Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1987-03-26 COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS /IA\ OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA 1�a a P.O. BOX 8127. FOUNTAIN VALLEY,CALIFORNIA 92728-8127 108"ELLIS, FOUNTAIN VALLEY, CALIFORNIA 92708-7018 (710)982-2611 March 19, 1987 NOTICE OF ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING DISTRICT NO. 2 THURSDAY, MARCH 26, 1987 - 7:30 P.M. 10844 Ellis Avenue Fountain Valley, California Pursuant to adjournment of the regular meeting of March 11, 1987, the Hoard of Directors of County Sanitation District No. 2 will meet in an adjourned regular meeting at the above hour and date to review proposed Amendment No. 1 to the Consolidated Master Plan of Trunk Sewers for County Sanitation Districts Nos. 2, 3 and 11 relative to the District No. 2 Euclid/Newhope-Placentia Drainage Area and the Draft Environmental Impact Report for said Amendment. Secr tary BOARDS OF DIRECTORS County Sanitation Distriels vmr asi<. B. 8127 of Orange County, California 10844 Ellis Avenue Fountain Valley, Calif., 92708 `� Talaehenu: Arne Cede 716 DISTRICT No. 2 , „M AGENDA ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING THURSDAY, MARCH 26, 1987 - 7:30 P.M. (1) Roll Call (2) Verbal report of consultant, Willdan a Associates, re Amendment No. 1 to the Consolidated Master Plan of Trunk Sewers for County Sanitation Districts Nos. 2, 3 and 11 relative to the District No. 2 Euclid/Newphope-Placentia Drainage Area (Copy of Amendment enclosed with Active Directors' agenda material) (3) Verbal report of consultant, Willdan a Associates, re Draft Focused Environmental Impact Report for Amendment No. 1 to the to the Consolidated Master Plan of Trunk Sewers for County Sanitation Districts Nos. 2, -3 and 11 relative to the District No. 2 Euclid/Newphope-Placentia Drainage Area (Copy of Draft SIR enclosed with Directors' agenda material) (4) Consideration of motion to receive and file Executive Summary of Amendment No. 1 and Draft Focused EIR (Copy enclosed with Directors' agenda material) (5) Consideration of actions relative to the Draft Focused Environmental Impact Report for Amendment No. 1 to the to the Consolidated Master Plan of Trunk Sewers for County Sanitation Districts Nos. 2, 3 and 11 relative to the District No. 2 Euclid/Newphope-Placentia Drainage Area: (a) Consideration of motion to receive and file comments received relative to the Notice of Preparation of a Draft Focused Environmental Impact Report for Amendment No. 1 to the Consolidated Master Plan of Trunk Sewers for County Sanitation Districts Nos. 2, 3 and 11 relative to the District No. 2 Euclid/Newphope-Placentia Drainage Area (Copies included in enclosed Draft EIR) [ITEM (5) CONTINUED ON PAGE 21 Vr' DISTRICT 2 3/26/87 (5) (CONTINUED) (b) Consideration of motion to receive and file Draft Focused Environmental Impact Report for Amendment No. 1 to the Consolidated Master Plan of Trunk Sewers for County Sanitation Districts Nos. 2, 3 and 11 relative to the District No. 2 Euclid/Newphope-Placentia Drainage Area (Copy enclosed with Directors' agenda material) (c) Consideration of motion authorizing the General Manager to file a Notice of Completion of the Draft Focused Environmental Impact Report for Amendment No. 1 to the Consolidated Master Plan of Trunk Sewers for County Sanitation Districts Nos. 2, 3 and 11 relative to the District No. 2 Euclid/Newphope-Placentia Drainage Area (d) Consideration of motion establishing May 13 , 1987, as the final date for which all comments must be received on the Draft Focused Environmental Impact Report for Amendment No. 1 to the Consolidated Master Plan of Trunk Sewers for County Sanitation Districts Nos. 2, 3 and 11 relative to the District No. 2 Euclid/Newphope-Placentia Drainage Area (a) Consideration of motion fixing May 13, 1987, at 7:30 p.m. , in the Districts' Administrative Office, as the date time and place for public hearing on the Draft Focused Environmental Impact Report for Amendment No. 1 to the Consolidated Master Plan of Trunk Sewers for County Sanitation Districts Nos. 2, 3 and 11 relative to the District No. 2 Euclid/Newphope-Placentia Drainage Area (6) Other business and communications, if any (7) Consideration of motion to adjourn MANAGER'S AGENDA REPORT County Sanitation Districts Part Office Box 8127 of Change County, California 70844 Ellis Avenue Fountain Volley, Calif., 92708 Taloomes: Area Coda 714 540-2910 DISTRICT NO. 2 962-24111 Adjourned Regular Meeting March 26 , 1987 - 7 : 30 P.M. The purpose of this adjourned meeting is to review proposed Amendment No. 1 to the Consolidated Master Plan of Trunk Sewers for County Sanitation Districts NOS. 2 , 3 and 11 for the District No. 2 Euclid/Newhope-Placentia drainage area, and the Draft Environmental Impact Report for said Amendment. The current District No. 2 Master Plan was prepared in 1983 . Since its completion many of the cities within the District have modified their general plans and new development and redevelopment now projected will result in considerably higher densities than anticipated when the Master Plan was prepared. The Boards engaged Willdan Associates to re-examine drainage areas served by the Euclid/Newhope-Placentia Interceptor Trunk Sewer systems to determine the capability of those systems to serve projected increases in densities and other development, identify system deficiencies and recommend improvements . These systems serve a drainage area which includes portions of the cities of Anaheim, Brea, Fountain Valley, Fullerton, Garden Grove, Orange, Placentia, Santa Ana, Villa Park, Yorba Linda and unincorporated County territory. As part of the work, the consultant gathered existing and projected land use information from each of the cities within the area and the County of Orange. In November, 1986 the Directors received a draft copy of the proposed Consolidated Master Plan Amendment No. 1 prepared by Willdan Associates . The report has been circulated to all of the cities , sanitary districts and the County of Orange for comment and all comments received have been incorporated into the text. For the convenience of active District No. 2 Directors, another copy of the Amendment No. 1 is enclosed herewith. In December the Boards engaged Willdan Associates to complete the necessary environmental work to comply with CEQA requirements. The consultant has completed the Draft Environmental Impact Report, a copy of which is enclosed. DISTRICT 2 03/26/87 Also enclosed is an executive summary prepared by staff. At the meeting the consultant will review the proposed Master Plan \/ Amendment and the EIR in more detail. Following the presentation and discussion by the Directors, the Board will be asked to consider taking the actions listed on the agenda relative to complying with the CEQA procedures for the Environmental Impact Report. The tentative calendar for finalizing Master Plan Amendment No. 1 and the EIR is as follows: March 26 , 1987 - Receive and file comments relative to the Notice of Preparation of the Draft EIR - Receive and file Draft EIR - Authorize filing of Notice of Completion of Draft EIR - E';tablish May 13, 1987, as final date for comments and public hearing on Draft EIR May 13 , 1987 - Public Bearing on Draft EIR and final comment date June 10, 1987 - Consideration of approval and certification of Final EIR - Consideration of approval of Amendment No. 1 to the Master Plan COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS of ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA March 19, 1987 1OWA ELu6 AVENUE RO.EO%E127 FOUNYAIN VALLEY.CAUFORNIA WE"127 *SI/ 0141EE2R411 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Draft Focused Environmental Impact Report for Amendment No. 1 to the Consolidated Master Plan of Trunk Sewers for County Sanitation Districts 2, 3 and 11 Proposed Amendment to Master Plan In November 1986, the Directors of County Sanitation District No. 2 received Amendment No. 1 to the Consolidated Master Plan of Trunk Sewers for County Sanitation Districts 2, 3 and 11. This report, concentrating on the Euclid, Newhope-Placentia and Santa Ana River drainage areas, was prepared in response to higher density new development and large redevelopments. The sewers studied serve portions of the cities of Brea, Anaheim, Fullerton, Placentia, Garden Grove, Orange, Santa Ana, Fountain Valley, Yorba Linda, Villa Park and unincorporated county area. The studies projected increased densities and other development in these cities since the 1983 Master Plan was completed, identified deficiencies in the sewer system, and recommended system improvements. Extensive ..� consultation with each of the cities and the County of Orange as to current land use plans and projected changes were included. Several new land classifications were developed for estimating sewage generation to reflect high-rise commercial and high density residential uses as well as low density uses expected in foothill areas. Significant changes from the 1983 Master Plan report, including the deletion of a plan to divert water from Fullerton and Brea westerly to the Knott Interceptor sewer system (owned by County Sanitation District No. 3) , and construction of an interceptor sewer In Euclid Street to deliver wastewater to the Fountain Valley treatment plant were recommended. The proposed West Street Interceptor sewer, planned In 1983 to relieve the Newhope-Placentia trunk sewer system, was deleted, and a diversion to the planned Euclid Interceptor sewer was substituted. In total , the Amended Master Plan calls for construction of some eleven miles of trunk sewer and diversions over the next five years at an estimated capital cost of $25 million. In the future, an additional eight miles of sewer lines are required at a cost of $9 million. Total cost of the recommended improvements is $34 million. In 1983 the cost estimate was $33.9 million. The report was circulated to all of the cities and sanitary districts within the County of Orange for comments. The comments were included in the final documents. Executive Summary March 19. 1987 Page Two Draft Focused EIR In January, to comply with CEQA EIR requirements, a Notice of Preparation and Initial Study were sent to responsible agencies in the County of Orange, as well as state and federal agencies. Responses to the Notice were received from the State of California Office of Planning and Research, Yorba Linda County Water District, Orange County Water District, State of California Regional Water Quality Control Board (Santa Ana Region) , the cities of Brea, Placentia and Orange, California Department of Transportation, Orange County Transit District, Garden Grove Sanitary District, Southern California Gas Company, County of Orange Environmental Management Agency, State of California Department of Fish and Game, and K. P. Lindstrom and Associates. The Draft EIR evaluates the enviromnental impacts and includes recommended mitigation measures associated with the project, including the following: - Biological Resources: The Santa Ana River may be disturbed by connections to the existing sewers. Mitigation measures would include coordination of project design and scheduling with the EMA to minimize extent of river disruption. - Hydrology/Water Quality: Flows of storm waters along roadways could be impacted by construction in the rainy season. The undercrossing of the Santa Ana River could disrupt drainage flows during construction. The mitigation measures include working in the. Santa Ana River during the summer months and controlling dewatering runoff. - Traffic and Circulation. Most projects are within traveled roadways and will include unavoidable changes in traffic fl ow. Mitigation measures would include preparation of traffic control plans well in advance of construction to minimize traffic hazards. - Cost: The projects would involve the expenditure of some $34 million. Mitigation measures include funding by existing reserves and future connection fees. - Land. Use and Population: The project would accommodate projected urban growth in District No. 2 in accordance with the General Plans of the agencies with land use authority. (The Sanitation District does not have land use authority.) The projects will impact the public because of noise, dust and traffic disruption. Mitigation measures include minimizing the disruption of sensitive areas and residences. - Public Service and Utilities: The sewers will be installed underground near other utilities and may temporarily disrupt other services, or require temporary relocation. Mitigation measures include coordinating with utility owners and notifying agencies of the projects. Executive Summary March 19, 1987 Page Three - Energy: The proposed projects will result in net decreases in energy consumption within the District No. 2 collection system, however, continuing urban growth will increase energy consumption in the Joint Works treatment facilities. Mitigation measures will include utilizing energy conserving technology in the Joint Works treatment plants to the greatest extent possible. - Consistency with Other Relevant Plans: The proposed projects would accommodate urban growth in accordance with local agencies' General Plans, and increase flows within District No. 2. Mitigation measures include updating the Joint Works Master Plan to reflect urban growth increases. Recommendations Staff recommends that the Draft Focused Environmental Impact Report be received and filed, and that the General Manager be authorized to file a Notice of Completion of the Draft Focused Environmental Impact Report setting May 13, 1987 as the final date for receiving comments. Staff further recommends that a Public Hearing on the Draft Focused Environmental Impact Report be scheduled for May 13, 1987 at 7,30 p.m., the regularly scheduled Board Meeting date. TMD:j t y�N11AT/01V O toe°lltan Oro ,`ST 11'e �9e �I J� Co' r o mil U K `since 1954 � o�qN E Co COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT NO. 2 OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO THE CONSOLIDATED MASTER PLAN OF TRUNK SEWERS FOR COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS 2, 3 8 11 EUCLID 1 NEWHOPE — PLACENTIA DRAINAGE AREA OCTOBER 1986 ® WILLDAN ASSOCIATES d r AMENDMENT No. 1 TO THE CONSOLIDATED MASTER PLAN OF TRUNK SEWERS FOR COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS r 2, 3 & 11 EUCLID / NEWHOPE — PLACENTIA DRAINAGE AREA a» OCTOBER 1986 s r s r Prepared by: ,. Wilidan Associates 290 South Anaheim Boulevard Anaheim, California 92805 (714) 774-5740 r E�?tOFESS/O V S W. �y ZP NO. z 26279 z �. or 3 31 0 * J}/k ENG%1 F s r OF CALIfOR� r r TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE SECTION I - INTRODUCTION Background 1 Study Approach 1 Acknowledgements 2 SECTION 11 - LAND USE 4 SECTION III - DESCRIPTION OF EXISTING TRUNK SYSTEM 8 Santa Ana River System 8 Newhope-Placentia System 12 Euclid System 12 SECTION IV - WASTEWATER FLOW PROJECTIONS 14 SECTION V - EVALUATION OF EXISTING FACILITIES 17 Trunk Sewer Deficiencies 18 Pumping Stations Evaluation 24 SECTION VI - RECOMMENDED DEFICIENCY CORRECTION PROJECTS 25 .a Basis of Cost Estimates 25 Proposed Relief Facilities 27 Priority of Recommended Improvements 32 SECTION VII - SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 37 Land Use 37 Existing Trunk System 37 Wastewater Flow Projections 38 ` Evaluation of Existing Facilities 38 Recommended Deficiency Correction Projects 39 'd REFERENCES APPENDIX A - SEWER MODELING PROGRAM SAMPLE OUTPUT .e LIST OF TABLES PAGE s, 1 . Study Area Land Use Summary 7 2. Summary Description of CSOOC Trunk Sewers within Study Area 9 3. Land Uses Tributary to CSDOC Trunk Sewers 11 4. Unit Flow Coefficients 15 5. Projected Wastewater Flow Summary 16 6. Trunk Sewer Deficiencies Based on General Plan Land Use 20 7. Unit Construction Costs for Trunk Sewers 26 8. Recommended Relief Facilities 28 9. Estimated Capital Costs for Relief Facility No. 15 Alternatives 33 10. Priorities for Completing Recommended Relief Facilities 35 LIST OF FIGURES 1. Study Area Boundary 3 2. Comparison of Residential Land Use Densities 6 3. Peaking Curve for Wastewater Flows 19 LIST OF PLATES 1. Study Area Land Use ® 2. Existing Trunk Sewer Facilities 3. Projected Trunk Sewer System Deficiencies 4. Recommended Relief Facilities ACRONYMS ac acre ® cfs cubic feet per second CSOOC County Sanitation Districts of Orange County du dwelling unit EMA Orange County Environmental Management Agency ENR CCI Engineering News-Record Construction Cost Index ft feet gpd gallons per day gpm gallons per minute in inch — If linear foot mgd million gallons per day mi mile OCTD Orange County Transit District RCP reinforced concrete pipe SARI Santa Ana River Interceptor sq square VCP vitrified clay pipe SECTION I - INTRODUCTION —� BACKGROUND The County Sanitation Districts of Orange County (CSDOC) are the re- sponsible agency for collection, treatment and disposal of wastewaters generated from communities within the northern and western portions of Orange County. CSDOC has developed an extensive trunk sewer system to convey wastewaters to its two treatment facilities adjacent to the Santa Ana River in Fountain Valley (Plant No. 1) and Huntington Beach (Plant No. 2) prior to its disposal. — Extensive development in Orange County since the early 1950's has required CSDOC to continue to expand and increase the capacity of its trunk sewer system. Major construction programs occurred in the 1950's and 1970's to keep pace with the County's growth. In recent years, the County has undergone a new phase of growth that includes new develop- ments in previously undeveloped areas as well as intensified redevelop- ment in the older communities. This recent growth as well as projected development levels in the County will place continually increasing demands on the CSDOC system. CSDOC is particularly concerned with growth and redevelopment occurring within County Sanitation Districts Nos. 2 and 13 that are served by the Euclid, Newhope-Placentia and Santa Ana River Interceptor (SARI) Trunk Sewer systems. These facilities serve all or portions of 10 cities as well as unincorporated areas of the County. Figure 1 indicates the service area of these facilities as well as the boundaries of Districts 2 and 13. In November 1985, Willdan Associates was retained by the County Sanita- tion District No. 2 of Orange County to prepare an amendment to the 1983 Consolidated Master Plan for County Sanitation Districts Nos. 2, 3 and 11 for the previously described service area. The purpose of this report is to identify the capability of the Districts' trunk sewer system within the study area to serve projected development within the study area, to iden- tify system deficiencies and to recommend necessary system improvements. STUDY APPROACH The preparation of this Amended Sewer Master Plan involved various —� tasks. The sequence of tasks used in this study was the following: 1. collection of data for the existing sewer system (i.e. , pipe size, slope, location, etc.); 2. determination of projected land use for the study area; •• 1 3. investigation of inconsistencies in the data and of missing data; 4. formulation of a computer model of the trunk sewer system; 5. analysis of system capacity and projected flows and determination of system deficiencies; 6. development of recommendations for system improvements to correct identified deficiencies; 7. preparation of cost estimates for recommended improvements; and 8. preparation of report documenting pertinent information developed during the study. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS During the course of this study, numerous individuals have been very helpful in providing information and assistance. The individuals to which Willdan extends its sincere appreciation include the staff of the County Sanitation Districts of Orange County as well as the engineering and planning staffs of each of the communities located in the study area. .d 2 LOS ANGELES COUNTY �n I hh Fhh f °Oo '7y FULL N OR a ` # f4 P C TI L A 'S n NIV E • F u I' oB' h P� _ °n ANA I E ® GMFNY, r6A �,h I r °gyp° FOUNT 1 SANTA ° VA ANA e cue 4+ E0o v r hh! KEY ® DpMDI COMITY r aBxlnnox DlaTner ° x0.a nP =%TA p.s ® .0.13 1011 DIBTNICT ,e xD.n aeu w nw 11YpY Mr. vwI " FIGURE 1 STUDY AREA BOUNDARY n 3 "^ SECTION II - LAND USE The study area includes all or portions of the Cities of Anaheim, Brea, Fountain Valley, Fullerton, Garden Grove, Orange, Placentia, Santa Ana, Villa Park and Yorba Linda along with unincorporated areas of Orange County. The total area included in the study area is approximately 134 square miles. The Santa Ana River generally defines the southeasterly border of the study area, north of Plant No. 1 on Ellis Avenue in Foun- tain Valley. North of Garden Grove Boulevard this boundary jogs north- easterly to the Orange County/Riverside County boundary to include a portion of the Santiago Creek drainage area north of the creek and west of Weir Canyon and the areas of Anaheim Hills which drain northerly to the Santa Ana River. A line extending northward from Plant No. 1 in Fountain Valley along Euclid Avenue, Harbor Boulevard and Berry Street to the Los Angeles County boundary approximates the westerly boundary of the study area. The boundary of Orange County and Los Angeles/ San Bernardino/Riverside Counties is the north/northeastern boundary of the study area. To project wastewater flows for this study, each community within the study area was contacted to determine projected land usage. In most c' cases, General Plan data was utilized as the basis for projecting future land use. Generally, such information serves as the basis for projecting land use for the next 15 to 20 years. Existing land use data was found to be very limited in the study area. Accordingly, it was decided to evaluate the trunk system based on projected conditions only. Defi- ciencies that exist under existing conditions will also appear under pro- jected conditions. In some instances, zoning data, specific plans, and environmental documents were used to fill in gaps where the information in those documents was considered more accurate than General Plan data. Land usage data available through March 1986 was used herein. Changes in planned land use subsequent to March 1986 should be reflected In the final design of any facilities recommended in this report. Development of an overall land use map for the study area required the synthesis of planning documents with wide variations in land use desig- nations and characteristics. The resultant map and land use designations used for this study are a consolidation of those various data into nine designations of reasonably consistent characteristics. However, it should be noted that titles for the land use designations used herein may not be consistent with those used by the individual communities. (e.g., a "me- dium-density" residential designation used herein is equivalent In dwelling unit density to a "high-density" designation in the General Plan for the City of Yorba Linda). Plate 1 indicates the projected land use map for the study area. Five residential categories were developed representing five relative den- sity levels ranging from estate residential (minimum development density) 4 .d to very high-density residential (maximum development density). The former category would represent the lowest density residential develop- ment of less than three dwelling units per acre (du/ac) while the latter generally represents densities from up to 42 du/ac or greater, such as multistory apartments and condominiums. Figure 2 relates the residential land use designations used by the various cities to those defined for this study. Other land use categories used herein include two commercial/office desig- nations, industrial/manufacturing and open space. The two commercial designations represent different intensities of development. The commer- cial/office designation includes commercial areas as well as office develop- ments of five stories or less. High-rise commercial/office areas include areas with buildings generally exceeding five stories. The indus- trial/manufacturing designation represents light manufacturing and indus- trial complexes. Open space areas include regional parks, golf courses, undeveloped areas and similar uses. In addition to the previously identified designations, three specific uses were identified as being sufficiently unique to warrant separate identi- fications. These are Disneyland, Anaheim Convention Center and Anaheim Stadium. Each of these is subject to large population influxes and resul- tant wastewater flows that necessitate their special consideration. A sum- mary of land use within the study area is presented in Table 1 . .. 5 m DEVELOPMENT DENSITY ( du / ac ) c> c m m N O N O N O N O N O 0 3 ANAHEIM v D BREA z FOUNTAIN VALLEY T FULLERTON m GARDEN GROVE N O r RI ORANGE a z y+ E v = < Z � s _ 0 D PLACENTIA r^ ; w m r x m y D SANTA ANA m m z N O G - c VILLA PARK = r N a m 1 o YORBA LINDA Z m z m Table 1 . Study Area Land Use Summary. Land Use Category Area (ac) d Estate Density Residential 11,716 Low Density Residential 28,382 Medium Density Residential 6,930 'a High Density Residential 2,458 Very High Density Residential 2,481 Commercial/Office 6,e43 High-Rise Commercial/Office 1,491 Industrial/Manufacturing 8,702 Open Space 17,191 TOTAL 85,994 7 SECTION III - DESCRIPTION OF EXISTING TRUNK SYSTEM The combined trunk sewer systems of CSDOC that serve the study area include three major trunk systems serving distinct tributary areas: the Santa Ana River, Newhope-Placentia and Euclid systems. Each of these three main trunk systems discharges flows collected from locally-owned as well as other CSDOC-owned sewers to the headworks at CSDOC's Plant No. 1 in Fountain Valley. To analyze these existing systems, the physical characteristics and geom- etry of the various sewers were determined from review of available re- cord drawings of existing lines, construction plans for proposed lines and discussions with CSDOC operations staff. Each sewer line was charac- terized in terms of pipe diameter, slope, tributary inflow points, inverted siphons and diversion locations to other sewers. - To determine tributary areas to the CSDOC lines, sewer atlas maps and master plans for each of the local service agencies were used. These documents provide the basis for delineating the service subarea acreages and, using land use information and unit flow factors, flows discharging directly to the CSDOC lines. The trunk sewer facilities of CSDOC which serve the study area are shown in Plate 2 and summarized in Table 2. The pipelines included in G Table 2 total approximately 107 miles of trunk sewers ranging in size from a minimum of 12 inches in diameter up to a maximum of 84 inches in diam- eter. The system also includes three existing pumping stations with ap- proximately 2 miles of appurtenant force mains. These facilities serve ap- proximately 134 square miles of area within Orange County. The land uses directly tributary to each of the CSDOC trunk lines are summarized in Table 3. SANTA ANA RIVER SYSTEM The Santa Ana River system includes all trunk sewers which are tributary to the Santa Ana River Interceptor (SARI). The SARI line generally parallels the Santa Ana River from the Orange/San Bernardino County line to CSDOC Plant No. 1, a distance of about 23 miles. CSDOC trunk lines tributary to the SARI include the South Santa Ana River Interceptor (South SARI); Atwood-Orchard Subtrunk; Atwood-Richfield Subtrunk; Pioneer Branch; Rolling Hills Subtrunk; Kraemer Boulevard Interceptor; Carbon Canyon Dam Interceptor; Carbon Canyon Interceptor Batavia-Lincoln Trunk; Taft Branch/Interceptor; and portions of the Atwood, Olive and Orange Subtrunks. The Santa Ana River system as defined herein includes approximately 48.0 miles of trunk sewers. The service area of the Santa Ana River system is approximately 86.3 square miles and includes all or portions of the 8 t I I [ I : I . I d . I I I I I : I . I . [ d A [ ! I d Table 2. Summary Description of CSDOC Trunk Severs Within Study Area D *meter Length Sever upstream End Dovnst ream End (In) (ft) Santa Me River System - South Santa Ana River Interceptor Santa Me Canyon Road SARI at at Camino Tampico Imperial Highway 18-33 12,980 Atwood-Orchard Subtrunk Orangethorpe Avenue at SARI at Kellogg Imperial Highway or lve 12-30 7,140 Atwood-Richfield Subtrunk Orangethorpe Avenue at SARI at Kellogg Drive Richfield Road 18-42 10,410 Atwood Subtrunk Orangethorpe Avenue at Carbon Canyon Interceptor Richfield Road at Miraloms Avenue 18-27 12,950 Rolling Hills Subtrunk Rolling Hills Drive at (Main and North Branches) Merlin Avenue; Lark Vorba Linda Ellen Drive Pumping Station 15-24 8,690 Pioneer Branch Palm Drive at Vorba Linda Valencia Avenue Pumping Station 15 10,830 0 Kraemer Boulevard Interceptor Kraemer Soul at Carbon emyanInterceptor Imperial Highway at Kraemer Boulevard 21-24 81090 Carbon Canyon Dam Interceptor Rose Drive at Carbon Canyon Interceptor Vesuvius Drive at Rose or ive 24-27 12,000 Carbon Canyon Interceptor Palm Drive at SARI at Kraemer Boulevard Grove Street 24-66 17,120 Batavia Lincoln Trunk Lincoln Avenue at SARI at Orange-Olive Road Lincoln Avenue 12-36 4,350 Taft Branch/Interceptor* Meats Avenue at SARI at Santiago Boulevard Taft Avenue 12-36 18,790 Olive Subtrunk Batavia Street at SARI at Taft Avenue Ke tells Avenue 21-24 7,090 Orange Subtrunk La Veto Avenue at SARI between Santa and Flower Street Garden Grove Freeways 24 1,270 Santa Ana River Interceptor Orange/San Bernardino Plant No. 1 In County Line Fountain Valley 39-84 121,660 Table 2. Summary Description of CSDOC Trunk Sewers Within Study Area (continued) Diameter Length Sewer Upstream End Downstream End ( in) (ft) Newhope-Placentla System - Cypress Subtrunk Imperial Highway west Newhope-Placentia of Kraemer Boulevard Trunk at La Palma Avenue 15-33 26,910 Atwood Subtrunk Miraloma Avenue at Newhope-Placentia Miller Street Trunk at La Palma Avenue 27-33 9,330 Olive Subtrunk Katells Avenue at Newhope-Placentia SARI Trunk at Howell Avenue 30 4,690 Orange Subtrunk Between Santa Ann and Garden Grove Freeways Newhope-Placentla at SARI Trunk at Lewis Street 30 3,180 South Anaheim Interceptor Walnut Street at Newhope-Placentla Ball Read Trunk at Newhope Street 24-33 20,820 Solse Trunk First Street at Newhope-Placentla Harbor Boulevard Trunk at First Street 21 2,620 o Newhope-Placentla Trunk State College Boulevard Plant No. I in at Le Palma Avenue Fountain Valley 33-51 69,180 Euclid System - FUllerton-Brea Purchase Brea Boulevard at Euclid Trunk at Juniper Street Jefferson Avenue 12-30 27,720 Fullerton-Brea Interceptor* Brea Boulevard at Euclid Trunk at Juniper Street Jefferson Avenue 24-45 28,880 Euclid Purchase Euclid Avenue at Euclid Relief at to Palma Avenue Edinger Avenue 24-30 43,120 Euclid Relief Euclid Avenue at Plant No. I at Edinger Avenue Fountain Valley 36-54 13,440 Euclid Trunk Orangethorpe Avenue at Plant No. 1 at Jefferson Avenue Fountain Valley 27-42 61,170 TOTAL LENGTH 564,430 (106.9 ml) *Design of both the Fullerton-Brea Interceptor is completed with construction scheduled for 1987. TARE 3. LAND USE TRIBUTARY TO CSDOC SEDERS -----------------------------_-----_-------_....__...._._._.._._.__........................................................... LAND AREA 191 TRUNKSEDER --...._.......---------------_.._____-.-.-_-----...........--------------_-------------_-_------_--__--__ E97ATE LOS NEDIUM HIGH VERY NIGH "ION RISE W _ DENSITY DENSITY DENSITY DENSITY DENSITY OFFICE/ OFFICE/ REST INITIAL RESIDENTIAL RESIDENTIAL RESIDENTIAL RESIDENTIAL COBNERCIAL COMMERCIAL INDUSTRIAL OPEN SPACE TOTAL ____________..----_--_-------_----------_------_-__-_-_---_--_-_-_--__-_-_------__-_-_-----__-__--___--_-------_--_-_--_---_-----_--_---_----_--_-_------- SOUTH SARI 790 I,B36 Still 0 0 132 0 0 1,140 4,208 M0004RCHARD SUBTRUNK 497 2,69 260 0 0 61 0 41 0 3,526 ATKDCO-RICHFIELO 9USTRUNK 1,090 2,024 166 II 0 281 0 49 201 3,822 ATUOOD SUOTRUNK 470 MY 0 225 95 33 0 32 0 BBB 0 1,265 PIONEER 3RANC4 6 117 31 64 0 50 0 0 0 262 ROLLING WILLS SUBTRUNK 213 447 315 IN 0 401 61 BB 194 1,065 KAAEMEN BOULEVARD INTERCEPTOR 11 240 103 0 0 31 0 344 29 1,363 CARBON CANYON BAN INTERCEPTOR 3,1% 1,202 125 3B 0 193 0 0 5,870 10,624 CARBON CANYON INTERCEPTOR 0 962 3% 10 0 39 1 131 0 1,550 LINCOLN-BAIAVIA TRUNK 0 2B2 104 26 0 0 0 0 104 524 TAFT BFANCH/INTERCEPTDR 973 2,163 204 0 0 200 0 496 050 4,B94 OLIVE SUBTRUNK (TO SARI) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 314 0 314 ORANGE SUBTRUNK.(TO SARI) 387 2,130 431 3115 0 643 194 698 1% 4,975 SARI 2,514 4,346 920 0 0 441 92 477 7,235 16,022 ..............................._._._....._.._._.__........_...._....._._.._.____..._........._....._.._........._...____ ...._.._....._ SUBTOTAL-SARI BY87EN 9,67E 19,231 3,467 711 0 2,514 337 3,310 1 731 55,224 ---------------------------------------T__._._•__•__•__•_••_•___•_•----------------------------------------------------------------_......_......... CYPRESS SUBTRUNK 307 700 150 424 55 545 0 962 % 3,071 ATWOOD SLB/RUNK 110 NPT) 0 3N 143 16 37 73 0 1,217 50 I'm OLIVE SUBIRUNK (TO NPII 0 0 140 0 3 100 95 72 0 412 ORANGE SUBTRUNK ITO NPT) 0 0 0 0 0 95 216 0 6 307 GOUTR ANAHEIM INTERCEPTOR 0 1,119 B72 102 051 1,671 551 700 166 3,432 %LSA TRUNK 0 29 235 22 212 190 0 14 20 122 NENNOPE-PLACENTIA TRUNK 0 1,749 1,037 421 315 670 292 3% 314 5,394 -----------------------_-_-_--_---_-----_-.-_-_---_--_-_--_--___-_--_----------_--_-_--------_-----._____________________________.____________.._ SUBTOTAL-NENNOPEIPLAMWTIA RIOTER 107 I'm 2,577 915 1,675 2734 1,154 3,361 604 17,229 . ......................................................................................................................................................... FULLERTON-AREA PURCHASE 4W 1,644 79 269 0 395 0 555 108 3,332 FIILLERTON-BREA INTERCEPTOR 1,363 9% 147 256 0 311 0 311 614 4,014 EUCLID PURCHASE 0 996 126 0 437 310 0 453 79 2,401 EUCLID RELIEF 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 46 0 46 SIMMS TRUNK 0 1,542 514 235 361 387 0 454 35 M48 ............................................................__..........................._..................._...__..._..._....................... SUBIOIAL-EUCLID SISTER 1,01 3,172 186 762 7% 1,393 0 1,123 111 13,541 ............................................................................................................................................................ TRIAL 11,716 21,312 6,930 2,458 2,401 6,643 1,491 16702 17191 13,994 Cities of Fullerton, Placentia, Yorba Linda, Anaheim, Orange and Villa Park as well as unincorporated areas of Orange County. This comprises the northeastern portion of the study area. The SARI line also serves c, Riverside and San Bernardino Counties. Those two counties have a combined capacity right of 30 mgd in the SARI downstream of their - boundary with Orange County. Two pumping stations can also add flows to the Santa Ana River system. The Yorba Linda Pumping Station is used to divert peak flows from the Cypress Subtrunk as well as all flows from the Rolling Hills Subtrunk to the SARI via the Carbon Canyon Interceptor. The Rolling Hills Pumping -- Station is similarly used to divert peak flows from the Fullerton-Brea Pur- chase Sewer to the Rolling Hills Subtrunk and eventually to the SARI. A G third Facility, the Carbon Canyon Dam Pumping Station discharges flows - - from the Carbon Canyon area upstream of the Dam to the Carbon Canyon Dam Interceptor. NEWHOPE-PLACENTIA SYSTEM The tributary area to the Newhope-Placentia system includes all or portions of the Cities of Brea, Fullerton, Placentia, Anaheim, Orange, Garden Grove, Santa Ana and Fountain Valley as well as unincorporated areas. This service area comprises approximately 26.9 square miles and generally includes the central portion of the study area. Wastewater flows generated in this area eventually discharge to the Newhope-Placentia Trunk Sewer which terminates at the headworks of CSDOC Plant No. 1. Trunk sewers owned by CSDOC which are tributary to the ® Newhope-Placentia Trunk total approximately 25.9 miles in length. These lines are the Cypress Subtrunk, Atwood Subtrunk (west of the Carbon Canyon Interceptor), Olive Subtrunk (west of the SARI), Orange Sub- trunk (west of the SARI), South Anaheim Interceptor and the Bolsa Trunk. Peak flows in the Cypress Subtrunk are diverted to the Carbon -- Canyon Interceptor and eventually to the SARI by the Yorba Linda Pump- ing Station. EUCLID SYSTEM The Euclid System generally serves the western portion of the study ar- ea. This includes approximately 21 .2 square miles within the Cities of Brea, Fullerton, Anaheim, Garden Grove, Santa Ana and Fountain Valley as well as unincorporated areas of Orange County. This system can _ generally be described as a parallel double-trunk system extending from the City of Brea along Brea Boulevard southerly through the City of Ful- lerton to near the intersection of Orangethorpe and Euclid Avenue, then southerly along Euclid Avenue all the way to CSDOC Plant No. 1 in Foun- tain Valley. 12 The trunk lines which parallel each other in the Euclid System include the Fullerton-Brea Purchase and the proposed Fullerton-Brea Interceptor, the Euclid Trunk, and the Euclid Purchase and Euclid Relief sewers. The Euclid Trunk extends along Euclid Avenue from Orangethorpe Avenue in _ Fullerton to CSDOC Plant No. 1. It is paralleled by the Euclid Purchase from La Palma Avenue in Anaheim to Edinger Avenue in Fountain Valley and by the Euclid Relief sewer the remainder of the distance to CSDOC Plant No. 1. Final design of the Fullerton-Brea Interceptor has been completed and the line is proposed for construction in 1987. Therefore, it has been included in the analysis herein as an "existing" sewer. The total length of CSDOC trunk lines in the Euclid system is approximately 33.0 miles. The Rolling Hills Pumping Station is used to convey peak flows from the Fullerton-Brea Purchase sewer to the Rolling Hills Sub- trunk and eventually the SARI. This pumping station is scheduled to be taken out of service upon completion of construction of the Fullerton-Brea Interceptor. 13 d SECTION IV - WASTEWATER FLOW PROJECTIONS Many factors affect the quantity of wastewater generated in a community. Wastewater flows vary with the nature of the community, the type and density of development, climate and economic conditions. Increases in ,e flows that occurred as a result of the advent of garbage disposals, dishwashers and other household conveniences in the 1950's have been -- recently offset due to increased public awareness toward water conserva- tion and the use of water conservation devices. The result is that there is no standard residential per capita or per unit flow factor applicable to all urban areas. Commercial and industrial flows have also been found to experience wide variations, with industrial flows being the most variable. In analyzing large sewer systems, the most common approach to projecting wastewater flows is to assign unit flow coefficients to various land use types and to utilize a uniform peaking curve to reflect the relationship between peak flow and average flow. The peak flow is then used to de- termine the adequacy of the capacity of an existing sewer or is used as the basis for design of a new sewer. This method has historically been used by CSDOC for its trunk system. _+ Unit flow coefficients have been developed for this study for each of the land use categories listed in Table 1, and are presented in Table 4. The flow coefficients in Table 4 are based on data used by CSDOC on past d master planning projects and in design of trunk sewers. However, some modifications have been made to the previously used coefficients to better represent the residential densities indicated in Table 1 . In addition a new unit flow coefficient has been added for the category of high-rise commercial/office land use. In addition to the general flow coefficients presented in Table 4, specific point flows were developed for Anaheim Stadium, Disneyland and Anaheim Convention Center. These individual flows are also presented in Table 4. These were derived based upon historical recorded flows and attendance data for those facilities. Table 5 summarizes the total projected wastewater flows within the study area directly tributary to the CSDOC trunk lines based on the land use data presented in Table 3 and the unit flow coefficients presented in Ta- ble 4. As shown, total average flows are projected to exceed 190 million gallons per day (mgd) for the study area. Residential land uses are pro- jected to contribute 129 mgd, or approximately two-thirds of the total. 14 TABLE 4 Unit Flow Coefficients w Average Unit Flow Coefficient Land Use Category (gpd/ac) Estate-Density Residential 1,000 Low-Density Residential 2,020 Medium-Density Residential 3,880 High-Density Residential 5,820 Very-High Density Residential 7,560 Commercial/Office 3,230 High-Rise Commercial/Office 7,800 Industrial/Manufacturing 3,000 Open Space 200 Other Anaheim Stadium 1 .20 mgd Disneyland 2.0 mgd Anaheim Convention Center 0.375 mgd 15 a [ a a a ) [ I , [ [ [ t I t [ a ! [ e a s a TABLE 5. PROJECTED NASTENATER FLOW SUMMARY ___________________________________________________________._.._.......___......._........�0....--- __ AREA 4AC1 TRUNKSEWER ____________________---_____---.__________---__--._--.---.----_--._.-_.-.__-_-_---.-------------........_.._.._.___-_--.__ AVERAGE ESTATE LDN AGUISH NIGH VERY NIGH $IBM FIRE UNIT DENSITY DENSITY DENSITY DENSITY DENSITY OFFICE/ OFFICE/ FUN RESIDENTIAL RESIDENTIAL RESIDENTIAL RESIDENTIAL RESIDENTIAL COMMERCIAL COMMERCIAL INDUSTRIAL OPEN PACE TOTAL (WO/AC) _____________________________________-_-.--___.___-._--_.____-_-____--__-_-____-_-___-__--_..___-_-_-.___-__-_-__-_--_------____------_-_-_________--____-_--____---_--_.-- SOUTP SARI 0.79 3.71 1.20 0.00 0.00 0.43 0.00 0.00 0.23 6.36 1,510 ATVOOD-ORCHARD SUBTRUNK 0.30 5.17 1.01 0.00 0.00 0.22 0.00 0.12 O.DO 7.22 2,041 AIW00D-RICNFIELD SUBTAUNK 1.09 4.09 0.64 0.06 0.00 0.91 0.00 0.15 0.04 6.9G 1,82) ATWOOD SUBTRUNK (TO CCI) 0.00 0.45 0.37 0.19 0.00 0.10 0.00 2.64 0.00 3.76 2,971 PIONEER GRMCN 0.00 0.24 0.12 0.37 0.00 0.16 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.89 3,399 ROLLINS HILLS SUBTRUNK 0.21 0.91 1.22 0.84 0.00 1.30 0.48 0.26 0.04 5.25 2,817 LRAEMEA BOULEVARD INTERCEPTOR 0.02 1.70 4.40 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.00 1.03 0.01 3.25 2,383 CARBON CANYON DAN INTERCEPTOR 3.20 2.43 0.49 0.22 0.00 0.62 0.00 0.00 1.17 0.13 765 CARBON CRAYON INTERCEPTOR 0.00 1.901 1.34 0.06 0.00 0.13 0.00 0.39 0.00 4.10 2,630 LINCOLN-BATAVIA TRUNK 0.00 0.57 0.10 0.15 0.06 0.00 0.06 0.00 0.02 1.21 2,301 TAFT BRANCH/INTERCEPTOR 0.97 4.37 0.79 0.00 0.00 0.65 0.00 1.49 0.17 1.41 1,724 OLIVE SUBTRUNK. (10 SARI) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.9/ 0.00 0.91 3,000 ORANGE SUBTRUNK ITO SARI) 0.39 4.30 1.70 2.24 0.00 2.09 1.31 2.09 0.02 14.33 2,681 SARI 2.51 G.7B 3.57 0.00 0.00 1.44 0.64 1.43 1.45 19.82 1,237 ,. __-___--__--______.-----_-___-_________-_-__-----__-----_-----_----_ ..______-..____..__._.......__...._.__._._._.__�__.._...__.._�.______.____.. SUBTOTAL-BARI SYSTEM 9.68 30.90 13.45 4.14 0.06 8.13 2.63 10.55 3.13 90.0 1,642 ..........................._._........................................._......_......._....._._._._._........._.__._._.�__._..�_.._�..�.�.._.....___ CYPRESS SUBTRUNK 0.19 1.41 BIDS 2.47 0.42 1.76 0.00 2.19 0.01 9.72 3,16h ATWOOD SUBTRUNK (TO NPTI 0.00 0.72 0.55 0.09 0.2E 4.24 0.00 3.65 4.01 5.34 2,930 OLIVE SUSIRUAK (TO NOT) 0.00 0.00 0.54 0.00 0.04 0.32 0.74 0.22 0.00 1.66 4,517 ORANGE SUBTRUNK I10 NPTI 0.00 0.40 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.27 1.60 0.00 .00 1.96 6,306 9007H AHAHEIH INTERCEPTOR 0.00 2.26 3.38 0.59 6.43 3.46 4.30 2.10 0.03 22.56 4,153 BOLSA TRUNK 0.00 0.06 0.91 0.13 1.60 0.61 0.00 0.94 .00 3.36 4,655 NEWHOPE-PLACENT IA TRUNK 0.00 3.53 1.02 2.45 3.99 2.16 2.26 1.19 0.06 19.59 3,632 _________________________________________________________________________________________________-_________________________________-______-_-_-___.. SUBTOTAL-NENNDPE/PLACENTIA SYSTEM 0.19 7.99 10.00 5.73 12.66 1.83 9.00 10.08 0.12 44.60 3,750 -------------------------........_.__........................._..._............................_..........._...._...............___......_............._.............._. FULLERTON-DREA PURCHASE 0.49 3.32 0.31 1.57 0.00 1.24 0.00 I.6B 0.02 1.62 2,441 FIRLERTDA-BREA INTERCEPTOR 1.36 2.00 0.63 1.50 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.93 0.12 7.57 I,BB7 EUCLID PURCHASE 0.00 2.01 0.49 0.00 3.30 1.00 0.00 1.36 0.02 8.18 3,407 EUCLID RELIEF 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.14 0.00 0.14 3,000 EUCLID THUGS, 0.00 3.11 1.99 1.37 2.73 1.25 0.00 1.36 0.01 11.93 3,334 -----------------------------------__---_.__.._.__...._....._...._._.._.___.._._.._.._._--_.__-----------------_----_--_-_----___.__.____------_--__-. iUBTOTAL-EUCLID SYSTEM 1.95 10.45 3.44 4.43 6.03 4.50 0.00 5.47 0.17 J6.34 2,684 .-----------..........................._._...._._...._.....__.._.___._._.___.._._._.._ _-_.-__---_---_-------------- --_;__ TOTAL 11.72 57.33 26.09 14.31 11.76 21.46 11.63 21.11 3.44 191.63 2,229 NOTE: MOTS DID NOT INCLUDE 3.51 BOND AVERAGE RON FROM DISNEYLAND, AWEIN COIVENTIGN CENTER AND ANAHEIM STADIUM OR FLOWS FROM RIVERSIDE AND SAN BERNARDINO CMTIES IN THE SARI s' SECTION V - EVALUATION OF EXISTING FACILITIES . The CSDOC trunk sewer system within the study area was evaluated with _ the aid of an IBM-PC microcomputer using SEWER, a mathematical model based on Manning's equation for nonpressure flow in pipes. The SEWER program is primarily designed to analyze existing systems but also can determine required pipeline sizing to handle projected flows. In designing or evaluating a trunk sewer system, the SEWER program compares the capacity of each pipe in the system with the peak wastewa- ter flow projected for that particular reach. If the peak flow exceeds the pipeline's capacity, the SEWER program determines the pipeline size required both to replace the existing line and to parallel the existing line while maintaining the existing line in service. For the purposes of computer modeling, each major facility of the CSDOC - trunk sewer system identified in Table 2 was analyzed . Reaches used in the computer model were defined between points of changing slope, di- ameter or tributary area. This has the effect of reducing the total num- ber of reaches modeled to a reasonable amount from that required if every section between manholes is identified as a reach. Generally, where a connection to the CSDOC facilities was noted to serve a relatively small area, that area was modeled as part of the next upstream tributary area. e. The nodes, which are the ends of each reach, were coded by trunk sewer _ name and numbered, with numbers increasing from downstream to up- stream. Land use areas tributary to each node were determined using an electronic digitizer and land use map generated from General Plan infor- mation at a scale of 1 inch = 2,000 feet. The LOTUS 1-2-3 spread sheet program was used to determine flows tributary to each node from the land C1 use data and unit flow coefficients. These flows were then input to the SEWER model along with sewer system geometry and design criteria. Capacity criteria for the trunk sewers were established based on data provided by CSDOC. Existing facilities were defined as having a maxi- mum capacity at a flow depth to pipeline diameter ratio (D/d) of 0.92, which is essentially flowing full. The depth of flow in the pipe is cal- culated by SEWER based on normal depth calculations for peak flows using Manning's formula with an "n" factor of 0.013. Backwater effects are not considered. Therefore, other deficiencies upstream of the calculated defi- ciencies may exist due to backwater effects. However, if downstream de- ficiencies are corrected, those upstream backwater effects will be eliminat- ed. For new pipelines recommended to relieve deficient lines, the follow- ing depth to diameter ratios were used: G 17 Pipeline _. Diameter (in.) Maximum D/d 12 - 18 0.50 _ 21 - 60 0.75 '60 0.92 A minimum size of 12-inch diameter was established for all CSDOC gravity sewers. 4 To calculate peak flows in a reach, SEWER internally calculates the cumu- lative average flow rate for each reach considering all upstream tributary G flow and calculates the peak flow for that reach. CSDOC has developed a peaking formula based on historical flow monitoring within its system. Figure 3 presents the relationship between peak and average flows devel- oped by CSDOC and used in this study. TRUNK SEWER DEFICIENCIES 61 The output of the SEWER model served as the basis of identifying defi- ciencies within the CSDOC trunk sewer system. A sample computer printout of the input data and computations is provided in Appendix A. Table 6 summarizes the deficient conditions based on General Plan land use data presented in Section 11. These sections are also shown on Plate 3. In evaluating the results of the SEWER program, it is recommended that minor surcharge conditions be allowed to occur in existing facilities in lieu of building costly relief facilities. The recommended limit of allowable surcharge is 10 percent of pipeline capacity. This amount of surcharge generally occurs only during peak flow conditions and then for short in- tervals, normally less than 1 hour. -- In instances where surcharged flow conditions are to be allowed, the trunk lines must be of sufficient depth to allow for back-up of sewage in manholes without adversely affecting the flow conditions of lateral con- nections. Moreover, consideration should be given to the characteristics of the surrounding property development. Irritable odors may occur which would be more objectionable to a residential area than in an indus- trial development. Also, surcharging is likely to result in higher mainte- nance costs. For these reasons the recommended maximum surcharge has been set at the relatively conservative amount of 10 percent of pipeline capacity. Twenty-one deficient sections in the trunk sewer system are identified ranging in length from 340 feet to 47,620 feet. The total length of defi- cient sections is approximately 34.3 miles, or 32 percent of the total sys- tem evaluated. 18 ' • -- eG'..0 e W..L'6T•:CCieseCCiT.:tSr^(: reCLSi's:i:6Y..•�•CS'rd.^.T..n Lee ---•� .•aa.man.:.�a��a::�a���..zrn�:e::::rr�sa�•sena Samar ax- --'aw�zenaaa�sn:es�sss��+xpax----••-••a:s�^e�eaN�sns x�amxxq^sx� �a:sr K ®aazxer. x ': raaa:�.xe�a _ Mice_ CROiMMMUra_NUMMINUMIP, Lag aa:a:S^HM—SH C rya:rye '.cR==": -.5c ! .'"^�m•', mum e='aaiEgg^•'rciiY'.i=aIMWE-910:2 U'I'd in SEE =a } -x4 ash 1. xnri iinl umTa'n^ ®tl• ,�c( pp,,�� `�.^�R'!• ggff . .'C:cees.�-ma•.:�•rm»ee msca ..:.. ..ac.-:am:a:rca car ® em�M we°xnna:sx:rsaw ;seaaa c::enszv::a tl...r—==noon Mrp�q'pp:.It:�fBB�.I11 pp�x�l1CyyiYaYgagLa��xMn .w.,Ul. �.p1yE9&�x�ppllSWgggMgMi�`xyL..-.��:'�:.asm"—MaSa YW'M.I®IYIXYptln�MNYM�OY{BbWY��961W.minU"•^n IMI..t�= unL ��il�!��S^ �.!dii�?aa?c.^._E x3�a=nL•rv' xr_...0 a:L°�xeearr._.:3: � 3E Table 6. Trunk Sewer Deficlencles Based on General Plan Land Use Peak Deficiency Length FIOW Capacity. No. Trunk Sewer Section ift) (mgd) (mgd) Santa Ana River System - 1. Atwood-Orehard Subtrunk willow Wood Drive to Kellogg Drive 3,520 7.60 - 7.73 2.53 - 4.72 2. Rolling Hills Subtrunk Entire North Branch 1,160 7.69 5.05 - 5.64 3. Rolling Hills Subtrunk Immediately upstream of vorba Linda P.S. 720 8.19 6.28 4. Betavla-Lincoln Trunk 355 feet west of Glassell Street to Batavia Street 2,250 1.50 - 2.02 1.35 5. Taft Branch/Interceptor Sentlago Boulevard to Glassell Street 10,780 3.34 - 8.68 2.75 - 4.66 6. Orange Subtrunk Santa Ana Frowsy t0 SARI 1,580 20.62 13.32 Iw 7. SARI Station 913+50 to o Station 841+84 6,410 49.17 - 49.84 43.75 8. SARI Imperial Highway to Grove Street 16,100 49.17 - 75.04 39.86 - 54.94 Newhope-Placentla System - 9. Cypress Subtrunk Bestanchury Road to vorbs Linda P.S. Diversion 1,590 3.37 2.91 10. Cypress Subtrunk Nutwood Avenue to Kimberly Avenue 5,900 7.42 - 8.34 6.01 - 6.58 IT. Cypress Subtrunk Orangethorpe Avenue to Ls Palma Avenue 4,510 12.44 - 14.42 11.60 12. South Anaheim Interceptor Ball Road to Trask Avenue (entire length) 20,820 14.54 - 34.31 5.95 - 13.73 13. Bolas Trunk Harbor Boulevard to Newhope St at 2,750 5.43 4.26 14. Newhope-Placentla Trunk La Palma Avenue to Sycamore Street 530 14.42 - 21.84 11.60 l I l I i Q ' I l - I ,g 1 @ I I I 1 I f ' 8 0 Table 6. Trunk Sewer Deficiencies Based on General Plan Land Use (continued) Pee Deficiency Length Flows Capacitya No. Trunk Sewer Section (ft) (mgd) (mgd) 15. Newhope-Placentia Trunk Wegner Avenue to Nowell Avenue 6,690 26.82 - 28.66 24.13 - 25.36 16. Newhope-Placentia Trunk Anaheim Boulevard to Manchester Avenue 340 34.97 28.06 - 30.52 17. Newhope-Placentia Trunk Simmons Avenue to Orange Subtrunk 4,810 35.68 - 36.27 31.89 18. Newhope-Placentia Trunk Harbor Boulevard to CSOOC Plant No. 1 28,910 47.88 - 86.02 41.10 - 51.05 Euclid System - 19. Fullerton-Brea Purchase Rosalyn Avenue to Jefferson Avenue 4,920 11.90 - 12.92 5.44 - 9.86 20. Euclid Purchase Le Palma Avenue to Crone Avenue 9,240 5.26 - 8.51 5.22 - 7.15 N 21. Euclid trunk OrangethorpeAve Avenue to Edinger Avenue 47,620 22.77 - 39.05 8.04 - 21.70 TOTAL LENGTH 1811180 (34.31 mi) -The range of peak flow and capacity represent the minimum and maximum values for the entire deficient section. d Santa Ana River System A total of 42,550 feet of sewer was determined to be deficient within the —• Santa Ana River system. Eight specific deficiencies are identified ranging in length from 720 feet to 16,100 feet. Those lines with no identified de- ficiencies over their entire length are the South SARI, Atwood-Richfield Subtrunk, Atwood Subtrunk, Pioneer Branch, Kraemer Boulevard Inter- ceptor, Carbon Canyon Dam Interceptor, Carbon Canyon Interceptor, and the Olive Subtrunk. The four most significant deficiencies occur on the SARI (Nos. 7 and 8), the Atwood-Orchard Subtrunk (No. 1) and the Taft Branch/Interceptor (No. 5). These comprise 87 percent of the total length of deficiencies in the Santa Ana River system. Other lines with deficiencies are the Rolling Hills Subtrunk (Nos. 2 and 3), Batavia - Lincoln Trunk (No. 4) and the Orange Subtrunk (No. 6). Deficiencies Nos. 7 and 8 in the SARI are not likely to occur for a signif- icant period since the areas in Orange County to be served by that line are mostly undeveloped at this time. Furthermore, the current combined discharge from San Bernardino and Riverside Counties into the line is significantly less than the 30 mgd combined capacity allowance of those two Counties. Therefore, deficiencies in SARI may not actually occur for 15 to 20 years. The Atwood-Orchard Subtrunk is receiving continually increasing flows from areas recently undergoing new development in Yorba Linda. The timing of that development will determine when Deficiency No. 1 will begin to occur. CSDOC has recently completed construction of the Taft Interceptor which diverts flows from the Taft Branch at Glassell Street to the SARI. How- ever, the Taft Branch is identified as being deficient for its entire length upstream of Glassell Street. This trunk serves major portions of the Cities of Orange and Villa Park including the eastern portion of Orange which began experiencing development in the late 1970's/early 1980's. The timing of the deficiencies in the Taft Branch will be largely depen- dent on the timing of development in the easternmost portions of the City of Orange. Newhope-Placentia System Deficiencies have been identified totaling 76,850 feet of trunk sewer in the Newhope-Placentia system. Ten deficiencies ranging in length from 530 feet to 28,910 feet total 56 percent of the entire system. Deficiencies ® are identified on the Cypress Subtrunk, South Anaheim Interceptor, Boise Trunk and Newhope-Placentia Trunk. No deficiencies were found on the Atwood Subtrunk, Olive Subtrunk and Orange Subtrunk. The Cypress Subtrunk contains three separate deficiencies (Nos. 9, 10 and 11) totalling 12,000 feet in length. The appearance of those defi- ciencies would be largely determined by the timing of development in 22 19 presently undeveloped areas of eastern Brea which are served by the most upstream end of the Cypress Subtrunk. The South Anaheim Interceptor serves areas of Anaheim and Garden Grove that are largely developed. CSDOC has indicated the line is known to be surcharged at times. Furthermore, the service area of the line is undergoing intensified redevelopment in both Anaheim and Garden Grove such as at the Disneyland/Convention Center area. The projected flows in the line are as much as 250 percent of the line's capacity. The entire length of the South Anaheim Interceptor was found to be deficient (No. 12). The entire length of the Boise Trunk (2,750 feet) was found to be defi- cient (No. 13). This line serves existing development in the City of Santa Ana and is known to be flowing nearly full under existing conditions. Approximately 41,280 feet of the Newhope-Placentia Trunk, 60 percent of its entire length, were found to be deficient (Nos. 14-18). This includes ® the entire section downstream of the junction of the South Anaheim Inter- ceptor. As with the South Anaheim Interceptor, projected peak flows are significantly greater than capacity. In addition to the service area of the South Anaheim Interceptor and Cypress Subtrunk, redevelopment in the areas around Anaheim Stadium and the junction of the Santa Ana, Garden Grove and Orange Freeways are projected to significantly increase waste- water flows tributary to the Newhope-Placentia Trunk. Flows in portions of the line in its lower reaches are currently close to capacity. Euclid System - Deficiencies totaling 61,780 feet in length were found in the Fuller- ton-Brea Purchase, Euclid Purchase and Euclid Trunk sewers within the Euclid system. These deficiencies (Nos. 19-21) total 35 percent of the length of sewers in the Euclid system. No deficiencies were found in ei- ther the Fullerton-Brea Interceptor or the Euclid Relief sewers. Nearly 5,000 feet of the downstream-most sections of the Fullerton-Brea Purchase were found deficient, despite the proposed Fullerton-Brea Inter- captor (No. 19). However, as the latter has not yet been constructed, - those deficiencies can be easily eliminated by modifications to the design of the new line. This will be discussed in the following section describ- ing recommended relief facilities. The Euclid Purchase and Euclid Trunk sewers parallel each other from La Palma Avenue in Anaheim to Edinger Avenue in Fountain Valley. Four overflow structures exist from the Purchase line to the Trunk line along that route. As modeled, the flow in the Purchase was set at the capacity ,e of the. upstream reach of the line and all other tributary flows to the two lines were assumed to enter the Trunk line either directly or by diversion from the Purchase. Under these assumptions, the Trunk was found to be 23 qw deficient by a significant amount with peak flows exceeding capacity by upwards of 180 percent (No. 21). The Euclid Purchase was still de- termined to be deficient downstream of La Palma Avenue for a distance of about 9,240 feet (No. 20). However, these parallel sewers, when con- sidered as a combined system, should be considered essentially deficient for the entire distance from La Palma Avenue to Edinger Avenue. For that entire length, total peak flows in both lines are projected to exceed combined capacity by a minimum of 65 percent. CSDOC has indicated that flows in the Trunk and Purchase sewers have approached capacity in re- cent years. Flows are projected to increase primarily due to increased densities resulting from both now development and redevelopment in the Cities of Fullerton, Brea, Anaheim, Garden Grove, Santa Ana and Foun- tain Valley. PUMPING STATIONS EVALUATION CSDOC currently owns and operates three pumping stations within the study area. Two of those stations are considered "temporary' or interim facilities. The Rolling Hills Pumping Station pumps peak flows from the presently overloaded Fullerton-Brea Purchase sewer to the Rolling Hills Subtrunk. With the construction of the Fullerton-Brea Interceptor to re- lieve the Fullerton-Brea Purchase, the Rolling Hills Pumping Station will be taken out of service. Similarly, CSDOC eventually intends to replace the existing Carbon Canyon Dam Pumping Station as development upstream of the facility proceeds. The facility will ultimately be replaced by a ,., gravity sewer connected to the Carbon Canyon Dam Interceptor. The Yorba Linda Pumping Station is the third pumping facility and the e1 only one considered permanent. This facility pumps flows from the Roll- ing Hills Subtrunk and the Pioneer Branch sewers to the Carbon Canyon Interceptor. It is also used to pump peak flows from the Cypress Sub- trunk in the same manner to relieve that sewer from overloading. The Yorba Linda Pumping Station is a wet well/dry well facility that con- tains three pumps operated in parallel. Each pump is 100 horsepower with a rated capacity of 4,200 gpm at 75 feet TDH. The discharge line from the pump station is approximately 7,240 feet of 30-inch ductile iron force main that discharges to the Carbon Canyon Interceptor at Kraemer Boulevard. An hydraulic analysis of the facility indicates a total maximum capacity of approximately 10,600 gpm with all three pumps in operation. The total combined flow projected for the Rolling Hills Subtrunk and the d Pioneer Branch are 4,260 gpm average and 6,560 gpm peak. Therefore, the pump station has sufficient existing capacity to convey the projected tributary flows from the existing trunk system and can handle an addi- tional 4,040 gpm of peak flow. ti 24 SECTION VI - RECOMMENDED DEFICIENCY CORRECTION PROJECTS Numerous alternatives were studied in developing the recommended sched- ule of deficiency correction projects. Construction of a parallel trunk fa- cility to carry the excess wastewater flow is an obvious solution to most „e of the deficiencies; however, this solution is not necessarily the most eco- nomical or practical approach. In some instances, the construction of a single relief line can be planned in such a way that it will relieve several .7 trunk lines, thereby avoiding the construction of parallel facilities and duplication of costs. In addition, alternatives have been developed based on avoiding the need for pumping facilities which are both costly to con- struct as well as to operate and maintain. BASIS OF COST ESTIMATES Cost estimates for recommended relief facilities presented herein are based on preliminary or conceptual sizing and layout of those facilities. Project or capital cost is the total capital investment necessary to complete a .d project including expenditures for construction, all necessary technical services, and such incidental items as legal and administrative services and financing. Costs for land or right-of-way acquisition are considered separately. Capital costs presented herein are estimated to be 25 percent greater than construction costs. However, no estimate is included for land or right-of-way acquisition. Construction costs cover the materials, labor and construction services necessary to build the proposed project. These costs are estimated using current information and are intended to represent median prices anticipat- ed for each type of work. Construction costs presented herein are based on the Engineering News-Record Construction Cost Index (ENR CCO of 5,500 for the Los Angeles Region. This reflects mid-year 1986 price lev- els for construction in the study area. The estimated costs presented herein for construction of trunk sewer fa- cilities are based on unit costs presented in Table 7. The presented unit costs are based on use of vitrified clay pipe for 42-inch diameter lines and smaller and for lined precast reinforced concrete pipe for larger sized lines. The unit costs cover materials and labor and include pipeline; manholes; connections to existing facilities; excavation; placing of bedding pipeline and manholes; backfill and compaction. In paved areas, the unit cost also includes pavement removal and resurfacing plus allowances for traffic control and increased utility interference. The unit costs in Table 7 also include an approximate 10 percent allowance for construction con- tingencies. 25 1 l l [ [ [ l l l 1 l [ [ [ 1 l [ 1 [ Table 7. Unit Construction Costs for Trunk Severs (ENS CCI = 5500) Unit Cost ($/If) Unit Costs ISM) Pipe Pipe Diameter Paved Unpaved Diameter Paved Unpaved ( in) Areas Areas Iin) Areas Areas 12 75 55 51 385 290 15 95 70 54 410 310 is 120 90 57 435 335 21 145 110 60 455 355 24 170 125 63 480 375 27 195 145 66 505 395 30 220 165 69 530 415 33 245 185 72 550 430 36 265 200 75 570 450 N m 79 290 220 78 595 470 42 310 235 81 620 490 45 335 250 84 645 510 48 360 270 87 670 530 -Unit Costs are for Construction of VCP for 42-Inch Iines and smaller and Ilned PCP for 45-Inch Iines and larger. Costs Include pipelines, manholes, connections, excavation, bedding, placing of pipe and manholes, backflll and compaction. Costs for paved areas also include pavement removal and resurfacing and traffic control. Costs include construction contingencies but exclude engineering, construction Inspection and administration, right-of-way costs and other In- cldental Items. PROPOSED RELIEF FACILITIES Presented in Table 8 and Plate 4 are the recommended correction measures for the deficiencies identified in Section V. The proposed measures in- clude construction of parallel relief sewers and construction of sewers for diversion of flows from undersized lines to other existing lines with ex- cess capacity. The improvements proposed in Table 8 total approximately $34 million and include 100,000 feet of new sewers to relieve approximately 180,000 feet of deficient lines. It should be pointed out that the recommended relief facilities as present- ed herein are general in nature and should not be considered as absolutes for final design. Rather, they should be considered more as a general concept. Further refinement and analysis will be necessary before ini- tiation of the final design of improvement plans for each of the relief fa- cilities. Santa Ana River System Recommended improvements to the Santa Ana River system total approxi- mately $8.90 million in capital costs. Relief Facilities Nos. 2 through 6 basically consist of parallel relief sewers to deficient sections on the Roll- ing Hills Subtrunk, Lincoln-Batavia Trunk, Taft Branch and Orange Sub- trunk sewers. Relief Facility No. 5 is the most significant of these in that it includes nearly 10,800 feet of sewer construction through devel- oped portions of the City of Orange. As future development in eastern Orange will largely determine the need for the facility, construction of the facility can be coordinated with the City of Orange to include oppor- tunities for that City to relieve deficiencies within its system. The es- timated capital cost of Relief Facility No. 5 is $1.28 million. Relief Facility No. 1 will divert flows from the Atwood-Orchard Subtrunk to the SARI by construction of a diversion sewer beneath the East Richfield Channel owned by Orange County Environmental Management Agency (EMA). Improvements to the channel have been proposed for construction during 1987 south of Orangethorpe Avenue. Construction of Relief Facility No. 1 can be coordinated with construction of the proposed channel improvements to minimize costs to CSDOC. .. Relief Facility No. 7 includes approximately 22,500 feet of parallel relief sewer to the SARI upstream of the intersection of Grove Street and Miraloma Avenue in Anaheim. As current flows in that portion of SARI are significantly less than the capacity of the line, the construction of Relief Facility No. 7 need not occur for several years until upstream flows from San Bernardino and Riverside County as well as presently undevel- oped areas within Orange County east of Imperial Highway increase sig- nificantly. The estimated capital cost of Relief Facility No. 7 is approxi- mately $6.70 million. 27 [ e [ e e [ [ e [ e e e [ [ e e e e e Table S. Recommended Relief Facilities Diameter Tote of Length of Relieves Roller Hall Of Capital Deficiency Sewer Sewer Cost Designation Description No. ( In) (ft) (6) Santa Ana River System 1 Construct sewer to divert all flows (4.84 mgd average; 7.60 mgd peak) from Atwood-Orchard Subtrunk on Orangethorpe Avenue near Willow Woods Drive to SARI In La Palma Avenue. 1 24, 21 1,300 208,100 2 Construct parallel sewer to entlre North Branch of Rolling Hills Subtrunk. 2 15 1.160 137,800 3 Construct parallel sewer to Rolling Hills Subtrunk immadlately upstream or Yorbe Linda Pump Station. 3 15 720 85,500 4 Construct parallel sewer to Lincoln-Batavia Trunk from Statlon 97495 to Batavia Street. 4 12 2,280 213,800 5 Construct parallel sever to Tart Branch from Santiago Boulevard to Glassell Street. 5 12,15.18 10,780 1,277,000 m21 6 Construct parallel sewer to Orange Subtrunk from Santa Ana Free- way to SARI. 6 21, 24 11530 277,300 7 Construct parallel &ever to SARI from Station 913+50 to Grove street. 7, 8 2396 , 45 22,510 6,696,000 Newhooe-Placentia System 8 Construct parallel sewer to Cypress Subtrunk from Bastanchury Road to diversion to Yorbe Linda Pump Station. 9 12 1,590 149,100 9 Divert 2.00 mgtl average (3.70 mild peak) flow to Carbon Canyon 10,11,14 Interceptor from Cypress Subtrunk at Yorba Linda Pump Station. 15 -- -- a 108 Construct sewer to divert 9.80 mgd average (14.50 mild peak) flow from South Anaheim Interceptor at Bell Road to Euclid Trunk at Ball Road. 12 30 4,000 11100,000 106 Construct sewer to divert 7.24 mgd average (11.00 mild peak) flow from South Anaheim Interceptor at He tells Avenue to Euclid Trunk at Retells Avenue. 12 27 4,000 975,000 d l l fl H ( l ( H ( l d ( ( ( l 1 I I Table e. Recommended Relief Facilities (continued) D l ameter Total of Length of Relieves Relief Relief Capital Deficiency Sawer Sewer Cost Designation Description - No. ( In) (ft) M it Construct sewer parallel to Bolas Trunk from Harbor Boulevard to Newhope Street. 13 15 2,750 326,600 12 Construct sewer to divert 10.00 mgd average (14.80 mgd peak) flaw from Newhope-Placentia Trunk at Orangewood Avenue to 16,17 SARI at Orangewood Avenue. 18 33 3,000 918,000 Euclid System 13a Construct diversion facility for all flow (2.34 mgd average; 3.90 mgd peak) from Fullerton-Brea Purchase to Fullerton-Brea 19 Interceptor at their crossing at Nalvern Avenue. (partial ) -- -- ** 131, Construct diversion facility for 2.55 mgd average 14.21 mgd peak) flow from Fullerton-Brea Purchase to Fullerton-Brae Interceptor at Woods Avenue. Upslze Fullerton-Brea Interceptor to 48-Inch 19 IV diameter downstream. (partial) -- -- as u 14 Construct sewer parallel to Euclid Trunk from Orangethorpe Avenue to Orangewood Avenue. Abandon Euclid Purchase over some 20,21 39,42,45, distance. (partial) 48,54 23,790 10,153,000 15 Construct sewer to divert 35.65 mgd average (47.68 mgd peak) flow from Euclid Trunk at Orangewood Avenue to SARI along 21 route of Euclid Avenue and OCTD right-of-way. Abandon Euclid Purchase over some portion of Euclid Avenue. (partial) 54.70 20,840 11,626,000 TOTAL 100,250 34,144,000 (18.99 m1) *Capital Costs ere relatively minor. An increase In operational costs would occur due to increased pumping and power consumption. **Relief facilities 13e and 13b can be Incorporated Into the design and construction of the Fullerton-Brea Interceptor with the associated costs to be included therein. Newhope-Placentia System Improvements recommended for the Newhope-Placentia system total approx- imately $3.47 million. Of particular note is Relief Facility No. 9 which entails increased diversions from the Cypress Subtrunk to the Carbon Canyon Interceptor by the Yorba Linda Pumping Station. The pumping e1 station analysis in Section V indicates the existing pumping facility has sufficient capacity to handle the additional required diversions. This op- erational change alone will relieve approximately 17,600 feet of deficiencies on the Cypress Subtrunk and the Newhope-Placentia Trunk in State Col- lege Avenue as well as assist in the relief of an additional 34,060 feet of deficiencies in the Newhope-Placentia Trunk. The most significant of the proposed improvements to the Newhope-Placentia system are the diversion of flows from the South Ana- heim Interceptor (Nos. 10a and 10b) to the Euclid Trunk and from the Newhope-Placentia Trunk to the SARI (No. 12). These diversion sewers total approximately 11,000 feet but will relieve deficiencies on the entire South Anaheim Interceptor (20,820 feet) and approximately 34,060 feet of deficiencies in the Newhope-Placentia Trunk downstream of Orangewood Avenue in Anaheim. Relief Facilities Nos. 10 and 12 will also avoid con- struction of a major relief sewer in Anaheim extending south from the .. Disneyland area and a parallel facility to the Newhope-Placentia Trunk. The diversions to the Euclid Trunk will be combined with recommended improvements already required to the Euclid system as discussed in the following paragraphs. The SARI will have sufficient capacity to handle the additional flows diverted by Relief Facilities Nos. 9 and 12. Euclid System Recommended improvements to the Euclid system include the most signifi- cant projects in terms of scope, cost and construction difficulties. The proposed improvements include 46,030 feet of relief sewer and capital costs totaling $21.8 million. These improvements will relieve approximate- ly 61,780 feet of deficiencies in the Euclid system as well as assist in the relief of the entire South Anaheim Interceptor and portions of the Newhope-Placentia system. -• Relief Facilities Nos. 13a and 13b are recommended changes to the design of the proposed Fullerton-Brea Interceptor. By including diversion facil- ities to convey flow from the Fullerton-Brea Purchase to the Interceptor, the remaining projected deficiencies in the Purchase sewer will be elim- inated. As these relatively minor modifications can be incorporated into the construction contract for the Interceptor, they have not been as- signed a capital cost herein. The combined Relief Facilities Nos. 14 and 15 are the largest and most ,r costly improvements proposed in this study. Relief Facility No. 14 in- cludes a parallel trunk line to the existing Euclid Trunk from the 30 terminus of the Fullerton-Brea Interceptor and Purchase sewers through Fullerton and Anaheim to Orangewood Avenue. This segment would in- clude two freeway crossings, significant utility interference, disruption of traffic in a major street and impacts on commercial development along most of the route. Construction of the new line will allow for abandonment of the existing Euclid Purchase. The Purchase is an old sewer, is shallow and has relatively limited capacity for its entire length. It would appear that its alignment is of more value than the actual pipeline itself. There- fore, construction difficulties may be reduced by temporary diversion of flows from the Purchase sewer to the Euclid Trunk, removal of the Pur- chase, and placement of the new trunk sewer along the same alignment as the Purchase. Construction of this section must also incorporate the proposed diversions from the South Anaheim Interceptor (Relief Facilities `L Nos. 10a and 10b) . Downstream of Orangewood Avenue and the terminus of Relief Facility No. 14, several alternatives were evaluated for relieving the combined remain- ing sections of the Euclid Trunk and Purchase system. The possibility of using the old Pacific Electric Railroad right-of-way now owned by Orange County Transit District (OCTD) offers an effective route for diverting flows to the SARI from the Euclid system. Several alternatives were evaluated using this right-of-way as well as other routes from Euclid Av- enue to the SARI. Beginning at the end of Relief Facility No. 14 at the intersection of Euclid and Orangewood Avenues, these include: ® A. southerly in Euclid Avenue to the OCTD right-of-way, then southeasterly to the SARI B. southerly in Euclid Avenue to Chapman Avenue, wes- terly to Nelson Street, southerly to the OCTD right-of-way, then southeasterly to the SARI C. easterly in Orangewood Avenue to West Street, south- erly to Garden Grove Boulevard, westerly to Newhope Street, southerly to the OCTD right-of-way, then southeasterly to the SARI (Ninth Street was also con- sidered as an alternative to West Street but has major utility interferences south of Chapman Avenue, as well as being significantly narrower than West Street) D. easterly in Orangewood Avenue to West Street, south- erly to Chapman Avenue, easterly to Buaro Street, southerly to Lampson Avenue, easterly to Haster Street, southerly to Garden Grove Boulevard, easterly — to Fairview Street, southerly to Edna Drive, then eas- terly to the SARI. 31 E. southerly in Euclid Avenue to Edinger Avenue, easter- ly to Newhope Street, southerly to Warner Avenue, then easterly to the SARI. In all cases, the SARI line will have sufficient capacity to handle the flows diverted from the Euclid system as well as the diversions previously recommended for the Newhope-Placentia System (Relief Facilities Nos. 9 and 12). A summary cost estimate for Alternatives A through E is pre- sented in Table 9. As indicated, Alternative A is the least-cost alterna- tive and is used herein as the route for Relief Facility No. 15. However, it should be noted that right-of-way costs for using the OCTD right-of-way are not included in these cost estimates. Those costs might G impact the relative cost effectiveness of Alternatives A through E. Discussions with OCTD staff indicate that studies are being initiated to evaluate potential transportation uses of the old route of the Pacific Elec- tric Railroad. Prior studies have recommended a lowered cross section along the right-of-way with underpasses beneath major street crossings such as Euclid Avenue, Harbor Boulevard and 17th Street, with those streets remaining at present grade. If this route is to be used, CSDOC should initiate discussions with OCTD so proper consideration can be given in OCTD's planning efforts. .. PRIORITY OF RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS The most important consideration in establishing priorities for construction of the proposed improvements is the current severity of each projected deficiency. Deficiencies identified in this study are based on land use conditions anticipated to be in effect in approximately 15 to 20 years. Thus, a deficient segment of sewer may have adequate capacity for flows over the next several years. In accordance with this, CSDOC should monitor the deficient sections of the trunk system to determine the timing of needed improvements. Other considerations include the relative ulti- mate severity of the projected deficiency, coordination with construction activities planned by other agencies along the route of the proposed facil- ities and the availability of funds for construction. Based on discussions with and information provided by CSDOC staff, the most critical deficiencies requiring immediate corrective measures are those on the South Anaheim Interceptor, Newhope-Placentia Trunk, and the Euclid Trunk/Euclid Purchase sewers. Surcharge conditions are known to exist in certain portions of those lines. Furthermore, those lines are subject to ongoing intensified development in tributary areas. 32 TABLE 9 Estimated Capital Costs for Relief Facility No. 15 Alternatives Alternative Pipe Diameter Pipe Length Capital Cost ,d (in) (ft) M A 54 8,240 4,223,000 78 12,600 7,403,000 Total 20,840 11,626,000 B 57 8,560 4,655,DDD 78 14,400 8,460,000 Total 72,960 13,115,000 C 60 17,840 10,147,OD0 78 8,200 4,818,000 Total 26,040 14,965,000 D 78 24,880 18,505,000 E 54 23,820 12,208,000 .d 63 10,020 6,012,000 Total 33,840 18,220,000 33 As the other deficiencies are not current or near-term problems, the need _ for correcting them is dependent on other factors. For instance, con- struction of Relief Facility No. 1 should occur at the time of Orange County EMA's construction of the East Richfield Channel improvements, presently scheduled for Spring 1987. Also, construction of the new Euclid sewer (Relief Facilities Nos. 14 and 15) should precede construction of Relief Facilities Nos. 10a and 10b to ensure adequate capacity in the Euclid system for flows diverted from the South Anaheim Interceptor. Table 10 presents the relative priorities for the relief facilities recom- mended herein. Two major categories were established: near-term and long-term. Near-term projects are recommended to be completed over the next five years; while the long-term projects should occur after that pe- riod based on correcting the deficiencies as they begin to occur. The priority schedule in Table 10 indicates the need for construction of ap- proximately 57,000 feet of new sewer lines with total estimated capital costs of nearly $25 million. Construction needs subsequent to 1991 in- clude the balance of the relief facilities recommended herein and total ap- proximately $9 million. 34 Table 10. Priorities for Completing Recommended Relief Facilities* Length of Relief Relief Capital Facility Sower Cost Period Priority Designation Description (rt) IS) 1986-1991 1* 13a, 13b Diversions from Fullerton-Brea Purchase to Fullerton-Brea Interceptor -- -- 2 14, 15 New Euclid Sewer from Orangethorps Avenue to SARI 44,630 21,779,000 3 108, lob Diversion sewers from South Anaheim Inter- ' captor to Euclid Trunk 8.000 2,075,000 4 12 Diversion sewer from Nevhope-Placentia Trunk to SARI 3,000 918,800 5** 1 Diversion from Atwood-Orchard Subtrunk w to SARI 1,300 208,100 v TOTAL 1986 - 1991 56,930 24,980,900 After 1991 2 Relief sewer for North Branch of Rolling "Ills Subtrunk 1,160 137,800 3 Roller sewer for Rolling "Ills Subtrunk 720 85,500 4 Railer Sewer for Batavia-Lincoln Trunk 2,280 213,800 5 Relief sewer for Taft Branch 10,780 1,277,000 6 Relief sewer for Orange Subtrunk 1,530 277,300 7 Relief Sewer for SARI 22,510 6,696,000 8 Relief Sewer for Cypress Subtrunk 1,590 149,100 Table 10. Priorities for Completing Recommended Relief Facilities* (continued) Length or Relief Relief Capital Facility Sewer Cost Period Priority Designation Description (ft) ($) After 1991 (continued 9 Increased flow diversions from Cypress Subtrunk by Yorba Linda Pump Station -- -- 11 Pallor sewer for Boise Trunk 2,750 326,600 SUBTOTAL AFTER 1991 42,580 9,093,700 TOTAL 100,250 34,144,000 w *To be Included In construction of Fullorton-Brea Interceptor scheduled for 1987. m **To be constructed in conjunction with Orange County EMA Improvements to East Richfield Channel, scheduled for 1987. d SECTION VII - SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS ® LAND USE The 134-square mile study area includes all or portions of 10 incorporated cities as well an unincorporated areas of Orange County. The study area is defined as those portions of County Sanitation Districts Nos. 2 and 13 tributary to the Euclid, Newhope-Placentia and Santa Ana River ,.� Interceptor Trunk Sewer systems. To project wastewater flows for this study, General Plan data collected from each community, supplemented by zoning data, specific plans and environmental documents, were used for projecting future land use. Land - usage data available through March 1986 was used herein. Nine land use categories were designated for the study area, including five residential categories based on development densities, two of- fice/commercial categories based on development densities, an indus- trial/manufacturing category and an open space category. Projected residential uses comprise over 60 percent of the study area and total over 81 square miles. Open space is the second largest projected use, totaling nearly 27 square miles or 20 percent of the total study area. EXISTING TRUNK SYSTEM The three main trunk sewer systems of the study area are the Euclid, Newhope-Placentia and Santa Ana River Trunk systems. Each of these discharge flows to CSDOC's Plant No. 1 in Fountain Valley. The Santa Ana River system includes areas tributary to the Santa Ana River Interceptor. This includes approximately 48.0 miles of trunk sew- ers owned by CSDOC, serving an area of 86.3 square miles within Orange County. The SARI also serves Riverside and San Bernardino Counties, which have a combined capacity right of 30 mgd in the line. The Newhope-Placentia system serves approximately 26.9 square miles and includes 25.9 miles of trunk sewers owned by CSDOC. Flows generated in this area are tributary to the Newhope-Placentia Trunk Sewer. The Euclid system includes 33.0 miles of CSDOC-owned trunk sewers serving an area of 21.2 square miles. This system is a parallel dou- ble-trunk system extending from the City of Brea to CSDOC Plant No. 7 primarily along a route of Brea Boulevard and Euclid Avenue. Three pumping stations operated by CSDOC are also in the study area: Q, the Rolling Hills, Yorba Linda and Carbon Canyon Dam Pumping Stations. 37 WASTEWATER FLOW PROJECTIONS Wastewater flows projected for the study area have been developed based on projected land use data and unit flow coefficients for each land use category. In addition, specific point source flows were developed for Anaheim Stadium, Disneyland and Anaheim Convention Center due to the - uniqueness of those facilities. Due to limited data on existing land use in the study area, it was decided c, to evaluate the CSDOC trunk system based on projected conditions only. Deficiencies that exist under existing land use conditions would also exist under projected conditions. Total average wastewater flows projected for the study area exceed 190 million gallons per day. Residential areas are projected to generate over 130 million gallons per day or approximately two-thirds of the total. - EVALUATION OF EXISTING FACILITIES The CSDOC trunk sewer system within the study area was evaluated with the aid of an IBM-PC microcomputer using SEWER, a mathematical model based on Manning's equation for non-pressure flow in pipes. The SEWER program compares the capacity of a sewer with peak wastewater flows _ . projected for the sewer, determines if the peak flow exceeds the pipe- line's capacity, and determines the size of pipelines required to either re- place the undersized line or parallel the existing line while maintaining it in service. Capacity criteria established for the evaluation of existing facilities was defined as a maximum flow depth to pipeline diameter ratio (D/d) of 0.92. For new pipelines recommended to relieve deficient lines, the following depth to diameter ratios were used - Diameter (in) Maximum (D/d) 12-18 0.50 21-60 0.75 '60 0.92 - A minimum size of 12-inch diameter was established for all CSDOC gravity sewers. A peaking factor equation developed by CSDOC was used to determine peak wastewater flows from average wastewater flow projections as fol- lows: Qpeak - 1'84 Qavg 093 .v Where Q is in units of cfs. 38 Using the output of the SEWER program as a basis, 21 deficient sections in the CSDOC trunk sewer system were identified, totaling 34.3 miles or 32 percent of the total system. w Eight specific deficiencies were identified in the Santa Ana River system, ranging from 720 to 16,100 feet in length. These total 42,550 feet of sewer. These include 72,510 feet of the SARI upstream of the Carbon Canyon Interceptor and 10,780 feet of the Taft Branch upstream of the recently completed Taft Interceptor. Deficiencies totaling 76,850 lineal feet of trunk sewer were identified in the Newhope-Placentia system. These include 41,280 (60 percent of the entire length) of the Newhope-Placentia Trunk as well as the total 20,820 feet of the South Anaheim Interceptor. Approximately 61,700 feet of sewers in the Euclid system were found to be deficient. Generally, this includes the parallel Euclid Trunk and Euclid Purchase sewers from La Palma Avenue in Anaheim to Edinger Av- enue in Fountain Valley. Of the three pumping stations in the study area, two are proposed to eventually be taken out of service upon construction of new trunk sewer lines by CSDOC. The remaining facility, the Yorba Linda Pumping Sta- tion was determined to have sufficient capacity to handle projected peak flows to the facility. RECOMMENDED DEFICIENCY CORRECTION PROJECTS Relief facilities proposed herein are based on preliminary analysis of al- ternatives to eliminate deficiencies identified in CSDOC's Trunk system. Cost estimates of recommended improvements are based on conceptual lay- out and sizing of those facilities and unit construction costs for mid-year 1986. A total of 100,000 lineal feet of new sewers are proposed herein to relieve approximately 180,000 lineal feet of deficient lines. Total estimated capital costs of these facilities are approximately $34 million. Recommended improvements to the Santa Ana River system total approxi- mately $8.90 million in capital costs and 39,890 feet of new sewers. This includes $1 .28 million for relief of the Taft Branch in Orange and $6.70 million for relief of the SARI upstream of the Carbon Canyon Interceptor. Improvements recommended for the Newhope-Placentia system total approx- imately $3.47 million in capital costs. The most significant include di- versions from the South Anaheim Interceptor to the Euclid system and from the Newhope-Placentia Trunk to the SARI. There diversion sewers total approximately 11,000 lineal feet and $3.0 million capital costs and will relieve deficiencies on the entire South Anaheim Interceptor (20,820 feet) 39 and approximately 34,060 feet of the Newhope-Placentia Trunk. Diversion _ of additional flows at the yorba Linda Pumping Station from the Cypress Subtrunk to the Carbon Canyon Interceptor will relieve approximately a, 17,600 feet of deficient sewer on the Cypress Subtrunk and Newhope-Placentia Trunk. The pumping station has sufficient capacity to handle the required diversion. Relief facilities proposed for the Euclid system will also assist in the relief of deficiencies of the Newhope-Placentia system. These improvements to- tal 46,030 feet of sewer and capital costs of $21.8 million. These include a new trunk sewer to replace the Euclid Purchase sewer extending in Euclid Avenue from Orangethorpe Avenue in Fullerton to the OCTD right-of-way south of Garden Grove Boulevard, then southeasterly along the OCTD right-of-way to the SARI. Priorities for construction of the recommended facilities are based on the current severity of each projected deficiency and other considerations such as coordination with construction activities along the route of the proposed facilities. The most critical deficiencies requiring immediate cor- rective measures are those on the South Anaheim Interceptor, Newhope-Placentia Trunk and the Euclid Trunk/Euclid Purchase sewers. These lines are presently subject to surcharge conditions and are subject to increased flows from intensified development in tributary areas. Im- provements for relieving deficiencies in these critical sections are recom- mended for construction within the next five-year period and total ap- proximately 57,000 feet of new sewers and nearly $25 million in capital costs. e, The balance of the proposed improvements are recommended to occur sub- sequent to 1991. The timing for their construction will be based on cor- recting the projected deficiencies as they begin to occur. Total capital costs for those facilities are estimated at $9.0 million. 40 REFERENCES 1. City of Anaheim; July 1985; Anaheim General Plan Land Use Ele- ment Map 2. City of Anaheim; (Undated); Downtown Anaheim Redevelopment Project Alpha Master Site Plan 3. Berryman & Stephensen, Inc.; July 1985; 1985 Update of Master G Plan of Sewers East Yorba Linda Area; Prepared for City of Yorba Linda 4. Boyle Engineering Corporation; June 1979; Engineering Report Up- date on Sewage Facilities; Prepared for the City of Santa Ana 5. City of Brea; September 1981; Master Plan of Sewers 6. City of Brea; January 4, 1984 (Revised); Official Zoning Map; Prepared by Development Services Department 7. County of Orange; (Undated); Community Profile Maps (various unincorporated areas); Prepared by Environmental Management Agency Advance Planning 8. City of Fountain Valley; (Undated); General Plan Land Use Element Map 9. City of Fullerton; August 1, 1983; Adopted General Plan Map -- 10. City of Garden Grove; November 1981 (Revised); General Plan Map; Prepared by Department of Community Development 11. Lowry & Associates; October 1983; Updated and Consolidated Mas- ter Plans of Trunk Sewers for Districts 2, 3 and 11; Prepared for County Sanitation Districts of Orange County. 12. Lowry & Associates; November 1983; Design Report Fairview-West Interceptor Sewer Relief of South Anaheim Interceptor and _ Newhope-Placentia Trunk Sewer; Prepared for County Sanitation Districts of Orange County 13. LSA, Inc.; February 1, 1986; Final Environmental Impact Report The Brea Mall/Civic Center Area Expansion and Development Proj- ect. 14. Michael Brandman Associates, Inc.; November 7, 1985; Preliminary Draft Environmental Impact Report for Koll Center Orange; Pre- pared for the Koll Company, Newport Beach ® 15. City of Orange; February 1980 (Revised); General Plan Land Use Element Map 16. Phillips Brandt Reddick; December 1985; Final Carbon Canyon Spe- cific Plan; Prepared for City of Brea u 17. Phillips, Brandt, Reddick; January 1, 1986; Anaheim Stadium Area Study Alternative 5 Land Use Map; Prepared for City of Anaheim 18. City of Placentia; November 1981; General Plan Land Use Map 19. The Planning Center; March 28, 1984; City of Garden Grove Har- bor Corridor Specific Plan Final Draft 20. The Planning Center; May 3, 1985; City of Garden Grove Commu- nity Center Specific Plan Review Draft 21. City of Santa Ana; (Undated); General Plan Land Use Map 22. Urban Futures, Inc.; March 1986; Draft Environmental Impact Re- port for Amendment No. 1 to the Southwest Redevelopment Project; ,a Prepared for Orange Redevelopment Agency 23. City of Vilia Park; January 1985 (Revised); Zoning Map d 24. Willdan Associates; May 1975; Master Sewer Plan for the City of Placentia 25. Willdan Associates; January 1982; City of Orange Master Sewer Plan 'a 26. Willdan Associates; March 1985; City of Fullerton Trunk Sewer System Deficiency Study Report 27. City of Yorba Linda; (1986); General Plan Land Use Element Map G — APPENDIX A w SEWER MODELING PROGRAM .m SAMPLE OUTPUT m m m w ee .............I............,....,........................... LAND USE . FLOW SANAY FOR THE 947A AA 910 INTERCEPTOR. UNIT FLOW FACTORS ,GFO/ACT RESIDENTIAL RESIDENTIAL RESIDENTIAL RESIDENTIAL RESIDENTIAL NIA RISE ESTATE l0N MAIN HIM VERY NIGH OFFICE/ OFFICE/ WEN DENSITY DENSITY IM51TY DENSITY UAITY CUMACIAL COMCIAI INDUSTRIAL SPACE I,00 2,020 3,880 5,/20 7,560 1,230 7,000 I'm GAG ..................................................................................................................... TRIATAY AREA IACRES) ...............----------------------.-------_-----_----------.-------------------_---------.-------------------_.._.._----- AVERAGE AESIDENi1AL RESIDENTIAL RESIDENTIAL RESIDENTIAL RESIDENTIAL HIGH RISE POINT IRIUTAY MANGLE FIFELIM MAIL Log MGM 416H VERY NIGH OFFICE; WFICEI WEN SOURCE FLU NO. STATION OEEM GEN5(TY DENSITY DENSITY BUSITY UMERCIAL CONERCIAI INDUSTRIAL SPACE TOTAL (N0 I9601 3A 52 17:7 U 0.0 0.00 0.Po 0.O 0.00 0.00 0.00 9.00 0.00 0.00 21.1SU 21.5300 ICO ITY LIN 8-PEA • C01 0) 3A 4 1202 . 75 ,22.;9 0.00 O.Do 0.00 0.00 20.64 0.00 0.0 NUS.71 1151.74 0.0000 0.6908 ICML CAYON7 3.U :112 4 96 0.10 92.59 51.27 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.00 407.94 553.80 0.000 0.4M SA A; :I0 00 MIX 494.30 :41.di ).0 0.00 19.92 0.00 0.0 210.84 4282.0E 0.OU4 3.3011 VGIFUN CANYON) SA 41 10;1 . 00 0.00 357.3Z IRMO 0.00 0.00 42.43 0.00 49.14 496.63 1134.32 O.Ow 1.9375 SA 33 :0:1 .00 0.00 307.43 00.83 0.0 0.00 MAY 0.09 71.35 111.6E 707.30 0.O00 1.6628 SA 36 1000. 00 0.19 251.81 215.9E 0.0 0.00 221.02 0.0 233.61 09.38 1450.06 0.0000 2.9134 CHUM CAVOU SA 22 734 . 0 260.60 140.16 77.84 0.0 0.00 15.87 0.00 0.O 100.11 =.M O.OPo 3.110 AN % 31; . 0 4.00 165.27 0.0 0.0 0.00 15.16 0.0 0.0 0.44 20.57 O.m 0.4272 SA 30 091 . 91 0.00 215.00 21.03 0." 0.00 7.31 7.0 0.00 0.0 243.61 OMAN O.51O M ZO 339 . 06 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.00 O.Po 0.00 0.00 6.13559 4.3559 ISOUIN SARI) SA 29 802 . 07 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.0 O.OG 0.0 0.00 19.14 0.0 19.14 0.O000 0.074 SA 26 790 . 44 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0 4.O 0.0 0.00 0.00 7.2231 7.2231 IUCNAO SIi11UAl SA 24 70 . 21 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 A." 0.00 91.95 0." GO." 0.000 0.2969 SA 21 731 . 34 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.00 0.00 6.9726 6.9706 [RICHFIELD 11107UNKI GA 20 730 . 71 0.0 0.0 0.00 O.Po 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 212.81 211.01 0.000 0.026 A 16 675 . 76 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 18.37 52M 0.00 0.40 70.71 25.2110 25.740 (CAOA CAMP INTUC.) SA IS 643 . 30 416.43 1013.1E MIT 0.0 0.00 21.45 0.0 0.00 HOLES 1559.27 0.00 2.7163 9A 13 07 . 07 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.00 0.00 1.2071 I.2071 ILINUIN-BATAIAI A 11 371 . 34 O.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 A." 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.40 0.00 0.440 0.440 CLIFF IRTERCEPTOR) SA 9 459 . 51 0.0 0.Po LOW 0.00 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.40 0.0 0.9420 0."20 (OLIVE MITT UI) SA 8 443 . 86 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 02.0 29.31 4.64 0.0 76.71 0.410 0.1410 MARGIN STAOIUNI SR 6 354 . 51 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.0 9.0 0.0 0.0 14.3313 14.3315 (am SUIUNLI TOTAL 2514.0 4347.50 919.0 0.00 0.00 446.O 01.72 476.93 7233.41 16021.62 92.7699 112.590 t t e e 1 t t 111 t e t e e t t f e e e e iEAF6 OB7A�SIi 2ESR7AY SJ7i MA 9I9E0 MUM MA 181 ON --- 0esi9n Cri ..l. ... 31J0. 06 0 0r C 01r 0i0 Ila 9.1. I .W000 2 .01; 86 .12 110.2 U .102000 .013 a .n 193.2 0.3 .002500 9 .013 80 .92 =1.6 9.3 A .092500 5 .013 a .n 221.6 9.; - 5 .002300 .013 70 .92 181.1 i.0 .J48500 .013 10 .92 736.1 16.7 .. m 8 .013 70 .n 119.2 1.6 8 .W52W 9 .613 bi .n 161.0 11.4 .00Il00 10 .013 f6 .92 IW.O 11.0 10 .QWIO 11 .013 6. .91 190.3 14.1 it .Waco 12 .01. 63 .n 125.0 9.1 12 .JJ5169 i; AI; 63 .n 10.9 11.0 1; .00;970 16 .013 63 .92 121.6 9.6 14 .000960 ii .013 70 .n 112.7 5.5 15 .00090 16 .01. 78 .92 112.7 5.5 16 .012790 17 .013 51 .92 212.1 70.0 17 .On20p IS .013 51 92 54.9 6.2 Is .020600 19 .013 51 .92 183.7 "A 19 .0722W 10 .01; 51 .72 54.7 6.; 10 J..6110 21 .011 5: .n 111.0 2LI 31 A016W a .4I3 a .92 31.9 sa .Ja100 A3; a .n 0f.7 8.0 . 46 29 .01; 08 .92 4.2 6.2 `3 WZ;.0asn 25 .033 01 .92 50.7 ks - 25 A02.'OO 26 .013 a .92 96.7 kO 26 AM" 77 .013 a .n 06.7 co 22 .W22200 :8 .013 a .n 4.2 6.0 29 WIM 29 .013 05 .122 170.4 23.6 29 .042720 If .013 05 .72 03A 6.4 30 .002720 111 .013 a .9: /;.8 6.4 - ;1 .401750 ;2 .013 51 .9. a.0 5.6 32 MOW 3; .913 51 .n 09.0 5.6 AIM 39 .613 51 .n 47.0 5.6 ;i .02370 15 .01; 51 .72 I0.3 22.4 A .03890 A .013 a .92 03.5 7.3 36 .003370 31 .011 a .92 51.3 7.5 37 .0030Po 30 .013 62 .92 a.5 7.3 30 .003930 39 .013 02 .92 43.0 7.3 39 .003890 10 .013 92 .92 as 7.1 10 A01000 91 .011 95 .12 a.9 6.7 01 .02970 02 .013 05 .92 05.7 6.7 12 .003000 13 .013 45 .92 0.9 6.7 93 .W30W 10 .013 R .92 05.9 6.7 AA .000270 05 .013 02 .92 05.6 7.6 45 .002810 66 .013 15 .92 00.5 6.5 U .034100 97 .013 a .92 Ix.7 22.8 97 .01470 68 .013 A .91 0.6 I3.3 W .0057W 19 .013 39 .92 93.2 0.4 19 .00m 50 .013 A .92 53.7 10.0 50 .OIIaO 51 .013 39 .n 62.1 12.1 51 .005100 52 .013 39 .92 13.2 9.0 r««....«r..«««........... E107 a AOfA I L--! C i L_-? C : i , rL_ ! 8 .-.! L_ I [_,_.! C -_ �- C._ ,' E_._ .. E_-i CI [:_ ! C_I C=_! .C._! SEWER ANALYSIS BITS SANTA ANA RIVEN INTERCEPTOR DISTANCE MARINER FUN ELEVATION AREA FEET INCHES KID FEET MKS 1m35;a6 u:+9:m Paa I 9EYEP CMCCfiiS L099 SUMPPr WIA CIU PI'IEF III4EPCEPSOP Manhole Ieldl Cantrihu[ed Palnl NN El. 30YfR .00 .00 14.113 P .00 .00 .04 9 .00 .00 .94 11 .00 .aC 8.44 13 .00 .00 1.21 15 .0 .00 2.:2 Id .00 .00 25.35 .i .00 AO .04 it .00 .00 5.99 24 .00 .00 .50 26 .00 .00 1.22 9 .0d AA db 29 .00 .00 6.56 ;u A0 A .A ;1 .00 .00 .43 32 Ao A0 3.91 36 .00 .00 i.91 39 .00 .00 1.66 V .N] .00 1.94 43 .00 .00 3.50 44 .00 .0U .40 46 .)0 .00 A 52 .00 .00 2655 e y e s e e e e e e e e e a t e e e e e e 10/15786 11:49:3 PAR 2 SEWER ARALYS!S SARIIAR'7 LOAD UFLICA1 NNS SANIA ANA RIVER INtERCPPIOR AN .W Slope D1ae Sam- Arm Alom Poi0t Artrpe Peak Vet- Cppte Amv Capacity 0p 0.. atr input ScorCA Elam Floe 9cit, Ratio Rapt". Aetiel Identification 52 51 .00SN 39 43.24 .00 .00 21.2 21.55 30.00 9.2 .M 1150'RIR'VAULT t0 SIR 1216 31 N .OI136 Ir 62A43 .00 .00 .0 :I.55 N.00 11.0 AI AN- ETA 1:16 1O SIR 120 SA 49 .0000 39 57.7; .00 .00 .00 21.55 :O.Je 7.7 .56 IS- SIA 120B TO RIVER 49 48 .0070 31 43.24 .00 .00 .00 CI.SS 0.0 a.; .N 334' 819ER SINS ISOSIN4 48 47 .01470 39 N.44 .00 .00 OF 21.35 k.Ae ❑.9 .40 73' RIVER 10 IN 170 47 16 .034O 45 156.12 .0 .0 .0 21.35 30.0 16.1 .31 75' SIR rO 10 914 1203 16 45 RZO! 45 41.47 M .0 .0 :2.N CO.N 6.4 .64 143 SIR 1203 10 RIVER 43 44 .0027 42 Q.60 .0 .0 .00 .MN 30.0 i.5 .63 5149' RIVER 110 IMINi 44 13 .0000 45 45.95 .00 .00 .48 22.12 31.50 e.6 .64 :483' AIVER 10 SIR lies 43 42 .00A40 45 AIM .0 .00 3.30 26.r 35.94 6.7 .70 2944' SG 1108 10 SSA 1071 42 41 .1"7 45 45.7. .00 .00 .00 26.22 35.94 6.7 .70 762' 37A :076 M ;IA 1071 41 40 .0100 45 AIM .00 .00 1.84 18.05 MIS 6.8 .74 2841' SG 1071 30 RIVER 40 39 .00309 42 43.53 .00 .0 .00 18.05 38.25 7.4 .77 109' RIVER Ila 15011IX1 39 38 .0311 42 MID .00 .0 1.66 29.72 40.33 7.5 .91 1471' AT TO SIA 1020 38 37 .00309 42 43.53 .00 .00 .00 N.72 0.33 1.4 .81 JAY AN ION 1O SIR 1010 37 36 .OM 45 51.85 .0 .00 .0 29.12 40.33 7.6 .70 1012' SIR 1010 0 SIA ION 36 35 .O349 42 43.53 .00 .00 2.91 32.63 43.95 7.1 11.0 43 1 893' S7A ION 10 RIVER 33 34 .0370 51 110.31 .00 .0 .90 32.63 43.95 15.5 .35 95' RIVER SING 9REIN1 34 33 .00175 51 49.0 .00 .00 .E 32.63 43.95 5.1 .79 1955' RIVE 310 33 32 .0175 51 49.0 .0 .0 .0 32.33 43.95 5.7 .79 3650' RIVE IO SIA 934 32 31 .00175 51 49.0 .0 .0 3.81 14.44 49.65 5.6 .90 204' SIR 934 10 314 913 31 30 .0272 45 43.75 .0 .00 .43 36.07 49.17 4.9 71.0 41 21 2145' SIA 913 70 SAN 01 30 29 .00272 45 43.75 .00 .0 .34 37.41 49.94 7.0 H.0 48 24 046' SIR 891 10 AID NI 29 28 .N1N 45 174.36 .00 .0 .00 37.41 49.E N.I .31 214' SIR NI TO in IAII 21 27 .Jere 48 46.74 .0 .0 6.36 43.76 57.31 7.1 71.0 34 0 3699' IAPNIAL 10 9IA 802 27 26 .0220 0 46.74 .00 .0 .0 43.02 37.9 7.1 31.0 N 30 1162' NN 02 0 FELLOW 26 N .00220 40 46.74 .0 .0 7.22 51.04 66.33 8.2 71.0 57 36 1213' FALLEN I0 AN 7711 19/15966 11:49:5.1 FAH 3 - SEVER ANALYSIS WANT LOW A9FLIC6110S SNTA AM RIM INTERCEPTOR M M Sinai 0... Cap- Ttaa Fla Paint 6,nap [tat Vol- 040 XNer Caputy to Anr :.t, Tenet Sowce Fla. Flo, 0ut1 6446 Replace Relief idntehia110e :5 , .0.51 a8 50.11 .00 .0 .0 51.04 M.aa d.i 4.0 31 33 1210' 5G 119 IO ilA 176 21 23 .06234 18 .8.20 . 0 .00 .3G 51.P M.0 9.2 )1.0 51 M 231' SIN]16 t0 UCEVIEY N :2 .MO 48 4.11 .0 .00 .0 St."6 M.69 8.2 11.0 51 M 2301' LAHVEIX 0 FEE AM 22 21 .00160 18 39.0 .00 .N .00 51.31 M.69 8.2 4.0 60 12 1P' FEE W 10 RILNIfi3 2: 20 .02670 51 111.3; .0 .0 6.SO 55.1: P.99 18.6 .45 in' FIXIELO 10 05NN0 50 19 .00220 51 51.91 .0 .0 .0t 51.36 75.04 8.2 pI.0 0 M :US' MARNO TO SIT 696 19 IB .0:464 51 163.10 .W .00 .00 9.3i 75.p 18.0 .M 313' SIA 696 TO MSSIR IS 17 .04= 51 5134 .0 .0 .W U.M ISM 8.2 H.0 be 36 149:' I01111 16 PAT AM 17 16 .0217 51 212.09 .0 .0 .0 58.36 75.01 0.0 d3 231' 914 678 3O S Si. I6 35 .Mb 18 112.9 .0 .0 25.15 N.11 105.02 a.. .32 3229' IA PGM I0SIHMG 15 it .00096 ]8 112.i8 .W .0 2.12 AA3 10.I4 5.6 .85 1710' RIVERIALE TO G,._. H 13 .Od393 0 11.65 .A .a) .W ?6.53 10E.11 S.8 .1/ 3884' GASSILL 10 LINCOLX 13 12 .E0516 M 162.31 .0 .0 1.21 90.04 10.32 10.9 .67 1203' LiN 10 SIR 315 12 It .MiS 63 120.99 .0 .00 .0 SO." 109.52 '?.5 .17 T69' STO $15 TO R 11 10 .00151 63 190.99 .0 .0 9.44 16.0 119.15 13.6 .an 101' SILL 10 514 160 10 9 .•10M M 161.99 .0 .0 .0 96.49 119.15 11.2 .65 IN' PA 10_TO ARMLA 9 8 .0050 66 161.95 .00 .00 .94 91.12 120.22 11.2 .M I565' N2ELIA 10 D RIM 8 1 .am 18 199.20 .0 .0 .31 90.26 121.17 9.2 .59 5133' SA RIM N mm 1 6 .00050 18 336.61 .0 .0 .00 98.26 321.17 13.7 .43 516' [MPMN 20 M 50 6 5 .a m 18 101.86 .0 .0 1/.n 112.59 137.11 0.0 .N U35'MRF 5010 MOVIES 5 t ,03W at 721.57 .0 .0 .0 112.59 137.34 8.9 .W 15981' FAIRVIEW SO M M t 3 .00W 8/ 221.57 .0 .0 .0 112.59 131.34 9.9 .60 IM, X0AS0 30 MBIID 3 2 .020 91 190.18 .0 .0 .0 112.59 137.34 1.1 .64 1103' VAM TO TIE-IN 2 1 .am St I911.19 .0 .0 .0 112.0 131.31 8.1 .0 10' TIE-N 70 FWI . . . .. . .... . . . . . . . . .. ... . . . .. .AROUND . . . . . . . . . . . ... ... .. ... .. .1.4. _ IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII011111111111111111111111111111 UWNIl1111ll111111U1U1111111111111111I I I II II I I I II I I II I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I U I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I p I N I111111111111111111 p I I I 11011 U Focused Amendment No. 1 to the Consolidated Master Plan Of Trunk Sewers for Districts 2, 3, and 11. WILLDAN ASSOCIATES r r s r DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT ,d AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO CONSOLIDATED MASTER PLAN OF TRUNK SEWERS r Q, MARCH 19, 1987 PREPARED FOR: COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA r ' Prepared By: m Willdan Associates Planning Services Department TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter Page No. 1 .0 INTRODUCTION AND EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........ ...................... ..... 1- 1 d 2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION .. . .................... ...... ...... 2- 1 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING, IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES . . . ................................ 3- 1 3.1 Biological Resources ................................... 3- 1 3.2 Hydrology/Water Quality .... .... . . .. . ............... . .. 3- 3 3.3 Traffic/Circulation ...... ..... .................... . ..... 3- 7 3.4 Land Use/Population ....... .... ........ ..... ....... .... 3-11 3.5 Public Services and Utilities ............. .............. 3-16 d 3.6 Energy .................... . ... .. . ..... . ............... 3-18 3.7 Cost/Revenue . ................................. ........ 3-20 3.8 Consistency with other Relevant Plans ................. 3-26 4.0 TOPICAL ISSUES ..... . .............................. ........ 4- 1 4.1 Growth Inducing Impacts ........................... . . .. 4- 1 4.2 The Relationship Between Short-Term Uses .......... . . . 4- 1 of Man's Environment and the Maintenance and Enhancement of Long-Term Productivity ......... . . 4- 2 4.3 The Irretrievable or Irreversible Commitment . .. . . ..... 4- 2 of Non-Renewable Resources 4.4 Alternatives ... . . ................ ... . ... .. ............... 4- 2 m 5.0 REFERENCES ........... ...... .. ... . ............... ...... ... 5- 1 APPENDICES Letter Title A Initial Study and Notice of Preparation B Biological Resource Assessment C Responses from Municipal and Utility Agencies D Comments/Responses on Draft EIR LIST OF TABLES Number Page 1 . Study Area Projected Residential Population ........ 3-13 2. Future Employment and Tourist/Recreational s, Population ...................... ............. .... 3-14 3. Estimated Capital Costs . .. ......................... 3-21 r LIST OF FIGURES Number Page 1. Existing Conditions .............. ..... .. ........... 1-5,6,7 2. Typical Impacts ...... ..................... ....... .. 1-8,9,10 d 3. Regional Setting ........... . . .. ....... ............. 2- 4 4. Project Area ...................................... . 2- 5 5. C.S.D.O.0 Member District Boundaries ............ 3-27 d d m r r 1.0 Introduction and Executive Summary Introduction This document is a focused Environmental Impact Report (EIR) in conformance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). It is being prepared, pursuant to the January 16, 1987, authorization of the County Sanitation Districts of Orange County (CSDOC), for a cost not to m exceed $12,000. The subject of this EIR is a proposed plan for sewer system relief facilities within member District No. 2. That plan is described in Chapter 2 of this report. Based upon the Initial Study prepared by CSDOC for this project (see Appendix A), it was determined that several environmental issues of concern were adequately addressed in the Environmental Impact Report certified for r the 1983 Consolidated Master Plan of Trunk Sewers for Districts 2, 3 and 11 .1 These issues Include: geology/soils, topography/grading, cultural resources, air quality, noise and visual resources. The evaluation and mitigation measures presented in that previous EIR are completely appropriate and valid for the subject project, with respect to these Issue areas. That document may be reviewed at the offices of CSDOC, at 10844 Ellis Avenue, Fountain Valley, California. This document will, therefore, supplement that r previous EIR by focusing only on those Issues which are associated with facilities and locations not addressed In that EIR. These issues will include: biological resources, hydrology/water quality, traffic/circulation, land use/population, public services and utilities, energy, cost/revenue and consistency with other relevant plans. Pursuant to CEQA, this EIR is intended to provide the CSDOC and the s, general public with a full and objective disclosure of the direct and Indirect environmental and cost/revenue consequences of implementing the proposed project, including a comparison of the project and no-project alternatives. Following is a summary of the evaluation of environmental impacts and mitigation measures associated with this project, which is presented in detail In Chapter 3 of this report. r 1 Final Environmental Im act Re ort for the Master Plan of Sewa e o ect on, s r c s an Michael ran man ® Associates, February- Tgn. 1-1 1 1 fl l d fl 1 1 1 d l d fl H fl H fl H fl SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES Issue Impact/Severity Mitigation Measures Biological Resources The Santa Ana River bottom and embank- Careful coordination of project design ments will be disturbed by installation and scheduling with Orange County EMA, of a relief sewer parallel to the to minimize duration and extent of Orange Sub-trunk, just south of the river disruption. Intersection of the 1-5 and 57 free- ways. This will not affect any significant plant or animal species. Hydrology/Water Quality Flows of stormwaters along roadways Design and scheduling of Santa Ana could be Interrupted if sewer construc- River crossing will be coordinated with tion occurs during the rainy season. the Orange County EMA, to minimize Undercrossing of Santa Ana River will effects on this flood control facility. i disrupt drainage flows during construc- Sump pumps will be used to pump tion. Open trenches and tunnels may groundwater or runoff out of open be subject to groundwater and/or trenches and tunnels, and will be stormwater infiltration, during con- discharged pursuant to CSDOC's struction. These Impacts will be NPDES permit. Construction will temporary and are easily mitigable. occur only during dry weather. Traffic/Circulation Numerous roadways, along with a Class Careful planning and scheduling of I bicycle trail and an equestrian trail, sewer alignments, Involving coordi- will be disrupted, temporarily, by nation of all local agencies and the sewer construction activities. These preparation of traffic control plans impacts are unavoidable and will in- in advance of construction activities, crease local traffic congestion, will minimize disruption to traffic especially where heavily traveled ar- and hazards to commuters and terials are involved, but the effects pedestrians. will be short-term. Cost/Revenue Installation of the proposed relief Existing District 2 revolving funds facilities would result in estimated and future connection fees will be capital costs to District 2 of approx- adequate to finance the costs asso- imately 34.1 million dollars. Addi- clated with the proposed sewer improve- tional operating and maintenance costs ments. No mitigation required. at the Joint Works Treatment facilities would also result. This Impact is unavoidable. 1 ! 1 l l 1 l H 1 1 1 [ H ! ! l ( 1 H Summary of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures (Cont.) Issue Impact/Severity Mitigation Measures Land Use/Population The proposed facilities would accommo- Construction activities will be designed date projected urban growth in District and scheduled to minimize disruption to 2, in accordance with the current more sensitive uses such as schools, General Plans of the involved local residences and parks. Every effort agencies. Temporary nuisances such as will be made to maintain access to Increased noise, fugitive dust and commercial parking areas, residential traffic disruption will occur during driveways and pedestrian walkways. construction activities. These Impacts are unavoidable, short-term nuisances. Public Services/Utilities Proposed sewers will be Installed near All utility and public service agencies existing underground and overhead with facilities near the proposed utility lines. Service Interruption Improvements were notified of this could occur if construction activities project. CSDOC will coordinate project u require the temporary removal of a design with the Underground Service particular utility line. These impacts Alert of Southern California and with will be short-term and are mitigable, all affected agencies to determine the locations of existing utility lines and to develop plans for alternative service delivery, if necessary. Utility facilities that must be removed will be stored and replaced, at CSDOC's expense. Energy Installation and operation of the Future expansions to the Joint Works proposed sewer Improvements will re- facilities will utilize energy-con- sult In a net decreases in energy con- serving technology, to the greatest sumption within the District 2 extent feasible. collection system. Due to continuing urban growth, District 2 Flows to the Joint Works treatment facilities will continually increase, thereby In- creasing energy consumption at the Joint Works facilities. This is an unavoidable consequence of the urban growth occurring throughout District 2. l ! 1 1 I 1 I 1 a ( 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 6 1 Summary of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures (Cont.) Issue Impact/Severity Mitigation Measures Consistency With This project would be consistent with SCAG is currently revising Its regional Other Relevant Plans the SCAQMD Air Quality Management growth forecasts, In recognition of Plan and the Santa Ana River Basin accelerated growth trends and changes Water Quality Control Plan. The in local General Plans. The next up- proposed sewer Improvements would date to the Joint Works Master Plan, accommodate urban growth, in accor- scheduled for 1988, will reflect the dance with local General Plans, In Increased urban growth and sewage excess of the SCAG 82 Year 2000 collection requirements for District forecast for the study area. This 2, in accordance with this project. project would increase average daily sewage flows within District 2 by approximately 5 MGD, compared to the i existing Master Plan for the Joint Works Wastewater Treatment and Disposal Facilities. 'J J iJ FIGURE 1 v EXISTING CONDITIONS v v J r W .J i v v 1-5 r 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 i i I I I I 1 v BICYCLE TRAIL ALONG WEST EMBANKMENT OF SANTA ANA RIVER, SOUTH OF 1-5 FRWY. CONNECTION TO SARI LINE IN THIS AREA COULD DISRUPT BIKE TRAIL. v��s ti .asr,;.Yy.,._,• _ r_ _ �� DRY SANTA ANA RIVER BED, JUST SOUTH OF 1-5 FRWY.VERY 1 LITTLE VEGETATION, VIRTUALLY NO WILDLIFE HABITAT. TRUNK - ._,.,-ter- ' ' SEWER TRENCHING MUST BE DONE DURING DRY SEASON. . � �`1C�"4�.► _Y�.�' !ate_:����, Focused EIR Figure Amendment No. t Existing Conditions Master Plan of Trunk Sewers District 2 County Sanitation District of Orange County 1 1 I 1 t 1 I 1 t 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 IL SOUTHERLY ALONG O.C.T.D. R-O-W, ACROSS NEWHOPE STREET - AND BENEATH THE GARDEN GROVE FWY. WOULD REQUIRE TUNNELING BENEATH NEWHOPE STREET NORTHERLY ALONG O.C.T.D. R-O-W, FROM NEWHOPE STREET. BORDERED BY SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, BOTH SIDES. Focused EIR Figure Amendment No. 1 Existing Conditions Master Plan of Trunk Sewers District 2 County Sanitation District of Orange County 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 S 1 I 1 1 IIIJF — I EASTERLY ALONG BALL ROAD, FROM EUCLID STREET. MID-DAY, WESTBOUND TRAFFIC IS ALREADY HEAVY, IN THIS HIGH-DENSITY RESIDENTIAL CORRIDOR 1'• a \ NORTHERLY ALONG EUCLID STREET, AT SHERMAN AVENUE. MEDIAN LANDSCAPING AND THRU-TRAVEL LANE COULD BE DISRUPTED, Focused EIR Figure Amendment No. 1 Existing Conditions Master Plan of Trunk Sewers i District 2 1 County Sanitation District of Orange County rl :J FIGURE 2 W TYPICAL IMPACTS 1 J u W I r - i f r i . .r . .r 1-6 W I �} — TRAFFIC DETOURING, LANE CLOSURE ALONG ARTERIAL STREET, MID-DAY TRAFFIC STILL FLOWS SMOOTHLY. i I k=i1 CONCRETE BARRIER AROUND LARGE, OPEN CONSTRUCTION PIT, STORAGE OF VEHICLES /EQUIPMENT IN ROADWAY, CLOSING OFF INSIDE TRAFFIC LANE. Focused EIR Figure Amendment No. 1 Typical Construction Impacts Master Plan of Trunk Sewers e] District 2 L Ccunty Sanitation District of Orange County I I 1 I I I I 1 I I I I I I I 1 I I I a. . Y i 7-7 < . STOCK PILING OF PIPE AND BACKFILL MATERIAL IN A LOCAL COLLECTOR STREET, NARROWING ROADWAY TO ONE THRU—LANE. Focused EIR Figure Amendment No. 1 `typical Construction Impacts Master Plan of Trunk Sewers rf District 2 L County Sanitation District of Orange County 2.0 Project Description m The subject project is referred to as Amendment No. 1 to the Consolidated Master Plan of Trunk Sewers for County Sanitation Districts 2, 3 and 11 , Euclid/Newhope-Placentla Drainage Areas. The project essentially is a plan of sewer facilities intended to relieve several deficiencies identified in the existing and planned trunk sewer system within Orange County Sanitation District No. 2. See Figures 3 and 4, following, for illustrations ® of the project's regional setting and Study Area boundaries. The purpose of the project is to provide adequate sewer collection facilities in response to accelerating urban growth and development within the central and northern portion of the project area, affecting the Euclid and Newhope-Placentia drainage areas. Amendment No. 1 involved an extensive review of the several local agency General Plans, to develop an up-to-date forecast of the land use and development trends throughout the Study Area, for the next 15-20 years. That research 'revealed future capacity deficiencies within several portions of the District 2 trunk sewer system, which if left uncorrected, could lead to moratoriums on further urban growth and unacceptable back-ups within the sewers due to over capacity sewage flows in the system. The proposed correction facilities would Involve the installation of approximately 19 miles of trunk sewer. In most cases, the relief sewer would be installed parallel to the alignment of the existing trunk sewer it will relieve. Except for the old Euclid Purchase sewer, all existing trunks will remain in service. The relief sewers will handle future flows in excess of the capacity of the existing trunks. A complete description of the type, location and estimated construction cost of all proposed facilities is presented in Table 3, Page 3-21 of this report. A summary description follows below. Please refer to Plate No. 4, in the jacket just Inside the back cover, which illustrates the entire Study Area, all existing major trunk sewers and the locations of the proposed relief facilities. _ Relief Facility Number/Type Location 1 . 21" and 24" Diversion Sewers Along flood control channel near Willow Woods Drive, between Orangethorpe Avenue and La Palma Avenue. (Anaheim) r 2. 15" Parallel Sewer Through Craig Park, between State College Boulevard and 57 freeway. ,r (Brea-Fullerton) 1 Copy available for review at the offices of the County Sanitation Districts of Orange County, 10844 Ellis Avenue, Fountain Valley, CA. Contact Person: Ms. Hilary Baker 2-1 Relief Facility Number/Type Location 3. 15" Parallel Sewer Along Associated Road, from Yorba Linda Boulevard north to approxi- mately Bastanchury Road. (Fullerton) 4. 12" Parallel Sewer Along Lincoln Avenue, from the east side of the Santa Ana River, easterly to Orange-Olive Road. (Anaheim) S. 1211, 1511, 18 and 21" Parallel From Santiago Boulevard, westerly Sewers along Meats Avenue to Tustin Avenue, then southerly Taft Avenue, then west to Glassell Street. (Anaheim) 6. 21" and 24" Parallel Sewers From La Veta Avenue, just east r of the 1-5 freeway, west, under the freeway and under the river, _ to the SARI line in the west bank of the river. (Anaheim) 7. 24", 30" 3611, 39" and 45" Along La Palma Avenue, from a Parallel Sewers point near Potomac Circle, westerly to Grove Street. (Anaheim) 8. 12" Parallel Sewer Along Associated Road, from Bastanchury Road, south to Yorba Linda Road. (Fullerton) 9. Diversion Facility Yorba Linda Pump Station, northeast corner of the campus of California State University. (Fullerton) 10a. 30" Diversion Sewer Along Ball Road, between Walnut ,., Avenue and Euclid Street. 10b. 27" Diversion Sewer Along Katella Avenue, between Walnut Avenue and Euclid Street. m 11 . 15" Parallel Sewer Along First Street, between Newhope Street and Harbor Boulevard. ,m (Santa Ana) 12. 33" Diversion Sewer Along Orangewood Avenue, between State College Boulevard and the SARI line in the Santa Ana River. (Anaheim) 2-2 w Relief Facility Number/Type Location m13a. Diversion Facility Malvern Avenue, between Highland Avenue and Malden Avenue. Q, (Fullerton) 13b. Diversion Facility Woods Avenue, near Orangethorpe Avenue. (Fullerton) e 14. 39", 42", 45% 48" and 54" Along Euclid Street, from Orange- Parallel Sewers- thorpe Avenue south to Orangewood Avenue. (Anaheim, Fullerton, and Garden Grove) 15. 54" and 78" Diversion Sewers Alternate 81 : Along Euclid Street, a rom rangewood Avenue south to OCTD right-of-way, just south of Garden Grove Boulevard. Then c, southeasterly along OCTD right-of- way to the SARI line in the Santa Ana River. en Alternate #2: Along Euclid Street, row ra�ngewood Avenue south to Edinger Avenue, east to Newhope .d Street, south to Warner Avenue, then east to SARI line in the Santa Ana River, m d m 2-3 d �p tin p atDSYB V.rBI.CdA p f tiro ^ pM pYY ��O pYMI. a ?tom ` J r � 1 °ter oawe •ip\ 18w.ee. Rtp lrNVa O° oala oro.w . ce.eM J' �✓ wir." o M..tr erertMse r°ouc° � u"'m° °ne�+� aF "' w°r rw.w o o�nwo ww a.pnara.« p 0 r a.. uvvtuF o roarruvo v.uer r r upu.n sue .. PROJECT AREA m north Focused EIR Figure Regional Setting M �o Trunk Semra Mbict 3 Cmnt9 9enftetlun DlsMat of Cmnge Cmnty 2-4 -- Boa .xaties caxn 1t �6 FULL N y DA $L s R ` O V _ ja Vs • 1 J 0 • E f 4y �' 4p SANTA yR ANA �C C T KEY wrtmie. nnnm ex r ® ri enm wmn.. n.rwm mn m m trotth W Focused OR AmmWmtmt No.1 Figure T Projet Area oMWW Plan of Trunk SoN A Canty esMtsflon OloNlot of Orange Canty Y ^' '_5 SECTION 3.0 m ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING, IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURYT en m d r d ee .r d r r 3.1 Biological Resources (Santa Ana River) The proposed relief facility that would parallel the Orange Sub-Trunk (Facility No. 6, Plate No. 4) would cross beneath the Santa Ana River to r. connect to the Santa Ana River Interceptor (SARI) line, just west of the Interchange of the 1-5, State Route 57 and State Route 22 freeways. Since the Santa Ana River Is historically the primary riparian corridor In the study area, Wllldan Associates retained Dr. Richard Vogl of UCLA, a professional wetlands biologist, to assess the biological significance of this portion of the Santa Ana River. Dr. Vogl-s report is presented in Its entirety in Appendix B. A summary of his assessment follows below. r Environmental Setting The Santa Ana River, in the vicinity of the proposed Orange Sub-Trunk sewer installation, Is a channelized sandy bottom channel _ contained by rock riprap levees with sloped sides, and flat graded tops. The back shoulders of the levees are made of soil. r The river bank area in the vicinity of the I-5, 22, and 57 freeways is sparsely vegetated. The few plants present are mostly non-native, weedy species, becoming temporarily established when there is water present in the channel, or as a result of winter rain on the surface. There are no wetland plant associations or wildlife habitat present in the area of the proposed sub-trunk sewer line. r The bed of the Santa Ana River is flat and sandy, with intermittent surface flow. There is no riverbottom or streamside vegetation associated with the river bed. There existed, at the time of the survey, scattered grasses and Isolated shrubs growing near outflows of storm drains. Plants that do invade the river bed are short lived, being periodically removed by flood control maintenance or eliminated with seasonal flooding. Tracks of egrets or herons were found around scattered puddles created by winter rains. Although there was no surface stream flow, saturated sands indicate considerable subterranean flow. ,y The riprap slopes of the levees have been partially filled with sand and debris from floods. There are no wetland plants present. Herbicide application has kept the slopes and graded dirt tops largely bare. Those r plants present were either standing dead, or seedlings established since the last herbicide application. A decadent willow and elderberry shrubs were found near the edge of the levee top, bordering the back shoulder. r The slopes behind the levee tops are of local soils and have a line of eucalyptus trees just southwest of the 1-5 freeway on both sides of the river. Low growing grasses are abundant below a flow-impeding station between the 1-5 and 22 freeways. A drainage channel west of the 1-5 freewaycontained weed colonizing y, g plants. Environmental Impacts r Installation of the proposed sewer, parallel to the Orange Sub-Trunk, will be accomplished through either tunneling beneath the river or by r digging an open trench across the river bottom. This construction activity 3-1 r 3.1 Biological Resources (Santa Ana River) The proposed relief facility that would parallel the Orange Sub-Trunk (Facility No. 6, Plate No. 4) would cross beneath the Santa Ana River to ,. connect to the Santa Ana River Interceptor (SARI) line, just west of the interchange of the 1-5, State Route 57 and State Route 22 freeways. Since -- the Santa Ana River is historically the primary riparian corridor in the study area, Willdan Associates retained Dr. Richard Vogl of UCLA, a professional wetlands biologist, to assess the biological significance of this _._ portion of the Santa Ana River. Dr. Vogl's report is presented in its entirety in Appendix B. A summary of his assessment follows below. Environmental Setting The Santa Ana River, in the vicinity of the proposed Orange Sub-Trunk sewer installation, is a channelized sandy bottom channel _ contained by rock riprap levees with sloped sides, and flat graded tops. The back shoulders of the levees are made of soil. The river bank area in the vicinity of the 1-5, 22, and 57 freeways is sparsely vegetated. The few plants present are mostly non-native, weedy species, becoming temporarily established when there is water present in the channel, or as a result of winter rain on the surface. There are no wetland plant associations or wildlife habitat present in the area of the proposed sub-trunk sewer line. The bed of the Santa Ana River is flat and sandy, with intermittent surface flow. There is no riverbottom or streamside vegetation associated with the river bed. There existed, at the time of the survey, scattered grasses and isolated shrubs growing near outflows of storm drains. Plants that do invade the river bed are short lived, being periodically removed by flood control maintenance or eliminated with seasonal flooding. Tracks of egrets or herons were found around scattered puddles created by winter rains. Although there was no surface stream flow, saturated sands indicate considerable subterranean flow. 7 The riprap slopes of the levees have been partially filled with sand and debris from floods. There are no wetland plants present. Herbicide application has kept the slopes and graded dirt tops largely bare. Those plants present were either standing dead, or seedlings established since the last herbicide application. A decadent willow and elderberry shrubs were found near the edge of the levee top, bordering the back shoulder. ® The slopes behind the levee tops are of local soils and have a line of eucalyptus trees just southwest of the 1-5 freeway on both sides of the river. Low growing grasses are abundant below a flow-impeding station between the 1-5 and 22 freeways. A drainage channel west of the 1-5 'd freeway contained weedy, colonizing plants. Environmental Impacts Installation of the proposed sewer, parallel to the Orange Sub-Trunk, will be accomplished through either tunneling beneath the river or by digging an open trench across the river bottom. This construction activity 3-t will have negligible biological effects. There are no wetland features or .. wildlife habitat within the area surveyed. Diversion of water during Installation will have little or no effect on the river bank trees and grasses downstream. Due to the barren nature of the area, the introduction of construction equipment, excavations, and related activities are not expected to produce any consequential biological effects. There are no unique or valuable plants or animals in the area which require consideration. Mitigation Measures -- 1 . The CSDOC will coordinate the engineering and construction activities with the Orange County Environmental Management Agency (Flood Control Section) and the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, from whom construction permits are required. Sewer alignment and construction activities will be planned to avoid adverse impacts within the Santa Ana ,m River Channel. Construction will not be allowed to impede flood flows; this may limit construction to the summer months. 2. The California Department of Fish and Game will also be contacted, prior to commencement of construction, to insure that the construction method and alignment of the Orange Sub-Trunk does not obstruct, divert or alter the Santa Ana River. r r 3-2 3.2 Hydrology/Water Quality Environmental Setting ' The study area is set within the lower Santa Ana Watershed, also known as the Orange County Coastal Basin. This watershed area is the lower part of the massive Santa Ana River regional water basin area, described below. The watershed of the Santa Ana River and Its tributaries, including the San Jacinto River System, makes up most of the Santa Ana Region. Because the western boundary of the region is the Los Angeles County line, however, those portions of Orange County which drain into the San Gabriel River watershed are included in the region. The Pomona-Claremont area, part of the upper Santa Ana River watershed within Los Angeles County, is excluded from the region. To the south, watersheds of San Diego Creek and the other tributaries to Newport Bay are included, as are the coastal drainages southeast of Newport Bay as far down the coast as the divider between Muddy and Morro Canyons, just north of Laguna Beach. The Santa Ana River and its tributaries drain the southern portions of the eastern San Gabriel Mountains and the southern parts of the San ,> Bernardino Mountains. These streams recharge the largest underground water basin in the region, the upper Santa Ana River Basin. Surface and ground waters in the upper basin eventually flow through Prado Dam, at the head of the Santa Ana River Canyon, and down into the Orange County Coastal Basin, or lower basin. The San Jacinto River system drains the southwestern slopes of the San ® Jacinto Mountains, and recharges the graben, a deep alluvial fill formation. Occasional surface flows cross the valley floor and enter Canyon Lake - (previously Railroad Canyon Lake). Overflows and releases from Canyon Lake, plus other local drainage from the surrounding area, flow into Lake - Elsinore, which usually acts as a sink, i.e. , it has no surface outflow. Rare overflows (two or three in this century) from Lake Elsinore enter Temescal Creek, which joins the Santa Ana River just upstream of Prado Dam. Below Prado Dam, the Santa Ana River is diverted for recharge of the Orange County ground water basin. Stormwater flows occasionally reach the Pacific Ocean. ® The quality of the water within the Santa Ana Region reflects the _ influences of local topography, subsurface geology and land use, particularly urbanization. The mountainous areas of the region get the largest amounts ,y of rain and snow. Water In the mountain streams is generally of very high quality (low in dissolved mineral content). Where these streams leave the mountains, the management patterns established by the original agricultural development of the predominantly flat areas are still very much in evidence. a Surface flows are diverted for domestic use, for irrigation, or for percolation and recharge of ground water basins. As a result, the best quality ground water is near the bases of the mountains. Subsurface water flows are then generally downhill, but they are affected by local pumping and geology. Good examples 9f geologic features which influence ground water flow include 3-3 e d the Bunker Hill "Dike", which restricts underground flow between the San Bernardino and Colton-Rialto areas near the Santa Ana River, the Red Hill Fault near Upland, the San Jacinto graben, mentioned earlier, and subsurface barriers in the Riverside Narrows and Prado Dam areas, where underground flows are forced to the surface. d Ground water is used for municipal and domestic supply, for industrial use, or for irrigation. All of these uses affect the quality of the water by increasing the concentration of dissolved minerals. This is done either by direct addition (detergents, fertilizers, etc.) or by reducing the volume through evaporation or evapotranspiration. In some cases, a two-step concentration can occur: wastewater is collected, having been mineralized v by one domestic or Industrial use, and after treatment it is applied as Irrigation water, giving It a second Increment of mineral Increase before it is discharged. Local water use and management of the wastewater, therefore, can strongly affect the quality of the water as it moves through the basin. Within the study area, no direct sewer discharges to groundwater basins occur, nor are discharges permitted to the Santa Ana River, which is w the major drainage course/flood control facility through the study area. The Santa Ana River Interceptor (SARI) line was designed to carry high-salt content and industrial wastes from Riverside County to the CSDOC Treatment Plant No. 1 in Fountain Valley. The SARI line crosses or follows major drainage courses, within the study area, including the Santa Ana River, in the following areas. In the northeast portion of the study area, the SARI line meanders along the _ Riverside freeway/Santa Ana Canyon corridor to the easterly terminus of La Palma Avenue in the City of Yorba Linda. From that point, it travels beneath La Palma Avenue, westerly to where it turns south and crosses beneath the Santa Ana River and continues its path, within the river embankment, to the CSDOC Plant No. 1 in Fountain Valley. -r Environmental Impacts As shown on Plate No. 4 and described in Table 3, Page 21, proposed relief facilities would connect to the SARI line, in the vicinity of the Santa Ana River, in the following locations: Relief Facility 6 Location S1 (Trunk Sewer) Beneath the flood control channel, between Orangethorpe Avenue and La Palma Avenue, near Willow Woods Drive (Anaheim). /7 (Parallel Sewer) Parallel to SARI line along La Palma Avenue, from OCSD station 913 + 50 to Grove Street (Anaheim). - i6 (Parallel Sewer) Parallel to Orange Sub-Trunk Sewer, from Santa Ana Freeway, to the SARI line p (crossing beneath the Santa Ana River). d 3-4 Relief Facility $ Location ti 912 (Diversion Facility) Along Orangewood Avenue, from State College Boulevard to SARI line near Orange Freeway. .r #15 (Diversion Sewer) Along OCTD right-of-way to SARI line, next to Willowick Municipal Golf Course (Santa Ana). An alternative alignment would follow arterial streets southerly along Euclid and Newhope Streets to Warner Avenue, then east to the SARI line. In addition, relief facility 02 would parallel the north branch of the Rolling Hills Sub-Trunk, passing through Craig Park in the vicinity of the Fullerton Dam and the Fullerton Dry Reservoir. d Fourteen flood control facilities maintained by the Orange County Environmental Management Agency will be affected by the proposed relief facilities (see Appendix C for complete list). ' None of the proposed relief facilities will discharge into the Santa Ana -- River or any surface areas. No new forms of wastewater will be collected for treatment at the OCSD Treatment Plant No. 1. Therefore, water quality degradation of either the Santa Ana River or the treated wastewater at Treatment Plant No. 1 will not occur. During construction, open trenches and "jacking" tunnels used to lay v pipeline may encounter groundwater infiltration in areas of high groundwater. Open trenches will also collect rainfall and surface runoff during periods of rainfall. Increases or decreases of surface water percolation are not anticipated, - since the majority of the Improvements will be installed beneath surface streets or in areas previously disturbed. The proposed sewer along the OCTD right-of-way would be 15-30 feet underground and would not affect percolation except during construction. If this line is installed in conjunction with a new OCTD vehicular transitway, this presently uncovered right-of-way would be totally surfaced as a roadway, thereby decreasing local percolation. Feasibility studies are presently underway, by the Orange County Transit District, to evaluate alternative transit uses over this right-of-way. The final alternative selected may preclude joint use as an alignment for proposed relief facility number 15. if this were the case, the alternative alignment would follow existing surface streets and no permanent change in the absorption or run-off of stormwaters would occur. d Mitigation Measures 1 . The Orange County Environmental Management Agency - Development Services Section (flood control district) will review the proposed sewer construction projects affecting the Santa Ana River channel, the 3-5 Fullerton Dam area and all other affected County flood control facilities, along with project scheduling, when Orange County Sanitation District No. 2 applies for construction permits from the flood control district. The flood control district will require that construction is conducted in such a manner that there will be no adverse Impacts upon flood control facilities. Construction will not be allowed to occur at a time when It could impede flood flows, and will be limited to the summer months. m 2. CSDOC will apply for and comply with a Section 404 permit for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 3. All connections to the SARI line will be consistent with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers STEM project. 4. Relief facility 81 will be Installed In conjunction with the planned expansion of the flood control channel it will Ile beneath. S. Gasketed joints will be utilized to ensure watertight joints and minimize possible infiltration of perched groundwater to the sewerage system. w 6. Surface runoff will be handled by the existing storm drain system. Temporary sump pumps will be Installed to dispose of excess water collecting In open trenches or around the installed lines. Sandbagging or another appropriate method will be employed to protect open trenches from storm flows. 7. Groundwater infiltration can be controlled by portable sump pumps discharging into nearby storm drains or catch basins after desilting; these practices would be In accordance with a CSDOC's NPDES Y, de-watering discharge permit. ti w w w 3-6 3.3 Traffic/Circulation r This section will focus only on circulation routes that were not Identified in the 1983 Consolidated Master Plan of Trunk Sewers for Districts 2, 3 and it as alignments for needed sewer Improvements, but which are so Identified in the subject Amendment No. 1 to that 1983 Master Plan. Environmental Setting Relief Facility #6 (See Plate No. 4) would parallel the Orange Sub-Trunk, beginning at La Veta Avenue in the City of Orange, just east of the Santa Ana freeway, then traveling west under the freeway and under the Santa Ana River, to the SARI line in the westerly embankment of the river. A Class I regional bicycle trail and an equestrian trail are located on top of the river embankment. y _ Relief Facilities 3 and 8 would both be installed within Associated Road, just north of Yorba Linda Boulevard in the City of Fullerton. Associated Road is classified as a secondary arterial in this area, Intended to carry four thru-lanes of traffic within an 80-foot right-of-way. This particular segment carries a great deal of local commuter traffic, consisting primarily of local residents and students attending the Southern California College of v Optometry and the California State University, Fullerton. Relief Facility 610A would be Installed within the alignment of Ball Road, from Walnut Street on the east to the proposed relief trunk at Euclid Street, in the City of Anaheim. This segment of Ball Road is through a residential district. It is classified as a primary arterial, carrying two lanes of through traffic in each direction, within a 100 foot right-of-way. It is also an OCTD bus route. Relief Facility #10B would be installed within the alignment of Katella Avenue, from Walnut Street to the proposed relief trunk at Euclid Street, in the City of Anaheim. Katella Avenue is classified as a major arterial. However, in this area it contains only four thru-lanes, passing through both residential and mixed use areas. It is an OCTD bus route, also. w Relief Facility #12 would be installed within the alignment of Orangewood Avenue, from State College Boulevard to the SARI line at the Santa Ana River, in the City of Anaheim. This segment of Orangewood Avenue Is classified as a primary arterial, with four lanes of through traffic. It traverses a mixed use (commercial/residential) corridor, with parking along both sides of the street. It passes over the Orange freeway (State Route 57) and Santa Ana River. Relief Facility #13A would be installed within the alignment of Malvern Avenue, approximately in the block area between Highland Avenue and •' Malden Avenue, in the City of Fullerton. In this area, Malvern Avenue is a local street in a quiet, older, single-family neighborhood. Relief Facility #13B would be installed within the alignment of Woods Avenue, near Orangethorpe Avenue, in the City of Fullerton. Woods Avenue In this area is a residential collector street, crossing Orangethorpe Avenue, a major east-west arterial. v 3-7 Relief Facility #14 would involve the installation of about 4.5 miles of trunk sewer within the alignment of Euclid Street, through the Cities of Fullerton, Anaheim and Garden Grove. The affected segment extends from Orangethorpe Avenue in Fullerton on the north, to Orangewood Avenue in Garden Grove on the south. Classified as a primary arterial, Euclid Avenue in this area is a major north-south transportation route, carrying four lanes of through traffic and traversing a variety of residential, commercial and school uses. Several pockets of heavy commercial activity are found along this segment. Traffic is busy throughout the day and especially so during morning and late afternoon peak hours. Euclid Street, in this area, passes over the Santa Ana Freeway (1-5) and an adjacent rail line, and also passes beneath the Riverside Freeway (State Route 91). .e Two primary alignment alternatives are under consideration for proposed Relief Facility #15. The first alternative would start within the alignment of Euclid Street, from Orangewood Avenue to the OCTD right-of-way just south of Garden Grove Boulevard, In the City of Garden Grove. From there, it would be installed within the vacant, 100--wide OCTD right-of-way, traveling southeasterly through residential, commercial and industrial areas to the SARI line at the Santa Ana River. This segment of Euclid Street is also classified as a primary arterial with four heavily traveled thru-lanes traversing a fairly intensive mixed use corridor. The OCTD right-of-way follows the alignment of the old Pacific Electric Railway and crosses several arterial streets. It also passes beneath the Garden Grove Freeway (State Route 22) just south of Trask Avenue, in the City of Garden Grove. Major street crossings include: Trask Avenue, Westminster Avenue and Harbor .. Boulevard, all in the City of Garden Grove. It continues southeasterly, along the northerly boundary of the Willowicks Golf Course in Santa Ana, to the SARI line at the Santa Ana River. The second alternative would follow Euclid Street, from Orangewood Avenue (Anaheim) south to Edinger Avenue (Fountain Valley), then east to Newhope Street, south to Warner Avenue and finally east to the SARI line. 4, In this area, Edinger Avenue is classified as a primary arterial; Newhope Street is a secondary arterial; and Warner Avenue is a major arterial. Environmental Impacts Impacts to the circulation routes discussed above will be short-term, related to the construction activities involved in installing the proposed relief r facilities. Upon completion of each construction project, the affected roadways and trails will be restored to fully operable conditions and there -- will be no long-term effects to these circulation routes. Installation of the relief facilities referred to above will involve the excavation of a portion of the affected roadways, utilizing open trench construction . (which is the least expensive) in most cases. This will result in the closure of one or more traffic lanes at a time, depending on whether a sewer is laid along the edge or down the middle of a street and on the width of a street section in a particular construction zone. In some cases, access to private properties may be temporarily reduced while construction w 3-8 progresses in sequence along each affected roadway. Such disruptions will be more significant along the major arterials (Euclid Street, Ball Road and Katella Avenue) and less pronounced where shorter sewers and less traveled roadways are involved. To avoid disruption to the Santa Ana, Riverside and Garden Grove freeways, the relief facilities proposed to cross these regional transportation corridors will be tunnelled beneath the freeways. Using a technique known as "jacking", pipe will be lowered into a trench on one side of the freeway and pushed through the soil beneath the freeway to the other side. The bicycle and equestrian trails along the embankment of the Santa Ana River may be temporarily disrupted during installation of the sewer parallel to the Orange Sub-Trunk and its connection to the SARI line. It appears to be feasible to detour these trails around the construction area. Mitigation Measures 1 . Traffic control plans will be prepared by a qualified professional engineer, prior to the construction phase of each sewer line project as implementation proceeds. 2. Traffic control plans will consider the ability of alternative routes to carry additional traffic and identify the hours of construction, construction site truck access routes, and the type and location of warning signs, lights, and other traffic control devices. Consideration e will be given to maintaining access to commercial parking lots, private driveways and sidewalks, to the greatest extent feasible. 3. The County Sanitation Districts will comply with traffic control requirements, as identified by the affected local jurisdictions. 4. Encroachment permits for all work within public right-of-ways will be !' obtained from each involved agency prior to commencement of any construction. Agencies involved include: Caltrans, the Orange County Environmental Management Agency (Flood Control and Transportation Planning Divisions) and the Cities of Anaheim, Brea, Fullerton, Garden Grove and Santa Ana. 5. The CSDOC will coordinate the planning of Relief Facility #15 with the v Orange County Transit District's transitway planning program. If joint use of this right-of-way is determined to be feasible, every effort will be made to install the proposed sewer lines in advance of, or jointly with, the future OCTD transitway. This will greatly reduce both environmental impacts and construction costs. 6. Traffic control plans will comply with the Work Area Traffic Control w Handbook and/or the Manual of Traffic Controls as determined by eacIT affect local agency, to minimize any tra is and pedestrian hazards which exist during project construction. w 3-9 m 7. The construction technique for the implementation of the proposed sewer lines, such as tunneling, cut and cover with partial street closure, or cut and cover with full street closure, should include consideration of the ability of the roadway system, both the street in question and alternate routes, to carry existing traffic volumes during project construction. If necessary, adjacent parallel streets will be selected as alternate alignments for the proposed sewer improvements. Trunk sewers will be jacked under all major intersections, to avoid traffic disruption and congestion. 8. Public streets will generally be kept operational during construction, particularly in the morning and evening peak hours of traffic. 9. Public roadways will be restored to their existing condition after project construction is completed. 10. The CSDOC will attempt to schedule construction of relief facilities to ' occur jointly with other public works projects already planned in the affected locations, through careful coordination with all local agencies 'tl involved. .d r r 3-10 e d 3.4 Land Use and Population Environmental Setting The study area includes all or portions of the Cities of Anaheim, Brea, Fountain Valley, Fullerton, Garden Grove, Orange, Placentia, Santa Ana, Villa Park and Yorba Linda along with unincorporated areas of northeastern Orange County. The total land area involved is approximately 134 square miles. North Orange County has long been recognized as an attractive area in which to live and work. The area Is already mostly urbanized, and rapid _+ growth is occurring in the central and northern portions of the study area. Several large-scale residential developments are currently under d construction in the Cities of Anaheim and Yorba Linda along the Santa Ana Canyon corridor. These developments consist of 500+ acre ranch developments with over 1 ,000 dwelling units each, plus supporting commercial services. Several new ranch developments are also planned and will be developed In the area through the Year 2005. Increased industrial development is also planned for the study area. The Northeast Industrial Area in East Anaheim is expected to experience growth in the form of new construction of research and development (R and D) industrial parks. Also, several high-use office developments are planned for this area. m The central portion of the study area is highly urbanized with existing residential, commercial and Industrial land uses. There has been increased hotel development in and around the commercial/recreational areas near Disneyland, and additional hotel rooms are planned for the area. Also, the Anaheim Stadium area will be further expanded to include additional high-rise commercial office complexes. The proposed sewer Improvements in the study area will occur primarily In urbanized areas and mostly along streets in both residential and commercial areas. Relief Facility #15 would follow an existing undeveloped OCTD easement, cutting through residential, industrial and commercial areas. Relief Facility A2 would parallel the Rolling Hills Sub-Trunk within Craig Park, a regional park facility just west of the Orange freeway in Brea. Relief Facility A6 would parallel the Orange Sub-Trunk as it crosses the Santa Ana River, just west of the interchange of the 1-5 and 57 freeways. The existing population for the study area, based on the January 1, 1986, State Department of Finance (DOF) estimates is approximately 979,422 persons. This figure is comprised of the total populations of the Cities of Anaheim, Brea, Fountain Valley, Fullerton, Garden Grove, Orange, Placentia, Santa Ana, Villa Park and Yorba Linda. The figure is a high estimate because portions of several of these communities are outside of the boundaries of the study area. 3-11 r The projected population for the study area may be determined by referring to SCAG's 1982 Growth Forecast Policy. Projected population by Regional Statistical Areas for District 2 (Areas 35, 36, 37 and 41) is approximately 970,000 persons by the Year 2000. This figure is dated, r however, when compared to the latest DOF statistics cited above. The future (Year 2005) resident population within the study area that the proposed sewer Improvements are designed to accommodate, can be estimated by assuming a future average household size, multiplied by the future number of housing units. Table 1 , following, illustrates the estimated Year 2005 Study Area population using updated local General Plan Land Use Element projections and SCAG's predicted Year 2000 average household size. In the next 15-20 years, it is estimated that over 1 ,130,000 persons will be living within the study area. In addition to the future resident population, the proposed sewer Improvements are intended to accommodate the future employment population within the study area. Major tourist, recreation and convention facilities will also add to the total population within the study area. Utilizing updated local General Plan data and studies by the Urban Land Institute, along with City of Anaheim figures for the Anaheim Stadium, Anaheim Convention Center and Disneyland, it is estimated that nearly 495,000 persons will be Q, employed within or visiting the study area on a daily basis, in 20 years. (See Table 2, following.) r r r r 3-12 r H fl [ fl H [ 1 ! l 1 [ H H 1 ! 1 1 1 H TABLE 1 STUDY AREA PROJECTED RESIDENTIAL POPULATION Land Use Category Area (Acres)1 D.U./Acre)2 Dwelling Units Persons per D.U. Total Persons Estate Density Residential 11 ,716 2 23,432 2.7 63,266 Low Density Residential 28,382 5 141 ,910 2.7 383,157 Medium Density Residential 6,930 14 97,020 2.7 261 ,954 High Density Residential 2,458 26 63,908 2.7 172,522 Very High Density Residential 2,481 38 94,278 2.7 254,551 TOTAL 51 ,967 420,548 1,135,480 W W 1 From Amendment No. 1 to the Consolidated Master Plan of Trunk Sewers for County Sanitation Districts 2, 3 and 11 -- Euclid/Newhope-Placentia Drainage Area. Land use distribution based on 15-20 year land use plans for each of the local jurisdictions In the study area. 2 D.U. per acre based on average d.u./acre for each land use category for the ten (10) communities located in the study area. 3 Based on SCAG '82 Growth Forecast Policy, Year 2000. TABLE 2 m FUTURE DAILY EMPLOYMENT AND TOURIST/ RECREATION POPULATION Employees2 Total Land Use Category Area (Acres)1 Per Acre Persons Commercial/Office 6,643 14 93,002 High Rise Commercial/Office 1 ,491 30 44,730 Industrial/Manufacturing 8,702 22 191 ,444 Open Space -0- -0- -0- Other Anaheim Stadium (Maximum Capacity) 70,500 Disneyland (Average Daily Attendance, Summer) 45,000 Anaheim Convention Center (All halls Occupied.) 50,000 TOTAL 494,676 1 Future (Year 2005) land use distribution compiled from local General Plans as reported in Amendment No. 1 to the Consolidated Master Plan of Trunk Sewers for County Sanitation Districts 2, 3 and 11 -- Euclid/ Newhope-Placentia Drainage Area. 2 ULI - Urban Land Institute Office Development Handbook (1982) and Industrial Development Handbook (1975). Impacts Impacts to existing land uses in the study area will be short-term and unavoidable. These impacts will consist primarily of increased noise, fugitive dust and traffic disruption associated with the operation of construction equipment and vehicles. As previously mentioned, a majority of the sewer Improvements in the study area will occur within existing street right-of-ways and along easements already dedicated to sewers. Nevertheless, disruptions in the study area will occur. For example, commercial areas (e.g. Disneyland, Canyon Plaza) may be impacted by construction projects, should their access ways or parking areas be disrupted or blocked. Also, certain recreational uses, Including the Willowick Municipal Golf Course in Santa Ana and the bicycle trail along the Santa Ana River, will be disrupted somewhat during m construction of proposed sewers in those areas. 3-14 Additional impacts may occur as the result of a sewer line backing up ,., for some unforeseen reason. However, the likelihood of this happening Is considered minimal because the proposed sewer lines are gravity flow and because effluents will continue to be discharged through existing sewer lines and will not have to be diverted. Mitigation Measures v, 1. The proposed District 2 Improvements will be coordinated by the CSDOC and the affected Orange County (EMA) and municipal agencies, to determine the most appropriate location for the sewer Improvements and to minimize construction impacts as much as possible. Said coordination should also include the phasing of additional street and transitway Improvements at the same time the sewer improvements are made. 2. All construction activities will be required to conform to the limitations imposed by each affected local government. 3. The exact location of new sewer lines should be determined In a manner that results In the least disruption along existing arterial streets and highways. Access to commercial centers and parking areas will be maintained to the greatest extent feasible. .d 4. Consideration will be given to scheduling construction projects in order to avoid noise impacts to more sensitive land uses in the study area (i.e. schools, churches, residential areas). w Mitigation measures concerning the undercrossing of the Santa Ana River and traffic disruption are provided In the appropriate chapters within this report. d 3-15 3.5 Public Services and Utilities Existing Environmental Setting The proposed trunk sewers will be located near the following utility agency facilities: Energy Southern California Edison Company Southern California Gas Company Telephone Pacific Bell Telephone Company Water Orange County Water District Yorba Linda County Water District Serrano Irrigation District Santa Ana Water District .ti City of Anaheim City of Brea City of Fountain Valley City of Fullerton City of Garden Grove Sewer .. Garden Grove Sanitary District Cable Television Media Cable Century Cable !, Rogers Cable System Cable Vision of Orange City Cable Yorba Linda Cable T.V. m Environmental Impacts Letters, including a map and tabular description of the proposed sewer improvements, were sent to each of the above agencies to ascertain their concerns regarding potential impacts to their facilities. Not all agencies responded; however their comments and concerns were generally very similar m and are summarized below. Please refer to Appendix C for a copy of those responses that were received. G 3-16 Most of the utility companies within the study area own facilities, either ,p underground or overhead, within the areas proposed for sewer improvements. Since precise engineering plans, which include the exact location of the proposed sewers, have not been prepared, it is not yet possible to ascertain what specific utilities will be affected. However, many a underground utility facilities will be unearthed or temporarily removed during pipeline construction efforts. Careful planning and coordination with the various utility agencies and the Underground Service Alert of Southern d California will be necessary to avoid destruction to underground facilities and to provide for interim utility service delivery until construction is complete. Mitigation Measures 1 . The CSDOC will coordinate with the Underground Service Alert of ." Southern California and with all local municipal and utility agencies during preparation of engineering plans for the proposed sewer Improvements. Plans will Incorporate measures to avoid alignment with intensive existing underground facilities to insure adequate spacing m between sewer, water and other utility lines and to provide for an alternate service delivery system, if necessary, during project construction activities. Encroachment permits from each municipal agency will be required prior to commencing work within public right-of-ways. 2. Construction activities will be constantly monitored by trained .d professionals to help minimize the potential for damage to underground facilities found in an unexpected location. 3. Plans, specifications and construction activities will be in accordance with the following manuals prepared by the CSDOC: -- "General Provisions and Standard Specifications for 1984" -- "Standard Requirements for the Construction of Sanitary Sewers" (1979) 4. Underground facilities which must be temporarily removed during construction and replaced thereafter will be stored and replaced at CSDOC's expense. d 3-17 3.6 Energy .� Environmental Setting Energy consumption within the District No. 2 sewage collection system consists only of electrical energy consumed in operating three pumping stations. Indirect energy consumption occurs in treating effluents downstream at the Joint Works Wastewater Treatment and Disposal facility. a, The District currently owns and operates three (3) pumping stations in the Study Area. Two of these pumping stations will be closed as a result of the proposed sewer improvements in the Study Area. Construction of the Fullerton-Brea Interceptor to relieve the Fullerton-Brea Purchase will allow the Rolling Hills Pumping Station to be taken out of service. Also, the Installation of a new gravity sewer will allow the Carbon Canyon Dam Pumping Station to be taken out of service. The Yorba Linda Pumping Station is the third pumping station In the District and the only one scheduled to continue operation. The Yorba Linda Pumping Station is a wet well/dry well facility that contains three pumps m operated in parallel. This facility pumps flows from the Rolling Hills Sub-trunk and the Pioneer Branch sewers to the Carbon Canyon Interceptor. It is also used to pump peak flows from the Cypress Sub-trunk. This station has sufficient capacity to handle projected average and peak effluent flows from the Rolling Hills Sub-trunk and Pioneer Branch sewers. In Fiscal Year 1985-86, the total utility cost fo{ energy consumption within the District 2 trunk sewer system, was $54,708. Environmental Impacts Short-Term Short-term energy impacts will result from construction of the proposed facilities and will Include the following: 1 . Increased petroleum-based fuel consumption by construction vehicles ® and equipment. 2. Vehicle fuel used by workers travelling to and from construction sites. Long-Term Energy consumption within the District 2 trunk system is expected to decrease as the result of the installation of the proposed trunk sewer improvements. Relief facilities to District 2 will consist primarily of parallel gravity-flow trunk sewer lines which do not require flow assistance from additional pumping stations. Moreover, the District plans to close two 1 County Sanitation Districts of Orange County, Final budget, 1986-87 Fiscal Year. d 3-18 pumping stations (Rolling Hills Pumping Station and Carbon Canyon Dam Pumping Station). These pumping stations will no longer be needed once the `tl proposed sewer improvements have been completed. This would result in overall reduced energy consumption and utility costs for the District. However, the remaining pump station (Yorba Linda Pumping Station) will d consume more energy and become more costly to operate on a daily basis because it will be pumping additional wastewater due to urban growth in that area over the next 15-20 years. Although energy consumption within the collection facilities of District 2 Is expected to decline somewhat greater energy consumption will occur at the Joint Works Treatment facilities as a result of increase in total effluent to be m, discharged from District 2, resulting from additional growth approved by the various local agencies with land use authority. The Southern California Edison Company, which is the regional supplier of electrical energy to the CSDOC, is anticipating ongoing increases in demand over the next 20 years. It is planning to expand its facilities to meet this demand, but the added costs will be passed onto its customers, including the CSDOC. Mitigation Measures 1 . Construction equipment and vehicles will be maintained in good operating condition. 2. Long-term increases in energy consumption at the Joint Works facilities are unavoidable. However, extra attention to energy conserving technology used in the design of expansions to the Joint Works facilities will help reduce the rate of Increase. The CSDOC is presently considering the development of a central electricity generating facility at the Joint Works facilities. This would involve, for example, a methane recovery system which would convert methane gas to electrical energy, on-site, which could be used within the treatment facilities, thereby reducing the amount of electricity to be purchased from the Southern California Edison Company. e 3-19 r 3.7 Cost/Revenue Estimated Costs The estimated capital costs to construct the proposed relief facilities are presented in Table 3, on the following page. Priorities for construction of the recommended facilities are based on the current severity of each projected deficiency and other considerations such as coordination with planned construction activities along the route of the proposed facilities. The most critical deficiencies requiring Immediate corrective measures are those on the South Anaheim Interceptor, Newhope-Placentia Trunk and the Euclid Truck/Euclid Purchase sewers. These lines are presently subject to surcharge conditions and are subject to increased flows from intensified development in tributary areas. Improvements for relieving deficiencies in these critical sections are recommended for construction within the next five-year period and will require a total of approximately 57,000 feet of new sewers and nearly $25 million in capital costs. The balance of the proposed Improvements are recommended to occur subsequent to 1991. The timing for their construction will be based on correcting the projected deficiencies as they begin to occur. Total capital ,. costs for those facilities are estimated at $9.0 million. Ongoing facilities maintenance and operating (M and O) costs for the entire District 2 trunk sewer system are projected to range frfm $724,000 in Fiscal Year 1986-1987 to $1 ,268,000 in Fiscal Year 1990-1991 . These costs include the following administrative, field work and utility costs: trunk maintenance, pump station maintenance, manhole repair, permit and industrial waste administration, connection fee administration, inter-district sewer use charges, bond collection expenses, tax collection expenses, Investment administration and banking fees, utilities, professional services, director's fees, office and printing costs, etc. Based on the budgeted maintenance costs for the existing trunk sewer system of $140,000, it is estimated that the proposed relief facilities would ,r add approximately $15,000 to the annual M and O costs (at current dollar value). This estimate focuses only on the costs added by new trunk sewers not presently In place. These additional costs would be primarily for Increased maintenance of the more heavily utilized Yorba Linda Pumping station, for a larger number of manholes to repair and for an expanded program of trunk sewer clean-outs. e 1 Ffnai Budget, 1986-1987 Fiscal Year, County Sanitation Districts of CI _range ounty. 3-20 TABLE 3 ESTIMATED CAPITAL COSTS Total Diameter Length of Relieves of Relief Relief Capital Deficiency Sewer Sewer Cost Designation Description No. (in) (ft) fS) Santa Ana River System 1 Construct sewer to divert all flows (4.84 mgd average; 7.60 mgd peak) from Atwood-Orchard Subtrunk on Orangethorpe Avenue near Willow Woods Drive to SARI in La Palma Avenue. 1 24,21 1,300 208,100 2 Construct parallel sewer to entire North Branch of Rolling Hills subtrunk. 2 1s 1,160 137,800 N 3 Construct parallel sewer to Rolling Hills subtrunk immediately upstream of Yorba Linda Pump Station. 3 15 720 85,500 4 Construct parallel sewer to Lincoln-Batavia Trunk from Station 97+95 to Batavia Street. 4 12 2,280 213,800 5 Construct parallel sewer to Taft Branch from Santiago 12,15, Boulevard to Glassell Street. 5 18,21 10,780 1 ,277,000 6 Construct parallel sewer to Orange subtrunk from Santa Ana Freeway to SARI. 6 21 ,24 1 ,530 277,300 7 Construct parallel sewer to SARI from Station 913+50 24,30,36 to Grove Street. 7, 8 39,45 22,510 6,696,000 Newhope-Placentia System 8 Construct parallel sewer to Cypress Subtrunk from Bastanchury Road to diversion to Yorba Linda Pump Station. 9 12 1 ,590 149,100 Table 3 (Cont.) Total Diameter Length of Relieves of Relief Relief Capital Deficiency Sewer Sewer Cost Designation Description No. (in) (ft) M Newhope-Placentia System (Cont.) 9 Divert 2.00 mgd average (3.70 mgd peak) flow to Carbon Canyon Interceptor from Cypress Subtrunk 10, 11 , at Yorba Linda Pump Station. 14, 15 -- -- 10a Construction sewer to divert 9.80 mgd average (14.50 mgd peak) flow from South Anaheim Inter- ceptor at Ball Road to Euclid Trunk at Ball Road. 12 30 4,000 1 ,100,000 10b Construct sewer to divert 7.24 mgd average (11 .00 mgd peak) flow from South Anaheim Interceptor at Katella Avenue to Euclid Trunk at Katella Avenue. 12 27 4,000 975,000 w N 11 Construct sewer parallel to Bolsa Trunk from Harbor ^' Boulevard to Newhope Street. 13 15 2,750 326,600 12 Construct sewer to divert 10.00 mgd average (14.80 mgd peak) flow from Newhope-Placentia Trunk at 16, 17 Orangewood Avenue to SARI at Orangewood Avenue. 18 33 3,000 918,000 Euclid System 13a Construct diversion facility for all flow (2.34 mgd average; 3.90 mgd peak) from Fullerton-Brea Pur- chase to Fullerton-Brea Interceptor at their crossing 19 at Malvern Avenue. (Partial) -- -- ** 13b Construct diversion facility for 2.55 mgd average (4.21 mgd peak) flow from Fullerton-Brea Purchase to Fullerton-Brea Interceptor at Woods Avenue. Upsize Fullerton-Brea Interceptor to 48-inch diameter 19 downstream. (Partial) -- -- ** A fl E A ' Ti H A t fl H Table 3 (Cont.) Total Diameter Length of Relieves of Relief Relief Capital Deficiency Sewer Sewer Cost Designation Description No. (in) (ft) ($) Euclid System (Cont.) 14 Construct sewer parallel to Euclid Trunk from 39, 42 Orangethorpe Avenue to Orangewood Avenue. 20, 21 45, 48, Abandon Euclid Purchase over same distance. (Partial) 54 23,790 10,153,000 15 Construct sewer to divert 35.65 mgd average (47.68 mgd peak) flow from Euclid Trunk at Orangewood Avenue to SARI along route of Euclid Avenue and OCTD right-of-way. Abandon Euclid Purchase over 21 same portion of Euclid Avenue. (Partial) 54, 78 20,840 $11 ,626,0001 w 100,250 TOTALS (18.99 mi.) $34,143,200 w 1 Lowest cost alternative. Highest estimated cost alternative at this time is $18,505,000. • Capital costs are relatively minor. An increase in operational cost would occur due to increased pumping and power consumption. ** Relief facilities 13a and 13b can be incorporated into the design and construction of the Fullerton-Brea Interceptor with the associated costs to be included therein. Source: Amendment No. 1 to the Consolidated Master Plan of Trunk Sewers for County Sanitation Districts 2, 3 and 11 , uc ew ope - Placentia Drainage rea. Willclan ssocates, October 198 The District 2 share of annual M and O expenses for the Joint Works treatment facilities would rise considerably over the next 15-20 years, due to increasing sewage treatment demands stemming from the urban growth projected in the various local General Plans within the District 2 service area. Revenue Sources Several revenue sources are available to finance the capital and '-z operating costs associated with the subject program of deficiency correction facilities. Current sources of revenue include: 1 . Taxes a. Allocation at the CSDOC's pro rata share of the maximum 1% basic property tax allowed under Proposition 13. Each district collects ^ an average of $.03 for each $1.00 of the basic levy. b. Funds collected to make voter-approved outstanding general +, obligation bond principal and Interest payments. Under Jarvis-Gann, this type of tax levy is not restricted. 2. Federal/State Construction Grants r The Federal Environmental Protection Agency and State Water Resources Control Board have historically funded up to 87}$ of treatment plant construction for approved projects. These funds could also be applied to the construction of new trunk sewers and other collection facilities. Future grants from these sources may not be at the 87J% level, however, based on recent funding at a 30% level. Also, �+ while EPA and the SWRCB normally fund a portion of construction facilities for a higher degree of treatment, the added on-going operating costs must be paid for entirely by the local community. Federal grants, as a source of capital construction financing, is considered highly unlikely at this point. This is due to the fact that trunk sewer collection systems are very low on the list of project s+ priorities and also since many other California projects are already much higher up on the list of approved projects. 3. Fees District No. 2 collects both connection and annexation fees from system users. In addition, industrial waste users fees and supplemental users fees are collected. Such fees could be increased, if necessary, to meet some of the funding requirements to support the proposed deficiency connection facilities. 4. Interest and Other Income These revenues consist primarily of interest income from the Investment of accumulated construction reserves and other miscellaneous Items. 3-24 e 5. Carry Over and Reserves These revenues consist primarily of accumulated construction reserves for financing improved treatment facilities mandated by federal law and the master planned trunk sewer system of District No. 2. Also .d included are operating fund contingency reserves and authorized general reserves for the tax revenue cash flow dry period. According to C.S.D.O.C.'s Finance Director, District 2 is very stable financially, and will have adequate capital funds and future connection fee revenues to absorb the costs of the facilities Involved in the proposed project. It is anticipated that, in keeping with past practice, it will not be Q, necessary to establish new benefit assessment districts to finance the trunk sewer improvements. Existing C.S.D.O.C. budget projections already - allocate sufficient funds to build needed District capital facilities for the next five years. Beyond that, as stated above, revolving capital funds and connection fees will produce sufficient revenue to finance District 2 capital improvement and maintenance and operations requirements. m is w _. 3-25 3.8 - Consistency With Other Relevant Plans SCAG 82 Growth Forecast The State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) specifies that all wastewater facilities must be designed to meet the needs of normal anticipated growth with a reasonable reserve capacity. The SWRCB requires that facilities are designed in accordance with the latest population projections of the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), stipulating that population projections must be consistent with forecasts used in the Area-wide Air Quality Maintenance Plan and the Area-wide Waste Treatment Management Plan (Section 208) developed under mandate of the s, Federal Clean Water Act. The current region-wide growth forecast is known as "SCAG 82". The SCAG 82 population forecast for the Year 2000, for the regional statistical areas (RSA's) that comprise the subject study area, is approximately 970,000 persons. This estimate is strongly discounted by California Department of Finance estimates as of Janrary 1 , 1986, of over 970,000 persons already residing in the study area. As discussed in Section 2.4 of this report, the study area resident population is projected to grow to over 1 ,130,000 by the Year 2005, based on updated local General Plan projections. SCAG is currently revising its growth forecasts, in recognition of the accelerated growth trends throughout the region. It is expected that the population forecasts for the subject study area will be increased to reflect the same land use projections now adopted by these local governments. ti Master Plan for Joint Works Wastewater Treatment and Disposal Facilities The County Sanitation Districts of Orange County (CSDOC) have m� provided wastewater collection, treatment, and disposal services for northwestern Orange County for over 30 years. CSDOC is made up of eight separate sanitation districts which serve all or part of 23 cities. See Figure 5 following. Each District is governed by a Board of Directors of elected officials representing the cities or sanitary districts within the District and a member of the Board of Supervisors. The Districts service area Includes 353 square miles of highly developed land, containing approximately 85 percent t-+ of the County's population, about 2.1 million persons. The service area's population of nearly 1.8 million persons has grown from 200,000 since the inception of CSDOC, and wastewater flows have increased from about 30 m million gallons per day (mgd) to approximately 250 mgd. CSDOC's wastewater treatment facilities constitute the third largest wastewater treatment system on the Pacific Coast. The facilities include .� approximately 600 miles of major interceptor sewers, 200 miles of subtrunks, 33 pump stations and two large treatment plants collectively referred to as I Combined total population of 10 cities within the study area. 2 Contains excerpts from the Joint Treatment Works Wastewater Master Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report, Executive Summary, Marc 1985, y . in Strom an ssoc ates. 3-26 I FIGURE 5 1 y CSDOC MEMBER DISTRICT BOUNDARIES 140 v l W i dII hr� s� rd` W W ew W 3-27 �CLL[] LOY�T] LA NABRA .. eaEA BOO ]� J FULLERTON O TO LINDA �. PLACENTIA NIV ENS10f r.]Y % A BUENA P Ar ue PARK ANAHEIY ♦ O a CYPRESS VILLA PA ILOS♦ '4 IALANITOS STANTON `ORANGE 13 \ aano GROVE EN .t SEAL IW IN rw, + TVSfIN —\ s O ry i wy a SANTA ANA 11 HUNTINGTON BEACH ed COSTA `v( MESA � IRVINE 78- INCH OCEAN OUTF O NE3YPORT r 120- INCH BEACH ` OCEAN OUTF ---- SerAce Area Boundary Clsolct Boundary .Q north County Sanitation Districts of Focused EIR Figure Amendment No, 1 Orange County Master Plan of Trunk Sewers Member Districts detrld 2 CouHy SMIUrHon DlW cl of OWW CowHy J-27 the Joint Works Facilities. The facilities consist of Reclamation Plant No. 1 in Fountain Valley, Treatment Plant No. 2 in Huntington Beach, various interplant facilities to transfer flows from Plant No. 1 to Plant No. 2 and an ocean outfall effluent disposal system. These facilities are operated, maintained and administered by a staff of over 300 persons. Only municipal, commercial, and industrial wastewaters enter this system, with each District providing the required trunk sewers for Individual drainage areas. Local jurisdictions (cities and sanitary districts) are still responsible for providing collector sewer systems for individual parcels which then connect to the CSDOC system. The Orange County Flood Control District owns and operates a separate extensive local storm drain system, not connected to the CSDOC sewer system, designed to accommodate surface and storm runoff and eliminate inflow Into the sewer. The currently adopted Master Plan for the Joint Works Facilities addresses the SCAG '82 forecast for urban growth within the member districts through the Year 2003. However, specific projects to meet projected wastewater needs are constructed to meet needs on a five-year Incremental basis. As the need for treatment facilities to meet both capacity and level of treatment demands is experienced, the Districts will respond through an on-going construction program. The current Master Plan provides for facility improvements and expansion needed to treat an estimated wastewater flow of 270 mgd in 1988. The Master Plan estimates a .. total flow rate of about 307 mgd by the Year 2003. As discussed earlier in this chapter, however, the SCAG growth forecasts for the study area, for the Year 2000, have already been exceeded. The subject Amendment No. 1 to the adopted Master Plan of Trunk Sewers for Districts 2, 3 and it is based upon updated and revised growth forecasts for the local communities within District 2. Based on that ,e analysis peak, wastewater flows for District 2 alone are expected to Increase to over 191 mgd by the Year 2005. This represents a 5 mgd increase over projected peak flows calculated in the 1983 Updated and Consolidated Master Plan of Trunk Sewers for Districts 2, 3 and 11 . The difference in estimated future flows are attributable to recently adopted General Plan land use changes, which have Increased growth forecasts within the Euclid and Newhope-Placentia Systems while decreasing the estimated future flows within .„ the SARI system. Due to this unanticipated level of growth in wastewater flows, it will be necessary to Include these projections in the next update of the Joint Works Master Plan, to insure adequate planning for the necessary short- and long-term expansions to the Joint Works Waste Treatment and Disposal Facilities. Air Quality Management Plan The Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) and the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) have adopted an Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) for the South Coast Air Basin. The District includes all of the Counties of Los Angeles, Orange and Riverside and the non-desert portion of San Bernardino County. Sanitation Districts 2, 3 and 11 are included in the AQMP. 3-28 The latest versions of the AQMP recommend the implementation of control measures for sewer construction, including the following: 1 . Controlling fugitive dust by regular watering, paving construction roads or other dust palliative measures to meet District Rule 403, 2. Maintaining equipment engines in proper tune. _ 3. Phasing and scheduling construction activities to level emission peaks. 4. Discontinuing construction during first and second stage smog alerts. 5. Maintaining emission control standards for equipment engines In conformance with District Rule 1110.1. The implementation of the amended sewer plan for District 2 is not expected to have an appreciable effect on air quality In the study area. What impacts that may occur will be temporary, lasting only during the period of construction. All of the above control measures will be utilized. r Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board Basin Plan The Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board (SARWQCB), which has jurisdiction over the study area, is one of nine regional boards established throughout the state. As authorized by the California Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act, the board is responsible for ,e regional water quality control within the Santa Ana region. Additionally, the Regional Board is designated as the state water pollution control agency for all purposes stated in the federal Water Pollution Control Act. The SARWQCB recently updated their Basin Plan; the objective of which is to show how the quality of the surface and ground waters in the Santa Ana Region would be controlled to provide the maximum benefit possible. r, The Regional Board Implements the basin plan by Issuing and enforcing waste discharge regulations to individuals, communities or businesses whose discharges can affect water quality. These regulations can be either Waste Discharge Requirements for discharges to land, or National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits for discharges to surface waters. Collection and treatment of additional sewage, as proposed in the subject amended Master Sewer Plan for District 2, would be consistent with the adopted Basin Plan and with CSDOC's NPDES operating permit. In addition, the de-watering of pipeline trenches and tunnels and disposal of that de-silted water into local storm drains, during project construction, will conform to CSDOC'S NPDES de-watering permit. Impacts on School Facilities The proposed sewer facilities are intended to correct deficiencies in the existing and currently planned system of trunk sewers within the study e. area. Much of the basis for the identified deficiencies is related to previously unforeseen Intensive urban growth occurring in the central and 3-29 northern portions of the study area. This urban growth includes additional residential development not previously anticipated in the existing Master Plan ® of Trunk Sewers. Associated with the additional residential growth, of course, will be heavier demands for school facilities at all levels. That demand is a function of planned growth in accordance with local agency General Plans and is not a consequence of the proposed sewer facilities. r 3-30 4.0 Topical Issues 4.1 Growth Inducing Impacts The purpose of the proposed project is to construct an expanded sewer network in response to a demonstrated need for an improved sewer capacity in the project area. The proposed sewer improvements will be constructed in areas which are already substantially urbanized and are not proposed to extend Into undeveloped areas. Undeveloped parcels are scattered throughout the project's service areas and are currently available for development regardless of the implementation of the proposed sewer improvements. The proposed sewer lines have been sized to accommodate the level of development envisioned within the General Plans of the various local jurisdictions to be served by the proposed project. All development of land in the area will be consistent with the growth forecast of the various applicable General Plans and will likely occur independently of the timing of the proposed project. In this way, the proposed sewer improvements can be viewed as growth accommodating measures designed to accommodate projected levels of development. The project will enable the area to better support existing and planned development. Potential impacts associated with development in this portion of Orange County d are projected in the appropriate local General Plans and accommodated by adopted policies within these plans. 4.2 The Relationship Between Local Short-Term Uses of Man's nvjronment and the Maintenance and Enhancement - ofon - arm rr—0cructrvity Implementation of the proposed project would result in Impacts on the local environment that would affect both short-term uses and long-term productivity. While the short-term effects may seem generally adverse (construction impacts and commitment of resources), d the long-term effects should prove beneficial to the productivity of the environment and welfare of the public. The project should not effect the ultimate disposition or use of the area and can be viewed as a remedial action to correct deficiencies in the current sewage disposal system by eliminating future sewage disposal capacity shortfalls. In the construction phase, the project would create short-term employment opportunities for persons employed in the pipeline construction industry. In addition, the construction activities would produce certain localized environmental impacts from construction equipment generating noise, 'fumes and dust. Construction activities would also cause disruptions to localized traffic circulation during the period of project construction. These impacts, while potentially annoying to commuters and neighboring residents, would cease upon completion of the construction phase and, as such, would not adversely affect the maintenance and enhancement of the long-term productivity of the area. 4-1 The ability to adequately and safely transport projected volumes of wastewater for treatment would help ensure the continuation of mandated health and environmental standards into the future. The proposed improvements to the sewage system would constitute a long-term commitment by the County Sanitation District of Orange County to treat and safely discharge the wastewater generated in the project area. This commitment Is consistent with the CSDOC's policy of responding to planned urban growth and will thereby enhance the long-term productivity, i.e, developability of land in the project area. 4.3 Any Si nificant Irreversible Environmental Changes Which Would be nvo v m t e roposed Action Shouicl it De Implemented The implementation of the proposed project would result in very few irreversible environmental changes. The proposed sewer lines are considered permanent improvements to the area, but the project does m not involve the irreversible commitment of land nor changes in land use. The project should not directly influence or change the environmental character of the area, as it does not involve any significant long-term changes in landform, biological resources, noise levels, air quality or local traffic. The materials and energy utilized In the construction of the new sewer lines would be irreversibly committed to the project. Increased consumption of resources and energy would also be a consequence of the treatment of wastewater generated by the newly serviced areas. 4.4 Alternatives The subject project is a preliminary engineering analysis that consists of an extensive review of local General Plan growth forecasts (through May, 19661 and the operating conditions and capacities within the existing facilities and current Master Plan of Trunk Sewers within Orange County Sanitation District No. 2. Since it is the policy of the CSDOC to provide sewage collection and treatment facilities to accommodate planned urban growth, it is not appropriate to discuss an alternative to the subject project that does not include the same growth forecasts as does the subject project. It is also beyond the scope of this analysis to devise an alternative approach to identifying and relieving deficiencies in the District 2 trunk sewer system. This evaluation of project alternatives, therefore, will be limited to a comparison of the environmental effects of the proposed project and the "no-project" alternative, which is the existing Master Plan of Trunk Sewers for Districts 2, 3 and 11 . Land Use The project is based on an ultimate level of urban development in accordance with current General Plans and Specific Plans adopted by the local agencies within District 2. The existing Master Plan of Trunk Sewers ("no-project") was based on an update to the 1975 CSDOC Ultimate Land Use Plan, using land use projections from the 1963 local General Plan and zoning maps. The major differences between the two land use projections are in the land use categories utilized, and the waste flow coefficient used for some of the land use categories. 4-2 The subject Amendment No. 1 utilized a higher per acre flow coefficient for low density residential, based on recent increases in ® density in this category; similarly the project calculated flows for 2,481 acres of a very high density residential category that were not considered in the 1983 Master Plan. The project estimated flows from 1,491 acres of a high-rise commercial/office category that were not considered in the 1983 Master Plan. Also, the project estimated flows for Anaheim Stadium, Disneyland and the Anaheim Convention Center based on actual capacity and average attendance figures; the ® "no-project" apparently lumped these flows into the commercial and recreation and open space categories. The net result of these different land use and flow coefficient assumptions is that the project identified additional capacity shortfalls In several areas, which were not Identified in the 1983 Master Plan. The difference amounts to approximately 5 mgd of additional ultimate daily flows through the SARI, Newhope-Placentia and Euclid Trunk Sewers, and establishes the need for the proposed trunk sewer facilities. Impacts to residential, commercial, industrial, open space and recreational uses, related to sewer construction activities, would be similar in nature and severity, for both the project and ""no-project"" alternatives. Although different areas are proposed for correction of existing and future deficiencies, nuisance noise, dust, fumes and traffic disruption would occur with approximately equal severity for either alternative. Traffic, Energy, Public Services/Utilities and Growth Inducement Different traffic routes are involved in the project and "no-project" alternatives. Both would disrupt busy arterial streets as well as lesser traveled routes. The extent and severity of such disruptions will be very similar in either case. The proposed project would involve four freeway undercrossings, whereas the "no-project" alternative would require two. Such undercrossings utilize tunneling to avoid interference with the freeway corridor, so there is no appreciable r difference in environmental impacts. Impacts to overhead and underground utility and public service lines will also occur with similar extent and severity, although in different locations. It is possible that, after careful right-of-way consultation with affected public and utility agencies, alternative routes will be selected to avoid certain unacceptable disruptions to traffic and r utility services. Both the proposed project and the "no-project" alternatives are _r intended to provide adequate sewer collection facilities to accommodate forecasted urban growth within District 2. Neither project would be growth inducing, since new trunk sewers will only be extended to areas where government entitlements for urban development have been issued. r 4-3 r The project would result in a somewhat lower energy consumption within the District No. 2 collection system than the no-project r alternative, due to the elimination of two pumping stations. Since both the project and "no-project" alternatives would provide facilities to collect greater quantities of wastewater, both alternatives would discharge greater quantities of District 2 effluents for treatment at the Joint Works facilities. In either case, greater energy consumption in the operation of the Joint Works Waste Treatment Facilities would result. Biological Resources (Santa Ana River) The proposed project would involve greater alteration of the Santa Ana River Channel than the 1983 Master Plan of Trunk Sewers. This is due to the proposed sewer to run parallel to the Orange Sub-trunk, which crosses beneath the Santa Ana River just north of the Interchange of the Santa Ana and Garden Grove freeways. Both alternatives would involve several connections to the SARI line which runs within the embankment of the river channel. Cost/Revenue Both the project and "no-project" alternatives would require substantial outlays for both capital improvements and long-term operating and maintenance requirements. The estimated capital Improvement costs for the proposed deficiency correction facilities is approximately 34.1 million dollars. The estimated capital costs for deficiency correction facilities In the 1983 Master Plan was 30.91 million dollars. (Different facilities are identified in each alternative.) District 2 has sufficient funds, both In existing reserves and capital fund accounts, and potentially through connection fees, which r will completely finance the deficiency correction facilities recommended In both the proposed project and the "no-project" alternative. Consistency With Other Relevant Plans The proposed project contains urban growth forecasts in excess of current SCAG 82 growth forecasts. SCAG is currently revising their forecasts, however, and it is expected that their revised growth forecasts will be similar to the forecasts established within the proposed project. This expectation stems from the consideration that SCAG's revised forecasts will probably also be In accordance with current local General Plan growth policies. The current Master Plan for the Joint Works Wastewater Treatment facilities utilized the "ultimate" District 2 wastewater flows estimated in r the "no-project" (1983 Master Plan of Trunk Sewers for Districts 2, 3, and 11) alternative. The next update to the Master Plan will need to revise the estimated future flow from District 2, in accordance with the .. updated growth forecasts developed in the proposed project. 4-4 Both the project and "no-project" alternatives are consistent with other relevant planning programs, including the South Coast Air Quality Management District's AQMP and the Santa Ana River Basin Regional Water Quality Control Plan. r r r 4-5 5.0 References 5.1 Bibliography 1 . Michael Brandmen and Associates. Draft Environmental Impact Re ort, Master Plan of Sewa a Coilec oaf n_, UFsTrTcts 3 ann ta er,c 2. Lowry and Associates. Updated and Consolidated Master Plans of e Trunk Sewers for Districts 2, 3 an cto er, 1983. 3. John Carollo Engineers. Master Plan for Joint Works Wastewater Treatment and Disposal Facilities. April, 1983. 4. K. P. Lindstrom and Associates. Joint Treatment Works Waste- water Master Plan Draft Environmenta m act a ort arc . 5. County Sanitation Districts of Orange County. Final Budget, m 1986-1987 Fiscal Year. July, 1986. 6. California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Santa Ana Region. Water Quality Control Plan, Santa Ana River Basin (8). 1984. 7. Transportation Planning Division, Orange County Environmental Management Agency. Master Plan of Arterial Highways. May 28, 1986. 8. Transportation Planning Division, Orange County Environmental Management Agency. Master Plan of County-Wide Bikeways. May 1986. 9. Southern California Association of Governments. SCAG 82 Growth Forecast Policy. 1982. .d 10. South Coast Air Quality Management District. Air Quality Management Plan. October, 1985. 5.2 Persons and Organizations County Sanitation Districts of Orange County, California -- Mr. Thomas M. Dawes, Director of Engineering -- Ms. Hilary J. Baker, Senior Administrative Assistant Mr. Charles Pasinli, P. E., Senior Engineer -- Mr. Bill Butler, Finance Officer -- Mr. Chuck Windsor, Assistant Superintendent of Maintenance -- Mr. Dan Dillon, Accounting Division Manager d Orange County Environmental Management Agency r -- Mr. Mike Wellborn, Transportation Planner 5-1 m Orange County Rapid Transit District m -- Mr. Jeff Ordway, Planning Director Yorba Linda Water District ® -- Mr. Mike Payne 5.3 Preparation Staff -- Mr. Randy Nichols, AICP, Project Manager -- Mr. Chuck Lake, Engineering Division Manager -- Mr. Dean Sherer, Associate Planner -- Mr. Carl Morgan, Associate Planner -- Mr. Virgilio Vita, Planning Technician d d 5-2 " APPENDIX A Initial Study Notice of Preparation and Responses to Notice of Preparation m s r r m m COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA >� P.O. BOX 0127,FOUNTAIN VALLEY,CALIFORNIA 9272M127 e 0�tia W� 10 ELLIS. FOUNTAIN VALLEY,CALIFORNIA 9270a-701a (71 a) 992-2411 NOTICE OF PREPARATION OF A DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO THE _ CONSOLIDATED MASTER PLAN OF SEWAGE COLLECTION, AFFECTING DISTRICT NO. 2 To: Responsible Agencies From: County Sanitation Districts of Orange County, California Date: January 22, 1987 The County Sanitation District of Orange County will be acting as the Lead Agency in the preparation of a focused Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the project identified as Amendment No. 1 to the Consolidated Master Plan of Trunk Sewers for County Sanitation Districts 2, 3 and 11 -- Euclld/Newhope - Placentia Drainage Area. We need to know the views of your agency as to the scope and content of the environmental information which is germane to your agency's statutory responsibilities in connection with the proposed project. Your agency will need to use the EIR prepared by our agency when considering your permit or other approval for the e, project. The project description, location and the probable environmental effects are contained in the attached materials. A copy of the Initial Study is also attached. Due to the time limits mandated by State Law, your response must be ,e sent at the earliest possible date, but not later than 30 days after receipt of this notice. Please send your response, Including the name of your contact person, d to: Ms. Hilary Baker County Sanitation Districts of Orange Count P.O. Box 8127 Fountain Valley, CA 92728-81 �fj�iL9 6�4 homas M. Dawes Director of Engineering COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS d GRANGE COUNTY. CAUFORNIA V Q BW 6127 MUMAN VALLEY.0 UMANIASMM127 1 Q9aA F4 AANIA WUMNN VALLEY.GUl(OPNIA P2702.71118 a men aao-ato ntm sezxt 1 NOTICE OF PREPARATION OF A DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT BACKGROUND INFORMATION Project Description: Plan to correct identified sewer collection system deficiencies in County Sanitation District No. 2 of Orange County, California, affecting the Euclid/Newhope - Placentia Drainage Area. Seventeen relief facilities are recommended, consisting primarily of upsized, parallel sewers, as well as three diversion facilities. See attached materials for further details as to the type and location of the recommended relief facilities. Project Location: See attached Location Map. Tentative Scope of EIR: The EIR for this project is expected to be focused on the following topics: Biological Resources ,y Hydrology/Water Quality Circulation Cost/Revenue Land Use/Population b� Public Services/Utilities Consistency With Other Relevant Plans Project vs. No-Project Topical Issues, Pursuant to Sections 15126-15127 of the CEQA Guidelines d COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS "- W ORANGE COUNTY, CAUFORNIA tru on GOX e127 MWMMVNAE .G M.NIA9272BA127 1O .0 AVENUe MUMAIN VALLEY.GPMRNIA 9m.-7010 d all1 W4M10 olo19Rz 411 INITIAL STUDY w I. Background A. Name of Proponent County Sanitation Districts of Orange County. B. Address and Phone Number of Proponent (714) 662-2411 10844 Ellis Avenue Fountain Valley, CA 92708-7018 C. Contact Person Hilary Baker D. Title and Location of Project: Supplemental Environmental Impact eport concerning men melt No. 1 to the Consolidated Master Plan of Trunk Sewers, affecting District No. 2. Project area covers approximately 134 square miles, including all or portions of the Cities of Anaheim, Brea, Fountain Valley, Fullerton, Garden Grove, Orange, Placentia, Santa Ana, Villa Park and Yorba Linda, along with unincorporated portions of Orange County. (See attached study area map). E. Description of Project: Proposed amendment to Consolidated Master a-PI n ofZ runt—Sewers for Districts 2, 3 and 11 , affecting most of District No. 2. Amendment proposes numerous relief facilities to correct identified system deficiencies. In most cases, relief -- facilities will parallel existing facilities and would not disturb previously undisturbed areas. One proposed sewer would traverse an Orange County Transit District right-of-way, through a heavily urbanized area, following an alignment where no trunk sewers presently exist. m F. An EIR was prepared and certified for the existing Master Plan (SCH#83082411 ). That report is incorporated herein and will serve as the reference for the following evaluation of the potential environmental effects of this project. The determination to prepare _ a focused EIR r. nizes that the previous EIR need only be supplemented to the extent that new facilities are proposed and to ® Incorporate newly available information regarding the project. II. Guidelines A. Does the proposed activity qualify as a project as defined in Section 28. Yes x No (If activity does not qualify as project, do not complete remainder of form.) S. Does the project qualify as: 1. Ministerial (Section 6) Yes _ No 2. Emergency (Section 13) Yes _ No X 3. A feasibility or planning study (Section 33) Yes x No 4. Categorically exempt pursuant to Article 8 of the State Guidelines (Section 40) Yes No x 5. Involves another agency which constitutes the lead agency (Section 36) Yes _ No x If yes, identify lead agency: (If yes has been checked for any of the above, an Environmental Impact Assessment/Environmental Impact Report or Negative Declaration need not be prepared. ) III. Environmental Impacts (Explanations of all "yes" and "maybe" answers are required on attached sheets.) Yes Maybe No A. Earth. Will the proposal result in: 1 . Unstable earth conditions or in changes in geologic substructures? x 2. Disruptions, displacements, compaction ® or overcovering of the soil? x 3. Change in topography or ground surface relief features? x _ ` 4. The destruction, covering or mndification of any unique geologic or physical features?_ x 5. Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils, either on or off the site? b 2 Yes Maybe No 6. Changes in deposition or erosion of beach sands or changes in silation, deposition or erosion which may modify the channel of a river or stream or the bed of the ocean or any bay,. inlet or lake? x 7. Exposure of people or property to geological hazards such as earthquakes, landslides, q, mudslides, ground failure or similar hazard? x B. Air. Will the proposal result in: ®_ 1. Substantial air emissions or deteriora- tion of ambient air quality? x 2. The creation of objectionable odors? x 3. Alteration of air movement, moisture or temperature or any change in climate, either locally or regionally? x C. Water. Will the proposal result in: 1 . Changes in currents or the course of direction of water movements in either marine or fresh water? x 2. Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns or the rate and amount of surface runoff? 3. Alterations to the course or flow of flood waters? 4. Change in the amount of surface water in any water body? x 5. Discharge into surface waters or in any alteration of surface water quality, in- cluding, but not limited to, temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity? x 6. Alteration of the direction or rate of flow of ground waters? X 7. Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or with- drawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations? x -3- Yes Maybe No 8. Substantial reduction in the amount of w water otherwise available for public water supplies? 9. Exposure of people or property to related ® hazards such as flooding or tidal waves? _ 0. Plant Life. Will the proposal result in: a - 1. Change in the diversity of species or number of any species of plants (including trees, shrubs, grass, crops and aquatic plants)? X 2. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, - rare or endangered species of plants? 3. Introduction of new species of plants into an area or in a barrier to the normal replenishment of existing species? X 4. Reduction in acreage of any agriculture w crop? X _ E. Animal Life. Will the proposal result in: .. 1. Change in the diversity of species or numbers of any species of animals (birds, land animals including reptiles, fish and shellfish, benthic organisms or insects? x 2. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of animals? x 3. Introduction of new species of animals into an area or result in a barrier to the migration or movement of animals? x 4. Deterioration to existing fish or wildlife habitat? -- F. Noise. Will the proposal result in: 1 . Increase in existing noise levels? 2. Exposure of people to severe noise levels? x G. Light and Glare. Will the proposal produce new light or glare? x -4- Yes Maybe No H. Land Use. Will the proposal result in a substantial alteration of the present or planned land use of an area? I. Natural Resources. Will the proposal result in: 1. Increase in the rate of use of any natural resources? 2. Substantial depletion of any non- renewable natural resource? x J. Risk of Upset. Will the proposal involve: 1 . A risk of an explosion or the release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to, oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation) in the event of an accident or upset conditions? x 2. Possible interference with an emergency response plan or an emergency evacuation plan? x K. Population. Will the proposal alter the location, distribution, density or growth rate of the human population of an area? L. Housing. Will the proposal affect existing housing or create a demand for additional v' housing? x M. Transportation/Circulation. Will the proposal 4, result in: 1 . Generation of substantial additional vehicular movement? x 2. Effects an existing parking facilities or demand for new parking? x 3. Substantial impact upon existing trans-portation systems? 4. Alterations to present patterns of circulation or movement of people and/or goods? 5. Alterations to waterborne, rail or air traffic? r -5- Yes Maybe No 6. Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians? N. Public Services. Will the proposal have an effect upon or result in a need for new or altered governmental services in any of the following areas: 1. Fire protection? x 2. Police protection? x ® 3. Schools? 4. Parks or other recreational facilities? X 5. Maintenance of public facilities, in- cluding roads? x 6. Other governmental services? 0. Energy. Will the proposal result in: 1 . Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy? _X 2. Substantial increase in demand upon existing sources of energy or require the development of. new sources of energy? P. Utilities. Will the proposal result in a need for new systems or substantial alterations to the following utilities? 1 . Power or natural gas? _X 2. Communications systems? X 3. Water? 4. Sewer or septic tanks? x 5. Storm water drainage? x 6. Solids waste and disposal? Q. Human Health. Will the proposal result in: 1 . Creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard (excluding mental health)? x -6- Yes Maybe No 2. Exposure of people to potential health hazards? R. Aesthetics. Will the proposal result in the obstruction of any scenic vista or view open to the public or will the proposal result in the creation of an aesthetically offensive site open to public view? x S. Recreation. Will the proposal result in an impact upon the quality or quantity of existing recreational opportunities? x T. Cultural Resources. 1. Will the proposal result in the alteration of or the destruction of a prehistoric or historic archaeological site? x 2. Will the proposal result in adverse physical or aesthetic effects to a prehistoric or historic building, structure or object? x 3. Does the proposal have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect .d unique ethnic cultural values? X 4. Will the proposal restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? x U. Mandatory findings of Significance. 1 . Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to ® eliminate a plant or animal community, 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? -7 Yes Maybe No 2. Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? (A short- term impact on the environment is one which occurs in a relatively brief, de- finitive period of time, while long-term impacts will endure well into the future.) x ,b 3. Does the project have impacts which are individually limited but cumulative con- siderable? (A project may impact on two or more separate resources where the impact on each resource is relatively small, but where the effect of the total of those impacts on the environment is significant.) x 4. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? x IV. Discussion of Environmental Evaluation See attached sheet. ® V. Discussion of Zoning Compatibility See attached sheet. ® VI. Determination (To be completed by Lead Agency.) On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation ❑ measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION MILL BE PREPARED. I find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. Date: January 22, 1987 COUNTY SANITATION STRICTS OF ORANGE ORTY IV DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION d A. Earth The EIR certified for the 1983 Consolidated Master Plan of Sewers adequately describes the project area setting with respect to soils, landform and geology. Impacts related to trenching, back- filling and other sewer construction activities which result in the displacement, compaction and overcovering of the soil, are also adequately discussed in that EIR. No significant topographical changes will occur. No further environmental analysis is required on this topic, until site specific construction projects are proposed, at which time detailed geotechnicai reports will be prepared, as needed. B. Air Air quality Impacts related to the proposed sewer system improvements will be primarily short-term, construction generated effects, including fugitive dust and equipment exhaust. Long-term, secondary effects of minimal significance will consist of emissions at power plants. Construction related Impacts can be adequately mitigated through adherence to Rule 403 of the SQAMD Rules and Regulations .e and other locally adopted procedures for construction of public facilities. No further analysis is required for the subject project. C. Water Proposed facilities will cross portions of several flood control facilities, including the Santa Ana River. These facilities need to be identified, as well as any special permit requirements from the responsible agencies. Any known surface or subsurface hydrologi- cal conditions that could seriously constrain the installation of proposed facilities need to be identified, along with drainage control measures which should be implemented during construction of the proposed facilities. D. Plant Life The type and significance of plant life in the Santa Ana River area, at the location of the Orange Sub-Trunk relief sewer, needs d to be identified, along with mitigation measures to protect any identified significant plant re--- ces. Other areas proposed for relief sewer facilities are either already disturbed or contain no significant, rare or endangered plant species or agricultural crops. E. Animal Life The effects of the proposed Orange Sub-Trunk relief sewer on Santa Ana River wildlife habitat needs to be evaluated, along with mitigation measures to protect any identified significant habitat. F. Noise d Noise impacts will be primarily limited to short-term, construc- tion related activities during installation of the proposed relief facilities. The discussion of noise impacts and mitigation measures contained in the EIR certified for the 1983 Consolidated Master Plan ® is adequate for the subject project. G. Light and Glare No new sources of light and glare will result from installation • of the proposed sewer system improvements. H. Land Use The changing and Intensifying patterns of land use in the ,o study area, which led to the preparation of the subject plan, must be documented. Possible land use changes resulting from implementation of the subject plan also need to be addressed. I. Natural Resources Consumption of natural resources used in construction materials, construction activities and the operation and maintenance of completed facilities will be minor and non-substantial, from both a local and regional perspective. No further analysis is necessary. J. -Risk of Upset Rupture of subsurface sewer pipeline could result in the dis- charge of untreated sewage effluent into groundwaters or possibly into populated surface areas. Such an incident is highly unlikely however, and can be adequately mitigated through careful right- of-way planning which avoids seismic hazards (severe ground movement) and through proper adherence to adopted public works construction standards. Applicable provisions of local and regional emergency response plans will be incorporated into the engineering, design and construction of all proposed facilities. No further analysis is needed with regard to the risk of upset. K. and L. Population and Housing The target population to be served by the proposed sewer system needs to be estimated and evaluated with regard to adopted local and regional plans. The potential growtL. ..educing effects of the proposed sewer plan must also be addressed. The County Sani- tation Districts do not have land use authority and do not control growth. r M. Transportation/Circulation r New trunk sewers are proposed in or along several circulation routes not previously designated for such use. These roadways, bikeways, and other transportation routes need to be identified. In particular, the Orange County Transit District must be consulted with regard to the use of its right-of-way for the proposed 78" sewer between the SARI line and the Euclid relief trunk. ,., Mitigation measures to diminish the disruption of circulation patterns during construction of the proposed Improvements need to be identified. N. Public Services Construction and operation of the proposed facilities will not ,e affect most governmental or public service agencies within the study area. However, the growth inducing effects and the link to school facilities must be addressed, along with alternative financing options to cover capital and maintenance costs. O. Energy Consumption of fuels and energy during construction and the ongoing operation of the proposed sewer system facilities will not be substantial, from a regional perspective. A quantitative comparison of estimated energy consumption characteristics of the existing Consolidated Master Plan and the proposed Amendment No. 1 , should be made to evaluate the relative energy consumption signifi- cance of the proposed Amendment No. 1. P. Utilities Proposed sewer system Improvements are intended to be in- stalled in the close vicinity of numerous utility facilities including natural gas, electricity, water, telephone, cable television and possibly oil lines. Careful coordination with all affected utility purveyors is therefore necessary to prevent damage to those r facilities and to prepare for alternate utility delivery systems, if needed, during construction of the proposed relief facilities. The EIR process should include correspondence with affected utility purveyors, to identify possible adverse impacts to utility facilities and mitigation measures therefor. m Q. Human Health See explanation to J., above. R. Aesthetics This topic was adequately addressed in the EIR certified for the 1983 Consolidated Master Plan. No scenic resources or vistas '" will be affected by the proposed project. S. Recreation Portions of bikeways along the Santa Ana River may be disrupted by installation of proposed sewer relief facilities. Such bikeways must be identified along with mitigation measures to compensate for such temporary impacts. No other recreation area, developed or undeveloped, will be affected by Installation of the proposed sewer system improvements. m T. Cultural Resources Proposed improvements will be constructed in areas already disturbed or within highly urbanized areas having no known significant cultural resources. No further analysis is necessary. s, V DISCUSSION OF ZONING COMPATIBILITY Recommended relief facilities were derived from an analysis of existing system deficiencies with regard to potential growth and development in the Study Area. Growth assumptions were developed from contacts with all affected Planning Agencies to reflect their up-to-date long-term land use plans. Those !, assumptions are documented in the Amendment No. t report and will be Included in the focused EIR. r r L°S AN°ELES MNTV 4oO FULL N CN 8 P C T DA e Nry n vs ANA IM E f N PNy FWNT I SANTA VA ANA A 7° 4S. O I KEY ® eee.e[ eeun aa.mneN earner °p° aeNrtmee Burner � eo.n -- mn u[. ewNsur FIGURE 1 STUDY AREA BOUNDARY ® SECTION VII - SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS LAND USE The 134-square mile study area includes all or portions of 10 incorporated cities as well an unincorporated areas of Orange County. The study area is defined as those portions of County Sanitation Districts Nos. 2 and 13 tributary to the Euclid, Newhope-Placentia and Santa Ana River Interceptor Trunk Sewer systems. To project wastewater flows for this study, General Plan data collected from each community, supplemented by zoning data, specific plans and environmental documents, were used for projecting future land use. Land usage data available through March 1986 was used herein. Nine land use categories were designated for the study area, including five residential categories based on development densities, two of- fice/commercial categories based on development densities, an indus- trial/manufacturing category and an open space category. Projected residential uses comprise over 60 percent of the study area and total over 81 square miles. Open space is the second largest projected use, totaling nearly 27 square miles or 20 percent of the total study area. EXISTING TRUNK SYSTEM The three main trunk sewer systems of the study area are the Euclid, Newhope-Placantia and Santa Ana River Trunk systems. Each of these discharge flows to CSDOC's Plant No. 1 in Fountain Valley. The Santa Ana River system includes areas tributary to the Santa Ana River Interceptor. This includes approximately 48.0 miles of trunk sew- ers owned by CSDOC, serving an area of 86.3 square miles within Orange County. The SARI also serves Riverside and San Bernardino Counties, which have a combined capacity right of 30 mgd in the line. The Nawhope-Placentia system serves approximately 26.9 square miles and ® Includes 25.9 miles of trunk sewers owned by CSDOC. Flows generated in this area are tributary to the Newhope-Placantia Trunk Sewer. The Euclid system includes 33.0 miles of CSDOC-owned trunk sewers serving an area of 21.2 square miles. This system is a parallel dou- ble-.. _.k system extending from the City of Brea to CSDOC Plant No. 1 primarily along a route of Brea Boulevard and Euclid Avenue. Three pumping stations operated by CSDOC are also in the study area: the Rolling Hills, Yorba Linda and Carbon Canyon Dam Pumping Stations. 37 WASTEWATER FLOW PROJECTIONS Wastewater flows projected for the study area have been developed based on projected land use data and unit flow coefficients for each land use category. In addition, specific point source flows were developed for .Anaheim Stadium, Disneyland and Anaheim Convention Center due to the uniqueness of those facilities. Due to limited data on existing land use in the study area, it was decided to evaluate the CSDOC trunk system based on projected conditions only. Deficiencies that exist under existing land use conditions would also exist under projected conditions. Total average wastewater flows projected for the study area exceed 190 million gallons per day. Residential areas are projected to generate over 130 million gallons per day or approximately two-thirds of the total. EVALUATION OF EXISTING FACILITIES 4 The CSDOC trunk sewer system within the study area was evaluated with the aid of an IBM-PC microcomputer using SEWER, a mathematical model based on Manning's equation for non-pressure flow in pipes. The SEWER program compares the capacity of a sewer with peak wastewater flows projected for the sewer, determines if the peak flow exceeds the pipe- line's capacity, and determines the size of pipelines required to either re- place the undersized line or parallel the existing line while maintaining it ® in service. Capacity criteria established for the evaluation of existing facilities was defined as a maximum flow depth to pipeline diameter ratio (D/d) of 0.92. .For new pipelines recommended to relieve deficient lines, the following depth to diameter ratios were used Diameter (in) Maximum (D/d) 12-18 0.50 21-60 0.75 '60 0.92 A minimum size of 12-inch diameter was established for all CSDOC gravity sewers. A peaking factor equation developed by CSDOC was used to determine peak wastewater fl,,- from average wastewater flow projections as fol- lows: Opeak - 1.84 Qav9 e..x Where Q is in units of cfs. 38 Using the output of the SEWER program as a basis, 21 deficient sections in the CSDOC trunk sewer system were identified, totaling 34.3 miles or 32 percent of the total system. Eight specific deficiencies were identified in the Santa Ana River system, ranging from 720 to .16,100 feet in length. These total 42,550 feet of sewer. These include Z2,510 feet of the SARI upstream of the Carbon Canyon Interceptor and 10,780 feet of the Taft Branch upstream of the recently completed Taft Interceptoe. Deficiencies totaling 76,850 lineal feet of trunk sewer were identified in the Newhope-Placentia system. These include 41,280 (60 percent of the entire length) of the Newhope-Placentia Trunk as well as the total 20,820 feet of the South Anaheim Interceptor. Approximately 61,700 feet of sewers in the Euclid system were found to be deficient. Generally, this includes the parallel Euclid Trunk and Euclid Purchase sewers from La Palma Avenue in Anaheim to Edinger Av- enue in Fountain Valley. Of the three pumping stations in the study area, two are proposed to eventually be taken out of service upon construction of new trunk sewer lines by CSDOC. The remaining facility, the Yorba Linda Pumping Sta- tion was determined to have sufficient capacity to handle projected peak flows to the facility. RECOMMENDED DEFICIENCY CORRECTION PROJECTS Relief facilities proposed herein are based on preliminary analysis of al- ternatives to eliminate deficiencies identified in CSDOC's Trunk system. Cost estimates of recommended improvements are based on conceptual lay- out and sizing of those facilities and unit construction costs for mid-year 1986. A total of 100,000 lineal feet of new sewers are proposed herein to relieve approximately 180,000 lineal feet of deficient lines. Total estimated capital costs of these facilities are approximately $34 million. Recommended improvements to the Santa Ana River system total approxi- mately $8.90 million in capital costs and 39,890 feet of new sewers. This Includes $1 .28 million for relief of the Taft Branch in Orange and $6.70 ® million for relief of the SARI upstream of the Carbon Canyon Interceptor. Improvements recommended for the hope-Placentia system total approx- imately $3.47 million in capital costs. The most significant Include di- versions from the South Anaheim Interceptor to the Euclid system and from the Newhope-Placentia Trunk to the SARI. There diversion sewers total approximately 11,000 lineal feet and $3.0 million capital costs and will relieve deficiencies on the entire South Anaheim Interceptor (20,820 feet) 39 and approximately 34,060 feet of the Newhope-Placentia Trunk. Diversion of additional flows at the Yorba Linda Pumping Station from the Cypress Subtrunk to the Carbon Canyon Interceptor will relieve approximately ® _ 17,6W feet of deficient sewer on the Cypress Subtrunk and Newhope-Placentia Trunk. The pumping station has sufficient capacity to handle the required diversion. Relief facilities proposed for the Euclid system will also assist in the relief of deficiencies of the Newhope-Placentia system. These improvements to- tal 46,030 feet of sewer and capital costs of $21 .8 million. These Include a new trunk sewer to replace the Euclid Purchase sewer extending in Euclid Avenue from Orangethorpe Avenue in Fullerton to the OCTD right-of-way south of Garden Grove Boulevard, then southeasterly along the OCTD right-of-way to the SARI. Priorities for construction of the recommended facilities are based on the current severity of each projected deficiency and other considerations such as coordination with construction activities along the route of the proposed facilities. The most critical deficiencies requiring immediate cor- rective measures are those on the South Anaheim Interceptor, Newhope-Placentia Trunk and the Euclid Trunk/Euclid Purchase sewers. These lines are presently subject to surcharge conditions and are subject to increased flows from intensified development In tributary areas. Im- provements for relieving deficiencies in these critical sections are recom- mended for construction within the next five-year period and total ap- proximately 57,000 feet of new sewers and nearly $25 million in capital costs. The balance of the proposed improvements are recommended to occur sub- Sequent to 1991 . The timing for their construction will be based on cor- recting the projected deficiencies as they begin to occur. Total capital costs for those facilities are estimated at $9.0 million. 40 a a a a a a e a a a a a a a a a a a a Table 8. Recommended Reiter facilities Diameter Total of Longth of Relieves Roller Roller Capital Deficiency Sewer Sawa r Cost Designation Description No. (In) Ift) I$ Santa Ana Rl ver System 1 Construct sower to divert all flows (4.84 mod average; 7.60 myd peek) from Atwecd-Orchard Subtrunk on Orangethorpe Avenue near Willow Woods Drive to SARI In Le Palma Avenue. 1 24, 21 1,300 208,100 2 Construct parallel sewer to entire North Branch of Roiling "Ilia Subtrunk. 2 15 1,160 137,800 3 Construct parallel sewer to Rollin 1111 Is Subt rank Immediately upstream or Verbs Linde Pump Stetlon. 3 15 720 85,500 4 Construct pparallel sewer to Lincoln-Betavla Trunk from Station 91495 to Betavla Street. 4 12 2.280 213,800 5 Construct parallel sever to Taft Branch True Santiago Boulevard to N Olesaell Street. 5 12,15,18 21 10.780 1,277.000 6 Construct DDarallel sever to Orange Subtrunk from Santa Ana free- way to SAP1. 6 21, 24 1,530 277.300 7 Construct parallel sewer to SARI from Station 913450 to Grove Street. 7, B 24,30 36 34. 65 22,510 6,696,000 Newhope-Plecon Lle Sv aten e Construct parallel sewer to Cypress Subtrunk from Bastanchury Road to diversion to Yo rbn Linde Pump Station. 9 12 1,590 149,100 9 Olvert 2.00 mgd average (3.70 mod peek) flow to Carbon Canyon 10,11,14 Interceptor from Cypress Subtrunk at Yorba Linda Pump Station, 15 -- -- 10a Construct sewer to divert 9.80 mgd average (14.50 mgd peak) flow, from South Anaheim Interceptor at Ball Road to Euclid trunk at Bell Hoed. 12 30 4,000 1,100,000 IGO Construct sewer to divert 7.24 mgd average /11.00 mgd peak) flow from South Anaheim Interceptor at Retells venue to Euclid Trunk at R tells Avenue. 12 27 4,000 975,000 Table S. Recemmdnded Rellef Facilities (continued) Diameter Tote or Length of Bellows Rellef Rellef Capital Deficiency Sever Sewer Cost Designation Description No. ( In) (ft) ($) 11 Construct sewer parallel to Bolen Trunk from Harbor Boulevard to Newhope Street. 13 IS 2.750 326,600 12 Construct sewer to divert 10.00 mgd average (14.80 mgd peak) Flow from Newhopo-Placentla Trunk at Orangewood Avenue to 16.17 SARI at Orangewood Avenue. 10 33 3.000 918.000 Euclid System Us Construct diversion facility for all rl ow (2.34 mgd average; 3.90 mgd peak) from Fullerton-Brae Purchase to Fullerton-Bros 19 Interceptor at their crossing at Malvern Avenue. (partial ) -- -- •• 131, Construct diversion facility for 2.55 mgd average (4.21 mgd peak) flow from Fullerton-Brea Purchase to Fullerton-Brea Interceptor at Moods Avenue. Upslze Fullerton-Brea Interceptor to 48-Inch 19 diameter downstream. (partial) -- -- •• 14 Construct sever parallel to Euclid Trunk from Orenyyethurpe Avenue to Orangewood Avenue. Abandon Euclid Pura see over some 20.21 396,12 45, distance. (partial) 46,;4 23.790 10,153,000 15 Construct sewer to divert 35.65 mgd average 147.60 mgd peak) Flow from Euclid Trunk at Orangewood Avenue to SARI along 21 route or Euclid Avenue and OCT D right-of-way, Abandon Euclid Purchase over easy portion of fuel ld Avenue. 1partlal) 54.78 20.840 11,626,000 TOTAL 100,250 34,144,000 (18.99 01) *Capital Costs are relatively minor. An Increase In operational costs would occur due to Increased pumping and power consumption. ••Relief facilities 13a and 13b can be Incorpporated Into the design and construction or the Fullerton-Brae Interceptor with the associated costs to be Included thereln. :J i W J �i 6w ..i APPENDIX B IJ Biological Resources Assessment W J W u J I r Feb. 6, 1997 Proposed Orange Sub-trunk Sever Line e, Description of General Area The Santa Ana River in the vicinity of the proposed Orange sub-trunk `® sewer installation is a channelized, sandy bottom channel contained by rock riprap levees with sloped sides, and flat graded tops. The back shoulders of the levees are of soil. The river bank area in the vicinity of the I-5, 22, end 57 Freeways is m sparsely vegetated. The few plants present we mostly non-native, weedy species, becoming temporarily established when there is water present in the channel, or as a result of winter rain on the surface. There are no wetland ,�. plant associations or wildlife habitat present in the area of the proposed sub-trunk sever line. River Bed The bed of the Santa Ana River is flat and sandy, with intermittent surface flow. There is no river bottom or streemside vegetation associated m with the river bed. There existed at the time of the survey scattered grasses, Q, and isolated shrubs growing new outflows of storm drains. Plants that do - invade the river bed are short lived, being periodically removed by flood control maintenance or eliminated with seasonal flooding. Tracks of egrets or herons were found around scattered puddles created by winter rains. Although there was no surface stream flow, saturated Banda indicate considerable subterranean flaw. z. 4 Plant List: Bermuda grass (Cynodon dactylon) r Watercress (Rorinoa naaturtiusreauaticum) Willow Salix sp.) w Mule fat (Baccharie Blutinosa) -- Wild oats (Avena fatua) Levee Slope and Tons The riprep slopes of the levees have been partially filled in with send and debris from floods. There are no wetland plants present. Herbicide application has kept the slopes and graded dirt tope largely bare. Those plants present were either standing dead, or seedlings established since the last herbicide application. A decadent willow and elderberry shrubs were found near the edge of the levee top bordering the back shoulder. Plant List: Giant reed (Aran do donax) Wild oats Avana fatua) Mule fat • Baccharis elutinoea) Croton (Croton californicus) Bermuda Grass (Cynodon dactylon) - Jimson weed Datura meteloides) r' Prickly pear 0 untie sp.) Fountain grass (Pennisetum setaceum) r Wild radish (Raphanue sativum) Willow (Salix sp.) Edlerberry Sambucue mexicana) 3• Back Slope a m d Drainage Channels r The slopes behind the levee tope we of local soils and have a line of eucalyptus trees just southwest of the I-5 Freeway on both sides of the river. Low growing grasses are abundant below a flow-impeding station between the I-5 and 22 Freeways• A drainage channel west of the I-5 Freeway contained weedy, — colonizing plants. Plant List: .e Tree of heaven (Ailanthua altissima) Black mustard (Brassica nisra) w Field mustard (Brassica ran& esp. svlvestri s) Fllareo (Erodium cioutarium) m , Blue gum eucalyptus (E. globulus) Telegraph weed (fteterothec¢ grandiflora) Castor been ( icinus Communis) m' Elderberry (Sambucus mexicana) w Biological Assessment Construction associated with the installation of the proposed sewer line will have negligible biological effects. There are no wetland features or wildlife habitat within the area surveyed. Diversion of water during installation will have little or no effect on the river bails trees and grasses downstream. .� Due to the barren nature of the area, the introduction of construction equipment, excavations, and relatod activities arc not expected to produce any consequential biological effects. There are no unique or valuable plants or animals in the area which require consideration. r 1 �d r APPENDIX C Responses from Municipal and 'd Utility Agencies 10 �r J u rd u 1 k.4r .d • I J WILLDAN ASSOCIATES ❑ ENGINFFRS & PI ANNFRS January 23, 1987 Garden Grove Sanitary District 11391 Acacia Parkway _ Garden Grove, CA 92642 Dear Utility Company: EIR ON AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO THE CONSOLIDATED MASTER PLAN OF TRUNK SEWERS FOR COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS 2, 3 AND 11 Wllldan Associates has been retained by the County Sanitation Districts of Orange County (O.C.S.D) to prepare a focused EIR concerning a proposed amendment to the 1983 Consolidated Master Plan of Trunk Sewers for County Sanitation District Nos. 2, 3 and 11. The proposed plan will correct Identified sewer collection deficiencies in County Sanitation District No. 2, affecting the Euclid/Newhope - Placentia Drainage area. A total of seventeen (17) relief facilities are recommended, consisting of upsized, parallel sewers, as well as three (3) diversion facilities. See the attached materials for further details as to the type and location of the recommended relief facilities. In order to complete our analysis of the environmental impacts associated with this project, we need to know your concern with respect to your facilities located in the vicinity of the recommended sewer relief facilities. Specifically, we would like to know the location and description of your facilities in these areas, described textually and on a map. In addition, any recommendations you may have to minimize disruption to your facilities and service during construction of the proposed sewer Improvements would be very helpful. We would appreciate a prompt response since our deadline to deliver the preliminary EIR is February 23, 1987. Please send your response, Including the name of your contact person, to: Mr. Randy A. Nichols Wllldan Associates 12900 Crossroads Parkway South, Suite 200 Industry, CA 91746-3499 Sincerely, WILLD 2_1IATTESSanF d ProjeEt Manager RAN:ko JN 55971 12900CROSSROADS PARKWAY SOUTH•SUITE 200• INDUSTRY• CALIFORNIA 91746-3499•(213) 695-0551 RECEIVED JAN 2 6 1987 STALE OF CAUFORNJA OfFla OF TIE C RN GEORGe OWN AEIIAN, Downer OFFICE OF PLANNING AND RESEARCH IAao mNm Smm ShCRA wo. G 9MIA Tom. rnnlp; F.ebbrruaar,y3, 1987 TO: LWlcwing Agencies - - . BE. The County of Orange' Sanitation District's NOP for ,e Supplemental EIR Amendment N1 Consolidated Master Plan of Trunk Sewers/ District 2. SCH9 87020410 A Attached for your comment is the County of Orange' Notice of Preparation of a draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Supplemental EIR Amendment 91 Consolidated Master Plan of Trunk Sewers/District 2. Faspon_ihle agencies mist transmit their concerns and comments on the scope and content of the EIR, focusing on specific information related to their own =_==ry responsibility, within 30 days of receipt of this notice. We encourage commenting agencies to respond to this notice and express their concerns early in the environmental review process. Please direct your comments to: -- Hilary Baker Orange County Sanitation District P.O. Box 8127/10844 Ellis Fountain Valley, CA 92727-8127 with a copy to the Office of Planning and Research. Please refer to the SC3 ntmber noted above in all corresmrdiance corsen=g this project. 'ID if you have any questions about the review process, call Glenn Stober at 916/445-0613. w Sincerely, Jo- hazu�� Chief Deputy Director AttacbNpnts _' CC. Hilary Baker D1i58I1maf L= Fm sin R 70 2 V`i1 6 Sent by imi AR ocr S - Sent by C'leaTlnsp e A e 0erozhF Sit. Ted So-. m Atr Re ,ono 3oL-i Califotata Sty_Svay Patrol 1131 9 St ec Long R w Planting Sectt Satneento, G 95314 Planning and A Iys. D:,-:atoa 916/122i161 0 P.O. 6ct 599 3ao.- W, G 954at 916/445-101 B6sbfS1 ?ietbov P m S Ilm v - O Dept. of BmL1fg k aateranya 9arive Aazrlov 9eritate Cam. IS29 9 S'.reet O 215 Ca ttal :tall, Sam 349 S=-Meoto, Ct 95914 Raccoon=, r,195St4 919/322 s 91613-- 7 9l fiefs Fsof tg furry 1. Wollway Ol llee of Its?lstorte m O ifn im P im ]I ?.M st,-, 4L=hFlovr P.o Boo, 2330 Sea FtNciaro, G min5 O Sarr uevto, CA 95311 33 41Si5I3-55 919/i35-9rC6 m Tery Rvd Janes S. Doyle Q14foroL Eoom CooW' tm Dept. of Parks and 9ecr tim O :519 vtac5 Skeet. 49. MO P.D. ➢Ct 2]90 S=�m, G 95914 Satreenato, G SmIl Q, 936/32 -32°7 916/334e)21 Fart Tneter 911e our e Calaaav - Di ou of Aetoamrim Poblle➢ttlities C .m too d O 1120 9 Street O q2G J Sheet, Suite 1400 abturen Sto. G 35314 Aaeraieete. G M14 919/7—'^-9935 916/=-7316 "sT Te117 Sfrk Stec n C =ns - Plamiaq /1 Public W.ks 3mr' �0 ••'^ : 3t2e: v =5 P Stree:. 4= F!oor 9aC.S'ielt0. Ci 95314 U=-a .. G 95i13 F19.ti-T^� i19/445— 2 = Derma 103"= U l Do". of Crsa uoo Recl.'im 9my 1419 Rioto Street, Roos 1323-2 O 1416 Vtntb Sheet 9atraeefm, CA 9014 S -m000to, G 95314 Ole/32 S93 915/44--2456 m O pia. of )tfaes and Geology Same Ntlltka S.F. Say Can .e, R & ]ev`t. Cad. O Dtv. of 'HI eaa 01s O 30 am A .. Mesa aenee, gam 2011 Sur Prafetsoa, G 94132 r � G faM liesmtces Protect. Unit 415/55/-3896 7asbek Servinha Eric Nader Dep t. of Fact an! agrlcult . Ct111. *rite Vamgeevt 9oiri m O1= :I Street, Puri 104 IOW viatb Sheet. Pour 300 5ae..to. G 95814 O Satnre . CA95614 _ 916=-ice- 916/322-2 4 Dennis Or ck TM Fuko im y-i 0epc. of F.r y State 1st roe "iof O 1416 lint reet, Sam 1511-2 O le0'.' - 13th Sheet Ucx snq, .A 45i14 iae-aim, CA ).Sill 919i.—Om 919/322-791T James 9aricow Sur pftll m -- ODepc. of Several 1.,t.� Dept. of Water Resool-ev 115 Tenor Stunt � 1416 limb Stre9t Saorameoto, CS 15314 Saco.-eato, A 3 14 O16;S4-]2C9 2lsji 5-7416 Seine. ttzir Weed Solder. ,ram Dept. of ?e *.=- ;case Ccosal Cofse:-r r.:c �`GX.Y1 V i a i:tvac. i. 1211 % :_^1J 3ieaaaay. Solte 1100 C1 95414 v Oaklaa7, :A, 9491-- 215/445-1.246 415/464-1015 Depaztment of 1Ymaporatlw Otstriet Ca¢taeta Pin and Gage - Pagloaal Offices ((�� Jerry Baynes A. Naylor. Regional Manager Z o2O 7� 0 Department of Transportation Department of Fish and Game G v O TgW-UEM Street O Reddinngg, CA 98001 Eureka, d 9=1 916/225-2300 7071445-3320 m P.Sraelle Gallasher Jim Meoneramith, Regional 'Jaaager Department of Traaaportanw Department of Fish and Sam ODistrict 2 1701 Nlmhw Woad, Suite A T0T[Uveraide Drive O Ran^"_ Cordova. CA 9Ba70 Redding, CA 98001 916/35 -0'922 916/21 3259 Brian J. Smith R. Bunter, Regional Manager Dekartaenx of T-aavporctnw Depnrweat of Pteh and Came ODin ct 3 '.rM Silvarado TmLl 7M-83'—vest Napa.. CA 94ws - 1w7sville, C4 95wi 777/944-2011 916/741-4271 m Wallaea RotStart D. Polo. Regional Manager Depaztse¢t Cf Tiawportattw Oetartueut of Plan and ^vane Ditrict 4 O 1234 East Shav Avenue O T.d.-7310 Presw, CA 93726 Wan Ptaveisw. CA 94120 209/222-3761 415/557-3405 Jerry Tm—r Fred A. Worthley Jr., Reg. Manger Department of T� tics Departrent of Piste and Dame Di tract 5 245 West 3roadaay O �Street ® long Beach. CA 90802 San L•.ds Obispo, CA M40L 213/590v LM 805/549-3191 v Rat`= Smith ReL E. Mall 7epat--mnt of TrarapertatSw a- Reew.zes Aegiaa _. District 6 243 West Beoadvay OF - gZ Spa Long Seaw, CA 90902 Fresno, CA 93M 213/590-5155 2391438-4-M Wayne B iLennne State %ter Remaxees C00%=L Board ✓ ben^^"'% at TrdaS(or'Snw j;7) DL.=iCC 7 Joan Juraaeleh 4-9 10 SpMg Street State Water Resources Control Board 1® Angeles. M 90019 DLa ono of Clean Water Grants 2131620-5735 O P.O. Box 100 w Saer4oetRo, CA 95801 , Guy yivtal 916/322-3413 De{axteeat of Traoaportation O District H Ed Anton Ta1rd Street State Water Resouro® Control Board o San Bernardino, CA 9v.ACO Dtv ono oaf Watw Q allty 714/333-4657 O P.O. 9oa 100 Samnmanto. CA H5901_. T® Dayat 918/445-9552 Department of Trmaspurt=iw O Distriet 9 Jerry Johns tlain Street State Uater Resources Control 30ard Bishop, CA M14 Oelta Unit 714/873-2290 O P.O. Bna MOO Saammeato, CA 9581D tang Burgess 915/322iJ970 Department of IIaoSpor-snw Al yang d Dis trict strict 10 State Water ReeCuces Couttol Board F.Z—Mr= 49 Division of eater Ruts _ 3metr0a,•CA 95201 9017 Street 209/9w-7112 0 Sauama¢to, CA 95814 J12916/R4-i716 a Dep rteeaire Ditrict : of, Traasportariw ODlsxrle: 11 Regional Waxer Qmllty Connor Hoa�rd Sm OOleeg�o, G 92139 Y-1 Reglw N_�L City ✓e. ,C%E d 714/237-67= YORBA LINDA 463E PLUMOSA DRIVE•P.O.BOX 309.YORBA UMDA,CALIFORNIA 926 30 WATER DISTRICT PHONE:D94I 771O0I6 February 19, 1987 r Ms. Hilary Baker Canty Sanitation Districts of Orange County P.O. Box 8127 ,o Fountain Valley,CA 92728-8127 RE: Notice of Preparation of a Draft E.I.R. for Amendment No. 1 v Dear Ms. Baker: We are in receipt of your Notice of Preparation of a Draft E.I.R. for Amendment No. 1 to the Consolidated Master Plan dated January 22, 1987. We have reviewed this draft copy and are in agreement with your cents. Our only comment is that under Section IV subsection P of the discussion of the environmental evaluation, I would reccmmmd that you include water with the other mentioned utilities. If you should have any questions regarding the above, please feel free to call me. Very truly yours,ly Michael A.Engineering Manager MAP/jh --4rp ra+ O iKf6 ,! WNIi CF?YWLLL M.IIOY RMMIiI.Iq. pµMCSM[%1R IrtfCem rtsYreWrn $,eT.rVC al M,rupr YwN R.wRM51111Y1L W,YI CR(IMW[LL STcftFRIPIGffn M.Mp RNMlil.1R WRIMMR MRl51R PwuPL ANmoNrIh KATMRTNLEANN C /�\�' n ROBERTL.CIARK C UWRENCE P.IWEMER JR JONN Y.FONLEY 70 `` �,� •`,C" fM Np P.�YIMN JOHN OARINE �) I O ItATNRTN L BARN PDNNHALL 1AIVR NCE P.KRAEMER.JR. AUBUBT F.LENAIN - �J.;E ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT A�,S..,M°. January 29, 1987 .� Ms. Hilary Baker County Sanitation District of Orange County P.O. Box 8127 Fountain Valley, CA 92728-8127 Dear Ma. Baker: Notice of Preparation for Draft Environmental Impact Report for Amendment No. 1 to the Consolidated Master Plan of Sewage Collection, Affecting District No. 2 This is in response to your notice dated January 22, 1987 requesting the views of our agency as to the scope and content of �.+ the subject report. The District's primary concern with any project of the Sanitation Districts is any affect that may result in a change in the water quality of sewage flowing to your Treatment Plant No. 1. The District utilizes treated effluent from your Plant No. 1 for groundwater recharge in its seawater intrusion barriers therefore, a statement related to any water quality change that may occur as a result of this project would w be appropriate. Very truly yours,/� 6 Nereus L. Richardson Acting Secretary Manager NLR:le w MAKING ADDRESS: P.O.BOX SM 10M ELLIS AVENUE,FOUNTAIN VALLEY W FOUNTAIN VALLEY CA BZlffiL1W TELEPHONE Ou)963-SM STATE OF CAUFORNIA GEORGE DEUKMEJIAN,GF.FinFr CALIFORNIA REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD ✓ SANTA ANA REGION 6809 INDIANA AVENUE.SURE 200 RIVERSIDE.CALIFORNIA 92506 ' o PHONE:1714)782-4130 February 9, 1987 w Hilary Baker County Sanitation Districts of Orange County 10844 Ellis Avenue _ Fountain Valley, CA 92708-7018 NOP: AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO THE CONSOLIDATED MASTER PLAN OF SEWAGE COLLECTION, AFFECTING DISTRICT NO. 2 w Dear Ms. Baker: We have reviewed the Notice of Preparation (NOP) for this project. The Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) should state that if de- watering is necessary and the discharge of wastewater to receiving r, waters is proposed, an NPDES permit (waste discharge requirements) must be obtained from this office prior to initiating the discharge. The project proponent should be advised that processing an NPDES permit may take as long as 180 days. Any questions pertaining to the permit should be addressed to Hisam Hagai of our Regulations Section. We look forward to review of the DEIR when it becomes available. r- Sincerely, I Q . Q t,,, Nancy A. Olson Sanitary Engineering Technician v NAO:eyp THE CITY OF T � m CALIFORNIA p CMC CULTURAL CENTER �p��, Number One Civic Center Circle { '+f+:f Bred. Coll/omkt 92621 L _-.— Telephone(774) 990-7600 m February 10, 1987 Ms. Hilary Baker County Sanitation Districts of Orange County P.O. Box 8127 Fountain Valley, CA 92728-8127 Subject: DRAFT EIR FOR AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO THE CONSOLIDATED MASTER PLAN OF SEWAGE COLLECTION, AFFECTING DISTRICT NO. 2 Dear Ms. Baker: The City Staff has reviewed the subject Draft EIR and submit the following comments. On Page 37 , the report states that there are three existing pump stations which are: ,e -Rolling Hills -Yorba Linda -Carbon Canyon Dam On Page 39 it states "--- of the three pump stations, 2 are proposed to eventually be taken out of service," which are: ,r -Rolling Hills -Carbon Canyon Dam In Table 6 "Recommended Relief Facilities," the table does not indicate the removal of the 2 pump stations above, or increasing the size of the existing pump stations. ,e The City ' s recently adopted Carbon Canyon Specific Plan allows 2061 additional residential units to be constructed in the Carbon Canyon area east of Valencia Avenue. A copy of the plan was transmitted to the District's consultants. The Chino Hills State Park may require additional sewer capacity when the Park Master Plan is completed. These two developments in the Canyon will create additional flows to the Carbon Canyon pump station. r However , if the pump station is removed , how will the sewage be transported around the Carbon Canyon Dam to the Rose Drive Trunk at Vesuvius Drive? It is requested that more information be included in the EIR to. justify removal of the Carbon Canyon and Rolling Hills pump stations, or list as an alternate the expansion of the pump stations. Page 2 With respect to Relief Facility No. 2, the Rolling gills 15-inch relief sever through Craig Regional Park, the City is concerned about the construction schedule for this relief facility and other downstream facilities that may require additional capacity. The City has six major projects that flow into this District facility that will exceed the downstream capacity of the City and County sewer systems. These projects are under construction or design. The six projects are: -Brea Hall Expansion - 500,000 SF -200 room Hotel - 234,000 SF -Love Development - Brea School District property - Office and Retail- 1,000,000 SF -Olen Properties Development - Northeast quadrant of Lambert Road and Orange Freeway - Commercial - 600,000 SF -J. M. Peters - 121 unit residential development -Brea-Olinda High School - 2000 students .. All of the above developments are served by the City's State College Boulevard Subtrunk sever which connects to the District's Rolling Hills Trunk sewer in Craig Park. The City has scheduled construction of relief facilities in State College Boulevard and through Craig Park to the District's Rolling Hills Trunk sewer in Fiscal Year 1988-89. The time required to complete the environmental documents , design and construction of the District's sever facility through the Craig Park -and the Brea Dam and reservoir becomes more critical each day . The total build out of the above major projects is scheduled to be completed within the next six years. It is requested that the Rolling Hills Trunk Relief sever be given a high priority on the District's Construction program. If there are any questions on these comments, please contact Sam W. Peterson, City Engineer, phone 990-7763. Sincerely, MAINTENANCE SERVICES DEPARTMENT Patrick McCarron ,d Director of Maintenance Services PH/sj cc: Sam W. Peterson, City Engineer e Hark Akaba, Assistant City Engineer James DeStefano, Acting Director of Development Services m 01mmManded city of orange 1e9e orange civic center • 300 east chapmen avenue orange,alifornia 92666 post office box 449 department of public works pul ratans m February 25, 1987 Ms. Hillary Baker rd County Sanitation Districts of Orange County P.O. Box 8127 Fountain Valley, California 92728-8127 Dear Ms. Baker: In regard to your notice of preparation of an Environmental Impact Report for Amendment No. I to the Consolidated Master Plan of Sewage Collection affecting District 2, which was sent by letter dated January 22, 1987, the City of Orange, In conjunction with planning efforts by our City-s Redevelopment Agency and that of the City of Anaheim and the Anaheim Stadium area, have identified deficiencies which are included in the above referenced draft EIR. These deficiencies were discussed in the project report and EIR for the Southwest Redevelopment Project Area Expansion Plan and relief facilities were Identified to provide capacities to that area which will be provided essentially by relief facilities No. 6 and 12, as shown on Plate 4 which was attached with your correspondence of January 22, 1987. The City, however, had also Identified a potential relief facility in Garden Grove Boulevard which is not Identified in the work proposed to be addressed In the Amendment No. I Draft Environmental Impact Report. The alternatives envisioned between the County Sanitation Districts of Orange County and the City of Orange have been discussed with Tom Dawes, Director of Engineering of your agency, and any additional documentation of concerns in regard to proposed relief facilities will be forwarded as a result of con- versation with Mr. Dawes on February 25, 1987. .d In regard to the environmental evaluation of the proposed works, the City of Orange Public Works Department is in agreement with the initial study and text contained in the discussion of the environmental evaluation contained in your ` transmittal dated January 22, 1987. Very truly yours, r CITY OF ORANGE Frank V. Page Director of Public Works FVP:djs * ,,,,,PM,,d city of orange lees orange civic canter . 300 am chapman avenue . orange,alifomia 926M poet office box 449 daptrnnent of public work: 014)53eM13 March 2, 1987 r Thomas M. Dawes d, Director of Engineering County Sanitation Districts of Orange County P.O. Box 8127 Fountain Valley, CA 92728-8127 Dear Tom: As a follow-up to our meeting of February 25, 1987, and the letter which was presented to you at that time, I would like to summarize my understanding of our discussion of that date. The numbered and designated relief facilities shown on the exhibit contained in the notice of preparation of the draft EIR report for Amendment XI to the s, Consolidated Master Plan of Sewage Collection affecting District #2 is essen- tially schematic in form at this time, and if the cities have a need which the Sanitation District is not presently informed of to route the facilities differ- ently than shown on the exhibit, we will have ample opportunity to work with the 'District to provide the relief the District is attempting to accomplish while providing the maximum service to the city. Relief of the trunk sewer south of the Anaheim Stadium area to the Santa Ana River interceptor will satisfy the problem the city was concerned about in the vicinity of the City Drive and Garden Grove Boulevard. r As in the past, the Sanitation District is most concerned with the timing and phasing of certain city projects and is cognizant of the most significant develop- ment proposals in the City area of the City of Orange and the Anaheim Stadium area. Your primary concern at this time is ability to deliver relief facilities in time m with the city's needs and the District would be open to proposals to have relief facilities constructed by the City of Orange under agreement with the Sanitation Districts if that method is necessary to accommodate the city's needs. .. It is my understanding that as these projects progress, the Sanitation District will get together with the city and review more detailed planning and r..�sing needs with the local agencies. ® March 2, 1987 Page 2 .e Thank you for a most informative meeting, as we have cane to expect. We have discussed on several occasions, taking you up on your kind offer of having our staff tour your revised facilities Inasmuch as it has been a number of years since any of us have been through your treatment plant, and I am sure such a tour would be very enlightening. !' Very truly yours, CITY OF ORANGE .d Frank V. Page Director of Public Works FVP:djs m cc: GDJ - Ron Thompson - FVP `e STATE OP GAUFORNIA�WINUM AND TRANSPORTATION AGENCY GEORGE DEURAOJIAN. Gw DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION - '�^ DL ICT 7. P.O. ROR 23W. l0S ANGEIES 90051 TDD (213) WOD3W0 (213) 620-5335 February 9, 1987 . Notice of Preparation Amendment No.l to the Consolidated Master Plan Ms. Hilary Baker County Sanitation Districts of Orange County P. O. Box 8127 Fountain Valley, CA 92728-8127 Dear Ms. Baker: We have reviewed the Notice of Preparation for Amendment No. 1 to the Consolidated Master Plan of Sewage Collection,- Affecting District No. 2. From the information provided, it appears Caltrans has no discretionary approval power over the proposed project. However, should any sewer trunk line construction occur within Caltrans' right of way, an encroachment permit from our agency would be ® necessary before construction begins. Thank you for the opportunity to review your Notice of Preparation. if we can be of further assistance, please contact Deborah Harmon, Environmental Planner at (213) 620-4913. Very truly yours, �r�L UR ® W. B. BALLANTINE, Chief Environmental Planning Branch b aCTa ORANGE COUNTY TRANSIT DISTRICT T.: Rn„dr !1 chol5 Dm 1150157 A .,�s ?A co crmyzaac. LETTER Of Akw y s . ��� CA 9nit-,;vgyTRANSMITTAI we m d!M.W#WB X mde d_.p..t* _mew TW mumials dacdbW n toUo Bevj4pa onmwv t uVa n i. .5ceix ek fav PE pAnurim "' 3• Pan mil- Mwn2 rA, Dom. 1 I-) CeLU Uxu k.a -L /boas. T"Aa kMA a— _ Pmym—dpaque ase_Na_eom Lmd ntum appaoad and mtmn r�tSh Hvc�� ]ILI all 45 naa wcwouwwwww�.e.o.eox aae..owwoawewova cwurowwu eauo xaaewoxe� Inq nwaoo eeauc waeewo 'y+Y PAW 1p - Y-- -- • max dd I a _ e - M� ,., 3 ` , . ptal nl-4910 =M "Y � '.ty 4ro I i4�r a a•tl p'PI� / , WlY \\\` ' OI OIOrIP2 f d i 1 1 ♦ �� Vlelu Tapia y = m aua` \m GonstCily of orange \�'* CiIY of Orange 154 N. GIUE■11$t. /Orange,CA 92089 ): 1� ..ue ra a n y l ■pEMROPO n 9 1 . - 1=3 Inn ,DELMAP O � �= V �• � w CLOVE a w I ♦ G r..,,• a2� GxOVE A,ECi I 4 - - 1- --ss ®f. In d "'®' 8 ,e ,AVE'L.�.,= W, •r n�`T - ri zai- e _ al ©o. e,;4. �.➢ t Sln ; u...e.•ypd m®` riy giYxo'iu''',f WPAL Ma tom- of " I,a _ Im � \ an C a•i - 1 ¢ _ x.d u, ® rl .w- ez Y TAFE—��-0 � P � ■ I�LbI AVE nn •I' = I� � 1)I^I(1 ■ n M to AVE 1•• SINGE iga ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT y �T Z MAILING ADDRESS: RO. BOX WN 10500 ELLIS AVENUE, FOUNTAIN VALLEY O FOUNTAIN VALLEY,CA 92n&9300 TELEPHONE(714)963.5fi 1 155 11ZM P �N OF CNN G 'Ar, �IZ/� A. M/LAl,as DATE /T�//BT�A� •�T SUBJECT CsdJO` G//C /a966 crossroads LJ,//dan /ellcr da/ed /uDusnev CTA 4i'7y6- 3y94 THE FOLLOWING ITEMS ARE ENCLOSED ❑REQUESTED ❑SENT SEPARATELY VIA d NO. OF DESCRIPnON COPD S l"4 nneeh * A/ma. ¢ Tushn GYs Sian aIn Qf / Tiro Ma of (Darner &S,n �/d /& Santa Ora, &,d not roride, (oG " lia n a4 4r [om4 Tustin / our Ma - m THE ABOVE ITEMS ARE SUBMITTED I< AT YOUR REDDEST El MR YOUR REVIEW ❑FOR YOUR SIGNATURE ❑ FOR YOUR FILEB ❑ FOR YOUR ACTION ❑FOR YOUR INFORMATION commEI UtL 011 Uek��s<, :iha ene/osad momrea[ shudd- prouicle uou 1.)/ iA a deserrphmt o4 OCt),D AFclt'bk -Thai ma,u fx afke/ed .bu 4e. Keemn+endec/ re/ieF ,�e�ll/+es T shotun on LHeur rnnp - P/a/e No, 4! - as do Ned Gnar . Than ES fOr Ift 0/Jp9E/uni✓t1 /o C�Gmmen< - TriL 4ee to V ea.lC �C ask hate, ou.eshons . 0M.Ao-x. no..vae m ' d " I 11391ACACIAMRKWAY.I.O.60x 339 GARDEN DROVE,CALIFORNIA 93643 17141S34.3943 a _ February 19, 1987 Ms. Hilary Baker County Sanitation Districts of Orange County 'd Post Office Box 8127 ' Fountain Valley, California 92728-8127 SUBJECT: Draft EIR - Amendment No. 1 Consolidation Raster Plan - District No. 2 Dear Ms. Baker: m We have reviewed the material sent with your cover letter dated January 22, 1987, concerning the above subject. It is our opinion e, that construction of the proposed facilities is necessary for anticipated future growth. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this important matter. The undersigned will be the contact person for the Garden Grove Sanitary District. Sincerely, /v/ m ^ 19L Ronald D. Cates General Manager ® RDC:jp Enc. cc: Willdan Associates TM Pp k Am TM C1W - W Yu� PLACENTIA CaunallmumMm ARMUR 4 NEWTON """ CAROL DOWNY .wry` NOA*M2 ECWWRODE CIyACTMIFfmMr JONN Q� s' ROOM LNENP '!I — GEORGE F.mEOLER 401 Eo CAcp fi A~M -PLp , QIff"b OM70 s — January 30, 1987 County Sanitation Districts of Orange County P.O. Box 8127 Fountain Valley, California 92728-8127 ATTENTION: Hilary Baker SUBJECT: E. I.R. (Amendment No. 1) We have made a review of the subject document for the above mentioned project and have no comments regarding the pro- posed work within the defined areas at this time. ® Should you have any questions, please contact me at 714/993-8131. ea Very truly yours , s, • Art Burgner ���� Associate Civil Engineer .. AB/lm SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA gqS COMPANY O GE COUNtt OMWN • P.Q BW 3 ANAMEIM, f L[FO NIA 92R1I11f< Jan. 28, 1987 County Sanitation Districts of Orange County ® P.O. Box 8127 Fountain Valley, CA 92728-8127 Attn: Ms. Hilary Baker Subject: DEIR Amendment No. 1 for the Consolidated Master Plan of Sewage Collection Affecting Dist. No. 2 ® This letter is not to be interpreted as a contractual co mitnent to serve the proposed project but only as an information service. Its .� intent is to notify you that the Southern California Gas CCB)any has facilities in the area where the above-named project is proposed. Cas service to the project could be served by an existing min as shown on the attached atlas sheet without any significant inpact on the environment. The service would be in accordance with the Carpany's policies and extension rules on file with the California Public Utilities C=nission at the tine contractual arrangements are made. Due to the scope of the project we will be unable to provide maps for -- the entire project. maps for the entire area are available for viewing at our Headquarters Office, 1919 S. State College, Anaheim. The availability of natural gas service, as set forth in this letter, is based. 1.=on present conditions of gas supply and regulatory policies. As a public utility, the Southern California Gas Carpany is under the jurisdiction of the California Public Utilities Commission. We can also he affected by actions of gas supply or the condition under which service is available, gas service will be provided in �+ accordance with revised conditions. Estimates of gas usage for non-residential projects are developed on an individual basis and are obtained from the Crnnercial-Industrial Market Services Staff by calling (714) 634-3173. We have developed several programs which are available, upon request, d to provide assistance in selecting the most effective applications of energy conservation techniques for a particular project. If you desire further information on any of our energy conservation programs, please contact this office for assistance. Sincerely, D. C. Moore Technical Supervisor LA:du I w .e _ APPENDIX D V Comments/Responses on Draft EIR I W n.l rd r r r ' I wi >r k w J d NTY OF ERNIE SC DIRECTOR,TOR,DERR EM 2 1 ROBERT/L FISHER DIRECTOR OF PLANNING s 3 RANG E 12 CIVIC CENTERER PLAZA P.O.BOX 4049 ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT AGENCY SAWA ANA,CA 92702-101B Y—INNING MAILING ADDRESS: N�U�1 P.O.BOX 4M8 M W—O AR 3 I SANTA ANA,CA 927)2< ,F TELEPHONE (714)B36d9C] nu NCL 7007 Me. Hilary Baker County Sanitation Districts of Orange County P. 0. Box 8127 Fountain Valley, CA 92728-8127 SUBJECT, Notice of Preparation for Amendment Number One to the Consolidated Master Plan of Savage Collection, Affecting District Number Two Dear Ms. Baker, ^' The County of Orange Environmental Management Agency has received the above refer- enced document which addresses the environmental impacts associated with the pro- posed plan to correct sewer collection system deficiencies in County Sanitation District Number Two. We have the following comments, ee Flood Control According to Plate 4 (Recommended Relief Facilities), proposed trunk sewer lines r will cross the following Orange County Flood Control District (OCFCD) facilities, Brea Creek Channel (A02) Fullerton Creek Channel (A03) Carbon Creek Channel (BOO Tuffree Storm Drain (11O1P23) Anaheim-Barber City Channel (CO3) East Garden Grove-Wintersburg Channel (COS) Carbon Canyon Diversion Channel (E02) Atwood Channel (E04) Esperanza Channel (E06) ti Collins Channel (E07) Southeast Anaheim Channel (E12) East Richfield Storm Drain (EO1S01) Walnut Canyon Storm Channel (EOlS09) '" Yorba Park Storm Drain (EOlP63) Me. Hilary Baker Page 2 The proposed trunk sever lines show on Plate No. 4 (Recommended Relief Facilities) should be sufficiently deep to clear all OCFCD ultimate drainage facilities. An encroachment permit from the County of Orange will be required for each proposed trunk line that crosses an OCFCD facility. Specific clearance and encroach- Brent requirements will be determined by Central Permits for each specific crossing. All sewer trunk lines entering the Santa Ana River interceptor must be compatible with the D.S. Army Corps of Engineers proposed Santa Ana River Main Stem Project. It is also suggested that the County Sanitation Districts of Orange County transmit environmental documentation and all future plans to the Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles District office, for their review and comment in regard to the Santa Ana River Main Stem Project. Thank you for the opportunity to respond to the HOP. We would appreciate receiving two copies of the draft EIR when it becomes available. Should you have any ques- tions, please contact Chris Miller at (714) 834-6932. w Very truly yours, nn r YYIA.aa�m.a.Jc GYM. �1�-mtA.m�L Michael M. Ronne, Acting Manager EMA/Environmental and Special Projects .: CM,no(3)(037)7061 a� r UAR OF UUI NIA—i F RES RCU AGENCY GEORGE DW"UTAN Gearm. DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME 245 W. Broadway. Suite 250 Lona Beach. CA 90802-4467 ( 213) 590-5113 March 4, 1987 Hilary Baker Orange County Sanitation District M P.O. Box 8127 Fountain Valley, CA 92727 Dear Ms. Baker: r We have reviewed the Notice of Preparation of a Draft EIR for the Consolidated Master Plan of Trunk Sewers/District 2 (SCH87020410) . We believe a Draft EIR should be prepared for this project and it should include the following informatibn: 1. A como_ iete assessment of flora and fauna within the oroiect area. Particular emphasis should be placed upon identifying endangered, threatened, and locally unique species. 2. Documentation of direct , indirect, and cumulative impacts expected to adversely affect biological resources within and adjacent to the project site. Also, mitigation measures proposed to offset such impacts should be included. ` 3. Landscape programs should include native trees and shrubs to provide habitat for wildlife. . R. Diversion or obstruction of the natural flow or changes in the channel, bed or bank of any river, stream, or lake will require notification to the Department of Fish and Game as called for in the Fish and Game Code. Notification should be made after the project is approved by the lead agency but prior to such changes. Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on this r project. If you have any questions, please contact Jack L. Spruill of our Environmental Services staff at ( 213) 590-5137. Sincerely. . nl Fred Worthley Regional Manager Region 5 cc: Office of Planning & Research d r r m `Q® ORANGE COUNTY TRANSIT DISTRICT C February 16, 1987 Mr. Thomas M. Dawes ^, Director of Engineering County Sanitation District of Orange County, California P.O. Box 8127 w Fountain Valley, CA 927OB-8127 Dear Mr. Dawes: SUBIECI': NOP DEIR AMENDMIERT HOA TO MASTER FLAN OF SEWER COLLECTION, CSOOC NO.2 We have reviewed the proposed project as described in this NOP and have the following comments: s' • Our previous comments on this project, provided to you on August 6, 1986, remain the same. A copy of this letter is attached for your information. s • The feasibility study being conducted to evaluate alternative uses for the District owned Pacific Electric right-of-way should be completed this spring. At that time, a copy of the final report will be transmitted to you for your use. We appreciate the opportunity to provide input to this DEIR and would like to receive a copy of the DEIR when it is released for public review. If you have any questions, or require additional information, please call me at (714) 971-4343. r Sincerely, Christine Huard-Spencer Environmental Coordinator CHS:PLN-91 SE Attachment: August 6, 1986 letter to Mr. Thomas Dawes, CSDOC. v 11222 ACACIA PARKWAY•P.O. BOX 3005•GARDEN GROVE,CAUFORNIA 92642•(714)971-6200 vy l ORANGE COUNTY TRANSIT DISTRICT August 6, 1986 Mr. Thomas M. Dawes Director of Engineering County Sanitation Districts of Orange County, California .. P.O. Box 8127 Fountain Valley, CA 92708-8127 Dear Mr. Dawes: SUBJECT: AMENDED TRUNK SEWER MASTER PLAN, CSDOC NO. 2 We have reviewed the proposed relief facilities as described in this report and have the following comments: a The District is currently conducting a feasibility study to eval- uate several alternative uses for the Pacific Electric Right-Of-Way (PE ROW) between Beach Boulevard in Stanton and Raitt Street in Santa Ana. This study effort, which is being directed by OCTD in concert with the cities adjoining the PE ROW, will identify the most feasible and cost-effective use of the ROW. I have enclosed a copy of our study's scope of work for your information. We have provided a copy of the "Amended Trunk Sewer Master Plan" to our se consultant conducting our feasibility study and on a preliminary basis, have the following comments: - Our understanding is that the relief sewer within the PE Right-Of-Way (project number 15 on page 29 and plate 4) will be 15 feet below present grade. There should be no impact upon the relief sewer at this depth by a potential transitway. - Constructing the relief sewer within the PE Right-Of-Way will result in significantly reduced impacts comnared to other e options, particularly with respect to construction costs and traffic disruption. - Assuming project implementation coincides with transportation re improvements on the PE, coordination of the two projects can reduce construction impacts even further. 11222 ACACIA PARKWAY•P.O. BOX 3005•GARDEN GROVE. CALIFORNIA 92542•0141 971-62DD Mr. Thomas M. Dawes July 29, 1986 Page Two Although sufficient information does not exist at the present time on what construction activity would be undertaken by OCTD, we believe that your project can be accommodated within our Eight—Of—Way. We will keep you informed on the progress of our feasibility study. OCTD's contact for our study is Jeff Ordway, Manager of Planning (971-4348). a The construction of the individual relief sever projects could result in significant time delays for transit vehicles operating along or near the proposed relief sewer alignments. In order to minimize these potential impacts, we would appreciate being kept informed regarding the construction schedules, lane disruptions, and lane closures for these projects. Information on construction activities should be directed to: Mr. Manny Thomas �. Division 04 Bus Operations P. 0. Box 3005 Garden Grove, CA 92642 (714) 530-5910, Extension 25 We appreciate the opportunity to comment on this plan. If you have any questions or require further information, please call me at v - (714) 971-4343. ' Sincerely, '" �In,n�Plnc Hvasd c�eMCRX . Christine Huard—Spencer Environmental Coordinator CHS:PLN-48JY Enclosure P ' r ®c�a K. P. LINDSTROM & ASSOCIATES PLANNING & ENVIRONMENTAL �- CONSULTING SERVICES _ March 9, 1987 Ms. Hilary Baker Engineering Department County Sanitation Districts of Orange County P.O. Box 8127 Fountain Valley, CA 92728-8127 Subject: Screencheck Draft EIR to Master Plan for Districts 2,3 and 11. The subject EIR contains some information on the Master Plan ESR previously prepared by my firm for the Districts. The use of the information on pages 3-27 and 3-29 is accurate- in fact TOO ACCURATE in that it is the exact language taken from the 1985 Joint Works Master Plan. This is one of the best jobs of plagiarism I have come across in a long time. I would URGE that they give credit to our firm and use the material provided as referenced in quotes from the Master Plan. " Sincerely, K. P. Lindstrom & Associates Kris P. Lindstrom President cc: Wi'Lldan & Associates 1177 Brownwyk Drive, Sacramento, California 95822 (916) 447-5893 MEETING Oar Merch 26, 1987 TIME 7:30 p.m. DISTRICTS 2 DISTRICT 1 JOINT BOARDS ' (SALTARELLI)...HOESTEREY...� _ (PICKLER)........EAY.........� (CRANW)........XANSON...... _ _ (NORBY)..........CATLIN......� (YOUNG)........GRISET......� _ _ (RISHER).........CLIFT.......� (ROTH).........STANTON..... _ (PLUMMER)........COX......... (PERRY)..........CULVER......� DISTRICT 2 (SALTARELLI).....EDGAR.......� (NORBY).. CATL IN...... (MURPHY).........FRIED.......(MC CUNE)..... ..GRIFFIN..... (WEDEL . ......MAHOHEY... (YOUNG)..........GRISET......� (Simi).....:SAY.........�� (CRANK)..........HANSON......� .....BIGONGffi2.._ — _ (COX)...... HART,....... (YOUNG)........GRISET...... (SALT'RELLI).....HOESTEREY...� (NELSON).......LSYTON...... (CORONADO).......KANEL.......� (SCOTT)........MEAL........ (WINCHELL).......KELLY.......� (DOWNEY).......NEWTON......��� (SALTARELLI).....KENNEDY.....� (CULVER).......PERRY....... (NELSON).........LEYTON......� (FASOENDER)....SILZEL...... (WEDEL)..........MAHONEY..... (PEREZ)........SMITH....... (PLUMMER)........MAURER......� (ROTH).........STANTON..... (GREEN)..........MAYS........ (AGRAN).. .. .MILLER......_ DISTRICT 3 (BIOONGER).......MURPHY......� (SCOTT)..........NEAL........= (HERMAN).......POLIS ...... (SUTTON).........NELSON......� (WEISHAUPTI....SAPIEN......- - - (DOWNEY).........NEWTON...... (PICXLER):.....BAY.........- _ _ (CULVER).........PERRY....... � (NORSY)........CATLIN......_ _ _ (HERMAN).........POLIS....... _ (RISNER).......CLIFT....... _ (WEISMAUPT)......SAPIEN......� (PERRY)........CULVER......_ _ (WILES)..........SISTER...... (MC CUME)......GRIFFIM..... _ _ (FASSENDER)......SILZEL...... � (YOUNG)........GRISET...... _ (PEREZ)..........SMITH....... (CORONADO).....KANEL.......� _ (ROTH)....:......STANTON.....� (WINCMELL).....KELLY....... _ _ (NELSON).........SUTTON..... (WEDEL)........MAHONEY..... _ (MILLER).........SWAN........ (SCOTT) ...... MEAL........ _ (SELVAGGI).......SYLVIA......� (SUTTON).......NELSON...... _ _ (GREEN/SONNSON)..WAHNER......� (WILES)........SIEFEN......� (ROTH).........STANTON..... (SELVAGGI).....SYLVIA......_ - _ DISTRICT S' STAFF.DISTRICT ✓ CLARKE...... (COX)..........HART........_ _ _ DAWES......._IG (PLUMMEA)......COX......... _ _ ANDERSON...._ (ROTH).........STANTON.....- _ _ BUTLER....... DISTRICT 6 BAKER....... ✓ KYLE........ (3DMNSON)......WAMNER......_ _ - WON LANGEN = (PLUMMER)......MAURER......- WINS (ROTH).........STANTON....._ __ STREE ,......J� CLAWSON..... DISTRICT 7 OOTEN....... LINDER...... (SALTARELLI)...EDGAR.......- _ - DEBLIEUX....- (AGRAM)........MILLER...... _ (PLUMMER)......COX......... (YOUNG)........GRISET......- (PEREZ)........SMITH.......- (ROTH).........STANTON..... (GREEN)........HAMNER......-- DISTRICT 11 (WINCHELL).....KELLY....... (ROTH).........STANTON,,....- (GREEN)........MAYS........ _ DISTRICT 13 9I}lE@S: WOODRUFF...._ ATKINS......�� (NELSON).......SUTTON......_ - _ HOMENER..... (BIGONOER).....MURPHY......_- _ HOWARD...... _ (PICKLER)......SAY.........- _ - HUNT........ (PEREZ)........SMITH.......- _ - KEITH....... (ROTH).........STANTON.....- _ - KNOPF....... U LE BLANC...._ DISTRICT 16 LINDSTROM...- LYNCH......._ (AGRAN)........MILLER......- - - MARTINSON..._ (MILLER).......SWAN........ PEARCE......_ (SALTARELLI)...REMEDY.....� _ _ WASON......._ (PEREZ)....... SMITH......._ _ _ YOUNG......._ (ROTH).........STANTON....._ OYi3i7B9 3/26/87 - BOARDS OF DIRECTORS County Sanitation Districts Post Office 8" 8127 of Orange County, California 70844 Ellis Avenue Fountain Valley, Calif., 02708 v T*laaharws: Aran Cods 714 DISTRICT No. 2 sdzaii° AGENDA ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING THURSDAY, MARCH 26, 1987 - 7 :30 P .M. (1) Roll Call f RE: AGENDA ITEM NO. (1) (a) I CHAIRMAN CATLIN: IThe Mayor of the City of Yorba Linda is appointing Mr. Roland Bigonger as his alternate for tonight's meeting. Therefore, it is appropriate to take the following action: i Consideration of motion to receive and file letter from J{I �../ the City of Yorba Linda re appointment of new alternate Director to the Mayor for the meeting of March 26, 1987, as follows: (*Mayor) District Active Director Alternate Director 2 Roland E. Bigonger Irwin Fried* (5) Consideration of actions relative to the Draft Focused Environmental Impact Report for 'Amendment No. 1 to the to the Consolidated Master Plan of Trunk Sewers for County mis Sanitation Districts Nos. 2, 3 and 11 relative to the District No. 2 Euclid/Newphope-Placentia Drainage Area: (a) Consideration of motion to receive and file comments received relative to the Notice of Preparation of a Draft Focused Environmental Impact Report for Amendment No. 1 to the Consolidated Master Plan of Trunk Sewers for County Sanitation Districts Nos . 2 , 3 and 11 relative to the District No. 2 Euclid/Newphope-Placentia Drainage Area (Copies included in enclosed Draft EIR) (I'TEM (5) CONTINUED ON PAGE 21 DISTRICT 2 3/26/87 ( 5) (CONTINUED) �../ (b) Consideration of motion to receive and file Draft Focused Environmental Impact Report for Amendment No. 1 to the Consolidated Master Plan of Trunk Sewers for County Sanitation Districts Nos. 2, 3 and 11 relative to the District No. 2 Euclid/Newphope-Placentia Drainage Area (Copy enclosed with Directors' agenda material) (c) Consideration of motion authorizing the General Manager to file a Notice of Completion of the Draft Focused Environmental Impact Report for Amendment No. 1 to the Consolidated Master Plan of Trunk Sewers for County Sanitation Districts Nos. 2 , 3 and 11 relative to the District No. 2 Euclid/Newphope-Placentia Drainage Area (d) Consideration of motion establishing May 13 , 1987, as the final date for which all comments must be received on the Draft Focused Environmental Impact Report for Amendment No. 1 to the Consolidated Master Plan of Trunk Sewers for County Sanitation Districts Nos . 2, 3 and 11 relative to the District No. 2 Euclid/Newphope-Placentia Drainage Area (e) Consideration of motion fixing May 13 , 1987, at 7:30 p.m. , in the Districts' Administrative Office, as �../ the date time and place for public hearing on the Draft Focused Environmental Impact Report for Amendment No. 1 to the Consolidated Master Plan of Trunk Sewers for County Sanitation Districts Nos. 2, 3 and 11 relative to the District No. 2 Euclid/Newphope-Placentia Drainage Area ( 6) Other business and communications , if any ( 7) Consideration of motion to adjourn $'. IS COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT NO. 2 OF ORANGE COUNTY CALIFORNIA MINUTES OF ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING March 26, 1987 - 7:30 p.m. - 10844 Ellis Avenue Fountain Valley, California Pursuant to adjournment of the regular meeting of March 11, 1987, the Board of Directors of County Sanitation District No. 2 of Orange County, California, met in an adjourned regular meeting at the above hour and date in the District's Administrative Office. The Chairman called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. The roll was called and the Secretary reported a quorum present. DIRECTORS PRESENT: Buck Catlin, Chairman, Ben Bay, Roland Bigonger, Dan Griset, Bill Mahoney, James Neal, Arthur Newton, Bob Perry DIRECTORS ABSENT: Gene Layton, Wayne Silzel, Don E. Smith, Roger 1Stanton STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: J. Wayne Sylvester, General Manager, Rita J. Brown, Secretary, Thomas M. Dawes, William H. Butler, Hilary Baker, Gary Streed OTHERS PRESENT: Suzanne Atkins, Assistant General Counsel, ;✓ Don R. Griffin, Joint Chairman, Chuck Lake, Randy Nichols x ar ,s � w :t s ,s + � � • Receive and file letter from the Moved, seconded and duly carried: City of Yorba Linda appointing new alternate Director to the Mayor That the letter from the City of Yorba for the March 26, 1987 Board Meeting Linda re appointment of Roland E. Bigonger as alternate Director to Mayor Irwin Fried for the District 2 Adjourned Regular Meeting on March 26, 1987, be, and is hereby, received and ordered filed. Verbal report of consultant, Willdan The General Manager reported that the Associates, re Amendment No. 1 to purpose of this adjourned meeting was to Consolidated Master Plan of Trunk review proposed Amendment No. 1 to the Sewers for County Sanitation Consolidated Master Plan of Trunk Severe Districts Nos. 2 3 and 11 relative for County Sanitation Districts Nos. 2, to the District 2 Euclid Newhope- 3 and ll relative to the District No. 2 Placentia Drainage Area Euclid/Newhope-Placentia Drainage "-3, and the Draft Endironmental Impact Report for said Amendment. The current District No. 2 Master Plan was prepared in 1983. Since its completion many of the cities within the District have modified their general plans. Because of these modifications, new development and redevelopment now projected will result in considerably higher densities than anticipated when the 03/26/87 Master Plan was prepared... In order to.. address that, the-Boards-engaged Willdan Associates to re-examine drainage areas served by the Euclid/Newhope-Placentia Interceptor Sewer systems to determine the capability of those systems to serve projected increases in densities and other development, identify system deficiencies and recommend improvements. These systems serve a drainage area which includes portions of the cities of Anaheim, Brea, Fountain Valley, Fullerton, Garden Grove, Orange, Placentia, Santa Ana, Villa Park, Yorba Linda and unincorporated County territory. As part of the work, the consultant gathered existing and projected land use information from each of the cities within the area and the County of Orange. In November 1986 the Directors received a draft copy of the proposed Consolidated Master Plan Amendment No. 1 prepared by Willdan Associates. The report has been circulated to all of the cities, sanitary districts and the County of Orange for comment and all comments received have been incorporated into the text. In December the Boards then engaged Willdan Associates to complete the necessary environmental work to comply with CEQA requirements. Mr. Sylvester reported that the consultant had completed the Draft Environmental Impact Report. The Chairman then recognized Mr. Chuck Lake from Willdan Associates, District's consultant, who reviewed Amendment No. 1 to the Consolidated Master Plan of Trunk Sewers for County Sanitation Districts Nos. 2, 3 and 11 relative to the District No. 2 Euclid/Newhope-Placentia Drainage Area and the procedures followed in updating the Master Plan. Mr. Lake reiterated that the sewer studies conducted by Willdan Associates projected increased densities and other development in these cities since the 1983 Master Plan was completed, identified deficiencies in the sewer system, and recommended system improvements. Extensive consultation with each of the cities and the County of Orange as to current land use plans and projected changes were included. Several new land classifications were developed for estimating sewage generation to reflect high-rise commercial and high density residential uses as well as low density uses expected in foothill areas. Significant changes from the 1983 Master Plan Report, including deletion of a plan to divert water from Fullerton and Brea westerly to the Knott Interceptor Sewer system (owned by County Sanitation District No. 3) and construction of an interceptor sewer in Euclid Street to deliver wastewater to the Fountain Valley treatment plant, were recommended. The proposed West Street Interceptor Sewer, planned in 1983 to relieve the Newhope-Placentia Trunk Sewer system, was deleted and a diversion to the planned Euclid Interceptor Sewer was substituted. In total, the Amended Master Plan calls for construction of some 11 miles of trunk sewers and diversions over the the next five years, at an estimated capital coat of $25 million. In the future an additional eightmiles of sewer lines will be required, at a cost of $9 million. The total cost of the recommended improvements is $34 million. In 1983 the cost estimate was $33.9 million. Verbal report of consultant, Willdan Randy Nichols, representing Willdan Associates re Draft Focused EIR f., Associates, then addressed the Board and Amendment No. 1 to Consolidated reported that in January, to comply with Master Plan of Trunk Sewers for California Environmental Quality Act County Sanitation Districts Nos. 2, Environmental Impact Report 3 and 11 relative to the District 2 requirements, a Notice of Preparation of Euclid/Newhope-Placentia Drainage the Draft Focused Environmental Impact Area Report for Amendment No. 1 to the Consolidated Master Plan of Trunk Sewers -2- 03/26/87 for Districts Nos. 2,. 3 and 11 relative to-the District No. . 2.. Euclid/NewhopePlacentia Drainage Area, and an Initial Study were sent to responsible agencies in the County of Orange, as well as state and federal agencies. Responses to the notice were received from the State of California `.✓ Office of Planning and Research, Yorba Linda County Water District, Orange County Water District, State of California Regional Water Quality Control Board (Santa Ana Region), the cities of Brea, Placentia and Orange, California Department of Transportation, Orange County Transit District, Garden Grove Sanitary District, Southern California Gas Company, County of Orange Environmental Management Agency, State of California Department of Fish and Game, and K. P. Lindstrom 6 Associates. The Draft SIR evaluates the environmental impacts and includes recommended mitigation measures associated with the project, including Biological Resources, Hydrology/Water Quality, Traffic and Circulation, Cost, Land Use and Population, Public Service and Utilities, Energy, and Consistency with Other Relevant Plans. The tentative calendar for finalizing Natter Plan Amendment No. 1 and the SIR for said Amendment is as follows: March 26, 1987 - Receive and file comments relative to the Notice of Preparation of the Draft EIR - Receive and file Draft EIR - Authorize filing of Notice of Completion of Draft EIR - Establish May 13, 1987, as final date for comments and public hearing on Draft EIR May 13, 1987 - Public Hearing on Draft SIR and final comment date June 10, 1987 - Consideration of approval and certification of Final EIR - Consideration of approval of Amendment No. 1 to the Master Plan Receive and file Executive Summary Moved, seconded and duly carried: of Amendment No. 1 and Draft Focused EIR for said Amendment That the Executive Summary of Amendment No. 1 to the Consolidated Master Plan of Trunk Sewers for County Sanitation Districts Noe. 2, 3 and 11 relative to the District No. 2 Euclid/Newhope-Placentia Drainage Area and the Draft Focused Environmental Impact Report for said Amendment No. 1, be, and is hereby, received and ordered filed. Receive and file comments received Moved, ro c conded and duly carried: on Notice of Preparation of Draft Focused EIR for Amendment No. 1 to That the comments received from the the District's Master Plan following on the Notice of Preparation of a Draft Focused Environmental Impact Report for Amendment No. 1 to the Consolidated Master Plan of Trunk Sewers for County Sanitation Districts Nos. 2, 3 and 11 relative to the District No. 2 Euclid/Newhope-Placentia Drainage Area, be, and are hereby, received and ordered filed: -3- 03/26/87 Comments Received From". _ ..... Dated - State of California Office of Planning and Research 2/03/87 - Yorba Linda County Water District 2/19/87 - Orange County Water District 1/29/87 6 3/02/87 - State of California Regional Water Quality Control Board 2/09/87 (Santa Ana Region) - City of Brea 2/10/87 - City of Placentia 1/30/87 - City of Orange 2/25/87 - California Department of Transportation 2/09/87 - Orange County Transit District 8/06,86, 1/30/87 6 2/16/87 - Garden Grove Sanitary District 2/19/87 - Southern California Gas Company 1/28/87 - County of Orange Environmental Management Agency 3/03/87 - State of California Department of Fish and Game 3/04/87 - K. P. Lindstrom 6 Associates 3/09/87 Receive and file Draft Focused EIR Moved, seconded and duly carried: for Amendment No. 1 to the District's Master Plan That the Draft Focused Environmental Impact Report for Amendment No. 1 to the Consolidated Master Plan of Trunk Sewers for County Sanitation Districts Nos. 2, 3 and 11 •relative to the District No. 2 Euclid/Newhope-Placentia Drainage Area, be, and is hereby, received and ordered filed. Authorizing the General Manager to Moved, seconded and duly carried: file a Notice of Completion of the Draft Focused SIR for Amendment That the General Manager be, and is No. 1 to the District's Master Plan hereby, authorized to file a Notice of Completion of the Draft Focused Environmental Impact Report for Amendment No. 1 to the Consolidated Master Plan of ' runk Sewers for County Sanitation Districts Nos. 2, 3 and 11 relative to the District No. 2 Euclid/Newhope-Placentia Drainage Area. -4- 03/26/87 Establishing May 13, 1987, as the Moved, seconded and duly carried: - - final date for comments to be received on the Draft Focused EIR That May 13, 1987, be, and is hereby, for Amendment No. 1 to the established as the final date by which District's Master Plan all comments must be received on the Draft Focused Environmental Impact Report for Amendment No. 1 to the Consolidated Master Plan of Trunk Sewers for County Sanitation Districts Nos. 2, 3 and 11 relative to the District No. 2 Euclid/Newhope-Placentia Drainage Area. Fixing May 13, 1987, at 7:30 p.m., Moved, seconded and duly carried: as the date and time for public hearing on the Draft Focused EIR That May 13, 1987, at 7:30 p.m., in the for Amendment No. 1 to the District's Administrative Office, be, District's Master Plan and is hereby, fixed as the date, time and place for public hearing on the Draft Focused Environmental Impact Report for Amendment No. 1 to the Consolidated Master Plan of Trunk Sewers for County Sanitation Districts Nos. 2, 3 and 11 relative to the District No. 2 Euclid/Newhope-Placentia Drainage Area. Adiournment Moved, seconded and duly carried: That this meeting of the Board of Directors of County Sanitation District No. 2 be adjourned. The Chairman declared the meeting so adjourned at 8:15 p.m., March 26, 1987. Secretary, Board of Directors County Sanitation District No. 2 of Orange County, Calfornia -5- r r EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDATION- FOR CONTINUED CODISPOSAL OF WASTEWATER RESIDUALS r AND MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE IN ORANGE COUNTY r r r �NN1TAT)ON O r �� `Ae-to4°lit°n O q �sT e � r U � K r r ince195A ORANGE CO%3 r r COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS OF ORANGE COUNTY r WITH ASSISTANCE FROM K.P. LINDSTROM AND ASSOCIATES r February 1987 EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDATION FOR CONTINUED CODISPOSAL OF WASTEWATER RESIDUALS AND MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE IN ORANGE COUNTY �PSITATION �� ¢ssoP°lilan Oro OAS O T o ORgNGE COt3lo COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS OF ORANGE COUNTY WITH ASSISTANCE FROM K.P. LINDSTROM AND ASSOCIATES February 1987 r r March 10, 1987 Mr. Frank Bowerman r Director and Chief Engineer Waste Management Program General Services Agency County of Orange 1200 North Main Street, Suite 206 Santa Ana, CA 92701 r Subject: Long-Term Continuation and Expansion of the Cooperative Program of the County and the Sanitation Districts for Waste Management r Dear Frank: r For many years the County Sanitation Districts and the County of orange have practiced an integrated program of landfill co-disposal of municipal wastewater solids residuals and municipal solid waste. We have been, and remain, most appreciative of the excellent cooperation and assistance that you and your staff have provided. We believe that this close working relationship has enabled us to efficiently and effectively manage .� waste for the benefit of the citizens and communities that we both serve. ,r The purpose of this letter is to propose the long-term continuation and expansion of the cooperative program of managing metropolitan Orange County's waste disposal. Specifically, the Districts propose the formal initiation of joint planning and implementation measures for: ' Continuation of the program of co-disposal of wastewater �^ solids residuals and municipal solid waste on a long-term basis at existing County landfills, or at Bee Canyon Landfill consistent with the provisions of the Memorandum r of Understanding between the County and the City of Irvine. Provision for future sewage sludge disposal in the "Application for Facility Permit/Waste Discharge" to the Regional Water Quality Control Board for Bee Canyon Landfill . r ' Provision for a leachate control system in the construction of Bee Canyon Landfill in accordance with Subchapter 15. r W COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS d ORANGE COUNTY. CAIIFONNIA 109Y ELL AVENUE powxaiv F TNN VALLEY.CAUW"NIA 927MA127 9141 99z.zan Mr . Frank Bowerman March 10 , 1987 ' Page Two Implementation of a program of beneficial reuse of sludge as a soil amendment in the closure of Coyote Canyon and Santiago Canyon landfills, and future landfill closures. Implementation of a program providing for disposal of the ,r County' s landfill leachate and landfill gas energy recovery system wastes to the Sanitation Districts' sewerage system to enhance groundwater protection. _ In November 1983, following an extensive evaluation of wastewater solids residuals (sludge) management alternatives, the Boards of Directors of the County Sanitation Districts of Orange County (CSDOC) approved a residual solids management plan. The Districts' evaluation included a review of landfill co-disposal, private sector reuse/disposal, both land based and mechanical composting, co-combustion of sludge and municipal solid waste (NSW) , and ocean disposal. Although the Districts continue to pursue all options, the Boards' plan designated the continued co-disposal of wastewater solids residuals with NSW at the County's landfills as the best available short-term alternative and the _preferred and most feasible long-term disposal r alternative. Landfill co-disposal of sludge and MSW is an environmentally acceptable method, is consistent with the County's Solid Waste Management Plan and is the most cost-effective means for disposing of sludge from the Districts' two regional sewage treatment plants serving the residents of metropolitan Orange County. 1" Since the plan was adopted our respective offices have met periodically to informally discuss waste management plans. You and your staff have been most helpful. The Districts and their rr environmental consultant, R.P. Lindstrom and Associates , have completed an "Evaluation and Recommendation for Continued Co-disposal - of Wastewater Residuals and Municipal Solid Waste in _ Orange County" , copies of which are enclosed herewith. The evaluation is an in-depth review of the Districts sludge management program and co-disposal issues . Following is a summary of its findings and recommendations in support of the �" Districts' proposals: COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS of ORANGE COUNTY. CALIFORNIA • 1084A ELLIS AVENUE G.O.BOX 8127 r FOUNTAIN VALLEY.CALIFORNIA 927291 71AI 992-2A11 Mr. Frank Bowerman March 10 , 1987 r Page Three r Continued Landfill Co-disposal: With the imminent closure of Coyote Canyon in 1988, the Districts ' review of long-term r sludge disposal options has focused on other County landfills _ and concluded that the most logical site for ongoing co-disposal is the proposed Bee Canyon site. Our evaluation r has determined this to be the most feasible alternative for several reasons : ' Bee Canyon is the replacement site for Coyote Canyon (where our existing co-disposal program has been successfully operating for years) . It is being built to accommodate the wastes from most of Orange County now served by the Districts and it is within the CSDOC service area. The use of Bee Canyon for sludge disposal is consistent with the growing public and political sentiment that each County must be responsible for its own waste disposal. ' Bee Canyon, being centrally located yet relatively remote from urban areas, provides the most reliable, long term option for existing and projected waste disposal needs for metropolitan Orange County' s residents. r ' Bee Canyon is the most cost-effective alternative and reduces transportation requirements and the accompanying environmental impacts . ' Bee Canyon, being a new site, can be engineered to accept wastewater residuals under the most favorable conditions r mandated by Subchapter 15 , using the latest technology. ' Bee Canyon revenues (tipping fees) from sludge disposal, currently in an amount between $950 ,000 and $1,100 ,000 per year paid by the Districts to the County, would remain in the County to the benefit of its taxpayers. _ r The Districts are aware of the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the County of Orange and the City of Irvine concerning co-disposal at Bee Canyon Landfill . We fully _ support the provisions of the MOD, and propose to proceed in a manner consistent with its terms and conditions . Moreover, I� the 1985 agreement between the Irvine Ranch Water District and CSDOC recognized the mutual benefits to the community of Irvine as well as the Orange County community-at-large in forming new Sanitation District No. 14 . This agreement r r COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS At ORANGE COUNTY. CAUFOHNIA 108A4 ELUB AVENUE Op.BOX 912) FOUNTAIN VALUEY.CALIFORNIA EE72"W7 p1<I9822nt Mr. Frank Bowerman March 10 , 1987 ` Page Four V resolved Irvine' s sewerage planning needs by providing for the conveyance of sewage and industrial waste to the CSDOC regional treatment and disposal facilities in Fountain Valley and Huntington Beach, and recognized the reciprocal benefit of continuing co-disposal of the communities ' wastewater ,r residuals at Coyote and Bee Canyons . The enclosed report discusses at great length the means to d comply with the MOD provisions . The initial requirement is the completion of a new Environmental Assessment and Environmental Impact Report (EIR) . However, because of the length of time required to thoroughly perform the CEQA work, it would appear very difficult to complete the necessary environmental reviews within the time constraints of the scheduled opening of Bee Canyon. Therefore, although the "+ environmental work could possibly be completed on a fast-track, it would appear most desirable that the CEQA work relative to co-disposal of sludge at Bee Canyon be accomplished following its opening. The first step in the process is the submittal of an "Application for Facility Permit/Waste Discharge (Form 200 ) " , to the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) which, we understand, the County intends to file sometime in April, 1987 . This is a most important step in the process and, ` accordingly, the Districts respectfully request that the County, when submitting its application to the RWQCB for Bee Canyon, check Item IV.A. , indicating the potential for 'future sewage sludge disposal , with the qualification that such disposal would be subject to completion of an Environmental Assessment and Environmental Impact Report in accordance with the MOU. This would avoid future delays and duplication of regulatory hearings. m We propose to work closely with your office and other appropriate parties in processing the application with the RWQCB and in completing the environmental work. As also discussed in the enclosed report, it would seem appropriate that the Districts be designated the lead agency for CEQA purposes . The Districts would intend to make full utilization of extensive work done to date including the ` LA/OMA Study. COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS d ORANGE COUNTY, CAUEORNIA ioeAA aus Ava+u2 na WXein F MN VP Y,CA MANIA WMSZ127 nin 962zn, Mr. Frank Bowerman March 10 , 1987 " Page Five d _ Further, the Districts respectfully request that the County incorporate a leachate control system at Bee Canyon in accordance with the provisions of Subchapter 15 to assure that future operational flexibility including the disposal of sludge at Bee Canyon Landfill is not precluded. We believe that this measure would be desirable, regardless of whether sludge is disposed of at the site. The Districts, of course, will commit to share in the costs of planning and constructing such a system. We will also assist the County in disposing of the landfill leachate by accepting it into our sewer system (discussed more fully below) . Lastly, with regard to the cost of co-disposal, the Districts have previously committed to work with your office to determine the best means of assuring that the Districts pay their equitable share of such costs. Beneficial Reuse of Sludge in Landfill Closures: The ,r Districts propose to work closely with the County and other affected parties to develop a final closure plan for Coyote Canyon which includes the beneficial reuse of sludge as a soil amendment in the final cover to aid in revegetation and restoration of the site. This would involve extending the Coyote Canyon closure plan from a planned period of six months to as long as two years. Such a program would allow rr time for Bee Canyon sludge disposal issues to be resolved and to provide an ongoing means of using Orange County's sludge. We believe that we can demonstrate that such a program would have significant environmental and economic benefits to the County, the City of Irvine and The Irvine Company (landfill property owner) as well as to the Districts . Technical assistance can be provided by the Districts to both the County and The Irvine Company in completing the work _ necessary to incorporate sludge into the closure plan. Disposal of Landfill Leachate and Co-Generation System r Wastes to CSDOC Sewers to Enhance Groundwater Protection: The Regional Water Quality Control Board is requiring landfill leachate collection systems to prevent contamination of groundwater supplies from existing landfills. In addition, the County has been very progressive in proceeding - . with implementation of co-generation systems to convert landfill methane gas to electricity. The leachate systems - and the co-generation installations produce liquid wastes requiring disposal. rr COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS r of ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA 108m EUS AVENUE F.G.80%8127 r FCUWMN VALLEY,CALIFOANIA 927284127 fAU9822ar1 Mr. Frank Bowerman _ March 10, 1987 Page Six r The Districts propose to develop a plan, consistent with our industrial waste and groundwater protection policies, to assist the County in disposing of the wastes from your - landfill leachate control and co-generation systems to the Districts' sewers for disposal. We believe that this is a positive environmental program that would enhance the protection of Orange County' s critical groundwater supplies. We are all well aware that growth within our service areas is placing a tremendous demand on our respective agencies. The County is faced with increasing volumes of refuse. The Districts face rising wastewater flows which, coupled with our continual efforts to improve the level of sewage treatment, result in our handling larger quantities of sludge requiring disposal. ` Clearly, it becomes even more important for us to continue our cooperative program of effectively and efficiently managing the disposal of Orange County' s wastes . At this time landfill co-disposal is the cornerstone of assuring that we meet the disposal needs for the various types of wastes that are generated within the County and should be disposed of within the County, in r' accordance with the County's Solid Waste Management Plan and the Districts' Residuals Solids Management Plan. r We look forward to working closely with you and your staff in jointly planning and implementing the extension of our waste management program to augment our ability to serve the residents r and communities of Orange County. After you have had an opportunity to review our proposals I suggest that we meet and continue charting the waste management course that will take us r into the next century. n el , r a Ives er Ge ral nager JWS/pk r Enclosures : "Evaluation and Recommendation for Continued Co-Disposal of Wastewater Residuals and Municipal Solid Waste in Orange County" r ,r TABLE OF CONTENTS Page No. PURPOSE 1 .d CURRENT SLUDGE VOLUMES 2 SLUDGE CHARACTERISTICS 3 REGULATORY FRAMEWORK 5 PROJECTED SLUDGE VOLUMES 5 ORANGE COUNTY LANDFILLS 7 Olinda Landfill 8 Santiago Landfill 8 Prima Deshecha Landfill 8 Coyote Canyon Landfill 11 Bee Canyon 11 BACKGROUND INFORMATION ON CO-DISPOSAL TECHNICAL ISSUES 12 Leachate Collection and Removal 13 .. Refuse Composition Compared to Sludge Composition 14 Ratio of Refuse to Sludge 16 Summary of Co-Disposal Technical Issues 17 Moisture Balance 19 ` Leachate Collection and Removal Systems 19 Haul Distances 21 Regulatory Approvals 21 Environmental Impacts 22 CONCLUSIONS REGARDING CO-DISPOSAL AT COUNTY r LANDFILLS 22 ALTERNATIVES TO CO-DISPOSAL 24 .d USE OF BEE CANYON FOR SLUDGE CO-DISPOSAL 25 TERMS OF THE MOU BETWEEN THE COUNTY AND THE - 'r CITY OF IRVINE 26 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND EIR REGARDING SLUDGE DISPOSAL AT BEE CANYON 27 Lead Agency P7 Responsible Agency 27 EIR Mechanisms P7 RECOMMENDED EIR PROCEDURE P8 V r Page No. CSDOC PARTICIPATION IN BEE CANYON LEACHATE CONTROL SYSTEM CONSTRUCTION 29 BENEFICIAL USE OF SLUDGE AS SOIL AMENDMENT FOR LANDFILL CLOSURES - - 31 COMPLIANCE WITH CONDITIONS OF BEE CANYON MOU 33 r Toxicity 34 Technological Advancements 35 LANDFILL LEACHATE AND LANDFILL GAS ENERGY _. RECOVERY SYSTEM WASTE DISPOSAL TO CSDOC SEWERAGE SYSTEM TO ENHANCE GROUNDWATER r PROTECTION 35 IMPLEMENTATION 36 r r v r r v r a ,r EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDATION FOR CONTINUED CO-DISPOSAL OF WASTEWATER RESIDUALS AND MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE IN ORANGE COUNTY PURPOSE In November 1983, following an extensive evaluation of wastewater solids residuals (sludge) management alternatives, the Boards of Directors of the County Sanitation Districts of Orange County (CSDOC) approved a residual solids - - management plan. The Districts ' evaluation included a review of landfill co-disposal , private sector reuse/disposal , both land-based and mechanical composting, co-combustion of sludge with municipal solid waste and ocean disposal . Although the Districts continue to pursue all potential options, the Boards ' plan designated the continued co-disposal of wastewater solids residuals with municipal solid waste (MSW) at the County's landfills as the best short-term disposal alternative and the preferred and most feasible long-term disposal - alternative. Landfill co-disposal of sludge and MSW is an environmentally w acceptable method, is consistent with the County's Solid Waste Management Plan and is the most cost-effective means for disposing of sludge from the Districts' two regional sewage treatment plants serving metropolitan Orange County's residents. .. The purpose of this report is to provide information in support of the Districts' proposals for long-term continuation of the cooperative County and Districts ' program for: '® o Landfill co-disposal of sludge and MSW at County landfills o Beneficial use of sludge as a soil amendment in the landfill closures .d as part of the final cover, and o Disposal of landfill leachate and energy recovery plant wastes to - the Districts' sewerage system. w -1- r CURRENT SLUDGE VOLUMES Any given day CSOOC presently generates up to about 700 wet tons per day of 23%1 solids sludge. During the four to five days per week that hauling operations are conducted, CSDOC generates an average of about 35 truck-loads (20 cubic yards per load) of dewatered sludge for disposal . Up to 26 loads per day (520 tons) are trucked to the Coyote Canyon sanitary landfill , operated by the County of Orange, located in the foothills near the City of Irvine. This is reported by GSA to be r the maximum amount that can consistently be accommodated at this site under the conditions of the County's operating permit and waste discharge requirements issued by the California Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). The remaining truckloads are hauled under contract to the privately owned and operated BKK site located in West Covina in Los Angeles County. During the 1985-86 fiscal year, a total of 5,527 truck-loads were taken to Coyote Canyon (110,540 cubic yards) at an average disposal cost to the Districts -- of approximately $15.00 per cubic yard (includes transportation and tipping fees). Assuming an average weight of one ton per cubic yard (actually varies between 1850 and 2150 pounds per cubic yard) it is estimated that about 8,000 to 9,000 tons per month will continue to be hauled to Coyote Canyon for co-disposal with municipal refuse until modified operation and closure begins in the spring of 1988. At that time, the Districts will have to have another operational alternative available to meet sludge disposal needs for both the short-term and r long-term. The amount of dewatered sewage sludge solids generated by the Districts' two _ d regional treatment plants varies with the level of treatment, the effectiveness of the digestion process and the amount of solids captured in dewatering operations. Estimates of the amount of solids generated by the various treatment processes used and the amount generated after digestion and dewatering . under various conditions are summarized in Table 1. - . -2- v TABLE 1 - ESTIMATED NUMBER OF TRUCK-LOADS OF SLUDGE GENERATED(5Tday CSDOC TREATMENT PLANTSI r, Slu WetGLnd ated Est Daily Truck15%ads Bowed on C�kg% 22Solids Content2 400 30 0U5 23 r 600 45 38 34 ,r 800 60 50 45 1000 75 63 57 m 1 2 Based on 20 cubic yards per load (one ton/cubic yard) 'm Rounded to next highest number ,. The amount of sludge generated by the present blend of primary and secondary treatment needed to meet the CSDOC 301(h) Modified NPDES permit limitations (75% removal of suspended solids) issued by the California Regional Water Quality Control Board and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is about 2000 pounds per million gallons treated. The Districts have recently enhanced .. this treatment by the addition of ferric chloride and polymer (so-called - physical/chemical advanced primary treatment) to promote solids removal . This V has increased the amount of digested sludge generated by about 20% over what it was a year ago. Under full secondary treatment (if ever required) the Districts would generate in excess of 840 wet tons per day. SLUDGE CHARACTERISTICS Table 2 presents information on CSDOC sludge quality compared to other plants nationwide. The data presented in Table 2 indicates CSDOC sludge quality is typical of municipal treatment plant sludge. Source control efforts in recent years have resulted in a dramatic reduction in metals loadings to the CSDOC treatment plants. The Districts ' aggressive program of enforcing pretreatment -3- v of industrial wastes at the source has significantly reduced loadings and -- should result in continued reductions and improved sludge quality in the future (see Attachment 1). At present, the cadmium content serves as a deterrent to the use of CSDOC sludges for the production of commercial soil amendments. Present DOHS guidelines specify a 50 mg/Kg (parts per million) dry weight- limitation for r cadmium in soil amendments (California Department of Health Services, 1983). To achieve this recommended limit, the CSDOC sludge would have to be blended with bulking materials such as wood chips. TABLE 2 EXISTING COMPOSITE DEWATERED, DIGESTED SLUDGE COMPOSITION AND COMPARISON WITH NATIONWIDE QUALITY LEVELS (Combined primary and secondary sludges)* - Nationwide CSDOC 1985-86 Dry Weight Range Actual r Cadmium 0.38-1200 69-76 -.- Chromium 6-35,900 434-542 r Copper 22- 7,700 1557-1998 Lead 10-28,200 274-293 Nickel 3-13,000 155-258 r Zinc 30-34,300 1334-1686 DDT(Total) 0.006-0.93 ND *mg/kg (ppm) dry weight 1 Source: Camp Dresser & McKee, 1984 -4- w REGULATORY FRAMEWORK - There are several characteristics of sludge which are important in determining its suitability for reuse in various soil amendment products as well as for disposal via any of a number of alternatives. This report focuses on land-based m alternatives in Orange County for recycling and disposal . The important characteristics in determining compliance with existing landfill regulatory -- standards and quality criteria.are evolving as regulations are being modified. The basic California regulatory criteria consists of the Title 22 (Department of Health Services (DOHS) ) and Title 23, Subchapter 15 (State Water Resources - Control Board (SWRCB)) regulations regarding the classification of wastes as .d non-hazardous, designated (wastes which impair water quality) or hazardous. Testing data has shown CSDOC sludges to be non-hazardous according to all existing State criteria. New U.S. Environmental Protection Agency technical regulations are being promulgated which will establish both numerical criteria and management practices with regard to sludge disposal . States will have to prepare state-wide sludge management programs incorporating these regulations as minimum standards. V At present, the classification of landfills and wastes such as sewage sludges V is being evaluated under the provisions of Subchapter 15 regulations under the authority of the SWRCB and the various Regional Water Quality Control Boards. Until the EPA technical regulations are drafted in 1987, sludge regulatory criteria will continue to be in a state of flux and subject to site-by-site and project-by-project evaluation and negotiation with regulatory agencies. - PROJECTED SLUDGE VOLUMES The amount of sludge generated by the Districts ' operations in recent years has increased dramatically as a result of improved treatment. A summary of the - change in average generation rates (quantities of residuals generated for -5- v disposal) of wastewater derived solids (includes screenings, grit and sludges) r ._ at the Districts' two regional treatment plants over the past ten years is r presented in Table 3. TABLE 3 ANNUAL AVERAGE CSDOC FLOW AND SLUDGE GENERATION CHANGES 1976 and 1986 CSDOC Service CSDOC Joint Total Solids Total Sludge (wet) Area Works Influent Generated tons/day ._. Year Population Flow, mgd lb/capita/day Generated r 1976 1,520,000 184 0.18 137 1986 2,200,000 240 0_36 396 Change 680,000 56 0.18 259 Percent - Change 45% 30% 100% 189% r 2 Includes screenings and grit r Annual average based on 365 days !, As indicated, over the past decade, the amount of wastewater flow treated has increased by about 30%, while the amounts of solids generated on a per capita basis has increased by 100%. Sludge removed from the plants has increased by an estimated 189%. This dramatic increase is not expected to continue at such r a disproportionate rate since treatment is estimated to remain at the same relative level over the next few years if the California Ocean Plan removal level (75 percent removal of suspended solids) is retained. However, the rate of solids removal is still expected to increase at a greater rate than the expected rate offlow increases due to continued efforts to improve treatment - r and to comply with the mass emission limit in the District's NPDES permit. r The implementation of chemically enhanced advanced primary treatment has increased sludge production recently by about 120 cubic yards per day. This 120 cubic yard increment will be variable, depending upon the level of advanced -6_ ti primary treatment utilized by the Districts. Should secondary treatment be required in the future as a result of changes in the California Ocean Plan or the District's 301(h) Modified NPDES permit after 1990, sludge production could increase by at least another 20%, based on todays flows. - - Such improvements in treatment have in the past and will in the future increase the amounts of sludge that most be trucked to landfill disposal locations and underline the need to find additional means of beneficial reuse and/or disposal as Coyote Canyon landfill phases out of service. ORANGE COUNTY LANDFILLS Landfilling appears to be the most reliable, cost-effective long-term option for the Sanitation Districts and will always be needed as a back-up even if other sludge disposal options are implemented. Following is a brief discussion of current and proposed Orange County landfills and their potential use with regard to co-disposal of sludge and MSW. The County of Orange General Services Agency, Waste Management Program, r presently operates four sanitary landfills (Olinda, Coyote Canyon, Santiago Canyon and Prima Deshecha). Both Coyote and Santiago are scheduled to close (having reached capacity) within the next two to five years. A proposed new landfill , Bee Canyon, has been approved as a replacement site for Coyote and construction of improvements (roadways, etc.) to make it operational by the spring of 1988 are underway. A replacement site for Santiago is under investigation. A summary of the present operations of the four currently operating sites is shown in Table 4. Their locations in relation to the Districts ' facilities are shown on Figure 1. -7- Olinda Landfill . This landfill is located in a deep canyon on the northerly end of the extension of Valencia Avenue north of the City of Brea. The site and adjoining canyon, designated Olinda Alpha, encompass 570 acres. The site was opened in 1960 and ® at present receives an average of 3219 tons per day of refuse. No sewage d sludges are presently being taken to the Olinda site. It is expected to reach - its capacity to accept wastes by 1994. Santiago Landfill . The site encompasses a 160 acre canyon off Santiago Canyon Road west of Irvine Lake. This site is leased from The Irvine Company and is expected to reach its capacity by 1990. It is not receiving any sewage sludge at present and takes in y, an average of about 1317 tons per day of refuse. Prima Deshecha Landfill . .e This large 1500 acre site is located three miles east of the intersection of Interstate 5 (San Diego Freeway) and the Ortega Highway. This site, opened in 1976, is awned by the County and presently receives about 901 tons per day of refuse and about 70 wet tons per day of sludge. It differs from the other sites in that it is under the jurisdiction of the San Diego RWQCB (Region 9) rather than the Santa Ana RWQCB (Region 8). Its waste discharge requirements specify a 15% minimum solids content for sewage sludges versus the 22.5% requirement which exists at Coyote Canyon. It presently receives sludges from the following m agencies: Aliso Water Management Agency (AWMA) South East Regional Reclamation Authority (SERRA) City of San Clemente The Prima Deshecha site is expected to continue operations through the year 2000 and well beyond. -8- TABLE 4 SIMMRY OF COUNTY OF ORAla LANDFILL OPERATIONS (6 day week, 260 days per year) Waste Received Disposal Volume Total (Tons) (Cubic (Million CU. Yd.)(c) Estimated Area per day Yards) Remaining Jurisdiction Acres (a) (Per Year)(b) In Place Remaining Life (Years) Wastes Received Operating Regulations Olinda-Alpha 515* 3219 8,531,000 36.5 11.1 8 (1994) Nonhazardous State Minimum Standards (d) Coyote Carryon 670 4197 8,752,000 51.0 12.3 2 (1988) Nonhazardous and State Minimum Standards (d) Sewage Sludge e Santiago 160 1317 4,324,000 12.1 0.9 4 (1990) Nonhazardous State Minimum Standards (d) Prins Deshecha 1500 901 2,783,000 6.4 73.2 >18 (2004) Nonhazardous and State Minimum Standards (e) Sewage Sludge * Additional 55 acre acquisition being negotiated (a) Based on fee collection data, fiscal year 1984-85 (b) In place fill based on 1,200 pounds per cubic yard (c) Estimated in-place remining as of January, 1986 (d) Title 14 requirerents and Waste Discharge Requirements from Santa Ana RWQOB (e) Title 14 reiuirerents and Waste Discharge Requirenents from San Diego RWQCB FIGURE 1 r� BR EA County BRl.A OLINDA 57 YORBA LINDA plv� PLACENTIA An& 91 91 de AMAMFw HW County Rivanu � ANAHEIM Vtu.A SANTIAGO YARN CANYON ORANGE 22 �� IMM LBkI S\� cj 54YFRA00 TUBitN CANYON 9ANAA AMA 55 5 N06JESKA TRARUCU IRVINE BEE OARs CANYON 75 405 6 COTO" in TORO OAL =ROMA� MWR COYOTE xus RIEYYPORT CANYON M��N BEACH LAGUMA PRIMA BEACH u,,M DESHECHA A P , �' - i- p�I sANJDAN � CAPISTAANO e p (WISTRARG - C. BEI.fJI e SAN C1Ei.SEtdTE _5 1 - GLS Th" Ii Locations of existing Orange County landfills. -10- r Coyote Canyon Landfill . This site is the most important site at present for the disposal of sewage " sludge from Metropolitan Orange County. The Districts, which serve 85% of the County's citizens, take a majority of their sludge to this site far co-disposal with refuse. The landfill is located one mile south of Bonita Canyon Road r between the cities of Newport Beach and Irvine. The site is leased from the Irvine Company. The original 563 acre site was opened in 1963 and expanded in 1977 to 670 acres. In February of 1984, the County Board of Supervisors approved an EIR for the expansion of the landfill to extend its useful life until 1988 when a replacement site (Bee Canyon) would be constructed and ready to start accepting waste now going to Coyote. Recently, there has been considerable discussion relative to leachate from the landfill entering local drainage areas tributary to Newport Bay. The County commissioned a technical evaluation of the site's water management, has proposed a program to control v leachate and is in the process of implementing such a program. r Bee Canyon In 1970-71, the County Road Department investigated more than 50 possible sites - to accommodate the County 's future solid waste disposal needs. In 1974-75, a state-mandated County Solid Waste Management Plan was prepared. A major requirement of this plan was to find a replacement for the Coyote Canyon landfill . After evaluating the alternatives, it was determined that a site in the Lomas de Santiago foothill area was the most suitable general area for a new -- landfill . In 1976, a Task Force consisting of County staff and consultants studied 25 potential sites, using six environmental screening criteria. As a result of these evaluations, five sites in Bee and Round Canyons were selected for further consideration due to their favorable rankings in terms of remoteness r from urban areas, remoteness from the Sinks (a unique geologic area proposed as a park), the ability to construct effective access roads, and their lack of -11- visibility from existing and proposed residential developments (Lockman & - Associates/PRC .Toups, 1979). Eleven alternative site designs for the two r' canyons were evaluated which encompassed one or both of the canyons and ranged in size from 65-1060 acres. The basic differences among the plans were their maximum and average fill heights and the acreage consumed which together provided the rated capacity. Eventually Bee Canyon was selected and an EIR was prepared to support development of a 362 acre site. i _. BACKGROUND INFORMATION ON CO-DISPOSAL TECHNICAL ISSUES The co-disposal of sludge with municipal solid waste is now the subject of specific regulations adopted by the SWRCB under Subchapter 15 as well as federal criteria under the provisions of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) . Basically, the regulations state that sludges must be nonhazardous and shall not contain soluble constituents in concentrations which exceed applicable <' water quality objectives or could cause degradation of the waters of the state (i .e., are designated or hazardous wastes). Waste classification is done through the use of special testing methods developed by the California ky Department of Health Services to determine the total and soluble concentrations - of 37 different compounds, or EPA's extraction test which measures 52 different compounds using a different extraction procedure. Exceeding any of the levels set for these substances can result in the classification of a waste as hazardous. Also, efforts are underway to determine the appropriate water quality objectives to apply to the classification of designated wastes which must go to either a Class 1 or II landfill . Wastes which are not hazardous or designated and meet the other criteria for non-hazardous wastes can be discharged at a Class III landfill . It is believed that the Districts' sludges meet all of the criteria for Class III landfill disposal . The regulations ,r specifically address co-disposal of refuse and sludge and state the following (Section 2523c of Subchapter 15): a. -12- "Dewatered sewage or water treatment sludge may be discharged at a Class III landfill under the following conditions, unless DOHS determines .that the waste must be managed as a hazardous waste: 1) The landfill is equipped with a leachate collection and removal system; y 2) The sludge contains at least 20 percent solids if primary sludge, or r at least 15 percent solids if secondary sludge, mixtures of primary and secondary sludges, or water treatment sludge; and 3) A minimum solids-to-liquid ratio of 5:1 by weight shall be maintained v to ensurethat the co-disposal will not exceed the initial moisture-holding capacity of the nonhazardous solid waste. The actual ratio required by the Regional Board shall be based on site specific conditions." These regulations raise several issues which must be addressed in order to determine to what degree co-disposal can be practiced and which landfills can v practice it. These issues are the presence of a leachate collection and removal system, the sludge characteristics, classification and percentage of solids, and the minimum solids-to-liquid ratio that is acceptable to the RWQCB based on site-specific conditions (if it differs from the minimum 5:1 requirement.) The specific sludge to refuse mix is related directly to the leachate generation r issue, which is the heart of the co-disposal issue. To provide some perspective s, on this issue, the subject of leachate and the composition of sludge versus that of refuse are discussed below. Leachate Collection and Removal Leachate is the fluid waste that can be generated by landfills when excessive moisture is present that exceeds the holding capacity of the fill material . Landfill leachate potentially can pose a threat to both surface and groundwater -13- quality due to its characteristics (U.S. EPA, 1985) . Fortunately, the nature of the wastes placed in landfills in Southern California, combined with the dry ® climate and landfill practices (no liquid wastes accepted) , generally preclude the formation of leachate in most instances. Landfill practices which provide . 4� daily cover to minimize infiltration of rainfall combined with diversion of surface runoff around a site prevent excessive amounts of water from entering - landfills. If landfill leachate does form, many of the constituents present are removed as it passes through the unsaturated soil zone. However, if landfill leachate is increased in volume by springs or seeps which can form in fractured geologic structures, it may impact groundwater or surface streams. .Y To preclude such potential problems, the SWRCB in adopting the Subchapter 15 requirements for sludge disposal in 1984, took a conservative approach and assumed that landfill leachate will form if co-disposal is practiced. Thus, a leachate collection and removal system is required for new landfills practicing co-disposal and an analysis of the moisture-holding capacity of the waste is w required if anything less than a 5:1 ratio is proposed. Refuse Composition Compared to Sludge Composition The general composition of solid waste in Orange County and the various sources r of waste that are being landfilled are presented in Table 5. Comparative amounts of water present in sludge and refuse are quite different as indicated by the data presented. Municipal Solid Waste or refuse has a moisture content w average about 20%, while sludge has a moisture content on the order of 75% (25% solids by weight). Also, sludge composition differs from refuse primarily w in the concentration of trace metals and organics contained within it. In terms m of elemental compositions and the amounts of trace metals and other potential pollutants, there is very little information on the composition of any "typical " MSW. The conposition varies dramatically on a daily, weekly, monthly and annual basis. Unlike refuse, which can contain almost anything including hazardous M -14- TABLE 5 SELECTED PER CAPITA SOLID WASTE GENERATION RATES Moisture Generation Range Orange County Percent Moisturel . w Source Category lb/Capita/Day lb/Capita/Day Range Typical Combined household 2.0-5.0 6.0 15-40 20 and Commercial Industrial 1.0-3.5 0.1 --- --- Institutional 0.24 --- --- Construction Debris 0.66 1.9 --- --- Street Sweepings 0.25 0.10 6-12 --- Tree and Landscape 0.18 0.10 30-80 60 Park and Beach 0.16 --- --- --- Catch Basin 0.04 --- 6-12 --- Sewage Treatment 0.20-0.50 0_202 85-60 75 Plant Solids (Dewatered) Overall3 7.9- 20.2 8.5 isource: Tchobanoglous, et. al , 1977. w 2Estimate in County Solid Waste Management Plan Actual CSDOC rate now 0.36 lb/capita/day (See Table 3) 3National Range .r y `.r -15- .. wastes, wastewater derived sludge has been pretreated if originating from a major industrial source, and has a relatively stable composition since the sludge is stored and stabilized for a thirty day period in large covered vessels called digesters, thus providing a relatively uniform composition, Variation in r the metal content of CSDOC sludge was shown in Table 2. Analysis of refuse will show highly variable results as would be expected. Ratio of Refuse to Sludge At the present, Coyote Canyon co-disposal must achieve a minimum volumetric mixing ratio of refuse to sludge of at least 10:1 according to the waste discharge requirements formulated by the RWQCB. During the last full year of V operation, Coyote Canyon received a total of 2.27 million cubic yards of waste material (which included sludge). During this period, CSDOC hauled 110,540 cubic yards of sludge to Coyote Canyon landfill . Thus, about 2,174,278 cubic `Y yards of waste other than sludge was received which indicates that sludge accounted for only 4.8% of the waste received on a volumetric basis. On a weight basis, sludge accounted for just 7.5% of the estimated tonnage received (95,840 tons of sludge versus 1.3 million tons of refuse at 1200 pounds per cubic yard). "f The amount of wastes received at all existing County landfills over the past three years is shown in Table 6. As indicated, loading at Santiago and Prima Deshecha has increased, while loading to Coyote Canyon and Olinda has fluctuated slightly, both upward and downward. Based on the average loadings over the past three years, the capacity to accept sewage sludge at the existing County landfills was estimated based on two mixing ratios (a minimum of 5:1 as specified for landfills equipped with an LCR system and 10:1 under different existing permit limits for co-disposal .) This information is presented in Table 7. .r .d -16- .w Typically, refuse at a moisture content of about 20 percent represents about 28 gallons of water per cubic yard of refuse (48 gallons per ton) . Sludges vary in moisture content between 70 and 85 percent and contain between 155 and W 188 gallons of water per cubic yard or about 167-203 gallons per ton. On the average, the moisture content of a ton of sludge is equivalent to that of about ,�. four tons of refuse, which is why the 5:1 minimum mixing ratio is specified in the Subchapter 15 regulations. Based on the moisture content of refuse and sludge and a minimum solid to liquid ratio of 5:1 by weight, the capacity of Orange County landfills to assimilate sewage sludge via co-disposal was estimated. Using these estimates, the number of truck-loads of sludge which can be potentially disposed of at present landfills was calculated under a variety of mixing ratios and varying percentages of sludge solids. These estimates are presented in Table 7. This present mixing ratio and waste volume currently restricts the Districts from taking more than 26 trucks per day to Coyote Canyon. Assuming a 22.5% solids sludge and 10:1 mixing ratio, the County of Orange landfills could potentially accommodate a total of an additional 31 truckloads per day of sludge (Table 8). v Olinda has the greatest potential capacity and could handle up to 18 truck-loads of sludge. Santiago could, handle about eight truckloads a day. Prima Deshecha could presently assimilate about five truckloads a day of sludge which would only allow an additional two truckloads per day over and above that now being .. accepted from other agencies. As the waste loads change due to growth in the waste generation of the various service areas, these estimates will change. Summary of Co-disposal Technical Issues Of primary importance to the continuing cooperative program of the county of Orange and the Sanitation Districts for co-disposal are moisture balance and W -17- TABLE 6 AMOUNT OF WASTES RECEIVED ANNUALLY AT ORANGE COUNTY LANDFILLS 1982-1985 (cubic yards received) Landfill 1982-83 1983-84 - - 1984-85 Coyote Canyon 1,977,000 2,368,250 2,269,418 Olinda-Alpha 1,772,449 1,780,137 1,420,697 Santiago 863,274 971,050 1,183,240 Prima Deshecha 540,876 618,000 665,000 -^ Total (cubic yards) 5,103,599 5,737,437 5,538,355 Total (tons) 3,062,159 3,442,462 3,323,013 ti Overall Daily Avg (yd3)1 13,982 15,719 15,173 w for County (tons) 8,389 9,431 9,104 1Based on 365 days/year generation and operation w TABLE 7 ESTIMATED CAPACITY OF ORANGE COUNTY LANDFILLS e. TO ASSIMILATE SEWAGE SLUDGE Landfilll Sludge Disposal Capacity Based on Daily efusl� e:Sludge Ratio Truck Loads at Different Percentage Solids2 15% 20% 22.5%* 25% 30% Coyote Canyon '0 5:1 42 45 48 50 53 10:1 21 23 24 25 26 Olinda-Alpha 5:1 32 34 36 38 40 10:1 16 17 18 19 20 Santiago 5:1 13 14 15 16 17 10:1 7 7 8 8 9 - Prima-Deschecha 5:1 9 9 10 10 11 ,� - 10:1 4 4 5 5 6 1 Assumed average daily waste received (tpd) at 20% moisture: Coyote (4200) ; Olinda (3200) ; Santiago (1300) ; Prima Deschecha (900) 2 Assumes 20 cubic yards per load for 100 dry tons (annual daily average) *Current RWQCB requirement for CSDOC sludges disposed at Coyote Canyon -18- .d leachate generation considerations, haul distances, regulatory approvals, environmental impacts. Each of these topics is discussed below. Moisture Balance. A comparison of annual moisture inputs into landfills in the County provides an important perspective on how sludge, as a source of moisture, affects potential formation of leachate. Based on an average moisture content of 20%, refuse disposal contributes an estimated 3.28 million pounds/day of water or about 393,000 gallons/day to landfills. The 400 wet tons/day of sludge now received at about 77% moisture, contributes about 92,300 gallons/day. Overall, some 8200 tpd of refuse is generated compared to 400 tpd of sludge. Sludge represents only about 5% of the waste load and about 19% of the moisture r content which totals some 485,000 gallons/day. Leachate Collection and Removal Systems. California requires landfill leachate collection and removal systems (LCR Systems) in all new Class I or Class II W landfills, surface impoundments and waste piles (CAC, Section 2543); and for Class III landfills which have a liner or accept sewage or water treatment sludge. Such systems must be installed directly above the underlying containment features (either natural or man-made) for landfills. These systems normally consist of a permeable subdrain layer which covers the bottom of the ra waste management unit. If a Class III landfill is required to have an artificial .. liner, then a dendritic landfill leachate collection and removal system which underlies less than 100 percent of the waste may be allowed. Leachate collected r by the system shall either be recycled to the landfill or discharged in another manner approved by the RWQCB. Once installed, these systems must be designed and operated so as to function without clogging through the entire life of the landfill and during the post-closure maintenance period. The systems must be tested at least annually to demonstrate that they are working properly. At present none of the County landfills are equipped with LCR Systems, and most cannot be economically retrofitted, thus co-disposal of sludge will be dependent -19- r a � s e a i a t � e e L � d d ► d L L TABLE 8 SLPMY DESCRIPTION OF POTENTIAL OIWCE al MIY LANDFILL Truckloads Fill apaSity Estinated Rand Trip Haul of Sludge (1 yd ) Reieining Distance From CSDOC (Miles) Which Could Be Landfill Acreage Ultimate Remining Life Yrs Plant kl Plant k2 Assimilated Coyote Carryon 653 44 4+ 2 18.4 31.8 24 Olinda-Alpha 565 46.6 11.1 8 53.4 64.2 18 Santiago 16D 13.4 0.9 4 39.6 50.4 8 N Prim Deshecha 1464 130 73 >18 62.0 72.8 5 0 Bee Caryon* 362* 109 109 >20 45.9 56.7 30 est *Planned 'Based on 22.5% solids and 10:1 mixing ratio (see Table 7 for various scenarios). upon site-by-site evaluation of the potential for leachate generation. Such evaluations may be required by the RWQCB having jurisdiction over the landfill in order to modify existing waste discharge requirements. Haul Distances. The haul distance from the CSDOC facilities to the various County landfills is an important factor due to the number of trips that can be made per day, costs, and air pollutant emissions, fuel use, etc. As shown in r Table 8, Coyote Canyon has the shortest haul distance of the existing landfills. The next closest existing site is Santiago followed by Olinda. Prima Deshecha is much farther than other sites. r The Bee Canyon site has the most favorable haul distance once Coyote Canyon closes, as well as sufficient capacity and useful life to serve future District needs. However, as discussed later, the use of this site for sludge disposal has to undergo an environmental assessment process and approval before it can be r utilized. Other existing sites could also be utilized, particularly if a r certain amount of sludge is trucked to each of the existing sites, thus minimizing the sludge impact to any one site. Permit modifications and r environmental review requirements would have to be completed for the existing sites as well . r Regulatory Approvals. Regulatory approval (waste discharge requirements from r RWQCB) for co-disposal of CSDOC sludge at County landfills is expected to take as long as six to nine months once technical evaluations are completed unless some urgency is demonstrated. A joint effort by the County and the Districts would be required. d+ The County Solid Waste Management Plan does not appear to preclude sludge disposal at any of the County's existing or proposed landfills provided the r provisions of Subchapter 15 are met and NPDES permit conditions can be met. r -21- r .. Environmental Impacts. The environmental impacts associated with co-disposal are similar to those associated with refuse disposal and include the following: r o Direct air pollutant emissions from trucking and landfilling equipment. r o Indirect air pollutant emissions from landfill gases. r o Energy use in the form of fuels for transportation and equipment. r o Potential for leachate formation. o Potential exposure to pathogens for landfill personnel if proper procedures are not followed. r o Landfill gas production and enhanced waste decomposition, promoting r more uniform settling and the potential for energy recovery if gas r is captured and used. o Minimized odor generation compared to composting since waste is now buried and covered on a daily basis. r o Use of landfill capacity at a greater (although nominal) rate than would otherwise occur. v o Other processing or disposal sites are not needed, thus containing impacts to an area already dedicated to waste disposal . Sites can be used for other �r beneficial uses once the landfill is completed and the surface is restored. ,r CONCLUSIONS REGARDING CO-DISPOSAL AT COUNTY LANDFILLS - K. P. Lindstrom & Associates, environmental consultant to the Sanitation Districts, has concluded from the preliminary evaluation of landfill disposal of CSOOC sewage sludges at Orange County landfills: . p Co-disposal is a recognized, environmentally acceptable practice and is r consistent with the County's Solid Waste Management Plan. -22- r o There is potential capacity to accommodate the Districts' current sludge production and the projected sludge production in the foreseeable future under current regulatory constraints. o By increasing the dewatering efficiency or reducing the mixing ratio, even more sludge could be accommodated. o The issues which must be addressed in gaining approval include increased truck traffic (minor), permit modifications, and changes in existing operating procedures to incorporate sludge at the optimum mixing ratio with refuse. Preliminary evaluation shows few technical constraints that would .. impede use of the landfills for co-disposal provided County cooperation. o Based on the District's ongoing evaluation of all available sludge disposal and reuse options, co-disposal at Bee Canyon continues to appear to be the r most feasible alternative for several reasons: As the replacement site for Coyote Canyon, where our existing co-disposal program has been successfully operating for years, r it is being built to accommodate the wastes from most of metropolitan Orange County now served by the Districts and it is within the CSOOC service area. This is consistent with the growing sentiment that each county be be responsible for its own waste disposal . a Being centrally located yet relatively remote from urban areas it provides the most reliable, long-term option for existing and r projected waste disposal needs for metropolitan Orange County's residents. • It is the most economical alternative and reduces transportation requirements and the accompanying environmental impacts (air quality, energy use, etc.). -23- Being a new site it can be engineered to accept wastewater residuals under the most favorable conditions mandated by Subchapter 15 using r the latest technology. Revenues from sludge disposal (tipping fees) in an amount between $950,000 and $1,100,000 per year paid by the Districts to the County of Orange remain in the County and benefit its taxpayers. The County and the Districts have a longstanding history of working closely together on landfill co-disposal of Orange County's wastes. It is the r Districts' desire, as in the past, to continue the excellent relationship and provide ongoing support of the County's landfill operation. In addition, the Districts wish to continue working with the County to determine the best means r of assuring that the Districts pay their equitable share of co-disposal costs. ALTERNATIVES TO CO-DISPOSAL. The EIR for the Bee Canyon landfill , finalized in the fall of 1979, did not address the sludge disposal issue because at that time sludge disposal was being r addressed by an independent multi-million dollar regional sludge study and environmental planning and review which was an outcome of the LA/OMA Study in " which the Districts participated. .. At the time, it was envisioned that the Districts would construct a sludge drying/composting facility adjacent to Bee Canyon, at a site in Lower Round ti Canyon, for processing sludges to meet the then existing RWQCB 50% solids r requirement prior to landfilling at Bee Canyon. Alternatively, if a suitable market could be found and the quality criteria for reuse could be met, the Districts would sell the dried sludge for use in the production of soil amendments. . r Following public comment on this proposed project in 1981, the Districts' Boards of Directors took an action to re-evaluate other alternatives, including w+ -24- ,r mechanical composting in enclosed structures and co-combustion with municipal refuse using the existing treatment plant sites. Based on public input on these alternatives in 1983, the Districts' Boards of Directors discontinued further . consideration and determined that the best alternative was the continuation of r co-disposal at County landfills. V The Districts have, concurrently, pursued other alternatives. In September, 1984, a 20 year contract for long-term sludge reuse/disposal was executed with a private firm. However, the firm has faced insurmountable obstacles and, thus, r has been unable to perform its contractual obligations. It appears as if there is very little likelihood that they will be able to perform in the foreseeable r future. ` The Districts have also sought federal legislation that would permit a research project off Orange County's coastline to demonstrate the benefits of deep ocean disposal of sludge which is not presently permitted by law. However, that r project, if approved, would not result in any final federal decision on the allowability of ocean sludge disposal for 12 to 15 years. w The Districts have made a concerted effort to implement alternative dipsosal/ reuse options and are committed to continue seeking alternatives. r USE OF BEE CANYON FOR SLUDGE CO-DISPOSAL A continuation of the cooperative program between the County of Orange and the r Sanitation Districts is essential for assuring ongoing co-disposal of Orange County's wastes. This is particularly important with regard to the most logical alternative, the Bee Canyon landfill . r The Districts and the County should work closely together during the process of completing technical studies and securingneeded approvals to provide the future availability of landfill disposal capacity to serve the needs of our citizens. r -25- r s, A coordinated effort will be needed to obtain the information needed to file an application for a Facility Permit/Waste Discharge (Form 200) , and in the permit application and review process to secure requirements for the Bee Canyon landfill to assure that sludge co-disposal at Bee Canyon, consistent with the _ terms of the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the County and the City of Irvine and Subchapter 15, is not precluded. The submittal of the Application for Facility Permit/Waste Discharge to the Regional Water Quality Control Board is one of the most important steps in the process. The Districts recommend that the County, when submitting its application to the RWQCB for Bee Canyon, check Item IV.A., indicating potential future sewage sludge disposal , with the qualification that such disposal would d, be subject to completion of an Environmental Assessment and Environmental Impact Report in accordance with the MOU. This would avoid delays and duplication of regulatory hearings. The Districts would propose to work closely with the County and other appropriate parties in processing the application with the r RWQCB and in completing the environmental work. Terms of the Memorandum of Understanding Between the County and the City of Irvine. The Districts fully support the provisions of the MOU between the County of Orange and City of Irvine. It requires completion of a new Environmental .. Assessment and Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and specifically requires that certain other actions be taken relative to co-disposal at Bee Canyon. Among these are 1) 10:1 mixing ratio of refuse to sludge, 2) toxicity testing of sludge with the results to be reported to the City of Irvine and, 3) exploration and implementation of new technologies as they develop that will mitigate potential problems related to sludge disposal at Bee Canyon. -26- a ,., Environmental Assessment and Environmental Impact Report Regarding Sludge Disposal at Bee Canyon r To initiate any new disposal program will require compliance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). ' The following . r discusses various options for fulfilling this need for landfill disposal at r Bee Canyon. Lead Agency: On a County of Orange project, such as the Bee Canyon landfill , the County normally serves as the Lead Agency under the provisions of CEQA. The County Planning Department normally is responsible for the preparation of an EIR or coordinating its preparation through or by a consultant hired by the County r or the project proponent. According to CEQA (Section 21066) , a Lead Agency is the public agency which has the principal responsibility for carrying out or approving a project which may have an effect on the environment. This implies " that the Lead Agency for the MOU Sludge EIR is the County, who will operate Bee Canyon and must secure the permits. However, the County could delegate r responsibility for the preparation of the EIR to CSDOC as a logical extension of r the previous EIR/EIS work done by the Sanitation Districts (LA/OMA) to determine the best alternative for long-term sludge disposal . r Responsible Agency: When an Environmental Assessment/EIR is undertaken, the r City of Irvine will serve as a Responsible Agency. The County of Orange has already fulfilled the requirements of CEQA for Bee Canyon, and secured project r approval (Resolution 79-1409 adopted September 25, 1979 and certification of r EIR 018 [Revised]). It will be important to assure that any new EIR be specific to the sludge disposal issue and not result in a change in the status of the r previously approved EIR. r EIR Mechanisms: There are several mechanisms to satisfy CEQA EIR requirements. One alternative is a Subsequent Draft EIR (CEQA Section 15162) to address "new information of substantial importance to the project" and this information shows -27- r r that "mitigation measures or alternatives which were not previously considered In the EIR would substantially lessen one or more significant effects on the r environment." The "new information" applies to the air drying needed and the r adoption of new standards pursuant to Subchapter 15. If only minor revisions to the 1979 EIR are required (just the sludge disposal r issues), another alternative would be to prepare a Supplement to the EIR r (Section 15163). r An Addendum to the EIR (Section 15164) could also be prepared assuming that "only minor technical changes or additions are necessary to make the EIR under r consideration adequate under CEQA" and new issues are not raised. r We have included excerpts from CEQA that discuss these various EIR options (Attachment 2). r Recommended EIR Procedure • After evaluating all the available options it is recommended that the Districts serve as the Lead Agency for preparation of a new EIR specifically addressing a permit modification for the Waste Discharge Requirements and fulfillment of the ,r terms of the MOU. As indicated in Figure 2, work on the EIR would have to begin immediately in order to complete it and secure a permit modification prior to commencement of the Coyote Canyon closure in April of 1988. Although October 1988 is the projected actual closure date, Coyote will only be taking 700 tpd r after April 1988 when wastes will start to be diverted to Bee, thus the Districts r will only be able to dispose of about 25-30% of their sludge at Coyote during the six month transition period. Extraordinary diligence would be required of all involved parties for the EIR to proceed according to schedule. Sufficient time may not be provided in this schedule since our past experience has shown r delays in both the EIR process and in securing RWQCB approval which can be " expected. _28_ r r It would appear desirable that Bee Canyon be in operation before the EIR on sludge disposal is initiated. However, to delay -the EIR preparation would mean r a loss of a major District co-disposal option beginning in April of 1988 for a r minimum one and a half year period. This presents a major problem for disposing of the sludge produced by the communities in metropolitan Orange County unless r other landfill sites can be used or the Districts can find extended reuse options. An attractive solution would be a major reuse project for the beneficial r utilization of sludge as a soil amendment for the closure of Coyote and Santiago Canyon Landfills, which is discussed more fully in a subsequent section. CSDOC PARTICIPATION IN BEE CANYON LEACHATE CONTROL SYSTEM CONSTRUCTION r A major change in the nature of the waste discharge requirements has occurred r since the LA/OMA project was initiated. These changes preclude the need for air drying to achieve a 50% solids content and make direct landfill co-disposal. with r refuse feasible provided that the Class III landfill is equipped with leachate collection and removal (LCR) capability and has a solids content of at least 15% r and is mixed with refuse at a minimum ratio of 5:1 at a Class III landfill with r an LCR system (Subchapter 15, Section 2523). We understand that classification of the Bee Canyon site will depend on the results of on-site geological and r hydrogeological investigations now underway. Results of this work will indicate whether or not a clay liner may be necessary to protect groundwater resources. r The Districts recommend that the County give serious consideration to r incorporating a leachate control system at Bee Canyon in accordance with the provisions of Subchapter 15 to assure that full flexibility of operation - including future disposal of sludge at Bee Canyon Landfill is not precluded. It r is believed that this measure would be desirable regardless of whether sludge is disposed of at the site. r r r -29- <^ FIGURE 2 PLANNING ACTIVITIES AND SCHEDULE FOR COMPLETION OF EIR a, RELATED TO LANDFILL DISPOSAL OF SLUDGE AT BEE CANYON " OPTION 1 Fast-Track EIR ACTIVITY TIME Analyze District sludges for Regulatory Compliance Ongoing Meeting with Top GSA staff March, 1987 .. Meeting with Regional Board regarding sludge April , 1987 classification as a waste Prepare detailed written status report and issue April , 1987 identification paper summarizing status of sludge projects for submittal to appropriate agencies .r Meeting with major affected entities to scope out April , 1987 EIR and develop schedule of activities Issue Notice of Preparation of Draft EIR April , 1987 Hire EIR Consultant (Request CSDOC Board Action) May, 1987 r Complete Screen-Check Review Draft of EIR October, 1987 Circulate Draft EIR December, 1987 Public Hearing January, 1988 r Certify Final EIR February, 1988 Initiate Permit Change for Waste Discharge February, 1988 Requirements with RWQCB (Formally) Secure Permit Modification By April , 1988 d NOTE: This schedule provides a final window of less than two months in which to secure the desired permit change to allow for sludge disposal in Bee Canyon from the Regional Water Quality Control Board. Thus, the EIR preparation must begin as soon as possible and be completed on a fast-track. -30- r The Districts propose to share in the costs of planning and constructing such a system. The Districts further propose to assist the County in disposing of the landfill .leachate by accepting it into the CSDOC sewerage system which is r discussed more fully in a later section. _ BENEFICIAL USE OF SLUDGE AS SOIL AMENDMENT FOR LANDFILL CLOSURES The Districts hereby formally propose that sludge be utilized as a soil amendment and cover material in the closure of Coyote Canyon and Santiago Canyon landfills. This would involve extending the Coyote Canyon Closure Plan from a planned period of six months to as much as two years, but the Districts firmly believe that there are substantial benefits to the County, the City of Irvine, r the Irvine Company (landfill property owner) and the Districts. We propose to r continue to work closely with the County and other affected parties on implementing such a program. The beneficial use of sludge will enhance revegetation and beautification of the site, preclude the need for importing cover, have economic benefits and would provide an interim disposal solution. r The County is working on a plan for final closure of Coyote Canyon in 1988 and r is in the process of seeking consensus and approval from the appropriate parties. r We understand that the final closure plan has been prepared by Earth Technology and submitted to the RWQCB and that the County is in the process of reviewing r it with the Regional Board and other affected parties. r The final cover project will encompass an area of about 300 acres. The cover is envisioned to consist of six feet of materials including an initial 2 feet of 10-4 cm/sec. material , 2 feet of 10-5 cm/sec. material , and one to two feet of final cover which may be a mix of soil and sludge to enable grass or trees to r grow. (The minus refers to the permeability expressed as the exponent of the r base ten expressed in centimeters/second. Clay generally has a 10-6 cm/sec. permeability.) r -31- r .. Another factor which must be considered in the final closure plan, is the need of Genstar who will be operating an energy recovery program using the r methane gas generated at the site. Genstar has specified that they need to have two feet of base to work with before they can effectively begin their operation. r They also have to have this layer in place to put in their wells. Genstar believes they can begin once about 60-70 acres have been covered with the two feet of final cover. Thus, scheduling of this project must be factored into any closure plan which suggests an accelerated cover project for the area in question. CSDOC has previously offered technical support on the use of sludge as an agricultural and soil amendment in the final cover at Coyote. CSDOC has also r provided information developed by EPA on the use of sludge mixed with soil as a landfill cover. EPA had specified a 1:1 mix and an application rate of 1600 cubic yards per acre. r This would mean a total of up to 480,000 yards of sludge might be applied. This r would be equivalent to the production of about 1173 days (assuming 409 annual average yards per day which is now the average going to Coyote) . Clearly, there r is plenty of sludge available which could be used beneficially in the Coyote r closure in accordance with terms for moisture content of sludge and the application methods established by the appropriate parties. CSDOC will continue r to support any efforts to reuse sludge and is prepared to respond to requests for assistance. r Technical assistance can be provided by the Districts to the County and other r appropriate parties in completing the work necessary to incorporate sludge into the closure plan. Such assistance could include but not be limited to the following: .. o preparation of feasibility report; ' o demonstration project (on a .portion of fill ); r - o design of closure improvements that incorporate sludge; -32- r r o provision of sewage facilities for accepting leachate and/or site runoff during and after closure operations; o demonstration project for final vegetative cover (golf course) and permanent soil amendment project (CSDOC sludge could be used on golf r _ course for its life. This would be a positive step in recognizing the r benefits of sludge reuse.) Such a cooperative program can be anticipated to be beneficial to all parties, and the Districts would encourage implementation of such a program on a long- term basis at all existing landfills and extend it to other sites in the future. r COMPLIANCE WITH CONDITIONS OF BEE CANYON MOU As discussed previously, included in the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) r between the County of Orange and the City of Irvine are several provisions r concerning co-disposal at Bee Canyon Landfill . The Districts endorse the provisions of that MOU, and would propose to proceed in a manner consistent with its terms and conditions. Moreover, the 1985 agreement between the Irvine Ranch Water District and CSDOC recognized the mutual benefits to the community of r Irvine as well as the community-at-large of forming new Sanitation District r No. .14 to resolve Irvine's sewerage needs by allowing the conveyance df sewage _ and industrial waste to the CSDOC regional treatment and disposal facilities in r Fountain Valley and Huntington Beach, and the reciprocal benefit of continuing co-disposal of the communities' wastewater residuals at Coyote and Bee Canyons. r The first step in the process is submittal of the Application for Facility Permit/Waste Discharge (Form 200) to the Regional Water Quality Control Board. It is understood that the County intends to file its application sometime in r April , 1987. This is one of the most important steps in the process and as r mentioned previously the Districts strongly suggest that the County, when submitting its application to the RWQCB for Bee Canyon, check Item IV.A, r -33- .+ indicating potential future sewage sludge disposal , with the qualification that - such disposal would be subject to completion of an Environmental Assessment and Environmental Impact Report in accordance with the MOU. This would avoid d delays and duplication of regulatory hearings. The Districts and -County would have to work closely together and with other appropriate parties in processing the application with the RWQCB and in completing the environmental work. As also discussed in preceding sections, it would seem appropriate that the — Districts be designated the Lead Agency for CEQA purposes. r Assuming the program of utilizing sludge with landfill closures is implemented, �^ a schedule for preparation of the EIR as heretofore outlined based on starting it after Bee Canyon has opened would have similar time frames to that shown in m Figure 2, but completion would be February, 1989, based on a May 1988 Notice of r Preparation. The following sections discuss other specific conditions of the MOU which are w relevant to the disposal of sludge and would be addressed in the EIR. Toxicity The requirement contained in A(2) of the MOU Agreement states that "all sludge -- to be dumped will be treated so as to achieve a toxicity content no greater than other materials which may be lawfully disposed of in the landfill (Class III)". Sludge will be tested to confirm compliance with this provision. V -- Under the terms of the MOU, the City of Irvine is to receive copies of all toxicity reports on sludge to be disposed of at Bee, as required by State and Federal regulatory agencies. The Districts' environmental consultant has _. recommended that CAM testing should be performed monthly at each plant r (composite samples) for a one year period to establish baseline levels (24 tests -- in a year). This will supplement the priority pollutant analyses done under the present NPDES permit issued jointly by EPA and the RWQCB. -34- ., Technological Advancements The MOU states that the need for leachate collection and removal systems (LCRS) are to be determined by the RWQCB. Since Subchapter 15 had not been finalized at the time the MOU was signed, it was stated that new technology .will be . explored and implemented. The Districts have a long and exemplary track record of researching and .. implementing new technology and intend to continue that practice. The Districts - understand the County is studying this issue and the Districts are willing to provide assistance to the County in fulfilling any additional requirements which may be associated with co-disposal . (Also see previous section on CSDOC participation in Bee Canyon leachate control system and following section on ,r landfill leachate and landfill gas energy recovery system waste disposal to CSDOC sewerage system to enhance groundwater protection. LANDFILL LEACHATE AND LANDFILL GAS ENERGY RECOVERY SYSTEM WASTE DISPOSAL TO - CSDOC SEWERAGE SYSTEM TO ENHANCE GROUNDWATER PROTECTION The groundwater control plan is an important issue, and the Districts understand r the County has initiated a Fast Track Program with the hiring of Converse Environmental to look at all alternatives and begin design on the most feasible project as soon as possible with construction to begin soon. Preliminary y evaluation has indicated that a slurry trench and bentonite liner at the toe of the fill combined with extraction wells may be appropriate. Once the groundwater is collected, it will most likely have to be removed. Thus ongoing disposal via the Sanitation Districts' sewer system appears to be a viable - alternative that should be reviewed and considered. In addition, the County has been very progressive in proceeding with implementation of waste to energy systems to utilize the landfill methane gas produced for co-generation of electricity. These installations result in liquid r -35- wastes in the form of boiler and cooling tower blowdown, D.I . system residuals and condensate that, logically, could best be disposed of via the Sanitation `+ Districts' sewer system. The Districts propose to work with the County to develop a plan, consistent with their industrial waste and groundwater protection policies, to assist the County in disposing of the wastes from their landfill leachate control and co-generation systems to the Districts' sewers. IMPLEMENTATION It is the Districts' understanding that the County of Orange has not yet .� finalized a schedule identifying the time frames or activities which will be followed in filing the applications for Bee Canyon. It is suggested that the County and Districts initiate formal joint planning and other appropriate measures to implement the recommendations set forth herein. It is further suggested that meetings be held no less frequently than monthly to coordinate «� and track progress on preparing technical reports in order that we may support permit filings so that sludge disposal at Bee Canyon is not precluded. The .. Districts will also prepare the Environmental Assessment and EIR that will be needed to secure approval for sludge disposal pursuant to the Memorandum of Understanding. -36- .r REFERENCES California Administrative Code, 1984. Title 23 Waters, State Water Resources Control Board, Subchapter 15, Dischargers of Waste to Land. Adopted October 19, 1984. .d California Administrative Code, 1978. Title 14 Solid Waste Management Board, Chapter 3 Minimum Standards for Solid Waste Handling and Disposal . ,r California Administrative Code, 1980. Title 14 Solid Waste Management Board, Chapter 4 Conformance of Solid Waste Facilities to County Solid Waste Management Plans. California Administrative Code, 1980. Title 14 Solid Waste Management Board, Chapter 5 Enforcement of Solid Waste Standards and Administration of Solid Waste Facilities Permits. California Department of Health Services, 1983. Manual of Good Practice for Land Spreading of Sewage Sludge. Sanitary Engineering Branch. April . T Camp Dresser & McKee, 1984. A Comparison of Studies of Toxic Substances in POTW Sludges. Prepared for U.S. EPA Office of Water Regulations and Standards, Contract No. 68-01-6403, August. County of Orange, 1984. Final Draft-Orange County Solid Waste Management Plan. County General Services Agency Waste Management Program Office. June. County of Orange, 1976. Project Report and Draft Environmental Impact Report for Bee and Round Canyons Area Disposal Station (EIR-018) . Prepared by .. Environmental Management Agency, Environmental Services Division for County General Services Agency Solid Waste Management Division. July 20. County of Orange, Board of Supervisors, 1979. Resolution No. 79-1409, Certification of Final EIR for Bee Canyon Sanitary Landfill Site. September 25. County Sanitation Districts of Orange County, 1983. Sludge Disposal Alternatives-Short and Long-Term. Preliminary Study Information for Joint Boards of Directors Meeting, November 29, 1983. County Sanitation Districts of Orange County, 1984. Presentation to the RW= Regarding Sludge Solids to Coyote Canyon Landfill , May 9, 1984. ti .Huitric, Ray, et. al , 1979. In-place Capacity of Refuse to Absorb Liquid Wastes. Presented at the Second National Conference on Hazardous Materials Management held February 27-March 2, 1979 at San Diego, - "' California. Huitric, R. L., et. al . (undated) . Moisture Retention of Landfilled Solid - Wastes (Obtained from LA/OMA files). Lockman & Associates/PRC Toups Corporation, et. al ., 1979. Bee and Round Canyons Landfill Disposal Station Environmental Impact Report (Final ) . March. Maguin, S. R., (undated) . Land Disposal of Sludge (Obtained from LA/OMA files). r, Tchobanoglous, G., at. al ., 1979. Solid Wastes, McGraw-Hill Book Company. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1985. Summary of Environmental Profiles r and Hazard Indices for Constituents of Municipal Sludge: Methods and Results. Office of Water Regulations and Standards, July. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1977. Environmental Assessment of Subsurface Disposal of Municipal Wastewater Treatment Sludge. (Report SW-547c). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1984. Use and Disposal of Municipal Wastewater Sludge. Environmental Regulations and Technology. EPA-625/10-84-003, September. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1985. Seminar Publication--Protection of Public Water Supplies from Groundwater Contamination. Center for Environmental Research, EPA/625/4-85/016. r U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1985. Estimating Sludge Management Costs. Office of Research and Development, Water Research Engineering .r Laboratory. EPA/625/6-85/010, October. ti r r r r r r r V r r Results of the County Sanitation Districts of Orange County, California Industrial Pretreatment Program 9P�yt�nlTOA Lr 4 m� �+ n i U W � z y er...ua I `9 ORANGE COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS 10844 ELLIS AVENUE FOUNTAIN VALLEY. CALIFORNIA 02708 (714) 540-2010 I _ BASS, 1EA 5 OA ' 1 1 Q X 1 : 1 1 ORANGE COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS' SUCCESSFUL INDUSTRIAL PRETREATMENT PROGRAM o ORDINANCE PREPARED IN COOPERATION WITH REPRESENTATIVES FROM INDUSTRY, MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATIONS AND CHAMBERS OF COMMERCE • FOUR-PHASE IMPLEMENTATION APPROACH ' PHASE I (JULY 1, 1976) - REQUIRED "GOOD HOUSEKEEPING" PRACTICES BY INDUSTRY. ALLOWED TIME FOR SOURCE CONTROL PLANS TO BE DEVELOPED ' PHASE II (JULY 1, 1978) - REQUIRED INSTALLATION OF PRETREATMENT FACILITIES WITH LIMITS TO MEET CALILFORNIA OCEAN PLAN REQUIREMENTS ' PHASE III (JULY 1, 1983) - REQUIRES ADDITIONAL PRETREATMENT FACILITIES BY INDUSTRY TO MEET ALL APPLICABLE REQUIREMENTS ' PHASE IV (APRIL 27, 1984 AND THEREAFTER) - ENFORCEMENT OF EPA CATEGORICAL PRETREATMENTS STANDARDS WHEN IMPLEMENTED BY EPA • ACTIVE ENFORCEMENT PROGRAM BY DISTRICTS' INDUSTRIAL WASTE DIVISION FREQUENT SAMPLING OF INDUSTRY BY DISTRICTS' PERSONNEL SAMPLE AND EVALUATION PROGRAMS ' ENFORCEMENT COMPLIANCE SCHEDULE AGREEMENTS ' CEASE AND DESIST ORDER ' PERMIT REVOCATION ' CIVIL OR CRIMINAL COMPLAINTS CPT:AS1 3/86 1 COUNIY ANIIATION UISTRILiS OF ORANA COUA, CAL'FORNIA'l 11 INDUSTRIAL DISCHARGE LIMI IS, mg/1 (Source Control Program) Electroplating* Limitations EFFECTIVE EFFECTIVE EFFECTIVE CONSTITUENT July 1, 1976 July 1, 1978 July 1, 1983 April 27, 1984 Arsenic 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Cadmium 5.0 3.0 1.0 1.0 Chromium (total). 6.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Copper 10.0 4.0 3.0 3.0 Lead 2.0 2.0 2.0 0.6** Mercury 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 Nickel 10.0 10.0 10.0 4.1** Silver 5.0 5.0 5.0 1.2** Zinc 15.0 10.0 10.0 4.2** Cyanide (total ) 10.0 5.0 5.0 1.9** Cyanide (free)*** 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 PC8's & Pesticides 0.02 0.02 Total Toxic Organics (as defined by EPA) 0.58 0.58 Total Sulfide 5.0 5.0 Dissolved Sulfide 0.5 0.5 Oil and grease of mineral , petroleum origin 100.0 10010 • Ihere are categorical llndlatlons prescribed by EPA for other types of Industry. This Is an example of a blending of the IPA Heit.,l ions .till CSIIUC. Nldcbever .,ola Llon Is no,, stringent ..old apply. •• Environmental Protecllen Agency categorical standards for eleclroplalers one day maximum limits. f llrcliva A,.,II 21, 14114. •••The term "free cyanide" shall mean those cyanides amenadable to chlorination as described in the fl'I:ASI , A nru,.d Hank of ASIN Sta hwl 14/Y, Sl anda nl II lILIh-// Mb Me l II r ., page ',53. 900 EFFLUENT CADMIUM 1983 Ocean Plan Limitation 800 100 90 80 CSDOC Actual Discharge 70 T O e 60 �+— a_ 50 40 IS)8570ceanNischurne Permit 1lrnitation 30 20 10 0 75-76 77-78 79-80 81-82 83-84 85-86 Date 1 I I f I 1 1 I I I 1 I I I I I 1 I I 1500 EFFLUENT COPPER 1983 Ocean Plan Limitation 1400 700 600 CSDOC Actual Discharge 500 \ o \ / v Nf N a — 400 IJB5, Ocean Discharge mit Limitation 300 200 100 75--76 77-78 79-80 81-82 83-84 85-86 Dote EFFLUENT LEAD 2280 1983 Ocean Plan Limitation 2260 260 240 220 200 1985 Ocean Discharge Permit Limitation 180 >. 160 140 CSDOC Actual Discharge 120 100 60 60 40 20 0 75-76 77-78 79--80 81-82 83-84 85-86 Date 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 i l 1 1 1 1 l 1 t EFFLUENT NICKEL 1983 Ocean Plan Limitation 5680 230 220 210 200 190 1985 Ocean Discharge Permit Umitotion 180 r 170 v° 160 m 150 140 130 SDOC Actual Discharge 10 110 100 90 80 70 60 75-76 77-78 79-80 81-82 83-64 85-86 Date EFFLUENT SILVER 130 1983 Ocean Plan Limitation 40 IOAS Ocean Discharge Permit Limitation 30 �6t 0 v N L 20 CSDOC Actual Dischar 10 0 75-76 77-78 79-80 81-82 83-84 85-86 Date 1 I i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 EFFLUENT ZINC 5. 7 1983 Ocean Plan Limitation 1 0.9 0.6 \e O O C 0.7 a o \ a r 0.6 1985 Ocean Discharge Permit Limitation 0.5 CSDOC Actual Discharge 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 —� 75-76 77-78 79-80 81-82 83-84 85-86 Date 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 I 1 1 I I I I 1 1 I 1 1 Effluent Biochemical Oxygen Demand 240 230 220 210 200 Ocean Discharge Permit Limitation 190 180 170 160 rn 150 140 CSDOC Actual Discharge 130 120 110 100 90 80 70 60 —� 75-76 77-78 79-80 81-82 83-84 85-86 Date 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 I 1 1 1 I I 1 I I 1 1 Effluent Total Suspended Solids 200 190 180 no 160 Ocean Discharge Permit Limitation 150 140 130 10 � 110 rn 100 CSDOC Actual Discharge 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 77-78 79-80 81-82 83-84 85-86 Date ATTACHMENT 2 CEQA EXCERPTS Article 11. Types of EIRS General 15160. This article describes a number of examples of variations in EIRs as the documents are tailored to different situa- tions and intended uses. These variations are not exclusive. Lead Agencies may use other variations conuis- tent with the Guidelines to meet the needs of other circumstances. All EIRs must meet the content requirements discussed in Article 9 beginning with Section 15120. Note: Authority cited: ffections 21083 and 21087 , Public Resources Code; Reference: Sections 21061 , 21100, and 21151, Public Resources Code. Discussion: This section describes the contents of this article and explains that the types of EIRs described here are not the only possibilities. Project EIR 15161. The most common type of EIR examines the environmental impacts of a specific development project. This type of EIR should focus primarily on the changes in the environ- ment that would result from the development project. The EIR shall examine all phases of the project including planning, construction, and operation. Note: Authority cited: Sections 21083 and 21087, Public Resources Code; Reference: Sections 21061, 21100, and 21151, Public Resources Code. Discussion: This section is necessary for the clarity and completeness of this article and to show how this type of EIR differs from the other types discussed in this article. Subsequent EIR 15162. (a) Where in EIR or Negative Declaration has been prepared, no additional EIR need be prepared unless: (1) Subsequent changes are proposed in the project which will require important revisions of the previous EIR, or Negative Declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental impacts not considered in a previous EIR or Negative Declaration on the project; + (2) Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken, such as a substantial deterioration in the air quality + where the project will be located, which will require important revisions in the previous EIR or Negative Declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental impacts not covered in a previous EIR or Negative Declaration; or (3) New information of substantial importance to the project becomes available, and (A) The information was not known and could not have been known at the time the previous EIR was certified as complete or the Negative Declaration was adopted, and (B) The new information shows any of the following: + 1. The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed previously in the EIR; 2. Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the EIR; 3. Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible and would substantially reduce one or more sig- nificant effects of the project; or 4. Mitigation measures or alternatives which were + not previously considered in the EIR would sub- stantially lessen one or more significant effects on the environment. + (b) If the EIR or Negative Declaration has been completed but the project has not yet been approved, the Lead Agency shall prepare or cause to be prepared the subsequent EIR .� before approving the project. (c) If the project was —roved prior to the occurrence of the conditions described in subsection (a) , the subsequent + EIR shall be prepared by the public agency which grants the next discretionary approval for the project. In this situation no other Responsible Agency shall grant an ap- proval for the project until the subsequent EIR has been completed. Note: + Authority cited: Sections 21083 and 21087 , Public Resources Code; Reference: Section 21166, Public Resources Code. Formerly Section 15067. Discussion: This section implements the requirements in Section 21166 of CEQA which limit preparation of a subsequent SIR to certain situations. This section provides interpretation of the three situations in which the statute requires preparation of a subsequent EIR. These interpretations are necessary to add certainty to the process. Subsections (b) and (c) explain which agency would have responsibility for preparing a subsequent EIR under dif- ferent circumstances. A subsequent EIR must, of course, receive the same circulation and review as the previous EIR. Supplement 15163. to an EIR (a) The Lead or Responsible Agency may choose to prepare a supplement to an EIR rather than a subsequent EIR if: (1) Any of the conditions described in Section 15162 would require the preparation of a subsequent EIR, and (2) Only minor additions or changes would be necessary to make the previous SIR adequately apply to the project in the changed situation. (b) The supplement to the EIR need contain only the infor- mation necessary to make the previous EIR adequate for the project as revised. (a) A supplement to an EIR shall be given the same kind of notice and public review as is given to a draft EIR under Section 15087. (d) A supplement to an EIR may be circulated by itself without recirculating the previous draft or final EIR. .. (e) When the agency decides whether to approve the project, the decision-making body shall consider the pre- vious EIR as revised by the supplemental EIR. A finding under Section 15091 shall be made for each significant effect shown in the previous EIR as revised. _ Note: Authority cited: Sections 21083 and 21087, Public Resources Code; Reference: Section 21166, Public Resources Cade. Formerly Section 15067.5. Discussion: This section provides a short-form method where only minor additions or changes would be necessary in the previous SIR to make that EIR apply in the changed situation. The section also provides essential interpretations of how to handle public notice, public review, and circulation of the supplement. Addendum 15164. to an EIR (a) The Lead Agency or a Responsible Agency shall prepare an addendum to an EIR if: (1) None of the conditions described in Section 15162 calling for preparation of a subsequent EIR have occurred; (2) Only minor technical changes or additions are necessary to make the EIR under consideration adequate under CEQA; and (3) The changes to the EIR made by the addendum do not raise important new issues about the significant effects _ on the environment. (b) An addendum need not be circulated for public review but can be included in or attached to the final EIR. (a) The decision-making body shall consider the addendum with the final EIR prior to making a decision on the _ project. Note: Authority cited: Sections 21083 and 21087, Public Resources Code; Reference: Section 21166, Public Resources Code. Discussion: This section is�igned to provide clear authority for an addendum as a way of making minor corrections in EIRs without recirculating the EIR. The addendum is the other side of the coin from the supplement to as EIR. 1 1 t 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 I I 1 I 1 I 1 I 1 580 EFFLUENT CHROMIUM 1983 Ocean Plan Limitation 560 300 280 - 260 240 220 200 G :..,r: f':i::.:iinroc F.:n nit Lirnit:Ai-,;: T 180 0 160 m n 140 120 CSDOC Actual Discharge 100 \ 80 1� 60 "�\E7 40 - 20 0 75-76 77-78 79-80 81-82 83-84 85-86 Date