm water runoff quality at certain types of industrial facilities, including publicly owned wastewater treatment plants with design flows greater than 1.0 MGD, such as the OCSD. Under the Individual Permit facilities which discharge storm water to municipal sanitary sewer systems instead of to waters of the United States are not required to obtain a General Construction Permits or Industrial Permit providing an onsite storm water management plan is prepared and implement that contains BMPs to ensure that construction site surface water runoff and long term surface water runoff is retained onsite and incorporated into existing wastewater treatment processes. Clean Water Act Section 303 (d) Under Section 303 (d) of the Clean Water Act, the SWRCB is required to develop a list of impaired water bodies. Each RWQCB is responsible for establishing priority rankings and developing action plans, referred to as total maximum daily loads (TMDLs) to improve water quality of water bodies included in the 303(d) list. Within Orange County, there are two reaches of the Santa Ana River. Reach 1 extends from the Tidal prism to 17th Street in the City of Santa Ana and Reach 2 extends from 17th Street to Prado Dam. Presently, Santa Ana River Reach 2 (17th Street in Santa Ana to Prado Dam) has been listed as impairment for indicator bacteria. The TMDLs for the Santa Ana River Reach 2 is required to be prepared before 2025. The Santa Ana River Reach 1 (Pacific Ocean to 17th Street in Santa Ana) is not listed as impaired. State Porter Cologne California Water Quality Control Act The Porter Cologne Water Quality Act of 1967 requires the SWRCB and the nine RWQCBs to adopt water quality criteria for the protection and enhancement of Waters of the State of California, including both surface waters and groundwater. The SWRCB sets statewide policy and together with the RWQCB, implements state and federal
OCWD GWRS Final Expansion Project – Addendum No. 6 Final EIR/EIS & CEQA-PLUS Federal Consultation Review 4-109 Section 4 water quality laws and regulations. Each of the nine regional boards adopts a Water Quality Control Plan. The applicable Water Control Plan for the study area would be the Santa Ana Region Basin Plan. Regional Water Quality Control Board Beneficial Uses The Santa Ana Region Basin Plan designates beneficial uses for waters in the Santa Ana River watershed and provides quantitative and narrative criteria for a range of water quality objectives to certain receiving water bodies in order to protect beneficial uses. Table 18 describes the beneficial uses established in the Santa Ana Region Basin Plan.
TABLE 18: BENEFICIAL USES Abbreviation Beneficial Use GWR Groundwater Recharge waters are used for natural or artificial recharge of groundwater for purposes that may include, but are not limited to, future extraction, maintaining water quality or halting saltwater intrusion into freshwater aquifers. REC 1 Water Contact Recreation waters are used for recreational activities involving body contact with water where ingestion of water is reasonably possible. These uses may include, but are not limited to swimming, wading, water skiing, skin and scuba diving, surfing, whitewater activities, fishing and use of natural hot springs. REC 2 Non-Contact Water Recreation waters are used for recreational activities involving proximity to water, but not normally body contact with water where ingestion of water would be reasonably possible. These uses may include, but are not limited to picnicking, sunbathing, hiking, beachcombing, camping, boating, tide pool and marine life study, hunting, sightseeing and aesthetic enjoyment in-conjunction with the above activities. WARM Warm waters support warm water ecosystems that may include but are not limited to, preservation and enhancement of aquatic habitats, vegetation, fish, and wildlife, including invertebrates. LWARM Limited Warm Freshwater Habitat waters support warm water ecosystems which are severely limited in diversity and abundance. COLD Cold Freshwater habitat waters support coldwater ecosystems. BIOL Preservation of Biological Habitats of Special Significance waters support designated areas of habitats. WILD Wildlife Habitat waters support wildlife habitats that may include, but are not limited to the preservation and enhancement of vegetation and prey species used by waterfowl and other wildlife. RARE Rare, Threatened or Endangered Species (RARE) waters support habitats necessary for the survival and successful maintenance of plant or animal species designated under state or federal law as rare, threatened or endangered. MUN Municipal and Domestic Supply waters are used for community, military, municipal or individual water supply systems. These uses may include, but are not limited to drinking water supply. AGR Agricultural Supply waters are used for farming, horticulture or ranching.
OCWD GWRS Final Expansion Project – Addendum No. 6 Final EIR/EIS & CEQA-PLUS Federal Consultation Review 4-110 Section 4
These uses may include, but are not limited to irrigation, stock watering, and support of vegetation for range grazing. IND Industrial Service Supply waters are used for industrial activities that do not depend primarily on water quality. These uses may include, but are not limited to mining, cooling water supply, hydraulic conveyance, gravel washing, fire protection and oil well depressurization. PROC Industrial Process Supply waters are used for industrial activities that depend primarily on water quality. These uses may include, but are not limited to, process water supply and all uses of water related to product manufacture or food preparation. NAV Navigation waters are used for shipping, travel, or other transportation by private, commercial or military vessels. POW Hydropower Generation waters are used for hydroelectric power generation. COMM Commercial and Sportfishing waters are used for commercial or recreational collection of fish or other organisms EST Uses of water that support estuarine ecosystems including, but not limited to preservation or enhancement of estuarine habitats, vegetation, fish, shell fish or wildlife. MAR Use of water that support marine ecosystems including, but not limited to, preservation or enhancement of marine habitats, vegetation such as kelp, fish, shell fish or wildlife. SPWN Use of water that support high quality aquatic habitats suitable for reproduction and early development of fish. SHELL Use of water that support habitats suitable for the collection of filter-feeding shellfish for human consumption, commercial or sports purposes.
Shown below in Table 19 are Santa Ana Region Basin Plan beneficial uses established for Reach 1 and Reach 2 of the Santa Ana River and for the Orange County Groundwater Basin.
TABLE 19: BENEFICIAL USES SANTA ANA RIVER/ORANGE COUNTY GROUNDWATER BASIN Reach 1 Reach 2 Orange County Groundwater Basin
Recreation 2 Agriculture Municipal Supply Waters
Recreation 1 Groundwater Recharge Agriculture Supply Waters Recreation 1 Warm Water Habitat Recreation 2 Industrial Process Supply Waters Wild Water Habitat Warm Water Habitat Industrial Service Supply Waters Wild Water Habitat Rare Waters
Water Quality Objectives The Santa Ana Region Basin Plan establishes Water Quality Objectives for water bodies within the study area to ensure the protection of Beneficial Uses. Shown in Table 20 are the Santa Ana Region Basin Plan water quality objectives established for Reach 1 and Reach 2 of the Santa Ana River and for the Orange County Groundwater Basin.
OCWD GWRS Final Expansion Project – Addendum No. 6 Final EIR/EIS & CEQA-PLUS Federal Consultation Review 4-111 Section 4
TABLE 20: WATER QUALITY OBJECTIVES (MG/L) Reach TDS HARD Na CI TIN SO4 COD B
Santa Ana River NL NL NL NL NL NL NL NL Reach 1 Santa Ana River 650(1) NL NL NL NL NL NL NL Reach 2 Orange County 580 NL NL NL NL NL NL NL Groundwater Basin (1)- Five year moving average, NL-Not Listed
4.9.2 Project Impacts IMPACT HWQ-A: Would the project violate Regional Water Quality Control Board Water Quality standards or waste discharge standards? Recycled Water Requirements The GWRS water that would be used to replenish the Orange County Groundwater Basin would be advance treated recycled water. The use of GWRS recycled water for groundwater replenishment would be permitted under RWQCB Order R-8-2004-0002 and subsequent amendment R8-2008-0058. These two permits specify water recycling requirements for the GWRS. The GWRS water produced from the final expansion would be subject to the same permit conditions. Compliance with RWQCB permit requirements would ensure that the use of GWRS water to replenish the Orange County Groundwater Basin would not violate RWQCB recycled water quality standards. Beneficial Uses All of the recycled water produced from the GWRS Final Expansion Project would be used to replenish the groundwater basin. The recycled water would pumped from the groundwater basin and would be used for following beneficial uses; Municipal Water Supply, Agriculture, Industrial and Industrial Processes. The implementation of the GWRS Final Expansion Project would not be in conflict with beneficial uses identified in the Santa Ana Region Basin Plan. Water Quality Objectives The GWRS RWQCB permit requires that the GWRS recycled water meet all water quality objectives in the Santa Ana Region Basin Plan. Compliance the RWQCB permit would ensure that the implementation of the GWRS Final Expansion Project would not be in conflict with water quality objectives identified in the Santa Ana Region Basin Plan.
OCWD GWRS Final Expansion Project – Addendum No. 6 Final EIR/EIS & CEQA-PLUS Federal Consultation Review 4-112 Section 4
Section 303 (d) Impaired Water Bodies Reach 2 of the Santa Ana River has been listed as impairment for indicator bacteria. The GWRS recycled water would be highly treated and would be disinfected for bacterial. The implementation of the GWRS Final Expansion Project would not further impair any Section 303 (d) listed water body. IMPACT HWQ-B: Would the project substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table? The implementation of the GWRS Final Expansion Project would produce approximately 25,000 AF of additional groundwater supplies per year to help replenish the Orange County Groundwater Basin. Current State of California’s regulations regarding Groundwater Replenishment Reuse Projects (GRRPs), such as OCWD GWRS, were made final by the California Department of Public Health and formally adopted in 2014. Immediately thereafter, the Drinking Water Division (DDW) responsible for developing the GRRP regulations was transferred from CDPH to the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). The GRRP regulations require a minimum subsurface response retention time (RRT) of two months for Full Advanced Treatment (FAT) projects, along with pathogen log-removal standards that could require additional subsurface residence time. These RRT requirements call for establishing both primary and secondary boundaries (i.e., buffer areas); the primary boundary is the traditional area in which the construction of new drinking water wells would be restricted, while the secondary boundary is a zone of potential controlled potable well construction, within which the operation of future new well could extend otherwise materially affect the primary boundary, thereby requiring further study and potential mitigating activities prior to potable well construction. The water produced from the GWRS Final Expansion would be conveyed to existing OCWD groundwater replenishment basins at locations that would meet the buffer requirement. Any new locations proposed for GWRS produced water would be required to comply with buffer time requirements. With the implementation of Mitigation Measure GW-1 existing groundwater supplies would be protected. IMPACT HWQ-C: Would the project substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on-or off-site? Excavation and grading activities involved with the GWRS Final Expansion Project would uncover soils and potentially expose them to water and erosion impacts. Additionally construction equipment entering and exiting the work areas could track sediment onto local streets and into local and regional drainage systems.
OCWD GWRS Final Expansion Project – Addendum No. 6 Final EIR/EIS & CEQA-PLUS Federal Consultation Review 4-113 Section 4
GWRS Site The Final GWRS Final Expansion Project improvements would uncover approximately 15,500 square feet of area. To reduce potential erosions impacts to a less than significant level, OCWD would file a Notice of Intent (NOI) with the State Water Resources Control Board, prepare and implement a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and implement a series of Best Management Practices identified in Mitigation Measure SW-7 during earth disturbing activities. With the implementation of Mitigation Measures SW-7 and SW-9, potential erosion impacts would be less than significant. OCSD Plant No. 2 Site The Final GWRS Final Expansion Project improvements would uncover approximately 13,959 square feet of area. To reduce potential erosions impacts to a less than significant level, OCWD would file a NOI with the State Water Resources Control Board, prepare and implement a SWPPP and implement a series of Best Management Practices identified in Mitigation Measure SW-7 during earth disturbing activities to ensure that any erosion occurring on Plant No. 2 would be retained onsite. With the implementation of Mitigation Measures SW-7 and SW-9, potential erosion impacts would be less than significant. OCSD Easement Corridor The proposed pipeline improvements would uncover approximately 800 sq. ft. of area. To reduce potential erosions impacts to a less than significant level, OCWD would file a Notice of Intent (NOI) with the State Water Resources Control Board, prepare and implement a SWPPP and implement a series of Best Management Practices identified in Mitigation Measure SW-7 during earth disturbing activities. With the implementation of Mitigation Measures SW-7 and SW-9, potential erosion impacts would be less than significant. IMPACT HWQ-D: Would the project substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface run-off in a manner which would result in flooding on-or off-site? The Implementation of GWRS Final Expansion Project improvements would be constructed in locations that have been improved and would be incorporated into existing onsite drainage facilities. There would be no increase in existing rates of surface water runoff generated from the GWRS Site, OCSD Plant No. 2 Site or along the OCSD easement corridor. There would be no change to existing drainage patterns and no potential increased flood risks.
OCWD GWRS Final Expansion Project – Addendum No. 6 Final EIR/EIS & CEQA-PLUS Federal Consultation Review 4-114 Section 4
IMPACT HWQ-E: Would the project create or contribute runoff which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? GWRS Site Construction Surface Water Runoff Management The GWRS Final Expansion Project construction activities would disturb approximately 15,500 sq. ft. of area. To avoid construction surface water runoff from becoming sources of pollutants into existing drainage systems, OCWD would file a Notice of Intent (NOI) with the State Water Resources Control Board, prepare and implement a SWPPP and implement a series of Best Management Practices identified in Mitigation Measure SW-7. With the implementation of Mitigation Measures SW-7 and SW-9, potential adverse surface water runoff water quality impacts would be less than significant. Long Term Surface Water Runoff Management The GWRS Final Expansion Project would remove and replace approximately15, 500 sq. ft. of impervious surfaces. The amount of impervious surfaces replaced for each construction activity is shown in Table 21. The amount of impervious surfaces replaced would exceed the 5,000 sq. ft. Priority Project threshold for significant redevelopment project and OCWD would be required to prepare a Priority Project Water Quality Management Plan. The Priority Project Water Quality Management Plan would be required to identify infiltration strategies and storm water control measures to minimize adverse long-term storm water management water quality impacts. With the preparation of the Priority Project Water Quality Management Plan long term storm water management impacts would be less than significant.
TABLE 21: OCWD WATER TREATMENT SITE IMPERVIOUS REPLACED Work Activity Impervious Surfaces Constructed/Replaced Microfiltration Expansion 14, 500 sq. ft. Microfiltration Backwash Pumps 0 sq. ft. Chemical Tank & Pump Expansion 0 sq. ft. Reverse Osmosis 0 sq. ft. Finished Product Water Pump 0 sq. ft. Decarbonation Tower 0 sq. ft. Ultraviolet Equipment 0 sq. ft. OCSD Pipeline Connection 1,000 sq. ft. Total 15, 500 sq. ft.
OCWD GWRS Final Expansion Project – Addendum No. 6 Final EIR/EIS & CEQA-PLUS Federal Consultation Review 4-115 Section 4
OCSD Plant No. 2 Site Construction Surface Water Runoff Management The GWRS Final Expansion Project construction activities would disturb approximately 13,959 ft. of area. To avoid construction surface water runoff from becoming sources of pollutants into existing drainage systems, OCWD would file a Notice of Intent (NOI) with the State Water Resources Control Board, prepare and implement a SWPPP and implement a series of Best Management Practices identified in Mitigation Measure SW- 7 during earth disturbing activities. With the implementation of Mitigation Measures SW- 7 and SW-9, potential adverse surface water runoff water quality impacts would be less than significant. Long Term Surface Water Runoff Management The GWRS Final Expansion Project would remove and replace approximately 13,959 sq. ft. of impervious surfaces at the OCSD Plant No. 2 wastewater treatment site. The amount of impervious surfaces replaced for each construction activity is shown in Table 22.
TABLE 22: OCSD WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITY SITE IMPERVIOUS REPLACED Work Activity Impervious Surfaces Constructed/Replaced Effluent Pump Station 5,000 sq. ft. Product Pump Station 2,784 sq. ft. Demolition Plant Pump Station/Headworks/By Pass Pipeline 6, 175 sq. ft. Total 13,959 sq. ft.
The long term management of surfaces runoff flows on OCSD Plant No. 2 would be covered by OCSD Individual NPDES Permit. Long term surface water runoff flows from the final expansion improvements would be conveyed into existing drainage systems and would incorporated into onsite treatment processes. By retaining and incorporating the surface water flows into the existing treatment processes potential long storm surface water runoff water quality impacts would be less than significant. OCSD Easement Corridor Construction Surface Water Runoff Management The proposed pipeline project would disturb approximately 800 sq. ft. of area. To avoid construction surface water runoff from becoming sources of pollutants into existing drainage systems, OCWD would file a Notice of Intent (NOI) with the State Water Resources Control Board, prepare and implement a SWPPP and implement a series of Best Management Practices identified in Mitigation Measure SW-7. With the
OCWD GWRS Final Expansion Project – Addendum No. 6 Final EIR/EIS & CEQA-PLUS Federal Consultation Review 4-116 Section 4
implementation of Mitigation Measures SW-7 and SW-9, potential adverse surface water runoff water quality impacts would be less than significant. Long Term Surface Water Runoff Management The proposed pipeline improvements along OCSD easement corridor would not introduce or replace existing pervious surfaces. Potential long term surface water rates would not change and potential long term surface water management water quality impacts would be less than significant. IMPACT HWQ-F: Would the project otherwise degrade water quality? The use of GWRS recycled water for ground water replenishment is permitted under RWQCB Order R-8-2004-002 and subsequent amendment R-2008-0058. These two permits specify water recycling requirements for the GWRS. Compliance with RWQCB permit requirements would ensure that use of GRWS recycled water for ground water replenishment would not degrade groundwater water quality. To maintain water quality during construction, the GWRS Final Expansion Project would implement Beast Management Practices during earth disturbing activities to minimize degraded construction related surface water runoff impacts. At the GWRS Site a Priority Project Water Quality Management Plan would be prepared to manage long term surface water runoff. At OCSD Plant No. 2 Site long term surface water runoff would be retained onsite and incorporated into existing wastewater treatment processes to avoid adverse water quality impacts. MPACT HWQ-G: Would the project place housing within a 100-year floodplain, as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood insurance Rate map or other flood hazard delineation map? The GWRS Final Expansion Project does not propose any housing within a 100 year flood plain nor would any of the proposed improvements increase flood risks at any nearby residential areas. IMPACT HWQ-H: Would the project place within a 100-year floodplain structures which impedes or redirect flows? As shown in Figures 24, 25 and 26 the study area is not located within a 100-year flood plain. The GWRS Final Expansion Project would not construct any structures or conduct any activities within a 100 year flood area that would impede or re-direct flood flows. IMPACT HWQ-I: Would the project expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam?
OCWD GWRS Final Expansion Project – Addendum No. 6 Final EIR/EIS & CEQA-PLUS Federal Consultation Review 4-117 Contractor Laydown Area
BANNING AVE
USHARDST
B
T S T
r
ve OKHURS i FEMA FIRM O R R Headworks B Panel: Ana 06059C0264J ta
n
a Bypass S Pipeline Excavation Area for OCSD Pipeline
Orange County OCSD Pipeline Sanitation District Connection
OCSD Plant No 2 OCSD Plant Water Pump Station Pump Station
1
FEMA Flood Hazard Areas Excavation 0.2 PCT ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD HAZARD Staging A Structure AE Pipeline VE X; X PROTECTED BY LEVEE Path: I:\SS\Bott\GWRS_Expansion\SplitProject\F24_FEMAFlood.mxd
GWRS Final Expansion Project FEMA Flood Hazard Areas OCSD Plant 2 Wastewater Treatment Site 0 500 1,000 Figure 24 Feet ELLIS AVE
MF Building Expansion Orange County & Equipment Installation Water District
RO Transfer Pump (Install) Orange County Sanitation District
Chemical Tank & Pump Expansion
RD STRD RO Equipment (Install)
WA
FEMA FIRM Finished Product Panel: Water Pump (Install) 06059C0254J
Decarb Tower (Install)
UV Equipment (Install)
GISLER AVE GARFIELD AVE
FEMA FIRM Panel: OCSD Pipe Connection 06059C0262J to Existing Facilities Path: I:\SS\Bott\GWRS_Expansion\SplitProject\F25_OCWDFEMA.mxd
FEMA Flood Hazard Areas FEMA FIRM Panels GWRS Final Expansion Project A FEMA Flood Hazard Areas X; X PROTECTED BY LEVEE OCWD Water Treatment Site 0 500 1,000 Figure 25 Feet N
PUA DR N
L SUNTAN CIR
LN LN
I C L A LAPWORTH I
LN
E
IN FT
AT R CIR I
U O R KIPAHULU KUKUI DR BIK SIGNET N CIR
O
AQ
L ND M I
UPLAND DR L DRAGON C 8 IR ENDEVER DR SP
LN EL CAPITAN LN
N
LN
L
N
TIONA
R
RK S NA TA CHANCE CIR E RB KAMUELA DR A CI OAR M R D
P
RKMA
A IM N
NS L
K
E
SP KITE DR S E FEMA FIRM
HALAWA DR G
RD STRD ATLANTA R QUE
U Panel:
N S
L AVE
WA
N
O 06059C0262J LN COOK CIR ATLANTA AVE
N
G
I L
N
A
IR
B
FIJ
N
OW
ORLN
A
L
PAGO T
C
TO
A A BAR R T PAGO CIR I MAUNA LN L
I
N C
P
HMO
ERS A CORNERBROOK DR GA B DANA DR
R
LN
O
RAT
HAG CI
C CHRISTMAS DR T
O
S
CK
C
N SPRIT CIR
CIR
RWI 3
E E L
FORRESTAL YO B RKTOWN AVE ON C
T DR MONITOR DR N M
P A SPAR CIR E ON
D M G N VALLEY SHANGRI CIR RA PE FORGE DR A EFFINGHAM DR LA DR E
NGHA
I D
B N I
MERRIMAC DR BLUE er REEF DR MONTE SEACOVE IC L IF CANBERRA LN CARLO CIR A Riv DR S C E 7 KORNAT DR ARENAS W V CONSTITUTION D R PA A
na PORT JAMAICA
CONSTELLATION LN A ROYAL CIR CIR VILLA Y LEMNOS DR PACIFIC DR INR LU LN RLINE DR BROOKHAVEN HARBOR D VICTORIA ST anta SHALOM DR R O
S CIR POINT CIR RAY
Z P
BALTRA PL D
N MATSONIA LN CUTTY SARK DR L SUNSTAR MAURETANIA NS
Y R Y ULL E H N CIR R BROOKBAY CIR CIR D T O
DR LE
T
L
VERDE MAR DR S T GRE G BALEARIC DR S
VA N OPA
I T RIA X O O RONSAY CIR S T SEA E C EUR I L V R N N CAPELLA CT HAMILTON AVE BLUFF DR
LN
RAMSGATELN
MARGATELN U 2 G
A A L
DR L
H
NI E
R N
K
A A E S CAPELLA CT V T A T T JOHN G O E L
NT I RANGER LN E ES N M R
O
CARMA T O AI E R
S E
SHA R 6 CALVERT AVE R
B PICCADILLYLN ADAMS AVE ALLEY D
V R ADAMS AVE
N FLAMINGO DR
L
E M
N T
A
A O
R L
I AN G S IC L EL L P C A W GOLDENEYE PL L O P R
A A
C
L NIAGARA DR R D LB D D LN D A N R R OCEANCRE JILL DR T ST DR A E WESLEY R L MANDARIN DR
CIR P
VIVA I D O CIR I SH P O S REBR M D EE S DR ZE B N A DR YB TANBARK A D C R R S EEZE IR PHALAROPE CT MEREDITH DR
SWAN DR JON DAY DR LN
BROOK DR ONY N ST L
D HARBORBREEZE
N O D DR L O O R HWO W 5 C E N BIR BANNING M E I
V A A AVE R DR R ILET C FEMA FIRM CRA FEMA FIRM Panel: Panel: WARWICK 06059C0262J 06059C0264J DR
CYNTHIA DR
BEVERLY DR
THESEUS DR LAVONNE LN
EDYE DR 4 1
CLIFF DR nta Ana River Sa
LN
FT
SPINDRI Path: I:\SS\Bott\GWRS_Expansion\SplitProject\F26_PipelineAccessFEMA.mxd
FEMA Flood Hazard Areas FEMA FIRM Panels 0.2 PCT ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD HAZARD Pipeline Access Locations GWRS Final Expansion Project A FEMA Flood Hazard Areas X; X PROTECTED BY LEVEE Pipeline Access Locations 0 1,000 2,000 Figure 26 Feet Section 4
The GWRS Site and the OCSD Plant No. 2 Site are both located downstream of Prado Dam. Improvements implemented at Prado Dam and at Seven Oaks Dam and along the Santa Ana River have been designed to provide flood control protection up to a 190 year storm event. The GWRS Final Expansion Project would not involve the construction of any structures or involve any facilities that would adversely impact the flood control capacity or increase flood risks at Prado Dam and along the Santa Ana River. IMPACT HWQ-J: Would the project be exposed to inundation by seiche, tsunami or mudflow? The OCSD Plant No. 2 Site is located in a Moderate Tsunami Run-Up Area. The likelihood that a tsunami would be large enough to inundate the treatment site would be low and the potential for the study area to exposed tsunami impacts would be less than significant. The study area and surrounding area does not contain any slopes, hillsides or mountains that pose the threat for mudflow impacts. Therefore, potential mudflow impacts would be less than significant. Mitigation Measure The following mitigation measures from the GWRS Final EIR/EIS will be implemented for the GWRS Final Expansion Project. Mitigation Measure SW-9 is a State Water Resources Control Board Regulatory requirement that would implement the Best Management Practices identified in Mitigation Measure SW-7 and has been incorporated into the GWRS Final Expansion Project. GW-1: Should modeling and field studies indicate that any production wells are within the minimum distance and travel time criteria for proximity to reclaimed water recharge or injection, these wells shall be abandoned or limited to approved non-potable uses. Wells which are abandoned shall be replaced by new wells constructed outside to the area of influence. SW-7: Best Management Practices, including sandbagging manufactured channels or swales, diversion velocity dissipaters, de-silting basins, detention/retention ponds shall be used to prevent sedimentation from the construction of the Groundwater Replenishment System. SW-9: Prior to the start of construction OCWD will obtain coverage under the General Construction Permit and will file Notice of Intent with the State Water Resources Control Board and prepare and implement a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan.
OCWD GWRS Final Expansion Project – Addendum No. 6 Final EIR/EIS & CEQA-PLUS Federal Consultation Review 4-121 Section 4
4.9.3 Level of Impact With the implementation of Mitigation Measure GW-1, SW-7 and SW-9 the GWRS Final Expansion Project would result in the same of level of potential flooding and water quality impacts that were identified in the GWRS Final EIR/EIS. Additionally, the implementation of the GWRS Final Expansion Project would not cause any new, substantially increase or result in more severe flood impacts or water quality impacts and no additional mitigation measures would be necessary to mitigate potential flood or water quality impacts to a less than significant level.
OCWD GWRS Final Expansion Project – Addendum No. 6 Final EIR/EIS & CEQA-PLUS Federal Consultation Review 4-122 Section 4
4.10 LAND USE/PLANNING 4.10.1 Environmental Setting Existing Land Uses OCWD GWRS Water Treatment Site The GWRS Site is located in the City of Fountain Valley. The site is situated within an urban setting and is surrounded by Ward Street and residential uses to the west, commercial use to the north, and OCSD Plant No. 1 Site to the south and east. The GWRS Site is currently developed with a combination of water treatment facilities, administrative buildings parking areas and roadways. OCSD Plant No. 2 Wastewater Treatment Site The OCSD Plant No. 2 Site is located in in the City of Huntington Beach and is surrounded by the Santa Ana River to the east, Brookhurst Street and residential uses to the west, multi-family residential uses to the north and the Talbert Marsh to the south. Plant No. 2 is currently developed with of wastewater treatment facilities, administrative buildings, parking areas and roadways. OCSD Easement Corridor The OCSD Easement Corridor is a 3.5 mile utility easement that extends from OCSD Plant No. 2 to OCSD Plant No. 1. The locations along the easement corridor where the proposed pipeline improvements would occur is currently vacant. Within the vicinity of where the proposed pipeline improvements would occur are public utility structures, community gardens, container plant nursery, Santa Ana River Trail, two park sites and two school sites. Relevant Planning Programs City of Fountain Valley General Plan The City of Fountain Valley General Plan designates the GWRS Site Commercial Manufacturing. The Commercial Manufacturing designation allows a mix of office, and light industrial and retail uses within an integrated development setting. In accordance with the Commercial Manufacturing designation, permitted land uses include; research and development facilities, administrative offices, corporate headquarters and limited amounts of light industrial development and related retail. City of Fountain Valley Zoning Code The City of Fountain Valley Zoning Code designates the GWRS Site Manufacturing. The Manufacturing Zoning District applies to areas appropriate for intensive manufacturing land uses and establishes a maximum height of 60 feet for all structures. City of Huntington Beach General Plan
OCWD GWRS Final Expansion Project – Addendum No. 6 Final EIR/EIS & CEQA-PLUS Federal Consultation Review 4-123 Section 4
The City of Huntington Beach General Plan designates the OCSD Plant No. 2 Site and the OCSD easement corridor Public. The Public designation allows governmental administrative and related facilities, such as public utilities, schools, public parking lots and infrastructure. City of Huntington Beach General Plan Coastal Element The OCSD Plant No. 2 Site is located within Coastal Zone and subject to the California Coastal Act. The California Coastal Act is implemented by the City of Huntington Beach General Plan Coastal Element. The Coastal Element includes a land use plan and policies to guide land use decisions within the coastal zone. OCSD Plant No. 2 is located in Zone 5, which extends from Beach Boulevard to the Santa Ana River. The Coastal Element designates Plant No. 2 4G-Edison Plant. The permitted uses include public uses and open space conservation. Any development activity occurring in the Coastal Zone, including OCSD Plant No. 2 would be required to obtain a Coastal Development Permit approved by the City of Huntington Beach. City of Huntington Beach Zoning Code The City of Huntington Beach Zoning Code designates the OCSD Plant No. 2 Site, south of Banning Street, Industrial Limited. The Industrial Limited zoning designation allows for moderate to low intensity industrial uses, commercial services and light manufacturing and establishes a maximum height restriction of 40 feet. Additionally a small portion of Plant No. 2, is zoned Residential Agriculture with an Oil Overlay. The intent of this zoning designation is to serve as a transition holding zone for future development activities. The Oil Overlay zoning designation provides areas to accommodate oil operations with no drilling activities. The OCSD Plant No.2 Site, north of Banning Avenue, is zoned Industrial General. The Industrial General zoning designation allows for full range of manufacturing, industrial processing, resource and energy production, general services and distribution land uses and establishes a maximum height restriction of 40 feet. The OCSD easement corridor is zoned residential, residential agriculture and commercial office. These zoning designations allows for a combination of residential, commercial and public land uses, including public utilities. 4.10.2 Project Impacts IMPACT L-A: Would the project physically divide an established community? The facilities and uses proposed on the GWRS Site and the OCSD Plant No. 2 Site would be compatible with existing land uses on both sites. All construction activities associated with GWRS Final Expansion Project would occur on OCWD or OCSD property and would not physically impact any existing residential communities, business or industries within the study area.
OCWD GWRS Final Expansion Project – Addendum No. 6 Final EIR/EIS & CEQA-PLUS Federal Consultation Review 4-124 Section 4
The proposed pipeline improvements at Access Location 8 would require the temporary relocation of existing container plants at a container plant nursery near Garfield Avenue. OCWD would coordinate with the owner of the container plant nursery and would relocate the container plants to another location at the nursery approved by the owner. Once the construction activity is complete OCWD would relocate the container plants back to their original relocation. To minimize potential construction impacts to surrounding existing land uses, OCWD would notify residents and business owners of upcoming construction activities. With the implementation of Mitigation Measures LU-9, LU-14, LU-15, LU-16 LU-17 and LU-18 potential impacts to surrounding land uses would be less than significant. IMPACT L-B: Would the project be in conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? GWRS Site The City of Fountain Valley General Plan Land Use Element designates the GWRS Site Commercial Manufacturing. The proposed GWRS Final Expansion Project improvements would be consistent with Commercial Manufacturing land use designation in that they would be an integrated into the existing site and would be a continuation of existing industrial uses occurring on the site. The GWRS Final Expansion Project would not be in conflict with the City of Fountain Valley General Plan. The City of Fountain Valley Zoning Code identifies that the GWRS Site is located within Manufacturing Zoning District. The Manufacturing Zoning District permits intensive manufacturing land uses. The proposed GWRS Final Expansion Project improvements would be consistent with Manufacturing Zoning District in that it would be a continuation of existing uses on the site and would involve large scale manufacturing processes. The Manufacturing Zoning District establishes a maximum height of 60 feet. The tallest structure included in the final expansion would be the decarbonation tower at a height of 25 feet. The GWRS Final Expansion Project would not be in conflict with the City of Fountain Valley Zoning Code. OCSD Plant No. 2 Site The City of Huntington Beach General Plan Land Use Element designates the OCSD Plant No. 2 Site Public. According to the General Plan public utilities are a permitted land use under the Public land use category. The GWRS Final Expansion improvements would be consistent with the Public land use designation in that the proposed improvements would be an expansion of existing public utility uses occurring on the Plant No. 2 Site. The GWRS Final Expansion Project would not be in conflict with the City of Huntington Beach General Plan.
OCWD GWRS Final Expansion Project – Addendum No. 6 Final EIR/EIS & CEQA-PLUS Federal Consultation Review 4-125 Section 4
The City of Huntington Beach Coastal Element designates the OCSD Plant No. 2 Site 4G-Edison Plant and identifies public uses and open space conservation as permitted land uses. The GWRS Final Expansion improvements would be consistent with the Coastal Element in that the proposed improvements would be a continuation of existing public uses occurring on the site. The GWRS Final Expansion Project improvements on Plant No.2 would require approval of Coastal Development Permit from the City of Huntington Beach. The southern portion of site where the two pump stations and headworks improvements would occur is within the Industrial Limited Zoning District. The Industrial Limited Zoning District allows moderate industrial and light manufacturing land uses. The GWRS Final Expansion would be consistent with the Industrial Limited zoning designation in that the proposed improvements would be an expansion of the existing industrial land uses occurring on the site. The Industrial Limited Zoning District establishes a maximum height of 40 feet. The tallest structure proposed by the final expansion would be a pump station at 25 feet. The GWRS Final Expansion Project would not be in conflict with the City of Huntington Beach Zoning Code. With the implementation of Mitigation Measure LU19 there would not be a conflict with the City of Huntington Beach General Plan Coastal Element. OCSD Easement Corridor The City of Huntington Beach General Plan designates the OCSD easement corridor Public. The Public designation allows governmental administrative and related facilities, such as public utilities, schools, public parking lots and infrastructure. The proposed pipeline improvements along the OCSD easement corridor would be consistent with public utility uses currently occurring on the property and would not involve the construction of any structures that would be in conflict with the Huntington Beach General Plan or Zoning Code. IMPACT L-C: Would the project be in conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? The GWRS Site, OCSD Plant No. 2 Site and the OCSD easement corridor are situated within an urban setting. There are no habitat management plans or natural community conservation plans established on any of the sites. Therefore, implementation of the GWRS Final Expansion Project would not be in conflict with any habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan.
Mitigation Measures The following mitigation measures from the GWRS Final EIR/EIS will be implemented for the GWRS Final Expansion Project. Mitigation Measure LU-19 is a City of
OCWD GWRS Final Expansion Project – Addendum No. 6 Final EIR/EIS & CEQA-PLUS Federal Consultation Review 4-126 Section 4
Huntington zoning requirement that has been identified as mitigation measure. It is unsure if the requirement was in place when the Final EIR/EIS was prepared. LU-9: The OCWD will provide residents, business and industry owners adjacent to the streets and the Santa Ana River levees where the project improvements are installed with a notice that project improvements will be made adjacent to their homes, businesses or industries. The project construction contractor will provide access to all residences, business and industries impacted by project activities. LU-14: Final construction documents and a copy of the project plans will be made available by the OCWD to interested and impacted Federal, State, County and City agencies to ensure compatibility with future land use scenarios. LU-15: The OCWD will notify appropriate County and City parks departments where the project will traverse or be directly adjacent to a County or City park. The parks department shall be provided with a written schedule for completion of project improvements adjacent to the park and the project contractor will provide access to the park during project construction activities. LU-16: The OCWD will notify appropriate school facilities where the project will potentially impact a school or access to a school. The school district shall be provided with a written schedule for completion of project improvements adjacent to the school and the project contractor will provide access to the school during project construction activities. LU-17: OCWD will negotiate construction easements with any affected property owners. Compensation for relocation or temporary relocation of property owners during project construction activities shall also be addressed in this agreement if necessary. LU-18: The OCWD will provide residents and business owners adjacent to streets and the Santa Ana Levees where the project improvements are installed with a written project construction schedule. The project construction shall provide access to these land uses during project construction activities. LU-19: Prior to construction of the project OCWD will obtain a Coastal Development Permit from the City of Huntington Beach. 4.10.3 Level of Impact The implementation of the GWRS Final Expansion Project would not result in unavoidable significant land use impacts. With the implementation of Mitigation Measures LU-9, LU-14, LU-15, LU-16, LU-17, LU-18 and LU-19 the construction and operation of the GWRS Final Expansion Project would result in the same level of potential land use impacts that were identified in the GWRS Final EIR/EIS. Additionally, the implementation of the GWRS Final Expansion Project would not cause any new, substantially increase or result in more severe land use impacts and no additional
OCWD GWRS Final Expansion Project – Addendum No. 6 Final EIR/EIS & CEQA-PLUS Federal Consultation Review 4-127 Section 4 mitigation measures would be necessary to mitigate potential land use impacts to a less than significant level.
OCWD GWRS Final Expansion Project – Addendum No. 6 Final EIR/EIS & CEQA-PLUS Federal Consultation Review 4-128 Section 4
4.11 MINERAL RESOURCES 4.11.1 Environmental Setting According to the City of Fountain Valley General Plan and the City of Huntington Beach General Plan, the GWRS Site and the OCSD Plant No. 2 Site and the OCSD easement corridor are not identified has areas containing mineral resources of regional or local significance. 4.11.2 Project Impacts IMPACT M-A: Would the project result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? The GWRS Site is located on developed lands that are not currently used for mineral extraction. Therefore, no impacts on regional minerals or minerals of state importance would occur. The OCSD Plant No. 2 Site is located on developed lands that are not currently used for mineral extraction. Therefore, no impacts on regional minerals or minerals of state importance would occur. The OCSD easement corridor is located on lands that are not currently used for mineral extraction. Therefore, no impacts on regional minerals or minerals of state importance would occur. IMPACT M-B: Would the project result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use? The GWRS Site is located on developed lands that are not currently used for mineral extraction. Therefore, no adverse impacts to the availability of locally-important mineral resources would occur. The OCSD Plant No. 2 Site is located on developed lands that are not currently used for mineral extraction. Therefore, no adverse impacts to the availability of locally-important mineral resources would occur. The OCSD easement corridor is located on lands that are not currently used for mineral extraction. Therefore, no adverse impacts to the availability of locally-important mineral resources would occur. Mitigation Measure No mitigation measures are required.
OCWD GWRS Final Expansion Project – Addendum No. 6 Final EIR/EIS & CEQA-PLUS Federal Consultation Review 4-129 Section 4
4.11.3 Level of Impact The implementation of the GWRS Final Expansion Project would not result in unavoidable significant impacts to mineral resources. The construction and operation of the GWRS Final Expansion Project would result in the same of level of potential impacts to important mineral resources that were identified in the GWRS Final EIR/EIS. Additionally, the implementation of the GWRS Final Expansion Project would not cause any new, substantially increase or result in more severe impacts to important mineral resources and no additional mitigation measures would be necessary to mitigate potential impacts to important mineral to a less than significant level.
OCWD GWRS Final Expansion Project – Addendum No. 6 Final EIR/EIS & CEQA-PLUS Federal Consultation Review 4-130 Section 4
4.12 NOISE 4.12.1 Environmental Setting Noise is defined as unwanted sound. Sound becomes unwanted when it creates a nuisance that interferes with normal activities, or when it causes physical harm and adversely affects human health. The standard unit of measurement of the loudness of sound is the decibel (dB). The zero point on the dB scale is based on the lowest sound level that a healthy, unimpaired human ear can detect. Changes of 3 dB or fewer are only perceptible in laboratory environments. An increase of 10 dB represents a 10-fold increase in acoustic energy, while 20 dB is 100 times more intense, and 30 dB is 1,000 times more intense. Each 10-dB increase in sound level is perceived as approximately a doubling of loudness. Numerous methods have been developed to measure sound over a period of time, including: Equivalent Sound Level (Leq), Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL), Day/Night Average Sound Level (Ldn) and Maximum Noise event (Lmax). Noise level can vary pending on the noise source and duration. Below is description of the units of measure used in this analysis to describe the noise environment.
• Leq: Time variations in noise exposure are typically expressed as a statistical description of the sound pressure level that is exceeded over some fraction of a
given observation period (called Leq). For example, the noise levels exceeded on 10 percent of readings is called L10, the median (50th percentile) reading is called L50, etc. • CNEL: Because community receptors are more sensitive to unwanted noise intrusion during the evening and at night, state law requires that, for planning purposes, an artificial dB increment penalty be added to quiet-time noise levels in a 24-hour noise descriptor called CNEL.
• Ldn: Another commonly used method is the day/night average level or Ldn.
• Ldn is a measure of the 24-hour average noise level at a given location. It was adopted by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for developing criteria for the evaluation of community noise exposure.
• Lmax: The maximum noise level recorded during a noise event is typically expressed as Lmax. Effects of Noise Physical damage to human hearing begins at prolonged exposure to noise levels higher than 85 dBA. Extended periods of noise exposure above 90 dBA could result in permanent hearing damage. When the noise level reaches 120 dBA, a ticking sensation occurs in the human ear even with short-term exposure. This level of noise is called the
OCWD GWRS Final Expansion Project – Addendum No. 6 Final EIR/EIS & CEQA-PLUS Federal Consultation Review 4-131 Section 4
threshold of feeling. As the sound reaches 140 dBA, the tickling sensation is replaced by the feeling of pain in the ear. This is called the threshold of pain. A sound level of 190 dBA will rupture the eardrum and permanently the inner ear. Table 23 summarizes typical noise sources, levels, and responses.
TABLE 23: NOISE LEVELS AND HUMAN RESPONSE Noise Source Noise Level dBA Response Library 30 Very quiet Refrigerator humming 40 Quiet Quiet office 50 Quiet Normal conversation 60 Intrusive Vacuum cleaner 70 Telephone use difficult Freight train at 50 feet 80 Interferes with conversation Heavy-duty truck at 50 feet 90 Annoying Jet takeoff at 2,000 feet 100 Very annoying; hearing damage at sustained exposure levels Unmuffled motorcycle 110 Maximum vocal effect; physical discomfort Jet takeoff at 200 feet 120 Regular exposure over one minute risks permanent hearing loss Shotgun firing 130 Pain threshold Carrier jet operation 140 Harmfully loud Source: Melville C. Branch and R. Dale Beland, 1970.
Ground Absorption The sound drop-off rate is highly dependent on the conditions of the land between the noise source and receiver. To account for this ground-effect attenuation (absorption), two types of site conditions are commonly used in noise models, soft-site and hard-site conditions. Soft-site conditions account for the sound propagation loss over natural surfaces such as normal earth and ground vegetation. For point sources, a drop-off rate of 7.5 dBA/ for each doubling of distance from the point source is typically observed over soft ground with landscaping, as compared with a 6.0 dBA/for each doubling of distance over hard ground such as asphalt, concrete, stone and very hard packed earth. Noise Barrier Attenuation For a noise barrier to work, it must be high enough and long enough to block the view of the noise source. A noise barrier is most effective when placed close to the noise source or receiver. A noise barrier can achieve a 5 dBA noise level reduction when it is tall enough to break the line-of-sight and greater heights increase the noise reduction.
OCWD GWRS Final Expansion Project – Addendum No. 6 Final EIR/EIS & CEQA-PLUS Federal Consultation Review 4-132 Section 4
When the noise barrier is a berm instead of a wall, the noise attenuation can be increased by another 3 dBA. GWRS Site Existing Noise Environment The GWRS Site is bordered by the east and south by the OCSD Plant No. 1 Site, Ward Street to the west and Ellis Avenue to the north. The study area ambient noise environment is predominately influenced by traffic noise along Ward Street and Ellis Avenue. Noise-generating sources within GWRS Site would include engine/motor noise, mechanical equipment and truck traffic entering and leaving the site. The closest sensitive receptors to the GWRS Site would be single family homes located west of Ward Street. An existing six foot high block wall is situated around the perimeter of the GWRS Site and also along the rear yards of the single family homes that back up along Ward Street. A combination of acoustical treatments to the GWRS water treatment facilities, site perimeter block wall and residential rear yard block walls to help minimizes noise levels within the study area. The GWRS Site is not impacted by aircraft noise. The only sources of groundborne vibration at the GWRS Site would be occasional large trucks that periodically deliver materials and supplies to the site. OCSD Plant No. 2 Site Existing Noise Environment The OCSD Plant No. 2 Site is bordered by the Santa Ana River to the east, the Talbert Marsh and Pacific Coast Highway to the south, Brookhurst Street to the west and multiple family residential land uses to the north. The traffic along Pacific Coast Highway and Brookhurst Street are the primary sources of noise in the OCSD Plant No. 2 Site study area. Noise-generating sources within Plant No. 2 include; engine/motor noise, mechanical equipment (including large fans and trunk line scrubbers), paging systems and truck traffic entering and leaving the plant. The closest sensitive receptors would single family residential land uses located west of Brookhurst Street and multiple-family residential uses located north of the Plant No. 2 property. An existing block wall provided along Plant No. 2 and along the rear yards of the single family homes along Brookhurst Street to help minimize noise levels within the study area. The OCSD Plant No. 2 Site is not impacted by aircraft noise. The only sources of groundborne vibration at the OCSD Plant No. 2 Site would be occasional large trucks that periodically deliver materials and supplies to the site. OCSD Easement Corridor Existing Noise Environment The OCSD easement corridor extends along an open space area that is adjacent to west levee of the Santa Ana River. The easement corridor is currently vacant and
OCWD GWRS Final Expansion Project – Addendum No. 6 Final EIR/EIS & CEQA-PLUS Federal Consultation Review 4-133 Section 4 considered soft site for sound attenuation purposes. Within the vicinity of where the pipeline improvements would occur are several single family homes, two school sites and two parks. The study area is relatively quiet and is not influenced by traffic noise, overhead air craft noise or ground vibration impacts. Applicable Noise Standards Federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration The adverse impact of noise was officially recognized by the federal government in the Noise Control Act of 1972. The most relevant federal agency to the GWRS Final Expansion Project would be Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), which limits noise exposure of workers to 90 dB Leq or less over eight hours or 105 dB Leq or less over one hour. Local Noise Regulations The local noise regulations that are applicable to the GWRS Final Expansion Project would be the City of Fountain Valley Noise Ordinance and the City of Huntington Beach Noise Ordinance. City of Fountain Valley Noise Ordinance Exterior Noise Standards Chapter 6.28 of the City of Fountain Valley Municipal Code contains the City’s Noise Ordinance. The Noise Ordinance specifies noise levels that cannot be exceeded at residential properties for a specified period of time. Table 24 identifies the exterior noise standards established in the City of Fountain Valley Noise Ordinance.
TABLE 24: CITY OF FOUNTAIN VALLEY EXTERIOR NOISE STANDARDS Noise Zone Noise level Time Period Residential 55 dBA 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.
Residential 50 dBA 1 10: 00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.
The above allowed noise level standards shall not be exceeded: 1. For a cumulative period of more than thirty minutes in any hour; or 2. The noise standard plus five dB(A) for a cumulative period of more than fifteen minutes but less than 30 minutes in any hour; or 3. The noise standard plus ten dB(A) for a cumulative period of more than five minutes but less than 15 minutes in any hour; or
OCWD GWRS Final Expansion Project – Addendum No. 6 Final EIR/EIS & CEQA-PLUS Federal Consultation Review 4-134 Section 4
4. The noise standard plus fifteen dB(A) for a cumulative period of more than one minute but less than 5 minutes in any hour; or 5. The noise standard plus twenty dB(A) for a cumulative period of less than one minutes in an hour. Interior Noise Standards Table 25 identifies the interior noise standards established in the City of Fountain Valley Noise Ordinance.
TABLE 25: CITY OF FOUNTAIN VALLEY INTERIOR NOISE STANDARDS Noise Zone Noise level Time Period
Residential 55 dBA 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.
Residential 45 dBA 10: 00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.
The above allowed noise level standards shall not be exceeded: 1. The interior noise standard for a cumulative period of more than five minutes in any hour; or 2. The interior noise standard plus five dB(A) for a cumulative period of more than one minute in any hour; or 3. The interior noise standard plus ten dB(A) for any period of time. 4. In the event the ambient noise level exceeds either of the first two noise limit categories set forth in subsection (b) of this section, the cumulative period applicable to said category shall be increased to reflect said ambient noise level. In the event the ambient noise level exceeds the third noise limit category, the maximum allowable noise level under said category shall be increased to reflect the maximum ambient noise level. (Ord. 806 § 2, 1976) Special Provisions Construction Noise Noise sources associated with the construction, repair, remodeling or grading of any real property are exempt from the limits of the noise ordinance described above, provided said activities take place between the hours of 7:00 A.M. and 8:00 P.M. Monday through Friday, 9:00 A.M. through 8:00 P.M. on Saturday, and at no time on Sunday or any legal holiday.
OCWD GWRS Final Expansion Project – Addendum No. 6 Final EIR/EIS & CEQA-PLUS Federal Consultation Review 4-135 Section 4
Schools, Hospitals, Churches It is unlawful for any person to create any noise which causes the noise level at any school, hospital or church while the same is in use to exceed the noise limits as specified for the assigned noise zone in which the school, hospital or church is located, or which noise level unreasonably interferes with the use of such institutions or which unreasonably disturbs or annoys patients in the hospital, provided conspicuous signs are displayed in three separate locations within one-tenth of a mile of the institution indicating the presence of a school, church or hospital. City of Huntington Beach Noise Ordinance Chapter 8.40 of the City of Huntington Beach Municipal Code contains the City’s Noise Ordinance. Table 26 identifies the exterior noise standards established in the City of Huntington Beach Noise Ordinance.
TABLE 26: CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH EXTERIOR NOISE STANDARDS Noise Zone Noise Level Time Period
All Residential Properties 55 dBA 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. 50 dBA 10: 00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. All Professional Office/Public 55 dBA Anytime Institution Properties All Commercial Properties Except 60 dBA Anytime Professional Office All Industrial Properties 70 dBA Anytime
The above allowed noise level standards shall not be exceeded: 1. For a cumulative period of more than 30 minutes in any hour; 2. Plus five db(A) for a cumulative period of more than 15 minutes in any hour; 3. Plus 10 db(A) for a cumulative period of more than five minutes in any hour; 4. Plus 15 db(A) for a cumulative period of more than one minute in any hour; or 5. Plus 20 db(A) for any period of time. 6. In the event the ambient noise level exceeds any of the first four noise limit categories above, the cumulative period applicable to said category shall be increased to reflect said ambient noise level. In the event the ambient noise level exceeds the fifth noise limit category, the maximum allowable noise level under said category shall be increased to reflect the maximum ambient noise level. (2379-7/79)
OCWD GWRS Final Expansion Project – Addendum No. 6 Final EIR/EIS & CEQA-PLUS Federal Consultation Review 4-136 Section 4
Interior Noise Standards Table 27 identifies the interior noise standards established in the City of Huntington Beach.
TABLE 27: CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH INTERIOR NOISE STANDARDS Noise Zone Noise Level Time Period
All Residential Properties 55 dBA 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. 45 dBA 10: 00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. All Professional Office/Public Institution 55 dBA Anytime Properties All Commercial Properties Except 55 dBA Anytime Professional Office All Industrial Properties 55 dBA Anytime
The above allowed noise level standards shall not be exceeded: 1. The noise standard for a cumulative period of more than five minutes in any hour; 2. The noise standards plus five db(A) for a cumulative period of more than one minute in any hour. 3. The noise standard plus 10 db(A) for any period of time. 4. In the event the ambient noise level exceeds either of the first two noise limit categories above, the cumulative period applicable to said category shall be increased to reflect said ambient noise level. In the event the ambient noise level exceeds the third noise level, the maximum allowable noise level under said category shall be increased to reflect the maximum ambient noise level. 5. Each of the noise limits specified above shall be reduced by five db(A) for impact or predominant tone noises, or for noises consisting of speech or music. 6. In the event that the noise source and the affected property are within different noise zones, the noise standards of the affected property shall apply. (2379-7/79) Special Provisions Construction Noise According to Section 8.40.090(d) of the City of Huntington Beach Noise Ordinance, noise sources associated with construction, repair, remodeling, or grading of any real property are exempt from the City Noise Ordinance, provided said activities do not take place between the hours of 8:00 P.M. and 7:00 A.M. on weekdays or Saturdays, or at any time on Sunday or a federal holiday.
OCWD GWRS Final Expansion Project – Addendum No. 6 Final EIR/EIS & CEQA-PLUS Federal Consultation Review 4-137 Section 4
Schools, Hospitals, Churches It is unlawful for any person to create any noise which causes the noise level at any school, hospital or church while the same is in use to exceed the noise limits as specified for the assigned noise zone in which the school, hospital or church is located, or which noise level unreasonably interferes with the use of such institutions or which unreasonably disturbs or annoys patients in the hospital, provided conspicuous signs are displayed in three separate locations within one-tenth of a mile of the institution indicating the presence of a school, church or hospital. 4.12.2 Project Impacts IMPACT N-A: Would the project expose persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance or applicable standards of other agencies? The GWRS Final Expansion Project has been evaluated for potential for long-term operation noise impacts and short-term construction related noise impacts. Long Term Operational Noise Impacts GWRS Site The GWRS Final Expansion Project would expand existing water treatment facilities on the GWRS Site. Similar to its existing operational noise environment, the primarily source for long-term operational noise would be from the operation of mechanical equipment. As part of the first phase of the GWRS Project, a detailed operation acoustical study was prepared. Based on the acoustical study, architectural improvements were incorporated into the water treatment plant to minimize operational noise impacts. The structures proposed in the GWRS Final Expansion Project would include the same architectural design features that were incorporated into the previous GWRS construction phases to minimize operational noise impacts. With the implementation of Mitigation Measure N-5 operational noise impacts would be less than significant. OCSD Plant No.2 Site The GWRS Final Expansion Project would expand existing wastewater treatment facilities on the OCSD Plant No. 2 Site. Similar to its existing operational noise environment, the primarily source for long-term operational noise would be from the operation of mechanical equipment. The operation of proposed pump stations and headworks on Plant No. 2 would not substantially increase existing operation noise levels within the study area. All of the proposed facilities would be designed to insulate noise of the machinery such that elevated noise levels would be contained onsite. With the implementation of Mitigation Measures N-5 operational noise impacts would be less than significant.
OCWD GWRS Final Expansion Project – Addendum No. 6 Final EIR/EIS & CEQA-PLUS Federal Consultation Review 4-138 Section 4
OCSD Easement Corridor The operation of the pipeline along the easement corridor would not emit any long-term noise impacts. Therefore, the GWRS Final Expansion Project would not result in a permanent increase in ambient noise levels above the existing noise levels along the easement corridor. Short Term Construction Noise Impacts Short-term construction noise impacts are related primarily to the use of heavy construction equipment. Construction equipment can be considered to operate in two modes: stationary and mobile. Stationary equipment operates in one location for one or more days at a time, with either a fixed-power operation. Mobile equipment moves around a construction site with power applied in cyclic fashion (such as bulldozers, graders, and loaders). A listing of equipment that would most likely be used for the GWRS Final Expansion Project and associated noise levels are listed in Table 28.
TABLE 28: TYPICAL MAXIMUM CONSTRUCTION NOISE LEVELS Equipment Noise Level (dBA) at 50 ft Auger Drill Rig 85 Backhoe 80 Compressor (air) 80 Concrete Mixer Truck 85 Concrete Pump 82 Crane (mobile or stationary) 85 Dozer 85 Dump Truck 84 Excavator 85 Flatbed Truck 84 Generator (25 KVA or less) 70 Generator (more than 25 KVA) 82 Paver 85 Pneumatic Tools 85 Pumps 77
GWRS Site The noisiest piece of construction equipment that would operate at the GWRS Site would be a paver and an auger drill. The paver and auger drill would intermittently operate over an eight hour period. As shown in Table 28, the noise levels generated by the paver and auger drill would be 85 dBA and would below the OSHA standard of 90 dBA over an eight hour period. Therefore, the GWRS Final Expansion Project construction activities would not be in conflict with the OSHA standard.
OCWD GWRS Final Expansion Project – Addendum No. 6 Final EIR/EIS & CEQA-PLUS Federal Consultation Review 4-139 Section 4
Construction operations would temporarily increase ambient noise levels within the study area. Table 29 identifies the estimated noise level at the closest sensitive receptor for the nosiest piece of construction equipment for each final expansion construction activity. The estimated noise levels take into account existing noise barriers between construction activity and the sensitive receptors which would reduce noise levels within the study area. As shown in Table 29, during construction operations the ambient noise levels within the study area would range from 56 dBA to 68 dBA. The noise levels would exceed the City of Fountain Valley daytime Exterior Noise Standard of 55 dBA for residential land uses. A conflict with the City of Fountain Valley Noise Ordinance would be a potentially significant noise impact. Under the City of Fountain Noise Ordinance, construction noise would be exempt when it occurs between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. Monday through Friday. All of the construction activity at the GWRS Site would be conducted between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Monday through Friday. Therefore, there would not be any conflict with the City of Fountain Valley Noise Ordinance and potential construction noise impacts would be less than significant. With the implementation of Mitigation Measures N-1, N-2, N-3, N-4 and N-6 potential construction noise impacts would be less than significant.
TABLE 29: GWRS SITE CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY NOISE IMPACTS Activity Closest Receptor Equipment/Noise Estimated Distance Level (dBA) at Outdoor Noise 50 ft. level(1) Microfiltration 213 ft.-Single family Homes near Auger Drill/85 dBA 68 dBA Expansion Waxing Circle and Thrush Avenue Microfiltration 612 ft.-Single Family Homes near Crane/83 dBA 63 dBA Backwash Pumps Thrush Avenue and Parakeet Circle. Chemical Tank & 638 ft.-Single Family Homes near Crane/83 dBA 63 dBA Pump Expansion Parakeet Circle and Falcon Avenue Reverse Osmosis 174 ft.-Single Family Homes near Crane/83 dBA 66 dBA Equipment Falcon Street and Nightingale Circle and Falcon Avenue Finished Product 644 ft.-Single Family Homes near Crane/83 dBA 63 dBA Water Pump Nightingale Avenue Decarbnation 560 ft.-Single Family Homes near Crane/83 dBA 63 dBA Tower Falcon Avenue and Nightingale Avenue
Ultraviolet 407 ft.-Single family Homes near Crane/83 dBA 60 dBA Equipment Falcon Avenue
OCWD GWRS Final Expansion Project – Addendum No. 6 Final EIR/EIS & CEQA-PLUS Federal Consultation Review 4-140 Section 4
OCSD Pipeline 1,212 ft.-Single Family Homes Paver/ 85 dBA 56 dBA Connection near Owl Avenue (1) Receptors are partially shielded from the construction activity by existing walls, representing a 5 dBA reduction in noise levels.
OCSD Plant No. 2 Site The noisiest construction equipment that would operate at the OCSD Plant No.2 Site would be a dozer and excavator. The construction equipment would intermittently operate over an eight hour period. As shown in Table 28, the noise levels generated by the construction equipment would 85 dBA and would be below the OSHA standard of 90 dBA over an eight hour period. Therefore, GWRS Final Expansion Project construction activities would not be in conflict with the OSHA standard. Construction operations would temporarily increase ambient noise levels within the study area. Table 30 identifies the estimated noise level at the closest sensitive receptor for the nosiest piece of construction equipment for each construction activity. The estimated noise levels take into account existing noise barriers between construction activity and the sensitive receptor which would reduce noise levels within the study area. As shown in Table 30, during construction operations ambient noise levels would range within the study area from 53 dBA to 62 dBA. The noise levels would exceed the City of Huntington Beach daytime Exterior Noise Standard of 55 dBA for residential land uses. A conflict with the City of Huntington Beach Noise Ordinance would be a potentially significant noise impact. Under the City of Huntington Beach Noise Ordinance, construction noise would be exempt when it occurs between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m., Monday through Friday. All of the construction activity at OCSD Plant No.2 Site would be conducted between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Monday through Friday. Therefore, there would not be any conflict with the noise ordinance and potential construction noise impacts would be less than significant. With the implementation of Mitigation Measures N-1, N-2, N-3, N-4 and N-6 potential construction noise impacts would be less than significant.
TABLE 30: OCSD PLANT NO. 2 CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY NOISE IMPACTS Activity Closest Receptor Equipment/Noise Estimated Outdoor Level (dBA) at Noise level 50 ft. OCSD Pump 1234 ft. Single Dozer/85 dBA 53 dBA
OCWD GWRS Final Expansion Project – Addendum No. 6 Final EIR/EIS & CEQA-PLUS Federal Consultation Review 4-141 Section 4
Stations Family Homes along Jonesport Lane Headworks/Bypass 540 ft. Single family Excavator/85 dBA 62 dBA Pipeline Homes near Castine Drive and cape may Drive (1) Receptors are partially shielded from the construction activity by existing walls, representing a 5 dBA reduction in noise levels.
OCSD Easement Corridor The noisiest piece of construction equipment that would operate at the OCSD easement corridor would be an excavator. The excavator would intermittently operate over an eight hour period. As shown in Table 28, the noise levels generated by the excavator would be 85 dBA and would be below the OSHA standard of 90 dBA over an eight hour period. Therefore, GWRS Final Expansion Project construction activities would not be in conflict with the OSHA standard. Construction operations would temporarily increase ambient noise levels within the study area. Table 31, identifies the estimated noise level at the closest sensitive receptor for the nosiest piece of construction equipment for each construction activity. The estimated noise levels do not take into account existing noise barriers between construction activity and the sensitive receptor which would reduce noise levels at the sensitive receptor locations. As shown in Table 31, during construction operations ambient noise levels would range from 53 dBA to 65 dBA. These noise levels would exceed the City of Huntington Beach daytime Exterior Noise Standard of 55 dBA for residential and school land uses. A conflict with City of Huntington Beach Noise Ordinance Exterior Noise Standard would be a potentially significant noise impact. Under the City of Huntington Beach Noise Ordinance, construction noise would be exempt when it occurs between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m., Monday through Friday. All of the construction activity along the OCSD easement corridor would be conducted between the hours of 7:00 am and 5:00 pm Monday through Friday. To avoid noise impacts at the Pegasus School all construction near the school (Access Location 7) would occur when school would not be in cession. Therefore, there would not be any conflict with the noise ordinance and potential construction noise impacts would be less than significant. With the implementation of Mitigation Measures N-1, N-2, N-3, N-4 and N-6 potential construction noise impacts would be less than significant.
TABLE 31: OCSD EASEMENT CORRIDOR CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY NOISE IMPACTS Activity Closest Receptor Equipment/Noise Estimated Noise Level (dBA) level at Sensitive
OCWD GWRS Final Expansion Project – Addendum No. 6 Final EIR/EIS & CEQA-PLUS Federal Consultation Review 4-142 Section 4
Receptor Access Location 1 1280 ft.-Single Family Excavator /85 dBA 53 dBA Homes near Cape May Lane & Jonesport Lane. Access Location 2 439 ft. Multiple Family Excavator /85 dBA 57 dBA Home along Brookhurst Street Access Location 3 200 ft. Single Family Excavator /85 dBA 65 dBA Homes near Sprit Circle and Spar Circle Access Location 4 182 ft. Single Family Excavator /85 dBA 65 dBA Homes along Lavonne Lane Access Location 5 206 ft. Along Ravenwood Excavator /85 dBA 65 dBA Lane Access Location 6 320 ft. Single Family Excavator /85 dBA 57 dBA Homes along Garmania Lane Access Location 7 268 ft. Single family Excavator /85 dBA 65 dBA Homes along Shangri Lane 528 ft. School Site 62 dBA Access Location 8 606 ft. Single family Excavator /85 dBA 58 dBA Homes along Johnson Street (1) Receptors are partially shielded from the construction activity by existing walls, representing a 5 dBA reduction in noise levels.
IMPACT N-B: Would the project result in a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? GWRS Site The GWRS Final Expansion Project would expand existing water treatment facilities on the GWRS Site. Similar to its existing operational noise impacts, the primarily source for long-term operational noise would be from the operation of mechanical equipment. With the implementation of Mitigation Measures N-5 and operational noise impacts would be less than significant. OCSD Plant No. 2 Site The GWRS Final Expansion Project would expand existing wastewater treatment facilities on the OCSD Plant No.2 Site. The operation of proposed pump stations and headworks structures would not substantially increase existing operational noise levels.
OCWD GWRS Final Expansion Project – Addendum No. 6 Final EIR/EIS & CEQA-PLUS Federal Consultation Review 4-143 Section 4
All of the facilities would be designed to insulate noise of the machinery. With the implementation of Mitigation Measures N-5 and operational noise impacts would be less than significant. OCSD Easement Corridor The operation of the pipeline along the easement corridor would not emit any operation noise. Therefore, the GWRS Final Expansion Project would not result in a permanent increase in ambient noise levels above the existing noise levels along the easement corridor. IMPACT N-C: Would the project result in a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? Typically, temporary increases in noise levels are associated with construction activities. Depending on the project construction activities can occur over a few days or over several years and during the construction operations there could only be a few hours in a day when elevated noise levels occur. The state CEQA Guidelines do not define the levels at which increases in ambient noise levels are considered “substantial temporary.” However, with respect to noise, a change in noise levels of 3 dBA is considered to be a barely perceivable difference, while a change in noise levels of 5 dBA is considered to be a readily perceivable difference. A change in noise levels of 10 dBA is considered to be doubling of the perceived loudness. Thus, for the purpose of conducting a conservative analysis, an increase in the noise environment of 5 dBA or greater at an off-site sensitive receptor during proposed construction activities would be considered a significant noise impact with regards to a temporary substantial increase in ambient noise levels. During the construction operations for GWRS Final Expansion Project nearby sensitive receptors within the study area would experience temporary increases in ambient noise levels. Consistent with GWRS Final EIR/EIS, the resulting noise levels at nearby sensitive receptors could be greater than 5 dBA. These noise levels would likely be noticeable regardless of compliance with local noise ordinances. The GWRS Final Expansion Project would be required to implement noise reduction Mitigation Measures N-1, N-2, N-3, N-4, and N-6. Implementation of these mitigation measures would reduce the noise levels within the study area to the maximum extent feasible. However, even with the implementation of the noise reduction mitigation measures, the daytime noise levels from construction activities could exceed 5 dBA at certain locations depending on existing ambient noise levels and could result in a disturbance to some sensitive receptors. Therefore, because construction activities associated with the GWRS Final Expansion improvements could generate a substantial temporary increase in ambient
OCWD GWRS Final Expansion Project – Addendum No. 6 Final EIR/EIS & CEQA-PLUS Federal Consultation Review 4-144 Section 4
noise levels within the study area, the temporary construction noise impacts would be considered an unavoidable significant impact. Truck Hauling Noise The construction activities for the GWRS Final Expansion would involve a minimal amount of daily truck traffic. As shown in Table 32 a maximum of 30 daily truck hauling trips would occur for the Microfiltration 1B construction phase. None of the daily truck hauling trips would overlap with each other. All of the truck hauling trips would occur along designated truck routes and along major arterial highways that currently experience high traffic volumes. No truck hauling activities would occur along local residential streets. The passing diesel trucks would intermittently increase noise levels along truck hauling routes. Due to the high background noise from existing vehicle traffic and the short-term exposure of the impact, potential truck hauling noise impacts would be less than significant.
TABLE 32: GWRS FINAL EXPANSION CONSTRUCTION TRUCK TRIPS Daily Haul Total Haul Trips Trips Phase 1 MF Expansion 1A: Excavation, Grading, and Dewatering 24 960 1B: Piles Construction 30 300 1C: Basement Construction 20 200 1D: MF Equipment 0 0 1D: Reverse Osmosis Equipment 0 0 1D: UV Equipment 0 0 1E: Reverse Osmosis Transfer Pump Station 0 0 1E: Chemical Tanks/Pumps 0 0 1E: Decarbonation Equipment 0 0 1E: Product Water Pump 0 0 Phase 2 OCSD Pump Stations 2A: Site Preparation, Excavation, Hauling, Grading Pump 4 12 Station 2B: Pump Station Building Construction 9 27 2C: Pump Installation and Equipment 0 0 Phase 3 OCSD Pipeline 4A: Excavation, Hauling for Pipeline Entry Pits and 0 0 Connection to OCSD 4B: Slip-Line Pipeline Equipment 2 50 4C: Excavation, Hauling for Pipeline Connection at OCWD 0 0 5A: Excavation, Hauling, Site Prep 2 4 5B: Pipeline & Headworks construction 0 0
OCWD GWRS Final Expansion Project – Addendum No. 6 Final EIR/EIS & CEQA-PLUS Federal Consultation Review 4-145 Section 4
5C: Headworks Equipping 0 0
Vibration Impacts California Administrate Code 15000, Title 14 requires that all state and local agencies implement the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guideline, which requires an exposure analysis of persons to excessive groundborne vibration impacts. Common sources of vibration impacts from construction activities include; blasting, pile-driving and operation of heavy earth-moving equipment. Sensitive receptors for vibration include structures (especially older masonry structures, people and vibration sensitive equipment. Presently, the State of California, City of Fountain Valley or the City of Huntington Beach does not quantify at what level at which excessive groundborne vibration occurs. Groundborne vibration levels resulting from construction activities have been estimated by the Federal Transit Authority (FTA) in its 2006 Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment. The manual provides practical guidance to evaluating vibration impacts from construction activities. The manual establishes numeric thresholds for construction related and transportation related vibration impacts. There are several different methods that used to quantify vibration impacts. The peak particle velocity (PPV) is defined to describe vibration impacts to buildings. The FTA Guidance Manual determines that potential damage to non-engineered timber and masonry buildings could occur at 0.20 per second PPV for transient sources. The root square mean amplitude is most frequently used to describe the affect vibration on the human body. Decibel notation (Vdb) is commonly used to root square mean. A vibration velocity level of 80 VdB would be considered to the approximate dividing line between barely perceptible and distinctly perceptible levels for many people. The Peak Particle Velocity and Decibel Notation levels of vibration impacts are shown in Tables 33 and 34.
TABLE 33: PEAK PARTICLE VELOCITY (PPV) OF VIBRATION IMPACTS Equipment 25 ft. 50 ft. 60 ft. 75 ft. 100 ft. Large dozer 0.089 0.031 0.024 0.017 0.011 Auger Drill 0.089 0.031 0.024 0.017 0.011 Loaded truck 0.076 0.027 0.020 0.015 0.010 Jackhammer 0.035 0.012 0.009 0.007 0.004 Small Dozer 0.003 0.001 0.0008 0.0006 0.0004
OCWD GWRS Final Expansion Project – Addendum No. 6 Final EIR/EIS & CEQA-PLUS Federal Consultation Review 4-146 Section 4
TABLE 34: DECIBEL NOTATION (VDB) LEVELS OF VIBRATION IMPACTS Equipment 25 ft. 50 ft. 60 ft. 75 ft. 100 ft. Large dozer 87 78 76 73 69 Auger Drill 87 78 76 73 69 Loaded truck 86 77 75 72 68 Jackhammer 79 70 68 65 61 Small Dozer 58 49 47 44 40
IMPACT N-4: Would the project expose persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? The GWRS Final Expansion Project would involve the use of construction equipment that could have the potential to generate vibration impacts. Existing land uses within the vicinity of the GWRS Site, OCSD Plant No. 2 Site and along the OCSD easement corridor could experience low levels of groundborne vibration impacts. To determine if potential vibrations impacts would be significant a threshold of 0.20 per second PPV has been applied for potential damage to buildings and 80 VdB would has been applied for annoyance to sensitive receptors. GWRS Site At the GWRS Site the pieces of construction equipment that would have the greatest potential for vibration impacts would be the auger drill rig and dozer. Both of these two pieces of construction equipment would be involved with the microfiltration building expansion. As shown in Table 33 and 34, the significance threshold of 0.20 PPV would occur at distance of less 25 feet from the construction activity and the significance threshold of 80 VdB would occur approximately between 25 feet and 50 feet from the construction activity. The closest residential uses are approximately 200 feet from where the microfiltration building improvements would occur. At this distance, the residential uses would not exceed the vibration impact significance threshold of 0.20 PPV or 80 VdB. Potential vibration impacts would be less than significant.
OCWD Plant No. 2 Site At the OCSD wastewater treatment site the piece of construction equipment that would have the greatest potential for vibration impacts would be the operation of a dozer for the pump station improvements and a loaded truck for the headworks improvements. Both of these pieces of construction equipment have similar vibration levels. As shown in Tables 33 and 34, the significance threshold of .20 PPV would occur at distance of less than 25 feet from the construction activity and the significance threshold of 80 VdB
OCWD GWRS Final Expansion Project – Addendum No. 6 Final EIR/EIS & CEQA-PLUS Federal Consultation Review 4-147 Section 4 would occur approximately between 25 feet and 50 feet from the construction activity. The closest residential uses would be approximately 540 feet from where the headworks improvements would occur. At this distance, the residential uses would not exceed the vibration impact significance threshold of 20 PPV or 80 VdB. Potential vibration impacts would be less than significant. OCWD Easement Corridor Along the OCSD easement corridor the operation of excavator would have the greatest potential for vibration impacts. The potential vibration impact from an excavator is not listed in Tables 33 or 34. As a worst case, a large dozer has been used to estimate potential vibration impacts. As shown in Table 33 and 34, the significance threshold of .20 PPV would occur at distance of less than 25 feet from the construction activity and the significance threshold of 80 VdB would occur approximately 50 feet from the construction activity. The closest residential uses would 180 feet from where the pipeline improvement would occur. At this distance, the residential uses would not exceed the vibration impact significance threshold of 20 PPV or 80 VdB. Potential vibration impacts would be less than significant. IMPACT N-E: For a project located within an airport land use plan or where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? The closest airport to the study area would be John Wayne Airport located approximately seven miles from the study area. According to the John Wayne Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan the study area would not be impacted by aircraft noise levels that would exceed local, state or federal standards. Potential aircraft noise impacts would be less than significant. IMPACT N-F: For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? There are no airports or private airstrips within the study area. Therefore, the study area would not be adversely impacted from aircraft noise from a private air strip. Mitigation Measures The following mitigation measures from the GWRS Final EIE/EIS will be implemented for the GWRS Final Expansion Project. N-1: The construction Contractor shall be required to adhere to all Noise Ordinance provisions of the Cities of Fountain Valley and Huntington Beach. Additionally, noisy construction within 500 feet of existing homes shall be limited to the hours of 7 AM and
OCWD GWRS Final Expansion Project – Addendum No. 6 Final EIR/EIS & CEQA-PLUS Federal Consultation Review 4-148 Section 4
7 PM on weekdays, 7 AM to 6 PM on Saturdays and not any time on Sunday or Federal holidays. N-2: Barriers shall be installed around the noise sources or directly between the construction area and the nearest homes to shield these residents from direct noise exposure from construction activities. The height of the barriers is crucial in terms of effectiveness, the higher the barrier the more the noise reduction. Types of shielding include leaded blankets, an acoustic blanket, or several layers of plywood. N-3: Mufflers shall be used on all construction equipment. N-4: Construction techniques designed to reduce noise shall be implemented where feasible. Loud equipment shall be separated and grouped in one location. Areas reserved for testing and fixing of equipment shall be placed away from sensitive receptors. N-5: A detailed noise control plan shall be required to determine the need for any additional noise mitigation at the treatment plant site. The plan shall include post- construction monitoring to determine if the plan’s noise goals have been met. N-6: Prior to the commencement of construction and ongoing during construction, property owners/residents/businesses within and adjacent to construction activity shall be notified of the specific construction activity and associated schedule. Additionally, signs shall be posted at strategic locations within the project area. The notifications and signs shall identify the address, hotline number, and name of designated person to contact for the purpose of responding to questions or complaints during the construction period. The notifications and signs shall also identify the hours of permissible construction work and estimated duration. 4.12.3 Level of Impact The operation of the GWRS Final Expansion Project would not increase long term noise levels or vibration levels within the study area beyond what was identified in the GWRS Final EIR/EIS. The construction activities for the project would occur during the hours of the day when construction noise would be exempt under local noise ordinances. However, because the construction operations could increase noise 5 dBA over existing ambient noise levels, the construction operations for the GWRS Final Expansion would be considered a short-term significant noise impact. Mitigation Measures N-1, N-2, N-3, N-4,N-5 and N-6 have been incorporated into the construction operations to minimize construction noise impacts. However, with even the mitigation measures potential short term construction noise impacts would still be unavoidable and significant.
OCWD GWRS Final Expansion Project – Addendum No. 6 Final EIR/EIS & CEQA-PLUS Federal Consultation Review 4-149 Section 4
4.13 POPULATION/HOUSING 4.13.1 Environmental Setting The GWRS Final Expansion Project would be implemented on the GWRS Site within the City of Fountain Valley and the OCSD Plant No. 2 Site located within the City of Huntington Beach. The study area around both treatment facilities is urbanized with supporting infrastructure and consists of mix residential and commercial land uses with minimal vacant land available for future development. 4.13.2 Project Impacts IMPACT P-A: Would the project induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly or indirectly? The GWRS Final Expansion Project would provide additional water supplies to help replenish the Orange County Groundwater Basin to help meet planned water supply needs for the OCWD service area and to reduce the demand for imported water supplies. The GWRS Final Expansion Project would not involve the extension of any new infrastructure into undeveloped areas and would not provide new water supplies to any undeveloped areas. The GWRS Final Expansion Project would assist in accommodating planned growth in OCWD service area and would not induce more growth than what has been planned for by local and regional planning agencies. IMPACT P-B: Would the project displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? The GWRS Final Expansion Project improvements would occur at an existing water treatment facility and at an existing wastewater treatment facility. The implementation of the GWRS Final Expansion Project would not displace any existing housing. The construction of the GWRS Final Expansion Project would generate short-term construction job opportunities. The majority of the employment opportunities would be expected to be filled by currently employed and unemployed labor force from the surrounding area and would not increase population levels that would increase housing demand in the study area. Mitigation Measures No mitigation measures are required. 4.13.3 Level of Impact The implementation of the GWRS Final Expansion Project would not result in unavoidable significant population and housing impacts. The construction and operation of the GWRS Final Expansion Project would result in the same of level of potential housing and population impacts that were identified in the GWRS Final EIR/EIS. Additionally, the implementation of the GWRS Final Expansion Project would
OCWD GWRS Final Expansion Project – Addendum No. 6 Final EIR/EIS & CEQA-PLUS Federal Consultation Review 4-150 Section 4 not cause any new, substantially increase or result in more severe housing and population impacts and no additional mitigation measures would be necessary to mitigate potential housing and population impacts to a less than significant level.
OCWD GWRS Final Expansion Project – Addendum No. 6 Final EIR/EIS & CEQA-PLUS Federal Consultation Review 4-151 Section 4
4.14 PUBLIC SERVICES 4.14.1 Environmental Setting The study area is situated within an urbanized setting and supported by local and regional public services. GWRS Site Police protection and fire protection services are provided to GWRS Site by the City of Fountain Valley. The closest school facilities to the GWRS Site are Robert Gisler Elementary School, Masuda Middle School and Fountain Valley High School. Within ½ mile radius of the GWRS Site is Ellis Park. OCSD Plant No. 2 Site Police protection and fire protection services are provided to OCSD Plant No. 2 Site by the City of Huntington Beach. The closest school facilities to the OCSD plant No. 2 A Site are John Eader Elementary, Isaac Sowers Middle School and Edison High School. Within ½ mile radius of the site OCSD Plant No.2 wastewater treatment site is Seely Park, Gisler Park, Talbert Park, Victoria Vista Park and Huntington State Beach. 4.14.2 Project Impacts IMPACT PS-A: Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for fire protection police protection, schools, parks or other public facilities? Police and Fire Protection Services The construction and operation of the GWRS Final Expansion Project would not increase the demand for additional fire protection services and police protection services beyond the current level of demand within the study area. Additionally the final expansion would not involve any activities that would increase response times to the study area. Potential impacts to fire protection services and police protection services would be less than significant. School Facilities The implementation of the GWRS Final Expansion Project would not generate a substantial need for new school facilities. Any potential increase in new employees resulting from the expansion would be expected to be minimal. In the event new
OCWD GWRS Final Expansion Project – Addendum No. 6 Final EIR/EIS & CEQA-PLUS Federal Consultation Review 4-152 Section 4 households do relocate into the study area, existing schools within the study area would be expected to meet school facility needs for all grades. The proposed pipeline improvements along the OCSD easement corridor would occur within the vicinity of two school sites. To minimize potential construction impacts to school facilities, Mitigation Measures PS-1, PS-2, PS-3 and LU-16 would be implemented. Parks The implementation of the GWRS Final Expansion Project would not generate a need for new park facilities. Any potential increase in new employees resulting from the expansion would be expected to be minimal. In the event new employees do relocate into the study area, existing park facilities within the study area would be able to meet parkland needs. The proposed pipeline improvements along the OCSD easement corridor would occur within the vicinity of two park sites. To minimize potential construction impacts to park Mitigation Measure LU-15 would be implemented. Mitigation Measures The following mitigation measures from the GWRS Final EIR/EIS will be implemented for the GWRS Final Expansion Project. PS-1: All school districts and private schools affected by construction activities will be notified of construction schedules to lessen potential impacts to instructional and transportation services. Ample time will be provided so affected schools can prepare and plan for possible disruptions caused by project construction. PS-2: Construction contractors shall ensure that adequate barriers will be established to prevent pedestrians from entering open trenches of an active construction area. Warnings shall also be posted sufficient distances from the work area to allow pedestrians to cross the street at controlled intersections rather than having to jaywalk. PS-3: At the end of the work day, the construction contractor shall ensure that the work area has been secured to prevent pedestrians from waling into open trenches or other potentially dangerous environments. Measures may include covering the trenches and/or installing temporary fencing and safety lights. LU-15: The OCWD will notify appropriate County and City parks departments where the project will traverse or be directly adjacent to a County or City park. The parks department shall be provided with a written schedule for completion of project improvements adjacent to the park and the project contractor will provide access to the park during project construction activities. LU-16: The OCWD will notify appropriate school facilities where the project will potentially impact a school or access to a school. The school district shall be provided
OCWD GWRS Final Expansion Project – Addendum No. 6 Final EIR/EIS & CEQA-PLUS Federal Consultation Review 4-153 Section 4
with a written schedule for completion of project improvements adjacent to the school and the project contractor will provide access to the school during project construction activities. 4.14.3 Level of Impact The implementation of the GWRS Final Expansion Project would not result in unavoidable significant public service impacts. With the implementation of Mitigation Measures PS-1, PS-2, PS-3, LU 15 and LU-16 the construction and operation of the GWRS Final Expansion Project would result in the same of level of potential impacts to public services that were identified in the GWRS Final EIR/EIS. Additionally, the implementation of the GWRS Final Expansion Project would not cause any new, substantially increase or result in more severe impacts to public services or public service facilities and no additional mitigation measures would be necessary to mitigate potential impacts to public services and public facilities to a less than significant level.
OCWD GWRS Final Expansion Project – Addendum No. 6 Final EIR/EIS & CEQA-PLUS Federal Consultation Review 4-154 Section 4
4.15 RECREATION 4.15.1 Environmental Setting The closest recreational facilities to where the GWRS Final Expansion improvements would occur include: Ellis Park Seely Park, Gisler Park, Talbert Park, Victoria Vista Park Huntington State Beach, the Santa Ana River Bike Trail, Lebard Park and Alevalos Park. 4.15.2 Project Impacts IMPACT R-A: Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? The GWRS Final Expansion Project would not generate a substantial amount of new employees that would substantially increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks within the study area. Any potential increase in new employees resulting from the final expansion would be expected to be minimal and would not cause the deterioration of existing recreation facilities. Potential impacts to existing recreation facilities would be less than significant IMPACT R-B: Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? The GWRS Final Expansion Project does not include the construction of recreation facilities and would not generate a need for new or expanded recreation facilities within the study area. Therefore, no impacts in regards to the construction of new or expanded recreation facilities would occur. Mitigation Measures No mitigation measures are required. 4.15.3 Level of Impact The implementation of the GWRS Final Expansion Project would not result in unavoidable significant recreation impacts. The construction and operation of the GWRS Final Expansion Project would result in the same of level of potential impacts to recreation facilities that were identified in the GWRS Final EIR/EIS. Additionally, the implementation of the GWRS Final Expansion Project would not cause any new, substantially increase or result in more severe impacts to recreation facilities and no additional mitigation measures would be necessary to mitigate potential impacts to recreation facilities to a less than significant level.
OCWD GWRS Final Expansion Project – Addendum No. 6 Final EIR/EIS & CEQA-PLUS Federal Consultation Review 4-155 Section 4
4.16 TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC 4.16.1 Environmental Setting Study Area Circulation System Regional access to the study area is provided by the I-405 Freeway via the Brookhurst Street and Euclid Avenue exits. Local access is provided by Ward Street, Ellis Avenue and Garfield Avenue, Brookhurst Street and Pacific Coast Highway. Congestion Management Program The Orange County Transportation Agency is responsible for the implementation of the County of Orange Congestion Management Program (CMP). The CMP is designed to reduce traffic congestion and to provide a mechanism for the coordination of land use and transportation decisions. When a project generates more than 100 peak trips along a CMP highway or 51 or more trips through a CMP intersection, the project would be required to prepare a traffic impact study to evaluate the impacts on the CMP highway and intersection. Existing Truck Routes The City of Fountain Valley General Plan Circulation Element identifies the following study area roadways as designated truck routes. • Brookhurst Street • Garfield Avenue • Euclid Avenue The City of Huntington Beach General Plan Circulation Element identifies the following study area roadways as designated truck routes. • Brookhurst Street, • Pacific Coast Highway • Hamilton Avenue Public Transportation The City of Fountain Valley and the City of Huntington Beach are served by the OCTA bus service. Currently, the OCTA operates over 30 bus routes throughout the City of Fountain Valley and Huntington Beach, including a demand response service through the “Dial-a-Ride” program, and two park-and-ride facilities. Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities The City of Fountain Valley and the City of Huntington Beach both have an extensive trail system that includes pedestrian and off-street and on-street bike trails. Additionally, the County of Orange maintains a coordinated system of trails, including bikeways,
OCWD GWRS Final Expansion Project – Addendum No. 6 Final EIR/EIS & CEQA-PLUS Federal Consultation Review 4-156 Section 4
hiking trails throughout Orange County, including the Santa Ana River Trail. The closest off-street bikeways to the study area would be the Santa Ana River Trail and the Talbert Marsh Bike Trail. Along the study area roadways are on-street bike ways. 4.16.2 Project Impacts IMPACT T-A: Would the project be in conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation including mass transit and non-motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrians and bicycle paths and mass transit. The implementation of the GWRS Final Expansion Project would not substantially increase daily operational vehicle trips within the study area. Therefore, no long term significant traffic impacts would occur to the study area circulation system. The construction operations for the GWRS Final Expansion Project would generate short- term traffic trips which would include; hauling material offsite, worker traffic, vendor deliveries and mobilization and demobilization of construction equipment. A listing of traffic trips generated by the GWRS Final Expansion Project is shown in Table 35.
TABLE 35: GWRS FINAL EXPANSION PROJECT TRAFFIC TRIPS Worker Vendor Daily Total Haul Haul Trips Trips Phase 1 MF Expansion 1A: Excavation, Grading, and Dewatering 15 1 24 960 1B: Piles Construction 10 2 30 300 1C: Basement Construction 20 2 20 200 1D: MF Equipment 10 5 0 0 1D: Reverse Osmosis Equipment 10 5 0 0 1D: UV Equipment 5 2 0 0 1E: Reverse Osmosis Transfer Pump Station 5 2 0 0 1E: Chemical Tanks/Pumps 5 2 0 0 1E: Decarbonation Equipment 5 2 0 0 1E: Product Water Pump 5 2 0 0 Phase 2 OCSD Pump Stations 2A: Site Preparation, Excavation, Hauling, Grading 8 1 4 12 Pump Station 2B: Pump Station Building Construction 5 2 9 27 2C: Pump Installation and Equipment 5 2 0 0 Phase 3 OCSD Pipeline 4A: Excavation, Hauling for Pipeline Entry Pits and 8 1 0 0
OCWD GWRS Final Expansion Project – Addendum No. 6 Final EIR/EIS & CEQA-PLUS Federal Consultation Review 4-157 Section 4
Connection to OCSD 4B: Slip-Line Pipeline Equipment 3 1 2 50 4C: Excavation, Hauling for Pipeline Connection at 8 1 0 0 OCWD Phase 4 OCSD Plant No. 2 Separate Headworks and Bypass Pipeline 5A: Excavation, Hauling, Site Prep 8 1 2 4 5B: Pipeline & Headworks construction 8 2 0 0 5C: Headworks Equipping 5 3 0 0
The majority of daily construction traffic trips would be hauling activities. As shown in Table 35, a maximum of 30 hauling trips would occur daily for the microfiltration building improvement over a 10 day period. The hauling trips would occur during non-peak hours and would not reduce the level of service of study area roadway segments or intersections. During the peak traffic period construction operations associated with the GWRS Final Expansion Project would generate up to 20 worker trips and a few vendor trips. This amount of traffic trips would have a de minimis impact on study area traffic conditions would not reduce the level of service of study area roadways or intersections to an unacceptable level of service. IMPACT T-B: Would the project be in conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including but not limited to level of service standards and travel demand measures, or other standards established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? The closest CMP Highway within the study area would Pacific Coast Highway. Pacific Coast Highway is not a designated truck route. Therefore, no construction traffic from the GWRS Final Expansion Project would be using Pacific Coast Highway access the study area. There is the potential that some workers could utilize Pacific Coast Highway to travel to the study area. As shown in Table 35, the short term traffic generated from the GWRS Final Expansion Project would not exceed 100 peak trips or 51 or more trips through an intersection. No potential conflicts with the County of Orange Congestion Management Program would occur. IMPACT T-C: Would the project result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? Implementation of the GWRS Final Expansion Project would not increase the level of air traffic within the regional area. The final expansion does not include any component that would encroach into navigable air space causing a change to air traffic patterns. According to the John Wayne Airport Land Use Consistency Plan, the study area is not
OCWD GWRS Final Expansion Project – Addendum No. 6 Final EIR/EIS & CEQA-PLUS Federal Consultation Review 4-158 Section 4
within a clear zone or accidental potential zone and therefore implementation of the GWRS Final Expansion Project would not increase safety risks. IMPACT T-D: Would the project increase hazards to a design feature or incompatible uses or equipment? The construction and operation of the GWRS Final Expansion Project would occur on the GWRS Site, OCSD Plant No. 2 Site and along the OCSD easement corridor. The GWRS Final Expansion Project would not involve any construction activities along a public roadway that would increase traffic hazards. The GWRS Final Expansion Project would require the movement of heavy construction equipment within the study area during mobilization and demobilization periods. The weight of the heavy construction could potentially damage the surfaces of roadways within the study area. All heavy truck traffic generated from the construction and operation of the GWRS Final Expansion Project would be required to use designated truck routes for access to and from the study area. By directing truck traffic to specifically designated truck routes potential adverse impacts to study area roadway surfaces would be minimized. During mobilization and demobilization of heavy construction, turning movements into GWRS Site and the OCSD Plant No. 2 Site could require temporary lane closures. The lane closure would occur during non-peak traffic periods and if needed a flag men would be provided to safely direct traffic into the construction work areas. With the implementation of Mitigation Measure TR-2 potential traffic hazards would be less than significant. IMPACT T-E: Would the project result in inadequate emergency access? The construction and operation of the GWRS Final Expansion Project would not cause any road closures that would adversely impact emergency access routes and emergency response times to the study area. The mobilization and demobilization of heavy construction equipment could result in some temporary traffic congestion within the study area. The impact would be short-term and if needed flag men would be available to ensure emergency access would be maintained at all times. With the implementation of Mitigation Measure TR-2 potential emergency access impacts would be less than significant IMPACT T-F: Would the project result in conflicts with adopted policies, plans or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities? The two primary trail systems with the study area would be the Santa Ana River Trail and the Talbert Marsh Trail. The construction and operation of the GWRS Final Expansion Project would occur on the GWRS Site, OCSD Plant No. 2 Site and along
OCWD GWRS Final Expansion Project – Addendum No. 6 Final EIR/EIS & CEQA-PLUS Federal Consultation Review 4-159 Section 4
the OCSD easement Corridor. No temporary closures to Santa Ana River Trail or the Talbert Marsh Trail would occur. The long term operation of the GWRS Final Expansion Project would not have any adverse impacts on the trail users. The mobilization and demobilization of heavy construction equipment could result in temporary closure of street bike lanes near the GWRS Site and the OCSD Plant No. 2 Site entrances. However, the closure would be limited to the time of the mobilization and demobilization activity which in most cases would be less than 30 minutes. The impact would be short-term and if needed flag men would be available to avoid impacts to pedestrians and bicyclist. With the implementation of Mitigation Measure TR-2 potential hazards pedestrians and bicyclist would be less than significant. Mitigation Measure The following mitigation measure from the GWRS Final EIR/EIS will be implemented for the GWRS Final Expansion Project. TR-2: The construction contractor will be responsible for preparing adequate detour and access plans to ensure the safe movement of vehicles and pedestrians during the construction period. These plans must ensure access to private property at all times. 4.16.3 Level of Impact The implementation of the GWRS Final Expansion Project would not result in unavoidable significant traffic impacts. The construction and operation of the GWRS Final Expansion Project would result in the same level of transportation impacts that were identified in the GWRS Final EIR/EIS. Implementation of the GWRS Final Expansion Project would not cause any new, substantially increase or result in more impacts and no additional mitigation measures would be necessary to mitigate potential traffic impacts to a less than significant level.
OCWD GWRS Final Expansion Project – Addendum No. 6 Final EIR/EIS & CEQA-PLUS Federal Consultation Review 4-160 Section 4
4.17 UTILITY SERVICE SYSTEMS 4.17.1 Environmental Setting The study area is situated within an urbanized area and supported by existing utility service systems Water Service The Huntington Beach Public Works Department and the City of Fountain Valley Public Works Department are responsible for water service within the study area, including operating and maintaining wells, reservoirs, imported water connections, and distribution pipelines. Wastewater Service The Orange County Sanitation District provides wastewater service to the study area. The Orange County Sanitation District provides wastewater services to approximately 2- 6 million people within a 479 square mile service area in central and northwest Orange County, which includes 20 cities and four sanitary water districts. It operates the third largest wastewater system on the West Coast and consists of over 396 miles of sewers and two regional wastewater treatment plants. Storm Drainage Systems Local storm drainage systems are operated by the City of Fountain Valley and City of Huntington Beach Public Works Department. The Orange County Flood Control District (owns, operates, and maintains the region’s flood control facilities. Solid Waste Management The City of Fountain Valley and City of Huntington Beach are responsible for weekly residential and commercial trash collection services and contracts with Rainbow Disposal Company, Inc. All trash collected by the City’s refuse services are sorted and processed at a Materials Recovery Facility. Rainbow Disposal Company operates a Transfer Station located at 17121 Nichols Street with a design capacity of approximately 2,800 tons per day. The Orange County Integrated Waste Management Department (OCIWMD) owns and operates three active landfills serving the Orange County region. These include the Frank R. Bowerman Landfill (11002 Bee Canyon Access Road, Irvine); Olinda Alpha Landfill (1942 N. Valencia Avenue, Brea), and the Prima Deshecha Landfill (32250 La Pata Avenue, San Juan Capistrano). The Olinda Alpha Landfill and the Prima Deshecha Landfill are open to the public while the Frank Bowerman Landfill is for commercial use only. All three landfills are permitted as Class III landfills. Class III landfills accept only non-hazardous municipal solid waste for disposal; no hazardous or liquid waste can be
OCWD GWRS Final Expansion Project – Addendum No. 6 Final EIR/EIS & CEQA-PLUS Federal Consultation Review 4-161 Section 4
accepted. The daily maximum amounts received and remaining capacity for land fill facility is shown in Table 36.
TABLE 36: CAPACITY OF ORANGE COUNTY LANDFILLS Landfill Daily Maximum Maximum Capacity Remaining Capacity (Tons) (Cubic Yards) (Cubic Yards) Frank Bowerman 11,500 127,000,000 59, 411,872 Olinda Alpha 8,000 76,900,000 38,578,383 Prima Deshecha 4,000 172,900,000 87,384,799
4.17.2 Project Impacts IMPACT US-A: Would the project exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? The GWRS Final Expansion Project would expand existing GWRS treatment process and would provide additional amounts of treated water to replenish the Orange County Groundwater Basin. Consistent with previous GWRS construction phases, the treated water generated from the Final GWRS Final Expansion Project would be subject to the permit conditions under RWQCB Order R-8-2004-002, and subsequent amendment R8- 2008-0058. Compliance with the permit conditions would ensure that RWQCB requirements would not be exceeded. IMPACT US-B: Would the project require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? The GWRS Final Expansion Project would occur entirely on the GWRS Site, OCSD Plant No. 2 Site and along the OCSD easement corridor. The GWRS Final Expansion Project would not require the expansion or construction of any additional water or wastewater facilities off site that would result in significant impacts to the environment. IMPACT US-C: Would the project require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? The GWRS Final Expansion Project improvements would be incorporated into existing drainage infrastructure at the GWRS Site and at OCSD Plant No. 2 Site. The GWRS Final Expansion Project would not substantially increase existing rates of surface water runoff and would not require the construction of new drainage facilities.
OCWD GWRS Final Expansion Project – Addendum No. 6 Final EIR/EIS & CEQA-PLUS Federal Consultation Review 4-162 Section 4
IMPACT US-D: Are sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources or new or expanded entitlements needed? The source of water for the GWRS Final Expansion Project would be existing wastewater flows sewer from OCWD Plant No. 2 Site. The GWRS Final Expansion Project would not require additional water supplies or expanded water entitlements. IMPACT US-E: Would the project result in the determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the providers existing commitments? The GWRS Final Expansion Project would not expand OCSD existing wastewater demands and would not have an adverse impact on the capacity of OCSD treatment facility or an adverse impact on the capacity of service lines that support the OCSD facilities. IMPACT US-F: Is the project served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project solid waste disposal need? The long term operation of the GWRS Final Expansion Project would not significantly increase the demand for solid waste disposal over the current level of demand. Construction operations associated with the final expansion would generate a limited amount of solid waste. The closest landfill is the Frank R. Bowerman Landfill. The Frank R. Bowerman Landfill has a remaining capacity of 59,411,872 and would have sufficient capacity to accommodate the solid waste disposal needs generated by the GWRS Final Expansion Project. The final expansion would comply with federal, state and local statues and regulations related to solid waste and where possible would recycle discarded construction materials and other solid waste. With the implementation of Mitigation Measure U-9 potential solid waste disposal impacts would be less than significant. IMPACT US-G: Would the project comply with federal, state and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? Any solid waste generated by the GWRS Final Expansion Project would be hauled from the site, diverted and recycled, in accordance with the California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989. If any hazardous materials are encountered, the OCWD would coordinate with the City of Huntington Beach, the City of Fountain Valley and the Orange County Health Care Agency’s Certified Unified Program Agency to ensure that all hazardous wastes are disposed of properly. With the implementation of Mitigation Measure U-9 potential solid waste disposal impacts would be less than significant. The implementation of the GWRS Final Expansion Project would not conflict with Federal, State and Local policies and laws related to solid waste disposal.
OCWD GWRS Final Expansion Project – Addendum No. 6 Final EIR/EIS & CEQA-PLUS Federal Consultation Review 4-163 Section 4
Mitigation Measure The following mitigation measure from the GWRS Final EIR/EIS will be implemented for the GWRS Final Expansion Project. U-9: OCWD and OCSD shall investigate all available alternatives, and then select the best method of solid waste disposal and reduction of solid waste stream as required in the California Integrated Waste Management Act prior to the start of construction. 4.17.3 Level of Impact The implementation of the GWRS Final Expansion Project would not result in unavoidable significant utility service impacts. With the implementation of Mitigation Measure U-9 the construction and operation of the GWRS Final Expansion Project would result in the same of level of utility service system impacts that were identified in the GWRS Final EIR/EIS. Additionally, the implementation of the GWRS Final Expansion Project would not cause any new, substantially increase or result in more severe utility service system impacts and no additional mitigation measures would be necessary to mitigate potential utility service system impacts to a less than significant level.
OCWD GWRS Final Expansion Project – Addendum No. 6 Final EIR/EIS & CEQA-PLUS Federal Consultation Review 4-164 Section 4
4.18 MANDANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? The construction and operation of the GWRS Final Expansion Project would occur on the GWRS Site, OCSD Plant No. 2 Site and along the OCSD easement corridor. All sites are devoid of sensitive habitat, wildlife and cultural resources. Additionally, the GWRS Final Expansion Project would implement the same mitigation measures from the GWRS Final EIR/EIS to avoid impacts to unknown cultural resources that could be present. Consistent with the determination in the GWRS Final EIR/EIS, the construction and operation of the GWRS Final Expansion Project would not degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory. Does the project have impacts that are individually limited but cumulatively considerable? The GWRS Final Expansion Project would comply with local and regional planning programs, applicable codes and ordinances, state and federal laws and regulations and mitigation measures from the GWRS Final EIR/EIS. Compliance with these programs would reduce the final expansion incremental contributions to cumulative impacts to a less than significant level. Consistent with the determination in the GWRS Final EIR/EIS, the construction and operation of the GWRS Final Expansion Project would not result in cumulative significant impacts to the environment. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? The GWRS Final Expansion Project would not have any substantial effects on human beings. The GWRS Final Expansion Project would comply with local and regional planning programs, applicable codes and ordinances, state and federal laws and regulations and mitigation measures from the GWRS Final EIR/EIS to insure that long term operational activities and short-term construction activities associated with the GWRS Final Expansion Project would not result in direct or indirect adverse impacts to human beings. Consistent with the determination in the GWRS Final EIR/EIS, the
OCWD GWRS Final Expansion Project – Addendum No. 6 Final EIR/EIS & CEQA-PLUS Federal Consultation Review 4-165 Section 4 construction and operation of the GWRS Final Expansion Project would not cause a substantial adverse effect on human beings.
OCWD GWRS Final Expansion Project – Addendum No. 6 Final EIR/EIS & CEQA-PLUS Federal Consultation Review 4-166 Section 5
SECTION 5.0 ADDENDUM NO. 6 DETERMINATION The initial study and Addendum No. 6 to the Final EIR/EIS analyzes the construction and operation of the GWRS Final Expansion Project. As the foregoing analysis demonstrates, the construction and operation of the GWRS Final Expansion Project would not result in any of the conditions set forth in Section 15162 of the State CEQA Guidelines that would require a supplement to the GWRS Final EIR/EIS or a subsequent GWRS EIR/EIS. Specifically: No substantial changes are proposed in the final expansion which would require major revisions in the GWRS Final EIR/EIS due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects. As the Initial Study indicates, the construction and operation of the GWRS Final Expansion Project would not result in any significant environmental impacts not previously addressed in the GWRS Final EIR/EIS, and the final expansion would not result in a substantial increase in the severity of any impacts previously identified in the GWRS Final EIR/EIS. No substantial changes would occur with respect to the circumstances under which the GWRS Final Expansion Project would be undertaken which would require major revisions of the GWRS Final EIR/EIS due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects. The physical and environmental circumstances analyzed in the GWRS Final EIR/EIS with respect to the implementation of the GWRS Final Expansion Project would not be significantly different than those analyzed in the GWRS Final EIR/EIS. No 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 GWRS EIR/EIS, was certified as complete, shows either that the final expansion would not have any significant effects not discussed in the GWRS Final EIR/EIS, that the significant effects described in the GWRS Final EIR/EIS would be substantially more severe than shown in the GWRS Final EIR/EIS, that mitigation measures or alternatives found in the GWRS Final EIR/EIS to be infeasible would in fact be feasible, or that any mitigation measures or alternatives are considerably different than those analyzed in the GWRS Final EIR/EIS. The information in the GWRS Final EIR/EIS regarding the environmental impacts, environmental circumstances, mitigation measures and alternatives relating to the GWRS Final Expansion Project has not changed significantly. Based on the foregoing, the GWRS Final EIR/EIS as augmented by Addendum No. 6 adequately analyzes the construction and operation of the GWRS Final Expansion Project.
OCWD GWRS Final Expansion Project – Addendum No. 6 Final EIR/EIS & CEQA-PLUS Federal Consultation Review 5-1 Section 6
SECTION 6.0 CEQA-PLUS FEDERAL CONSULTATION REVIEW 6.1 Purpose The CEQA-Plus Federal Consultation Review requirements have been established by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and are intended to supplement the CEQA Guidelines with specific requirements for environmental documents acceptable to the State Water Resources Control Board when reviewing applications for SRF loans. This CEQA-Plus Federal Consultation Review analysis has been prepared to supplement Addendum No. 6 of the GWRS Final EIR/EIS as part of the evaluation of potential impacts to the environment associated with the implementation GWRS Final Expansion Project. 6.2 Federal Endangered Species Act (ESA), Section 7 Does the project involve any direct effects from construction activities, or indirect effects such as growth inducement that may affect federally listed threatened or endangered species or their critical habitat that are known, or have a potential, to occur on-site, in the surrounding area, or in the service area?
No. Discuss why the Project will not impact any federally listed special status species: The following analysis is based on the Biological Assessment that was prepared for the GWRS Final Expansion Project by the OCWD Natural Resources Department in June of 2016. As part of the Biological Assessment an onsite biological field survey was conducted by OCWD in June of 2016. The field survey was conducted by walking all portions of the study area where construction activities would occur. The field survey specifically focused on identifying Federal Listed plant species, Federal Listed wildlife species and sensitive vegetation communities The proposed GWRS Final Expansion Project improvements would occur on the GWRS Site, OCSD Plant No. 2 Site and along OCSD easement corridor. Collectively these three areas define the study area. GWRS Site The GWRS Site is located within the USGS Newport Beach Quadrangle at Township 5 South, Range 10 Wet, and Section 32. The site is currently developed with water treatment facilities, office buildings, paved roadways and parking areas. A site survey of the study area did not identify any sensitive biological resources on the GWRS Site or in surrounding area.
OCWD GWRS Final Expansion Project – Addendum No. 6 Final EIR/EIS & CEQA-PLUS Federal Consultation Review 6-1 Section 6
OCSD Plant No.2 Site The OCSD Plant No.2 Site is located within USGS Newport Beach Quadrangle at Township 6 South, Range 10 West, and Section 20. The site is currently developed with wastewater treatment structures, offices, paved parking areas and roadways. A row eucalyptus trees extends along western boundary of the site, along Brookhurst Street. A site survey of the study area did not identify any sensitive biological resources on Plant No. 2. Within close vicinity to Plant No.2 are two biological resources; the Talbert Marsh and California Least Tern Colony. The Talbert Marsh is a tidal marsh that has been restored to full tidal action. The water within Talbert Marsh is seawater from the ocean inlet located south of the marsh property that fluctuates in height up to 8 feet from tidal flows. Talbert Marsh provides habitat for both migratory and resident bird species. South of Pacific Coast Highway is the location the California Least Tern Natural Preserve Area. The California Least Tern Natural Preserve Area was first established under the Huntington State Beach General Development Plan in 1976. It was originally dedicated on 2.5 acres and was fenced off with a cyclone fence (a heavy-duty, chain- link fence topped with barbed wire) to prevent predators from harassing the birds. Over the years, the California least tern’s nesting area has expanded beyond the fenced area, State Parks has erected additional picket fencing to protect the birds. Currently, the cyclone fence area covers approximately 8.9 acres and the picket fence “front-yard” area is 3.8 acres. California State Parks protects the nesting area by limiting access, conducting trash removal, grooming the sand periodically, and conducting predator management. OCSD Easement Corridor The OCSD easement corridor is in highly disturbed condition and consists of bare ground and non-native vegetation. The non-native vegetation includes; Five-hook Bassia (Bassia hyssopifolia), Black Mustard (Brassica nigra) and Spanish Sunflower (Pulicaria paludosa). There were no sensitive vegetation communities identified along the OCSD easement corridor where the proposed construction activities would occur. Within the vicinity of where the pipeline improvements would occur is ornamental grasses, community gardens, container plant nursery, park sites and electrical substations. The Santa Ana Trail is located along a levee above the easement corridor. The shoulder of trail has been planted with upland native vegetation. Federal Listed Plant Species To determine the potential for Federal Listed plant species to be present within the study area, a database search with the United States Fish and Wildlife information and Planning Database and the California Department Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) Natural
OCWD GWRS Final Expansion Project – Addendum No. 6 Final EIR/EIS & CEQA-PLUS Federal Consultation Review 6-2 Section 6
Diversity Database was conducted. A listing of Federal Listed plant species with potential to occur within the Newport Beach USGS Quadrangle is shown in Table 37. Subsequent to the database search, OCWD conducted a survey of the study area to determine the potential for the species to present within the study area. The determination on the potential for Federal Listed plant species to occur within the study area was based on the following criteria: • Present: Species was observed within the study area within the last year. • High: The study area supports suitable habitat and the species has been observed within the last year. • Moderate: The study area supports suitable and the species has not been observed within last two years. • Low: The study area lacks suitable habitat for the species.
TABLE 37: FEDERAL LISTED PLANT SPECIES Species Federal CNPS General Potential for Habitat/Recent Occurrence Study Occurrence Area Ventura Marsh Milk-vetch E 1B.1 Marshes, Swamps, Low (Astragalus pycnostachy Coastal Dunes, Study Area lacks var. Lanosissimus Coastal Scrub suitable habitat Salt Marsh Birds-beak E 1B.2 Coastal Salt marsh, Low (Chloropyron maritimum Coastal Dunes Study Area lacks ssp. Maritimum) suitable habitat
San Diego Button-Celery E 1B.1 Vernal pools, Coastal Low (Eryngium aristulatum Scrub, Valley and Study Area lacks var. parishii) Foothill Grasslands suitable habitat Gambels Water Cress E 1B.1 Marshes and swamps Low (Nasturtium gambelii) Study Area lacks
suitable habitat
Federal State Listing (California California Native Plant Society CNPS E- Endangered Endangered Species Act, CDFG 1A-Plants presumed extinct in California T-Threatened FP-Fully Protected 1B- Plants rare, threatened, or endangered in SSC- Special Species of Concern E-Endangered California and elsewhere C-Candidate for Listing T-Threatened 2-Plants rare, threatened, or endangered in NL-Not Listed S-Sensitive California but more common elsewhere SSC-Special Species of Concern 3-Plants about which we need more review WL-Watch List 4-Plants of limited distribution NL-Not Listed CNPS Threat Rank .1 Seriously Endangered .2 Fairly Endangered .3 Not Very Endangered
OCWD GWRS Final Expansion Project – Addendum No. 6 Final EIR/EIS & CEQA-PLUS Federal Consultation Review 6-3 Section 6
Federal Listed Wildlife Species To determine the potential for Federal Listed wildlife species to be present within the study area, a database search with the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) information and Planning Database and the Department of California Fish and Wildlife Natural Diversity Database was conducted. A listing of Federal Listed wildlife species with potential to occur within the Newport Beach USGS Quadrangle is shown in Table 38. Subsequent to the database search, OCWD conducted a survey of the study area to determine the potential for the wildlife species to be present within the study area. The determination on the potential for the Federal Life wildlife species to occur within the study area was based on the following criteria: • Present: Species was observed within the study area within the last year. • High: The study area supports suitable habitat and the species has been observed within the last year. • Moderate: The study area supports suitable and the species has not been observed within last two years. • Low: The study area lacks suitable habitat for the species.
TABLE 38: FEDERAL LISTED WILDLIFE SPECIES Species Federal General Potential Occurrence Classification Habitat/Recent Study Area Occurrence San Diego Fairy Shrimp E Vernal pools Low (Branchinecta Study Area lacks
sandiegonensis) suitable habitat Western Snowy Plover T Sandy Beaches Low (Charadrius alexandrines Study Area lacks
nivosus) suitable habitat Southwestern Willow E Riparian Low Flycatcher woodlands Study Area lacks (Empidonax trailli extimus) suitable habitat Pacific Pocket Mouse E Coastal Plains Low (perognathus Study Area lacks
longimembris pacifus) suitable habitat Coastal California T Coastal sage Low Gnatcatcher scrub Study Area lacks (Polioptila californica suitable habitat
californica)
OCWD GWRS Final Expansion Project – Addendum No. 6 Final EIR/EIS & CEQA-PLUS Federal Consultation Review 6-4 Section 6
Light-Footed Clapper Rail E Salt marshes Low (Rallus longirostris levipes) Study Area lacks
suitable habitat California Least Tern E Sandy Beaches Low (Sterna antillarum) Study Area lacks suitable habitat Least Bell’s vireo E Low growing Low (Vireo bellii pusillus) riparian Study Area lacks habitats suitable habitat
Critical Habitat The Federal Endangered Species Act requires the federal government to designate Critical Habitat for any species it lists under the Federal Endangered Species Act. Critical Habitat is defined as 1) specific areas within the geographical area occupied by the specie at the time of listing, if they contain physical or biological features essential to conservation, and those features may require special management considerations or protection and 2) specific areas outside the geographical area occupied by the species if the agency determines that the area itself is essential for conservation. According to the of USFWS Information, Planning, and Conservation System Database and the California Department of Fish and Wildlife Natural Diversity Database, the study area is not located on lands that are designated as Critical Habitat. Project Impacts Onsite Impacts Based on a review of databases from United State Fish and Wildlife Service and California Department of Fish and Wildlife and biological surveys conducted within the study area, it has been determined that there would be low potential for special status plant species or special status wildlife species to be present. As shown in Table 37 and Table 38 the study area lacks suitable habitat to support special status plant species or special status wildlife species that were identified in the database search. Additionally, no indications were found that any special status species were ever present. Therefore, implementation of the GWRS Final Expansion Project would not result in adverse impacts to any special status plant species or special status wildlife species. Offsite Impacts Located south of OCSD Plant No. 2 is the Talbert Marsh and south of Pacific Coast Highway is the California Least Tern Colony. Both of these biological resources provide suitable habitat for special status wildlife and plant species. The proposed GWRS Final Expansion Project improvements would be confined to the GWRS Site, OCSD Plant No.
OCWD GWRS Final Expansion Project – Addendum No. 6 Final EIR/EIS & CEQA-PLUS Federal Consultation Review 6-5 Section 6
2 and along the OCSD easement corridor. No construction activities would occur at the Talbert Marsh or at the California Least Tern Colony. Therefore, no direct impacts to special status plant or wildlife species would occur. The construction activities for the GWRS Final Expansion Project would involve the operation of heavy construction equipment that could operate during nesting season. If the construction activity was to occur in close proximity to nesting birds at the Talbert Marsh or at the California Least Tern Colony there would be the potential that breeding patterns could be disturbed. The United States Fish and Wildlife Service as established a noise impact threshold of 60 dBA to identify potential adverse impacts to nesting birds. The Talbert Marsh is located approximately 2,200 feet from where the construction activities would occur and the California Least Tern Colony is located approximately 2,700 feet from where the construction activities would occur. Based on the nosiest piece of construction equipment that would be used at OCSD Plant No. 2 Site the estimated noise level at Talbert Marsh and at the California Least Tern Colony would be below 55 dBA. Additionally, with the presence of the block wall around Plant No. 2 and the traffic noise along Pacific Coast Highway, it would be very unlikely that construction noise would herd at either location. Potential indirect noise impacts to special status wildlife species would be less than significant. 6.3 Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, Essential Fish Habitat: Does the project involve any direct effects from construction activities, or indirect effects such as growth inducement that may adversely affect essential fish habitat?
No. Discuss why the project will not impact essential fish habitat: According to review of the National Marine Fisheries Service Essential Fish Habitat Map for the Pacific Ocean, there is no essential fish habitat in the surface water bodies near the study area. Therefore, the construction and operation of the GWRS Final Expansion Project would not result in adverse impacts to any Essential Fish Habitat. 6.4 National Historic Preservation Act, Section 106 Identify the area of potential effects (APE), including construction, staging areas, and depth of any excavation. (Note: the APE is three dimensional and includes all areas that may be affected by the project, including the surface area and extending below ground to the depth of any project excavations).
OCWD GWRS Final Expansion Project – Addendum No. 6 Final EIR/EIS & CEQA-PLUS Federal Consultation Review 6-6 Section 6
The following analysis is based on Phase 1 Cultural Resource Report prepared for the GWRS Final Expansion Project by Environmental Science Associates in August of 2016. The Phase 1 Cultural Resources Report is presented in Appendix C. Area of Potential Effects An Area of Potential Effects (APE) was established for the project according to Section 106 of the NHPA in coordination with the OCWD. The APE is shown in Figure 22 and is defined as: …the geographic area or areas within which an undertaking may directly or indirectly cause alterations in the character or use of historic properties, if any such properties exist. The APE is influenced by the scale and nature of an undertaking and may be different for different kinds of effects caused by the undertaking (36 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] 800.16[d]). The horizontal APE encompasses the MF Building Expansion (about 0.50-acre), 3.5- mile long existing pipeline, the excavation area for OCSD pipeline (about 650 square feet), the contractor laydown area (about 0.70-acre), the area encompassing the Effluent Pump Station and Product Pump Station and the area encompassing the headgates and bypass pipeline (about 0.5 acre). The vertical APE includes the anticipated maximum depth of ground disturbance of 25 feet below ground surface and the maximum height of the flow equalization tank of 30 feet above ground surface. South Central Coastal Information Center Records Search A records search for the APE and a ½-mile radius was conducted on June 21, 2016 at the South Central Coastal Information Center (SCCIC), located at California State University, Fullerton. The records search included a review of all recorded cultural resources within a ½-mile radius of the project APE, as well as a review of cultural resource reports on file. The Historic Properties Directory was also examined for any documented historic-period built resources within or adjacent to the project APE. The results of the SCCIC records search are included in Appendix C. Previous Cultural Resources Investigations A total of 61 cultural resources studies have been conducted within a ½-mile radius of the project APE. Of the 61 previous studies, five studies included a pedestrian survey of portions of the APE, and four included archival research for the APE. A complete list of the 61 studies located within ½-mile of the project APE is located in Appendix C. Less than 50 percent of the project APE has been included in previous cultural resources surveys.
OCWD GWRS Final Expansion Project – Addendum No. 6 Final EIR/EIS & CEQA-PLUS Federal Consultation Review 6-7 Section 6
Previously Recorded Cultural Resources The records search indicated that nine cultural resources have been previously recorded within a ½-mile radius of the project APE. No cultural resources have been previously recorded within the project APE. However, two historic-age Southern California Edison (SCE) transmission towers (30-177464 and 30-177612) are located adjacent to the pipeline alignment. Several prehistoric sites have been recorded within the search radius along the east bluffs of the Santa Ana River approximately 2,000 feet east of the project APE. Resource 30-177464 SCE Transmission Tower M2-T6 (30-177464), consists of one of a pair of SCE high- lead electrical transmission towers that run general north-south tying into the SCE power plant located along the Pacific Coast Highway (PCH) near Brookhurst Street. The riveted steel, truncated pair of towers was built in 1964 and each stand approximately 121 feet tall, resting on concrete piers, and having three arms with porcelain insulators conducting electricity along wires affixed to each arm. The tower parallels the Santa Ana River flood control channel immediately to the east. This resource was previously evaluated for its historical significance. While the tower appeared to retain very good integrity of design, materials, location, setting, association, and feeling, this resource was found to be a ubiquitous property type constructed in 1964 to provide additional electrical power to the expanding suburban communities of west Orange County, including Huntington Beach. This resource was not associated with any significant events (Criterion A), nor did it appear to embody distinctive construction techniques or represent the work of a master (Criterion C), and it was recommended not eligible for listing in the National Register (Supernowicz, 2012). Resource 30-177612 SCE Transmission Tower M2-T5 (30-177612) consists of a steel lattice type, 122-foot tall transmission tower. The base of the tower measures 30 feet on each side. The footings are rectangular shaped concrete bases. The transmission tower was constructed with bolted steel L-shaped profiles. The tower was installed by SCE as part of its expansion of electrical service in the Huntington Beach area. The center of the tower base contains a square, concrete block building. The building has a hipped roof with Spanish tile. The transmission tower was constructed as part of the overall development of electrical power in Southern California in the 1940s in the post-World War II period. This resource was previously evaluated for its historical significance. While the tower appeared to retain integrity of design, materials, location, setting, association, feeling, and workmanship, the tower was not associated with any significant events or persons (Criterion A and B), it did not represent distinctive
OCWD GWRS Final Expansion Project – Addendum No. 6 Final EIR/EIS & CEQA-PLUS Federal Consultation Review 6-8 Section 6
construction techniques or the work of a master (Criterion C), and it was not the principal source of information about this property type and did not have the potential to yield information important in prehistory or history (Criterion D). Thus it was recommended not eligible for the National Register (Crawford, 2007). It has not been previously evaluated for listing in the California Register. Historic Map and Aerial Review Historic maps and aerial photographs were examined in order to provide historical information about the APE and to contribute to an assessment of the APE’s archaeological sensitivity. Available maps include: the 1868 U.S. Surveyor General’s survey plat map of Townships 5 and 6 South, Range 10 West the 1895 and 1901 Santa Ana 1:62,500 topographic quadrangles; the 1902 Corona 1:125,000 topographic quadrangle; and the 1935 Newport Beach 1:31,600 topographic quadrangles; and 1965 and 1975 Newport Beach 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle. Historic aerial photographs of the APE from 1938, 1953, 1963, 1972, 1994, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2009, and 2010 were also examined (historicaerials.com, 2016). The 1868 U.S. Surveyor General’s survey plat map shows the APE as being located within Rancho Las Bolsas. The plat map indicates salt marshes within the current location of OCSD Plant No. 2. The available historic maps and aerial photographs indicate that the APE and surrounding area was largely used for agricultural purposes throughout the 20th century, and did not become urbanized until the latter half of the century. The Santa Ana River is shown confined with artificial levees in the 1938 historic aerial photograph. The OCSD Plant No. 1 is visible on the 1953 aerial photograph. The southern portion of OCSD Plant No. 1 was undeveloped until The OCWD GWRS and OCSD Plant No. 2 are not shown on the 1953 aerial. The OCSD Plant No. 2 facility is shown on the 1965 Newport Beach 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle. The OCWD GWRS facility is shown on the 1972 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle. Based on a detailed review of the 1972 and 2016 aerials of the OCSD Plant No.2, there are structures shown on the 1972 aerial that remain visible on the 2016 aerial photograph. Native American Heritage Commission In 2014, the project environmental documentation, including a cultural resources study, was initiated, and it was put on hold shortly after. However, Native American outreach was completed. The Native American outreach was restarted as part of the project and new project features. Native American Outreach – 2016 On June 2, 2016, a SLF search request letter was sent to the NAHC in an effort to determine whether any sacred sites are listed on SLF for the APE. A response was provided on June 6, 2016 indicating negative results for Native American cultural
OCWD GWRS Final Expansion Project – Addendum No. 6 Final EIR/EIS & CEQA-PLUS Federal Consultation Review 6-9 Section 6
resources within the project APE. The NAHC recommended outreach to 12 specific tribal authorities who may want to comment on our search request. A letter to the NAHC-listed tribal authorities was mailed on June 20, 2016. Phone calls were made to each of the named tribal members on June 28, 2016. Responses from each tribe is provided in Appendix C. The representatives from Tongva Acenstral Terrotorial Tribal Nation, Gabrieleno/Tongva San Gabriel Band of Mission, Gabrielino Tongva Tribe, Gabrielin Tongva Nation, and Juaneno Band of Mission Indians Acjachemen Nation recommended that because of the culutuial and spiritual sensitivity of the study area that the project incorporate Native American and Archeological Monitoring. AB 52 In August 2016, OCWD sent letters to two Native American representatives who have requested to be informed on activities conducted by the OCWD, under PRC Section 21080.3.1. The OCWD reached out to the Juaneño Band of Mission Indians Acjachemen Nation and Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation. Consultation efforts are currently on-going. Archaeological Potential Although paved and filled, the portion of the APE at the OCSD Plant No. 2 appears to retain high sensitivity for buried archeological resources. During the latest Pleistocene and Holocene, the geomorphic setting of the portion of the APE at the OCSD Plant No. 2 changed from inland to coastal, and rising sea level resulted in fluvial deposition capable of burying archaeological resources. The portion of the APE at the OCSD Plant No. 2 was largely salt marsh into the early 20th century, but this is an area that would have offered important resources. Owing to its marshy environment, this area may not have been favored for any substantial occupation, but nonetheless is likely to have been visited for resource procurement and could contain artifacts associated with those activities. Additionally, the saturated conditions offered within this setting may have aided in the preservation of relatively rare organic artifacts. Although paved and filled, the portion of the APE where new piping would be installed between OCSD Plant No. 1 and the existing pipeline appears to retain high sensitivity for buried archaeological resources. During the latest Pleistocene and Holocene rising sea levels reduced fluvial downcutting and increased deposition capable of burying archaeological resources. Historically, the APE was north of a large salt marsh, an area that would have offered important resources. Owing to its proximity to both the salt marsh and the Santa Ana River, the APE may have been selected for occupation, and could contain buried artifacts and features associated with such use.
OCWD GWRS Final Expansion Project – Addendum No. 6 Final EIR/EIS & CEQA-PLUS Federal Consultation Review 6-10 Section 6
Cultural Resources Survey and Results A cultural resources pedestrian survey of the APE was conducted on June 16, 2016 by Arabesque Said-Abdelwahed to identify the presence of surface archaeological materials. Intensive-level survey was conducted of areas with greater surface visibility with intervals spaced at 10 meter. Survey of the OCWD GWRS Facility showed that the entire project APE has been previously developed and is completely paved. The buildings that exist on the OCWD site were constructed after 1972. No cultural resources were observed during the survey at the OCWD GWRS Facility. A pedestrian survey was conducted on June 16, 2016 of the existing pipeline alignment for rehabilitation is located along an OCSD easement corridor that extends west of the Santa Ana River levee. The pipe would connect to existing facilities at the OCSD Plant No. 1 and proposed facilities in OCSD Plant No. 2. The soils were previously disturbed during placement of the existing pipeline located 5 feet below the existing ground surface. The corridor consists of fill material and is elevated approximately 2-4-feet above natural grade (OCWD, pers. comm.). No cultural resources were observed during the survey of the existing pipeline route. Cultural resources were not observed during the survey of the pipe connection locations to existing facilities. The OCSD Plant No. 2 consists of existing tanks and waste water treatment buildings. The locations of the proposed facility improvements on Plant No. 2 are currently paved and natural ground was not visible. No archaeological or historic built resources were observed within the APE. Potential historic-period buildings/structures were noted at the OCSD Plant No. 2 outside of the APE. A photographic narrative of the survey results can be found in the attached Appendix C. Historical Resources Two historic built resources (30-177464 – SCE Transmission Tower M2-T6 Ellis- Huntington Beach No. 2 and 30-177612 – SCE Transmission Tower M2-T5 Ellis/HB No. 2) were identified adjacent to the existing pipeline portion of the project APE. Both resources were previously recommended not eligible for the National Register and therefore do not qualify as historic properties under Section 106 of the NHPA. Neither resource has been previously evaluated for listing in the California Register; however, for the same reasons outlined in Section 5.1.2, these resources do not appear to meet the criteria for listing in the California Register and they do not qualify as historical resources under CEQA. No further work or treatment is recommended for these two resources. Two potential historic built resources, OCSD Plant No. 1 and OCSD Plant No. 2, were identified as a result of this study. Both plants were initially constructed more than 45
OCWD GWRS Final Expansion Project – Addendum No. 6 Final EIR/EIS & CEQA-PLUS Federal Consultation Review 6-11 Section 6
years ago7, although none of the historic-age buildings/structures appear to be within the APE8. Project-related activities OCSD Plant No. 1 will be limited to installation of a below-ground piping to connect to existing facilities. No above-ground facilities would be constructed at this location and existing potential historic buildings/structures are not located near the pipeline. Therefore, the project does not have the potential to result in a significant impact to any potential historic resources on OCSD Plant No. 1. The improvements proposed within OCSD Plant No. 2 for the GWRS Final Expansion Project are shown in Figure 23. The proposed construction activities would mostly be comprised of underground construction activities having no impact on aboveground built-environment resources. The activities would be located in areas where there are no known historical resources dating from before 1971; where the area is currently only graded and paved or; where project activities would be concerned with the removal, replacement or installation of pipes, conduits, or other features that are commonly found within a water treatment facility less than 45-years old. The construction activities would demolish an existing water pump station structure. The existing Water Pump Station structure from 1977, and was designed by John Carollo Engineers, and Greeley and Hansen Environmental Engineers. (Sheet 90 or 511, As-Builts of Plant Water Pump Station, OCSD 75 MGD Improved Treatment at Plant. Historic Context An article in the Los Angeles Times, dated January 3, 1960, reported that the local and County governments in Orange County wanted to undertake a variety of infrastructure projects to address the population boom that had caused a “one-time sleepy, agricultural county erupt into an almost-frightening frenzy of growth”.1 The article went on to say that water projects were one of the most important to the County, and most municipalities. By the late 1960s, it was apparent that the population boom in many cities across the United States was having an adverse effect of the ecological health of lakes, rivers, and oceans. In California, cities were dumping sewage directly into the Pacific Ocean with little or no treatment. The U.S. Congress passed the Clean Water Act in 1972 to control the health of fresh water and the safe disposal of pollutants and waste into natural ecosystems.
7 The California OHP recommends including all resources over 45 years of age in the planning process given the lag time between environmental documentation and project implementation. Generally, resources more than 50 years of age require evaluation for listing in the National Register and California Register to assess impacts to historic properties under Section 106 of the NHPA and historical resources under CEQA. 8 The project may require creation of a separate architectural APE in order to adequately address direct/indirect effects to historic built resources.
OCWD GWRS Final Expansion Project – Addendum No. 6 Final EIR/EIS & CEQA-PLUS Federal Consultation Review 6-12 Section 6
Evaluation Pamela Daly, M.S.H.P., Principal Architectural Historian of Daly & Associates, performed a study to identify any potential historical resources within OCSD Plant No. 2 that could be impacted by implementation of the GWRS Final Expansion Project, and to facilitate initial environmental compliance of the project, under Federal and State criteria. The investigation consisted of a pedestrian survey of the project area, and limited research into the history of ODSC Plant No. 2. OCSD Plant No. 2 is just one of many similar water treatment and pump systems that were installed all through California in response to the Clean Water Act of 1972, as a solution to treat sewer waste and protect the health of our ocean. Our research did not reveal that the installation of OCSD Plant No. 2 represented any technologic advancement or attainment of engineering knowledge not previously identified in the process of treating waste water. We have not found that OCSD Plant No. 2 is directly associated with important events in the history of pumping or treating water, or with the lives of persons significant in the history of water systems in Orange County. The Water Pump Station structure within ODSD Plant No. 2 is not currently listed in either the National Register or the California Register. The subject Water Pump Station structure does not appear to be eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) under Criterion A, B, C, or D, as it has not reached a sufficient age to be evaluated for significance. Also, the structure does not appear to be eligible for listing in the NRHP under Criterion G as the structure has not demonstrated significance due to any discovery of exceptional importance. Under Section 15064.5 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) the Plant Water Pump Station structure does not appear to have reached sufficient age to be evaluated for significance as potential historical resource. The implementation of the GWRS Final Expansion Project would not adversely impact any historic or potentially historic resource. Archeological Resources As a result of this study, no archaeological resources were identified within the APE. However, based on the results of study, the project APE should be considered highly sensitive for subsurface archaeological resources. Since the project includes ground- disturbing activities, there is a potential for discovery of subsurface archaeological deposits that could qualify as historic properties under Section 106 of the NHPA and/or historical or unique archaeological resources under CEQA. This potential impact to unknown archaeological resources would be considered significant. Mitigation Measures CR-11, CR-12, CR-14, CR-15 , CR-16, CR-17, CR-18, and CR-20 are recommended to ensure that the project would result in No Historic Properties Affected
OCWD GWRS Final Expansion Project – Addendum No. 6 Final EIR/EIS & CEQA-PLUS Federal Consultation Review 6-13 Section 6
under Section 106 of the NHPA and less than significant impacts to historical or unique archaeological resources under CEQA. Native American Sacred Remains Native American respondents indicated sensitivity for archaeological resources in the APE and surrounding area given the proximity to the Santa Ana River corridor. In addition, the geoarchaeological review indicates that the portion of the APE within OCSD Plant No. 2 was largely salt marsh into the early 20th century and would have offered important resources. Owing to its marshy environment, this area may not have been favored for any substantial occupation, but nonetheless is likely to have been visited for resource procurement and could contain artifacts associated with those activities. Additionally, the saturated conditions offered within this setting may have aided in the preservation of relatively rare organic artifacts. Mitigation Measures CR-13, and CR-19 are recommended to ensure that the project would result in No Historic Properties Affected under Section 106 of the NHPA and less than significant impacts to historical or unique archaeological resources under CEQA. Mitigation Measures The following mitigation measures from the GWRS Final EIR/EIS would be implemented for the GWRS Final Expansion Project. Mitigation Measure CR-17, CR-18 CR-19, and CR-20 are recommened measures that would implement mitigation measures in the GWRS Final EIR/EIS and have been incorporated into the GWRS Final Expansion Project. CR-11: An Orange County Certified archaeologist shall be present at the program pre- grading meeting to discuss the monitoring, collecting and safety procedures for the project. At that time, the archeologist shall review the construction plans and ensure that no construction activity will affect identified archeological of historic resources. CR-12: During program grading activities and Orange County Certified archaeologist shall be retained to conduct full-time monitoring in archaeologically sensitive areas to observe and retrieve any buried artifacts that may be uncovered. CR-13: If human remains are found during excavation the steps listed below following the Native American Graves Protection Act guidelines and state law shall be followed: • Halt the work in the immediate area • Leave the remains in place • Contact the Orange County Water District project personnel and the Orange County Coroner
OCWD GWRS Final Expansion Project – Addendum No. 6 Final EIR/EIS & CEQA-PLUS Federal Consultation Review 6-14 Section 6
• The remains are not to be removed until a representative of the Coroner’s office reviews the remains in the field • If the Coroner determines that the remains are prehistoric, the Coroner shall contact the Native American Heritage Commission and the most likely descendent from the Native American Community is to be informed • The final deposition of remains shall be coordinated by representatives of the property owner and the most likely descendent CR-14: If prehistoric artifacts or a buried deposit is uncovered, construction activities in the immediate area shall halt until a qualified archaeologist can evaluate the significance of the find. CR-15: A final monitoring report, including an itemized and pertinent field data, shall be sent to the OCWD/OCSD as well as copies of the report to the South Central Coastal Information at California State University Fullerton, Department of Anthropology (MH- 426), and to the County of Orange, Public Facilities and Resources Department – Harbors Beaches & Parks Division. CR-16: Any recovered artifacts shall be properly collected with locations plotted on a USGS 7.5 topographic quadrangle with photographs and field notes of the find. Artifacts will be identified, and artifact catalog prepared, and artifacts stabilized for curation. Any recovered artifacts shall be offered, or a first right-of–refusal basis, to a repository with a retrievable collection system and an educational and research interest in the materials. The Anthropology Museum at California State University Fullerton would be an appropriate repository to receive any artifacts collected in the study area. CR-17: Prior to earth moving activities, a qualified archaeologist meeting the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards for archaeology (U.S. Department of the Interior, 2008) will conduct cultural resources sensitivity training for all construction personnel. Construction personnel shall be informed of the types of cultural resources that may be encountered, and of the proper procedures to be enacted in the event of an inadvertent discovery of archaeological resources or human remains. OCWD will ensure that construction personnel are made available for and attend the training and retain documentation demonstrating attendance. CR-18: Prior to the start of any ground-disturbing activities, OCWD will retain an archaeological monitor to observe all ground-disturbing activities. Archaeological monitoring will be conducted by a monitor familiar with the types of archaeological resources that could be encountered and shall work under the direct supervision of the qualified archaeologist. Monitoring may be reduced or discontinued by the qualified archaeologist, in coordination with OCWD, based on observations of subsurface soil stratigraphy and/or the presence of older C-horizon deposits. The monitor will be
OCWD GWRS Final Expansion Project – Addendum No. 6 Final EIR/EIS & CEQA-PLUS Federal Consultation Review 6-15 Section 6
empowered to halt or redirect ground-disturbing activities away from the vicinity of a discovery until the qualified archaeologist has evaluated the discovery and determined appropriate treatment. The monitor will keep daily logs detailing the types of activities and soils observed, and any discoveries. After monitoring has been completed, the qualified archaeologist shall prepare a monitoring report that details the results of monitoring. The report shall be submitted to OCWD, SCCIC, and any Native American groups who request a copy. CR-19: Prior to issuance of a grading permit and prior to start of any ground-disturbing activities, OCWD will retain a Native American monitor to observe all ground-disturbing activities. The monitor shall be obtained from a Tribe that is traditionally and culturally affiliated with the area, according the NAHC list. The monitor shall be empowered to halt or redirect ground-disturbing activities away from the vicinity of a discovery until the qualified archaeologist has evaluated the discovery and determined appropriate treatment. Monitoring may be reduced or discontinued, in coordination with OCWD and the qualified archaeologist, based on observations of subsurface soil stratigraphy and/or the presence of older C-horizon deposits. CR-20: In the event of the discovery of archaeological materials, OCWD or its contractor shall immediately cease all work activities in the area (within approximately 100 feet) of the discovery until it can be evaluated by the qualified archaeologist. Prehistoric archaeological materials might include obsidian and chert flaked-stone tools (e.g., projectile points, knives, scrapers) or tool-making debris; culturally darkened soil (“midden”) containing heat-affected rocks, artifacts, or shellfish remains; and stone milling equipment (e.g., mortars, pestles, handstones, or milling slabs); and battered stone tools, such as hammerstones and pitted stones. Historic-period materials might include stone or concrete footings and walls; filled wells or privies; and deposits of metal, glass, and/or ceramic refuse. Construction shall not resume until the qualified archaeologist has conferred with OCWD on the significance of the resource. SWRCB shall be afforded the opportunity to determine whether the discovery requires addressing under Section 106 Post-Review Discoveries provisions provided in 36 CFR 800.13. If it is determined that the discovered archaeological resource constitutes a historic property under Section 106 of the NHPA or a historical resource under CEQA, avoidance and preservation in place shall be the preferred manner of mitigation. Preservation in place maintains the important relationship between artifacts and their archaeological context and also serves to avoid conflict with traditional and religious values of groups who may ascribe meaning to the resource. Preservation in place may be accomplished by, but is not limited to, avoidance, incorporating the resource into open space, capping, or deeding the site into a permanent conservation easement. In
OCWD GWRS Final Expansion Project – Addendum No. 6 Final EIR/EIS & CEQA-PLUS Federal Consultation Review 6-16 Section 6
the event that preservation in place is demonstrated to be infeasible and data recovery through excavation is the only feasible mitigation available, an Archaeological Resources Treatment Plan that provides for the adequate recovery of the scientifically consequential information contained in the archaeological resource shall be prepared and implemented by the qualified archaeologist in consultation with OCWD. The appropriate Native American representatives shall be consulted in determining treatment for prehistoric or Native American resources to ensure cultural values ascribed to the resource, beyond that which is scientifically important, are considered. 6.5 Federal Clean Air Air Basin: South Coast Air Basin Local Air District: South Coast Air Quality Management District Is the project subject to a State Implementation Plan (SIP) conformity determination?
Yes. The project is in a non-attainment area or attainment area subject to maintenance plans for a federal criteria pollutant. Include information to indicate the non-attainment designation (e.g. moderate, serious, severe, or extreme), if applicable. If estimated emissions (below) are above the federal de minimis levels, but the project is sized to meet only the needs of current population projections that are used in the approved SIP for air quality, then quantitatively indicate how the proposed capacity increase was calculated using population projections. Background The General Conformity Rule of the Federal Clean Air Act (42 USC 7401) implements Section 176(c) of the Clean Air Act, and establishes de minimis thresholds for ozone, CO, and other regulated pollutants for nonattainment and maintenance areas. The precursors of ozone include reactive organic gases, that are also known as volatile organic gases (VOC), and nitrogen oxides (NOx). The regulations apply to proposed federal actions that would cause emissions of criteria air pollutants or ozone precursors to occur in locations designated as nonattainment or maintenance areas for the emitted pollutants. The purpose of the General Conformity Rule is to: • Ensure that federal activities do not cause or contribute to new violations of the national ambient air quality standards; • Ensure that actions do not cause additional or worsen existing violation of, or contribute to new violations of, the national ambient air quality standards; and • Ensure that attainment of the national ambient air quality standards is not delayed.
OCWD GWRS Final Expansion Project – Addendum No. 6 Final EIR/EIS & CEQA-PLUS Federal Consultation Review 6-17 Section 6
Attainment Status and Applicable De Minimis Thresholds The General Conformity Rule specifies de minimis thresholds, which are based on the severity of an area’s nonattainment with the federal standards. If a project is less than the de minimis thresholds, additional analysis is not required. The de minimis thresholds for Orange County are provided in Table 39.
TABLE 39: ORANGE COUNTY ATTAINMENT STATUS Criteria Pollutant Federal Ambient Air Quality Standard De Minimis Designation Classification Threshold (tpy) a Ozone Nonattainment Extreme 10 (VOC or NOx) Carbon monoxide Maintenance Serious 100 Nitrogen dioxide Attainment/Maintenan N/A 100 (annual) ce Sulfur dioxide Attainment N/A N/A
PM10 Nonattainment Serious 70 b PM2.5 Nonattainment N/A N/A Lead Attainment N/A N/A Notes: tpy = tons per year VOC – volatile organic compounds
NOx – nitrogen oxides N/A = Not applicable at The applicable de minimis threshold applies equally to each ozone precursor (VOC and NOx) b The General Conformity rule does not currently address PM2.5. Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 2013a, Green Book Nonattainment Areas for Criteria Pollutants. Website: www.epa.gov/air/oaqps/greenbk/. Accessed February 7, 2013. U.S Environmental Protection Agency 2013b, General Conformity De Minimis Levels. Website: http://www.epa.gov/air /genconform/deminimis.html. Accessed February 7, 2013.
As shown in Table 39, the project area is in nonattainment for the federal ozone and
PM2.5 standards, and maintenance for federal PM10 standards. De minimis thresholds apply to annual emissions. As shown in Table 40, ozone precursors are below the de minimis thresholds for construction and operational activities and therefore the project is consistent with the SIP. Construction emissions show only the maximum emissions for the proposed Project in tons per year and are based on the maximum days of construction per subphase. Because the Project emissions are below the de minimis thresholds, a detailed conformity analysis is not warranted.
OCWD GWRS Final Expansion Project – Addendum No. 6 Final EIR/EIS & CEQA-PLUS Federal Consultation Review 6-18 Section 6
TABLE 40: SIP CONFORMITY EVALUATION Pollutant Federal Nonattainment Threshold of Maximum Operational Status Rates Significance Construction Emissions (tons/year) Emissions (tons/year) (tons/year)
Ozone (O3) Non- Extreme See (VOC & NOX) attainment Carbon Monoxide Attainment/ N/A 100 2.76 0.0825 (CO) Maintenance Oxides of Nitrogen N/A N/A 10 3.30 0.0366
(NOX) Volatile Organic N/A N/A 10 1.96 0.0858 Compounds (VOC) Lead (Pb) Attainment N/A N/A N/A N/A Particulate matter Non- Moderate 100 0.27 0.0204 less than 2.5 attainment
microns (PM2.5)* Particulate matter Attainment/ N/A 100 0.31 6.91 less than 10 Maintenance
microns (PM10)* Sulfur Dioxide Attainment N/A N/A 0.01 3.9
(SO2)
As discussed previously, no growth-inducing development or land use would occur under the project and therefore the project would not conflict with the City’s General Plan. Therefore the project would be consistent with the AQMP. Additionally, as the annual emissions from the project would be well below the de minimis thresholds for SIP conformity, the proposed project is considered to be in conformance with the SIP. No mitigation would be required. 6.6 Coastal Zone Management Act Is any portion of the project site located within the coastal zone? The study area consists of the GWRS Site, OCSD Plant No. 2 Site and the OCSD easement corridor between OCSD Plant No. 1 Site and OCSD Plant No. 2. Site. Both the GWRS Site and the OCSD easement corridor are located outside of the coastal zone. The OCSD Plant No. 2 Site is located within the coastal zone and included within the City of Huntington Beach Coastal Element. The GWRS Final Expansion improvements proposed on the OCSD Plant No. 2 Site would require approval of a coastal development permit from the City of Huntington Beach.
OCWD GWRS Final Expansion Project – Addendum No. 6 Final EIR/EIS & CEQA-PLUS Federal Consultation Review 6-19 Section 6
6.7 Coastal Barriers Resources Act Will the project impact or be located within or near the Coastal Barrier Resources System or its adjacent wetlands, marshes, estuaries, inlets, and near-shore waters? Note that since there is currently no Coastal Barrier Resources System in California, projects located in California are not expected to impact the Coastal Barrier Resources System in other states. If there is a special circumstance in which the project may impact a Coastal Barrier Resource System, indicate your reasoning below.
No. The Project will not impact or be located within or near the Coastal Barrier Resources System or its adjacent wetlands, marshes, estuaries, inlets, and near-shore waters. According to the United States Fish and Wildlife Service Official Coastal Barrier Resource System Maps there are not any coastal barriers within or near the study area. Therefore, the GWRS Final Expansion Project would not be in conflict with Coastal Barrier Resources Act. 6.8 Farmland Protection Policy Act Is any portion of the project located on important farmland?
No. The project will not impact farmland. The study area is located in a highly urbanized area. According to the California Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program, there is no Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland or Farmland of Statewide Importance within the study area. The study area is zoned for urbanized land uses and there are no existing Williamson Act Contracts on properties within the study area. The construction and operation of the GWRS Final Expansion Project would not impact any farmland resources. 6.9 Flood Plain Management Is any portion of the project located within a 100-year floodplain as depicted on a floodplain map or otherwise designated by the Federal Emergency Management Agency?
No. Provide a description of the project location with respect to streams and potential floodplains: As shown in Figure 24, 25, and 26, the GWRS Site, OCSD Plant No. 2 wastewater treatment site and the OCSD easement corridor are located in Flood Zone X. This area is protected from the one-percent-annual-chance flood by levee, dike, or other structures subject to possible failure or overtopping during larger floods.
OCWD GWRS Final Expansion Project – Addendum No. 6 Final EIR/EIS & CEQA-PLUS Federal Consultation Review 6-20 Section 6
6.10 Migratory Bird Treaty Act Will the project affect protected migratory birds that are known, or have a potential, to occur on-site, in the surrounding area, or in the service area? No. Provide an explanation below. The GWRS Final Expansion Project improvements would occur on the GWRS Site, OCSD Plant No. 2 Site and along the OCSD easement corridor. The GWRS Site and the OCSD Plant No. 2 Site are both developed properties that have been improved with buildings, water and wastewater treatment facilities, roadways and parking areas. Both sites lack suitable habitat or provide linkages to suitable habitat to support wildlife movement. Along the perimeter of Plant No.2 are a row of eucalyptus trees that could provide potential nesting opportunities for migratory birds. The construction activities for the proposed project would not involve the removal of any trees. Therefore, potential direct impacts to nesting migratory birds would be avoided. Additionally, construction activities would occur a distance from the eucalyptus trees where construction noise would not significantly impact nesting birds. The Talbert Marsh is located approximately 3,600 feet from the construction activities and the California Least Tern Colony is located approximately 4,500 feet from where the construction would occur. At the distance the construction noise levels would be minimal and would not pose a potential disruption to nesting birds. The implementation of the proposed project would not result in significant adverse impacts to migratory birds or result in significant adverse impacts to wildlife movement. No mitigation measures are required. The Talbert Marsh is located approximately 2,200 feet from the construction activities and the California Least Tern Colony is located approximately 2,700 feet from where the construction would occur. At the distance the construction noise levels would be minimal and would not pose a potential disruption to nesting birds. The implementation of the proposed project would not result in significant adverse impacts to migratory birds or result in significant adverse impacts to wildlife movement. No mitigation measures are required. The OCSD easement corridor is disturbed condition from ongoing maintenance activities. The area does not contain any vegetation or trees that would provide suitable habitat for migratory birds. Therefore, the construction and operation of the GWRS Final Expansion Project would not result in adverse impacts to migratory birds or be in conflict with the Migratory Bird treaty Act.
OCWD GWRS Final Expansion Project – Addendum No. 6 Final EIR/EIS & CEQA-PLUS Federal Consultation Review 6-21 Section 6
6.11 Protection of Wetlands Does any portion of the project boundaries contain areas that should be evaluated for wetland delineation or require a permit from the United States Army Corps of Engineers? GWRS Site and OCSD Plant No. 2 Site The GWRS Site and the OCSD Plant No. 2 Site are both improved and the locations where the final expansion improvements would occur are paved. Because both sites are improved, wetland delineation was not conducted to determine the presence of wetland habitat. OCSD Easement Corridor The OCSD easement corridor is currently vacant and consists of compacted fill material. To determine the presence of potential wetland habitat, wetland delineation was conducted in accordance with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual. A three parameter approach was used to identify potential wetland habitat. These three parameters include; (1) the presence of wetland vegetation, (2) the presence of wetland hydrology and (3) the presence of hydric soils. Vegetation: The locations where the construction activities would occur does not contain any wetland vegetation that would meet the wetland vegetation parameter. Hydrology: The only source of water to the easement corridor would be seasonal rainfall. The ground surface where the construction activities would occur consists of compacted soils that would not saturate with rainfall. The study area would not meet the wetland hydrology parameter. Hydric Soils: The study area soils consist of compacted fill material and would not meet the hydric soil parameter. Wetland Waters Determination The GWRS Site, OCSD Plant No. 2 Site and the OCSD easement corridor all lack the required parameters that define wetland habitat. Therefore, the implementation of the GWRS Final Expansion Project would not adversely impact any wetland habitat. 6.12 Wild and Scenic Rivers Act Is any portion of the project located within a wild and scenic river?
No. The project is not located near a wild and scenic river. The study area is located in the Santa Ana River Watershed. Within the Santa Ana River Watershed there are no Wild and Scenic Rivers. Therefore, the construction and
OCWD GWRS Final Expansion Project – Addendum No. 6 Final EIR/EIS & CEQA-PLUS Federal Consultation Review 6-22 Section 6
operation of the GWRS Final Expansion Project would not result in adverse impacts to any wild and scenic rivers. 6.13 Safe Drinking Water Act, Sole Source Aquifer Protection Is the project located in an area designated by the United States Environmental Protection Agency, Region 9, as a Sole Source Aquifer?
No. The project is not within the boundaries of a sole source aquifer. The closest sole source aquifer would be Campo/Cotton Creek Aquifer in San Diego County. Therefore, the construction and operation of the GWRS Final Expansion Project would not result in adverse impacts to any sole source aquifers. 6.14 Environmental Justice Does the project involve an activity that is likely to be of particular interest to or have particular impact upon minority, low-income, or indigenous populations, or tribes?
No. Selecting “No” means that this action is not likely to be of any particular interest to or have an impact on these populations or tribes. Explain. The purpose of the GWRS Final Expansion Project would be to increase groundwater supplies within the Orange County Groundwater Basin to ensure that adequate amounts of underground water would be available for Orange County residents including low-income households. By maintaining adequate groundwater supplies, less water would have to be imported into Orange County which is significantly higher in costs and which could have a higher economic impact on lower income households. The implementation of the GWRS Final Expansion Project would increase groundwater supplies and would result in beneficial fiscal impacts to Orange County residents including lower income households.
OCWD GWRS Final Expansion Project – Addendum No. 6 Final EIR/EIS & CEQA-PLUS Federal Consultation Review 6-23 Section 7
SECTION 7.0 REFERENCES California Department Fish and Game Natural Diversity Database, Accessed June 2015. California Department of Transportation Scenic Highways Program Web Site Access, September 2015. California Environmental Quality Act. 2015. California Environmental Quality Act, State CEQA Guidelines, 2015. California Farmland Mapping Monitoring Program, Web Site Access September 2015. California Geologic Survey Seismic Hazard Zone Map Newport Quadrangle, Accessed September 2014. California Native Plant Society Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants Database, Accessed June 2015. California Uniform Building Code, 2016 California Water Code, 2014. City of Fountain Valley, General Plan, Web Site Access June 2016. City of Fountain Valley, Municipal Code, Web Site Access June 2016. City of Fountain Valley Zoning Code, Web Site Access June 2016 City of Huntington Beach, General Plan, Web Access June 2016 City of Huntington Beach Municipal Code, Web Access, June 2016 City of Huntington Beach Zoning code, Web Site Access, June 2016 County of Orange Congestion Management Program, Web Site Access June 2016 County of Orange Model Water Quality Management Plan, 2011. County of Orange, 4th term municipal NPDES permit for Areawide Urban Storm Water Runoff, 2014. Environmental Science Associates, Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas emission Report, August 2016 Environmental Science Associates, Cultural Resources Report, August 2016 Federal Transit Agency, Noise Associated with Typical construction Equipment, 1995. Federal Transit Agency, Transit Noise and Vibration Assessment, 2006. John Wayne Airport Environs Land Use Plan, 2014.
OCWD GWRS Final Expansion Project – Addendum No. 6 Final EIR/EIS & CEQA-PLUS Federal Consultation Review 7-1 Section 7
Melville C. Branch and R. Dale Beland, Noise Levels and Human Response, 1970. National Water Research Institute Santa Ana River Water Quality and Health Study, 2004. OCSD.com, Website Accessed, August 2016 Orange County Water District Groundwater Management Plan, 2014. Orange County Water District Mounding Impact technical Memorandum, 2010 and 2011. Regional Water Quality Control Board, Santa Ana River Basin Plan, January 1995. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers List of Wetland Plants, 2008. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual Arid West Region, September 2008.
OCWD GWRS Final Expansion Project – Addendum No. 6 Final EIR/EIS & CEQA-PLUS Federal Consultation Review 7-2 Appendix A
Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Technical Report
ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT – GWRS FINAL EXPANSION PROJECT Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Technical Report
Prepared for July 2016 Orange County Water District
ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT – GWRS FINAL EXPANSION PROJECT Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Technical Report
Prepared for July 2016 Orange County Water District
626 Wilshire Boulevard Suite 1100 Los Angeles, CA 90017 213.599.4300 www.esassoc.com
Oakland Orlando Palm Springs Petaluma Portland Sacramento San Diego San Francisco Seattle Tampa Woodland Hills 140452
TABLE OF CONTENTS Orange County Water District GWRS Final Expansion Project Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Technical Report
Page
Table of Contents ...... i 1. Executive Summary ...... 1 1.1 Introduction ...... 1 1.2 Project Background, Summary and Construction Phasing ...... 1 1.4 Summary of Analysis Results ...... 7 1.4.1 Air Quality Impact Summary ...... 7 1.4.2 GHG Impact Summary ...... 7 1.4.1 NEPA Impact Summary ...... 8 2. Environmental Setting ...... 8 2.1 Climate and Meteorology ...... 8 2.2 Federal and State Ambient Air Quality Standards ...... 9 2.3 Project Area Air Quality ...... 13 2.4 Sensitive Receptors ...... 14 2.6 Regulatory Setting ...... 16 3. Climate Change Setting ...... 20 3.1 Background on Greenhouse Gases and Climate Change ...... 20 3.2 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Estimates ...... 21 3.3 Regulatory Environment ...... 22 4. CEQA Air Quality Impacts and Mitigation Measures ...... 25 4.1 Methodology ...... 25 4.2 Thresholds of Significance ...... 29 4.3 Project Impacts ...... 32 5. CEQA GHG Impacts and Mitigation Measures ...... 42 5.1 Methodology ...... 42 5.2 Thresholds of Significance ...... 43 5.3 Project Impacts ...... 45 6. NEPA Conformity Analysis ...... 47 6.1 Methodology ...... 47 6.2 Thresholds of Significance ...... 48 6.3 Project Impacts ...... 48 7. References ...... 49
Appendix A: Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Assumptions and Calculations Appendix B: CalEEMod Output
Orange County Water District –GWRS Final Expansion Project i ESA / 160387 Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Technical Report July 2016
Tables Page
TABLE 1 Ambient Air Quality Standards for Criteria Pollutants ...... 10 TABLE 2 Air Quality Data Summary (2012 – 2014) For Project Area ...... 15 TABLE 3 South Coast Air Basin Attainment Status ...... 16 TABLE 4 Receptor Distances ...... 28 TABLE 5 SCAQMD Regional Air quality Significance Thresholds ...... 31 TABLE 6 SCAQMD Localized Significance Thresholds ...... 31 TABLE 7 Anticipated Construction Schedule ...... 33 TABLE 8 Proposed Regional Construction Emissions ...... 34 TABLE 9 Mitigated Regional Construction Emissions ...... 37 TABLE 10 Proposed project Operational Emissions ...... 37 TABLE 11 Proposed Project Unmitigated Localized daily Construction Emissions ...... 39 TABLE 12 Proposed project Localized Operational Emissions ...... 39 TABLE 13 Estimated Total Construction-Related GHG Emissions ...... 45 TABLE 14 Estimated Construction and Operational Related GHG Emissions ...... 46 TABLE 15 De Minimis Emission Levels ...... 48 TABLE 16 SIP Conformity Evaluation ...... 49
Orange County Water District –GWRS Final Expansion Project ii ESA / 160387 Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Technical Report July 2016
Orange County Water District – GWRS Final Expansion Project Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Technical Report
1. Executive Summary 1.1 Introduction This technical report has been prepared to support the Orange County Water District (OCWD)’s environmental review process and provide information regarding potential impacts to air quality and climate change associated with the approval of the expansion of the Groundwater Recharge System (GWRS) Project (Project). The Project expands the existing groundwater replenishment system to accommodate an additional 25,000 acre feet of water per year. The GWRS Final Expansion Project would produce an additional approximately 25,000 AF of water per year. The GWRS Final Expansion Project proposes minor design modifications that includes; 1) receiving wastewater flows from Orange County Sanitation District (OCSD) Plant 2 wastewater treatment facility site via a pumps station, 2) the conversion of an existing gravity pipeline to a pressurized pipeline along the OCSD easement corridor to pump Plant 2 water to GWRS, and 3) the separation of the existing headworks facility at OCSD Plant 2, in addition to the improvements to the OCWD GWRS advanced treatment site.
This report describes the existing air quality in the Project area, identifies applicable rules and regulations, and evaluates potential short- and long-term air quality impacts associated with build out of the Project. Additionally, this report also provides background information on greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and evaluates potential impacts associated with the Project’s GHG contributions. Furthermore, where applicable, measures to mitigate or minimize air pollutants and GHG emissions associated with the Project are included. In addition, as the project is in support of a CEQA Plus environmental analysis, a general conformity analysis is also included in the evaluation.
Information used to prepare this analysis was obtained from the City of Huntington Beach General Plan, City of Huntington Beach Energy Action Plan, City of Fountain Valley General Plan, and other sources.
1.2 Project Background, Summary and Construction Phasing 1.2.1 Background The GWRS is an advanced water treatment facility constructed by the OCWD and the OCSD that supplements local water supplies by providing reliable, high quality source of treated water to
Orange County Water District –GWRS Final Expansion Project 1 ESA / 160387 Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Technical Report July 2016 recharge the Orange County Groundwater Basin and to protect the Orange County Groundwater Basin from seawater intrusion. The GWRS consists of three major components: an advanced water purification facility and pumping stations, a major pipeline connecting the treatment facilities to existing recharge basins and an existing seawater intrusion barrier.
The GWRS has been designed to be implemented in three construction phases. Phase I was implemented and produced approximately 70,000 acre feet per year (AFY) of new water supplies from 2008 through 2014. Phase 2 is currently operational and produces approximately 103,000 AFY new water supplies.
The Final EIR/EIS for the GWRS was based upon a full build-out treatment capacity of 120,000 AFY of new water supplies. However, the Final EIR/EIS did not contemplate receiving wastewater flows from OCSD Plant 2 wastewater treatment facility site. With additional wastewater flows from Plant 2, the total new water supplies would increase to 128,000 AFY.
1.2.2 Summary The GWRS Final Expansion Project involves seven construction activities; 1) increasing microfiltration capacity, 2) increasing reverse osmosis treatment capacity, 3) increasing ultraviolet treatment capacity, 4) increasing final product water capacity, 5) construction of an effluent pump station, 6) conversion of existing gravity pipeline to a pressurized pipeline and 7) construction of a separate headworks and bypass pipeline.
Microfiltration Capacity
The GWRS Final Expansion Project would increase the microfiltration (MF) treatment capacity by approximately 45 MGD. The expansion of the MF facility involves construction of twelve new treatment basins increasing the overall number of treatment basins from thirty-six (36) to forty-eight (48). As shown in Figure 4 the proposed expansion would occur on an existing parking area. The construction of the twelve new basins would occur by increasing the size of the microfiltration building and basement, which houses most of the actual MF equipment. The MF basement includes all piping, valves, pumps, instruments, and control panels. The basement would be expanded by excavating an area of approximately 88-feet in length by 165-feet wide to a depth of 25-feet from the finished grade. A total of 13,500 cubic yards of material would be exported offsite to the Olinda Alpha Landfill. It is estimated that a total 6 dump trumps, each doing 4 round trips, would occur over an 8 week period (total of 960 round trip truck trips) to haul the excavated soil.
In the excavated area, a foundation would be built including installation of foundation piles. Twelve new concrete treatment basins would then be constructed on this foundation. The foundation piles would be comprised of approximately 50 piles at 12-inch diameter each and approximately 70-feet deep. This equates to a total of 2,765 CY of concrete for the piles. For the piles, five concrete trucks that each do six round trips per day over a period of 10 days will be required. Each basin would be installed with a centrifugal pump, associated piping, and other appurtenances. These twelve new treatment basins would make up a one and a half new treatment trains that would be added to the existing two trains within the MF West Building. Additionally,
Orange County Water District –GWRS Final Expansion Project 2 ESA / 160387 Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Technical Report July 2016
at this time most of the electrical equipment associated with the new treatment basins would be added to the new expanded MF West Electrical Building. This equipment includes control panels, motor control centers, switchgear, and variable frequency drives. The total building construction period would be 70 weeks of which 30 weeks would involve the use of heavy construction equipment. The construction of the facility would require the use of various types of construction equipment including, two excavators, one mobile crane, two bull dozers, four fork lifts, five man lifts, ten dump trucks, one cast-in place pile driver machine, and two water trucks. To build the basement facility, 1,600 CY of concrete would be required, which correlates to approximately five trucks that each do four round truck trips per day over a 2 week period. Therefore a total of 200 round trip truck trips would be needed to haul the concrete.
The MF product water or effluent would be discharged into an existing 2 million gallon underground concrete reservoir commonly referred to as a break tank. This reservoir contains two sets of vertical turbine pumps. One set (6 existing pumps) would be used for pumping MF product water back to the MF facility for a backwashing process. The other set of pumps (6 existing pumps) would be used to transfer the MF product water from the reservoir to the Reverse Osmosis (RO) Facility. As part of the final expansion, two new 200 horsepower vertical turbine pumps would be installed in the existing break tank facility to pump MF product water back to the MF facility for the backwash process. The break tank facility already has pump slots constructed for these two new pumps, and therefore the construction work for these pumps only involves lifting the pumps into the slots and connecting up the piping and electrical. The mix of construction equipment and hours of operation are included in Appendix A.
Reverse Osmosis Treatment Capacity
The GWRS Final Expansion Project would increase the Reverse Osmosis (RO) treatment capacity by approximately 30 MGD. The GWRS Initial Expansion Project (Phase II) included the construction of the new RO building. For the GWRS Final Expansion Project, there would be room inside the existing building to install the six new RO treatment trains. The building basement would also have room to house all the process equipment piping and electric cables for operating the trains. The treatment train equipment includes pressure vessels, RO membranes, RO feed pumps, and associated piping for each train. The new equipment for the six new trains would be tied into the existing piping for the expansion. The RO electric building would have space to house the new control panels, motor control centers, switchgear and variable frequency drives for the new trains. Equipment required for this phase would include; one crane, two fork lifts and a man lift. The mix of construction equipment and hours of operation are included in Appendix A.
Ultraviolet Treatment Capacity
The GWRS Final Expansion Project would increase the Ultraviolet Light (UV) Treatment capacity by approximately 30 MGD. The GWRS Final Expansion Project would involve the installation of three additional treatment trains. Each train consists of three steel vessels containing 432 total ultraviolet light lamps. Each vessel would be equipped with two electrical panels, feed and product piping, valves and instruments. For the final expansion project, the existing concrete pad and canopy would be sized to house the three new trains. Therefore only the
Orange County Water District –GWRS Final Expansion Project 3 ESA / 160387 Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Technical Report July 2016 equipment for each of the three trains would need to be installed in their designated areas. Equipment required for this phase includes one crane, one fork lift and two man lifts. The mix of construction equipment and hours of operation are included in Appendix A.
Final Product Water Capacity
In addition to the main process area expansion, the GWRS Final Expansion Project would also expand in the chemical and final product water facilities. As part of the project, one additional decarbonation tower would be added to the existing decarbonation area. The concrete pad for the decarbonation tower is already constructed and coated and to install the equipment only a crane would be required. An additional pump would also be added to the existing product water pump station. The pump would be a 2,000 horsepower vertical turbine pump installed within an existing pump station building with a slot already in place. The construction activities for the pump would require lifting the pump into the slot with a crane and connecting the piping and electrical components. Additionally, as part of the GWRS Final Expansion Project, a new sulfuric acid 32,000 gallon chemical tank and associated chemical pump would be added. The existing chemical containment area has a concrete tank pad dedicated for the new tank and pump. The construction activities for the tank and pump would require lifting the tank and pump into the existing chemical containment area and connecting the piping and electrical components. The mix of construction equipment and hours of operation are included in Appendix A.
Construction of OCSD Plant No. 2 Effluent Pump Station
To convey water flows within the existing OCSD pipeline to the OCWD water treatment facility site, a pump station will need to be constructed. This is the OCSD Plant No. 2 Effluent Pump Station. The pump station would have 4 pumps (3-duty and 1-standby) with the capacity to pump 30 MGD each. The pumps would be housed in a new concrete pump house, approximately 100- feet length x 50-feet in width x 20-feet in height with a 25-foot deep wet well.
In addition to the Effluent Pump Station and second smaller Plant Water Pump Station will need to be constructed during this construction phase. The Plant Water Pump Station serves OCSD’s Plant No. 2 water for their centrifuge operations. The Plant Water Pump Station would have 4- plant water pumps housed in a 48-ft x 58-ft x 20-ft high concrete building. The concrete wet well for the pumps is estimated to be 25-ft deep. In addition to the building, the Plant Water Pump Station requires a 1-ft thick 30-ft x 42-ft concrete pad for the strainer equipment.
The construction of the these two pump station facilities would require the use of various types of construction equipment including, excavators, mobile cranes, compactor, bull dozers, fork lifts, man lifts, dump trucks, concrete trucks and a water truck. For the clearing and excavation of both pump station sites, approximately 4760 CY of soil will need to be hauled off-site. This will require 4 dump trucks doing five round trips each a day for 17 days to complete the excavation. To build both pump station facilities, 340 CY of concrete would be required, which correlates with approximately 3 concrete trucks doing three round trips per day over a 4 day period. The mix of construction equipment and hours of operation are included in Appendix A.
Orange County Water District –GWRS Final Expansion Project 4 ESA / 160387 Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Technical Report July 2016
Existing OCSD Slip-Lining Pipeline
The source water for the GWRS Final Expansion Project would come from both of the treatment plants owned and operated by the OCSD. Facilities are already in place to receive source water, secondary effluent, from OCSD’s Plant 1 wastewater treatment facility site. However to provide up to an additional 60 MGD of source water for the GWRS Final Expansion Project, OCWD would need to receive additional wastewater flows from OCSD Plant 2 wastewater treatment facility site. To convey the wastewater flows to GWRS water treatment site an existing 3.5 mile 66-inch gravity concrete reinforced pipe (CRP) would be slip-lined to become a 58-inch HDPE (High Density Polyethylene) pressure pipeline. The existing pipeline is located along an OCSD easement corridor which extends west of the Santa River levee. The slip-lining of the pipeline would be completed by excavating a10 feet wide x 10 feet long x 5 feet in depth area to expose the pipeline to allow entry into the pipe to slip-line the existing pipeline. As shown in Figure 4 a total of eight entry locations are proposed. To connect the pipeline to the new pump station on the OCSD facility, approximately 100-feet of 54-inch steel pipe would need to be constructed. Additionally, to connect the pipeline to OCWD facilities, approximately 100 feet of 54-inch steel pipe would need to be installed by trenching and backing filling on GWRS water treatment facility. The construction equipment to slip-line and install new portions of the pipeline would include; an excavator, backhoe, and a portable welding machine on a pick-up truck. Delivery of the pipeline materials would come to the site in a flatbed truck. A total of two flatbed truck trips per day would occur over a 25 day period for 50 total haul trips. The mix of construction equipment and hours of operation are included in Appendix A.
OCSD Plant No. 2 Separate Headworks and Bypass Pipeline
The majority of the wastewater flows from OCSD Plant No. 2 are needed as source water to meet the demands of the GWRS Final Expansion Project. Currently, OCSD Plant No. 2 receives reject concentrated brine waters from treatment processes from the Inland Water Agencies. These concentrated reject flows, i.e. brines, are currently not allowed to be recycled through the GWRS project per the Division of Drinking Water permit for GWRS. Therefore, a separate headworks facility and a bypass pipeline will need to be constructed on OCSD’s Plant No. 2 that will segregate the brine flows from the typical influent domestic wastewater flows to Plant No. 2. The bypass pipeline will be a 66-inch Reinforced Concrete Pipe (RCP) with an alignment that runs approximately 200-feet around the existing headworks for Plant No. 2. Connected to the bypass pipeline will be a new separate headworks facility, including a screenings building (65-ft x 55-ft x 20-ft deep) and a grit basin building (40-ft x 65-ft x 20-ft deep). Also along the bypass pipeline alignment will be a 20-ft deep concrete metering vault with vault dimensions of 100-ft x 14-ft.
The excavation and site preparation work for these facilities include demolition of the existing plant water pump station at Plant 2 and the removal of approximately 6135 CY of dirt. Once the site has been excavated, approximately 250 CY of concrete will need to be poured to construct the buildings. Once the buildings are constructed, the screening, grit basin and metering equipment will need to be installed. Construction equipment required to construct the separate headworks facility and bypass pipeline include excavators, backhoes, dump trucks, concrete
Orange County Water District –GWRS Final Expansion Project 5 ESA / 160387 Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Technical Report July 2016 trucks, cranes, flatbed trucks, and fork lifts. The mix of construction equipment and hours of operation are included in Appendix A.
1.2.3 Construction Phasing The project would be implemented in four construction phases beginning in August 2019 and concluding in December of 2022. The sequence of construction activities is summarized below and detailed in Appendix A.
• Phase 1: OCWD Treatment Capacity Expansion: August 2019 to August 2020. Activities 1A, 1B, and 1 C will be constructed separately. Activities 1D and 1 E will be constructed concurrently.
o 1A: Excavation, Grading, Dewatering for Microfiltration Basement
o 1B: Construction of Piles for Microfiltration Basement
o 1C: Forming, Concrete Pours for Microfiltration Basement
o 1D: Equipping Microfiltration Building, Equipping Reverse Osmosis Building, Equipping Ultra Violet Building,
o 1E: Installation of Pumps, Chemical Tanks and Decarbonation Equipment
• Phase 2: OCSD Plant No. 2 Effluent Pump Station: August 2019 to December 2022. All activities will be constructed separately.
o 2A: Site Prep: Excavation, Hauling, Grading Pump Station
o 2B: Concrete Pours for Pump Station Building
o 2C: Pumps Installation & Equipping
• Phase 3: Construction of Pipeline Entry Pits & Pipeline Slip-Lining Projects: August 2019 to December 2022. All Phase 3 activities will be conducted separately.
o 3A: Excavation, Hauling for Pipeline Entry Pits & Connection to OCSD
o 3B: Equipment for Slip-lining Pipeline
o 3C: Excavation, Hauling for Pipeline Connection at OCWD
• Phase 4: OCSD Plant No. 2 Separate Headworks and Bypass Pipeline: August 2019 to December 2022. All Phase 4 activities will be constructed separately.
o 4A: Existing Plant Water Pump Station Demolition
o 4B: Headworks & Bypass Pipe Site Preparation
Orange County Water District –GWRS Final Expansion Project 6 ESA / 160387 Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Technical Report July 2016
o 4C: Headworks Building
o 4D: Headworks Equipping 1.4 Summary of Analysis Results 1.4.1 Air Quality Impact Summary AQ-1: The proposed Project would not conflict with or obstruct the implementation of the applicable air quality plan. The Project impacts would be less than significant. No mitigation required.
AQ-2: The proposed Project would violate the air quality standard for NOx during construction without the implementation of mitigation. Construction impacts of the remaining criteria pollutants and all impacts from operational activities would not violate existing air quality standards. With the implementation of Mitigation Measure AQ-1, NOx impacts would be reduced to below regulatory standards. Project impacts would be less than significant with mitigation.
AQ-3: The proposed Project has the potential to expose sensitive receptors to increased concentrations of PM2.5 during construction. However with the implementation of Mitigation Measure AQ-1, these impacts would be reduced to below significance levels. Operational related criteria pollutant emissions and construction and operational emissions of TACs would not exposes sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. Proposed Project impacts would be less than significant with mitigation.
AQ-4: The proposed Project would not create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people. This impact is less than significant, no mitigation required.
AQ-5: The proposed Project had the potential to result in cumulatively considerable increases in criteria pollutants with respect to NOx during construction activities. However, with the implementation of Mitigation Measure MM AQ-1, emissions of NOx would be reduced to below regulatory thresholds. Therefore the proposed Project impacts with respect to cumulatively considerable increases of criteria pollutants would be less than significant with mitigation.
1.4.2 GHG Impact Summary GHG-1: The proposed Project would not generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that would have a significant impact on the environment. The proposed Project results in less than significant impacts, no mitigation is required.
GHG-2: The proposed Project would not conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purposes of reducing GHG emissions. The proposed Project results in less than significant impacts, no mitigation is required.
Orange County Water District –GWRS Final Expansion Project 7 ESA / 160387 Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Technical Report July 2016 1.4.1 NEPA Impact Summary NEPA-1: The proposed Project would be consistent with the SIP as indicated by emissions being below the de minimis thresholds and therefore a detailed conformity analysis is not warranted. No mitigation is required. 2. Environmental Setting 2.1 Climate and Meteorology The Project site is located in the Cities of Fountain Valley and Huntington Beach, southeast of the corner of Ellis Avenue and Ward Street and following the Santa Ana River trail south to the Pacific Coast Highway. Both Cities are located within the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB), which is under the jurisdiction of the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). The SCAB is a 6,600-square-mile coastal plain bounded by the Pacific Ocean to the southwest and the San Gabriel, San Bernardino, and San Jacinto Mountains to the north and east. The SCAB includes the non-desert portions of Los Angeles, Riverside, and San Bernardino Counties, and all of Orange County.
The ambient concentrations of air pollutants are determined by the amount of emissions released by sources and the atmosphere’s ability to transport and dilute such emissions. Natural factors that affect transport and dilution include terrain, wind, atmospheric stability, and sunlight. Therefore, existing air quality conditions in the area are determined by such natural factors as topography, meteorology, and climate, in addition to the amount of emissions released by existing air pollutant sources.
Atmospheric conditions such as wind speed, wind direction, and air temperature gradients interact with the physical features of the landscape to determine the movement and dispersal of air pollutants. The topography and climate of southern California combine to make the SCAB an area of high air pollution potential. The SCAB is a coastal plain with connecting broad valleys and low hills, bounded by the Pacific Ocean to the west and high mountains around the rest of the perimeter. The general region lies in the semi-permanent high-pressure zone of the eastern Pacific, resulting in a mild climate tempered by cool sea breezes with light average wind speeds. The usually mild climatological pattern is disrupted occasionally by periods of extremely hot weather, winter storms, or Santa Ana winds. During the summer months, a warm air mass frequently descends over the cool, moist marine layer produced by the interaction between the ocean’s surface and the lowest layer of the atmosphere. The warm upper layer forms a cap over the cool marine layer and inhibits the pollutants in the marine layer from dispersing upward. In addition, light winds during the summer further limit ventilation. Furthermore, sunlight triggers the photochemical reactions that produce ozone.
Based on past climate records from the Western Regional Climate Center (WRCC), the average annual maximum temperature in the area is 68 degrees Fahrenheit (°F) and the average annual minimum temperature is 55° F. The average precipitation in the area is about 11 inches annually, occurring primarily from December through March (WRCC, 2016).
Orange County Water District –GWRS Final Expansion Project 8 ESA / 160387 Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Technical Report July 2016
2.2 Federal and State Ambient Air Quality Standards Ambient Air Quality Standards Regulation of air pollution is achieved through both federal and state ambient air quality standards and emission limits for individual sources of air pollutants. As required by the federal Clean Air Act (CAA), the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) has identified criteria pollutants and has established National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) to protect public health and welfare. NAAQS have been established for ozone (O3), carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), sulfur dioxide (SO2), particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5), and lead (Pb). These pollutants are called “criteria” air pollutants because standards have been established for each of them to meet specific public health and welfare criteria.
To protect human health and the environment, the USEPA has set “primary” and “secondary” maximum ambient limits for each of the criteria pollutants. Primary standards were set to protect human health, particularly sensitive receptors such as children, the elderly, and individuals suffering from chronic lung conditions such as asthma and emphysema. Secondary standards were set to protect the natural environment and prevent damage to animals, crops, vegetation, and buildings.
Regional and Local The NAAQS establish the level for an air pollutant above which detrimental effects to public health or welfare may result. The NAAQS are defined as the maximum acceptable concentrations that, depending on the pollutant, may not be equaled or exceeded more than once per year or in some cases as a percentile of observations. California has generally adopted more stringent ambient air quality standards for the criteria air pollutants (i.e., California Ambient Air Quality Standards [CAAQS]) and has adopted air quality standards for some pollutants for which there is no corresponding national standard, such as sulfates, hydrogen sulfide, vinyl chloride, and visibility-reducing particles. Both the national and State ambient air quality standards for pollutants along with their associated health effects and sources are presented in Table 1.
Criteria Air Pollutants The California Air Resources Board (CARB) and USEPA currently focus on criteria air pollutants because they are the most prevalent air pollutants known to be injurious to human health and extensive health-effects criteria documents are available about their effects on human health and welfare. A general description of these pollutants is provided below.
Orange County Water District –GWRS Final Expansion Project 9 ESA / 160387 Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Technical Report July 2016 TABLE 1 AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARDS FOR CRITERIA POLLUTANTS
Averaging State National Pollutant Health and Pollutant Time Standard Standard Atmospheric Effects Major Pollutant Sources
Ozone 1 hour 0.09 ppm --- High concentrations can directly Formed when ROG and NOX react in affect lungs, causing irritation. the presence of sunlight. Major 8 hours 0.07 ppm 0.075 ppm Long-term exposure may cause sources include on-road motor damage to lung tissue. vehicles, solvent evaporation, and commercial / industrial mobile equipment. Carbon 1 hour 20 ppm 35 ppm Classified as a chemical Internal combustion engines, primarily asphyxiant, carbon monoxide gasoline-powered motor vehicles. Monoxide 8 hours 9.0 ppm 9 ppm (CO) interferes with the transfer of fresh oxygen to the blood and deprives sensitive tissues of oxygen. Nitrogen 1 hour 0.18 ppm 0.100 ppm Irritating to eyes and respiratory Motor vehicles, petroleum refining tract. Colors atmosphere reddish- operations, industrial sources, aircraft, Dioxide Annual 0.030 ppm 0.053 ppm brown. ships, and railroads. (NO2) Arithmetic Mean Sulfur 1 hour 0.25 ppm 75 ppb Irritates upper respiratory tract; Fuel combustion, chemical plants, injurious to lung tissue. Can sulfur recovery plants, and metal Dioxide 3 hours --- 0.50 ppm (SO2) yellow the leaves of plants, processing. 24 hours 0.04 ppm 0.14 ppm destructive to marble, iron, and steel. Limits visibility and reduces Annual --- 0.03 ppm sunlight. Arithmetic Mean Respirable 24 hours 50 µg/m3 150 µg/m3 May irritate eyes and respiratory Dust and fume-producing industrial tract, decreases in lung capacity, and agricultural operations, Particulate Annual 20 µg/m3 --- cancer and increased mortality. combustion, atmospheric Matter Arithmetic Mean (PM10) Produces haze and limits photochemical reactions, and natural visibility. activities (e.g., wind-raised dust and ocean sprays). Fine 24 hours --- 35 µg/m3 Increases respiratory disease, Fuel combustion in motor vehicles, lung damage, cancer, and equipment, and industrial sources; Particulate Annual 12 µg/m3 12 µg/m3 premature death. Reduces residential and agricultural burning; Matter Arithmetic Mean (PM2.5) visibility and results in surface Also, formed from photochemical soiling. reactions of other pollutants, including NOx, sulfur oxides, and organics. Lead (Pb) 30 Day Average 1.5 µg/m3 --- Disturbs gastrointestinal system, Present source: lead smelters, battery and causes anemia, kidney manufacturing and recycling facilities. Calendar --- 1.5 µg/m3 disease, and neuromuscular and Past source: combustion of leaded Quarter neurological dysfunction (in gasoline. Rolling 3-Month --- 0.15 µg/m3 severe cases). Average Hydrogen 1 hour 0.03 ppm No National Nuisance odor (rotten egg smell), Geothermal power plants, petroleum Sulfide Standard headache and breathing production and refining difficulties (higher concentrations) Sulfates 24 hour 25 µg/m3 No National Decrease in ventilatory functions; Industrial processes. (SO4) Standard aggravation of asthmatic symptoms; aggravation of cardio- pulmonary disease; vegetation damage; degradation of visibility; property damage.
Visibility 8 hour Extinction of No National Reduces visibility, reduced airport See PM2.5. Reducing 0.23/km; Standard safety, lower real estate value, Particles visibility of and discourages tourism. 10 miles or more
NOTE: ppm = parts per million; ppb = parts per billion; µg/m3 = micrograms per cubic meter.
SOURCE: CARB, 2009a, CARB, 2016a.
Orange County Water District –GWRS Final Expansion Project 10 ESA / 160387 Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Technical Report July 2016
Ozone Ozone, the main component of photochemical smog, is primarily a summer and fall pollution problem. Ozone is not emitted directly into the air, but is formed through a complex series of chemical reactions involving other compounds that are directly emitted. These directly emitted pollutants (also known as ozone precursors) include reactive organic gases (ROGs) or volatile organic compounds (VOCs), and oxides of nitrogen (NOx). While both ROGs and VOCs refer to compounds of carbon, ROG is a term used by CARB and is identified based on a list of carbon compounds that exempts carbon compounds determined by CARB to be nonreactive. VOC is a term used by the USEPA and is identified based on USEPA’s separate list of exempted compounds it identifies as having negligible photochemical reactivity. The time period required for ozone formation allows the reacting compounds to spread over a large area, producing regional pollution problems. Ozone concentrations are the cumulative result of regional development patterns rather than the result of a few significant emission sources.
Once ozone is formed it remains in the atmosphere for one or two days. Ozone is then eliminated through reaction with chemicals on the leaves of plants, attachment to water droplets as they fall to earth (“rainout”), or absorption by water molecules in clouds that later fall to earth with rain (“washout”).
Short-term exposure to ozone can irritate the eyes and cause constriction of the airways. In addition to causing shortness of breath, ozone can aggravate existing respiratory diseases such as asthma, bronchitis, and emphysema.
Carbon Monoxide CO, a colorless and odorless gas, is a relatively non-reactive pollutant that is a product of incomplete combustion and is mostly associated with motor vehicles. When inhaled at high concentrations, CO combines with hemoglobin in the blood and reduces the oxygen-carrying capacity of the blood. This results in reduced oxygen reaching the brain, heart and other body tissues. This condition is especially critical for people with cardiovascular diseases, chronic lung disease, or anemia. CO measurements and modeling were important in the early 1980s when CO levels were regularly exceeded throughout California. In more recent years, CO measurements and modeling have not been a priority in most California air districts due to the retirement of older polluting vehicles, lower emissions from new vehicles, and improvements in fuels.
Nitrogen Dioxide
NO2 is a reddish-brown gas that is a by-product of combustion processes. Automobiles and industrial operations are the main sources of NO2. Combustion devices emit primarily nitric oxide
(NO), which reacts through oxidation in the atmosphere to form NO2. The combined emissions of
NO and NO2 are referred to as NOx, which are reported as equivalent NO2. Aside from its
contribution to ozone formation, NO2 can increase the risk of acute and chronic respiratory disease and reduce visibility. NO2 may be visible as a coloring component of a brown cloud on high pollution days, especially in conjunction with high ozone levels.
Orange County Water District –GWRS Final Expansion Project 11 ESA / 160387 Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Technical Report July 2016 Sulfur Dioxide
SO2 is a colorless, extremely irritating gas or liquid that enters the atmosphere as a pollutant mainly as a result of burning high sulfur-content fuel oils and coal, and from chemical processes occurring at chemical plants and refineries. When SO2 oxidizes in the atmosphere, it forms sulfur trioxide (SO3). Collectively, these pollutants are referred to as sulfur oxides (SOx).
Major sources of SO2 include power plants, large industrial facilities, diesel vehicles, and oil- burning residential heaters. Emissions of SO2 aggravate lung diseases, especially bronchitis. This compound also constricts the breathing passages, especially in people with asthma and people involved in moderate to heavy exercise. SO2 potentially causes wheezing, shortness of breath, and
coughing. Long-term SO2 exposure has been associated with increased risk of mortality from respiratory or cardiovascular disease.
Particulate Matter
PM10 and PM2.5 consist of particulate matter that is 10 microns or less in diameter and
2.5 microns or less in diameter, respectively (a micron is one-millionth of a meter). PM10 and
PM2.5 represent fractions of particulate matter that can be inhaled into the air passages and the lungs and can cause adverse health effects. Acute and chronic health effects associated with high particulate levels include the aggravation of chronic respiratory diseases, heart and lung disease, and coughing, bronchitis and respiratory illnesses in children. Recent mortality studies have shown an association between morbidity and mortality and daily concentrations of particulate matter in the air. Particulate matter can also damage materials and reduce visibility. One common
source of PM2.5 is diesel exhaust emissions.
PM10 consists of particulate matter emitted directly into the air (e.g., fugitive dust, soot, and smoke from mobile and stationary sources, construction operations, fires, and natural windblown dust) and particulate matter formed in the atmosphere by condensation and/or transformation of
SO2 and ROG. Traffic generates particulate matter emissions through entrainment of dust and dirt particles that settle onto roadways and parking lots. PM10 and PM2.5 are also emitted by burning
wood in residential wood stoves and fireplaces and open agricultural burning. PM2.5 can also be formed through secondary processes such as airborne reactions with certain pollutant precursors, including ROGs, ammonia (NH3), NOx, and SOx.
Lead Lead is a metal found naturally in the environment and present in some manufactured products. There are a variety of activities that can contribute to lead emissions, which are grouped into two general categories, stationary and mobile sources. On-road mobile sources include light-duty automobiles; light-, medium-, and heavy-duty trucks; and motorcycles.
Emissions of lead have dropped substantially over the past 40 years. The reduction before 1990 is largely due to the phase-out of lead as an anti-knock agent in gasoline for on-road automobiles. Substantial emission reductions have also been achieved due to enhanced controls in the metals processing industry. In the SCAB, atmospheric lead is generated almost entirely by the combustion of leaded gasoline and contributes less than one percent of the material collected as
Orange County Water District –GWRS Final Expansion Project 12 ESA / 160387 Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Technical Report July 2016
total suspended particulates. As lead has been well below regulatory thresholds for decades and the Proposed Project is not a source of lead, lead is not discussed further in this analysis.
Toxic Air Contaminants Concentrations of toxic air contaminants (TACs), or in federal parlance, hazardous air pollutants (HAPs), are also used as indicators of ambient air quality conditions. A TAC is defined as an air pollutant that may cause or contribute to an increase in mortality or in serious illness, or that may pose a hazard to human health. TACs are usually present in minute quantities in the ambient air; however, their high toxicity or health risk may pose a threat to public health even at low concentrations.
According to CARB, the majority of the estimated health risk from TACs can be attributed to relatively few compounds, the most important being particulate matter from diesel-fueled engines (DPM) which represents 70 percent of the risk (CARB, 2016b). DPM differs from other TACs in that it is not a single substance, but rather a complex mixture of hundreds of substances. Although diesel PM is emitted by diesel-fueled internal combustion engines, the composition of the emissions varies depending on engine type, operating conditions, fuel composition, lubricating oil, and whether an emission control system is present.
Unlike the other TACs, no ambient monitoring data are available for diesel PM because no routine measurement method currently exists. However, CARB has made preliminary concentration estimates based on a particulate matter exposure method. This method uses the
CARB emissions inventory’s PM10 database, ambient PM10 monitoring data, and the results from several studies to estimate concentrations of DPM. In addition to DPM, the TACs for which data are available that pose the greatest existing ambient risk in California are benzene, 1,3-butadiene, acetaldehyde, carbon tetrachloride, hexavalent chromium, para-dichlorobenzene, formaldehyde, methylene chloride, and perchloroethylene.
Odorous Emissions Odors are generally regarded as an annoyance rather than a health hazard. However, manifestations of a person’s reaction to foul odors can range from psychological (e.g., irritation, anger, or anxiety) to physiological (e.g., circulatory and respiratory effects, nausea, vomiting, and headache). Offensive odors are unpleasant and can lead to public distress generating citizen complaints to local governments. Although unpleasant, offensive odors rarely cause physical harm. The occurrence and severity of odor impacts depend on the nature, frequency, and intensity of the source, wind speed, direction, and the sensitivity of receptors.
2.3 Project Area Air Quality Existing Air Quality SCAQMD maintains monitoring stations within district boundaries that monitor air quality and compliance with associated ambient standards. The Project site is located in the North Orange County Coastal Air Monitoring Subregion. Currently, the nearest monitoring station to the study area is the Costa Mesa – MesaVerde Drive Station (2850 Mesa Verde Dr East, Costa Mesa, CA).
Orange County Water District –GWRS Final Expansion Project 13 ESA / 160387 Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Technical Report July 2016 This station monitors ambient concentrations of ozone, NO2, CO, and SO2, but does not monitor
PM2.5 or PM10. The nearest monitoring station that monitors ambient concentrations of PM2.5 and
PM10 is the Anaheim station located at 1630 W. Pampas Lane. Historical data of ambient ozone,
NO2, CO, SO2, PM10 and PM2.5 concentrations from these monitoring stations for the most recent three years (2012 – 2014) are shown in Table 2.
Both CARB and USEPA use this type of monitoring data to designate areas according to their attainment status for criteria air pollutants. The purpose of these designations is to identify the areas with air quality problems and thereby initiate planning efforts for improvement. The three basic designation categories are nonattainment, attainment, and unclassified. Unclassified is used in an area that cannot be classified on the basis of available information as meeting or not meeting the standards. In addition, the California designations include a subcategory of nonattainment-transitional, which is given to nonattainment areas that are progressing and nearing attainment. The current attainment status for the SCAB is provided in Table 3. 2.4 Sensitive Receptors Sensitive receptors are individuals who are considered more sensitive to air pollutants than others. The reasons for greater than average sensitivity may include pre-existing health problems, proximity to emissions sources, or duration of exposure to air pollutants. Schools, hospitals, and convalescent homes are considered to be relatively sensitive to poor air quality because children, elderly people, and the infirm are more susceptible to respiratory distress and other air quality- related health problems than the general public. Residential areas are considered sensitive to poor air quality because people usually stay home for extended periods of time, with associated greater exposure to ambient air quality. Recreational uses are also considered sensitive due to the greater exposure to ambient air quality conditions because vigorous exercise associated with recreation places a high demand on the human respiratory system.
Currently, sensitive uses located in the Project site vicinity include residential uses directly east of Ward St across from the GWRS site, residential uses west of Brookhurst Street from the OCSD Plant 2, residential uses west of the OCSD easement corridor, and the residential uses directly across the Santa Ana River channel to the east of the Project site.
Orange County Water District –GWRS Final Expansion Project 14 ESA / 160387 Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Technical Report July 2016
TABLE 2 AIR QUALITY DATA SUMMARY (2012 – 2014) FOR PROJECT AREA
Monitoring Data by Year
Pollutant Standarda 2012 2013 2014
Ozone – Costa Mesa Highest 1 Hour Average (ppm) 0.090 0.095 0.096 Days over State Standard 0.09 ppm 2 1 1 Highest 8 Hour Average (ppm) 0.076 0.083 0.079 Days over National Standard 0.075 ppm 1 0 4 Days over State Standard 0.070 ppm 1 2 6 Carbon Monoxide – Costa Mesa Highest 8 Hour Average (ppm) 1.7 2 1.9 Days over National Standard 9.0 ppm 0 0 0 Days over State Standard 9.0 ppm 0 0 0 Nitrogen Dioxide – Costa Mesa Highest 1 Hour Average (ppm) 0.0744 0.0757 0.061 Days over National Standard 0.100 ppm 0 0 0 Days over State Standard 0.18 ppm 0 0 0 Annual Average (ppm) 0.0104 0.0116 0.011 Days over National Standard 0.053 ppm 0 0 0 Days over State Standard 0.030 ppm 0 0 0 Sulfur Dioxide – Costa Mesa Highest 24 Hour Average (ppm) 0.0062 0.0042 0.009 Days over State Standard 0.04 ppm 0 0 0
Particulate Matter (PM10) – Anaheim Highest 24 Hour Average (µg/m3)b 48 77 85 Days over National Standard 150 µg/m3 0 0 0 (measured)c Days over State Standard 50 µg/m3 0 1 2 (measured)c 3 Annual Average (µg/m3)b 20 µg/m 22.4 25.4 26.8
Particulate Matter (PM2.5) – Anaheim Highest 24 Hour Average (µg/m3)b 50.1 37.8 56.2 Days over National Standard 35 µg/m3 4 1 6 (measured)c 3 Annual Average (µg/m3)b 12 µg/m 10.81 10.1 10.3
NOTES: ppm = parts per million; µg/m3 = micrograms per cubic meter. * = Insufficient data available to determine the value. a Generally, state standards and national standards are not to be exceeded more than once per year. b Concentrations and averages represent federal statistics. State and federal statistics may differ because of different sampling methods. c Measurements are usually collected every six days. Days over the standard represent the measured number of days that the standard has been exceeded.
SOURCE: SCAQMD 2014, 2013a, 2012.
Orange County Water District –GWRS Final Expansion Project 15 ESA / 160387 Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Technical Report July 2016 TABLE 3 SOUTH COAST AIR BASIN ATTAINMENT STATUS
Attainment Status
Pollutant California Standards Federal Standards
Ozone Extreme Nonattainment Severe Nonattainment CO Attainment Unclassified/ Attainment
NO2 Attainment Unclassified/ Attainment
SO2 Attainment Attainment
PM10 Nonattainment Attainment
PM2.5 Nonattainment Nonattainment Lead Attainment Nonattainment
SOURCE: CARB, 2013a; USEPA, 2016a.
2.6 Regulatory Setting Federal The principal air quality regulatory mechanism at the federal level is the CAA and in particular, the 1990 amendments to the CAA and the NAAQS that it establishes. These standards identify the maximum ambient (background) concentration levels of criteria pollutants that are considered to be safe, with an adequate margin of safety, to protect public health and welfare. As discussed previously, the criteria pollutants include ozone, CO, NO2 (which is a form of NOX), SO2 (which is a form of SOX), PM10, PM2.5, and lead.
The CAA also requires each state to prepare an air quality control plan, referred to as a state implementation plan (SIP). The CAA Amendments of 1990 (CAAA) added requirements for states with nonattainment areas to revise their SIPs to incorporate additional control measures to reduce air pollution. The SIP is modified periodically to reflect the latest emissions inventories, planning documents, and rules and regulations of the air basins, as reported by their jurisdictional agencies. USEPA is responsible for reviewing all SIPs to determine whether they conform to the mandates of the CAA and its amendments, and to determine whether implementing the SIPs will achieve air quality goals.
The USEPA also has regulatory and enforcement jurisdiction over emission sources beyond state waters (outer continental shelf), and those that are under the exclusive authority of the Federal government, such as aircraft, locomotives, and interstate trucking. USEPA’s primary role at the state level is to oversee the state air quality programs. USEPA sets federal vehicle and stationary source emissions standards and provides research and guidance in air pollution programs.
Orange County Water District –GWRS Final Expansion Project 16 ESA / 160387 Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Technical Report July 2016
General Conformity Rule The General Conformity Rule (40 CFR Part 93) requires that federal agencies demonstrate that federal actions conform with the applicable State Implementation Plan (SIP) in order to ensure that federal activities do not hamper local efforts to control air pollution. The EPA general conformity rule applies to federal actions occurring in nonattainment or maintenance areas when the total direct and indirect emissions of nonattainment pollutants (or their precursors) exceed specified thresholds. The de minimis emission thresholds are based on the attainment status of each air basin. Since the Project is located in an air basin that is designated attainment for all federal criteria pollutants, it is not subject to the General Conformity emissions thresholds.
State California Air Resources Board (CARB) CARB, a department of the California Environmental Protection Agency (Cal/EPA), oversees air quality planning and control throughout California by administering the SIP. Its primary responsibility lies in ensuring implementation of the 1989 amendments to the CCAA, responding to the federal CAA requirements, and regulating emissions from motor vehicles sold in California. It also sets fuel specifications to further reduce vehicular emissions.
The amendments to the CCAA establish CAAQS, and a legal mandate to achieve these standards by the earliest practical date. These standards apply to the same criteria pollutants as the federal CAA, and also include sulfates, visibility reducing particulates, hydrogen sulfide and vinyl chloride. They are also generally more stringent than the federal standards.
CARB is also responsible for regulations pertaining to TACs. The Air Toxics “Hot Spots” Information and Assessment Act was enacted in 1987 as a means to establish a formal air toxics emission inventory risk quantification program. Assembly Bill (AB) 2588, as amended, establishes a process that requires stationary sources to report the type and quantities of certain substances their facilities routinely release.
California Green Building Standard Code In January 2010, the State of California adopted the 2010 California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen), which became effective in January 2011. Building off of the initial 2008 California Green Building Code, the 2010 CALGreen Code represents a more stringent building code that requires, at a minimum, that new buildings and renovations in California meet certain sustainability and ecological standards. The 2010 CALGreen Code has mandatory Green Building provisions for all new residential buildings that are three stories or fewer (including hotels and motels) and all new non-residential buildings of any size that are not additions to existing buildings.
Orange County Water District –GWRS Final Expansion Project 17 ESA / 160387 Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Technical Report July 2016 Local
South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) Criteria Air Pollutants SCAQMD attains and maintains air quality conditions in the SCAB through a comprehensive program of planning, regulation, enforcement, technical innovation, and promotion of the understanding of air quality issues. The clean air strategy of SCAQMD includes preparation of plans for attainment of ambient air quality standards, adoption and enforcement of rules and regulations concerning sources of air pollution, and issuance of permits for stationary sources of air pollution. SCAQMD also inspects stationary sources of air pollution and responds to citizen complaints; monitors ambient air quality and meteorological conditions; and implements programs and regulations required by the CAA, CAAA, and CCAA.
Air Quality Management Plan SCAQMD and the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) are responsible for preparing the air quality management plan (AQMP), which addresses federal and state CAA requirements. The AQMP details goals, policies, and programs for improving air quality in the SCAB.
The 2012 AQMP was adopted by the SCAQMD Governing Board on December 12, 2012. The purpose of the 2012 AQMP for the SCAB is to set forth a comprehensive and integrated program
that will lead the region into compliance with the federal 24-hour PM2.5 air quality standard, and to provide an update to the SCAB’s commitment towards meeting the federal 8-hour ozone standards (SCAQMD, 2013b). The AQMP would also serve to satisfy recent USEPA requirements for a new attainment demonstration of the revoked 1-hour ozone standard, as well as a vehicle miles travelled (VMT) emissions offset demonstration.1 Specifically, the AQMP
would serve as the official SIP submittal for the federal 2006 24-hour PM2.5 standard, for which USEPA has established a due date of December 14, 2012.2 In addition, the AQMP updates specific new control measures and commitments for emissions reductions to implement the attainment strategy for the 8-hour ozone SIP. The 2012 AQMP sets forth programs which require integrated planning efforts and the cooperation of all levels of government: local, regional, state, and federal. Currently, SCAQMD staff has already begun initiating an early development process for the next AQMP.
SCAQMD Rules and Regulations All projects are subject to SCAQMD rules and regulations in effect at the time of construction. Specific rules applicable to the construction anticipated under the proposed Project would include the following:
1 Although the federal 1-hour ozone standard was revoked in 2005, the USEPA has proposed to require a new 1-hour ozone attainment demonstration in the South Coast extreme ozone nonattainment area as a result of a recent court decision. Although USEPA has replaced the 1-hour ozone standard with a more health protective 8-hour standard, the CAA anti-backsliding provisions require that California have approved plans for attaining the 1-hour standard. 2 Although the 2012 AQMP was approved by the SCAQMD Board on December 7, 2012, the plan did not get submitted to the USEPA by December 14, 2012 as it first required approval from CARB. The 2012 AQMP was subsequently approved by CARB on January 25, 2013, and as of February 13, 2013 the plan has been submitted by CARB to the USEPA.
Orange County Water District –GWRS Final Expansion Project 18 ESA / 160387 Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Technical Report July 2016
Rule 401 – Visible Emissions. A person shall not discharge into the atmosphere from any single source of emission whatsoever any air contaminant for a period or periods aggregating more than three minutes in any 1 hour that is as dark or darker in shade as that designated No. 1 on the Ringelmann Chart, as published by the United States Bureau of Mines.
Rule 402 – Nuisance. A person shall not discharge from any source whatsoever such quantities of air contaminants or other material that cause injury, detriment, nuisance, or annoyance to any considerable number of persons or to the public, or that endanger the comfort, repose, health, or safety of any such persons or the public, or that cause, or have a natural tendency to cause, injury or damage to business or property. The provisions of this rule do not apply to odors emanating from agricultural operations necessary for the growing of crops or the raising of fowl or animals.
Rule 403 – Fugitive Dust. This rule is intended to reduce the amount of particulate matter entrained in the ambient air as a result of anthropogenic (human-made) fugitive dust sources by requiring actions to prevent, reduce, or mitigate fugitive dust emissions. Rule 403 applies to any activity or human-made condition capable of generating fugitive dust.
Rule 1113 – Architectural Coatings. No person shall apply or solicit the application of any architectural coating within the SCAQMD with VOC content in excess of the values specified in a table incorporated in the Rule.
Toxic Air Contaminants At the local level, air pollution control or management districts may adopt and enforce CARB control measures. Under SCAQMD Regulation XIV (Toxics and Other Non-Criteria Pollutants), and in particular Rule 1401 (New Source Review), all sources that possess the potential to emit TACs are required to obtain permits from SCAQMD. Permits may be granted to these operations if they are constructed and operated in accordance with applicable regulations, including new source review standards and air toxics control measures. SCAQMD limits emissions and public exposure to TACs through a number of programs. SCAQMD prioritizes TAC-emitting stationary sources based on the quantity and toxicity of the TAC emissions and the proximity of the facilities to sensitive receptors.
The Air Toxics Control Plan (March 2000, revised March 26, 2004) is a planning document designed to examine the overall direction of SCAQMD’s air toxics control program. It includes development and implementation of strategic initiatives to monitor and control air toxics emissions. Control strategies that are deemed viable and are within SCAQMD’s jurisdiction will each be brought to the SCAQMD Board for further consideration through the normal public review process. Strategies that are to be implemented by other agencies will be developed in a cooperative effort, and the progress will be reported back to the Board periodically.
In May 2015 the SCAQMD completed the Multiple Air Toxics Exposure Study IV (MATES IV) (SCAQMD, 2015a). MATES IV is a monitoring and evaluation study conducted in the SCAB and is a follow up to previous air toxics studies. The study is a follow up to the 2008 MATES III study and consists of several elements including a monitoring program, an updated emissions inventory of toxic air contaminants, and a modeling effort to characterize risk across the SCAB
Orange County Water District –GWRS Final Expansion Project 19 ESA / 160387 Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Technical Report July 2016 (SCAQMD, 2008a). The study focuses on the carcinogenic risk from exposure to air toxics (SCAQMD, 2008b). However, it does not estimate mortality or other health effects from particulate exposures. MATES IV shows that the region around the project site area has an estimated carcinogenic risk from between 560 per million near the coast to the south and 801 in a million near Ellis Avenue at the north (SCAQMD, 2015a). These model estimates were based on monitoring data collected at 10 fixed sites within the SCAB. 3. Climate Change Setting 3.1 Background on Greenhouse Gases and Climate Change “Global warming” and “global climate change” are the terms used to describe the increase in the average temperature of the earth’s near-surface air and oceans since the mid-20th century and its projected continuation. According to the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) warming of the climate system is now considered unequivocal (IPCC, 2007). Natural processes and human actions have been identified as the causes of this warming. The IPCC has concluded that variations in natural phenomena such as solar radiation and volcanoes produced most of the warming from pre-industrial times to 1950 and had a small cooling effect afterward. After 1950, increasing GHG concentrations resulting from human activity such as fossil fuel burning and deforestation are believed to be responsible for most of the observed temperature increase. Increases in GHG concentrations in the earth’s atmosphere are thought to be the main cause of human-induced climate change. Certain gases in the atmosphere naturally trap heat by impeding the exit of solar radiation that is reflected back into space after striking the earth. This is sometimes referred to as the “greenhouse effect” and the gases that cause it are called “greenhouse gases.” Some GHGs occur naturally and are necessary for keeping the earth’s surface inhabitable. However, increases in the concentrations of these gases in the atmosphere during the last 100 years have decreased the amount of solar radiation that is reflected back into space, intensifying the natural greenhouse effect and increasing average global temperatures.
Carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6) are the principal GHGs. When concentrations of these gases exceed natural concentrations in the atmosphere, the greenhouse effect may be intensified. CO2, CH4 and N2O occur naturally, and through human activity.
Emissions of CO2 are largely by-products of fossil fuel combustion, whereas CH4 results from off-gassing3 associated with agricultural practices and landfills. Other human-generated GHGs include fluorinated gases such as SFCs, PFCs and SF6, which have much higher heat-absorption potential than CO2, and are byproducts of certain industrial processes.
CO2 is the reference gas for climate change because it is the predominant GHG emitted. The effect that each of the aforementioned gases can have on global warming is a combination of the mass of their emissions and their global warming potential (GWP). GWP indicates, on a pound- for-pound basis, how much a gas contributes to global warming relative to how much warming would be caused by the same mass of CO2. For example, CH4 and N2O are substantially more potent GHGs than CO2, with GWPs of 21 and 310 times that of CO2, respectively.
3 Off-gassing is defined as the release of chemicals under normal conditions of temperature and pressure.
Orange County Water District –GWRS Final Expansion Project 20 ESA / 160387 Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Technical Report July 2016
In emissions inventories, GHG emissions are typically reported in terms of pounds or metric tons
of CO2 equivalents (CO2e). CO2e is calculated as the product of the mass emitted of a given GHG
and its specific GWP. While CH4 and N2O have much higher GWPs than CO2, CO2 is emitted in such vastly higher quantities that it accounts for the majority of GHG emissions in CO2e, both from residential/commercial developments and human activity in general.
Some of the potential effects in California of global warming may include loss in snow pack, sea level rise, more extreme heat days per year, more high ozone days, more forest fires, and more drought years (CARB, 2009b). Globally, climate change has the potential to impact numerous environmental resources through potential, though uncertain, impacts related to future air temperatures and precipitation patterns. The projected effects of global warming on weather and climate are likely to vary regionally, but are expected to include the following direct effects (IPCC, 2001): • Higher maximum temperatures and more hot days over nearly all land areas; • Higher minimum temperatures, fewer cold days and frost days over nearly all land areas; • Reduced diurnal temperature range over most land areas; • Increase of heat index over land areas; and • More intense precipitation events.
Also, there are many secondary effects that are projected to result from global warming, including global rise in sea level, impacts to agriculture, changes in disease vectors, and changes in habitat and biodiversity. While the possible outcomes and the feedback mechanisms involved are not fully understood and much research remains to be done, the potential for substantial environmental, social, and economic consequences over the long term may be great.
3.2 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Estimates Global Emissions According to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC),
worldwide emissions of GHGs in 2004 were approximately 30 billion tons of CO2e per year (UNFCCC, 2012). This includes both ongoing emissions from industrial and agricultural sources, but excludes emissions from land use changes.
U.S. Emissions
In 2009, the United States emitted about 6.7 billion metric tons of CO2e or about 21 metric tons per year per person. Of the four major sectors nationwide — residential, commercial, industrial, and transportation — transportation accounts for the highest fraction of GHG emissions (approximately 33 percent); these emissions are entirely generated from direct fossil fuel combustion (USEPA, 2011).
State of California Emissions In California, the transportation sector is the largest emitter of GHGs, followed by electricity
generation. Emissions of CO2 are byproducts of fossil fuel combustion. Methane, a highly potent
Orange County Water District –GWRS Final Expansion Project 21 ESA / 160387 Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Technical Report July 2016 GHG, results from off-gassing (the release of chemicals from nonmetallic substances under ambient or greater pressure conditions) and is largely associated with agricultural practices and landfills. Nitrous oxide is also largely attributable to agricultural practices and soil management. The main natural carbon dioxide sinks, or reservoirs, are plants, oceans, and soils. Plants grab carbon dioxide from the atmosphere to use in photosynthesis; some of this carbon is transferred to soil as plants die and decompose. The oceans are a major carbon storage system for carbon dioxide. Marine animals also take up the gas for photosynthesis, while some carbon dioxide simply dissolves in the seawater.
California produced approximately 459 million gross metric tons of CO2e in 2012. Combustion of fossil fuel in the transportation sector was the single largest source of California’s GHG emissions in 2012, accounting for 37 percent of total GHG emissions in the State. This sector was followed by the industrial sector (22 percent) and the electric power sector (including both in-state and out-of- state sources) (21 percent) (CARB, 2014a).
3.3 Regulatory Environment Federal The federal CAA does not specifically regulate GHG emissions; however, the U.S. Supreme Court has determined that GHGs are pollutants that can be regulated under the federal CAA. There are currently no federal regulations that set ambient air quality standards for GHGs.
State Executive Order S-3-05 In 2005, in recognition of California’s vulnerability to the effects of climate change, Governor Schwarzenegger established Executive Order S-3-05, which set forth a series of target dates by which statewide emissions of GHGs would be progressively reduced, as follows: • By 2010, reduce GHG emissions to 2000 levels; • By 2020, reduce GHG emissions to 1990 levels; and • By 2050, reduce GHG emissions to 80 percent below 1990 levels.
Assembly Bill 32 – California Global Warming Solutions Act California Assembly Bill 32 (AB 32), the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, requires CARB to establish a statewide GHG emissions cap for 2020 based on 1990 emission levels. AB 32 required CARB to adopt and enforce programs and regulations that identify and require selected sectors or categories of emitters of GHGs to report and verify their statewide GHG
emissions. In December 2007 CARB adopted 427 MT CO2e as the statewide GHG emissions limit equivalent to the statewide levels for 1990. This is approximately 28 percent below
forecasted 2020 “business-as-usual” emissions of 596 MMT of CO2e, and about 10 percent below average annual GHG emissions during the period of 2002 through 2004 (CARB, 2009b).
CARB published the Expanded List of Early Action Measures To Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions In California Recommended For Board Consideration in September 2007 (CARB, 2007). CARB adopted nine Early Action Measures for implementation, including Ship Electrification at Ports, Reduction of High Global-Warming-Potential Gases in Consumer
Orange County Water District –GWRS Final Expansion Project 22 ESA / 160387 Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Technical Report July 2016
Products, Heavy-Duty Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Emission Reduction (Aerodynamic Efficiency), Reduction of Perfluorocarbons from Semiconductor Manufacturing, Improved Landfill Gas Capture, Reduction of Hydrofluorocarbon-134a from Do-It-Yourself Motor Vehicle Servicing, Sulfur Hexaflouride Reductions from the Non-Electric Sector, a Tire Inflation Program, and a Low Carbon Fuel Standard.
As of January 1, 2012, the GHG emissions limits and reduction measures adopted in 2011 by CARB became enforceable. In designing emission reduction measures, CARB must aim to minimize costs, maximize benefits, improve and modernize California’s energy infrastructure, maintain electric system reliability, maximize additional environmental and economic co-benefits for California, and complement the state’s efforts to improve air quality.
Climate Change Scoping Plan In December 2008, CARB approved the AB 32 Scoping Plan outlining the state’s strategy to achieve the 2020 GHG emissions limit (CARB, 2009b). This Scoping Plan, developed by CARB in coordination with the Climate Action Team (CAT), proposes a comprehensive set of actions designed to reduce overall GHG emissions in California, improve the environment, reduce dependence on oil, diversify California’s energy sources, save energy, create new jobs, and enhance public health.
As required by AB 32, the Scoping Plan must be updated at least every five years to evaluate the mix of AB 32 policies to ensure that California is on track to meet the targets set out in the legislation. In October 2013, a draft Update to the initial Scoping Plan was developed by CARB in collaboration with the California Climate Action Team (CCAT). The draft Update builds upon the initial Scoping Plan with new strategies and expanded measures, and identifies opportunities to leverage existing and new funds to drive GHG emission reductions through strategic planning and targeted program investments. The draft Update to the initial Scoping Plan was presented to CARB’s Board for discussion at its February 20, 2014 meeting. Subsequently, the first update to the AB 32 Scoping Plan was approved on May 22, 2014 by CARB.
As part of the proposed update to the Scoping Plan, the emissions reductions required to meet the 2020 statewide GHG emissions limit were further adjusted. The primary reason for adjusting the 2020 statewide emissions limit was based on the fact that the original Scoping Plan relied on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) 1996 Second Assessment Report (SAR) to assign the global warming potentials (GWPs) of greenhouse gases. Recently, in accordance the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), international climate agencies have agreed to begin using the scientifically updated GWP values in the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) that was released in 2007. Because CARB has begun to transition to the use of the AR4 100-year GWPs in its climate change programs, CARB recalculated the Scoping Plan’s 1990 GHG emissions level with the AR4 GWPs. As the recalculation resulted in
431 MMTCO2e, the 2020 GHG emissions limit established in response to AB 32 is now slightly
higher than the 427 MMTCO2e in the initial Scoping Plan. Considering that the proposed update
also adjusted the 2020 BAU forecast of GHG emissions to 509 MMTCO2e, a 15 percent reduction below the estimated BAU levels was determined to be necessary to return to 1990 levels by 2020 (CARB, 2014b).
Orange County Water District –GWRS Final Expansion Project 23 ESA / 160387 Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Technical Report July 2016 Executive Order S-1-07 Executive Order S-1-07, which was signed by Governor Schwarzenegger in 2007, proclaims that the transportation sector is the main source of GHG emissions in California. It establishes a goal to reduce the carbon intensity of transportation fuels sold in California by at least 10 percent by 2020. As a result of this order, CARB approved a proposed regulation to implement the low carbon fuel standard (LCFS) on April 23, 2009, which will reduce GHG emissions from the transportation sector in California by about 16 MMT in 2020. The LCFS is designed to reduce California’s dependence on petroleum, create a lasting market for clean transportation technology, and stimulate the production and use of alternative, low-carbon fuels in California. The LCFS is designed to provide a durable framework that uses market mechanisms to spur the steady introduction of lower carbon fuels. The framework establishes performance standards that fuel producers and importers must meet each year beginning in 2011.
Senate Bill 375
SB 375, which establishes mechanisms for the development of regional targets for reducing passenger vehicle greenhouse gas emissions, was adopted by the State on September 30, 2008. On September 23, 2010, California ARB adopted the vehicular greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets that had been developed in consultation with the metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs); the targets require a 7 to 8 percent reduction by 2020 and between 13 to 16 percent reduction by 2035 for each MPO. SB 375 recognizes the importance of achieving significant greenhouse gas reductions by working with cities and counties to change land use patterns and improve transportation alternatives. Through the SB 375 process, MPOs, such as the Southern California Council of Governments (SCAG) will work with local jurisdictions in the development of sustainable communities strategies (SCS) designed to integrate development patterns and the transportation network in a way that reduces greenhouse gas emissions while meeting housing needs and other regional planning objectives. SCAG’s reduction target for per capita vehicular emissions is 8 percent by 2020 and 13 percent by 2035 (CARB 2010). The MPOs will prepare their first SCS according to their respective regional transportation plan (RTP) update schedule with the SCAG RTP/SCS adopted on April 4, 2012.
Senate Bill 97 Senate Bill (SB) 97, enacted in August 2007, required the Office of Planning and Research (OPR) to develop guidelines for the mitigation of GHG emissions, or the effects related to releases of GHG emissions. On April 13, 2009, the OPR submitted proposed amendments to the Natural Resources Agency in accordance with SB 97 regarding analysis and mitigation of GHG emissions. As directed by SB 97, the Natural Resources Agency adopted Amendments to the CEQA Guidelines for greenhouse gas emissions on December 30, 2009. On February 16, 2010, the Office of Administrative Law approved the Amendments, and filed them with the Secretary of State for inclusion in the California Code of Regulations. The Amendments became effective on March 18, 2010.
California Green Building Standard Code In early 2013 the California Building Standards Commission adopted the 2013 California Building Standards Code that also included the latest 2013 CALGreen Code, which became effective on January 1, 2014. The mandatory provisions of the code are anticipated to reduce 3
Orange County Water District –GWRS Final Expansion Project 24 ESA / 160387 Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Technical Report July 2016
MMT of GHG emissions by 2020, reduce water use by 20 percent or more, and divert 50 percent of construction waste from landfills. The 2013 California Energy Code (Title 24, Part 6), which is also part of the CALGreen Code (Title 24, Part 11, Chapter 5.2), became effective on July 1, 2014.
Local
South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) As a method for determining significance under CEQA, SCAQMD developed a draft tiered flowchart in 2008 for determining significance thresholds for GHGs for industrial projects where SCAQMD is acting as the lead agency. In December 2008, SCAQMD adopted a 10,000
MTCO2e/year for industrial facilities, but only with respect to projects where SCAQMD is the lead agency. SCAQMD has not adopted a threshold for residential or commercial projects at the time of this writing.
The SCAQMD flowchart uses a tiered approach in which a proposed project is deemed to have a less than significant impact related to GHG emissions when any of the following conditions are met: • GHG emissions are within GHG budgets in an approved regional plan; • Incremental increases in GHG emissions due to the project are below the defined Significance Screening Levels, or Mitigated to Less than the Significance Screening Level; • Performance standards are met by incorporating project design features and/or implementing emission reduction measures; and • Carbon offsets are made to achieve target significance screening level.
4. CEQA Air Quality Impacts and Mitigation Measures This section describes the impact analysis relating to air quality under CEQA for the proposed Project. It describes the methods and applicable thresholds used to determine the impacts of the proposed Project on the environment.
4.1 Methodology Criteria Pollutants This technical report focuses on the nature and magnitude of the change in the air quality environment due to implementation of the proposed Project. Air pollutant emissions associated with the proposed Project would result from the construction and operation of the facility expansion.
Construction activities would generate air pollutant emissions at the Project site and on roadways resulting from construction-related traffic. The net increase in emissions generated by these
Orange County Water District –GWRS Final Expansion Project 25 ESA / 160387 Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Technical Report July 2016 activities and other secondary sources have been estimated and compared to the applicable thresholds of significance recommended by SCAQMD.
Operational emission sources that would occur subsequent to the expansion include the increased electrical and natural gas usage for expanded facilities. It is assumed that there would be no new employees and therefore no new mobile source emissions or water consumption (process or employee use). Based on the size of the building expansion, it is estimated that increased natural gas usage would be 45,510 kBTU/year and electrical consumption would be 352,571 kWh/year. Solid waste generation was based on the size of the facility expansion and is estimated at 6.6 tons per year. Natural gas emissions will result in both criteria and GHG emissions whereas electrical consumption and solid waste generation are only applicable to the GHG analysis.
Construction Impacts Short-term construction-generated emissions of criteria air pollutants and ozone precursors associated with the proposed Project were modeled using emission factors taken from the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod), Version 2013.2.2. Calculated emissions from construction activities were used to determine whether short-term construction-related emissions of criteria air pollutants associated with the proposed Project would exceed SCAQMD’s applicable regional thresholds and whether mitigation would be required. Modeling was based on Project-specific data provided by the applicant. Modeling input and output files are provided in Appendix A and B of this report respectively.
In addition, to determine whether or not construction activities associated with the proposed Project would create significant adverse localized air quality impacts on nearby sensitive receptors, the worst-case daily emissions contribution from the proposed Project were compared to SCAQMD’s localized significance thresholds (LSTs). The LSTs developed by SCAQMD are based on the pounds of emissions per day that can be generated by a project without causing or contributing to adverse localized air quality impacts, and only applies to the following criteria pollutants: CO, NOx, PM10, and PM2.5. The analysis of localized air quality impacts focuses only on the on-site activities of a project, and does not include emissions that are generated offsite such as from on-road haul or delivery truck trips (SCAQMD, 2003).
For the purpose of analyzing localized air quality impacts, SCAQMD has developed LSTs for one-acre, two-acre, and five-acres. The LSTs established for each of the aforementioned site acreages represent the amount of pollutant that can be emitted such that the most stringent applicable federal or State ambient air quality standards would not be exceeded. Because of the way the CalEEMod model estimates soil disturbance, the SCAQMD has developed a process by which to determine acreage of disturbance per day based on the equipment usage. As the acreage of the Project site is less than one for individual phases, and because the location of the phases are spread out over the entire site, the LSTs for a one-acre site are used to determine whether localized air quality impacts on nearby sensitive receptors would result from the Project’s on-site construction emissions. Under conditions where the Project’s on-site construction emissions implementing all appropriate mitigation would exceed the LSTs for a one-acre site, air dispersion modeling of the Project’s construction emissions would be required to evaluate the potential localized air quality impacts of the proposed Project on its surrounding off-site sensitive
Orange County Water District –GWRS Final Expansion Project 26 ESA / 160387 Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Technical Report July 2016
receptors, in accordance with SCAQMD’s recommendation. However, under conditions where it is determined that the Project’s peak daily construction emissions, with or without mitigation, would not exceed the LSTs for a one-acre site, then it can be concluded that the Project’s construction emissions would not result in any adverse localized air quality impacts on its surrounding off-site sensitive receptors.
In conducting the localized air quality analysis, which focuses only on on-site emissions, the Project’s on-site construction emissions generated from combustion sources (e.g., off-road construction equipment) under a worst-case construction scenario are evaluated against the LSTs. Additionally the work is spread out over an approximately 4 mile corridor and therefore different portions of different phases would impact different sensitive receptors. Table 4 lists the activities with the closest sensitive receptor. The daily total on-site combustion, and fugitive dust emissions associated with each Project construction phase (as well as construction phase overlaps where appropriate) were combined and evaluated against SCAQMD’s LSTs for a one-acre site4.
Operational Impacts Long-term (i.e., operational) regional emissions of criteria air pollutants and precursors associated with the proposed Project, were quantified using the CalEEMod computer model. Project operations are anticipated to increase employees up to three. Therefore, operational emissions associated with criteria pollutants for the Project include natural gas usage in the new building area, as well as water usage, wastewater and solid waste generation, and mobile source emissions from the new employees. While additional pumps are being added, these are electric and therefore do not result in direct emissions of criteria pollutants. The resulting increase in long- term operational emissions was compared with the applicable SCAQMD thresholds for determination of significance. Additionally, localized emissions from operation were compared to the LSTs for a 1 acre site (as emissions would occur from an area that is less than one acre) at 50 meters as the nearest sensitive receptors to the MF facility are directly across Ward Street.
CO Hotspots Historically, qualitative screening procedure provided in the procedures and guidelines contained in Transportation Project-Level Carbon Monoxide Protocol (the Protocol) were used to determine whether a project poses the potential for a CO hotspot (UCD ITS, 1997). According to the Protocol, projects may worsen air quality if they increase the percentage of vehicles in cold start modes by two percent or more; significantly increase traffic volumes (by five percent or more) over existing volumes; or worsen traffic flow, defined for signalized intersections as increasing average delay at intersections operating at level of service (LOS) E or F or causing an intersection that would operate at LOS D or better without the project, to operate at LOS E or F.
4 Although some construction sub phases are less than a one acre site, the SCAQMD methodology identifies the 1 acre thresholds as applicable for identifying risks for sites that are one acre or less.
Orange County Water District –GWRS Final Expansion Project 27 ESA / 160387 Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Technical Report July 2016 TABLE 4 RECEPTOR DISTANCES
Distance Activity and Overlaps for LST analysis Description of closest receptors Evaluated
Phase 1: OCWD Advanced Water Treatment Facility 170 ft/ 51 m Improvements: including: Microfiltration Expansion Single-family homes near Waxing
Circle and Thrush Avenue (200 ft) Microfiltration Backwash Pumps Single-family homes near Thrush
Avenue and Parakeet Circle (600 ft) Chemical Tank & Pump Expansion Single-family homes near Parakeet
Circle and Falcon Avenue (630 ft) Reverse Osmosis Equipment Single-family homes near Falcon Street and Nightingale Circle and Falcon Avenue (170 ft) Finished Product Water Pump Single-family homes near
Nightingale Avenue (640 ft) Decarbonation Towers Single-family homes near Falcon Avenue and Nightingale Avenue (560 ft) Ultraviolet Equipment Single-family homes near Falcon
Avenue (400 ft) Phase 2: OCSD Plant No. 2 Effluent Pump Station Single-family homes near Cape May 1,140 ft / 347 m Lane and Jones Port Lane Phase 3: OCSD Pipeline 175 ft / 53 m Entry Pit 1 Single-family homes west of Brookhurst Street and south of Allison Circle (1,050 ft) Entry Pit 2 Multi-family homes: 1. West of Brookhurst Street and southwest of the pit location (360)
2. East of Brookhurst and south/southwest of the pit location (300 ft) Entry Pit 3 Single-family homes east of spirit
circle and Spar Circle (185 feet) Entry Pit 4 Single-family homes east of Lavonne Lane and north of Edye Drive (175 feet) Entry Pit 5 Single-family homes east of Ravenwood Lane and south of Jon Day Drive (185 feet) Entry Pit 6 Single-family homes east of Carmania Lane and north of Adams Ave (275 ft) Entry Pit 7 Single-family homes near Shangri
Lane Drive (200 ft) Entry Pit 8 Single-family homes near Kukui
Drive (970 ft) Connection Single-family homes near Owl
Avenue (1,212 ft) Phase 4: OCSD Headwork and Bypass Pipeline Single Family Homes near Cape 760 Ft / 231 m May Lane and Jones Port Lane
Orange County Water District –GWRS Final Expansion Project 28 ESA / 160387 Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Technical Report July 2016
As shown in Table 2, CO levels in the project area are substantially below the federal and state standards. Maximum CO levels in recent years are 2 ppm (eigh-hour average) compared to the threshold 9.0 ppm. Carbon monoxide decreased dramatically in the SCAB with the introduction of the catalytic converter in 1975. No exceedances of CO have been recorded at monitoring stations in the Air Basin for some time and the Basin is currently designated as a CO attainment area for both the CAAQS and NAAQS.
The SCAQMD conducted CO modeling for the 2003 AQMP for the four worst-case intersections in the Air Basin. These include: (a) Wilshire Boulevard and Veteran Avenue; (b) Sunset Boulevard and Highland Avenue; (c) La Cienega Boulevard and Century Boulevard; (d) Long Beach Boulevard and Imperial Highway. In the 2003 AQMP, the SCAQMD notes that the intersection of Wilshire Boulevard and Veteran Avenue is the most congested intersection in Los Angeles County, with an average daily traffic volume of about 100,000 vehicles per day.5 This intersection is located near the on- and off-ramps to Interstate 405 in West Los Angeles. The evidence provided in Table 4-10 of Appendix V of the 2003 AQMP shows that the peak modeled CO concentration due to vehicle emissions at these four intersections was 4.6 ppm (one-hour average) and 3.2 (eight-hour average) at Wilshire Boulevard and Veteran Avenue.6 When added to the existing background CO concentrations, the screening values would be 8.7 ppm (one-hour average) and 5.6 ppm (eight-hour average).
As the Project does not result in any new vehicle trips, the Project would not have the potential to result in a CO hotspot and therefore no further evaluation of CO hotspots are discussed in the analysis.
Toxic Air Contaminants TAC generators located within the SCAB are associated with diesel fueled vehicles and specific types of facilities such as dry cleaners, gas stations, distribution centers, and ports. As there are no onsite sources of TACs during operation, and because of the limited duration and area of construction activities, TAC emissions are discussed qualitatively.
4.2 Thresholds of Significance Based on the state CEQA Guidelines, a project would have a significant adverse effect on air quality resources if it would: • Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan; • Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation; • Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations; • Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people; or
5 South Coast Air Quality Management District, 2003 Air Quality Management Plan, Appendix V: Modeling and Attainment Demonstrations, (2003) V-4-24. 6 The eight-hour average is based on a 0.7 persistence factor, as recommended by the SCAQMD.
Orange County Water District –GWRS Final Expansion Project 29 ESA / 160387 Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Technical Report July 2016 • Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors); The OCWD and the Cities of Huntington Beach and Fountain Valley have not developed specific air quality thresholds for air quality impacts. However, as stated in Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the above determinations. As such, the significance thresholds and analysis methodologies in SCAQMD’s CEQA Air Quality Handbook are used in evaluating project impacts. SCAQMD has established daily mass thresholds for regional pollutant emissions, which are shown in Table 5.
Aside from regional air quality impacts, projects in the SCAB are also required to analyze local air quality impacts. As discussed previously, SCAQMD has developed LSTs that represent the maximum emissions from a project that are not expected to cause or contribute to an exceedance of the most stringent applicable federal or state ambient air quality standards, and thus would not cause or contribute to localized air quality impacts. LSTs are developed based on the ambient concentrations of that pollutant for each of the 38 source receptor areas (SRAs) in the SCAB. The localized thresholds, which are found in the mass rate look-up tables in SCAQMD’s Final Localized Significance Threshold Methodology document, were developed for use on projects that are less than or equal to five acres in size and are only applicable to the following criteria pollutants: NOx, CO, PM10, and PM2.5. The construction and operational LSTs for a one-acre site in SRA 18 (North Costal Orange County), which is where the Project site is located, are shown in Table 6.
It should be noted that with regards to NOx emissions, the two principal species of NOx are NO and NO2, with the vast majority (95 percent) of the NOx emissions being comprised of NO.
However, because adverse health effects are associated with NO2, not NO, the analysis of localized air quality impacts associated with NOx emissions is focused on NO2 levels. For
combustion sources, SCAQMD assumes that the conversion of NO to NO2 is complete at a distance of 5,000 meters from the source.
Orange County Water District –GWRS Final Expansion Project 30 ESA / 160387 Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Technical Report July 2016
TABLE 5 SCAQMD REGIONAL AIR QUALITY SIGNIFICANCE THRESHOLDS
Mass Daily Thresholds (lbs/day)
Pollutant Construction Operations
Oxides of Nitrogen (NOX) 100 55 Reactive Organic Gases (ROG) 75 55
Respirable Particulate Matter (PM10) 150 150
Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5) 55 55
Oxides of Sulfur (SOX) 150 150 Carbon Monoxide (CO) 550 550 TACs (including carcinogens and Maximum Incremental Cancer Risk non-carcinogens ≥ 10 in 1 million Cancer Burden > 0.5 excess cancer cases (in areas ≥ 1 in 1 million) Chronic & Acute Hazard Index ≥ 1.0 (project increment)
a As the proposed Project would not involve the development of any major lead emissions sources, lead emissions would not be analyzed further in this report.
SOURCE: SCAQMD, 2015b.
TABLE 6 SCAQMD LOCALIZED SIGNIFICANCE THRESHOLDS
One-Acre Site
Allowable emissions (pounds/day) as a function of receptor distance (feet) from site boundary Pollutant Monitored Within SRA 18 – North Coastal Orange County 25 (m) 50 (m) 100 (m) 200 (m) 500 (m)
Construction Thresholds a Nitrogen Oxides (NOx) 92 93 108 140 219 Carbon Monoxide (CO) 647 738 1,090 2,096 6,841
Respirable Particulate Matter (PM10) 4 13 27 54 135
Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5) 3 5 9 22 76 Operational Thresholds a Nitrogen Oxides (NOx) 92 93 108 140 219 Carbon Monoxide (CO) 647 738 1,090 2,096 6,841
Respirable Particulate Matter (PM10) 1 4 7 13 33
Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5) 1 2 3 6 19 a The localized thresholds listed for NOx in this table take into consideration the gradual conversion of NO to NO2.The analysis of
localized air quality impacts associated with NOx emissions focuses on NO2 levels as they are associated with adverse health effects.
SOURCE: SCAQMD, 2003 (Revised 2009).
Orange County Water District –GWRS Final Expansion Project 31 ESA / 160387 Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Technical Report July 2016 4.3 Project Impacts AQ- 1 Consistency with Applicable Air Quality Plan The proposed Project would not conflict with or obstruct the implementation of the applicable air quality plan. The Project impacts would be less than significant. No mitigation required.
The proposed Project is located within the SCAB, which is under the jurisdiction of the SCAQMD. As such, SCAQMD’s 2012 AQMP is the applicable air quality plan for the proposed Project. Projects that are consistent with the regional population, housing, and employment forecasts identified by SCAG are considered to be consistent with the AQMP growth projections, since the forecast assumptions by SCAG forms the basis of the land use and transportation control portions of the AQMP. Additionally, because SCAG’s regional growth forecasts are based upon, among other things, land uses designated in general plans, a project that is consistent with the land use designated in a general plan would also be consistent with the SCAG’s regional forecast projections, and thus also with the AQMP growth projections.
The proposed Project expands the GWRS but does not increase the number of jobs, nor does it result in the creation of new housing or potential residential growth. Because the land use will not change, and has been in operation since before the creation of the 2012 AQMP, the proposed Project would not change the regional growth forecasts as identified in the local General Plan or those of the 2012 AQMP. Therefore, the proposed Project would not conflict with, or obstruct, implementation of the AQMP and this impact would be less than significant.
AQ-2 Violation of Air Quality Standards The proposed Project would violate the air quality standard for NOx during construction without the implementation of mitigation. Construction impacts of the remaining criteria pollutants and all impacts from operational activities would not violate existing air quality standards. With the implementation of Mitigation Measure AQ-1, NOx impacts would be reduced to below regulatory standards. Project impacts would be less than significant with mitigation.
Construction The proposed Project would involve the expansion of the OCWD’s groundwater recharge system as detailed in Section 1 above. Construction activities associated with the proposed Project would generate pollutant emissions from the following construction activities: (1) site preparation, grading, and excavation; (2) construction workers traveling to and from Project site; (3) delivery and hauling of construction supplies to, and debris from, the Project site; (4) fuel combustion by on-site construction equipment; (5) building construction and the application of architectural coatings. These construction activities would temporarily create emissions of dust, fumes, equipment exhaust, and other air contaminants. The amount of emissions generated on a daily basis would vary, depending on the intensity and types of construction activities occurring simultaneously.
Orange County Water District –GWRS Final Expansion Project 32 ESA / 160387 Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Technical Report July 2016
Construction of proposed Project is anticipated to occur between August 2019 and December 2022 with various phases occurring over different time periods. The construction phases and their estimated duration are shown in Table 7. Construction activity would be limited to 7:00 A.M. to 7:00 P.M. Monday through Friday and Saturdays where necessary from 8:00 A.M. to 5:00 P.M. Construction would occur over the entire site, with a maximum of 1.5-acre7 of the project site being graded on a peak construction day.
TABLE 7 ANTICIPATED CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE
Phase Description Start (month/year) Finish (month/year)
Schedule A Schedule B Schedule A Schedule B
1A MF Building Excavation May 2019 May 2019 Dec 2019 Dec 2019 1B MF Building Piles Jan 2020 Jan 2020 April 2020 April 2020 1C MF Building Concrete walls/roof May 2020 May 2020 Aug 2020 Aug 2020 1D 1D1 MF Building Equipment Installation Sep 2020 Sep 2020 Aug 20201 Aug 20201 1D2 RO Equipment Installation Sep 2020 Jan 2020 April 2021 Aug 2020 1D3 UV Equipment Installation Sep 2020 Jan 2020 Dec 2020 April 2020 1E 1E1 Pump installation Sep 2020 Jan 2020 Dec 2020 April 2020 1E2 Install of Decarb Towers & Chemical Tanks Sep 2020 Jan 2020 April 2021 Aug 2020 2A Pump Station Excavation Sep 2020 Sep 2020 April 2021 April 2021 2B Pump Station Concrete Pours May 2021 May 2021 Dec 2021 Dec 2021 2C Pump Station Equipment Install Jan 2022 Jan 2022 April 2022 April 2022 3A Pipeline OCSD Plant No. 2 Connection Excavation Sep 2020 Sep 2020 Dec 2020 Dec 2020 3B Pipeline Installation through pits Jan 2021 Jan 2021 April 2022 April 2022 3C Pipeline OCWD Connection Excavation May 2022 May 2022 Aug 2022 Aug 2022 4A Demolition PW pump Station May 2020 May 2020 Aug 2020 Aug 2020 4B Headwork Excavation Sep 2020 Sep 2020 April 2021 April 2021 4C Headwork Concrete Pours May 2021 May 2021 Aug 2021 Aug 2021 4D Headwork Equipment Install Sep 2021 Sep 2021 April 2022 April 2022 See Appendix B for full schedules Schedule A and Schedule B offset some Phase 1 activities only. Either schedule is possible and therefore, both are evaluated for emissions.
Construction emissions are considered short term and temporary, but have the potential to
represent a significant impact with respect to air quality. Particulate matter (i.e., PM10 and PM2.5) are among the pollutants of greatest localized concern with respect to construction activities. Particulate emissions from construction activities can lead to adverse health effects and nuisance concerns, such as reduced visibility and soiling of exposed surfaces. Particulate emissions can result from a variety of construction activities, including excavation, grading, demolition, vehicle travel on paved and unpaved surfaces, and vehicle and equipment exhaust. Construction
7 Ground disturbance for grading is based on the equipment used and not the area of the site. Disturbance takes into account depth as well as surface area.
Orange County Water District –GWRS Final Expansion Project 33 ESA / 160387 Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Technical Report July 2016 emissions of PM can vary greatly depending on the level of activity, the specific operations taking place, the number and types of equipment operated, local soil conditions, weather conditions, and the amount of earth disturbance.
Emissions of ozone precursors ROG and NOx are primarily generated from mobile sources and vary as a function of vehicle trips per day associated with debris hauling, delivery of construction materials, vendor trips, and worker commute trips, and the types and number of heavy-duty, off- road equipment used and the intensity and frequency of their operation. A large portion of construction-related ROG emissions also result from the application of architectural coatings and vary depending on the amount of coatings applied each day.
It is mandatory for all construction projects in the SCAB to comply with SCAQMD Rule 403 for
controlling fugitive dust. Incorporating Rule 403 into the proposed Project reduces regional PM10
and PM2.5 emissions from construction activities. Specific Rule 403 control requirements include, but are not limited to, applying water in sufficient quantities to prevent the generation of visible dust plumes, applying soil binders to uncovered areas, reestablishing ground cover as quickly as possible, utilizing a wheel washing system to remove bulk material from tires and vehicle undercarriages before vehicles exit the proposed Project site, covering all trucks hauling soil with a fabric cover and maintaining a freeboard height of 12 inches, and maintaining effective cover over exposed areas. Compliance with Rule 403 was accounted for in the construction emissions modeling.
Table 8 summarizes the modeled peak daily emissions of criteria air pollutants and ozone precursors associated with the proposed Project for each individual phase as well as for overlaps where construction of different phases occurs at the same time. For the project’s construction, the Applicant provided the full inventory of the equipment that would be used during the peak day for each of the construction phase.
As shown in Table 8, the maximum daily construction emissions generated by the proposed Project’s worst-case construction scenario would exceed SCAQMD’s daily significance threshold for NOx and would therefore require mitigation. Emissions for the other criteria pollutants do not exceed the SCAQMD’s daily significance thresholds.
TABLE 8 PROPOSED REGIONAL CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS
Estimated Maximum Daily Emissions (lbs/day) Construction Activities ROG NOX CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5
Individual Phase Emissions
1A 3.58 48.52 23.82 0.10 6.46 3.60 1B 2.16 25.77 18.05 0.05 1.46 0.93 1C 1.39 18.12 19.73 0.04 1.18 1.43 1D 22.93 36.73 37.44 0.06 1.93 2.59 1D1 0.70 9.09 11.98 0.02 0.51 0.98 1D2 1.38 17.09 15.50 0.02 0.86 0.84
Orange County Water District –GWRS Final Expansion Project 34 ESA / 160387 Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Technical Report July 2016
TABLE 8 PROPOSED REGIONAL CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS
Estimated Maximum Daily Emissions (lbs/day) Construction Activities ROG NOX CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5
1D3 0.67 8.54 8.10 0.01 0.41 0.62 1D1A* 20.18 2.01 1.85 0.00 0.15 0.15 1E 2.43 30.14 26.97 0.04 1.50 1.64 1E1 1.27 15.83 14.27 0.02 0.78 0.92 1E2 1.16 14.31 12.70 0.02 0.73 0.72 2A 4.06 52.40 22.92 0.10 7.30 4.23 2B 0.61 7.65 6.02 0.01 0.48 0.29 2C 1.21 15.89 17.27 0.03 0.72 1.34 3A 1.19 13.89 9.16 0.02 2.66 1.63 3B 1.09 11.19 5.25 0.02 2.43 1.47 3C 1.19 13.89 9.16 0.02 2.66 1.63 4A 1.50 17.40 11.28 0.03 2.99 1.78 4B 2.81 40.17 22.26 0.10 5.01 2.60 4C 0.41 4.99 3.75 0.01 2.43 1.30 4D 0.96 11.80 9.66 0.02 2.61 1.58 Phase Overlap Emissions Schedule A 1D1, 1D2, 1D3, 1E1, 1E2, 2A,3A,4B 33.42 173.32 118.75 0.33 18.40 12.69 1D1, 1D2, 1E2,2A,3B,4B 11.20 144.24 90.61 0.29 16.83 10.84 1D1, 2B,3B,4C 2.82 32.92 26.99 0.07 5.85 4.04 2B,3B,4D 2.67 30.64 20.93 0.05 5.52 3.34 2C,3B,4D 3.26 38.88 32.18 0.07 5.76 4.39 Phase Overlap Emissions Schedule B
1B, 1D2, 1D3, 1E1, 1E2 6.64 81.54 68.63 0.13 4.23 4.02
1C, 1D2, 1E1, 4A 5.54 68.43 60.78 0.12 5.80 4.96
1D1, 2A,3A,4B 28.94 117.55 68.18 0.25 15.63 9.59
1D1, 2A,3B, 4B 28.85 114.85 64.27 0.25 15.40 9.43 Maximum Daily Emissions
Schedule A 33.42 173.32 118.75 0.33 18.40 12.69 Schedule B 28.94 117.55 68.18 0.25 15.63 9.59 Regional Significance 75 100 550 150 150 55 Threshold Significant Impact? No YES No No No No *Architectural Coating emissions Source: ESA, 2016.
Orange County Water District –GWRS Final Expansion Project 35 ESA / 160387 Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Technical Report July 2016 Mitigation Implementation of mitigation measure AQ-1 for schedule 1 or AQ-2 for schedule 2 would reduce emission of overlapping phases to below the regulatory requirements for NOx as shown in Table 9. Therefore, with the implementation of mitigation the proposed Project would be less than significant with respect to construction emissions.
MM AQ-1: Fleet Modernization for Construction During Schedule A
The construction contractor shall ensure that all off-road equipment with a horse power greater than 50 is certified as USEPA Tier 4 final engines or that engines are certified to meet or exceed the Tier 4 final emissions standards for USEPA Tier 4 final engines. Any emissions control device used by the contractor shall achieve emissions reductions that are no less than what can be achieved by a Leve 4 diesel emissions control strategy for a similarly sized engine, as defined by CARB regulations. During construction, the contractor shall maintain a list of all operating equipment in use on the Project site for verification. The construction equipment list shall state the makes, models, and numbers of construction equipment on-site. Equipment shall be properly serviced and maintained in accordance with the manufacturer’s recommendations. Construction contractors shall ensure that all nonessential idling of construction equipment is restricted to five minutes or less in compliance with California Air Resources Board’s Rule 2449.
MM AQ-2: Fleet Modernization for Construction During Schedule B
The construction contractor shall ensure that all off-road equipment with a horse power greater than 50 is certified as USEPA Tier 4 interim engines or that engines are certified to meet or exceed the Tier 4 interim emissions standards for USEPA Tier 4 interim engines. Any emissions control device used by the contractor shall achieve emissions reductions that are no less than what can be achieved by a Level 4 diesel emissions control strategy for a similarly sized engine, as defined by CARB regulations. During construction, the contractor shall maintain a list of all operating equipment in use on the Project site for verification. The construction equipment list shall state the makes, models, and numbers of construction equipment on-site. Equipment shall be properly serviced and maintained in accordance with the manufacturer’s recommendations. Construction contractors shall ensure that all nonessential idling of construction equipment is restricted to five minutes or less in compliance with California Air Resources Board’s Rule 2449.
Orange County Water District –GWRS Final Expansion Project 36 ESA / 160387 Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Technical Report July 2016
TABLE 9 MITIGATED REGIONAL CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS
Estimated Maximum Daily Emissions (lbs/day) Construction Activities ROG NOX CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5
Phase Overlap Emissions Schedule A 1D1, 1D2, 1D3, 1E1, 1E2, 2A,3A,4B 25.03 54.74 126.92 0.33 13.46 6.70 1D1, 1D2, 1E2,2A,3B,4B 4.34 50.49 102.69 0.29 12.99 6.42 Phase Overlap Emissions Schedule B
1D1, 2A,3A,4B 25.00 77.07 87.43 0.25 12.83 6.43 1D1, 2A,3B, 4B 24.29 76.08 85.68 0.25 12.78 6.41 Maximum Emissions
Schedule A 25.03 54.74 126.92 0.33 13.46 6.70 Schedule B 25.00 77.07 87.43 0.25 12.83 6.43
Regional Significance 75 100 550 150 150 55 Threshold Significant Impact? No No No No No No *Architectural Coating emissions Source: ESA, 2016.
Operation Implementation of the proposed Project would result in long-term regional emissions of criteria air pollutants and ozone precursors associated with natural gas consumption. Operations emissions associated with the proposed Project were modeled using CalEEMod model. Model defaults were used to develop a conservative estimate of emissions. Modeled operations emissions are presented in Table 10. As shown in Table 10, the proposed Project would result in long-term regional emissions of criteria air pollutants and ozone precursors that are below SCAQMD’s applicable thresholds. Therefore, the Project’s operational emissions would not result in or substantially contribute to emissions concentrations that exceed the NAAQS and CAAQS and no mitigation would be required.
TABLE 10 PROPOSED PROJECT OPERATIONAL EMISSIONS
Estimated Emissions (lbs/day)
Emissions Source ROG NOX CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5 Total Operational Emissions 0.4712 0.1991 0.4638 2.2e-3 0.1141 0.0384 Regional Significance 55 55 550 150 100 55 Threshold Significant Impact? No No No No No No
Orange County Water District –GWRS Final Expansion Project 37 ESA / 160387 Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Technical Report July 2016 AQ-3 Exposure of Sensitive Receptors to Substantial Pollutant Concentrations The proposed Project has the potential to expose sensitive receptors to increased concentrations of PM2.5 during construction. However with the implementation of Mitigation Measure AQ-1, these impacts would be reduced to below significance levels. Operational related criteria pollutant emissions and construction and operational emissions of TACs would not exposes sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. Proposed Project impacts would be less than significant with mitigation.
Separate discussions are provided below analyzing the potential for sensitive receptors to be exposed to localized air quality impacts from criteria pollutants and TACs from on-site sources during Project construction and operations. As discussed previously, CO hotspots are not addressed as there are no new mobile source emissions resulting from the project.
Localized Construction Air Quality Impacts – Criteria Air Pollutants As discussed previously, the daily on-site construction emissions generated by the proposed Project were evaluated against SCAQMD’s LSTs for a one-acre site to determine whether the emissions would cause or contribute to adverse localized air quality impacts.8 The nearest sensitive receptors to the Project site are the residential neighborhoods located across Brookhurst St. to the west for the southern portion of the site and Ward St. to the west for the northern portion of the site. The nearest residential buildings are located over 50 meters away from where the construction activities would occur. Since the mass rate look-up tables provided by SCAQMD only provides LSTs at receptor distances of 25, 50, 100, 200, and 500 meters, the LSTs for a receptor distance of 50 meters are used to evaluate the potential localized air quality impacts associated with the Project’s peak day construction emissions.
Because the emissions are localized (within 500 feet of the source) emissions that occur at the OCWD site would not impact receptors adjacent to the OCSD Plant No. 2, or adjacent to the pipeline pit/connection locations. Therefore, the phase overlaps for which the localized emissions are compared differ from those for the regional pollutants. Since Phases 2 and 4 occur on OCSD Plant No. 2 site, they would not overlap with Phase 1 which occurs strictly on the OCWD site. Additionally as Phase 3 is located along the almost 3 mile corridor between the OCWD and OCSD sites, the entry pit and connection area receptors would not be the same as those of the other phases. Table 11 identifies the daily unmitigated, localized on-site emissions that are estimated to occur during the Project’s worst-case construction scenarios based on receptor distance and phase.
As shown in Table 11, the daily unmitigated emissions generated onsite by the proposed Project’s worst-case construction scenario would not exceed the applicable SCAQMD LST for any criteria pollutants. As the Project’s worst-case construction emissions would not exceed SCAQMD’s applicable LSTs the project would be less than significant for localized construction impacts.
8 According to SCAQMD’s LST methodology, LSTs are only applicable to the on-site construction emissions that are generated by a project and do not apply to emissions generated offsite such as mobile emissions on roadways from worker, vendor, and haul truck trips.
Orange County Water District –GWRS Final Expansion Project 38 ESA / 160387 Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Technical Report July 2016
TABLE 11 PROPOSED PROJECT UNMITIGATED LOCALIZED DAILY CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS
Estimated Maximum Daily On-Site Emissions (lbs/day)
a a Construction Phase NOX CO PM10 PM2.5
50 meters to receptor Max Phase 1 35.74 35.02 4.25 2.77 1D, 1E overlap 65.21 60.24 2.77 4.03 Localized Significance Thresholdb 93 738 13 5 Significant Impact? No No No No 200 meters to Receptor Max Phase 2 33.99 16.83 5.50 3.54 2A, 4B Overlap 51.15 24.33 8.22 5.27 2B, 4C Overlap 7.92 4.81 2.33 1.39 2B, 4D Overlap 16.85 12.62 2.71 1.74 2C, 4D Overlap 27.27 25.81 3.15 2.87 Max Phase 3 13.78 8.71 2.56 1.61 Max Phase 4 17.16 10.59 2.71 1.73 b Localized Significance Threshold 140 2,096 54 22 Significant Impact? No No No No
a Emissions account for implementation of dust control measures as required by SCAQMD Rule 403— Fugitive Dust. b LSTs for a one-acre site in SRA 18 at a receptor distance of 50 meters and 200 meters.
Source: ESA 2016
Localized Operational Air Quality Impacts – Criteria Air Pollutants During project operations, the daily amount of localized pollutant emissions generated onsite by the Project would not be substantial. The proposed Project’s net increase in on-site operational emissions (operational emissions minus mobile sources from worker commute trips) is shown in Table 12. As shown, the Project’s total net operational-related emissions generated onsite would not exceed SCAQMD’s applicable operational LSTs. Thus, localized air quality impacts during project operations would be less than significant.
TABLE 12 PROPOSED PROJECT LOCALIZED OPERATIONAL EMISSIONS
Estimated Emissions (lbs/day)
Emissions Source NOX CO PM10 PM2.5 Total Net Operational 0.1268 0.1087 0.0096 0.0096 Emissions Localized Significance Threshold 93 738 4 2 Significant Impact? No No No No
Localized Construction Air Quality Impacts – TACs Project construction would result in short-term emissions of diesel PM, a TAC. Diesel PM poses a carcinogenic health risk that is measured using an exposure period of 70 years. The exhaust of off-road heavy-duty diesel equipment would emit diesel PM during demolition, site preparation
Orange County Water District –GWRS Final Expansion Project 39 ESA / 160387 Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Technical Report July 2016 (e.g., clearing); site grading and excavation; paving; installation of utilities, materials transport and handling; building construction; and other miscellaneous activities. SCAQMD has not adopted a methodology for analyzing such impacts and has not recommended that health risk assessments be completed for construction-related emissions of TACs.
The dose to which receptors are exposed is the primary factor used to determine health risk (i.e., the potential exposure to TACs to be compared to applicable standards). Dose is a function of the concentration of a substance or substances in the environment and the duration of exposure to the substance. Dose is positively correlated with time, meaning that a longer exposure period would result in a higher exposure level for the maximally exposed individual. Thus, the risks estimated for a maximally exposed individual are higher if a fixed exposure occurs over a longer period of time. According to the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA), carcinogenic health risk assessments, which determine the exposure of sensitive receptors to TAC emissions, should be based on a 70-year exposure period; however, such assessments should be limited to the period or duration of activities associated with the proposed Project.
The construction period for the proposed Project would be much less than the 70-year period used for risk determination (4 years spread out over a large area). Because off-road heavy-duty diesel equipment would be used only for short time periods, project construction would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial emissions of TACs. This impact would be less than significant.
Project Operations – TACs Typical sources of acutely and chronically hazardous TACs include industrial manufacturing processes, automotive repair facilities, and dry cleaning facilities. The Project would not include any of these potential sources, although minimal emissions may result from the use of consumer products. There will be a new back-up generator installed for the pump systems, however it would only be used during emergencies and may be turned on periodically for maintenance and inspection purposes. Further, emergency back-up generators are subject to SCAQMD regulatory requirements which limit the allowable emissions to a level below that which would result in an impact. As such, the periodic operation of the backup generator at the Project site would not expose surrounding sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant or TAC emissions.
AQ-4 Objectionable Odors The proposed Project would not create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people. This impact is less than significant, no mitigation required.
During construction of the proposed Project, exhaust from equipment and activities associated with the application of architectural coatings and other interior and exterior finishes may produce discernible odors typical of most construction sites. Such odors would be a temporary source of nuisance to adjacent uses, but would not affect a substantial number of people. As odors associated with Project construction would be temporary and intermittent in nature, the odors would not be considered to be a significant environmental impact. Therefore, impacts associated with objectionable odors would be less than significant.
Orange County Water District –GWRS Final Expansion Project 40 ESA / 160387 Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Technical Report July 2016
Land uses that are associated with odor complaints typically include agricultural uses, wastewater treatment plants, food processing plants, chemical plants, composting, refineries, landfills, dairies, and fiberglass molding. The current project is expanding the OCWD groundwater recharge facility. While it will be acquiring water processed at the OCSD’s waste water treatment plant, it will not increase the throughput of wastewater treatment plant. Additionally, neither the OCSD facility nor the OCWD facility has had any odor complaints in the last twenty years for these facilities filed with the SCAQMD. The OCWD had one odor complaint filed in 1990 but that chase has been closed since 1991. Therefore, because the proposed project is not increasing throughput of a land use type that is associated with nuisance odors, and there have been no odor complaints within the last two decade, this impact would be less than significant and no mitigation is required.
AQ-5 Cumulative Air Quality Impacts The proposed Project had the potential to result in cumulatively considerable increases in criteria pollutants with respect to NOx during construction activities. However, with the implementation of Mitigation Measure MM AQ-1, emissions of NOx would be reduced to below regulatory thresholds. Therefore the proposed Project impacts with respect to cumulatively considerable increases of criteria pollutants would be less than significant with mitigation.
The Project site is located within the SCAB, which is considered the cumulative study area for air
quality. Because the SCAB is currently classified as a state nonattainment area for ozone, PM10,
and PM2.5, cumulative development consisting of the proposed Project along with other reasonably foreseeable future projects in the SCAB as a whole could violate an air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation. However, based on SCAQMD’s cumulative air quality impact methodology, SCAQMD recommends that if an individual project results in air emissions of criteria pollutants (ROG, CO, NOx, SOx, PM10, and
PM2.5) that exceed the SCAQMD’s recommended daily thresholds for project-specific impacts, then it would also result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of these criteria pollutants for which the proposed project region is in non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard. As shown in Table 9, with mitigation the Project’s construction emissions would not exceed SCAQMD’s daily thresholds during construction. Thus, because the proposed Project’s construction-period impact would be less than significant, the proposed Project would not result in a significant cumulative impact, when considered with other past, present and reasonably foreseeable projects.
In addition, the operational emissions associated with the proposed Project would also not exceed the SCAQMD’s thresholds of significance for any of the criteria pollutants (see Table 10). Furthermore, the proposed Project would also be consistent with SCAQMD’s AQMP. Thus, the proposed Project would not conflict with SCAQMD’s air quality planning efforts for nonattainment pollutants and would not lead to a cumulatively considerable net increase in nonattainment pollutants during operations.
Overall, the proposed Project’s construction and operational emissions contribution to cumulative air quality impacts would be less than significant.
Orange County Water District –GWRS Final Expansion Project 41 ESA / 160387 Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Technical Report July 2016 5. CEQA GHG Impacts and Mitigation Measures This section describes the impact analysis relating to GHG emissions for the proposed Project. It describes the methods and applicable thresholds used to determine the impacts of the proposed Project.
5.1 Methodology At the time of this analysis, neither the OCWD nor SCAQMD have formally adopted a methodology for analyzing impacts related to GHG emissions on global climate change. Pursuant to full disclosure and according to OPR’s CEQA Guidelines section 15064.4(a) that states, “A lead agency should make a good-faith effort, based to the extent possible on scientific and factual data, to describe, calculate or estimate the amount of GHG emissions resulting from a project,” the construction and operational emissions associated with the proposed project have been quantified using methods described below.
Construction-related GHG emissions were estimated using a similar methodology to that described above for criteria air pollutants. GHG emissions of CO2 and CH4 were converted to
CO2e emissions using the updated GWPs from IPCC’s AR4. The GHG analysis incorporates the same assumptions as the air quality analysis. Based on SCAQMD’s 2008 Draft Guidance Document – Interim CEQA Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Significance Threshold document, SCAQMD recommends that for construction GHG emissions the total emissions for a project be amortized over a 30-year period and added to its operational emission estimates (SCAQMD, 2008c).
Operational emissions of GHGs, including GHGs generated by direct and indirect sources, are estimated according to the recommended methodologies from SCAQMD. Direct sources include the natural gas consumption onsite. Indirect sources include off-site emissions occurring as a result of the Project’s operations such as electricity and water consumption, solid waste disposal, mobile sources, and wastewater disposal and treatment. The direct and indirect emissions generated during the proposed Project’s operations were estimated using CalEEMod. The
operational emissions of CH4 and N2O were extracted from the CalEEMod output file and
converted to CO2e emissions using the GWPs from IPCC’s AR4, as currently CalEEMod uses the GWPs from AR2.
The methodology used to analyze the Project’s contribution to global climate change includes evaluating the Project’s total net annual GHG emissions (construction and operational) against the proposed GHG emissions screening level for commercial or residential projects in SCAQMD’s 2008 Draft Guidance Document – Interim CEQA Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Significance Threshold document. Although no formal significance threshold for GHG emissions has been adopted by SCAQMD at this juncture, Section 15064.7(c) of the State CEQA Guidelines states “when adopting thresholds of significance, a lead agency may consider thresholds of significance previously adopted or recommended by other public agencies…”. SCAQMD’s
recommended 3,000 MTCO2e per year screening level was intended to achieve the same policy objective of capturing 90 percent of the GHG emissions from new development projects in the residential/commercial sectors.
Orange County Water District –GWRS Final Expansion Project 42 ESA / 160387 Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Technical Report July 2016
All GHG emission estimate assumptions and calculations are provided in Appendix A to this report.
5.2 Thresholds of Significance The following GHG significance thresholds that are used in this report are also based on the state CEQA Guidelines. Implementation of the Project would result in a significant GHG-related impact if it would:
Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment; or
Conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases.
The California Supreme Court recently considered the CEQA issue of determining the significance of GHG emissions in its decision, Center for Biological Diversity v. California Department of Fish and Wildlife and Newhall Land and Farming (CBD vs. CDFW). The Court questioned a common CEQA approach to GHG analyses for development projects that compares project emissions to the reductions from “business as usual” (BAU) that will be needed statewide to reduce emissions to 1990 levels by 2020, as required by AB 32. The court upheld the BAU method as valid in theory, but concluded that the BAU method was improperly applied in the case of the Newhall project because the target for the project was incorrectly deemed consistent with the statewide emission target of 29 percent below BAU for the year 2020. In other words, the court said that the percent below BAU target developed by the AB 32 Scoping Plan is intended as a measure of the GHG reduction effort required by the State as a whole, and it cannot necessarily be applied to the impacts of a specific project in a specific location. The Court provided some guidance to evaluating the cumulative significance of a proposed land use project’s GHG emissions, but noted that none of the approaches could be guaranteed to satisfy CEQA for a particular project. The Court’s suggested “pathways to compliance” include:
1. Use a geographically specific GHG emission reduction plan (e.g., climate action plan) that outlines how the jurisdiction will reduce emissions consistent with State reduction targets, to provide the basis for streamlining project-level CEQA analysis, as described in CEQA § 15183.5.
2. Utilize the Scoping Plan’s business-as-usual reduction goal, but provide substantial evidence to bridge the gap between the statewide goal and the project’s emissions reductions;
3. Assess consistency with AB 32‘s goal in whole or part by looking to compliance with regulatory programs designed to reduce GHG emissions from particular activities; as an example, the Court points out that projects consistent with an SB 375 Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS) may need to re-evaluate GHG emissions from cars and light trucks.
Orange County Water District –GWRS Final Expansion Project 43 ESA / 160387 Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Technical Report July 2016 4. Rely on existing numerical thresholds of significance for GHG emissions, such as those developed by an air district.
The City of Huntington Beach and Fountain Valley have adopted a CEQA-qualified Climate Action Plan, therefore compliance pathway #1 is not a viable method for determining significance for this project.
Regarding compliance pathway #2, the Court acknowledged that “a business-as-usual comparison based on the Scoping Plan‘s methodology may be possible,” and that “a lead agency might be able to determine what level of reduction from business as usual a new land use development at the proposed location must contribute in order to comply with statewide goals.” However, in this case there is not sufficient information to assess whether the Project’s emissions can be compared with the State target of 29% below BAU by 2020.
Compliance pathway #3 can work if it can be shown how regulatory programs or performance- based standards apply to a project’s emissions, but this type of analysis can be difficult, especially if some GHG-emitting elements of projects are covered by such standards and others are not. Transportation emissions in particular are not regulated by the Scoping Plan because local government retains control over the location and density of residential and commercial development.
Compliance pathway #4 is the most straightforward approach to analysis. Although no formal significance threshold for GHG emissions associated with development-type land uses has been adopted by the Cities or SCAQMD at this juncture, Section 15064.7(c) of the State CEQA Guidelines states “when adopting thresholds of significance, a lead agency may consider thresholds of significance previously adopted or recommended by other public agencies…” The
SCAQMD has proposed brightline threshold value of 3,000 MTCO2e per year as presented by the Stakeholder Working Group in November 2009 (SCAQMD, 2009). Since the City has not adopted any significance criteria for GHG analysis at the time of this writing, it is reasonable under CEQA for the City, as the lead agency, to utilize the two part efficiency threshold that was proposed by SCAQMD, which is the applicable air pollution control agency for the City.
The GHG analysis uses SCAQMD’s brightline threshold of 3,000 MTCO2e per year. SCAQMD developed these thresholds by comparing emission reductions included in CARB’s Scoping Plan to those achievable in the South Coast Air Basin from CEQA projects (SCAQMD, 2009). The SCAQMD thresholds were designed to meet the AB32 goal of reducing GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. EO B-30-15 requires that California attain a reduction in GHG emissions of 40% below 1990 levels by 2030. Using the 40% below 1990 levels by 2030 reduction target, a project built out at 2030 would need to reach an efficiency standard that is 40% below the 3,000
MTCO2e per year threshold. Projects built out in 2030 would need to reach a 1,800 MTCO2e per year standard. Projects built out between these two dates should strive to meet the 2030 reduction, however due to the limited technology available and the lack of existing State and local measures to reduce emissions (for example from regional traffic planning and trip reduction measures), placing the full burden of reaching the 2030 reduction on the project may unnecessarily inflate the reductions that the project would need to achieve.
Orange County Water District –GWRS Final Expansion Project 44 ESA / 160387 Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Technical Report July 2016
This threshold directly applies to Impact GHG-1 as it is a comparison to the quantification of GHG emissions from the proposed project. This threshold indirectly applies to Impact GHG-2 in that the SCAQMD has established the threshold to help guide the region towards the achievement of the reduction goals under AB 32.
5.3 Project Impacts GHG-1: Project-Generated GHG Emissions The proposed Project would not generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that would have a significant impact on the environment. The proposed Project results in less than significant impacts, no mitigation is required.
The proposed Project would generate GHG emissions from a variety of sources. First, GHG emissions would be generated during construction of the Project. Once fully operational, the Project’s operations would generate GHG emissions from direct sources such as natural gas consumption and indirect sources such as electrical consumption and solid waste generation. As indicated, there are no new employees and therefore no new mobile source emissions.
Construction Emissions Construction-related GHG emissions for the proposed Project were estimated using the same assumptions as the air quality analysis. Total estimated construction-related GHG emissions for the proposed Project are shown in Table 13. As shown, the Project’s total estimated unmitigated
and mitigated GHG emissions during construction would be approximately 7,202 MTCO2e. This would equal to approximately 240 MTCO2e per year after amortization over 30 years per SCAQMD methodology.
TABLE 13 ESTIMATED TOTAL CONSTRUCTION-RELATED GHG EMISSIONS
CO2 CH4 Estimated CO2e Emission Source Emissions
Unmitigated Construction Emissions 1A 3,014.92 0.04 1B 336.79 0.02 1C 420.83 0.09 1D 656.54 0.20 1E 69.06 0.02 2A 937.90 0.03 2B 11.49 0.00 2C 97.57 0.03 3A 32.03 0.01 3B 87.67 0.01 3C 32.03 0.01 4A 17.37 0.00 4B 1,471.24 0.02 4C 10.81 0.00 4D 11.13 0.00
Orange County Water District –GWRS Final Expansion Project 45 ESA / 160387 Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Technical Report July 2016 1 Total 7,207.38 12.14 7,219.05 (MT) Annual Construction (Amortized over 30 years) 240.65 (MT/yr)
NOTES: CO2e= carbon dioxide equivalent; MT =metric tons; MT/yr = metric tons per year. 1 Total Emissions take into account the global warming potential of CH4 which is 25. Therefore the total CH4 emissions will not equal the sum of the individual phase emissions as shown in the table.
Operational Emissions The estimated operational GHG emissions resulting from Project implementation are shown in Table 14. Additionally, in accordance with SCAQMD’s recommendation, the Project’s amortized construction-related GHG emissions from Table 13 are added to the operational emissions estimate in order to determine the Project’s total annual GHG emissions.
As shown in Table 14, the proposed Project’s total net annual GHG emissions would be approximately 347 MTCO2e per year (detailed calculations are included in Appendix A of this report), which would not exceed SCAQMD’s proposed screening level of 3,000 MTCO2e per
year 2020 threshold or the 1,800 MTCO2e per year 2030 threshold. Therefore, the net increase in GHG emissions resulting from Project implementation is considered to be less than significant.
TABLE 14 ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATIONAL RELATED GHG EMISSIONS
Estimated Emissions Emission Source CO2e (MT/yr)
Construction Annual Mitigated Construction (Amortized over 30 years) 240.07 Project Operations Energy Consumption 103.64 Solid Waste 3.32 Total (Operational Emissions) 106.93 Total Net Increase in Emissions 347.03
Greater than 3,000 MTCO2e per year? No
Greater than 1,800 MTCO2e per year? No
NOTES: CO2e= carbon dioxide equivalent; MT/yr = metric tons per year; %=percent.
Source: ESA 2016
GHG-2: Consistency with GHG Emissions Reduction Plans or Policies The proposed Project would not conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purposes of reducing GHG emissions. The proposed Project results in less than significant impacts, no mitigation is required.
Consistency with AB 32 As discussed under Impact GHG-1 above, the proposed Project would not result in annual GHG
emissions exceeding the SCAQMD’s 3,000 MTCO2e threshold which was designed to help the
Orange County Water District –GWRS Final Expansion Project 46 ESA / 160387 Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Technical Report July 2016
region attain the goals of AB 32. Therefore, the proposed Project would be consistent with the goals of AB 32 and no mitigation is required.
Consistency with EO B-30-15 As discussed under Impact GHG-1 above, the proposed Project would not result in annual GHG
emissions exceeding 1,800 MTCO2e, or the brightline threshold adjusted to reduce emissions to 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030. Therefore, the proposed Project would be consistent with the goals of EO-B-30-15 and no mitigation is required.
Consistency with City of Huntington Beach Energy Action Plan The City of Huntington Beach Energy Action Plan addresses GHG reductions through 2020, consistent with AB 32’s goal of reducing GHG emissions to 1990 levels. As demonstrated under GHG-1 above, the proposed Project would not exceed the SCAQMD’s 3,000 MT brightline threshold developed to help the region attain 1990 GHG emission levels by 2020. Therefore, the proposed Project would not interfere with the City of Huntington Beach Energy Action Plan as the Project would not excessively increase GHG emissions within the City. .
Consistency with SB 375 The key goal of the Sustainable Communities Standard (SCS) is to achieve GHG emission reduction targets through integrated land use and transportation strategies. The focus of these reductions is on transportation and land use strategies that influence vehicle travel. The proposed Project would not increase vehicle traffic within the City or the region. Therefore, the proposed Project would not conflict with the implementation of SB 375. No mitigation is required.
As discussed above, the proposed project would be consistent with the CARB Scoping Plan, EO-B-30-15, SB 375 and with the City’s Energy Action Plan. Therefore, the proposed project would have a less than significant impact related to applicable GHG plans and policies
6. NEPA Conformity Analysis 6.1 Methodology The NEPA analysis compares the proposed Project’s impacts with the Federal thresholds in order to determine if impacts to Clean Air Act pollutants would exceed federal thresholds. Considering the standards developed for the State of California are more restrictive than the federal thresholds, the analysis detailed above for Air Quality and Greenhouse Gasses would serve to prove compliance with the NEPA analysis.
The SCAQMD is responsible for the development of the Basin’s portion of the State Implementation Plan (SIP), which is required under the federal Clean Air Act for areas that are in nonattainment for criteria pollutants. The project may obtain state funding and therefore, under the Clean Air Act the project would be subject to a SIP conformity determination. This is because the project is in a severe nonattainment area for 8-hour ozone, a moderate nonattainment area for
PM10 and a maintenance area for CO and PM10. Table 1 shows the federal thresholds while Table 3 shows the attainment status for each of the criteria air pollutants. Under the Clean Air Act de
Orange County Water District –GWRS Final Expansion Project 47 ESA / 160387 Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Technical Report July 2016 minimis levels for criteria pollutants have been established as a screening level to determine the potential for a proposed Project to adversely impact air emissions. Emissions are compared to for the SIP conformity determination (de minimis) levels. If the project is below the de minimis levels then the project is determined to be in conformance with the SIP. If a project exceeds the de minimis levels then a full conformity analysis must be conducted.
6.2 Thresholds of Significance 40 CFR 93 § 153 defines de minimis levels, that is, the minimum threshold for which a conformity determination must be performed, for various criteria pollutants in various areas. The information is summarized in Table 15.
TABLE 15 DE MINIMIS EMISSION LEVELS
Pollutant Area Type Tons/year
Serious nonattainment 50 Severe nonattainment 25 Ozone (VOC or NOx) Extreme nonattainment 10 Other areas outside an ozone transport region 100 Marginal and moderate nonattainment inside an ozone 100 Ozone (NOx) transportation region Maintenance 100 Marginal and moderate nonattainment inside an ozone 50 transport region Ozone (VOC) Maintenance within an ozone transport region 50 Maintenance outside an ozone transport region 100
CO, SO2, NO2 All nonattainment and maintenance 100 Serious nonattainment 70 PM10 Moderate nonattainment and maintenance 100
PM2.5 All nonattainment and maintenance 100
Source: USEPA, 2016a, USEPA 2016b
6.3 Project Impacts NEPA-1: Conformity Analysis The proposed Project would be consistent with the SIP as indicated by emissions being below the de minimis thresholds and therefore a detailed conformity analysis is not warranted. No Mitigation is required.
As shown in Table 16, ozone precursors are below the de minimis thresholds for construction and operational activities and therefore the project is consistent with the SIP. Construction emissions show only the maximum emissions for the proposed Project in tons per year and are based on the maximum days of construction per subphase. Because the Project emissions are below the de minimis thresholds, a detailed conformity analysis is not warranted.
Orange County Water District –GWRS Final Expansion Project 48 ESA / 160387 Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Technical Report July 2016
TABLE 16 SIP CONFORMITY EVALUATION
Threshold Maximum Operational Nonattainment of Construction Pollutant Federal Status Emissions Rates Significance Emissions (tons/year) (tons/year) (tons/year)
Ozone (O3) Nonattainment Extreme See (VOC & NOX) Attainment/ 0.0825 Carbon Monoxide (CO) Maintenance N/A 100 2.76 0.0366 Oxides of Nitrogen (NOX) N/A N/A 10 3.30 Volatile Organic Compounds 0.0858 (VOC) N/A N/A 10 1.96 N/A Lead (Pb) Attainment N/A N/A N/A Particulate matter less than 2.5 0.0204 microns (PM2.5)* Nonattainment Moderate 100 0.27 Particulate matter less than 10 Attainment/ 6.91e-3 microns (PM10)* Maintenance N/A 100 0.31 3.9e-4 Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) Attainment N/A N/A 0.01 Notes: N/A = Non-applicable Source: ESA 2016; USEPA, 2016a, USEPA 2016b
As discussed previously, no growth-inducing development or land use would occur under the project and therefore the project would not conflict with the City’s General Plan. Therefore the project would be consistent with the AQMP. Additionally, as the annual emissions from the project would be well below the de minimis thresholds for SIP conformity, the proposed project is considered to be in conformance with the SIP. No mitigation would be required. 7. References California Air Resources Board (CARB) 2016a. Ambient Air Quality Standards. Last revised: May 4, 2016. Available: < http://www.arb.ca.gov/research/aaqs/caaqs/caaqs.htm>. Accessed: June 27, 2016. CARB 2016b. Overview: Diesel Exhaust and Health. Available: http://www.arb.ca.gov/research/diesel/diesel-health.htm. Accessed: June 27, 2016. California Air Resources Board (CARB). 2014a. California Greenhouse Gas Inventory for 2000- 2012 — by Category as Defined in the 2008 Scoping Plan. Available: http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/inventory/data/tables/ghg_inventory_scopingplan_00-12_2014- 03-24.pdf CARB. 2014b. Proposed First Update to the Climate Change Scoping Plan: Building on the Framework. February. CARB. 2013a. Area Designation Maps/State and National. Available:
Orange County Water District –GWRS Final Expansion Project 49 ESA / 160387 Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Technical Report July 2016 CARB. 2009a. ARB Fact Sheet: Air Pollution Sources, Effects and Control, http://www.arb.ca.gov/research/health/fs/fs2/fs2.htm.
CARB, 2009b. Climate Change Scoping Plan: A Framework for Change, available online: http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/document/adopted_scoping_plan.pdf; published December 2008, amended version included errata and Board requested modifications posted May 11, 2009. CARB. 2007. Expanded List of Early Action Measures To Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions In California Recommended For Board Consideration. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 2007. Climate Change 2007: Synthesis Report. Available at: ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/syr/en/spms3.html. Accessed on June, 2016.
IPCC 2001. Climate Change 2001: Working Group I: The Scientific Basis. Last revised: 2001. Available:
SCAQMD. 2015b. SCAQMD Air Quality Significance Thresholds. Revised March. Available: < http://www.aqmd.gov/home/regulations/ceqa/air-quality-analysis-handbook> Accessed: June 2016. SCAQMD 2014. 2014 Air Quality Data Tables. Available: http://www.aqmd.gov/home/library/air-quality-data-studies/historical-data-by-year. Accessed: June 27, 2016. SCAQMD 2013. 2013 Air Quality Data Tables. Available: http://www.aqmd.gov/home/library/air-quality-data-studies/historical-data-by-year. Accessed: June 27, 2016. SCAQMD. 2013b. Final 2012 Air Quality Management Plan. February. SCAQMD 2012. 2012 Air Quality Data Tables. Available: http://www.aqmd.gov/home/library/air-quality-data-studies/historical-data-by-year. Accessed: June 27, 2016. SCAQMD. 2009. Greenhouse Gas CEQA Significance Threshold Stakeholder Working Group #14. November 19. Accessed http://www.aqmd.gov/home/regulations/ceqa/air-quality-analysis- handbook/ghg-significance-thresholds March 30, 2015.Southern California Edison (SCE). 2015. Our Renewable Power Summary for 2014. Accessed online: https://www.sce.com/wps/portal/home/about-us/environment/renewable- power/!ut/p/b1/hc_faoMwFAbwV_EF5jk2rn8u43Q2ZbQTBV1uSixpKphYojTs7Rdhuxhs7b k6B34fnA84NMCNuHVKTN1gRD_ffHmM1jndshLZoSo3yBKW0mKRRfiOHnx4gP8Mx Uf5GvhvklfxsyeLFckTRqo0vg_S- Adscsy2u8MMCoKMFLgvKSWIy29w58kdcNUPrS9cJ8Brvl9Fbq5GTUvWCriVZ2mlDS_ DOEHjnAvbzqjwNOi_1CiFPV2uwgo9QlO- ZIGVRjrR9jLwi1WfgU_qbtLSTHDVDXbsib_e3ugX_so- Fg!!/dl4/d5/L2dBISEvZ0FBIS9nQSEh/?from=powerandenvironment/renewables. July 24, 2015.
Orange County Water District –GWRS Final Expansion Project 50 ESA / 160387 Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Technical Report July 2016
SCAQMD. 2008a. Mates III Final Report. September. Accessed http://www.aqmd.gov/home/library/air-quality-data-studies/health-studies/mates-iii/mates- iii-final-report. May 2015
SCAQMD. 2008b. Multiple Air Toxics Exposure Study III Model Estimated Carcinogenic Risk. Accessed http://www3.aqmd.gov/webappl/matesiii/. May 2015.
SCAQMD. 2008c. Draft Guidance Document – Interim CEQA Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Significance Threshold. October. SCAQMD. 2003. Final Localized Significance Threshold Methodology, Appendix C – Mass Rate LST Look-up Tables. Revised October 21, 2009. UC Davis, Institute of Transportation Studies (UCD ITS). 1997. Transportation Project-Level Carbon Monoxide Protocol- Revised 1997. USD-ITS-RR-99-21. Available http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/InfoSvcs/EngApps/software.htm.
United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). 2012. Total CO2 Equivalent Emissions without counting Land-Use, Land-Use Change and Forestry (LULUCF). Available at: unfccc.int/ghg_emissions_data/predefined_queries/items/3814.php.
United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2016a. The Greenbook Nonattainment Areas for Criteria Pollutants. Available at http://www.epa.gov/air/oaqps/greenbk/index.html. Accessed June, 2016. USEPA. 2016b. De Minimis Emission Levels. Updated June 2016. Available: https://www.epa.gov/general-conformity/de-minimis-emission-levels. Accessed: June 2016. USEPA. 2011. Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990-2009; Executive Summary, Table ES-2. April 2011.
Western Regional Climate Center (WRCC), 2016. Period of Record Monthly Climate Summary for Newport Beach Harbor, California. Available:
Orange County Water District –GWRS Final Expansion Project 51 ESA / 160387 Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Technical Report July 2016
APPENDIX A Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Assumptions and Calculations
Orange County Water District –GWRS Final Expansion Project ESA / 160387 Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Technical Report July 2016 Orange County Water District Groundwater Replenishment System (GWRS) Operational Assumptions
CalEEMod Inputs (Non‐Default information only)
Project Location County Orange Air District South Coast Climate Zone 8 Operational Year 2022 Utility Provider Southern California Edison
Land Use Sq Ft KSF Acers CalEEMod Land Use Type MF Facility Expansion 14,025 14.03 default Heavy Industrial OCSD Plant No. 2 Pumphouse 1 5,000 5.00 default Heavy Industrial OCSD Plant No. 2 Pumphouse 2 2,784 2.78 default Heavy Industrial
*General Heavy Industrial is used for estimation of electrical, natural gas, and water usage and solid waste and wastewater generation for the MF facility expansion and pump stations.
Trip Generation: Assumes 3 new employees @ 2.5 trips per day per employee = 7.5 trips per day (round to 8 trips per day) 0.37 trips /ksf
Area Emissions: Assumes no new Landscaping Assumes no new building maintenance/upkeep intensity than currently occurs. Assumes default consumer product use
Energy Use: Electrical usage for buildings are based on size of the building and CalEEMod default consumption rates. kBTU/year nautral gas consumption based on new building size. kWh/year electrical consumption based on new building size
Water Use: Assumes 3 new employees Default: 5,043,563 g/year Project: 1,109,584 g/year (Default based on trip rates assumes 13 employees, new employees would be 22% of default) *No septic onsite, disposal/treatments adjusted to remove septic.
Solid Waste Generation: Tons/year CalEEMod Project Reduced1 MF Facility 27.04 5.95 2.97 (Default based on trip rates assumes 13 employees, new employees would be 22% of default)
1 CalEEMod doesn't take into account the fact that California on a whole has reduced waste to landfill by greater than 50 percent. Modeling accounts for the minimum 50 percent recycling. Orange County Water District Groundwater Replenishment System (GWRS) Equipment List
Daily Equipment Equipment Time Total Total HP Round Round Total Haul Calc Total Need Activity Description Quantity (Hrs/Day) (Days) (Hours) Rating trips Trips Trips Months CY Total CY MF West Excavation (1A) Excavators 2 4 40 320 200 2 Dump Trucks 6 5 40 1200 350 4 24 960 2 13440 13500 Bull Dozer 2 5 40 400 250 2 Backhoe 1 5 40 200 150 2 Pick‐Up Truck 1 8 40 320 300 2 Crane 1 6 10 60 300 0.5 MF West Piles (1B) Pile Driver 1 6 20 120 500 1 Backhoe 1 6 20 120 150 1 Concrete Trucks 5 4 10 200 350 6 30 300 0.5 3000 2765 Water Truck 2 4 25 200 350 1.25 MF West Basement Concrete Pours (1C) Concrete Trucks 5 5 10 250 350 4 20 200 0.5 2000 1600 Man Lifts 5 6 70 2100 75 3.5 Fork Lifts 4 6 70 1680 120 3.5 Compactor 1 6 20 120 200 1 MF West Equipment (1D) Fork Lifts 4 5 170 3400 120 8.5 (Electrical, Piping, Racks) Man Lifts 5 5 170 4250 75 8.5 RO Transfer Pump Station (1D) Crane 1 6 1 6 300 0.05 Fork Lift 1 6 1 6 120 0.05 RO Equipment (1D) Fork Lift 2 6 90 1080 120 4.5 Man Lifts 1 6 90 540 75 4.5 Crane 1 6 10 60 300 0.5 UV Equipment (1D) Fork Lift 1 6 10 60 120 0.5 Man Lift 2 6 40 480 75 2 Crane 1 6 10 60 300 0.5 Final Water Capacity (1E) Crane 1 6 2 12 300 0.1 Fork Lift 1 6 2 12 120 0.1 Man Lift 1 6 15 90 75 0.75 Chemical Tanks/Pumps (1E) Crane 1 5 1 5 300 0.05 Fork Lift 1 6 5 30 120 0.25 Decarbonation Equipment (1E) Crane 1 6 1 6 300 0.05 Man Lift 1 6 15 90 75 0.75 OCSD Plant No. 2 Effluent Pump Station Site Prep (2A) Bull Dozer 2 6 30 360 250 1.5 Compactor 1 6 10 60 200 0.5 Excavator 2 6 20 240 200 1 Dump Trucks 4 6 17 408 350 5 20 340 0.85 4760 4760 Water Trucks 1 8 25 200 350 1.25 OCSD Plant No. 2 Pump Station Bldg (2B) Concrete Trucks 3 3 4 36 350 3 9 36 0.2 360 340 Crane 1 6 3 18 300 0.15 OCSD Plant No. 2 Pump Station Equipping (2C) Crane 1 6 10 60 300 0.5 Fork Lift 4 6 30 720 120 1.5 Man Lift 5 6 15 450 75 0.75 Orange County Water District Groundwater Replenishment System (GWRS) Equipment List
Daily Equipment Equipment Time Total Total HP Round Round Total Haul Calc Total Need Activity Description Quantity (Hrs/Day) (Days) (Hours) Rating trips Trips Trips Months CY Total CY OCSD Pipeline (3A) Backhoe 1 6 25 150 150 1.25 Excavator 2 6 25 300 200 1.25 Asphalt Paver 1 6 10 60 175 0.5 Compactor 1 6 10 60 200 0.5 Welding Eq. (Truck OCSD Pipeline (3B) Mounted) 1 8 80 640 300 4 Excavator 2 6 40 480 200 2 Flatbed truck 1 4 25 100 270 2 2 50 1.25 OCSD Pipeline (3C) Backhoe 1 6 25 150 150 1.25 Excavator 2 6 25 300 200 1.25 Asphalt Paver 1 6 10 60 175 1.25 Compactor 1 6 10 60 200 0.5
Equipment Equipment Time Total Total HP Activity Description Quantity (Hrs/Day) (Days) (Hours) Rating OCSD Plant No. 2 Existing Plant Water PS Demo (4A) Excavator 1 6 8 48 200 Backhoe 2 6 8 96 150 Demo Dump Trucks 1 6 4 24 350 3 3 12 0.2 168 170 Water Truck 1 8 10 80 350
OCSD Plant No. 2 Headworks & Bypass Pipe Site Prep (4B) Backhoe 2 6 15 180 150 0.75 Excavator 2 6 15 180 200 0.75 Dump Trucks 5 6 18 540 350 5 25 450 0.90 6300 6135 Water Trucks 1 8 20 160 350 1
OCSD Plant No. 2 Headworks Bldg (4C) Concrete Trucks 3 3 3 27 350 3 9 27 0.15 270 250 Excavator 1 6 10 60 300
OCSD Plant No. 2 Headworks Equipping (4D) Excavator 1 6 10 60 300 0.5 Crane 1 6 10 60 300 Fork Lift 2 6 10 120 120 0.5 Orange County Water District Groundwater Replenishment System (GWRS) Vehicle Trips and Export/Import Amount
Cubic Cubic Daily Haul Total Haul Yards Yards Worker Vendor Trips Trips Export Concrete Phase 1 MF Expansion 1A: Excavation, Grading, and Dewatering 15 1 24 960 13,500 1B: Piles Construction 10 2 30 300 2765 1C: Basement Construction 20 2 20 200 1600 1D: MF Equipment 10 5 0 0 1D: Reverse Osmosis Equipment 10 5 0 0 1D: UV Equipment 5200 1E: Reverse Osmosis Transfer Pump Station 5200 1E: Chemical Tanks/Pumps 5200 1E: Decarbonation Equipment 5200 1E: Product Water Pump 5200 Phase 2 OCSD Effluent Pump Station 2A: Site Preparation, Excavation, Hauling, Grading Pump Station 8 1 20 340 4760 2B: Pump Station Building Construction 5 2 9 36 340 2C: Pump Installation and Equipment 5 2 ‐‐ ‐‐ Phase 3 OCSD Pipeline 3A: Excavation, Hauling for Pipeline Entry Pits and Connection to OCSD 8 1 ‐‐ ‐‐ 3B: Slip‐Line Pipeline Equipment 3 1 2 50 *Pipe Delivery 3C: Excavation, Hauling for Pipeline Connection at OCWD 8 1 ‐‐ ‐‐ Phase 4 OCSD Plant No. 2 Separate Headworks and Bypass Pipeline 4A: Demolition of Existing Plant Water Pump Station 10 1 3 12 170 4B: Excavation, Pipeline, Hauling, Site Prep 15 1 25 450 6135 4C: Building construction 10 2 9 27 250 4D: Headworks Equipping 8 3 ‐‐ ‐‐ GWRS Final Expansion Construction Phasing
Orange County Water District Groundwater Replenishment System (GWRS) Construction Schedule A
2019 2020 2021 2022 Jan‐Apr May‐Aug Sep‐Dec Jan‐Apr May‐Aug Sep‐Dec Jan‐Apr May‐Aug Sep‐Dec Jan‐Apr May‐Aug Sep‐Dec PHASE 1 ‐ OCWD Advanced Water Treatment Facility Improvements MF Building Excavation (1A) Piles (1B) Concrete Pours for Pad, Walls, Roof (1C) Equipping Building & Membrane Racks (1D1) RO Equipping Building & Membrane Units (1D2) Equipping Pumps (1E1) UV Equipping Building & UV vessels (1D3) Decarbonation Installation of Decarb Tower & Chemical Tanks (1E2) Pumps Installation of Pumps (1E1) PHASE 2 ‐ OCSD Plant No. 2 Effluent Pump Station Pump Station Excavation (2A) Concrete Pours for Pad, Walls, Roof (2B) Equipping Building & Pumps (2C) PHASE 3 ‐ OCSD Slip‐Lining Pipeline Pipeline OCSD Plant No. 2 Pipeline Connection Excavation (3A) Pipeline Installation through 10 pits (3B) OCWD Pipeline Connection Excavation (3C) PHASE 4 ‐ OCSD Headworks and Bypass Pipeline Headworks, Bypass Pipeline & Meter Vault Excavation (4A) Concrete Pours for Pad, Walls, Roof (4B) Equipping Building & Pumps (4C) Orange County Water District Groundwater Replenishment System (GWRS) Construction Schedule B
2019 2020 2021 2022 Jan‐Apr May‐Aug Sep‐Dec Jan‐Apr May‐Aug Sep‐Dec Jan‐Apr May‐Aug Sep‐Dec Jan‐Apr May‐Aug Sep‐Dec PHASE 1 ‐ OCWD Advanced Water Treatment Facility Improvements MF Building Excavation (1A) Piles (1B) Concrete Pours for Pad, Walls, Roof (1C) Equipping Building & Membrane Racks (1D) RO Equipping Building & Membrane Units (1D) Equipping Pumps (1E) UV Equipping Building & UV vessels (1D) Decarbonation Installation of Decarb Tower & Chemical Tanks (1E) Pumps Installation of Pumps (1E) PHASE 2 ‐ OCSD Plant No. 2 Effluent Pump Station Pump Station Excavation (2A) Concrete Pours for Pad, Walls, Roof (2B) Equipping Building & Pumps (2C) PHASE 3 ‐ OCSD Slip‐Lining Pipeline Pipeline OCSD Plant No. 2 Pipeline Connection Excavation (3A) Pipeline Installation through 10 pits (3B) OCWD Pipeline Connection Excavation (3C) PHASE 4 ‐ OCSD Headworks and Bypass Pipeline Headworks, Bypass Pipeline & Meter Vault Demolition PW pump station (4A) Excavation (4B) Concrete Pours for Pad, Walls, Roof (4C) Equipping Building & Pumps (4D) Orange County Water District Groundwater Replenishment System (GWRS) Unmitigated Offsite Emissions
Worker Days VOC NOx CO SOx PM10 PM2.5 CO2 CH4 1A: Excavation, Grading, and Dewatering 15 40 0.04545 0.0612 0.6435 0.00195 0.1695 0.04545 5965.38 0.276 1B: Piles Construction 10 25 0.0303 0.0408 0.429 0.0013 0.113 0.0303 2485.575 0.115 1C: Basement Construction 20 70 0.0606 0.0816 0.858 0.0026 0.226 0.0606 13919.22 0.644 1D1: MF Equipment 10 170 0.0303 0.0408 0.429 0.0013 0.113 0.0303 16901.91 0.782 1D2: Reverse Osmosis Equipment 10 1 0.0303 0.0408 0.429 0.0013 0.113 0.0303 99.423 0.0046 1D3: UV Equipment 5 40 0.01515 0.0204 0.2145 0.00065 0.0565 0.01515 1988.46 0.092 1E1: Reverse Osmosis Transfer Pump Station 5 90 0.01515 0.0204 0.2145 0.00065 0.0565 0.01515 4474.035 0.207 1E2: Chemical Tanks/Pumps 5 5 0.01515 0.0204 0.2145 0.00065 0.0565 0.01515 248.5575 0.0115 1E2: Decarbonation Equipment 5 15 0.01515 0.0204 0.2145 0.00065 0.0565 0.01515 745.6725 0.0345 1E1: Product Water Pump 5 15 0.01515 0.0204 0.2145 0.00065 0.0565 0.01515 745.6725 0.0345 2A: Site Preparation, Excavation, Hauling, Grading Pump Station 8 30 0.02424 0.03264 0.3432 0.00104 0.0904 0.02424 2386.152 0.1104 2B: Pump Station Building Construction 5 4 0.01515 0.0204 0.2145 0.00065 0.0565 0.01515 198.846 0.0092 2C: Pump Installation and Equipment 5 30 0.01515 0.0204 0.2145 0.00065 0.0565 0.01515 1491.345 0.069 3A: Excavation, Hauling for Pipeline Entry Pits and Connection to OCSD 8 25 0.02424 0.03264 0.3432 0.00104 0.0904 0.02424 1988.46 0.092 3B: Slip‐Line Pipeline Equipment 3 80 0.00909 0.01224 0.1287 0.00039 0.0339 0.00909 2386.152 0.1104 3C: Excavation, Hauling for Pipeline Connection at OCWD 8 25 0.02424 0.03264 0.3432 0.00104 0.0904 0.02424 1988.46 0.092 4A: Existing Plant Water PS Demo 10 10 0.0303 0.0408 0.429 0.0013 0.113 0.0303 994.23 0.046 4B: Excavation, Pipeline, Hauling, Site Prep 15 20 0.04545 0.0612 0.6435 0.00195 0.1695 0.04545 2982.69 0.138 4C: Building construction 10 10 0.0303 0.0408 0.429 0.0013 0.113 0.0303 994.23 0.046 4D: Headworks Equipping 8 10 0.02424 0.03264 0.3432 0.00104 0.0904 0.02424 795.384 0.0368
Vendor Days VOC NOx CO SOx PM10 PM2.5 CO2 CH4 1A: Excavation, Grading, and Dewatering 1 40 0.00831 0.0739 0.1115 0.00021 0.00741 0.00285 831.724 0.006 1B: Piles Construction 2 25 0.01662 0.1478 0.223 0.00042 0.01482 0.0057 1039.655 0.0075 1C: Basement Construction 2 70 0.01662 0.1478 0.223 0.00042 0.01482 0.0057 2911.034 0.021 1D1: MF Equipment 5 170 0.04155 0.3695 0.5575 0.00105 0.03705 0.01425 17674.14 0.1275 1D2: Reverse Osmosis Equipment 5 1 0.04155 0.3695 0.5575 0.00105 0.03705 0.01425 103.9655 0.00075 1D3: UV Equipment 2 40 0.01662 0.1478 0.223 0.00042 0.01482 0.0057 1663.448 0.012 1E1: Reverse Osmosis Transfer Pump Station 2 90 0.01662 0.1478 0.223 0.00042 0.01482 0.0057 3742.758 0.027 1E2: Chemical Tanks/Pumps 2 5 0.01662 0.1478 0.223 0.00042 0.01482 0.0057 207.931 0.0015 1E2: Decarbonation Equipment 2 15 0.01662 0.1478 0.223 0.00042 0.01482 0.0057 623.793 0.0045 1E1: Product Water Pump 2 15 0.01662 0.1478 0.223 0.00042 0.01482 0.0057 623.793 0.0045 2A: Site Preparation, Excavation, Hauling, Grading Pump Station 1 30 0.00831 0.0739 0.1115 0.00021 0.00741 0.00285 623.793 0.0045 2B: Pump Station Building Construction 2 4 0.01662 0.1478 0.223 0.00042 0.01482 0.0057 166.3448 0.0012 2C: Pump Installation and Equipment 2 30 0.01662 0.1478 0.223 0.00042 0.01482 0.0057 1247.586 0.009 3A: Excavation, Hauling for Pipeline Entry Pits and Connection to OCSD 1 25 0.00831 0.0739 0.1115 0.00021 0.00741 0.00285 519.8275 0.00375 3B: Slip‐Line Pipeline Equipment (includes 50 trucks for pipe delivery) 2 80 0.01662 0.1478 0.223 0.00042 0.01482 0.0057 3326.896 0.024 3C: Excavation, Hauling for Pipeline Connection at OCWD 1 25 0.00831 0.0739 0.1115 0.00021 0.00741 0.00285 519.8275 0.00375 4A: Existing Plant Water PS Demo 1 10 0.00831 0.0739 0.1115 0.00021 0.00741 0.00285 207.931 0.0015 4B: Excavation, Pipeline, Hauling, Site Prep 1 20 0.00831 0.0739 0.1115 0.00021 0.00741 0.00285 415.862 0.003 4C: Building construction 2 10 0.01662 0.1478 0.223 0.00042 0.01482 0.0057 415.862 0.003 4D: Headworks Equipping 3 10 0.02493 0.2217 0.3345 0.00063 0.02223 0.00855 623.793 0.0045
Haul Total Haul
Trucks Trips VOC NOx CO SOx PM10 PM2.5 CO2 CH4 1A: Excavation, Grading, and Dewatering 24 960 1.188 21.9576 10.4808 0.06912 2.0328 0.7896 6481765 44.6976 2A: Site Preparation, Excavation, Hauling, Grading Pump Station 20 340 0.99 18.298 8.734 0.0576 1.694 0.658 1913021 13.192 4A: Existing Plant Water PS Demo 3 12 0.1485 2.7447 1.3101 0.00864 0.2541 0.0987 10127.76 0.06984 4B: Excavation, Pipeline, Hauling, Site Prep 25 450 1.2375 22.8725 10.9175 0.072 2.1175 0.8225 3164924 21.825
Concrete Total Haul
Trucks Trips VOC NOx CO SOx PM10 PM2.5 CO2 CH4 1B: Piles Construction 30 300 0.531 7.278 6.45 0.0219 0.636 0.2481 646380.9 4.77 1C: Basement Construction 20 200 0.354 4.852 4.3 0.0146 0.424 0.1654 287280.4 2.12 2B: Pump Station Building Construction 9 36 0.1593 2.1834 1.935 0.00657 0.1908 0.07443 23269.71 0.17172 4C: Building construction 9 27 0.1593 2.1834 1.935 0.00657 0.1908 0.07443 17452.28 0.12879 Orange County Water District Groundwater Replenishment System (GWRS) Fugitive Dust Emissions (lbs/day)
Fugitive emissions from truck loading 1.3 1.4 PM10 = k x (0.0032) x ((U/5) /(M/2) ) k = particle size (PM10 = 0.35, PM2.5 = 0.053) 1.3 1.4 = 0.35 x (0.0032) x ((5.82/5) /(12/2) ) U= wind speed (miles ‐ hour) = 5.82 = 0.000110958 lbs/ton M = Material moisture content = 12%
1.3 1.4 PM2.5 = k x (0.0032) x ((U/5) /(M/2) ) 1.3 1.4 = 0.053 x (0.0032) x ((5.82/5) /(12/2) ) = 1.68023E‐05 lbs/ton
Unreduced Rule 403
Cubic Yards # Trucks Tons PM10 PM2.5 PM10 PM2.5 (Daily Emissions) Phase 1A 13,500 24 456 0.050597 0.007662 0.022769 0.003448 Phase 2A 4760 20 380 0.042164 0.006385 0.018974 0.002873 Phase 4A 6135 25 475 0.052705 0.007981 0.023717 0.003591 Orange County Water District Groundwater Replenishment System (GWRS) Fugitive Dust Emissions (lbs/day)
Fugitive emissions from Dozers and Excavators: 1.5 1.4 PM10 = ((CPM15 x s )/M ) x FPM10 CPM15 = arbitary coefficient used by AP‐42 = 1 1.5 1.4 = ((1 x 6.9 )/7.9 ) x 0.75 s = material silt content = 6.9 % = 0.752760759 lbs/hr M = material moisture content = 7.9%
FPM10 = PM10 scaling factor default of 0.75 1.2 1.3 PM2.5 = ((CTSP x s )/M ) x FPM2.5 CTSP = arbitary coefficient used by AP‐42 = 5.7 1.2 1.3 = ((5.7 x 6.9 )/7.9 ) x 105 FPM2.5= PM2.5 scaling factor default of 0.105 = 0.413778428 lbs/hr
Unreduced Rule 403
hrs/day PM10 PM2.5 PM10 PM2.5 (Daily Emissions) 1A Excavators 4 3.011043 1.655114 1.354969 0.744801 1A Bull Dozer 5 3.763804 2.068892 1.693712 0.931001 2A Bull Dozer 6 4.516565 2.482671 2.032454 1.117202 2A Excavators 6 4.516565 2.482671 2.032454 1.117202 3A Excavators 6 4.516565 2.482671 2.032454 1.117202 3B Excavators 6 4.516565 2.482671 2.032454 1.117202 3C Excavators 6 4.516565 2.482671 2.032454 1.117202 4A Excavators 6 4.516565 2.482671 2.032454 1.117202 4B Excavators 6 4.516565 2.482671 2.032454 1.117202 4C Excavators 6 4.516565 2.482671 2.032454 1.117202 4D Excavators 6 4.516565 2.482671 2.032454 1.117202 Orange County Water District Groundwater Replenishment System (GWRS) Unmitigated Emission Factors by Equipment
lbs/vehicle/hr HP
Equipment Description Rating VOC NOx CO SOx PM10 PM2.5 CO2 CH4 Asphalt Paver 175 0.0543 0.6006 0.4871 7.80E‐04 0.0293 0.027 78.7418 0.0245 Backhoe 150 0.0362 0.3861 0.3823 5.90E‐04 0.0194 0.0179 59.1968 0.0184 Bull Dozer 250 0.1458 1.5704 0.5472 1.07E‐03 0.0763 0.0702 107.5489 0.0335 Compactor 200 0.034 0.4368 0.194 0.00082 0.0133 0.0122 82.5539 0.0257 Concrete Trucks 350 Crane 300 0.0705 0.8831 0.6073 9.30E‐04 0.0356 0.0328 93.5371 0.0291 Dump Trucks 350 Excavators 200 0.034 0.4368 0.194 8.20E‐04 0.0133 0.0122 82.5539 0.0257 Flatbed Truck 350 Fork Lifts 120 0.0236 0.3026 0.3477 5.20E‐04 0.0145 0.0133 52.2408 0.0163 Man Lifts 75 6.21E‐03 0.1052 0.1614 2.50E‐04 2.91E‐03 2.68E‐02 24.9945 7.78E‐03 Pick‐Up Truck 300 Pile Driver 500 0.1149 1.4501 0.83 2.25E‐03 0.0525 0.0483 225.9096 0.0703 Water Trucks 350 0.0846 0.9106 0.4596 1.45E‐03 0.0332 0.0306 145.4268 0.0453 Welding Eq. (Truck Mounted) 300 0.0824 0.7232 0.3214 1.49E‐03 0.0238 0.0238 169.1395 7.44E‐03
lbs/vehicle/trip Offsite Worker 3.03E‐03 4.08E‐03 0.0429 1.30E‐04 0.0113 3.03E‐03 9.9423 4.60E‐04 Vendor 8.31E‐03 0.0739 0.1115 2.10E‐04 7.41E‐03 2.85E‐03 20.7931 1.50E‐04 Concrete Trucks 0.0177 0.2426 0.215 7.30E‐04 0.0212 8.27E‐03 71.8201 5.30E‐04 Haul Trucks 0.0495 0.9149 0.4367 2.88E‐03 0.0847 0.0329 281.3266 1.94E‐03 Orange County Water District Groundwater Replenishment System (GWRS) Unmitigated Criteria Pollutant Emissions Summary (lbs/day)
Emissions by Phase
ROG NOx CO SOx PM10 PM2.5 1A Total 3.58 48.52 23.82 0.10 6.46 3.60 1B Total 2.16 25.77 18.05 0.05 1.46 0.93 1C Total 1.39 18.12 19.73 0.04 1.18 1.43 1D Total 22.93 36.73 37.44 0.06 1.93 2.59 1D1 0.70 9.09 11.98 0.02 0.51 0.98 1D2 1.38 17.09 15.50 0.02 0.86 0.84 1D3 0.67 8.54 8.10 0.01 0.41 0.62 1D1 AC 20.18 2.01 1.85 0.00 0.15 0.15 1E Total 2.43 30.14 26.97 0.04 1.50 1.64 1E1 1.27 15.83 14.27 0.02 0.78 0.92 1E2 1.16 14.31 12.70 0.02 0.73 0.72 2A Total 4.06 52.40 22.92 0.10 7.30 4.23 2B Total 0.61 7.65 6.02 0.01 0.48 0.29 2C Total 1.21 15.89 17.27 0.03 0.72 1.34 3A Total 1.19 13.89 9.16 0.02 2.66 1.63 3B Total 1.09 11.19 5.25 0.02 2.43 1.47 3C Total 1.19 13.89 9.16 0.02 2.66 1.63 4A Total 1.50 17.40 11.28 0.03 2.99 1.78 4B Total 2.81 40.17 22.26 0.10 5.01 2.60 4C Total 0.41 4.99 3.75 0.01 2.43 1.30 4D Total 0.96 11.80 9.66 0.02 2.61 1.58 Phase Overlaps 1B, 1D2, 1D3, 1E1, 1E2 Total 6.64 81.54 68.63 0.13 4.23 4.02 1C, 1D2, 1E1, 4A Total 5.54 68.43 60.78 0.12 5.80 4.96 1D1, 2A,3A,4B Total 28.94 117.55 68.18 0.25 15.63 9.59 1D1, 2A,3B, 4B Total 28.85 114.85 64.27 0.25 15.40 9.43 1D1,2B,3B,4C Total 23.00 34.93 28.85 0.07 6.00 4.19 2B,3B,4D Total 2.67 30.64 20.93 0.05 5.52 3.34 2C,3B,4D Total 3.26 38.88 32.18 0.07 5.76 4.39 Max Emissions by Phase Total 28.94 117.55 68.63 0.25 15.63 9.59 SCAQMD Threshold 75 100 550 150 150 55 Exceed Threshold? No Yes No No No No Alternative Phasing Schedule (Shift of Phase 1D2, 1D3 and 1E later by 3 months) 1D (all), 1E (all), 2A, 3A, 4B Total 33.42 173.32 118.75 0.33 18.40 12.69 1D1, 1D2, 1E2, 2A, 3B, 4B Total 31.39 146.25 92.47 0.29 16.98 10.99 Orange County Water District Groundwater Replenishment System (GWRS) Unmitigated Criteria Pollutant Emissions Summary (lbs/day)
LST Emissions Distance
(m) NOx CO SOx PM10 PM2.5 1A Total 51 26.43 12.58 4.25 2.77 1B Total 51 18.30 10.95 0.70 0.64 1C Total 51 13.04 14.35 0.52 1.20 1D Total 51 35.74 35.02 1.55 2.48 1D1 51 8.68 10.99 0.36 0.94 1D2 51 16.68 14.51 0.71 0.79 1D3 51 8.38 7.67 0.34 0.60 1D1 AC 51 2.01 1.85 0.15 0.15 1E Total 51 29.47 25.22 1.22 1.56 1E1 51 15.49 13.40 0.64 0.87 1E2 51 13.98 11.82 0.58 0.68 2A Total 231 33.99 13.74 5.50 3.54 2B Total 231 5.30 3.64 0.21 0.20 2C Total 231 15.72 16.83 0.65 1.32 3A Total 51 13.78 8.71 2.56 1.61 3B Total 51 11.03 4.90 2.38 1.45 3C Total 51 13.78 8.71 2.56 1.61 4A Total 231 14.54 9.43 2.61 1.65 4B Total 231 17.16 10.59 2.71 1.73 4C Total 231 2.62 1.16 2.11 1.19 4D Total 231 11.55 8.98 2.50 1.55 Phase Overlaps 1D, 1E Total 51 m 65.21 60.24 2.77 4.03 2A,4B Total 231 m 51.15 24.33 8.22 5.27 2B,4C Total 231 m 7.92 4.81 2.33 1.39 2B,4D Total 231 m 16.85 12.62 2.71 1.74 2C,4D Total 231 m 27.27 25.81 3.15 2.87 Max Emissions by Phase Max 65.21 60.24 4.25 4.03 SCAQMD Threshold 50 93 738 13 5 Max 51.15 25.81 8.22 5.27 SCAQMD Threshold 200 140 2,096 54 22 Exceed Threshold? No No No No Orange County Water District Groundwater Replenishment System (GWRS) Emissions by Phase
ROG Nox CO Sox PM10 PM2.5 CO2 CH4 lbs/day lbs/ subphase Onsite 2.33 26.43 12.58 0.03 1.18 1.09 156,325.20 48.67 Fugitive 3.07 1.68 1A Offsite 1.24 22.09 11.24 0.07 2.21 0.84 6,488,561.97 44.98 Total 3.58 48.52 23.82 0.10 6.46 3.60 6,644,887.17 93.65 Onsite 1.58 18.30 10.95 0.03 0.70 0.64 92,383.49 28.76 Fugitive 0.00 0.00 1B Offsite 0.58 7.47 7.10 0.02 0.76 0.28 649,906.13 4.89 Total 2.16 25.77 18.05 0.05 1.46 0.93 742,289.62 33.66 Onsite 0.96 13.04 14.35 0.02 0.52 1.20 623,406.89 194.31 Fugitive 0.00 0.00 1C Offsite 0.43 5.08 5.38 0.02 0.66 0.23 304,110.65 2.79 Total 1.39 18.12 19.73 0.04 1.18 1.43 927,517.55 197.10 Onsite 0.63 8.68 10.99 0.02 0.36 0.94 1,241,608.01 387.01 Fugitive 0.00 0.00 1D1 Offsite 0.07 0.41 0.99 0.00 0.15 0.04 34,576.05 0.91 Total 0.70 9.09 11.98 0.02 0.51 0.98 1,276,184.05 387.91 Coating 20.18 2.01 1.85 0.00 0.15 0.15 1,407.24 0.13 Onsite 1.31 16.68 14.51 0.02 0.71 0.79 132,824.05 41.43 Fugitive 0.00 0.00 1D2 Offsite 0.07 0.41 0.99 0.00 0.15 0.04 203.39 0.01 Total 1.38 17.09 15.50 0.02 0.86 0.84 133,027.44 41.43 Onsite 0.64 8.38 7.67 0.01 0.34 0.60 32,741.39 10.19 Fugitive 0.00 0.00 1D3 Offsite 0.03 0.17 0.44 0.00 0.07 0.02 3,651.91 0.10 Total 0.67 8.54 8.10 0.01 0.41 0.62 36,393.30 10.30 Onsite 1.20 15.49 13.40 0.02 0.64 0.87 134,760.11 42.03 Fugitive 0.00 0.00 1E1 Offsite 0.06 0.34 0.88 0.00 0.14 0.04 9,586.26 0.27 Total 1.27 15.83 14.27 0.02 0.78 0.92 144,346.37 42.30 Onsite 1.10 13.98 11.82 0.02 0.58 0.68 6,033.75 1.88 Fugitive 0.00 0.00 1E2 Offsite 0.06 0.34 0.88 0.00 0.14 0.04 1,825.95 0.05 Total 1.16 14.31 12.70 0.02 0.73 0.72 7,859.70 1.93 Onsite 3.04 33.99 13.74 0.04 1.42 1.31 151,099.67 47.06 Fugitive 4.08 2.24 2A Offsite 1.02 18.40 9.19 0.06 1.79 0.69 1,916,030.83 13.31 Total 4.06 52.40 22.92 0.10 7.30 4.23 2,067,130.50 60.36 Onsite 0.42 5.30 3.64 0.01 0.21 0.20 1,683.67 0.52 Fugitive 0.00 0.00 2B Offsite 0.19 2.35 2.37 0.01 0.26 0.10 23,634.90 0.18 Total 0.61 7.65 6.02 0.01 0.48 0.29 25,318.57 0.71 Orange County Water District Groundwater Replenishment System (GWRS) Emissions by Phase
ROG Nox CO Sox PM10 PM2.5 CO2 CH4 lbs/day lbs/ subphase Onsite 1.18 15.72 16.83 0.03 0.65 1.32 212,303.36 66.20 Fugitive 0.00 0.00 2C Offsite 0.03 0.17 0.44 0.00 0.07 0.02 2,738.93 0.08 Total 1.21 15.89 17.27 0.03 0.72 1.34 215,042.29 66.27 Onsite 1.16 13.78 8.71 0.02 0.53 0.49 68,089.60 21.19 Fugitive 2.03 1.12 3A Offsite 0.03 0.11 0.45 0.00 0.10 0.03 2,508.29 0.10 Total 1.19 13.89 9.16 0.02 2.66 1.63 70,597.89 21.29 Onsite 1.07 11.03 4.90 0.02 0.35 0.34 187,501.02 29.43 Fugitive 2.03 1.12 3B Offsite 0.03 0.16 0.35 0.00 0.05 0.01 5,713.05 0.13 Total 1.09 11.19 5.25 0.02 2.43 1.47 193,214.07 29.57 Onsite 1.16 13.78 8.71 0.02 0.53 0.49 68,089.60 21.19 Fugitive 2.03 1.12 3C Offsite 0.03 0.11 0.45 0.00 0.10 0.03 2,508.29 0.10 Total 1.19 13.89 9.16 0.02 2.66 1.63 70,597.89 21.29 Onsite 1.32 14.54 9.43 0.02 0.58 0.53 26,962.52 8.39 Fugitive 2.03 1.12 4A Offsite 0.19 2.86 1.85 0.01 0.37 0.13 11,329.92 0.12 Total 1.50 17.40 11.28 0.03 2.99 1.78 38,292.44 8.51 Onsite 1.52 17.16 10.59 0.03 0.66 0.61 74,298.54 23.12 Fugitive 2.06 1.12 4B Offsite 1.29 23.01 11.67 0.07 2.29 0.87 3,168,322.80 21.97 Total 2.81 40.17 22.26 0.10 5.01 2.60 3,242,621.34 45.09 Onsite 0.20 2.62 1.16 0.00 0.08 0.07 4,953.23 1.54 Fugitive 2.03 1.12 4C Offsite 0.21 2.37 2.59 0.01 0.32 0.11 18,862.38 0.18 Total 0.41 4.99 3.75 0.01 2.43 1.30 23,815.61 1.72 Onsite 0.91 11.55 8.98 0.02 0.47 0.43 23,103.25 7.20 Fugitive 2.03 1.12 4D Offsite 0.05 0.25 0.68 0.00 0.11 0.03 1,419.18 0.04 Total 0.96 11.80 9.66 0.02 2.61 1.58 24,522.43 7.24 Table 4 ‐ Phase 4 Construction Equipment Mix
Orange County Water District Groundwater Replenishment System (GWRS) Equipment List
Equipment Equipment Time Total Total HP ROG Nox CO SOx PM10 PM2.5 CO2 CH4 Activity Description Quantity (Hrs/Day) (Days) (Hours) Rating lbs/day lbs/ subphase MF West Excavation (1A) Excavators 2 4 40 320 200 0.272 3.4944 1.552 0.00656 0.1064 0.0976 52834.496 16.448 Dump Trucks 6 5 40 1200 350 000000 0 0 Bull Dozer 2 5 40 400 250 1.458 15.704 5.472 0.0107 0.763 0.702 86039.12 26.8 Backhoe 1 5 40 200 150 0.181 1.9305 1.9115 0.00295 0.097 0.0895 11839.36 3.68 Pick‐Up Truck 1 8 40 320 300 000000 0 0 Crane 1 6 10 60 300 0.423 5.2986 3.6438 0.00558 0.2136 0.1968 5612.226 1.746 MF West Piles (1B) Pile Driver 1 6 20 120 500 0.6894 8.7006 4.98 0.0135 0.315 0.2898 27109.152 8.436 Backhoe 1 6 20 120 150 0.2172 2.3166 2.2938 0.00354 0.1164 0.1074 7103.616 2.208 Concrete Trucks 5 4 10 200 350 000000 0 0 Water Trucks 2 4 25 200 350 0.6768 7.2848 3.6768 0.0116 0.2656 0.2448 58170.72 18.12 MF West Basement Concrete Pours (1C) Concrete Trucks 5 5 10 250 350 000000 0 0 Man Lifts 5 6 70 2100 75 0.1863 3.156 4.842 0.0075 0.0873 0.804 262442.25 81.69 Fork Lifts 4 6 70 1680 120 0.5664 7.2624 8.3448 0.01248 0.348 0.3192 351058.176 109.536 Compactor 1 6 20 120 200 0.204 2.6208 1.164 0.00492 0.0798 0.0732 9906.468 3.084 MF West Equipment (1D1) Fork Lifts 4 5 170 3400 120 0.472 6.052 6.954 0.0104 0.29 0.266 710474.88 221.68 (Electrical, Piping, Racks) Man Lifts 5 5 170 4250 75 0.15525 2.63 4.035 0.00625 0.07275 0.67 531133.125 165.325 RO Transfer Pump Station (1D2) Crane 1 6 1 6 300 0.423 5.2986 3.6438 0.00558 0.2136 0.1968 561.2226 0.1746 Fork Lifts 1 6 1 6 120 0.1416 1.8156 2.0862 0.00312 0.087 0.0798 313.4448 0.0978 RO Equipment (1E1) Fork Lifts 2 6 90 1080 120 0.2832 3.6312 4.1724 0.00624 0.174 0.1596 112840.128 35.208 Man Lifts 1 6 90 540 75 0.03726 0.6312 0.9684 0.0015 0.01746 0.1608 13497.03 4.2012 Crane 1 6 10 60 300 0.423 5.2986 3.6438 0.00558 0.2136 0.1968 5612.226 1.746 UV Equipment (1D3) Fork Lifts 1 6 10 60 120 0.1416 1.8156 2.0862 0.00312 0.087 0.0798 3134.448 0.978 Man Lifts 2 6 40 480 75 0.07452 1.2624 1.9368 0.003 0.03492 0.3216 23994.72 7.4688 Crane 1 6 10 60 300 0.423 5.2986 3.6438 0.00558 0.2136 0.1968 5612.226 1.746 Final Water Capacity (1E2) Crane 1 6 2 12 300 0.423 5.2986 3.6438 0.00558 0.2136 0.1968 1122.4452 0.3492 Fork Lifts 1 6 2 12 120 0.1416 1.8156 2.0862 0.00312 0.087 0.0798 626.8896 0.1956 Man Lifts 1 6 15 90 75 0.03726 0.6312 0.9684 0.0015 0.01746 0.1608 2249.505 0.7002 Chemical Tanks/Pumps (1E2) Crane 1 5 1 5 300 0.3525 4.4155 3.0365 0.00465 0.178 0.164 467.6855 0.1455 Fork Lifts 1 6 5 30 120 0.1416 1.8156 2.0862 0.00312 0.087 0.0798 1567.224 0.489 Decarbonation Equipment (1E1) Crane 1 6 1 6 300 0.423 5.2986 3.6438 0.00558 0.2136 0.1968 561.2226 0.1746 Man Lifts 1 6 15 90 75 0.03726 0.6312 0.9684 0.0015 0.01746 0.1608 2249.505 0.7002
OCSD Plant No. 2 Effluent Pump Station Site Prep (2A) Bull Dozer 2 6 30 360 250 1.7496 18.8448 6.5664 0.01284 0.9156 0.8424 77435.208 24.12 Compactor 1 6 10 60 200 0.204 2.6208 1.164 0.00492 0.0798 0.0732 4953.234 1.542 Excavators 2 6 20 240 200 0.408 5.2416 2.328 0.00984 0.1596 0.1464 39625.872 12.336 Dump Trucks 4 6 17 408 350 000000 0 0 Water Trucks 1 8 25 200 350 0.6768 7.2848 3.6768 0.0116 0.2656 0.2448 29085.36 9.06 OCSD Plant No. 2 Pump Station Bldg (2B) Concrete Trucks 3 3 4 36 350 000000 0 0 Crane 1 6 3 18 300 0.423 5.2986 3.6438 0.00558 0.2136 0.1968 1683.6678 0.5238 OCSD Plant No. 2 Pump Station Equipping (2C) Crane 1 6 10 60 300 0.423 5.2986 3.6438 0.00558 0.2136 0.1968 5612.226 1.746 Fork Lifts 4 6 30 720 120 0.5664 7.2624 8.3448 0.01248 0.348 0.3192 150453.504 46.944 Man Lifts 5 6 15 450 75 0.1863 3.156 4.842 0.0075 0.0873 0.804 56237.625 17.505 Table 4 ‐ Phase 4 Construction Equipment Mix
Orange County Water District Groundwater Replenishment System (GWRS) Equipment List
Equipment Equipment Time Total Total HP ROG Nox CO SOx PM10 PM2.5 CO2 CH4 Activity Description Quantity (Hrs/Day) (Days) (Hours) Rating lbs/day lbs/ subphase OCSD Pipeline (3A) Backhoe 1 6 25 150 150 0.2172 2.3166 2.2938 0.00354 0.1164 0.1074 8879.52 2.76 Excavators 2 6 25 300 200 0.408 5.2416 2.328 0.00984 0.1596 0.1464 49532.34 15.42 Asphalt Paver 1 6 10 60 175 0.3258 3.6036 2.9226 0.00468 0.1758 0.162 4724.508 1.47 Compactor 1 6 10 60 200 0.204 2.6208 1.164 0.00492 0.0798 0.0732 4953.234 1.542 Welding Eq. (Truck OCSD Pipeline (3B) Mounted) 1 8 80 640 300 0.6592 5.7856 2.5712 0.01192 0.1904 0.1904 108249.28 4.7616 Excavators 2 6 40 480 200 0.408 5.2416 2.328 0.00984 0.1596 0.1464 79251.744 24.672 Flatbed truck 1 4 25 100 270 000000 0 0 OCSD Pipeline (3C) Backhoe 1 6 25 150 150 0.2172 2.3166 2.2938 0.00354 0.1164 0.1074 8879.52 2.76 Excavators 2 6 25 300 200 0.408 5.2416 2.328 0.00984 0.1596 0.1464 49532.34 15.42 Asphalt Paver 1 6 10 60 175 0.3258 3.6036 2.9226 0.00468 0.1758 0.162 4724.508 1.47 Compactor 1 6 10 60 200 0.204 2.6208 1.164 0.00492 0.0798 0.0732 4953.234 1.542
OCSD Plant No. 2 Existing Plant Water PS Demo (4A) Excavators 1 6 8 48 200 0.204 2.6208 1.164 0.00492 0.0798 0.0732 3962.5872 1.2336 Backhoe 2 6 8 96 150 0.4344 4.6332 4.5876 0.00708 0.2328 0.2148 11365.7856 3.5328 Dump Trucks 1 6 4 24 350 000000 0 0 Water Trucks 1 8 10 80 350 0.6768 7.2848 3.6768 0.0116 0.2656 0.2448 11634.144 3.624 OCSD Plant No. 2 Headworks & Bypass Pipe Site Prep (4A) Backhoe 2 6 15 180 150 0.4344 4.6332 4.5876 0.00708 0.2328 0.2148 21310.848 6.624 Excavators 2 6 15 180 200 0.408 5.2416 2.328 0.00984 0.1596 0.1464 29719.404 9.252 Dump Trucks 5 6 18 540 350 000000 0 0 Water Trucks 1 8 20 160 350 0.6768 7.2848 3.6768 0.0116 0.2656 0.2448 23268.288 7.248 OCSD Plant No. 2 Headworks Bldg (4B) Concrete Trucks 3 3 3 27 350 000000 0 0 Excavators 1 6 10 60 300 0.204 2.6208 1.164 0.00492 0.0798 0.0732 4953.234 1.542 OCSD Plant No. 2 Headworks Equipping (4C) Excavators 1 6 10 60 300 0.204 2.6208 1.164 0.00492 0.0798 0.0732 4953.234 1.542 Crane 1 6 10 60 300 0.423 5.2986 3.6438 0.00558 0.2136 0.1968 5612.226 1.746 Fork Lifts 2 6 10 120 120 0.2832 3.6312 4.1724 0.00624 0.174 0.1596 12537.792 3.912 Orange County Water District Groundwater Replenishment System (GWRS) Tier 4 Interim Factors by Equipment
lbs/vehicle/hr HP
Equipment Description Rating VOC NOx CO SOx PM10 PM2.5 CO2 CH4 Asphalt Paver 175 1.28E‐01 0.2067 0.4167 7.80E‐04 1.28E‐03 1.28E‐03 78.7418 0.0245 Backhoe 150 7.31E‐03 0.262 0.4509 5.90E‐04 9.70E‐04 9.70E‐04 59.1968 0.0184 Bull Dozer 250 0.0174 0.2811 0.5665 1.07E‐03 1.74E‐03 1.74E‐03 107.5489 0.0335 Compactor 200 0.0135 0.2172 0.4378 0.00082 0.00135 0.00135 82.5539 0.0257 Concrete Trucks 350 Crane 300 0.0152 0.2458 0.4954 9.30E‐04 1.52E‐03 1.52E‐03 93.5371 0.0291 Dump Trucks 350 Excavators 200 0.0135 0.2172 0.4378 8.20E‐04 1.35E‐03 1.35E‐03 82.5539 0.0257 Flatbed Truck 350 Fork Lifts 120 6.38E‐03 0.2287 0.3935 5.20E‐04 8.50E‐04 8.50E‐04 52.2408 0.0163 Man Lifts 75 5.61E‐03 0.1091 0.1886 2.50E‐04 4.10E‐04 4.10E‐04 24.9945 7.78E‐03 Pick‐Up Truck 300 Pile Driver 500 0.0366 0.5907 1.1905 2.25E‐03 3.66E‐03 3.66E‐03 225.9096 0.0703 Water Trucks 350 0.0236 0.3801 0.7662 1.45E‐03 2.36E‐03 2.36E‐03 145.4268 0.0453 Welding Eq. (Truck Mounted) 300 0.0238 0.3839 0.7738 1.49E‐03 2.38E‐03 2.38E‐03 169.1395 7.44E‐03
lbs/vehicle/trip Offsite Worker 3.03E‐03 4.08E‐03 0.0429 1.30E‐04 0.0113 3.03E‐03 9.9423 4.60E‐04 Vendor 8.31E‐03 0.0739 0.1115 2.10E‐04 7.41E‐03 2.85E‐03 20.7931 1.50E‐04 Concrete Trucks 0.0177 0.2426 0.215 7.30E‐04 0.0212 8.27E‐03 71.8201 5.30E‐04 Haul Trucks 0.0495 0.9149 0.4367 2.88E‐03 0.0847 0.0329 281.3266 1.94E‐03 Orange County Water District Groundwater Replenishment System (GWRS) Tier 4 Interim ‐ Criteria Pollutant Emissions Summary (lbs/day)
Emissions by Phase
ROG NOx CO SOx PM10 PM2.5 1A Total 1.65 29.43 25.63 0.10 5.32 2.56 1B Total 1.03 15.62 23.08 0.05 0.81 0.33 1C Total 0.83 15.15 23.11 0.04 0.71 0.27 1D Total 21.15 22.17 38.61 0.06 0.60 0.34 1D1 0.34 7.71 13.57 0.02 0.18 0.07 1D2 0.40 8.13 15.15 0.02 0.19 0.08 1D3 0.23 4.32 8.03 0.01 0.09 0.04 1D1 AC 20.18 2.01 1.85 0.00 0.15 0.15 1E Total 0.73 13.78 25.98 0.04 0.35 0.15 1E1 0.39 7.34 13.81 0.02 0.18 0.08 1E2 0.34 6.44 12.18 0.02 0.17 0.07 2A Total 1.66 28.73 30.00 0.10 5.94 2.99 2B Total 0.28 3.83 5.34 0.01 0.27 0.10 2C Total 0.44 10.40 18.51 0.03 0.11 0.06 3A Total 1.09 6.83 13.54 0.02 2.17 1.18 3B Total 0.38 5.84 11.80 0.02 2.12 1.17 3C Total 1.09 6.83 13.54 0.02 2.17 1.18 4A Total 0.54 10.35 16.02 0.03 2.45 1.29 4B Total 1.73 31.80 28.47 0.10 4.40 2.04 4C Total 0.29 3.68 5.21 0.01 2.36 1.24 4D Total 0.30 5.78 11.00 0.02 2.17 1.18 Phase Overlaps 1B, 1D2, 1D3, 1E1, 1E2 Total 2.39 41.86 72.24 0.13 1.44 0.60 1C, 1D2, 1E1, 4A Total 2.17 40.96 68.08 0.12 3.51 1.72 1D1, 2A,3A,4B Total 25.00 77.07 87.43 0.25 12.83 6.43 1D1, 2A,3B, 4B Total 24.29 76.08 85.68 0.25 12.78 6.41 1D1,2B,3B,4C Total 21.47 23.06 37.78 0.07 5.07 2.73 2B,3B,4D Total 0.96 15.44 28.14 0.05 4.56 2.45 2C,3B,4D Total 1.12 22.02 41.31 0.07 4.40 2.41 Max Emissions by Phase Total 25.00 77.07 87.43 0.25 12.83 6.43 SCAQMD Threshold 75 100 550 150 150 55 Exceed Threshold? No No No No No No Alternative Phasing Schedule (Shift of Phase 1D2, 1D3 and 1E later by 3 months) 1D (all), 1E (all), 2A, 3A, 4B Total 26.36 103.31 136.59 0.33 13.46 6.70 1D1, 1D2, 1E2, 2A, 3B, 4B Total 25.04 90.65 113.01 0.29 13.14 6.57 Orange County Water District Groundwater Replenishment System (GWRS) Emissions by Phase ‐ Tier 4 Interim
ROG Nox CO Sox PM10 PM2.5 CO2 CH4 lbs/day lbs/ subphase Onsite 0.41 7.33 14.39 0.03 0.04 0.04 156,325.20 48.67 Fugitive 3.07 1.68 1A Offsite 1.24 22.09 11.24 0.07 2.21 0.84 6,488,561.97 44.98 Total 1.65 29.43 25.63 0.10 5.32 2.56 6,644,887.17 93.65 Onsite 0.45 8.16 15.98 0.03 0.05 0.05 92,383.49 28.76 Fugitive 0.00 0.00 1B Offsite 0.58 7.47 7.10 0.02 0.76 0.28 649,906.13 4.89 Total 1.03 15.62 23.08 0.05 0.81 0.33 742,289.62 33.66 Onsite 0.40 10.07 17.73 0.02 0.04 0.04 623,406.89 194.31 Fugitive 0.00 0.00 1C Offsite 0.43 5.08 5.38 0.02 0.66 0.23 304,110.65 2.79 Total 0.83 15.15 23.11 0.04 0.71 0.27 927,517.55 197.10 Onsite 0.27 7.30 12.59 0.02 0.03 0.03 1,241,608.01 387.01 Fugitive 0.00 0.00 1D1 Offsite 0.07 0.41 0.99 0.00 0.15 0.04 34,576.05 0.91 Total 0.34 7.71 13.57 0.02 0.18 0.07 1,276,184.05 387.91 Coating 20.18 2.01 1.85 0.00 0.15 0.15 1,407.24 0.13 Onsite 0.33 7.72 14.16 0.02 0.04 0.04 132,824.05 41.43 Fugitive 0.00 0.00 1D2 Offsite 0.07 0.41 0.99 0.00 0.15 0.04 203.39 0.01 Total 0.40 8.13 15.15 0.02 0.19 0.08 133,027.44 41.43 Onsite 0.20 4.16 7.60 0.01 0.02 0.02 32,741.39 10.19 Fugitive 0.00 0.00 1D3 Offsite 0.03 0.17 0.44 0.00 0.07 0.02 3,651.91 0.10 Total 0.23 4.32 8.03 0.01 0.09 0.04 36,393.30 10.30 Onsite 0.33 7.00 12.93 0.02 0.03 0.03 134,760.11 42.03 Fugitive 0.00 0.00 1E1 Offsite 0.06 0.34 0.88 0.00 0.14 0.04 9,586.26 0.27 Total 0.39 7.34 13.81 0.02 0.18 0.08 144,346.37 42.30 Onsite 0.28 6.10 11.30 0.02 0.03 0.03 6,033.75 1.88 Fugitive 0.00 0.00 1E2 Offsite 0.06 0.34 0.88 0.00 0.14 0.04 1,825.95 0.05 Total 0.34 6.44 12.18 0.02 0.17 0.07 7,859.70 1.93 Onsite 0.64 10.32 20.81 0.04 0.06 0.06 151,099.67 47.06 Fugitive 4.08 2.24 2A Offsite 1.02 18.40 9.19 0.06 1.79 0.69 1,916,030.83 13.31 Total 1.66 28.73 30.00 0.10 5.94 2.99 2,067,130.50 60.36 Onsite 0.09 1.47 2.97 0.01 0.01 0.01 1,683.67 0.52 Fugitive 0.00 0.00 2B Offsite 0.19 2.35 2.37 0.01 0.26 0.10 23,634.90 0.18 Total 0.28 3.83 5.34 0.01 0.27 0.10 25,318.57 0.71 Orange County Water District Groundwater Replenishment System (GWRS) Emissions by Phase ‐ Tier 4 Interim
ROG Nox CO Sox PM10 PM2.5 CO2 CH4 lbs/day lbs/ subphase Onsite 0.41 10.24 18.07 0.03 0.04 0.04 212,303.36 66.20 Fugitive 0.00 0.00 2C Offsite 0.03 0.17 0.44 0.00 0.07 0.02 2,738.93 0.08 Total 0.44 10.40 18.51 0.03 0.11 0.06 215,042.29 66.27 Onsite 1.05 6.72 13.09 0.02 0.04 0.04 68,089.60 21.19 Fugitive 2.03 1.12 3A Offsite 0.03 0.11 0.45 0.00 0.10 0.03 2,508.29 0.10 Total 1.09 6.83 13.54 0.02 2.17 1.18 70,597.89 21.29 Onsite 0.35 5.68 11.44 0.02 0.04 0.04 187,501.02 29.43 Fugitive 2.03 1.12 3B Offsite 0.03 0.16 0.35 0.00 0.05 0.01 5,713.05 0.13 Total 0.38 5.84 11.80 0.02 2.12 1.17 193,214.07 29.57 Onsite 1.05 6.72 13.09 0.02 0.04 0.04 68,089.60 21.19 Fugitive 2.03 1.12 3C Offsite 0.03 0.11 0.45 0.00 0.10 0.03 2,508.29 0.10 Total 1.09 6.83 13.54 0.02 2.17 1.18 70,597.89 21.29 Onsite 0.36 7.49 14.17 0.02 0.04 0.04 26,962.52 8.39 Fugitive 2.03 1.12 4A Offsite 0.19 2.86 1.85 0.01 0.37 0.13 11,329.92 0.12 Total 0.54 10.35 16.02 0.03 2.45 1.29 38,292.44 8.51 Onsite 0.44 8.79 16.79 0.03 0.05 0.05 74,298.54 23.12 Fugitive 2.06 1.12 4B Offsite 1.29 23.01 11.67 0.07 2.29 0.87 3,168,322.80 21.97 Total 1.73 31.80 28.47 0.10 4.40 2.04 3,242,621.34 45.09 Onsite 0.08 1.30 2.63 0.00 0.01 0.01 4,953.23 1.54 Fugitive 2.03 1.12 4C Offsite 0.21 2.37 2.59 0.01 0.32 0.11 18,862.38 0.18 Total 0.29 3.68 5.21 0.01 2.36 1.24 23,815.61 1.72 Onsite 0.25 5.52 10.32 0.02 0.03 0.03 23,103.25 7.20 Fugitive 2.03 1.12 4D Offsite 0.05 0.25 0.68 0.00 0.11 0.03 1,419.18 0.04 Total 0.30 5.78 11.00 0.02 2.17 1.18 24,522.43 7.24 Table 4 ‐ Phase 4 Construction Equipment Mix
Orange County Water District Groundwater Replenishment System (GWRS) Tier 4 Interim Emissions by Equipment Piece
Equipment Equipment Time Total Total HP ROG Nox CO SOx PM10 PM2.5 CO2 CH4 Activity Description Quantity (Hrs/Day) (Days) (Hours) Rating lbs/day lbs/ subphase MF West Excavation (1A) Excavators 2 4 40 320 200 0.108 1.7376 3.5024 0.00656 0.0108 0.0108 52834.496 16.448 Dump Trucks 6 5 40 1200 350 000000 0 0 Bull Dozer 2 5 40 400 250 0.174 2.811 5.665 0.0107 0.0174 0.0174 86039.12 26.8 Backhoe 1 5 40 200 150 0.03655 1.31 2.2545 0.00295 0.00485 0.00485 11839.36 3.68 Pick‐Up Truck 1 8 40 320 300 000000 0 0 Crane 1 6 10 60 300 0.0912 1.4748 2.9724 0.00558 0.00912 0.00912 5612.226 1.746 MF West Piles (1B) Pile Driver 1 6 20 120 500 0.2196 3.5442 7.143 0.0135 0.02196 0.02196 27109.152 8.436 Backhoe 1 6 20 120 150 0.04386 1.572 2.7054 0.00354 0.00582 0.00582 7103.616 2.208 Concrete Trucks 5 4 10 200 350 000000 0 0 Water Trucks 2 4 25 200 350 0.1888 3.0408 6.1296 0.0116 0.01888 0.01888 58170.72 18.12 MF West Basement Concrete Pours (1C) Concrete Trucks 5 5 10 250 350 000000 0 0 Man Lifts 5 6 70 2100 75 0.1683 3.273 5.658 0.0075 0.0123 0.0123 262442.25 81.69 Fork Lifts 4 6 70 1680 120 0.15312 5.4888 9.444 0.01248 0.0204 0.0204 351058.176 109.536 Compactor 1 6 20 120 200 0.081 1.3032 2.6268 0.00492 0.0081 0.0081 9906.468 3.084 MF West Equipment (1D1) Fork Lifts 4 5 170 3400 120 0.1276 4.574 7.87 0.0104 0.017 0.017 710474.88 221.68 (Electrical, Piping, Racks) Man Lifts 5 5 170 4250 75 0.14025 2.7275 4.715 0.00625 0.01025 0.01025 531133.125 165.325 RO Transfer Pump Station (1D2) Crane 1 6 1 6 300 0.0912 1.4748 2.9724 0.00558 0.00912 0.00912 561.2226 0.1746 Fork Lifts 1 6 1 6 120 0.03828 1.3722 2.361 0.00312 0.0051 0.0051 313.4448 0.0978 RO Equipment (1E1) Fork Lifts 2 6 90 1080 120 0.07656 2.7444 4.722 0.00624 0.0102 0.0102 112840.128 35.208 Man Lifts 1 6 90 540 75 0.03366 0.6546 1.1316 0.0015 0.00246 0.00246 13497.03 4.2012 Crane 1 6 10 60 300 0.0912 1.4748 2.9724 0.00558 0.00912 0.00912 5612.226 1.746 UV Equipment (1D3) Fork Lifts 1 6 10 60 120 0.03828 1.3722 2.361 0.00312 0.0051 0.0051 3134.448 0.978 Man Lifts 2 6 40 480 75 0.06732 1.3092 2.2632 0.003 0.00492 0.00492 23994.72 7.4688 Crane 1 6 10 60 300 0.0912 1.4748 2.9724 0.00558 0.00912 0.00912 5612.226 1.746 Final Water Capacity (1E2) Crane 1 6 2 12 300 0.0912 1.4748 2.9724 0.00558 0.00912 0.00912 1122.4452 0.3492 Fork Lifts 1 6 2 12 120 0.03828 1.3722 2.361 0.00312 0.0051 0.0051 626.8896 0.1956 Man Lifts 1 6 15 90 75 0.03366 0.6546 1.1316 0.0015 0.00246 0.00246 2249.505 0.7002 Chemical Tanks/Pumps (1E2) Crane 1 5 1 5 300 0.076 1.229 2.477 0.00465 0.0076 0.0076 467.6855 0.1455 Fork Lifts 1 6 5 30 120 0.03828 1.3722 2.361 0.00312 0.0051 0.0051 1567.224 0.489 Decarbonation Equipment (1E1) Crane 1 6 1 6 300 0.0912 1.4748 2.9724 0.00558 0.00912 0.00912 561.2226 0.1746 Man Lifts 1 6 15 90 75 0.03366 0.6546 1.1316 0.0015 0.00246 0.00246 2249.505 0.7002
OCSD Plant No. 2 Effluent Pump Station Site Prep (2A) Bull Dozer 2 6 30 360 250 0.2088 3.3732 6.798 0.01284 0.02088 0.02088 77435.208 24.12 Compactor 1 6 10 60 200 0.081 1.3032 2.6268 0.00492 0.0081 0.0081 4953.234 1.542 Excavators 2 6 20 240 200 0.162 2.6064 5.2536 0.00984 0.0162 0.0162 39625.872 12.336 Dump Trucks 4 6 17 408 350 000000 0 0 Water Trucks 1 8 25 200 350 0.1888 3.0408 6.1296 0.0116 0.01888 0.01888 29085.36 9.06 OCSD Plant No. 2 Pump Station Bldg (2B) Concrete Trucks 3 3 4 36 350 000000 0 0 Crane 1 6 3 18 300 0.0912 1.4748 2.9724 0.00558 0.00912 0.00912 1683.6678 0.5238 OCSD Plant No. 2 Pump Station Equipping (2C) Crane 1 6 10 60 300 0.0912 1.4748 2.9724 0.00558 0.00912 0.00912 5612.226 1.746 Fork Lifts 4 6 30 720 120 0.15312 5.4888 9.444 0.01248 0.0204 0.0204 150453.504 46.944 Man Lifts 5 6 15 450 75 0.1683 3.273 5.658 0.0075 0.0123 0.0123 56237.625 17.505 Table 4 ‐ Phase 4 Construction Equipment Mix
Orange County Water District Groundwater Replenishment System (GWRS) Tier 4 Interim Emissions by Equipment Piece
Equipment Equipment Time Total Total HP ROG Nox CO SOx PM10 PM2.5 CO2 CH4 Activity Description Quantity (Hrs/Day) (Days) (Hours) Rating lbs/day lbs/ subphase OCSD Pipeline (3A) Backhoe 1 6 25 150 150 0.04386 1.572 2.7054 0.00354 0.00582 0.00582 8879.52 2.76 Excavators 2 6 25 300 200 0.162 2.6064 5.2536 0.00984 0.0162 0.0162 49532.34 15.42 Asphalt Paver 1 6 10 60 175 0.768 1.2402 2.5002 0.00468 0.00768 0.00768 4724.508 1.47 Compactor 1 6 10 60 200 0.081 1.3032 2.6268 0.00492 0.0081 0.0081 4953.234 1.542 Welding Eq. (Truck OCSD Pipeline (3B) Mounted) 1 8 80 640 300 0.1904 3.0712 6.1904 0.01192 0.01904 0.01904 108249.28 4.7616 Excavators 2 6 40 480 200 0.162 2.6064 5.2536 0.00984 0.0162 0.0162 79251.744 24.672 Flatbed truck 1 4 25 100 270 000000 0 0 OCSD Pipeline (3C) Backhoe 1 6 25 150 150 0.04386 1.572 2.7054 0.00354 0.00582 0.00582 8879.52 2.76 Excavators 2 6 25 300 200 0.162 2.6064 5.2536 0.00984 0.0162 0.0162 49532.34 15.42 Asphalt Paver 1 6 10 60 175 0.768 1.2402 2.5002 0.00468 0.00768 0.00768 4724.508 1.47 Compactor 1 6 10 60 200 0.081 1.3032 2.6268 0.00492 0.0081 0.0081 4953.234 1.542
OCSD Plant No. 2 Existing Plant Water PS Demo (4A) Excavators 1 6 8 48 200 0.081 1.3032 2.6268 0.00492 0.0081 0.0081 3962.5872 1.2336 Backhoe 2 6 8 96 150 0.08772 3.144 5.4108 0.00708 0.01164 0.01164 11365.7856 3.5328 Dump Trucks 1 6 4 24 350 000000 0 0 Water Trucks 1 8 10 80 350 0.1888 3.0408 6.1296 0.0116 0.01888 0.01888 11634.144 3.624 OCSD Plant No. 2 Headworks & Bypass Pipe Site Prep (4A) Backhoe 2 6 15 180 150 0.08772 3.144 5.4108 0.00708 0.01164 0.01164 21310.848 6.624 Excavators 2 6 15 180 200 0.162 2.6064 5.2536 0.00984 0.0162 0.0162 29719.404 9.252 Dump Trucks 5 6 18 540 350 000000 0 0 Water Trucks 1 8 20 160 350 0.1888 3.0408 6.1296 0.0116 0.01888 0.01888 23268.288 7.248 OCSD Plant No. 2 Headworks Bldg (4B) Concrete Trucks 3 3 3 27 350 000000 0 0 Excavators 1 6 10 60 300 0.081 1.3032 2.6268 0.00492 0.0081 0.0081 4953.234 1.542 OCSD Plant No. 2 Headworks Equipping (4C) Excavators 1 6 10 60 300 0.081 1.3032 2.6268 0.00492 0.0081 0.0081 4953.234 1.542 Crane 1 6 10 60 300 0.0912 1.4748 2.9724 0.00558 0.00912 0.00912 5612.226 1.746 Fork Lifts 2 6 10 120 120 0.07656 2.7444 4.722 0.00624 0.0102 0.0102 12537.792 3.912 Orange County Water District Groundwater Replenishment System (GWRS) Tier 4 Final Factors by Equipment
lbs/vehicle/hr HP
Equipment Description Rating VOC NOx CO SOx PM10 PM2.5 CO2 CH4 Asphalt Paver 175 0.00962 0.0417 0.3526 0.00078 0.00128 0.00128 78.7418 0.0245 Backhoe 150 0.00731 0.0317 0.4509 0.00059 0.00097 0.00097 59.1968 0.0184 Bull Dozer 250 0.0131 0.0567 0.4793 0.00107 0.00174 0.00174 107.5489 0.0335 Compactor 200 0.0101 0.0438 0.3705 0.00082 0.00135 0.00135 82.5539 0.0257 Concrete Trucks 350 Crane 300 0.0114 0.0495 0.4192 0.00093 0.00152 0.00152 93.5371 0.0291 Dump Trucks 350 Excavators 200 0.0101 0.0438 0.3705 0.00082 0.00135 0.00135 82.5539 0.0257 Flatbed Truck 350 Fork Lifts 120 0.00638 0.0277 0.3935 0.00052 0.00085 0.00085 52.2408 0.0163 Man Lifts 75 0.00306 0.0133 0.1886 0.00025 0.00041 0.00041 24.9945 0.00778 Pick‐Up Truck 300 Pile Driver 500 0.0275 0.1191 1.0074 0.00225 0.00366 0.00366 225.9096 0.0703 Water Trucks 350 0.0177 0.0766 0.6483 0.00145 0.00236 0.00236 145.4268 0.0453 Welding Eq. (Truck Mounted) 300 0.0179 0.0774 0.6548 0.00149 0.00238 0.00238 169.1395 0.00744
lbs/vehicle/trip Offsite Worker 3.03E‐03 4.08E‐03 0.0429 1.30E‐04 0.0113 3.03E‐03 9.9423 4.60E‐04 Vendor 8.31E‐03 0.0739 0.1115 2.10E‐04 7.41E‐03 2.85E‐03 20.7931 1.50E‐04 Concrete Trucks 0.0177 0.2426 0.215 7.30E‐04 0.0212 8.27E‐03 71.8201 5.30E‐04 Haul Trucks 0.0495 0.9149 0.4367 2.88E‐03 0.0847 0.0329 281.3266 1.94E‐03 Orange County Water District Groundwater Replenishment System (GWRS) Tier 4 Final ‐ Criteria Pollutant Emissions Summary (lbs/day)
Emissions by Phase
ROG NOx CO SOx PM10 PM2.5 1A Total 1.56 23.47 23.76 0.10 5.32 2.56 1B Total 0.93 8.98 21.04 0.05 0.81 0.33 1C Total 0.74 6.41 22.71 0.04 0.71 0.27 1D Total 20.98 5.68 37.23 0.06 0.60 0.34 1D1 0.28 1.30 13.57 0.02 0.18 0.07 1D2 0.34 1.58 14.23 0.02 0.19 0.08 1D3 0.18 0.79 7.58 0.01 0.09 0.04 1D1 AC 20.18 2.01 1.85 0.00 0.15 0.15 1E Total 0.60 2.72 24.23 0.04 0.35 0.15 1E1 0.31 1.42 12.89 0.02 0.18 0.08 1E2 0.28 1.29 11.34 0.02 0.17 0.07 2A Total 1.50 20.49 26.80 0.10 5.94 2.99 2B Total 0.26 2.65 4.89 0.01 0.27 0.10 2C Total 0.35 1.53 18.05 0.03 0.11 0.06 3A Total 0.32 1.34 11.94 0.02 2.17 1.18 3B Total 0.29 1.30 10.04 0.02 2.12 1.17 3C Total 0.32 1.34 11.94 0.02 2.17 1.18 4A Total 0.48 4.12 14.67 0.03 2.45 1.29 4B Total 1.64 24.53 26.72 0.10 4.40 2.04 4C Total 0.27 2.63 4.81 0.01 2.36 1.24 4D Total 0.25 1.15 10.14 0.02 2.17 1.18 Phase Overlaps 1B, 1D2, 1D3, 1E1, 1E2 Total 2.04 14.07 67.08 0.13 1.44 0.60 1C, 1D2, 1E1, 4A Total 1.87 13.53 64.50 0.12 3.51 1.72 1D1, 2A,3A,4B Total 23.92 49.65 80.88 0.25 12.83 6.43 1D1, 2A,3B, 4B Total 23.89 49.62 78.97 0.25 12.78 6.41 1D1,2B,3B,4C Total 21.28 9.89 35.16 0.07 5.07 2.73 2B,3B,4D Total 0.80 5.10 25.06 0.05 4.56 2.45 2C,3B,4D Total 0.89 3.98 38.23 0.07 4.40 2.41 Max Emissions by Phase Total 23.92 49.65 80.88 0.25 12.83 6.43 SCAQMD Threshold 75 100 550 150 150 55 Exceed Threshold? No No No No No No Alternative Phasing Schedule (Shift of Phase 1D2, 1D3 and 1E later by 3 months) 1D (all), 1E (all), 2A, 3A, 4B Total 25.03 54.74 126.92 0.33 13.46 6.70 1D1, 1D2, 1E2, 2A, 3B, 4B Total 24.52 52.50 104.54 0.29 13.14 6.57 Orange County Water District Groundwater Replenishment System (GWRS) Emissions by Phase ‐ Tier 4 Final
ROG Nox CO Sox PM10 PM2.5 CO2 CH4 lbs/day lbs/ subphase Onsite 0.32 1.37 12.53 0.03 0.04 0.04 156,325.20 48.67 Fugitive 3.07 1.68 1A Offsite 1.24 22.09 11.24 0.07 2.21 0.84 6,488,561.97 44.98 Total 1.56 23.47 23.76 0.10 5.32 2.56 6,644,887.17 93.65 Onsite 0.35 1.52 13.94 0.03 0.05 0.05 92,383.49 28.76 Fugitive 0.00 0.00 1B Offsite 0.58 7.47 7.10 0.02 0.76 0.28 649,906.13 4.89 Total 0.93 8.98 21.04 0.05 0.81 0.33 742,289.62 33.66 Onsite 0.31 1.33 17.33 0.02 0.04 0.04 623,406.89 194.31 Fugitive 0.00 0.00 1C Offsite 0.43 5.08 5.38 0.02 0.66 0.23 304,110.65 2.79 Total 0.74 6.41 22.71 0.04 0.71 0.27 927,517.55 197.10 Onsite 0.20 0.89 12.59 0.02 0.03 0.03 1,241,608.01 387.01 Fugitive 0.00 0.00 1D1 Offsite 0.07 0.41 0.99 0.00 0.15 0.04 34,576.05 0.91 Total 0.28 1.30 13.57 0.02 0.18 0.07 1,276,184.05 387.91 Coating 20.18 2.01 1.85 0.00 0.15 0.15 1,407.24 0.13 Onsite 0.27 1.17 13.25 0.02 0.04 0.04 132,824.05 41.43 Fugitive 0.00 0.00 1D2 Offsite 0.07 0.41 0.99 0.00 0.15 0.04 203.39 0.01 Total 0.34 1.58 14.23 0.02 0.19 0.08 133,027.44 41.43 Onsite 0.14 0.62 7.14 0.01 0.02 0.02 32,741.39 10.19 Fugitive 0.00 0.00 1D3 Offsite 0.03 0.17 0.44 0.00 0.07 0.02 3,651.91 0.10 Total 0.18 0.79 7.58 0.01 0.09 0.04 36,393.30 10.30 Onsite 0.25 1.09 12.02 0.02 0.03 0.03 134,760.11 42.03 Fugitive 0.00 0.00 1E1 Offsite 0.06 0.34 0.88 0.00 0.14 0.04 9,586.26 0.27 Total 0.31 1.42 12.89 0.02 0.18 0.08 144,346.37 42.30 Onsite 0.22 0.96 10.46 0.02 0.03 0.03 6,033.75 1.88 Fugitive 0.00 0.00 1E2 Offsite 0.06 0.34 0.88 0.00 0.14 0.04 1,825.95 0.05 Total 0.28 1.29 11.34 0.02 0.17 0.07 7,859.70 1.93 Onsite 0.48 2.08 17.61 0.04 0.06 0.06 151,099.67 47.06 Fugitive 4.08 2.24 2A Offsite 1.02 18.40 9.19 0.06 1.79 0.69 1,916,030.83 13.31 Total 1.50 20.49 26.80 0.10 5.94 2.99 2,067,130.50 60.36 Onsite 0.07 0.30 2.52 0.01 0.01 0.01 1,683.67 0.52 Fugitive 0.00 0.00 2B Offsite 0.19 2.35 2.37 0.01 0.26 0.10 23,634.90 0.18 Total 0.26 2.65 4.89 0.01 0.27 0.10 25,318.57 0.71 Orange County Water District Groundwater Replenishment System (GWRS) Emissions by Phase ‐ Tier 4 Final
ROG Nox CO Sox PM10 PM2.5 CO2 CH4 lbs/day lbs/ subphase Onsite 0.31 1.36 17.62 0.03 0.04 0.04 212,303.36 66.20 Fugitive 0.00 0.00 2C Offsite 0.03 0.17 0.44 0.00 0.07 0.02 2,738.93 0.08 Total 0.35 1.53 18.05 0.03 0.11 0.06 215,042.29 66.27 Onsite 0.28 1.23 11.49 0.02 0.04 0.04 68,089.60 21.19 Fugitive 2.03 1.12 3A Offsite 0.03 0.11 0.45 0.00 0.10 0.03 2,508.29 0.10 Total 0.32 1.34 11.94 0.02 2.17 1.18 70,597.89 21.29 Onsite 0.26 1.14 9.68 0.02 0.04 0.04 187,501.02 29.43 Fugitive 2.03 1.12 3B Offsite 0.03 0.16 0.35 0.00 0.05 0.01 5,713.05 0.13 Total 0.29 1.30 10.04 0.02 2.12 1.17 193,214.07 29.57 Onsite 0.28 1.23 11.49 0.02 0.04 0.04 68,089.60 21.19 Fugitive 2.03 1.12 3C Offsite 0.03 0.11 0.45 0.00 0.10 0.03 2,508.29 0.10 Total 0.32 1.34 11.94 0.02 2.17 1.18 70,597.89 21.29 Onsite 0.29 1.26 12.82 0.02 0.04 0.04 26,962.52 8.39 Fugitive 2.03 1.12 4A Offsite 0.19 2.86 1.85 0.01 0.37 0.13 11,329.92 0.12 Total 0.48 4.12 14.67 0.03 2.45 1.29 38,292.44 8.51 Onsite 0.35 1.52 15.04 0.03 0.05 0.05 74,298.54 23.12 Fugitive 2.06 1.12 4B Offsite 1.29 23.01 11.67 0.07 2.29 0.87 3,168,322.80 21.97 Total 1.64 24.53 26.72 0.10 4.40 2.04 3,242,621.34 45.09 Onsite 0.06 0.26 2.22 0.00 0.01 0.01 4,953.23 1.54 Fugitive 2.03 1.12 4C Offsite 0.21 2.37 2.59 0.01 0.32 0.11 18,862.38 0.18 Total 0.27 2.63 4.81 0.01 2.36 1.24 23,815.61 1.72 Onsite 0.21 0.89 9.46 0.02 0.03 0.03 23,103.25 7.20 Fugitive 2.03 1.12 4D Offsite 0.05 0.25 0.68 0.00 0.11 0.03 1,419.18 0.04 Total 0.25 1.15 10.14 0.02 2.17 1.18 24,522.43 7.24 Table 4 ‐ Phase 4 Construction Equipment Mix
Orange County Water District Groundwater Replenishment System (GWRS) Tier 4 Final Emissions by Equipment Piece
Equipment Equipment Time Total Total HP ROG Nox CO SOx PM10 PM2.5 CO2 CH4 Activity Description Quantity (Hrs/Day) (Days) (Hours) Rating lbs/day lbs/ subphase MF West Excavation (1A) Excavators 2 4 40 320 200 0.0808 0.3504 2.964 0.00656 0.0108 0.0108 52834.496 16.448 Dump Trucks 6 5 40 1200 350 000000 0 0 Bull Dozer 2 5 40 400 250 0.131 0.567 4.793 0.0107 0.0174 0.0174 86039.12 26.8 Backhoe 1 5 40 200 150 0.03655 0.1585 2.2545 0.00295 0.00485 0.00485 11839.36 3.68 Pick‐Up Truck 1 8 40 320 300 000000 0 0 Crane 1 6 10 60 300 0.0684 0.297 2.5152 0.00558 0.00912 0.00912 5612.226 1.746 MF West Piles (1B) Pile Driver 1 6 20 120 500 0.165 0.7146 6.0444 0.0135 0.02196 0.02196 27109.152 8.436 Backhoe 1 6 20 120 150 0.04386 0.1902 2.7054 0.00354 0.00582 0.00582 7103.616 2.208 Concrete Trucks 5 4 10 200 350 000000 0 0 Water Trucks 2 4 25 200 350 0.1416 0.6128 5.1864 0.0116 0.01888 0.01888 58170.72 18.12 MF West Basement Concrete Pours (1C) Concrete Trucks 5 5 10 250 350 000000 0 0 Man Lifts 5 6 70 2100 75 0.0918 0.399 5.658 0.0075 0.0123 0.0123 262442.25 81.69 Fork Lifts 4 6 70 1680 120 0.15312 0.6648 9.444 0.01248 0.0204 0.0204 351058.176 109.536 Compactor 1 6 20 120 200 0.0606 0.2628 2.223 0.00492 0.0081 0.0081 9906.468 3.084 MF West Equipment (1D1) Fork Lifts 4 5 170 3400 120 0.1276 0.554 7.87 0.0104 0.017 0.017 710474.88 221.68 (Electrical, Piping, Racks) Man Lifts 5 5 170 4250 75 0.0765 0.3325 4.715 0.00625 0.01025 0.01025 531133.125 165.325 RO Transfer Pump Station (1D2) Crane 1 6 1 6 300 0.0684 0.297 2.5152 0.00558 0.00912 0.00912 561.2226 0.1746 Fork Lifts 1 6 1 6 120 0.03828 0.1662 2.361 0.00312 0.0051 0.0051 313.4448 0.0978 RO Equipment (1E1) Fork Lifts 2 6 90 1080 120 0.07656 0.3324 4.722 0.00624 0.0102 0.0102 112840.128 35.208 Man Lifts 1 6 90 540 75 0.01836 0.0798 1.1316 0.0015 0.00246 0.00246 13497.03 4.2012 Crane 1 6 10 60 300 0.0684 0.297 2.5152 0.00558 0.00912 0.00912 5612.226 1.746 UV Equipment (1D3) Fork Lifts 1 6 10 60 120 0.03828 0.1662 2.361 0.00312 0.0051 0.0051 3134.448 0.978 Man Lifts 2 6 40 480 75 0.03672 0.1596 2.2632 0.003 0.00492 0.00492 23994.72 7.4688 Crane 1 6 10 60 300 0.0684 0.297 2.5152 0.00558 0.00912 0.00912 5612.226 1.746 Final Water Capacity (1E2) Crane 1 6 2 12 300 0.0684 0.297 2.5152 0.00558 0.00912 0.00912 1122.4452 0.3492 Fork Lifts 1 6 2 12 120 0.03828 0.1662 2.361 0.00312 0.0051 0.0051 626.8896 0.1956 Man Lifts 1 6 15 90 75 0.01836 0.0798 1.1316 0.0015 0.00246 0.00246 2249.505 0.7002 Chemical Tanks/Pumps (1E2) Crane 1 5 1 5 300 0.057 0.2475 2.096 0.00465 0.0076 0.0076 467.6855 0.1455 Fork Lifts 1 6 5 30 120 0.03828 0.1662 2.361 0.00312 0.0051 0.0051 1567.224 0.489 Decarbonation Equipment (1E1) Crane 1 6 1 6 300 0.0684 0.297 2.5152 0.00558 0.00912 0.00912 561.2226 0.1746 Man Lifts 1 6 15 90 75 0.01836 0.0798 1.1316 0.0015 0.00246 0.00246 2249.505 0.7002
OCSD Plant No. 2 Effluent Pump Station Site Prep (2A) Bull Dozer 2 6 30 360 250 0.1572 0.6804 5.7516 0.01284 0.02088 0.02088 77435.208 24.12 Compactor 1 6 10 60 200 0.0606 0.2628 2.223 0.00492 0.0081 0.0081 4953.234 1.542 Excavators 2 6 20 240 200 0.1212 0.5256 4.446 0.00984 0.0162 0.0162 39625.872 12.336 Dump Trucks 4 6 17 408 350 000000 0 0 Water Trucks 1 8 25 200 350 0.1416 0.6128 5.1864 0.0116 0.01888 0.01888 29085.36 9.06 OCSD Plant No. 2 Pump Station Bldg (2B) Concrete Trucks 3 3 4 36 350 000000 0 0 Crane 1 6 3 18 300 0.0684 0.297 2.5152 0.00558 0.00912 0.00912 1683.6678 0.5238 OCSD Plant No. 2 Pump Station Equipping (2C) Crane 1 6 10 60 300 0.0684 0.297 2.5152 0.00558 0.00912 0.00912 5612.226 1.746 Fork Lifts 4 6 30 720 120 0.15312 0.6648 9.444 0.01248 0.0204 0.0204 150453.504 46.944 Man Lifts 5 6 15 450 75 0.0918 0.399 5.658 0.0075 0.0123 0.0123 56237.625 17.505 Table 4 ‐ Phase 4 Construction Equipment Mix
Orange County Water District Groundwater Replenishment System (GWRS) Tier 4 Final Emissions by Equipment Piece
Equipment Equipment Time Total Total HP ROG Nox CO SOx PM10 PM2.5 CO2 CH4 Activity Description Quantity (Hrs/Day) (Days) (Hours) Rating lbs/day lbs/ subphase OCSD Pipeline (3A) Backhoe 1 6 25 150 150 0.04386 0.1902 2.7054 0.00354 0.00582 0.00582 8879.52 2.76 Excavators 2 6 25 300 200 0.1212 0.5256 4.446 0.00984 0.0162 0.0162 49532.34 15.42 Asphalt Paver 1 6 10 60 175 0.05772 0.2502 2.1156 0.00468 0.00768 0.00768 4724.508 1.47 Compactor 1 6 10 60 200 0.0606 0.2628 2.223 0.00492 0.0081 0.0081 4953.234 1.542 Welding Eq. (Truck OCSD Pipeline (3B) Mounted) 1 8 80 640 300 0.1432 0.6192 5.2384 0.01192 0.01904 0.01904 108249.28 4.7616 Excavators 2 6 40 480 200 0.1212 0.5256 4.446 0.00984 0.0162 0.0162 79251.744 24.672 Flatbed truck 1 4 25 100 270 000000 0 0 OCSD Pipeline (3C) Backhoe 1 6 25 150 150 0.04386 0.1902 2.7054 0.00354 0.00582 0.00582 8879.52 2.76 Excavators 2 6 25 300 200 0.1212 0.5256 4.446 0.00984 0.0162 0.0162 49532.34 15.42 Asphalt Paver 1 6 10 60 175 0.05772 0.2502 2.1156 0.00468 0.00768 0.00768 4724.508 1.47 Compactor 1 6 10 60 200 0.0606 0.2628 2.223 0.00492 0.0081 0.0081 4953.234 1.542
OCSD Plant No. 2 Existing Plant Water PS Demo (4A) Excavators 1 6 8 48 200 0.0606 0.2628 2.223 0.00492 0.0081 0.0081 3962.5872 1.2336 Backhoe 2 6 8 96 150 0.08772 0.3804 5.4108 0.00708 0.01164 0.01164 11365.7856 3.5328 Dump Trucks 1 6 4 24 350 000000 0 0 Water Trucks 1 8 10 80 350 0.1416 0.6128 5.1864 0.0116 0.01888 0.01888 11634.144 3.624 OCSD Plant No. 2 Headworks & Bypass Pipe Site Prep (4A) Backhoe 2 6 15 180 150 0.08772 0.3804 5.4108 0.00708 0.01164 0.01164 21310.848 6.624 Excavators 2 6 15 180 200 0.1212 0.5256 4.446 0.00984 0.0162 0.0162 29719.404 9.252 Dump Trucks 5 6 18 540 350 000000 0 0 Water Trucks 1 8 20 160 350 0.1416 0.6128 5.1864 0.0116 0.01888 0.01888 23268.288 7.248 OCSD Plant No. 2 Headworks Bldg (4B) Concrete Trucks 3 3 3 27 350 000000 0 0 Excavators 1 6 10 60 300 0.0606 0.2628 2.223 0.00492 0.0081 0.0081 4953.234 1.542 OCSD Plant No. 2 Headworks Equipping (4C) Excavators 1 6 10 60 300 0.0606 0.2628 2.223 0.00492 0.0081 0.0081 4953.234 1.542 Crane 1 6 10 60 300 0.0684 0.297 2.5152 0.00558 0.00912 0.00912 5612.226 1.746 Fork Lifts 2 6 10 120 120 0.07656 0.3324 4.722 0.00624 0.0102 0.0102 12537.792 3.912 Orange County Water District Groundwater Replenishment System (GWRS)
Unmitigated GHG Emissions Summary (MTCO2e/yr)
Construction GHG Emissions lbs/phase Metric Tons/phase
CO2 CH4 CO2 CH4 1A 6,644,887.17 93.65 3,014.92 0.04 1B 742,289.62 33.66 336.79 0.02 1C 927,517.55 197.10 420.83 0.09 1D 1,447,012.03 439.78 656.54 0.20 1E 152,206.07 44.23 69.06 0.02 2A 2,067,130.50 60.36 937.90 0.03 2B 25,318.57 0.71 11.49 0.00 2C 215,042.29 66.27 97.57 0.03 3A 70,597.89 21.29 32.03 0.01 3B 193,214.07 29.57 87.67 0.01 3C 70,597.89 21.29 32.03 0.01 4A 38,292.44 8.51 17.37 0.00 4B 3,242,621.34 45.09 1,471.24 0.02 4C 23,815.61 1.72 10.81 0.00 4D 24,522.43 7.24 11.13 0.00 Total 15,885,065.47 1,070.46 7,207.38 0.49 lbs / total Construction Period 125GWP
7,207.38 12.14 MT CO2e/ Total Construction Period
7,219.52 Total MT CO2e 240.65 Amortized Emissions
Operational GHG Emissions
CO2 CH4 N2OCO2e Area 5.40E‐04 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00 Energy 82.8556 3.13E‐03 1.01E‐03 83.13 Mobile 17.0394 5.70E‐04 0.00E+00 17.05 Waste 0.6029 3.56E‐02 0.00E+00 1.49 Water 4.5271 0.0115 8.90E‐04 4.99 Total 105.0255 0.0508 0.0019 106.67 Const 240.65 Total 347.32
3,000 MT CO2e SCAQMD Threshold No Exceed? 2 *CO e emissions include GWPs of 25 for CH4 and 198 for N2O. Orange County Water District Groundwater Replenishment System (GWRS) Unmitigated NEPA Emissions Summary (tons/year)
Unmitigated Emissions by Phase
ROG NOx CO SOx PM10 PM2.5 1A Total 0.07 0.97 0.48 0.00 0.13 0.07 1B Total 0.03 0.32 0.23 0.00 0.02 0.01 1C Total 0.05 0.63 0.69 0.00 0.04 0.05 1D Total 1.79 1.12 1.35 0.00 0.06 0.11 1D1 0.06 0.77 1.02 0.00 0.04 0.08 1D2 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 1D3 0.01 0.17 0.16 0.00 0.01 0.01 1D1 AC 1.72 0.17 0.16 0.00 0.01 0.01 1E Total 0.07 0.82 0.74 0.00 0.04 0.05 1E1 0.06 0.71 0.64 0.00 0.04 0.04 1E2 0.01 0.11 0.10 0.00 0.01 0.01 2A Total 0.06 0.79 0.34 0.00 0.11 0.06 2B Total 0.00 0.02 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 2C Total 0.02 0.24 0.26 0.00 0.01 0.02 3A Total 0.01 0.17 0.11 0.00 0.03 0.02 3B Total 0.04 0.45 0.21 0.00 0.10 0.06 3C Total 0.01 0.17 0.11 0.00 0.03 0.02 4A Total 0.01 0.09 0.06 0.00 0.01 0.01 4B Total 0.03 0.40 0.22 0.00 0.05 0.03 4C Total 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.01 0.01 4D Total 0.00 0.06 0.05 0.00 0.01 0.01 Phase Overlaps 1D1, 1D2, 1D3, 1E1, 1E2, 2A,3A,4A 1.96 3.30 2.76 0.01 0.30 0.27 1D1, 1D2, 1E2,2A,3B,4A 0.20 2.52 1.90 0.01 0.31 0.24 1D1, 2B,3B,4B 0.11 1.26 1.26 0.00 0.15 0.15 2B,3B,4C 0.05 0.52 0.27 0.00 0.11 0.07 2C,3B,4C 0.07 0.74 0.52 0.00 0.12 0.09 Max Emissions 1.96 3.30 2.76 0.01 0.31 0.27 SCAQMD Threshold 75 100 550 150 150 55 Exceed Threshold? No No No No No No
APPENDIX B CalEEMod output.
Orange County Water District –GWRS Final Expansion Project 53 ESA / 160387 Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Technical Report July 2016 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 1 of 1 Date: 7/12/2016 4:49 AM
GWRS Operational Emissions Orange County, Annual
1.0 Project Characteristics
1.1 Land Usage
Land Uses Size Metric Lot Acreage Floor Surface Area Population
General Heavy Industry 14.03 1000sqft 0.32 14,030.00 0
General Heavy Industry 5.00 1000sqft 0.11 5,000.00 0
General Heavy Industry 2.78 1000sqft 0.06 2,780.00 0
1.2 Other Project Characteristics
Urbanization Urban Wind Speed (m/s) 2.2 Precipitation Freq (Days) 30
Climate Zone 8 Operational Year 2022
Utility Company Southern California Edison
CO2 Intensity 630.89 CH4 Intensity 0.029 N2O Intensity 0.006 (lb/MWhr) (lb/MWhr) (lb/MWhr)
1.3 User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data
Project Characteristics - Land Use - See Assumptions Construction Phase - Construction estimated separately Off-road Equipment - Construction estimated separately Vehicle Trips - see assumptions Area Coating - See Assumptions Landscape Equipment - See assumptions Water And Wastewater - See Assumptions Solid Waste - See Assumptions Table Name Column Name Default Value New Value
tblAreaCoating ReapplicationRatePercent 10 0
tblConstructionPhase NumDays 5.00 1.00
tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 1.00 0.00
tblProjectCharacteristics OperationalYear 2014 2022
tblSolidWaste SolidWasteGenerationRate 27.04 2.97
tblVehicleTrips CC_TTP 28.00 0.00
tblVehicleTrips CNW_TTP 13.00 0.00
tblVehicleTrips CW_TTP 59.00 100.00
tblVehicleTrips DV_TP 5.00 0.00
tblVehicleTrips PB_TP 3.00 0.00
tblVehicleTrips PR_TP 92.00 100.00
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 1.50 0.37
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 1.50 0.37
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 1.50 0.37
tblWater AerobicPercent 87.46 97.54
tblWater AnaerobicandFacultativeLagoonsPerce 2.21 2.46 nt tblWater IndoorWaterUseRate 5,043,562.50 1,109,584.00
tblWater SepticTankPercent 10.33 0.00
2.0 Emissions Summary
2.1 Overall Construction Estimated Separately Unmitigated Construction 2.2 Overall Operational Unmitigated Operational ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total CO2
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Area 0.0788 0.0000 2.8000e- 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 5.4000e- 5.4000e- 0.0000 0.0000 5.7000e- 004 004 004 004
Energy 2.5400e- 0.0231 0.0194 1.4000e- 1.7600e- 1.7600e- 1.7600e- 1.7600e- 0.0000 82.8556 82.8556 3.1300e- 1.0100e- 83.2346 003 004 003 003 003 003 003 003
Mobile 4.3900e- 0.0134 0.0628 2.5000e- 0.0184 2.5000e- 0.0187 4.9200e- 2.3000e- 5.1500e- 0.0000 17.0394 17.0394 5.7000e- 0.0000 17.0514 003 004 004 003 004 003 004
Waste 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.6029 0.0000 0.6029 0.0356 0.0000 1.3511
Water 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.3926 4.1345 4.5271 0.0115 8.9000e- 5.0446 004
Total 0.0858 0.0366 0.0825 3.9000e- 0.0184 2.0100e- 0.0204 4.9200e- 1.9900e- 6.9100e- 0.9955 104.0301 105.0255 0.0508 1.9000e- 106.6823 004 003 003 003 003 003
Mitigated Operational ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total CO2
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Area 0.0788 0.0000 2.8000e- 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 5.4000e- 5.4000e- 0.0000 0.0000 5.7000e- 004 004 004 004
Energy 2.5400e- 0.0231 0.0194 1.4000e- 1.7600e- 1.7600e- 1.7600e- 1.7600e- 0.0000 82.8556 82.8556 3.1300e- 1.0100e- 83.2346 003 004 003 003 003 003 003 003
Mobile 4.3900e- 0.0134 0.0628 2.5000e- 0.0184 2.5000e- 0.0187 4.9200e- 2.3000e- 5.1500e- 0.0000 17.0394 17.0394 5.7000e- 0.0000 17.0514 003 004 004 003 004 003 004
Waste 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.6029 0.0000 0.6029 0.0356 0.0000 1.3511
Water 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.3926 4.1345 4.5271 0.0115 8.9000e- 5.0440 004
Total 0.0858 0.0366 0.0825 3.9000e- 0.0184 2.0100e- 0.0204 4.9200e- 1.9900e- 6.9100e- 0.9955 104.0301 105.0255 0.0508 1.9000e- 106.6817 004 003 003 003 003 003
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total
Percent 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.00 Reduction 3.0 Construction Detail Estimated separately
4.0 Operational Detail - Mobile
4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total CO2
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Mitigated 4.3900e- 0.0134 0.0628 2.5000e- 0.0184 2.5000e- 0.0187 4.9200e- 2.3000e- 5.1500e- 0.0000 17.0394 17.0394 5.7000e- 0.0000 17.0514 003 004 004 003 004 003 004
Unmitigated 4.3900e- 0.0134 0.0628 2.5000e- 0.0184 2.5000e- 0.0187 4.9200e- 2.3000e- 5.1500e- 0.0000 17.0394 17.0394 5.7000e- 0.0000 17.0514 003 004 004 003 004 003 004
4.2 Trip Summary Information Average Daily Trip Rate Unmitigated Mitigated Land Use Weekday Saturday Sunday Annual VMT Annual VMT
General Heavy Industry 5.19 5.19 5.19 31,367 31,367 General Heavy Industry 1.85 1.85 1.85 11,178 11,178 General Heavy Industry 1.03 1.03 1.03 6,215 6,215 Total 8.07 8.07 8.07 48,760 48,760
4.3 Trip Type Information
Miles Trip % Trip Purpose %
Land Use H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW H-W or C- H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW Primary Diverted Pass-by W General Heavy Industry 16.60 8.40 6.90 100.00 0.00 0.00 100 0 0 General Heavy Industry 16.60 8.40 6.90 100.00 0.00 0.00 100 0 0 General Heavy Industry 16.60 8.40 6.90 100.00 0.00 0.00 100 0 0
LDA LDT1 LDT2 MDV LHD1 LHD2 MHD HHD OBUS UBUS MCY SBUS MH 0.505043 0.056653 0.194832 0.151784 0.042126 0.005989 0.016072 0.016505 0.001461 0.002178 0.004464 0.000494 0.002401 5.0 Energy Detail 4.4 Fleet Mix Historical Energy Use: N
5.1 Mitigation Measures Energy
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total CO2
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Electricity 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 57.6696 57.6696 2.6500e- 5.5000e- 57.8953 Mitigated 003 004
Electricity 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 57.6696 57.6696 2.6500e- 5.5000e- 57.8953 Unmitigated 003 004
NaturalGas 2.5400e- 0.0231 0.0194 1.4000e- 1.7600e- 1.7600e- 1.7600e- 1.7600e- 0.0000 25.1860 25.1860 4.8000e- 4.6000e- 25.3393 Mitigated 003 004 003 003 003 003 004 004
NaturalGas 2.5400e- 0.0231 0.0194 1.4000e- 1.7600e- 1.7600e- 1.7600e- 1.7600e- 0.0000 25.1860 25.1860 4.8000e- 4.6000e- 25.3393 Unmitigated 003 004 003 003 003 003 004 004
5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas Unmitigated NaturalGa ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e s Use PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total
Land Use kBTU/yr tons/yr MT/yr
General Heavy 108200 5.8000e- 5.3000e- 4.4600e- 3.0000e- 4.0000e- 4.0000e- 4.0000e- 4.0000e- 0.0000 5.7740 5.7740 1.1000e- 1.1000e- 5.8091 Industry 004 003 003 005 004 004 004 004 004 004
General Heavy 303609 1.6400e- 0.0149 0.0125 9.0000e- 1.1300e- 1.1300e- 1.1300e- 1.1300e- 0.0000 16.2017 16.2017 3.1000e- 3.0000e- 16.3003 Industry 003 005 003 003 003 003 004 004
General Heavy 60159.2 3.2000e- 2.9500e- 2.4800e- 2.0000e- 2.2000e- 2.2000e- 2.2000e- 2.2000e- 0.0000 3.2103 3.2103 6.0000e- 6.0000e- 3.2299 Industry 004 003 003 005 004 004 004 004 005 005
Total 2.5400e- 0.0231 0.0194 1.4000e- 1.7500e- 1.7500e- 1.7500e- 1.7500e- 0.0000 25.1860 25.1860 4.8000e- 4.7000e- 25.3393 003 004 003 003 003 003 004 004 Mitigated NaturalGa ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e s Use PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total
Land Use kBTU/yr tons/yr MT/yr
General Heavy 108200 5.8000e- 5.3000e- 4.4600e- 3.0000e- 4.0000e- 4.0000e- 4.0000e- 4.0000e- 0.0000 5.7740 5.7740 1.1000e- 1.1000e- 5.8091 Industry 004 003 003 005 004 004 004 004 004 004
General Heavy 303609 1.6400e- 0.0149 0.0125 9.0000e- 1.1300e- 1.1300e- 1.1300e- 1.1300e- 0.0000 16.2017 16.2017 3.1000e- 3.0000e- 16.3003 Industry 003 005 003 003 003 003 004 004
General Heavy 60159.2 3.2000e- 2.9500e- 2.4800e- 2.0000e- 2.2000e- 2.2000e- 2.2000e- 2.2000e- 0.0000 3.2103 3.2103 6.0000e- 6.0000e- 3.2299 Industry 004 003 003 005 004 004 004 004 005 005
Total 2.5400e- 0.0231 0.0194 1.4000e- 1.7500e- 1.7500e- 1.7500e- 1.7500e- 0.0000 25.1860 25.1860 4.8000e- 4.7000e- 25.3393 003 004 003 003 003 003 004 004
5.3 Energy by Land Use - Electricity Unmitigated Electricity Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Use
Land Use kWh/yr t MT/yr o n General Heavy 129637 37.0979 1.7100e- 3.5000e- 37.2431 Industry 003 004
General Heavy 25687.2 7.3508 3.4000e- 7.0000e- 7.3796 Industry 004 005
General Heavy 46200 13.2209 6.1000e- 1.3000e- 13.2727 Industry 004 004
Total 57.6696 2.6600e- 5.5000e- 57.8953 003 004 Mitigated Electricity Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Use
Land Use kWh/yr t MT/yr o n General Heavy 129637 37.0979 1.7100e- 3.5000e- 37.2431 Industry 003 004
General Heavy 25687.2 7.3508 3.4000e- 7.0000e- 7.3796 Industry 004 005
General Heavy 46200 13.2209 6.1000e- 1.3000e- 13.2727 Industry 004 004
Total 57.6696 2.6600e- 5.5000e- 57.8953 003 004
6.0 Area Detail
6.1 Mitigation Measures Area
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total CO2
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Mitigated 0.0788 0.0000 2.8000e- 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 5.4000e- 5.4000e- 0.0000 0.0000 5.7000e- 004 004 004 004
Unmitigated 0.0788 0.0000 2.8000e- 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 5.4000e- 5.4000e- 0.0000 0.0000 5.7000e- 004 004 004 004
6.2 Area by SubCategory Unmitigated ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total CO2
SubCategory tons/yr MT/yr
Architectural 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Coating
Consumer 0.0788 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Products
Landscaping 3.0000e- 0.0000 2.8000e- 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 5.4000e- 5.4000e- 0.0000 0.0000 5.7000e- 005 004 004 004 004 Total 0.0788 0.0000 2.8000e- 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 5.4000e- 5.4000e- 0.0000 0.0000 5.7000e- 004 004 004 004
Mitigated ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total CO2
SubCategory tons/yr MT/yr
Architectural 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Coating
Consumer 0.0788 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Products
Landscaping 3.0000e- 0.0000 2.8000e- 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 5.4000e- 5.4000e- 0.0000 0.0000 5.7000e- 005 004 004 004 004
Total 0.0788 0.0000 2.8000e- 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 5.4000e- 5.4000e- 0.0000 0.0000 5.7000e- 004 004 004 004
7.0 Water Detail
7.1 Mitigation Measures Water
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category t MT/yr o n Mitigated 4.5271 0.0115 8.9000e- 5.0440 004
Unmitigated 4.5271 0.0115 8.9000e- 5.0446 004 7.2 Water by Land Use Unmitigated Indoor/Out Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e door Use
Land Use Mgal t MT/yr o n General Heavy 1.10958 / 4.5271 0.0115 8.9000e- 5.0446 Industry 0 004
Total 4.5271 0.0115 8.9000e- 5.0446 004
Mitigated Indoor/Out Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e door Use
Land Use Mgal t MT/yr o n General Heavy 1.10958 / 4.5271 0.0115 8.9000e- 5.0440 Industry 0 004
Total 4.5271 0.0115 8.9000e- 5.0440 004
8.0 Waste Detail
8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste
Category/Year Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
t MT/yr o n Unmitigated 0.6029 0.0356 0.0000 1.3511
Mitigated 0.6029 0.0356 0.0000 1.3511 8.2 Waste by Land Use Unmitigated Waste Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Disposed
Land Use tons t MT/yr o n General Heavy 2.97 0.6029 0.0356 0.0000 1.3511 Industry
Total 0.6029 0.0356 0.0000 1.3511
Mitigated Waste Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Disposed
Land Use tons t MT/yr o n General Heavy 2.97 0.6029 0.0356 0.0000 1.3511 Industry
Total 0.6029 0.0356 0.0000 1.3511
9.0 Operational Offroad
Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Days/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type
10.0 Vegetation CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 1 of 1 Date: 7/12/2016 4:47 AM
GWRS Operational Emissions Orange County, Summer
1.0 Project Characteristics
1.1 Land Usage
Land Uses Size Metric Lot Acreage Floor Surface Area Population
General Heavy Industry 14.03 1000sqft 0.32 14,030.00 0
General Heavy Industry 5.00 1000sqft 0.11 5,000.00 0
General Heavy Industry 2.78 1000sqft 0.06 2,780.00 0
1.2 Other Project Characteristics
Urbanization Urban Wind Speed (m/s) 2.2 Precipitation Freq (Days) 30
Climate Zone 8 Operational Year 2022
Utility Company Southern California Edison
CO2 Intensity 630.89 CH4 Intensity 0.029 N2O Intensity 0.006 (lb/MWhr) (lb/MWhr) (lb/MWhr)
1.3 User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data
Project Characteristics - Land Use - See Assumptions Construction Phase - Construction estimated separately Off-road Equipment - Construction estimated separately Vehicle Trips - see assumptions Area Coating - See Assumptions Landscape Equipment - See assumptions Water And Wastewater - See Assumptions Solid Waste - See Assumptions Table Name Column Name Default Value New Value
tblAreaCoating ReapplicationRatePercent 10 0
tblConstructionPhase NumDays 5.00 1.00
tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 1.00 0.00
tblProjectCharacteristics OperationalYear 2014 2022
tblSolidWaste SolidWasteGenerationRate 27.04 2.97
tblVehicleTrips CC_TTP 28.00 0.00
tblVehicleTrips CNW_TTP 13.00 0.00
tblVehicleTrips CW_TTP 59.00 100.00
tblVehicleTrips DV_TP 5.00 0.00
tblVehicleTrips PB_TP 3.00 0.00
tblVehicleTrips PR_TP 92.00 100.00
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 1.50 0.37
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 1.50 0.37
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 1.50 0.37
tblWater AerobicPercent 87.46 97.54
tblWater AnaerobicandFacultativeLagoonsPerce 2.21 2.46 nt tblWater IndoorWaterUseRate 5,043,562.50 1,109,584.00
tblWater SepticTankPercent 10.33 0.00
2.0 Emissions Summary
2.1 Overall Construction (Maximum Daily Emission) Estimated separately 2.2 Overall Operational Unmitigated Operational ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total CO2
Category lb/day lb/day
Area 0.4321 2.0000e- 2.2300e- 0.0000 1.0000e- 1.0000e- 1.0000e- 1.0000e- 4.7700e- 4.7700e- 1.0000e- 5.0400e- 005 003 005 005 005 005 003 003 005 003
Energy 0.0139 0.1268 0.1065 7.6000e- 9.6300e- 9.6300e- 9.6300e- 9.6300e- 152.1252 152.1252 2.9200e- 2.7900e- 153.0510 004 003 003 003 003 003 003
Mobile 0.0243 0.0682 0.3551 1.4400e- 0.1031 1.3500e- 0.1044 0.0275 1.2500e- 0.0288 106.6554 106.6554 3.4700e- 106.7284 003 003 003 003
Total 0.4703 0.1950 0.4638 2.2000e- 0.1031 0.0110 0.1141 0.0275 0.0109 0.0384 258.7854 258.7854 6.4000e- 2.7900e- 259.7844 003 003 003
Mitigated Operational ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total CO2
Category lb/day lb/day
Area 0.4321 2.0000e- 2.2300e- 0.0000 1.0000e- 1.0000e- 1.0000e- 1.0000e- 4.7700e- 4.7700e- 1.0000e- 5.0400e- 005 003 005 005 005 005 003 003 005 003
Energy 0.0139 0.1268 0.1065 7.6000e- 9.6300e- 9.6300e- 9.6300e- 9.6300e- 152.1252 152.1252 2.9200e- 2.7900e- 153.0510 004 003 003 003 003 003 003
Mobile 0.0243 0.0682 0.3551 1.4400e- 0.1031 1.3500e- 0.1044 0.0275 1.2500e- 0.0288 106.6554 106.6554 3.4700e- 106.7284 003 003 003 003
Total 0.4703 0.1950 0.4638 2.2000e- 0.1031 0.0110 0.1141 0.0275 0.0109 0.0384 258.7854 258.7854 6.4000e- 2.7900e- 259.7844 003 003 003
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total
Percent 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Reduction
3.0 Construction Detail Estimated separately 4.0 Operational Detail - Mobile
4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total CO2
Category lb/day lb/day
Mitigated 0.0243 0.0682 0.3551 1.4400e- 0.1031 1.3500e- 0.1044 0.0275 1.2500e- 0.0288 106.6554 106.6554 3.4700e- 106.7284 003 003 003 003
Unmitigated 0.0243 0.0682 0.3551 1.4400e- 0.1031 1.3500e- 0.1044 0.0275 1.2500e- 0.0288 106.6554 106.6554 3.4700e- 106.7284 003 003 003 003
4.2 Trip Summary Information
Average Daily Trip Rate Unmitigated Mitigated Land Use Weekday Saturday Sunday Annual VMT Annual VMT
General Heavy Industry 5.19 5.19 5.19 31,367 31,367 General Heavy Industry 1.85 1.85 1.85 11,178 11,178 General Heavy Industry 1.03 1.03 1.03 6,215 6,215 Total 8.07 8.07 8.07 48,760 48,760
4.3 Trip Type Information
Miles Trip % Trip Purpose %
Land Use H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW H-W or C- H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW Primary Diverted Pass-by W General Heavy Industry 16.60 8.40 6.90 100.00 0.00 0.00 100 0 0 General Heavy Industry 16.60 8.40 6.90 100.00 0.00 0.00 100 0 0 General Heavy Industry 16.60 8.40 6.90 100.00 0.00 0.00 100 0 0
LDA LDT1 LDT2 MDV LHD1 LHD2 MHD HHD OBUS UBUS MCY SBUS MH 0.505043 0.056653 0.194832 0.151784 0.042126 0.005989 0.016072 0.016505 0.001461 0.002178 0.004464 0.000494 0.002401 5.0 Energy Detail 4.4 Fleet Mix Historical Energy Use: N
5.1 Mitigation Measures Energy
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total CO2
Category lb/day lb/day
NaturalGas 0.0139 0.1268 0.1065 7.6000e- 9.6300e- 9.6300e- 9.6300e- 9.6300e- 152.1252 152.1252 2.9200e- 2.7900e- 153.0510 Mitigated 004 003 003 003 003 003 003
NaturalGas 0.0139 0.1268 0.1065 7.6000e- 9.6300e- 9.6300e- 9.6300e- 9.6300e- 152.1252 152.1252 2.9200e- 2.7900e- 153.0510 Unmitigated 004 003 003 003 003 003 003
5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas Unmitigated NaturalGa ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e s Use PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total
Land Use kBTU/yr lb/day lb/day
General Heavy 164.82 1.7800e- 0.0162 0.0136 1.0000e- 1.2300e- 1.2300e- 1.2300e- 1.2300e- 19.3906 19.3906 3.7000e- 3.6000e- 19.5086 Industry 003 004 003 003 003 003 004 004
General Heavy 296.438 3.2000e- 0.0291 0.0244 1.7000e- 2.2100e- 2.2100e- 2.2100e- 2.2100e- 34.8751 34.8751 6.7000e- 6.4000e- 35.0873 Industry 003 004 003 003 003 003 004 004
General Heavy 831.806 8.9700e- 0.0816 0.0685 4.9000e- 6.2000e- 6.2000e- 6.2000e- 6.2000e- 97.8595 97.8595 1.8800e- 1.7900e- 98.4551 Industry 003 004 003 003 003 003 003 003
Total 0.0140 0.1268 0.1065 7.6000e- 9.6400e- 9.6400e- 9.6400e- 9.6400e- 152.1252 152.1252 2.9200e- 2.7900e- 153.0510 004 003 003 003 003 003 003 Mitigated NaturalGa ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e s Use PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total
Land Use kBTU/yr lb/day lb/day
General Heavy 0.16482 1.7800e- 0.0162 0.0136 1.0000e- 1.2300e- 1.2300e- 1.2300e- 1.2300e- 19.3906 19.3906 3.7000e- 3.6000e- 19.5086 Industry 003 004 003 003 003 003 004 004
General Heavy 0.296438 3.2000e- 0.0291 0.0244 1.7000e- 2.2100e- 2.2100e- 2.2100e- 2.2100e- 34.8751 34.8751 6.7000e- 6.4000e- 35.0873 Industry 003 004 003 003 003 003 004 004
General Heavy 0.831806 8.9700e- 0.0816 0.0685 4.9000e- 6.2000e- 6.2000e- 6.2000e- 6.2000e- 97.8595 97.8595 1.8800e- 1.7900e- 98.4551 Industry 003 004 003 003 003 003 003 003
Total 0.0140 0.1268 0.1065 7.6000e- 9.6400e- 9.6400e- 9.6400e- 9.6400e- 152.1252 152.1252 2.9200e- 2.7900e- 153.0510 004 003 003 003 003 003 003
6.0 Area Detail
6.1 Mitigation Measures Area
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total CO2
Category lb/day lb/day
Mitigated 0.4321 2.0000e- 2.2300e- 0.0000 1.0000e- 1.0000e- 1.0000e- 1.0000e- 4.7700e- 4.7700e- 1.0000e- 5.0400e- 005 003 005 005 005 005 003 003 005 003
Unmitigated 0.4321 2.0000e- 2.2300e- 0.0000 1.0000e- 1.0000e- 1.0000e- 1.0000e- 4.7700e- 4.7700e- 1.0000e- 5.0400e- 005 003 005 005 005 005 003 003 005 003 6.2 Area by SubCategory Unmitigated ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total CO2
SubCategory lb/day lb/day
Architectural 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Coating
Consumer 0.4318 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Products
Landscaping 2.1000e- 2.0000e- 2.2300e- 0.0000 1.0000e- 1.0000e- 1.0000e- 1.0000e- 4.7700e- 4.7700e- 1.0000e- 5.0400e- 004 005 003 005 005 005 005 003 003 005 003
Total 0.4321 2.0000e- 2.2300e- 0.0000 1.0000e- 1.0000e- 1.0000e- 1.0000e- 4.7700e- 4.7700e- 1.0000e- 5.0400e- 005 003 005 005 005 005 003 003 005 003
Mitigated ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total CO2
SubCategory lb/day lb/day
Architectural 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Coating
Consumer 0.4318 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Products
Landscaping 2.1000e- 2.0000e- 2.2300e- 0.0000 1.0000e- 1.0000e- 1.0000e- 1.0000e- 4.7700e- 4.7700e- 1.0000e- 5.0400e- 004 005 003 005 005 005 005 003 003 005 003
Total 0.4321 2.0000e- 2.2300e- 0.0000 1.0000e- 1.0000e- 1.0000e- 1.0000e- 4.7700e- 4.7700e- 1.0000e- 5.0400e- 005 003 005 005 005 005 003 003 005 003
7.0 Water Detail
7.1 Mitigation Measures Water
8.0 Waste Detail
8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste 9.0 Operational Offroad
Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Days/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type
10.0 Vegetation CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 1 of 1 Date: 7/12/2016 4:39 AM
GWRS Operational Emissions Orange County, Winter
1.0 Project Characteristics
1.1 Land Usage
Land Uses Size Metric Lot Acreage Floor Surface Area Population
General Heavy Industry 14.03 1000sqft 0.32 14,030.00 0
General Heavy Industry 5.00 1000sqft 0.11 5,000.00 0
General Heavy Industry 2.78 1000sqft 0.06 2,780.00 0
1.2 Other Project Characteristics
Urbanization Urban Wind Speed (m/s) 2.2 Precipitation Freq (Days) 30
Climate Zone 8 Operational Year 2022
Utility Company Southern California Edison
CO2 Intensity 630.89 CH4 Intensity 0.029 N2O Intensity 0.006 (lb/MWhr) (lb/MWhr) (lb/MWhr)
1.3 User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data
Project Characteristics - Land Use - See Assumptions Construction Phase - Construction estimated separately Off-road Equipment - Construction estimated separately Vehicle Trips - see assumptions Area Coating - See Assumptions Landscape Equipment - See assumptions Water And Wastewater - See Assumptions Solid Waste - See Assumptions Table Name Column Name Default Value New Value
tblAreaCoating ReapplicationRatePercent 10 0
tblConstructionPhase NumDays 5.00 1.00
tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 1.00 0.00
tblProjectCharacteristics OperationalYear 2014 2022
tblSolidWaste SolidWasteGenerationRate 27.04 2.97
tblVehicleTrips CC_TTP 28.00 0.00
tblVehicleTrips CNW_TTP 13.00 0.00
tblVehicleTrips CW_TTP 59.00 100.00
tblVehicleTrips DV_TP 5.00 0.00
tblVehicleTrips PB_TP 3.00 0.00
tblVehicleTrips PR_TP 92.00 100.00
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 1.50 0.37
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 1.50 0.37
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 1.50 0.37
tblWater AerobicPercent 87.46 97.54
tblWater AnaerobicandFacultativeLagoonsPerce 2.21 2.46 nt tblWater IndoorWaterUseRate 5,043,562.50 1,109,584.00
tblWater SepticTankPercent 10.33 0.00
2.0 Emissions Summary
2.1 Overall Construction (Maximum Daily Emission) Estimated Separately 2.2 Overall Operational Unmitigated Operational
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total CO2
Category lb/day lb/day
Area 0.4321 2.0000e- 2.2300e- 0.0000 1.0000e- 1.0000e- 1.0000e- 1.0000e- 4.7700e- 4.7700e- 1.0000e- 5.0400e- 005 003 005 005 005 005 003 003 005 003
Energy 0.0139 0.1268 0.1065 7.6000e- 9.6300e- 9.6300e- 9.6300e- 9.6300e- 152.1252 152.1252 2.9200e- 2.7900e- 153.0510 004 003 003 003 003 003 003
Mobile 0.0252 0.0723 0.3402 1.3700e- 0.1031 1.3500e- 0.1044 0.0275 1.2500e- 0.0288 102.0748 102.0748 3.4700e- 102.1477 003 003 003 003
Total 0.4712 0.1991 0.4489 2.1300e- 0.1031 0.0110 0.1141 0.0275 0.0109 0.0384 254.2047 254.2047 6.4000e- 2.7900e- 255.2038 003 003 003
Mitigated Operational
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total CO2
Category lb/day lb/day
Area 0.4321 2.0000e- 2.2300e- 0.0000 1.0000e- 1.0000e- 1.0000e- 1.0000e- 4.7700e- 4.7700e- 1.0000e- 5.0400e- 005 003 005 005 005 005 003 003 005 003
Energy 0.0139 0.1268 0.1065 7.6000e- 9.6300e- 9.6300e- 9.6300e- 9.6300e- 152.1252 152.1252 2.9200e- 2.7900e- 153.0510 004 003 003 003 003 003 003
Mobile 0.0252 0.0723 0.3402 1.3700e- 0.1031 1.3500e- 0.1044 0.0275 1.2500e- 0.0288 102.0748 102.0748 3.4700e- 102.1477 003 003 003 003
Total 0.4712 0.1991 0.4489 2.1300e- 0.1031 0.0110 0.1141 0.0275 0.0109 0.0384 254.2047 254.2047 6.4000e- 2.7900e- 255.2038 003 003 003
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total
Percent 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Reduction 3.0 Construction Detail Estimated Separately
4.0 Operational Detail - Mobile
4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total CO2
Category lb/day lb/day
Mitigated 0.0252 0.0723 0.3402 1.3700e- 0.1031 1.3500e- 0.1044 0.0275 1.2500e- 0.0288 102.0748 102.0748 3.4700e- 102.1477 003 003 003 003
Unmitigated 0.0252 0.0723 0.3402 1.3700e- 0.1031 1.3500e- 0.1044 0.0275 1.2500e- 0.0288 102.0748 102.0748 3.4700e- 102.1477 003 003 003 003
4.2 Trip Summary Information
Average Daily Trip Rate Unmitigated Mitigated Land Use Weekday Saturday Sunday Annual VMT Annual VMT
General Heavy Industry 5.19 5.19 5.19 31,367 31,367 General Heavy Industry 1.85 1.85 1.85 11,178 11,178 General Heavy Industry 1.03 1.03 1.03 6,215 6,215 Total 8.07 8.07 8.07 48,760 48,760
4.3 Trip Type Information
Miles Trip % Trip Purpose %
Land Use H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW H-W or C- H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW Primary Diverted Pass-by W General Heavy Industry 16.60 8.40 6.90 100.00 0.00 0.00 100 0 0 General Heavy Industry 16.60 8.40 6.90 100.00 0.00 0.00 100 0 0 General Heavy Industry 16.60 8.40 6.90 100.00 0.00 0.00 100 0 0
LDA LDT1 LDT2 MDV LHD1 LHD2 MHD HHD OBUS UBUS MCY SBUS MH 0.505043 0.056653 0.194832 0.151784 0.042126 0.005989 0.016072 0.016505 0.001461 0.002178 0.004464 0.000494 0.002401 5.0 Energy Detail 4.4 Fleet Mix Historical Energy Use: N
5.1 Mitigation Measures Energy
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total CO2
Category lb/day lb/day
NaturalGas 0.0139 0.1268 0.1065 7.6000e- 9.6300e- 9.6300e- 9.6300e- 9.6300e- 152.1252 152.1252 2.9200e- 2.7900e- 153.0510 Mitigated 004 003 003 003 003 003 003
NaturalGas 0.0139 0.1268 0.1065 7.6000e- 9.6300e- 9.6300e- 9.6300e- 9.6300e- 152.1252 152.1252 2.9200e- 2.7900e- 153.0510 Unmitigated 004 003 003 003 003 003 003
5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas Unmitigated NaturalGa ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e s Use PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total
Land Use kBTU/yr lb/day lb/day
General Heavy 164.82 1.7800e- 0.0162 0.0136 1.0000e- 1.2300e- 1.2300e- 1.2300e- 1.2300e- 19.3906 19.3906 3.7000e- 3.6000e- 19.5086 Industry 003 004 003 003 003 003 004 004
General Heavy 296.438 3.2000e- 0.0291 0.0244 1.7000e- 2.2100e- 2.2100e- 2.2100e- 2.2100e- 34.8751 34.8751 6.7000e- 6.4000e- 35.0873 Industry 003 004 003 003 003 003 004 004
General Heavy 831.806 8.9700e- 0.0816 0.0685 4.9000e- 6.2000e- 6.2000e- 6.2000e- 6.2000e- 97.8595 97.8595 1.8800e- 1.7900e- 98.4551 Industry 003 004 003 003 003 003 003 003
Total 0.0140 0.1268 0.1065 7.6000e- 9.6400e- 9.6400e- 9.6400e- 9.6400e- 152.1252 152.1252 2.9200e- 2.7900e- 153.0510 004 003 003 003 003 003 003 Mitigated NaturalGa ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e s Use PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total
Land Use kBTU/yr lb/day lb/day
General Heavy 0.831806 8.9700e- 0.0816 0.0685 4.9000e- 6.2000e- 6.2000e- 6.2000e- 6.2000e- 97.8595 97.8595 1.8800e- 1.7900e- 98.4551 Industry 003 004 003 003 003 003 003 003
General Heavy 0.16482 1.7800e- 0.0162 0.0136 1.0000e- 1.2300e- 1.2300e- 1.2300e- 1.2300e- 19.3906 19.3906 3.7000e- 3.6000e- 19.5086 Industry 003 004 003 003 003 003 004 004
General Heavy 0.296438 3.2000e- 0.0291 0.0244 1.7000e- 2.2100e- 2.2100e- 2.2100e- 2.2100e- 34.8751 34.8751 6.7000e- 6.4000e- 35.0873 Industry 003 004 003 003 003 003 004 004
Total 0.0140 0.1268 0.1065 7.6000e- 9.6400e- 9.6400e- 9.6400e- 9.6400e- 152.1252 152.1252 2.9200e- 2.7900e- 153.0510 004 003 003 003 003 003 003
6.0 Area Detail
6.1 Mitigation Measures Area
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total CO2
Category lb/day lb/day
Mitigated 0.4321 2.0000e- 2.2300e- 0.0000 1.0000e- 1.0000e- 1.0000e- 1.0000e- 4.7700e- 4.7700e- 1.0000e- 5.0400e- 005 003 005 005 005 005 003 003 005 003
Unmitigated 0.4321 2.0000e- 2.2300e- 0.0000 1.0000e- 1.0000e- 1.0000e- 1.0000e- 4.7700e- 4.7700e- 1.0000e- 5.0400e- 005 003 005 005 005 005 003 003 005 003 6.2 Area by SubCategory Unmitigated ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total CO2
SubCategory lb/day lb/day
Architectural 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Coating
Consumer 0.4318 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Products
Landscaping 2.1000e- 2.0000e- 2.2300e- 0.0000 1.0000e- 1.0000e- 1.0000e- 1.0000e- 4.7700e- 4.7700e- 1.0000e- 5.0400e- 004 005 003 005 005 005 005 003 003 005 003
Total 0.4321 2.0000e- 2.2300e- 0.0000 1.0000e- 1.0000e- 1.0000e- 1.0000e- 4.7700e- 4.7700e- 1.0000e- 5.0400e- 005 003 005 005 005 005 003 003 005 003
Mitigated ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total CO2
SubCategory lb/day lb/day
Architectural 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Coating
Consumer 0.4318 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Products
Landscaping 2.1000e- 2.0000e- 2.2300e- 0.0000 1.0000e- 1.0000e- 1.0000e- 1.0000e- 4.7700e- 4.7700e- 1.0000e- 5.0400e- 004 005 003 005 005 005 005 003 003 005 003
Total 0.4321 2.0000e- 2.2300e- 0.0000 1.0000e- 1.0000e- 1.0000e- 1.0000e- 4.7700e- 4.7700e- 1.0000e- 5.0400e- 005 003 005 005 005 005 003 003 005 003
7.0 Water Detail
7.1 Mitigation Measures Water
8.0 Waste Detail
8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste 9.0 Operational Offroad
Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Days/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type
10.0 Vegetation Appendix B
Biological Assessment Orange County Water District Ground Water Replenishment System Final Expansion
Biological Assessment
Prepared By Orange County Water District 18700 Ward Street Fountain Valley, CA 92708 Contact: Daniel Bott
September 2016 Table of Contents
Section Page
SECTION 1.0 INTRODUCTION ...... 1-1 SECTION 2.0 REGULATORY FRAMEWORK ...... 2-1 2.1 Federal Regulations ...... 2-1 2.2 State Regulations ...... 2-2 SECTION 3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ...... 3-1 3.1 Biological Setting ...... 3-1 3.2 Proposed Project ...... 3-2 SECTION 4.0 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ...... 4-1 4.1 Sensitive Vegetation Communities ...... 4-1 4.2 Special Status Plant Species ...... 4-1 4.3 Special Status Wildlife Species ...... 4-4 4.4 Critical Habitat ...... 4-6 4.5 Federal and State Jurisdictional Aquatic Resources ...... 4-7 SECTION 5.0 PROJECT IMPACTS ...... 5-1 5.1 Threshold of Significance ...... 5-1 5.2 Project Impacts ...... 5-1 SECTION 6.0 REFERENCES ...... 6-1
Tables
Table 1: Special Status Plant List ...... 4-2 Table 2: Special Status Wildlife List ...... 4-5
Figures
Figure 1: Study Area ...... 3-3 Figure 2: OCWD Water Treatment Site ...... 3-4 Figure 3: OCSD Plant 2 Wastewater Treatment Site ...... 3-5 Figure 4: Pipeline Access Locations ...... 3-10
Appendices
Appendix A: United States Fish and Wildlife Information, Planning and Conservation System Database Search
Appendix B: Wetland Determination Data Forms
Groundwater Replenishment System Final Expansion i Biological Assessment Section 1 Introduction
SECTION 1.0 INTRODUCTION
Purpose The Orange County Water District (OCWD) located at 18700 Ward Street, Fountain Valley, California, 92708 is proposing the Groundwater Replenishment System Final Expansion Project (GWRS Final Expansion Project). This biological assessment evaluates potential impacts to biological resources associated with implementation of GWRS Final Expansion Project. The Biological Assessment was prepared by the OCWD Natural Resource Department in the spring of 2016. The assessment identifies applicable laws and regulations that apply to biological resources within the study area, documents existing biological resources and the potential for sensitive species to occur within the study area, evaluates potential project impacts and where required identifies mitigation measures to avoid and minimize potential impacts to sensitive biological resources. Methodology Literature Review A literature search and review was conducted in conjunction with biological surveys to document the presence and potential for biological resources to exist within the study area. To identify the potential for special status species to occur within the study area, database searches were conducted with the United States Fish and Wildlife (USFWS) Information, Planning, and Conservation System Database and the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) Natural Diversity Database. Onsite Field Survey Field surveys was conducted by David McMichael, OCWD Biologist, in spring of 2016 to determine if sensitive vegetation communities, special status plant species and special status wildlife species were present and if the project area contained suitable habitat conditions to support special status plant species and special wildlife species. The survey was conducted by walking areas of the study area utilizing recognized techniques. Based on the results of the survey, sensitive vegetation communities, special status plants and special status wildlife species were determined to have either a low, moderate or high potential to occur within the project area.
Groundwater Replenishment System Final Expansion 1-1 Biological Assessment Section 2 Regulatory Framework
SECTION 2.0 REGULATORY FRAMEWORK
The following federal, state and regional regulatory programs are applicable to the GWRS Final Expansion Project. 2.1 Federal Regulations Federal Clean Water Act The Clean Water Act is intended to restore and maintain the quality and biological integrity of Waters of the United States (U.S.) According to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, any activity that involves the discharge of dredged or fill material into Waters of the U.S. is subject to approval of a 404 Permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps). Depending on the level of impacts occurring, an activity affecting waters of the U.S. could qualify for a Nationwide Permit or requires approval of an Individual 404 Permit. Section 401 of the Clean Water Act requires that an applicant for a federal license or permit to discharge into navigable waters must provide the federal agency with a water quality certification, declaring that the discharge would comply with water quality standards requirements of the Clean Water Act. The issuance of a 404 permit triggers the requirement that a Section 401 Water Quality Certification must also be obtained from the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). Federal Endangered Species Act The Federal Endangered Species Act (FESA) designates threatened and endangered animals and plants and provides measures for their protection and recovery. The Take of listed animal and plant species in areas under the federal jurisdiction is prohibited without obtaining a federal permit. A Take is defined as to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shot, wound, kill, trap, capture or collect or attempt to engage in any such conduct. Harm includes any act which kills or injures fish or wildlife, including significant habitat modification or degradation that significantly impairs essential behavioral patterns of fish or wildlife. Activities that damage the habitat of listed species require approval from U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) for terrestrial species or from National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) for marine species. FESA also requires determination of critical habitat for listed species and impacts to the critical habitat is prohibited. ESA contains two pathways for obtaining permission to take listed species. Under Section 7 of FESA, a federal agency that authorizes, funds or carries out a project that may affect a listed species or its critical habitat must consult with USFWS or NMFS, to ensure that their actions do not jeopardize the continued existence of endangered or threatened species or result in the destruction or modification of the critical habitat of these species. A Biological Opinion (BO) would be prepared by
Groundwater Replenishment System Final Expansion 2-1 Biological Assessment Section 2 Regulatory Framework
USFWS and NMFS to determine if the activity would jeopardize the continued existence of the listed species. If the BO determines that the activity would not threaten the existence of the listed species and a no jeopardy opinion is provided, then the project may proceed. If the BO finds that the project would result in jeopardy to the listed species (jeopardy opinion), then reasonable and prudent measures would need to be incorporated into the project to reduce potential effects to a level that would not be likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the species. Under Section 10 of FESA private parties with no federal nexus may obtain an Incidental Take Permit to harm listed wildlife species incidental to the lawful operation of a project. To obtain an Incidental Take Permit, the applicant must develop a habitat management plan that specifies impacts to listed species, provides conservation measures and alternatives to minimize impacts. If USFWS finds that the habitat conservation measures would not appreciably reduce the likelihood of the survival and recovery of the species, USFWS would issue an incidental take permit. Migratory Bird Treaty Act The Migratory Bird Treaty Act implements international treaties between the United States and other nations that protect migratory birds, including their nests and eggs, from killing, hunting, pursuing, capturing, selling and shipping unless expressly authorized or permitted. 2.2 State Regulations California Environmental Quality Act The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) was enacted in 1970 to provide for full disclosure of environmental impacts before issuance of a permit by a state or local public agency. In addition to state and federally listed species, sensitive plants and animals receive consideration under CEQA. Sensitive species include wildlife Species of Special Concern listed by California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) and plant species on the California Native Plant Society list 1A, 1B or 2. California Endangered Species Act The California Endangered Species Act (CESA) provides protection and prohibits the take of plant, fish and wildlife species listed by the State of California. Unlike FESA, state-listed plants have the same degree of protection as wildlife. A Take is defined similarly to FESA and it is prohibited for both listed and candidate species. A Take authorization may be obtained from the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) under Section 2091 and 2081 of CESA. Section 2091 of CESA, similar to Section 7 of FESA provides for consultation between a state lead agency under the California Environmental Quality Act and CDFW, with issuance of take authorization if
Groundwater Replenishment System Final Expansion 2-2 Biological Assessment Section 2 Regulatory Framework
the project does not jeopardize the listed species. Section 2081 of CESA allows take of a listed species for educational, scientific or management purposes. California Fish and Game Code Section 1600 The State of California defines Waters of the State as any surface water or groundwater, including saline waters within the boundaries of the State. In accordance with Section 1600 of the Fish and Game Code, CDFW must be notified prior to beginning any activity that would obstruct or divert the natural flow of, use material from or deposit or dispose of material into a river, stream, or lake, whether permanent, intermittent or ephemeral water bodies. The notification occurs through the issuance of a Streambed Alteration Agreement. CDFW has 60 days to review the proposed actions and propose measures to protect affected fish and wildlife resources. The final proposal that is mutually agreed upon by CDFW and the Applicant is the Streambed Alteration Agreement. California Fish and Game Code Fully Protected Species The legislature of the State of California designated species as fully protected prior to the creation of the California Endangered Species Act. Lists of fully protected species were initially developed to provide protection to those animals that were rare or faced possible extinction and included fish, mammals, amphibians, reptiles and birds. Most fully protected species have since been listed as threatened or endangered under California Endangered Species Act and/or the Federal Endangered Species Act. These species may not be taken or possessed at any time, with the only exception being permits issued for limited scientific study. California Fish and Game Code Sections 3503, 3513, 3800, 3801 These California Fish and Game Code Sections protect all birds, birds of prey and all non-game birds, as well as their eggs and nests, for species that are not already listed as fully protected and that occur naturally within the State. Specifically, it is unlawful to take any raptors or their nests and eggs.
Groundwater Replenishment System Final Expansion 2-3 Biological Assessment Section 3 Project Description
SECTION 3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
3.1 Biological Setting The proposed GWRS Final Expansion Project would occur on the existing OCWD GWRS water treatment facility site (GWRS Site) and OCSD Plant No. 2 wastewater treatment facility site (OCSD Plant No. 2 Site) and the OCSD easement corridor. As shown in Figure 1, these three locations collectively comprise the study area for the GWRS Final Expansion Project. GWRS Site The GWRS Site is located at 18700 Ward Street within the City of Fountain Valley. The GWRS encompasses 22 acres of area and includes a mix of single story and multiple story structures, water treatment facilities and supporting access ways and parking areas. The site is situated within an urbanized area and is surrounded by a mixture of commercial, residential and wastewater treatment land uses. The site is bounded by Ward Street to the east, Ellis Avenue to the north and OCSD Plant No. 1 wastewater treatment facility site to the south and east. OCSD Plant No. 2 The OCSD Plant No. 2 Site is located at 22212 Brookhurst Street within the City of Huntington Beach. OCSD Plant No. 2 site is composed of 110 acres, and is developed with wastewater treatment structures, offices, pavement, and ornamental landscaping. The site is bounded by Hamilton Avenue to the north, Brookhurst Street to the west, the Santa Ana River and the Santa Ana River Trail to the east and the Talbert Marsh and Talbert Marsh Bike Trail to the south. Talbert Marsh is one of five wetland parcels owned by the Huntington Beach Wetlands Conservancy and includes the 25 acres from Brookhurst Street to the Santa Ana River Trail and west of and adjacent to the Santa Ana River. The Talbert Marsh is a tidal marsh that has been restored to full tidal action. The water within Talbert Marsh is seawater from the ocean inlet located south of the marsh property that fluctuates in height up to 8 feet from tidal flows. Talbert Marsh provides habitat for both migratory and resident bird species. South of Pacific Coast Highway is the location the California Least Tern Natural Preserve Area. The California Least Tern Natural Preserve Area was first established under the Huntington State Beach General Development Plan in 1976. It was originally dedicated on 2.5 acres and was fenced off with a cyclone fence (a heavy-duty, chain- link fence topped with barbed wire) to prevent predators from harassing the birds. Over the years, the California least tern’s nesting area has expanded beyond the fenced area, State Parks has erected additional picket fencing to protect the birds. Currently,
Groundwater Replenishment System Final Expansion 3-1 Biological Assessment Section 3 Project Description
the cyclone fence area covers approximately 8.9 acres and the picket fence “front-yard” area is 3.8 acres. California State Parks protects the nesting area by limiting access, conducting trash removal, grooming the sand periodically, and conducting predator management. OCSD Easement Corridor The OCSD easement corridor is 3.5 mile utility easement that extends from OCSD Plant No. 2 Site to OCSD Plant No. 1 Site. The easement corridor is vacant and is composed of mostly of bare land and non-native weeds. To the east of easement the Santa Ana River Trail. The shoulder of the trail has been planted with upland native vegetation. To the west of the easement corridor are a combination of public utilities, community gardens, container plant nursery, and park sites. 3.2 Proposed Project The GWRS Final Expansion Project involves seven construction activities; 1) increasing microfiltration capacity, 2) increasing reverse osmosis treatment capacity, 3) increasing ultraviolet treatment capacity, 4) increasing final product water capacity, 5) construction of an effluent pump station, 6) conversion of existing gravity pipeline to a pressurized pipeline and 7) construction of a separate headworks and bypass pipeline. The improvements proposed in the GWRS Final Expansion Project are shown in Figure 2 and Figure 3. Microfiltration Capacity The GWRS Final Expansion Project would increase the microfiltration (MF) treatment capacity by approximately 45 MGD. The expansion of the MF facility involves construction of twelve new treatment basins increasing the overall number of treatment basins from thirty-six (36) to forty-eight (48). The proposed expansion would extend the 40 foot tall microfiltration building into an adjacent existing parking area. The construction of the twelve new basins would occur by increasing the size of the microfiltration building and basement, which houses most of the actual MF equipment. The MF basement includes all piping, valves, pumps, instruments, and control panels. The basement would be expanded by excavating an area of approximately 88-feet in length by 165-feet wide to a depth of 25-feet from the finished grade. A total of 13,500 cubic yards of material would be exported offsite. It is estimated that a total 6 dump trumps, each doing 4 round trips, would occur over an 8 week period (total of 960 round trip truck trips) to haul the excavated soil.
Groundwater Replenishment System Final Expansion 3-2 Biological Assessment SUNFLOWER AVE ELLIS AVE ELLIS AVE
SOUTH COAST DR WARD ST WARD
NEWLANDST GARFIELD AVE GISLER AVE OCSD OCWD Plant No. 1 MAGNOLIA AVE GWRS Facility
D YORKTOWN AVE E R BAKER ST RD VE A S E M BROOKHURSTST ADAMS AVE OCSD Easement Corridor
HARBORBLVD INDIANAPOLIS AVE
FAIR DR BUSHARDST
NEWLANDST
ATLANTA AVE
WILSON ST
Santa Ana River
MAGNOLIA AVE
VICTORIA ST HAMILTON AVE
BANNING AVE 19TH ST
PLACENTIA AVE NEWPORT BLVD
1 17TH ST 17TH ST
OCSD Plant No. 2
15TH ST Path: I:\SS\Bott\GWRS_Expansion\F1_SiteLocation.mxd
0 1,000 2,000 GWRS Final Expansion Project Feet Study Area Figure 1 ST ID CL EU ELLIS AVE
MF Building Expansion Orange County & Equipment Installation Water District
RO Transfer Pump (Install) Orange County Sanitation District
Chemical Tank & Pump Expansion
RO Equipment (Install)
WARD ST WARD
Finished Product Water Pump (Install)
Decarb Tower (Install)
UV Equipment (Install)
GARFIELD AVE GISLER AVE
OCSD Pipe Connection to Existing Facilities Path: I:\SS\Bott\GWRS_Expansion\F2_OCWDImprovements.mxd
GWRS Final Expansion Project 0 500 1,000 Proposed Expansion Improvements Feet OCWD Water Treatment Site Figure 2 ST ORIA HAMILTON AVE VICT
BUSHARDST
Contractor Laydown Area
BANNING AVE
BROOKHURST ST
Headworks
Santa Ana River Bypass OCSD Pipeline Pipeline Connection
Orange County Sanitation District OCSD Plant No 2 OCSD Plant Water Pump Station Pump Station
1 Path: I:\SS\Bott\GWRS_Expansion\SplitProject\F3_OCSDArea.mxd
Excavation Structure GWRS Final Expansion Project Staging Pipeline Area Map OCSD Plant 2 Wastewater Treatment Site
0 500 1,000 Figure 3 Feet Section 3 Project Description
In the excavated area, a foundation would be built including installation of foundation piles. To construct the foundation pilings, 12-inch diameter holes would be drilled into the ground with an auger drill rig. Once the pile drilling is completed, the rebar support cages for the piles would be installed into the drilled holes with a crane. Twelve new concrete treatment basins would then be constructed on this foundation. The foundation piles would be comprised of approximately 50 piles at 12-inch diameter each and approximately 70-feet deep. This equates to a total of 2,765 CY of concrete for the piles. For the piles, five concrete trucks, six round trips per day over a period of 10 days would be required. Each basin would be installed with a centrifugal pump, associated piping, and other appurtenances. These twelve new treatment basins would make up a one and a half new treatment trains that would be added to the existing two trains within the MF West Building. Additionally, at this time most of the electrical equipment associated with the new treatment basins would be added to the new expanded MF West Electrical Building. This equipment includes control panels, motor control centers, switchgear, and variable frequency drives. The total building construction period would be 70 weeks of which 30 weeks would involve the use of heavy construction equipment. The construction of the facility would require the use of various types of construction equipment including, two excavators, one mobile crane, two bull dozers, four fork lifts, five man lifts, ten dump trucks, one cast-in place pile driver machine, and two water trucks. To build the basement facility, 1,600 CY of concrete would be required, which correlates to approximately five trucks that each do four round truck trips per day over a 2 week period. Therefore a total of 200 round trip truck trips would be needed to haul the concrete. The MF product water or effluent would be discharged into an existing 2 million gallon underground concrete reservoir commonly referred to as a break tank. This reservoir contains two sets of vertical turbine pumps. One set (6 existing pumps) would be used for pumping MF product water back to the MF facility for a backwashing process. The other set of pumps (6 existing pumps) would be used to transfer the MF product water from the reservoir to the Reverse Osmosis (RO) Facility. As part of the final expansion, two new 200 horsepower vertical turbine pumps would be installed in the existing break tank facility to pump MF product water back to the MF facility for the backwash process. The break tank facility already has pump slots constructed for these two new pumps, and therefore the construction work for these pumps only involves lifting the pumps into the slots and connecting up the piping and electrical. Reverse Osmosis Treatment Capacity The GWRS Final Expansion Project would increase the Reverse Osmosis (RO) treatment capacity by approximately 30 MGD. The GWRS Initial Expansion Project (Phase II) included the construction of the new RO building. For the GWRS Final
Groundwater Replenishment System Final Expansion 3-6 Biological Assessment Section 3 Project Description
Expansion Project, there would be room inside the existing building to install the six new RO treatment trains. The building basement would also have room to house all the process equipment piping and electric cables for operating the trains. The treatment train equipment includes pressure vessels, RO membranes; RO feed pumps, and associated piping for each train. The new equipment for the six new trains would be tied into the existing piping for the expansion. The RO electric building would have space to house the new control panels, motor control centers, switchgear and variable frequency drives for the new trains. Equipment required for this phase would include; one crane, two fork lifts and a man lift. Ultraviolet Treatment Capacity The GWRS Final Expansion Project would increase the Ultraviolet Light (UV) Treatment capacity by approximately 30 MGD. The GWRS Final Expansion Project would involve the installation of three additional treatment trains. Each train would consist of three steel vessels containing 432 total ultraviolet light lamps. Each vessel would be equipped with two electrical panels, feed and product piping, valves and instruments. For the final expansion project, the existing concrete pad and canopy would be sized to house the three new trains. Therefore, only the equipment for each of the three trains would need to be installed in their designated areas. Equipment required for this phase would include one crane, one fork lift and two man lifts. Final Product Water Capacity In addition to the main process area expansion, the GWRS Final Expansion Project would also expand in the chemical and final product water facilities. As part of the final expansion project, one additional decarbonation tower would be added to the existing decarbonation area. The concrete pad for the decarbonation tower is already constructed and coated and to install the equipment only a crane would be required. An additional pump would also be added to the existing product water pump station. The pump would be a 2,000 horsepower vertical turbine pump installed within an existing pump station building with a slot already in place. The construction activities for the pump would require lifting the pump into the slot with a crane and connecting the piping and electrical components. Additionally, as part of the GWRS Final Expansion Project, a new sulfuric acid 32,000 gallon chemical tank and associated chemical pump would be added. The existing chemical containment area has a concrete tank pad dedicated for the new tank and pump. The construction activities for the tank and pump would require lifting the tank and pump into the existing chemical containment area and connecting the piping and electrical components.
Groundwater Replenishment System Final Expansion 3-7 Biological Assessment Section 3 Project Description
Construction of OCSD Plant No. 2 Effluent Pump Station To convey water flows within the existing OCSD pipeline to the GWRS Site, a pump station would need to be constructed. This is the OCSD Plant No. 2 Effluent Pump Station. The location of the pump station is shown in Figure 3. The Effluent Pump Station would have 4 pumps (3-duty and 1-standby) with the capacity to pump 30 MGD each. The pumps would be housed in a new concrete pump house, approximately 100- feet length x 50-feet in width x 20-feet in height with a 25-foot deep wet well. In addition to the Effluent Pump Station and second smaller Plant Water Pump Station would need to be constructed during this construction phase. The Plant Water Pump Station serves OCSD’s Plant No. 2 with hose bib and wash down water for plant operations. The Plant Water Pump Station would have 4-plant water pumps housed in a 48-ft x 58-ft x 20-ft high concrete building. The concrete wet well for the pumps is estimated to be 25-ft deep. In addition to the building, the Plant Water Pump Station requires a 1-ft thick 30-ft x 42-ft concrete pad for the strainer equipment. The construction of the these two pump station facilities would require the use of various types of construction equipment including, excavators, mobile cranes, compactor, bull dozers, fork lifts, man lifts, dump trucks, concrete trucks and a water truck. For the clearing and excavation of both pump station sites, approximately 4760 CY of soil would need to be hauled off-site. This would require 4 dump trucks doing five round trips each a day for 17 days to complete the excavation. To build both pump station facilities, 340 CY of concrete would be required, which correlates with approximately 3 concrete trucks doing three round trips per day over a 4 day period. Existing OCSD Slip-Lining Pipeline The source water for the GWRS Final Expansion Project would come from both of the treatment plants owned and operated by the Orange County Sanitation District (OCSD). Facilities are already in place to receive source water, secondary effluent, from OCSD’s Plant No. 1 wastewater treatment facility site. However, to provide up to an additional 60 MGD of source water for the GWRS Final Expansion Project, OCWD would need to receive additional wastewater flows from OCSD Plant No. 2 wastewater treatment facility site. To convey the wastewater flows to GWRS water treatment site an existing 3.5 mile 66-inch gravity concrete reinforced pipe (CRP) would be slip-lined to become a 58-inch HDPE (High Density Polyethylene) pressure pipeline. The existing pipeline is located along an OCSD easement corridor which extends west of the Santa River levee. The slip-lining of the pipeline would be completed by excavating a10 feet wide x 10 feet long x 5 feet in depth area to expose the pipeline to allow entry into the pipe to slip-line the existing pipeline. As shown in Figure 4, a total of eight access locations are
Groundwater Replenishment System Final Expansion 3-8 Biological Assessment Section 3 Project Description proposed. To connect the pipeline to the new pump station on the OCSD Plant No. 2, approximately 100-feet of 54-inch steel pipe would need to be constructed. Additionally, to connect the pipeline to the GWRS Site, approximately 100 feet of 54-inch steel pipe would need to be installed by trenching and backing filling on GWRS water treatment facility. The construction equipment to slip-line and install new portions of the pipeline would include; an excavator, backhoe, and a portable welding machine on a pick-up truck. Delivery of the pipeline materials would come to the site in a flatbed truck. A total of two flatbed truck trips per day would occur over a 25 day period for 50 total haul trips. The mix of construction equipment and hours of operation are shown in Table 3. To minimize construction noise impacts at school facilities within the study area, the operation of heavy equipment near school sites would only occur when school would not be in cession. OCSD Plant No. 2 Separate Headworks and Bypass Pipeline The majority of the wastewater flows from OCSD Plant No. 2 Site are needed as source water to meet the demands of the GWRS Final Expansion Project. Currently, OCSD Plant No. 2 receives reject concentrated brine waters from treatment processes from the Inland Water Agencies. These concentrated reject flows, i.e. brines, are currently not allowed to be recycled through the GWRS project per the Division of Drinking Water Permit for GWRS. Therefore, a separate headworks facility and a bypass pipeline would need to be constructed on OCSD’s Plant No. 2 that would segregate the brine flows from the typical influent domestic wastewater flows to Plant No. 2. The bypass pipeline would be a 66-inch Reinforced Concrete Pipe (RCP) with an alignment that runs approximately 200-feet around the existing headworks for Plant No. 2. Connected to the bypass pipeline would be a new separate headworks facility, including a screenings building (65-ft x 55-ft x 20-ft deep) and a grit basin building (40-ft x 65-ft x 20-ft deep). Also along the bypass pipeline alignment would be a 20-ft deep concrete metering vault with vault dimensions of 100-ft x 14-ft. The excavation and site preparation work for these facilities would include the removal of approximately 6135 CY of dirt. Once the site has been excavated, approximately 250 CY of concrete would need to be poured to construct the buildings. Once the buildings are constructed, the screening, grit basin and metering equipment would need to be installed. Construction equipment required to construct the separate headworks facility and bypass pipeline would include excavators, backhoes, dump trucks, concrete trucks, cranes, flatbed trucks, and fork lifts.
Groundwater Replenishment System Final Expansion 3-9 Biological Assessment PUA DR SUNTAN CIR LAPWORTH
LN CIR
KIPAHULU KUKUI DR BIKINI LN SIGNET CIR
AQUATICLN MOOREA LN UPLAND DR DRAGON CIR ENDEVER DR SPINDRIFT LN 8 EL CAPITAN LN
STARBOARD NATIONALLN CHANCE CIR KAMUELA DR CIR
N L
SPARKMAN LN KITE DR SKIMMER LN E
HALAWA DR G
ATLANTA R
QUEENSPARK LN
U
AVE S
WARD ST WARD COOK CIR ATLANTA AVE
FIJI LN PAGO TOBAGO LN PAGO CIR
MAUNA LN
CIR PITCAIRN LN CORNERBROOK DR DANA DR GALBAR
CHRISTMAS DR HAGERSTOWN CIR
STRATHMOOR LN COCOBANA LN SPRIT CIR 3 FORRESTAL YORKTOWN AVE DR MONITOR DR
AMBERWICK LN SPAR CIR
VALLEY SHANGRI CIR FORGE DR LA DR ARAGON EFFINGHAM DR
BINGHAMPTONCIR
INDEPENDENCE LN
MERRIMAC DR BLUE REEF DR MONTE SEACOVE LAS ARENAS WY CANBERRA LN CARLO CIR 7 KORNAT DR DR CONSTITUTION DR PACIFICAVE PORT JAMAICA CONSTELLATIONLN ROYAL CIR CIR VILLA LEMNOS DR PACIFIC DR LURLINE DR INROZ BROOKHAVEN HARBOR DR VICTORIA ST SHALOM DR Santa Ana River CIR POINT CIR BALTRA PL
N MATSONIALN CUTTY SARK DR L MAURETANIA SUNSTAR
HULL N CIR BROOKBAY CIR CIR
T DR O
T
VERDE MAR DR S T GREENSPRAYLN G BALEARIC DR S
N VALLEY RD
I T RIA X ORONSAY CIR O S SEA E CT EUROPA DR I L V N CAPELLA CT HAMILTON AVE R BLUFF DR
RAMSGATE LN
MARGATE LN U 2 G L H E N K A E S CAPELLA CT V T AG O I E L RANGER LN E ES M R
O
CARMANIALN T O E R
SAINTJOHN LN E
SHANTARDR R 6 CALVERT AVE R
B PICCADILLY LN ADAMS AVE
VALLEY ADAMS AVE RD
N FLAMINGO DR
L
E M
N T
A
A O
R L
I AN G S IC L EL L P C A W GOLDENEYE PL L O P R
A ALBATROSS DR
C
L NIAGARA DR R D
D D JILL DR R R OCEANCREST DR WESLEY E MANDARIN DR
CIR P I VIVA CIR SHOREBREEZE P MIDLAND LN D DR BAYBREEZE N
TANBARK A DR CIR S PHALAROPE CT MEREDITH DR
SWAN DR JON DAY DR LN
BROOK DR ONY N ST L
D HARBORBREEZE
N O D DR L O O R HWO W 5 C E N BIR BANNING M E I
V A A AVE R DR R ILET C CRA
WARWICK DR
CYNTHIA DR
BEVERLY DR
THESEUS DR LAVONNE LN
EDYE DR 4 1
CLIFF DR
Santa Ana River
SPINDRIFT LN Path: I:\SS\Bott\GWRS_Expansion\F4_PipelineAccessLocations.mxd
GWRS Final Expansion Project Pipeline Access Locations Pipeline Access Locations
0 1,000 2,000 Figure 4 Feet Section 4 Biological Resources
SECTION 4.0 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
4.1 Sensitive Vegetation Communities GWRS Site The OCWD water treatment facility site is currently developed with water treatment facilities, office buildings, and paved roadways and parking areas. All of the proposed GWRS final expansion activities would occur on locations that have been paved or are in a disturbed condition. The onsite vegetation at the GWRS Site is composed of ornamental landscaping. OCSD Plant No. 2 Site The OCSD wastewater treatment facility site is developed with wastewater treatment facilities, office buildings, and paved roadways and parking areas. The proposed final expansion activities would occur on locations that have been paved or are in a disturbed condition. The onsite vegetation at the GWRS Site is composed of ornamental landscaping. OCSD Easement Corridor The OCSD easement corridor is highly disturbed and composed of bare land and non- native weeds. The easement corridor appears to be under a heavy weed abatement program and regularly maintained. A few weedy species were present in small numbers, including Five-hook Bassia (Bassia hyssopifolia), Black Mustard (Brassica nigra) and Spanish Sunflower (Pulicaria paludosa). There were no sensitive vegetation communities observed along the OCSD easement corridor where the proposed construction activities would occur. Adjacent to the easement corridor is Santa Ana River Trail. The adjacent trail is landscaped with a diverse number of native species. The construction activities along the easement corridor would not impact the landscape along the Santa Ana River Trail. 4.2 Special Status Plant Species The area is located within the USGS Newport beach Quadrangle. To determine the potential for special status plant species to be present within the project area, the OCWD Natural Resources Department conducted a search for special status plant species with the USFWS Information, Planning, and Conservation System Database and the CDFW Natural Diversity Database. A summary of USFWS and CDFW database searches is provided in Appendix A. A listing of special status plant species within potential to occur within the Newport Beach USGS Quadrangle is shown in Table 1. Subsequent to database search, OCWD Natural Resource Department conducted survey of the study to determine if special
Groundwater Replenishment System Final Expansion 4-1 Biological Assessment Section 4 Biological Resources status plants species identified in the database were present or if suitable habitat was available to support special status plant species. The determination on the potential for the special status plant species to occur within the study area was based on the following criteria: Present: Species was observed within the study area within the last year. High: The study area supports suitable habitat and the species has been observed within the last year. Moderate: The study area supports suitable and the species has not been observed within last two years. Low: The study area lacks suitable habitat for the species.
Table 1: Special Status Plant List Species Federal State CNPS General Potential for Habitat/Recent Occurrence Study Occurrence Area Chaparral NL NL 1B.1 Coast Scrub Low sand-Verbena Chaparral. Species presumed extirpated (Abronia . Villosa var. aurita) Aphanisma NL NL 1B.2 Coastal Scrub, Low (Aphanisma Coastal Bluff Scrub, Study Area lacks blitoides) Coastal Dunes suitable habitat Ventura Marsh E NL Marshes, Swamps, Low Milk-vetch Coastal Dunes, Study Area lacks Coastal Scrub suitable habitat (Astragalus pycnostachy var. Lanosissimus Coulter’s NL NL 1B.2 Coastal Scrub, Low Saltsbush Coastal Bluff Scrub, Study Area lacks (Atriplex Coastal Dunes suitable habitat coulteri) South Coast NL NL 1B.2 Coastal Scrub, Low Saltscale Coastal Bluff Scrub Study Area lacks suitable habitat Davidson’s NL NL 1B.2 Coastal Scrub, Low Saltscale Coastal Bluff Scrub Study Area lacks suitable habitat (Atriplex serenana var. davidsonii)
Groundwater Replenishment System Final Expansion 4-2 Biological Assessment Section 4 Biological Resources
Southern NL NL 1B.1 Marshes and Low Tarplant swamps Study Area lacks suitable habitat. (centromadia parryi ssp. Australis) Salt Marsh E E 1B.2 Coastal Salt marsh, Low Birds-beak Coastal Dunes Study Area lacks suitable habitat. (Chloropyron maritimum ssp. Maritimum) Many NL NL 1B.2 Chaparral, Coastal Low Stemmed Scrub Study Area lacks Dudleya suitable habitat
(Dudleya Multicaulis) San Diego E E 1B.1 Vernal pools, Coastal Low Button-Celery Scrub, Valley and Study Area lacks Foothill Grasslands suitable habitat (Eryngium aristulatum var. parishii) Los Angeles NL NL 1A Marshes and Low Sunflower Swamps Study Area lacks suitable habitat (Helianthus nuttallii ssp. Parishii) Coulter’s NL NL 1B.1 Coastal Salt marshes Low Goldfield Study Area lacks
suitable habitat (Lasthenia glabrata ssp. Coulteri) Mud nama NL NL 2.2 Marshes and Low (Nama swamps Project area lacks suitable habitat stenocarpum) Gambels E T 1B.1 Marshes and Low Water Cress swamps Study Area lacks suitable habitat (Nasturtium gambelii) Prostrate NL NL 1B.1 Vernal pools, coastal Low Vernal Pool scrub Study Area lacks Navarretia suitable habitat
(Navarretia prostrate) Coast NL NL 1B.2 Coastal Dunes Low woollyheads Study Area lacks
(Nemacaulis suitable habitat
Groundwater Replenishment System Final Expansion 4-3 Biological Assessment Section 4 Biological Resources
denudate var. denudate) Estuary NL NL 1B.2 Marshes and Low Seablite swamps Study Area lacks suitable habitat (Suaeda Esteroa) San NL NL 1B.2 Marshes and Low Bernardino swamps, coastal Study Area lacks Aster scrub suitable habitat (Symphyotrich um defoliatum)
Federal State Listing (California Endangered California Native Plant Society CNPS E- Endangered Species Act, CDFG 1A-Plants presumed extinct in California T-Threatened FP-Fully Protected 1B- Plants rare, threatened, or endangered in California SSC- Special Species of Concern E-Endangered and elsewhere C-Candidate for Listing T-Threatened 2-Plants rare, threatened, or endangered in California NL-Not Listed S-Sensitive but more common elsewhere SSC-Special Species of Concern 3-Plants about which we need more review WL-Watch List 4-Plants of limited distribution NL-Not Listed CNPS Threat Rank .1 Seriously Endangered .2 Fairly Endangered .3 Not Very Endangered
4.3 Special Status Wildlife Species The area is located within the USGS Newport beach Quadrangle. To determine the potential for special status wildlife species to be present within the project area, the OCWD Natural Resources Department conducted a search for special status wildlife species with the USFWS Information, Planning, and Conservation System Database and the California Department of Fish and Wildlife Natural Diversity Database. A summary of USFWS and CDFW database searches is provided in Appendix A. A listing of special wildlife species within potential to occur within the Newport Beach USGS Quadrangle is shown in Table 2. Subsequent to database search, OCWD Natural Resource Department conducted survey of the study to determine if special status plants species identified in the database were present or if suitable habitat was available to support special status plant species. The determination on the potential for the special status plant species to occur within the study area was based on the following criteria: Present: Species was observed within the study area within the last year. High: The study area supports suitable habitat and the species has been observed within the last year. Moderate: The study area supports suitable and the species has not been observed within last two years. Low: The study area lacks suitable habitat for the species.
Groundwater Replenishment System Final Expansion 4-4 Biological Assessment Section 4 Biological Resources
Table 2: Special Status Wildlife List Species Federal State General Potential Occurrence Habitat/Recent Study Area Occurrence Orange throat NL SSC Low level coastal Low scrub, sandy areas with Study Area lacks Whiptail patches of scrub suitable habitat (Aspidoscelis hyperythra) Burrowing owl NL SSC Open growing low Low (Athene grasslands Study Area lacks suitable habitat cunicularia) San Diego Fairy E SSC Vernal pools Low Shrimp Study Area lacks
(Branchinecta suitable habitat sandiegonensis) Western Snowy T SSC Sandy Beaches Low Plover Study Area lacks
(Charadrius suitable habitat alexandrines nivosus) Southwestern E E Riparian woodlands Low Willow Flycatcher Study Area lacks
(Empidonax trailli suitable habitat extimus) Western Mastiff Bat NL SSC Roosts in cliffs, tall Low (Eumops perotis buildings, trees and Study Area lacks californicus) tunnels suitable habitat
Big free Bat NL SSC Roosts in cliffs, tall Low (Nyctinomops buildings, trees and Study Area lacks macrotis) tunnels suitable habitat
Pacific Pocket E SSC Coastal Plains Low Mouse Study Area lacks
(perognathus suitable habitat longimembris pacifus) Coast Horned NL SSC Low lands along sandy Low Lizard washes with scattered Study Area lacks (Phrynosoma brush suitable habitat blainvillii) Coastal California T SSC Coastal sage scrub Low Gnatcatcher Study Area lacks
Groundwater Replenishment System Final Expansion 4-5 Biological Assessment Section 4 Biological Resources
(Polioptila suitable habitat californica californica) Light-Footed E E Salt marshes Low Clapper Rail Study Area lacks
(Rallus longirostris suitable habitat levipes) Southern California NL SSC Coastal Marshes Low Saltmarsh Shrew Study Area lacks
suitable habitat (Sorex oratus) California Least E E Sandy Beaches Low Tern Study Area lacks (Sterna antillarum) suitable habitat Least Bell’s vireo E E Low growing riparian Low (Vireo bellii habitats Study Area lacks pusillus) suitable habitat
Legend
Federal Endangered Species Act E- Endangered T-Threatened SSC- Special Species of Concern C-Candidate for Listing California Endangered Species Act/California Department Fish Game FP-Fully Protected E-Endangered T-Threatened S-Sensitive SSC-Special Species of Concern WL-Watch List
4.4 Critical Habitat The Federal Endangered Species Act requires the federal government to designate critical habitat for any species it lists under the Federal Endangered Species Act. Critical habitat is defined as 1) specific areas within the geographical area occupied by the specie at the time of listing, if they contain physical or biological features essential to conservation, and those features may require special management considerations or protection and 2) specific areas outside the geographical area occupied by the species if the agency determines that the area itself is essential for conservation. According to the of USFWS Information, Planning, and Conservation System Database and the California Department of Fish and Wildlife Natural Diversity Database, the study area is not located on lands that are designated as Critical Habitat.
Groundwater Replenishment System Final Expansion 4-6 Biological Assessment Section 4 Biological Resources
4.5 Federal and State Jurisdictional Aquatic Resources Waters of the United States A water body is considered Waters of the U.S. if it is: (1) traditional navigable water (TNW); (2) wetlands adjacent to a TNW; (3) non-navigable tributaries of TNW that have perennial or seasonal flow of water; and (4) wetlands that are adjacent to non-navigable tributaries of TNW that have perennial or seasonal flow of water. There are no Waters of the U.S. on the GWRS Site, OCSD Plant No. 2 Site, or along the OCSD easement corridor. The closest surface water body to the study area is the Santa Ana River and the Pacific Ocean. The Pacific Ocean is navigable water and is classified as Waters of the U.S. The Santa Ana River drains into the Pacific Ocean therefore Santa Ana River is classified as a tributary to a navigable water and Waters of the U.S. The Federal jurisdiction along the Santa Ana River extends to the ordinary high water mark and to any adjacent wetland vegetation. Waters of the State of California According to the State Water Code, Waters of the State are defined as any surface water, groundwater or wetlands within the boundary of the state. There are no waters of the State on the GWRS Site or on the OCSD Plant No. 2 Site. The Santa Ana River is classified as Waters of the State. The State jurisdiction along the Santa Ana River extends to the top of the slope to adjacent wetland vegetation. Wetland Waters of the United States and State California Wetland Waters are a subset of jurisdictional Waters of the U.S. and the State. Generally, wetlands are lands where saturation with water is the dominant factor determining the nature of soil development and the types of plant and animal communities living in the soil and on its surface. Wetlands generally include swamps, freshwater marshes, brackish water and saltwater marshes, bogs, vernal pools, periodically inundated salt flats, intertidal mudflats, wet meadows, wet pastures, springs and seeps, portions of lakes, ponds, rivers and streams and all areas which are periodically or permanently covered by shallow water, or dominated by hydrophilic vegetation, or in which the soils are predominantly hydric in nature. Presently, there is no single definition for wetlands. However, all resource agencies recognize that wetlands must demonstrate the following three essential elements: (1) the site periodically supports hydrophilic vegetation, (2) the site contains hydric soil and (3) the site periodically contains water or the soil is saturated with water at some time during the growing season of each year.
Groundwater Replenishment System Final Expansion 4-7 Biological Assessment Section 5 Project Impacts
SECTION 5.0 PROJECT IMPACTS
5.1 Threshold of Significance The following threshold of significance was used to evaluate potential impacts to biological resources associated with implementation of the GWRS Final Expansion Project. Would the project have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local regional plans, policies and regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? Would the project have a substantially adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act through direct removal, filling hydrological interruption, or other means? 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? Would the project conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? Would the Project be in conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? 5.2 Project Impacts A: Would the project have a substantial adverse impact, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive or special status species in local or regional plans, policies or regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and wildlife Services? Onsite Impacts Based on a review of databases from United State Fish and Wildlife Service and California Department of Fish and Wildlife and biological surveys conducted within the study area, it has been determined that there would be low potential for special status plant species or special status wildlife species to be present within the study area. As
Groundwater Replenishment System Final Expansion 5-1 Biological Assessment Section 5 Project Impacts
shown in Table 1 and Table 2, the study area lacks suitable habitat to support special status plant species or special status wildlife species that were identified in the database search. Additionally, no indications were found that any special status species were ever present. Therefore, implementation of the GWRS Final Expansion Project would not result in adverse impacts to any special status plant species or special status wildlife species. Offsite Impacts Located south of OCSD Plant No. 2 is the Talbert Marsh and south of Pacific Coast Highway is the California Least Tern Colony. Both of these biological resources would provide suitable habitat for special status wildlife and plant species. The proposed GWRS Final Expansion Project improvements would be confined to the GWRS Site, OCSD Plant No. 2 and along the OCSD easement corridor. No construction activities would occur at the Talbert Marsh or at the California Least Tern Colony. Therefore, no direct impacts to special status plant or wildlife species would occur. The GWRS Final Expansion Project improvements would involve the operation of heavy construction equipment. There would be the potential that construction equipment could operate during nesting season. There would high probability that special status bird species could be present at Talbert Marsh and the California Least Tern Colony during the nesting season. The United States Fish and Wildlife Service as established a noise impact threshold of 60 dBA to identify potential adverse impacts to nesting birds. The Talbert Marsh is located approximately 2,200 feet from where the construction activities would occur and the California Least Tern Colony is located approximately 2,700 feet from the construction activities would occur. Based on the nosiest piece of construction equipment that would be used in GWRS Final Expansion Project the noise level at the Talbert Marsh and at the California Least Tern Colony is estimated to be below 55 dBA. Additionally, with the presence of the block wall around Plant No. 2 and the traffic noise along Pacific Coast Highway, it would be very unlikely that construction noise would herd at either location. Potential indirect noise impacts to special status wildlife species would be less than significant. B: Would the project have a substantial adverse impact on any riparian habitat or natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, and regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? A biological field survey conducted within the study area did not identify any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural communities. The study area is situated within an urbanized setting and no sensitive riparian habitat or sensitive natural communities were identified. Therefore, implementation of the GWRS Final Expansion Project would not impact riparian or other sensitive natural communities.
Groundwater Replenishment System Final Expansion 5-2 Biological Assessment Section 5 Project Impacts
C: Would the project adversely impact federally protected wetlands either individually or in combination with the known or probable impacts of other activities through direct removal, filling hydrological interruption, or other means? GWRS Site/OCSD Plant No. 2 Site The GWRS Site and the OCSD Plant No. 2 Site are both improved and developed with water and wastewater treatment facilities. The locations where the final expansion improvements would occur are pave. A preliminary site survey conducted on the GWRS Site and the Plant No. 2 Site did not identify any potential wetland areas. Because of the improved conditions of the study area, wetland delineation was not conducted. OCSD Easement Corridor The OCSD easement corridor is currently vacant and consists of bare ground and non- native weeds. Wetland delineation was conducted to determine if wetland habitat indicators were present in the location where the pipeline improvements would occur. The wetland delineation was conducted in accordance with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual. A three parameter approach was used to identify Wetland Waters of the U.S. and State. These three parameters include; (1) the presence of wetland vegetation, (2) the presence of wetland hydrology and (3) the presence of hydric soils. Vegetation: The locations where the construction activities would occur does not contain any wetland vegetation that would meet the wetland vegetation parameter. Hydrology: The only source of water to the easement corridor would be seasonal rainfall. The ground surface where the construction activities would occur consists of compacted soils that would not saturate with rainfall. The study area would not meet the wetland hydrology parameter. Hydric Soils: The study area soils consist of compacted fill material and would not meet the hydric soil parameter. Wetland Waters Determination The GWRS Site, the OCSD Plant No. 2 Site and the OCSD easement corridor all lack the required parameters that define Wetland Waters of the U.S. or State. Therefore, the implementation of the GWRS Final Expansion Project would not adversely impact Wetland Waters of the U.S or State. D: 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?
Groundwater Replenishment System Final Expansion 5-3 Biological Assessment Section 5 Project Impacts
The GWRS Site and the OCSD Plant No. 2 Site are both developed properties that have been improved with buildings, water and wastewater treatment facilities, and paved roadways and parking areas. The site does not contain suitable habitat or provide linkages to suitable habitat to support wildlife movement. Along the perimeter of Plant No.2 are a row of eucalyptus trees that could provide potential nesting opportunities for migratory birds. Therefore, construction activities for the proposed project would not involve the removal of any trees. Therefore, potential direct impacts to nesting migratory birds would be avoided. Additionally, sound attenuation measures would be incorporated into the project to minimize noise impacts in the study area. The implementation of the proposed project would not result in significant adverse impacts to migratory birds or result in significant adverse impacts to wildlife movement. No mitigation measures are required. The OCSD easement corridor is composed of bare ground and non-native weeds. The locations where the proposed construction activities would occur lack suitable habitat to support migratory birds. The OCSD easement corridor does provide an open space connection between OCSD Plant No. 1 Site and the OCSD Plant No. 2 Site. However, the easement corridor does not contain suitable habitat or provide linkages to suitable habitat areas to function has a wildlife movement corridor. Therefore, the implementation of the GWRS Final Expansion Project would not result in significant adverse impacts to migratory birds or result in significant adverse impacts to wildlife movement. E: Would the project conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as tree preservation policy or ordinance? The City of Fountain Valley and the City of Huntington Beach both do not have any local policies or ordinances that provide for the protection of management of biological resources that would apply to the project site. Therefore, implementation of the GWRS Final Expansion Project would not be in conflict with local polices or ordinances that provide for the protection of biological resources F: Would the project be in conflict with provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local regional or state habitat conservation plan. The construction and operation of the GWRS Final Expansion Project would occur on the GWRS Site, OCSD Plant No. 2 Site and along the OCSD easement corridor. None of the sites are included within or near any adopted Habitat Conservation Plan.
Groundwater Replenishment System Final Expansion 5-4 Biological Assessment Section 6 References
SECTION 6.0 REFERENCES
California Department Fish and Game Natural Diversity Database, Accessed March 2016. California Native Plant Society Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants Database, Accessed March 2016. City of Fountain Valley General Plan, Web Site Accessed June 2016 City of Huntington Beach General Plan, Accessed June 2016. Orange County Water District Groundwater Management Plan, 2009. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers List of Wetland Plants, 2008. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual Arid West Region, September 2008. United States Fish and Wildlife Information, Planning, and Conservation System Database, Accessed June 2016.
Groundwater Replenishment System Final Expansion 6-1 Biological Assessment
Appendix C
Cultural Resources Study
[Click here and enter Draft phase]
Groundwater Replenishment System Final Expansion Project and Water Production Enhancement Project Phase I Cultural Resources Study
Prepared for August 2016 Orange County Water District
[Draft phase here]
Groundwater Replenishment System Final Expansion Project and Water Production Enhancement Project Phase I Cultural Resources Study
Prepared for August 2016 Orange County Water District
2121 Alton Parkway Suite 100 Irvine, CA 92606 949.753.7001 www.pcrnet.com
Irvine Sacramento Los Angeles San Diego Oakland San Francisco Orlando Santa Monica Pasadena Seattle Petaluma Tampa Portland Woodland Hills
160387.01
Table of Contents Groundwater Replenishment System Final Expansion Project and Water Production Enhancement Project Phase I Cultural Resources Study
Page
1. Introduction ...... 1 1.1 Project Location ...... 2 1.2 Project Description ...... 2
2. Area of Potential Effects ...... 10
3. Setting ...... 13 3.1 Environmental Setting ...... 13 3.2 Prehistoric Setting ...... 13 3.3 Ethnographic Setting ...... 14 3.4 Historic Setting...... 16
4. Regulatory Framework ...... 19 4.1 Federal ...... 19 4.2 State ...... 20
5. Archival Research ...... 25 5.1 South Central Coastal Information Center Records Search ...... 25 5.2 Historic Map and Aerial Review ...... 27 5.3 Native American Heritage Commission ...... 28 5.4 Geoarchaeological Review ...... 32
6. Paleontological Records Search ...... 35
7. Cultural Resources Survey and Results ...... 36
8. Conclusions and Recommendations ...... 37 8.1 Archaeological Resources ...... 37 8.2 Historic Built Resources ...... 39 8.3 Paleontological Resources ...... 39
9. References ...... 41
Groundwater Replenishment System Final Expansion Project and ESA / 160387.01 Water Production Enhancement Project i August 2016 Phase I Cultural Resources Study Table of Contents
Page
Appendices A. Resumes B. SCCIC Records Search Results C. Native American Correspondence D. Photographs of the Project APE
List of Figures Figure 1 Local Vicinity Map Topographic Base ...... 3 Figure 2 Project Location Topographic Base ...... 4 Figure 3 Site Plan ...... 5 Figure 4 Area of Potential Effects ...... 11
List of Tables Table 1 Previous Cultural Resources Investigations including the Project APE ...... 25 Table 2 Previously Recorded Cultural Resources within ½-mile of the Project APE ...... 26 Table 3 Native American Outreach ...... 29
Groundwater Replenishment System Final Expansion Project and ESA / 160387.01 Water Production Enhancement Project ii August 2016 Phase I Cultural Resources Study
Groundwater Replenishment System Final Expansion Project and Water Production Enhancement Project Phase I Cultural Resources Study
1. Introduction Environmental Science Associates (ESA) has been retained by the Orange County Water District (OCWD) to prepare a Cultural Resources Study for the proposed Groundwater Replenishment System (GWRS) Final Expansion Project and the Water Production Enhancement Project (referred below as the project) located in the cities of Huntington Beach and Fountain Valley, California. The GWRS is an existing advanced water treatment facility constructed by the OCWD and the Orange County Sanitation District (OCSD) that supplements local water supplies by providing reliable, high-quality source of treated water to recharge the Orange County Groundwater Basin, and to protect the Orange County Groundwater Basin from seawater intrusion. The project would provide facilities that would allow an increase in the amount of water to be conveyed to the GWRS and further supplement the local water supplies. The GWRS Final Expansion Project involves eight components: (1) increasing microfiltration (MF) capacity; (2) increasing reverse osmosis (RO) treatment capacity; (3) increasing ultraviolet (UV) treatment capacity; (4) increasing final product water capacity; (5) construction of an effluent pump station: (6) conversion of existing gravity pipeline to a pressurized pipeline; and (7) construction of a separate headworks and bypass pipeline. The Water Production Enhancement Project involves the proposed flow equalization tank with a pump station, and conveyance piping and flow meter vault.
The project is eligible for funding from the State Revolving Fund (SRF) Loan Program, which is administered by the California State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). Since the SRF Loan Program is partially funded by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), it is subject to federal environmental regulations including Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966, as amended. This Phase I cultural resources study has been prepared in support of the environmental documentation being prepared for the GWRS Final Expansion Project and the environmental documentation being prepared for the Water Production Enhancement Project in compliance with CEQA and Section 106 of the NHPA. The OCWD is the lead agency responsible for compliance with CEQA.
ESA personnel involved in the preparation of this study include: Candace Ehringer, M.A., R.P.A., Principal Investigator; Arabesque Said-Abdelwahed, MPP, report author and surveyor; Vanessa Ortiz, M.A., R.P.A, literature review analyst. Resumes of key personnel are provided in Appendix A.
Groundwater Replenishment System Final Expansion Project and ESA / 160387.01 Water Production Enhancement Project 1 August 2016 Phase I Cultural Resources Study Groundwater Replenishment System Final Expansion Project and Water Production Enhancement Project. Phase I Cultural Resources Study 1. Introduction
1.1 Project Location The project is located within the cities of Fountain Valley and Huntington Beach (Figure 1). A portion of the project is located at the existing OCWD GWRS Facility in Fountain Valley. The project is also located at the southern portion of OCSD Treatment Plant No. 1 and OCSD Treatment Plant No. 2 in Huntington Beach. In addition, the project includes the renovation of an existing waste water pipeline located along the west side of the Santa Ana River that extends from Treatment Plant No. 2 to the OCWD GWRS Facility. The project is located within section 32 of Township 5 South/Range 10 West and it is located in sections 5, 17, 20, of Township 6 South/Range 10 West as shown on the Newport Beach, California 7.5-minute U.S. Geological Survey topographic map (Figure 2).
1.2 Project Description The project evaluated in this report comprises of two separate projects. The first is the GWRS Final Expansion Project. The second is the Water Production Enhancement Project. The components of each project are illustrated in Figure 3 as well as the potential staging area.
1.2.1 GWRS Final Expansion Project This project includes conversion of an existing gravity pipeline to a pressurized pipeline, increasing MF capacity, increasing RO Treatment Capacity, increasing UV treatment capacity at the OCWD GWRS Facility, final product water and construction of a pump station at the OCSD Plant No. 2. The GWRS takes highly treated wastewater that would have been previously discharged into the Pacific Ocean and purifies it using a three-step advanced treatment process consisting of MF, RO and UV light with hydrogen peroxide. Specifically, the project will include the following seven improvements, as well as potential staging areas:
1.2.1.1 Microfiltration Capacity The project would increase the MF treatment capacity by approximately 45 million gallons per day (MGD). The expansion of the MF facility at the OCWD water treatment site involves construction of 12 new treatment basins increasing the overall number of treatment basins from 36 to 48. The construction of the 12 new basins would occur by increasing the size of the MF building and basement, which houses most of the actual MF equipment. The MF basement includes all piping, valves, pumps, instruments, and control panels. The basement would be expanded by excavating an area of approximately 88-feet long by 165-feet wide by 25-feet deep from finished grade. The depth of disturbed soils is unknown; therefore, excavations may extend to native and undisturbed soils.
Groundwater Replenishment System Final Expansion Project and ESA / 160387.01 Water Production Enhancement Project 2 August 2016 Phase I Cultural Resources Study 0 4000
Feet
OCWD Groundwater Replenishment System Final Expansion Project . P160387.01 SOURCE: USGS Newport Beach, CA (1978) 7.5’ DRG; Figure 1 Local Vicinity Map Topographic Base 0 4000
Feet OCWD Groundwater Replenishment System Final Expansion Project . P160387.01 SOURCE: USGS Newport Beach, CA (1978) 7.5’ DRG; Figure 2 Project Location Topographic Base OCSD Plant No. 1 and OCSD Plant No. 2 OCWD GWRS FacilityMacarthur Blvd
MF Building Expansion and OCWD GWRS Equipment Installation Facility Sunflower Ave EllisMF BackwashAVE Ellis Ave Magnolia ST Pumps (Install)
Chemical Tank and Pump Expansion ¦¨§405 RO Equipement (Install)
Ward STWard Finished Product California ST Water Pump (Install) OCSD Plant No. 1
Garfield DecarbAVE Tower (Install) Garfield AVE
UV Eqiupment (Install)
OCSD Pipe Connection to Existing Facilities
Yorktown AVE
Adams Ave
Existing Pipeline for Rehabilitation
Bushard ST
Brookhurst St
Magnolia ST
Harbor BLVD
Atlanta Ave
Excavation Area for OCSD Pipeline
Contractor Laydown Area
Flow EQ Control / Meter Victoria ST Flow EQ Pump Station Hamilton Ave Path: U:\GIS\GIS\Projects\16xxxx\D160387_OCSD\03_MXDs_Projects\Cult\Fig3_SitePlan.mxd, janderson 7/27/2016 janderson U:\GIS\GIS\Projects\16xxxx\D160387_OCSD\03_MXDs_Projects\Cult\Fig3_SitePlan.mxd, Path:
OCSD Pipeline Connection OCSD Pump Station OCSD Plant No. 2 19th ST 19th ST Bypass Pipeline
Headgates 1
PlacentiaAVE
17th ST
Superior AVE
15th ST 0 2,000
Feet Superior AVE
OCWD Groundwater Replenishment System Final Expansion Project . P160387.01 SOURCE: ESRI Figure 3 Site Plan Groundwater Replenishment System Final Expansion Project and Water Production Enhancement Project. Phase I Cultural Resources Study 1. Introduction
This page left intentionally blank
Groundwater Replenishment System Final Expansion Project and ESA / 160387.01 Water Production Enhancement Project 6 August 2016 Phase I Cultural Resources Study Groundwater Replenishment System Final Expansion Project and Water Production Enhancement Project. Phase I Cultural Resources Study 1. Introduction
In the excavated area, a foundation would be built including installation of foundation piles. The 12 new concrete treatment basins would be constructed on this foundation. Each basin would be installed with a centrifugal pump, associated piping, and other appurtenances. These 12 new treatment basins would make up a one and a half new treatment trains that would be added to the existing two trains within the MF West building. In addition, most of the electrical equipment associated with the new treatment basins would be added to the new expanded MF West electrical building.
The MF product water or effluent discharges into an existing 2 million gallon underground concrete reservoir commonly referred to as a break tank. This reservoir contains two sets of vertical turbine pumps. One set (six existing pumps) is used for pumping MF product water back to the MF facility for a backwashing process. The other set of pumps (six existing pumps) is used to transfer the MF product water from the reservoir to the RO Facility. As part of the final expansion, two new 200-horsepower vertical turbine pumps would be installed in the existing break tank facility to pump MF product water back to the MF facility for the backwash process. The break tank facility already has pump slots constructed for these two new pumps, and therefore, the construction work for these pumps only involves lifting the pumps into the slots and connecting up the piping and electrical.
1.2.1.2 Reverse Osmosis Treatment Capacity The project would increase the RO treatment capacity by approximately 30 MGD. The project would include the installation of up to six additional treatment trains at the OCWD water treatment site. The treatment train includes pressure vessels, RO membranes, RO feed pumps, and associated piping for each train. The new equipment for the six new trains would be tied into the existing piping for the expansion. No excavation would be required.
1.2.1.3 Ultraviolet Treatment Capacity The project would increase the UV Treatment capacity at the OCWD water treatment site by approximately 30 MGD. The project would install three additional treatment trains. Each train would consist of three steel vessels containing 432 total UV light lamps. Each vessel would be equipped with two electrical panels, feed and product piping, valves and instruments. The existing concrete pad and canopy would be sized to house the three new trains. Therefore, only the equipment for each of the three trains would need to be installed in their designated areas. Equipment required for this phase includes one crane, one fork lift and two man lifts. No excavation would be required.
1.2.1.4 Final Product Water The project would also expand the chemical and final product water facilities at the OCWD water treatment site. As part of the project, one additional decarbonation tower would be added to the existing decarbonation area. The concrete pad for the decarbonation tower is already constructed. An additional pump would also be added to the existing product water pump station. The pump would be a 2,000-horsepower vertical turbine pump installed within an existing pump station building with a slot already in place. No excavation is required.
Groundwater Replenishment System Final Expansion Project and ESA / 160387.01 Water Production Enhancement Project 7 August 2016 Phase I Cultural Resources Study Groundwater Replenishment System Final Expansion Project and Water Production Enhancement Project. Phase I Cultural Resources Study 1. Introduction
1.2.1.5 Construction of OCSD Plant No. 2 Effluent Pump Station A new pump station (Effluent Pump Station) would be constructed at the OCSD Plant No. 2 to convey water flows within the existing OCSD pipeline to the OCWD water treatment facility site. The pump station would include four pumps (three duty and one standby) with the capacity to pump 30 MGD each. The pumps would be housed in a new concrete pump house, approximately 100-feet long by 50-feet wide by 20-feet high with a 25-foot deep wet well.
In addition to the Effluent Pump Station, a second smaller Plant Water Pump Station would be constructed at OCSD’s Plant No. 2. The Plant Water Pump Station serves OCSD’s Plant No. 2 with hose bib and washdown water for plant operations. The Plant Water Pump Station would have four plant water pumps housed in a 48-feet long by 58-feet wide by 20-feet high concrete building. The concrete wet well for the pumps is estimated to be 25-feet deep. The depth of disturbed soils is unknown; therefore, excavations may extend to native and undisturbed soils.
1.2.1.6 Pipeline Re-Lining The source water for the project would come from both of the treatment plants owned and operated by the OCSD. Facilities are already in place to receive source water, secondary effluent, from OCSD’s Plant No. 1 wastewater treatment facility. However, to provide an additional 60 MGD of source water for the project, OCWD would need to receive additional wastewater flows from OCSD Plant No. 2 wastewater treatment site. To convey the wastewater flows to the GWRS water treatment site, an existing 3.5-mile long, 66-inch diameter gravity concrete reinforced pipe (CRP) would be relined to become a 54-inch diameter pressure pipeline. The existing pipeline is located along an OCSD easement corridor that extends west of the Santa Ana River levee. The OCSD easement corridor is located on approximately 5 feet of fill material (OCWD, pers.comm. and SRI, 2007). The re-lining of the pipeline will be completed either by utilizing existing manholes (approximately spaced 2,000 feet from each one) for access into the pipeline or by excavating a 10-feet wide by 10-feet long by 5-feet deep area to expose the pipeline to allow entry into the pipe to re-line the existing pipeline. For each option, construction equipment would be staged at each pipeline opening. As shown in Figure 3, eight entry locations are proposed. All excavations along the eight entry locations would be within fill and recently disturbed soils. To connect the pipeline to the new Effluent Pump Station on the OCSD facility, approximately 100 feet of 54-inch diameter steel pipe would be constructed. Additionally, to connect the pipeline to OCWD facilities, approximately 100 feet of 54-inch diameter steel pipe would be installed by trenching and backing filling on OCWD property. The depth of fill material is unknown at this location in OCSD Plant No. 1.
1.2.1.7 OCSD Plant No. 2 Separate Headworks and Bypass Pipeline The majority of the wastewater flows from OCSD Plant No. 2 are needed as source water to meet the demands of the project. Currently, OCSD Plant No. 2 receives reject concentrated brine waters from treatment processes from the Inland Water Agencies. These concentrated reject flows, i.e. brines, are currently not allowed to be recycled through the existing GWRS per the Division of Drinking Water permit for GWRS. Therefore, a separate headworks facility and a bypass pipeline would be constructed on OCSD’s Plant No. 2 that would segregate the brine flows from the typical influent domestic wastewater flows to Plant No. 2. The bypass pipeline
Groundwater Replenishment System Final Expansion Project and ESA / 160387.01 Water Production Enhancement Project 8 August 2016 Phase I Cultural Resources Study Groundwater Replenishment System Final Expansion Project and Water Production Enhancement Project. Phase I Cultural Resources Study 1. Introduction would be a 66-inch diameter CRP with an alignment that runs approximately 200 feet around the existing headworks for Plant No. 2. Connected to the bypass pipeline would be a new separate headworks facility, including a screenings building (65-feet long by 55-feet wide by 20-feet deep) and a grit basin building (65-feet long by 40-feet wide by 20-feet deep). Also along the bypass pipeline alignment would be a 20-feet deep concrete metering vault with vault dimensions of 100- feet wide by 100-feet long by 14-feet deep. Excavation would be required for this component of the project. This project component location is underlain by disturbed soils from previous placement of several pipelines (OCSD, pers. comm.). The depth of disturbed soils is unknown; therefore, excavations may extend to native and undisturbed soils.
1.2.2 Water Production Enhancement Project The Water Production Enhancement Project involves three construction activities: (1) construction of flow equalization tank, (2) construction of a pump station, and (3) construction of conveyance piping and flow meter vault.
A 6-million-gallon (MG) flow equalization storage tank would be constructed at the north end of OCSD Plant 2. The location of the flow equalization storage tank is shown in Figure 3. The storage tank would be a circular-welded steel tank approximately 200-feet in diameter and 30-feet tall from existing grade, with a 4-pump (3 duty + 1 standby), pump station, and approximately 500-linear feet of 36-inch diameter connection piping with a meter vault (15- x 20- x 10-ft deep) connected to the operations of the tank. The pump station would be housed in a 30- x 40- x 20-ft block wall building.
Excavation would be required for construction of the flow equalization tank, pump station, and pipeline/vault. In addition to excavation, an existing concrete parking lot would be demolished for the tank pad.
1.2.3 Potential Staging Areas During construction of the project, construction equipment, vehicles, and materials could be stored at up to two staging areas: the OCSD Plant No. 2 and along the existing pipeline at each pipeline opening. No excavations would occur at the potential staging areas.
Groundwater Replenishment System Final Expansion Project and ESA / 160387.01 Water Production Enhancement Project 9 August 2016 Phase I Cultural Resources Study Groundwater Replenishment System Final Expansion Project and Water Production Enhancement Project. Phase I Cultural Resources Study 2. Area of Potential Effects
2. Area of Potential Effects An Area of Potential Effects (APE) was established for the project according to Section 106 of the NHPA in coordination with the OCWD (Figure 4). An APE is defined as:
…the geographic area or areas within which an undertaking may directly or indirectly cause alterations in the character or use of historic properties, if any such properties exist. The APE is influenced by the scale and nature of an undertaking and may be different for different kinds of effects caused by the undertaking (36 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] 800.16[d]).
The horizontal APE encompasses the MF Building Expansion (about 0.50-acre), 3.5-mile long existing pipeline, the excavation area for OCSD pipeline (about 650 square feet), the contractor laydown area (about 0.70-acre), the area encompassing the Flow Equalization Pump Station and Flow Equalization Control/Meter (about 3.70-acres), the area encompassing the OCSD pump station (about 0.28 acre), and the area encompassing the headgates and bypass pipeline (about 0.5 acre). The vertical APE includes the anticipated maximum depth of ground disturbance of 25 feet below ground surface and the maximum height of the flow equalization tank of 30 feet above ground surface.
Groundwater Replenishment System Final Expansion Project and ESA / 160387.01 Water Production Enhancement Project 10 August 2016 Phase I Cultural Resources Study Archaeological Area of Potential Effects OCSD Plant No. 1 andMacarthur OCSD Blvd Plant No. 2 OCWD GWRS Facility
OCWD GWRS Facility Sunflower Ave Ellis AVE Ellis Ave
Magnolia ST
¦¨§405
Ward STWard OCSD PlantCalifornia No. ST 1
Garfield AVE Garfield AVE
Yorktown AVE
Adams Ave
Pipeline
Bushard ST
Brookhurst St
Magnolia ST
Harbor BLVD
Atlanta Ave
Victoria ST
Hamilton Ave Path: U:\GIS\GIS\Projects\16xxxx\D160387_OCSD\03_MXDs_Projects\Cult\Fig4_APE.mxd, janderson 7/27/2016 janderson U:\GIS\GIS\Projects\16xxxx\D160387_OCSD\03_MXDs_Projects\Cult\Fig4_APE.mxd, Path:
OCSD Plant No. 2 19th ST 19th ST
1
PlacentiaAVE
17th ST
Superior AVE
15th ST 0 2,000
Feet Superior AVE
OCWD Groundwater Replenishment System Final Expansion Project . P160387.01 SOURCE: ESRI Figure 4 Area of Potential Effects Groundwater Replenishment System Final Expansion Project and Water Production Enhancement Project. Phase I Cultural Resources Study 2. Area of Potential Effects
This page left intentionally blank
Groundwater Replenishment System Final Expansion Project and ESA / 160387.01 Water Production Enhancement Project 12 August 2016 Phase I Cultural Resources Study Groundwater Replenishment System Final Expansion Project and Water Production Enhancement Project. Phase I Cultural Resources Study 3. Setting
3. Setting 3.1 Environmental Setting The project is located in the cities of Huntington Beach and Fountain Valley, Orange County, in southern California. The topography of Orange County includes a combination of mountains, hills, flatlands, and shorelines. Urbanized Orange County is predominantly within an alluvial plain, semi-enclosed by the Puente and Chino Hills to the north, the San Joaquin Hills to the south, and the Santiago Foothills and the Santa Ana Mountains to the east. The Puente and Chino Hills, which identify the northern limit of the plains, extend for 22 miles and reach a peak height of 7,780 feet. To the east and southeast of the plains are the Santa Ana Mountains, which have a peak height of 5,691-feet. The Santa Ana River is located adjacent to and just east of the project APE.
The City of Huntington Beach is located near the coastal margin of the Los Angeles Basin, which includes Orange County, and is underlain by more than 15,000 feet of stratified sedimentary rocks of marine origin (Oakeshott, 1978). Soils in the project APE are composed of younger alluvium that is divided into river floodplain deposits (washed in from the northeast as sand, gravel and silt), and tidal flat/lagoonal type deposits lie in the gaps (finer-grained silts and clays) (City of Huntington Beach, 1996).
3.2 Prehistoric Setting The prehistory of the region has been summarized within four major horizons or cultural periods: Early [10,000 to 8,000 before present (B.P.)], Millingstone (8,000 to 3,000 B.P.), Intermediate (3,000 to 1,500 B.P.), and Late Prehistoric (1,500 B.P to A.D. 1769) (Wallace, 1955; Warren, 1968).
3.2.1 Early Period (10,000 to 8,000 B.P.) The southern California coast may have been settled as early as 10,000 years ago (Jones, 1992). These early inhabitants were likely maritime adapted groups exploiting shellfish and other marine resources found along the coastline (Dixon, 1999; Erlandson, 1994; Vellanoweth and Altschul, 2002). One site located in Newport Bay, Orange County (CA-ORA-64) dates to approximately 9,500 years B.P. and suggests early intensive utilization of shellfish, fish, and bird resources (Drover et al., 1983; Macko, 1998).
3.2.2 Millingstone Period (8,000 to 3,000 B.P.) The Millingstone Period dates to about 8,000 to 3,000 B.P. The transition from the Early Period to the Millingstone Period is marked by an increased emphasis on the processing of seeds and edible plants. The increased utilization of seeds is evident by the high frequencies of handstones (manos) and milling slabs (metates). Around 5,000 B.P., mortar and pestles appear in the archaeological record. Mortars and pestles suggest the exploitation of acorns (Vellanoweth and Altschul, 2002).
Groundwater Replenishment System Final Expansion Project and ESA / 160387.01 Water Production Enhancement Project 13 August 2016 Phase I Cultural Resources Study Groundwater Replenishment System Final Expansion Project and Water Production Enhancement Project. Phase I Cultural Resources Study 3. Setting
Millingstone Period sites in Orange County generally date to between 8,000 and 4,000 B.P. Archaeological evidence suggests a low, stable population centered around semi-permanent residential bases. These sites are located along coastal marine terraces, near the shoreline, bays, or estuaries. Satellite camps were used to take advantage of seasonally available resources. Marine resources were supplemented by seeds and small terrestrial mammals. Later Millingstone Period sites indicate a growing reliance on shellfish (Cleland et al., 2007).
3.2.3 Intermediate Period (3,000 to 1,500 B.P.) The Intermediate Period dates to between 3,000 to 1,500 B.P. Archaeological sites indicate a broader economic base, with increased reliance on hunting and marine resources. An expanded inventory of milling equipment is found at sites dated to this period. Intermediate Period sites are characterized by the rise of the mortar and pestle and small projectile points (Cleland et al., 2007).
The number of Intermediate Period sites in Orange County declined over time, particularly around Newport Bay. Climate changes and drier conditions led to the congregation of populations near freshwater sources. Settlement patterns indicate greater sedentism, with reduced exploitation of seasonal resources and a lack of satellite camps. Coastal terrace sites are not reoccupied during this time period. These shifts in settlement and subsistence strategies led to growing population densities, resource intensification, higher reliance on labor-intensive technologies, such as the circular fishhook, and more abundant and diverse hunting equipment. Rises in disease and inter- personal violence, visible in the archaeological record, may be due to the increased population densities (Cleland et al., 2007; Raab et al., 1995).
3.2.4 Late Prehistoric Period (1,500 B.P. to A.D. 1769) The Late Prehistoric Period began around 1,500 B.P. and lasted until Spanish contact in 1769. The Late Prehistoric Period resulted in concentration of larger populations in settlements and communities, greater utilization of the available food resources, and the development of regional subcultures (Cleland et al., 2007). Artifacts from this period include milling implements, as well as bone and shell tools and ornaments.
Newport Bay and San Joaquin Hills, abandoned during the Intermediate Period, were reoccupied during the Late Prehistoric Period. These settlements were smaller than in the Intermediate. Village sites were located in areas with a multitude of resources. Small collector groups moved between a small number of these permanent settlements (Cleland et al., 2007).
3.3 Ethnographic Setting The project is located at the southern extent of Gabrielino-Tongva territory, near the boundary with the Juaneño, or more properly Acjachemen, to the south. Traditionally, the boundary between the two is identified as either Aliso Creek or the drainage divide to the north of the creek, roughly 20 miles south of the project APE, respectively. Both are included here.
Groundwater Replenishment System Final Expansion Project and ESA / 160387.01 Water Production Enhancement Project 14 August 2016 Phase I Cultural Resources Study Groundwater Replenishment System Final Expansion Project and Water Production Enhancement Project. Phase I Cultural Resources Study 3. Setting
3.3.1 Gabrielino-Tongva Prior to European colonization, the Gabrielino-Tongva, a Takic-speaking group, occupied a diverse area that included: the watersheds of the Los Angeles, San Gabriel, and Santa Ana rivers; the Los Angeles basin; and the islands of San Clemente, San Nicolas, and Santa Catalina (Kroeber, 1925). The Gabrielino-Tongva are reported to have been second only to the Chumash in terms of population size and regional influence (Bean and Smith, 1978).
The Gabrielino-Tongva were hunter-gatherers and lived in permanent communities located near the presence of a stable food supply. Community populations generally ranged from 50-100 inhabitants, although larger settlements may have existed. The Gabrielino-Tongva are estimated to have had a population numbering around 5,000 in the pre-contact period, with many recorded villages along the drainages mentioned above and in the Los Angeles basin proper (Kroeber, 1925).
Beginning with the Spanish Period and the establishment of Mission San Gabriel Arcángel, Native Americans throughout the Los Angeles area suffered severe depopulation and their traditional culture was radically altered. Nonetheless, Gabrielino-Tongva descendants still reside in the greater Los Angeles and Orange County areas and maintain an active interest in their heritage.
3.3.2 Juaneño-Acjachemen The Juaneño or Acjachemen, also Takic-speaking, occupied a more restricted area extending across southern Orange County and northern San Diego County. Juaneño territory extended along the Pacific coast from midway between Arroyo San Onofre and Las Pulgas Canyon in the south to Aliso Creek in the north, and continued east into the Santa Ana Mountains from Santiago Peak in the northwest to the headwaters of Arroyo San Mateo in the southeast (Kroeber 1925). The Juaneño were bounded by the Gabrielino-Tongva to the north, and the Luiseño to the east and south.
The Juaneño-Acjachemen, like the Gabrielino-Tongva, subsisted on small game, coastal marine resources, and a wide variety of plant foods such as grass seeds and acorns. Their houses were conical thatched reed, brush, or bark structures. The Juaneño inhabited permanent villages centered around patrilineal clans, with each village headed by a chief, known as a nu (Kroeber 1925; Sparkman 1908). Seasonal camps associated with villages were also used. Each village or clan had an associated territory and hunting, collecting, and fishing areas. Villages were typically located in proximity to a food or water source, or in defensive locations, often near valley bottoms, streams, sheltered coves or canyons, or coastal strands (Bean and Shipek 1978).
The Juaneño-Acjachemen population was estimated to have numbered approximately 1,000 at the time of European contact. Beginning with the Spanish Period and the establishment of Mission San Juan Capistrano, the Juaneño-Acjachemen suffered severe depopulation and their traditional culture was radically altered. Nonetheless, descendants still reside in the Orange County area and maintain an active interest in their heritage.
Groundwater Replenishment System Final Expansion Project and ESA / 160387.01 Water Production Enhancement Project 15 August 2016 Phase I Cultural Resources Study Groundwater Replenishment System Final Expansion Project and Water Production Enhancement Project. Phase I Cultural Resources Study 3. Setting
3.4 Historic Setting The historic setting for the project is divided into three primary periods: the Spanish Period (A.D. 1769-1821), the Mexican Period (A.D. 1821-1846), and the American Period (A.D. 1846 to present).
3.4.1 Spanish Period (A.D. 1769-1821) The first European exploration of Orange County began in 1769 when the Gaspar de Portola expedition passed through on its way from Mexico to Monterey. A permanent Spanish presence was established with the founding of Mission San Juan Capistrano in 1776 (Hoover et al., 2002). The mission was founded to break the long journey from Mission San Diego to Mission San Gabriel (near Los Angeles). A large, ornate church was constructed at the mission from 1797 to 1806, but was destroyed only six years later in an earthquake. The church was not rebuilt.
In an effort to promote Spanish settlement of Alta California, Spain granted several large land concessions from 1784 to 1821. At this time, Spain retained title to the land; individual ownership of lands in Alta California was not granted. The parts of Orange County that would become the City of Huntington Beach and the City of Fountain Valley began as a Spanish land concession, known as Rancho Los Nietos. A grant of 300,000 acres was given to Manuel Nieto in 1784 in consideration of his military service (City of Huntington Beach, 2000; Logan, 1990).
3.4.2 Mexican Period (A.D. 1821-1846) In 1821, Mexico won its independence from Spain. Mexico continued to promote settlement of California with the issuance of land grants. In 1833, Mexico secularized the missions, reclaiming the majority of mission lands and redistributing them as land grants. During this time, Rancho Los Nietos was divided into five smaller ranchos. The area of Huntington Beach became part of Rancho Las Bolsas, a 33,460-acre rancho granted to Maria Catarina Ruiz in 1834 (County of Orange, 2011). Maria was the widow of Jose Antonio Nieto, Manuel Nieto’s son.
Many ranchos continued to be used for cattle grazing by settlers during the Mexican Period. Hides and tallow from cattle became a major export for Californios (Hispanic Californians), many of whom became wealthy and prominent members of society. These Californios led generally easy lives, leaving the hard work to vaqueros (Hispanic cowhands) and Indian laborers. Californios lives centered primarily around enjoying the fruits of their labors, throwing parties and feasting on Catholic holidays (Pitt, 1994; Starr, 2007).
3.4.3 American Period (A.D. 1846 to present) Mexico ceded California to the United States as part of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hildalgo, which ended the Mexican-American War (1846-1848). The treaty also recognized right of Mexican citizens to retain ownership of land granted to them by Spanish or Mexican authorities. However, the claimant was required to prove their right to the land before a patent was given. The process was lengthy and costly, and generally resulted in the claimant losing at least a portion of their land to attorney’s fees and other costs associated with proving ownership (Starr, 2007).
Groundwater Replenishment System Final Expansion Project and ESA / 160387.01 Water Production Enhancement Project 16 August 2016 Phase I Cultural Resources Study Groundwater Replenishment System Final Expansion Project and Water Production Enhancement Project. Phase I Cultural Resources Study 3. Setting
The Gold Rush (1849-1855) saw the first big influx of American settlers to California. Most of these settlers were men hoping to strike it rich in the gold fields. The increasing population provided an additional outlet for Californios’ cattle (Bancroft, 1890). As demand increased, the price of beef skyrocketed and Californios reaped the benefits.
The culmination of the Gold Rush, followed by devastating floods in 1861 and 1862 and droughts in 1863 and 1864, led to the rapid decline of the cattle industry (Bancroft, 1890). Many Californios lost their lands during this period, and former ranchos were subsequently divided and sold for agriculture and residential settlement.
Following the admission of California into the United States in 1850, the region of modern day Orange County was originally part of Los Angeles County. Orange County was established in 1889, with the City of Santa Ana as County Seat (Armor, 1921).
3.4.4 History of the Project Vicinity The project vicinity was once part of a 300,000-acre Spanish land grant, Rancho Los Nietos, a part of which became Rancho Las Bolsas during the Mexican Period. Abel Stearns later acquired the land for ranching and cultivation of barley. During the land boom of the 1880s, the area was subdivided for agricultural and residential development (County of Orange, 2011; Milkovich, 1986).
Previously called Shell Beach and later Pacific City, the town changed its name to Huntington Beach in 1904 when Henry E. Huntington extended Pacific Electric Railway service to the little community (Carlberg and Epting, 2009; Milkovich, 1986). Discovery of oil in the 1920s led to a population explosion in the town. In one month, the population of Huntington Beach went from 1,500 to 6,000.
3.4.4.1 History of OCSD Plant No. 1 and No. 2 and OCWD GWRS
OCSD In 1921, the cities of Santa Ana and Anaheim agreed to construct a sewer outfall extending into the Pacific Ocean, thus forming the Orange County Joint Outfall Sewer (JOS), and marking the beginning of the OCSD. In 1924, JOS construction was completed and the first sewage from member cities was discharged into the system. Three years later, the outfall was extended to a distance of 3,000 feet from shore, and a new screening plant and pumping station was constructed. In 1941, the first units of the Primary Treatment Plant, now referred to as Plant No. 1) were constructed. In 1954, OCSD assumed the duties of JOS and officially commenced operations. Over the next 50 years, additional services and facilities were constructed at OCSD Plant No. 1. The portion of the existing facility where the proposed OCSD pipe connection would connect was constructed within the last 10 years. In 1954, Plant No. 2 was constructed near the ocean and adjoining Santa Ana River and the second ocean outfall was constructed. OCSD is currently a public agency that provides wastewater collection, treatment, and disposal services for approximately 2.5 million people in central and northwest Orange County. OCSD is a special district that is governed by a Board of Directors consisting of 25 board members appointed from
Groundwater Replenishment System Final Expansion Project and ESA / 160387.01 Water Production Enhancement Project 17 August 2016 Phase I Cultural Resources Study Groundwater Replenishment System Final Expansion Project and Water Production Enhancement Project. Phase I Cultural Resources Study 3. Setting
21 cities, sanitary districts, and one representative from the Orange County Board of Supervisors. OCSD has two operating facilities (Plants 1 and 2) that treat wastewater from residential, commercial and industrial sources (ocsd.com).
OCWD GWRS In the 1950s, traces of salt water were detected in the Orange County Groundwater Basin as far as 5 miles inland, although the area of intrusion was focused primarily across a 3-mile stretch between the cities of Newport Beach and Huntington Beach.
In order to protect the basin from further seawater intrusion, the OCWD constructed the Water Factory 21 (WF-21) in 1978. This facility treated wastewater utilizing a purification process including RO, and injected it into 23 multi-casing injection wells along the Talbert Gap forming a hydraulic barrier to seawater intrusion. (gwrsystem.com).
In 2004, WF-21 discontinued production and was demolished in February 2007 to provide space for the construction of GWRS. GWRS provides new technology and is a larger water purification plant compared to the previous WR-21. Construction of the GWRS broke ground in September 2004 and was completed in late 2007. The GWRS consists primarily of membrane processes, replacing the physical-chemical processes of WF-21. Unlike WF-21, the GWRS utilizes MF as pre-treatment prior to RO and UV light with hydrogen peroxide. The GWRS product water not only supplies water to an expanded seawater barrier, but is also pumped to two of OCWD’s recharge basins where it blends with Santa Ana River and imported waters and naturally filters into the groundwater basin, ultimately becoming part of north and central Orange County’s drinking water supply (gwrsystem.com).
Groundwater Replenishment System Final Expansion Project and ESA / 160387.01 Water Production Enhancement Project 18 August 2016 Phase I Cultural Resources Study Groundwater Replenishment System Final Expansion Project and Water Production Enhancement Project. Phase I Cultural Resources Study 4. Regulatory Framework
4. Regulatory Framework 4.1 Federal
4.1.1 Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act Archaeological resources are protected through the NHPA of 1966, as amended (54 United States Code of Laws [USC] 300101 et seq.), and its implementing regulation, Protection of Historic Properties (36 CFR Part 800), the Archaeological and Historic Preservation Act of 1974, and the Archaeological Resources Protection Act of 1979. Prior to implementing an “undertaking” (e.g., issuing a federal permit), Section 106 of the NHPA requires federal agencies to consider the effects of the undertaking on historic properties and to afford the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation and the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) a reasonable opportunity to comment on any undertaking that would adversely affect properties eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (National Register). As indicated in Section 101(d)(6)(A) of the NHPA, properties of traditional religious and cultural importance to a tribe are eligible for inclusion in the National Register. Under the NHPA, a resource is considered significant if it meets the National Register listing criteria at 36 CFR 60.4.
4.1.2 National Register of Historic Places The National Register was established by the NHPA of 1966, as “an authoritative guide to be used by federal, State, and local governments, private groups and citizens to identify the Nation’s historic resources and to indicate what properties should be considered for protection from destruction or impairment” (36 CFR 60.2). The National Register recognizes both historic-period and prehistoric archaeological properties that are significant at the national, state, and local levels.
To be eligible for listing in the National Register, a resource must be significant in American history, architecture, archaeology, engineering, or culture. Districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects of potential significance must meet one or more of the following four established criteria (U.S. Department of the Interior, 2002): A. Are associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history; B. Are associated with the lives of persons significant in our past; C. Embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction or that represent the work of a master, or that possess high artistic values, or that represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction; or, D. Have yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history.
Unless the property possesses exceptional significance, it must be at least 50 years old to be eligible for National Register listing (U.S. Department of the Interior, 2002). In addition to meeting the criteria of significance, a property must have integrity. Integrity is defined as “the ability of a property to convey its significance” (U.S. Department of the Interior, 2002). The National Register recognizes seven qualities that, in various combinations, define integrity. The
Groundwater Replenishment System Final Expansion Project and ESA / 160387.01 Water Production Enhancement Project 19 August 2016 Phase I Cultural Resources Study Groundwater Replenishment System Final Expansion Project and Water Production Enhancement Project. Phase I Cultural Resources Study 4. Regulatory Framework
seven factors that define integrity are location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association. To retain historic integrity a property must possess several, and usually most, of these seven aspects. Thus, the retention of the specific aspects of integrity is paramount for a property to convey its significance.
4.2 State
4.2.1 California Environmental Quality Act CEQA is the principal statute governing environmental review of projects occurring in the state and is codified at Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 21000 et seq. CEQA requires lead agencies to determine if a proposed project would have a significant effect on the environment, including significant effects on historical or unique archaeological resources.
Under CEQA (Section 21084.1), a project that may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an historical resource is a project that may have a significant effect on the environment. An archaeological resource may qualify as an “historical resource” under CEQA. The CEQA Guidelines (Title 14 California Code of Regulations [CCR] Section 15064.5) recognize that an historical resource includes: (1) a resource listed in, or determined to be eligible by the State Historical Resources Commission, for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources (California Register); (2) a resource included in a local register of historical resources, as defined in PRC Section 5020.1(k) or identified as significant in a historical resource survey meeting the requirements of PRC Section 5024.1(g); and (3) any object, building, structure, site, area, place, record, or manuscript which a lead agency determines to be historically significant or significant in the architectural, engineering, scientific, economic, agricultural, educational, social, political, military, or cultural annals of California by the lead agency, provided the lead agency’s determination is supported by substantial evidence in light of the whole record. The fact that a resource does not meet the three criteria outlined above does not preclude the lead agency from determining that the resource may be an historical resource as defined in PRC Sections 5020.1(j) or 5024.1.
If a lead agency determines that an archaeological site is a historical resource, the provisions of Section 21084.1 of CEQA and Section 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines apply. If a project may cause a substantial adverse change (defined as physical demolition, destruction, relocation, or alteration of the resource or its immediate surroundings such that the significance of an historical resource would be materially impaired) in the significance of an historical resource, the lead agency must identify potentially feasible measures to mitigate these effects (CEQA Guidelines Sections 15064.5(b)(1), 15064.5(b)(4)).
If an archaeological site does not meet the criteria for a historical resource contained in the CEQA Guidelines, then the site may be treated in accordance with the provisions of Section 21083, which is as a unique archaeological resource. As defined in Section 21083.2 of CEQA a “unique” archaeological resource is an archaeological artifact, object, or site, about which it can be clearly demonstrated that without merely adding to the current body of knowledge, there is a high probability that it meets any of the following criteria:
Groundwater Replenishment System Final Expansion Project and ESA / 160387.01 Water Production Enhancement Project 20 August 2016 Phase I Cultural Resources Study Groundwater Replenishment System Final Expansion Project and Water Production Enhancement Project. Phase I Cultural Resources Study 4. Regulatory Framework
Contains information needed to answer important scientific research questions and there is a demonstrable public interest in that information; Has a special and particular quality such as being the oldest of its type or the best available example of its type; or, Is directly associated with a scientifically recognized important prehistoric or historic event or person.
If an archaeological site meets the criteria for a unique archaeological resource as defined in Section 21083.2, then the site is to be treated in accordance with the provisions of Section 21083.2, which state that if the lead agency determines that a project would have a significant effect on unique archaeological resources, the lead agency may require reasonable efforts be made to permit any or all of these resources to be preserved in place (Section 21083.1(a)). If preservation in place is not feasible, mitigation measures shall be required.
The CEQA Guidelines note that if an archaeological resource is neither a unique archaeological nor a historical resource, the effects of the project on those resources shall not be considered a significant effect on the environment (CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(c)(4)).
4.2.2 CEQA-Plus The EPA sponsors the SRF Loan Program to provide funding for construction of publicly-owned treatment facilities and water reclamation projects. This funding for capital improvements to wastewater treatment and water recycling facilities is authorized under the federal Clean Water Act. In order to comply with requirements of the SRF Loan Program, which is administered by the SWRCB in California, a CEQA document must fulfill additional requirements known as CEQA-Plus. The CEQA-Plus requirements have been established by the EPA and are intended to supplement the CEQA Guidelines with specific requirements for environmental documents acceptable to the SWRCB when reviewing applications for wastewater treatment facility loans. They are not intended to supersede or replace CEQA Guidelines. The EPA’s CEQA-Plus requirements have been incorporated into the SWRCB’s Environmental Review Process Guidelines for SRF Loan Applicants (2004). The SWRCB’s SRF Guidelines require that a proposed project comply with Section 106 of the NHPA.
4.2.3 California Register of Historical Resources The California Register is “an authoritative listing and guide to be used by State and local agencies, private groups, and citizens in identifying the existing historical resources of the State and to indicate which resources deserve to be protected, to the extent prudent and feasible, from Register are based upon National Register criteria (PRC Section 5024.1[b]). Certain resources are determined by the statute to be automatically included in the California Register, including California properties formally determined eligible for, or listed in, the National Register.
Groundwater Replenishment System Final Expansion Project and ESA / 160387.01 Water Production Enhancement Project 21 August 2016 Phase I Cultural Resources Study Groundwater Replenishment System Final Expansion Project and Water Production Enhancement Project. Phase I Cultural Resources Study 4. Regulatory Framework
To be eligible for the California Register, a prehistoric or historic-period property must be significant at the local, state, and/or federal level under one or more of the following four criteria: 1. Is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of California’s history and cultural heritage; 2. Is associated with the lives of persons important in our past; 3. Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or represents the work of an important creative individual, or possesses high artistic values; or 4. Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history.
A resource eligible for the California Register must meet one of the criteria of significance described above, and retain enough of its historic character or appearance (integrity) to be recognizable as a historical resource and to convey the reason for its significance. It is possible that a historic resource may not retain sufficient integrity to meet the criteria for listing in the National Register, but it may still be eligible for listing in the California Register.
Additionally, the California Register consists of resources that are listed automatically and those that must be nominated through an application and public hearing process. The California Register automatically includes the following: California properties listed on the National Register and those formally determined eligible for the National Register; California Registered Historical Landmarks from No. 770 onward; and, Those California Points of Historical Interest that have been evaluated by the OHP and have been recommended to the State Historical Commission for inclusion on the California Register.
Other resources that may be nominated to the California Register include: Historical resources with a significance rating of Category 3 through 5 (those properties identified as eligible for listing in the National Register, the California Register, and/or a local jurisdiction register); Individual historical resources; Historical resources contributing to historic districts; and, Historical resources designated or listed as local landmarks, or designated under any local ordinance, such as a historic preservation overlay zone.
Groundwater Replenishment System Final Expansion Project and ESA / 160387.01 Water Production Enhancement Project 22 August 2016 Phase I Cultural Resources Study Groundwater Replenishment System Final Expansion Project and Water Production Enhancement Project. Phase I Cultural Resources Study 4. Regulatory Framework
4.2.4 California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 requires that in the event human remains are discovered, the County Coroner be contacted to determine the nature of the remains. In the event the remains are determined to be Native American in origin, the Coroner is required to contact the California Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) within 24 hours to relinquish jurisdiction.
4.2.5 California Public Resources Code Section 5097.98 California PRC Section 5097.98, as amended by Assembly Bill 2641, provides procedures in the event human remains of Native American origin are discovered during project implementation. PRC Section 5097.98 requires that no further disturbances occur in the immediate vicinity of the discovery, that the discovery is adequately protected according to generally accepted cultural and archaeological standards, and that further activities take into account the possibility of multiple burials. PRC Section 5097.98 further requires the NAHC, upon notification by a County Coroner, designate and notify a Most Likely Descendant (MLD) regarding the discovery of Native American human remains. Once the MLD has been granted access to the site by the landowner and inspected the discovery, the MLD then has 48 hours to provide recommendations to the landowner for the treatment of the human remains and any associated grave goods.
In the event that no descendant is identified, or the descendant fails to make a recommendation for disposition, or if the land owner rejects the recommendation of the descendant, the landowner may, with appropriate dignity, reinter the remains and burial items on the property in a location that will not be subject to further disturbance.
4.2.6 California Public Resources Code Section 21080.3.1 California PRC Section 21080.3.1, as amended by Assembly Bill (AB) 52, requires lead agencies to consider the effects of projects on tribal cultural resources and to conduct consultation with federally and non-federally recognized Native American Tribes early in the environmental planning process and applies specifically to projects for which a Notice of Preparation (NOP) or a notice of Negative Declaration or Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) will be filed on or after July 1, 2015. The goal is to include California Tribes in determining whether a project may result in a significant impact to tribal cultural resources that may be undocumented or known only to the Tribe and its members and specifies that a project that may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource is a project that may have a significant effect on the environment. Tribal cultural resources are defined as “sites, features, places, cultural landscapes, sacred places, and objects with cultural value to a California Native American Tribe” that are either included or determined to be eligible for inclusion in the California Register or included in a local register of historical resources (PRC Section 21074 (a)(1)).
Prior to determining whether a Negative Declaration, MND, or Environmental Impact Report (EIR) is prepared for a project, the lead agency must consult with California Native American Tribes, defined as those identified on the contact list maintained by the California Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC), who are traditionally and culturally affiliated with the
Groundwater Replenishment System Final Expansion Project and ESA / 160387.01 Water Production Enhancement Project 23 August 2016 Phase I Cultural Resources Study Groundwater Replenishment System Final Expansion Project and Water Production Enhancement Project. Phase I Cultural Resources Study 4. Regulatory Framework
geographic area of the proposed project, and who have requested such consultation in writing. Consultation may include: The type of environmental review necessary The significance of tribal cultural resources The significance of the project’s impacts on the tribal cultural resources Project alternatives or the appropriate measures for preservation Recommended mitigation measures
Consultation should be initiated by a lead agency within 14 days of determining that an application for a project is complete or that a decision by a public agency to undertake a project (PRC Section 21080.3.1(d) and (e)). The lead agency shall provide formal notification to the designated contact of, or a tribal representative of, traditionally and culturally affiliated California Native American Tribes that have requested notice. At minimum, notice should consist of at least one written notification that includes a brief description of the proposed project and its location, the lead agency contact information, and a notification that the California Native American Tribe has 30 days to request consultation pursuant to this section. The lead agency shall begin the consultation process within 30 days of receiving a California Native American Tribe’s request for consultation. According to PRC Section 21080.3.2(b), consultation is considered concluded when either the parties agree to measures to mitigate or avoid a significant effect, if a significant effect exists, on a tribal cultural resource, or a party, acting in good faith and after reasonable effort, concludes that mutual agreement cannot be reached.
Groundwater Replenishment System Final Expansion Project and ESA / 160387.01 Water Production Enhancement Project 24 August 2016 Phase I Cultural Resources Study Groundwater Replenishment System Final Expansion Project and Water Production Enhancement Project. Phase I Cultural Resources Study 5. Archival Research
5. Archival Research 5.1 South Central Coastal Information Center Records Search A records search for the APE and a ½-mile radius was conducted on June 21, 2016 at the South Central Coastal Information Center (SCCIC), located at California State University, Fullerton. The records search included a review of all recorded cultural resources within a ½-mile radius of the project APE, as well as a review of cultural resource reports on file. The Historic Properties Directory was also examined for any documented historic-period built resources within or adjacent to the project APE. The results of the SCCIC records search are included in Appendix B.
5.1.1 Previous Cultural Resources Investigations A total of 61 cultural resources studies have been conducted within a ½-mile radius of the project APE. Of the 61 previous studies, five studies included a pedestrian survey of portions of the APE, and four included archival research for the APE (Table 1). A complete list of the 61 studies located within ½-mile of the project APE is located in Appendix B. Less than 50 percent of the project APE has been included in previous cultural resources surveys.
TABLE 1 PREVIOUS CULTURAL RESOURCES INVESTIGATIONS INCLUDING THE PROJECT APE
SCIC # Author (OR-) Title Year
Mason, Roger D. Ph.D., 3607* Cultural Resources Survey Report for the Le Bard Park Extension 2005 RPA Project, Huntington Beach, Orange County, California Padon, Beth 1836* Cultural Resources Review for Groundwater Replenishment System 1998 Program EIR/Tier I/EIS, Orange County Water District and County Sanitation Districts of Orange County
P&D Consultants, Inc. 4087* Final Program EIR for the Groundwater Replenishment System 1999
Historic Resource 4256* The Cultural Resources Study of the SCE – Monroe Pacific Nursery 2012 Associates project, Metropcs California, LLC Site no. MLAX04188, 20462 Ravenwood Lane, Huntington Beach, Orange County, California 92646
Ecos Management 801* Phase II Archaeological Studies Prado Basin and the Lower Santa Ana 1985 Criteria, Inc River Michael Brandman 3682 Direct APE Historic Architectural Assessment for Royal Street 2007 Associates Communications, LLC Candidate LA2812A (SCE Lebard Park), SCE Tower M2 T5 Ellis/HB Number 2 South of Ravenwood, Huntington Beach, Orange County, California
Mason, Roger D. 2033* Research Design for Evaluation of Coastal Archaeological Sites in 1987 northern Orange County, California
Statistical Research, Inc 4259* Cultural Resources Monitoring Report, Orange County Water District 2007 Groundwater Replenishment System, Orange County, California
Leonard, III, N. Nelson 270* Description and Evaluation of Cultural Resources within the U.S. Army 1975 Corps
Unknown 4313* The City of Huntington Beach General Plan 2013 City of Huntington Beach
* Indicates study overlaps the Archaeological APE
Groundwater Replenishment System Final Expansion Project and ESA / 160387.01 Water Production Enhancement Project 25 August 2016 Phase I Cultural Resources Study Groundwater Replenishment System Final Expansion Project and Water Production Enhancement Project. Phase I Cultural Resources Study 5. Archival Research
5.1.2 Previously Recorded Cultural Resources The records search indicated that nine cultural resources have been previously recorded within a ½-mile radius of the project APE (Table 2). No cultural resources have been previously recorded within the project APE. However, two historic-age Southern California Edison (SCE) transmission towers (30-177464 and 30-177612) are located adjacent to the pipeline alignment. Several prehistoric sites have been recorded within the search radius along the east bluffs of the Santa Ana River.
TABLE 2 PREVIOUSLY RECORDED CULTURAL RESOURCES WITHIN ½-MILE OF THE PROJECT APE
Primary Trinomial (CA- Date # (P-30) ORA-) Other Designation Description Recorded
000058 CA-ORA-58 OR-13 Prehistoric Habitation Site 2003; 1975; and 1949
000076 CA-ORA-76 OR-9 Prehistoric Habitation Site with shell 1949 midden
000163 CA-ORA-163 Griset Site Prehistoric archaeological site consisting 1966 of shell midden with associated firepits, burials, stone tools, pottery, and charmstones
000165 CA-ORA-165 Banning Extract, Portion A Prehistoric archaeological site consisting 1960 of stone bowl fragments, lithic fragments, and pestels
000576 CA-ORA-576 - Prehistoric feature consisting of a single 1974 human burial
000845 CA-ORA-845 ACE-SAR-8 Prehistoric archaeological site consisting 1998; of a single shell midden 1979
000906 CA-ORA-906 - Prehistoric archaeological site consisting 1998; of a single shell midden 1979
001740 CA-ORA- SRS1759-1 Two historic-period trash scatters 2014 1740H
177464 - SCE Transmission Tower M2- Historic-period steel transmission tower 2012 T6, Ellis Huntington Beach No.2
177467 - William Lamb Elementary Historic-period architectural resource 2013 School consisting of an Educational Building
177612 - SCE Transmission Tower M2- Historic-period steel transmission tower 2007 T5, Ellis Huntington Beach No.2
5.1.2.1 Resource 30-177464 SCE Transmission Tower M2-T6 (30-177464), consists of one of a pair of SCE high-lead electrical transmission towers that run general north-south tying into the SCE power plant located along the Pacific Coast Highway (PCH) neat Brookhurst Street. The riveted steel, truncated pair of towers were built in 1964 and each stand approximately 121 feet tall, resting on concrete piers, and having three arms with porcelain insulators conducting electricity along wires affixed to each
Groundwater Replenishment System Final Expansion Project and ESA / 160387.01 Water Production Enhancement Project 26 August 2016 Phase I Cultural Resources Study Groundwater Replenishment System Final Expansion Project and Water Production Enhancement Project. Phase I Cultural Resources Study 5. Archival Research arm. The tower parallels the Santa Ana River flood control channel immediately to the east. This resource was previously evaluated for its historical significance. While the tower appeared to retain very good integrity of design, materials, location, setting, association, and feeling, this resource was found to be a ubiquitous property type constructed in 1964 to provide additional electrical power to the expanding suburban communities of west Orange County, including Huntington Beach. This resource was not associated with any significant events (Criterion A), nor did it appear to embody distinctive construction techniques or represent the work of a master (Criterion C), and it was recommended not eligible for listing in the National Register (Supernowicz, 2012).
5.1.2.2 Resource 30-177612 SCE Transmission Tower M2-T5 (30-177612) consists of a steel lattice type, 122-foot tall transmission tower. The base of the tower measures 30 feet on each side. The footings are rectangular shaped concrete bases. The transmission tower was constructed with bolted steel L- shaped profiles. The tower was installed by SCE as part of its expansion of electrical service in the Huntington Beach area. The center of the tower base contains a square, concrete block building. The building has a hipped roof with Spanish tile. The transmission tower was constructed as part of the overall development of electrical power in Southern California in the 1940s in the post-World War II period. This resource was previously evaluated for its historical significance. While the tower appeared to retain integrity of design, materials, location, setting, association, feeling, and workmanship, the tower was not associated with any significant events or persons (Criterion A and B), it did not represent distinctive construction techniques or the work of a master (Criterion C), and it was not the principal source of information about this property type and did not have the potential to yield information important in prehistory or history (Criterion D). Thus it was recommended not eligible for the National Register (Crawford, 2007). It has not been previously evaluated for listing in the California Register.
5.2 Historic Map and Aerial Review Historic maps and aerial photographs were examined in order to provide historical information about the APE and to contribute to an assessment of the APE’s archaeological sensitivity. Available maps include: the 1868 U.S. Surveyor General’s survey plat map of Townships 5 and 6 South, Range 10 West the 1895 and 1901 Santa Ana 1:62,500 topographic quadrangles; the 1902 Corona 1:125,000 topographic quadrangle; and the 1935 Newport Beach 1:31,600 topographic quadrangles; and 1965 and 1975 Newport Beach 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle. Historic aerial photographs of the APE from 1938, 1953, 1963, 1972, 1994, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2009, and 2010 were also examined (historicaerials.com, 2016).
The 1868 U.S. Surveyor General’s survey plat map shows the APE as being located within Rancho Las Bolsas. The plat map indicates salt marshes within the current location of OCSD Plant No. 2. The available historic maps and aerial photographs indicate that the APE and surrounding area was largely used for agricultural purposes throughout the 20th century, and did not become urbanized until the latter half of the century. The Santa Ana River is shown confined with artificial levees in the 1938 historic aerial photograph. The OCSD Plant No. 1 is visible on
Groundwater Replenishment System Final Expansion Project and ESA / 160387.01 Water Production Enhancement Project 27 August 2016 Phase I Cultural Resources Study Groundwater Replenishment System Final Expansion Project and Water Production Enhancement Project. Phase I Cultural Resources Study 5. Archival Research
the 1953 aerial photograph. The southern portion of OCSD Plant No. 1 was undeveloped until The OCWD GWRS and OCSD Plant No. 2 are not shown on the 1953 aerial. The OCSD Plant No. 2 facility is shown on the 1965 Newport Beach 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle. The OCWD GWRS facility is shown on the 1972 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle. Based on a detailed review of the 1972 and 2016 aerials of the OCSD Plant No.2, there are structures shown on the 1972 aerial that remain visible on the 2016 aerial photograph.
5.3 Native American Heritage Commission In 2014, the project environmental documentation, including a cultural resources study, was initiated, and it was put on hold shortly after. However, Native American outreach was completed. The Native American outreach was restarted as part of the project and new project features. The results of previous Native American outreach and current outreach are presented below. Documentation related to Native American outreach is provided in Appendix C.
5.3.1 Native American Outreach – 2014 On August 13, 2014, a records search request letter was sent to the NAHC in an effort to determine whether any sacred sites are listed on its Sacred Lands File (SLF) for the project APE. A response was provided on August 22, 2014 that indicated that no Native American cultural resources were identified within a ½-mile radius of the project APE. The NAHC recommended outreach to nine specific tribal authorities who may want to comment on the search request. A letter to the NAHC-listed tribal authorities was mailed on August 26, 2014. Phone calls were made to each of the named tribal members on September 9, 2014 and again on September 18, 2014. Four Tribal representatives responded and provided input (Table 3).
5.3.2 Native American Outreach – 2016 On June 2, 2016, a SLF search request letter was sent to the NAHC in an effort to determine whether any sacred sites are listed on SLF for the APE. A response was provided on June 6, 2016 indicating negative results for Native American cultural resources within the project APE. The NAHC recommended outreach to 12 specific tribal authorities who may want to comment on our search request. A letter to the NAHC-listed tribal authorities was mailed on June 20, 2016. Phone calls were made to each of the named tribal members on June 28, 2016. Two Tribal representatives responded and provided input (see Table 3).
5.3.3 AB 52 In August 2016, OCWD sent letters to two Native American representatives who have requested to be informed on activities conducted by the OCWD, under PRC Section 21080.3.1. The OCWD reached out to the Juaneño Band of Mission Indians Acjachemen Nation and Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation. Consultation efforts are currently on-going.
Groundwater Replenishment System Final Expansion Project and ESA / 160387.01 Water Production Enhancement Project 28 August 2016 Phase I Cultural Resources Study Groundwater Replenishment System Final Expansion Project and Water Production Enhancement Project. Phase I Cultural Resources Study 5. Archival Research
TABLE 3 NATIVE AMERICAN OUTREACH
Date of Follow-up Contact Tribe/Organization Date Letter Mailed Phone Call Response
2014 John Tommy Rosas Tongva Acenstral Territorial Tribal 8/27/2014 9/9/2014 John Tommy Rosas was concerned about project Nation because it is located within a sensitive archaeological area. He recommended testing prior to excavation or full time archaeological and Native American monitoring.
Anthony Morales Gabrieleno/Tongva San Gabriel 8/28/2014 9/9/2014 Anthony Morales was concerned about the project Band of Mission because of its location along the Santa Ana River. He suggested archaeological and paleontological monitoring.
Sandonne Goad Gabrielino/Tongva Nation 8/29/2014 9/9/2014 Referred to Sam Dunlap
Robert F Dorame Gabrielino Tongva Indians of 8/30/2014 9/9/2014 No Response California Tribal Council
Gabrielino Tongva Indians of 8/31/2014 9/18/2014 No Response California Tribal Council
Bernie Acuna Gabrielino-Tongva Tribe 9/1/2014 9/10/2014 No Response
Linda Candelaria Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians 9/2/2014 9/9/2014 No Response
Andrew Salas Gabrielino-Tongva Tribe 9/3/2014 9/10/2014 Mr. Salas expressed concerned about the project due to its location in an archaeological sensitive area. Mr. Salas suggested archaeological and Native American monitoring take place to protect and preserve any cultural resources that may be discovered during excavations.
Conrad Acuna Gabrielino/Tongva Nation 9/4/2014 N/A No number or email provided.
Groundwater Replenishment System Final Expansion Project and ESA / 160387.01 Water Production Enhancement Project 29 August 2016 Phase I Cultural Resources Study Groundwater Replenishment System Final Expansion Project and Water Production Enhancement Project. Phase I Cultural Resources Study 5. Archival Research
Date of Follow-up Contact Tribe/Organization Date Letter Mailed Phone Call Response
Sam Dunlap Gabrielino/Tongva Nation 9/5/2014 9/10/2014 In an email dated September 11, 2014, Mr. Dunlap expressed concerns about construction and recommended archaeological and Native American monitoring.
2016
Matias Belardes Juaneno Band of Mission Indians, 6/20/2016 6/28/2016 See response from Joyce Stanfield-Perry Acjachemen Nation
Adolph Sepulveda Juaneno Band of Mission Indians 6/20/2016 6/28/2016 A voicemail was left; No response to date
Anthony Morales Gabrieleno/Tongva Band of Mission 6/20/2016 6/28/2016 Mr. Morales recommended Native American and Indians archaeological monitoring due to the cultural and spiritual sensitivity of the area
Sonia Johnston Juaneno Band of Mission Indians 6/20/2016 6/28/2016 An email was sent on June 20, 2016. No response to date
Sandonne Goad Gabrielino/Tongva Nation 6/20/2016 6/28/2016 See response from Sam Dunlap
Bernie Acuna Gabrielino-Tongva Tribe 6/20/2016 6/28/2016 A voicemail was left; No response to date
Teresa Romero Juaneno Band of Mission Indians, 6/20/2016 6/28/2016 A voicemail was left; No response to date Acjachemen Nation
Joyce Stanfield-Perry Juaneno Band of Mission Indians, 6/20/2016 6/28/2016 Ms. Stanfield-Perry recommended Native American and Acjachemen Nation archaeological monitoring during all ground disturbing activities and in the event of a discovery, that the project be stopped and the mitigation plan be re- evaluated.
Robert Dorame Gabrielino Tongva Indians of 6/20/2016 6/28/2016 Mr. Dorame requested an emailed version of the letter ; California Tribal Council No response to date
Linda Candelaria Gabrielino-Tongva Tribe 6/20/2016 6/28/2016 A voicemail was left; No response to date
Sam Dunlap Gabrielino/Tongva Nation 6/20/2016 6/28/2016 Mr. Dunlap requested a PDF copy of the letter be emailed. The PDF copy was emailed on June 20, 2016. No response to date
Groundwater Replenishment System Final Expansion Project and ESA / 160387.01 Water Production Enhancement Project 30 August 2016 Phase I Cultural Resources Study Groundwater Replenishment System Final Expansion Project and Water Production Enhancement Project. Phase I Cultural Resources Study 5. Archival Research
Date of Follow-up Contact Tribe/Organization Date Letter Mailed Phone Call Response
Andy Salas Gabrielino Band of Mission Indians- 6/20/2016 6/28/2016 Mr. Salas recommended Native American and Kizh Nation archaeological monitoring during all ground disturbing activities
Conrad Acuna Gabrielino-Tongva Tribe 6/20/2016 N/A No contact information was listed on the NAHC contact list
Groundwater Replenishment System Final Expansion Project and ESA / 160387.01 Water Production Enhancement Project 31 August 2016 Phase I Cultural Resources Study Groundwater Replenishment System Final Expansion Project and Water Production Enhancement Project. Phase I Cultural Resources Study 5. Archival Research
5.4 Geoarchaeological Review Chris Lockwood, Ph.D., R.P.A., conducted a desktop geoarchaeological review of the project APE and vicinity in order to evaluate the potential for buried archaeological resources within the APE. The following section presents the results of Dr. Lockwood’s analysis.
5.4.1 Geology and Geomorphology The APE is located in Fountain Valley and Huntington Beach on the Santa Ana coastal plain in Orange County, California. It is immediately west of a stretch of the Santa Ana River that is confined to a flood control channel.
5.4.1.1 OCSD Plant No. 1 The portion of the APE at OCSD Plant No. 1 is situated on a landform dominated by a low- gradient, sandy alluvial fan that merges with marine deposits at the coast. During the late Pleistocene, sea-level was approximately 120 meters below present level, leaving the vicinity of the APE approximately 9.3 miles (15.0 km) inland. Sea level rose throughout the Holocene, attaining near present conditions by approximately 2,000 to 4,000 years ago. Near surface deposits within the portion of the APE where new piping would be installed between OCSD Plant No. 1 and the existing pipeline are mapped as late Holocene to latest Pleistocene alluvial fan deposits (Morton 2004; Morton and Miller 2006), and consist of gravel, sand, and silt transported and deposited by the Santa Ana River. The APE is covered by a paved surface that likely is underlain by fill and required grading prior to construction.
5.4.1.2 OCWD GWRS Facility The portion of the APE at OCWD GWRS Facility APE is on the same landform as the portion of the APE at OCSD Plant No. 1 and therefore shares similar geomorphological characteristics. The OCWD GWRS Facility APE has been previously developed.
5.4.1.3 OCSD Plant No. 2 The portion of the APE at OCSD Plant No. 2 is on the distal portion of the alluvial fan that also contains the portion of the APE at the OCSD Plant No. 1 and the portion of the APE at the OCWD GWRS Facility. During the late Pleistocene, the portion of the APE at OCSD Plant No. 2 was approximately 5.5 miles (9.0 km) inland. Historically, the APE consisted largely of salt marsh, which would have been at or just above sea level, and was divided by small channels. The area was for celery agriculture in historic times.
The OCSD Plant No. 2 was initially developed for sanitation in 1954, but the parcel, including the APE, was progressively developed towards the north over the next five decades. The APE is covered with a paved surface that is at elevation 3-4 meters above mean sea level (amsl), suggesting the APE contains several meters of fill overlying the native salt marsh deposits. Some of the fill material may have originated as dredge spoils from channelization of the Santa Ana River. Near surface geology the APE is mapped as late Holocene to latest Pleistocene alluvial fan deposits (Morton 2004; Morton and Miller 2006). These deposits consist of gravel, sand, and silt
Groundwater Replenishment System Final Expansion Project and ESA / 160387.01 Water Production Enhancement Project 32 August 2016 Phase I Cultural Resources Study Groundwater Replenishment System Final Expansion Project and Water Production Enhancement Project. Phase I Cultural Resources Study 5. Archival Research transported and deposited by the Santa Ana River. To the south of the APE, the OCSD Plant No. 2 site contains unconsolidated eolian dune deposits.
5.4.2 Soils 5.4.2.1 OCSD Plant No. 1 Soils within the portion of the APE at OCSD Plant No. 1 are mapped as Metz loamy sand (NRCS 2016). The Metz soil series consists of very deep, somewhat excessively drained soils. Metz soils are formed in alluvial parent material on floodplains and alluvial fans with slopes of 0 to 15 percent. Since Metz soils are commonly cultivated, the typical soil pedon possesses a shallow plowzone A-horizon (Ap) overlying multiple layers of sandy loam to sand parent material (C1, C2, C3, C4 horizons). The absence of a B-horizon is likely due to the short geological time that has passed since deposition of the last unit of parent material (C1), although agricultural activity has the potential to have partially disrupted B-horizon development. The sequence of several units of parent material (C-horizon) reflects changes over time in the behavior of the Santa Ana River, including periodic overbank flooding. Because the C-horizons represent vertical accretion (i.e., building) on the floodplain, there is a potential that successive fluvial deposits covered and preserved archaeological resources that had accumulated between depositional events. Therefore, Metz soils are considered to have a high sensitivity for buried archaeological resources.
5.4.2.2 OCWD GWRS Facility Soils within the portion of the APE at the OCWD GWRS Facility are mapped as Hueneme fine sandy loam (NRCS 2016). The Hueneme soils series are formed on alluvial fans in stratified alluvium derived from sedimentary rock. The typical soil pedon consists of a plowed A-horizon (Ap1, Ap2) developed at the top of relatively unaltered alluvial parent material (C1 through C5) extending more than 70 inches deep. The absence of a B-horizon is likely due to the short geological time that has passed since deposition of parent material, although agricultural activity has the potential to have disrupted the development of a recognizable B-horizon as well. The sequence of several units of parent material (C-horizon) reflects changes over time in the behavior of the Santa Ana River, including periodic overbank flooding. Because the C-horizons represent vertical accretion (i.e., building) on the floodplain, there is a potential that successive fluvial deposits covered and preserved archaeological resources that had accumulated between depositional events. Therefore, Hueneme soils are considered to have a high sensitivity for buried archaeological resources.
5.4.2.3 OCSD Plant No. 2 Soils within the portion of the APE at OCSD Plant No. 2 are mapped primarily as Bolsa silt loam (NRCS 2016). Bolsa series soils are deep, somewhat poorly drained soils developed in mixed alluvium parent material on flood plains and basins. The typical soil pedon consists of a plowed A-horizon (Ap1, Ap2) developed at the top of relatively unaltered alluvial parent material (C1 through C6) extending more than 69 inches deep. The absence of a B-horizon is likely due to the short geological time that has passed since deposition of the parent material, although agricultural activity has the potential to have disrupted the development of a recognizable B-horizon as well.
Groundwater Replenishment System Final Expansion Project and ESA / 160387.01 Water Production Enhancement Project 33 August 2016 Phase I Cultural Resources Study Groundwater Replenishment System Final Expansion Project and Water Production Enhancement Project. Phase I Cultural Resources Study 5. Archival Research
The A-horizon in Bolsa soils ranges from sandy loam to silty clay loam, while the C-horizon is mainly silt loam and silty clay loam but may contain thin strata of sandier material (USDA 1997).
Significantly, many Bolsa soil pedons contain buried A-horizons (paleosols). These buried A- horizons represent periods of time in the past during which landform conditions were relatively stable, and during which deposition and erosion were sufficiently balanced to allow for development and retention of a soil weathering profile. From an archaeological perspective, periods of landform stability, such as those signified by buried A-horizons, should be correlated with the accumulation and preservation of cultural remains. Therefore, Bolsa soils are considered to have a high sensitivity for buried archaeological resources.
5.4.3 Archaeological Potential Although paved and filled, the portion of the APE at the OCSD Plant No. 2 appears to retain high sensitivity for buried archeological resources. During the latest Pleistocene and Holocene, the geomorphic setting of the portion of the APE at the OCSD Plant No. 2 changed from inland to coastal, and rising sea level resulted in fluvial deposition capable of burying archaeological resources. The portion of the APE at the OCSD Plant No. 2 was largely salt marsh into the early 20th century, but this is an area that would have offered important resources. Owing to its marshy environment, this area may not have been favored for any substantial occupation, but nonetheless is likely to have been visited for resource procurement and could contain artifacts associated with those activities. Additionally, the saturated conditions offered within this setting may have aided in the preservation of relatively rare organic artifacts.
Although paved and filled, the portion of the APE where new piping would be installed between OCSD Plant No. 1 and the existing pipeline appears to retain high sensitivity for buried archaeological resources. During the latest Pleistocene and Holocene rising sea levels reduced fluvial downcutting and increased deposition capable of burying archaeological resources. Historically, the APE was north of a large salt marsh, an area that would have offered important resources. Owing to its proximity to both the salt marsh and the Santa Ana River, the APE may have been selected for occupation, and could contain buried artifacts and features associated with such use.
Groundwater Replenishment System Final Expansion Project and ESA / 160387.01 Water Production Enhancement Project 34 August 2016 Phase I Cultural Resources Study Groundwater Replenishment System Final Expansion Project and Water Production Enhancement Project. Phase I Cultural Resources Study 6. Paleontological Records Search
6. Paleontological Records Search Dr. Samuel A. McLeod, Ph.D., of the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County, Vertebrate Paleontology Section, conducted a thorough search on June 16, 2016 of the paleontology collection records for the locality and specimen data for the proposed project. No vertebrate fossil localities lie within the project APE; however, there are localities nearby from the same sedimentary units that may occur subsurface in the project APE. The closest vertebrate fossil locality from Quaternary Terrace deposits is LACM 7366. LACM 7366 produced specimens of marine, freshwater, and terrestrial specimens including leopark shark, Triakis, three-spined stickleback, Gasterosteus, garter snake, Thamnophis, desert shrew, Notiosorex, and most prominently, pocket gopher, Thomomys. A series of fossil localities, LACM 7422-7425, are located north-northwest of LACM 7366. These localities produced fossil specimens of mammoth, Mammuthus, bison, Bison, and horse, Equus, from Alluvium or dune deposits. The closest vertebrate fossil locality from Quaternary deposits is LACM 6370 located approximately 1.6 miles southeast. LACM 6370 produced a specimen of a fossil horse, Equus. Fossil locality LACM 3267 located northeast, produced a specimen of a fossil elephant, Proboscidea in Quaternary deposits. Fossil locality LACM 4219 produced fossil specimens of turtle, Chelonia, and camel, Camelidae. Vertebrate fossil locality LACM 1339, located north of the APE, produced fossil specimens of mammoth, Mammuthus, and camel, Camelidae, bones from sands approximately 15 feet below the top of the mesa that is overlain by shell bearing silts and sands.
The entire APE has surface deposits of younger Quaternary Alluvium, derived as fluvial deposits from the Santa Ana River to the east of the project APE. No fossil vertebrate localities are located nearby these deposits, and they are unlikely to contain significant vertebrate fossils, at least in the uppermost layers. Small hills and bluffs both east and west of the project APE, however, define the Santa Ana River floodplain drainage and are mapped as having exposures of marine Quaternary Terrace deposits. These or other older Quaternary deposits may occur in the project APE at unknown depth. There is a low potential to uncover significant vertebrate fossil remains during surface grading or shallow excavations in the APE. However, excavations that extend down into the older Quaternary deposits may encounter significant fossil vertebrate specimens.
Groundwater Replenishment System Final Expansion Project and ESA / 160387.01 Water Production Enhancement Project 35 August 2016 Phase I Cultural Resources Study Groundwater Replenishment System Final Expansion Project and Water Production Enhancement Project. Phase I Cultural Resources Study 7. Cultural Resources Survey and Results
7. Cultural Resources Survey and Results A cultural resources pedestrian survey of the APE was conducted on June 16, 2016 by Arabesque Said-Abdelwahed to identify the presence of surface archaeological materials. Intensive-level survey was conducted of areas with greater surface visibility with intervals spaced at 10 meter. Survey of the OCWD GWRS Facility showed that the entire project APE has been previously developed and is completely paved. The buildings that exist on the OCWD site were constructed after 1972. No cultural resources were observed during the survey at the OCWD GWRS Facility.
A pedestrian survey was conducted on June 16, 2016 of the existing pipeline alignment for rehabilitation is located along an OCSD easement corridor that extends west of the Santa Ana River levee. The pipe would connect to existing facilities at the OCSD Plant No. 1 and proposed facilities in OCSD Plant No. 2. The soils were previously disturbed during placement of the existing pipeline located 5 feet below the existing ground surface. The corridor consists of fill material and is elevated approximately 2-4-feet above natural grade (OCWD, pers. comm.). No cultural resources were observed during the survey of the existing pipeline route. Cultural resources were not observed during the survey of the pipe connection locations to existing facilities.
New facilities (Flow Equalization Control/Meter, Flow Equalization Pump Station, OCSD Pipeline Connection, pump station, bypass pipeline, and headgates) would be constructed at the OCSD Plant No. 2. The bypass pipeline, headgates, Flow Equalization Control/Meter, and proposed pump station locations are currently paved and natural ground was not visible. The OCSD Plant No. 2 consists of existing tanks and waste water treatment buildings. Portions of the proposed location for the Flow Equalization Pump Station and OCSD Pipeline Connection are unpaved and were surveyed in regular intervals. No archaeological or historic built resources were observed within the APE. Potential historic-period buildings/structures were noted at the OCSD Plant No. 2 outside of the APE.
A photographic narrative of the survey results can be found in the attached Appendix D.
Groundwater Replenishment System Final Expansion Project and ESA / 160387.01 Water Production Enhancement Project 36 August 2016 Phase I Cultural Resources Study Groundwater Replenishment System Final Expansion Project and Water Production Enhancement Project. Phase I Cultural Resources Study 8. Conclusions and Recommendations
8. Conclusions and Recommendations 8.1 Archaeological Resources As a result of this study, no archaeological resources were identified within the APE. However, based on the results of study, the project APE should be considered highly sensitive for subsurface archaeological resources. Native American respondents indicated sensitivity for archaeological resources in the APE and surrounding area given the proximity to the Santa Ana River corridor. In addition, the geoarchaeological review indicates that the portion of the APE within OCSD Plant No. 2 was largely salt marsh into the early 20th century and would have offered important resources. Owing to its marshy environment, this area may not have been favored for any substantial occupation, but nonetheless is likely to have been visited for resource procurement and could contain artifacts associated with those activities. Additionally, the saturated conditions offered within this setting may have aided in the preservation of relatively rare organic artifacts. Since the project includes ground-disturbing activities, there is a potential for discovery of subsurface archaeological deposits that could qualify as historic properties under Section 106 of the NHPA and/or historical or unique archaeological resources under CEQA. This potential impact to unknown archaeological resources is considered significant. The following mitigation measures are recommended to ensure that the project would result in No Historic Properties Affected under Section 106 of the NHPA and less than significant impacts to historical or unique archaeological resources under CEQA.
1. Construction Worker Cultural Resources Sensitivity Training: Prior to earth moving activities, a qualified archaeologist meeting the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards for archaeology (U.S. Department of the Interior, 2008) shall conduct cultural resources sensitivity training for all construction personnel. Construction personnel shall be informed of the types of cultural resources that may be encountered, and of the proper procedures to be enacted in the event of an inadvertent discovery of archaeological resources or human remains. OCWD shall ensure that construction personnel are made available for and attend the training and retain documentation demonstrating attendance.
2. Archaeological Monitoring: Prior to the start of any ground-disturbing activities, OCWD shall retain an archaeological monitor to observe all ground-disturbing activities. Archaeological monitoring shall be conducted by a monitor familiar with the types of archaeological resources that could be encountered and shall work under the direct supervision of the qualified archaeologist. Monitoring may be reduced or discontinued by the qualified archaeologist, in coordination with OCWD, based on observations of subsurface soil stratigraphy and/or the presence of older C-horizon deposits. The monitor shall be empowered to halt or redirect ground-disturbing activities away from the vicinity of a discovery until the qualified archaeologist has evaluated the discovery and determined appropriate treatment. The monitor shall keep daily logs detailing the types of activities and soils observed, and any discoveries. After monitoring has been completed, the qualified archaeologist shall prepare a monitoring report that details the results of
Groundwater Replenishment System Final Expansion Project and ESA / 160387.01 Water Production Enhancement Project 37 August 2016 Phase I Cultural Resources Study Groundwater Replenishment System Final Expansion Project and Water Production Enhancement Project. Phase I Cultural Resources Study 8. Conclusions and Recommendations
monitoring. The report shall be submitted to OCWD, SCCIC, and any Native American groups who request a copy.
3. Native American Monitoring: Prior to issuance of a grading permit and prior to start of any ground-disturbing activities, OCWD shall retain a Native American monitor to observe all ground-disturbing activities. The monitor shall be obtained from a Tribe that is traditionally and culturally affiliated with the area, according the NAHC list. The monitor shall be empowered to halt or redirect ground-disturbing activities away from the vicinity of a discovery until the qualified archaeologist has evaluated the discovery and determined appropriate treatment. Monitoring may be reduced or discontinued, in coordination with OCWD and the qualified archaeologist, based on observations of subsurface soil stratigraphy and/or the presence of older C-horizon deposits.
4. Archaeological Discoveries: In the event of the discovery of archaeological materials, OCWD or its contractor shall immediately cease all work activities in the area (within approximately 100 feet) of the discovery until it can be evaluated by the qualified archaeologist. Prehistoric archaeological materials might include obsidian and chert flaked-stone tools (e.g., projectile points, knives, scrapers) or tool-making debris; culturally darkened soil (“midden”) containing heat-affected rocks, artifacts, or shellfish remains; and stone milling equipment (e.g., mortars, pestles, handstones, or milling slabs); and battered stone tools, such as hammerstones and pitted stones. Historic-period materials might include stone or concrete footings and walls; filled wells or privies; and deposits of metal, glass, and/or ceramic refuse. Construction shall not resume until the qualified archaeologist has conferred with OCWD on the significance of the resource. SWRCB shall be afforded the opportunity to determine whether the discovery requires addressing under Section 106 Post-Review Discoveries provisions provided in 36 CFR 800.13.
If it is determined that the discovered archaeological resource constitutes a historic property under Section 106 of the NHPA or a historical resource under CEQA, avoidance and preservation in place shall be the preferred manner of mitigation. Preservation in place maintains the important relationship between artifacts and their archaeological context and also serves to avoid conflict with traditional and religious values of groups who may ascribe meaning to the resource. Preservation in place may be accomplished by, but is not limited to, avoidance, incorporating the resource into open space, capping, or deeding the site into a permanent conservation easement. In the event that preservation in place is demonstrated to be infeasible and data recovery through excavation is the only feasible mitigation available, an Archaeological Resources Treatment Plan that provides for the adequate recovery of the scientifically consequential information contained in the archaeological resource shall be prepared and implemented by the qualified archaeologist in consultation with OCWD. The appropriate Native American representatives shall be consulted in determining treatment for prehistoric or Native American resources to ensure cultural values ascribed to the resource, beyond that which is scientifically important, are considered.
Groundwater Replenishment System Final Expansion Project and ESA / 160387.01 Water Production Enhancement Project 38 August 2016 Phase I Cultural Resources Study Groundwater Replenishment System Final Expansion Project and Water Production Enhancement Project. Phase I Cultural Resources Study 8. Conclusions and Recommendations
5. Human Remains: If human remains are encountered, OCWD or its contractor shall halt work in the vicinity (within 100 feet) of the find and contact the Orange County Coroner in accordance with PRC Section 5097.98 and Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5. If the County Coroner determines that the remains are Native American, the NAHC will be notified in accordance with Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5, subdivision (c), and PRC Section 5097.98. The NAHC will designate an MLD for the remains per PRC Section 5097.98. Until the landowner has conferred with the MLD, OCWD shall ensure that the immediate vicinity where the discovery occurred is not disturbed by further activity, is adequately protected according to generally accepted cultural or archaeological standards or practices, and that further activities take into account the possibility of multiple burials.
8.2 Historic Built Resources As a result of this study, two historic built resources (30-177464 – SCE Transmission Tower M2- T6 Ellis-Huntington Beach No. 2 and 30-177612 – SCE Transmission Tower M2-T5 Ellis/HB No. 2) were identified adjacent to the existing pipeline portion of the project APE. Both resources were previously recommended not eligible for the National Register and therefore do not qualify as historic properties under Section 106 of the NHPA. Neither resource has been previously evaluated for listing in the California Register; however, for the same reasons outlined in Section 5.1.2, these resources do not appear to meet the criteria for listing in the California Register and they do not qualify as historical resources under CEQA. No further work or treatment is recommended for these two resources.
Two potential historic built resources, OCSD Plant No. 1 and OCSD Plant No. 2, were identified as a result of this study. Both plants were initially constructed more than 45 years ago1, although none of the historic-age buildings/structures appear to be within the APE2. Project-related activities OCSD Plant No. 1 will be limited to installation of a below-ground piping to connect to existing facilities. No above-ground facilities would be constructed at this location and existing potential historic buildings/structures are not located near the pipeline. Therefore, the project does not have the potential to result in a significant impact to any potential historic resources on OCSD Plant No. 1. Since above-ground buildings/structures are proposed at OSCD Plant No. 2, a historical evaluation should be prepared for OCSD Plant No. 2.
8.3 Paleontological Resources Based on the results of the paleontological database search, there are no known fossil localities in the APE and there is a low potential to uncover significant vertebrate fossil remains during surface grading or shallow excavations in the APE. However, excavations that extend down into
1 The California OHP recommends including all resources over 45 years of age in the planning process given the lag time between environmental documentation and project implementation. Generally, resources more than 50 years of age require evaluation for listing in the National Register and California Register to assess impacts to historic properties under Section 106 of the NHPA and historical resources under CEQA. 2 The project may require creation of a separate architectural APE in order to adequately address direct/indirect effects to historic built resources.
Groundwater Replenishment System Final Expansion Project and ESA / 160387.01 Water Production Enhancement Project 39 August 2016 Phase I Cultural Resources Study Groundwater Replenishment System Final Expansion Project and Water Production Enhancement Project. Phase I Cultural Resources Study 8. Conclusions and Recommendations
the older Quaternary deposits may encounter significant fossil vertebrate specimens. Since the project includes ground-disturbing activities, there is a potential for discovery of fossils that may be considered significant paleontological resources. This potential impact to unknown paleontological resources is considered significant. The following mitigation measures are recommended to ensure that the project would result in less than significant impacts to unique paleontological resources under CEQA.
1. Retention of a Qualified Paleontologist: Prior to the start of any ground-disturbing activities, OCWD shall retain a qualified paleontologist meeting the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology (SVP) Standards (SVP, 2010). The qualified paleontologist shall contribute to any construction worker cultural resources sensitivity training either in person or via a training module provided to the qualified archaeologist. The training session shall focus on the recognition of the types of paleontological resources that could be encountered within the project site and the procedures to be followed if they are found. The qualified paleontologist shall also conduct periodic spot checks in order to ascertain when older deposits are encountered and where monitoring shall be required.
2. Paleontological Monitoring: Prior to the start of any ground-disturbing activities, OCWD shall retain a paleontological monitor to observe all ground-disturbing activities within older Quaternary deposits. Paleontological resources monitoring shall be performed by a qualified paleontological monitor, or cross-trained archaeological/paleontological monitor, under the direction of the qualified paleontologist. The monitor shall have the authority to temporarily halt or divert work away from exposed fossils in order to recover the fossil specimens. Monitoring may be reduced or discontinued by the qualified paleontologist, in coordination with OCWD, based on observations of subsurface soil stratigraphy and/or other factors and if the qualified paleontologist determines that the possibility of encountering fossiliferous deposits is low. The monitor shall prepare daily logs detailing the types of activities and soils observed, and any discoveries. The qualified paleontologist shall prepare a final monitoring a report to be submitted to OCWD and filed with the local repository. Any recovered significant fossils shall be curated at an accredited facility with retrievable storage.
3. Paleontological Discoveries: If construction or other project personnel discover any potential fossils during construction, regardless of the depth or presence of a monitor, work in the vicinity (within 100 feet) of the find shall cease until the qualified paleontologist has assessed the discovery and made recommendations as to the appropriate treatment.
Groundwater Replenishment System Final Expansion Project and ESA / 160387.01 Water Production Enhancement Project 40 August 2016 Phase I Cultural Resources Study Groundwater Replenishment System Final Expansion Project and Water Production Enhancement Project. Phase I Cultural Resources Study 9. References
9. References Armor, Samuel, History of Orange County, California: with biographical sketches of the leading men and women of the county who have been identified with its earliest growth and development from the early days to the present, Los Angeles: Historic Record Co., 1921.
Bancroft, Hubert Howe, The Works of Hubert Howe Bancroft, Vol. XXIV, History of California, Vol. VII, 1860-1890, The History Company Publishers, San Francisco, CA, 1890.
Bean, L.J. and C.R. Smith. 1978. “Gabrieliño.” In Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 8: California, edited by R.F. Heizer, 538-549. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution.
Bean, L.J. and F.C. Shipek. 1978. Luiseño. In R.F. Heizer, (ed.) Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 8: California. Washington, D.C. Smithsonian Institution.
Carlberg, Marvin and Chris Epting, Postcard History Series: Huntington Beach, Arcadia Publishing, Charleston, S.C., 2009.
City of Huntington Beach, General Plan, Environmental Hazards Element, 1996a.
City of Huntington Beach, History, electronic document accessed at http://www.huntingtonbeachca.gov/about/history/ on November 2, 2011, 2000.
Cleland, J.H., A.L. York, and L.M. Willey, Piecing Together the Prehistory of Landing Hill: A Place Remembered, EDAW Cultural Publications No. 3, San Diego, CA, 2007.
County of Orange, Spanish and Mexican Ranchos, electronic document accessed at http://egov.ocgov.com/vgnfiles/ocgov/Clerk- Recorder/Docs/Archives/Spanish_and_Mexican_Ranchos.pdf on November 2, 2011.
Crawford, K. 2007. DPR Site Form for 30-177612. Record on file at the South Central Coastal Information Center, California State University Fullerton.
Dixon, Keith A., Early Holocene Human Adaptation on the Southern California Coast: A Summary Report of Investigations at the Irvine Site (CA-ORA-64), Newport Bay, Orange County, California. Pacific Coast Archaeological Society Quarterly, 19(3&4):1-84, 1983.
Drover, C.E., H.C. Koerper, and P. Langenwalter II, Early Holocene Human Adaptation on the Southern California Coast: A Summary Report of Investigations at the Irvine Site (CA- ORA-64), Newport Bay, Orange County, California. Pacific Coast Archaeological Society Quarterly, 19(3&4): 1-84, 1983.
Erlandson, Jon M., Early Hunter-Gatherers of the California Coast. Plenum Press, New York, 1994.
Groundwater Replenishment System. http://www.gwrsystem.com/. Website accessed June 2016.
Historicaerials.com, Aerial photographs for the years 1953, 1963, 1972, 1994, 1995, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2009, and 2019, online document accessed at http://www.historicaerials.com/ in July, 2016.
Groundwater Replenishment System Final Expansion Project and ESA / 160387.01 Water Production Enhancement Project 41 August 2016 Phase I Cultural Resources Study Groundwater Replenishment System Final Expansion Project and Water Production Enhancement Project. Phase I Cultural Resources Study 9. References
Kroeber, A.L. 1925. Handbook of the Indians of California. Bulletin 78: Bureau of American Ethnology. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution.
Logan, Dan, Land of Memories: Glimpses of Old Ranchos Survive, Los Angeles Times, May 3, 1990.
Milkovich, Barbara, A Brief History Of Huntington Beach, electronic document accessed online at http://www.hbsurfcity.com/history/history1.htm on September 1, 2011, 1986.
Morton, D.M. 2004. Preliminary Digital Geological Map of the 30' X 60' Santa Ana Quadrangle, southern California, version 2.0. U.S. Geological Survey, Open-File Report OF-99-172. Electronic resource, https://pubs.usgs.gov/of/1999/of99- 172/sanana2dmu.pdf, accessed July 26, 2016.
Morton, D.M., and Miller, F.K. 2006. Geologic map of the San Bernardino and Santa Ana 30' x 60' quadrangles, California. U.S. Geological Survey, Open-File Report OF-2006-1217, scale 1:100,000. Electronic resource, http://ngmdb.usgs.gov/ngm- bin/pdp/zui_viewer.pl?id=14379, accessed July 26, 2016.
Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). 2016. Web Soil Survey. Electronic resource, http://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/App/WebSoilSurvey.aspx, accessed July 26, 2016.
Oakeshott, G.B., California’s Changing Landscapes, A guide to the Geology of the States, 2nd Edition. McGraw-Hill Book Company, San Francisco, 1978.
Orange County Sanitation District. http://www.ocsd.com/about-ocsd/general-information/history. Website accessed June 2016.
Orange County Water District (OCWD). Scott-Roberts, Sandy. Principal Engineer, OCWD. Personal Communication: in person meeting. June 16, 2016.
Pitt, Leonard, The Decline of the Californios: A Social History of the Spanish-speaking Californians, 1846-1890, University of California Press, Berkeley, 1994.
Raab, L.M., J.L. Porcasi, K. Bradford, and A. Yatsko, Beyond the 50-Percent Solution: Maritime Intensification at Eel Point, San Clemente Island, California. Presented at the Annual Meetings of the Society for California Archaeology, Eureka, 1995.
Starr, Kevin, California: A History, Modern Library, 2007.
Supernowicz, Sana E. 2012. DPR Site Form for 30-177464. Record on file at the South Central Coastal Information Center, California State University Fullerton.
United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). 1997. Bolsa Series. Electronic resource, https://soilseries.sc.egov.usda.gov/OSD_Docs/B/BOLSA.html, accessed July 26, 2016.
Vellanoweth, R.L. and J.H. Altschul, Antiquarians, Culture Historians, and Scientists: The Archaeology of the Bight, in Islanders and Mainlanders: Prehistoric Context for the
Groundwater Replenishment System Final Expansion Project and ESA / 160387.01 Water Production Enhancement Project 42 August 2016 Phase I Cultural Resources Study Groundwater Replenishment System Final Expansion Project and Water Production Enhancement Project. Phase I Cultural Resources Study 9. References
Southern California Bight, edited by J.H. Altschul and D.G. Grenda, pp. 85-111, SRI Press, Tucson, 2002.
Wallace, W.J. 1955. “A Suggested Chronology for Southern California Coastal Archaeology.” Southwestern Journal of Anthropology 11(3):214-230.
Warren, C.N. 1968. “Cultural Tradition and Ecological Adaptation on the Southern California Coast In Archaic Prehistory in the Western United States,” edited by Cynthia Irwin- Williams, pp. 1-14. Eastern New Mexico University Contributions in Anthropology No. 1.
Groundwater Replenishment System Final Expansion Project and ESA / 160387.01 Water Production Enhancement Project 43 August 2016 Phase I Cultural Resources Study Appendix A. Resumes
APPENDIX A Resumes
Groundwater Replenishment System Final Expansion Project and ESA / 160387.01 Water Production Enhancement Project August 2016 Phase I Cultural Resources Study
Candace R. Ehringer, RPA Senior Cultural Resources Specialist
EDUCATION Candace is a cultural resources project manager with 18 years of experience working across California. Candace manages multi-disciplinary cultural resources M.A., Anthropology, California State projects which include archaeological, historic architectural, and paleontological University, Northridge resources components. She is adept at building teams of specialists from these resource areas that are uniquely qualified for the particular project at hand and has B.A., Anthropology, East Carolina University brought hundreds of projects to successful completion for both public agency and private development clients. Candace provides technical and compliance oversight 18 YEARS EXPERIENCE for projects involving archaeological survey, evaluation, and treatment; built AREAS OF EXCELLENCE environment studies including the documentation and evaluation of buildings, structures, and districts; and paleontological resources survey and sensitivity CEQA, NEPA, and assessments. She is proficient in the areas of CEQA, NEPA, and Section 106 and Section 106 proficient routinely provides planning and strategic guidance to clients within the larger Manages multi- scope of state and federal regulations. disciplinary CRM projects Strong historic resources Relevant Experience research skills Los Angeles Unified School District, Historic Resources Evaluation of Five QUALIFICATIONS Campuses, Los Angeles, CA. Project Manager. ESA provided historic resources services in support of proposed improvements to George Washington Carver Exceeds Secretary of the Interior’s Standards Middle School, Graham Elementary School, Morris K. Hamasaki Elementary School, Van Nuys Elementary School, and West Vernon Elementary School. Candace CA State BLM Permitted managed the preparation of historic resources evaluations of the five campuses. CONTINUING ESA identified Van Nuys Elementary School and West Vernon Elementary School as EDUCATION eligible. AEP Advanced CEQA Workshop, 2011 California Department of Water Resources, California Aqueduct Bridges Seismic Retrofit, Kern and San Bernardino Counties, CA. Project Manager. Candace ACHP Section 106 Essentials training managed the completion of an Archaeological Survey Report, a Historical Resources course, 2010 Evaluation Report, a Historic Properties Survey Report, and Finding of Effect document in coordination with the California Department of Transportation Riverside County certification course, 2009 (Caltrans) and the California Department of Water Resources (DWR). DWR proposes and 2011 to remedy structural seismic deficiencies for six existing bridges spanning the PROFESSIONAL California Aqueduct. The California Aqueduct was determined eligible for listing in PAPERS & the National Register under Criteria A and C for its association with irrigation and PRESENTATIONS agricultural development of California and water conveyance engineering and Ehringer, C. 2014 Dead design. The six bridges are considered contributors to the aqueduct system. Men Do Wear Plaid: Garments and Notions Cooper Molera Adobe, Monterey County, CA. Project Manager. The National Trust for City Cemetery, Los for Historic Preservation has spearheaded a shared use program that aims to create Angeles, California. Oral a revitalized Cooper Molera Adobe. The intent is to balance compelling historic paper presentation at the Society for Historical interpretation and education programs with appropriate and complementary Archaeology 47th Annual commercial uses. Candace co-authored the Archaeological Research Design and Meeting, Quebec City, Quebec, Canada.
Candace R. Ehringer, RPA Page 2
Treatment Plan (ARDTP) and implemented archaeological resources testing and data recovery at the adobe.
California Department of Water Resources, Cantua Creek Stream Group Improvements Project, Fresno County, CA. Project Manager. The California Department of Water Resources (DWR) proposes to implement the Cantua Creek Stream Group (CCSG) Improvements Project (Project). The CCSG is composed of five major creeks: Arroyo Hondo, Cantua, Salt, Martinez, and Domengine. The CCSG drains a portion of the Coast Range, located west of the Project area. Presently, floodwaters from the CCSG terminate at four locations (Basins 1-4) along an approximately 13-mile stretch of the San Luis Canal; Martinez Creek flows into Salt Creek about 3 miles upstream of the San Luis Canal. Candace managed the preparation of a Cultural Resource Inventory and Evaluation Report, Finding of Effect, and Paleontological Resources Report in compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and CEQA. The Bureau of Reclamation was the lead federal agency.
Monterey Regional Desalinization Project, Monterey County, CA. Senior Cultural Resources Specialist. In support of the NEPA phase of this project, Candace compiled information on cultural resources located along the proposed alternative routes and authored a technical memo providing recommendations for the route that would pose the least impact to known resources. She has also conducted several surveys of pipeline routes and potential staging areas. The Bureau of Reclamation is the lead federal agency for the project.
Los Angeles Unified School District, Historic Architectural Review of Twelve Campuses, Los Angeles, CA. Project Manager. ESA provided historic resources services in support of proposed improvements to 12 campuses. Candace conducted site visits and oversaw the preparation of letter reports assessing the improvements for compliance with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards.
City of Santa Barbara, Mission Creek Lagoon and Laguna Channel Restoration Project, Santa Barbara County, CA. Project Manager. Candace managed the preparation of a technical memorandum documenting a preliminary cultural resource study and conducted the field survey. The study identified several cultural resources that could pose a regulatory constraint on the project, including 18 historic built resources. The area was also identified as sensitive for archaeological resources. ESA is currently assisting the City of Santa Barbara identify a design alternative within the Project area that is economically feasible and meets the multiple objectives of flood control, water quality improvement, public safety and access, and habitat restoration.
DWR, Hyatt River Outlet Facility Life Extension Study, Oroville, CA. Project Manager. The Hyatt River Outlet Facility Life Extension Study Project involves the construction of outlet tunnels at the Edward Hyatt Power Plant to replace/repair the River outlet. The Edward Hyatt Power Plant (1963-1969) and the Oroville Dam (1961-1967) have been evaluated and appear eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places. Candace managed the preparation of a technical reportdocument which analyzed the existing records/data, assessed potential effects to historic resources by the proposed activities, and concluded with a finding of effect.
Arabesque Said- Abdelwahed, MPP Senior Associate
EDUCATION Arabesque has professional experience specializing in CEQA and NEPA-level
Master of Public Policy, environmental documentation processes with a technical background in cultural University of California, resources management, hazards and hazardous materials. She has focused on Irvine management and preparation of cultural resources literature reviews, B.A., Anthropology, archaeological surveys, archaeological site testing, and data collection. She has University of California, also authored cultural resources reports required for environmental analysis. Riverside Arabesque also brings significant experience performing Phase I environmental
8 YEARS EXPERIENCE site assessments/environmental site reports. As an ASTM-trained environmental site assessment professional, she has conducted dozens of Phase I ESAs in PROFESSIONAL California. She has managed the preparation of Initial Studies and assisted in the AFFILIATIONS preparation of Environmental Impact Reports. Association of Environmental Professionals Relevant Experience Register of Professional County of Orange, Cerritos Avenue Single-family residential project Initial Archaeologists Study Mitigated Negative Declaration, Deputy Project Manager. Arabesque was California Department of the assistant project manager for the preparation of an Initial Study Mitigated Toxic Substances Control Registered Negative Declaration for a proposed 40-unit single-family residential project in Environmental Assessor unincorporated Orange County. Arabesque was responsible for analysis and content editing.
City of Santa Ana, Heritage Mixed-Use Development project EIR, Senior Associate. Arabesque conducted analysis and prepared the cultural resources and hazards and hazardous materials sections of the Environmental Impact Report.
Indian Wells valley Land Use Management Plan, Kern County, CA, Senior Associate. ESA prepared a Program Environmental Impact Report (PEIR) for the Indian Wells Valley Land Use Management Plan. This plan would evaluate the existing and potential General Plan land use designation changes to support a water balanced approach to land use planning. Arabesque prepared the hazards and hazardous materials section of the EIR.
Sweetwater Authority, Richard A. Reynolds Desalination Plant Phase 2 Expansion Solar Project MND, Chula Vista, CA, Deputy Project Manager. Arabesque was responsible for analysis and preparation of the Initial Study Mitigated Negative Declaration including content editing, schedule maintenance, staff coordination, and budget tracking. The Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared to address impacts associated with the installation of a solar photovoltaic project on an existing desalination facility. City of Baldwin Park Specific Plan EIR, Baldwin Park, CA, Senior Associate. ESA
Arabesque Said-Abdelwahed Page 2
will be providing CEQA documentation and environmental planning services associated with the Baldwin Park Transit Oriented District (TOD) Specific Plan for the Downtown Area of Baldwin Park. This project aims to encourage transit- oriented development, promote active transportation, reduce vehicle miles traveled, and streamline the environmental review process for future projects.
Department of Toxic Substances Control, Santa Susana Field Laboratory EIR, Ventura County, CA, Deputy Project Manager. Arabesque conducted analysis and prepared the utilities section of the PEIR for the Santa Susana Field Laboratory. She also coordinated the preparation of figures for the EIR.
City of Corona Department of Water and Power, Water Facilities Project, Riverside County, CA. Assistant Project Manager. Arabesque assisted in the preparation of the Initial Study and technical reports for the proposed water production wells, pump houses, linear wells water transmission main and water treatment facility.
City of Santa Ana Planning and Building Agency, Park View at Town and Country Manor Project, Orange County, CA. Assistant Project Manager. Arabesque prepared the Final EIR, MMRP, and Findings of Fact for the proposed multi-story building at the existing Town and Country Manor “Continuing Care Residential Community.” Arabesque also supported the Project Director at two Planning Commission meetings and City Council hearing.
The Shopoff Group, L.P. 333 North Prairie Avenue Project, City of Inglewood, Los Angeles County, CA. Assistant Project Manager. Arabesque assisted in the preparation of EIR sections. Arabesque managed the preparation of the Cultural Resources Assessment for the project area.
City of Wildomar, Riverside County, CA. Assistant Project Manager. Arabesque assisted in the preparation of the EIR for the proposed residential project on approximately 9-acres in the City of Wildomar. Arabesque prepared the project description and impact sections including cultural resources, geology and soils, hazards, land use, population and housing.
County of Riverside, Cabazon II Outlet Expansion Project, Riverside County, CA. Project Manager. Arabesque coordinated the preparation of an Initial Study for the proposed outlet mall expansion project in the community of Cabazon, CA. Arabesque also coordinated the preparation of technical studies including a Biological Habitat Assessment and Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment.
Vanessa N. Ortiz, MA, RPA Cultural Resources Specialist
EDUCATION Vanessa is an archaeologist with over seven years of documentation, records searches, survey, excavation, and monitoring experience. She is cross trained in M.A., Anthropology archaeology and paleontology. She has worked extensively throughout California, emphasis Archaeology, California State with particular experience in the context of the Mojave and California Great Basin, University, Los Angeles prehistoric food processing sites, and historic artifacts.
B.A. Anthropology, California State Relevant Experience University, Los Angeles City of Beverly Hills Metro Purple Line Extension, Beverly Hills, CA. 7 YEARS EXPERIENCE Compliance Coordinator. ESA is retained by the City of Beverly Hills to conduct PROFESSIONAL general compliance monitoring during the advanced utilities relocation phase of AFFILIATIONS construction for the segment of the Metro Purple Line Extension Project located in Register of Professional the City of Beverly Hills. Vanessa oversees ESA monitors, prepare weekly reports Archaeologists and 3-week look-ahead projections based on estimated contractor planned Society for American activities. As needed, she issues violations in the event a non-compliance issue is Archaeology identified. ESA’s primary objective is to assist contractors in avoiding non- California Cultural compliance issues through thorough observation and open communication. Resources Preservation Alliance Ballona Wetland Restoration, Playa Del Rey, CA. Archaeologist. As part of the Society for California development of the restoration plan for the Ballona Wetlands, the ESA project Archaeology team characterized existing conditions that included water and sediment Lambda Alpha Honors sampling and analysis. The water and sediment quality sampling was performed Society to develop and evaluate potential restoration alternatives, and to develop a conceptual plan. The ESA project team compiled existing data on and conducted additional sampling for water and sediment to assess potential effects on the proposed wetland restoration habitat from the use of urban runoff and tidal in- flow from Ballona Creek. These data were used to complete a baseline report and restoration alternatives assessment. Vanessa assisted in survey, data recovery and artifact analysis.
Los Angeles Department of Water and Power (LADWP), Path 46 Clearance Surveys, San Bernardino, CA. Archaeologist. ESA has been tasked by LADWP to conduct required surveys for the Path 46 Transmission Line Clearances Project. The project’s objective is to restore required code clearances to the transmission conductors, which will be accomplished by grading the ground surface underneath the transmission lines to achieve required height consistency. The work is being conducted in compliance with BLM guidelines and federal laws and statutes. Biological, archaeological, and paleontological resource surveys are currently being conducted for the 77 proposed grading areas, staging areas, and roads. Pending reports will document results of the surveys and provide recommendations for minimally invasive access areas, staging areas, and soil distribution. Vanessa provided field surveys and documentation of archaeological sites for submission to the California State Parks.
Vanessa N. Ortiz, MA, RPA Page 2
Los Angeles Department of Water and Power (LADWP), Scattergood Olympic Transmission Line (SOTL) Cultural Resources Monitoring, Los Angeles, CA. Archaeologist. LADWP is constructing and will operate approximately 11.4 miles of new 230 kilovolt (kv) underground transmission line. LADWP installed 55 vaults and underground conduit for the SOTL Project. ESA provided cultural resources services, including archaeological, Native American, and paleontological monitoring, to fulfill the requirements of the Project EIR mitigation measures for cultural resources. Reports documenting the monitoring findings were submitted at the end of the project. Vanessa provided oversight and scheduling to monitors and assisted in preparing the final report.
California High Speed Rail, Fresno, CA. Archaeological Monitor. ESA was retained as a sub-consultant to the Tutor Perini Zachary Parsons Joint Venture. The project consisted of pre-construction surveys for biological and cultural resources, compliance monitoring during construction, and compliance tracking and reporting. Approximately 29 miles in length, the project also included both biological and cultural resources such as the historic Chinatown in downtown Fresno, vernal pool and seasonal wetland habitat and crossings of the San Joaquin and Fresno Rivers. Vanessa provided archaeological monitoring for the Project during construction.
Los Angeles Department of Water and Power, La Kretz Innovation Campus Project, Los Angeles, CA. Archaeological Monitor and Lab Technician. ESA provided archaeological monitoring in connection with the La Kretz Innovation Campus Project located in downtown Los Angeles. ESA conducted construction worker cultural resources sensitivity training; archaeological monitoring; and prepared a monitoring report. The Project involved the rehabilitation of the 61,000-square-foot building located at 518-524 Colyton Street, the demolition of the building located at 537-551 Hewitt Street, and the construction of an open space public plaza, and surface parking lot, and involved compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and consultation with the California State Historic Preservation Officer. Vanessa provided monitoring for the duration of the Project as well as a lab technician during the curation of the artifacts recovered from the Project and co-authored the final cultural report.
Los Angeles Department of Water and Power (LADWP), Silver Lake Reservoir Complex (SLRC) Storage Replacement and River Supply Conduit 1A, Los Angeles County, CA. Archaeological and Paleontological Monitor. ESA is providing archaeological and paleontological monitoring for SLRC Storage Replacement and River Supply Conduit 1A Project. As part of this task, ESA conducted construction worker cultural resources sensitivity training and archaeological and paleontological monitoring. A final monitoring report will be prepared at the end of construction. Vanessa was the field monitor on this project.
Appendix B. SCCIC Records Search Results (Confidential, Bound Separately)
APPENDIX B SCCIC Records Search Results (Confidential, Bound Separately)
Groundwater Replenishment System Final Expansion Project and ESA / 160387.01 Water Production Enhancement Project August 2016 Phase I Cultural Resources Study Appendix C. Native American Correspondence
APPENDIX C Native American Correspondence
Groundwater Replenishment System Final Expansion Project and ESA / 160387.01 Water Production Enhancement Project August 2016 Phase I Cultural Resources Study Sacred Lands File & Native American Contacts List Request
NATIVE AMERICAN HERITAGE COMMISSION 1550 Harbor Blvd, Suite 100 West Sacramento, CA 95691 (916) 373-3710 (916) 373-5471 – Fax [email protected]
Information Below is Required for a Sacred Lands File Search
Project: Section 106 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Groundwater Replenishment System Final Expansion
County: Orange
USGS Quadrangle Name: Newport Beach Townships: 5 and 6 South --- Range: 10 West Section(s): Multiple
Company: Environmental Science Associates
Contact Person: Arabesque Said, MPP
Street Address: 2121 Alton Parkway, Suite 100, Irvine, CA 92606
Cell 951.310.7031
Office Phone: 213.599.4300
Fax: 213.599.4301
Email as needed: [email protected]
SEE ATTACHED MAP
The GWRS Final Expansion Project involves five construction activities; 1) Increasing microfiltration capacity, 2) Increasing reverse osmosis treatment capacity, 3) Increasing ultraviolet treatment capacity, 4) final product water and 5) construction of a pump station, 6) construction of a flow equalization tank and associated appurtenances, and 7) conversion of existing gravity pipeline to a pressurized pipeline. The project is located in multiple sections of Townships 5 and 6 South; Range 10 West of the Newport Beach, CA 7.5’ United States Geological Survey Topographic Quadrangle Map.
0 4000
Feet OCWD Groundwater Replenishment System Final Expansion Project . P160387.01 SOURCE: USGS Newport Beach, CA (1978) 7.5’ DRG; Figure 1 Local Vicinty Map Topographic Base Area of Potential Effects Macarthur Blvd
T
S MF Building Expansion and a OCSD GWRS li Equipment Installation Facility Sunflower Ave ElMFlis BackwashAVE Ellis Ave Magno Pumps (Install)
Chemical Tank and 405 Pump Expansion ST ¨¦§
RO Equipement (Install) ard
W Finished Product Cal Water Pump (Install) OCSD Plantiforn No.ia S 1T
Garfield DecarbAVE Tower (Install) Garfield AVE
UV Eqiupment (Install)
OCSD Pipe Connection to Existing Facilities
Yorktown AVE
Adams Ave
Existing Pipeline for Rehabilitation
t
T
S
a a
li
rdST
o
a
n
D
okhurst S
V
o
L
Br Bush
Mag B
r
o
Harb
Atlanta Ave
Excavation Area for OCSD Pipeline
Contractor Laydown Area
Flow EQ Control / Meter Victoria ST Flow EQ Pump Station Hamilton Ave
OCSD Pipeline Connection Path: U:\GIS\GIS\Projects\16xxxx\160387_OCSD\03_MXDs_Projects\Cult\Fig3_APE.mxd, jln 6/1/2016 jln U:\GIS\GIS\Projects\16xxxx\160387_OCSD\03_MXDs_Projects\Cult\Fig3_APE.mxd, Path: 19t OCSD Plant No. 2 OCSD Pumph StationST 19th ST
entiaAVE 1
lac
P
17th ST
rior AVE
Supe
1 VE 5 A th 0 2,000 ST or
Feet peri Su
OCWD Groundwater Replenishment System Final Expansion Project . P160387.01 SOURCE: ESRI Figure 3 Area of Potential Effects
2121 Alton Parkway www.esassoc.com Suite 100 Irvine, CA 92606 213.599.4300 phone 213.599.4301 fax
June 20, 2016
Chairperson Matias Belardes Juaneño Band of Mission Indians Acjachemen Nation 32161 Avenida Los Amigos San Juan Capistrano, CA 92675
Subject: Groundwater Replenishment System Final Expansion Project – D160387.01
Dear Chairperson Belardes :
ESA is conducting a cultural resources assessment as part of CEQA-Plus documentation for the Groundwater Replenishment System (GWRS) Final Expansion Project (project) located in the cities of Huntington Beach and Fountain Valley, California. The GWRS is an advanced water treatment facility constructed by the Orange County Water District (OCWD) and the Orange County Sanitation District (OCSD) that supplements local water supplies by providing reliable, high quality source of treated water to recharge the Orange County Groundwater Basin and to protect the Orange County Groundwater Basin from seawater intrusion. The GWRS consists of three major components: an advanced water purification facility and pumping stations, a major pipeline connecting the treatment facilities to existing recharge basins and an existing seawater intrusion barrier. The proposed project would include the construction and operation of an expanded microfiltration treatment facility, expanded Reverse Osmosis Treatment Capacity, expanded ultraviolet light treatment facility at the existing OCWD GWRS Facility in Fountain Valley. The project would also include construction and operation of a new pump station at the OCSD Treatment Plant No. 2 in Huntington Beach and the renovation of an existing water supply pipeline located on the west side of the Santa Ana River. A separate headworks facility and a bypass pipeline would be constructed on OCSD’s Plant No. 2 that will segregate the brine flows from the typical influent domestic wastewater flows to Plant No. 2. As seen on the attached topographic map, the project area is located within multiple sections of Townships 5 and 6 south; Range 10 West of the United States Geologic Survey (USGS) Newport Beach, CA 7.5’ topographic quadrangle.
Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (NHPA) considers the effects a project may have on historic properties. The definition of “historic properties” can include properties of traditional religious and cultural significance to Native American groups. To determine whether the proposed project may impact any historic properties, including traditional cultural properties, ESA has reviewed background information and consulted with the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC). Our records search at the South Central Coastal Information Center (SCCIC), indicate that there are no known cultural resources in the Area of Potential Effect (APE). A record search of the NAHC’s Sacred Land File has failed to indicate the presence of Native American cultural resources in the immediate APE. The NAHC has listed you as a tribal contact for this project.
Chairperson Matias Belardes June 20, 2016 Page 2
We would appreciate your comments identifying any sensitive sites in or near the project area that you may be aware of, any concerns or issues pertinent to this project, or the names of others who may be interested in this project. Thank you for your cooperation on this matter. If you have any questions or comments, please contact me at 949.870.1524 (cell) or [email protected].
Sincerely,
Arabesque Said-Abdelwahed, MPP Community Development
2121 Alton Parkway www.esassoc.com Suite 100 Irvine, CA 92606 213.599.4300 phone 213.599.4301 fax
June 20, 2016
Chairperson Anthony Morales Gabrieleno/Tongva San Gabriel Band of Mission Indians P.O. Box 693 San Gabriel, CA 91778
Subject: Groundwater Replenishment System Final Expansion Project – D160387.01
Dear Chairperson Morales, :
ESA is conducting a cultural resources assessment as part of CEQA-Plus documentation for the Groundwater Replenishment System (GWRS) Final Expansion Project (project) located in the cities of Huntington Beach and Fountain Valley, California. The GWRS is an advanced water treatment facility constructed by the Orange County Water District (OCWD) and the Orange County Sanitation District (OCSD) that supplements local water supplies by providing reliable, high quality source of treated water to recharge the Orange County Groundwater Basin and to protect the Orange County Groundwater Basin from seawater intrusion. The GWRS consists of three major components: an advanced water purification facility and pumping stations, a major pipeline connecting the treatment facilities to existing recharge basins and an existing seawater intrusion barrier. The proposed project would include the construction and operation of an expanded microfiltration treatment facility, expanded Reverse Osmosis Treatment Capacity, expanded ultraviolet light treatment facility at the existing OCWD GWRS Facility in Fountain Valley. The project would also include construction and operation of a new pump station at the OCSD Treatment Plant No. 2 in Huntington Beach and the renovation of an existing water supply pipeline located on the west side of the Santa Ana River. A separate headworks facility and a bypass pipeline would be constructed on OCSD’s Plant No. 2 that will segregate the brine flows from the typical influent domestic wastewater flows to Plant No. 2. As seen on the attached topographic map, the project area is located within multiple sections of Townships 5 and 6 south; Range 10 West of the United States Geologic Survey (USGS) Newport Beach, CA 7.5’ topographic quadrangle.
Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (NHPA) considers the effects a project may have on historic properties. The definition of “historic properties” can include properties of traditional religious and cultural significance to Native American groups. To determine whether the proposed project may impact any historic properties, including traditional cultural properties, ESA has reviewed background information and consulted with the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC). Our records search at the South Central Coastal Information Center (SCCIC), indicate that there are no known cultural resources in the Area of Potential Effect (APE). A record search of the NAHC’s Sacred Land File has failed to indicate the presence of Native American cultural resources in the immediate APE. The NAHC has listed you as a tribal contact for this project.
Chairperson Anthony Morales June 20, 2016 Page 2 We would appreciate your comments identifying any sensitive sites in or near the project area that you may be aware of, any concerns or issues pertinent to this project, or the names of others who may be interested in this project. Thank you for your cooperation on this matter. If you have any questions or comments, please contact me at 949.870.1524 (cell) or [email protected].
Sincerely,
Arabesque Said-Abdelwahed, MPP Community Development
2121 Alton Parkway www.esassoc.com Suite 100 Irvine, CA 92606 213.599.4300 phone 213.599.4301 fax
June 20, 2016
Chaiperson Sandonne Goad Gabrielino/Tongva Nation 106 1/2 Judge John Aliso St. #231 Los Angeles, CA 90012
Subject: Groundwater Replenishment System Final Expansion Project – D160387.01
Dear Chaiperson Goad :
ESA is conducting a cultural resources assessment as part of CEQA-Plus documentation for the Groundwater Replenishment System (GWRS) Final Expansion Project (project) located in the cities of Huntington Beach and Fountain Valley, California. The GWRS is an advanced water treatment facility constructed by the Orange County Water District (OCWD) and the Orange County Sanitation District (OCSD) that supplements local water supplies by providing reliable, high quality source of treated water to recharge the Orange County Groundwater Basin and to protect the Orange County Groundwater Basin from seawater intrusion. The GWRS consists of three major components: an advanced water purification facility and pumping stations, a major pipeline connecting the treatment facilities to existing recharge basins and an existing seawater intrusion barrier. The proposed project would include the construction and operation of an expanded microfiltration treatment facility, expanded Reverse Osmosis Treatment Capacity, expanded ultraviolet light treatment facility at the existing OCWD GWRS Facility in Fountain Valley. The project would also include construction and operation of a new pump station at the OCSD Treatment Plant No. 2 in Huntington Beach and the renovation of an existing water supply pipeline located on the west side of the Santa Ana River. A separate headworks facility and a bypass pipeline would be constructed on OCSD’s Plant No. 2 that will segregate the brine flows from the typical influent domestic wastewater flows to Plant No. 2. As seen on the attached topographic map, the project area is located within multiple sections of Townships 5 and 6 south; Range 10 West of the United States Geologic Survey (USGS) Newport Beach, CA 7.5’ topographic quadrangle.
Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (NHPA) considers the effects a project may have on historic properties. The definition of “historic properties” can include properties of traditional religious and cultural significance to Native American groups. To determine whether the proposed project may impact any historic properties, including traditional cultural properties, ESA has reviewed background information and consulted with the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC). Our records search at the South Central Coastal Information Center (SCCIC), indicate that there are no known cultural resources in the Area of Potential Effect (APE). A record search of the NAHC’s Sacred Land File has failed to indicate the presence of Native American cultural resources in the immediate APE. The NAHC has listed you as a tribal contact for this project.
Chaiperson Sandonne Goad June 20, 2016 Page 2
We would appreciate your comments identifying any sensitive sites in or near the project area that you may be aware of, any concerns or issues pertinent to this project, or the names of others who may be interested in this project. Thank you for your cooperation on this matter. If you have any questions or comments, please contact me at 949.870.1524 (cell) or [email protected].
Sincerely,
Arabesque Said-Abdelwahed, MPP Community Development
2121 Alton Parkway www.esassoc.com Suite 100 Irvine, CA 92606 213.599.4300 phone 213.599.4301 fax
June 20, 2016
Chairwoman Teresa Romero Juaneño Band of Mission Indians Acjachemen Nation 31411-A La Matanza Street San Juan Capistrano, CA 92675
Subject: Groundwater Replenishment System Final Expansion Project – D160387.01
Dear Chairwoman Romero :
ESA is conducting a cultural resources assessment as part of CEQA-Plus documentation for the Groundwater Replenishment System (GWRS) Final Expansion Project (project) located in the cities of Huntington Beach and Fountain Valley, California. The GWRS is an advanced water treatment facility constructed by the Orange County Water District (OCWD) and the Orange County Sanitation District (OCSD) that supplements local water supplies by providing reliable, high quality source of treated water to recharge the Orange County Groundwater Basin and to protect the Orange County Groundwater Basin from seawater intrusion. The GWRS consists of three major components: an advanced water purification facility and pumping stations, a major pipeline connecting the treatment facilities to existing recharge basins and an existing seawater intrusion barrier. The proposed project would include the construction and operation of an expanded microfiltration treatment facility, expanded Reverse Osmosis Treatment Capacity, expanded ultraviolet light treatment facility at the existing OCWD GWRS Facility in Fountain Valley. The project would also include construction and operation of a new pump station at the OCSD Treatment Plant No. 2 in Huntington Beach and the renovation of an existing water supply pipeline located on the west side of the Santa Ana River. A separate headworks facility and a bypass pipeline would be constructed on OCSD’s Plant No. 2 that will segregate the brine flows from the typical influent domestic wastewater flows to Plant No. 2. As seen on the attached topographic map, the project area is located within multiple sections of Townships 5 and 6 south; Range 10 West of the United States Geologic Survey (USGS) Newport Beach, CA 7.5’ topographic quadrangle.
Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (NHPA) considers the effects a project may have on historic properties. The definition of “historic properties” can include properties of traditional religious and cultural significance to Native American groups. To determine whether the proposed project may impact any historic properties, including traditional cultural properties, ESA has reviewed background information and consulted with the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC). Our records search at the South Central Coastal Information Center (SCCIC), indicate that there are no known cultural resources in the Area of Potential Effect (APE). A record search of the NAHC’s Sacred Land File has failed to indicate the presence of Native American cultural resources in the immediate APE. The NAHC has listed you as a tribal contact for this project.
Chairperson Teresa Romero June 20, 2016 Page 2
We would appreciate your comments identifying any sensitive sites in or near the project area that you may be aware of, any concerns or issues pertinent to this project, or the names of others who may be interested in this project. Thank you for your cooperation on this matter. If you have any questions or comments, please contact me at 949.870.1524 (cell) or [email protected].
Sincerely,
Arabesque Said-Abdelwahed, MPP Community Development
2121 Alton Parkway www.esassoc.com Suite 100 Irvine, CA 92606 213.599.4300 phone 213.599.4301 fax
June 20, 2016
Vice Chairperson Adolph "Bud" Sepulveda Juaneño Band of Mission Indians P.O. Box 25828 Santa Ana, CA 92799
Subject: Groundwater Replenishment System Final Expansion Project – D160387.01
Dear Vice Chairperson Sepulveda :
ESA is conducting a cultural resources assessment as part of CEQA-Plus documentation for the Groundwater Replenishment System (GWRS) Final Expansion Project (project) located in the cities of Huntington Beach and Fountain Valley, California. The GWRS is an advanced water treatment facility constructed by the Orange County Water District (OCWD) and the Orange County Sanitation District (OCSD) that supplements local water supplies by providing reliable, high quality source of treated water to recharge the Orange County Groundwater Basin and to protect the Orange County Groundwater Basin from seawater intrusion. The GWRS consists of three major components: an advanced water purification facility and pumping stations, a major pipeline connecting the treatment facilities to existing recharge basins and an existing seawater intrusion barrier. The proposed project would include the construction and operation of an expanded microfiltration treatment facility, expanded Reverse Osmosis Treatment Capacity, expanded ultraviolet light treatment facility at the existing OCWD GWRS Facility in Fountain Valley. The project would also include construction and operation of a new pump station at the OCSD Treatment Plant No. 2 in Huntington Beach and the renovation of an existing water supply pipeline located on the west side of the Santa Ana River. A separate headworks facility and a bypass pipeline would be constructed on OCSD’s Plant No. 2 that will segregate the brine flows from the typical influent domestic wastewater flows to Plant No. 2. As seen on the attached topographic map, the project area is located within multiple sections of Townships 5 and 6 south; Range 10 West of the United States Geologic Survey (USGS) Newport Beach, CA 7.5’ topographic quadrangle.
Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (NHPA) considers the effects a project may have on historic properties. The definition of “historic properties” can include properties of traditional religious and cultural significance to Native American groups. To determine whether the proposed project may impact any historic properties, including traditional cultural properties, ESA has reviewed background information and consulted with the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC). Our records search at the South Central Coastal Information Center (SCCIC), indicate that there are no known cultural resources in the Area of Potential Effect (APE). A record search of the NAHC’s Sacred Land File has failed to indicate the presence of Native American cultural resources in the immediate APE. The NAHC has listed you as a tribal contact for this project.
Vice Chairperson Adoplh "Bud" Sepulveda June 20, 2016 Page 2
We would appreciate your comments identifying any sensitive sites in or near the project area that you may be aware of, any concerns or issues pertinent to this project, or the names of others who may be interested in this project. Thank you for your cooperation on this matter. If you have any questions or comments, please contact me at 949.870.1524 (cell) or [email protected].
Sincerely,
Arabesque Said-Abdelwahed, MPP Community Development
2121 Alton Parkway www.esassoc.com Suite 100 Irvine, CA 92606 213.599.4300 phone 213.599.4301 fax
June 20, 2016
Tribal Chairperson Sonia Johnston Juaneño Band of Mission Indians P.O. Box 25628 Santa Ana, CA 92799
Subject: Groundwater Replenishment System Final Expansion Project – D160387.01
Dear Tribal Chairperson Johnston :
ESA is conducting a cultural resources assessment as part of CEQA-Plus documentation for the Groundwater Replenishment System (GWRS) Final Expansion Project (project) located in the cities of Huntington Beach and Fountain Valley, California. The GWRS is an advanced water treatment facility constructed by the Orange County Water District (OCWD) and the Orange County Sanitation District (OCSD) that supplements local water supplies by providing reliable, high quality source of treated water to recharge the Orange County Groundwater Basin and to protect the Orange County Groundwater Basin from seawater intrusion. The GWRS consists of three major components: an advanced water purification facility and pumping stations, a major pipeline connecting the treatment facilities to existing recharge basins and an existing seawater intrusion barrier. The proposed project would include the construction and operation of an expanded microfiltration treatment facility, expanded Reverse Osmosis Treatment Capacity, expanded ultraviolet light treatment facility at the existing OCWD GWRS Facility in Fountain Valley. The project would also include construction and operation of a new pump station at the OCSD Treatment Plant No. 2 in Huntington Beach and the renovation of an existing water supply pipeline located on the west side of the Santa Ana River. A separate headworks facility and a bypass pipeline would be constructed on OCSD’s Plant No. 2 that will segregate the brine flows from the typical influent domestic wastewater flows to Plant No. 2. As seen on the attached topographic map, the project area is located within multiple sections of Townships 5 and 6 south; Range 10 West of the United States Geologic Survey (USGS) Newport Beach, CA 7.5’ topographic quadrangle.
Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (NHPA) considers the effects a project may have on historic properties. The definition of “historic properties” can include properties of traditional religious and cultural significance to Native American groups. To determine whether the proposed project may impact any historic properties, including traditional cultural properties, ESA has reviewed background information and consulted with the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC). Our records search at the South Central Coastal Information Center (SCCIC), indicate that there are no known cultural resources in the Area of Potential Effect (APE). A record search of the NAHC’s Sacred Land File has failed to indicate the presence of Native American cultural resources in the immediate APE. The NAHC has listed you as a tribal contact for this project.
Tribal Chairperson Sonia Johnston June 20, 2016 Page 2
We would appreciate your comments identifying any sensitive sites in or near the project area that you may be aware of, any concerns or issues pertinent to this project, or the names of others who may be interested in this project. Thank you for your cooperation on this matter. If you have any questions or comments, please contact me at 949.870.1524 (cell) or [email protected].
Sincerely,
Arabesque Said-Abdelwahed, MPP Community Development
2121 Alton Parkway www.esassoc.com Suite 100 Irvine, CA 92606 213.599.4300 phone 213.599.4301 fax
June 20, 2016
Co-Chairperson Bernie Acuna Gabrielino-Tongva Tribe 1999 Avenue of the Stars Suite 1100 Los Angeles, CA 90067
Subject: Groundwater Replenishment System Final Expansion Project – D160387.01
Dear Co-Chairperson Acuna :
ESA is conducting a cultural resources assessment as part of CEQA-Plus documentation for the Groundwater Replenishment System (GWRS) Final Expansion Project (project) located in the cities of Huntington Beach and Fountain Valley, California. The GWRS is an advanced water treatment facility constructed by the Orange County Water District (OCWD) and the Orange County Sanitation District (OCSD) that supplements local water supplies by providing reliable, high quality source of treated water to recharge the Orange County Groundwater Basin and to protect the Orange County Groundwater Basin from seawater intrusion. The GWRS consists of three major components: an advanced water purification facility and pumping stations, a major pipeline connecting the treatment facilities to existing recharge basins and an existing seawater intrusion barrier. The proposed project would include the construction and operation of an expanded microfiltration treatment facility, expanded Reverse Osmosis Treatment Capacity, expanded ultraviolet light treatment facility at the existing OCWD GWRS Facility in Fountain Valley. The project would also include construction and operation of a new pump station at the OCSD Treatment Plant No. 2 in Huntington Beach and the renovation of an existing water supply pipeline located on the west side of the Santa Ana River. A separate headworks facility and a bypass pipeline would be constructed on OCSD’s Plant No. 2 that will segregate the brine flows from the typical influent domestic wastewater flows to Plant No. 2. As seen on the attached topographic map, the project area is located within multiple sections of Townships 5 and 6 south; Range 10 West of the United States Geologic Survey (USGS) Newport Beach, CA 7.5’ topographic quadrangle.
Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (NHPA) considers the effects a project may have on historic properties. The definition of “historic properties” can include properties of traditional religious and cultural significance to Native American groups. To determine whether the proposed project may impact any historic properties, including traditional cultural properties, ESA has reviewed background information and consulted with the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC). Our records search at the South Central Coastal Information Center (SCCIC), indicate that there are no known cultural resources in the Area of Potential Effect (APE). A record search of the NAHC’s Sacred Land File has failed to indicate the presence of Native American cultural resources in the immediate APE. The NAHC has listed you as a tribal contact for this project.
Co-Chairperson Bernie Acuna June 20, 2016 Page 2
We would appreciate your comments identifying any sensitive sites in or near the project area that you may be aware of, any concerns or issues pertinent to this project, or the names of others who may be interested in this project. Thank you for your cooperation on this matter. If you have any questions or comments, please contact me at 949.870.1524 (cell) or [email protected].
Sincerely,
Arabesque Said-Abdelwahed, MPP Community Development
2121 Alton Parkway www.esassoc.com Suite 100 Irvine, CA 92606 213.599.4300 phone 213.599.4301 fax
June 20, 2016
Tribal Manager Joyce Perry Juaneño Band of Mission Indians Acjachemen Nation 4955 Paseo Segovia Irvine, CA 92612
Subject: Groundwater Replenishment System Final Expansion Project – D160387.01
Dear Tribal Manager Perry :
ESA is conducting a cultural resources assessment as part of CEQA-Plus documentation for the Groundwater Replenishment System (GWRS) Final Expansion Project (project) located in the cities of Huntington Beach and Fountain Valley, California. The GWRS is an advanced water treatment facility constructed by the Orange County Water District (OCWD) and the Orange County Sanitation District (OCSD) that supplements local water supplies by providing reliable, high quality source of treated water to recharge the Orange County Groundwater Basin and to protect the Orange County Groundwater Basin from seawater intrusion. The GWRS consists of three major components: an advanced water purification facility and pumping stations, a major pipeline connecting the treatment facilities to existing recharge basins and an existing seawater intrusion barrier. The proposed project would include the construction and operation of an expanded microfiltration treatment facility, expanded Reverse Osmosis Treatment Capacity, expanded ultraviolet light treatment facility at the existing OCWD GWRS Facility in Fountain Valley. The project would also include construction and operation of a new pump station at the OCSD Treatment Plant No. 2 in Huntington Beach and the renovation of an existing water supply pipeline located on the west side of the Santa Ana River. A separate headworks facility and a bypass pipeline would be constructed on OCSD’s Plant No. 2 that will segregate the brine flows from the typical influent domestic wastewater flows to Plant No. 2. As seen on the attached topographic map, the project area is located within multiple sections of Townships 5 and 6 south; Range 10 West of the United States Geologic Survey (USGS) Newport Beach, CA 7.5’ topographic quadrangle.
Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (NHPA) considers the effects a project may have on historic properties. The definition of “historic properties” can include properties of traditional religious and cultural significance to Native American groups. To determine whether the proposed project may impact any historic properties, including traditional cultural properties, ESA has reviewed background information and consulted with the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC). Our records search at the South Central Coastal Information Center (SCCIC), indicate that there are no known cultural resources in the Area of Potential Effect (APE). A record search of the NAHC’s Sacred Land File has failed to indicate the presence of Native American cultural resources in the immediate APE. The NAHC has listed you as a tribal contact for this project.
Tribal Manager Joyce Perry June 20, 2016 Page 2
We would appreciate your comments identifying any sensitive sites in or near the project area that you may be aware of, any concerns or issues pertinent to this project, or the names of others who may be interested in this project. Thank you for your cooperation on this matter. If you have any questions or comments, please contact me at 949.870.1524 (cell) or [email protected].
Sincerely,
Arabesque Said-Abdelwahed, MPP Community Development
2121 Alton Parkway www.esassoc.com Suite 100 Irvine, CA 92606 213.599.4300 phone 213.599.4301 fax
June 20, 2016
Co-Chairperson Linda Candelaria Gabrielino-Tongva Tribe 1999 Avenue of the Stars Suite 1100 Los Angeles, CA 90067
Subject: Groundwater Replenishment System Final Expansion Project – D160387.01
Dear Co-Chairperson Candelaria :
ESA is conducting a cultural resources assessment as part of CEQA-Plus documentation for the Groundwater Replenishment System (GWRS) Final Expansion Project (project) located in the cities of Huntington Beach and Fountain Valley, California. The GWRS is an advanced water treatment facility constructed by the Orange County Water District (OCWD) and the Orange County Sanitation District (OCSD) that supplements local water supplies by providing reliable, high quality source of treated water to recharge the Orange County Groundwater Basin and to protect the Orange County Groundwater Basin from seawater intrusion. The GWRS consists of three major components: an advanced water purification facility and pumping stations, a major pipeline connecting the treatment facilities to existing recharge basins and an existing seawater intrusion barrier. The proposed project would include the construction and operation of an expanded microfiltration treatment facility, expanded Reverse Osmosis Treatment Capacity, expanded ultraviolet light treatment facility at the existing OCWD GWRS Facility in Fountain Valley. The project would also include construction and operation of a new pump station at the OCSD Treatment Plant No. 2 in Huntington Beach and the renovation of an existing water supply pipeline located on the west side of the Santa Ana River. A separate headworks facility and a bypass pipeline would be constructed on OCSD’s Plant No. 2 that will segregate the brine flows from the typical influent domestic wastewater flows to Plant No. 2. As seen on the attached topographic map, the project area is located within multiple sections of Townships 5 and 6 south; Range 10 West of the United States Geologic Survey (USGS) Newport Beach, CA 7.5’ topographic quadrangle.
Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (NHPA) considers the effects a project may have on historic properties. The definition of “historic properties” can include properties of traditional religious and cultural significance to Native American groups. To determine whether the proposed project may impact any historic properties, including traditional cultural properties, ESA has reviewed background information and consulted with the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC). Our records search at the South Central Coastal Information Center (SCCIC), indicate that there are no known cultural resources in the Area of Potential Effect (APE). A record search of the NAHC’s Sacred Land File has failed to indicate the presence of Native American cultural resources in the immediate APE. The NAHC has listed you as a tribal contact for this project.
Co-Chairperson Linda Candelaria June 20, 2016 Page 2
We would appreciate your comments identifying any sensitive sites in or near the project area that you may be aware of, any concerns or issues pertinent to this project, or the names of others who may be interested in this project. Thank you for your cooperation on this matter. If you have any questions or comments, please contact me at 949.870.1524 (cell) or [email protected].
Sincerely,
Arabesque Said-Abdelwahed, MPP Community Development
2121 Alton Parkway www.esassoc.com Suite 100 Irvine, CA 92606 213.599.4300 phone 213.599.4301 fax
June 20, 2016
Chairperson Andrew Salas Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians - Kizh Nation P.O. Box 393 Covina, CA 91723
Subject: Groundwater Replenishment System Final Expansion Project – D160387.01
Dear Chairperson Salas :
ESA is conducting a cultural resources assessment as part of CEQA-Plus documentation for the Groundwater Replenishment System (GWRS) Final Expansion Project (project) located in the cities of Huntington Beach and Fountain Valley, California. The GWRS is an advanced water treatment facility constructed by the Orange County Water District (OCWD) and the Orange County Sanitation District (OCSD) that supplements local water supplies by providing reliable, high quality source of treated water to recharge the Orange County Groundwater Basin and to protect the Orange County Groundwater Basin from seawater intrusion. The GWRS consists of three major components: an advanced water purification facility and pumping stations, a major pipeline connecting the treatment facilities to existing recharge basins and an existing seawater intrusion barrier. The proposed project would include the construction and operation of an expanded microfiltration treatment facility, expanded Reverse Osmosis Treatment Capacity, expanded ultraviolet light treatment facility at the existing OCWD GWRS Facility in Fountain Valley. The project would also include construction and operation of a new pump station at the OCSD Treatment Plant No. 2 in Huntington Beach and the renovation of an existing water supply pipeline located on the west side of the Santa Ana River. A separate headworks facility and a bypass pipeline would be constructed on OCSD’s Plant No. 2 that will segregate the brine flows from the typical influent domestic wastewater flows to Plant No. 2. As seen on the attached topographic map, the project area is located within multiple sections of Townships 5 and 6 south; Range 10 West of the United States Geologic Survey (USGS) Newport Beach, CA 7.5’ topographic quadrangle.
Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (NHPA) considers the effects a project may have on historic properties. The definition of “historic properties” can include properties of traditional religious and cultural significance to Native American groups. To determine whether the proposed project may impact any historic properties, including traditional cultural properties, ESA has reviewed background information and consulted with the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC). Our records search at the South Central Coastal Information Center (SCCIC), indicate that there are no known cultural resources in the Area of Potential Effect (APE). A record search of the NAHC’s Sacred Land File has failed to indicate the presence of Native American cultural resources in the immediate APE. The NAHC has listed you as a tribal contact for this project.
Chairperson Andrew Salas June 20, 2016 Page 2
We would appreciate your comments identifying any sensitive sites in or near the project area that you may be aware of, any concerns or issues pertinent to this project, or the names of others who may be interested in this project. Thank you for your cooperation on this matter. If you have any questions or comments, please contact me at 949.870.1524 (cell) or [email protected].
Sincerely,
Arabesque Said-Abdelwahed, MPP Community Development
2121 Alton Parkway www.esassoc.com Suite 100 Irvine, CA 92606 213.599.4300 phone 213.599.4301 fax
June 20, 2016
Conrad Acuna Gabrielino-Tongva Tribe 1999 Avenue of the Stars Suite 1100 Los Angeles, CA 90067
Subject: Groundwater Replenishment System Final Expansion Project – D160387.01
Dear Conrad Acuna :
ESA is conducting a cultural resources assessment as part of CEQA-Plus documentation for the Groundwater Replenishment System (GWRS) Final Expansion Project (project) located in the cities of Huntington Beach and Fountain Valley, California. The GWRS is an advanced water treatment facility constructed by the Orange County Water District (OCWD) and the Orange County Sanitation District (OCSD) that supplements local water supplies by providing reliable, high quality source of treated water to recharge the Orange County Groundwater Basin and to protect the Orange County Groundwater Basin from seawater intrusion. The GWRS consists of three major components: an advanced water purification facility and pumping stations, a major pipeline connecting the treatment facilities to existing recharge basins and an existing seawater intrusion barrier. The proposed project would include the construction and operation of an expanded microfiltration treatment facility, expanded Reverse Osmosis Treatment Capacity, expanded ultraviolet light treatment facility at the existing OCWD GWRS Facility in Fountain Valley. The project would also include construction and operation of a new pump station at the OCSD Treatment Plant No. 2 in Huntington Beach and the renovation of an existing water supply pipeline located on the west side of the Santa Ana River. A separate headworks facility and a bypass pipeline would be constructed on OCSD’s Plant No. 2 that will segregate the brine flows from the typical influent domestic wastewater flows to Plant No. 2. As seen on the attached topographic map, the project area is located within multiple sections of Townships 5 and 6 south; Range 10 West of the United States Geologic Survey (USGS) Newport Beach, CA 7.5’ topographic quadrangle.
Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (NHPA) considers the effects a project may have on historic properties. The definition of “historic properties” can include properties of traditional religious and cultural significance to Native American groups. To determine whether the proposed project may impact any historic properties, including traditional cultural properties, ESA has reviewed background information and consulted with the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC). Our records search at the South Central Coastal Information Center (SCCIC), indicate that there are no known cultural resources in the Area of Potential Effect (APE). A record search of the NAHC’s Sacred Land File has failed to indicate the presence of Native American cultural resources in the immediate APE. The NAHC has listed you as a tribal contact for this project.
Conrad Acuna June 20, 2016 Page 2
We would appreciate your comments identifying any sensitive sites in or near the project area that you may be aware of, any concerns or issues pertinent to this project, or the names of others who may be interested in this project. Thank you for your cooperation on this matter. If you have any questions or comments, please contact me at 949.870.1524 (cell) or [email protected].
Sincerely,
Arabesque Said-Abdelwahed, MPP Community Development
2121 Alton Parkway www.esassoc.com Suite 100 Irvine, CA 92606 213.599.4300 phone 213.599.4301 fax
June 20, 2016
Cultural Resources Director Sam Dunlap Gabrielino/Tongva Nation P.O. Box 86908 Los Angeles, CA 90086
Subject: Groundwater Replenishment System Final Expansion Project – D160387.01
Dear Cultural Resources Director Dunlap :
ESA is conducting a cultural resources assessment as part of CEQA-Plus documentation for the Groundwater Replenishment System (GWRS) Final Expansion Project (project) located in the cities of Huntington Beach and Fountain Valley, California. The GWRS is an advanced water treatment facility constructed by the Orange County Water District (OCWD) and the Orange County Sanitation District (OCSD) that supplements local water supplies by providing reliable, high quality source of treated water to recharge the Orange County Groundwater Basin and to protect the Orange County Groundwater Basin from seawater intrusion. The GWRS consists of three major components: an advanced water purification facility and pumping stations, a major pipeline connecting the treatment facilities to existing recharge basins and an existing seawater intrusion barrier. The proposed project would include the construction and operation of an expanded microfiltration treatment facility, expanded Reverse Osmosis Treatment Capacity, expanded ultraviolet light treatment facility at the existing OCWD GWRS Facility in Fountain Valley. The project would also include construction and operation of a new pump station at the OCSD Treatment Plant No. 2 in Huntington Beach and the renovation of an existing water supply pipeline located on the west side of the Santa Ana River. A separate headworks facility and a bypass pipeline would be constructed on OCSD’s Plant No. 2 that will segregate the brine flows from the typical influent domestic wastewater flows to Plant No. 2. As seen on the attached topographic map, the project area is located within multiple sections of Townships 5 and 6 south; Range 10 West of the United States Geologic Survey (USGS) Newport Beach, CA 7.5’ topographic quadrangle.
Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (NHPA) considers the effects a project may have on historic properties. The definition of “historic properties” can include properties of traditional religious and cultural significance to Native American groups. To determine whether the proposed project may impact any historic properties, including traditional cultural properties, ESA has reviewed background information and consulted with the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC). Our records search at the South Central Coastal Information Center (SCCIC), indicate that there are no known cultural resources in the Area of Potential Effect (APE). A record search of the NAHC’s Sacred Land File has failed to indicate the presence of Native American cultural resources in the immediate APE. The NAHC has listed you as a tribal contact for this project.
Cultural Resources Director Sam Dunlap June 20, 2016 Page 2
We would appreciate your comments identifying any sensitive sites in or near the project area that you may be aware of, any concerns or issues pertinent to this project, or the names of others who may be interested in this project. Thank you for your cooperation on this matter. If you have any questions or comments, please contact me at 949.870.1524 (cell) or [email protected].
Sincerely,
Arabesque Said-Abdelwahed, MPP Community Development
2121 Alton Parkway www.esassoc.com Suite 100 Irvine, CA 92606 213.599.4300 phone 213.599.4301 fax
June 20, 2016
Subject: Groundwater Replenishment System Final Expansion Project – D160387.01
Dear Sir or Madam, :
ESA is conducting a cultural resources assessment as part of CEQA-Plus documentation for the Groundwater Replenishment System (GWRS) Final Expansion Project (project) located in the cities of Huntington Beach and Fountain Valley, California. The GWRS is an advanced water treatment facility constructed by the Orange County Water District (OCWD) and the Orange County Sanitation District (OCSD) that supplements local water supplies by providing reliable, high quality source of treated water to recharge the Orange County Groundwater Basin and to protect the Orange County Groundwater Basin from seawater intrusion. The GWRS consists of three major components: an advanced water purification facility and pumping stations, a major pipeline connecting the treatment facilities to existing recharge basins and an existing seawater intrusion barrier. The proposed project would include the construction and operation of an expanded microfiltration treatment facility, expanded Reverse Osmosis Treatment Capacity, expanded ultraviolet light treatment facility at the existing OCWD GWRS Facility in Fountain Valley. The project would also include construction and operation of a new pump station at the OCSD Treatment Plant No. 2 in Huntington Beach and the renovation of an existing water supply pipeline located on the west side of the Santa Ana River. A separate headworks facility and a bypass pipeline would be constructed on OCSD’s Plant No. 2 that will segregate the brine flows from the typical influent domestic wastewater flows to Plant No. 2. As seen on the attached topographic map, the project area is located within multiple sections of Townships 5 and 6 south; Range 10 West of the United States Geologic Survey (USGS) Newport Beach, CA 7.5’ topographic quadrangle.
Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (NHPA) considers the effects a project may have on historic properties. The definition of “historic properties” can include properties of traditional religious and cultural significance to Native American groups. To determine whether the proposed project may impact any historic properties, including traditional cultural properties, ESA has reviewed background information and consulted with the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC). Our records search at the South Central Coastal Information Center (SCCIC), indicate that there are no known cultural resources in the Area of Potential Effect (APE). A record search of the NAHC’s Sacred Land File has failed to indicate the presence of Native American cultural resources in the immediate APE. The NAHC has listed you as a tribal contact for this project.
We would appreciate your comments identifying any sensitive sites in or near the project area that you may be aware of, any concerns or issues pertinent to this project, or the names of others who may be interested in this project. Thank you for your cooperation on this matter. If you have any questions or comments, please contact me at 949.870.1524 (cell) or [email protected].
Sincerely,
Name of recipient Date Page 2
Arabesque Said-Abdelwahed, MPP Community Development
Native American Contact Log
Individual Contacted/Affiliation Number/Email Letter Sent Response Follow-up Phone Call Response Action Item SW: Ms Joyce Stanfield-Perry (Cultural Resources); Recommends NA and Arch Matias Belardes, Chairperson Juaneno monitoring during all ground disturbing activities. She also recommends that in Band of Mission Indians, Acjachemen the event of a discovery, the project stop and the tribe and agency evaluates Nation 949.293.8522 20-Jun-16 No response 28-Jun-16 the mitigation plan -
Adolph Sepulveda, Vice-Chaiperson 714.914.1812 / Juaneno band of Mission Indians [email protected] 20-Jun-16 No response 28-Jun-16 Left VM. No response to date. -
SW: Mr. Anthony Morales stated that he is very familiar with the Project area and its vicinity, and he knows it to be very sensitive for Native American cultural resources. Mr. Anthony Morales also stated that although that Project Anthony Morales, Chairperson, is located within an industrial area, any ground disturbances may still Gabrielino/Tongva San Gabriel Band of (626) 483-3564 / encounter previously undisturbed soils and resources and should therefore be Mission Indians [email protected] 20-Jun-16 No response 28-Jun-16 closely monitored by a Native American monitor. - Sonia Johnston, Tribal Chairperson Juaneno Band of Mission Indians [email protected] 20-Jun-16 No response 28-Jun-16 Sent email. No response to date Sandonne Goad, Chairperson, (951) 807-0479 / SW: Ms. Sadonne Goad stated that she would prefer to forward all comments Gabrielino/Tongva Nation sgoad@gabrielino=tongva.com 20-Jun-16 No response 28-Jun-16 to San Dunlap; No response from Mr. Dunlap Bernie Acuna, Co-Chairperson, Gabrielino/Tongva Tribe 310.428.5690 20-Jun-16 No response 28-Jun-16 Left VM. No response to date. - Teresa Romero, Chairwoman, Juaneno Band of Mission Indians Acjachemen 949.488.3484 / Nation [email protected] 20-Jun-16 No response 28-Jun-16 Left VM. No response to date. - SW: Ms Joyce Stanfield-Perry (Cultural Resources); Recommends NA and Arch Joyce Perry, Tribal Manager, Juaneno monitoring during all ground disturbing activities. She also recommends that in Band of Mission Indians Acjachemen 949.293.8522 / the event of a discovery, the project stop and the tribe and agency evaluates Nation [email protected] 20-Jun-16 No response 28-Jun-16 the mitigation plan Robert Dorame, Tribal Chair, Grarielino Tongva Indians of California Tribal 562.761.6417 / Forwarded a PDF copy of letter to Council [email protected] 20-Jun-16 No response 28-Jun-16 SW: Mr Dorame and he requested an email copy of the letter for review [email protected] on June 28, 2016 Linda Candelaria, Co-Chairperson, Gabrielino Tongva Tribe 626.676.1184 20-Jun-16 No response 28-Jun-16 Left VM. No response to date. SW: Mr. Salas and he recommends that NA and Arch monitoring be conducted Andrew Salas, Chairperson, Gabrielino (626) 926-4131 / during all ground disturbance. He also requested a digital copy of the letter Forwarded a PDF copy of letter to Band of Mission Indians - Kizh Nation [email protected] 20-Jun-16 No response 28-Jun-16 that was sent out. [email protected] on June 28, 2016
Sam Dunlap, Cultural Resources Director, (909) 262-9351 / Forwarded a PDF copy of the letter to Gabrielino/Tongva Nation [email protected] 20-Jun-16 No response 28-Jun-16 SW: Mr Dunlap and he requested an email copy of the letter for review [email protected] on June 28, 2016
Conrad Acuna, Gabrielin-Tongva Tribe 20-Jun-16 No response No contact info provide by the NAHC
SW = Spoke with VM = Voicemail
Page 1 of 1
GABRIELENO BAND OF MISSION INDIANS – KIZH NATION Historically known as The San Gabriel Band of Mission Indians Recognized by the State of California as the aboriginal tribe of the Los Angeles basin
Dear Vanessa Ortiz,
“The project locale lies in an area where the Ancestral & traditional territories of the Kizh(Kitc) Gabrieleño villages, adjoined and overlapped with each other, at least during the Late Prehistoric and Protohistoric Periods. The homeland of the Kizh (Kitc) Gabrieleños , probably the most influential Native American group in aboriginal southern California (Bean and Smith 1978a:538), was centered in the Los Angeles Basin, and reached as far east as the San Bernardino- Riverside area. The homeland of the Serranos was primarily the San Bernardino Mountains, including the slopes and lowlands on the north and south flanks. Whatever the linguistic affiliation, Native Americans in and around the project area exhibited similar organization and resource procurement strategies. Villages were based on clan or lineage groups. Their home/ base sites are marked by midden deposits, often with bedrock mortars. During their seasonal rounds to exploit plant resources, small groups would migrate within their traditional territory in search of specific plants and animals. Their gathering strategies often left behind signs of special use sites, usually grinding slicks on bedrock boulders, at the locations of the resources. Therefore in order to protect our resources we're requesting one of our experienced & certified Native American monitors as well as Arceo-Monitoring to be on site during any & all ground disturbances (this includes but is not limited to pavement removal, pot-holing or auguring, boring, grading, excavation and trenching).
In all cases, when the NAHC states there are “No" records of sacred sites” in the subject area; they always refer the contractors back to the Native American Tribes whose tribal territory the project area is in. This is due to the fact, that the NAHC is only aware of general information on each California NA Tribe they are "NOT " the “experts” on our Tribe. Our Elder Committee & Tribal Historians are the experts and is the reason why the NAHC will always refer contractors to the local tribes.
In addition, we are also often told that an area has been previously developed or disturbed and thus there are no concerns for cultural resources and thus minimal impacts would be expected. I have two major recent examples of how similar statements on other projects were proven very inadequate. An archaeological study claimed there would be no impacts to an area adjacent to the Plaza Church at Olvera Street, the original Spanish settlement of Los Angeles, now in downtown Los Angeles. In fact, this site was the Gabrieleno village of Yangna long before it became what it is now today. The new development wrongfully began their construction and they, in the process, dug up and desecrated 118 burials. The area that was dismissed as culturally sensitive was in fact the First Cemetery of Los Angeles where it had been well documented at the Huntington Library that 400 of our Tribe's ancestors were buried there along with the founding families of Los Angeles (Pico’s, Sepulveda’s, and Alvarado’s to name a few). In addition, there was another inappropriate study for the development of a new sports complex at Fedde Middle School in the City of Hawaiian Gardens could commence. Again, a village and burial site were desecrated despite their mitigation measures. Thankfully, we were able to work alongside the school district to quickly and respectfully mitigate a mutually beneficial resolution.
Given all the above, the proper thing to do for your project would be for our Tribe to monitor ground disturbing construction work. Native American monitors and/or consultant can see that cultural resources are treated appropriately from the Native American point of view. Because we are the lineal descendants of the vast area of Los Angeles and Orange Counties, we hold sacred the ability to protect what little of our culture remains. We thank you for taking seriously your role and responsibility in assisting us in preserving our culture.
With respect,
Please contact our office regarding this project to coordinate a Native American Monitor to be present. Thank You
Andrew Salas, Chairman Cell (626) 926-4131
Addendum: clarification regarding some confusions regarding consultation under AB52: Andrew Salas, Chairman Nadine Salas, Vice-Chairman Christina Swindall Martinez, secretary Albert Perez, treasurer I Martha Gonzalez Lemos, treasurer II Richard Gradias, Chairman of the council of Elders
PO Box 393 Covina, CA 91723 [email protected] [email protected]
AB52 clearly states that consultation must occur with tribes that claim traditional and cultural affiliation with a project site. Unfortunately, this statement has been left open to interpretation so much that neighboring tribes are claiming affiliation with projects well outside their traditional tribal territory. The territories of our surrounding Native American tribes such as the Luiseno, Chumash, and Cahuilla tribal entities. Each of our tribal territories has been well defined by historians, ethnographers, archaeologists, and ethnographers – a list of resources we can provide upon request. Often, each Tribe as well educates the public on their very own website as to the definition of their tribal boundaries. You may have received a consultation request from another Tribe. However we are responding because your project site lies within our Ancestral tribal territory, which, again, has been well documented. What does Ancestrally or Ancestral mean? The people who were in your family in past times, Of, belonging to, inherited from, or denoting an ancestor or ancestors http://www.thefreedictionary.com/ancestral. . If you have questions regarding the validity of the “traditional and cultural affiliation” of another Tribe, we urge you to contact the Native American Heritage Commission directly. Section 5 section 21080.3.1 (c) states “…the Native American Heritage Commission shall assist the lead agency in identifying the California Native American tribes that are traditionally and culturally affiliated with the project area.” In addition, please see the map below.
CC: NAHC
Andrew Salas, Chairman Nadine Salas, Vice-Chairman Christina Swindall Martinez, secretary Albert Perez, treasurer I Martha Gonzalez Lemos, treasurer II Richard Gradias, Chairman of the council of Elders
PO Box 393 Covina, CA 91723 [email protected] [email protected]
Sacred Lands File & Native American Contacts List Request
NATIVE AMERICAN HERITAGE COMMISSION 1550 Harbor Blvd, Suite 100 West Sacramento, CA 95691 (916) 373-3710 (916) 373-5471 – Fax [email protected]
Information Below is Required for a Sacred Lands File Search
Project: Section 106 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Groundwater Replenishment System Phase 3 Expansion
County: Orange
USGS Quadrangle Name: Newport Beach Townships: 5 and 6 South --- Range: 10 West Section(s): Multiple
Company: FirstCarbon Solutions
Contact Person: Arabesque Said, MPP
Street Address: 220 Commerce, Suite 200
Cell 951.310.7031
Office Phone: 714.508.4100
Fax: 714.508.4110
Email as needed: [email protected]
SEE ATTACHED MAP
The project will include the construction and operation of an expanded microfiltration treatment facility, expanded reverse osmosis treatment facility, expanded ultraviolet light treatment facilities at existing Orange County Sanitations District’s Treatment Plant No.2 in Huntington Beach and the renovation of an existing water supply pipeline located on the west side of the Santa Ana River. Excavation will be necessary to access the pipeline.
FCS’ project 0435.0043
August 27, 2014
Subject: Proposed Groundwater Replenishment System Phase 3 Expansion, 5650 East Avenue, Cities of Huntington Beach and Fountain Valley, California (Newport Beach, CA USGS Topographic Quadrangle).
Dear
FirstCarbon Solutions is completing CEQA‐Plus documentation associated with the proposed Groundwater Replenishment System Phase 3 Expansion Project located in the Cities of Huntington Beach and Fountain Valley, California. The proposed project will include the construction and operation of an expanded microfiltration treatment facility, expanded reverse osmosis treatment facility, expanded ultraviolet light treatment facilities at the existing Orange County Water District GWRS Facility in Fountain Valley. The project would also include construction and operation of a new pump station at the Orange County Sanitation District’s (OCSD) Treatment Plant No.2 in Huntington Beach and the renovation of an existing water supply pipeline located on the west side of the Santa Ana River. As seen in the attached topographic map, the project area is located within multiple sections of Townships 5 and 6 South; Range 10 West of the USGS Newport Beach, CA 7.5’ topographic quadrangle.
Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (NHPA) considers the effects a project may have on historic properties. The definition of “historic properties” can include properties of traditional religious and cultural significance to Native American groups. To determine whether the proposed project may impact any historic properties, including traditional cultural properties, FCS has reviewed background information and consulted with the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC). Our records search at the South Central Coastal Information Center (SCCIC), indicated that there are no known cultural resources in the Area of Potential Effect (APE). A record search of the NAHC’s Sacred Land File has failed to indicate the presence of Native American cultural resources in the immediate APE. The NAHC has listed you as a tribal contact for this project.
FCS is sending this letter to ask if you have any information or concerns about this proposed project and/or if the proposed project may have an impact on cultural resources that are important to you. Please
Please feel free to contact me at 714.508.4100 or via email at [email protected] if you have any questions or would like to discuss the project in more detail.
Sincerely, SAMPLE
Arabesque Said‐Abdelwahed, MPP Assistant Project Manager FirstCarbon Solutions 220 Commerce, Suite 200 Irvine, CA 92602 Enclosures: Map of Survey Area SAMPLE Call log
Listed Tribe to Contact Contact Name Phone number Call Date Call Time Notes Result
Concerned about project because located wihthin a sensitive archaelogical area. Recommends testing John Tommy Rosas (310) 570-6567 9/9/2014 am Returned FCS phone call prior to excavation or full time archaeological and Tongva Acenstral Territorial Tribal Nation Native American monitoring. Concerned about the project because of its location Anthony Morales (626) 483-3564 9/9/2014 4:14pm along the Santa Ana River. Suggested archaeological Returned FCS phone call Gabrieleno/Tongva San Gabriel Band of Mission and paleontological monitoring. Gabrielino/Tongva Nation Sandonne Goad (951) 807-0479 9/9/2014 4:15pm Referred to Sam Dunlap Answered FCS' phone call Gabrielino Tongva Indians of California Tribal Council Robert F Dorame (562) 761-6417 9/9/2014 4:20pm FCS left a voicemail
9/18/2014 3:00pm No answer (310) 428-5690-cell Bernie Acuna Gabrielino-Tongva Tribe (619) 294-6660-office 9/10/2014 1:45pm FCS left a voicemail and sent an email Gabrielino-Tongva Tribe 9/18/2014 3:02pm No answer Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians Linda Candelaria (626) 676-1184 9/9/2014 1:55pm FCS left a voicemail Mr. Salas expressed concerned about the project due to its location in an archaeological sensitive area. Mr. Salas suggested archaeological and Native American Gabrielino-Tongva Tribe Andrew Salas (626) 926-4131 9/10/2014 1:56pm Answered FCS' phone call monitoring take place to protect and preserve any cultural resources that may be discovered during excavations. No phone number or Conrad Acuna (760) 636-0854-fax email Gabrielino/Tongva Nation provided Mr. Dunlap provided a response to FCS Sam Dunlap (909) 262-9351 9/10/2014 2:15pm FCS left a voicemail. via email on September 11 On September 11, 2014 Mr. Dunlap sent an email to FCS. Mr. Dunlap expressed concerns about construction and recommended archaeological and Native American monitoring
Inventory List 9/19/2014 Appendix D. Photographs of the Project APE
APPENDIX D Photographs of the Project APE
Groundwater Replenishment System Final Expansion Project and ESA / 160387.01 Water Production Enhancement Project August 2016 Phase I Cultural Resources Study Photo 1: Excavation area and laydown area for OCSD Pipeline (pipeline entry location 1) at the northern portion of the OCSD Plant No. 2 Facility; facing north.
Photo 2: View to the east of the rip rap and Santa Ana River Trail from the contractor laydown area. OCWD Groundwater Replenishment System Final Expansion Project . 160387.01 SOURCE: ESA, 2016 Photo 3: Pump Station and Pipe Connection; facing west.
Photo 4: Headgates and Bypass Pipeline location. OCWD Groundwater Replenishment System Final Expansion Project . 160387.01 SOURCE: ESA, 2016 Photo 5: Flow EQ Pump Station. The surficial soils were previously disturbed during construction of the OCSD Plant No. 2.
Photo 6: Flow EQ Meter/Control. OCWD Groundwater Replenishment System Final Expansion Project . 160387.01 SOURCE: ESA, 2016
Photo 7: Second pipeline entry location along the OCSD easement corridor.
Photo 8: Santa Ana River Trail situated on the levee; view facing east.
OCWD Groundwater Replenishment System Final Expansion Project . 160387.01 SOURCE: ESA, 2016 Photo 9: Third pipeline entry location along the OCSD easement corridor; facing south.
Photo 10: Fourth pipeline entry location along the OCSD easement corridor; facing south. OCWD Groundwater Replenishment System Final Expansion Project . 160387.01 SOURCE: ESA, 2016 Photo 11: Fifth pipeline entry location along the OCSD easement corridor; facing north.
Photo 12: Sixth pipeline entry location along the OCSD easement corridor; facing southwest. OCWD Groundwater Replenishment System Final Expansion Project . 160387.01 SOURCE: ESA, 2016 Photo 13: Seventh pipeline entry location along the OCSD easement corridor; facing west.
Photo 14: Eighth pipeline entry location along the OCSD easement corridor. OCWD Groundwater Replenishment System Final Expansion Project . 160387.01 SOURCE: ESA, 2016 Photo 15: OCSD Pipe Connection to existing facilities. Note the area is paved and previously disturbed during construction of the facility.
Photo 16: MF Building Expansion location; facing west. OCWD Groundwater Replenishment System Final Expansion Project . 160387.01 SOURCE: ESA, 2016
Orange County Water District Groundwater Replenishment System Final Expansion Project
Addendum No.6
Final Program Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement & CEQA-Plus Federal Consultation Review Mitigation Monitoring Report
State Clearinghouse No. 98111030
Prepared By
Orange County Water District 18700 Ward Street Fountain Valley, CA 92708 Contact: Daniel Bott
September 2016 Table of Contents
SECTION PAGE
Section 1: Introduction ...... 1-1 Section 2: Project Description ...... 2-1 Section 3: Development of Mitigation Monitoring Reporting Program ...... 3-1 Section 4: Requirement to Approve and Implement Mitigation Monitoring Plan ...... 4-1
TABLE
Table 1: Groundwater Replenishment System Final Expansion Project Mitigation Monitoring Plan Reporting Program ...... 4-2
OCWD Groundwater Replenishment System Final Expansion Project – Addendum No. 6 Final EIR/EIS Statement & CEQA-Plus Federal Consultation Review Mitigation Monitoring Report i Section 1 Introduction
SECTION 1: INTRODUCTION
The following is a Mitigation Monitoring Report Program (MMRP) for the Orange County Water District Groundwater Replenishment System Final Expansion Project prepared pursuant to Section 15097 of the CEQA Guidelines and Section 21081.6 of the Public Resources Code. This MMRP lists all applicable mitigation measures from Addendum No.6 to Final Program Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement & CEQA-Plus Federal Consultation Review. The appropriate timing of implementation and responsible party are identified to ensure proper enforcement of the required mitigation measures.
OCWD Groundwater Replenishment System Final Expansion Project – Addendum No. 6 Final EIR/EIS Statement & CEQA-Plus Federal Consultation Review Mitigation Monitoring Report 1-1 Section 2 Project Description
SECTION 2: PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Project Location The Groundwater Replenishment System (GWRS) Final Expansion Project would occur on the existing Orange County Water District GWRS water treatment site at 18700 Ward Street, Fountain Valley California and on Orange County Sanitation District Plant No. 2 wastewater treatment site at 22212 Brookhurst Street, Huntington Beach California, and along the Orange County Sanitation District utility easement corridor between Plant No. 1 and Plant No. 2. Project Description The GWRS Final Expansion Project would produce approximately 25,000 AF of water supplies per year to help replenish the Orange County Groundwater Basin. The additional wastewater flows from Plant No. 2 would increase the total water supplies of the GWRS to 128,000 acre feet per year. The GWRS Final Expansion Project involves seven construction activities; 1) increasing microfiltration capacity, 2) increasing reverse osmosis treatment capacity, 3) increasing ultraviolet treatment capacity, 4) increasing final product water capacity, 5) construction of an effluent pump station, 6) conversion of existing gravity pipeline to a pressurized pipeline and 7) demolition of existing plant pump station and construction of a new product pump station, separate headworks and bypass pipeline.
OCWD Groundwater Replenishment System Final Expansion Project – Addendum No. 6 Final EIR/EIS Statement & CEQA-Plus Federal Consultation Review Mitigation Monitoring Report 2-1 Section 3 Development of Mitigation Monitoring Report Program
SECTION 3: DEVELOPMENT OF MITIGATION MONITORING REPORTING PROGRAM
The basic elements of the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program are the mitigation measures identified by each impact category addressed in Addendum No. 6 to Final Program Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement & CEQA-Plus Federal Consultation Review. The development of the mitigation monitoring program was based on the following procedures necessary to initiate and complete the monitoring process. Identification of the key periods and events in the project implementation schedule. Identification of the key personnel and agencies responsible for environmental monitoring. Monitoring of the implementation of the mitigation measures and documentation that the measures have been properly and thoroughly implemented. Development of the written document on the implementation of all the mitigation measures, identification of any areas of non-compliance, and proposed activities to bring the project into compliance with the mitigation monitoring and reporting program.
OCWD Groundwater Replenishment System Final Expansion Project – Addendum No. 6 Final EIR/EIS Statement & CEQA-Plus Federal Consultation Review Mitigation Monitoring Report 3-1 Section 4 Requirement to Approve and Implement Mitigation Monitoring Plan
SECTION 4: REQUIREMENT TO APPROVE AND IMPLEMENT MITIGATION MONITORING PLAN
The OCWD has the authority to require and enforce the provisions of California Resource Code Section 21081.6. The OCWD will be responsible for approving the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and for preparing the written report documenting the implementation of project mitigation measures. Table 1 summarizes the mitigation measures that have been adopted for the Project, specifies the timing for implementation of each measure and identifies the responsible parties for ensuring implementation and the satisfactory completion of each measure. The procedures for implementing the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program are: Monitoring Procedures 1. An Environmental Monitor, appointed by OCWD, will be responsible for coordinating review of project plans and activities, the construction site, and/or operations to ensure that the mitigation measures are properly and thoroughly implemented through the course of the project. 2. Written documentation that each mitigation measure in Table 1 has been implemented will be prepared. This documentation can be on an OCWD mitigation monitoring checklist or a similar form that clearly indicates the timing or schedule for implementation, whether the measure has, in fact, been implemented, or in the case of measures that are ongoing, that a process has been developed to ensure continued implementation of the measure. Reporting Procedures 1. The Environmental Monitor appointed by OCWD on this project will be responsible for periodically reviewing the program in Table 1 with the OCWD Environmental Compliance Advisor. 2. The Environmental Monitor will prepare a written report for the OCWD documenting the completion of the implementation of all the mitigation measures. For those measures not implemented or for activities that do not fully comply with mitigation measures included in Table 1, an explanation of the areas of noncompliance will be prepared, including a proposal to bring those elements of the project into compliance with the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program.
OCWD Groundwater Replenishment System Final Expansion Project – Addendum No. 6 Final EIR/EIS Statement & CEQA-Plus Federal Consultation Review Mitigation Monitoring Report 4-1 Section 4 Requirement to Approve and Implement Mitigation Monitoring Plan
Table 1: Groundwater Replenishment System Final Expansion Project Mitigation Monitoring Plan Reporting Program Mitigation Measure Responsible for Monitoring Verification Implementation Aesthetics
AS-2: Provide compatible exterior architectural OCWD Final Design design treatments to pump stations, Ultra Violet treatment Buildings, Reverse Osmosis Treatment Building, and the Microfiltration Treatment Building. Designs should blend well with existing office facilities onsite and surrounding uses.
AS-3: All onsite lighting shall be directed away OCWD Final Design from adjacent residential, business uses and away from the Santa Ana River right-of-way.
AS-4: During operation of the project if the onsite OCWD During lighting creates a light and glare issue for Operation sensitive receptors properties, OCWD will implement corrective measures to resolve the issue. Such corrective measures may include providing additional shielding on light fixtures, relocating lighting fixtures or reducing the lighting intensity. Air Quality AQ-1: Construction Contractors shall OCWD During use low emission mobile construction Construction equipment where feasible to reduce the release of undesirable emissions. Construction equipment shall use low sulfur fuels and shall be maintained in proper tune. Electric power shall be used to extend feasible.
AQ-2: Construction equipment on-site. OCWD During Equipment shall be properly serviced Construction and maintained in accordance with the manufacturer’s recommendations. Construction contractors shall ensure that all nonessential idling of construction equipment is restricted to five minutes or less in compliance with California Air Resources Board’s Rule 2449.
AQ-3: Construction Contractors shall water OCWD During active grading sites at least twice a day, and Construction clean appropriate construction equipment in the morning and/or evening to reduce particulate emissions reduce (sic) the release of fugitive
OCWD Groundwater Replenishment System Final Expansion Project – Addendum No. 6 Final EIR/EIS Statement & CEQA-Plus Federal Consultation Review Mitigation Monitoring Report 4-2 Section 4 Requirement to Approve and Implement Mitigation Monitoring Plan
dust.
AQ-4: Construction Contractors shall, as OCWD During necessary, wash truck tires leaving the site to Construction reduce the amount of particulate matter transferred to paved streets as required by SCAQMD Rule 403.
AQ-6: Construction Contractors shall sweep on OCWD During and off site streets if silt is carried over to Construction adjacent public thoroughfares, as determined by the City Engineers in the affected jurisdictions to reduce the amount of particulate matter on public streets.
AQ-7: Construction Contractors shall limit traffic OCWD During speeds on all unpaved road surfaces to 15 miles Construction per hour or less to reduce the release of fugitive dust.
AQ-8: Construction Contractors shall suspend OCWD During grading operations during first and second stage Construction smog alerts and suspend all grading operations when wind speeds (as instantaneous gusts) exceed 25 miles per hour.
AQ-9: Construction Contractors shall develop a OCWD During traffic plan to minimize traffic flow interference Construction from construction activities.
AQ-11: All hauling trucks on and exiting the OCWD During project site shall be covered and shall have at Construction least one foot of free board.
AQ-12a: Fleet Modernization for OCWD During Construction During Schedule A: The Construction construction contractor shall ensure that all off-road equipment with a horse power greater than 50 is certified as USEPA Tier 4 final engines or that engines are certified to meet or exceed the Tier 4 final emissions standards for USEPA Tier 4 final engines. Any emissions control device used by the contractor shall achieve emissions reductions that are no less than what can be achieved by a Level 4 diesel emissions control strategy for a similarly sized engine, as defined by CARB regulations. During construction, the contractor shall maintain a list of all operating equipment in use on the Project site for verification. The construction equipment list shall state
OCWD Groundwater Replenishment System Final Expansion Project – Addendum No. 6 Final EIR/EIS Statement & CEQA-Plus Federal Consultation Review Mitigation Monitoring Report 4-3 Section 4 Requirement to Approve and Implement Mitigation Monitoring Plan
the makes, models, and numbers of construction equipment on-site. Equipment shall be properly serviced and maintained in accordance with the manufacturer’s recommendations. Construction contractors shall ensure that all nonessential idling of construction equipment is restricted to five minutes or less in compliance with California Air Resources Board’s Rule 2449.
AQ-12b: Fleet Modernization for OCWD During Construction During Schedule B: The Construction construction contractor shall ensure that all off-road equipment with a horse power greater than 50 is certified as USEPA Tier 4 interim engines or that engines are certified to meet or exceed the Tier 4 interim emissions standards for USEPA Tier 4 interim engines. Any emissions control device used by the contractor shall achieve emissions reductions that are no less than what can be achieved by a Level 4 diesel emissions control strategy for a similarly sized engine, as defined by CARB regulations. During construction, the contractor shall maintain a list of all operating equipment in use on the Project site for verification. The construction equipment list shall state the makes, models, and numbers of construction equipment on-site. Equipment shall be properly serviced and maintained in accordance with the manufacturer’s recommendations. Construction contractors shall ensure that all nonessential idling of construction equipment is restricted to five minutes or less in compliance with California Air Resources Board’s Rule 2449. Cultural Resources CR-11: An Orange County Certified OCWD Prior Earth archaeologist shall be present at the program Disturbing pre-grading meeting to discuss the monitoring, Activities collecting and safety procedures for the project. At that time, the archeologist shall review the construction plans and ensure that no construction activity will affect identified archeological of historic resources.
OCWD Groundwater Replenishment System Final Expansion Project – Addendum No. 6 Final EIR/EIS Statement & CEQA-Plus Federal Consultation Review Mitigation Monitoring Report 4-4 Section 4 Requirement to Approve and Implement Mitigation Monitoring Plan
CR-12: During program grading activities and OCWD During Orange County Certified archaeologist shall be Construction retained to conduct full-time monitoring in archaeologically sensitive areas to observe and retrieve any buried artifacts that may be uncovered.
CR-14: If prehistoric artifacts or a buried deposit OCWD During is uncovered, construction activities in the Construction immediate area shall halt until a qualified archaeologist can evaluate the significance of the find.
CR-15: A final monitoring report, including an OCWD After itemized and pertinent field data, shall be sent to Construction the OCWD/OCSD as well as copies of the report to the South Central Coastal Information at California State University Fullerton, Department of Anthropology (MH-426), and to the County of Orange, Public Facilities and Resources Department – Harbors Beaches & Parks Division.
CR-16: Any recovered artifacts shall be properly OCWD After collected with locations plotted on a USGS 7.5 Construction topographic quadrangle with photographs and field notes of the find. Artifacts will be identified, and artifact catalog prepared, and artifacts stabilized for curation. Any recovered artifacts shall be offered, or a first right-of–refusal basis, to a repository with a retrievable collection system and an educational and research interest in the materials. The Anthropology Museum at California State University Fullerton would be an appropriate repository to receive any artifacts collected in the study area.
CR-17: Prior to earth moving activities, a OCWD Prior to Ground qualified archaeologist meeting the Secretary of Disturbance the Interior’s Professional Qualifications Activities Standards for archaeology (U.S. Department of the Interior, 2008) will conduct cultural resources sensitivity training for all construction personnel. Construction personnel shall be informed of the types of cultural resources that may be encountered, and of the proper procedures to be enacted in the event of an inadvertent discovery of archaeological resources or human remains. OCWD will ensure that construction personnel are made available for and attend the training and retain documentation demonstrating attendance.
CR-18: Prior to the start of any ground-disturbing OCWD Prior to Ground
OCWD Groundwater Replenishment System Final Expansion Project – Addendum No. 6 Final EIR/EIS Statement & CEQA-Plus Federal Consultation Review Mitigation Monitoring Report 4-5 Section 4 Requirement to Approve and Implement Mitigation Monitoring Plan
activities, OCWD will retain an archaeological Disturbance monitor to observe all ground-disturbing Activities activities. Archaeological monitoring will be conducted by a monitor familiar with the types of archaeological resources that could be encountered and shall work under the direct supervision of the qualified archaeologist. Monitoring may be reduced or discontinued by the qualified archaeologist, in coordination with OCWD, based on observations of subsurface soil stratigraphy and/or the presence of older C- horizon deposits. The monitor will be empowered to halt or redirect ground-disturbing activities away from the vicinity of a discovery until the qualified archaeologist has evaluated the discovery and determined appropriate treatment. The monitor will keep daily logs detailing the types of activities and soils observed, and any discoveries. After monitoring has been completed, the qualified archaeologist shall prepare a monitoring report that details the results of monitoring. The report shall be submitted to OCWD, SCCIC, and any Native American groups who request a copy.
CR-20: In the event of the discovery of OCWD During archaeological materials, OCWD or its contractor Construction shall immediately cease all work activities in the area (within approximately 100 feet) of the discovery until it can be evaluated by the qualified archaeologist. Prehistoric archaeological materials might include obsidian and chert flaked-stone tools (e.g., projectile points, knives, scrapers) or tool-making debris; culturally darkened soil (“midden”) containing heat-affected rocks, artifacts, or shellfish remains; and stone milling equipment (e.g., mortars, pestles, handstones, or milling slabs); and battered stone tools, such as hammerstones and pitted stones. Historic-period materials might include stone or concrete footings and walls; filled wells or privies; and deposits of metal, glass, and/or ceramic refuse. Construction shall not resume until the qualified archaeologist has conferred with OCWD on the significance of the resource. SWRCB shall be afforded the opportunity to determine whether the discovery requires addressing under Section 106 Post- Review Discoveries provisions provided in 36 CFR 800.13. If it is determined that the discovered archaeological resource constitutes a historic property under Section 106 of the NHPA or a historical resource under CEQA, avoidance and
OCWD Groundwater Replenishment System Final Expansion Project – Addendum No. 6 Final EIR/EIS Statement & CEQA-Plus Federal Consultation Review Mitigation Monitoring Report 4-6 Section 4 Requirement to Approve and Implement Mitigation Monitoring Plan
preservation in place shall be the preferred manner of mitigation. Preservation in place maintains the important relationship between artifacts and their archaeological context and also serves to avoid conflict with traditional and religious values of groups who may ascribe meaning to the resource. Preservation in place may be accomplished by, but is not limited to, avoidance, incorporating the resource into open space, capping, or deeding the site into a permanent conservation easement. In the event that preservation in place is demonstrated to be infeasible and data recovery through excavation is the only feasible mitigation available, an Archaeological Resources Treatment Plan that provides for the adequate recovery of the scientifically consequential information contained in the archaeological resource shall be prepared and implemented by the qualified archaeologist in consultation with OCWD. The appropriate Native American representatives shall be consulted in determining treatment for prehistoric or Native American resources to ensure cultural values ascribed to the resource, beyond that which is scientifically important, are considered.
CR-13: If human remains are found during OCWD During excavation the steps listed below following the Construction Native American Graves Protection Act guidelines and state law shall be followed: Halt the work in the immediate area Leave the remains in place Contact the Orange County Water District project personnel and the Orange County Coroner The remains are not to be removed until a representative of the Coroner’s office reviews the remains in the field If the Coroner determines that the remains are prehistoric, the Coroner shall contact the Native American Heritage Commission and the most likely descendent from the Native American Community is to be informed The final deposition of remains shall be coordinated by representatives of the property owner and the most likely descendent
CR-19: Prior to issuance of a grading permit and OCWD Prior to Earth prior to start of any ground-disturbing activities, Disturbing
OCWD Groundwater Replenishment System Final Expansion Project – Addendum No. 6 Final EIR/EIS Statement & CEQA-Plus Federal Consultation Review Mitigation Monitoring Report 4-7 Section 4 Requirement to Approve and Implement Mitigation Monitoring Plan
OCWD will retain a Native American monitor to Activities observe all ground-disturbing activities. The monitor shall be obtained from a Tribe that is traditionally and culturally affiliated with the area, according the NAHC list. The monitor shall be empowered to halt or redirect ground-disturbing activities away from the vicinity of a discovery until the qualified archaeologist has evaluated the discovery and determined appropriate treatment. Monitoring may be reduced or discontinued, in coordination with OCWD and the qualified archaeologist, based on observations of subsurface soil stratigraphy and/or the presence of older C-horizon deposits. Geology/Soils G-1: The OCWD will ensure that all structures OCWD Final Design for the selected Groundwater Replenishment During System, including the treatment and Construction conveyance, components, are designed and constructed in compliance with current engineering practices, including the California Uniform Building Code and all applicable seismic engineering guidelines. Hazards HZ-1: The OCWD shall properly site, design, OCWD Final Design operate and maintain sodium hypochlorite storage tanks so as to minimize the potential for sudden releases in the event of a tank failure caused by seismic or other reasons in the project area. At a minimum the design of the tanks shall conform to standards and codes of the State of California and local jurisdictions affected by the project.
HZ-2: The OCWD shall ensure that the OCWD Final Design proposed pipeline features, including pumping stations, recharge basins and water treatment facilities shall be designed, constructed, operated and maintained according to the most appropriate seismic standards and guidelines. At a minimum the design of the pipelines shall conform to standards and codes of the State of California and local jurisdictions affected by the project.
HZ-3: An adequate seismic Emergency OCWD Prior to response Plan shall be prepared by OCWD for Operation each feature of the proposed project including pipeline segment and injections wells. The plan shall be approved by local agencies prior to operation of each project phase.
OCWD Groundwater Replenishment System Final Expansion Project – Addendum No. 6 Final EIR/EIS Statement & CEQA-Plus Federal Consultation Review Mitigation Monitoring Report 4-8 Section 4 Requirement to Approve and Implement Mitigation Monitoring Plan
HZ-4: An adequate Emergency Response Plan OCWD Prior to shall be developed by the OCWD and approved Operation by appropriate agencies to address disinfectant chemicals and other hazardous materials which will be used, stored and/or transported in association with the construction and operation of the proposed project.
HZ-6: Any use of hazardous materials involved OCWD During with the GWRS Final Expansion Project must be Construction conducted in accordance with applicable federal, and Operation state and local regulations.
HZ-7: The OCWD shall develop an emergency OCWD Prior to response plan to address major release of Operation chemicals used on the site. The emergency response plan shall be approved by the City of Fountain Valley Fire Department and Orange County Fire Department Hazardous Materials Response Units. Hydrology/Water Quality GW-1: Should modeling and field studies OCWD During indicate that any production wells are within the Operation minimum distance and travel time criteria for proximity to reclaimed water recharge or injection, these wells shall be abandoned or limited to approved non-potable uses. Wells which are abandoned shall be replaced by new wells constructed outside to the area of influence.
SW-7: Best Management Practices, including OCWD During sandbagging manufactured channels or swales, Construction diversion velocity dissipaters, de-silting basins, detention/retention ponds shall be used to prevent sedimentation from the construction of the Groundwater Replenishment System.
SW-9: Prior to the start of construction OCWD OCWD Prior to Earth will obtain coverage under the General Disturbing Construction Permit and will file Notice of Intent Activities with the State Water Resources Control Board and prepare and implement a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan. Land Use LU-9: The OCWD will provide residents, OCWD Prior to business and industry owners adjacent to the Construction streets and the Santa Ana River levees where the project improvements are installed with a notice that project improvements will be made adjacent to their homes, businesses or
OCWD Groundwater Replenishment System Final Expansion Project – Addendum No. 6 Final EIR/EIS Statement & CEQA-Plus Federal Consultation Review Mitigation Monitoring Report 4-9 Section 4 Requirement to Approve and Implement Mitigation Monitoring Plan
industries. The project construction contractor will provide access to all residences, business and industries impacted by project activities.
LU-14: Final construction documents and a copy OCWD Prior to of the project plans will be made available by the Construction OCWD to interested and impacted Federal, State, County and City agencies to ensure compatibility with future land use scenarios.
LU-15: The OCWD will notify appropriate County OCWD Prior to and City parks departments where the project Construction will traverse or be directly adjacent to a County or City park. The parks department shall be provided with a written schedule for completion of project improvements adjacent to the park and the project contractor will provide access to the park during project construction activities.
LU-16: The OCWD will notify appropriate school OCWD Prior to facilities where the project will potentially impact Construction a school or access to a school. The school district shall be provided with a written schedule for completion of project improvements adjacent to the school and the project contractor will provide access to the school during project construction activities.
LU-17: OCWD will negotiate construction OCWD Prior to easements with any affected property owners. Construction Compensation for relocation or temporary relocation of property owners during project construction activities shall also be addressed in this agreement if necessary.
LU-18: The OCWD will provide residents and OCWD Prior to business owners adjacent to streets and the Construction Santa Ana Levees where the project improvements are installed with a written project construction schedule. The project construction shall provide access to these land uses during project construction activities.
LU-19: Prior to construction of the project OCWD Prior to OCWD will obtain a Coastal Development Permit Construction from the City of Huntington Beach. Noise N-1: The construction Contractor shall be OCWD During required to adhere to all Noise Ordinance Construction provisions of the Cities of Fountain Valley and Huntington Beach. Additionally, noisy construction within 500 feet of existing homes shall be limited to the hours of 7 AM and 7 PM
OCWD Groundwater Replenishment System Final Expansion Project – Addendum No. 6 Final EIR/EIS Statement & CEQA-Plus Federal Consultation Review Mitigation Monitoring Report 4-10 Section 4 Requirement to Approve and Implement Mitigation Monitoring Plan
on weekdays, 7 AM to 6 PM on Saturdays and not any time on Sunday or Federal holidays.
N-2: Barriers shall be installed around the noise OCWD During sources or directly between the construction Construction area and the nearest homes to shield these residents from direct noise exposure from construction activities. The height of the barriers is crucial in terms of effectiveness, the higher the barrier the more the noise reduction. Types of shielding include leaded blankets, an acoustic blanket, or several layers of plywood.
N-3: Mufflers shall be used on construction OCWD During equipment. Construction
N-4: Construction techniques designed to OCWD During reduce noise shall be implemented where Construction feasible. Loud equipment shall be separated and grouped in one location. Areas reserved for testing and fixing of equipment shall be placed away from sensitive receptors.
N-5: A detailed noise control plan shall be OCWD After required to determine the need for any additional Construction noise mitigation at the treatment plant site. The plan shall include post-construction monitoring to determine if the plan’s noise goals have been met.
N-6: Prior to the commencement of construction OCWD Prior to and ongoing during construction, property Construction owners/residents/businesses within and adjacent to construction activity shall be notified of the specific construction activity and associated schedule. Additionally, signs shall be posted at strategic locations within the project area. The notifications and signs shall identify the address, hotline number, and name of designated person to contact for the purpose of responding to questions or complaints during the construction period. The notifications and signs shall also identify the hours of permissible construction work and estimated duration. Public Services PS-1: All school districts and private schools OCWD Prior to affected by construction activities will be notified Construction of construction schedules to lessen potential impacts to instructional and transportation services. Ample time will be provided so affected schools can prepare and plan for possible disruptions caused by project construction.
OCWD Groundwater Replenishment System Final Expansion Project – Addendum No. 6 Final EIR/EIS Statement & CEQA-Plus Federal Consultation Review Mitigation Monitoring Report 4-11 Section 4 Requirement to Approve and Implement Mitigation Monitoring Plan
PS-2: Construction contractors shall ensure that OCWD During adequate barriers will be established to prevent Construction pedestrians from entering open trenches of an active construction area. Warnings shall also be posted sufficient distances from the work area to allow pedestrians to cross the street at controlled intersections rather than having to jaywalk.
PS-3: At the end of the work day, the OCWD During construction contractor shall ensure that the Construction work area has been secured to prevent pedestrians from waling into open trenches or other potentially dangerous environments. Measures may include covering the trenches and/or installing temporary fencing and safety lights. Traffic/Transportation TR-2: The construction contractor will be OCWD Prior to responsible for preparing adequate detour and Construction access plans to ensure the safe movement of vehicles and pedestrians during the construction period. These plans must ensure access to private property at all times. Utility Service Systems U-9: OCWD and OCSD shall investigate all OCWD Prior to available alternatives, and then select the best Construction method of solid waste disposal and reduction of solid waste stream as required in the California Integrated Waste Management Act prior to the start of construction.
OCWD Groundwater Replenishment System Final Expansion Project – Addendum No. 6 Final EIR/EIS Statement & CEQA-Plus Federal Consultation Review Mitigation Monitoring Report 4-12 Orange County Water District Groundwater Replenishment System Final Expansion Project
Addendum No.6
Final Program Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement & CEQA-Plus Federal Consultation Review
Response to Comments
State Clearinghouse No. 98111030
Prepared By Orange County Water District 18700 Ward Street Fountain Valley, CA 92708 Contact: Daniel Bott
September 2016 Table of Contents
Section Page
SECTION 1.0 PURPOSE ...... 1-1 SECTION 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENT LETTERS ...... 2-1
Table
Table 1: List of Comment Letters ...... 2-1
OCWD Groundwater Replenishment System Final Expansion Project Addendum No. 6 Final Program EIR/EIS Statement & CEQA-Plus Federal Consultation Review – Response to Comments i Section 1
SECTION 1.0 PURPOSE In compliance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq. and the CEQA Guidelines, the Orange County Water District (OCWD) has prepared Addendum No. 6 to Final Program Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement and CEQA-Plus Federal Consultation Review (Addendum No. 6) for the Groundwater Replenishment System Final Expansion Project (SCH 98111030). Addendum No. 6 was circulated to the State Clearinghouse for public review from August 19, 2016 to September 2, 2016. Except for acknowledgment from the State Clearinghouse that Addendum No. 6 complied with the State Clearinghouse review comments for draft environment documents, no other public comments were received.
OCWD Groundwater Replenishment System Final Expansion Project Addendum No. 6 Final Program EIR/EIS Statement & CEQA-Plus Federal Consultation Review – Response to Comments 1-1 Section 2
SECTION 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENT LETTERS In accordance with Section 15088 of the CEQA Guidelines, the OCWD as the Lead Agency has evaluated the comments received on Addendum No. 6 to Final Program Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement and CEQA-Plus Federal Consultation Review for the Groundwater Replenishment System Final Expansion Project. Below is a listing of the public agencies that provided comments on Addendum No. 6.
Table 1: List of Comment Letters Letter Sender Date Received A California State Clearinghouse September 6, 2016
OCWD Groundwater Replenishment System Final Expansion Project Addendum No. 6 Final Program EIR/EIS Statement & CEQA-Plus Federal Consultation Review – Response to Comments 2-1 Section 2
Comment Letter A California State Clearinghouse September 6, 2016
Comment A-1 The submitted comment acknowledges that Addendum No. 6 to Final Program Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement and CEQA-Plus Federal Consultation Review for the Groundwater Replenishment System Final Expansion Project complies with the State Clearinghouse review requirements, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act. Response A-1 Comment noted.
OCWD Groundwater Replenishment System Final Expansion Project Addendum No. 6 Final Program EIR/EIS Statement & CEQA-Plus Federal Consultation Review – Response to Comments 2-2