HomeMy WebLinkAboutOCSD 99-19RESOLUTION NO.OCSD 99-19
MAKING CERTAIN FINDINGS RELATING TO SIGNIFICANT
ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS IDENTIFIED IN THE FINAL
PROGRAM ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE 1999 STRATEGIC PLAN;
ADOPTING A MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING
PROGRAM;ADOPTING A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING
CONSIDERATIONS;AND AUTHORIZING THE FILING OF A
NOTICE OF DETERMINATION RE SAID PROJECT
A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE
ORANGE COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT MAKING CERTAIN
FINDINGS RELATING TO SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL
EFFECTS IDENTIFIED IN THE DRAFT PROGRAM
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT FOR THE DRAFT PROGRAM
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR IMPLEMENTATION
OF THE 1999 STRATEGIC PLAN (“THE PROJECT”);ADOPTING
A MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM;
ADOPTING A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING
CONSIDERATIONS;AND AUTHORIZING THE FILING OF A
NOTICE OF DETERMINATION RE SAID PROJECT
WHEREAS,the Board of Directors of the Orange County Sanitation District
(OCSD),hereinafter referred to as uDistricr is presently considering the approval of the
1999 Strategic Plan,a master plan for new facilities through the year 2020,herein
referred as the Strategic Plan;and,
WHEREAS,the District is the lead agency for the preparation and consideration of
environmental documents for the Strategic Plan,pursuant to the California
Environmental Quality Act of 1970,as amended,(“CEQA”),the State of California CEQA
Guidelines and District CEQA procedures;and,
WHEREAS,to assess the Strategic Plan’s environmental impacts objectively,the
District has caused to be prepared a Draft Program Environmental Impact Report (EIR)
to assess the significant environmental impacts,mitigation measures,and alternatives
associated with the Strategic Plan;and,
WHEREAS,the District has consulted with other public agencies and the general
public,giving them an opportunity to comment on the Draft Program EIR as required by
CEQA;and,
WHEREAS,on July 21,1999,the District held a duly-noticed public hearing to
provide a further opportunity for the general public to comment on and respond to the
Draft Program EIR;and,
WHEREAS,the District has objectively evaluated the comments from public
agencies and persons who reviewed the Draft Program EIR;and,
1
WHEREAS,the comments and recommendations received on the Draft Program
EIR,either in full or in summary,together with the District’s responses to significant
environmental concerns raised in the review and consultation process,have been
included in the Final Program EIR;and,
WHEREAS,said Final Program EIR consisting of the Draft Program EIR,Technical
Appendix,and the Response to Comments have been presented to the members of the
District Board of Directors for review and consideration prior to the final approval of,and
commitment to,the Strategic Plan.
NOW,THEREFORE,the Board of Directors of Orange County Sanitation District,
DOES HEREBY RESOLVE,DETERMINE AND ORDER:
1.That the proposed Strategic Plan Final Program EIR has identified a number of
significant or potentially significant environmental effects.These impacts are
identified in the Final Program EIR.
2.That the Board of Directors do further find that changes or alterations have been
required in,or incorporated into,the proposed project,which avoid or substantially
lessen significant environmental effects,all identified in the Final Program EIR.
3.That the Draft Program EIR includes findings concerning the Scenario 2,the
“Preferred Alternative”;significant unavoidable adverse impacts;significant impacts
reduced to less than significant levels by mitigation measures incorporated into the
Strategic Plan,attached as Attachment A.
4.That the District will implement mitigation measures to reduce significant impacts to
less-than significant levels as identified as Attachment B.
5.That the Board of Directors hereby makes Findings of Fact concerning the Project
Alternatives,identified as Attachment C.
6.That the Board Secretary is authorized and directed to file the Notice of
Determination and any other documents in accordance with the requirements of
CEQA and the District’s CEQA procedures.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting held October 27,1999.
ATTEST:1
Board ~cretary ~
~\radon\data1\wp.dta~.admin~BS\ResoIutions\1999\OcsD99-19.doc
)
2
ATTACHMENT A
FINDINGS CONCERNING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE
The Preferred Alternative in the 1999 Strategic Plan is Treatment Scenario 2 —providing
sufficient secondary treatment to meet the needs of the Groundwater Replenishment (GWR)
System Project being undertaken jointly by the District and the Orange County Water District
(OCWD)and maintaining compliance with the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES)permit requirements for ocean discharge.In order to meet the treatment goals of this
Scenario,the Strategic Plan identifies capital improvements for both the collection system and the
treatment plants.In conjunction with the Preferred Alternative,the District may be required to
use the existing 78-inch diameter outfall to accommodate emergency peak flows in excess of
current discharge capacity.Attachment A provides detailed discussion of the rationale for
choosing the Preferred Alternative over other alternatives analyzed.
Level of Treatment:Treatment Scenario 2 would provide the level of treatment necessary to
meet the NPDES permit conditions and the California Ocean Plan,which embodies State of
California regulatory requirements for ocean discharges.All wastewater would receive advanced
primary treatment with a percentage also receiving secondary treatment prior to ocean discharge.
In coordination with OCWD,50-80 mgd average daily flow and up to 100 mgd peak wet weather
flow of secondary effluent would be diverted from OCSD to the GWR System.The amount of
secondary treatment in the ocean discharge would be governed by needs of the GWR System and
by the NPDES permit limits.
Treatment Plant Expansion:Under Treatment Scenario 2,all proposed additional treatment
facilities would be located within the existing property boundaries of the District’s Reclamation
Plant No.I and Treatment Plant No.2.Figures 3-7 through 3-1 1 in the DEIR illustrate the
treatment plant expansion.Treatment Scenario 2 would require the least number of new facilities
of any of the alternatives analyzed.
Ocean Discharge:The existing 120-inch diameter outfall has adequate capacity to accommodate
average dry weather flows to the year 2020 as shown in Figure 3-2 of the DEIR.The outfall
would also accommodate most wet weather flows using the combination of peak wet weather
management measures outlined on page S-16 of the DEIR.The existing 120-inch diameter
outfall’s rated capacity of 480 mgd has been exceeded on five separate occasions since its
installation in 1971,reaching 550 mgd during a storm event in 1995.During each event,the
outfall was able to accommodate all the effluent without requiring emergency discharge at either
of the alternative two discharge points.Due to increased development and projected population
growth within the service area,peak wet weather flows are estimated to reach 775 mgd by the
year 2020 (see Section 3.4).To reconcile the discharge capacity deficiencies during peak flow
OCSD Resolution 99-19,Attachment A A—i ESA I 960436
periods,the District will implement several measures to alleviate peak wet weather flow (DEIR
S-l6).As a last resort,the District would use the existing 78-inch diameter outfall for infrequent
peak flow discharges.Modeling of wet weather flows in the system indicate that the need or
probability of use for the 78-inch to handle peak wet weather flow is greater today (three times in
five years)than it will be under the preferred project in the future (one time in three years).This
is due in part to the hydraulic relief provided by the GWR System,significantly reducing the need
for peak wet weather discharges to the near-shore.
Collection System:Based on the modeled pipeline deficiencies by the year 2020 within the
system,OCSD proposes to replace and rehabilitate pipelines to meet future needs and prevent
overflows.In addition,five pump stations were determined to be in need of equipment upgrades.
Nearly 47 miles of pipeline replacements (separated into 32 individual projects)are planned
almost exclusively within developed city streets.Open trench and jack-and-bore construction
would be employed.Specific collection system projects are summarized in Table 3-19 of the
Draft PEIR.
Biosolids Program:The Strategic Plan recommends no immediate changes in the method of
biosolids processing and beneficial reuse (or disposal as needed),however,a number of studies of
the system are proposed.The Strategic Plan outlines several process changes which could
potentially increase biosolids quality and operational efficiency.None of these technologies are
recommended for immediate implementation,but the District will continue to play an active role
in researching new technologies and monitoring studies performed nation-wide.The District will
need to find additional land applications sites for the projected increase in biosolids.The District
will continue to research the possibility of acquiring land dedicated to biosolids recycling.
FINDINGS CONCERNING SIGNIFICANT UNAVOIDABLE
ADVERSE IMPACTS
The FPEIR indicates that the project would result in six significant unavoidable impacts
attributable to the project.As described below in the findings for each of these impacts,there are
either no feasible mitigation measures or the feasible mitigation measures would only partially
mitigate the impact and the residual effect would remain significant.It is hereby determined that
these impacts are acceptable for the reasons specified in Statement of Overriding Considerations.
OCEAN DISCHARGE /MARINE ENVIRONMENT (PEIR CHAPTER 5.0)
Pathogen Levels from Peak Wet Weather Discharge (Impact 5-9):Effluent discharge to
the 78-inch outfall at a rate of once every three years would result in significant impacts to
levels of pathogens in the nearshore waters used for water-contact activities or where
shellfish are harvested.Use of the 78-inch diameter outfall would require short-term
closure of the beach to human use.
Cumulative Pathogen Levels from Peak Wet Weather Discharge (Impact 5-13):Use of
the 78-inch outfall for peak wet weather discharges would contribute to significant
OCSD Resolution 99-19,Attachment A A—2 ESA/960436
cumulative pollutant loads (particularly pathogens)to the nearshore environment during
wet weather events in combination with non-point source pollution.
TREATMENT FACILITY EXPANSION (PEIR CHAPTER 6.0)
Noise Impacts from Construction (Impact 6.4-1):Construction activities related to the
proposed treatment plant improvements at Reclamation Plant No.1 and Treatment Plant
No.2 would intermittently and temporarily generate noise levels above existing ambient
levels in the project vicinity.
Air Quality Impacts from Construction (Impact 6.5-1):Project development under any
of the six project scenarios would generate short-term emissions of air pollutants,including
dust and criteria pollutants from demolition,construction and/or restoration activities.
Air Quality Impacts from Mobile Sources (Impact 6.5-3):Emissions at both treatment
plants under any of the project scenarios would continue to result from mobile sources.
Mobile sources are projected to exceed the SCAQMD nitrous oxides significance threshold
of 55 lbs/day.
Cumulative Air Quality Impacts from Construction Projects (Impact 6.11-1):
Cumulative impacts to air quality and noise could occur as a result of treatment facility
construction activities coupled with the construction of the GWR System treatment
facilities.
SECONDARY EFFECTS OF GROWTH
Secondary Effects of Growth (Impact 11-2):The OCSD Strategic Plan would
accommodate planned growth in the Service Area.Implementation of planned growth
would result in secondary environmental effects.The effects of planned growth have been
identified and addressed in the EIRs for Regional Plans,General Plans for Service Area
cities,and associated Specific Plans.Some of the secondary effects of growth which have
been identified as significant and unavoidable include air quality and traffic congestion.
FINDINGS
Based on the FPEIR and the entire record before the OCSD Board,the Board finds that there is
no feasible mitigation measure that will reduce the impacts presented above to less than
significant levels.Nonetheless,the District is adopting the mitigation measures presented in the
Mitigation and Monitoring/Reporting Program included as Attachment B.Specific economic,
legal,social,technological,or other considerations justify approval of the project notwithstanding
these impacts as more fully described in the Statement of Overriding Considerations.
OCSD Resolution 99-19,Attachment A A—3 ESA /960436
FINDINGS CONCERNING SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS REDUCED TO
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT LEVELS BY MITIGATION MEASURES
INCORPORATED INTO THE PROJECT
The FPEIR identifies significant impacts,that are reduced to a “less than significant”level by the
inclusion in the project approval of the mitigation measures identified in the FPEIR.It is hereby
determined that these significant environmental impacts of the project will be avoided or
substantially lessened by the inclusion of the identified mitigation measures,which are presented
in the MMRP in Attachment B.
OCEAN DISCHARGE /MARINE ENVIRONMENT
Oil and Grease Levels (Impact 5-3):Oil and Grease effluent levels would comply with
numeric permit limits under Scenarios 1,2,and 5 but would potentially create observable
floating particles which would be a permit violation.
Brine Added to Discharge (Impact 5-5):Increased discharge of brine under any scenario
but particularly under Scenarios 2,4,and 6 with the GWR System would reduce initial
dilution and increase metals concentrations.This could result in potentially significant
toxicity impacts.
Outfall Cleaning (Impact 5-11):Clean out of the existing 120-inch outfall,if needed,to
remove accumulated sediments and debris would move sediments into the marine
environment,which could result in short-term water quality and sediment impacts affecting
marine organisms.
New 120-Inch Diameter Outfall (Impact 5-12):Laying pipeline for the new outfall
would result in the permanent loss of hundreds of thousands of square feet of soft-bottom,
benthic habitat.Adjacent communities would be temporarily disrupted by increased
sedimentation.Disturbance of bottom sediment may result in the short-term release of
contaminants into the water column.
TREATMENT FACILITY EXPANSION
Construction Impacts to Neighboring Land Uses (Impact 6.1-1):Expansion of the
OCSD treatment facilities,as proposed under Scenarios 2 and 4,would require the
construction of additional facilities at Reclamation Plant No.I and at Treatment Plant No.
2.Project construction would result in short-term disturbance of adjacent land uses.
Visual Impacts Impact (6.1-3):Expansion and operation of the proposed facilities for
both Scenarios 2 and 4 could adversely alter existing visual character of the site with
installation of tall structures and the removal of trees.In additional project implementation
could introduce new sources of light and glare.
Traffic Impacts from Construction (Impact 6.2-1):Periods of peak construction will
increase traffic along local access streets.
OCSD Resolution 99-19,Attachment A A—4 ESA /960436
Local Traffic Impacts from Operations (Impact 6.2-2):Additional traffic would be
generated from the ongoing operations of the facilities at Reclamation Plant No.1 and
Treatment Plant No.2.Sources of new traffic include chemical truck deliveries,trips by
new District’s employees,and increased biosolids hauling truck trips.
Regional Traffic Impacts from Operation (Impact 6.2-3):Increased biosolids and
chemical truck trips would impact regional transportation systems including freeways,
especially 1-405 and 1-5.
Birds Nests (Impact 6.3-1):Removal of trees on the treatment plant sites during
construction could impact nesting birds.This impact is considered less than significant
with mitigation.
Noise Impacts from Operations (Impact 6.4-2):Operation of proposed new equipment at
Reclamation Plant No.I and Treatment Plant No.2 would generate noise levels above
existing ambient levels in the project vicinity.
Noise Impacts to Workers (Impact 6.4-3):Workers at Reclamation Plant No.I and
Treatment Plant No.2 may be exposed to excess noise levels from the operation of new
facilities.
Air Quality Impacts from Operations (Impact 6.5-2):Emissions at both treatment plants
under any of the project scenarios would continue to result from stationary sources.
Increasingly restrictive air quality regulations are anticipated in the near future to comply
with federal air quality standards,making air emissions permits for new and modified
equipment more difficult to obtain.
Air Quality Impacts from Central Generation System -CGS (Impact 6.5-4):Modifying
the current CGS or adding new power-generating equipment would require South Coast Air
Quality Management District (SCAQMD)permit modifications.Energy requirements
greater than the permitted CGS capacity of 18 megawatt would require permit
modifications.
Odor Impacts (Impact 6.5-5):The project under each of the treatment scenarios could
generate objectionable odors in the project vicinity and in other areas located downwind
from the treatment facilities.
Seismic Hazards (Impact 6.6-1):Project facilities,under any of the treatment scenarios,
would be located in areas susceptible to primary and secondary seismic hazards
(groundshaking,liquefaction,settlement).Damage to facilities could result in the event of
a major earthquake.
Sewage Spills from Seismic Hazards (Impact 6.6-2):Groundshaking could cause spills
of raw sewage,causing a significant impact to public health.
OCSD Resolution 99-19,Attachment A A—S ESA /960436
Erosion during Construction (Impact 6.7-1):Construction of any of the treatment system
scenarios could result in an increase in erosion and siltation into surface waters.
Construction could also result in chemical spills (e.g.,fuels,oils,or grease)to stormwater,
and increase turbidity and decrease water quality in waters of the U.S.
Dewatering (Impact 6.7-2):Pile driving and excavation activities at Reclamation Plant
No.1 and Treatment Plant No.2 may encounter groundwater,and local dewatering may be
required.
Flood Hazards (Impact 6.7-3):Reclamation Plant No 1.and Treatment Plant No.2 are
located in the 100-year floodplain of the Santa Ana River.New facilities proposed under
any of the scenarios considered would expose structures and people to a 100-year flood
event and/or effects of a tsunami.
Hazardous Materials (Impact 6.9-1):Increasing quantities of hazardous materials stored
on site could impact public health in the event of a catastrophic spill or explosion.
Increasing liquid oxygen storage could increase the hazard.
Growth-Inducement (Impact 11-1):By removing wastewater treatment capacity as one
barrier to growth,the District would have indirect,growth-inducement potential to support
planned development within the Service Area that is consistent with and within the levels
of development approved in the adopted General Plans.
COLLECTION SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS
Construction Impacts to Neighboring Land Uses (Impact 7.1-1):Construction activities
associated with the trunk sewer systems would involve the rehabilitation and replacement
of existing pipelines.Construction activities would result in short-term disturbance of
adjacent land uses.
Traffic Impacts from Construction (Impact 7.2-1):Construction activities during
trenching in city streets will impact traffic circulation during construction period.
Biology (Impact 7.3-1):Based on conceptual alignment information for OCSD’s proposed
collection system projects,construction of the collection pipeline system improvements
would occur in previously disturbed,developed areas,primarily public streets.No impact
to biological resources would occur if projects occur within paved areas.However,if final
project alignments are revised to include an undeveloped area or open space,potential
impacts to biological resource could occur;in these cases OCSD would conduct additional
CEQA evaluations as needed to clarify and address impacts to biological resources.
Noise Impacts from Construction (Impact 7.4-1):Construction activities related to the
proposed collection system improvements would intermittently and temporarily generate
noise levels above existing ambient levels in the project vicinity.
OCSD Resolution 99-19,Attachment A A—6 ESA /960436
Air Quality Impacts from Construction (Impact 7.5-1):The proposed improvements to
OCSD’s collection systems would generate short-term emissions of air pollutants,
including dust and criteria pollutants,from excavation,installation and/or replacement
activities.This is considered a short-term significant impact that would cease at the
completion of construction activities.Construction emission impacts are estimated to occur
for an average of three to four weeks within one block of any given property.
Seismic Hazards (Impact 7.6-1):Project facilities would be located in areas susceptible to
primary and secondary seismic hazards (groundshaking,liquefaction,settlement).Damage
to facilities could result in the event of a major earthquake.
Erosion from Construction (Impact 7.7-1):Construction activities could result in erosion
and siltation into nearby surface waters,leading to degradation of water quality or flooding
hazards.Construction could also result in chemical spills (e.g.,fuels,oils,or grease)to
stormwater,and increase turbidity and decrease water quality in waters of the U.S.
Impacts to Emergency Services During Construction (Impact 7.8-1):Construction of
the collection pipeline system could result in short-term disruption of emergency services
in the vicinity of the project area.
Public Safety During Construction (Impact 7.8-2):Construction of the collection system
projects would create a public safety hazard in the vicinity of the construction area.
Utilities Relocation (Impact 7.8-3):Construction of the collection pipeline system could
result in short-term disruption of utility service and may require utilities relocation.
Aesthetics (Impact 7.9-1):Project implementation could result in short-term visual
impacts resulting from construction activities.Less than Significant after Mitigation
Measures.
Cultural Resources from Construction (Impact 7.10-1):Implementation of the proposed
collection system improvements may affect known,significant archaeological resources.
Cultural Resources from Construction (Impact 7.10-2):Implementation of the proposed
collection system improvements may affect unknown,potentially significant archeological
resources.Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures.
Cumulative Construction Impacts (Impact 7.11-1):Construction activities of the
collection system projects in conjunction with other projects would result in short-term
cumulative impacts.Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures.
BIOSOLIDS MANGEMENT
Traffic Impacts from Biosolids Trucks (Impact 8-2):The projected increase in residual
solids volumes would increase truck traffic on local roadways.
OCSD Resolution 99-19,Attachment A A—7 ESA /960436
Noise Impacts from Increased Truck Traffic (Impact 8-3):The projected increase in
residual solids volumes and related truck traffic would increase ambient noise levels at
nearby sensitive receptor locations.
Cumulative Impacts to Regional Biosolids Applications (Impact 8-5):The projected
increase in biosolids production from POTWs in the Southern California region could
present a cumulative impact on the availability of land application sites.
FINDiNGS
Based on the Final PEIR and the entire administrative record,the Board finds that changes or
alterations have been incorporated into the project which will substantially lessen the significant
effects as identified above,thereby reducing potential effects to less than significant levels.The
District adopts the mitigation measures included in the Mitigation Monitoring/Reporting Program
included in Attachment B.
Based on the Final PEIR and the entire administrative record before the OCSD Board,the Board
finds that the Mitigation Measure 6.5-if would not be feasible based on economic and technical
considerations and could create additional impacts.The mitigation measure will therefore not be
adopted.
The mitigation measure was included in the Draft PEIR as follows:
Mitigation Measure 6.5-if:Trucks should be washed off prior to leaving the
construction site.
It is infeasible to wash construction trucks off prior to the trucks leaving construction sites.
Facilities and space are generally not available,nor is it feasible to capture and potentially treat
the wash-water runoff which would be generated from washing numerous large construction
vehicles.Mud and water generated by washing operations would be tracked onto City streets and
create potential safety and aesthetic impacts.The additional time and costs associated with such
activities on the construction sites are also infeasible.
The other measures designed to reduce dust emissions 6.5-la through 6.5-le are adequate to
reduce the potential impact to less-than-significant levels.Therefore,Mitigation Measure 6.5-if
will not be included in the Mitigation Monitoring/Reporting Program and will not be adopted as
part of these findings.
Finally,based on the Final PEIR and the entire administrative record before the OCSD Board,the
Board finds that the Impact 6.7-4 is not a significant impact.The Draft PEIR identified the
impact as follows:
Impact 6.7-4:Construction and long-term operation of the proposed improvements to
both treatment plants would increase the area of impervious surface and result in an
incremental increase in surface runoff in these areas.Less than Significant with
Mitigation Measures.
OCSD Resolution 99-19,Attachment A A—8 ESA /960436
Since the District collects and treats surface runoff within the two treatment plant sites,the
increase in impervious area created by additional facilities would not significantly increase storm
water runoff.As a result,impacts associated with increased storm water runoff would not be
anticipated.The District finds that this impact is less than significant.No mitigation measures
would be necessary to address this impact.
STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
SUMMARY OF OVERRIEDING CONSIDERATIONS
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)requires a decision-maker,in this case the
OCSD Board of Directors,to balance the benefits of a proposed project against its unavoidable
environmental risks in determining whether to approve the project.If the Board of Directors
allows the occurrence of significant effects through approval of a project,it must state its specific
reasons for so doing in writing.Such reasons are included in the “statement of overriding
considerations.”
Section 15093 of the CEQA Guidelines establishes the following requirements for a statement of
overriding considerations:
(a)CEQA requires the decision-making agency to balance,as applicable,the economic,legal,
social,technological or other benefits of a proposed project against its unavoidable
environmental risks when determining whether to approve the project.If the specific
economic,legal,social,technological or other benefits of a proposed project outweigh the
unavoidable adverse environmental effects,the adverse environmental effects may be
considered “acceptable.”
(b)When the lead agency approves a project which will result in the occurrence of significant
effects,which are identified in the final EIR but are not avoided or substantially lessened,
the agency shall state in writing the specific reasons to support its action based on the final
EIR and/or other information in the record.The statement of overriding considerations
shall be supported by substantial evidence in the record.
(c)If an agency makes a statement of overriding considerations,the statement should be
included in the record of the project approval and should be mentioned in the notice of
determination.This statement does not substitute for,and shall be in addition to,findings
required pursuant to Section 15091.
The Orange County Sanitation District (hereafter referred to as “District”or “OCSD”)adopts and
makes the following statement of overriding considerations regarding the remaining unavoidable
impacts identified within the 1999 Strategic Plan Program Environmental Impact Report (PEIR).
In adopting this Resolution,the District’s Board of Directors acknowledges that it has weighed
the benefits of the identified Preferred Alternative,treatment Scenario 2 against the adverse
significant impacts that have not been avoided or substantially lessened to less-than-significant
levels through mitigation.
The OCSD Board of Directors hereby determines that the benefits of the Preferred Alternative of
the 1999 Strategic Plan outweigh the unmitigated adverse impacts and the project should be
OCSD Resolution 99-19,Attachment A A—9 ESA /960436
approved.The OCSD Board of Directors finds that to the extent that the identified significant
adverse impacts have not been avoided or substantially lessened,there are specific economic,
legal,social,technological or other considerations which support approval of the project.
SIGNIFICANT UNA VOIDABLE IMPACTS
Unavoidable or potentially unavoidable significant environmental effects of the project identified
in the Final EIRIEIS and Findings of Significant Impacts include the following:
Effluent discharge to the 78-inch diameter outfall at a rate of once every three years would
result in elevated levels of pathogens in the near-shore waters during brief wet weather
events significantly impacting beneficial uses and prompting beach closures.(Impact 5-9)
These infrequent near-shore discharges in conjunction with non-point source discharges in
the region would create a cumulative significant impact to beneficial uses.(Impact 5-13)
Construction activities related to the proposed treatment plant improvements at
Reclamation Plant No.I and Treatment Plant No.2 would intermittently and temporarily
generate noise levels above existing ambient levels in the project vicinity (Impact 6.4-1)
Construction and demolition activities related to the proposed treatment plant
improvements would generate short-term emissions of air pollutants.(Impact 6.5-1)
Mobile-source air emissions would continue to result from operations at both treatment
plants.Mobile sources are projected to exceed the SCAQMD nitrous oxides significance
threshold of 55 lbs/day.(Impact 6.5-3)
Cumulative impacts to air quality and noise could occur as a result of treatment facility
construction activities coupled with the construction of the GWR System treatment
facilities.(Impact 6.11-1)
The OCSD Strategic Plan would continue to accommodate planned growth in the Service
Area.Implementation of planned growth would result in secondary environmental effects,
some of which have been identified as significant including air quality and traffic.
(Impact 11-2)
ADOPTION OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
The District specifically adopts this Statement of Overriding Considerations and finds that:a)as
part of the approval provisions,the Preferred Alternative has eliminated or substantially lessened
all significant effects on the environment where feasible;b)other mitigation measures to mitigate
the secondary effects of growth associated with the project are within the jurisdiction of other
public agencies,and,c)the remaining unavoidable impacts of the project are acceptable in light
of the environmental,economic,legal,social,technological,and other considerations set forth
herein,because the benefits of the project outweigh the significant and adverse impacts.
The District finds that each of the overriding considerations set forth below constitutes a separate
and independent ground for finding that the benefits of the Preferred Alternative of the Strategic
Plan outweigh its significant adverse environmental impacts and is an overriding consideration
OCSD Reso’ution 99-19,Attachment A A—10 ESA /960436
warranting approval of the Preferred Alternative.These matters are supported by substantial
evidence in the record.
BENEFITS
The adoption of the Preferred Alternative of the Strategic Plan will enable the District to provide
sanitary sewer collection services and wastewater treatment for the projected population of the
Service Area through the year 2020,protecting public health and safety.The District finds that
the benefits of safe and reliable wastewater collection and treatment overrides the significant
construction and operational impacts associated with the Preferred Alternative.
Participation in the GWR System would contribute substantially to the responsible management
of water resources in the Southern California region by recycling 60 to 100 million gallons per
day of highly treated effluent for groundwater recharge.The District finds that implementation of
the GWR System would significantly reduce the frequency of need for near-shore discharges to
the 78-inch outfall during peak wet weather events.
The District finds that the economic,technological,and environmental benefits of using the
existing 78-inch diameter near-shore outfall for infrequent peak wet weather discharge would
override the temporary significant impacts to near-shore beneficial uses.Use of the 78-inch
diameter outfall for infrequent peak wet weather discharges would occur in lieu of constructing a
new $150-200 million deepwater outfall.A new deep-water outfall would constitute a significant
capital expense for a facility needed for infrequent peak wet weather discharges.The additional
dry weather capacity would far exceed anticipated need.By delaying the installation of a new
120-inch diameter outfall parallel to the existing outfall,the District will avoid adverse
construction impacts to the coastal and marine environments in addition to avoiding significant
expense.
The cities serviced by the District (DEIR page 2-1 Table 2-1)and the County of Orange
acknowledge the economic benefits including jobs,increased sales revenue,and increased
property tax revenue derived from the implementation of their General Plans and associated
specific plans.The cities and County also acknowledge social benefits derived from
implementation of their General Plans and associated specific plans,including increases in
housing opportunities within the city and the region,increases in affordable housing,increases in
each city’s contribution to its fair share of the regional housing opportunities,and provision of a
mix of housing types.The District finds that the benefits of continued sanitary sewer service
commensurate with forecast regional demand override the significant secondary effects of
growth.
H:\wp.dta\eng\JOBS &CONTRACTS\STRAT PLAN\J-40-4\99\FEIR Certification\Findings of Fact -Attachment A.doc
OCSD Resolution 99-19,Attachment A A—il ESA /960436
ATTACHMENT B
MITIGATION MONITORING/REPORTING PROGRAM
OCSD Resolution 99-19,Attachment B
ATTACHMENT B,MITIGATION MONITORING I REPORTING P RAM
MITIGATION MONITORING /REPORTING PROGRAM
MARINE ENVIRONMENT /OCEAN DISCHARGE
Impact 5-3.Oil and Grease effluent levels would comply with numerical permit limits under Scenarios 1,2,and 5 but would potentially create observable
floating particles which would be a permit violation.This impact would be mitigated through monitoring and treatment to achieve and maintain
compliance.
Measure 5-3a:Oil and Grease.The District shall monitor receiving water in accordance with its current NPDES permit monitoring requirement and,if
floating particulates from the discharge are observed in surface receiving water,the District shall modify its treatment process to reduce oil and grease in
the effluent.Treatment modifications that may be implemented to address this issue include:increasing the level of secondary effluent in the discharge
blend,and employing new and/or additional chemical processes (new polymer)to increase oil and grease removal.
MONITORING AND REPORTING MONITORING
IMPLEMENTATION PROCEDURE ACTIONS RESPONSIBILITY MONITORING SCHEDULE
1.Incorporate surface water observations Publish results with annual monitoring Monthly,beginning when
in monthly marine monitoring program program report submitted to the RWQCB.OCSD treatment level is changed.
focused above ZID as well as down-
current.
2.Establish methods of increasing
treatment in order to be prepared to
eliminate floatables if necessary.
Measure 5-3b:Local Grease Ordinance.The District shall work with its member agencies to encourage adoption of local ordinances for improved source control
of oil and grease.
MONITORING AN])REPORTING MONITORING
IMPLEMENTATION PROCEDURE ACTIONS RESPONSIBILITY MONITORING SCHEDULE
1.Board of Directors to pursue source Board to adopt source control policies.On-going
control policy actions.OCSD
OCSD Strategic Plan —Resolution 99-19,Attachment B B —1 ESA /960436
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program October 1999
ATTACHMENT B,MITIGATION MONITORING I REPORTING P RAM
Impact 5-5.Increased discharge of brine under any scenario but particularly under Scenarios 2,4,and 6 with the GWR System would reduce initial
dilution and increase metals concentrations.This could result in potentially significant toxicity impacts.Potentially significant.
Measure 5-5:Brine Effect Studies.Study and monitor the effect of brine and adjust treatment and/or brine addition as needed to maintain NPDES
permit effluent quality compliance.
a)Conduct a pilot study of the effect of increased brine discharge to OCSD effluent on effluent quality to demonstrate NPDES permit compliance.Prior to start-up of
full operation of the GWR System Project,OCSD will test effluent quality with the addition of the GWR System project brine concentrate in accordance with the
acute and chronic toxicity testing procedures required in the District’s NPDES permit.This will allow the District to confirm the potential compliance with the
NPDES permit.
b)During GWR System operation,OCSD will continue its effluent quality testing and ocean monitoring in compliance with its NPDES permit.If this testing or
monitoring indicates the occurrence of or potential for non-compliance with effluent toxicity standards,the District will implement measures to achieve and
maintain NPDES compliance,including:
•brine dilution
•brine treatment
•toxicity identification evaluation and appropriate source control measures
MONITORING AND REPORTiNG MONITORING
IMPLEMENTATION PROCEDURE ACTIONS RESPONSIBILITY MONITORING SCHEDULE
1.Initiate contract to study brine toxicity.Include status of contract and study At adoption of findings.
2.Based on study results,identify further results in Annual Operations And OCSD and OCWD
actions.Maintenance Report.
Impact 5-9:Effluent discharge to the 78-inch outfall at a rate of once every three years would result in significant impacts to levels of pathogens in the
nearshore waters used for water-contact activities or where shellfish are harvested.
Measure 5-9a:Pathogen Reduction.Pathogen reduction in the wet weather discharge would partially mitigate the impact of wet weather discharge to
the nearshore area by reducing the pathogen levels and thereby reducing the health risk.Disinfection could reduce pathogen levels but it is not
recommended by the RWQCB based on cost and the potential for residual chlorine in the discharge to have an adverse impact to marine organisms.
Alternative methods of pathogen removal appropriate for wet weather flow treatment are under development and include filtration processes.The
District will continue to evaluate new technologies for pathogen reduction and will implement those that prove to be feasible,effective,and cost-
effective.Even with some level of pathogen reduction,beach closure would still probably be required,thus the impact to beach use would remain
significant and unavoidable during these infrequent events.
OCSD Strategic Plan-Resolution 99-19,Attachment B B -2 ESA /960436
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program October 1999
ATTACHMENT B,MITIGATION MONITORING I REPORTING P RAM
MONITORING AND REPORTING MONITORING
IMPLEMENTATION PROCEDURE ACTIONS RESPONSIBILITY MONtTORII4G SChEDULE
I.Continue research of pathogen Include status and results of research in On-going.
reduction technologies,in particular,Annual Operations And Maintenance OCSD
micro-filtration.Report.
Impact 5-11:Removal of accumulated sediments in the existing 120-inch outfall,if needed,would move sediments into the marine environment,which
could result in short-term water quality and sediment impacts affecting marine organisms.
Measure 5-11:Outfall Cleaning.If necessary,the District will develop plans to clean out the outfall using appropriate methods approved by the
RWQCB to protect water quality in accordance with regulations.The plan will include methods to contain floatables and disperse the sediments so that
impacts to benthic communities and water quality are minimized.
MONITORING AND REPORTING MONITORING
IMPLEMENTATION PROCEDURE ACTIONS RESPONSIBILITY MONITORING SCHEDULE
1.Submit clean-out methods to RWQCB Include status and results of methods in
prior to implementation.Annual Operations And Maintenance OCSD Prior to clean-out
Report.
Impact 5-12.Laying pipeline for any new outfall would result in the permanent loss of hundreds of thousands of square feet of soft-bottom,benthic habitat.
Adjacent communities would be temporarily disrupted by increased sedimentation.Disturbance of bottom sediment may result in the short-term release of
contaminants into the water column.Potentially significant but can be mitigated.
Measure 5-12:Outfall Siting.The District would conduct additional detailed,site-specific studies for the siting of a new second 120-inch ocean
outfall.These studies would clarify the extent of marine resources that would be affected by construction and identified appropriate mitigation measures
to minimize the area of disturbance.
OCSD Strategic Plan-Resolution 99-19,Attachment B B —3 ESA /960436
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting PrOgram October 1999
ATTACHMENT B,MITIGATION MONITORING /REPORTING P RAM
MONITORING AND REPORTING MONITORiNG
IMPLEMIENTATION PROCEDURE ACTIONS RESPONSIBILITY MONITORING SCHEDULE
I.Initiate feasibility and design studies Include status and methods in Annual
prior to construction.Operations And Maintenance Report.OCSD Prior to construction
2.Prepare appropriate CEQA
documentation of proposed project.
3.Implement mitigation measures
identified in subsequent CEQA
documentation.
Impact 5-13:Use of the 78-inch outfall for peak wet weather discharges would contribute to significant cumulative pollutant loads (particularly pathogens)
to the nearshore environment during wet weather events in combination with non-point source pollution.Significant.
Measure 5-13:Pathogen Reduction.To mitigate the cumulative contribution from use of the 78-inch outfall,the District will implement Mitigation
Measure 5-9,above to provide additional pathogen reduction as allowed and/or required by the RWQCB.
MONITORING AND REPORTING MONITORING
IMPLEMENTATION PROCEDURE ACTIONS RESPONSIBILITY MONITORING SCHEDULE
1.Continue research of pathogen Include status and results of methods in
reduction technologies,in particular,Annual Operations And Maintenance OCSD On going
micro-filtration.Report.
Treatment Plant
Land Use
Impact 6.1-1.Expansion of the OCSD treatment facilities,as proposed under Scenarios 2 and 4,would require the construction of additional facilities at
Reclamation Plant No.1 and at Treatment Plant No.2.Project construction would result in short-term disturbance of adjacent land uses.Less than
Significant with Mitigation Measures.
OCSD Strategic Plan-Resolution 99-19,Attachment B B —4 ESA /960436
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program October 1999
ATTACHMENT B,MITIGATION MONITORING I REPORTING RAM
Measure 6.1-la:Construction Hours.The District’s standard specifications provide construction hours of work between 7:00 AIvI and 5:30 PM,except
for emergency or special circumstances requiring that work be done during low-flow periods.
MONITORING AND REPORTING MONITORING
IMPLEMENTATION PROCEDURE ACTIONS RESPONSIBILITY MONITORING SCHEDULE
1.Include compliance with local noise Maintain record of construction oversight Prior to and during construction
and construction ordinances in for administrative record.OCSD
construction specifications.
2.Provide construction oversight to
ensure scope of work is carried out.
Measure 6.1-ib:Construction Notification.The District shall post informational signs outside plant when major projects are being constructed.
MONITORING AND REPORTING MONITORING
IMPLEMENTATION PROCEDURE ACTIONS RESPONSIBILITY MONITORING SCHEDULE
1.Post notices near job site outside plant Maintain record of distribution for Prior to construction
property,administrative record.OCSD
Impact 6.1-3.Expansion and operation of the proposed facilities for both Scenarios 2 and 4 could adversely alter existing visual character of the site with
installation of tall structures and the removal of trees.In additional project implementation could introduce new sources of light and glare.Less than
Significant with Mitigation Measures.
Measure 6.1-3a:Implement Landscaping Master Plan.The District will implement the Urban Design Element of the Strategic Plan in order to
improve the visual appearance of the site.Recommendations from the Landscape Master Plans (of the Urban Design Element)include the development
of buffer zones,planting of trees at the perimeter of the plants along sensitive visual corridors (e.g.Santa Ana bikeway),and maintaining and enhancing
the appearance of existing buffer zones.
OCSD Strategic Plan-Resolution 99-19,Attachment B B -5 ESA /960436
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program October 1999
ATTACHMENT B,MITIGATION MONITORING I REPORTING P RAM
MONITORING AND REPORTING MONITORING
IMPLEMENTATION PROCEDURE ACTIONS RESPONSIBILITY MONITORING SCHEDULE
1.Comply with Urban Design Plan.Maintain Urban Design plan for On going
administrative record.OCSD
Measure 6.1-3b:Exterior Lighting.The District will install permanent exterior lighting on new facilities to point away from neighboring residential
areas as possible to minimize visible light sources.
MONITORING AND REPORTING MONITORING
IMPLEMENTATION PROCEDURE ACTIONS RESPONSIBILITY MONITORING SCHEDULE
1.Comply with Urban Design Plan.Maintain Urban Design Plan and record Prior to and after construction
2.Conduct nighttime survey after new of nighttime inspection for administrative OCSD
construction to confirm less than record.
significant impact.
Traffic
Impact 6.2-1:Periods of peak construction will increase traffic along local access streets.Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures.
Measure 6.2-1:Contractor Coordination.For each major project or construction period,the District would complete a detailed construction schedule
and notify the Cities of Fountain Valley and Huntington Beach of construction.Construction vehicles shall be run on a schedule to minimize truck traffic
on arterial highways.
OCSD Strategic Plan-Resolution 99-19,Attachment B B -6 ESA /960436
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program October 1999
ATTACHMENT B,MITIGATION MONITORING /REPORTING RAM
MONITORING AND REPORTING MONITORING
IMPLEMENTATION PROCEDURE ACTIONS RESPONSIBILITY MONITORING SCHEDULE
1.Require traffic control plan for Ensure that construction vehicle traffic Prior to and during construction
construction projects.complies with traffic control plan.OCSD
2.Notify affected cities of construction
schedule.Provide record of construction oversight.
3.Provide construction oversight.
Impact 6.2-2:Additional traffic would be generated from the ongoing operations of the facilities at Reclamation Plant No.I and Treatment Plant No.2.
Sources of new traffic include chemical truck deliveries,trips by new District’s employees,and increased biosolids hauling truck trips.Less than
Significant with Mitigation Measures.
Measure 6.2-2a:Ride-Sharing Program.The Districts will continue the existing ride-sharing program to encourage employees to join a carpool and
use transit.
MONITORING AND REPORTING MONITORING
IMPLEMENTATION PROCEDURE ACTIONS RESPONSIBILITY MONITORING SCHEDULE
Include status of rideshare program in Annually
Operation and Maintenance Annual OCSD
Report.
Measure 6.2-2b:Traffic Management Chemical delivery trucks and screenings and grit and biosolids disposal trucks will avoid operating during peak
traffic hours when possible.
OCSD Strategic Plan-Resolution 99-19,Attachment B B -7 ESA /960436
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting PrOgram October 1999
ATTACHMENT B,MITIGATION MONITORING I REPORTING P RAM
MONITORING AND REPORTING MONITORING
IMPLEMENTATION PROCEDURE ACTIONS RESPONSIBILITY MONITORING SCHEDULE
1.The District will develop a preferred Prepare a record of hauling schedule.At hauler’s contract renewal
truck-hauling schedule avoiding peak OCSD
traffic hours.
2.Thereafter the District will attempt to
comply with the schedule whenever
possible.
3.The District will incorporate this
preferred schedule when renewing
contracts with haulers and chemical
deliverers.
Impact 6.2-3:Increased biosolids and chemical truck trips would impact regional transportation systems including freeways,especially 1-405 and 1-5.Less
than Significant with Mitigation Measures.
Measure 6.2-3:Biosolids Transport.The District shall arrange for the transport of biosolids by trucks during off-peak travel hours when possible to
reduce truck travel times and minimize impacts to the regional transportation system.
OCSD Strategic Nan-Resolution 99-19,Attachment B B -8 ESA /960436
Mitigation Monitoiing and Reporting Program October 1999
ATTACHMENT B,MITIGATION MONITORING I REPORTING P RAM
MONITORING AND REPORTING MONITORING
IMPLEMENTATION PROCEDURE ACTIONS RESPONSIBILITY MONITORiNG SCHEDULE
1.The District will develop a preferred Prepare a record of hauling schedule.At hauler’s contract renewal
truck-hauling schedule avoiding peak OCSD
traffic hours.
2.Thereafter the District will attempt to
comply with the schedule whenever
possible.
3.The District will incorporate this
preferred schedule when renewing
contracts with haulers.
Impact 6.3-1:Removal of trees on the treatment plant sites during construction could impact nesting birds.This impact is considered less than significant
with mitigation.
Measure 6.3-1:Nesting Birds.Prior to the removal of healthy trees on site,a biologist knowledgeable of birds will survey the trees to determine if active nests are
present.If nests of sensitive species are present,tree removal will be scheduled to avoid the nesting season.
MONITORING AND REPORTING MONITORING
IMPLEMENTATION PROCEDURE ACTIONS RESPONSIBILITY MONITORING SCHEDULE
1.Include tree surveys in construction Maintain record of biologist survey OCSD Prior to and during construction
specifications for on-site construction recommendations and record of District
projects.adherence with recommendations.
OCSD Strategic Plan-Resolution 99-19,Attachment B B -9 ESA /960436
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program October 1999
ATTACHMENT B,MITIGATION MONITORING /REPORTING P RAM
Noise
Impact 6.4-1:Construction activities related to the proposed treatment plant improvements at Reclamation Plant No.I and Treatment Plant No.2 would
intermittently and temporarily generate noise levels above existing ambient levels in the project vicinity.Significant and Unavoidable.
Measure 6.4-la:Construction Hours.The District’s standard specifications provide construction hours of work between 7:00 AM and 5:30 PM,
except for emergency or special circumstances requiring that work be done during low-flow periods.
MONITORING AND REPORTING MONITORING
IMPLEMENTATION PROCEDURE ACTIONS RESPONSIBILITY MONITORING SCHEDULE
2.Include compliance with local noise Maintain record of construction oversight Prior to and during construction
and construction ordinances in for administrative record.OCSD
construction specifications.
3.Provide construction oversight to
ensure scope of work is carried out.
Measure 6.4-ib:Muffled Equipment.All equipment used during construction shall be muffled and maintained in good operating condition.All
internal combustion engine driven equipment shall be fitted with intake and exhaust mufflers that are in good condition.
MONITORING AND REPORTING MONITORING
IMPLEMENTATION PROCEDURE ACTIONS RESPONSIBILITY MONITORING SCHEDULE
I.Include compliance with local noise Maintain record of construction oversight Prior to and during construction
and construction ordinances in for administrative record.OCSD
construction specifications.
2.Include noise reduction procedures in
construction specifications
3.Provide construction oversight to
ensure scope of work is carried out.
Measure 6.4-lc:Pile-Driving Noise Reduction.OCSD shall consult with an acoustical engineer to evaluate other alternatives for mitigating impacts
from extensive pile driving activities when necessary.
OCSD Strategic Plan-Resolution 99-19,Attachment B B —10 ESA /960436
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program October 1999
ATTACHMENT B,MITIGATION MONITORING I REPORTING RAM
MONITORING AND REPORTING MONITORING
IMPLEMENTATION PROCEDURE ACTIONS RESPONSIBILITY MONITORING SCHEDULE
1.Initiate contract with qualified engineer Maintain record of construction oversight OCSD Prior to and during construction
to reduce noise impacts.for administrative record.
2.Incorporate noise reduction solutions.
3.Provide construction oversight to
ensure scope of work is carried out.
Measure 6.4-id:Alternatives for Foundations.OCSD will evaluate the use of alternative foundation designs to avoid a need for pilings where cost-effective
and technically feasible.
MONITORING AND REPORTING MONITORING
IMPLEMENTATION PROCEDURE ACTIONS RESPONSIBILITY MONITORING SCHEDULE
1.Include preference to avoid pilings Maintain record of design specifications.OCSD Prior to project design
where possible in project design
specifications.
Measure 6.4-le:Construction Notification.Nearby sensitive receptors affected by construction shall be notified concerning the project timing and
construction schedule,and shall be provided with a phone number to call with questions or complaints.
MONITORING AND REPORTING MONITORING
IMPLEMENTATION PROCEDURE ACTIONS RESPONSIBILITY MONITORING SCHEDULE
1.Prepare and distribute notifications.Maintain record of notification OCSD Prior to construction
distribution list.
Measure 6.4-if:Pile Driving Noise Reduction.Noise-reduction measures will be implemented such as acoustic insulation or by other means during
the construction period at Reclamation Plant No.I to reduce a nuisance condition to the closest residences when pile driving is taking place.
OCSD Strategic Plan-Resolution 99-19,Attachment B B -11 ESA /960436
Mitigation Monitoiing and Reporting Program October 1999
ATTACHMENT B,MITIGATION MONITORING /REPORTING P RAM
MONITORING AND REPORTING MONITORING
IMPLEMENTATION PROCEDURE ACTIONS RESPONSIBILITY MONITORING SCHEDULE
1.Include noise reduction procedures in Maintain record of construction oversight OCSD Prior to and during construction
construction specifications for administrative record.
2.Provide construction oversight to
ensure scope of work is carried out.
Measure 6.4-ig:Noise Reduction.The District will require construction contractors to include methods to reduce noise and elevated activity impacts to nearby wildlife
when working on the southern and southeastern border of Treatment Plant No.2.
MONITORING AND REPORTING MONITORING
IMPLEMENTATION PROCEDURE ACTIONS RESPONSIBILITY MONITORING SCHEDULE
1.Include noise reduction procedures in Maintain record of construction oversight OCSD Prior to and during construction
construction specifications for administrative record.
2.Conduct wildlife sensitivity training
during morning tail-gate meetings.
3.Provide construction oversight to
ensure scope of work is carried out.
Measure 6.4-lh:Exterior Lighting.The District will install permanent exterior lighting on new facilities to point away from the wetland areas
adjacent to Plant No.2 as possible to minimize light sources permanently shining on the adjacent habitats.
MONITORING AND REPORTING MONITORING
IMPLEMENTATION PROCEDURE ACTIONS RESPONSIBILITY MONITORING SCHEDULE
1.Include lighting design in construction Conduct periodic evening surveys to OCSD Prior to and during construction
specifications.observe lights.
OCSD Strategic Plan-Resolution 99-19,Attachment B B -12 ESA /960436
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program October 1999
ATTACHMENT B,MITIGATION MONITORING /REPORTING P RAM
Impact 6.4-2:Operation of proposed new equipment at Reclamation Plant No.1 and Treatment Plant No.2 would generate noise levels above existing
ambient levels in the project vicinity.Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures.
Measure 6.4-2a:Noise Performance Standard.OCSD shall establish a performance noise standard for operational noise at Reclamation Plant No.1
and Treatment Plant No.2.The performance standard shall apply to the property line of each plant and shall prohibit hourly average noise levels in
excess of 55 dBA between the hours of 7:00 a.m.to 10:00 p.m.and 50 dBA between the hours of 10:00 p.m.and 7:00 a.m.,as required by the Fountain
Valley and Huntington Beach Noise Ordinances.Available mitigation to achieve the performance standard consists of locating noise sources away from
sensitive receptors,installation of acoustical enclosures around noise sources,installation of critical application silencers and sequential mufflers for
exhaust noise,installation of louvered vents,directing vent systems away from nearby residences,and constructing soundwalls at the property lines.
MONITORING AND REPORTING MONITORiNG
IMPLEMENTATION PROCEDURE ACTIONS RESPONSIBILITY MONITORING SCHEDULE
I.Include compliance with local noise Maintain record of noise complaints for OCSD On-going
and construction ordinances in administrative record.
standard operational procedures.
2.Implement noise reduction procedures
when possible.
3.Consider operational noise when
locating new equipment.
Measure 6.4-2b:Community Liaison.The District will assign a community liaison for odor and noise complaints.
MONITORING AND REPORTING MONITORING
IMPLEMENTATION PROCEDURE ACTIONS RESPONSIBILITY MONITORING SCHEDULE
I.Meet with community groups.Maintain record of meetings with OCSD On-going
2.Develop tasks and assignments for community groups.
liaison.
3.Periodically review effectiveness of
community liaison program.
OCSD Strategic Plan-Resolution 99-19,Attachment B B —13 ESA /960436
Mitigation Monitonng and Reporting Program October 1999
ATTACHMENT B,MITIGATION MONITORING /REPORTING P RAM
Impact 6.4-3:Workers at Reclamation Plant No.I and Treatment Plant No.2 may be exposed to excess noise levels from the operation of new facilities.
Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures.
Measure 6.4-3:Noise Control.Noise control measures shall be incorporated into the design of the facility.Once the facility is operational,a certified
industrial hygienist or other qualified individual shall measure the noise levels to which workers are exposed.If the OSHA 8-hour time weighted average
exposure for any worker exceed the 85 dBA threshold,a hearing conservation program must be initiated and appropriate administrative and engineering
controls must be put in place to protect workers.
MONITORING AND REPORTING MONITORING
IMPLEMENTATION PROCEDURE ACTIONS RESPONSIBILITY MONITORING SCHEDULE
1.Include noise control measures in Include noise assessment results in annual OCSD Annually
design of new equipment.Operations and Maintenance Report.
2.Conduct noise assessments on site and
on the perimeter to quantify impacts to
workers and neighborhood to respond
to complaints.
Air Quality
Impact 6.5-1:Project development under any of the six project scenarios would generate short-term emissions of air pollutants,including dust and criteria
pollutants,from demolition,construction and/or restoration activities.Significant and Unavoidable.
Measure 6.5-la:Equipment Emissions.General contractors shall maintain equipment engines in proper tune and operate construction equipment so as
to minimize exhaust emissions.Such equipment shall not be operated during second stage smog alerts.
Measure 6.5-lb:Truck Emissions.During construction,trucks and vehicles in loading or unloading queues shall be kept with their engines off,when
not in use,to reduce vehicle emissions.Construction activities shall be phased and scheduled to avoid emissions peaks,and discontinued during second-
stage smog alerts.
Measure 6.5-ic:Dust Control.General contractors should use reasonable and typical watering techniques to reduce fugitive dust emissions.All
unpaved demolition and construction areas shall be wetted as necessary during excavation and construction,and temporary dust covers shall be used to
reduce dust emissions and meet SCAQMD District Rule 403.
Measure 6.5-id:Soil Binders.Soil binders shall be spread on site,unpaved roads,and parking areas when needed.
OCSD Strategic Plan-Resolution 99-19,Attachment B B -14 ESA I 960436
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program October 1999
ATTACHMENT B,MITIGATION MONITORING /REPORTING P RAM
Measure 6.5-le:Ground Cover.Ground cover shall be re-established following completion of construction activities through seeding and watering if
needed.
MONITORING AN])REPORTING MONITORING
IMPLEMENTATION PROCEDURE ACTIONS RESPONSIBILITY MONITORING SCHEDULE
1.Include air emissions restrictions and Maintain record of construction oversight OCSD Prior to and during construction.
standard operating procedures for for administrative record.
construction work in contract
specifications.
2.Include dust reduction measures listed
in mitigation measures in contract
specifications.
3.Conduct oversight of construction
activities to ensure scope of work is
carried out.
Impact 6.5-2:Emissions at both treatment plants under any of the project scenarios would continue to result from stationary sources.Increasingly
restrictive air quality regulations are anticipated in the near future to comply with federal air quality standards,making air emissions permits for new and
modified equipment more difficult to obtain.This impact would be less than significant with mitigation measures.
Measure 6.5-2a:Non-Combustion Air Emissions.The District will research ways of reducing NO~and air toxics emissions from stationary sources,
including non-combustion sources to meet future emission reductions that will be imposed by the SCAQMD.
Measure 6.5-2b:Future Air Emission Reductions.The District will comply with existing and future air quality regulations including SCAQMD
Rules and permit requirements.As air quality regulations become more restrictive in the South Coast Air Basin coinciding with increased operational
demand,the District will be required to reduce emissions through process modifications or by implementing new control technologies.
OCSD Strategic Plan-Resolution 99-19,Attachment B B —15 ESA /960436
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program October 1999
ATTACHMENT B,MITIGATION MONITORING I REPORTING RAM
IMPLEMENTATION PROCEDURE
1.Initiate research on innovative control
technology.
2.Provide SCAQMD with mandated
emissions reports to verify compliance.
MONITORING AND REPORTING
ACTIONS
Maintain record of air emission data.
Include status and results of air emissions
research in annual Operations and
Maintenance Report.
MONITORING
RESPONSIBILITY
OCSD
MONITORING SCHEDULE
Annually.
Impact 6.5-3:Emissions at both treatment plants under any of the project scenarios would continue to result from mobile sources.Mobile sources are
projected to exceed the SCAQMD nitrous oxides significance threshold of 55 lbs/day.This would result in a significant impact to air quality.
Measure 6.5-3a:Ride-Sharing Program.The District will maintain its ride-share programs to reduce commuter traffic and air quality impacts.
Measure 6.5-3b:Use of CNG.The District will complete the implementation of compressed natural gas (CNG)stations and encourage contractors to
employ CNG-powered engines on residual solids haul trucks through contract incentives where possible.
Measure 6.5-3c:Alternative Fuels for Trucks.Alternative fuels shall be considered for biosolids haul trucks including low NO~emitters.
Measure 6.5-3d:Transportation Alternatives.The District shall initiate research on alternative methods of transporting biosolids to land application
sites including electric vehicles and rail.
OCSD Strategic Plan-Resolution 99-19,Attachnient B
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
B -16 ESA /960436
October 1999
ATTACHMENT B,MITIGATION MONITORING I REPORTING P RAM
IMPLEMENTATION PROCEDURE
1.Initiate research on innovative control
technology,alternative fuels,and
biosolids hauling methods.
2.Provide SCAQMD with mandated
emissions reports to verify compliance.
3.Include in contracts and requests for
qualifications from haulers that CNG is
available and encouraged.
MONITORING AND REPORTING
ACTIONS
Include status of rideshare program in
Operation and Maintenance Annual
Report.
Include status of research in alternative
fuels and biosolids haul methods in
Operation and Maintenance Annual
Report.
MONITORING
RESPONSIBILITY
OCSD
MONITORING SChEDULE
On going
Impact 6.5-4:Modifying the current CGS or adding new power-generating equipment would require SCAQMD permit modifications.Energy
requirements greater than the permitted CGS capacity of 18 MW would require permit modifications.Less Than Significant impact with Mitigation.
Measure 6.5-4a:Energy Purchases.The District will purchase energy from off-site sources if air emissions permit modifications are denied.
Measure 6.5-4b:Clean-Burning Engines.The District will continue to research clean-burning engines for the CGS,in an effort to increase power
output while reducing criteria and toxic pollutants.
Measure 6.5-4c:Install BACT.The District will install Best Available Control Technology if necessary to comply with SCAQMD Rules.
IMPLEMENTATION PROCEDURE
MONITORING AND REPORTING
ACTIONS
MONITORING
RESPONSIBILITY MONITORING SCHEDULE
1.Initiate research on innovative control Maintain record of air emission data.
technology.
2.Provide SCAQMD with mandated
emissions reports to verify compliance.
Include status and results of air emissions
research in annual Operations and
Maintenance Report.
OCSD Annually.
OCSD strategic Plan-Resolution 99-19,Attachment B
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
B-17 ESA I 960436
October 1999
ATTACHMENT B,MITIGATION MONITORING I REPORTING P RAM
Impact 6.5-5:The project under each of the treatment scenarios could generate objectionable odors in the project vicinity and in other areas located
downwind from the treatment facilities.Less Than Significant after Mitigation Measures.
Measure 6.5-5a:Odor Control.The District will evaluate the need for odor control equipment for future facilities to reduce fugitive foul odors and
include odor control when necessary.The District will also periodically review air emissions from existing solids handling to determine if odor control is
necessary.
Measure 6.5-Sb:Dewatering Odor Control.When dewatering is required during excavation,the District shall provide odor control systems to reduce
construction odor impacts when necessary.
MONITORING AND REPORTING MONITORING
IMPLEMENTATION PROCEDURE ACTIONS RESPONSIBILITY MONITORING SCHEDULE
I.Maintain odor control technology.Include odor complaints in annual OCSD Annually.
2.Provide odor control on new facilities Operations and Maintenance Report.
as needed.
Measure 6.5-Sc:Community Liaison.The District will assign a community liaison for odor and noise complaints.
Measure 6.5-Sd:Odor Complaint Follow-Up The District will follow-up with copies of odor complaint analysis to complainant and/or neighborhood
groups including the Southeast Huntington Beach Neighborhood Association representative.
Measure 6.5-Se:Pre-Design Coordination.The District will maintain pre-design coordination on future projects at its treatment plants with interested
parties including cities and neighborhood associations.
Measure 6.5-Sf:Community Outreach.The District will establish regular community outreach meetings with neighbors.
OCSD Strategic Plan-Resolution 99-19,Attachment B B -18 ESA /960436
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program October 1999
ATTACHMENT B,MITIGATION MONITORING I REPORTING P RAM
MONITORING AND REPORTING MONITORING
IMPLEMENTATION PROCEDURE ACTIONS RESPONSIBiLITY MONITORING SCHEDULE
1.Meet with community groups to Maintain record of meetings with OCSD On-going
choose community liaison and periodic community groups.
meeting schedule.
2.Develop tasks and assignments for
liaison.
3.Periodically review effectiveness of
community liaison program.
4.Provide odor and noise complaint
information to community groups.
Geology
Impact 6.6-1:Project facilities,under any of the treatment scenarios,would be located in areas susceptible to primary and secondary seismic hazards
(groundshaking,liquefaction,settlement).Damage to facilities could result in the event of a major earthquake.Less than Significant with Mitigation
Measures.
Measure 6.6-la:Geotechnical Evaluations.During the project design phase for all facilities,the District will perform design-level geotechnical
evaluations.The geotechnical evaluations will include subsurface exploration and review of seismic design criteria to ensure that design of the facilities
meet seismic safety requirements of the Uniform Building Code.
Site-specific testing for soils susceptible to liquefaction would be conducted.If testing results indicates that conditions are present that could result in
significant liquefaction and damage to project facilities,appropriate feasible measures will be developed and incorporated into the project design.The
performance standard to be used in the geotechnical evaluations for mitigation liquefaction hazards will be minimization of the hazards.Measures to
minimize significant liquefaction hazards could include the following:
•Densification or dewatering of surface or subsurface soils.
•Construction of pile or pier foundations to support pipelines and/or buildings.
•Removal of material that could undergo liquefaction in the event of an earthquake and replacement with stable material.
Recommendations of the geotechnical report will be incorporated into the design and construction of proposed facilities.
OCSD Strategic Plan-Resolution 99-19,Attachment B B —19 ESA /960436
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program October 1999
ATTACHMENT B,MITIGATION MONITORING I REPORTING P RAM
Measure 6.6-ib:Seismic Safety.The District will design and construct new facilities in accordance with District seismic standards and/or meet or
exceed seismic,design standards in the most recent edition of the California Building Code.
MONITORING AND REPORTING MONITORING
IMPLEMENTATION PROCEDURE ACTIONS RESPONSIBILITY MONITORING SCHEDULE
1.Include design-level geotechnical Maintain record of specifications for OCSD Prior to construction
evaluations in specifications prior to administrative record.
construction.
2.Include in specifications compliance
with California Building Code
Impact 6.6-2:Groundshaking could cause spills of raw sewage,causing a significant impact to public health.Less than Significant impact with Mitigation
Measures.
Measure 6.6-2a:Spill Prevention.The District will implement the Spill Prevention Containment and Countermeasures Plan (SPCC).
Measure 6.6-2b:Spill Containment.OCSD chemical facilities will be designed with secondary containment,such as berms,to contain and divert toxic
chemicals from wastewater flows and isolate damaged facilities to reduce contamination risks.
MONITORING AND REPORTING MONITORING
IMPLEMENTATION PROCEDURE ACTIONS RESPONSIBILITY MONITORING SCHEDULE
1.Implement and update SPCC plan.Maintain record of SPCC for OCSD As needed.
administrative record.
Hydrology
Impact 6.7-1:Construction of any of the treatment system scenarios could result in an increase in erosion and siltation into surface waters.Construction
could also result in chemical spills (e.g.,fuels,oils,or grease)to stormwater,and increase turbidity and decrease water quality in waters of the U.S.Less
than Significant with Mitigation Measures.
OCSD Strategic Plan-Resolution 99-19,Attachment B B —20 ESA /960436
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program October 1999
ATTACHMENT B,MITIGATION MONITORING /REPORTING RAM
Measure 6.7-la:Best Management Practices.The District will implement Best Management Practices (BMPs)as outlined in the SWMP.
Measure 6.7-ib:Storm Water Management.The District will train construction and operation employees in storm water pollution prevention
practices.Individual contractors performing construction at each treatment facility shall be required to comply with provisions of the SWMIP.
Measure 6.7-ic:Storm Drain Inspection.The District will inspect and maintain all on-site storm water drains and catch basins on plant property
regularly.
Measure 6.7-id:Regional Board.The District will apply the SARWQCB’s recommended BMPs during construction and operation as specified in the
SWMP.
Measure 6.7-ic:Construction Site Storm Water.For construction involving disturbance greater than five acres of land,the District will incorporate
into contract specifications the following requirements:
The District will comply with the RWQCB requirements of the NPDES General Permit for Discharges of Storm Water Associated with Construction
Activity.The District will require that the contractor implement control measures that are consistent with the General Permit and with the
recommendations and policies of the RWQCB.This would include submitting a Notice of Intent and site map to the RWQCB,developing a Storm
Water Pollution Prevention Plan,and implementing site-specific best management practices to prevent sedimentation to surface waters.
MONITORING AND REPORTING MONITORING
IMPLEMENTATION PROCEDURE ACTIONS RESPONSIBILITY MONITORING SCHEDULE
1.Implement BMPs.Maintain compliance with SWMP for OCSD As needed.
2.Implement SWMP.administrative record.
3.Periodically update SWMP.
4.Implement mitigation measures listed Maintain record of site inspections.
above.
5.Periodically inspect construction sites.
Impact 6.7-2:Pile driving and excavation activities at Reclamation Plant No.1 and Treatment Plant No.2 may encounter groundwater,and local
dewatering may be required.Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures.
Measure 6.7-2a:Groundwater Dewatering.Construction contractors will comply with the District’s Dewatering Specifications.
Measure 6.7-2b:Dewatering Discharge.Water from dewatering operations will be disposed of in a suitable manner in conformance with the NPDES
permit,as approved by the RWQCB.
OCSD Strategic Plan-Resolution 99-19,Attachment B
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
B-21 ESA /960436
October 1999
ATTACHMENT B,MITIGATION MONITORING I REPORTING P RAM
MONITORING AND REPORTING MONITORING
IMPLEMENTATION PROCEDURE ACTIONS RESPONSIBILITY MONITORING SCHEDULE
1.Update dewatering procedures Maintain record of dewatering procedures OCSD During construction.
periodically,for administrative record
2.Periodically inspect construction sites.
Maintain record of site inspections.
Impact 6.7-3:Reclamation Plant No 1.and Treatment Plant No.2 are located in the 100-year floodplain of the Santa Ana River.New facilities proposed
under any of the scenarios considered would expose structures and people to a 100-year flood event and/or effects of a tsunami.Less than Significant With
Mitigation Measures.
Measure 6.7-3a:Chemical Spills During Floods.The District shall construct and maintain secondary containment berms to protect against release of
toxic chemicals in an event of a spill from flooding.
Measure 6.7-3b:Coordination with COE.The District shall coordinate with the Army Corp of Engineers to ensure levees located adjacent to
Reclamation Plant No.1 and Treatment Plant No.2 continue to provide adequate protection for a 100-year flood event.
Measure 6.7-3c:Hazard Awareness Notification.The District shall adhere to the Emergency Contingency Plan and the Flood Protection Plan to
minimize the affects of flooding and tsunamis to Reclamation Plant No.1 and Treatment Plant No.2.These measures shall include hazard awareness
notifications to neighborhoods downstream from Reclamation Plant No.1.
Measure 6.7-3d:Flood Protection.The District shall adhere to Orange County’s flood protection program as implemented by the Orange County Flood
Control District.
MONITORING AND REPORTING MONITORING
IMPLEMENTATION PROCEDURE ACTIONS RESPONSIBILITY MONITORING SCHEDULE
1.Comply with programs listed in Maintain record of communication with OCSD On going.
mitigation measures.U.S.Army Corps of Engineers and
County Flood Control District for
administrative record.
OCSD Strategic Plan-Resolution 99-19,Attachment a B -22 ESA /960436
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program October 1999
ATTACHMENT B,MITIGATION MONITORING /REPORTING P RAM
Hazardous Materials
Impact 6.9-1:Increasing quantities of hazardous materials stored on site could impact public health in the event of a catastrophic spill or explosion.
Increasing liquid oxygen storage could increase the hazard.Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures.
Measure 6.9-la:Worker Safety Training.Worker safety training shall emphasize hazards of liquid oxygen and stored methane.Routine safety
measures including hazard communication shall be adopted and strictly enforced in hazardous areas.Hazard training and communication shall include
laboratory operations and routine process chemical use.
Measure 6.9-ib:Oxygen Facility Safely.If additional liquid oxygen storage facilities are installed,the District shall research explosion and fire
potential to determine explosion arc perimeters.If neighboring land uses are not adequately distant,the District shall reconfigure the oxygen storage
facility to remove explosion hazards on neighboring land uses.
Measure 6.9-ic:Risk Management Program.Liquid oxygen operations shall be included in the District’s Risk Management Program.
MONITORING AND REPORTING MONITORING
IMPLEMENTATION PROCEDURE ACTIONS RESPONSIBILITY MONITORING SCHEDULE
1.Maintain and periodically update Risk Maintain training records,medical OCSD On going.
Management Program.records,notification records,and safety
2.Maintain and periodically update record for administrative record.
worker safety program.
3.Implement mitigation measures listed
above.
4.Conduct monthly and annual safety
inspections.
Cumulative
Impact 6.11-1:Cumulative impacts to air quality and noise could occur as a result of treatment facility construction activities coupled with the construction
of the GWR System treatment facilities.Significant unavoidable.
Measure 6.11-la:Construction Coordination with OCWD.Coordinate construction activities with OCWD to minimize PM10 emissions,construction
vehicle exhaust,and cumulative noise impacts during excavation and pile driving activities.
OCSD Strategic Plan-Resolution 99-19,Attachment B B —23 ESA /960436
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program October 1999
ATTACHMENT B,MITIGATION MONITORING /REPORTING P RAM
MONITORING AND REPORTING MONITORING
IMPLEMENTATION PROCEDURE ACTIONS RESPONSIBILITY MONITORING SCHEDULE
I.Include air emissions restrictions and Maintain record of construction oversight OCSD Prior to and during construction.
standardoperating procedures for for administrative record.
construction work in contract
specifications.
2.Conduct oversight of construction
activities to ensure scope of work is
carried out.
Growth-Inducement
Impact 11-1:By removing wastewater treatment capacity as one barrier to growth,the District would have indirect,growth-inducement potential to
support planned development within the Service Area that is consistent with and within the levels of development approved in the adopted General Plans.
Less the Significant with Mitigation Measures.
Measure 11-la:Phased Construction.The project’s phased design helps minimize growth inducement potential.The Strategic Plan allows for the
incremental expansion of treatment capacity,allowing Service Area cities to re-evaluate and revise long-term needs before completing full “build out.”
Measure 11-lb:Lower Flow Projections.The District revises its Strategic Plan periodically allowing the treatment facilities to best meet the actual
needs of the Service Area.The implementation of this Strategic Plan was based on a projected decrease influent flow and serves to decrease anticipated
capacity requirements.Future revisions every five years will assist the District in maintaining service for reasonably foreseeable planned growth levels.
MONITORING AND REPORTING MONITORING
IMPLEMENTATION PROCEDURE ACTIONS RESPONSIBILITY MONITORING SCHEDULE
1.Phase construction of new facilities as Begin update Strategic Plan in 2004.OCSD Begin in 2004.
outlined in the Strategic Plan.
2.Review and incorporate growth
predictions every five years.
3.Update Strategic Plan periodically.
Impact 11-2:The OCSD Strategic Plan would accommodate planed growth in the Service Area.Implementation of planned growth would result in
secondary environmental effects.The effects of planned growth have been identified and addressed in the EIRs on Regional Plans,General Plans for
OCSD Strategic Plan-Resolution 99-19,Attachment B B —24 ESA /960436
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program October 1999
ATTACHMENT B,MITIGATION MONITORING /REPORTING P RAM
Service Area cities,and associated Specific Plans.Some of the secondary effects of growth which have been identified as significant and unavoidable
include air quality and traffic congestion.
Measure 11-2:Growth Mitigation Measures.OCSD does not have the authority to make land use and development decisions,nor does it have the
authority or jurisdiction to address many of the identified significant,secondary effects of planned growth.Authority to implement such measures lies
with the County and cities which enforce local,state,and federal regulations through the permit process.Other agencies with authority to require
mitigation or with responsibility to implement measures to mitigate the effects of planned growth include regional and state agencies such as the South
Coast Air Quality management District (SCAQMD),Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB),California Department of Fish and Game
(CDFG),California Department of Health Services (DHS),California Department of Transportation (Caltrans),and federal agencies including U.S.Fish
and Wildlife Service (USFWS),U.S.Environmental Protection Agency (EPA),and the U.S.Corps of Engineers (USACE).
MONITORING AN])REPORTING MONITORING
IMPLEMENTATION PROCEDURE ACTIONS RESPONSIBILITY MONITORING SCHEDULE
1.Phase construction of new facilities as Begin update Strategic Plan in 2004.OCSD Begin in 2004.
outlined in the Strategic Plan.
2.Review and incorporate growth
predictions every five years.
3.Update Strategic Plan periodically.
Collection System
Land Use
Impact 7.1-1:Construction activities associated with the trunk sewer systems would involve the rehabilitation and replacement of existing pipelines.
Construction activities would result in short-term disturbance of adjacent land uses.Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures.
Measure 7.1-la:Construction Hours.The District will comply with local ordinances and restrict construction activities to daylight hours or as
specified in encroachment permits.
Measure 7.i-lb:Construction Notification.The District shall post notices or provide notification of construction activities to adjacent property owners
(including homeowners and adjacent businesses)at least 72 hours in advance of construction and provide a contact and phone number of a District staff
person to be contacted regarding questions or concerns about construction activity.
Measure 7.1-ic:Emergency Services Access.The District shall coordinate with officials of adjacent fire station,the Fountain Valley Regional Hospital
as well as other hospital to ensure that 24-hour emergency access is available.
OCSD Strategic Plan-Resolution 99-19,Attachment B B —25 ESA /960436
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program October 1999
ATTACHMENT B,MITIGATION MONITORING I REPORTING RAM
Measure 7.1-id:Covered Trenches.To minimize disruption of access to driveways to adjacent land uses,the District or its contractor(s)shall maintain
steel-trench plates at the construction sites to restore access across open trenches.Construction trenches in streets will not be left open after work hours.
Measure 7.l-ie:Signage.The District shall provide temporary signage indicating that businesses are open.
MONITORING AND REPORTING MONITORING
IMPLEMENTATION PROCEDURE ACTIONS RESPONSIBILITY MONITORING SCHEDULE
1.Include compliance with local Maintain record of signage,business and OCSD Prior to and during construction
construction ordinances in construction fire department notifications,inspections,
specifications including site safety and construction schedule.
during non construction hours.
2.Include the preparation and distribution
of notifications prior to construction
activities in contract specifications.
3.Include 24-hour emergency access in
contract specifications.
4.Maintain record of communication
with local authorities.
5.Include signage for impacted
businesses in contract specifications.
6.Conduct periodic construction site
inspections.
Traffic
Impact 7.2-1:Construction activities during trenching in city streets will impact traffic circulation during construction period.Less than Significant with
Mitigation Measures.
Measure 7.2-ia:Traffic Control Plans.Traffic control plans will be prepared by a qualified professional engineer,prior to the construction phase of
each sewer line project as implementation proceeds.
Measure 7.2-ib:Alternative Routes.Traffic control plans will consider the ability of alternative routes to carry additional traffic and identify the least
disruptive hours of construction site truck access routes,and the type and location of warning signs,lights and other traffic control devices.Consideration
will be given to maintaining access to commercial parking lots,private driveways and sidewalks,bikeways and equestrian trails,to the greatest extent
feasible.
OCSD Strategic Plan-Resolution 99-19,Attachment B B -26 ESA /960436
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program October 1999
ATTACHMENT B,MITIGATION MONITORING /REPORTING P RAM
Measure 7.2-ic:Encroachment Permits.Encroachment permits for all work within public rights-of-way will be obtained from each involved agency
prior to commencement of any construction.Agencies involved include Caltrans,the Orange County Planning and Development Services (PDS)
(Development Services Section)and the various cities where work will occur.The District will comply with traffic control requirements,as identified by
Caltrans and the affected local jurisdictions.
Measure 7.2-id:Traffic Control Plans.Traffic control plans will comply with the Work Area Traffic Control Handbook and/or the Manual of Traffic
Controls as determined by each affected local agency,to minimize any traffic and pedestrian hazards that exist during project construction.
MONITORING AND REPORTING MONITORING
IMPLEMENTATION PROCEDURE ACTIONS RESPONSIBILITY MONITORING SCHEDULE
I.Contract with qualified traffic control Maintain traffic control plan,permits,and OCSD Prior to and during construction
engineer to prepare Control Plan for construction schedule and methods for
each construction project.administrative record.
2.Ensure that issues highlighted in
mitigation measures are included in Maintain record of site inspections
Control Plan.including post-construction inspections.
3.Include within contract specifications
the acquisition of all necessary
encroachment permits.
4.Review list of required permits and
verify adequacy prior to construction.
5.Conduct periodic site inspections
including post-completion inspection.
Measure 7.2-ic:Traffic Disruption Avoidance.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,shall 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.As required by local jurisdictions,trunk sewers will be jacked under select major
intersections,to avoid traffic disruption and congestion.
Measure 7.2-if:Street Closure.Public streets will generally be kept operational during construction,particularly in the morning and evening peak
hours of traffic.Lane closures will be minimized during peak traffic hours.
Measure 7.2-ig:Roadway Restoration.Public roadways will be restored to a condition mutually agreed to between the District and local jurisdictions
prior to construction.
OCSD Sfrategic Plan-Resolution 99-19,Attachment B B -27 ESA /960436
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program October 1999
ATTACHMENT B,MITIGATION MONITORING /REPORTING RAM
Measure 7.2-lh:Sewer Construction Coordination.The Districts 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 involved.
Measure 7.2-li:Emergency Services.Emergency service purveyors will be contacted and consulted to preclude the creation of unnecessary traffic
bottlenecks that will seriously impede response times.Additionally,measures to provide an adequate level of access to private properties shall be
maintained to allow delivery of emergency services.
Measure 7.2-lj:OCTA Coordination.OCTA will be contacted when construction affects roadways that are part of the OCTA bus network.
MONITORING AND REPORTING MONITORING
IMPLEMENTATION PROCEDURE ACTIONS RESPONSIBILITY MONITORING SCHEDULE
1.Include adherence to the Traffic Maintain traffic control plan,permits,and OCSD Prior to and during construction
Control Plan in contract specifications construction schedule and methods for
2.Contact local authorities listed in administrative record.
mitigation measures and maintain
record of communication.Maintain record of site inspections
3.Conduct periodic site inspections including post-construction inspections.
including post-completion inspection.
Measure 7.2-1k:Railroad Encroachment Procedures.This measure is applicable to the following collection systems improvements:Lower Santa
Ana River Interceptor Improvements,Newhope-Placentia Trunk Replacement,and Gisler-Redhill System Improvements —B.To reduce impacts to
railroad rights-of-way,the District is required to follow the Right-of-Way Encroachment Approval Procedures —SCRRA Form No.36.The procedures
for temporary encroachment calls for 1)the submittal of a written statement on the reason and location of the encroachment;2)a completed and executed
SCRRA Form No.6,Right-of-Entry Agreement;3)plan check,inspection,and flagging fees;and 4)insurance certificates as described in the Right-of-
Entry Agreement.Per SCRRA Form No.6,the District must comply with the rules and regulations of this agreement at all times when working on
SCRRA property,including those outlined in the “Rules and Requirements for Construction at Railway Property,SCRRA Form No.37”and General
Safety Regulations for Construction /Maintenance Activity on Railway Property”.
OCSD Strategic Plan-Resolution 99-19,Attachment B B -28 ESA /960436
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program October 1999
ATTACHMENT B,MITIGATION MONITORING I REPORTING RAM
MONITORING AND REPORTING MONITORING
IMPLEMENTATION PROCEDURE ACTIONS RESPONSIBILITY MONITORING SCHEDULE
1.Include application for SCRRA Maintain encroachment permit OCSD and SCRRA Prior to and during construction
encroachment permit in contract application and permit for administrative
specifications record.
2.Contact SCRRA prior to project
design.
Measure 7.2-il:Trails and Bikeways.Short term construction impacts and closures to locally designated trails and bikeways,as found in the County’s
Master Plan of Regional Riding and Hiking Trails (RRHT)and Commuter Bikeways Strategic Plan (CBSP),shall be mitigated with detours,signage,
flagmen and reconstruction as appropriate.Long term impacts such as permanent trail link closures should be mitigated with provisions for new rights-of-
way for trails and/or bikeways and reconstruction.
Measure 7.2-im:County of Orange Coordination.Any construction plans that could potentially impact regional riding and hiking trails or Class I
bikeways shall be submitted to the County’s Division of Harbors,Beaches and Parks/Trails Planning and Implementation for review and approval prior to
project construction activities.
Measure 7.2-in:Trails Restoration.Regional Riding and Hiking Trails and Class I Bikeways impacted by construction activities shall be restored to
their original condition after project construction.
MONITORING AND REPORTING MONITORING
IMPLEMENTATION PROCEDURE ACTIONS RESPONSIBILITY MONITORING SCHEDULE
1.Include adherence with County of Maintain construction design for OCSD and SCRRA Prior to and during construction
Orange RRHT and CBSP in contract administrative record.
specifications.
2.Contact County of Orange prior to
designing detours.
OCSD Strategic Plan-Resolution 99-19,Attachment B B -29 ESA I 960436
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program October 1999
ATTACHMENT B,MITIGATION MONITORING /REPORTING P RAM
Biology
Impact 7.3-1:Based on conceptual alignment information for OCSD’s proposed collection system projects,construction of the collection pipeline system
improvements would occur in previously disturbed,developed areas,primarily public streets.No impact to biological resources would occur if projects
occur within paved areas.However,if final project alignments are revised to include an undeveloped area or open space,potential impacts to biological
resource could occur;in these cases OCSD would conduct additional CEQA as needed to clarify and address impacts to biological resources.
Measure 7.3-1:Additional CEQA Review.If in the future,as OCSD develops the design of each specific collection system project for implementation,
a project alignment includes unpaved,undeveloped park or open space area,OCSD will conduct additional CEQA review as needed to clarify and address
potential impacts to biological resources.
MONITORING AND REPORTING MONITORING
IMPLEMENTATION PROCEDURE ACTIONS RESPONSIBILITY MONITORING SCHEDULE
1.Biological surveys will be conducted Maintain record of previous condition for OCSD Prior to and during construction
for construction activities in previously each construction site for administrative
undisturbed locations,record.
Noise
Impact 7.4-1:Construction activities related to the proposed collection system improvements would intermittently and temporarily generate noise levels
above existing ambient levels in the project vicinity.Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures.
Measure 7.4-la:Hours of Construction.Construction activities shall be limited to between the hours of 7:30 a.m.and 5:30 p.m.and as necessary to
comply with local ordinances.Any nighttime or weekend construction activities would be subject to local permitting.
MONITORING AND REPORTING MONITORING
IMPLEMENTATION PROCEDURE ACTIONS RESPONSIBILITY MONITORING SCHEDULE
1.Include compliance with local noise Maintain record of construction oversight Prior to and during construction
and construction ordinances in for administrative record.OCSD
construction specifications.
2.Provide construction oversight to
ensure scope of work is carried out.
OCSD Strategic Plan-Resolution 99-19,Attachment B B —30 ESA /960436
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program October 1999
ATTACHMENT B,MITIGATION MONITORING /REPORTING P RAM
Measure 7.4-ib:Noise Control.All equipment used during construction shall be muffled and maintained in good operating condition.All internal
combustion engine driven equipment shall be fitted with intake and exhaust mufflers that are in good condition.
MONITORING AND REPORTING MONITORING
IMPLEMENTATION PROCEDURE ACTIONS RESPONSIBILITY MONITORING SCHEDULE
1.Include compliance with local noise Maintain record of construction oversight OCSD Prior to and during construction
and construction ordinances in for administrative record.
construction specifications.
2.Include noise reduction procedures in
construction specifications
3.Provide construction oversight to
ensure scope of work is carried out.
Measure 7.4-ic:Pile-Driving Noise Reduction.Contractors shall use vibratory pile drivers instead of conventional pile drivers where feasible and
effective in reducing impact noise from shoring ofjack-pit locations in close proximity to residential areas,where applicable.
MONITORING AND REPORTING MONITORING
IMPLEMENTATION PROCEDURE ACTIONS RESPONSIBILITY MONITORING SCHEDULE
1.Include preference to avoid pilings Maintain record of design specifications.OCSD Prior to project design
where possible in project design
specifications.
Measure 7.4-id:Construction Notification.Sensitive receptors affected by pipeline replacement projects,and manhole rehabilitation activities shall be
notified concerning the project timing and construction schedule,and shall be provided with a phone number to call with questions or complaints.
OCSD Strategic Plan-Resolution 99-19,Attachment B B -31 ESA /960436
Mitigation Monitonng and Reporting Program October 1999
ATTACHMENT B,MITIGATION MONITORING /REPORTING RAM
MONITORING AND REPORTING MONITORING
IMPLEMENTATION PROCEDURE ACTIONS RESPONSIBILITY MONITORING SCHEDULE
1.Prepare and distribute notifications.Maintain record of notification OCSD Prior to construction
distribution list.
Air Quality
Impact 7.5-1:The proposed improvements to OCSD’s collection systems would generate short-term emissions of air pollutants,including dust and criteria
pollutants,from excavation,installation and/or replacement activities.This is considered a short-term significant impact that would cease at the completion
of construction activities.Construction emission impacts are estimated to occur for an average of three to four weeks within one block of any given
property.Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures.
Measure 7.5-la:Dust Control.The District shall require the contractors to implement a dust abatement program that would reduce fugitive dust generation to lessen
impacts to nearby sensitive receptors.The dust abatement program could iiiclude the following measures:
•Water all active construction sites at least twice daily.
•Cover all trucks having soil,sand,or other loose material or require all trucks to maintain at least two feet of freeboard.
•Apply water as necessary,or apply non-toxic soil stabilizers on all unpaved access roads,parking areas and staging areas at construction sites.
•Sweep daily (with water sweepers)all paved access roads,parking areas and staging areas at construction sites.
•Sweep daily (with water sweepers)if visible soil material is carried into adjacent streets.
•Water twice daily or apply non-toxic soil binders to exposed soil stockpiles.
•Limit traffic speeds on unpaved roads to 15 mph.
MONITORING AND REPORTING MONITORING
IMPLEMENTATION PROCEDURE ACTIONS RESPONSIBILITY MONITORING SCHEDULE
1.Conduct mitigation measures to reduce Maintain record of construction methods OCSD Prior to and during construction
construction air emissions.for administrative record.
2.Conduct periodic construction site
inspections.Maintain record of site inspections for
administrative record.
Measure 7.5-ib:Exhaust Emissions.Contractors shall maintain equipment engines in proper working order and operate construction equipment so as
to minimize exhaust emissions.Such equipment shall not be operated during first or second stage smog alerts.
OCSD Strategic Plan-Resolution 99-19,Attachment B B —32 ESA /960436
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program October 1999
ATTACHMENT B,MITIGATION MONITORING I REPORTING P RAM
Measure 7.5-ic:Truck Emissions Reductions.During construction,trucks and vehicles in loading or unloading queues shall be kept with their engines
off,when not in use,to reduce vehicle emissions.Construction activities shall be discontinued during second-stage smog alerts.
MONITORING AND REPORTING MONITORING
IMPLEMENTATION PROCEDURE ACTIONS RESPONSIBILITY MONITORING SCHEDULE
1.Include air emission reduction Maintain record of construction OCSD Prior to construction
mitigation measures in construction specifications and site inspections for
specifications.administrative record.
2.Conduct periodic site inspections to
verif~’adherence to mitigation
measures.
Geology
Impact 7.6-i:Project facilities would be located in areas susceptible to primary and secondary seismic hazards (groundshaking,liquefaction,settlement).
Damage to facilities could result in the event of a major earthquake.Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures.
Measure 7.6-ia:Seismic Safety.The District will design and construct new facilities in accordance with District seismic standards and/or meet or
exceed seismic,design standards in the most recent edition of the California Building Code.
Measure 7.6-ib:Soils Survey.Soils surveys shall be conducted to determine the liquefaction potential along the collection system improvements route.
MONITORING AND REPORTING MONITORING
IMPLEMENTATION PROCEDURE ACTIONS RESPONSIBILITY MONITORING SCHEDULE
1.Use design criteria to reduce seismic Maintain record of construction OCSD Prior to construction
hazards.specifications and geotechnical
2.Contract with qualified geologist to information.
conduct geotechnical evaluations prior
to construction.
OCSD Strategic Plan-Resolution 99-19,Attachment B B —33 ESA /960436
Mitigation Monitonng and Reporting Program October 1999
ATTACHMENT B,MITIGATION MONITORING /REPORTING RAM
Hydrology
Impact 7.7-1:Construction activities could result in erosion and siltation into nearby surface waters,leading to degradation of water quality or flooding
hazards.Construction could also result in chemical spills (e.g.,fuels,oils,or grease)to stormwater,and increase turbidity and decrease water quality in
waters of the U.S.Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures.
Measure 7.7-la:Contractor BMPs.Construction contractors will implement Best Management Practices to prevent erosion and sedimentation to avoid
significant adverse impacts to surface water quality.
Measure 7.7-lb:Storm Season Restrictions.In addition,open-trench installation of pipelines across open drainage channels and the interplant
connector shall be limited to the dry season.
Measure 7.7-ic:County of Orange Coordination.The District shall coordinate with the Orange County Public Facilities and Resources Department
(Orange County Flood Control District)Planning Section to ensure compatibility and joint use feasibility with existing and future projects.
Measure 7.7-id:Waterway Protection.The District shall incorporate into contract specifications the requirement that the contractor(s)enforce strict
on-site handling rules to keep construction and maintenance materials out of receiving waters.The rules will include measures to:
•Store all reserve fuel supplies only within the confines of a designated construction staging area.
•Refuel equipment only within designated construction staging area.
•Regularly inspect all construction vehicles for leaks.
Measure 7.7-le:Spill Prevention.The District shall incorporate into contract specifications the requirement that the contractor(s)prepare a Spill
Prevention,Control,and Countermeasure Plan.The plan would include measures to be taken in the event of an accidental spill.
Measure 7.7-if:Spill Containment.The District shall incorporate into contract specifications the requirement that the construction staging areas be
designed to contain contaminants such as oil,grease,and fuel products so that they do not drain towards receiving waters or storm drain inlets.If heavy
duty construction equipment is stored overnight adjacent to a potential receiving water,drip pans will be placed beneath the machinery engine block and
hydraulic systems.
OCSD Strategic Plan-Resolution 99-19,Attachment B B -34 ESA /960436
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program October 1999
ATTACHMENT B,MITIGATION MONITORING I REPORTING RAM
MONITORING AND REPORTING MONITORING
IMPLEMENTATION PROCEDURE ACTIONS RESPONSIBILITY MONITORING SCHEDULE
1.Implement BMPs of State-wide Maintain compliance with SWMP and OCSD On going
SWPPP.SPCC for administrative record.
2.Prepare construction SWPPP for sites Including annual reports to the SWRCB.
greater than 5 acres.
3.Implement existing SWMP and SPCC.Maintain record of site inspections and
4.Periodically update SWMP and SPCC.sample analysis results.
5.Provide adequate spill prevention and
surface water management SOPs in
contract specifications.
6.Periodically inspect construction sites.
Measure 7.7-ig:Flood Control Facilities.The District will contact the Orange County Flood Control District prior to excavation activities involved
with the construction of the interplant connector to ensure the integrity of the flood control system along the Santa Ana River.
MONITORING AND REPORTING MONITORING
IMPLEMENTATION PROCEDURE ACTIONS RESPONSIBILITY MONITORING SCHEDULE
1.Contract with qualified engineer to Maintain reports for administrative OCSD Prior to construction of interplant
assess structural impacts to SAR levee record.connector.
prior to construction of interplant
connector.Maintain record of site inspections.
2.Periodically inspect construction site.
Public Services
Impact 7.8-1:Construction of the collection pipeline system could result in short-term disruption of emergency services in the vicinity of the project area.
Less than significant with Mitigation Measures.
Measure 7.8-la:Traffic Control Plan Notifications.The contractor shall provide a copy of the Traffic Control Plan to the Sheriff’s Department local
police departments and fire departments prior to construction.The District shall provide 72-hour notice of construction to the local service providers of
individual pipeline segments.
OCSD Strategic Plan-Resolution 99-19,Attachment B B -35 ESA /960436
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program October 1999
ATTACHMENT B,MITIGATION MONITORING /REPORTING RAM
Measure 7.8-ib:Emergency Facility Access.Access to fire stations and emergency medical facilities must be maintained on a 24-hour basis and at
least one access to medical facilities shall be available at any one time during construction.The District shall notify appropriate officials at the impacted
medical facility regarding construction schedule.
Measure 7.8-ic:Trench Openings.Trenches shall be promptly backfihled after pipeline installation.If installation is incomplete,steel trench plates
shall be used to cover open trenches.
MONITORING AND REPORTING MONITORING
IMPLEMENTATION PROCEDURE ACTIONS RESPONSIBILITY MONITORING SCHEDULE
1.Include site safety measures in contract Maintain record of notifications for OCSD During construction
specifications.administrative record.
2.Notify local authorities of construction
schedule.Maintain record of site inspections.
3.Maintain access to emergency facilities
during construction activities including
during non-work hours.
4.Periodically inspect construction sites.
Impact 7.8-2:Construction of the collection system projects would create a public safety hazard in the vicinity of the construction area.Less than
Significant with Mitigation Measures.
Measure 7.8-2a:Pedestrian Safety.Construction contractors shall ensure that adequate barriers would be established to prevent pedestrians from
entering open trenches of an active construction area.Warnings shall also be posted sufficient distances from the work area to allow pedestrians to cross
the street at controlled intersections rather than having to jaywalk.
Measure 7.8-2b:Equipment Security.Construction contractors shall be responsible for providing appropriate security measures,including the
provision of security guards,for all equipment staging and/or storage areas needed for the project.
Measure 7.8-2c:Construction Refuse.Construction contractors shall dispose of construction refuse at approved disposal locations.Contractors shall
not be permitted to dispose of construction debris in residential or business containers.
OCSD strategic Plan-Resolution 99-19,Attachment B B -36 ESA I 960436
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program October 1999
ATTACHMENT B,MITIGATION MONITORING I REPORTING RAM
MOMTORII~G ANI)REPORTING MONITORING
IMPLEMENTATION PROCEDURE ACTIONS RESPONSIBILITY MONITORING SCHEDULE
1.Include site safety measures in contract Maintain specifications for administrative OCSD Prior to and during construction.
specifications.record.
2.Include waste disposal methods in
construction specifications.Maintain record of site inspections.
3.Periodically inspect construction sites.
Impact 7.8-3:Construction of the collection pipeline system could result in short-term disruption of utility service and may require utilities relocation.
Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures.
Measure 7.8-3a:Utility Search.A detailed study identifying utilities along the pipeline routes shall be conducted during the design stages of the project.
For segments with adverse impacts the following mitigations shall be implemented.
•Utility excavation or encroachment permits shall be required from the appropriate agencies.These permits include measures to minimize utility
disruption.The District and its contractors shall comply with permit conditions and such conditions shall be included in construction contract
specifications.
•Utility locations shall be verified through field survey.
•Detailed specifications shall be prepared as part of the design plans to include procedures for the excavation,support,and fill of areas around utility
cables and pipes.All affected utility services would be notified of the District’s construction plans and schedule.Arrangements shall be made with
these entities regarding protection,relocation,or temporary disconnection of services.
Measure 7.8-3b:Utility Conflicts.In order to reduce potential impacts associated with utility conflicts,the following measures should be implemented
in conjunction with 7.8-3a.
•Disconnected cables and lines would be promptly reconnected.
•The District shall observe Department of Health Services (DHS)standards which require a 10-foot horizontal separation between parallel sewer and
water mains;(2)one foot vertical separation between perpendicular water and sewer line crossings.In the event that the separation requirements
cannot be maintained,the District shall obtain DHS variance through provisions of water encasement,or other means deemed suitable by DHS;and (3)
encasing water mains in protective sleeves where a new sewer force main crosses under or over an existing sewer main.
Measure 7.8-3c:Protect Utilities.The construction contractor shall comply with District requirements and specification to protect existing utility lines.
OCSD Strategic Plan-Resolution 99-19,Attachment B B -37 ESA /960436
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program October 1999
ATTACHMENT B,MITIGATION MONITORING I REPORTING RAM
Measure 7.8-3d:Agency Coordination.The District should coordinate with the Orange County Public Facilities Resources Department,Orange
County Flood Control District,Planning Section,Metropolitan Water District of Southern California,Municipal Water District of Orange County,Coastal
Municipal Water District,and Orange County Water District,and affected jurisdictions to ensure compatibility and joint use feasibility with existing future
projects.
MONITORING AND REPORTING MONITORING
IMPLEMENTATION PROCEDURE ACTIONS RESPONSIBILITY MONITORING SCHEDULE
1.Implement mitigation measures listed Maintain specifications for administrative OCSD Prior to and during construction.
above,record.
2.Include underground utility surveys in
construction specifications.Maintain record of site inspections.
3.Coordinate with local authorities to
minimize utility disruption.
4.Periodically inspect construction sites.
Measure 7.8-3e:Identify Abandoned Oil Wells.Prior to construction,the District shall identify existing and abandoned oil production wells within the
project area using the California Department of Conservation,Division of Oil,Gas,and Geothermal Resources (DOGGR),District 1 well location maps.
Access to identified non-abandoned oil wells will be maintained.Previously abandoned wells identified beneath proposed structures or utility corridors
may need to be plugged to current DOGGR specifications including adequate gas venting systems.
Measure 7.8-3f:Abandon Wells.Should construction activities uncover previously unidentified oil production wells,the DOGGR will be notified,and
the well will be abandoned following DOGGR specifications for well abandonment.
MONITORING AND REPORTING MONITORING
IMPLEMENTATION PROCEDURE ACTIONS RESPONSIBILITY MONITORING SCHEDULE
1.Include existing and abandoned oil Maintain specifications for administrative OCSD Prior to and during construction.
well surveys in construction record.
specifications.
2.Coordinate with Department of Maintain record of oil well discoveries
Conservation to expedite search.and searches for the administrative record.
OCSD Strategic Plan-Resolution 99-19,Attachment B B —38 ESA /960436
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program October 1999
ATTACHMENT B,MITIGATION MONITORING I REPORTING P RAM
Aesthetics
Impact 7.9-1:Project implementation could result in short-term visual impacts resulting from construction activities.Less than Significant after Mitigation
Measures.
Measure 7.9-la:Construction Site Restoration.The District shall ensure that its contractors restore disturbed areas along the pipe line alignment to a
condition mutually agreed to between the District and local jurisdictions prior to construction such that short-term construction disturbance does not result
in long-term visual impacts.
Measure 7.9-ib:Construction Housekeeping.Construction contractors shall be required to keep construction and staging areas orderly,free of trash
and debris.
MONITORING AND REPORTING MONITORING
IMPLEMENTATION PROCEDURE ACTIONS RESPONSIBILITY MONITORING SCHEDULE
1.Include construction site house-Maintain specifications for administrative OCSD Prior to and during construction.
keeping measures in contract record.
specifications.
2.Conduct post-construction site Maintain record of site inspections.
inspections.
Cultural Resources
Impact 7.10-1:Implementation of the proposed collection system improvements may affect known,significant archaeological resources.Less than
Significant with Mitigation Measures.
Measure 7.10-1:Archaeological Surveys.During project design,within the area of the 6 recorded archaeological sites within proposed project
alignments,a qualified archaeologist shall conduct a subsurface testing program to determine whether intact significant deposits exist in the excavation
area.Shall testing indicate that areas of significant deposits do exist,the deposits would be preserved in place,if feasible.If preservation in place is not
feasible,a Data Recovery Plan would be prepared to address the removal of those deposits and would be implemented before the beginning of
construction.The Plan would define how and when mechanical and manual excavation would be conducted,the anticipated volume of recovered soils,
artifact analysis,cataloging and curation,and monitoring and reporting requirements.For the three sites where human remains have been recorded (CA
ORA-85,CA-ORA-87,and CA-ORO-300),the District would enter into a written agreement between an archaeological consultant,to be retained by the
District,and a Native American representative prior to construction in the vicinity of these sites.This agreement would specif~’terms as to the treatment
and disposition of the human remains,and shall define “associated burial goods”with reference to Public Resources Code Sections 5097.94,5097.98,and
5097.99 and Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5.
OCSD Strategic Plan-Resolution 99-19,Attachment B B -39 ESA /960436
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program October 1999
ATTACHMENT B,MITIGATION MONITORING I REPORTING RAM
MONITORING AND REPORTING MONITORING
IMPLEMENTATION PROCEDURE ACTIONS RESPONSIBILITY MONITORING SCHEDULE
1.Contract with a qualified archaeologist Maintain construction specifications for OCSD Prior to and during construction.
to conduct pre-construction site administrative record.
surveys in areas with a high probability
of cultural resources.Maintain record of site inspections.
2.Include necessary actions in
specifications shall archaeological
artifacts be discovered during
construction activities.
3.Conduct post-construction site
inspections.
Impact 7.10-2:Implementation of the proposed collection system improvements may affect unknown,potentially significant archeological resources.Less
than Significant with Mitigation Measures.
Measure 7.10-2a:Archaeological Resources.Subsurface construction has a low to very high potential for exposing significant subsurface cultural
resources.Due to the likelihood of encountering cultural resources,the District shall implement the following prior to project construction:
•Language shall be included in the General Specifications section of any subsurface construction contracts alerting the contractor to the potential for
subsurface cultural resources and trespassing on known or potential resources adjacent to the project.
•Prior to construction,contractors and District staff will receive an archaeological orientation from a professional archaeologist regarding the types of
resources which may be uncovered and how to identif~’these resources during construction activities.The orientation shall also cover procedures to
follow in the case of any archaeological discovery.
Measure 7.10-2b:Cultural Resources.If cultural resources are encountered at any time during project excavation,construction personnel would avoid
altering these materials and their context until a qualified archaeologist has evaluated the situation.Project personnel would not collect or retain cultural
resources.Prehistoric resources include,but are not limited to,chert or obsidian flakes,projectile points,mortars,and pestles;and dark,friable soil
containing shell and bone,dietary debris,heat-affected rock,or human burials.Historic resources include stone or adobe foundations or walls;structures
and remains with square nails;and refuse deposits (glass,metal,wood,ceramics),often found in old wells and privies.
Measure 7.10-2c:Human Remains Alert.In the event of accidental discovery or recognition of any human remains,the County Coroner would be
notified immediately and construction activities shall be halted.If the remains are found to be Native American,the Native American Heritage
Commission would be notified within 24 hours.Guidelines of the Native American Heritage Commission shall be adhered to in the treatment and
disposition of the remains.
OCSD Strategic Plan-Resolution 99-19,Attachment B B —40 ESA /960436
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program October 1999
ATTACHMENT B,MITIGATION MONITORING /REPORTING RAM
MONITORING AND REPORTING MONITORING
IMPLEMENTATION PROCEDURE ACTIONS RESPONSIBILITY MONITORING SCHEDULE
1.Implement the mitigation measures Maintain construction specifications for OCSD Prior to and during construction.
listed above.administrative record.
2.Contract with a qualified archaeologist
to conduct pre-construction site Maintain record of site inspections.
surveys for areas with a high
probability of cultural resources.
3.Include necessary actions in
specifications shall archaeological
artifacts be discovered during
construction activities.
Cumulative
Impact 7.11-1:Construction activities of the collection system projects in conjunction with other projects would result in short-term cumulative impacts.
Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures.
Measure 7.11-la:Coordinate Construction.The District will continue to coordinate construction activities with the county and city public works and
planning departments and other local agencies to identif~’overlapping pipeline routes,project areas,and construction schedules.To the extent feasible,
construction activities shall be coordinated to consolidate the occurrence of short-term construction-related impacts.
MONITORING AND REPORTING MONITORING
IMPLEMENTATION PROCEDURE ACTIONS RESPONSIBILITY MONITORING SCHEDULE
1.Coordinate with local authorities prior Maintain record of communication and OCSD Prior to construction.
to final design.outreach with local authorities for
2.Conduct coordination incentives with administrative record.
local jurisdictions.
Measure 7.11-ib:Recycling.To reduce cumulative impacts related to solid waste,the District shall make all practicable efforts to recycle where
feasible.
OCSD Strategic Plan-Resolution 99-19,Attachment B B —41 ESA /960436
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program October 1999
ATTACHMENT B,MITIGATION MONITORING I REPORTING RAM
MONITORING AND REPORTiNG MONITORING
IMPLEMENTATION PROCEDURE ACTIONS RESPONSIBILITY MONITORING SCHEDULE
1.Where feasible,include recycling Maintain record of soils hauling.OCSD Prior to construction.
measures in construction contracts.
2.Conduct site surveys to ensure scope of Maintain record site surveys for
work is followed,administrative record.
Biosolids
Impact 8-2:The projected increase in residual solids volumes would increase truck traffic on local roadways.Less than Significant with Mitigation.
Measure 8-2:Trucking Impact Reduction.The District shall limit truck trips associated with the transport of residual solids to off-peak hours when
possible as a means of reducing truck travel times and minimizing congestion impacts to the regional transportation system.
MONITORING AND REPORTiNG MONITORING
IMPLEMENTATION PROCEDURE ACTIONS RESPONSIBILITY MONITORING SCHEDULE
1.Include preferred schedule in contracts Maintain record of contract for OCSD On going
with haulers.administrative record.
Impact 8-3:The projected increase in residual solids volumes and related truck traffic would increase ambient noise levels at nearby sensitive receptor
locations.Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures.
Measure 8-3a:Truck Noise Reduction.The District shall limit truck trips associated with the transport of residual solids at Treatment Plant No.2 to
non-noise sensitive (daytime)and non-peak hour periods as a means of reducing exposure of residences to truck-related noise whenever possible.
Measure 8-3b:Biosolids Transport.The District shall investigate options for reducing the number of biosolids truck trips at Treatment Plant No.2.
The study could focus on evaluating such practices as using underground pipelines to pump biosolids from Plant 2 up to Plant 1.
OCSD Strategic Plan-Resolution 99-19,Attachment B B —42 ESA /960436
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program October 1999
ATTACHMENT B,MITIGATION MONITORING I REPORTING RAM
MONITORING AND REPORTING MONITORING
IMPLEMENTATION PROCEDURE ACTIONS RESPONSIBILITY MONITORING SCHEDULE
1.Include preferred schedule in contract Maintain record of contract for OCSD On going
with haulers.administrative record.
Impact 8-5:The projected increase in biosolids production from POTWs in the Southern California region could present a cumulative impact on the
availability of land application sites.Less than Significant with Mitigation.
Measure 8-5a:Biosolids Application Sites.The District will continue to research land application sites in the region and consider the management
options including the acquisition of dedicated application sites.
Measure 8-5b:Biosolids Land Application.The District will continue to coordinate with other POTWs in the region to cooperatively research
innovative ways to solve land availability issues.
MONITORING AND REPORTING MONITORING
IMPLEMENTATION PROCEDURE ACTIONS RESPONSIBILITY MONITORING SCHEDULE
1.Continue research and efforts to Maintain record of research and efforts OCSD On going
increase land application,for administrative record.
2.Coordinate with POTWs in the region.
H:\wp.dta\eng\JOBS &CONTRACTS\STRAT PLAN\J-40-4\99\FEIR Certification\MMRP for Resolution 99-19,Attachment B.doc
OCSD Strategic Plan-Resolution 99-19,Attachment B B -43 ESA I 960436
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program October 1999
ATTACHMENT C
FINDiNGS OF FACT CONCERNiNG PROJECT ALTERNATIVES
OCSD Resolution 99-19,Attachment C
ATTACHMENT C
FINDINGS OF FACT CONCERNING PROJECT ALTERNATIVES
INTRODUCTION
Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)Guidelines Section 15091 as
amended January 1,1999,the Orange County Sanitation District (OCSD)upon review of the
Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR),including the comments and responses therein,and
based on all the information and evidence in the records,hereby makes the Findings set herein:
CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines require that an EIR “describe a range of reasonable alternatives
to the project or to the location of the project,which would feasibly attain most of the basic
objectives of the project but would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of
the project...”(CEQA Guidelines 15 126.6(a)If a project alternative will substantially lessen the
significant environmental effects of a proposed project,the decision maker should not approve
the proposed project unless it determines that specific economic,legal,social,technological,or
other considerations make the project infeasible.The findings with respect to alternatives to the
project identified in the EIR are described in this section.
REASONABLE RANGE OF ALTERNATIVES
The EIR analyzed a reasonable range of alternatives.Since the EIR constitutes a program-level
analysis of the District’s long-term (2000)planning for it’s entire system,alternatives are
considered for several different elements of OCSD’s Strategic Plan.These elements include level
of treatment,plant expansion,peak wet weather management,collection system improvements,
water reclamationlreuse through the co-sponsorship program between OCSD and the Orange
County Water District (OCWD)for Phase I of the Groundwater Water Replenishment (GWR)
System Project,ocean disposal facilities,and residual solids/biosolids management.
Table I provides a matrix of the alternatives considered for each program element.The key
alternatives considered in this EIR,the six alternative treatment scenario and two alternative
discharge options,are evaluated at equal level of detail and are discussed in the main body of the
EIR.As described in the PEIR,the level of treatment alternatives analyzed include the following:
Action Scenarios
•Scenario 1:NPDES Permit Compliance without GWR System Project.Provide a level
of treatment necessary to meet the NPDES permit conditions and the California Ocean
Plan.All wastewater would receive advanced primary treatment with a percentage also
receiving secondary treatment prior to ocean discharge.Under this Scenario,the GWR
OCSD Resolution 99-19,Attachment C C-i ESA /960436
System would not be implemented,thereby increasing the percentage of secondary effluent
available for ocean discharge.The amount of secondary treatment would be governed by
the NPDES permit limits.
•Scenario 2:NPDES Permit Compliance with GWR System Project.Provide the level
of treatment necessary to meet the NPDES permit conditions and the California Ocean
Plan.All wastewater would receive advanced primary treatment with a percentage also
receiving secondary treatment prior to ocean discharge.In coordination with OCWD,50-
80 mgd average daily flow and up to 100 mgd peak wet weather flow of secondary effluent
would be diverted from OCSD to the GWR System.The amount of secondary treatment in
the ocean discharge would be governed by needs of the GWR System and by the NPDES
permit limits.
•Scenario 3:Full Secondary Treatment without GWR System Project.Provide full
secondary treatment to all wastewater prior to ocean disposal.Under this Scenario,the
GWR System project would not be implemented.The capacity for secondary treatment
within both Plants 1 and 2 would be increased to accommodate projected peak flows.The
existing facilities would be optimized through flow diversions to minimize the construction
of new facilities.
•Scenario 4:Full Secondary Treatment with GWR System Project.Provide full
secondary treatment to all wastewater prior to ocean disposal.In coordination with
OCWD,50-80 mgd average daily flow and up to 100 mgd peak wet weather flow of
secondary effluent would be diverted from OCSD to the GWR System.The capacity for
secondary treatment within both Plants 1 and 2 would be increased to accommodate
projected peak flows.The existing facilities would be optimized through flow diversions to
minimize the construction of new facilities.
No Project/Existing Conditions
•Scenario 5:50:50 Blend without GWR System Project.Maintain the level of treatment
currently provided.All wastewater would receive advanced primary treatment with about
50 percent also receiving secondary treatment prior to ocean discharge.Under this
Scenario,the GWR System would not be implemented.
•Scenario 6:50:50 Blend with GWR System Project.Maintain the level of treatment
currently provided.All wastewater would receive advanced primary treatment.In
coordination with OCWD,50-80 mgd average daily flow and up to 100 mgd peak wet
weather flow of secondary effluent would be diverted from OCSD to the GWR System.
Half of the remaining ocean discharge would require secondary treatment.
SUMMARY OF COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES
DEIR Chapter 9.0,Alternatives describes other alternatives to the Preferred Project considered
during development of the Strategic Plan,shown on Table ES-lO.DEIR Chapter 9.0 compares
the potential environmental impacts of the various project alternatives to those of the Preferred
Strategic Plan Alternative.In most cases,the alternatives for each of these system components
have similar construction and operation impacts and the same mitigation requirements.All
alternatives share the same three significant unavoidable impacts:
OCSD Resoluuon 99-19,Attachment C C-2 ESA /960436
•Significant noise,vibration and air quality impacts during construction at the treatment
plants.
•Significant air quality emissions from increased mobile sources (i.e.,vehicles for deliveries
and hauling).
•Some of the secondary effects of growth planned by the cities and County land use agencies
within the District have been determined to be significant and unavoidable by those
agencies.These impacts include,but are not limited to,traffic congestion,air quality
impacts,and loss of open space.
Except for these significant unavoidable impacts that are common to each alternative,the impacts
associated with each alternative can be reduced to less than significant with mitigation.Thus,the
alternatives are not clearly distinguished by the number or type of significant impacts they
generate.The distinction among the alternatives is the degree of impact.Compared to the
Preferred Alternative (Scenario 2),the alternatives do result in more or less of some of the
impacts.
Table ES-l 1 presents a brief summary of the key characteristics and impacts of each alternative.
Scenarios I and 2 require construction and operation of the fewest additional facilities,and
provide the least amount of secondary treatment facilities.Scenarios 3 and 4,Full Secondary,
require most additional facilities and provide the most secondary treatment (100 percent for all
flows).Scenario 2 and Scenario 4 bracket the low end and high end of the range of possible
project changes and therefore are the focus of the EIR analysis to assess the range of potential
impacts and benefits.Scenarios 5 and 6 represent the District’s current policy to provide
sufficient secondary treatment facilities to maintain a 50:50 blend of primary and secondary
effluent for ocean discharge.The proposed actions and impacts of Scenarios 5 and 6 fall in
between those described for Scenarios 2 and 4.As illustrated in Table ES-il,the six treatment
scenario alternatives pose environmental impact trade-offs regarding cross-media impacts to land,
air and water resources.
OCSD Resolution 99-19.Attachment C C-3 ESA I 960436
TABLE ES-tO:ALTE TWES CONSIDERED
Alternative Collection System
Treatment Level /
Effluent Quality Water Reuse
Peak Wet Weather ]
How Management I Ocean Disposal
Residuals
Management
PREFERI(ED
ALTERNATIVE
•“Base Case”-
Upsizing existing
trunk sewers.
Manhole rehab-
ilitation.
•Scenario 2 -Produce
a blend of primaly
and secondary
effluent that meets
NPDES permit
requirements for
ocean discharge.
Increase secondary
treatment capacity to
support GWR
System.
•Continue existing
reuse programs:
GAP and Talbert
saltwater intrusion
barrier.
•Implement GWR
System -Phase 1.
•Implement 13 mgd
conservation by 2020.
•Implement 20%I/I
reduction,
•Utilize and maximize
existing in-plant
storage.
Participate in GWRS -
Phase 1.
•Use 78-inch outfall for
infrequent wet weather
discharge.
•Use existing 120-
inch Outfall,
•Use 78-inch outfall
for infrequent wet
weather discharge
at an estimated
frequency of once
every 3 years by
the year 2020.
•Continue existing
beneficial reuse
program for land
application of
biosolids to the
extent possible.
•Continue current
program of landfill
disposal for grit and
screenings.
NO PROJECT
ALTERNATIVE
(1989 Strategic Plan)
•Similar collection
projects to those of
Preferred Alternative.
•Produce a blend of 50
percent primary and
50 percent secondary
effluent for ocean
discharge (Scenarios
5 and 6).
•Continue existing
reuse programs:
GAP and Talbert
saltwater intrusion
barrier,
Construct and use a
new 120-inch outfall.
•Use existing 120-
inch outfall.
•Construct a new,
second 120-inch
outfall.
•Continue beneficial
reuse (land
application)of
biosolids to the
extent possible.
•Continue landfill
disposal for grit and
screenings.
Other Options
Studied
•Construct Super
Sewers:
Super Bushard
Super SARI
Super Newhope
Super Euclid
•Produce 100 percent,
full secondary effluent
for ocean discharge
(Scenarios 3 and 4).
•Do not implement
GWR System.
Increase wastewater
influent reductions
through increased
conservation and I/I
flow reduction beyond
that included in the
Preferred_Alternative.
•Construct a new,
120-inch outfall.
U Disposal of all
biosolids in a
landfill.
•
Construct upstream
storage facilities.
•Increase storage at the
Wastewater Treatment
Plants (WWTP5).
(See also Collection
System alternatives
and Disposal
alternatives,which
contribute to peak wet
weather flow
management).
•Construct a
parallel,15,000-
foot barrel to the
existing 120-inch
outfall that
connects to the
diffuser_section.
•Discharge to the
Santa Ana River
for peak wet
weather emergency
discharge.
OCSD Resolution 99-19,Attachment C C-4 ESA /960436
PROJECT OBJECTIVES
The objectives of the Strategic Plan are:
(1)To plan for wastewater collection,treatment,and disposal facilities to serve the needs of
the OCSD service area through 2020;
(2)To ensure compliance with existing and anticipated ocean discharge permit conditions,
including the requirements of the 301(h)modified (secondary treatment waiver)National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)permit for discharge;
(3)To recommend projects that meet the community’s needs,protect public health,are
technically feasible,and are cost effective and environmentally responsible;and
(4)To maximize the use of treated effluent for water recycling.
PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE
The Preferred Alternative in the 1999 Strategic Plan is Treatment Scenario 2 —providing
sufficient secondary treatment to meet the needs of the GWR System Project (Phase I for 5 0-80
mgd and 100 mgd of peak flow)and maintaining compliance with NPDES permit requirements
for ocean discharge.In order to meet the treatment goals of this scenario,the Strategic Plan
identifies capital improvements for both the collection system and the treatment plants.In
conjunction with the preferred alternative,the District may be required to use the existing 78-inch
diameter outfall to accommodate emergency peak flows in excess of current discharge capacity.
Level of Treatment:Treatment Scenario 2 would provide the level of treatment necessary to
meet the NPDES permit conditions and the California Ocean Plan.All wastewater would receive
advanced primary treatment with a percentage also receiving secondary treatment prior to ocean
discharge.In coordination with OCWD,50-80 mgd average daily flow and up to 100 mgd peak
wet weather flow of secondary effluent would be diverted from OCSD to the GWR System.The
amount of secondary treatment in the ocean discharge would be governed by needs of the GWR
System and by the NPDES permit limits.
Treatment Plant Expansion:Under treatment Scenario 2,all proposed additional treatment
facilities would be located within the existing property boundaries of the District’s Reclamation
Plant No.I and Treatment Plant No.2.Figures 3-7 through 3-11 in the DEIR illustrate the
treatment plant expansion.Treatment Scenario 2 would require the least number of new facilities
of any of the alternatives analyzed.
Ocean Discharge:The existing 120-inch diameter outfall has adequate capacity to accommodate
dry weather flows to the year 2020 as shown in Figure 3-2 of the DEIR.The outfall would also
accommodate most wet weather flows using the combination of peak wet weather management
measures outlined on page S-16 of the DEIR.The existing 120-inch diameter outfall’s rated
capacity of 480 mgd has been exceeded on five separate occasions since its installation in 1971,
reaching 550 mgd during a storm event in 1995.During each event,the outfall was able to
OCSD Resolution 99-19,Attachment C C-5 ESA /960436
accommodate all the effluent without requiring emergency discharge at either of the alternative
two discharge points.Due to increased development and projected population growth within the
service area,peak wet weather flows are estimated to reach 775 mgd by the year 2020 (see
Section 3.4).To reconcile the discharge capacity deficiencies during peak flow periods,the
District will implement several measures to alleviate peak wet weather flow (DEIR S-16).As a
last resort,the District would use the existing 78-inch diameter outfall for infrequent peak flow
discharges.Modeling of wet weather flows in the system indicate that the need or probability of
use for the 78-inch to handle peak wet weather flow is greater today (three times in five years)
than it will be under the preferred project in the future (one time in three years).This is due in
part to the hydraulic relief provided by the GWR System,significantly reducing the need for peak
wet weather discharges to the near-shore.
Collection System:Based on the modeled pipeline deficiencies by the year 2020 within the
system,OCSD proposes to replace and rehabilitate pipelines to meet future needs and prevent
overflows.In addition,five pump stations were determined to be in need of equipment upgrades.
Nearly 47 miles of pipeline replacements (separated into 32 individual projects)are planned
almost exclusively within developed city streets.Open trench and jack-and-bore construction
would be employed.
Biosolids Program:The Strategic Plan recommends no immediate changes in the method of
biosolids processing or disposal,however,a number of studies of the system are proposed.The
Strategic Plan outlines several process changes which could potentially increase biosolids quality
and operational efficiency.None of these technologies are recommended for immediate
implementation,but the District will continue to play an active role in researching new
technologies and monitoring studies performed nation-wide.The District will need to develop
additional land applications for the projected increase in biosolids.The District will continue to
research land acquisitions dedicated to biosolids recycling.
NO PROJECT ALTERNATIVE
The No Project Alternative for the OCSD strategic planning efforts would be continued
implementation of the District’s existing adopted program from the 1989 Master Plan,including
continued treatment in accordance with the 50:50 blend policy and continued collection system
improvement and plant expansion to accommodate planned growth service needs.The CEQA
Guidelines,Section 15126.6(e)(3)(A)and (B)indicate that the No Project Alternative in certain
cases can be considered as the continuation of previously approved planning policies.In light of
this CEQA guidance,this analysis has not considered the termination of capital improvements
planned in the 1989 Master Plan as an alternative.
Treatment Level:Treatment Scenarios 5 and 6,50:50 blend of advanced primary and secondary
effluent,represent the No Project Alternative in terms of treatment level.Scenario 6 incorporates
the GWR System Project Phase 1,Scenario 5 does not.Under the No Project Alternative the
District would continue this treatment level,which would comply with its current NPDES permit
for ocean discharge.
OCSD Resolution 99-19,Attachment C C-6 ESA /960436
Collection System:Under the No Project Alternative,OCSD would continue to improve the
collection system to eliminate conveyance deficiencies and handle wet-weather flows.About
half of the collection system projects included in the 1999 Strategic Plan are the same as those
previously analyzed and adopted as part of the 1989 Master Plan.Under the No Project
Alternative,collection system projects would have similar temporary community disruption
impacts as those proposed in the Preferred Alternative,although fewer trunk sewers would be
worked on.The District now has more current and accurate information about the collection
system deficiencies and therefore has identified additional projects to improve the system.Under
the No Project Alternative,without these additional system improvements,the risk of a sewage
spill within the collection system would increase,posing both a human health and environmental
health concern.
Water Reclamation:With respect to water reuse,the adopted 1989 Master Plan also
recommended the District’s active participation in and expansion of water reuse projects.That
plan considered options for upstream,satellite water reclamation plants with local distribution
systems to support non-potable reuse throughout the service area.These options are no longer
under consideration.The GWR System Project concept had not been developed at the time of the
1989 Master Plan.However,given the District’s adopted policy to support additional reuse,it is
reasonable to assume that under the No Project Alternative,the District would still participate
with OCWD in the development and implementation of the GWR System Project.
Ocean DischargefPeak Wet Weather Management:With respect to ocean discharge and peak
wet-weather management,the 1989 Master Plan recommended construction of a second 120-inch
outfall as part of the long-term program.Therefore,under the No Project Alternative,the District
would continue to evaluate the timing and need for implementing this program component and
would initiate design studies when appropriate.Hydraulic modeling conducted by the District for
the Strategic Plan indicates that the 78-inch diameter outfall may be needed for hydraulic relief
during peak wet weather events under current conditions.In fact,the frequency of need is
statistically greater under current conditions than under projected conditions in the year 2020.
Implementation of the GWR System would provide hydraulic relief,significantly delaying the
need for peak wet weather discharges to the near-shore.
Biosolids Management:Under the No Project Alternative,the biosolids management program
would be essentially the same.The Strategic Plan does not propose significant changes to the
current biosolids management policies.
Findings
The No Project Alternative is hereby rejected for the following reasons:
1.The No Project Alternative as described on page 9-6 of the DEIR would not avoid the
significant impacts to land-side resources associated with the Preferred Alternative
including air quality,energy resources,and land acreage for biosolids applications.In
fact,this alternative would involve construction and operation of more treatment facilities
at the District’s two plants,resulting in greater land-side impacts than the preferred
OCSD Resolution 99-19,Attachment C C-7 ESA I 960436
project.As discussed on page 10-8 of the DEIR,the No Project Alternative would
consume greater amounts of energy and emit more air pollutants than the Preferred
Alternative.Larger quantities of biosolids would be produced under the No Project
Alternative requiring more land acreage for biosolids recycling.In addition,the No
Project Alternative would result in the same three land-side significant unavoidable
impacts (summarized in Section V,above)as the preferred project.Under the No
Project Alternative,treatment Scenario 5 or 6 would be implemented.Table ES-il in the
Executive Summary provides a comparison between treatment scenarios.The No Project
Alternative generally results in greater land-side impacts than Scenarios 1 and 2 and less
than Scenarios 3 and 4.The No Project Alternative would provide higher quality effluent
to the ocean discharge.However,the Preferred Alternative would not create a
significant impact to the marine environment that would be reduced or eliminated by the
No Project Alternative.The Preferred Alternative would provide adequate treatment to
comply with the existing NPDES permit.
2.The No Project Alternative would not reduce the current potential need for emergency
discharge to the 78-inch diameter outfall.This near-shore discharge is identified as a
significant unavoidable impact due to the potential for beach closures (DEIR Table S-2,
Impact 5-9).Under the No Project Alternative,the significant unavoidable impact would
remain until a new 120-inch diameter outfall were constructed.
3.The No Project Alternative would require the installation of the new 120-inch diameter
outfall to avoid frequent emergency discharges to the 78-inch diameter outfall under peak
wet weather conditions.Installation of this parallel outfall could adversely impact the
marine environment during construction.Although the Preferred Alternative allows for
the possibility that the 120-inch diameter outfall may be needed in the distant future and
acknowledges that these impacts could occur (DEIR page 3-38 and 9-10),additional
methods of reducing peak wet weather discharges are provided.As described on page S
16 of the DEIR,methods to reduce the need for excess discharge to the 78-inch diameter
outfall would include flow reduction via water conservation,inflow and infiltration
reduction,in-plant equalization storage,the GWR System,and stormwater detention
storage on site.These measures are not explicitly outlined or planned under the No
Project Alternative.
4.Impacts from the upgrade and rehabilitation of the collection system under the No Project
Alternative would be similar to the Preferred Alternative.However,the additional
projects identified under the Preferred Alternative would reduce the risk of overflows or
leaks within the collection system.The Preferred Alternative would therefore have fewer
potential impacts to public health and safety than the No Project Alternative (DEIR page
9-6).
5.Implementation of the GWR-System would be as likely to occur under the No Project
Alternative as under the Preferred Alternative.Therefore,the water reuse project would
not be a factor in distinguishing the Preferred Alternative from the No Project
Alternative.Either treatment Scenario 5 (no GWR)or 6 (with GWR)is considered to be
the No Project Alternative as described in the DEIR on page 3-9.
OCSD Resolution 99-19,Attachment C C-8 ESA /960436
6.Under the No Project Alternative,a new 120-inch diameter outfall would be constructed
to accommodate project peak wet weather flows.The construction of the new outfall
would be the most costly alternative (DEIR page 3-41).The Preferred Alternative would
reduce the need for the new outfall through the implementation of wet weather
management methods described on page S-16 of the DEIR.
OTHER ALTERNATIVES STUDIED
FULL SECONDARY TREATMENT
The 1999 Strategic Plan analyzes the alternative of providing full secondary treatment for all
wastewater flow (Scenarios 3 and 4).The alternative would require additional treatment facilities
within the foot-print of the existing treatment plants and use more energy,increase air emissions,
and create greater quantities of residual solids for reuse or disposal.The alternative would
provide greater treatment than currently required under the 1998 NPDES permit.However,the
District’s 30 1(h)waiver NPDES permit requires that full secondary treatment be analyzed.
Findings
This alternative was rejected since it would not avoid significant impacts of the project:
1.Full secondary treatment would not avoid the significant unavoidable impacts associated
with the Preferred Alternative including beach closure during discharges to the near-shore
78-inch diameter outfall.Table S-i of the DEIR provides a comparison of the treatment
alternatives.Although full secondary treatment provides for higher quality effluent to the
ocean discharge,marine monitoring results suggest that impacts to the marine
environment would not be significant under treatment Scenario 2.In addition,treatment
Scenario 2 would maintain full compliance with the District’s NPDES permit.
2.Full secondary treatment would require the construction of the greatest number of new
treatment facilities of all alternatives analyzed.The additional treatment facilities would
create greater operational impacts to energy resources,air quality,and biosolids reuse
and disposal facilities as discussed in Chapter 10 of the DEIR.
3.Construction impacts from treatment facility construction would be greater under this
alternative.As indicated in Tables 3-2 and 3-3,the Preferred Alternative (Scenario 2)
would require the least amount of new treatment facilities.Impacts associated with Full
Secondary Scenarios 3 and 4 would include greater air emissions from energy
consumption and mobile sources,greater energy requirements,potentially new air
emissions permits from the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD),
need for greater amount of land for biosolids recycling applications,and greater
construction impacts including air emissions,noise,and traffic impacts to surrounding
neighborhoods (DEIR Chapter 10).
4.The costs associated with the construction and operation of full secondary treatment
facilities are significantly greater than with other treatment alternatives.Treatment
Scenario 2,the Preferred Alternative,would be the least costly alternative.
OCSD Resotution 99-19,Attachment C C-9 ESA I 960436
PEAK WET WEATHER MANAGEMENT
As discussed on page S-16 of the DEIR,several strategies were considered to reduce projected
peak wet weather flows to the ocean outfall:
•Flow reduction via water conservation of up to 13 mgd by 2020.
•Inflow and Infiltration (I/I)flow reduction of extraneous water entering the collection
system by up to 20%(about 80 mgd)by 2020.
•Utilize and maximize existing in-plant storage (7 mg).
•Participate in GWR System —Phase 1 (100 mgd peak wet weather flow diversion for
reuse).
•Add stormwater detention storage at the treatment plants.
•Use the 78-inch outfall for infrequent wet weather discharges,only when the capacity
provided by all of the above measures is exceeded.
In addition to these projects,the District considered several storage and discharge options to
increase discharge capacity to accommodate peak wet weather including:
•Construction of a new 120-inch deepwater outfall
•Construction of a parallel barrel for the existing 120-inch outfall that ties into the diffuser
•Discharge to the Santa Ma River
•Increased storage at the treatment plants (beyond 7 MG)
As discussed in EIR Chapter 9,Alternatives,only construction of the a new 120-inch deepwater
outfall is a feasible alternative for peak wet weather flow management.This option would
eliminate the need for use of the 78-inch outfall and avoid the need for beach closure.As with
the existing 120-inch outfall,effluent discharge from the deepwater location would not affect the
near-shore environment and necessitate beach closure.Implementation of the GWR System will
significantly delay the need for a new deepwater outfall.The remaining options were eliminated
due to questions of feasibility.
CONSTRUCT A NEW 120-INCH OUTFALL
The 1999 Strategic Plan analyzes the installation of an additional 120-inch diameter outfall
extending four to five miles from shore,parallel to the existing outfall.The outfall would provide
adequate discharge capacity to meet projected peak wet weather flow volumes well past the year
2020.In addition,the outfall would eliminate the significant unavoidable impacts created by
peak wet weather discharges to the near-shore through the 78-inch diameter outfall.Due to the
elimination of these significant impacts including the need for beach closure,the installation of
the new 120-inch diameter outfall was considered to be the environmentally superior peak wet
weather discharge alternative (DEIR page S-16).The construction of a new 120-inch outfall is
the only option studied by the District that would eliminate the significant and unavoidable
impact (as denoted in the DEIR Summary Table S-2)of beach closure during a peak wet weather
event.Even full secondary treatment would not eliminate this impact due to the need to
OCSD Resolution 99-19,Attachment C C-b ESA /960436
discharge periodically to the near-shore just as with the other treatment scenarios.However,the
new outfall option was not included within the Preferred Alternative for reasons discussed below.
Findings
This alternative was rejected since it would not meet the third project objective of proposing
“projects that meet the community’s needs...and are cost effective and environmentally
responsible.”The following issues highlight this deficiency:
1.Installation of a new parallel 120-inch diameter outfall could adversely impact the marine
environment during construction.Additional impact analysis would be required prior to
implementation.Although the Preferred Alternative allows for the possibility that the
120-inch diameter outfall may be needed in the distant futUre and acknowledges that
impacts could occur (DEIR page 3-38 and 9-10),additional methods of reducing wet
weather discharges are provided.As described on page S-16 of the DEIR,methods to
reduce the need for excess discharge to the 78-inch diameter outfall would include flow
reduction via water conservation,inflow and infiltration reduction,in-plant equalization
storage,the GWR System,and stormwater detention storage on site.
2.The additional discharge capacity provided by a new outfall at this time would far exceed
average daily needs.With a new outfall,the District would have discharge capacity well
beyond projected needs in year 2020.The excess of discharge capacity would be a
growth inducing element of the system,that would not be sized in accordance with
planned land use and projected demand.For peak wet weather management purposes,a
new outfall would only be needed an estimated once every three years.The DEIR
acknowledges that the 120-inch outfall may be necessary,particularly if the GWR System
is not implemented.However,the Preferred Alternative implements actions including the
GWR System to avoid creating significant new discharge capacity solely for peak wet
weather needs.
3.The construction of the new outfall would be the most costly alternative (estimated at
$1 50-200 million)and one of the most expensive hydraulic wet-weather relief options
considered.A new deep water outfall would constitute a significant capital expense for a
facility needed for infrequent peak wet weather discharges.The additional dry weather
capacity would far exceed anticipated need.The Preferred Alternative reduces the need
for the new outfall through the implementation of wet weather management methods
described on page S-i 6 of the DEIR.At this time,economics render this alternative
economically infeasible.
CONSTRUCT ON-SITE STORAGE
As a means to accommodate peak wet weather flows without increasing discharge capacity,the
1999 Strategic Plan analyzed the installation of peak wet weather storage tanks within the plant
sites.These storage tanks would be able to provide temporary storage of untreated wastewater
until the treatment plants and discharge facilities were able to accommodate the additional flow.
OCSD Resolution 99-19,Attachment C c-il ESA /960436
Findings
This option was rejected because it created additional significant environmental impacts or is
infeasible for the following reasons:
1.The necessary size of the tanks would create significant visual impacts to the surrounding
areas.As discussed on page 9-12 of the DEIR,on-site equalization storage could also
create odor,aesthetics,and public safety impacts on local neighborhoods.The Preferred
Alternative would avoid these impacts.
2.Underground tanks would be infeasible due to the shallow groundwater levels.As
discussed on page 9-12 of the DEIR,due to engineering restraints,the tanks would not
have enough storage capacity to be effective.This option was eliminated from
consideration as a result.
CONSTRUCT A 15,000-FOOT BARREL PARALLEL TO EXISTING OUTFALL
As a means of providing additional peak wet weather disposal capacity,the 1999 Strategic Plan
considered the installation of a 15,000-foot barrel running on the ocean floor,parallel to the
existing 120-inch outfall.The barrel would act as a post-treatment storage chamber during
periods of increased flow,providing approximately 150 million gallons per day (mgd)additional
discharge capacity.Total discharge capacity would be 633 mgd with this option.
Findings
This alternative was rejected since it would not meet project objectives:
1.As discussed on page 9-12 of the DEIR,the increased discharge capacity of 150 mgd
combined with the existing 480 mgd would not meet the projected 775 mgd peak wet
weather flow by the year 2020.As a result,this option was eliminated from
consideration.
2.In addition,costs and construction impacts would be significant considering that
subsequent peak wet weather relief facilities would be necessary in addition to the
15,000-foot barrel.The Preferred Alternative would avoid these impacts.
USE THE SANTA ANA RIVER FOR PEAK WET WEATHER DISCHARGE
As a means of providing peak wet weather disposal capacity,the 1999 Strategic Plan considered
using the Santa Ana River weirs to dispose treated wastewater during peak flow events into the
River at Treatment Plant No.2.
Findings
This alternative was rejected since it would not meet project objectives:
OCSD Resolution 99-19,Attachment C C-12 ESA I 960436
1.The perceived impacts to water quality and beneficial uses of the Santa Ana River and the
near shore ocean environment removed this option from consideration (DEIR page 9-11).
2.The NPDES permit identifies this disposal location as an extreme emergency discharge
location only.This option may have required requesting revisions to the permit from the
RWQCB.The Preferred Alternative would avoid these impacts.
COLLECTION SYSTEM
Construct Super Sewers in the Collection System
The 1999 Strategic Plan analyzes the possibility of installing extra large sewer segments along
key trunk alignments to reduce the need for up-sizing sewers throughout the trunk system.These
“super-sewers”would provide hydraulic relief to certain areas of a trunk system and,in theory,
reduce the need for multiple sewer up-sizing construction areas.
Findings
This alternative was rejected since it would not meet project objectives:
1.After further analysis,the installation of the super-sewers did not appear to provide
enough hydraulic relief to eliminate the need for additional up-sizing up-stream.The
super sewer alternative would not reduce impacts associated with the base-case sewer
upgrades identified as the preferred alternative (DEIR page S-17).
2.The construction impacts associated with the installation of super sewers would be
concentrated in one place for longer periods,unduly impacting certain areas.The
construction impacts would be greater than with the Preferred Alternative (DEIR page S
17).
Construct Up-Stream Equalization Storage in the Collection System
As a means to accommodate peak wet weather flows without increasing discharge capacity,the
1999 Strategic Plan analyzed the installation of peak wet weather storage facilities upstream of
the treatment plants.These storage tanks would be able to provide temporary storage of untreated
wastewater until the treatment plants and discharge facilities were able to accommodate the
additional flow.
Findings
This option was rejected because it would create additional significant impacts for the following
reasons:
1.The installation of up-stream storage tanks would create additional impacts to
neighborhoods,involving visual impacts,odor,and public safety issues.The Preferred
Alternative would eliminate these impacts (DEIR page 9-12).
OCSD Resolution 99-19,Attachment C C-13 ESA /960436
2.The costs associated with acquiring the amount of land needed and constructing
adequately safe storage facilities was not justified by the perceived need for additional up
stream storage.The Preferred Alternative would eliminate these impacts (DEIR page 9-
12).
H:\wp.dta\eng\JOBS &CONTRACTS\STRAT PLAN\J-40-4\99\FEIR Certification\Findings Alternatives -Attachment C.doc
OCSD Resolution 99-19,Attachment C C-14 ESA /960436