Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout98.05-23-2018 Board Meeting Item 10 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