The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About98.11-16-2016 Board Item 23 Attachment - Final Initial Study-Mitigated Negative Declaration.pdf Orange County Water District Water Production Enhancement Project Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Mitigation Monitoring Program State Clearinghouse No. 20160811067 Prepared By Orange County Water District 18700 Ward Street Fountain Valley, CA 92708 Contact: Daniel Bott U October 2016 SINCE 1933 Table of Contents SECTION PAGE SECTION 1.0 INTRODUCTION................................................................................ill SECTION 2.0 PROEECT DESCRIPTION.................................................................211 SECTION 3.0 DEVELOPMENT OF MITIGATION MONITORING REPORTING PROGRAM........................................................................................311 SECTION 4.0 REQUIREMENT TO APPROVE AND IMPLEMENT MITIGATION MONITORING PLAN.........................................................................411 TABLE Table 1: Water Production Enhancement Project Mitigation Monitoring Program........4C2 OCWD Water Production Enhancement Project %L;J Final ISMND Mitigation Monitoring Program i Section 1 SECTION 1.0 INTRODUCTION The following is a Mitigation Monitoring Report Program 1MMPDfor the Orange County Water District Water Production Enhancement Project Final Initial Study/Mitigated NegatiDa Declaration mS/MNDOprepared pursuant to Section 15097 of the CEQA Guidelines and Section 21081.6 of the Public Resources Code. This MMP lists all applicable mitigation measures from the Draft IS/MND for the Orange County Water District Water Production Enhancement Project IS/MND. The appropriate timing of implementation and responsible party are identified to ensure proper enforcement of the mitigation measures from the Draft IS/MND. 4_'^ OCWD Water Production Enhancement Project Final ISMND Mitigation Monitoring Program 1-1 Section 2 SECTION 2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION Proposed Project The proposed project inEbILes the construction and operation of a flow e0ualiEPtion tank and pump station on the Orange County Sanitation District Plant No. 2 wastewater treatment facility site. The secondary effluent from the flow eDualioation tank would proElde an additional 6,000 acrelfeet per year of secondary effluent for treatment at the Orange County Water District Groundwater Replenishment System [GWRS0adLanced recycled water treatment facility, increasing the GWRS total full build out treatment capacity to 134,000 acre feet per year. Project Purpose The OCWD Water Production Enhancement Project consists of a secondary effluent flow ellialiCation tank proposed at OCSD® Plant No. 2 in order to receiCe maximum water production at the OCWD GWRS water treatment facility. OCSD® Plant No. 2 is a wastewater treatment facility which has Earying influent land effluentDflows of secondary effluent. During the day, wastewater flows into OCSD® Plant No. 2 can peak aboEle 140 million gallons per day [MGDD These peak flows cannot be pumped to the GWRS facility due to the limits of the conD;yance facilities, i.e. effluent pump station and pipeline; that deliCer the secondary effluent to GWRS. Therefore, a secondary effluent flow eELaliEstion tank has been proposed at OCSDEs Plant No. 2 Site to capture these peak flows during the day and store them in the 6Emillion gallon tank until nighttime. During low flows at night, the flow eDualiDation tank would drain into the effluent pump station to supplement the low secondary effluent inflows and allow the GWRS to treat these peak flows which would haEB otherwise been discharged to the ocean. The Water Production Enhancement Project in[bl as three construction actidties: 10construction of flow e0uali0ation tank, 20construction of a pump station, and 3Dconstruction of conCeyance piping and flow meter moult. Project Location The OCSD Plant No. 2 Site is located at 22212 Brookhurst Street within the City of Huntington Beach. OCSD Plant No. 2 site is composed of 110 acres, and is deCeloped with wastewater treatment structures, offices, and paced parking areas and roadways. The site is bounded by Hamilton AElonue to the north, Brookhurst Street to the west, Talbert Marsh and Talbert Marsh Bike Trail to the south and the Santa Ana RIEer and the Santa Ana RiE,er Trail to the east. Primary regional access to Plant No. 2 would from Interstate 405 from the Brookhurst Street exit. Primary local access would be from Brookhurst Street and Pacific Coast Highway. ° OCWD Water Production Enhancement Project Final ISMND Mitigation Monitoring Program 2-1 Section 3 SECTION 3.0 DEVELOPMENT OF MITIGATION MONITORING REPORTING PROGRAM The basic elements of the Mitigation Monitoring Program are the mitigation measures identified by each impact category addressed in the Draft IS/MND. The deEblopment of the program was based on the following procedures necessary to initiate and complete the monitoring process. • Identification of the key periods and eCents in the project implementation schedule. • Identification of the key personnel and agencies responsible for endronmental monitoring. • Monitoring of the implementation of the mitigation measures and documentation that the measures hale been properly and thoroughly implemented. • DeCelopment of the written document on the implementation of all the mitigation measures, identification of any areas of non[Eompliance, and proposed actidties to bring the project into compliance with the mitigation monitoring and reporting program. OCWD Water Production Enhancement Project Final ISMND Mitigation Monitoring Program 3-1 Section 4 SECTION 4.0 REQUIREMENT TO APPROVE AND IMPLEMENT MITIGATION MONITORING PLAN The OCWD has the authority to re uire and enforce the prodsions of California Resource Code Section 21081.6. The OCWD will be responsible for approing the Mitigation Monitoring Program and for preparing the written report documenting the implementation of project mitigation measures. Table 1 summariUas the mitigation measures that haCe been adopted for the Project, specifies the timing for implementation of each measure and identifies the responsible parties for ensuring implementation and the satisfactory completion of each measure. The procedures for implementing the Mitigation Monitoring Program are: Monitoring Procedures 1. An En ironmental Monitor, appointed by OCWD, will be responsible for coordinating redew of project plans and actidties, the construction site, and/or operations to ensure that the mitigation measures are properly and thoroughly implemented through the course of the project. 2. Written documentation that each mitigation measure in Table 1 has been implemented will be prepared. This documentation can be on an OCWD mitigation monitoring checklist or a similar form that clearly indicates the timing or schedule for implementation, whether the measure has, in fact, been implemented, or in the case of measures that are ongoing, that a process has been de-eloped to ensure continued implementation of the measure. Reporting Procedures 1. The Endronmental Monitor appointed by OCWD on this project will be responsible for periodically redewing the program in Table 1 with the OCWD Endronmental Compliance Addsor. 2. The Endronmental Monitor will prepare a written report for the OCWD documenting the completion of the implementation of all the mitigation measures. For those measures not implemented or for actidties that do not fully comply with mitigation measures included in Table 1, an explanation of the areas of noncompliance will be prepared, including a proposal to bring those elements of the project into compliance with the Mitigation Monitoring Program. ° OCWD Water Production Enhancement Project QJ Final ISMND Mitigation Monitoring Program 4-1 Section 4 Table 1: Water Production Enhancement Project Mitigation Monitoring Program Mitigation Measure Responsible for Monitoring Verification Implementation Aesthetics A-1: All onsite lighting shall be directed OCWD During away from adjacent residential, business Construction uses and away from the Santa Ana Ri[Br rightlbf[way. A-2: During operation of the project the OCWD During onsite lighting creates a light or glare issues Operation for sensitilb receptor properties, OCWD will implement correctilb measures to resol Ce the issue. Such corrective measures may include prodding additional shielding on light fixtures, relocating lighting fixtures and reducing the intensity of lighting. Cultural Resources CR-1: Prior to earth mo ing actidties, a OCWD During DAalifed archaeologist meeting the Construction Secretary of the Interiors Professional Qualifications Standards for archaeology [U.S. Department of the Interior, 2008avill conduct cultural resources sensitidly training for all construction personnel. Construction personnel shall be informed of the types of cultural resources that may be encountered, and of the proper procedures to be enacted in the scent of an inadvertent discovery of archaeological resources or human remains. OCWD will ensure that construction personnel are made available for and attend the training and retain documentation demonstrating attendance. CR-2: Prior to the start of any ground OCWD During disturbing acti 7ties, OCWD will retain an Construction archaeological monitor to observe all ground[disturbing actilties.Archaeological monitoring will be conducted by a monitor familiar with the types of archaeological resources that could be encountered and shall work under the direct super Ision of the ualified archaeologist. Monitoring may be reduced or discontinued by the ualified archaeologist, in coordination with OCWD, based on obserlations of subsurface soil stratigraphy and/or the presence of older Co horl Con deposits.The monitor will be empowered to halt or redirect ground) disturbing act!dties away from the ❑cinity of a discovery until the Dialifed archaeologist has elaluated the discolary and OCWD Water Production Enhancement Project Final ISMND Mitigation Monitoring Program 4-2 Section 4 determined appropriate treatment. The monitor will keep daily logs detailing the types of acti0ties and soils obser[Bd, and any discolbries.After monitoring has been completed, the Dualified archaeologist shall prepare a monitoring report that details the results of monitoring.The report shall be submitted to OCWD, SCCIC,and any Natilb American groups who reDuest a copy. CR-3: In the event of the discolary of OCWD During archaeological materials, OCWD or its Construction contractor shall immediately cease all work actidties in the area within approximately 100 feet0of the discovery until it can be elaluated by the dalified archaeologist. Prehistoric archaeological materials might include obsidian and chart flakedr3tone tools ®.g., projectile points, knives, scrapersoor toolmaking debris; culturally darkened soil ®nidden®containing healo affected rocks, artifacts, or shellfish remains; and stone milling e3,ipment [e.g., mortars, pestles, handstones,or milling slabsq and battered stone tools, such as hammerstones and pitted stones. Historic7l period materials might include stone or concrete footings and walls; filled wells or prides; and deposits of metal,glass, and/or ceramic refuse. Construction shall not resume until the Elualifed archaeologist has conferred with OCWD on the significance of the resource. SWRCB shall be afforded the opportunity to determine whether the disco, ery reyires addressing under Section 106 PostTtedew Discoveries prodsions prodded in 36 CFR 800.13. If it is determined that the discolbred archaeological resource constitutes a historic property under Section 106 of the NHPA or a historical resource under CEOA, avoidance and preser:13tion in place shall be the preferred manner of mitigation. Preser ation in place maintains the important relationship between artifacts and their archaeological context and also serves to a oid conflict with traditional and religious values of groups who may ascribe meaning to the resource. Preservation in place may be accomplished by, but is not limited to, avaidance, incorporating the resource into open space, capping, or deeding the site into a permanent conserEation easement. In the event that preserEation in place is OCWD Water Production Enhancement Project Final ISMND Mitigation Monitoring Program 4-3 Section 4 demonstrated to be infeasible and data recoCery through ezcalbtion is the only feasible mitigation albilable, an Archaeological Resources Treatment Plan that proddes for the adelliate recolbry of the scientifically conseCuential information contained in the archaeological resource shall be prepared and implemented by the Ilualifed archaeologist in consultation with OCWD. The appropriate Nat!Ce American representati as shall be consulted in detemrining treatment for prehistoric or Nance American resources to ensure cultural values ascribed to the resource, beyond that which is scientifically important, are considered. CR-4: Prior to issuance of a grading permit OCWD During and prior to start of any ground[disturbing Construction act!dties, OCWD will retain a Natilb American monitor to obseria all ground disturbing act!dties. The monitor shall be obtained from a Tribe that is traditionally and culturally affiliated with the area, according the NAHC list. The monitor shall be empowered to halt or redirect ground disturbing acti Dties away from the Gcinity of a discolbry until the dalifed archaeologist has eLaluated the discoLary and determined appropriate treatment. Monitoring may be reduced or discontinued, in coordination with OCWD and the Ilualifed archaeologist, based on obserCations of subsurface soil stratigraphy and/or the presence of older CQioriCon deposits. CR-5: Prior to the start of any ground OCWD During disturbing actidties, OCWD shall retain a Construction Dialifed paleontologist meeting the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology SVP❑ Standards ESVP, 2010C The dallfied paleontologist shall contribute to any construction worker cultural resources sensitiDty training either in person or ❑a a training module proDded to the ❑lalified archaeologist.The training session shall focus on the recognition of the types of paleontological resources that could be encountered within the project site and the procedures to be followed if they are found. The dalified paleontologist shall also conduct periodic spot checks in order to ascertain when older deposits are encountered and where monitoring shall be reDjired. OCWD Water Production Enhancement Project Final ISMND Mitigation Monitoring Program 4-4 Section 4 CR-6: Prior to the start of any ground OCWD During disturbing act!Ities, OCWD shall retain a Construction paleontological monitor to obserJa all ground disturbing act! !ties within older Quaternary deposits. Paleontological resources monitoring shall be performed by a Dualified paleontological monitor, or cross❑ trained archaeological/paleontological monitor, under the direction of the ❑lalifed paleontologist.The monitor shall halls the authority to temporarily halt or client work away from exposed fossils in order to reco[Br the fossil specimens. Monitoring may be reduced or discontinued by the Dualified paleontologist, in coordination with OCWD, based on obserlbtions of subsurface soil stratigraphy and/or other factors and if the Dualified paleontologist determines that the possibility of encountering fossiliferous deposits is low. The monitor shall prepare daily logs detailing the types of act!Aties and soils obserCed, and any disco Caries.The Dualified paleontologist shall prepare a final monitoring a report to be submitted to OCWD and fled with the local repository. Any recoCered significant fossils shall be curated at an accredited facility with retrielable storage. CR-7: If construction or other project OCWD During personnel discolar any potential fossils Construction during construction, regardless of the depth or presence of a monitor,work in the ❑cinity [within 100 feet0of the find shall cease until the Dualified paleontologist has assessed the discolary and made recommendations as to the appropriate treatment. Geology/Soils GEO-1: The OCWD will ensure that all OCWD Design and structures for the proposed project are Construction designed and constructed in compliance with current engineering practices, including the California Uniform Building Code and all applicable seismic engineering guidelines. GEO.2: Prior to the start of construction OCWD Prior to OCWD shall file a Notice of Intent INC IO Construction with the State Water Resources Control Board and prepare and implement Storm Water Pollution Pre ention Plan to minim!]: potential erosion impacts. GEO.3:The OCWD will ensure that all OCWD Design and structures for the proposed project are Construction OCWD Water Production Enhancement Project Final ISMND Mitigation Monitoring Program 4-5 Section 4 designed and constructed in compliance with building site specific geotechnical studies and the California Uniform Building Code. Hazards HZ-1: Any use of halardous materials OCWD Construction inmlLad with the proposed project must be and Operation conducted in accordance with applicable federal, state and local regulations. HydrologyfNater Quality HWQ-1: OCWD will coordinate with OCSD OCWD During Design on the capacity of existing drainage OCSD systems to race![])surface water runoff generated from the proposed project and would participate in any drainage improvements reDtired accommodate the surface water runoff flows. Land Use LU-1: OCWD will prodde residents and OCWD Prior to business owners with notifications of Construction upcoming construction act!i ties. LU-2: Prior to construction of the Flow OCWD Prior to E uali ation Tank OCWD will obtain Construction appro al of Coastal Development Permit from the City of Huntington Beach. Traffic/Transportation T-1: OCWD will be responsible for OCWD Prior to preparing adeDiate detour and access Construction plans to ensure the safe movement of 11ahicles and pedestrians during the construction period. Utility/service Systems U-1: OCWD will in.Estigate all alailable OCWD During altematilbs, and then select the best Construction method of solid waste disposal and reduction of solid waste stream as reDlired in the California Integrated Waste Management Act prior to the start of construction. ° OCWD Water Production Enhancement Project Final ISMND Mitigation Monitoring Program 4-6 1 Orange County Water District FILED 18700 Ward Street OC1 2 0 2016 Fountaintwin Valley, CA 92708 (714) 378-3200 ORANGE COUNTY CLERK-RECORDER DEPARTMEm _ _ NOTICE OF DETERMINATION BY DEPUTY TO: Office of Planning and Research FROM: Orange County Water District 1400 Tenth Street, Room 121 18700 Ward Street Sacramento,CA 95814 Fountain Valley, CA 92708 Orange County Clerk Recorder P.O. Box 238 Santa Ana,CA 92702-0238 Subject: Filing of Notice of Determination in compliance with Section 21108 or 21152 of the Public Resources Code Project Title:Water Production Enhancement Project Applicant:Orange County Water District, 18700 Ward Street, Fountain Valley,CA 92708 State Clearinghouse Number: SCH 2O16081067 Lead Agency Contact Person: Dan Boh i "" � � Area Code/Telephone Number: (714)37d�3256 Project Location 22212 Brookhurst Street City of Huntington Beach Orange County Project Description: Construction and operation of a 6 million gallon flow equalization tank, pump station and associated plpmg. This is to advise that the OrenrlP County Water District(Lead Agency) Irns approved tlh_ nl ova described project on October u.Lo1b r ul ns made the following determination e.g i d,r-J the nb.ve. 1 r.nld,ed ( project: X The project will nel nave a sgn rficant effect on the environment. ❑ An Fevlronmcnlnl Impart I&po,I was prepared torthis project pu,v,mnl to the p,ovislons of I LI 0A X A MltIlj to I Nogalry Dods,: IlotI w 1 1 =p.u,ed to 1 II I Is [),oleo pu,suenf to the provisions of CEQA. X Mitigation ,ucasucs wem m.,de a ,amdiroe of the opp,oval lo. Ihis pm]"L ❑ A Statonu:nt of Uve m. ,o, ConRdc,t,fioit was adopted for this project ❑ Finding,were nc,de pwsuant to the provisions of CEQA. This r.to aedily Ihot the I e it Mitigated Negative L ecla,etion with comments and responses and record of project approval is available to t blic at the Orange County Water District 18700 Ward Street, Fountain Valley CA 92708. V� Signature Date Title County Clerk: Please post for 30 days in accordance with Section 21152(c)of the California EP Ym r, T E D Quality Act. Recorded In Official Records, orange couunty Hiii�iiiiiiiliiiiiiiiiiiiiiuii Clerk-Recorder iaiiiiiiii1iiiiiiiiii'IVIII III IIIIIIIII2210,25 OCT 20 2015 A $ R 0 0 0 8 7 8 1 6 1 9 $ ;+ LOCH NGUYEN.CLERK RECORDER 201685001134 8:12 am 10/20/16 266 304 203 eY, DEPOT'' n nn n nn in nn In on 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Y t,cl Cel!' -JaGuvl H :es Agency CAI IFORNIA DEPARTMENT OFFISH AND WILDLIFE 2015 ENVIRONMENTAL FILING FEE CASH RECEIPT nl�l a f , ;OIG nn+ SEE INSTRUCTIONS ON REVERSE. TYPE OR PRINTOLCARI Y `,CI J011iCII 11G I I AtIA d NCv I1N1 ORAN41 I OI JN FY WA I I It 111`,I RICT 10 I�PIJ 16 - ,LN I, ' 411 AVENGV OFF WNG I LIMI GI NIIN'Ill Oran' ]II:HSOU 1114 t21lII CI II11 F - WATF R PR(IDUf.TION F NI IANCFMFNT PROJFCT P1111 t l AIrI u.Aru NAMI I-In rtJl NUMBER DANDOTI ORAW I CtHINIY WAIL P DISTRICT ( 114 ) 378-3258 PIaxII r I N•I•I I .ANI A(jnla CITY ISTATE nPI..,III 18700 WARD 4,Hkl I I FOUNTAIN VALLEY CA ),708 PR0 iAPPUCANI It PuvA arym,pnaL'nov Laval Public Ayer y _ ❑',�ii -ti,istact O Other Special District 13Stia Arn i,, �E P6vate Entity CHECK APPLICABLE FEES: ❑EnNronmectal Ilnpael Revue li n!1 $3,070.00 $ 0.00 0 Mioy;n L'I It— nw.['l, a il"ll tmi))INi, $2.210.25 $ 2,210,26 ❑A,t, iennl „ W:ill vI j r i r I er Adler R2SOIIICES Control BOaYD only) $850.00 $ ODD ❑ t t I .,nbin:I I. t I L:.I,me I (CRP) $1,04375 $ 0.00 ❑o, ey Aen,unzlnaiv, l a $50.00 $ 0.00 ❑ 1I ,.nqm..,,Lu.nnl ❑CI,I 1N Nn I1¢,:I na all ulion, 11 10 ❑Ot er $ PAYMENT METHOD: ❑cast, ❑flea Dll— ❑DtHer TOTAL RECEIVED $ 2,210.26 SIGNATURE PRINTED NAME AND TITLE X U Lr¢ C�e,yl DULCE CUEVAS,DEPUTY CLERK ORIGINAL-PROJECT AWLICAW COPY.CDFWIA59 COPY.LEAD AGENCY COPY.COUNTY CLERK DIG 751.11111, Orange County Water District Water Production Enhancement Project Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration & CEQA-Plus Federal Consultation Review Prepared By Orange County Water District 18700 Ward Street Fountain Valley, CA 92708 Contact: Daniel Bott U N .SINCE 1933 October 2016 Table of Contents Section Page SECTION 1.0 INTRODUCTION................................................................................................1-1 1.1 Purpose of Endronmental Redew.............................................................................111 1.2 Statutory Authority and Relluirements.......................................................................111 1.3 Technical Information and Studies ............................................................................1 12 SECTION 2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION.................................................................................2-1 2.1 Background................................................................................................................211 2.2 Study Area.................................................................................................................211 2.3 Proposed Project Actidties........................................................................................211 2.4 Proposed Project.......................................................................................................212 2.5 Construction Phasing Plan ........................................................................................215 2.6 Construction Ellipment ............................................................................................2[8 2.6 Permits and Appromis...............................................................................................217 SECTION 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST EVALUATIONS............................................3-1 SECTION 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS.........................................................................4-1 4.1 Aesthetics..................................................................................................................411 4.2 Agricultural Resources/Forest Resources...............................................................4[15 4.3 Air Quality................................................................................................................4E16 4.4 Biological Resources...............................................................................................4[29 4.5 Cultural Resources..................................................................................................4137 4.6 Geology/Soils...........................................................................................................4156 4.7 Greenhouse Gas Emissions....................................................................................4160 4.8 HaCards/Hallardous Materials .................................................................................418 4.9 Hydrology/Water Quality..........................................................................................4171 4.10 Land Use/Planning ..................................................................................................4EB2 4.11 Mineral Resources...................................................................................................4[B4 4.12 Noise........................................................................................................................41844 4.13 Population/Housing..................................................................................................4197 4.14 Public Serl7ces........................................................................................................4197 4.15 Recreation ...............................................................................................................4198 Orange County Water District Water Production Enhancement Project Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration&CEQA.Plus Federal Consultation Review i Table of Contents 4.16 Transportation/Traffic...............................................................................................4199 4.17 Utilities/SerdceSystems .......................................................................................41103 SECTION 5.0 CEQA-Plus Federal Consultation Review......................................................5-1 5.1 Purpose .....................................................................................................................511 5.2 Federal Endangered Species Act ESAQ Section 7 ..................................................511 5.3 Magnuson Sterns Fishery Censer ation and Management Act, Essential Fish Habitat: ......................................................................................................................515 5.4 National Historic Preserlation Act, Section 106........................................................515 5.5 Federal Clean Air.....................................................................................................5111 5.6 Coastal Zone Management Act...............................................................................5113 5.7 Coastal Barriers Resources Act...............................................................................5114 5.8 Farmland Protection Policy Act................................................................................5114 5.9 Flood Plain Management.........................................................................................5E14 5.10 Migratory Bird Treaty Act.........................................................................................5115 5.11 Protection of Wetlands.............................................................................................5115 5.12 Wild and Scenic Ri-ers Act......................................................................................5116 5.13 Safe Drinking Water Act, Sole Source AD fifer Protection .......................................5116 5.14 Endronmental 11istice..............................................................................................5116 SECTION 6.0 REFERENCES...................................................................................................6-1 Figure Figure 1: Regional Location Map...............................................................................................213 Figure 2: OCSD Plant 2 Wastewater Treatment Site.................................................................214 Figure 3: Study Area OExisting Views........................................................................................412 Figure 4: Study Area Views OSanta Ana Rilar Trail..................................................................413 Figure 5: Study Area Views OSanta Ana Ri Cer Trail..................................................................414 Figure 6: Study Area Views OPCH O Talbert Marsh..................................................................416 Figure 7: Study Area Views OTalbert Park.................................................................................417 Figure 8: Project Viewsheds OSanta Ana Ri Cer Trail.................................................................419 Figure 9:Project Viewsheds Talbert Park.................................................................................401 Figure 10: Project Viewsheds EPacific Coast Highway...........................................................4C12 Figure 11: Project Viewsheds OBrookhurst St. .......................................................................4113 Figure 12: Area of Potential Effects.........................................................................................4147 Figure 13: FEMA Flood Ha1Brd Areas OOCSD Plant 2 Wastewater Treatment Site...............4EB1 Orange County Water District Water Production Enhancement Project l✓ Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration&CEQA-Plus Federal Consultation Review it Table of Contents Table Table 1: Flow EQ Tank, Pump Station, 0 Pipeline/Meter Vault Construction............................216 Table 2: Flow EQ Tank, Pump Station, and Pipeline/Meter Vault Worker 0 Daily Trip Summary.........216 Table 3: Study Area Air Quality Data Summary EE20121201411.................................................4117 Table 4: South Coast Air Basin Attainment Status ..................................................................4E19 Table 5: SCAQMD Regional Air Quality Significance Thresholds...........................................4123 Table 6: SCAQMD LocaliDad Significance Thresholds............................................................4E24 Table 7: Proposed Regional Construction Emissions..............................................................4125 Table 8: Operation Emissions..................................................................................................4126 Table 9: LocaliDad Daily Construction Emissions....................................................................4E28 Table 10: Special Status Plant Species...................................................................................4131 Table 11: Special Status Wildlife Species................................................................................4C33 Table 12: Estimated Total Construction Related GHG Emissions...........................................4166 Table 13: Estimated Construction and Operational Related GHG Emissions. ........................4166 Table 14: Beneficial Uses........................................................................................................4174 Table 15: Beneficial Uses Santa Ana Rimer/Orange County Groundwater Basin....................4175 Table 16: Water Quality Objecti as mg/1-11.............................................................................4176 Table 17: Noise Le-als and Human Response........................................................................4186 Table 18: City of Huntington Beach Exterior Noise Standards ................................................4187 Table 19: City of Huntington Beach Interior Noise Standards .................................................41B7 Table 20: Existing Ambient Noise LeCels.................................................................................4189 Table 21: Construction EDtipment Noise IeCels......................................................................4191 Table 22: Estimated Construction Noise Le Gels [dBa0............................................................4191 Table 23: Caltrans Vibration Damage Potential Threshold Criteria.........................................4194 Table 24: Caltrans Vibration Annoyance Potential Criteria Maximum PPV.............................4194 Table 25: Peak Particle Velocity IPPVGof Vibration Impacts...................................................4195 Table 26: Decibel Notation SVDBOLelels of Vibration Impacts................................................4195 Table 27: Groundbome Vibration leCels at Offsite Sensiti Ce uses Compared to Caltrans and FTA Vibration Damage potential threshold..............................................................4196 Table 28: Project Construction Traffic Trips...........................................................................4d00 Table 29: Capacity Orange County Landfills .........................................................................4E104 Table 30: Federal Listed Plant Species.....................................................................................SIB Table 31: Federal Listed Wildlife Species..................................................................................513 Table 32: De Mimimis Le Cels...................................................................................................5112 Table 33: SIP Conformity Elaluation.......................................................................................503 6 Orange County Water District Water Production Enhancement Project �✓° Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration$CEQA-Plus Federal Consultation Review III Table of Contents Appendices Appendix A: OCWD Water Production Enhancement Project []Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Technical Report fly 2016 Appendix B: OCWD Water Production Enhancement Project []Biological Assessment August 2016 Appendix C: Groundwater Replenishment System Final Expansion Project and Water Production Enhancement Project 0 Phase I Cultural Resources Study August 2016 Appendix D: OCWD Water Production Enhancement Project 0 Noise and Vibration Technical Report August 2016 e Orange County Water District Water Production Enhancement Project Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration$CEQA-Plus Federal Consultation Review iv Section 1 SECTION 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Purpose of Environmental Review The California Envronmental Quality Act [CEQADreojires that all state and local goEarnment agencies consider the endronmental conseouences of projects o[Br which they ham discretionary authority before taking action on those projects. This Initial Study has been prepared to disclose and eDaluate short®erm construction related impacts and longterm operational impacts associated with the implementation of the Orange County Water District Water Production Enhancement Project. Pursuant to Section 15367 of the State CEQA guidelines, the Orange County Water District [OCWDdis the Lead Agency and has the principal responsibility for appro ing and implementing the proposed Water Production Enhancement Project. As the Lead Agency, OCWD is reDuired to ensure that the project complies with CEQA and that the appropriate leD3l of CEQA documentation is prepared. Through preparation of an Initial Study as the Lead Agency, OCWD would determine whether to prepare an Envronmental Impact Report 1EIRQ Negati[13 Declaration or Mitigated Negati[D Declaration IIMNDDfor the project. If the Lead Agency finds that there is no eddence that the project, either has proposed or as modified to include mitigation measures identified in the Initial Study prior to its public circulation, would not Cause a significant effect on the endronment, the Lead Agency shall prepare a NegatiEb Declaration or Mitigated Negati[B Declaration for the project. Section 15382 of CEQA Guidelines defines a [significant effect on the endronmentDas a substantial, or potentially substantial adDarse change in any of the physical conditions within the area affected by the project including land, air water, mineral, flora, fauna, ambient noise, aesthetic endronment and objects of cultural significance. Based on the conclusions of this Initial Study, OCWD has determined that the appropriate IeCel of endronmental documentation for the Water Production Enhancement Project is a Mitigated NegatiCe Declaration. 1.2 Statutory Authority and Requirements This Initial Study/Mitigated Negati113 Declaration has been prepared in accordance with the CEQA, Public Resources Code Section 21000 at Se¢, State CEQA Guidelines, and the OCWD CEQA Envronmental Procedures. The endronmental analysis for the proposed project is based on OCWD Envronmental Checklist Form. The Checklist Form is consistent with Initial Study renlirements prodded in Section 15063 of the State CEQA Guidelines. (D� Orange County Water District Water Production Enhancement Project Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration&CEQA-Plus Federal Consultation Review 1-1 Section 1 1.3 Technical Information and Studies The following Technical Studies ha a been and incorporated into the Orange County Water District Water Production Enhancement Project Initial Study eCaluation. • Appendix A: OCWD Water Production Enhancement Project []Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Technical Report Culy 2016 • Appendix B: OCWD Water Production Enhancement Project DBiological Assessment August 2016 • Appendix C: Groundwater Replenishment System Final Expansion Project and Water Production Enhancement Project 0 Phase I Cultural Resources Study August 2016 • Appendix D: OCWD Water Production Enhancement Project 0 Noise and Vibration Technical Report August 2016 (D� Orange County Water District Water Production Enhancement Project Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration&CEQA-Plus Federal Consultation Review 1-2 Section 2 SECTION 2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 2.1 Background The Groundwater Replenishment System IGWRSDis an adilanced water treatment facility constructed by the Orange County Water District 1OCWD13and the Orange County Sanitation District [OCSDothat takes secondary treated wastewater and through adllancement treatment treats the water to exceed drinking water standards. The GWRS supplements local water supplies by prodding reliable, high Duality source of treated water to recharge the Orange County Groundwater Basin and to protect the Orange County Groundwater Basin from seawater intrusion. The final build1but of the GWRS would produce approximately 128,000 acre feet of new water supplies per year. To increase the amount wastewater flows generated from OCSD to the GWRS, OCWD has proposed a Water Production Enhancement Project that inColCes the construction and operation of an abole ground flow entalilation storage tank and associated pump station at OCSD Plant No. 2 wastewater treatment facility site. With the operation of the flow elluali[lation tank, the GWRS would produce approximately 6,000 acre feet of new water supplies per year to replenish the Orange County Groundwater Basin. With the Water Production Enhancement Project the GWRS total full build[but treatment capacity would be increased to 134,000 acre feet per year. 2.2 Study Area The OCSD Plant No. 2 Site is located at 22212 Brookhurst Street within the City of Huntington Beach. OCSD Plant No. 2 site is composed of 110 acres, and is de[Bloped with wastewater treatment structures, offices, and paled parking areas and roadways. As shown in Figure 1, the site is bounded by Hamilton ACenue to the north, Brookhurst Street to the west, Talbert Marsh and Talbert Marsh Bike Trail to the south and the Santa Ana Ricer and the Santa Ana Ricer Trail to the east. Primary regional access to Plant No. 2 would from Interstate 405 from the Brookhurst Street exit. Primary local access would be from Brookhurst Street and Pacific Coast Highway. 2.3 Proposed Project Activities The OCWD Water Production Enhancement Project consists of a secondary effluent flow elualiriation tank proposed at OCSD® Plant No. 2 in order to recei[e maximum water production at the OCWD GWRS water treatment facility. OCSD® Plant No. 2 is a wastewater treatment facility which has larying influent land effluentoflows of secondary effluent. During the day, wastewater flows into OCSD® Plant No. 2 can peak abo[la 140 million gallons per day 1MGD11 These peak flows cannot be pumped to the GWRS facility due to the limits of the conilayance facilities, i.e. effluent pump station and pipeline; that dell[er the secondary effluent to GWRS. Therefore, a secondary effluent flow eouali[lation tank has been proposed at OCSD[s Plant No. 2 Site to capture t� Orange County Water District Water Production Enhancement Project V Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration&CEQA-Plus Federal Consultation Review 2-1 Section 3 these peak flows during the day and store them in the 61tlnnillion gallon tank until nighttime. During low flows at night, the flow eilualiDAon tank would drain into the effluent pump station to supplement the low secondary effluent inflows and allow the GWRS to treat these peak flows which would haElS otherwise been discharged to the ocean. This secondary effluent flow eDualiDation tank would be expected to deliEBr an additional 6,000 acrettleet of secondary effluent for treatment at the GWRS facility. 2.4 Proposed Project The Water Production Enhancement Project inCOlCes three construction actidties: 1❑ construction of flow eDJaliCation tank, 2Dconstruction of a pump station, and 311 construction of conCeyance piping and flow meter moult. The improCements proposed in the Water Production Enhancement Project are shown in Figure 2. A 6Emillion gallon [MGDflow eoualil ation tank would be constructed at the north end of OCSD Plant No. 2 Site. The 61MG tank would be a circular welded steel tank approximately 200111eeet in diameter and 301teet tall from existing grade. The flow e0ualiDstion tank would haCe a 4Lpump CB duty ❑ 1 standby0pump deepq approximately 5000inear feet of 36tl1nch diameter connection piping with a meter Exult d51t x 202 x 10mt deepDconnected to the operations of the tank. The pump station would be housed in a 301tt x 401 t x 203t block wall building. The site preparation work for the flow emaliDation tank, pump station, and pipeline/Exult would inEDIEB excaoating and hauling approximately 1000 cubic yards ECYDof soil. In addition to dirt remoElaI, an existing concrete parking lot would need to be demolished for the tank pad. For this dirt excaDation work, four dump trucks would be doing fiEB round trips each of-er a period of 4 days to haul the dirt off site. For the demo work, four dump trucks would be doing three round trips each oDar a period of 14 days to haul the concrete/asphalt off site. The flow eELaliCation tank would be constructed on concrete piles. Approximately 30❑ piles would be reDiired for supporting the emaliDStion tank. To construct the pilings, 12❑ inch diameter holes would be drilled into the ground with an auger drill rig. Approximately 40 CY of dirt from pile drilling actidty would be remoEEd. Once the pile drilling is completed, the rebar support cages for the piles would be installed into the drilled holes with a crane. Approximately 40 CY of concrete would be filled into the holes with the rebar and cured. The piles would be supporting a Moot thick concrete pad matching the diameter of the tank. This equates to 2,330 CY of concrete for the tank pad. The pump station and meter moult would also reD,aire approximately 100 CY of concrete to construct these structural facilities. ? Orange County Water District Water Production Enhancement Project Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration&CEQA-Plus Federal Consultation Review 2-2 p 5 NF WER AUE � E IS AVE j lo. � - k o11 � ...-kM�� ... ♦k � fy, � SO'y TH_COA�ST DR: ARF1E DAVE OCSD .. � WRS Faclhty .� � ty _ OR TOWN AVEt ' � g+�s �� ODOR ` SBA ER,ST o tl; t m_ CAMS AGUE.'_ ' OCSD Easement Corridor e I DIANAPO SAVE 4 x N $ 0 W 2 T T �i eTORI $ NI AYE \� W T i OCSD 3 Plant No. 2 f ' N o 1,000 2,000 Water Production Enhancement Project W i E 6MMML====J Feet Regional ocation Ma Figure 1 S r � Contractor Laydown Area Construction: Flow EQ Tank . ^ L Construction: ..- ♦ _ Flow EQ r Control / Meter BANNING AVE . fir # '• a •� f Construction: - Flow EQ /irr r „t Pump Station III ` -;, . N 0 200 400 Water Production Enhancement Project W E 6nommimsonL===J Feet OCSD Plant 2 Wastewater Treatment Site Figure 2 S Section 2 Once the piles and concrete pad ha[la been constructed, the steel tank would be assembled. A crane and welding laborers would be rewired to weld the steel components of the tank together. Once the tank is welded, the surface would be prepped for a base coat and finally painted. While the tank is being assembled, the contractor would be elluipping the pump station and meter fault with the use of laborers, fork lifts and cranes. The construction ellipment for the tank, meter Dault, flow di[f:rsion box and pump station would include; an excall3tor, crane, pile driller, bull doer, backhoe, compactor, dump trucks, concrete trucks, water truck, man lifts and fork lifts. 2.5 Construction Phasing Plan The OCWD Water Production Enhancement Project would be implemented in filb construction phases beginning in August 2020 and concluding in December of 2022. The seDuence of construction actidties is shown below. Estimated Construction Dates: August 2020 to December 2021 Construction Phases: 1A, 1 B and 1 C will be constructed separately. 1 D and 1 E would be constructed concurrently. Phase 1A: Excaoation, Hauling, Grading for Flow EQ Tank, Pump Station, Pipeline/Meter Vault Phase 1 B: Construction of Piles for Flow EQ Tank Phase 1C: Concrete Pours for Flow EQ Tank Pad Phase 1 D: Flow EQ Tank Assembly D Coating Phase 1 E: Installation of pipeline and assembly of eDuipment for Flow EQ pump station and meter moult 2.6 Construction Equipment The construction e0uipment and hours of operation are shown in Table 1 and the construction traffic trips are shown in Table 2. t� Orange County Water District Water Production Enhancement Project V Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration&CEQA-Plus Federal Consultation Review 2-5 Section 2 Table 1: Flow EQ Tank, Pump Station, & Pipeline/Meter Vault Construction Equipment Mix Equipment Equipment Time Total Total HP Activity Description Quantity (H./Day) s Hours Pining OCSDFlow EQ Tank,PS,Meter Vault&Pipeline(1A) Bull Dozer 2 6 30 360 250 C nn actor 1 6 10 60 200 Excavator 2 6 20 240 200 Dump Trucks 4 6 4 96 350 Demo Dump Trucks 4 6 14 336 350 Water Trucks 1 8 45 3W 350 0C5D Flow EQ Tank Piles(1B) Drill Ri 1 6 20 120 S00 Backhoe 11 6 20 120 150 Concrete Trucks 1 5 3 IS MO Dump Trucks 2 5 3 30 350 Water Truck 2 4 25 2W 350 Dan FIow EQ Tank Pad(1Q Crane 1 5 5 25 300 Forklift 2 6 5 W 120 Concrete Trucks 4 5 24 480 MO OGSD Flow EQTank Assembly&Geatin 11)) Gran 1 6 10 W 300 Fork Df[ 1 4 6 30 220 120 Man lift 51 6 15 450 25 OCSD Flow EQ PS&Meter Vault Equipping(IE) Crane 1 61 10 60 300 Forklift 41 61 30 220 120 Man Lift 1 51 61 IS 450 25 Table 2: Flow EQ Tank, Pump Station, and Pipeline/Meter Vault Worker & Daily Trip Summary Daily Total Haul Haul OCSD Flow EQTank,Pump Station,and Pipeline/Meter Vault Worker Vendor Trips Trips IA:Excavation,Hauling,Grading for Flow EQTank,Pump Station,and Pipeline 10 1 32 248 1B:Piles Construction for Flow EQ Tank 10 2 4 12 1C:Flow EQTank Pad Construction 10 2 12 288 11):Flow EQTank Assembly and Coating 5 2 1E:Assembly of Flow EQ Pumps and Meter Vault 5 4 t*�1 Orange County Water District Water Production Enhancement Project J Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration&CEQA-Plus Federal Consultation Review 2-6 Section 2 2.6 Permits and Approvals The Initial Study/Mitigated Negatilb Declaration prepared for the OCWD Water Production Enhancement Project would be used as the supporting CEQA enLironmental documentation for the following approCels and permits. Agency Approvals/Discretionary Actions Orange County Water District . Project Approval • Appro al for Agreements Construction Contracts • Agreement with the Orange County Sanitation District for the deLelopment, operation and maintenance of Groundwater Replenishment System facilities on Orange County Sanitation District Plant No.2 Orange County Sanitation District . Project Approval • Agreement with the Orange County Water District for the de3slopment, operation and maintenance of Groundwater Replenishment System facilities on Orange County Sanitation District Plant No.2 State Regional Water Quality Control Board, Approval of amendment to Regional Water Santa Ana Region Control Board Producer/User Water Recycling Permit Orange County Water District Groundwater Replenishment System IR812008700580 State Water Resources Control Board Stale Relbl7ing Fund Loan City Huntington Beach Coastal DeiLlopment Permit t;+, Orange County Water District Water Production Enhancement Project V Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration&CEQA-Plus Federal Consultation Review 2-7 Section 3 SECTION 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST EVALUATIONS The following is the OCWD Endronmental Checklist Form that was prepared for the Water Production Enhancement Project. The Envfonmental Checklist Form is consistent with Envronmental Checklist form prolded in Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines. Project Title: Orange County Water District Water Enhancement Project Lead Agency Name and Address: Orange County Water District 18700 Ward Street Fountain Valley, CA 92708 Project Contact: Daniel Bott Location: 22212 Brookhurst Street Huntington Beach, California Environmental Determination On the basis of this initial evaluation, I find that: a0 ❑ The Water Production Enhancement Project could not haES a significant effect on the an 0ronment and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. b0 X Although the Water Production Enhancement Project could hale a significant effect on the enUronment,there will not be a significant effect in this case because reUsions to the project haEL been made by or agreed to by the applicant. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. c0 ❑ The Water Production Enhancement Project may hale a significant effect on the en0ronment and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is recuired. d0 ❑ Although the Water Production Enhancement Project could hale a significant effect on the enUronment, because all potentially significant effects ®blare been analyCad adeUtately in an earlier EIR 1EIR No. CLpursuant to applicable standards and lb-haLB been amided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including re0sions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the project,nothing further is reDlired. e0 ❑ Pursuant to Section 15164 of the CEQA Guidelines, an EIR EIR No. 01has been prepared earlier and only minor technical changes or additions are necessary to make the predous EIR adeaate and these changes do not raise important new issues about the significant effects on the enUronment. An ADDENDUM to the EIR shall be prepared. f ❑ Pursuant to Section 15162 of the CEQA Guidelines,an EIR [EIR No. DEhas been prepared earlier; howelar,subseUaent proposed changes in the project and/or new information of substantial importance will cause one or more significant effects no preGously discussed. A SUBSEQUENT EIR shall be prepared. Signature Date Printed Name: Daniel Bott tom, Orange County Water District Water Production Enhancement Project V Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration&CEQA-Plus Federal Consultation Review 3-1 Section 3 Less Than Significant Potentially with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No V. Issues o Supporting Information Sources Impact Incorporated Impact Impact I. Aesthetics—Would the project: all Hale a substantial adCerse effect on a scenic ❑ ❑ ❑ N UstaC bo Damage scenic resources, including but not ❑ ❑ ❑ N limited to,trees, rock outpourings and historic buildings within a state highwayo co Substantially degrade the existing ❑sual character ❑ N ❑ ❑ or Duality of the site and its surroundings❑ do Create a new source of substantial light or glare ❑ N ❑ ❑ which would ad Cersely affect day or nighttime dews in the area❑ It. AGRICULTURAL AND FOREST RESOURCES: In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant endronmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land EEaluation and Site Assessment Model prepared by the California Department of ConserDution as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agricultural farmland. In determining whether impacts to forest resources, including timerberland, are significant enf7ronmental effects, lead agencies may refer to information compiled by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the states in Centory of forest land, including the Forest and Range Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy Assessment project; and forest carbon measurement methodology prooded in Forest Protocols adopted by the California Air Resources Board.Would the project: all Con Eart Prime Farmland, UnlQle Farmland or ❑ ❑ ❑ N Farmland of Statewide Importance ElFarmlandoto nonCagricultural used IThe Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program in the California Resources Agency, Department of ConserLation, maintains detailed maps of these and other categories of farmland.❑ bD Conflict with existing Doling for agricultural use or ❑ ❑ ❑ N a Williamson Contracto co Conflict with existing Coning for,or cause re[oning ❑ ❑ ❑ N of,forest land ®s defined in Public Resources Code section 12220Cgq timberland [as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526q or timberland Coned Timberland Production [as defined by GoEarnment Code section 51104[gEll do Result in the loss of forest land or conEbrsion of ❑ ❑ ❑ N forest land to non[forest use❑ ell In oll a other changes in the existing endronment ❑ ❑ ❑ N which, due to their location or nature, could indilldually or cumulatiEbly result in loss of Farmland,to non®gricultuml use or conibmion of r Orange County Water District Water Production Enhancement Project Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration&CEQA-Plus Federal Consultation Review 3-2 Section 3 Less Than Significant Potentially with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No V. Issues ❑Supporting Information Sources Impact Incorporated Impact Impact forest land to non[brest use❑ III. Air Quality- Where aD3ilable, the significance criteria established by the applicable air Duality management or pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: a❑ Conflict with or obstruct implementation of ❑ ❑ ❑ applicable Air Quality Attainment Plan or Congestion Management Plan b❑ Violate any stationary source air Duality standard ❑ ® ❑ ❑ or contribute to an existing or proposed air Duality Uolation❑ co Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase ❑ ❑ ® ❑ of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non®ttainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air uality standard [ncluding releasing emissions which exceed DuantitatiCe thresholds for o.-one precursors® d❑ Expose sensiti[B receptors to substantial pollutant ❑ ❑ ® ❑ concentrations❑ eo Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial ❑ ❑ ® ❑ number of people❑ IV. Biological Resources ❑Would the project: a❑ Have a substantial adEarse impact, either directly ❑ ❑ ❑ or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive or special status species in local or regional plans, policies or regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife SerDCeSv b❑ Have a substantial adEarse impact on any riparian ❑ ❑ ❑ habitat or natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, and regulations or by the California Department of fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife SerdCe❑ co Adversely impact federally protected wetlands as ❑ ❑ ❑ defined by Section 404 of the Clean water Act [Including, but not limited to, marsh, Larnal pool, coastal,etc.Dhrough direct remoEbl,filling hydrological interruption, or other meansv d❑ Interfere substantially with the mo[Bment of any ❑ ❑ ❑ native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native ? Orange County Water District Water Production Enhancement Project Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration&CEQA-Plus Federal Consultation Review 33 Section 3 Less Than Significant Potentially with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No V. Issues O Supporting Information Sources Impact Incorporated Impact Impact wildlife nursery sites0 e0 Conflict with any local policies or ordinances ❑ ❑ ❑ protecting biological resources, such as tree preservation policy or ordinance0 fO Conflict with the pmJsions of an adopted Habitat ❑ ❑ ❑ Conserlhtion Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local regional or state habitat conserlation plane V. Cultural Resources 0 Would the project: aO Cause a substantial adverse change in the ❑ ® ❑ ❑ significance of a historical resource as defined in Section 15064.50 bo Cause a substantial ad[Prse change in the ❑ ® ❑ ❑ significance of a uniLue archaeological resource pursuant to define Section 15064.50 cO Directly or indirectly disturb or destroy a uniEue ❑ ❑ ❑ paleontogical resource or site0 d0 Disturb any human remains, including those ❑ ® ❑ ❑ interred outside of formal cemeteries❑ VI. Geology and Soils 0 Would the project: a0 Expose people or structures to potential ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ substantial ad[arse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death in�oldng: 1. Rupture of a known earth Disks fault, as ❑ ❑ ® ❑ delineated on the most recent on the most recent AlE)uistEPriolo Earth Disks Fault Zoning map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial e0dence of a known fault❑ 2. Strong seismic ground shaking❑ ❑ ® ❑ ❑ 3. SeismicTelated ground failure, including ❑ ® ❑ ❑ IidefactionL 4. Landslides I ❑ ❑ ❑ 1:0 Would the project result in substantial soil ❑ ❑ ® ❑ erosion or the loss of topsoil❑ cO Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is ❑ ® ❑ ❑ unstable, or that would become unstable as result of the project, and potentially result in ono orlbff site landslide, lateral spreading, r Orange County Water District Water Production Enhancement Project Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration&CEQA-Plus Federal Consultation Review 3.4 Section 3 Less Than Significant Potentially with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No V. Issues ❑Supporting Information Sources Impact Incorporated Impact Impact subsidence, lidefaction or collapse❑ d❑ Be located on expansi Ce soil, as defined in table ❑ ® ❑ ❑ 1811IS of the uniform Building Code creating substantial risks to life or property0 so Ham soils incapable of adeDiately supporting ❑ ❑ ❑ the use of septic tanks or alternali-L waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water VIL GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS ❑ Would the projectO a❑ Generate greenhouse gas emissions,either ❑ ❑ ® ❑ directly or indirectly,that may halt a significant impact on the enilronmento b❑ Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or ❑ ❑ N ❑ regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases❑ Vill. HAZARDOUS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS ❑Would the project: a❑ Create a significant haLard to the public or the ❑ N ❑ ❑ endronment through the routine transport, use or disposal of hal]3rdous materials❑ b❑ Create a significant havard to the public or the ❑ N ❑ ❑ endronment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions in�[Jng the release of haEardOUs materials into the en17ronmentO co Emit havardous emissions or handle havardous ❑ ® ❑ ❑ or acutely haEardous materials, substance or waste within one1luarter mile of an existing or proposed school❑ d❑ Be located on a site which is located on a list of ❑ ❑ ❑ X havardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Go[Ernment Code Section 659662.5 and,as a result,would it create a significant he and to the public or the endronmento e❑ For a project located within an airport land use ❑ ❑ ❑ N plan or where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles where of a public airport or public use airport,would the project result in a safety hard for people residing or working in the project area❑ fo For a project within the ❑cinity of a private ❑ ❑ ❑ N airstrip, would the project result in a safety ? Orange County Water District Water Production Enhancement Project Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration&CEQA-Plus Federal Consultation Review 35 Section 3 Less Than Significant Potentially with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No V. Issues o Supporting Information Sources Impact Incorporated Impact Impact halbrd for people residing or working in the project area❑ go Impair implementation of or physically interfere ❑ ❑ ❑ with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency eLacuation plan ho Expose people or structures to a significant risk ❑ ❑ ❑ of loss, injury or death in[b❑ng wild land fires, including where wild lands are adjacent to urbaniCed areas or where residences are intermixed with wild lands❑ VDL HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY o Would the project: a❑ Violate any water Duality standards or waste ❑ ® ❑ ❑ discharge reouirementso bo Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or ❑ ❑ ❑ interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in adifer Colume or a lowering of the local groundwater table leEbl re.g., the production rate of pre existing nearby wells would drop to a Is el which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits haJB been granted- co Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern ❑ ® ❑ ❑ of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of stream or ricer, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on or offaiteo do Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern ❑ ® ❑ ❑ of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or ri Cer,or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in Flooding orl off site eo Create or contribute runoff water which would ❑ ® ❑ ❑ exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or pro0de substantial additional sources of polluted runoffo to Otherwise substantially degrade water Dualityo ❑ ® ❑ ❑ ? Orange County Water District Water Production Enhancement Project Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration&CEOA-Plus Federal Consultation Review 3-6 Section 3 Less Than Significant Potentially with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No V. Issues o Supporting Information Sources Impact Incorporated Impact Impact go Place housing within a 1001year flood hard ❑ ❑ ❑ N area as mapped on a federal Flood Halard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood havard delineation map❑ ho Place within a 100gear Flood halard area ❑ ❑ ❑ N structures which would impede or redirect flood floWSE io Expose people or structures to a significant risk ❑ ❑ ❑ N of loss, injury, or death in 3Ndng flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a leEbe or dam❑ V Inundation by seiche,tsunami,or mudflowo ❑ ❑ ❑ X. LAND USE AND PLANNING o Would the project: all Physically dude an established community❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ N bo Conflict with any applicable land use plan, ❑ ❑ ❑ N policy,or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction oEbr the project Ohcluding, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or Coning ordinance adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an enl7ronmental effecto co Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation ❑ ❑ ❑ N plan or natural community conserCation plan❑ A. MINERAL RESOURCES—Would the project: a❑ Result in the loss of availability of a known ❑ ❑ ❑ N mineral resource that would be of Ealue to the region and the residents of the state❑ bo Result in the loss of alailability of a locallyo ❑ ❑ ❑ N important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan XII. NOISE ❑Would the project result in: so Exposure of persons to or generation of noise ❑ ® ❑ ❑ leELS in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies❑ bo Exposure of persons to or generation of ❑ ❑ N ❑ excessive groundbome ❑bration or groundborne noise lelblso co A substantial permanent increase in ambient ❑ N ❑ ❑ noise levels in the project ❑cinity above IeEbIS ? Orange County Water District Water Production Enhancement Project Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration&CEQA-Plus Federal Consultation Review 3-7 Section 3 Less Than Significant Potentially with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No V. Issues 0 Supporting Information Sources Impact Incorporated Impact Impact existing without the project0 d0 A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ❑ ® ❑ ❑ ambient noise lelals in the project Ocinity abo[B Weis existing without project0 e0 For a project located within an airport land use ❑ ❑ ❑ plan or where such a plan has not been adopted,within two miles of a public airport or public use airport,would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessiDs noise le>31s-i fC For a project within the Elcinity of a pri ate ❑ ❑ ❑ airstrip,would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise Ie�alS7 XIII. POPULATION AND HOUSING 0 Would the project: a0 Induce substantial population growth in an area, ❑ ❑ ❑ either directly mor example, by proposing new homes and business0or indirectly [for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure® b0 Displace substantial numbers of existing ❑ ❑ ❑ housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere0 c0 Displace substantial numbers of people, ❑ ❑ ❑ necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere0 XIV. PUBLIC SERVICES ao Would the project result in substantial adDarse ❑ ❑ ® ❑ physical impacts associated with the prodsion of new or physically altered govemmental facilities, need for new or physically altered govemmental facilities,the construction of which could cause significant en Oronmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable serilce rations, response times or other performance object!ves for any of the public serdce: Fire protection0 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Police protection0 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Schools0 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Parks0 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Other public facilities0 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ? Orange County Water District Water Production Enhancement Project Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration&CEQA-Plus Federal Consultation Review 3-8 Section 3 Less Than Significant Potentially with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No V. Issues 0 Supporting Information Sources Impact Incorporated Impact Impact Xv. RECREATION a❑ Would the project increase the use of existing ❑ ❑ ❑ N neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated❑ b0 Does the project include recreational facilities or ❑ ❑ ❑ reDuire the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an ad Lame physical effect on the endronment0 XVI. TRANSPORTATIONITRAFFIC Would the project: a❑ Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or ❑ ❑ N ❑ policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation including mass transit and non Tnotorived traDM and releEent components of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit0 b0 Conflict with an applicable congestion ❑ ❑ N ❑ management program, including but limited to level of serl7ce standards and tfaEbl demand measures, or other standards established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways❑ co Result in a change in air traffic patterns, ❑ ❑ ❑ N including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks0 d❑ Substantially increase havards to a design ❑ ❑ N ❑ feature ®.g. sharp curJas or dangerous intemections0or incompatible uses Ea.g.farm eaipmentm e0 Result in inadeDuate emergency access❑ ❑ ❑ N ❑ fv Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or ❑ ❑ N ❑ programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities,or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities❑ XVII. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS—Would the project: a0 Exceed wastewater treatment rellirements of ❑ ❑ N ❑ r Orange County Water District Water Production Enhancement Project Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration&CEQA-Plus Federal Consultation Review 3-9 Section 3 Less Than Significant Potentially with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No V. Issues 0 Supporting Information Sources Impact Incorporated Impact Impact the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board❑ b0 ReDllre or result in the construction of new ❑ ❑ ❑ water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant endronmental effects❑ CO ReOulre or result in the construction of new ❑ ❑ ❑ storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities,the construction of which could cause significant endronmental effects❑ d0 Are sufficient water supplies aCailable to serve ❑ ❑ ❑ the project from existing entitlements and resources or are new or expanded entitlements needed❑ eo Result in the determination by the wastewater ❑ ❑ ❑ treatment prodder which serves or may seroa the project that it has ade:uate capacity to serve the projects projected demand in addition to the prodder®existing commitments❑ fC Is the project serDad by a landfill with sufficient ❑ ❑ ® ❑ permitted capacity to accommodate the projects sold waste disposal needs❑ g0 Comply with federal, state and local statutes ❑ ❑ ® ❑ and regulations related to solid wasteE XVIII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE— a0 Does the project haEa the potential to degrade ❑ ® ❑ ❑ the Duality of the endronment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below selfsustaining Weis,threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of Califomia history or prehistory❑ b0 Does the project haEb impacts that are ❑ ® ❑ ❑ indi ddually limited but cumulatiJBly considerableo aCumulati Dslyconsiderableo means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when dewed in connection with the effects of past projects, effects of other ? Orange County Water District Water Production Enhancement Project Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration&CEQA-Plus Federal Consultation Review 3-10 Section 3 Less Than Significant Potentially with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No V. Issues ❑Supporting Information Sources Impact Incorporated Impact Impact cuff ant projects and the effects of probable future pmjects0 co Does the project haDa endronmental effects ❑ ® ❑ ❑ which will cause substantial adEbrse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectlyo Note:Authority cited: Sections 21083, 21083.05, Public Resources Code. Reference: Section 65088.4 ? Orange County Water District Water Production Enhancement Project Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration&CEQA-Plus Federal Consultation Review 3-11 Section 4 SECTION 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS The following analysis responds to the endronmental issues listed on the OCWD CEQA Checklist Form. The analysis identifies the IeCel of anticipated impact and where needed includes the incorporation of mitigation measures to reduce potentially significant impacts to the endronment to a less than significant le[el. 4.1 Aesthetics Existing Setting The OCSD Plant No. 2 Site is located within the southeast industrial area of the City of Huntington Beach. The OCSD Plant No. 2 Site is surrounded by the Santa Ana Ricer Trail to the east, Talbert Park to the northeast, Brookhurst Street and single family residential uses to the west, multiple family residential uses to the north and the Talbert Marsh to the south. OCSD Plant No. 2 Site is currently deCeloped with numerous structures that Lary in height, mass and function. The tallest onsite structure would be the surge tower at a height of 86 feet, located at the southwestern end of the site. Other notably si[ed structures include the existing sludge storage silos at approximately 50 feet in height and trickling filters at a height of 40 feet. The OCSD Plant No. 2 Site is situated within urbaniCed area and is impacted from a Dariety lighting sources from the surrounding the area. The lighting from these surrounding sources generally diminishes the Duality of the nighttime sky. The OCSD Plant No. 2 Site has controlled onsite security lighting which has been designed to minim!D3 spillioD gr light and glare impacts to the surrounding area. Sensible dsual receptors near the OCSD Plant No. 2 Site include; residential uses located west of Brookhurst Street, trail users along the Santa Ana Ricer Trail and the Talbert Marsh Trail, along Pacific Coast Highway and Talbert Regional Park. The area west of Brookhurst Street between Bushard ACenue and Hamilton ACenue consists predominately of single family homes, many of which are two stories. As shown in Figure 3, existing Dews of the OCSD Plant No. 2 Site from along Brookhurst Street are dsually screened by an existing 81toot block wall and a row of towering eucalyptus trees. The height of the wall and eucalyptus trees screens both close and distant Dews into Plant No. 2. The Santa Ana Ricer Trail extends along the eastern boundary of the OSCD Plant No. 2 Site. A shown in Figures 4 and 5 along the Santa Ana Riser Trail there are intermittent dews of the OCSD Plant No. 2 Site. The dews are partially obstructed by existing landscaping and topography. ? Orange County Water District Water Production Enhancement Project Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration&CEQA-Plus Federal Consultation Review 4-1 Existing view of OCSD Plant No. 2 Wastewater Treatment Site Brookhurst St& Baybreeze Dr 3 q� Y 9 3 ° Existing view of OCSD Plant No. 2 Wastewater Treatment Site Brookhurst St & Banning St d N Water Production Enhancement Project Study Area W E Existing Views r Figure 3 a i Flow EQ Tank Site .t{., Existing view from Santa Ana River Trail Flow EQ Tank Site a n' e m n Existing view from Santa Ana River Trail e N Water Production Enhancement Project Study Area Views from W 4..• E Santa Ana River Trail Figure 4 8 Flow EQ Tank _ Site * � r \. i' f Existing view from Santa Ana River Trail r Construction Lay Down Area a n' e m n Existing view from Santa Ana River Trail `e N Water Production Enhancement Project Study Area Views from W t"; Ill Santa Ana River Trail r Figure 5 s Section 4 The Talbert Marsh Trail is located along the southern boundary OCSD Plant No. 2. As shown in Figure 6, along the Talbert Marsh Trail is there is an existing landscaped wall that proildes a ❑sual barrier between the trail and Plant No. 2. Pacific Coast Highway is located south of OCSD Plant No. 2. As shown in Figure 11, from along Pacific Coast Highway are sweeping dews of the Santa Ana Ricer and of Plant No. 2. The dominant 11sual structure on Plant No. 2 would be the 861toot surge towers. OCerlooking from the bluffs near Talbert Regional Park are distant dews of the Pacific Ocean, Banning Ranch Wetlands, oil drilling operations and Carious structures located OCSD Plant No. 2. As shown in Figure 7, the long distance dews are partially obstructed by topography, trees and dense Cegetation. Regulatory Framework State State Scenic Highways Program The Scenic Highway Program was created in 1963 by the California legislature and was established to protect scenic highway corridors from changes that would diminish the aesthetic [alue of adjacent lands. The segment of Pacific Coast Highway that extends near OCSD Plant No. 2 is not officially designated as State Scenic Highway, but is designated as eligible for the Scenic Highways Program. California Coastal Act The California Coastal Act defines the coastal Cone and establishes land use controsl for the designated mne. The California Coastal Act; 11 osets specific uses, including restoration, in which wetlands may be permitted in the coastal mne; [20proddes for additional redew and appro0als for proposed actions located within designated sensitiCe coastal areas; and CBOreDjires cities or counties located within the coastal Cone to prepare a Local Coastal Program. The California Coastal Act has also identified and reouires the protection of important scenic and ❑sual Dualities of the coastal areas. All of OCSD Plant No.2 is located within the Coastal Zone. Regional/Local County of Orange General Plan The Orange County Master Plan of Scenic Highways designates the segment of Pacific Coast Highway near OCSD Plant No.2 as a County Scenic Highway and as a View scape Corridor. ? Orange County Water District Water Production Enhancement Project Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration&CEQA-Plus Federal Consultation Review 45 Existing view of study area from Pacific Coast Highway s m i Existing view from Talbert Marsh Trail d H Water Production Enhancement Project Study Area Views from W - . E PCH &Talbert Marsh u13 Figure 6 S A Flow EQ Tank Site Existing view of study area from Talbert Park 19 Flow EQ Tank Trickling Filters Site z `a a n' e m n Existing view of study area from Talbert Park `e N Water Production Enhancement Project Study Area Views from yr 2�9 IIITalbert Park r Figure 7 s Section 4 City of Huntington Beach General Plan Coastal Element The purpose of the Coastal Element is to meet the reDuirements of the Coastal Act and guide ci is decisions regarding growth, deCelopment, enhancement and preserCation of the City 8 Coastal Zone and its resources. The Coastal Element identifies the segment of Pacific Coast Highway near Plant No. 2 as a Major Urban Scenic Corridor and Landscape Corridor. The Coastal Element further identifies dsual resources within the coastal Eone which includes; Huntington State Beach, Pacific Ocean, Talbert Marsh, and the Santa Ana Ricer. City of Newport Beach Local Coastal Program Although the study area is not located in the City of Newport Beach, it is located in proximity to the City of Newport Beach% city limit. The City of Newport Beach is presently in the process of preparing an Implementation Plan for the Citycs Coastal Land Study Area and as identified Pacific Coast Highway as a Coastal View Road. A: Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? Less than Significant Impact: Within the Ucinity of the study area scenic resource public [Jews are prodded from the Santa Ana Ricer Trail, Talbert Marsh Trail, Talbert Park and Pacific Coast Highway. Additionally, within the study area there are seDaral priDAe residential uses that haDa dews of Plant No.2 along Brookhurst Street. There would be the potential that the construction and operation of the proposed project could encroach into the dew shed of nearby scenic resources. To help measure potential dew shed impacts to surrounding scenic resources, a dew shed analysis was prepared where the proposed project would be implemented. Ground and structure elelations were identified in Plant No. 2 and along the Santa Ana Rimer Trail, Pacific Coast Highways, the Hamilton Avenue Bridge entrance to Talbert Park and along Brookhurst Street and were dsually modeled based on the dews of a six foot tall person. Santa Ana River Trail The Santa Ana Ricer Trail extends along the eastern boundary of OCSD Plant No 2. As shown in Figure 8, the proposed Flow eCuali-ation tank and pump station would be within the dew shed of trail users along the Santa Ana Ricer Trail approximately 2,000 feet north and south of the location where the structures would be constructed. Presently, along most of the Santa Ana Ricer Trail are existing dews of the OCSD Plant No. 2 structures. The dsual presence of the proposed flow ellualiDation tank and pump station structure would not obstruct dews of the Pacific Ocean or the Banning Ranch Wetlands. Views along the Santa Ana Ricer Trail into Plant No. 2 would not be substantially different from current dews and would not hace an adcerse impact on any scenic dstas. Potential dew impacts along the Santa Ana Rilbr Trail would be less than significant. r Orange County Water District Water Production Enhancement Project Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration&CEQA-Plus Federal Consultation Review 4-8 tom„ r t �� `' � • ` i .' Contractor "` i'' ' . . ��g,tt• �- 7 Laydown Area : "y�L r ;�; •+�'''.1� �Jt C' '� i a ? i FIowEQ Tank HelghY 30 ft t Co trot Meter Flow EQ Pump Station . s y ... Height: 25 ft w 1 illy r ' E, N Location Tank Visible from Bike Path Water Production Enhancement Project Project Viewsheds Visible Area from Bike Path W E Santa Ana River Trail o saa 1,000 Figure B S ]Feel Section 4 Talbert Marsh Trail As shown in Figure 6, along the Talbert Marsh Trail is there is an existing landscaped wall that proddes a dsual barrier between the trail and Plant No. 2. The existing landscaped wall would also dsually screen the proposed flow a ualiCation tank and pump station structure. Existing scenic dews from the Talbert Marsh Trail would not change from the current condition. Potential dew impacts would be less than significant. Talbert Regional Park Talbert Regional Park is located northeast of OCSD Plant No. 2. The park proddes distant sweeping dews towards the Pacific Ocean. Presently from Talbert Park are distant dews of OCSD Plant No. 2 structures, the most dewable being the 86loot surge towers. As shown in Figure 9, a portion of the flow ellualiDation tank would be within distant dews from Talbert Regional Park. Because the elelation of Talbert Park is considerable higher than the eleDation of Plant No.2, the presence of the flow eDuali0ation tank would not interfere with existing distant dews of the Pacific Ocean and surrounding area. Existing dews from Talbert Park would not substantially change from the current conditions. Potential dew impacts would be less than significant. Pacific Coast Highway Pacific Coast Highway [PCH is located approximately I mile south from the OCSD Plant No. 2 Site. Situated between Pacific Coast Highway and Plant No. 2 is the Talbert Wetlands which proddes an open space dsual buffer for motorist and bicyclist along PCH. As shown in Figure 10, the presence of the proposed flow enlaliration tank and pump station structure would not encroach into the dew shed along the Pacific Coast Highway. Existing dews from Pacific Coast Highway would not change from the current condition. Potential dew impacts would be less than significant. Views from Brookhurst Street Presently, dews of Plant No. 2 along Brookhurst Street are screened by perimeter block wall and row of eucalyptus trees. As shown in Figure 11, the row of eucalyptus would also dsually screen the proposed flow ellualilation tank and pump station structure. Existing dews from Brookhurst Street would not change from the current condition. Potential dew impacts would be less than significant. B. Would the project damage scenic resources, including but limited to, trees, rock outpourings, and historic buildings within a State Highway? ? Orange County Water District Water Production Enhancement Project Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration&CEQA-Plus Federal Consultation Review 4-10 3 . ��.,.�r]� F's ��" ,- - Contractor � . rd r" ow t , t -1 y 1 r' Flow EQ Tank `+-p •, ControUMeter Height 30 ft i-. Flow FO -f A fr �� f Y r eF'•1 'a.. r-.- Pump Station r , L �' .# • 4 Height. 25ft �iw.L t }ir. N yrp I j 4 4 �1 4� •r.= L I n R s ' N • obseration Point Water Production Enhancement Project Project Talbert ark ds yy � E — Vsible Area Talbert Park a 500 1,000 Figure 9 s 6m==mL====J Feel Contractor �9 Laydown Area r Flow EQ Tank 4,. Height 30 ft - ! Flow EQ Control/Meter ' Flow Pump Station i Height 25 ft ITOF 4 lily, V C11 ��,: �a� �mil' '7�.a.�. •:I ,I y ,.,�. a 8 N • Obseration Point Water Production Enhancement Project Project t High yy � E � Visible Area Pacific Coasst Highway o saa 1,000 Figure 10 S 6=mm=m=L=======I Feel t � TIM".d a7 � tr �> � • _`y - -�„( r, 5 -,e Sys 1 - OonhaCfir Laydown Area i EQ Control Meter �Kv �•. h. "F`.j ��i v -'I�FF f✓ , i Flow EQ Tank Y,,z r'• i"• 7. a.� 1� �v Height: 30ft Alt R � f Flow EQ * t + y/j 7, F Pump Station r ...* ra � x� �, jlila • "' �) HeighL25 it f } y �-5I C�'� � �`v• :�. � ".e � '� At i N Obsero3tion Point• Water Production Enhancement Project Project Viewsheds W E JVisible Area Brookhurst St 0 500 i,000 Figure 11 S Feet Section 4 Less than Significant Impact: According to the California Department of Transportation Scenic Highways Program, the closest State Scenic Highway to the OCSD Plant No. 2 Site would be Pacific Coast Highway. The proposed flow eDialillation tank and pump station structure would located approximately 4,200 feet from Pacific Coast Highway and would be ❑sually screened by seCeral existing structures located in the foreground. As shown in Figure 10, with the implementation of the proposed project existing dews along Pacific Coast Highway would not change from their current condition. Potential impacts to scenic resources along a State Highway would be less than significant. No mitigation measures are reCuired. C. Would the project substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surrounding? Less than Significant Impact: The proposed eolalill3tion tank and pump station structure would be similar in scale and mass compared to seleral other existing structures located on Plant No. 2 and would be isually compatible. The presence of the flow eE)jaliCation tank and pump station structure would not substantially degrade the existing dsual character of the study area and potential aesthetic impacts would be less than significant. No mitigation measures are reolired. D. Would the project create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area. Less than Significant Impact: Implementation of the proposed project would not inlbl lB the construction of any new structures that would permanently introduce substantial amounts of new sources of light and glare into the study area. Similar to the existing buildings on OCSD Plant No. 2 Site, the proposed new structures would haDa some low Cottage outdoor security lighting. HoweCer the outdoor lighting would be confined to the immediate area and would not spill oCer into adjacent areas. With the implementation Mitigation Measures All and A[2 potential light and glare impacts associated with the operation of the proposed project would be less than significant. Construction operations for the proposed project would occur during the day. Therefore, no nighttime construction lighting would be reouired. Some glare impacts could occur from construction eCuipment during the day. HoweEbr, the impacts would be confined to the study area and would not haCe any significant offsite light and glare impacts. Mitigation Measure A-1: All onsite lighting shall be directed away from adjacent residential, business uses and away from the Santa Ana Ricer right®f[Way. A-2: During operation of the project the onsite lighting creates a light or glare issues for sensitiEe receptor properties, OCWD will implement correcti[B measures to resolCe the ? Orange County Water District Water Production Enhancement Project Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration&CEgA-Plus Federal Consultation Review 4-14 Section 4 issue. Such correcti[J0 measures may include prodding additional shielding on light fixtures, relocating lighting fixtures and reducing the intensity of lighting. 4.2 Agricultural Resources/Forest Resources A. Would the project convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland or Farmland of Statewide Importance to non-agriculture uses? No impact. According to the State of California Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program, the OCSD Plant No. 2 Site does not contain any Prime Farmland, UniDte Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance. Therefore, no ad[:erse impacts to Prime Farmland, UniD1e Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance would occur from the implementation of the proposed project. No mitigation measures are reDlired. B. Would the project be in conflict with existing zoning for agriculture use or a Williamson Contract? No Impact. According to the City of Huntington Beach Zoning Code, the OCSD Plant No. 2 site is not [tined for agriculture uses. Additionally, the City® General Plan does not identify that there are any existing Williamson Contracts on the property. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project will not be in conflict with any existing agriculture Coning. No mitigation measures are reDtired. C. Would the project be in conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of forest land or timberland. No Impact. According to the City of Huntington Beach Zoning Code, the OCSD Plant No. 2 Site is not coned for forest land or timberland. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not cause change of [cone of existing forest or timberland to other land uses. No mitigation measures are reD/ired. D. Would the project result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? No Impact: Presently, the OCSD Plant No. 2 Site does not contain forest lands. Therefore, the implementation of the proposed project would not convert existing forest land to noniforest land. No mitigation measures are re Mired. E. Would the project involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland to non- agriculture use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? No Impact. The study area is not located on forest land. Therefore, the implementation of the proposed project will not directly or indirectly result in the loss of any forest land or result in the convlarsion forest lands to noniforest lands. Additionally, the implementation of the proposed project would not convBrt existing farmlands within the study area to nonvagriculture land uses. No mitigation measures are reouired. ? Orange County Water District Water Production Enhancement Project Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration&CEgA-Plus Federal Consultation Review 4-15 Section 4 4.3 Air Quality The following analysis is based on an Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Report prepared for the Water Production Enhancement Project by Endronmental Science Associates, in August of 2016. The Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Report is presented in Appendix A. Setting The study area is located in the City of Huntington Beach, southeast of the corner of Baybree[13 Drib and Brookhurst Street. Huntington Beach is located within the South Coast Air Basin [SCABQ which is under the jurisdiction of the South Coast Air Quality Management District [SCAQMDD The SCAB is a 6,60009[luareirnile coastal plain bounded by the Pacific Ocean to the southwest and the San Gabriel, San Bernardino, and San [Jacinto Mountains to the north and east. The SCAB includes the nonidesert portions of Los Angeles, RiDarside, and San Bernardino Counties, and all of Orange County. The topography and climate of southern California combine to make the SCAB an area of high air pollution potential. The SCAB is a coastal plain with connecting broad Galleys and low hills, bounded by the Pacific Ocean to the west and high mountains around the rest of the perimeter. The general region lies in the semi[] permanent highgoressure Cone of the eastern Pacific, resulting in a mild climate tempered by cool sea breeds with light allerage wind speeds. The usually mild climatological pattern is disrupted occasionally by periods of extremely hot weather, winter storms, or Santa Ana winds. During the summer months, a warm air mass frelluently descends o[er the cool, moist marine layer produced by the interaction between the ocean® surface and the lowest layer of the atmosphere. The warm upper layer forms a cap oDbr the cool marine layer and inhibits the pollutants in the marine layer from dispersing upward. In addition, light winds during the summer further limit orntilation. Furthermore, sunlight triggers the photochemical reactions that produce omne. Ambient Air Quality Standards Regulation of air pollution is achieEbd through both federal and state ambient air Duality standards and emission limits for indiddual sources of air pollutants. As reDuired by the Federal Clean Air Act [CAAQ the U.S. Endronmental Protection Agency m1SEPADhas identified criteria pollutants and has established National Ambient Air Quality Standards INAAQSoto protect public health and welfare. NAAQS hale been established for o[bne CO3Q carbon monoxide ICOQ nitrogen dioxide LN02Q sulfur dioxide [S02Q particulate matter I>PM10 and PM2.54 and lead [PbD These pollutants are called Mriteria Dair pollutants because standards hale been established for each of them to meet specific public health and welfare criteria. r Orange County Water District Water Production Enhancement Project Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration&CEQA-Plus Federal Consultation Review 4-16 Section 4 The NAAQS establish the IeCel for an air pollutant abo11q which detrimental effects to public health or welfare may result. The NAAQS are defined as the maximum acceptable concentrations that, depending on the pollutant, may not be eoualed or exceeded more than once per year or in some cases as a percentile of obserilations. California has generally adopted more stringent ambient air Duality standards for the criteria air pollutants [de., California Ambient Air Quality Standards [CAAQSUand has adopted air Duality standards for some pollutants for which there is no corresponding national standard, such as sulfates, hydrogen sulfide, dnyl chloride, and risibility❑ reducing particles. SCAQMD maintains monitoring stations within district boundaries that monitor air Eluality and compliance with associated ambient standards. The study area is located in the North Orange County Coastal Air Monitoring Subregion. Currently, the nearest monitoring station to the study area is the Costa Mesa D MesaVerde Drioa Station 12850 Mesa Verde Dr East, Costa Mesa, CAD This station monitors ambient concentrations of omne, NO2, CO, and S02, but does not monitor PM2.5 or PM10. The nearest monitoring station that monitors ambient concentrations of PM2.5 and PM10 is the Anaheim station located at 1630 W. Pampas Lane. Historical data of ambient clone, NO2, CO, SO2, PM10 and PM2.5 concentrations from these monitoring stations for the most recent three years [2012 1-2014Eare shown in Table 3. Both CARB and USEPA use this type of monitoring data to designate areas according to their attainment status for criteria air pollutants. The purpose of these designations is to identify the areas with air Duality problems and thereby initiate planning efforts for improCement. The three basic designation categories are nonattainment, attainment, and unclassified. Unclassified is used in an area that cannot be classified on the basis of aCailable information as meeting or not meeting the standards. In addition, the California designations include a subcategory of nonattainment®ransitional, which is g0an to nonattainment areas that are progressing and nearing attainment. The current attainment status for the SCAB is prodded in Table 4. Table 3: Study Area Air Quality Data Summary (2012-2014) Pollutant Monitoring Data by Year Standards 2012 2013 2014 Owne-Costa Nbsa Highest 1 HourAlLrage LppmE 0.090 0.095 0.096 Days oibr State Standard 0.09 ppm 2 1 1 Highest 6 Hour AEerage [ppm❑ 0.076 0.063 0.079 Days o[br National Standard 0.075 ppm 1 0 4 r Orange County Water District Water Production Enhancement Project Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration&CEOA-Plus Federal Consultation Review 4-17 Section 4 Days oar State Standard 0.070 ppm 1 2 6 Carbon Nbnoxide—Costa Ntsa Highest 8 Hour Alarage lopm❑ 1.7 2 1.9 Days olbr National Standard 9.0 ppm 0 0 0 Days olbr State Standard 9.0 ppm 0 0 0 Nitrogen Dioxide—Costa Ntsa Highest 1 Hour ACerage [ppm❑ 0.0744 0.0757 0.061 Days over National Standard 0.100 ppm 0 0 0 Days over State Standard 0.18 ppm 0 0 0 Annual A:13rage [PpmC 0.0104 0.0116 0.011 Days olar National Standard 0.053 ppm 0 0 0 Days o[Er State Standard 0.030 ppm 0 0 0 Sulfur Dioxide—Costa Ntsa Highest 24 Hour Albrage [ppm❑ 0.0062 0.0042 0.009 Days oar State Standard 0.04 ppm 0 0 0 Particulate Nhtter(PNSo)—Anaheim Highest 24 Hour Alemge gtg/m3[4 48 77 85 Days oCer National Standard 150 µg/m3 0 0 0 [rneasured6 Days o1br,State Standard 50 µg/ms 0 1 2 Imeasured6 Annual AEsrage qtg/m30? 20 µg/m3 22.4 25.4 26.8 Particulate Natter(PM.$)—Anaheinn Highest 24 Hour ACerage 4,g/m30? 50.1 37.8 56.2 Days over National Standard 35 µg/m3 4 1 6 irneasured� Annual ACerage [pg/m3[4 12 µg/ms 10.81 10.1 10.3 NOTES'. ppm We per mllllom Vglm°n micrograms per cutdc meter. 00 Insufficient data to ilable to determine Me>lue. a Generally,slate standards and national standards are not to be exceeded more then once per year. b Concentrations and aC mgea represent federal statistics.Stale and federal statistics may differ because of different sampling methods. c Measurements are usually collected eery six days.Days oum Me standard represent the measured number of days that the standard has been exceeded. SOURCE:SCAOMD 2014,2013a,2012. ? Orange County Water District Water Production Enhancement Project Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration&CEQA-Plus Federal Consultation Review 4-18 Section 4 Table 4: South Coast Air Basin Attainment Status Attainment Status Pollutant California Standards Federal Standards O[une Extreme Nonattainment Se[efe Nonattainment CO Attainment Unclassfied/Attainment NOz Attainment Unclassfied/Attainment SOz Attainment Attainment PMIe Nonattainment Attainment PMz.s Nonattainment Nonattainment Lead Attainment Nonattainment Sensitive Receptors Sensitiliq receptors are indidduals who are considered more sensitise to air pollutants than others. The reasons for greater than aDorage sensitidty could include preexisting health problems, proximity to emissions sources, or duration of exposure to air pollutants. Schools, hospitals, and con[alescent homes are considered to be relati113ly sensitille to poor air ntality because children, elderly people, and the infirm are more susceptible to respiratory distress and other air Dualitylbelated health problems than the general public. Residential areas are considered sensitille to poor air Duality because people usually stay home for extended periods of time, with associated greater exposure to ambient air Duality. Recreational uses are also considered sensiti[e due to the greater exposure to ambient air I]/ality conditions because rigorous exercise associated with recreation places a high demand on the human respiratory system. Currently, the sensitiDa uses located in the study area ❑cinity include residential uses located directly west of Brookhurst Street from the OCSD Plant No. 2. The closest residence is located approximately 260 feet 176 metersOfrom the construction area. Regulatory Setting Federal The principal air Duality regulatory mechanism at the federal leLel is the CAA and in particular, the 1990 amendments to the CAA and the NAAOS that it establishes. These standards identify the maximum ambient [backgroundDconcentration le[Lis of criteria pollutants that are considered to be safe, with an adeDuate margin of safety, to protect public health and welfare. As discussed predously, the criteria pollutants include oCbne, CO, NO2 [Which is a form of NOxlJ SO2 [Which is a form of SOxq PM10, PM2.5, and lead. QOrange County Water District Water Production Enhancement Project Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration&CEQA-Plus Federal Consultation Review 4-19 Section 4 The CAA also rewires each state to prepare an air Eluality control plan, referred to as a state implementation plan ESIPD The CAA Amendments of 1990 ECAAAoadded reouirements for states with nonattainment areas to rellse their SIPS to incorporate additional control measures to reduce air pollution. The SIP is modified periodically to reflect the latest emissions inLisntories, planning documents, and rules and regulations of the air basins, as reported by their jurisdictional agencies. USEPA is responsible for ret)ewing all SIPS to determine whether they conform to the mandates of the CAA and its amendments, and to determine whether implementing the SIPS would achieCe air Duality goals. The USEPA also has regulatory and enforcement jurisdiction oCer emission sources beyond state waters [outer continental shelf17 and those that are under the exclusiDP authority of the Federal goEernment, such as aircraft, IocomotiEbs, and interstate trucking. USEPAS primary role at the state IeDBI is to oCersee the state air Duality programs. USEPA sets federal D ahicle and stationary source emissions standards and proddes research and guidance in air pollution programs. General Conformity Rule The General Conformity Rule 140 CFR Part 930reDuires that federal agencies demonstrate that federal actions conform with the applicable State Implementation Plan [SIPDin order to ensure that federal acti-ities do not hamper local efforts to control air pollution. The EPA general conformity rule applies to federal actions occurring in nonattainment or maintenance areas when the total direct and indirect emissions of nonattainment pollutants [or their precursorsoexceed specified thresholds. The de minimis emission thresholds are based on the attainment status of each air basin. Since the proposed project is located in an air basin that is designated attainment for all federal criteria pollutants, it is not subject to the General Conformity emissions thresholds. State California Air Resources Board (CARB) CARB, a department of the California Endronmental Protection Agency [Cal/EPAQ oDgrsees air Eliality planning and control throughout California by administering the SIP. Its primary responsibility lies in ensuring implementation of the 1989 amendments to the CCAA, responding to the federal CAA reEluirements, and regulating emissions from motor Dohicles sold in California. It also sets fuel specifications to further reduce DBhicular emissions. The amendments to the CCAA establish CAAQS, and a legal mandate to achieCe these standards by the earliest practical date. These standards apply to the same criteria pollutants as the federal CAA, and also include sulfates, risibility reducing particulates, ? Orange County Water District Water Production Enhancement Project Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration&CEQA-Plus Federal Consultation Review 4-20 Section 4 hydrogen sulfide and ❑nyl chloride. They are also generally more stringent than the federal standards. CARB is also responsible for regulations pertaining to TACs. The Air Toxics [Hot Spots[] Information and Assessment Act was enacted in 1987 as a means to establish a formal air toxics emission in[lontory risk D antification program. Assembly Bill 1AB112588, as amended, establishes a process that relluires stationary sources to report the type and Duantities of certain substances their facilities routinely release. California Green Building Standard Code In 11anuary 2010, the State of California adopted the 2010 California Green Building Standards Code ICALGreengwhich became effectiCe in [January 2011. Building off of the initial 2008 California Green Building Code, the 2010 CAL-Green Code represents a more stringent building code that reDtires, at a minimum, that new buildings and renollations in California meet certain sustainability and ecological standards. The 2010 CAL-Green Code has mandatory Green Building prodsions for all new residential buildings that are three stories or fewer Jhcluding hotels and motels0and all new non❑ residential buildings of any siCe that are not additions to existing buildings. Regional South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) Criteria Air Pollutants SCAQMD attains and maintains air Duality conditions in the SCAB through a comprehensID3 program of planning, regulation, enforcement, technical innovation, and promotion of the understanding of air Duality issues. The clean air strategy of SCAQMD includes preparation of plans for attainment of ambient air Duality standards, adoption and enforcement of rules and regulations concerning sources of air pollution, and issuance of permits for stationary sources of air pollution. SCAQMD also inspects stationary sources of air pollution and responds to citiCen complaints; monitors ambient air Duality and meteorological conditions; and implements programs and regulations reDuired by the CAA, CAAA, and CCAA. Air Quality Management Plan SCAQMD and the Southern California Association of GoCernments [SCAGOare responsible for preparing the air Duality management plan EAQMPQ which addresses federal and state CAA reDuirements. The AQMP details goals, policies, and programs for improdng air Duality in the SCAB. The 2012 AQMP was adopted by the SCAQMD GoElarning Board on December 12, 2012. The purpose of the 2012 AQMP for the SCAB is to set forth a comprehensiCe and integrated program that would lead the region into compliance with the federal 241hour ? Orange County Water District Water Production Enhancement Project Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration&CEQA-Plus Federal Consultation Review 4-21 Section 4 PM2.5 air olality standard, and to prodde an update to the SCABrs commitment towards meeting the federal 8lhour clone standards ISCAQMD, 2013b0 The AQMP would also sere to satisfy recent USEPA rel]lirements for a new attainment demonstration of the reloked 1 dour olone standard, as well as a lohicle miles traDAed A/MTDemissions offset demonstration.) Specifically, the AQMP would serCe as the official SIP submittal for the federal 2006 241hour PM2.5 standard, for which USEPA has established a due date of December 14, 2012.2 In addition, the AQMP updates specific new control measures and commitments for emissions reductions to implement the attainment strategy for the 8Ehour olone SIP. The 2012 AQMP sets forth programs which reolire integrated planning efforts and the cooperation of all lelols of golornment: local, regional, state, and federal. Currently, SCAQMD staff has already begun initiating an early del elopment process for the next AQMP. SCAQMD Rules and Regulations All projects are subject to SCAQMD rules and regulations in effect at the time of construction. Specific rules applicable to the construction anticipated under the proposed project would include the following: Rule 401: Visible Emissions A person shall not discharge into the atmosphere from any single source of emission whatsoelkr any air contaminant for a period or periods aggregating more than three minutes in any 1 hour that is as dark or darker in shade as that designated No. 1 on the Ringelmann Chart, as published by the United States Bureau of Mines. Rule 402: Nuisance A person shall not discharge from any source whatsoelor such Dfantities of air contaminants or other material that cause injury, detriment, nuisance, or annoyance to any considerable number of persons or to the public, or that endanger the comfort, repose, health, or safety of any such persons or the public, or that cause, or haCe a natural tendency to cause, injury or damage to business or property. The prodsions of this rule do not apply to odors emanating from agricultural operations necessary for the growing of crops or the raising of fowl or animals. Rule 403: Fugitive Dust This rule is intended to reduce the amount of particulate matter entrained in the ambient air as a result of anthropogenic [human[madeofugitiEs dust sources by reUfiring actions to prelont, reduce, or mitigate fugitilo dust emissions. 1 Although the federal 1-hour ozone standard was revoked in 2005,the USEPA has proposed m require anew 1-how ozone attainment demonstration in the South Coast extreme ozone nonattainment area as a result of a recent court decision. Although USEPA has replaced the 1-how ozone standard with a more health protective 8-hour standard,the CAA anti- backsliding provisions require that California have approved plans for attaining the 1-how standard. 2 Although the 2012 AQMP was approved by the SCAQMD Board on December 7,2012,the plan did not get submitted in the USEPA by December 14,2012 as it first required approval from CARB.The 2012 AQMP was subsequently approved by CARS on January 25,2013,and w of February 13,2013 the plan has been submitted by CARS m the USEPA. r Orange County Water District Water Production Enhancement Project Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration&CEQA-Plus Federal Consultation Review 4-22 Section 4 Rule 403 applies to any actidty or human[made condition capable of generating fugitile dust. Rule 1113: Architectural Coatings No person shall apply or solicit the application of any architectural coating within the SCAQMD with VOC content in excess of the [blues specified in a table incorporated in the Rule. Significant Impact Threshold The OCWD and the City of Huntington Beach hale not delbloped specific air nlality thresholds for air iluality impacts. Howeler, as stated in Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, the significance criteria established by the applicable air Duality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the abole determinations. As such, the significance thresholds and analysis methodologies in SCAQMD® CEQA Air Quality Handbook are used in elaluating project impacts. SCAQMD has established daily mass thresholds for regional pollutant emissions, which are shown in Table 5. Aside from regional air ntality impacts, projects in the SCAB are also rewired to analy[t: local air illality impacts. As discussed predously, SCAQMD has deleloped LSTs that represent the maximum emissions from a project that are not expected to cause or contribute to an exceedance of the most stringent applicable federal or state ambient air Duality standards, and thus would not cause or contribute to localiled air Duality impacts. LSTs are deleloped based on the ambient concentrations of that pollutant for each of the 38 source receptor areas ISRAsoin the SCAB. The locali[Ed thresholds, which are found in the mass rate looklup tables in SCAQMD® Final Localized Significance Threshold Methodology document, were de[Eloped for use on projects that are less than or equal to fife acres in SKIS and are only applicable to the following criteria pollutants: NOx, CO, PM10, and PM2.5• The construction and operational LSTs for a one[acre site in SRA 18 LNorth Costal Orange CountyQ which is where the Project site is located, are shown in Table 6. It should be noted that with regards to NOx emissions, the two principal species of NOx are NO and NO2, with the [gist majority 195 percentoof the NOx emissions being comprised of NO. Howeler, because adcerse health effects are associated with NO2, and not NO the analysis of IocaliDad air Duality impacts associated with NOx emissions is focused on NO2 le[t?ls. For combustion sources, SCAQMD assumes that the con Darsion of NO to NO2 is complete at a distance of 5,000 meters from the source. Table 5: SCAQMD Regional Air Quality Significance Thresholds Pollutant Mass Daily Thresholds (Ibslday) Construction Operations Oxides of Nitrogen INOxD 100 55 Reacti[B Organic Gases IROG❑ 75 55 ? Orange County Water District Water Production Enhancement Project Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declandion&CEQA-Plus Federal Consultation Review 4-23 Section 4 Respirable Particulate Matter IPM,,D 150 150 Fine Particulate Matter 11PM2.50 55 55 Oxides of Sulfur[SOxo 150 150 Carbon Monoxide [COD 550 550 Table 6: SCAQMD Localized Significance Thresholds Pollutant Monitored Within SRA 18— One-Acre Site North Coastal Orange County Allowable emissions(pounds/day)as a function of receptor distance (feet)from site boundary 25(m) 50(m)T100(m) 200(m) 500(m) Construction Thresholds Nitrogen Oxides INOxd 92 93 108 140 219 Carbon Monoxide ECO❑ 647 738 1,090 2,096 6,841 Respirable Particulate Matter[ffM100 4 13 27 54 135 Fine Particulate Matter I)PM2 s11 3 5 9 22 76 Operational Thresholds Nitrogen Oxides INOxd 92 93 108 140 219 Carbon Monoxide [COo 647 738 1,090 2,096 6,841 Respirable Particulate Matter IIPM150 1 4 7 13 33 Fine Particulate Matter PM2 so 1 1 1 2 1 3 1 6 19 a The locali®d Mmsholds listed for Nos in this fade take into consideration the gradual con�sreion of NO to NO2.The analysis of locall�ed it amlily Impacts associated with NOx emissions focuses on NO¢le21s as May are associated vdt adrarse heart elfects. SOURCE: SCAOMD,2003 Re Ised 2009�, A. Would the project be in conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan or congestion management plan? Less than Significant Impact: The study area is located within the SCAB, which is under the jurisdiction of the SCAQMD. SCAQMD® 2012 AQMP is the applicable air olality plan for the study area. Projects that are consistent with the regional population, housing, and employment forecasts identified by SCAG are considered to be consistent with the AQMP growth projections, since the forecast assumptions by SCAG forms the basis of the land use and transportation control portions of the AQMP. Additionally, because SCAG® regional growth forecasts are based upon, among other things, land uses designated in general plans, a project that is consistent with the land use designated in a general plan would also be consistent with the SCAG® regional forecast projections, and thus also with the AQMP growth projections. The proposed project implements a temporary water storage tank to support the expansion of the GWRS but would not substantially increase the employment growth anticipated within the 2012 AQMP. Nor would the proposed project result in the creation of new housing or potential residential growth. Because the land use would not change, ? Orange County Water District Water Production Enhancement Project Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration&CEQA-Plus Federal Consultation Review 4-24 Section 4 and has been in operation since before the creation of the 2012 AQMP, the proposed project would not change the regional growth forecasts as identified in the local General Plan or those of the 2012 AQMP. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with, or obstruct, implementation of the AQMP, and this impact would be less than significant. B. Would the project violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? Construction Less than Significant Impact: Construction actidties associated with the proposed project would generate pollutant emissions from the following construction actidties: 11❑ site preparation: [2oconstruction workers traEbling to and from work site; 3-deliEbry and hauling of construction supplies to, and debris from, the work site; ADfuel combustion by on[site construction el7uipment; 15Dtank and building construction and the application of architectural coatings. These construction actidties would temporarily create emissions of dust, fumes, eolipment exhaust, and other air contaminants. The amount of emissions generated on a daily basis would Lary, depending on the intensity and types of construction actidties occurring simultaneously. Table 7 summari[es the modeled peak daily emissions of criteria air pollutants and oame precursors associated with the proposed project for each indiddual phase as well as for oDsHaps where construction of different phases would occur at the same time. For the projects construction, CCWD prodded the full inDantory of the enjipment that would be used during the peak day for each of the construction phase. As shown in Table 7, the maximum daily construction emissions generated by the proposed project® worst[case construction scenario would not exceed SCAQMD® daily significance threshold for any criteria pollutant and therefore would result in less than significant impacts. No mitigation is reDAred. Table 7: Proposed Regional Construction Emissions Construction Activities Estimated Maximum Daily Emissions(lbslday) ROG I NOx I CO 1SOz 1 PMtr T PM2,6 Indil7dual Phase Emissions 1A 4.66 63.38 28.25 0.13 8.35 4.63 1 B 1.52 17.88 11.34 0.04 0.90 0.63 1 C 0.90 11.15 10.44 0.02 0.73 0.46 1 D 59.65 19.79 21.85 0.03 0.94 1.56 1 E 1.22 16.03 17.49 0.03 0.74 1.35 Phase Overlap Emissions 1 D, 1 E 60.88 1 35.82 1 39.34 1 0.06 1 1.68 2.91 r Orange County Water District Water Production Enhancement Project Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration&CEgA-Plus Federal Consultation Review 4-25 Section 4 Maximum Daily Emissions Maximum Emissions 60.88 63.38 39.34 0.13 8.35 4.63 Regional Significance Threshold 75 100 550 150 150 55 Significant lmpact0 No No I No No I No No Source:ESA,2015. Operation Less than Significant Impact: Implementation of the proposed project would result in longfterm regional emissions of criteria air pollutants and clone precursors associated with the operation of the new tank, pump station, and pipeline. As shown in Table 8, the proposed project would result in long Nrm regional emissions of criteria air pollutants and o[bne precursors that are below SCAQMD® applicable thresholds. Therefore, the proposed projects operational emissions would not result in or substantially contribute to emissions concentrations that exceed the NAAQS and CAAQS. No mitigation measures are rewired. Table 8: Operation Emissions Emissions Source Estimated Emissions (lbslday) ROG NOx CO S02 PM10 PM2,1 Total Operational 0.0359 0.0179 0.0879 3.5e[4 0.0258 7.11e3 Emissions Regional Significance 55 55 550 150 100 55 Threshold Significant Impact0 No No No No No No C. Would the project result in cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard? Less than Significant Impact: The study area is located within the SCAB, which is considered the cumulatiL-e study area for air wality. Because the SCAB is currently classified as a state nonattainment area for omne, PM10, and PM2.5, cumulatiDa deCelopment consisting of the proposed project along with other reasonably foreseeable future projects in the SCAB as a whole could ❑olate an air uality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air Duality ❑olation. HoweCer, based on SCAQMD19 cumulatID3 air Duality impact methodology, SCAQMD recommends that if an indiddual project results in air emissions of criteria pollutants [ROG, CO, NOx, SOx, PM10, and PM2.0hat exceed the SCAQMD® recommended daily thresholds for projectispecific impacts, then it would also result in a cumulatilbly considerable net increase of these criteria pollutants for which the proposed project region is in non®ttainment under an ? Orange County Water District Water Production Enhancement Project Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration&CEgA-Plus Federal Consultation Review 4-26 Section 4 applicable federal or state ambient air Duality standard. As shown in Table 7, the proposed projects construction emissions would not exceed SCAQMDs daily thresholds. Thus, because the proposed projects construction[period impact would be less than significant, the proposed project would not result in a significant cumulatilb impact, when considered with other past, present and reasonably foreseeable projects. In addition, the operational emissions associated with the proposed project would also not exceed the SCAQMDs thresholds of significance for any of the criteria pollutants. Furthermore, the proposed project would also be consistent with SCAQMDs AQMP. Thus, the proposed project would not conflict with SCAQMDs air quality planning efforts for nonattainment pollutants and would not lead to a cumulatiCely considerable net increase in nonattainment pollutants during operations. ODrrall, the proposed projects construction and operational emissions contribution to cumulatiQb air quality impacts would be less than significant. No mitigation measures are required. D. Would the project expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? Less than Significant Impact: The daily onsite construction emissions generated by the proposed project were egaluated against SCAQMDs LSTs for a one[acre site to determine whether the emissions would cause or contribute to ad[brse IocaliCed air quality impacts.3 The nearest sensitive receptors to the study area are the residential neighborhoods located across Brookhurst Street to the west. The nearest residential buildings are located o[]3r 50 meters away from where the construction actidties would occur. Since the mass rate look1hp tables prodded by SCAQMD only proDdes LSTs at receptor distances of 25, 50, 100, 200, and 500 meters, the LSTs for a receptor distance of 50 meters are used to eEsluate the potential locali[ed air Duality impacts associated with the Projects peak day construction emissions. Table 9 identifies the daily unmitigated, localiEbd onsite emissions that are estimated to occur during the proposed projects worst[base construction scenarios based on receptor distance and phase. As shown in Table 9, the daily unmitigated emissions generated onsite by the proposed projects worst[base construction scenario would not exceed the applicable SCAQMD LST for any criteria pollutants. Because the proposed projects worst[base construction emissions would not exceed SCAQMDs applicable LSTs, the proposed project would be less than significant for IocaliCed construction impacts. No mitigation measures are required. 3 According to SCAQMD's LST methodology,LSTs are only applicable to the m-site construction emissions that are generated by a project and do not apply to emissions generated offsite such as mobile emissions on roadways from worker, vendor,and haul truck trips. r Orange County Water District Water Production Enhancement Project Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration&CEQA-Plus Federal Consultation Review 4-27 Section 4 Table 9: Localized Daily Construction Emissions Construction Phase Estimated Maximum Daily On-Site Emissions (lbs/day) NoxT c0 I PM"' I PM:.s' 50 meters to receptor Max Indiddual Phase 35.68 21.41 5.63 3.66 1D, 1E o1briap 35.34 38.24 1.52 2.86 Localized Significance Threshold' 93 738 13 1 5 Significant Impacto No No No I No Localized Operational Air Quality Impacts — Criteria Air Pollutants During project operations, the daily amount of localised pollutant emissions generated onsite by the proposed project would not be substantial. The proposed project would not result in a net increase in onlaite operational emissions as there are no localiied criteria pollutant emissions associated with electrical or water consumption, solid waste or wastewater generation, or consumer product use. All criteria pollutant emissions are associated with mobile sources or consumer products IROGsowhich are not considered in the LST analysis. Therefore, the proposed project would result in no impacts with respect to operational LSTs, and no mitigation is reDuired. Localized Construction Air Quality Impacts—TACs Less than Significant Impact: The proposed project construction would result in short❑ term emissions of diesel PM, a TAC. Diesel PM poses a carcinogenic health risk that is measured using an exposure period of 70 years. The exhaust of off[toad heafy[luty diesel eolipment would emit diesel PM during demolition, site preparation e.g., clearingq site grading and excaCation; paring; installation of utilities, materials transport and handling; building construction; and other miscellaneous actidties. SCAQMD has not adopted a methodology for analydng such impacts and has not recommended that health risk assessments be completed for construction[related emissions of TACs. The dose to which receptors are exposed is the primary factor used to determine health risk Gle., the potential exposure to TACs to be compared to applicable standardsLi Dose is a function of the concentration of a substance or substances in the endronment and the duration of exposure to the substance. Dose is positiCely correlated with time, meaning that a longer exposure period would result in a higher exposure IeCel for the maximally exposed indiddual. Thus, the risks estimated for a maximally exposed indiddual are higher if a fixed exposure occurs o1br a longer period of time. According to the Office of Endronmental Health Halard Assessment OEHHAQ Carcinogenic health risk assessments, which determine the exposure of sensitise receptors to TAC emissions, should be based on a 701year exposure period; howeler, such assessments should be limited to the period or duration of actidties associated with the proposed Project. The construction period for the proposed project would be much less than the ? Orange County Water District Water Production Enhancement Project Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration&CEQA-Plus Federal Consultation Review 4-28 Section 4 701year period used for risk determination 11.25 years[] Because offlitoad heaBilduty diesel eouipment would be used only for short time periods, project construction would not expose sensitiEb receptors to substantial emissions of TACs. This impact would be less than significant. Project Operations —TACs Typical sources of acutely and chronically haElardous TACs include industrial manufacturing processes, automotiL-is repair facilities, and dry cleaning facilities. The proposed project would not include any of these potential sources, although minimal emissions may result from the use of consumer products. The operation of the proposed project would not expose surrounding sensiti[L receptors to substantial pollutant or TAC emissions. E. Would the project create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? Less than Significant Impact: During construction of the proposed project, exhaust from ellipment and actidties associated with the application of architectural coatings and other interior and exterior finishes may produce discernible odors typical of most construction sites. Such odors would be a temporary source of nuisance to adjacent uses, but would not affect a substantial number of people. As odors associated with proposed project construction would be temporary and intermittent in nature, the odors would not be considered to be a significant endronmental impact. Therefore, impacts associated with objectionable odors would be less than significant. Land uses that are associated with odor complaints typically include agricultural uses, wastewater treatment plants, food processing plants, chemical plants, composting, refineries, landfills, dairies, and fiberglass molding. The proposed project would be incorporating a flow en alimtion storage tank at OCSDIs Plant E2 to facilitate the expansion of the OCWD groundwater recharge facility. While the new tank would store water processed at the OCSD® wastewater treatment plant, it would not increase the throughput of the wastewater treatment plant. Therefore, because the proposed project would not increase the throughput of a land use type that is associated with nuisance odors, and there ha Ea been no odor complaints within the last two decade, this impact would be less than significant. No mitigation measures are re[]uired. 4.4 Biological Resources The following Analysis is based on a Biological Assessment prepared for the Water Production Enhancement Project by the Orange County Water District Natural Resources Department in Dine of 2016. The Biological Assessment is presented in Appendix B ? Orange County Water District Water Production Enhancement Project Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration&CEQA-Plus Federal Consultation Review 4-29 Section 4 Biological Setting The OCSD Plant No.2 Site is located within USGS Newport Beach Quadrangle at Township 6 South, Range 10 West, and Section 20. The site is deCeloped with wastewater treatment structures, offices, and paced parking areas and roadways. A row of eucalyptus trees extends along western boundary of Plant No. 2 and scattering of natiCe landscaping prodded along the Santa Ana Ricer Trail boarders Plant No. 2 to the east. A site surley of the study area did not identify any sensiti le biological resources on Plant No. 2. Within close dcinity to Plant No.2 are two biological resources; the Talbert Marsh and California Least Tern Colony. Talbert Marsh is a tidal marsh that has been restored to full tidal action. The water within Talbert Marsh is seawater from the ocean inlet located south of the marsh property that fluctuates in height up to 8 feet from tidal flows. Talbert Marsh proddes habitat for both migratory and resident bird species. South of Pacific Coast Highway is the location the California Least Tern Natural PreserDa Area. The California Least Tern Natural PreserCe Area was first established under the Huntington State Beach General DeCelopment Plan in 1976. It was originally dedicated on 2.5 acres and was fenced off with a cyclone fence [a heaEylduty, chain[] link fence topped with barbed wiredto pre Cent predators from harassing the birds. OCer the years, the California least tern Cs nesting area has expanded beyond the fenced area, State Parks has erected additional picket fencing to protect the birds. Currently, the cyclone fence area c000rs approximately 8.9 acres and the picket fence [front yard area is 3.8 acres. California State Parks protects the nesting area by limiting access, conducting trash remoCal, grooming the sand periodically, and conducting predator management. Sensitive Vegetation Communities The proposed project would be constructed on lands that haD3 been paled or are in a disturbed condition. There were no sensitiCe 1:eIgetation communities obserled at the OCSD Plant No. 2 Site where the proposed construction actidties would occur. Special Status Plant Species To determine the potential for special status plant species to be present within the study area, a database search with the United States Fish and Wildlife information and Planning Database and the California Department Fish and Wildlife CCDFWLJNatural DiDarsity Database was conducted. A listing of special status plant species with potential to occur within the Newport Beach USGS Quadrangle is shown in Table 10. Subseduent to the database search, OCWD conducted a surCey of the study area to determine the potential for the species to present within the study area. The ? Orange County Water District Water Production Enhancement Project Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration&CEQA-Plus Federal Consultation Review 4-30 Section 4 determination on the potential for the special status plant species to occur within the study area was based on the following criteria: • Present: Species was obserlad within the study area within the last year. • High: The study area supports suitable habitat and the species has been obserCed within the last year. • Moderate: The study area supports suitable and the species has not been obserlled within last two years. • Low: The study area lacks suitable habitat for the species. Table 10: Special Status Plant Species Species Federal State CNPS General Potential for Habitat/Recent Occurrence Study Occurrence Area Chaparral sand[Verbena NL NL 1B.1 Coast Scrub Low (Abronia Villosa var. audta) Chaparral. Species presumed extirpated Aphanisma NL NL 1B.2 Coastal Scrub, Low (Aphanisma blitoides) Coastal Bluff Scrub, Study Area lacks Coastal Dunes suitable habitat Ventura Marsh Milk0tetch E NL Marshes, Swamps, Low [Astnagalus pycnostachy Coastal Dunes, Study Area lacks [ar. Lanosissimus Coastal Scrub suitable habitat Coulter Saltsbush NL NL 1B.2 Coastal Scrub, Low (Atriplex coulted) Coastal Bluff Scrub, Study Area lacks Coastal Dunes suitable habitat South Coast Saltscale NL NL 1 B.2 Coastal Scrub, Low Coastal Bluff Scrub Study Area lacks suitable habitat Dalldson®Saltscale NL NL 1B.2 Coastal Scrub, Low (Atriplex serenana var. Coastal Bluff Scrub Study Area lacks davidsonfi) suitable habitat Southern Tarplant NL NL 1 B.1 Marshes and Low (centromadia parryi ssp. swamps Study Area lacks Australis) suitable habitat Salt Marsh BirdsEbeak E E 1 B.2 Coastal Salt marsh, Low (Chloropyron maritimum Coastal Dunes Study Area lacks ss . Maritimum) suitable habitat Many Stemmed Dudleya NL NL 1 B.2 Chaparral, Coastal Low (Dudleya Multicaulis) Scrub Study Area lacks suitable habitat San Diego ButtomCelery E E 1 B.1 Vernal pools, Low Iffryngium aristulatum Ear. Coastal Scrub, Study Area lacks parishii❑ Valley and Foothill suitable habitat Grasslands Los Angeles Sunflower NL NL 1A Marshes and Low (Helienthus nuttallii ssp. Swamps Study Area lacks Parishfi) suitable habitat Coulter®Goldfield NL NL 1 B.1 Coastal Salt Low ? Orange County Water District Water Production Enhancement Project Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration&CEQA-Plus Federal Consultation Review 431 Section 4 Masthenia glabrata ssp. marshes Study Area lacks CouRed suitable habitat Mud name NL NL 2.2 Marshes and Low (Name stenocarpum) swamps Project area lacks suitable habitat Gambels Water Cress E T 1B.1 Marshes and Low (Nasturtium gambelii) swamps Study Area lacks suitable habitat Prostrate Vernal Pool NL NL 1 B.1 Vemal pools, Low Nallarretia coastal scrub Study Area lacks Navarrotiaprostrate) suitable habitat Coast woollyheads NL NL 1B.2 Coastal Dunes Low (Nemacaulis denudate var. Study Area lacks denudate) suitable habitat Estuary Seablite NL NL 1 B.2 Marshes and Low (Suaeda Esteroa) swamps Study Area lacks suitable habitat San Bernardino Aster NL NL 1 B.2 Marshes and Low (Symphyotdchum swamps, coastal Study Area lacks defoliatum) scrub suitable habitat Pau l EFEndangered TThreatened NL1Not Liatetl State Listing tCel',fwnia Endangered Species Act.CDFG FPTully Protected E,Endangered TThreatenetl StSeral ssciSpecial Species of Concern WLlwatcb List Ni Listed California Not Plant Sudety CNPS 1APlants pn isumetl to lnd in CelRomia to Plants core,threatened,or endangered in California and elsewhere 2Plants rare,threatened,or endangered In California but more common elsewhere 3 Plants aboard which we need more renew 4 Plants of limited tliren brdign CNPS Threat Rank t Seriously Endangered .2 Fairly Endangered .3 Not Very Endangered Special Status Wildlife Species To determine the potential for special status wildlife species to be present within the study area, a database search with the United States Fish and Wildlife Serdce m1SFWS0information and Planning Database and the Department of California Fish and Wildlife Natural DiCersity Database was conducted. A listing of special status plant species with potential to occur within the Newport Beach USGS Quadrangle is shown in Table 11. Subseolent to the database search, OCWD conducted a surrey of the study area to determine the potential for the species to be present within the study area. The determination on the potential for the special status wildlife species to occur within the study area was based on the following criteria: a Present: Species was obserled within the study area within the last year. ? Orange County Water District Water Production Enhancement Project Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration&CEQA-Plus Federal Consultation Review 4-32 Section 4 • High: The study area supports suitable habitat and the species has been obseried within the last year. • Moderate: The study area supports suitable and the species has not been obserled within last two years. • Low: The study area lacks suitable habitat for the species. Table 11: Special Status Wildlife Species Species Federal State General Potential Occurrence NabitatlRecent Study Area Occurrence Orange throat NIL SSC Low leLal coastal Low Whiptail scrub, sandy areas with Study Area lacks As idosce/is h e hrapatches of scrub suitable habitat Burrowing owl NIL SSC Open growing low Low (Athens cunicularia) grasslands Study Area lacks suitable habitat San Diego Fairy Shrimp E SSC Vernal pools Low (Branchinecta Study Area lacks sandle onensis suitable habitat Western Snowy Plolbr T SSC Sandy Beaches Low (Charaddus alexandrines Study Area lacks nivosus suitable habitat Southwestern Willow E E Riparian woodlands Low Flycatcher Study Area lacks Em idonex trailli extimus suitable habitat Western Mastiff Bat NIL SSC Roosts in cliffs,tall Low (Eumops perotis buildings, trees and Study Area lacks califomicus) I tunnels suitable habitat Big free Bat NIL SSC Roosts in cliffs,tall Low (Nyctinomops macrotis) buildings, trees and Study Area lacks tunnels suitable habitat Pacific Pocket Mouse E SSC Coastal Plains Low (perognathus Study Area lacks Ion imembris acifus) suitable habitat Coast Horned Lilard NIL SSC Low lands along sandy Low (Phrynosoma biainviliii) washes with scattered Study Area lacks brush suitable habitat Coastal California T SSC Coastal sage scrub Low Gnatcatcher Study Area lacks (Polioptila callfomica suitable habitat californica Lightl:ooted Clapper Rail E E Salt marshes Low (Rallus longirostris Study Area lacks levi es) I suitable habitat Southern California NIL SSC Coastal Marshes Low Saltmarsh Shrew Study Area lacks Sorex orafus suitable habitat California Least Tern E E Sandy Beaches Low (Stems antillarum) Study Area lacks suitable habitat ? Orange County Water District Water Production Enhancement Project Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration&CEQA-Plus Federal Consultation Review 4-33 Section 4 Least Bells ❑reo E E Low growing riparian Low (Vireo bellii pusillus) habitats Study Area lacks suitable habitat "Send Federal EntlanOeretl Species Act E Endangered T Threatened California Endanne red Species ActiCalifornia Department Fish Game FP Fully Protected E1Entlangereo TThreatenetl 515ensiti e SSC Special species of concern WC warm List Critical Habitat The Federal Endangered Species Act reouires the federal golkrnment to designate Critical Habitat for any species it lists under the Federal Endangered Species Act. Critical Habitat is defined as 1 Dspecific areas within the geographical area occupied by the specie at the time of listing, if they contain physical or biological features essential to conserDation, and those features may reLUire special management considerations or protection and 2Dspecific areas outside the geographical area occupied by the species if the agency determines that the area itself is essential for conserCation. According to the of USFWS Information, Planning, and ConserCation System Database and the California Department of Fish and Wildlife Natural DiDersity Database, the study area is not located on lands that are designated as Critical Habitat. Waters of the United States A water body is considered Waters of the U.S. if it is: 11 Etraditional nadgable water ITNWU [BDwetlands adjacent to a TNW; GBononinadgable tributaries of TNW that haDe perennial or seasonal Flow of water; and 14Dwetlands that are adjacent to non[hadgable tributaries of TNW that ham perennial or seasonal flow of water. The nearest Waters of the U.S. to the study area is the Santa Ana Ri[er. The Federal jurisdiction along the Santa Ana Ri[]3r extends to the ordinary high water mark and to any adjacent wetland 113getation. Waters of the State of California According to the State Water Code, Waters of the State are defined as any surface water, groundwater or wetlands within the boundary of the state. The nearest Waters of the State to the study area is the Santa Ana Ri[Br. The State jurisdiction along the Santa Ana Ri[Br extends to the top of the slope to adjacent wetland 113getation. Wetland Waters of the United States and State California Wetland Waters are a subset of jurisdictional Waters of the U.S. and the State. Generally, wetlands are lands where saturation with water is the dominant factor determining the nature of soil deCBlopment and the types of plant and animal ? Orange County Water District Water Production Enhancement Project Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration&CEQA-Plus Federal Consultation Review 4-34 Section 4 communities Ii[Ing in the soil and on its surface. Wetlands generally include swamps, freshwater marshes, brackish water and saltwater marshes, bogs, liernal pools, periodically inundated salt flats, intertidal mudflats, wet meadows, wet pastures, springs and seeps, portions of lakes, ponds, ri[Prs and streams and all areas which are periodically or permanently collared by shallow water, or dominated by hydrophilic Cagetation, or in which the soils are predominantly hydric in nature. Presently, there is no single definition for wetlands. HoweCer, all resource agencies recogniLL that wetlands must demonstrate the following three essential elements: d Othe site periodically supports hydrophytic CPgetation, 12Ethe site contains hydric soil and CSDthe site periodically contains water or the soil is saturated with water at some time during the growing season of each year. Project Impacts A. Would the project have a substantial adverse impact, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive or special status species in local or regional plans, policies or regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and wildlife Services? Onsite Impacts No Impact: Based on a reDew of databases from United State Fish and Wildlife Serlice and California Department of Fish and Wildlife and biological sur[Pys conducted within the study area, it has been determined that there would be low potential for special status plant species or special status wildlife species to be present on OCSD Plant No. 2. As shown in Table 10 and Table 11, Plant No. 2 lacks suitable habitat to support special status plant species or special status wildlife species that were identified in the database search. Additionally, no indications were found that any special status species were ear present. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not result in adCPrse impacts to any special status plant species or special status wildlife species. Offsite Impacts Less than Significant Impact: Located south of OCSD Plant No. 2 is the Talbert Marsh and south of Pacific Coast Highway is the California Least Tern Colony. Both of these biological resources could pro-lde suitable nesting habitat for special status bird species. The construction operations for the proposed project would be confined to OCSD Plant No. 2. No construction act!Oties would occur at the Talbert Marsh or at the California Least Tern Colony. Therefore, no direct impacts to special status plant or wildlife species would occur. The construction actidties for the proposed project would in MCP the operation of heaEy construction eDulpment that could operate during nesting season. If the construction actidty was to occur in close proximity to nesting birds there would be the potential that ? Orange County Water District Water Production Enhancement Project Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration&CEQA-Plus Federal Consultation Review 4-35 Section 4 breeding patterns could be disturbed. The United States Fish and Wildlife Serdce as established a noise impact threshold of 60 dBA to identify potential adverse impacts to nesting birds. The Talbert Marsh is located approximately 3,300 feet from where the construction actidties would occur and the California Least Tern Colony is located approximately 4,200 feet from the construction would occur. Based on the nosiest piece of construction eLUipment that would be used, the noise estimated Ie0al at the Talbert Marsh and at the California Least Tern Colony would be below 49 dBA. Additionally, with the presence of the block wall around Plant No. 2 and the traffic noise along Pacific Coast Highway, it would be Cery unlikely that construction noise would herd at either location. Potential indirect noise impacts to special status wildlife species would be less than significant. No mitigation measures are re0uired. B. Would the project have a substantial adverse impact on any riparian habitat or natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, and regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? No Impact: The location where the proposed flow entaliiation tank and pump station structure would be constructed is currently paled or in a disturbed condition. A surley conducted at the location where the flow eEualilation tank and pump station structure would be constructed did not identify any sensitilb Eegetation communities. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not result in adEOrse impacts to sensiti[E natural communities. No mitigation measures realired. C. Would the project have a substantially adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act through direct removal, filling hydrological interruption, or other means? No Impact: The location where the proposed project would be constructed is paLbd or in a disturbed condition. A preliminary site surCey conducted on the study area did not identify any rewired parameters that define Wetland Waters of the U.S. or State. Therefore, the implementation of the proposed project would not ad[brsely impact Wetland Waters of the U.S or State. No mitigation measures reDiired. D. Would the project interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? Less than Significant Impact: The OCSD Plant No. 2 Site is currently improled with buildings, wastewater treatment facilities, roadways and parking areas. The site does not contain suitable habitat or prodde linkages to suitable habitat to support wildlife movement. Along the perimeter of Plant No.2 are a row of eucalyptus trees that could prodde potential nesting opportunities for migratory birds. Therefore, construction actidties for the proposed project would not inmlLe the remoEel of any trees. Therefore, r Orange County Water District Water Production Enhancement Project Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration&CEQA-Plus Federal Consultation Review 4-36 Section 4 potential direct impacts to nesting migratory birds would be abided. Additionally, sound attenuation measures would be incorporated into the project to minimi[B noise impacts in the study area. The Talbert Marsh is located approximately 3,600 feet from the construction actidties and the California Least Tern Colony is located approximately 4,500 feet from where the construction would occur. At the distance the construction noise lelels would be minimal and would not pose a potential disruption to nesting birds. The implementation of the proposed project would not result in significant adierse impacts to migratory birds or result in significant adarse impacts to wildlife moD3ment. No mitigation measures are rewired. E. Would the project conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as tree preservation policy or ordinance? No Impact: The City of Huntington Beach does not ham any local policies or ordinances that prodde for the protection of management of biological resources that would apply to the study area. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not be in conflict with local polices or ordinances that prodde for the protection of biological resources. No mitigation measures are relluired. F. Would the project be in conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? No Impact: The OCSD Plant No. 2 Site is not included within adopted Habitat Conser ation Plan. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not be in conflict with any appro[bd Habitat Management Plan or Natural Community Conserlation Plan. No mitigation measures are rentired. 4.5 Cultural Resources The following analysis is based on a Phase 1 Cultural Resources Report prepared for the GWRS Final Expansion Project by Endronmental Science Associates in August of 2016. The Phase 1 Cultural Resources Report is presented in Appendix C. Existing Setting The study area is located in the cities of Huntington Beach and Fountain Valley, Orange County, in southern California. The topography of Orange County includes a combination of mountains, hills, flatlands, and shorelines. UrbaniDad Orange County is predominantly within an alludal plain, semi[anclosed by the Puente and Chino Hills to the north, the San Coalluin Hills to the south, and the Santiago Foothills and the Santa Ana Mountains to the east. The Puente and Chino Hills, which identify the northern limit of the plains, extend for 22 miles and reach a peak height of 7,780 feet. To the east and r Orange County Water District Water Production Enhancement Project Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration&CEQA-Plus Federal Consultation Review 4-37 Section 4 southeast of the plains are the Santa Ana Mountains, which hale. a peak height of 5,691[Beet. The Santa Ana Ricer is located adjacent to and just east of the study area. Prehistoric Setting The prehistory of the region has been summariEbd within four major hori[bns or cultural periods: Early 110,000 to 8,000 before present [B.P.W Millingstone 18,000 to 3,000 B.P.q Intermediate 13,000 to 1,500 BRI. and Late Prehistoric 11,500 B.P to A.D. 176911 LWallace, 1955; Warren, 19680 Early Period(10,000 to 8,000 B.P.) The southern California coast may halls been settled as early as 10,000 years ago Tones, 19920 These early inhabitants were likely maritime adapted groups exploiting shellfish and other marine resources found along the coastline [Dixon, 1999; Erlandson, 1994; Vellanoweth and Altschul, 200211 One site located in Newport Bay, Orange County [CA[ORAI4odates to approximately 9,500 years B.P. and suggests early intenslie utiliLation of shellfish, fish, and bird resources EDrOCer at al., 1983; Macko, 19980 Millingstone Period(8,000 to 3,000 B.P.) The Millingstone Period dates to about 8,000 to 3,000 B.P. The transition from the Early Period to the Millingstone Period is marked by an increased emphasis on the processing of seeds and edible plants. The increased utilillation of seeds is elldent by the high freouencies of handstones [tdnnanosoand milling slabs [metateso Around 5,000 B.P., mortar and pestles appear in the archaeological record. Mortars and pestles suggest the exploitation of acorns IX/ellanoweth and Altschul, 200211 Millingstone Period sites in Orange County generally date to between 8,000 and 4,000 B.P. Archaeological eddence suggests a low, stable population centered around semi[ibermanent residential bases. These sites are located along coastal marine terraces, near the shoreline, bays, or estuaries. Satellite camps were used to take adlbntage of seasonally aCailable resources. Marine resources were supplemented by seeds and small terrestrial mammals. Later Millingstone Period sites indicate a growing reliance on shellfish [Cleland et al., 200711 Intermediate Period(3,000 to 1,500 B.P.) The Intermediate Period dates to between 3,000 to 1,500 B.P. Archaeological sites indicate a broader economic base, with increased reliance on hunting and marine resources. An expanded in i entory of milling ellipment is found at sites dated to this period. Intermediate Period sites are characterised by the rise of the mortar and pestle and small projectile points [Cleland et al., 20071J The number of Intermediate Period sites in Orange County declined o[br time, particularly around Newport Bay. Climate changes and drier conditions led to the congregation of populations near freshwater r Orange County Water District Water Production Enhancement Project Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration&CEQA-Plus Federal Consultation Review 4-38 Section 4 sources. Settlement patterns indicate greater sedentism, with reduced exploitation of seasonal resources and a lack of satellite camps. Coastal terrace sites are not reoccupied during this time period. These shifts in settlement and subsistence strategies led to growing population densities, resource intensification, higher reliance on labor[ihtensiEb technologies, such as the circular fishhook, and more abundant and di[Brse hunting eDuipment. Rises in disease and inter4tersonal ❑olence, ❑sible in the archaeological record, may be due to the increased population densities [Cleland et al., 2007; Raab at al., 19950 Late Prehistoric Period(1,500 B.P. to A.D. 1769) The Late Prehistoric Period began around 1,500 B.P. and lasted until Spanish contact in 1769. The Late Prehistoric Period resulted in concentration of larger populations in settlements and communities, greater utili-ation of the a-ailable food resources, and the delelopment of regional subcultures [Cleland at al., 2007-. Artifacts from this period include milling implements, as well as bone and shell tools and ornaments. Newport Bay and San [banlin Hills, abandoned during the Intermediate Period, were reoccupied during the Late Prehistoric Period. These settlements were smaller than in the Intermediate. Village sites were located in areas with a multitude of resources. Small collector groups moled between a small number of these permanent settlements [Cleland et al., 20070 Ethnographic Setting The study area is located at the southern extent of Gabrielino[Tong Da territory, near the boundary with the ElianeDD, or more properly Acjachemen, to the south. Traditionally, the boundary between the two is identified as either Aliso Creek or the drainage didde to the north of the creek, roughly 20 miles south of the study area. Both are included here. Gabrielino-Tongva Prior to European coloni ation, the GabrielinoFTongla, a Takic[speaking group, occupied a di erse area that included: the watersheds of the Los Angeles, San Gabriel, and Santa Ana ri ers; the Los Angeles basin; and the islands of San Clemente, San Nicolas, and Santa Catalina Xroeber, 19251J The Gabrielino-Tonga are reported to hale been second only to the Chumash in terms of population sire and regional influence [Bean and Smith, 19780 The GabrielinoJongLa were hunter[gatherers and IiCad in permanent communities located near the presence of a stable food supply. Community populations generally ranged from 501100 inhabitants, although larger settlements may hale existed. The Gabdelino[Tong[13 are estimated to hale had a population numbering around 5,000 in ? Orange County Water District Water Production Enhancement Project Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration&CEQA-Plus Federal Consultation Review 4-39 Section 4 the prelbontact period, with many recorded tillages along the drainages mentioned aboEb and in the Los Angeles basin proper [ troeber, 19250 Beginning with the Spanish Period and the establishment of Mission San Gabriel ArcDigel, NatiCe Americans throughout the Los Angeles area suffered seCere depopulation and their traditional culture was radically altered. Nonetheless, Gabrielino❑ TongDa descendants still reside in the greater Los Angeles and Orange County areas and maintain an actile interest in their heritage. Juaneno-Acjachemen The EuaneEb or Acjachemen, also TakicEspeaking, occupied a more restricted area extending across southern Orange County and northern San Diego County. ELaneEb territory extended along the Pacific coast from midway between Arroyo San Onofre and Las Pulgas Canyon in the south to Aliso Creek in the north, and continued east into the Santa Ana Mountains from Santiago Peak in the northwest to the headwaters of Arroyo San Mateo in the southeast Ttroeber 1925EJ The ELaneEb were bounded by the GabrielinoJongEO to the north, and the LuiseEb to the east and south. The ELaneEbEkcjachemen, like the Gabrielino[Tong Ea, subsisted on small game, coastal marine resources, and a wide leriety of plant foods such as grass seeds and acoms. Their houses were conical thatched reed, brush, or bark structures. The CLaneEb inhabited permanent tillages centered around patrilineal clans, with each ❑Ilage headed by a chief, known as a nu Ttroeber 1925; Sparkman 190811 Seasonal camps associated with tillages were also used. Each tillage or clan had an associated territory and hunting, collecting, and fishing areas. Villages were typically located in proximity to a food or water source, or in defensiEB locations, often near Lalley bottoms, streams, sheltered co Les or canyons, or coastal strands LBean and Shipek 1978EJ The ELaneEbEAcjachemen population was estimated to haDa numbered approximately 1,000 at the time of European contact. Beginning with the Spanish Period and the establishment of Mission San Elan Capistrano, the ELaneEb[Acjachemen suffered seEbre depopulation and their traditional culture was radically altered. Nonetheless, descendants still reside in the Orange County area and maintain an acti50 interest in their heritage. Historic Setting The historic setting for the study area is didded into three primary periods: the Spanish Period LA.D. 1769LI821 q the Mexican Period ®1.D. 1821 L1846Q and the American Period FA.D. 1846 to present[] Spanish Period(A.D. 1769-1821) The first European exploration of Orange County began in 1769 when the Gaspar de Portola expedition passed through on its way from Mexico to Monterey. A permanent ? Orange County Water District Water Production Enhancement Project Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration&CEQA-Plus Federal Consultation Review 4.40 Section 4 Spanish presence was established with the founding of Mission San ❑tan Capistrano in 1776 dioo[lar et al., 20020 The mission was founded to break the long journey from Mission San Diego to Mission San Gabriel [hear Los Angeles0 A large, ornate church was constructed at the mission from 1797 to 1806, but was destroyed only six years later in an earth0uake. The church was not rebuilt. In an effort to promote Spanish settlement of Alta California, Spain granted seligral large land concessions from 1784 to 1821. At this time, Spain retained title to the land; indiddual ownership of lands in Alta California was not granted. The parts of Orange County that would become the City of Huntington Beach and the City of Fountain Valley began as a Spanish land concession, known as Rancho Los Nietos. A grant of 300,000 acres was gilbn to Manuel Nieto in 1784 in consideration of his military serdce [City of Huntington Beach, 2000; Logan, 19900 Mexican Period(A.D. 1821-1846) In 1821, Mexico won its independence from Spain. Mexico continued to promote settlement of California with the issuance of land grants. In 1833, Mexico seculariLiad the missions, reclaiming the majority of mission lands and redistributing them as land grants. During this time, Rancho Los Nietos was didded into file smaller ranchos. The area of Huntington Beach became part of Rancho Las Bolsas, a 33,460[acre rancho granted to Maria Catarina RuiElin 1834 [County of Orange, 20110 Maria was the widow of lose Antonio Nieto, Manuel Nieto® son. Many ranchos continued to be used for cattle gradng by settlers during the Mexican Period. Hides and tallow from cattle became a major export for Californios [Hispanic Californiansq many of whom became wealthy and prominent members of society. These Californios led generally easy IiDas, IeaUng the hard work to Caoleros diispanic cowhandsLand Indian laborers. Californios limos centered primarily around enjoying the fruits of their labors, throwing parties and feasting on Catholic holidays [Pitt, 1994; Starr, 20070 American Period(A.D. 1846 to present) Mexico ceded California to the United States as part of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hildalgo, which ended the Mexican American War 118461184811 The treaty also recogniDgd right of Mexican citillons to retain ownership of land granted to them by Spanish or Mexican authorities. Howeller, the claimant was renjired to prole their right to the land before a patent was giDqn. The process was lengthy and costly, and generally resulted in the claimant losing at least a portion of their land to attorneys fees and other costs associated with prodng ownership [Starr, 20070 The Gold Rush d849118550saw the first big influx of American settlers to California. Most of these settlers were men hoping to strike it rich in the gold fields. The increasing ? Orange County Water District Water Production Enhancement Project Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration&CEQA-Plus Federal Consultation Review 4-41 Section 4 population prodded an additional outlet for CaliforniosEcattle [Bancroft, 18900 As demand increased, the price of beef skyrocketed and Californios reaped the benefits. The culmination of the Gold Rush, followed by deCastating floods in 1861 and 1862 and droughts in 1863 and 1864, led to the rapid decline of the cattle industry [Bancroft, 189011 Many Californios lost their lands during this period, and former ranchos were subserviently dilided and sold for agriculture and residential settlement. Following the admission of California into the United States in 1850, the region of modern day Orange County was originally part of Los Angeles County. Orange County was established in 1889, with the City of Santa Ana as County Seat FArmor, 1921 D History of the Study Area The study area was once part of a 300,000[bcre Spanish land grant, Rancho Los Nietos, a part of which became Rancho Las Bolsas during the Mexican Period. Abel Stearns later acrvtired the land for ranching and cultilation of barley. During the land boom of the 1880s, the area was subdilided for agricultural and residential delalopment [County of Orange, 2011; Milkolich, 19860 Predously called Shell Beach and later Pacific City, the town changed its name to Huntington Beach in 1904 when Henry E. Huntington extended Pacific Electric Railway serdce to the little community [Carlberg and Epting, 2009; Milkodch, 1986D DiscoCery of oil in the 1920s led to a population explosion in the town. In one month, the population of Huntington Beach went from 1,500 to 6,000. History of OCSD Plant No. 2 In 1921, the cities of Santa Ana and Anaheim agreed to construct a sewer outfall extending into the Pacific Ocean, thus forming the Orange County Eoint Outfall Sewer IIOSq and marking the beginning of the OCSD. In 1924, EOS construction was completed and the first sewage from member cities was discharged into the system. Three years later, the outfall was extended to a distance of 3,000 feet from shore, and a new screening plant and pumping station was constructed. In 1941, the first units of the Primary Treatment Plant, now referred to as Plant No. 1 ❑were constructed. In 1954, OCSD assumed the duties of DOS and officially commenced operations. OEbr the next 50 years, additional serlices and facilities were constructed at OCSD Plant No. 1. The portion of the existing facility where the proposed OCSD pipe connection would connect was constructed within the last 10 years. In 1954, Plant No. 2 was constructed near the ocean and adjoining Santa Ana Rimer and the second ocean outfall was constructed. OCSD is currently a public agency that prolldes wastewater collection, treatment, and disposal serdces for approximately 2.5 million people in central and northwest Orange County. OCSD is a special district that is goCerned by a Board of Directors consisting of 25 board members appointed from 20 cities, 4 sanitary districts, and one representatilb r Orange County Water District Water Production Enhancement Project Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration&CEQA-Plus Federal Consultation Review 4-42 Section 4 from the Orange County Board of Superdsors. OCSD has two operating facilities [Plants 1 and 20that treat wastewater from residential, commercial and industrial sources Eocsd.como Federal Regulatory Framework Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act Archaeological resources are protected through the NHPA of 1966, as amended 154 United States Code of Laws EUSCE 300101 et seElq and its implementing regulation, Protection of Historic Properties E36 CFR Part 8000 the Archaeological and Historic Preserlation Act of 1974, and the Archaeological Resources Protection Act of 1979. Prior to implementing an [undertakings—e.g., issuing a federal permit4 Section 106 of the NHPA reDuires federal agencies to consider the effects of the undertaking on historic properties and to afford the Addsory Council on Historic PreserEetion and the State Historic PreserD ation Officer ISHPOE]a reasonable opportunity to comment on any undertaking that would adD arsely affect properties eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places [National RegisterU As indicated in Section 101[LI[06[➢ADof the NHPA, properties of traditional religious and cultural importance to a tribe are eligible for inclusion in the National Register. Under the NHPA, a resource is considered significant if it meets the National Register listing criteria at 36 CFR 60.4. National Register of Historic Places The National Register was established by the NHPA of 1966, as [an authoritat!1b guide to be used by federal, State, and local golernments, priDate groups and citiEens to identify the Nation® historic resources and to indicate what properties should be considered for protection from destruction or impairmentE]136 CFR 60.21J The National Register recogniElas both historiciperiod and prehistoric archaeological properties that are significant at the national, state, and local lelels. To be eligible for listing in the National Register, a resource must be significant in American history, architecture, archaeology, engineering, or culture. Districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects of potential significance must meet one or more of the following four established criteria [U.S. Department of the Interior, 20020 • Are associated with elents that hale made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history; • Are associated with the IiEbs of persons significant in our past; • Embody the distinctioB characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction or that represent the work of a master, or that possess high artistic [blues, or that represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack indiddual distinction; or, ? Orange County Water District Water Production Enhancement Project Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration&CEQA-Plus Federal Consultation Review 4.43 Section 4 • Ham yielded, or maybe likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history. Unless the property possesses exceptional significance, it must be at least 50 years old to be eligible for National Register listing m1.S. Department of the Interior, 20020In addition to meeting the criteria of significance, a property must haCe integrity. Integrity is defined as [the ability of a property to conCey its significance0ml.S. Department of the Interior, 200211The National Register recogniCes seCen Dualities that, in Carious combinations, define integrity. The seEbn factors that define integrity are location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association. To retain historic integrity a property must possess selaral, and usually most, of these selen aspects. Thus, the retention of the specific aspects of integrity is paramount for a property to con[A3y its significance. State Regulatory Framework California Environmental Quality Act CEQA is the principal statute go erning envronmental redew of projects occurring in the state and is codified at Public Resources Code [PRCDSection 21000 at seD CEQA reDJires lead agencies to determine if a proposed project would halb a significant effect on the eniiironment, including significant effects on historical or uni-ue archaeological resources. Under CEQA [Section 21084.1-,]a project that may cause a substantial ad[erse change in the significance of an historical resource is a project that may hale. a significant effect on the enilronment. An archaeological resource may lualify as an [historical resourcellunder CEQA. The CEQA Guidelines Qitle 14 California Code of Regulations [CCRDSection 15064.5DrecogniD; that an historical resource includes: A❑ a resource listed in, or determined to be eligible by the State Historical Resources Commission, for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources [California Register[! [213a resource included in a local register of historical resources, as defined in PRC Section 5020.1IkDor identified as significant in a historical resource surrey meeting the reDuirements of PRC Section 5024.1[jgq and Many object, building, structure, site, area, place, record, or manuscript which a lead agency determines to be historically significant or significant in the architectural, engineering, scientific, economic, agricultural, educational, social, political, military, or cultural annals of California by the lead agency, prodded the lead agency6 determination is supported by substantial eddence in light of the whole record. The fact that a resource does not meet the three criteria outlined abolb does not preclude the lead agency from determining that the resource may be an historical resource as defined in PRC Sections 5020.1 yDor 5024.1. ? Orange County Water District Water Production Enhancement Project Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration&CEQA-Plus Federal Consultation Review 4.44 Section 4 California Register of Historical Resources The California Register is ran authoritatiCe listing and guide to be used by State and local agencies, prillate groups, and citiCens in identifying the existing historical resources of the State and to indicate which resources deserD3 to be protected, to the extent prudent and feasible, from Register are based upon National Register criteria 1PRC Section 5024.11110 Certain resources are determined by the statute to be automatically included in the California Register, including California properties formally determined eligible for, or listed in, the National Register. To be eligible for the California Register, a prehistoric or historic1period property must be significant at the local, state, and/or federal lelel under one or more of the following four criteria: • Is associated with elents that halt made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of California® history and cultural heritage; • Is associated with the lilbs of persons important in our past; • Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or represents the work of an important creatile indiddual, or possesses high artistic [alues; or • Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history. A resource eligible for the California Register must meet one of the criteria of significance described abo[D, and retain enough of its historic character or appearance Gntegrityoto be recognilable as a historical resource and to Conley the reason for its significance. It is possible that a historic resource may not retain sufficient integrity to meet the criteria for listing in the National Register, but it may still be eligible for listing in the California Register. California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 reDuire that in the ellant human remains are discolared, the County Coroner be contacted to determine the nature of the remains. In the eLlant the remains are determined to be NatiCe American in origin, the Coroner is reDiired to contact the California NatiCe American Heritage Commission INAHCDwithin 24 hours to relin[luish jurisdiction. California Public Resources Code Section 5097.98 California PRC Section 5097.98, as amended by Assembly Bill 2641, proddes procedures in the eCent human remains of Nati-a American origin are discoCered during project implementation. PRC Section 5097.98 re-uires that no further disturbances occur in the immediate dcinity of the discolery, that the discolery is adelluately protected according to generally accepted cultural and archaeological standards, and ? Orange County Water District Water Production Enhancement Project Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration&CEQA-Plus Federal Consultation Review 4-45 Section 4 that further actilities take into account the possibility of multiple burials. PRC Section 5097.98 further reEuires the NAHC, upon notification by a County Coroner, designate and notify a Most Likely Descendant [BALDoregarding the discoE" of Nati[e American human remains. Once the MLD has been granted access to the site by the landowner and inspected the discoDary, the MLD then has 48 hours to prolide recommendations to the landowner for the treatment of the human remains and any associated graft? goods. In the el ent that no descendant is identified, or the descendant fails to make a recommendation for disposition, or if the land owner rejects the recommendation of the descendant, the landowner may, with appropriate dignity, reinter the remains and burial items on the property in a location that will not be subject to further disturbance. California Public Resources Code Section 21080.3.1 California PRC Section 21080.3.1, as amended by Assembly Bill [ABD52, reDlires lead agencies to consider the effects of projects on tribal cultural resources and to conduct consultation with federally and nonifederally recognitgd NatitP American Tribes early in the ent]ronmental planning process and applies specifically to projects for which a Notice of Preparation INOPODr a notice of NegatiCe Declaration or Mitigated Negatilb Declaration IMNDLwill be filed on or after Dily 1, 2015. The goal is to include California Tribes in determining whether a project may result in a significant impact to tribal cultural resources that may be undocumented or known only to the Tribe and its members and specifies that a project that may cause a substantial adD3rse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource is a project that may haE S a significant effect on the enEironment. Tribal cultural resources are defined as [sites, features, places, cultural landscapes, sacred places, and objects with cultural Elelue to a California NatiD3 American Tribeothat are either included or determined to be eligible for inclusion in the California Register or included in a local register of historical resources EPRC Section 21074 [a Ell Em Archival Research Area of Potential Effects An Area of Potential Effects EAPEDwas established for the project according to Section 106 of the NHPA in coordination with the OCWD. The APE is shown in Figure 12 and is defined as: ❑ the geographic area or areas within which an undertaking may directly or indirectly cause alterations in the character or use of historic properties, if any such properties exist. The APE is influenced by the scale and nature of an undertaking and may be different for different kinds of effects caused by the undertaking 136 Code of Federal Regulations [CFRI BOOA T] ? Orange County Water District Water Production Enhancement Project Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration&CEQA-Plus Federal Consultation Review 4d8 . , OArchaeological Area of Potential Effects r 1 OCSD Plant No,2 L___ f--t Contractor Ln,down Area His.PC Tan: j Flaw Tank I/ I Construction Flow EO m oro.senve / / Control/Meter I / / / / C I'll Etion: Flow O Pump Station wo I / \\ I \\ 4 \\ 1 [ Z d / � y / / s 0 2,000 o Feet t a N Water Production Enhancement Project w E Area of Potential Effects Figure 12 S Section 4 The horiDmtal APE encompasses the the Flow EDaalilation Pump Station and Flow E[]ualilation Control/Meter [about 3.70®cres4 and the area encompassing the pump station [about 0.28 acre[]The �ertical APE includes the anticipated maximum depth of ground disturbance of 25 feet below ground surface and the maximum height of the flow e[]ualiDation tank of 30 feet aboutg ground surface. South Central Coastal Information Center Records Search A records search for the APE and a ❑ [Mile radius was conducted on Dane 21, 2016 at the South Central Coastal Information Center [SCCICq located at California State UniCersity, Fullerton. The records search included a rellew of all recorded cultural resources within a ❑ Tnnile radius of the project APE, as well as a redew of cultural resource reports on file. The Historic Properties Directory was also examined for any documented historic[period built resources within or adjacent to the project APE. The results of the SCCIC records search are included in Appendix C. Previous Cultural Resources Investigations A total of 61 cultural resources studies hale been conducted within a [] [mile radius of the project APE. Of the 61 predous studies, file studies included a pedestrian sur[ey of portions of the APE, and four included archi Cal research for the APE. A complete list of the 61 studies located within ❑[mile of the project APE is located in Appendix C. Less than 50 percent of the project APE has been included in predous cultural resources sur[Bys. Previously Recorded Cultural Resources The records search indicated that nine cultural resources h" been predously recorded within a ❑Gmile radius of the project APE. No cultural resources haDa been preDously recorded within the project APE. SeD'ral prehistoric sites haCe been recorded within the search radius along the east bluffs of the Santa Ana Ricer approximately 2,000 feet east of the project APE. Historic Map and Aerial Review Historic maps and aerial photographs were examined in order to prodde historical information about the APE and to contribute to an assessment of the APES archaeological sensitidty. ACailable maps include: the 1868 U.S. Surleyor Generals surrey plat map of Townships 5 and 6 South, Range 10 West the 1895 and 1901 Santa Ana 1:62,500 topographic Daadrangles; the 1902 Corona 1:125,000 topographic Duadrangle; and the 1935 Newport Beach 1:31,600 topographic Daadrangles; and 1965 and 1975 Newport Beach 7.51minute topographic Daadrangle. Historic aerial photographs of the APE from 1938, 1953, 1963, 1972, 1994, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2009, and 2010 were also examined [historicaerials.com, 2016[] ? Orange County Water District Water Production Enhancement Project Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration&CEQA-Plus Federal Consultation Review 448 Section 4 The 1868 U.S. SurCeyor General® sura?y plat map shows the APE as being located within Rancho Las Bolsas. The plat map indicates salt marshes within the current location of OCSD Plant No. 2. The al ailable historic maps and aerial photographs indicate that the APE and surrounding area was largely used for agricultural purposes throughout the 201h century, and did not become urbaniCed until the latter half of the century. The Santa Ana Rimer is shown confined with artificial IeCees in the 1938 historic aerial photograph. The OCSD Plant No. 2 is not shown on the 1953 aerial. The OCSD Plant No. 2 facility is shown on the 1965 Newport Beach 7.51nninute topographic Djadrangle. Based on a detailed redew of the 1972 and 2016 aerials of the OCSD Plant No.2, there are structures shown on the 1972 aerial that remain risible on the 2016 aerial photograph. Native American Outreach — 2016 On [Aine 2, 2016, a SLF search reDiest letter was sent to the NAHC in an effort to determine whether any sacred sites are listed on SLF for the APE. A response was prodded on Dine 6, 2016 indicating negatille results for Native American cultural resources within the project APE. The NAHC recommended outreach to 12 specific tribal authorities who may want to comment on our search reDrest. A letter to the NAHCdisted tribal authorities was mailed on [Arne 20, 2016. Phone calls were made to each of the named tribal members on [Arne 28, 2016. Responses from each tribe is prodded in Appendix C. The representatiElas from TongEa Acenstral Terrotorial Tribal Nation, Gabrieleno/TongEa San Gabriel Band of Mission, Gabrielino TongEa Tribe, Gabrielin TongEa Nation, and [Ajaneno Band of Mission Indians Acjachemen Nation recommended that because of the culutuial and spiritual sensitidty of the study area that the project incorporate NatiE13 American and Archeological Monitoring. AB 52 In August 2016, OCWD sent letters to two Native American representatiCes who haEb reDrested to be informed on actidties conducted by the OCWD, under PRC Section 21080.3.1. The OCWD reached out to the Draneoo Band of Mission Indians Acjachemen Nation and Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians ❑Kith Nation. Consultation efforts are currently ongoing. Geoarchaeological Review Chris Lockwood, Ph.D., R.P.A., conducted a desktop geoarchaeological redew, of the project APE and dcinity in order to eCaluate the potential for buried archaeological resources within the APE. The following section presents the results of Dr. Lockwood® analysis. ? Orange County Water District Water Production Enhancement Project Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration&CEQA-Plus Federal Consultation Review 4-49 Section 4 Geology and Geomorphology The APE is located in the City of Huntington Beach on the Santa Ana coastal plain in Orange County, California. It is immediately west of a stretch of the Santa Ana Ricer that is confined to a flood control channel. The portion of the APE at OCSD Plant No. 2 is on the distal portion of the alludal fan. During the late Pleistocene, the portion of the APE at OCSD Plant No. 2 was approximately 5.5 miles [9.0 km0inland. Historically, the APE consisted largely of salt marsh, which would ha a been at or just aboCe sea IeDal, and was didded by small channels. The area was for celery agriculture in historic times. The OCSD Plant No. 2 was initially deleloped for sanitation in 1954, but the parcel, including the APE, was progressilbly deleloped towards the north oler the next filb decades. The APE is colered with a palbd surface that is at elelation 314 meters abo e mean sea IelbI ®mslq suggesting the APE contains seleral meters of fill ollorlying the natiD3 salt marsh deposits. Some of the fill material may haDs originated as dredge spoils from channelir03tion of the Santa Ana Ri[t:r. Near surface geology the APE is mapped as late Holocene to latest Pleistocene alludal fan deposits [Morton 2004; Morton and Miller 20060 These deposits consist of grail, sand, and silt transported and deposited by the Santa Ana Ri[fir. To the south of the APE, the OCSD Plant No. 2 site contains unconsolidated eolian dune deposits. soils Soils within the portion of the APE at OCSD Plant No. 2 are mapped primarily as Bolsa silt loam INRCS 201611 Boise series soils are deep, somewhat poorly drained soils deCeloped in mixed alludum parent material on flood plains and basins. The typical soil pedon consists of a plowed Alborimn [Apl, Ap20deCeloped at the top of relatilaly unaltered alludal parent material [C1 through C60extending more than 69 inches deep. The absence of a B[horilon is likely due to the short geological time that has passed since deposition of the parent material, although agricultural actidty has the potential to hale disrupted the delelopment of a recognivable 131lorilon as well. The Ahori on in Bolsa soils ranges from sandy loam to silty clay loam, while the C[loriLon is mainly silt loam and silty clay loam but may contain thin strata of sandier material 1LJSDA 19970 Significantly, many Bolsa soil pedons contain buried Ahorilons [Jbaleosols0 These buried Alhorimns represent periods of time in the past during which landform conditions were relatilaly stable, and during which deposition and erosion were sufficiently balanced to allow for delelopment and retention of a soil weathering profile. From an archaeological perspectile, periods of landform stability, such as those signified by buried Ahori ons, should be correlated with the accumulation and preserlation of cultural remains. Therefore, Boise soils are considered to halb a high sensitidty for buried archaeological resources. ? Orange County Water District Water Production Enhancement Project Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration&CEQA-Plus Federal Consultation Review 4-50 Section 4 Archaeological Potential Although paled and filled, the portion of the APE at the OCSD Plant No. 2 appears to retain high sensitidty for buried archeological resources. During the latest Pleistocene and Holocene, the geomorphic setting of the portion of the APE at the OCSD Plant No. 2 changed from inland to coastal, and rising sea legal resulted in fludal deposition capable of burying archaeological resources. The portion of the APE at the OCSD Plant No. 2 was largely salt marsh into the early 20th century, but this is an area that would ham offered important resources. Owing to its marshy endronment, this area may not ham been falbred for any substantial occupation, but nonetheless is likely to h" been ❑sited for resource procurement and could contain artifacts associated with those actidties. Additionally, the saturated conditions offered within this setting may hao� aided in the preserDition of relatiEbly rare organic artifacts. Cultural Resources Survey and Results A cultural resources pedestrian surEEy of the APE was conducted on Lune 16, 2016 by ArabesDie Said®lbdelwahed to identify the presence of surface archaeological materials. The OCSD Plant No. 2 consists of existing tanks and waste water treatment buildings. The locations of the propose flow eLlali[lation tank and flow eMaliCation control/meter are currently paced and natural ground was not risible. Portions of the proposed location for the Flow Ewali-ation Pump Station and pipeline connection to the flow eMaliCation tank are unpaled and were surEayed in regular interCals. No archaeological or historic built resources were observed within the APE. Potential historiciperiod buildings/structures were noted at the OCSD Plant No. 2 outside of the APE. Project Impacts A. Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in Section 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines? No Impact: One potential historic built resource, OCSD Plant No. 2, was identified as a result of this study. OCSD Plant No.2 was initially constructed more than 45 years ago4, although none of the historiciage buildings/structures appear to be within the APES. The improEBments proposed within OCSD Plant No. 2 are shown in Figure 2. The proposed construction actidties would haEe no impact on aboEaground builtEl endronment resources. The actidties would be located in areas where there are no known historical resources dating from before 1971; where the area is currently only 4 The California OHP recommends including all resources over 45 years of age in the planning process given the lag time between environmental documentation and project implementation.Generally,resources more than 50 years of age require evaluation for listing in the National Register and California Register in assess impacts to historic properties under Section 106 of the NHPA and historical resources under CEQA. 5 The project may require creation of a separate architectural APE in order to adequately address direct/indirect effects to historic builtrescurces. r Orange County Water District Water Production Enhancement Project Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration&CEQA-Plus Federal Consultation Review 451 Section 4 graded and paced. The implementation of the Water Enhancement Project would not adlersely impact any historic or potentially historic resource. B. Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines? Less than Significant with Mitigation: As a result of this study, no archaeological resources were identified within the APE. Hower, based on the results of study, the project APE should be considered highly sensitiLa for subsurface archaeological resources. Since the project includes ground[disturbing actidties, there is a potential for discoDary of subsurface archaeological deposits that could Dalify as historic properties under Section 106 of the NHPA and/or historical or uniDue archaeological resources under CEQA. This potential impact to unknown archaeological resources would be considered significant. Mitigation Measures CR11, CR[2, and CR13 are recommended to ensure that the project would result in No Historic Properties Affected under Section 106 of the NHPA and less than significant impacts to historical or unill a archaeological resources under CEQA. Mitigation Measures CR-1: Prior to earth modng actidties, a Dlalified archaeologist meeting the Secretary of the Interiors Professional Qualifications Standards for archaeology [U.S. Department of the Interior, 2008owill conduct cultural resources sensitidty training for all construction personnel. Construction personnel shall be informed of the types of cultural resources that may be encountered, and of the proper procedures to be enacted in the slant of an inadlartent discollary of archaeological resources or human remains. OCWD will ensure that construction personnel are made aLailable for and attend the training and retain documentation demonstrating attendance. CR-2: Prior to the start of any ground[disturbing actidties, OCWD will retain an archaeological monitor to obserCe all ground[disturbing actidties. Archaeological monitoring will be conducted by a monitor familiar with the types of archaeological resources that could be encountered and shall work under the direct superdsion of the Dualified archaeologist. Monitoring may be reduced or discontinued by the -ualified archaeologist, in coordination with OCWD, based on obser[ations of subsurface soil stratigraphy and/or the presence of older C[horimn deposits. The monitor will be empowered to halt or redirect ground[disturbing actidties away from the dcinity of a discoLbry until the qualified archaeologist has eCaluated the disco Cary and determined appropriate treatment. The monitor will keep daily logs detailing the types of actidties and soils obser ed, and any discoCeries. After monitoring has been completed, the Dualified archaeologist shall prepare a monitoring report that details the results of monitoring. The report shall be submitted to OCWD, SCCIC, and any NatlCe American groups who reD/est a copy. r Orange County Water District Water Production Enhancement Project Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration&CEQA-Plus Federal Consultation Review 452 Section 4 CR-3: In the elent of the discelary of archaeological materials, OCWD or its contractor shall immediately cease all work actidties in the area [within approximately 100 feetoof the discoEbry until it can be eEbluated by the oualified archaeologist. Prehistoric archaeological materials might include obsidian and chert flaked[stone tools le.g., projectile points, knifes, scrapers0or toollhnaking debris; culturally darkened soil midden®containing heat affected rocks, artifacts, or shellfish remains; and stone milling e0uipment le.g., mortars, pestles, handstones, or milling slabsq and battered stone tools, such as hammerstones and pitted stones. Historic[Ueriod materials might include stone or concrete footings and walls; filled wells or prides; and deposits of metal, glass, and/or ceramic refuse. Construction shall not resume until the Dialified archaeologist has conferred with OCWD on the significance of the resource. SWRCB shall be afforded the opportunity to determine whether the discolery reajires addressing under Section 106 Post[Re lew Discoferies prodsions prodded in 36 CFR 800.13. If it is determined that the discoCered archaeological resource constitutes a historic property under Section 106 of the NHPA or a historical resource under CECA, abidance and preserlbtion in place shall be the preferred manner of mitigation. PreserEbtion in place maintains the important relationship between artifacts and their archaeological context and also serlbs to aloid conflict with traditional and religious lalues of groups who may ascribe meaning to the resource. Preserlation in place may be accomplished by, but is not limited to, afbidance, incorporating the resource into open space, capping, or deeding the site into a permanent conserfation easement. In the eDmt that preserfation in place is demonstrated to be infeasible and data recol ery through excamtion is the only feasible mitigation afailable, an Archaeological Resources Treatment Plan that proddes for the adenjate recolery of the scientifically conseojential information contained in the archaeological resource shall be prepared and implemented by the Dialified archaeologist in consultation with OCWD. The appropriate NatiE0 American representatiE0s shall be consulted in determining treatment for prehistoric or NatiEB American resources to ensure cultural [clues ascribed to the resource, beyond that which is scientifically important, are considered. C. Would the project disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? Less than Significant with Mitigation: NatiDa American respondents indicated sensibility for archaeological resources in the APE and surrounding area gilen the proximity to the Santa Ana Ricer corridor. In addition, the geoarchaeological redew indicates that the portion of the APE within OCSD Plant No. 2 was largely salt marsh into the early 20th century and would hale offered important resources. Owing to its marshy endronment, this area may not haDq been fafbred for any substantial occupation, but nonetheless it is likely to haDq been dsited for resource procurement r Orange County Water District Water Production Enhancement Project Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration&CEQA-Plus Federal Consultation Review 4-53 Section 4 and could contain artifacts associated with those actidties. Additionally, the saturated conditions offered within this setting could hale aided in the preserlation of relatilely rare organic artifacts. Mitigation Measures CRA is recommended to ensure that the project would result in No Historic Properties Affected under Section 106 of the NHPA and less than significant impacts to historical or uniDue archaeological resources under CEQA. Mitigation Measure CR-4: Prior to issuance of a grading permit and prior to start of any ground[disturbing actidties, OCWD will retain a NatiDa American monitor to obserCe all ground[ disturbing actidties. The monitor shall be obtained from a Tribe that is traditionally and culturally affiliated with the area, according the NAHC list. The monitor shall be empowered to halt or redirect ground[disturbing actidties away from the Jcinity of a discoCery until the ilualified archaeologist has eDaluated the disco-ery and determined appropriate treatment. Monitoring may be reduced or discontinued, in coordination with OCWD and the nialified archaeologist, based on obserlations of subsurface soil stratigraphy and/or the presence of older C[horiibn deposits. D. Would the project directly or indirectly disturb or destroy a unique paleontogical resource or site? Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation: Dr. Samuel A. McLeod, Ph.D., of the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County, Vertebrate Paleontology Section, conducted a thorough search on one 16, 2016 of the paleontology collection records for the locality and specimen data for the proposed project. No Vrtebrate fossil localities lie within the project APE; howellar, there are localities nearby from the same sedimentary units that may occur subsurface in the project APE. The closest L-ertebrate fossil locality from Quaternary Terrace deposits is LACM 7366, approximately 2.6 miles west at Huntington Drilb and north of PCH. LACM 7366 produced specimens of marine, freshwater, and terrestrial specimens including leopark shark, Triakis, threellpined stickleback, Gasterosteus, garter snake, Thamnophis, desert shrew, Notiosorex, and most prominently, pocket gopher, Thomomys. A series of fossil localities, LACM 742211 7425, are located a few hundred feet north-northwest of LACM 7366. These localities produced fossil specimens of mammoth, Mammuthus, bison, Bison, and horse, Equus, from Alludum or dune deposits. The closest lrtebrate fossil locality from Quaternary deposits is LACM 6370 located approximately 1.6 miles southeast at the Hoag Hospital lower campus parcel near the intersection of Superior ACenue and PCH. LACM 6370 produced a specimen of a fossil horse, Equus. Fossil locality LACM 3267 located approximately 2 miles northeast, near the intersection of 19th Street and Anaheim ADmue, produced a specimen of a fossil elephant, Proboscidea in Quaternary deposits. Fossil locality LACM 4219, located approximately 3.3 miles along the Newport Freeway [State Route 55Lnear Santa Isabel ACenue, produced fossil specimens of turtle, r Orange County Water District Water Production Enhancement Project Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration&CEQA-Plus Federal Consultation Review 4-54 Section 4 Chelonia, and camel, Camelidae. Towards the northern portion of the APE, east of the Santa Ana Ricer near the top of the mesa bluffs along Adams A[enue, [ertebrate fossil locality LACM 1339 produced fossil specimens of mammoth, Mammuthus, and camel, Camelidae, bones from sands approximately 15 feet below the top of the mesa that is o[edain by shell bearing silts and sands. The entire APE has surface deposits of younger Quaternary Alludum, denied as fludal deposits from the Santa Ana Riler to the east of the project APE. No fossil [ertebrate localities are located nearby these deposits, and they are unlikely to contain significant Vrtebrate fossils, at least in the uppermost layers. Small hills and bluffs both east and west of the project APE, howe[er, define the Santa Ana Ricer floodplain drainage and are mapped as haling exposures of marine Quaternary Terrace deposits. These or other older Quaternary deposits may occur in the project APE at unknown depth. There is a low potential to unco[er significant [ertebrate fossil remains during surface grading or shallow exca[etions in the APE. Howe[er, excaletions that extend down into the older Quaternary deposits may encounter significant fossil Certebrate specimens. Since the project includes ground[disturbing actidties, there is a potential for discoCery of fossils that may be considered significant paleontological resources. This potential impact to unknown paleontological resources would be considered significant. The following mitigation measures CR15, CROB and CR17are recommended to ensure that the project would result in less than significant impacts to unioue paleontological resources under CEQA. Mitigation Measures CR-5: Prior to the start of any ground[disturbing actidties, OCWD shall retain a D alified paleontologist meeting the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology [SVPDStandards [SVP, 20101J The Dtalified paleontologist shall contribute to any construction worker cultural resources sensitidty training either in person or ❑a a training module prodded to the Dlalified archaeologist. The training session shall focus on the recognition of the types of paleontological resources that could be encountered within the project site and the procedures to be followed if they are found. The Dualified paleontologist shall also conduct periodic spot checks in order to ascertain when older deposits are encountered and where monitoring shall be reDuired. CR-6: Prior to the start of any ground[disturbing actidties, OCWD shall retain a paleontological monitor to obser[e all ground[disturbing actidties within older Quaternary deposits. Paleontological resources monitoring shall be performed by a D/alified paleontological monitor, or cross Trained archaeological/paleontological monitor, under the direction of the Dualified paleontologist. The monitor shall hale the authority to temporarily halt or dil ert work away from exposed fossils in order to reoolbr the fossil specimens. Monitoring may be reduced or discontinued by the Dlalified paleontologist, in coordination with OCWD, based on obserDations of subsurface soil ? Orange County Water District Water Production Enhancement Project Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration&CEQA-Plus Federal Consultation Review 455 Section 4 stratigraphy and/or other factors and if the Elualified paleontologist determines that the possibility of encountering fossiliferous deposits is low. The monitor shall prepare daily logs detailing the types of actidties and soils obserLed, and any discoEbries. The ❑ualified paleontologist shall prepare a final monitoring a report to be submitted to OCWD and filed with the local repository. Any recoEbred significant fossils shall be curated at an accredited facility with retrie0able storage. CR-7: If construction or other project personnel discoEbr any potential fossils during construction, regardless of the depth or presence of a monitor, work in the Elcinity Ewithin 100 feetoof the find shall cease until the Elualified paleontologist has assessed the discoEBry and made recommendations as to the appropriate treatment. 4.6 Geology/Soils Existing Setting Regional Geology The study area is located in the Peninsular Ranges Geomorphic PrOdnce. The prodnce traDarses the southwestern end of California and is bounded by the TransDarse Range prodnce to the north, the Colorado Desert prodnce to the east, and the Pacific Ocean to the west. Then topography of the prodnce is characteriCed as alternating northwest trending ridges and CRlleys with the bedrock geology most closely resembling the Sierra NeCada with granitic intrusions into®Ider metamorphic rocks. Near surface geologic units within the study area include wellMorted, fine grained sand and silt, medium to fine grained sand deposit in the late Holocene by the Santa Ana RiEer, sandy, silty and clayey organic Erich estuarine deposits and modern sandy wash deposits confined within the Santa Ana Riler channel. Local Topography EleE,ations within the study area range from sea IeEel to 25 feet. Due to minor elemtion changes across the study area, the slope gradients within the study area are relatilely flat. Faulting and Seismicity There are no actiLe faults tralersing the study are. Howelbr, the study area is located within a seismic actiEb region and would be susceptible to ground shaking from selbral actiDa and potentially actile faults in the region, including the Newport Inglewood Fault, San LbaDuin Hills Fault, Elsinore Fault, Palos Verdes Fault and the San Andreas Fault. Liquefaction Hazards According to the California Department of Geologic Surlby Seismic HaDard Zone Map, the study area is located within an area that would be susceptible to the occurrence of Il Olefaction. ? Orange County Water District Water Production Enhancement Project Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration&CEQA-Plus Federal Consultation Review 4-56 Section 4 Landslide Hazards According to the California Department of Geologic SurCey Landslide HaCard Map, the study area is not located within an area that would be susceptible to landslides. Soils The predominate soil association within the study area is the Heuneme[Bolsa Association, a nearly leD31, excessi ely drained fine sand loams located on alludal fans and floodplains. The soils are characteriled has hating a moderate3o[ligh shrinklawell potential. Project Impacts Al. Would the project expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury or death involving rupture of an unknown earthquake fault, as delineated on the most Alquuist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map? No Impact: According to the California Geologic SurDey Seismic Hall3rd Zone Map, the study area is not located within a designated Fault[Rupture Halard Zone. Therefore, the potential for surface rupture impacts would be unlikely. No mitigation measures are reDlired. A2. Would the project expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury or death involving strong seismic ground shaking? Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation: The study area is located in a seismically actiDa region that could be subject to seismic shaking during earthDlakes generated from seCeral surrounding actiCe faults in the region. An actin fault is one that has historically produced earthLuakes or shown eUdence of moDament within the past 11,000 years. The closest actin fault would be the Newport Inglewood fault system. The Newportmnglewood Fault Zone has a probability of approximately 1 percent of producing an earthquake larger than magnitude 6.7 in the next 30 years IUSGS, 2008D An earthquake of this magnitude could subject the study area to periodic shaking, possibly of considerable intensity. The degree of shaking felt would depend on the distance from the earthquake source and site of earthquake and type of subsurface material on which the site is situated. The proposed project would not inCbILb the construction of any habitable buildings that would pose risk to people during an earthquake. The risk for seismic shaking impacts at the study area would be similar to other areas in the southern California region. The proposed project would be designed to meet the Essential Facilities Standards of the California Uniform Building Code to withstand anticipated ground shaking caused by an earthquake within an acceptable lelbi of risk. With the implementation of Mitigation ? Orange County Water District Water Production Enhancement Project Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration&CEgA-Plus Federal Consultation Review 457 Section 4 Measure GE011 the potential risk of seismic shaking impacts resulting in loss, injury or death would be less than significant. Mitigation Measure GEO-1: The OCWD will ensure that all structures for the proposed project are designed and constructed in compliance with current engineering practices, including the California Uniform Building Code and all applicable seismic engineering guidelines. A3. Would the project expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury or death involving liquefaction? Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation: The California Geologic SurCBy Seismic HaDard Zone Map indicates that the study area lies within a Liquefaction Hag3rd Zone. The proposed project would be designed and constructed in compliance with current engineering practices, including the California Uniform Building Code and all applicable seismic engineering guidelines. With the implementation of Mitigation Measure GE011 the potential risk of liquefaction impacts resulting in loss, injury or death would be less than significant. Mitigation Measure Mitigation Measure GE011 rewired. A4. Would the project expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury or death involving landslides? No Impact: The California Geologic Surley HaDard Zone Map indicates that the study area does not lie within a Landslide HaDard Zone. No mitigation measures are reDuired. B. Would the project result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation: Erosion can occur by Lbrying processes and may occur where bare soil is exposed to wind or modng water. The processes of erosion are generally a function of material type, terrain steepness, rainfall or irrigation IeCels, and surface water drainage conditions. The exca ation and grading actidties associated with the proposed project would uncoCer soils which could increase the potential for erosion impacts to occur. Additionally, construction eDuipment mobiliCation/demobilig3tion and construction worker traffic could transport soil to streets and into local and regional drainage systems and wind erosion occurring on unprotected soils could blow dust particles offsite onto adjacent streets and drainage systems. The proposed project would disturb and uncoLbr soils in OCSD Plant No. 2, increasing the potential for erosion impacts. To minimiLb erosion impacts OCWD would file a Notice of Intent mdOlgwith the State Water Resources Control Board and would prepare and implement a Storm Water Pollution PreCsntion Plan [SWPPPI]The SWPPP would contain a map showing the building site, onsite and adjacent roadways, storm water ? Orange County Water District Water Production Enhancement Project Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration&CEgA-Plus Federal Consultation Review 4-58 Section 4 collection points and drainage patterns across the site. The SWPPP would also prodde a list of Best Management Practices rBMPOthat would be used to minimi[B sediment and wind erosion impacts. With implementation Mitigation Measure GEOCB potential erosion impacts would be less than significant. Mitigation Measure GEO-2: Prior to the start of construction OCWD shall file a Notice of Intent INOIDwith the State Water Resources Control Board and prepare and implement Storm Water Pollution PreCention Plan to minimiLb potential erosion impacts. C. Would the project be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable or that would become unstable as a result of the project and potentially result in on or off site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? Liquefaction Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation: The California Geologic SurCey Seismic HaDard Zone Map indicates that the study area lies within a LiDuefaction Hard Zone. The proposed project would be designed to meet Essential Facilities Standards of the California Uniform Building Code to withstand potential IiOuefaction impacts caused by an earthDiake within an acceptable IeCel of risk. With the implementation of Mitigation Measure GE011 the potential risk of liquefaction impacts would be less than significant. Subsidence Less than Significant Impact: Subsidence is characters ed as a sinking of the ground surface relatillo to surrounding areas and can generally occur where deep alludal soil deposits are present in [alley and basin areas. Subsidence could potentially result in ground fractures that could cause damage to surface improlements. Subsidence is typically associated with groundwater withdrawal. No subsidence has been documented in the study area and the proposed project does not inmllla the extraction of groundwater. Therefore, potential subsidence impacts associated with the proposed project would be less than significant. No mitigation measures are reDiired. Landslide According to the California Department of Geologic SurEay Landslide HaDard Map, the study area is not located within an area that would be susceptible to landslides. No mitigation measures are re0uired. Mitigation Measure Mitigation Measure GEOd reDuired. D. Would the project be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the uniform Building Code, creating substantial risks to life or property? ? Orange County Water District Water Production Enhancement Project Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration&CEgA-Plus Federal Consultation Review 459 Section 4 Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation: ExpansilIg soils are characteriElad as specific clay materials with the capacity to shrink, swell or otherwise significantly change mlume due to [Priations in moisture content. Expansi[�e soils could cause excessiEb cracking and healing of structures with shallow foundations and concrete. The soils within the study area are characteriDad has haling a moderatellolhigh shrink[swell potential. All earthwork actidties conducted for the proposed project would be in compliance with geotechnical reDiirements identified in site specific geotechnical studies and the California Uniform Building Code. With the implementation of Mitigation Measure GEOCB potential soil constraints associated with construction of the proposed project would be less than significant. Mitigation Measure GEO3: The OCWD will ensure that all structures for the proposed project are designed and constructed in compliance with building site specific geotechnical studies and the California Uniform Building Code. E. Would the project have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? No Impact: The proposed project does not inml119 the construction of septic tanks or altemati[�e disposal systems. Therefore, the construction and operation of the proposed project would not result in ad[Erse impacts in regards to the use of septic tanks or altemati0a disposal systems. 4.7 Greenhouse Gas Emissions The following analysis is based on the Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Analysis Report prepared by Endronmental Science Associates in Jily 2016. The Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Analysis Report is presented in its entirety in Appendix A. Setting [Global warmingCand Global climate changel3are the terms used to describe the increase in the a-erage temperature of the earth® near[surface air and oceans since the mid 20th century and its projected continuation. According to the International Panel on Climate Change ]PCCEwarming of the climate system is now considered uneniimcal APCC, 20071J Natural processes and human actions ham been identified as the causes of this warming. The IPCC has concluded that isriations in natural phenomena such as solar radiation and mlcanoes produced most of the warming from preindustrial times to 1950 and had a small cooling effect afterward. After 1950, increasing GHG concentrations resulting from human actidty such as fossil fuel burning and deforestation are belieCed to be responsible for most of the obserced temperature increase. Increases in GHG concentrations in the earths atmosphere are thought to be the main Cause of human❑ ? Orange County Water District Water Production Enhancement Project Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration&CEgA-Plus Federal Consultation Review 4-60 Section 4 induced climate change. Certain gases in the atmosphere naturally trap heat by impeding the exit of solar radiation that is reflected back into space after striking the earth. This is sometimes referred to as the [greenhouse effectoand the gases that cause it are called [greenhouse gases.E]Some GHGs occur naturally and are necessary for keeping the earths surface inhabitable. Howe[Pr, increases in the concentrations of these gases in the atmosphere during the last 100 years hale decreased the amount of solar radiation that is reflected back into space, intensifying the natural greenhouse effect and increasing aCerage global temperatures. Carbon dioxide [CO24 methane 1CH49 nitrous oxide IN20Q hydrofluorocarbons IHFCsq perfluorocarbons IPFCs4 and sulfur hexafluoride ISFeDare the principal GHGs. When concentrations of these gases exceed natural concentrations in the atmosphere, the greenhouse effect may be intensified. CO2, CH4 and N20 occur naturally, and through human actidty. Emissions Of CO2 are largely byproducts of fossil fuel combustion, whereas CH4 results from offigassing6 associated with agricultural practices and landfills. Other human-generated GHGs include fluorinated gases such as SFCs, PFCs and SF6, which hale much higher heat-absorption potential than CO2, and are byproducts of certain industrial processes. CO2 is the reference gas for climate change because it is the predominant GHG emitted. The effect that each of the aforementioned gases can hale on global warming is a combination of the mass of their emissions and their global warming potential 1 GWPD GWP indicates, on a poundmorpound basis, how much a gas contributes to global warming relatile to how much warming would be caused by the same mass of CO2. For example, CH4 and N20 are substantially more potent GHGs than CO2, with GWPs of 21 and 310 times that of CO2, respectilely. In emissions inCentories, GHG emissions are typically reported in terms of pounds or metric tons of CO2 eDuiLalents [CO2eu CO2e is calculated as the product of the mass emitted of a giDan GHG and its specific GWP. While CH4 and N20 hale much higher GWPs than CO2, CO2 is emitted in such Dastly higher Duantities that it accounts for the majority of GHG emissions in CO2e, both from residential/commercial deL-elopments and human actidty in general. Regulatory Environment Federal The federal CAA does not specifically regulate GHG emissions; howe[Pr, the U.S. Supreme Court has determined that GHGs are pollutants that can be regulated under the federal CAA. There are currently no federal regulations that set ambient air Duality standards for GHGs. 6 Off-gassing is defined as the release of chemicals under normal conditions of temperature and pressure. r Orange County Water District Water Production Enhancement Project Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration&CEQA-Plus Federal Consultation Review 4-61 Section 4 State Executive Order S-3-05 In 2005, in recognition of California® orinerability to the effects of climate change, Golemor Schwar[Enegger established Executivb Order SC9105, which set forth a series of target dates by which statewide emissions of GHGs would be progressilbly reduced, as follows: • By 2010, reduce GHG emissions to 2000 leCelS; • By 2020, reduce GHG emissions to 1990 lelels; and • By 2050, reduce GHG emissions to 80 percent below 1990 IeC2Is. Assembly Bill 32— California Global Warming Solutions Act California Assembly Bill 32 EAB 324 the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, reDiires CARB to establish a statewide GHG emissions cap for 2020 based on 1990 emission le[Lls. AB 32 reEbired CARB to adopt and enforce programs and regulations that identify and reEuire selected sectors or categories of emitters of GHGs to report and lerify their statewide GHG emissions. In December 2007 CARB adopted 427 MT CO2e as the statewide GHG emissions limit eDuil alent to the statewide Ie[BIs for 1990. This is approximately 28 percent below forecasted 2020 lbusiness[asibsualoemissions of 596 MMT of CO2e, and about 10 percent below a[brage annual GHG emissions during the period of 2002 through 2004 [GARB, 2009bo CARB published the Expanded List of Early Action Measures To Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions In California Recommended For Board Consideration in September 2007 [GARB, 200711 CARB adopted nine Early Action Measures for implementation, including Ship Electrification at Ports, Reduction of High Global[Warming[Potential Gases in Consumer Products, HeaEy[Duty Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Emission Reduction [Aerodynamic Efficiencyq Reduction of Perfluorocarbons from Semiconductor Manufacturing, Improlkd Landfill Gas Capture, Reduction of Hydrofluorocarbonil34a from Doilt[Yourself Motor Vehicle Serdcing, Sulfur Hexaflouride Reductions from the Non[Electric Sector, a Tire Inflation Program, and a Low Carbon Fuel Standard. As of January 1, 2012, the GHG emissions limits and reduction measures adopted in 2011 by CARB became enforceable. In designing emission reduction measures, CARB must aim to minimile costs, maximile benefits, improle and modernilb California® energy infrastructure, maintain electric system reliability, maximile additional endronmental and economic colbenefits for California, and complement the staters efforts to improCo air Duality. ? Orange County Water District Water Production Enhancement Project Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Deolarstion&CEQA-Plus Federal Consultation Review 4-62 Section 4 Climate Change Scoping Plan In December 2006, CARB approCed the AB 32 Scoping Plan outlining the state® strategy to achielb the 2020 GHG emissions limit [GARB, 2009b0 This Scoping Plan, deDgloped by CARB in coordination with the Climate Action Team -CAT- proposes a comprehensile set of actions designed to reduce olerall GHG emissions in California, improle the enilronment, reduce dependence on oil, diDorsify Califomia[s energy sources, saDq energy, create new jobs, and enhance public health. As reDiired by AB 32, the Scoping Plan must be updated at least eDary fife years to e1hluate the mix of AB 32 policies to ensure that California is on track to meet the targets set out in the legislation. In October 2013, a draft Update to the initial Scoping Plan was deCeloped by CARB in collaboration with the California Climate Action Team tCCAT_ The draft Update builds upon the initial Scoping Plan with new strategies and expanded measures, and identifies opportunities to leo3rage existing and new funds to drile GHG emission reductions through strategic planning and targeted program inl estments. The draft Update to the initial Scoping Plan was presented to CARB® Board for discussion at its February 20, 2014 meeting. Subsenlently, the first update to the AB 32 Scoping Plan was approled on May 22, 2014 by CARB. As part of the proposed update to the Scoping Plan, the emissions reductions reDJired to meet the 2020 statewide GHG emissions limit were further adjusted. The primary reason for adjusting the 2020 statewide emissions limit was based on the fact that the original Scoping Plan relied on the Intergo ernmental Panel on Climate Changers [tPCCo1996 Second Assessment Report ESARoto assign the global warming potentials ECWPsoof greenhouse gases. Recently, in accordance the United Nations Framework ConEention on Climate Change I UNFCCCq international climate agencies hale agreed to begin using the scientifically updated GWP [clues in the IPCCEs Fourth Assessment Report EAR4othat was released in 2007. Because CARB has begun to transition to the use of the AR4 1000year GWPs in its climate change programs, CARB recalculated the Scoping Plan is 1990 GHG emissions le[EI with the AR4 GWPs. As the recalculation resulted in 431 MMTCO2e, the 2020 GHG emissions limit established in response to AB 32 is now slightly higher than the 427 MMTCO2e in the initial Scoping Plan. Considering that the proposed update also adjusted the 2020 BAU forecast of GHG emissions to 509 MMTCO2e, a 15 percent reduction below the estimated BAU Ie0als was determined to be necessary to return to 1990 IeDals by 2020 LCARB, 2014bLi Executive Order S-1-07 Executi a Order S11107, which was signed by GoCernor SchwarCenegger in 2007, proclaims that the transportation sector is the main source of GHG emissions in California. It establishes a goal to reduce the carbon intensity of transportation fuels sold in California by at least 10 percent by 2020. As a result of this order, CARB r Orange County Water District Water Production Enhancement Project Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration&CEQA-Plus Federal Consultation Review 4-63 Section 4 approll9d a proposed regulation to implement the low carbon fuel standard ILCFSDon April 23, 2009, which will reduce GHG emissions from the transportation sector in California by about 16 MMT in 2020. The LCFS is designed to reduce California® dependence on petroleum, create a lasting market for clean transportation technology, and stimulate the production and use of alternatiEP, low[Carbon fuels in California. The LCFS is designed to prodde a durable framework that uses market mechanisms to spur the steady introduction of lower carbon fuels. The framework establishes performance standards that fuel producers and importers must meet each year beginning in 2011. Senate Bill 375 SB 375, which establishes mechanisms for the deCelopment of regional targets for reducing passenger Cehicle greenhouse gas emissions, was adopted by the State on September 30, 2008. On September 23, 2010, California ARB adopted the Cehicular greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets that had been deleloped in consultation with the metropolitan planning organisations EMPOsq the targets rewire a 7 to 8 percent reduction by 2020 and between 13 to 16 percent reduction by 2035 for each MPO. SB 375 recogniCes the importance of achiedng significant greenhouse gas reductions by working with cities and counties to change land use patterns and improlb transportation alternatiCes. Through the SB 375 process, MPOs, such as the Southern California Council of GoEl3mments ISCAGEWill work with local jurisdictions in the deCelopment of sustainable communities strategies E$CSOdesigned to integrate deliglopment patterns and the transportation network in a way that reduces greenhouse gas emissions while meeting housing needs and other regional planning objectiDes. SCAGEs reduction target for per capita lehicular emissions is 8 percent by 2020 and 13 percent by 2035 [GARB 20100 The MPOs will prepare their first SCS according to their respect![13 regional transportation plan ERTPoupdate schedule with the SCAG RTP/SCS adopted on April 4, 2012. Senate Bill 97 Senate Bill ISBD97, enacted in August 2007, reEuired the Office of Planning and Research EOPRElto deEElop guidelines for the mitigation of GHG emissions, or the effects related to releases of GHG emissions. On April 13, 2009, the OPR submitted proposed amendments to the Natural Resources Agency in accordance with SB 97 regarding analysis and mitigation of GHG emissions. As directed by SB 97, the Natural Resources Agency adopted Amendments to the CEQA Guidelines for greenhouse gas emissions on December 30, 2009. On February 16, 2010, the Office of Administrable Law approCed the Amendments, and filed them with the Secretary of State for inclusion in the California Code of Regulations. The Amendments became effectilb on March 18, 2010. ? Orange County Water District Water Production Enhancement Project Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration&CEQA-Plus Federal Consultation Review 4-64 Section 4 California Green Building Standard Code In early 2013 the California Building Standards Commission adopted the 2013 California Building Standards Code that also included the latest 2013 CALGreen Code, which became effectile on Canuary 1, 2014. The mandatory prodsions of the code are anticipated to reduce 3 MMT of GHG emissions by 2020, reduce water use by 20 percent or more, and dilert 50 percent of construction waste from landfills. The 2013 California Energy Code [Title 24, Part 6Q which is also part of the CALGreen Code [Title 24, Part 11, Chapter 5.2Q became effectile on fly 1, 2014. Regional South Coast Air Quality Management District(SCAQMD) As a method for determining significance under CEQA, SCAQMD deleloped a draft tiered flowchart in 2008 for determining significance thresholds for GHGs for industrial projects where SCAQMD is acting as the lead agency. In December 2008, SCAQMD adopted a 10,000 MTCO2e/year for industrial facilities, but only with respect to projects where SCAQMD is the lead agency. SCAQMD has not adopted a threshold for residential or commercial projects at the time of this writing. The SCAQMD flowchart uses a tiered approach in which a proposed project is deemed to hale a less than significant impact related to GHG emissions when any of the following conditions are met: • GHG emissions are within GHG budgets in an approlled regional plan; • Incremental increases in GHG emissions due to the project are below the defined Significance Screening Lelbls, or Mitigated to Less than the Significance Screening Lelbl; • Performance standards are met by incorporating project design features and/or implementing emission reduction measures; and • Carbon offsets are made to achiele target significance screening Ielel. Project Impacts A. Would the project generate GHG emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? Less than Significant Impact: The proposed project would generate GHG emissions from a lariety of sources. First, GHG emissions would be generated during construction of the proposed project. Once fully operational, the operations would generate GHG emissions from direct sources such as natural gas consumption and indirect sources such as electrical and water consumption, solid waste and wastewater generation, and mobile sources from the one new employee. ? Orange County Water District Water Production Enhancement Project Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration&CEQA-Plus Federal Consultation Review 4-65 Section 4 Construction Emissions Construction related GHG emissions for the proposed project were estimated using the same assumptions as the air _uality analysis. Total estimated construction Telated GHG emissions for the proposed project are shown in Table 12. As shown, the proposed projects total estimated unmitigated GHG emissions during construction would be approximately 908 MTCO2e. This would ellual to approximately 30 MTCOze per year after amortil ation Door 30 years per SCAQMD methodology. Table 12: Estimated Total Construction Related GHG Emissions Emission Source CO2 CH4 Estimated CO2e Emissions Unmitigated Construction Emissions 1 A 543.13 0.03 113 47.71 0.01 1C 118.06 0.00 ID 97.91 0.03 1 E 98.14 0.03 Total 904.94 2.60 907.54 mATo Annual Construction [Anortiled 30.25(MT/yr) oDgr 30 years? NOTES: COiencerbon dioxide eAi-alert;MT rhrebic tons;MT/yr n metric Ions par year. 1 Total Emissions lake into account the global wmming potendal of CH4 wfiich is 25.Therefore the total CH4 emissions will not eNal Me sum of the Ind1dual phase emissions as shown In the table. Operational Emissions The estimated operational GHG emissions resulting from proposed project are shown in Table 13. Additionally, in accordance with SCAQi recommendation, the project6 amortiCed construction Telated GHG emissions from Table 12 are added to the operational emissions estimate in order to determine the proposed project6 total annual GHG emissions. As shown in Table 13, the proposed proji total net annual GHG emissions would be approximately 39.97 MTCO2e per, which would not exceed SCAQi proposed screening lelel of 3,000 MTCO2e per year 2020 threshold or the 1,800 MTCO2e per year 2030 threshold. Therefore, the net increase in GHG emissions resulting from proposed project implementation would be less than significant. Table 13: Estimated Construction and Operational Related GHG Emissions. Emission Source Estimated Emissions CO2e(MT/yr) Construction Annual Mitigated Construction 30.257 [AmortlEad over 30 years❑ Project Operations ? Orange County Water District Water Production Enhancement Project Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration&CEQA-Plus Federal Consultation Review 4-66 Section 4 Area Sources 0.00 Energy Consumption 3.98 Mobile Sources 4.22 Solid Waste 0.35 Water Consumption 1.174 Total(Operational Emissions) 9.72 Total Net Increase in Emissions 39.97 Greater than 3,000 MTCO2e per year[] No Greater than 1,800 MTCO2e per year[] No NOTES: CO.eorerMn dioxide eCuirelenq Mr/yr0 W.tons per year;CCperrart. Source:ESA 2016 B. Would the project be in conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? Less than Significant Impact: As discussed below, the proposed project would be consistent with the CARB Scoping Plan, E01B130115, SB 375 and with the City of Huntington Beach Energy Action Plan. No mitigation measures are reiyired. Consistency with AB 32 As discussed under Impact GHG11 abole, the proposed project would not result in annual GHG emissions exceeding the SCAQMD® 3,000 MTCO2e threshold which was designed to help the region attain the goals of AB 32. Therefore, the proposed project would be consistent with the goals of AB 32. Consistency with EO B-30-15 As discussed under Impact GHG11 abo�e, the proposed project would not result in annual GHG emissions exceeding 1,800 MTCO2e, or the brightline threshold adjusted to reduce emissions to 40 percent below 1990 le[Jals by 2030. Therefore, the proposed project would be consistent with the goals of E0113130115. Consistency with City of Huntington Beach Energy Action Plan The City of Huntington Beach Energy Action Plan addresses GHG reductions through 2020, consistent with AB 3219 goal of reducing GHG emissions to 1990 IeDals. As demonstrated under GHG31 aboCe, the proposed project would not exceed the SCAQMDIR 3,000 MT brightline threshold deCeloped to help the region attain 1990 GHG emission IeD31s by 2020. Therefore, the proposed project would not interfere with the City of Huntington Beach Energy Action Plan as the project would not excessilely increase GHG emissions within the City. Consistency with SB 375 The key goal of the Sustainable Communities Standard [SCSois to achie[3 GHG emission reduction targets through integrated land use and transportation strategies. ? Orange County Water District Water Production Enhancement Project Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration&CEQA-Plus Federal Consultation Review 4-67 Section 4 The focus of these reductions is on transportation and land use strategies that influence lehicle traiel. The proposed project would not increase lbhicle traffic within the City or the region. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with the implementation of SB 375. 4.8 Hazards/Hazardous Materials Existing Setting Exposure Hazardous Materials Title 22 of the California Code of Regulations ICCRQ DiUsion 4.5, Chapter 11, Article 3 classifies halordous materials into the following four categories based on their properties: toxic Pauses human health effectsq ignitable [has the ability to bumq corroslEb Pauses selere burns or damage to materialsq and reactile Pauses explosions or generates toxic gases[] Hazardous materials hale been and are commonly used in commercial, agricultural and industrial applications as well as in residential areas to a limited extent. Halardous wastes are halardous materials that no longer hale practical use, such as substances that hale been discarded, discharged, spilled, contaminated, or are being stored prior to proper disposal. The health impacts of halardous materials exposure are based on the frelluency of exposure, the exposure pathway, and indiDdual susceptibility. The proposed project would be constructed and operated on the OCSD Plant No. 2 Site. Presently, Plant No. 2 in[bl[Es the handling and storage of limited amounts halardous materials as part of the treatment system processes and maintenance actiDties. Fire Hazard According to the City of Huntington Beach General Plan the study area is not located in a high fire haLard lone. Contaminated Soils Regulatory databases prodded by federal, State, and local agencies proilde information of past and present usage, storage and disposal of halardous materials. A database search of hallardous materials sites was performed to identify potential contaminated sites in the study area using the online State Water Resources Control Board l$WRCBDGeoTracker Database and Department of Toxic Substances Control IDTSCDEndroStor Database. The only reported hazardous site identified on OCSD Plant No. 2 Site was two closed leaking underground storage tanks. Both sites were determined to not pose significant risks to human health or the endronment. Airport Hazards The Airport Land Use Commission IALUCDof Orange County assists local agencies to ensure that here are no direct conflicts with land uses, noise or other issues that will ? Orange County Water District Water Production Enhancement Project Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration&CEQA-Plus Federal Consultation Review 4-68 Section 4 impact the functionality and safety of airport and heliport operations. The ALUC re[uires that local jurisdictions general plans and [bning ordinances are consistent with Airport En[rons Land Use Plans [AELUPISQ which contain noise contours, restrictions for types of construction and building heights in na[gable air space, as well as re Duirements impacting the establishment or construction of sensiti[a uses within close proximity to airports. There are no prilate airport facilities within the [cinity of the study area. The closest public airport is Cohn Wayne Airport located approximately 5 miles from the study area. State Emergency Response Act The State Emergency Response Act reDuires local jurisdictions establish a Standardilb Emergency Management System Multi IaCard Functional Plan. Accordingly, the Office of Emergency Serdces, in coordination with all interested State and local agencies, jointly establish a standardised emergency management system for use by all emergency response agencies. A. Would the project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use or disposal of hazardous materials? Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation: The OCSD Plant No. 2 Site currently in[blCes the handling and storage of limited amounts hazardous materials as part of the treatment system processes and maintenance acti[ties. The implementation of the proposed project would not substantially increase the handling and storage of haDardous materials. The construction operations associated with the proposed project would inmlie the handling of incidental amounts of halardous materials, such as fuels and oil. The proposed project would be retired to comply with local, state and federal laws and regulations regarding the handling and storage of hazardous materials. Additionally, during construction operations Best Management Practices would be implemented as part of the implementation of the Storm Water Pollution Pre Cent Plan, that would include hazardous material spill preCention and management practices. With the implementation of Mitigation Measure HZ11 potential haDardous material safety impacts would be less than significant. Mitigation Measure HZ-1: Any use of hazardous materials in[blCad with the proposed project must be conducted in accordance with applicable federal, state and local regulations. B. Would the project create a significant hazard to the public or environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? ? Orange County Water District Water Production Enhancement Project Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration&CEQA-Plus Federal Consultation Review 4-69 Section 4 Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation: During construction, limited Dlantities of halardous materials would be reD/ired to operate eDlipment and Cehicles. To a[bid the release hallgrdous materials into the endronment, the handling, storage and transportation of h"rdous materials would be done in compliance local, state and federal laws and regulations. Additionally, OCSD Plant No. 2 Site has emergency procedures and e0acuation plans to address the onsite storage and handling of ha@rdous materials and correctiLb measures in the eCent of the inadCertent release of ha@rdous materials into the endronment occurs. With the implementation of Mitigation Measure HZC] the potential impact associated with the accidental release of hazardous materials into the endronment would be less than significant. Mitigation Measure Mitigation Measure HZC] rezuired. C. Would the project emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substance or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school. Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation: The closest school to the OCSD Plant 2 wastewater treatment facility site would Eder Elementary school located approximately o mile to the west. The longiteerm operation of the proposed project would not emit hallardous emissions, or in[bl[o the handling of acutely hallardous substances. During construction operations incidental amounts of hallgrdous materials such as oils and fuels will be utiliCed. The handling of these substances would be in compliance with local, state and federal laws and regulations regarding the transportation, handling and storage of hazardous substances. The small amounts of hai erdous materials that would be handled would not expose Eder Elementary School to ha ardous emission impacts. With the implementation of Mitigation Measure HZd potential ha[lard emission impacts would be less than significant. Mitigation Measure Mitigation Measure HZd rewired. D. Would the project be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous material sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and as a result, would create significant hazard to the public or the environment? No Impact: There is no known hazardous material sites, pursuant to Gol:ernment Code Section 65962.5 located on the OCSD Plant No. 2 Site that would create a significant halard to the public. E. For a project located within an airport land use plan or where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would ? Orange County Water District Water Production Enhancement Project Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration&CEgA-Plus Federal Consultation Review 4-70 Section 4 the project the result in a safety hazard for people residing or working within the project area? Less than Significant Impact: The closest public airport facility to the project site is Cohn Wayne Airport. According to the Airport EndronS Land Use Plan for Cohn Wayne Airport, the OCSD Plant No. 2 Site is not located within a Clear Zone or Accident Potential Zone. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not result in airport related safety halards to people residing and/or working within the project area. No mitigation measures are re aired. F. For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? No Impact: There are no pri ate air strips within the Jcinity of the study area. Therefore no potential safety ha Cards associated with the pri3ate air strip would occur. No mitigation measures are re uired. G. Would the project impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? No Impact: The proposed project would be constructed and operated on the OCSD Plant No. 2 Site. The construction actidties for the proposed project would not re Duire any offsite road closures that could adCersely interfere with adopted emergency plans or result in delays to emergency response times. No mitigation measures are reCuired. H. Would the project expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wild land fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? No Impact: According to the City of Huntington Beach General Plan, the OCSD Plant No. 2 Site is not subject to wild land fire risks. Additionally, the study area is not adjacent to or intermixed with wild lands. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not expose people or structures to wild land fire risks. No mitigation measures are reouired. 4.9 Hydrology/WaterQuality Existing Setting The study area is located in the lower Santa Ana Ricer Watershed. The Santa Ana Ricer Watershed is the largest watershed in coastal Southern California, consisting of oCer 2,800 sillare miles and encompassing parts of RiCerside, San Bernardino and Orange Counties. The primary surface water body within the study area is the Santa Ana Ricer. The study area also oCerlies the Orange County Groundwater Basin. ? Orange County Water District Water Production Enhancement Project Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration&CEQA-Plus Federal Consultation Review 4-71 Section 4 Santa Ana River The Santa Ana Ri er is the most prominent hydrologic feature within the watershed. The Santa Ana Ri or is oar 100 miles in length and has o-er 50 contributing tributaries. The headwaters for the Santa Ana Ricer are in the San Bernardino Mountains to the north. The rimer extends westerly through the Santa Ana Valley to the Prado Basin where it is joined by seD3ral tributaries near Prado Dam. Downstream of Prado Dam, the Santa Ana RI@r flows through the Santa Ana Mountain Canyon into Orange County before discharging into the Pacific Ocean. The flows of the Santa Ana Ri[L-r consist of storm flows and perennial flow [base flowDthat increases in the winter and decreases in the summer. The base flow of the Santa Ana Ricer consists almost entirely of treated wastewater discharged from upstream waste water treatment plants. The base flow of the Santa Ana RiEbr is the primary source of water to recharge the Orange County Groundwater Basin. Since 1933, OCWD has been dillarting water from the Santa Ana Ricer for groundwater recharge. Surface water flows of the Santa Ana Ricer are diDarted into a series of recharge basins to replenish the groundwater basin. Virtually all of the base flow of the Santa Ana Ricer is captured by OCWD for groundwater recharge and only a portion of the total storm flow of the Santa Ana Ricer is captured by OCWD for groundwater recharge. The storm water that is not captured by OCWD is lost to the ocean. Orange County Groundwater Basin The Orange County Groundwater Basin underlies central and northern Orange County and is bordered by the Santa Ana Mountains to the east, the Pacific Ocean to the west, the Newportilnglewood Fault to the southwest and Coyote Hills to the north. The basin is contiguous and directly connected with the Central Basin of Los Angeles County to the northwest. The basin reaches depths of olar 2,000 feet and is comprised of a complex series of interconnected sand and graCel deposits. The aE]uifer is didded into three sections, shallow, principal and deep. Most of the water in the basin is extracted from the principal aouifer. Flood Hazards The OCSD Plant No. 2 Site is located in Flood Zone X. This area is protected from the onelpercent[annual@hance flood by IeCee, dike, or other structures subject to possible failure or oDartopping during larger floods. Seiche, Tsunami and Mudflow Hazards EarthDiakes can cause flooding due to tsunamis, seiches, or dam failure. Tsunamis are a potential haCard at this site due to the close proximity of the coast and low election. According to the City of Huntington Beach General Plan the OCSD Plant No. 2 Site is classified as a Moderate Tsunami Runmlp Area. Additionally, the study area is located ? Orange County Water District Water Production Enhancement Project Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration&CEQA-Plus Federal Consultation Review 4-72 Section 4 within the Prado Dam Inundation Area. Seiches are earthDiakeOhduced wales in an enclosed or partially enclosed body of water, which may produce flooding in local areas. The study area is not located near a body of water that could experience seiches. Water Quality Regulations The following is discussion of Federal, State and local water resource programs that would be applicable to the proposed project. Federal Clean Water Act The objecti les of the Clean Water Act are to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of Waters of the United States. The Clean Water Act establishes basic guidelines for regulating discharges of pollutants into the Waters of the United States and reDuires states to adopt water Duality standards to protect health, enhance the Duality of water resources and to deEelop plans and programs to implement the Act. Below is a discussion of sections of the Clean Water Act that would be rele[ant to the proposed project. Clean Water Act Section 303 (d) Under Section 303 ADof the Clean Water Act, the SWRCB is reDuired to deEelop a list of impaired water bodies. Each RWQCB is responsible for establishing priority rankings and deCeloping action plans, referred to as total maximum daily loads QMDI-soto impro[B water Duality of water bodies included in the 303[ullolist. Within Orange County, there are two reaches of the Santa Ana RICer. Reach 1 extends from the Tidal prism to 17" Street in the City of Santa Ana and Reach 2 extends from 171h Street to Prado Dam. Presently, Santa Ana RIEer Reach 2 El7`h Street in Santa Ana to Prado Damohas been listed as impairment for indicator bacteria. The TMDI_s for the Santa Ana Riler Reach 2 is reDuired to be prepared before 2025. The Santa Ana RiEer Reach 1 EPacific Ocean to 17th Street in Santa Anaois not listed as impaired. State Porter Cologne California Water Quality Control Act The Porter Cologne Water Quality Act of 1967 reEluires the SWRCB and the nine RWQCBs to adopt water Duality criteria for the protection and enhancement of Waters of the State of California, including both surface waters and groundwater. The SWRCB sets statewide policy and together with the RWQCB, implements state and federal water Duality laws and regulations. Each of the nine regional boards adopts a Water Quality Control Plan. The applicable Water Control Plan for the study area would be the Santa Ana Region Basin Plan. r Orange County Water District Water Production Enhancement Project Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration&CEQA-Plus Federal Consultation Review 4-73 Section 4 Regional Water Quality Control Board Beneficial Uses The Santa Ana Region Basin Plan designates beneficial uses for waters in the Santa Ana RiEbr watershed and proddes Dtantitative and narrative criteria for a range of water LUality objectives to certain receidng water bodies in order to protect beneficial uses. Table 14 describes the beneficial uses established in the Santa Ana Region Basin Plan. Table 14: Beneficial Uses Abbreviation Beneficial Use GWR Groundwater Recharge waters are used for natural or artificial recharge of groundwater for purposes that may include, but are not limited to,future extraction, maintaining water Dlality or halting saltwater intrusion into freshwater avuifers. REC 1 Water Contact Recreation waters are used for recreational actidties involdng body contact with water where ingestion of water is reasonably possible.These uses may include, but are not limited to swimming,wading, water skiing, skin and scuba didng, surfing,whitewater actidties,fishing and use of natural hot springs. REC 2 Non[Contact Water Recreation waters are used for recreational actidties in lblEing proximity to water, but not normally body contact with water where ingestion of water would be reasonably possible. These uses may include, but are not limited to picnicking, sunbathing, hiking, beachcombing, camping, boating,tide pool and marine life study, hunting, sightseeing and aesthetic enjoyment n[conjunction with the abo-e actidties. WARM Warm waters support warm water ecosystems that may include but are not limited to, preservation and enhancement of aalatic habitats, vegetation, fish, and wildlife, including in Cartebrates. LWARM Limited Warm Freshwater Habitat waters support warm water ecosystems which are sed:rely limited in dilbmity and abundance. COLD Cold Freshwater habitat waters support Coldwater ecosystems. BIOL Preservation of Biological Habitats of Special Significance waters support designated areas of habitats. WILD Wildlife Habitat waters support wildlife habitats that may include, but are not limited to the preservation and enhancement of vegetation and prey species used by waterfowl and other wildlife. RARE Rare, Threatened or Endangered Species RAREvwaters support habitats necessary for the surdEal and successful maintenance of plant or animal species designated under state or federal law as rare,threatened or endangered. MUN Municipal and Domestic Supply waters are used for community, military, municipal or indi ddual water supply systems. These uses may include, but are not limited to drinking water supply. AGR Agricultural Supply waters are used for farming, horticulture or ranching. These uses may include, but are not limited to irrigation,stock watering, and support of vegetation for range grating. IND Industrial SerdCe Supply waters are used for industrial actidties that do not depend primarily on water Diality.These uses may include, but are not limited to mining,cooling ? Orange County Water District Water Production Enhancement Project Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration&CEQA-Plus Federal Consultation Review 4-74 Section 4 water supply, hydraulic con[byance, gralbl washing,fire protection and oil well depressurillition. PROC Industrial Process Supply waters are used for industrial actidties that depend primarily on water quality. These uses may include, but are not limited to, process water supply and all uses of water related to product manufacture or food preparation. NAV Nallgation waters are used for shipping, traEbl, or other transportation by pride, commercial or military Cassels. POW Hydropower Generation waters are used for hydroelectric power generation. Comm Commercial and Sportlishing waters are used for commercial or recreational collection of fish or other organisms EST Uses of water that support estuarine ecosystems including, but not limited to preserCation or enhancement of estuarine habitats, Cegetation,fish, shell fish or wildlife. MAR Use of water that support marine ecosystems including, but not limited to, preserCation or enhancement of marine habitats, -bgetalion such as kelp,fish, shell fish or wildlife. SPWN Use of water that support high quality aquatic habitats suitable for reproduction and early delblopment of fish. SHELL Use of water that support habitats suitable for the collection of flterleeding shellfish for human consumption, commercial or sports purposes. As shown in Table 15, the Santa Ana Region Basin Plan establishes the following beneficial uses for Reach 1 and Reach 2 of the Santa Ana RiCBr and for the Orange County Groundwater Basin. Table 15: Beneficial Uses Santa Ana River/Orange County Groundwater Basin Reach 1 Reach 2 Orange County Groundwater Basin Recreation 2 Agriculture Municipal Supply Waters Recreation 1 Groundwater Recharge Agriculture Supply Waters Recreation 1 Warm Water Habitat Recreation 2 Industrial Process Supply Waters Wild Water Habitat Warm Water Habitat Industrial Serdce Supply Waters Wild Water Habitat Rare Waters Water Quality Objectives The Santa Ana Region Basin Plan establishes Water Quality Objectivbs for water bodies within the study area to ensure the protection of Beneficial Uses. As shown in Table 16 the Santa Ana Region Basin Plan establishes water quality objectiDas for Reach 1 and Reach 2 of the Santa Ana Ricer and for the Orange County Groundwater Basin. ? Orange County Water District Water Production Enhancement Project Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration&CEQA-Plus Federal Consultation Review 4-75 Section 4 Table 16: Water Quality Objectives (mg/L) Reach TDS HARD Na Cl TIN SO4 COD B Santa Ana Ri[er Reach 1 NL NL NL NL NL NL NL NL Santa Ana Ricer Reach 2 650d❑ NL NL NL NL NL NL NL Orange County Groundwater Basin 580 NL NL NL NL NL NL NL 1nrn ira rear,aonog arxage,rvtnla uemd Regional OCSD Individual NPDES Permit Presently, OCSD Plant No. 1 and Plant No. 2 hale a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System INPDESOIndiddual Permit for discharges of storm water associated with their industrial actidties. The Indiddual Permit regulates actidties that may affect storm water runoff Duality at certain types of industrial facilities, including publicly owned wastewater treatment plants with design flows greater than 1.0 MGD, such as the OCSD. Under the Indiddual Permit, facilities which discharge storm water to municipal sanitary sewer systems instead of to waters of the United States are not reDuired to obtain a General Constriction Permits or Industrial Permit prodding an onsite storm water management plan is prepared and implement that contains BMPs to ensure that construction site surface water runoff and long term surface water runoff is retained onsite and incorporated into existing wastewater treatment processes. Project Impacts A. Would the project violate Regional Water Quality Control Board Water Quality standards or waste discharge standards? Recycled Water Requirements No Impact: The proposed project would increase the amount wastewater flows to the OCWD GWRS, where it would be ad Danced treated to drinking water standards. The GWRS water would be used to replenish the Orange County Groundwater Basin. The use of GWRS recycled water for groundwater replenishment is permitted under RWQCB Order R[812004[0002 and subseDuent amendment R8C200810058. These two permits specify water recycling reDuirements for the GWRS. The GWRS water produced by the additional wastewater flows from OCSD Plant No. 2 Site would be subject to the same permit conditions. Compliance with RWQCB permit re Duirements would ensure that the use of GWRS water to replenish the Orange County Groundwater Basin would not dolate RWQCB recycled water Duality standards. Beneficial Uses No Impact: All of the recycled water produced from the proposed project would be used ? Orange County Water District Water Production Enhancement Project Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration&CEQA-Plus Federal Consultation Review 4-76 Section 4 to replenish the Orange County Groundwater Basin. The recycled water would be used for Municipal Water Supply, Agriculture, Industrial and Industrial Processes beneficial uses. The implementation of the proposed project would not be in conflict with beneficial uses identified in the Santa Ana Region Basin Plan. Water Quality Objectives No Impact: The GWRS RWQCB permit reDuires that the GWRS recycled water meet all water Luality objectiCes in the Santa Ana Region Basin Plan. Therefore, the use of GWRS water to replenish the Orange County Groundwater Basin would not be in conflict with water Duality objectiCes identified in the Santa Ana Region Basin Plan. Section 303 (d) Impaired Water Bodies No Impact: Reach 2 of the Santa Ana Ricer has been listed as impairment for indicator bacteria. The wastewater flows from the OCSD Plant No. 2 Site would be highly treated and disinfected for bacterial as part of the OCWD GWRS water treatment process. The implementation of the proposed project would not introduce elelated lellgls of bacteria and would not further impair any Section 303 Id listed water body. B. Would the project substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level? No Impact: The implementation of the proposed project would generate additional wastewater supplies for OCWDs GWRS, which would produce an additional 68,000 acre feet of new water supplies to replenish the Orange County Groundwater Basin. Current State of California® regulations regarding Groundwater Replenishment Reuse Projects [GRRPsq such as OCWD GWRS, were made final by the California Department of Public Health and formally adopted in 2014. Immediately thereafter, the Drinking Water Didsion LDDWOresponsible for deCeloping the GRRP regulations was transferred from CDPH to the State Water Resources Control Board [ WRCBD The GRRP regulations reouire a minimum subsurface response retention time RRTDof two months for Full AdCanced Treatment LFATLprojects, along with pathogen log-remoCal standards that could re_uire additional subsurface residence time. These RRT reluirements call for establishing both primary and secondary boundaries lhe., buffer areasq the primary boundary is the traditional area in which the construction of new drinking water wells would be restricted, while the secondary boundary is a nine of potential controlled potable well construction, within which the operation of future new well could extend otherwise materially affect the primary boundary, thereby rewiring further study and potential mitigating actidties prior to potable well construction. The water produced from the proposed project would be conll?yed to existing OCWD groundwater replenishment basins or facilities at locations that would meet the traEbI time reDuirement. The operation of the proposed project would increase groundwater ? Orange County Water District Water Production Enhancement Project Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration&CEQA-Plus Federal Consultation Review 4-77 Section 4 supplies and would hale a beneficial impact on the Orange County Groundwater Basin. No mitigation measures are rehired. C. Would the project substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on or off site? Less than Significant impact with Mitigation: ExcaDation and grading actidties inCblCed with the proposed project would uncoCer soils and potentially expose them to water and erosion impacts. Additionally construction eDlipment entering and exiting the work areas could track sediment onto local streets and into local and regional drainage systems. To minimiCe erosion impacts OCWD would file a Notice of Intent INOldwith the State Water Resources Control Board and prepare and implement a Storm Water Pollution PreCention Plan [SWPPPd The SWPPP would contain a map showing the building site, onsite and adjacent roadways, storm water collection points and drainage patterns across the site. The SWPPP would also prodde a list of Best Management Practices 1BMP11that would be used to minimil a sediment and wind erosion impacts. With implementation Mitigation Measure GEO12 potential erosion impacts would be less than significant. Mitigation Measure Mitigation Measure GEOC2 relhired. D. Would the project substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on or offsite? Less than Significant impact: The proposed project would construct 1,200 share feet of new imperdous surfaces and would replace 31,000 share feet of imperdous on the OCSD Plant No. 2 Site. The amount of new imperdous surfaces would slightly increase the existing rates of surface water runoff generated from the Plant No. 2 Site. The additional surface water runoff generated from the proposed project would be incorporated into onsite existing drainage systems and would not increase onsite flood risks or offsite flood risks. To ensure that adelluate drainage facilities would be alailable, OCWD would implement Mitigation Measure HWQ11, which rehires OCWD to coordinate with OCSD on the capacity of existing drainage systems and the ability of those drainage systems to accommodate surface water runoff generated by the proposed project. HWQ-1: OCWD will coordinate with OCSD on the capacity of existing drainage systems to recellb surface water runoff generated from the proposed project and would ? Orange County Water District Water Production Enhancement Project Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration&CEQA-Plus Federal Consultation Review 4-78 Section 4 participate in any drainage improllaments rewired accommodate the surface water runoff flows. E. Would the project create or contribute runoff which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? Less than Significant Impact: The construction and operation of the proposed project would generate short®erm constructions related surface runoff impacts and longterm surface runoff impacts. Construction Surface Water Runoff Management The proposed project construction actidties would disturb approximately 33,200 sn ft. of area. To minimilb adCerse construction site surface water runoff water Duality impacts, OCWD would file a Notice of Intent to disturb soils INOldand prepare and implement a Storm Water Pollution Prellontion Plan 1SWPPP1J The SWPPP would also provde a list of Best Management Practices IBMPdto retain construction site runoff onsite for onsite treatment. With implementation Mitigation Measure GEO[2 potential adilerse surface water runoff water duality impacts would be less than significant. Long Term Surface Water Runoff Management The GWRS Final Expansion Project would construct 1,200 sa ft. of new imperdous surfaces and replace 31,000 so. ft. of existing imperdous surfaces at the OCSD Plant No. 2 Site. The long term operation surface water runoff flows would be conleyed into existing drainage systems and incorporated into existing onsite wastewater treatment processes. By retaining and incorporating the surface water flows into the existing treatment processes potential long storm surface water runoff water Duality impacts would be less than significant. To ensure that adeDuate drainage facilities would be a0ailable, OCWD would implement Mitigation Measure HWQL1, which reDuires OCWD to coordinate with OCSD on the capacity of existing drainage systems and the ability of those drainage systems to accommodate surface water runoff generated by the proposed project. Mitigation Measures Mitigation Measure GEO[Y and HWQ[] reduired. F. Would the project otherwise degrade water quality? Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation: The use of GWRS recycled water for ground water replenishment is permitted under RWQCB Order R[S[2004ID02 and subselluent amendment R[200810058. These two permits specify water recycling reduirements for the GWRS. Compliance with RWQCB permit retirements would r Orange County Water District Water Production Enhancement Project Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration&CEgA-Plus Federal Consultation Review 4-79 Section 4 ensure that use of GRWS recycled water for ground water replenishment would not degrade groundwater water quality. The long term operation of the proposed project would hale beneficial impacts on groundwater supplies in Orange County and would support beneficial uses designated for Reach 2 of the Santa Ana Ri--er and for the Orange County Groundwater Basin. The project would not result in conflicts in achiedng water quality objectiEbs established in the Santa Ana Region Basin Plan. Both construction site surface water runoff and long term surface water runoffs flows would be retained onsite and incorporated into existing wastewater treatment processes to amid adlerse water quality impacts. Mitigation Measures Mitigation Measure GEOC2 and HWQ11 required. G. Would the project place housing within a 100-year floodplain, as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood insurance Rate map or other flood hazard delineation map? No Impact: The proposed project does not inmlCe construction of residential housing. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project will not subject any housing to potential flood risks. No mitigation measures are re uired. H. Would the project place within a 100-year floodplain structures which impedes or redirect flows? No Impact: As shown in Figure 13 the study area is not located within a 1001year flood plain. Flood improlements along the Santa Ana Riser haDe been designed to prodde flood control protection up to a 190 year storm eEent. The proposed project would not construct any structures or conduct any actidties within a 100 year flood area that would impede or redirect flood flows. I. Would the project expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including, flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? Less than Significant Impact: The OCSD Plant No. 2 Site is located downstream of Prado Dam. Improlements implemented at Prado Dam and at SeCen Oaks Dam and along the Santa Ana Rimer hale been designed to prodde flood control protection up to a 190 year storm eCent. The proposed project would not inmlLb the construction of any structures or inmlLJS any facilities that would adCersely impact the flood control capacity or increase flood risks at Prado Dam or along the Santa Ana Ricer. Therefore, potential impacts in regards to risk IeCee failure would be less than significant. No mitigation measures are required. ? Orange County Water District Water Production Enhancement Project Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration&CEQA-Plus Federal Consultation Review 4-80 1 i ♦ �� ♦ .. Alf =��•r 6 f t � i �,. r p, "� 4F`tr L.� t�.i"'t,. *v:.♦mac? ��4��d .� ;" .. •` r ♦ y, sr c I 1 �G e♦♦eA y ♦ ��•se.. �. • 9,•°s ., ,• , � R 1 emss- t'S ll�i J • � . '+ 41 � Contractor Laydown Area pj♦Y' iy. � �I r r� x�� f JQ" �1♦ "i pY " A t' e c s: �♦� �4 II � ,y vti b ya+^ , ye' ♦� � ',♦ Flow EQ �♦?�. -] c 1. k ' Control I Meter 0 BANNING AVE ♦ ..1 1 Q�. pp Y A t '+ Ali v ' � y Flow EQ ' I IV 41 e' ♦4001 °� �o°1��A , Pump Station •' O�e 1r•R is 4� oe\�✓.�d.v� d♦ ` 'fj� j / av♦< I�sO�®♦`Pa . Y ♦p .t � FEMA Flood Hazard Areas ♦ ♦e, �♦ 0.2 PCT ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD HAZARD t ♦I�♦ sy ®A •♦YY �s n X;X PROTECTED BY LEVEE N Water Production Enhancement Project 0 200 400 FEMA Flood Hazard Areas W E �'Feet OCSD Plant 2 Wastewater Treatment Site Figure 13 S Section 4 J. Could the project site be inundated by a seiche, tsunami, or mudflow7 Less than Significant Impact: The OCSD Plant No. 2 Site is located in a Moderate Tsunami RunLUp Area. The likelihood that a tsunami would be large enough to inundate the site would be low and the potential impact for the study area to exposed tsunami impacts would be less than significant. The study area and surrounding area does not contain any slopes, hillsides or mountains that pose the threat for mudflow impacts. Therefore, potential mudflow impacts would be less than significant. No mitigation measures are reCuired. 4.10 Land Use/Planning Existing Setting Existing Land Uses The OCSD No. 2 Plant Site is currently del-eloped with wastewater treatment facilities, administratilb buildings, parking areas onsite roadways. Plant No. 2 Site is situated within the urbanilbd endronment and surrounded by the Santa Ana Ricer to the east, Brookhourst Street and residential uses to the west and north and the Talbert Marsh to the south. The study area is predominantly build out. Relevant Planning Programs The following are rele[bnt planning programs that would apply to the proposed project. City of Huntington Beach General Plan The City of Huntington Beach General Plan designates the OCSD Plant No. 2 Site Public. The Public designation allows go[brnmental administratile and related facilities, such as public utilities, schools, public parking lots and infrastructure. City of Huntington Beach General Plan Coastal Element The OCSD Plant No. 2 Site is located within Coastal Zone and subject to the California Coastal Act. The California Coastal Act is implemented by the City of Huntington Beach General Plan Coastal Element. The Coastal Element includes a land use plan and policies to guide land use decisions within the coastal Cone. The OCSD Plant No. 2 Site is located in Zone 5, which extends from Beach BouleCard to the Santa Ana RI@r. The Coastal Element designates OCSD Plant No. 2 4G[Edison Plant. Permitted uses include public uses and open space conser[btion. Any delblopment actidty occurring in the Coastal Zone would be re uired to obtain a Coastal Delblopment Permit approlbd by the City of Huntington Beach. City of Huntington Beach Zoning Code The portion of the OCSD Plant No. 2 Site where the proposed project would be constructed is coned IG [Industrial GeneraloThe Industrial General [bring designation OOrange County Water District Water Production Enhancement Project Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration&CEQA-Plus Federal Consultation Review 4-82 Section 4 allows for full range of manufacturing, industrial processing, resource and energy production, general serdces and distribution land uses and establishes a maximum height restriction of 40 feet. A. Would the project physically divide an established community? Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation: The long term operation of the proposed project would be compatible with existing uses on the OCSD Plant No. 2 Site. All construction actidties would occur on Plant No. 2 and would not physically impact any offsite existing residential communities, businesses or industries within the study area. Potential long term land use impacts to established communities within the study area would be less than significant. To minimiLb construction impacts to surrounding land uses within the study area, OCWD would coordinate with the public on upcoming construction actidties. With the implementation of Mitigation Measure 1-1.111 potential construction impacts to existing land uses would be less than significant. Mitigation Measure LU-1: OCWD will prodde residents and business owners with notifications of upcoming construction actidties. B. Would the project be in conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation: The City of Huntington Beach General Plan land Use Element designates the OCSD Plant No. 2 Site Public. According to General Plan public utilities are a permitted land use under the Public land use category. The proposed flow eoualilation tank and pump station impro[Ements would be consistent with the Public land use designation in that the proposed improEaments would be an expansion of the existing public utility uses occurring on the OCSD Plant No. 2 Site. The City of Huntington Beach Coastal Element designates the OCSD Plant No. 2 Site 4G[Edison Plant and identifies public uses and open space conserEation as permitted land uses, subject to approial of a Coastal Delalopment Permit. The proposed flow eo lalilation tank and pump station improlaments would be consistent with the Coastal Element in that the proposed impro�aments would be a continuation of existing public uses occurring on the site. The proposed project with appro Dal of Coastal De[elopment Permit would not be in conflict with the City of Huntington Beach General Plan Coastal Element. The northern portion of the OCSD Plant No. 2 Site where the flow ellualiiation tank and pump station would be constructed is coned Industrial General. The Industrial General inning designation allows for full range of manufacturing, industrial processing, OOrange County Water District Water Production Enhancement Project Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration&CEQA-Plus Federal Consultation Review 4-83 Section 4 resource and energy production land uses. The proposed flow en/aliiation tank and pump station improDDments would be consistent with the Industrial General Zoning District in that the proposed improDDments would be an expansion of the existing industrial land uses occurring on the site. The Industrial General Zoning District establishes a maximum height of 40 feet. The tallest structure proposed would be flow eDualilation tank at a height of 30 feet. The proposed project would not be in conflict with the City of Huntington Beach Zoning Code. Mitigation Measure LU-2: Prior to construction of the Flow EDualiDation Tank OCWD will obtain approlal of Coastal DeCelopment Permit from the City of Huntington Beach. C. Would the project be in conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? No Impact: The OCSD Plant No. 2 Site is situated within an urban setting. There are no habitat management plans or natural community conserCetion plans established on the site. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not be in conflict with any habitat conserlation plan or natural community conserlation plan. 4.11 Mineral Resources Would the project result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? No Impact: According to the City of Huntington Beach General Plan, the OCSD Plant No. 2 Site is not identified has containing mineral resources of regional significance. Additionally, the Plant No. 2 Site is currently not used for mineral extraction. Therefore, no impacts on regional minerals or minerals of state importance would occur. B. Would the project result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use? No Impact: According to the City of Huntington Beach General Plan, the OCSD Plant No. 2 Site is not identified has containing mineral resources of regional significance. Additionally, the Plant No. 2 Site is currently not used for mineral extraction. Therefore, no impacts on regional minerals or minerals of regional importance would occur. 4.12 Noise Existing Setting Noise is defined as unwanted sound. Sound becomes unwanted when it creates a nuisance that interferes with normal actidties, or when it causes physical harm and adiarsely affects human health. The standard unit of measurement of the loudness of fCN Orange County Water District Water Production Enhancement Project SJ Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration&CEgA-Plus Federal Consultation Review 4-84 Section 4 sound is the decibel ABo The lero point on the dB scale is based on the lowest sound lelel that a healthy, unimpaired human ear can detect. Changes of 3 d6 or fewer are only perceptible in laboratory endronments. An increase of 10 dB represents a 101Bold increase in acoustic energy, while 20 dB is 100 times more intense, and 30 dB is 1,000 times more intense. Each 101dB increase in sound lelel is perceiled as approximately a doubling of loudness. Numerous methods hale been deleloped to measure sound o1br a period of time, including: Elluilalent Sound Lelel dLeoQ Community Noise En/ilalent Lelel [CNELQ Day/Night Alerage Sound Lelel [Ldeoand Maximum Noise elent 1 Lmaxo Noise lelel can lery pending on the noise source and duration. Below is description of the units of measure used in this analysis to describe the noise endronment. • Le,Time lariations in noise exposure are typically expressed as a statistical description of the sound pressure IeCeI that is exceeded oDar some fraction of a gilen obserCation period [called L.00 For example, the noise IeLals exceeded on 10 percent of readings is called Lte, the median L50th percentile Oreading is called Leo, etc. • CNEL: Because community receptors are more sensitise to unwanted noise intrusion during the eFening and at night, state law ren/ires that, for planning purposes, an artificial dB increment penalty be added to ❑llet[Nme noise lelels in a 241hour noise descriptor called CNEL. • Ldn:Another commonly used method is the day/night aCerage lelel or Lde. • Ldn is a measure of the 241hour alerage noise IsILI at a gilen location. It was adopted by the U.S. EnUronmental Protection Agency IEPADfor deLBloping criteria for the e0aluation of community noise exposure. • Lmaz: The maximum noise lelbl recorded during a noise slant is typically expressed as Lm.. Effects of Noise Physical damage to human hearing begins at prolonged exposure to noise lelels higher than 85 dBA. Extended periods of noise exposure abole 90 dBA could result in permanent hearing damage. When the noise IelaI reaches 120 dBA, a ticking sensation occurs in the human ear elen with short[term exposure. This Ie�eI of noise is called the threshold of feeling. As the sound reaches 140 dBA, the tickling sensation is replaced by the feeling of pain in the ear. This is called the threshold of pain. A sound IelbI of 190 dBA will rupture the eardrum and permanently the inner ear. Table 17 summari[Bs typical noise sources, lelels, and responses. fCN Orange County Water District Water Production Enhancement Project SJ Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration&CEgA-Plus Federal Consultation Review 4-05 Section 4 Table 17: Noise Levels and Human Response Noise Source Noise Level dBA Response Library 30 Very Mist Refrigerator humming 40 Quiet Quiet office 50 Quiet Normal conEbmation 60 Intrusi e Vacuum cleaner 70 Telephone use difficult Freight train at 50 feet 80 Interferes with con Ebmation Hea yi duty truck at 50 feet 90 Annoying Eet takeoff at 2,000 feet 100 Very annoying; hearing damage at sustained exposure IeEels UnmuHled motorcycle 110 Maximum local effect; physical discomfort Eat takeoff at 200 feet 120 Regular exposure o1br one minute risks permanent hearing loss Shotgun firing 130 Pain threshold Carrier jet operation 140 Harmfully loud Source:Me1011e C.Brand,aM R.Dale Belend.lB]0. Ground Absorption The sound drop off rate is highly dependent on the conditions of the land between the noise source and recei0ar. To account for this grounduaffect attenuation CsbsorptionQ two types of site conditions are commonly used in noise models, so%site and hardlite conditions. Soft[site conditions account for the sound propagation loss oDar natural surfaces such as normal earth and ground Eegetation. For point sources, a droplbff rate of 7.5 dBA/for each doubling of distance from the point source is typically obserlbd o1br soft ground with landscaping, as compared with a 6.0 dBA/for each doubling of distance o er hard ground such as asphalt, concrete, stone and Eery hard packed earth Noise Barrier Attenuation For a noise barrier to work, it must be high enough and long enough to block the dew of the noise source. A noise barrier is most effectIDD when placed close to the noise source or receID3r. A noise barrier can achiel e a 5 dBA noise lell3l reduction when it is tall enough to break the linelbfisight and greater heights increase the noise reduction. When the noise barrier is a berm instead of a wall, the noise attenuation can be increased by another 3 dBA. Applicable Noise Standards Federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration The adilorse impact of noise was officially recogniEed by the federal goilomment in the Noise Control Act of 1972. The most relemnt federal agency to the GWRS Final Expansion Project would be Occupational Safety and Health Administration EOSHAQ 0Orange County Water District Water Production Enhancement Project Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration&CEQA-Plus Federal Consultation Review 4-66 Section 4 which limits noise exposure of workers to 90 dB Leo or less oler eight hours or 105 dB Leo or less oler one hour. Local Noise Regulations The local noise regulations that are applicable to the GWRS Final Expansion Project would be the City of Huntington Beach Noise Ordinance. City of Huntington Beach Noise Ordinance Chapter 8.40 of the City of Huntington Beach Municipal Code contains the City® Noise Ordinance. Table 18 identifies the exterior noise standards established in the City of Huntington Beach Noise Ordinance. Table 18: City of Huntington Beach Exterior Noise Standards Noise Zone Noise Level Time Period All Residential Properties 55 dBA 7:00 a.m.to 10:00 p.m. 50 dBA 10: 00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. All Professional Office/Public Institution Properties 55 dBA Anytime All Commercial Properties Except Professional Office 60 dBA Anytime All Industrial Properties 70 dBA Anytime The abole allowed noise lelel standards shall not be exceeded: 1. For a cumulatile period of more than 30 minutes in any hour; 2. Plus file db[Aofor a cumulatile period of more than 15 minutes in any hour; 3. Plus 10 db[Aofor a cumulatile period of more than file minutes in any hour; 4. Plus 15 dbEADfor a cure i[E period of more than one minute in any hour; or 5. Plus 20 db[Aofor any period of time. 6. In the Slant the ambient noise le[BI exceeds any of the first four noise limit categories aboDa, the curl period applicable to said category shall be increased to reflect said ambient noise leDal. In the eDant the ambient noise leDal exceeds the fifth noise limit category, the maximum allowable noise lelel under said category shall be increased to reflect the maximum ambient noise lelel. E237917/79❑ Table 19 identifies the interior noise standards established in the City of Huntington Beach. Table 19: City of Huntington Beach Interior Noise Standards Noise Zone Noise Level Time Period All Residential Properties 55 dBA 7:00 a.m.to 10:00 p.m. 45 dBA 1 10: 00 p.m.to 7:00 a.m. fCN Orange County Water District Water Production Enhancement Project V,J Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration&CEQA-Plus Federal Consultation Review 4.87 Section 4 All Professional Office/Public Institution 55 dBA Anytime Properties All Commercial Properties Except 55 dBA Anytime Professional Office All Industrial Properties 55 dBA Anytime The abo[o allowed noise le[oI standards shall not be exceeded: 1. The noise standard for a cumulati[o period of more than fi[o minutes in any hour: 2. The noise standards plus fiEa db[AOfor a cumulati[e period of more than one minute in any hour. 3. The noise standard plus 10 db[Aofor any period of time. 4. In the eCent the ambient noise IeCel exceeds either of the first two noise limit categories abolb, the cumulatilb period applicable to said category shall be increased to reflect said ambient noise IeDal. In the eCent the ambient noise leCel exceeds the third noise IeCel, the maximum allowable noise IeD31 under said category shall be increased to reflect the maximum ambient noise IeDal. 5. Each of the noise limits specified abole shall be reduced by fiEla dbEAOfor impact or predominant tone noises, or for noises consisting of speech or music. 6. In the e[ont that the noise source and the affected property are within different noise [ones, the noise standards of the affected property shall apply. E237917/79❑ Special Provisions Construction Noise According to Section 8.40.090[dDof the City of Huntington Beach Noise Ordinance, noise sources associated with construction, repair, remodeling, or grading of any real property are exempt from the City Noise Ordinance, prodded said actidties do not take place between the hours of 8:00 P.M. and 7:00 A.M. on weekdays or Saturdays, or at any time on Sunday or a federal holiday. Schools, Hospitals, Churches It is unlawful for any person to create any noise which causes the noise le[oI at any school, hospital or church while the same is in use to exceed the noise limits as specified for the assigned noise [one in which the school, hospital or church is located, or which noise lel of unreasonably interferes with the use of such institutions or which unreasonably disturbs or annoys patients in the hospital, prodded conspicuous signs are displayed in three separate locations within oneitenth of a mile of the institution indicating the presence of a school, church or hospital. fCN Orange County Water District Water Production Enhancement Project SJ Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration&CEgA-Plus Federal Consultation Review 4-88 Section 4 Existing Noise Levels The OCSD Plant No. 2 Site is bordered by the Santa Ana RI@r to the east, the Talbert Marsh and Pacific Coast Highway to the south, and Brookhurst Street to the west. The study area ambient noise endronment is predominately influenced traffic noise along Brookhurst Street. Onsite noise[generating sources within OCSD Plant No. 2 include; engine/motor noise, mechanical esuipment lincluding large fans and trunkline scrubbersq paging systems and truck traffic entering and leafing the plant. The closest sensible receptors are single family residential land uses located west of Brookhurst Street and multiplelfamily residential to the north of the Plant No. 2 property. An existing block wall prodded along Plant No. 2 helps to reduce noise leLbls within the study area. Ambient noise measurements were conducted at two locations, representing the nearby land uses in the dcinity of the project site to establish conserlbtiCe ambient noise IeCels. The measurement locations along with existing delblopment and the proposed construction acti-ities are shown on Figure 4. Long®erm 124[hourOmeasurements were conducted at locations R1 and R2. Ambient sound measurements were conducted on Wednesday, [lily 13, 2016, to characteri[IB the existing noise endronment in the project dcinity. • Measurement Location R1: represents the existing noise endronment of single❑ family residential uses west of the project site along Brookhurst Street. • Measurement Location R2: represents the existing noise endronment of multi El family residential uses north of the project site along Brookhurst Street. As shown in Table 20, the existing ambient daytime noise leligls ranged from 66 dBA to 69 dBA, Lei, at R1 and from 68 dBA to 70 dBA, Leo at R2. The existing ambient nighttime noise lelbis ranged from 56 dBA to 67 dBA, Leo at R1 and from 58 dBA to 66 dBA, Le,at R2. Table 20: Existing Ambient Noise Levels Existing Land Daytime Daytime Nighttime Nighttime 24-Hour Use (7 A.M.to 10 P.M.) Average (10 P.m.to 7 A.M.) Average Average, Hourly L Hourly Hourly L Hourly L. CNEL R1 -. Singlemamily 66069 67 5667 61 69 Residential R2 ❑ MulOmamily 68170 69 5"6 62 71 Residential Project Impacts A. Would the project expose persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? fCN Orange County Water District Water Production Enhancement Project lij Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration&CEQA-Plus Federal Consultation Review 4-89 Section 4 Operational Noise Impacts Less than Significant Impact: Once the Water Production Enhancement Project is operational, noise IeCeIS generated from the study area would mainly occur from the pump station. The flow eDjaliCation tank would haDa a 41pump, approximately 50011 linear feet of 361nch diameter connection piping with a meter Gault 115I11t x 201 t x 10I11 deep[Iconnected to the operations of the tank. The pump station would be housed in a 301 t x 40I11 x 201A block wall building. The analysis of the pump station Ifelated noise is based upon reference noise measurement conducted on [lily 15, 2016 at a pump station located in the OCWD facility at 18700 Ward Street, Fountain Valley, CA. Pump station2elated noise IeCels were measured inside of the pump station and outside of the pump station at 5 feet from a IouEar. Noise Ielbl of 80 dBA was measured inside of the pump station and noise IeCel of 66 dBA was measured at 5 feet from the IouCer outside of the pump station. The pump station house with IouCers would prollde approximately 14 dBA noise reduction. The nearest single[Bamily residential uses west of the study area would be located approximately 460 feet from the proposed pump station. Based on a noise leLAel source strength of 66 dBA at a reference distance of 5 feet, and accounting for distance attenuation Lfninimum 39 dBA insertion lossDand barrier insertion loss by block walls Tninimum 5 dBA insertion lossq pump station related noise would be reduced to 22 dBA at the nearest noise sensitilb uses., well below the City of Huntington Beach Daytime Noise Standard of 55 dBa and Nighttime noise Standard of 50 dBA. Operation of the Water Production Enhancement Project would not expose persons to, or generate noise Ie[Lls in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies, Therefore, operational noise impacts would be less than significant. No mitigation measures are rentired. Construction Noise Impacts Less Than Significant Impact: Construction of the proposed project would renlire the use of heaDy elluipment during the demolition, grading, and excalation actilities at the project site. During each stage of del:alopment, there would be a different mix of elluipment. As such, construction actidty noise lelials at and near the project site would fluctuate depending on the particular type, number, and duration of use of the 11arious pieces of construction eDuipment. As shown in Table 21, Indiddual pieces of construction elluipment anticipated during construction could produce maximum noise lelials of 60 dBA to 83 dBA Lmax at a reference distance of 50 feet from the noise source. These maximum noise IeCels would occur when e0uipment is operating at full power. fCN Orange County Water District Water Production Enhancement Project SJ Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration&CEgA-Plus Federal Consultation Review 4-90 Section 4 Table 21: Construction Equipment Noise levels Construction Equipment Noise Level at 50 Feet Estimated (dBA, Lmax) Usage Factor, °k Backhoe 69 50 Bull Dollar 82 40 Co m actor, 83 20 Concrete Tmck 75 25 Crane 81 40 Dump Truck 76 20 Drill Rig Truck 76 50 Excalalor 81 40 Forklift' 60 50 Man Lift 68 25 Water Truck 80 10 During construction, the nearest and most notable offsite sensitise receptors that would be exposed to increased noise le[DIS would be the existing singlelfamily residential uses located in proximity to the project site. Specifically, the nearest offsite noise sensitive receptors include the following: • Single[Bamily residences along Brookhurst Street approximately 260 feet west of the project site; and • Multi[family residences along Brookhurst Street approximately 800 feet north of the project site. OCer the course of a construction day, the highest noise le[Bls would be generated when multiple pieces of construction eDuipment are being operated concurrently. The projects estimated construction noise levels were calculated for a scenario in which all construction eDuipment was assumed to be operating simultaneously and located at the construction area nearest to the affected receptors to present a conserCatiCe impact analysis. The estimated noise lelals at the offsite sensiti a receptors were calculated using the FHWA[s RCNM, and were based on the concurrent operation of 6 pieces of elluipment Gle., front end loader, backhoe, dollar, haul truck, drill rig truck, etc.Dwhich is considered a worst[base elaluation. Table 22 shows the estimated construction noise levels that would occur at the nearest offsite sensitive uses during a peak day of construction actidty at the study area. Table 22: Estimated Construction Noise Levels (dBa) Existing Land Use Daytime Low Estimated Noise Level Noise Level Ambient Construction Increase Increase With Noise level Noise level Without Considering Considering Shielding (1) Shielding dBA SingleTamily Residential 66 65 -1 B West of Site, Along OOrange County Water District Water Production Enhancement Project Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration&CEgA-Plus Federal Consultation Review 4.91 Section 4 Brookhurst Street Multi[family Residential 68 56 112 117 North of Site Along Brookumt Street MV eoeptors are padially shielded from the mnsuvdon site by existing walls,representing a 5 des rttludw In holes Ie215. As shown in Table 22, the peak day construction noise leuals experienced by the offsite sensitiLb receptors would range from 56 dBA, Leo at the multilfamily residential uses located north of the project site to 65 dBA, Leo at the singlelHamily residential uses located west of the study area. The construction actidty would only occur during the day. Therefore, the City of Huntington Beach Day Time Noise Standard would be the releCant noise standard for the construction actidties. The estimated construction noise le[els would exceed the City of Huntington Beach Day Time Exterior Noise Standard of 55 dBa. The City of Hunting Beach Noise Ordinance exempts construction noise that occurs between 7:00 A.M. and 8:00 P.M. Monday through Saturday. The construction operations for the proposed project would occur during the hours of the day when the construction noise would be exempt under the City of Huntington Beach Noise Ordinance and therefore the construction noise would not expose persons to or generate noise IeCels in excess of local noise standards. No mitigation measures are reouired. B. Would the project result in a permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? Less Than Significant Impact: Because of the proximity of the existing offsite sensiti0a uses to the study area, the projectls operation actidties would not expose these sensiti0a receptors to increased exterior noise or interior noise lelbls. Based on the measured noise leels at the nearest offsite sensitiCe receptors to the project site, it was determined that the pump station elated noise IeCels would not exceed the nighttime aCerage ambient noise lellbls at the offsite sensitlEb receptors. As such, there would not be a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise IeCels in the study area dcinity abo[e IS els existing without the project Potential long term noise impacts would be less than significant. No mitigation measures are rewired. C. Would the project result in a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? Less than Significant Impact: The state CECA Guidelines do not define the lelals at which increases in ambient noise Ielels are considered [substantial temporary.[] Howeler, with respect to noise, a change in noise levels of 3 dBA is considered to be a barely perceiDable difference, while a change in noise le[Bls of 5 dBA is considered to be a readily perceiDable difference. A change in noise IeCels of 10 dBA is considered to 1*1 Orange County Water District Water Production Enhancement Project SJ Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration&CEgA-Plus Federal Consultation Review 4A2 Section 4 be doubling of the parcelled loudness. Thus, for the purpose of conducting a conseriatile analysis, an increase in the noise endronment of 5 dBA or greater at an off[site sensiti[e receptor during proposed construction actidties would be considered a significant noise impact with regards to a temporary substantial increase in ambient noise leials. Based on the measured noise lelals at the nearest offsite sensible receptors to the work area, shown in Table 22, it was determined that construction noise levels would not exceed the ambient noise le�els by 5 dBA at the offsite sensitiEb receptors. Because of existing eleCated noise IeCels occurring within the study area, it would unlikely that construction noise would be heard by sensiti0a receptors. Potential short®erm noise impacts from construction actiUties would be less than significant. No mitigation measures are reDiired. Off-Site Construction Traffic Noise DeliCBry truck and haul truck trips would occur throughout the construction period. Trucks traCeling to and from the work site would be reDuired to tralbl along Brookhurst Street. An estimated maximum of approximately 10 workerl§ [chicle trips, 1 Candor truck trip, and 32 haul truck trips would occur per day. The projects truck trips would generate noise levels of approximately 50 dBA, CNEL at 25 feet distance along Brookhurst Street. As shown in Table 22, the existing noise leials along Brookhurst Street ranged from 66 dBA to 68 dBA, CNEL. Noise leials of 50 dBA, CNEL generated by construction[related traffic would not increase the ambient noise lelels along Brookhurst Street. Therefore, off[site construction traffic noise impacts would be less than significant. No mitigation measures are reluired. D. For a project located within an airport land use plan or where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? Less than Significant Impact: The closest airport to the study area would be Lohn Wayne Airport located approximately seDan miles from the study area. According to the Cohn Wayne Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan the study area would not be impacted by aircraft noise IeCels that would exceed local, state or federal standards. In addition, the proposed project does not introduce new sensitID3 receptors to the study area. Based on the fact the site is not impacted with eleCated IeCels of aircraft noise and the project would not introduce new sensiti Fe receptors to the project area, there will be no impacts from airport noise associated with the project. No mitigation measures are renlired. E. For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? OOrange County Water District Water Production Enhancement Project Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration&CEQA-Plus Federal Consultation Review 4-93 Section 4 No Impact: There are no prilate airstrips within the study area. Therefore, the study area would not be adhrsely impacted from aircraft noise from a prilate air strip. F. Would the project expose persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? Vibration Standards Less than Significant Impact: California Administrate Code 15000, Title 14 rehires that all state and local agencies implement the California Endronmental Quality Act [CEQA❑ Guideline, which rehires an exposure analysis of persons to excessil:s groundborne dbration impacts. Common sources of dbration impacts from construction actilllties include; blasting, pile[dridng and operation of heaEy earth[modng ehipment. Sensltlh' receptors for dbration include structures [especially older masonry structures, people and dbration sensible ehipment. There are no state dbration standards that would apply to the proposed project. Hower, the California Department of Transportation® [CaltransdTranspottation and Construction Vibration Guidance Manual proddes guidelines that can be used as screening tools for assessing the potential for ad[erse dbration effects related to structural damage and human perception. The manual is meant to prodde practical guidance to Caltrans engineers, planners, and consultants who must address dbration issues associated with the construction, operation, and maintenance of Caltrans projects. The dbration criteria established by Caltrans for assessing structural damage and human perception are shown in Table 23 and Table 24. Table 23: Caltrans Vibration Damage Potential Threshold Criteria Maximum PPV Structure Transit Source Continuous Sources Extremely fragile historic buildings, ruins, 0.12 0.08 ancient monuments Fragile buildings 0.2 0.1 Historic and some old buildings 0.5 0.25 Older residential structures 0.5 0.3 New residential structures 1.0 0.5 Modern industrial/commercial buildings 2.0 0.5 Source:Celtrens and Federal TransiUwtliodty Table 24: Caltrans Vibration Annoyance Potential Criteria Maximum PPV StructurelCondition Transit Source Continuous Sources Barely perceptible 0.04 0.01 Distinctly perceptible 0.25 0.04 Strongly perceptible 0.9 0.10 Salem 2.0 0.4 Soup:Caltrans and Federal Tramit Mftnly OOrange County Water District Water Production Enhancement Project Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration&CEQA-Plus Federal Consultation Review 4-94 Section 4 Existing Groundborne Vibration Levels Aside from periodic construction work that could occur throughout the City, other sources of groundborne ❑bration within the study area ❑cinity may include heaDjlduty Cehicular traCel lb.g., refuse trucks, deliDary trucks, etc.i on local roadways. Truck traffic at a distance of 50 feet typically generate groundborne (bration Celocity Ielbls of approximately 63 VdB ®pproximately 0.006 in/sec PPVQ and these IeCels could reach 72 VdB approximately 0.016 in/sec PPVEWhere trucks pass oCer irregularities in the road surface.7 Construction Vibration Construction actidties would haEb the potential to generate low le0als of groundborne ❑bration within the study area. The operation of heaEy el]lipment [Le., compactor, backhoe, dollar, excaDators, haul trucks, etc.owould generate ❑brations that would propagate though the ground and diminish in intensity with distance from the source. No highGmpact actidties, such as pile drdng or blasting, would be used during project construction. The nearest offsite receptors to the project site that could be exposed to ❑bration Ielbls generated from project construction include singlelfamily residential uses located west of the project site. Groundbome dbrations from construction actidties Diary rarely reach the Ielbls that can damage structures, but they may be perceilbd in buildings lbry close to a construction site. The PPV dbration Ilalocities for seCeral types of construction equipment, along with their corresponding RMS Ilalocities [in VdBQ that can generate perceptible dbration IeCeIS are identified in Table 25 and Table 26. Table 25: Peak Particle Velocity (PPV) of Vibration Impacts Equipment 25 ft. 50 ft. 60 ft. 75 ft. 100 ft. Large dolbr 0.089 0.031 0.024 0.017 0.011 Auger Drill 0.089 0.031 0.024 0.017 0.011 Loaded truck 0.076 0.027 0.020 0.015 0.010 lbckhammer 0.035 0.012 0.009 0.007 0.004 Small Doter 0.003 0.001 0.0008 0.0006 0.0004 Table 26: Decibel Notation (VDB) Levels of Vibration Impacts Equipment IL 25 ft. 50 ft. 60 ft. Lar a dolbr 87 78 76 73 69 Au er Drill 87 78 76 73 69 Loaded truck 86 77 75 72 68 hekhammer 79 70 68 65 61 Small Doter 58 49 47 44 40 7 FrA,Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment May 2006. Orange County Water District Water Production Enhancement Project OO Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration&CEgA-Plus Federal Consultation Review 4-95 Section 4 The groundborne dbration leials at offsite sensitila uses compared to Caltransland FTA dbration damage potential threshold are shown in Table 25 and Table26. The table shows the estimated construction[related groundborne dbration IeDDIS that could occur at the nearest offsite structures during construction at the project site and a comparison to the identified significance threshold. As shown in Table 27, the dbration Lelocities forecasted to occur at the offsite sensiti Eb receptors could potentially be up to 0.0027 in/sec PPV [or 57 VdBDat the nearest singleilamily residential uses. Table 27: Groundborne Vibration levels at Offsite Sensitive uses Compared to Caltrans and FTA Vibration Damage potential threshold Closest Offsite Distance to Estimated Caltrans FTA Vibration Exceed Sensitive Uses Work Site PPV Vibration Damage Caltrans'or in/sec)/VdB Damage Potential FTA Vibration Potential Threshold, Threshold? Threshold PPV(inlsec)d (Yes or No) PPV Inlsec ` Singlerfamily 260 0.0027/57 0.5 0.5 No residential uses: West of the project site along Brookhurst Street Under the FTA construction dbration damaged criteria, the existing residential structures are considered Ireinforce[concrete, steel or timber [no plaster[J With respect to the dbration sources associated with project construction, it is anticipated that continuous/freouent intermittent sources of dbration, as defined under CaltransE -,riteria, would occur from compaction actidties at the project site, although no pile[dridng would be relluired. As such, the dbration IeCel criteria for continuous/freDuent intermittent sources are used in this analysis. Based on the information shown in Table 27, which shows an estimated PPV of 0.0027, none of the existing offsite residential structures [considered as [thew residential structuresDand Ifeinforced[concrete, steel or timberounder the Caltransland FTA construction dbration damage criteria, respectilblydocated to the west of the project site would be exposed to PPV groundborne dbration IeEels exceeding the FTA and CaltransED.S inches per second criteria as shown in Tables 25 and Table 26. The dbration impacts at these residential structures would be less than significant. With respect to human annoyance, the City of Huntington Beach Noise Element identifies residential areas as noise[sensiti113 land uses. Currently, these types of sensitile uses that are located in the project site dcinity include the singleitamily residential uses that are located to the west of the project site. Under the CaltranS❑ ❑bration annoyance potential criteria, Dbration IeE bis exceeding 0.04 inches per second PPV for continuous/frel]tent intermittent sources would be considered distinctly fCN Orange County Water District Water Production Enhancement Project SJ Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declandion&CEgA-Plus Federal Consultation Review 4A8 Section 4 perceptible. In addition, under the FTA dbration impact criteria for general assessment, residential receptors are considered to be a Category 2 land use. Land uses under this FTA category exposed to dbration leials exceeding 80 VdB for infrelluent e[ents would be considered an impact. As shown in Table 27 the single[family residential receptors located west of the project site would be exposed to ❑bration leials of 0.0027 in/sec PPV/57 VdB which is well below the Caltransm.04 in/sec PPV distinctly perceptible threshold and the FTA® 80 VdB impact threshold. Potential dbration impacts related to human annoyance would be less than significant. No mitigation measures reLUired. 4.13 Population/Housing A. Would the project induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly or indirectly? No Impact: The proposed project would prodde additional wastewater flows to OCWD GWRS water treatment facility to produce additional water supplies to help replenish the Orange County Groundwater Basin. The proposed project would help to meet planned water supply needs and would reduce the demand for imported water supplies. The proposed project would not in[blCe the extension of any new infrastructure or prodde new water supplies to any undeleloped areas that would facilitate new growth. The proposed project would assist in accommodating planned growth in OCSD and OCWD serdce area and would not induce more growth than what has been planned for by local and regional planning agencies. B. Would the project displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? No Impact: The proposed project would be operated and constructed at an existing wastewater treatment facility. The implementation of the proposed project would not displace any existing housing. The construction of the proposed project would generate shortiterm construction job opportunities. The majority of the employment opportunities would be expected to be filled by the local employed and unemployed labor force and would not increase population leials that would increase housing demand in the study area. C. Would the project displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? No Impact: The implementation of the proposed project would not displace any households or indidduals for any period of time. 4.14 Public Services A. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could fCN Orange County Water District Water Production Enhancement Project %�,J Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration&CEQA-Plus Federal Consultation Review 4-97 Section 4 cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for fire protection police protection, schools, parks or other public facilities. Police and Fire Protection Services No Impact: Police and fire protection serdce is currently prodded to the study area by the City of Huntington Beach Police Department and the City of Huntington Beach Fire Department. The construction and operation of the proposed project would not increase the demand for additional fire protection serdces and police protection serdces beyond the current Wei of demand within the study area. Additionally the construction of the proposed project would not rewire any road closures or actidties that would increase response times to the study area. No ad Darse impacts to fire protection serdces and police protection serdces would occur. School Facilities No Impact: The closest school facilities to OCSD Plant No. 2 would be Cohn Eader Elementary, Isaac Sowers Middle School and Edison High School. The implementation of the proposed project would not generate a substantial need for new school facilities. Any new full time employees that could result from the proposed project are expected to be minimal. In the el ent new households do relocate into the study area the existing schools within study area would be expected to meet school facility needs for all grades. No adlerse impacts to school facilities would occur. Parks No Impact: The implementation of the proposed project would not generate a need for new park facilities. Any new full time employees that could result from the proposed project are expected to be minimal. In the e[Bnt new households do relocate into the study area existing park facilities within the study area would be expected to meet parkland needs. No adCerse impacts to park facilities would occur. 4.15 Recreation Project Impacts A. Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? Less than Significant Impact: The proposed project would not generate new households or a substantial amount of new employees that would increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks within the study area. Additionally, the construction operations associated with the proposed project would not relt ire temporary closure of the Santa Ana Moor Trail. During construction operations there trail users along the Santa Ana Ricer Trail could experience elelated le[t;ls of 0Orange County Water District Water Production Enhancement Project Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration&CEgA-Plus Federal Consultation Review 4-98 Section 4 construction noise. Howeler, the impact would be for a shortiperiod of time and would only be experienced along segments of the trail that would be near where construction actidty would be occurring. Potential impacts to existing recreation facilities would be less than significant B. Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment. No Impact. The proposed project does not propose new recreation facilities or proposes to expand existing recreation facilities. Therefore, there will not be any adverse impacts associated with the construction of new recreation facilities or the expansion of existing facilities. No mitigation measures are reDiired. 4.16 Transportation/Traffic Existing Setting Study Area Circulation System Regional access to the study area is prodded by the I1405 Freeway da the Brookhurst Street exits. Primary local access is prodded by Brookhurst Street. Congestion Management Program The Orange County Transportation Agency is responsible for the implementation of the County of Orange Congestion Management Program 1CMP1J The CMP is designed to reduce traffic congestion and to prodde a mechanism for the coordination of land use and transportation decisions. When a project generates more than 100 peak trips along a CMP highway or 51 or more trips through a CMP intersection, the project would be relluired to prepare a traffic impact study to e[luate the impacts on the CMP highway and intersection. Existing Truck Routes The City of Huntington Beach General Plan Circulation Element identifies the following study area roadways as designated truck routes. • Brookhurst Street, • Pacific Coast Highway • Hamilton ACenue Public Transportation The City of Huntington Beach is ser[Bd by the OCTA bus serdce. Currently, the OCTA operates 19 bus routes throughout the City, a demand response serdce through the [Dial A[Ride Liprogram, and two parkland[fide facilities. Most major streets within the City have bus serdce aLbilable. QOrange County Water District Water Production Enhancement Project Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration&CEgA-Plus Federal Consultation Review 4-99 Section 4 Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities The City of Huntington Beach has an extensiDa trail system that includes pedestrian and bike trails. Additionally, the County of Orange maintains a coordinated system of trails, including bikeways, hiking trails throughout Orange County. Within the study area the most widely used offetreet bike trails would be the Santa Ana Ricer Trail and the Talbert Marsh Bike Trail. Additionally, along the study area roadways are on[street bike ways. Project Impacts A. Would the project be in conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation including mass transit and non-motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrians and bicycle paths. Less than Significant Impact: The implementation of the proposed project would not increase long term operation trips within the study area where it would reduce the lelel of serdce of study area intersections and roadway segments. Therefore, no long term adierse traffic impacts would occur. The construction operations for the proposed project would generate shortCterm traffic trips which would include, hauling trips, worker traffic trips, delilbry traffic trips, and traffic trips. Additionally, construction traffic would be generated from the mobiliEl3tion and demobiliCetion of construction elllipment. A listing of construction traffic trips generated by the proposed project is shown in Table 28. Table 28: Project Construction Traffic Trips Daily Total Haul Haul OCSD Flow EQTank,Pump Station,and Pipeline/Meter Vault Worker Vendor Trips Trips IA:Excavation,Haulin&Grading for Flow EQTank,Pum Station,and Pipeline 10 1 32 248 18:Piles Construction for Flow EQTank 10 2 4 12 1C:Flow EQTank Pad Construction 10 2 12 288 11):Flow EQTank Assembly and Coating 5 2 1E:Assembly of Flow EQ Pumps and Meter Vault 5 4 The majority of construction traffic trips generated from the proposed project would be hauling trips. As shown in Table 28 a maximum of 32 hauling trips would occur each day during Phase 1 when the majority of the excalation and hauling actidties would occur. The hauling truck trips would occur during nonipeak hours and would not reduce the le�el of serdoe of any intersection or roadway segment within the study area. QOrange County Water District Water Production Enhancement Project OO Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration&CEQA-Plus Federal Consultation Review 4-100 Section 4 During the construction operations a maximum of up to 10 worker daily [chicle trips and 2 Eendor [chicle trips could occur during peak traffic periods. This amount of traffic trips would hale a less than significant impact on the study area circulation system. No mitigation measures are reD/ired. B. Would the project be in conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including, but not limited to level of service standards and travel demand measures, or other standards and travel demand measures, or other standards established by County congestion management agency for designated roads and highways. Less than Significant Impact: The closest CMP Highway within the study area would Pacific Coast Highway. Pacific Coast Highway is not a designated truck route. Therefore, no construction traffic generated from the proposed project would be using Pacific Coast Highway to access the study area. There is the potential that some workers could utili a Pacific Coast Highway or other CMP Highways to travel to the study area. As shown in Table 28 the short term traffic generated from the proposed project would not exceed 100 peak trips or 51 or more trips through an intersection. No potential conflicts with the County of Orange Congestion Management Program would occur. C. Would the project result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? No Impact. According to the [John Wayne Airport Land Use Consistency Plan, the study area is not within a clear [one or accidental potential [one. Implementation of the proposed project would not increase the le[BI of air traffic within the regional area. The maximum height of the tallest structure proposed on OSCD Plant No. 2 Site would be 30 feet. There would be no component of the proposed project that would encroach into naDgable air space causing a change to air traffic patterns. No mitigation measures are reDiired. D. Would the project increase hazards to a design feature or incompatible uses or equipment? Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation: The construction and operation of the proposed project would occur on the OCSD Plant No. 2 Site. The proposed project would not in[ol[o any construction actidties along a public roadway that would increase traffic hazards. The proposed project would rewire the moCement of heaDj construction equipment within the study area during mobiligation and demobiliCation periods. The weight of the heaEy construction could potentially damage the surfaces of study area roadways. All heaEy truck traffic generated from the proposed project would be reD/ired to use a OOrange County Water District Water Production Enhancement Project Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration&CEgA-Plus Federal Consultation Review 4-101 Section 4 designated truck route for access to and from the project site. By directing truck traffic to specifically designated truck routes potential damage to study area roadway surfaces would be minimised. During mobiliCation and demobiliCation of heaDj construction a uipment, turning moCements into the OCSD Plant No. 2 Site could reDuire temporary lane closures. The lane closure would occur during nonipeak traffic periods and if needed a flag men would be prodded to safely direct traffic. With the implementation of Mitigation Measure T11, potential ha[ards associated with the mobilisation and demobiliilation of construction entipment would be reduced to less than significant. Mitigation Measure T-1: OCWD will be responsible for preparing aden/ate detour and access plans to ensure the safe molement of lehicles and pedestrians during the construction period. E. Would the project result in inadequate emergency access? Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation: The construction and operation of the proposed project would not cause any road closures that would adsErsely impact emergency access routes and emergency response times to the study area. The project mobiliDation and demobiliDation of heaDj construction eMipment could result in some temporary traffic congestion to access the project site. The impact would be short®erm and if needed flag men would be aCailable to ensure emergency access would be maintained at all times. With the implementation of Mitigation Measure T11, potential emergency access impacts would be less than significant. Mitigation Measure Mitigation Measure TC1re0uired F. Would the project be in conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities? Less than Significant Impact: The construction and operation of the proposed project would not renlire the long term closure of public transportation, bicycle or pedestrian circulation systems. The mobilisation and demobililetion of construction eojipment could rea/ire the temporary closure of onsite street bike lanes near the OCSD Plant No. 2 entrances. The closure would be limited to the time of the mobililstion and demobilisation actidty which in most cases would be less than 30 minutes and if needed flag men would be prodded to safely direct traffic. With the implementation of Mitigation Measure T11 potential conflicts with public transportation systems would be less than significant. OOrange County Water District Water Production Enhancement Project Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration&CEgA-Plus Federal Consultation Review 4-102 Section 4 Mitigation Measure Mitigation Measure TL1 re0uired. 4.17 Utilities/Service Systems Environmental Setting The study area is situated within an urbanii:od area and supported by existing utility serdce systems. Water Service The Huntington Beach Public Works Department would be responsible for water serdce within the study area, including operating and maintaining wells, reserCoirs, imported water connections, and distribution pipelines. Wastewater Service The Orange County Sanitation District proddes wastewater serdce to the study area. The Sanitation District proddes wastewater serdces to approximately 2.6 million people within a 479 square mile serdce area in central and northwest Orange County, which includes 20 cities and four special districts. It operates the third largest wastewater system on the West Coast and consists of oler 396 miles of sewers and two regional wastewater treatment plants. Storm Drainage Systems The Orange County Flood Control District owns, operates, and maintains the region® flood control facilities while the City of Huntington Beach is responsible for the operation Solid Waste Management The City® Huntington Beach Public Works Department is responsible for weekly residential and commercial trash collection serdces and contracts with Rainbow Disposal Company, Inc. All trash collected by the Cityfs refuse serdces are sorted and processed at a Materials RecoEary Facility. Rainbow Disposal Company operates a Transfer Station located at 17121 Nichols Street with a design capacity of approximately 2,800 tons per day. The Orange County Integrated Waste Management Department IOCIWMDoowns and operates three actin landfills starling the Orange County region. These include the Frank R. Bowerman Landfill 111002 Bee Canyon Access Road, Irdneq Olinda Alpha Landfill f1942 N. Valencia A[Bnue, BreaQ and the Prima Deshecha Landfill E32250 La Pata AEOnue, San ❑tan Capistranoo The Olinda Alpha Landfill and the Prima Deshecha Landfill are open to the public while the Frank Bowerman Landfill is for commercial use only. All three landfills are permitted as Class III landfills. Class III landfills accept only nonLlaCardous municipal solid waste for disposal; no ha[lardous or IiLuid waste can be OOrange County Water District Water Production Enhancement Project Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration&CEQA-Plus Federal Consultation Review 4-103 Section 4 accepted. The daily maximum amounts recalled and remaining capacity for land fill facility is shown in Table 29. Table 29: Capacity Orange County Landfills Landfill Daily Maximum Maximum Capacity Remaining Capacity (Tons) (Cubic Yards) (Cubic Yards) Frank Bowennan 11,500 127,000,000 59, 411,872 Olinda Alpha 8,000 76,900,000 38,578,383 Prima Deshecha 4,000 172,900,000 87,384,799 Project Impacts A. Would the project exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? No Impact. The proposed project would prodde additional wastewater flows to OCWD GWRS water treatment facility to produce additional water supplies to replenish the Orange County Groundwater Basin. The treated water generated from the GWRS would be subject to the permit conditions under RWQCB Order RLBL2004@02, and subse0uent amendment R82008LD058. Compliance with the permit conditions would ensure that RWQCB reouirements would not be exceeded. No mitigation measures are reouired. B. Would the project require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? No Impact: The proposed project be constructed and operated on OCSD Plant No. 2 Site and would not require the expansion or construction of any off site facilities that would result in significant impacts to the endronment. No mitigation measures are reDilred. C. Would the project require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? No Impact: The proposed project would slightly increase the rate of surface water runoff on OCSD Plant No. 2. Surface water flows would be conDayed into existing drainage infrastructure and onsite wastewater treatment processes. No mitigation measures are reLuired. D. Are sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources or new or expanded entitlements needed? No Impact. The water stored in the flow eDualiFl3tion tanks would be from existing wastewater flows con[-eyed to the OCSD Plant No. 2 Site. No additional water supply OOrange County Water District Water Production Enhancement Project Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declan lion&CEQA-Plus Federal Consultation Review 4-104 Section 4 entitlements, or expanded water supply entitlements are needed. No mitigation measures are rewired. E. Would the project result in the determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the providers existing commitments. No Impact: The proposed project would not expand OCSD existing wastewater demands and would not hala an adDarse impact on the capacity of OCSD treatment facility or an ad Ebrse impact on the capacity of serdce lines that support the OCSD facilities. No mitigation measures are rewired. F. Is the project served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project solid waste disposal need? Less than Significant Impact: The long term operation of the proposed project would not increase the demand for solid waste disposal oCer the current le113l of demand. Construction operations associated with the proposed project would generate limited amounts of solid waste. The closest landfill to Plant No. 2 would be the Frank R. Bowerman Landfill located at 11002 Bee Canyon Access Road in the City of Irdne. The Frank R. Bowerman Landfill has a remaining capacity of 59,411,872 cubic yards. The proposed project would comply with federal, state and local statues and regulations related to solid waste and where possible would recycle discarded construction materials and other solid waste. The amount of construction related solid waste generate from proposed project would ha Ea a de minimiEb impact on the capacity of landfills that would serEa the proposed project. To minimiEb solid waste disposal demands OCWD would inEbstigate all a0ailable alternati[as, and then select the best method of solid waste disposal and reduction of solid waste stream. With the implementation of Mitigation Measure U[1 potential solid waste disposal needs would be less than significant. Mitigation Measure U-1: OCWD will inCestigate all aCailable alternatiCes, and then select the best method of solid waste disposal and reduction of solid waste stream as rewired in the California Integrated Waste Management Act prior to the start of construction. G. Would the project comply with federal, state and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation: Any solid waste generated by the proposed project would be hauled from the site, diEerted and recycled, in accordance with the California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989. If any hamrdous materials are encountered, the OCWD would coordinate with the City of Huntington OOrange County Water District Water Production Enhancement Project Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration&CEgA-Plus Federal Consultation Review 4-105 Section 4 Beach and the Orange County Health Care Agency® Certified Unified Program Agency to ensure that all halardous wastes would be disposed of properly in accordance with local, state and federal laws. No mitigation measures are renlired. With the implementation of Mitigation Measure U[] potential conflicts with federal, state and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste would be less than significant. Mitigation Measure Mitigation Measure U17 reDuired. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE A. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory. Less than Significant with Mitigation: The construction and operation of the proposed project would occur on the OCSD Plant No. 2 Site. The location where the proposed project improDaments would occur is de[bid of sensitiCe habitat, wildlife and plant species and cultural resources. The proposed project would implement mitigation measures to aCbid impacts to unknown cultural resources in the unlikely eCent they are encountered during construction operations. The implementation of the proposed project would not reduce the habitat of fish or wildlife to self[sustaining lei els and would not impact any known cultural resources. B. Does the project have impacts that are individually limited but cumulatively considerable? Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation: The proposed project would comply with local and regional planning programs, applicable codes and ordinances, state and federal laws and regulations and project mitigation measures. Compliance with the applicable codes, planning programs and project mitigation measures would reduce the project® incremental contributions to curei impacts to a less than significant le[bl. C. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Less than Significant with Mitigation: The proposed project would not hai b any substantial ad[erse effects on human beings. The proposed project would comply with local and regional planning programs, applicable codes and ordinances, state and federal laws and regulations and project specific mitigation measures to insure that long term operational actiUties and short®erm construction actidties associated with the proposed project would not result in direct or indirect adverse impacts to human beings. OOrange County Water District Water Production Enhancement Project Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration&CEQA-Plus Federal Consultation Review 4-106 Section 5 SECTION 5.0 CEQA-Plus Federal Consultation Review 5.1 Purpose The CEQA-Plus Federal Consultation Redew reluirements that hale been established by the U.S. Endronmental Protection Agency are intended to supplement the CEQA Guidelines with specific relairements for endronmental documents acceptable to the State Water Resources Control Board when redewing applications for SRF loans. This CEQA[Plus Federal Consultation Redew analysis has been prepared to supplement Initial Study/Mitigated NegatiDa Declaration prepared for the Orange County Water District Water Production Enhancement Project. 5.2 Federal Endangered Species Act (ESA), Section 7 Does the project involve any direct effects from construction activities, or indirect effects such as growth inducement that may affect federally listed threatened or endangered species or their critical habitat that are known, or have a potential, to occur on-site, in the surrounding area, or in the service area? ONo. Discuss why the Project will not impact any federally listed special status species: The following analysis is based on the Biological Assessment that was prepared for the Orange County Water District Water Production Enhancement Project by the OCWD Natural Resources Department in lane of 2016. The Biological Assessment is presented in its entirety in Appendix C. As part of the Biological Assessment, OCWD conducted an onsite biological field surCey in lane of 2016 to determine the presence of Federal Listed plant species and Federal Listed wildlife species. . The OCSD Plant No.2 Site is located within USGS Newport Beach Quadrangle at Township 6 South, Range 10 West, and Section 20. The site is deleloped with wastewater treatment structures, offices, and paEbd parking areas and roadways. A row of eucalyptus trees extends along western boundary of Plant No. 2 and scattering of natiCe landscaping prolded along the Santa Ana Ricer Trail boarders Plant No. 2 to the east. A site surCey of the study area did not identify any sensiti Lb biological resources on Plant No. 2. Within close ❑cinity to Plant No.2 are two biological resources; the Talbert Marsh and California Least Tern Colony. Talbert Marsh is a tidal marsh that has been restored to full tidal action. The water within Talbert Marsh is seawater from the ocean inlet located south of the marsh property that fluctuates in height up to 8 feet from tidal flows. Talbert Marsh proddes habitat for both migratory and resident bird species. South of Pacific Coast Highway is the location the California Least Tern Natural Preser[l:Area. The California Least Tern Natural Preseria Area was first established +�- , Orange County Water District Water Production Enhancement Project OJ Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration&CEQA-Plus Federal Consultation Review 5-1 Section 5 under the Huntington State Beach General Del elopment Plan in 1976. It was originally dedicated on 2.5 acres and was fenced off with a cyclone fence ® heaEylduty, chain❑ link fence topped with barbed wireoto prelant predators from harassing the birds. OLgr the years, the California least terns nesting area has expanded beyond the fenced area, State Parks has erected additional picket fencing to protect the birds. Currently, the cyclone fence area colors approximately 8.9 acres and the picket fence Irontlyard❑ area is 3.8 acres. California State Parks protects the nesting area by limiting access, conducting trash remoDal, grooming the sand periodically, and conducting predator management. Federal Listed Plant Species To determine the potential for Federal Listed plant species to be present within the study area, a database search with the United States Fish and Wildlife information and Planning Database and the California Department Fish and Wildlife ICDFWE]Natural DiCersity Database was conducted. A listing of Federal Listed plant species with potential to occur within the Newport Beach USGS Quadrangle is shown in Table 30. Subseouent to the database search, a surLey of the study area was conducted to determine the presence of plant species identified in the database searches. The determination on the potential for the Federal Listed plant species to occur within the study area was based on the following criteria: • Present: Species was obserled within the study area within the last year. • High: The study area supports suitable habitat and the species has been obseri ad within the last year. • Moderate: The study area supports suitable and the species has not been obserFlad within last two years. • Low: The study area lacks suitable habitat for the species. Table 30: Federal Listed Plant Species Species Federal CNPS General Habitat/Recent Potential for Occurrence Occurrence Study Area Ventura Marsh Milk I E 113.1 Marshes, Swamps, Coastal Low [latch Dunes, Coastal Scrub Study Area lacks suitable [lstragalus habitat pycnostachy lar. Lanosissimus Salt Marsh Birdsdreak E 1 B.2 Coastal Salt marsh, Coastal Low (Chloropyron maritimum Dunes Study Area lacks suitable ss . Marttimum) habitat San Diego Buttons E 1B.1 Vernal pools, Coastal Low Celery Scrub,Valley and Foothill Study Area lacks suitable dEryngium aristulalum Grasslands habitat fir. arishii❑ Gambols Water Cress 1 E 1 113.1 1 Marshes and swamps i Low Q+�- , Orange County Water District Water Production Enhancement Project Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration&CEgA-Plus Federal Consultation Review 5-2 Section 5 (Nasturtium gambelii) Study Area lacks suitable habitat Federal State Listing California Endangered California Nanue Plant SodeN CNPS E Endangered Soeces Act C0FG 1A&lants presumed extinct in California T Threatened FP Fully Protected 113 tans rare,mreetened,or endangered in SSG Specia15peciesof Concern EEndangered California and elsewhere C.Candidate for Listing TThreatened 2[lama rare,threatened,or endangered in NLNot Listed SSendua California but more common elsewhere SSC Special Species of Concern 3®lenls about which ad need more renew WL Watch List 4roants of limped distribution NL Not Listed CNPS Threat Rank .1 Seriously Endangered .2 Fairly Endangered .3 Not Very Entertained Federal Listed Wildlife Species To determine the potential for Federal Listed wildlife species to be present within the study area, a database search with the United States Fish and Wildlife Serdce IUSFWSDinformation and Planning Database and the Department of California Fish and Wildlife Natural DiLbrsity Database was conducted. A listing of Federal Listed wildlife species with potential to occur within the Newport Beach USGS Quadrangle is shown in Table 31. SubseQlent to the database search, OCWD conducted a surlby of the study area to determine the potential for the Federal Listed wildlife species to be present within the study area. The determination on the potential for the Federal Listed wildlife species to occur within the study area was based on the following criteria: • Present: Species was obserled within the study area within the last year. • High: The study area supports suitable habitat and the species has been obserCed within the last year. • Moderate: The study area supports suitable and the species has not been obserled within last two years. • Low: The study area lacks suitable habitat for the species. Table 31: Federal Listed Wildlife Species Species Federal General Potential Occurrence Classification Habitat/Recent Study Area Occurrence San Diego Fairy Shrimp E Vernal pools Low (Branchinecta sandiegonensis) Study Area lacks suitable habitat Western Snowy PloEar T Sandy Beaches Low (Charadrius alexandrines nivosus) Study Area lacks suitable habitat Southwestern Willow Flycatcher E Riparian woodlands Low (Empidonax trai/li extimus) Study Area lacks suitable habitat Pacific Pocket Mouse E Coastal Plains Low OOrange County Water District Water Production Enhancement Project Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration&CECIA-Plus Federal Consultation Review 53 Section 5 (pemgnathus longimembris Study Area lacks pacirus) suitable habitat Coastal California Gnatcatcher T Coastal sage scrub Low (Poltoptila califomica califomica) Study Area lacks suitable habitat Light[Footed Clapper Rail E Salt marshes Low (Rallus longirostris levipes) Study Area lacks suitable habitat California Least Tem E Sandy Beaches Low (Sterna antillamm) Study Area lacks suitable habitat Least Bells 7reo E Low growing riparian Low (Vireo bel/ii pusillus) habitats Study Area lacks suitable habitat Critical Habitat The Federal Endangered Species Act rehires the federal golernment to designate Critical Habitat for any species it lists under the Federal Endangered Species Act. Critical Habitat is defined as 1 Dspecific areas within the geographical area occupied by the specie at the time of listing, if they contain physical or biological features essential to conserlation, and those features may relluire special management considerations or protection and 2Dspecific areas outside the geographical area occupied by the species if the agency determines that the area itself is essential for conserlation. According to the of USFWS Information, Planning, and ConserEation System Database and the California Department of Fish and Wildlife Natural Dillarsity Database, the study area is not located on lands that are designated as Critical Habitat. Project Impacts Onsite Impacts Less than Significant Impact: Based on a rel lew of databases from United State Fish and Wildlife Serdce and California Department of Fish and Wildlife and biological surEeys conducted within the study area, it has been determined that there would be low potential for special status plant species or special status wildlife species to be present on OCSD Plant No. 2. As shown in Table 30 and Table 31 Plant No. 2 lacks suitable habitat to support special status plant species or special status wildlife species that were identified in the database search. Additionally, no indications were found that any special status species were elbr present. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not result in adCerse impacts to any special status plant species or special status wildlife species. OOrange County Water District Water Production Enhancement Project Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration&CEQA-Plus Federal Consultation Review 5.4 Section 5 Offsite Impacts Less than Significant Impact: Located south of OCSD Plant No. 2 is the Talbert Marsh and south of Pacific Coast Highway is the California Least Tern Colony. Both of these biological resources could prodde suitable nesting habitat for special status bird species. The construction operations for the proposed project would be confined to OCSD Plant No. 2. No construction act!dties would occur at the Talbert Marsh or at the California Least Tern Colony. Therefore, no direct impacts to special status plant or wildlife species would occur. The construction actidties for the proposed project would in mlLj�i the operation of heaEy construction eDuipment that could operate during nesting season. If the construction actiUty was to occur in close proximity to nesting birds there would be the potential that breeding patterns could be disturbed. The United States Fish and Wildlife Serdce as established a noise impact threshold of 60 dBA to identify potential adCerse impacts to nesting birds. The Talbert Marsh is located approximately 3,300 feet from where the construction actidties would occur and the California Least Tern Colony is located approximately 4,200 feet from the construction would occur. Based on the nosiest piece of construction elluipment that would be used, the noise estimated leial at the Talbert Marsh and at the California Least Tern Colony would be below 49 dBA. Additionally, with the presence of the block wall around Plant No. 2 and the traffic noise along Pacific Coast Highway, it would be Cery unlikely that construction noise would herd at either location. Potential indirect noise impacts to special status wildlife species would be less than significant. No mitigation measures are reDuired. 5.3 Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, Essential Fish Habitat: Does the project involve any direct effects from construction activities, or indirect effects such as growth inducement that may adversely affect essential fish habitat? ❑X No. Discuss why the project will not impact essential fish habitat: According to redew of the National Marine Fisheries Serdce Essential Fish Habitat Map for the Pacific Ocean, there is no essential fish habitat in the surface water bodies near the study area. Therefore, the construction and operation of the proposed project would not result in adlbrse impacts to any Essential Fish Habitat. 5.4 National Historic Preservation Act, Section 106 Identify the area of potential effects (APE), including construction, staging areas, and depth of any excavation. (Note: the APE is three dimensional and includes all areas that may be affected by the project, including the surface area and extending below ground to the depth of any project excavations). OOrange County Water District Water Production Enhancement Project Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration&CEQA-Plus Federal Consultation Review 55 Section 5 The following analysis is based on a Phase 1 Cultural Resource Report prepared for the Water Production Enhancement Project. The Phase 1 Cultural Resources Report is presented in Appendix C. Area of Potential Effects An Area of Potential Effects EAPEowas established for the project according to Section 106 of the NHPA in coordination with the OCWD. The APE is shown in Figure 22 and is defined as: ❑ the geographic area or areas within which an undertaking may directly or indirectly cause alterations in the character or use of historic properties, if any such properties exist. The APE is influenced by the scale and nature of an undertaking and may be different for different kinds of effects caused by the undertaking 136 Code of Federal Regulations 11DFREB00.161d® The horiContal APE encompasses the Flow EDualillition Tank, Pump Station and Flow ElllallEbtlon Control/Meter ®bout 3.70®cres[]and the area encompassing the pump station Mbout 0.28 acre[]The Certical APE includes the anticipated maximum depth of ground disturbance of 25 feet below ground surface and the maximum height of the flow eoualiDotion tank of 30 feet abo[e ground surface. South Central Coastal Information Center Records Search A records search for the APE and a ❑ [mile radius was conducted on one 21, 2016 at the South Central Coastal Information Center ISCCIC4located at California State UniCersity, Fullerton. The records search included a redew of all recorded cultural resources within a ❑ [mile radius of the project APE, as well as a redew of cultural resource reports on file. The Historic Properties Directory was also examined for any documented historic[iberiod built resources within or adjacent to the project APE. The results of the SCCIC records search are included in Appendix C. Previous Cultural Resources Investigations A total of 61 cultural resources studies hale been conducted within a o [mile radius of the project APE. Of the 61 predous studies, file studies included a pedestrian surlay of portions of the APE, and four included archi lal research for the APE. A complete list of the 61 studies located within ❑mile of the project APE is located in Appendix C. Less than 50 percent of the project APE has been included in predous cultural resources surEbys. Previously Recorded Cultural Resources The records search indicated that nine cultural resources ham been predously recorded within a mile radius of the project APE. No cultural resources haCe been predously recorded within the project APE. Selbral prehistoric sites haCe been OOrange County Water District Water Production Enhancement Project Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration&CEQA-Plus Federal Consultation Review 5-6 Section 5 recorded within the search radius along the east bluffs of the Santa Ana RIDar approximately 2,000 feet east of the project APE. Historic Map and Aerial Review Historic maps and aerial photographs were examined in order to prodde historical information about the APE and to contribute to an assessment of the APE® archaeological sensitidty. Atailable maps include: the 1868 U.S. Surveyor Generals surEey plat map of Townships 5 and 6 South, Range 10 West the 1895 and 1901 Santa Ana 1:62,500 topographic ruadrangles; the 1902 Corona 1:125,000 topographic Quadrangle; and the 1935 Newport Beach 1:31,600 topographic Quadrangles; and 1965 and 1975 Newport Beach 7.51ninute topographic Quadrangle. Historic aerial photographs of the APE from 1938, 1953, 1963, 1972, 1994, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2009, and 2010 were also examined ibistoricaerials.com, 20160 The 1868 U.S. SurCeyor General® suray plat map shows the APE as being located within Rancho Las Bolsas. The plat map indicates salt marshes within the current location of OCSD Plant No. 2. The aailable historic maps and aerial photographs indicate that the APE and surrounding area was largely used for agricultural purposes throughout the 201h century, and did not become urbaniCed until the latter half of the century. The Santa Ana Rimer is shown confined with artificial IeDaes in the 1938 historic aerial photograph. The OCSD Plant No. 2 is not shown on the 1953 aerial. The OCSD Plant No. 2 facility is shown on the 1965 Newport Beach 7.5[aninute topographic ruadrangle. Based on a detailed redew of the 1972 and 2016 aerials of the OCSD Plant No.2, there are structures shown on the 1972 aerial that remain risible on the 2016 aerial photograph. Native American Outreach— 2016 On rune 2, 2016, a SLF search reouest letter was sent to the NAHC in an effort to determine whether any sacred sites are listed on SLF for the APE. A response was prodded on rune 6, 2016 indicating negatia results for Natile American cultural resources within the project APE. The NAHC recommended outreach to 12 specific tribal authorities who may want to comment on our search reruest. A letter to the NAHC[fisted tribal authorities was mailed on rune 20, 2016. Phone calls were made to each of the named tribal members on rune 28, 2016. Responses from each tribe is prodded in Appendix C. The representatias from Tonga Acenstral Terrotorial Tribal Nation, Gabrieleno/Tong a San Gabriel Band of Mission, Gabrielino Tonga Tribe, Gabrielin Tonga Nation, and ruaneno Band of Mission Indians Acjachemen Nation recommended that because of the culutuial and spiritual sensitidty of the study area that the project incorporate Natia American and Archeological Monitoring. fCN Orange County Water District Water Production Enhancement Project SJ Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration&CEgA-Plus Federal Consultation Review 5-7 Section 5 AB 52 In August 2016, OCWD sent letters to two NatiCe American representatiCes who haDa reDiested to be informed on actidties conducted by the OCWD, under PRC Section 21080.3.1. The OCWD reached out to the dlanedD Band of Mission Indians Acjachemen Nation and Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians d Kith Nation. Consultation efforts are currently onl�oing. Santa Ana Ri Cer. To the south of the APE, the OCSD Plant No. 2 site contains unconsolidated eolian dune deposits. Archaeological Potential Although paced and filled, the portion of the APE at the OCSD Plant No. 2 appears to retain high sensitiity for buried archeological resources. During the latest Pleistocene and Holocene, the geomorphic setting of the portion of the APE at the OCSD Plant No. 2 changed from inland to coastal, and rising sea IeDal resulted in fludal deposition capable of burying archaeological resources. The portion of the APE at the OCSD Plant No. 2 was largely salt marsh into the early 20th century, but this is an area that would hake offered important resources. Owing to its marshy endronment, this area may not hake been famred for any substantial occupation, but nonetheless is likely to hale been dsited for resource procurement and could contain artifacts associated with those actidties. Additionally, the saturated conditions offered within this setting may haDq aided in the preseriation of relatiltaly rare organic artifacts. Cultural Resources Survey and Results A cultural resources pedestrian Burl by of the APE was conducted on Rine 16, 2016 by Arabesriue SaidEAbdelwahed to identify the presence of surface archaeological materials. The OCSD Plant No. 2 consists of existing tanks and waste water treatment buildings. The locations of the propose flow eRlaliDation tank and flow eRlalilbtion control/meter are currently paled and natural ground was not risible. Portions of the proposed location for the Flow EOualiDation Pump Station and pipeline connection to the flow eRlaliCetion tank are unpaCed and were surDayed in regular inter[-Ols. No archaeological or historic built resources were obserCed within the APE. Potential historic[period buildings/structures were noted at the OCSD Plant No. 2 outside of the APE. Historic Resources One potential historic built resource, OCSD Plant No. 2, was identified as a result of this study. OCSD Plant No.2 was initially constructed more than 45 years ago$, although g The California GHP recommends including all resources over 45 years of age in the planning process given the lag time between environmental documentation and project implementation.Generally,resources more than 50 years of age require QOrange County Water District Water Production Enhancement Project Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration&CEgA-Plus Federal Consultation Review 5-8 Section 5 none of the historiciage buildings/structures appear to be within the APES. The improCements proposed within OCSD Plant No. 2 are shown in Figure 3. The proposed construction actidties would haEo no impact on aboEeground built[endronment resources. The actidties would be located in areas where there are no known historical resources dating from before 1971; where the area is currently only graded and paced. The implementation of the Water Production Enhancement Project would not adCersely impact any historic or potentially historic resource. Archaeological Resources As a result of this study, no archaeological resources were identified within the APE. Howelbr, based on the results of study, the project APE should be considered highly sensitilb for subsurface archaeological resources. Since the project includes ground- disturbing actidties, there is a potential for disco Eery of subsurface archaeological deposits that could nlalify as historic properties under Section 106 of the NHPA and/or historical or uniELe archaeological resources under CEQA. This potential impact to unknown archaeological resources would be considered significant. Mitigation Measures CRE1, CR12, and CR13 are recommended to ensure that the project would result in No Historic Properties Affected under Section 106 of the NHPA and less than significant impacts to historical or unioue archaeological resources under CEQA. Mitigation Measures CR-1: Prior to earth modng actidties, a Dualified archaeologist meeting the Secretary of the Interiors Professional Qualifications Standards for archaeology [U.S. Department of the Interior, 200812vill conduct cultural resources sensitidty training for all construction personnel. Construction personnel shall be informed of the types of cultural resources that may be encountered, and of the proper procedures to be enacted in the eCent of an inadDartent discoDary of archaeological resources or human remains. OCWD will ensure that construction personnel are made aCailable for and attend the training and retain documentation demonstrating attendance. CR-2: Prior to the start of any ground[disturbing actidties, OCWD will retain an archaeological monitor to obserEB all ground[disturbing actidties. Archaeological monitoring will be conducted by a monitor familiar with the types of archaeological resources that could be encountered and shall work under the direct superdsion of the ❑ualified archaeologist. Monitoring may be reduced or discontinued by the Dfalified archaeologist, in coordination with OCWD, based on obserCations of subsurface soil stratigraphy and/or the presence of older CmloriCbn deposits. The monitor will be empowered to halt or redirect ground[disturbing actidties away from the ❑cinity of a evaluation for listing in the National Register and California Register to assess impacts in historic properties under Section 106 of the NHPA and historical resources under CEQA. 9 The project may require creation of a separate architectural APE in order to adequately address directlindirect effects to historic builtreaowces. Orange County Water District Water Production Enhancement Project OO Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration&CEQA-Plus Federal Consultation Review 5A Section 5 disco[ery until the Dtalified archaeologist has eleluated the disco[ery and determined appropriate treatment. The monitor will keep daily logs detailing the types of actidties and soils obseried, and any disco Dories. After monitoring has been completed, the Dlalified archaeologist shall prepare a monitoring report that details the results of monitoring. The report shall be submitted to OCWD, SCCIC, and any Native American groups who reouest a copy. CR-3: In the eCent of the discoCery of archaeological materials, OCWD or its contractor shall immediately cease all work actidties in the area within approximately 100 feetoof the discoEary until it can be eEaluated by the Dtalifed archaeologist. Prehistoric archaeological materials might include obsidian and chart flaked[stone tools [e.g., projectile points, kni[es, scrapersoortoolimaking debris; culturally darkened soil ®nidden®containing heat®ffected rocks, artifacts, or shellfish remains; and stone milling eDiipment [e.g., mortars, pestles, handstones, or milling slabs[]and battered stone tools, such as hammerstones and pitted stones. HistoricEperiod materials might include stone or concrete footings and walls; filled wells or prides; and deposits of metal, glass, and/or ceramic refuse. Construction shall not resume until the Dtalified archaeologist has conferred with OCWD on the significance of the resource. SWRCB shall be afforded the opportunity to determine whether the discoCery reFuires addressing under Section 106 PostLRedew DiscoCeries prodsions proiided in 36 CFR 800.13. If it is determined that the discoEered archaeological resource constitutes a historic property under Section 106 of the NHPA or a historical resource under CEQA, aD/idance and preser[lition in place shall be the preferred manner of mitigation. PreserDation in place maintains the important relationship between artifacts and their archaeological context and also serCes to a[Did conflict with traditional and religious lblues of groups who may ascribe meaning to the resource. Preseroation in place may be accomplished by, but is not limited to, albidance, incorporating the resource into open space, capping, or deeding the site into a permanent conserCation easement. In the eCent that preserlbtion in place is demonstrated to be infeasible and data recoCery through excalbtion is the only feasible mitigation albilable, an Archaeological Resources Treatment Plan that proddes for the ade0uate recolbry of the scientifically conseDtential information contained in the archaeological resource shall be prepared and implemented by the D/alified archaeologist in consultation with OCWD. The appropriate NatiEe American representati[es shall be consulted in determining treatment for prehistoric or NatlDs American resources to ensure cultural EAlues ascribed to the resource, beyond that which is scientifically important, are considered. Native American Sacred Remains Native American respondents indicated sensitidty for archaeological resources in the APE and surrounding area gilbn the proximity to the Santa Ana Rilbr corridor. In OOrange County Water District Water Production Enhancement Project Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration&CEQA-Plus Federal Consultation Review 5-10 Section 5 addition, the geoarchaeological redew indicates that the portion of the APE within OCSD Plant No. 2 was largely salt marsh into the early 20th century and would hale offered important resources. Owing to its marshy endronment, this area may not hale been fa[Dred for any substantial occupation, but nonetheless it is likely to haEb been ❑sited for resource procurement and could contain artifacts associated with those actidties. Additionally, the saturated conditions offered within this setting could haEP aided in the preserCation of relati[bly rare organic artifacts. Mitigation Measures CRA is recommended to ensure that the project would result in No Historic Properties Affected under Section 106 of the NHPA and less than significant impacts to historical or unidue archaeological resources under CEQA. Mitigation Measure CR-4: Prior to issuance of a grading permit and prior to start of any ground[disturbing actidties, OCWD will retain a NatiDa American monitor to obser0a all ground[disturbing actidties. The monitor shall be obtained from a Tribe that is traditionally and culturally affiliated with the area, according the NAHC list. The monitor shall be empowered to halt or redirect ground[disturbing actidties away from the dcinity of a discoEbry until the ELalified archaeologist has eaauated the disco[bry and determined appropriate treatment. Monitoring may be reduced or discontinued, in coordination with OCWD and the ELalified archaeologist, based on obserEbtions of subsurface soil stratigraphy and/or the presence of older C[hori[bn deposits. 5.5 Federal Clean Air Air Basin: South Coast Air Basin Local Air District: South Coast Air Quality Management District Is the project subject to a State Implementation Plan (SIP) conformity determination? ❑x Yes. The project is in a non[attainment area or attainment area subject to maintenance plans for a federal criteria pollutant. Include information to indicate the non®ttainment designation [e.g. moderate, serious, seEare, or extremeq if applicable. If estimated emissions lbelowdare aboEb the federal de minimis leEbls, but the project is siEbd to meet only the needs of current population projections that are used in the approved SIP for air duality, then ELantitatiEbly indicate how the proposed capacity increase was calculated using population projections. The NEPA air ELality analysis compares the proposed projects impacts with the Federal thresholds in order to determine if impacts to Clean Air Act pollutants would exceed federal thresholds. Considering the standards deEbloped for the State of California are more restrictiEb than the federal thresholds, the analysis detailed aboEb 0Orange County Water District Water Production Enhancement Project Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declam ion&CEQA-Plus Federal Consultation Review 5-11 Section 5 for Air Quality and Greenhouse Gasses would serf to prof compliance with the NEPA analysis. The SCAQMD is responsible for the deDalopment of the Basin® portion of the State Implementation Plan [SIPq which is rel7uired under the federal Clean Air Act for areas that are in nonattainment for criteria pollutants. The project may obtain state funding and therefore, under the Clean Air Act, the proposed project would be subject to a SIP conformity determination. This is because the study area is in a seEbre nonattainment area for 81hour omne, a moderate nonattainment area for PM10 and a maintenance area for CO and PM10. Table 32 shows the attainment status for each of the criteria air pollutants. Under the Clean Air Act de minimis lelels for criteria pollutants hale been established as a screening lel al to determine the potential for a proposed Project to adlersely impact air emissions. Emissions are compared to these Ielels for the SIP conformity determination rde minimise If the project is below the de minimis leiels then the project is determined to be in conformance with the SIP. If a project exceeds the de minimis leLels then a full conformity analysis must be conducted. 40 CFR 93 a 153 defines de minimis le[Pls, that is, the minimum threshold for which a conformity determination must be performed, for Darious criteria pollutants in [arious areas. Table 32: De Mimimis Levels Pollutant Area Type Tonslyear Olone VOC or NOx❑ Serious nonattainment 50 Selore nonattainment 25 Extreme nonattainment 10 Other areas outside an clone transport region 100 OCone INOXE Marginal and moderate nonattainment inside an 100 omne transportation region Maintenance 100 OCone VoC❑ Marginal and moderate nonattainment inside an 50 olone transport region Maintenance within an ocune transport region 50 Maintenance outside an omne transport region 100 CO, S02, NO2 All nonattainment and maintenance 100 PM10 Serious nonattainment 70 Moderate nonattainment and maintenance 100 PM2.5 All nonattainment and maintenance 100 Source:USEPA,2016a,USEPA 2016b Project Emissions As shown in Table 33, omne precursors are below the de minimis thresholds for construction and operational actidties, and therefore, the project is consistent with the SIP. Construction emissions show only the maximum emissions for the proposed 0Orange County Water District Water Production Enhancement Project Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration&CEgA-Plus Federal Consultation Review 5-12 Section 5 project in tons per year and are based on the maximum days of construction per subphase. Because the proposed project emissions are below the de minimis thresholds, a detailed conformity analysis is not warranted. Table 33: SIP Conformity Evaluation Pollutant Federal Nonattainment Threshold of Maximum Operational Status Rates Significance Construction Emissions (tons/year) Emissions (tons/year) (ton ) Omne 101O Non Extreme See 0/OC O NOxo Aadainment Carbon Monoxide ECOO Attainment/ N/A 100 0.64 0.0155 Maintenance Oxides of Nitrogen N/A N/A 10 1.43 3.3eE3 :NOxO Volatile Organic N/A N/A 10 0.91 6.5eE3 Compounds IVOC❑ Lead EPb❑ Attainment N/A N/A N/A N/A Particulate matter less Non Moderate 100 0.10 4.62e[3 than 2.5 microns Attainment IPM2,s® Particulate matter less Attainment/ N/A 100 OA9 1.27e[3 than 10 microns Maintenance IPM1o® Sulfur Dioxide ES02O Attainment N/A N/A 0.00 6.Oe6 Notes:NIA]Nonrappllcable Soup: ESA 2016;USEPA,2016a,USEPA 2016b As discussed predously, no growthGhducing delelopment or land use would occur under the proposed project, and therefore, the project would not conflict with the Citys General Plan. Therefore the project would be consistent with the AQMP. Additionally, as the annual emissions from the project would be well below the de minimis thresholds for SIP conformity, the proposed project is considered to be in conformance with the SIP. No mitigation measures are reolired. 5.6 Coastal Zone Management Act Is any portion of the project site located within the coastal zone? The OCSD Plant No. 2 Site is located within the coastal Ibne and is included within the City of Huntington Beach Coastal Element. The proposed project would renlire approDal of a coastal delelopment permit from the City of Huntington Beach. With approml of coastal deDglopment permit, the proposed project would be consistent with the City of Huntington Beach Coastal Element. QOrange County Water District Water Production Enhancement Project O/ Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration It CEOA-Plus Federal Consultation Review 5-13 Section 5 5.7 Coastal Barriers Resources Act Will the project impact or be located within or near the Coastal Barrier Resources System or its adjacent wetlands, marshes, estuaries, inlets, and near-shore waters? Note that since there is currently no Coastal Barrier Resources System in California, projects located in California are not expected to impact the Coastal Barrier Resources System in other states. If there is a special circumstance in which the project may impact a Coastal Barrier Resource System, indicate your reasoning below. ❑x No. The Project will not impact or be located within or near the Coastal Barrier Resources System or its adjacent wetlands, marshes, estuaries, inlets, and nearishore waters. According to the United States Fish and Wildlife Serdce Official Coastal Barrier Resource System Maps there are not any coastal barriers within or near the study area. Therefore, the proposed project would not be in conflict with Coastal Barrier Resources Act. 5.8 Farmland Protection Policy Act Is any portion of the project located on important farmland? ❑x No. The project will not impact farmland. The study area is located in a highly urbaniCed area. The study area doesnmcontain any existing agriculture land uses. According to the California Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program, there is no Prime Farmland, Uniale Farmland or Farmland of Statewide Importance within the study area. The study area is Coned for urbaniCed land uses and there are no existing Williamson Act Contracts recorded within the study area. The construction and operation of the proposed project would not impact any important farmland resources. 5.9 Flood Plain Management Is any portion of the project located within a 100-year floodplain as depicted on a floodplain map or otherwise designated by the Federal Emergency Management Agency? 0 No. Prodde a description of the project location with respect to streams and potential floodplains: As shown in Figure 13 the OCSD Plant No. 2 Site is located in Flood Zone X. This area is protected from the one-Oercent®nnual[3hance flood by IeCee, dike, or other structures subject to possible failure or oCertopping during larger floods. QOrange County Water District Water Production Enhancement Project OO Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration&CEgA-Plus Federal Consultation Review 5-14 Section 5 5.10 Migratory Bird Treaty Act Will the project affect protected migratory birds that are known, or have a potential, to occur on-site, in the surrounding area, or in the service area? ❑x No. Prodde an explanation below. The locations where the proposed project would be constructed does hat19 habitat to support migratory birds. Along the perimeter of Plant No.2 are a row of eucalyptus trees that could prodde potential nesting opportunities for migratory birds. Construction actidties for the proposed project would not inmlL]a the remoEsl of any trees. Therefore, potential direct impacts to nesting migratory birds would be amided. Additionally, sound attenuation measures would be incorporated into the project to minimiCa noise impacts in the study area. There is potential the migratory birds could net at the Talbert marsh or at the California Least Tern Colony. The Talbert Marsh is located approximately 3,600 feet from the construction actidties and the California Least Tern Colony is located approximately 4,500 feet from where the construction would occur. At the distance the construction noise leLels would be minimal and would not pose a potential disruption to nesting birds. The implementation of the proposed project would not result in significant adCerse impacts to migratory birds or result in significant adCerse impacts to wildlife moDament. No mitigation measures are rewired. The implementation of the proposed project would not result in significant adtbrse impacts to migratory birds or result in significant adtlarse impacts to wildlife molement. No mitigation measures are rewired. 5.11 Protection of Wetlands Does any portion of the project boundaries contain areas that should be evaluated for wetland delineation or require a permit from the United States Army Corps of Engineers? The area where the proposed project improlements would occur is located on lands that hate been improE]3d with wastewater treatment facilities. To determine the presence of Wetland Waters, wetland delineation based on the Corps three parameter approach was conducted in the location where the proposed improCements would occur. These three parameters include; d othe presence of wetland Eegetation, t20the presence of wetland hydrology and Xithe presence of hydric soils. Vegetation: The locations where the proposed project improE13ments would occur does not contain any wetland Eegetation species that would meet the wetland E19getation parameter. OOrange County Water District Water Production Enhancement Project Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration&CEgA-Plus Federal Consultation Review 5-15 Section 5 Hydrology: The only source of water to the study area would be seasonal rainfall. The ground surface where the construction actidties would occur consists of compacted soils or concrete that would not saturate with rainfall. The study area would not meet the wetland hydrology parameter. Hydric Soils: The study area soils consist of compacted fill material or concrete and would not meet the hydric soil parameter. Wetland Waters Determination The study area lacks the reouired parameters that define Wetland Waters of the U.S. or State. Therefore, the implementation of the proposed project would not adlersely impact Wetland Waters of the U.S or State. 5.12 Wild and Scenic Rivers Act Is any portion of the project located within a wild and scenic river? ❑x No. The project is not located near a wild and scenic ri[Br. The study area is located in the Santa Ana Ricer Watershed. Within the Santa Ana Ricer Watershed there are no Wild and Scenic Ricers. Therefore, the construction and operation of the Water Production Enhancement Project would not result in ad-arse impacts to any wild and scenic risers. 5.13 Safe Drinking Water Act, Sole Source Aquifer Protection Is the project located in an area designated by the United States Environmental Protection Agency, Region 9, as a Sole Source Aquifer? ❑x No. The project is not within the boundaries of a sole source aDuifer. The closest sole source aDuifer to the study area would be Campo/Cotton Creek ADAfer in San Diego County. Therefore, the construction and operation of the proposed project would not result in ad Dame impacts to any sole source a_uifers. 5.14 Environmental Justice Does the project involve an activity that is likely to be of particular interest to or have particular impact upon minority, low-income, or indigenous populations, or tribes? ONo. Selecting [NoDmeans that this action is not likely to be of any particular interest to or hale an impact on these populations or tribes. Explain. The purpose of the proposed project is to prodde additional wastewater flows to OCWD GWRS wastewater treatment site to produce additional water supplies to replenish the Orange County Groundwater Basin to ensure that adeDuate amounts of groundwater are aleilable to Orange County residents including IowGhcome households. By 1*1 Orange County Water District Water Production Enhancement Project SJ Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration&CEgA-Plus Federal Consultation Review 5-16 Section 5 maintaining aden/ate amounts of groundwater supplies, less water would hale to be imported into Orange County which is significantly higher in costs and which could hale a higher economic impact on lower income households. The implementation of the proposed project would increase groundwater supplies and would result in beneficial fiscal impacts to Orange County residents including lower income households. 1*1 Orange County Water District Water Production Enhancement Project SJ Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration&CEgA-Plus Federal Consultation Review 5-17 Section 6 SECTION 6.0 REFERENCES California Department Fish and Game Natural DID3rsity Database, Accessed Dine 2015. California Department of Transportation Scenic Highways Program Web Site Access, September 2015. California Endronmental Quality Act. 2015. California Endronmental Quality Act, State CEQA Guidelines, 2015. California Farmland Mapping Monitoring Program, Web Site Access September 2015. California Geologic SurEby Seismic Hard Zone Map Newport Quadrangle, Accessed September 2014. California NatiEb Plant Society InEbntory of Rare and Endangered Plants Database, Accessed [line 2015. California Uniform Building Code, 2016 California Water Code, 2014. City of Huntington Beach, General Plan, Web Access [line 2016 City of Huntington Beach Municipal Code, Web Access, Dine 2016 City of Huntington Beach Zoning code, Web Site Access, [lme 2016 County of Orange Congestion Management Program, Web Site Access Dine 2016 County of Orange Model Water Quality Management Plan, 2011. County of Orange, 4� term municipal NPDES permit for Areawide Urban Storm Water Runoff, 2014. Endronmental Science Associates, Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas emission Report, August 2016 Endronmental Science Associates, Cultural Resources Report, August 2016 Federal Transit Agency, Noise Associated with Typical construction ED/ipment, 1995. Federal Transit Agency, Transit Noise and Vibration Assessment, 2006. Cohn Wayne Airport Endrons Land Use Plan, 2014. Mel[lIIe C. Branch and R. Dale Beland, Noise LelbIs and Human Response, 1970. National Water Research Institute Santa Ana Ricer Water Quality and Health Study, 2004. Orange County Water District Groundwater Management Plan, 2014. Orange County Water District Water Production Enhancement Project !:J Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration&CEQAfIUs Federal Consultation Review 6-1 Section 6 Orange County Water District Mounding Impact technical Memorandum, 2010 and 2011. Regional Water Quality Control Board, Santa Ana Ricer Basin Plan, Canuary 1995. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers List of Wetland Plants, 2008. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual Arid West Region, September 2008. Orange County Water District Water Production Enhancement Project !:J Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration&CEQAfIUs Federal Consultation Review 6-2 Appendix A Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Technical Report ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT — WATER PRODUCTION ENHANCEMENT PROJECT Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Technical Report Prepared for July 2016 Orange County Water District r ESA J ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT - WATER PRODUCTION ENHANCEMENT PROJECT Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Technical Report Prepared for July 2016 Orange county Water District r ESA J q 213.68B.4�0 OeHeiM Orlando Palm SprYge Pel6lume Partlerq SecrenieMo Sa Dago Sen FmnG Seems Tempo Woodend Hllla ta0a62 TABLE OF CONTENTS Orange County Water District - Water Production Enhancement Project Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Technical Report Paae Tableof Contents....................................................................................................................I 1. Executive Summary.........................................................................................................1 1.1 Introduction.....................................................................................................1 1.2 Project Background,Summary and Construction Phasing..............................2 1.4 Summary of Analysis Results...........................................................................3 1.4.1 Air Quality Impact Summary............................................................................3 1.4.2 GHG Impact Summary.....................................................................................4 1.4.1 NEPA Impact Summary....................................................................................4 2. Environmental Setting.....................................................................................................4 2.1 Climate and Meteorology................................................................................4 2.2 Federal and State Ambient Air Quality Standards...........................................5 2.3 Project Area Air Quality.................................................................................10 2.4 Sensitive Receptors........................................................................................10 2.6 Regulatory Setting.........................................................................................12 3. Climate Change Setting.................................................................................................16 3.1 Background on Greenhouse Gases and Climate Change...............................16 3.2 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Estimates...........................................................17 3.3 Regulatory Environment................................................................................18 4. CEQA Air Quality Impacts and Mitigation Measures.....................................................21 4.1 Methodology.................................................................................................21 4.2 Thresholds of Significance.............................................................................24 4.3 Project Impacts..............................................................................................27 5. CEQA GHG Impacts and Mitigation Measures..............................................................33 5.1 Methodology.................................................................................................33 5.2 Thresholds of Significance.............................................................................34 5.3 Project Impacts..............................................................................................36 6. NEPA Conformity Analysis.............................................................................................39 6.1 Methodology.................................................................................................39 6.2 Thresholds of Significance.............................................................................39 6.3 Project Impacts..............................................................................................40 7. References.....................................................................................................................41 Orange County Wafer Dlalad F Waer Nodudws Enhanmmen/Pmp E /1ENB"/ Nr Guelgy aM GmenMuse Gas EmSsbns Technical Repo Nly 2016 Appendix A: Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Assumptions and Calculations Appendix B: CalEEMod Output Tables Page TABLE 1 Ambient Air Quality Standards for Criteria Pollutants............................................7 TABLE 2 Air Quality Data Summary(2012—2014)For Project Area.................................. 11 TABLE 3 South Coast Air Basin Attainment Status............................................................... 12 TABLE 4 SCAQMD Regional Air quality Significance Thresholds......................................26 TABLE 5 SCAQMD Localized Significance Thresholds.......................................................26 TABLE 6 Anticipated Construction Schedule........................................................................28 TABLE 7 Proposed Regional Construction Emissions...........................................................29 TABLES Proposed project Operational Emissions................................................................30 TABLE 9 Proposed Project Unmitigated Localized daily Construction Emissions...............31 TABLE 10 Estimated Total Construction-Related GHG Emissions.........................................37 TABLE I l Estimated Construction and Operational Related GHG Emissions........................38 TABLE 12 De Minimis Emission Levels.................................................................................40 TABLE 13 SIP Conformity Evaluation....................................................................................41 Orange County Waler Dice ict n Water P udwa EManwanent Pmp II EM11f 7 Nr Guellly aM GreenMuse Gas Emasbne Technical Report NIy 2016 Orange County Water District - Water Production Enhancement Project Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Technical Report 1. Executive Summary 1.1 Introduction This technical report has been prepared to support the Orange County Water District(OCWD)'s environmental review process and provide information regarding potential impacts to air quality and climate change associated with the approval of the Effluent Flow Equalization Tank Project (Project).The Project develops a secondary effluent flow equalization tank at the Orange County Sanitation District(OCSD)Plant No.2 in order to receive the maximum water production at the Groundwater Recharge System(G)ATRS)facility.OCSD's Plant No.2 is a wastewater treatment facility which has varying influent(and effluent)flows of secondary effluent.During the day, wastewater flows into OCSD's Plant No.2 can peak above 140 million gallons per day(MGD). These peak flows cannot be pumped to the GWRS facility due to the limits of the conveyance facilities,i.e. effluent pump station and pipeline; that deliver the secondary effluent to GWRS. Therefore, a secondary effluent flow equalization tank has been proposed at OCSD's Plant No.2 to capture these peak flows during the day and store them in the 6-million gallon tank until nighttime.During low flows at night,the flow equalization tank would drain into the effluent pump station to supplement the low secondary effluent inflows and allow the GWRS to treat these peak flows which would have otherwise been discharged to the ocean. This secondary effluent flow equalization tank is expected to deliver an additional 6,000 acre-feet of secondary effluent for treatment at the GWRS facility. This report describes the existing air quality in the Project area, identifies applicable rules and regulations,and evaluates potential short-and long-term air quality impacts associated with build out of the Project.Additionally,this report also provides background information on greenhouse gas(GHG)emissions and evaluates potential impacts associated with the Project's GHG contributions.Furthermore,where applicable,measures to mitigate or minimize air pollutants and GHG emissions associated with the Project are included. In addition,as the project is in support of a CEQA Plus environmental analysis,a general conformity analysis is also included in the evaluation. Information used to prepare this analysis was obtained from the City of Huntington Beach General Plan,City of Huntington Beach Energy Action Plan,and other sources. cranae DoudyWalar Diamd r waw v udwn Gnnanoa a rmp 1 Dui 160067 Air duality and G...Wuae Ga.Fm.w.7.00g1 aeµ'rl �Iy 2016 1.2 Project Background, Summary and Construction Phasing 1.2.1 Background The GWRS is an advanced water treatment facility constructed by the OCWD and the OCSD that supplements local water supplies by providing reliable,high quality source of treated water to recharge the Orange County Groundwater Basin and to protect the Orange County Groundwater Basin from seawater intrusion. The GWRS consists of three major components: an advanced water purification facility and pumping stations,a major pipeline connecting the treatment facilities to existing recharge basins and an existing seawater intrusion barrier. The GWRS has been designed to be implemented in three construction phases.Phase I was implemented and produced approximately 70,000 acre feet per year(AFY)of new water supplies from 2008 through 2014. Phase 2 is currently operational and produces approximately 103,000 AFY new water supplies. The Final EIR/EIS for the GWRS was based upon a full build-out treatment capacity of 120,000 AFY of new water supplies. However,the Final ERI/EIS did not contemplate receiving wastewater flows from OCSD Plant 2 wastewater treatment facility site.With additional wastewater flows from Plant 2,the total new water supplies would increase to 128,000 AFY. 1.2.2 Summary The Water Production Enhancement Project involves three construction activities: 1)construction of flow equalization tank,2)construction of a pump station,and 3)construction of conveyance piping and flow meter vault. A 6-million gallon(MG)flow equalization tank would be constructed at the north end of OCSD Plant 2.The 6-MG tank would be a circular welded steel tank approximately 200-feet in diameter and 30-feet tall from existing grade. The flow equalization tank would have a 4-pump(3 duty+ 1 standby)pump deep),approximately 500-linear feet of 36-inch diameter connection piping with a meter vault(15-ft x 20-ft x 10-ft deep)connected to the operations of the tank.The pump station would be housed in a 30-ft x 40-ft x 20-ft block wall building. The site preparation work for the flow equalization tank,pump station,and pipeline/vault would involve excavating and hauling approximately 1,000 cubic yards(CY)of soil. In addition to dirt removal,an existing concrete parking lot would need to be demolished for the tank pad.For this dirt excavation work,four dump trucks would be doing five round trips each over a period of 4 days to haul the dirt off site. For the demo work, Four dump trucks would be doing three round trips each over a period of 14 days to haul the concrete/asphalt off site. The flow equalization tank would be constructed on concrete piles.Approximately 30-piles would be required for supporting the equalization tank. To construct the pilings, 12-inch diameter holes would be drilled into the ground with an auger drill rig.Approximately 40 CY of dirt from pile drilling activity would be removed.Once the pile drilling is completed,the rebut support cages for the piles would be installed into the drilled holes with a crane.Approximately 40 CY of concrete would be filled into the holes with the rebar and cured. The piles would be supporting a aanae eeumywaur Diamn r warer ameunpe Ennenmmem amps 2 EW IW367 Air Gu.14erd G...W.ae Gas Em..i T.0W.1 Reacrl m1,3016 2-foot thick concrete pad matching the diameter of the tank. This equates to 2,330 CY of concrete for the tank pad.The pump station and meter vault would also require approximately 100 CY of concrete to construct these structural facilities. Once the piles and concrete pad have been constructed,the steel tank would be assembled.A crane and welding laborers would be required to weld the steel components of the tank together. Once the tank is welded,the surface would be prepped for a base coat and finally painted. While the tank is being assembled,the contractor would be equipping the pump station and meter vault with the use of laborers,fork lifts and cranes. The construction equipment for the tank, meter vault,flow diversion box and pump station would include;an excavator,crane,pile driller, bull dozer,backhoe,compactor, dump trucks,concrete trucks,water truck,man lifts and fork lifts. The mix of construction equipment and hours of operation for each of the phases,as well as the daily haul trips and laborer estimates are provided in Appendix A. 1.2.3 Construction Phasing The OCWD Water Production Enhancement Project would be implemented in five construction phases beginning in August 2020 and concluding in December of 2022. The sequence of construction activities is shown below.The sequence of construction activities is summarized below and detailed in Appendix A.Activities IA, 1B,and 1 C will be constructed separately. Activities 1D and 1 E will be constructed concurrently. • 1A: Excavation,Hauling,Grading for Flow EQ Tank,Pump Station,Pipeline/Meter Vault. • 113: Construction of Piles for Flow EQ Tank. • 1C: Concrete Pours for Flow EQ Tank Pad. • 1D: Flow EQ Tank Assembly&Coating. • 1E: Installation of pipeline and assembly of equipment for Flow EQ pump station and meter vault 1.4 Summary of Analysis Results 1.4.1 Air Quality Impact Summary AQ-1: The proposed Project would not conflict with or obstruct the implementation of the applicable air quality plan.The Project impacts would be less than significant,and no mitigation is required. AQ-2: The proposed Project would not violate existing air quality standard during construction or operational activities. Project impacts would be less than significant,and no mitigation is required. aanae COUM Wald Dpmn r waWR ualpn Dnnanwmam amps 3 EWIW66r Ai,euali and G...Wuea Gae Fm.w.7.00g1 Reactl �Iy 2016 AQ-3: The proposed Project would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. Proposed Project impacts would be less than significant,and no mitigation is required. AQ-4: The proposed Project would not create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people. This impact is less than significant,and no mitigation is required. AQ-5: The proposed Project would not result in cumulatively considerable increases in criteria pollutants during construction or operational activities. Therefore the proposed Project impacts with respect to cumulatively considerable increases of criteria pollutants would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required. 1.4.2 GHG Impact Summary GHG-1: The proposed Project would not generate greenhouse gas emissions,either directly or indirectly,that would have a significant impact on the environment. The proposed Project results in less than significant impacts,and no mitigation is required. GHG-2: The proposed Project would not conflict with an applicable plan,policy,or regulation adopted for the purposes of reducing GHG emissions.The proposed Project results in less than significant impacts,and no mitigation is required. 1.4.1 NEPA Impact Summary NEPA-L The proposed Project would be consistent with the SIP as indicated by emissions being below the de minimis thresholds and therefore a detailed conformity analysis is not warranted.No mitigation is required. 2. Environmental Setting 2.1 Climate and Meteorology The Project site is located in the City of Huntington Beach,southeast of the corner of Baybreeze Drive and Brookhurst Street and following the Santa Ana River trail south to the Pacific Coast Highway. Huntington Beach is located within the South Coast Air Basin(SCAB),which is under the jurisdiction of the South Coast Air Quality Management District(SCAQMD). The SCAB is a 6,600-square-mile coastal plain bounded by the Pacific Ocean to the southwest and the San Gabriel, San Bernardino, and San Jacinto Mountains to the north and east.The SCAB includes the non-desert portions of Los Angeles,Riverside, and San Bernardino Counties,and all of Orange County. The ambient concentrations of air pollutants are determined by the amount of emissions released by sources and the atmosphere's ability to transport and dilute such emissions.Natural factors that affect transport and dilution include terrain,wind,atmospheric stability,and sunlight. Therefore, existing air quality conditions in the area are determined by such natural factors as topography,meteorology, and climate, in addition to the meant of emissions released by existing air pollutant sources. Gera,,C..,..Giamn r W..yr wo.ennen.�rmpm 4 EWIWM7 Air Q..14 and G...W.ee Gae Fm.w.7.00.1 Reµ'tl �Iy 2016 Atmospheric conditions such as wind speed,wind direction,and air temperature gradients interact with the physical features of the landscape to determine the movement and dispersal of air pollutants.The topography and climate of southern California combine to make the SCAB an area of high air pollution potential.The SCAB is a coastal plain with connecting broad valleys and low hills,bounded by the Pacific Ocean to the west and high mountains around the rest of the perimeter. The general region lies in the semi-permanent high-pressure zone of the eastern Pacific,resulting in a mild climate tempered by cool sea breezes with light average wind speeds. The usually mild climatological pattern is disrupted occasionally by periods of extremely hot weather,winter storms, or Santa Ana winds.During the summer months,a warm air mass frequently descends over the cool,moist marine layer produced by the interaction between the ocean's surface and the lowest layer of the atmosphere. The warm upper layer forms a cap over the cool marine layer and inhibits the pollutants in the marine layer from dispersing upward.In addition,light winds during the summer further limit ventilation.Furthermore, sunlight triggers the photochemical reactions that produce ozone. Based on past climate records from the Western Regional Climate Center(WRCC),the average annual maximum temperature in the area is 68 degrees Fahrenheit(OF)and the average annual minimum temperature is 550 F. The average precipitation in the area is about 11 inches annually, occurring primarily from December through March(WRCC, 2016). 2.2 Federal and State Ambient Air Quality Standards Ambient Air Quality Standards Regulation of air pollution is achieved through both federal and state ambient air quality standards and emission limits for individual sources of air pollutants.As required by the federal Clean Air Act(CAA),the U.S.Environmental Protection Agency(USEPA)has identified criteria pollutants and has established National Ambient Air Quality Standards(NAAQS)to protect public health and welfare.NAAQS have been established for ozone(03),carbon monoxide(CO), nitrogen dioxide(NOA sulfur dioxide(SOA particulate matter(PM10 and PMrs),and lead(Pb). These pollutants are called`criteria"air pollutants because standards have been established for each of them to meet specific public health and welfare criteria. To protect human health and the environment,the USEPA has set"primary"and"secondary" maximum ambient limits for each of the criteria pollutants.Primary standards were set to protect human health,particularly sensitive receptors such as children,the elderly,and individuals suffering from chronic lung conditions such as asthma and emphysema. Secondary standards were set to protect the natural environment and prevent damage to animals,crops,vegetation,and buildings. Regional and Local The NAAQS establish the level for an air pollutant above which detrimental effects to public health or welfare may result.The NAAQS are defined as the maximum acceptable concentrations that, depending on the pollutant,may not be equaled or exceeded more than once per year or in some cases as a percentile of observations.California has generally adopted more stringent ambient air quality standards for the criteria air pollutants(i.e.,California Ambient Air Quality aanae ceumywa Drama r wmaa uapn ennenmmem amps 5 EWIW66T Ai,Q..Ii and G...W.ee Gaa Fm.W.T.0W.1 Reactl Amy 2016 Standards [CAAQS])and has adopted air quality standards for some pollutants for which there is no corresponding national standard,such as sulfates,hydrogen sulfide,vinyl chloride, and visibility-reducing particles. Both the national and State ambient air quality standards for pollutants along with their associated health effects and sources are presented in Table 1. Criteria Air Pollutants The California Air Resources Board(CARB)and USEPA currently focus on criteria air pollutants because they are the most prevalent air pollutants known to be injurious to human health and extensive health-effects criteria documents are available about their effects on human health and welfare.A general description of these pollutants is provided below. Ozone Ozone,the main component of photochemical smog,is primarily a summer and fall pollution problem.Ozone is not emitted directly into the air,but is formed through a complex series of chemical reactions involving other compounds that we directly emitted. These directly emitted pollutants(also known as ozone precursors) include reactive organic gases(ROGs)or volatile organic compounds(VOCs), and oxides of nitrogen(NOx). While both ROGs and VOCs refer to compounds of carbon,ROO is a term used by CARB and is identified based on a list of carbon compounds that exempts carbon compounds determined by CARB to be nonreactive.VOC is a term used by the USEPA and is identified based on USEPA's separate list of exempted compounds it identifies as having negligible photochemical reactivity. The time period required for ozone formation allows the reacting compounds to spread over a large area,producing regional pollution problems. Ozone concentrations are the cumulative result of regional development patterns rather than the result of a few significant emission sources. Once ozone is formed it remains in the atmosphere for one or two days. Ozone is then eliminated through reaction with chemicals on the leaves of plants,attachment to water droplets as they fall to earth("rainout),or absorption by water molecules in clouds that later fall to earth with rain ("washout'). Short-term exposure to ozone can irritate the eyes and cause constriction of the airways. In addition to causing shortness of breath,ozone can aggravate existing respiratory diseases such as asthma,bronchitis,and emphysema. Carbon Monoxide CO,a colorless and odorless gas,is a relatively non-reactive pollutant that is a product of incomplete combustion and is mostly associated with motor vehicles. When inhaled at high concentrations,CO combines with hemoglobin in the blood and reduces the oxygen-carrying capacity of the blood. This results in reduced oxygen reaching the brain,heart and other body tissues.This condition is especially critical for people with cardiovascular diseases, chronic lung disease,or anemia. CO measurements and modeling were important in the early 1980s when CO levels were regularly exceeded throughout California.In more recent yews,CO measurements and modeling have not been a priority in most California air districts due to the retirement of older polluting vehicles,lower emissions from new vehicles,and improvements in fuels. a.,,C..,...iamn r W..R, wo.ennen.�rmpct 6 EWIW667 Ai,eu.14 and G...Wuee Gae Fm.w.7.00.1 Re �Iy 2016 TABLET AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARDS FOR CRITERIA POLLUTANTS Averaging State National Pollutant Health and Pollutant Time Standard Standard Atmospheric Effects Major Pollutant Sources Drone 1 hour 0.09 ppm mr High concentrations can directly Formed when ROG and NOx react in 8 boom 0.07 0.0]5 affect lungs,causing irritation. Me presence of sunlight.Major ppm PPm Longhand exposure may cause sources include on road motor damage to lung tissue. ehicles,edam a operation,and commercial I industrial mobile e uipment. Carboy ihour 20ppm 35 ppm Clieiffil ass chemical Internal combustion engines,primarily Manuel 8 home 9.0 9 asphyxiant,carbon monoxide gasollne�owered motor Ounces.Cot ppm ppm Interferes with the transfer of fresh oxygen to the blood and dapples;satellite tissues of oxygen. Nmogen ihour 0.18 ppm 0.100 ppm Irritating to eyes and respiratory Motor shales,petroleum refining u0xda Annual 0.030 ppm 0.053 ppm Imct.Colors atmosphere reddish operations,industrial sources,alrcmtt, (190) Arithmetic Mean brown. ships,and railroads. SuWr ihour 0.25 ppm 75 ppb limbless upper respiratory tract; Fuel combustion,chemical plants, news 3hoom min g.5g injurious to lung tissue.Can sulfur recotery plants,and metal (SO.) firm yellow the leates of plants, processing. 24 hours 0.04 ppm 0.14 ppm destmdi@ to marble,iron,and Annual min 0.03 m steel.Limits hill and reduces Arithmetic Mean PP sunlight. Respirable 2hours SO Val 15041 May irritate ayes and respiratory Dust and fomerproducing industrial Particulate Annual 20 r'g/m° mr Imd,decreases in lung capacity, and agricultural operations, After Arithmetic Mean cancer and Increased mortality. combustion,atmosphere (pi Produces has and limits photochemical reactions,and natural dslblllty. on Rise si.g.,Wind rated dust and ocean spraysc Fine 24 hours min 35 rSlms Increases respiratory disease, Fuel combustion in matar ehicles, Particulate Annual 121T31ms 12 tghl lung damage,cancer,and a uipment,and industrial sources; h§tter Arithmetic Mean premature death Red... residential and agricultural burning; (I'M 5) Isibilay and results In surface Also,formed from photochemical soiling, reactions of other pollutants,including NOx,sulfur oxides,and organics. Lead(Ph) 30 Day Areal 1.5 rglm' Disturbs gastrointestinal system, Present source:lead smelters,battery Calendar min 1.5h and causes anemia,kidney manufacturing and recycling facilities. Quarter ghss disease,and neuromuscular and Past source:combustion of leaded neurological dysfunction W gasoline. Rolling 3WoMh urn 0.15 alma serene cases. Ateringe I#ydrogm 1 hour 0.03 ppm No National Nuisance odor rotten agg smelly, Geothermal pourer plants,petroleum some Standard headache and breathing production and refining difficulties higher concentrations.. Sullates 24 hour 25 FWM3 No National Decrease In entilatory functions; Industrial processes. (Sp) Standard aggro etion of asthmatic symptoms,aggro ation of cardio pulmonary disease, ¢gelation damage;degradation of Isibility; property damage. Visbdrry 8hour Extinctionof No National Reduces isibility,reducelaigprt Sea PMza RMucmg 0.23Ikm; Standard safety,lower real estate Blue, Particles isibilityof and discourages tourism. 10 miles or mom NOTE:ppm pans par million;ppb pads per Nlllon;Fglma nmicrugrsme per cubic meter. SOURCE:CARB,20091 CARE,2016a. Grange County Welty Dleblol r wow FrWUNbn Enhancomcnt Pgµct 7 ESA116(39] Air totally and Groot a Gae F'mina 7e01 Report my 0016 Nitrogen Dioxide NOi is a reddish-brown gas that is a by-product of combustion processes.Automobiles and industrial operations are the main sources of NOz.Combustion devices emit primarily nitric oxide (NO),which reacts through oxidation in the atmosphere to form NOz. The combined emissions of NO and NOz are referred to as NOx,which me reported as equivalent NO2.Aside from its contribution to ozone formation,NOz can increase the risk of acute and chronic respiratory disease and reduce visibility.NOz may be visible as a coloring component of a brown cloud on high pollution days,especially in conjunction with high ozone levels. Sulfur Dioxide SOz is a colorless,extremely irritating gas or liquid that enters the atmosphere as a pollutant mainly as a result of burning high sulfur-content fuel oils and coal,and from chemical processes occurring at chemical plants and refineries.When SOz oxidizes in the atmosphere,it fors sulfur trioxide(SOA Collectively,these pollutants are referred to as sulfur oxides(SOx). Major sources of SOz include power plants,large industrial facilities,diesel vehicles,and oil- burning residential heaters.Emissions of SOz aggravate lung diseases,especially bronchitis. This compound also constricts the breathing passages,especially in people with asthma and people involved in moderate to heavy exercise. SOz potentially causes wheezing, shortness of breath,and coughing. Long-ter SOz exposure has been associated with increased risk of mortality from respiratory or cardiovascular disease. Particulate Matter PM10 and PMz 5 consist of particulate matter that is 10 microns or less in diameter and 2.5 microns or less in diameter,respectively(a micron is one-millionth of a meter).PM10 and PM2,5 represent fractions of particulate matter that can be inhaled into the air passages and the lungs and can cause adverse health effects.Acute and chronic health effects associated with high particulate levels include the aggravation of chronic respiratory diseases,heart and lung disease, and coughing,bronchitis and respiratory illnesses in children. Recent mortality studies have shown an association between morbidity and mortality and daily concentrations of particulate matter in the air.Particulate matter can also damage materials and reduce visibility.One common source of PMz.5 is diesel exhaust emissions. PM10 consists of particulate matter emitted directly into the air(e.g.,fugitive dust,soot,and smoke from mobile and stationary sources,construction operations,fires,and natural windblown dust)and particulate matter formed in the atmosphere by condensation and/or transformation of SOz and ROG. Traffic generates particulate matter emissions through entrainment of dust and dirt particles that settle onto roadways and parking lots. PM]0 and PM2,5 are also emitted by burning wood in residential wood stoves and fireplaces and open agricultural burning. PM2.5 can also be formed through secondary processes such as airborne reactions with certain pollutant precursors, including ROGs, ammonia(NHA NOx,and SOx. aa�ae coumyweix Giamnr waw v, WO.ennan.�rmpm 8 EWIW667 AwQ.Wi and G...W.ee Gae Fm'.w.7.00.1 Reµ'tl �Iy 2016 Lead Lead is a metal found naturally in the environment and present in some manufactured products. There are a variety of activities that can contribute to lead emissions,which are grouped into two general categories, stationary and mobile sources. On-road mobile sources include light-duty automobiles; light-,medium-,and heavy-duty trucks; and motorcycles. Emissions of lead have dropped substantially over the past 40 years.The reduction before 1990 is largely due to the phase-out of lead as an anti-knock agent in gasoline for on-road automobiles. Substantial emission reductions have also been achieved due to enhanced controls in the metals processing industry. In the SCAB,atmospheric lead is generated almost entirely by the combustion of leaded gasoline and contributes less than one percent of the material collected as total suspended particulates. As lead has been well below regulatory thresholds for decades and the Proposed Project is not a source of lead,lead is not discussed further in this analysis. Toxic Air Contaminants Concentrations of toxic air contaminants(TACs),or in federal parlance,hazardous air pollutants (HAPs),are also used as indicators of ambient air quality conditions.A TAC is defined as an air pollutant that may cause or contribute to an increase in mortality or in serious illness, or that may pose a hazard to human health.TACs are usually present in minute quantities in the ambient air; however,their high toxicity or health risk may pose a threat to public health even at low concentrations. According to CARB,the majority of the estimated health risk from TACs can be attributed to relatively few compounds,the most important being particulate matter from diesel-fueled engines (DPM)which represents 70 percent of the risk(CARB,2016b).DPM differs from other TACs in that it is not a single substance,but rather a complex mixture of hundreds of substances.Although diesel PM is emitted by diesel-fueled internal combustion engines,the composition of the emissions varies depending on engine type,operating conditions,fuel composition,lubricating oil,and whether an emission control system is present. Unlike the other TACs,no ambient monitoring data me available for diesel PM because no routine measurement method currently exists. However,CARB has made preliminary concentration estimates based on a particulate matter exposure method.This method uses the CARB emissions inventory's PM10 database,ambient PM,monitoring data,and the results from several studies to estimate concentrations of DPM. In addition to DPM,the TACs for which data are available that pose the greatest existing ambient risk in California are benzene, 1,3-butadiene, acetaldehyde,carbon tetrachloride,hexavalent chromium,pans-dichlorobenzene,formaldehyde, methylene chloride, and perchloroethylene. Odorous Emissions Odors are generally regarded as an annoyance rather than a health hazard. However, manifestations of a person's reaction to foul odors can range from psychological(e.g.,irritation, anger,or anxiety)to physiological(e.g.,circulatory and respiratory effects,nausea,vomiting,and headache). Offensive odors are unpleasant and can lead to public distress generating citizen aanae CoucyWe Drama n warR uapn Rnnenwmam amps 9 RWIWM7 Ai,euali and G...Wuae Gae Fm'.w.7.00g1 Re �Iy 2016 complaints to local governments.Although unpleasant,offensive odors rarely cause physical harm. The occurrence and severity of odor impacts depend on the nature,frequency,and intensity of the source,wind speed,direction,and the sensitivity of receptors. 2.3 Project Area Air Quality Existing Air Quality SCAQMD maintains monitoring stations within district boundaries that monitor air quality and compliance with associated ambient standards. The Project site is located in the North Orange County Coastal Air Monitoring Subregion. Currently,the nearest monitoring station to the study area is the Costa Mesa—MesaVerde Drive Station(2850 Mesa Verde Dr East,Costa Mesa,CA). This station monitors ambient concentrations of ozone,NOr,CO,and SOr,but does not monitor PMz.s or PM16. The nearest monitoring station that monitors ambient concentrations of PMr.r and PM16 is the Anaheim station located at 1630 W.Pampas Lane. Historical data of ambient ozone, NO,,CO, SOr, PM,,and PMr.r concentrations from these monitoring stations for the most recent three years(2012—2014)are shown in Table 2. Both CARB and USEPA use this type of monitoring data to designate areas according to their attainment status for criteria air pollutants. The purpose of these designations is to identify the areas with air quality problems and thereby initiate planning efforts for improvement. The three basic designation categories are nonattainment,attainment,and unclassified.Unclassified is used in an area that cannot be classified on the basis of available information as meeting or not meeting the standards. In addition,the California designations include a subcategory of nonattainment-transitional,which is given to nonattainment areas that are progressing and nearing attainment. The current attainment stams for the SCAB is provided in Table 3. 2.4 Sensitive Receptors Sensitive receptors are individuals who are considered more sensitive to air pollutants than others. The reasons for greater than average sensitivity may include pre-existing health problems, proximity to emissions sources,or duration of exposure to air pollutants. Schools,hospitals,and convalescent homes are considered to be relatively sensitive to poor air quality because children, elderly people,and the infinn are more susceptible to respiratory distress and other air quality- related health problems than the general public.Residential areas are considered sensitive to poor air quality because people usually stay home for extended periods of time,with associated greater exposure to ambient air quality. Recreational uses are also considered sensitive due to the greater exposure to ambient air quality conditions because vigorous exercise associated with recreation places a high demand on the human respiratory system. Currently,the sensitive uses located in the Project site vicinity include residential uses directly west of Brookhurst Street from the OCSD Plant 2. The closest residence is located approximately 260 feet(78 meters)from the construction area. aa,,C..,..Giamn r W..v, wo.ennanoare rrepn 10 EWIW667 Ai,Q..14 and Gre..W.ae Ga.Fm.w.7.00.1 Reµ'tl �Iy 2016 TABLE2 AIR QUALITY DATA SUMMARY(2012-2014)FOR PROJECT AREA Monitoring Data by Year Pollutant Standards 2012 2013 2014 Omne-Costa Nksa Highest l Hour A@rage.ppm 0.090 0.095 0.096 Days odir State Standard 0.09 ppm 2 1 1 Highest 8 Hour Adirage ppmi 0.076 0,083 0.079 Days odir National Standard 0.075 ppm 1 0 4 Days odir Slate Standard 0.070 ppm 1 2 6 Carbon hbnoxide-Costa NEsa Highest 8 Hour A®rage.ppm 1.7 2 1.9 Days ci National Standard 9.0 ppm 0 0 0 Days odic Stale Standard 9.0 ppm 0 0 0 Nitrogen l2oxale-Cosm Aksa Highest 1 Hour A[erage Ppi 0.0744 0.0757 0.061 Days odir National Standard 0.100 ppm 0 0 0 Days ooer State Standard 0.18 ppm 0 0 0 Annual Adimge Ppm❑ 0.0104 0.0116 0.011 Days o®r National Standard 0.053 ppm 0 0 0 Days odir Stale Standard 0.030 ppm 0 0 0 Sulfur Dioxide-Costa Nast Highest 24 Hour AlErage rppm❑ 0.0062 0.0042 0.009 Days odir State Standard 0.04 ppm 0 0 0 Pariculate bLtter(PMo)-Anaheim Highest 24 Hour A erege pglm'd 48 77 85 Days odir National Standard 150 µg1m' 0 0 0 arleasured® Days odir State Standard 50 µg/m' 0 1 2 ®rleasured® Annual Adirage 4glm36 20 µg/m' 22.4 25.4 26.8 Particulate Aktter(Pi-Anaheim Highest 24 Hour Adirage Uglm'@ 50.1 37.8 56.2 Days odir National Standard 35 µg/m3 4 1 6 0neasurell5 Annual A®rage rµglm'd 12 µg/m' 10.81 10.1 10.3 NOTES: ppm npus per million:pyri carrerams per cubic meter. -U Insufficient data a.stable to determine the slue. a Generally,slate standards and national standards are net W be exceeded more than once per year. b Concentrators and arB2ge5 represent federal Slat1360a.State and federal shames may differ because 0di erent Sampling methods. Measurements are usually collected ersh,six days.Days o-er the standard represent the measured number of days that the standard has been exceeded. SOURCE:SCAQMD 2014,2013a,2012. Grange County Welty Diablo[n wow FrWUNbn Enhancement Pql y 11 ESPl1603B7 Air Chi and GreenMuee Gae a'mans bchnival Reset rely 2016 TABLES SOUTH COAST AIR BASIN ATTAINMENT STATUS Attalmaent Status Pollutant California Standards Federal Standards Oran Eolreme Nonaltainmenl Se.ere Nonaltainmenl CO Attainment Unclassifedl Attainment NOz Attainment Unclassifedl Attainment soo Attainment Attainment PM10 Nonaltainmenl Attainment PMis Nonaltainment Nonattainment Lead Attainment Nonaltainment SOURCE:CARE,2013a;USEPA,2016a. 2.6 Regulatory Setting Federal The principal air quality regulatory mechanism at the federal level is the CAA and in particular, the 1990 amendments to the CAA and the NAAQS that it establishes.These standards identify the maximum ambient(background)concentration levels of criteria pollutants that are considered to be safe,with an adequate margin of safety,to protect public health and welfare.As discussed previously,the criteria pollutants include owne,CO,NO2(which is a form of NOx), S02(which is a form of SOx),PM10,PM2.5, and lead. The CAA also requires each state to prepare an air quality control plan,referred to as a state implementation plan(SIP).The CAA Amendments of 1990(CAAA)added requirements for states with nonattainment areas to revise their SIPS to incorporate additional control measures to reduce air pollution. The SIP is modified periodically to reflect the latest emissions inventories, planning documents,and rules and regulations of the air basins,as reported by their jurisdictional agencies. USEPA is responsible for reviewing all SIPS to determine whether they conform to the mandates of the CAA and its amendments, and to determine whether implementing the SIPS will achieve air quality goals. The USEPA also has regulatory and enforcement jurisdiction over emission sources beyond state waters (outer continental shelf),and those that are under the exclusive authority of the Federal government, such as aircraft,locomotives, and interstate trucking.USEPA's primary role at the state level is to oversee the state air quality programs.USEPA sets federal vehicle and stationary source emissions standards and provides research and guidance in air pollution programs. orange eoudywooa Giabid r wow P000udlon EnNntvmcnl Pooled 12 E6A IWM7 Air Gufterd GreenMuee Gae F.w.7.00g1 RePdl m1,2016 General Conformity Rule The General Conformity Rule(40 CFR Part 93)requires that federal agencies demonstrate that federal actions conform with the applicable State Implementation Plan(SIP)in order to ensure that federal activities do not hamper local efforts to control air pollution. The EPA general conformity rate applies to federal actions occurring in nonattainment or maintenance areas when the total direct and indirect emissions of nonattainment pollutants(or their precursors)exceed specified thresholds.The de minimis emission thresholds are based on the attainment status of each air basin. Since the Project is located in an air basin that is designated attainment for all federal criteria pollutants,it is not subject to the General Conformity emissions thresholds. State California Air Resources Board(CARB) CARB,a department of the California Environmental Protection Agency(Cal/EPA), oversees air quality planning and control throughout California by administering the SIP. Its primary responsibility lies in ensuring implementation of the 1989 amendments to the CCAA,responding to the federal CAA requirements, and regulating emissions from motor vehicles sold in California.It also sets fuel specifications to further reduce vehicular emissions. The amendments to the CCAA establish CAAQS, and a legal mandate to achieve these standards by the earliest practical date.These standards apply to the same criteria pollutants as the federal CAA,and also include sulfates,visibility reducing particulates,hydrogen sulfide and vinyl chloride.They are also generally more stringent than the federal standards. CARB is also responsible for regulations pertaining to TACs.The Air Toxics"Hot Spots" Information and Assessment Act was enacted in 1987 as a means to establish a formal air toxics emission inventory risk quantification program.Assembly Bill(AB)2588, as amended, establishes a process that requires stationary sources to report the type and quantities of certain substances their facilities routinely release. California Green Building Standard Code In January 2010,the State of California adopted the 2010 California Green Building Standards Code(CALGreen),which became effective in January 2011. Building off of the initial 2008 California Green Building Code,the 2010 CALGreen Code represents a more stringent building code that requires,at a minimum,that new buildings and renovations in California meet certain sustainability and ecological standards.The 2010 CALGreen Code has mandatory Green Building provisions for all new residential buildings that are three stories or fewer(including hotels and motels)and all new non-residential buildings of any size that are not additions to existing buildings. aanae COUM We oiaman WaWR udOn enneewmem amps 13 EWIW66r Ai,Gualiry and GreenMuee Gae Fm.w.7.00.1 Reactl �Iy 2016 Local South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) Criteria Air Pollutants SCAQMD attains and maintains air quality conditions in the SCAB through a comprehensive program of planning,regulation,enforcement,technical innovation,and promotion of the understanding of air quality issues.The clean air strategy of SCAQMD includes preparation of plans for attainment of ambient air quality standards, adoption and enforcement of rules and regulations concerning sources of air pollution,and issuance of permits for stationary sources of air pollution. SCAQMD also inspects stationary sources of air pollution and responds to citizen complaints;monitors ambient air quality and meteorological conditions; and implements programs and regulations required by the CAA, CAAA,and CCAA. Air Quality Management Plan SCAQMD and the Southern California Association of Governments(SCAG)are responsible for preparing the air quality management plan(AQMP),which addresses federal and state CAA requirements.The AQMP details goals,policies,and programs for improving air quality in the SCAB. The 2012 AQMP was adopted by the SCAQMD Governing Board on December 12, 2012. The purpose of the 2012 AQMP for the SCAB is to set forth a comprehensive and integrated program that will lead the region into compliance with the federal 24-hour PMi_y air quality standard,and to provide an update to the SCAB's commitment towards meeting the federal 8-hour ozone standards(SCAQMD,2013b).The AQMP would also serve to satisfy recent USEPA requirements for a new attainment demonstration of the revoked 1-hour ozone standard,as well as a vehicle miles travelled(VMT)emissions offset demonstration.I Specifically, the AQMP would serve as the official SIP submittal for the federal 2006 24-hour PMns standard,for which USEPA has established a due date of December 14,2012.2 In addition,the AQMP updates specific new control measures and commitments for emissions reductions to implement the attainment strategy for the 8-hour ozone SIP.The 2012 AQMP sets forth programs which require integrated planning efforts and the cooperation of all levels of government local,regional, state, and federal. Currently,SCAQMD staff has already begun initiating an early development process for the next AQMP. SCAQMD Rules and Regulations All projects are subject to SCAQMD rules and regulations in effect at the time of construction. Specific rules applicable to the construction anticipated under the proposed Project would include the following: 1 Although the federal 1-hour omne standard was revoked in 2005,the USEPA has proposed to require a new 1-hour ozone attainment demonstration in the South Coast extreme ozone nonattainment area as a result of a recent on decision. Although USEPA has replaced the 1-hour omne standard with a more health protective 8-hour standard, the CAA anti-backsliding provisions require that California have approved plans for attaining the 1-hour standard. 2 Although the 2012 AQMP was approved by the SCAQMD Board on December 7,2012,the plan did not gel submitted to the USEPA by December 14,2012 as it first required approval from CARB.The 2012 AQMP was subsequently approved by CARB on January 25,2013,and as of February 13,2013 the plan has been submitted by CARB to the USEPA. aangecouwooarommn wafer RWuoon Ennanmmara Rmµcl 14 Rut 160367 no-Quafb and Gre.nnouae Gas En.—r.chnical Reµ'e mq 2016 Rule 401—Visible Emissions.A person shall not discharge into the atmosphere from any single source of emission whatsoever any air contaminant for a period or periods aggregating more than three minutes in any 1 hour that is as dark or darker in shade as that designated No. 1 on the Ringelmann Chart,as published by the United States Bureau of Mines. Rule 402—Nuisance.A person shall not discharge from any source whatsoever such quantities of air contaminants or other material that cause injury,detriment,nuisance,or annoyance to any considerable number of persons or to the public,or that endanger the comfort,repose,health,or safety of any such persons or the public, or that cause,or have a natural tendency to cause, injury or damage to business or property.The provisions of this rule do not apply to odors emanating from agricultural operations necessary for the growing of crops or the raising of fowl or animals. Rule 403—Fugitive Dust.This rate is intended to reduce the amount of particulate matter entrained in the ambient air as a result of anthropogenic(human-made)fugitive dust sources by requiring actions to prevent,reduce, or mitigate fugitive dust emissions. Rule 403 applies to any activity or human-made condition capable of generating fugitive dust. Rule 1113—Architectural Coatings.No person shall apply or solicit the application of any architectural coating within the SCAQMD with VOC content in excess of the values specified in a table incorporated in the Rule. Toxic Air Contaminants At the local level, air pollution control or management districts may adopt and enforce CARB control measures.Under SCAQMD Regulation XIV(Toxics and Other Non-Criteria Pollutants), and in particular Rule 1401 (New Source Review), all sources that possess the potential to emit TACs are required to obtain permits from SCAQMD. Permits may be granted to these operations if they are constructed and operated in accordance with applicable regulations,including new source review standards and air toxics control measures. SCAQMD limits emissions and public exposure to TACs through a number of programs. SCAQMD prioritizes TAC-emitting stationary sources based on the quantity and toxicity of the TAC emissions and the proximity of the facilities to sensitive receptors. The Air Toxics Control Plan(March 2000,revised March 26,2004)is a planning document designed to examine the overall direction of SCAQMD's air toxics control program. It includes development and implementation of strategic initiatives to monitor and control air toxics emissions. Control strategies that are deemed viable and are within SCAQMD's jurisdiction will each be brought to the SCAQMD Board for further consideration through the normal public review process. Strategies that me to be implemented by other agencies will be developed in a cooperative effort,and the progress will be reported back to the Board periodically. In May 2015 the SCAQMD completed the Multiple Air Toxics Exposure Study IV(MATES IV) (SCAQMD,2015a). MATES IV is a monitoring and evaluation study conducted in the SCAB and is a follow up to previous air toxics studies.The study is a follow up to the 2008 MATES III study and consists of several elements including a monitoring program,an updated emissions inventory of toxic air contaminants,and a modeling effort to characterize risk across the SCAB same COUM We Gpmn n waWR udOn ennanwmam amps 15 EWIW66r Ai,Gualiry and GreenMuee Gae Fm.w.7.00.1 Reactl �Iy 2016 (SCAQMD,2008a).The study focuses on the carcinogenic risk from exposure to air toxics (SCAQMD,2008b).However,it does not estimate mortality or other health effects from particulate exposures.MATES IV shows that the region around the project site area has an estimated carcinogenic risk from between 560 per million near the coast to the south and 801 in a million near Ellis Avenue at the north(SCAQMD,2015a). These model estimates were based on monitoring data collected at 10 fixed sites within the SCAB. 3. Climate Change Setting 3.1 Background on Greenhouse Gases and Climate Change "Global warning"and"global climate change"are the Lemma used to describe the increase in the average temperature of the earth's near-surface air and oceans since the mid-20th century and its projected continuation.According to the International Panel on Climate Change(IPCC)warming of the climate system is now considered unequivocal(IPCC,2007).Natural processes and human actions have been identified as the causes of this warning.The IPCC has concluded that variations in natural phenomena such as solar radiation and volcanoes produced most of the warming from pre-industrial times to 1950 and had a small cooling effect afterward.After 1950,increasing GHG concentrations resulting from human activity such as fossil fuel burning and deforestation are believed to be responsible for most of the observed temperature increase.Increases in GHG concentrations in the earth's atmosphere are thought to be the main cause of human-induced climate change.Certain gases in the atmosphere naturally trap heat by impeding the exit of solar radiation that is reflected back into space after striking the earth. This is sometimes referred to as the "greenhouse effect"and the gases that cause it are called"greenhouse gases."Some GHGs occur naturally and are necessary for keeping the earth's surface inhabitable.However,increases in the concentrations of these gases in the atmosphere during the last 100 years have decreased the amount of solar radiation that is reflected back into space,intensifying the natural greenhouse effect and increasing average global temperatures. Carbon dioxide(CO2),methane(CHa),nitrous oxide(N20),hydrofluorocarbons(HFCs), perfluorocarbons(PFCs),and sulfur hexafluoride(SFe)are the principal GHGs.When concentrations of these gases exceed natural concentrations in the atmosphere,the greenhouse effect may be intensified. COz,CHa and N20 occur naturally,and through human activity. Emissions of COr are largely by-products of fossil fuel combustion,whereas CHo results from off-gassing3 associated with agricultural practices and landfills. Other human-generated GHGs include fluorinated gases such as SFCs,PFCs and SFe,which have much higher heat-absorption potential than COr,and are byproducts of certain industrial processes. COr is the reference gas for climate change because it is the predominant GHG emitted.The effect that each of the aforementioned gases can have on global warming is a combination of the mass of their emissions and their global warming potential(GWP). GWP indicates, on a pound- for-pound basis,how much a gas contributes to global warming relative to how much warming would be caused by the same mass of COr.For example,CHa and N20 are substantially more potent GHGs than COz,with GWPs of 21 and 310 times that of COY respectively. 3 Off-gassing is defined as the release of chemicals under normal conditions of temperature and pressure. orange Cornywasr Drama r water a rdsan Enaanwmam amps 16 E6A 16036r Air Quaky ard G,aanMuse Gas F ssions TscM1nigl RarM m1,3016 In emissions inventories,GHG emissions are typically reported in terns of pounds or metric tons Of COr equivalents(CO2e).COze is calculated as the product of the mass emitted of a given GHG and its specific GWP.While C114 and N2O have much higher GWPs than COz,CO2 is emitted in such vastly higher quantities that it accounts for the majority of GHG emissions in COze,both from residential/commercial developments and human activity in general. Some of the potential effects in California of global warming may include loss in snow pack, sea level rise,more extreme heat days per year,more high owne days,more forest fires,and more drought years(CARB,2009b). Globally,climate change has the potential to impact numerous environmental resources through potential,though uncertain,impacts related to future air temperatures and precipitation patterns.The projected effects of global warming on weather and climate are likely to vary regionally,but are expected to include the following direct effects (IPCC,2001): • Higher maximum temperatures and more hot days over nearly all land areas; • Higher minimum temperatures,fewer cold days and frost days over nearly all land areas; • Reduced diurnal temperature range over most land areas; • Increase of heat index over land areas; and • More intense precipitation events. Also,there are many secondary effects that are projected to result from global warming, including global rise in sea level,impacts to agriculture,changes in disease vectors,and changes in habitat and biodiversity.While the possible outcomes and the feedback mechanisms involved are not fully understood and much research remains to be done,the potential for substantial environmental, social, and economic consequences over the long term may be great. 3.2 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Estimates Global Emissions According to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change(UNFCCC), worldwide emissions of GHGs in 2004 were approximately 30 billion tons of COie per yen (UNFCCC,2012).This includes both ongoing emissions from industrial and agricultural sources, but excludes emissions from land use changes. U.S. Emissions In 2009,the United States emitted about 6.7 billion metric tons of COze or about 21 metric tons per year per person.Of the four major sectors nationwide—residential,commercial,industrial,and transportation—transportation accounts for the highest fraction of GHG emissions(approximately 33 percent);these emissions are entirely generated from direct fossil fuel combustion(USEPA, 2011). State of California Emissions In California,the transportation sector is the largest emitter of GHGs,followed by electricity generation.Emissions of CO2 are byproducts of fossil fuel combustion.Methane,a highly potent range COUMWa Gpmn n waW amaunpn ennanwmam amps 17 EWIW667 AwQuali •d GreenMuee Gae Fm.w.7.00g1 Reactl �Iy 2016 GHG,results from off-gassing(the release of chemicals from nonmetallic substances under ambient or greater pressure conditions)and is largely associated with agricultural practices and landfills. Nitrous oxide is also largely attributable to agricultural practices and soil management.The main natural carbon dioxide sinks,or reservoirs,are plants,oceans,and soils.Plants grab carbon dioxide from the atmosphere to use in photosynthesis;some of this carbon is transferred to soil as plants die and decompose. The oceans are a major carbon storage system for carbon dioxide.Marine animals also take up the gas for photosynthesis,while some carbon dioxide simply dissolves in the seawater. California produced approximately 459 million gross metric tons of COze in 2012. Combustion of fossil fuel in the transportation sector was the single largest source of California's GHG emissions in 2012,accounting for 37 percent of total GHG emissions in the State.This sector was followed by the industrial sector(22 percent)and the electric power sector(including both in-state and out-of- state sources)(21 percent)(GARB,2014a). 3.3 Regulatory Environment Federal The federal CAA does not specifically regulate GHG emissions;however,the U.S. Supreme Court has determined that GHGs are pollutants that can be regulated under the federal CAA. There are currently no federal regulations that set ambient air quality standards for GHGs. State Executive Order 5-3-05 In 2005, in recognition of California's vulnerability to the effects of climate change,Governor Schwarzenegger established Executive Order 5-3-05,which set forth a series of target dates by which statewide emissions of GHGs would be progressively reduced,as follows: • By 2010,reduce GHG emissions to 2000 levels; • By 2020,reduce GHG emissions to 1990 levels; and • By 2050,reduce GHG emissions to 80 percent below 1990 levels. Assembly Bill 32—California Global Warming Solutions Act California Assembly Bill 32(AB 32),the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006,requires CARB to establish a statewide GHG emissions cap for 2020 based on 1990 emission levels. AB 32 required CARR to adopt and enforce programs and regulations that identify and require selected sectors or categories of emitters of GHGs to report and verify their statewide GHG emissions. In December 2007 CARB adopted 427 MT COie as the statewide GHG emissions limit equivalent to the statewide levels for 1990. This is approximately 28 percent below forecasted 2020"business-as-usual"emissions of 596 MMT of COze,and about 10 percent below average annual GHG emissions during the period of 2002 through 2004(CARB,2009b). CARB published the Expanded List of Early Action Measures To Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions In California Recommended For Board Consideration in September 2007(CARB, 2007). CARB adopted nine Early Action Measures for implementation,including Ship Electrification at Ports, Reduction of High Global-Warming-Potential Gases in Consumer aanae DoudyWd Diamd r WaWr udwo enhsnm�rmpd 18 EW IW087 Ai,eualiry and G...W.ee Gae Fm.w.7.00.1 Reµ'tl �Iy 2016 Products,Heavy-Duty Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Emission Reduction(Aerodynamic Efficiency), Reduction of Perfluorocarbons from Semiconductor Manufacturing,Improved Landfill Gas Capture,Reduction of Hydrofluorocarbon-134a from Do-It-Yourself Motor Vehicle Servicing, Sulfur Hexaflouride Reductions from the Non-Electric Sector,a Tire Inflation Program,and a Low Carbon Fuel Standard. As of January 1, 2012,the GHG emissions limits and reduction measures adopted in 2011 by CARB became enforceable. In designing emission reduction measures,CARB must aim to minimize costs,maximize benefits, improve and modernize California's energy infrastructure, maintain electric system reliability,maximize additional environmental and economic co-benefits for California, and complement the state's efforts to improve air quality. Climate Change Scoping Plan In December 2008,CARB approved the AB 32 Scoping Plan outlining the state's strategy to achieve the 2020 GHG emissions limit(CARB,2009b). This Scoping Plan,developed by CARB in coordination with the Climate Action Team(CAT),proposes a comprehensive set of actions designed to reduce overall GHG emissions in California,improve the environment,reduce dependence on oil,diversify California's energy sources,save energy,create new jobs,and enhance public health. As required by AB 32,the Scoping Plan must be updated at least every five years to evaluate the mix of AB 32 policies to ensure that California is on track to meet the targets set out in the legislation. In October 2013,a draft Update to the initial Scoping Plan was developed by CARS in collaboration with the California Climate Action Team(CCAT). The draft Update builds upon the initial Scoping Plan with new strategies and expanded measures,and identifies opportunities to leverage existing and new funds to drive GHG emission reductions through strategic planning and targeted program investments. The draft Update to the initial Scoping Plan was presented to CARB's Board for discussion at its February 20,2014 meeting. Subsequently,the first update to the AB 32 Scoping Plan was approved on May 22,2014 by CARB. As part of the proposed update to the Scoping Plan,the emissions reductions required to meet the 2020 statewide GHG emissions limit were further adjusted.The primary reason for adjusting the 2020 statewide emissions limit was based on the fact that the original Scoping Plan relied on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's(IPCC) 1996 Second Assessment Report(SAR)to assign the global warming potentials(GWPs)of greenhouse gases.Recently, in accordance the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change(UNFCCC),international climate agencies have agreed to begin using the scientifically updated GWP values in the IPCC's Fourth Assessment Report(AR4)that was released in 2007.Because CARB has begun to transition to the use of the AR4 I00-year GWPs in its climate change programs,CARS recalculated the Scoping Plan's 1990 GHG emissions level with the AR4 GWPs.As the recalculation resulted in 431 MMTCOre,the 2020 GHG emissions limit established in response to AB 32 is now slightly higher than the 427 MMTCOre in the initial Scoping Plan.Considering that the proposed update also adjusted the 2020 BAU forecast of GHG emissions to 509 MMTCOie,a 15 percent reduction below the estimated BAU levels was determined to be necessary to return to 1990 levels by 2020(CARB, 2014b). aanae COUM We oiama n waWR udOn ennanwmam amps 19 EWIW66r Ai,Q.Wl and G...W.ee Gae Fm.w.7.00.1 Reactl �Iy 2016 Executive Order 5-1-07 Executive Order 5-1-07,which was signed by Governor Schwarzenegger in 2007,proclaims that the transportation sector is the main source of GHG emissions in California.It establishes a goal to reduce the carbon intensity of transportation fuels sold in California by at least 10 percent by 2020. As a result of this order,CARB approved a proposed regulation to implement the low carbon fuel standard(LCFS)on April 23,2009,which will reduce GHG emissions from the transportation sector in California by about 16 MMT in 2020.The LCFS is designed to reduce California's dependence on petroleum,create a lasting market for clean transportation technology,and stimulate the production and use of alternative, low-carbon fuels in California. The LCFS is designed to provide a durable framework that uses market mechanisms to spur the steady introduction of lower carbon fuels.The framework establishes performance standards that fuel producers and importers must meet each year beginning in 2011. Senate Bill 375 SB 375,which establishes mechanisms for the development of regional targets for reducing passenger vehicle greenhouse gas emissions,was adopted by the State on September 30,2008. On September 23,2010,California ARB adopted the vehicular greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets that had been developed in consultation with the metropolitan planning organizations(MPOs);the targets require a 7 to 8 percent reduction by 2020 and between 13 to 16 percent reduction by 2035 for each MPO. SB 375 recognizes the importance of achieving significant greenhouse gas reductions by working with cities and counties to change land use patterns and improve transportation alternatives. Through the SB 375 process,MPOs, such as the Southern California Council of Governments(SCAG)will work with local jurisdictions in the development of sustainable communities strategies(SCS)designed to integrate development patterns and the transportation network in a way that reduces greenhouse gas emissions while meeting housing needs and other regional planning objectives. SCAG's reduction target for per capita vehicular emissions is 8 percent by 2020 and 13 percent by 2035 (CARB 2010).The MPOs will prepare their first SCS according to their respective regional transportation plan(RTP) update schedule with the SCAG RTP/SCS adopted on April 4,2012. Senate Bill 97 Senate Bill(SB)97,enacted in August 2007,required the Office of Planning and Research(OPR) to develop guidelines for the mitigation of GHG emissions,or the effects related to releases of GHG emissions. On April 13,2009,the OPR submitted proposed amendments to the Natural Resources Agency in accordance with SB 97 regarding analysis and mitigation of GHG emissions.As directed by SB 97,the Natural Resources Agency adopted Amendments to the CEQA Guidelines for greenhouse gas emissions on December 30,2009. On February 16,2010, the Office of Administrative Law approved the Amendments,and filed them with the Secretary of State for inclusion in the California Code of Regulations. The Amendments became effective on March 18, 2010. California Green Building Standard Code In early 2013 the California Building Standards Commission adopted the 2013 California Building Standards Code that also included the latest 2013 CALGreen Code,which became effective on January 1,2014.The mandatory provisions of the code are anticipated to reduce 3 aanae coumyWe Diamn r waWR udOn Dnnanwmam amps 20 esni IWM7 Ai,Q.Wl and G...W.ee Gae Fm.w.7.00.1 Reactl mq 2016 MMT of GHG emissions by 2020,reduce water use by 20 percent or more,and divert 50 percent of construction waste from landfills.The 2013 California Energy Code(Title 24,Part 6),which is also part of the CALGreen Code(Title 24,Part 11,Chapter 5.2),became effective on July 1, 2014. Local South Coast Air Quality Management District(SCAQMD) As a method for determining significance under CEQA, SCAQMD developed a draft tiered flowchart in 2008 for determining significance thresholds for GHGs for industrial projects where SCAQMD is acting as the lead agency. In December 2008, SCAQMD adopted a 10,000 MTCOre/year for industrial facilities,but only with respect to projects where SCAQMD is the lead agency. SCAQMD has not adopted a threshold for residential or commercial projects at the time of this writing. The SCAQMD flowchart uses a tiered approach in which a proposed project is deemed to have a less than significant impact related to GHG emissions when any of the following conditions are met: • GHG emissions are within GHG budgets in an approved regional plan; • Incremental increases in GHG emissions due to the project are below the defined Significance Screening Levels,or Mitigated to Less than the Significance Screening Level; • Performance standards are met by incorporating project design features and/or implementing emission reduction measures; and • Carbon offsets are made to achieve target significance screening level. 4. CEQA Air Quality Impacts and Mitigation Measures This section describes the impact analysis relating to air quality under CEQA for the proposed Project. It describes the methods and applicable thresholds used to determine the impacts of the proposed Project on the environment. 4.1 Methodology Criteria Pollutants This technical report focuses on the nature and magnitude of the change in the air quality environment due to implementation of the proposed Project. Air pollutant emissions associated with the proposed Project would result from the construction and operation of the facility expansion. Construction activities would generate air pollutant emissions at the Project site and on roadways resulting from construction-related traffic.The net increase in emissions generated by these orange DoumyWe Dpmn n waWR ualpn Rnnanwmam amps 21 RGAiIWM7 Air euali and G...Wuee Gae Fm.w.7.00g1 Re �Iy 2016 activities and other secondary sources have been estimated and compared to the applicable thresholds of significance recommended by SCAQMD. Operational emission sources that would occur subsequent to the expansion include the increased electrical usage for expanded facilities. It is assumed that there would be one new employee and therefore minor new mobile source emissions or water consumption(process or employee use). Based on the size of the buildings to house the pump station,it is estimated that increased electrical consumption would be 13,860 kwh/year. Solid waste generation was based on the size of the facility expansion and is estimated at 0.7 tons per year.Mobile source emissions will result in both criteria and GHG emissions whereas electrical consumption,water consumption and solid waste and wastewater generation are only applicable to the GHG analysis. Construction Impacts Short-term construction-generated emissions of criteria air pollutants and ozone precursors associated with the proposed Project were modeled using emission factors taken from the California Emissions Estimator Model(CalEEMod),Version 2013.2.2. Calculated emissions from construction activities were used to determine whether short-term construction-related emissions of criteria air pollutants associated with the proposed Project would exceed SCAQMD's applicable regional thresholds and whether mitigation would be required.Modeling was based on Project-specific data provided by the applicant.Modeling input and output files are provided in Appendix A and B of this report respectively. In addition,to determine whether or not construction activities associated with the proposed Project would create significant adverse localized air quality impacts on nearby sensitive receptors,the worst-case daily emissions contribution from the proposed Project were compared to SCAQMD's localized significance thresholds(LSTs). The LSTs developed by SCAQMD are based on the pounds of emissions per day that can be generated by a project without causing or contributing to adverse localized air quality impacts,and only applies to the following criteria pollutants: CO,NOx,PMIG,and PMzs.The analysis of localized air quality impacts focuses only on the on-site activities of a project, and does not include emissions that are generated offsite such as from on-road haul or delivery truck trips(SCAQMD,2003). For the purpose of analyzing localized air quality impacts,SCAQMD has developed LSTs for one-acre,two-acre,and five-acres.The LSTs established for each of the aforementioned site acreages represent the amount of pollutant that can be emitted such that the most stringent applicable federal or State ambient air quality standards would not be exceeded.Because of the way the CalEEMod model estimates soil disturbance,the SCAQMD has developed a process by which to determine acreage of disturbance per day based on the equipment usage. As the acreage of the Project site disturbance is anticipated to be less than one acre,the LSTs for a one-acre site are used to determine whether localized air quality impacts on nearby sensitive receptors would result from the Project's on-site construction emissions.Under conditions where the Project's on- site construction emissions implementing all appropriate mitigation would exceed the LSTs for a one-acre site,air dispersion modeling of the Project's construction emissions would be required to evaluate the potential localized air quality impacts of the proposed Project on its surrounding off-site sensitive receptors,in accordance with SCAQMD's recommendation. However,under Grenge Co.,weld Giama r water w WO.ennan.�rrepn 22 EWIWM7 Alr Qualllycrnd GreenMuee Gas Fm'nions TecM1nigl Reµ'rl mq 3016 conditions where it is determined that the Project's peak daily construction emissions,with or without mitigation,would not exceed the LSTs for a one-acre site,then it can be concluded that the Project's construction emissions would not result in any adverse localized air quality impacts on its surrounding off-site sensitive receptors. In conducting the localized air quality analysis,which focuses only on on-site emissions,the Project's on-site construction emissions generated from combustion sources(e.g.,off-road construction equipment)under a worst-case construction scenario are evaluated against the LSTs. The daily total on-site combustion,and fugitive dust emissions associated with each Project construction phase(as well as construction phase overlaps where appropriate)were evaluated against SCAQMD's LSTs for a one-acre site°. The LSTs were evaluated for the closest receptors which are the single-family residential homes located approximately 260 feet(78 meters)from the construction area directly across Brookhurst Street. Operational Impacts Long-term(i.e., operational)regional emissions of criteria air pollutants and precursors associated with the proposed Project,were quantified using the CalEEMod computer model. Project operations are anticipated to increase employees by one. Therefore,operational emissions associated with criteria pollutants for the Project include water usage,wastewater and solid waste generation,and mobile source emissions from the new employee. While additional pumps are being added,these are electric and therefore do not result in direct emissions of criteria pollutants. The resulting increase in long-term operational emissions was compared with the applicable SCAQMD thresholds for determination of significance. Additionally,localized emissions from operation were compared to the LSTs for a I acre site(as emissions would occur from an area that is less than one acre)at 50 meters because the nearest sensitive receptors to the new tank are located 78 meters directly across Brookhurst Street and the LSTs thresholds are provided for 25, 50, 100,200 and 1000 meters. CO Hotspots Historically,qualitative screening procedure provided in the procedures and guidelines contained in Transportation Project-Level Carbon Monoxide Protocol(the Protocol)were used to determine whether a project poses the potential for a CO hotspot(OCD ITS, 1997).According to the Protocol,projects may worsen air quality if they increase the percentage of vehicles in cold start modes by two percent or more; significantly increase traffic volumes(by five percent or more) over existing volumes;or worsen traffic flow,defined for signalized intersections as increasing average delay at intersections operating at level of service(LOS)E or F or causing an intersection that would operate at LOS D or better without the project,to operate at LOS E or F. As shown in Table 2,CO levels in the project area are substantially below the federal and state standards. Maximum CO levels in recent years are 2 plan(eight-hour average)compared to the threshold 9.0 ppm.Carbon monoxide decreased dramatically in the SCAB with the introduction of the catalytic converter in 1975.No exceedances of CO have been recorded at monitoring 4 Although some construction sub phases are less than a one acre site,the SCAQMD methodology identifies the 1 acre thresholds as applicable for identifying risks for sites that are one acre or less. orense couaywew Drama n wow aroouapn Rnnenoemam amps 23 RWt6Us6r Ai,duality and GreenMuee Gae F'.rams 7.00g1 Resod Amy 2016 stations in the Air Basin for some time, and the Basin is currently designated as a CO attainment area for both the CAAQS and NAAQS. The SCAQMD conducted CO modeling for the 2003 AQMP for the four worst-case intersections in the Air Basin. These include: (a)Wilshire Boulevard and Veteran Avenue;(b)Sunset Boulevard and Highland Avenue;(c)La Cienega Boulevard and Century Boulevard;(d)Long Beach Boulevard and Imperial Highway.In the 2003 AQMP,the SCAQMD notes that the intersection of Wilshire Boulevard and Veteran Avenue is the most congested intersection in Los Angeles County,with an average daily traffic volume of about 100,000 vehicles per day.5 This intersection is located near the on-and off-ramps to Interstate 405 in West Los Angeles. The evidence provided in Table 4-10 of Appendix V of the 2003 AQMP shows that the peak modeled CO concentration due to vehicle emissions at these four intersections was 4.6 ppm(one-hour average)and 3.2 (eight-hour average)at Wilshire Boulevard and Veteran Avenue.6 When added to the existing background CO concentrations,the screening values would be 8.7 ppm(one-hour average)and 5.6 ppm(eight-hour average). As the Project would result in up to 3 new trips per day,the Project would not have the potential to increase daily traffic in the area to levels that would result in a CO hotspot,and therefore,no further evaluation of CO hotspots are discussed in the analysis. Toxic Air Contaminants TAC generators located within the SCAB are associated with diesel fueled vehicles and specific types of facilities such as dry cleaners,gas stations, distribution centers,and ports.As there are no onsite sources of TACs during operation, and because of the limited duration and area of construction activities,TAC emissions are discussed qualitatively. 4.2 Thresholds of Significance Based on the state CEQA Guidelines,a project would have a significant adverse effect on air quality resources if it would: • Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan; • Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation; • Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations; • Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people; or • Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard(including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors); 5 South Coast Air Quality Management District,2003 Air Quality Management Plan,Appendix V:Modeling and Attainment Demonstrations,(2003)V4-24. 6 The eight-hour average is based on a 0.7 persistence factor,as recommended by the SCAQMD. oanae ceumywa Drama r wow aooadon ennanwmam amps 24 EW160367 Aireualiry e,d GnenMuee Gas Fm'saiona TecM1nigl Reacrl vmy 2016 The OCWD and the City of Huntington Beach have not developed specific air quality thresholds for air quality impacts.However, as stated in Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines,the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the above determinations.As such,the significance thresholds and analysis methodologies in SCAQMD's CEQA Air Quality Handbook are used in evaluating project impacts. SCAQMD has established daily mass thresholds for regional pollutant emissions,which are shown in Table 4. Aside from regional air quality impacts,projects in the SCAB are also required to analyze local air quality impacts. As discussed previously, SCAQMD has developed LSTs that represent the maximum emissions from a project that are not expected to cause or contribute to an exceedance of the most stringent applicable federal or state ambient air quality standards,and thus would not cause or contribute to localized air quality impacts. LSTs are developed based on the ambient concentrations of that pollutant for each of the 38 source receptor areas(SRAs)in the SCAB.The localized thresholds,which are found in the mass rate look-up tables in SCAQMD's Final Localized Significance Threshold Methodology document,were developed for use on projects that are less than or equal to five acres in size and are only applicable to the following criteria pollutants: NOx,CO,PM]e,and PM2.5. The construction and operational LSTs for a one-acre site in SRA 18(North Costal Orange County),which is where the Project site is located,are shown in Table 5. It should be noted that with regards to NOx emissions,the two principal species of NOx are NO and NO,with the vast majority(95 percent)of the NOx emissions being comprised of NO. However,because adverse health effects are associated with NOz,not NO,the analysis of localized air quality impacts associated with NOx emissions is focused on NOz levels. For combustion sources,SCAQMD assumes that the conversion of NO to NOz is complete at a distance of 5,000 meters from the source. aanae couWWw Gpmn n waWR udOn Rnnenwmam amps 25 EWIWmr Air Q.Wl and GreenMuee Gae Fm.w.7.00.1 Re �Iy 2016 TABLE4 SCAQMD REGIONAL AIR QUALITY SIGNIFICANCE THRESHOLDS Mass Daily Thresholds(lbs/day) Pollutant Construction Operations Oxides of Nitrogen 11 100 55 Reactis Organic Gases POGO 75 55 Respirable Particulate Matter PMji 150 150 Fine Particulate Matter Plii 55 55 Oxides of Sulfur SOx0 150 150 Carbon Monoxide ECOO 550 550 TACs 1rcluding carcinogens and Maximum Incremental Cancer Risk non Carcinogens a 10 in 1 million Cancer Burden >0.5 excess Cancer cases(in areas i 1 in 1 million) Chronic O Acute Hard Index a 1.0(project increment) ' As the proposed Troiect workhatin al a the be a lopment fany major lead emissions souRes.lead a flunions..to not be amly ed further.,this repmL SOURCE:SCACIMD 20151a TABLES SCAQMD LOCALIZED SIGNIFICANCE THRESHOLDS one-Acre Site Allowable emissions(poundslday)as a function of receptor distance(het)from site boundary Pollutant Monitored Within SRA 18— North Coastal Orange County 25(m) 50(m) 10( (m) 200(m) 500(m) Construction Thresholds Nitrogen Oxides @l0„d 92 93 108 140 219 Carbon Monoxide COO 647 738 1,090 2,096 6,841 Respirable Particulate Matter PMtr0 4 13 27 54 135 Fine Particulate Matter PM2.50 3 5 9 22 76 Operational Thresholds Nitrogen Oxides CJO„d 92 93 108 140 219 Carbon Monoxide COO 647 738 1,090 2.096 6,841 Respirable Particulate Matter PM,,O 1 4 7 13 33 Fine Particulate Matter PMzs 1 2 3 6 19 ' The lccali ad thresholds listed for NOx in this table take into consideration the gradual con ersion of NOW Ni analysis of locate M air rally Impacts associated with NOx emissions focuses on NOs le els as they are associated with ad areahealth efleda. SOURCE: SCAOMD,2003 Re iced 2009. Grange Cantor We1M shoot r wow Proi Enforcement Propot 26 ESAluxi Alr Gualiry-d Gre ehinow Gae F'mans Technical RBpM rely 2016 4.3 Project Impacts AQ- 1 Consistency with Applicable Air Quality Plan The proposed Project would not conflict with or obstruct the implementation of the applicable air quality plan. The Project impacts would be less than significant and no mitigation is required The proposed Project is located within the SCAB,which is under the jurisdiction of the SCAQMD. As such, SCAQMD's 2012 AQMP is the applicable air quality plan for the proposed Project.Projects that are consistent with the regional population,housing, and employment forecasts identified by SCAG are considered to be consistent with the AQMP growth projections, since the forecast assumptions by SCAG forms the basis of the land use and transportation control portions of the AQMP.Additionally,because SCAG's regional growth forecasts are based upon,among other things,land uses designated in general plans,a project that is consistent with the land use designated in a general plan would also be consistent with the SCAG's regional forecast projections,and thus also with the AQMP growth projections. The proposed Project implements a temporary water storage tank to support the expansion of the GWRS but will only increase the employment by at most one employee and therefore does not increase the number ofjobs significantly or in excess of growth anticipated within the 2012 AQMP.Nor does the Project result in the creation of new housing or potential residential growth. Because the land use will not change, and bas been in operation since before the creation of the 2012 AQMP,the proposed Project would not change the regional growth forecasts as identified in the local General Plan or those of the 2012 AQMP. Therefore,the proposed Project would not conflict with,or obstruct,implementation of the AQMP, and this impact would be less than significant. AQ-2 Violation of Air Quality Standards The proposed Project would not violate existing air quality standard during construction or operational activities.Project impacts would be less than significant,and no mitigation is required Construction The proposed Project develops a secondary effluent flow equalization tank at OCSD Plant No. 2 in order to receive the maximum water production at the GWRS facility as detailed in Section 1 above. Construction activities associated with the proposed Project would generate pollutant emissions from the following construction activities: (1)site preparation,grading, and excavation;(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 on-site construction equipment; (5)tank and building construction and the application of architectural coatings.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. same coumywepr opmn n WaW amaunpn ennanwmam amps 27 EWIW667 Ai,Gu.14 and GreenMuee Gae Fm.w.7.00.1 Reactl �Iy 2016 Construction of proposed Project is anticipated to occur between August 2020 and December 2022 with various phases occurring over different time periods. The construction phases and their estimated duration are shown in Table 6. Construction activity would be limited to 7:00 A.M.to 7:00 P.M.Monday through Friday and Saturdays where necessary from 8:00 A.M.to 5:00 P.M. Construction would occur over a portion of the OCSD site,with a maximum of 1.5-acre7 of the Project site being graded on a peak construction day. TABLE6 ANTICIPATED CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE Phase Description Stan nnorahtyear) Start Finish 1A Exca EntionlSite PreplPipeline Sep 2020 Dec 2020 1B Tank Piles Dan 2021 April 2021 1C Tank Pad May 2021 Aug 2021 1D Assembly❑Coating of Steel Tank Sep 2021 Dec 2021 1E Edipping Sep 2021 Dec 2021 Sea Appandlx 8 Wr NII schedule. Construction emissions are considered short term and temporary,but have the potential to represent a significant impact with respect to air quality. Particulate matter(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. Emissions of ozone precursors ROG 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 SCAB to comply with SCAQMD Rule 403 for controlling fugitive dust. Incorporating Rule 403 into the proposed Project reduces regional PM10 and PMr,s emissions from construction activities. Specific Rule 403 control requirements include, but me 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 7 Ground disturbance for grading is based on the equipment used and not the area of the site.Disturbance takes into account depth as well as surface area. ora,ae coumyweix oiama r werer ercsdw ennan..nt eie c 28 ESAlrsoasr Ai,eu.W,end G,eenMuee Gas F'.ions 7¢0nical R mq 3016 possible,utilizing a wheel washing system to remove bulk material from tires and vehicle undercarriages before vehicles exit the proposed Project 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 was accounted for in the construction emissions modeling. Table 7 summarizes the modeled peak daily emissions of criteria air pollutants and ozone precursors associated with the proposed Project for each individual phase as well as for overlaps where construction of different phases occurs at the same time. For the project's construction, OCWD provided the full inventory of the equipment that would be used during the peak day for each of the construction phase. As shown in Table 7,the maximum daily construction emissions generated by the proposed Project's worst-case construction scenario would not exceed SCAQMD's daily significance threshold for any criteria pollutant and therefore would result in less than significant impacts.No mitigation is required. TABLE 7 PROPOSED REGIONAL CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS Estimated Maximum Daily Emissions(lbsiday) Construction AdWhies ROG NO, CD Sox PM,o PM',s Indi]dual Phase Emissions 1A 4.66 63.38 28.25 0.13 8.35 4.63 1 B 1.52 17.88 11.34 0.04 0.90 0.63 1 C 0.90 11.15 10.44 0.02 0.73 0.46 1 D 59.65 19.79 21.85 0.03 0.94 1.56 1 E 1.22 16.03 17.49 0.03 0.74 1.35 Phase Osrlap Emissions 1D,1E 60.88 35.82 39.34 0.06 1.68 2.91 Maximum Daily Emissions Maximum Emissions 60.88 63.38 39.34 0.13 8.35 4.63 Regional Significance 75 100 550 150 150 55 Threshold Significant Impact0 No No No No No No Source:ESA,201e. Operation Implementation of the proposed Project would result in long-term regional emissions of criteria air pollutants and ozone precursors associated with the operation of the new tank,pump station, and pipeline resulting from the addition of a new employee. Operations emissions associated with the proposed Project were modeled using CaIEEMod model.Model defaults were used to develop a conservative estimate of emissions.Modeled operations emissions we presented in Table 8.As aanae eoumywew Dpmct n wow moeunlon Enhaooemam amps 29 ESAl+eoeer Air Gualiry and GreenMuee Gae F'mono 7.00g1 Barred rely 2016 shown in Table 8,the proposed Project would result in long-term regional emissions of criteria air pollutants and ozone precursors that are below SCAQMD's applicable thresholds.Therefore,the Project's operational emissions would not result in or substantially contribute to emissions concentrations that exceed the NAAQS and CAAQS and no mitigation would be required. TABLE8 PROPOSED PROJECT OPERATIONAL EMISSIONS Estimated Emissions(lbslday) Emissions Source ROG NOa 00 SOa Pule Petra Total Operational Emissions 0.0359 0.0179 0.0879 3.5eA 0.0258 7.1le3 Regional Significance 55 55 550 150 100 55 Threshold Significant Impact^ No No No No No No AQ-3 Exposure of Sensitive Receptors to Substantial Pollutant Concentrations The proposed Project would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. Proposed Project impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required. Separate discussions are provided below analyzing the potential for sensitive receptors to be exposed to localized air quality impacts from criteria pollutants and TACs from on-site sources during Project construction and operations. As discussed previously, CO hotspots are not addressed as there are limited new mobile source emissions resulting from the project as discussed in the methodology section above. Localized Construction Air Quality Impacts- Criteria Air Pollutants The daily on-site construction emissions generated by the proposed Project were evaluated against SCAQMD's LSTs for a one-acre site to determine whether the emissions would cause or contribute to adverse localized air quality impacts.s The newest sensitive receptors to the Project site are the residential neighborhoods located across Brookhlust Street. to the west.The nearest residential buildings are located over 50 meters away from where the construction activities would occur. Since the mass rate look-up tables provided by SCAQMD only provides LSTs at receptor distances of 25, 50, 100,200,and 500 meters,the LSTs for a receptor distance of 50 meters are used to evaluate the potential localized air quality impacts associated with the Project's peak day construction emissions. Table 9 identifies the daily unmitigated,localized on-site emissions that are estimated to occur during the Project's worst-case construction scenarios based on receptor distance and phase. As shown in Table 9,the daily unmitigated emissions generated onsite by the proposed Project's worst-case construction scenario would not exceed the applicable SCAQMD LST for any criteria 8 According to SCAQMD's LST methodology,LSTs are only applicable to the on-site construction emissions that are generated by a project and do not apply to emissions generated offslte such as mobile emissions on roadways from worker,vendor,and haul truck trips. orange Corso,Water Diaia easier rdsan Ennanwmam amiss 30 EW 1W367 Air Quality are Greenhouse Gas Emssions Toorical asoat Rily 2016 pollutants.Because the Project's worst-case construction emissions would not exceed SCAQMD's applicable LSTs,the project would be less than significant for localized construction impacts and no mitigation measures are required. TABLES PROPOSED PROJECT UNMITIGATED LOCALIZED DAILY CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS Estimated Maximum Daily On-Sits Emissions (lbalday) Construction Phase NO. CO Pit PMoa 50 meters to receptor Max Individual Phase 35.68 21.41 5.63 3.66 1D,1E overlap 35.34 38.24 1.52 2.86 Localized Significance Threshold' 93 738 13 5 Significant Impact- No No No No ' Emissions account for implementation ofduet control measures as nslired by Si Rule 403n Fug id aDust. " LSTsfor a one acre skein SRA le are receptordistancaof50 metervand 200 meters. Source: ESA2016 Localized Operational Air Quality Impacts— Criteria Air Pollutants During project operations,the daily amount of localized pollutant emissions generated onsite by the Project would not be substantial.The proposed Project would not result in a net increase in on-site operational emissions as there are no localized criteria pollutant emissions associated with electrical or water consumption,solid waste or wastewater generation,or consumer product use. All criteria pollutant emissions we associated with mobile sources or consumer products(ROGs) which we not considered in the LST analysis.Therefore,the proposed Project would result in no impacts with respect to operational LSTs,and no mitigation is required. Localized Construction Air Quality Impacts— TACs Project construction would result in short-teen emissions of diesel PM,a TAC. Diesel PM poses a carcinogenic health risk that is measured using an exposure period of 70 years. The exhaust of off-road heavy-duty diesel equipment would emit diesel PM during demolition,site preparation (e.g.,clearing); site grading and excavation;paving; installation of utilities,materials transport and handling;building construction;and other miscellaneous activities. SCAQMD has not adopted a methodology for analyzing such impacts and has not recommended that health risk assessments be completed for construction-related emissions of TACs. The dose to which receptors are exposed is the primary factor used to determine health risk(i.e., the potential exposure to TACs to be compared to applicable standards).Dose is a function of the concentration of a substance or substances in the environment and the duration of exposure to the substance.Dose is positively correlated with time,meaning that a longer exposure period would result in a higher exposure level for the maximally exposed individual.Thus,the risks estimated for a maximally exposed individual we higher if a fixed exposure occurs over a longer period of time.According to the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment(OEHHA), carcinogenic health risk assessments,which determine the exposure of sensitive receptors to TAC aanaeceumywe DleblanwelGl ud On Enhenm�Pmpct 31 ESAfteo367 Air eualiry and GreenMuee Gas F'moos 7e01 Rei raly 2016 emissions,should be based on a 70-year exposure period;however, such assessments should be limited to the period or duration of activities associated with the proposed Project. The construction period for the proposed Project would be much less than the 70-year period used for risk determination(1.25 years).Because off-road heavy-duty diesel equipment would be used only for short time periods,project construction would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial emissions of TACs.This impact would be less than significant. Project Operations— TACs Typical sources of acutely and chronically hazardous TACs include industrial manufacturing processes,automotive repair facilities, and dry cleaning facilities.The Project would not include any of these potential sources, although minimal emissions may result from the use of consumer products.As such,operation of the proposed Project would not expose surrounding sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant or TAC emissions. AQ-4 Objectionable Odors The proposed Project would not create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people. This impact is less than significant,and no mitigation is required During construction of the proposed Project,exhaust from equipment and activities associated with the application of architectural coatings and other interior and exterior finishes may produce discernible odors typical of most construction sites. Such odors would be a temporary source of nuisance to adjacent uses,but would not affect a substantial number of people. As odors associated with Project construction would be temporary and intermittent in nature,the odors would not be considered to be a significant environmental impact.Therefore,impacts associated with objectionable odors would be less than significant. Land uses that are associated with odor complaints typically include agricultural uses,wastewater treatment plants,food processing plants,chemical plants, composting,refineries,landfills, dairies,and fiberglass molding.The current Project is adding a temporary storage tank at OCSD's Plant#2 to facilitate the expansion of the OCWD groundwater recharge facility.While the new tank will store water processed at the OCSD's wastewater treatment plant,it will not increase the throughput of the wastewater treatment plant. Additionally,the OCSD facility has not had any odor complaints in the last twenty years filed with the SCAQMD. Therefore,because the proposed Project is not increasing throughput of a land use type that is associated with nuisance odors,and there have been no odor complaints within the last two decade,this impact would be less than significant,and no mitigation is required. AQ-5 Cumulative Air Quality Impacts The proposed Project would not result in cumulatively considerable increases in criteria pollutants during construction or operational activities. Therefore the proposed Project impacts with respect to cumulatively considerable increases of criteria pollutants would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required. ma�ae C..,..Giamn r wew v, wo.ennen.�rmpm 32 EGAiIWM7 Ai,Gu.14 and G...Wuee Gae Fm.w.7.00.1 Repal ! Iy 2016 The Project site is located within the SCAB,which is considered the cumulative study area for air quality.Because the SCAB is currently classified as a state nonattainment area for ozone,PMiD, and PM2,5,cumulative development consisting of the proposed Project along with other reasonably foreseeable future projects in the SCAB as a whole could violate an air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation. However,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,PM]e, 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 proposed project region is in non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard.As shown in Table 7,the Project's construction emissions would not exceed SCAQMD's daily thresholds.Thus,because the proposed Project's construction-period impact would be less than significant,the proposed Project would not result in a significant cumulative impact,when considered with other past,present and reasonably foreseeable projects. In addition,the operational emissions associated with the proposed Project would also not exceed the SCAQMD's thresholds of significance for any of the criteria pollutants(see Table 8). Furthermore,the proposed Project would also be consistent with SCAQMD's AQMP. Thus,the proposed Project would not conflict with SCAQMD's air quality planning efforts for nonattainment pollutants and would not lead to a cumulatively considerable net increase in nonattainment pollutants during operations. Overall,the proposed Project's construction and operational emissions contribution to cumulative air quality impacts would be less than significant,and no mitigation is required. 5. CEQA GHG Impacts and Mitigation Measures This section describes the impact analysis relating to greenhouse gas(GHG)emissions for the proposed Project. It describes the methods and applicable thresholds used to determine the impacts of the proposed Project 5.1 Methodology At the time of this analysis,neither the OCWD nor SCAQMD have formally adopted a methodology for analyzing impacts related to GHG emissions on global climate change. Pursuant to full disclosure and according to OPR's CEQA Guidelines section 15064.4(a)that states,"A lead agency should make a good-faith effort,based to the extent possible on scientific and factual data,to describe,calculate or estimate the amount of GHG emissions resulting from a project," the construction and operational emissions associated with the proposed project have been quantified using methods described below. Construction-related GHG emissions were estimated using a similar methodology to that described above for criteria air pollutants. GHG emissions Of COi and CHo were converted to Core emissions using the updated GWPs from IPCC's AR4.The GHG analysis incorporates the same assumptions as the air quality analysis. Based on SCAQMD's 2008 Draft Guidance Document—Interim CEQA Greenhouse Gas (GHG)Significance Threshold document, aanae COUM Wa Diamn n warR udOn Rnnanmmnt amps 33 RGAi+eo667 AkQ..14and G...W.ee Gae rm.w.7.00.1 Re , Iy 2016 SCAQMD recommends that for construction GHG emissions the total emissions for a project be amortized over a 30-year period and added to its operational emission estimates(SCAQMD, 2008c). Operational emissions of GHGs, including GHGs generated by direct and indirect sources,are estimated according to the recommended methodologies from SCAQMD.Direct sources include the natural gas consumption onsite.Indirect sources include off-site emissions occurring as a result of the Project's operations such as electricity and water consumption, solid waste disposal, mobile sources,and wastewater disposal and treatment.The direct and indirect emissions generated during the proposed Project's operations were estimated using CaIEEMod.The operational emissions of CHa and N2O were extracted from the CaIEEMod output file and converted to Core emissions using the GWPs from IPCC's AR4, as currently CaIEEMod uses the GWPs from AR2. The methodology used to analyze the Project's contribution to global climate change includes evaluating the Project's total net annual GHG emissions(contraction and operational)against the proposed GHG emissions screening level for commercial or residential projects in SCAQMD's 2008 Draft Guidance Document—Interim CEQA Greenhouse Gas(GHG) Significance Threshold document. Although no formal significance threshold for GHG emissions has been adopted by SCAQMD at this juncture, Section 15064.7(c)of the State CEQA Guidelines states"when adopting thresholds of significance,a lead agency may consider thresholds of significance previously adopted or recommended by other public agencies...". SCAQMD's recommended 3,000 MTCOre per year screening level was intended to achieve the same policy objective of capturing 90 percent of the GHG emissions from new development projects in the residential/commercial sectors. All GHG emission estimate assumptions and calculations are provided in Appendix A to this report. 5.2 Thresholds of Significance The following GHG significance thresholds that are used in this report are also based on the state CEQA Guidelines. Implementation of the Project would result in a significant GHG-related impact if it would: • Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment; or • Conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases. The California Supreme Court recently considered the CEQA issue of determining the significance of GHG emissions in its decision,Center for Biological Diversity v. California Department of Fish and Wildlife and Newhall Land and Fanning(CBD vs. CDFW).The Court questioned a common CEQA approach to GHG analyses for development projects that compares project emissions to the reductions from`business as usual"(BAU)that will be needed statewide to reduce emissions to 1990 levels by 2020, as required by AB 32. The court upheld the BAU aanae DoumyWa Diamn r wawv unwn Dnnanwmam rmp 34 esniIWM7 Ai,Q.Wl and G,eenMuee Gae Fm.w.7.00.1 Reµ'rl m1,3016 method as valid in theory,but concluded that the BAU method was improperly applied in the case of the Newhall project because the target for the project was incorrectly deemed consistent with the statewide emission target of 29 percent below BAU for the year 2020. In other words, the court said that the percent below BAU target developed by the AB 32 Scoping Plan is intended as a measure of the GHG reduction effort required by the State as a whole,and it cannot necessarily be applied to the impacts of a specific project in a specific location.The Court provided some guidance to evaluating the cumulative significance of a proposed land use project's GHG emissions,but noted that none of the approaches could be guaranteed to satisfy CEQA for a particular project. The Court's suggested"pathways to compliance"include: 1. Use a geographically specific GHG emission reduction plan(e.g.,climate action plan)that outlines how the jurisdiction will reduce emissions consistent with State reduction targets,to provide the basis for streamlining project-level CEQA analysis,as described in CEQA § 15183.5. 2. Utilize the Scoping Plan's business-as-usual reduction goal,but provide substantial evidence to bridge the gap between the statewide goal and the project's emissions reductions; 3. Assess consistency with AB 32`s goal in whole or part by looking to compliance with regulatory programs designed to reduce GHG emissions from particular activities;as an example,the Court points out that projects consistent with an SB 375 Sustainable Communities Strategy(SCS)may need to re-evaluate GHG emissions from cars and light trucks. 4. Rely on existing numerical thresholds of significance for GHG emissions,such as those developed by an air district. The City of Huntington Beach have not adopted a CEQA-qualified Climate Action Plan, therefore compliance pathway#1 is not a viable method for determining significance for this project. Regarding compliance pathway#2,the Court acknowledged that"a business-as-usual comparison based on the Scoping Plans methodology may be possible,"and that"a lead agency might be able to determine what level of reduction from business as usual a new land use development at the proposed location must contribute in order to comply with statewide goals."However, in this case,there is not sufficient information to assess whether the Project's emissions can be compared with the State target of 29%below BAU by 2020. Compliance pathway#3 can work if it can be shown how regulatory programs or performance- based standards apply to a project's emissions,but this type of analysis can be difficult,especially if some GHG-emitting elements of projects are covered by such standards and others are not. Transportation emissions in particular are not regulated by the Scoping Plan because local government retains control over the location and density of residential and commercial development. aanae COUM Wald Giamn n waver unwn ennanwmam rmpm 35 EWIW66r Ai,nuali and G...W.ee Gae Fm.w.7.00g1� �Iy 2016 Compliance pathway#4 is the most straightforward approach to analysis. Although no formal significance threshold for GHG emissions associated with development-type land uses has been adopted by the Cities or SCAQMD at this juncture, Section 15064.7(c)of the State CEQA Guidelines states"when adopting thresholds of significance,a lead agency may consider thresholds of significance previously adopted or recommended by other public agencies..." The SCAQMD has proposed brightline threshold value of 3,000 MTCOze per year as presented by the Stakeholder Working Group in November 2009(SCAQMD,2009). Since OCWD has not adopted any significance criteria for GHG analysis at the time of this writing,it is reasonable under CEQA for OCWD,as the lead agency,to utilize the two part efficiency threshold that was proposed by SCAQMD,which is the applicable air pollution control agency for OCWD. The GHG analysis uses SCAQMD's brightline threshold of 3,000 MTCOze per year. SCAQMD developed these thresholds by comparing emission reductions included in CARB's Scoping Plan to those achievable in the South Coast Air Basin from CEQA projects(SCAQMD, 2009).The SCAQMD thresholds were designed to meet the AB32 goal of reducing GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. EO B-30-15 requires that California attain a reduction in GHG emissions of 40% below 1990 levels by 2030.Using the 40%below 1990 levels by 2030 reduction target,a project built out at 2030 would need to reach an efficiency standard that is 40%below the 3,000 MTCOze per year threshold. Projects built out in 2030 would need to reach a 1,800 MTCOze per year standard. Projects built out between these two dates should strive to meet the 2030 reduction, however due to the limited technology available and the lack of existing State and local measures to reduce emissions(for example from regional traffic planning and trip reduction measures), placing the full burden of reaching the 2030 reduction on the project may unnecessarily inflate the reductions that the project would need to achieve. This threshold directly applies to Impact GHG-1 as it is a comparison to the quantification of GHG emissions from the proposed project. This threshold indirectly applies to Impact GHG-2 in that the SCAQMD has established the threshold to help guide the region towards the achievement of the reduction goals under AB 32. 5.3 Project Impacts GHGA: Project-Generated GHG Emissions The proposed Project would not generate greenhouse gas emissions,either directly or indirectly,that would have a significant impact on the environment. The proposed Project results in less than significant impacts,and no mitigation is required. The proposed Project would generate GHG emissions from a variety of sources. First, GHG emissions would be generated during construction of the Project. Once fully operational,the Project's operations would generate GHG emissions from direct sources such as natural gas consumption and indirect sources such as electrical and water consumption, solid waste and wastewater generation,and mobile sources from the one new employee. o,aote County We Diamn r wewv unwo Doneowm rmp 36 EWIWM7 k,0mliry-d G...Wuee Gae Fm'uiuns 7.00.1 Repal �Iy 2016 Construction Emissions Construction-related GHG emissions for the proposed Project were estimated using the same assumptions as the air quality analysis. Total estimated construction-related GHG emissions for the proposed Project are shown in Table 10. As shown,the Project's total estimated unmitigated and mitigated GHG emissions during construction would be approximately 908 MTCO2e.This would equal to approximately 30 MTCO2e per year after amortization over 30 years per SCAQMD methodology. TABLE 10 ESTIMATED TOTAL CONSTRUCTION-RELATED GHG EMISSIONS COa CHs Estimated CO,b Emission Source Emissions Unmitigated Construction Emissions 1A 543.13 0.03 16 47.71 0.01 1C 118.06 0.00 1D 97.91 0.03 lE 98.14 0.03 Total' 904.94 2.60 907.54 :MT� Annual Construction Pmomi oar 30 years_ 30.25(MT/yr) NOTES: CO¢enc Mon dioxide 0s isalenit MT metictons;MT/yr-metric tons per year. Total Emissions take Into account the global wamtlng ratenbal a CH4 which Is 25.Therefore the tool CH4 emissions Will not a ual Me sum of the indi Idual phase emissions as shown in the table. Operational Emissions The estimated operational GHG emissions resulting from Project implementation are shown in Table 11. Additionally,in accordance with SCAQMD's recommendation,the Project's amortized construction-related GHG emissions from Table 10 are added to the operational emissions estimate in order to determine the Project's total annual GHG emissions. As shown in Table 11,the proposed Project's total net annual GHG emissions would be approximately 39.97 MTCO2e per year (detailed calculations are included in Appendix A of this report),which would not exceed SCAQMD's proposed screening level of 3,000 MTCO2C per year 2020 threshold or the 1,800 MTCO2e per year 2030 threshold.Therefore,the net increase in GHG emissions resulting from Project implementation is considered to be less than significant. oranse Coe,..olaldm n wares i,nx wn Enhmos.1 nmpm 37 EGAf160367 Air Guala and GreenMuee Gae E'mane 7.00g1 Repast holy 2016 TABLE 11 ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATIONAL RELATED GHG EMISSIONS Estimated Emissions Emission Source COA(MT/yr) Construction Annual Mitigated Construction[AmoN[ad ooer 30 years 30.257 Project Operations Area Sources 0.00 Energy Consumption 3.98 Mobile Soumes 4.22 Solid Waste 0.35 Water Consumption 1.174 Total(Operafional Emissions) 9.72 Total Net Increase In Emissions 39.97 Greater than 3,000 MTCOze per year0 No Greater than 1,800 MTCOz per yearn No NOTES: COO tarpon dioxide erul-alent Mt/yr n manic tons per year;n rpercent. source:ESA 2016 GHG-2: Consistency with GHG Emissions Reduction Plans or Policies The proposed Project would not conflict with an applicable plan,policy, or regulation adopted for the purposes of reducing GHG emissions. The proposed Project results in less than significant impacts,and no mitigation is required. Consistency with AB 32 As discussed under Impact GHG-1 above,the proposed Project would not result in annual GHG emissions exceeding the SCAQMD's 3,000 MTCO2e threshold which was designed to help the region attain the goals of AB 32. Therefore,the proposed Project would be consistent with the goals of AB 32,and no mitigation is required. Consistency with EO B-30-15 As discussed under Impact GHG-1 above,the proposed Project would not result in annual GHG emissions exceeding 1,800 MTCO2e,or the brightline threshold adjusted to reduce emissions to 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030. Therefore,the proposed Project would be consistent with the goals of EO-B-30-15,and no mitigation is required. Consistency with City of Huntington Beach Energy Action Plan The City of Huntington Beach Energy Action Plan addresses GHG reductions through 2020, consistent with AB 32's goal of reducing GHG emissions to 1990 levels. As demonstrated under GHG-1 above,the proposed Project would not exceed the SCAQMD's 3,000 MT brightline threshold developed to help the region attain 1990 GHG emission levels by 2020.Therefore, the ora,,ceudywdx oiaud r W..l wion Enneewmed Rmltcl 38 ESA INX87 Air eualiry erd GreenMuee Gae F'mans 7.00g1 Repal �ly 2016 proposed Project would not interfere with the City of Huntington Beach Energy Action Plan as the Project would not excessively increase GHG emissions within the City. Consistency with SB 375 The key goal of the Sustainable Communities Standard(SCS)is to achieve GHG emission reduction targets through integrated land use and transportation strategies. The focus of these reductions is on transportation and land use strategies that influence vehicle travel. The proposed Project would not increase vehicle traffic within the City or the region.Therefore,the proposed Project would not conflict with the implementation of SB 375.No mitigation is required. As discussed above,the proposed project would be consistent with the CARB Scoping Plan,EO-B-30-15, SB 375 and with the City's Energy Action Plan. Therefore,the proposed project would have a less than significant impact related to applicable GHG plans and policies 6. NEPA Conformity Analysis 6.1 Methodology The NEPA analysis compares the proposed Project's impacts with the Federal thresholds in order to determine if impacts to Clean Air Act pollutants would exceed federal thresholds. Considering the standards developed for the State of California are more restrictive than the federal thresholds, the analysis detailed above for Air Quality and Greenhouse Gasses would serve to prove compliance with the NEPA analysis. The SCAQMD is responsible for the development of the Basin's portion of the State Implementation Plan(SIP),which is required under the federal Clean Air Act for areas that are in nonattainment for criteria pollutants.The project may obtain state funding and therefore,under the Clean Air Act,the project would be subject to a SIP conformity determination.This is because the project is in a severe nonattainment area for 8-hour ozone,a moderate nonattainment area for PM10 and a maintenance area for CO and PM1o.Table 1 shows the federal thresholds while Table 3 shows the attainment status for each of the criteria air pollutants. Under the Clean Air Act de minimis levels for criteria pollutants have been established as a screening level to determine the potential for a proposed Project to adversely impact air emissions. Emissions are compared to these levels for the SIP conformity determination(de minions). If the project is below the de minimis levels then the project is determined to be in conformance with the SIP.If a project exceeds the de minimis levels then a full conformity analysis must be conducted. 6.2 Thresholds of Significance 40 CFR 93 § 153 defines de minimis levels,that is,the minimum threshold for which a conformity determination must be performed,for various criteria pollutants in various areas.The information is summarized in Table 12. .rase C..,.mx.,ama n W..R wo.rnI.n..Mrmpm 39 EGAiIWM7 Air Q..14 and G...W.ee G..Fm.w.7.00.1 Rsia �Iy 2016 TABLE 12 DE MINIMS EMISSION LEVELS Pollutant Area Type Tonslyear Serious nonattonment 50 O[one iVOC or NOxo Seas nonattainment 25 Extreme nonattainment 10 Other areas outside an o one transport region 100 Marginal and moderate nonattainment inside an omne 100 Omne MOxo transportation region Maintenance 100 Marginal and moderate nonattainment inside an omne 50 transport region Omne WC, Maintenance within an acne transport region 50 Maintenance outside an omne transport region 100 CO,SO,NO, All nonattainment and maintenance 100 Serious nonattainment 70 PM,e Moderate nonattainment and maintenance 100 PM'.' All nonattainment and maintenance 100 Source:USEPA,201aa,USEPA 20165 6.3 Project Impacts NEPA-1: Conformity Analysis The proposed Project would be consistent with the SIP as indicated by emissions being below the de minimis thresholds,and therefore,a detailed conformity analysis is not warranted No mitigation is required. As shown in Table 13,ozone precursors are below the de minimis thresholds for construction and operational activities,and therefore,the project is consistent with the SIP. Construction emissions show only the maximum emissions for the proposed Project in tons per year and are based on the maximum days of construction per subphase.Because the Project emissions are below the de minimis thresholds,a detailed conformity analysis is not warranted. co,ae coumyweNr piamn r were E iidion Enirar. mEmJol 40 ESAl16o667 Airgualiryad GreenMuee Gae Em.w.7.00g1 a r ly 2016 TABLE 13 SIP CONFORMITY EVALUATION Threshold Maximum Operational Nonattainment of Construction Pollutant Federal Status Rates Significance Emissions Emissions (tons/year) (tone/year) (tons/year) Ozone(Oy) Nonattainment Extreme See(VOC&NOx) Ahainment/ Carbon Monoxide(CO) Maintenance N/A 100 0.64 0.0155 Oxides of Nitrogen(NOx) N/A N/A 10 1.43 3.3e-3 volatile Organic Compounds (VOC) N/A N/A 10 0.91 6.5e-3 Lead(Pb) Attainment N/A N/A N/A N/A Particulate matter less than 2.5 microns(PM,,)* Nonattainment Moderate 100 0.10 4.62e-3 Particulate matter less than 10 Attainment/ micron6(PM0* Maintenance N/A 100 0.19 1.27e-3 Sulfur Dioxide(SO2) Attainment N/A N/A 0.00 6.0e-5 Notes:N/A=Non-applicable Source: ESA 2016;USEPA,2016a,USEPA 20166 As discussed previously,no growth-inducing development or land use would occur under the project,and therefore,the project would not conflict with the City's General Plan.Therefore the project would be consistent with the AQMP.Additionally,as the annual emissions from the project would be well below the de minimis thresholds for SIP conformity,the proposed project is considered to be in conformance with the SIP. No mitigation would be required. 7. References California Air Resources Board(CARB)2016a.Ambient Air Quality Standards.Last revised: May 4,2016.Available: <http://www.ub.ca.gov/research/aags/caags/cmgs.htm>. Accessed:June 27,2016. CARE 2016b. Overview:Diesel Exhaust and Health. Available: http://www.ub.ca.gov/research/diesel/dieset-health.htm.Accessed:June 27,2016. California Air Resources Board(CARB).2014a. California Greenhouse Gas Inventory for 2000- 2012—by Category as Defined in the 2008 Scoping Plan.Available: hUn//www.arb.ca.2ov/cc/inventory/data/tables/2h2 inventor� scooineolan 00-12 2014- 03-24.odf CARB.2014b.Proposed First Update to the Climate Change Scoping Plana Building on the Framework.February. CARB.2013a. Area Designation Maps/State and National. Available: <www.ub.ca.gov/desig/adm/adm.htmh. Accessed June 2016. CARB.2010.Proposed SB 375 Greenhouse Gas Targets:Documentation of the Resulting Emission Reductions based on AIPO Data,August 9,2010. coanae eoumywew Dismct n wow RWeclpn anaeowmem amps 41 EW160367 Ai,Gualiryand Greenhouse Gae F.w.7.00g1 Resort �Iy 2016 CARB.2009a.APB Fact Sheet:Air Pollution Sources, Effects and Control, http://www.ub.ca.gov/researchlbealth/fs/fs2/fs2.htm. CARB,2009b. Climate Change Scoping Plan:A Frameworkfor Change, available online: http://www.ub.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/document/adopted_coping_plan.pdf,published December 2008,amended version included errata and Bond requested modifications posted May 11,2009. CARB.2007.Expanded List of Early Action Measures To Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions In California Recommended For Board Consideration. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change(B°CC). 2007. Climate Change 2007: Synthesis Report. Available at: ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/syr/en/spms3.html.Accessed on June, 2016. IPCC 2001. Climate Change 2001: Working Group P The Scientific Basis.Last revised:2001. Available:<http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc%5Ftu/wgl/032.htm#f5>. South Coast Air Quality Management District(SCAQMD).2015.Multiple Air Taxies Exposure Study in the South Coast Air Basin MATES IV. May.Accessed http://www.agmd.gov/home/library/air-quality-data-studies/health-studies/mates-iv. November 1,2015. SCAQMD.2015b.SCAQMD Air Quality Significance Thresholds. Revised Much.Available:< http://www.agmd.gov/home/regulations/cega/air-quality-analysis-hmdbook>Accessed: June 2016. SCAQMD 2014. 2014 Air Quality Data Tables. Available: http://www.agmd.gov/home/library/air-quality-data-studies/historical-data-byyear. Accessed:June 27,2016. SCAQMD 2013. 2013 Air Quality Data Tables. Available: httn://www.agmd.eov/home/library/air-quality-data-smdies/historical-data-by year. Accessed:June 27,2016. SCAQMD. 2013b.Final2012 Air Quality Management Plan. February. SCAQMD 2012.2012 Air Quality Data Tables. Available: htm://www.agmd.eov/home/library/air-quality-data-smdies/historical-data-by_vear. Accessed:June 27,2016. SCAQMD.2009.Greenhouse Gas CEQA Significance Threshold Stakeholder Working Group#14. November 19.Accessed http://www.agmd.gov/home/regulations/cega/air-quality-nalysis- hmdbook/ghg-significance-thresholds March 30,2015.Southem California Edison(SCE). 2015. Our Renewable Power Summary for 2014.Accessed online: https://www.sce.com/wps/portal/home/about-us/mvim ment/renewable- power/!ut/p/bl/he_fwMwFAbwV_EF5jk2m8u43Q2ZbQTBV luSixpKphYojTs7Rdhuxhs7b k6B34fnA84NMCNu}IVKTN1gRD_ftHmM IjndshLZoSo3yBKWOmKRRfiOHnx4gP8Mx UfSGvhvklfxsyeLFckTRgoOvg_S- Adscsy2u8MMCoKMFLgvKS Wly29w58kdcNUPrS9cJ8Brv19Fbg5GTUvWCfi VZ2mlDS_ DOEHjnAvbzgjwNOi_l CiFPV2uwgo9QIO- ZIGVRjrR9jLwil WfgU_gbtLSTHDVDXbsib_e3ugX_so- Fg!!/dl4/d5/L2dBISEvZOFBIS9nQSEh/?from—powerandenvironment/renewables. July 24, 2015. aanae COUM W DlWd r wawv unwn ennanwmem rmp 42 EWIW66r Air Q..14 and G...W.ee G..Fm.w.7.00.1 Reµ'tl �Iy 2016 SCAQMD.2008a.Mates III Final Report. September.Accessed http://www.agmd.gov/home/library/air-quality-data-studies/health-studies/mates-iii/mates- iii-final-report.May 2015 SCAQMD.2008b.Multiple Air Taxies Exposure Study III Model Estimated Carcinogenic Risk. Accessed http://www3.agmd.gov/webappl/matesiii/.May 2015. SCAQMD.2008c.Draft Guidance Document—Interim CEQA Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Significance Threshold.October. SCAQMD. 2003.Final Localized Significance Threshold Methodology,Appendix C—Mass Rate LST Look-up Tables. Revised October 21,2009. UC Davis,Institute of Transportation Studies(UCD ITS). 1997. Transportation Project-Level Carbon Monoxide Protocol-Revised 1997. USD-ITS-RR-99-21. Available http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/lnfoSvcs/EngApps/softwue.htm United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change(UNFCCC). 2012. Total COi Equivalent Emissions without counting Land-Use, Land-Use Change and Forestry (LULUCF).Available at unfccc.int/ghg_emissions_data/pmdefined_queries/items/3814.php. United States Environmental Protection Agency(USEPA).2016a. The GreenbookNonattainment Areas for Criteria Pollutants. Available at http://www.epa.gov/air/oaqps/greenbk/index.html. Accessed June, 2016. USEPA.2016b.De Minimis Emission Levels, Updated June 2016.Available: https://www.epa.gov/geneml-conformity/de-minimis-emission-levels.Accessed: June 2016. USEPA.2011.Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990-2009;Executive Summary, Table ES-2. April 2011. Western Regional Climate Center(WRCC),2016.Period of Record Monthly Climate Summary for Newport Beach Harbor, California.Available:<http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/cgi- bin/cliMAIN.pl?ca6175>.Accessed June 27,2016. aanae COUM We Diamn n waw vro dOn ennanwmnt ampd 43 EWIW667 Air duality and G...W.ee G..Fm.w.7.00g1� �Iy 3016 APPENDIX A Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Assumptions and Calculations Orange county water oiWd r water R ajdOn Ennanwmam Pra c EGA/1W067 Air duality and G...W.ee Gae Fm'aiana 7.00g1 Rear) �Iy 2016 Orange County Water District - EQ Flow Tank Operational Assumptions CalEEMod Inputs(Non-Default information only) Project Location County Orange Air District South Coast Climate Zone 8 Operational Year 2022 Utility Provider Southern California Edison Land Use Sq Ft KSF Acers CaIEEMod Land Use Type Pump Station 2,250 2.25 default Heavy Industrial 70,720 inside tank area -Used for architectural coating only 39,320 exterior tank area -Used for architectural coating only "General Heavy Industrial is used for estimation of electrical and water usage;and solid waste and wastewater generation associated with the new EQ Flow Tank. Square footage is the floor area of of the pump house and vault to provide a conservative estimate of electric usage for the pumps. Trio Generation: Assumes 1 new employee @ 2.5 trips per day per employee=2.5 trips per day(round to 3 trips per day) 1.33 trips/ksf Area Emissions: Assumes no new Landscaping Assumes no new building maintenance/upkeep intensity than currently occurs. Assumes default consumer product use Enerev Use: Electrical usage for buildings are based on size of the building and CaIEEMod default consumption rates. 0 kBTU/year No natural gas assocaited with the operation of the new EQ tank 13,860 kWh/year electrical consumption based on new building size Water Use: Assumes 1 new employee Default: 346,875 &/year Project: 260,156 &/year (Default based on trip rates assumes 1.3 employees,new employees would be 75%of default) -No septic onsite,disposal/treatments adjusted to remove septic. Solid Waste Generation: Tons/year CaIEEMod Project Reduced' 1 extra employee 1.86 1.40 0.70 (Default based on trip rates assumes 1.3 employees,new employees would be 75%of default) `CaIEEMOd doesn't take into account the fact that California on a whole has reduced waste to la ndfill by greater than 50 percent Modeling accounts for the minimum 50 percent recycling. Orange Can"Water olrtticL EQFIM Tank EqulRmem un T-1 He anlaq wwNm lamry I.IW l to nll Iaeml —1 g Ewpam anlaq W—arra lamry IaMmry JOIrn Iaeuy RnK w Epienk i0.MnvVeuhBR II M,PT rFls Ouu.4ry aRbI1Bl a.rt Cralllt,Taa0 �D Flee m Fai ltcl m a.amm.awna.nh', m.,w mmwaom.un m„wrl Orange County Water District - EQ Flow Tank Vehicle Trips Daily Total Haul Haul Haul off Concrete Worker Vendor Trips Trips (CY) (CY) 1A: Excavation, Hauling,Grading for Flow EQTank, Pump Station, and Pipeline 10 1 20 80 1000 IA: Excavation, Hauling,Grading for Flow EQTank, Pump Station, and Pipeline 12 168 2300 1B: Piles Construction for Flow EQTank 10 2 2 6 40 2 6 40 1C: Flow EQTank Pad Construction 10 2 12 288 2330 1D: Flow EQTank Assembly and Coating 5 2 -- -- lE:Assembly of Flow EQ Pumps and Meter Vault 1 5 1 4 1 -- I -- Orange County Water District - EQ Flow Tank Schedule 2020 2021 Jan-Apr May-Aug Sep-Dec Jan-Apr May-Aug Sep-Dec OCSD Plant No.2 Flow EQ Facilities Flow EQ Tank, PS, Piping& Meter Vault Excaion/Site Prep/Pipeline (lA) Tank pal les(1B) Tank Pad (1C) Assembly&Coating of Steel Tank(11)) Flow EQ PS& Meter Vault Equipping(IE) Orange County Water District-EQ Flow Tank Unmltigate l Mine Emissions WaMes Gays a. 1. W ny IA:Exavatlan Xaulln.Gratne for Flax EQ Tank.Pump Soatlo,and Pinellne l0 45 00303 ... O IS O.Wl3 0113 0'W03 .,.SS a. 18',P8es C0ns[mdoo For Flow EQTank 10 35 00303 0.0108 0429 0W13 OFFS 00303 )4833A 0 115 1C Flow EQTank Patl Consirutlion 10 20 0.0303 OC108 EA29 0.." OFFS 0.03N 2386,152 0.IIW l0'.Flow EQTank Assembly and L ning 5 30 OD1515 00204 0.I. I OW365 00565 OOl5I5 1A91.345 0.. IE:Assembly of Now EQ Pumps and Mewr Vault 5 30 0.01515 00204 1 0.2145 1 OW265 00565 00150 A91345 0069 Vemor oava an 10 to c, IA:Exavatlan,Xaulln.G-d1ng for lav EQ Tank.Pump Statlo,and Pipeline l 45 O.W83I 00739 0.1115 OW221 00]]41 000285 935W95 000675 18',Pdes COns[rv[tlon fw Flow EQTank 2 25 001e@ OF478 0,223 OW)42 001482 OW9 1039653 0WJ3 1C'.FIw EQTank Patl Consirutlion 2 24 0.01662 0308 0.12S OCW42 0.81402 O.LOS] 998.%M O.LO72 10'.FIaw EQTank Assemblyand1.ang 2 30 0.03662 0108 0.223 0CW42 0.8I482 O.WS] 1247SM O.W9 ]E:Assembl of Flaw EQ Pumps and Meter Va ult 4 30 OD3324 02956 0,46 1 OW284 002964 0,0l14 W95.1R 0018 Tatll Xaul T—maVs Tn s f0. ]A Ewavad,Haulln,Gman for Flow EQTank,Pum Station,and Pi line 20 BO 099 ]B.298 B.]34 Od 1694 0.658 450121.E S 1A:Ex[aaatlaq Hauling.Grading lm Fbw EQTank,Pump Slatlan,and Pipeline 13 1W 0594 ]0.9]BB 5.34W 00345E ]0164 0.3943 56]]54.4 39l]W ]B:PIIes Cons[mttlan fw Flaw EQTank 2 6 O0. 1IA29e 08J34 0.0057E 1.104 00658 3375919 1 OM328 Cawete Talal Xaol im[ks Tn s IK f0. ]0'.Piles Lons[rvRion Fw flow EQTank 2 6 0.0354 04852 018 OW146 00424 0MIA 2MWl2 OW636 ]G FIw EQTank Patl Cnnslmtllon II 208 0.2124 39112 358 OLOB]6 OS544 009324 2483I0.3 1d31a9 Orange County Water District- EQ Flow Tank Fugitive Dust Emissions(lbs/day) Fugitive emissions from truck loading PM. kx(0.0032)x((U/5)"/(M/2)''4) k= particle size(PM30=0.35,PM2.5=0.053) 0.35 x(0.0032)x((5.82/5)''3/(12/2)1A) U= wind speed(miles-hour)= 5.82 = 0.000110958 lbs/ton M= Material moisture content=12% PM,, = k x(0.0032)x((U/5)"/(M/2)1.4) 0.053 x(0.0032)x((5.82/5)s3/(12/2)1A) 1.68023E-05 lbs/ton Unreduced Rule 403 Cubic Yards #Trucks Tons PMr4 PMzs PMr4 PMzs (Daily Emissions) Phase 1A 1,000 20 380 0.042164 0.006385 0.018974 0.002873 Phase 3A 2300 1 12 1 228 1 0.0252991 0.0038311 0.0113841 0.001724 Phase 18 1 40 1 2 1 38 1 0.0042161 0.0006381 0.0018971 0.000287 Orange County Water District- ED Flow Tank Fugitive Dust Emissions(Ibs/day) Fugitive emissions from Dozers and Excavators: PIVI. ((C,..x s's)/M")x F... Cpvjs= arbitary coefficient used by AP-92=1 ((I x 6.9''5)/7.91'4)x 0.75 s= material silt content=6.9% = 0.752760759 lbs/hr M= material moisture content=7.9% Fpv.= PM,,scaling factor default of 0.75 PM,, = ((Cxx s` )/M'a)x Fpmzs Cnp= arbits ry coefficient used by APA2=5.7 ((5.7 x 6.9")/7.9s's)x 105 Fpiazs= PMi S scaling factor default of 0.105 = 0.413778428 Ibs/hr Unreduced Rule 403 hrs/day PMco PMu Pmu, I PMu (Daily Emissions) lA Excavators 6 4.516565 2.482671 2.032454 1.117202 1A Bull Dozer 6 4.5165651 2.4826711 2.0324541 1.117202 Orange County Water District - EQ Flow Tank Unmitigated Emission Factors by Equipment Ibs/vehicle/hr HP Equipment Description Rating voc NOx co so, PMip PM,., Wz cHa Asphalt Paver 175 0.0543 0.6006 0.4871 7.80E-04 0.0293 0.027 78.7418 0.0245 Backhoe 150 0.0362 0.3861 0.3823 5.90E-04 0.0194 0.0179 59.1968 0.0184 Bull Dozer 250 0.1458 1.5704 0.5472 1.07E-03 0.0763 0.0702 107.5489 0.0335 Compactor 200 0.034 0.4368 0.194 0.00082 0.0133 0.0122 82.5539 0.0257 Concrete Trucks 350 Crane 300 0.0705 0.8831 0.6073 9.30E-04 0.0356 0.0328 93.5371 0.0291 Drill Rig 500 0.0743 0.9621 0.5688 2.60E-03 1 0.0288 1 0.0265 267.694 1 0.0833 Dump Trucks 350 Excavators 200 0.034 0.4368 0.194 8.20E-04 0.0133 0.0122 82.5539 0.0257 Flatbed Truck 350 Fork Lifts 120 0.0236 0.3026 0.3477 5.20E-04 0.0145 0.0133 52.2408 0.0163 Man Lifts 75 6.21E-03 0.1052 0.1614 2.50E-04 2.91E-03 2.68E-02 24.9945 7.78E-03 Pick-Up Truck 300 Pile Driver 500 0.1149 1.4501 0.83 2.25E-03 0.0525 0.0483 225.9096 0.0703 Water Trucks 350 0.0846 0.9306 0.4596 1.45E-03 0.0332 0.0306 145.4268 0.0453 Welding Eq. (Truck Mounted) 300 0.0824 0.7232 0.3214 1.49E-03 1 0.0238 1 0.0238 1169.13951 7.44E-03 Ibs/vehicle/trip Offsite Worker 3.03E-03 4.08E-03 0.0429 1.30E-04 0.0113 3.03E-03 9.9423 44.60E-04 Vendor 8.31E-03 0.0739 0.1115 2.10E-04 7.41E-03 2.85E-03 20.7931 1.50E-04 Concrete Trucks 0.0177 0.2426 0.215 7.30E-04 0.0212 8.27E-03 71.8201 5.30E-04 Haul Trucks 0.0495 0.9149 0.4367 2.85E-03 0.0847 0.0329 281.3266 1.94E-03 Orange County Water District - EQ Flow Tank Unmitigated Criteria Pollutant Emissions Summary (lbs/day) Emissions by Phase ROG NOz CO soxL0.73 PM,, PM,, 3A Total 4.66 63.38 28.25EO.O4 4.63 1B Total 1.52 17.88 11.34 0.63 1C Total 0.90 11.15 30.44 0.46 1D Total 59.65 19.79 21.85 1.56 1E Total 1.22 16.03 17.49 1.35 Phase Overlaps 1D,1E ITotal 1 60.88 1 35.82 1 39.34 1 0.06 1 1.68 2.91 Max Emissions by Phase Total 60.88 1 63.38 39.34 1 0.13 8.35 1 4.63 SCAQMD Thresholdl 75 1 100 1 550 1 150 1 150 1 55 Exceed Threshold?l No I No I No I No I No I No LST Emissions Distance (m) NOx co sox PM, PM,., 1A Total 51 35.68 15.57 5.63 3.66 1B Total 51 15.37 9.38 0.56 0.51 1C Total 51 8.05 7.21 0.35 0.32 11) Total 51 19.62 21.41 0.87 1.54 1E Total 51 15.72 16.83 0.65 1.32 Phase Overlaps 1D,ie ITotal 1 51 m 1 35.34 1 38.24 1 1 1.52 1 2.86 Max Emissions by Phase Max 1 35.68 38.24 1 5.63 1 3,66 SCAQMD Thresholdl 50 1 93 1 738 1 13 5 Exceed Threshold?i I No I No I I No I No Orange County Water District - EQ Flow Tank Emissions by Phase ROG Nox I CO I Sox PM30 PM2.5 002 CN4 Ibs/day Ibs/subphase Onsite 3.04 33.99 13.74 0.04 1.421 1.31 174,367.961 54.31 Fugitive 4.10 2.24 3A Offsite 1.62 29.39 14.51 0.09 2.83 1.09 1,022,686.71 7.23 Coating 3.72 1.68 1.83 0.00 0.11 0.11 281.45 0.02 Total 4.66 63.38 28.25 0.13 8.35 4.63 1,197,054.67 61.53 Onsite 1.34 15.37 9.38 0.03 0.55 0.51 97,397.62 30.32 1B Fugitive 0.00 0.00 Mite 0.18 2.50 1.96 0.01 0.34 0.12 7,762.99 0.15 Total 1.52 17.881 11.341 0.04 0.90 0.63 105,160.61 30.48 Onsite 0.64 8.05 7.21 0.01 0.351 0.32 8,607.32 2.68 SC Fugitive 0.00 0.00 Offsite 0.26 3.10 3.23 0.01 0.38 0.14 251,594.49 1.95 Total 0.90 IS.IS 10.44 0.02 0.73 0.46 260,201.81 4.63 Onsite 1.18 15.72 16.83 0.03 0.65 1.32 212,303.36 66.20 Fugitive 0.00 0.00 1D1 Mite 0.03 0.17 0.44 0.00 0.07 0,02 2,738.93 0.08 Coating 58.45 3.90 4.58 0.01 0.22 0.221 748.72 0.04 Total 59.65 19.791 21.85 0.031 0.94 1.561 215,791.01 66.32 Onsite 1.18 15.72 16.83 0.031 0.65 1.32 212,303.36 66.20 M Fugitive 1 0.00 0.00 Offsite 0.05 0.32 0.66 0.00 a09 0.031 3,986.52 0.09 Total 1.22 16.03 17.49 0.031 0.74 1.351 216,289.87 66.28 Table 4-phase 4 Construction Equipment Mix Orange County Water District-EQ flow Tank Equipment Dst Equipment Bondsmen Time Total Total He ROG Nose CO I SOx pMe pMss Mi Ora Activity Desarilstion Quantity (Hall (Dayst (Hours) Rtlmp bauder fief sub Frio MD Him EQTank,PS,Meter Vauk&Pipeline(IA) Bull Dozer 2 6 90 3w 250 1J496 18.8418 6.5664 0.01284 0.9156 0.0424 ]]0.35.208 24.12 Co.,.., 1 6 3o ED 200 0304 E6208 1.164 0.00492 0.0798 0,0732 4953234 1542 Easavators 2 6 20 240 2M 0408 5.2416 2.328 Durres 0.1596 0.1464 99625.872 12,936 Sell Dump Trucks 4 6 4 96 350 0 D 0 0 0 D D 0 Demo Dump Trucks 4 6 14 3" 350 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Water Trucks 1 0 45 3M 350 0.6768 7.2818 367E8 0.0116 0.2656 0.2448 52353.648 16,308 06D Flow EQTank Mi.(18) Drill Rig 1 6 2D 120 SM 0.4458 5.7126 34128 0.0156 0.1728 Use 32123.28 9.996 Bill 1 6 20 .0 LSO 0.2172 2.3166 2.2938 0.00354 0.11" 0.1074 7103.616 2208 Concrete Trucks 1 5 3 15 350 a 0 0 0 a 0 0 0 Oump Tracks 2 5 3 30 3" 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Vim,Tracks 2 4 25 200 350 0.6768 T.2848 3.6268 0.0116 0.26M 0.2MB 58170.72 18.12 MD FIow EQTank past if Crane 1 5 5 25 300 0.3525 4.4155 30365 Del 0,128 0.164 2338.4275 0.2225 Fork Llhs 2 6 5 ED 120 0.2832 3.6312 4,1224 0.80624 0,124 0.1596 6268896 1956 Concrete Trucks 0 5 24 4bJ 350 0 0 0 0 0 M3192 0 0 MD Flow EQTank Assembly&Coating(to) Crane 1 6 10 fA 3M 0423 5.2986 36438 0.80558 D2136 5612226 1146 Fork Lifts 4 6 30 220 120 0.5654 2.2624 8.3149 0.01218 0.318 150153.504 46914 Man Lifts 5 6 15 450 25 0.1863 3.156 4.84E 0.0025 O.M23 56237.625 12.505 06D Flow EQ pS&Meter VaukE ui in (IE) Crane 1 6 SO M 3M 0423 5.2986 3.6438 DOZ58 0.2136 5612.226 1246 Fork Lifts 4 6 30 22O 120 056" Z2624 8.3458 001248 0.M8 1504535M 46944 Man LlXs 5 6 L5 450 T5 0.1863 3.156 484E 0.OW5 OM23 56237,Q5 12.505 Orange County Water District - EQ Flow Tank Unmitigated GHG Emissions Summary (MTCO2e/yr) Construction GHG Emissions Ibs/phase Metric Tons/phase CO, CH, CO, CH, lA 1,197,054.67 61.53 543.13 0.03 16 105,160.61 30.48 47.71 0.01 1C 260,201.81 4.63 118.06 0.00 11) 215,791.01 66.32 97.91 0.03 JE 216,289.87 66.28 98.14 0.03 Total 1,994,497.97 229.24 904.94 0.10 Ibs/total Construction Period 1 25 GWP 904.94 2.60 MT COie/Total Construction Period 90 7.54 Total MT CO,e 30.25 Amortized Emissions Operational GHG Emissions co, CH, N20 COze Area I 4.00E-05 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00 Energy 3.9663 1.80E-04 4.00E-05 3.98 Mobile 4.2125 1.40E-04 0.00E+00 4.22 Waste 0.1421 8.40E-03 0.00E+00 0.35 Water 1.0614 2.69E-03 2.10E-04 1.17 Total 9.38234 0.01141 0.00025 9.72 Const 30.25 Total 39.97 3 HEx,000 MT COie SCAQMD Threshold No ceed? -CO 2e emissions include GWPs of 25 for CH4 and 198 for N20- Orange County Water District - EQ Flow Tank Unmitigated NEPA Emissions Summary (tons/year) Unmitigated Emissions by Phase ROG NOx co sox PM,, PMz.s 3A Total 0.10 1.43 0.64 0.003 0.19 0.10 1B Total 0.02 0.22 0.14 0.000 0.01 0.01 1C Total 0.01 0.13 0.13 0.000 0.01 0.01 1D Total 0.89 0.30 0.33 0.001 0.01 0.02 3E Total 0.02 0.24 0.26 0.000 0.01 0.02 Phase Overlaps 1o,tE 0.91 1 0.54 0.59 0.00 1 0.03 0.04 Max Emissions 0.91 1 1.43 0.64 0.00 0.19 0.10 SCAQMD Thresholdl 75 1 100 1 550 150 1 150 55 Exceed Threshold?I No I No I No No I No No APPENDIX B CaIEEMod output. Grange count'wap opmn n waW Rdudnnn ennanwman amps 45 EWIW667 q4 Queny and GreenMuee Gae F ssbne 7000n 1Reactl my 2016 CaIEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 1 of 18 Date: 7/16/2016 10:31 PM EQ FLow Tank Orange County, Winter 1.0 Project Characteristics 1.1 Land Usage Land Uses Size Metric Lot Acreage Floor Surface Area Population General Heavy Industry 1.50 10001 0.03 1,501 0 1.2 Other Project Characteristics Urbanization Urban Wind Speed(ni 2.2 Precipitation Freq(Days) 30 Climate Zone 8 Operational Year 2022 Utility Company Southern California Edison CO2 Intensity 630.89 CH4 Intensity 0,029 N20 Intensity 0.00617 (IbIMWhr) (IbIMWhr) (Ib/MWhr) 1.3 User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 2 of 18 Date: 7/16/2016 10:31 PM Project Characteristics- Determination of emissions for Dril Rig,Architectural Coating Emissions, and operational Activities Land Use- Construction Phase- Building and Tank Architectural Coating and Dril Rig Emission factor determination only Off-road Equipment-See Assumptions Off-road Equipment- Generator for use with sand blaster for prepping tank for coating Trips and VMT-See Assumptions Architectural Coating-See Assumptions Vehicle Trips-See Assumptions Area Coating-See Assumptions Landscape Equipment-See Assumptions Energy Use-See Assumptions Water And Wastewater-See Assumptions Solid Waste-See Assumptions Construction Off-road Equipment Mitigation- Off-road Equipment- Table Name Column Name Default Value New Value tblArchitecturalCoating Consb%rea_Nomesidential_Extenor 750.00 39,320.00 ......................9------i-----------------------------}_____________________________�......... 70,72 ............ tblkchitecturalCoatin Consbkrea_Nome.idential_Imenor 2,250.00 ]0,]20.00 ------------------ng--------- --------------n-----rcent-----i.______________'O ?------------ U ------.----. Ratel tblAreaCoati .............................i-----------------------------}-----------------------------4.......................... tblConstructionPhase NumDdys 5.00 22.00 -----------------------------{----------------------------- }-------------- 5.__00-------------------------1--0.00------------. tblConstructionPhase NumDaye .............................i-----------------------------}-----------------------------4.......................... tblConstructionPhase NumDdys 2.00 1.00 -------tblConstructionPhase----------------------4-----------------------------t-----------1Y27Y2021 ----------?---------11/30/------------- PhaseEndDatei tblConstructionPhase -----------PhaseEndDate r ---- -- -------- r 12/2812020 -------tblConstructionPhase ------ ---------PhaseStanDate -------------------- 12/292020----------?--------- 11/12021 --- - - .............................i-----------------------------------------------------------4.......................... tblConstructionPhase PhaseStartDate 1/2/2018 1VI512020 -----------------------------4-----------------------------4------------------------------ -------------------------- tblEnergyUse NT24NG 6.86 0.00 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 3 of 18 Date: 7/16/2016 10:31 PM tblEnergyUse T24NG 14.78 0.00 ................q.P......._.. ----------.........----------¢------------ ------------4.......................... t i&iRoatlE ui ment Horse Power i 205.00 500.00 ..............................-----------------------------------------------------------4.......................... 1b106RoadEquipmenl OflRoadEquipmentType i Bore/Drill Rigs .............................4-----------------------------------------------------------4-------------------------- tbIOlfRoatlEquipment OflRoadEquipmenlType i Genemlor Sets ..............................-----------------------------------------------------------4.......................... 1b106RoadEquipmenl OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount i 1.00 0.00 .............................4-----------------------------------------------------------4-------------------------- tbIOlfRoatlEquipment OffRoadEquipmenlUnit ount i 1.00 0.00 ..............................-----------------------------------------------------------4.......................... 1b106RoadEquipmenl OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount i 2.00 0.00 ..................-----------4-----------------------------------------------------------4.......................... IblProjectOharactenstics N20intensilyFactor i 0.006 0.00617 ......................-------4-----------------------------------------------------------4.......................... iblProjedCharacteristics OperetionalVear i 2014 2022 .............................i-----------------------------}_____________________________4.......................... tblsolidWaste Solid WasteGenerationRate 1 1.86 0]0 ...................---------- -----------------------------------------------------------4.......................... 1blTripsMdVMT WorkerTripNumber i 3.00 0.00 ..................P......._..4-----------------------------}_____________________________4.......................... tblVehicleTri s CC_TTP i 28.00 0.00 .............................4-----------........----------}_____________________________4.......................... tbNehicleTrips CNW_TTP i 13.00 0.00 --------- .........P......._..4---------------_H------------------------------------------4.......................... tbNehicleTri s CW_TTP 1 59.00 100.00 ...........................................................+_____________________________4.......................... 1blVehicleTripa DV_TP i 5.00 0.00 ..................P......._..4-----------------------------}_____________________________4.......................... tbNehicleTri s PB_TP i 3.00 0.00 .............................4................-------------------------------------------4.......................... tbNehicleTrips PR_TP i 92.00 100.00 ..................P......._..i-----------------------------}_____________ _____________4.......................... tbNehi.... s ST_TR i 1.50 1.33 ............................. ------------.................}_____________________________4.......................... tbNehicleTrips SU_TR i 1.50 1.33 ..................P......._..4-----------------------------}_____________ _____________4.......................... tblVehicleTri s WD_TR i 1.50 1.33 ------------.....------------4-----------------------------------------------------------4.......................... tblWater AerobicPeroent r 87.46 97.54 .............................%n.e bimndF--------goonsP----}________________-------------4------------.............. tblWaler •AnaerobicantlFacultativeLagoonsPercenl+ 2.21 2.46 ------------.....------------4-----------------------------------------------------------4.......................... tblWater IndoorWaterUseRate i 346,875.00 260,156.00 .............................4-----------------------------4------------------------------k.......................... tblWaler SepticTankPercent 10.33 0.00 2.0 Emissions Summary CaIEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 4 of 18 Date: 7/16/2016 10:31 PM 2.1 Overall Construction (Maximum Daily Emission) Unmitigated Construction ROG I NO. I 00 I 002 I Fugitive Ex6aun PM10 Fugitive Ex6ausl PM2.5 BIo-COF NBia-002 ToWICO2 GMN20 1 002. PM10 I PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 ToW Veer IWday IWEay 2018 n 0.0743 1 0%21 0.5688 1 26600e- 1 00000 00288 1 0.0288 1 00000 1 00265 0.0265 • 00000 1267,6904126]69041 0N33 0,0000 1269,4405 .I 003 I ; i i ; I I I I i ___________•I-------'-------- _-------'------- -------,-------'-------'_______�_______�_______�-------1 _ _ _ _ _I 2020 3.7184 1 1.8030 1 1.0314 1 2.9700e- i 0.0000 1 0.1109 1 0.1109 1 0.0000 1 0.1109 1 0.1109 • 0.0000 1281.4481 1 281.4481 i 0.0210 1 0.0000 1 201.9057 .I I I I 003 •I I I I I I I i • •I _______�_______�_______1 _ _ _ _ _ ____ I 2021 504455 1 3.9D15 1 4.5011 1 7.9000e- i 0.00DD 1 0.2199 1 0.2199 1 0.0000 1 0.2199 1 0.2199 • 0.0000 I ]48.]240 i 748.7240 i 0.0432 1 0.0000 1 749.8303 I 1 I 003 I TOW 62.2383 I 6.5474 6,9813 1 0.0135 1 0.0000 0.3596 1 0.3596 I 0.000 j 0.3573 1 0.3573 • 0.0000 11,297.862 11,297.8621 0.14 3 1 0.0000 1,300.976 11 4 4 4 Mitigated Construction ROG NO. CO 002 Fugitive Ex6ausl PM10 Fugitive Ex6auM PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBia-0O2 T.WICO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Vear IWEay IWEay 2018 1 0 0743 1 0%21 0 5688 1 2 6600e- 1 0 0000 0 0288 1 00288 1 0 0000 j 0 0265 00265 • 0 0000 1 267 6904 1 267 69N 1 0 0933 0 0000 1 269 4405 003 1 .-------.-----------._.._,.......1------------------------._______........ 2020 •I 33184 1 16838 i 1,8314 139]OO - i 00000 i 0.1109 i DA109 i 00000 01109 0.1f09 00000 128144811281 A4811 0.0218 i 0,0000 1281e057 003 1 ______1_______ _______'_______x_______ _______'_______;_______v_______.._._.._.. 1 0.0000 1 2021 A655 I 3.9015 I 6.5811 I ].90000- i 0.0000 I 0.2199 I 0.2199 I 0.0000 1 0.2199 0.2199 • 0.0000 I ]68.7240 i 748.]240 0.0632 58 0.0000 7496303 003 Tool 62.230 1 6.5474 6.9813 1 0.0136 1 0,0000 0,3696 1 0.3596 1 0.0000 0.3573 0.3673 • 0.0000 1,297.80211,297.8621 0.1483 0.0000 11,300.975 11 4 4 4 CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 5 of 18 Date: 7/16/2016 10:31 PM ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive ExM1aua[ PM2.5 Bio-0O2 NBio-COY Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM" Total Percent 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1 0.00 0.00 0.00 1 0.00 1 0.00 0.00 0.00 Reduction CaIEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 6 of 18 Date: 7/16/2016 10:31 PM 2.2 Overall Operational Unmitigated Operational ROG NOx I 00 I 502 I Fugitive Exbaun PM10 Fugitive Exbaust PM2.5 BIo-COF NBia-002 TotWICO2 CMN20 1 002. PM10 I PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total category luear lueay Area n 0.0297 r 00000 15000c l 0.0000 r 00000 r O.000O r 0WOO ; O.000O r 33000, l 3.3000e- I 0WOO r 35000e- .r ON r i i i r ON r 004 t i 004 ________ •r -------_-------�-------- r r t Energy 0.0000 r O.W00 r 0.0000 r 0.0000 r r 0.0000 r 0.0000 r r 0.0000 ; 0.0000 • r 0.0000 r 0.0000 r 0.0000 r 0.0000 i 0.0000 t t t t i i r i i i t •r r r r r r r r -------_-------�-------- t Mobile B.ZZOOe- l 0.0179 r 0.0841 r 3.4000e- l 0.0255 r 3.3000e- l 0.0258 r 6.8000e- l 3.1000e- ; 7.1100e- • r 25.2350 r 25.2350 r B.6000e- I i 25.2531 003 t t t 004 t i 004 t t 003 i 004 003 t t 004 i t t Total 0.0359 r 0.0179 r 0.0843 r 3A000e- r 0.0255 3.3000a- r 0.0258 r 8.8000e- 3.1000> 7.1100e- • r 25.3354 r 35.2354 r B.B000a- 0.0000 25.253d 004 ow oe3 Ba o03 ON Mitigated Operational ROG I NO. I CO I 502 I Fugitive ExbauM PM10 Fugitive Exbauet P. Bio-CO2 NBia-0O2 T.WICO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category IWeay IWeay Area r 00297 r 0WOO j 15000e- r 00000 r 00000 r 00000 r 00000 ; 00000 r 33000e- r 33000e- r 00000 j 35000e- .� 1 ON 1 I 1 i ; I ON I 004 1 i i 004 ...........a_______-_______________________ .......I_______._______._______._______------. Energy •r Omm 00000 0.0000 0.0000 AOOOO 0.0000 0.0000 Omm r 0.0000 OOM 0.0000 0.0000 00000 ........... ______i______ ______ -------i______I_______._______; r........................ ---------------r ___ . ..... Mobile 6.2200e- r 0.0179 0.0641 3.4000e- r 0.0255 3.3000e- 0.0258 t 6.8000e 3.1BBBe- ; 7.1100e- i 25.2360 25.2350 8.6000e 25.2531 003 t r ON r om t t 003 ON 003 r t ON To I 0.030 r 0.0179 0.OM3 r 3.=. r 0.0256 3.3000e- r 0.0250 r 6.3000e- 3.1000e- 7.1100e- • 25.2354 r 25.2364 r B.B000e- g.0000 r 25.2534 11 eos o04 M ao4 003 004 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 7 of 18 Date: 7/16/2016 10:31 PM ROG NOx CO 502 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM25 Bio-0O2 NBio-0O2 Total COT CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 P1112.5 Total Percent 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Retluctian 3.0 Construction Detail Construction Phase Phase Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Num Days Num Days Phase Description Number Week 1 •Dnll Rig Emissions Estimate lGrading 11/l/2018 11/1/2018 i 51 11 .......s........................{......................J------------4------------4--------4------"`------------------------- 2 •Architectural Coating for PS 1Arrhitectural Coating 112/15I2020 112/28I2020 51 101 ........................or Tank ............Coating ......1-'-2021 1-_—----—_- _______ 3 •Architecturel Coating For Tank :Architectural Coating •7111/2027 •71I30/2021 5• 22• Acres of Grading (Site Preparation Phase): 0 Acres of Grading(Grading Phase): 0 Acres of Paving: 0 Residential Indoor: 0; Residential Outdoor: 0; Non-Residential Indoor: 70,720; Non-Residential Outdoor: 39,320 (Architectural Coating-sgft) OffRoad Equipment Phase Name Offroad Equipment Type Amount Usage Hours Horse Power Load Factor Architectural Coating For Tank lAir Compressors 1! 6.001 78: 0.48 Drill Rig Emissions Estimate 1... Drill Rigs . 7 7.001 500:--4 0.50 9 t i 1, 8.00 __-______ 841 0.74 Architectural Coatin For Tank rGenerelor Sets ............................:........................... {------------1""""'- _......... Drill Rig Emissions Estimate 1.....t........ Saws 01 8.001 81• 0.73 ............................t..._......_...._._.._._....__________.._..�_.__________' ----- 7;...._......... Architectural Coating for PS tar Compressors 1! 8.00- 78' 0.48 Drill Rig Emissions Estimate I Tired Dozers 01 7.001 255• 0.40 ----- t k r Drill Rig Emissions Estimate •TractorslLoatlerslBackhoes 0• 8.00' 9]• 0.3] CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 8 of 18 Date: 7/16/2016 10:31 PM Trios and VMT Phase Name ORroad Equipment I Worker Trip Vendor Trip Hauling Trip Worker Trip Vendor Trip Hauling Trip Worker Vehicle Vendor Hauling Count Number Number Number Leni Length Length Class Vehicle Class Vehicle Class Architectural Coating ! 1; 0.00• 0.001 0.00; 14.70' 6.90; 20.00I1D Mix IHDT_Mix iHHDT . R............ ..............:..._.._..---------------------------------------4------------ -----...._............. ---------- - Drill Rig Emissions i 1; 0.00• --- --- 1--- 6.90; ---- - -- 1HDT_Mix I---- • r _4 • _4 _a- t r _♦ Architectural Coating 2• 0.00' 0.00' 0.00' 14.70• 6.90• 20.00•LD_Mix •HDT_Mix •HHDT 3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction Clean Paved Roads 3.2 Drill Rig Emissions Estimate - 2018 Unmitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitve I Exhaust PM2.5 Blo-CO2 NBio-CO2 Tatal CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total Pas PM2.5 TOUI Category Iblday IWday F,hfi,a Dust I 0.0000 0.0000 l 0.0000 l 00000 0.0000 ; 00000 • l 00000 0.0000 I I I I I -----------_ _- _____II I_______ _______ _______ ______ .I O. 43 I 0.9821 I 0.5888 2.8600 0.0288 0.028 0. 85 00285 1284 287.8904 ; 0.0633 l 289.4405 003 I I Total 0.01 I 0.9621 I 0.5888 I2.6601I 0.0000 I 0.0288 I 0.0288 I 0.0000 0.0265 0.020 • 1267.6904I 261I 0.0833 I 269.6008 11 003 CaIEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 9 of 18 Date: 7/16/2016 10:31 PM 3.2 Drill Rig Emissions Estimate - 2018 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO 502 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitve ExM1aust PM2.5 Blo-CO2 NBio-CO2 T.WICO2 CM N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Tolal PM2.5 PM2.5 Twat Category IWday Iblday Hauling n 00000 1 0.0000 ' 0.0000 ' 00000 ' Owito 1 0.0000 ' Omoo ' 00000 1 0.0000 00000 I 0.0000 ' 00000 1 0.0000 I 0.0000 .I •I I I I I I I • ' __ _______� I I Vendor 0.0000 ' 0.0000 ' 0.0000 ' 0.0000 ' O.W00 ' 0.0000 ' 0.0000 ' O.00DD ' 0.0000 ; 00000 • I O.00W ' O.00DD ' 0.0000 ' i 0.0000 •I •I I I I I I I • I I Worker 0.000D ' 0.0000 ' 0.0000 ' 0.0000 ' 0.0000 ' 0.0000 ' 0.0000 ' 0.0000 ' 0.0000 ; 00000 • I 0.0000 ' O.000D ' 0.0000 ' i 0.0000 I Total 0.0000 0.0000 ' 0.0000 ' 0.0000 ' 0.0000 0.0000 ' 0.0000 ' 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 • ' 0.0000 ' 0.0000 0.0000 ' 0.0000 Mitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO 502 Fugitive ExM1auet PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM25 Bo-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category Iladay Iblday F,Mve Dual • ' ' 00000 1 00000 ' 00000 ' 00000 1 00000 00000 • j 00000 i 0.000U I I I • i ,I 1 I I 1 I I I I • • I I I ..� a • a ! ! a i -I 1 1 I 1 Off-Road •I 00T43 f 0.9621 i 0.5688 i 2.6600e- i 0.0288 ' 0.0288 ' 0.0285 00285 0.0000 1267s904 26Z69041 0.0833 1289 e405 003 i Total 0.070 0.9621 ' 0.6688 ' 2.81 1 0.0000 0.0299 ' 0.0288 ' 0.0000 0.0205 0.0285 • 0.0000 1 287.8904 28).e9pd 0.0833 ' 209.4409 11 003 CaIEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 10 of 18 Date: 7/16/2016 10:31 PM 3.2 Drill Rig Emissions Estimate - 2018 Mitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO 502 Fugitive ExM1auat PM10 Fugitve ExM1aust PM2.5 Blo-CO2 NBio-CO2 TersICO2 CM N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Twat Category IWday Iblday Hauling n 00000 OOOOO ' 0.0000 ' 00000 ' Owito 0.0000 ' Omoo ' 00000 1 0.0000 ; 00000 i 0.0000 ' 00000 0.0000 I 0.0000 Vendor 9.9oao ' 0.0000 ' 9.0099 ' O.99ao ' 9.og99 ' 0.0000 ' 0.0000 ' 0.0oD0 ' 0.9900 ; Om i 0.0000 ' 0.0oD0 ' 0.0000 0.0000 i i i i i a Worker 0.000D ' 0.0000 ' 0.0000 ' 0.0000 ' 0.0000 ' 0.0000 ' 0.0000 ' 0.0000 ' 0.0000 ; 00000 0.0000 ' O.000D ' 0.0000 ' i 0.0000 i Total 0.0000 0.0000 ' 0.0000 ' 0.0000 ' 0.0000 0.0000 ' 0.0000 ' 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 • ' 0.0000 ' 0.0000 0.0000 ' 0.0000 3.3 Architectural Coating for PS -2020 Unmitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO 502 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhau# PM25 Blo-CO2 NBio-CO2 To1aICO2 CH4 N20 I CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category Mey Iblday I hlt Coating • 34763 j 00000 ' 00000 ' 00000 ; 00000 • j 00000 i 0.01M • ' ' ' ' ' ' •� a • a �_______ _______ _______ _______1 ______ Off-Road 01422 ' 1.8838 ' 1.8314 ' 2.9]OOe- i i 0.1109 i 0.1109 i 0.1109 0.1109 261.4a81 2&1 A4E1 0.0218 i i 281 9057 003 i Total 3.7181 1.038 ' 1.8314 ' 2.9700e- 1 0.1100 ' 0.1109 ' 0.1109 0.1109 • 211 1 1 281.4181 0.0218 ' MAW 003 CaIEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 11 of 18 Date: 7/16/2016 10:31 PM 3.3 Architectural Coating for PS - 2020 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive ExM1auet PM10 Fugitve ExM1aust PM2.5 Blo-CO2 NBio-CO2 T.WICO2 GM N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Twat Category IWday Iblday Hauling n 00000 OOOOO ' 0.0000 ' 00000 ' Owito 0.0000 ' 0.0000 ' 00000 1 0.0000 ; 00000 i 0.0000 ' 00000 0.0000 I 0.0000 __ _______ 000 � Vendor 0.0 ' 0.0000 ' 0.0000 ' 0.0000 ' O.W00 ' 0.0000 ' 0.0000 ' O.00DD ' 0.0000 ; 00000 • � 0.0000 ' O.00DD ' 0.0000 ' i 0.0000 a Worker 0.000D ' 0.0000 ' 0.0000 ' 0.0000 ' 0.0000 ' 0.0000 ' 0.0000 ' 0.0000 ' 0.0000 ; 00000 0.0000 ' O.000D ' 0.0000 ' i 0.0000 i Total 0.0000 0.0000 ' 0.0000 ' 0.0000 ' 0.0000 0.0000 ' 0.0000 ' 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 • ' 0.0000 ' 0.0000 0.0000 ' 0.0000 Mitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhau# PM25 Blo-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 I CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category Iladay Iblday I hlt Coating • 34763 j 00000 ' 00000 ' 00000 ; 00000 • j 00000 0.0m Off-Road •i (1d22 f 1.6838 1.8314 2.9]OOe- 0.1109 ' 0.1109 0.1109 0.1109 00000 i 281 A481 � 91 e481 f 0.0218 � � 281 9057 003 i Total 3.7184 1.038 ' 1.8314 ' 2.97000- 1 0.1109 ' 0.1109 ' 0.1109 0.1109 • 0.0000 281771 ' 281 0.0218 ' 28i905] 003 CaIEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 12 of 18 Date: 7/16/2016 10:31 PM 3.3 Architectural Coating for PS - 2020 Mitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive ExM1auet PM10 FugiSve ExM1aust PM2.5 Blo-CO2 NBio-CO2 TersICO2 CM N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Twat Category IWday Iblday Hauling n 00000 00000 ' 0.0000 ' 00000 ' 00000 0.0000 ' 0.0000 ' 00000 1 0.0000 00000 i 0.0000 ' 00000 0.0000 I 0.0000 Vendor 9.9oao ' 0.0000 ' 9.0099 ' 0.99ao ' 9.og99 ' 0.0000 ' 0.0000 ' 0.0" ' 0.0900 00000 i 0.0000 ' 0.0oD0 ' 0.0000 0.0000 a Worker 0.000D ' 0.0000 ' 0.0000 ' 0.0000 ' 0.0000 ' 0.0000 ' 0.0000 ' 0.0000 ' 0.0000 ; 00000 0.0000 ' O.000D ' 0.0000 ' i 0.0000 i Total 0.0000 0.0000 ' 0.0000 ' 0.0000 ' 0.0000 0.0000 ' 0.0009 ' 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 • ' 0.0000 ' 0.0000 0.0000 ' 0.0000 3.4 Architectural Coating For Tank-2021 Unmitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive ExM1auet PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM25 Bo-CO2 NBio-CO2 To1aICO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category Mey Iblday I hlt Coating 579586 j 00000 ' 00000 ' 00000 00000 • j 00000 0.000U ..A a • a ; ; a • .I 1 1 I t Off-Road •, 0e8]0 i 3.9015 i 4.5811 ].9000e- i i 0.2199 ' 0.2199 ' 02199 03198 ]40]2ag , 748.]240 0.0432 ]498303 q 003 i i Total 581 3.9015 ' 4.5811 ' 7.9000e- 1 02109 ' 0.2199 ' 0.2190 0.2199 • 748.7240 1 748.7M 0."32 003 CaIEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 13 of 13 Date: 7/16/2016 10:31 PM 3.4 Architectural Coating For Tank -2021 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO 502 Fugitive ExM1auet PM10 Fugitve ExM1aust P12.5 Blo-CO2 NBio-CO2 TeraICO2 CM N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Twat Category IWday Iblday Hauling n 00000 00000 ' 0.0000 ' 00000 ' 00000 0.0000 ' 0.0000 ' 00000 1 0.0000 ; 00000 i 0.0000 ' 00000 0.0000 I 0.0000 Vendor 9.9aao ' o.og09 ' 9.9999 ' 9.99ao ' 9.0999 ' 0.9999 ' 9.9990 ' 9.9099 ' 0.9999 ; Om 9.9990 ' 9.9099 ' 0.0999 9.9oao a Worker 0.000D ' 0.0000 ' 0.0000 ' 0.0000 ' 0.0000 ' 0.0000 ' 0.0000 ' 0.0000 ' 0.0000 ; 00000 0.0000 ' O.000D ' 0.0000 ' i 0.0000 i Total 0.0000 0.0000 ' 0.0000 ' 0.0000 ' 0.0000 0.0000 ' 0.0000 ' 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 • ' 0.0000 ' 0.0000 0.0000 ' 0.0000 Mitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO 502 Fugitive ExM1auet PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM25 Bo-CO2 NBio-CO2 To1aICO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category Iladay Iblday I hlt Coating 579586 j 00000 ' 00000 ' 00000 ; 00000 • j 00000 0.000U Off-Road •i (i f 3.9015 4.5811 7.9000e- 0.2199 ' 0.2199 ' 02199 01198 00000 i 748J240 ]48.7240 f 0.0432 ]498303 003 i Total Si 3.9015 ' 4.5811 ' T.9000e. 1 01199 ' 0.2199 ' 0.2199 1 0.21" • 0.0000 1 7487240 749.7M 1 0.0432 ' 1 749.003 11 003 CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 14 of 13 Date: 7/16/2016 10:31 PM 3.4 Architectural Coating For Tank -2021 Mitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive ExM1aust PM2.5 Blo-CO2 NBio-CO2 TotaICO2 GM N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 TneaI Category IWday IWday Hauling n 00000 00000 ' 0.0000 ' 11 ' 00000 0.0000 ' 0.0000 ' 00000 1 0.0000 � 00000 i 0.0000 ' 00000 0.0000 1 0.0000 Ventlor g.gbbo ' o.og0g ' 9.66gg ' 6.gggo ' g.og99 ' o.Bggg ' g.gggo ' g.gogg ' o.B966 6ogoo • � 6.gggo ' g.gogg ' o.oggg ' 1 g.gobo 1 i i i i i i a Worker 0.000D ' 0.0000 ' 0.0000 ' 0.0000 ' 0.0000 ' 0.0000 ' 0.0000 ' 0.0000 ' 0.0000 ; 00000 0.0000 ' 0.000D ' 0.0000 ' I 0.0000 i Total 0.0000 0.0000 ' 0.0000 ' 0.0000 ' 0.0000 0.0000 ' 0.0000 ' 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 • ' 0.0000 ' 0.0000 0.0000 ' 0.0000 4.0 Operational Detail - Mobile 4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile ROG I NO. 1 CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitiva Exdauat PM2ii F- 2 02 'Tina 02 CH4 N20 G02e PM10 PM 10 TMaI PM2.5 PM2.5 TassI cawgory IWday lblday MNgatetl • 6.22008- 1 0.0179 i 0.0&41 1 3.40008- i 00255 3.3000s- 0.0258 i 6.8000a- 13.1000e- ; 7.1100.- . i 25.2350 � 8.6000e- 1 � 252531 1 003 004 004 003 004 003 1 004 i ......aced -_.._.-4._.0179 __.._.I-._.00.- _........_y__.._I-.002W .__..-F_.._._r-•1---_........{-.5,2350 ..-2350 _..__I_.__..e....... Unmiagetetl 6.2200e- 0.01]9 0.0841 3.4000e- 00255 33000e- 0.0258 6.8000e- 3.1000e- ].1100e- 252350 252350 8.6000o- 252531 003 004 004 003 004 003 004 CaIEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 15 of 18 Date: 7/16/2016 10:31 PM 4.2 Trip Summary Information Average Daily Trip Rate Unmitigated Mitigated Land Use Weekday Saturday Sunday Annual VMT Annual VMr General Heavy Industry 2.00 2.00 2.00 12,055 12,055 Total 2.00 2.00 2.00 12,055 12,055 4.3 Trip Type Information Mlles Trip% Trip Purpose% Land Use H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW H-W or C-W H-S or C-C I HA or C-NW I Primary I Diverted I Pass-by General Heavy Industry 16.60 8,40 6.90 100,00 0,00 000 100 0 0 L0 LDT1 LDT2 MDV LHD1 LHD2 MHD HHD OBUS UBUS MCV SBUS MH 5043• 0,056653• 0 0.5 .194832• 0.151784• 0,042126• 0005989• 0.016072• 0.016505• 0.001461• 0.002178: 0.004464: 0.000494: 0.002401 g.g 4Fgglpypeta!I Historical Energy Use: N 5.1 Mitigation Measures Energy ROG NO. CO I S02 I Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Blo-CO2 NBio-CO2 TotaICO2 CH4 N20 002s PM10 PM TOUI PM2S PM2.5 TOUI Category Wday IWda, NalumlGas v 0.0000 0.0000 I 0,0000 I 00000 I i 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 00000 Miligatetl NaluralGas •• OOOOD 0.0000 0.0000 00000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 00000 0.0000 OOOOD O.OD00 0.0000 00000 unmiogatea CaIEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 16 of 18 Date: 7/16/2016 10:31 PM 5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas Unmitigated NaturalGa ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bia-002 1 NBb CO2 Total 002 1 CH6 I N20 1 CO2e .Use PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 TOWI Land Use kBTUNr Ihlday dday General Has 0 n 0.0000 0.0000 OOCOD 0.D000 00000 0.OD00 0.0000 0.0000 • 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0005 O.o000 Industry i Total • 0.0000 1 0.0000 ' 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 O.00oo 1 0.0000 0.0000 • 0.0000 0.0000 1 0.0000 ' O.000o 0.0000 Mitigated Natu.IGa ROG NOx 00 502 Fugftive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-0O2 I NBio-0O2 TOWI CO2 I CH4 I N20 I CO2e s Use PM10 PM10 TOWI PM2.5 PM2.5 TOWI Land Use kBTUN'r Ib/day May General rvea, 0 o D000 o 0000 0 DODD a DDoo ' 0 0000 ' a D000 ' o ooaa a ODoo • a ODDO 0 0000 o 0000 a DODO o D000 ToM 0.0000 ' 0.0000 1 0.0000 0.0000 ' 0.0000 1 0.0000 ' 0.0000 0.0000 O.ODDO 0.0000 ' 0.0000 1 O.00DD a.D000 6.0 Area Detail 6.1 Mitigation Measures Area CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 17 of 18 Date: 7/16/2016 10:31 PM ROG NO. CO 502 Fu9i4ve Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBie-0O2 T.Wi CO2 OMN20 002. PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total category IbleaY IWeay Mitigated n 0.0297 ' 00000 1 1.5000, I 0.0000 ' 1 0.0000 ' 0.0000 I 00000 0.0000 • 133000e- 13.3000e- I 00000 1 ' 3.5000e- i ON ON I 004 I i 000 I I ' •I I I I I I i ' I I ........... '~.-..- ..--.. .-----________ ------ Unmitigated •• 0.029] 0.0000 15000e- 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 3.3000a- 3.3000e- 0.0000 3.5000e- ON ON 004 004 6.2 Area by SubCategory Unmitigated ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-0O2 N8io-0O2 Total CO2 CHO I N20 I CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM25 PM2.5 Tolal 3ubCategory lWday lWday Nchitectuvii •I 0.0000 I 0.0000 0.0000 1 0.0000 0.0000 • 0.0000 I 0.0000 Coating I I ' , I I � I 1 I • , rer d a a a a a ; I1 t t 10297 0.0000 0.0000 0.000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Phodusta Lentlacaping 1.000Oe- I 0.0000 1 1.50001 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 i I 0.0000 0.0000 • 13.3000e- j 3.3000e- j 0.0000 j 3.50001 005 009 ON OOd I 9ga i i I i i i i Tail0.029T 0.0000 1.5000a, 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 • ' 3.3000e- 3.3000e- 0.0000 ' 3.5000e- ON 0. 000 004 CaIEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 18 of 18 Date: 7/16/2016 10:31 PM 6.2 Area by SubCategory Mitigated ROG NO. CO S02 Fugitve EMaua PM10 Fugitive Exbausl PM2.5 Blo-CO2 NBic-002 Told CO2 CMN20 1 002a PM10 PM10 Tolal PM2.5 PM2.5 Tolal SubCategory Ibltlay Ibltlay Consumer I 0.0297 I 00000 I 0.0000 I 1 000oo � 0.0000 I 00000 I 1 00000 Proau dt i i I i i I I I I I q 1 I I I • � I I I I I I • • _♦ _� _� _� _� _� _i_______ _______�_______I ______ ______ _______I ______ I I I 006 0 Lantlscaping v 1.WOOe- I O.W00 1 1 S 0OOOe- i 0.0000 I I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I I 0.0000 0.0000 13.300De- i 3.3000e- I 0.0000 I 13.S000e- 005 I i 00 I i I i I ONI I I I I • 'I I I I I I I • I I I ArMOectu2l v 0.0000 I I I I I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I I O.ODoO � 0.0000 • I 0.0000 I I I --0.0000 coating i i i i I I TZI 0.0297 I 0.0000 1.5000a. I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 0.0000 • 13.=. 13.3000e- I 0.0000 I 3.50000- o0a ooa o0a Bna 7.0 Water Detail 7.1 Mitigation Measures Water 8.0 Waste Detail 8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste 9.0 Operational Offroad Equipment Type Number Hours Day Days(Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type 10.0 Vegetation CaIEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 1 of 18 Date: 7/16/2016 10:30 PM EQ FLow Tank Orange County, Summer 1.0 Project Characteristics 1.1 Land Usage Land Uses Size Metric Lot Acreage Floor Surface Area Population General Heavy Industry 1.50 10001 0.03 1,501 0 1.2 Other Project Characteristics Urbanization Urban Wind Speed(ri 2.2 Precipitation Freq(Days) 30 Climate Zone 8 Operational Year 2022 Utility Company Southern California Edison CO2 Intensity 630.89 CH4 Intensity 0,029 N20 Intensity 0.00617 (Ibllilli QbIMWhr) (lb/MWhr) 1.3 User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 2 of 18 Date: 7/16/2016 10:30 PM Project Characteristics- Determination of emissions for Dril Rig,Architectural Coating Emissions, and operational Activities Land Use- Construction Phase- Building and Tank Architectural Coating and Dril Rig Emission factor determination only Off-road Equipment-See Assumptions Off-road Equipment- Generator for use with sand blaster for prepping tank for coating Trips and VMT-See Assumptions Architectural Coating-See Assumptions Vehicle Trips-See Assumptions Area Coating-See Assumptions Landscape Equipment-See Assumptions Energy Use-See Assumptions Water And Wastewater-See Assumptions Solid Waste-See Assumptions Construction Off-road Equipment Mitigation- Off-road Equipment- Table Name Column Name Default Value New Value tblArchitecturalCoating Consb%rea_Nomesidential_Extenor 750.00 39,320.00 ......................9------i-----------------------------}_____________________________�......... 70,72 ............ tblkchitecturalCoatin Consbkrea_Nome.idential_Imenor 2,250.00 ]0,]20.00 ------------------ng--------- --------------n-----rcent-----i.______________'O ?------------ U ------.----. Ratel tblAreaCoati .............................i-----------------------------}-----------------------------4.......................... tblConstructionPhase NumDdys 5.00 22.00 -----------------------------{----------------------------- }-------------- 5.__00-------------------------1--0.00------------. tblConstructionPhase NumDaye .............................i-----------------------------}-----------------------------4.......................... tblConstructionPhase NumDdys 2.00 1.00 -------tblConstructionPhase----------------------4-----------------------------t-----------1Y27Y2021 ----------?---------11/30/------------- PhaseEndDatei tblConstructionPhase -----------PhaseEndDate r ---- -- -------- r 12/2812020 -------tblConstructionPhase ------ ---------PhaseStanDate -------------------- 12/292020----------?--------- 11/12021 --- - - .............................i-----------------------------------------------------------4.......................... tblConstructionPhase PhaseStartDate 1/2/2018 1VI512020 -----------------------------4-----------------------------4------------------------------ -------------------------- tblEnergyUse NT24NG 6.86 0.00 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 3 of 18 Date: 7/16/2016 10:30 PM tblEnergyUse T24NG 14.78 0.00 ................q.P......._.. ----------.........----------¢------------ ------------4.......................... t i&iRoatlE ui ment Horse Power i 205.00 500.00 ..............................-----------------------------------------------------------4.......................... 1b106RoadEquipmenl OflRoadEquipmentType i Bore/Drill Rigs .............................4-----------------------------------------------------------4-------------------------- tbIOlfRoatlEquipment OflRoadEquipmenlType i Genemlor Sets ..............................-----------------------------------------------------------4.......................... 1b106RoadEquipmenl OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount i 1.00 0.00 .............................4-----------------------------------------------------------4-------------------------- tbIOlfRoatlEquipment OffRoadEquipmenlUnit ount i 1.00 0.00 ..............................-----------------------------------------------------------4.......................... 1b106RoadEquipmenl OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount i 2.00 0.00 ..................-----------4-----------------------------------------------------------4.......................... IblProjectOharactenstics N20intensilyFactor i 0.006 0.00617 ......................-------4-----------------------------------------------------------4.......................... iblProjedCharacteristics OperetionalVear i 2014 2022 .............................i-----------------------------}_____________________________4.......................... tblsolidWaste Solid WasteGenerationRate 1 1.86 0]0 ...................---------- -----------------------------------------------------------4.......................... 1blTripsMdVMT WorkerTripNumber i 3.00 0.00 ..................P......._..4-----------------------------}_____________________________4.......................... tblVehicleTri s CC_TTP i 28.00 0.00 .............................4-----------........----------}_____________________________4.......................... tbNehicleTrips CNW_TTP i 13.00 0.00 --------- .........P......._..4---------------_H------------------------------------------4.......................... tbNehicleTri s CW_TTP 1 59.00 100.00 ...........................................................+_____________________________4.......................... 1blVehicleTripa DV_TP i 5.00 0.00 ..................P......._..4-----------------------------}_____________________________4.......................... tbNehicleTri s PB_TP i 3.00 0.00 .............................4................-------------------------------------------4.......................... tbNehicleTrips PR_TP i 92.00 100.00 ..................P......._..i-----------------------------}_____________ _____________4.......................... tbNehi.... s ST_TR i 1.50 1.33 ............................. ------------.................}_____________________________4.......................... tbNehicleTrips SU_TR i 1.50 1.33 ..................P......._..4-----------------------------}_____________ _____________4.......................... tblVehicleTri s WD_TR i 1.50 1.33 ------------.....------------4-----------------------------------------------------------4.......................... tblWater AerobicPeroent r 87.46 97.54 .............................%n.e bimndF--------goonsP----}________________-------------4------------.............. tblWaler •AnaerobicantlFacultativeLagoonsPercenl+ 2.21 2.46 ------------.....------------4-----------------------------------------------------------4.......................... tblWater IndoorWaterUseRate i 346,875.00 260,156.00 .............................4-----------------------------4------------------------------k.......................... tblWaler SepticTankPercent 10.33 0.00 2.0 Emissions Summary CaIEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 4 of 18 Date: 7/16/2016 10:30 PM 2.1 Overall Construction (Maximum Daily Emission) Unmitigated Construction ROG I NO. I 00 I 002 I Fugitive Ex6aun PM10 Fugitive Ex6ausl PM2.5 BIo-COF NBia-002 ToWICO2 GMN20 1 002. PM10 I PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 ToW Veer IWday IWEay 2018 n 0.0743 1 0%21 0.5688 1 26600e- 1 00000 00288 1 0.0288 1 00000 1 00265 0.0265 • 00000 1267,6904126]69041 0N33 0,0000 1269,4405 .I 003 I ; i i ; I I I I i ___________•I-------'-------- _-------'------- -------,-------'-------'_______�_______�_______�-------1 _ _ _ _ _I 2020 3.7184 1 1.8030 1 1.0314 1 2.9700e- i 0.0000 1 0.1109 1 0.1109 1 0.0000 1 0.1109 1 0.1109 • 0.0000 1281.4481 1 281.4481 i 0.0210 1 0.0000 1 201.9057 .I I I I 003 •I I I I I I I i • •I _______�_______�_______1 _ _ _ _ _ ____ I 2021 504455 1 3.9D15 1 4.5011 1 7.9000e- i 0.00DD 1 0.2199 1 0.2199 1 0.0000 1 0.2199 1 0.2199 • 0.0000 I ]48.]240 i 748.7240 i 0.0432 1 0.0000 1 749.8303 I 1 I 003 I TOW 62.2383 I 6.5474 6,9813 1 0.0135 1 0.0000 0.3596 1 0.3596 I 0.000 j 0.3573 1 0.3573 • 0.0000 11,297.862 11,297.8621 0.14 3 1 0.0000 1,300.976 11 4 4 4 Mitigated Construction ROG NO. CO 002 Fugitive Ex6ausl PM10 Fugitive Ex6auM PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBia-0O2 T.WICO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Vear IWEay IWEay 2018 1 0 0743 1 0%21 0 5688 1 2 6600e- 1 0 0000 0 0288 1 00288 1 0 0000 j 0 0265 00265 • 0 0000 1 267 6904 1 267 69N 1 0 0933 0 0000 1 269 4405 003 1 .-------.-----------._.._,.......1------------------------._______........ 2020 •I 33184 1 16838 i 1,8314 139]OO - i 00000 i 0.1109 i DA109 i 00000 01109 0.1f09 00000 128144811281 A4811 0.0218 i 0,0000 1281e057 003 1 ______1_______ _______'_______x_______ _______'_______;_______v_______.._._.._.. 1 0.0000 1 2021 A655 I 3.9015 I 6.5811 I ].90000- i 0.0000 I 0.2199 I 0.2199 I 0.0000 1 0.2199 0.2199 • 0.0000 I ]68.7240 i 748.]240 0.0632 58 0.0000 7496303 003 Tool 62.230 1 6.5474 6.9813 1 0.0136 1 0,0000 0,3696 1 0.3596 1 0.0000 0.3573 0.3673 • 0.0000 1,297.80211,297.8621 0.1483 0.0000 11,300.975 11 4 4 4 CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 5 of 18 Date: 7/16/2016 10:30 PM ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-0O2 NBio-COY Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2 PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM" Total Percent 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1 0.00 0.00 0.00 1 0.00 1 0.00 0.00 1 0.00 Reduction CaIEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 6 of 18 Date: 7/16/2016 10:30 PM 2.2 Overall Operational Unmitigated Operational ROG NOx I 00 I 502 I Fugitive Exbaun PM10 Fugitive Exbaust PM2.5 BIo-COF NBio-002 TotWICO2 CMN20 1 002. PM10 I PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total category Wear IWeay Area n 0.0297 r 00000 15000c I 0.0000 r 00000 r O.000O r 0WOO ; O.000O r 33000, 13.3000e- I 0WOO r 35000e- .r ON r i i i r ON r 004 t i 004 ________ •r -------_-------�-------- r r t Energy 0.0000 r O.W00 r 0.0000 r 0.0000 r r 0.0000 r 0.0000 r r 0.0000 ; 0.0000 • r 0.0000 r 0.0000 r 0.0000 r 0.0000 i 0.0000 t t t t i i r i i i t •r r r r r r r r -------_-------�-------- t Mobile 8.0100e- I 0.0189 r 0.0876 r 3.5000e- I 0.0255 r 3.3000e- I 0.0258 r 6.8000e- 13.1000e- ; 7.1100e- • r 28.3875 r 28.3675 r B.6000e- I i 28.3855 003 t t t 004 t i 004 t t 003 i 004 003 t t 004 i t t Total 0.035J r 0.0188 r 0.06]6 r 3.5000e- r 0.0255 3.3000a- r 0.0258 r 8.8000e- 3.1000> J.1100e- • r 26.3678 r 36.3878 r 8.6000> 0.0000 28.3659 000 001 003 0,0 003 004 Mitigated Operational ROG I NO. I CO I 502 I Fugitive ExbauM PM10 Fugitive Exhaust P. Bio-CO2 NBia-0O2 T.WICO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category IWeay IWeay Area r 00297 r 0WOO j 15000e- r 00000 r 00000 r 00000 r 00000 ; 00000 r 33000e- r 33000e- r 00000 j 35000e- ,� I ON 1 I 1 i ; ON I 004 1 i i 004 ...........,I_-----------____-------_-----------------------.------- ________._._.._,.......I_______._______._______a-------i....... Energy •r Omm 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 f 0.0000 0.0000 f 0.0000 Omm r 0.0000 OOM 0.0000 0.0000 1 00000 • r r r r r r r r , r ...........•r x_______ _______'_______x_______ _______a_______'_______v_______�._._.._�......._____ I________---------------_-------- ------ Mobile 8.0100e- 0.0189 t 0.0876 t 3.5000e- 0.0255 3.3000e- 0.0258 t 8.8000e- 3.1000o- ; 7.11o0e- r 26.3675 28.3675 8.6000e- 263855 003 t i r 004 t 004 t t 003 00! 003 t 04 0 Tobl 0.0357 r 0.0180 0.0879 r 3.S000e- r 0.0255 a.aaeee- r 0.0258 r B.8000e- 3.1000e- 7.1100e- • 26.3678 r 20.3670 r 8.6000e- 0.0000 r 26.3a59 11 004 004 003 000 003 004 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 7 of 18 Date: 7/16/2016 10:30 PM ROG NOx CO 502 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM25 Bio-0O2 NBio-0O2 Total COT CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 P1112.5 Total Percent 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Retluctian 3.0 Construction Detail Construction Phase Phase Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Num Days Num Days Phase Description Number Week 1 •Dnll Rig Emissions Estimate lGrading 11/l/2018 11/1/2018 i 51 11 .......s........................{......................J------------4------------4--------4------"`------------------------- 2 •Architectural Coating for PS 1Arrhitectural Coating 112/15I2020 112/28I2020 51 101 ........................or Tank ............Coating ......1-'-2021 1-_—----—_- _______ 3 •Architecturel Coating For Tank :Architectural Coating •7111/2027 •71I30/2021 5• 22• Acres of Grading (Site Preparation Phase): 0 Acres of Grading(Grading Phase): 0 Acres of Paving: 0 Residential Indoor: 0; Residential Outdoor: 0; Non-Residential Indoor: 70,720; Non-Residential Outdoor: 39,320 (Architectural Coating-sgft) OffRoad Equipment Phase Name Offroad Equipment Type Amount Usage Hours Horse Power Load Factor Architectural Coating For Tank lAir Compressors 1! 6.001 78: 0.48 Drill Rig Emissions Estimate 1... Drill Rigs . 7 7.001 500:--4 0.50 9 t i 1, 8.00 __-______ 841 0.74 Architectural Coatin For Tank rGenerelor Sets ............................:........................... {------------1""""'- _......... Drill Rig Emissions Estimate 1.....t........ Saws 01 8.001 81• 0.73 ............................t..._......_...._._.._._....__________.._..�_.__________' ----- 7;...._......... Architectural Coating for PS tar Compressors 1! 8.00- 78' 0.48 Drill Rig Emissions Estimate I Tired Dozers 01 7.001 255• 0.40 ----- t k r Drill Rig Emissions Estimate •TractorslLoatlerslBackhoes 0• 8.00' 9]• 0.3] CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 8 of 18 Date: 7/16/2016 10:30 PM Trios and VMT Phase Name ORroad Equipment I Worker Trip Vendor Trip Hauling Trip Worker Trip Vendor Trip Hauling Trip Worker Vehicle Vendor Hauling Count Number Number Number Leni Length Length Class Vehicle Class Vehicle Class Architectural Coating ! 1; 0.00• 0.001 0.00; 14.70' 6.90; 20.00I1D Mix IHDT_Mix iHHDT . R............ ..............:..._.._..---------------------------------------4------------ -----...._............. ---------- - Drill Rig Emissions i 1; 0.00• --- --- 1--- 6.90; ---- - -- 1HDT_Mix I---- • r _4 • _4 _a- t r _♦ Architectural Coating 2• 0.00' 0.00' 0.00' 14.70• 6.90• 20.00•LD_Mix •HDT_Mix •HHDT 3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction Clean Paved Roads 3.2 Drill Rig Emissions Estimate - 2018 Unmitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitve I Exhaust PM2.5 Blo-CO2 NBio-CO2 Tatal CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total Pas PM2.5 TOUI Category Iblday IWday F,hfi,a Dust I 0.0000 0.0000 l 0.0000 l 00000 0.0000 ; 00000 • l 00000 0.0000 I I I I I -----------_ _- _____II I_______ _______ _______ ______ .I O. 43 I 0.9821 I 0.5888 2.8600 0.0288 0.028 0. 85 00285 1284 287.8904 ; 0.0633 l 289.4405 003 I I Total 0.01 I 0.9621 I 0.5888 I2.6601I 0.0000 I 0.0288 I 0.0288 I 0.0000 0.0265 0.020 • 1267.6904I 261I 0.0833 I 269.6008 11 003 CaIEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 9 of 18 Date: 7/16/2016 10:30 PM 3.2 Drill Rig Emissions Estimate - 2018 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO 502 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitve ExM1aust PM2.5 Blo-CO2 NBio-CO2 T.WICO2 CM N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Tolal PM2.5 PM2.5 Twat Category IWday Iblday Hauling n 00000 1 0.0000 ' 0.0000 ' 00000 ' Owito 1 0.0000 ' Omoo ' 00000 1 0.0000 00000 I 0.0000 ' 00000 1 0.0000 I 0.0000 .I •I I I I I I I • ' __ _______� I I Vendor 0.0000 ' 0.0000 ' 0.0000 ' 0.0000 ' O.W00 ' 0.0000 ' 0.0000 ' O.00DD ' 0.0000 ; 00000 • I O.00W ' O.00DD ' 0.0000 ' i 0.0000 •I •I I I I I I I • I I Worker 0.000D ' 0.0000 ' 0.0000 ' 0.0000 ' 0.0000 ' 0.0000 ' 0.0000 ' 0.0000 ' 0.0000 ; 00000 • I 0.0000 ' O.000D ' 0.0000 ' i 0.0000 I Total 0.0000 0.0000 ' 0.0000 ' 0.0000 ' 0.0000 0.0000 ' 0.0000 ' 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 • ' 0.0000 ' 0.0000 0.0000 ' 0.0000 Mitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO 502 Fugitive ExM1auet PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM25 Bo-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category Iladay Iblday F,Mve Dual • ' ' 00000 1 00000 ' 00000 ' 00000 1 00000 00000 • j 00000 i 0.000U I I I • i ,I 1 I I 1 I I I I • • I I I ..� a • a ! ! a i -I 1 1 I 1 Off-Road •I 00T43 f 0.9621 i 0.5688 i 2.6600e- i 0.0288 ' 0.0288 ' 0.0285 00285 0.0000 1267s904 26Z69041 0.0833 1289 e405 003 i Total 0.070 0.9621 ' 0.6688 ' 2.81 1 0.0000 0.0299 ' 0.0288 ' 0.0000 0.0205 0.0285 • 0.0000 1 287.8904 28).e9pd 0.0833 ' 209.4409 11 003 CaIEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 10 of 18 Date: 7/16/2016 10:30 PM 3.2 Drill Rig Emissions Estimate - 2018 Mitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO 502 Fugitive ExM1auat PM10 Fugitve ExM1aust PM2.5 Blo-CO2 NBio-CO2 TersICO2 CM N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Twat Category IWday Iblday Hauling n 00000 OOOOO ' 0.0000 ' 00000 ' Owito 0.0000 ' Omoo ' 00000 1 0.0000 ; 00000 i 0.0000 ' 00000 0.0000 I 0.0000 Vendor 9.9oao ' 0.0000 ' 9.0099 ' O.99ao ' 9.og99 ' 0.0000 ' 0.0000 ' 0.0oD0 ' 0.9900 ; Om i 0.0000 ' 0.0oD0 ' 0.0000 0.0000 i i i i i a Worker 0.000D ' 0.0000 ' 0.0000 ' 0.0000 ' 0.0000 ' 0.0000 ' 0.0000 ' 0.0000 ' 0.0000 ; 00000 0.0000 ' O.000D ' 0.0000 ' i 0.0000 i Total 0.0000 0.0000 ' 0.0000 ' 0.0000 ' 0.0000 0.0000 ' 0.0000 ' 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 • ' 0.0000 ' 0.0000 0.0000 ' 0.0000 3.3 Architectural Coating for PS -2020 Unmitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO 502 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhau# PM25 Blo-CO2 NBio-CO2 To1aICO2 CH4 N20 I CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category Mey Iblday I hlt Coating • 34763 j 00000 ' 00000 ' 00000 ; 00000 • j 00000 i 0.01M • ' ' ' ' ' ' •� a • a �_______ _______ _______ _______1 ______ Off-Road 01422 ' 1.8838 ' 1.8314 ' 2.9]OOe- i i 0.1109 i 0.1109 i 0.1109 0.1109 261.4a81 2&1 A4E1 0.0218 i i 281 9057 003 i Total 3.7181 1.038 ' 1.8314 ' 2.9700e- 1 0.1100 ' 0.1109 ' 0.1109 0.1109 • 211 1 1 281.4181 0.0218 ' MAW 003 CaIEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 11 of 18 Date: 7/16/2016 10:30 PM 3.3 Architectural Coating for PS - 2020 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive ExM1auet PM10 Fugitve ExM1aust PM2.5 Blo-CO2 NBio-CO2 T.WICO2 GM N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Twat Category IWday Iblday Hauling n 00000 OOOOO ' 0.0000 ' 00000 ' Owito 0.0000 ' 0.0000 ' 00000 1 0.0000 ; 00000 i 0.0000 ' 00000 0.0000 I 0.0000 __ _______ 000 � Vendor 0.0 ' 0.0000 ' 0.0000 ' 0.0000 ' O.W00 ' 0.0000 ' 0.0000 ' O.00DD ' 0.0000 ; 00000 • � 0.0000 ' O.00DD ' 0.0000 ' i 0.0000 a Worker 0.000D ' 0.0000 ' 0.0000 ' 0.0000 ' 0.0000 ' 0.0000 ' 0.0000 ' 0.0000 ' 0.0000 ; 00000 0.0000 ' O.000D ' 0.0000 ' i 0.0000 i Total 0.0000 0.0000 ' 0.0000 ' 0.0000 ' 0.0000 0.0000 ' 0.0000 ' 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 • ' 0.0000 ' 0.0000 0.0000 ' 0.0000 Mitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhau# PM25 Blo-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 I CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category Iladay Iblday I hlt Coating • 34763 j 00000 ' 00000 ' 00000 ; 00000 • j 00000 0.0m Off-Road •i (1d22 f 1.6838 1.8314 2.9]OOe- 0.1109 ' 0.1109 0.1109 0.1109 00000 i 281 A481 � 91 e481 f 0.0218 � � 281 9057 003 i Total 3.7184 1.038 ' 1.8314 ' 2.97000- 1 0.1109 ' 0.1109 ' 0.1109 0.1109 • 0.0000 281771 ' 281 0.0218 ' 28i905] 003 CaIEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 12 of 18 Date: 7/16/2016 10:30 PM 3.3 Architectural Coating for PS - 2020 Mitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive ExM1auet PM10 FugiSve ExM1aust PM2.5 Blo-CO2 NBio-CO2 TersICO2 CM N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Twat Category IWday Iblday Hauling n 00000 00000 ' 0.0000 ' 00000 ' 00000 0.0000 ' 0.0000 ' 00000 1 0.0000 00000 i 0.0000 ' 00000 0.0000 I 0.0000 Vendor 9.9oao ' 0.0000 ' 9.0099 ' 0.99ao ' 9.og99 ' 0.0000 ' 0.0000 ' 0.0" ' 0.0900 00000 i 0.0000 ' 0.0oD0 ' 0.0000 0.0000 a Worker 0.000D ' 0.0000 ' 0.0000 ' 0.0000 ' 0.0000 ' 0.0000 ' 0.0000 ' 0.0000 ' 0.0000 ; 00000 0.0000 ' O.000D ' 0.0000 ' i 0.0000 i Total 0.0000 0.0000 ' 0.0000 ' 0.0000 ' 0.0000 0.0000 ' 0.0009 ' 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 • ' 0.0000 ' 0.0000 0.0000 ' 0.0000 3.4 Architectural Coating For Tank-2021 Unmitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive ExM1auet PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM25 Bo-CO2 NBio-CO2 To1aICO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category Mey Iblday I hlt Coating 579586 j 00000 ' 00000 ' 00000 00000 • j 00000 0.000U ..A a • a ; ; a • .I 1 1 I t Off-Road •, 0e8]0 i 3.9015 i 4.5811 ].9000e- i i 0.2199 ' 0.2199 ' 02199 03198 ]40]2ag , 748.]240 0.0432 ]498303 q 003 i i Total 581 3.9015 ' 4.5811 ' 7.9000e- 1 02109 ' 0.2199 ' 0.2190 0.2199 • 748.7240 1 748.7M 0."32 003 CaIEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 13 of 13 Date: 7/16/2016 10:30 PM 3.4 Architectural Coating For Tank -2021 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO 502 Fugitive ExM1auet PM10 Fugitve ExM1aust P12.5 Blo-CO2 NBio-CO2 TeraICO2 CM N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Twat Category IWday Iblday Hauling n 00000 00000 ' 0.0000 ' 00000 ' 00000 0.0000 ' 0.0000 ' 00000 1 0.0000 ; 00000 i 0.0000 ' 00000 0.0000 I 0.0000 Vendor 9.9aao ' o.og09 ' 9.9999 ' 9.99ao ' 9.0999 ' 0.9999 ' 9.9990 ' 9.9099 ' 0.9999 ; Om 9.9990 ' 9.9099 ' 0.0999 9.9oao a Worker 0.000D ' 0.0000 ' 0.0000 ' 0.0000 ' 0.0000 ' 0.0000 ' 0.0000 ' 0.0000 ' 0.0000 ; 00000 0.0000 ' O.000D ' 0.0000 ' i 0.0000 i Total 0.0000 0.0000 ' 0.0000 ' 0.0000 ' 0.0000 0.0000 ' 0.0000 ' 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 • ' 0.0000 ' 0.0000 0.0000 ' 0.0000 Mitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO 502 Fugitive ExM1auet PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM25 Bo-CO2 NBio-CO2 To1aICO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category Iladay Iblday I hlt Coating 579586 j 00000 ' 00000 ' 00000 ; 00000 • j 00000 0.000U Off-Road •i (i f 3.9015 4.5811 7.9000e- 0.2199 ' 0.2199 ' 02199 01198 00000 i 748J240 ]48.7240 f 0.0432 ]498303 003 i Total Si 3.9015 ' 4.5811 ' T.9000e. 1 01199 ' 0.2199 ' 0.2199 1 0.21" • 0.0000 1 7487240 749.7M 1 0.0432 ' 1 749.003 11 003 CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 14 of 13 Date: 7/16/2016 10:30 PM 3.4 Architectural Coating For Tank -2021 Mitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitve ExM1aust PM2.5 Blo-CO2 NBio-CO2 TotaICO2 GM N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 TneaI Category IWday IWday Hauling n 00000 00000 ' 0.0000 ' 11 ' 00000 0.0000 ' 0.0000 ' 00000 1 0.0000 � 00000 i 0.0000 ' 00000 0.0000 1 0.0000 Ventlor g.gbbo ' o.og0g ' 9.66gg ' 6.gggo ' g.og99 ' o.Bggg ' g.gggo ' g.gogg ' o.B966 6ogoo • � 6.gggo ' g.gogg ' o.oggg ' 1 g.gobo 1 i i i i i i a Worker 0.000D ' 0.0000 ' 0.0000 ' 0.0000 ' 0.0000 ' 0.0000 ' 0.0000 ' 0.0000 ' 0.0000 ; 00000 0.0000 ' 0.000D ' 0.0000 ' I 0.0000 i Total 0.0000 0.0000 ' 0.0000 ' 0.0000 ' 0.0000 0.0000 ' 0.0000 ' 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 • ' 0.0000 ' 0.0000 0.0000 ' 0.0000 4.0 Operational Detail - Mobile 4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile ROG NO. CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitiva Exdauat PM2ii Blo-0O2 NBio-CO2 'Tina 02 CH4 N20 G02e PM10 PM 10 TMaI PM2.5 P12.6 TassI cawgory IWday lblday MNgatetl • 6.0100a- 1 0.0169 i 0.0878 1 3.5000e- i 00255 3.3000s- 0.0258 i 6.8000a- 13.1000e- ; 7.1100.- • 26.3.75 1 2fi.3675 � 8.6000e- 1 � 26.3855 1 003 004 004 003 004 003 1 004 i ......aced -_.._.-4._.0169 __.._.I-._.00.- _........_y__.._I-.002W .__..-F_.._._r-•1---_-.......{-.6,3675 -_._5 8,6.__I_.__..e...... UnmiOgetetl 6.0100e- 0.0169 0.0878 3.S000e- 00255 33000e- 0.0258 6.8000e- 3.1000e- ].1100e- 263fi]5 2fi.36]5 8.6000o- 26.3855 003 004 004 003 004 003 004 CaIEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 15 of 18 Date: 7/16/2016 10:30 PM 4.2 Trip Summary Information Average Daily Trip Rate Unmitigated Mitigated Land Use Weekday Saturday Sunday Annual VMT Annual VMr General Heavy Industry 2.00 2.00 2.00 12,055 12,055 Total 2.00 2.00 2.00 12,055 12,055 4.3 Trip Type Information Mlles Trip% Trip Purpose% Land Use H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW H-W or C-W H-S or C-C I HA or C-NW I Primary I Diverted I Pass-by General Heavy Industry 16.60 8,40 6.90 100,00 0,00 000 100 0 0 L0 LDT1 LDT2 MDV LHD1 LHD2 MHD HHD OBUS UBUS MCV SBUS MH 5043• 0,056653• 0 0.5 .194832• 0.151784• 0,042126• 0005989• 0.016072• 0.016505• 0.001461• 0.002178: 0.004464: 0.000494: 0.002401 g.g 4Fgglpypeta!I Historical Energy Use: N 5.1 Mitigation Measures Energy ROG NO. CO I S02 I Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Blo-CO2 NBio-CO2 TotaICO2 CH4 N20 002s PM10 PM TOUI PM2S PM2.5 TOUI Category Wday IWda, NalumlGas v 0.0000 0.0000 I 0,0000 I 00000 I i 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 00000 Miligatetl NaluralGas •• OOOOD 0.0000 0.0000 00000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 00000 0.0000 OOOOD O.OD00 0.0000 00000 unmiogatea CaIEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 16 of 18 Date: 7/16/2016 10:30 PM 5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas Unmitigated NaturalGa ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bia-002 1 NBb CO2 Total 002 1 CH6 I N20 1 CO2e .Use PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 TOWI Land Use kBTUNr Ihlday dday General Has 0 n 0.0000 0.0000 OOCOD 0.D000 00000 0.OD00 0.0000 0.0000 • 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0005 O.o000 Industry i Total • 0.0000 1 0.0000 ' 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 O.00oo 1 0.0000 0.0000 • 0.0000 0.0000 1 0.0000 ' O.000o 0.0000 Mitigated Natu.IGa ROG NOx 00 502 Fugftive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-0O2 I NBio-0O2 TOWI CO2 I CH4 I N20 I CO2e s Use PM10 PM10 TOWI PM2.5 PM2.5 TOWI Land Use kBTUN'r Ib/day May General rvea, 0 o D000 o 0000 0 DODD a DDoo ' 0 0000 ' a D000 ' o ooaa a ODoo • a ODDO 0 0000 o 0000 a DODO o D000 ToM 0.0000 ' 0.0000 1 0.0000 0.0000 ' 0.0000 1 0.0000 ' 0.0000 0.0000 O.ODDO 0.0000 ' 0.0000 1 O.00DD a.D000 6.0 Area Detail 6.1 Mitigation Measures Area CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 17 of 18 Date: 7/16/2016 10:30 PM ROG NO. CO 502 Fu9i4ve Exhaust PM10 Fugitive ExOausl PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBie-0O2 T.Wi CO2 OMN20 002e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total category IWeaY IWeay Mitigated n 0.0297 ' 00000 1 1.5000, I 0.0000 ' 1 0.0000 ' 0.0000 I 00000 0.0000 • 133000e- 13.MON I 00000 1 ' 3.5000e- i ON ON ' 004 I i 000 I I ' •I I I I I I i ' I I ........... '~.-..- ..--.. .-----________ ------ Unmitigated •• 0.029] 0.0000 15000e- 0,0000 0.0000 O.000O 0.0000 0.0000 3.3000a- 3.3000e- 0.0000 3.5000e- ON ON 004 004 6.2 Area by SubCategory Unmitigated ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-0O2 N8io-0O2 Total CO2 CHO I N20 I CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM25 PM2.5 Tolal SubCategory lWday lWday Consumer I 0.0297 I 0.0000 0.0000 1 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 I 0.0000 Produce I I � I 1 I I I • , -a a a . a a a a I I I ' tlsce 1.0001 0.0000 1S000e 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.000 0.0000 3.3000e- 3.3000a- 0. 000I I 3.S000e- L e_rcn_M1_Oa_c_N_ra_ 005 00 I I I I I 00 i 0 004 -----------------------_-------_-------_-------_-------_-------_---------------------- -------i_______i _______i -- Con 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.000 0.0000 0.0� o99 o Total 0.029T j 0.0000 j 1.5000a, 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 • ' 3.301 ' 3.3000e- 0.-00 ' 3.5000e- ON 004 ON 000 CaIEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 18 of 18 Date: 7/16/2016 10:30 PM 6.2 Area by SubCategory Mitigated ROG NO. CO S02 Fugitve EMaua PM10 Fugitive Exbausl PM2.5 Blo-CO2 NBic-002 Told CO2 CMN20 1 002a PM10 PM10 Tolal PM2.5 PM2.5 Tolal SubCategory Ibltlay Ibltlay Consumer I 0.0297 I 00000 I 0.0000 I 1 000oo � 0.0000 I 00000 I 1 00000 Proau dt i i I i i I I I I I q 1 I I I • � I I I I I I • • _♦ _� _� _� _� _� _i_______ _______�_______I ______ ______ _______I ______ I I I 006 0 Lantlscaping v 1.WOOe- I O.W00 1 1 S 0OOOe- i 0.0000 I I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I I 0.0000 0.0000 13.300De- i 3.3000e- I 0.0000 I 13.S000e- 005 I i 00 I i I i I ONI I I I I • 'I I I I I I I • I I I ArMOectu2l v 0.0000 I I I I I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I I O.ODoO � 0.0000 • I 0.0000 I I I --0.0000 coating i i i i I I TZI 0.0297 I 0.0000 1.5000a. I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 0.0000 • 13.=. 13.3000e- I 0.0000 I 3.50000- o0a ooa o0a Bna 7.0 Water Detail 7.1 Mitigation Measures Water 8.0 Waste Detail 8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste 9.0 Operational Offroad Equipment Type Number Hours Day Days(Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type 10.0 Vegetation CaIEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 1 of 22 Date: 7/16/2016 11:30 PM EQ FLow Tank Orange County, Annual 1.0 Project Characteristics 1.1 Land Usage Land Uses Size Metric Lot Acreage Floor Surface Area Population General Heavy Industry 1.50 10001 0.03 1,501 0 1.2 Other Project Characteristics Urbanization Urban Wind Speed(ni 2.2 Precipitation Freq(Days) 30 Climate Zone 8 Operational Year 2022 Utility Company Southern California Edison CO2 Intensity 630.89 CH4 Intensity 0,029 N20 Intensity 0.00617 (IbIMWhr) (IbIMWhr) (IbIMWhr) 1.3 User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 2 of 22 Date: 7/16/2016 11:30 PM Project Characteristics- Determination of emissions for Dril Rig,Architectural Coating Emissions, and operational Activities Land Use- Construction Phase- Building and Tank Architectural Coating and Dril Rig Emission factor determination only Off-road Equipment-See Assumptions Off-road Equipment- Generator for use with sand blaster for prepping tank for coating Trips and VMT-See Assumptions Architectural Coating-See Assumptions Vehicle Trips-See Assumptions Area Coating-See Assumptions Landscape Equipment-See Assumptions Energy Use-See Assumptions Water And Wastewater-See Assumptions Solid Waste-See Assumptions Construction Off-road Equipment Mitigation- Off-road Equipment- Table Name Column Name Default Value New Value tblArchitecturalCoating Consb%rea_Nomesidential_Extenor 750.00 39,320.00 ......................9------i-----------------------------}_____________________________�......... 70,72 ............ tblkchitecturalCoatin Consbkrea_Nome.idential_Imenor 2,250.00 ]0,]20.00 ------------------ng--------- --------------n-----rcent-----i.______________'O ?------------ U ------.----. Ratel tblAreaCoati .............................i-----------------------------}-----------------------------4.......................... tblConstructionPhase NumDdys 5.00 22.00 -----------------------------{----------------------------- }-------------- 5.__00-------------------------1--0.00------------. tblConstructionPhase NumDaye .............................i-----------------------------}-----------------------------4.......................... tblConstructionPhase NumDdys 2.00 1.00 -------tblConstructionPhase----------------------4-----------------------------t-----------1Y27Y2021 ----------?---------11/30/------------- PhaseEndDatei tblConstructionPhase -----------PhaseEndDate r ---- -- -------- r 12/2812020 -------tblConstructionPhase ------ ---------PhaseStanDate -------------------- 12/292020----------?--------- 11/12021 --- - - .............................i-----------------------------------------------------------4.......................... tblConstructionPhase PhaseStartDate 1/2/2018 1VI512020 -----------------------------4-----------------------------4------------------------------ -------------------------- tblEnergyUse NT24NG 6.86 0.00 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 3 of 22 Date: 7/16/2016 11:30 PM tblEnergyUse T24NG 14.78 0.00 ................q.P......._.. ----------.........----------¢------------ ------------4.......................... t i&iRoatlE ui ment Horse Power i 205.00 500.00 ..............................-----------------------------------------------------------4.......................... 1b106RoadEquipmenl OflRoadEquipmentType i Bore/Drill Rigs .............................4-----------------------------------------------------------4-------------------------- tbIOlfRoatlEquipment OflRoadEquipmenlType i Genemlor Sets ..............................-----------------------------------------------------------4.......................... 1b106RoadEquipmenl OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount i 1.00 0.00 .............................4-----------------------------------------------------------4-------------------------- tbIOlfRoatlEquipment OffRoadEquipmenlUnit ount i 1.00 0.00 ..............................-----------------------------------------------------------4.......................... 1b106RoadEquipmenl OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount i 2.00 0.00 ..................-----------4-----------------------------------------------------------4.......................... IblProjectOharactenstics N20intensilyFactor i 0.006 0.00617 ......................-------4-----------------------------------------------------------4.......................... iblProjedCharacteristics OperetionalVear i 2014 2022 .............................i-----------------------------}_____________________________4.......................... tblsolidWaste Solid WasteGenerationRate 1 1.86 0]0 ...................---------- -----------------------------------------------------------4.......................... 1blTripsMdVMT WorkerTripNumber i 3.00 0.00 ..................P......._..4-----------------------------}_____________________________4.......................... tblVehicleTri s CC_TTP i 28.00 0.00 .............................4-----------........----------}_____________________________4.......................... tbNehicleTrips CNW_TTP i 13.00 0.00 --------- .........P......._..4---------------_H------------------------------------------4.......................... tbNehicleTri s CW_TTP 1 59.00 100.00 ...........................................................+_____________________________4.......................... 1blVehicleTripa DV_TP i 5.00 0.00 ..................P......._..4-----------------------------}_____________________________4.......................... tbNehicleTri s PB_TP i 3.00 0.00 .............................4................-------------------------------------------4.......................... tbNehicleTrips PR_TP i 92.00 100.00 ..................P......._..i-----------------------------}_____________ _____________4.......................... tbNehi.... s ST_TR i 1.50 1.33 ............................. ------------.................}_____________________________4.......................... tbNehicleTrips SU_TR i 1.50 1.33 ..................P......._..4-----------------------------}_____________ _____________4.......................... tblVehicleTri s WD_TR i 1.50 1.33 ------------.....------------4-----------------------------------------------------------4.......................... tblWater AerobicPeroent r 87.46 97.54 .............................%n.e bimndF--------goonsP----}________________-------------4------------.............. tblWaler •AnaerobicantlFacultativeLagoonsPercenl+ 2.21 2.46 ------------.....------------4-----------------------------------------------------------4.......................... tblWater IndoorWaterUseRate i 346,875.00 260,156.00 .............................4-----------------------------4------------------------------k.......................... tblWaler SepticTankPercent 10.33 0.00 2.0 Emissions Summary CaIEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 4 of 22 Date: 7/16/2016 11:30 PM 2.1 Overall Construction Unmitigated Construction ROG I NO. I 00 I 502 I Fugitive Exhaun PM10 Fugitive ExM1ausl PM2.5 BIo-COF NBia-002 ToWICO2 CH4 N20 002. PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Veer bnelyi 64r/yr 2018 n 4WOO, ; 4,8000, 2 e000e- ; 0.0000 ' 00000 LOOOOe ; 1 WOO, ; 00000 1,0000, ; 1 WOO, • 00000 I 0.1214 ' 0.1214 ' 4.0000, 1 0.0000 1 0.1222 005 I 006 ON I i 005 I 005 I 005 005 ' 005 i I •I I I I I I . I 2020 0.0186 ' 8.4200e- 1 9.1800e- 1 1.000Oe- I 0.0000 ' S.5000e- 1 5.5000e- 1 0.0000 ' S.5000e- ; 5.S000e- • 0.0000 I 1.2]88 ' 1.2786 ' 1.0000. 1 0.0000 1 1.2787 .I I 003 I 003 I 005 I 004 I ON I 006 ON •I I I I I I I � ' 2021 0.8429 ' 0.0429 0.0504 ' 9.000Oe- I O.00DD ' 2.4200e- 1 2.4200e- 1 0.0000 ' 2.4200e- ; 2.4200e- • 0.0000 I ].4]15 ' 7.4715 ' 4.3000e- ,--0.0000 1 TABOO I 1 I 005 I 1 003 I 003 I 003 003 i i 006 1 I I Tobl 0.6615 ' 0.0518 0.0598 ' 1.0No* ' 0.00D0 2.98000. ' 2.98000. ' 0.000D 2.9800. 2.98000- • 0.0000 ' 8.8696 ' 8.86% 1 5.7000. 0.0000 8.8815 004 003 003 003 003 ON Mitigated Construction ROG NO. CO 502 Fugitive ExM1ausl PM10 Fugitive ExM1auM PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBia-0O2 T.WICO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Vear We , MTIYr 2018 •1 4DDDDe- ' 46000e- z 8000, ' 0 0000 1 0 OODO 1 0000, ' 1 0009e- ' D OOOD 1 0000e- ; 1 0000e- • 0 0000 1 0.1214 ' 01214 ' 40000e- ' 0 0000 1 01222 :1 005 i ON ON 1 005 005 005 005 i 1 005 .._........,1------------____------- _______ -------_-------_-------_-------_----------------.......I_______._______._______.......... ....... 2020 •I 0.0188 i 54200e- i 9.1600e- i 1 OODOe- 1 00000 i 5.5000e- i 5.WOOe- i 00000 i 5.5000e- ; 5.5000e- 00000 I 1.2766 i 12766 i 1.0000e- i 0.0000 1 127e7 :1 003 I 003 I 005 I ON I ON I 00 ON I I I I I I I I 'I .._........•' ______1_______ _______'_______x_______ -------a-------a-------a----------------... ______a_I ______x_______a_I ______r...... 0.6 2021 629 ' 0.0629 ' 0.0500 ' 9.000Oe- 1 0.0000 ' 2.4200tr i 2.6200e- i 0.0000 1 24200e- ; 2.6200e- • 0.0000000 i ).4]15 i 7.6715 i 4.3000 1 0.0000 1 ]4806 005 I 1 003 I 003 I i 003 003 1 I I 0e-04 1 Tool 0.6615 1 0.0518 0.0598 ' 1.000Oo- 1 0.0000 2.9800a. ' 2.9000e. ' 0.0000 2.9800a 2.9800e. , 0.0000 8.8690 ' 8.86% 1 5.7000a 0.0000 1 8.8815 11 0" 003 003 03 003 004 CaIEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 5 of 22 Date: 7/16/2016 11:30 PM ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive ExM1aua[ PM2.5 Bio-0O2 NBio-COY Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2 PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM" Total P.,..m 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1 0.00 1 0.00 0.00 0.00 Reduction 2.2 Overall Operational Unmitigated Operational ROG NO 00 S02 Fugitve Exhaust PM10 Fugigve Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-0O2 NBio-002 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2a PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category tone, W/yr Area n 542OOe- 1 00000 2.0000e- I 0.0000 I 00000 I 0.0000 I 0woo ; 0.0000 r 00000 14.0000e- 14.0000e- 1 0OOOO 0.0000 i 40000e- .I 003 I 005 . 005 I 005 005 .._........a_------i______i______i______i______i______i______i______i______________ I_______._______._______._______------. Energy 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 3.9663 3.9863 1.8000 - 1 4.00OOo- 3.9821 .._.MOM1.e.... I 004 1 005 _ ._______ _____:_______------. 1.00 - 3.3200e 0o155 6.00O - 4.5600 - 5gaaao- 4.8200 - 1.20e- 50000e 127oge- 0.0000 I 4.2125 4.2125 1.4000 0.0000 4.2155 .I 003 003 005 003 005 003 003 1 005003 Waste ________._--- .. i I I 0py I ii 0.0000 0.0000 OOo0 0.0000 0.1421 0.0000 0.1421 0.4000e- 1 0.0000 0.3184 Lb3 I I I I I I I I I .._.W.a.te.r....•�I�_______I________I________I________I________1-------_-------_--------___________ . I_______ 00000 0.0000 0000 0_0000 0.0920 I 0.9894 1.0814 2.6900o- 12.1 OOOo- 1.1829 003 004 i Total O.S000e- 13.32007 0.0165 18.0000e- 14.580oe- e.o999e- 14.0200e- 11.2200e- 9.0.0., 1.2700e- , 0.2341 9.1482 I 9.= I 0.0114 2.6000e- 9.6989 11 OOJ 003 005 003 005 OOJ 003 005 003 ON CaIEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 6 of 22 Date: 7/16/2016 11:30 PM 2.2 Overall Operational Mitigated Operational ROG I Nor I CO I 502 I Fugitve Exhaun PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 BIo-COF Mrry NBio-002 ToWICO2 CMN20 002. PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total cereeory loearyT r Area n 542o0e- 1 00000 20000e- 1 0.0000 I 00000 I 0.0000 I 00000 0.0000 • 00000 140000e. 1 4.0000e- l 00000 0.0000 14.000Oe- .I 003 I 005 I i i i I 005 I 005 I 1 005 •I I I I I I I __ •I ---------------�-------- I I En_ergy 0.0000 I o.W00 10.0000 10.0000 I 10.0000 10.0000 I 10.0000 0.0000 • 0.0000 13.9883 13.9883 I1.8000e- 14.00 1 3.9821 [u 0 I 0055 I •I I I I I I I Moblle _ I I -------i------- ------- ------- ------- ------- __ ____ _______-________ -------- ______a-------a_I ______i_______r______ 1.OBOOe- i 3.3200e- i 0.0155 i 6.WOOo- i 4.SBOOe- i B.000Oa i 4.8200e- i 1.2200e- i 3.000Oe- 1 1.270Oe- • 0.0000 I 4.2125 i 4.2125 i 1.4000e- i 0.0000 I 4.2155 .I 003 I o03 I I 005 I 003 1 WS I 003 I 003 1 005 --- I I I ON_______ __ I 1 •I I I I I I I • ___________•I _ __�_______ Waste I I I I I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I I 0.0000 1 O.00oO • 0.1421 I 0.0000 I 0.1421 184000e- I 0.0000 1 03184 .I 003 1 I •I I I I I I I ___________•I _______i_______ _______ _______i_______ _______ _______i_______________ _______ Water I I I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 1 OoOoO • 0.0920 I 0.9694 I 1.0614 12.6900e- 2.10OW- 1 1.1827 i i i i i i 003 1 004 I Total 6.5 0 e- 13.3200e- 0.0155 16.0000e-005 14.5600e-003 6.000U005e- 14.6200e-003 11.2200003e- 6.000005 50, 1.2 0]03 00 004.- • 0.2341 I 9.14 S000e 82 I 9.3823 I 0.0114 2. - 9.6988 000 03 003 ROG NOx CO S02 FugHlve ExM1aust PM1Y Fugltive Exhaust PM25 810-L03 NBIo-L02 Total CO2 LH4 N30 L03e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Percent 000 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Reduction 3.0 Construction Detail Construction Phase Phase Phase Name Phase Type Stall Dale End Date Num Days Num Days Phase Description Number I Week 1 •Dnll Rig Emissions Estimate 1Graning 11/1/2018 11/1/2018 51 11 I .._....:..............9_........;.........Coating ......1____________a____________ _____; .............. 2 •Amhit-----Coatin for-- IArchi------Coatin 172I15/2020 172I28/2020 51 101 .._....:. .............or Tank ..1..........._..........1-'-2021 1_--"'-_�_______�__-___�------------------------- :Architectural 3 Coating For Tank •Architectural Coating •11/1/2021 •11/302021 5 22• CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 7 of 22 Date: 7/16/2016 11:30 PM Acres of Grading (Site Preparation Phase): 0 Acres of Grading(Grading Phase): 0 Acres of Paving: 0 Residential Indoor: 0; Residential Outdoor: 0; Non-Residential Indoor: 70,720; Non-Residential Outdoor: 39,320(Architectural Coating—sgft) OffRoad Eauioment Phase Name Jffj Of roatl Equipment Type Amount Usage Hours Horse Power Load Factor Architectural Coating For Tank )Air Compressors 11 6.001 78' 0.48 Drill Rig Emissions Estimate (Bore/Drill Rigs 1 1.00l 500• 0.50 Architectural Coating For Tank )Generator Sets 11 B.00i 84' 0]4 Drill Rig Emissions Estimate (Concrete.... .. Saws 01 8.001 81• 0.73 Architectural Coating for Ps )Air Compressors 1! 6.00 78' 0.48 ....... ..................................... ______..__.._..{_.__________._____________ ...._......... Drill Rig Emissions Estimate (Rubber Tired 0� 1.00- 25S 0.40 t ----- r Drill Rig Emissions Estimate •TractorslLoatlerslBackhoes 0: 8.00• 97• 0.37 Trios and VMT Phase Name Offroad Equipment I Worker Trip Ventlor Trip Hauling Trip Worker Trip Ventlor Trip Hauling Trip Worker Vehicle Vendor Hauling Count Number Number Number LengM Length Length Class VehiGe Class Vehicle Class Architectural Coaling ) 1; 0.00• 0.00i 0,00: 14.70' 6.90; 20.00;LD_Mix iHDT_Mix ;HHDT t___ 1_______ Drill Rig Emissions ) 1; 0.00• 0.001 0.001 14.70' 6.90; 20.00:LD_Mix iHDT—Mix JHHDT &.... Architectural Coaling ; 2• 0.00' 0.00' 0.00' 14.70' 6.90' 20.00'LD_Mix •HDT_Mix •HHDT 3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction Clean Paved Roads CaIEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 8 of 22 Date: 7/16/2016 11:30 PM 3.2 Drill Rig Emissions Estimate - 2018 Unmitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Blo-CO2 NBio-CO2 TOISICO2 CM N20 I CO2e PM10 PM10 Total Phi PM2.5 TWaI Category WOW, MT/p Fugitive Oust i I 1 00000 0.0000 I Omoo 1 00000 0.0000 ; 00000 0.0000 I Omoo 1 00000 1 00000 I 0.0000 1 00000 •I I I • Ott • -Rod • I 4800 1I 2. OII 00000 I I I I •�_______ •• I__ _ _ _ _ __ _I _ 4.0000e- i W e OO _ 0.1214 I 0.1214 14.000Oe- I 0.0000 i 0.1222 005 i 004 I 004 I I i 005 I 005 I i 005 005 i i 005 I I I Total 4.00000- 4.8000e- 12.B000e. I 0.0000 I 0.0000 11.=. 11.00000- I 0.0000 1.0000s. 1.0000e. • 0.0000 I 0.1214 I 0.1214 4.0000a. I 0.0000 0.1222 11 005 ON ON 005 005 005 005 005 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NO CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM25 Blo-CO2 NBio-CO2 TOtaICO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category toresyr Mrly Heulilg •I 0.0000 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 0.0000 ; 0.0000 • 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 OD000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 •I I I I I I I I • I •I I I I I I I veeaod•I aI aI aI aI aI aI a i gBao 0000 000g oggo aoo 0000 ooga . __o_____ I r go 0000 ggo 0.0000 0.0000 g.gaoo 0.000 1 0.0000 i o.gaao I •I I I I I I I I ; i I i -----------•I _-------_-------_-------_-------_-------_-------_-------_--------------- _____I Worker 0.0000 i 0.0000 j 0.0000 j 0.0000 j 0.0000 j 0.0000 j 0.0000 j 0.0000 j 0.0000 ; 0.0000 • 0.0000 I 0.0000 j 0.0000 i 0.0000 j 0.0000 i 0.0000 I i i i i i I i I Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 I 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 I 0.0000 CaIEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 9 of 22 Date: 7/16/2016 11:30 PM 3.2 Drill Rig Emissions Estimate - 2018 Mitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Blo-CO2 NBio-CO2 TOISICO2 CM N20 I CO2e PM10 PM10 Total Phi PM2.5 TWaI Category WOW, MT/p Fugitive Oust i I 1 00000 0.0000 I Omoo 1 00000 0.0000 ; 00000 • 0.0000 I Omoo 1 00000 1 00000 I 0.0000 1 00000 •I I I • Ott • -Rod • I 4800 1I 2. OII 00000 I I I I •�_______ •• I__ _ _ _ _ __ _I _ 4.0000e- i W 0 O _ 0.1214 I 0.1214 14.000Oe- I 0.0000 i 0.1222 005 i 004 I 004 I I i 005 I 005 I i 005 005 i i 005 I I I Total 4.00000- 4.8000e- 12.B000e. I 0.0000 I 0.0000 11.=. 11.00000- I 0.0000 1.0000s. 1.0000e. • 0.0000 I 0.1214 I 0.1214 4.0000a. I 0.0000 0.1222 11 0a5 ON ON 005 005 005 005 005 Mitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NO CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM25 Blo-CO2 NBio-CO2 TOtaICO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category tonsi Mrly Heulilg •I 0.0000 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 0.0000 ; 0.0000 • 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 OD000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 •I I I I I I I I • I •I I I I I I I veeaod•I aI aI aI aI aI aI a i gBao 0000 000g oggo aoo 0000 ooga . __o_____ I r go 0000 ggo 0.0000 0.0000 g.gaoo 0.000 1 0.0000 i o.gaao I •I I I I I I I I ; i I i -----------•I _-------_-------_-------_-------_-------_-------_-------_--------------- _____I Worker 0.0000 i 0.0000 j 0.0000 j 0.0000 j 0.0000 j 0.0000 j 0.0000 j 0.0000 j 0.0000 ; 0.0000 • 0.0000 I 0.0000 j 0.0000 i 0.0000 j 0.0000 i 0.0000 I i i i i i I i I Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 I 0.0000 0.0M 0.0000 0.0000 I 0.0000 CaIEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 10 of 22 Date: 7/16/2016 11:30 PM 3.3 Architectural Coating for PS - 2020 Unmitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Blo-CO2 NBio-CO2 TeISICO2 CM N20 I CO2e PM10 PM10 Total Phi PM2.5 Total Category Who, MT/p A¢hit.Coating �I 00174 I I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 ; 00000 0.0000 I 0.0000 1 00000 00000 I 0.0000 1 00000 •I I I I I I I I I I I --- __ _ _______ _______ _______ _______ _______ _______ _______ _______-___ --- •I Ott-Road 1.2100e- 10.4200e- 19.i800e- 11.000Oe- I 15.5000e- 15.SWOe- 155000e- ; 5.S000e- 0.0000 I 1.2706 I 1.2766 11.0000e- I 0.0000 i 1987 003 003 I 003 I 005 I i 004 I 000 I i 004 000 � i 004 I I I Total 0.0106 SA200a I metes,- 11.000Oe- I S.S000e- 15.5000e- I 5.5000e- 5.5000e- • 0.0000 I 1.2780 I 1.3700 1.0000a. I 0.0000 1.2787 11 009 003 005 004 006 ON004 004 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NO CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM25 Bo-CO2 NBio-CO2 TotaICO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category tons/Yr Mrly Heulilg •I 0.0000 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 0.0000 ; 0.0000 • 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 oD000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 •I I I I I I I I • I •I I I I I I I veeaod•I aI aI aI aI aI aI a i BBao 0000 000g oBBo aoo 0000 ooga . __o_____ I r go 0000 BBo 0.0000 0.0000 B.gaoo 0.000 1 0.0000 1 o.Baao I •I I I I I I I I ; i I i -----------•I _-------_-------_-------_-------_-------_-------_-------_--------------- _____I Worker 0.0000 i 0.0000 j 0.0000 j 0.0000 j 0.0000 j 0.0000 j 0.0000 j 0.0000 j 0.0000 ; 0.0000 • 0.0000 I 0.0000 j 0.0000 i o.0000 j 0.0000 0.0000 I i i i i i I i I Total 0.0000 0.000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 I 0.0000 0.0000 0.000 0.0000 I 0.0000 CaIEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 11 of 22 Date: 7/16/2016 11:30 PM 3.3 Architectural Coating for PS -2020 Mitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Blo-CO2 NBio-CO2 TOISICO2 CM N20 I CO2e PM10 PM10 Total Phi PM2.5 Total Category Who, MT/p A¢hit.Coating �I 00174 I I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 ; 00000 • 0.0000 I 0.0000 1 00000 00000 I 0.0000 1 00000 -I I I I I I I I I I I --- __ _ _______ _______ _______ _______ _______ _______ _______ ___________ --- •I Ott-Road 1.2100e- 10.4200e- 19.i800e- 11.000Oe- I 15.500oe- 15.SWOe- 155000e- ; 5.S000e- • 0.0000 I 1.2706 I 1.2766 11.0000e- I 0.0000 i 1987 003 i 003 I 003 I 005 I i 004 I 000 I i 004 000 i i 004 I I I Total 0.0106 SA200a I mattes. 11.000Oe- I S.S000e- 15.5000e- I 5.5000e- 5.5000e- • 0.0000 I 1.2785 I 1.3708 1.000Ue- I 0.0000 1.2787 11 009 003 005 004 006 ON 004 004 Mitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NO CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM25 Bo-CO2 NBio-CO2 TotaICO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category tons/Yr Mrly Heulilg •I 0.0000 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 0.0000 ; 0.0000 • 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 ODo00 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 •I I I I I I I I • I •I I I I I I I vendod•I I I I I I I a i j 0000 00O 0.0000 0.0000 O.O000 0.000 1 0.0000 O.O000 a a a a a _ O _ I r 0.0000 0.000 O.000O O00O O.W00 o.000O O.000O OOWO I •I I I I I I I I : ; i I i ----------- _-------_-------_-------_-------_-------_-------_-------_--------------- _____I Worker •I 0.0000 i 0.000 j 0.0000 j 0.0000 j O.W00 j 0.0000 j 0.0000 j O.OWO j 0.0000 ; O.000O • 0.0000 I 0.0000 j 0.000o i O.0000 j 0.0000 i 0.0000 I i i i i i I i I Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 I 0.0000 0.0m 0.0000 0.0000 I 0.00W CaIEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 12 of 22 Date: 7/16/2016 11:30 PM 3.4 Architectural Coating For Tank-2021 Unmitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust Polo Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Blo-CO2 NBio-CO2 TeISICO2 CM N20 I CO2e PM10 PM10 Total Phi PM2.5 Total Category tonal, MT/p A¢ht Coating ,�II 06375 I 1I 'i i i 0.0000 i 0000i 0.0000 00000 0.0000 I 0000i 00wit 00000 i 0.0000 i 00000 ___O_tt _ -Ro_ad _ -------_-------_-------_____________--- ------- I.I 5.3600e- O.W2_ 0.0504 9.00Oe- 2.420 2.42We- 2420 2.4200e- 0.0000 ].4715 I 7.4715 4.3000e- I 0.0000 i 7,4806 003 005 I i 003 I 003 I i 003 003 � i 004 I I I Total 0.11WI29 0.W29 I 0.0504 19.0000e- I 12.=. 12.4200e- I 2.4200e- 2.4200e- • 0.0000 I 7A715 I 7.4715 4.3000a. I 0.0000 7."06 11 005 009 003 003 003 004 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NO CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM25 Bo-CO2 NBio-CO2 TotaICO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category tons Whir Heulilg •I 0.0000 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.O000 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 0.0000 ; 0.0000 • 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 o0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 •I I I I I I I I • I •I I I I I I I venaod•I aI aI aI aI aI aI a i 96ao 0000 0009 o96o aoo 0000 oo9a . __o_____ I r go 0000 990 0.0000 0.0900 9.0aoo 0.000 1 0.0090 1 0.9aao I •I I I I I I I I ; i I i ---- ------- I ___________________________________________________________________________ _____I a____ I______________________________________ Worker 0.0000 i 0.0000 j 0.0000 j 0.0000 j O.WOo j 0.0000 j 0.0000 j O.OWO j 0.0000 ; 0.0000 • 0.0000 I 0.0000 j 0.000o i o.0000 j 0.0000 0.0000 I i i i i i I i I Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 I 0.0000 0.0m 0.0000 0.0000 I 0.00M CaIEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 13 of 22 Date: 7/16/2016 11:30 PM 3.4 Architectural Coating For Tank-2021 Mitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO 502 Fugitive Exhaust Polo Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Blo-CO2 NBio-CO2 TeISICO2 01-14 N20 I CO2e PM10 PM10 Total Phi PM2.5 Total Category tonal, MT/p A¢ht Coating ,�II 06375 I 1I 'i i i 0.0000 i 0000i 0.0000 00000 0.0000 I 0000i 00wit 00000 i 0.0000 i 00000 ___O_tt _ -Ro_ad _ -------_-------_-------_____________--- _______.I 5.3600e- O.OB_ 0.0504 9.00Oe- 2.420 2.4200e- 2420 2.4200e- 0.0000 I ].4715 I 7.4]15 4.3000e- I 0.0000 I 7,4806 003 I I I 005 I i 003 I 003 I i 003 003 I i 004 I I I Total 0.6429 O.W29 I 0.0504 19.0000e- I 12.42 . 12.4200e- I 2.4200e- 2.4200e- • 0.0000 I 7A715 I 7.4715 4.3000a. I 0.0000 7."06 11 005 009 003 003 003 004 Mitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NO CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM25 Bo-CO2 NBio-CO2 TotaICO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category tons Whir Heulilg •I 0.0000 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.000o 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 0.0000 ; 0.0000 • 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 00000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 •I I I I I I I---venao- •d••III I aIII aIII aIII aII I aII I aII I a o �_______ •i; I r 9.6aao o.000 0.0099 0.96o a.0000 0.0009 0.0900 9.goo .0000 0.990 0.0000 III 0.0900 Ii 9.gaooI 0.000 1i 0.0090 I o.9aao Wo-ke -------_-------_-------_-------_-------_-------_-------_-------_--------------- _____ r- I 0.0000 j 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I O.WOo I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I O.OWO j 0.0000 ; 0.0000 • 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.000o i 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 i i i i i I i I Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 I 0.0000 0.0m 0.0000 0.0000 I 0.00m 4.0 Operational Detail - Mobile CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 14 of 22 Date: 7/16/2016 11:30 PM 4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile ROG NOx CO 502 Fugitive ExM1aust PM10 Fugitve ExM1auR PM2.5 Blo-CO2 NBio-CO2 T.tal CO2 CM N20 CO2s PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 TWaI Category mnsryr W/yr Miligatetl v 10B00e- 3.3200e- I 0,0155 60000s- 14.5600e- 80000s- i 46200e- 112200s- 80000e- 12700e- • 0.0000 i 4.2125 42125 1 14000, I 0.0000 1 42155 •. 003 003 i 005 003 1 005 003 003 005 003 i i 004 i i I Unmltlgaled •• 1.0800e- 3.3200e- 0.0155 6.0000e- 4.5600e- 6.0000e- 4.6200e- 1.2200e- BOOOOe- 1.2700e- 0.0000 4.2125 4.2125 14000e- 0.0000 4.2155 003 003 005 003 005 003 003 005 003 004 4.2 Trip Summary Information Average Daily Trip Rate Unmitigated Mitigated Land Use Weekday Saturday Sunday Annual VMT Annual VMT General Heavy Industry 2,00 2.00 2.00 12,055 12,055 Total 2,00 2.00 2.00 12,055 12,055 4.3 Trip Type Information Miles Trip% Trip Purpose% Land Use H-Wor C-W H-S or C-C IH-Oor C-NW H-W or C-W H-S or C-C I H-O or C-NW Pool Diverted Pass-by General Heavy Industry 1660 8,40 6.90 100,00 0,00 0,00 100 0 0 L50 0,056653•LDTi LDT2 MDV LHD7 LHD2 MHD HHD OBUS UBUS MCV SBUS MH 0. 05043• 0.194832• 0.151784• 0,042126• 0005989• 0.016072• 0.016505• 0.001461• 0.002178: 0.004464: 0.000494: 0.002401 §.Q AV7fr&y,Detail Historical Energy Use: N CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 15 of 22 Date: 7/16/2016 11:30 PM 5.1 Mitigation Measures Energy ROG NO CO S02 Fugitive I Exhaust P1,110 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bo-CO2 NBio-CO2 To•sICO2 CH4 N20 CO2a PM10 P1.110 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category tonelyr W/yr Eledncily ' ' ' 0.0000 ' 0.0000 ' 0.0000 ; 0.0000 • 0.0000 i 3.9663 ' 3.9663 1.8000tr 14.0000e. 1 3.9821 Mitigated Mt i i i i i ' i Mt i 005 __________-____ --- 0 O.00Iq 0.0000 3.8663 3.9663 1.8000e- 4.00o0e- ' 3.8821 uElenaatoa oo- oos _____ _ ______1 _____ _____ ' NawalGas 00000 0.0000 ' o.0000 ' 00000 ' ' o.0000 ' o.0000 ' ' o.0000 o.0000 o0000 � o.0000 ' 00000 ' o.0000 ' 0.0000 00000 MNgatetl :' i i i ' i i NalualGas •• 0.000D 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 O1 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 unmitigated 5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas Unmitigated NaturalGa ROG NOx CO S02 Fugave Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-0O2 NBio-0O2 Total 002 CH4 N20 CO2e s Use PM10 Palo Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Tatel Land Use FBTUlyr tonalyr MTlyr Geneal Heavy 0 n 0.0000 0.0000 11 0.0000 00000 0.0000 0.0000 ; 0.0000 • 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 ti 0.0000 Intlusby Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 • 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 CaIEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 16 of 22 Date: 7/16/2016 11:30 PM 5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas Miticated Netu.IGa ROG NOx CO S02 Fughive Exhaust PM10 Fugifve Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-0O2 I NBIo-0O2 Total CO2 CHd N20 CO2e s Use PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Lane uae karuNr mnayr MrNr General Has o n 0.0000 ; 0.0000 ; 00000 i 0.0000 1 ; 00000 l 00000 ; 0.0000 o0000 o.0000 773 i 0.0oun ; 0.0000 ' 00000 0.0000 Industry i l Total • 0.0000 ' 0.0000 ' 0.0000 0.0000 ' 0.0000 0.0000 ' 0.0000 0.0000 • 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 ' 0.0000 ' 0.0000 0.0000 5.3 Energy by Land Use - Electricity Unmitigated qkWh/y, TotaICO2 CHd N20 CO2e Land Use MTNr General Has 13860 n 3.9663 1.8000e- 4.0000e- 3.9821 Indust, l 006 005 l Total 3.9663 1 1.8000e- ' 4.0000e- 3.9821 004 OOs CaIEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 17 of 22 Date: 7/16/2016 11:30 PM 5.3 Energy by Land Use - Electricity Mitlaated Electncky Totel 002 CH4 N20 CO2e uae Land Uee kWMyr MTNr Geneml Heavy 13860 n 3.9663 l 1 8000e- l 4.0000e- i 3.9821 ln&g, 0" 005 I Total • 3.9663 ' MOW- 4.0000e- 3.9821 11 904 66s 6.0 Area Detail 6.1 Mitigation Measures Area ROG NO. I CO 502 FugiW. Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 BIo-CO2 NBic-0O2 T.WCO2 CMN20 002e PM10 PM10 Tolal PM25 PM2.5 TM2 Category tonWW W), Mlligate 5.420oe- j 0.0000 j 20000� j 0.0000 l 0.0000 l 0.0000 l j 0.0000 0.0000 • 0.0000 4.0000e- j 4.000W l 0.0000 j 0.0000 4.WOOe- •� 003 005 005 005 i 005 UnmiBgetetl •• 5.4200e- 0.W00 20000e- 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 4.0OWe- 4.000Oe- 0.0000 0.0000 4.0000e- 003 005 005 005 005 CaIEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 18 of 22 Date: 7/16/2016 11:30 PM 6.2 Area by SubCategory Unmitigated ROG NO. 00 S02 Fugitive Exhaua PM- Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 BIo-COF NBia-G02 T.WICO2 CMN20 002. PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total subcategory tonw/ Mrlyr nmhnecmai •, o.0000 ; 00000 ' o.0000 ' 0woo 0.00e0 0.0000 , 0.0000 ' 00000 ' 000oo 0.0000 00000 Coating •' ' ' ' ' ' , __ •' -------___.00----- __ 000_____ ' Consumer 5.42 ; ' ' ' ' 0.0000 ' 000 ' ' 0.0000 ; 000 • 0.0000 , 0.0000 ' 0.0 ' O.OD00 ' 0.0000 i 0.0000 Protlucls •' 003 0.0 I i ___________•' -------_------- _______ 0.0 ' Lantluaping 000 ' O.MO ' 2000e-0 I 0.0000 ' ' 0.0000 ' 0.0000 ' ' O.OD00 ; 0.0000 • 0.0000 14.0000e- 14.0000e- ; O.OD00 ' 0.0000 i 4.ODOOe- I 005 I I i i 005 I 005 I , 005 I Total 5.d200e- 1 0.0000 2.0000a- ' 0.0000 ' 0.0000 ' 0.0000 ' 0.0000 0.0000 • 0.0000 ' d.0000e- 4.0000e- 0.0000 0.0000 d.0000e- 003 005 005 005 003 Mitiaated ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 E NBia-0O2 Tofal CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total SubCategory Wn , MTlyr Conaurtrer •, 5.4200e- ' ' 0 0000 ' 0 0000 ' a 0000 0 0000 0 0000 ; 0 000D ' a 0000 0 0000 1 0 0000 Pmtluuls •� 003 I ' ' ' ' ' .._........,I_______ _______________ I_______._______._______._______------. Lantlacaping , 0.0000 0.0000 2000Oo- 0.0000 f 0.0000 0.0000 f 0.0000 0.0000 00000 , 4Oee0e- , 4.0000e- 0.0000 0.0000 aOooOe- I I 005 I I I I I I ; ' 005 , 005 I I i 005 ' .._........,I_______ I_______i_______ _______a_______ .00000 Nd tingal •, 0.0000 i i 00000 0.0000 ' 0.0000 0.0000 00000 , 00000 , 00000 0.0000 0.0000 i 00000 Coating q Total 5.4200e- 1 0.0000 2.0000e- ' 0.0000 1 O.D000 ' 0.0000 ' 0.0000 0.0000 , 0.0000 4.0000e- 1 4.DODDe- 1 0.0000 0.0000 1 e.D000e- 11 003 005 005 005 005 7.0 Water Detail CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 19 of 22 Date: 7/16/2016 11:30 PM 7.1 Mitigation Measures Water Total CO2 CM I N20 I CO2e Category MT/yr Mitigated i 1.0614 j 2.6900a- j 2.1000, I 1.1827 003 004 i UnmiOgatetl 1.0614 2.6900e- 2.1000e- 1.1829 003 000 7.2 Water by Land Use Unmitigated In]Mgal Talel CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e dU. Land Use MT/yr General Heavy 1)2601661•1 1M4 I26900e- I21000e- ' 11829 Industry 0 003 004 ' i Total 1.0514 , 2.6900e- 2.1000e- 1.1329 003 004 CaIEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 20 of 22 Date: 7/16/2016 11:30 PM 7.2 Water by Land Use Mitigated Ind.tsi T.WICO2 CH4 N20 CO2e door Use Land Use I Mgal MTNr General Heavy 1)2601561•1 1D614 126900e- ; 2 1000e- 1 11827 mdastry 0 003 004 i Total 1.0614 12.691 12.1000e- I 1.1827 003 004 8.0 Waste Detail 8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste Category/Year Thal Cot I CH4 N20 COL Ttyr -:J Mitigated 0.1421 840001 0.0000 1 0.3184 003 -------- Unmitigated •• 0.1421 840001 0.0000 0.3184 003 CaIEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 21 of 22 Date: 7/16/2016 11:30 PM 8.2 Waste by Land Use Unmitigated West. Tote)CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Disposed Land Use tans MTlyr Genersl Heary 07 v 01421 18E000e- I 0.0000 0.3184 Industry 003 i Total • 0.1421 8.4000e- ' 0.0000 0.3184 003 Mitigated Waste TaMI CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Disposed Land Use we Mi Generel Heavy 0.7 n 0.1421 8.4000e- 0.0000 I 0.3184 Industry 003 I Total 0.1421 8.4000.- 1 0.0000 0.3184 003 9.0 Operational Offroad Equipment Type Number HouWDay DaysNear Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 22 of 22 Date: 7/16/2016 11:30 PM 10.0 Vegetation Appendix B Biological Assessment Orange County Water District Water Production Enhancement Project Biological Assessment Prepared By Orange County Water District 18700 Ward Street Fountain Valley, CA 92708 Contact: Daniel Bott U S INCE 1933 August2016 Table of Contents Section Page SECTION 1.0 INTRODUCTION................................................................................... ill SECTION 2.0 REGULATORY FRAMEWORK.............................................................211 2.1 Federal Regulations........................................................................................211 2.2 State Regulations............................................................................................2[2 SECTION 3.0 PROEECT DESCRIPTION ....................................................................3E1 3.1 Study Area ......................................................................................................3E1 3.2 Proposed Project Actidties..............................................................................311 3.3 Proposed Project.............................................................................................3E1 SECTION 4.0 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES.................................................................411 4.1 Biological Resource Setting ............................................................................411 4.2 Special Status Plant Species ..........................................................................411 4.3 Special Status Wildlife Species.......................................................................4E3 4.4 Critical Habitat.................................................................................................4E5 4.5 Federal and State ELrisdictional Aoaatic Resources.......................................4E5 SECTION 5.0 PROEECT IMPACTS.............................................................................511 5.1 Threshold of Significance................................................................................511 5.2 Project Impacts ...............................................................................................5E1 SECTION 6.0 REFERENCES......................................................................................611 Tables Table 1: SensitiEB Plant List.........................................................................................4[2 Table 2: Special Status Wildlife....................................................................................4A Figures Figure 1: Regional Location Map .................................................................................3EP Figure 2: OCSD Plant 2 Wastewater Treatment Site ...................................................33 Appendices Appendix A: United States Fish and Wildlife Information, Planning and ConserEbtion System Database Search Orange County Water District Water Production Enhancement Project i Section 1 Introduction SECTION 1.0 INTRODUCTION Purpose The Orange County Water District EOCWDdocated at 18700 Ward Street, Fountain Valley, California, 92708 is proposing Water Production Enhancement Project. The Biological Assessment eEbluates potential impacts to biological resources associated with implementation of Water Production Enhancement Project. The biological assessment was prepared by the OCWD Natural Resource Department in the spring of 2016. The assessment identifies applicable laws and regulations that apply to biological resources within the project area, documents existing biological resources and the potential for sensitiEL species to occur within the project area, eEsluates potential project impacts and where reELired identifies mitigation measures to aEbid and minimiLb potential impacts to sensitiCb biological resources. Methodology Literature Review A literature search and resew was conducted in conjunction with biological surEbys to document the presence and potential for biological resources to exist within the project area. To identify the potential for special status species to occur within the project area, database searches were conducted with the use of United States Fish and Wildlife EUSFWS Ell nformation, Planning, and ConserEation System Database and the California Department of Fish and Wildlife [CDFWONatural DiEbrsity Database. Onsite Field Survey A Field surCby was conducted by Dadd McMichael, OCWD biologist, in spring of 2014 to determine if sensitilb Cegetation communities, special status plant species and special status wildlife species were present and if the project area contained suitable habitat conditions to support special status plant species and special wildlife species. The surlby was conducted by walking areas of the project area utilidng recognllbd techninies. Based on the results of the surE,ey, sensitiEb Ebgetation communities, special status plants and special status wildlife species were determined to ha-a either a low, moderate or high potential to occur within the project area. Orange County Water District Water Production Enhancement Project 1-1 Section 2 Regulatory Framework SECTION 2.0 REGULATORY FRAMEWORK The following federal, state and regional regulatory programs are applicable to the GWRS Final Expansion Project. 2.1 Federal Regulations Federal Clean Water Act The Clean Water Act is intended to restore and maintain the Duality and biological integrity of Waters of the United States [U.S.[]According to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, any actidty that inml[es the discharge of dredged or fill material into Waters of the U.S. is subject to approlial of a 404 Permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers [Corpsli Depending on the le[IDI of impacts occurring, an actidty affecting waters of the U.S. could OJalify for a Nationwide Permit or reOJires appro[13I of an Indiddual404 Permit. Section 401 of the Clean Water Act re0uires that an applicant for a federal license or permit to discharge into nadgable waters must pro[ide the federal agency with a water iluality certification, declaring that the discharge would comply with water olality standards reDtirements of the Clean Water Act. The issuance of a 404 permit triggers the reDiirement that a Section 401 Water Quality Certification must also be obtained from the Regional Water Quality Control Board IRWQCB[i Federal Endangered Species Act The Federal Endangered Species Act IFESADdesignates threatened and endangered animals and plants and proddes measures for their protection and reco[Bry. The Take of listed animal and plant species in areas under the federal jurisdiction is prohibited without obtaining a federal permit. A Take is defined as to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shot, wound, kill, trap, capture or collect or attempt to engage in any such conduct. Harm includes any act which kills or injures fish or wildlife, including significant habitat modification or degradation that significantly impairs essential behaUoral patterns of fish or wildlife. ActiUties that damage the habitat of listed species re0uire approC.81 from U.S. Fish and Wildlife Serdce [USFWSDforterrestrial species or from National Marine Fisheries Serdce 1NMFS11for marine species. FESA also reouires determination of critical habitat for listed species and impacts to the critical habitat is prohibited. ESA contains two pathways for obtaining permission to take listed species. Under Section 7 of FESA, a federal agency that authoriEbs, funds or carries out a project that may affect a listed species or its critical habitat must consult with USFWS or NMFS, to ensure that their actions do not jeopardiDa the continued existence of endangered or threatened species or result in the destruction or modification of the critical habitat of these species. A Biological Opinion i$ODwould be prepared by USFWS and NMFS to determine if the actidty would jeopardilb the continued existence C'''gggOrange County Water District Water Production Enhancement Project 2-1 Section 2 Regulatory Framework of the listed species. If the BO determines that the actidty would not threaten the existence of the listed species and a no jeopardy opinion is prodded, then the project may proceed. If the BO finds that the project would result in jeopardy to the listed species [jeopardy opinionQ then reasonable and prudent measures would need to be incorporated into the project to reduce potential effects to a lelel that would not be likely to jeopardio; the continued existence of the species. Under Section 10 of FESA pri ate parties with no federal nexus may obtain an Incidental Take Permit to harm listed wildlife species incidental to the lawful operation of a project. To obtain an Incidental Take Permit, the applicant must delblop a habitat management plan that specifies impacts to listed species, proddes conseroation measures and alternatiles to minimise impacts. If USFWS finds that the habitat conseroation measures would not appreciably reduce the likelihood of the surdml and reco[l;ry of the species, USFWS would issue an incidental take permit. Migratory Bird Treaty Act The Migratory Bird Treaty Act implements international treaties between the United States and other nations that protect migratory birds, including their nests and eggs, from killing, hunting, pursuing, capturing, selling and shipping unless expressly authori[lad or permitted. 2.2 State Regulations California Environmental Quality Act The California Envronmental Quality Act ECEQADwas enacted in 1970 to prodde for full disclosure of envronmental impacts before issuance of a permit by a state or local public agency. In addition to state and federally listed species, sensitiDo plants and animals receii,s consideration under CEQA. SensitiDq species include wildlife Species of Special Concern listed by California Department of Fish and Wildlife [CDFWoand plant species on the California Nati[I Plant Society list 1A, 1 B or 2. California Endangered Species Act The California Endangered Species Act ICESAoproddes protection and prohibits the take of plant, fish and wildlife species listed by the State of California. Unlike FESA, stater fisted plants haQo the same degree of protection as wildlife. A Take is defined similarly to FESA and it is prohibited for both listed and candidate species. A Take authorioation may be obtained from the California Department of Fish and Wildlife 1CDFW11under Section 2091 and 2081 of CESA. Section 2091 of CESA, similar to Section 7 of FESA proddes for consultation between a state lead agency under the California Environmental Quality Act and CDFW, with issuance of take authoriLation if the project does not jeopardiDa the listed species. Section 2081 of CESA allows take of a listed species for educational, scientific or management purposes. r: Orange County Water District Water Production Enhancement Project 2-2 Section 2 Regulatory Framework California Fish and Game Code Section 1600 The State of California defines Waters of the State as any surface water or groundwater, including saline waters within the boundaries of the State. In accordance with Section 1600 of the Fish and Game Code, CDFW must be notified prior to beginning any actidty that would obstruct or dilbrt the natural Flow of, use material from or deposit or dispose of material into a ricer, stream, or lake, whether permanent, intermittent or ephemeral water bodies. The notification occurs through the issuance of a Streambed Alteration Agreement. CDFW has 60 days to redew the proposed actions and propose measures to protect affected fish and wildlife resources. The final proposal that is mutually agreed upon by CDFW and the Applicant is the Streambed Alteration Agreement. California Fish and Game Code Fully Protected Species The legislature of the State of California designated species as fully protected prior to the creation of the California Endangered Species Act. Lists of fully protected species were initially deleloped to prodde protection to those animals that were rare or faced possible extinction and included fish, mammals, amphibians, reptiles and birds. Most fully protected species haEb since been listed as threatened or endangered under California Endangered Species Act and/or the Federal Endangered Species Act. These species may not be taken or possessed at any time, with the only exception being permits issued for limited scientific study. California Fish and Game Code Sections 3503, 3513, 3800, 3801 These California Fish and Game Code Sections protect all birds, birds of prey and all nonlgame birds, as well as their eggs and nests, for species that are not already listed as fully protected and that occur naturally within the State. Specifically, it is unlawful to take any raptors or their nests and eggs. Orange County Water District Water Production Enhancement Project 2-3 Section 3 Project Description SECTION 3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 3.1 Study Area The OCSD Plant No. 2 Site is located at 22212 Brookhurst Street within the City of Huntington Beach. As shown in Figure 1, the site is bounded by Hamilton ACenue to the north, Brookhurst Street to the west, Talbert Marsh and Talbert Marsh Bike Trail to the south and the Santa Ana Ricer and the Santa Ana Ricer Trail to the east. Primary regional access to Plant No. 2 would from Interstate 405 from the Brookhurst Street exit. Primary local access would be from Brookhurst Street and Pacific Coast Highway. 3.2 Proposed Project Activities The OCWD Water Production Enhancement Project consists of a Secondary Effluent Flow EDjali-ation Tank proposed at OCSDIS Plant No. 2 Site in order to race!lb maximum water production at the OCWD GWRS water treatment facility. OCSD® Plant No. 2 is a wastewater treatment facility which has Elarying influent land effluentoflows of secondary effluent. During the day, wastewater flows into OCSD® Plant No. 2 can peak abo[>: 140 million gallons per day EMGDD These peak flows cannot be pumped to the GWRS facility due to the limits of the conElayance facilities, i.e. effluent pump station and pipeline; that deli[Br the secondary effluent to GWRS. Therefore, a secondary effluent flow eoualiEation tank has been proposed at OCSDEs Plant No. 2 Site to capture these peak flows during the day and store them in the 6Efnillion gallon tank until nighttime. During low flows at night, the flow eDualiDstion tank would drain into the effluent pump station to supplement the low secondary effluent inflows and allow the GWRS to treat these peak flows which would hale otherwise been discharged to the ocean. This secondary effluent flow eDualiDation tank would be expected to deliCer an additional 6,000 acreJeet of secondary effluent for treatment at the GWRS facility. 3.3 Proposed Project The Water Production Enhancement Project in[bl[Bs three construction actidties: 1❑ construction of flow eDualilation tank, 2Dconstruction of a pump station, and 3❑ construction of conCeyance piping and flow meter Eault. The improCements proposed in the Water Production Enhancement Project are shown in Figure 2. A 6Efnillion gallon -MG-flow eDualiEation tank would be constructed at the north end of OCSD Plant No. 2 Site. The 6EMG tank would be a circular welded steel tank approximately 200EPeeet in diameter and 30EBeeet tall from existing grade. The flow eoualiElation tank would haDB a 4Epump E3 duty D 1 standby0pump deep4 approximately 500dinear feet of 36Ghch diameter connection piping with a meter Ebult 115Eft x 201 x 101 deepDconnected to the operations of the tank. The pump station would be housed in a 301t x 402 x 201 block wall building. Orange County Water District Water Production Enhancement Project 3-1 p 5 NF WER AUE � E IS AVE j lo. � - k o11 � ...-kM�� ... ♦k � fy, � SO'y TH_COA�ST DR: ARF1E DAVE OCSD .. � WRS Faclhty .� � ty _ OR TOWN AVEt ' � g+�s �� ODOR ` SBA ER,ST o tl; t m_ CAMS AGUE.'_ ' OCSD Easement Corridor e I DIANAPO SAVE 4 x N $ 0 W 2 T T �i eTORI $ NI AYE \� W T i OCSD 3 Plant No. 2 f ' N o 1,000 2,000 Water Production Enhancement Project W i E 6MMML====J Feet Regional ocation Ma Figure 1 S -, r Contractor Laydown Area 3y J ^`� r *• Flow EQ . d • i� Y �� . . . . T Control / Meter I J J• i J • Y BANNING AVE, .�` ^� Flow EQ • r ` `�; r ',r Pump Station H `!/ S \ ` 1 111 N 0 200 400 Water Production Enhancement Project W E �'Feet OCSD Plant 2 Wastewater Treatment Site Figure 2 S Section 3 Project Description The site preparation work for the flow ellualiCation tank, pump station, and pipeline/leult would inmlie excaleting and hauling approximately 1000 cubic yards tCYoof soil. In addition to dirt remolial, an existing concrete parking lot would need to be demolished for the tank pad. For this dirt excalation work, four dump trucks would be doing fi[D round trips each oar a period of 4 days to haul the dirt off site. For the demo work, four dump trucks would be doing three round trips each oler a period of 14 days to haul the concrete/asphalt off site. The flow elliali[btion tank would be constructed on concrete piles. Approximately 3011 piles would be reDuired for supporting the ellialiCation tank. To construct the pilings, 12❑ inch diameter holes would be drilled into the ground with an auger drill rig. Approximately 40 CY of dirt from pile drilling actidty would be remoled. Once the pile drilling is completed, the rebar support cages for the piles would be installed into the drilled holes with a crane. Approximately 40 CY of concrete would be filled into the holes with the rebar and cured. The piles would be supporting a 2[foot thick concrete pad matching the diameter of the tank. This eEbates to 2,330 CY of concrete for the tank pad. The pump station and meter moult would also reDuire approximately 100 CY of concrete to construct these structural facilities. Once the piles and concrete pad halle been constructed, the steel tank would be assembled. A crane and welding laborers would be reouired to weld the steel components of the tank together. Once the tank is welded, the surface would be prepped for a base coat and finally painted. While the tank is being assembled, the contractor would be edipping the pump station and meter [bult with the use of laborers, fork lifts and cranes. The construction eDuipment for the tank, meter Cault, flow di ersion box and pump station would include; an excaCator, crane, pile driller, bull doer, backhoe, compactor, dump trucks, concrete trucks, water truck, man lifts and fork lifts. Orange County Water District Water Production Enhancement Project 3-4 Section 4 Biological Resources SECTION 4.0 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 4.1 Biological Resource Setting The study area is included in USGS Newport beach Quadrangle, Township 6 South, Range 10 West, Section 20. OCSD Plant No. 2 site is composed of 110 acres, and is delbloped with wastewater treatment structures, offices, and paced parking areas and roadways. The site is bounded by Hamilton ACenue to the north, Brookhurst Street to the west, the Santa Ana RICer and the Santa Ana Ricer Trail to the east and the Talbert Marsh and Talbert Marsh Bike Trail to the south. A surrey conducted on OCSD Plant No. 2 did not identify any sensible biological resources. South of the study area is the Talbert Marsh and the California Least tern Colony. Talbert Marsh is a tidal marsh that has been restored to full tidal action. The water within Talbert Marsh is seawater from the ocean inlet located south of the marsh property that fluctuates in height up to 8 feet from tidal flows. Talbert Marsh proddes habitat for both migratory and resident bird species. South of Pacific Coast Highway is the location the California Least Tern Natural Preserie Area. The California Least Tern Natural Preserle Area was first established under the Huntington State Beach General DeCelopment Plan in 1976. It was originally dedicated on 2.5 acres and was fenced off with a cyclone fence [A heaDjLduty, chain❑ link fence topped with barbed wiredto pre Cent predators from harassing the birds. OCer the years, the California least ternB nesting area has expanded beyond the fenced area, State Parks has erected additional picket fencing to protect the birds. Currently, the cyclone fence area cogs approximately 8.9 acres and the picket fence lfrontlyard❑ area is 3.8 acres. California State Parks protects the nesting area by limiting access, conducting trash remo al, grooming the sand periodically, and conducting predator management. 4.2 Special Status Plant Species To determine the potential for special status plant species to be present within the study area, the OCWD Natural Resources Department conducted a search for special status plant species with the use of USFWS Information, Planning, and Conseristion System Database and the CDFW Natural DiCersity Database for the Newport Beach USGS Quadrangle. A summary of USFWS and CDFW database searches is prodded in Appendix A. A listing of special status plant species within potential to occur within the Newport Beach USGS Quadrangle is shown in Table 1. The determination on the potential for the special status plant species to occur within the study area was based on the following criteria: • Present: Species was obserled within the study area within the last year. Orange County Water District Water Production Enhancement Project 4-1 Section 4 Biological Resources • High: The study area supports suitable habitat and the species has been obserCed within the last year. • Moderate: The study area supports suitable and the species has not been obserced within last two years. • Low: The study area lacks suitable habitat for the species. Table 1: Sensitive Plant List Species Federal State CNPS General Potential for HabitaVRecent Occurrence Study Occurrence Area Chaparral sand NL NL IBA Coast Scrub Low Verbena Chaparral. Species presumed (Abronia Villosa extirpated var. aunts Aphanisma NL NL 1B.2 Coastal Scrub, Low (Aphanisma Coastal Bluff Scrub, Study Area lacks blitoides) Coastal Dunes suitable habitat Venture Marsh E NL Marshes,Swamps, Low Milkletch Coastal Dunes, Study Area lacks EAstragalus Coastal Scrub suitable habitat pycnostachy lar. Lanosissimus Coulter® NL NL 1B.2 Coastal Scrub, Low Saltsbush Coastal Bluff Scrub, Study Area lacks (Atriplex Coastal Dunes suitable habitat coulter South Coast NL NL 1B.2 Coastal Scrub, Low Saltscale Coastal Bluff Scrub Study Area lacks suitable habitat DaEidsona NL NL 1B.2 Coastal Scrub, Low Saltscale Coastal Bluff Scrub Study Area lacks (Atnplex suitable habitat serenana var. davidsonii Southern NL NL 1B.1 Marshes and swamps Low Tarplant Study Area lacks (centromadia suitable habitat. panyi ssp. Australis Salt Marsh E E 1B.2 Coastal Salt marsh, Low BirdsEbeak Coastal Dunes Study Area lacks (Chloropyron suitable habitat. maritimum ssp. Mantimum Many Stemmed NL NL 1B.2 Chaparral, Coastal Low Dudleya Scrub Study Area lacks (Dudlaya suitable habitat Multicaulis San Diego E E IBA Vernal pools, Coastal Low Button J'elery Scrub,Valley and Study Area lacks EEryngium Foothill Grasslands suitable habitat aristulatum car. arrishiiE vOrange County Water District Water Production Enhancement Project 4-2 Section 4 Biological Resources Los Angeles NL NL 1A Marshes and Swamps Low Sunflower Study Area lacks (Helianthus suitable habitat nuttallii ssp. Parishii Coulter® NL NL 1B.1 Coastal Salt marshes Low Goldfield Study Area lacks masthenia suitable habitat glabrata ssp. Coulter Mud name NL NL 2.2 Marshes and swamps Low (Name Project area lacks steraccarfai suitable habitat Gambels Water E T 1B.1 Marshes and swamps Low Cress Study Area lacks (Nasturtium suitable habitat ana lfi Prostrate NL NL 1B.1 Vernal pools, coastal Low Vernal Pool scrub Study Area lacks NaEarretia suitable habitat (Navarrefia Prostrate) Coast NL NL 1B.2 Coastal Dunes Low woollyheads Study Area lacks (Nemacaulis suitable habitat denudate par. denudate Estuary NL NL 1B.2 Marshes and swamps Low Seablite Study Area lacks (Sueede suitable habitat Esteroa San Bernardino NL NL 18.2 Marshes and swamps, Low Aster coastal scrub Study Area lacks (Symphyofrchu suitable habitat in defoliatum Federal State Listing Eelifornia Endangered California Nati®P=Soi CNPS ECEndangered Species Act CDFG 1APlants presumed distinct in California TSnnotened FPTully Protected isrPlants pure,threatened or endangered In California SSC-Spacial Species of Concern EEndangamd and elsewfiere C Candidate for Listing TThreatened 2Plants pure,threatened or endangered in California NL 1Nol Listed SSensitia but mare common Worsham SSC Special Species of Concern 3Plants about Mich we need more renew WL Watch List 4 Plants of limited distribution NL Not Listed CNPS Threat Rank .1 Seriously Endangered .2 Fairly Endangered .3 Not Very Endangered 4.3 Special Status Wildlife Species To determine the potential for special status wildlife species to be present within the project area, the OCWD Natural Resources Department conducted a search for special status wildlife species with the USFWS Information, Planning, and Conserilation System Database and the California Department of Fish and Wildlife Natural DiDersity Database. A summary of USFWS and CDFW database searches is prodded in Appendix A. Orange County Water District Water Production Enhancement Project 4-3 Section 4 Biological Resources A listing of special wildlife species within potential to occur within the Newport Beach USGS Quadrangle is shown in Table 2. The determination on the potential for the special status wildlife species to occur at the project area was based on the following criteria: • Present: Species was obserIJA within the study area within the last year. • High: The study area supports suitable habitat and the species has been obser[Jad within the last year. • Moderate: The study area supports suitable and the species has not been obserled within last two years. • Low: The study area lacks suitable habitat for the species. Table 2: Special Status Wildlife Species Federal State General Habitat/Recent Potential Occurrence Occurrence Study Area Orange throat NL SSC Low leC l coastal scrub, Low Whiptail sandy areas with patches Study Area lacks As idoscelis h e hra of scrub suitable habitat Burrowing owl NL SSC Open growing low Low (Athens cuniculana) grasslands Study Area lacks suitable habitat San Diego Fairy Shrimp E SSC Vernal pools Low (Branchinecfa Study Area lacks sandie onensis) suitable habitat Western Snowy Plover T SSC Sandy Beaches Low (Charaddus alexandrines Study Area lacks nivosus) suitable habitat Southwestern Willow E E Riparian woodlands Low Flycatcher Study Area lacks Em idonax trailli extimus suitable habitat Western Mastiff Bat NL SSC Roosts in cliffs,tall Low (Eumops perotis buildings,trees and Study Area lacks califomicus) tunnels suitable habitat Big free Bat NL SSC Roosts in cliffs,tall Low (Nycfinomops macrons) buildings,trees and Study Area lacks tunnels suitable habitat Pacific Pocket Mouse E SSC Coastal Plains Low (perognathus Study Area lacks lon imembds pacifujs suitable habitat Coast Horned LiEard NL SSC Low lands along sandy Low (Phrynosoma blainvillii) washes with scattered Study Area lacks brush suitable habitat Coastal California T SSC Coastal sage scrub Low Gnatcatcher Study Area lacks (Poltophla califomica suitable habitat califomica Lightlffooted Clapper Rail E E Salt marshes Low (Rallus longirostris levipes) Study Area lacks suitable habitat Southern California NL SSC Coastal Marshes Low S'alltmarsh Shrew Studv Area lacks Orange County Water District Water Production Enhancement Project 4-4 Section 4 Biological Resources Sorex oratus suitable habitat California Least Tern E E Sandy Beaches Low (Sterna antillari Study Area lacks suitable habitat Least Bells dreo E E Low growing riparian Low (Vireo bellil pusillus) habitats Study Area lacks suitable habitat Legend Federal Endangered Species And El Endangered T Threaten. SSG Special Spedes of Concern Cl Candidate for Listing California Endangered Species ActlCali(omia OagarMerd Fish Game Flo Fully Protected EfEndangered TThreatenad SISansiti a SSG Special Species of Concern WLroi Llal 4.4 Critical Habitat The Federal Endangered Species Act reDjires the federal goCernment to designate Critical Habitat for any species it lists under the Federal Endangered Species Act. Critical Habitat is defined as 1 -specific areas within the geographical area occupied by the specie at the time of listing, if they contain physical or biological features essential to conserllation, and those features may relyire special management considerations or protection and 2Dspecific areas outside the geographical area occupied by the species if the agency determines that the area itself is essential for conseriation. According to the of USFWS Information, Planning, and Conseriation System Database and the California Department of Fish and Wildlife Natural DiCersity Database, the study area is not located on lands that are designated as Critical Habitat. 4.5 Federal and State Jurisdictional Aquatic Resources Waters of the United States A water body is considered Waters of the U.S. if it is: L7 Ltraditional nadgable water ITNWq [20wetlands adjacent to a TNW; 1311norilhadgable tributaries of TNW that ha[B perennial or seasonal Flow of water; and 14Dvvetlands that are adjacent to non[thadgable tributaries of TNW that hallb perennial or seasonal flow of water. There are no Waters of the U.S. on the OCSD Plant No. 2 Site. The closest surface water body within the ❑cinity of the study area is the Santa Ana Ricer. The Santa Ana Ricer drains into the Pacific Ocean. The Pacific Ocean is nadgable water and therefore Santa Ana Ricer is classified as a tributary to a nadgable water and Waters of the U.S. The Federal jurisdiction along the Santa Ana Rimer extends to the ordinary high water mark and to any adjacent wetland Cegetation. Orange County Water District Water Production Enhancement Project 4-5 Section 4 Biological Resources Waters of the State of California According to the State Water Code, Waters of the State are defined as any surface water, groundwater or wetlands within the boundary of the state. There are no waters of the State on the OCSD Plant No. 2 Site. The Santa Ana Ricer is classified as Waters of the State. The State jurisdiction along the Santa Ana Ricer extends to the top of the slope to adjacent wetland Cegetation. Wetland Waters of the United States and State California Wetland Waters are a subset of jurisdictional Waters of the U.S. and the State. Generally, wetlands are lands where saturation with water is the dominant factor determining the nature of soil delelopment and the types of plant and animal communities lidng in the soil and on its surface. Wetlands generally include swamps, freshwater marshes, brackish water and saltwater marshes, bogs, lernal pools, periodically inundated salt flats, intertidal mudflats, wet meadows, wet pastures, springs and seeps, portions of lakes, ponds, riD3rs and streams and all areas which are periodically or permanently colared by shallow water, or dominated by hydrophilic �egetation, or in which the soils are predominantly hydric in nature. Presently, there is no single definition for wetlands. Howelbr, all resource agencies recognile that wetlands must demonstrate the following three essential elements: []❑ the site periodically supports hydrophytic Degetation, 2rthe site contains hydric soil and 13Ethe site periodically contains water or the soil is saturated with water at some time during the growing season of each year. Orange County Water District Water Production Enhancement Project 4-6 Section 5 Project Impacts SECTION 5.0 PROJECT IMPACTS 5.1 Threshold of Significance The following threshold of significance was used to elaluate potential impacts to biological resources associated with implementation of the GWRS Final Expansion Project. • Would the project haD3 a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications on any species identified as a candidate, sensitille or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Serdce❑ • Would the project ham a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local regional plans, policies and regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Serdce❑ • Would the project hale a substantially ad[brse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act through direct remolial, filling hydrological interruption, or other means❑ • Would the project interfere substantially with the moCement of any nati[19 resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established nati[E resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of natiCe wildlife nursery sites❑ • Would the project conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preserlation policy or ordinance[] • Would the Project be in conflict with the prodsions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat consermtion plan❑ 5.2 Project Impacts A: Would the project have a substantial adverse impact, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive or special status species in local or regional plans, policies or regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and wildlife Services? Onsite Impacts Based on a redew of databases from United State Fish and Wildlife Serdce and California Department of Fish and Wildlife and biological surCeys conducted within the study area, it has been determined that there would be low potential for special status plant species or special status wildlife species to be present on OCSD Plant No. 2. As shown in Table 1 and Table 2, Plant No. 2 lacks suitable habitat to support special status plant species or special status wildlife species that were identified in the V Orange County Water District Water Production Enhancement Project 5-1 Section 5 Project Impacts database search. Additionally, no indications were found that any special status species were eler present. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not result in ad[arse impacts to any special status plant species or special status wildlife species. Offshe Impacts Located south of OCSD Plant No. 2 is the Talbert Marsh and south of Pacific Coast Highway is the California Least Tern Colony. Both of these biological resources could prodde suitable nesting habitat for special status bird species. The construction operations for the proposed project would be confined to OCSD Plant No. 2. No construction actidties would occur at the Talbert Marsh or at the California Least Tern Colony. Therefore, no direct impacts to special status plant or wildlife species would occur. The construction actidties for the proposed project would in IIbIE13 the operation of heaDJ construction emipment that could operate during nesting season. If the construction actidty was to occur in close proximity to nesting birds there would be the potential that breeding patterns could be disturbed. The United States Fish and Wildlife Serdce as established a noise impact threshold of 60 dBA to identify potential ad[Erse impacts to nesting birds. The Talbert Marsh is located approximately 3,300 feet from where the construction actidties would occur and the California Least Tern Colony is located approximately 4,200 feet from the construction would occur. Based on the nosiest piece of construction eLuipment that would be used, the noise estimated IeCel at the Talbert Marsh and at the California Least Tern Colony would be below 49 dBA. Additionally, with the presence of the block wall around Plant No. 2 and the traffic noise along Pacific Coast Highway, it would be Eery unlikely that construction noise would herd at either location. Potential indirect noise impacts to special status wildlife species would be less than significant. No mitigation measures are re0uired. B: Would the project have a substantial adverse impact on any riparian habitat or natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, and regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? The location where the proposed Flow enialiEation tank and pump station structure would be constructed is currently paled or in a disturbed condition. A suriby conducted at the location where the flow eElualilation tank and pump station structure would be constructed did not identify any sensiti[L Eegetation communities. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not result in ad[t:rse impacts to sensitilb natural communities. C: Would the project adversely impact federally protected wetlands either individually or in combination with the known or probable impacts of other Orange County Water District Water Production Enhancement Project 5-2 Section 5 Project Impacts activities through direct removal, filling hydrological interruption, or other means? The location where the proposed flow eaaliLation tank and pump station structure would be constructed is paced or in a disturbed condition. A preliminary site surCey conducted on the study area did not identify any reDuired parameters that define Wetland Waters of the U.S. or State. Therefore, the implementation of the proposed project would not ad[brsely impact Wetland Waters of the U.S or State. D: Would the project interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? The OCSD Plant No. 2 Site is currently improled with buildings, wastewater treatment facilities, roadways and parking areas. The site does not contain suitable habitat or prodde linkages to suitable habitat to support wildlife moibment. Along the perimeter of Plant No.2 are a row of eucalyptus trees that could prodde potential nesting opportunities for migratory birds. Therefore, construction actidties for the proposed project would not in[bl[e the remollal of any trees. Therefore, potential direct impacts to nesting migratory birds would be abided. Additionally, sound attenuation measures would be incorporated into the project to minimiCe noise impacts in the study area. The Talbert Marsh is located approximately 3,600 feet from the construction actidties and the California Least Tern Colony is located approximately 4,500 feet from where the construction would occur. At the distance the construction noise lelels would be minimal and would not pose a potential disruption to nesting birds. The implementation of the proposed project would not result in significant adil�rse impacts to migratory birds or result in significant adEerse impacts to wildlife movement. No mitigation measures are reDuired. E: Would the project conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as tree preservation policy or ordinance? The City of Huntington Beach does not haDa any local policies or ordinances that prodde for the protection of management of biological resources that would apply to the study area. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Water Production Enhancement Project would not be in conflict with local polices or ordinances that prodde for the protection of biological resources. F: Would the project be in conflict with provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local regional or state habitat conservation plan. The OCSD Plant No. 2 Site is not included within adopted Habitat Conserlation Plan. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not be in conflict with any app@@@@roled Habitat Management Plan or Natural Community Conseriation Plan. v' Orange County Water District Water Production Enhancement Project 5-3 Section 6 References SECTION 6.o REFERENCES California Department Fish and Game Natural Diij�rsity Database, Accessed March 2016. California NatiCe Plant Society InCentory of Rare and Endangered Plants Database, Accessed March 2016. City of Fountain Valley General Plan, Web Site Accessed ane 2016 City of Huntington Beach General Plan, Accessed one 2016. Orange County Water District Groundwater Management Plan, 2009. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers List of Wetland Plants, 2008. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual Arid West Region, September 2008. United States Fish and Wildlife Information, Planning, and Conserlation System Database, Accessed Lune 2016. Orange County Water District Water Production Enhancement Project 6-1 Appendix C Phase I Cultural Resources Study [Click here and enter Draft phase] Groundwater Replenishment System Final Expansion Project and Water Production Enhancement Project Phase I Cultural Resources Study Prepared for August 2016 Orange County Water District r ESA J [Draft phase here] Groundwater Replenishment System Final Expansion Project and Water Production Enhancement Project Phase I Cultural Resources Study Prepared for August 2016 Orange County Water Distdot 2121 N Parkway ESA sutte 1 W Irvine.CA 92606 969➢M.7M NM1WI.pCmet.COm IMie Sacramento Les Angeles San De o OaMand San Fmnci. Od"o Santa M.I. Pasadena S. M. Petaluma Tampa Pord.d Woa Wd Hllls 1& 8].01 Table of Contents Groundwater Replenishment System Final Expansion Project and Water Production Enhancement Project Phase I Cultural Resources Study Pace 1. Introduction..................................................................................................................1 1.1 Project Location....................................................................................................2 1.2 Project Description................................................................................................2 2. Area of Potential Effects...........................................................................................10 3. Setting ........................................................................................................................13 3.1 Endronmental Setting.........................................................................................13 3.2 Prehistoric Setting...............................................................................................13 3.3 Ethnographic Setting ..........................................................................................14 3.4 Historic Setting....................................................................................................16 4. Regulatory Framework..............................................................................................19 4.1 Federal ...............................................................................................................19 4.2 State...................................................................................................................20 5. Archival Research .....................................................................................................25 5.1 South Central Coastal Information Center Records Search ...............................25 5.2 Historic Map and Aerial Redew..........................................................................27 5.3 NatlID American Heritage Commission..............................................................28 5.4 Geoarchaeological Redew.................................................................................32 6. Paleontological Records Search..............................................................................35 7. Cultural Resources Survey and Results..................................................................36 8. Conclusions and Recommendations.......................................................................37 8.1 Archaeological Resources..................................................................................37 8.2 Historic Built Resources......................................................................................39 8.3 Paleontological Resources.................................................................................39 9. References.................................................................................................................41 G.adweler Repleni0msnl syelem Firth Espenaian Prgea ene E8 1160W 01 Water Pwdudim Enhancement Prs tl I Auaus12016 Phase I Cultural Resmrres S dy Table of Contents Pace Appendices A. Resumes B. SCCIC Records Search Results C. Natilb American Correspondence D. Photographs of the Project APE List of Figures Figure 1 Local Vicinity Map Topographic Base......................................................................3 Figure 2 Project Location Topographic Base.........................................................................4 Figure3 Site Plan..................................................................................................................5 Figure 4 Area of Potential Effects........................................................................................11 List of Tables Tablet Predous Cultural Resources Iniestigations including the Project APE.................25 Table 2 Predously Recorded Cultural Resources within o[mile of the Project APE..........26 Table 3 NatiCe American Outreach.....................................................................................29 G.adweler Wenis6manl syelem Firth Espenaian Prgea ene ES 116036].01 Wear Pwdudim Enhancement Progtl II Au0us12016 Phase I CUIWnl Resmrres S dy Groundwater Replenishment System Final Expansion Project and Water Production Enhancement Project Phase I Cultural Resources Study 1 . Introduction Environmental Science Associates(ESA)has been retained by the Orange County Water District (OCWD)to prepare a Cultural Resources Study for the proposed Groundwater Replenishment System(GWRS)Final Expansion Project and the Water Production Enhancement Project (referred below as the project)located in the cities of Huntington Beach and Fountain Valley, California. The GWRS is an existing advanced water treatment facility constructed by the OCWD and the Orange County Sanitation District(OCSD)that supplements local water supplies by providing reliable,high-quality source of treated water to recharge the Orange County Groundwater Basin,and to protect the Orange County Groundwater Basin from seawater intrusion.The project would provide facilities that would allow an increase in the amount of water to be conveyed to the GWRS and further supplement the local water supplies.The GWRS Final Expansion Project involves eight components: (1)increasing microfiltration(MF)capacity; (2)increasing reverse osmosis(RO)treatment capacity; (3)increasing ultraviolet(UV)treatment capacity;(4)increasing final product water capacity;(5)construction of an effluent pump station: (6)conversion of existing gravity pipeline to a pressurized pipeline;and(7)construction of a separate headworks and bypass pipeline.The Water Production Enhancement Project involves the proposed flow equalization tank with a pump station,and conveyance piping and flow meter vault. The project is eligible for funding from the State Revolving Fund(SRF)Loan Program,which is administered by the California State Water Resources Control Board(SWRCB). Since the SRF Loan Program is partially funded by the U.S.Environmental Protection Agency(EPA),it is subject to federal environmental regulations including Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act(NHPA)of 1966,as amended.This Phase I cultural resources study has been prepared in support of the environmental documentation being prepared for the GWRS Final Expansion Project and the environmental documentation being prepared for the Water Production Enhancement Project in compliance with CEQA and Section 106 of the NHPA. The OCWD is the lead agency responsible for compliance with CEQA. ESA personnel involved in the preparation of this study include: Candace Ehringer,M.A.,R.P.A., Principal Investigator;Arabesque Said-Abdelwahed,MPP,report author and surveyor;Vanessa Ortiz,M.A.,R.P.A, literature review analyst.Resumes of key personnel me provided in Appendix A. Gmadwater Wenla6manl syelem Final EVerson P,gea and E8 1160387.01 Wader P,otluom Enhanosmmr Progd t Auaua12016 Phase I Cultural Reamrres S dy Groundwater Replenishment System Final Eglansloo Proleot and Water Pmdudlon Enhharh a nk Proled.Phase I Cultural Resource.Study 1. InO dudion 1 .1 Project Location The project is located within the cities of Fountain Valley and Huntington Beach(Figure 1). A portion of the project is located at the existing OCWD GWRS Facility in Fountain Valley. The project is also located at the southern portion of OCSD Treatment Plant No. I and OCSD Treatment Plant No. 2 in Huntington Beach.In addition,the project includes the renovation of an existing waste water pipeline located along the west side of the Santa Ana River that extends from Treatment Plant No.2 to the OCWD GWRS Facility. The project is located within section 32 of Township 5 South/Range 10 West and it is located in sections 5, 17,20, of Township 6 South/Range 10 West as shown on the Newport Beach, California 7.5-minute U.S.Geological Survey topographic map(Figure 2). 1 .2 Project Description The project evaluated in this report comprises of two separate projects. The first is the GWRS Final Expansion Project.The second is the Water Production Enhancement Project.The components of each project are illustrated in Figure 3 as well as the potential staging area. 1.2.1 GWRS Final Expansion Project This project includes conversion of an existing gravity pipeline to a pressurized pipeline, increasing MF capacity,increasing RO Treatment Capacity,increasing UV treatment capacity at the OCWD GWRS Facility, final product water and construction of a pump station at the OCSD Plant No. 2. The GWRS takes highly treated wastewater that would have been previously discharged into the Pacific Ocean and purifies it using a three-step advanced treatment process consisting of MF, RO and UV light with hydrogen peroxide. Specifically,the project will include the following seven improvements,as well as potential staging areas: 1.2.1.1 Microfiltration Capacity The project would increase the MF treatment capacity by approximately 45 million gallons per day(MGD). The expansion of the MF facility at the OCWD water treatment site involves construction of 12 new treatment basins increasing the overall number of treatment basins from 36 to 48. The construction of the 12 new basins would occur by increasing the size of the MF building and basement,which houses most of the actual MF equipment. The MF basement includes all piping,valves,pumps,instruments, and control panels. The basement would be expanded by excavating an area of approximately 88-feet long by 165-feet wide by 25-feet deep from finished grade. The depth of disturbed soils is unknown;therefore,excavations may extend to native and undisturbed soils. Gmadv eler Paremanmenl syelem Final EVanslan Prgea and E8 116OW.01 Wader P,otludim Enhanosmeni Pmeo 2 Auaus12016 Phase I Cultural Resmrres SWdy Legend .., o a r9r1 I, L a h� 1N ... _ rya... 1. --_. b O A- 1 or- o 4Bao i ,T'' Feet A OCWO Groundwater Replenishment System Final Expansion Project.P160387.01 SOURCE:USGS Newport Beach,CA(1979)7..5 BFG Figure Local Vicinity Map Topographic Base 1-e9 d ea .LI o a I, � 1N ... _ rya... O A- 1 or- V( ---"- P..iJI .\ >E B aoao ,L, nu.". = Feet ,P- OCW D Groundwater Replenishment System Final Expansion Project.P150.i31A1 SOURCE:USGS Newport Beach,CA(1978)7.5'DEG; Figure 2 Project Location Topographic Base OCSD Plant No. 1 and OCSD Plant No.2 ,1 _ ;OCWD GWRS Facility MF II IngEx trial OCDGWRS ge i It s lati°" FacilitWy 1' sunflower Ave MF Be kwa h ` Ellis Ave Pump I II s �. . .. . . . . . .: r she Ica an aan In n 'gill d s r Eq I In IN Install r •Q .r We Pump(Install) - • r : OCSD Plant No. 1 r E I s II Ipe o no lont x 1 r - Adams Ave`. It Existing Pipeline for Rehabilitation �r > i tr m `o x YS X7 Excavation Areai rOB BPI aline � �� Rommetor La tlown rea ° r t Flow E' mP tation !:F �a I� Y• OCSD Plant No. 2 ♦ '� oeSit ump Station ♦ i BYPass ♦ Pipeline ♦ Heatlgates ` ♦ f to 1 � ♦ l • � r ,ST SOURCE:ESRI OCWD Groundwater Replenishment System Final Expansion Pmlect.P16038101 Figure 3 Site Plan Groundwater ReelenlshmeM System Final Eq nslon Project and Water Pmdudlon Enhanc MProfed.Phase I Cullum)Resources aWdy 1. InOrodudion This page left intentionally blank crWnawBler.,I. h—t S,.Ii-I Eylenamn Pmlea ene EW IWW7.01 Wa rPwduGion Enha—men)Pmp 6 A.p.W16 Ph—ICUllwel ReSwrcas SWd, Groundwater ReplenlshmeM System Final apansbn Pmled and Waler ProduMon Enha memeM Prolml.Phase I Cultural Resources,SWdy 1. Introduetion In the excavated area,a foundation would be built including installation of foundation piles. The 12 new concrete treatment basins would be constructed on this foundation. Each basin would be installed with a centrifugal pump,associated piping,and other appurtenances. These 12 new treatment basins would make up a one and a half new treatment trains that would be added to the existing two trains within the MF West building.In addition,most of the electrical equipment associated with the new treatment basins would be added to the new expanded MF West electrical building. The MF product water or effluent discharges into an existing 2 million gallon underground concrete reservoir commonly referred to as a break tank. This reservoir contains two sets of vertical turbine pumps.One set(six existing pumps)is used for pumping MF product water back to the MF facility for a backwashing process. The other set of pumps(six existing pumps)is used to transfer the MF product water from the reservoir to the RO Facility.As part of the final expansion,two new 200-horsepower vertical turbine pumps would be installed in the existing break tank facility to pump MF product water back to the MF facility for the backwash process. The break tank facility already has pump slots constructed for these two new pumps, and therefore,the construction work for these pumps only involves lifting the pumps into the slots and connecting up the piping and electrical. 1.2.1.2 Reverse Osmosis Treatment Capacity The project would increase the RO treatment capacity by approximately 30 MGD. The project would include the installation of up to six additional treatment trains at the OCWD water treatment site.The treatment train includes pressure vessels,RO membranes,RO feed pumps, and associated piping for each train.The new equipment for the six new trains would be tied into the existing piping for the expansion.No excavation would be required. 1.2.1.3 Ultraviolet Treatment Capacity The project would increase the UV Treatment capacity at the OCWD water treatment site by approximately 30 MGD.The project would install three additional treatment trains.Each train would consist of three steel vessels containing 432 total UV light lamps. Each vessel would be equipped with two electrical panels,feed and product piping,valves and instruments. The existing concrete pad and canopy would be sized to house the three new trains.Therefore,only the equipment for each of the three trains would need to be installed in their designated areas. Equipment required for this phase includes one crane,one fork lift and two man lifts.No excavation would be required. 1.2.1.4 Final Product Water The project would also expand the chemical and final product water facilities at the OCWD water treatment site.As part of the project,one additional decarbonation tower would be added to the existing decarbonation area. The concrete pad for the decarbonation tower is already constructed. An additional pump would also be added to the existing product water pump station. The pump would be a 2,000-horsepower vertical turbine pump installed within an existing pump station building with a slot already in place.No excavation is required. Gmadwater Wenlahmanl S d an Final Espansan Prgea and ESP MiS7.01 Wader Pmtludim Enhanosmem Pmed 7 Auaua12016 Phase I Cultural Resmrres SWdy Groundwater Replenlshmert S)stem Final Eglanslm Proled and Water Pmdudlon Enhhanc saat Profed.Pha.e I CUIWml Resource..lady 1. Int'odudion 1.2.1.5 Construction of OCSD Plant No. 2 Effluent Pump Station A new pump station(Effluent Pump Station)would be constructed at the OCSD Plant No. 2 to convey water flows within the existing OCSD pipeline to the OCWD water treatment facility site. The pump station would include four pumps(three duty and one standby)with the capacity to pump 30 MGD each. The pumps would be housed in a new concrete pump house,approximately 100-feet long by 50-feet wide by 20-feet high with a 25-foot deep wet well. In addition to the Effluent Pump Station,a second smaller Plant Water Pump Station would be constructed at OCSD's Plant No. 2. The Plant Water Pump Station serves OCSD's Plant No.2 with hose bib and washdown water for plant operations. The Plant Water Pump Station would have four plant water pumps housed in a 48-feet long by 58-feet wide by 20-feet high concrete building.The concrete wet well for the pumps is estimated to be 25-feet deep.The depth of disturbed soils is unkra wn;therefore,excavations may extend to native and undisturbed soils. 1.2.1.6 Pipeline Re-Lining The source water for the project would come from both of the treatment plants owned and operated by the OCSD. Facilities are already in place to receive source water,secondary effluent, from OCSD's Plant No. 1 wastewater treatment facility.However,to provide an additional 60 MGD of source water for the project,OCWD would need to receive additional wastewater flows from OCSD Plant No.2 wastewater treatment site.To convey the wastewater flows to the GWRS water treatment site,an existing 3.5-mile long,66-inch diameter gravity concrete reinforced pipe(CRP)would be relined to become a 54-inch diameter pressure pipeline. The existing pipeline is located along an OCSD easement corridor that extends west of the Santa Ana River levee. The OCSD easement corridor is located on approximately 5 feet of fill material (OCWD,pers.comm.and SRI,2007).The re-lining of the pipeline will be completed either by utilizing existing manholes(approximately spaced 2,000 feet from each one)for access into the pipeline or by excavating a 10-feet wide by 10-feet long by 5-feet deep area to expose the pipeline to allow entry into the pipe to re-line the existing pipeline.For each option,construction equipment would be staged at each pipeline opening.As shown in Figure 3,eight entry locations are proposed.All excavations along the eight entry locations would be within fill and recently disturbed soils. To connect the pipeline to the new Effluent Pump Station on the OCSD facility, approximately 100 feet of 54-inch diameter steel pipe would be constructed.Additionally,to connect the pipeline to OCWD facilities, approximately 100 feet of 54-inch diameter steel pipe would be installed by trenching and backing filling on OCWD property. The depth of fill material is unknown at this location in OCSD Plant No. 1. 1.2.1.7 OCSD Plant No. 2 Separate Headworks and Bypass Pipeline The majority of the wastewater flows from OCSD Plant No. 2 are needed as source water to meet the demands of the project. Currently,OCSD Plant No. 2 receives reject concentrated brine waters from treatment processes from the Inland Water Agencies. These concentrated reject flows,i.e.brines,are currently not allowed to be recycled through the existing GWRS per the Division of Drinking Water permit for GWRS.Therefore,a separate headworks facility and a bypass pipeline would be constructed on OCSD's Plant No.2 that would segregate the brine flows from the typical influent domestic wastewater flows to Plant No. 2. The bypass pipeline cFUna rite,RB ..iAmN1 syalem Flydl P".aIN Pr .O era E8 I WWI 01 Wa er Pmtludim Enhancement Propel 8 Auaus12016 Phase I Cultural Reamrres S dy Groundwater ReplenlshmeM System Final E pansbn Pmled antl WMer ProduMon Enha memeM Protect Phase I Cultural Resources Shady 1. Introduction would be a 66-inch diameter CRP with an alignment that runs approximately 200 feet around the existing headworks for Plant No.2. Connected to the bypass pipeline would be a new separate headworks facility,including a screenings building(65-feet long by 55-feet wide by 20-feet deep) and a grit basin building(65-feet long by 40-feet wide by 20-feet deep). Also along the bypass pipeline alignment would be a 20-feet deep concrete metering vault with vault dimensions of 100- feet wide by 100-feet long by 14-feet deep.Excavation would be required for this component of the project.This project component location is underlain by disturbed soils from previous placement of several pipelines(OCSD,pers.comm.).The depth of disturbed soils is unknown; therefore,excavations may extend to native and undisturbed soils. 1.2.2 Water Production Enhancement Project The Water Production Enhancement Project involves three construction activities: (1)construction of flow equalization tank,(2)construction of a pump station, and(3)construction of conveyance piping and flow meter vault. A 6-million-gallon(MG)flow equalization storage tank would be constructed at the north end of OCSD Plant 2.The location of the flow equalization storage tank is shown in Figure 3. The storage tank would be a circular-welded steel tank approximately 200-feet in diameter and 30-feet tall from existing grade,with a 4-pump(3 duty+ 1 standby),pump station,and approximately 500-linear feet of 36-inch diameter connection piping with a meter vault(15-x 20-x 10-ft deep) connected to the operations of the tank.The pump station would be housed in a 30-x 40-x 20-ft block wall building. Excavation would be required for construction of the flow equalization tank,pump station,and pipeline/vault. In addition to excavation,an existing concrete puking lot would be demolished for the tank pad. 1.2.3 Potential Staging Areas During construction of the project,construction equipment,vehicles,and materials could be stored at up to two staging areas: the OCSD Plant No. 2 and along the existing pipeline at each pipeline opening.No excavations would occur at the potential staging areas. cmundwner Parenlahment syelem Final Espensan Prgea and ESP 116OW 01 Wader Pmtludim Enhanosmem Pmed 9 Auaua12016 Phase I Cultural Resmrres Shady Groundwater Recienlshmenl System Final Egmnslm Proled and Water Pmdudlon Enhanc M Profed.Pha.e I Culluml Resource.Study 2.Area M Pdendel Effects 2. Area of Potential Effects An Area of Potential Effects(APE)was established for the project according to Section 106 of the NHPA in coordination with the OCWD(Figure 4). An APE is defined as: ...the geographic area or areas within which an undertaking may directly or indirectly cause alterations in the character or use of historic properties,if any such properties exist. The APE is influenced by the scale and nature of an undertaking and may be different for different kinds of effects caused by the undertaking(36 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] 800.16[d]). The horizontal APE encompasses the ME Building Expansion(about 0.50-acre), 3.5-mile long existing pipeline,the excavation area for OCSD pipeline(about 650 square feet),the contractor laydown area(about 0.70-acre),the area encompassing the Flow Equalization Pump Station and Flow Equalization Control/Meter(about 3.70-acres),the area encompassing the OCSD pump station(about 0.28 acre), and the area encompassing the headgates and bypass pipeline(about 0.5 acre).The vertical APE includes the anticipated maximum depth of ground disturbance of 25 feet below ground surface and the maximum height of the flow equalization tank of 30 feet above ground surface. G.ad t.r ReMenymment Syeten Firth Espenaian Prgea ens ESA 116OW01 Water Pwdudim Enha—meat Pmetl 10 Auauat 2016 Phase I cultural Reemrres S dy Lhaeological Area of Potential EffectsSD Plant No. 1 and OCSD Plant No.2 WD GWRS Facility OCWD GWRS -- _ F3CIIItY Sunflower Ave Elis��e ;. . . . . OCSD Plant No. 1 • r r r ti r Pipeline a 1 m t `o i n � a � ♦ X • I OCSD Plant No. 2 { �• ,� r SOURCE:ESRI OCWD Groundwater Replenishment System Final Expansion Pmlect.P16038101 Figure 4 Area of Potential Effects Groundwater Raelenlshmenl System Final E,mnslon Probed and Water Pmdudlon Enhanc MProfed.Pha.e I Cullum)Resource.Study 2.Area M Pdendel Effect. This page left intentionally blank crWnawBler Replenisnmem S .Ii-I Eylenamn Pmlea ene ESA/IWW7.01 Wa r PwduGion Ennancemml Pmp 12 Aupual W16 Ph—l CUllwel ReSwrcas SWd, Groundwater Replenishment System Final E pansbn Pm1ect aM Wffi r Production Enhaamement Project Phase I Cultural Resources SWdy 3. Sefting 3. Setting 3.1 Environmental Setting The project is located in the cities of Huntington Beach and Fountain Valley,Orange County, in southern California. The topography of Orange County includes a combination of mountains, hills, flatlands,and shorelines. Urbanized Orange County is predominantly within an alluvial plain,semi-enclosed by the Puente and Chino Hills to the north,the San Joaquin Hills to the south,and the Santiago Foothills and the Santa Ana Mountains to the east. The Puente and Chino Hills,which identify the northern limit of the plains,extend for 22 miles and reach a peak height of 7,780 feet.To the east and southeast of the plains are the Santa Ana Mountains,which have a peak height of 5,691-feet.The Santa Ana River is located adjacent to and just east of the project APE. The City of Huntington Beach is located near the coastal margin of the Los Angeles Basin,which includes Orange County,and is underlain by more than 15,000 feet of stratified sedimentary rocks of marine origin(Oakeshott, 1978). Soils in the project APE are composed of younger alluvium that is divided into river floodplam deposits(washed in from the northeast as sand, gravel and silt), and tidal flat/lagoonal type deposits lie in the gaps(finer-grained silts and clays) (City of Huntington Beach, 1996). 3.2 Prehistoric Setting The prehistory of the region has been summarized within four major horizons or cultural periods: Early[10,000 to 8,000 before present(B.P.)],Millingstone(8,000 to 3,000 B.P.),Intermediate (3,000 to 1,500 B.P.),and Late Prehistoric(1,500 BY to A.D. 1769)(Wallace, 1955;Warren, 1968). 3.2.1 Early Period (10,000 to 8,000 B.P.) The southern California coast may have been settled as early as 10,000 years ago(Jones, 1992). These early inhabitants were likely maritime adapted groups exploiting shellfish and other marine resources found along the coastline(Dixon, 1999; Erlandson, 1994;Vellanoweth and Altschul, 2002).One site located in Newport Bay,Orange County(CA-ORA-64)dates to approximately 9,500 years B.P.and suggests early intensive utilization of shellfish,fish,and bird resources (Drover et at., 1993;Macko, 1998). 3.2.2 Millingstone Period (8,000 to 3,000 B.P.) The Millingstone Period dates to about 8,000 to 3,000 B.P. The transition from the Early Period to the Millingstone Period is marked by an increased emphasis on the processing of seeds and edible plants.The increased utilization of seeds is evident by the high frequencies of handstones (mans)and milling slabs(natures).Around 5,000 B.P.,mortar and pestles appear in the archaeological record. Mortars and pestles suggest the exploitation of acoms(Vellanoweth and Altschul,2002). Grcendugler Wenlahrset syelem Final rVansan Pr sO and ESP 1160W.01 Waer P,odudim Enhancemem Pmeno 13 Auaus12016 Phase I cultural Resmrres Shady Groundwater RVIenlstimed System Final Eganslon Proleot and Water Pmdudbn Entianmmed Project.Phase I Culbml Resource.study 3. Setting Millingstone Period sites in Orange County generally date to between 8,000 and 4,000 B.P. Archaeological evidence suggests a low,stable population centered around semi-permanent residential bases. These sites me located along coastal marine terraces,near the shoreline,bays,or estuaries. Satellite camps were used to take advantage of seasonally available resources.Marine resources were supplemented by seeds and small terrestrial mammals.Later Millingstone Period sites indicate a growing reliance on shellfish(Cleland et al., 2007). 3.2.3 Intermediate Period (3,000 to 1,500 B.P.) The Intermediate Period dates to between 3,000 to 1,500 B.P. Archaeological sites indicate a broader economic base,with increased reliance on hunting and marine resources.An expanded inventory of milling equipment is found at sites dated to this period. Intermediate Period sites are characterized by the rise of the mortar and pestle and small projectile points(Cleland et al., 2007). The number of Intermediate Period sites in Orange County declined over time,particularly around Newport Bay.Climate changes and drier conditions led to the congregation of populations near freshwater sources. Settlement patterns indicate greater sedentism,with reduced exploitation of seasonal resources and a lack of satellite camps.Coastal terrace sites are not reoccupied during this time period. These shifts in settlement and subsistence strategies led to growing population densities,resource intensification,higher reliance on labor-intensive technologies, such as the circular fishhook,and more abundant and diverse hunting equipment. Rises in disease and inter- personal violence,visible in the archaeological record,may be due to the increased population densities(Cleland et al.,2007;Raab et al., 1995). 3.2.4 Late Prehistoric Period (1,500 B.P. to A.D. 1769) The Late Prehistoric Period began around 1,500 B.P. and lasted until Spanish contact in 1769. The Late Prehistoric Period resulted in concentration of larger populations in settlements and communities,greater utilization of the available food resources,and the development of regional subcultures(Cleland et al.,2007). Artifacts from this period include milling implements,as well as bone and shell tools and ornaments. Newport Bay and San Joaquin Hills,abandoned during the Intermediate Period,were reoccupied during the Late Prehistoric Period.These settlements were smaller than in the Intermediate. Village sites were located in areas with a multitude of resources. Small collector groups moved between a small number of these permanent settlements(Cleland et al.,2007). 3.3 Ethnographic Setting The project is located at the southern extent of Gabrielino-Tongva territory,near the boundary with the Jumeno,or more properly Acjachemen,to the south. Traditionally,the boundary between the two is identified as either Aliso Creek or the drainage divide to the north of the creek,roughly 20 miles south of the project APE,respectively.Both are included here. Gmadv ebr Wemanment syelem Final Eypnson Pn,90 and ESA 1160W 01 Water Pnsdudim Enhanosmem Pmeet 14 Auauat 2016 Phase I Cultural Resmrres Study Groundwater Replenishment System Final E pansbn Pmled and WMer Production Enha memed Project Phase I cultural Resources SWdy 3. Seaing 3.3.1 Gabriel ino-Tongva Prior to European colonization,the Gabrielino-Tongva,a Takic-speaking group,occupied a diverse area that included:the watersheds of the Los Angeles, San Gabriel,and Santa Ana rivers; the Los Angeles basin; and the islands of San Clemente,San Nicolas, and Santa Catalina (Kroeber, 1925). The Gabrielino-Tongva are reported to have been second only to the Chumash in terms of population size and regional influence(Bean and Smith, 1978). The Gabrielino-Tongva were hunter-gatherers and lived in permanent communities located near the presence of a stable food supply. Community populations generally ranged from 50-100 inhabitants,although larger settlements may have existed. The Gabrielino-Tongva are estimated to have had a population numbering around 5,000 in the pre-contact period,with many recorded villages along the drainages mentioned above and in the Los Angeles basin proper(Kroeber, 1925). Beginning with the Spanish Period and the establishment of Mission San Gabriel Arcangel, Native Americans throughout the Los Angeles area suffered severe depopulation and their traditional culture was radically altered.Nonetheless, Gabrielino-Tongva descendants still reside in the greater Los Angeles and Orange County areas and maintain an active interest in their heritage. 3.3.2 Juaneno-Acjachemen The Juaneno or Acjachemen, also Takic-speaking,occupied a more restricted area extending across southern Orange County and northern San Diego County. Juaneno territory extended along the Pacific coast from midway between Arroyo San Onofre and Las Pulgas Canyon in the south to Aliso Creek in the north,and continued east into the Santa Ana Mountains from Santiago Peak in the northwest to the headwaters of Arroyo San Mateo in the southeast(Kroeber 1925). The Juaneno were bounded by the Gabrielino-Tongva to the north,and the Luiseno to the east and south. The Juaneno-Acjachemen,like the Gabrielino-Tongva,subsisted on small game, coastal marine resources, and a wide variety of plant foods such as gross seeds and acorns. Their houses were conical thatched reed,brush,or bark structures. The Juaneno inhabited permanent villages centered around patrilineal clans,with each village headed by a chief,known as a nu(Kroeber 1925; Sparkman 1908). Seasonal camps associated with villages were also used.Each village or clan had an associated territory and hunting,collecting, and fishing areas.Villages were typically located in proximity to a food or water source,or in defensive locations,often near valley bottoms,streams,sheltered coves or canyons,or coastal strands(Bean and Shipek 1978). The Juaneno-Acllachemen population was estimated to have numbered approximately 1,000 at the time of European contact.Beginning with the Spanish Period and the establishment of Mission San Juan Capistrano,the Juaneno-Acjachemen suffered severe depopulation and their traditional culture was radically altered.Nonetheless,descendants still reside in the Orange County area and maintain an active interest in their heritage. Gmadwater Paplenlahmant syelem Final Espanalan P,gea and ESP 11.387.01 Wader Pnsdudim Enhancemem Pmje l 15 Auaua12016 Phase I Cultural Reamrres SWdy Groundwater RVIenlstimert S)slem Final Eq,anslan Proleal and Waler Pmdudlon Entiano MProject.Phase I CUIWmI Resource.GWdy 3. Salting 3.4 Historic Setting The historic setting for the project is divided into three primary periods: the Spanish Period (A.D. 1769-1821), the Mexican Period(A.D. 1821-1846), and the American Period(A.D. 1846 to present). 3.4.1 Spanish Period (A.D. 1769-1821) The first European exploration of Orange County began in 1769 when the Gaspar de Portola expedition passed through on its way from Mexico to Monterey. A permanent Spanish presence was established with the founding of Mission San Juan Capistrano in 1776(Hoover et al.,2002). The mission was founded to break the long journey from Mission San Diego to Mission San Gabriel(near Los Angeles).A large,ornate church was constructed at the mission from 1797 to 1806,but was destroyed only six years later in an earthquake.The church was not rebuilt. In an effort to promote Spanish settlement of Alta California,Spain granted several large land concessions from 1784 to 1821.At this time, Spain retained title to the land; individual ownership of lands in Alta California was not granted.The parts of Orange County that would become the City of Huntington Beach and the City of Fountain Valley began as a Spanish land concession, known as Rancho Los Nietos.A grant of 300,000 acres was given to Manuel Nieto in 1784 in consideration of his military service(City of Huntington Beach,2000;Logan, 1990). 3.4.2 Mexican Period (A.D. 1821-1846) In 1821,Mexico won its independence from Spain.Mexico continued to promote settlement of California with the issuance of land grants.In 1833,Mexico secularized the missions,reclaiming the majority of mission lands and redistributing them as land grants. During this time,Rancho Los Nietos was divided into five smaller ranchos. The area of Huntington Beach became part of Rancho Las Bolsas,a 33,460-acre rancho granted to Maria Catarina Ruiz in 1834(County of Orange,20I1).Maria was the widow of Jose Antonio Nieto,Manuel Nieto's son. Many ranchos continued to be used for cattle grazing by settlers during the Mexican Period. Hides and tallow from cattle became a major export for Califomios(Hispanic Californians), many of whom became wealthy and prominent members of society. These Califomios led generally easy lives,leaving the hard work to vaqueros(Hispanic cowhands)and Indian laborers. Californios lives centered primarily around enjoying the fruits of their labors,throwing parties and feasting on Catholic holidays(Pitt, 1994; Starr,2007). 3.4.3 American Period (A.D. 1846 to present) Mexico ceded California to the United States as part of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hildalgo,which ended the Mexican-American War(1846-1848). The treaty also recognized right of Mexican citizens to retain ownership of land granted to them by Spanish or Mexican authorities.However, the claimant was required to prove their right to the land before a patent was given. The process was lengthy and costly, and generally resulted in the claimant losing at least a portion of their land to attorney's fees and other costs associated with proving ownership(Starr,2007). G.ad eler W..i mmenl syelem Firth P".aiN Pr W and ESA 1160W 01 Water Pwdudim Enhanosmeni Proptl 16 Auausl2016 Phase I Cultural Reswrres Shady Groundwater ReplenlshmeM System Final E pansbn Pmleci and WMer ProduWon Enha memeM Project.Phase I Cultural Resources,SWdy 3. Seaing The Gold Rush(1849-I855)saw the first big influx of American settlers to California.Most of these settlers were men hoping to strike it rich in the gold fields.The increasing population provided an additional outlet for Califomios' cattle(Bancroft, 1890).As demand increased,the price of beef skyrocketed and Califomios reaped the benefits. The culmination of the Gold Rush,followed by devastating floods in 1861 and 1862 and droughts in 1863 and 1864,led to the rapid decline of the cattle industry (Bancroft, 1890).Many Califomios lost their lands during this period, and former ranchos were subsequently divided and sold for agriculture and residential settlement. Following the admission of California into the United States in 1850,the region of modem day Orange County was originally part of Los Angeles County.Orange County was established in 1889,with the City of Santa Ana as County Seat(Armor, 1921). 3.4.4 History of the Project Vicinity The project vicinity was once part of a 300,000-acre Spanish land grant,Rancho Los Metes,a part of which became Rancho Las Balsas during the Mexican Period. Abel Stearns later acquired the land for ranching and cultivation of barley. During the land boom of the 1880s,the area was subdivided for agricultural and residential development(County of Orange,2011;Milkovich, 1986). Previously called Shell Beach and later Pacific City,the town changed its time to Huntington Beach in 1904 when Henry E.Huntington extended Pacific Electric Railway service to the little community(Carlberg and Epting,2009;Mitcovich, 1986).Discovery of oil in the 1920s led to a population explosion in the town. In one month,the population of Huntington Beach went from 1,500 to 6,000. 3.4.4.1 History of OCSD Plant No. 1 and No. 2 and OCWD GWRS OCSD In 1921,the cities of Santa Ana and Anaheim agreed to construct a sewer outfall extending into the Pacific Ocean,thus forming the Orange County Joint Outfall Sewer(JOS),and marking the beginning of the OCSD. In 1924,JOS construction was completed and the first sewage from member cities was discharged into the system. Three years later,the outfall was extended to a distance of 3,000 feet from shore,and a new screening plant and pumping station was constructed. In 1941,the first units of the Primary Treatment Plant,now referred to as Plant No. 1)were constructed. In 1954,OCSD assumed the duties of JOS and officially commenced operations. Over the next 50 years, additional services and facilities were constructed at OCSD Plant No. 1. The portion of the existing facility where the proposed OCSD pipe connection would connect was constructed within the last 10 years.In 1954,Plant No.2 was constructed near the ocean and adjoining Santa Ana River and the second ocean outfall was constructed. OCSD is currently a public agency that provides wastewater collection,treatment,and disposal services for approximately 2.5 million people in central and northwest Orange County. OCSD is a special district that is governed by a Board of Directors consisting of 25 board members appointed from Gmadweter Replen shmenl syelem Final Espensan Prgea and ESP 1160W.01 Wader P,otludim Enhanosmend Pmgd 17 Auaua12016 Phase I Cultural Resmrres Study Groundwater Replenishment S)sbm Final Eyranslon Proled and Water Pmdudbn Enhhanmmed Profed.Phase I CUIWmI Resource.SWdy 3. Selgng 21 cities,sanitary districts, and one representative from the Orange County Board of Supervisors. OCSD has two operating facilities(Plants 1 and 2)that treat wastewater from residential, commercial and industrial sources(ocsd.com). OCWD GWRS In the 1950s,traces of salt water were detected in the Orange County Groundwater Basin as far as 5 miles inland,although the area of intrusion was focused primarily across a 3-mile stretch between the cities of Newport Beach and Huntington Beach. In order to protect the basin from further seawater intrusion,the OCWD constructed the Water Factory 21 (AT-21)in 1978. This facility treated wastewater utilizing a purification process including RO,and injected it into 23 multi-casing injection wells along the Talbert Gap forming a hydraulic barrier to seawater intrusion. (gwrsystem.com). In 2004,WF-21 discontinued production and was demolished in February 2007 to provide space for the construction of GWRS.GWRS provides new technology and is a larger water purification plant compared to the previous WR-21. Construction of the GWRS broke ground in September 2004 and was completed in late 2007.The GWRS consists primarily of membrane processes, replacing the physical-chemical processes of WF-21.Unlike WF-21,the GWRS utilizes MF as pre-treatment prior to RO and UV light with hydrogen peroxide. The GWRS product water not only supplies water to an expanded seawater barrier,but is also pumped to two of OCWD's recharge basins where it blends with Santa Ana River and imported waters and naturally filters into the groundwater basin,ultimately becoming part of north and central Orange County's drinking water supply(gwrsystem.com). Gmadv eler Paremanmenl syelem Final rVansan Prgea and E8 1160W.01 Wader P,otludim Enhanosmem Pmeo 18 Auaua12016 Phase I Cultural Resmrres SWdy Groundwater ReplenlshmeM System Final E pansbn Pmled and WMer ProduWon Enham:ement Project.Phase I Cultural Resources SWdy 4. Regulatory Framework 4. Regulatory Framework 4.1 Federal 4.1.1 Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act Archaeological resources we protected through the NHPA of 1966,as amended(54 United States Code of Laws [USCI 300101 et seq.),and its implementing regulation,Protection of Historic Properties(36 CFR Part 800),the Archaeological and Historic Preservation Act of 1974,and the Archaeological Resources Protection Act of 1979. Prior to implementing an"undertaking" (e.g.,issuing a federal permit),Section 106 of the NHPA requires federal agencies to consider the effects of the undertaking on historic properties and to afford the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation and the State Historic Preservation Officer(SHPO) a reasonable opportunity to comment on any undertaking that would adversely affect properties eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places(National Register).As indicated in Section 101(d)(6)(A)of the NHPA,properties of traditional religious and cultural importance to a tribe me eligible for inclusion in the National Register.Under the NHPA, a resource is considered significant if it meets the National Register listing criteria at 36 CFR 60.4. 4.1.2 National Register of Historic Places The National Register was established by the NHPA of 1966,as"an authoritative guide to be used by federal, State, and local governments,private groups and citizens to identify the Nation's historic resources and to indicate what properties should be considered for protection from destruction or impairment"(36 CFR 60.2). The National Register recognizes both historic-period and prehistoric archaeological properties that are significant at the national, state,and local levels. To be eligible for listing in the National Register,a resource must be significant in American history,architecture, archaeology,engineering,or culture.Districts, sites,buildings, structures, and objects of potential significance must meet one or more of the following four established criteria(U.S.Department of the Interior,2002): A. Are associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history; B. Are associated with the lives of persons significant in our past; C. Embody the distinctive characteristics of a type,period, or method of construction or that represent the work of a master,or that possess high artistic values,or that represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction; or, D. Have yielded,or may be likely to yield,information important in prehistory or history. Unless the property possesses exceptional significance,it must be at least 50 years old to be eligible for National Register listing(U.S.Department of the Interior,2002). In addition to meeting the criteria of significance, a property must have integrity.Integrity is defined as"the ability of a property to convey its significance"(U.S.Department of the Interior,2002).The National Register recognizes seven qualities that,in various combinations,defrte integrity.The G.adt.r Replenlshmenl system Flydl P"..IN Pr,.0 and ES II POW.01 Water Pwdudim Enhancement Propel 18 Auaus12016 Phase I Cultural Resmrres SWdy Groundwater Reeienlshmer#S)stem Final Eglansloo Proled and Water Pmdudbn Enhhanoemed Project Phase I Culluml Resource.aludy 4. Regulatory Framework seven factors that define integrity are location,design, setting,materials,workmanship,feeling, and association. To retain historic integrity a property most possess several,and usually most,of these seven aspects. Thus,the retention of the specific aspects of integrity is paramount for a property to convey its significance. 4.2 State 4.2.1 California Environmental Quality Act CEQA is the principal statute governing environmental review of projects occurring in the state and is codified at Public Resources Code(PRC) Section 21000 et seq. CEQA requires lead agencies to determine if a proposed project would have a significant effect on the environment, including significant effects on historical or unique archaeological resources. Under CEQA(Section 21084.1), a project that may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an historical resource is a project that may have a significant effect on the environment.An archaeological resource may qualify as an"historical resource"under CEQA. The CEQA Guidelines(Title 14 California Code of Regulations [CCR] Section 15064.5) recognize that an historical resource includes: (1)a resource listed in,or determined to be eligible by the State Historical Resources Commission,for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources(California Register);(2)a resource included in a local register of historical resources, as defined in PRC Section 5020.l(k)or identified as significant in a historical resource survey meeting the requirements of PRC Section 5024.1(g);and(3)any object,building,structure, site, area,place,record,or manuscript which a lead agency determines to be historically significant or significant in the architectural,engineering,scientific,economic,agricultural,educational,social, political, military,or cultural annals of California by the lead agency,provided the lead agency's determination is supported by substantial evidence in light of the whole record. The fact that a resource does not meet the three criteria outlined above does not preclude the lead agency from determining that the resource may be an historical resource as defined in PRC Sections 5020.10) or 5024.1. If a lead agency determines that an archaeological site is a historical resource,the provisions of Section 21084.1 of CEQA and Section 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines apply. If a project may cause a substantial adverse change(defined as physical demolition,destruction,relocation,or alteration of the resource or its immediate surroundings such that the significance of an historical resource would be materially impaired)in the significance of an historical resource,the lead agency must identify potentially feasible measures to mitigate these effects(CEQA Guidelines Sections 15064.5(b)(1), 15064.5(b)(4)). If an archaeological site does not meet the criteria for a historical resource contained in the CEQA Guidelines,then the site may be treated in accordance with the provisions of Section 21083, which is as a unique archaeological resource.As defined in Section 21083.2 of CEQA a"unique" archaeological resource is an archaeological artifact,object,or site,about which it can be clearly demonstrated that without merely adding to the current body of knowledge,there is a high probability that it meets any of the following criteria: cmundwner Wenis6manl syelem Final rVanalan P,gea and E8 116036].o1 Wader P,otludim Enhanosmend Pmeo 20 Auaus12016 Phase I Cultural Resmrres SWdy Groundwater Replenishment System Final apana hn Pmlect and Water ProduOon Enha mernwt Project.Phase I Cultural Resources,SWdy 4. Regulatory Framework • Contains information needed to answer important scientific research questions and there is a demonstrable public interest in that information; • Has a special and particular quality such as being the oldest of its type or the best available example of its type;or, • Is directly associated with a scientifically recognized important prehistoric or historic event or person. If an archaeological site meets the criteria for a unique archaeological resource as defined in Section 21083.2,then the site is to be treated in accordance with the provisions of Section 21083.2,which state that if the lead agency determines that a project would have a significant effect on unique archaeological resources,the lead agency may require reasonable efforts be made to permit any or all of these resources to be preserved in place(Section 21083.Ila)). If preservation in place is not feasible,mitigation measures shall be required. The CEQA Guidelines note that if an archaeological resource is neither a unique archaeological nor a historical resource,the effects of the project on those resources shall not be considered a significant effect on the environment(CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(c)(4)). 4.2.2 CEQA-Plus The EPA sponsors the SRF Loan Program to provide funding for construction of publicly-owned treatment facilities and water reclamation projects. This funding for capital improvements to wastewater treatment and water recycling facilities is authorized under the federal Clean Water Act. In order to comply with requirements of the SRF Loan Program,which is administered by the SWRCB in California,a CEQA document must fulfill additional requirements(mown as CEQA-Plus. The CEQA-Plus requirements have been established by the EPA and are intended to supplement the CEQA Guidelines with specific requirements for environmental documents acceptable to the SWRCB when reviewing applications for wastewater treatment facility loans. They me not intended to supersede or replace CEQA Guidelines. The EPA's CEQA-Plus requirements have been incorporated into the SWRCB's Environmental Review Process Guidelines for SRFLoan Applicants(2004).The SWRCB's SRF Guidelines require that a proposed project comply with Section 106 of the NHPA. 4.2.3 California Register of Historical Resources The California Register is"an authoritative listing and guide to be used by State and local agencies,private groups,and citizens in identifying the existing historical resources of the State and to indicate which resources deserve to be protected,to the extent prudent and feasible,from Register are based upon National Register criteria(PRC Section 5024.1[b]). Certain resources are determined by the statute to be automatically included in the California Register,including California properties formally determined eligible for,or listed in,the National Register. G.adweler Replenishment syelem Firth Espenaian Prgea arse ESP 1160W 01 Water Pwdudim Enhanuemeat Pmea 21 Auaua12016 Phase I Cultural Resmrres SWdy Groundwater Rapienlshmed System Final Eq,ansiw Pmie,t and Warier Pmdudbn Enhhanmmed Project.Phae.I Cultural Resource.Study 4. Ra,,uletory Framework To be eligible For the California Register,a prehistoric or historic-period property must be significant at the local,state, and/or federal level under one or more of the following four criteria: 1. Is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of California's history and cultural heritage; 2. Is associated with the lives of persons important in our past; 3. Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type,period,region,or method of construction,or represents the work of an important creative individual,or possesses high artistic values;or 4. Has yielded,or may be likely to yield,information important in prehistory or history. A resource eligible for the California Register must meet one of the criteria of significance described above, and retain enough of its historic character or appearance(integrity)to be recognizable as a historical resource and to convey the reason for its significance.It is possible that a historic resource may not retain sufficient integrity to meet the criteria for listing in the National Register,but it may still be eligible for listing in the California Register. Additionally,the California Register consists of resources that are listed automatically and those that must be nominated through an application and public hearing process.The California Register automatically includes the following: • California properties listed on the National Register and those formally determined • eligible for the National Register; • California Registered Historical Landmarks from No. 770 onward; and, • Those California Points of Historical Interest that have been evaluated by the OHP and have been recommended to the State Historical Commission for inclusion on the California Register. Other resources that may be nominated to the California Register include: • Historical resources with a significance rating of Category 3 through 5 (those properties identified as eligible for listing in the National Register,the California Register,and/or a local jurisdiction register); • Individual historical resources; • Historical resources contributing to historic districts;and, • Historical resources designated or listed as local landmarks,or designated under any local ordinance, such as a historic preservation overlay zone. G.adwel.r W..i0manl Sy91em Firth Espenaian Prgea and ESP,160W 01 Water Pwdudim Enhanosmeat Pmeet 22 Auaus12016 Phase I Cultural Resmrres SWdy Groundwater Replenishment System Final E panslhn Pmled and Wffier ProduWon Enharmement Proled.Phase I Cultural Resources SWdy 4. Regulatory Framework 4.2.4 California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 requires that in the event human remains are discovered,the County Coroner be contacted to determine the nature of the remains. In the event the remains are determined to be Native American in origin,the Coroner is required to contact the California Native American Heritage Commission(NAHC)within 24 hours to relinquish jurisdiction. 4.2.5 California Public Resources Code Section 5097.98 California PRC Section 5097.98,as amended by Assembly Bill 2641,provides procedures in the event human remains of Native American origin are discovered during project implementation. PRC Section 5097.98 requires that no further disturbances occur in the immediate vicinity of the discovery,that the discovery is adequately protected according to generally accepted cultural and archaeological standards,and that further activities take into account the possibility of multiple burials.PRC Section 5097.98 further requires the NAHC,upon notification by a County Coroner, designate and notify a Most Likely Descendant(MLD)regarding the discovery of Native American human remains. Once the MLD has been granted access to the site by the landowner and inspected the discovery,the MLD then has 48 hours to provide recommendations to the landowner for the treatment of the human remains and any associated grave goods. In the event that no descendant is identified,or the descendant fails to make a recommendation for disposition,or if the land owner rejects the recommendation of the descendant,the landowner may,with appropriate dignity,reinter the remains and burial items on the property in a location that will not be subject to further disturbance. 4.2.6 California Public Resources Code Section 21080.3.1 California PRC Section 21080.3.1, as amended by Assembly Bill (AB) 52,requires lead agencies to consider the effects of projects on tribal cultural resources and to conduct consultation with federally and non-federally recognized Native American Tribes early in the environmental planning process and applies specifically to projects for which a Notice of Preparation(NOP)or a notice of Negative Declaration or Mitigated Negative Declaration(MND)will be filed on or after July 1,2015.The goal is to include California Tribes in determining whether a project may result in a significant impact to tribal cultural resources that may be undocumented or known only to the Tribe and its members and specifies that a project that may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource is a project that may have a significant effect on the environment. Tribal cultural resources are defined as"sites,features,places,cultural landscapes, sacred places, and objects with cultural value to a California Native American Tribe"that are either included or determined to be eligible for inclusion in the California Register or included in a local register of historical resources(PRC Section 21074(a)(1)). Prior to determining whether a Negative Declaration,MND,or Environmental Impact Report (EIR)is prepared for a project,the lead agency must consult with California Native American Tribes, defined as those identified on the contact list maintained by the California Native American Heritage Commission(NAHC),who are traditionally and culturally affiliated with the G.adglarReplenishment 5,,,an Firth P".aiN P, Wera ESP I POW.01 Water Pwdudim Enhancement Propel 23 Auaus12016 Phase I Cultural Reamrres SWdy Groundwater Raplenlshment S)sbm Final Eq nslw Protect and Water Pmdudbn Enhansemed Project.Phase I Culbml Resource..lady 4. Raguletory Framework geographic area of the proposed project, and who have requested such consultation in writing. Consultation may include: • The type of environmental review necessary • The significance of tribal cultural resources • The significance of the project's impacts on the tribal cultural resources • Project alternatives or the appropriate measures for preservation • Recommended mitigation measures Consultation should be initiated by a lead agency within 14 days of determining that an application for a project is complete or that a decision by a public agency to undertake a project (PRC Section 21080.3.1(d)and(e)). The lead agency shall provide formal notification to the designated contact of,or a tribal representative of,traditionally and culturally affiliated California Native American Tribes that have requested notice. At minimum,notice should consist of at least one written notification that includes a brief description of the proposed project and its location, the lead agency contact information,and a notification that the California Native American Tribe has 30 days to request consultation pursuant to this section. The lead agency shall begin the consultation process within 30 days of receiving a California Native American Tribe's request for consultation.According to PRC Section 21080.3.2(b),consultation is considered concluded when either the parties agree to measures to mitigate or avoid a significant effect, if a significant effect exists,on a tribal cultural resource,or a party,acting in good faith and after reasonable effort, concludes that mutual agreement cannot be reached. Grmndwel.r W..is6msat syelem Firth EspenaiN Prgea arse ESP 116OW 01 Water Pwdudim Enhanosmeat Pmeo 24 Auaua12016 Phase I Cultural Resmrres S dy Groundwater Replenishment System Final Espie sbn Protect and Water Production Enhancement Project Phase I Cultural Resources Study 5.Amhi al Research 5. Archival Research 5.1 South Central Coastal Information Center Records Search A records search for the APE and a 1/,mile radius was conducted on June 21,2016 at the South Central Coastal Information Center(SCCIC),located at California State University,Fullerton. The records search included a review of all recorded cultural resources within a %-mile radius of the project APE, as well as a review of cultural resource reports on file.The Historic Properties Directory was also examined for any documented historic-period built resources within or adjacent to the project APE. The results of the SCCIC records search are included in Appendix B. 5.1.1 Previous Cultural Resources Investigations A total of 61 cultural resources studies have been conducted within a%-mile radius of the project APE.Of the 61 previous studies, five studies included a pedestrian survey of portions of the APE, and four included archival research for the APE(Table 1).A complete list of the 61 studies located within Y/-mile of the project APE is located in Appendix B.Less than 50 percent of the project APE has been included in previous cultural resources surveys. TABLE 1 PREVIOUS CULTURAL RESOURCES INVESTIGATIONS INCLUDING THE PROJECT APE SCIC# Author (OR-) Title Year Mason,Roger D.Ph.D., 36070 Cultural Resources Survey Report for the Le Said Park Edension 2005 RPA Prated,Huntington Beach, Orange County,California Padon,Beth 18360 Cultural Resources Review for Groundwater Replenishment System 1998 Program EIR?er 110S, Orange County Water Dishlct and County Sanitation Districts of Orange County POD Consultants,Inc. 4087- Final Program EIR for the Groundwater Replenishment System 1999 Historic Resource 4256� The Cultural Resources Study of the SCE—Monica Pacific Nursery 2012 Associates protect Metropcs California,LLC Site no.MLAX04188,20462 Raisenwood Lane,Huntington Beach, Orange County, California 92646 Ewa Management 801❑ Phase II Archaeological Studies Plado Basin and the Lower Santa Ana 1985 Criteria,Inc River Michael Brendman 3682 Direct APE Historic Architectural Assessment for Royal Street 2007 Associates Communications,LLC Candidate LA2812A(SCE tabard Park),SCE Tower M2 T5 EIIiVHB Number 2 South of Rayenwood,Huntington Beach,Orange County, California Mason,Roger D. 2033o Research Design for Evaluation of Coastal Archaeological Sites In 1987 northern Orange County, California Statistical Research,Inc 4259D Cultural Resources Monitodng Report, Orenge County Water District 2007 Groundwater Replenishment System,Orange County, Callfonda Leonard,III,N.Nelson 2700 Description and Evaluation of Cultural Resources within the U.S.Army 1975 Corps Unknown 43130 The City of Huntington Beach General Plan 2013 City of Huntington Beach nlndicdes study o-adaps the Archaeological APE onsirdaeler PaiWiArranl ays.Final Parsee n PrgeU enE ESA 11 W367.01 Washer P,otludim Enhanceme t Pmgcl 255 Au,Ast 2016 Phase I CulWnl Reawrres Shady Groundwater Replenishment System Final Expansion Project and Water Production Enhancement project Phase I Cultural Resource.Study 5.Amhi Yl Research 5.1.2 Previously Recorded Cultural Resources The records search indicated that nine cultural resources have been previously recorded within a 9/,mile radius of the project APE(Table 2).No cultural resources have been previously recorded within the project APE.However,two historic-age Souther California Edison(SCE) transmission towers(30-177464 and 30-177612)are located adjacent to the pipeline alignment. Several prehistoric sites have been recorded within the search radius along the east bluffs of the Santa Ana River. TABLE 2 PREVIOUSLY RECORDED CULTURAL RESOURCES WITHIN%-MILE OF THE PROJECT APE Primary Trinomial(CA- Date p(P30) ORA-) Other Designation Description Recorded 000058 CA[DRAf58 ORG3 Prehistoric Habitation Site 2003; 1975;and 1949 000076 CA[DRA176 ORES Prehistoric Habitation Site with shell 1949 midden 000163 CADDRAE163 Grand Site Prehistoric archaeological site consisting 1966 of shell ridden with associated firepits, burials,stone tools,pottery,and charmstones 000165 CADDRAE165 Banning Erect,Potion A Prehistoric archaeological she consisting 1960 of stone bowl fragments,lithic fragments, and pastels 000576 CAMRA576 ❑ Prehistoric feature consisting of a single 1974 human burial 000645 CADDRAT145 ACEESARIS Prehistoric archaeological site consisting 1998; of a single shell midden 1979 000906 CAUDRA306 ❑ Prehistoric archaeological she consisting 1998; of a single shell midden 1979 001740 CAUDRA❑ SRS1759EI Two historiclperiod trash scatters 2014 1740H 177464 L SCE Transmission Tower M20 Historicltherlod steel transmission tower 2012 T6,Ellis Huntington Beach No.2 177467 L William Lamb Elementary HisuricEperiod architectural resource 2013 School consisting of an Educational Building 177612 L SCE Transmission Tower M20 Historic1therlod steel transmission tower 2007 T5,Ellis Huntington Beach No.2 5.1.2.1 Resource 30-177464 SCE Transmission Tower M2-T6(30-177464),consists of one of a pair of SCE high-lead electrical transmission towers that rum general north-south tying into the SCE power plant located along the Pacific Coast Highway(PCH)neat Brookhurst Street.The riveted steel,truncated pair of towers were built in 1964 and each stand approximately 121 feet tall,resting on concrete piers, and having three arms with porcelain insulators conducting electricity along wires affixed to each cresndwebr Repimanment sy9.rI.,Eyenser Pmieu ens E8 1 M367.01 Water Pmtludim Enhancement Pmeo 26 Auaus12016 Phase l Cultural Resmrres shady Groundwater ReplenlshmeM System Final E pansbn Pmled and Water ProduMon Enha memeM Project Phase I Cultural Resources,SWdy 5.AmhiYl Research arm. The tower parallels the Santa Ana River flood control channel immediately to the east. This resource was previously evaluated for its historical significance.While the tower appeared to retain very good integrity of design,materials, location,setting, association,and feeling,this resource was Found to be a ubiquitous property type constructed in 1964 to provide additional electrical power to the expanding suburban communities of west Orange County,including Huntington Beach.This resource was not associated with any significant events(Criterion A),nor did it appear to embody distinctive construction techniques or represent the work of a master (Criterion C),and it was recommended not eligible for listing in the National Register (Supemowicz,2012). 5.1.Z2 Resource 30-177612 SCE Transmission Tower M2-T5 (30-177612)consists of a steel lattice type, 122-foot tall transmission tower. The base of the tower measures 30 feet on each side.The footings are rectangular shaped concrete bases.The transmission tower was constructed with bolted steel L- shaped profiles.The tower was installed by SCE as part of its expansion of electrical service in the Huntington Beach area. The center of the tower base contains a square,concrete block building.The building has a hipped roof with Spanish tile.The transmission tower was constructed as part of the overall development of electrical power in Southern California in the 1940s in the post-World War II period. This resource was previously evaluated for its historical significance. While the tower appeared to retain integrity of design,materials,location, setting, association,feeling,and workmanship,the tower was not associated with any significant events or persons(Criterion A and B),it did not represent distinctive construction techniques or the work of a master(Criterion C),and it was not the principal source of information about this property type and did not have the potential to yield information important in prehistory or history (Criterion D).Thus it was recommended not eligible for the National Register(Crawford,2007). It has not been previously evaluated for listing in the California Register. 5.2 Historic Map and Aerial Review Historic maps and aerial photographs were examined in order to provide historical information about the APE and to contribute to an assessment of the APE's archaeological sensitivity. Available maps include: the 1868 U.S. Surveyor General's survey plat map of Townships 5 and 6 South, Range 10 West the 1895 and 1901 Santa Ana 1:62,500 topographic quadrangles; the 1902 Corona 1:125,000 topographic quadrangle; and the 1935 Newport Beach 1:31,600 topographic quadrangles; and 1965 and 1975 Newport Beach 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle.Historic aerial photographs of the APE from 1938, 1953, 1963, 1972, 1994,2002,2003,2004,2005, 2009,and 2010 were also examined(historicaerials.com,2016). The 1868 U.S. Surveyor General's survey plat map shows the APE as being located within Rancho Las Bolsas. The plat map indicates salt marshes within the current location of OCSD Plant No. 2. The available historic maps and aerial photographs indicate that the APE and surrounding area was largely used for agricultural purposes throughout the 20th century,and did not become urbanized until the latter half of the century.The Santa Ana River is shown confined with artificial levees in the 1938 historic aerial photograph. The OCSD Plant No. 1 is visible on Gmadwater Raplanlahmanl syelem Final Eypnslan Prgea and ESP 1160W.01 Wader P,otludim Enhanosmend Pmje l 27 Auaus12016 Phase I Cultural Resmrres SWdy Groundwater Reelenlshmenl System Final Eyranslon Protect and Water Pmdudlon Enhammnned Project Phase I Cultural Resource.Study 5.Amhi Dal Research the 1953 aerial photograph.The southern portion of OCSD Plant No. 1 was undeveloped until The OCWD GWRS and OCSD Plant No. 2 are not shown on the 1953 aerial. The OCSD Plant No. 2 facility is shown on the 1965 Newport Beach 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle. The OCWD GWRS facility is shown on the 1972 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle.Based on a detailed review of the 1972 and 2016 aerials of the OCSD Plant No.2,there are structures shown on the 1972 aerial that remain visible on the 2016 aerial photograph. 5.3 Native American Heritage Commission In 2014,the project environmental documentation, including a cultural resources study,was initiated,and it was put on hold shortly after.However,Native American outreach was completed.The Native American outreach was restarted as part of the project and new project features.The results of previous Native American outreach and current outreach are presented below. Documentation related to Native American outreach is provided in Appendix C. 5.3.1 Native American Outreach —2014 On August 13,2014,a records search request letter was sent to the NAHC in an effort to determine whether any sacred sites are listed on its Sacred Lands File(SLF)for the project APE. A response was provided on August 22,2014 that indicated that no Native American cultural resources were identified within a''/rmile radius of the project APE.The NAHC recommended outreach to nine specific tribal authorities who may want to comment on the search request. A letter to the NAHC-listed tribal authorities was mailed on August 26,2014. Phone calls were made to each of the named tribal members on September 9,2014 and again on September 18, 2014. Fora Tribal representatives responded and provided input(Table 3). 5.3.2 Native American Outreach — 2016 On June 2,2016,a SLF search request letter was sent to the NAHC in an effort to determine whether any sacred sites are listed on SLF for the APE.A response was provided on June 6,2016 indicating negative results for Native American cultural resources within the project APE.The NAHC recommended outreach to 12 specific tribal authorities who may want to comment on our search request.A letter to the NAHC-listed tribal authorities was mailed on June 20,2016. Phone calls were made to each of the named tribal members on June 28,2016. Two Tribal representatives responded and provided input(see Table 3). 5.3.3 AB 52 In August 2016, OCWD sent letters to two Native American representatives who have requested to be informed on activities conducted by the OCWD,under PRC Section 21080.3.1. The OCWD reached out to the Juaneno Band of Mission Indians Acjachemen Nation and Gabrichim Band of Mission Indians—Kizh Nation. Consultation efforts are currently on-going. cmundwner Wenlshmanl syelem Final EVanalan Prgea and E8 1160W 01 Wader Pmtludim Enhanosmend Pmeet 28 Auaua12016 Phase I Cultural Reamrres SWdy Groundwater Replenishment System Final Expansion Project and Water Pmdudbn Enhancement Pri Phase I Cultural Resources Study 5.Archisl Research TABLE 3 NATIVE AMERICAN OUTREACH Dale of Follow-up Contact Tribe/Organization Date Letter Mailed Phone Call Response 2014 ohn Tommy Roses Tong.a Acenstral Territorial Tribal 8/27/2014 9/9/2014 mhn Tommy Roses was concerned about project Nation because It Is located within a sensiti a archaeological area.He recommended testing prior to exca[ation or full time archaeological and Nati a American monitoring. Anthony Morales Gabnelenoi San Gabriel 8/28/2014 9/9/2014 Anthony Morales was concerned about the project Band of Mission because of its location along the Santa Ana RiCar.He suggested archaeological and paleontological monitoring. Sandonne Goad Gabrielino/rol Nation 8/29/2014 9/9/2014 Referred to Sam Dunlap Robert F Domme Gatr ino Tong®Indians of 8/30/2014 9/9/2014 No Response California Tribal Council Gabrielino Tong®Indians of 8/31/2014 9/18/2014 No Response California Tribal Council Bernie Acuna Gabnelino.Tong aTribe 9/1/2014 9/10/2014 No Response Linda Candelaria Gabneleno Band of Mission Indians 9/Z2014 9/9/2014 No Response Andrew Sales GabnelinoJoni Tribe 9/W2014 9/10/2014 Mr.Sales expressed concerned about the project due to its location in an archaeological sensiti a area.Mr. Salas suggested archaeological and Nell a American monitoring take place to protect and preseris any cultural resources that may be discoC red during exca anions. Conrad Acura Gabnelino/rorri Nation 9/4/2014 N/A No number or email proDded. omunri lq ReplenlffimernSi Final Fapenebn Pmpdyq 11160387.01 WaferP udion Eni Pided 29 Man 2016 Ph—I culWrel Resi sury Groundwater Replenishment System Final Expansbn Project and Water Production Enhancement Project Phase I Cultural Resource,Study 5. ArcNYI Research Date of Follow-up Contact Tribe/Organization Date Letter Mailed Phone Call Response Sam Dunlap GabnelinorrongDe Nation 9/5/2014 9/10/2014 In an email dated September 11,2014,Mr.Dunlap expressed concems about construction and recommended archaeological and Nat i a American monitoring. 2016 Malias Balances uaneno Band of Mission Indians, 6/20/2016 6/28/2016 See response from[oyes Stanfield[Perry Acjachemen Nation Adolph Sepul ads uaneno Band of Mission Indians 6/20/2016 6/28/2016 A 331cemall was left;No response to date Anthony Morales Gabrieleno/TongCa Band of Mission 6/20/2016 6/28/2016 Mr.Morales recommended NaUDo American and Indians archaeological monitoring due to the cultural and spiritual sensltilLy of the area Sonia Duhnston Duaneno Band of Mission Indians 6/20/2016 6/28/2016 An email was sent on Dune 20,2016.No response to date Sandonne Goad Gabnelino/rong®Nation 6/20/2016 6/28/2016 See response from Sam Dunlap Bernie Aeons GabnelinoQonga Tribe 6/20/2016 6/28/2016 A deem l was left;No response to date Teresa Romero Duaneno Band of Mission Indians, 6/20/2016 6/28/2016 A�cicemail was left;No response to date Acjachemen Nation myce StanfieldElPemy Duaneno Band of Mission Indians, 6/20/2016 6/28/2016 Ms.StanfieldMerry recommended Natl�American and Acjachemen Nation archaeological monitoring during all ground disturbing acti ities and in the e0ant of a disco�ry,that the project be stopped and the mitigation plan be re- e[aluated. Robert Dorame Gabnelino Tong a Indians of 6/20/2016 6/28/2016 Mr.Doreme re uested an emailed Dersion of the letter; California Tribal Council No response to date Linda Candelaria Gail Tong a Tribe 6/20/2016 6/28/2016 A Coicemail was left;No response to date Sam Dunlap Gabnelinl Nation 6/20/2016 6/28/2016 Mr.Dunlap reWested a PDF copy of the letter be smelled.The PDF copy was smelled on Dune 20,2016. No response to date GmunEw ReplenlffimeMapbm Final lNpanabn Pmpct aM ESA 1160387.01 Waler PeAuueon Enher—ru Prded 30 ALpu&2016 Phase I cru uml ReaoYas stay Groundwater Replenishment System Final Expansion Proles and Water Pmdudbn Enhancement Pmled.Phase I Cultural Resources Study 5.Archisl Research Date of Follow-up Contact Tribe/Organization Date Letter Mailed Phone Call Response Andy Sales Gabnelino Band of Mission Indianso 6/20/2016 6/28/2016 Mr.Salas recommended Nati]b American and Ki h Nation archaeological monitoring during all ground disturbing acti0des Conrad Acura GabnelinoQongs Tribe 6/20/2016 N/A No contact information was listed on the NAHC contact list omunEwelq Replenlffimem Spbm Final Expansion Pmp ao ESA 1160387.01 Waler PrAudon Eni Prohm .31 Augu&2016 P-I culWrelR aj-SIWy Groundwater Reeienlshmenl System Final Eglsnsloo Proleat and Water Pmdudlon Enharh a nk Proled.PM1a.e I Culluml Resource.Study 5.Amhi Dal Reseemh 5.4 Geoarchaeological Review Chris Lockwood, Ph.D.,R.P.A.,conducted a desktop geoarchaeological review of the project APE and vicinity in order to evaluate the potential for buried archaeological resources within the APE.The following section presents the results of Dr.Lockwood's analysis. 5.4.1 Geology and Geomorphology The APE is located in Fountain Valley and Huntington Beach on the Santa Ana coastal plain in Orange County,California. It is immediately west of a stretch of the Santa Ana River that is confined to a flood control channel. 5.4.1.1 OCSD Plant No. 1 The portion of the APE at OCSD Plant No. 1 is situated on a landform dominated by a low- gradient, sandy alluvial fan that merges with marine deposits at the coast. During the late Pleistocene, sea-level was approximately 120 meters below present level,leaving the vicinity of the APE approximately 9.3 miles(15.0 km)inland. Sea level rose throughout the Holocene, attaining near present conditions by approximately 2,000 to 4,000 years ago.Near surface deposits within the portion of the APE where new piping would be installed between OCSD Plant No. 1 and the existing pipeline are mapped as late Holocene to latest Pleistocene alluvial fan deposits(Morton 2004;Morton and Miller 2006),and consist of gravel, sand,and silt transported and deposited by the Santa Ana River. The APE is covered by a paved surface that likely is underlain by fill and required grading prior to construction. 5.4.1.2 OCWD GWRS Facility The portion of the APE at OCWD GWRS Facility APE is on the same landform as the portion of the APE at OCSD Plant No. 1 and therefore shares similar geomorphological characteristics. The OCWD GWRS Facility APE has been previously developed. 5.4.1.3 OCSD Plant No. 2 The portion of the APE at OCSD Plant No. 2 is on the distal portion of the alluvial fan that also contains the portion of the APE at the OCSD Plant No. 1 and the portion of the APE at the OCWD GWRS Facility. During the late Pleistocene,the portion of the APE at OCSD Plant No. 2 was approximately 5.5 miles(9.0 km)inland.Historically,the APE consisted largely of salt marsh,which would have been at or just above sea level,and was divided by small channels. The area was for celery agriculture in historic times. The OCSD Plant No.2 was initially developed for sanitation in 1954,but the parcel,including the APE,was progressively developed towards the north over the next five decades.The APE is covered with a paved surface that is at elevation 34 meters above mean sea level(amsl), suggesting the APE contains several meters of fill overlying the native salt marsh deposits. Some of the fill material may have originated as dredge spoils from channelization of the Santa Ana River.Near surface geology the APE is mapped as late Holocene to latest Pleistocene alluvial fan deposits(Morton 2004;Morton and Miller 2006). These deposits consist of gravel,sand, and silt Gmadweler Paremahmenl syelem Final P"neIN Pr Wend ESA 1160367.01 Wader Pnsdudim Enhanosmeni Propel .32 Auaua12016 Phase I Cultural Resmrres SWdy Groundwater ReplenlshmeM System Final E pansbn Pmled and WMer ProduMon Enhaa:ement Project Phase I Cultural Resources,SWdy 5.ArchiYl Rase hch transported and deposited by the Santa Ana River.To the south of the APE,the OCSD Plant No. 2 site contains unconsolidated eolian dune deposits. 5.4.2 Soils 5.4.2.1 OCSD Plant No. 1 Soils within the portion of the APE at OCSD Plant No. 1 are mapped as Metz loamy sand(MRCS 2016).The Metz soil series consists of very deep,somewhat excessively drained soils.Metz soils are formed in alluvial parent material on floodplains and alluvial fans with slopes of 0 to 15 percent. Since Metz soils are commonly cultivated,the typical soil pedon possesses a shallow plowzone A-horizon(Ap)overlying multiple layers of sandy loam to sand parent material(Cl, C2,C3,C4 horizons).The absence of a B-horizon is likely due to the short geological time that has passed since deposition of the last unit of parent material(Cl),although agricultural activity has the potential to have partially disrupted B-horizon development. The sequence of several units of parent material(C-horizon)reflects changes over time in the behavior of the Santa Ana River,including periodic overbank flooding.Because the C-horizons represent vertical accretion (i.e.,building)on the floodplain,there is a potential that successive fluvial deposits covered and preserved archaeological resources that had accumulated between depositional events.Therefore, Metz soils are considered to have a high sensitivity for buried archaeological resources. 5.4.2.2 OCWD GWRS Facility Soils within the portion of the APE at the OCWD GWRS Facility are mapped as Hueneme fine sandy loam(MRCS 2016).The Hueneme soils series are formed on alluvial fans in stratified alluvium derived from sedimentary rock.The typical soil pedon consists of a plowed A-horizon (Apl,Apt)developed at the top of relatively unaltered alluvial parent material(CI through C5) extending more than 70 inches deep.The absence of a B-horizon is likely due to the short geological time that has passed since deposition of parent material,although agricultural activity has the potential to have disrupted the development of a recognizable B-horizon as well. The sequence of several units of parent material(C-horizon)reflects changes over time in the behavior of the Santa Ana River,including periodic overbank flooding.Because the C-horizons represent vertical accretion(i.e.,building)on the floodplain,there is a potential that successive fluvial deposits covered and preserved archaeological resources that had accumulated between depositional events.Therefore,Hueneme soils are considered to have a high sensitivity for buried archaeological resources. 5.4.2.3 OCSD Plant No. 2 Soils within the portion of the APE at OCSD Plant No. 2 are mapped primarily as Bolan silt loam (NRCS 2016).Bolas series soils are deep,somewhat poorly drained soils developed in mixed alluvium parent material on flood plains and basins.The typical soil pedon consists of a plowed A-horizon(Apl,Ap2)developed at the top of relatively unaltered alluvial parent material(Cl through C6)extending more than 69 inches deep.The absence of a B-horizon is likely due to the short geological time that has passed since deposition of the parent material,although agricultural activity has the potential to have disrupted the development of a recognizable B-horizon as well. Grcundweler Replenishmanl 5,,,an Firth Espenaian Prgea ene ESP 116nsS7.01 Water Pwdudim Enhancement Pmje l 33 Auaus12016 Phase I Cultural Resmrres SWdy Groundwater Raelenlshmenl System Final Eq,anslon PmjeA and Water Pmdudbn Enhancement Project.Phase I Culweal Resource.Study 5.Amhi Dal Reseemh The A-horizon in Balsa soils ranges from sandy loam to silty clay loam,while the C-horizon is mainly silt loam and silty clay loam but may contain thin strata of sandier material(USDA 1997). Significantly,many Balsa soil pedons contain buried A-horizons(paleosols). These buried A- horizons represent periods of time in the past during which landform conditions were relatively stable, and during which deposition and erosion were sufficiently balanced to allow for development and retention of a soil weathering profile.From an archaeological perspective, periods of landform stability,such as those signified by buried A-horizons,should be correlated with the accumulation and preservation of cultural remains.Therefore,Bolsa soils are considered to have a high sensitivity for buried archaeological resources. 5.4.3 Archaeological Potential Although paved and filled,the portion of the APE at the OCSD Plant No.2 appears to retain high sensitivity for buried archeological resources.During the latest Pleistocene and Holocene,the geomorphic setting of the portion of the APE at the OCSD Plant No. 2 changed from inland to coastal, and rising sea level resulted in fluvial deposition capable of burying archaeological resources.The portion of the APE at the OCSD Plant No.2 was largely salt marsh into the early 20th century,but this is an area that would have offered important resources. Owing to its marshy environment, this area may not have been favored for any substantial occupation,but nonetheless is likely to have been visited for resource procurement and could contain artifacts associated with those activities.Additionally,the saturated conditions offered within this setting may have aided in the preservation of relatively rare organic artifacts. Although paved and filled,the portion of the APE where new piping would be installed between OCSD Plant No. 1 and the existing pipeline appears to retain high sensitivity for buried archaeological resources.During the latest Pleistocene and Holocene rising sea levels reduced fluvial downcutting and increased deposition capable of burying archaeological resources. Historically,the APE was north of a large salt marsh, an area that would have offered important resources. Owing to its proximity to both the salt marsh and the Santa Ana River,the APE may have been selected for occupation,and could contain buried artifacts and features associated with such use. cmundwner Replenlahmenl syelem Final EVansan Prgea and ESP,160W 01 Wader P,otludim Enhanosmend Pmeo 34 Auaua12016 Phase I Cultural Reamrres SWdy Groundwater ReplenlshmeM System Final E pansbn Pmfed and Water ProduOon Enha memeM Projml.Phase I Cultural Resources Study 6. Peleonldopicel Re sods Search 6. Paleontological Records Search Dr. Samuel A.McLeod,Ph.D.,of the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County, Vertebrate Paleontology Section,conducted a thorough search on June 16,2016 of the paleontology collection records for the locality and specimen data for the proposed project.No vertebrate fossil localities lie within the project APE;however,there are localities nearby from the same sedimentary units that may occur subsurface in the project APE. The closest vertebrate fossil locality from Quaternary Terrace deposits is LACM 7366.LACM 7366 produced specimens of marine, freshwater,and terrestrial specimens including leopark shark, Triakis, three-spined stickleback, Gasterosteus,garter snake, Thamnophis,desert shrew,Notiosorex,and most prominently,pocket gopher, Thomomys.A series of fossil localities, LACM 7422-7425,are located north-northwest of LACM 7366.These localities produced fossil specimens of mammoth, Mammuthus,bison,Bison,and horse,Equus,from Alluvium or dune deposits. The closest vertebrate fossil locality from Quaternary deposits is LACM 6370 located approximately 1.6 miles southeast. LACM 6370 produced a specimen of a fossil horse,Equus.Fossil locality LACM 3267 located northeast,produced a specimen of a fossil elephant,Proboscidea in Quaternary deposits. Fossil locality LACM 4219 produced fossil specimens of turtle,Chelonia, and camel, Camelidae.Vertebrate fossil locality LACM 1339,located north of the APE, produced fossil specimens of mammoth,Mammuthus,and camel, Camelidae,bones from sands approximately 15 feet below the top of the mesa that is overlain by shell bearing silts and sands. The entire APE has surface deposits of younger Quaternary Alluvium, derived as fluvial deposits from the Santa Ana River to the east of the project APE. No fossil vertebrate localities are located nearby these deposits,and they are unlikely to contain significant vertebrate fossils,at least in the uppermost layers. Small hills and bluffs both east and west of the project APE,however,define the Santa Ana River floodplain drainage and are mapped as having exposures of marine Quaternary Terrace deposits. These or other older Quaternary deposits may occur in the project APE at unknown depth.There is a low potential to uncover significant vertebrate fossil remains during surface grading or shallow excavations in the APE.However,excavations that extend down into the older Quaternary deposits may encounter significant fossil vertebrate specimens. Gmadweter Replenlshmenl syelem Final Espenslan Prgea and ESP 116OW.01 Wader Pmtludim Enhanosmem Pmeo 355 Auaus12016 Phase I cultural Reawrres Study Groundwater Replenishment System Final Eq,anslm Proled and Waster Pmdudbn Enhancement Profed.Phase I eullurel Resources Study 7. GUXureI Resources Surly and Results 7. Cultural Resources Survey and Results A cultural resources pedestrian survey of the APE was conducted on June 16,2016 by Arabesque Said-Abdelwahed to identify the presence of surface archaeological materials.Intensive-level survey was conducted of areas with greater surface visibility with intervals spaced at 10 meter. Survey of the OCWD GWRS Facility showed that the entire project APE has been previously developed and is completely paved.The buildings that exist on the OCWD site were constructed after 1972.No cultural resources were observed during the survey at the OCWD GWRS Facility. A pedestrian survey was conducted on June 16,2016 of the existing pipeline alignment for rehabilitation is located along an OCSD easement corridor that extends west of the Santa Ana River levee. The pipe would connect to existing facilities at the OCSD Plant No. 1 and proposed facilities in OCSD Plant No. 2. The soils were previously disturbed during placement of the existing pipeline located 5 feet below the existing ground surface. The corridor consists of fill material and is elevated approximately 2-4-feet above natural grade(OCWD,pers. comm.).No cultural resources were observed during the survey of the existing pipeline route.Cultural resources were not observed during the survey of the pipe connection locations to existing facilities. New facilities(Flow Equalization Control/Meter,Flow Equalization Pump Station,OCSD Pipeline Connection,pump station,bypass pipeline,and headgates)would be constructed at the OCSD Plant No. 2. The bypass pipeline,headgates,Flow Equalization Control/Meter,and proposed pump station locations are currently paved and natural ground was not visible. The OCSD Plant No. 2 consists of existing tanks and waste water treatment buildings. Portions of the proposed location for the Flow Equalization Pump Station and OCSD Pipeline Connection are unpaved and were surveyed in regular intervals.No archaeological or historic built resources were observed within the APE. Potential historic-period buildings/structures were noted at the OCSD Plant No. 2 outside of the APE. A photographic narrative of the survey results can be found in the attached Appendix D. G.naweler W..immNl syelem Firth Espenaian Prgea and ESP,16OW 01 Waer Pmtludim Enhan—en,Pmec $6 Auaua12016 Phase I CulWml Resources SWdy Groundwater Replenishment System Final E pansbn Pmted and Wffier ProduWon Enhaamement ProssM Phase I Cultural Resources SWdy B. conclusions and Recommendations 8. Conclusions and Recommendations 8.1 Archaeological Resources As a result of this study,no archaeological resources were identified within the APE. However, based on the results of study,the project APE should be considered highly sensitive for subsurface archaeological resources.Native American respondents indicated sensitivity for archaeological resources in the APE and surrounding area given the proximity to the Santa Ana River corridor. In addition,the geoarchaeological review indicates that the portion of the APE within OCSD Plant No. 2 was largely salt marsh into the early 20th century and would have offered important resources.Owing to its marshy environment,this area may not have been favored for any substantial occupation,but nonetheless is likely to have been visited for resource procurement and could contain artifacts associated with those activities. Additionally,the saturated conditions offered within this setting may have aided in the preservation of relatively rare organic artifacts. Since the project includes ground-disturbing activities,there is a potential for discovery of subsurface archaeological deposits that could qualify as historic properties under Section 106 of the NHPA and/or historical or unique archaeological resources under CEQA.This potential impact to unknown archaeological resources is considered significant. The following mitigation measures are recommended to ensure that the project would result in No Historic Properties Affected under Section 106 of the NHPA and less than significant impacts to historical or unique archaeological resources under CEQA. 1. Construction Worker Cultural Resources Sensitivity Training:Prior to earth moving activities,a qualified archaeologist meeting the Secretary of the Interior's Professional Qualifications Standards for archaeology(U.S.Department of the Interior,2008)shall conduct cultural resources sensitivity training for all construction personnel. Construction personnel shall be informed of the types of cultural resources that may be encountered, and of the proper procedures to be enacted in the event of an inadvertent discovery of archaeological resources or human remains.OCWD shall ensure that construction personnel are made available for and attend the training and retain documentation demonstrating attendance. 2. Archaeological Monitoring: Prior to the start of any ground-disturbing activities, OCWD shall retain an archaeological monitor to observe all ground-disturbing activities. Archaeological monitoring shall be conducted by a monitor familiar with the types of archaeological resources that could be encountered and shall work under the direct supervision of the qualified archaeologist.Monitoring may be reduced or discontinued by the qualified archaeologist,in coordination with OCWD,based on observations of subsurface soil stratigraphy and/or the presence of older C-horizon deposits.The monitor shall be empowered to halt or redirect ground-disturbing activities away from the vicinity of a discovery until the qualified archaeologist has evaluated the discovery and determined appropriate treatment. The 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 monitoring report that details the results of Gmadwater Penenlshmant 5,,,an Final Eypnsan P,gea and ESP 1160W.01 Water Pnsdudim Enhancement Pmec $7 Auaua12016 Phase I Cultural Resmrres Shady Groundwater Replenishment System Final Eq,ansion Project and Water Produ Ohn Enhancement Proled.Phase I Cultural Resource.sandy 9. Conclusions and Recommendations monitoring. The report shall be submitted to OCWD, SCCIC,and any Native American groups who request a copy. 3. Native American Monitoring: Prior to issuance of a grading permit and prior to start of any ground-disturbing activities,OCWD shall retain a Native American monitor to observe all ground-disturbing activities. The monitor shall be obtained from a Tribe that is traditionally and culturally affiliated with the area,according the NAHC list. The monitor shall be empowered to halt or redirect ground-disturbing activities away from the vicinity of a discovery until the qualified archaeologist has evaluated the discovery and determined appropriate treatment. Monitoring may be reduced or discontinued,in coordination with OCWD and the qualified archaeologist,based on observations of subsurface soil stratigraphy and/or the presence of older C-horizon deposits. 4. Archaeological Discoveries: In the event of the discovery of archaeological materials, OCWD or its contractor shall immediately cease all work activities in the area(within approximately 100 feet)of the discovery until it can be evaluated by the qualified archaeologist Prehistoric archaeological materials might include obsidian and their flaked-stone tools(e.g.,projectile points,knives, scrapers)or tool-making debris; culturally darkened soil C midded')containing heat-affected rocks,artifacts,or shellfish remains;and stone milling equipment(e.g.,mortars,pestles,handstones, or milling slabs);and battered stone tools,such as hammerstones and pitted stones. Historic-period materials might include stone or concrete footings and walls;filled wells or privies; and deposits of metal, glass,and/or ceramic refuse. Construction shall not resume until the qualified archaeologist has conferred with OCWD on the significance of the resource. SWRCB shall be afforded the opportunity to determine whether the discovery requires addressing under Section 106 Post-Review Discoveries provisions provided in 36 CFR 800.13. If it is determined that the discovered archaeological resource constitutes a historic property under Section 106 of the NHPA or a historical resource under CEQA,avoidance and preservation in place shall be the preferred manner of mitigation.Preservation in place maintains the important relationship between artifacts and their archaeological context and also serves to avoid conflict with traditional and religious values of groups who may ascribe meaning to the resource. Preservation in place may be accomplished by, but is not limited to, avoidance,incorporating the resource into open space,capping,or deeding the site into a permanent conservation easement. In the event that preservation in place is demonstrated to be infeasible and data recovery through excavation is the only feasible mitigation available,an Archaeological Resources Treatment Plan that provides for the adequate recovery of the scientifically consequential information contained in the archaeological resource shall be prepared and implemented by the qualified archaeologist in consultation with OCWD. The appropriate Native American representatives shall be consulted in determining treatment for prehistoric or Native American resources to ensure cultural values ascribed to the resource,beyond that which is scientifically important,are considered. G. dealer W..i,nmenl 5,eem Firth EspenaiN Prgea and ESP,160W01 Water P,otludien Enhancement Pmeo 38 Auaua12016 Phase I CulWml Reamrces SWdy Groundwater Replenishment System Final E pansbn Purled and Water Predation Enhancement Project.Phase I cultural Resources Study S. conclusions and Recommendations 5. Human Remains: If human remains are encountered,OCWD 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,OCWD 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. 8.2 Historic Built Resources As a result of this study,two historic built resources(30-177464—SCE Transmission Tower M2- T6 Ellis-Huntington Beach No.2 and 30-177612—SCE Transmission Tower M2-T5 Ellis/HB No. 2)were identified adjacent to the existing pipeline portion of the project APE.Both resources were previously recommended not eligible for the National Register and therefore do not qualify as historic properties under Section 106 of the NHPA.Neither resource has been previously evaluated for listing in the California Register;however,for the same reasons outlined in Section 5.1.2,these resources do not appear to meet the criteria for listing in the California Register and they do not qualify as historical resources under CEQA.No further work or treatment is recommended for these two resources. Two potential historic built resources,OCSD Plant No. 1 and OCSD Plant No. 2,were identified as a result of this study.Both plants were initially constructed more than 45 years agol,although none of the historic-age buildings/structures appear to be within the APEZ. Project-related activities OCSD Plant No. I will be limited to installation of a below-ground piping to connect to existing facilities.No above-ground facilities would be constructed at this location and existing potential historic buildings/structures are not located new the pipeline. Therefore,the project does not have the potential to result in a significant impact to any potential historic resources on OCSD Plant No. 1. Since above-ground buildings/structures are proposed at OSCD Plant No. 2,a historical evaluation should be prepared for OCSD Plant No.2. 8.3 Paleontological Resources Based on the results of the paleontological database search,there are no known fossil localities in the APE and there is a low potential to uncover significant vertebrate fossil remains during surface grading or shallow excavations in the APE.However, excavations that extend down into 1 The California OHP recommends including all resources over 45 years of age in the planning process given the lag time between environmental documentation and project implementation.Generally,resources more than 50 years of age require evaluation for listing in the National Register and California Register to assess impacts to historic Properties under Section 106 of the NHPA and historical resources under CEQA. i The Project may require creation of a separate architectural APE in order W adequately address directlindirect effects to historic built resources. Grcundweler W.rn'nmem 8'.Frtei Espenaian P,gea end ESPr 1ee387.01 Wabr Pascua-Enhancement Pmgcl 39 Auaus12016 Phase I cultural Reswrres study Groundwater Replenishment System Final Eq,ansion Project and Waster Prod x0on Enhancement Project.Pha.e I C.Ranal Resource.Study B. Conclusions and Recommendations the older Quaternary deposits may encounter significant fossil vertebrate specimens. Since the project includes ground-disturbing activities,there is a potential for discovery of fossils that may be considered significant paleontological resources.This potential impact to unknown paleontological resources is considered significant. The Following mitigation measures are recommended to ensure that the project would result in less than significant impacts to unique paleontological resources under CEQA. 1. Retention of a Qualified Paleontologist: Prior to the start of any ground-disturbing activities,OCWD shall retain a qualified paleontologist meeting the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology(SVP) Standards(SVP,2010).The qualified paleontologist shall contribute to any construction worker cultural resources sensitivity training either in person or via a training module provided to the qualified archaeologist.The training session shall focus on the recognition of the types of paleontological resources that could be encountered within the project site and the procedures to be followed if they are found. The qualified paleontologist shall also conduct periodic spot checks in order to ascertain when older deposits are encountered and where monitoring shall be required. 2. Paleontological Monitoring: Prior to the start of any ground-disturbing activities, OCWD shall retain a paleontological monitor to observe all ground-disturbing activities within older Quaternary deposits. Paleontological resources monitoring shall be performed by a qualified paleontological monitor, or cross-trained archaeological/paleontological monitor,under the direction of the qualified paleontologist. The monitor shall have the authority to temporarily halt or divert work away from exposed fossils in order to recover the fossil specimens.Monitoring may be reduced or discontinued by the qualified paleontologist,in coordination with OCWD, based on observations of subsurface soil stmtigmphy and/or other factors and if the qualified paleontologist determines that the possibility of encountering fnssiliferous deposits is low.The monitor shall prepare daily logs detailing the types of activities and soils observed, and any discoveries. The qualified paleontologist shall prepare a final monitoring a report to be submitted to OCWD and filed with the local repository.Any recovered significant fossils shall be curated at an accredited facility with retrievable storage. 3. Paleontological Discoveries: If construction or other project personnel discover any potential fossils during construction,regardless of the depth or presence of a monitor, work in the vicinity(within 100 feet)of the find shall cease until the qualified paleontologist has assessed the discovery and made recommendations as to the appropriate treatment. Gmnaweler Wen9nmenl 5y9lem Final Espersen Prgea and ESP,160W 01 Wear P,otludien Enhancement Pmeo 40 Auaua12016 Phase I CulWml Resources SWdy Groundwater ReplenimmeM System Final E pansbn Pmled and WMer ProduOon Enha memeM Project Phase I Cultural Resource,SWdy 9. References 9. References Armor, Samuel,History of Orange County, California:with biographical sketches of the leading men and women of the county who have been identified with its earliest growth and development from the early days to the present, Los Angeles: Historic Record Co., 1921. Bancroft,Hubert Howe, The Works of Hubert Howe Bancroft, Vo1. UUV, History of California, Vol. VII, 1860-1890,The History Company Publishers, San Francisco,CA, 1890. Bean,L.J.and C.R. Smith. 1978."Gabrieliiio." In Handbook of North American Indians,Vol. 8: California,edited by R.F. Heizer, 538-549.Washington,DC: Smithsonian Institution. Bean,L.J.and F.C. Shipek. 1978. Luiseiio. In R.F. Heizer,led.)Handbook of North American Indians,Vol. 8: California. Washington,D.C. Smithsonian Institution. Carlberg,Marvin and Chris Epting,Postcard History Series:Huntington Beach,Arcadia Publishing,Charleston, S.C.,2009. City of Huntington Beach,General Plan,Environmental Hazards Element, 1996a. City of Huntington Beach,History,electronic document accessed at http://www.huntingtonbeachca.gov/about/history/on November 2,2011,2000. Cleland,J.H.,A.L. York,and L.M.Willey,Piecing Together the Prehistory of Landing Hill:A Place Remembered,EDAW Cultural Publications No. 3, San Diego,CA,2007. County of Orange, Spanish and Mexican Ranchos,electronic document accessed at http://egov.ocgov.com/vgnfiles/ocgov/Clerk- Recorder/Docs/Archives/Spanish_and Mexican_Ranchos.pdf on November 2,2011. Crawford,K. 2007.DPR Site Form for 30-177612.Record on file at the South Central Coastal Information Center,California State University Fullerton. Dixon,Keith A.,Early Holocene Human Adaptation on the Southern California Coast: A Summary Report of Investigations at the Irvine Site(CA-ORA-64),Newport Bay,Orange County,California.Pacific Coast Archaeological Society Quarterly, 19(3&4):1-84, 1983. Drover,C.E.,H.C.Koerper,and P. Langenwalter II,Early Holocene Human Adaptation on the Southern California Coast: A Summary Report of Investigations at the Irvine Site(CA- ORA-64),Newport Bay,Orange County,California.Pacific Coast Archaeological Society Quarterly, 19(3&4): 1-84, 1983. Erlandson,Jon M.,Early Hunter-Gatherers of the California Coast.Plenum Press,New York, 1994. Groundwater Replenishment System.http://www.gwrsystem.com/.Website accessed June 2016. Historicaerials.com,Aerial photographs for the years 1953, 1963, 1972, 1994, 1995,2002,2003, 2004,2005,2009,and 2019, online document accessed at http://www.historicaerials.com/ in July,2016. Gmadweter Replenlahmanl sy9le,Final Espanslan Prgea and ESP 1160W.01 Wader Pmtludim Enhanosmem Pmeo 41 Auaus12016 Phase I Cultural Resmrres SWdy Groundwater Replenlshmert S)stem Final Eglansloo Project and Water Pmdudbn Enhancemed Profed.Phase I Culbml Resources aludy 9. References Kroeber,A.L. 1925.Handbook of the Indians of California.Bulletin 78: Bureau of American Ethnology.Washington,DC: Smithsonian Institution. Logan,Dan,Land of Memories: Glimpses of Old Ranchos Survive,Los Angeles Times,May 3, 1990. Milkovich,Barbara,A Brief History Of Huntington Beach,electronic document accessed online at http://www.hbsurfcity.com/history/historyl.htm on September 1,2011, 1986. Morton, D.M. 2004. Preliminary Digital Geological Map of the 30'X 60' Santa Ana Quadrangle, southern California, version 2.0. U.S. Geological Survey, Open-File Report OF-99-172. Electronic resource,https://pubs.usgs.gov/of/1999/of99- 172/sanana2dmu.pdf,accessed July 26, 2016. Morton,D.M., and Miller,F.K. 2006. Geologic map of the San Bernardino and Santa Ana 30'x 60'quadrangles, California.U.S. Geological Survey,Open-File Report OF-2006-1217, scale 1:100,000. Electronic resource,http://ngmdb.usgs.gov/ngm- bin/pdp/zui_viewer.pl?id=14379,accessed July 26,2016. Natural Resources Conservation Service(MRCS). 2016. Web Soil Survey. Electronic resource, http://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/App/WebSoilSurvey.aspx,accessed July 26,2016. Oakeshott,G.B.,California's Changing Landscapes,A guide to the Geology of the States,2nd Edition.McGraw-Hill Book Company, San Francisco, 1978. Orange County Sanitation District. http://www.ocsd.com/about-ocs&general-information/history. Website accessed June 2016. Orange County Water District(OCWD). Scott-Roberts, Sandy.Principal Engineer,OCWD. Personal Communication: in person meeting.June 16,2016. Pitt,Leonard, The Decline of the Californios:A Social History of the Spanish-speaking Californians, 1846-1890,University of California Press,Berkeley, 1994. Raab,L.M.,J.L.Porcasi,K.Bradford,and A.Yatsko,Beyond the 50-Percent Solution: Maritime Intensification at Eel Point, San Clemente Island,California.Presented at the Annual Meetings of the Society for California Archaeology,Eureka, 1995. Starr,Kevin, California:A History,Modem Library,2007. Supemowicz,Sana E. 2012.DPR Site Form for 30-177464. Record on file at the South Central Coastal Information Center,California State University Fullerton. United States Department of Agriculture(USDA). 1997. Bolsa Series. Electronic resource,https:Hsoilseries.sc.egov.usda.gov/OSD_Docs/B/BOLSA.html, accessed July 26,2016. Vellmoweth,R.L. and J.H.Altschul,Antiquarians,Culture Historians,and Scientists: The Archaeology of the Bight,in Islanders and Mainlanders:Prehistoric Context for the Gmadweter Replenlshanat syelem Final Eypnsan Prgea and E8 1160W 01 Wader P,odudim Enhancemem Pmje l 42 Auaus12016 Phase I Cultural Resmrres SWdy Groundwater ReplenlshmeM System Final Expansbn Pmfed and WMer ProduMon Enha memeM Project Phase I Cultural Resources SWdy 9. References Southern California Bight, edited by J.H.Altschul and D.G. Grenda,pp. 85-111, SRI Press, Tucson,2002. Wallace,W.J. 1955."A Suggested Chronology for Southern California Coastal Archaeology." Southwestern Journal of Anthropology 11(3):214-230. Warren,C.N. 1968."Cultural Tradition and Ecological Adaptation on the Southern California Coast In Archaic Prehistory in the Western United States,"edited by Cynthia Irwin- Williams,pp. 1-14. Eastern New Mexico University Contributions in Anthropology No. 1. Gmadwater Paplenlahmant syelea Final Espansan Prgea and ESP 116OW.01 Wader Pmtluchm Enhanosmem Pmje l 43 Auaua12016 Phase I cultural Reamrres SWdy Appendix A.Resumes APPENDIX A Resumes Grcundwelar Replania6menl syalam li dl EspenalN PNjad ene E8 11QpW 01 Wabr Pwdudim Enhan—t Pmgd AUO.2016 Ph—I CulWml Re—S dy r ESA J 'I'd Candace R. Ehringer, RPA Senior Cultural Resources Specialist EDUCATION Candace is a cultural resources project manager with 18 years of experience M.A.,Anthropology, working across California.Candace manages multi-disciplinary cultural resources California State projects which include archaeological,historic architectural,and paleontological University,Northridge resources components.She is adept at building teams of specialists from these B.A.,Anthropology,East resource areas that are uniquely qualified for the particular project at hand and has Carolina University brought hundreds of projects to successful completion for both public agency and private development clients.Candace provides technical and compliance oversight 18 YEARS EXPERIENCE for projects involving archaeological survey,evaluation,and treatment;built AREAS OF EXCELLENCE environment studies including the documentation and evaluation of buildings, structures,and districts;and paleontological resources survey and sensitivity CEQA,NEPA,and assessments.She is proficient in the areas of CECI NEPA,and Section 106 and Section lob pro routinely provides planning and strategic guidance to clients within the larger Managesmulti- scope of state and federal regulations. dlsclpllnaryCRM projects Strong historic resources Relevant Experience research skills Los Angeles Unified School District, Historic Resources Evaluation of Five QUALIFICATIONS Campuses,Los Angeles,CA.Project Manager.ESA provided historic resources Interior's Standards the K.services in support of proposed improvements to George Washington Carver Exceeds Secretary Middle School,Graham Elementary School,Morris Hamasaki Elementary School, Van Nuys Elementary School,and West Vernon Elementary School.Candace Ca state ELM Permitted managed the preparation of historic resources evaluations of the five campuses. CONTINUING ESA identified Van Nuys Elementary School and West Vernon Elementary School as EDUCATION eligible. AEP Advanced CEQA Workshop,2o11 California Department of Water Resources,California Aqueduct Bridges Seismic ACHP Section 106 Retrofit,Kern and San Bernardino Counties,CA.Project Manager.Candace Essentialstraining managed the completion of an Archaeological Survey Report,a Historical Resources cour,e,2oto Evaluation Report,a Historic Properties Survey Report,and Finding of Effect Riverside County document in coordination with the California Department of Transportation certification course,tote (Caltrans)and the California Department of Water Resources(DWR). DWR proposes and 2011 to remedy structural seismic deficiencies for six existing bridges spanning the PROFESSIONAL California Aqueduct.The California Aqueduct was determined eligible for listing in PAPERS& the National Register under Criteria A and C for its association with irrigation and PRESENTATIONS agricultural development of California and water conveyance engineering and Ettinger,C.2014 Dead design.The six bridges are considered contributors to the aqueduct system. Men Do Wear Plaid: Garments and notions Cooper Molera Adobe,Monterey County,CA.Project Manager.The National Trust for City Cemetery,Los for Historic Preservation has spearheaded a shared use program that aims to create Angeles,California.oral a revitalized Cooper Valera Adobe.The intent is to balance compelling historic paper at aped Society for Histbonorical ri interpretation and education programs with appropriate and complementary Archaeietyfor Historical ArcnaeologyaPth annual commercial uses.Candace co-authored the Archaeological Research Design and Meeting,Quebec City, Quebeq Canada. Candace R.Ehnngen RPA Page 2 Treatment Plan (ARDTP)and implemented archaeological resources testing and data recovery at the adobe. California Department of Water Resources,Cantua Creek Stream Group Improvements Project,Fresno County,CA.Project Manager.The California Department of Water Resources(DW R)proposes to implement the Cantua Creek Stream Group(CCSG)Improvements Project(Project).The CCSG is composed of five major creeks:Arroyo Hondo,Cantua,Salt, Martinez,and Domengine.The CCSG drains a portion of the Coast Range, located west of the Project area.Presently, floodwaters from the CCSG terminate at four locations(Basins 1-4)along an approximately 13-mile stretch of the San Luis Canal; Martinez Creek flows into Salt Creek about 3 miles upstream of the San Luis Canal.Candace managed the preparation of a Cultural Resource Inventory and Evaluation Report, Finding of Effect,and Paleontological Resources Report in compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and CEQA.The Bureau of Reclamation was the lead federal agency. Monterey Regional Desalinization Project,Monterey County,CA.Senior Cultural Resources Specialist. In support of the NEPA phase of this project,Candace compiled information on cultural resources located along the proposed alternative routes and authored a technical memo providing recommendations for the route that would pose the least impact to known resources.She has also conducted several surveys of pipeline routes and potential staging areas.The Bureau of Reclamation is the lead federal agency for the project. Los Angeles Unified School District, Historic Architectural Review of Twelve Campuses,Los Angeles,CA.Project Manager.ESA provided historic resources services in support of proposed improvements to 12 campuses.Candace conducted site visits and oversaw the preparation of letter reports assessing the improvements for compliance with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards. City of Santa Barbara,Mission Creek Lagoon and Laguna Channel Restoration Project,Santa Barbara County,CA.Project Manager.Candace managed the preparation of a technical memorandum documenting a preliminary cultural resource study and conducted the field survey.The study identified several cultural resources that could pose a regulatory constraint on the project,including 18 historic built resources.The area was also identified as sensitive for archaeological resources. ESA is currently assisting the City of Santa Barbara identify a design alternative within the Project area that is economically feasible and meets the multiple objectives of flood control,water quality improvement,public safety and access,and habitat restoration. DWR,Hyatt River Outlet Facility Life Extension Study,Oroville,CA.Project Manager.The Hyatt River Outlet Facility Life Extension Study Project involves the construction of outlet tunnels at the Edward Hyatt Power Plant to replace/repair the River outlet.The Edward Hyatt Power Plant(1963-1969)and the Oroville Dam (1961-1967)have been evaluated and appear eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places.Candace managed the preparation of a technical reportdocument which analyzed the existing records/data,assessed potential effects to historic resources by the proposed activities,and concluded with a finding of effect. r ESA r Arabesque Said- Abdelwahed , MPP Senior Associate EDUCATION Arabesque has professional experience specializing in CEQA and NEPA-level Master of public Policy, environmental documentation processes with a technical background in cultural University of California, resources management,hazards and hazardous materials.She has focused on I'me management and preparation of cultural resources literature reviews, B.A.,Anthmpology, archaeological surveys,archaeological site testing,and data collection.She has University ofcalifornin, also authored cultural resources reports required for environmental analysis. Riverside Arabesque also brings significant experience performing Phase I environmental 8YEARS EXPERIENCE site assessments/environmental site reports.As an ASTM-trained environmental site assessment professional,she has conducted dozens of Phase I ESAs in PROFESSIONAL California.She has managed the preparation of Initial Studies and assisted in the AFFILIATIONS preparation of Environmental Impact Reports. Association of Environmental Professionals Relevant Experience Register of Professional Countyof Orange,Cerritos Avenue Single-family residential project Initial Archaeologists Study Mitigated Negative Declaration,Deputy Project Manager.Arabesque was California Department of the assistant project manager for the preparation of an Initial Study Mitigated Tovcsubstances Negative Declaration for a proposed 40-unit single-family residential project in Control Registered Environmental Assessor unincorporated Orange County.Arabesque was responsible for analysis and content editing. City of Santa Ana,Heritage Mixed-Use Development project EIR,Senior Associate.Arabesque conducted analysis and prepared the cultural resources and hazards and hazardous materials sections of the Environmental Impact Report. Indian Wells valley Land Use Management Plan,Kern County,CA,Senior Associate. ESA prepared a Program Environmental Impact Report(PEIR)for the Indian Wells Valley Land Use Management Plan.This plan would evaluate the existing and potential General Plan land use designation changes to support a water balanced approach to land use planning.Arabesque prepared the hazards and hazardous materials section ofthe EIR. Sweetwater Authority,Richard A.Reynolds Desalination Plant Phase 2 Expansion Solar Project MND,Chula Vista,CA,Deputy Project Manager. Arabesque was responsible for analysis and preparation of the Initial Study Mitigated Negative Declaration including content editing,schedule maintenance, staff coordination,and budget tracking.The Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared to address impacts associated with the installation of a solar photovoltaic project on an existing desalination facility. City of Baldwin Park Specific Plan EIR,Baldwin Park,CA,Senior Associate.ESA Arabesque Said-Abdelwahed Page 2 will be providing CEQA documentation and environmental planning services associated with the Baldwin Park Transit Oriented District(TOD)Specific Plan for the Downtown Area of Baldwin Park.This project aims to encourage transit- oriented development,promote active transportation,reduce vehicle miles traveled,and streamline the environmental review process for future projects. Department of Toxic Substances Control,Santa Susana Field Laboratory EIR, Ventura County,CA,Deputy Project Manager.Arabesque conducted analysis and prepared the utilities section of the PEIR for the Santa Susana Field Laboratory. She also coordinated the preparation of figures for the EIR. City of Corona Department of Water and Power,Water Facilities Project, Riverside County,CA.Assistant Project Manager.Arabesque assisted in the preparation of the Initial Study and technical reports for the proposed water production wells,pump houses,linearwells water transmission main and water treatment facility. City of Santa Ana Planning and Building Agency,Park View at Town and Country Manor Project,Orange County,CA.Assistant Project Manager. Arabesque prepared the Final EIR,MM RP,and Findings of Fact for the proposed multi-story building at the existing Town and Country Manor"Continuing Care Residential Community."Arabesque also supported the Project Director at two Planning Commission meetings and City Council hearing. The Shopoff Group,L.P.333 North Prairie Avenue Project,City of Inglewood, Los Angeles County,CA.Assistant Project Manager.Arabesque assisted in the preparation of EIR sections.Arabesque managed the preparation of the Cultural Resources Assessment for the project area. City of Wildomar,Riverside County,CA.Assistant Project Manager.Arabesque assisted in the preparation of the EIR for the proposed residential project on approximately 9-acres in the City of W ildomar.Arabesque prepared the project description and impact sections including cultural resources,geology and soils, hazards,land use,population and housing. County of Riverside,Cabazon II Outlet Expansion Project,Riverside County, CA.Project Manager.Arabesque coordinated the preparation of an Initial Study for the proposed outlet mall expansion project in the community of Cabazon,CA. Arabesque also coordinated the preparation of technical studies including a Biological Habitat Assessment and Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment. r ESA J Vanessa N . Ortiz, MA, RPA Cultural Resources Specialist EDUCATION Vanessa is an arch aeologist with over seven years of documentation,records searches,survey,excavation,and monitoring experience.She is cross trained in Id.A.,Anthropology archaeology and paleontology.She has worked extensively throughout California, emphasis Archaeology, California State with particular experience in the context of the Mojave and California Great Basin, University,Los Angeles prehistoric food processing sites,and historic artifacts. BA.Anthropology, CaOfnmlo State Relevant Experience University,Los Angeles TVEARS E%PERIENCE Cltyof Beverly Hills Metro Purple Line Extension,Beverly Hills,CA. Compliance Coordinator.ESA is retained by the City of Beverly Hills to conduct PROFESSIONAL general compliance monitoring during the advanced utilities relocation phaseof AFFILIATIONS construction for the segment of the Metro Purple Line Extension Project located in Registerof Professional the City of Beverly Hills.Vanessa oversees ESAmonitors,prepareweekly reports Archaeologists and 3-week look-ahead projections based on estimated contractor planned Society for American activities.As needed,she issues violations in the event a non-compliance issue is Archaeology identified.ESA's primary objective isto assist contractors in avoidingnon- California Cukural compliance issues through thorough observation and open communication. Resources Preservation Alliance Ballona Wetland Restoration,Playa Del Rey,CA.Archaeologist As part of the Sedetyfor Califomis development of the restoration plan for the Ballona Wetlands,the ESA project Archaeology team characterized existing conditions that included water and sediment Lambda Alpha Honors sampling and analysis.The water and sediment quality sampling was performed society to develop and evaluate potential restoration alternatives,and to develop conceptual plan.The ESA project team compiled existing data on and conducted additional sampling for water and sediment to assess potential effects on the proposed wetland restoration habitat from the use of urban runoff and tidal in- flow from Ballona Creek.These data were used to complete a baseline report and restoration alternatives assessment.Vanessa assisted 1n survey,data recovery and artifact analysis. Los Angeles Department of Water and Power(LADWP),Path 46 Clearance Surveys,San Bernardino,CA.Archaeologist. ESA has been tasked by LADWP to conduct required surveys for the Path 46 Transmission Line Clearances Project. The project's objective is to restore required code clearances to the transmission conductors,which will be accomplished by grading the ground surface underneath the transmission lines to achieve required height consistency.The work is being conducted in compliance with BLM guidelines and federal laws and statutes.Biological,archaeological,and paleontological resource surveys are currently being conducted for the 77 proposed grading areas,staging areas,and roads.Pending reports will document results of the surveys and provide recommendations for minimally invasive access areas,staging areas,and soil distribution. Vanessa provided field surveys and documentation of archaeological sites for submission to the California State Parks. Vanessa N.Ortiz,MA,RPA Page 2 Los Angeles Department of Water and Power(LADWP),Scattergood Olympic Transmission Line(SOTL)Cultural Resources Monitoring,Los Angeles,CA. Archaeologist.LADWP is constructing and will operate approximately 11.4 miles of new 230 kilovolt(kv)underground transmission line.LADWP installed 55 vaults and underground conduit for the SOTL Project.ESA provided cultural resources services,including archaeological,Native American,and paleontological monitoring,to fulfill the requirements of the Project El R mitigation measures for cultural resources. Reports documenting the monitoring findings were submitted at the end of the project.Vanessa provided oversight and scheduling to monitors and assisted in preparing the final report. California High Speed Rail,Fresno,CA.Archaeological Monitor.ESA was retained as a sub-consultant to the Tutor Perini Zachary Parsons Joint Venture. The project consisted of pre-construction surveys for biological and cultural resources,compliance monitoring during construction,and compliance tracking and reporting.Approximately 29 miles in length,the project also included both biological and cultural resources such as the historic Chinatown in downtown Fresno,vernal pool and seasonal wetland habitat and crossings of the San Joaquin and Fresno Rivers.Vanessa provided archaeological monitoring for the Project during construction. Los Angeles Department of Water and Power,La Kretz Innovation Campus Project,Los Angeles,CA.Archaeological Monitor and Lab Technician. ESA provided archaeological monitoring in connection with the La Kretz Innovation Campus Project located in downtown Los Angeles.ESA conducted construction worker cultural resources sensitivity training;archaeological monitoring;and prepared a monitoring report.The Project involved the rehabilitation of the 61,000-sq u a re-foot building located at 518-524 Colyton Street,the demolition of the building located at 537-551 Hewitt Street,and the construction of an open space public plaza,and surface parking lot,and involved compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and consultation with the California State Historic Preservation Officer.Vanessa provided monitoring for the duration of the Project as well as a lab technician during the cu ratio n of the artifacts recovered from the Project and co-authored the final cultural report. Los Angeles Department of Water and Power(LADWP),Silver Lake Reservoir Complex(SLRC)Storage Replacement and River Supply Conduit 1A,Los Angeles County,CA.Archaeological and Paleontological Monitor.ESA is providing archaeological and paleontological monitoring for SLRC Storage Replacement and River Supply Conduit lA Project.As part of this task,ESA conducted construction worker cultural resources sensitivity training and archaeological and paleontological monitoring.A final monitoring report will be prepared at the end of construction. Vanessa was the field monitor on this project. ApaeWx B.SCCICR rda Sea"Results Zoefidential,Bound Separatelyll APPENDIX B SCCIC Records Search Results ( Confidential, Bound SeparatelA Grcundweler W..iA—t Syelem li di Espenaian Prgea and ESP 11a036].01 Wabr Pwdudim Eehsemmee�P-g Au us12016 Ph—I CuIWmi Reawrres SWdy ApeeMlx C.NW a eri nCorrespondence APPENDIX C Native American Correspondence GrcunEweler RePleniA—t syelem F dl EspenalN PNjea ene E8 1 iQpW 01 Wabr Pwdudim Enhan—t P-g Au0.2016 Ph—I CulWnl Re—S dy Sacred Lands File&Native American Contacts List Request NATIVE AMERICAN HERITAGE COMMISSION 1550 Harbor Blvd, Suite 100 West Sacramento, CA 95691 (916) 373-3710 (916) 373-5471 —Fax nahc@nahc.ca.gov Information Below is Required for a Sacred Lands File Search Project: Section 106 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Groundwater Replenishment System Final Expansion County: Orange USGS Quadrangle Name: Newport Beach Townships: 5 and 6 South---Range: 10 West Section(s): Multiple Company: Environmental Science Associates Contact Person: Arabesque Said, MPP Street Address: 2121 Alton Parkway, Suite 100, Irvine, CA 92606 Cell 951.310.7031 Office Phone: 213.599.4300 Fax: 213.599.4301 Email as needed: aabdelwahedaesassoc.com SEE ATTACHED MAP The GWRS Final Expansion Project involves five construction activities; 1) Increasing microfiltration capacity, 2) Increasing reverse osmosis treatment capacity, 3)Increasing ultraviolet treatment capacity, 4)final product water and 5) construction of a pump station, 6) construction of a flow equalization tank and associated appurtenances, and 7) conversion of existing gravity pipeline to a pressurized pipeline. The project is located in multiple sections of Townships 5 and 6 South; Range 10 West of the Newport Beach,CA 7.5' United States Geological Survey Topographic Quadrangle Map. Lenard ea .LI o a I, � 1N ... _ rya... O A- I or- ---"- >E o aoao ,L, Feet i OCWD Groundwater Replenishment System Final Expansion Project.P160387.01 SOURCE:USGS Newport Beach,CA(1618)7.5'DRG; Figure I Local Vicinty Map Topographic Base Area of Potential Effects { MF II In Ex n I n n OCSD GWRS. E l m n n II Ion Facility Sunflower Ave M B In kwa 1 Ellis Ave Pump II �-• 1• •' • • • •♦ 1 Dhe an 0 1 um E i � • �� E i �� III r. �� ♦ _ 3 a0 1 Inl . mr ?�S� n, :, : 1 OCSD Plant No. 1 6' 1, D r war hn III a• • •1. SD Pipe uinne io -m I. fisting as in 1 J� I +f Existing Pipeline r for Rehabilitation � F m N O A 0 m N N O iA � O j � L Atlanta Ave Ex vag nAre for - D ipeline t' n— or L o Ar FIowE o ro /M er ' - • I w Ep ump to ion Hamilton q' 4 I. I i• N • • D Ip II on OCSD Plant No. 2 LSD Pump Station t fWi tt' • ixa SOURCE:ESRI OCWD Groundwater Replenishment System Final Expansion Project.P160381.01 Figure 3 Area of Potential Effects T TEO CALEQRN• Etl0W G.Blown Jr. Go yejI NATIVE AMERICAN HERITAGE COMMISSION 11" 1%0 Hdrw'Swa,SWtA 100 ys Went Sd..To,CA 95591 (916)n1n10 Fdi(916)n3iP)1 June 6, 2016 Arabesque Said, MPP Environmental Science Associates Sent by Email: aabdelwahed@esassoc.com RE: Proposed Groundwater Replenishment System Final Expansion, Cultural Resources Assessment Project, City of Huntington Beach; Newport Beach USGS Quadrangle, Orange County, California Dear M. Said: A record search of the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) Sacred Lands File was completed for the area of potential project effect(APE) referenced above with negative results. Please note that the absence of specific site information in the Sacred Lands File does not indicate the absence of Native American cultural resources in any APE. I suggest you contact all of the listed Tribes. If they cannot supply information, they might recommend others with specific knowledge. The list should provide a starting place to locate areas of potential adverse impact within the APE. By contacting all those on the list, your organization will be better able to respond to claims of failure to consult. If a response has not been received within two weeks of notification, the NAHC requests that you follow-up with a telephone call to ensure that the project information has been received. If you receive notification of change of addresses and phone numbers from any of these individuals or groups, please notify me. With your assistance we are able to assure that our lists contain current information. If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact via email: gayle.totton@nahc.ca.gov. Sincerely, a Totto ., PhD. ssoc(ate Governmental Program Analyst Native American Contact List Orange County June 3, 2016 Juaneno Band of Mission Indians Aciachemen Nation Juaneno Band of Mission Indians Chairperson, Mallets Belardes Adolph 'Bud' Sepulveda, Vice Chairperson 32161 Avenida Los Amigos Juaneno P.O. Box 25828 Juaneno j San Juan capiammno , CA 92675 Santa Ana CA 92799 (949)293-8522 bssepul@yahoo.net (949)444-4340 (Cell) (714) 83"270 (714) 914-1812 Cell Gabrieleno/Tongva San Gabriel Band of Mission Indians Juaneno Band of Mission Indians Anthony Morales, Chairperson Sonia Johnston, Tribal Chairperson P.O. Box 693 Gabrielino Tongva P.O. Box 25628 Juaneno San Gabriel CA 91778 Santa Ana , CA 92799 GTTrlbelcouncil®aol.c m sonia.johnston0sbcglobal.net '.. (626) 483-3564 Cell (626) 286-1262 Fax Gabrielino/Tongue Nation Gabdelino-Tongve Tribe Sandonne Goad, Chairperson Bemis Acuna, Co-Chairperson 10612 Judge John Also St., #231 Gabrielino Tongva 1999 Avenue of the Stars,Suite 1100 Gabrielino Los Angeles , CA 90012 Los Angeles , CA 90067 agoad4gabrielino•lolgve.com (951) 807-0479 (310)428-5690 Cell I Juaneno Band of Mission Indians Acjachemen Nation Juaneno 13ar,a of Mission Indians Agachemen Nation Teresa Romero, Chairwoman Joyce Perry, Tribal Manager 31411-A La Matanza Street Juaneno 4955 Paseo Segovia Juaneno San Juan Capistrano , CA 92675 Irvine CA 92612 tromero@juaneno.com kaamalam@gmail.com (949) 488-3484 (949) 293-8522 (530)354-5876 Cell (949) 488-3294 Fax Gabrlelino Tongva Indians of Callrornla Tribal Council Gabrielino-Tongva Tribe Robert F. Dorame, Tribal Chair/Cultural Resources Linda Candelaria, Co-Chairperson j P.O. Box 490 Gabrielino Tongva 1999 Avenueaf the Stara suite 1100 Gabrielino Bellflower CA 90707 Los Angeles , CA 90067 gtongva@verizon.net (626) 676-1184 Cell (562) 761-6417 Voice/Fax This little current only es Wine date of this documeni and is based on the Information available to the Commission on the data Itwas produced. Distribution of this list does.1 relieve any person or agency of stautory responslbll try as deft ned In Public Resources Coca Sections 21 aeo.a. Secton 7050.5 of the Health and Safety Code,Section 6097.94 of the Public Rmou rare Code and Section W97.W of me Public Resource.Code. This Ifst Is only applicable far connoting loss,Native Americans with regard to cultural resources for the proposed Groundwater Replenishment System Mae Espension,Section 105 Cultural Resources Assessment Prolwth City d Hach ngton Beath,Newport Seed,USGS Quadrangle,Orange County,California. Native American Contact List Orange County June 3, 2016 Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians - Kizh Nation Andrew Salas, Chairperson P.O. Box393 Gabrielino Covina r CA 91723 gabrielenoindians@yahoo.com (626) 926-4131 I Gabrielino-Tongva Tribe I Conrad Acuna '999 Avenue of the Stars,Sulte 1100 Gabrielino Los Angeles , CA 90067 Gabrielino /Tongva Nation Sam Dunlap, Cultural Resources Director P.O. Box 80908 Gabrielino Tongva Los Angeles . CA 90086 Bamdunlap @ earthlink.net (909) 262-9351 I i I i i I This list is current only as of the date of lhls document and Is based on the Information available to the Commission on the date it was Produced. Distribution of Mis list does not relieve any person or agency of statutory responsibility as defined In Public Resources Code Sections 21080.3.1 Seotgn 1050.5 of the Health and Safety Code,Section 5097.94 of the Public Resources;Code and Secton 5097.98 of the Public Resources Cade. This Ilm le only appllcable for caniacting local Native Americans with regard to cultural resources for the poposed Groundweter Replenishment System Final Fxpanslon,Section 10S Cultural Resources Asseesment Project,City of Huntington Beech,Newport Beach USGS Quadrangle,Orange County,California. I ESA 2121 Mon Pwr aY www.esassoc.com Suite 100 JIrvine,CA 92606 213.599.6300 phone 213.599.6301 fan June 20,2016 Chairperson Matias Belardes luanefio Band of Mission Indians Acjachemen Nation 32161 Avenida Los Amigos San Juan Capistrano,CA 92675 Subject: Groundwater Replenishment System Final Expansion Project—D160387.01 Dear Chairperson Belardes: ESA is conducting a cultural resources assessment as part of CEQA-Plus documentation for the Groundwater Replenishment System(GWRS)Final Expansion Project(project)located in the cities of Huntington Beach and Fountain Valley,California.The GWRS is an advanced water treatment facility constructed by the Orange County Water District(OCWD)and the Orange County Sanitation District(OCSD)that supplements local water supplies by providing reliable,high quality source of treated water to recharge the Orange County Groundwater Basin and to protect the Orange County Groundwater Basin from seawater intrusion.The GWRS consists of three major components: an advanced water purification facility and pumping stations,a major pipeline connecting the treatment facilities to existing recharge basins and an existing seawater intrusion barrier.The proposed project would include the construction and operation of an expanded microfiltration treatment facility, expanded Reverse Osmosis Treatment Capacity,expanded ultraviolet light treatment facility at the existing OCWD GWRS Facility in Fountain Valley. The project would also include construction and operation of a new PUMP station at the OCSD Treatment Plant No.2 in Huntington Beach and the renovation of an existing water supply pipeline located on the west side of the Santa Ana River. A separate headworks facility and a bypass pipeline would be constructed on OCSD's Plant No. 2 that will segregate the brine flows from the typical influent domestic wastewater flows to Plant No. 2. As seen on the attached topographic map,the project area is located within multiple sections of Townships 5 and 6 south;Range 10 West of the United States Geologic Survey(USGS)Newport Beach,CA 7.5' topographic quadrangle. Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966(NHPA)considers the effects a project may have on historic properties.The definition of"historic properties"can include properties of traditional religious and cultural significance to Native American groups.To determine whether the proposed project may impact any historic properties,including traditional cultural properties,ESA has reviewed background information and consulted with the Native American Heritage Commission(NAHC). Our records search at the South Central Coastal Information Center(SCCIC), indicate that there are no known cultural resources in the Area of Potential Effect(APE). A record search of the NAHC's Sacred Land File has failed to indicate the presence of Native American cultural resources in the immediate APE. The NAHC has listed you as a tribal contact for this project. r ESA Chairperson Matins Belardes June 20,2016 Page 2 We would appreciate your comments identifying any sensitive sites in or near the project area that you may be aware of,any concerns or issues pertinent to this project,or the names of others who may be interested in this project.Thank you for your cooperation on this matter. If you have any questions or comments,please contact me at 949.870.1524(cell)or a abdelwahed@esmsoc.com. Sincerely, 4 Arabesque Said-Abdelwahed, MPP Community Development I ESA 2121 Mon Parkway .www.eeeeeoc.cnnn Suite 100 JIrvine,CA 92606 213.599.6300 phone 213.599.6301 fax June 20,2016 Chairperson Anthony Morales Gabrieleno/Tongva San Gabriel Band of Mission Indians P.O.Box 693 San Gabriel, CA 91778 Subject: Groundwater Replenishment System Final Expansion Project—D160387.01 Dear Chairperson Morales, : ESA is conducting a cultural resources assessment as part of CEQA-Plus documentation for the Groundwater Replenishment System(GWRS)Final Expansion Project(project)located in the cities of Huntington Beach and Fountain Valley,California.The GWRS is an advanced water treatment facility constructed by the Orange County Water District(OCWD)and the Orange County Sanitation District(OCSD)that supplements local water supplies by providing reliable,high quality source of treated water to recharge the Orange County Groundwater Basin and to protect the Orange County Groundwater Basin from seawater intrusion.The GWRS consists of three major components: an advanced water purification facility and pumping stations,a major pipeline connecting the treatment facilities to existing recharge basins and an existing seawater intrusion barrier.The proposed project would include the construction and operation of an expanded microfiltration treatment facility, expanded Reverse Osmosis Treatment Capacity,expanded ultraviolet light treatment facility at the existing OCWD GWRS Facility in Fountain Valley. The project would also include construction and operation of a new PUMP station at the OCSD Treatment Plant No.2 in Huntington Beach and the renovation of an existing water supply pipeline located on the west side of the Santa Ana River. A separate headworks facility and a bypass pipeline would be constructed on OCSD's Plant No. 2 that will segregate the brine flows from the typical influent domestic wastewater flows to Plant No. 2. As seen on the attached topographic map,the project area is located within multiple sections of Townships 5 and 6 south;Range 10 West of the United States Geologic Survey(USGS)Newport Beach,CA 7.5' topographic quadrangle. Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966(NHPA)considers the effects a project may have on historic properties.The definition of"historic properties"can include properties of traditional religious and cultural significance to Native American groups.To determine whether the proposed project may impact any historic properties,including traditional cultural properties,ESA has reviewed background information and consulted with the Native American Heritage Commission(NAHC). Our records search at the South Central Coastal Information Center(SCCIC), indicate that there are no known cultural resources in the Area of Potential Effect(APE). A record search of the NAHC's Sacred Land File has failed to indicate the presence of Native American cultural resources in the immediate APE. The NAHC has listed you as a tribal contact for this project. r ESA Chairperson Anthony Morales June 20,2016 Page 2 We would appreciate your comments identifying any sensitive sites in or near the project area that you may be aware of,any concerns or issues pertinent to this project,or the names of others who may be interested in this project.Thank you for your cooperation on this matter. If you have any questions or comments,please contact me at 949.870.1524(cell)or abdelwahed@esassm.com. Sincerely, Arabesque Said-Abdelwahed,MPP Community Development r ESA 2121 Mon Pwr aY www.esassoc.com Suite 100 JIrvine,CA 92606 213.599.6300 phone 213.599.6301 fax June 20,2016 Chaiperson Sandonne Goad Gabrielino/Tongva Nation 106 1/2 Judge John Aliso St. #231 Los Angeles,CA 90012 Subject: Groundwater Replenishment System Final Expansion Project—D160387.01 Dear Chaiperson Goad: ESA is conducting a cultural resources assessment as part of CEQA-Plus documentation for the Groundwater Replenishment System(GWRS)Final Expansion Project(project)located in the cities of Huntington Beach and Fountain Valley,California.The GWRS is an advanced water treatment facility constructed by the Orange County Water District(OCWD)and the Orange County Sanitation District(OCSD)that supplements local water supplies by providing reliable,high quality source of treated water to recharge the Orange County Groundwater Basin and to protect the Orange County Groundwater Basin from seawater intrusion.The GWRS consists of three major components: an advanced water purification facility and pumping stations,a major pipeline connecting the treatment facilities to existing recharge basins and an existing seawater intrusion barrier.The proposed project would include the construction and operation of an expanded microfiltration treatment facility, expanded Reverse Osmosis Treatment Capacity,expanded ultraviolet light treatment facility at the existing OCWD GWRS Facility in Fountain Valley. The project would also include construction and operation of a new pump station at the OCSD Treatment Plant No.2 in Huntington Beach and the renovation of an existing water supply pipeline located on the west side of the Santa Ana River.A separate headworks facility and a bypass pipeline would be constructed on OCSD's Plant No. 2 that will segregate the brine flows from the typical influent domestic wastewater flows to Plant No. 2. As seen on the attached topographic map,the project area is located within multiple sections of Townships 5 and 6 south;Range 10 West of the United States Geologic Survey(USGS)Newport Beach,CA 7.5'topographic quadrangle. Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966(NHPA)considers the effects a project may have on historic properties.The definition of"historic properties"can include properties of traditional religious and cultural significance to Native American groups.To determine whether the proposed project may impact any historic properties,including traditional cultural properties,ESA has reviewed background information and consulted with the Native American Heritage Commission(NAHC). Our records search at the South Central Coastal Information Center(SCCIC),indicate that there are no known cultural resources in the Area of Potential Effect(APE). A record search of the NAHC's Sacred Land File has failed to indicate the presence of Native American cultural resources in the immediate APE. The NAHC has listed you as a tribal contact for this project. r ESA Chaiperson Sandonne Goad June 20,2016 Page 2 We would appreciate your comments identifying any sensitive sites in or near the project area that you may be aware of,any concerns or issues pertinent to this project,or the names of others who may be interested in this project.Thank you for your cooperation on this matter. If you have any questions or comments,please contact me at 949.870.1524(cell)or a abdelwahed@esmsoc.com. Sincerely, 4 Arabesque Said-Abdelwahed, MPP Community Development I ESA 2121 Mon Pwr aY www.esassoc.com Suite 100 JIrvine,CA 92606 213.599.6300 phone 213.599.6301 fan June 20,2016 Chairwoman Teresa Romero luanefio Band of Mission Indians Acjachemen Nation 31411-A La Matanza Street San Juan Capistrano,CA 92675 Subject: Groundwater Replenishment System Final Expansion Project—D160387.01 Dear Chairwoman Romero : ESA is conducting a cultural resources assessment as part of CEQA-Plus documentation for the Groundwater Replenishment System(GWRS)Final Expansion Project(project)located in the cities of Huntington Beach and Fountain Valley,California.The GWRS is an advanced water treatment facility constructed by the Orange County Water District(OCWD)and the Orange County Sanitation District(OCSD)that supplements local water supplies by providing reliable,high quality source of treated water to recharge the Orange County Groundwater Basin and to protect the Orange County Groundwater Basin from seawater intrusion.The GWRS consists of three major components: an advanced water purification facility and pumping stations,a major pipeline connecting the treatment facilities to existing recharge basins and an existing seawater intrusion barrier.The proposed project would include the construction and operation of an expanded microfiltration treatment facility, expanded Reverse Osmosis Treatment Capacity,expanded ultraviolet light treatment facility at the existing OCWD GWRS Facility in Fountain Valley. The project would also include construction and operation of a new PUMP station at the OCSD Treatment Plant No.2 in Huntington Beach and the renovation of an existing water supply pipeline located on the west side of the Santa Ana River. A separate headworks facility and a bypass pipeline would be constructed on OCSD's Plant No. 2 that will segregate the brine flows from the typical influent domestic wastewater flows to Plant No. 2. As seen on the attached topographic map,the project area is located within multiple sections of Townships 5 and 6 south;Range 10 West of the United States Geologic Survey(USGS)Newport Beach,CA 7.5' topographic quadrangle. Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966(NHPA)considers the effects a project may have on historic properties.The definition of"historic properties"can include properties of traditional religious and cultural significance to Native American groups.To determine whether the proposed project may impact any historic properties,including traditional cultural properties,ESA has reviewed background information and consulted with the Native American Heritage Commission(NAHC). Our records search at the South Central Coastal Information Center(SCCIC), indicate that there are no known cultural resources in the Area of Potential Effect(APE). A record search of the NAHC's Sacred Land File has failed to indicate the presence of Native American cultural resources in the immediate APE. The NAHC has listed you as a tribal contact for this project. r ESA Chairperson Teresa Romero June 20,2016 Page 2 We would appreciate your comments identifying any sensitive sites in or near the project area that you may be aware of,any concerns or issues pertinent to this project,or the names of others who may be interested in this project.Thank you for your cooperation on this matter.If you have any questions or comments,please contact me at 949.870.1524(cell)or a abdelwahed@esmsoc.com. Sincerely, 4 Arabesque Said-Abdelwahed, MPP Community Development r ESA 2121 Aron Pwr aY www.esassoc.com Suite 100 JIrvine,CA 92606 213.599.6300 phone 213.599.6301 fan June 20,2016 Vice Chairperson Adolph"Bud" Sepulveda luanefio Band of Mission Indians P.O.Box 25828 Santa Ana, CA 92799 Subject: Groundwater Replenishment System Final Expansion Project—D160387.01 Dear Vice Chairperson Sepulveda : ESA is conducting a cultural resources assessment as part of CEQA-Plus documentation for the Groundwater Replenishment System(GWRS)Final Expansion Project(project) located in the cities of Huntington Beach and Fountain Valley,California.The GWRS is an advanced water treatment facility constructed by the Orange County Water District(OCWD)and the Orange County Sanitation District(OCSD)that supplements local water supplies by providing reliable,high quality source of treated water to recharge the Orange County Groundwater Basin and to protect the Orange County Groundwater Basin from seawater intrusion.The GWRS consists of three major components: an advanced water purification facility and pumping stations,a major pipeline connecting the treatment facilities to existing recharge basins and an existing seawater intrusion barrier.The proposed project would include the construction and operation of an expanded microfiltration treatment facility, expanded Reverse Osmosis Treatment Capacity,expanded ultraviolet light treatment facility at the existing OCWD GWRS Facility in Fountain Valley. The project would also include construction and operation of a new PUMP station at the OCSD Treatment Plant No. 2 in Huntington Beach and the renovation of an existing water supply pipeline located on the west side of the Santa Ana River. A separate headworks facility and a bypass pipeline would be constructed on OCSD's Plant No. 2 that will segregate the brine flows from the typical influent domestic wastewater flows to Plant No. 2. As seen on the attached topographic map,the project area is located within multiple sections of Townships 5 and 6 south;Range 10 West of the United States Geologic Survey(USGS)Newport Beach,CA 7.5' topographic quadrangle. Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966(NHPA)considers the effects a project may have on historic properties.The definition of"historic properties"can include properties of traditional religious and cultural significance to Native American groups.To determine whether the proposed project may impact any historic properties,including traditional cultural properties,ESA has reviewed background information and consulted with the Native American Heritage Commission(NAHC). Our records search at the South Central Coastal Information Center(SCCIC), indicate that there are no known cultural resources in the Area of Potential Effect(APE). A record search of the NAHC's Sacred Land File has failed to indicate the presence of Native American cultural resources in the immediate APE. The NAHC has listed you as a tribal contact for this project. r ESA Vice Chairperson Adoplh'Bud" Sepulveda June 20,2016 Page 2 We would appreciate your comments identifying any sensitive sites in or near the project area that you may be aware of,any concerns or issues pertinent to this project,or the names of others who may be interested in this project.Thank you for your cooperation on this matter. If you have any questions or comments,please contact me at 949.870.1524(cell)or a abdelwahed@esmsoc.com. Sincerely, 4 Arabesque Said-Abdelwahed, MPP Community Development r ESA 2121 Mon Parkway .www.eeeeeoc.cnm Suite 100 JIrvine,CA 92606 213.599.6300 phone 213.599.6301 fax June 20,2016 Tribal Chairperson Sonia Johnston luanefio Band of Mission Indians P.O.Box 25628 Santa Ana, CA 92799 Subject: Groundwater Replenishment System Final Expansion Project—D160387.01 Dear Tribal Chairperson Johnston: ESA is conducting a cultural resources assessment as part of CEQA-Plus documentation for the Groundwater Replenishment System(GWRS)Final Expansion Project(project) located in the cities of Huntington Beach and Fountain Valley,California.The GWRS is an advanced water treatment facility constructed by the Orange County Water District(OCWD)and the Orange County Sanitation District(OCSD)that supplements local water supplies by providing reliable,high quality source of treated water to recharge the Orange County Groundwater Basin and to protect the Orange County Groundwater Basin from seawater intrusion.The GWRS consists of three major components: an advanced water purification facility and pumping stations,a major pipeline connecting the treatment facilities to existing recharge basins and an existing seawater intrusion barrier.The proposed project would include the construction and operation of an expanded microfiltration treatment facility, expanded Reverse Osmosis Treatment Capacity,expanded ultraviolet light treatment facility at the existing OCWD GWRS Facility in Fountain Valley. The project would also include construction and operation of a new PUMP station at the OCSD Treatment Plant No.2 in Huntington Beach and the renovation of an existing water supply pipeline located on the west side of the Santa Ana River. A separate headworks facility and a bypass pipeline would be constructed on OCSD's Plant No. 2 that will segregate the brine flows from the typical influent domestic wastewater flows to Plant No. 2. As seen on the attached topographic map,the project area is located within multiple sections of Townships 5 and 6 south;Range 10 West of the United States Geologic Survey(USGS)Newport Beach,CA 7.5' topographic quadrangle. Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966(NHPA)considers the effects a project may have on historic properties.The definition of"historic properties"can include properties of traditional religious and cultural significance to Native American groups.To determine whether the proposed project may impact any historic properties,including traditional cultural properties,ESA has reviewed background information and consulted with the Native American Heritage Commission(NAHC). Our records search at the South Central Coastal Information Center(SCCIC), indicate that there are no known cultural resources in the Area of Potential Effect(APE). A record search of the NAHC's Sacred Land File has failed to indicate the presence of Native American cultural resources in the immediate APE. The NAHC has listed you as a tribal contact for this project. r ESA Tribal Chairperson Sonia Johnston June 20,2016 Page 2 We would appreciate your comments identifying any sensitive sites in or near the project area that you may be aware of, any concerns or issues pertinent to this project,or the names of others who may be interested in this project.Thank you for your cooperation on this matter. If you have any questions or comments,please contact me at 949.870.1524(cell)or mbdelwahed@esmsoc.com. Sincerely, Arabesque Said-Abdelwahed, MPP Community Development r ESA 2121 Mon Parkway .www.eeaeeoc.cnnn Suite 100 JIrvine,CA 92606 213.599.6300 phone 213.599.6301 fax June 20,2016 Co-Chairperson Bernie Acuna Gabrielino-Tongva Tribe 1999 Avenue of the Stars Suite 1100 Los Angeles,CA 90067 Subject: Groundwater Replenishment System Final Expansion Project—D160387.01 Dear Co-Chairperson Aeons : ESA is conducting a cultural resources assessment as part of CEQA-Plus documentation for the Groundwater Replenishment System(GWRS)Final Expansion Project(project)located in the cities of Huntington Beach and Fountain Valley,California.The GWRS is an advanced water treatment facility constructed by the Orange County Water District(OCWD)and the Orange County Sanitation District(OCSD)that supplements local water supplies by providing reliable,high quality source of treated water to recharge the Orange County Groundwater Basin and to protect the Orange County Groundwater Basin from seawater intrusion.The GWRS consists of three major components: an advanced water purification facility and pumping stations,a major pipeline connecting the treatment facilities to existing recharge basins and an existing seawater intrusion barrier.The proposed project would include the construction and operation of an expanded microfiltration treatment facility, expanded Reverse Osmosis Treatment Capacity,expanded ultraviolet light treatment facility at the existing OCWD GWRS Facility in Fountain Valley. The project would also include construction and operation of a new pump station at the OCSD Treatment Plant No.2 in Huntington Beach and the renovation of an existing water supply pipeline located on the west side of the Santa Ana River.A separate headworks facility and a bypass pipeline would be constructed on OCSD's Plant No. 2 that will segregate the brine flows from the typical influent domestic wastewater flows to Plant No. 2. As seen on the attached topographic map,the project area is located within multiple sections of Townships 5 and 6 south;Range 10 West of the United States Geologic Survey(USGS)Newport Beach,CA 7.5'topographic quadrangle. Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966(NHPA)considers the effects a project may have on historic properties.The definition of"historic properties"can include properties of traditional religious and cultural significance to Native American groups.To determine whether the proposed project may impact any historic properties,including traditional cultural properties,ESA has reviewed background information and consulted with the Native American Heritage Commission(NAHC). Our records search at the South Central Coastal Information Center(SCCIC),indicate that there we no known cultural resources in the Area of Potential Effect(APE). A record search of the NAHC's Sacred Land File has failed to indicate the presence of Native American cultural resources in the immediate APE. The NAHC has listed you as a tribal contact for this project. r ESA Co-Chairperson Bernie Acura June 20,2016 Page 2 We would appreciate your comments identifying any sensitive sites in or near the project area that you may be aware of,any concerns or issues pertinent to this project,or the names of others who may be interested in this project.Thank you for your cooperation on this matter. If you have any questions or comments,please contact me at 949.870.1524(cell)or abdelwahed@esassoc.com. Sincerely, Arabesque Said-Abdelwahed, MPP Community Development r ESA 2121 Mon Parkway .www.eeeeeoc.cnm Suite 100 JIrvine,CA 92606 213.599.4300 phone 213.599.4301 fax June 20,2016 Tribal Manager Joyce Perry luanefio Band of Mission Indians Acjachemen Nation 4955 Paseo Segovia Irvine,CA 92612 Subject: Groundwater Replenishment System Final Expansion Project—D160387.01 Dear Tribal Manager Perry: ESA is conducting a cultural resources assessment as part of CEQA-Plus documentation for the Groundwater Replenishment System(GWRS)Final Expansion Project(project)located in the cities of Huntington Beach and Fountain Valley,California.The GWRS is an advanced water treatment facility constructed by the Orange County Water District(OCWD)and the Orange County Sanitation District(OCSD)that supplements local water supplies by providing reliable,high quality source of treated water to recharge the Orange County Groundwater Basin and to protect the Orange County Groundwater Basin from seawater intrusion.The GWRS consists of three major components: an advanced water purification facility and pumping stations,a major pipeline connecting the treatment facilities to existing recharge basins and an existing seawater intrusion barrier.The proposed project would include the construction and operation of an expanded microfiltration treatment facility, expanded Reverse Osmosis Treatment Capacity,expanded ultraviolet light treatment facility at the existing OCWD GWRS Facility in Fountain Valley. The project would also include construction and operation of a new PUMP station at the OCSD Treatment Plant No.2 in Huntington Beach and the renovation of an existing water supply pipeline located on the west side of the Santa Ana River. A separate headworks facility and a bypass pipeline would be constructed on OCSD's Plant No. 2 that will segregate the brine flows from the typical influent domestic wastewater flows to Plant No. 2. As seen on the attached topographic map,the project area is located within multiple sections of Townships 5 and 6 south;Range 10 West of the United States Geologic Survey(USGS)Newport Beach,CA 7.5' topographic quadrangle. Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966(NHPA)considers the effects a project may have on historic properties.The definition of"historic properties"can include properties of traditional religious and cultural significance to Native American groups.To determine whether the proposed project may impact any historic properties,including traditional cultural properties,ESA has reviewed background information and consulted with the Native American Heritage Commission(NAHC). Our records search at the South Central Coastal Information Center(SCCIC), indicate that there are no known cultural resources in the Area of Potential Effect(APE). A record search of the NAHC's Sacred Land File has failed to indicate the presence of Native American cultural resources in the immediate APE. The NAHC has listed you as a tribal contact for this project. r ESA Tribal Manager Joyce Perry June 20,2016 Page 2 We would appreciate your comments identifying any sensitive sites in or near the project area that you may be aware of,any concerns or issues pertinent to this project,or the names of others who may be interested in this project.Thank you for your cooperation on this matter. If you have any questions or comments,please contact me at 949.870.1524(cell)or a abdelwahed@esmsoc.com. Sincerely, 4 Arabesque Said-Abdelwahed, MPP Community Development r ESA 2121 Mon Parkway .www.eeeeeoc.cnnn Suite 100 JIrvine,CA 92606 213.599.6300 phone 213.599.6301 fax June 20,2016 Co-Chairperson Linda Candelaria Gabrielino-Tongva Tribe 1999 Avenue of the Stars Suite 1100 Los Angeles,CA 90067 Subject: Groundwater Replenishment System Final Expansion Project—D160387.01 Dear Co-Chairperson Candelaria: ESA is conducting a cultural resources assessment as part of CEQA-Plus documentation for the Groundwater Replenishment System(GWRS)Final Expansion Project(project)located in the cities of Huntington Beach and Fountain Valley,California.The GWRS is an advanced water treatment facility constructed by the Orange County Water District(OCWD)and the Orange County Sanitation District(OCSD)that supplements local water supplies by providing reliable,high quality source of treated water to recharge the Orange County Groundwater Basin and to protect the Orange County Groundwater Basin from seawater intrusion.The GWRS consists of three major components: an advanced water purification facility and pumping stations,a major pipeline connecting the treatment facilities to existing recharge basins and an existing seawater intrusion barrier.The proposed project would include the construction and operation of an expanded microfiltration treatment facility, expanded Reverse Osmosis Treatment Capacity,expanded ultraviolet light treatment facility at the existing OCWD GWRS Facility in Fountain Valley. The project would also include construction and operation of a new pump station at the OCSD Treatment Plant No.2 in Huntington Beach and the renovation of an existing water supply pipeline located on the west side of the Santa Ana River.A separate headworks facility and a bypass pipeline would be constructed on OCSD's Plant No. 2 that will segregate the brine flows from the typical influent domestic wastewater flows to Plant No. 2. As seen on the attached topographic map,the project area is located within multiple sections of Townships 5 and 6 south;Range 10 West of the United States Geologic Survey(USGS)Newport Beach,CA 7.5' topographic quadrangle. Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966(NHPA)considers the effects a project may have on historic properties.The definition of"historic properties"can include properties of traditional religious and cultural significance to Native American groups.To determine whether the proposed project may impact any historic properties,including traditional cultural properties,ESA has reviewed background information and consulted with the Native American Heritage Commission(NAHC). Our records search at the South Central Coastal Information Center(SCCIC),indicate that there are no known cultural resources in the Area of Potential Effect(APE). A record search of the NAHC's Sacred Land File has failed to indicate the presence of Native American cultural resources in the immediate APE.The NAHC has listed you as a tribal contact for this project. r ESA Co-Chairperson Linda Candelaria June 20,2016 Page 2 We would appreciate your comments identifying any sensitive sites in or near the project area that you may be aware of,any concerns or issues pertinent to this project,or the names of others who may be interested in this project.Thank you for your cooperation on this matter. If you have any questions or comments,please contact me at 949.870.1524(cell)or a abdelwahed@esmsoc.com. Sincerely, 4 Arabesque Said-Abdelwahed, MPP Community Development r ESA 2121 Mon Parkway .www.eeeeeoc.cnnn Suite 100 JIrvine,CA 92606 213.599.6300 phone 213.599.6301 fax June 20,2016 Chairperson Andrew Salas Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians-Kizh Nation P.O.Box 393 Covina,CA 91723 Subject: Groundwater Replenishment System Final Expansion Project—D160387.01 Dear Chairperson Salas : ESA is conducting a cultural resources assessment as part of CEQA-Plus documentation for the Groundwater Replenishment System(GWRS)Final Expansion Project(project)located in the cities of Huntington Beach and Fountain Valley,California.The GWRS is an advanced water treatment facility constructed by the Orange County Water District(OCWD)and the Orange County Sanitation District(OCSD)that supplements local water supplies by providing reliable,high quality source of treated water to recharge the Orange County Groundwater Basin and to protect the Orange County Groundwater Basin from seawater intrusion.The GWRS consists of three major components: an advanced water purification facility and pumping stations,a major pipeline connecting the treatment facilities to existing recharge basins and an existing seawater intrusion barrier.The proposed project would include the construction and operation of an expanded microfiltration treatment facility, expanded Reverse Osmosis Treatment Capacity,expanded ultraviolet light treatment facility at the existing OCWD GWRS Facility in Fountain Valley. The project would also include construction and operation of a new PUMP station at the OCSD Treatment Plant No.2 in Huntington Beach and the renovation of an existing water supply pipeline located on the west side of the Santa Ana River. A separate headworks facility and a bypass pipeline would be constructed on OCSD's Plant No. 2 that will segregate the brine flows from the typical influent domestic wastewater flows to Plant No. 2. As seen on the attached topographic map,the project area is located within multiple sections of Townships 5 and 6 south;Range 10 West of the United States Geologic Survey(USGS)Newport Beach,CA 7.5' topographic quadrangle. Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966(NHPA)considers the effects a project may have on historic properties.The definition of"historic properties"can include properties of traditional religious and cultural significance to Native American groups.To determine whether the proposed project may impact any historic properties,including traditional cultural properties,ESA has reviewed background information and consulted with the Native American Heritage Commission(NAHC). Our records search at the South Central Coastal Information Center(SCCIC), indicate that there are no known cultural resources in the Area of Potential Effect(APE). A record search of the NAHC's Sacred Land File has failed to indicate the presence of Native American cultural resources in the immediate APE. The NAHC has listed you as a tribal contact for this project. r ESA Chairperson Andrew Salas June 20,2016 Page 2 We would appreciate your comments identifying any sensitive sites in or near the project area that you may be aware of,any concerns or issues pertinent to this project,or the names of others who may be interested in this project.Thank you for your cooperation on this matter.If you have any questions or comments,please contact me at 949.870.1524(cell)or a abdelwahed@esmsoc.com. Sincerely, 4 Arabesque Said-Abdelwahed, MPP Community Development r ESA 2121 Mon Parkway .www.eeaeeoc.cnnn Suite 100 JIrvine,CA 92606 213.599.6300 phone 213.599.6301 fax June 20,2016 Conrad Acura Gabrielino-Tongva Tribe 1999 Avenue of the Stars Suite 1100 Los Angeles,CA 90067 Subject: Groundwater Replenishment System Final Expansion Project—D160387.01 Dear Conrad Acura: ESA is conducting a cultural resources assessment as part of CEQA-Plus documentation for the Groundwater Replenishment System(GWRS)Final Expansion Project(project)located in the cities of Huntington Beach and Fountain Valley,California.The GWRS is an advanced water treatment facility constructed by the Orange County Water District(OCWD)and the Orange County Sanitation District(OCSD)that supplements local water supplies by providing reliable,high quality source of treated water to recharge the Orange County Groundwater Basin and to protect the Orange County Groundwater Basin from seawater intrusion.The GWRS consists of three major components: an advanced water purification facility and pumping stations,a major pipeline connecting the treatment facilities to existing recharge basins and an existing seawater intrusion barrier.The proposed project would include the construction and operation of an expanded microfiltration treatment facility, expanded Reverse Osmosis Treatment Capacity,expanded ultraviolet light treatment facility at the existing OCWD GWRS Facility in Fountain Valley. The project would also include construction and operation of a new pump station at the OCSD Treatment Plant No.2 in Huntington Beach and the renovation of an existing water supply pipeline located on the west side of the Santa Ana River.A separate headworks facility and a bypass pipeline would be constructed on OCSD's Plant No. 2 that will segregate the brine flows from the typical influent domestic wastewater flows to Plant No. 2. As seen on the attached topographic map,the project area is located within multiple sections of Townships 5 and 6 south;Range 10 West of the United States Geologic Survey(USGS)Newport Beach,CA 7.5' topographic quadrangle. Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966(NHPA)considers the effects a project may have on historic properties.The definition of"historic properties"can include properties of traditional religious and cultural significance to Native American groups.To determine whether the proposed project may impact any historic properties,including traditional cultural properties,ESA has reviewed background information and consulted with the Native American Heritage Commission(NAHC). Our records search at the South Central Coastal Information Center(SCCIC),indicate that there are no known cultural resources in the Area of Potential Effect(APE). A record search of the NAHC's Sacred Land File has failed to indicate the presence of Native American cultural resources in the immediate APE. The NAHC has listed you as a tribal contact for this project. r ESA Conrad Acuna June 20,2016 Page 2 We would appreciate your comments identifying any sensitive sites in or near the project area that you may be aware of,any concerns or issues pertinent to this project,or the names of others who may be interested in this project.Thank you for your cooperation on this matter. If you have any questions or comments,please contact me at 949.870.1524(cell)or a abdelwahed@esmsoc.com. Sincerely, 4 Arabesque Said-Abdelwahed, MPP Community Development r ESA 2121 Mon Parkway .www.eeeeeoc.cnm Suite 100 JIrvine,CA 92606 213.599.6300 phone 213.599.6301 fax June 20,2016 Cultural Resources Director Sam Dunlap Gabrielino/Tongva Nation P.O.Box 86908 Los Angeles,CA 90086 Subject: Groundwater Replenishment System Final Expansion Project—D160387.01 Dear Cultural Resources Director Dunlap : ESA is conducting a cultural resources assessment as part of CEQA-Plus documentation for the Groundwater Replenishment System(GWRS)Final Expansion Project(project)located in the cities of Huntington Beach and Fountain Valley,California.The GWRS is an advanced water treatment facility constructed by the Orange County Water District(OCWD)and the Orange County Sanitation District(OCSD)that supplements local water supplies by providing reliable,high quality source of treated water to recharge the Orange County Groundwater Basin and to protect the Orange County Groundwater Basin from seawater intrusion.The GWRS consists of three major components: an advanced water purification facility and pumping stations,a major pipeline connecting the treatment facilities to existing recharge basins and an existing seawater intrusion barrier.The proposed project would include the construction and operation of an expanded microfiltration treatment facility, expanded Reverse Osmosis Treatment Capacity,expanded ultraviolet light treatment facility at the existing OCWD GWRS Facility in Fountain Valley. The project would also include construction and operation of a new PUMP station at the OCSD Treatment Plant No.2 in Huntington Beach and the renovation of an existing water supply pipeline located on the west side of the Santa Ana River. A separate headworks facility and a bypass pipeline would be constructed on OCSD's Plant No. 2 that will segregate the brine flows from the typical influent domestic wastewater flows to Plant No. 2. As seen on the attached topographic map,the project area is located within multiple sections of Townships 5 and 6 south;Range 10 West of the United States Geologic Survey(USGS)Newport Beach,CA 7.5' topographic quadrangle. Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966(NHPA)considers the effects a project may have on historic properties.The definition of"historic properties"can include properties of traditional religious and cultural significance to Native American groups.To determine whether the proposed project may impact any historic properties,including traditional cultural properties,ESA has reviewed background information and consulted with the Native American Heritage Commission(NAHC). Our records search at the South Central Coastal Information Center(SCCIC), indicate that there are no known cultural resources in the Area of Potential Effect(APE). A record search of the NAHC's Sacred Land File has failed to indicate the presence of Native American cultural resources in the immediate APE. The NAHC has listed you as a tribal contact for this project. r ESA Cultural Resources Director Sam Dunlap June 20,2016 Page 2 We would appreciate your comments identifying any sensitive sites in or near the project area that you may be aware of,any concerns or issues pertinent to this project,or the names of others who may be interested in this project.Thank you for your cooperation on this matter. If you have any questions or comments,please contact me at 949.870.1524(cell)or a abdelwahed@esmsoc.com. Sincerely, 4 Arabesque Said-Abdelwahed, MPP Community Development ESA 2121 Alton Parkway www.eeeeepc.cnnn Suite 100 JIrvine,CA 92606 213.599.4300 phone 213.599.4301 fax June 20,2016 Subject: Groundwater Replenishment System Final Expansion Project—D160387.01 Dear Sir or Madam, : ESA is conducting a cultural resources assessment as part of CEQA-Plus documentation for the Groundwater Replenishment System(GWRS)Final Expansion Project(project)located in the cities of Huntington Beach and Fountain Valley,California.The GWRS is an advanced water treatment facility constructed by the Orange County Water District(OCWD)and the Orange County Sanitation District(OCSD)that supplements local water supplies by providing reliable,high quality source of treated water to recharge the Orange County Groundwater Basin and to protect the Orange County Groundwater Basin from seawater intrusion.The GWRS consists of three major components: an advanced water purification facility and pumping stations,a major pipeline connecting the treatment facilities to existing recharge basins and an existing seawater intrusion barrier.The proposed project would include the construction and operation of an expanded microfiltration treatment facility, expanded Reverse Osmosis Treatment Capacity,expanded ultraviolet light treatment facility at the existing OCWD GWRS Facility in Fountain Valley. The project would also include construction and operation of a new PUMP station at the OCSD Treatment Plant No.2 in Huntington Beach and the renovation of an existing water supply pipeline located on the west side of the Santa Ana River.A separate headworks facility and a bypass pipeline would be constructed on OCSD's Plant No. 2 that will segregate the brine flows from the typical influent domestic wastewater flows to Plant No. 2. As seen on the attached topographic map,the project area is located within multiple sections of Townships 5 and 6 south;Range 10 West of the United States Geologic Survey(USGS)Newport Beach,CA 7.5'topographic quadrangle. Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966(NI-IPA)considers the effects a project may have on historic properties.The definition of"historic properties"can include properties of traditional religious and cultural significance to Native American groups. To determine whether the proposed project may impact any historic properties,including traditional cultural properties,ESA has reviewed background information and consulted with the Native American Heritage Commission(NAHC). Our records search at the South Central Coastal Information Center(SCCIC),indicate that there are no known cultural resources in the Area of Potential Effect(APE). A record search of the NAHC's Sacred Land File has failed to indicate the presence of Native American cultural resources in the immediate APE.The NAHC has listed you as a tribal contact for this project. We would appreciate your comments identifying any sensitive sites in or near the project area that you may be aware of, any concerns or issues pertinent to this project,or the names of others who may be interested in this project. Thank you for your cooperation on this matter.If you have any questions or comments,please contact me at 949.870.1524(cell)or aabdelwahed@esmsoc.com. Sincerely, r ESA Name of recipient Date Page 2 44� Arabesque Said-Abdelwahed,MPP Community Development Native American Contact Log Individual Contacted/Affiliation Number/Email Letter Sent Response Follow-up Phone Call Response Action Item SW:Ms Joyce Stanfield-Perry(Cultural Resources);Recommends NA and Arc Maths Belardes,Chairperson Juaneno monitoring during all ground disturbing activities.She also recommends that in Band of Mission Indians,Acjachemen the event of a discovery,the project stop and the tribe and agency evaluates Nation 949.293.8522 20-Jun-16 No response 28-Jun-16 the mitigation plan Adolph Sepulveda,Vice-Chaiperson 714.914.1812/ Juaneno band of Mission Indians bssepul@yahoo.com 20-Jun-16 No response 28-Jun-16 Left VM.No response to date. SW:Mr.Anthony Morales stated that he is very familiar with the Project area and its vicinity,and he knows it to be very sensitive for Native American cultural resources. Mr.Anthony Morales also stated that although that Project Anthony Morales,Chairperson, is located within an industrial area,any ground disturbances may still Gabrielino/Tongva San Gabriel Band of (626)483-3564/ encounter previously undisturbed soils and resources and should therefore be Mission Indians GTTribalcouncil@aol.com 20-Jun-16 No response 28-Jun-16 closely monitored by a Native American monitor. Sonia Johnston,Tribal Chairperson Juaneno Band of Mission Indians sonia.johnston@sbcglobal.net 20-Jun-16 No response 28-Jun-16 Sent email.No response to date Sandunne Goad,Chairperson, (951)807-0479/ SW:Ms.Sadonne Goad stated that she would prefer to forward all comments Gabrielino/Tongva Nation sgoad@gabrielino=tongva.com 20-Jun-16 No response 28-Jun-16 to San Dunlap;No response from Mr.Dunlap Bernie Acura,Co-Chairperson, Gabrielino/Tongva Tribe 310A28.5690 20-Jun-16 No response 28-Jun-16 Left VM.No response to date. Teresa Romero,Chairwoman,Juaneno Band of Mission Indians Acjachemen 949.488.3484/ Nation tromero@juaneno.com 20-Jun-16 No resonse 28-Jun-16 Left VM.Ncrescnsetodate. SW:MSJoyce Stan ie -Perry Cult u tura Resources);Recommends NA and Arc Joyce Perry,Tribal Manager,Juaneno monitoring during all ground disturbing activities.She also recommends that in Band of Mission Indians Acjachemen 949.293.8522/ the event of a discovery,the project stop and the tribe and agency evaluates Nation kaamalam@gmail.com 20-Jun-16 No response 28-Jun-16 the mitigation plan Robert Dorame,Tribal Chair,Grarielino To igva Indians of California Tribal 562.761.6417/ Forwarded a PDF copy of letter to Council gton @verizon.net 20-Jun-16 No response 28-Jun-16 SW:Mr Dorame and he requested an email copy of the letterfor review gtongva@verizon.net on June 28,2016 Linda Candelaria,Co-Chairperson, Gabrielino Ton va Tribe 626.676.1184 20-Jun-16 No response 28-Jun-16 Left VM.No response to date. SW:Mr.Sa las and he recommends that NA and Arch monitoring be conducted Andrew Salas,Chairperson,Gabrielino (626)9263131/ during all ground disturbance.He also requested a digital copy of the letter Forwarded a PDF copy of letter to Band of Mission Indians-Kith Nation gabrielinoindia ns@ahoo.com 20-Jun-16 No response I 28-Jun-16 that was sent out. and alas07@ahoo.com on June 28,2016 Sam Dunlap,Cultural Resources Director, (909)262-9351/ Forwarded a PDF copy of the letter to Gabrielino/Tongva Nation samdunlap@earthlink.net 20-Jun-16 No response 28-Jun-16SW:Mr Dunlap and he requested an email copy of the letter for review samdunlap@earthlink.net on June 28,2016 Conrad Acura,Gabriel in-Tongva Tribe 20-Jun-16 No response No contact info provide by the NAHC SW=Spoke with VM=Voicemail Page 1 of 1 GAMIELENO BAND OF MISSION INDIAN5-KIZH NATION 3 2 Histordaa1196ownasT6e5an6a6relbandofM.�'ionlndian5 Recognized 69 the State of California as ebe akorig ail tn6e of the Los Angeles 6asin NaCaN Dear Vanessa Ortiz, "The project locale lies in an area where the Ancestral 6 traditional territories of the Kizh(Kidc)Gabrielerho villages,adjoined and overlapped with each other, at least during the Late Prehistoric and Protohistoric Periods.The homeland of the Kizh(Kitt)Gabrielenos,probably the most influential Native American group in aboriginal southern California(Bean and Smith 1978a:538),was centered in the Los Angeles Basin,and reached as far east se the San Bernardino- Riverside area. The homeland of the Sections;was primarily the San Bernardino Mountains,including the slopes and lowlands on the north and south flanks.LVhateoer the linguistic affiliation,Native Americans in and around the project area exhibited similar organization and resource procurement strategies. Villages were based on clan or lineage groups.Their home/base sites are marked by midden deposits,often with bedrock mortars.During their seasonal rounds to exploit plant resources,small groups would migrate within their traditional territory in search of specific plants and animals.Their gathering strategies often left behind signs ofspecial use sites,usually grinding slicks on bedrock boulders,at the locations of the resources. Therefore in order to protect our resources we're requesting one of our experienced 6 certified Native American monitors as well as Arceo-Monitoring to be on site during any 6 all ground disturbances (this includes but is not limited to pavement removal,pot-holing or auguring,haring,grading, excavation and trenching). In all cases,when the NAHC states there are"No" records of sacred sites"in the subject area;they always refer the contractors back to the Native American Tribes whose tribal territory the project area is in. This is due to the fact,that the NAHC is only aware of general information on each California NA Tribe they are"NOT" the"experts"an our Tribe. Our Elder Committee 6 Tribal Historians are the experts and is the reason why the NAHC will always refer Contractors to the local tribes. In addition,we are also often told that an area has been previously developed or disturbed and thus there are no concerns for cultural resources and thus minimal impacts would be expected. I have two major recent examples of how similar statements on other projects were proven very inadequate.An archaeological study claimed there would be no impacts to an area adjacent to the Plaza Church at Clasen Street, the original Spanish settlement of Los Angeles, now in downtown Los Angeles.In fact, this site was the Gabrude vi village of Yangrw long before it became what it is now today. The new development wrongfully began their construction and they,in the process, dug up and desecrated 118 burials. The area that was dismissed as culturally sensitive was in fact the First Cemetery of Los Angeles where it had been well documented at the Huntington Library that 400 of our Tribe's ancestors were buried there along with the founding families of Los Angeles(Pico's,Sepulveda's,and Alvarado's to name a few).In addition, there was another inappropriate study for the development of a new sports complex at Fedde Middle School in the City of Hawaiian Gardens could commence.Again,a village and burial site were desecrated despite their mitigation measures. Thankfully,we were able to work alongside the school district to quickly and respectfully mitigate a mutually beneficial resolution. Given all the above, the proper thing to do for your project would be for our Tribe to monitor ground disturbing construction work. Native American monitors and/or consultant can see that cultural resources are treated appropriately from the Native American point of view. Because we are the lineal descendants of the vast area of Los Angeles and Orange Counties,we hold sacred the ability to protect what little of our culture remains. We thank you for taking seriously your role and responsibility in assisting us in preserving our culture. With respect, Please contact our office regarding this project to coordinate a Native American Monitor to be present. Thank You /r r. Andrew Salo,Chairman Cell(626)926-4131 Addendum:clarification regarding some confusions regarding consultation under AB52: Andrew5alas,Chairman Nadine Silas,Vice Chairman Chrolne 5wlndall Martine,secretary Apart Pere,treasured Martha Gonzalez temps,musurer ll Richard Gedias, cheirmanofthecouncilaf Elders FOE>cm 393 Covina,CA 91723 ww,Qabdelenolndfartseduaboo.eom gabdelenotndvans@yaboo.com AB52 dearly states that consultation must occur with tribes that claim traditional and cultural affiliation with a project site. Unfortunately, this statement has been left open to interpretation so much that neighboring tribes are claiming affiliation with projects well outside their traditional tribal territory. The territories of our surrounding Native American tribes such as the Luiseno,Chumash,and Cabuilla tribal entities. Each of our tribal territories has been well defined by historians,ethnographers,archaeologists,and ethnographers-a list of resources we can provide upon request. Often,each Tribe as well educates the public on their very awn website as to the definition of their tribal boundaries. You may have received a consultation request from another Tribe. However we are responding because your project site lies within our Ancestral tribal territory,which,again,has been well documented.What does Ancestrally or Ancestral mean?The people who were in your family in past times,Of,belonging to,inherited from,or denoting an ancestor or ancestors httoyAmm,thefreedictionary.com/ancestral.. If you have questions regarding the validity of the"traditional and cultural affiliation"of another Tribe,we urge you to contact the Native American Heritage Commission directly. Section 5 section 21080.3.1(c)states"...the Native American Heritage Commission shull assist the lead agency in identifying the California Native American tribes that are traditionally and culturally affiliated with the project men." In addition,please see the map below. CC:NAHC APPENDIX 1: Map 1.2; Bean and Smhh 1978 map. Teach. is na San I� 4 CNu1Ba r:= skew Berm,i V Fig. 1. Tribal territory. The Unhul States National Museum's Map of(abnellno Territory: Bean,Loren John and Charles R.South 1978 Cabnehno IN handbook of North American Indians. Civilians,Vol.8,edited by R F.Had.,Smdhsonam Institution Press. Washington.D.C.,pp.538 549 Andrew Sales,Chairman Nadine 5alaa,Vice Chairman Ch,olre 5wlndall Marina,secretary Alhen Pere;treaau,erl Martha Gonnla lemm,mn,i,ar ll Richard Gndiaa, Cheirmanofthe[ouncidof Elders PC)E>ox 393 Covina,CA 91723 gab wlenotcdvans@yahoo.�om Sacred Lands File&Native American Contacts List Request NATIVE AMERICAN HERITAGE COMMISSION 1550 Harbor Blvd, Suite 100 West Sacramento, CA 95691 (916) 373-3710 (916) 373-5471 —Fax nahc@nahc.ca.gov Information Below is Required for a Sacred Lands File Search Project: Section 106 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Groundwater Replenishment System Phase 3 Expansion County: Orange USGS Quadrangle Name: Newport Beach Townships: 5 and 6 South---Range: 10 West Section(s): Multiple Company: FirstCarbon Solutions Contact Person: Arabesque Said, MPP Street Address: 220 Commerce, Suite 200 Cell 951.310.7031 Office Phone: 714.508.4100 Fax: 714.508.4110 Email as needed: asaidabrandman.com SEE ATTACHED MAP The project will include the construction and operation of an expanded microfiltration treatment facility, expanded reverse osmosis treatment facility, expanded ultraviolet light treatment facilities at existing Orange County Sanitations District's Treatment Plant No.2 in Huntington Beach and the renovation of an existing water supply pipeline located on the west side of the Santa Ana River. Excavation will be necessary to access the pipeline. FCS' project 0435.0043 AVC Is IN Legend s�'i:— • — l � ♦ 4d3 Project Area 7 , m11■■/�1l Plant Facilities - :77■� �\ - , -- 3'6 — ExisUn9 Pipeline .AVE. - -�;T,yjrywi' -32 HI 0 Pipeline Entry Locations �/ 4A •_ C^RAN .v[ Y I,� I $. '� a, _ JI_I ]n-NmEM --_, __rwvE>u�. at9nNGT,,. ACB nCONr n(LNDARY ,)S MEMO L PA� t - o .yas.owr L� ... yte >Vo a • >. N.. ..M _< ! I. di L J M Ar...c. t l 4L ^ • •. q '�_ I"1 �_�: 9 ,E u� lad V . � E ..,Jj E . .. - 'ro - _ it � . . LiNs S ` u'1id 0 O All 1 XS� I z O 'o z i >, ,�� • x m r y4 y .0 .dljJlf- / 4b ■ will I I ;a • 47 NRI19^r Y' �• r k � C v-C Q'' 7 =w.a s<n _ i u ark .P . , < • s ... I. _ .. 1 4J,t\ Op 6 es i < .. > IA.J•r Ong Ca ` r \etvpnrt. Heights - Source:TOPOI USGB Newport Beach,CA(19T8)7.5'DRG. z,000 1.000 0 z,000 Local Vicinity Map FlratCarbon' � SOLUTIONS e Feet Topographic Base 0435OD43.08120141 local topo.maE OCWD•GARS PHASE III EXPANSION CULTURAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT 06/22/2014 14:45 FAX 916 657 5490 11Aa6 11001 ST ^FG'IFOXNIA NATIVE AMERICAN HERITAGE COMMISSION 15604a w91ee.,seem IN %e819ACRAMENTO.CA 05801 re16)V13 0' F..(916)3 IWI August 22,2014 Arabesque Said First Carbon Solutions 220 Commerce, Suite 200 Irvine, CA 92602 Sent by Fax:(714)508-4110 Number of Pages!2 He:Project Section 106 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Groundwater Replenishment System Phase 3 Expansion,Orange County. Dear Mr. Said, A record search of the sacred land file has failed to indicate the presence of Native American cultural resources in the immediate project area. The absence of specific site information in the sacred lands fge does not indicate the absence of cultural resources in any project area. Other sources of cultural resources should also be contacted for information regarding known and recorded sites. Enclosed Is a list of Native Americans individuals/organizations who may have knowledge of - cultural resources In the project area. The Commission makes no recommendation or preference of a single individual, or group over another. This list should provide a starting place in locating areas of potential adverse impact within the proposed project area. I suggest you contact all of those indicated, if they cannot supply information, they might recommend others with specific knowledge. By contacting all those listed, your organization will be better able to respond to claims of failure to consult with the appropriate tribe or group. If a response has not been received within two weeks of notification, the Commission requests that you follow-up with a telephone call to ensure that the project information has been received. It you receive notification of change of addresses and phone numbers from any of these Individuals or groups, please notify me. With your assistance we are able to assure that our lists contain current information. If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact me et(916)373-3712. Sinncce®reelly, i W Katy Sanchez Associate Government Program Analyst 08/22/2014 14:46 FAX 916 657 5390 NAHC Z004 Native American Contact List Orange County August 21,2014 Tongva Ancestral Territorial Tribal Nation Gabrielino-Tongva Tribe John Tommy Rosas, Tribal Admin. - Linda Candelana, Co-Chairperson Gabrielino Tongva P.O. Box 180 Gabrielino tattnlawCgmail.com Bonsall CA92003 (310) 570-6567 (760) 636-0854 Fax Gabdelenolfongva San Gabriel Band of Mission Gabrieleno Band of Mission Inds s Anthony Morales, Chairperson ✓ Andrew Sales, Chairperson ,7 P.O. Box 693 Gabrielino Tongva P.O. Box 393 Gabrielino San Gabriel CA 91778 Covina CA 91723 GTrrlbalmultcllOwl. m gabrielenoindfanstmyahoo. (626) 489.3564 fall (626) 926.4131 (626)286-1262 Fax Gabrialino/Tongva Nation Gabrielino-Tongva Tribe Sandonne Goad, Chairperson Conrad Al 1061/2 Judge John Also St. Gabrielino Tongva P.O. Box 180 Gabrielino Los Angeles , CA 90012 Bonsall , CA 92003 §gqDadQgabrielino.ton9vacorn (760) 636-0854 Fax 1y51) N7-0479 Gabrielino Tongva Indians of California Tribal Council Gabrielino/Toril Nation z Robert F. Dorame, Tribal Chair/Cultural Resources Sam Dunlap, Cultural Resources Director, P.O. Box 490 Gabrielino Tongva P.O. Box 86908 Gabrlellne,Tongva Bellflower CA 90707 Los Angeles . CA 90086 �ton va@verizon.net 9amdunlap@earthlinknet 562y 761-6417 Voice/Fax (909)262-9351 Gabrielino-To vaTribe Bernie Acuna, Co-Chairperson P.O. Box 160 Gabrielino Bonsall CA 920M bacunal NO (619)294- Office (310)428-5690 Cell (760) 636-0854 Fax This list it current only as of the dateef this document. Distribuion of this Ibt does not relieve any person of the statutory mSponsolay as defined in section 7090.5 tithe Health add9alaty Cede, Section 0197.94 of Ma Public Resources Code and liestlon 5097.98 of the PublM Resources Code, The list Is only applicable for cor9adtlng local Native Americana were Ward to clarinet resources ror the proposed Section 106 Call Rosources Assessment for the Groundwater Replenishment System Phase 3 Expansion,Orange County. North America I Europe I Australia 1 Asia FirstCarbon° w ww.FirsiCarbo nSol orlon s.com / , S 0 L U T 10 N S August 27, 2014 , Subject: Proposed Groundwater Replenishment System Phase 3 Expansion,5650 Ea enue, ' ies of Huntington Beach and Fountain Valley,California (Newport Beach,CA USGS Topogr Quadr (. Dear FirstCarbon Solutions is completing CEQA-Plus documentation associat ith the propose e Replenishment System Phase 3 Expansion Project located in the Cities of inVexpan ountain Valley, California.The proposed project will include the construction a eration icrofiltration treatment facility, expanded reverse osmosis treatment facility,expand ultraviolet lightities at the existing Orange County Water District GWRS Facility in Fountain V The project wou construction and operation of a new pump station at the Orange County Sanitation District's (OCSD)Treatment Plant No.2 in Huntington Beach and the renovation of an existing water supp eline on the west side of the Santa Ana River.As seen in the attached topographic map,the project area is to d ithin iple sections of Townships 5 and 6 South; Range 10 West ofthe USGS Newport Beach,CA 7.5'topographi ua gle. Section 106 of the National Historic Pres tion Act of 196 considers the effects a project may have on historic properties.The definition of"historic prop 'can inclu properties of traditional religious and cultural significance to Native American groups.To determine whe r the pro d project may impact any historic properties, including traditional cultural properties, rolb&eviewed bac round information and consulted with the Native American Heritage Commission(NAHC).O a ch at outh Central Coastal Information Center(SCCIC), indicated that [here are no known cultural reso s In of►potential Effect(APE).A record search of the NAHC's Sacred Land File has failed to Indic a prese ative American cultural resources in the immediate APE.The NAHC has listed you as a tribal con is project FCS is sending thiligetter to ask if h any information or concerns about this proposed project and/or if the proposed project have an lm t on cultural resources that are important to you. Please Please feel free to cent 14.509.4100 or via email at asaidPbrandman.com if you have any questions or would like to discuss the project ore detail. Sincerely, Arabesque Said-Abdelwahed, MPP Assistant Project Manager FirstCarbon Solutions 220 Commerce,Suite 200 Irvine,CA 92602 Enclosures: Map of Survey Area AVE •� /g 1.. T ..■. 4� r —4" —�iv.BErti ---. t�L I —•' B i t� s •�■ $ � Legend s�'i:— • — �� ♦ 483 Project Area 7 , .8 11■■1/1�l ti ' Plant Facilities - :77■� �\ - , i 3'6 Existing Pipeline .Ars.. - - ;T,ylryw�' -32 His I 0 Pipeline Entry Locations Nm•M xt'unNcnnxi:ecB.. ncoNr n(LNMxx - i 'is i� acst� s o Ntwo .1111,w PA n •l:r. tE '� 4A' w� .'. e....:a. .y ycAq ' 1 �.r '--•.t rr c � O L >.NN err JIB • ,: Irr x 0 " q " A, sir �. y o �Nis or IN tz Ns _ 3n• _1 eo ' p • pNI�II'I9Y I, O^� 5 I riAll Ell = II p .\ Ji mi � � f ' • yh\ .�• C.SPi. 0 - .. _ AIL•. - '% IN es i < .. > Is•.J•r Ong Ca ` r \e,port Heights Source:TOPOI USGS Newport Beach,CA(1978)7.5'DRG. 2,000 1.000 0 2,000 Local Vicinity Map �Fa°L°T'°N5 e MMMMMper+ Topographic Base 0435OD43.08120141 local topo.mmi OCWD•GARS PHASE III EXPANSION CULTURAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT Call log Listed Tribe to Contact Contact Name Phone number Call Date Call Time Notes Result JIM Concerned about project because located wihthin a sensiti�archaelogical area. Recommends testing Cohn Tommy Roses 310. 570 6567 9/9/2014 am prior to exc"tion or full time archaeological and Returned FCS phone call Tongue Acenstral Territorial Tribal Nation Nat!Ce American monitoring. Concerned about the project because of its location Anthony Morales 1626[483 3564 9/9/2014 4:14pm along the Santa Ana River. Suggested archaeological Returned FCS phone call Gabrielenofrongle San Gabriel Band of Mission and paleontological monitoring. Gabrielino/Tongle Nation Sandonne Goad [951 D807 0479 9/9/2014 4:15pm Referred to Sam Dunlap Answered FCSCphone call Gabrielino Tongle Indians of California Tribal Council Robert F Dorame [562f1761[6417 9/9/2014 4:20pm FCS left a Coicemail 9/18/2014 3:OOpm No answer Bernie Acuna 13100428156901aell GabrielinoQongEe Tribe E519E294ES660®Nce 9/10/2014 1:45pm FCS left a [bicemail and sent an email Gabrielino[TongEla Tribe 9/18/2014 3:02pm No answer Gabdeleno Band of Mission Indians Linda Candelaria E626DB76EI184 9/9/2014 1:55pm FCS left a Coicemail Mr. Sales expressed concerned about the project due to its location in an archaeological sensitiDa area. Mr. Gabrielino[TongEla Tribe Andrew Sales E62611926[4131 9/10/2014 1:56pm Sales suggested archaeological and Native American Answered FCSgthone call monitoring take place to protect and preser:19 any cultural resources that may be disco red during excavations. No phone Conrad Acuna d60o636ED8541ax number or email Gabrielinolfongle Nation prodded Sam Dunlap C9091262E9351 9/10/2014 2:15pm FCS left a voicemail. Mr. Dunlap prodded a response to FCS ❑a email on September 11 On September 11, 2014 Mr. Dunlap sent an email to FCS. Mr. Dunlap expressed concerns about construction and recommended archaeological and Nati Ca American monitoring Inventory List 9/19/2014 Ap Wlx D.PhoWgmpha 0 We PmJW APE APPENDIX D Photographs of the Project APE GrcunEweler RePlenlehmenl syelem F dl EspenalN PNjed ene E8 11QpW 01 Wabr Pwdudim Enhan—t P-g AUO.2016 Ph—I CulWnl Re—SWEy Photo 1: Excavation area and laydown area for OCSD Pipeline(pipeline entry location 1) at the northern portion of the OCSD Plant No.2 Facility;facing north. b Y �I Photo 2: View to the east of the rip rap and Santa Ana River Trail from the contractor laydown area. SOURCE:ESA,2016 OCWD Groundwater Replenishment System Final Expansion Project.160387..01 ..Jt? TF a l 't i Photo 3: Pump Station and Pipe Connection;facing west. 1 Photo 4: Headgates and Bypass Pipeline location. SOURCE:ESA,2016 OCWD Groundwater Replenishment System Final Expansion Project.160387..01 f t•' Photo 5: Flow EO Pump Station.The sur6cial soils were previously disturbed during construction of the OCSD Plant No.2. Photo 6: Flow EO MetedControl. SOURCE:ESA,2016 OCWD Groundwater Replenishment System Final Expansion Project.160387..01 { _s Photo]: Secontl pipeline entry location along the OCSD easement corridor_ _ - 5,0. 3x 1:t Photo 8: Santa Ma River Trail situated on the levee;view(acing east. SOURCE:ESA,2016 DCWD Groundwater Replenishment System Final Expansion Project.160387..01 Photo 9: Third pipeline entry location along the OCSD easement corridor;facing south. lur , '�',7tl, Photo 10: Fourth pipeline entry location along the OCSD easement corridor;facing south. SOURCE:ESA,2016 OCWD Groundwater Replenishment System Final Expansion Project.160387..01 Photo 11: Fifth pipeline entry location along the OCSD easement condor;facing north. t j f_ i .�4r . Y Photo 12: Sixth pipeline entry location along the OCSD easement condor;facing southwest. SOURCE:ESA,2016 OCWD Groundwater Replenishment System Final Expansion Project.160387..01 r Photo 13: Seventh pipeline entry location along the OCSD easement Corridor;facing west. f Photo 14: Eighth pipeline entry location along the OCSD easement corridor. SOURCE:ESA,2016 OCWD Groundwater Replenishment System Final Expansion Project.160387..01 Photo IS: OCSD Pipe Connection to existing facilities.Note the area is paved and previously disturbed during construction of the facility. Photo 16: MF Building Expansion location;facing west. SOURCE:ESA,2016 OCWD Groundwater Replenishment System Final Expansion Project.160387..01 Appendix D Noise and Vibration Technical Report The OCWD Water Production Enhancement Project Noise and Vibration Technical Report Prepared for August 2016 Orange County Water District 18700 Ward St Fountain Valley, CA 92708 r ESA J The OCWD Water Production Enhancement Project Noise and Vibration Technical Report Prepared for August 2016 Orange County Water District 18700 Ward St Fountain Valley, CA 92708 sum,wnParkway r ESA 21211W IMne,C482� 9 .T1i8JM1 vnwi.pcmetmm J IMne Seas ft Lw Mpalea San Dl o OeHa,M San Fmncleco OdaMo SarNe Mmica Pasadere Seattle Petaluma Tempe PoMantl Woo d HOW 1bli'8]IXi Table of Contents OCWD Water Production Enhancement Project Noise and Vibration Technical Report Paqe ExecutiveSummary.................................................................................................................1 1. Introduction.....................................................................................................................2 1.1 Project Location......................................................................................................2 2. Project Description........................................................................................................4 3. Environmental Setting...................................................................................................7 3.1 Noise Principles and Descriptors............................................................................7 3.2 Noise Exposure and Community Noise..................................................................7 3.3 Effects of Noise on People....................................................................................10 3.4 Noise Attenuation..................................................................................................11 3.5 Fundamentals of Vibration....................................................................................12 3.6 Existing Conditions................................................................................................13 3.7 Regulatory Setting.................................................................................................15 4. Impacts and Mitigation Measures..............................................................................21 4.1 Methodology..........................................................................................................21 4.2 Thresholds of Significance....................................................................................22 4.3 Project Impacts ..................................................................................24 5. Conclusion....................................................................................................................29 6. References....................................................................................................................30 Appendices A. Ambient Noise Data B. Construction Noise Calculations C. Off[Site Construction Traffic Noise Calculations List of Figures Figure 1 Vicinity Location Map 3 Figure 2 Proposed Site Plan 6 Figure 3 Decibel Scale and Common Noise Sources..............................................................9 Figure 4 Noise Measurement Locations................................................................................14 O WO Water PmduNon EManmrmnt Propel E&4I WU7.03 None and Maranon TeMnlcal Repot Mgni M18 OCW D Water Producdon Enhancement Protect.Noise and Mbladon Tmhnlcal Report E.Wre Summary List of Tables Table 1 OCSD Flow EDualil ation Tank, Pump Station, 0 Pipeline/Meter Vault Construction EDtipment Mix...................................................................................5 Table 2 OCSD Flow EDuall Oation Tank, Pump Station, 0 Pipeline/Meter Vault Worker 0 Daily Trip Summary................................................................................5 Table 3 Summary of ambient noise meausrement...............................................................15 Table 4 Construction Vibration Damage Criteria..................................................................16 Table 5 Groundborne Vibration Impact Criteria for General Assessment............................17 Table 6 Caltrans Vibration Damage Potential Threshold Criteria 18 Table 7 Caltrans Vibration Annoyance Potential Criteria 19 Table 8 Huntington Beach Exterior Noise Standards...........................................................20 Table 9 Construction ED3ipment Noise LeEbls.....................................................................24 Table 10 Estimated Construction Noise Lelbls at Offsite Sensitil a Uses.............................25 Table 11 Vibration Source Levels for Construction EDiipment..............................................27 Table 12 Groundborne Vibration Lelels at Offsite Sensitise Uses Compared to Caltrans-and FTA Vibration Damage Potential Threshold...................................28 OCWO Water PmduNon Enhammnent Propel II E 11W3e7.03 None and Maranon TeMnlcal Repot M M19 OCWD Water Production Enhancement Project Noise and Vibration Technical Report Executive Summary The purpose of this Noise and Vibration Technical Report is to evaluate the potential short-and long-term noise and vibration impacts resulting from implementation of the proposed Orange County Water District(OCWD)Water Production Enhancement Project. The project site is located at the Orange County Sanitation District(OCSD)Plant 2 wastewater treatment facility site at 22212 Brookhurst Street within the City of Huntington Beach(City). The OCSD Plant 2 wastewater treatment facility site is bounded by Hamilton Avenue to the north,the Santa Ana River(SAR)to the east,Pacific Coast Highway(PCH)to the south,and Brookhurst Street to the west.OCSD Plant 2 wastewater treatment facility site is composed of 110 acres,and is developed with wastewater treatment structures,offices,paved parking areas, and roadways. Based on the assessment conducted in this report,ambient noise and vibration levels would not substantially increase ambient noise levels as a result of the construction and operation of the proposed project. Construction activities generate noise and vibration from the ground disturbances caused by the usage of the equipment,and also by noise emanating from the exhaust of these vehicles' motors. However,construction activities would not increase the ambient noise levels by 5 dBA and would not exceed the identified vibration significance thresholds at noise sensitive receptors.Operational noise would not result in the increase in ambient noise levels from daily onsite operation of the proposed pump station. The report summarizes the potential for the project to conflict with applicable noise and vibration regulations,standards,and thresholds. The findings of the analyses are as follows: • The noise levels from construction of the project would not exceed the significance threshold of 71 dBA at the nearest single-family residential uses west of the project site. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. • Construction activities would result in sporadic, temporary vibration effects adjacent to the project area, which would not exceed established thresholds for structures. Thus, construction vibration impacts to structures would be less than significant. • Operation of the project would result in less than significant noise and vibration impacts to off-site noise sensitive receptors. ocean wear P,ndsOon Rnnanseam Rgp<t 1 RSAi teo36]06 Noise and Vni Testnioad Rai August 2016 OCW D Water Produdon Enhancement Project Noise aM Vlbm lon Tmhnlcal Report 1, Introdudon 1 . Introduction This technical report has been prepared to support the Orange County Water District's(OCWD) environmental review process and provide information regarding potential impacts to ambient noise and vibration associated with the approval of the Water Production Enhancement Project (project). The project consists of the installation of a secondary fluent flow equalization storage tank at the Orange County Sanitation District's(OCSD)Plant No. 2 to receive maximum water production at the Groundwater Replenishment System(GWRS)facility.OCSD's Plant No. 2 is a wastewater treatment facility,which has varying influent(and effluent)flows of secondary treated effluent.During the day,wastewater flows into OCSD's Plant No.2 can peak above 140 million gallons per day(MGD).These peak flows cannot be pumped to the GWRS facility due to the limits of the conveyance facilities, i.e.effluent pump station and pipeline;that deliver the secondary effluent to GWRS. Therefore,a secondary effluent flow equalization storage tank has been proposed at OCSD's Plant No.2 to capture these peak flows during the day and store them in the 6-million gallon tank until nighttime.During low flows at night,the flow equalization tank would drain into the effluent pump station to supplement the low secondary effluent inflows and allow the GWRS to treat these peak flows which would have otherwise been discharged to the Pacific Ocean. This secondary effluent flow equalization storage tank is expected to deliver an additional 6,000 acre-feet of secondary effluent for treatment at the GWRS facility. This report describes the existing ambient noise in the project area, identifies applicable noise regulations,and evaluates potential short-and long-term noise impacts associated with the build- out of the project.Additionally,this report provides background information on vibration and evaluates potential impacts associated with the project's contribution to ambient vibration levels. Where applicable,measures to mitigate or minimize noise and vibration impacts associated with the project are included. Information used to prepare this analysis was obtained from the OCWD,the City of Huntington Beach General Plan and Noise Ordinance, and other sources identified herein. 1 .1 Project Location The OCSD Plant 2 wastewater treatment facility site is located at 22212 Brookhurst Street within the City of Huntington Beach.The OCSD Plant 2 wastewater treatment facility site is bounded by Hamilton Avenue to the north,the Santa Ana River(SAR)to the east,Pacific Coast Highway (PCH)to the south,and Brookhurst Street to the west.OCSD Plant 2 wastewater treatment facility site is composed of 110 acres,and is developed with wastewater treatment structures, offices,paved parking areas,and roadways. Specifically,the project is located in the City of Huntington Beach as shown in Figure 1,Vicinity Location Map. ocwD water Pmdnnlon Enhanr tPro 0 2 Esn11WW`pa Nols.and V.b.-T.ahniul Report A,ual 2016 J ermk p "'; C, r,t. .Nwwalk X1. rm ad:jp .,weer-d.u.a v 4T AaNaFaren�aaX E s w v a •ww. �!. A ^vim_ aka d moBw . 3 La PtlRa 3 R W Namii Ra,arn. cXOMa"n rri 6 GardelN <kp G4k An hPim V - Los eni Ra sin. Nlla Alual tm A— P.O �E S� I - Xaw Ma SunWrr i- HIII r c d=n l Nortlr � Beach P.aJi S nrd 1'u:e - r\ naaia Ap6 k ticocL _ 4� y 0 IIVIpP IOo HYnbnPton 6PaCh Xa' Costa -'iQ,a�s Mete � •,' weir Lwauna ewe Project a : { k c � 11iso 1 ViryOEA n IPiQY< m 1r Ee¢e `II < i a`a°aa Pwnt.'C. \ carneano-` seam rnAn r• a.a T Q Project Site LI ° Water Production Enhancement Project.160387 SOURCE'.ESRI StmetMa0r 3008. Figure 1 Vicinity Location Map r ESA 0 O Wader Produdon Enhancement Project Noise and Mimi Tednlcal Repoli 2, Proi Oesdptlon 2. Project Description The Water Production Enhancement Project involves three construction activities: 1)construction of flow equalization tank,2)construction of a pump station,and 3)construction of conveyance piping and flow meter vault. The improvements proposed in the Water Production Enhancement Project are shown in Figure 2,Proposed Site Plan. A 6-million gallon(MG)flow equalization storage tank would be constructed at the north end of OCSD Plant 2.The location of the flow equalization storage tank is shown in Figure 2. The storage tank would be a circular-welded steel tank approximately 200-feet in diameter and 30-feet tall from existing grade,with a 4-pump(3 duty+ 1 standby),pump station,and approximately 500-linear feet of 36-inch diameter connection piping with a meter vault(15-x 20-x 10-ft deep) connected to the operations of the tank.The pump station would be housed in a 30-x 40-x 20-ft block wall building. The site preparation work for the flow equalization storage tank,pump station, and pipeline/vault would involve excavating and hauling approximately 1,000 cubic yards(CY)of soil. In addition to soil removal, an existing concrete parking lot would need to be demolished for the tank pad. For this excavation work, four dump trucks would be required for five round trips each over a period of 4 days to haul the soil off-site.For the demolition work, four dump trucks would be required for three round trips each over a period of 14 days to haul the concrete/asphalt offsite. The flow equalization storage tank would be constructed on concrete piles.Approximately 30- piles would be required for supporting the tank. To construct the pilings, 12-inch diameter holes would be drilled into the ground with an auger drill rig.Approximately 40 CY of soil from pile drilling activity would be removed. Once the pile drilling is completed,the rebar support cages for the piles would be installed into the drilled holes with a crone.Approximately 40 CY of concrete would be Filled into the holes with the rebar and cured. The piles would be supporting a 2-foot thick concrete pad matching the diameter of the tank. This equates to 2,330 CY of concrete for the tank pad.The pump station and meter vault would also require approximately 100 CY of concrete to construct these structural facilities. Once the piles and concrete pad have been constructed,the steel tank would be assembled.A crane and welding laborers would be required to weld the steel components of the tank together. Once the tank is welded,the surface would be prepped for a base coat and finally painted. While the tank is being assembled,the contractor would be equipping the pump station and meter vault with the use of laborers,fork lifts and cranes. The construction equipment for the tank, meter vault,flow diversion box and pump station would include; an excavator,crane,pile driller, bull dozer,backhoe,compactor,dump trucks,concrete trucks,water truck,man lifts and fork lifts.The mix of construction equipment and hours of operation for each of the phases are shown in Table 1,OCSD Flow Equalization Tank,Pump Station,&Pipeline/Meter Vault Construction Equipment Mix. The daily haul trips and laborer estimates are shown in Table 2, OCSD Flow Equalization Tank,Pump Station,&Pipeline/Meter Vault Worker Daily Trip o ai Water Prnennion Enesonned Pmper 4 Esnr+ecaeToa Noise and Vni Teohniml Rei nu9uet 2016 OCWD Water Production Enhancement Project Noise and Vibration Technical Report 2, Project Description Summary. The OCWD Water Production Enhancement Project would be implemented in five construction phases beginning in August 2020 and concluding in December of 2022. TABLE 7 OCSD FLOW EQUALIZATION TANK,PUMP STATION,$PIPELINE/METER VAULT CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT MIX Equipment Time Total Total HP Activity Equipment Description Quantity (Hrs/Day) (Days) (Hours) Rating Bull Doter 2 6 30 360 250 Compactor 1 6 10 60 200 OCSD Flow E per such Tank,Pump ExcaOrtor 2 6 20 240 200 Station,Meter Vault Pipeline AAA Dump Trucks 4 6 4 96 350 Demo Dump Trucks 4 6 14 336 350 Water Trucks 1 8 45 360 350 Drill Rig 1 6 20 120 500 Backhoe 1 6 20 120 150 OCSD Flow E]dali[htion Tank Piles Concrete Trucks 1 5 3 15 350 ]B� Dump Trucks 2 5 3 30 350 Water Truck 2 4 25 200 350 Crane 1 5 5 25 300 OCSD Flow E]ali[htion Tank Pad Forklift 2 6 5 60 120 11CO Concrete Trucks 4 5 24 480 350 Crane 1 6 10 60 300 OCSD Flow EyaliAnion Tank Forklift 4 6 30 720 120 Assembly�Coating ADO Man Lift 5 6 15 450 75 Crane 1 6 10 60 300 OCSD Flow E]ali Aa ion Pump Station Forklift 4 6 30 720 120 ❑Meter Vault Equipment D E� Man Lift 5 6 15 450 75 SOURCE:OCWD,2016 TABLE 2 OCSD FLOW EQUALVATION TANK,PUMP STATION,&PIPELINE/METER VAULT WORKER&DAILY TRIP SUMMARY Activity Worker Vendor Daily Haul Trips Total Haul Trips 1 A:ExciHauling,Grading for Flow E A.eli Anion Tank, 10 1 32 248 Pump Station,and Pipeline I :Piles Construction for Flow Roundioation Tank 10 2 4 12 1C:Flow E[uali ation Tank Pad Construction 10 2 12 288 1D:Flow EOurialion Tank Assembly O Coating 5 2 m 1E:Assembly of Flow EA.aliDgion Pumps and Meter Vault 5 4 m SOURCE:DOWD,2016 OCWn Water PmEuglon Enhavenenr Pmpcl 5 ESe 116081pQ Noise and Vlore-Tadmiul Rai Au1us12016 O _L _ r Contractor TQ5 � LaVdov,n Area V Ji It ¢Q ' 4p: t f Flow EQ Control/Meier Enrcrvwc;qvc . 0 A j \ A Flow EQ Pump Station �"N �� 'r` I �. / " �v ( � / Ir F Feet x, t Water Production Enhancement Project.160387 SOURCE:county of orange Water District,2016 Figure 2 Proposed Site Plan r ESA OC ND Water Production Enhancement Project.Noise and Vlbmibn Technical Rerwa 3. Enlronmental3eaing 3. Environmental Setting 3.1 Noise Principles and Descriptors Sound can be described as the mechanical energy of a vibrating object transmitted by pressure waves through a liquid or gaseous medium(e.g.,air).Noise is generally defined as unwanted sound(i.e., loud,unexpected,or annoying sound).Acoustics is defined as the physics of sound. In acoustics,the fundamental scientific model consists of a sound(or noise)source,a receiver,and the propagation path between the two.The loudness of the noise source and obstructions or atmospheric factors affecting the propagation path to the receiver determines the sound level and characteristics of the noise perceived by the receiver.Acoustics addresses primarily the propagation and control of sound. Sound,traveling in the form of waves from a source,exerts a sound pressure level (referred to as sound level)that is measured in decibels(dB),which is the standard unit of sound amplitude measurement.The dB scale is a logarithmic scale that describes the physical intensity of the pressure vibrations that make up any sound,with 0 dB corresponding roughly to the threshold of human hearing and 120 to 140 dB corresponding to the threshold of pain.Pressure waves traveling through air exert a force registered by the human ear as sound. Sound pressure fluctuations can be measured in units of hertz(Hz),which correspond to the frequency of a particular sound.Typically,sound does not consist of a single frequency,but rather a broad band of frequencies varying in levels of magnitude.When all the audible frequencies of a sound are measured,a sound spectrum is plotted consisting of a range of frequency spanning 20 to 20,000 Hz. The sound pressure level,therefore,constitutes the additive force exerted by a sound corresponding to the sound frequency/sound power level spectrum. The typical human ear is not equally sensitive to all frequencies of the audible sound spectrum. As a consequence,when assessing potential noise impacts,sound is measured using an electronic filter that deemphasizes the frequencies below 1,000 Hz and above 5,000 Hz in a manner corresponding to the human ear's decreased sensitivity to extremely low and extremely high frequencies.This method of frequency weighting is referred to as A-weighting and is expressed in units of A-weighted decibels(dBA).A-weighting follows an international standard methodology of frequency deemphasis and is typically applied to community noise measurements. Some representative common outdoor and indoor noise sources and their corresponding A-weighted noise levels are shown in Figure 3,Decibel Scale and Common Noise Sources. 3.2 Noise Exposure and Community Noise An individual's noise exposure is a measure of noise over a period of time. A noise level is a measure of noise at a given instant in time. The noise levels presented in Figure 3 are representative of measured noise at a given instant in time;however,they rarely persist consistently over a long period of time. Rather, community noise varies continuously over a period of time with respect to the contributing sound sources of the community noise ocwo waur Pmdunlon Enhi Rgp<t 7 E&A1160361oa Noise and VIi Tashniwl Repot August 2016 OCW D Water Productlon Enhancement Project Noise and Mai Technical PMod 3. Enlronnn.WISetdng environment. Community noise is primarily the product of many distant noise sources,which constitute a relatively stable background noise exposure,with the individual contributors unidentifiable.The background noise level changes throughout a Typical day,but does so gradually, corresponding with the addition and subtraction of distant noise sources such as traffic. What makes community noise variable throughout a day,besides the slowly changing background noise,is the addition of short-duration, single-event noise sources(e.g.,aircraft flyovers,motor vehicles, sirens),which are readily identifiable to the individual. These successive additions of sound in the community noise environment change the community noise level from instant to instant,requiring the measurement of noise exposure over a period of time to legitimately characterize a community noise environment and evaluate cumulative noise impacts.This time-varying characteristic of environmental noise is described using statistical noise descriptors.The most frequently used noise descriptors are summarized below: Leg: The equivalent sound level,is used to describe noise over a specified period of time in terms of a single numerical value;the L,of a time-varying signal and that of a steady signal are the same if they deliver the same acoustic energy over a given time. The Leg may also be referred to as the average sound level. Los: The maximum,instantaneous noise level experienced during a given period of time. Lien: The minimum,instantaneous noise level experienced during a given period of time. L,: The noise level exceeded a percentage of a specified time period. For instance,Lho and Lv6 represent the noise levels that me exceeded 50 percent and 90 percent of the time, respectively. Lan: the average A-weighted noise level during a 24-hour day,obtained after an addition of 10 dB to measured noise levels between the hours of 10:00 p.m.to 7:00 a.m.to account nighttime noise sensitivity.The Len is also termed the day-night average noise level(DNL). CNEL: The Community Noise Equivalent Level(CNEL) is the average A-weighted noise level during a 24-hour day that is obtained after an addition of 5 dB to measured noise levels between the hours of 7:00 a.m,to 10:00 p.m. and after an addition of 10 dB to noise levels between the hours of 10:00 p.m,to 7:00 a.m.to account for noise sensitivity in the evening and nighttime,respectively. ocwo Water Pmdunlon Enhanonrem Pgp01 8 ESAI tec36]06 Noise and Vni Te hassid Reim August 2016 COMMON OUTDOOR ACTIVITIES COMMON INDOOR ACTIVITIES Rock band Jet Flyover at 1,000 feet rt Gas lawnmower at 3 feet Diesel truck at 50 feet at 50 mph Food blender at 3 feet ' Garbage disposal at 3 feet Noisy urban area,daytime Gas lawnmower, 100 feet Vacuum cleaner at 10 feet Commercial area Normal speech at 3 feet Heavy traffic at 300 feet ' Large business office Quiet urban daytime Dishwasher in next room Quiet urban nighttime ' Theater,large conference room (background) Quiet suburban nighttime Library Quiet rural nighttime Bedroom at night, concert hall (background) Broadcast/recording studio NOISE LEVEL (d BA) Water Production Enhancement Project.160387 SOURCE:CalVans Figure 3 Decibel Scale and Common Noise Sources r ESA DCW D Watar Produdon Enhancement Prole Noise and Vlblagon Technical Repoli 3. EnlronmmtalaeWng 3.3 Effects of Noise on People Noise is generally loud, unpleasant, unexpected, or undesired sound that is typically associated with human activity that is a nuisance or disruptive. The effects of noise on people can be placed into four general categories: • Subjective effects(e.g.,dissatisfaction,annoyance); • Interference effects(e.g.,communication, sleep,and learning interference); • Physiological effects(e.g., startle response);and • Physical effects(e.g.,hearing loss). Although exposure to high noise levels has been demonstrated to cause physical and physiological effects,the principal human responses to typical environmental noise exposure are related to subjective effects and interference with activities. Interference effects of environmental noise refer to those effects that interrupt daily activities and include interference with human communication activities, such as normal conversations,watching television,telephone conversations,and interference with sleep. Sleep interference effects can include both awakening and arousal to a lesser state of sleep.With regard to the subjective effects, the responses of individuals to similar noise events are diverse and are influenced by many factors,including the type of noise,the perceived importance of the noise,the appropriateness of the noise to the setting,the duration of the noise,the time of day and the type of activity during which the noise occurs,and individual noise sensitivity. Overall,there is no completely satisfactory way to measure the subjective effects of noise,or the corresponding reactions of annoyance and dissatisfaction on people.A wide variation in individual thresholds of annoyance exists,and different tolerances to noise tend to develop based on an individual's past experiences with noise. Thus,an important way of predicting a human reaction to a new noise environment is the way it compares to the existing environment to which one has adapted(i.e.,comparison to the ambient noise environment).In general,the more a new noise level exceeds the previously existing ambient noise level,the less acceptable the new noise level will be judged by those hearing it.With regard to increases in A-weighted noise level,the following relationships generally occur: • Except in carefully controlled laboratory experiments, a change of 1 dBA cannot be perceived; • Outside of the laboratory, a 3 dBA change in noise levels is considered to be a barely perceivable difference; • A change in noise levels of 5 dBA is considered to be a readily perceivable difference; and • A change in noise levels of 10 dBA is subjectively heard as doubling of the perceived loudness. ocWp Water PmEuglon Enesonenl Pmpcl 10 ii 411608/03 Noise and Vni Teniniul Repal Augus12016 OC ND Water Produedon Enhancement Project Noise and Mbmllon Technical Report 3. En ironmental Setting These relationships occur in part because of the logarithmic nature of sound and the decibel scale. The human ear perceives sound in a non-linear fashion hence the dB scale was developed. Because the dB scale is based on logarithms,two noise sources do not combine in a simple additive fashion,but rather logarithmically.Under the dB scale, a doubling of sound energy corresponds to a 3 dBA increase.In other words,when two sources are each producing sound of the same loudness,the resulting sound level at a given distance would be approximately 3 dBA higher than one of the sources under the same conditions.For example,if two identical noise sources produce noise levels of 50 dBA,the combined sound level would be 53 dBA,not 100 dBA.Under the dB scale,three sources of equal loudness together produce a sound level of approximately 5 dBA louder than one source,and ten sources of equal loudness together produce a sound level of approximately 10 dBA louder than the single source. 3.4 Noise Attenuation When noise propagates over a distance, it changes in level and frequency content.The manner in which noise reduces with distance depends on factors such as the type of noise source and the propagation path.Noise from a localized source(i.e.,point source)propagates uniformly outward in a spherical pattern;therefore,this type of propagation is referred to as"spherical spreading." Stationary point sources of noise,including stationary mobile sources such as idling vehicles, attenuate(lessen)at a rate between 6 dBA for acoustically"hard"sites and 7.5 dBA for"soft" sites for each doubling of distance from the reference measurement as their energy is continuously spread out over a spherical surface. Hard sites are those with a reflective surface between the source and the receiver,such as asphalt or concrete surfaces or smooth bodies of water. No excess ground attenuation is assumed for hard sites and the changes in noise levels with distance(drop- off rate)is simply the geometric spreading of the noise from the source. Soft sites have an absorptive ground surface such as soft dirt, grass,or scattered bushes and trees. In addition to geometric spreading, an excess ground attenuation value of 1.5 dBA(per doubling distance)is normally assumed for soft sites. Roadways and highways consist of several localized noise sources on a defined path,and hence are treated as`line"sources,which approximate the effect of several point sources.Noise from a line source propagates over a cylindrical surface,often referred to as"cylindrical spreading." Line sources(e.g.,traffic noise from vehicles)attenuate at a rate between 3 dBA for hard sites and 4.5 dBA for soft sites for each doubling of distance from the reference measurement.) Therefore,noise due to a line source attenuates leas with distance than that of a point some with increased distance. Additionally,receptors located downwind from a noise source can be exposed to increased noise levels relative to calm conditions,whereas locations upwind can have lowered noise levels. Sound levels can be increased at large distances(e.g.,more than 500 feet)due to atmospheric temperature inversion(i.e.,increasing temperature with elevation). Other factors such as air temperature,humidity,and turbulence can also have significant effects. 1 Califomia Department of Transportation(Caltrans),Technical Noun,Supplement(TeNS).September,2013, OCWO WaKr Pmdsocn Enhancement Pnaed tt EZA 1160810a Noise and Vlbm4an Tsui Issi Augus12016 01 Water Prodadon Enhancement ProlimM Noise and Vlbragon Tmhnlcal Repoli 3. En'loamental Setting 3.5 Fundamentals of Vibration Vibration can be interpreted as energy transmitted in waves through the ground or man-made structures.These energy waves generally dissipate with distance from the vibration source. Because energy is lost during the transfer of energy from one particle to another,vibration becomes less perceptible with increasing distance from the source. As described in the Federal Transit Administration's(FTA) Transit Noise and Nlbration Impact Assessment,ground-borne vibration can be a serious concern for nearby neighbors of a transit system route or maintenance facility,causing buildings to shake and rumbling sounds to be heard.2 In contrast to airborne noise,ground-borne vibration is not a common environmental problem. It is unusual for vibration from sources such as buses and trucks to be perceptible,even in locations close to major roads. Some common sources of ground-borne vibration are trains, heavy trucks traveling on rough roads,and construction activities such as blasting,pile-driving, and operation of heavy earth-moving equipment. There are several different methods that are used to quantify vibration. The peak particle velocity (Pi is defined as the maximum instantaneous peak of the vibration signal.The Pi is most frequently used to describe vibration impacts to buildings.The root mean square(RMS) amplitude is most frequently used to describe the effect of vibration on the human body. The RMS amplitude is defined as the average of the squared amplitude of the signal.Decibel notation (VdB)is commonly used to measure RMS.The relationship of Pi to RMS velocity is expressed in terms of the`crest factor,"defined as the ratio of the Pi amplitude to the RMS amplitude. Pi is typically a factor of 1.7 to 6 times greater than RMS vibration velocity.3 The decibel notation acts to compress the range of numbers required to describe vibration.Typically,ground- home vibration generated by man-made activities attenuates rapidly with distance from the source of the vibration. Sensitive receptors for vibration include structures(especially older masonry structures),people(especially residents,the elderly, and sick),and vibration sensitive equipment. The effects of ground-borne vibration include movement of the building floors,rattling of windows,shaking of items on shelves or hanging on walls,and rumbling sounds. In extreme cases,the vibration can cause damage to buildings. Building damage is not a factor for most projects,with the occasional exception of blasting and pile-driving during construction. Annoyance from vibration often occurs when the vibration levels exceed the threshold of perception by only a small margin.A vibration level that causes annoyance will be well below the damage threshold for normal buildings.The FTA measure of the threshold of architectural damage for conventional sensitive structures is 0.2 in/sec PPV.4 In residential areas, the background vibration velocity level is usually around 50 VdB (approximately 0.0013 in/sec PPV).This level is well below the vibration velocity level threshold of perception for humans,which is approximately 65 VdB.A vibration velocity level o£75 VdB 2 FrA,2006.Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment May. 3 Ibid. 4 Ibid. ocei Water Prodnnion enaanrgrem Pmpat 12 cNollei Noise and Vni Taatnioal Asian August 2016 OC ND Wader Produdon Enhancement Project Noise and Mlbmfon Toc nni Report 3. En ironmcntal Seain, is considered to be the approximate dividing line between barely perceptible and distinctly perceptible levels for many people.5 3.6 Existing Conditions Some land uses are considered more sensitive to ambient noise levels than others are,due to the amount of noise exposure(in terms of both exposure duration and insulation from noise)and the types of activities typically involved. According to the General Plan,residential areas are to be the most sensitive type of land use to noise and industrial/commercial areas are considered to be the least sensitive. Existing noise sensitive uses in the vicinity of the project site include the following: • Residential Uses: single-family residences and multi-family residential uses are located to the west and north of the project site along Brooldrurst Street. Ambient Noise Levels The predominant existing noise source surrounding the project site is roadway noise from Brookhurst Street to the west. Ambient noise measurements were conducted at two locations,representing the nearby land uses in the vicinity of the project site to establish conservative ambient noise levels. The measurement locations along with existing development and nearby future development are shown on Figure 4,Noise Measurement Locations. Long-term(24-how)measurements were conducted at locations Rl and R2. Ambient sound measurements were conducted on Wednesday,July 13, 2016,to characterize the existing noise environment in the project vicinity. The ambient noise measurements were conducted using the Larson-Davis 820 Precision Integrated Sound Level Meter("SLM'). The Larson-Davis 820 SLM is a Type 1 standard instrument as defined in the American National Standard Institute SI A. All instruments were calibrated and operated according to the applicable manufacturer specification. The microphone was placed at a height of 5 feet above the local grade,at the following locations as shown in Figure 4: • Measurement Location RL represents the existing noise environment of single-family residential uses west of the project site along Brookhurst Street. The SLM was placed on the west of the project site along Brookhurst Street. • Measurement Location R2: represents the existing noise environment of multi-family residential uses north of the project site along Brookhmst Street. The SLM was placed on the southwestern boundary of the multi-family residential uses along Brookhmst Street. 5 Ibid. ocwD water Emdunlon Enheereoant Pgp01 13 E54r teo361 oa Noise and Vni Teohnical Report nu9u.2016 ' n:. 4 e, n, gee iip ►R2 lot y w 2• '1- i �_ h contractor f _ � ' i Qy Loyd ov,n Area f 4p- Flow EQ Control/Meter FAIN I rvG 4L _ RA _ Flow EQ Pump Station s . e � ei v i. 7 g gg ! Noise Measurement Location Water Production Enhancement Project.160387 SOURCE:County of Orange Water District,2016;ESA,2016 Figure 4 Noise Measurement Locations r ESA OC ND Water Production Enhancement Protect Noise and Vlb2tlon Technical Period 3. Enlionments Seding TABLE 3 SUMMARY OF AMBIENT NOISE MEAUSREMENT Daytime Daytime Nighttime Nighttime 24-Hour Location,Duration,Existing Land Uses (7 A.M.to 10 P.M.) Average (10 P.M.to 7 A.M.) Average Average, and,Date of Measurements Hourly L,a Hourly L,a Hourly L,a Hourly L,a CNEL R1 0 SingleUamily Residential Uses 66 069 67 56 067 61 69 7/13/16124 hour2ldCetlnesday R2 0 Multidamily Residenfial Uses 66 o70 69 56 066 62 71 7113/16 24 hour Ndednesday SOURCE:ESA,2016 A summary of noise measurement data is provided in Table 3,Summary of Ambient Noise Measurements. As shown in Table 3,the existing ambient daytime noise levels ranged from 66 dBA to 69 dBA,Lag, at Rl and from 68 dBA to 70 dBA,Lag at R2. The existing ambient nighttime noise levels ranged from 56 dBA to 67 dBA,Leg at Rl and from 58 dBA to 66 dBA, Leg at R2. Existing Groundborne Vibration Levels Aside from periodic construction work that may occur throughout the City, other sources of groundbome vibration in the project site vicinity may include heavy-duty vehicular travel(e.g., refuse trucks,delivery trucks,etc.)on local roadways.Truck traffic at a distance of 50 feet typically generate groundbome vibration velocity levels of approximately 63 VdB (approximately 0.006 in/sec PPV),and these levels could reach 72 VdB (approximately 0.016 ini PPV)where trucks pass over irregularities in the road surface.6 3.7 Regulatory Setting Detailed below is a discussion of the relevant regulatory setting and noise regulations,plans,and policies. Federal Federal Noise Standards Under the authority of the Noise Control Act of 1972,the United States Environmental Protection Agency(USEPA)established noise emission criteria and testing methods published in Parts 201 through 205 of Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations(CFR)that apply to some transportation equipment(e.g.,interstate rail carvers,medium trucks, and heavy trucks) and construction equipment. In 1974, the USEPA issued guidance levels for the protection of public health and welfare in residential land use areas]of an outdoor Lda of 55 dBA and an indoor Ld„of 45 dBA. These guidance levels are not considered as standards or regulations and were developed 6 FTA,Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment.May 2006. 7 USEPA,EPA Idenhfres Noise Levels Affecting H.hhond Welfore.April 1974, ci avatar P,odunion enhanrinsent Pmpn 15 esA t loe36]os Noise and Vni Tenmiwl aePat August 2016 OCW D Water Production Enhancement ProlecL Noise and Vibration Technical Raised 3. Enlronmental Selling without consideration of technical or economic feasibility.There are no federal noise standards that directly regulate environmental noise related to the construction or operation of the project. Under the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970(29 U.S.C. §1919 et seq.),the Occupational Safety and Health Administration(OSHA)has adopted regulations designed to protect workers against the effects of occupational noise exposure. These regulations list permissible noise level exposure as a function of the amount of time during which the worker is exposed.The regulations further specify a hearing conservation program that involves monitoring the noise to which workers are exposed,ensuring that workers are made aware of overexposure to noise, and periodically testing the workers' hearing to detect any degradation. Federal Vibration Standards The FTA has adopted vibration standards that are used to evaluate potential building damage impacts related to construction activities. The vibration damage criteria adopted by the FTA are shown in Table 4,Construction Vibration Damage Criteria. TABLE 4 CONSTRUCTION VIBRATION DAMAGE CRITERIA Building Category PPV(indsec) I.Reinforce izoncrete,steel or timber Lao plaslero 0.5 II.Engineered concrete and masonry mo plaslero 0.3 III.Nonangineered timber and masonry buildings 0.2 IV.Buildings extremely susceptible to Obri damage 0.12 SOURCE:FTA,2006,Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment May In addition,the FTA has also adopted standards associated with human annoyance for groundbome vibration impacts for the following three land-use categories: Vibration Category I —High Sensitivity,Vibration Category 2—Residential,and Vibration Category 3—Institutional. The FTA defines Category 1 as buildings where vibration would interfere with operations within the building,including vibration-sensitive research and manufacturing facilities,hospitals with vibration-sensitive equipment,and university research operations.Vibration-sensitive equipment includes,but is not limited to, electron microscopes,high-resolution lithographic equipment, and normal optical microscopes.Category 2 refers to all residential land uses and any buildings where people sleep,such as hotels and hospitals. Category 3 refers to institutional land uses such as schools,churches,other institutions,and quiet offices that do not have vibration-sensitive equipment,but still have the potential for activity interference.The vibration thresholds associated with human annoyance for these three land-use categories are shown in Table 5, Groundborne Vibration Impact Criteria for General Assessment.No vibration thresholds have been adopted or recommended for commercial and office uses. oca m Wasor Pmduglon Enreso nenl Pmpc, 16 Ci 1 ten38T 03 Noise and Nbra4an Teohniul Rai A,us12016 OCW D Water Production Enhancement Project.Noise and Vibration Technical Report 3. Enlronmantal Seaing TABLE 5 GROUNDBORNE VIBRATION IMPACT CRITERIA FOR GENERAL ASSESSMENT Frequent Occasional Infrequent Land Use Category Events' Events° Events` Category 1:Buildings where Ubration would interfere with interior operations. 65 VdB' 65 VEBd 65 VdB' Category 2:Residences and buildings where people normally sleep. 72 VdB 75 VdB 80 VUB Category 3: Institutional land uses with primarily daytime use. 75 VdB 78 VdB 83 WE a TheAmnt E ants is defined as more than 70 nbration a ants of the same source per day, b 10ccasional E ants is defined as between 30 and 70 nation a ants of the same source per day. a Ilnfre uentE ants Is defined as fewer than 30 Ibrationa ants of the same kind per day. d This criterion is based on Is as that are acceptable for most motlerately sonar e e uipment Such as Opti..l improop.pae. SOURCE:ETA,20%,Transit Noise and Vibrodon Impact Assessment May, State California Noise Standards The State of California does not have statewide standards for environmental noise,but the California Department of Health Services(DHS)has established guidelines for evaluating the compatibility of various land uses as a function of community noise exposure.The purpose of these guidelines is to maintain acceptable noise levels in a community setting for different land use types.Noise compatibility by different land uses types is categorized into four general levels: "normally acceptable,"..conditionally acceptable,"..normally unacceptable,"and"clearly unacceptable."For instance,a noise environment ranging from 50 dBA CNEL to 65 dBA CNEL is considered to be`normally acceptable"for multi-family residential uses,while a noise environment of 75 dBA CNEL or above for multi-family residential uses is considered to be "clearly unacceptable."In addition,California Government Code Section 65302(t)requires each county and city in the State to prepare and adopt a comprehensive long-range general plan for its physical development,with Section 65302(g)requiring a noise element to be included in the general plan.The noise element must: (1)identify and appraise noise problems in the community; (2)recognize Office of Noise Control guidelines;and(3)analyze and quantify current and projected noise levels. The state has also established noise insulation standards for new multi-family residential units, hotels,and motels that would be subject to relatively high levels of transportation-related noise. These requirements are collectively known as the California Noise Insulation Standards(Title 24, California Code of Regulations). The noise insulation standards set forth an interior standard of 45 dBA CNEL in any habitable room. They require an acoustical analysis demonstrating how dwelling units have been designed to meet this interior standard where such units are proposed in areas subject to noise levels greater than 60 dBA CNEL.Title 24 standards are typically enforced by local jurisdictions through the building permit application process. ocwo water Pmd,ason enhermarent Pmpu 17 ESAI tewri Noise and Vibration Tedmiul Refor August 2016 OC.V(D Water Production Enhancement project-Noise and Maxon Technical Report 3 cm mumental Setting California Vibration Standards There are no state vibration standards.Moreover,according to the California Department of Transportation's(Caltrans) Transportation and Construction Vibration Guidance Manual,there are no official Caltrans standards for vibrations However,this manual provides guidelines that can be used as screening tools for assessing the potential for adverse vibration effects related to structural damage and human perception. The manual is meant to provide practical guidance to Caltrans engineers,planners,and consultants who must address vibration issues associated with the construction,operation,and maintenance of Caltrans projects.The vibration criteria established by Caltrans for assessing structural damage and human perception are shown in Table 6,Caltrans Vibration Damage Potential Threshold Criteria,and Table 7,Caltrans Vibration Annoyance Potential Criteria,respectively. TABLE 6 CALTRANS VIBRATION DAMAGE POTENTIAL THRESHOLD CRITERIA Maximum Pi(In/see) Continuous/Frequent Structure and Condition Transient sources Intermittent Sources Extremely fragile historic buildings, 0.12 0.08 ruins,ancient monuments Fragile buildings 0.2 0.1 Historic and some old buildings 0.5 0.25 Older residential structures 0.5 0.3 New residential structures 1.0 0.5 Modem industrial/commercial buildings 2.0 0.5 NOTE: Transient s capers a single isolated ibrefion a era such as blasting or drop balls. Continuouslrre and Intitlent sources include Impact pile dri-ere, pogoreick compactors, crack andleeat e uipment, Ibratory pile on are and battery compaction a bipment. SOURCE'.Caltand ,2013.Transportation and Construction Vibration Guldens Manual.Septembe, 8 Caltrans,Transportation and Construction Vibration Guidance Manual,September 2013. ocwo water Produnlon enhanparept Pici 18 rsAr+eoaa>.pn Noise and Vibration Tedi RePat August 2016 OCW D Water Production Enhancement Project Noise and Vibration Tmhnlcal Report 3. Ennronmental Selling TABLE 7 CALTRANS VIBRATION ANNOYANCE POTENTIAL CRITERIA Maximum li(firo ) Continuou dlerequent Structure and Condition Transient Sources Irdennittant Sources Barely perceptible 0.04 0.01 Distinctly perceptible 0,25 0.04 Strongly perceptible 0.9 0.10 Se one 2.0 0.4 NOTE'. Transient sources create a single isolated ibmgon eFent such as blasting or drop balls. Continuousllre uenl intendant sources Include impact pile drivers, pogondick oxnpactors, crack andes ei moment,Tbretorypileddrers,and Nlxadorycompactioner ipi SOURCE:Cafter,,2013.Transportation and construction Vibre4on Guidance Manuel.September. Local In California,local regulation of noise involves implementation of general plan policies and noise ordinance standards. Local general plans identify general principles intended to guide and influence development plans, and noise ordinances set forth the specific standards and procedures for addressing particular noise sources and activities.General plans recognize that different types of land uses have different sensitivities toward their noise environment;residential areas are considered to be the most sensitive type of land use to noise and industrial/commercial areas are considered to be the least sensitive. City of Huntington Beach General Plan Noise Element The Noise Element of the General Plan acknowledges that a number of residential,commercial, and industrial land uses in the City of Huntington Beach,particularly along arterial roadways,are impacted by vehicular noise levels that exceed city noise/land use compatibility standards(City of Huntington Beach, 1995). For residential land uses,the normally acceptable interior and exterior noise standards are 45 and 60 Ldn,respectively. Relevant noise policies from the Noise Element include: Policy N 1.2.2—Require new industrial and commercial land uses or the major expansion of existing land uses to demonstrate that the new or expanded use would not be directly responsible for causing exterior noise levels to exceed 65 Lou in areas containing noise sensitive land uses. Policy N 1.2.5—Require development that generates increased traffic and subsequent increases in ambient noise levels adjacent to noise sensitive land uses to provide for appropriate mitigation measures in accordance with acceptable limits of the City's Noise Ordinance. ocwo water Pmdunlon rnnen(emem Piooix 19 Fsn 1160381 os Noiseand V.i Tadmiwl RePal August 2016 OCW o Water Pmducdon Enhancement PmleoL Noise all VlbmOon Technical Roost 3. En lmnmental Setting Policy N 1.6.1 —Ensure that construction activities be regulated to establish houre of operation,to prevent and/or mitigate the generation of excessive or adverse noise impacts through implementation of the City's Noise Ordinance. Policy N 1.12.1 —Require detailed and independent acoustical studies be completed for any new or renovated land uses or structures determined to be potential major stationary noise sources. Municipal Code Chapter 8.40 of the Huntington Beach Municipal Code serves as the City's Noise Ordinance, which establishes noise standards to control unnecessary, excessive,and annoying noise levels in the City.Table 8,Huntington Beach Exterior Noise Standards,presents the applicable exterior noise standards for the designated noise canes established in the City's Noise Ordinance. TABLE S HUNTINGTON BEACH EXTERIOR NOISE STANDARDS Noise Zone Exterior Noise Time Period Standards 1 DAM residential properties. 55 dbuk� 7:00 a.m. 010:00 p.m. 50 db[A� 10:00 p.m.07:00 a.m. 2 DAM professional office 0 public 55 dbMkO Anytime institution properties. 3 oAll commercial properties with 60 db6i3O Anytime the exception of professional office properties. 4❑AII industrial properties. 70 dbMhO Anytime SOURCE:City of Huntington Beall Muniapal Code Sendon 0.40 050 The exterior noise levels shown in Table 8 are meant to be further applied as noise standards based on the duration of the noise;i.e.,the louder the noise,the shorter the time it can last. According to Section 8.40.060 of the City Noise Ordinance,it is unlawful for any person at any location within the incorporated area of the City to create noise levels that,when measured on any residential,public institutional,professional,commercial,or industrial property,to exceed the exterior noise standards shown in Table 5: a) For a cumulative period of more than thirty(30)minutes in any hour; b) Plus 5 dB(A)for a cumulative period of more than fifteen(15)minutes in any hour,, c) Plus 10 dB(A)for a cumulative period of more than five(5)minutes in any hour; d) Plus 15 dB(A)for a cumulative period of more than one(1)minute in any hour; or e) Plus 20 dB(A)for any period of time. Section 8.40.060 further states that in the event the ambient noise level exceeds any of the fast four noise limit categories provided above,the cumulative period noise level applicable to said category shall be increased to reflect said ambient noise level.In the event the ambient noise level ocwm water Prne,nion Enhanrgrem Pin c 20 Esnrteoai Noise and Vmration Tedmical Report august 2016 OCWD Water PnoduNon Enhancement Protect.Noise and Vibration Technical Report 4. Impacts and Mitigation Measures exceeds the fifth noise limit category,the maximum allowable noise level under said category shall be increased to reflect the maximum ambient noise level. According to Section 8.40.090(D)of the City Noise Ordinance,construction noise is among one of the noise sources that are exempt from the City's established noise standards.Provided that a permit has been obtained from the City,noise sources associated with construction,repair, remodeling, or grading of any real property are deemed to be exempt from the City's noise standards as long as such activities are not conducted between the hours of 8:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m.on weekdays,including Saturday,or at any time on Sunday or a federal holiday. 4. Impacts and Mitigation Measures This section describes the impact analysis relating to noise and vibration impacts for the Project. It describes the methods and applicable thresholds used to determine the impacts of the proposed Project. 4.1 Methodology Construction Noise Levels Project construction noise levels were estimated using the FHWA's Roadway Construction Noise Model(RCNM)and construction equipment information provided by the OCWD.Potential noise levels were identified for the nearest sensitive receptors located offsite based on their respective distances from the project site.To present a conservative impact analysis,the estimated noise levels were calculated for a scenario in which all construction equipment was assumed to be operating simultaneously and located at the construction area nearest to the affected receptors. These assumptions represent the worst-case noise scenario because construction activities would typically be spread out throughout the project site and would be located further away from the affected receptors. The estimated noise levels at the affected receptors were then analyzed against the construction noise standards established in the HBMC. Roadway Noise Levels Off-site construction related traffic noise levels were calculated based on traffic information provided by the OCWD. Brookhurst Street was selected for analysis and is expected to be most directly impacted by construction-related traffic.Noise levels along Brookhurst Street were calculated using the FITWA-RD-77-108 model and construction-related traffic volumes provided by the OCWD because noise sensitive residential uses are located along the street. Onsite Stationary Source Noise Levels During operation of the project,noise levels would be generated onsite by stationary noise sources such as the proposed pump station. The noise levels generated by the proposed pump station are assessed based on the HBMC requirements and measured data.The potential impacts on the nearby offsite receptors are determined based on the proposed pump station's distance OCWO Wasir PmEustan EnhanMnent Pmpct 21 ES4l Wadi 03 Noise and Vlbm4an Tadmiul Ingot August 2016 ocwo water Production Enhancement Project Noise and M indelon Technical Report 4. Impacts and Mitigation Measures from these receptors.The noise levels determined at the offsite,noise-sensitive receptors are then compared to the stationary source noise significance thresholds identified in the HBMC. Groundborne Vibration Levels Groundborne vibration levels resulting from construction activities at the project site were estimated using data in the FTA Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment document. Potential vibration levels resulting from construction of the project are identified for offsite locations that are sensitive to vibration(i.e.,existing residential buildings)based on their distance from construction activities. 4.2 Thresholds of Significance Based on Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, a project would have a significant effect on the environment with respect to noise and/or ground-borne vibration if it would result in: • Exposure of persons to,or generation of,noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance,or applicable standards of other agencies; • Exposure of persons to,or generation of,excessive ground-borne vibration or ground- home noise levels; • A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project; • A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project; • Exposure of people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels (for a project located within an airport land use plan or,where such a plan has not been adopted,within two miles of a public airport or public use airport);or • Exposure of people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels (for a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip). The project site is not located within two miles of an airport,and no public airport or private airstrip is currently located in the vicinity of the project site.The nearest airport to the project site is the John Wayne Airport,which is located approximately five miles northeast of the project site. Therefore,the project would not expose people to excessive noise from a public airport or private airstrip,and these issue areas would not be further analyzed in this report. Noise Criteria As set forth in the HBMC,a project would normally have a significant impact on noise levels from construction if. 9 PTA,Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment May 2006. ocwo waur Produnion enhanrgrent Pmpct 22 ESA1160361oa Noise and aired-T.dmlul aimed August 2016 OCW D Water production Enhancement protect.Noise and Vibration Technical Report 4. Impacts and Mitigation Measures • Construction activities are undertaken between 8:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m on weekdays or 8:00 p.m. and 8:00 a.m. on Saturdays;and construction activities exceed the stationary noise thresholds of 55 dBA at sensitive receptors between 8:00 p.m. and 10:00 p.m. and 50 dBA between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m.,or ambient noise levels where the ambient noise exceeds the above standards. A change in noise levels of less than 3 dBA is not discernible to the general population,while an increase in average noise levels of 3 to 5 dBA is clearly discernible to most people(California DOT, 1991). An increase in the noise environment of 5 dBA or greater is considered to be the minimum required increase for a change in community reaction(U.S. DOT, 1990)and,for the purposes of this analysis,constitutes a significant noise impact. With temporary construction noise impacts, identification of"substantial increases"depends upon the duration of the impact, the temporal daily nature of the impact, as well as the absolute change in dBA levels. Substantial increase in noise levels are defined as follows. • Project construction activities cause the exterior ambient noise level to increase by 5 dBA or more at a noise-sensitive use, as measured at the property line of any sensitive use. • Noise from project-related operational(non-transportation)noise sources such as the proposed pump station exceeds the nighttime average ambient noise levels in Table 3. Vibration Criteria The CEQA Guidelines do not define the levels at which groundbome vibration or groundbome noises me considered"excessive."The City of Huntington Beach currently does not have a significance threshold to assess vibration impacts during construction.Additionally,there are no federal,state,or local vibration regulations or guidelines directly applicable to the project. However,publications of the FTA and Caltrans are two of the seminal works for the analysis of vibration relating to transportation and construction-induced vibration. The project is not subject to FTA or Caltrans regulations;nonetheless,these guidelines serve as a useful tool to evaluate vibration impacts. For the purpose of this analysis,the vibration criteria for structural damage and human annoyance established in the most recent Caltrans' Transportation and Construction Vibration Guidance Manual,which are shown previously in Tables 6 and 7,respectively,are used to evaluate the potential vibration impacts of the project on nearby sensitive receptors. Given the nature of the project,"excessive"groundbome vibration or noises that could occur at the project site would only be those generated during project construction. Construction activities at the project site have the potential to generate low levels of groundbome vibration as the operation of heavy equipment(i.e.,dozer,excavators,backhoes,haul trucks,etc.)generates vibrations that propagate though the ground and diminish in intensity with distance from the source.No high-impact activities, such as pile driving or blasting,would be used during project construction.The nearest offsite sensitive receptors are located approximately 460 feet from the proposed pump station. Due to the rapid attenuation of ground-borne vibration and distance between the project and the nearest single-family residential uses(approximately 460 feet), there is no potential for operational-period impacts with respect to ground-borne vibration. OUND wain Fmeunion Endorsement Protest 23 in41160381 Noise and Vibration T.dmlul Repot August 2016 ocwo Water Production Enhancement Protect Noise and Vibration Technlwl Repoa 4. Impacts and Mitigation Measures Accordingly,the groundborre vibration analysis presented in this report is limited to the project's construction activities. 4.3 Project Impacts Impact 1: The project would not result in the exposure of persons to,or generation of,noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance,or applicable standards of other agencies. (Less than Significant) Construction Noise Onsite Construction Noise Construction of the proposed project would require the use of heavy equipment during the demolition, grading,and excavation activities at the project site.During each stage of development,there would be a different mix of equipment.As such,construction activity noise levels at and near the project site would fluctuate depending on the particular type,number,and duration of use of the various pieces of construction equipment. Individual pieces of construction equipment anticipated during Project construction could produce maximum noise levels of 60 dBA to 83 dBA L_at a reference distance of 50 feet from the noise source,as shown in Table 9,Construction Equipment Noise Levels. These maximum noise levels would occur when equipment is operating at full power. The estimated usage factor for the equipment is also shown in Table 9. The usage factors are based on FHWA's li User's Guide.10 TABLE 9 CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT NOISE LEVELS Noise Level at So Feet Construction Equipment idea,-max) Estimated Usage Factor, Backhoe2 69 50 Bull Doer' 82 40 Compactor' 83 20 Concrete Truck' 75 25 Crane' 81 40 Dump Truck' 76 20 Drill Rig Traci 76 50 Exca ator' 81 40 Forklli 60 50 Man Lift' 68 25 Water Truck' 80 10 ' (Amenedirom FHWA Roadway Construction Noise Model,2001 ' Obtain uc ham Noise Abatement Plan Mid Basin Monitoring Well aAR111,papered by Vista Enlmnmental, August ll 2011, 10 Federal Highway Administration,Roadway Construction Noise Model User's Guide,2006. ocwo water Produnion Enhenrnesed Pmpct 24 Eau,fussi Noise and Vibrant,Tedtmul Repot August 2016 OCW D Water Producdon Enhancement Project.Noise and Vibration Techmssl Report J. Impacts and Mitigation Measures During project construction,the nearest and most notable offsite sensitive receptors that would be exposed to increased noise levels would be the existing single-family residential uses located in proximity to the project site. Specifically,the nearest offsite noise sensitive receptors include the following: • Single-family residences along Broold urst Street approximately 260 feet west of the project site;and • Multi-family residences along Brookhurst Street approximately 800 feet north of the project site. Over the course of a construction day,the highest noise levels would be generated when multiple pieces of construction equipment are being operated concurrently.As discussed previously,the project's estimated construction noise levels were calculated for a scenario in which all construction equipment was assumed to be operating simultaneously and located at the construction area nearest to the affected receptors to present a conservative impact analysis.The estimated noise levels at the offsite sensitive receptors were calculated using the FHWA's RCNM, and were based on the concurrent operation of 6 pieces of equipment(i.e., front end loader,backbone,dozer,haul truck,drill rig truck,etc.)which is considered a worst-case evaluation because the project would use less overall equipment on a daily basis,and as such would generate lower noise levels.Table 10,Estimated Construction Noise Levels at Offshe Sensitive Uses,shows the estimated construction noise levels that would occur at the nearest offsite sensitive uses during a peak day of construction activity at the project site. TABLE 10 ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION NOISE LEVELS AT OFFSITE SENSITIVE USES Estimated Approximate Maximum Distance to Construction Project site Noise Levels Significance Noise Level Offshe Sensitive Land Uses Locallon (R.), (dBA L,a) Threshold3 Increase Singleltamily residential uses West ofthe project site along 260 652 71 F Brookhuret Street Multifamily residential uses North of the project site 800 562 73 17 Brookhurst Street 1 The distance represents the nearestconstruction area on the project site to the property line ofthe excite receptor. 2 Receptors are partially shielded tram the construction site by existing walls:and such shielding is included in the analyses representing a 5 dBA reduction in noise lsr d, 3 The slgniflcance thmsbolds are the lowest daytime ambient noise 1i as shown In Table 3 plus 5 di SOURCE:ESA,2016. As shown in Table 10,the peak day construction noise levels experienced by the offsite sensitive receptors would range from 56 dBA,Lro at the multi-family residential uses located north of the project site to 65 dBA, Lrs at the single-family residential uses located west of the project site. Thus,construction activities associated with the project would generate episodic noise levels below the significance threshold of 71 dBA(the lowest daytime ambient noise level of 66 dBA as shown in Table 3 plus 5 dBA)at the nearest residential uses west of the project site.Because ocwo water Pmdwan unsimmident Pgp4t 25 ESAIte03i Noise and NGretion Termical Repot August 2016 ocwD water Production Enhancement Project,Noise and Vibration Technical Report 4. Impacts and Mitigation Measures construction noise levels associated with the project would not exceed the significance threshold at the offside sensitive locations,construction activities associated with the project would not expose persons to,or generate noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance,or applicable standards of other agencies,Therefore,impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation measures would be required. Off-Site Construction Traffic Noise Delivery truck and haul hock trips would occur throughout the construction period. Trucks traveling to and from the project site would be required to travel along Brookhutst Street. As shown in Table 2,an estimated maximum of approximately 10 worker's vehicle trips, 1 vendor truck trip,and 32 haul truck trips would occur per day. The project's truck trips would generate noise levels of approximately 50 dBA, CNEL at 25 feet distance along Brookhurst Street. As shown in Table 3,the existing noise levels along Brookhurst Street ranged from 69 dBA to 71 dBA,CNEL. Noise levels of 50 dBA, CNEL generated by construction-related traffic would not increase the ambient noise levels along Brockhurst Street. Therefore, off-site construction traffic noise impacts would be less than significant. Operational Noise Once the proposed pump station is operational,noise levels generated at the project site would mainly occur from the pump station.The flow equalization tank would have a 4-pump, approximately 500-linear feet of 36-inch diameter connection piping with a meter vault(15-ft x 20-fir x 10-ft deep)connected to the operations of the tank.The pump station would be housed in a 30-fir x 40-ft x 20-fir block wall building. The analysis of the pump station-related noise is based upon reference noise measurement conducted on July 15,2016 at a pump station located in the OCWD facility at 18700 Ward Street, Fountain Valley,CA.Pump station-related noise levels were measured inside of the pump station and outside of the pump station at 5 feet from a louver.Noise level of 80 dBA was measured inside of the pump station and noise level of 66 dBA was measured at 5 feet from the louver outside of the pump station. The pump station house with louvers would provide approximately 14 dBA noise reduction. The nearest single-family residential uses west of the project site would be located approximately 460 feet from the proposed pump station.Based on a noise level source strength of 66 dBA at a reference distance of 5 feet,and accounting for distance attenuation(minimum 39 dBA insertion loss)and barrier insertion loss by block walls(minimum 5 dBA insertion loss),pump station related noise would be reduced to 22 dBA at the nearest noise sensitive uses(RI pump station related noise would not exceed the significance threshold of 61 dBA(the lowest nighttime ambient noise level of 56 dBA as shown in Table 3 plus 5 dBA). Operation of the project would not expose persons to,or generate noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance,or applicable standards of other agencies,Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. ocwp water Pmennion Enhanoseent Pmpa 26 r&4 r tep3a]pa Noise and Vibration Tedmiwl Re,un nu9uet 2016 OCW D Water production Enhancement protect.Noise and Vibration Technical Report 4. Impacts and Mitigation Measures Impact 2: The project would not expose persons to,or generate,excessive ground-borne vibration or ground-borne noise levels.(Less than Significant) Construction Vibration Construction activities at the project site have the potential to generate low levels of goundbome vibration as the operation of heavy equipment(i.e.,compactor,backhoe,dozer,excavators,haul trucks,etc.)generates vibrations that propagate though the ground and diminish in intensity with distance from the source.No high-impact activities, such as pile driving or blasting,would be used during project construction.The nearest offsite receptors to the project site that could be exposed to vibration levels generated from project construction include single-family residential uses west of the project site. Groundbome vibrations from construction activities very rarely reach the levels that can damage structures,but they may be perceived in buildings very close to a construction site. The PPV vibration velocities for several types of construction equipment,along with their corresponding RMS velocities(in VdB),that can generate perceptible vibration levels are identified in Table 11,Vibration Source Levels For Construction Equipment.Based on the information presented in Table 11,vibration velocities could range from 0.003 to 0.089 in/sec PPV at 25 feet from the source of activity. TABLE 11 VIBRATION SOURCE LEVELS FOR CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT Approximate PPV(inh ae) Approximate RMS(VAB) 25 50 60 75 100 25 50 60 75 100 Equipment Feet Feet Feet Feet Feet Feet Feet Feet Feet Feet Large BulldoEar 0.089 0.031 0.024 0.017 0.011 87 78 76 73 69 Caisson Drilling u089 0.031 0.024 0.017 0.011 87 78 76 73 69 Loaded Trucks 0.076 0.027 0.020 0.015 0.010 86 77 75 72 68 ]ackhammer 0.035 0.012 0.009 0.007 0,004 79 70 68 65 61 Small Build. an 0.003 0.001 u0008 0.0006 0.0004 58 49 47 44 40 SOURCE:ETA,2006.Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment.May Table 12,Groundbore Vibration Levels at Offsite Sensitive Uses Compared to Caltrans' and Fill Vibration Damage Potential Threshold,shows the estimated construction-related goundbome vibration levels that could occur at the nearest offsite structures during construction at the project site and a comparison to the identified significance threshold. As shown in Table 12,the vibration velocities forecasted to occur at the offsite sensitive receptors could potentially be up to 0.0027 in/sec;PPV(or 57 VdB)at the nearest single-family residential uses. ocwo waur Rmdunion Entunionmem Rrop<t 27 ESAIIII03 >.pa Noise and Vibration Tedrmul Repot Aisuat 2016 ocwD Water Production Enhancement Project Noise and Vibration Technical Report 4. Impacts and Mitigation Measures TABLE 12 GROUNDBORNE VIBRATION LEVELS AT OFFSITE SENSITIVE USES COMPARED TO CALTRANS'AND FTA VIBRATION DAMAGE POTENTIAL THRESHOLD Approximate Calbans'Vibralion FTAVibralion Exceed Caltrans' Distance to Damage Potential Damage Potential or FTA Vibration Project Site Estimated PPV Threshold,PPV Threshold,PPV Threshold? Offsite Sensitive Land Use fil (iNsec)NEB (house,)` (in/sec)° (Yes or No) Single®amily residential uses:West of the project site 260 0.0027/57 0.5 0.5 No along Brookhurst Street rt,ntoo lose,n Inches per second. a Approximate distances are measured from the nearest construction area wehin the pool see Mew 11braeon levels would be generated to the nearest ogseestiucture. In Mthough the retail uses are located directly north of and up against me project site it is antlelpated that the constreal area where oe¢oad eruipment would operate would be located at a minimum of fi e feet from the renal shocNres. ° Caltrans Vibration Damage Potential Thresholds were taken from Table 3, FTA Vibration Damage Potential Thresholds were taken from Table f. SOURCE:ESA,2016, Under the FTA construction vibration damaged criteria,the existing residential structures are considered"reinforce-concrete, steel or timber(no plaster). With respect to the vibration sources associated with project construction, it is anticipated that continuous/frequent intermittent sources of vibration,as defined under Caltrans' criteria,would occur from compaction activities at the project site,although no pile-driving would be required. As such,the vibration level criteria for continuous/frequent intermittent sources are used in this analysis. Based on the information shown in Table 10 which shows an estimated PPV of 0.0027,none of the existing offsite residential structures(considered as"new residential structures"and "reinforced-concrete,steel or timber"under the Caltrans' and ETA construction vibration damage criteria,respectively)located to the west of the project site would be exposed to PPV groundborne vibration levels exceeding the ETA and Caltrans' 0.5 inches per second criteria as shown in Tables 4 and 6,respectively.As such,the vibration impacts at these residential structures would be less than significant. With respect to human annoyance,the City Noise Element identifies residential areas as noise- sensitive land uses. Currently,these types of sensitive uses that are located in the project site vicinity include the single-family residential uses that are located to the west of the project site. Under the Caltrans' vibration annoyance potential criteria(refer to Table 7),vibration levels exceeding 0.04 inches per second PPV for continuous/frequent intermittent sources would be considered distinctly perceptible. In addition,under the ETA vibration impact criteria for general assessment,residential receptors are considered to be a Category 2 land use(refer to Table 2). Land uses under this ETA category exposed to vibration levels exceeding 80 VdB for infrequent events would be considered an impact. As shown in Table 12,the single-family residential receptors located west of the project site would be exposed to vibration levels of 0.0027 in/sec PPV/57 Vi which is well below the Caltrans' 0.04 in/sec PPV distinctly perceptible threshold ocwo We.,Protests,enen(ermt Pmpct 28 Fsn I wandil Noise and Vmretion rechnni RePat A.1ufl 2016 OC ND Water Produdon Enhancement Protect Noise and Vlbra lon Technical Report 5, conclusion and the FTA's 80 VdB impact threshold.Thus,vibration impacts related to human annoyance would be less than significant. Impact 3: The project would not result in a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? As discussed previously under Impact 1,due to the proximity of the existing offsite sensitive uses to the project site,the project's operation activities would not expose these sensitive receptors to increased exterior noise levels. As set forth in Section 4.2 above,a project would normally have a significant impact on noise levels from operation if the project would exceed the nighttime average ambient noise levels in Table 3 at a noise-sensitive use.Based on the measured noise levels at the nearest offsite sensitive receptors to the project site, it was determined that the pump station-related noise levels would not exceed the nighttime average ambient noise levels at the offsite sensitive receptors.As such,there would not be a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project,and impacts would be less than significant. No mitigation measures are required. Impact 4: The project would not result in a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project?(Less than Significant Impact) Construction Noise As discussed previously under Impact 1,due to the distances of the existing offsite sensitive uses to the project site,the project's construction activities would not expose these sensitive receptors to increased exterior noise levels.As set forth in Section 4.2 above,a project would normally have a significant impact on noise levels from construction if the project would exceed the ambient noise levels by 5 dBA or more at a noise-sensitive use.Based on the measured noise levels at the nearest offsite sensitive receptors to the project site that are shown in Table 10,it was determined that construction noise levels would not exceed the ambient noise levels by 5 dBA at the offsite sensitive receptors.Thus,short-term noise impacts from construction would be less than significant at these sensitive offsite locations. 5. Conclusion Construction noise and vibration levels associated with the project would not exceed the significance threshold at the offsite sensitive locations,construction activities associated with the project would not expose persons to, or generate noise and vibration levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance,or applicable standards of other agencies, Therefore, construction noise and vibration impacts would be less than significant. Operation of the project would not expose persons to,or generate noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance,or applicable standards of other agencies,Therefore,operation noise impacts would be less than significant. oveD Warr Prodnnion Enhanrgrem Pio a 29 ESArtei Noise and VIi Teshniwl Repot August 2016 Ca n Wai Pmdudon Enhancement Prolect Noise and Vlbiatlon Technical Repoli 6. References As discussed above,the project construction and operation would not result in a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise and vibration levels at offsite sensitive receptor locations. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. 6. References California Department of Transportation(Caltrans), Technical Noise Supplement(TeNS). September,2013. Caltrans, Transportation and Construction Vibration Guidance Manual. September 2013. Federal Highway Administration,Roadway Construction Noise Model User's Guide,2006. FTA, 2006. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment. May. USEPA,EPA Identifies Noise Levels Affecting Health and Welfare.April 1974. o ai wain Pmdnnlon Enesonnem Pnswd 30 ESk11WaT03 Nolte and Vni Te lsioad RepU August 2016 APPENDIX A Ambient Noise Data O WO WaWr PwduNon Enha—t Pm)M E&4I1WU7.03 NolSe-n Te.nlnel Repot Mgni M18 Measured Ambient Noise LeCeIS Project: OCWD Water Production Enhancement Project Location: R1 [West of the Project Site Sources: Ambient Date: ILIy 13, 2016 HNL, TIME dB(A) 80.0 12:00 AM 59.8 A 2:00 70.0 3:00 AM Q 4:00 AM m 5:00 A ° 60.0 6:00 AM 63.3 W 7:00 AM 65.9 > 8:00 AM 67.0 j 60.0 9:00 AM 66.2 W 10:0 N 40.0 11:00 AM O 12:00 PM Z w 30.0 2:00 P F 3:00 PM = 4:00 PM W 20.0 5:00 PM 3 7:00 PM Q 10.0 8:00 PM95T- P 0:0 0.0 11:00 PM CNEL, dB(A): 69.2 000000000000000000000000 000000000000000000000000 iV � iV i+i V in iprcp OiO � iV � NixiR � i01� W OiO � TIME NOTES: flelOcnel.xls Measured Ambient Noise LeCels Project: OCWD Water Production Enhancement Project Location: R2 0.Southwestern Boundary of Multifamily Residential Uses Sources: Ambient Date: Wly 13, 2016 HNL, TIME d6(A) 80.0 12:00 AM 61.8 A 2:00 AM 70.0 3:00 AM Q 4:00 AM m 5: A ° 60.0 6:00 AM 65.5 W 7:00 AM 68.2 > 8:00 AM 69.3 Lu 60.0 9:00 AM 68.6 W 10:00 AM 40.0 11:00 AM O 12:00 PM Z w 30.0 2:00 P F 3:00 PM = 4:00 PM W 20.0 3 7:00 PM Q 10.0 8:00 PM P 10:0 0.0 11:00 PM CNEL, dB(A): 71.21 000000000000000000000000 000000000000000000000000 iV � iV i+i V id iOr W OiO � iV � NixiR � i01� W OiO � TIME NOTES: flelOcnel.xls APPENDIX B Construction Noise Calculations O WO WaWr PwduNon Enha—t Pm)M E&4I1WU7.03 Nol--n Te.nlnel Repot Mgni M18 Project: The OCWD Water Production Enhancement Construction Phase: OCSD Flow EO Tank,PS,Meter Vault&Pipeline Receptor: R1 Construction Reference Estimated Equipment Noise No.of Noise Level at Noise Level at A Sensitive Equip. 501t,Lmax Daily Usage Factor Distance to Shielding,dBA Receptor Location Construction Equipment A B C Receptor R D E F DOLar 1 82 400 260 5 59 Compactor 1 83 200 260 5 57 ExcaLator 1 81 400 260 5 58 Dump Truck 1 76 200 260 5 50 Demo Dump Truck 1 76 200 260 5 50 Water Truck 1 80 100 260 5 51 DOLar 1 82 400 360 5 56 ExcaCator 1 81 400 360 5 55 Dump Truck 3 76 200 360 5 52 Demo Dump Truck 3 76 200 360 5 52 Construction Noise Levels of Each Construction Equipment at A Sensitive Receptor dBA,Leq=[AxB-20LogtDe/50t-E+IOW,,(C/I00)I Construction Hour: 12 Hours during daytime fr am to 7 pmn 0 Hours during eFaning fr pm to 10 pmn 0 Hours during nighttime 10 pm W 7 amn Combined Noise Le-ala of Each Construction E uipment Construction Noise Level at R1 65 dBA,Leq Noise Level at A Sensitive Receptor Location Source for Ref.Noise Lerals:LA CEGA Guides,2006 n FHWA RCNM,2005 N:NntlR Prgerv\R noC W r P,Wudlm EnaennemenaCanslo k Cela\Cansoron MV 7w� Project: The OCWD Water Production Enhancement Construction Phase: OCSD Flow EO Tank Piles Receptor: R1 Construction Reference Estimated Equipment Noise No.of Noise Level at Noise Level at A Sensitive Equip. Oft,Lmax Daily Usage Factor Distance to Shielding,dBA Receptor Location Construction Equipment A B C Rece tor, R D E F Drill Rig 1 76 500 260 5 54 Backhoe 1 69 500 260 5 47 Concrete Truck 1 75 250 260 5 50 Dump Truck 1 76 200 260 5 50 Water Truck 1 80 10D 260 5 51 Dump Truck 1 76 200 360 5 47 Water Truck 1 80 10D 360 5 48 Construction Noise Levels of Each Construction Equipment at A Sensitive Receptor dBA,Leq=[AxB-20Log[De/50)-E+I0LOS(C/100)l Construction Hour: 12 Hours during daytime fr am to 7 pmn 0 Hours during eFaning fr pm to 10 pmn 0 Hours during nighttime 110 pm to 7 amn Combined Noise Le-ala of Each Construction Equipment Construetlon Noise Level at R1 58 dBA,Leq Noise Level at A Sensitive Receptor Location Source for Ref.Noise Leq ls:LA CEGA Guides,2006 n FHWA RCNM,2005 N:NntlR Proferv\R MD W r Pm Urflrn EnxennemenaConssu k Cela\C s urSv MV qr� Project: The OCWD Water Production Enhancement Construction Phase: OCSD Flow EO Tank Pad Receptor: R1 Construction Reference Estimated Equipment Noise No.of Noise Level at Noise Level at A Sensitive Equip. Sort,Lmax Daily Usage Factor Distance to Shielding,tlBA Receptor Location Construction Equipment A B C Receptor,It D E F Crane 1 81 400 260 5 58 Forklift 1 60 500 260 5 38 Concrete Truck 1 75 250 260 5 50 Forklift 1 60 500 360 5 35 Concrete Truck 3 75 250 360 5 52 Construction Noise Levels of Each Construction Equipment at A Sensitive Receptor ties,Last=[AxB-IOLog(De/50[--E+IOLog[C/100[[ Construction HOUC 12 Hours during daytime O am to 7 noun 0 Hours during a timing 7 pm to 10 pmi 0 Hours during nighttime 10 pm to 7 amn Combined Noise Levels of Each Construction Eruipment Construction Noise Level at R7 59 tlBA,Le; Noise Leval at A Sensitive Receptor Location Source for Ref.Noise Levels:LA CEGA Guides,nos n FHWA RCNM,2005 N:odms Profetls\R Ml,WD Wedr wohudmn enhancemed,Coninudko Celc\Caneudko MV Project: The OCWD Water Production Enhancement Construction Phase: OCSD Flow EO Tank Assembly&Coating Receptor: RI Construction Reference Estimated Equipment Noise No.of Noise Leval at Noise Level at A Sensitive Equip. 5",Lmax Daily Usage Factor Distance to Shielding,dBA Receptor Location Construction Equipment A B C Receptor,ft D E F Crane 1 81 400 260 5 58 Forklift 1 60 500 260 5 38 Man Lift 1 68 250 260 5 43 Foddift 3 60 500 360 5 40 Man Lift 4 68 250 360 5 46 Construction Noise Levels of Each Construction Equipment at A Sensitive Receptor dBA,Leq=lAxB-20Lo,(De/50)-E+IOLodC/IWJl Construction Hour: 12 Hours during daytime I am to]pmr 0 Hours during e,Bring p pm 1010 pmn O Hours during nighttime 10 pm to]emn Combined Noise Lerbls of Each Construction EFuipmenl Construction Noise Level at RI 58 dBA,Leq Noise Le-ol at A Sensl 11 Receptor Location Source for Ref.Noise Levels:LA CEGA Guides,2006 n FHWA RCNM,20M NWtiro Rajed $A-OCWDWN,Pmtloyon Enhanmme,tCmWdion Gl$IOngmdion-OCWD Project: The OCWD Water Production Enhancement Construction Phase: OCSD Flow EO PS&Meter Vault Equipping Receptor: RI Construction Reference Estimated Equipment Noise No.of Noise Leval at Noise Level at A Sensitive Equip. 5",Lmax Daily Usage Factor Distance to Shielding,dBA Receptor Location Construction Equipment A B C Receptor,ft D E F Crane 1 81 400 260 5 58 Forklift 1 60 500 260 5 38 Man Lift 1 68 250 260 5 43 Foddift 3 60 500 360 5 40 Man Lift 4 68 250 360 5 46 Construction Noise Levels of Each Construction Equipment at A Sensitive Receptor dBA,Leq=lAxB-20LogtDe/50)-E+IOLodC/IWJl Construction Hour: 12 Hours during daytime q am to]pmr 0 Hours during e,aping p pm 1010 pmn O Hours during nighttime 10 pm to]emn Combined Noise Levels of Each Construction EFuipmenl Construction Noise Level at RI 58 dBA,Leq Noise Leal at A Sensl 11 Receptor Location Source for Ref.Noise Levels:LA CEGA Guides,2006 n FHWA RCNM,20M NWtiro Rajed $A-OCWDWN,Pmtloyon Enhanmme,tCmW dion Gl$r Ongmdion-OCWD Project: The OCWD Water Production Enhancement Construction Phase: OCSD Flow EO Tank,PS,Meter Vault&Pipeline Receptor: R2 Construction Reference Estimated Equipment Noise No.of Noise Level at Noise Level at A Sensitive Equip. 50ft,Lmax Daily Usage Factor Distance to Shielding,dBA Receptor Location Construction Equipment A B C Receptor,R D E F DOLar 1 82 400 800 5 49 Compactor 1 83 200 800 5 47 ExwLator 1 81 400 800 5 48 Dump Truck 1 76 200 800 5 40 Demo Dump Truck 1 76 200 800 5 40 Water Truck 1 80 100 800 5 41 DOLar 1 82 400 900 5 48 ExcaCator 1 81 400 900 5 47 Dump Truck 3 76 200 900 5 44 Demo Dump Truck 3 76 200 900 5 44 Construction Noise Levels of Each Construction Equipment at A Sensitive Receptor dBA,Lee=[AxB-20LogtDe/50t-E+IOLOSIC/I00II Construction Hour: 12 Hours during daytime fr am to 7 pmn 0 Hours during eFaning fr pm to 10 pmn 0 Hours during nighttime 10 pm W 7 amn Combined Noise Levels of Each Construction E uipment Construction Noise Level at R2 56 dBA,Leq Noise Level at A Sensitive Receptor Location Source for Ref.Noise Lerals:LA CEQA Guides,2006 n FHWA RCNM,2005 N:NntlR P,ofetls\R McneDW r P,Wudlm EnaennemenaConsWC Cela\C suclkn McvaO 7w� Project: The OCWD Water Production Enhancement Construction Phase: OCSD Flow EO Tank Piles Receptor: R2 Construction Reference Estimated Equipment Noise No.of Noise Level at Noise Level at A Sensitive Equip. Oft,Lmax Daily Usage Factor Distance to Shielding,dBA Receptor Location Construction Equipment A B C Receptor,R D E F Drill Rig 1 76 500 800 5 44 Backhoe 1 69 500 800 5 37 Concrete Truck 1 75 250 800 5 40 Dump Truck 1 76 200 800 5 40 Water Truck 1 80 10D 800 5 41 Dump Truck 1 76 200 900 5 39 Water Truck 1 80 10D 900 5 40 Construction Noise Levels of Each Construction Equipment at A Sensitive Receptor dM,Leq=[AxB-20Log[De/50)-E+I0LOS(C/100)l Construction Hour: 12 Hours during daytime fr am to 7 pmn 0 Hours during eFaning fr pm to 10 pmn 0 Hours during nighttime 10 pm W 7 amn Combined Noise Levels of Each Construction Equipment Construction Noise Level at R2 49 dBA,Leq Noise Level at A Sensitive Receptor Location Source for Ref.Noise Levels:LA CEQA Guides,2006 n FHWA RCNM,2005 N:NntlR Profetls\RSAMD W r Pm Urflrn EnxennemenaConsWC Cela\ suclkn MCsD qr� Project: The OCWD Water Production Enhancement Construction Phase: OCSD Flow EO Tank Pad Receptor: R2 Construction Reference Estimated Equipment Noise No.of Noise Level at Noise Level at A Sensitive Equip. Sort,Lmax Daily Usage Factor Distance to Shielding,tlBA Receptor Location Construction Equipment A B C Receptor,It D E F Creole 1 81 400 800 5 48 Forklift 1 60 500 800 5 28 Concrete Truck 1 75 250 800 5 40 Forklift 1 60 500 900 5 27 Concrete Truck 3 75 250 No 5 44 Construction Noise Levels of Each Construction Equipment at A Sensitive Receptor ties,Leq=[AxB-IOLog(De/50[--E+IOLog[C/100[[ Construction HOUC 12 Hours during daytime O am to 7 noun 0 Hours during a timing 7 pm to 10 pmi 0 Hours during nighttime 10 pm to 7 amn Combined Noise Levels of Each Construction Eruipment Construction Noise Level at R2 50 tlBA,Leq Noise Level at A Sensitive Receptor Location Source for Ref.Noise Levels:LA CEGA Guides,nos n FHWA RCNM,2005 N:odms Profeds\R Ml,WD Wedr wohedmn Enhennement\ConaWCkn Cela\Canatruclkn MV Project: The OCWD Water Production Enhancement Construction Phase: OCSD Flow EO Tank Assembly&Coating Receptor: R2 Construction Reference Estimated Equipment Noise No.of Noise Leval at Noise Level at A Sensitive Equip. 5",Lmax Daily Usage Factor Distance to Shielding,dBA Receptor Location Construction Equipment A B C Receptor,ft D E F Crane 1 81 400 800 5 48 Forklift 1 60 500 800 5 28 Man Lift 1 68 250 800 5 33 Foddift 3 60 500 900 5 32 Man Lift 4 68 250 900 5 38 Construction Noise Levels of Each Construction Equipment at A Sensitive Receptor dBA,Leo=lAxB-20Lo,dDe/50)-E+IOWg(C/100N Construction Hour: 12 Hours during daytime I am to]pmr 0 Hours during e,Bring p pm W 10 pmn O Hours during nighttime 10 pm to]emn Combined Noise Lerbls of Each Construction EFuipmenl Construction Noise Level at R2 49 dBA,Leq Noise Le-ol at A Sensl 11 Receptor Location Source for Ref.Noise Levels:LA CEGA Guides,2006 n FHWA RCNM,20M NWtiro Rajed $A-OCWDWN,Pmtloyon Enhanmme,tCmWdion Gl$IOngmdion-OCWD Project: The OCWD Water Production Enhancement Construction Phase: OCSD Flow EO PS&Meter Vault Equipping Receptor: R2 Construction Reference Estimated Equipment Noise No.of Noise Leval at Noise Level at A Sensitive Equip. 5",Lmax Daily Usage Factor Distance to Shielding,dBA Receptor Location Construction Equipment A B C Receptor,ft D E F Crane 1 81 400 800 5 48 Forklift 1 60 500 800 5 28 Man Lift 1 68 250 800 5 33 Foddift 3 60 500 900 5 32 Man Lift 4 68 250 900 5 38 Construction Noise Levels of Each Construction Equipment at A Sensitive Receptor dBA,Leo=lAxB-20LogtDe/50)-E+IOWdC/100N Construction Hour: 12 Hours during daytime q am to]pmr 0 Hours during e,aping p pm W 10 pmn O Hours during nighttime 10 pm to]emn Combined Noise Lerals of Each Construction EFuipmenl Construction Noise Level at R2 49 dBA,Leq Noise Leal at A Sensl 11 Receptor Location Source for Ref.Noise Levels:LA CEDA Guides,2006 n FHWA RCNM,20M NWtiro Rajed $A-OCWDWN,Pmtloyon Enhanmme,tCmW dion Gl$r Ongmdion-OCWD APPENDIX C Off-Site Construction Traffic Noise Calculations O WO Water PwduNon EManmrmnt Propel E&4I1WU7.03 None and Maranon TeMnlcal Repot Mgni M18 Off Site Traffic Noise Calculations Project:OCWD Water Production Enhancement Project Off-site Construction Traffic Noise Traffic Volumes Lgq CNEL Roadw ISe mint AM PM ACT ROW 25 Feat W Fast ROW 25 Feet I 50 Feat B.khuml Street 43 55.9 53.2 51.6 52.9 50.2 46.6 0 0 0 0 0 0 B 0 Traffic Volumes Lac CNEL Roadw ISm e int AM PM ACT ROW 1 25 Feel 1 50 Feet ROW 25 Feet 1 50 Feet 0 0 0 0 0 Traffic Volumes L¢ CNEL RuadW ISe mart AM PM ACT ROW 25 Feel 50 Feat ROW 25 Feet 1 50 Fast 0 0 0 0 F n F F n 0 F F F F CNEL Summary 25 M1.from ROW At ROW Project Cumulative Project Cumulative Roadway/Segment Increment Increment Increment Increment Brookhurs(Slreel 0 0 0 0 TENS 1.1 rTrucksrrOCWD 7/ M)16 Orange County Water District Water Production Enhancement Project Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Response to Comments State Clearinghouse No. 20160811067 Prepared By Orange County Water District 18700 Ward Street n Fountain Valley, CA 92708 Contact: Daniel Bott �f October 2016 SINCE 19JJ Table of Contents Section Page SECTION 1.0 PURPOSE ........................................................................................1 d SECTION 2.0 COMMENT LETTERS ❑ RESPONSE TO COMMENT LETTERS....211 Table Table 1: Water Production Enhancement Project ........................................................211 Water Production Enhancement Project Final ISMND—Response to Comments i Section 1 SECTION 1.0 PURPOSE In compliance with the reniirements of the California Endronmental Quality Act [CEQAo Public Resources Code Section 21000 at se¢ and the CEQA Guidelines, the Orange County Water District IDCWDohas prepared a Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negatila Declaration [Draft IS/MNDOtor the Water Production Enhancement Project [State Clearinghouse No. 2016081106711 The Draft IS/MND was circulated for public redew from August 30, 2016 to September 28, 2016. Except for an acknowledgement letter from the State Clearinghouse that OCWD has complied with the CEQA public redew process, no other public comments were receded. No response was rewired. The State Clearinghouse acknowledgement letter is prodded in Section 2.0. Water Production Enhancement Project Final ISMND—Response to Comments 1-1 Section 2 SECTION 2.0 COMMENT LETTERS & RESPONSE TO COMMENT LETTERS In accordance with Section 15088 of the CEQA Guidelines, the OCWD as the Lead Agency has elaluated the comments retailed on the Water Enhancement Project Draft IS/MND. Below in Table 1 is a listing of the public agencies that redewed and prodded comments on the Draft IS/MND. Each comment letter and indiddual comments are numbered so that can be cross referenced with responses. Table 1: Water Production Enhancement Project Letter Sender Date Received A State Clearinghouse September 26, 2016 Water Production Enhancement Project Final ISMND—Response to Comments 2-1 l Beyer rty� l STATE OF CALIFORNIA GOVERNOR'S OFFICE of PLANNING AND RESEARCH PI&M I STATE CLEARINGHOUSE AND PLANNING UNIT 6wcNl'� EDMUND O. BROWN JR. Km Aixx DUVRRNOR DIRKTUR September 27,2016 Daniel Bon Orange County Water District 18700 Ward St Fountain Valley,CA 92708 Subject: Water Production Enhancement Project SCHB: 2016081067 Dear Daniel BOB: The Smle Clearm ehouse submitted the above named Mili'�tl d cyotivr Inr laration to selected slate ^ci ( t,, I cl lh0 rt vlcw prI OIL! -1 ned On �_plonhcr le,'Ole. and uo 'll l cncics_ohm11 nmimonts by that Mute- 'Phis letter achnoWlcdgca that you have complied with the State Clearinghouse rrcle.I royuirements for draft environmental documents,pursuant to the California Envronmental Quality \It PI,., e call the Sl lit 1 arinehnluc:u (016, 1-15 II(I I: i'you have am quc,alions r,.;;vdinc the 'j'I" r 11110111. 11 "It'l,evc'a qucs( ... about the nl eo-nam,xl pn I rot, please infer to the 1,1, filrll Slmn I Ird.m;housc number When conmatinp this 111Lm. OUI1111, tl:lk l:^aIn i, house ! IA Ialh oreet P.O.Box 3044 Sacramento,California 95812.3044 (916)445.0613 FAX(916)323-3018 www.opr.ca.gov