HomeMy WebLinkAbout98.05-02-2018 Operations Committee Item 9 Attachment 2 - Final MND_Response to Comments Mitigation Monitoring.pdfOrange County Water District
Groundwater Replenishment System
Water Conveyance Facilities Project
Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration &
CEQA-Plus Federal Consultation Review
Prepared By
Orange County Water District
18700 Ward Street
Fountain Valley, CA 92708
Contact: Daniel Bott
February 2018
Section 1
Introduction
ii
Section Page
SECTION 1.0 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................ 1-1
1.1 Purpose of Environmental Review ................................................................. 1-1
1.2 Statutory Authority and Requirements ........................................................... 1-1
1.3 Technical Information and Studies ................................................................ 1-2
SECTION 2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ................................................................. 2-1
2.1 Background ................................................................................................... 2-1
2.2 Study Area ..................................................................................................... 2-1
2.3 Existing Project Site Setting .......................................................................... 2-3
2.4 GWRS Conveyance Facilities Project ........................................................... 2-3
2.5 Construction Phasing Plan ............................................................................ 2-6
2.6 Permits and Approvals .................................................................................. 2-8
SECTION 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST EVALUATIONS ............................ 3-1
SECTION 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS ......................................................... 4-1
4.1 Aesthetics ...................................................................................................... 4-1
4.2 Agricultural Resources/Forest Resources ................................................... 4-13
4.3 Air Quality .................................................................................................... 4-14
4.4 Biological Resources ................................................................................... 4-33
4.5 Cultural Resources ...................................................................................... 4-41
4.6 Geology/Soils .............................................................................................. 4-58
4.7 Greenhouse Gas Emissions ........................................................................ 4-63
4.8 Hazards/Hazardous Materials ..................................................................... 4-70
4.9 Hydrology/Water Quality .............................................................................. 4-74
4.10 Land Use/Planning ...................................................................................... 4-84
4.11 Mineral Resources ....................................................................................... 4-86
4.12 Noise ........................................................................................................... 4-86
4.13 Population/Housing ................................................................................... 4-103
4.14 Public Services .......................................................................................... 4-103
4.15 Recreation ................................................................................................. 4-104
Table of Contents
iii
4.16 Transportation/Traffic ................................................................................ 4-105
4.17 Tribal Resources ....................................................................................... 4-108
4.18 Utilities/Service Systems ........................................................................... 4-112
SECTION 5.0 CEQA-Plus Federal Consultation Review ....................................... 5-1
5.1 Purpose ......................................................................................................... 5-1
5.2 Federal Endangered Species Act (ESA), Section 7....................................... 5-1
5.3 Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, Essential
Fish Habitat: .................................................................................................. 5-6
5.4 National Historic Preservation Act, Section 106 ............................................ 5-6
5.5 Federal Clean Air ......................................................................................... 5-13
5.6 Coastal Zone Management Act ................................................................... 5-15
5.7 Coastal Barriers Resources Act................................................................... 5-15
5.8 Farmland Protection Policy Act.................................................................... 5-16
5.9 Flood Plain Management ............................................................................. 5-16
5.10 Migratory Bird Treaty Act ............................................................................. 5-16
5.11 Protection of Wetlands ................................................................................ 5-17
5.12 Wild and Scenic Rivers Act ......................................................................... 5-18
5.13 Safe Drinking Water Act, Sole Source Aquifer Protection ........................... 5-18
5.14 Environmental Justice ................................................................................. 5-18
SECTION 6.0 REFERENCES ................................................................................... 6-1
Figure
Figure 1 Regional Location Map ........................................................................................2-2
Figure 2 Existing Site Conditions ................................................................................2-4
Figure 3 Site Plan ................................................................................................................2-5
Figure 4 Santa Ana River trail Views ...................................................................................4-2
Figure 5 Pacific Coast Highway and Talbert Marsh Views............................................4-3
Figure 6 Western Property Line Tree Line ..........................................................................4-5
Figure 7 North property Line tree Line.................................................................................4-6
Figure 8 Santa Ana River Trail Viewshed Impacts ..............................................................4-8
Figure 9 Pacific Coast Highway Viewshed Impacts ...........................................................4-10
Table of Contents
iv
Figure 10 Brookhurst Street Viewshed impacts ..............................................................4-11
Figure 11 North Property Line Viewshed Impacts ............................................................4-12
Figure 12 Area Potential effects .........................................................................................4-50
Table
Table 1 Phase 1 Construction Equipment Mix ............................................................. 2-7
Table 2 Phase 2 Construction Equipment Mix ............................................................. 2-7
Table 3 Phase 3 Construction Equipment Mix ............................................................. 2-8
Table 4 Phase 4 Construction Equipment Mix ............................................................. 2-8
Table 5 Existing Ambient Air Quality .......................................................................... 4-16
Table 6 South Coast Air Basin Attainment Status ...................................................... 4-19
Table 7 Maximum Daily Unmitigated Regional Construction Emissions (pounds per day)
a ............................................................................................................ 4-28
Table 8 Maximum Unmitigated Localized Construction Emissions (Pounds Per Day) ... 4-
29
Table 9: Special Status Plant Species ........................................................................ 4-35
Table 10: Special Status Wildlife Species .................................................................. 4-36
Table 11: Beneficial Uses ........................................................................................... 4-76
Table 12: Beneficial Uses Santa Ana River/Orange County Groundwater Basin ....... 4-77
Table 13: Water Quality Objectives (mg/L) ................................................................. 4-78
Table 14: Noise Levels and Human Response .......................................................... 4-88
Table 15 Huntington Beach Exterior Noise Standards ............................................... 4-90
Table 16 Summary of ambient noise measurement ................................................... 4-92
Table 17 Construction Equipment Noise Levels ......................................................... 4-93
Table 18 Estimated Construction Noise Levels at Offsite Sensitive Uses .................. 4-94
Table 19 Construction Vibration Damage Criteria ...................................................... 4-98
Table 20 Groundborne Vibration Impact Criteria for General Assessment ................. 4-99
Table 21 Caltrans Vibration Damage Potential Threshold Criteria ........................... 4-100
Table 22 Caltrans Vibration Annoyance Potential Criteria........................................ 4-100
Table 23 Vibration Source Levels for Construction Equipment ................................ 4-101
Table 24 Groundborne Vibration Levels at Offsite Sensitive Uses Compared to Caltrans’
and FTA Vibration Damage Potential Threshold ................................. 4-102
Table 25: Project Construction Traffic Trips ............................................................. 4-106
Table 26: Capacity Orange County Landfills ............................................................ 4-113
Table 27 Special Status Plant Species ......................................................................... 5-2
Table 28 Special Status Wildlife Species ..................................................................... 5-3
Table 29: De Minimis Levels ...................................................................................... 5-14
Table 30: SIP Conformity Evaluation.......................................................................... 5-15
Table of Contents
v
Appendices
Appendix A: OCWD Water Conveyance Facilities Project Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas
Emissions Technical Report January 2018
Appendix B: OCWD Water Conveyance Facilities Production Project - Biological
Assessment January 2018
Appendix C: OCWD Groundwater Replenishment System Final Expansion Project and
Water Production Enhancement Project – Phase I Cultural Resources Study
August 2016 and OCWD Water Conveyance Facilities Production Project
Supplemental Cultural Resource Letter Report, February 2018.
Appendix D: OCWD Water Conveyance Facilities Project – Noise and Vibration Technical
Report January 2018
1-1
SECTION 1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Purpose of Environmental Review
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires that all state and local
government agencies consider the environmental consequences of projects over which
they have discretionary authority before taking action on those projects. This Initial
Study has been prepared to disclose and evaluate short-term construction related
impacts and long-term operational impacts associated with the implementation of the
Orange County Water District Water Groundwater Replenishment System (GWRS)
Water Conveyance Facilities Project. Pursuant to Section 15367 of the State CEQA
guidelines, the Orange County Water District (OCWD) is the Lead Agency and has the
principal responsibility for approving and implementing the project. As the Lead Agency,
OCWD is required to ensure that the project complies with CEQA and that the
appropriate level of CEQA documentation is prepared. Through preparation of an Initial
Study as the Lead Agency, OCWD would determine whether to prepare an
Environmental Impact Report (EIR), Negative Declaration or Mitigated Negative
Declaration (MND) for the project. If the Lead Agency finds that there is no evidence
that the project, either has proposed or as modified to include mitigation measures
identified in the Initial Study prior to its public circulation, would not cause a significant
effect on the environment, the Lead Agency shall prepare a Negative Declaration or
Mitigated Negative Declaration for the project. Section 15382 of CEQA Guidelines
defines a “significant effect on the environment” as a substantial, or potentially
substantial adverse change in any of the physical conditions within the area affected by
the project including land, air water, mineral, flora, fauna, ambient noise, aesthetic
environment and objects of cultural significance. Based on the conclusions of this Initial
Study, OCWD has determined that the appropriate level of environmental
documentation for the GWRS Water Conveyance Facilities Project.
1.2 Statutory Authority and Requirements
This Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared in accordance with
the CEQA, Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq., State CEQA Guidelines, and
the OCWD CEQA Environmental Procedures. The environmental analysis for the
proposed project is based on OCWD Environmental Checklist Form. The Checklist
Form is consistent with Initial Study requirements provided in Section 15063 of the State
CEQA Guidelines.
1-2
1.3 Technical Information and Studies
The following Technical Studies have been and incorporated into the Orange County
Water District Water Production Enhancement Project Initial Study evaluation.
• Appendix A: OCWD Water Conveyance Facilities Project - Air Quality and
Greenhouse Gas Emissions Technical Report January 2018
• Appendix B: OCWD Water Conveyance Facilities Project - Biological
Assessment January 2018
• Appendix C: Groundwater Replenishment System Final Expansion Project and
Water Production Enhancement Project – Phase I Cultural
Resources Study August 2016 and OCWD Water Conveyance
Facilities Project Supplemental Cultural Resources Letter Report
• Appendix D: OCWD Water Conveyance Project – Noise and Vibration Technical
Report January 2018
2-1
SECTION 2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
2.1 Background
The Groundwater Replenishment System (GWRS) is an advanced water treatment
facility constructed by the Orange County Water District (OCWD) and the Orange
County Sanitation District (OCSD) that supplements local water supplies by providing
reliable, high quality source of treated water to recharge the Orange County
Groundwater Basin and to protect the Orange County Groundwater Basin from
seawater intrusion. The GWRS consists of three major components: an advanced water
purification facility and pumping stations, a major pipeline connecting the treatment
facilities to existing recharge basins and an existing seawater intrusion barrier.
The GWRS has been designed to be implemented in three construction phases. Phase
I was implemented and produced approximately 70,000 acre feet per year (AFY) of new
water supplies from 2008 through 2014. Phase 2 is currently operational and produces
with Phase 1, approximately 103,000 AFY new water supplies. The Phase 3 final
expansion would produce approximately 25,000 AF of water per year. Together Phase
1 through Phase 3 would produce up to 128,000 AFY of new water supplies to help
replenish the Orange County Groundwater Basin.
The GWRS Phase 3 Final Expansion was evaluated in two previously approved CEQA
environmental documents. Addendum No. 6 to Final Program Environmental Impact
Report Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement (SCH 98111030) evaluated potential
impacts associated with expansion of the existing water treatment facility on OCWD’s
GWRS water treatment site and construction of a effluent pump station, headworks
facility and bypass pipeline on OCSD’s Plant No. 2 wastewater treatment site and the
slip-lining of an existing pipeline along OCSD’s easement corridor between OCSD’s
Plant No. 1 and OCSD’s Plant No.2. Final Mitigated Negative Declaration (SCH
2016081067) evaluated construction of a 6 million gallon flow equalization tank, pump
station, conveyance pipeline and flow meter fault on the OCSD Plant No. 2 wastewater
treatment site. During the design process, the proposed flow equalization tank was
redesigned to consist of two 3 million flow equalization tanks and the construction
footprint was shifted north from the previously proposed location. The redesigned
project is referred to as the GWRS Water Conveyance Facilities Project.
2.2 Study Area
The GWRS Water Conveyance Facilities Project would be constructed at the north end
of OCSD Plant No. 2 at 22212 Brookhurst Street within the City of Huntington Beach.
OCSD Plant No. 2 Site is composed of 110 acres and is developed with wastewater
treatment structures, offices, and paved parking areas and roadways. As shown in
Figure 1, OCSD Plant No.2 Site is bounded by Hamilton Avenue to the north,
Brookhurst Street to the west, Talbert Marsh and Talbert Marsh Bike Trail to the south
2-2
2-3
and the Santa Ana River and the Santa Ana River Trail to the east. Primary regional
access to plant No.2 would be from Interstate 405 from the Brookhurst Street exit.
Primary local access would be from Brookhurst Street and Pacific Coast Highway.
2.3 Existing Project Site Setting
As shown in Figure 2, the proposed project would be constructed on undeveloped lands
located at the northern end of the OCSD Plant No. 2. The site is framed with
landscaping to the west and tree line of eucalyptus trees to the north and west. Existing
land uses surrounding the site include; single family residential uses to the west,
multiple family residential uses to the north, Santa Ana River Bike Trail to the west and
wastewater treatment facilities to the south.
2.4 GWRS Conveyance Facilities Project
The GWRS Water Conveyance Facilities Project consists of a pump station, two
secondary effluent flow equalization tanks, and associated piping, valving and metering
connections. The GWRS Conveyance Project would be located at OCSD’s Plant No. 2
and would allow OCWD to receive maximum water production at the GWRS facility. The
secondary treated wastewater from OCSD’s Plant No. 2 would be fed via gravity from
an 84-inch pump station feed pipeline to the pump station wet wells. The proposed
pump station would pump this secondary effluent into 1) the flow equalization tanks, or
2) through a 54-inch pump discharge into an existing 66-inch pipeline that would bring
the effluent to GWRS. The 54-inch pump station discharge line would have an in-line
meter/valve vault. The two 3 million gallon (MG) flow equalization tanks would capture
peak wastewater flows during the day and would drain these flows at night to maintain a
steady flowrate to GWRS. Without the flow equalization tanks, the wastewater treatment
plant peak flows would not be able to be pumped to the GWRS facility due to the
conveyance capacities of the pump station and pipeline. This GWRS Conveyance
Project would allow OCWD to store and use these peak flows which would have
otherwise been discharged to the ocean. The tanks are expected to allow for an
additional 6 MG per day of secondary effluent to be treated at the GWRS facility. The
entire GWRS Conveyance Project will have the ability to pump between 40 million
gallons per day (MGD) to 60 MGD to GWRS for treatment. The proposed facilities for
the GWRS Conveyance Project are shown in Figure 3.
OCSD Plant No. 2 Pump Station, Flow Equalization Tank, and Pipeline/Meter Vault
The proposed pump station would be a 25-foot tall concrete building (from grade) with
five 350-hp pumps located within the building. The five pumps would be configured as
four active duty pumps and one standby pump. The five pumps would be installed within
individual 30-inch diameter wet wells. Each of the wet wells would be drilled to 25-feet
below grade. In addition to the pumps, the pump station building (95-feet x 40-feet x 25-
feet tall) would have a portioned off electrical room within it. The pump station discharge
2-4
2-5
2-6
pipeline (54-inches in diameter) splits into two 36-inch diameter steel pipes which would
feed each of the two 3-MG flow equalization tanks.
The tanks would be circular pre-stressed concrete storage tanks approximately 135-feet
in diameter and 28-feet tall from existing grade. The 84-inch pump station feed pipeline
would connect to an existing 108-inch diameter trickling filter effluent line with a
diversion box to bring the secondary effluent to the pump station. The 84-inch pump
station feed pipeline would be approximately 800-linear feet. The 54-inch pump station
discharge pipeline would have a valve and meter vault (15-ft x 20-ft x 10-ft deep) which
would measure and control the flows from the pump station. In addition, each tank
would have separate piping and control valves for filling and draining each tank. The
two flow equalization tanks would be partially buried at 4-feet below existing grade.
There would be a concrete tank pad approximately 2-feet thick under each of the flow
equalization tanks.
2.5 Construction Phasing Plan
The GWRS Water Conveyance Facilities Project would involve the construction of three
types of facilities. These three main facilities would include construction of a pump
station, two flow equalization tanks, and associated piping with a valving/metering vault.
The project would be implemented in four construction phases beginning in August
2020 and concluding in December of 2022. The sequence of construction activities is
described below and detailed in Tables 1, 2, and 3.
Phase 1- Excavation for Pump Station, Tanks, Pipelines, Valve/Meter Vault
The first phase of work would be to excavate for the underground facilities. Excavation
of dirt would be required for the pump station wet wells, tank piles, tank pads, 84-inch
pump station feed pipeline, valve/meter vault, and associated tank feed/drain piping. For
the pump station, the underground work involves drilling the five 30-inch diameter and
25-feet deep wet wells. Approximately 35 cubic yards (CY) of dirt would be removed by
this operation. The flow equalization tanks would most likely be constructed on 12-inch
diameter concrete piles drilled to 50-feet below the ground surface. Approximately 15-
piles are required for supporting each of the equalization tanks (a total of 30 piles). The
12-inch diameter pile holes would be drilled into the ground with a drill rig.
Approximately, 45 CY of dirt would be removed with this operation. The tanks would be
resting on 2-feet thick concrete pads partially buried 6-feet below ground surface. The
amount of dirt excavated would be approximately 3200 CY. Excavation for the 84-inch
pump station feed pipeline and diversion box, 54-inch pump station discharge pipeline
and 66-inch pipe connection, and valve/meter vault would result in the removal of
approximately 3800 CY of dirt. The excavation work for the underground components of
all these facilities would involve excavating and hauling a total of approximately 7,200
CY of soil. During Phase 1 a total of 30 daily haul trips would occur over an 18 day
2-7
period for a total of 540 haul trips. The construction mix for the Phase 1 construction
activities is shown in Table 1.
Table 1 Phase 1 Construction Equipment Mix
Equipment Quantity Hours/Day Total Days Total Hours Horsepower
Rating
Bull Dozer 2 6 30 360 250
Compactor 1 6 10 60 200
Excavator 2 6 20 240 200
Dump Trucks 6 6 18 648 350
Water Trucks 1 8 45 360 350
Phase 2 - Construction of Pump Station Wet Wells, Tank Piles, Piping
The second phase of work would be to build the pump station wet wells, the concrete
support piles for the flow equalization tanks, and install the pump station feed/drain
piping. The piles would be constructed by setting rebar support cages for the piles into
the drilled holes with a crane. Lastly, 40 CY of concrete would be filled into the holes
with the rebar and cured. The piles would be supporting a 2-foot thick concrete pad
matching the diameter of the tank. This equates to 2120 CY of concrete for the tank
pad. During Phase 2 a total of 18 daily haul trips would occur over a 3 day period for a
total of 230 haul trips. The construction mix for the Phase 1 construction activities is
shown in Table 2.
Table 2 Phase 2 Construction Equipment Mix
Equipment Quantity Hours/Day Total Days Total Hours Horsepower
Rating
Drill Rig 1 6 20 120 500
backhoe 1 6 20 120 150
Concrete Trucks 4 6 14 336 350
Dump Trucks 2 5 3 30 350
Water Truck 2 4 25 200 350
Phase 3 - Construction of Tank, Pump Station Building, Valve/Meter Vault
The third phase of work would be to build the concrete pump station, the tank walls/roof,
and the valve/meter vault. Once the piles and concrete pad have been constructed, the
pre-stressed concrete tanks would be constructed. The pre-stressed concrete tanks
would have seismic base restraint cables developed into the perimeter footing to
account for site specific seismic loading. In addition, for this site, the pre-stressed
concrete tanks would have an anchored flexible base connection between the floor and
wall of the tanks to enhance ductility and reduces bending moments from hydrostatic,
thermal, and seismic forces, allowing these structural elements to act independently.
The thickness of the tank walls would be approximately 10-inches thick uniformly. The
2-8
tank walls and roof would require approximately 2500 CY of concrete to be poured.
Construction of the tanks would involve the use of a crane, installation of reinforcing
steel and concrete pumping trucks to build up the walls and roof. The roof of the tanks
would be a flat roof supported by interior concrete beams to minimize visibility. The
pump station and valve/meter vault would also be constructed with concrete. To
construct the floors, walls, and roofs of these facilities approximately 400 CY of concrete
would be required. During Phase 2 there would be 16 haul trips over a 19 day period for
a total of 304 haul trips. The construction mix for the Phase 2 construction activities is
shown in Table 3.
Table 3 Phase 3 Construction Equipment Mix
Equipment Quantity Hours/Day Total Days Total Hours Horsepower
Rating
Crane 1 6 10 60 300
Forklift 4 6 30 720 120
Concrete Trucks 4 6 19 456 350
Man Lift 5 6 15 450 75
Phase 4 - Equipping of Pump Station, Tanks, Valve/Meter Vault
The fourth phase of work would be to equip the pump station, tanks and valve/meter
vault with the use of laborers, fork lifts and cranes. The construction equipment for the
pump station, tanks, and valve/meter vault would include; an excavator, crane, pile
driller, bull dozer, backhoe, compactor, dump trucks, concrete trucks, water truck, man
lifts and fork lifts. The construction mix for the Phase 2 construction activities is shown
in Table 4.
Table 4 Phase 4 Construction Equipment Mix
Equipment Quantity Hours/Day Total Days Total
Hours
Horsepower
Rating
Crane 1 6 10 60 300
Forklift 4 6 30 720 120
Man Lift 5 6 15 450 75
2.6 Permits and Approvals
The Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared for the GWRS Conveyance
Facility Project would be used as the supporting CEQA environmental documentation
for the following approvals and permits.
Agency Approvals/Discretionary Actions
Orange County Water District • Project Approval
• Approval for Agreements
Construction Contracts
2-9
State Regional Water Quality Control Board,
Santa Ana Region
Approval of amendment to Regional Water
Control Board Producer/User Water
Recycling Permit Orange County Water
District Groundwater Replenishment System
(R8-2008-0058)
City Huntington Beach Coastal Development Permit
3-1
SECTION 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST EVALUATIONS
The following is the OCWD Environmental Checklist Form that was prepared for the GWRS
Water Conveyance Facility Project. The Environmental Checklist Form is consistent with
Environmental Checklist form provided in Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines.
Project Title: Orange County Water District Water Enhancement Project
Lead Agency Name and Address: Orange County Water District
18700 Ward Street
Fountain Valley, CA 92708
Project Contact: Daniel Bott
Location: 22212 Brookhurst Street Huntington Beach, California
Environmental Determination On the basis of this initial evaluation, I find that:
a) The Water Production Enhancement Project could not have a significant effect on the environment
and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
b) X Although the Water Production Enhancement Project could have a significant effect on the
environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions to the project have
been made by or agreed to by the applicant. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be
prepared.
c) The Water Production Enhancement Project may have a significant effect on the environment and
an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
d) Although the Water Production Enhancement Project could have a significant effect on the
environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an
earlier EIR (EIR No. - ) pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated
pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the
project, nothing further is required.
e) Pursuant to Section 15164 of the CEQA Guidelines, an EIR (EIR No. - ) has been prepared earlier
and only minor technical changes or additions are necessary to make the previous EIR adequate
and these changes do not raise important new issues about the significant effects on the
environment. An ADDENDUM to the EIR shall be prepared.
f) Pursuant to Section 15162 of the CEQA Guidelines, an EIR (EIR No. - ) has been prepared earlier;
however, subsequent proposed changes in the project and/or new information of substantial
importance will cause one or more significant effects no previously discussed. A SUBSEQUENT
EIR shall be prepared.
__ _________________________
Signature Date
Printed Name: Daniel Bott
3-2
V. Issues & Supporting Information Sources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
I. Aesthetics – Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic
vista?
b) Damage scenic resources, including but not
limited to, trees, rock outpourings and historic
buildings within a state highway?
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character
or quality of the site and its surroundings?
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare
which would adversely affect day or nighttime
views in the area?
II. AGRICULTURAL AND FOREST RESOURCES: In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are
significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site
Assessment Model prepared by the California Department of Conservation as an optional model to use in
assessing impacts on agricultural farmland. In determining whether impacts to forest resources, including
timberland, are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to information compiled by the
California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the state’s inventory of forest land, including
the Forest and Range Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy Assessment project; and forest carbon
measurement methodology provided in Forest Protocols adopted by the California Air Resources Board. Would
the project:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland or
Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland) to
non-agricultural use? (The Farmland Mapping
and Monitoring Program in the California
Resources Agency, Department of Conservation,
maintain detailed maps of these and other
categories of farmland.)
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or
a Williamson Contract?
c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning
of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources
Code section 12220(g), timberland (as defined by
Public Resources Code section 4526), or
timberland zoned Timberland Production (as
defined by Government Code section 51104(g))
d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of
forest land to non-forest use?
e) Involve other changes in the existing environment
which, due to their location or nature, could
individually or cumulatively result in loss of
Farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion of
forest land to non-forest use?
3-3
V. Issues & Supporting Information Sources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
III. Air Quality – Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or
pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of
applicable Air Quality Attainment Plan or
Congestion Management Plan?
b) Violate any stationary source air quality standard
or contribute to an existing or proposed air quality
violation?
c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase
of any criteria pollutant for which the project
region is non-attainment under an applicable
federal or state ambient air quality standard
(including releasing emissions which exceed
quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)?
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations?
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial
number of people?
IV. Biological Resources – Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse impact, either directly
or through habitat modifications, on any species
identified as a candidate, sensitive or special
status species in local or regional plans, policies
or regulations or by the California Department of
Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Services?
b) Have a substantial adverse impact on any riparian
habitat or natural community identified in local or
regional plans, policies, and regulations or by the
California Department of fish and Game or U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service?
c) Adversely impact federally protected wetlands as
defined by Section 404 of the Clean water Act
(including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool,
coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling
hydrological interruption, or other means?
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any
native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species
or with established native resident or migratory
wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native
wildlife nursery sites?
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances
3-4
V. Issues & Supporting Information Sources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
protecting biological resources, such as tree
preservation policy or ordinance?
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat
Conservation Plan, Natural Community
Conservation Plan, or other approved local
regional or state habitat conservation plan?
V. Cultural Resources – Would the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a historical resource as defined in
Section 15064.5?
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a unique archaeological resource
pursuant to define Section 15064.5?
c) Directly or indirectly disturb or destroy a unique
paleontological resource or site?
d) Disturb any human remains, including those
interred outside of formal cemeteries?
VI. Geology and Soils – Would the project:
a) Expose people or structures to potential
substantial adverse effects, including the risk of
loss, injury, or death involving:
1. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as
delineated on the most recent on the most
recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault
Zoning map issued by the State Geologist
for the area or based on other substantial
evidence of a known fault?
2. Strong seismic ground shaking?
3. Seismic-related ground failure, including
liquefaction?
4. Landslides?
b) Would the project result in substantial soil
erosion or the loss of topsoil?
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is
unstable, or that would become unstable as
result of the project, and potentially result in on-
or-off site landslide, lateral spreading,
subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in table
18-1-B of the uniform Building Code creating
3-5
V. Issues & Supporting Information Sources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
substantial risks to life or property?
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting
the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water
disposal systems where sewers are not available
for the disposal of waste water?
VII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS — Would the project?
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either
directly or indirectly, that may have a significant
impact on the environment?
b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or
regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing
the emissions of greenhouse gases?
VIII. HAZARDOUS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS – Would the project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through the routine transport, use or
disposal of hazardous materials?
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through reasonably foreseeable
upset and accident conditions involving the
release of hazardous materials into the
environment?
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous
or acutely hazardous materials, substance or
waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or
proposed school?
d) Be located on a site which is located on a list of
hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to
Government Code Section 659662.5 and, as a
result, would it create a significant hazard to the
public or the environment?
e) For a project located within an airport land use
plan or where such a plan has not been adopted,
within two miles where of a public airport or
public use airport, would the project result in a
safety hazard for people residing or working in
the project area?
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private
airstrip, would the project result in a safety
hazard for people residing or working in the
project area?
g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere
with an adopted emergency response plan or
3-6
V. Issues & Supporting Information Sources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
emergency evacuation plan?
h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk
of loss, injury or death involving wild land fires,
including where wild lands are adjacent to
urbanized areas or where residences are
intermixed with wild lands?
VIX. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY – Would the project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste
discharge requirements?
b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or
interfere substantially with groundwater recharge
such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer
volume or a lowering of the local groundwater
table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-
existing nearby wells would drop to a level which
would not support existing land uses or planned
uses for which permits have been granted)?
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern
of the site or area, including through the
alteration of the course of stream or river, in a
manner which would result in substantial erosion
or siltation on- or off-site?
d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern
of the site or area, including through the
alteration of the course of a stream or river, or
substantially increase the rate or amount of
surface runoff in a manner which would result in
flooding on- or off-site?
e) Create or contribute runoff water which would
exceed the capacity of existing or planned
stormwater drainage systems or provide
substantial additional sources of polluted runoff?
f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality?
g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard
area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard
Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other
flood hazard delineation map?
h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area
structures which would impede or redirect flood
flows?
i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk
of loss, injury, or death involving flooding,
3-7
V. Issues & Supporting Information Sources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
including flooding as a result of the failure of a
levee or dam?
(j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow?
X. LAND USE AND PLANNING – Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established community?
b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan,
policy, or regulation of an agency with
jurisdiction over the project (including, but not
limited to the general plan, specific plan, local
coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted
for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an
environmental effect?
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation
plan or natural community conservation plan?
XI. MINERAL RESOURCES – Would the project:
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known
mineral resource that would be of value to the
region and the residents of the state?
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally-
important mineral resource recovery site
delineated on a local general plan, specific plan,
or other land use plan?
XII. NOISE – Would the project result in:
a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise
levels in excess of standards established in the
local general plan or noise ordinance, or
applicable standards of other agencies?
f) Exposure of persons to or generation of
excessive groundborne vibration or
groundborne noise levels?
b) A substantial permanent increase in ambient
noise levels in the project vicinity above levels
existing without the project?
c) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in
ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above
levels existing without project?
d) For a project located within an airport land use
plan or where such a plan has not been
adopted, within two miles of a public airport or
public use airport, would the project expose
3-8
V. Issues & Supporting Information Sources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
people residing or working in the project area to
excessive noise levels?
e) For a project within the vicinity of a private
airstrip, would the project expose people
residing or working in the project area to
excessive noise levels?
XIII. POPULATION AND HOUSING – Would the project:
a) Induce substantial population growth in an area,
either directly (for example, by proposing new
homes and business) or indirectly (for example,
through extension of roads or other
infrastructure)?
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing
housing, necessitating the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere?
c) Displace substantial numbers of people,
necessitating the construction of replacement
housing elsewhere?
XIV. PUBLIC SERVICES
a) Would the project result in substantial adverse
physical impacts associated with the provision
of new or physically altered governmental
facilities, need for new or physically altered
governmental facilities, the construction of
which could cause significant environmental
impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service
rations, response times or other performance
objectives for any of the public service:
Fire protection?
Police protection?
Schools?
Parks?
Other public facilities?
XV. RECREATION
a) Would the project increase the use of existing
neighborhood and regional parks or other
recreational facilities such that substantial
physical deterioration of the facility would occur
or be accelerated?
b) Does the project include recreational facilities or
3-9
V. Issues & Supporting Information Sources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
require the construction or expansion of
recreational facilities which might have an
adverse physical effect on the environment?
XVI. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC Would the project:
a) Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or
policy establishing measures of effectiveness
for the performance of the circulation system,
taking into account all modes of transportation
including mass transit and non-motorized travel
and relevant components of the circulation
system, including but not limited to
intersections, streets, highways and freeways,
pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit?
b) Conflict with an applicable congestion
management program, including but limited to
level of service standards and travel demand
measures, or other standards established by the
county congestion management agency for
designated roads or highways?
c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns,
including either an increase in traffic levels or a
change in location that results in substantial
safety risks?
d) Substantially increase hazards to a design
feature (e.g. sharp curves or dangerous
intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g. farm
equipment)?
e) Result in inadequate emergency access?
f) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or
programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or
pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the
performance or safety of such facilities?
XVII TRIBAL RESOURCES
a) Would the project cause a substantial
adverse change in the significance of a
tribal cultural resource as a site, feature,
place, cultural landscape, sacred place, or
object with value to a California Native American Tribes and that is listed or eligible for listing in the California Register or Historical resource, or in a local register of historical resources.
3-10
V. Issues & Supporting Information Sources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
b) Would the project cause a substantial
adverse change in the significance of a
tribal cultural resource as either a site,
feature, place, cultural landscape, sacred place, or object with value to a California Native American Tribe and that is a resource determined by the lead agency in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence to be significant and which the lead agency considers the significance of the resource to a California Native American Tribe.
XVIIl. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS – Would the project:
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of
the applicable Regional Water Quality Control
Board?
b) Require or result in the construction of new
water or wastewater treatment facilities or
expansion of existing facilities, the construction
of which could cause significant environmental
effects?
c) Require or result in the construction of new
storm water drainage facilities or expansion of
existing facilities, the construction of which
could cause significant environmental effects?
d) Are sufficient water supplies available to serve
the project from existing entitlements and
resources or are new or expanded entitlements
needed?
e) Result in the determination by the wastewater
treatment provider which serves or may serve
the project that it has adequate capacity to
serve the project’s projected demand in addition
to the provider’s existing commitments?
f) Is the project served by a landfill with sufficient
permitted capacity to accommodate the
project’s sold waste disposal needs?
g) Comply with federal, state and local statutes
and regulations related to solid waste?
3-11
V. Issues & Supporting Information Sources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XVIIlI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE –
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade
the quality of the environment, substantially
reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species,
cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below
self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a
plant or animal community, reduce the number
or restrict the range of a rare or endangered
plant or animal or eliminate important examples
of the major periods of California history or
prehistory?
b) Does the project have impacts that are
individually limited but cumulatively
considerable? (“Cumulatively considerable”
means that the incremental effects of a project
are considerable when viewed in connection
with the effects of past projects, effects of other
current projects and the effects of probable
future projects).
c) Does the project have environmental effects
which will cause substantial adverse effects on
human beings, either directly or indirectly?
Note: Authority cited: Sections 21083, 21083.05, Public Resources Code. Reference: Section 65088.4
4-1
SECTION 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
The following analysis responds to the environmental issues listed on the OCWD CEQA
Checklist Form. The analysis identifies the level of anticipated impact and where
needed includes the incorporation of mitigation measures to reduce potentially
significant impacts to the environment to a less than significant level.
4.1 Aesthetics
Existing Setting
The project site within OCSD Plant No. 2 Site is located within the southeast area of the
City of Huntington Beach. The OCSD Plant No. 2 Site is surrounded by the Santa Ana
River Trail to the east, Talbert Park to the northeast, Brookhurst Street and single family
residential uses to the west, multiple family residential uses to the north and the Talbert
Marsh to the south. OCSD Plant No. 2 Site is currently developed with numerous
structures that vary in height, mass and function. The tallest onsite structure would be
the surge tower at a height of 86 feet, located at the southwestern end of the site. Other
notably sized structures include the existing sludge storage silos at approximately 50
feet in height and trickling filters at a height of 40 feet.
The OCSD Plant No. 2 Site is situated within urbanized area and is impacted from a
variety lighting sources from the surrounding the area. The lighting from these
surrounding sources generally diminishes the quality of the nighttime sky. The OCSD
Plant No. 2 Site has controlled onsite security lighting which has been designed to
minimize spill-over light and glare impacts to the surrounding area.
Scenic vistas within the study area include; the Santa Ana River, Banning Ranch
Wetlands, Talbert Marsh and the Pacific Ocean. Public vistas providing view of scenic
resources within the study area include the Santa Ana River Trail, Talbert Marsh Trail,
and along Pacific Coast Highway. Additionally, there are private views into OCSD Plant
No.2 from single family residential uses located west of Brookhurst Street and from
multiple family residential uses located north of OCSD Plant No. 2.
The Santa Ana River Trail extends along the eastern boundary of the OSCD Plant No. 2
Site. A shown in Figure 4, along the Santa Ana River Trail there are intermittent views of
the OCSD Plant No. 2 Site. The views are partially obstructed by existing landscaping
and topography.
The Talbert Marsh Trail is located along the southern boundary OCSD Plant No. 2. As
shown in Figure 5, along the Talbert Marsh Trail is there is an existing landscaped wall
that provides a visual barrier between the trail and the wastewater treatment facilities at
OCSD Plant No. 2.
Pacific Coast Highway is located south of OCSD Plant No. 2. As shown in Figure 5,
from along Pacific Coast Highway there are sweeping views of the Santa Ana River and
4-2
4-3
4-4
Plant No. 2. The dominant visual structure on Plant No. 2 would be the 86-foot surge
towers.
The area west of Brookhurst Street consists predominately of single family homes,
many of which are two stories. As shown in Figure 6, existing views into OCSD Plant
No. 2 Site along Brookhurst Street are visually screened by a tree line of towering
eucalyptus trees. The height of the eucalyptus trees screens both close and distant
views into OCSD Plant No. 2
North of OCSD Plant No. 2 is existing two story multiple-family residential uses. As
shown in Figure 7, an existing eucalyptus tree line screens views into OCSD Plant No.
2.
Regulatory Framework
State
State Scenic Highways Program
The Scenic Highway Program was created in 1963 by the California legislature and was
established to protect scenic highway corridors from changes that would diminish the
aesthetic value of adjacent lands. The segment of Pacific Coast Highway that extends
near OCSD Plant No. 2 is not officially designated as State Scenic Highway, but is
designated as eligible for the Scenic Highways Program.
California Coastal Act
The California Coastal Act defines the coastal zone and establishes land use controls
for the designated zone. The California Coastal Act; (1) sets specific uses, including
restoration, in which wetlands may be permitted in the coastal zone; (2) provides for
additional review and approvals for proposed actions located within designated
sensitive coastal areas; and (3) requires cities or counties located within the coastal
zone to prepare a Local Coastal Program. The California Coastal Act has also
identified and requires the protection of important scenic and visual qualities of the
coastal areas. All of OCSD Plant No.2 is located within the Coastal Zone.
Regional/Local
County of Orange General Plan
The Orange County Master Plan of Scenic Highways designates the segment of Pacific
Coast Highway near OCSD Plant No.2 a County Scenic Highway and a View Scape
Corridor.
4-5
4-6
4-7
City of Huntington Beach General Plan Coastal Element
The purpose of the Coastal Element is to meet the requirements of the Coastal Act and
guide civic decisions regarding growth, development, enhancement and preservation of
the City’s Coastal Zone and its resources. The Coastal Element identifies the segment
of Pacific Coast Highway near OCSD Plant No. 2 as a Major Urban Scenic Corridor and
Landscape Corridor. The Coastal Element further identifies visual resources within the
coastal zone which includes; Huntington State Beach, Pacific Ocean, Talbert Marsh,
and the Santa Ana River.
City of Newport Beach Local Coastal Program
Although the study area is not located in the City of Newport Beach, it is located in
proximity to the City of Newport Beach’s city limit. The City of Newport Beach Local
Coastal Program identifies Pacific Coast Highway as a Coastal View Road.
A: Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?
Less than Significant Impact: Within the vicinity of the study area scenic resource
public views are provided from the Santa Ana River Trail, Talbert Marsh Trail, and
Pacific Coast Highway. Additionally, within the study area there are private views into
OCSD Plant No. 2 along Brookhurst Street and north of the OCSD Plant No. 2.
The proposed project involves the construction of two 28 foot high flow equalization
tanks and a 25 foot flow pump station. The construction operations would be confined to
the project site and would not result in the removal of the existing landscaping along the
eastern boundary or the removal of the existing eucalyptus tree line along western and
northern property boundaries.
Public Vista Impacts
Santa Ana River Trail
The Santa Ana River Trail extends along the eastern boundary of OCSD Plant No 2.
Along the bike trail there are public views of the Santa Ana River, Banning Ranch
Wetlands and the Pacific Ocean. The visual presence of the proposed flow equalization
tank and pump station structure would not obstruct views of the Pacific Ocean or the
Banning Ranch Wetlands. As shown in Figure 8, the proposed flow equalization tank
and pump station would be within the view shed of trail users along segments of the
Santa Ana River Trail. Presently, along most of the Santa Ana River Trail there are
existing views of the OCSD Plant No. 2 structures. Views along the Santa Ana River
Trail into Plant No. 2 would not be substantially different from current views and would
not have an adverse impact on any scenic vistas.
4-8
4-9
Talbert Marsh Trail
The Talbert Marsh provides public views of the Talbert Marsh and the Pacific Ocean.
The visual presence of the proposed flow equalization tank and pump station structure
would not obstruct views of the Talbert Marsh or the Pacific Ocean. As shown in Figure
5, along the Talbert Marsh Trail is there is an existing landscaped wall that provides a
visual barrier between the trail and Plant No. 2. The existing landscaped wall would
also visually screen the proposed flow equalization tank and pump station structure.
Existing scenic views from the Talbert Marsh Trail would not change from the current
condition.
Pacific Coast Highway
Pacific Coast Highway (PCH) is located approximately ¼ mile south from the OCSD
Plant No. 2 Site. Situated between Pacific Coast Highway and Plant No. 2 is the Talbert
Wetlands which provides an open space visual buffer for motorist and bicyclist along
PCH. As shown in Figure 9, the presence of the proposed flow equalization tank and
pump station structure would not encroach into the view shed along the Pacific Coast
Highway. Existing views from Pacific Coast Highway would not change from the current
condition.
Private Views into OCSD Plant No. 2
Views from Brookhurst Street
Presently, views of Plant No. 2 along Brookhurst Street are screened by perimeter block
wall and row of eucalyptus trees. As shown in Figure 10, the row of eucalyptus would
also visually screen the proposed flow equalization tank and pump station structure.
Existing views along Brookhurst Street would not significantly change from the current
condition.
Views North of OCSD Plant No. 2
Presently, views of Plant No. 2 along Brookhurst Street are screened by a tree line of
eucalyptus trees. As shown in Figure 11, the row of eucalyptus would also visually
screen the proposed flow equalization tank and pump station structure. Existing views
from the northern property line would not significantly change from the current condition.
Potential view impacts would be less than significant.
B. Would the project damage scenic resources, including but limited to, trees,
rock outpourings, and historic buildings within a State Highway?
No Impact: According to the California Department of Transportation Scenic Highways
Program, the closest State Scenic Highway to the OCSD Plant No. 2 Site would be
Pacific Coast Highway. The proposed flow equalization tanks and pump station
structure would be located over 1 mile from Pacific Coast Highway and would be
visually screened by several existing structures located in the foreground. As shown in
4-10
4-11
4-12
4-13
Figure 9, existing views along Pacific Coast Highway would not change from their
current condition. No potential impacts to scenic resources along a State Highway
would occur. No mitigation measures are required.
C. Would the project substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality
of the site and its surrounding?
No Impact: The proposed equalization tanks and pump station structure would be
similar in scale and mass compared to several other existing structures located on Plant
No. 2 and would be visually compatible. The presence of the flow equalization tanks
and pump station structure would not substantially degrade the existing visual character
of the study area. No mitigation measures are required.
D. Would the project create a new source of substantial light or glare which would
adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area.
Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation: Implementation of the proposed
project would not involve the construction of any new structures that would permanently
introduce substantial amounts of new sources of light and glare into the study area.
Similar to the existing buildings on OCSD Plant No. 2 Site, the proposed new structures
would have some low voltage outdoor security lighting. The outdoor lighting would be
confined to the immediate area and would not spill over into adjacent areas. With the
implementation Mitigation Measures A-1 and A-2 potential light and glare impacts
associated with the operation of the proposed project would be less than significant.
Construction operations for the proposed project would occur during the day. Therefore,
no nighttime construction lighting would be required. Some glare impacts could occur
from construction equipment during the day. However, the impacts would be confined to
the study area and would not have any significant offsite light and glare impacts.
Mitigation Measure
A-1: All onsite lighting shall be directed away from adjacent residential, business uses
and away from the Santa Ana River right-of-way.
A-2: During operation of the project the onsite lighting creates a light or glare issues for
sensitive receptor properties, OCWD will implement corrective measures to resolve the
issue. Such corrective measures may include providing additional shielding on light
fixtures, relocating lighting fixtures and reducing the intensity of lighting.
4.2 Agricultural Resources/Forest Resources
A. Would the project convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland or Farmland of
Statewide Importance to non-agriculture uses?
No impact. According to the State of California Farmland Mapping and Monitoring
Program, the OCSD Plant No. 2 Site does not contain any Prime Farmland, Unique
4-14
Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance. Therefore, no adverse impacts to
Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance would occur
from the implementation of the proposed project. No mitigation measures are required.
B. Would the project be in conflict with existing zoning for agriculture use or a
Williamson Contract?
No Impact. According to the City of Huntington Beach Zoning Code, the OCSD Plant
No. 2 site is not zoned for agriculture uses. Additionally, the City’s General Plan does
not identify that there are any existing Williamson Contracts on the property. Therefore,
implementation of the proposed project will not be in conflict with any existing
agriculture zoning. No mitigation measures are required.
C. Would the project be in conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of
forest land or timberland.
No Impact. According to the City of Huntington Beach Zoning Code, the OCSD Plant
No. 2 Site is not zoned for forest land or timberland. Therefore, implementation of the
proposed project would not cause change of zone of existing forest or timberland to
other land uses. No mitigation measures are required.
D. Would the project result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land
to non-forest use?
No Impact: Presently, the OCSD Plant No. 2 Site does not contain forest lands.
Therefore, the implementation of the proposed project would not convert existing forest
land to non-forest land. No mitigation measures are required.
E. Would the project involve other changes in the existing environment which,
due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland to non-
agriculture use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
No Impact. The study area is not located on forest land. Therefore, the implementation
of the proposed project will not directly or indirectly result in the loss of any forest land
or result in the conversion forest lands to non-forest lands. Additionally, the
implementation of the proposed project would not convert existing farmlands within the
study area to non-agriculture land uses. No mitigation measures are required.
4.3 Air Quality
The following analysis is based on an Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Report prepared
for the GWRS Water Conveyance Facility Project by Environmental Science
Associates, in January of 2018. The Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Report are
presented in Appendix A.
Setting
4-15
The study area is located in the City of Huntington Beach within the South Coast Air
Basin (SCAB), which is under the jurisdiction of the South Coast Air Quality
Management District (SCAQMD). The SCAB is a 6,600-square-mile coastal plain
bounded by the Pacific Ocean to the southwest and the San Gabriel, San Bernardino,
and San Jacinto Mountains to the north and east. The SCAB includes the non-desert
portions of Los Angeles, Riverside, and San Bernardino Counties, and all of Orange
County. The topography and climate of southern California combine to make the SCAB
an area of high air pollution potential. The SCAB is a coastal plain with connecting
broad valleys and low hills, bounded by the Pacific Ocean to the west and high
mountains around the rest of the perimeter. The general region lies in the semi-
permanent high-pressure zone of the eastern Pacific, resulting in a mild climate
tempered by cool sea breezes with light average wind speeds. The usually mild
climatological pattern is disrupted occasionally by periods of extremely hot weather,
winter storms, or Santa Ana winds. During the summer months, a warm air mass
frequently descends over the cool, moist marine layer produced by the interaction
between the ocean’s surface and the lowest layer of the atmosphere. The warm upper
layer forms a cap over the cool marine layer and inhibits the pollutants in the marine
layer from dispersing upward. In addition, light winds during the summer further limit
ventilation. Furthermore, sunlight triggers the photochemical reactions that produce
ozone.
Existing Ambient Air Quality Standards
The SCAQMD maintains a network of air quality monitoring stations located throughout
the SCAB to measure ambient pollutant concentrations. The monitoring station nearest
to and most representative of the program area is the Costa Mesa Monitoring Station.
Criteria pollutants monitored at this station include ozone, NO2, CO, and SO2. The
nearest monitoring station to the program area that monitors data for PM10, PM2.5 and
lead is the Long Beach Monitoring Station. The most recent data reported to the USEPA
and CARB for these monitoring stations are from calendar years 2012 to 2016.1 The
pollutant concentration data for these years are summarized in Table 5.
Sensitive Receptors
Land uses such as residences, schools, hospitals, and convalescent homes are
considered sensitive to poor air quality conditions because infants, children, the elderly,
and people with health afflictions (especially respiratory ailments) are more susceptible
to respiratory infections and other air-quality-related health problems than the general
public. Residential areas are also considered to be sensitive to air pollution because
residents (including children and the elderly) tend to be at home for extended periods of
time, resulting in sustained exposure to any pollutants present. Recreational land uses
1 South Coast Air Quality Management District, Historical Data by Year, http://www.aqmd.gov/home/library/air-quality-data-
studies/historical-data-by-year. Accessed December 2017.
4-16
are considered moderately sensitive to air pollution. Exercise places a high demand on
respiratory functions, which can be impaired by air pollution, even though exposure
periods during exercise are generally short.
The nearest sensitive receptors to Plant No. 2 include the single-family residences
located approximately 120 feet west of Plant No. 2 and multi-family residences located
approximately immediately adjacent to the northern boundary of Plant No. 2 along
Brookhurst Street.
All other air quality sensitive receptors are located at greater distances from the project
site, and would be less impacted by project emissions.
Table 5 Existing Ambient Air Quality
Pollutant/Standard a 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
O3 (1-hour)
Maximum Concentration (ppm) Days > CAAQS (0.09 ppm)
0.090 2
0.095 1
0.096 1
0.099 1
0.090 0
O3 (8-hour) Maximum Concentration (ppm)
4th High 8-hour Concentration (ppm) Days > CAAQS (0.070 ppm)
Days > NAAQS (0.070 ppm)
0.076
0.060 1
1
0.083
0.065 2
2
0.079
0.076 6
6
0.079
0.068 2
2
0.069
0.065 0
0
NO2 (1-hour)
Maximum Concentration (ppm) 98th Percentile Concentration (ppm)
NO2 (Annual) Annual Arithmetic Mean (0.030 ppm)
0.074 0.051
0.010
0.076 0.053
0.012
0.061 0.054
0.011
0.052 0.048
0.012
0.060 0.051
0.010
CO (1-hour) Maximum Concentration (ppm)
CO (8-hour) Maximum Concentration (ppm) 2.11.7
2.4
2.0
3.0
1.9
3.0
2.2
2.1
1.7
SO2 (1-hour) Maximum Concentration (ppm)
99th Percentile Concentration (ppm)
0.006
0.002
0.004
0.003
0.009
0.004
0.005
0.003
0.003
0.002
PM10 (24-hour)
Maximum Concentration (µg/m3) Est. Days > CAAQS (50 µg/m3)
Est. Days > NAAQS (150 µg/m3) PM10 (Annual Average) Annual Arithmetic Mean (20 µg/m3)
54.0 1
0 25.5
54.0 1
0 27.3
59.0 2
0 26.6
62.0 2
0 26.5
56 3
0 27.8
PM2.5 (24-hour) Maximum Concentration (µg/m3)
98th Percentile Concentration (µg/m3) Est. Days > NAAQS (35 µg/m3)
PM2.5 (Annual)
Annual Arithmetic Mean (12 µg/m3)
46.7
25.1 4
10.57
42.9
24.6 1
10.97
52.2
27.2 2
10.72
48.3
31.2 4
10.26
28.93
22.05 1
9.62
Lead Maximum 30-day average (µg/m3) 0.007 0.012 0.012 0.010 0.008
a ppm = parts per million; µg/m3 = micrograms per cubic meter SOURCES: SCAQMD, 2017.
4-17
Regulatory Setting
Federal
The principal air quality regulatory mechanism at the federal level is the Clean Air Act
(CAA) and in particular, the 1990 amendments to the CAA and the National Ambient Air
Quality Standard (NAAQS) that it establishes. These standards identify the maximum
ambient (background) concentration levels of criteria pollutants that are considered to
be safe, with an adequate margin of safety, to protect public health and welfare. As
discussed previously, the criteria pollutants include ozone, CO, NO2 (which is a form of
NOX), SO2 (which is a form of SOX), PM10, PM2.5, and lead.
The CAA also requires each state to prepare an air quality control plan, referred to as a
state implementation plan (SIP). The CAA Amendments of 1990 added requirements for
states with nonattainment areas to revise their SIPs to incorporate additional control
measures to reduce air pollution. The SIP is modified periodically to reflect the latest
emissions inventories, planning documents, and rules and regulations of the air basins,
as reported by their jurisdictional agencies. USEPA is responsible for reviewing all SIPs
to determine whether they conform to the mandates of the CAA and its amendments,
and to determine whether implementing the SIPs would achieve air quality goals.
The USEPA also has regulatory and enforcement jurisdiction over emission sources
beyond state waters (outer continental shelf), and those that are under the exclusive
authority of the Federal government, such as aircraft, locomotives, and interstate
trucking. USEPA’s primary role at the state level is to oversee the state air quality
programs. USEPA sets federal vehicle and stationary source emissions standards and
provides research and guidance in air pollution programs.
State
California Air Resources Board (CARB)
CARB, a part of the California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA), is
responsible for the coordination and administration of both federal and state air pollution
control programs within California. In this capacity, CARB conducts research, sets state
ambient air quality standards (California Ambient Air Quality Standards [CAAQS]),
compiles emission inventories, develops suggested control measures, and provides
oversight of local programs. CARB establishes emissions standards for motor vehicles
sold in California, consumer products (such as hairspray, aerosol paints, and barbecue
lighter fluid), and various types of commercial equipment. It also sets fuel specifications
to further reduce vehicular emissions. CARB has primary responsibility for the
development of California’s SIP, for which it works closely with the federal government
and the local air districts. The SIP is required for the State to take over implementation
of the federal CAA from the USEPA.
4-18
In 2004, CARB adopted an Airborne Toxic Control Measure (ACTM) to limit heavy-duty
diesel motor vehicle idling in order to reduce public exposure to diesel particulate matter
and other toxic air contaminants (Title 13 California Code of Regulations [CCR], Section
2485). The measure applies to diesel-fueled commercial vehicles with gross vehicle
weight ratings greater than 10,000 pounds that are licensed to operate on highways,
regardless of where they are registered. This measure generally does not allow diesel-
fueled commercial vehicles to idle for more than five (5) minutes at any given location
with certain exemptions for equipment in which idling is a necessary function such as
concrete trucks. While this measure primarily targets diesel particulate matter
emissions, it has co-benefits of minimizing GHG emissions from unnecessary truck
idling.
In 2008, CARB approved the Truck and Bus regulation to reduce particulate matter and
nitrogen oxide emissions from existing diesel vehicles operating in California (13 CCR,
Section 2025, subsection (h)). CARB has also promulgated emission standards for off-
road diesel construction equipment of greater than 25 horsepower such as bulldozers,
loaders, backhoes and forklifts, as well as many other self-propelled off-road diesel
vehicles. The regulation adopted by the CARB on July 26, 2007, aims to reduce
emissions by installation of diesel soot filters and encouraging the retirement,
replacement, or repower of older, dirtier engines with newer emission controlled models.
While these regulations primarily target reductions in criteria air pollutant emission, they
have co-benefits of minimizing GHG emissions due to improved engine efficiencies.
California Clean Air Act
The California Clean Air Act, signed into law in 1988, requires all areas of the State to
achieve and maintain the CAAQS by the earliest practical date. The CAAQS apply to
the same criteria pollutants as the federal Clean Air Act but also include State-identified
criteria pollutants, which include sulfates, visibility-reducing particles, hydrogen sulfide,
and vinyl chloride. CARB has primary responsibility for ensuring the implementation of
the California Clean Air Act, responding to the federal Clean Air Act planning
requirements applicable to the state, and regulating emissions from motor vehicles and
consumer products within the state. The CAAQS include more stringent standards than
the NAAQS for most of the criteria air pollutants.
Health and Safety Code Section 39607(e) requires CARB to establish and periodically
review area designation criteria. Table 6 provides a summary of the attainment status of
the Orange County portion of the Air Basin with respect to the state standards. The Air
Basin is designated as attainment for the California standards for sulfates, hydrogen
sulfide, and vinyl chloride. As shown in Table 6, the Air Basin is currently in
nonattainment for ozone, PM10, and PM2.5 under the CAAQS.
4-19
Table 6 South Coast Air Basin Attainment Status
Pollutant National Standards California Standards
Ozone (1-hour standard) N/A Non-attainment
Ozone (8-hour standard) Non-attainment – Extreme Non-attainment
Carbon Monoxide Attainment Attainment
Nitrogen Dioxide Attainment Attainment
Sulfur Dioxide Attainment Attainment
PM10 Attainment Non-attainment
PM2.5 Non-attainment – Serious Non-attainment
Lead Non-attainment (Partial) b Attainment
Visibility Reducing Particles N/A Unclassified
Sulfates N/A Attainment
Hydrogen Sulfide N/A Attainment
Vinyl Chloride N/A N/A c
NOTES:
N/A = not applicable a The NAAQS for 1-hour ozone was revoked on June 15, 2005, for all areas except Early Action Compact areas. b Partial Nonattainment designation – Los Angeles County portion of the Air Basin only for near-source monitors. c In 1990 the California Air Resources Board identified vinyl chloride as a toxic air contaminant and determined that it does not have an identifiable threshold. Therefore, the California Air Resources Board does not monitor or make
status designations for this pollutant. SOURCE: United States Environmental Protection Agency, The Green Book Non-attainment Areas for Criteria Pollutants, https://www.epa.gov/green-book. Accessed November 2017; California Air Resources Board, Area Designations Maps/State and National, http://www.arb.ca.gov/desig/adm/adm.htm. Accessed December 2017.
Regional
South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD)
The SCAQMD has jurisdiction over an area of approximately 10,743 square miles. This
area includes all of Orange County, Los Angeles County except for the Antelope Valley,
the non-desert portion of western San Bernardino County, and the western and
Coachella Valley portions of Riverside County. The Air Basin is a sub-region of the
SCAQMD jurisdiction. While air quality in this area has improved, the Air Basin requires
continued diligence to meet air quality standards.
Air Quality Management Plan
The SCAQMD has adopted a series of Air Quality Management Plans (AQMP) to meet
the CAAQS and NAAQS. The SCAQMD and CARB have adopted the 2016 AQMP,
which incorporates scientific and technological information and planning assumptions
regarding air quality, including the Southern California Association of Governments
(SCAG) 2016 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy
(RTP/SCS), and emission inventory methodologies for various source categories.2 The
2016 AQMP was adopted by the AQMD Governing Board on March 3, 2017.3
2 South Coast Air Quality Management District, Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP), Final 2016 AQMP, http://www.aqmd.gov/home/library/clean-air-plans/air-quality-mgt-plan. Accessed November 2017. 3 South Coast Air Quality Management District, Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP), Final 2016 AQMP, http://www.aqmd.gov/home/library/clean-air-plans/air-quality-mgt-plan. Accessed November 2017.
4-20
The purpose of the 2016 AQMP is to bring the Air Basin into attainment with NAAQS for
24-hour PM2.5. SCAQMD has since determined that this deadline as impractical due to
drought conditions in the region.4 In 2016, USEPA approved reclassification of the Air
Basin from “moderate” to “serious” non-attainment for the 24-hour PM2.5 standard,
which has a new attainment deadline of December 31, 2019. The 2016 AQMP
demonstrates that the 24-hour standard will be met by 2019 with no additional
reductions beyond already adopted and implemented measures. The 2016 AQMP also
intensifies the scope and pace of continued air quality improvement efforts toward
meeting the 2024 and 2032 8-hour ozone standard deadline with new measures
designed to reduce reliance on the CAA Section 182(e)(5) long-term measures for NOX
and VOC reductions. SCAQMD expects exposure reductions to be achieved through
implementation of new and advanced control technologies as well as improvement of
existing technologies.
The control measures in the 2016 AQMP consist of 8-hour ozone control measures and
PM2.5 control measures designed to achieve the ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS by
statutory deadlines. The AQMP includes ten PM2.5 control measures, 15 stationary
source 8-hour ozone measures and 15 early action measures for mobile sources. In
general, the SCAQMD’s control strategy for stationary and mobile sources is based on
the following approaches: (1) available cleaner technologies; (2) best management
practices; (3) incentive programs; (4) development and implementation of near-zero
technologies and vehicles and control methods; and (5) emission reductions from
mobile sources. Control strategies in the AQMP with potential applicability to short-term
emissions from construction activities associated with the Project include strategies
denoted in the AQMP as MOB-08 and MOB-10, which are intended to reduce emissions
from on-road and off-road heavy-duty vehicles and equipment. Descriptions of
measures MOB-08 and MOB-10 are provided below:
MOB-08 – Accelerated Retirement of Older On-Road Heavy-Duty Vehicles: This
proposed measure seeks to replace heavy-duty vehicles with newer or new vehicles
that at a minimum, meet the 2010 on-road heavy-duty NOX exhaust emissions standard
of 0.2 grams per brake horsepower-hour (g/bhp-hr). Given that exceedances of the 24-
hour PM2.5 air quality standard occur in the state, priority will be placed on replacing
older diesel trucks that operate primarily at the warehouse and distribution centers.
Funding assistance of up to $50,000 per vehicle is proposed and the level of funding will
depend upon the NOX emissions certification level of the replacement vehicle. In
addition, a provision similar to the Surplus Off-Road Option for NOX (SOON) provision
of the statewide In-Use Off-Road Fleet Vehicle Regulation will be sought to ensure that
additional NOX emission reduction benefits are achieved.
4 South Coast Air Quality Management District, Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP), Final 2016 AQMP,
http://www.aqmd.gov/home/library/clean-air-plans/air-quality-mgt-plan. Accessed November 2017.
4-21
MOB-10 – Extension of the SOON Provision for Construction/Industrial
Equipment: This measure seeks to continue the (SOON) provision of the statewide In-
Use Off-Road Fleet Vehicle Regulation beyond 2023 through the 2031 timeframe. To
implement the SOON program in this timeframe, funding of at least $10 million per year
would be sought to help fund the repower or replacement of older Tier 0 and Tier 1
equipment, with reductions that are considered surplus to the statewide regulation with
Tier 4 or cleaner engines.
The SCAQMD released the Draft 2016 AQMP on June 30, 2016 for public review and
comment. A revised Draft 2016 AQMP was released in October 2016 and the SCAQMD
Governing Board adopted the 2016 AQMP on March 3, 2017.5 CARB approved the
2016 AQMP on March 23, 2017. USEPA approval is pending, but is a necessary
requirement before the 2016 AQMP can be incorporated into the State Implementation
Plan. Key elements of the 2016 AQMP include implementing fair-share emissions
reductions strategies at the federal, state, and local levels; establishing partnerships,
funding, and incentives to accelerate deployment of zero and near-zero-emissions
technologies; and taking credit from co-benefits from greenhouse gas, energy,
transportation and other planning efforts.6 The strategies included in the 2016 AQMP
are intended to demonstrate attainment of the NAAQS for the federal non-attainment
pollutants O3 and PM2.5.7 Provisions of the 2016 AQMP do not appear to affect the
proposed project.
Several SCAQMD rules adopted to implement portions of the AQMP may apply to
construction or operation of the project. The project may be subject to the following
SCAQMD rules and regulations:
Regulation IV – Prohibitions: This regulation sets forth the restrictions for visible
emissions, odor nuisance, fugitive dust, various air emissions, fuel contaminants, start-
up/shutdown exemptions and breakdown events. The following is a list of rules which
may apply to the project:
• Rule 401 – Visible Emissions: This rule states that a person shall not discharge
into the atmosphere from any single source of emission whatsoever any air
contaminant for a period or periods aggregating more than three minutes in any one
hour which is as dark or darker in shade as that designated No. 1 on the
Ringelmann Chart or of such opacity as to obscure an observer's view.
5 South Coast Air Quality Management District, Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP), Final 2016 AQMP, http://www.aqmd.gov/home/library/clean-air-plans/air-quality-mgt-plan. Accessed November 2017. 6 South Coast Air Quality Management District, Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP), Final 2016 AQMP, http://www.aqmd.gov/home/library/clean-air-plans/air-quality-mgt-plan. Accessed November 2017. 7 South Coast Air Quality Management District, NAAQS/CAAQS and Attainment Status for South Coast Air Basin, (2016), http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/clean-air-plans/air-quality-management-plans/naaqs-caaqs-feb2016.pdf?sfvrsn=2. Accessed November 2017.
4-22
• Rule 402 – Nuisance: This rule states that a person shall not discharge from any
source whatsoever such quantities of air contaminants or other material which cause
injury, detriment, nuisance, or annoyance to any considerable number of persons or
to the public, or which endanger the comfort, repose, health or safety of any such
persons or the public, or which cause, or have a natural tendency to cause, injury or
damage to business or property.
• Rule 403 – Fugitive Dust: This rule requires projects to prevent, reduce or mitigate
fugitive dust emissions from a site. Rule 403 restricts visible fugitive dust to the
project property line, restricts the net PM10 emissions to less than 50 micrograms
per cubic meter (µg/m3) and restricts the tracking out of bulk materials onto public
roads. Additionally, projects must utilize one or more of the best available control
measures (identified in the tables within the rule). Mitigation measures may include
adding freeboard to haul vehicles, covering loose material on haul vehicles,
watering, using chemical stabilizers and/or ceasing all activities. Finally, a
contingency plan may be required if so determined by the USEPA.
Regulation XI – Source Specific Standards: Regulation XI sets emissions standards
for different specific sources. The following is a list of rules which may apply to the
Project:
• Rule 1113 – Architectural Coatings: This rule requires manufacturers, distributors,
and end users of architectural and industrial maintenance coatings to reduce VOC
emissions from the use of these coatings, primarily by placing limits on the VOC
content of various coating categories.
• Rule 1186 – PM10 Emissions from Paved and Unpaved Roads, and Livestock
Operations: This rule applies to owners and operators of paved and unpaved roads
and livestock operations. The rule is intended to reduce PM10 emissions by
requiring the cleanup of material deposited onto paved roads, use of certified street
sweeping equipment, and treatment of high-use unpaved roads (see also Rule 403).
Regulation XIV – Toxics and Other Non-Criteria Pollutants: Regulation XIV sets
requirements for new permit units, relocations, or modifications to existing permit units
which emit toxic air contaminants or other non-criteria pollutants. The following is a list
of rules which may apply to the project:
Local
City of Huntington Beach
The City’s General Plan Air Quality Element includes City-wide goals, objectives, and
policies related to air quality resources. A number of these goals and policies are
relevant to the proposed program and are related to traffic mobility, reducing private and
government employee work trips, promoting increased work and non-work related
public transit use, discouraging single-occupancy vehicle trips, managing traffic
4-23
congestion during peak hours, improving jobs/housing balance to reduce vehicle miles
traveled (VMT), reducing pollution through waste reduction and lowered energy
consumption, and increasing energy efficiency in existing and new commercial and
industrial developments. In addition, the City of Huntington Beach Air Quality Element
addresses several factors to help achieve the goals of the SCAQMD’s AQMP.
Significant Impact Threshold
Construction Emissions
The SCAQMD has established numerical emission indicators of significance for
construction. The numerical emission indicators are based on the recognition that the
Air Basin is a distinct geographic area with a critical air pollution problem for which
ambient air quality standards have been promulgated to protect public health.8 Given
that construction impacts are temporary and limited to the construction phase, the
SCAQMD has established numeric indicators of significance specific to construction
activity. Based on the indicators in the SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook, the
Project would potentially cause or contribute to an exceedance of an ambient air quality
standard if the following would occur:
• Regional construction emissions from both direct and indirect sources would exceed
any of the following SCAQMD prescribed daily regional emissions criteria:9
– 75 pounds a day for VOC;
– 100 pounds per day for NOX;
– 550 pounds per day for CO;
– 150 pounds per day for SO2;
– 150 pounds per day for PM10; or
– 55 pounds per day for PM2.5.
In addition, the SCAQMD has developed a methodology to assess the potential for
localized emissions to cause an exceedance of applicable ambient air quality standards
or ambient concentration limits. Impacts would be considered significant if the following
would occur:
• Maximum daily localized emissions of NOX and/or CO during construction are
greater than the applicable localized significance thresholds, resulting in predicted
8 South Coast Air Quality Management District, CEQA Air Quality Handbook (1993) 6-2. 9 South Coast Air Quality Management District, SCAQMD Air Quality Significance Thresholds, (March 2015), http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/ceqa/handbook/scaqmd-air-quality-significance-thresholds.pdf?sfvrsn=2. Accessed October 2017.
4-24
ambient concentrations in the vicinity of the project site greater than the most
stringent ambient air quality standards for NO2 and/or CO.10
• Maximum daily localized emissions of PM10 and/or PM2.5 during construction are
greater than the applicable localized significance thresholds, resulting in predicted
ambient concentrations in the vicinity of the project site to exceed 10.4 μg/m3 over
24 hours (SCAQMD Rule 403 control requirement).
Operation Emissions
The SCAQMD has established numerical emission indicators of significance for
operations. The numerical emission indicators are based on the recognition that the Air
Basin is a distinct geographic area with a critical air pollution problem for which ambient
air quality standards have been promulgated to protect public health.11 The SCAQMD
has established numeric indicators of significance in part based on Section 182(e) of the
Clean Air Act which identifies 10 tons per year of VOC as a significance level for
stationary source emissions in extreme non-attainment areas for ozone.12 The Air
Basin is designated as extreme non-attainment for ozone. The SCAQMD converted this
significance level to pounds per day for ozone precursor emissions (10 tons per year ×
2,000 pounds per ton ÷ 365 days per year = 55 pounds per day). The numeric indicators
for other pollutants are also based on federal stationary source significance levels.
Based on the indicators in the SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook, the Project would
potentially cause or contribute to an exceedance of an ambient air quality standard if the
following would occur:
• Regional operational emissions exceed any of the following SCAQMD prescribed
daily regional emissions criteria:13
– 55 pounds a day for VOC;
– 55 pounds per day for NOX;
– 550 pounds per day for CO;
– 150 pounds per day for SO2;
– 150 pounds per day for PM10; or
– 55 pounds per day for PM2.5.
10 South Coast Air Quality Management District, Final Localized Significance Threshold Methodology, (2008). Available: http://www.aqmd.gov/home/regulations/ceqa/air-quality-analysis-handbook/localized-significance-thresholds. Accessed October 2017. 11 South Coast Air Quality Management District, CEQA Air Quality Handbook (1993) 6-2. 12 South Coast Air Quality Management District, CEQA Air Quality Handbook (1993) 6-1. 13 South Coast Air Quality Management District, SCAQMD Air Quality Significance Thresholds, (March 2015), http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/ceqa/handbook/scaqmd-air-quality-significance-thresholds.pdf?sfvrsn=2. Accessed October 2017.
4-25
In addition, the SCAQMD has developed a methodology to assess the potential for
localized emissions to cause an exceedance of applicable ambient air quality standards.
Impacts would be considered significant if the following were to occur:
• Maximum daily localized emissions of NOX and/or CO during operation are greater
than the applicable localized significance thresholds, resulting in predicted ambient
concentrations in the vicinity of the project site greater than the most stringent
ambient air quality standards for NO2 and/or CO.14
• Maximum daily localized emissions of PM10 and/or PM2.5 during operation are
greater than the applicable localized significance thresholds, resulting in predicted
ambient concentrations in the vicinity of the project site to exceed 2.5 μg/m3 over 24
hours (SCAQMD Rule 1303 allowable change in concentration).
• Carbon Monoxide Hotspots
With respect to the formation of CO hotspots, the project would be considered
significant if the following would occur:
• The project would cause or contribute to an exceedance of the CAAQS one-hour or
eight-hour CO standards of 20 or 9.0 parts per million (ppm), respectively. As
discussed below, the Project uses a daily vehicle count of 100,000 per intersection
as a screening level thresholds. Projects that are below the 1000,000 vehicles per
day would not be anticipated to exceed the CAAQS.
Toxic Air Contaminants
Based on criteria set forth by the SCAQMD, the project would expose sensitive
receptors to substantial concentrations of toxic air contaminants if any of the following
were to occur:15
• The project would emit carcinogenic materials or TACs that exceed the maximum
incremental cancer risk of ten in one million or a cancer burden greater than 0.5
excess cancer cases (in areas greater than or equal to 1 in 1 million) or
• An acute or chronic hazard index of 1.0.
14 South Coast Air Quality Management District, SCAQMD Air Quality Significance Thresholds, (March 2015), http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/ceqa/handbook/scaqmd-air-quality-significance-thresholds.pdf?sfvrsn=2. Accessed October 2017. 15 South Coast Air Quality Management District, CEQA Air Quality Handbook, Chapter 6 (Determining the Air Quality Significance of a Project) and Chapter 10 (Assessing Toxic Air Pollutants), (1993); SCAQMD Air Quality Significance Thresholds, (March 2011), http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/ceqa/handbook/scaqmd-air-quality-significance-thresholds.pdf?sfvrsn=2. Accessed October 2017.
4-26
Odors
Based on the criteria in Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines, the Project would be
considered potentially significant for odors if the Project would create objectionable
odors affecting a substantial number of people.
Project Impacts
A. Would the project be in conflict with or obstruct implementation of the
applicable air quality plan or congestion management plan?
Less than Significant Impact: The project site is located within the South Coast Air
Basin. The SCAQMD is required, pursuant to the CAA, to reduce emissions of criteria
pollutants for which the Air Basin is in non-attainment (i.e., ozone, PM10, and PM2.5).
The project would be subject to the SCAQMD’s Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP),
which contains a comprehensive list of pollution control strategies directed at reducing
emissions and achieving ambient air quality standards. A project is consistent with the
AQMP if it is consistent with the population, housing and employment assumptions that
were used in the development of the AQMP. The implementation of the conveyance
facilities would not affect the regional growth projections made by the SCAG and used
by the SCAQMD in formulating its AQMP.
Construction
Under this criterion, the SCAQMD recommends that lead agencies demonstrate that a
project would not directly obstruct implementation of an applicable air quality plan and
that a project be consistent with the assumptions (typically land-use related, such as
resultant employment or residential units) upon which the air quality plan is based. The
proposed project would result in an increase in short-term employment compared to
existing conditions. Being relatively small in number and temporary in nature,
construction jobs under the project would not conflict with the long-term employment
projections upon which the AQMP is based. Control strategies in the AQMP with
potential applicability to short-term emissions from construction activities are intended to
reduce emissions from on-road and off-road heavy-duty vehicles and equipment by
accelerating replacement of older, emissions-prone engines with newer engines
meeting more stringent emission standards. The project would not conflict with
implementation of these strategies as the construction contractor hired would be in
compliance with the current requirements for fleet emissions. Additionally, the project
would comply with CARB requirements to minimize short-term emissions from on-road
and off-road diesel equipment. The project would also comply with SCAQMD
regulations for controlling fugitive dust pursuant to SCAQMD Rule 403.
Compliance with these requirements would be consistent with and meets or exceeds
the AQMP requirements for control strategies intended to reduce emissions from
construction equipment and activities. Because the proposed project would not conflict
4-27
with the control strategies intended to reduce emissions from construction equipment,
the project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the AQMP. Additionally,
the proposed projected emissions from the proposed project would not exceed the
SCAQMD’s regional significance thresholds. Thus, the proposed project would not be
considered by SCAQMD to be a substantial source of air pollutant emissions, and would
not conflict or obstruct implementation of the AQMP. Therefore, impacts would be less
than significant with respect to construction activities.
Operation
The 2016 AQMP was prepared to accommodate growth, reduce the levels of pollutants
within the areas under the jurisdiction of SCAQMD, return clean air to the region, and
minimize the impact on the economy. Projects that are considered consistent with the
AQMP would not interfere with attainment because this growth is included in the
projections used in the formulation of the AQMP.
The proposed project is the construction and operation of a conveyance facility at an
existing treatment plant. The land use would stay the same and thus be consistent with
the AQMP. Additionally, the proposed Project would not increase vehicle trips to the
project site or result in new population sources. As a result, the proposed project would
not result in long-term operational population or employment growth that exceeds
planned growth projections in the RTP/SCS or the AQMP or result in employment
growth that would substantially add to traffic congestion. As the proposed project would
not conflict with the growth projections in the AQMP, impacts would be less than
significant.
B. Would the project violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to
an existing or projected air quality violation?
Regional Construction Emissions
Less than Significant Impact: The worst-case daily emissions were calculated as
maximum daily construction emissions for each phase. Detailed emissions calculations
are provided in Appendix A. Results of the criteria pollutant calculations are presented
in Table 7. As shown therein, construction-related daily emissions for the criteria and
precursor pollutants (VOC, NOX, CO, SOX, PM10, and PM2.5) would be below the
SCAQMD numeric indicators. These calculations include appropriate dust control
measures required to be implemented during each phase of development, as required
by SCAQMD Rule 403 (Control of Fugitive Dust). Therefore, with respect to regional
emissions from construction activities, impacts would be less than significant.
4-28
Table 7 Maximum Daily Unmitigated Regional Construction Emissions (pounds
per day) a
Phase Source VOC NOX CO SO2 PM10b PM2.5 b
Phase 1 6 72 35 <1 5 2
Phase 2 4 46 27 <1 2 1
Phase 3 9 24 18 <1 2 1
Phase 4 1 13 13 <1 1 1
Maximum Daily Emissions 9 72 35 <1 5 2
SCAQMD Significance Thresholds 75 100 550 150 150 55
Exceeds Threshold? No No No No No No
NOTE: Detailed emissions calculations are provided in Appendix A. a Totals may not add up exactly due to rounding in the modeling calculations Detailed emissions calculations
are provided in Appendix A. b Emissions include fugitive dust control measures consistent with SCAQMD Rule 403. Source: ESA 2018
Operational Emissions
The proposed project will involve the operation of three types of facilities. The three
main facilities associated with the proposed project is a pump station, two flow
equalization tanks, and associated piping with a valving/metering vault. As stated
previously, the only emissions from operational activities related to air quality are
associated with the use of consumer products and the re-application of architectural
coatings. With respect to operational criteria pollutants, the only emissions would be
associated with ROG and CO and resulting in less than 1 lb. /day for each pollutant.
Therefore, there would be an insignificant net increase in regional emissions and this
impact would be less than significant.
C. Would the project result in cumulatively considerable net increase of any
criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an
applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard?
Less than Significant Impact: Short-term pollutants would be generated by
construction of the proposed project. The Project site currently operates as a
wastewater treatment facility and would continue does so after construction. The
proposed project would introduce negligible new long-term pollutants when operational.
Construction
The proposed project would result in the emission of criteria pollutants for which the
area is in non-attainment during construction. A significant impact could occur if a
project would add a cumulatively considerable contribution of a federal or state non-
attainment pollutant. The Air Basin is currently in non-attainment for O3, PM10, and
PM2.5.
The emissions from construction of the proposed project would not be predicted to
exceed the SCAQMD regional or localized impact thresholds and therefore, would not
be expected to cause or substantially contribute to ground level concentrations that
4-29
exceed the NAAQS or CAAQS. Therefore, the project would not result in a cumulatively
considerable net increase for non-attainment pollutants or O3 precursors and would
result in a less than significant impact for construction emissions.
Operation
Future operations would generate ozone precursors (VOC, NOX) as well as emissions
of CO, PM10, and PM2.5. Under the 2023 proposed project scenario, representing the
actual anticipated Project buildout year, operational emissions would not exceed the
SCAQMD regional or local thresholds and would not be expected to result in ground
level concentrations that exceed the NAAQS or CAAQS. Since the proposed project
would not introduce any substantial stationary sources of emissions, CO is the
benchmark pollutant for assessing local area air quality impacts from post-construction
motor vehicle operations. As indicated earlier, no new vehicle trips would occur and
therefore, no violations of the state and federal carbon monoxide standards are
projected to occur for the Project. Therefore, operation of the proposed project would
not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase for non-attainment of criteria
pollutants or ozone precursors and the proposed project would result in a less than
significant impact for operational emissions.
D. Would the project expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations?
Localized Construction Emissions
Less than Significant Impact: The localized construction air quality analysis was
conducted using the methodology described in the SCAQMD Localized Significance
Threshold Methodology (June 2003, revised July 2008).16 The screening criteria
provided in the Localized Significance Threshold Methodology were used to determine
localized construction emissions thresholds for the proposed project. The maximum
daily localized emissions for each of the construction phases and localized significance
thresholds are presented in Table 8. As shown in Table 8, maximum localized
construction emissions for sensitive receptors would not exceed the localized thresholds
for NOX, CO, PM10, and PM2.5. Therefore, with respect to localized construction
emissions, impacts would be less than significant.
Table 8 Maximum Unmitigated Localized Construction Emissions (Pounds Per
Day)
Phase Source NOX CO PM10b PM2.5
Phase 1 54 28 4 2
Phase 2 35 23 1 1
Phase 3 14 15 1 1
Phase 4 13 13 1 1
16 South Coast Air Quality Management District, Localized Significance Thresholds, (2003, revised 2008),
http://www.aqmd.gov/home/regulations/ceqa/air-quality-analysis-handbook/localized-significance-thresholds. Accessed November 2017.
4-30
Maximum Daily Emissions 54 28 4 2
SCAQMD Significance Thresholds 73 962 7 5
Exceeds Threshold? No No No No
NOTE: Detailed emissions calculations are provided in Appendix A. a Totals may not add up exactly due to rounding in the modeling calculations Detailed emissions calculations are provided in Appendix A. b Emissions include fugitive dust control measures consistent with SCAQMD Rule 403. Source ESA 2018
Carbon Monoxide Hotspots
Less than Significant Impact: The proposed project is the operation of a pump station
associated with the new OCSD conveyance facilities. There would be no new vehicle
trips generated by this Project. Therefore, the Project would not result in traffic
exceeding more than 100,000 vehicles per day with respect to any area intersection.
CO hotspot impacts would be less than significant.
Toxic Air Contaminant
Construction
Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation: The proposed project would expose
sensitive receptors to substantial concentrations of toxic air contaminants if the project
would emit carcinogenic materials or TACs that exceed the maximum incremental
cancer risk of ten in one million or a cancer burden greater than 0.5 excess cancer
cases (in areas greater than or equal to 1 in 1 million) or an acute or chronic hazard
index of 1.0. Construction-related cancer risk and acute/chronic hazards were estimated
and compared to this threshold.
The resulting health risk calculations were performed using a spreadsheet tool
consistent with the OEHHA guidance. The spreadsheet tool incorporates the algorithms,
equations, and a variable described above as well as in the OEHHA guidance, and
incorporates the results of the AERMOD dispersion model.
For carcinogenic exposures, the cancer risk from DPM emissions from construction of
the proposed pproject is estimated to result in a maximum carcinogenic risk of 47 per
one million. The maximum impact would occur at sensitive land uses (residences)
directly north of the project site. As discussed previously, the lifetime exposure under
the OEHHA Guidance takes into account early life (infant and children) exposure. It
should be noted that the calculated cancer risk conservatively assumes that exposure of
sensitive receptors (residential uses) would not have any mitigation, such as
mechanical filtration. As the maximum impact would be greater than the risk threshold
of 10.0 in one million, impacts would be considered potentially significant.
Incorporation of Mitigation Measure AQ-1 would reduce carcinogenic exposures at the
maximum impact receptor to approximately 3 per one million. As the maximum impact
would be less than the risk threshold of 10.0 in one million, impacts would be mitigated
to less than significant.
4-31
The process of assessing health risks and impacts includes a degree of uncertainty.
The level of uncertainty is dependent on the availability of data and the extent to which
assumptions are relied upon in cases where the data are incomplete or unknown. All
HRAs rely upon scientific studies in order to reduce the level of uncertainty; however, it
is not possible to completely eliminate uncertainty from the analysis. Where
assumptions are used to substitute for incomplete or unknown data, it is standard
practice in performing HRAs to err on the side of health protection in order to avoid
underestimating or underreporting the risk to the public by assessing risk on the most
sensitive populations, such as children and the elderly. As shown, cancer risk for nearby
sensitive receptors would be mitigated to below significance thresholds. These short-
term emissions would not substantially contribute to a significant construction health
risk. No residual emissions and corresponding individual cancer risk are anticipated
after construction. Therefore, the proposed project would result in a less than significant
impact related to construction TAC emissions.
Potential non-cancer effects of chronic (i.e., long term) DPM exposures were evaluated
using the Hazard Index approach as described in the OEHHA Guidance. A hazard
index equal to or greater than 1.0 represents a significant chronic health hazard. Nearby
off-site sensitive receptors would be exposed to chronic impacts that would equal 0.4
before mitigation and would not exceed the threshold of 1.0. With implementation of
Mitigation Measure MM-AQ-1, the chronic impact would be further reduced to 0.03.
Health risk impacts would be less than significant with the implementation of mitigation.
Operation
The SCAQMD recommends that health risk assessments be conducted for substantial
sources of diesel particulate emissions (e.g., truck stops and warehouse distribution
facilities) and has provided guidance for analyzing mobile source diesel emissions. The
proposed project would not generate any new vehicle or stationary source emissions.
Based on the lack of new TAC sources, the proposed project would not warrant the
need for a health risk assessment associated with onsite operational activities, and
potential TAC impacts are expected to be less than significant. In addition, project
operations would only result in minimal emissions of air toxics from maintenance or
other ongoing activities, such as from the use of architectural coatings and other
products. Based on the nature of the conveyance facilities, potential long-term
operational impacts associated with the release of TACs would be minimal and would
not be expected to exceed the SCAQMD thresholds of significance. Therefore, impacts
would be less than significant.
Localized Operational Emissions
As discussed previously, the only new criteria pollutant emissions from the operation of
the proposed project would be the emission of ROGs and CO. Only CO is evaluated in
the localized analysis and would result in less than 1 lb. /day of localized emissions.
4-32
This is well below the SCAQMD’s significance threshold of 1,089 lbs. /day. Therefore,
the impact to sensitive receptors would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measure
AQ-1: Mobile off-road construction equipment (wheeled or tracked) used during
construction of the conveyance facilities of the proposed Project shall meet the USEPA
Tier 4 interim standards, either as original equipment or equipment retrofitted to meet
the Tier 4 interim standards. A copy of each unit’s certified tier specification or model
year specification shall be available upon request at the time of mobilization of each
applicable unit of equipment.
E. Would the project create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of
people?
Construction
Less than Significant Impact: Potential activities that may emit odors during
construction activities include the use of architectural coatings and solvents and the
combustion of diesel fuel in on-and off-road equipment. As discussed in the Regulatory
Setting, Section 2, of this technical report, SCAQMD Rule 1113 would limit the amount
of VOCs in architectural coatings and solvents. In addition, the proposed project would
comply with the applicable provisions of the CARB Air Toxics Control Measure
regarding idling limitations for diesel trucks. Through mandatory compliance with
SCAQMD Rules, no construction activities or materials are expected to create
objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people. Therefore, construction of
the project would result in less than significant impacts.
Operation
Construction
Less than Significant Impact According to the SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook,
land uses associated with odor complaints typically include agricultural uses,
wastewater treatment plants, food processing plants, chemical plants, composting,
refineries, landfills, dairies, and fiberglass molding. The proposed project only
implements conveyance facilities and does not introduce a new odor source to the
existing waste water treatment plant. does not include any uses identified by the
SCAQMD as being associated with substantial odors.
Additionally, the OCSD has prepared a comprehensive Odor Control Master Plan
(OCMP) (SP-166) covering both treatment plants. The OCMP analyzes odor data from
the both Plants, determines which odorants actually cause odor complaints, assesses
the level of nuisance for those odorants, runs air dispersion models to determine the
extent of odorous impacts, and analyzes foul air scrubbing technologies and appropriate
combinations of technologies in order to mitigate odor impacts in the vicinity of the
4-33
Plants (CH2M HILL Engineers, Inc. 2016). Currently, OCSD has SCAQMD permits for
the operation of the foul air scrubbers. OCSD also maintains records of H2S
concentration in the discharge of the foul air scrubbers as well as other process
information, such as pH and differential pressure across each scrubber. Odor
complaints received at Plant No. 1 and Plant No. 2 have been logged since 1981.
The updated 2016 OCMP addresses nuisance odors at Plant No. 1 and Plant No. 2
from a more comprehensive perspective when compared to traditional OCMP efforts
that historically have focused primarily on H2S or dilutions-to-threshold (D/T) alone.
Based on the nature of the conveyance facilities, the Project is not expected to
discharge new contaminants into the air in quantities that would cause a nuisance,
injury, or annoyance to the public or property pursuant to SCAQMD Rule 402.
Therefore, the project would not create adverse odors affecting a substantial number of
people and impacts would be less than significant.
4.4 Biological Resources
The following Analysis is based on a Biological Assessment prepared for the Water
Conveyance Facilities Project by the Orange County Water District Natural Resources
Department in January of 2018. The Biological Assessment is presented in Appendix B
Biological Setting
The OCSD Plant No.2 Site is located within USGS Newport Beach Quadrangle at
Township 6 South, Range 10 West, and Section 20. The site is developed with
wastewater treatment structures, offices, and paved parking areas and roadways. A
row of eucalyptus trees extends along the western and northern property boundary of
Plant No. 2. Additionally, native landscaping is provided along the eastern property
boundary adjacent to the Santa Ana River Trail. A site survey of the study area did not
identify any sensitive biological resources on Plant No. 2. However, within close vicinity
to Plant No.2 are two sensitive biological resources; the Talbert Marsh and California
Least Tern Colony.
Talbert Marsh is a tidal marsh that has been restored to full tidal action. The water
within Talbert Marsh is seawater from the ocean inlet located south of the marsh
property that fluctuates in height up to 8 feet from tidal flows. Talbert Marsh provides
habitat for both migratory and resident bird species.
South of Pacific Coast Highway is the location the California Least Tern Natural
Preserve Area at Huntington State Beach. The California Least Tern Natural Preserve
Area was first established under the Huntington State Beach General Development
Plan in 1976. It was originally dedicated on 2.5 acres and was fenced off with a cyclone
fence (a heavy-duty, chain-link fence topped with barbed wire) to prevent predators
from harassing the birds. Over the years, the California least tern’s nesting area has
expanded beyond the fenced area, State Parks has erected additional picket fencing to
4-34
protect the birds. Currently, the cyclone fence area covers approximately 8.9 acres and
the picket fence “front-yard” area is 3.8 acres. California State Parks protects the
nesting area by limiting access, conducting trash removal, grooming the sand
periodically, and conducting predator management.
On Site Sensitive Vegetation Communities
Brookhurst Street Fence Line
The Brookhurst Street fence line is dominated by a mature stand of Eucalyptus trees
over story and a small number of assorted shrubs. The landscaping along the fence line
acts as a visual barrier to views into OCSD Plant No. 2. . The fence tree line runs
roughly north and south and consists of Red Box Eucalyptus (Eucalyptus
polyanthemos). The shrub species’ present include Pink Melaleuca (Melaleuca
nesophila), Bottlebrush (Callistemon citrinus), and Purple-leafed Hopbush (Dodonaea
viscosa). No groundcover species were documented in this area. The size of the
Eucalyptus trees were 40 to 50 feet in height with most trees falling into the trunk
diameter size range of 6-20inches (dbh). Most of the trees surveyed appeared to be
over 20 years of age.
Santa Ana River Bike Trail Levee
This area is composed of two parts separated by the fence line, the bike trail levee and
the inside of the fence. The adjacent public bike trail is landscaped with a mixture of
native and drought tolerant selections. The levee is sparsely vegetated consisting
mostly of rip rap rocks. The dominant native species in this area is Fourwing Saltbush
(Atriplex canescens) with a lesser representation by the non-native Canary Island Pine
(Pinus canariensis).
The inside of the fence line is dominated by the non-native, ornamental Iceplant
(Carpobrotus edulis) ground cover and an over story of Cajeput Tree (Melaleuca
quiquenervia). The bike trail levee is not expected to be impacted by this project as a
pipeline runs adjacent to the levee.
Tank Placement Location
The area proposed for the circular tank placement is mostly composed of bare ground.
The western part of this area consists of a small slope that descends down to an access
road. This slope is composed of two non-native Iceplant species’ Hottentot Fig
(Carpobrotus edulis) and Chrystalline Iceplant (Mesembryanthemum crystallinum). Also
on this slope is a significant number of recruited, young Eucalyptus from the adjacent
tree line. This open area appears to be on a rigorous weed abatement program as
weedy species’ were largely absent.
4-35
Special Status Plant Species
To determine the potential for special status plant species to be present within the study
area, a database search with the United States Fish and Wildlife information and
Planning Database and the California Department Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) Natural
Diversity Database was conducted. A listing of special status plant species with
potential to occur within the Newport Beach USGS Quadrangle is shown in Table 9.
Subsequent to the database search, OCWD conducted a survey of the study area to
determine the potential for the species to present within the study area. The
determination on the potential for the special status plant species to occur within the
study area was based on the following criteria:
• Present: Species was observed within the study area within the last year.
• High: The study area supports suitable habitat and the species has been
observed within the last year.
• Moderate: The study area supports suitable and the species has not been
observed within last two years.
• Low: The study area lacks suitable habitat for the species.
Table 9: Special Status Plant Species
Species Federal State CNPS General Habitat/Recent Occurrence
Potential for Occurrence Study Area
Ventura Marsh Milk-vetch
(Astragalus pycnostachy
var. Lanosissimus
E NL Marshes, Swamps, Coastal Dunes,
Coastal Scrub
Low Study Area lacks
suitable habitat
Salt Marsh
Birds-beak (Chloropyron
maritimum ssp. Maritimum)
E E 1B.2 Coastal Salt marsh,
Coastal Dunes
Low
Study Area lacks suitable habitat.
San Diego
Button-Celery (Eryngium
aristulatum var. parishii)
E E 1B.1 Vernal pools, Coastal
Scrub, Valley and Foothill Grasslands
Low
Study Area lacks suitable habitat
Gambels
Water Cress (Nasturtium
gambelii)
E T 1B.1 Marshes and
swamps
Low
Study Area lacks suitable habitat
California Orcutt grass
(Orcuttia californica)
E E 1B.1 Wetlands, Vernal Pools Low Study Area lacks
suitable habitat
4-36
Federal E- Endangered T-Threatened SSC- Special Species of Concern C-Candidate for Listing NL-Not Listed
State Listing (California Endangered Species Act, CDFG FP-Fully Protected E-Endangered T-Threatened S-Sensitive SSC-Special Species of Concern WL-Watch List NL-Not Listed
California Native Plant Society CNPS 1A-Plants presumed extinct in California 1B- Plants rare, threatened, or endangered in California and elsewhere 2-Plants rare, threatened, or endangered in California but more common elsewhere 3-Plants about which we need more review 4-Plants of limited distribution CNPS Threat Rank .1 Seriously Endangered .2 Fairly Endangered
.3 Not Very Endangered
Special Status Wildlife Species
To determine the potential for special status wildlife species to be present within the
study area, a database search with the United States Fish and Wildlife Service
(USFWS) information and Planning Database and the Department of California Fish
and Wildlife Natural Diversity Database was conducted. A listing of special status plant
species with potential to occur within the Newport Beach USGS Quadrangle is shown in
Table 10. Subsequent to the database search, OCWD conducted a survey of the study
area to determine the potential for the species to be present within the study area. The
determination on the potential for the special status wildlife species to occur within the
study area was based on the following criteria:
• Present: Species was observed within the study area within the last year.
• High: The study area supports suitable habitat and the species has been
observed within the last year.
• Moderate: The study area supports suitable and the species has not been
observed within last two years.
• Low: The study area lacks suitable habitat for the species.
Table 10: Special Status Wildlife Species
Species Federal State General
Habitat/Recent Occurrence
Potential Occurrence
Study Area
San Diego Fairy
Shrimp (Branchinecta
sandiegonensis)
E SSC Vernal pools
Low
Study Area lacks suitable habitat
Western Snowy Plover
(Charadrius alexandrines
nivosus)
T SSC Sandy Beaches Low Study Area lacks
suitable habitat
Southwestern Willow Flycatcher
(Empidonax trailli extimus)
E E Riparian woodlands Low Study Area lacks
suitable habitat
Pacific Pocket
Mouse (perognathus
E SSC Coastal Plains
Low
Study Area lacks suitable habitat
4-37
longimembris pacifus)
Coastal California
Gnatcatcher (Polioptila
californica californica)
T SSC Coastal sage scrub
Low
Study Area lacks suitable habitat
Light-footed
Ridgway rail (Rallus longirostris
levipes)
E E Salt marshes
Low
Study Area lacks suitable habitat
California Least Tern
(Sterna antillarum)
E E Sandy Beaches Low Study Area lacks
suitable habitat
Least Bell’s vireo (Vireo bellii
pusillus)
E E Low growing riparian habitats
Low Study Area lacks
suitable habitat
Western Yellow Billed cuckoo
(Coccyzus
americanus occidentalis)
T E Riparian Woodlands Low Study Area lacks
suitable habitat
Legend Federal Endangered Species Act E- Endangered T-Threatened SSC- Special Species of Concern C-Candidate for Listing California Endangered Species Act/California Department Fish Game
FP-Fully Protected E-Endangered T-Threatened S-Sensitive SSC-Special Species of Concern WL-Watch List
Critical Habitat
The Federal Endangered Species Act requires the federal government to designate
Critical Habitat for any species it lists under the Federal Endangered Species Act.
Critical Habitat is defined as 1) specific areas within the geographical area occupied by
the specie at the time of listing, if they contain physical or biological features essential to
conservation, and those features may require special management considerations or
protection and 2) specific areas outside the geographical area occupied by the species
if the agency determines that the area itself is essential for conservation. According to
the of USFWS Information, Planning, and Conservation System Database and the
California Department of Fish and Wildlife Natural Diversity Database, the study area is
not located on lands that are designated as Critical Habitat.
Waters of the United States
A water body is considered Waters of the U.S. if it is: (1) traditional navigable water
(TNW); (2) wetlands adjacent to a TNW; (3) non-navigable tributaries of TNW that have
perennial or seasonal flow of water; and (4) wetlands that are adjacent to non-navigable
4-38
tributaries of TNW that have perennial or seasonal flow of water. The nearest Waters of
the U.S. to the study area is the Santa Ana River. The Federal jurisdiction along the
Santa Ana River extends to the ordinary high water mark and to any adjacent wetland
vegetation.
Waters of the State of California
According to the State Water Code, Waters of the State are defined as any surface
water, groundwater or wetlands within the boundary of the state. The nearest Waters of
the State to the study area is the Santa Ana River. The State jurisdiction along the
Santa Ana River extends to the top of the slope to adjacent wetland vegetation.
Wetland Waters of the United States and State California
Wetland Waters are a subset of jurisdictional Waters of the U.S. and the State.
Generally, wetlands are lands where saturation with water is the dominant factor
determining the nature of soil development and the types of plant and animal
communities living in the soil and on its surface. Wetlands generally include swamps,
freshwater marshes, brackish water and saltwater marshes, bogs, vernal pools,
periodically inundated salt flats, intertidal mudflats, wet meadows, wet pastures, springs
and seeps, portions of lakes, ponds, rivers and streams and all areas which are
periodically or permanently covered by shallow water, or dominated by hydrophilic
vegetation, or in which the soils are predominantly hydric in nature. Presently, there is
no single definition for wetlands. However, all resource agencies recognize that
wetlands must demonstrate the following three essential elements: (1) the site
periodically supports hydrophytes vegetation, (2) the site contains hydric soil and (3) the
site periodically contains water or the soil is saturated with water at some time during
the growing season of each year.
Project Impacts
A. Would the project have a substantial adverse impact, either directly or through
habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive or
special status species in local or regional plans, policies or regulations or by the
California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and wildlife Services?
Onsite Impacts
No Impact: Based on a review of databases from United State Fish and Wildlife Service
and California Department of Fish and Wildlife and biological surveys conducted on the
project site, it has been determined that there would be low potential for special status
plant species or special status wildlife species to be present on OCSD Plant No. 2. As
shown in Table 9 and Table 10 Plant No. 2 lacks suitable habitat to support special
status plant species or special status wildlife species that were identified in the
database search. Additionally, no indications were found that any special status species
4-39
were ever present. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not result
in adverse impacts to any special status plant species or special status wildlife species.
Offsite Impacts
Less Than Significant Impact: Located south of OCSD Plant No. 2 is the Talbert
Marsh and south of Pacific Coast Highway is the California Least Tern Colony. Both of
these biological resources could provide suitable nesting habitat for special status bird
species. The construction operations for the proposed project would be confined to
OCSD Plant No. 2. No construction activities would occur at the Talbert Marsh or at the
California Least Tern Colony. Therefore, no direct impacts to special status plant or
wildlife species would occur.
The construction activities for the proposed project would involve the operation of heavy
construction equipment that could operate during nesting season. If the construction
activity was to occur in close proximity to nesting birds there would be the potential that
breeding patterns could be disturbed. The United States Fish and Wildlife Service as
established a noise impact threshold of 60 dBA to identify potential adverse impacts to
nesting birds. The Talbert Marsh is located approximately 3,300 feet from where the
construction activities would occur and the California Least Tern Colony is located
approximately 4,400 feet from the construction would occur. Based on the nosiest
piece of construction equipment that would be used, the noise estimated level at the
Talbert Marsh and at the California Least Tern Colony would be below 49 dBA.
Additionally, with the presence of the block wall around Plant No. 2 and the traffic noise
along Pacific Coast Highway, it would be very unlikely that construction noise would
herd at either location. Potential indirect noise impacts to special status wildlife species
would be less than significant. No mitigation measures are required.
B. Would the project have a substantial adverse impact on any riparian habitat or
natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, and regulations
or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service?
No Impact: The location where the proposed flow equalization tanks and pump station
structure would be constructed is currently paved or in a disturbed condition. A survey
conducted at the location where the flow equalization tanks and pump station structure
would be constructed did not identify any sensitive vegetation communities. Therefore,
implementation of the proposed project would not result in adverse impacts to sensitive
natural communities. No mitigation measures required.
C. Would the project have a substantially adverse effect on federally protected
wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act through direct
removal, filling hydrological interruption, or other means?
4-40
No Impact: The location where the proposed project would be constructed is paved or
in a disturbed condition. A preliminary site survey conducted on the study area did not
identify any required parameters that define Wetland Waters of the U.S. or State.
Therefore, the implementation of the proposed project would not adversely impact
Wetland Waters of the U.S or State. No mitigation measures required.
D. Would the project interfere substantially with the movement of any native
resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or
migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?
Onsite Impacts
Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation: Along the perimeter of Plant No.2 there
are a row of large eucalyptus trees. Large Eucalyptus trees commonly harbor nesting
raptors. At the time of the survey no evidence of a nest was found in any of the trees.
Additionally, there was no sign of historical nesting.
The construction activities for the proposed project would not involve the removal of any
trees. Therefore, potential direct impacts to nesting migratory raptor bird species would
be avoided. The proposed construction activities would occur in close proximity to the
Eucalyptus tree grove along the perimeter of the site and there would be the potential
that construction noise equipment could disrupt the breeding patterns of nesting
migratory birds. It is recommended that the project should not take place between
February 15 and August 15. Raptors typically begin exhibiting nesting behavior in the
winter months, and project commencement beyond February 15 runs the risk of
resulting in noise impacts to nesting raptors and other tree inhabiting species’. All tree
nesting species’ including raptors should have completed nesting by August 15. In
event construction activities ae proposed before the completion of nesting season, a
biologist would examine the site one week prior to initiating any activities to ensure that
all nesting has been completed. Ground nesting species would also be taken into
account. If this project continues into another season the biologist would continue to
monitor and work with all parties to ensure remaining activities are not harmful to
nesting birds. With the implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-1 potential impacts to
migratory birds would be less than significant.
Offsite Impacts
No Impact: The Talbert Mash is located approximately 3,300 feet and the California
Least tern Colony is located 4,400 feet from the proposed construction activities. At this
distance the construction noise levels would be minimal and would not pose a potential
disruption to nesting birds. The implementation of the proposed project would not result
in significant impacts to both species.
4-41
Mitigation Measure
BIO-1: Construction activities should not take place between February 15 and August
15. In the event construction activities ae proposed before the completing of nesting
season, a biologist would examine the site one week prior to initiating any activities to
ensure that all nesting has completed. Ground nesting species would also be taken into
account.
E. Would the project conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting
biological resources, such as tree preservation policy or ordinance?
No Impact: The City of Huntington Beach does not have any local policies or
ordinances that provide for the protection of management of biological resources that
would apply to the study area. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would
not be in conflict with local polices or ordinances that provide for the protection of
biological resources. No mitigation measures are required.
F. Would the project be in conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat
Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved
local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?
No Impact: The OCSD Plant No. 2 Site is not included within adopted Habitat
Conservation Plan. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not be in
conflict with any approved Habitat Management Plan or Natural Community
Conservation Plan. No mitigation measures are required.
4.5 Cultural Resources
The following analysis is based on a Phase 1 Cultural Resources Report prepared for
the GWRS Final Expansion Project in August of 2016 and GWRS Water Conveyance
Facilities Project Supplemental Cultural Resources Letter Report by Environmental
Science Associates in February and Letter Report of 2018.The Phase 1 Cultural
Resources Report and Supplemental Letter Report are presented in Appendix C.
Existing Setting
The study area is located in the cities of Huntington Beach and Fountain Valley, Orange
County, in southern California. The topography of Orange County includes a
combination of mountains, hills, flatlands, and shorelines. Urbanized Orange County is
predominantly within an alluvial plain, semi-enclosed by the Puente and Chino Hills to
the north, the San Joaquin Hills to the south, and the Santiago Foothills and the Santa
Ana Mountains to the east. The Puente and Chino Hills, which identify the northern limit
of the plains, extend for 22 miles and reach a peak height of 7,780 feet. To the east and
southeast of the plains are the Santa Ana Mountains, which have a peak height of
5,691-feet. The Santa Ana River is located adjacent to and just east of the study area.
4-42
Prehistoric Setting
The prehistory of the region has been summarized within four major horizons or cultural
periods: Early [10,000 to 8,000 before present (B.P.)], Millingstone (8,000 to 3,000
B.P.), Intermediate (3,000 to 1,500 B.P.), and Late Prehistoric (1,500 B.P to A.D. 1769)
(Wallace, 1955; Warren, 1968).
Early Period (10,000 to 8,000 B.P.)
The southern California coast may have been settled as early as 10,000 years ago
(Jones, 1992). These early inhabitants were likely maritime adapted groups exploiting
shellfish and other marine resources found along the coastline (Dixon, 1999; Erlandson,
1994; Vellanoweth and Altschul, 2002). One site located in Newport Bay, Orange
County (CA-ORA-64) dates to approximately 9,500 years B.P. and suggests early
intensive utilization of shellfish, fish, and bird resources (Drover et al., 1983; Macko,
1998).
Millingstone Period (8,000 to 3,000 B.P.)
The Millingstone Period dates to about 8,000 to 3,000 B.P. The transition from the Early
Period to the Millingstone Period is marked by an increased emphasis on the
processing of seeds and edible plants. The increased utilization of seeds is evident by
the high frequencies of handstones (manos) and milling slabs (metates). Around 5,000
B.P., mortar and pestles appear in the archaeological record. Mortars and pestles
suggest the exploitation of acorns (Vellanoweth and Altschul, 2002). Millingstone Period
sites in Orange County generally date to between 8,000 and 4,000 B.P. Archaeological
evidence suggests a low, stable population centered on semi-permanent residential
bases. These sites are located along coastal marine terraces, near the shoreline, bays,
or estuaries. Satellite camps were used to take advantage of seasonally available
resources. Marine resources were supplemented by seeds and small terrestrial
mammals. Later Millingstone Period sites indicate a growing reliance on shellfish
(Cleland et al., 2007).
Intermediate Period (3,000 to 1,500 B.P.)
The Intermediate Period dates to between 3,000 to 1,500 B.P. Archaeological sites
indicate a broader economic base, with increased reliance on hunting and marine
resources. An expanded inventory of milling equipment is found at sites dated to this
period. Intermediate Period sites are characterized by the rise of the mortar and pestle
and small projectile points (Cleland et al., 2007). The number of Intermediate Period
sites in Orange County declined over time, particularly around Newport Bay. Climate
changes and drier conditions led to the congregation of populations near freshwater
sources. Settlement patterns indicate greater sedentism, with reduced exploitation of
seasonal resources and a lack of satellite camps. Coastal terrace sites are not
reoccupied during this time period. These shifts in settlement and subsistence
4-43
strategies led to growing population densities, resource intensification, higher reliance
on labor-intensive technologies, such as the circular fishhook, and more abundant and
diverse hunting equipment. Rises in disease and inter-personal violence, visible in the
archaeological record, may be due to the increased population densities (Cleland et al.,
2007; Raab et al., 1995).
Late Prehistoric Period (1,500 B.P. to A.D. 1769)
The Late Prehistoric Period began around 1,500 B.P. and lasted until Spanish contact in
1769. The Late Prehistoric Period resulted in concentration of larger populations in
settlements and communities, greater utilization of the available food resources, and the
development of regional subcultures (Cleland et al., 2007). Artifacts from this period
include milling implements, as well as bone and shell tools and ornaments. Newport
Bay and San Joaquin Hills, abandoned during the Intermediate Period, were reoccupied
during the Late Prehistoric Period. These settlements were smaller than in the
Intermediate. Village sites were located in areas with a multitude of resources. Small
collector groups moved between a small number of these permanent settlements
(Cleland et al., 2007).
Historic Setting
The historic setting for the study area is divided into three primary periods: the Spanish
Period (A.D. 1769-1821), the Mexican Period (A.D. 1821-1846), and the American
Period (A.D. 1846 to present).
Spanish Period (A.D. 1769-1821)
The first European exploration of Orange County began in 1769 when the Gaspar de
Portola expedition passed through on its way from Mexico to Monterey. A permanent
Spanish presence was established with the founding of Mission San Juan Capistrano in
1776 (Hoover et al., 2002). The mission was founded to break the long journey from
Mission San Diego to Mission San Gabriel (near Los Angeles). A large, ornate church
was constructed at the mission from 1797 to 1806, but was destroyed only six years
later in an earthquake. The church was not rebuilt.
In an effort to promote Spanish settlement of Alta California, Spain granted several
large land concessions from 1784 to 1821. At this time, Spain retained title to the land;
individual ownership of lands in Alta California was not granted. The parts of Orange
County that would become the City of Huntington Beach and the City of Fountain Valley
began as a Spanish land concession, known as Rancho Los Nietos. A grant of 300,000
acres was given to Manuel Nieto in 1784 in consideration of his military service (City of
Huntington Beach, 2000; Logan, 1990).
4-44
Mexican Period (A.D. 1821-1846)
In 1821, Mexico won its independence from Spain. Mexico continued to promote
settlement of California with the issuance of land grants. In 1833, Mexico secularized
the missions, reclaiming the majority of mission lands and redistributing them as land
grants. During this time, Rancho Los Nietos was divided into five smaller ranchos. The
area of Huntington Beach became part of Rancho Las Bolsas, a 33,460-acre rancho
granted to Maria Catarina Ruiz in 1834 (County of Orange, 2011). Maria was the widow
of Jose Antonio Nieto, Manuel Nieto’s son.
Many ranchos continued to be used for cattle grazing by settlers during the Mexican
Period. Hides and tallow from cattle became a major export for California’s (Hispanic
Californians), many of whom became wealthy and prominent members of society.
These California’s led generally easy lives, leaving the hard work to vaqueros (Hispanic
cowhands) and Indian laborers. California’s lives centered primarily around enjoying the
fruits of their labors, throwing parties and feasting on Catholic holidays (Pitt, 1994; Starr,
2007).
American Period (A.D. 1846 to present)
Mexico ceded California to the United States as part of the Treaty of Guadalupe
Hildalgo, which ended the Mexican-American War (1846-1848). The treaty also
recognized right of Mexican citizens to retain ownership of land granted to them by
Spanish or Mexican authorities. However, the claimant was required to prove their right
to the land before a patent was given. The process was lengthy and costly, and
generally resulted in the claimant losing at least a portion of their land to attorney’s fees
and other costs associated with proving ownership (Starr, 2007).
The Gold Rush (1849-1855) saw the first big influx of American settlers to California.
Most of these settlers were men hoping to strike it rich in the gold fields. The increasing
population provided an additional outlet for California’s cattle (Bancroft, 1890). As
demand increased, the price of beef skyrocketed and California’s reaped the benefits.
The culmination of the Gold Rush, followed by devastating floods in 1861 and 1862 and
droughts in 1863 and 1864, led to the rapid decline of the cattle industry (Bancroft,
1890). Many California’s lost their lands during this period, and former ranchos were
subsequently divided and sold for agriculture and residential settlement.
Following the admission of California into the United States in 1850, the region of
modern day Orange County was originally part of Los Angeles County. Orange County
was established in 1889, with the City of Santa Ana as County Seat (Armor, 1921).
History of the Study Area
The study area was once part of a 300,000-acre Spanish land grant, Rancho Los
Nietos, a part of which became Rancho Las Bolsas during the Mexican Period. Abel
4-45
Stearns later acquired the land for ranching and cultivation of barley. During the land
boom of the 1880s, the area was subdivided for agricultural and residential
development (County of Orange, 2011; Milkovich, 1986).
Previously called Shell Beach and later Pacific City, the town changed its name to
Huntington Beach in 1904 when Henry E. Huntington extended Pacific Electric Railway
service to the little community (Carlberg and Epting, 2009; Milkovich, 1986). Discovery
of oil in the 1920s led to a population explosion in the town. In one month, the
population of Huntington Beach went from 1,500 to 6,000.
History of OCSD Plant No. 2
In 1921, the cities of Santa Ana and Anaheim agreed to construct a sewer outfall
extending into the Pacific Ocean, thus forming the Orange County Joint Outfall Sewer
(JOS), and marking the beginning of the OCSD. In 1924, JOS construction was
completed and the first sewage from member cities was discharged into the system.
Three years later, the outfall was extended to a distance of 3,000 feet from shore, and a
new screening plant and pumping station was constructed. In 1941, the first units of the
Primary Treatment Plant, now referred to as Plant No. 1) were constructed. In 1954,
OCSD assumed the duties of JOS and officially commenced operations. Over the next
50 years, additional services and facilities were constructed at OCSD Plant No. 1. The
portion of the existing facility where the proposed OCSD pipe connection would connect
was constructed within the last 10 years. In 1954, Plant No. 2 was constructed near the
ocean and adjoining Santa Ana River and the second ocean outfall was constructed.
OCSD is currently a public agency that provides wastewater collection, treatment, and
disposal services for approximately 2.5 million people in central and northwest Orange
County. OCSD is a special district that is governed by a Board of Directors consisting of
25 board members appointed from 20 cities, 4 sanitary districts, and one representative
from the Orange County Board of Supervisors. OCSD has two operating facilities
(Plants 1 and 2) that treat wastewater from residential, commercial and industrial
sources (ocsd.com).
Federal Regulatory Framework
Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act
Archaeological resources are protected through the NHPA of 1966, as amended (54
United States Code of Laws [USC] 300101 et seq.), and its implementing regulation,
Protection of Historic Properties (36 CFR Part 800), the Archaeological and Historic
Preservation Act of 1974, and the Archaeological Resources Protection Act of 1979.
Prior to implementing an “undertaking” (e.g., issuing a federal permit), Section 106 of
the NHPA requires federal agencies to consider the effects of the undertaking on
historic properties and to afford the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation and the
State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) a reasonable opportunity to comment on any
4-46
undertaking that would adversely affect properties eligible for listing in the National
Register of Historic Places (National Register). As indicated in Section 101(d) (6) (A) of
the NHPA, properties of traditional religious and cultural importance to a tribe are
eligible for inclusion in the National Register. Under the NHPA, a resource is considered
significant if it meets the National Register listing criteria at 36 CFR 60.4.
National Register of Historic Places
The National Register was established by the NHPA of 1966, as “an authoritative guide
to be used by federal, State, and local governments, private groups and citizens to
identify the Nation’s historic resources and to indicate what properties should be
considered for protection from destruction or impairment” (36 CFR 60.2). The National
Register recognizes both historic-period and prehistoric archaeological properties that
are significant at the national, state, and local levels.
To be eligible for listing in the National Register, a resource must be significant in
American history, architecture, archaeology, engineering, or culture. Districts, sites,
buildings, structures, and objects of potential significance must meet one or more of the
following four established criteria (U.S. Department of the Interior, 2002):
• Are associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad
patterns of our history;
• Are associated with the lives of persons significant in our past;
• Embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction
or that represent the work of a master, or that possess high artistic values, or that
represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack
individual distinction; or,
• Have yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or
history.
Unless the property possesses exceptional significance, it must be at least 50 years old
to be eligible for National Register listing (U.S. Department of the Interior, 2002). In
addition to meeting the criteria of significance, a property must have integrity. Integrity is
defined as “the ability of a property to convey its significance” (U.S. Department of the
Interior, 2002). The National Register recognizes seven qualities that, in various
combinations, define integrity. The seven factors that define integrity are location,
design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association. To retain historic
integrity a property must possess several, and usually most, of these seven aspects.
Thus, the retention of the specific aspects of integrity is paramount for a property to
convey its significance.
State Regulatory Framework
California Environmental Quality Act
4-47
CEQA is the principal statute governing environmental review of projects occurring in
the state and is codified at Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 21000 et seq. CEQA
requires lead agencies to determine if a proposed project would have a significant effect
on the environment, including significant effects on historical or unique archaeological
resources. Under CEQA (Section 21084.1), a project that may cause a substantial
adverse change in the significance of an historical resource is a project that may have a
significant effect on the environment. An archaeological resource may qualify as an
“historical resource” under CEQA. The CEQA Guidelines (Title 14 California Code of
Regulations [CCR] Section 15064.5) recognize that an historical resource includes: (1)
a resource listed in, or determined to be eligible by the State Historical Resources
Commission, for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources (California
Register); (2) a resource included in a local register of historical resources, as defined in
PRC Section 5020.1(k) or identified as significant in a historical resource survey
meeting the requirements of PRC Section 5024.1(g); and (3) any object, building,
structure, site, area, place, record, or manuscript which a lead agency determines to be
historically significant or significant in the architectural, engineering, scientific,
economic, agricultural, educational, social, political, military, or cultural annals of
California by the lead agency, provided the lead agency’s determination is supported by
substantial evidence in light of the whole record. The fact that a resource does not meet
the three criteria outlined above does not preclude the lead agency from determining
that the resource may be an historical resource as defined in PRC Sections 5020.1(j) or
5024.1.
California Register of Historical Resources
The California Register is “an authoritative listing and guide to be used by State and
local agencies, private groups, and citizens in identifying the existing historical
resources of the State and to indicate which resources deserve to be protected, to the
extent prudent and feasible, from Register are based upon National Register criteria
(PRC Section 5024.1[b]). Certain resources are determined by the statute to be
automatically included in the California Register, including California properties formally
determined eligible for, or listed in, the National Register. To be eligible for the California
Register, a prehistoric or historic-period property must be significant at the local, state,
and/or federal level under one or more of the following four criteria:
• Is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad
patterns of California’s history and cultural heritage;
• Is associated with the lives of persons important in our past;
• Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of
construction, or represents the work of an important creative individual, or
possesses high artistic values; or
4-48
• Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or
history.
A resource eligible for the California Register must meet one of the criteria of
significance described above, and retain enough of its historic character or appearance
(integrity) to be recognizable as a historical resource and to convey the reason for its
significance. It is possible that a historic resource may not retain sufficient integrity to
meet the criteria for listing in the National Register, but it may still be eligible for listing in
the California Register.
California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5
California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 require that in the event human
remains are discovered, the County Coroner be contacted to determine the nature of
the remains. In the event the remains are determined to be Native American in origin,
the Coroner is required to contact the California Native American Heritage Commission
(NAHC) within 24 hours to relinquish jurisdiction.
California Public Resources Code Section 5097.98
California PRC Section 5097.98, as amended by Assembly Bill 2641, provides
procedures in the event human remains of Native American origin are discovered during
project implementation. PRC Section 5097.98 requires that no further disturbances
occur in the immediate vicinity of the discovery, that the discovery is adequately
protected according to generally accepted cultural and archaeological standards, and
that further activities take into account the possibility of multiple burials. PRC Section
5097.98 further requires the NAHC, upon notification by a County Coroner, designate
and notify a Most Likely Descendant (MLD) regarding the discovery of Native American
human remains. Once the MLD has been granted access to the site by the landowner
and inspected the discovery, the MLD then has 48 hours to provide recommendations
to the landowner for the treatment of the human remains and any associated grave
goods.
In the event that no descendant is identified, or the descendant fails to make a
recommendation for disposition, or if the land owner rejects the recommendation of the
descendant, the landowner may, with appropriate dignity, reinter the remains and burial
items on the property in a location that will not be subject to further disturbance.
California Public Resources Code Section 21080.3.1
California PRC Section 21080.3.1, as amended by Assembly Bill (AB) 52, requires lead
agencies to consider the effects of projects on tribal cultural resources and to conduct
consultation with federally and non-federally recognized Native American Tribes early in
the environmental planning process and applies specifically to projects for which a
Notice of Preparation (NOP) or a notice of Negative Declaration or Mitigated Negative
Declaration (MND) will be filed on or after July 1, 2015. The goal is to include California
4-49
Tribes in determining whether a project may result in a significant impact to tribal
cultural resources that may be undocumented or known only to the Tribe and its
members and specifies that a project that may cause a substantial adverse change in
the significance of a tribal cultural resource is a project that may have a significant effect
on the environment. Tribal cultural resources are defined as “sites, features, places,
cultural landscapes, sacred places, and objects with cultural value to a California Native
American Tribe” that are either included or determined to be eligible for inclusion in the
California Register or included in a local register of historical resources (PRC Section
21074 (a)(1)).
Archival Research
Area of Potential Effects
An Area of Potential Effects (APE) was established for the project according to Section
106 of the NHPA in coordination with the OCWD. The APE is shown in Figure 12 and is
defined as:
…the geographic area or areas within which an undertaking may directly or
indirectly cause alterations in the character or use of historic properties, if any
such properties exist. The APE is influenced by the scale and nature of an
undertaking and may be different for different kinds of effects caused by the
undertaking (36 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] 800.16[d]).The horizontal
APE encompasses the two flow equalization tanks, pump station, conveyance
piping, valving and metering connections and contractor laydown and equipment
staging area. The vertical APE includes the anticipated maximum depth of
ground disturbance of 25 feet below ground surface and the maximum height of
the flow equalization tank of 28 feet above ground surface.
Previous Cultural Resources Investigations
In 2016, ESA prepared a Phase I Cultural Resources Study for improvements within the
Project area (Ehringer et al., 2016). This study included a records search at the
California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS) South Central Coastal
Information Center (SCCIC), Sacred Lands File search at the California Native
American Heritage Commission (NAHC), Native American outreach, historic map and
aerial photography review, geo-archaeological review, paleontological records search at
the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County (LACM), and pedestrian survey. In
2017, ESA also conducted a Historic Resources Assessment of Plant No. 2 for OCSD
(Taylor, 2017), which is available under separate cover.
South Central Coastal Information Center Records Search
A records search was conducted on June 21, 2016 at the SCCIC, located at California
State University, Fullerton, which included the APE. The records search included a
review of all recorded cultural resources within a 0.5-mile radius, as well as a review of
4-50
4-51
cultural resource reports on file. The results of the SCCIC records search indicated that
the APE had not been previously surveyed for cultural resources. The results also
indicated that two cultural resources (CA-ORA-845 and CA-ORA-906) had been
previously documented within a 0.5-mile radius of the APE. Both resources are
prehistoric archaeological sites located on the eastern bluffs of the Santa Ana River,
approximately 0.5-miles east of the APE.
Historic Map and Aerial Review
Historic maps and aerial photographs were examined in order to provide historical
information about the APE and to contribute to an assessment of the APE’s
archaeological sensitivity. Available maps include: the 1868 U.S. Surveyor General’s
survey plat map of Townships 5 and 6 South, Range 10 West the 1895 and 1901 Santa
Ana 1:62,500 topographic quadrangles; the 1902 Corona 1:125,000 topographic
quadrangle; and the 1935 Newport Beach 1:31,600 topographic quadrangles; and 1965
and 1975 Newport Beach 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle. Historic aerial
photographs of the APE from 1938, 1953, 1963, 1972, 1994, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005,
2009, and 2010 were also examined (historicaerials.com, 2016).
The 1868 U.S. Surveyor General’s survey plat map shows the APE as being located
within Rancho Las Bolsas. The plat map indicates salt marshes within the current
location of OCSD Plant No. 2. The available historic maps and aerial photographs
indicate that the APE and surrounding area was largely used for agricultural purposes
throughout the 20th century, and did not become urbanized until the latter half of the
century. The Santa Ana River is shown confined with artificial levees in the 1938 historic
aerial photograph. The OCSD Plant No. 2 is not shown on the 1953 aerial. The OCSD
Plant No. 2 facility is shown on the 1965 Newport Beach 7.5-minute topographic
quadrangle. Based on a detailed review of the 1972 and 2016 aerials of the OCSD
Plant No.2, there are structures shown on the 1972 aerial that remain visible on the
2016 aerial photograph.
OCSD Plant No.2 Historical Assessment
A Historic Resources Assessment of OCSD Plant No. 2 was prepared by Environmental
Science Associates in October of 2017. The assessment included a records search at
the California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS) – South Central
Coastal Information Center (SCCIC) was conducted on August 16, 2017. One previous
historical resources study included the subject property (OR-04313).1 This study
consisted of a survey of historical resources in the City Huntington Beach for inclusions
in the City’s general plan. The study was conducted in November of 2013 and identified
multiple historical resources, including districts, throughout the Hunting Beach city limits.
However, the majority of the resources identified by the survey are located near the
Huntington Beach Pier and original downtown area, located approximately three miles
4-52
northwest of OCSD Plant No. 2. The survey did not identify any historical resources
within the subject property.
The historical assessment also included an intensive pedestrian survey of OCSD plant
No.2, which resulted in the documentation 33 buildings, structures, and features that
meet the 45-yeard old age threshold for historical resources prescribed by the California
Register of Historical Resources (California Register). The historical assessment
determined that the individual buildings, structures, and features lack distinction but
together, reflect Plant No. 2’s initial construction in 1954 and expansion in the following
decades in response to growing needs for wastewater treatment. Therefore, Plant No. 2
was evaluated as a potential historic district and was recommended not eligible for
listing in the California Register. While Plant No. 2 was associated with the post-war
development of Orange County and Huntington Beach, these communities had been
well established by the date of its construction in 1954. Furthermore, Plant No. 2 was
one of many municipal services constructed in the area to support the growing
population and suburban development. The Plant is a common example of the activated
sludge treatment plant popular among growing suburban communities during the post-
war era. As such, Plant No. 2 does not qualify as a historical resource under the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). No historical resources have been
identified in the surrounding area. Since Plant No. 2 was not found eligible as a
historical resource and no historical resources have been identified in the surrounding
area.
Geoarchaeological Review
Chris Lockwood, Ph.D., R.P.A., conducted a desktop geoarchaeological review of the
project APE and vicinity in order to evaluate the potential for buried archaeological
resources within the APE. The following section presents the results of Dr. Lockwood’s
analysis.
Geology and Geomorphology
The APE is on the distal portion of an alluvial fan. During the late Pleistocene, the APE
was approximately 5.5 miles (9.0 km) inland. Historically, the area consisted largely of
salt marsh, which would have been at or just above sea level, and was divided by small
channels. The area was used for celery agriculture in historic times. OCSD Plant No. 2
was initially developed for sanitation in 1954, but the parcel, including the APE, was
progressively developed towards the north over the next five decades. The APE is
covered with a paved surface that is at elevation 3-4 meters above mean sea level
(amsl), suggesting the APE contains several meters of fill overlying the native salt
marsh deposits. Some of the fill material may have originated as dredge spoils from
channelization of the Santa Ana River. Near surface geology of the APE is mapped as
late Holocene to latest Pleistocene alluvial fan deposits (Morton, 2004; Morton and
Miller, 2006). These deposits consist of gravel, sand, and silt transported and deposited
4-53
by the Santa Ana River. To the south of the APE, the OCSD Plant No. 2 site contains
unconsolidated eolian dune deposits.
Soils
Soils within the portion of the APE at OCSD Plant No. 2 are mapped primarily as Bolsa
silt loam (NRCS 2016). Bolsa series soils are deep, somewhat poorly drained soils
developed in mixed alluvium parent material on flood plains and basins. The typical soil
pedon consists of a plowed A-horizon (Ap1, Ap2) developed at the top of relatively
unaltered alluvial parent material (C1 through C6) extending more than 69 inches deep.
The absence of a B-horizon is likely due to the short geological time that has passed
since deposition of the parent material, although agricultural activity has the potential to
have disrupted the development of a recognizable B-horizon as well. The A-horizon in
Bolsa soils ranges from sandy loam to silty clay loam, while the C-horizon is mainly silt
loam and silty clay loam but may contain thin strata of sandier material (USDA 1997).
Significantly, many Bolsa soil pedons contain buried A-horizons (paleosols). These
buried A-horizons represent periods of time in the past during which landform conditions
were relatively stable, and during which deposition and erosion were sufficiently
balanced to allow for development and retention of a soil weathering profile. From an
archaeological perspective, periods of landform stability, such as those signified by
buried A-horizons, should be correlated with the accumulation and preservation of
cultural remains. Therefore, Bolsa soils are considered to have a high sensitivity for
buried archaeological resources.
Cultural Resources Survey and Results
A cultural resources pedestrian survey was conducted for the Project on June 16, 2016
by Arabesque Said-Abdelwahed, which included the APE. The purpose of the survey
was to identify the presence of surface archaeological materials. Intensive-level survey
was conducted of areas with greater surface visibility with intervals spaced at 10 meter.
No archaeological or historic built resources were observed within or adjacent to the
APE.
Archaeological Potential
Although paved and filled, the portion of the APE at the OCSD Plant No. 2 appears to
retain high sensitivity for buried archeological resources. During the latest Pleistocene
and Holocene, the geomorphic setting of the portion of the APE at the OCSD Plant No.
2 changed from inland to coastal, and rising sea level resulted in fluvial deposition
capable of burying archaeological resources. The portion of the APE at the OCSD Plant
No. 2 was largely salt marsh into the early 20th century, but this is an area that would
have offered important resources. Owing to its marshy environment, this area may not
have been favored for any substantial occupation, but nonetheless is likely to have been
visited for resource procurement and could contain artifacts associated with those
4-54
activities. Additionally, the saturated conditions offered within this setting may have
aided in the preservation of relatively rare organic artifacts.
Project Impacts
A. Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a
historical resource as defined in Section 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines?
No Impact: Plant No. 2 was evaluated as a potential historic district and was
recommended not eligible for listing in the California Register. Plant No. 2 is a common
example of the activated sludge treatment plant popular among growing suburban
communities during the post-war era. As such, Plant No. 2 does not qualify as a
historical resource under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). No
historical resources have been identified in the surrounding area. Since Plant No. 2 was
not found eligible as a historical resource and no historical resources have been
identified in the surrounding area, no further work or mitigation is recommended for the
subject property.
B. Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an
archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines?
Less than Significant with Mitigation: No archaeological or historic built resources
are located within or adjacent to the APE. However, the APE should be considered
highly sensitive for subsurface archaeological resources. Native American respondents
indicated sensitivity for archaeological resources in the APE and surrounding area given
the proximity to the Santa Ana River corridor. In addition, the geoarchaeological review
indicates that the APE was largely salt marsh into the early 20th century and would
have offered important resources to prehistoric inhabitants. Owing to its marshy
environment, this area may not have been favored for any substantial occupation, but
nonetheless is likely to have been visited for resource procurement and could contain
artifacts associated with those activities. Additionally, the saturated conditions offered
within this setting may have aided in the preservation of relatively rare organic artifacts.
Since the Project includes ground-disturbing activities, there is a potential for discovery
of subsurface archaeological deposits that could qualify as historic properties under
Section 106 and/or historical or unique archaeological resources under CEQA. This
potential impact to unknown archaeological resources is considered significant.
Mitigation Measures CR-1, CR-2, and CR-3 are recommended to ensure that the
project would result in No Historic Properties Affected under Section 106 of the NHPA
and less than significant impacts to historical or unique archaeological resources under
CEQA.
Mitigation Measures
CR-1: Prior to earth moving activities, a qualified archaeologist meeting the Secretary of
the Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards for archaeology (U.S. Department of
4-55
the Interior, 2008) will conduct cultural resources sensitivity training for all construction
personnel. Construction personnel shall be informed of the types of cultural resources
that may be encountered, and of the proper procedures to be enacted in the event of an
inadvertent discovery of archaeological resources or human remains. OCWD will
ensure that construction personnel are made available for and attend the training and
retain documentation demonstrating attendance.
CR-2: Prior to the start of any ground-disturbing activities, OCWD will retain an
archaeological monitor to observe all ground-disturbing activities. Archaeological
monitoring will be conducted by a monitor familiar with the types of archaeological
resources that could be encountered and shall work under the direct supervision of the
qualified archaeologist. Monitoring may be reduced or discontinued by the qualified
archaeologist, in coordination with OCWD, based on observations of subsurface soil
stratigraphy and/or the presence of older C-horizon deposits. The monitor will be
empowered to halt or redirect ground-disturbing activities away from the vicinity of a
discovery until the qualified archaeologist has evaluated the discovery and determined
appropriate treatment. The monitor will keep daily logs detailing the types of activities
and soils observed, and any discoveries. After monitoring has been completed, the
qualified archaeologist shall prepare a monitoring report that details the results of
monitoring. The report shall be submitted to OCWD, SCCIC, and any Native American
groups who request a copy.
CR-3: In the event of the discovery of archaeological materials, OCWD or its contractor
shall immediately cease all work activities in the area (within approximately 100 feet) of
the discovery until it can be evaluated by the qualified archaeologist. Prehistoric
archaeological materials might include obsidian and chert flaked-stone tools (e.g.,
projectile points, knives, scrapers) or tool-making debris; culturally darkened soil
(“midden”) containing heat-affected rocks, artifacts, or shellfish remains; and stone
milling equipment (e.g., mortars, pestles, handstones, or milling slabs); and battered
stone tools, such as hammerstones and pitted stones. Historic-period materials might
include stone or concrete footings and walls; filled wells or privies; and deposits of
metal, glass, and/or ceramic refuse. Construction shall not resume until the qualified
archaeologist has conferred with OCWD on the significance of the resource. SWRCB
shall be afforded the opportunity to determine whether the discovery requires
addressing under Section 106 Post-Review Discoveries provisions provided in 36 CFR
800.13.
If it is determined that the discovered archaeological resource constitutes a historic
property under Section 106 of the NHPA or a historical resource under CEQA,
avoidance and preservation in place shall be the preferred manner of mitigation.
Preservation in place maintains the important relationship between artifacts and their
archaeological context and also serves to avoid conflict with traditional and religious
values of groups who may ascribe meaning to the resource. Preservation in place may
4-56
be accomplished by, but is not limited to, avoidance, incorporating the resource into
open space, capping, or deeding the site into a permanent conservation easement. In
the event that preservation in place is demonstrated to be infeasible and data recovery
through excavation is the only feasible mitigation available, an Archaeological
Resources Treatment Plan that provides for the adequate recovery of the scientifically
consequential information contained in the archaeological resource shall be prepared
and implemented by the qualified archaeologist in consultation with OCWD. The
appropriate Native American representatives shall be consulted in determining
treatment for prehistoric or Native American resources to ensure cultural values
ascribed to the resource, beyond that which is scientifically important, are considered.
C. Would the project disturb any human remains, including those interred outside
of formal cemeteries?
Less than Significant impact with Mitigation: No human remains or cemeteries are
known to exist within or near the project area. Therefore, it would be highly unlikely that
human remains would be encountered when well drilling and levees repair activities are
occurring. In the event of the accidental discovery or recognition of any human remains,
CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5; Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5; Public
Resources Code Section 5097.94 and Section 5097.98 must be followed. With the
implementation of Mitigation Measure CR-4 potential impacts to human remains would
be less than significant.
Mitigation Measure
CR-4: Project-related earth disturbance has the potential to unearth previously
undiscovered human remains, resulting in a potentially significant impact. If human
remains are encountered during excavation activities, all work will halt and the County
Coroner will be notified (California Public Resources Code §5097.98). The Coroner will
determine whether the remains are of forensic interest. If the Coroner determines that
the remains are prehistoric, s/he will contact the Native American Heritage Commission
(NAHC). The NAHC will be responsible for designating the most likely descendant
(MLD), who will be responsible for the ultimate disposition of the remains, as required
by Section 7050.5 of the California Health and Safety Code. The MLD will make his/her
recommendation within 48 hours of being granted access to the site. The MLD’s
recommendation will be followed if feasible, and may include scientific removal and
non-destructive analysis of the human remains and any items associated with Native
American burials (California Health and Safety Code §7050.5). If the landowner rejects
the MLD’s recommendations, the landowner will rebury the remains with appropriate
dignity on the property in a location that will not be subject to further subsurface
disturbance (California Public Resources Code §5097.98).
D. Would the project directly or indirectly disturb or destroy a unique
paleontological resource or site?
4-57
Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation: Dr. Samuel A. McLeod, Ph.D., of the
Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County, Vertebrate Paleontology Section,
conducted a thorough search on June 16, 2016 of the paleontology collection records
for the locality and specimen data for the proposed project. No vertebrate fossil
localities lie within the project APE; however, there are localities nearby from the same
sedimentary units that may occur subsurface in the project APE. The closest vertebrate
fossil locality from Quaternary Terrace deposits is LACM 7366, approximately 2.6 miles
west at Huntington Drive and north of PCH. LACM 7366 produced specimens of marine,
freshwater, and terrestrial specimens including leopark shark, Triakis, three-spined
stickleback, Gasterosteus, garter snake, Thamnophis, desert shrew, Notiosorex, and
most prominently, pocket gopher, Thomomys. A series of fossil localities, LACM 7422-
7425, are located a few hundred feet north-northwest of LACM 7366. These localities
produced fossil specimens of mammoth, Mammuthus, bison, Bison, and horse, Equus,
from Alluvium or dune deposits. The closest vertebrate fossil locality from Quaternary
deposits is LACM 6370 located approximately 1.6 miles southeast at the Hoag Hospital
lower campus parcel near the intersection of Superior Avenue and PCH. LACM 6370
produced a specimen of a fossil horse, Equus. Fossil locality LACM 3267 located
approximately 2 miles northeast, near the intersection of 19th Street and Anaheim
Avenue, produced a specimen of a fossil elephant, Proboscidea in Quaternary deposits.
Fossil locality LACM 4219, located approximately 3.3 miles along the Newport Freeway
(State Route 55) near Santa Isabel Avenue, produced fossil specimens of turtle,
Chelonia, and camel, Camelidae. Towards the northern portion of the APE, east of the
Santa Ana River near the top of the mesa bluffs along Adams Avenue, vertebrate fossil
locality LACM 1339 produced fossil specimens of mammoth, Mammuthus, and camel,
Camelidae, bones from sands approximately 15 feet below the top of the mesa that is
overlain by shell bearing silts and sands.
The entire APE has surface deposits of younger Quaternary Alluvium, derived as fluvial
deposits from the Santa Ana River to the east of the project APE. No fossil vertebrate
localities are located nearby these deposits, and they are unlikely to contain significant
vertebrate fossils, at least in the uppermost layers. Small hills and bluffs both east and
west of the project APE, however, define the Santa Ana River floodplain drainage and
are mapped as having exposures of marine Quaternary Terrace deposits. These or
other older Quaternary deposits may occur in the project APE at unknown depth. There
is a low potential to uncover significant vertebrate fossil remains during surface grading
or shallow excavations in the APE. However, excavations that extend down into the
older Quaternary deposits may encounter significant fossil vertebrate specimens. Since
the project includes ground-disturbing activities, there is a potential for discovery of
fossils that may be considered significant paleontological resources. This potential
impact to unknown paleontological resources would be considered significant. The
following mitigation measures CR-5, CR-6 and CR-7 are recommended to ensure that
4-58
the project would result in less than significant impacts to unique paleontological
resources under CEQA.
Mitigation Measures
CR-5: Prior to the start of any ground-disturbing activities, OCWD shall retain a qualified
paleontologist meeting the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology (SVP) Standards (SVP,
2010). The qualified paleontologist shall contribute to any construction worker cultural
resources sensitivity training either in person or via a training module provided to the
qualified archaeologist. The training session shall focus on the recognition of the types
of paleontological resources that could be encountered within the project site and the
procedures to be followed if they are found. The qualified paleontologist shall also
conduct periodic spot checks in order to ascertain when older deposits are encountered
and where monitoring shall be required.
CR-6: Prior to the start of any ground-disturbing activities, OCWD shall retain a
paleontological monitor to observe all ground-disturbing activities within older
Quaternary deposits. Paleontological resources monitoring shall be performed by a
qualified paleontological monitor, or cross-trained archaeological/paleontological
monitor, under the direction of the qualified paleontologist. The monitor shall have the
authority to temporarily halt or divert work away from exposed fossils in order to recover
the fossil specimens. Monitoring may be reduced or discontinued by the qualified
paleontologist, in coordination with OCWD, based on observations of subsurface soil
stratigraphy and/or other factors and if the qualified paleontologist determines that the
possibility of encountering fossiliferous deposits is low. The monitor shall prepare daily
logs detailing the types of activities and soils observed, and any discoveries. The
qualified paleontologist shall prepare a final monitoring a report to be submitted to
OCWD and filed with the local repository. Any recovered significant fossils shall be
curated at an accredited facility with retrievable storage.
CR-7: If construction or other project personnel discover any potential fossils during
construction, regardless of the depth or presence of a monitor, work in the vicinity
(within 100 feet) of the find shall cease until the qualified paleontologist has assessed
the discovery and made recommendations as to the appropriate treatment.
4.6 Geology/Soils
Existing Setting
Regional Geology
The study area is located in the Peninsular Ranges Geomorphic Province. The province
traverses the southwestern end of California and is bounded by the Transverse Range
province to the north, the Colorado Desert province to the east, and the Pacific Ocean
to the west. Then topography of the province is characterized as alternating northwest
trending ridges and valleys with the bedrock geology most closely resembling the Sierra
4-59
Nevada with granitic intrusions into-older metamorphic rocks. Near surface geologic
units within the study area include well-sorted, fine grained sand and silt, medium to fine
grained sand deposit in the late Holocene by the Santa Ana River, sandy, silty and
clayey organic-rich estuarine deposits and modern sandy wash deposits confined within
the Santa Ana River channel.
Local Topography
Elevations within the study area range from sea level to 25 feet. Due to minor elevation
changes across the study area, the slope gradients within the study area are relatively
flat.
Faulting and Seismicity
There are no active faults traversing the study are. However, the study area is located
within a seismic active region and would be susceptible to ground shaking from several
active and potentially active faults in the region, including the Newport Inglewood Fault,
San Joaquin Hills Fault, Elsinore Fault, Palos Verdes Fault and the San Andreas Fault.
Liquefaction Hazards
According to the California Department of Geologic Survey Seismic Hazard Zone Map,
the study area is located within an area that would be susceptible to the occurrence of
liquefaction.
Landslide Hazards
According to the California Department of Geologic Survey Landslide Hazard Map, the
study area is not located within an area that would be susceptible to landslides.
Soils
The predominate soil association within the study area is the Heuneme-Bolsa
Association, a nearly level, excessively drained fine sand loams located on alluvial fans
and floodplains. The soils are characterized has having a moderate-to-high shrink-swell
potential.
Project Impacts
A1. Would the project expose people or structures to potential substantial
adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury or death involving rupture of an
unknown earthquake fault, as delineated on the most Alquuist-Priolo Earthquake
Fault Zoning Map?
No Impact: According to the California Geologic Survey Seismic Hazard Zone Map, the
study area is not located within a designated Fault-Rupture Hazard Zone. Therefore, the
potential for surface rupture impacts would be unlikely. No mitigation measures are
required.
4-60
A2. Would the project expose people or structures to potential substantial
adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury or death involving strong
seismic ground shaking?
Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation: The study area is located in a
seismically active region that could be subject to seismic shaking during earthquakes
generated from several surrounding active faults in the region. An active fault is one that
has historically produced earthquakes or shown evidence of movement within the past
11,000 years. The closest active fault would be the Newport Inglewood fault system.
The Newport-Inglewood Fault Zone has a probability of approximately 1 percent of
producing an earthquake larger than magnitude 6.7 in the next 30 years (USGS, 2008).
An earthquake of this magnitude could subject the study area to periodic shaking,
possibly of considerable intensity. The degree of shaking felt would depend on the
distance from the earthquake source and size of earthquake and type of subsurface
material on which the site is situated.
The proposed project would not involve the construction of any habitable buildings that
would pose risk to people during an earthquake. The risk for seismic shaking impacts at
the study area would be similar to other areas in the southern California region. The
proposed project would be designed to meet the Essential Facilities Standards of the
California Uniform Building Code to withstand anticipated ground shaking caused by an
earthquake within an acceptable level of risk. With the implementation of Mitigation
Measure GEO-1 the potential risk of seismic shaking impacts resulting in loss, injury or
death would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measure
GEO-1: The OCWD will ensure that all structures for the proposed project are designed
and constructed in compliance with current engineering practices, including the
California Uniform Building Code and all applicable seismic engineering guidelines.
A3. Would the project expose people or structures to potential substantial
adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury or death involving liquefaction?
Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation: The California Geologic Survey
Seismic Hazard Zone Map indicates that the study area lies within a Liquefaction
Hazard Zone. The proposed project would be designed and constructed in compliance
with current engineering practices, including the California Uniform Building Code and
all applicable seismic engineering guidelines. With the implementation of Mitigation
Measure GEO-1 the potential risk of liquefaction impacts resulting in loss, injury or
death would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measure
Mitigation Measure GEO-1 required.
4-61
A4. Would the project expose people or structures to potential substantial
adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury or death involving landslides?
No Impact: The California Geologic Survey Hazard Zone Map indicates that the study
area does not lie within a Landslide Hazard Zone. No mitigation measures are required.
B. Would the project result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?
Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation: Erosion can occur by varying
processes and may occur where bare soil is exposed to wind or moving water. The
processes of erosion are generally a function of material type, terrain steepness, rainfall
or irrigation levels, and surface water drainage conditions. The excavation and grading
activities associated with the proposed project would uncover soils which could increase
the potential for erosion impacts to occur. Additionally, construction equipment
mobilization/demobilization and construction worker traffic could transport soil to streets
and into local and regional drainage systems and wind erosion occurring on unprotected
soils could blow dust particles offsite onto adjacent streets and drainage systems.
The proposed project would disturb and uncover over one of soils in OCSD Plant No. 2,
increasing the potential for erosion impacts. To minimize erosion impacts OCWD would
file a Notice of Intent (NOI) with the State Water Resources Control Board and would
prepare and implement a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). The
SWPPP would contain a map showing the building site, onsite and adjacent roadways,
storm water collection points and drainage patterns across the site. The SWPPP would
also provide a list of Best Management Practices (BMP) that would be used to minimize
sediment and wind erosion impacts. With implementation Mitigation Measure GEO-2
potential erosion impacts would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measure
GEO-2: Prior to the start of construction OCWD will file a Notice of Intent (NOI) with the
State Water Resources Control Board and prepare and implement Storm Water
Pollution Prevention Plan to minimize potential erosion impacts.
C. Would the project be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable or that
would become unstable as a result of the project and potentially result in on or
off site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
Liquefaction
Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation: The California Geologic Survey
Seismic Hazard Zone Map indicates that the study area lies within a Liquefaction
Hazard Zone. The proposed project would be designed to meet Essential Facilities
Standards of the California Uniform Building Code to withstand potential liquefaction
impacts caused by an earthquake within an acceptable level of risk. With the
4-62
implementation of Mitigation Measure GEO-1 the potential risk of liquefaction impacts
would be less than significant.
Subsidence
Less than Significant Impact: Subsidence is characterized as a sinking of the ground
surface relative to surrounding areas and can generally occur where deep alluvial soil
deposits are present in valley and basin areas. Subsidence could potentially result in
ground fractures that could cause damage to surface improvements. Subsidence is
typically associated with groundwater withdrawal. No subsidence has been
documented in the study area and the proposed project does not involve the extraction
of groundwater. Therefore, potential subsidence impacts associated with the proposed
project would be less than significant. No mitigation measures are required.
Landslide
According to the California Department of Geologic Survey Landslide Hazard Map, the
study area is not located within an area that would be susceptible to landslides. No
mitigation measures are required.
Mitigation Measure
Mitigation Measure GEO-1 required.
D. Would the project be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of
the uniform Building Code, creating substantial risks to life or property?
Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation: Expansive soils are characterized as
specific clay materials with the capacity to shrink, swell or otherwise significantly change
volume due to variations in moisture content. Expansive soils could cause excessive
cracking and heaving of structures with shallow foundations and concrete. The soils
within the study area are characterized has having a moderate-to-high shrink-swell
potential. All earthwork activities conducted for the proposed project would be in
compliance with geotechnical requirements identified in site specific geotechnical
studies and the California Uniform Building Code. With the implementation of Mitigation
Measure GEO-3 potential soil constraints associated with construction of the proposed
project would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measure
GEO-3: The OCWD will ensure that all structures for the proposed project are designed
and constructed in compliance with building site specific geotechnical studies and the
California Uniform Building Code.
E. Would the project have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of
septic tanks or alternative waste disposal systems where sewers are not available
for the disposal of wastewater?
4-63
No Impact: The proposed project does not involve the construction of septic tanks or
alternative disposal systems. Therefore, the construction and operation of the proposed
project would not result in adverse impacts in regards to the use of septic tanks or
alternative disposal systems.
4.7 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
The following analysis is based on the Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Analysis Report
prepared for GWRS Water Conveyance project by Environmental Science Associates in
January 2018. The Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Analysis Report are presented in
its entirety in Appendix A.
Setting
Gases that trap heat in the atmosphere are called GHGs. The major concern with
GHGs is that increases in their concentrations are causing global climate change.
Global climate change is a change in the average weather on Earth that can be
measured by wind patterns, storms, precipitation, and temperature. Although there is
disagreement as to the rate of global climate change and the extent of the impacts
attributable to human activities, most in the scientific community agree that there is a
direct link between increased emissions of GHGs and long term global temperature
increases.
The Federal Government and State of California recognized that anthropogenic
(human-caused) GHG emissions are contributing to changes in the global climate and
that such changes are having and will have adverse effects on the environment, the
economy, and public health. While worldwide contributions of GHG emissions are
expected to have widespread consequences, it is not possible to link particular changes
to the environment of California or elsewhere to GHGs emitted from a particular source
or location. In other words, emissions of GHGs have the potential to cause global
impacts rather than local impacts. Increased concentrations of GHGs in the Earth’s
atmosphere have been linked to global climate change and such conditions as rising
surface temperatures, melting icebergs and snowpack, rising sea levels, and the
increased frequency and magnitude of severe weather conditions. Existing climate
change models also show that climate warming portends a variety of impacts on
agriculture, including loss of microclimates that support specific crops, increased
pressure from invasive weeds and diseases, and loss of productivity due to changes in
water reliability and availability. In addition, rising temperatures and shifts in
microclimates associated with global climate change are expected to increase the
frequency and intensity of wildfires.
The Federal Government and State of California recognized that anthropogenic
(human-caused) GHG emissions are contributing to changes in the global climate and
that such changes are having and will have adverse effects on the environment, the
4-64
economy, and public health. While worldwide contributions of GHG emissions are
expected to have widespread consequences, it is not possible to link particular changes
to the environment of California or elsewhere to GHGs emitted from a particular source
or location. In other words, emissions of GHGs have the potential to cause global
impacts rather than local impacts. Increased concentrations of GHGs in the Earth’s
atmosphere have been linked to global climate change and such conditions as rising
surface temperatures, melting icebergs and snowpack, rising sea levels, and the
increased frequency and magnitude of severe weather conditions. Existing climate
change models also show that climate warming portends a variety of impacts on
agriculture, including loss of microclimates that support specific crops, increased
pressure from invasive weeds and diseases, and loss of productivity due to changes in
water reliability and availability. In addition, rising temperatures and shifts in
microclimates associated with global climate change are expected to increase the
frequency and intensity of wildfires.
State law defines GHGs to include the following compounds: CO2, methane (CH4),
nitrous oxide (N2O), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulfur
hexafluoride (SF6).17 The most common GHG that results from human activity is CO2,
which represents 76 percent of total anthropogenic GHG emissions in the atmosphere
(as of 2010 data),18 followed by CH4 and N2O. Scientists have established a Global
Warming Potential (GWP) to gauge the potency of each GHG’s ability to absorb and
re-emit long-wave radiation. The GWP of a gas is determined using CO2 as the
reference gas with a GWP of 1 over 100 years. For example, a gas with a GWP of 10 is
10 times more potent than CO2 over 100 years. The sum of each GHG multiplied by its
associated GWP is referred to as carbon dioxide equivalents (CO2e). The measurement
unit CO2e is used to report the combined potency of GHG emissions. Compounds that
are regulated as GHGs are discussed below.
Carbon Dioxide (CO2): CO2 is the most abundant GHG in the atmosphere and is
primarily generated from fossil fuel combustion from stationary and mobile sources. CO2
is the reference gas (GWP of 1) for determining the GWPs of other GHGs.
Methane (CH4): CH4 is emitted from biogenic sources (i.e., resulting from the activity of
living organisms), incomplete combustion in forest fires, landfills, manure management,
and leaks in natural gas pipelines. The GWP of CH4 is 25 in the IPCC AR4, and 28 in
the IPCC AR5.
Nitrous Oxide (N2O): N2O produced by human-related sources including agricultural
soil management, animal manure management, sewage treatment, mobile and
17 CEQA Guidelines Section 15364.5; Health and Safety Code, Section 38505(g).
18 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Climate Change 2014: Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2014, https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/syr/AR5_SYR_FINAL_All_Topics.pdf. Accessed December 2017.
4-65
stationary combustion of fossil fuel, adipic acid production, and nitric acid production.
The GWP of N2O is 298 in the IPCC AR4, and 265 in the IPCC AR5.
California Greenhouse Gas Reduction Targets
The Governor announced on June 1, 2005, through Executive Order S-3-05,19 the
following GHG emission reduction targets:
• By 2010, California shall reduce GHG emissions to 2000 levels;
• By 2020, California shall reduce GHG emissions to 1990 levels; and
• By 2050, California shall reduce GHG emissions to 80 percent below 1990 levels.
In accordance with Executive Order S-3-05, the Secretary of CalEPA is required to
coordinate efforts of various agencies, which comprise the California Climate Action
Team (CAT), in order to collectively and efficiently reduce GHGs. These agencies
include CARB, the Secretary of the Business, Transportation and Housing Agency,
Department of Food and Agriculture, the Resources Agency, the California Energy
Commission, and the Public Utilities Commission. The CAT provides periodic reports to
the Governor and Legislature on the state of GHG reductions in the state as well as
strategies for mitigating and adapting to climate change. The first CAT Report to the
Governor and the Legislature in 2006 contained recommendations and strategies to
help meet the targets in Executive Order S-3-05. The 2010 CAT Report, finalized in
December 2010, expands on the policies in the 2006 assessment.20 The new
information detailed in the CAT Report includes development of revised climate and
sea-level projections using new information and tools that became available and an
evaluation of climate change within the context of broader social changes, such as land-
use changes and demographic shifts.
On April 29, 2015, Governor Brown issued Executive Order B-30-15. Therein, the
Governor directed the following:
• Established a new interim statewide reduction target to reduce GHG emissions to
40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030.
• Ordered all state agencies with jurisdiction over sources of GHG emissions to
implement measures to achieve reductions of GHG emissions to meet the 2030
and 2050 reduction targets.
• Directed CARB to update the Climate Change Scoping Plan to express the 2030
target in terms of million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent.
19 California Office of the Governor, Executive Order S-3-05, https://www.gov.ca.gov/news.php?id=1861. Accessed March 2017. 20 California Environmental Protection Agency, Climate Action Team, Climate Action Team Report to Governor Schwarzenegger and the Legislature, 2010, http://www.energy.ca.gov/2010publications/CAT-1000-2010-005/CAT-1000-2010-005.PDF. Accessed March 2017.
4-66
In response to the 2030 GHG reduction target, CARB released the 2017 Climate
Change Scoping Plan Update in January 2017 and the proposed Final 2017 Climate
Change Scoping Plan Update in December 2017.21 The Scoping Plan Update outlines
the strategies the State will implement to achieve the 2030 GHG reduction target, which
build on the Cap-and-Trade Regulation, the Low Carbon Fuel Standard, improved
vehicle, truck and freight movement emissions standards, increasing renewable energy,
and strategies to reduce methane emissions from agricultural and other wastes by using
it to meet our energy needs. The Scoping Plan Update also comprehensively addresses
GHG emissions from natural and working lands of California, including the agriculture
and forestry sectors. The Scoping Plan Update considers the following scenarios:
• Scoping Plan Scenario: Continuing the Cap-and-Trade Program.
• Alternative 1: Direct regulations on a wide variety of sectors, such as specific
required reductions for all large GHG sources, more renewables, etc.
• Alternative 2: A carbon tax to put a price on carbon, instead of the Cap-and-
Trade Program.
• Alternative 3: All Cap-and-Trade. This would remove the refinery measure and
keep the LCFS at 10 percent reduction in carbon intensity past 2020.
• Alternative 4: Cap-and-Tax. This would place a declining cap on industry, and
natural gas and fuel suppliers, while also requiring them to pay a tax on each ton
of GHG emitted.
California Health and Safety Code, Division 25.5 – California Global Warming
Solutions Act of 2006
In 2006, the California State Legislature adopted Assembly Bill (AB) 32 (codified in the
California Health and Safety Code [HSC], Division 25.5 – California Global Warming
Solutions Act of 2006), which focuses on reducing GHG emissions in California to 1990
levels by 2020. HSC Division 25.5 defines GHGs as CO2, CH4, N2O, HFCs, PFCs, and
SF6 and represents the first enforceable statewide program to limit emissions of these
GHGs from all major industries with penalties for noncompliance. The law further
requires that reduction measures be technologically feasible and cost effective. Under
HSC Division 25.5, CARB has the primary responsibility for reducing GHG emissions.
CARB is required to adopt rules and regulations directing state actions that would
achieve GHG emissions reductions equivalent to 1990 statewide levels by 2020. In
2016, the California State Legislature adopted Senate Bill (SB) 32 and its companion bill
AB 197, and both were signed by Governor Brown. SB 32 and AB 197 amends HSC
Division 25.5 and establishes a new climate pollution reduction target of 40 percent
21 California Air Resources Board, The 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan Update, January 2017
https://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/2030sp_pp_final.pdf. Accessed March 2017.
4-67
below 1990 levels by 2030 and includes provisions to ensure the benefits of state
climate policies reach into disadvantaged communities.
A specific requirement of AB 32 was to prepare a Climate Change Scoping Plan for
achieving the maximum technologically feasible and cost-effective GHG emission
reduction by 2020 (Health and Safety Code section 38561 (h)). CARB developed an AB
32 Scoping Plan that contains strategies to achieve the 2020 emissions cap.22 The
initial scoping plan was approved in 2008, and contained a mix of recommended
strategies that combined direct regulations, market-based approaches, voluntary
measures, policies, and other emission reduction programs calculated to meet the 2020
statewide GHG emission limit and initiate the transformations needed to achieve the
State’s long-range climate objectives.23 The first update to the Scoping Plan was
approved by CARB in May 2014 and built upon the initial Scoping Plan with new
strategies and recommendations.24
As required by HSC Division 25.5, CARB approved the 1990 GHG emissions inventory,
thereby establishing the emissions limit for 2020. The 2020 emissions limit was
originally set at 427 MMTCO2e using the GWP values from the IPCC SAR. CARB also
projected the state’s 2020 GHG emissions under business-as-usual (BAU) conditions –
that is, emissions that would occur without any plans, policies, or regulations to reduce
GHG emissions. CARB originally used an average of the state’s GHG emissions from
2002 through 2004 and projected the 2020 levels at approximately 596 MMTCO2e
(using GWP values from the IPCC SAR). Therefore, under the original projections, the
state must reduce its projected 2020 emissions by 28.4 percent in order to meet the
1990 target of 427 MMTCO2e. In 2014, CARB revised the target using the GWP values
from the IPCC AR4 and determined that the 1990 GHG emissions inventory and 2020
GHG emissions limit is 431 MMTCO2e. CARB also updated the State’s projected 2020
emissions estimate to account for the effect of the 2007–2009 economic recession, new
estimates for future fuel and energy demand, and the reductions required by regulation
that were recently adopted for motor vehicles and renewable energy. CARB’s projected
statewide 2020 emissions estimate using the GWP values from the IPCC AR4 is 509.4
MMTCO2e. Therefore, the emission reductions necessary to achieve the 2020
emissions target of 431 MMTCO2e would be 78.4 MMTCO2e, or a reduction of GHG
emissions by approximately 15.4 percent. In the 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan
Update, CARB provides the estimated projected statewide 2030 emissions and the level
of reductions necessary to achieve the 2030 target of 40 percent below 1990 levels.
22 California Air Resources Board, Initial AB 32 Climate Change Scoping Plan Document, https://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/scopingplan.htm. Accessed December 2017 23 California Air Resources Board, Initial AB 32 Climate Change Scoping Plan Document, https://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/scopingplan.htm. Accessed December 2017. 24 California Air Resources Board, First Update to the AB 32 Scoping Plan, https://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/scopingplan.htm. Accessed December 2017.
4-68
CARB’s projected statewide 2030 emissions takes into account 2020 GHG reduction
policies and programs.
In its Climate Change Scoping Plan, CARB has acknowledged that land use-driven
emissions are highly complex: “While it is possible to illustrate the [GHG] inventory
many different ways, no chart or graph can fully display how diverse economic sectors
fit together. California’s economy is a web of activity where seemingly independent
sectors and subsectors operate interdependently and often synergistically.”25 GHG
emissions and reductions in the land use sector are complicated to assess given that
emissions are influenced by reduction measures separate from the land use sector,
such as the LCFS, vehicle emissions standards, and entities regulated under the Cap-
and-Trade program including refineries and utility providers. These measures will
impact other sectors of the economy and will also impact existing development in
addition to new land use development. In its report, California Environmental Quality Act
Guidelines Update Proposed Thresholds of Significance, the Bay Area Air Quality
Management District (BAAQMD) evaluated the reduction in land use emissions needed
in order to be consistent with AB 32.26 CARB included the following sectors for land
use emissions: Transportation (on-road passenger vehicles; on-road heavy-duty),
electric power (electricity; cogeneration), commercial and residential (residential fuel
use; commercial fuel use) and recycling and waste (domestic wastewater treatment).
Table 2 of the BAAQMD document presents the results of this analysis, which shows
that the 26.2 percent reduction from statewide land-use driven GHG emissions would
be necessary to meet the AB 32 goal of returning to the 1990 emission levels by 2020,
which is lower than the statewide reduction of 28.5 percent required based on the
original 2008 Climate Change Scoping Plan projections.
State Bill 97
SB 97, enacted in 2007, directed the State Office of Planning and Research (OPR) to
develop California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines “for the mitigation of
GHG emissions or the effects of GHG emissions.” In December 2009, OPR adopted
amendments to the CEQA Guidelines, Appendix G Environmental Checklist, which
created a new resource section for GHG emissions and indicated criteria that may be
used to establish significance of GHG emissions. Appendix F of the CEQA Guidelines
states that, in order to ensure that energy implications are considered in project
decisions, the potential energy implications of a project shall be considered in an EIR, to
the extent relevant and applicable to the project. Appendix F further states that a
25 California Air Resources Board, Climate Change Scoping Plan, December 2008,
https://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/document/adopted_scoping_plan.pdf. Accessed May 2017. 26 Bay Area Air Quality Management District, California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Update Proposed Thresholds of Significance, May 2010, http://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/files/planning-and-research/ceqa/proposed_thresholds_report_-may_3_2010_final.pdf?la=en. Accessed: May 2017.
4-69
project’s energy consumption and proposed conservation measures may be addressed,
as relevant and applicable.
Thresholds of Significance
The California Supreme Court recently considered the CEQA issue of determining the
significance of GHG emissions in its decision, Center for Biological Diversity v.
California Department of Fish and Wildlife and Newhall Land and Farming (Newhall
Land Farming Company) (2d Dist. 2014) 224 Cal.App.4h 1105 (Supreme Ct., Case No.
S217763).
Under the Court’s guidance, since neither the City of Fountain Valley nor the City of
Huntington Beach have adopted a CEQA-qualified Climate Action Plan, compliance with
a Climate Action Plan is not an applicable threshold. The City of Huntington Beach has
a Draft GGRP, but it has not yet been adopted. Therefore, although no formal
significance threshold for GHG emissions associated with development typical of the
proposed program has been adopted by the State or SCAQMD at this juncture, Section
15064.7(c) of the CEQA Guidelines states “when adopting thresholds of significance, a
lead agency may consider thresholds of significance previously adopted or
recommended by other public agencies…” In December 2008, SCAQMD adopted a
10,000 MTCO2e/year for industrial facilities, but only with respect to industrial projects
where SCAQMD is the lead agency. Additionally, SCAQMD has proposed, but not
adopted, a 3,000 MT/year CO2e threshold for mixed use developments. While the
proposed Project does not fit neatly into either category, the more stringent of the two
thresholds is used to determine significance.
Project Impacts
A. Would the project generate GHG emissions, either directly or indirectly, that
may have a significant impact on the environment?
Construction
Less than Significant Impact: The proposed project would involve the operation of
three types of facilities. The three main facilities include a pump station, two flow
equalization tanks, and associated piping with a valving/metering vault. Although
construction activities would increase GHG emissions, those emissions would be
relatively minor and would cease after completion of construction. The total anticipated
construction-related emissions associated with the proposed project would be 297
MTCO2e. Typically, GHG construction emissions are amortized over 30 years and
added to operational emissions. The total project GHG emissions amortized over 30
years would be the equivalent of 10 MTCO2e over the course of a 30-year period.
Operation
4-70
Less than Significant Impact: As discussed previously, the major sources of GHG
emissions associated with the project are related to be operations (consumer product
use) and electric consumption. Emissions from the operation of the proposed project
would result in approximately 1,751 MTCO2e annually. With the inclusion of the
amortized construction emissions, annual emissions of greenhouse gases would be
approximately 1,761 MTCO2e. The 1,761 MTCO2e is well below the SCAQMD’s interim
threshold of 3,000 MTCO2e and therefore the cumulative contribution to GHG emissions
would be less than significant.
B. Would the project be in conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation
adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?
Less than Significant Impact: The construction and operation of the proposed project
would not result in the increase in transportation related emissions, and therefore, the
proposed project would not conflict with the SCAG Regional Transportation
Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS), California Assembly Bill 32,
California Air Resources Board Scoping Plan, and other statewide strategies to reduce
GHG emissions.27 Additionally, although electrical consumption would be increased by
the project, the new building and equipment would need to meet the requirements of the
SCAQMD equipment standards. Therefore, the proposed Project would not be
inconsistent with any of the plans policy strategies to reduce GHG emissions. Because
the project would not conflict with plans, policies, or regulations adopted for the purpose
of reducing GHG emissions, impacts would be less than significant. No mitigation or
further study is required.
4.8 Hazards/Hazardous Materials
Existing Setting
Exposure Hazardous Materials
Title 22 of the California Code of Regulations (CCR), Division 4.5, Chapter 11, Article 3
classifies hazardous materials into the following four categories based on their
properties: toxic (causes human health effects), ignitable (has the ability to burn),
corrosive (causes severe burns or damage to materials), and reactive (causes
explosions or generates toxic gases). Hazardous materials have been and are
commonly used in commercial, agricultural and industrial applications as well as in
residential areas to a limited extent. Hazardous wastes are hazardous materials that no
longer have practical use, such as substances that have been discarded, discharged,
spilled, contaminated, or are being stored prior to proper disposal. The health impacts of
hazardous materials exposure are based on the frequency of exposure, the exposure
pathway, and individual susceptibility. The proposed project would be constructed and
operated on the OCSD Plant No. 2 Site. Presently, Plant No. 2 involves the handling
27 Ibid. Pgs 5.7-18 to 5.7-19.
4-71
and storage of limited amounts hazardous materials as part of the treatment system
processes and maintenance activities.
Fire Hazard
According to the City of Huntington Beach General Plan the study area is not located in
a high fire hazard zone.
Contaminated Soils
Regulatory databases provided by federal, State, and local agencies provide
information of past and present usage, storage and disposal of hazardous materials. A
database search of hazardous materials sites was performed to identify potential
contaminated sites in the study area using the online State Water Resources Control
Board (SWRCB) GeoTracker Database and Department of Toxic Substances Control
(DTSC) EnviroStor Database. The only reported hazardous site identified on OCSD
Plant No. 2 Site was two closed leaking underground storage tanks. Both sites were
determined to not pose significant risks to human health or the environment.
Airport Hazards
The Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) of Orange County assists local agencies to
ensure that here are no direct conflicts with land uses, noise or other issues that will
impact the functionality and safety of airport and heliport operations. The ALUC requires
that local jurisdictions general plans and zoning ordinances are consistent with Airport
Environs Land Use Plans (AELUP’s), which contain noise contours, restrictions for
types of construction and building heights in navigable air space, as well as
requirements impacting the establishment or construction of sensitive uses within close
proximity to airports. There are no private airport facilities within the vicinity of the study
area. The closest public airport is John Wayne Airport located approximately 5 miles
from the study area.
State Emergency Response Act
The State Emergency Response Act requires local jurisdictions establish a Standardize
Emergency Management System Multi-Hazard Functional Plan. Accordingly, the Office
of Emergency Services, in coordination with all interested State and local agencies,
jointly establish a standardized emergency management system for use by all
emergency response agencies.
A. Would the project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment
through the routine transport, use or disposal of hazardous materials?
Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation: The OCSD Plant No. 2 Site currently
involves the handling and storage of limited amounts hazardous materials as part of the
treatment system processes and maintenance activities. The implementation of the
4-72
proposed project would not substantially increase the handling and storage of
hazardous materials.
The construction operations associated with the proposed project would involve the
handling of incidental amounts of hazardous materials, such as fuels and oil. The
proposed project would be required to comply with local, state and federal laws and
regulations regarding the handling and storage of hazardous materials. Additionally,
during construction operations Best Management Practices would be implemented as
part of the implementation of the Storm Water Pollution Prevent Plan, that would include
hazardous material spill prevention and management practices. With the
implementation of Mitigation Measure HZ-1 potential hazardous material safety impacts
would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measure
HZ-1: Any use of hazardous materials involved with the proposed project must be
conducted in accordance with applicable federal, state and local regulations.
B. Would the project create a significant hazard to the public or environment
through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the
release of hazardous materials into the environment?
Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation: During construction, limited quantities
of hazardous materials would be required to operate equipment and vehicles. To avoid
the release hazardous materials into the environment, the handling, storage and
transportation of hazardous materials would be done in compliance local, state and
federal laws and regulations. Additionally, OCSD Plant No. 2 Site has emergency
procedures and evacuation plans to address the onsite storage and handling of
hazardous materials and corrective measures in the event of the inadvertent release of
hazardous materials into the environment occurs. With the implementation of Mitigation
Measure HZ-1 the potential impact associated with the accidental release of hazardous
materials into the environment would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measure
Mitigation Measure HZ-1 required.
C. Would the project emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely
hazardous materials, substance or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or
proposed school.
No Impact: The closest school to the OCSD Plant No. 2 Site would Eder Elementary
school located approximately ½ mile to the west. The long-term operation of the
proposed project would not emit hazardous emissions, or involve the handling of acutely
hazardous substances. No mitigation measures required.
4-73
D. Would the project be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous
material sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and as a
result, would create significant hazard to the public or the environment?
No Impact: There is no known hazardous material sites, pursuant to Government Code
Section 65962.5 located on the OCSD Plant No. 2 Site that would create a significant
hazard to the public.
E. For a project located within an airport land use plan or where such a plan has
not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would
the project the result in a safety hazard for people residing or working within the
project area?
No Impact: The closest public airport facility to the project site is John Wayne Airport.
According to the Airport Environs Land Use Plan for John Wayne Airport, the OCSD
Plant No. 2 Site is not located within a Clear Zone or Accident Potential Zone.
Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not result in airport related
safety hazards to people residing and/or working within the project area. No mitigation
measures are required.
F. For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in
a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area?
No Impact: There are not private air strips within the vicinity of the study area.
Therefore no potential safety hazards associated with the private air strip would occur.
No mitigation measures are required.
G. Would the project impair implementation of or physically interfere with an
adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
No Impact: The proposed project would be constructed and operated on the OCSD
Plant No. 2 Site. The construction activities for the proposed project would not require
any offsite road closures that could adversely interfere with adopted emergency plans or
result in delays to emergency response times. No mitigation measures are required.
H. Would the project expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss,
injury or death involving wild land fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to
urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands?
No Impact: According to the City of Huntington Beach General Plan, the OCSD Plant
No. 2 Site is not subject to wild land fire risks. Additionally, the study area is not
adjacent to or intermixed with wild lands. Therefore, implementation of the proposed
project would not expose people or structures to wild land fire risks. No mitigation
measures are required.
4-74
4.9 Hydrology/Water Quality
Existing Setting
The study area is located in the lower Santa Ana River Watershed. The Santa Ana
River Watershed is the largest watershed in coastal Southern California, consisting of
over 2,800 square miles and encompassing parts of Riverside, San Bernardino and
Orange Counties. The primary surface water body within the study area is the Santa
Ana River. The study area also overlies the Orange County Groundwater Basin.
Santa Ana River
The Santa Ana River is the most prominent hydrologic feature within the watershed.
The Santa Ana River is over 100 miles in length and has over 50 contributing tributaries.
The headwaters for the Santa Ana River are in the San Bernardino Mountains to the
north. The river extends westerly through the Santa Ana Valley to the Prado Basin
where it is joined by several tributaries near Prado Dam. Downstream of Prado Dam,
the Santa Ana River flows through the Santa Ana Mountain Canyon into Orange County
before discharging into the Pacific Ocean. The flows of the Santa Ana River consist of
storm flows and perennial flow (base flow) that increases in the winter and decreases in
the summer. The base flow of the Santa Ana River consists almost entirely of treated
wastewater discharged from upstream waste water treatment plants. The base flow of
the Santa Ana River is the primary source of water to recharge the Orange County
Groundwater Basin. Since 1933, OCWD has been diverting water from the Santa Ana
River for groundwater recharge. Surface water flows of the Santa Ana River are
diverted into a series of recharge basins to replenish the groundwater basin. Virtually all
of the base flow of the Santa Ana River is captured by OCWD for groundwater recharge
and only a portion of the total storm flow of the Santa Ana River is captured by OCWD
for groundwater recharge. The storm water that is not captured by OCWD is lost to the
ocean.
Orange County Groundwater Basin
The Orange County Groundwater Basin underlies central and northern Orange County
and is bordered by the Santa Ana Mountains to the east, the Pacific Ocean to the west,
the Newport-Inglewood Fault to the southwest and Coyote Hills to the north. The basin
is contiguous and directly connected with the Central Basin of Los Angeles County to
the northwest. The basin reaches depths of over 2,000 feet and is comprised of a
complex series of interconnected sand and gravel deposits. The aquifer is divided into
three sections, shallow, principal and deep. Most of the water in the basin is extracted
from the principal aquifer.
4-75
Flood Hazards
As shown in Figure 13, the OCSD Plant No. 2 Site is located in Flood Zone X. This area
is protected from the one-percent-annual-chance flood by levee, dike, or other
structures subject to possible failure or overtopping during larger floods.
Seiche, Tsunami and Mudflow Hazards
Earthquakes can cause flooding due to tsunamis, seiches, or dam failure. Tsunamis are
a potential hazard at this site due to the close proximity of the coast and low elevation.
According to the City of Huntington Beach General Plan, the OCSD Plant No. 2 Site is
classified as a Moderate Tsunami Run-Up Area.
Seiches are earthquake-induced waves in an enclosed or partially enclosed body of
water, which may produce flooding in local areas. The study area is not located near a
body of water that could experience seiches.
Water Quality Regulations
The following is discussion of Federal, State and local water resource programs that
would be applicable to the proposed project.
Federal
Clean Water Act
The objectives of the Clean Water Act are to restore and maintain the chemical,
physical, and biological integrity of Waters of the United States. The Clean Water Act
establishes basic guidelines for regulating discharges of pollutants into the Waters of
the United States and requires states to adopt water quality standards to protect health,
enhance the quality of water resources and to develop plans and programs to
implement the Act. Below is a discussion of sections of the Clean Water Act that would
be relevant to the proposed project.
Clean Water Act Section 303 (d)
Under Section 303 (d) of the Clean Water Act, the SWRCB is required to develop a list
of impaired water bodies. Each RWQCB is responsible for establishing priority rankings
and developing action plans, referred to as total maximum daily loads (TMDLs) to
improve water quality of water bodies included in the 303(d) list.
Within Orange County, there are two reaches of the Santa Ana River. Reach 1 extends
from the Tidal prism to 17th Street in the City of Santa Ana and Reach 2 extends from
17th Street to Prado Dam. Presently, Santa Ana River Reach 2 (17th Street in Santa Ana
to Prado Dam) has been listed as impairment for indicator bacteria. The TMDLs for the
Santa Ana River Reach 2 is required to be prepared before 2025. The Santa Ana River
Reach 1 (Pacific Ocean to 17th Street in Santa Ana) is not listed as impaired.
4-76
State
Porter Cologne California Water Quality Control Act
The Porter Cologne Water Quality Act of 1967 requires the SWRCB and the nine
RWQCBs to adopt water quality criteria for the protection and enhancement of Waters
of the State of California, including both surface waters and groundwater. The SWRCB
sets statewide policy and together with the RWQCB, implements state and federal
water quality laws and regulations. Each of the nine regional boards adopts a Water
Quality Control Plan. The applicable Water Control Plan for the study area would be the
Santa Ana Region Basin Plan.
Regional Water Quality Control Board
Beneficial Uses
The Santa Ana Region Basin Plan designates beneficial uses for waters in the Santa
Ana River watershed and provides quantitative and narrative criteria for a range of
water quality objectives to certain receiving water bodies in order to protect beneficial
uses. Table 11 describes the beneficial uses established in the Santa Ana Region Basin
Plan.
Table 11: Beneficial Uses
Abbreviation Beneficial Use
GWR Groundwater Recharge waters are used for natural or artificial recharge of groundwater
for purposes that may include, but are not limited to, future extraction, maintaining water
quality or halting saltwater intrusion into freshwater aquifers.
REC 1 Water Contact Recreation waters are used for recreational activities involving body
contact with water where ingestion of water is reasonably possible. These uses may
include, but are not limited to swimming, wading, water skiing, skin and scuba diving,
surfing, whitewater activities, fishing and use of natural hot springs.
REC 2 Non-Contact Water Recreation waters are used for recreational activities involving
proximity to water, but not normally body contact with water where ingestion of water
would be reasonably possible. These uses may include, but are not limited to picnicking,
sunbathing, hiking, beachcombing, camping, boating, tide pool and marine life study,
hunting, sightseeing and aesthetic enjoyment in-conjunction with the above activities.
WARM Warm waters support warm water ecosystems that may include but are not limited to,
preservation and enhancement of aquatic habitats, vegetation, fish, and wildlife,
including invertebrates.
LWARM Limited Warm Freshwater Habitat waters support warm water ecosystems which are
severely limited in diversity and abundance.
COLD Cold Freshwater habitat waters support coldwater ecosystems.
BIOL Preservation of Biological Habitats of Special Significance waters support designated
areas of habitats.
WILD Wildlife Habitat waters support wildlife habitats that may include, but are not limited to the
preservation and enhancement of vegetation and prey species used by waterfowl and
4-77
other wildlife.
RARE Rare, Threatened or Endangered Species (RARE) waters support habitats necessary for
the survival and successful maintenance of plant or animal species designated under
state or federal law as rare, threatened or endangered.
MUN Municipal and Domestic Supply waters are used for community, military, municipal or
individual water supply systems. These uses may include, but are not limited to drinking
water supply.
AGR Agricultural Supply waters are used for farming, horticulture or ranching. These uses
may include, but are not limited to irrigation, stock watering, and support of vegetation for
range grazing.
IND Industrial Service Supply waters are used for industrial activities that do not depend
primarily on water quality. These uses may include, but are not limited to mining, cooling
water supply, hydraulic conveyance, gravel washing, fire protection and oil well
depressurization.
PROC Industrial Process Supply waters are used for industrial activities that depend primarily
on water quality. These uses may include, but are not limited to, process water supply
and all uses of water related to product manufacture or food preparation.
NAV Navigation waters are used for shipping, travel, or other transportation by private,
commercial or military vessels.
POW Hydropower Generation waters are used for hydroelectric power generation.
COMM Commercial and Sportfishing waters are used for commercial or recreational collection of
fish or other organisms
EST Uses of water that support estuarine ecosystems including, but not limited to
preservation or enhancement of estuarine habitats, vegetation, fish, shell fish or wildlife.
MAR Use of water that support marine ecosystems including, but not limited to, preservation or
enhancement of marine habitats, vegetation such as kelp, fish, shell fish or wildlife.
SPWN Use of water that support high quality aquatic habitats suitable for reproduction and early
development of fish.
SHELL Use of water that support habitats suitable for the collection of filter-feeding shellfish for
human consumption, commercial or sports purposes.
As shown in Table 12, the Santa Ana Region Basin Plan establishes the following
beneficial uses for Reach 1 and Reach 2 of the Santa Ana River and for the Orange
County Groundwater Basin.
Table 12: Beneficial Uses Santa Ana River/Orange County Groundwater Basin
Reach 1 Reach 2 Orange County Groundwater Basin
Recreation 2 Agriculture Municipal Supply Waters
Recreation 1 Groundwater Recharge
Recreation 1
Agriculture Supply Waters
Warm Water Habitat Recreation 2 Industrial Process Supply Waters
Wild Water Habitat Warm Water Habitat Industrial Service Supply Waters
Wild Water Habitat
Rare Waters
4-78
Water Quality Objectives
The Santa Ana Region Basin Plan establishes Water Quality Objectives for water
bodies within the study area to ensure the protection of Beneficial Uses. As shown in
Table 13 the Santa Ana Region Basin Plan establishes water quality objectives for
Reach 1 and Reach 2 of the Santa Ana River and for the Orange County Groundwater
Basin.
Table 13: Water Quality Objectives (mg/L)
Reach TDS HARD Na CI TIN SO4 COD B
Santa Ana River Reach 1 NL NL NL NL NL NL NL NL
Santa Ana River Reach 2 650(1) NL NL NL NL NL NL NL
Orange County Groundwater Basin 580 NL NL NL NL NL NL NL
(1)- Five year moving average, NL-Not Listed
Regional
OCSD Individual NPDES Permit
Presently, OCSD Plant No. 1 and Plant No. 2 have a National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) Individual Permit for discharges of storm water associated
with their industrial activities. The Individual Permit regulates activities that may affect
storm water runoff quality at certain types of industrial facilities, including publicly owned
wastewater treatment plants with design flows greater than 1.0 MGD, such as the
OCSD. Under the Individual Permit, facilities which discharge storm water to municipal
sanitary sewer systems instead of to waters of the United States are not required to
obtain a General Constriction Permits or Industrial Permit providing an onsite storm
water management plan is prepared and implement that contains BMPs to ensure that
construction site surface water runoff and long term surface water runoff is retained
onsite and incorporated into existing wastewater treatment processes.
Project Impacts
A. Would the project violate Regional Water Quality Control Board Water Quality
standards or waste discharge standards?
Recycled Water Requirements
No Impact: The proposed project would increase the amount wastewater flows to the
OCWD GWRS, where it would be advanced treated to drinking water standards. The
GWRS water would be used to replenish the Orange County Groundwater Basin. The
use of GWRS recycled water for groundwater replenishment is permitted under
RWQCB Order R-8-2004-0002 and subsequent amendment R8-2008-0058. These two
permits specify water recycling requirements for the GWRS. The GWRS water
produced by the additional wastewater flows from OCSD Plant No. 2 Site would be
4-79
subject to the same permit conditions. Compliance with RWQCB permit requirements
would ensure that the use of GWRS water to replenish the Orange County Groundwater
Basin would not violate RWQCB recycled water quality standards.
Beneficial Uses
No Impact: All of the recycled water produced from the proposed project would be used
to replenish the Orange County Groundwater Basin. The recycled water would be used
for Municipal Water Supply, Agriculture, Industrial and Industrial Processes beneficial
uses. The implementation of the proposed project would not be in conflict with beneficial
uses identified in the Santa Ana Region Basin Plan.
Water Quality Objectives
No Impact: The GWRS RWQCB permit requires that the GWRS recycled water meet
all water quality objectives in the Santa Ana Region Basin Plan. Therefore, the use of
GWRS water to replenish the Orange County Groundwater Basin would not be in
conflict with water quality objectives identified in the Santa Ana Region Basin Plan.
Section 303 (d) Impaired Water Bodies
No Impact: Reach 2 of the Santa Ana River has been listed as impairment for indicator
bacteria. The wastewater flows from the OCSD Plant No. 2 Site would be highly treated
and disinfected for bacterial as part of the OCWD GWRS water treatment process. The
implementation of the proposed project would not introduce elevated levels of bacteria
and would not further impair any Section 303 (d) listed water body.
B. Would the project substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere
substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in
aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level?
No Impact: The implementation of the proposed project would generate additional
wastewater supplies for OCWD’s GWRS, which would produce an additional 68,000
acre feet of new water supplies to replenish the Orange County Groundwater Basin.
Current State of California’s regulations regarding Groundwater Replenishment Reuse
Projects (GRRPs), such as OCWD GWRS, were made final by the California
Department of Public Health and formally adopted in 2014. Immediately thereafter, the
Drinking Water Division (DDW) responsible for developing the GRRP regulations was
transferred from CDPH to the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). The
GRRP regulations require a minimum subsurface response retention time (RRT) of two
months for Full Advanced Treatment (FAT) projects, along with pathogen log-removal
standards that could require additional subsurface residence time. These RRT
requirements call for establishing both primary and secondary boundaries (i.e., buffer
areas); the primary boundary is the traditional area in which the construction of new
drinking water wells would be restricted, while the secondary boundary is a zone of
potential controlled potable well construction, within which the operation of future new
4-80
well could extend otherwise materially affect the primary boundary, thereby requiring
further study and potential mitigating activities prior to potable well construction. The
water produced from the proposed project would be conveyed to existing OCWD
groundwater replenishment basins or facilities at locations that would meet the travel
time requirement. The operation of the proposed project would increase groundwater
supplies and would have a beneficial impact on the Orange County Groundwater Basin.
No mitigation measures are required.
C. Would the project substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or
area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a
manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on or off site?
Less than Significant impact with Mitigation: Excavation and grading activities
involved with the proposed project would uncover soils and potentially expose them to
water and erosion impacts. Additionally construction equipment entering and exiting the
work areas could track sediment onto local streets and into local and regional drainage
systems. To minimize erosion impacts OCWD would file a Notice of Intent (NOI) with
the State Water Resources Control Board and prepare and implement a Storm Water
Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). The SWPPP would contain a map showing the
building site, onsite and adjacent roadways, storm water collection points and drainage
patterns across the site. The SWPPP would also provide a list of Best Management
Practices (BMP) that would be used to minimize sediment and wind erosion impacts.
With implementation Mitigation Measure GEO-2 potential erosion impacts would be less
than significant.
Mitigation Measure
Mitigation Measure GEO-2 required.
D. Would the project substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or
area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or
substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which
would result in flooding on or offsite?
Less than Significant impact: The proposed project would construct 66,900 square
feet of new impervious surfaces on the OCSD Plant No. 2 Site. The amount of new
impervious surfaces would increase the existing rates of surface water runoff generated
from the Plant No. 2 Site. The additional surface water runoff generated from the
proposed project would be incorporated into onsite existing drainage systems and
would not increase onsite flood risks or offsite flood risks. To ensure that adequate
drainage facilities would be available, OCWD would implement Mitigation Measure
HWQ-1, which requires OCWD to coordinate with OCSD on the capacity of existing
drainage systems and the ability of those drainage systems to accommodate surface
water runoff generated by the proposed project.
4-81
HWQ-1: OCWD will coordinate with OCSD on the capacity of existing drainage systems
to receive surface water runoff generated from the proposed project and would
participate in any drainage improvements required accommodate the surface water
runoff flows.
E. Would the project create or contribute runoff which would exceed the capacity
of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or provide substantial
additional sources of polluted runoff?
Less than Significant Impact: The construction and operation of the proposed project
would generate short-term constructions related surface runoff impacts and long-term
surface runoff impacts.
Construction Surface Water Runoff Management
The proposed project construction activities would disturb over one acre of area. To
minimize adverse construction site surface water runoff water quality impacts, OCWD
would file a Notice of Intent to disturb soils (NOI) and prepare and implement a Storm
Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). The SWPPP would also provide a list of
Best Management Practices (BMP) to retain construction site runoff onsite for onsite
treatment. With implementation Mitigation Measure GEO-2 potential adverse surface
water runoff water quality impacts would be less than significant.
Long Term Surface Water Runoff Management
The GWRS Final Expansion Project would construct 66,900 sq. ft. of new impervious
surfaces at the OCSD Plant No. 2 Site. The long term operation surface water runoff
flows would be conveyed into existing drainage systems and incorporated into existing
onsite wastewater treatment processes. By retaining and incorporating the surface
water flows into the existing treatment processes potential long storm surface water
runoff water quality impacts would be less than significant. To ensure that adequate
drainage facilities would be available, OCWD would implement Mitigation Measure
HWQ-1, which requires OCWD to coordinate with OCSD on the capacity of existing
drainage systems and the ability of those drainage systems to accommodate surface
water runoff generated by the proposed project.
Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Measure GEO-2 and HWQ-1 required.
F. Would the project otherwise degrade water quality?
Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation: The use of GWRS recycled water for
ground water replenishment is permitted under RWQCB Order R-8-2004-002 and
subsequent amendment R-2008-0058. These two permits specify water recycling
requirements for the GWRS. Compliance with RWQCB permit requirements would
4-82
ensure that use of GRWS recycled water for ground water replenishment would not
degrade groundwater water quality.
The long term operation of the proposed project would have beneficial impacts on
groundwater supplies in Orange County and would support beneficial uses designated
for Reach 2 of the Santa Ana River and for the Orange County Groundwater Basin.
The project would not result in conflicts in achieving water quality objectives established
in the Santa Ana Region Basin Plan.
Both construction site surface water runoff and long term surface water runoffs flows
would be retained onsite and incorporated into existing wastewater treatment processes
to avoid adverse water quality impacts.
Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Measure GEO-2 and HWQ-1 required.
G. Would the project place housing within a 100-year floodplain, as mapped on a
federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood insurance Rate map or other flood
hazard delineation map?
No Impact: The proposed project does not involve construction of residential housing.
Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not subject any housing to
potential flood risks. No mitigation measures are required.
H. Would the project place within a 100-year floodplain structures which impedes
or redirect flows?
No Impact: As shown in Figure 13 the study area is not located within a 100-year flood
plain. Flood improvements along the Santa Ana River have been designed to provide
flood control protection up to a 190 year storm event. The proposed project would not
construct any structures or conduct any activities within a 100 year flood area that would
impede or re-direct flood flows.
I. Would the project expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss,
injury or death involving flooding, including, flooding as a result of the failure of a
levee or dam?
No Impact: The OCSD Plant No. 2 Site is located downstream of Prado Dam.
Improvements implemented at Prado Dam and at Seven Oaks Dam and along the
Santa Ana River have been designed to provide flood control protection up to a 190
year storm event. The proposed project would not involve the construction of any
structures or involve any facilities that would adversely impact the flood control capacity
or increase flood risks at Prado Dam or along the Santa Ana River. Therefore, no
potential impacts in regards to risk levee failure would occur.
4-83
4-84
J. Could the project site be inundated by a seiche, tsunami, or mudflow?
Less than Significant Impact: The OCSD Plant No. 2 Site is located in a Moderate
Tsunami Run-Up Area. The likelihood that a tsunami would be large enough to inundate
the site would be low and the potential impact for the study area to exposed tsunami
impacts would be less than significant.
The study area and surrounding area does not contain any slopes, hillsides or
mountains that pose the threat for mudflow impacts. Therefore, potential mudflow
impacts would be less than significant. No mitigation measures are required.
4.10 Land Use/Planning
Existing Setting
Existing Land Uses
The OCSD Plant No. 2 Site is currently developed with wastewater treatment facilities,
administrative buildings, parking areas onsite roadways. Plant No. 2 Site is situated
within the urbanized environment and surrounded by the Santa Ana River to the east,
Brookhourst Street and residential uses to the west and north and the Talbert Marsh to
the south. The study area is predominantly built out.
Relevant Planning Programs
The following are relevant planning programs that would apply to the proposed project.
City of Huntington Beach General Plan
The City of Huntington Beach General Plan designates the OCSD Plant No. 2 Site
Public. The Public designation allows governmental administrative and related facilities,
such as public utilities, schools, public parking lots and infrastructure.
City of Huntington Beach General Plan Coastal Element
The OCSD Plant No. 2 Site is located within Coastal Zone and subject to the California
Coastal Act. The California Coastal Act is implemented by the City of Huntington Beach
General Plan Coastal Element. The Coastal Element includes a land use plan and
policies to guide land use decisions within the coastal zone. The OCSD Plant No. 2
Site is located in Zone 5, which extends from Beach Boulevard to the Santa Ana River.
The Coastal Element designates OCSD Plant No. 2 4G-Edison Plant. Permitted uses
include public uses and open space conservation. Any development activity occurring in
the Coastal Zone would be required to obtain a Coastal Development Permit approved
by the City of Huntington Beach.
City of Huntington Beach Zoning Code
The portion of the OCSD Plant No. 2 Site where the proposed project would be
constructed is zoned IG (Industrial General). The Industrial General zoning designation
4-85
allows for full range of manufacturing, industrial processing, resource and energy
production, general services and distribution land uses and establishes a maximum
height restriction of 40 feet.
A. Would the project physically divide an established community?
Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation: The long term operation of the
proposed project would be compatible with existing uses on the OCSD Plant No. 2 Site.
All construction activities would occur on OCSD Plant No. 2 Site and would not
physically impact any offsite existing residential communities, businesses or industries
within the study area. Potential long term land use impacts to established communities
within the study area would be less than significant. To minimize construction impacts to
surrounding land uses within the study area, OCWD would coordinate with the public on
upcoming construction activities. With the implementation of Mitigation Measure LU-1
potential construction impacts to existing land uses would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measure
LU-1: OCWD will provide residents and business owners with notifications of upcoming
construction activities.
B. Would the project be in conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy or
regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project adopted for the purpose
of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?
Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation: The City of Huntington Beach General
Plan land Use Element designates the OCSD Plant No. 2 Site Public. According to
General Plan public utilities are a permitted land use under the Public land use
category. The proposed flow equalization tanks and pump station improvements would
be consistent with the Public land use designation in that the proposed improvements
would be an expansion of the existing public utility uses occurring on the OCSD Plant
No. 2 Site.
The City of Huntington Beach Coastal Element designates the OCSD Plant No. 2 Site
4G-Edison Plant and identifies public uses and open space conservation as permitted
land uses, subject to approval of a Coastal Development Permit. The proposed flow
equalization tanks and pump station improvements would be consistent with the Coastal
Element in that the proposed improvements would be a continuation of existing public
uses occurring on the site. The proposed project with approval of Coastal Development
Permit would not be in conflict with the City of Huntington Beach General Plan Coastal
Element.
The northern portion of the OCSD Plant No. 2 Site where the flow equalization tank and
pump station would be constructed is zoned Industrial General. The Industrial General
zoning designation allows for full range of manufacturing, industrial processing,
resource and energy production land uses. The proposed flow equalization tank and
4-86
pump station improvements would be consistent with the Industrial General Zoning
District in that the proposed improvements would be an expansion of the existing
industrial land uses occurring on the site. The Industrial General Zoning District
establishes a maximum height of 40 feet. The tallest structure proposed would be flow
equalization tank at a height of 28 feet. The proposed project would not be in conflict
with the City of Huntington Beach Zoning Code.
Mitigation Measure
LU-2: Prior to construction of the Flow Equalization Tank OCWD will obtain approval of
Coastal Development Permit from the City of Huntington Beach.
C. Would the project be in conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan
or natural community conservation plan?
No Impact: The OCSD Plant No. 2 Site is situated within an urban setting. There are no
habitat management plans or natural community conservation plans established on the
site. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not be in conflict with any
habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan.
4.11 Mineral Resources
Would the project result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource
that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state?
No Impact: According to the City of Huntington Beach General Plan, the OCSD Plant
No. 2 Site is not identified has containing mineral resources of regional significance.
Additionally, the Plant No. 2 Site is currently not used for mineral extraction. Therefore,
no impacts on regional minerals or minerals of state importance would occur.
B. Would the project result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral
resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other
land use?
No Impact: According to the City of Huntington Beach General Plan, the OCSD Plant
No. 2 Site is not identified has containing mineral resources of regional significance.
Additionally, the Plant No. 2 Site is currently not used for mineral extraction. Therefore,
no impacts on regional minerals or minerals of regional importance would occur.
4.12 Noise
The following noise impact analysis is based on GWRS Water Conveyance Facilities
Project Noise Impact Analysis prepared Environmental Science Associates in January
of 2018. The reported is presented in Appendix D.
Existing Setting
Noise is defined as unwanted sound. Sound becomes unwanted when it creates a
nuisance that interferes with normal activities, or when it causes physical harm and
4-87
adversely affects human health. The standard unit of measurement of the loudness of
sound is the decibel (dB). The zero point on the dB scale is based on the lowest sound
level that a healthy, unimpaired human ear can detect. Changes of 3 dB or fewer are
only perceptible in laboratory environments. An increase of 10 dB represents a 10-fold
increase in acoustic energy, while 20 dB is 100 times more intense, and 30 dB is 1,000
times more intense. Each 10-dB increase in sound level is perceived as approximately
a doubling of loudness.
Numerous methods have been developed to measure sound over a period of time,
including: Equivalent Sound Level (Leq), Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL),
Day/Night Average Sound Level (Ldn) and Maximum Noise event (Lmax). Noise level can
vary pending on the noise source and duration. Below is description of the units of
measure used in this analysis to describe the noise environment.
• Leq: Time variations in noise exposure are typically expressed as a statistical
description of the sound pressure level that is exceeded over some fraction of a
given observation period (called Leq). For example, the noise levels exceeded on
10 percent of readings is called L10, the median (50th percentile) reading is called
L50, etc.
• CNEL: Because community receptors are more sensitive to unwanted noise
intrusion during the evening and at night, state law requires that, for planning
purposes, an artificial dB increment penalty be added to quiet-time noise levels in
a 24-hour noise descriptor called CNEL.
• Ldn: Another commonly used method is the day/night average level or Ldn.
• Ldn is a measure of the 24-hour average noise level at a given location. It was
adopted by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for developing
criteria for the evaluation of community noise exposure.
• Lmax: The maximum noise level recorded during a noise event is typically
expressed as Lmax.
Effects of Noise
Physical damage to human hearing begins at prolonged exposure to noise levels higher
than 85 dBA. Extended periods of noise exposure above 90 dBA could result in
permanent hearing damage. When the noise level reaches 120 dBA, a ticking sensation
occurs in the human ear even with short-term exposure. This level of noise is called the
threshold of feeling. As the sound reaches 140 dBA, the tickling sensation is replaced
by the feeling of pain in the ear. This is called the threshold of pain. A sound level of 190
dBA will rupture the eardrum and permanently the inner ear. Table 14 summarizes
typical noise sources, levels, and responses.
4-88
Table 14: Noise Levels and Human Response
Noise Source Noise Level dBA Response
Library 30 Very quiet
Refrigerator humming 40 Quiet
Quiet office 50 Quiet
Normal conversation 60 Intrusive
Vacuum cleaner 70 Telephone use difficult
Freight train at 50 feet 80 Interferes with conversation
Heavy-duty truck at 50 feet 90 Annoying
Jet takeoff at 2,000 feet 100 Very annoying; hearing damage at sustained
exposure levels
Unmuffled motorcycle 110 Maximum vocal effect; physical discomfort
Jet takeoff at 200 feet 120 Regular exposure over one minute risks
permanent hearing loss
Shotgun firing 130 Pain threshold
Carrier jet operation 140 Harmfully loud
Source: Melville C. Branch and R. Dale Beland, 1970.
Ground Absorption
The sound drop-off rate is highly dependent on the conditions of the land between the
noise source and receiver. To account for this ground-effect attenuation (absorption),
two types of site conditions are commonly used in noise models, soft-site and hard-site
conditions. Soft-site conditions account for the sound propagation loss over natural
surfaces such as normal earth and ground vegetation. For point sources, a drop-off
rate of 7.5 dBA/ for each doubling of distance from the point source is typically observed
over soft ground with landscaping, as compared with a 6.0 dBA/for each doubling of
distance over hard ground such as asphalt, concrete, stone and very hard packed earth
Noise Barrier Attenuation
For a noise barrier to work, it must be high enough and long enough to block the view of
the noise source. A noise barrier is most effective when placed close to the noise
source or receiver. A noise barrier can achieve a 5 dBA noise level reduction when it is
tall enough to break the line-of-sight and greater heights increase the noise reduction.
When the noise barrier is a berm instead of a wall, the noise attenuation can be
increased by another 3 dBA.
Applicable Noise Standards
Federal
Under the authority of the Noise Control Act of 1972, the United States Environmental
Protection Agency (USEPA) established noise emission criteria and testing methods
published in Parts 201 through 205 of Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR)
4-89
that apply to some transportation equipment (e.g., interstate rail carriers, medium
trucks, and heavy trucks) and construction equipment. In 1974, the USEPA issued
guidance levels for the protection of public health and welfare in residential land use
areas28 of an outdoor Ldn of 55 dBA and an indoor Ldn of 45 dBA. These guidance
levels are not considered as standards or regulations and were developed without
consideration of technical or economic feasibility. There are no federal noise standards
that directly regulate environmental noise related to the construction or operation of the
project.
Under the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. §1919 et seq.), the
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) has adopted regulations
designed to protect workers against the effects of occupational noise exposure. These
regulations list permissible noise level exposure as a function of the amount of time
during which the worker is exposed. The regulations further specify a hearing
conservation program that involves monitoring the noise to which workers are exposed,
ensuring that workers are made aware of overexposure to noise, and periodically
testing the workers’ hearing to detect any degradation.
State
The State of California does not have statewide standards for environmental noise, but
the California Department of Health Services (DHS) has established guidelines for
evaluating the compatibility of various land uses as a function of community noise
exposure. The purpose of these guidelines is to maintain acceptable noise levels in a
community setting for different land use types. Noise compatibility by different land use
types is categorized into four general levels: “normally acceptable,” “conditionally
acceptable,” “normally unacceptable,” and “clearly unacceptable.” For instance, a noise
environment ranging from 50 dBA CNEL to 65 dBA CNEL is considered to be “normally
acceptable” for multi-family residential uses, while a noise environment of 75 dBA CNEL
or above for multi-family residential uses is considered to be “clearly unacceptable.” In
addition, California Government Code Section 65302(f) requires each county and city in
the State to prepare and adopt a comprehensive long-range general plan for its physical
development, with Section 65302(g) requiring a noise element to be included in the
general plan. The noise element must: (1) identify and appraise noise problems in the
community; (2) recognize Office of Noise Control guidelines; and (3) analyze and
quantify current and projected noise levels.
The state has also established noise insulation standards for new multi-family
residential units, hotels, and motels that would be subject to relatively high levels of
transportation-related noise. These requirements are collectively known as the
California Noise Insulation Standards (Title 24, California Code of Regulations). The
28 USEPA, EPA Identifies Noise Levels Affecting Health and Welfare. April 1974.
4-90
noise insulation standards set forth an interior standard of 45 dBA CNEL in any
habitable room. They require an acoustical analysis demonstrating how dwelling units
have been designed to meet this interior standard where such units are proposed in
areas subject to noise levels greater than 60 dBA CNEL. Title 24 standards are typically
enforced by local jurisdictions through the building permit application process.
City Huntington Beach
The Noise Element of the General Plan acknowledges that a number of residential,
commercial, and industrial land uses in the City of Huntington Beach, particularly along
arterial roadways, are impacted by vehicular noise levels that exceed city noise/land
use compatibility standards. For residential land uses, the normally acceptable interior
and exterior noise standards are 45 and 60 Ldn, respectively.
Relevant noise policies from the Noise Element include:
Policy N 1.2.2 – Require new industrial and commercial land uses or the major
expansion of existing land uses to demonstrate that the new or expanded use would
not be directly responsible for causing exterior noise levels to exceed 65 Ldn in areas
containing noise sensitive land uses.
Policy N 1.2.5 – Require development that generates increased traffic and
subsequent increases in ambient noise levels adjacent to noise sensitive land uses
to provide for appropriate mitigation measures in accordance with acceptable limits
of the City’s Noise Ordinance.
Policy N 1.6.1 – Ensure that construction activities be regulated to establish hours of
operation, to prevent and/or mitigate the generation of excessive or adverse noise
impacts through implementation of the City’s Noise Ordinance.
Policy N 1.12.1 – Require detailed and independent acoustical studies be completed
for any new or renovated land uses or structures determined to be potential major
stationary noise sources.
Municipal Code
Chapter 8.40 of the Huntington Beach Municipal Code (HBMC) serves as the City’s
Noise Ordinance, which establishes noise standards to control unnecessary, excessive,
and annoying noise levels in the City. Table 15 shows the applicable exterior noise
standards for the designated noise zones established in the City’s Noise Ordinance.
Table 15 Huntington Beach Exterior Noise Standards
Noise Zone Exterior Noise Standards Time Period
1 – All residential properties. 55 db(A)
50 db(A)
7:00 a.m. – 10:00 p.m.
10:00 p.m. – 7:00 a.m.
2 – All professional office & public institution properties. 55 db(A) Anytime
4-91
3 – All commercial properties with the exception of professional office properties. 60 db(A) Anytime
4 – All industrial properties. 70 db(A) Anytime
SOURCE: City of Huntington Beach Municipal Code Section 8.40.050
The exterior noise levels shown in Table 15 are meant to be further applied as noise
standards based on the duration of the noise; i.e., the louder the noise, the shorter the
time it can last. According to Section 8.40.060 of the City Noise Ordinance, it is unlawful
for any person at any location within the incorporated area of the City to create noise
levels that, when measured on any residential, public institutional, professional,
commercial, or industrial property, to exceed the exterior noise standards shown in
Table 15:
a) For a cumulative period of more than thirty (30) minutes in any hour;
b) Plus 5 dB(A) for a cumulative period of more than fifteen (15) minutes in any
hour;
c) Plus 10 dB(A) for a cumulative period of more than five (5) minutes in any hour;
d) Plus 15 dB(A) for a cumulative period of more than one (1) minute in any hour; or
e) Plus 20 dB(A) for any period of time.
Section 8.40.060 further states that in the event the ambient noise level exceeds any of
the first four noise limit categories provided above, the cumulative period noise level
applicable to said category shall be increased to reflect said ambient noise level. In the
event the ambient noise level exceeds the fifth noise limit category, the maximum
allowable noise level under said category shall be increased to reflect the maximum
ambient noise level.
According to Section 8.40.090(D) of the City Noise Ordinance, construction noise is
among one of the noise sources that are exempt from the City’s established noise
standards. Provided that a permit has been obtained from the City, noise sources
associated with construction, repair, remodeling, or grading of any real property are
deemed to be exempt from the City’s noise standards as long as such activities are not
conducted between the hours of 8:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. on weekdays, including
Saturday, or at any time on Sunday or a federal holiday.
Existing Noise Setting
Some land uses are considered more sensitive to ambient noise levels than others are,
due to the amount of noise exposure (in terms of both exposure duration and insulation
from noise) and the types of activities typically involved. According to the General Plan,
residential areas are to be the most sensitive type of land use to noise and
4-92
industrial/commercial areas are considered to be the least sensitive. Existing noise
sensitive uses in the vicinity of the project site include the following:
• Residential Uses: single-family residences and multi-family residential uses are
located to the west and north of the project site along Brookhurst Street.
Ambient Noise Levels
The predominant existing noise source surrounding the project site is roadway noise
from Brookhurst Street to the west. Ambient noise measurements were conducted at
two locations, representing the nearby land uses in the vicinity of the project site to
establish conservative ambient noise levels. Long-term (24-hour) measurements were
conducted at locations R1 and R2. Ambient sound measurements were conducted on
Wednesday, July 13, 2016, to characterize the existing noise environment in the project
vicinity. The ambient noise measurements were conducted using the Larson-Davis 820
Precision Integrated Sound Level Meter (“SLM”). The Larson-Davis 820 SLM is a Type
1 standard instrument as defined in the American National Standard Institute S1.4. All
instruments were calibrated and operated according to the applicable manufacturer
specification. The microphone was placed at a height of 5 feet above the local grade, at
the following locations.
• Measurement Location R1: represents the existing noise environment of single-
family residential uses west of the project site along Brookhurst Street across
from Ocean Breeze Street. The SLM was placed on the west of the project site
along Brookhurst Street.
• Measurement Location R2: represents the existing noise environment of multi-
family residential uses north of the project site along Brookhurst Street. The SLM
was placed on the southwestern boundary of the multi-family residential uses
along Brookhurst Street.
Table 16 Summary of ambient noise measurement
Location, Duration, Existing Land Uses and, Date of Measurements
Daytime (7 A.M. to 10
P.M.) Hourly Leq
Daytime Average Hourly Leq
Nighttime (10 P.M. to 7
A.M.) Hourly Leq
Nighttim
e Average Hourly Leq
24-Hour
Average, CNEL
R1 – Single-family
Residential Uses 7/13/16 (24 hour)/Wednesday
66 – 69 67 56 – 67 61 69
R2 – Multi-family Residential
Uses 7/13/16 (24 hour)/Wednesday
68 – 70 69 58 – 66 62 71
SOURCE: ESA, 2016
A summary of noise measurement data is provided in Table 16. As shown in Table 16,
the existing ambient daytime noise levels ranged from 66 dBA to 69 dBA Leq, at R1 and
4-93
from 68 dBA to 70 dBA Leq at R2. The existing ambient nighttime noise levels ranged
from 56 dBA to 67 dBA Leq at R1 and from 58 dBA to 66 dBA Leq at R2.
Project Impacts
A. Would the project expose persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of
standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable
standards of other agencies?
Onsite Construction Noise
Less Than Significant Impact: Construction of the proposed project would require the
use of heavy equipment during the grading, and excavation activities at the project site.
During each stage of development, there would be a different mix of equipment. As
such, construction activity noise levels at and near the project site would fluctuate
depending on the particular type, number, and duration of use of the various pieces of
construction equipment.
Individual pieces of construction equipment anticipated during proposed project
construction could produce maximum noise levels of 60 dBA to 82 dBA Lmax at a
reference distance of 50 feet from the noise source, as shown in Table 9. These
maximum noise levels would occur when equipment is operating at full power. The
estimated usage factor for the equipment is also shown in Table 17. The usage factors
are based on FHWA’s RCNM User’s Guide.29
Table 17 Construction Equipment Noise Levels
Construction Equipment Noise Level at 50 Feet (dBA, Lmax) Estimated Usage Factor, %
Backhoe2 69 50 Bull Dozer1 82 40
Concrete Truck2 75 25
Crane1 81 40 Dump Truck1 76 20 Drill Rig Truck2 76 50
Excavator1 81 40 Forklift2 60 50
Man Lift2 68 25
Water Truck1 80 10
1 Obtained from FHWA Roadway Construction Noise Model, 2006.
2 Obtained from Noise Abatement Plan Mid-Basin Monitoring Well SAR-11, prepared by Vista Environmental, August 11, 2011.
During project construction, the nearest and most notable offsite sensitive receptors that
would be exposed to increased noise levels would be the existing single-family
residential uses located in proximity to the project site. Specifically, the nearest offsite
noise sensitive receptors include the following:
29 Federal Highway Administration, Roadway Construction Noise Model User’s Guide, 2006.
4-94
• Single-family residences along Brookhurst Street approximately 170 feet west of the
project site; and
• Multi-family residences along Brookhurst Street approximately 90 feet north of the
project site.
Over the course of a construction day, the highest noise levels would be generated
when multiple pieces of construction equipment are being operated concurrently. As
discussed previously, the project’s estimated construction noise levels were calculated
for a scenario in which all construction equipment was assumed to be operating
simultaneously and some of them located at the construction area nearest to the
affected receptors to present a conservative impact analysis. The estimated noise levels
at the offsite sensitive receptors were calculated using the FHWA’s RCNM, and were
based on the concurrent operation of 14 pieces of equipment (i.e., drill rig truck,
backhoe, concrete truck, dump truck, water truck, etc.) which is considered a worst-
case evaluation because the project would use less overall equipment on a daily basis,
and as such would generate lower noise levels. Table 18, shows the estimated
construction noise levels that would occur at the nearest offsite sensitive uses during a
peak day of construction activity at the project site.
Table 18 Estimated Construction Noise Levels at Offsite Sensitive Uses
Offsite Sensitive Land Uses Location
Approximate Distance to Project site
(ft.)1
Estimated Maximum Construction Noise Levels
(dBA Leq)
Significance Threshold
(dBA Leq)3
Exceeds
Threshold?
Single-family residential
uses West of the project site
along Brookhurst Street
170 662 71 No
Multi-family residential uses North of the project site Brookhurst Street 90 692 73 No
1 The distance represents the nearest construction area on the project site to the property line of the offsite receptor. 2 Receptors are partially shielded from the construction site by existing walls; and such shielding is included in the analyses representing a 5 dBA reduction in noise levels. 3 The significance thresholds are the lowest daytime ambient noise levels as shown in Table 3 plus 5 dBA. SOURCE: ESA, 2016.
As shown in Table 18, the peak day construction noise levels experienced by the offsite
sensitive receptors would range from 66 dBA Leq at the single-family residential uses
located west of the project site to 69 dBA Leq at the multi-family residential uses located
north of the project site. Thus, construction activities associated with the project would
generate episodic noise levels below the significance thresholds of 71 dBA (the lowest
daytime ambient noise level of 66 dBA as shown in Table 3 plus 5 dBA) and 73 dBA
(the lowest daytime ambient noise level of 68 dBA as shown in Table 3 plus 5 dBA) at
the residential uses west and north of the project site, respectively. Because
construction noise levels associated with the proposed project would not exceed the
significance thresholds at the offsite sensitive locations, construction activities
associated with the proposed project would not expose persons to, or generate noise
levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or
4-95
applicable standards of other agencies, Therefore, impacts would be less than
significant, and no mitigation measures would be required.
Offsite Construction Noise
Less Than Significant Impact: Delivery truck and haul truck trips would occur
throughout the construction period. Trucks traveling to and from the project site would
be required to travel along Brookhurst Street. An estimated maximum of approximately
10 worker’s vehicle trips, 1 vendor truck trip, and 30 haul truck trips would occur per
day.
The project’s truck trips would generate noise levels of approximately 50 dBA CNEL at
25 feet distance along Brookhurst Street. As shown in Table 16, the existing noise
levels along Brookhurst Street ranged from 69 dBA to 71 dBA CNEL. Noise levels of 50
dBA CNEL generated by construction-related traffic would not increase the ambient
noise levels of 69 dBA to 71 dBA CNEL along Brookhurst Street when combining the
ambient noise levels and noise from project construction traffic. Because construction
traffic would not increase ambient noise levels along Brookhurst Street, the 5 dBA
ambient noise increase threshold would not be exceeded. Therefore, off-site
construction traffic noise impacts would be less than significant.
Operational Noise Impacts
Less Than Significant Impact: Once the proposed pump station is operational, noise
levels generated at the project site would mainly occur from the pump station. The
pump station would be a 25-foot tall concrete building (from grade) with five 350-hp
pumps located within the building. The five pumps will be configured as four active duty
pumps and one standby pump. The five pumps will be installed within individual 30-inch
diameter wet wells. Each of the wet wells will be drilled to 25-feet below grade.
The analysis of the pump station-related noise is based upon reference noise
measurement conducted on July 15, 2016 at a pump station located in the OCWD
facility at 18700 Ward Street, Fountain Valley, CA. Pump station-related noise levels
were measured inside of the pump station and outside of the pump station at 5 feet from
a louver. A noise level of 80 dBA was measured inside of the pump station and a noise
level of 66 dBA was measured at 5 feet from the louver outside of the pump station. The
pump station structure with louvers would provide approximately a 14 dBA noise
reduction.
The single-family residential uses (R1) west of the project site would be located
approximately 330 feet from the proposed pump station. Based on a noise level source
strength of 66 dBA at a reference distance of 5 feet, and accounting for distance
attenuation (minimum 36 dBA insertion loss) and barrier insertion loss by block walls
(minimum 5 dBA insertion loss), pump station related noise would be reduced to 25 dBA
at the single-family residential uses (R1). As such, pump station related noise would not
4-96
exceed the significance threshold of 61 dBA (the lowest nighttime ambient noise level of
56 dBA as shown in Table 16 plus 5 dBA).
The multi-family residential uses (R2) north of the project site would be located
approximately 360 feet from the proposed pump station. Based on a noise level source
strength of 66 dBA at a reference distance of 5 feet, and accounting for distance
attenuation (minimum 37 dBA insertion loss) and barrier insertion loss by block walls
(minimum 5 dBA insertion loss), pump station related noise would be reduced to 24 dBA
at the nearest noise sensitive uses (R2). As such, pump station related noise would not
exceed the significance threshold of 63 dBA (the lowest nighttime ambient noise level of
58 dBA as shown in Table 16 plus 5 dBA). Operation of the project would not expose
persons to, or generate noise levels in excess of standards established in the local
general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies, Therefore,
impacts would be less than significant.
B. Would the project result in a permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the
project vicinity above levels existing without the project?
Less Than Significant Impact: As discussed previously under Impact 1, due to the
proximity of the existing offsite sensitive uses to the project site, project operations
would not expose sensitive receptors to increased exterior noise levels. As set forth in
Section 4.2 above, a project would normally have a significant impact on noise levels
from operation if the project would exceed the nighttime average ambient noise levels in
Table 3 at a noise-sensitive use. Based on the measured noise levels at the nearest
offsite sensitive receptors to the project site, it was determined that the pump station-
related noise levels would not exceed the nighttime average ambient noise levels at the
offsite sensitive receptors. As such, there would not be a substantial permanent
increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the
project, and impacts would be less than significant. No mitigation measures are
required.
C. Would the project result in a substantial temporary or periodic increase in
ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the
project?
Less than Significant Impact: As discussed previously under Impact 1, due to the
distances of the existing offsite sensitive uses to the project site, the proposed project’s
construction activities would not expose sensitive receptors to a substantial increased
exterior noise levels. A project would normally have a significant impact on noise levels
from construction if the project would exceed the ambient noise levels by 5 dBA or more
at a noise-sensitive use. Based on the estimated construction noise levels at the
nearest offsite sensitive receptors to the project site that are shown in Table 18, it was
determined that construction noise levels would not exceed the ambient noise levels by
4-97
5 dBA at offsite sensitive receptors. Thus, short-term noise impacts from construction
would be less than significant.
D. For a project located within an airport land use plan or where such a plan has
not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would
the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive
noise levels?
No Impact: The nearest airport to the project area is the John Wayne Airport, located
approximately 5 miles to the northeast. Therefore, the proposed project is not located
within an airport land use plan or within 2 miles of a public airport or public use airport.
No impact would occur. No mitigation measures are required.
E. For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose
people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?
No Impact: There are no private airstrips within the study area. Therefore, the study
area would not be adversely impacted from aircraft noise from a private air strip.
F. Would the project expose persons to or generation of excessive groundborne
vibration or groundborne noise levels?
Background
Less Than Significant Impact: Vibration can be interpreted as energy transmitted in
waves through the ground or man-made structures. These energy waves generally
dissipate with distance from the vibration source. Because energy is lost during the
transfer of energy from one particle to another, vibration becomes less perceptible with
increasing distance from the source.
As described in the Federal Transit Administration’s (FTA) Transit Noise and Vibration
Impact Assessment, ground-borne vibration can be a serious concern for nearby
neighbors of a transit system route or maintenance facility, causing buildings to shake
and rumbling sounds to be heard.30 In contrast to airborne noise, ground-borne
vibration is not a common environmental problem. It is unusual for vibration from
sources such as buses and trucks to be perceptible, even in locations close to major
roads. Some common sources of ground-borne vibration are trains, heavy trucks
traveling on rough roads, and construction activities such as blasting, pile-driving, and
operation of heavy earth-moving equipment.
There are several different methods that are used to quantify vibration. The peak
particle velocity (PPV) is defined as the maximum instantaneous peak of the vibration
signal. The PPV is most frequently used to describe vibration impacts to buildings. The
root mean square (RMS) amplitude is most frequently used to describe the effect of
30 FTA, 2006. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment. May.
4-98
vibration on the human body. The RMS amplitude is defined as the average of the
squared amplitude of the signal. Decibel notation (VdB) is commonly used to measure
RMS. The relationship of PPV to RMS velocity is expressed in terms of the “crest
factor,” defined as the ratio of the PPV amplitude to the RMS amplitude. PPV is typically
a factor of 1.7 to 6 times greater than RMS vibration velocity.31 The decibel notation
acts to compress the range of numbers required to describe vibration. Typically, ground-
borne vibration generated by man-made activities attenuates rapidly with distance from
the source of the vibration. Sensitive receptors for vibration include structures
(especially older masonry structures), people (especially residents, the elderly, and
sick), and vibration sensitive equipment.
The effects of ground-borne vibration include movement of the building floors, rattling of
windows, shaking of items on shelves or hanging on walls, and rumbling sounds. In
extreme cases, the vibration can cause damage to buildings. Building damage is not a
factor for most projects, with the occasional exception of blasting and pile-driving during
construction. Annoyance from vibration often occurs when the vibration levels exceed
the threshold of perception by only a small margin. A vibration level that causes
annoyance will be well below the damage threshold for normal buildings. The FTA
measure of the threshold of architectural damage for conventional sensitive structures is
0.2 in/sec PPV.32
In residential areas, the background vibration velocity level is usually around 50 VdB
(approximately 0.0013 in/sec PPV). This level is well below the vibration velocity level
threshold of perception for humans, which is approximately 65 VdB. A vibration velocity
level of 75 VdB is considered to be the approximate dividing line between barely
perceptible and distinctly perceptible levels for many people.33
Regulatory Standards
The FTA has adopted vibration standards that are used to evaluate potential building
damage impacts related to construction activities. The vibration damage criteria adopted
by the FTA are shown in Table 19.
Table 19 Construction Vibration Damage Criteria
Building Category PPV (in/sec)
I. Reinforced-concrete, steel or timber (no plaster) 0.5
II. Engineered concrete and masonry (no plaster) 0.3
III. Non-engineered timber and masonry
buildings
0.2
31 Ibid. 32 Ibid. 33 Ibid.
4-99
Building Category PPV (in/sec)
IV. Buildings extremely susceptible to vibration damage 0.12
SOURCE: FTA, 2006. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment. May.
In addition, the FTA has also adopted standards associated with human annoyance for
groundborne vibration impacts for the following three land-use categories: Vibration
Category 1 – High Sensitivity, Vibration Category 2 – Residential, and Vibration
Category 3 – Institutional. The FTA defines Category 1 as buildings where vibration
would interfere with operations within the building, including vibration-sensitive research
and manufacturing facilities, hospitals with vibration-sensitive equipment, and university
research operations. Vibration-sensitive equipment includes, but is not limited to,
electron microscopes, high-resolution lithographic equipment, and normal optical
microscopes. Category 2 refers to all residential land uses and any buildings where
people sleep, such as hotels and hospitals. Category 3 refers to institutional land uses
such as schools, churches, other institutions, and quiet offices that do not have
vibration-sensitive equipment, but still have the potential for activity interference. The
vibration thresholds associated with human annoyance for these three land-use
categories are shown in Table 20. No vibration thresholds have been adopted or
recommended for commercial and office uses.
Table 20 Groundborne Vibration Impact Criteria for General Assessment
Land Use Category Frequent
Eventsa
Occasional
Eventsb
Infrequent
Events
Category 1: Buildings where vibration would
interfere with interior operations.
65 VdBd 65 VdBd 65 VdBd
Category 2: Residences and buildings where
people normally sleep.
72 VdB 75 VdB 80 VdB
Category 3: Institutional land uses with primarily
daytime use.
75 VdB 78 VdB 83 VdB
There are no state vibration standards. Moreover, according to the California
Department of Transportation’s (Caltrans) Transportation and Construction Vibration
Guidance Manual, there are no official Caltrans standards for vibration.34 However, this
manual provides guidelines that can be used as screening tools for assessing the
potential for adverse vibration effects related to structural damage and human
perception. The manual is meant to provide practical guidance to Caltrans engineers,
planners, and consultants who must address vibration issues associated with the
construction, operation, and maintenance of Caltrans projects. The vibration criteria
34 Caltrans, Transportation and Construction Vibration Guidance Manual. September 2013.
4-100
established by Caltrans for assessing structural damage and human perception are
shown in Table 21 and Table 22.
Table 21 Caltrans Vibration Damage Potential Threshold Criteria
Structure and Condition
Maximum PPV (in/sec)
Transient Sources
Continuous/Freq
uent Intermittent Sources
Extremely fragile historic buildings, ruins, ancient monuments
0.12 0.08
Fragile buildings 0.2 0.1 Historic and some old
buildings
0.5 0.25
Older residential structures 0.5 0.3 New residential structures 1.0 0.5
Modern industrial/commercial
buildings
2.0 0.5
NOTE: Transient sources create a single isolated vibration event, such as blasting or drop balls. Continuous/frequent intermittent sources include impact pile drivers, pogo-stick compactors, crack and-seat equipment, vibratory pile drivers, and vibratory compaction equipment.
SOURCE: Caltrans, 2013. Transportation and Construction Vibration Guidance Manual. September.
Table 22 Caltrans Vibration Annoyance Potential Criteria
Structure and Condition
Maximum PPV (in/sec)
Transient
Sources
Continuous/Fre
quent
Intermittent
Sources
Barely perceptible 0.04 0.01
Distinctly perceptible 0.25 0.04
Strongly perceptible 0.9 0.10
Severe 2.0 0.4
NOTE: Transient sources create a single isolated vibration event, such as blasting or
drop balls. Continuous/frequent intermittent sources include impact pile drivers, pogo-
stick compactors, crack and-seat equipment, vibratory pile drivers, and vibratory
compaction equipment.
SOURCE: Caltrans, 2013. Transportation and Construction Vibration Guidance Manual.
September.
Project Impacts
Construction activities at the project site have the potential to generate low levels of
groundborne vibration as the operation of heavy equipment (i.e., compactor, backhoe,
dozer, excavators, haul trucks, etc.) generates vibrations that propagate though the
ground and diminish in intensity with distance from the source. No high-impact activities,
4-101
such as pile driving or blasting, would be used during project construction. The nearest
offsite receptors to the project site that could be exposed to vibration levels generated
from project construction include single-family residential uses west and north of the
project site. Groundborne vibrations from construction activities very rarely reach the
levels that can damage structures, but they may be perceived in buildings very close to
a construction site.
The PPV vibration velocities for several types of construction equipment, along with
their corresponding RMS velocities (in VdB), that can generate perceptible vibration
levels are identified in Table 23. Based on the information presented in Table 23,
vibration velocities could range from 0.003 to 0.089 in/sec PPV at 25 feet from the
source of activity.
Table 23 Vibration Source Levels for Construction Equipment
Equipment
Approximate PPV (in/sec) Approximate RMS (VdB)
25 Feet 50 Feet 60 Feet 75 Feet 100 Feet 25 Feet 50 Feet 60 Feet 75 Feet 100 Feet
Large
Bulldozer
0.089 0.031 0.024 0.017 0.011 87 78 76 73 69
Caisson
Drilling
0.089 0.031 0.024 0.017 0.011 87 78 76 73 69
Loaded
Trucks
0.076 0.027 0.020 0.015 0.010 86 77 75 72 68
Jackhammer 0.035 0.012 0.009 0.007 0.004 79 70 68 65 61
Small
Bulldozer
0.003 0.001 0.0008 0.0006 0.0004 58 49 47 44 40
SOURCE: FTA, 2006. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment. May.
Table 24shows the estimated construction-related groundborne vibration levels that
could occur at the nearest offsite structures during construction at the project site and a
comparison to the identified significance threshold. As shown in Table 24, the vibration
velocities forecasted to occur at the offsite sensitive receptors could potentially be up to
0.013 in/sec PPV (or 70 VdB) at the nearest single-family residential uses.
4-102
Table 24 Groundborne Vibration Levels at Offsite Sensitive Uses Compared to
Caltrans’ and FTA Vibration Damage Potential Threshold
Offsite Sensitive Land
Use
Approximate
Distance to Project Site
(ft.)a
Estimate
d PPV (in/sec)/V
dB
Caltrans’
Vibration Damage
Potential Threshold,
PPV (in/sec)b
FTA Vibration Damage
Potential Threshold,
PPV (in/sec)c
Exceed
Caltrans’ or FTA
Vibration Threshold?
(Yes or No)
Multi-family residential uses north of the
project site along Brookhurst Street
90 0.013/70 0.5 0.5 No
ft. = feet in/sec = inches per second. an Approximate distances are measured from the nearest construction area within the project site where vibration levels would be generated to the nearest offsite structure. b Caltrans’ Vibration Damage Potential Thresholds were taken from Table 6. c FTA Vibration Damage Potential Thresholds were taken from Table 4. SOURCE: ESA, 2016.
Under the FTA construction vibration damaged criteria, the existing residential
structures are considered “reinforce-concrete, steel or timber (no plaster)”. With respect
to the vibration sources associated with project construction, it is anticipated that
continuous/frequent intermittent sources of vibration, as defined under Caltrans’ criteria,
would occur from compaction activities at the project site, although no pile-driving would
be required. As such, the vibration level criteria for continuous/frequent intermittent
sources are used in this analysis.
Based on the information shown in Table 24, which shows an estimated PPV of 0.013,
none of the existing offsite residential structures (considered as “new residential
structures” and “reinforced-concrete, steel or timber” under the Caltrans’ and FTA
construction vibration damage criteria, respectively) located to the north of the project
site would be exposed to PPV groundborne vibration levels exceeding the FTA and
Caltrans’ 0.5 inches per second criteria as shown in Tables 21 and 22, respectively. As
such, the vibration impacts at these residential structures would be less than significant.
With respect to human annoyance, the City Noise Element identifies residential areas
as noise-sensitive land uses. Currently, these types of sensitive uses that are located
nearest to the project site include the multiple-family uses that are located immediately
north of the project site. Under the Caltrans’ vibration annoyance potential criteria (refer
to Table 7), vibration levels exceeding 0.04 inches per second PPV for
continuous/frequent intermittent sources would be considered distinctly perceptible. In
addition, under the FTA vibration impact criteria for general assessment, residential
receptors are considered to be a Category 2 land use (refer to Table 5). Land uses
under this FTA category exposed to vibration levels exceeding 80 VdB for infrequent
events would be considered an impact. As shown in Table 24, the multiple-family
residential receptors located immediately north of the project site would be exposed to
vibration levels of 0.013 in/sec PPV (or 70 VdB) which is well below the Caltrans’ 0.04
4-103
in/sec PPV distinctly perceptible threshold and the FTA’s 80 VdB impact threshold.
Thus, vibration impacts related to human annoyance would be less than significant.
4.13 Population/Housing
A. Would the project induce substantial population growth in an area, either
directly or indirectly?
No Impact: The proposed project would provide additional wastewater flows to OCWD
GWRS water treatment facility to produce additional water supplies to help replenish the
Orange County Groundwater Basin. The proposed project would help to meet planned
water supply needs and would reduce the demand for imported water supplies. The
proposed project would not involve the extension of any new infrastructure or provide
new water supplies to any undeveloped areas that would facilitate new growth. The
proposed project would assist in accommodating planned growth in OCSD and OCWD
service area and would not induce more growth than what has been planned for by local
and regional planning agencies.
B. Would the project displace substantial numbers of existing housing,
necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
No Impact: The proposed project would be operated and constructed at an existing
wastewater treatment facility. The implementation of the proposed project would not
displace any existing housing. The construction of the proposed project would generate
short-term construction job opportunities. The majority of the employment opportunities
would be expected to be filled by the local employed and unemployed labor force and
would not increase population levels that would increase housing demand in the study
area.
C. Would the project displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the
construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
No Impact: The implementation of the proposed project would not displace any
households or individuals for any period of time.
4.14 Public Services
A. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated
with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for
new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could
cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service
ratios, response times or other performance objectives for fire protection police
protection, schools, parks or other public facilities.
Police and Fire Protection Services
No Impact: Police and fire protection service is currently provided to the study area by
the City of Huntington Beach Police Department and the City of Huntington Beach Fire
4-104
Department. The construction and operation of the proposed project would not increase
the demand for additional fire protection services and police protection services beyond
the current level of demand within the study area. Additionally the construction of the
proposed project would not require any road closures or activities that would increase
response times to the study area. No adverse impacts to fire protection services and
police protection services would occur.
School Facilities
No Impact: The closest school facilities to OCSD Plant No. 2 would be John Eader
Elementary, Isaac Sowers Middle School and Edison High School. The implementation
of the proposed project would not generate a substantial need for new school facilities.
Any new full time employees that could result from the proposed project are expected to
be minimal. In the event new households do relocate into the study area the existing
schools within study area would be expected to meet school facility needs for all grades.
No adverse impacts to school facilities would occur.
Parks
No Impact: The implementation of the proposed project would not generate a need for
new park facilities. Any new full time employees that could result from the proposed
project are expected to be minimal. In the event new households do relocate into the
study area existing park facilities within the study area would be expected to meet
parkland needs. No adverse impacts to park facilities would occur.
4.15 Recreation
Project Impacts
A. Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional
parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration
of the facility would occur or be accelerated?
Less than Significant Impact: The proposed project would not generate new
households or a substantial amount of new employees that would increase the use of
existing neighborhood and regional parks within the study area. Additionally, the
construction operations associated with the proposed project would not require
temporary closure of the Santa Ana River Trail. During construction operations there
trail users along the Santa Ana River Trail could experience elevated levels of
construction noise. However, the impact would be for a short-period of time and would
only be experienced along segments of the trail that would be near where construction
activity would be occurring. Potential impacts to existing recreation facilities would be
less than significant
4-105
B. Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or
expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect
on the environment.
No Impact. The proposed project does not propose new recreation facilities or
proposes to expand existing recreation facilities. Therefore, there will not be any
adverse impacts associated with the construction of new recreation facilities or the
expansion of existing facilities. No mitigation measures are required.
4.16 Transportation/Traffic
Existing Setting
Study Area Circulation System
Regional access to the study area is provided by the I-405 Freeway via the Brookhurst
Street exits. Primary local access is provided by Brookhurst Street.
Congestion Management Program
The Orange County Transportation Agency is responsible for the implementation of the
County of Orange Congestion Management Program (CMP). The CMP is designed to
reduce traffic congestion and to provide a mechanism for the coordination of land use
and transportation decisions. When a project generates more than 100 peak trips along
a CMP highway or 51 or more trips through a CMP intersection, the project would be
required to prepare a traffic impact study to evaluate the impacts on the CMP highway
and intersection.
Existing Truck Routes
The City of Huntington Beach General Plan Circulation Element identifies the following
study area roadways as designated truck routes.
• Brookhurst Street,
• Pacific Coast Highway
• Hamilton Avenue
Public Transportation
The City of Huntington Beach is served by the OCTA bus service. Currently, the OCTA
operates 19 bus routes throughout the City, a demand response service through the
“Dial-a-Ride” program, and two park-and-ride facilities. Most major streets within the
City have bus service available.
Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities
The City of Huntington Beach has an extensive trail system that includes pedestrian and
bike trails. Additionally, the County of Orange maintains a coordinated system of trails,
including bikeways, hiking trails throughout Orange County. Within the study area the
4-106
most widely used off-street bike trails would be the Santa Ana River Trail and the
Talbert Marsh Bike Trail. Additionally, along the study area roadways are on-street bike
ways.
Project Impacts
A. Would the project be in conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy
establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation
system, taking into account all modes of transportation including mass transit
and non-motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation system,
including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways,
pedestrians and bicycle paths.
Less than Significant Impact: The implementation of the proposed project would not
increase long term operation trips within the study area where it would reduce the level
of service of study area intersections and roadway segments. Therefore, no long term
adverse traffic impacts would occur.
The construction operations for the proposed project would generate short-term traffic
trips which would include, hauling trips, worker traffic trips, delivery traffic trips, and
traffic trips. Additionally, construction traffic would be generated from the mobilization
and demobilization of construction equipment. A listing of construction traffic trips
generated by the proposed project is shown in Table 28.
Table 25: Project Construction Traffic Trips
Activity Worker Vendor Daily
Haul
Trips
Total
Haul
Trips
Pump Station, Tanks, Pipeline/Meter vault
Excavation
10 1 30 540
Construction of Pump Station Wet Wells, Tank
Piles, Piping
10 2 18 230
Construction of Flow Tanks,/Pump Station/Meter
Vault
10 2 16 304
Construction Flow Tanks Walls/Roof Construction 10 2 9 72
Equipping Flow Pump Station/Meter Vault 5 4 0 0
The majority of construction traffic trips generated from the proposed project would be
hauling trips. As shown in Table 25 a maximum of 30 hauling trips would occur each
day during Phase 1 when the majority of the excavation and hauling activities would
occur. The hauling truck trips would occur during non-peak hours and would not reduce
the level of service of any intersection or roadway segment within the study area.
During the construction operations a maximum of up to 10 worker daily vehicle trips and
2 vendor vehicle trips could occur during peak traffic periods. This amount of traffic trips
4-107
would have a less than significant impact on the study area circulation system. No
mitigation measures are required.
B. Would the project be in conflict with an applicable congestion management
program, including, but not limited to level of service standards and travel
demand measures, or other standards and travel demand measures, or other
standards established by County congestion management agency for designated
roads and highways.
No Impact: The closest CMP Highway within the study area would Pacific Coast
Highway. Pacific Coast Highway is a designated truck route. Therefore, no construction
traffic generated from the proposed project would be using Pacific Coast Highway to
access the study area. There is the potential that some workers could utilize Pacific
Coast Highway or other CMP Highways to travel to the study area. As shown in Table
25 the short term traffic generated from the proposed project would not exceed 100
peak trips or 51 or more trips through an intersection. No potential conflicts with the
County of Orange Congestion Management Program would occur.
C. Would the project result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an
increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety
risks?
No Impact. According to the John Wayne Airport Land Use Consistency Plan, the
study area is not within a clear zone or accidental potential zone. Implementation of the
proposed project would not increase the level of air traffic within the regional area. The
maximum height of the tallest structure proposed on OSCD Plant No. 2 Site would be
28 feet. There would be no component of the proposed project that would encroach into
navigable air space causing a change to air traffic patterns. No mitigation measures are
required.
D. Would the project increase hazards to a design feature or incompatible uses or
equipment?
Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation: The construction and operation of the
proposed project would occur on the OCSD Plant No. 2 Site. The proposed project
would not involve any construction activities along a public roadway that would increase
traffic hazards.
The proposed project would require the movement of heavy construction equipment
within the study area during mobilization and demobilization periods. The weight of the
heavy construction could potentially damage the surfaces of study area roadways. All
heavy truck traffic generated from the proposed project would be required to use a
designated truck route for access to and from the project site. By directing truck traffic to
specifically designated truck routes potential damage to study area roadway surfaces
would be minimized.
4-108
During mobilization and demobilization of heavy construction equipment, turning
movements into the OCSD Plant No. 2 Site could require temporary lane closures. The
lane closure would occur during non-peak traffic periods and if needed a flag men would
be provided to safely direct traffic. With the implementation of Mitigation Measure T-1,
potential hazards associated with the mobilization and demobilization of construction
equipment would be reduced to less than significant.
Mitigation Measure
T-1: OCWD will be responsible for preparing adequate detour and access plans to
ensure the safe movement of vehicles and pedestrians during the construction period.
E. Would the project result in inadequate emergency access?
No Impact: The construction and operation of the proposed project would not cause
any road closures that would adversely impact emergency access routes and
emergency response times to the study area.
F. Would the project be in conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs
regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities or otherwise decrease the
performance or safety of such facilities?
Less than Significant Impact: The construction and operation of the proposed project
would not require the long term closure of public transportation, bicycle or pedestrian
circulation systems. The mobilization and demobilization of construction equipment onto
the OCSD Plant No. 2 Site could require temporary closures of onsite street bike lanes
near the Plant entrance. The closures would be limited to the time of the mobilization
and demobilization activity which in most cases would be less than 30 minutes and if
needed flag men would be provided to safely direct traffic. With the implementation of
Mitigation Measure T-1 potential conflicts with public transportation systems would be
less than significant.
Mitigation Measure
Mitigation Measure T-1 required.
4.17 Tribal Resources
A. Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a
tribal cultural resource as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is
geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred
place, or object with value to a California Native American Tribe and that is listed
or eligible for listing in the California Register or Historical Resources, or in a
local register of historical resources.
4-109
Ethnographic Setting
The study area is located at the southern extent of Gabrielino-Tongva territory, near the
boundary with the Juaneño, or more properly Acjachemen, to the south. Traditionally,
the boundary between the two is identified as either Aliso Creek or the drainage divide
to the north of the creek, roughly 20 miles south of the study area. Both are included
here.
Gabrielino-Tongva
Prior to European colonization, the Gabrielino-Tongva, a Takic-speaking group,
occupied a diverse area that included: the watersheds of the Los Angeles, San Gabriel,
and Santa Ana rivers; the Los Angeles basin; and the islands of San Clemente, San
Nicolas, and Santa Catalina (Kroeber, 1925). The Gabrielino-Tongva is reported to have
been second only to the Chumash in terms of population size and regional influence
(Bean and Smith, 1978).
The Gabrielino-Tongva was hunter-gatherers and lived in permanent communities
located near the presence of a stable food supply. Community populations generally
ranged from 50-100 inhabitants, although larger settlements may have existed. The
Gabrielino-Tongva are estimated to have had a population numbering around 5,000 in
the pre-contact period, with many recorded villages along the drainages mentioned
above and in the Los Angeles basin proper (Kroeber, 1925).
Beginning with the Spanish Period and the establishment of Mission San Gabriel
Arcángel, Native Americans throughout the Los Angeles area suffered severe
depopulation and their traditional culture was radically altered. Nonetheless, Gabrielino-
Tongva descendants still reside in the greater Los Angeles and Orange County areas
and maintain an active interest in their heritage.
Juaneño-Acjachemen
The Juaneño or Acjachemen, also Takic-speaking, occupied a more restricted area
extending across southern Orange County and northern San Diego County. Juaneño
territory extended along the Pacific coast from midway between Arroyo San Onofre and
Las Pulgas Canyon in the south to Aliso Creek in the north, and continued east into the
Santa Ana Mountains from Santiago Peak in the northwest to the headwaters of Arroyo
San Mateo in the southeast (Kroeber 1925). The Juaneño were bounded by the
Gabrielino-Tongva to the north, and the Luiseño to the east and south.
The Juaneño-Acjachemen, like the Gabrielino-Tongva, subsisted on small game,
coastal marine resources, and a wide variety of plant foods such as grass seeds and
acorns. Their houses were conical thatched reed, brush, or bark structures. The
Juaneño inhabited permanent villages centered around patrilineal clans, with each
village headed by a chief, known as a nu (Kroeber 1925; Sparkman 1908). Seasonal
camps associated with villages were also used. Each village or clan had an associated
4-110
territory and hunting, collecting, and fishing areas. Villages were typically located in
proximity to a food or water source, or in defensive locations, often near valley bottoms,
streams, sheltered coves or canyons, or coastal strands (Bean and Shipek 1978).
The Juaneño-Acjachemen population was estimated to have numbered approximately
1,000 at the time of European contact. Beginning with the Spanish Period and the
establishment of Mission San Juan Capistrano, the Juaneño-Acjachemen suffered
severe depopulation and their traditional culture was radically altered. Nonetheless,
descendants still reside in the Orange County area and maintain an active interest in
their heritage.
Native American Outreach
A search of the Sacred Lands File was completed by the NAHC for the Project on June
6, 2016, which included the APE. The results indicated there were no documented
Native American cultural resources within the APE. Attached to the response was a list
of Native American groups and representatives who may have knowledge of Native
American resources within the Project area, which included the APE. Letters were
mailed on June 20, 2016 and follow-up phone calls were conducted on June 28, 2016.
Three Tribes responded to express their concerns. Anthony Morales of the
Gabrieleno/Tongva Band of Mission Indians indicated that the area is cultural sand
spiritually sensitive and recommended Native American and archaeological monitoring.
Joyce Stanfield-Perry of the Juaneño Band of Mission Indians, Acjachemen Nation,
recommended Native American and archaeological monitoring during all ground
disturbing activities and in the event of a discovery, that the project be stopped and the
mitigation plan re-evaluated. Anthony Salas of the Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians-
Kizh Nation recommended Native American and archaeological monitoring during all
ground disturbing activities.
AB 52
In January 2018, OCWD notified three Native American representatives who have
requested to be informed on activities conducted by the OCWD, under PRC Section
21080.3.1. The OCWD reached out to the Juaneño Band of Mission Indians
Acjachemen Nation, Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation and Gabrieleno
Tonga San Gabriel Band Mission Indians. At this time no additional information has
been provided regarding the potential for Native American cultural resources to be
present.
Less than Significant with Mitigation: Native American respondents indicated
sensitivity for archaeological resources in the APE and surrounding area given the
proximity to the Santa Ana River corridor. In addition, the geoarchaeological review
indicates that the portion of the APE within OCSD Plant No. 2 was largely salt marsh
into the early 20th century and would have offered important resources. Owing to its
4-111
marshy environment, this area may not have been favored for any substantial
occupation, but nonetheless it is likely to have been visited for resource procurement
and could contain artifacts associated with those activities. Additionally, the saturated
conditions offered within this setting could have aided in the preservation of relatively
rare organic artifacts. Mitigation Measures CR-5 is recommended to ensure that the
project would result in No Historic Properties Affected under Section 106 of the NHPA
and less than significant impacts to historical or unique archaeological resources under
CEQA.
Mitigation Measure
CR-5: Prior to issuance of a grading permit and prior to start of any ground-disturbing
activities, OCWD will retain a Native American monitor to observe all ground-disturbing
activities. The monitor shall be obtained from a Tribe that is traditionally and culturally
affiliated with the area, according the NAHC list. The monitor shall be empowered to
halt or redirect ground-disturbing activities away from the vicinity of a discovery until the
qualified archaeologist has evaluated the discovery and determined appropriate
treatment. Monitoring may be reduced or discontinued, in coordination with OCWD and
the qualified archaeologist, based on observations of subsurface soil stratigraphy and/or
the presence of older C-horizon deposits.
B. Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a
tribal cultural resource as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is
geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred
place, or object with value to a California Native American Tribe and that is a
resource determined by the lead agency in its discretion and supported by
substantial evidence to be significant and which the lead agency considers the
significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe.
Native American respondents indicated sensitivity for archaeological resources in the
APE and surrounding area given the proximity to the Santa Ana River corridor. In
addition, the geoarchaeological review indicates that the portion of the APE within
OCSD Plant No. 2 was largely salt marsh into the early 20th century and would have
offered important resources. Additionally, the saturated conditions offered within this
setting could have aided in the preservation of relatively rare organic artifacts. Mitigation
Measures CR-5 is recommended to ensure that the project would result in No Historic
Properties Affected under Section 106 of the NHPA and less than significant impacts to
historical or unique archaeological resources under CEQA.
Mitigation Measure
Mitigation Measure CR-5 is required.
4-112
4.18 Utilities/Service Systems
Environmental Setting
The study area is situated within an urbanized area and supported by existing utility
service systems.
Water Service
The Huntington Beach Public Works Department would be responsible for water service
within the study area, including operating and maintaining wells, reservoirs, imported
water connections, and distribution pipelines.
Wastewater Service
The Orange County Sanitation District provides wastewater service to the study area.
The Sanitation District provides wastewater services to approximately 2.6 million people
within a 479 square mile service area in central and northwest Orange County, which
includes 20 cities and four special districts. It operates the third largest wastewater
system on the West Coast and consists of over 396 miles of sewers and two regional
wastewater treatment plants.
Storm Drainage Systems
The Orange County Flood Control District owns, operates, and maintains the region’s
flood control facilities while the City of Huntington Beach is responsible for the operation
Solid Waste Management
The City’s Huntington Beach Public Works Department is responsible for weekly
residential and commercial trash collection services and contracts with Rainbow
Disposal Company, Inc. All trash collected by the City’s refuse services are sorted and
processed at a Materials Recovery Facility. Rainbow Disposal Company operates a
Transfer Station located at 17121 Nichols Street with a design capacity of approximately
2,800 tons per day.
The Orange County Integrated Waste Management Department (OCIWMD) owns and
operates three active landfills serving the Orange County region. These include the
Frank R. Bowerman Landfill (11002 Bee Canyon Access Road, Irvine); Olinda Alpha
Landfill (1942 N. Valencia Avenue, Brea), and the Prima Deshecha Landfill (32250 La
Pata Avenue, San Juan Capistrano). The Olinda Alpha Landfill and the Prima Deshecha
Landfill are open to the public while the Frank Bowerman Landfill is for commercial use
only. All three landfills are permitted as Class III landfills. Class III landfills accept only
non-hazardous municipal solid waste for disposal; no hazardous or liquid waste can be
accepted. The daily maximum amounts received and remaining capacity for land fill
facility is shown in Table 26.
4-113
Table 26: Capacity Orange County Landfills
Landfill Daily Maximum
(Tons)
Maximum Capacity
(Cubic Yards)
Remaining Capacity
(Cubic Yards)
Frank Bowerman 11,500 127,000,000 59, 411,872
Olinda Alpha 8,000 76,900,000 38,578,383
Prima Deshecha 4,000 172,900,000 87,384,799
Project Impacts
A. Would the project exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable
Regional Water Quality Control Board?
No Impact. The proposed project would provide additional wastewater flows to OCWD
GWRS water treatment facility to produce additional water supplies to replenish the
Orange County Groundwater Basin. The treated water generated from the GWRS
would be subject to the permit conditions under RWQCB Order R-8-2004-002, and
subsequent amendment R8-2008-0058. Compliance with the permit conditions would
ensure that RWQCB requirements would not be exceeded. No mitigation measures are
required.
B. Would the project require or result in the construction of new water or
wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction
of which could cause significant environmental effects?
No Impact: The proposed project be constructed and operated on OCSD Plant No. 2
Site and would not require the expansion or construction of any off site facilities that
would result in significant impacts to the environment. No mitigation measures are
required.
C. Would the project require or result in the construction of new storm water
drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which
could cause significant environmental effects?
No Impact: The proposed project would slightly increase the rate of surface water
runoff on OCSD Plant No. 2. Surface water flows would be conveyed into existing
drainage infrastructure and onsite wastewater treatment processes. No mitigation
measures are required.
D. Are sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing
entitlements and resources or new or expanded entitlements needed?
No Impact. The water stored in the flow equalization tanks would be from existing
wastewater flows conveyed to the OCSD Plant No. 2 Site. No additional water supply
entitlements, or expanded water supply entitlements are needed. No mitigation
measures are required.
4-114
E. Would the project result in the determination by the wastewater treatment
provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to
serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the providers existing
commitments.
No Impact: The proposed project would not expand OCSD existing wastewater
demands and would not have an adverse impact on the capacity of OCSD treatment
facility or an adverse impact on the capacity of service lines that support the OCSD
facilities. No mitigation measures are required.
F. Is the project served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to
accommodate the project solid waste disposal need?
Less than Significant Impact: The long term operation of the proposed project would
not increase the demand for solid waste disposal over the current level of demand.
Construction operations associated with the proposed project would generate limited
amounts of solid waste. The closest landfill to Plant No. 2 would be the Frank R.
Bowerman Landfill located at 11002 Bee Canyon Access Road in the City of Irvine. The
Frank R. Bowerman Landfill has a remaining capacity of 59,411,872 cubic yards. The
proposed project would comply with federal, state and local statues and regulations
related to solid waste and where possible would recycle discarded construction
materials and other solid waste. The amount of construction related solid waste
generate from proposed project would have a de minimize impact on the capacity of
landfills that would serve the proposed project. To minimize solid waste disposal
demands OCWD would investigate all available alternatives, and then select the best
method of solid waste disposal and reduction of solid waste stream. With the
implementation of Mitigation Measure U-1 potential solid waste disposal needs would
be less than significant.
Mitigation Measure
U-1: OCWD will investigate all available alternatives, and then select the best method of
solid waste disposal and reduction of solid waste stream as required in the California
Integrated Waste Management Act prior to the start of construction.
G. Would the project comply with federal, state and local statutes and regulations
related to solid waste?
Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation: Any solid waste generated by the
proposed project would be hauled from the site, diverted and recycled, in accordance
with the California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989. If any hazardous
materials are encountered, the OCWD would coordinate with the City of Huntington
Beach and the Orange County Health Care Agency’s Certified Unified Program Agency
to ensure that all hazardous wastes would be disposed of properly in accordance with
local, state and federal laws. No mitigation measures are required. With the
4-115
implementation of Mitigation Measure U-1 potential conflicts with federal, state and local
statutes and regulations related to solid waste would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measure
Mitigation Measure U-1 required.
MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
A. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment,
substantially reduce the habitat of fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife
population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or
animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or
endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods
of California history or prehistory.
Less than Significant with Mitigation: The construction and operation of the
proposed project would occur on the OCSD Plant No. 2 Site. The location where the
proposed project improvements would occur is devoid of sensitive habitat, wildlife and
plant species and cultural resources. The proposed project would implement mitigation
measures to avoid impacts to unknown cultural resources in the unlikely event they are
encountered during construction operations. The implementation of the proposed
project would not reduce the habitat of fish or wildlife to self-sustaining levels and would
not impact any known cultural resources.
B. Does the project have impacts that are individually limited but cumulatively
considerable?
Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation: The proposed project would comply
with local and regional planning programs, applicable codes and ordinances, state and
federal laws and regulations and project mitigation measures. Compliance with the
applicable codes, planning programs and project mitigation measures would reduce the
project’s incremental contributions to cumulative impacts to a less than significant level.
C. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial
adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?
Less than Significant with Mitigation: The proposed project would not have any
substantial adverse effects on human beings. The proposed project would comply with
local and regional planning programs, applicable codes and ordinances, state and
federal laws and regulations and project specific mitigation measures to insure that long
term operational activities and short-term construction activities associated with the
proposed project would not result in direct or indirect adverse impacts to human beings.
5-1
SECTION 5.0 CEQA-Plus Federal Consultation Review
5.1 Purpose
This CEQA-Plus Federal Consultation Review analysis has been prepared to meet
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) environmental review requirements and is
supplement to the CEQA Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared for the
Orange County Water District GWRS Water Conveyance Facility Project.
5.2 Federal Endangered Species Act (ESA), Section 7
Does the project involve any direct effects from construction activities, or indirect
effects such as growth inducement that may affect federally listed threatened or
endangered species or their critical habitat that are known, or have a potential, to
occur on-site, in the surrounding area, or in the service area?
No. Discuss why the Project will not impact any federally listed special status
species:
The following analysis is based on the Biological Assessment that was prepared for the
Orange County Water District Water Conveyance Facilities Project by the OCWD
Natural Resources Department in January 2018. The Biological Assessment is
presented in its entirety in Appendix B. As part of the Biological Assessment, OCWD
conducted an onsite biological field survey in January of 2018 to determine the
presence of Federal Listed plant species and Federal Listed wildlife species. .
The OCSD Plant No.2 Site is located within USGS Newport Beach Quadrangle at
Township 6 South, Range 10 West, and Section 20. The site is developed with
wastewater treatment structures, offices, and paved parking areas and roadways. A
row of eucalyptus trees extends along western boundary of Plant No. 2 and scattering
of native landscaping provided along the Santa Ana River Trail boarders Plant No. 2 to
the east. A site survey of the study area did not identify any sensitive biological
resources on Plant No. 2. However, within close vicinity to OCSD Plant No.2 are two
sensitive biological resources; the Talbert Marsh and California Least Tern Colony.
Talbert Marsh is a tidal marsh that has been restored to full tidal action. The water
within Talbert Marsh is seawater from the ocean inlet located south of the marsh
property that fluctuates in height up to 8 feet from tidal flows. Talbert Marsh provides
habitat for both migratory and resident bird species.
South of Pacific Coast Highway is the location the California Least Tern Natural
Preserve Area. The California Least Tern Natural Preserve Area was first established
under the Huntington State Beach General Development Plan in 1976. It was originally
dedicated on 2.5 acres and was fenced off with a cyclone fence (a heavy-duty, chain-
link fence topped with barbed wire) to prevent predators from harassing the birds. Over
the years, the California least tern’s nesting area has expanded beyond the fenced
5-2
area, State Parks has erected additional picket fencing to protect the birds. Currently,
the cyclone fence area covers approximately 8.9 acres and the picket fence “front-yard”
area is 3.8 acres. California State Parks protects the nesting area by limiting access,
conducting trash removal, grooming the sand periodically, and conducting predator
management.
Federal Listed Plant Species
To determine the potential for Federal Listed plant species to be present within the
study area, a database search with the United States Fish and Wildlife information and
Planning Database and the California Department Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) Natural
Diversity Database was conducted. A listing of Federal Listed plant species with
potential to occur within the Newport Beach USGS Quadrangle is shown in Table 27.
Subsequent to the database search, a survey of the study area was conducted to
determine the presence of plant species identified in the database searches. The
determination on the potential for the Federal Listed plant species to occur within the
study area was based on the following criteria:
• Present: Species was observed within the study area within the last year.
• High: The study area supports suitable habitat and the species has been
observed within the last year.
• Moderate: The study area supports suitable and the species has not been
observed within last two years.
• Low: The study area lacks suitable habitat for the species.
Table 27 Special Status Plant Species
Species Federal State CNPS General Habitat/Recent
Occurrence
Potential for Occurrence Study
Area
Ventura Marsh
Milk-vetch (Astragalus
pycnostachy var.
Lanosissimus
E NL Marshes, Swamps,
Coastal Dunes, Coastal Scrub
Low
Study Area lacks suitable habitat
Salt Marsh Birds-beak (Chloropyron
maritimum ssp.
Maritimum)
E E 1B.2 Coastal Salt marsh, Coastal Dunes
Low Study Area lacks
suitable habitat.
San Diego Button-Celery
(Eryngium aristulatum
var. parishii)
E E 1B.1 Vernal pools, Coastal Scrub, Valley and
Foothill Grasslands
Low Study Area lacks
suitable habitat
Gambels Water Cress E T 1B.1 Marshes and swamps Low Study Area lacks
5-3
(Nasturtium gambelii) suitable habitat
California
Orcutt grass (Orcuttia
californica)
E E 1B.1 Wetlands, Vernal
Pools
Low
Study Area lacks suitable habitat
Federal E- Endangered T-Threatened SSC- Special Species of Concern C-Candidate for Listing NL-Not Listed
State Listing (California Endangered Species Act, CDFG FP-Fully Protected E-Endangered T-Threatened S-Sensitive SSC-Special Species of Concern WL-Watch List NL-Not Listed
California Native Plant Society CNPS 1A-Plants presumed extinct in California 1B- Plants rare, threatened, or endangered in California and elsewhere 2-Plants rare, threatened, or endangered in California but more common elsewhere 3-Plants about which we need more review 4-Plants of limited distribution CNPS Threat Rank .1 Seriously Endangered .2 Fairly Endangered
.3 Not Very Endangered
Federal Listed Wildlife Species
To determine the potential for Federal Listed wildlife species to be present within the
study area, a database search with the United States Fish and Wildlife Service
(USFWS) information and Planning Database and the Department of California Fish
and Wildlife Natural Diversity Database was conducted. A listing of Federal Listed
wildlife species with potential to occur within the Newport Beach USGS Quadrangle is
shown in Table 28. Subsequent to the database search, OCWD conducted a survey of
the study area to determine the potential for the Federal Listed wildlife species to be
present within the study area. The determination on the potential for the Federal Listed
wildlife species to occur within the study area was based on the following criteria:
• Present: Species was observed within the study area within the last year.
• High: The study area supports suitable habitat and the species has been
observed within the last year.
• Moderate: The study area supports suitable and the species has not been
observed within last two years.
• Low: The study area lacks suitable habitat for the species.
Table 28 Special Status Wildlife Species
Species Federal State General
Habitat/Recent Occurrence
Potential Occurrence
Study Area
San Diego Fairy
Shrimp (Branchinecta
sandiegonensis)
E SSC Vernal pools
Low
Study Area lacks suitable habitat
Western Snowy Plover
(Charadrius alexandrines
nivosus)
T SSC Sandy Beaches Low Study Area lacks
suitable habitat
Southwestern E E Riparian woodlands Low
5-4
Willow Flycatcher (Empidonax trailli
extimus)
Study Area lacks suitable habitat
Pacific Pocket Mouse
(perognathus longimembris
pacifus)
E SSC Coastal Plains Low Study Area lacks
suitable habitat
Coastal California Gnatcatcher
(Polioptila californica
californica)
T SSC Coastal sage scrub Low Study Area lacks
suitable habitat
Light-footed Ridgway rail
(Rallus longirostris levipes)
E E Salt marshes Low Study Area lacks
suitable habitat
California Least
Tern (Sterna antillarum)
E E Sandy Beaches Low
Study Area lacks suitable habitat
Least Bell’s vireo
(Vireo bellii pusillus)
E E Low growing riparian
habitats
Low
Study Area lacks suitable habitat
Western Yellow Billed cuckoo (Coccyzus
americanus
occidentalis)
T E Riparian Woodlands Low Study Area lacks suitable habitat
Legend Federal Endangered Species Act E- Endangered T-Threatened SSC- Special Species of Concern C-Candidate for Listing California Endangered Species Act/California Department Fish Game FP-Fully Protected E-Endangered T-Threatened S-Sensitive SSC-Special Species of Concern WL-Watch List
Critical Habitat
The Federal Endangered Species Act requires the federal government to designate
Critical Habitat for any species it lists under the Federal Endangered Species Act.
Critical Habitat is defined as 1) specific areas within the geographical area occupied by
the specie at the time of listing, if they contain physical or biological features essential to
conservation, and those features may require special management considerations or
protection and 2) specific areas outside the geographical area occupied by the species
if the agency determines that the area itself is essential for conservation. According to
the of USFWS Information, Planning, and Conservation System Database and the
California Department of Fish and Wildlife Natural Diversity Database, the study area is
not located on lands that are designated as Critical Habitat.
5-5
Project Impacts
Onsite Impacts
Less than Significant Impact: Based on a review of databases from United State Fish
and Wildlife Service and California Department of Fish and Wildlife and biological
surveys conducted within the study area, it has been determined that there would be
low potential for special status plant species or special status wildlife species to be
present on OCSD Plant No. 2 Site. As shown in Table 27 and Table 28 Plant No. 2
lacks suitable habitat to support special status plant species or special status wildlife
species that were identified in the database search. Additionally, no indications were
found that any special status species were ever present. Therefore, implementation of
the proposed project would not result in adverse impacts to any special status plant
species or special status wildlife species.
Offsite Impacts
Less than Significant Impact: Located south of OCSD Plant No. 2 is the Talbert
Marsh and south of Pacific Coast Highway is the California Least Tern Colony. Both of
these biological resources could provide suitable nesting habitat for special status bird
species. The construction operations for the proposed project would be confined to
OCSD Plant No. 2 Site. No construction activities would occur at the Talbert Marsh or at
the California Least Tern Colony. Therefore, no direct impacts to special status plant or
wildlife species would occur.
The construction activities for the proposed project would involve the operation of heavy
construction equipment that could operate during nesting season. If the construction
activity was to occur in close proximity to nesting birds there would be the potential that
breeding patterns could be disturbed. The United States Fish and Wildlife Service as
established a noise impact threshold of 60 dBA to identify potential adverse impacts to
nesting birds. The Talbert Marsh is located approximately 3,300 feet from where the
construction activities would occur and the California Least Tern Colony is located
approximately 4,400 feet from the construction would occur. Based on the nosiest
piece of construction equipment that would be used, the noise estimated level at the
Talbert Marsh and at the California Least Tern Colony would be below 49 dBA.
Additionally, with the presence of the block wall around Plant No. 2 Site and the traffic
noise along Pacific Coast Highway, it would be very unlikely that construction noise
would herd at either location. Potential indirect noise impacts to special status wildlife
species would be less than significant. No mitigation measures are required.
5-6
5.3 Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, Essential
Fish Habitat:
Does the project involve any direct effects from construction activities, or indirect
effects such as growth inducement that may adversely affect essential fish
habitat?
No. Discuss why the project will not impact essential fish habitat:
According to review of the National Marine Fisheries Service Essential Fish Habitat Map
for the Pacific Ocean, there is no essential fish habitat in the surface water bodies near
the study area. Therefore, the construction and operation of the proposed project would
not result in adverse impacts to any Essential Fish Habitat.
5.4 National Historic Preservation Act, Section 106
Identify the area of potential effects (APE), including construction, staging areas,
and depth of any excavation. (Note: the APE is three dimensional and includes all
areas that may be affected by the project, including the surface area and
extending below ground to the depth of any project excavations).
The following analysis is based on a Phase 1 Cultural Resource Report prepared for the
GWRS Water Production Enhancement Project and GWRS Water Conveyance
Facilities Project Cultural Resources Supplemental Letter Report. The Phase 1 Cultural
Resources Report and Supplemental Letter Report are presented in Appendix C.
Area of Potential Effects
An Area of Potential Effects (APE) was established for the project according to Section
106 of the NHPA in coordination with the OCWD. The APE is shown in Figure 12 and is
defined as:
…the geographic area or areas within which an undertaking may directly or
indirectly cause alterations in the character or use of historic properties, if any
such properties exist. The APE is influenced by the scale and nature of an
undertaking and may be different for different kinds of effects caused by the
undertaking (36 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] 800.16[d]).The horizontal
APE encompasses the two flow equalization tanks, pump station, conveyance
piping, valving and metering connections and contractor laydown and equipment
staging area. The vertical APE includes the anticipated maximum depth of
ground disturbance of 25 feet below ground surface and the maximum height of
the flow equalization tank of 28 feet above ground surface.
Previous Cultural Resources Investigations
In 2016, ESA prepared a Phase I Cultural Resources Study for improvements within the
Project area (Ehringer et al., 2016). This study included a records search at the
5-7
California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS) South Central Coastal
Information Center (SCCIC), Sacred Lands File search at the California Native
American Heritage Commission (NAHC), Native American outreach, historic map and
aerial photography review, geo-archaeological review, paleontological records search at
the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County (LACM), and pedestrian survey. In
2017, ESA also conducted a Historic Resources Assessment of Plant No. 2 for OCSD
(Taylor, 2017), which is available under separate cover.
South Central Coastal Information Center Records Search
A records search was conducted on June 21, 2016 at the SCCIC, located at California
State University, Fullerton, which included the APE. The records search included a
review of all recorded cultural resources within a 0.5-mile radius, as well as a review of
cultural resource reports on file. The results of the SCCIC records search indicated that
the APE had not been previously surveyed for cultural resources. The results also
indicated that two cultural resources (CA-ORA-845 and CA-ORA-906) had been
previously documented within a 0.5-mile radius of the APE. Both resources are
prehistoric archaeological sites located on the eastern bluffs of the Santa Ana River,
approximately 0.5-miles east of the APE.
Historic Map and Aerial Review
Historic maps and aerial photographs were examined in order to provide historical
information about the APE and to contribute to an assessment of the APE’s
archaeological sensitivity. Available maps include: the 1868 U.S. Surveyor General’s
survey plat map of Townships 5 and 6 South, Range 10 West the 1895 and 1901 Santa
Ana 1:62,500 topographic quadrangles; the 1902 Corona 1:125,000 topographic
quadrangle; and the 1935 Newport Beach 1:31,600 topographic quadrangles; and 1965
and 1975 Newport Beach 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle. Historic aerial
photographs of the APE from 1938, 1953, 1963, 1972, 1994, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005,
2009, and 2010 were also examined (historicaerials.com, 2016).
The 1868 U.S. Surveyor General’s survey plat map shows the APE as being located
within Rancho Las Bolsas. The plat map indicates salt marshes within the current
location of OCSD Plant No. 2. The available historic maps and aerial photographs
indicate that the APE and surrounding area was largely used for agricultural purposes
throughout the 20th century, and did not become urbanized until the latter half of the
century. The Santa Ana River is shown confined with artificial levees in the 1938 historic
aerial photograph. The OCSD Plant No. 2 is not shown on the 1953 aerial. The OCSD
Plant No. 2 facility is shown on the 1965 Newport Beach 7.5-minute topographic
quadrangle. Based on a detailed review of the 1972 and 2016 aerials of the OCSD
Plant No.2, there are structures shown on the 1972 aerial that remain visible on the
2016 aerial photograph.
5-8
OCSD Plant No.2 Historical Assessment
A Historic Resources Assessment of OCSD Plant No. 2 was prepared by Environmental
Science Associates in October of 2017. The assessment included a records search at
the California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS) – South Central
Coastal Information Center (SCCIC) was conducted on August 16, 2017. One previous
historical resources study included the subject property (OR-04313). This study
consisted of a survey of historical resources in the City Huntington Beach for inclusions
in the City’s general plan. The study was conducted in November of 2013 and identified
multiple historical resources, including districts, throughout the Hunting Beach city limits.
However, the majority of the resources identified by the survey are located near the
Huntington Beach Pier and original downtown area, located approximately three miles
northwest of OCSD Plant No. 2. The survey did not identify any historical resources
within the subject property.
The historical assessment also included an intensive pedestrian survey of OCSD Plant
No.2, which resulted in the documentation 33 buildings, structures, and features that
meet the 45-yeard old age threshold for historical resources prescribed by the California
Register of Historical Resources (California Register). The historical assessment
determined that the individual buildings, structures, and features lack distinction but
together, reflect Plant No. 2’s initial construction in 1954 and expansion in the following
decades in response to growing needs for wastewater treatment. Therefore, Plant No. 2
was evaluated as a potential historic district and was recommended not eligible for
listing in the California Register. While Plant No. 2 was associated with the post-war
development of Orange County and Huntington Beach, these communities had been
well established by the date of its construction in 1954. Furthermore, Plant No.2 was
one of many municipal services constructed in the area to support the growing
population and suburban development. Plant No. 2 is a common example of the
activated sludge treatment plant popular among growing suburban communities during
the post-war era. As such, Plant No. 2 does not qualify as a historical resource under
the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). No historical resources have been
identified in the surrounding area. Since Plant No. 2 was not found eligible as a
historical resource and no historical resources have been identified in the surrounding
area.
Geoarchaeological Review
Chris Lockwood, Ph.D., R.P.A., conducted a desktop geoarchaeological review of the
project APE and vicinity in order to evaluate the potential for buried archaeological
resources within the APE. The following section presents the results of Dr. Lockwood’s
analysis.
5-9
Geology and Geomorphology
The APE is on the distal portion of an alluvial fan. During the late Pleistocene, the APE
was approximately 5.5 miles (9.0 km) inland. Historically, the area consisted largely of
salt marsh, which would have been at or just above sea level, and was divided by small
channels. The area was used for celery agriculture in historic times. OCSD Plant No. 2
was initially developed for sanitation in 1954, but the parcel, including the APE, was
progressively developed towards the north over the next five decades. The APE is
covered with a paved surface that is at elevation 3-4 meters above mean sea level
(amsl), suggesting the APE contains several meters of fill overlying the native salt
marsh deposits. Some of the fill material may have originated as dredge spoils from
channelization of the Santa Ana River. Near surface geology of the APE is mapped as
late Holocene to latest Pleistocene alluvial fan deposits (Morton, 2004; Morton and
Miller, 2006). These deposits consist of gravel, sand, and silt transported and deposited
by the Santa Ana River. To the south of the APE, the OCSD Plant No. 2 site contains
unconsolidated eolian dune deposits.
Soils
Soils within the portion of the APE at OCSD Plant No. 2 are mapped primarily as Bolsa
silt loam (NRCS 2016). Bolsa series soils are deep, somewhat poorly drained soils
developed in mixed alluvium parent material on flood plains and basins. The typical soil
pedon consists of a plowed A-horizon (Ap1, Ap2) developed at the top of relatively
unaltered alluvial parent material (C1 through C6) extending more than 69 inches deep.
The absence of a B-horizon is likely due to the short geological time that has passed
since deposition of the parent material, although agricultural activity has the potential to
have disrupted the development of a recognizable B-horizon as well. The A-horizon in
Bolsa soils ranges from sandy loam to silty clay loam, while the C-horizon is mainly silt
loam and silty clay loam but may contain thin strata of sandier material (USDA 1997).
Significantly, many Bolsa soil pedons contain buried A-horizons (paleosols). These
buried A-horizons represent periods of time in the past during which landform conditions
were relatively stable, and during which deposition and erosion were sufficiently
balanced to allow for development and retention of a soil weathering profile. From an
archaeological perspective, periods of landform stability, such as those signified by
buried A-horizons, should be correlated with the accumulation and preservation of
cultural remains. Therefore, Bolsa soils are considered to have a high sensitivity for
buried archaeological resources.
Cultural Resources Survey and Results
A cultural resources pedestrian survey was conducted for the Project on June 16, 2016
by Arabesque Said-Abdelwahed, which included the APE. The purpose of the survey
was to identify the presence of surface archaeological materials. Intensive-level survey
5-10
was conducted of areas with greater surface visibility with intervals spaced at 10 meter.
No archaeological or historic built resources were observed within or adjacent to the
APE.
Archaeological Potential
Although paved and filled, the portion of the APE at the OCSD Plant No. 2 appears to
retain high sensitivity for buried archeological resources. During the latest Pleistocene
and Holocene, the geomorphic setting of the portion of the APE at the OCSD Plant No.
2 changed from inland to coastal, and rising sea level resulted in fluvial deposition
capable of burying archaeological resources. The portion of the APE at the OCSD Plant
No. 2 was largely salt marsh into the early 20th century, but this is an area that would
have offered important resources. Owing to its marshy environment, this area may not
have been favored for any substantial occupation, but nonetheless is likely to have been
visited for resource procurement and could contain artifacts associated with those
activities. Additionally, the saturated conditions offered within this setting may have
aided in the preservation of relatively rare organic artifacts.
Historic Resources
Plant No. 2 was evaluated as a potential historic district and was recommended not
eligible for listing in the California Register. Plant No. 2 is a common example of the
activated sludge treatment plant popular among growing suburban communities during
the post-war era. As such, Plant No. 2 does not qualify as a historical resource under
the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). No historical resources have been
identified in the surrounding area. Since Plant No. 2 was not found eligible as a
historical resource and no historical resources have been identified in the surrounding
area, no further work or mitigation is recommended for the subject property.
Archaeological Resources
No archaeological or historic built resources are located within or adjacent to the APE.
However, the APE should be considered highly sensitive for subsurface archaeological
resources. Native American respondents indicated sensitivity for archaeological
resources in the APE and surrounding area given the proximity to the Santa Ana River
corridor. In addition, the geoarchaeological review indicates that the APE was largely
salt marsh into the early 20th century and would have offered important resources to
prehistoric inhabitants. Owing to its marshy environment, this area may not have been
favored for any substantial occupation, but nonetheless is likely to have been visited for
resource procurement and could contain artifacts associated with those activities.
Additionally, the saturated conditions offered within this setting may have aided in the
preservation of relatively rare organic artifacts. Since the Project includes ground-
disturbing activities, there is a potential for discovery of subsurface archaeological
deposits that could qualify as historic properties under Section 106 and/or historical or
5-11
unique archaeological resources under CEQA. This potential impact to unknown
archaeological resources is considered significant. Mitigation Measures CR-1, CR-2,
and CR-3 are recommended to ensure that the project would result in No Historic
Properties Affected under Section 106 of the NHPA and less than significant impacts to
historical or unique archaeological resources under CEQA.
Mitigation Measures
CR-1: Prior to earth moving activities, a qualified archaeologist meeting the Secretary of
the Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards for archaeology (U.S. Department of
the Interior, 2008) will conduct cultural resources sensitivity training for all construction
personnel. Construction personnel shall be informed of the types of cultural resources
that may be encountered, and of the proper procedures to be enacted in the event of an
inadvertent discovery of archaeological resources or human remains. OCWD will
ensure that construction personnel are made available for and attend the training and
retain documentation demonstrating attendance.
CR-2: Prior to the start of any ground-disturbing activities, OCWD will retain an
archaeological monitor to observe all ground-disturbing activities. Archaeological
monitoring will be conducted by a monitor familiar with the types of archaeological
resources that could be encountered and shall work under the direct supervision of the
qualified archaeologist. Monitoring may be reduced or discontinued by the qualified
archaeologist, in coordination with OCWD, based on observations of subsurface soil
stratigraphy and/or the presence of older C-horizon deposits. The monitor will be
empowered to halt or redirect ground-disturbing activities away from the vicinity of a
discovery until the qualified archaeologist has evaluated the discovery and determined
appropriate treatment. The monitor will keep daily logs detailing the types of activities
and soils observed, and any discoveries. After monitoring has been completed, the
qualified archaeologist shall prepare a monitoring report that details the results of
monitoring. The report shall be submitted to OCWD, SCCIC, and any Native American
groups who request a copy.
CR-3: In the event of the discovery of archaeological materials, OCWD or its contractor
shall immediately cease all work activities in the area (within approximately 100 feet) of
the discovery until it can be evaluated by the qualified archaeologist. Prehistoric
archaeological materials might include obsidian and chert flaked-stone tools (e.g.,
projectile points, knives, scrapers) or tool-making debris; culturally darkened soil
(“midden”) containing heat-affected rocks, artifacts, or shellfish remains; and stone
milling equipment (e.g., mortars, pestles, handstones, or milling slabs); and battered
stone tools, such as hammerstones and pitted stones. Historic-period materials might
include stone or concrete footings and walls; filled wells or privies; and deposits of
metal, glass, and/or ceramic refuse. Construction shall not resume until the qualified
archaeologist has conferred with OCWD on the significance of the resource. SWRCB
5-12
shall be afforded the opportunity to determine whether the discovery requires
addressing under Section 106 Post-Review Discoveries provisions provided in 36 CFR
800.13.
If it is determined that the discovered archaeological resource constitutes a historic
property under Section 106 of the NHPA or a historical resource under CEQA,
avoidance and preservation in place shall be the preferred manner of mitigation.
Preservation in place maintains the important relationship between artifacts and their
archaeological context and also serves to avoid conflict with traditional and religious
values of groups who may ascribe meaning to the resource. Preservation in place may
be accomplished by, but is not limited to, avoidance, incorporating the resource into
open space, capping, or deeding the site into a permanent conservation easement. In
the event that preservation in place is demonstrated to be infeasible and data recovery
through excavation is the only feasible mitigation available, an Archaeological
Resources Treatment Plan that provides for the adequate recovery of the scientifically
consequential information contained in the archaeological resource shall be prepared
and implemented by the qualified archaeologist in consultation with OCWD. The
appropriate Native American representatives shall be consulted in determining
treatment for prehistoric or Native American resources to ensure cultural values
ascribed to the resource, beyond that which is scientifically important, are considered.
Native American Sacred Remains
Native American respondents indicated sensitivity for archaeological resources in the
APE and surrounding area given the proximity to the Santa Ana River corridor. In
addition, the geoarchaeological review indicates that the portion of the APE within
OCSD Plant No. 2 was largely salt marsh into the early 20th century and would have
offered important resources. Owing to its marshy environment, this area may not have
been favored for any substantial occupation, but nonetheless it is likely to have been
visited for resource procurement and could contain artifacts associated with those
activities. Additionally, the saturated conditions offered within this setting could have
aided in the preservation of relatively rare organic artifacts. Mitigation Measures CR-5 is
recommended to ensure that the project would result in No Historic Properties Affected
under Section 106 of the NHPA and less than significant impacts to historical or unique
archaeological resources under CEQA.
Mitigation Measure
CR-5: Prior to issuance of a grading permit and prior to start of any ground-disturbing
activities, OCWD will retain a Native American monitor to observe all ground-disturbing
activities. The monitor shall be obtained from a Tribe that is traditionally and culturally
affiliated with the area, according the NAHC list. The monitor shall be empowered to
halt or redirect ground-disturbing activities away from the vicinity of a discovery until the
qualified archaeologist has evaluated the discovery and determined appropriate
5-13
treatment. Monitoring may be reduced or discontinued, in coordination with OCWD and
the qualified archaeologist, based on observations of subsurface soil stratigraphy and/or
the presence of older C-horizon deposits.
5.5 Federal Clean Air
Air Basin: South Coast Air Basin
Local Air District: South Coast Air Quality Management District
Is the project subject to a State Implementation Plan (SIP) conformity
determination?
Yes. The project is in a non-attainment area or attainment area subject to
maintenance plans for a federal criteria pollutant. Include information to indicate the
non-attainment designation (e.g. moderate, serious, severe, or extreme), if applicable. If
estimated emissions (below) are above the federal de Minimis levels, but the project is
sized to meet only the needs of current population projections that are used in the
approved SIP for air quality, then quantitatively indicate how the proposed capacity
increase was calculated using population projections.
The NEPA analysis compares the proposed project’s impacts with the Federal
thresholds in order to determine if impacts to Clean Air Act pollutants would exceed
federal thresholds. Considering the standards developed for the State of California are
more restrictive than the federal thresholds, the analysis detailed above for Air Quality
and Greenhouse Gasses would serve to prove compliance with the NEPA analysis.
The SCAQMD is responsible for the development of the Basin’s portion of the State
Implementation Plan (SIP), which is required under the federal Clean Air Act for areas
that are in nonattainment for criteria pollutants. The project may obtain state funding
and therefore, under the Clean Air Act, the project would be subject to a SIP conformity
determination. This is because the project is in an extreme nonattainment area for 8-
hour ozone, a moderate nonattainment area for PM2.5 and a maintenance area for CO
and PM10. Table 29 shows the federal thresholds and the attainment status for each of
the criteria air pollutants. Under the Clean Air Act, de minimis levels for criteria
pollutants have been established as a screening level to determine the potential for a
proposed Project to adversely impact air emissions. Emissions are compared to these
levels for the SIP conformity determination (de minimis). If the project is below the de
minimis levels then the project is determined to be in conformance with the SIP. If a
project exceeds the de minimis levels then a full conformity analysis must be conducted.
Thresholds of Significance
Localized Construction Emissions
40 CFR 93 153 defines de minimis levels, that is the minimum threshold for which a
conformity determination must be performed, for various criteria pollutants in various
5-14
areas. As shown in Table 8, maximum localized construction emissions for sensitive
receptors would not exceed the localized thresholds for NOX, CO, PM10 and PM25.
Therefore, with respect to localized constrction emissions, impacts would be less than
significant.
Localized Operational Emissions
As discussed previously, the only new criteria pollutant emissions from the operation of
the proposed project would be the emissions of ROGs and CO. Only CO is evaluated in
the localize analysis and would result in less than 1lb/day of localized emissions. This is
well below the SCAQMD’s significance threshold of 1,089 lbs/day. Therefore, the
impacts to sensitive receptors would be less than significant.
Table 29: De Minimis Levels
Pollutant Area Type Tons/year
Ozone (VOC or NOx) Serious nonattainment 50
Severe nonattainment 25
Extreme nonattainment 10
Other areas outside an ozone transport region 100
Ozone (NOx) Marginal and moderate nonattainment inside an
ozone transportation region
100
Maintenance 100
Ozone (VOC) Marginal and moderate nonattainment inside an
ozone transport region
50
Maintenance within an ozone transport region 50
Maintenance outside an ozone transport region 100
CO, SO2, NO2 All nonattainment and maintenance 100
PM10 Serious nonattainment 70
Moderate nonattainment and maintenance 100
PM2.5 All nonattainment and maintenance 100
Source: USEPA, 2016a, USEPA 2016b
Project Emissions
As shown in Table 30, ozone precursors are below the de Minimis thresholds for
unmitigated construction and operational activities, and therefore, the project is
consistent with the SIP. Construction emissions show only the maximum emissions for
the proposed project in tons per year and are based on the maximum days of
construction per subphase. Because the proposed project emissions are below the de
minimis thresholds, a detailed conformity analysis is not warranted.
5-15
Table 30: SIP Conformity Evaluation
Pollutant Federal Status Nonattainment Rates Threshold of Significance (tons/year)
Maximum Construction Emissions (tons/year)
Operational Emissions (tons/year)
Ozone (O3) Non
Attainment
Extreme See (VOC & NOX)
Carbon Monoxide (CO) Attainment/ Maintenance N/A 100 1 <1
Oxides of Nitrogen (NOX) N/A N/A 10 2 0.0
Volatile Organic
Compounds (VOC)
N/A N/A 10 <1 <1
Lead (Pb) Attainment N/A N/A N/A N/A
Particulate matter less
than 2.5 microns (PM2.5)*
Non
Attainment
Moderate 100 <1 0.0
Particulate matter less
than 10 microns
(PM10)*
Attainment/
Maintenance
N/A 100 <1 0.0
Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) Attainment N/A N/A <1 0.0
Notes: N/A = Non-applicable Source: ESA 2018; USEPA, 2016a, USEPA 2016b
As discussed previously, no growth-inducing development or land use would occur under the
proposed project, and therefore, the project would not conflict with the City’s General Plan.
Therefore the project would be consistent with the AQMP. Additionally, as the annual
emissions from the project would be well below the de minimis thresholds for SIP conformity,
the proposed project is considered to be in conformance with the SIP. No mitigation measures
are required.
5.6 Coastal Zone Management Act
Is any portion of the project site located within the coastal zone?
The OCSD Plant No. 2 Site is located within the coastal zone and is included within the
City of Huntington Beach Coastal Element. The proposed project would require
approval of a coastal development permit from the City of Huntington Beach. With
approval of coastal development permit, the proposed project would be consistent with
the City of Huntington Beach Coastal Element.
5.7 Coastal Barriers Resources Act
Will the project impact or be located within or near the Coastal Barrier Resources
System or its adjacent wetlands, marshes, estuaries, inlets, and near-shore
waters? Note that since there is currently no Coastal Barrier Resources System in
California, projects located in California are not expected to impact the Coastal
Barrier Resources System in other states. If there is a special circumstance in
which the project may impact a Coastal Barrier Resource System, indicate your
reasoning below.
5-16
No. The Project will not impact or be located within or near the Coastal Barrier
Resources System or its adjacent wetlands, marshes, estuaries, inlets, and near-shore
waters.
According to the United States Fish and Wildlife Service Official Coastal Barrier
Resource System Maps there are not any coastal barriers within or near the study area.
Therefore, the proposed project would not be in conflict with Coastal Barrier Resources
Act.
5.8 Farmland Protection Policy Act
Is any portion of the project located on important farmland?
No. The project will not impact farmland.
The study area is located in a highly urbanized area. The study area doesn’t contain
any existing agriculture land uses. According to the California Farmland Mapping and
Monitoring Program, there is no Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland or Farmland of
Statewide Importance within the study area. The study area is zoned for urbanized land
uses and there are no existing Williamson Act Contracts recorded within the study area.
The construction and operation of the proposed project would not impact any important
farmland resources.
5.9 Flood Plain Management
Is any portion of the project located within a 100-year floodplain as depicted on a
floodplain map or otherwise designated by the Federal Emergency Management
Agency?
No. Provide a description of the project location with respect to streams and potential
floodplains:
As shown in Figure 13 the OCSD Plant No. 2 Site is located in Flood Zone X. This area
is protected from the one-percent-annual-chance flood by levee, dike, or other
structures subject to possible failure or overtopping during larger floods.
5.10 Migratory Bird Treaty Act
Will the project affect protected migratory birds that are known, or have a
potential, to occur on-site, in the surrounding area, or in the service area?
No. Provide an explanation below.
Onsite Impacts
Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation: The site is composed of well-
maintained ornamental plant species’ and there are few opportunities for nesting birds.
Along the perimeter of Plant No.2 there are a row of large eucalyptus trees. Large
5-17
Eucalyptus trees commonly harbor nesting raptors. At the time of the survey no
evidence of a nest was found in any of the trees. Additionally, there was no sign of
historical nesting.
The, construction activities for the proposed project would not involve the removal of
any trees. Therefore, potential direct impacts to nesting migratory raptor bird species
would be avoided. The proposed constructions would occur in close proximity to the
Eucalyptus tree grove along the perimeter of the site and there would be the potential
that construction noise equipment could disrupt the breeding patterns of nesting
migratory birds. It is recommended that the project should not take place between
February 15 and August 15. Raptors typically begin exhibiting nesting behavior in the
winter months, and project commencement beyond February 15 runs the risk of
resulting in noise impacts to nesting raptors and other tree inhabiting species’. All tree
nesting species’ including raptors should be completed by August 15. In event
construction activities are proposed before the completion of nesting season, a biologist
would examine the site one week prior to initiating any activities to ensure that all
nesting has completed. Ground nesting species would also be taken into account. If
this project continues into another season the biologist would continue to monitor and
work with all parties to ensure remaining activities are not harmful to nesting birds. With
the implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-1 potential impacts to migratory birds
would be less than significant.
Offsite Impacts
No Impact: The Talbert Mash is located approximately 3,300 feet and the California
Least tern Colony is located 4,400 feet from the proposed construction activities. At this
distance the construction noise levels would be minimal and would not pose a potential
disruption to nesting birds. The implementation of the proposed project would not result
in significant impacts to both species.
Mitigation Measure
BIO-1: Construction activities should not take place between February 15 and August
15. In the event construction activities ae proposed before the completing of nesting
season, a biologist would examine the site one week prior to initiating any activities to
ensure that all nesting has completed. Ground nesting species would also be taken into
account.
5.11 Protection of Wetlands
Does any portion of the project boundaries contain areas that should be
evaluated for wetland delineation or require a permit from the United States Army
Corps of Engineers?
The area where the proposed project improvements would occur is located on lands
that have been improved with wastewater treatment facilities. To determine the
5-18
presence of Wetland Waters, wetland delineation based on the Corps three parameter
approach was conducted in the location where the proposed improvements would
occur. These three parameters include; (1) the presence of wetland vegetation, (2) the
presence of wetland hydrology and (3) the presence of hydric soils.
Vegetation: The locations where the proposed project improvements would occur does
not contain any wetland vegetation species that would meet the wetland vegetation
parameter.
Hydrology: The only source of water to the study area would be seasonal rainfall. The
ground surface where the construction activities would occur consists of compacted
soils or concrete that would not saturate with rainfall. The study area would not meet the
wetland hydrology parameter.
Hydric Soils: The study area soils consist of compacted fill material or concrete and
would not meet the hydric soil parameter.
Wetland Waters Determination
The study area lacks the required parameters that define Wetland Waters of the U.S. or
State. Therefore, the implementation of the proposed project would not adversely
impact Wetland Waters of the U.S or State.
5.12 Wild and Scenic Rivers Act
Is any portion of the project located within a wild and scenic river?
No. The project is not located near a wild and scenic river.
The study area is located in the Santa Ana River Watershed. Within the Santa Ana
River Watershed there are no Wild and Scenic Rivers. Therefore, the construction and
operation of the Water Production Enhancement Project would not result in adverse
impacts to any wild and scenic rivers.
5.13 Safe Drinking Water Act, Sole Source Aquifer Protection
Is the project located in an area designated by the United States Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 9, as a Sole Source Aquifer?
No. The project is not within the boundaries of a sole source aquifer.
The closest sole source aquifer to the study area would be Campo/Cotton Creek Aquifer
in San Diego County. Therefore, the construction and operation of the proposed project
would not result in adverse impacts to any sole source aquifers.
5.14 Environmental Justice
Does the project involve an activity that is likely to be of particular interest to or
have particular impact upon minority, low-income, or indigenous populations, or
tribes?
5-19
No. Selecting “No” means that this action is not likely to be of any particular interest
to or have an impact on these populations or tribes. Explain.
The purpose of the proposed project is to provide additional wastewater flows to OCWD
GWRS wastewater treatment site to produce additional water supplies to replenish the
Orange County Groundwater Basin to ensure that adequate amounts of groundwater
are available to Orange County residents including low-income households. By
maintaining adequate amounts of groundwater supplies, less water would have to be
imported into Orange County which is significantly higher in costs and which could have
a higher economic impact on lower income households. The implementation of the
proposed project would increase groundwater supplies and would result in beneficial
fiscal impacts to Orange County residents including lower income households.
6-1
SECTION 6.0 REFERENCES
California Department Fish and Game Natural Diversity Database Accessed January
June 2018.
California Department of Transportation Scenic Highways Program Web Site Access,
January 2018.
California Environmental Quality Act. 2018.
California Environmental Quality Act, State CEQA Guidelines, 2018.
California Farmland Mapping Monitoring Program, Web Site Access January 2018.
California Geologic Survey Seismic Hazard Zone Map Newport Quadrangle, Accessed
January 2018.
California Native Plant Society Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants Database,
Accessed January 2018.
California Uniform Building Code, 2018
City of Huntington Beach, General Plan, Web Access January 2018
City of Huntington Beach Municipal Code, Web Access, January 2018
City of Huntington Beach Zoning Code, Web Site Access, June 2018
County of Orange Congestion Management Program, Web Site Access June 2018
County of Orange Model Water Quality Management Plan, 2017.
County of Orange, 4th term municipal NPDES permit for Areawide Urban Storm Water
Runoff, 2014.
John Wayne Airport Environs Land Use Plan, 2014.
National Water Research Institute Santa Ana River Water Quality and Health Study,
2004.
Orange County Water District Groundwater Management Plan, 2017.
Orange County Water District Mounding Impact technical Memorandum, 2010 and
2011.
Regional Water Quality Control Board, Santa Ana River Basin Plan, January 1995.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers List of Wetland Plants, 2008.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland
Delineation Manual Arid West Region, September 2008.
Appendix D
Orange County Water District
Groundwater Replenishment System Final
Expansion
Water Conveyance Facilities Project
Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
&CEQA-Plus Federal Consultation Review
Response to Comments and Mitigation Monitoring
Program
Orange County Water District
18700 Ward Street
Fountain Valley, CA 92708
Contact; Daniel Bott
April 2018
i
Section Page
Table of Contents
SECTION 1.0 INTRODUCTION ..................................................................... 1-1 SECTION 2.0 COMMENT LETTERS............................................................. 2-1 SECTION 3.0 MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM ............................... 3-1
3.1 Project Description ...................................................................... 3-1
3.2 Purpose of Mitigated Negative Declaration ............................... 3-1
3.3 Development of Mitigation Monitoring Reporting Program ..... 3-1
3.4 Requirement to Approve Mitigation Monitoring Plan ............... 3-2
TABLE
Table 1 List of Comment Letters ........................................................................... 2-1
Table 2 ..................................................................................................................... 3-4
1-1
SECTION 1.0 INTRODUCTION
The Groundwater Replenishment System Final Expansion Water Conveyance Facilities
Project Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) was circulated for public review
from February 16, 2018 to March 17, 2018. During the public review period, comments
were received on the Draft MND. This appendix includes a photocopy of the comment
letters or e-mails received and OCWD responses to those comments. Where necessary
or appropriate, this information which includes additional analyses, clarifications and
corrections has been incorporated into the Final MND. Section 2.0 provides listing of
agencies and organizations who commented on the Draft MND.
2-1
SECTION 2.0 COMMENT LETTERS
Below is a listing of the public agencies that provided comments on the Draft EIR/EA.
Table 1 List of Comment Letters
Sender Date Received
California State Clearinghouse March 16, 2018
California Department Fish and
Wildlife
March 6, 2018
Orange County Public Works March 13, 2018
2-2
2-3
Comment Letter A
California State Clearinghouse
March 16, 2018
Comment 1
The comment identifies that Orange County Water District has complied with
CEQA public review requirements.
Response 1
No response required.
2-4
2-5
Comment Letter B
California Department Fish and Wildlife
March 6, 2018
Comment 1
The comment letter comments that Mitigation Measure BIO-1 in the Draft MND is
insufficient to reduce potential impacts to nesting birds to below significant because pre-
construction surveys were proposed seven days prior to construction. To reduce
potential impacts to a less than significant level, California Department Fish and Wildlife
recommends that pre-construction surveys be conducted no more than three days prior
to construction activities.
Response 1
Per the recommendation from California Department Fish and Wildlife, Mitigation
Measure BIO-1 in the Final MND has revised as follows
BIO-1: Construction activities should not take place between February 15 and August
15. In the event construction activities ae proposed before the completing of nesting
season, a biologist would examine the site no more than three days prior to initiating
any activities to ensure that all nesting has completed. Ground nesting species would
also be taken into account.
.
2-6
2-7
2-8
Comment Letter C
Orange County Public Works and Health Care Agency
March 13, 2018
Environmental Resources Comment 1
The comment identifies that Draft MND does not define Mitigation Measure GEO-2 or
Mitigation Measure HWQ-1.
OC Public Works Response 1
Mitigation Measure GEO-2 is identified in the Geology Section under Impact B on Page
4-16. GEO-2 is also required the Hydrology/Water Quality Section under Impact B on
page 4-80. Both Geology Impact A and Hydrology/Water Quality Impact B evaluate the
potential of the project to result in adverse erosion impacts and Mitigation Measure
GEO-1 is applicable to both and would reduce potential erosion impacts to a less than
significant level. Below is Mitigation Measure GEO-2 from the Draft MND.
GEO-2: Prior to the start of construction OCWD will file a Notice of Intent (NOI)
with the State Water Resources Control Board and prepare and implement Storm
Water Pollution Prevention Plan to minimize potential erosion impacts.
Mitigation Measure HWQ-1 is identified in the Hydrology Section under Impact D on
Page 4-81.
Presently, OCSD Plant No. 1 and Plant No. 2 have a National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) Individual Permit for discharges of storm water associated
with their industrial activities. The Individual Permit regulates activities that may affect
storm water runoff quality at certain types of industrial facilities, including publicly owned
wastewater treatment plants with design flows greater than 1.0 MGD, such as the
OCSD. Under the Individual Permit, facilities which discharge storm water to municipal
sanitary sewer systems instead of to waters of the United States are not required to
obtain a General Constriction Permits or Industrial Permit providing an onsite storm
water management plan is prepared and implement that contains BMPs to ensure that
construction site surface water runoff and long term surface water runoff is retained
onsite and incorporated into existing wastewater treatment processes.
The additional surface water runoff generated from the proposed project would be
incorporated into onsite existing drainage systems consistent with OCSD (NPDES)
Individual Permit at Plant No.2 To ensure that adequate drainage facilities would be
available, OCWD would implement Mitigation Measure HWQ-1, which requires OCWD
to coordinate with OCSD on the capacity of existing drainage systems and the ability of
those drainage systems to accommodate surface water runoff generated by the
proposed project. Below is Mitigation Measure HWQ-1 from the Draft MND.
2-9
HWQ-1: OCWD will coordinate with OCSD on the capacity of existing drainage
systems to receive surface water runoff generated from the proposed project and
would participate in any drainage improvements required accommodate the
surface water runoff flows.
OC Health Care Agency Comment 1
The comment notes that the State Water Resources Control Boards GEO Tracker
identified that the Plant 2 Site as two listings for former leaking underground storage
tank clean up cases and the Draft MND should address potential impacts if hazardous
substances are encountered.
OC Health Care Agency Response 1
Page 4-71 of Draft MND identifies that a database search of hazardous materials sites
was performed to identify potential contaminated sites in the study area using the online
State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) GeoTracker Database and
Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) EnviroStor Database. The only
reported hazardous site identified on OCSD Plant No. 2 Site was two closed leaking
underground storage tanks. Both sites were determined to not pose significant risks to
human health or the environment. It would be very unlikely hazardous substances
would be encountered from the two former leaking underground storage tank clean-up
cases. In the unlikely event hazardous substances are encountered, the proposed
project would be required to comply with local, state and federal laws and regulations
regarding the handling and storage of hazardous materials.
OC Health Care Agency Comment 2
The comment recommends that a qualified person be onsite during excavation/grading
activities to identify areas that may been impacted by potential releases at the site to
ensure that removal disposal and waste tracking is conducted in accordance with
applicable regulations
OC Health Care Agency Response 2
Prior to grading and excavation activities, the project geotechnical consult would take
boring samples of the project site to determine the chemical profile of the soil.
Additionally, prior to disposal of any removed soils from the site, grab samples would be
taken and analyzed. In the event elevated levels of contaminates are present OCWD
would coordinate with Orange County Health Care Agency Environmental Health
Division on appropriate remedial activities.
OC Health Care Agency Comment 3
The comment identifies that records for environmental clean-up sites may be obtained
by contacting the Orange County Health Care Agency Custodian of Records.
2-10
OC Health Care Agency Response 3
Comment noted. No response required.
OC Health Care Agency Comment 4
The comment identifies if subsurface contamination requires further site assessment or
remedial activities, the hazardous Materials Mitigation Supervisor for Orange County
Health Care Agency Health Division should be contacted.
OC Health Care Agency Response 4
Comment noted. No response required.
3-1
SECTION 3.0 MITIGATION MONITORING
PROGRAM
The following is a Mitigation Monitoring Report Program (MMRP) for the Orange
County Water District Groundwater Replenishment System Final Expansion
Water Conveyance Facilities Project Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND)
prepared pursuant to Section 15097 of the CEQA Guidelines and Section
21081.6 of the Public Resources Code. This MMRP lists all applicable mitigation
measures from the Draft MND. The appropriate timing of implementation and
responsible party are identified to ensure proper enforcement of the mitigation
measures.
3.1 Project Description
The purpose of this Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration is to evaluate
potential impacts associated with the construction and operation of two flow
equalization tanks and pump station on the Orange County Sanitation District
Plant No. 2 wastewater treatment facility site. The secondary effluent from the
flow equalization tanks would provide an additional 6,000 acre-feet per year of
secondary effluent for treatment at the Orange County Water District
Groundwater Replenishment System (GWRS) advanced recycled water
treatment facility, increasing the GWRS total full build-out treatment capacity to
134,000 acre feet per year.
3.2 Purpose of Mitigated Negative Declaration
The Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared for the Groundwater
Replenishment System Final Expansion Water Conveyance Facilities Project
would be used as the supporting CEQA environmental documentation for the
following approvals and permits.
Agency Approvals/Discretionary Actions
Orange County Water District • Project Approval
• Approval for Agreements
Construction Contracts
State Regional Water Quality Control Board, Santa Ana Region Approval of amendment to Regional Water Control Board Producer/User Water
Recycling Permit Orange County Water District Groundwater Replenishment System
(R8-2008-0058)
City Huntington Beach Coastal Development Permit
3.3 Development of Mitigation Monitoring Reporting Program
The basic elements of the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program are the
mitigation measures identified by each impact category addressed in the Draft
3-2
MND. The development of the program was based on the following procedures
necessary to initiate and complete the monitoring process.
• Identification of the key periods and events in the project implementation
schedule.
• Identification of the key personnel and agencies responsible for
environmental monitoring.
• Monitoring of the implementation of the mitigation measures and
documentation that the measures have been properly and thoroughly
implemented.
• Development of the written document on the implementation of all the
mitigation measures, identification of any areas of non-compliance, and
proposed activities to bring the project into compliance with the mitigation
monitoring and reporting program.
3.4 Requirement to Approve Mitigation Monitoring Plan
The OCWD has the authority to require and enforce the provisions of California
Resource Code Section 21081.6. The OCWD will be responsible for approving
the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and for preparing the written
report documenting the implementation of project mitigation measures.
Table 1 summarizes the mitigation measures that have been adopted for the
Project, specifies the timing for implementation of each measure and identifies
the responsible parties for ensuring implementation and the satisfactory
completion of each measure. The procedures for implementing the Mitigation
Monitoring and Reporting Program are:
Monitoring Procedures
1. An Environmental Monitor, appointed by OCWD, will be responsible for
coordinating review of project plans and activities, the construction site, and/or
operations to ensure that the mitigation measures are properly and thoroughly
implemented through the course of the project.
2. Written documentation that each mitigation measure in Table 1 has been
implemented will be prepared. This documentation can be on an OCWD
mitigation monitoring checklist or a similar form that clearly indicates the timing or
schedule for implementation, whether the measure has, in fact, been
implemented, or in the case of measures that are ongoing, that a process has
been developed to ensure continued implementation of the measure.
3-3
Reporting Procedures
1. The Environmental Monitor appointed by OCWD on this project will be
responsible for periodically reviewing the program in Table 1 with the OCWD
Environmental Compliance Advisor.
2. The Environmental Monitor will prepare a written report for the OCWD
documenting the completion of the implementation of all the mitigation measures.
For those measures not implemented or for activities that do not fully comply with
mitigation measures included in Table 1, an explanation of the areas of
noncompliance will be prepared, including a proposal to bring those elements of
the project into compliance with the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting
Program.
3-4
Table 2
Groundwater Replenishment System Final Expansion Water Conveyance
Facilities Project
Mitigation Monitoring Plan Reporting Program
Mitigation Measure Responsible for
Implementation
Monitoring Verification
Aesthetics
A-1: All onsite lighting shall be directed
away from adjacent residential, business
uses and away from the Santa Ana River
right-of-way.
OCWD During
Construction
A-2: During operation of the project the
onsite lighting creates a light or glare issues
for sensitive receptor properties, OCWD will
implement corrective measures to resolve
the issue. Such corrective measures may
include providing additional shielding on light
fixtures, relocating lighting fixtures and
reducing the intensity of lighting.
OCWD During
Construction
Air Quality
AQ-1: Mobile off-road construction
equipment (wheeled or tracked) used during
construction of the conveyance facilities of
the proposed Project shall meet the USEPA
Tier 4 interim standards, either as original
equipment or equipment retrofitted to meet
the Tier 4 interim standards. A copy of each
unit’s certified tier specification or model year
specification shall be available upon request
at the time of mobilization of each applicable
unit of equipment.
OCWD During
Construction
Biology
BIO-1: Construction activities should not take
place between February 15 and August 15.
In the event construction activities ae
proposed before the completing of nesting
season, a biologist would examine the site
one week prior to initiating any activities to
ensure that all nesting has completed.
Ground nesting species would also be taken
into account.
OCWD Prior to
Construction
Cultural Resources
3-5
CR-1: Prior to earth moving activities, a
qualified archaeologist meeting the Secretary
of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications
Standards for archaeology (U.S. Department
of the Interior, 2008) will conduct cultural
resources sensitivity training for all
construction personnel. Construction
personnel shall be informed of the types of
cultural resources that may be encountered,
and of the proper procedures to be enacted
in the event of an inadvertent discovery of
archaeological resources or human remains.
OCWD will ensure that construction
personnel are made available for and attend
the training and retain documentation
demonstrating attendance.
OCWD Prior to
Grading
CR-2: Prior to the start of any ground-
disturbing activities, OCWD will retain an
archaeological monitor to observe all ground-
disturbing activities. Archaeological
monitoring will be conducted by a monitor
familiar with the types of archaeological
resources that could be encountered and
shall work under the direct supervision of the
qualified archaeologist. Monitoring may be
reduced or discontinued by the qualified
archaeologist, in coordination with OCWD,
based on observations of subsurface soil
stratigraphy and/or the presence of older C-
horizon deposits. The monitor will be
empowered to halt or redirect ground-
disturbing activities away from the vicinity of
a discovery until the qualified archaeologist
has evaluated the discovery and determined
appropriate treatment. The monitor will keep
daily logs detailing the types of activities and
soils observed, and any discoveries. After
monitoring has been completed, the qualified
archaeologist shall prepare a monitoring
report that details the results of monitoring.
The report shall be submitted to OCWD,
SCCIC, and any Native American groups
who request a copy.
OCWD Prior to
Grading
CR-3: In the event of the discovery of
archaeological materials, OCWD or its
contractor shall immediately cease all work
OCWD During
Construction
3-6
activities in the area (within approximately
100 feet) of the discovery until it can be
evaluated by the qualified archaeologist.
Prehistoric archaeological materials might
include obsidian and chert flaked-stone tools
(e.g., projectile points, knives, scrapers) or
tool-making debris; culturally darkened soil
(“midden”) containing heat-affected rocks,
artifacts, or shellfish remains; and stone
milling equipment (e.g., mortars, pestles,
handstones, or milling slabs); and battered
stone tools, such as hammer stones and
pitted stones. Historic-period materials might
include stone or concrete footings and walls;
filled wells or privies; and deposits of metal,
glass, and/or ceramic refuse. Construction
shall not resume until the qualified
archaeologist has conferred with OCWD on
the significance of the resource. SWRCB
shall be afforded the opportunity to
determine whether the discovery requires
addressing under Section 106 Post-Review
Discoveries provisions provided in 36 CFR
800.13.
If it is determined that the discovered
archaeological resource constitutes a historic
property under Section 106 of the NHPA or a
historical resource under CEQA, avoidance
and preservation in place shall be the
preferred manner of mitigation. Preservation
in place maintains the important relationship
between artifacts and their archaeological
context and also serves to avoid conflict with
traditional and religious values of groups who
may ascribe meaning to the resource.
Preservation in place may be accomplished
by, but is not limited to, avoidance,
incorporating the resource into open space,
capping, or deeding the site into a permanent
conservation easement. In the event that
preservation in place is demonstrated to be
infeasible and data recovery through
excavation is the only feasible mitigation
available, an Archaeological Resources
Treatment Plan that provides for the
adequate recovery of the scientifically
consequential information contained in the
archaeological resource shall be prepared
3-7
and implemented by the qualified
archaeologist in consultation with OCWD.
The appropriate Native American
representatives shall be consulted in
determining treatment for prehistoric or
Native American resources to ensure cultural
values ascribed to the resource, beyond that
which is scientifically important, are
considered.
CR-4: Project-related earth disturbance has
the potential to unearth previously
undiscovered human remains, resulting in a
potentially significant impact. If human
remains are encountered during excavation
activities, all work will halt and the County
Coroner will be notified (California Public
Resources Code §5097.98). The Coroner will
determine whether the remains are of
forensic interest. If the Coroner determines
that the remains are prehistoric, s/he will
contact the Native American Heritage
Commission (NAHC). The NAHC will be
responsible for designating the most likely
descendant (MLD), who will be responsible
for the ultimate disposition of the remains, as
required by Section 7050.5 of the California
Health and Safety Code. The MLD will make
his/her recommendation within 48 hours of
being granted access to the site. The MLD’s
recommendation will be followed if feasible,
and may include scientific removal and
non-destructive analysis of the human
remains and any items associated with
Native American burials (California Health
and Safety Code §7050.5). If the landowner
rejects the MLD’s recommendations, the
landowner will rebury the remains with
appropriate dignity on the property in a
location that will not be subject to further
subsurface disturbance (California Public
Resources Code §5097.98).
OCWD During
Construction
CR-5: Prior to the start of any ground-
disturbing activities, OCWD shall retain a
qualified paleontologist meeting the Society
of Vertebrate Paleontology (SVP) Standards
(SVP, 2010). The qualified paleontologist
shall contribute to any construction worker
OCWD Prior to
Grading
3-8
cultural resources sensitivity training either in
person or via a training module provided to
the qualified archaeologist. The training
session shall focus on the recognition of the
types of paleontological resources that could
be encountered within the project site and
the procedures to be followed if they are
found. The qualified paleontologist shall also
conduct periodic spot checks in order to
ascertain when older deposits are
encountered and where monitoring shall be
required.
CR-6: Prior to the start of any ground-
disturbing activities, OCWD shall retain a
paleontological monitor to observe all
ground-disturbing activities within older
Quaternary deposits. Paleontological
resources monitoring shall be performed by a
qualified paleontological monitor, or cross-
trained archaeological/paleontological
monitor, under the direction of the qualified
paleontologist. The monitor shall have the
authority to temporarily halt or divert work
away from exposed fossils in order to
recover the fossil specimens. Monitoring may
be reduced or discontinued by the qualified
paleontologist, in coordination with OCWD,
based on observations of subsurface soil
stratigraphy and/or other factors and if the
qualified paleontologist determines that the
possibility of encountering fossiliferous
deposits is low. The monitor shall prepare
daily logs detailing the types of activities and
soils observed, and any discoveries. The
qualified paleontologist shall prepare a final
monitoring a report to be submitted to OCWD
and filed with the local repository. Any
recovered significant fossils shall be curated
at an accredited facility with retrievable
storage.
OCWD Prior to
Grading
CR-7: If construction or other project
personnel discover any potential fossils
during construction, regardless of the depth
or presence of a monitor, work in the vicinity
(within 100 feet) of the find shall cease until
the qualified paleontologist has assessed the
discovery and made recommendations as to
OCWD During
Grading
3-9
the appropriate treatment.
Geology/Soils
GEO-1: The OCWD will ensure that all
structures for the proposed project are
designed and constructed in compliance with
current engineering practices, including the
California Uniform Building Code and all
applicable seismic engineering guidelines.
OCWD During Design
and
Construction
GEO-2: Prior to the start of construction
OCWD will file a Notice of Intent (NOI) with
the State Water Resources Control Board
and prepare and implement Storm Water
Pollution Prevention Plan to minimize
potential erosion impacts.
OCWD Prior to
Construction
GEO-3: The OCWD will ensure that all
structures for the proposed project are
designed and constructed in compliance with
building site specific geotechnical studies
and the California Uniform Building Code.
OCWD During Design
and
Construction
Hazards/Hazardous Materials
HZ-1: Any use of hazardous materials
involved with the proposed project must be
conducted in accordance with applicable
federal, state and local regulations.
OCWD During
Construction
Hydrology/Water Quality
HWQ-1: OCWD will coordinate with OCSD
on the capacity of existing drainage systems
to receive surface water runoff generated
from the proposed project and would
participate in any drainage improvements
required accommodate the surface water
runoff flows.
OCWD Prior to
Construction
Land Use/Planning Programs
LU-1: OCWD will provide residents and
business owners with notifications of
upcoming construction activities.
OCWD Prior to
Construction
LU-2: Prior to construction of the Flow
Equalization Tank OCWD will obtain
approval of Coastal Development Permit
from the City of Huntington Beach.
OCWD Prior to
Construction
Traffic/Transportation
3-10
T-1: OCWD will be responsible for preparing
adequate detour and access plans to ensure
the safe movement of vehicles and
pedestrians during the construction period.
OCWD During Design
and
Construction
Tribal Resources
CR-5: Prior to issuance of a grading permit
and prior to start of any ground-disturbing
activities, OCWD will retain a Native
American monitor to observe all ground-
disturbing activities. The monitor shall be
obtained from a Tribe that is traditionally and
culturally affiliated with the area, according
the NAHC list. The monitor shall be
empowered to halt or redirect ground-
disturbing activities away from the vicinity of
a discovery until the qualified archaeologist
has evaluated the discovery and determined
appropriate treatment. Monitoring may be
reduced or discontinued, in coordination with
OCWD and the qualified archaeologist,
based on observations of subsurface soil
stratigraphy and/or the presence of older C-
horizon deposits.
OCWD Prior to
Grading
Utility Service Systems
U-1: OCWD will investigate all available
alternatives, and then select the best method
of solid waste disposal and reduction of solid
waste stream as required in the California
Integrated Waste Management Act prior to
the start of construction.
OCWD During Design and
Construction