Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout98.06-27-2018 Board Meeting Item 9 Attachment 2 - Final PEIR.pdf Final ORANGE COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT BIOSOLIDS MASTER PLAN PROJECT NO. PS15-01 Final Program Environmental Impact Report State Clearinghouse No. 2017071026 Prepared for May 2018 Orange County Sanitation District Final ORANGE COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT BIOSOLIDS MASTER PLAN PROJECT NO. PS15-01 Final Program Environmental Impact Report State Clearinghouse No. 2017071026 Prepared for May 2018 Orange County Sanitation District 626 Wilshire Boulevard Suite 1100 Los Angeles, CA 90017 213.599.4300 www.esassoc.com Bend Camarillo Delray Beach Destin Irvine Los Angeles Miami Oakland Orlando Pasadena Petaluma Portland Sacramento San Diego San Francisco Santa Monica Sarasota Seattle Sunrise Tampa 150626 OUR COMMITMENT TO SUSTAINABILITY | ESA helps a variety of public and private sector clients plan and prepare for climate change and emerging regulations that limit GHG emissions. ESA is a registered assessor with the California Climate Action Registry, a Climate Leader, and founding reporter for the Climate Registry. ESA is also a corporate member of the U.S. Green Building Council and the Business Council on Climate Change (BC3). Internally, ESA has adopted a Sustainability Vision and Policy Statement and a plan to reduce waste and energy within our operations. This document was produced using recycled paper. OCSD Biosolids Master Plan i ESA / 150626 Final Program Environmental Impact Report May 2018 TABLE OF CONTENTS OCSD Biosolids Master Plan Final Environmental Impact Report Page Chapter 1. Introduction to Response to Comments ....................................................... 1-1  1.1 CEQA Requirements ......................................................................................... 1-1  1.2 CEQA Process................................................................................................... 1-2  1.3 Evaluation and Response to Comments ............................................................ 1-2  1.4 Final PEIR Certification and Approval ................................................................ 1-3  1.5 Notice of Determination ..................................................................................... 1-3  Chapter 2. Comment Letters ............................................................................................. 2-1  Chapter 3. Responses to Comments ................................................................................ 3-1  Letter 1: State Clearinghouse, Office of Planning and Research ................................ 3-1  Letter 2: California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovering (CalRecycle) ...................................................................................................... 3-1  Letter 3: California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) ...................................... 3-2  Letter 4: South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) ............................ 3-6  Letter 5: Orange County Health Care Agency ........................................................... 3-13  Letter 6: Orange County Transportation Authority .................................................... 3-14  Letter 7: Gae Brummett ............................................................................................. 3-18  Letter 8: Patrick Osullivan ......................................................................................... 3-18  Chapter 4. Corrections and Additions to the Draft PEIR ................................................ 4-1  3.0 Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures ................................. 4-1  3.2 Air Quality .......................................................................................................... 4-1  3.11 Traffic and Transportation .................................................................................. 4-5  Chapter 5. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program ............................................. 5-1  CEQA Requirements .................................................................................................. 5-1  Attachments 1. Roadway Traffic Noise Levels 2. Air Quality Information List of Tables 2-1 Comment Letters Received .......................................................................................... 2-1  5-1 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the OCSD BMP Program EIR ......... 5-2  OCSD Biosolids Master Plan 1-1 ESA / 150626 Final Program Environmental Impact Report May 2018 CHAPTER 1 Introduction to Response to Comments This Final Program Environmental Impact Report (Final PEIR) has been prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) as amended (Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq.) and CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations Section 15000 et seq.). The Final PEIR incorporates, by reference, the Draft PEIR (State Clearinghouse No. 2017071026) prepared by the Orange County Sanitation District (OCSD) for the Biosolids Master Plan (BMP), Project No. PS15-01 (proposed program), as it was originally published and the following chapters, which include revisions made to the Draft PEIR. 1.1 CEQA Requirements Before OCSD may approve the program, it must certify that the Final PEIR: a) has been completed in compliance with CEQA; b) was presented to the OCSD Board of Directors who reviewed and considered it prior to approving the project; and c) reflects OCSD’s independent judgment and analysis. (CEQA Guidelines Section 15090) CEQA Guidelines Section 15132 specifies that the Final PEIR shall consist of the following:  The Draft PEIR or a revision of that draft;  Comments and recommendations received on the Draft PEIR;  A list of persons, organizations, and public agencies commenting on the Draft PEIR;  The response of the Lead Agency to significant environmental points raised in the review and consultation process; and  Any other information added by the Lead Agency. This Final PEIR for the OCSD BMP presents Chapter 1 through Chapter 5:  Chapter 1: Introduction and CEQA process  Chapter 2: A list of persons, organizations, and public agencies commenting on the Draft PEIR, and the written comments received on the Draft PEIR  Chapter 3: Written responses to each comment identified in Chapter 2  Chapter 4: Revisions made to the Draft PEIR in response to comments received or initiated by the Lead Agency  Chapter 5: Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 1. Introduction to Response to Comments OCSD Biosolids Master Plan 1-2 ESA / 150626 Final Program Environmental Impact Report May 2018 1.2 CEQA Process Public Participation Process Notice of Preparation and Public Scoping In accordance with Section 15082 of the CEQA Guidelines, a Notice of Preparation (NOP) of a PEIR was prepared and circulated for review by applicable local, state and federal agencies and the public. The 30-day project scoping period, which began with the distribution of the NOP, remained open through August 13, 2017. One public scoping meeting was held on July 31, 2017 at the OCSD Plant No. 2, Operations Center Training and Conference Room. The NOP provided the public and interested public agencies with the opportunity to review the proposed project and to provide comments or concerns on the scope and content of the environmental review document including: the range of actions; alternatives; mitigation measures, and significant effects to be analyzed in depth in the PEIR. Notice of Availability of the Draft PEIR The Notice of Availability (NOA) of the Draft PEIR was posted on February 14, 2018 with the County Clerk in Orange County. The Draft PEIR was circulated to federal, state, and local agencies and interested parties requesting a copy of the Draft PEIR. Copies of the Draft PEIR were made available to the public at the following locations:  OCSD Website (https://www.ocsd.com/ceqa)  OCSD, Administrative Office Building at Plant No. 1, Engineering Planning Division – 10844 Ellis Avenue, Fountain Valley, CA 92708  OCSD, Plant No. 2, Operations Center – 22212 Brookhurst Street, Huntington Beach, CA 92646  Huntington Beach Central Library – 7111 Talbert Avenue, Huntington Beach, CA 92648  Huntington Beach Banning Library – 9281 Banning Avenue, Huntington Beach, CA 92646  Fountain Valley Public Library – 17635 Los Alamos Street, Fountain Valley, CA 92708 The Draft PEIR was circulated for public review from February 14, 2018 through April 2, 2018. OCSD established a 45-day review period, as required by Section 21091 of the Public Resources Code. During this period, OCSD held one public meeting to provide interested persons with an opportunity to comment orally or in writing on the Draft PEIR and the project. The public meeting was held at the OCSD Plant No. 2, Operations Center Training and Conference Room in Huntington Beach on March 15, 2018. 1.3 Evaluation and Response to Comments CEQA Guidelines Section 15088 requires OCSD, as the Lead Agency, to evaluate comments on environmental issues received from parties that have reviewed the Draft PEIR and to prepare a written response. The written responses to commenting public agencies shall be provided at least ten (10) days prior to the certification of the Final PEIR (CEQA Guidelines §15088(b)). 1. Introduction to Response to Comments OCSD Biosolids Master Plan 1-3 ESA / 150626 Final Program Environmental Impact Report May 2018 1.4 Final PEIR Certification and Approval Prior to considering the project for approval, OCSD, as the Lead Agency, will review and consider the information presented in the Final PEIR and will certify that the Final PEIR: (a) Has been completed in compliance with CEQA; (b) Has been presented to the Board of Directors as the decision-making body for the Lead Agency, which reviewed and considered it prior to approving the project; and (c) Reflects OCSD’s independent judgment and analysis. Once the Final PEIR is certified, OCSD’s Board of Directors may proceed to consider program approval (CEQA Guidelines §15090). Prior to approving the proposed program, OCSD must make written findings and adopt statements of overriding considerations for each unmitigated significant environmental effect identified in the Final PEIR in accordance with Sections 15091 and 15093 of the CEQA Guidelines. Because the Final PEIR does not identify any unmitigated significant environmental effects, a statement of overriding considerations is not required. 1.5 Notice of Determination Pursuant to Section 15094 of the CEQA Guidelines, OCSD will file a Notice of Determination (NOD) with the Office of Planning and Research and Orange County Clerk within five working days of program approval. OCSD Biosolids Master Plan 2-1 ESA / 150626 Final Program Environmental Impact Report May 2018 CHAPTER 2 Comment Letters The Draft Program Environmental Impact Report (PEIR) for the Orange County Sanitation District (OCSD) Biosolids Master Plan (BMP), Project No. PS15-01 (proposed program) was circulated for public review for 45 days (February 14, 2018 through April 2, 2018) in accordance with the requirements of CEQA Guidelines Section 15105(a). The OCSD received eight comment letters during the public review period, which are listed in Table 2-1 and included within this chapter. The letters have been marked with brackets that delineate comments pertaining to environmental issues and the information and analysis contained in the Draft PEIR. Responses to such comments are provided in Chapter 3. A public meeting on the Draft PEIR was also held on March 15, 2018 at the OCSD Plant No. 2 Operations Center Training & Conference Room. An overview of the proposed program and a summary of the Draft PEIR findings were provided during the meeting. Verbal comments received during the meeting were related to clarifications of the activities proposed. Comment cards were made available at the meeting; however, no written comments were provided during the meeting. TABLE 2-1 COMMENT LETTERS RECEIVED Comment No. Commenting Agency Date of Comment 1 State Clearinghouse, Office of Planning and Research April 2, 2018 2 California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovering (CalRecycle) March 5, 2018 3 California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) March 29, 2018 4 South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) March 30, 2018 5 Orange County Health Care Agency March 23, 2018 6 Orange County Transportation Authority March 28, 2018 7 Gae Brummett March 13, 2018 8 Patrick Osullivan March 14, 2018 OCSD Biosolids Master Plan 3-1 ESA / 150626 Final Program Environmental Impact Report May 2018 CHAPTER 3 Responses to Comments A summary of the comments contained within the comment letters received during the public review period for the Draft PEIR are included in this section (see Chapter 2). OCSD provides individual responses to the bracketed comments in each letter. In some instances, in response to the comment, OCSD has made additions or deletions to the text of the Draft PEIR; additions are included as underlined text and deletions as stricken text. The revisions do not significantly alter the conclusions in the Draft PEIR. Letter 1: State Clearinghouse, Office of Planning and Research Comment 1-A The comment acknowledges the State Clearinghouse distributed the EIR as required under CEQA to pertinent agencies. The CalRecycle comment letter is attached. Response 1-A The comment is noted and saved in the program record. No response is required because there are no specific comments on the contents in the Draft PEIR. The CalRecycle letter is responded to as Letter 2 below. Letter 2: California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovering (CalRecycle) Comment 2-A The comment reiterates the program description provided in the Draft PEIR and introduces comments on the proposed program for OCSD’s consideration. Response 2-A No response is required because there are no specific comments on the contents in the Draft PEIR. Comment 2-B The comment states that the County of Orange, Environmental Health Division, Local Enforcement Agency (LEA), and CalRecycle are responsible for providing regulatory oversight 3. Responses to Comments OCSD Biosolids Master Plan 3-2 ESA / 150626 Final Program Environmental Impact Report May 2018 of solid waste handling activities, such as transfer/processing operations/facilities and in-vessel digestion operations/facilities, including permitting and inspections. Further, the comment states that the LEA will make a determination as to whether the proposed program falls under the in- vessel digestion requirements as described in Title 14, California Code of Regulations, Chapter 3.2 (commencing with section 17896.1). The comment then provides a contact number to discuss any permitting requirements. Response 2-B The proposed program does not include solid waste handling activities. The food waste component of the proposed program includes pre-processed food waste that will be conveyed into the Food Waste Receiving Facility through a hose. OCSD will comply with any applicable permit requirements from the LEA and CalRecycle. Comment 2-C The comment thanks OCSD for the opportunity to review and comment on the Draft PEIR and requests copes of subsequent environmental documents and/or notices for the program. The comment further requests that CalRecycle be given notice 10 days’ notice of program adoption. Response 2-C The comment is noted and saved in the program record. OCSD will provide a notice of the OCSD Board meeting to deliberate on the proposed program. Letter 3: California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) Comment 3-A The comment acknowledges that the CDFW has received and reviewed the Draft PEIR and summarizes the program description of the proposed program. Additionally, the comment provides background information on various species that are located within the vicinity of the program area, such as the light-footed Ridgway’s rail and Belding’s savannah sparrow. Last, the comment begins to introduce various environmental concerns of the proposed program, but the concerns are provided in Comments 3-B through 3-E below. Response 3-A The comment is noted. No response is required because there are no specific comments on the contents in the Draft PEIR. Comment 3-B The comment states that the Draft PEIR does not specifically discuss impacts to the Light-Footed Ridgway’s Rail beyond Table 3.3-2, even though they were identified in Brookhurst Marsh, which is located approximately 0.2 mile from the program area. Given recent restoration efforts, 3. Responses to Comments OCSD Biosolids Master Plan 3-3 ESA / 150626 Final Program Environmental Impact Report May 2018 the Huntington Beach Wetlands, including Talbert Marsh, has become more suitable habitat for this species. Similarly, the Draft PEIR does not mention Belding’s Savannah Sparrow. The comment expresses concern regarding potential edge effects and indirect impacts to Talbert Marsh and the Santa Ana River, particularly noise-related impacts associated with proposed construction activities. CDFW is particularly concerned that elevated noise levels will impact the Belding’s Savannah Sparrow and Light-Footed Ridgway’s Rail. The comment requests further discussion and analysis of the impacts of noise generated by the program on birds and other wildlife in the Final PEIR and that the analysis should include a mitigation measure or measures that minimize impacts to, and takings of, CESA-listed endangered and fully protected species. The mitigation measures should designate the entire Huntington Beach Wetlands area as a sensitive noise receptor and include best management practices design features to ensure noise levels are maintained at or below ambient conditions. Response 3-B As stated by the commenter, Table 3.3-2 in the Draft PEIR identifies the potential for the presence of the Light-Footed Ridgeway’s Rail (previously known as the Light-Footed Clapper Rail) within the Talbert Marsh as moderate. The Draft PEIR recognizes that nesting activities associated with this species as well as other species have a potential to be impacted by construction activities associated with the implementation of the proposed program. The potential effect is identified in Impact 3.3-1, which explains that construction noise could result in indirect impacts to birds nesting in the vicinity of the proposed project. The commenter recommends a specific noise level as the threshold of potential impact. The use of a specific noise level is not appropriate because the ambient noise levels at the location of the nesting birds need to be taken into account. Currently noise is primarily generated by motor vehicle traffic along Pacific Coast Highway and Brookhurst Street. Along Pacific Coast Highway, traffic noise extends into Talbert Marsh. Based on the average daily traffic volumes of 37,000 trips along Pacific Coast Highway, the noise levels are currently 73.5 dBA CNEL at 50 feet, 69.2 dBA CNEL at 200 feet and 66.5 dBA CNEL at 400 feet (see Attachment 1). Along Brookhurst Street, traffic noise extends into Talbert Marsh. Based on the average daily traffic volumes of 11,000 trips, the noise levels are currently 67.1 dBA CNEL at 50 feet, 62.9 dBA CNEL at 200 feet, and 60.2 dBA CNEL at 400 feet (see Attachment 1). Mitigation Measure BIO-1 is included in the Draft PEIR to provide protection to nesting birds and to avoid any potential taking. The measure requires a qualified biologist to conduct a nesting survey if construction activities are scheduled during the nesting season (i.e., February 15 to August 31). If active nests are detected, a minimum buffer must be provided and a qualified biologist would then monitor any active nests within the buffer area. The biologist will have the authority to increase or decrease the buffer and/or make other recommendations to minimize impacts (e.g., to curtail, modify, or cease particular activities, such as pile driving, or to provide temporary noise attenuation) if nest activity appears to be adversely affected. The presence of a qualified biological monitor provides a more effective means to ensure that nesting birds are not adversely affected during construction activities compared to arbitrarily limiting construction noise levels without considering existing ambient noise levels and accounting for tolerance of locally nesting to ambient noise. If existing ambient noise levels in suitable nesting habitat are 3. Responses to Comments OCSD Biosolids Master Plan 3-4 ESA / 150626 Final Program Environmental Impact Report May 2018 greater than 60 dBA, exposure to additional construction noise that does not significantly increase ambient levels may not disturb this nesting activity. The presence of a qualified biological monitor provides the ability to determine if nesting birds are actually being disturbed, and is more practical than specifying an arbitrary noise threshold. Comment 3-C The comment states that indirect impacts to biological resources from stormwater runoff and/or hazardous materials were not analyzed in the draft PEIR. Due to the diverse number of species that use the Santa Ana River and Huntington Beach Wetlands for nesting and foraging, and the program’s proximity to a California least tern/western snowy plover colony, the Department requests that the Final PEIR include an analysis and discussion of whether or not impacts to biological resources could result from potential storm water impacts. The comment recommends the following mitigation measure be included in the Final PEIR: “All surface runoff generated from program activities shall be captured on site and diverted away from Huntington Beach Wetlands”. Response 3-C As discussed in Section 3.8 Hydrology and Water Quality on page 3.8-12, OCSD’s standard practice is to capture runoff within each treatment plant site and deliver the runoff to the onsite wastewater treatment system for treatment. Therefore, stormwater runoff increases due to the implementation of the proposed program would not impact the adjacent Santa Ana River or Talbert Marsh. Comment 3-D The comment states that it is unclear if long-term indirect impacts to wildlife inhabiting surrounding open space could occur due to artificial lighting associated with program operation. The comment requests that the Final PEIR discuss and analyze lighting impacts on biological resources and require that all program-related temporary and permanent lighting adjacent to native habitat utilize the lowest illumination necessary for human safety and shield/direct the lighting away from Talbert Marsh and the Santa Ana River. Response 3-D Currently, the program site includes visual barriers separating the proposed facilities from Talbert Marsh and the Santa Ana River. These visual barriers include vegetation and/or walls. As discussed in the Final PEIR in Section 3.1, the program could introduce additional sources of lighting. The proposed lighting would be for operational and security purposes. The level of lighting would be similar to the operational and security lighting that currently exists at Plant No. 2. Mitigation measures are included to ensure that lighting does not affect adjacent areas such as the Talbert Marsh and the Santa Ana River. These measures include complying with the City of Huntington Beach’s existing and future lighting ordinances as well as shielding and directing lighting downward to avoid light intrusion to the surrounding uses. The implementation of the mitigation measures would reduce potential indirect impacts to biological resources within Talbert Marsh and the Santa Ana River. 3. Responses to Comments OCSD Biosolids Master Plan 3-5 ESA / 150626 Final Program Environmental Impact Report May 2018 Comment 3-E The comment states that the proposed program has the potential to increase the density of American crows in the program vicinity as a result of food waste from construction workers. The CDFW is concerned that program-related increases in crows during construction could impact nesting/foraging species in the marshes, particularly California Least Tern and Western Snowy Plover productivity at the nearby Huntington State Beach nest site. The comment states that there is a direct correlation between the density of crows and the availability of human-generated food and trash; therefore, the comment recommends that the Final PEIR include an analysis and discussion of the potential of the program to attract crows which could prey upon the nearby California Least Tern/Western Snowy Plover colony. The comment recommends the following mitigation measure be included in the Final PEIR: “On-site workers shall store food and trash such that it is inaccessible to crows. Food and trash shall be removed from the construction site on a daily basis. Waste management practices shall be monitored throughout construction activities.” Response 3-E Construction activities associated with the proposed program would occur over approximately 20 years. Construction activities related to various programs within Plant No. 1 and Plant No. 2 have occurred for many years. OCSD’s standard practice is to include construction specifications that include requirements for housekeeping, rubbish control and sanitation. To date, there have not been issues related to increases in American crows due to food and trash. Each construction program associated with the program would include similar requirements. They include keeping the worksite and other areas used in a neat and clean condition, and free from any accumulation of rubbish and debris. Contractors are required to dispose of all rubbish and waste materials of any nature generated on the work sites and to regularly collect and dispose of such materials and waste. The implementation of these standard practices would reduce potential increases of the American crow population in the program vicinity, and therefore, would not adversely impact nesting/foraging species in the marshes, particularly California Least Tern and Western Snowy Plover productivity at the nearby Huntington State Beach nest site. Comment 3-F The comment thanks OCSD for the opportunity to comment on the Draft PEIR and provides a CDFW contact and provides references to the background information on biological species within the program area in previous comments. Response 3-F The comment is noted for the record. No response is required because there are no specific comments on the contents in the Draft PEIR. 3. Responses to Comments OCSD Biosolids Master Plan 3-6 ESA / 150626 Final Program Environmental Impact Report May 2018 Letter 4: South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) Comment 4-A The comment summarizes the program description of the proposed program components. Response 4-A No response is required because there are no specific comments on the contents in the Draft PEIR. Comment 4-B The comment summarizes the significance determinations of the proposed program in regards to air quality and emissions. The comment then states that the SCAQMD has comments on the air quality methodology of the Draft PEIR and provides reference to an attachment to the comment letter. The comment then requests that OCSD provide SCAQMD with written responses to all comments on the Final PEIR before program certification. The comment provides a staff contact number for questions or concerns. Response 4-B The comment is noted and saved in the program record. No response is required because there are no specific comments on the contents in the Draft PEIR. Comment 4-C The comment states that based on a review of Table 2-4 in the Draft PEIR, SCAQMD staff found that there is a reasonable possibility that construction activities of later-phase biosolids facilities could overlap with operation of earlier-phase facilities. In the event an overlapping construction and operation scenario is reasonably foreseeable, OCSD should analyze a scenario where construction activities overlap with operational activities, unless OCSD expressly prohibits overlapping construction and operational activities. The comment recommends that OCSD identify the overlapping years among the nine programs, combine construction emissions with operational emissions, and compare the combined emissions to SCAQMD’s air quality CEQA operational thresholds of significance to determine the level of significance in the Final PEIR. Response 4-C In order to evaluate the overlap of construction and operational emissions, the following information will be added to Section 3.2.3 of the Draft PEIR under Impact 3.2-2 starting on 3.2- 28. Construction and Operational Emissions Overlap Because the program will be implemented in phases, there is a reasonable possibility that construction activities of later phase biosolids facilities could overlap with operation of 3. Responses to Comments OCSD Biosolids Master Plan 3-7 ESA / 150626 Final Program Environmental Impact Report May 2018 earlier phase facilities. In order to determine the combined significance of these activities, the construction and operational activities are combined and compared to the SCAQMD’s operational threshold. Operational activities would begin with the construction of the Interim Food Waste Receiving Facility by 2020. This would increase daily truck activities by 8 daily trips. There would be no new flare operations, new natural gas usage, nor new area source emissions as the food waste receiving facility is strictly tanks and electric pumps. Total new trips at buildout in 2038 would be 34. Therefore, between 2020 and 2038, total operational emissions would represent approximately 24 % of the program’s total mobile source emissions. Additionally, maximum daily construction emissions used a default 2018 aggregate truck fleet to determine emissions from haul trucks. Because trucks used to haul debris from construction waste and deliver construction equipment would be contracted, the default fleet mix would change with each subsequent year. Therefore, emissions from the aggregate truck fleet in 2021 (for a new program within the master plan beginning in 2021) would differ from the emissions for the aggregate fleet mix for the max year 2018. Therefore, in order to accurately predict haul and vendor emissions future construction activities, the emissions for haul and vendor trucks have been adjusted accordingly. Calculation assumptions and calculations are included in Attachment 2. Table 3.2-7A shows the unmitigated combined construction and operational emissions. As shown, the proposed program would exceed the SCAQMD’s daily regional significance threshold for NOx. Therefore, construction phase emissions for NOx would be significant without Mitigation Measure AQ-1. TABLE 3.2-7A PROPOSED PROGRAM UNMITIGATED CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATIONAL EMISSIONS Emissions Source Estimated Emissions (lbs/day) ROG NOX CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5 2021 Combined Emissions Operational Emissions <1 3 1 <1 <1 <1 Construction Onsite & Worker 17 175 116 0.21 21 13 Construction Haul & Vendor 1 36 34 <1 1 <1 2038 Combined Emissions Operational Emissions <1 11 5 <1 1 1 Construction Onsite & Worker 17 175 116 <1 21 13 Construction Haul & Vendor 1 16 33 <1 <1 <1 2021 Total Combined Emissions 18 213 151 <1 22 13 2038 Total Combined Emissions 18 201 154 <1 22 14 Regional Significance Threshold 55 55 550 150 150 55 Significant Impact? No Yes No No No No SOURCE: ESA Modeling 2018 (based on Attachment 2) 3. Responses to Comments OCSD Biosolids Master Plan 3-8 ESA / 150626 Final Program Environmental Impact Report May 2018 The following information will be added to Section 3.2.3 of the Draft PEIR under Impact 3.2-2 starting on 3.2-29. Construction and Operational Emissions Overlap With the implementation of mitigation measure AQ-1, the proposed program’s maximum daily construction and operational emissions would be reduced to below regulatory thresholds as shown in Table 3.2-8A. TABLE 3.2-8A PROPOSED PROGRAM MITIGATED CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATIONAL EMISSIONS Emissions Source Estimated Emissions (lbs/day) ROG NOX CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5 2021 Combined Emissions Operational Emissions <1 3 1 <1 <1 <1 Construction Onsite & Worker 4 10 99 <1 13 6 Construction Haul & Vendor 1 36 34 <1 1 <1 2038 Combined Emissions Operational Emissions <1 11 5 <1 1 1 Construction Onsite & Worker 4 10 99 <1 13 6 Construction Haul & Vendor 1 16 33 <1 <1 <1 2021 Total Combined Emissions 5 49 134 <1 14 6 2038 Total Combined Emissions 5 37 138 <1 15 7 Regional Significance Threshold 55 55 550 150 150 55 Significant Impact? No No No No No No SOURCE: ESA Modeling 2018 (based on Attachment 2) Based on the reduction of the total NOx emissions with the implementation of Mitigation Measure AQ-1, impacts related to a violation of air quality standards from combined construction and operational activities associated with the proposed program would be less than significant. Comment 4-D The comment states that SCAQMD should be identified as a Responsibly Agency for the proposed program because the SCAQMD will provide permits. The comment provides the following permits and compliance requirements that the proposed program is subject to: a) The proposed excavations at Plant No. 1 and No. 2 will require a SCAQMD Rule 1166 – VOC Contaminated Soil Excavation Plan, if VOC contaminated soil is expected to be encountered during the excavation activities, and/or may be subject to SCAQMD Rule 1466 if the soil contains other toxics. b) The proposed demolition of structures will be subject to SCAMQD Rule 1403 – Asbestos Emissions from Demolition/Renovation Activities. 3. Responses to Comments OCSD Biosolids Master Plan 3-9 ESA / 150626 Final Program Environmental Impact Report May 2018 c) The proposed construction of the interim food waste facility with 250 wet tons per day capacity will require complete and timely applications for permit to construct and operate. Any grinders and separators that are not part of the processing system may also need their own permits. d) The proposed construction of any odor control treatment systems at the interim food waste facility will require complete and timely applications for permits to construct and operate. e) The proposed alteration/modification of the existing food waste facility at Plant No. 2 will require complete and timely applications for permits to construct and operate. Any grinders and separators that are not part of the processing system may also need their own permits. f) The proposed construction or alteration of any odor control treatment systems at the modified Plant No. 2 will require complete and timely applications for permit to construct and operate. The comment then provides a contact number for the SCAQMD Engineering and Permitting staff. Response 4-D As discussed in Section 3.2 Air Quality, the SCAQMD is primarily responsible for planning, implementing and enforcing air quality standards within the South Coast Air Basin. This includes the review and approval/denial of permits under their jurisdiction. According to CEQA Guidelines Section 15381, a “’Responsible agency’ means a public agency, other than the lead agency, which has the responsibility for carrying out or approving a program. For the purposes of CEQA, the term ‘responsible agency’ includes all public agencies other than the lead agency which have discretionary approval power over the program.” Because the SCAQMD has jurisdiction over several permits that may be required for the individual programs under the Master Plan, the SCAQMD should be considered a Responsible Agency with respect to the Program. SCAQMD will be identified as a Responsible Agency for the Program. Comment 4-E The comment states that the Final PEIR should discuss how OCSD will comply with applicable SCAQMD rules and regulations, including, but not limited to, the following: a. Rule 201: Permit to Construct b. Rule 203: Permit to Operate c. Rule 212: Standards for Approving Permits and Issuing Public Notice d. Rule 401: Visible Emissions e. Rule 402: Nuisance f. Rule 403: Fugitive Dust g. Rule 1166: Volatile Organic Compound Emissions from Decontamination of Soil h. Regulation 13: New Source Review i. Rule 1401: New Source Review of Toxic Air Contaminants j. Rule 1403: Asbestos Emissions from Demolition/Renovation Activities k. Regulation 30: Title V Permits 3. Responses to Comments OCSD Biosolids Master Plan 3-10 ESA / 150626 Final Program Environmental Impact Report May 2018 The comment provides common odor management methods and discusses potential environmental issues with these methods. The comment states that if specific odor management methods that contribute to air quality are used then the Final PEIR should calculate the operational emissions, or demonstrate that the products used for proposed program construction and operations will have no adverse environmental impacts because the formulations will be free of toxic compounds, VOC, and fragrances. Response 4-E The program is required to comply with all applicable laws, regulations and administrative mandates, including rules adopted by the SCAQMD, as discussed in the Draft PEIR on page 3.2- 13. The commenter identified additional rules, and they are discussed below. A description of how the program will comply with the rules cited in the comment is addressed below: Discussion of Rules 201, 203, and 212 are added to the Draft PEIR as follows. The Program will comply with these rules by submitting the appropriate applications for construction and operation of new emissions sources in a timely manner prior to the start of construction or operation activities. Permits to construct and operate were identified in the Draft PEIR on page 2-32. Activities covered under the permits will not begin until a permit has been approved by the SCAQMD. Rule 401 is discussed in the Draft PEIR, and the Program will comply with this rule during construction by ensuring all equipment is properly maintained in accordance with the manufacturer’s standards. During operation, the Program will comply with this rule through the implementation of filtration and scrubber units for odor and flaring operations to reduce or eliminate visible emissions in accordance with Rule 401. Rule 402 is discussed in the Draft PEIR, and the Program will comply with this rule by containing sources of odors, and when necessary, providing appropriate odor treatment. Implementation of mitigation measure AQ-3, which ensures contractors promptly remove salvaged/demolished equipment from the treatment plant, will also reduce objectionable odors associated with the Program. Rule 403 is discussed in the Draft PEIR, and the Program will comply with this rule by implementing fugitive dust controls and best management practices, such as the application of water and other applicable measures as listed in Rule 403. Rule 1166 is added to the Draft PEIR as follows. As discussed in Section 3.7 Hazards and Hazardous Materials in the Draft PEIR, Plant No. 1 has one open LUST cleanup site. Construction activities associated with the proposed Collections Yard Relocation on Plant No. 1 could encounter contaminated soil during excavation. The Program will comply with this rule by evaluating the VOC content of all soils that will be excavated under the Program and preparing a VOC Contaminated Soil Mitigation Plan for any soils containing VOC concentrations greater than 50 ppm (“VOC Contaminated Soil”). The VOC Contaminated Soil Mitigation Plan will outline measures to minimize VOC emissions to the atmosphere during excavation and subsequent handling of VOC Contaminated Soil. OCSD shall submit the Contaminated Soil 3. Responses to Comments OCSD Biosolids Master Plan 3-11 ESA / 150626 Final Program Environmental Impact Report May 2018 Mitigation Plan for SCAQMD’s approval before beginning excavation of any VOC Contaminated Soils. During excavation activities near the LUST site, the Program will also provide notification of excavation dates to the SCAQMD and monitor for VOC emissions as outlined in Rule 1166. The Program will comply with all applicable handling and removal requirements identified in Rule 1166 when excavating and handling VOC Contaminated Soils. Rule 1401 is added to the Draft PEIR as described below. As stated in the Draft PEIR on page 3.2-34, the operation of the program includes the continued use of chemicals and the flaring of gases associated with the processing of biosolids. Additionally, the onsite CenGen facility could result in continued toxic air contaminant (TAC) emissions. The chemicals and processes associated with these operations already occur onsite and are permitted to the extent SCAQMD deems appropriate. Therefore, the implementation of the Program is not anticipated to introduce new sources of TACs. However, should the increase in facility throughput exceed the currently permitted levels, the Program will be required to apply for a new or updated permit to operate using the new parameters as outlined under Regulation II, Lists and Criteria Identifying Information Required of Applicants Seeking a Permit to Construct from the South Coast Air Quality Management District. Because the proposed program would not introduce new sources of TACs, the proposed program would not be required to comply directly with Rule 1401 – New Source Review of Toxic Air Contaminants. Rule 1403 is added to the Draft PEIR as described below. As discussed in Section 3.7 Hazards and Hazardous Materials in the Draft PEIR, based on the age of the structures at Plant No. 2, there is a potential for asbestos to be located on site. The Program will comply with this rule by conducting an initial survey of the structures to be demolished in order to determine the presence or absence of asbestos following the guidelines outlined in Rule 1403. Should asbestos be found in the facilities to be demolished, the SCAQMD shall be notified as outlined in Rule 1403. Asbestos shall be removed from the facility to be demolished before demolition commences following the appropriate removal and handling procedures detailed in Rule 1403. Regulation VIII governs the pre-construction review requirements for new, modified, or relocated facilities. The Program will comply with this regulation through air quality analysis provided in the Draft PEIR. If OCSD determines that there are new emissions or emissions that are in addition to those identified in the PEIR, then OCSD will provide subsequent air quality analysis for the individual programs associated with the proposed program. These additional analyses would occur prior to the initiation of the individual program construction. Regulation XXX is the air pollution control permit system required to implement the federal Operating Permit Program as required by Title V of the federal Clean Air Act as amended in 1990. The proposed modifications and improvements to the OCSD facility that are part of the Biosolids Master Plan are not subject to Title V because the proposed operations of the facilities would not increase stationary emissions, and therefore, would not be required to comply with this regulation. With respect to odor management methods, Section 3.2.3 of the PEIR, under Impact 3.2-5, page 3.2-38, states that “Source separated organics (SSO or food waste) odors can result from 3. Responses to Comments OCSD Biosolids Master Plan 3-12 ESA / 150626 Final Program Environmental Impact Report May 2018 volatilization of nitrogen and sulfur rich organic compounds that are common in many types of food wastes. Therefore, the proposed program was designed to implement odor control treatment technologies (carbon canisters) in order to treat foul air in the SSO tanks. The activated carbon may serve as a passive odor control system as the tanks are filled and drawn down.” The passive odor control systems associated with the closed SSO system would not result in additional operational emissions. In addition, the PEIR states: “Further, odor control systems are being implemented in the proposed [Digester Feed Facility (DFF)], which blends primary sludge with thickened waste activated sludge. These odor control facilities would be implemented within facility processes where necessary to reduce potential odor impacts.” While the exact nature of the odor control systems for the DFF have not yet been identified, if the odor system requires additional permitting or results in additional operational emissions, OCSD will ensure these issues are addressed in subsequent environmental documentation prior to permit approval. The following rules and regulations are hereby included in Section 3.2.2 Regulatory Framework under the SCAQMD’s Rules and Regulations section starting on page 3.2-13. Regulation II – Lists and Criteria Identifying Information Required of Applicants Seeking a Permit to Construct from the South Coast Air Quality Management District: This regulation identifies information required of applicants seeking permits to construct air pollution sources and requires submission of such information before an application can be determined to be complete. Rule 201 – Permit to Construct: This rule states that a person shall not build, erect, install, alter or replace any equipment or agricultural permit unit, the use of which may cause the issuance of air contaminants or the use of which may eliminate, reduce or control the issuance of air contaminants without first obtaining written authorization for such construction from the Executive Officer. A permit to construct shall remain in effect until the permit to operate the equipment or agricultural permit unit for which the application was filed is granted or denied, or the application is canceled. Rule 203 – Permit to Operate: This rule states that: A) A person shall not operate or use any equipment or agricultural permit unit, the use of which may cause the issuance of air contaminants, or the use of which may reduce or control the issuance of air contaminants, without first obtaining a written permit to operate from the Executive Officer or except as provided in Rule 202. B) The equipment or agricultural permit unit shall not be operated contrary to the conditions specified in the permit to operate. Rule 212 – Standards for Approving Permits: This rule identifies the standards that will be used by the SCAQMD to approve or deny a permit to construct or operate. Regulation XI – Source Specific Standards: Regulation XI sets emissions standards for specific sources. The following is a list of rules which may apply to the proposed program: Rule 1166 – Volatile Organic Compound Emissions from Decontamination of Soil: This rule sets requirements to control the emission of Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC) from excavating, grading, handling and treating VOC contaminated soil as a 3. Responses to Comments OCSD Biosolids Master Plan 3-13 ESA / 150626 Final Program Environmental Impact Report May 2018 result of leakage from storage or transfer operations, accidental spillage, or other deposition. 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 proposed program: Rule 1401 – New Source Review of Toxic Air Contaminants: This rule specifies limits for maximum individual cancer risk (MICR), cancer burden, and noncancer acute and chronic hazard index (HI) from new permit units, relocations, or modifications to existing permit units which emit toxic air contaminants listed in Table I. The rule establishes allowable risks for permit units requiring new permits pursuant to Rules 201 or 203. Rule 1403 – Asbestos Emissions from Demolition/Renovation Activities: The purpose of this rule is to specify work practice requirements to limit asbestos emissions from building demolition and renovation activities, including the removal and associated disturbance of asbestos-containing materials (ACM). The requirements for demolition and renovation activities include asbestos surveying, notification, ACM removal procedures and time schedules, ACM handling and clean-up procedures, and storage, disposal, and landfilling requirements for asbestos-containing waste materials (ACWM). All operators are required to maintain records, including waste shipment records, and are required to use appropriate warning labels, signs, and markings. Regulation XIII – New Source Review: This regulation sets forth pre-construction review requirements for new, modified, or relocated facilities, to ensure that the operation of such facilities does not interfere with progress in attainment of the national ambient air quality standards, and that future economic growth within the South Coast Air Quality Management District (District) is not unnecessarily restricted. The specific air quality goal of this regulation is to achieve no net increases from new or modified permitted sources of nonattainment air contaminants or their precursors. In addition to nonattainment air contaminants, this regulation will also limit emission increases of ammonia, and Ozone Depleting Compounds (ODCs) from new, modified or relocated facilities by requiring the use of Best Available Control Technology (BACT). Letter 5: Orange County Health Care Agency Comment 5-A The comment explains that the Orange County Solid Waste Local Enforcement Agency (LEA) is responsible for enforcing State solid waste regulations. Response 5-A The comment is noted and saved in the program record. No response is required because there are no specific comments on the contents in the Draft PEIR. Comment 5-B The comment states that the OCSD plant operations appear to fall within the “Excluded Activities” of the California Solid Waste Regulations and quotes various definitions as described 3. Responses to Comments OCSD Biosolids Master Plan 3-14 ESA / 150626 Final Program Environmental Impact Report May 2018 in the California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Section 17896.6, Excluded Activities. The comment then advises OCSD that Excluded Activities do not preclude the LEA from inspecting plant operations. The comment requests that updates on the proposed program be provided in the future and provides a contact number for questions. Response 5-B The proposed Interim and Ultimate Food Waste Receiving Facility will receive pre-processed food waste as a slurry. The slurry is proposed to be delivered by truck in leak-proof containers. The slurry would be pumped through a hose that is connected directly to the side of the holding tanks. From the holding tanks, the food waste is fed into the digesters. The commenter states that solid waste would be received at the facilities. The commenter is technically correct. The food waste slurry is classified as a solid waste. However, the proposed processing of the food waste at Plant No. 2 would be exempt from CalRecycle’s regulations. In accordance with California Code of Regulation, Title 14, Sections 17403.1 (a)(8) and 17896.6 (a)(1), a Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTW) like OCSD is exempt from CalRecycle’s transfer/storage/processing permits when it receives vehicle-transported solid waste material for the purpose of anaerobic co-digestion with POTW Treatment Plant wastewater. OCSD will work closely with OCHCA (LEA) and CalRecycle during the planning, construction, and operation of the proposed food waste processing facilities at Plant No. 2. In addition, OCSD will be required to work with Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region 9 and the Regional Board (Region 8) to incorporate language in its draft National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)/Waste Discharge Requirements (WDR) permit regarding the proposed project. OCSD understands that the LEA could inspect the operations of the proposed facilities in the future. As more detailed design is provided, OCSD will evaluate if the PEIR adequately addresses the potential effects of each program. If subsequent CEQA documentation is prepared, OCSD will provide the LEA updates related to the proposed food waste facilities. Letter 6: Orange County Transportation Authority Comment 6-A The comment requests that the program name for “I-405, New I-405 South Entrance” be changed to “I-405 Improvement Program”, and that the program description be changed to read “Improvements to I-405 and Euclid/Ellis interchange” (page 3-3, Table 3-2). 3. Responses to Comments OCSD Biosolids Master Plan 3-15 ESA / 150626 Final Program Environmental Impact Report May 2018 Response 6-A To accurately reference the I-405 project, the eighth item in Table 3-2 on page 3-3 of the Draft PEIR is revised as follows: I-405, New I-405 Improvement Program South Entrance Plant No. 1 Wastewater Treatment Facilities Public Right-of-way improvements to I-405 south entrance along Ellis Avenue Improvements to I-405 and Euclid/Ellis interchange Comment 6-B The comment requests that “Orange County Transportation Agency” be revised to “Orange County Transportation Authority” (page 3.11-1). Response 6-B To accurately reference the Orange County Transportation Authority, the first sentence of the last paragraph on page 3.11-1 of the Draft PEIR is revised as follows: Beach Boulevard (SR 39) is an eight lane north-south principal arterial designated as a “Smart Street corridor” by the Orange County Transportation Agency Authority. Comment 6-C The comment requests that Hamilton Avenue/Victoria Street is defined as a four-lane primary arterial in Huntington Beach and a four-lane secondary arterial extending east to SR-55 in the City of Costa Mesa (page 3.11-3). Response 6-C This comment requests that the correct roadway classification is provided for the Hamilton Avenue/Victoria Street segment. The fifth paragraph on page 3.11-3 of the Draft PEIR is revised as follows: Hamilton Avenue/Victoria Street is a four-lane primary major arterial in Huntington Beach and a four-lane secondary primary arterial extending east west to SR-55 in the City of Costa Mesa. Comment 6-D The comment states that there is currently no bike path along the Santa Ana River adjacent to Plant No. 1, but rather a “well utilized soft-surface county-designated Riding and Hiking Trail”. A paved bike path is provided on the east bank of the Santa Ana River and adjacent to Plant No. 1, and is on the west bank of the Santa Ana River adjacent to Plant No. 2. Additionally, an all- weather paved shared-use path connecting the Santa Ana River Trail and Brookhurst exists along the southern edge of Plant No. 2. 3. Responses to Comments OCSD Biosolids Master Plan 3-16 ESA / 150626 Final Program Environmental Impact Report May 2018 Response 6-D This comment provides a correction to the reference to the Santa Ana River Bike Path. The last sentence on page 3.11-4 is revised as follows: The Santa Ana River Bike Path is located on the east side of the Santa Ana River adjacent to Plant No. 1 and the west and east sides of the Santa Ana River adjacent to Plant No. 1 and Plant No. 2. Comment 6-E The comment requests that “Congestion Management Plan” be revised to “Congestion Management Program” (page 3.11-5). Response 6-E This comment requests that the PEIR correctly reference the Congestion Management Program. The third sentence in the second paragraph on page 3.11-5 is revised as follows: The purpose of the state-mandated Congestion Management Program Plan (CMP) is to monitor roadway congestion and assess the overall performance of the region’s transportation system. Comment 6-F The comment explains that “Bicycle lanes” refer to one type of bikeway classification and does not encompass all bicycle facilities such as off-street Class I bikeways described on page 3.11-4. The comment recommends modifying the terminology to illustrate impacts will not affect “bicycle facilities” instead of the more specific “bicycle lanes” (page 3.11-14). Response 6-F To correct the reference to bicycle lanes to bicycle facilities, the first, second and third paragraphs on page 3.11-14 of the Draft PEIR are revised as follows: Construction Construction trucks and employee vehicles associated with the proposed program would interact with public transportation vehicles as well as bicyclists on the roadway system in the program vicinity, but would not alter the physical configuration of the existing bus routes or stops or bicycle facilities lanes. While construction vehicles will utilize existing roadways, these program vehicles would not impact the use of public transportation or bicycle facilities lanes; and therefore, no impact on existing adopted policies, plans or programs or a reduction of safety in using public transportation or bicycle facilities lanes would occur during construction activities. Operation Operational trips associated with food waste trucks would interact with public transportation vehicles as well as bicyclists on the roadway system in the program vicinity, but would not 3. Responses to Comments OCSD Biosolids Master Plan 3-17 ESA / 150626 Final Program Environmental Impact Report May 2018 alter the physical configuration of the existing bus routes or stops or bicycle facilities lanes. While the food waste trucks during operational activities will utilize existing roadways, these program vehicles would not impact the use of public transportation or bicycle facilities lanes; and therefore, no impact on existing adopted policies, plans or programs or a reduction of safety in using public transportation or bicycle facilities lanes would occur. As future growth in the program vicinity occur, development programs as well as roadway and pipeline improvements could impact public transportation bus stops and bicycle facilities lanes during construction activities. These potential cumulative impacts would be significant. Because the proposed construction and operational activities would not impact the use of public transportation or bicycle facilities lanes and would have no impact on existing adopted policies, plans or programs or a reduction of safety in using public transportation or bicycle facilities lanes, the program would not contribute to potential cumulative impacts on public transportation or bicycle facilities lanes. Comment 6-G The comment recommends that the Final PEIR include language disclosing if construction activities will require any short-term or long-term closures. Response 6-G The proposed construction and operational activities associated with the proposed program would include vehicles traveling along roadways to access Plant No. 1 or Plant No. 2. These vehicles, similar to other vehicles utilizing the public street system, have the potential to interact with existing public transit, bicycle and pedestrian facilities. Because all construction activities would occur within the treatment plant sites, no short-term or long-term closures along any existing street or trails/paths would occur. Comment 6-H The comment states that if the program has any impacts to nearby bus stops, OCSD must coordinate with OCTA to employ measures to reduce potential transit service disruptions. The comment also recommends that OCSD keep OCTA informed of any potential bus stop interruptions or street closures that may require detours. The comment then provides a contact number. Response 6-H The proposed program would not result in construction or operational activities that would disrupt bus stops or disrupt transit service in the program area. 3. Responses to Comments OCSD Biosolids Master Plan 3-18 ESA / 150626 Final Program Environmental Impact Report May 2018 Letter 7: Gae Brummett Comment 7-A The comment requests that Gae Brummett be included in OCSD’s mailing list to stay informed of how to control local programs within Huntington Beach. Response 7-A The comment is noted and saved in the program record. No response is required because there are no specific comments on the contents in the Draft PEIR. Letter 8: Patrick Osullivan Comment 8-A The comment states that the Southeast neighborhood of Huntington Beach is being adversely impacted by truck traffic, dust, noise and other adverse conditions due to the cumulative effect of multiple programs in the area: Poseidon, AES, Ascon, and Shopoff. The comment states the “the unneeded Poseidon should be eliminated from the cumulative programs list before any Statement of Overriding Considerations is certified”. Response 8-A The impacts identified in the Biosolids Master Plan Draft PEIR will be reduced to less than significant after the implementation of the proposed mitigation measures. There are no impacts that would remain significant and therefore, no Statement of Overriding Considerations will be required with the proposed Biosolids Master Plan. The cumulative analysis provided in the Draft PEIR includes references to the Poseidon Desalination Plant as a known program that is currently in the planning process, but not approved. This Draft PEIR appropriately includes the Poseidon Desalination Plant as a cumulative program. Section 3 of the Draft PEIR includes an evaluation of effects associated with the implementation of cumulative programs and also includes a discussion of the program’s contribution toward the cumulative impacts. OCSD Biosolids Master Plan 4-1 ESA / 150626 Final Program Environmental Impact Report May 2018 CHAPTER 4 Corrections and Additions to the Draft PEIR This chapter contains a compilation of revisions made to the text of the Draft PEIR by OCSD as the Lead Agency, in response to the comments received during the 45-day public review period as well as minor edits. All revisions are previously introduced in Chapter 3 of this Final PEIR but are summarized here for convenience of the reader. Where the responses indicate additions or deletions to the text of the Draft PEIR, additions are indicated in underline and deletions in strikeout. 3.0 Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures Page 3-3 To accurately reference the I-405 project, the eighth item in Table 3-2 on page 3-3 of the Draft PEIR is revised as follows: I-405, New I-405 Improvement Project South Entrance Plant No. 1 Wastewater Treatment Facilities Public Right-of-way improvements to I-405 south entrance along Ellis Avenue Improvements to I-405 and Euclid/Ellis interchange 3.2 Air Quality Page 3.2-13 The following additions to rules and regulations is hereby included in Section 3.2.2 Regulatory Framework under the SCAQMD’s Rules and Regulations section starting on page 3.2-13. Regulation II – Lists and Criteria Identifying Information Required of Applicants Seeking a Permit to Construct from the South Coast Air Quality Management District: This regulation identifies information required of applicants seeking permits to construct air pollution sources and requires submission of such information before an application can be determined to be complete. Rule 201 – Permit to Construct: This rule states that a person shall not build, erect, install, alter or replace any equipment or agricultural permit unit, the use of which may cause the issuance of air contaminants or the use of which may eliminate, reduce or control the issuance of air contaminants without first obtaining written authorization for such construction from the Executive Officer. A permit to construct shall remain in effect 4. Corrections and Additions to the Draft PEIR OCSD Biosolids Master Plan 4-2 ESA / 150626 Final Program Environmental Impact Report May 2018 until the permit to operate the equipment or agricultural permit unit for which the application was filed is granted or denied, or the application is canceled. Rule 203 – Permit to Operate: This rule states that: A) A person shall not operate or use any equipment or agricultural permit unit, the use of which may cause the issuance of air contaminants, or the use of which may reduce or control the issuance of air contaminants, without first obtaining a written permit to operate from the Executive Officer or except as provided in Rule 202. B) The equipment or agricultural permit unit shall not be operated contrary to the conditions specified in the permit to operate. Rule 212 – Standards for Approving Permits: This rule identifies the standards that will be used by the SCAQMD to approve or deny a permit to construct or operate. Regulation XI – Source Specific Standards: Regulation XI sets emissions standards for specific sources. The following is a list of rules which may apply to the proposed program: Rule 1166 – Volatile Organic Compound Emissions from Decontamination of Soil: This rule This rule sets requirements to control the emission of Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC) from excavating, grading, handling and treating VOC contaminated soil as a result of leakage from storage or transfer operations, accidental spillage, or other deposition. 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 proposed program: Rule 1401 – New Source Review of Toxic Air Contaminants: This rule specifies limits for maximum individual cancer risk (MICR), cancer burden, and noncancer acute and chronic hazard index (HI) from new permit units, relocations, or modifications to existing permit units which emit toxic air contaminants listed in Table I. The rule establishes allowable risks for permit units requiring new permits pursuant to Rules 201 or 203. Rule 1403 – Asbestos Emissions From Demolition/Renovation Activities: The purpose of this rule is to specify work practice requirements to limit asbestos emissions from building demolition and renovation activities, including the removal and associated disturbance of asbestos-containing materials (ACM). The requirements for demolition and renovation activities include asbestos surveying, notification, ACM removal procedures and time schedules, ACM handling and clean-up procedures, and storage, disposal, and landfilling requirements for asbestos-containing waste materials (ACWM). All operators are required to maintain records, including waste shipment records, and are required to use appropriate warning labels, signs, and markings. Regulation XIII – New Source Review: This regulation sets forth pre-construction review requirements for new, modified, or relocated facilities, to ensure that the operation of such facilities does not interfere with progress in attainment of the national ambient air quality standards, and that future economic growth within the South Coast Air Quality Management District (District) is not unnecessarily restricted. The specific air quality goal of this regulation is to achieve no net increases from new or modified permitted sources of nonattainment air contaminants or their precursors. 4. Corrections and Additions to the Draft PEIR OCSD Biosolids Master Plan 4-3 ESA / 150626 Final Program Environmental Impact Report May 2018 In addition to nonattainment air contaminants, this regulation will also limit emission increases of ammonia, and Ozone Depleting Compounds (ODCs) from new, modified or relocated facilities by requiring the use of Best Available Control Technology (BACT). Page 3.2-28 In order to evaluate the overlap of construction and operational emissions, the following information will be added to Section 3.2.3 of the Draft PEIR under Impact 3.2-2 starting on page 3.2-28. Construction and Operational Emissions Overlap Because the program will be implemented in phases, there is a reasonable possibility that construction activities of later phase biosolids facilities could overlap with operation of earlier phase facilities. In order to determine the combined significance of these activities, the construction and operational activities are combined and compared to the SCAQMD’s operational threshold. Operational activities would begin with the construction of the Interim Food Waste Receiving Facility by 2020. This would increase daily truck activities by 8 daily trips. There would be no new flare operations, new natural gas usage, nor new area source emissions as the food waste receiving facility is strictly tanks and electric pumps. Total new trips at buildout in 2038 would be 34. Therefore, between 2020 and 2038, total operational emissions would represent approximately 24 % of the total program mobile sources. Additionally, maximum daily construction emissions used a default 2018 aggregate truck fleet to determine emissions from haul trucks. Because trucks used to haul debris from construction waste and deliver construction equipment would be contracted, the default fleet mix would change with each subsequent year. Therefore, emissions from the aggregate truck fleet in 2021 (for a new program within the master plan beginning in 2021) would differ from the emissions for the aggregate fleet mix for the max year 2018. Therefore, in order to accurately predict haul and vendor emissions future construction activities, the emissions for haul and vendor trucks have been adjusted accordingly. Calculations assumptions and calculations are included in Attachment 2. Table 3.2-7A shows the unmitigated combined construction and operational emissions. As shown, the proposed program would exceed the SCAQMD’s daily regional significance threshold for NOx. Therefore, construction phase emissions for NOx would be significant without mitigation. TABLE 3.2-7A PROPOSED PROGRAM UNMITIGATED CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATIONAL EMISSIONS Emissions Source Estimated Emissions (lbs/day) ROG NOX CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5 2021 Combined Emissions Operational Emissions <1 3 1 <1 <1 <1 Construction Onsite & Worker 17 175 116 0.21 21 13 Construction Haul & Vendor 1 36 34 <1 1 <1 4. Corrections and Additions to the Draft PEIR OCSD Biosolids Master Plan 4-4 ESA / 150626 Final Program Environmental Impact Report May 2018 2038 Combined Emissions Operational Emissions <1 11 5 <1 1 1 Construction Onsite & Worker 17 175 116 <1 21 13 Construction Haul & Vendor 1 16 33 <1 <1 <1 2021 Total Combined Emissions 18 213 151 <1 22 13 2038 Total Combined Emissions 18 201 154 <1 22 14 Regional Significance Threshold 55 55 550 150 150 55 Significant Impact? No Yes No No No No SOURCE: ESA Modeling 2018 (based on Attachment 2) The following information will be added to Section 3.2.3 of the Draft PEIR under Impact 3.2-2 starting on 3.2-29. Construction and Operational Emissions Overlap With the implementation of mitigation measure AQ-1, the proposed program’s maximum daily construction emissions would be reduced to below regulatory thresholds as shown in Table 3.2-8A. TABLE 3.2-8A PROPOSED PROGRAM MITIGATED CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATIONAL EMISSIONS Emissions Source Estimated Emissions (lbs/day) ROG NOX CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5 2021 Combined Emissions Operational Emissions <1 3 1 <1 <1 <1 Construction Onsite & Worker 4 10 99 <1 13 6 Construction Haul & Vendor 1 36 34 <1 1 <1 2038 Combined Emissions Operational Emissions <1 11 5 <1 1 1 Construction Onsite & Worker 4 10 99 <1 13 6 Construction Haul & Vendor 1 16 33 <1 <1 <1 2021 Total Combined Emissions 5 49 134 <1 14 6 2038 Total Combined Emissions 5 37 138 <1 15 7 Regional Significance Threshold 55 55 550 150 150 55 Significant Impact? No No No No No No SOURCE: ESA Modeling 2018 (based on Attachment 2) Based on the reduction of the total NOx emissions with the implementation of Mitigation Measure AQ-1, impacts related to a violation of air quality standards from combined construction and operational activities associated with the proposed program would be less than significant. 4. Corrections and Additions to the Draft PEIR OCSD Biosolids Master Plan 4-5 ESA / 150626 Final Program Environmental Impact Report May 2018 Page 3.2-38 The Odor Control Master Plan (OCMP) includes technologies to reduce odor from activities within Plant No. 1 and Plant No. 2; however, the OCSD Board of Directors has not adopted the OCMP. Therefore, the second and third paragraphs on page 3.2-38 of the Draft PEIR are revised to read as follows: As described above, OCSD has prepared an OCMP for both Plant No.1 and Plant No. 2. New facilities including carbon canisters associated with the Interim and Ultimate Food Waste Facilities and DFF were designed and will be implemented to reduce odors. constructed in compliance with the OCMP. Further, the proposed program’s new and updated facilities will be implemented into future updates to the OCMP. Therefore, with the implementation of the upgraded odor control system and, new odor control systems associated with the proposed program, and compliance with the updated OCSD OCMP, potential odor impacts to sensitive receptors would be less than significant. 3.11 Traffic and Transportation Page 3.11-1 To accurately reference the Orange County Transportation Authority, the first sentence of the last paragraph on page 3.11-1 of the Draft PEIR is revised as follows: Beach Boulevard (SR 39) is an eight lane north-south principal arterial designated as a “Smart Street corridor” by the Orange County Transportation Agency Authority. Page 3.11-3 This comment requests that the correct roadway classification is provided for the Hamilton Avenue/Victoria Street segment. The fifth paragraph on page 3.11-3 of the Draft PEIR is revised as follows: Hamilton Avenue/Victoria Street is a four-lane primary major arterial in Huntington Beach and a four-lane secondary primary arterial extending east west to SR-55 in the City of Costa Mesa. Page 3.11-4 This comment provides a correction to the reference to the Santa Ana River Bike Path. The last sentence on page 3.11-4 is revised as follows: The Santa Ana River Bike Path is located on the east side of the Santa Ana River adjacent to Plant No. 1 and the west and east sides of the Santa Ana River adjacent to Plant No. 1 and Plant No. 2. 4. Corrections and Additions to the Draft PEIR OCSD Biosolids Master Plan 4-6 ESA / 150626 Final Program Environmental Impact Report May 2018 Page 3.11-5 This comment request to correctly refer to the Congestion Management Program. The third sentence in the second paragraph on page 3.11-5 is revised as follows: The purpose of the state-mandated Congestion Management Program Plan (CMP) is to monitor roadway congestion and assess the overall performance of the region’s transportation system. Page 3.11-14 To correct the reference to bicycle lanes to bicycle facilities, the first, second and third paragraphs on page 3.11-14 of the Draft PEIR are revised as follows: Construction Construction trucks and employee vehicles associated with the proposed program would interact with public transportation vehicles as well as bicyclists on the roadway system in the program vicinity, but would not alter the physical configuration of the existing bus routes or stops or bicycle facilities lanes. While construction vehicles will utilize existing roadways, these program vehicles would not impact the use of public transportation or bicycle facilities lanes; and therefore, no impact on existing adopted policies, plans or programs or a reduction of safety in using public transportation or bicycle facilities lanes would occur during construction activities. Operation Operational trips associated with food waste trucks would interact with public transportation vehicles as well as bicyclists on the roadway system in the program vicinity, but would not alter the physical configuration of the existing bus routes or stops or bicycle facilities lanes. While the food waste trucks during operational activities will utilize existing roadways, these program vehicles would not impact the use of public transportation or bicycle facilities lanes; and therefore, no impact on existing adopted policies, plans or programs or a reduction of safety in using public transportation or bicycle facilities lanes would occur. As future growth in the program vicinity occur, development projects as well as roadway and pipeline improvements could impact public transportation bus stops and bicycle facilities lanes during construction activities. These potential cumulative impacts would be significant. Because the proposed construction and operational activities would not impact the use of public transportation or bicycle facilities lanes and would have no impact on existing adopted policies, plans or programs or a reduction of safety in using public transportation or bicycle facilities lanes, the program would not contribute to potential cumulative impacts on public transportation or bicycle facilities lanes. OCSD Biosolids Master Plan 5-1 ESA / 150626 Final Program Environmental Impact Report May 2018 CHAPTER 5 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program CEQA Requirements Section 15091(d) and Section 15097 of the CEQA Guidelines require a public agency to adopt a program for monitoring or reporting on the changes it has required in the project or conditions of approval to substantially lessen significant environmental effects. This Mitigation, Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) summarizes the mitigation commitments identified in the OCSD Biosolids Master Plan (proposed program; BMP) Program EIR (State Clearinghouse No. 2017071026). Mitigation measures are presented in the same order as they occur in the Final PEIR. The columns in the MMRP table provide the following information:  Mitigation Measure(s): The action(s) that will be taken to reduce the impact to a less-than- significant level.  Implementation, Monitoring, and Reporting Action: The appropriate steps to implement and document compliance with the mitigation measures.  Responsibility: The agency or private entity responsible for ensuring implementation of the mitigation measure. However, until the mitigation measures are completed, OCSD, as the CEQA Lead Agency, remains responsible for ensuring that implementation of the mitigation measures occur in accordance with the MMRP (CEQA Guidelines, Section 15097(a)).  Monitoring Schedule: The general schedule for conducting each task, either prior to construction, during construction and/or after construction. 5. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program OCSD Biosolids Master Plan 5-2 ESA / 150626 Final Program Environmental Impact Report May 2018 TABLE 5-1 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM FOR THE OCSD BMP PROGRAM EIR Mitigation Measures Implementation, Monitoring, and Reporting Action Responsibility Monitoring Schedule Aesthetics AES-1: All new permanent exterior lighting associated with proposed program components shall be shielded and directed downward to avoid any light intrusion to surrounding uses.  Include mitigation measure in project design specifications.  Ensure design specifications are included in construction contractor specifications.  Retain copies of design and contractor specifications in project files.  Perform site inspections to verify contractor compliance. Retain inspection records in the project file. OCSD; Construction Contractor Before, During, and After Construction AES-2: Development of the proposed program and associated facilities shall comply with existing and future lighting ordinances for the cities of Fountain Valley and Huntington Beach.  Include mitigation measure in project design specifications.  Ensure design specifications are included in construction contractor specifications.  Retain copies of design and contractor specifications in project files.  Perform site inspections to verify contractor compliance. Retain inspection records in the project file.  Perform periodic site inspections to ensure ongoing compliance with future lighting ordinances. Retain inspections records in the project file. OCSD; Construction Contractor Before, During and After Construction Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions AQ-1: Mobile off-road construction equipment (wheeled or tracked) used during construction of the individual projects of the proposed program shall meet the USEPA Tier 4 final standards, either as original equipment or equipment retrofitted to meet the Tier 4 final 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.  Include mitigation measure in construction contractor specifications.  Retain copies of contractor specifications in project files.  Perform site inspections to verify contractor compliance. Retain inspection records in the project file. OCSD; Construction Contractor Before and During Construction 5. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program OCSD Biosolids Master Plan 5-3 ESA / 150626 Final Program Environmental Impact Report May 2018 Mitigation Measures Implementation, Monitoring, and Reporting Action Responsibility Monitoring Schedule AQ-2: When grading activities associated with the nine projects of the proposed program occur within 50 meters of the nearest sensitive receptors, the number of scrapers active onsite is restricted to a maximum of 5 and the number of dozers is restricted to a maximum of 2.  Include mitigation measure in construction contractor specifications.  Retain copies of contractor specifications in project files.  Perform site inspections to verify contractor compliance. Retain inspection records in the project file. OCSD; Construction Contractor Before and During Construction AQ-3: OCSD shall ensure that contractors promptly remove salvaged/demolished equipment associated with the proposed program from the treatment plants to minimize potential odors during the removal of existing facilities. Staging areas shall not be used to store salvaged/demolished equipment.  Include mitigation measure in construction contractor specifications.  Retain copies of contractor specifications in project files.  Perform site inspections to verify contractor compliance. Retain inspection records in the project file. OCSD; Construction Contractor Before and During Construction Biological Resources BIO-1: If removal of onsite trees and vegetation associated with the proposed program occurs during the non-nesting season (September 1 to February 14 for songbirds; September 1 to January 14 for raptors), no nesting survey or biological monitor are required. If the removal of onsite trees and vegetation associated with the proposed program occurs during the nesting season (February 15 to August 31 for songbirds; January 15 to August 31 for raptors), a qualified biologist shall conduct a survey prior to vegetation removal activities to determine if there are active nests within the onsite trees and vegetation proposed for removal. If an active nest is not found, no biological monitor is required. If active nests are detected, a minimum buffer (e.g., 300 feet for songbirds or 500 feet for raptors) around the nest shall be delineated and flagged, and no construction activity shall occur within the buffer area until a qualified biologist determines the nesting species have fledged and is no longer active or the nest has failed. The buffer may be modified (i.e., increased or decreased) and/or other recommendations proposed (e.g., a temporary soundwall) as determined appropriate by the qualified biologist to minimize impacts. The qualified biologist shall monitor the removal of onsite trees and vegetation. Nest buffer distance will be based on species, specific location of the nest, the intensity of construction activities, existing disturbances unrelated to the proposed program present in the program area, and other factors. If grading/excavation or pile driving activities associated with the proposed program are scheduled outside the nesting season, no nesting survey or biological monitor are required. If grading/excavation or pile driving activities associated with the proposed program are scheduled during the nesting season, a qualified biologist shall conduct a survey, prior to grading/excavation or pile driving activities, of suitable nesting habitat within 500 feet of construction activities for the presence of nesting birds. If no active nests are detected, no biological monitor is required. If an active nest is detected, a minimum buffer (e.g., 300 feet for songbirds or 500 feet for raptors) around the nest shall be delineated and  Include mitigation measure in construction contractor specifications.  Retain copies of the survey(s) in the project file.  Prepare reports to document any nesting bird species prior to construction activities.  Perform additional survey(s) if there is a lapse of construction activities for seven days or more.  Prepare reports to document any nesting bird species prior to resuming construction activities.  Retain surveys and reports in the project file. OCSD; Construction Contractor Before and During Construction 5. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program OCSD Biosolids Master Plan 5-4 ESA / 150626 Final Program Environmental Impact Report May 2018 Mitigation Measures Implementation, Monitoring, and Reporting Action Responsibility Monitoring Schedule the active nest shall be flagged, and no construction activity shall occur within the buffer area until a qualified biologist determines the nesting species have fledged and is no longer active or the nest has failed. The qualified biologist shall monitor the activities of the active nests within the buffer area. The buffer may be modified (i.e., increased or decreased) and/or other recommendations proposed (e.g., a temporary soundwall) as determined appropriate by the qualified biologist to minimize impacts. Nest buffer distance will be based on species, specific location of the nest, the intensity of construction activities, existing disturbances unrelated to the proposed program present in the program area, and other factors. If there is a lapse of construction activities associated with the proposed program during the nesting season for seven days or more, an additional nesting bird survey shall be conducted to determine if a nest is present prior to construction activities resuming. The procedure identified above for no active nest and an active nest shall be followed. Cultural Resources CUL-1: Prior to start of grading or excavation activities associated with the proposed program and within Plant No. 1 and Plant No. 2, OCSD shall retain a qualified archaeologist meeting the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards for archaeology (U.S. Department of the Interior 2008) to carry out all mitigation related to archaeological resources.  Include mitigation measure in construction contractor specifications.  Retain documentation of retaining a qualified archaeologist in the project file. OCSD; Construction Contractor Before and During Construction CUL-2: Prior to start of grading or excavation activities associated with the proposed program and within Plant No. 1 and 2, the qualified archaeologist (or an archaeologist working under the direct supervision of the qualified archaeologist) shall conduct cultural resources sensitivity training for all construction personnel. Construction personnel shall be informed of the types of archaeological resources that may be encountered, the proper procedures to be enacted in the event of an inadvertent discovery of archaeological resources or human remains, and safety precautions to be taken when working with archaeological monitors. OCSD shall ensure that construction personnel are made available for and attend the training and retain documentation demonstrating attendance.  Include mitigation measure in construction contractor specifications.  Retain documentation demonstrating attendance of construction personnel to cultural resources sensitivity training. OCSD; Construction Contractor Before and During Construction CUL-3: Archaeological and Native American monitoring shall be conducted for grading or excavation activities associated with the proposed program at Plant No. 1 and Plant No. 2. Archaeological monitoring shall be conducted by an archaeologist familiar with the types of archaeological resources that could be encountered within the program area, and under the direct supervision of the qualified archaeologist. The frequency of monitoring shall take into account the rate of excavation and grading activities, the materials being excavated (native versus artificial fill soils and older versus younger soils), and the depth of excavation. The frequency of the monitoring shall be determined by the qualified archaeologist in consultation with the Native American monitor and in coordination with OCSD. The Native American monitor shall be selected from a tribe that is culturally and traditionally affiliated with the program area as indicated by the NAHC. In the event that archaeological resources are unearthed during ground-disturbing activities, the archaeological monitor and/or Native American monitor shall be empowered to halt or redirect ground-disturbing activities away from the vicinity of the discovery until OCSD, a qualified archaeologist, and a Native American monitor have evaluated the discovery and determined appropriate treatment (as prescribed in CUL-4).  Include mitigation measure in construction contractor specifications.  Perform site inspections to ensure compliance with cultural sensitivity requirements.  Retain all archeological and tribal inspection forms in the project file.  Retain copy of final archaeological report in the project file. OCSD; Construction Contractor Before and During Construction 5. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program OCSD Biosolids Master Plan 5-5 ESA / 150626 Final Program Environmental Impact Report May 2018 Mitigation Measures Implementation, Monitoring, and Reporting Action Responsibility Monitoring Schedule The archaeological monitor shall keep daily logs detailing the types of activities and soils observed, and any discoveries. After monitoring has been completed, the qualified archaeologist shall prepare a report that details the results of monitoring for submittal to OCSD, the South Central Coastal Information Center, and any Native American tribe that requests a copy. CUL-4: In the event of the unanticipated discovery of archaeological materials during grading or excavation activities associated with the proposed program, OCSD 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. Construction shall not resume until the qualified archaeologist has conferred with OCSD on the significance of the resource. In the event that preservation in place is determined to be infeasible and data recovery through excavation is the only feasible mitigation available, an Archaeological Resources Treatment Plan shall be prepared and implemented by the qualified archaeologist in consultation with OCSD that provides for the adequate recovery of the scientifically consequential information contained in the archaeological resource. OCSD shall consult with appropriate Native American representatives in determining treatment for prehistoric or Native American resources to ensure cultural values ascribed to the resource are considered.  Include mitigation measure in construction contractor specifications.  Perform site inspections to ensure compliance with cultural sensitivity requirements.  Retain inspection forms in the project file.  Retain correspondence between archeologist and Native American representative.  Retain a copy of Archeological Resources Treatment Plan (if one is required) in the project file. OCSD; Construction Contractor Before and During Construction CUL-5: Prior to start of excavation activities associated with the proposed program that exceed 10 feet in depth in previously undisturbed sediments, OCSD shall retain a qualified paleontologist meeting the Society for Vertebrate Paleontology (SVP) Standards (SVP 2010) to carry out all mitigation related to paleontological resources. The qualified paleontologist shall be selected from the list of County of Orange certified paleontologists.  Include mitigation measure in construction contractor specifications.  Retain documentation of retaining a qualified paleontologist in the project file. OCSD; Construction Contractor Before and During Construction CUL-6: Prior to start of excavation activities associated with the proposed program that exceed 10 feet in depth in previously undisturbed sediments, the qualified paleontologist, or his or her designee, shall conduct training for construction personnel regarding the appearance of fossils and the procedures for notifying paleontological staff should fossils be discovered by construction staff. OCSD shall ensure that construction personnel are made available for and attend the training and retain documentation demonstrating attendance.  Include mitigation measure in construction contractor specifications.  Retain documentation demonstrating attendance of construction personnel to fossil discovery training. OCSD; Construction Contractor Before and During Construction CUL-7: Paleontological resources monitoring shall be performed during excavation activities associated with the proposed program that exceed 10 feet in depth in previously undisturbed sediments by a qualified paleontological monitor (or cross-trained paleontological/archaeological monitor) meeting the standards of the SVP 2010 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. The qualified paleontologist, based on observations of subsurface soil stratigraphy and/or other factors, may increase, reduce, or discontinue monitoring in coordination with OCSD, as warranted. If construction or other project personnel discover any potential fossils during construction, regardless of the depth of work, all work shall cease at that location (within 100 feet) until the qualified paleontologist has assessed the discovery and made  Include mitigation measure in construction contractor specifications.  Retain copies of all paleontological research and survey in the project file.  Perform site monitoring to ensure compliance with paleontological requirements.  Retain inspection forms in the project file. OCSD; Construction Contractor Before and During Construction 5. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program OCSD Biosolids Master Plan 5-6 ESA / 150626 Final Program Environmental Impact Report May 2018 Mitigation Measures Implementation, Monitoring, and Reporting Action Responsibility Monitoring Schedule recommendations as to the appropriate treatment and re-assessed the depth at which monitoring shall be required. CUL-8: In the event of a fossil discovery by the paleontological monitor or construction personnel associated with the proposed program, all work in the immediate vicinity of the find shall cease. The qualified paleontologist shall evaluate the find before restarting construction activity in the area. If it is determined that the fossil(s) is (are) scientifically significant, the qualified paleontologist shall recover significant fossils following standard field procedures for collecting and curating paleontological resources, as described by the SVP (2010).  Include mitigation measure in construction contractor specifications.  Paleontological monitoring reports and logs will be retained in project file.  Retain fossil recovery logs in the project file. OCSD; Construction Contractor Before and During Construction CUL-9: If human remains are encountered during construction activities associated with the proposed program, OCSD or its contractor shall halt work in the vicinity (within 100 feet) of the find and contact the Orange County Coroner in accordance with PRC Section 5097.98 and Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5. If the County Coroner determines that the remains are Native American, the NAHC will be notified in accordance with Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5, subdivision (c), and PRC Section 5097.98. The NAHC will designate a Most Likely Descendant (MLD) for the remains per PRC Section 5097.98. Until the landowner has conferred with the MLD, OCSD shall ensure that the immediate vicinity where the discovery occurred is not disturbed by further activity, is adequately protected according to generally accepted cultural or archaeological standards or practices, and that further activities take into account the possibility of multiple burials.  Include mitigation measure in construction contractor specifications.  Retain inspection forms in the project file.  Retain NAHC correspondence in project files, if necessary. OCSD; Construction Contractor Before and During Construction Hazards and Hazardous Materials HAZ-1: Prior to the initiation of any construction requiring ground-disturbing activities associated with the proposed program, OCSD shall complete an environmental assessment of the proposed site to locate the potential for soil and groundwater contamination in the program area. The recommendations set forth in the site assessment shall be implemented to the satisfaction of applicable agencies before and during construction.  Include mitigation measure in construction contractor specifications.  Retain copies of all environmental site assessments in the project file. OCSD; Construction Contractor Before Construction HAZ-2: If the site assessments determine that the site has contaminated soil and/or groundwater, a Soil and Groundwater Management Plan shall be prepared that specifies the method for handling and disposing of contaminated soil and groundwater prior to demolition, excavation, and construction activities. OCSD shall be responsible for ensuring implementation of the Plan in compliance with applicable regulations.  Include mitigation measure in construction contractor specifications.  Retain copies of Soil and Groundwater Management Plan in the project file.  Perform site inspections to verify contractor compliance with hazardous materials.  Retain inspection forms in the project file. OCSD; Construction Contractor Before and During Construction Attachment 1 Roadway Traffic Noise Levels Roadway Traffic Noise Calculations TENS 1.1 Biosolids Final PEIR - Noise levels at 50 and 200 feet.xlsx 4/17/2018 Speed Roadway/Segment MPH AM PM ADT ROW 50 Feet 200 Feet ROW 50 Feet 200 Feet Brookhurst Street 50 11000 69.5 65.9 61.6 70.7 67.1 62.9 PCH 55 37000 75.8 72.2 68.0 77.0 73.5 69.2 0 0 0 ------ 0 0 0 ------ 0 0 0 ------ Speed Roadway/Segment MPH AM PM ADT ROW 50 Feet 200 Feet ROW 50 Feet 200 Feet Brookhurst Street 50 0 ------ PCH 55 0 ------0 0 0 ------ 0 0 0 ------ 0 0 0 ------ Speed Roadway/Segment MPH AM PM ADT ROW 50 Feet 200 Feet ROW 50 Feet 200 Feet Brookhurst Street 50 0 ------ PCH 55 0 ------ 0 0 0 ------ 0 0 0 ------ 0 0 0 ------ CNEL Summary 50 ft. from ROW 200 ft. from ROW % of ADTProject Cumulative Project Cumulative Vehicle Type Day Eve Night Sub total Roadway/Segment Increment Increment Increment Increment Auto 77.6%9.7%9.7%97.0% Brookhurst Street ----Medium Truck 1.6%0.2%0.2%2.0% PCH ----Heavy Truck 0.8%0.1%0.1%1.0% 0 ----80.0%10.0%10.0%100.0% 0 ---- 0 ---- Dist 1 50 Dist 2 200 Predicted Exisiting Noise Levels Table Roadway/Segment ROW 50 Feet 200 Feet Brookhurst Street 70.7 67.1 62.9 PCH 77.0 73.5 69.2 0 --- 0 --- 0 --- CNEL Leq Existing Future No Project Future With Project Leq Traffic Volumes Traffic Volumes CNEL CNEL CNEL Leq Traffic Volumes Roadway Traffic Noise Calculations TENS 1.1 Biosolids Final PEIR - Noise levels at 50 and 200 feet.xlsx 4/17/2018 Predicted Future Noise Levels Table Roadway/Segment Existing Future No Project Future With Project Project Increment Cumulative Increment Brookhurst Street 67.1 ---- PCH 73.5 ---- 0 ----- 0 ----- 0 ----- Roadway Traffic Noise Calculations TENS 1.1 Biosolids Final PEIR - Noise levels at 50 and 400 feet.xlsx 4/17/2018 Speed Roadway/Segment MPH AM PM ADT ROW 50 Feet 400 Feet ROW 50 Feet 400 Feet Brookhurst Street 50 11000 69.5 65.9 59.0 70.7 67.1 60.2 PCH 55 37000 75.8 72.2 65.3 77.0 73.5 66.5 0 0 0 ------ 0 0 0 ------ 0 0 0 ------ Speed Roadway/Segment MPH AM PM ADT ROW 50 Feet 400 Feet ROW 50 Feet 400 Feet Brookhurst Street 50 0 ------ PCH 55 0 ------0 0 0 ------ 0 0 0 ------ 0 0 0 ------ Speed Roadway/Segment MPH AM PM ADT ROW 50 Feet 400 Feet ROW 50 Feet 400 Feet Brookhurst Street 50 0 ------ PCH 55 0 ------ 0 0 0 ------ 0 0 0 ------ 0 0 0 ------ CNEL Summary 50 ft. from ROW 400 ft. from ROW % of ADTProject Cumulative Project Cumulative Vehicle Type Day Eve Night Sub total Roadway/Segment Increment Increment Increment Increment Auto 77.6%9.7%9.7%97.0% Brookhurst Street ----Medium Truck 1.6%0.2%0.2%2.0% PCH ----Heavy Truck 0.8%0.1%0.1%1.0% 0 ----80.0%10.0%10.0%100.0% 0 ---- 0 ---- Dist 1 50 Dist 2 400 Predicted Exisiting Noise Levels Table Roadway/Segment ROW 50 Feet 400 Feet Brookhurst Street 70.7 67.1 60.2 PCH 77.0 73.5 66.5 0 --- 0 --- 0 --- CNEL Leq Existing Future No Project Future With Project Leq Traffic Volumes Traffic Volumes CNEL CNEL CNEL Leq Traffic Volumes Roadway Traffic Noise Calculations TENS 1.1 Biosolids Final PEIR - Noise levels at 50 and 400 feet.xlsx 4/17/2018 Predicted Future Noise Levels Table Roadway/Segment Existing Future No Project Future With Project Project Increment Cumulative Increment Brookhurst Street 67.1 ---- PCH 73.5 ---- 0 ----- 0 ----- 0 ----- Attachment 2 Air Quality Information 1 Construction and Operational Emissions Overlap  2 EMFAC Output 3 CalEEMod Runs (See Appendix B of the Draft PEIR) Attachment 2 CalEEMod 2016.3.1 Title: OCSD ‐ Operational Buildout 10/4/2017 ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5 2018 Fleet Emissions Rate 0.17 4.58 0.76 0.01 0.05 0.05 2021 Fleet Emission Rate 0.11 3.16 0.62 0.01 0.01 0.01 % Reduction 35.81% 30.98% 18.06% 3.37% 73.15% 73.15% 2038 Fleet Emission Rate 0.07 1.38 0.61 0.01 0.00 0.00 % Reduction 59.99% 69.96% 20.39% 10.78% 90.98% 90.98% *Emissions Rates taken from EMFAC 2014 ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5 0.07 2.59 1.31 0.01 0.29 0.24 0.31 10.80 5.44 0.04 1.22 0.99 17 175 116 0.21 21 13 252420.133 1 1363401 0 1163300 0 2021 Total 18 211 150 0 22 13 2038 Total 18 190 149 0 21 13 18 213 151 0 22 13 18 201 154 0 22 14 Threshold 55 55 550 150 150 55 Exceed Threshold?No Yes No No No No OCSD ‐ Biosolids Master Plan EIR Construction and Operational Overlap Emissions Summary Interim Emissions (2038) Additionally,  maximum daily construction emissions used a default 2018 aggregate truck fleet to determine  emissions from haul trucks.  Because trucks used to haul debris from construction waste and deliver construction  equipment would be contracted, the default fleet mix would change with each subsequent year.  Therefore,  emissions from the aggregate truck fleet in 2021 (for a new project within the master plan beginning in 2021)  would differ from the emissions for the aggregate fleet mix for the max year 2018. Therefore, in order to  accurately predict haul and vendor emissions from these trucks during future construction years, the emissions  for haul and vendor trucks are adjusted accordingly.  These adjustments include: Operational activities would begin with the construction of the Interim Food Waste Receiving Facility by 2020.   This would increase daily truck activities by 8 daily trips. There would be no new flare operations, new natural gas  usage, or new area source emissions as the food waste receiving facility is strictly tanks and electric pumps.  Total  new trips at buildout in 2038 would be 34. Therefore Between 2020 and 2038, total operational emissions would  represent approximately 24 % of the total project mobile sources. Interim Emissions (2021) Unmitigated Operational Emissions 2038 Unmitigated Construction Emissions 2018 Onsite + Worker  2021 Haul & Vendor 2038 Haul & Vendor Unmitigated Construction/Operational Overlap 2021 2018 Haul & Vendor OCSD ‐ Biosolids Master Plan EIR Construction and Operational Overlap Emissions Summary ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5 0.07 2.59 1.31 0.01 0.29 0.24 0.31 10.80 5.44 0.04 1.22 0.99 410990.2113 6 252420.133 1 1363401 0 1163300 0 2021 Total 5 46 133 0 14 6 2038 Total 5 26 132 0 13 6 5 49 134 <1 14 6 5 37 138 <1 15 7 Threshold 55 55 550 150 150 55 Exceed Threshold?No No No No No No Mitigated Construction/Operational Overlap 2021 2038 Unmitigated Operational Emissions Interim Emissions (2021) Interim Emissions (2038) 2018 Haul & Vendor 2021 Haul & Vendor 2038 Haul & Vendor Mitigated Construction Emissions 2018 Onsite + Worker  EMFAC2014 (v1.0.7) Emission Rates Region Type: County Region: Los Angeles Calendar Year: 2038 Season: Annual Vehicle Classification: EMFAC2007 Categories Units: miles/day for VMT, trips/day for Trips, g/mile for RUNEX, PMBW and PMTW, g/trip for STREX, HTSK and RUNLS, g/vehicle/day for IDLEX, RESTL and DIURN Region CalYr VehClass MdlYr Speed Fuel Population VMT Trips ROG_RUNECO_RUNEXNOx_RUNEPM10_RUNPM2_5_RUSOx_RUNEX Los Angeles 2038 HHDT AggregatedAggregatedDSL 63801.4 10006155 0 0.087956 0.82796 1.733531 0.005514 0.005275 0.013749 Los Angeles 2038 MHDT AggregatedAggregatedDSL 107556.6 5293561 0 0.035243 0.185413 0.701476 0.002938 0.002811 0.010615 % HHDT 0.654009 5.752412 54.14937 113.3745 0.360599 0.344999 0.899195 %MHDT 0.345991 1.219388 6.415116 24.27041 0.10164 0.097243 0.367263 Weighted Average 0.069718 0.605645 1.376449 0.004622 0.004422 0.012665 EMFAC2014 (v1.0.7) Emission Rates Region Type: County Region: Los Angeles Calendar Year: 2021 Season: Annual Vehicle Classification: EMFAC2007 Categories Units: miles/day for VMT, trips/day for Trips, g/mile for RUNEX, PMBW and PMTW, g/trip for STREX, HTSK and RUNLS, g/vehicle/day for IDLEX, RESTL and DIURN Region CalYr VehClass MdlYr Speed Fuel Population VMT Trips ROG_RUNECO_RUNEXNOx_RUNEPM10_RUNPM2_5_RUSOx_RUNEX Los Angeles 2021 HHDT AggregatedAggregatedDSL 52019.25 7199666 0 0.150207 0.868512 4.209498 0.018031 0.017251 0.015271 Los Angeles 2021 MHDT AggregatedAggregatedDSL 73768.84 4152017 0 0.045353 0.198192 1.345779 0.006351 0.006076 0.011019 % HHDT 0.634238 9.52667 55.08429 266.9822 1.143579 1.094108 0.968561 %MHDT 0.365762 1.658849 7.249112 49.2235 0.232281 0.222233 0.403021 Weighted Average 0.111855 0.623334 3.162058 0.013759 0.013163 0.013716 OCSD ‐ Biosolids Master Plan EIR EMFAC 2014 Values OCSD ‐ Biosolids Master Plan EIR EMFAC 2014 Values EMFAC2014 (v1.0.7) Emission Rates Region Type: County Region: Los Angeles Calendar Year: 2018 Season: Annual Vehicle Classification: EMFAC2007 Categories Units: miles/day for VMT, trips/day for Trips, g/mile for RUNEX, PMBW and PMTW, g/trip for STREX, HTSK and RUNLS, g/vehicle/day for IDLEX, RESTL and DIURN Region CalYr VehClass MdlYr Speed Fuel Population VMT Trips ROG_RUNECO_RUNEXNOx_RUNEPM10_RUNPM2_5_RUSOx_RUNEX Los Angeles 2018 HHDT AggregatedAggregatedDSL 47954.14 6454031 0 0.174478 0.874386 5.305616 0.026488 0.025343 0.015927 Los Angeles 2018 MHDT AggregatedAggregatedDSL 67928.9 3691211 0 0.173854 0.562008 3.315401 0.094541 0.090451 0.011166 % HHDT 0.636163 11.09967 55.62521 337.5238 1.6851 1.612204 1.013186 %MHDT 0.363837 6.325457 20.44793 120.6264 3.439748 3.290946 0.406272 Weighted Average 0.174251 0.760731 4.581503 0.051248 0.049031 0.014195 Final ORANGE COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT BIOSOLIDS MASTER PLAN PROJECT NO. PS15-01 Environmental Findings of Fact State Clearinghouse Number 2017071026 Prepared for May 2018 Orange County Sanitation District Final ORANGE COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT BIOSOLIDS MASTER PLAN PROJECT NO. PS15-01 Environmental Findings of Fact State Clearinghouse Number 2017071026 Prepared for May 2018 Orange County Sanitation District 626 Wilshire Boulevard Suite 1100 Los Angeles, CA 90017 213.599.4300 www.esassoc.com Bend Camarillo Delray Beach Destin Irvine Los Angeles Miami Oakland Orlando Pasadena Petaluma Portland Sacramento San Diego San Francisco Santa Monica Sarasota Seattle Sunrise Tampa 150626 OUR COMMITMENT TO SUSTAINABILITY | ESA helps a variety of public and private sector clients plan and prepare for climate change and emerging regulations that limit GHG emissions. ESA is a registered assessor with the California Climate Action Registry, a Climate Leader, and founding reporter for the Climate Registry. ESA is also a corporate member of the U.S. Green Building Council and the Business Council on Climate Change (BC3). Internally, ESA has adopted a Sustainability Vision and Policy Statement and a plan to reduce waste and energy within our operations. This document was produced using recycled paper. OCSD Biosolids Master Plan PEIR i ESA / 150626 Environmental Findings May 2018 TABLE OF CONTENTS OCSD Biosolids Master Plan Project No. PS15-01 Environmental Findings of Fact Page 1. Background and Introduction ..................................................................................... 1  1.1 Project Overview ................................................................................................... 1  1.2 Public Involvement and PEIR Scoping ................................................................. 1  1.3 PEIR Certification and Project Approval Process ................................................. 2  1.3.1 Findings Required Under CEQA ................................................................ 2  1.3.2 Significant Effects and Mitigation Measures ............................................... 2  1.3.3 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program ............................................ 3  1.3.4 Certification of the PEIR and Adoption of Findings .................................... 3  2. Program Summary ....................................................................................................... 4  2.1 Program Location ................................................................................................. 4  2.2 Program Description ............................................................................................. 4  2.3 Program Objectives .............................................................................................. 4  2.4 Record of Proceedings ......................................................................................... 6  2.5 Custodian and Location of Records ...................................................................... 7  3. Environmental Findings .............................................................................................. 7  3.1 Findings Regarding Environmental Impacts Which Can Be Mitigated to Less than Significant ............................................................................................. 7  3.1.1 Project Impacts .......................................................................................... 7  3.1.2 Cumulative Impacts ................................................................................. 21  List of Tables 1 OCSD BMP Projects ................................................................................................ 5  OCSD Biosolids Master Plan PEIR 1 ESA / 150626 Environmental Findings May 2018 OCSD BIOSOLIDS MASTER PLAN PEIR Environmental Findings 1. Background and Introduction 1.1 Project Overview The Orange County Sanitation District (OCSD) has completed a Program Environmental Impact Report (PEIR) (State Clearinghouse Number 2017071026) for the Biosolids Master Plan (BMP), Project No. PS15-01. The OCSD is the Lead Agency for the purposes of preparing and certifying the PEIR pursuant to Sections 15050 and 15367 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines (California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Section 15000 et seq.). The purpose of the PEIR is to evaluate the potential environmental impacts of the proposed BMP. In compliance with Section 21002.1 of CEQA and Section 15002 of the CEQA Guidelines, the OCSD, as Lead Agency, has prepared the PEIR to: (1) inform the general public, the local community, responsible and interested public agencies and the OCSD’s decision-making bodies and other organizations, entities, and interested persons of the potential environmental effects of the proposed program, feasible measures to reduce potentially significant environmental effects, and alternatives that could reduce or avoid the significant effects of the proposed program, (2) enable OCSD to consider environmental consequences when deciding whether to approve the proposed program, and (3) to satisfy the substantive and procedural requirements of CEQA. 1.2 Public Involvement and PEIR Scoping The PEIR complies with the provisions of CEQA (California Public Resources Code, Section 21000 et seq.), the CEQA Guidelines and OCSD’s Procedures for Implementing the CEQA Guidelines. In compliance with CEQA, OCSD has solicited and considered comments from Responsible and Trustee Agencies, members of the public, and other interested parties during the proposed program’s various environmental review processes:  In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Sections 15063 and 15082, OCSD prepared and distributed a Notice of Preparation (NOP) of a PEIR. The NOP was distributed on July 14, 2017 to governmental agencies, organizations, and persons who may be interested in the program.  In compliance with Section 21083.9 of CEQA and Section 15082 (c)(1) of the CEQA Guidelines, OCSD held a public scoping meeting on July 31, 2017, to receive public and agency comments.  Comments received from the public and agencies during the public review period for the NOP and the public scoping meeting were considered in the preparation of the PEIR for the proposed program. Environmental Findings OCSD Biosolids Master Plan PEIR 2 ESA / 150626 Environmental Findings May 2018  In February 2018, a Draft PEIR was prepared for the proposed program in accordance with then-current CEQA regulations and guidelines. The Draft PEIR was circulated for a 45-day public review period on February 14, 2018. Notification was provided to the State Clearinghouse; to local, state, and federal agencies; and to all interested parties and jurisdictions pursuant to the requirements of Section 15087 of the CEQA Guidelines. There were eight letters/correspondences received by OCSD during the 45-day review period. Comments within each letter/correspondence were evaluated and responded to in accordance with Section 15088 of the CEQA Guidelines. 1.3 PEIR Certification and Project Approval Process 1.3.1 Findings Required Under CEQA The Board of Directors (the decision-making body) of OCSD (the CEQA Lead Agency) will determine whether to certify the Final PEIR for the program. The Final PEIR, as required by CEQA Guidelines Sections 15089 and 15132, consists of the Draft Program Environmental Impact Report (Draft PEIR) (SCH No. 2017071026), the Response to Comments document, and any other information added by OCSD. The Response to Comments document includes comments received on the Draft PEIR, a list of persons, organizations, and public agencies commenting on the Draft PEIR, and the responses of OCSD as “Lead Agency” to significant environmental points raised in the review and consultation process. Because the Draft PEIR identified potentially significant environmental impacts, the Board of Directors must also make certain “findings” as part of its action to certify that the PEIR has been completed in compliance with CEQA and to approve the proposed program. Pursuant to CEQA Section 21081 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15091, no public agency shall approve or carry out a project for which an environmental impact report has been certified, which identifies one or more significant effects on the environment that would occur if the project is approved or carried out, unless the public agency makes one or more findings for each of those significant effects, accompanied by a brief explanation of the rationale of each finding. The possible findings, which must be supported by substantial evidence in the record, are: (1) Changes or alterations have been required in or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final PEIR. (2) Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency. (3) Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or program alternatives identified in the Final PEIR. 1.3.2 Significant Effects and Mitigation Measures As part of the approval of the BMP and the certification of the PEIR for the proposed program, CEQA requires the Lead Agency—in this case, OCSD, acting through the Board of Directors—to make written findings with respect to each significant environmental impact of the program. These findings need to be accompanied by a brief explanation of the rationale for each finding, and any mitigation measures used to reduce or substantially lessen the impact. The significance of the potential impacts of the proposed program was determined through application of the appropriate thresholds of significance for each resource area, as defined in CEQA Appendix G. Environmental Findings OCSD Biosolids Master Plan PEIR 3 ESA / 150626 Environmental Findings May 2018 Section 15093(a) of the CEQA Guidelines states that if specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits of the proposed program outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects, the adverse environmental effects may be considered “acceptable” and the OCSD Board of Directors may adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations to that effect. The Draft PEIR identified several significant environmental effects (or “impacts”) resulting from implementation of the proposed program. All of these significant effects can be reduced to less than significant through the adoption of feasible mitigation measures. The Draft PEIR found that the proposed program would not result in any significant and unavoidable impacts, and therefore, a Statement of Overriding Considerations would not need to be adopted. Section 3 describes the program and cumulative effects and outlines OCSD’s findings with respect to each of these environmental effects of the proposed program. 1.3.3 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program A Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) has been prepared to monitor and report the implementation of the mitigation measures identified for the proposed program. The MMRP will be adopted by the Board of Directors concurrently with these findings, and will be implemented by OCSD during the proposed program’s planning horizon; and through the program review, construction and post-construction periods of individual projects. To the extent that these findings conclude that all mitigation measures outlined in the PEIR are feasible and have not been modified, superseded, or withdrawn, OCSD hereby binds itself to implement these measures. These findings, in other words, are not merely informational, but rather constitute a binding set of obligations that will come into effect when the Board of Directors formally approves the proposed program. 1.3.4 Certification of the PEIR and Adoption of Findings The Board of Directors will review and consider the information contained in the PEIR, as well as submissions from public officials, public agencies and the general public. Prior to program approval, the Board of Directors shall certify that the PEIR reflects OCSD’s independent judgment and analysis. Having considered the foregoing information, as well as any and all other information in the record, the Board of Directors shall make findings pursuant to CEQA Section 21081. In accordance with the provisions of CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines, the Board of Directors shall adopt the findings as part of its certification of the PEIR for the proposed program. Environmental Findings OCSD Biosolids Master Plan PEIR 4 ESA / 150626 Environmental Findings May 2018 2. Program Summary 2.1 Program Location OCSD facilities are located in northwestern Orange County, California. All proposed projects would be located within OCSD Plant No. 1 and Plant No. 2 boundaries. Therefore, for purposes of the PEIR, the “program area” includes Plants No. 1 and No. 2. Plant No. 1 is located at 10844 Ellis Avenue, Fountain Valley, California, and is bound by Ellis Avenue to the north, Ward Street to the west, Garfield Avenue to the south, and the Santa Ana River (SAR) and SAR Trail to the east. Residential neighborhoods are located west of Ward Street. Plant No. 1 is located within the City of Fountain Valley. The Fountain Valley General Plan designates Plant No. 1 as a Specific Plan Area and the area is zoned as Specific Plan-Orange County Sanitation District. Plant No. 2 is located at 22212 Brookhurst Street, Huntington Beach, California, and bound by residential neighborhoods located approximately 375 feet north of the intersection of Baybreeze Drive and Brookhurst Street to the north, Brookhurst Street and residential neighborhoods to the west, the SAR and SAR Trail to the east, and Talbert Marsh, Pacific Coast Highway (PCH) and the Pacific Ocean to the south. The City of Huntington Beach General Plan designates Plant No. 2 as a Public (P) land use and zoned for Industrial Limited (IL) and Residential Agriculture with an Oil Overlay (RA-O). The program area is also located within the City of Huntington Beach’s Coastal Zone and is subject to the City’s Local Coastal Program. The majority of the proposed program components would be constructed entirely within the existing Plant No. 2 property. The proposed facilities would be implemented within the southwest corner of Plant No. 2 adjacent to the existing biosolids handling facilities. Within Plant No. 2, the program area encompasses approximately 16 acres. Within Plant No. 1, the program area encompasses approximately 2 acres. 2.2 Program Description The proposed program consists of nine projects that are necessary to upgrade Plant No. 2 solid handling facilities to align with OCSD’s goals and objectives. These nine projects would be implemented over the next 20 years. Table 1 summarizes the individual BMP projects. 2.3 Program Objectives Section 15124(b) of the CEQA Guidelines states that the project description shall contain “a statement of the objectives sought by the proposed project.” Section 15124(b) further states that “the statement of objectives should include the underlying purpose of the project.” The underlying purpose of the proposed program is to provide for flexible and sustainable biosolids handling in the future. As set forth by the CEQA Guidelines, the list of objectives that OCSD seeks to achieve for the proposed program is provided below.  Replace aging facilities and mitigate the structural and seismic risks for onsite biosolids structures.  Phase-out the diversion of biosolids organics as an alternative daily cover for landfills. Environmental Findings OCSD Biosolids Master Plan PEIR 5 ESA / 150626 Environmental Findings May 2018  Transition from Class B to Class A biosolids quality at Plant No. 2 to increase biosolids management diversity for end users of biosolids.  Receive pre-processed food waste (source separated organics) for co-digestion to assist in diverting organics from landfills and to increase digester gas production used as a renewable energy. TABLE 1 OCSD BMP PROJECTS OCSD Funding No. Project No. Project Name Description Construction Years P2-125 P2-501 Plant No. 2 Southwest Perimeter Screening P2-501 would improve or replace the perimeter screening to provide a visual buffer for all proposed facilities and associated construction activities along Brookhurst Street and Talbert Marsh. The perimeter screening would be extended along Brookhurst Street and up to approximately 1,030 feet along Talbert Marsh. 2019 to 2020 P2-124 P2-502 Interim Food Waste Receiving Facility An interim food waste facility with a capacity up to 250 wet tons per day will be built to satisfy initial co- digestion needs. The food facility would include two 20,000-gallon tanks and ancillary facilities such as pumps and odor control treatment. The interim food waste facility will be replaced with an ultimate food waste facility (P2-506). 2018 to 2020 P2-126 P2-503A Plant No. 2 Warehouse Relocation The existing 21,000-square-foot, above-grade warehouse would be demolished and then reconstructed at a new location on Plant No. 2 approximately 1,600 feet north of the existing facility. 2021 to 2023 P2-127 P2-503B Plant 2 Collections Yard Relocation The existing 38,000-square-foot collections yard (parking lot) would be relocated, potentially to Plant No. 1. The specific location is not known at this time. The relocated collections yard would provide adequate space and truck paths to and from Plant No.1 or Plant No. 2, similar to the existing footprint. 2021 to 2023 P2-128 P2-504, 504A, 504B Temperature Phased Anaerobic Digestion (TPAD) Digester Facility at Plant No. 2 This project would construct six 110-foot-diameter, 40-foot-tall (above ground) digesters designed to operate in either mesophilic or thermophilic operation, and TPAD sludge cooling facilities, which include a pump station, ultrafiltration/nanofiltration facilities, sludge cooling heat exchangers, and a power building. All new digesters (pairs) would share an electrical control room that would house various pumps, fans, pipelines, and other ancillary facilities. 2025 to 2030 Six 400,000-gallon, 37-feet above ground, Class A batch tanks would be constructed to produce Class A biosolids per U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) 503 regulations through batch holding over a specified time and temperature. The Class A batch tanks would require other ancillary equipment such as pumps, heat exchangers, and grinders. The proposed 33-foot-diameter, 30-foot-high (above ground) Digester Feed Facility (DFF) would replace the existing Sludge Blending Facility where primary sludge and scum is blended and fed to the digesters. Environmental Findings OCSD Biosolids Master Plan PEIR 6 ESA / 150626 Environmental Findings May 2018 OCSD Funding No. Project No. Project Name Description Construction Years The DFF would include thickened sludge tanks, and ancillary facilities, such as fans, grinders, pumps, and carbon and bioscrubbers. P2-129 P2-504C, P2-505 Digester P, Q, R, and S Replacement P2-504C would relocate the existing ferric facility, which currently feeds three digester segments. The new structure would be 38 by 51 feet. The relocation will include all of the match pumps, tanks, and existing equipment. 2038 to 2040 P2-505 would consist of the demolition of four existing digesters (P, Q, R, and S) and Power Building C. Digesters P, Q, R, and S will be rebuilt in place, two at a time. Digesters P, Q, R, and S would have an inner diameter of 105 feet and height of 38 feet above ground. 2028 to 2033 P2-506 P2-506 Ultimate Food Waste Receiving Facility Following operation of the interim food waste receiving facility (P2-502), P2-506 will allow for expansion of the Source Separated Organics (SSO) receiving program through construction of a larger capacity food waste receiving station to replace the interim facility. The ultimate food waste facility would include a total of four, 12-foot-diameter, 30-foot-tall 20,000-gallon tanks, recirculation and digester feed pumps, and odor-control treatment carbon canisters. 2035 to 2037 P2-507 P2-507 Replace Digesters I, J, K (Relocate Digester Holders) P2-507 would consist of the demolition of seven digesters (I, J, K, M, N, O, and T) and relocation of three digesters (I, J, and K) with a diameter of 84 feet and height of 37 feet (above ground). These new digesters would serve as mesophilic digesters and holders capable of operation as mesophilic digesters. An above-grade equipment room would be built between each pair of digesters. The equipment rooms would house ancillary facilities such as fans, pumps and pipelines. Each equipment room would be 40 feet by 50 feet and up to 40 feet in height above ground. 2033 to 2038 P2-508 P2-508 Digester Demolition P2-508 demolishes the six remaining digesters, Digesters C, D, E, F, G, and H, to free up site footprint for future treatment process facilities. 2035 to 2040 2.4 Record of Proceedings For purposes of CEQA and these findings, the Record of Proceedings for the proposed program consists of the following documents and other evidence, at a minimum:  The NOPs and all other public notices issued by OCSD in conjunction with the proposed program.  The Final PEIR document for the proposed program which consists of an Introduction to Response to Comments, a Comment Letters listing, Response to Comments, Corrections and Additions to the Draft PEIR, and the MMRP.  The Draft PEIR, and all appendices thereto.  The documents, reports, and technical memoranda included or referenced in the technical appendices of the Draft PEIR. Environmental Findings OCSD Biosolids Master Plan PEIR 7 ESA / 150626 Environmental Findings May 2018  All documents, studies, Environmental Impact Reports (EIRs), or other materials incorporated by reference in the Draft PEIR and Response to Comments.  OCSD Staff Reports for the program.  Any documents expressly cited in these findings.  Any other relevant materials required to be in the record of proceedings by Public Resources Code Section 21167.6(e) (excluding privileged materials). 2.5 Custodian and Location of Records The documents and other materials that constitute the administrative record for OCSD’s actions related to the program are located at the OCSD, Administrative Office Building at Plant No. 1, Engineering Planning Division – 10844 Ellis Avenue, Fountain Valley, California. OCSD is the custodian of the record of proceedings for the program. Copies of these documents, which constitute the record of proceedings are, and at all relevant times have been and will be, available upon request at OCSD’s administrative office. This information is provided in compliance with Public Resources Code Section 21081.6(a)(2) and CEQA Guideline Section 15091(e). 3. Environmental Findings 3.1 Findings Regarding Environmental Impacts Which Can Be Mitigated to Less than Significant Environmental impacts identified in the PEIR as potentially significant, but which OCSD finds can be mitigated to less than significant through the imposition of feasible mitigation measures identified in the PEIR and set forth herein, are described in this section. 3.1.1 Project Impacts 3.1.1.1 Aesthetics a. Potentially Significant Impact: The proposed program could create new sources of substantial light or glare and result in adverse effects on daytime or nighttime views in the program area. Finding: Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15091 (a)(1), changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the PEIR. Facts in Support of the Finding: The proposed facilities would be located within the existing Plant No. 1 and Plant No. 2 boundaries, which currently contain lighting within the interior and exterior of structures. Plant No. 1 and Plant No. 2 are located within an urban area, developed with residential, commercial, and industrial uses. Implementation of the proposed projects could result in new exterior nighttime lighting for operational and security purposes within Plant No. 1 and Plant No. 2. Though not anticipated, the increase in lighting within the plants could result in spillover lighting onto neighboring residential or commercial uses, or the SAR Trail and Talbert Marsh. Therefore, increase Environmental Findings OCSD Biosolids Master Plan PEIR 8 ESA / 150626 Environmental Findings May 2018 lighting within Plant No. 1 and Plant No. 2 could represent a potential significant lighting impact. As identified in Section 3.1 in the Draft PEIR, Mitigation Measures AES-1 and AES-2 are included to reduce potential impacts to less than significant levels. AES-1: All new permanent exterior lighting associated with proposed program components shall be shielded and directed downward to avoid any light intrusion to surrounding uses. AES-2: Development of the proposed program and associated facilities shall comply with existing and future lighting ordinances for the cities of Fountain Valley and Huntington Beach. The implementation of Mitigation Measures AES-1 and AES-2 will limit the maximum light beyond the property boundary and comply with existing and future lighting ordinances so that lighting impacts on adjacent uses would be less than significant. 3.1.1.2 Air Quality a. Potentially Significant Impact: The proposed program could have significant effects on implementation of the South Coast Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) because the proposed program could conflict with or obstruct implementation of the AQMP. Finding: Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15091 (a)(1), changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the PEIR. Facts in Support of the Finding: As described in Section 3.2 of the Draft PEIR, the AQMP was adopted by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) as a program to lead the Air Basin into compliance with several criteria pollutant standards and other federal requirements. It relies on emissions forecasts based on demographic and economic growth projections provided by SCAG’s Regional Transportation Program (SCAQMD, 2012). SCAG is charged by California law to prepare and approve “the portions of each AQMP relating to demographic projections and integrated regional land use, housing, employment, and transportation programs, measures and strategies” (SCAQMD, 2012). As discussed previously, projects whose growth is included in the SCAG projections used in the formulation of the AQMP are considered to be consistent with the plan and not to interfere with its attainment. The SCAQMD recommends that, when determining whether a project is consistent with the current AQMP, a Lead Agency must assess whether the project would directly obstruct implementation of the plan and whether it is consistent with the demographic and economic assumptions upon which the plan is based. The construction activities associated with the proposed program could obstruct implementation of the AQMP because, as detailed in Impact 3.2-2 of the Draft PEIR, its construction emissions would exceed the daily nitrogen oxides NOx regional emissions Environmental Findings OCSD Biosolids Master Plan PEIR 9 ESA / 150626 Environmental Findings May 2018 significance threshold. Because the proposed program’s NOx regional emissions exceed the threshold and NOx contributes to the formation of ozone, the proposed program would contribute to the Air Basin’s nonattainment of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for ozone. Therefore, the proposed program could result in a significant impact on the implementation of the AQMP. As identified in Section 3.2 in the Draft PEIR, Mitigation Measure AQ-1 is included to reduce potential impacts to less than significant levels. AQ-1: Mobile off-road construction equipment (wheeled or tracked) used during construction of the individual projects of the proposed program that may exceed SCAQMD daily thresholds for NOx shall meet the USEPA Tier 4 final standards, either as original equipment or equipment retrofitted to meet the Tier 4 final 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. For projects that would not individually emit NOx above the SCAQMD daily threshold, OCSD or the contractor shall prepare emissions calculations based on equipment to be used that show emissions are below the threshold. These emissions estimates must be maintained at OCSD headquarters for reference, and OCSD must confirm that the equipment used during actual construction is adequately characterized. Implementation of Mitigation Measures AQ-1 would reduce regional construction emissions of NOx to comply with the SCAQMD thresholds. Implementation of this mitigation measure would reduce impacts to less than significant levels. b. Potentially Significant Impact: The proposed program could violate an air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation. Finding: Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15091 (a)(1), changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the PEIR. Facts in Support of the Finding: Construction activities associated with the proposed program would generate pollutant emissions from the following construction activities: (1) demolition, site preparation, grading, and excavation (as discussed in the Methodology section above, only grading is modeled for maximum daily emissions); (2) construction workers traveling to and from project site; (3) delivery and hauling of construction supplies to, and debris from, the project site; (4) fuel combustion by onsite construction equipment; (5) building construction, application of architectural coatings, and paving. These construction activities would temporarily create emissions of dust, fumes, equipment exhaust, and other air contaminants. The amount of emissions generated on a daily basis would vary, depending on the intensity and types of construction activities occurring simultaneously. Environmental Findings OCSD Biosolids Master Plan PEIR 10 ESA / 150626 Environmental Findings May 2018 Construction emissions are considered short term and temporary, but have the potential to represent a significant impact with respect to air quality. Particulate matter (PM) (i.e., PM10 and PM2.5) are among the pollutants of greatest localized concern with respect to construction activities. Particulate emissions from construction activities can lead to adverse health effects and nuisance concerns, such as reduced visibility and soiling of exposed surfaces. Particulate emissions can result from a variety of construction activities, including excavation, grading, demolition, vehicle travel on paved and unpaved surfaces, and vehicle and equipment exhaust. Construction emissions of PM can vary greatly depending on the level of activity, the specific operations taking place, the number and types of equipment operated, local soil conditions, weather conditions, and the amount of earth disturbance. Construction assumptions are summarized in the Methodology section and detailed in Appendix B of the Draft PEIR. Emissions of ozone precursors such as reactive organic gases (ROGs)/volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and NOX are primarily generated from mobile sources and vary as a function of vehicle trips per day associated with debris hauling, delivery of construction materials, vendor trips, and worker commute trips, and the types and number of heavy- duty, off-road equipment used and the intensity and frequency of their operation. A large portion of construction-related ROG emissions also result from the application of architectural coatings and vary depending on the amount of coatings applied each day. It is mandatory for all construction projects in the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB) to comply with SCAQMD Rule 403 for controlling fugitive dust. Specific Rule 403 control requirements include, but are not limited to, applying water in sufficient quantities to prevent the generation of visible dust plumes, applying soil binders to uncovered areas, reestablishing ground cover as quickly as possible, using a wheel-washing system to remove bulk material from tires and vehicle undercarriages before vehicles exit the construction site, covering all trucks hauling soil with a fabric cover and maintaining a freeboard height of 12 inches, and maintaining effective cover over exposed areas. Compliance with Rule 403 and Rule 1113 (governing VOC content of architectural coatings), as pre-existing regulatory requirements, were accounted for in the construction emissions modeling. Rule 1113 is included as part of the default modeling scenario. Table 3.2-6 of the Draft PEIR summarizes the modeled peak daily emissions of criteria air pollutants and ozone precursors associated with the proposed program’s worst-case construction scenario (using the significance criteria provided in Table 3.2-4 of the Draft PEIR). The peak daily emissions generated for the proposed program’s construction period are identified. The proposed program would exceed the SCAQMD’s daily regional significance threshold for NOx. Therefore, construction phase emissions for NOx would be significant. Further, because the program will be implemented in phases, there is a reasonable possibility that construction activities of later phase biosolids facilities could overlap with operation of earlier phase facilities. In order to determine the combined significance of Environmental Findings OCSD Biosolids Master Plan PEIR 11 ESA / 150626 Environmental Findings May 2018 these activities, the construction and operational activities are combined and compared to the SCAQMD’s operational threshold. Operational activities would begin with the construction of the Interim Food Waste Receiving Facility by 2020. This would increase daily truck activities by eight daily trips. There would be no new flare operations, new natural gas usage, or new area source emissions as the food waste receiving facility is strictly tanks and electric pumps. Total new trips at buildout in 2038 would be 34. Therefore, between 2020 and 2038, total operational emissions would represent approximately 24 percent of the total program mobile sources. Additionally, maximum daily construction emissions used a default 2018 aggregate truck fleet to determine emissions from haul trucks. Because trucks used to haul debris from construction waste and deliver construction equipment would be contracted, the default fleet mix would change with each subsequent year. This means that emissions from the aggregate truck fleet in 2021 (for a new program within the master plan beginning in 2021) would differ from the emissions for the aggregate fleet mix for the max year 2018. Therefore, to accurately predict haul and vendor emissions future construction activities, the emissions for haul and vendor trucks have been adjusted accordingly. Calculations assumptions and calculations are included in Attachment 2 of the Final PEIR. Table 3.2- 7A of the Final PEIR shows the unmitigated combined construction and operational emissions. As shown, the proposed program would exceed the SCAQMD’s daily regional significance threshold for NOx. Therefore, construction phase emissions for NOx would be significant without mitigation. As identified in Section 3.2 in the Draft PEIR and Chapter 4 of the Final PEIR, Mitigation Measure AQ-1 is required to reduce potential impacts to less than significant levels. With the implementation of Mitigation Measure AQ-1, the proposed program’s maximum daily construction emissions would be reduced to below regulatory thresholds as shown in Table 3.2-8 of the Draft PEIR and Table 3.2-8A of the Final PEIR. Based on the reduction of the total NOx emissions with the implementation of Mitigation Measure AQ-1, impacts related to a violation of air quality standards from combined construction and operational activities associated with the proposed program would be less than significant. c. Potentially Significant Impact: The proposed program could result in significant effects associated with the exposure of sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. Finding: Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15091 (a)(1), changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the PEIR. Facts in Support of the Finding: The daily onsite construction emissions generated by the proposed program were evaluated against SCAQMD’s Localized Significance. Environmental Findings OCSD Biosolids Master Plan PEIR 12 ESA / 150626 Environmental Findings May 2018 Threshold (LSTs) for a 2-acre site as a screening-level analysis to determine whether the emissions would cause or contribute to adverse localized air quality impacts. The nearest off-site sensitive receptors are the residential dwelling located directly west of the Plant No. 2 across Brookhurst Street. Because the mass rate look-up tables provided by SCAQMD only provide LSTs at receptor distances of 82, 164, 328, 656, and 1,640 feet, the LSTs for a receptor distance of 82 feet are used to evaluate the potential localized air quality impacts associated with the proposed program’s peak day construction emissions. Table 3.2-9 of the Draft PEIR identifies the daily localized onsite emissions that are estimated to occur during the proposed program’s worst-case construction scenario. The daily emissions would exceed regulatory thresholds for NOx, PM10 and PM2.5. Further, the proposed program would expose sensitive receptors to substantial concentrations of toxic air contaminants if the proposed program would emit carcinogenic materials or TACs that exceed the maximum incremental cancer risk of 10 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. Health risk calculations were performed using a spreadsheet tool consistent with the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (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. 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 health risk assessments 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 health risk assessments to err on the side of health protection to avoid underestimating or underreporting the risk to the public by assessing risk on the most sensitive populations, such as children and the elderly. For carcinogenic exposures, the cancer risk from diesel particulate matter (DPM) emissions from construction activities associated with the proposed program is estimated to result in a maximum carcinogenic risk of 320.7 per one million. This maximum level is considered worst-case since it assesses health risks based upon annual emissions levels from the year with the maximum expected emissions. The lifetime exposure under the OEHHA guidance takes into account early life (infant and children) exposure. It should also be noted that the calculated cancer risk conservatively assumes that sensitive receptors (residential uses) would not employ mechanical filtration which normally reduce the cancer risk. Based on the evaluation within the Draft PEIR, impacts would be considered potentially significant because the maximum carcinogenic risk of 320.7 per one million would be greater than the risk threshold of 10.0 in one million. Environmental Findings OCSD Biosolids Master Plan PEIR 13 ESA / 150626 Environmental Findings May 2018 As identified in Section 3.2 in the Draft PEIR, Mitigation Measure AQ-1 (defined above) and AQ-2 is included to reduce potential impacts to less than significant levels. AQ-2: When grading activities occur within 50 meters of the nearest sensitive receptors, the number of scrapers active onsite is restricted to a maximum of 5 and the number of dozers is restricted to a maximum of 2. With the implementation of Mitigation Measures AQ-1 and AQ-2, the proposed program’s localized construction emissions for NOx, PM10, and PM2.5 would be reduced to below regulatory thresholds, as shown in Table 3.2-11 of the Draft PEIR. Implementation of Mitigation Measure AQ-1 would also result in a reduction in overall health risk due to the incorporation of Tier 4 equipment which significantly reduces DPM emissions. With the implementation of Mitigation Measure AQ-1, the maximum carcinogenic risk associated with the proposed program would reduce from 320.7 per one million to 9.6 per million, which is below the regulatory threshold of 10 per million. Therefore, the cancer risk for nearby sensitive receptors would not contribute to a significant health risk during construction activities. d. Potentially Significant Impact: The proposed program could result in significant effects from the creation of objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people. Finding: Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15091 (a)(1), changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the PEIR. Facts in Support of the Finding: During construction activities, only short-term, temporary odors from vehicle exhaust and construction equipment engines would occur. These odors would be temporary, would be transitory throughout Plant No. 1 and Plant No. 2 as construction occurs for each project. The odors would also disperse rapidly and would be typical of the existing operational truck activities within the program area. However, existing digesters on Plant No. 2 could potentially harbor odors. The demolition of these facilities could result in the release of odors into the surrounding environment. Therefore, odor emissions from construction activities could be potentially significant. As identified in Section 3.2 in the Draft PEIR, Mitigation Measure AQ-3 is included to reduce potential impacts to less than significant levels. AQ-3: OCSD shall ensure that contractors remove salvaged/demolished equipment from the treatment plants to minimize potential odors during the removal of existing facilities. Staging areas shall not be used to store salvaged/demolished equipment. Implementation of Mitigation Measure AQ-3 would minimize the generation of nuisance odors during and after demolition of existing digesters, thereby reducing potential impacts to less than significant levels. Environmental Findings OCSD Biosolids Master Plan PEIR 14 ESA / 150626 Environmental Findings May 2018 3.1.1.3 Biological Resources a. Potentially Significant Impact: The proposed program could have significant effects on some avian species during nesting activities. Finding: Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15091 (a)(1), changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the PEIR. Facts in Support of the Finding: Construction activities would include the disturbance of approximately 19.5 acres; approximately 2.0 acres at Plant No. 1 and approximately 17.5 acres at Plant No. 2. The proposed disturbance could include the removal of several non-native ornamental trees at Plant No. 1, several non-native ornamental trees mostly located within the confines of Plant No. 2, and a row of trees within Plant No. 2 along Brookhurst Street located on the southern boundary of Plant No. 2. The removal of trees could result in direct impacts to nesting birds if any are present. In addition, indirect impacts to birds nesting in the vicinity of the proposed disturbance could result from construction noise. Nesting activity typically occurs from February 15 to August 31 for songbirds and from January 15 to August 31 for raptors. Disturbing or destroying active nests is a violation of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. In addition, nests and eggs are protected under California Fish and Game Code Section 3503 and 3503.5. As such, direct impacts (removal of active nests) and indirect impacts (e.g., by noise causing abandonment of the nest) to nesting birds would be considered potentially significant. As identified in Section 3.3 in the Draft PEIR, Mitigation Measure BIO-1 is included to reduce potential impacts to less than significant levels. BIO-1: If removal of onsite trees and vegetation associated with the proposed program occurs during the non-nesting season (September 1 to February 14 for songbirds; September 1 to January 14 for raptors), no nesting survey or biological monitor are required. If the removal of onsite trees and vegetation associated with the proposed program occurs during the nesting season (February 15 to August 31 for songbirds; January 15 to August 31 for raptors), a qualified biologist shall conduct a survey prior to vegetation removal activities to determine if there are active nests within the onsite trees and vegetation proposed for removal. If an active nest is not found, no biological monitor is required. If active nests are detected, a minimum buffer (e.g., 300 feet for songbirds or 500 feet for raptors) around the nest shall be delineated and flagged, and no construction activity shall occur within the buffer area until a qualified biologist determines the nesting species have fledged and is no longer active or the nest has failed. The buffer may be modified (i.e., increased or decreased) and/or other recommendations proposed Environmental Findings OCSD Biosolids Master Plan PEIR 15 ESA / 150626 Environmental Findings May 2018 (e.g., a temporary soundwall) as determined appropriate by the qualified biologist to minimize impacts. The qualified biologist shall monitor the removal of onsite trees and vegetation. Nest buffer distance will be based on species, specific location of the nest, the intensity of construction activities, existing disturbances unrelated to the proposed program present in the program area, and other factors. If grading/excavation or pile driving activities associated with the proposed program are scheduled outside the nesting season, no nesting survey or biological monitor are required. If grading/excavation or pile driving activities associated with the proposed program are scheduled during the nesting season, a qualified biologist shall conduct a survey, prior to grading/excavation or pile driving activities, of suitable nesting habitat within 500 feet of construction activities for the presence of nesting birds. If no active nests are detected, no biological monitor is required. If an active nest is detected, a minimum buffer (e.g., 300 feet for songbirds or 500 feet for raptors) around the nest shall be delineated and the active nest shall be flagged, and no construction activity shall occur within the buffer area until a qualified biologist determines the nesting species have fledged and is no longer active or the nest has failed. The qualified biologist shall monitor the activities of the active nests within the buffer area. The buffer may be modified (i.e., increased or decreased) and/or other recommendations proposed (e.g., a temporary soundwall) as determined appropriate by the qualified biologist to minimize impacts. Nest buffer distance will be based on species, specific location of the nest, the intensity of construction activities, existing disturbances unrelated to the proposed program present in the program area, and other factors. If there is a lapse of construction activities associated with the proposed program during the nesting season for 7 days or more, an additional nesting bird survey shall be conducted to determine if a nest is present prior to construction activities resuming. The procedure identified above for no active nest and an active nest shall be followed. Implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-1 would reduce impacts to nesting birds to less than significant by either conducting construction activities during the non-nesting season or conducting a survey to establish a suitable nesting habitat buffer as well as having a qualified biologist to monitor the activities of the active nests within the buffer area during nesting season when construction activities occur. Environmental Findings OCSD Biosolids Master Plan PEIR 16 ESA / 150626 Environmental Findings May 2018 3.1.1.4 Cultural Resources a. Potentially Significant Impact: The proposed program could result in a significant effect on an archaeological resource because the proposed program has the potential to cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archeological resource pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5. Finding: Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15091 (a)(1), changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the PEIR. Facts in Support of the Finding: No archaeological resources were identified in the proposed program area or close proximity and the proposed program would not result in an impact to known archaeological resources. However, based on the results of the records search, which identified six prehistoric archaeological resources within a ½-mile radius, and geoarchaeological review, which indicated that the proposed program area is highly sensitive for subsurface archaeological resources, there is the potential to impact unknown buried archaeological resources. If previously undiscovered artifacts or cultural remains are uncovered during excavation or construction, the proposed program could result in significant impacts to archaeological resources that could qualify either as historical resources or unique archaeological resources under CEQA. As identified in Section 3.4 in the Draft PEIR, Mitigation Measures CUL-1 through CUL-4 are included to reduce potential impacts to less than significant levels. CUL-1: Prior to start of grading or excavation activities associated with the proposed program within Plant No. 1 and Plant No. 2, OCSD shall retain a qualified archaeologist meeting the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards for archaeology (U.S. Department of the Interior 2008) to carry out all mitigation related to archaeological resources. CUL-2: Prior to start of grading or excavation activities associated with the proposed program within Plant No. 1 and 2, the qualified archaeologist (or an archaeologist working under the direct supervision of the qualified archaeologist) shall conduct cultural resources sensitivity training for all construction personnel. Construction personnel shall be informed of the types of archaeological resources that may be encountered, the proper procedures to be enacted in the event of an inadvertent discovery of archaeological resources or human remains, and safety precautions to be taken when working with archaeological monitors. OCSD shall ensure that construction personnel are made available for and attend the training and retain documentation demonstrating attendance. CUL-3: Archaeological and Native American monitoring shall be conducted for grading or excavation activities associated with the proposed program at Plant No. 1 and Plant No. 2. Archaeological monitoring shall be conducted by an archaeologist familiar with the types of archaeological resources that could be encountered within the program area, and under Environmental Findings OCSD Biosolids Master Plan PEIR 17 ESA / 150626 Environmental Findings May 2018 the direct supervision of the qualified archaeologist. The frequency of monitoring shall take into account the rate of excavation and grading activities, the materials being excavated (native verses artificial fill soils and older verse younger soils), and the depth of excavation. The frequency of the monitoring shall be determined by the qualified archaeologist in consultation with the Native American monitor and in coordination with OCSD. The Native American monitor shall be selected from a tribe that is culturally and traditionally affiliated with the program area as indicated by the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC). In the event that archaeological resources are unearthed during ground-disturbing activities, the archaeological monitor and/or Native American monitor shall be empowered to halt or redirect ground- disturbing activities away from the vicinity of the discovery until OCSD, a qualified archaeologist, and a Native American monitor have evaluated the discovery and determined appropriate treatment (as prescribed in CUL-4). The archaeological monitor shall keep daily logs detailing the types of activities and soils observed, and any discoveries. After monitoring has been completed, the qualified archaeologist shall prepare a report that details the results of monitoring for submittal to OCSD, the South Central Coastal Information Center, and any Native American tribe that requests a copy. CUL-4: In the event of the unanticipated discovery of archaeological materials during grading or excavation activities associated with the proposed program, OCSD 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. Construction shall not resume until the qualified archaeologist has conferred with OCSD on the significance of the resource. In the event that preservation in place is determined to be infeasible and data recovery through excavation is the only feasible mitigation available, an Archaeological Resources Treatment Plan shall be prepared and implemented by the qualified archaeologist in consultation with OCSD that provides for the adequate recovery of the scientifically consequential information contained in the archaeological resource. OCSD shall consult with appropriate Native American representatives in determining treatment for prehistoric or Native American resources to ensure cultural values ascribed to the resource are considered. Implementation of CUL-1, CUL-2, CUL-3, and CUL-4 would include the retention of a qualified archaeologist, conducting archaeological resources sensitivity training for all construction personnel, archaeological and Native American monitoring during ground- disturbing activities, and establishing the proper protocol in the event of an unanticipated discovery of archaeological materials. The implementation of these measures would reduce impacts to archaeological resources that could qualify as historical resources or unique archaeological resources to less than significant. Environmental Findings OCSD Biosolids Master Plan PEIR 18 ESA / 150626 Environmental Findings May 2018 b. Potentially Significant Impact: The proposed program could result in a significant effect on a unique paleontological resource because the proposed program could directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature. Finding: Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15091 (a)(1), changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the PEIR. Facts in Support of the Finding: Based on the results of the paleontological database search, there are no known fossil localities in proposed program area. However, several fossil localities from older Quaternary deposits, similar to those that are likely present in the subsurface of the proposed program area, are located approximately 1.5 to 3.5 miles away. These localities have yielded a wide variety of vertebrate fossils, from marine taxa such as leopard shark to fish such as the three-spined stickleback and terrestrial animals such as garter snake, turtle, desert shrew, pocket gopher, mammoth, bison, horse, camel, and elephant. Due to the young age of the surficial sediments underlying the proposed program area, there is a low potential to uncover significant vertebrate fossil remains during surface grading or shallow excavations. However, excavations that extend down into the older Quaternary deposits may encounter significant fossil vertebrate specimens. Since the proposed program includes ground-disturbing activities, there is a potential for discovery of fossils that may be considered significant paleontological resources. If previously unknown potentially unique paleontological resources are uncovered during excavation or construction, significant impacts could occur. As identified in Section 3.4 in the Draft PEIR, Mitigation Measures CUL-5 through CUL-8 are included to reduce potential impacts to less than significant levels. CUL-5: Prior to start of excavation activities associated with the proposed program that exceed 10 feet in depth in previously undisturbed sediments, OCSD shall retain a qualified paleontologist meeting the Society for Vertebrate Paleontology (SVP) Standards (SVP 2010) to carry out all mitigation related to paleontological resources. The qualified paleontologist shall be selected from the list of County of Orange certified paleontologists. CUL-6: Prior to the start of excavation activities associated with the proposed program that exceed 10 feet in depth in previously undisturbed sediments, the qualified paleontologist, or his or her designee, shall conduct training for construction personnel regarding the appearance of fossils and the procedures for notifying paleontological staff should fossils be discovered by construction staff. OCSD shall ensure that construction personnel are made available for and attend the training and retain documentation demonstrating attendance. CUL-7: Paleontological resources monitoring shall be performed during excavation activities associated with the proposed program that exceed 10 feet in depth in previously undisturbed sediments by a qualified paleontological monitor (or cross-trained paleontological/archaeological Environmental Findings OCSD Biosolids Master Plan PEIR 19 ESA / 150626 Environmental Findings May 2018 monitor) meeting the standards of the SVP 2010 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. The qualified paleontologist, based on observations of subsurface soil stratigraphy and/or other factors, may increase, reduce, or discontinue monitoring, as warranted. Monitoring may be reduced or discontinued by the qualified paleontologist, in coordination with OCSD, based on observations of subsurface conditions. If construction or other project personnel discover any potential fossils during construction, regardless of the depth of work, all work shall cease at that location (within 100 feet) until the qualified paleontologist has assessed the discovery and made recommendations as to the appropriate treatment and re-assessed the depth at which monitoring shall be required. CUL-8: In the event of a fossil discovery by the paleontological monitor or construction personnel, all work in the immediate vicinity of the find shall cease. The qualified paleontologist shall evaluate the find before restarting construction activity in the area. If it is determined that the fossil(s) is (are) scientifically significant, the qualified paleontologist shall recover significant fossils following standard field procedures for collecting and curating paleontological resources, as described by the SVP (2010). Implementation of Mitigation Measures CUL-5 through CUL-8 would reduce impacts to paleontological resources by requiring identification and treatment of significant resources. Implementation of CUL-5 through CUL-8 would also require the retention of a qualified paleontologist, paleontological monitoring during construction, and establishment the proper protocol if paleontological resources are encountered. Therefore, incorporation of CUL-5 through CUL-8 would reduce this impact to a level of less than significant. c. Potentially Significant Impact: The proposed program could result in a significant effect on human remains because the proposed program could disturb human remains, including those interred outside of dedicated cemeteries. Finding: Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15091 (a)(1), changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the PEIR. Facts in Support of the Finding: No human remains are known to be located within the proposed program area; however, since archaeological sites with human remains have been documented within a ½-mile radius and given the high sensitivity of the area, there is the possibility that human remains could be encountered by construction activities at Plant No. 1 and Plant No. 2 for the proposed program. In the event that human remains Environmental Findings OCSD Biosolids Master Plan PEIR 20 ESA / 150626 Environmental Findings May 2018 are inadvertently discovered during proposed program construction activities, they could be inadvertently damaged, which could result in a significant impact. As identified in Section 3.4 in the Draft PEIR, Mitigation Measures CUL-9 is included to reduce potential impacts to less than significant levels. CUL-9: If human remains are encountered during construction activities associated with the proposed program, OCSD or its contractor shall halt work in the vicinity (within 100 feet) of the find and contact the Orange County Coroner in accordance with PRC Section 5097.98 and Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5. If the County Coroner determines that the remains are Native American, the NAHC will be notified in accordance with Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5, subdivision (c), and PRC Section 5097.98. The NAHC will designate an MLD for the remains per PRC Section 5097.98. Until the landowner has conferred with the MLD, OCSD shall ensure that the immediate vicinity where the discovery occurred is not disturbed by further activity, is adequately protected according to generally accepted cultural or archaeological standards or practices, and that further activities take into account the possibility of multiple burials. Implementation of Mitigation Measure CUL-9 would ensure that the proposed program’s potential impacts to human remains impacts would be reduced to less than significant by requiring proper treatment of human remains. 3.1.1.5 Hazards and Hazardous Materials a. Potentially Significant Impact: The proposed program would be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and may result in potentially significant hazard impacts to the public or the environment. Finding: Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15091 (a)(1), changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the PEIR. Facts in Support of the Finding: The proposed program would be implemented entirely within Plant No.1 and Plant No. 2, with a majority of the projects being implemented at Plant No. 2. A database search of hazardous materials sites using the online DTSC EnviroStor and SWRCB GeoTracker databases identified Plant No. 1 as having two closed leaking underground storage tanks (LUST) sites, one open LUST Cleanup site and one permitted underground storage tank (UST). Plant No. 2 has two closed LUST cases and one permitted UST. Construction activities associated with the proposed Collections Yard Relocation on Plant No. 1 could encounter contaminated soil and/or groundwater during excavation, thereby posing a health threat to construction workers, the public, and the environment. The analysis of operational impacts associated with hazardous materials sites, mobilization of Environmental Findings OCSD Biosolids Master Plan PEIR 21 ESA / 150626 Environmental Findings May 2018 soil and groundwater contaminants, and groundwater quality can be found in Section 3.8, Hydrology and Water Quality of the Draft PEIR. Impacts would be potentially significant. As identified in Section 3.7 in the Draft PEIR, Mitigation Measures HAZ-1 and HAZ-2 are included to reduce potential impacts to less than significant levels. HAZ-1: Prior to the initiation of any construction requiring ground-disturbing activities, OCSD shall complete an environmental assessment of the proposed site to locate the potential for soil and groundwater contamination in the program area. The recommendations set forth in the site assessment shall be implemented to the satisfaction of applicable agencies before and during construction. HAZ-2: If the site assessments determine that the site has contaminated soil and/or groundwater, a Soil and Groundwater Management Plan shall be prepared that specifies the method for handling and disposing of contaminated soil and groundwater prior to demolition, excavation, and construction activities. OCSD shall be responsible for ensuring implementation of the Plan in compliance with applicable regulations. The implementation of Mitigation Measures HAZ-1 and HAZ-2 would require site- specific studies to identify known hazardous materials risks or the potential for risk related to hazardous materials. These studies would identify recommendations and cleanup measures to reduce risk to the public and the environment from development on hazardous materials sites. Implementation of Mitigation Measures HAZ-1 and HAZ-2 would reduce potential impacts to construction workers and the public from exposure to unknown affected soils. Therefore, impacts to the public or the environment related to hazardous materials sites would be less than significant. 3.1.2 Cumulative Impacts 3.1.2.1 Aesthetics a. Potentially Significant Impact: The proposed program could create new sources of substantial light or glare and could result in cumulatively considerable adverse effects on day or nighttime views in the program area. Finding: Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15091 (a)(1), changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the PEIR. Facts in Support of the Finding: The program vicinity is largely urbanized with residential, commercial and industrial development. As the area continues to develop, the addition of more residential, commercial, and industrial development could increase additional sources of light and glare. With regard to the overall sources of light and glare of the program vicinity, cumulative development (see Table 3-2 in Chapter 3 of the Draft PEIR) would result in more new sources of light and glare and could result in Environmental Findings OCSD Biosolids Master Plan PEIR 22 ESA / 150626 Environmental Findings May 2018 cumulatively significant light and glare impacts. Because the program could result in increased local light levels, the program’s contribution is considered cumulatively considerable. As identified in Section 3.1 in the Draft PEIR, Mitigation Measures AES-1 and AES-2 (defined above) are included to reduce potential cumulative impacts to less than significant levels. The implementation of Mitigation Measures AES-1 and AES-2 would ensure that the proposed facilities’ contribution to cumulative light impacts would be reduced to less than cumulatively considerable by limiting the maximum light beyond the property boundary and complying with existing and future lighting ordinances. 3.1.2.2 Air Quality a. Potentially Significant Impact: The proposed program could have cumulatively considerable effects on implementation of the South Coast Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) because the proposed program could conflict with or obstruct implementation of the AQMP. Finding: Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15091 (a)(1), changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the PEIR. Facts in Support of the Finding: See the regional impact discussion under 3.1.2.2 (c.) below. As discussed, the project’s contribution to cumulative regional construction emissions of NOx would be cumulatively considerable. As identified in Section 3.2 in the Draft PEIR, Mitigation Measure AQ-1 (defined above) is included to reduce potential cumulative impacts to less than significant levels. Implementation of Mitigation Measure AQ-1 would require the use of construction equipment that would emit less NOx emissions. Mitigation Measure AQ-1 would reduce the proposed program’s contribution to cumulative regional construction emissions of NOx to comply with the SCAQMD thresholds as discussed in Impact 3.2-2 and Impact 3.2-3 of the Draft PEIR. With the implementation of this mitigation measure, the proposed program’s contribution to cumulative impacts is less than cumulatively considerable. b. Potentially Significant Impact: The proposed program could result in cumulatively considerable effects because the proposed program could violate an air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation. Finding: Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15091 (a)(1), changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the PEIR. Environmental Findings OCSD Biosolids Master Plan PEIR 23 ESA / 150626 Environmental Findings May 2018 Facts in Support of the Finding: See the regional impact discussion under 3.1.2.2 (c.) below. As discussed, the project’s contribution to cumulative regional construction emissions of NOx would be cumulatively considerable. As identified in Section 3.2 in the Draft PEIR, Mitigation Measure AQ-1 (defined above) is included to reduce potential cumulative impacts to less than significant levels. Based on the reduction of the total NOx emissions with the implementation of Mitigation Measure AQ-1, the proposed program’s incremental contribution to cumulative impacts related to a violation of air quality standards from operational activities would be less than cumulatively considerable. c. Potentially Significant Impact: The proposed program could result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of a criteria pollutant for which the project region is non- attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard. Finding: Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15091 (a)(1), changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the PEIR. Facts in Support of the Finding: The SCAQMD neither recommends quantified analyses of cumulative construction or operational emissions nor provides methodologies or thresholds of significance to be used to assess cumulative construction or operational impacts. Individual cumulative projects that exceed the SCAQMD recommended daily thresholds for an individual project would cause a cumulatively considerable impact. The program area is located within the SCAB, which is considered the cumulative study area for air quality. The SCAB is currently classified as a state nonattainment area for ozone, PM10, and PM2.5, and is a federal nonattainment area for ozone and PM2.5. Based on SCAQMD’s cumulative air quality impact methodology, SCAQMD recommends that if an individual project results in air emissions of criteria pollutants (ROG, CO, NOx, SOX, PM10, and PM2.5) that exceed the SCAQMD’s recommended daily thresholds for project-specific impacts, then it would also result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of these criteria pollutants for which the program region is in nonattainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard. As shown in Table 3.2-6 of the Draft PEIR, regional construction emissions of NOx would exceed the SCAQMD’s daily thresholds. In addition, as shown in Table 3.2-10 of the Draft PEIR, localized construction emissions of PM10 and PM2.5 would exceed the SCAQMD daily thresholds. Therefore, the proposed program’s contribution to cumulative NOx for regional construction emissions and to cumulative PM10 and PM2.5 for localized construction emissions would be cumulatively considerable. In addition, as discussed in Impact 3.2-4 below, the proposed program’s localized health impact associated with construction activities would exceed regulatory thresholds. Because the SCAQMD’s recommended cumulative impact methodology is if an individual project results in the exceedance of regulatory thresholds then the project would result in a cumulatively considerable impact. Therefore, because the proposed Environmental Findings OCSD Biosolids Master Plan PEIR 24 ESA / 150626 Environmental Findings May 2018 project would exceed the regulatory thresholds for localized health impacts during construction, the proposed program would result in cumulatively considerable health impacts during construction. As identified in Section 3.2 in the Draft PEIR, Mitigation Measures AQ-1 and AQ-2 (defined above) are included to reduce potential cumulative impacts to less than significant levels. With implementation of Mitigation Measure AQ-1, regional emissions of NOx during the proposed program construction would be reduced to below regulatory thresholds as detailed in Impact 3.2-2 of the Draft PEIR. With implementation of Mitigation Measure AQ-2, localized PM0 and PM2.5 emissions during proposed program construction activities would be reduced to below SCAQMD’s LSTs, as detailed in Impact 3.2-4 of the Draft PEIR. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. d. Potentially Significant Impact: The proposed program could result in significant and cumulatively considerable effects associated with the exposure of sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. Finding: Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15091 (a)(1), changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR. Facts in Support of the Finding: As Lead Agency, the SCAQMD uses the same significance thresholds for project-specific and cumulative impacts for all environmental topics analyzed in an Environmental Assessment or EIR. Projects that exceed the project- specific significance thresholds are considered by the SCAQMD to be cumulatively considerable. This is the reason project-specific and cumulative significance thresholds are the same. Conversely, projects that do not exceed the project-specific thresholds are generally not considered to be cumulatively significant. As detailed under Impact 3.2-4 of the Draft EIR, construction related localized criteria pollutants and TACs associated with the proposed program would be significant at a project level and would be cumulatively considerable. As identified in Section 3.2 in the Draft PEIR, Mitigation Measures AQ-1 and AQ-2 (defined above) are included to reduce potential cumulative impacts to less than significant levels. As stated previously, the cumulative thresholds for air quality are identical to the program level thresholds, therefore projects that are less than significant with or without mitigation at the project level would be less than cumulatively considerable. Therefore, consistent with the program level analysis, with the implementation of Mitigation Measures AQ-1 and AQ-2, the proposed program’s contribution to cumulative localized construction emissions associated with criteria air pollutants and TACs would be reduced to below regulatory thresholds and the proposed program’s contribution to cumulative impacts would be less than cumulatively considerable. Environmental Findings OCSD Biosolids Master Plan PEIR 25 ESA / 150626 Environmental Findings May 2018 e. Potentially Significant Impact: The proposed program could result in cumulatively considerable effects from the creation of objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people. Finding: Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15091 (a)(1), changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the PEIR. Facts in Support of the Finding: Future cumulative development in the vicinity of the proposed program has the potential to create odors. Construction activities associated with future development are expected to result in less than significant odor impacts. Operational impacts from cumulative development could result in significant odor impacts. Because the proposed program would result in potentially significant odor impacts due to the demolition of existing digesters, the proposed program’s incremental contribution to cumulative odor impacts would be cumulatively considerable without mitigation. As identified in Section 3.2 in the Draft PEIR, Mitigation Measure AQ-3 (defined above) is included to reduce potential cumulative impacts to less than significant levels. Implementation of Mitigation Measure AQ-3 would minimize the generation of nuisance odors during and after demolition of existing digesters, thereby reducing the program’s potential impacts to less than significant levels. Therefore, the program’s contribution to cumulative impacts regarding odor would be considered less than cumulatively considerable. 3.1.2.3 Biological Resources a. Potentially Significant Impact: The proposed program could have cumulatively considerable effects on some avian species during nesting activities but would not have an adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special-status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the CDFW or USFWS. Finding: Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15091 (a)(1), changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the PEIR. Facts in Support of the Finding: Future construction and operational activities associated with cumulative development (see Table 3-2 in Chapter 3 of the Draft PEIR) may result in impacts to nesting birds as well as sensitive plant and wildlife species. These potential cumulative impacts could result from removal of habitat or indirect through noise-generating activities. Because the construction activities associated with the proposed program could result in significant impacts to nesting birds, the proposed program would contribute to cumulative impacts to nesting birds. Environmental Findings OCSD Biosolids Master Plan PEIR 26 ESA / 150626 Environmental Findings May 2018 As identified in Section 3.3 in the Draft PEIR, Mitigation Measure BIO-1 (defined above) is included to reduce potential cumulative impacts to less than significant levels. Implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-1 would reduce the program’s contribution to cumulative impacts to nesting birds to less than significant by either conducting construction activities during the non-nesting season or conducting a survey to establish a suitable nesting habitat buffer as well as having a qualified biologist to monitor the activities of the active nests within the buffer area during nesting season when construction activities occur. 3.1.2.4 Cultural Resources a. Potentially Significant Impact: The proposed program could result in a cumulatively considerable effect on an archaeological resource because the proposed program has the potential to cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archeological resource pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5. Finding: Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15091 (a)(1), changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the PEIR. Facts in Support of the Finding: The proposed program vicinity is located within a favorable area (near water sources) for prehistoric inhabitance and the proposed program vicinity is known to contain archaeological resources. Thus, there is the potential for ongoing and future development projects in the vicinity to disturb known or unknown archaeological resources. The potential construction impacts of the proposed program, in combination with other projects in the area, could contribute to a cumulatively significant impact on archaeological resources. Because the proposed program could result in significant impacts to archaeological resources, the proposed program’s contribution to cumulative impacts would be cumulatively considerable. As identified in Section 3.4 in the Draft PEIR, Mitigation Measures CUL-1 through CUL-4 (defined above) are included to reduce potential cumulative impacts to less than significant levels. The implementation of Mitigation Measures CUL-1 through CUL-4 would include the retention of a qualified archaeologist, conducting archaeological resources sensitivity training for all construction personnel, archaeological and Native American monitoring during ground-disturbing activities, and establishing the proper protocol in the event of an unanticipated discovery of archaeological materials. The implementation of these measures would reduce the program’s contribution to cumulative impacts to archaeological resources that could qualify as historical resources or unique archaeological resources to less than cumulatively significant. Environmental Findings OCSD Biosolids Master Plan PEIR 27 ESA / 150626 Environmental Findings May 2018 b. Potentially Significant Impact: The proposed program could result in a significant and cumulatively considerable effect on a unique paleontological resource because the proposed program could directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature. Finding: Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15091 (a)(1), changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR. Facts in Support of the Finding: As future cumulative development occurs in the program area, there is a potential that future growth could require excavation activities. These activities could be required within older Quaternary deposits that may encounter significant fossil vertebrate specimens. Therefore, cumulative development could result in potential significant cumulative impacts to paleontological resources. Because the proposed program includes excavations that could occur within older Quaternary deposits, significant fossil vertebrate specimens could be found. Therefore, the proposed program could result in cumulatively considerable effects on paleontological resources. Implementation of Mitigation Measures CUL-5 through CUL-8 would reduce the program’s contribution to cumulative impacts to paleontological resources by requiring identification and treatment of significant resources. Implementation of CUL-5 through CUL-8 would also require the retention of a qualified paleontologist, paleontological monitoring during construction, and establishment the proper protocol if paleontological resources are encountered. Therefore, incorporation of CUL-5 through CUL-8 would reduce the program’s contribution to cumulative paleontological resources impacts to less than cumulatively significant. c. Potentially Significant Impact: The proposed program could result in a cumulatively significant effect on human remains because the proposed program could disturb human remains, including those interred outside of dedicated cemeteries. Finding: Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15091 (a)(1), changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the PEIR. Facts in Support of the Finding: The proposed program area is largely urbanized with industrial development. However, since archaeological sites with human remains have been documented within a ½-mile radius of the proposed program and given the high sensitivity of the area, there is the possibility that construction activities associated with cumulative development could impact unknown human remains. Because the proposed program could encounter and significantly impact human remains, the program could contribute to significant cumulative impacts to human remains and result in result in cumulatively considerable could result in cumulatively considerable impacts to human remains. Environmental Findings OCSD Biosolids Master Plan PEIR 28 ESA / 150626 Environmental Findings May 2018 As identified in Section 3.4 in the Draft PEIR, Mitigation Measure CUL-9 (defined above) is included to reduce potential cumulative impacts to less than significant levels. Implementation of Mitigation Measure CUL-9 would ensure that the proposed program’s contribution to cumulative human remains impacts would be reduced to less than cumulatively considerable by requiring proper treatment of human remains. 3.1.2.5 Hazards and Hazardous Resources a. Potentially Significant Impact: The proposed program would be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and may result in cumulatively considerable hazard impacts to the public or the environment. Finding: Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15091 (a)(1), changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the PEIR. Facts in Support of the Finding: The program vicinity is largely urbanized with residential, commercial and industrial development. As the area continues to develop, the addition of developments could be located on sites that are included on a list of hazardous materials sites. Remediation of contamination found on site as required under Mitigation Measures HAZ-1 and HAZ-2 would reduce any contribution to the cumulative condition. Impacts would be less than cumulatively considerable. As identified in Section 3.4 in the Draft PEIR, Mitigation Measures HAZ-1 and HAZ-2 (defined above) are included to reduce potential cumulative impacts to less than significant levels. The implementation of Mitigation Measures HAZ-1 and HAZ-2 would ensure that the proposed facilities’ contribution to cumulative development on the open LUST site at Plant No. 1 would be reduced to less than cumulatively considerable by requiring site- specific studies to identify known hazardous materials risks or the potential for risks related to hazardous materials and affected soils and groundwater. These studies would include recommendations and cleanup measures to reduce risk to the public and the environment from development on hazardous materials sites. Implementation of Mitigation Measures HAZ-1 and HAZ-2 would reduce potential impacts to construction workers and the public from exposure to unknown affected soils. Final ORANGE COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTBIOSOLIDS MASTER PLAN PROJECT NO. PS15-01 Environmental Findings State Clearinghouse Number 2017071026 Prepared for May 2018 Orange County Sanitation District Final ORANGE COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTBIOSOLIDS MASTER PLAN PROJECT NO. PS15-01 Environmental Findings State Clearinghouse Number 2017071026 Prepared for May 2018 Orange County Sanitation District 626 Wilshire Boulevard Suite 1100 Los Angeles, CA 90017 213.599.4300 www.esassoc.com Bend Camarillo Delray Beach Destin Irvine Los Angeles Miami Oakland Orlando Pasadena Petaluma Portland Sacramento San Diego San Francisco Santa Monica Sarasota Seattle Sunrise Tampa 150626 OUR COMMITMENT TO SUSTAINABILITY | ESA helps a variety of public and private sector clients plan and prepare for climate change and emerging regulations that limit GHG emissions. ESA is a registered assessor with the California Climate Action Registry, a Climate Leader, and founding reporter for the Climate Registry. ESA is also a corporate member of the U.S. Green Building Council and the Business Council on Climate Change (BC3). Internally, ESA has adopted a Sustainability Vision and Policy Statement and a plan to reduce waste and energy within our operations. This document was produced using recycled paper. OCSD Biosolids Master Plan PEIR i ESA / 150626 Environmental Findings May 2018 Preliminary − Subject to Revision TABLE OF CONTENTS OCSD Biosolids Master Plan Project No. PS15-01 Environmental Findings Page 1. Background and Introduction ....................................................................................... 1 1.1 Project Overview ................................................................................................ 1 1.2 Public Involvement and PEIR Scoping .............................................................. 1 1.3 PEIR Certification and Project Approval Process .............................................. 2 1.3.1 Findings Required Under CEQA .......................................................... 2 1.3.2 Significant Effects and Mitigation Measures ........................................ 3 1.3.3 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program ..................................... 3 1.3.4 Certification of the PEIR and Adoption of Findings.............................. 3 2. Program Summary ......................................................................................................... 4 2.1 Program Location ............................................................................................... 4 2.2 Program Description ........................................................................................... 4 2.3 Program Objectives ............................................................................................ 4 2.4 Record of Proceedings ....................................................................................... 6 2.5 Custodian and Location of Records ................................................................... 7 3. Environmental Findings ................................................................................................ 7 3.1 Findings Regarding Environmental Impacts Which Can Be Mitigated to Less than Significant .......................................................................................... 7 3.1.1 Project Impacts ..................................................................................... 7 3.1.2 Cumulative Impacts ............................................................................ 21 4. Feasibility of Alternatives ............................................................................................ 28 4.1 Alternative 1: No Program Alternative .............................................................. 29 4.1.1 Description.......................................................................................... 29 4.1.2 Impact Analysis .................................................................................. 29 4.1.3 Findings for Alternative 1: No Program Alternative............................ 32 4.2 Alternative 2: Baselines, Mesophilic Digestion, Class B .................................. 32 4.2.1 Description.......................................................................................... 32 4.2.2 Impact Analysis .................................................................................. 33 4.2.3 Findings for Alternative 2: Baseline, Mesophilic Digestion, Class B ............................................................................................... 37 4.3 Alternative 3: Proposed Program Without Food Waste Facilities .................... 37 4.3.1 Description.......................................................................................... 37 4.3.2 Impact Analysis .................................................................................. 38 4.3.3 Findings for Alternative 3: Proposed Program Without Food Waste Facilities .................................................................................. 41 4.4 Environmentally Superior Alternative ............................................................... 41 List of Tables 1 OCSD BMP Projects .................................................................................................. 4 OCSD Biosolids Master Plan PEIR 1 ESA / 150626 Environmental Findings May 2018 Preliminary − Subject to Revision OCSD BIOSOLIDS MASTER PLAN PEIR Environmental Findings 1. Background and Introduction 1.1 Project Overview The Orange County Sanitation District (OCSD) has completed a Program Environmental Impact Report (PEIR) (State Clearinghouse Number 2017071026) for the Biosolids Master Plan (BMP), Project No. PS15-01. The OCSD is the Lead Agency for the purposes of preparing and certifying the PEIR pursuant to Sections 15050 and 15367 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines (California Code of Regulations, Section 15000 et seq.) The purpose of the PEIR is to evaluate the potential environmental impacts of the proposed BMP. In compliance with Section 21002.1 of CEQA and Section 15002 of the State CEQA Guidelines, the OCSD, as Lead Agency, has prepared the PEIR to: (1) inform the general public, the local community, responsible and interested public agencies and the OCSD’s decision-making bodies and other organizations, entities, and interested persons of the potential environmental effects of the proposed program, feasible measures to reduce potentially significant environmental effects, and alternatives that could reduce or avoid the significant effects of the proposed program, (2) enable OCSD to consider environmental consequences when deciding whether to approve the proposed program, and (3) to satisfy the substantive and procedural requirements of CEQA. 1.2 Public Involvement and PEIR Scoping The PEIR complies with the provisions of CEQA (California Public Resources Code, Sections 21000 et seq.), the State CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations, Section 15000 et seq.) and OCSD’s Procedures for Implementing the State CEQA Guidelines. In compliance with CEQA, OCSD has solicited and considered comments from Responsible and Trustee Agencies, members of the public, and other interested parties during the proposed program’s various environmental review processes: • In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Sections 15063 and 15082, OCSD prepared and distributed a Notice of Preparation (NOP) of a PEIR. The NOP was distributed on July 14, 2017 to governmental agencies, organizations, and persons who may be interested in the program. • In compliance with Section 21083.9 of CEQA and Section 15082 (c)(1) of the State CEQA Guidelines, OCSD held a public scoping meeting on July 31, 2017, to receive public and agency comments. Environmental Findings OCSD Biosolids Master Plan PEIR 2 ESA / 150626 Environmental Findings May 2018 Preliminary − Subject to Revision • Comments received from the public and agencies during the public review period for the NOP and the public scoping meeting were considered in the preparation of the PEIR for the proposed program. • In February 2018, a Draft PEIR was prepared for the proposed program in accordance with then-current CEQA regulations and guidelines. The Draft PEIR was circulated for a 45-day public review period on February 14, 2018. Notification was provided to the State Clearinghouse; to local, state, and federal agencies; and to all interested parties and jurisdictions pursuant to the requirements of Section 15087 of the State CEQA Guidelines. There were eight letters/correspondences received by OCSD during the 45-day review period. Comments within each letter/correspondence were evaluated and responded to in accordance with Section 15088 of the State CEQA Guidelines. 1.3 PEIR Certification and Project Approval Process 1.3.1 Findings Required Under CEQA The Board of Directors (the decision-making body) of OCSD (the CEQA Lead Agency) will determine whether to certify the Final PEIR for the program. The Final PEIR, as required by State CEQA Guidelines Sections 15089 and 15132, consists of the Draft Program Environmental Impact Report (Draft PEIR) (SCH No. 2017071026), the Response to Comments document, and any other information added by OCSD. The Response to Comments document includes comments received on the Draft PEIR, a list of persons, organizations, and public agencies commenting on the Draft PEIR, and the responses of OCSD as “Lead Agency” to significant environmental points raised in the review and consultation process. Because the Draft PEIR identified potentially significant environmental impacts, the Board of Directors must also make certain “findings” as part of its action to certify that the PEIR has been completed in compliance with CEQA and to approve the proposed program. Pursuant to CEQA Section 21081 and State CEQA Guidelines Section 15091, no public agency shall approve or carry out a project for which an environmental impact report has been certified, which identifies one or more significant effects on the environment that would occur if the project is approved or carried out, unless the public agency makes one or more findings for each of those significant effects, accompanied by a brief explanation of the rationale of each finding. The possible findings, which must be supported by substantial evidence in the record, are: (1) Changes or alterations have been required in or incorporated into, the program which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final PEIR. (2) Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency. (3) Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or program alternatives identified in the Final PEIR. Environmental Findings OCSD Biosolids Master Plan PEIR 3 ESA / 150626 Environmental Findings May 2018 Preliminary − Subject to Revision 1.3.2 Significant Effects and Mitigation Measures As part of the approval of the BMP and the certification of the PEIR for the proposed program, CEQA requires the Lead Agency—in this case, OCSD, acting through the Board—to make written findings with respect to each significant environmental impact of the program. These findings need to be accompanied by a brief explanation of the rationale for each finding, and any mitigation measures used to reduce or substantially lessen the impact. The significance of the potential impacts of the proposed program was determined through application of the appropriate thresholds of significance for each resource area, as defined in CEQA Appendix G. Section 15093(a) of the CEQA Guidelines state that if specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits of the proposed program outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects, the adverse environmental effects may be considered “acceptable” and the OCSD Board of Directors may adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations to that effect. The Draft PEIR identified several significant environmental effects (or “impacts”) resulting from implementation of the proposed program. All of these significant effects can be reduced to less than significant through the adoption of feasible mitigation measures. The Draft PEIR found that proposed program would not result in any significant and unavoidable impacts, and therefore, a Statement of Overriding Considerations would not be required to be adopted. Section 3 describes the program and cumulative effects and outlines OCSD’s findings with respect to each of these environmental effects of the proposed program. 1.3.3 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program A Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) has been prepared to monitor and report the implementation of the mitigation measures identified for the proposed program. The MMRP will be adopted by the Board of Directors concurrently with these findings, and will be implemented by OCSD during the proposed program’s planning horizon; and through the program review, construction and post-construction periods of individual projects. To the extent that these findings conclude that all mitigation measures outlined in the PEIR are feasible and have not been modified, superseded, or withdrawn, OCSD hereby binds itself to implement these measures. These findings, in other words, are not merely informational, but rather constitute a binding set of obligations that will come into effect when the Board of Directors formally approves the proposed program. 1.3.4 Certification of the PEIR and Adoption of Findings The Board of Directors will review and consider the information contained in the PEIR, as well as submissions from public officials, public agencies and the general public. Prior to program approval, the Board of Directors shall certify that the PEIR reflects OCSD’s independent judgment and analysis. Having considered the foregoing information, as well as any and all other information in the record, the Board of Directors shall make findings pursuant to CEQA Section 21081. In accordance with the provisions of CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines, the Board of Directors shall adopt the findings as part of its certification of the PEIR for the proposed program. Environmental Findings OCSD Biosolids Master Plan PEIR 4 ESA / 150626 Environmental Findings May 2018 Preliminary − Subject to Revision 2. Program Summary 2.1 Program Location OCSD facilities are located in northwestern Orange County, California. All proposed projects would be located within OCSD Plant No. 1 and Plant No. 2 boundaries. Therefore, for purposes of the PEIR, the “program area” includes Plants No. 1 and No. 2. Plant No. 1 is located at 10844 Ellis Avenue, Fountain Valley, California, and is bound by Ellis Avenue to the north, Ward Street to the west, Garfield Avenue to the south, and the Santa Ana River (SAR) and SAR Trail to the east. Residential neighborhoods are located west of Ward Street. Plant No. 1 is located within the City of Fountain Valley. The Fountain Valley General Plan designates Plant No. 1 as a Specific Plan Area and the area is zoned as Specific Plan-Orange County Sanitation District. Plant No. 2 is located at 22212 Brookhurst Street, Huntington Beach, California, and bound by residential neighborhoods located approximately 375 feet north of the intersection of Baybreeze Drive and Brookhurst Street to the north, Brookhurst Street and residential neighborhoods to the west, the SAR and SAR Trail to the east, and Talbert Marsh, Pacific Coast Highway (PCH) and the Pacific Ocean to the south. The City of Huntington Beach General Plan designates Plant No. 2 as a Public (P) land use and zoned for Industrial Limited (IL) and Residential Agriculture with an Oil Overlay (RA-O). The program area is also located within the City of Huntington Beach’s Coastal Zone and is subject to the City’s Local Coastal Program. The majority of the proposed program components would be constructed entirely within the existing Plant No. 2 property. The proposed facilities would be implemented within the southwest corner of Plant No. 2 adjacent to the existing biosolids handling facilities. Within Plant No. 2, the program area encompasses approximately 16 acres. Within Plant No. 1, the program area encompasses approximately 2 acres. 2.2 Program Description The proposed program consists of nine projects that are necessary to upgrade Plant No. 2 solid handling facilities to align with OCSD’s goals and objectives. These nine projects would be implemented over the next 20 years. Table 1 summarizes the individual BMP projects. 2.3 Program Objectives Section 15124(b) of the CEQA Guidelines states that the project description shall contain “a statement of the objectives sought by the proposed project.” Section 15124(b) further states that “the statement of objectives should include the underlying purpose of the project.” The underlying purpose of the proposed program is to provide for flexible and sustainable biosolids handling in the future. As set forth by the CEQA Guidelines, the list of objectives that OCSD seeks to achieve for the proposed program is provided below. • Replace aging facilities and mitigate the structural and seismic risks for onsite biosolids structures. • Phase-out the diversion of biosolids organics as an alternative daily cover for landfills. Environmental Findings OCSD Biosolids Master Plan PEIR 5 ESA / 150626 Environmental Findings May 2018 Preliminary − Subject to Revision • Transition from Class B to Class A biosolids quality at Plant No. 2 to increase biosolids management diversity for end users of biosolids. • Receive pre-processed food waste (source separated organics) for co-digestion to assist in diverting organics from landfills and to increase digester gas production used as a renewable energy. TABLE 1 OCSD BMP PROJECTS OCSD Funding No. Project No. Project Name Description Construction Years P2-125 P2-501 Plant No. 2 Southwest Perimeter Screening P2-501 would improve or replace the perimeter screening to provide a visual buffer for all proposed facilities and associated construction activities along Brookhurst Street and Talbert Marsh. The perimeter screening would be extended along Brookhurst Street and up to approximately 1,030 feet along Talbert Marsh. 2019 to 2020 P2-124 P2-502 Interim Food Waste Receiving Facility An interim food waste facility with a capacity up to 250 wet tons per day will be built to satisfy initial co-digestion needs. The food facility would include two 20,000-gallon tanks and ancillary facilities such as pumps and odor control treatment. The interim food waste facility will be replaced with an ultimate food waste facility (P2-506). 2018 to 2020 P2-126 P2-503A Plant No. 2 Warehouse Relocation The existing 21,000-square-foot, above-grade warehouse would be demolished and then reconstructed at a new location on Plant No. 2 approximately 1,600 feet north of the existing facility. 2021 to 2023 P2-127 P2-503B Plant 2 Collections Yard Relocation The existing 38,000-square-foot collections yard (parking lot) would be relocated, potentially to Plant No. 1. The specific location is not known at this time. The relocated collections yard would provide adequate space and truck paths to and from Plant No.1 or Plant No. 2, similar to the existing footprint. 2021 to 2023 P2-128 P2-504, 504A, 504B Temperature Phased Anaerobic Digestion (TPAD) Digester Facility at Plant No. 2 This project would construct six 110-foot-diameter, 40-foot-tall (above ground) digesters designed to operate in either mesophilic or thermophilic operation, and TPAD sludge cooling facilities, which include a pump station, ultrafiltration/nanofiltration facilities, sludge cooling heat exchangers, and a power building. All new digesters (pairs) would share an electrical control room that would house various pumps, fans, pipelines, and other ancillary facilities. 2025 to 2030 Six 400,000-gallon, 37-feet above ground, Class A batch tanks would be constructed to produce Class A biosolids per U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) 503 regulations through batch holding over a specified time and temperature. The Class A batch tanks would require other ancillary equipment such as pumps, heat exchangers, and grinders. The proposed 33-foot-diameter, 30-foot-high (above ground) Digester Feed Facility (DFF) would replace the existing Sludge Blending Facility where primary sludge and scum is blended and fed to the digesters. Environmental Findings OCSD Biosolids Master Plan PEIR 6 ESA / 150626 Environmental Findings May 2018 Preliminary − Subject to Revision OCSD Funding No. Project No. Project Name Description Construction Years The DFF would include thickened sludge tanks, and ancillary facilities, such as fans, grinders, pumps, and carbon and bioscrubbers. P2-129 P2-504C, P2-505 Digester P, Q, R, and S Replacement P2-504C would relocate the existing ferric facility, which currently feeds three digester segments. The new structure would be 38 by 51 feet. The relocation will include all of the match pumps, tanks, and existing equipment. 2038 to 2040 P2-505 would consist of the demolition of four existing digesters (P, Q, R, and S) and Power Building C. Digesters P, Q, R, and S will be rebuilt in place, two at a time. Digesters P, Q, R, and S would have an inner diameter of 105 feet and height of 38 feet above ground. 2028 to 2033 P2-506 P2-506 Ultimate Food Waste Receiving Facility Following operation of the interim food waste receiving facility (P2-502), P2-506 will allow for expansion of the Source Separated Organics (SSO) receiving program through construction of a larger capacity food waste receiving station to replace the interim facility. The ultimate food waste facility would include a total of four, 12-foot-diameter, 30-foot-tall 20,000-gallon tanks, recirculation and digester feed pumps, and odor-control treatment carbon canisters. 2035 to 2037 P2-507 P2-507 Replace Digesters I, J, K (Relocate Digester Holders) P2-507 would consist of the demolition of seven digesters (I, J, K, M, N, O, and T) and relocation of three digesters (I, J, and K) with a diameter of 84 feet and height of 37 feet (above ground). These new digesters would serve as mesophilic digesters and holders capable of operation as mesophilic digesters. An above-grade equipment room would be built between each pair of digesters. The equipment rooms would house ancillary facilities such as fans, pumps and pipelines. Each equipment room would be 40 feet by 50 feet and up to 40 feet in height above ground. 2033 to 2038 P2-508 P2-508 Digester Demolition P2-508 demolishes the six remaining digesters, Digesters C, D, E, F, G, and H, to free up site footprint for future treatment process facilities. 2035 to 2040 2.4 Record of Proceedings For purposes of CEQA and these findings, the Record of Proceedings for the proposed program consists of the following documents and other evidence, at a minimum: • The NOPs and all other public notices issued by OCSD in conjunction with the proposed program. • The Final PEIR document for the proposed program which consists of an Introduction to Response to Comments, a Comment Letters listing, Response to Comments, Corrections and Additions to the Draft PEIR, and the MMRP. • The Draft PEIR, and all appendices thereto. • The documents, reports, and technical memoranda included or referenced in the technical appendices of the Draft PEIR. Environmental Findings OCSD Biosolids Master Plan PEIR 7 ESA / 150626 Environmental Findings May 2018 Preliminary − Subject to Revision • All documents, studies, Environmental Impact Reports (EIRs), or other materials incorporated by reference in the Draft PEIR and Response to Comments. • OCSD Staff Reports for the program. • Any documents expressly cited in these findings. • Any other relevant materials required to be in the record of proceedings by Public Resources Code Section 21167.6(e) (excluding privileged materials). 2.5 Custodian and Location of Records The documents and other materials that constitute the administrative record for OCSD’s actions related to the program are located at the OCSD, Administrative Office Building at Plant No. 1, Engineering Planning Division – 10844 Ellis Avenue, Fountain Valley, California. OCSD is the custodian of the record of proceedings for the program. Copies of these documents, which constitute the record of proceedings are, and at all relevant times have been and will be, available upon request at OCSD’s administrative office. This information is provided in compliance with Public Resources Code Section 21081.6(a)(2) and CEQA Guideline Section 15091(e). 3. Environmental Findings 3.1 Findings Regarding Environmental Impacts Which Can Be Mitigated to Less than Significant Environmental impacts identified in the PEIR as potentially significant, but which OCSD finds can be mitigated to less than significant through the imposition of feasible mitigation measures identified in the PEIR and set forth herein, are described in this section. 3.1.1 Project Impacts 3.1.1.1 Aesthetics a. Potentially Significant Impact: The proposed program could create new sources of substantial light or glare and result in adverse effects on daytime or nighttime views in the program area. Finding: Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15091 (a)(1), changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the PEIR. Facts in Support of the Finding: The proposed facilities would be located within the existing Plant No. 1 and Plant No. 2 boundaries, which currently contain lighting within the interior and exterior of structures. Plant No. 1 and Plant No. 2 are located within an urban area, developed with residential, commercial, and industrial uses. Implementation of the proposed projects could result in new exterior nighttime lighting for operational and security purposes within Plant No. 1 and Plant No. 2. Though not anticipated, the increase in lighting within the plants could result in spillover lighting onto neighboring residential or commercial uses, or the SAR Trail and Talbert Marsh. Therefore, increase Environmental Findings OCSD Biosolids Master Plan PEIR 8 ESA / 150626 Environmental Findings May 2018 Preliminary − Subject to Revision lighting within Plant No. 1 and Plant No. 2 could represent a potential significant lighting impact. As identified in Section 3.1 in the Draft PEIR, Mitigation Measures AES-1 and AES-2 are included to reduce potential impacts to less than significant levels. AES-1: All new permanent exterior lighting associated with proposed program components shall be shielded and directed downward to avoid any light intrusion to surrounding uses. AES-2: Development of the proposed program and associated facilities shall comply with existing and future lighting ordinances for the cities of Fountain Valley and Huntington Beach. The implementation of Mitigation Measures AES-1 and AES-2 will limit the maximum light beyond the property boundary and comply with existing and future lighting ordinances so that lighting impacts on adjacent uses would be less than significant. 3.1.1.2 Air Quality a. Potentially Significant Impact: The proposed program could have significant effects on implementation of the South Coast Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) because the proposed program could conflict with or obstruct implementation of the AQMP. Finding: Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15091 (a)(1), changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the PEIR. Facts in Support of the Finding: As described in Section 3.2 of the Draft PEIR, the AQMP was adopted by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) as a program to lead the Air Basin into compliance with several criteria pollutant standards and other federal requirements. It relies on emissions forecasts based on demographic and economic growth projections provided by SCAG’s Regional Transportation Program (SCAQMD, 2012). SCAG is charged by California law to prepare and approve “the portions of each AQMP relating to demographic projections and integrated regional land use, housing, employment, and transportation programs, measures and strategies” (SCAQMD, 2012). As discussed previously, projects whose growth is included in the SCAG projections used in the formulation of the AQMP are considered to be consistent with the plan and not to interfere with its attainment. The SCAQMD recommends that, when determining whether a project is consistent with the current AQMP, a Lead Agency must assess whether the project would directly obstruct implementation of the plan and whether it is consistent with the demographic and economic assumptions upon which the plan is based. The construction activities associated with the proposed program could obstruct implementation of the AQMP because, as detailed in Impact 3.2-2 of the Draft PEIR, its construction emissions would exceed the daily nitrogen oxides NOx regional emissions Environmental Findings OCSD Biosolids Master Plan PEIR 9 ESA / 150626 Environmental Findings May 2018 Preliminary − Subject to Revision significance threshold. Because the proposed program’s NOx regional emissions exceed the threshold and NOx contributes to the formation of ozone, the proposed program would contribute to the Air Basin’s nonattainment of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for ozone. Therefore, the proposed program could result in a significant impact on the implementation of the AQMP. As identified in Section 3.2 in the Draft PEIR, Mitigation Measure AQ-1 is included to reduce potential impacts to less than significant levels. AQ-1: Mobile off-road construction equipment (wheeled or tracked) used during construction of the individual projects of the proposed program that may exceed SCAQMD daily thresholds for NOx shall meet the USEPA Tier 4 final standards, either as original equipment or equipment retrofitted to meet the Tier 4 final 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. For projects that would not individually emit NOx above the SCAQMD daily threshold, OCSD or the contractor shall prepare emissions calculations based on equipment to be used that show emissions are below the threshold. These emissions estimates must be maintained at OCSD headquarters for reference, and OCSD must confirm that the equipment used during actual construction is adequately characterized. Implementation of Mitigation Measures AQ-1 would reduce regional construction emissions of NOx to comply with the SCAQMD thresholds. Implementation of this mitigation measure would reduce impacts to less than significant levels. b. Potentially Significant Impact: The proposed program could violate an air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation. Finding: Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15091 (a)(1), changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the PEIR. Facts in Support of the Finding: Construction activities associated with the proposed program would generate pollutant emissions from the following construction activities: (1) demolition, site preparation, grading, and excavation (as discussed in the Methodology section above, only grading is modeled for maximum daily emissions); (2) construction workers traveling to and from project site; (3) delivery and hauling of construction supplies to, and debris from, the project site; (4) fuel combustion by onsite construction equipment; (5) building construction, application of architectural coatings, and paving. These construction activities would temporarily create emissions of dust, fumes, equipment exhaust, and other air contaminants. The amount of emissions generated on a daily basis would vary, depending on the intensity and types of construction activities occurring simultaneously. Environmental Findings OCSD Biosolids Master Plan PEIR 10 ESA / 150626 Environmental Findings May 2018 Preliminary − Subject to Revision Construction emissions are considered short term and temporary, but have the potential to represent a significant impact with respect to air quality. Particulate matter (PM) (i.e., PM10 and PM2.5) are among the pollutants of greatest localized concern with respect to construction activities. Particulate emissions from construction activities can lead to adverse health effects and nuisance concerns, such as reduced visibility and soiling of exposed surfaces. Particulate emissions can result from a variety of construction activities, including excavation, grading, demolition, vehicle travel on paved and unpaved surfaces, and vehicle and equipment exhaust. Construction emissions of PM can vary greatly depending on the level of activity, the specific operations taking place, the number and types of equipment operated, local soil conditions, weather conditions, and the amount of earth disturbance. Construction assumptions are summarized in the Methodology section and detailed in Appendix B of the Draft PEIR. Emissions of ozone precursors such as reactive organic gases (ROGs)/volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and NOX are primarily generated from mobile sources and vary as a function of vehicle trips per day associated with debris hauling, delivery of construction materials, vendor trips, and worker commute trips, and the types and number of heavy- duty, off-road equipment used and the intensity and frequency of their operation. A large portion of construction-related ROG emissions also result from the application of architectural coatings and vary depending on the amount of coatings applied each day. It is mandatory for all construction projects in the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB) to comply with SCAQMD Rule 403 for controlling fugitive dust. Specific Rule 403 control requirements include, but are not limited to, applying water in sufficient quantities to prevent the generation of visible dust plumes, applying soil binders to uncovered areas, reestablishing ground cover as quickly as possible, using a wheel-washing system to remove bulk material from tires and vehicle undercarriages before vehicles exit the construction site, covering all trucks hauling soil with a fabric cover and maintaining a freeboard height of 12 inches, and maintaining effective cover over exposed areas. Compliance with Rule 403 and Rule 1113 (governing VOC content of architectural coatings), as pre-existing regulatory requirements, were accounted for in the construction emissions modeling. Rule 1113 is included as part of the default modeling scenario. Table 3.2-6 of the Draft PEIR summarizes the modeled peak daily emissions of criteria air pollutants and ozone precursors associated with the proposed program’s worst-case construction scenario (using the significance criteria provided in Table 3.2-4 of the Draft PEIR). The peak daily emissions generated for the proposed program’s construction period are identified. The proposed program would exceed the SCAQMD’s daily regional significance threshold for NOx. Therefore, construction phase emissions for NOx would be significant. Further, because the program will be implemented in phases, there is a reasonable possibility that construction activities of later phase biosolids facilities could overlap with operation of earlier phase facilities. In order to determine the combined significance of Environmental Findings OCSD Biosolids Master Plan PEIR 11 ESA / 150626 Environmental Findings May 2018 Preliminary − Subject to Revision these activities, the construction and operational activities are combined and compared to the SCAQMD’s operational threshold. Operational activities would begin with the construction of the Interim Food Waste Receiving Facility by 2020. This would increase daily truck activities by eight daily trips. There would be no new flare operations, new natural gas usage, or new area source emissions as the food waste receiving facility is strictly tanks and electric pumps. Total new trips at buildout in 2038 would be 34. Therefore, between 2020 and 2038, total operational emissions would represent approximately 24 percent of the total program mobile sources. Additionally, maximum daily construction emissions used a default 2018 aggregate truck fleet to determine emissions from haul trucks. Because trucks used to haul debris from construction waste and deliver construction equipment would be contracted, the default fleet mix would change with each subsequent year. This means that emissions from the aggregate truck fleet in 2021 (for a new program within the master plan beginning in 2021) would differ from the emissions for the aggregate fleet mix for the max year 2018. Therefore, to accurately predict haul and vendor emissions future construction activities, the emissions for haul and vendor trucks have been adjusted accordingly. Calculations assumptions and calculations are included in Attachment 2 of the Final PEIR. Table 3.2- 7A of the Final PEIR shows the unmitigated combined construction and operational emissions. As shown, the proposed program would exceed the SCAQMD’s daily regional significance threshold for NOx. Therefore, construction phase emissions for NOx would be significant without mitigation. As identified in Section 3.2 in the Draft PEIR and Chapter 4 of the Final PEIR, Mitigation Measure AQ-1 is required to reduce potential impacts to less than significant levels. With the implementation of Mitigation Measure AQ-1, the proposed program’s maximum daily construction emissions would be reduced to below regulatory thresholds as shown in Table 3.2-8 of the Draft PEIR and Table 3.2-8A of the Final PEIR. Based on the reduction of the total NOx emissions with the implementation of Mitigation Measure AQ-1, impacts related to a violation of air quality standards from combined construction and operational activities associated with the proposed program would be less than significant. c. Potentially Significant Impact: The proposed program could result in significant effects associated with the exposure of sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. Finding: Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15091 (a)(1), changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the PEIR. Facts in Support of the Finding: The daily onsite construction emissions generated by the proposed program were evaluated against SCAQMD’s Localized Significance. Environmental Findings OCSD Biosolids Master Plan PEIR 12 ESA / 150626 Environmental Findings May 2018 Preliminary − Subject to Revision Threshold (LSTs) for a 2-acre site as a screening-level analysis to determine whether the emissions would cause or contribute to adverse localized air quality impacts. The nearest off-site sensitive receptors are the residential dwelling located directly west of the Plant No. 2 across Brookhurst Street. Because the mass rate look-up tables provided by SCAQMD only provide LSTs at receptor distances of 82, 164, 328, 656, and 1,640 feet, the LSTs for a receptor distance of 82 feet are used to evaluate the potential localized air quality impacts associated with the proposed program’s peak day construction emissions. Table 3.2-9 of the Draft PEIR identifies the daily localized onsite emissions that are estimated to occur during the proposed program’s worst-case construction scenario. The daily emissions would exceed regulatory thresholds for NOx, PM10 and PM2.5. Further, the proposed program would expose sensitive receptors to substantial concentrations of toxic air contaminants if the proposed program would emit carcinogenic materials or TACs that exceed the maximum incremental cancer risk of 10 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. Health risk calculations were performed using a spreadsheet tool consistent with the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (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. 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 health risk assessments 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 health risk assessments to err on the side of health protection to avoid underestimating or underreporting the risk to the public by assessing risk on the most sensitive populations, such as children and the elderly. For carcinogenic exposures, the cancer risk from diesel particulate matter (DPM) emissions from construction activities associated with the proposed program is estimated to result in a maximum carcinogenic risk of 320.7 per one million. This maximum level is considered worst-case since it assesses health risks based upon annual emissions levels from the year with the maximum expected emissions. The lifetime exposure under the OEHHA guidance takes into account early life (infant and children) exposure. It should also be noted that the calculated cancer risk conservatively assumes that sensitive receptors (residential uses) would not employ mechanical filtration which normally reduce the cancer risk. Based on the evaluation within the Draft PEIR, impacts would be considered potentially significant because the maximum carcinogenic risk of 320.7 per one million would be greater than the risk threshold of 10.0 in one million. Environmental Findings OCSD Biosolids Master Plan PEIR 13 ESA / 150626 Environmental Findings May 2018 Preliminary − Subject to Revision As identified in Section 3.2 in the Draft PEIR, Mitigation Measure AQ-1 (defined above) and AQ-2 is included to reduce potential impacts to less than significant levels. AQ-2: When grading activities occur within 50 meters of the nearest sensitive receptors, the number of scrapers active onsite is restricted to a maximum of 5 and the number of dozers is restricted to a maximum of 2. With the implementation of Mitigation Measures AQ-1 and AQ-2, the proposed program’s localized construction emissions for NOx, PM10, and PM2.5 would be reduced to below regulatory thresholds, as shown in Table 3.2-11 of the Draft PEIR. Implementation of Mitigation Measure AQ-1 would also result in a reduction in overall health risk due to the incorporation of Tier 4 equipment which significantly reduces DPM emissions. With the implementation of Mitigation Measure AQ-1, the maximum carcinogenic risk associated with the proposed program would reduce from 320.7 per one million to 9.6 per million, which is below the regulatory threshold of 10 per million. Therefore, the cancer risk for nearby sensitive receptors would not contribute to a significant health risk during construction activities. d. Potentially Significant Impact: The proposed program could result in significant effects from the creation of objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people. Finding: Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15091 (a)(1), changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the PEIR. Facts in Support of the Finding: During construction activities, only short-term, temporary odors from vehicle exhaust and construction equipment engines would occur. These odors would be temporary, would be transitory throughout Plant No. 1 and Plant No. 2 as construction occurs for each project. The odors would also disperse rapidly and would be typical of the existing operational truck activities within the program area. However, existing digesters on Plant No. 2 could potentially harbor odors. The demolition of these facilities could result in the release of odors into the surrounding environment. Therefore, odor emissions from construction activities could be potentially significant. As identified in Section 3.2 in the Draft PEIR, Mitigation Measure AQ-3 is included to reduce potential impacts to less than significant levels. AQ-3: OCSD shall ensure that contractors remove salvaged/demolished equipment from the treatment plants to minimize potential odors during the removal of existing facilities. Staging areas shall not be used to store salvaged/demolished equipment. Implementation of Mitigation Measure AQ-3 would minimize the generation of nuisance odors during and after demolition of existing digesters, thereby reducing potential impacts to less than significant levels. Environmental Findings OCSD Biosolids Master Plan PEIR 14 ESA / 150626 Environmental Findings May 2018 Preliminary − Subject to Revision 3.1.1.3 Biological Resources a. Potentially Significant Impact: The proposed program could have significant effects on some avian species during nesting activities. Finding: Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15091 (a)(1), changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the PEIR. Facts in Support of the Finding: Construction activities would include the disturbance of approximately 19.5 acres; approximately 2.0 acres at Plant No. 1 and approximately 17.5 acres at Plant No. 2. The proposed disturbance could include the removal of a couple of non-native ornamental trees at Plant No. 1, a couple of non-native ornamental trees mostly located within the confines of Plant No. 2, and a row of trees within Plant No. 2 along Brookhurst Street located on the southern boundary of Plant No. 2. The removal of trees could result in direct impacts to nesting birds if any are present. In addition, indirect impacts to birds nesting in the vicinity of the proposed disturbance could result from construction noise. Nesting activity typically occurs from February 15 to August 31 for songbirds and from January 15 to August 31 for raptors. Disturbing or destroying active nests is a violation of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. In addition, nests and eggs are protected under California Fish and Game Code Section 3503 and 3503.5. As such, direct impacts (removal of active nests) and indirect impacts (e.g., by noise causing abandonment of the nest) to nesting birds would be considered potentially significant. As identified in Section 3.3 in the Draft PEIR, Mitigation Measure BIO-1 is included to reduce potential impacts to less than significant levels. BIO-1: If removal of onsite trees and vegetation associated with the proposed program occurs during the non-nesting season (September 1 to February 14 for songbirds; September 1 to January 14 for raptors), no nesting survey or biological monitor are required. If the removal of onsite trees and vegetation associated with the proposed program occurs during the nesting season (February 15 to August 31 for songbirds; January 15 to August 31 for raptors), a qualified biologist shall conduct a survey prior to vegetation removal activities to determine if there are active nests within the onsite trees and vegetation proposed for removal. If an active nest is not found, no biological monitor is required. If active nests are detected, a minimum buffer (e.g., 300 feet for songbirds or 500 feet for raptors) around the nest shall be delineated and flagged, and no construction activity shall occur within the buffer area until a qualified biologist determines the nesting species have fledged and is no longer active or the nest has failed. The buffer may be modified (i.e., increased or decreased) and/or other recommendations proposed Environmental Findings OCSD Biosolids Master Plan PEIR 15 ESA / 150626 Environmental Findings May 2018 Preliminary − Subject to Revision (e.g., a temporary soundwall) as determined appropriate by the qualified biologist to minimize impacts. The qualified biologist shall monitor the removal of onsite trees and vegetation. Nest buffer distance will be based on species, specific location of the nest, the intensity of construction activities, existing disturbances unrelated to the proposed program present in the program area, and other factors. If grading/excavation or pile driving activities associated with the proposed program are scheduled outside the nesting season, no nesting survey or biological monitor are required. If grading/excavation or pile driving activities associated with the proposed program are scheduled during the nesting season, a qualified biologist shall conduct a survey, prior to grading/excavation or pile driving activities, of suitable nesting habitat within 500 feet of construction activities for the presence of nesting birds. If no active nests are detected, no biological monitor is required. If an active nest is detected, a minimum buffer (e.g., 300 feet for songbirds or 500 feet for raptors) around the nest shall be delineated and the active nest shall be flagged, and no construction activity shall occur within the buffer area until a qualified biologist determines the nesting species have fledged and is no longer active or the nest has failed. The qualified biologist shall monitor the activities of the active nests within the buffer area. The buffer may be modified (i.e., increased or decreased) and/or other recommendations proposed (e.g., a temporary soundwall) as determined appropriate by the qualified biologist to minimize impacts. Nest buffer distance will be based on species, specific location of the nest, the intensity of construction activities, existing disturbances unrelated to the proposed program present in the program area, and other factors. If there is a lapse of construction activities associated with the proposed program during the nesting season for 7 days or more, an additional nesting bird survey shall be conducted to determine if a nest is present prior to construction activities resuming. The procedure identified above for no active nest and an active nest shall be followed. Implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-1 would reduce impacts to nesting birds to less than significant by either conducting construction activities during the non-nesting season or conducting a survey to establish a suitable nesting habitat buffer as well as having a qualified biologist to monitor the activities of the active nests within the buffer area during nesting season when construction activities occur. 3.1.1.4 Cultural Resources a. Potentially Significant Impact: The proposed program could result in a significant effect on an archaeological resource because the proposed program has the potential to Environmental Findings OCSD Biosolids Master Plan PEIR 16 ESA / 150626 Environmental Findings May 2018 Preliminary − Subject to Revision cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archeological resource pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5. Finding: Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15091 (a)(1), changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the PEIR. Facts in Support of the Finding: No archaeological resources were identified in the proposed program area or close proximity and the proposed program would not result in an impact to known archaeological resources. However, based on the results of the records search, which identified six prehistoric archaeological resources within a ½-mile radius, and geoarchaeological review, which indicated that the proposed program area is highly sensitive for subsurface archaeological resources, there is the potential to impact unknown buried archaeological resources. If previously undiscovered artifacts or cultural remains are uncovered during excavation or construction, the proposed program could result in significant impacts to archaeological resources that could qualify either as historical resources or unique archaeological resources under CEQA. As identified in Section 3.4 in the Draft PEIR, Mitigation Measures CUL-1 through CUL-4 are included to reduce potential impacts to less than significant levels. CUL-1: Prior to start of grading or excavation activities associated with the proposed program within Plant No. 1 and Plant No. 2, OCSD shall retain a qualified archaeologist meeting the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards for archaeology (U.S. Department of the Interior 2008) to carry out all mitigation related to archaeological resources. CUL-2: Prior to start of grading or excavation activities associated with the proposed program within Plant No. 1 and 2, the qualified archaeologist (or an archaeologist working under the direct supervision of the qualified archaeologist) shall conduct cultural resources sensitivity training for all construction personnel. Construction personnel shall be informed of the types of archaeological resources that may be encountered, the proper procedures to be enacted in the event of an inadvertent discovery of archaeological resources or human remains, and safety precautions to be taken when working with archaeological monitors. OCSD shall ensure that construction personnel are made available for and attend the training and retain documentation demonstrating attendance. CUL-3: Archaeological and Native American monitoring shall be conducted for grading or excavation activities associated with the proposed program at Plant No. 1 and Plant No. 2. Archaeological monitoring shall be conducted by an archaeologist familiar with the types of archaeological resources that could be encountered within the program area, and under the direct supervision of the qualified archaeologist. The frequency of monitoring shall take into account the rate of excavation and grading activities, the materials being excavated (native verses artificial fill soils and older verse younger soils), and the depth of excavation. The Environmental Findings OCSD Biosolids Master Plan PEIR 17 ESA / 150626 Environmental Findings May 2018 Preliminary − Subject to Revision frequency of the monitoring shall be determined by the qualified archaeologist in consultation with the Native American monitor and in coordination with OCSD. The Native American monitor shall be selected from a tribe that is culturally and traditionally affiliated with the program area as indicated by the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC). In the event that archaeological resources are unearthed during ground-disturbing activities, the archaeological monitor and/or Native American monitor shall be empowered to halt or redirect ground-disturbing activities away from the vicinity of the discovery until OCSD, a qualified archaeologist, and a Native American monitor have evaluated the discovery and determined appropriate treatment (as prescribed in CUL-4). The archaeological monitor shall keep daily logs detailing the types of activities and soils observed, and any discoveries. After monitoring has been completed, the qualified archaeologist shall prepare a report that details the results of monitoring for submittal to OCSD, the South Central Coastal Information Center, and any Native American tribe that requests a copy. CUL-4: In the event of the unanticipated discovery of archaeological materials during grading or excavation activities associated with the proposed program, OCSD 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. Construction shall not resume until the qualified archaeologist has conferred with OCSD on the significance of the resource. In the event that preservation in place is determined to be infeasible and data recovery through excavation is the only feasible mitigation available, an Archaeological Resources Treatment Plan shall be prepared and implemented by the qualified archaeologist in consultation with OCSD that provides for the adequate recovery of the scientifically consequential information contained in the archaeological resource. OCSD shall consult with appropriate Native American representatives in determining treatment for prehistoric or Native American resources to ensure cultural values ascribed to the resource are considered. Implementation of CUL-1, CUL-2, CUL-3, and CUL-4 would include the retention of a qualified archaeologist, conducting archaeological resources sensitivity training for all construction personnel, archaeological and Native American monitoring during ground- disturbing activities, and establishing the proper protocol in the event of an unanticipated discovery of archaeological materials. The implementation of these measures would reduce impacts to archaeological resources that could qualify as historical resources or unique archaeological resources to less than significant. b. Potentially Significant Impact: The proposed program could result in a significant effect on a unique paleontological resource because the proposed program could directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature. Environmental Findings OCSD Biosolids Master Plan PEIR 18 ESA / 150626 Environmental Findings May 2018 Preliminary − Subject to Revision Finding: Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15091 (a)(1), changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the PEIR. Facts in Support of the Finding: Based on the results of the paleontological database search, there are no known fossil localities in proposed program area. However, several fossil localities from older Quaternary deposits, similar to those that are likely present in the subsurface of the proposed program area, are located approximately 1.5 to 3.5 miles away. These localities have yielded a wide variety of vertebrate fossils, from marine taxa such as leopard shark to fish such as the three-spined stickleback and terrestrial animals such as garter snake, turtle, desert shrew, pocket gopher, mammoth, bison, horse, camel, and elephant. Due to the young age of the surficial sediments underlying the proposed program area, there is a low potential to uncover significant vertebrate fossil remains during surface grading or shallow excavations. However, excavations that extend down into the older Quaternary deposits may encounter significant fossil vertebrate specimens. Since the proposed program includes ground-disturbing activities, there is a potential for discovery of fossils that may be considered significant paleontological resources. If previously unknown potentially unique paleontological resources are uncovered during excavation or construction, significant impacts could occur. As identified in Section 3.4 in the Draft PEIR, Mitigation Measures CUL-5 through CUL-8 are included to reduce potential impacts to less than significant levels. CUL-5: Prior to start of excavation activities associated with the proposed program that exceed 10 feet in depth in previously undisturbed sediments, OCSD shall retain a qualified paleontologist meeting the Society for Vertebrate Paleontology (SVP) Standards (SVP 2010) to carry out all mitigation related to paleontological resources. The qualified paleontologist shall be selected from the list of County of Orange certified paleontologists. CUL-6: Prior to the start of excavation activities associated with the proposed program that exceed 10 feet in depth in previously undisturbed sediments, the qualified paleontologist, or his or her designee, shall conduct training for construction personnel regarding the appearance of fossils and the procedures for notifying paleontological staff should fossils be discovered by construction staff. OCSD shall ensure that construction personnel are made available for and attend the training and retain documentation demonstrating attendance. CUL-7: Paleontological resources monitoring shall be performed during excavation activities associated with the proposed program that exceed 10 feet in depth in previously undisturbed sediments by a qualified paleontological monitor (or cross-trained paleontological/archaeological monitor) meeting the standards of the SVP 2010 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. The qualified paleontologist, based on Environmental Findings OCSD Biosolids Master Plan PEIR 19 ESA / 150626 Environmental Findings May 2018 Preliminary − Subject to Revision observations of subsurface soil stratigraphy and/or other factors, may increase, reduce, or discontinue monitoring, as warranted. Monitoring may be reduced or discontinued by the qualified paleontologist, in coordination with OCSD, based on observations of subsurface conditions. If construction or other project personnel discover any potential fossils during construction, regardless of the depth of work, all work shall cease at that location (within 100 feet) until the qualified paleontologist has assessed the discovery and made recommendations as to the appropriate treatment and re-assessed the depth at which monitoring shall be required. CUL-8: In the event of a fossil discovery by the paleontological monitor or construction personnel, all work in the immediate vicinity of the find shall cease. The qualified paleontologist shall evaluate the find before restarting construction activity in the area. If it is determined that the fossil(s) is (are) scientifically significant, the qualified paleontologist shall recover significant fossils following standard field procedures for collecting and curating paleontological resources, as described by the SVP (2010). Implementation of Mitigation Measures CUL-5 through CUL-8 would reduce impacts to paleontological resources by requiring identification and treatment of significant resources. Implementation of CUL-5 through CUL-8 would also require the retention of a qualified paleontologist, paleontological monitoring during construction, and establishment the proper protocol if paleontological resources are encountered. Therefore, incorporation of CUL-5 through CUL-8 would reduce this impact to a level of less than significant. c. Potentially Significant Impact: The proposed program could result in a significant effect on human remains because the proposed program could disturb human remains, including those interred outside of dedicated cemeteries. Finding: Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15091 (a)(1), changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the PEIR. Facts in Support of the Finding: No human remains are known to be located within the proposed program area; however, since archaeological sites with human remains have been documented within a ½-mile radius and given the high sensitivity of the area, there is the possibility that human remains could be encountered by construction activities at Plant No. 1 and Plant No. 2 for the proposed program. In the event that human remains are inadvertently discovered during proposed program construction activities, they could be inadvertently damaged, which could result in a significant impact. Environmental Findings OCSD Biosolids Master Plan PEIR 20 ESA / 150626 Environmental Findings May 2018 Preliminary − Subject to Revision As identified in Section 3.4 in the Draft PEIR, Mitigation Measures CUL-9 is included to reduce potential impacts to less than significant levels. CUL-9: If human remains are encountered during construction activities associated with the proposed program, OCSD or its contractor shall halt work in the vicinity (within 100 feet) of the find and contact the Orange County Coroner in accordance with PRC Section 5097.98 and Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5. If the County Coroner determines that the remains are Native American, the NAHC will be notified in accordance with Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5, subdivision (c), and PRC Section 5097.98. The NAHC will designate an MLD for the remains per PRC Section 5097.98. Until the landowner has conferred with the MLD, OCSD shall ensure that the immediate vicinity where the discovery occurred is not disturbed by further activity, is adequately protected according to generally accepted cultural or archaeological standards or practices, and that further activities take into account the possibility of multiple burials. Implementation of Mitigation Measure CUL-9 would ensure that the proposed program’s potential impacts to human remains impacts would be reduced to less than significant by requiring proper treatment of human remains. 3.1.1.5 Hazards and Hazardous Materials a. Potentially Significant Impact: The proposed program would be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and may result in potentially significant hazard impacts to the public or the environment. Finding: Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15091 (a)(1), changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the PEIR. Facts in Support of the Finding: The proposed program would be implemented entirely within Plant No.1 and Plant No. 2, with a majority of the projects being implemented at Plant No. 2. A database search of hazardous materials sites using the online DTSC EnviroStor and SWRCB GeoTracker databases identified Plant No. 1 as having two closed leaking underground storage tanks (LUST) sites, one open LUST Cleanup site and one permitted underground storage tank (UST). Plant No. 2 has two closed LUST cases and one permitted UST. Construction activities associated with the proposed Collections Yard Relocation on Plant No. 1 could encounter contaminated soil and/or groundwater during excavation, thereby posing a health threat to construction workers, the public, and the environment. The analysis of operational impacts associated with hazardous materials sites, mobilization of soil and groundwater contaminants, and groundwater quality can be found in Section 3.8, Hydrology and Water Quality of the Draft PEIR. Impacts would be potentially significant. Environmental Findings OCSD Biosolids Master Plan PEIR 21 ESA / 150626 Environmental Findings May 2018 Preliminary − Subject to Revision As identified in Section 3.7 in the Draft PEIR, Mitigation Measures HAZ-1 and HAZ-2 are included to reduce potential impacts to less than significant levels. HAZ-1: Prior to the initiation of any construction requiring ground-disturbing activities, OCSD shall complete an environmental assessment of the proposed site to locate the potential for soil and groundwater contamination in the program area. The recommendations set forth in the site assessment shall be implemented to the satisfaction of applicable agencies before and during construction. HAZ-2: If the site assessments determine that the site has contaminated soil and/or groundwater, a Soil and Groundwater Management Plan shall be prepared that specifies the method for handling and disposing of contaminated soil and groundwater prior to demolition, excavation, and construction activities. OCSD shall be responsible for ensuring implementation of the Plan in compliance with applicable regulations. The implementation of Mitigation Measures HAZ-1 and HAZ-2 would require site- specific studies to identify known hazardous materials risks or the potential for risk related to hazardous materials. These studies would identify recommendations and cleanup measures to reduce risk to the public and the environment from development on hazardous materials sites. Implementation of Mitigation Measures HAZ-1 and HAZ-2 would reduce potential impacts to construction workers and the public from exposure to unknown affected soils. Therefore, impacts to the public or the environment related to hazardous materials sites would be less than significant. 3.1.2 Cumulative Impacts 3.1.2.1 Aesthetics a. Potentially Significant Impact: The proposed program could create new sources of substantial light or glare and could result in cumulatively considerable adverse effects on day or nighttime views in the program area. Finding: Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15091 (a)(1), changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the PEIR. Facts in Support of the Finding: The program vicinity is largely urbanized with residential, commercial and industrial development. As the area continues to develop, the addition of more residential, commercial, and industrial development could increase additional sources of light and glare. With regard to the overall sources of light and glare of the program vicinity, cumulative development (see Table 3-2 in Chapter 3 of the Draft PEIR) would result in more new sources of light and glare and could result in cumulatively significant light and glare impacts. Because the program could result in increased local light levels, the program’s contribution is considered cumulatively considerable. Environmental Findings OCSD Biosolids Master Plan PEIR 22 ESA / 150626 Environmental Findings May 2018 Preliminary − Subject to Revision As identified in Section 3.1 in the Draft PEIR, Mitigation Measures AES-1 and AES-2 (defined above) are included to reduce potential cumulative impacts to less than significant levels. The implementation of Mitigation Measures AES-1 and AES-2 would ensure that the proposed facilities’ contribution to cumulative light impacts would be reduced to less than cumulatively considerable by limiting the maximum light beyond the property boundary and complying with existing and future lighting ordinances. 3.1.2.2 Air Quality a. Potentially Significant Impact: The proposed program could have cumulatively considerable effects on implementation of the South Coast Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) because the proposed program could conflict with or obstruct implementation of the AQMP. Finding: Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15091 (a)(1), changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the PEIR. Facts in Support of the Finding: See the regional impact discussion under 3.1.2.2 (c.) below. As discussed, the project’s contribution to cumulative regional construction emissions of NOx would be cumulatively considerable. As identified in Section 3.2 in the Draft PEIR, Mitigation Measure AQ-1 (defined above) is included to reduce potential cumulative impacts to less than significant levels. Implementation of Mitigation Measure AQ-1 would require the use of construction equipment that would emit less NOx emissions. Mitigation Measure AQ-1 would reduce the proposed program’s contribution to cumulative regional construction emissions of NOx to comply with the SCAQMD thresholds as discussed in Impact 3.2-2 and Impact 3.2-3 of the Draft PEIR. With the implementation of this mitigation measure, the proposed program’s contribution to cumulative impacts is less than cumulatively considerable. b. Potentially Significant Impact: The proposed program could result in cumulatively considerable effects because the proposed program could violate an air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation. Finding: Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15091 (a)(1), changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the PEIR. Facts in Support of the Finding: See the regional impact discussion under 3.1.2.2 (c.) below. As discussed, the project’s contribution to cumulative regional construction emissions of NOx would be cumulatively considerable. As identified in Section 3.2 in the Draft PEIR, Mitigation Measure AQ-1 (defined above) is included to reduce potential cumulative impacts to less than significant levels. Environmental Findings OCSD Biosolids Master Plan PEIR 23 ESA / 150626 Environmental Findings May 2018 Preliminary − Subject to Revision Based on the reduction of the total NOx emissions with the implementation of Mitigation Measure AQ-1, the proposed program’s incremental contribution to cumulative impacts related to a violation of air quality standards from operational activities would be less than cumulatively considerable. c. Potentially Significant Impact: The proposed program could result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of a criteria pollutant for which the project region is non- attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard. Finding: Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15091 (a)(1), changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the PEIR. Facts in Support of the Finding: The SCAQMD neither recommends quantified analyses of cumulative construction or operational emissions nor provides methodologies or thresholds of significance to be used to assess cumulative construction or operational impacts. Individual cumulative projects that exceed the SCAQMD recommended daily thresholds for an individual project would cause a cumulatively considerable impact. The program area is located within the SCAB, which is considered the cumulative study area for air quality. The SCAB is currently classified as a state nonattainment area for ozone, PM10, and PM2.5, and is a federal nonattainment area for ozone and PM2.5. Based on SCAQMD’s cumulative air quality impact methodology, SCAQMD recommends that if an individual project results in air emissions of criteria pollutants (ROG, CO, NOx, SOX, PM10, and PM2.5) that exceed the SCAQMD’s recommended daily thresholds for project-specific impacts, then it would also result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of these criteria pollutants for which the program region is in nonattainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard. As shown in Table 3.2-6 of the Draft PEIR, regional construction emissions of NOx would exceed the SCAQMD’s daily thresholds. In addition, as shown in Table 3.2-10 of the Draft PEIR, localized construction emissions of PM10 and PM2.5 would exceed the SCAQMD daily thresholds. Therefore, the proposed program’s contribution to cumulative NOx for regional construction emissions and to cumulative PM10 and PM2.5 for localized construction emissions would be cumulatively considerable. In addition, as discussed in Impact 3.2-4 below, the proposed program’s localized health impact associated with construction activities would exceed regulatory thresholds. Because the SCAQMD’s recommended cumulative impact methodology is if an individual project results in the exceedance of regulatory thresholds then the project would result in a cumulatively considerable impact. Therefore, because the proposed project would exceed the regulatory thresholds for localized health impacts during construction, the proposed program would result in cumulatively considerable health impacts during construction. Environmental Findings OCSD Biosolids Master Plan PEIR 24 ESA / 150626 Environmental Findings May 2018 Preliminary − Subject to Revision As identified in Section 3.2 in the Draft PEIR, Mitigation Measures AQ-1 and AQ-2 (defined above) are included to reduce potential cumulative impacts to less than significant levels. With implementation of Mitigation Measure AQ-1, regional emissions of NOx during the proposed program construction would be reduced to below regulatory thresholds as detailed in Impact 3.2-2 of the Draft PEIR. With implementation of Mitigation Measure AQ-2, localized PM0 and PM2.5 emissions during proposed program construction activities would be reduced to below SCAQMD’s LSTs, as detailed in Impact 3.2-4 of the Draft PEIR. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. d. Potentially Significant Impact: The proposed program could result in significant and cumulatively considerable effects associated with the exposure of sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. Finding: Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15091 (a)(1), changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR. Facts in Support of the Finding: As Lead Agency, the SCAQMD uses the same significance thresholds for project-specific and cumulative impacts for all environmental topics analyzed in an Environmental Assessment or EIR. Projects that exceed the project- specific significance thresholds are considered by the SCAQMD to be cumulatively considerable. This is the reason project-specific and cumulative significance thresholds are the same. Conversely, projects that do not exceed the project-specific thresholds are generally not considered to be cumulatively significant. As detailed under Impact 3.2-4 of the Draft EIR, construction related localized criteria pollutants and TACs associated with the proposed program would be significant at a project level and would be cumulatively considerable. As identified in Section 3.2 in the Draft PEIR, Mitigation Measures AQ-1 and AQ-2 (defined above) are included to reduce potential cumulative impacts to less than significant levels. As stated previously, the cumulative thresholds for air quality are identical to the program level thresholds, therefore projects that are less than significant with or without mitigation at the project level would be less than cumulatively considerable. Therefore, consistent with the program level analysis, with the implementation of Mitigation Measures AQ-1 and AQ-2, the proposed program’s contribution to cumulative localized construction emissions associated with criteria air pollutants and TACs would be reduced to below regulatory thresholds and the proposed program’s contribution to cumulative impacts would be less than cumulatively considerable. e. Potentially Significant Impact: The proposed program could result in cumulatively considerable effects from the creation of objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people. Environmental Findings OCSD Biosolids Master Plan PEIR 25 ESA / 150626 Environmental Findings May 2018 Preliminary − Subject to Revision Finding: Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15091 (a)(1), changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the PEIR. Facts in Support of the Finding: Future cumulative development in the vicinity of the proposed program has the potential to create odors. Construction activities associated with future development are expected to result in less than significant odor impacts. Operational impacts from cumulative development could result in significant odor impacts. Because the proposed program would result in potentially significant odor impacts due to the demolition of existing digesters, the proposed program’s incremental contribution to cumulative odor impacts would be cumulatively considerable without mitigation. As identified in Section 3.2 in the Draft PEIR, Mitigation Measure AQ-3 (defined above) is included to reduce potential cumulative impacts to less than significant levels. Implementation of Mitigation Measure AQ-3 would minimize the generation of nuisance odors during and after demolition of existing digesters, thereby reducing the program’s potential impacts to less than significant levels. Therefore, the program’s contribution to cumulative impacts regarding odor would be considered less than cumulatively considerable. 3.1.2.3 Biological Resources a. Potentially Significant Impact: The proposed program could have cumulatively considerable effects on some avian species during nesting activities but would not have an adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special-status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the CDFW or USFWS. Finding: Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15091 (a)(1), changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the PEIR. Facts in Support of the Finding: Future construction and operational activities associated with cumulative development (see Table 3-2 in Chapter 3 of the Draft PEIR) may result in impacts to nesting birds as well as sensitive plant and wildlife species. These potential cumulative impacts could result from removal of habitat or indirect through noise-generating activities. Because the construction activities associated with the proposed program could result in significant impacts to nesting birds, the proposed program would contribute to cumulative impacts to nesting birds. As identified in Section 3.3 in the Draft PEIR, Mitigation Measure BIO-1 (defined above) is included to reduce potential cumulative impacts to less than significant levels. Implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-1 would reduce the program’s contribution to cumulative impacts to nesting birds to less than significant by either conducting Environmental Findings OCSD Biosolids Master Plan PEIR 26 ESA / 150626 Environmental Findings May 2018 Preliminary − Subject to Revision construction activities during the non-nesting season or conducting a survey to establish a suitable nesting habitat buffer as well as having a qualified biologist to monitor the activities of the active nests within the buffer area during nesting season when construction activities occur. 3.1.2.4 Cultural Resources a. Potentially Significant Impact: The proposed program could result in a cumulatively considerable effect on an archaeological resource because the proposed program has the potential to cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archeological resource pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5. Finding: Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15091 (a)(1), changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the PEIR. Facts in Support of the Finding: The proposed program vicinity is located within a favorable area (near water sources) for prehistoric inhabitance and the proposed program vicinity is known to contain archaeological resources. Thus, there is the potential for ongoing and future development projects in the vicinity to disturb known or unknown archaeological resources. The potential construction impacts of the proposed program, in combination with other projects in the area, could contribute to a cumulatively significant impact on archaeological resources. Because the proposed program could result in significant impacts to archaeological resources, the proposed program’s contribution to cumulative impacts would be cumulatively considerable. As identified in Section 3.4 in the Draft PEIR, Mitigation Measures CUL-1 through CUL-4 (defined above) are included to reduce potential cumulative impacts to less than significant levels. The implementation of Mitigation Measures CUL-1 through CUL-4 would include the retention of a qualified archaeologist, conducting archaeological resources sensitivity training for all construction personnel, archaeological and Native American monitoring during ground-disturbing activities, and establishing the proper protocol in the event of an unanticipated discovery of archaeological materials. The implementation of these measures would reduce the program’s contribution to cumulative impacts to archaeological resources that could qualify as historical resources or unique archaeological resources to less than cumulatively significant. b. Potentially Significant Impact: The proposed program could result in a significant and cumulatively considerable effect on a unique paleontological resource because the proposed program could directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature. Environmental Findings OCSD Biosolids Master Plan PEIR 27 ESA / 150626 Environmental Findings May 2018 Preliminary − Subject to Revision Finding: Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15091 (a)(1), changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR. Facts in Support of the Finding: As future cumulative development occurs in the program area, there is a potential that future growth could require excavation activities. These activities could be required within older Quaternary deposits that may encounter significant fossil vertebrate specimens. Therefore, cumulative development could result in potential significant cumulative impacts to paleontological resources. Because the proposed program includes excavations that could occur within older Quaternary deposits, significant fossil vertebrate specimens could be found. Therefore, the proposed program could result in cumulatively considerable effects on paleontological resources. Implementation of Mitigation Measures CUL-5 through CUL-8 would reduce the program’s contribution to cumulative impacts to paleontological resources by requiring identification and treatment of significant resources. Implementation of CUL-5 through CUL-8 would also require the retention of a qualified paleontologist, paleontological monitoring during construction, and establishment the proper protocol if paleontological resources are encountered. Therefore, incorporation of CUL-5 through CUL-8 would reduce the program’s contribution to cumulative paleontological resources impacts to less than cumulatively significant. c. Potentially Significant Impact: The proposed program could result in a cumulatively significant effect on human remains because the proposed program could disturb human remains, including those interred outside of dedicated cemeteries. Finding: Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15091 (a)(1), changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the PEIR. Facts in Support of the Finding: The proposed program area is largely urbanized with industrial development. However, since archaeological sites with human remains have been documented within a ½-mile radius of the proposed program and given the high sensitivity of the area, there is the possibility that construction activities associated with cumulative development could impact unknown human remains. Because the proposed program could encounter and significantly impact human remains, the program could contribute to significant cumulative impacts to human remains and result in result in cumulatively considerable could result in cumulatively considerable impacts to human remains. As identified in Section 3.4 in the Draft PEIR, Mitigation Measure CUL-9 (defined above) is included to reduce potential cumulative impacts to less than significant levels. Implementation of Mitigation Measure CUL-9 would ensure that the proposed program’s contribution to cumulative human remains impacts would be reduced to less than cumulatively considerable by requiring proper treatment of human remains. Environmental Findings OCSD Biosolids Master Plan PEIR 28 ESA / 150626 Environmental Findings May 2018 Preliminary − Subject to Revision 3.1.2.5 Hazards and Hazardous Resources a. Potentially Significant Impact: The proposed program would be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and may result in cumulatively considerable hazard impacts to the public or the environment. Finding: Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15091 (a)(1), changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the PEIR. Facts in Support of the Finding: The program vicinity is largely urbanized with residential, commercial and industrial development. As the area continues to develop, the addition of developments could be located on sites that are included on a list of hazardous materials sites. Remediation of contamination found on site as required under Mitigation Measures HAZ-1 and HAZ-2 would reduce any contribution to the cumulative condition. Impacts would be less than cumulatively considerable. As identified in Section 3.4 in the Draft PEIR, Mitigation Measures HAZ-1 and HAZ-2 (defined above) are included to reduce potential cumulative impacts to less than significant levels. The implementation of Mitigation Measures HAZ-1 and HAZ-2 would ensure that the proposed facilities’ contribution to cumulative development on the open LUST site at Plant No. 1 would be reduced to less than cumulatively considerable by requiring site- specific studies to identify known hazardous materials risks or the potential for risks related to hazardous materials and affected soils and groundwater. These studies would include recommendations and cleanup measures to reduce risk to the public and the environment from development on hazardous materials sites. Implementation of Mitigation Measures HAZ-1 and HAZ-2 would reduce potential impacts to construction workers and the public from exposure to unknown affected soils. 4. Feasibility of Alternatives In accordance with CEQA Guidelines (Section 15126.6), an EIR must describe and compare a range of reasonable alternatives to a project, or alternative locations for a project, that could feasibly attain most of the basic project objectives while avoiding or substantially lessening any significant environmental impacts associated with the project. An EIR must consider a reasonable range of feasible alternatives to facilitate informed decision making and public participation. An EIR need not consider every conceivable alternative to a project and is not required to consider alternatives which are infeasible. The Lead Agency shall select a range of project alternatives and disclose its reasoning for selecting those alternatives. As set forth in these findings, the selection of such alternatives is described further below. Environmental Findings OCSD Biosolids Master Plan PEIR 29 ESA / 150626 Environmental Findings May 2018 Preliminary − Subject to Revision 4.1 Alternative 1: No Program Alternative 4.1.1 Description An analysis of the No Program Alternative is required under CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(e). According to Section 15126.6(e)(2) of the CEQA Guidelines, the “no program” analysis shall discuss: what is reasonably expected to occur in the foreseeable future if the project were not approved, based on current plans and consistent with available infrastructure and community services. The No Program Alternative represents a “no build” scenario in which the proposed program would not be constructed or operated. It assumes that all proposed facilities along with other elements of the program would not be implemented and no program components would be constructed. Under the No Program Alternative, OCSD would continue to treat wastewater at Plant No. 1 and Plant No. 2. There would be no change in the type of biosolids handling facilities being used and no updates to the efficiency of the technology, structural integrity of the structures, or diversification of biosolids end-uses. 4.1.2 Impact Analysis The No Program Alternative excludes the proposed facilities upgrades. As a result, there would be less construction activity when compared to the proposed program. Fewer projects and no new facilities result in fewer construction-related impacts and fewer operational-related impacts. The relative difference in environmental impacts associated with the No Program Alternative when compared to the proposed program is provided below. 4.1.2.1 Aesthetics The proposed program would result in a less than significant impact to aesthetics with mitigation (see Section 3.1 of the Draft PEIR). Under the No Program Alternative, Plant No. 1 and Plant No. 2 would remain the same as existing conditions, retaining their current visual character; therefore, no views of the sites would be altered. Additionally, no new sources of light and glare would be created. Therefore, this alternative would have no impacts to aesthetics, and would have fewer impacts compared to the proposed program. 4.1.2.2 Air Quality The proposed program would result in a less than significant impact to air quality with mitigation (see Section 3.2 of the Draft PEIR). Under the No Program Alternative, there would be no construction-related emissions (from construction activities, vehicles and equipment). Therefore, Alternative 1 would result in no impacts to an air quality plan, air quality standards/violations, cumulative increased of criteria pollutants, impacts to sensitives receptors, or changes to odors. However, air emissions associated with energy demands would remain high compared to the proposed program’s objective of implementing renewable energy supplies via excess biogas. Therefore, this alternative would have less than significant impacts to air quality, and would have fewer impacts compared to the proposed program. Environmental Findings OCSD Biosolids Master Plan PEIR 30 ESA / 150626 Environmental Findings May 2018 Preliminary − Subject to Revision 4.1.2.3 Biological Resources The proposed program would result in less than significant impacts to biological resources with mitigation (see Section 3.3 of the Draft PEIR). Under the No Program Alternative, Plant No. 1 and Plant No. 2 would not undergo construction or operation of new facilities onsite; therefore, this Alternative would not expose candidate, sensitive, or special-status species currently located adjacent to the program area to potential indirect noise impacts. Similar to the proposed program, Alterative 1 would not conflict with biological resource regulations, ordinances, or conservation plans. Overall, this alternative would have no impacts to areas containing biological resources, and would have less impacts compared to the proposed program. 4.1.2.4 Cultural Resources The proposed program has the potential to encounter human remains and archaeological and paleontological resources during ground disturbing activities, however, the proposed program would result in less than significant impacts to cultural resources with mitigation (see Section 3.4 of the Draft PEIR). Under the No Program Alternative, no ground disturbing activities would occur to any known or unknown human remains, or archaeological or paleontological resources. Therefore, this alternative would result in no impacts to cultural resources and less impacts as compared to the proposed program. 4.1.2.5 Geology, Soils, and Seismicity The proposed program would result in less than significant impacts related to exposure to geologic hazards with mitigation incorporated (see Section 3.5 of the Draft PEIR). Under the No Program Alternative, there would be no development, and the potential effects associated with geology and soils, such as soil erosion during construction would not occur. However, Alternative 1 would result in greater impacts regarding earthquakes, because Alternative 1 would not upgrade existing facilities or build new facilities to the current California Building Code standards. Therefore, if an earthquake event were to occur, the outdated structures may fail and result in more impacts such as to hazardous waste spills. Therefore, this alternative would have fewer impacts to geology and soils but greater impacts regarding earthquakes as compared to the proposed program. 4.1.2.6 Greenhouse Gas Emissions The proposed program would result in less than significant impacts related to greenhouse gases (see Section 3.6 of the Draft PEIR). Under the No Program Alternative, there would be no construction-related emissions (from construction activities, vehicles and equipment). Therefore, Alternative 1 would result in no impacts related to greenhouse gases. Therefore, this alternative would have no impacts related to greenhouse gases, and would have fewer impacts compared to the proposed program. 4.1.2.7 Hazards and Hazardous Materials The proposed program would result in a less than significant impact related to hazards and hazardous materials with mitigation (see Section 3.7 of the Draft PEIR). Under the No Program Alternative, no construction would occur; therefore, no new facilities would be placed on or near the hazardous material site located at Plant No. 1. Further, because no construction would occur, Environmental Findings OCSD Biosolids Master Plan PEIR 31 ESA / 150626 Environmental Findings May 2018 Preliminary − Subject to Revision Alterative 1 would not expose structures or persons to hazardous materials. Therefore, this alternative would result in no impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials and less impacts compared to the proposed program. 4.1.2.8 Hydrology and Water Quality The proposed program would result in less than significant impacts to hydrology and water quality (see Section 3.8 of the Draft PEIR). Under the No Program Alternative, there would be no development and thus no changes to the natural drainage patterns of Plant No.1 or Plant No. 2, or to the potential to contribute to runoff into existing stormwater drainage systems. Further, Alternative 1 would not place additional facilities within flood hazard areas or put people or structures at risks due to the failure of the SAR levee or tsunami of the Pacific Ocean. This alternative would result in no impacts to hydrology and water quality and less impacts compared to the proposed program. 4.1.2.9 Land Use and Planning The proposed program would result in no impact to land use and planning (see Section 3.9 of the Draft PEIR). The proposed program would not conflict with the City of Huntington Beach Local Coastal Program’s policies or regulations. Under the No Program Alternative, no development would occur and Plant No. 1 and No. 2 would remain in their current state. As such, this alternative would not change existing land use or have an effect on land use plans and policies related to the program area. Therefore, this alternative would result in similar impacts regarding land use as compared to the proposed program. 4.1.2.10 Noise and Vibration The proposed program would result in a less than significant impacts regarding noise and vibration (see Section 3.10 of the Draft PEIR). Under the No Program Alternative, there would be no development and no change to existing ambient noise levels. No noise and vibration impacts would occur under Alternative 1. Therefore, this alternative would result in fewer impacts from noise and vibration compared to the proposed program. 4.1.2.11 Transportation and Traffic The proposed program would result in a less than significant impact to traffic and transportation (see Section 3.11 of the Draft PEIR). Under the No Program Alternative, there would be no development, thus no additional traffic would be generated by uses on Plant No. 1 or Plant No. 2, and no impacts related to traffic and transportation of biosolids would occur. Therefore, this alternative would result in fewer transportation and traffic impacts as compared to the proposed program. 4.1.2.12 Tribal Cultural Resources The proposed program would result in a no impact to tribal cultural resources (see Section 3.12 of the Draft PEIR). Under the No Program Alternative, no ground disturbing activities would occur to any known or unknown tribal cultural resources. Therefore, this alternative would result also in no impacts to tribal cultural resources similar to the proposed program. Environmental Findings OCSD Biosolids Master Plan PEIR 32 ESA / 150626 Environmental Findings May 2018 Preliminary − Subject to Revision 4.1.2.13 Utilities, Service Systems, and Energy The proposed program would result in a less than significant impacts to utilities, service systems, and energy (see Section 3.13 of the Draft PEIR). Under the No Program Alternative, no development would occur and no changes to stormwater drainage facilities would need to be implemented. Further, Alternative 1 would not require additional water supplies. No demolition or construction would occur, so there would no impacts regarding landfill capacity or compliance with solid waste regulations. Lastly, no additional energy would be required to operate facilities as facilities would not be build or upgrades. Therefore, this alternative would result in fewer impacts related to utilities and energy than the proposed program. 4.1.3 Findings for Alternative 1: No Program Alternative The No Program Alternative (Alternative 1) would reduce or eliminate most proposed program impacts, but it would result in new potentially significant impacts that could result from aging equipment including process malfunctions and inefficiencies that could result in geologic hazards, hazardous material spills, increased energy usage, and increased air emissions. Alternative 1 would meet none of the program’s objectives. 4.2 Alternative 2: Baselines, Mesophilic Digestion, Class B 4.2.1 Description The Baseline, Mesophilic Digestion, Class B Alternative represents a scenario in which the proposed program facilities associated with the Temperature Phased Anaerobic Digestion (TPAD) process would not be constructed or operated. This alternative would not construct the following facilities that are included in the proposed program: six, new thermophilic digesters; Class A batch tanks; Digester Feed Facility; and TPAD Sludge Cooling facilities. These specific facilities are contained within the following proposed projects: • P2-504/504A/504B, TPAD Digester Facility at Plant No. 2 Furthermore, project P2-503A, Plant No. 2 Warehouse Relocation and P2-503B, Plant No. 2 Collections Yard Relocation would not be implemented. These projects were proposed as part of the proposed program to provide space for the construction and operation of the thermophilic digesters and Class A batch tank facilities. Alternative 2 would implement project P2-124 and P2-506, which include the construction and operation of food waste facilities. In addition, Alternative 2 would implement project P2-505, Digester P, Q, R, and S Replacement. The four existing mesophilic digesters would be demolished and reconstructed to current California Building Code standards in order to address existing structural impairments. Furthermore, the remaining digesters (L, M, O, T, J, K, N, I, E, H, C, F, and G) would be demolished and rebuilt at the same location as they require extensive structural modifications and ground improvements to mitigate potential seismic risks. Digester D would be demolished and relocated to the west side of Digester S or a suitable alternative location. This would be necessary to ensure that no digesters or other facilities would be constructed and operated on an active fault. Environmental Findings OCSD Biosolids Master Plan PEIR 33 ESA / 150626 Environmental Findings May 2018 Preliminary − Subject to Revision A total of 10 acres would be graded for Alternative 2. Under Alternative 2, OCSD would continue to treat wastewater at Plant No. 2 with mesophilic digestion and would continue to produce Class B biosolids. There would be no change in the type of biosolids handling facilities being used and no diversification of biosolids end-uses. However, this alternative would allow for the mitigation of structural and seismic risk for onsite biosolids at Plant No. 2 facilities over time. This alternative would meet three of the four objectives of the proposed program. This alternative would meet two of the four objectives of the proposed program; the Alternative would not meet the objective to phase out the diversion of biosolids used as daily cover for landfills, nor would it support the transition from Class B to Class A biosolids. 4.2.2 Impact Analysis The relative difference in environmental impacts associated with the Baseline, Mesophilic Digestion, Class B Alternative when compared to the proposed program is provided below. 4.2.2.1 Aesthetics The proposed program would result in a less than significant impact to aesthetics with mitigation (see Section 3.1 of the Draft PEIR). Alternative 2 would construct less facilities and result in the grading of approximately 9.5 acres less area than the proposed program. Demolition of digesters would still occur, and then the digesters would be rebuilt. P2-501, Perimeter Screening would still take place, and therefore, would partially screen construction equipment and processes during demolition and construction. Similar to the proposed program, Alternative 2 would result in less than significant impacts regarding scenic vistas and visual character of the area. Because Alternative 2 would result in less facilities being constructed, Alternative 2 would introduce fewer new sources of light or glare to the program area. Overall, Alternative 2 would result in less than significant impacts regarding scenic vistas, visual character, and light or glare, and would result in fewer impacts than the proposed program. 4.2.2.2 Air Quality The proposed program would result in a less than significant impact to air quality with mitigation (see Section 3.2 of the Draft PEIR). Alternative 2 would construct less facilities and result in the grading of approximately 9.5 acres less area than the proposed program. Under Alternative 2, less haul trucks would be required for demolition material (the warehouse would not need to be demolished and relocated on Plant No. 2), import of material, and export of material, thereby reducing the total amount of vehicle miles traveled (VMT). Less construction material trucks would be required as well. Further, the proposed program would generate Class A biosolids which could be delivered to more local end-users in California. Alternative 2 would continue to generate Class B biosolids which are sent to end-users in Arizona and some parts of California. The total VMT for operational biosolids delivery trips specifically, would be greater for Alternative 2 than the proposed program. Overall, Alternative 2 would have less than significant impacts to air quality and would result in fewer impacts than the proposed program. With less grading under this alternative, less construction NOx emissions would be generated; however, this reduction would still require the proposed program mitigation measures to reduce potential regional construction emissions to less than significant. In addition, localized Environmental Findings OCSD Biosolids Master Plan PEIR 34 ESA / 150626 Environmental Findings May 2018 Preliminary − Subject to Revision construction emissions of PM10 and PM2.5 would be less compared to the proposed program; however, Alternative 3 would still require the proposed program mitigation measures to reduce increases of PM10 and PM2.5 to less than significant. Alternative 3 would result in less localized construction emissions impacts compared to the proposed program. 4.2.2.3 Biological Resources The proposed program would result in less than significant impacts to biological resources with mitigation (see Section 3.3 of the Draft PEIR). Under Alternative 2, less construction would take place overall; therefore, fewer non-native ornamental trees would need to be removed for construction activities. Indirect impacts to bird nesting in the vicinity of the program area would be less under Alternative 2 compared to the proposed program. Further, noise levels due to construction activities would be reduced. The reduced noise levels would have less of a potential impact on nearby nesting birds. Further, operational noise of the facilities would stay the same because no new facilities would be implemented within the proposed program area. Overall, Alternative 2 would result in less than significant impacts to biological resources and would result in fewer impacts than the proposed program. 4.2.2.4 Cultural Resources The proposed program has the potential to encounter human remains and archaeological and paleontological resources during ground disturbing activities, however, the program would result in less than significant impacts to cultural resources with mitigation (see Section 3.4 of the Draft PEIR). The proposed program would result in less excavation and ground disturbance at Plant No. 2 compared to the excavation and ground disturbance under Alternative 2. Therefore, the potential for encountering human remains, archeological and paleontological resources during construction activities would be reduced. Overall, Alternative 2 would result in less than significant impacts to cultural resources and fewer impacts than the proposed program. 4.2.2.5 Geology, Soils, and Seismicity The proposed program would result in less than significant impacts related to exposure to geologic hazards with mitigation incorporated (see Section 3.5 of the Draft PEIR). Alternative 2 would not construct new facilities, but would demolish and rebuild existing digester facilities to current California Building Code standards. Further, Digester D would be relocated on Plant No. 2 to address potential structural issues if a ground shaking event were to occur. Therefore, Alternative 2 would result in similar impacts regarding earthquakes, unstable geologic locations, and expansive soils as the proposed program. Because Alternative 2 would result in less ground disturbance and excavation overall, the potential for soil erosion or topsoil loss would be reduced. Therefore, Alternative 2 would result in less impacts regarding soil erosion as compared to the proposed program. Overall, Alterative 2 would result in less than significant impacts regarding geology, soils, and seismicity, and would result in fewer impacts overall than the proposed program. 4.2.2.6 Greenhouse Gas Emissions The proposed program would result in a less than significant impacts to greenhouse gases (see Section 3.6 of the Draft PEIR). Under Alternative 2, the total amount of VMT and biosolids truck Environmental Findings OCSD Biosolids Master Plan PEIR 35 ESA / 150626 Environmental Findings May 2018 Preliminary − Subject to Revision trips would be the same as existing VMT and truck trips because the export of biosolids to the end users would be the same. When compared to the proposed program, Alternative 2 would result in greater VMT and increased trips. As a result, Alternative 2 would have a greater amount of greenhouse gas emissions compared to the proposed program. Alternative 2 would result in similar impacts regarding plans, policies, and regulations related to the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. Overall, Alternative 2 would result in less than significant impacts to greenhouse gas emissions, but the emissions would be greater than those that would occur with the proposed program. 4.2.2.7 Hazards and Hazardous Materials The proposed program would result in a less than significant impact to hazards and hazardous materials with mitigation (see Section 3.7 of the Draft PEIR). The proposed program would result in a potentially significant impact regarding a hazardous materials site listing if the collections yard is relocated to the northern location of Plant No. 1. Under Alternative 2, the collections yard would not be relocated to Plant No. 1; therefore, Alternative 2 would result in no potential significant hazardous materials impact because the collection yard would not be constructed under Alternative 2. Alternative 2 would result in similar impacts as the proposed program regarding the routine use of hazardous materials, accidental release of hazardous materials, the use of hazardous materials near a school, and conflicts with emergency plans. Overall, Alternative 2 would result in less than significant impacts to hazards and hazardous materials and fewer impacts than the proposed program. 4.2.2.8 Hydrology and Water Quality The proposed program would result in less than significant impacts to hydrology and water quality (see Section 3.8 of the Draft PEIR). Under Alternative 2, there would be less acres of area disturbed because it does not add any new facilities, it only rebuilds and renovates existing facilities. Thus, the potential for sedimentation and erosion to occur due to exposed soil during construction activities would be reduced. Further, because less facilities would be implemented on Plant No. 1 and Plant No. 2, the natural drainage courses of the sites would remain largely the same and existing stormwater drainage facilities would not need to be altered. Because Alternative 2 would result in less excavation for new facility implementation, the impacts to groundwater levels would be reduced because construction watering during dry and windy conditions for dust and debris control would be minimized and less dewatering would occur overall. This alternative would result in similar impacts regarding water quality standards and waste discharge requirements, and flood and tsunami hazards compared to the proposed program. Overall, Alternative 2 would result in less than significant impacts regarding hydrology and water quality and fewer impacts than the proposed program. 4.2.2.9 Land Use and Planning The proposed program would result in no impact to land use and planning (see section 3.9 of the Draft PEIR). The proposed program would not conflict with the City of Huntington Beach Local Coastal Program’s policies or regulations. Under Alternative 2, no development would occur and Plant No. 1 and No. 2 would not develop any new facilities. As such, this alternative would not change existing land use or have an effect on land use plans and policies related to the program Environmental Findings OCSD Biosolids Master Plan PEIR 36 ESA / 150626 Environmental Findings May 2018 Preliminary − Subject to Revision area. Overall, this alternative would result in similar impacts regarding land use as compared to the proposed program. 4.2.2.10 Noise and Vibration The proposed program would result in less than significant impacts regarding noise and vibration (see Section 3.10 of the Draft PEIR). Under the Alternative 2, there would be 100 less days of pile driving required for TPAD facility implementation, therefore, vibration levels would be greatly reduced as compared to the proposed program. Further, because less construction noise would take place overall and less construction haul trucks would be required, temporary increases of ambient noise levels within the program area would be reduced. Alternative 2 would result in similar, less than significant impacts regarding noise standards and permanent noise levels as the proposed program. Overall, this alternative would result in less than significant impacts regarding noise and vibration and fewer impacts compared to the proposed program. 4.2.2.11 Transportation and Traffic The proposed program would result in a less than significant impact to traffic and transportation (see Section 3.11 of the Draft PEIR). The amount of biosolids truck trips would be the same for Alternative 2 compared to the proposed program. An increase of 44 one-way truck trips would occur because of the implementation of the food waste facilities at Plant No. 2. This increase in truck trips is nominal and would not substantially impact traffic in the program area. Overall, this alternative would result in similar transportation and traffic impacts compared to the proposed program. 4.2.2.12 Tribal Cultural Resources The proposed program would result in no impact to tribal cultural resources (see Section 3.12 of the Draft PEIR). Under Alternative 2, less ground disturbing activities would occur. Therefore, this alternative would result also in no impacts to tribal cultural resources similar to the proposed program. 4.2.2.13 Utilities, Service Systems, and Energy The proposed program would result in a less than significant impacts to utilities, service systems, and energy (see Section 3.13 of the Draft PEIR). Because less facilities would be implemented on Plant No. 1 and Plant No. 2 under Alternative 2, the natural drainage courses of the sites would remain the same and existing stormwater drainage facilities would not need to be altered. Further, Alternative 2 would not be demolishing the existing warehouse at Plant No. 2, therefore, the potential increase in demolition debris to impact landfill capacity serving the proposed program would be reduced. Alternative 2 would result in similar impacts to wastewater treatment requirements, water supplies, compliance with solid waste regulations, and energy as the proposed program. Overall this alternative would result in less than significant impacts to utilities, service systems, and energy and fewer impacts than the proposed program. Environmental Findings OCSD Biosolids Master Plan PEIR 37 ESA / 150626 Environmental Findings May 2018 Preliminary − Subject to Revision 4.2.3 Findings for Alternative 2: Baseline, Mesophilic Digestion, Class B Alternative 2 would reduce but not eliminate potential significant impacts of the proposed program. By not implementing all individual projects within the proposed program, there would be a reduction in the total amount of construction; therefore, impacts to air quality, cultural resources, and other environmental resources would be proportionately reduced. However, the transition from Class B biosolids to Class A biosolids ultimately results in a reduction of VMT because Class A biosolids can be transported to closer end-users. Alternative 2 would result in continuation of Class B biosolids being generated and transported to end-users in Arizona. Alternative 2 would not decrease the amount of VMT; therefore, the amount of truck trips/VMT would stay the same as existing conditions and have a potentially greater impact on greenhouse gases and traffic than the proposed program. Alternative 2 would meet three of the four proposed program objectives; however, it would not meet the objective of transitioning from Class B to Class A biosolids quality at Plant No. 2 and would not be able to increase biosolids management diversity for end users of biosolids. 4.3 Alternative 3: Proposed Program Without Food Waste Facilities 4.3.1 Description The Reduced TPAD Alternative represents the proposed program projects without the incorporation of food waste facilities. This alternative would not construct the proposed Interim and Ultimate food waste receiving and ancillary facilities. These facilities are contained within the following proposed projects: • P2-502 Interim Food Waste Facility • P2-506, Ultimate Food Waste Facility Under Alternative 2, OCSD would transition into treating wastewater at Plant No. 2 with thermophilic digestion and would begin to produce Class A biosolids. This alternative would change the type of biosolids handling facilities being used, update the efficiency of the technology, and diversify biosolids end-uses. However, this alternative would not receive pre- process food waste (source separated organics) for co-digestion to assist in diverting organics from landfills. This alternative would meet three of the four objectives of the proposed program. This alternative would meet three of the four objectives of the proposed program. It would not accommodate the object to receive pre-processed food waste for co-digestion. A total of 16.5 acres would be graded for Alternative 3. Because the food waste facilities would not be implemented under Alternative 2, the amount of excavation and grading would be reduced. By not implementing the new food waste facilities, there would be a reduction in the total amount of cubic yards of soil that would need to be excavated. Furthermore, trucks would no longer need to enter Plant No. 2 to deliver the pre-process food waste. The addition of SSO to the digestion process increases the amount of biogas generated that can be captured, converted, and used as energy to operate facilities on Plant No. 2. Alternative 3 would Environmental Findings OCSD Biosolids Master Plan PEIR 38 ESA / 150626 Environmental Findings May 2018 Preliminary − Subject to Revision not incorporate SSO (food waste), and therefore, digestion would result in less biogas being generated. Although less biogas would be generated, this alternative would not require offsite energy for the proposed facilities. 4.3.2 Impact Analysis The relative difference in environmental impacts associated with the Proposed Program Without Food Waste Facilities Alternative when compared to the proposed program is provided below. 4.3.2.1 Aesthetics The proposed program would result in a less than significant impact to aesthetics with mitigation (see Section 3.1 of the Draft PEIR). Alternative 3 would not construct the interim or ultimate food waste facilities and result in the grading of approximately 3.0 less acres than the proposed program. Similar to the proposed program, Alternative 3 would result in less than significant impacts regarding scenic vistas and visual character of the area. Because Alternative 3 would result in less facilities being constructed, Alternative 3 would introduce fewer new sources of light or glare to the program area. Overall, Alternative 3 would result in less than significant impacts regarding scenic vistas, visual character, and light or glare, and would result in fewer impacts than the proposed program. 4.3.2.2 Air Quality The proposed program would result in a less than significant impact to air quality with mitigation (see Section 3.2 of the Draft PEIR). Alternative 3 would not construct the interim or ultimate food waste facilities and result in the grading of approximately 3.0 less acres than the proposed program. Under Alternative 3, less grading would reduce the amount of construction NOx emissions; however, this reduction would still require the proposed program mitigation measures to reduce potential regional construction emissions to less than significant. In addition, localized construction emissions of PM10 and PM2.5 would be less compared to the proposed program; however, Alternative 3 would still require the proposed program mitigation measures to reduce increases of PM10 and PM2.5 to less than significant. Alternative 3 would result in less localized construction emissions impacts compared to the proposed program. The food waste facilities would store SSO, which could contribute to odors in the program area. Therefore, because Alternative 3 would not implement the food waste facilities, potential impacts regarding odors would be reduced as compared to the proposed program. Overall, Alternative 3 would have less than significant impacts to air quality and would result in fewer impacts than the proposed program. 4.3.2.3 Biological Resources The proposed program would result in less than significant impacts to biological resources with mitigation (see Section 3.3 of the Draft PEIR). Under Alternative 3, less construction would take place overall; therefore, noise levels due to construction activities would be reduced. The reduced noise levels would have less of a potential impact on nearby nesting birds. Overall, Alternative 3 would result in less than significant impacts to biological resources and would result in fewer impacts than the proposed program. Environmental Findings OCSD Biosolids Master Plan PEIR 39 ESA / 150626 Environmental Findings May 2018 Preliminary − Subject to Revision 4.3.2.4 Cultural Resources The proposed program has the potential to encounter human remains and archaeological and paleontological resources during ground disturbing activities, however, the program would result in less than significant impacts to cultural resources with mitigation (see Section 3.4 of the Draft PEIR). Under Alternative 3, less excavation and ground disturbance would occur at Plant No. 2; therefore, the potential for encountering human remains, archeological and paleontological resources during construction activities would be reduced. Overall, Alternative 3 would result in potentially significant impacts to historical resources and less than significant impacts to archeological and paleontological resources and human remains, and fewer impacts than the proposed program. 4.3.2.5 Geology, Soils, and Seismicity The proposed program would result in less than significant impacts related to exposure to geologic hazards with mitigation incorporated (see Section 3.5 of the Draft PEIR). Alternative 3 would result in similar impacts regarding earthquakes, unstable geologic locations, and expansive soils as the proposed program. Because Alternative 3 would result in less ground disturbance and excavation overall, the potential for soil erosion or topsoil loss to occur would be reduced. Therefore, Alternative 3 would result in less impacts regarding soil erosion as compared to the proposed program. Overall, Alterative 3 would result in less than significant impacts regarding geology, soils, and seismicity, and would result in fewer impacts overall than the proposed program. 4.3.2.6 Greenhouse Gas Emissions The proposed program would result in a less than significant impacts to greenhouse gases (see Section 3.6 of the Draft PEIR). Alternative 3 would result in lesser amounts of greenhouse gas emissions because less construction truck haul trips would be required. Alternative 3 would result in similar impacts regarding plans, policies, and regulations related to the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. Overall, Alternative 3 would result in less than significant impacts to greenhouse gas emissions and less impacts than the proposed program. 4.3.2.7 Hazards and Hazardous Materials The proposed program would result in a less than significant impact to hazards and hazardous materials with mitigation (see Section 3.7 of the Draft PEIR). The proposed program would result in a potentially significant impact regarding a hazardous materials site listing if the collections yard is relocated to the northern location of Plant No. 1. Under Alternative 3, the collections yard would be relocated to Plant No. 1; therefore, Alternative 3 would result in a similar potential significant impact regarding construction near or on a hazardous materials site. Further, Alternative 3 would result in similar impacts as the proposed program regarding the routine use of hazardous materials, accidental release of hazardous materials, the use of hazardous materials near a school, and confliction with emergency plans. Overall, Alternative 3 would result in less than significant impacts to hazards and hazardous materials and similar impacts than the proposed program. Environmental Findings OCSD Biosolids Master Plan PEIR 40 ESA / 150626 Environmental Findings May 2018 Preliminary − Subject to Revision 4.3.2.8 Hydrology and Water Quality The proposed program would result in less than significant impacts to hydrology and water quality (see Section 3.8 of the Draft PEIR). Under Alternative 3, there would be less acres of disturbed area because the food waste facilities would not be implemented. The potential for sedimentation and erosion to occur due to exposed soil during construction activities would be reduced. Further, because less facilities would be implemented on Plant No. 2, impacts regarding the alteration of stormwater drainage facilities would be reduced. Because Alternative 3 would result in less excavation for food waste facility implementation, the impacts to groundwater levels would be reduced because construction watering during dry and windy conditions for dust and debris control would be minimized and less dewatering would occur overall. This alternative would result in similar impacts regarding water quality standards and waste discharge requirements, and flood and tsunami hazards compared to the proposed program. Overall, Alternative 3 would result in less than significant impacts regarding hydrology and water quality and fewer impacts than the proposed program. 4.3.2.9 Land Use and Planning The proposed program would result in no impact to land use and planning (see Section 3.9 of the Draft PEIR). The proposed program would not conflict with the City of Huntington Beach Local Coastal Program’s policies or regulations. Under Alternative 3, similar development would occur at Plant No. 1 and Plant No. 2 as the proposed program. As such, this alternative would not change existing land uses or have an effect on land use plans and policies related to the program area. Overall, this alternative would result in similar impacts regarding land use as compared to the proposed program. 4.3.2.10 Noise and Vibration The proposed program would result in less than significant impacts regarding noise and vibration (see Section 3.10 of the Draft PEIR). Under the Alternative 3, there would be 10 less days of pile driving required for food waste facility implementation, therefore, vibration levels would be reduced as compared to the proposed program. Further, because less construction noise would take place overall and less construction haul trucks would be required, temporary increases of ambient noise levels within the proposed program area would be reduced. Alternative 3 would result in similar, less than significant impacts regarding noise standards and permanent noise levels as the proposed program. Overall, this alternative would result in less than significant impacts regarding noise and vibration and fewer impacts compared to the proposed program. 4.3.2.11 Transportation and Traffic The proposed program would result in a less than significant impact to traffic and transportation (see Section 3.11 of the Draft PEIR). The amount of biosolids truck trips would be the same for Alternative 3 compared to the proposed program. A decrease of 44 one-way truck trips would occur because the food waste facilities associated with the proposed program would not be implemented at Plant No. 2 under Alternative 3. This decrease of incoming truck trips would lessen traffic in the immediate program area. Overall, this alternative would result in less than significant impacts to traffic and transportation and fewer impacts compared to the proposed program. Environmental Findings OCSD Biosolids Master Plan PEIR 41 ESA / 150626 Environmental Findings May 2018 Preliminary − Subject to Revision 4.3.2.12 Tribal Cultural Resources The proposed program would result in no impact to tribal cultural resources (see Section 3.12 of the Draft PEIR). Under Alternative 3, less ground disturbing activities would occur. Therefore, this alternative would result also in no impacts to tribal cultural resources similar to the proposed program. 4.3.2.13 Utilities, Service Systems, and Energy The proposed program would result in a less than significant impacts to utilities, service systems, and energy (see Section 3.13 of the Draft PEIR). Because less facilities would be implemented on Plant No. 2, impacts regarding the alternation of stormwater drainage facilities would be reduced. Alternative 3 would result in similar impacts to wastewater treatment requirements, water supplies, landfill capacity, and compliance with solid waste regulations. However, because Alternative 3 would not incorporate SSO (food waste), digestion would result in less biogas being generated. Biogas can be sent to the CenGen facility to be converted to energy. Alternative 3 would result in a reduction of biogas and potentially greater impact to energy as compared to the proposed program. Overall, this alternative would result in less than significant impacts to utilities and service systems and fewer impacts than the proposed program and this alternative would result in less than significant impacts regarding energy, but greater impacts compared to the proposed program. 4.3.3 Findings for Alternative 3: Proposed Program Without Food Waste Facilities Alternative 3 would reduce but not eliminate potential significant impacts of the proposed program. By not implementing all individual projects within the proposed program, there would be a reduction in the total amount of construction; therefore, impacts to air quality, cultural resources, and other environmental resources would be proportionately reduced. However, the inclusion of food waste facilities significantly increases the amount of renewable energy that can be used for Plant No. 2 facilities. Alternative 3 would not generate as much biogas as the proposed program and therefore could result in a potentially greater impact on energy. Alternative 3 would meet three of the four proposed program objectives; however, it would not meet the objective of receiving pre-processed food waste for co-digestion to assist in diverting organics from landfills and to increase digester gas production used as a renewable energy. 4.4 Environmentally Superior Alternative CEQA requires that an EIR identify an environmentally superior alternative of a project other than the No Project Alternative (CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(e)(2)). Table 5-3 of the Draft PEIR shows an impact determination comparison for potentially significant impacts of the proposed program to all the proposed program alternatives. The following is a summary of the impacts associated with each proposed program alternative compared to the proposed program. Based on the comparative analysis provided in Section 4.3 above, Alternative 2 (Baseline, Mesophilic Digestion, Class B Alternative), would result in less significant environmental effects compared to the proposed project and other alternatives. Alternative 2 would lessen the proposed program’s environmental impacts in areas such as aesthetics, air quality, biological resources, Environmental Findings OCSD Biosolids Master Plan PEIR 42 ESA / 150626 Environmental Findings May 2018 Preliminary − Subject to Revision cultural resources, geology, soils and seismicity, greenhouse gas emissions, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, noise and vibration, traffic and transportation, tribal cultural resources, and utilities and service systems. Alternative 2 would be the environmentally superior alternative. This alternative would meet three of the four proposed program objectives, but it would not meet the objective of transitioning from Class B to Class A biosolids quality at Plant No. 2, and would not be able to increase biosolids management diversity for end users of biosolids. Because a primary objective of the program is to provide Class A biosolids quality, this alternative has been rejected.