HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005-12-19_EQAC_AgendaCITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY AFFAIRS
COMMITTEE
DATE /TIME: Monday, December 19, 2005 - 7:00 p.m.
LOCATION: Police Department Auditorium
870 Santa Barbara Drive
Roll Call
1. Minutes of November 21, 2005 (draft minutes attached)
2. Presentation on Michelson Water Reclamation Plant Capacity Expansion Project, Irvine
Ranch Water District (attachment 1) (attachment 2) (attachment 3)
3. Report from EQAC Representative to GPUC
4. Report from EQAC Members on GPAC
5. Economic Development Committee (EDC) Representative's Report
6. Report from Staff on Current Projects
7. Public Comments
8. Future Agenda Items
9. Adjournment
NEXT MEETING DATE: January 9, 2006 (2"d Monday)
*Attachments can be found on the City's website http: / /www.city.newport- beach.ca.us. Once there, click on Citv
Counc il. then scroll to and click on Agendas and Minutes then scroll to and click on Environmental Quality
Affairs. If attachment is not on the web page, it is also available in the City of Newport Beach Planning Department,
3300 Newport Boulevard, Building C, 2otl Floor.
r
1 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
J ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY AFFAIRS COMMITTEE
DRAFT MINUTES 11 -21 -05
Draft minutes of the Environmental Quality Affairs Committee held at the City of Newport
Beach Police Department Auditorium, 870 Santa Barbara Drive, on Monday, November 21,
2005.
Members Present:
Staff Representatives: Guests Present:
X I Assistant City Manager Sharon Wood Afshin Etebar & Steve Shapell of ETCO
Homes
Chairperson Trapp called the meeting to order at approximately 7:05 p.m.
1. Minutes of August 15, 2005
Motion: Barbara Thibault to approve minutes
Seconded: Matt Wiley
Motion passes unanimously
2. Presentation on Bridgeport Mixed Use Development, 2300 Newport Blvd.
Mr. Afshin Etebar and Mr. Steve Shapell of ETCO Homes presented the project and
responded to questions.
Steve Rosansky, Council Member -EXC
X
Walter Lazicki
X
Richard Nichols, Council Member
X
Sandra Haskell
X
Cris Trapp, Chairperson
Barry Allen - Absent
X
Dolores Ottin , Vice Chair
X
Kristine Adams
Jeannette Thomas - EXC
X
-Wa--rianne-Zippi
X
Matt Wiley
Tom Hyans - Sick Leave
Christopher Welsh -Absent
X
Jack Wu
X
Mike Browning
Jennifer Winn - Absent
X
Brent Cooper
X
Ray Halowski
Laura Dietz - Absent
X
Carol Mentor McDermott
X
Kenneth Drellishak
X
Barbara Thibault
Adam Boettner - Resigned
Merritt Van Sant - Absent
Laura Curran - EXC
Staff Representatives: Guests Present:
X I Assistant City Manager Sharon Wood Afshin Etebar & Steve Shapell of ETCO
Homes
Chairperson Trapp called the meeting to order at approximately 7:05 p.m.
1. Minutes of August 15, 2005
Motion: Barbara Thibault to approve minutes
Seconded: Matt Wiley
Motion passes unanimously
2. Presentation on Bridgeport Mixed Use Development, 2300 Newport Blvd.
Mr. Afshin Etebar and Mr. Steve Shapell of ETCO Homes presented the project and
responded to questions.
3. Discussion of EQAC review of Negative Declarations (City Council Resolution No.
2004 -39) -
After discussion, there was consensus that members should monitor the case log and
notify the chair if they think EQAC should review a negative declaration for a project.
4. Report from EQAC Members on GPUC —
No Report
5. Report from EQAC Members on GPAC —
No Report
6. Economic Development Committee (EDC) Representative's Report —
No Report
7. Council Member Reports —
Councilmember Nichols reported on a meeting of the Aviation Committee.
8. Report from staff on Current Projects -
Assistant City Manager Sharon Wood reported on the status of projects by Brookfield
Homes, World Premier Investments PI and Hoag Hospital.
9. Public Comments —
None
10. Future Agenda Items -
Hoag Hospital presentation — January 2006 meeting
11. Adjournment -
The meeting was adjourned at approximately 9:40 p.m.
MEMORANDUM DRAFT
To: Mayor Steve Bromberg and Members of the City Council City of Newport Beach
Cc: Homer Bludau, City Manager
From: Orange County Sanitation District Subcommittee ("EQAC ")
City of Newport Beach
Subject: Orange County Sanitation District Draft Environmental Impact Report for
the Newport Trunk Sewer and Force Mains Replacement Project (the
Project)
Date: January 5, 2005
Thank you for the opportunity to provide these comments on the Draft Environmental
Impact Report ( "DEIR ") for the above - captioned Project prepared by the Orange County
Sanitation District ( "District "). EQAC's comments are as follows:
Chanter I Introduction
As discussed below, the proposed Project is the replacement of the existing Newport
Trunk Sewer and force mains with a new force main system from the Bitter Point Pump station,
located at the entrance of the West Newport oilfield on Pacific Coast Highway ( "PCH ") in the
City of Newport Beach, to the District's Treatment Plant No. 2, located in the City of Huntington
Beach.
Chapter 2 Proiect Description
This chapter discusses alternate routes for the proposed Project — one along PCH and the
other through the Santa Ana River ( "SAR ") Marsh and the West Newport Oil Field. Seven (7)
alignments were studied, with the District's preferred alternative being Alternative 2C, which
runs through SAR Marsh and West Newport Oil Field. The District's preferred alternative
almost entirely eliminates disruption to residents and businesses along the PCH corridor during
the construction of the proposed Project, and also assures that future maintenance and repair
work will have minimum impact on residents and businesses in West Newport. However,
Alternative 2C could have significant impacts on the coastal wetlands within the SAR Marsh.
While some members o£EQAC applaud the District for their thoroughness in the
preparation of this DEIR, others felt that the extensive level of review given to so many
alternatives made the document confusing and cumbersome. Because the District's preferred
alternative is Alternative 2C, we recommend that the Final EIR provide a more focused, detailed
review of the impacts and mitigation measures associated with Alternative 2C.
Mayor Steve Bromberg
Members of the City Council
City of Newport Beach
Page 2
January 5, 2005
DRAFT
Several issues are raised in Chapter 2 that are not addressed in the DEIR. Section 2.1.3
discusses Alternative 2C and states that "existing 8 and I0 -inch waste oil gravity lines .... would
be abandoned in place." Ifthese abandoned lines are not sealed properly, this could pose a
potentially hazardous situation. The Final EIR should provide a full discussion of the measures
that will be taken to assure that the lines are properly sealed.
This section (and others) also discusses "open trench' methods for installation of the
new mains, but never discusses backfilling these open trenches after installation to return the area
to its original appearance. The Final EIR should provide a full discussion of the measures that
will be taken to assure that the areas where the new mains are installed are returned to their
original appearance.
Chapter 3 Environmental Setting. Impacts and Miti ation
Section 3.2 Biological Resources
The proposed Project is "located within the South Coast Bioregion and, as a marine
ecosystem, within the Southern California Bight." The DEIR makes note of the fact that most of
the wetlands along the Southern California Bight are estuarine salt marshes, and "coastal
wetlands have declined by 80 to 90 percent and those remaining are frequently degraded."
The DEIR goes on to state that the impact area for Project Alternative 2 is within a
wetlands area that was restored by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers ( "USACE ") in 1989 as
mitigation for biological impacts. The restoration of 92 acres of the Marsh has been successful,
and is functioning as intended for the target endangered plant communities and wildlife.
Alternative 1, which is outside the SAR Marsh altogether, is the preferred Alternative of
some members of EQAC for the very reason that its alignment is outside the sensitive areas of
the SAR Marsh. Even though the proposed Project Alternative 2 would use the existing utility
easement, which, according to the DEIR, "is assumed to be outside of the jurisdictional wetland
area," members of EQAC we would like to propose that OCSD consider a wetlands enhancement
program designed to provide mitigation beyond the impacts that will occur as a result of
construction or operation of the pipeline.
Alternative 2C appears to be the least expensive of the alternatives to build, as the route
follows the existing easement, and little or no land acquisition expenditures appear to be
required. Alterative 2C would allow the proposed Project to proceed without the impacts to land
use and traffic that would result from the Alternative l alignment, but a wetlands enhancement
program could help alleviate some of the concerns that the Alternative 2C alignment poses a risk
to the fragile estuarine salt marsh.
Mayor Steve Bromberg
Members of the City Council
City of Nervport Beach
Page 3
January 5, 2005
DRAFT
The Final EIR should provide a detailed discussion of the measures that will be taken to
prevent impacts to biological resources, as well a program for enhancement of wetlands within
the SAR Marsh.
Section 3.4 Geology and Soils
Section 3.4.1 contains detailed descriptions of the seismology and local geology in the
proposed Project area. It emphasizes that these sewer mains will be installed in an area which is
seismically active (Newport- Inglewood Fault Zone) and subject to liquefaction, subsidence and
landslides. Specifically, "Landslides and Spreading" defines the "cliffs at the edge of the utility
road and oil field as seismic landslide hazard areas." However, there is no mention of any
relevant hazards during the proposed Project construction and after completion. The Final EIR
should discuss and analyze whether construction traffic and trenching along the utility road cause
a risk of land slide from the cliffs adjacent to the utility road and propose necessary mitigation.
Under the "California Building Code" and "General Plan' discussions (DEIR P. 3.4 -7)
there are general references to UBC (Uniform Building Code), CBC (California Building Code)
and city and county General Plans, but no specific references is made to what pipeline building
standards will be utilized. (Note: The distinction between underground construction (i.e.
pipeline) and surface construction (i.e., buildings) is never clarified. Therefore, it is not clear
what construction codes and what hazards/mitigation should apply. The Final EIR should
provide this clarification.
Section 3.4.2, "Impacts and Mitigation' emphasizes exposure of "structures" to adverse
effect due to seismic and other geological factors. The Final EIR should clarify that "structures"
includes the underground portion of the proposed Project. The DEIR states that "Mitigation
Measures 3.4 -1 and 7.6 -1 of the 1999 PEIR would reduce any potential landslide impacts to a
less than significant level." DEIR P. 3.4 -9 However, neither of these mitigation measures
discusses how to avoid /eliminate Project- induced landslides in the bluffs area during the
construction of the proposed Project. The Final EIR should fully analyze the potential for
Project - induced landslides and provide necessary mitigation.
Impact 3.4 -3 deals with potential damage to bridge and /or channel foundations, but only
discusses Alternative 1 near PCH under the Talbert Channel. The Final EIR should analyse
possible damage to the SAR channel due to the very long tunneling associated with Alternative
2C, and any provide appropriate mitigation measures. DEIR P.3.4 — 13, 14
Table 2 -1 shows the need to remove 44,510 cubic yards of material due to Alternative 2C
trenching and tunneling. Some of this material is coming from areas near old sewer mains and
old oil fields and may be contaminated and in need of special handling. This should be fully
addressed in the Final EIR. DEIR P. 2 -13
Mayor Steve Bromberg DRAFT
Members of the City Council
City of Newport Beach
Page 4
January 5, 2005
Section 3.5 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Impact 3.5 -2 states that improperly abandoned oil wells may exist within the excavation
for Alternative 2 alignments. The mitigation measure for this impact that prior to construction,
the District will identify existing and abandoned oil wells, using the California Department of
Conservation, Division of Oil, Gas and Geothermal Resources ( "DOGGR") maps. In addition, if
any unmapped wells are uncovered during construction, the District will notify DOGGR, and the
well will be abandoned following proper procedures. The Final EIR should discuss the steps that
will be taken to ensure that no seepage or spillage for the wells occurs before the District advises
DOGGR.
Section 3.6 Hydrology and Water Quality
Impact 3.6 -4 states that "the operation of the sewer could result in sewage spills." The
DEIR further states that the Project is being proposed to minimize the potential for sewage spills;
however, the DEIR does not provide any specific measures to that end. The Final EIR should
fully discuss the measures being proposed to ensure that the existing sewer lines will not be
breached or damaged during construction, creating a serious spill, particularly within the SAR
Match.
Section 3.7 Land Use and Recreation
Alternative 2C traverses open space, marsh lands, and habitat conservation areas. The
DEIR states the Friends of Harbors Beaches and Parks has developed plans to link currently
undeveloped parcels along the south side of the SAR for use as a regional park, the Orange Coast
River Park, The SAR Marsh area is planned to become a part of the park. Although the park
"project is in the early stages of development and is not officially endorsed by the local cities or
county," the Final EIR should provide a full analysis of the proposed Project impacts to the areas
being planned for the River Park and propose necessary mitigation.
Section 3.8 Noise
Impact 3.8 -1 deals with construction - related noise impacts on nearby sensitive noise
receptors. Since such noise receptors are farthest away from construction activities in Alignment
2C, the noise study reconfirms the choice of Alignment 2C. Mitigation measures 7.4 -I a to 7.4-
1 d are needed to assure mitigation to less than significant and should be strictly enforced.
The DEIR states that the proposed Project would increase sewage pumping capacity from
240 to 480 million gallons per day. The Final EIR should address the issue of operational noise
associated with this increase in capacity, including the increases in continuous noise due to
Mayor Steve Bromberg DRAFT
Members of the City Council
City of Newport Beach
Page 5
January 5, 2005
doubled flow rates and doubled pump capacity after Project completion.
Impact 3.8 -2 deals with ground borne vibration impacts near the construction site and
concludes that no mitigation measures are needed to assure less that significant impact on
Altemative 2C residences. However, prolonged or intermittent vibration and/or shocking due to
pile driving can have an effect on nearly slide -prone bluffs. An evaluation of this impact should
be made.
Section 3.10 Traffic
This section addresses the impacts of the proposed Project on traffic. The DEER states
that the "(i)mplementation of Alternative 1 (Alignments IA, I B, and 1 C), would require lane
closures on PCH during construction of the proposed Project which would temporarily reduce
roadway capacity." This would be highly disruptive to the community of West Newport, as well
as commuters that use PCH. The only impacts on traffic for Alternative 2C would be those
associated with dirt hauling operations.
Mitigation Measure M- 3.10 -1 states that "(d)irt haul operations occurring during the peak
summer months shall not occur during peak AM or PM periods (6:00 -9:00 AM and 3:00 -6:00
PM.)." The Final EIR should clarify "summer months" to be consistent with City of Newport
Beach Department of Public Works definition, to insure a minimum of conflict with peak PCH
usage.
Chapter 4 Project Alternatives
The District's preferred alternative is Alternative 2C; however, the text on Page 4 -10 is
not complete in its discussion of this alternative. It appears that part of the text is missing.
Conclusion
EQAC supports the District's preferred alternative, Alternative 2C, because will have the
least impacts with respect to land use and traffic issues to residents and businesses in West
Newport. However, we strongly urge the District to prepare a wetlands enhancement program
that will provide mitigation beyond the impacts identified in this DEIR to the SAR Marsh that
would be associated with Alternative 2C.
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
OFFICE OF THE MAYOR
Mayor °'
Steven Bromberg
Mayor Pro Tem
Don Webb January 12, 2005
Council Members
Leslie J. Daigle
John Heffernan Mr. Jim Herberg, P.E., Engineering Manager
Richard A. Nichols c/o Angie Anderson
Tod W. Ridgeway Orange County Sanitation District
Steven Rosansky 10844 Ellis Avenue
Fountain Valley, CA 92708
s
VIA FACSIMILE
E
Comments on DEIR for the
Replacement of Newport Trunk Sewer and Force Mains
t
t
Dear Mr. Herberg:
I
E
Thank you for the opportunity to provide these comments on the Draft Environmental
Impact Report (DEIR) for the above - captioned Project, as well as your courtesy in
presenting the Project to the Newport Beach Environmental Quality Affairs
Committee (EQAC); and allowing the City to submit comments after your deadline
to allow for review by EQAC and the City Council. As you may know, EQAC
reviews and prepares comments on DEIRs for the City Council's consideration. The
comments in this letter are based on review of the DEIR byEQAC and City staff, and
were approved by the City Council on January 11, 2005.
Section 3.2 Biological Resources
The proposed Project Alternative 2 would use the existing utility easement, which,
according to the DEIR, "is assumed to be outside ofthe jurisdictional wetland area.
Alternative 2C would allow the proposed Project to proceed without the impacts to
land use and traffic that would result from the Alternative 1 alignment.
Section 3.4 Geology and Soils
Section 3.4.1 contains detailed descriptions of the seismology and local geology in
the proposed Project area. It emphasizes that these sewer mains will be installed in
an area which is seismically active (Newport- bnglewood Fault Zone) and subject to
liquefaction, subsidence and landslides. Specifically, "Landslides and Spreading"
City Hall • 3300 Newport Boulevard • Post Office Box 1768
Newport Beach California 92658 -8915 • www.citynewport- beach.ca.us
Mr. Jim Herberg, P.E.
Orange County Sanitation District
January 12, 2005
Page 2
defines the "cliffs at the edge of the utility road and oil field as seismic landslide
hazard areas." The City urges the District to take these conditions into consideration
in the final design of the pipeline, and follow recognized industry standards.
Table 2 -1 shows the need to remove 44,510 cubic yards of material due to
Alternative 2C trenching and tunneling. Some of this material is coming from areas
near old sewer mains and old oil fields and maybe contaminated and in need of
special handling. This should be addressed in the Final EIR.
Section 3.6 Hvdrologvand Water Oualit
Impact 3.6 -4 states that "the operation of the sewer could result in sewage spills."
The DEIR further states that the Project is being proposed to minimize the potential
for sewage spills; however, the DEIR does not provide any specific measures to that
end. The Final EIR should discuss the measures being proposed to ensure that the
existing sewer lines will not be breached or damaged during construction, creating a
serious spill, particularly within the SAR Marsh.
Section 3.8 Noise
The DEIR states that the proposed Project would increase sewage pumping capacity
from 240 to 480 million gallons per day. The Final EIR should address the issue of
operational noise associated with this increase in capacity, including the increases in
continuous noise due to doubled flow rates and doubled pump capacity after Project
completion.
Section 3.10 Traffic
Mitigation Measure M -3:7 -2 regarding the rerouting of bicycle traffic on West Coast
Highway is not realistic. Coast Highway is a major regional bicycle facility with
hundreds of cyclists using it on peak days. Even on winter weekdays, groups of
cyclists travel this road including during peak traffic periods. It is the City's
experience that these cyclists will not divert to the proposed alternate route, but will
occupy one of the 10' lanes, resulting in substantial traffic congestion and increased
risk of collisions between vehicles and bicycles as well as between vehicles making
last minute lane changes to avoid slower moving cyclists.
Mitigation Measure M- 3.10 -1 states that "(d)irt haul operations occurring during the
peak summer months shall not occur during peak AM or PM periods (6:00 -9:00 AM
and 3:00 -6:00 PM.)." The Final EIR should clarify "summer months" to be
consistent with City of Newport Beach Department of Public Works definition, to
Mr. Jim Herberg, P.E.
Orange County Sanitation District
January 12, 2005
Page 3
insure a minimum of conflict with peak PCH usage.
Chapter 4 Project Alternatives
The District's preferred alternative is Alternative 2C; however, the text oil Page 4 -10
is not complete in its discussion of this alternative. It appears that part of the text is
missing.
Conclusion
The City of Newport Beach commends the District for the thoroughness of this
DEIR, especially the analysis of a range of alternatives. The City supports the
District's preferred alternative, Alternative 2C, because it will have the least impacts
with respect to land use and traffic issues to residents and businesses in West
Newport.
Thank you again for the opportunity to participate in the review of this project. If
you have questions about the City's comments, please contact Assistant City h
Manager Sharon Wood at 949- 644 -3222.
Sincerely,
teven Bromberg✓2
Mayor
a: ue iras Trapp 19491 673 -7385 p.2
a
Section
Table of Contents
Page No.
EXECUTIVESUMMARY ......................................................... ............................... ES -1
1.0
INTRODUCTION ............................................................ ...............................
I.............. 1 -1
1.1
Background ........ ........................................... ...................... .....................
............ 1 -1
1.2
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Compliance ..............................
1 -3
1.3
Purpose of the Enviromnental Impact Report ....................... ...............................
1 -3
t.4
EM Scoping .......................................................................... ...............................
1 -4
1.5
Decisions To Be Made and Permits Required ...................... ...............................
1 -6
1.6
Content and Format of EIR ................................................... ...............................
1 -6
1.7
E1R Review Process .............................................................. ...............................
1 -8
1.8
Availability of the Draft EIR ................................................ ...............................
1 -9
1.9
General References ............................................................... ...............................
1 -9
2.0
PROJECT
PURPOSE AND OBJECIIVES ............................................ ...................
2 -1
2.1
Background ............................................................. : .... . .......................
................ 2 -1
2.2
Project Need ............................ .............................................................................
2 -1
2.3
Purpose and Beneficiaries.. ................................................................................
2-10
2.4
Project Objectives ........................... ......................... ..........................................
2 -14
2.5
General References ......................... ........................................ ....................
....... 2 -15
10
PROJE CT DESCRIPTION ............................................... ...... ................... .
............. ....3 -1
3.1
Location and Setting ................................................................ ............................3
-1
3-2
Project Component s ......... ...................................................... ..........................
.... 3 -1
3.3
Project Phasing ........................................................................ ...........................3
-11
3.4
Construction Schedule and Equipment ................................... ...........................
3 -12
3.5
Operational Characteristics of the Program ........................ ...............................
3 -12
3.6
Environmental Commitments Incorporated into the Project .. ...........................3
-14
3.7
General References ................................................................. ...........................3
-17
4.0
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS ......... .................. .....................................................
4 -1
4.1
Introduction to Environmental Analysis ........................... .................
............... 4.1 -1
411 Introduction /Background ....................................... ...............................
4.1 -1
4.1.2 Environmental Assessment Methodology........- ... ...............................
4.1 -2
4.2
Hydrology and Water Quality ....................... ....................................................
4.2 -1
4.3
Biological Resources ......................................................... ...............................
4.3 -1
4.4
Public Health and Safety ......................................................... ..........................4.4
-1
4.5
Air Quality ........................................... ...........................................................
..45 -1
4.6
Noise .................................................... ........................................ ....................
.4.6 -1
4.7
Geology and Soils ........ ........................................ ..................... ........................
4.7 -1
IRWD MWRP Phase 2 & 3 Capacity Expansion Project EIR
November 2005
4633 -01
Toc -I
uec io uZ) lu:uia Cris
Irapp
(949)
673 -7385
t
Page No.
r
Table of Contents
Section
..... ......................... ........................................................ ....................
7 -1
Page No.
5.0 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
5.1
.............................................. ...............................
C.EQA Requirements ............................................................
7 -1
5.2
...............................
List of Past, Present, and Reasonably Anticipated
5 -1
Future Projects in the Project Area
........ 7 -1
5.3
....................................... ...............................
Cumulative Impacts ..............................................................
5 -1
...............................
5.3.1 Hydrol ogy /Water Quality .............
5 -6
............ .................
............................ ..5 -6
5.3.2 Biological Resources
7 -4
7.3
.............................................. ...............................
5-11
5.3.3 Hazardous Materials
7 -4
............................................... ...............................
5-11
5.3.4 Air Quality .........
7 -4
7.4
................ .....................................................
............... 5 -12
5.3.5 Noise
7 -6
..................... ....................................... ..........................................
5 -12
5.3.6 Geology And Soils
....................................................................
............. 5 -13
5.4
Ref erences
7 -18
................... .................... ... ...................................................
............. 5 -13
6.0 GROWTH INDUCEMENT ........................................................... ............................... 6 -1
6.1 Growth Caused by Direct and indirect Employment ............ ............................... 6 -1
6.2 Growth Related to Provision of Additional Recycled Water ............................... 6 -2
6.3 Growth Related to Provision of Additional Wastewater Capacity ...................... 6 -5
6.4 References ............................. ............................................................................... 6 -6
7.0 ALTERNAT IVES
..... ......................... ........................................................ ....................
7 -1
7.1
CEQA Requirements
............................................................ ...............................
7 -1
7.2
Rationale for Selecting Project Al ternatives
................................................
........ 7 -1
7.2.1 Consistency with Project Objectives ........................ ...............................
7 -2
7.2.2 Feasibility .... ............ ............. ... ........ .........................................................
7 -3
7.2.3 Potential to Eliminate Significant Environmental Effects
.......................
7 -4
7.3
Surrunary of Screening Results
............................................. ...............................
7 -4
7.3.1 Alternatives Analyzed In The . EIR ............................ ...............................
7 -4
7.3.2 Alternatives Eliminated From EIR Consideration .... ...............................
7 -4
7.4
Alternatives Analyzed
......................................................... ...............................
7 -6
7.4.1 Maximum Expansion of Los Alisos Water Reclamation Plant
............... 7 -6
7.4.2 New Satellite Plant ...... .............._................ -........ ...............................
7 -10
7.4.3 No Project Alternative ............................................ ...............................
7 -16
7.5
Alternative Eliminated from Further Consideration ........... ...............................
7 -18
7.5.1 Increased Water Conservation ................................ ...............................
7 -18
7.5.2 .Maximum Expansion of Los Alisos Water Reclamation Plant
Combined with Reduced Expansion of Michelson Water
ReclamationPlant .............................................................. - ..................
7 -19
IRWD MWRP Phase 2 3 3 Capacity Expansion Project EIR
November 2005
4633 -01
Toc -il
p.2
uee in uo uzi:oba errs Trapp (9491 673 -7385
Table of Contents
Section Page No.
7.5.3 Ne,�v 6.3 mgd Satellite Plant Combined With Reduced 7-
Expansion of the Michelson Water Reclamation Plant. .. .......................... 19
7.6 Environmentally Superior Alternative ................................ ............................... 7 -20
8.0
OTHER CEQA CONSIDERATIONS .......................................... ...............................
8 -1
8.1 Effects Found To Be Significant ........................................... ...............................
8 -1
8.2 Significant Unavoidable Environmental Impacts ................. ...............................
8 -6
9.0
MITIGA'T'ION MONITORING AND REPORTING ................. ...............................
9 -1
9. 1 Authority for the Mitigation Monitoring, Compliance,
andReporting Program ......................................................... ...............................
9 -1
9.2 Organization of the Final Mitigation Monitoring Plan ......... ...............................
9 -1
9.3 Roles and Responsibilities... ........................................................ .......................
9 -3
9.4 Dispute Resolut ion ................................................................ ...............................
9 -3
9.5 General Monitoring Procedures ............................................ ...............................
9-4
9.6 Mitigation Monitoring Program ........................... --............................................
9 -5
10.0
REPORT PREPARATION. ................................................ .....................
................. 10 -1
11.0
LIST OF ACRONYMS ................................................................ ...............................
11 -1
APPENDICES
Appendix A NOPAS, Distribution List, NOP Comment Letters /Scoping Meeting Notes
Appendix B Air Quality
Appendix C Biological Resources
Appendix D Hydrology and Water Quality
Appendix E Noise
Appendix F Native American Consultation
IRWD MWRP Phase 2 & 3 Capacity Expansion Project EIR November 2005
4633 -01 Toc -iii
p.3
Uec 15 U5 1U:Ula Cris Trapp (949] 673 -7395 p.3
P f"
Table of Contents
Page No.
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 2 -1
IRWD .Recycled Water System ............................................ ...............................
2 -2
Figure 2 -2
Historical and Projected Water Demands by System ........... ...............................
2 -4
Figure 2 -3
Projected Annual Water Supply Under Normal Operating Conditions ...............
2 -5
Figure 2 -4
Ultimate Reclaimed Water Supply and Demand .................. ...............................
2 -6
Figure 2 -5
LAWRP RW Production ....................................................... ...............................
2-7
Figure 3 -1
Regional Location Map ......................................................... ...............................
3 -2
Figure3 -2
Vicinity Map ............................................................................ ............................3
-3
Figure3 -3
Site Map ................................................................................ ...............................
3 -4
Figure 3 -4
Existing Facilities — Michelson Water Reclamation. Plant ... ...............................
3 -5
Figure 3 -5
Proposed Facilities — Michelson Water Reclamation Plant .. ...............................
3 -6
Figure3 -6
Site Layout ............................................................................ ...............................
3 -7
Figure 4.2 -1 San Diego Creek Watershed and Recycled Water Distribution System ........... 4.2 -3
Figure 4.2 -2 Irvine Management Zone ........................................................ ............... .......... .4.2 -6
Figure 4.2 -3 Piezometer Locations /Groundwater Elevations ..................... .........................4.2 -10
Figure 4.2 -4 Sewer Collection System MWRP Tributary Areas and Diversion
Locations.......................................................................... ......- .....................- 4.2 -39
Figure 4.3 -1 Biological Resources Setting Map ..................................... ............................... 4.3 -2
Figure 4.3 -2 Biological Resources Map ............................. -................................................. 4.3 -5
Figure 4.3 -3 Regional Habitat Linkage/Movement Corridor Map ....... ............................... 4.3 -16
Figure 4.6 -1 Ambient Noise Monitoring ................................................ ............................... 4.6 -5
Figure 4.6 -2 Construction Equipment Noise .Levels .............................. ............................... 4.6 -8
Figure 4.7 -1 Fault and Epicenter Map ............ ................ ....... .............. ... .............................. 4.7 -4
Figure 5 -1 Newport Bay Watershed Management Area ........................ ............................... 5 -8
Figure 7 -1 Aerial View LAWRP and Expansion ......... ......................... ............................... 7 -7
Figure7 -2 New Satellite Plant .............................................................. ............................... 7 -12
IRWD MWRP Phase 2 R 3 Capacity Expansion Project EIR November 2005
4633 -01
Toc -iv
uec In u5 ua:bba
LIST OF TABLES
Cris Trapp
v
(949) 673 -7385
Table of Contents
Page No.
Table 2 -1 Summary of Projected Land Use Acreage ............................ ............................... 2 -3
Table 2 -2 Treatment Capacity Required to Meet Recycled Water Demand ........................ 2 -8
Table 3 -1 Current Hazardous Materials and Hazardous
Wastes Inventory for the MWRP ........................................ ............................... 3 -13
Table 4.2 -1 Stream Flow At San Diego Creek Reach 1
ForTDS And Nitrogen.. ....................... .............. ............................ ............. 4.2 -22
Table 4.2 -9 Discharge Specifications Listed In The NPDES Permit .. ............................... 4.2 -22
Table4.2 -10 TIvIDLs ............................................................................. ............................... 4.2 -24
Table 4.2 -11 Toxic Pollutant TMDLs ................................................... ............................... 4.2 -25
Table4.2 -12 Nutrient TMDLs ......... ........ -- ...... .................................................................. 4.2 -26
Table 4.2 -13 Sediment TMDLs ............................................................. ............................... 42-27
Table 4.2 -14 Nitrogen Concentrations In The IRWD Constructed Wetlands .....................4.2 -32
Table 4.3 -1 Land Use And Vegetation Types Within The Project Area And SJWS ...... - ...4.3 -6
Table 4.3 -2 Ambient Water Quality And NPDES Standards ........' ......................... ........... 4.3 -25
Table 4.4-1 Current Hazardous Wastes Inventory for the MWRP ............ ..........................4.4 -5
Table 4.4 -2 Hazardous Materials and Hazardous Wastes Inventory
for the Expanded MWRP ........................... ........ ............................... ...........----- 4.4 -9
IRWD MWRP Phase 2 8 3 Capacity Expansion Project EIR November 2005
4633 -01 Toc -v
p.4
(At Campus Drive) For 2002 - 2003 .................................... ...............................
4.2 -4
Table 4.2 -2
Summary Of 2003 Concentrations In San Diego Creek
AtCampus Drive .............................................. ................................... -
........... 4.2 -5
Table 4.2 -3
Irvine Groundwater Aquifers .................. ..........................................................
4.2 -7
Table 4.2 -4
Monthly Average Concentrations Of MWRP
Dewatering Groundwater (Mg%L) In 2003 ............................ . .......................
..4.2 -12
Table 4.2 -5
Principal Aquifer Groundwater Concentrations In 2003 And 2004.- ..........
- 4.2 -13
Table 4.2 -6
Water Quality Of MWRP Recycled Water ...................... ...............................
4.2 -14
Table 4.2 -7
Santa Ana Basin Water Quality Objectives ..................... ...............................
4.2 -21
Table 4.2 -8
Irvine Groundwater Management Zone Assimilative Capacity
ForTDS And Nitrogen.. ....................... .............. ............................ ............. 4.2 -22
Table 4.2 -9 Discharge Specifications Listed In The NPDES Permit .. ............................... 4.2 -22
Table4.2 -10 TIvIDLs ............................................................................. ............................... 4.2 -24
Table 4.2 -11 Toxic Pollutant TMDLs ................................................... ............................... 4.2 -25
Table4.2 -12 Nutrient TMDLs ......... ........ -- ...... .................................................................. 4.2 -26
Table 4.2 -13 Sediment TMDLs ............................................................. ............................... 42-27
Table 4.2 -14 Nitrogen Concentrations In The IRWD Constructed Wetlands .....................4.2 -32
Table 4.3 -1 Land Use And Vegetation Types Within The Project Area And SJWS ...... - ...4.3 -6
Table 4.3 -2 Ambient Water Quality And NPDES Standards ........' ......................... ........... 4.3 -25
Table 4.4-1 Current Hazardous Wastes Inventory for the MWRP ............ ..........................4.4 -5
Table 4.4 -2 Hazardous Materials and Hazardous Wastes Inventory
for the Expanded MWRP ........................... ........ ............................... ...........----- 4.4 -9
IRWD MWRP Phase 2 8 3 Capacity Expansion Project EIR November 2005
4633 -01 Toc -v
p.4
uec iz) un iu:uc!a Urrs I-rapp (9491 673 -7385 p.4
Table of Contents
Page No.
Table 4.5 -1
Table 4.5 -2
Table 4.5 -3
Table 4.5 -4
Table 4.5 -5
Table 4.5 -6
Table 4.5 -7
National and California Ambient Air Quality Standards ... ...............................
Summary of Health Effects of the Major Criteria Pollutants ...........................
Project Area Air Quality Monitoring Summary (1997 — 2003)) ......................
SCAQMD Air Pollution Significance Criteria .................. ...............................
Dust Generating Disturbance Area .................................. ...............................
Maximum Daily Project Construction Emissions .................. .........................4.5
Reported TAC Emissions Michelson
4.5 -4
4.5 -5
4.5 -6
4.5 -9
4.5 -10
-13
Water Reclamation Plant Expansion ............................... ...............................
4.5 -16
Table 4.6 -1
Table 4.6 -2
Table 4.6 -3
Typical Sound Levels Measured in the Environment and Industry ..................
City of Irvine Noise Ordinance Maximum Permissible Noise Levels .............
Measured Noise Level s ...................................................... ...............................
4.6 -2
4.6 -3
4.6 -6
Table 4.7 -1
Sununary of Significant Seismic Sources .......................... ...............................
4.7 -3
Table 5 -1
Cumulative Project List ........................................................ ...............................
5 -2
Table ? -1
Table 7 -2
Summary of Alternatives Screening Analysis .......................... ..............
Comparison Of Alternatives To The Proposed Project .....................................
...............
............. 7 -5
7 -20
IRWD MWRP Phase 2 & 3 Capacity Expansion Project EIR November 2005
4633 -01
Toc -vi
uec in un uza:nba Cris Trapp
ES.1 INTRODUCTION
(949) 673 -7385
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This Environmental Impact Report has been prepared to evaluate the potential environmental
effects of the Irvine Ranch Water District's (iRWD) proposed Michelson Water Reclamation
Plant (MWRP) Phase 2 and 3 Capacity Expansion Project. The Proposed Project would expand
the existing MWRP capacity from 13 million gallons per day (mgd) to 33 mgd by 2025.
The Project is located within the City of Irvine, Orange County, California. The proposed
expansion would occur within the existing ivIWRP footprint, and no acquisition or alteration of
additional land would be necessary.
This EIR has been prepared by IRWD as the lead agency pursuant to the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Public Resources Code 21000 et. seq. and the State CEQA
Guidelines (California Code of Regulations, Section 15000 et. seq.).
In arriving at a decision whether to proceed with the project or an alternative to the project,
IRWD will consider the potential environmental impacts discussed in this EIR.
ES.2 PROJECT OBJECTIVES
The primary objectives of the Proposed Project are as follows:
• Based on need, expand in phases, IRWD's recycled water production capability by 15
mgd to meet projected ultimate (year 2025) demands for non - potable water from recycled
water.
• Enhance water supply reliability in the IRWD service area by maximizing the use of
recycled water to meet demands for non- potable water in -lieu of using imported water
from the Colorado River and State Water Project.
• Minimize the need for purchases of freshwater to meet non - potable water use demands
and thereby meet state law mandates to reduce cumulative urban use demands on the
state's freshwater supplies in order to maximize freshwater availability for wildlife needs
and resource uses such as agriculture on a statewide basis.
• Reduce the amount of wastewater that is diverted to the Orange County Sanitation
:District (OCSD).
• Optimize water supply, wastewater treatment, life cycle and construction cost economics.
IRWD MWRP Phase 2 & 3 Capacity Expansion Project EIR
4633 -01 November 2005
ES -1
uco ,o um iu:uea Cris trapp (949) 673 -7385
4
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
ES.3 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The Proposed Project involves expanding the existing MWRP capacity using conventional
activated sludge and gravity filtration processes. The Proposed Project would add new low -
profile structures to the existing MWRP site including the following:
Influent Trunk Sewers
• Modifications to portions of the North Irvine Interceptor Sewer and South Irvine
Interceptor Sewer located within the MWRP site.
Preliminary Treatment
• Replacement of existing headwork's intake system
Primary Treatment
• Five additional primary clarifiers
• One additional primary sludge pumping station
Flow Equalization
• Flow equalization basin will be increased in size
• One additional flow equalization basin influent pump
Secondary Treatment
• Expansion to secondary treatment capacity including:
3 additional aeration tanks
3 additional secondary clarifiers
3 additional return activated sludge (RAS) pumps
3 additional waste activated sludge (WAS) pumps
Effluent Filtration
• Five additional filters
Disinfection
• A 0.25 million gallon expansion of the chlorine contact tank
Recycled Water Pumping
• Three reclamation pumps replaced
IRWD MWRP Phase 2 & 3 Capacity Expansion Project EIR November 2005
4633 -01
ES -2
p.5
Dec 15 05 09:56a Cris Trapp (949) 673 -7385 p_6
r t
r i
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Odor Control
• Odor control features such as wet scrubbers on applicable facilities such as the new
head works and primary clarifiers
Denvatermg Pumping S-went
• New pumps for dewatering
ESA PROJECT LOCATION
Tine MWRP is located at 3512 Michelson Drive, City of Irvine, Orange County, California. The
IRWD property, containing both the MWRP site and the San Joaquin Marsh, is bounded by
Michelson Drive, the San Diego Creek Channel, Campus Drive, and Carlson Avenue. The site is
generally flat varying between 10 and 15 feet above mean sea level (msl). A 15 to 20 foot high
levee exists along the southeastern extremity of the plant separating the site from the San Diego
Creek Channel. Access to (lie site is via IRWD's private drive, Riparian View. The property is
located in an area characterized by mixed land uses, including recreational, light commercial,
institutional and residential use.
ES.5 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW ISSUES RAISED
Pursuant to the requirements of Section 15365 of the State CEQA Guidelines, IRWD prepared
an Initial Study. The Initial Study is included in Appendix A (Notice of Preparation [NOPJ and
Initial Snuiy (15J) of this EIR. The NOP /IS was publicly circulated for 30 days beginning on
May 31, 2005; the circulation period ended on July 1, 2005. ]n addition, IRWD held a public
scoping meeting on June 14, 2005 to provide public and governmental agencies information on
the Cl---QA process and to give further opportunities to identify environmental issues and
alternatives for consideration in the EIR.
The specific issues raised during the public scoping process are summarized below according to
the following major themes:
• Project. Description and Objectives
• Altennatives
• I -luman Environment Issues
• Natural Environment Issues
IRWD PAbVRP Phase 2 3 3 Capacity Expansion Project Ein November 2005
4033.01
ES -3
Dec 15 05 10:02a Cris Trapp
OF
(949) 673 -7385
u
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Project Description and Objectives. Public comment expressed concern regarding the need for
the 15 ivIGD expansion to the MWRP. It was also stated that further details regarding proposed
dewatering be described and evaluated.
Alternatives. Public comment suggested alternatives, including water conservation, expansion to
LA1�T,P, as well as alternative locations in areas of lower biological resource sensitivity.
Hammy Environment Isures. Public comment raised concerns regarding the potential impacts
of the Proposed .Project on the human environment, expressing concerns with noise and odor as
well as public health and safety associated with production of recycled water.
Natural Environment Issues. Public comment raised concerns with the potential impacts that
the Project would have on the natural environment, particularly impacts to plants, wildlife, and
habitats, including the San Joaquin Marsh, UC Natural Reserve System, Upper Newport Bay
State Ecological Habitat Reserve and San Diego Creek Watershed. Comments were also
provided discussing- geology in particular subsidence impacts due to proposed dewatering,
hydrology /water quality issues clue to proposed dewatering and use of recycled water, as well as
potential impacts to the Project resulting from flooding hazards.
In accordance with State CL•QA Guidelines requirements, this E•IR addresses those impacts
considered potentially significant as well as evaluates a reasonable range of alternatives as
identified in the MOP /IS process. The environmental issues evaluated in this EIR are:
• Hydrology and Water Quality
• Biological Resources
• Public Health and Safety
• Air Quality /Odor
• Noise
• Geologic Hazards
Other areas which did not generate concerns and were found through the NOPAS process and
EIR scoping meeting to have less than significant effects are aesthetics, agricultural resources,
cultural resources, paleontological resources, land use and planning, mineral resources,
population/housing, public services, recreation, transportation and circulation, and utilities and
service systems. A brief discussion of effects determined not to be significant are provided in
Section 8, Effects Found Not To Ile Significant, of this EIR.
The following alternatives to the proposed NJWRP Capacity Expansion Project are evaluated in
Section 7 of this EIR.
IRWD P.IWRP Phase 2 R 3 Capacity Expansion Project EIR November 2005
4633-01
ES-4
p.6
Dec 15 05 09:57a Cris Trapp 19491 673 -7385
F
t a
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
• No Project Alternative
• Maximum Expansion offRWD's Los Alisos Water Reclamation Plant (LAWRP)
• New Satellite Plan t/Altemative Site
• Water Conservation
• Maximum Expansion ofLAWRP combined with Reduced Expansion ofMWRP
• New Satellite Plant/Alternative Site combined with Reduced Expansion ofMWRP
ES.6 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
Results of the EIR analysis are presented in Sections 4.2 through 4.7 and conclude that
implementation of environmental commitments incorporated into the project along with
proposed mitigation would insure that impacts to biological resources, air quality, hydrology and
water quality, public health and safety, noise and geologic hazards would be less than significant.
The following provides a summary of each of the environmental resource areas addressed in
detail in this EIR.
ES.6.1 Hydrology and Water Quality
Issues
Public comment raised concerns with potential hydrology and water quality impacts related to
the Proposed Project. Areas of concern included potential impacts to the San Joaquin Marsh, UC
Natural Reserve System, and San Diego Creek Watershed due to dewatering necessary to
construct and operate the project as well as increased use of recycled water and potential effects
to water quality. Other issues of concern include potential effects due to increased stormwater
runoff, potential flooding hazards, as well as concerns raised regarding exposure to pollutants
carried by tertiary treated wastewater not regulated by California health laws (i.e., human
pharmaceuticals, hormones, antioxidants and plasticizers, etc.).
Effects
Water Quality Degradation From Construction Activity: Implementation of Best Management
Practices (BMPs) and the required Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) would
protect water quality in the project area due to erosion, sedimentation and accidental spill of
hazardous materials from construction activities and therefore, this impact is considered less than
significant.
IRWp MWRP Phase 2 6 3 Capacity Expansion Project EIR
4633.01
November 2005
ES -5
p.7
Dec 15 05 10:02a Cris Trapp (9491 673 -7385 p.7
q r
EXECUPVE SUMMARY
Groundwater Disturbance and Groundwater Quality Degradation Through Project - Related
Production of Recycled Water: Recycled water has a limited potential to reach the principal
aquifer. However, regardless of the potential to recharge the principal aquifer, the NPDES
effluent limitations for the MWRP are less than the Basin Plan Water Quality Objectives.
Therefore, water quality impacts to groundwater resulting from project - related production of
recycled water would be less than significant.
Groundwater Disturbance Through .Project - Related Dewatering: Based on the data collected,
no discernible drawdown in the San Joaquin Marsh mitigation area or underneath the ponds due
to the current dewatering program at the .MWRP has been identified. The water levels in the
marsh mitigation area fluctuate more than water levels near the MWRP and appear to be
influenced by surface water runoff that is directed to that area from the developed areas north of
Michelson Drive and west of Carlson Avenue. Water levels beneath the ponds are influenced by
infiltration .from the ponds and fluctuate substantially less than water levels observed in
piezomcters more distant from the ponds. Therefore, negligible incremental drawdown is
anticipated with the addition of the two proposed dewatering wells for the Proposed Project,
representing a less than significant impact to groundwater resources in the shallow zone.
Surface Water Quality Impacts Through Project - Related Dewatering: Additional shallow
groundwater dewatering is anticipated to be required for the Proposed Project. However, the
existing onsite nitrogen offset program would account for the discharge of additional dewatering
water resulting from the Proposed Project. Therefore, impacts to surface water quality due to
dewatering are considered less than significant.
Surface Water Quality Impacts Through Project - Related Production of Recycled Water: The
MWRP does not discharge recycled water directly to the San Diego creek. However, shallow
groundwater, which will receive recharge from some infiltration of recycled water delivered to
IRWD customers, flows to the San Diego Creek as baseflow. The potential also exists for the
recycled water delivered to IRWD customers to impact the San Diego Creek through incidental
runoff (over - watering of landscape and agricultural fields, etc.). While these flows would occur
whether the Proposed Project is implemented or not, the character of these flows would be
affected by the Proposed Project. The loading indirectly contributed by the Proposed Project
would be within the TMDL for nutrients, sediment, toxic pollutants and coliform set by the
RWQCB for the San Diego Creek. Additionally, the quality of the recycled water, which will
not change with implementation of the Proposed Project, meets the NPDES Basin Plan
Standards. Therefore, surface water quality impacts through project - related production of
recycled water would be less than significant.
IRWD MWRP Phase 2 & 3 Capacity Expansion Project EIR November 2005
4633 -01
ES -6
uec it) ub ua:b'ta Cris Trapp (949) 673 -7385 p.8
� t
V
r
t
EXECUPVE SUMMARY
.Salbvater /Freshwater Interface Drie to Project - Related Production of Recycled Water:
Increase in flow in the San Diego creek due to the increase in irrigation water delivered to the
San Diego Creek Watershed could potentially impact the saltwater /freshwater interface in Upper
Newport Bay by pushing it southwest. L-Iowever, water will be delivered to the watershed
regardless of whether or not this project is approved (if the project is not approved, then raw
water and potable water will be used instead). The character of the water delivered to the
watershed would be affected by the Proposed Project. The change in estimated salinity (TDS) of
water due to the project is smaller than if there were no project. Therefore, the Proposed Project
would have no impact due to changes in salinity /density.
Impacts Due to Increased Runoff from New Iulpervious Areas and Alteration of Drainage
Patterns: Since a majority of stormwater nmoff within the MWRP site would be treated at the
MWRP as part of the reclaimed water process, there would not be a substantial increase in storm
runoff. Therefore, increased nmoff from new impervious areas would have a less than
significant impact to existing surface water and drainage patterns.
.Encroachment into a Floodplain: The nbIWRP is located along the San Diego Creek, a 100 -
year flood control facility under the maintenance of the Orange County Flood Control District
( OCFCD). The Proposed Project does not involve the construction of structures that would
impede or redirect flows in the San Diego Creek Channel. However, the flood storage capacity
within the San Diego Creek Chamlel has been reduced in recent years due to sediment and
vegetation accumulation in the channel. As such, OCFCD has committed to the restoration of
the Lower San Diego Creek Channel between Jamboree Road and the 1 -405 to a 100 -year flood
control facility. In addition to discretionary approval by the OCFCD, a number of other permits
will be required prior to OCFCD being able to implement the Lower San Diego Creek Project.
Therefore, until the San Diego Creek Channel baseline condition as a 100 -year flood control
facility is re- established, there will remain a potential for flooding at the existing MWRP site.
Regardless of the flood capacity in the San Diego Creek Channel, the Project will not increase
potential flooding of MWRP relative to current conditions. Because the Project will result in
greater treatment capacity at MWRP, TRWD will increase wastewater flows coming into the
plant under normal operating conditions for the production of recycled water. The inclusion of
the Project's increased flows in the existing MWRP procedures for diversion away from the
MWRP are incorporated in the enviromnental commitments for the Project. This commitment
Provides a backup measure of protection in addition to the OCFCD restoration of the 100 -year
flood capacity of the channel; therefore, the Project would not have a significant impact on flood
protection.
IRWO MWRP Phase 2 3 3 Capacity Expansion Project EIR November 2005
4633 -01
ES -7
uec 15 05 10:02a Cris Trapp (949) 673 -7385
c x
a
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Flooding Impacts Through Project - Related Production of Recycled Water: Project - related
production of recycled water would have no impact on the capacity of the San Diego Creek to
handle runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on or offsite.
ES.6.2 Biological Resources
Issues
Concerns were raised regarding potential impacts to plants, wildlife, and habitats, including the
San Joaquin Marsh, UC Natural Reserve System, Upper Newport Bay State Ecological Habitat
Reserve and San Diego Creek.
Effects
Direct Impacts to Vegetation Communities and Land Covers Including Sensitive Plants: The
Proposed Project would be developed entirely within the existing footprint of the MWRP. No
acquisition or alteration of additional land would be necessary. Therefore, no direct or
permanent impacts to sensitive plant species, sensitive plant communities, or jurisdictional
waters would result due to the Proposed Project.
Direct Impacts to Sensitive Wildlife: Implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO -1 would
reduce potentially significant direct impacts to sensitive wildlife associated with removal of
eucalyptus to less than significant.
Indirect Impacts to Vegetation Communities Due to Construction Activities: Because
stormwater would generally be treated at the MWRP and development and implementation of a
SWPPP for this project is a requirement of the existing SWPPP under which the MWRP
operates, indirect impacts to sensitive vegetation communities, jurisdictional waters, or sensitive
plant species clue to construction- related erosion, sedimentation, toxic pollutants or dust would
be less than significant.
Indirect Impacts to Sensitive Wildlife Due to Construction Activities: Ilplementation of
Mitigation Measures BI0-2a and BI0-2b would reduce potentially significant indirect impacts
due to construction activities to sensitive wildlife in adjacent habitat to less than significant.
Indirect Impacts to Wildlife iovement or Corridors Due to Construction Activities:
Implementation of Mitigation Measure 13I0-3 would reduce indirect construction - related impacts
to wildlife movement to less than significant.
IRWD MWRP Phase 2 & 3 Capacibj Expansion Project EIR
4633 -01 November 2005
ES -6
l
Dec 1b u5 uy:bva Cris Trapp (949) 673 -7385 p.9
M
A
r
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Indirect Impacts to Sensitive Vegetation Types and Wildlife Due to Project- Related
Dewatering: No discernible changes in groundwater levels in the San Joaquin Marsh or UC
Natural Reserve System would result from project - related dewatering activities. The project
would result in a direct increase in flow from the MWRP to San Diego Creek due to outflow
from two new dewatering wells. The discharge due to dewatering to the San Diego Creek would
not substantially alter hydrologic conditions or water quality in the San Diego Creek. Therefore,
indirect impacts due to project - related dewatering to sensitive vegetation communities would be
less than significant.
Direct and Indirect Impacts to habitat Wildlife Movement or Corridors /Conflicts with
Recycled Habitat Conservation Planning Efforts: All facilities would be located within the
MWRP site, with the majority of new facilities recessed below grade from the San Diego Creek
Channel embankment. As a result, no long -term impacts to the function of the habitat linkage/
movement corridor along San Diego Creek or to regional habitat conservation planning efforts
would result from the project.
Indirect Biological Resource Impacts Due to Increased Use of Recycled Water: The amount of
nutrients entering the watershed due to the increased use of recycled water produced by the
project will have a less than significant impact to the composition of the riparian/wetland
vegetation in the watershed and to any sensitive species dependent on this habitat.
Indirect Impacts Due to Saltwater /Freshwater Interface Due to Project - Related Production of
Recycled Water: Water will be delivered to the watershed regardless of whether or not this
project is approved (if the project is not approved, then raw water and potable water will be used
instead). However, the character of the water delivered to the watershed would be affected by
the Proposed Project. The change in estimated salinity (TDS) of water due to the Proposed
Project would be smaller than if there were no project. Therefore, the Proposed Project would
have no impact due to changes in salinity /density or to sensitive habitats in the Upper Newport
Bay due to potential changes to the saltwater /freshwater interface.
Mitigation Measures
illitigation Measure for Direct Impacts to Sensitive Wildlife
BIO -1 Removal of eucalyptus trees outside of the December 15 through September 15 raptor
breeding season would avoid significant impacts to nesting raptors. These impacts
may also be avoided by (1) conducting a survey to determine presence or absence of
raptor nests during the raptor breeding season; (2) avoiding impact to trees with
IRWD MWRP Phase 2 & 3 Capacity Expansion Project EIR November 2005
4633 -01
ES -9
Dec 15 05 10:03a Cris Trapp (949) 673 -7385 p.9
fi
a
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
occupied raptor nests until juveniles have fledged; and (3) establishing a 25- to 300 -
foot buffer around the nest site, which would be determined by a qualified biologist.
Mitigation Measures for Indirect Impacts to Sensitive Wildlife
BI0-2a Avoiding construction activities between December 15 and September 15, the nesting
bird season, would avoid significant impacts to nesting birds adjacent to the project
site. These impacts may also be avoided by (1) conducting a survey to determine
presence or absence of nests within a 300 -foot radius of the construction site during
the breeding season; (2) avoiding impact to trees with occupied nests until juveniles
have fledged; and (3) establishing a 25- to 300 -foot buffer around the nest site, which
would be determined by a qualified biologist.
BIO -2b If construction during the nesting season (March 15 through September 15) of least
Bell's vireo and southwestern willow flycatcher cannot be avoided, noise impacts to
endangered least Bell's vireo and southwestern willow flycatcher would be avoided
through implementation of one of three of the following measures. Implementation
of the measures below would avoid impacts to least Bell's vireo and southwestern
willow flycatcher.
Conduct surveys to determine the presence or absence of these species in
suitable habitat within 500 feet of the project area in accordance with USFWS
protocols, which require eight surveys for least Bell's vireo and five surveys
for southern willow flycatcher during spring and early summer (USFWS
1999, 2000). If neither species is detected by these surveys, construction may
proceed.
2. If focused surveys detect the presence of either species, delay construction
within 500 feet of occupied territory until after the least Bell's vireo and/or
southern willow flycatcher have migrated from the site.
3. If focused surveys detect the presence of either species, erect noise barriers
that reduce sound levels at the nest site to below 60 dBA and proceed with
construction and conduct regular monitoring of noise levels during
construction.
IRVVD MWRP Phase 2 & 3 Capacity Expansion Project EIR November 2005
4633 -01
ES -10
tlec 15 05 09:58a Cris Trapp (9491 873 -7385 p.10
s
t 1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Mitigation Measure far Indirect Impacts to Wildlife Movement Due to Construction
BIO -3 If construction occurs during nighttime, lighting shall be directed away from San
Joaquin Marsh and San Diego Creek.
ES.6.3 Public Health and Safety
Issues
Potential impacts associated with the increased frequency of deliveries of hazardous materials to
the existing MWRP.
Effects
Potential Hazardous Substance Spills During Construction: Implementation of Mitigation
Measures HAZ -la through HAU -Id would reduce potentially significant impacts associated with
hazardous substance spills during construction to less than significant.
Release of Hazardous Materials During Operation: The Proposed Project would not require an
increase in any of the hazardous materials or in the inventory of hazardous wastes stored onsite-
Continued compliance of the MWRP with respect to the storage and handling of hazardous
materials including compliance with the requirements of the existing Hazardous Materials
Business Plan and Process Safety Management and Risk Management Plan Requirements as
managed by the Orange County Fire Authority would ensure that public health and safety
impacts due to release of hazardous materials during project operation would be less than
significant.
Release of flazardorrs Materials During Delivery: While the inventory of hazardous materials
and wastes would not be affected by the Proposed Project, the frequency of deliveries of bulk
chlorine and other hazardous materials would increase over current levels from one delivery
approximately every two weeks, to approximately one delivery every week. Public health and
safety impacts due to this increase in delivery of hazardous materials would be less than
significant.
IRWD MWRP Phase 2 & 3 Capacity Expansion Project EIR November 2005
4633 -01
ES -11
Dec 15 05 10:03a Cris Trapp (949) 673 -7385 p.10
m
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Mitigation Measures
Mitigation measures for hazardous substance spills during construction
HAZ-la Prior to construction, all contractor and subcontractor project personnel shall receive
training regarding the appropriate work practices necessary to effectively comply
with the applicable environmental laws and regulations, including, without limitation,
hazardous materials spill prevention and response measures.
HAZ-1b Hazardous materials shall not be disposed of or released onto the ground, the
underlying groundwater, or any surface water. Totally enclosed containment shall be
provided for all trash. All construction waste, including trash and litter, garbage,
other solid waste, petroleum products and other potentially hazardous materials, shall
be removed to a hazardous waste facility permitted or otherwise authorized to treat,
store, or dispose of such materials.
HAU1c A hazardous substance management, handling, storage, disposal, and emergency
response plan shall be prepared and implemented.
HA%-ld Hazardous materials spill kits shall be maintained onsite for small spills.
ES.6.4 Air Quality
Issues
Concerns were raised regarding pollutants generated by project construction and operation. In
addition, there were concerns that the long -term operation of the proposed facilities could
generate odor impacts to surrounding sensitive receptors.
Effects
Violation of Air quality Standard or Substantial Contribution to Existing or Projected Air
Quality Violation: Construction activity impacts will not exceed SCAQMD thresholds even for
assumed worst -case activity days and would not violate air quality standards and would therefore
be less than significant. Direct operational air emissions are thus negligible, and would not
exceed the thresholds of significance or violate an air quality standard or contribute substantially
to an existing or projected air quality violation.
IRWD MWRP Phase 2 & 3 Capacity Expansion Project EIR November 2005
4633 -01
ES -12
uec 15 U5 Uy:SBa Cris Trapp (949) 673 -7385
a
e a
EXECUTIVE SummARy
Create Objectionable Odors: The proposed Phase 2 and 3 Expansion Facilities includes
additional wet chemical scrubbers on the new- headworks and the primary clarifiers designed to
accommodate these new foul odor sources by minimizing the potential for producing odors.
Incorporation of these design features will ensure that the net odorant release rate at plant
buildout conditions will not exceed existing release levels and therefore, odor impacts are
considered less than significant.
ES.6.5 Noise
Issues
Potential impacts to ambient noise levels during construction and operation at the Proposed
Project.
Effects
Construction Activities would Temporarily Iacrease Ambient Noise Levels: Due to the short -
term duration of the construction activities, and because the construction activities would occur
during the City of Irvine's allowable time periods, this noise level would result in a less than
significant noise impact.
Orrsite Operational Noise Impacts: Implementation of the Proposed Project would not
substantially increase the ambient noise level at the closest residences or generate noise levels in
excess of the City of Irvine's noise criteria. Thus, the operational noise impact t considered less
than significant.
ES.6.6 Geology and Soils
Issues
Concerns were raised during public scoping regarding the potential geologic hazards that may
impact the Proposed Project, specifically seismic hazards and subsidence.
Effects
Geologic Hazards: The Proposed Project components will include an additional two dewatering
wells to minimize potential risks of high groundwater to construction and operation of proposed
facilities. In addition to the installation of dewatering wells, implementation of Mitigation
IRWD MWRP Phase 2 & 3 Capacity Expansion Project EIR
4633 -01 November 2005
E5 -13
p.11
uee io Uo iu:uya errs irapp 19491 673 -7385 p.11,
r
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Measure G -5a would reduce potentially significant impacts associated with high groundwater
levels to less than significant.
Due to the shallow groundwater table at the project site, instability may be created during
excavation dewatering and could potentially affect existing and/or proposed structures. The
proposed project calls for the addition of two dewatering wells to help facilitate the installation
of new subsurface structures at the MWRP. As a result, drawdown of the water table will
increase with the greatest drawdown occurring at the new wells and exponentially decreasing
away from the wells. Some degree of subsidence may occur because the portion of the peat that
is dewatered will be unsaturated, which may be sufficient to damage nearby engineering
structures and therefore considered to be a potentially significant impact. Implementation of
Mitigation Measure G -5a and G -6a would reduce potentially significant impacts associated with
induced subsidence to less than significant.
Mitigation
Mitigation Measure for High Groundwater and Induced Subsidence
G -5a LRWD shall perform design -level geotechnical investigations to evaluate the potential
for high groundwater levels and subsidence to affect the project and other nearby
structures. Appropriate engineering design and construction measures shall be
incorporated into the project designs. Appropriate measures for project facilities will
include identifying methods of dewatering that will minimize draw - down - induced
settlement at structure locations in the vicinity of the project site, as well as
foundation recommendations to provide "safe" designs intended to provide stability
of structures and pipelines built at the site.
To minimize dewatering, water retention systems, such as slurry wall or sheet pile
walls, combined with limited excavation, may be considered as an alternative to
continuously maintained dewatering operations. All structures and facilities within
50 feet of dewatering wells should be monitored for settlement prior to dewatering,
during dewatering operations, and after dewatering operations are completed.
Settlement of the adjacent facilities should be restricted to less than 0.5 inch during
excavation and dewatering operations. In addition, adjacent facilities should be
observed to document existing conditions prior to the beginning of excavation and
dewatering.
IRWD MWRP Phase 2 & 3 Capacity Expansion Project EIR November 2005
4633 -01 ES -14
uec In u5 ua:5aa Cris Trapp (949) 673 -7385
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
G -6a If MWRP dewatering related subsidence is detected, there are several mitigation
measures that may be instituted. A requirement to balance exported groundwater
from the San Joaquin Marsh aquifer to compensate for dewatering at the MWRP
including either direct replacement of exported water or by confining barriers may be
warranted. If a serious problem persists, then IRWD can return the land surface to
natural levels.
ES.7 Alternatives
Alternatives considered in this EIR include the No Project Alternative, Maximum Expansion of
LAWRP, development of New Satellite Treatment Plant, maximum expansion of LAWRP
coupled with reduced expansion of the MWRP, a New Satellite Plant coupled with reduced
expansion of the MYW, and water conservation.
Environmentally Superior Alternative
The proposed MWRP Phase 2 and 3 Capacity Expansion Project would take place entirely
within the existing MWRP footprint with no requirements to develop offsite conveyance
pipelines or other offsite facilities. All associated impacts resulting from construction and
operation of the Proposed Project can be mitigated to less than significant. The Proposed Project
is consistent with the core principles of California's mandates of water conservation and
beneficial use and would assist in reducing demands on water inflows to important aquatic
resources of the state needed to maintain water quality. Additionally, the Proposed Project
would reduce the amount of wastewater that would otherwise be diverted to CCSD, thereby
reducing associated environmental impacts. Therefore, in terms of physical effects on the
environment, the environmentally superior alternative is the proposed Phase 2 and 3 Capacity
Expansion at the MW.RP.
ES.8 Issues to be Resolved
This EIR considers the full range of potential environmental impact issues for the project. The
environmental issues addressed in the EIR have been resolved in accordance with CEQA. As
previously discussed in this section, an environmentally superior project is presented in this EIR.
Final selection among the Proposed Project and alternatives evaluated in the EIR will be
predicated by di fferent factors, including engineering, cost and public input.
IRWD MWRP Phase 2 8 3 Capacity Expansion Project EIR
4633 -01 November 2005
ES -15
p.12
Pa.
NEWPORT TRUNK SEWER AND FORCE
MAINS REPLACEMENT PROJECT
Environmental Impact Report
SCH #.• 2003051126
November 2004
Prepared for
Orange County Sanitation District
I
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ORANGE COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT
NEWPORT TRUNK SEWER AND FORCE MAIN
REPLACEMENT PROJECT
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
S. SUMMARY
i
S -1 j
S.1 Introduction
S -1
S.2 Project Background
S -2
S.3 Project Description
S -3
S.4 Project Alternatives
S -3
S.5 Areas of Controversy
S -3
S.6 Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures
S -4
i
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1 -1
1.1 Introduction
I -1
1.2 Project Background
1 -1
1.3 1999 Strategic Plan
1 -3
1.4 Existing Newport Force Main and Trunk Sewer
1 -3
1.5 .Purpose and Need
1 -3
1.6 Project Objectives
1 -6
-
1.7- CEQA Process
1 -7
1.8 Organization of the EIR
1 -9
2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
2 -1
2.1 Project Description
2 -1
2.2 Required Permits and Approvals
2 -16
3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION
3.1 -1
3.1 AIR QUALITY
3.1 -1
3.1.1 Setting
3.1 -1
3.1.2 Impacts and Mitigation
3.1 -7
3.2 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
3.2 -1 "
3.2.1 Setting `
3.2 -2
3.2.2 Impacts and Mitigation
3.2 -20
ESA / 201168
OCSD Job No. 5 -58 Newport Trunk it
Draft EIR
November 2004 [
p
TABLE OF CONTENTS
3.3 CULTURAL RESOURCES
3.3 -1
3.3.1 Setting
3.3 =1
3.3.2 Impacts and Mitigation
3.3 -5
3.4 GEOLOGY AND SOILS
3.4 -1
3.4.1 Setting
3.4 -1
3.4.2 Impacts and Mitigation
3 4-7
3.5 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
3.5 -1
3.5.1 Setting
3.5 -1
3.5.2 Impacts and Mitigation
3.5 -3
3.6 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
3.6 -1
3.6.1 Setting
3.6 -1
3.6.2 Impacts and Mitigation
3.6 -5
3.7 LAND USE AND RECREATION
3.7 -1
3.7.1 Setting
3.7 -1
3.7.2 Impacts and Mitigation
3.7 -4
3.8 NOISE
3.8 -1
3.8.1 Setting
3.8 -1
3.8.2 Impacts and Mitigation
3.8 -9
3.9 PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES
3.9 -1
3.9.1 Setting
3.9 -1
3.9.2 Impacts and Mitigation
3.9 -3
3.10 TRAFFIC
3.10 -1
3.10.1 Setting
3.10 -1
3.10.2 Impacts and Mitigation
3.10 -3
4.0
ALTERNATIVES
4 -1
4.1 Introduction
4 -1
4.2 Alternatives Eliminated From Further Consideration
4 -2
4.3 Comparison of Project Alternatives
4 -2
4.4 No Project Alternative
4 -4
4.5 Environmentally Superior Alternative
4 -7
5.0
OTHER CEQA REQUIREMENTS
5 -1
5.1 Cumulative. Effects
5 -1
5.2 Growth Inducing Impacts
5 -3
5.3 Significant Irreversible Effects
5 -4
6.0
REFERENCES
6 -1
7.0
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
7 -1
8.0
LIST OF PREPARERS AND PERSONS CONTACTED
8 -1
OCSD Job No. 5 -58 Newport Trunk iii
ESA / 201168
'Draft EIR
November 2004.
S. SUMMARY
providing program -level analysis of long -term planning strategies as well as project -level analysis
for projects planned to occur in the near -term (up to the year 2005). The Strategic Plan did not
identify the Newport Trunk Sewer and Force Main Replacement Project.
S.3 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The project consists of the replacement of the Newport Trunk Sewer and force mains from
Treatment Plant No.2 to the Bitter Point Pump Station, which is located off PCH at the western
end of the city of Newport Beach. The District has developed two basic alternative routes for
replacing the final segment of the Newport Trunk Sewer and Force Main. Alternative 1 would
generally follow PCH to Brookhurst Street while Alternative 2 would traverse the West Newport
Oilfield (Armstrong Petroleum) and the panhandle portion of the Santa Ana River (SAR) Salt
Marsh, located between Santa Ana River and Banning Ranch. Seven alternative alignments have
been developed for the alternatives; four alignment options have been developed for Alternative 1
and three alignment options have been developed for Alternative 2. The project would also
include the construction of two force mains crossing beneath the SAR and possibly the Talbert
Marsh outlet channel depending on which alignment is implemented. Alternative 2 would also
include the construction force mains to connect to Treatment Plant No. 2 connecting the Newport
Trunk.with the Coast Trunk. The existing 8- and 10 -inch West Newport Oil Company waste
pipelines would be reconnected to discharge to a newly constructed twelve -inch force main that
would tie into the Bitter Point Pump Station. The existing Newport Trunk force mains, gravity
sewer, and siphon would be abandoned in place and filled with cement slung.
Open trench construction would be used to install portions of the pipeline along PCH or through
the West Newport Oilfield and SAR Marsh; Micro - tunneling or horizontal directional drilling
would be used to install the sections beneath the SAR, Talbert Marsh outlet channel, and also
some portions of the Santa Ana River Salt Marsh. All construction will take place within the
existing easement, which lies along the service road and is already in a disturbed area.
Construction activity will take approximately eleven months to complete.
SA ` PROJECT ALTERNATIVES
The District evaluated two Alternatives for a total of seven alignment options for replacement of
the Newport Trunk Sewer and force mains in the general proximity of the PCH and Treatment
Plant No. 2. The District conducted a site screening analysis for each of these sites. All of the
sites were found to be technically feasible, although some were technically more difficult to
construct and cost prohibitive. Based on the technical and environmental analysis, the District's
preferred alternative is Alternative 2C.
OCSD Job No. 5 -58 Newport Trunk S -3 ESA / 201168
Draft EIR November 2004
3.2 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
This section describes biological and wetland resources in and near the Newport Trunk Sewer and
Force Mains Project (Project) site, as well as project- related impacts on those resources.
References used in the preparation of this section include standard references such as the
California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) (CDFG, 2003); the California Native Plant
Society Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants (CNPS Inventory) (CNPS, 2003); and the
California Wildlife Habitat Relationships System (CDFG, 2002); and general biological literature
(Hickman, 1993; United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), 2003; Meyer and
Laudenslayer, 1998; Zeiner et al. (1990); Sawyer and Keeler- Woolf, 1995; Holland, 1986).
In addition there are many resource studies and environmental analyses that were conducted in the
project area since the 1980s. These apply to the Project area or adjacent lands, or deal with
resources in river reaches further upstream.
• Biological Resources Report for FIR No. 158 Banning Avenue - 19th Street Bridge across
the Santa Ana River (Bender, 1980);
• EIR for the Banning Avenue — 19th Street Bridge (County of Orange, 1980);
• Marsh Restoration Lower Santa Ana River Channel, Orange County, California (Simons,
Li & Associates, 1987)
• Avifaunal Surveys of Santa Ana River Marsh, Newport Beach, California (Kelsey and
Collins, 1997)
• Marine Invertebrates and Fish Communities in the Restored Area of the Santa Ana River
Marsh, Orange County, California (Reish, 1997)
• Cordgrass Pilot Planting Experimentation at the Santa Ana River Marsh (Fink and Weber,
1995)
• Draft Supplemental Environmental Assessment and Addendum to the 1988 Phase II
General Design Memorandum SETS /R, Santa Ana River Mainstem Project, Lower Santa
Ana River, Reach 2 Channel Excavation to Design Grade (USACE, 2002a)
• The Status of the Least Bell's Vireo and the Southwestern Flycatcher at the Lower Santa
Ana River Reach in 2002. (Griffith and Griffith, 2002)
• Information contained in letters from the USFWS and the State of California Department
of Parks and Recreation in response to the Project Notice of Preparation.
This section of the EIR describes existing biological resources on or around the project site and to
analyze the potential project impacts of the project on these resources.
OCSD JOB No. 5 -58 Newport Trunk 3.2 -1 ESA / 201168
Draft EIR. November 2004
I
F
3. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING, IMPACTS AND MITIGATION
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
METHODOLOGY
Reconnaissance -level biological and wetlands surveys were conducted of the project site on July 8
and 9, 2003, to gather information on vegetative communities, wildlife habitats and habitat use,
and wetlands on and surrounding the site; and to verify the results of previous surveys. All areas
within the project site were thoroughly inspected for biological and wetland resources.
Before any field effort was begun, ESA peer- reviewed the sources listed above and consulted the
databases cited above. Searches were conducted on the applicable databases (CNDDB and CNPS
Inventory) for special status wildlife and plant species occurring in the Newport Beach and
adjacent U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5 minute quadrangles. Vegetation types and wildlife
habitats on and adjacent to the Project area as described in this section were characterized on the
basis of previous field accounts and current field observations.
3.2.1 SETTING
REGIONAL SETTING
The Project is within the California Floristic Province, Southwestern California Region, South
Coast subregion (Hickman, 1993).1 'The climate of this subregion is Mediterranean with a broad
range of habitats including mosaics of marsh and wetland communities, native and non - native
grasslands; riparian scrubs and forests, upland oak and mixed evergreen forests, chaparral and
upland scrubs. In the "bioregional" characterizations developed as part of California's Agreement
on Biological Diversity (a multi- agency memorandum signed in 1993), the Project is located
within the South Coast Bioregion and, as a marine ecosystem, within the Southern California
Bight.
Most of the wetlands along the Southern California Bight are estuarine salt marshes; in the region,
coastal wetlands have declined by 80 to 90 percent and those remaining are frequently degraded
(Coastal Conservancy, 2003). Presently the vast majority of this coastal area is developed, with
few large patches of remnant salt marsh. There are, however, restored wetlands such as the impact
area for Project Alternative 2 and the Bolsa Chica Ecological Reserve, 1,200 acres in Huntington
Beach, and the Upper Newport Bay Ecological Reserve, which supports about 200 acres of tidal
wetlands.
The immediate vicinity of the Project includes urban development along the channelized lower
reach and discharge of the SAR into the Pacific Ocean, and three areas with biological resources.
These are the oilfield and coastal bluffs (sometimes called "Newport Mesa ") to the east of the site;
' Geographic subdivisions are used to describe and predict features of the natural landscape. The system of
geographic units is four- ticred:provinces, regions, subregions, and districts. The State of California is covered by
three floristic provinces: California Floristic Province, Great Basin and Desert. The California Floristic Province is
the largest, includes most of the state and small portions of Oregon, Nevada and Baja California, Mexico and is -
made up of six regions.
o
OCSD Job No 5-58 Newport Trunk 3.2 -2 ESA / 201168
Draft EIR November 2004
{
e
a
the Talbert Nature Preserve, west across the SAR, and the least tern nesting colony on Huntington
State Beach.
The oilfield and coastal bluffs are highly disturbed, with only fragments of the original coastal
sage scrub habitat. The Talbert Nature Preserve was acquired by the County of Orange in the mid -
1970s and has been successfully restored to display a variety of habitats, from native grassland to
riparian woodland. The tern nesting colony at Huntington State Beach is a resource of statewide
importance in management of the species.
SAR MARSH
The SAR Marsh is a 92 -acre salt marsh wetland within Orange County restored by the USACE.
Figure 3.2 -1 delineates the boundaries of the USACE- managed property. The area was originally
part of the alluvial flood plain of the SAR where there was agradual transition from salt marsh
near the ocean to freshwater marsh inland. By 1980, although some of the original marsh channels
persisted inland of the Newport Shores development, most of the non - channel portion had
converted to what Bender (1980) referred tows "open meadow" dominated by species such as
Italian ryegrass (Lolium multiorum), with a few "damp areas" characterized by rushes (Scirpus
sp.). Pacific cordgrass (Spartina foliosa), a principle tidal marsh indicator, was absent.
As part of the SAR Mainstem Flood Control Project, USACE began restoration of the 92 acres in
1989, as mitigation for biological impacts. The USACE graded portions of the site and increased
tidal and river hydrological interaction by installing two tide gates between the SAR and the marsh
(at the northern and southern ends of the SAR Marsh). Cordgrass and perennial pickleweed
(Salicornia virginica) were planted and a five -acre "island" created, slightly raised above the
marsh and left unvegetated as habitat for least terns (Sterna antillaruni browni).
Plant Communities and Wildlife Habitat
The portion of the 92 -acre SAR Marsh site within which Project impacts could occur (under
Alternatives 2A, 2B and 2C) currently supports two major habitat/vegetation community types in
approximately equal proportion: Coastal Salt Marsh and Ruderal. Figure 3.2 -2 presents views of
the marsh from the SAR levee. The salt marsh in the southern portion of the SAR Marsh has been
successfully restored. By 1996 least terns were using the salt marsh regularly, although not
nesting on the island created for that purpose.
i
Relatively abundant Belding's savannah sparrows (Passerculus sandwichensis beldingi — a
California endangered species associated with salt marsh habitats) were observed feeding young
(Kelsey and Collins, 1997). When visited for this project in 2003, salt marsh portions of the SAR
Marsh were stable and appeared to be functioning as intended, with channels bordered by saltgrass
and pickleweed. Mudflat areas were populated with numerous California horn snails (Cerithidea
i
OCSD .Job No. 5 -58 Newport Trunk 3.2 -3 ESA / 201168 a
Draft EIR. November 2004
g
µ
d
3. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING, IMPACTS AND MITIGATION
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
californica) and California fiddler crabs (Uca crenulata). Higher elevation portions were
somewhat degraded by the presence of non - native plant species such as wild raddish (Raphanus
sativus), mustard (Brassica nigra) and common orache (Atriplex patula) and hence classified as
Ruderal, but healthy numbers of native plants were in these areas as well, especially alkali heath
(Frankenia Salina).
The waters of the marsh may be expected to support topsmelt (Atherinops ajrinis) and sculpin
(Scorpaenaguttata) among other species. Foraging least terns were observed in the SAR Marsh
during the survey conducted in 2003. Existing literature on the area2'describe a rich avifauna — 96
species including waterowl and shorebirds (e.g., mallards, geese and green - backed heron) and
raptors (e.g., white - tailed kites, kestrels and red - tailed hawks) (Kelsey and Collins, 1997). Upland
areas are habitat for small mammals such as the western harvest mouse (Reithrodontomys
megalotis) and skunk (Mephitis mephitis), and both native and non - native mammalian predators
such as raccoon (Procyon lotor), red fox (Vulpes vulpes) and feral cats.
WETLANDS
Wetlands are ecologically productive habitats that support a rich variety of both plant and animal
life. The importance and sensitivity of wetlands has increased as a result of their value as recharge
areas and filters for water supplies and widespread filling and destruction to enable urban and
agricultural development. In a jurisdictional sense, there are two definitions of a wetland, one
definition adopted by federal agencies and a separate definition adopted by the State of California.
Both are presented below.
Federal Wetland Definition
Wetlands are a subset of "waters of the United States" and receive protection under Section 404 of
the Clean Water Act (CWA). The term "waters of the United States" as defined in Code of
Federal Regulations (33 CFR 328.3[a] and [b]; 40 CFR 230.3[s]) includes those areas that are
inundated or saturated by surface or ground water at a frequency and duration sufficient to
support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically
adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. In 'extant regulations, these may be defined as
sloughs, marshes, wet meadows, or natural ponds:
California Wetland Definition
Unlike the federal government, the CDFG has adopted the Cowardin, et a1.3 definition of
wetlands. Under normal circumstances, the federal definition of wetlands requires three wetland
s See page 3.2 -1. -
3. Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, acid E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats
of the United States. US Fish and Wildlife Service, Office. of Biological Services; Washington, D.C.Publ. No.
FWS /OBS -79/31.
OCSD Job No. 5 -58 Newport Trunk 3.2 -6 ESA / 201168
Draft EIR November 2004
3. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING IMPACTS AND MITIGATION
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
identification parameters to be met, whereas the Cowardin definition requires the presence of only
one. For this reason, identification of wetlands by CDFG consists of the union of all areas that are
periodically inundated or saturated, or in which at least seasonal dominance by hydrophytes may
be documented; or in which hydric soils are present. The CDFG does not normally assert
jurisdiction over wetlands unless they are subject to Streambed Alteration Agreements (Cal. Fish
and Game Code 1600 -1607) or they support state - listed endangered species.
Jurisdictional Wetlands at the Project Site
No wetland delineations were conducted for purposes of this EIR since most of the 92 -acre SAR
Marsh and the Talbert Marsh are assumed to be Jurisdictional Waters of the U.S. (Section 10 and
Section 404) in the form of tidal marsh and tidal channel. However, the elevated unpaved utility
service road that traverses the SAR Marsh is assumed to be outside of the jurisdictional wetland
area. This road encompasses a utility easement in which the existing sewer line (and the preferred
Alternative 2C) traverses the SAR Marsh to the SAR. Figures 3.2 -3 through 3.2 -5 show segments
of the utility road. As shown in the photographs, the road is unpaved, raised five to ten feet above
the marsh area and bordered on either side by exotic or marsh vegetation.
SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES AND COMMUNITIES
As discussed below, several species known to occur in the vicinity of the project site are accorded
"special status" designation because of their recognized rarity or vulnerability to various causes of
habitat loss or population decline. Some of these receive specific protection defined in federal or
State endangered species legislation. Others have been designated as "sensitive" on the basis of
adopted policies and the expertise of State resource agencies or organizations with acknowledged
expertise, or policies adopted by local governmental agencies such as counties, cities, and special
districts to meet local conservation objectives. These species are referred to collectively as
"special status species" in this EIR following a convention that has developed in practice but has
no official sanction exclusive of guidance for CEQA analysis (see below). A full list of special
status species considered in this analysis is provided as Table 3.2 -1.
Special Status. Species and Communities at the Project Site
Table 3.2 -1 was compiled from: 1) analysis of previous studies conducted within the project site
concerning special status plants and animals; 2) consultation with the CNDDB, the USFWS, and
the CDFG; 3) review of pertinent scientific literature about the sensitive species of concern;
4) review of the most recent Notice of Review for federally - listed and candidate taxa; 5) review of
the CDFG's most recent list of special animals and plants, which also includes federally- listed and
candidate plants; 6) review of CNPS literature, and 7) recent field studies conducted as a part of
this EIR.
OCSD Job No. 5 -58 Newport Tmnk 3.2 -7 ESA / 201168
Draft EIR November 2004
I
I INN mr-tsm m0—=ff-4vz 52� �
Newport Farce -Main SEIR /201168 ■
TABLE 3.2 -1: SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES REPORTED OR POTENTIALLY OCCURRING IN
THE PROJECT AREA
SPECIES LISTED OR PROPOSED FOR LISTING
Period of
Listing Status
Identification /
Potential
Common name
USFWS/
Habitat
Flowering
to Occur
Scientific name
CDFG /CNPS
Requirements
Period
(see Note below)
Ittverleb'mex ir
?-
...'.;....
".
..... .
San Diego fairy shrimp
FE / --
Endemic to San Diego County
February -March
No habitat
Branchinecta sandiegonensis
mesas
mi
Santa Ana sucker
FT /CSC
Los Angeles Basin coastal streams
Year- round
Very rare below.
Catostmnus santaanae
Prado Dam inSAR
Tidewater goby
FE /CSC
Brackish water along California
Year -round
No habitat
Eucyclogobius newberryi
coast
Southern steelhead trout -
FE /CSC
Freshwater streams
Year -round
No habitat
Oncorhynchus mykiss
A/ ibidns
Arroyo toad
FE /CSC
Semi -arid, near washes or
March-July
No Habitat
Bufo rnicroscaphus -
intermittent streams, including
californicus
valley - foothill and desert riparian
- Birds'.
"Year
Western snowy plover
FT /CSC
Sandy beaches, estuarine shores,
- round.
No habitat
Charadrius alexandrines
salt pond levees and alkali lakes
nivosus
Reported tofora e
p g
near Huntington
State Beach
Western yellow - billed cuckoo
FC /CE
Riparian forests along flood
Spring- Summer
No habitat
- Coccyzus americanus
bottoms of large river systems
occidentalis
California black mil
FSC /CT
Salt- marshes bordering large bays
Year -round
Not observed
Laterallusjamaicensis
coturnicuhrs
Belding's savannah sparrow
FSC /CE
Coastal salt - marshes
Year -round
Present —
" Passercuhts sandwichensis
Observed on site in
beldingi
1996
Coastal California gnatcatcher.
FT /CSC '..
Coastal sage scrub.
Year-round
No habitat :
Polioptila californica
californica
Light- footed clapper rail
FE /CE
Salt - marshes with cordgrass and
- Year -round
Not observed
Rallus longirostris levipes
pickleweed
Noted using the
SAR Marsh in 1980
(USACE, 19876)
California least tern
FE /CE
Coastal beaches and sandbars,
Spring- Summer
Present —
. Sterna antillarwn brown
Site used for
foraging
(ESA July 9, 2003).
- OCSD Job No. 5 -55 Newport Trunk
ESA / 201165
3.2 -11
Draft EIR
November 2004
i
3. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING, IMPACTS AND MITIGATION
BIOLOGICAL
RESOURCES
TABLE 3.2 -1 (CONT.): SPECIAL STATUS
SPECIES REPORTED
OR POTENTIALLY
OCCURRING IN THE PROJECT AREA
SPECIES LISTED
OR PROPOSED FOR LISTING (CONT.)
Period of
Listing Status
Identification /
Potential.
Common name
USFWS/
Habitat
Flowering
to Occur
Scientific name
CDFG /CNPS
Requirements
Period
(see Note below)
Least Bell's vireo
FE /CE
Low riparian vegetation near river
Summer
No habitat
Vireo bellUpusillus
_
bottoms
Scattered reports
from lower SAR
(Griffith and
Griffith, 2002)
Mammals
?
..
Pacific pocket mouse
FE /CSC
Narrow coastal plains
Year -round
No habitat
Perognathus longintembris
pacificus
-
,,. �T.
xF
_
Ventura marsh milk -vetch
FE /CE/
Coastal salt -marsh
July- October
Not observed
Astragaluspycnostachyus var
List IB
lanosissnnus
San Fernando Valley
FC /CE/
Coastal scrub
April -June
No habitat
spineflower
List IA
- Chorizanthe parryi var
fernandina
Salt marsh bird's -beak
FE /CE/
Coastal salt - marsh, coastal dunes
May- October
- Not observed
Cordylanthus maridmus ssp
: List IB
inarifinuts
Laguna Beach dudleya
FT /CT/
Chaparral, coastal scrub,
May -July
No habitat
- Dudleya stolonifera
List IB
cismontane woodland, valley and
foothill grassland
Santa Are River woolystar -
FE /CE/
Coastal sage scrub,. chaparral
June - August
No habitat
Griastrum densifolium ssp
List IB
sanctorunr
- -
California Orcult grass
FE /CE/
Vernal pools
May -June
No habitat
Orcuttia califo pica
List IB
Lyon's pentachacta:
FE /CE/
Edges of chaparral, grasslands
March - August
No habitat
Pentachaeta lyonii
List ID
LtverlebEates
_.
Tiger beetle
Inhabits coastal estuaries and
January-July
Not observed
Cicindelagabbii -
mudflats
Sandy beach tiger beetle
FSC / --
Areas adjacent to non - brackish
January-July
No habitat
Cicindela hirticollis gravida
water along the coast
Monarch butterfly..
*
Roosts in wind - protected tree
Winter
No habitat
Danaue plexippus
groves of eucalyptus, Monterey.
pine
OCSD Job No. 5 -58 Newport Trunk
ESA / 201168
3.2 -12 -
Draft EIR
November 2004 [Ri
r
C
I
3. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING, IMPACTS AND MITIGATION
-
BIOLOGICAL
RESOURCES
- TABLE 3.2 -1 (CONT.): SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES REPORTED
OR POTENTIALLY
OCCURRING IN THE PROJECT AREA
FEDERAL OR STATE SPECIES OF SPECIAL CONCERN
Period of
Listing Status
Identification /
Potential
Common name
USFWS/
Habitat
Flowering
to Occur
Scientific name
CDFG /CNPS
Requirements
Period .
(see Note below)
Wandering skipper
FSC / --
Coastal salt -marsh
February-
Not observed
Panoquina errans
October
Mimic tryonia
FSC / --
Coastal lagoons, estuaries and salt-
Year -round
Not observed
Tryonta imitator
marshes
.
Southwestern pond turtle
FSC /CSC
Permanent freshwater ponds and
Year -round
No habitat
_ Clenonys marmorata pallida
slow streams edged with sandy
soils for laying eggs
.Orange- throated whiptail
FSC /CSC
Coastal scrub, chaparral, and
Year -round
No habitat
Cnemidophorus hyperythrus
valley- foothill hardwood habitats
beldingi
San Diego horned lizard
FSC /CSC
Coastal sage scrub, and chaparral
Year -round
No habitat
Phrynosoma coronatunu
blainvillei
$irtCs
Burrowing owl
FSC /CSC
Nests in mammal burrows in open,
February-June
No habitat
Athene cunicularia (burrow
sloping grasslands
sites)
Cooper's hawk
-- /CSC
Nests in riparian growths of
March -July
No habitat
Accipiter cooperi
deciduous trees and live oaks
Tricolored blackbird
FSC /CSC
Riparian thickets and emergent
Spring
No habitat
Agelaius tricolor
vegetation
Coastal cactus wren
-- /CSC
Coastal sage scrub
Year -round
No habitat
Campylorhynchus
brunneicapillus couest
Yellow- breasted chat
-- /CSC
Riparian corridors with willows or
March-
No habitat
Icteria vixens (nesting)
other dense foliage
- September
Black skimmer -
-- /CSC
Nests along gravel bars, low islets.
June- October
Present or
Rynchops niger .
and sandy beaches along Salton
observed -
Sea and southern San Diego Bay
Site used
seasonally
Plants
_
Chaparral sand - verbena
- -/- -/List IB Y
Sandy areas in coastal scrub and
June- August
Observed at
Abronia villosa var. aurita
'chaparral habitat
Talbert Nature
Preserve _
Aphanisma
FSC / -- /List IB
Coastal bluff scrub, coastal dunes
-. April -May
No habitat
Aphanisma blitoides
Coulter's saltbush
- -/- -/List 1B
Coastal bluff scrub, coastal dunes,
March- October
No habitat
Atriplex coulleri
.coastal scrub and grassland
..
OCSD Job No. 5 -58 Newport Trunk.
ESA /201168
3.2 -13
Draft EIR
-
November 2004
7
1
3. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING IMPACTS AND MITIGATION
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
- TABLE 3.2 -1 (CONT.): SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES REPORTED OR POTENTIALLY
OCCURRING IN THE PROJECT AREA
FEDERAL OR STATE SPECIES OF SPECIAL CONCERN (CONT.)
Period of
Listing Status
Identification /
Potential
Common name
USFWS/
Habitat
Flowering
to Occur
Scientific name
CDFG /CNPS
Requirements
Period
(see Note below)
South Coast saltscale
FSC /- - /List 1B
Coastal bluff scrub, coastal dunes,
March- October
No habitat
Atriplexpacifica
playas, chenopod scrub
Parish's brittlescale
FSC /- - /List I
Alkali meadows, vernal pools,
June- October
No habitat
Atriplex parishii
chenopod scrub, playas
Davidson's saltscale
- - / -- /List I
Coastal bluff scrub, coastal scrub
April- September
No habitat
Atriplex serenana var
' davidsonii
Santa Barbara morning -glory
- - / -- /List IA
Coastal marshes
June - August
Not observed
Calystegia sepiunr ssp
binghamiae
Southern tarplant
- -/- -/List 1B
Marshes and swamps, grassland,
May- November
No habitat
Centromadiaparryi ssp.
vernal pools
australis
Many- stemmed dudleya
FSC /- - /List I
Chaparral, coastal scrub, valley and
May -June
No habitat
Dudleyamulticaulis
foothill grassland
Cliff spurge
- - / -- /List 2
Coastal bluff scrub
— January- August
No habitat
Euphorbia misery
Los Angeles sunflower
FSC /- - /List IA
Coastal salt and freshwater marshes
August- October
Not observed
Helianthus nutlallii ssp
and swamps
parishii
' Coulter's goldfields
FSC /- -/List 1B
Coastal salt - marsh, playas, valley
March -May
Not observed
Lasthenia glabrata ssp coalteri
and foothill grassland, veinal pools
Robinson's pepper -grass
- - / -- /List 1B
Chaparral, coastal scrub
January-April
No habitat
Lepidium viginicum var ,
robinsomi
Mud Nama
- - / -- /List 2
Marshes and swamps
March -May
No habitat
Nama stenocaipum
Prostrate navarretia
FSC / -- /List III
Coastal scrub, grassland, venial
April -July
No habitat -,
Navarretla prostrata
pools -
.Coast woolly -heads
-- /-- /List 2
Coastal dunes
April- September
No habitat
- Nemacatdis denudata var
denudate
Sanford's arrowhead
FSC / -- /List 113 .
Marshes and swamps
May- August
No habitat
Sagiltaria sanfadii
Salt spring checkerbloom
- - / -- /List 2
Alkali playas, brackish marshes,
April- .Lune.
No habitat
Sidalcea neonvexicana
chaparral,.coastal scrub, lower
montane conifer forest, desert scrub
Estuary seablite
- -/- -/List 113
Marshes and swamps
July- October
Not observed -
Suaeda esteroa
OCSD Job No. 5 -58 Newport Trunk
ESA / 201168
3.2 -14
'. Dratl EIR
November 2004
1
TABLE 3.2 -1 (CONT.): SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES REPORTED OR POTENTIALLY
OCCURRING IN THE PROJECT AREA
FEDERAL OR STATE SPECIES OF SPECIAL CONCERN (CONT.)
Period of
Listing Status Identification / Potential
Common name USFWS/ Habitat - Flowering to Occur
Sciettlific name CDFG /CNPS Requirements Period (see Note below)
CDFG- sensalrveplanfco Ulm teev, ....i - "
California walnut woodland is not present.
Southern coast live oak riparian forest is not present
Southern coastal salt marsh is present
Southern cottonwood willow riparian forest is not present
Southern dune scrub is not present
' Southern foredunes is not present
Southem sycamore alder riparian woodland is not present
Note: "No Habitat' indicates that the habitat is not present within the project impact area as confirmed by the July 8
and 9, 2003 reconnaissance survey conducted by ESA. Therefore, species are not assumed present in the area or
affected by the project. "Not observed" indicates that the species may be present but was not observed during the
reconnaissance survey of the project impact area conducted by ESA on July 8 and 9, 2003. "Observed" indicates that
the species is known to utilize the habitat within the project area.
STATUS CODES:
Federal Categories(USFWS) : California Native. Plant Society.
FE = Listed as Endangered by the Federal Government List IA = Plants presumed extinct in California -
FE = Listed as Endangered by the Federal Government List 1H = Plants rare, threatened, or endangered in
FT = Listed as Threatened by the Federal Government California and elsewhere
FPE = Proposed for Listing as Endangered - List 2 = Plants rare, threatened, or endangered in
FPT = Proposed for Listing as Threatened California but more common
FC = Candidate for Federal Listing. - List 3 = Plants about which more information is needed
FSC = Federal Species of Concern List 4 = Plants of limited distribution
State Categories (CDFG)
CE = Listed as Endangered by the State of California
CT = Listed as Threatened by the State of California
CR = Listed as Rare by the State of California
CSC = California Species of Special Concern
Source: California Natural Diversity Database.
Plants
Based on the existing literature and the reconnaissance survey, no special- status plants were
observed or are likely to occur on the SAR Marsh site (Alternatives 2A, 2B and 2C). One List 113
species, the chaparral sand - verbena, has been observed in the Talbert Marsh area. Alternative 1C
could encounter this species. There would be no natural plant habitat impacted for the other
Alternative 1 alignments.
OCSD Job No. 5 -58 Newport Trunk 3.2 -15 ESA / 201168
n. n rnx 11__ 1 cnnn
3. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING, IMPACTS AND MITIGATION
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Wildlife
Based on the literature survey and reconnaissance field survey, two listed wildlife species are
known or likely to occur on the SAR Marsh site ( Beldings savannah sparrow and least tern). The
Talbert Marsh traversed by Alternative 1C supports similar wildlife. Alternatives IA, IB, and IC
would require constructing ajacking pit within 250 feet of the least tern nesting area at Huntington
State Beach. The two listed species are described below.
Belding's savannah sparrow (Passerculus sandwichensis beldingi)
The Belding's savannah sparrow is listed as endangered in California and a candidate species for
federal protection. It is a non - migratory subspecies that occurs in coastal salt marshes between
Goleta Slough, Santa Barbara County, and Bahia de San Quintin in Mexico. These sparrows nest
from April through July, with a peak in May and June, in hollows near the ground in and under a
canopy of pickleweed. Savannah sparrows feed on grass and other seeds, snail, spiders and other
invertebrates. Recently (deRivera, 2000), the species was observed eating eggs from live fiddler
crabs. The same salt -marsh habitat losses that have affected least terns (see below) are responsible
for population declines, and it may be necessary to consider complex factors in restoring or
replacing nest substrate (Keer and Zedler, 2002).
California least tern (Sterna anlillarum browni)
The California least tern is endangered at both state and federal levels. It is one of the smallest
members of its family, averaging only 23 cm (9 in.) in length. Typically, these terns nest on the
ground (unvegetated sites near water) in loose colonies and forage in shallow estuaries and
lagoons, diving head first into the water after a wide variety of small fish. Formerly California
least terns regularly nested on sandy beaches and mudflats near the ocean. The construction of
PCH in the early 20th century had a significant impact on California least terns, as well as other
shorebirds, by directly destroying nesting beaches as well as making these areas more accessible
to human encroachment (Pacific Biodiversity Institute, 2003; Zeiner et al, 1990). Most California
least terns nest at only a few select sites. In 1994, 76% of the population nested at nine sites, all in
southernmost coastal California. Four of the nine sites (in Los Angeles, Orange, and San Diego
counties) supported 48% of the breeding pairs (USGS Information at
littp://biology.usjzs.gov/s+t/SNT/iiidex.htm).
Two California "species of special concern" have been observed within the SAR marsh: black
skimmer and white - tailed kite. Other raptors such as kestrels and hawks have also been observed
at SAR Marsh and are protected by Fish and Game Code Section 3503.
OCSD Job No. 5 -58 Newport Trunk 3.2 -16 ESA / 201168
Draft EIR November 2004 .
3. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING, IMPACTS AND MITIGATION
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
APPLICABLE REGULATIONS
Regulation of Activities in Wetlands
The regulations and policies of various federal agencies (e.g., USACE, U.S. EPA and USFWS
mandate that the filling of wetlands be avoided unless it can be demonstrated that no practicable
alternatives (to filling wetlands) exist. The USACE has primary federal responsibility for
administering regulations that concern waters and wetlands on the project site. In this regard, the
USACE acts under two statutory authorities, the Rivers and Harbors Act (Sections 9 and 10),
which governs specified activities in "navigable waters," and the CWA (Section 404), which
governs specified activities in "waters of the United States," including wetlands and special aquatic
sites. The USACE requires that a permit be obtained if a project proposes placing structures within
navigable waters. The U.S. EPA, USFWS, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
(NOAA) Fisheries, and several other agencies provide comment on USACE permit applications.
The U.S. EPA has provided the primary criteria for evaluating the biological impacts of USACE
permit actions in wetlands and other special aquatic sites.
The State's authority in regulating activities in wetlands and waters at the site resides primarily
with the CDFG and the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). The CDFG provides
comment on USACE permit actions under the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act. CDFG is also
authorized under the State Fish and Game Code Sections 1600 -1607 to develop mitigation
measures and enter into a Stream Alteration Agreement (SAA) with applicants that propose a
project that would obstruct the flow or alter the bed, channel, or bank of a river, stream or lake in
which there is a fish or wildlife resource.
The SWRCB, acting through the nine RWQCB, must certify that a USACE permit action meets
State water quality objectives (Section 401, CWA).
Within the coastal zone,4 applicants for Section 404 permits must include a certification of
consistency with the California Coastal Zone Management Program.5 The entire project site is
located within the coastal zone, and thus it is subject to the California Coastal Act and the Orange
County Local Coastal Program. The CCC jurisdictional or review area not only includes the
wetlands (Cowardin wetlands), but an additional I00- foot -wide buffer, measured from the upland
edge of the wetland (14 California Code of Regulations [CCR] 12577).
4. The coastal zone is defined as areas X1,000 yards inland from the mean high tide except in significant coastal
estuarine, habitat, and recreational areas, where it extends inland to the first major ridge line paralleling the sea or
five miles from the mean high tide line, whichever is less (California Coastal Act 1976).
s. Under the federal Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (16 USC 1451), federal permit applicants must obtain a
certification that activities proposed within the coastal zone are consistent with the state Coastal Zone Management
Program.
OCSD Job No. 5 -58 Newport Trunk 3.2 -17 ESA / 201168
Draft EIR November 2004
3. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING, IMPACTS AND MITIGATION
.BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Special Status Species Regulations
Federal Endangered Species Act
Under the Federal Endangered Species Act (FESA), the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary
of Commerce jointly have the authority to list a species as threatened or endangered (16 USC
1533(c)).
Pursuant to the requirements of FESA, an agency reviewing a proposed project within its
jurisdiction must determine whether any federally listed or proposed species may be present in the
project region and determine whether the proposed project would have a potentially significant
impact on such species. In addition, the agency is required to determine whether the project is
likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any species proposed to be listed under FESA or
result in the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat proposed to be designated for
such species (16 USC 1536(3),(4)). Therefore, project - related impacts to these species or their
habitats would" be considered "significant' in this EIR. The "take" 6 prohibition of the FESA
prohibits any action that adversely affects a single member of an endangered or threatened species.
i
California Endangered Species Act
Under the CESA, the CDFG has the responsibility for maintaining a list of threatened and
endangered species (California Fish and Game Code 2070). The CDFG also maintains a list of
"candidate species," which are species formally noticed as being under review for addition to
either the list of endangered species or the list of threatened species. The CDFG also maintains
lists of "species of special concern," which serve as "watch lists." Pursuant to the requirements of
CESA, an agency reviewing a proposed project within its jurisdiction must determine whether any
state listed endangered or threatened species could be present on the project region and determine
whether the proposed project would have a potentially significant impact, on such species. In
addition, the CDFG encourages informal consultation on any proposed project that may impact a
candidate species.
CEQA Guidelines Section 15380
Although threatened and endangered species are protected by specific federal and state statutes,
CEQA Guidelines Section 15380(b) provides that a species not listed on the federal or State list of
protected species may be considered rare or endangered if the species can be shown to meet
6 "Take," as defined in Section 9 o the FESA, is broadly defined to include intentional or accidental "harassment' or
"halm" to wildlife. "Harass is further defined by the USFWS as an intentional or negligent act or omission which
- creates the likelihood of injury to wildlife by annoying it to such an extent as to significantly disrupt normal
.:behavioral patterns which include, but are not limited to, breeding, feeding, and sheltering. "Harm" is defined as an
act which actually kills or injures wildlife. This may include significant habitat modification or degradation where it
actually kills or injures wildlife by significantly impairing essential behavioral patterns, including breeding; feeding
or sheltering.
OCSD Job No. 5 -58 Newport Trunk 3.2 -18 ESA /201168
Draft EIR November 2004
certain specified criteria. These criteria have been modeled after the definition in FESA and the
section of the California Fish and Game Code dealing with rare or endangered plants or animals.
This section was included in the CEQA Guidelines primarily for situations in which a public
agency is reviewing a project that may have a significant effect on, for example, a "candidate
species" that has not yet been listed by either the USFWS or CDFG. Thus, CEQA provides an
agency with the ability to protect a species from a project's potential impacts until the respective
government agencies have an opportunity to designate the species as protected, if warranted.
Other Statutes, Codes and Policies Affording Limited Species Protection
The federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act (16 U.S.C., Sec. 703, Supp. 1 1989) prohibits killing,
possessing, or trading in migratory birds except in accordance with regulations prescribed by the
Secretary of the Interior. This act encompasses whole birds, parts of birds, and bird nests and
eggs. Birds of prey are protected in California under the State Fish and Game Code,
Section 3503.5 1992). Section 3503.5 states that it is "unlawful to take, possess, or destroy any
birds in the order FalconiforJnes or Strigiformes (birds of prey) or to take, possess, or destroy the
nest or eggs of any such bird except as otherwise provided by this code or any regulation adopted
pursuant thereto." It is generally recognized that construction disturbances during the breeding
season can result in the incidental loss of fertile eggs or nestlings, or otherwise lead to nest
abandonment. Disturbances that cause nest abandonment and /or loss of reproductive effort are
considered a "take" by CDFG. Any loss of fertile eggs, nesting raptors, or any activities resulting
in nest abandonment would constitutes significant impact. This approach would apply to red-
tailed hawks, American kestrels, barn owls, and other birds of prey. Project impacts to these
species would not be considered "significant" in this EIR unless they are known to be present or
have a high potential to nest on the site or rely on it for primary foraging.
Vascular plants listed as rare or endangered by the CNPS (Skinner and Pavlik, 1994), but which
have no designated status or protection under federal or state endangered species legislation, are
defined as follows:
List IA:. Plants believed extinct
List 1B: Plants Rare, Threatened or Endangered in California and Elsewhere
List 2: Plants Rare, Threatened or Endangered in California, but More Numerous
Elsewhere
List 3: Plants about which we need more information — a review list
List 4: Plants of limited distribution — a watch list
In general, plants appearing on CNPS List 1 or 2 are considered to meet CEQA's Section 15380
criteria and effects to these species would be considered "significant" in this EIR.
OCSD Job No. 5 -58 Newport Trunk 3.2 -19 - ESA / 201168
Draft EIR November 2004
3. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING, IMPACTS AND MITIGATION
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Local Plans and Policies
The SAR Marsh is owned by the USACE and is managed for its conservation value. The marsh
was created as compensation for habitat destroyed during flood control improvements conducted
in the 1990s by the USACE on the mainstem of the SAR.
The Banning Ranch (which generally includes the SAR Marsh) and Huntington Beach Wetlands
have been identified as high priorities for wetlands restoration in the Southern California Wetlands
Recovery Project (WRP) Regional Strategy. The WRP is a partnership of 17 state and federal
agencies working in concert with local governments— including the County of Orange and the
Cities of Huntington Beach and Newport Beach —to preserve and restore wetlands in Southern
California.?
The Santa Ana Watershed Project Authority (SAWPA) was formed in 1971 to develop a long-
term plan to manage the SAR watershed. In 1994 SAWPA broadened its focus and participation
to include issues of flood control, wildlife resources and interaction with other water agencies.
The project area is within the Coastal Subarea of the Coastal Central Subregion of the Natural
Community Conservation Plan.(NCCP) /Habitat Conservation Plan for Orange County. However,
the NCCP is specifically intended to address taking of habitat associated with the California
gnatcatcher (i.e., coastal sage scrub), with other species identified as Plan "targets," none of which
are present within the SAR Marsh or within any of the alternative alignments.$
c�►af►71��i7�iT11T.y�►Tilu • ►I
ryKrrar; /I�• ; ��zarr� /;���U9a7eJCy�H.niryryMUM
To determine the level of significance of an identified impact, the criteria outlined in the CEQA
Guidelines were used. The following is a discussion of the criteria used to determine the
significance of impacts to biological resources.
CEQA Guidelines Section 15065 directs lead agencies to find that a project may have a significant
effect on the environment if it has the potential to substantially 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 an endangered, rare or threatened species, or eliminate
important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory.
CEQA Guidelines Section 15206 further specifies that a project shall be deemed to be of
statewide, regional, or area -wide significance if it would substantially affect sensitive wildlife
7 Coastal Conservancy, NOP comment letter, 2003.
8 County. of Orange, 1995
OCSD Job No. 5 -58 Newport Trunk 3.2 -20 ESA / 201168
Draft EIR November 2004
3. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING, IMPACTS AND MITIGATION
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
habitats including, but not limited to, riparian lands, wetlands, bays, estuaries, marshes, and
habitats for rare and endangered species as defined by Fish and Game Code Section 903.
Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines indicates that a project would have a significant effect on the
environment if it would:
• interfere substantially with the movement of any resident or migratory fish or wildlife
species;
• substantially diminish habitat for fish, wildlife or plants; or
• substantially affect a rare or endangered species of animal or plant or the habitat of the
species.
CEQA Guidelines Section 15380 further provides that a plant or animal species, even if not on one
of the official lists, may be treated as "rare or endangered" if, for example, it is likely to become
endangered in the foreseeable future.
Pursuant to the FESA (Sections 7(a)(3) and (4)), every federal agency is required to confer with
the Secretary of the Interior on any action likely to jeopardize the continued existence of a listed or
proposed species or adversely affect the critical habitat of those species.
Based on guidelines established by the USFWS and the CDFG, a project is considered to have a
significant adverse impact on biological resources if it would result in substantial disruption to, or
destruction of, any special status species, their habitat, or breeding grounds. A project is also
considered to have a significant impact if it would result in a substantial loss of important plant or
animal species; cause a change in species composition, abundance or diversity beyond that of
normal variability; result in the direct or indirect measurable degradation of sensitive habitats (e.g.,
wetlands, riparian corridors, vernal pools, oak woodlands); or result in loss of a significant plant
community.
Local Plans and Policies. Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines specifies that a project would
normally have a significant impact on the environment if it would physically impact communities
or species protected by adopted environmental plans and goals of the communities where it is
located.
Less than Significant Impacts. Impacts are generally considered less than significant if the
habitats and species affected are common and widespread in the region and the state.
Beneficial Impacts. Impacts are considered beneficial if the action causes no detrimental impacts
and results in an increase of habitat quantity and quality.
OCSD lob No. 5 -58 Newport Trunk 3.2 -21 ESA / 201165
Draft EIR November 2004
3. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING, IMPACTS AND MITIGATION
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
For the purposes of this EIR, three principal components of the Guidelines outlined above were
considered:
• Magnitude of the impact (e.g., substantial /not substantial),
• Uniqueness of the affected resource (rarity), and
Susceptibility of the affected resource to perturbation (sensitivity).
The evaluation of significance must consider the interrelationship of these three components. For
example, a relatively small magnitude impact to a state or federal listed species would be
considered significant because the species is rare and is believed to be susceptible to disturbance.
Conversely, a plant community such as California annual grassland is not necessarily rare or
sensitive to disturbance. Therefore, a much larger magnitude of impact would be required to
result in a significant impact.
Impact 3.2 -1: Construction of the Alternative 2 alignments could result in the temporary
filling of jurisdictional wetland within the SAR Marsh. Similarly, Alternative 1C could
- result in temporary filling of jurisdictional wetland within the Talbert Marsh.
The general alignment for Alternative 2 crosses the restored marsh area established by the USACE
as mitigation for flood control work done on the SAR as part of USACE SAR Mainstem Project.
Each of the proposed project alignments would have different levels of potential impact to the
marsh. For purposes of this analysis, the construction segments are divided between the portion
from the Bitter Point Pump Station to the boundary of the SAR Marsh and the portion from the
edge of the SAR Marsh to the SAR. Within the first portion, each alignment of Alternative 2
follows the existing easement from the Bitter Point Pump Station to the SAR Marsh property as
shown on Figure 3.2.1. The easement follows an established, unpaved service road. No marsh
habitat was observed within the service road from Bitter Point Pump Station to the border of the
SAR Marsh when surveyed by ESA on July 8, 2003. The road in this area is bordered primarily
by non- native plants growing at the edge of the SAR Marsh Channel. Figure 3.2 -3 shows a view
of this road and vegetation. Close to the Bitter Point Pump Station the road widens, as shown in
Figure 3.2 -4.. Work conducted within the service road easement in this area would easily be
contained within disturbed road areas and would not significantly affect biological resources on
the road's borders. Mitigation measures to avoid vegetation removal outside of the service road
easement and to prevent placing fill material or to allow soughing of soils into vegetated areas
would ensure that no impact would occur during construction in the southern -most segment of the
utility road. (See mitigation measures M- 3-2.la and M- 3- 2.1b.)
Alignment 2A
Alignment 2A would follow the existing service road easement, extending northeast into the West
Newport Oilfield as shown in Figure 2 -5. Access into the West Newport Oilfield was denied for
purposes of this analysis. Views from the paved service road into the oilfield suggest that some
OCSD Job No. 5 -58 Newport Trunk 3.2 -22 ESA / 201168
Draft EIR November 2004
3. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING, IMPACTS AND MITIGATION
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
i
low- quality marsh habitat may exist within the alignment as elevation increases in the well field
area. Once within the well field area, the alignment would traverse an area that appears to be
disturbed by oil production activities. A service road would be constructed within the acquired
utility easement. Some native and some non - native plant species may exist within the oilfield.
However, since access was denied, the extent of impact to sensitive biological resources within the
oilfield is unknown. Any impacts to wetland areas including destruction of habitat would be
considered a significant impact of the project, requiring implementation of mitigation measure
M-3-2.1d.
The jack and bore pit for Alignment 2A would be located on the oilfield property. Although
access was denied, aerial photographs indicate that the area appears to be well outside of the
marsh area. The Alignment 2A would involve drilling under the SAR marsh and the SAR itself as
shown on Figure 3.2 -1 from the jack and bore pit. Since the pipeline would be drilled under the
marsh and river, no impacts to biological resources within the wetland areas would result from the
jack and boring operations. A Section 404 permit would not be needed for the drilling operations
occurring under the marsh and river since no wetland habitat would be affected.
Alignment 2B
Alignment 2B would follow the service road alignment approximately 1,000 — 1,500 feet into the
SAR Marsh. A jack and bore pit would be constructed on the service road. Drilling would occur
beneath the wetland area for approximately 1,500 feet north. At this point, a newjack and bore pit
would be created to tunnel under the SAR. The northern jack and bore pit would be located on the
outer border of the marsh and could result in removal of several hundred square feet of wetland
habitat. A service road to the jack and bore pit within the SAR Marsh would be constructed
through the oil field. This alignment would have the greatest potential for affecting marsh habitat
when constructing the access road and 400- square foot jack and bore pit within the SAR Marsh.
Destruction of marsh habitat would be considered a significant impact, requiring implementation
of mitigation measure M- 3 -2.1d. As with Alignment 2A, boring beneath the marsh and the river
would not affect biological resources and would not require a Section 404 permit from the
USACE since the wetland would not be affected.
Alignment 2C
The preferred project (Alternative 2C) would follow the service road easement from Bitter Point
—Pump Station all the way to the SAR. This utility road is raised above the surrounding wetland
area and does not support vegetation or jurisdictional wetlands. As such, open trenching within
the disturbed roadway would not destroy biological resources or require a Section 404 permit from
the USAGE or a Section 7 consultation with USFWS. Figure 3.2 -5 shows the road at the utility
road closer to the SAR along the Alternative 2C alignment. The utility easement follows the road
from Bitter Point Pump Station to the SAR. The District met with the USACE in August 2003 to
discuss the Alternative 2 alignment. During the meeting the USACE acknowledged that although
OCSD Job No. 5.58 Newport Trunk 3.2 -23 ESA/201168
Draft EIR November 2004
3. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING, IMPACTS AND MITIGATION
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES j
they would prefer Alternative 1 outside of the SAR marsh altogether, Alternative 2C would be
favorable over 2A and 2B since it would follow the pre- disturbed utility easement.
A jack and bore pit would be constructed within the 30 -foot service road easement at its terminus
with the SAR adjacent to the bike path. This area is within the City of Newport Beach
jurisdiction. From this jacking pit, the sewer would be installed beneath the river. Drilling under
the river would not require a Section 404 permit from the USACE since no wetland habitat would
be affected. Alternative 2C would minimize impacts to the marsh area by restricting construction
activities to within the already disturbed utility easement dirt road.
Alternative 1
Alignment 1C would traverse under PCH and cross the Talbert Marsh. Open trenching activities
would be routed around the Talbert Marsh (see Figure 2 -2), but could result in filling portions of
habitat area around the edges. Filling portions of the Talbert Marsh would require implementation
of mitigation measure M-3-2.1d, including obtaining a Section 404 permit from the USACE.
Alignments IA and 1B would not affect any wetland areas since they would generally follow the
PCH easement. Drilling under the SAR would not require a Section 404 permit from the USACE.
l
Mitigation Measures
Alignment I C, 2A, 2B and 2C
M- 3.2 -1a: Prior to construction, a qualified biologist will mark the allowed construction area
within the service road easement. The allowed construction area will exclude areas with existing
marsh vegetation. The markers will be located within visible distance of each other, no more than
100 feet apart on either side of the 30 -foot easement. No vegetation shall be removed during
construction work within the marked area of the service road alignment. No construction debris,
supplies or soils will be placed outside of the marked area.
M -3.2 -1 b: A qualified biologist will be present during construction activities within the SAR
Marsh or Talbert Marsh sufficient to ensure that no construction activities occur outside of the
marked construction area.
M- 3.2 -1c: Trenches and jack and bore pits shall be located on the previously disturbed easement
areas with no marsh habitat value. Trenching and construction of the pits shall not destroy
vegetation or place any fill onto wetland areas. if this is not possible, then Mitigation Measure
M- 3.2 -1d would apply.
OCSD Job No. 5 -58 Newport Trunk 3.2 -24 ESA/201168
Draft EIR November 2004
3. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING, IMPACTS AND MITIGATION
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
M- 3.2 -1d: if construction activities remove jurisdictional wetlands, they shall be replaced by
permanent wetlands under permit conditions established by the USACE, CDFG, and USFWS.
Description of permit conditions required in Mitigation Measure M- 3.2 -1d: If the project
disturbs a jurisdiction wetland, impacts to the wetland would be subject to CWA Section
404 permitting requirements, CWA Section 401 certification, and Streambed Alteration
Agreement under Section 1602 of the California Water Code. Moreover, the SAR Marsh
wetland was created as mitigation for flood control improvements on the mainstem of the
SAR. Placing fill material within the marsh or disturbance of marsh vegetation would
require a series of permits from resource agencies. The primary permitting vehicle would
be a Nationwide Permit (NWP) 12 (Utility Lines) issued by the USACE that allows any
amount of temporary impact, but only 0.5 acre of permanent impact. Section 401 of the
CWA requires that states certify the adequacy of Section 404 permits issued by the
USACE. This certification would be conducted by the Santa Ana RWQCB. A Streambed
Alteration Agreement would also be necessary to comply with Section 1602 of the
California Water Code.
If sensitive habitat is removed, requiring a Section 404 permit, a Biological Assessment .
pursuant to Section 7 of the federal Endangered Species Act would be prepared to
evaluate potential impacts to listed species. The application for and issuance of a Section
404 permit from the USACE for the project would require a formal consultation between
the USACE and the USFWS under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (for the least,
tern), and a similar consultation between OCSD and CDFG to resolve issues for the
Gelding's savannah sparrow, a state - listed species. The state process requires that there be
no harm or harassment of species listed under CESA. The process for such a consultation
involves the preparation of a Biological Assessment which would determine whether take
could occur and if so, whether it would result in an adverse effect on the species chances
for survival.
In essence, the Biological Assessment contains two parts, one showing that the project
commits to all practicable measures to reduce the potential for take, the second to propose
and commit the project sponsor to actions which would offset the effect of take which
may be unavoidable.
As mitigation, replacement of the biological function of the permanent or temporarily
disturbed wetlands must generally follow Regulatory Guidance Letter No. 02 -2 (USACE,
2002). Terms and conditions of the permit including the ratio of compensation lands
would be finalized during consultation between the USFWS, CDFG, and the USACE.
The implementation of the on -site mitigation would be documented in an agency -
approved Wetlands Replacement, Enhancement, and Monitoring Plan which would
contain, at a minimum, the following sections:
OCSD Job No. 5 -58 Newport Trunk 3.2 -25 ESA / 201168
Draft EIR November 2004
3. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING; IMPACTS AND MITIGATION
.BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
• Site selection and preparation;
• Exotic plant removal;
• Hydrological functioning;
+ Planting materials and plant installation;
• Maintenance;
• Long -term monitoring and success criteria; and
• Long -term funding for wetland monitoring.
Significance after Mitigation
Less than significant
Impact 3.2 -2: Project construction could affect the habitat, or result in incidental take of,
the Belding savannah sparrow (nesting and foraging) and California least tern (foraging).
This would be a less than significant impact under Alternatives 1A, 1B, 1C, and 1D, and a
significant impact for Alternatives 2A, 2B and 2C.
Alternatives 1A, 1B; and 1D would tunnel underneath the Talbert Marsh Outlet channel The
jacking pit would be located within the state beach parking lot approximately 200 feet from the
edge of the least tern nesting area. The ambient level of disturbance caused by beach users and
PCH traffic is already quite high in this area. The major construction activities would include
excavating the jacking pit, installing the drilling rig, staging equipment and materials, and loading
haul trucks with excavated soil. Mitigation M- 3.2 -2a would restrict major construction activities
during nesting season near the least tern nesting area.
Alternatives IA, 113; and 1C would require placing a jacking pit at the edge of the least tern
nesting area. Excavation and staging of materials could affect the least terns during nesting
season. Mitigation M- 3.2 -2b would restrict major construction activities during nesting season.
Foraging tern using the channel areas of SAR Marsh, and foraging and nesting Belding's savannah
sparrow could be harassed by construction activities under Alternatives 2A, 2B and 2C. The
harassment could result from noise, proximity of human activity, and vibration. Such disturbance
could lower foraging effectiveness of terns, which forage close to nests before chicks have
fledged, and might result in loss of nests or young of the savannah sparrow. Implementation of
]mitigation measure M- 3.2 -lb would ensure that harassment to these species would not occur.
OCSD Job No. 5 -55 Newport Trunk 3.2 -26 ESA / 201168
Draft EIR November 2004
I
3. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING; IMPACTS AND MITIGATION
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES -
If marsh habitat is removed, listed bird species could be affected either through direct mortality or
through destruction of nests and harassment during foraging. This would be considered a
significant impact of the project. Implementation of mitigation measure M- 3.2 -Id requiring
preparation of a Biological Assessment pursuant to Section 7 of the federal Endangered Species
Act would ensure that impacts to listed species were minimized to less than significant levels prior
to construction.
Mitigation Measures
Alignment 1A, IB, 1C 1D, 2A, 2B, 2C
M- 3.2 -2a: The District shall retain qualified biologist to provide an educational session to all
F
contractors and construction workers on the least tern and Belding savannah sparrow.
M- 3.2 -2b: Limit construction near the least tern nesting area and within the SAR Marsh to non-
nesting periods for the Belding's savannah sparrow and the least tern.
Description of Mitigation Measure .M- 3.2 -2b: The Belding's savannah sparrow nests from
April through July (Zeiner et al., 1990); least terns feed their young from April through
August. Therefore, any construction activity within the SAR Salt Marsh would be limited
to the period September 1 through March 31:
E
Significance After Mitigation
Less than significant.
R
Impact 3.2 -3: Construction activities associated with Alternatives 1C, 2A, 2B, and 2C could
adversely affect non - listed nesting birds protected by the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act.
Potential foraging habitat for white - tailed kites is present at SAR Marsh, but this species is not
expected to hest in the impacted areas. Other bird species potentially breeding on the project site
include grassland and shrub - nesting species (e.g., song sparrow, house finch). As a result of
construction activities, impacts to these and other birds protected by the MBTA include the
potential for destruction of individual birds, if present, and the loss of active nests. The following
mitigation measure would reduce the potential effects of the project to non - listed nesting birds to
less than significant levels. If construction activities occur only during the non- breeding season
between September I and March 31 (as per Mitigation Measure M- 3.2 -2b), there will be a less -
than- significant impact to migratory birds.
OCSD Job No. 5 -58 Newport Trunk 3.2 -27 ESA/201168
Draft EIR November 2004
s
E
3. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING, IMPACTS AND MITIGATION
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Mitigation Measures
Alignment 1C, 2A, 2B and 2C
See Mitigation Measure M- 3.2 -2b.
Significance after Mitigation
Less than significant.
Impact 3.2 -4: Routine maintenance and access requirements for Alternatives 2A; 2B, and
2C would potentially affect sensitive habitat and wildlife within the SAR Marsh.
Operation of Alternatives 2A, 213, or 2C would require routine access to District facilities located
within the SAR Marsh. Maintenance activities would be limited to the utility easements. Access
would not be allowed outside of the utility easement. Service vehicles may use the service road
from the Bitter Point Pump Station one to two times per day to access Bitter Point Pump Station.
However, the service road through the SAR Marsh would be accessed for maintenance
approximately once per month for each Alternative. Access to the junction box for Alternatives
2A and 2B would require accessing the northern SAR Marsh area. These routine maintenance
vehicles could create enough activity and noise in the area to disturb wildlife. Implementation of
the following mitigation measure will assist in minimizing the long -term effects of routine access
into the conservation area.
Mitigation Measures
Alignment 2A, 2B, 2C
M- 3.2 -4: The District shall prepare a maintenance procedures manual for activities within the
SAR Marsh. The manual will include the following restrictions at a minimum:
• District personnel shall not enter or place materials outside .ofthe utility easement.
• No vegetation clearing outside of the easement is allowed.
• The speed limit on the SAR Marsh service road is limited to 15 miles per hour.
• Public access onto the easement from the SAR levee shall be restricted.
I OCSD.Job No. 5 -58 Newport Trunk - 3.2 -28 - ESA/201168
Draft EI12 November 2004
n
E
E
I
I
3. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING, IMPACTS AND MITIGATION
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Significance after Mitigation
Less than significant.
I
i
3
i
1
f
OCSD Job NO 558 Newport Trunk 3.2 -29 ESA 201168
Draft EIR November 2004
P
3.4 GEOLOGY AND SOILS
This section evaluates whether the proposed project would impact local geological features or
expose people or structures to adverse geological impacts. Potential geologic hazards include
seismically induced groundshaking, fault rupture, liquefaction, landslides, and weak or unstable
soil conditions.
3.4.1 SETTING
The regional geologic setting for this project is described in Chapter 4 of the PEiR. No new
information has been presented that would result in major changes to the prior description or the
fundamental assumptions or understanding of the regional geology. The site is located on the
Orange County coastal plain, which is essentially a basin filled with rocks and alluvial deposits,
and where differential subsidence and uplifting have continued to occur since the late Cretaceous
period. Within the Orange County coastal plain, the site is located in the Santa Ana Gap, which is
an alluvial valley that has was eroded by the SAR near the end of the Pleistocene epoch when the
sea level was about 300 feet lower than the present level. As the sea level rose again during the
Holocene period, the eroded valley began to fill with alluvial deposits and marine sediments.'
The Talbert Channel, PCH, and SAR bridge are supported with underground foundations varying
from concrete piles to riprap boulders. The depth of these foundations vary but may exceed
60 feet below ground surface.
Seismology and Faults
Like much of Southern California, the project area is located in a seismically active region subject
to considerable tectonic stress. Figure 3.4 -1 shows the location of regional faults. Treatment
Plant No. 2 and the entire segment of the Newport Trunk Sewer are located within the Newport-
Inglewood Fault Zone. The fault zone consists of a series of short, discontinuous, northwest -
trending right - lateral faults, relatively shallow anticlines, and subsidiary normal and reverse faults
extending approximately 36 miles from the Santa Monica Mountains to offshore Newport Beach.
A segment of the fault zone also extends from Newport Beach to about six miles southeast of San
Onofre. Other major faults in the region include the Whittier Fault Zone and the Palos Verdes
Fault.
The California Geological Society (CGS) has classified the Newport- Inglewood Fault Zone active
under the Alquist- Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act' Few specific geological studies have been
conducted for the Newport- Inglewood Fault Zone, but historical records have shown potentially
Ninyo & Moore, Preliminary Geotechnical Evaluation PCHForce Mains OCSD Project No. 5 -58, Huntington
.Beach, California, June 4, 2003..
z An "active" fault is defined by CGS as one that has had surface displacement within the Holocene time (about the
last 11,000 years).
' The purpose of this act is to prohibit the placement of most structures for human occupancy across traces . of active
faults and thereby mitigate the hazards of surface fault rupture.
OCSD Job No. 5 -58 Newport Trunk `. 3.4 -1 ESA /201168.
Draft EI2 November 2004
x � �
W
e w
� p
O
bq
N
o �+
3
z
!a
s
0
d
N
E
eq
T
C
b0
N
E
W
G
d
O
U
v
en
d
O
P
0
w
3. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION
GEOLOGY AND SOILS
damaging earthquakes to occur every few years. The most damaging in the last 70 years was the
6.3 magnitude 1933 Long Beach quake. The Newport- Inglewood fault is capable of a maximum
moment magnitude of 6.9.° Table 3.4 -1 shows the distance of nearby active faults and their
maximum moment magnitudes.
TABLE 3.4 -1: PRINCIPAL ACTIVE FAULTS IN PROJECT AREA
Fault
Approximate Distance
to Fault miles
Maximum Moment
Ma nitude Mm „;
Fault Type'
Newport-Inglewood
<1/2
6.9
B
Palos Verdes
11
7.1
B
Elsinore
Whittier segment)
21
6.8
B
Sierra Madre
35
7.0
B
San Andreas
1857 Rupture)
52
7.8
A
a: 1 ype A= Yaults that are capable of producing large magnitude events and that have a high rate of seismic activity.
M., > 7.0. Slip Rate ? 5.
Type B = All faults other than Types A and C. M,,, ? 7.0, < 7.0 or? 6.5. Slip Rate < 5, > 2, < 2.
Type C = Faults that are not capable of producing large magnitude earthquakes and that have a relatively low rate of
seismic activity. M.. < 6.5 / Slip Rate < 2. Uniform Building Code 1997, Volume 2 Chapter 16-
Table .16 -U.
Source: Ninyo & Moore, 2003.
The CGS has not established a fault hazard zone on the Newport - Inglewood Fault Zone in the area
of Treatment Plant No. 2, as it has done along most of the onshore portion of the fault, because it
could not find definitive evidence of active faulting within the 0.5 -mile wide zone associated with
the fault where it trends offshore.' This area near the plant is difficult to study for active faulting
because historic flooding of the SAR has covered any traces of surface scarps that may have
formed during previous fault movement and shallow groundwater impedes conventional fault
investigation by trenching.
GEOLOGIC HAZARDS
Ground Shaking
While magnitude is a measure of the energy released in an earthquake, intensity is a measure of
the ground shaking effects at a particular location. Ground shaking may affect areas hundreds of
miles distant from the epicenter of an earthquake. Shaking intensity can vary depending on the
overall magnitude, distance to the fault, focus of earthquake energy, and type of geologic material
underlying the area. Intensities generally are highest at the fault and decrease with distance from
°. The maximum moment magnitude is an estimate of the size of a characteristic earthquake capable of occurring on a
particular fault. Moment magnitude is related to the physical size of a fault rupture and movement across a fault.
Richter magnitude scale reflects the maximum amplitude of a particular type of seismic wave and can be generally
higher than moment magnitude estimations.
s. Converse Consultants, Final Geologic Hazards and Geotechnical Investigation Report Proposed Headworks
Replacement P2 -66, August 2002.
OCSD Job No. 5 -58 Newport Trunk 3.4 -3 ESA / 201168
Draft EIR November 2004
3. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION
GEOLOGY AND SOILS
the fault. However, the composition of underlying soils in areas located relatively distant from
faults can intensify ground shaking. Areas that are underlain by bedrock tend to experience less
ground shaking than those underlain by unconsolidated 'sediments such as artificial fill.
The proposed project site is located near the active Newport- Inglewood Fault. Potentially
damaging earthquakes have occurred every few years along this fault zone. In addition, there are
several other active faults in the region. Seismic activity on any of these faults could cause
considerable ground shaking in the project area.
Ground shaking is commonly described in terms of peak ground acceleration as a fraction of the
acceleration of gravity (g), or by using the Modified Mercalli Intensity Scale, a common intensity
scale. The Modified Mercalli Intensity Scale is a more descriptive method involving 12 levels of
intensity denoted by Roman numerals. Table 3.4-2 below provides intensity descriptions with the
corresponding peak acceleration and velocity values used in CGS ShakeMaps. The degree of
actual structural damage would not be uniform because not all buildings perform identically in an
earthquake. The age, material, type, method of construction, size, and shape of a building all
affect its performance.
TABLE 3.4 -2: GROUND SHAKING INTENSITY DESCRIPTIONS
a: The `Instrumental Intensity" is the estimated Modified Mercalli Intensity based on instrumental ground motion recordings (peak
acceleration and velocity) and observed intensity for eight significant Califomia earthquakes (1971 San Fernando, 1979 Imperial
Valley, 1986 North Palm Springs, 1987 Whittier, 1989 Loma Preita; 1991 Sierra Madre, 1992 Landers, and 1994 Northridge).
Source: CalifornialntegratedSeisneic Network, 2001.
Surface Fault Rupture
Rupture of the surface during an earthquake is generally limited to the narrow strip of land
immediately adjacent to the fault on which the earthquake is occurring. Surface fault rupture may
occur suddenly during an earthquake or slowly in the form of fault creep and almost always
follows pre- existing faults, which are zones of weakness. Not all earthquakes will result in surface
rupture. No known CGS fault rupture zones exist within the project site.
Although no onshore surface fault rupture has taken place in historic time (since 1769), the
Newport- Inglewood fault zone, particularly the North Branch and Bolsa Fairview traces, should be
OCSD Job No. 5-58. Newport Trunk - 3.4 -4 -
Draft EIR
Instrumental Acceleration Velocity Perceived Shaking Potential Damage
Intensity' % cm /s
I < 0.17 < 0.1 Not Felt None
II — III 0.17 -1.4 0.1 -1.1 Weak None
IV 1.4 -3.9 1.1 -3.4 Light None
V 3.9-9.2 3.4-8.1 Moderate Very light
Vl 9.2- 18 8.1 - 16 Strong Light
V1I 18-34 16-31 Ve Strong Moderate
VIII 34-6 5 31- 60 Severe Moderate to Heav
IX 0 - 124 60 - 116 Violent Hea
X+ > 124 > 116 Extreme Very Heavy
ESA /201168
November 2004
vy
a: The `Instrumental Intensity" is the estimated Modified Mercalli Intensity based on instrumental ground motion recordings (peak
acceleration and velocity) and observed intensity for eight significant Califomia earthquakes (1971 San Fernando, 1979 Imperial
Valley, 1986 North Palm Springs, 1987 Whittier, 1989 Loma Preita; 1991 Sierra Madre, 1992 Landers, and 1994 Northridge).
Source: CalifornialntegratedSeisneic Network, 2001.
Surface Fault Rupture
Rupture of the surface during an earthquake is generally limited to the narrow strip of land
immediately adjacent to the fault on which the earthquake is occurring. Surface fault rupture may
occur suddenly during an earthquake or slowly in the form of fault creep and almost always
follows pre- existing faults, which are zones of weakness. Not all earthquakes will result in surface
rupture. No known CGS fault rupture zones exist within the project site.
Although no onshore surface fault rupture has taken place in historic time (since 1769), the
Newport- Inglewood fault zone, particularly the North Branch and Bolsa Fairview traces, should be
OCSD Job No. 5-58. Newport Trunk - 3.4 -4 -
Draft EIR
Instrumental Acceleration Velocity Perceived Shaking Potential Damage
Intensity' % cm /s
I < 0.17 < 0.1 Not Felt None
II — III 0.17 -1.4 0.1 -1.1 Weak None
IV 1.4 -3.9 1.1 -3.4 Light None
V 3.9-9.2 3.4-8.1 Moderate Very light
Vl 9.2- 18 8.1 - 16 Strong Light
V1I 18-34 16-31 Ve Strong Moderate
VIII 34-6 5 31- 60 Severe Moderate to Heav
IX 0 - 124 60 - 116 Violent Hea
X+ > 124 > 116 Extreme Very Heavy
ESA /201168
November 2004
3. ENVIRONMEN'T'AL SETTING, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION
GEOLOGY AND SOILS
considered capable of surface rupture` A concealed fault is present near the intersection of
Brookhurst Street and PCH as well as within the SAR marsh near the Alternative 2A and 213
alignments. In light of the proximity of traces of active faulting within the Newport- Inglewood
fault zone, ground rupture is a possibility near these alternative alignments.
Liquefaction and Dynamic Settlement
Liquefaction occurs when water - saturated sandy soil materials lose strength and become
susceptible to failure during strong ground shaking in an earthquake. Liquefaction potential is
greatest in areas with saturated soils where groundwater depths are less than 50 feet. Loose
granular soils with silt and clay contents of less than 35 percent are susceptible to liquefaction and
dynamic settlement.' The California Geological Survey Seismic Hazards Mapping Program
identifies the entire project area within a liquefaction hazard area.'
Expansive Soils
Expansive soils possess a "shrink- swell" behavior that occurs in fine- grained clay sediments from
the process of wetting and drying, which may result in structural damage over a long period of
time. When the soils are wetted, they incorporate water into the mineral structure causing
swelling of mineral grains and an increase in soil volume, !
Subsidence
The extraction of water, mineral, or oil resources can result in subsidence from the removal of
supporting layers in the geologic formation. Oil extraction activities could promote localized
subsidence. The impacts of subsidence could include lowering of the land surfaces, increased
potential for flooding, potential disturbance to buried pipeline and associated structures, and 1
damage to structures designed with minimal tolerance for settlement.
Landslides and Lateral Spreading
Soil type, climate, topography, slope geometry, and excavations can initiate slope failures and
landslides. Shaking during an earthquake may lead to seismically induced landslides, especially in
areas that have previously experienced landslides or slumps, in areas of steep slopes, or in
saturated hillsides. Seismically induced lateral spreading involves lateral movement of earth
materials due to ground shaking. It differs from slope failure in that complete ground failure
involving large movement does not occur due to the relatively smaller gradient of the initial
e Ninyo & Moore, Preliminary Geotechnical Evaluation PCH Force Mains OCSD Project No. 5 -58, Huntington
Beach, California, June 4, 2003.
7 Ibid. .
s California Geological Survey, Seismic Hazard Mapping Program, Newport Quadrangle,
http:// gmw .consrv.ca.gov /shmp /index.htm.
OCSD Job No. 5 -58 Newport Trunk 3.4 -5 ESA / 201168
Draft E112 November 2004
i
i
G.
3. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION
GEOLOGY AND SOILS
ground surface. Lateral spreading occurs as near - vertical cracks with predominantly horizontal
movement of the soil mass involved. The California Geological Survey Seismic Hazards
Mapping Program identifies the cliffs at the edge of the utility road and oil field as seismic
landslide hazard areas.'
APPLICABLE REGULATIONS
CEQA
CEQA defines a significant effect on the environment as a substantial; or potentially substantial,
adverse change in the physical conditions within the area affected by the project. CEQA
Guidelines lists several geology - related impacts that would normally be considered significant.
These include exposing people or structures to major geologic (expansive soils, landslides) and
seismic hazards (fault rupture, groundshaking, liquefaction); erosion or siltation; substantial
changes in topography; adversely affecting unique geologic or topographic features; or inundation
due to dam failure, seiche, or tsunami. For a project under CEQA review, potential adverse effects
of a particular identifiable geologic or seismic hazard is analyzed to determine the overall impact
to the environment. The conclusions drawn from the impact analysis provides the framework for
identification and evaluation of feasible mitigation measures to reduce the intensity of the impact.
Alquist- Priolo Earthquake Fault Zones
The Alquist - Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act of 1972 requires that special geologic studies be
conducted to locate and assess any active fault traces in and around known active fault areas prior
to development of structures for human occupancy. This state law was a direct result of the 1971
San Fernando Earthquake, which was associated with extensive surface fault ruptures that
damaged numerous homes, commercial buildings, and other structures.
The Alquist - Priolo Act's main purpose is to prevent the construction of buildings used for human
occupancy on the surface trace of active faults or within fifty feet of an active fault. The Act
defines "a structure for human occupancy" as any structure expected to have a human occupancy
rate of more than 2,000 person -hours per year. This Act only addresses the hazard of surface fault
rupture and is not directed toward other earthquake hazards. The law requires the State Geologist
to establish regulatory zones (Earthquake Fault Zones) around the surface traces of active faults
and to issue appropriate maps. These maps ( Alquist- Priolo Maps) are distributed to all affected
cities, counties and state agencies for their use in planning and controlling new or renewed
construction. Local pities and counties must regulate certain development projects within the
zones, which; include withholding permits until geologic investigations demonstrate that
development sites are not threatened by future surface displacement. Projects include all land
divisions and most structures for human occupancy.
Ibid.
OCSD.Job No. 5 -58 Newport Trunk 3.4 -6 ESA / 201168
'DraRE1R - November 2004
39 0'—
V .4?
1 `� 0
�- Qj
NOTICE OF PREPARATIO
�v
for the �" a _ <.,
F.Z ,
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Irvine Ranch Water District
Michelson Water Reclamation Plant
Phase 2 and 3 Capacity Expansion Project
In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the State CEQA
Guidelines, the Irvine Ranch Water District (IRWD) will be preparing an Environmental Impact
Report (EIR) for the proposed Michelson Water Reclamation Plant (MWRP) Phase 2 and 3
Capacity Expansion Project (Proposed Project). The IRWD seeks your input to define the scope
and content of the environmental information to be addressed in the EIR. A brief project
description and the location, along with a listing of those environmental effects to be addressed
in the EIR that may occur as a result of implementation of the Proposed Project, are contained in
the Initial Study (IS). The IS may be reviewed at IRWD, 15600 Sand Canyon Ave., Irvine, CA,
or on the IRWD website www.irwd.com. A public scoping meeting will be held to provide you
with additional opportunities to learn more about the project and to comment on the scope and
content of the environmental information to be included in the EIR. The public scoping meeting
will be held on June 14, 2005 starting at 5:00 PM at the Irvine Ranch Water District, Board
Room, 15600 Sand Canyon Avenue, Irvine, California.
Due to the time limits mandated by State law, written comments not presented at the public
scoping meeting must be sent no later than 30 days after receipt of this notice or by July 1, 2005.
Please send your comments to:
Irvine Ranch Water District
15600 Sand Canyon Avenue
Irvine, CA 92618
Attention: Gregory Herr
Planning and Resources Specialist
4633 -01
May 2005
Notice of Preparation
EIR for the IRWD Michelson Water Reclamation Plant
Phase 2 and 3 Capacity Expansion Project
A. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Irvine Ranch Water District (IRWD) operates an extensive separate distribution system that
provides recycled water and other non - potable water for non - potable water use, principally
irrigation, for its water customers. This system provides nearly 20% of the water served by
IRWD, conserves significant quantities of valuable potable water and reduces both IRWD's and
Southern California's reliance on water imported from Northern California and the Colorado
River.
The primary source of water for the non - potable water system is recycled (tertiary treated)
wastewater provided from IRWD's Michelson Water Reclamation Plant (MWRP) and Los
Alisos Water Reclamation Plant (LAWRP), with the remaining non - potable supplies coming
from a combination of imported untreated water purchased from Metropolitan Water District,
local groundwater and untreated native water from Irvine Lake. The IRWD Water Resources
Master Plan (WRMP) identifies ultimate (year 2025) demands for the non - potable water system
of approximately 33,000 acre -feet per year (AFY), with about 80% of these demands anticipated
to be met from recycled water. In order for IRWD's reclamation plants to meet these demands,
additional wastewater treatment capacity is necessary. In early 2004, IRWD completed a
"Wastewater Treatment Master Plan" (WTMP) which identifies the proposed MWRP Phase 2
and 3 Capacity Expansion Project from several scenarios for expansion necessary to meet
ultimate demands through 2025 for non - potable water.
The Proposed Project would expand the MWRP capacity from 18 million gallons per day (mgd)
to 33 mgd by 2025. The proposed expansion project would occur within the existing MWRP
footprint, and no acquisition or alteration of additional land would be necessary. The project's
major improvements would include:
® Replacement of headworks /intake system
a 5 additional primary clarifiers
® 1 additional primary sludge pumping station
® Flow equalization basin will be increased in size
® 1 additional flow equalization basin influent pump
W 3 additional activated sludge nitrification- dentrification trains including:
9 3 additional aeration tanks
9 3 additional secondary clarifiers
4 additional return activated sludge (RAS) pumps
4 additional waste activated sludge (WAS) pumps
4633 -01
May 2005 2
I I
TO
Los Angeles
BREk
J
J
FULI-E-14TON
PLACEN7
A Elm
CYPRESS
S
:
rai
, ALA&I
-
'- - -
ORANGE
I 1-J
11 T' GARDEN
GROVE
GROVE
7 7-
N,
HUMITINGTON COSTA
BEACH MESA
-A
<01. -
&!Fe,
Legend
lzvm Ranch Water District
Orange County Cities
LAGUNA
NIGUEL
MISSION
VIEJO
UNINCOFInRATEOTERFUTORY
TO
San Diego
SOURCE: Irvine Ranch Water District
MWRP Phase 2 and 3 Capacity Expansion Project - Notice of Preparation
Regional Map M
Wo
� m
as `� ."'��iw�, '-:a x 'n �� a y5�' a� t � � ,9 •�';" ='�s 6 � � �y �" �.cv `.
° �''' - .� ✓ � �'p� "`t p�'�\ A� J° ,r"��y. �r�`<' �.., x' `� (�'�� K �1jg it , ` .�> r '
cy to �
r.
Srtn Die
_ u_ O _ _ • I I ``�\ ,.. �' oho-.. � N i' I I I I
Notice of Preparation
EIR for the IRWD Michelson Water Reclamation Plant
Phase 2 and 3 Capacity Expansion Project
® 5 additional filters
® A 0.25 million gallon expansion of the chlorine contact tank
® 3 additional reclamation pumps
® Odor control features such as wet scrubbers on applicable facilities such as the new
headworks and primary clarifiers
® New groundwater pumps for dewatering
a Modifications to portions of the North Irvine Interceptor Sewer and South Irvine
Interceptor Sewer located within the MWRP site.
B. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING AND SURROUNDING LAND USES
As shown in Figure 1 and Figure 2, the MWRP is located at 3512 Michelson Drive, City of
Irvine, Orange County, California. As shown in Figure 2, the IRWD property, containing both
the MWRP site and the San Joaquin Wildlife Sanctuary, is bounded by Michelson Drive, the San
Diego Creek Channel, Campus Drive, and Carlson Avenue. The site is generally flat varying
between 10 and 15 feet above mean sea level (msl). A 15 to 20 foot high levee exists along the
southeastern extremity of the plant separating the site from the San Diego Creek Channel.
Access to the site is via IRWD's private drive, Riparian Way off of Michelson Drive between
Jamboree Road and Harvard Avenue. The property is located in an area characterized by mixed
land uses, including recreational, light commercial, institutional and residential use.
C. POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
An Initial Study has been prepared by IRWD evaluating the Proposed Project (see Attachment
1). Based on the preliminary analysis conducted in the Initial Study, IRWD has made the
decision to prepare an EIR that will more fully investigate the existing environmental setting, the
potential impacts resulting from project implementation, and potential mitigation measures, if
necessary, in the following areas: Hydrology/Water Quality, Biological Resources, Public
Health and Safety, Air Quality /Odor, and Noise. No determinations have yet been made as to
the significance of potential impacts in these areas; such determinations will be made in the EIR
after the issues are considered thoroughly. Other issues raised in the scoping process will also be
evaluated in the EIR as well as cumulative impacts of the project in combination with other
present and planned projects in the area.
4633 -01
May 2005
3
Notice of Preparation
EIR for the IRWD Michelson Water Reclamation Plant
Phase 2 and 3 Capacity Expansion Project
The following provides a summary of potential issues or impacts to be addressed in the EIR:
❑ Hydrology/Water Quality
The existing MWRP NPDES permit encompasses all operations, groundwater dewatering and
discharge to Sand Canyon, Rattlesnake and San Joaquin Reservoirs. An Industrial Stormwater
Permit (equivalent to a SWPPP) is written into the operating permit. The Proposed Project could
increase stormwater runoff volumes and velocities due to increased impermeable surfaces after
Project completion. Proposed Project operations could alter the amount, type, area or method of
surface water disposal currently allowed in the existing NPDES permit. The EIR will assess the
Proposed Project's potential to exceed any water quality standards or wastewater discharge
requirements.
IRWD operates an extensive non - potable water system that provides recycled water and other
non - potable water for non - potable water use in accordance with California health laws related to
recycled water, including Titles 22 and 17 of the California Code of Regulations and the NPDES
Permit which govern the use of recycled water. The Proposed Project will expand IRWD's
recycled water production facilities in order to meet ultimate (year 2025) demands for non-
potable water in accordance with California health laws relating to the use of recycled water.
This expanded use of recycled water and potential effects to both surface and groundwater
quality will be analyzed further in the EIR.
As shown in Figure Z the MWRP is located along the westerly bank of the San Diego Creek and
is protected from flooding by the San Diego Creek Channel. The San Diego Creek Channel is a
100 -year flood control facility under the maintenance of the Orange County Flood Control
District ( OCFCD) and is the primary regional flood control facility serving the San Diego Creek
watershed. The Proposed Project does not involve the construction of structures that would
impede or redirect flows in the San Diego Creek Channel. However, the flood storage capacity
within the San Diego Creek channel has been reduced in recent years due to sediment
accumulation in the charnel. OCFCD is responsible for maintenance of the San Diego Creek
Channel to its baseline condition as a 100 -year flood control facility. As such, OCFCD has
committed to the restoration of the Lower San Diego Creek Channel Sections and In -Line
Channel Sediment Basins (Jamboree Road to I -405) which would restore the San Diego Creek
Channel between Jamboree Road and the I -405 to its baseline condition as a 100 -year flood
control facility. In addition to discretionary approval by the OCFCD, a number of other permits
will be required prior to OCFCD being able to implement the Lower San Diego Creek Project.
Therefore, until the San Diego Creek Channel baseline condition as a 100 -year flood control
4633 -01
May 2005
6
Notice of Preparation
EIR for the IRWD Michelson Water Reclamation Plant
Phase 2 and 3 Capacity Expansion Project
facility is re- established, there will remain a potential for flooding at the existing MWRP site,
which will be discussed in the EIR. For purposes of the FIR, it is expected that OCFCD will
restore the 100 -year flood capacity.
❑ Biological Resources
Short-term construction impacts that may affect rare, threatened and endangered species will be
addressed in the EIR.
❑ Public Health✓Safety
Chlorine or other disinfectant substances are currently shipped to and used and stored on the
MWRP site. While the quantities of these substances stored at the MWRP are not anticipated to
change as a result of the Proposed Project, the frequency of deliveries is anticipated to increase.
The transport of hazardous materials is regulated by the State. The operation of the Proposed
Project would be subject to all applicable requirements by the Orange County Fire Authority.
Therefore, the transport of any new quantities of hazardous materials and the design of the
Proposed Project with respect to any new quantities of hazardous materials would be completed
in conformance with applicable federal, state, and local regulatory requirements. This will be
analyzed further in the EIR.
❑ Air Quality/Odor
Short-term emissions of criteria pollutants generated by project construction and long -term
operation emissions from new equipment and increased vehicle trips required for day -to -day
operations could contribute to violations of the local applicable air quality plan, the South Coast
Air Quality Management District's (SCAQMD) Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) or to
violations of State or Federal air quality standards. The EIR will analyze these potential impacts
to air quality, in both the long and short-term. Proposed facilities including headworks and
primary clarification would require odor control similar to that being currently used at the
MWRP. Although IRWD has not received odor complaints regarding the MWRP in the past ten
years, the EIR will analyze possible odor impacts resulting from the Proposed Project.
❑ Noise
The EIR will evaluate short-term construction and long -term operational noise impacts.
4633 -01
May 2005 7
Notice of Preparation
EIR for the IRWD Michelson Water Reclamation Plant
Phase 2 and 3 Capacity Expansion Project
❑ Population and Housing
The Proposed Project would allow IRWD to expand its capacity to produce reclaimed water to
meet projected non - potable water demand (principally irrigation) for its water customers through
the year 2025 requiring approximately two additional permanent employees. Implementation of
the Proposed Project would not induce additional growth but rather accommodate the current
projected growth of the region. The projected future non - potable water demand is based on
regional population projections adopted by the Southern California Association of Governments,
and local cities. IRWD does not have the authority to regulate land use planning or growth
within the region, but must plan for facilities to meet the non - potable water demand created by
this planned growth. CEQA requires that the potential growth inducing impacts of a project be
addressed in an EIR (State CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.2). Therefore, the EIR will address
the potential for impacts from population growth.
D. MANDATORY DISCUSSION
In addition to the aforementioned issues, CEQA requires the following areas be addressed in the
EIR:
❑ Growth Inducing Effects
The Proposed Project would allow IRWD to expand its capacity to produce reclaimed water to
meet projected non - potable water demand (principally irrigation) for its water customers through
the year 2025. Implementation of the Proposed Project would not induce additional growth but
rather accommodate the current projected growth of the region. The projected future non-
potable water demand is based on regional population projections adopted by the Southern
California Association of Governments, and local cities. IRWD does not have the authority to
regulate land use planning or growth within the region, but must plan for facilities to meet the
non - potable water demand created by this planned growth. CEQA requires that the potential
growth inducing impacts of a project be addressed in an EIR (State CEQA Guidelines Section
15126.2). Therefore, the EIR will address the potential for impacts from population growth.
❑ Alternatives
In compliance with CEQA, an EIR must describe a reasonable range of alternatives to the project
or project location that could feasibly attain most of the project objectives and avoid or lessen
4633 -01
May 2005 8
Notice of Preparation
EIR for the IRWD Michelson Water Reclamation Plant
Phase 2 and 3 Capacity Expansion Project
any of the significant environmental impacts of the Proposed Project. Additionally, the No
Project Alternative must also be analyzed in the EIR; this alternative describes the situation that
would likely occur in the absence of the Proposed Project.
IRWD evaluated several alternatives to the Proposed Project in the Wastewater Treatment
Master Plan (WTMP) (HDR, 2004). These include the following:
® Maximum expansion of LAWRP and full integration of LAWRP effluent into the
IRWD reclaimed distribution system. Included in the EIR will be a discussion of this
alternative, which would increase IRWD's recycled water generation capabilities by
expanding LAWRP.
® New satellite plant in the vicinity of the former El Toro Marine Corps Air Station
(ETMCAS), now referred to as the Great Park. The EIR will also include a discussion
of this alternative, which would involve building a new wastewater recycling plant near
the decommissioned and closed El Toro Marine Corps Air Station.
In addition to the WTMP alternatives listed above, additional alternatives will be evaluated for
full analysis and consideration in the Draft EIR based on additional input from agencies and the
public comments received during the EIR scoping process. Additional alternatives may consist
of.
® Alternative Designs
® Increased Water Conservation
4633 -01
May 2006 9
1.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
BACKGROUND:
Project title: Irvine Ranch Water District Michelson Water Reclamation Plant
Phase 2 and 3 Capacity Expansion Project
2. Lead agency name and address:
Irvine Ranch Water District
15600 Sand Canyon Avenue
Irvine. California 92718
3. Contact person and phone number: Mr. Gregory Herr, Planning and Resources
Specialist Tel. 949 - 453 -5865
4. Project location: Irvine Ranch Water District Michelson Water Reclamation Plant
located at 3512 Michelson Drive Irvine California 92612
5. Project sponsor's name and address:
Irvine Ranch Water District
15600 Sand Canyon Avenue
Irvine California 92718
6. General Plan designation: Public Facilities
.Zoning: Institutional 6.1 Planning Area 23
8. Other public agencies whose approval is required: (e.g., permits, financing
approval, or participation agreement.)
Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board — amend existing NPDES
Permit, General Permit for Stormwater discharge during construction
South Coast Air Quality Management District - amend existing Permit to Operate
May 2005
IRWD MWRP Phase 2 and 3 Expansion Project — Initial Study and Environmental Checklist
4633 -01
Initial Study and Environmental Checklist
Orange County Fire Authority — Risk Management Storage and Handling of
Hazardous Materials
State of California Department of Health Services -Title 22 Engineering
Report
9. Description of Project/Environmental Setting, and Surrounding Land Uses:
(Describe the whole action involved, including, but not limited to later phases of the project, and
any secondary, support, or offsite features necessary for its implementation. Attach additional
sheets if necessary.)
Project Description: The Proposed Project consists of expanding the Michelson Water
Reclamation Plant (MWRP) from 18 million gallons per day (mgd) to 33 mgd
The proposed expansion project would occur within the existing MWRP footprint and no
acquisition or alteration of additional land would be necessary. The project's major
improvements would include
® _Replacement of headworks /intake system
• 5 additional primary clarifiers
® I additional primary sludge pumping station
® Flow equalization basin will be increased in size
® 1 additional flow equalization basin influent pump
® 3 additional activated sludge nitrification- dentrification trains including:
3 additional aeration tanks
9 3 additional secondary clarifiers
4 additional return activated sludge (RAS) pumps
9 4 additional waste activated sludge (WAS) pumps
® 5 additional filters
® A 0.25 million gallon expansion of the chlorine contact tank
® 3 additional reclamation pumps
® Odor control features such as wet scrubbers on applicable facilities such as the new
headworks and primary clarifiers
® New groundwater pumps for dewatering
® Modifications to portions of the North Irvine Interceptor and South Irvine Interceptor
located within the MWRP site.
Environmental Setting and Surrounding Land Uses:
As shown in Figure I and Figure 2 the MWRP is located at 3512 Michelson Drive Citv
of Irvine. Orange County, California As shown in Figure 2 the IRWD property,
2005
4633 -01
IRWD MWRP Phase 2 and 3 Capacity Expansion Project — Initial Study and Environmental Checklist
Initial Study and Environmental Checklist
containing both the MWRP footprint site and the San Joaquin Wildlife Sanctuary, is
bounded by Michelson Drive, the San Diego Creek Channel, Campus Drive, and Carlson
Avenue. The site is generally flat varying between 10 and 15 feet above mean sea level
(msl). A 15 to 20 foot high levee exists along the southeastern extremity of the plant
separating the site from the San Diego Creek Channel. Access to the site is via IRWD's
private drive, Riparian Way off of Michelson Drive between Jamboree Road and Harvard
Avenue. The property is located in an area characterized by mixed land uses, including
recreational, light commercial, institutional and residential use.
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project,
involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact," or "Less than Significant
with Mitigation Incorporated" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
❑ Aesthetics
® Biological Resources
❑ Agricultural Resources
® Cultural Resources
® Hazards & Hazardous Materials ® Hydrology/ Water Quality
❑ Mineral Resources
❑ Public Services
❑ Utilities/ Service Systems
/1
❑ Recreation
® Air Quality
❑ Geology/ Soils
❑ Land Use/Planning
❑ Population/ Housing
❑ Transportation/ Traffic
® Mandatory Findings of Significance
DETERMINATION_ (To be completed by the Lead Agency)
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the
environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
❑ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the
environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the
project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED
NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
May 2005
IRWD MWRP Phase 2 and 3 Capacity Expansion Project— Initial Study and Environmental Checklist
4633 -01
3
Initial Study and Environmental Checklist
® I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
❑ I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or
"potentially significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one
effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal
standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis
as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required,
but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
❑ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the
environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately
in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and
(b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE
DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the
proposed project, nothing further is required.
Signature Date
Norris Brandt, Environmental Quality Manager
Printed name
May 2005
Irvine Ranch Water District
IRWD MWRP Phase 2 and 3 Capacity Expansion Project — Initial Study and Environmental Checklist
463301
Initial Study and Environmental Checklist
EXPLANATION FOR ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
State CEQA guidelines, Chapter 3, Article 5, Section 15063 requires that the IRWD conduct an
Initial Study to determine if a project may have a significant effect on the environment. The
Initial Study appears in the following pages in the form of a checklist. The checklist has been
adopted from the form in Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines as amended effective
January 1, 2005. This checklist identifies any physical, biological and human factors that might
be impacted by the proposed project and provides the IRWD with information to use as the basis
for deciding whether to prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR), Mitigated Negative
Declaration (MND), or Negative Declaration (ND).
® A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No hnpact" answers that are
adequately supported by an information source cited in the parentheses following each
question. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information
sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved. A
"No Impact" answer should be explained when there is no source document to refer to, or
it is based on project- specific factors as well as general standards.
o "Less Than Significant Impact" applies where there is supporting evidence that the
potential impact is not significantly adverse, and the impact does not exceed adopted
general standards and policies.
® "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation
of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a
"Less Than Significant Impact." The project applicant must agree to and describe the
mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than
significant level.
® "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an
effect is significantly adverse.
® A Negative Declaration may be prepared if IRWD perceives no substantial evidence that
the project or any of its aspects may cause a significant adverse effect on the
environment.
® If there are one or more potentially significant adverse effects, IRWD may avoid
preparing an EIR if there are mitigation measures to clearly reduce adverse impacts to
less than significant, and those mitigation measures are agreed to by IRWD prior to
public review.
2005
4033 -01
IRWD MWRP Phase 2 and 3 Capacity Expansion Project- Initial Study and Environmental Checklist 5
Initial Study and Environmental Checklist
If there is one or more potentially significant impact(s) where no mitigation measures that
could clearly reduce adverse impacts to less than significant have been identified and the
project proponent does not agree to mitigation measures that reduce the impact to less
than significant, then an EIR must be prepared.
May 2005
IRWD MWRP Phase 2 and 3 Capacity Expansion Project- Initial Study and Environmental Checklist
4633 -01
Initial Study and Environmental Checklist
May 2005
IRWD MWRP Phase 2 and 3 Capacity Expansion Project— Initial Study and Environmental Checklist
4633 -01
Less Than
Significant
Potentially With
Less Than
ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Significant Mitigation
Significant No
Refer to Section 2.2 for a detailed discussion of environmental issues
Impact Incorporated
Impact Impact
I. AESTHETICS — Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?
❑ ❑
❑
bl Suhstantially damage scenic resources, including, but not
❑ ❑
❑
limited ta, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings
within a state scenic highway?
cl Suhstantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of
❑ ❑
® ❑
the site and its surroundings?
Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would
❑ ❑
® ❑
Udl
affect day or nighttime views in the area?
II. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES — In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies
may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by
the California Department of
Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on a riculture and farmland. Would the project:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of
❑ ❑
❑
Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps
prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring
Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-
agricultural use?
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a
❑ ❑
❑
Williamson Act contract?
c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to
❑ ❑
❑
their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland,
to non -a ricultural use?
III. AIR QUALITY —Were available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution district may be
relied u on to make the fallowin determinations. Would the project,
a) Conflict with or obstruct 'm' on of the applicable air
® ❑
❑ ❑
quality plan?
b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to
® ❑
❑ ❑
an existing or projected air quality violation?
-
W Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any
® ❑
❑ ❑
criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment
under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality
standard )including releasing emissions which exceed
quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)?
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
® ❑
❑ ❑
concentrations?
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of
® ❑
❑ ❑
peo le?
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES — Wouldthe roect:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through
® ❑
❑ ❑
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 Service?
Id Have a substantial adverse effect an any riparian habitat or
® ❑
❑ ❑
other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional
plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of
Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
c) Have a substantial adverse effect an federally protected
❑ ❑
❑
wetlands as defined by Section habitat modifications, on any
species identified as a candidate, 404 of the Clean Water Act
)including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.)
through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or
other means?
dl 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?
el Conflict with any local policies or ordinance protecting
❑ ❑
❑
biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or
ordinance?
May 2005
IRWD MWRP Phase 2 and 3 Capacity Expansion Project— Initial Study and Environmental Checklist
4633 -01
Initial Study and Environmental Checklist
May 2005
IRWD MWRP Phase 2 and 3 Capacity Expansion Project — Initial Study and Environmental Checklist
4633 -M
Less Than
Significant
Potentially
With
Less Than
ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Significant
Mitigation
Significant
No
Refer to Section 2.2 fora detailed discussion of environmental issues
Impact
Incorporated
Im act
he act
f)
Conflict with the provisions of an adapted Habitat
❑
❑
❑
Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or
other approved local, regional, or State habitat conservation
plan ?.
V. CULTURAL RESOURCES — Would the project:
a)
Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a
❑
®
❑
❑
historical resource as defined in §15064.5?
bl
Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an
❑
®
❑
❑
archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5?
c)
Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource
❑
❑
❑
or site or unique geologic feature?
d)
Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of
Cl
❑
❑
formal cemeteries?
VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS — Would the project:
a)
Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse
effects, including the risk of loss, injury or death involving:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on
❑
❑
®
❑
the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning
Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based
on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to
Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42.
ill Strong seismic ground shaking?
❑
®
❑
❑
iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction?
❑
❑
®
❑
iv) Landslides?
❑
❑
❑
IR
hl
Result in substantial soil erasion or the loss of topsoil?
❑
❑
®
❑
c)
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 om or offsite landslide, lateral spreading,
subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
d)
Be located an expansive soil, as defined in Table 18 -1 -B of the
❑
❑
®
❑
Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life
or property?
el
Have sails incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic
❑
❑
❑
tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where
sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater?
VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS — Would the project:
a)
Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment
®
- ❑
❑
❑
through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous
materials?
bl
Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment
®
❑
❑
❑
through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions
involving the release of hazardous materials into the
environment?
c)
Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely
®
❑
❑
❑
hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter
mile of an existing or proposed school?
d)
Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous
®
❑
❑
❑
materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section
65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard
to the public or the environment?
e)
For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where
❑
❑
❑
such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public
airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety
hazard for people residing or working in the project area?
f)
For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the
❑
❑
❑
project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working
in the project area?
g)
Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an
❑
❑
❑
adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation
Ian?
May 2005
IRWD MWRP Phase 2 and 3 Capacity Expansion Project — Initial Study and Environmental Checklist
4633 -M
Initial Study and Environmental Checklist
May 2005
IRWO MWRP Phase 2 and 3 Capacity Expansion Project- Initial Study and Environmental Checklist
4633 -01
Less Than
Significant
Potentially
With
Less Than
ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Significant
Mitigation
Significant No
Refer to Section 2.2 for a detailed discussion of environmental issues
Impact
Incorporated
Impact Impact
h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury
❑
❑
® ❑
or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are
adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed
with wildlands?
VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY -Would the project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge
®
❑
❑ ❑
requirements?
hl Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere
❑
❑
® ❑
substantially with ground water recharge such that there
would he a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the
local ground water table level (i.e., the production rate of pre
existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not
support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits
have been granted)?
c) Impacts to groundwater quality?
®
❑
❑ ❑
d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or
❑
❑
iH ❑
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?
e) 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 flow rate or amount
(volume) of surface runoff in a manner, which would result in
flooding on- or off -site?
f) Create or contribute runoff water, which would exceed the
❑
®
❑ ❑
capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems
or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff?
0l Otherwise substantially degrade water quality (marine, surface,
®
❑
❑ ❑
groundwater or wetland waters)?
h) Place housing within a 100 -year flood hazard area as mapped
❑
❑
❑
an a Federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate
Map or other flood delineation map?
i) Place within 100 -year flood hazard area structures, which
❑
❑
❑
would impede or redirect flood flows?
jl 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?
h) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or nou flow?
❑
- ❑
❑
IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING - Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established community?
❑
❑
❑
b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation
❑
❑
❑
of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but
not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal
program, or zoning ordinance) adapted for the purpose of
avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or
❑
❑
❑
natural community conservation plan?
X. MINERAL RESOURCES - Would the project:
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource
❑
❑
❑
that would he of value to the region and the residents of the
state?
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally- important mineral
❑
❑
❑
resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan,
specific plan orother land use Ian?
XI. NOISE - Would the project result in:
a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess
®
❑
❑ ❑
of standards established in the local general plan or noise
ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?
b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundbome
®
❑
❑ ❑
vibration or groundborne noise levels?
May 2005
IRWO MWRP Phase 2 and 3 Capacity Expansion Project- Initial Study and Environmental Checklist
4633 -01
Initial Study and Environmental Checklist
May 2005
4633 -01
IRWD MWRP Phase 2 and 3 Capacity Expansion Project — Initial Study and Environmental Checklist 10
Less Than
Significant
Potentially
With
Less Than
ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Significant
Mitigation
Significant
No
Refer t oSection2. 2/ oradetait ed discussion o fanvironmentatissues
Impact
Incorporated
Impact
Impact
cl A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the
®
❑
❑
❑
project vicinity above levels existing without the project?
III A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise
®
❑
❑
❑
levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the
project?
el 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?
I) 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?
XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING — Would the project:
a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly
❑
❑
®
❑
(for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or
indirectly (far example, through extension of roads or other
infrastructure)?
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating
❑
❑
❑
the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
cl Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the
❑
❑
❑
construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES
a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts
associated with the provision of new or physically altered
governmental facilities, need far new or physically altered
governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause
significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain
acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance
objectives for any of the public services:
it Fire protection?
❑
❑
❑
ID
it) Police protection?
❑
❑
❑
iii) Schools?
❑
❑
❑
iv) Parks?
❑
❑
❑
v) Other public facilities?
❑
❑
❑
XIV. RECREATION
a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood
❑
❑
❑
and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that
substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or
he accelerated?
hl 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?
V. TRANSPORTATIONITRAFFIC— Wouldthe ro'¢ct:
al Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to
❑
❑
®
❑
the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e.,
result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle
trips, the volume to capacity ratio an roads, or congestion at
intersections)?
Ill Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service
❑
❑
®
❑
standard established by the County Congestion Management
Agency for designated roads or highways?
cl 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?
III Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g.,
❑
❑
❑
sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses
(e.g., farm equipment)?
e) Result in inadequate emergency access?
❑
❑
❑
If Result in inadequate parkingaacity?
❑
❑
❑
May 2005
4633 -01
IRWD MWRP Phase 2 and 3 Capacity Expansion Project — Initial Study and Environmental Checklist 10
Initial Study and Environmental Checklist
May 2005
IRWD MWRP Phase 2 and 3 Capacity Expansion Project— Initial Study and Environmental Checklist
4633 -01
Less Than
Significant
Potentially With Less Than
ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Refer t o Section 2. 2 fora detailed discussion o fenvimnmentalissuss
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
gl Conflict with adapted policies, plans, er programs supporting
❑ ❑ ❑
alternative trans liortation (e.., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)?
XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS —Would the project:
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable
® ❑ ❑ ❑
Regional Water Ouality Control Board?
h) Require or result in the construction of new water or
❑ ❑ ❑
wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing
facilities, the construction of which would cause significant
environmental effects?
c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water
❑ ❑ ® ❑
drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the
construction of which could cause significant environmental
effects?
d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project
❑ ❑ ❑
from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or
expanded entitlements needed?
e) Result in 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 providerls existing commitments?
f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to
❑ ❑ ® ❑
accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs?
Ill Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations
❑ ❑ ® ❑
related to solid waste?
XVIL MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of
® ❑ ❑ ❑
the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or
wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop
below self�sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or
animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a
rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important
examples of the major periods of California history or
prehistory?
h) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but
® ❑ ❑ ❑
cumulatively considerable? ( "Cumulatively considerable"
means that the incremental effects of a project are
considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of
past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the
effects of probable future projects)?
cl Does the project have environmental effects which will cause
® ❑ ❑ ❑
substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or
indirectly?
May 2005
IRWD MWRP Phase 2 and 3 Capacity Expansion Project— Initial Study and Environmental Checklist
4633 -01
Initial Study and Environmental Checklist
2.0 DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
2.1 AESTHETICS: Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?
No Impact. There is no scenic vista relevant to this project and the project site is not
located within the vicinity of a state scenic highway, nor designated scenic resources.
The project site is located within the existing boundaries of the MWRP site. The existing
MWRP is recessed below grade from the San Diego Creek Channel embankment and
from the surrounding roadways. The proposed structural facilities are low profile in
nature and none are more than the equivalent of approximately two stories in height.
This, in combination with the recessed elevation of the site, would make distant views of
the proposed facilities almost undetectable.
b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including but not limited to, trees, rock
outcroppings, and historic buildings within a State scenic highway?
No Impact See Response 2.1 -a. No scenic highways are located within the project
vicinity. All proposed improvements would be located within the project site and would
not involve disturbance of any trees, rock outcroppings or historic buildings.
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its
surroundings?
Less than Significant Impact See Response 2.1 -a. Minimal views of the existing
MWRP exist from a residential complex on Carlson Avenue, the Rancho San Joaquin
golf course across the San Diego Creek, a residential complex just south of the golf
course, nearby roadways, Michelson Drive, Carlson Street and Campus Drive and along
trails located along the San Diego Creek Channel. The Proposed Project would add new
low - profile structures to the existing MWRP site consistent with the existing structures
on the site and would appear from surrounding vantage points as a continuation to the
existing water reclamation facility. The most visible new structures include the five new
primary clarifiers expected to be approximately three feet high, and three new secondary
clarifiers also expected to be approximately three feet high. The new filters would be the
tallest of the proposed facilities at the MWRP and would be approximately 25 feet high,
the same as the existing tallest structure at the MWRP. The height, scale and character of
the proposed facilities are nearly identical to the existing facilities and would represent a
continuation of industrial structures that currently exist on the MWRP site. Additionally,
the proposed facilities would not conflict with the City of Irvine's height limitations, as
May 2005
IRWD MWRP Phase 2 and 3 Capacity Expansion Project — Initial Study and Environmental Checklist
4633 -01
12
Initial Study and Environmental Checklist
listed in Section 3- 37- 35.6.1 of the City of Irvine Zoning Code. The proposed facilities
would not change the existing visual character of the MWRP which is not considered a
significant visual resource within the community.
d) Create a new source of substantial light and glare, which would adversely affect day or
nighttime views in the area?
Less Than Significant Impact. The existing MWRP is a light source in the project area.
The proposed expansion facilities would entail the use of the same type of building
materials, lighting fixtures and visual treatment currently present at the MWRP. All new
lighting would utilize non -glare sodium vapor lights designed to concentrate the light
within the MWRP site. The project may result in a marginal cumulative increase in the
amount of light and glare currently being emitted from the MWRP. Any cumulative
increase in light and glare associated with the project would be directed within the
MWRP site and therefore would not create a new source of substantial light and glare,
which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area.
2.2 AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES -Would the project:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance
(Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and
Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non - agricultural use?
No Impact. Proposed facilities would be located entirely within the existing MWRP site.
No agricultural resources are located within the existing site. Therefore, no impacts to
agricultural resources would occur.
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract?
No Impact The project is located in an "Institutional 6.1" zone which is not designated
for permanent agricultural use according to the City of Irvine Zoning Code Section 3 -37-
37.
c) Involve other changes in the existing environment, which, due to their location or
nature, could result in conversion of Farmland to non - agricultural use?
No Impact See Response 2.2. The project would not involve the conversion of
agricultural resources to non - agricultural resources.
May 2005
IRWD MWRP Phase 2 and 3 Capacity Expansion Project - Initial Study and Environmental Checklist
4633 -01
13
Initial Study and Environmental Checklist
2,3 AIR QUALITY Would the project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan?
Potentially Significant Impact. The Proposed Project would not require a General Plan
Amendment, a Specific Plan or be a "significant project" According to the South Coast
Air Quality Management District's (SCAQMD) Air Quality Handbook, only projects of
those types require review for Air Quality Management Plan consistency. The Proposed
Project may have significant impacts from construction- related emissions as noted in the
answer to question (b) below. Therefore, the impact may be significant and will require
analysis in the FIR to determine if the Proposed Project would potentially interfere with
the implementation of the SCAQMD's Air Quality Management Plan and PM10
Attainment Plan.
b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected
air quality violation?
Potentially Significant Impact. Short-term construction exhaust emissions would be
generated from construction equipment, earth movement and demolition activities,
construction workers' commute, and construction material hauling for the entire
construction period. Emissions from temporary construction activities may exceed the
SCAQMD's thresholds of significance for criteria pollutants during the construction
period. This represents a potentially significant impact and will be evaluated further in
the EIR.
Operational air emissions are generated from operational equipment, other electrical
usage, natural gas usage, deliveries, and employee commute during day -to -day
operations. Although operational emissions are not expected to exceed SCAQMD
thresholds, the EIR will include further analysis with air quality modeling results for such
emissions.
c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which
the project region is non - attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air
quality standard?
Potentially Significant Impact. The Proposed Project would not have sources that would
create a significant permanent increase in the emissions of criteria pollutants that would
be cumulatively considerable. However, the regional air basin is a non - attainment area
for carbon monoxide, ozone, and particulates. The EIR will analyze potential cumulative
air quality impacts in further detail, including any increases in criteria pollutant emissions
from plant operations.
2005
IRWD MWRP Phase 2 and 3 Capacity Expansion Project— Initial Study and Environmental Checklist
463301
lei
Initial Study and Environmental Checklist
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations?
Potentially Significant Impact. The SCAQMD defines sensitive receptors as residential
areas, schools, playgrounds, health care facilities, day care facilities, and athletic
facilities. Single and multi - family residences are located within a quarter -mile of the
project site to the northwest of the project site across the San Joaquin Marsh and Carlson
Avenue, and southeast of the project site across from the San Diego Creek and the
Rancho San Joaquin golf course. There are no schools located within a quarter -mile of
the plant site. As discussed in Response 2.3 -b, air emissions during construction of the
Proposed Project could have a potentially significant impact. Therefore, the EIR will
assess potential impacts to sensitive receptors.
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people?
Potentially Significant Impact. The proposed facilities requiring odor control include
the MWRP headworks and primary clarification. Proposed expansion of these facilities
include odor control utilizing similar technology to that currently in use at the MWRP
(i.e., wet scrubbers). Although IRWD has not received odor complaints regarding the
MWRP in the past ten years, the EIR will analyze potential odor impacts from proposed
facilities.
2.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES - Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, 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 California Department of Fish and Game
or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
Potentially Significant Impact The Proposed Project would take place entirely within
the existing property boundaries of the MWRP. Several federal and state - listed
threatened and /or endangered species are known to exist outside the project site in the
vicinity of the MWRP site, including the coastal California gnatcatcher, least Bell's vireo
and southwestern willow flycatcher. Therefore, construction of the proposed facilities
could potentially indirectly affect species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special
status species.
May 2005
IRWD MWRP Phase 2 and 3 Capacity Expansion Project- Initial Study and Environmental Checklist
46330
15
Initial Study and Environmental Checklist
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural
community identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations or by
California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
Potentially Significant Impact. Project facilities would be confined within the existing
MWRP plant site and therefore would not directly affect riparian habitat or other
sensitive natural communities. However, the MWRP is located adjacent to the San Diego
Creek and San Joaquin Wildlife Sanctuary and as discussed under Response 2.4a could
have indirect impacts associated with short-term construction. Therefore, the EIR will
address these potential impacts.
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section
404 of the Clean Water Act (including but not limited to marsh, vernal pool, coastal,
etc.) through direct removal, filing, hydrological interruption, or other means?
No Impact. Project facilities would be confined within the existing MWRP plant site
and therefore would not directly affect federally protected wetlands defined by Section
404 of the Clean Water Act.
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or
wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or
impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?
No Impact. Project facilities would be confined within the existing MWRP plant site
which is not located within a wildlife movement corridor. Therefore, implementation of
the project would not interfere with wildlife movement..
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a
tree preservation policy or ordinance?
No Impact The Proposed Project would occur entirely within the existing MWRP site.
Near the site are areas that are part of preservation planning areas. These include: the
San Diego Creek and San Joaquin Wildlife Sanctuary. The Proposed Project would be
constructed in an area that does not lie within these planning areas. The site is not
designated in the Central /Coastal Orange County NCCP /HCP or on any other
conservation plans. The project site would not require tree removal and would be
consistent with the General Plan land use designation for the site. Therefore, there is no
potential for impact due to a conflict with approved local, regional, or state habitat
conservation plans or local policies and ordinances to protect biological resources.
May 2005
IRWD MWRP Phase 2 and 3 Capacity Expansion Project- Initial Study and Environmental Checklist
4633 -01
16
Initial Study and Environmental Checklist
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. See Response 2.4e.
2.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES —Would the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historic resource as defined
in §15064.4?
Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. Two archaeological sites
occur within the project area. CA- ORA -196/H and CA -ORA -197 are located on two low
hills within the upper part of San Joaquin Marsh along the west bank of San Diego Creek.
CA- ORA -1961H was occupied during the Milling Stone Period, the Intermediate Period
and the early Historic Period. CA -ORA -197 was occupied during the Milling Stone
Period and the late Prehistoric Period. Both sites have been investigated by
archaeologists and all previous investigations have been summarized by de Barros
(1992). IRWD has determined that the two sites, CA- ORA -196/H and CA -ORA -197, are
eligible for the California Register of Historic Resources. The cultural resource analysis
documenting these sites has been published previously (IRWD, MWRP Riparian Way
and Duck Club Road Improvements Project, Initial Study, September 2000).
The following mitigation measures have been incorporated into the project to ensure that
impacts to these archaeological sites due to implementation of the Proposed Project,
would be less than significant.
® All ground disturbing activities within the site boundary and buffer zone for CA-
ORA -196/H and CA -ORA -197 will be monitored by a qualified archaeologist to
ensure avoidance.
® Any cultural resources discovered during construction will be tested to determine
significance and mitigated through avoidance or data recovery. Should data
recovery be necessary, it will be done as mandated by the Natural Historic
Preservation Act (NHPA) and CEQA.
® Any artifacts or fossils impacted during construction will be repaired by the
archaeological monitor to a point of identification and IRWD will pay potential
curation fees.
2005
IRWD MWRP Phase 2 and 3 Capacity Expansion Project — Initial Study and Environmental Checklist
4633 -01
17
Initial Study and Environmental Checklist
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archeological resource
pursuant to §15064.5?
Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. See Response 2.5 -a.
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique
geologic feature?
No Impact. Due to the limited area to be disturbed and minimal depth to ground surface
disturbance, and that the proposed facilities would be located entirely within the existing
treatment plant property that has been previously graded, the potential for encountering
important paleontological resources is considered to be low.
d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries?
No Impact See Response 2.5 -a.
2.6 GEOLOGY AND SOILS - Would the project:
a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk
of loss, injury or death involving:
i. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-
Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist far the area
or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of
Mines and Geology Special Publication 42.
Less than Significant Impact. The Proposed Project involves the expansion of
treatment capacity at the MWRP by adding a number of new facilities. All
proposed activities would be limited to the existing plant site. This area has been
previously evaluated for soils, geology, and seismicity in three separate reports.
No known faulting exists within or adjacent to the MWRP site and the site is not
located in a delineated earthquake zone on an Alquist -Priolo Earthquake Fault
Map (State of California, 1997 with updates in 1999) (CH2MHill Geotechnical
Report — Phase I: 2005 Upgrades Secondary Clarifier and Supporting Facilities,
MWRP, July 2004).
ii. Strongseismicgroundshaking?
Less than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated. Although no faults exist
onsite, a number of active and potentially active regional fault zones could affect
May 2005
IRWD MWRP Phase 2 and 3 Capacity Expansion Project- Initial Study and Environmental Checklist
4633 -01
18
Initial Study and Environmental Checklist
the MWRP site. These include the Newport- Inglewood, Whittier, Norwalk, San
Andreas fault zones. A major earthquake on any of these could affect the
Proposed Project facilities, depending on the nature, size, and location of a
particular event. All proposed facilities will be designed and built in accordance
with seismic design provision of the Uniform Building Code. Additionally, all
facets of excavation, construction, and facility design will meet the standards
established for previous development at the MWRP site. Specifically, this will
include measures such as the over - excavation of unsuitable base soils and
geologic units, the proper composition, placement, and compaction of all
construction fill, the use of additional foundation design techniques as necessary,
and the utilization of appropriate construction materials and methods.
Incorporation of these standard design and construction measures will ensure that
impacts related to geologic hazards including seismic events would be less than
significant. See Response 2.6 -a.i.
iii. Seismic - related ground failure, including liquefaction?
Less than Significant Impact. Soils on the property are dense to very dense
sands and clayey sands, which underlie fill and alluvial materials at the site. The
liquefaction potential of these soils is estimated to be low (CH2MHill
Geotcchnical Report — Phase I: 2005 Upgrades Secondary Clarifier and
Supporting Facilities, MWRP, July 2004). Therefore, impacts related to seismic -
related ground failure, including liquefaction, are considered to be less than
significant.
iv. Landslides?
No Impact Landslides are associated with steep slopes or areas adjacent to
variable topography. The project site is located on a level mesa and is not
adjacent to any significant slopes. Therefore, no landslide hazards exist.
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?
Less than Significant Impact Implementation of the Proposed Project would involve
grading and the construction of several facilities at the existing MWRP. Development
activities would comply with National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
criteria. This would require the submittal of a Notice of Intent to the State Water
Resources Control Board and the preparation of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan
(SWPPP) to the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board to identify erosion
control methods and measures to prevent pollutant discharge from the site during
construction. The SWPPP would include a list of best management practices (BMPs),
May 2005
IRWD MWRP Phase 2 and 3 Capacity Expansion Project - Initial Study and Environmental Checklist
463301
19
Initial Study and Environmental Checklist
such as desilting basins, street sweeping, soil stabilizers and siltation fencing in order to
limit the amount of erosion that occurs during construction. The use of the BMPs would
reduce erosion during project construction to less than significant.
Once the proposed project facilities are constructed, the site would be covered with
impermeable surfaces or with landscaping. This would serve to limit the amount of
topsoil loss or potential erosion from the site. None of the proposed uses would require
future disturbance of the soils onsite. Therefore, the potential due to soil erosion or
topsoil loss with project implementation is considered to be less than significant.
c) 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?
Less than Significant Impact. Generally, dense to very dense, saturated sands underlie
the fill and the alluvial materials at the site. Blow counts in the saturated sands were
generally in the range of 30 to greater than 50. Liquefaction potential of the site soils is
estimated to be low because of the presence of dense to very dense sands and clayey
sands at the site (CH2MHill Geotechnical Report — Phase I: 2005 Upgrades Secondary
Clarifier and Supporting Facilities, MWRP, July 2004).
d) Be located on expansive soils, as defined in Table IS - I -B of the Uniform Building
Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property?
Less than Significant Impact. Soil samples taken in the general vicinity of the project
site indicate that the soils have little or no expansion potential. (CH2MHill Geotechnical
Report — Phase I: 2005 Upgrades Secondary Clarifier and Supporting Facilities, MWRP,
July 2004). No impacts from expansive soils are anticipated.
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative
wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of
wastewater?
No Impact. No septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems are proposed.
May 2005
IRWD MWRP Phase 2 and 3 Capacity Expansion Project - Initial Study and Environmental Checklist
4633 -01
20
Initial Study and Environmental Checklist
2.7 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS - Would the project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine
transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials?
Potentially Significant Impact. Implementation of the Proposed Project would involve
the storage and use of several hazardous substances, including chlorine and other
disinfectant substances. These substances are currently shipped to and stored on the
MWRP site, under Fire Authority permit. While the quantities of these substances stored
at the MWRP are not anticipated to change as a result of the Proposed Project, the
frequency of deliveries is anticipated to increase. The transport of hazardous materials is
regulated by the State. The operation of the project would be subject to all applicable
requirements by the Orange County Fire Authority. Therefore, the transport of any new
quantities of hazardous materials and the design of the Proposed Project with respect to
any new quantities of hazardous materials would be completed in conformance with
applicable federal, state, and local regulatory requirements. This will be analyzed further
in the FIR.
b) 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?
Potentially Significant Impact. See Response 2.7 -a.
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials,
substances, or waste within one- quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?
Potentially Significant Impact. There are no schools within one - quarter mile of the
project site. However, the transport of hazardous materials may be within one - quarter
mile of an existing or proposed school. See Response 2.7 -a.
d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled
pursuant to Government Code Section. 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a
significant hazard to the public or environment?
Potentially Significant Impact The project is located at the IRWD MWRP, a facility
which uses and stores hazardous materials. See Response 2.7 -a.
2005
IRWD MWRP Phase 2 and 3 Capacity Expansion Project- Initial Study and Environmental Checklist
463301
21
Initial Study and Environmental Checklist
e) For a project 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
result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area?
No Impact. The closest airport, John Wayne Airport, is located approximately two miles
northwest of the project site. The Airport is included in the Orange Country Airport
Environs Land Use Plan, as amended in November of 1995. The Airport Environs Land
Use Plan designates an Airport Influence Area in order to protect the airport's operations
and to prevent the creation of community hazards. The Influence Area encompasses
areas adjacent to the airport which could be impacted where height restrictions would be
needed to prevent obstructions to navigable air space as outlined in Federal Aviation
Administration regulations. Because the project would involve the introduction of low -
profile facilities with a maximum of 25 feet in height, obstruction impacts to aircraft
flight patterns would not occur as a result of the project.
t) 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. The project is not located within the vicinity of a private airstrip, and would
therefore not result in impacts to this type of facility or its associated employees.
g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response
plan or emergency evacuation plan?
No Impact. The project would not involve expansion beyond the existing site project
boundaries, therefore conflicts with any emergency evacuation plan would not occur.
Further, the plant is not located along any of the major arterials that could serve as major
evacuation routes. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not impair
or physically interfere with any emergency plan.
h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving
wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where
residences are intermixed with wildlands?
Less than Significant Impact. Portions of the project area are included in or adjacent to
open space with fire potential designated by the Orange County Fire Authority. The site
is within two miles of areas designated as having medium or high fire potential according
to the Orange County Planning and Development Services Department. The construction
of this project would not involve any housing structures, and the structures that are to be
constructed would be fabricated of non - combustible or fire - retardant materials, therefore,
the impact to people or structures involving wildland fires is less than significant.
May 2005
IRWD MWRP Phase 2 and 3 Capacity Expansion Project- Initial Study and Environmental Checklist
4633 -01
22
Initial Study and Environmental Checklist
2.8 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY - Would the project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements?
Potentially Significant Impact. The existing MWRP NPDES permit encompasses all
operations, groundwater dewatering and discharge to Sand Canyon, Rattlesnake and San
Joaquin Reservoirs. An Industrial Stormwater Permit (equivalent to a SWPPP) is written
into the operating permit. The new facilities could increase stormwater runoff volumes
and velocities due to increased impermeable surfaces after program completion. Project
operations of proposed facilities could alter the amount, type, area or method of disposal
currently allowed in the existing NPDES permit. The EIR will assess the Proposed
Project's potential to exceed any water quality standards or wastewater discharge
requirements.
b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with ground water
recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the
local ground water table level (Le., the production rate of pre - existing nearby wells
would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for
which permits have been granted)?
Less than Significant Impact. The Proposed Project allows IRWD to rely less on
potable water sources, including the local groundwater. Shallow groundwater dewatering
does take place on the property to protect in- ground facilities. With the expansion, some
additional dewatering pumps are planned around the new facilities. However, since the
dewatering impacts the shallow groundwater and does not affect the local aquifer,
substantial effects to groundwater supplies is not anticipated.
c) Impacts to groundwater quality?
Potentially Significant Impact. See Response 2.8a.
d) 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 The Proposed Project involves the addition of new
structures and paved area to the existing MWRP. The construction of these facilities
would increase the amount of runoff from the portions of the project site. The Proposed
Project would implement BMPs consistent with the required SWPPP in order to limit
erosion during construction. Once the Proposed Project facilities are completed, the site
would be covered with impermeable and landscaped surfaces, which would reduce
erosion. No streams or rivers would be directly impacted. The proposed construction
May 2005 4633 -01
IRWD MWRP Phase 2 and 3 Capacity Expansion Project— Initial Study and Environmental Checklist 23
Initial Study and Environmental Checklist
will occur within the drainage basin currently served by Storm Water Pump Station No.
1, and is not expected to affect the design and function of the existing drainage system.
All surface runoff within MWRP is collected, pumped to the headworks, and incoporated
into the water treatment flow.
e) 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 flow rate
or amount (volume) of surface runoff in a manner, which would result in flooding on-
or off -site?
Less than Significant Impacts See Response 2.8d.
fl Create or contribute runoff water, which would exceed the capacity of existing or
planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of
polluted runoff?
Less than Significant Impact. See Response 2.8d.
g) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality (marine, surface, groundwater or
wetland waters)?
Potentially Significant Impact. See Response 2.8 -a. IRWD operates an extensive
non - potable water system that provides recycled water and other non - potable water for
non - potable water use in accordance with California health laws related to recycled
water, including Titles 22 and 17 of the California Code of Regulations and the NPDES
Permit which govern the use of recycled water. The Proposed Project will expand
IRWD's recycled production facilities in order to meet ultimate (year 2025) demands for
non - potable water in accordance with California health laws relating to the use of
recycled water. This expanded use of recycled water and potential effects to both surface
and groundwater quality will be analyzed further in the EIR.
h) Place housing within a 100 year flood hazard area as mapped on a Federal Flood
Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood delineation map?
No Impact. The project would not include the introduction of new housing, therefore
flooding risks associated with new housing would not occur.
May 2005
IRWD MWRP Phase 2 and 3 Capacity Expansion Project- Initial Study and Environmental Checklist
4633 -01
24
Initial Study and Environmental Checklist
i) Place within 100 year flood hazard area structures, which would impede or redirect
flood flows?
Potentially Significant Impact. The MWRP is located along the westerly bank of the
San Diego Creek and is protected from flooding by the San Diego Creek Channel. The
San Diego Creek Channel is a 100 -year flood control facility under the maintenance of
the Orange County Flood Control District ( OCFCD) and is the primary regional flood
control facility serving the San Diego Creek watershed. The Proposed Project does not
involve the construction of structures that would impede or redirect flows in the San
Diego Creek Channel. However, the flood storage capacity within the San Diego Creek
channel has been reduced in recent years due to sediment accumulation in the channel.
OCFCD is responsible for maintenance of the San Diego Creek Channel to its baseline
condition as a 100 -year flood control facility. As such, OCFCD has committed to the
restoration of the Lower San Diego Creek Channel Sections and In -Line Channel
Sediment Basins (Jamboree Road to I -405) which would restore the San Diego Creek
Channel between Jamboree Road and I -405 to its baseline condition as a I00 -year flood
control facility. In addition to discretionary approval by the OCFCD, a number of other
permits will be required prior to OCFCD being able to implement the Lower San Diego
Creek Project. Therefore, until the San Diego Creek Channel baseline condition as a
100 -year flood control facility is re- established, there will remain a potential for flooding
at the existing MWRP site which will be discussed further in the EIR. For the purposes
of the EIR, it is expected that OCFCD will restore the 100 -year flood capacity of the
channel.
j) 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?
Potentially Significant Impact See Response 2.8 -i. The project would not involve the
introduction of structures in a dam inundation zone.
A) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or rnudflow?
No Impact Hydrologic and topographic conditions of the project site and surrounding
area do not lend themselves to these conditions. The Proposed Project is not near any
water body that would potentially be affected by a seiche, tsunami, or mudflow.
Therefore, the Proposed Project would not be affected by any of the above stated natural
phenomena.
May 2005
IRWD MWRP Phase 2 and 3 Capacity Expansion Project -I nital Study and Environmental Checklist
4633 -01
25
Initial Study and Environmental Checklist
2.9 LAND USE AND PLANNING - Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established community?
No Impact. Because the proposed expansion project would be located entirely within the
existing site boundaries, the physical division of a community would not occur.
b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with
jurisdiction over the project (including but not limited to the general plan, specific
plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding
or mitigating an environmental effect?
No Impact. The project site is designated "Public Facilities" by the City of Irvine's
General Plan, and "Institutional" by the City of Irvine's Zoning Map. These designations
include the treatment of wastewater as an allowable use. The proposed project would not
create any new uses that do not already exist within the facility boundary and would not
conflict with general plan or zoning designations. No conflict with any applicable land
use plan or regulation would occur due to implementation of the proposed expansion
project.
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community
conservation plan?
Potentially Significant Impact. SeO Response 2.4 -f.
2.10 MINERAL RESOURCES -Would the project:
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of future
value to the region and the residents of the State?
No Impact. The project is not located in an area of known mineral resources. Therefore,
there would be no impact to mineral resources of value to the region or the state. (IRWD
draft Negative Declaration for the Power Generation Project, 2002).
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site
delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan?
No Impact. See Response 2.10 -a.
May 2005
IRWD MWRP Phase 2 and 3 Capacity Expansion Project- Initial Study and Environmental Checklist
4633 -01
26
Initial Study and Environmental Checklist
2.11 NOISE -Would the project result in:
a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established
in the local general plan or noise ordinance or applicable standards of other agencies?
Potentially Significant Impact The proposed project will generate noise both during
construction and continuing operations after the expansion is complete. The EIR will
review the potential impacts of both long and short term noise, as well as groundbourne
vibrations resulting from the proposed expansion construction and long term facility
operations.
b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundbourne vibration or
groundbourne noise levels?
Potentially Significant Impact See Response 2.11 -a.
C) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above
levels existing without the project?
Potentially Significant Impact See Response 2.11 -a.
d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project
vicinity above levels existing without the project?
Potentially Significant Impact See Response 2.11 -a.
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not
been adopted, within 2 miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project
expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?
No Impact. The closest airport, John Wayne Airport, is located approximately 2 miles
northwest of the project site. The Airport is included in the Orange County Airport
Environs Land Use Plan, as amended in November of 1995. The Proposed Project would
not be located in the vicinity of an airport. The project site is a water treatment facility
and would not be considered a noise sensitive use. Therefore, the Proposed Project
would not subject people to excessive noise from an existing public airport or private
airstrip. The proposed limited expansion of the current MWRP will not interfere with the
Orange County Plan or pose a safety hazard due to air traffic noise to local residence or
those working in the project area.
2005
RIND MWRP Phase 2 and 3 Capacity Expansion Project- Initial Study and Environmental Checklist
4633 -01
27
Initial Study and Environmental Checklist
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people
residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?
No Impact The project is not located in the vicinity of a private airstrip. See Response
2.11 e.
2.12 POPULATION AND HOUSING - Would the project:
a) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly (for example, by proposing new
homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other
infrastructure) ?
Less than Significant Impact. No housing or commercial facilities are related to the
proposed project. In addition, the proposed project would not modify land use or zoning
designations to permit new residential or commercial development.
The Proposed Project would allow IRWD to expand its capacity to produce reclaimed
water to meet projected non - potable water demand (principally irrigation) for its water
customers through the year 2025 requiring approximately two additional permanent
employees. Implementation of the Proposed Project would not induce additional growth
but rather accommodate the current projected growth of the region. The projected future
non - potable water demand is based on regional population projections adopted by the
Southern California Association of Governments, and local cities. IRWD does not have
the authority to regulate land use planning or growth within the region, but must plan for
facilities to meet the non - potable water demand created by this planned growth. CEQA
requires that the potential growth inducing impacts of a project be addressed in an EIR
(State CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.2). Therefore, the EIR will address the potential
for impacts from population growth.
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere?
No Impact. The project would be located entirely within the existing MRWP site
boundaries. No housing currently exists onsite, therefore housing would not be
displaced.
c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement
housing elsewhere?
No Impact See Response 2.12b.
May 2005
IRWD MWRP Phase 2 and 3 Capacity Expansion Project — Initial Study and Environmental Checklist
4633 -01
28
Initial Study and Environmental Checklist
2.13 PUBLIC SERVICES
a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the
provision of new or physically altered government facilities, a need for new or
physically altered government facilities, the construction of which could cause
significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios,
response times, or other performance objectives for any of the public services:
I) Fire protection?
No Impact. The project would involve expansion of existing facilities located
entirely within the MWRP site boundaries. Introduction of additional treatment
processes and enhancement of existing processes would not change local fire
protection authorities' response times or substantially affect demand for fire
protection services at the facility.
ii) Police protection?
No Impact. The project would not involve the introduction of structures outside
of the existing MWRP property. Further, the project would not include the
addition of housing, schools or other community facilities that might require
police protection. Therefore, introduction of additional treatment facilities would
not change local police protection response times or substantially affect demand
for police protection services in the project area.
iii) Schools?
No Impact. As discussed under Response 2.12 -a, the proposed project would not
generate population growth; therefore, no new demand would be placed on
schools.
iv) Parks?
No Impact. As discussed under Response 2.12 -a, the proposed project would not
generate population growth; therefore, no new demand would be placed on parks.
v) Other public facilities?
No Impact As discussed under Response 2.12 -a, the proposed project would not
generate population growth; therefore, no new demand would be placed on public
facilities.
May 2005 463301
IRWD MWRP Phase 2 and 3 Capacity Expansion Project — Initial Study and Environmental Checklist 29
Initial Study and Environmental Checklist
2.14 RECREATION
a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or
other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility
would occur or be accelerated?
No Impact. As discussed under Response 2.12 -a, the proposed project would not
generate population growth; therefore, no new demand on recreational facilities would
occur.
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 No recreational facilities would be built or expanded as a result of the
Proposed Project. Local residents currently us the dirt road along the eastern and western
banks of the San Diego Creek as a walking/jogging trail or bikeway. Access to this area
for walkers /joggers and bicyclists would remain available. The construction laydown
area would be located inside the fenced MWRP.
2.15 TRANSPORTATION /TRAFFIC —Would the project:
a) Cause an increase in traffic that is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load
and capacity of the street system?
Less Than Significant Impact During construction (approximately 24 months),
approximately 50 vehicle trips for construction crews and equipment/material deliveries
would occur. All construction equipment, vehicles, personnel and materials staging areas
would be accommodated within the property lines of the MWRP. Access to and from the
construction site would occur via exit 7 of the San Diego Freeway (Interstate 405 (I-
405)), to Jamboree Road west, Michelson Road Southeast, and Riparian Way south.
Table 2.15 -1 below includes the average daily trips for the roads used to access the
MWRP. As shown in Table 2.15 -1, the anticipated short-term and limited construction-
related traffic would not create a substantial impact on traffic volumes nor change traffic
patterns in such a ways as to affect the level of service (LOS) or vehicle to congestion
ratio on study area roadways.
2005
IRWD MWRP Phase 2 and 3 Capacity Expansion Project- Initial Study and Environmental Checklist
4633 -01
30
Initial Study and Environmental Checklist
Table 2.15 -1. Project Construction/Operations Traffic
Jamboree Rd. I- Major Highway 6 through 62,603 C 50 4
405 Off Ramp to lanes
Michelson Rd."
Michelson Rd. Primary 4 through :25,746 A 50 F4
from Jamboree to Highway lanes
*Data from the California Department of Transportation, District 12, Orange County, 2003 Traffic Volumes
* *Data from the City of Irvine Department of Public Works, Transportation Development Office
b)
May 2005
During operations, two new employees and a maximum of approximately two daily truck
trips for chemical deliveries would be expected at the MWRP site after the
implementation of the Proposed Project. Conservatively, this would result in an
additional four vehicle trips per day for the site, which would not add significantly to the
ADT on the local roadways, as shown in Table 2.15 -1. This limited traffic will not result
in substantial increases in either the number of vehicle trips or increases to the existing
volume to capacity ratios on existing roads and intersections. Therefore, there is no
potential for a significant traffic impact due to increased trips from the operation or
construction of the new facilities.
IRWD, as part of the proposed expansion, does not plan to handle treatment residuals on
the site. All plant residuals would be pumped to the Orange County Sanitation District
(OCSD) for handling via the existing single 18 -inch export line. Sending residuals from
MWRP for treatment at OCSD is not expected to increase the residuals at OCSD, as the
wastewater treated at MWRP would otherwise have been treated at the OCSD. Therefore,
no impacts to traffic patterns are expected due to offsite treatment of residuals.
Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by
the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways?
Less Than Significant Impact. See Response 2.15 -a. Although the project would result
in temporary increases in traffic on local area roadways, this short-term construction -
related traffic and limited operations traffic would not create a substantial impact on
traffic volumes nor change traffic patterns in such a way as to affect the level of service
(LOS) or vehicle to congestion ratio on study area roadways.
IRWD MWRP Phase 2 and 3 Capacity Expansion Project - Initial Study and Environmental Checklist
463301
31
Initial Study and Environmental Checklist
c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels
or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks?
No Impact. The Proposed Project does not include components that would alter air
traffic patterns. It would not, therefore, result in substantial safety risks associated with
air traffic.
d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature or incompatible uses?
No Impact. The project would not involve the alteration of existing roadways nor would
it require incompatible vehicles access. Vehicles used during construction would be
driven to the site and away from the site pursuant to state transportation laws. Any
equipment or vehicles not designated as adequate for public roadway travel would be
transported to the site via a trailer unit. Hence, no impacts are expected.
e) Result in inadequate emergency access?
No Impact. Construction activities resulting from the Proposed Project would be
conducted entirely on the existing MWRP site and emergency access offsite would not be
changed. Adequate emergency access to all portions of the project site would be
maintained and included in the construction safety plan for the Proposed Project.
Therefore, the Proposed Project would not impact emergency access.
J9 Result in inadequate parking capacity?
No Impact. All construction workers and operator vehicles and equipment would utilize
the current site for parking. Therefore, no impacts to parking capacity would occur due
to the proposed project.
g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans or programs supporting alternative transportation
(e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks, etc.)?
No Impact. The Proposed Project would consist of enhancements to existing facilities
and construction of new facilities within the existing plant site. Therefore, modifications
would not affect planned alternative transportation routes or modes, or conflict with
adopted policies, plans and programs supporting alternative transportation.
May 2005
RIND MWRP Phase 2 and 3 Capacity Expansion Project - Initial Study and Environmental Checklist
4633 -01
32
Initial Study and Environmental Checklist
2.16 UTILITIES AND SERVICES SYSTEMS -Would the project:
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality
Control Board?
Potentially Significant Impact. See Response 2.8 -a.
b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or
expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which would cause significant
environmental effects?
No Impact. The project is a proposed expansion to the existing MWRP facility. As
discussed in Response 2.12 -a, the proposed project would not generate population
growth; therefore, no new demand on water or wastewater facilities would occur.
c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or
expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant
environmental effects?
Less than Significant Impact The project is a proposed expansion to the existing
MWRP facility. No planned expansion of, or construction of new storm water drainage
facilities or expansion of existing storm water drainage facilities is planned as part of the
Proposed Project. See Response 2.8d.
d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements
and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed?
No Impact. See Response 2.16 -b.
e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider, which serves or may
serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand
in addition to the provider's existing commitments?
No Impact. See Response 2.16 -b.
f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's
solid waste disposal needs?
May 2005
Less than Significant Impact The project would generate a modest amount of
construction- related solid waste during the construction phase. The Frank K. Bowerman
landfill, located in Irvine, serves as the landfill for all solid waste generated at the
4633 -01
IRWO MWRP Phase 2 and 3 Capacity Expansion Project— Initial Study and Environmental Checklist 33
Initial Study and Environmental Checklist
MWRP, and has a permitted capacity to accept the expected waste generated from the
construction of the Proposed Project. The expanded operations at MWRP, once
complete, will not generate additional demand for solid waste disposal needs.
The MWRP facility currently produces primary sludge and scum, waste activated sludge,
secondary scum and filter backwash, but pumps all of these residuals to the OCSD for
handling. IRWD, as part of the proposed expansion, does not plan to handle treatment
residuals on the site. All plant residuals would be pumped to the Orange County
Sanitation District (OCSD) for handling via the existing single 18 -inch export line.
Sending residuals from MWRP for treatment at OCSD is not expected to increase the
residuals at OCSD, as the wastewater treated at MWRP would otherwise have been
treated at the OCSD. Therefore, less than significant impacts to landfill capacity are
expected due to offsite treatment of residuals.
g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste?
Less than Significant Impact The Proposed Project would comply with applicable
federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste. The MWRP
handles a minimal amount of solid waste generated at the office facilities on -site.
Residuals from the water treatment facilities on -site are pumped to the OCSD for
handling. See Response 2.16 -f.
2.17 MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment,
substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife
population to drop below self - sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal
community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or
animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or
prehistory?
Potentially Significant Impact Based on analysis of the above listed topics,
implementation of the project may impact the habitat of sensitive species and wetlands.
These impacts will be analyzed in the EIR.
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively
considerable? ( "Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a
project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the
effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects ?)
May 2005
463301
IRWD MWRP Phase 2 and 3 Capacity Expansion Project — Initial Study and Environmental Checklist 34
Initial Study and Environmental Checklist
Potentially Significant Impact. The Proposed Project in conjunction with other area
projects, could have potentially cumulative impacts on the physical environment.
Potential cumulative impacts in conjunction with related projects could occur with regard
to biological resources, hydrology, noise, air quality, and hazardous materials.
Cumulative impacts to these environmental resources will be analyzed in the EIR.
c) Does the project have environmental effects, which will cause the substantial adverse
effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?
Potentially Significant Impact. The Proposed Project would provide a beneficial effect
with regard to non - potable water supplies and would not cause substantial adverse effects
on human beings, either directly or indirectly. Construction activities would follow
applicable safety laws to ensure safe working conditions for construction workers.
Operational activities would comply with applicable Occupational Safety and Health
Administration requirements. However, this NOP /Initial Study identifies several
resource areas that could adversely impact human beings, including air quality,
hazards/hazardous materials, hydrology /water quality, and noise. These impacts will be
analyzed in the EIR.
May 2005
IRWD MWRP Phase 2 and 3 Capacity Expansion Project - Initial Study and Environmental Checklist
463MI
35
Initial Study and Environmental Checklist
3.0 REPORT PREPARATION PERSONNEL
Irvine Ranch Water District - Lead Agency
Gregory Herr Planning and Resource Specialist
DUDEK & ASSOCIATES, INC. — Initial Study Preparation
John Porteous, M.A., C.E.P
Project Manager
Sherri Miller, M.S
Senior Biologist
Emily Lyons, M.S.E.L.
Environmental Specialist
Mike Komula, M.S.
Acoustician
Steve Deering, M.S., P.E.
Engineer
Peter Quinlan, M.S R.G.
Senior Hydrologist
Lesley Terry, B.S.
CADD Operator
Tonette Foster, B.S.
Computer Processing
SCIENTIFIC RESOURCES ASSOCIATES
Victoria Thompson, Ph.D. Safety Review
GIROUX AND ASSOCIATES
Hans Giroux, M.S.. Air Quality
May 2005
IRWD MWRP Phase 2 and 3 Capacity Expansion Project - Initial Study and Environmental Checklist
4633 -01
36
Initial Study and Environmental Checklist
4.0 REFERENCES AND SUPPORTING SOURCES
Airport Land Use Commission for Orange County, Airport Environs Land Use Plan, November
1995
California, State of. Building Standards Commission. 1994. Uniform Building Code. Chapter
18, Section 1809, Table 18- 1- B- Classivfrcation of Expansive Soil
California, State of Department of Conservation. Geological Survey. Revised 1997;
Supplements added 1999. Department of Minerals and Geology Special Publication 42.
Accessed via: ftp //ftU consry ca gov/ up b /dmg[pubs /sp /Sp42 pdf
Carlson Marsh Regrade Project, Irvine, California, Initial Study, LSA Associates, Inc. April
2004
City of Irvine, General Plan, as posted on the City of Irvine Web site, www.ei.irvine.ca.us,
visited on April 18, 2005
City of Irvine, Zoning Map, Figure 300 -1, last updated January 2001
City of Irvine, Zoning Ordinance, Codified through Ord. No. 05 -03, enacted Jan. 11, 2005,
Supplement No. 21
Cultural Resources Documentation — University and Campus Drive Sewer Rehabilitation
Project, Irvine Ranch Water District, Orange County, California, CH2MHi11, July 2004
De Banos, Philip. "Boundary Delineation of CA- ORA- 196/H, Irvine Ranch Water District,
Demonstration Gardens Project." Prepared by Chambers Group, Inc., Irvine. Prepared
for the Irvine Ranch Water District, Irvine. 1992.
Federal Emergency Management Agency, Q3 Flood Data
Final Environmental Impact Report: Wastewater Management and Action Program, November
1979
Geotechnical Report — Phase I: 2005 Upgrades — Secondary Clarifier and Supporting Facilities,
Michelson Water Reclamation Plant, Irvine, California, CH2MHi11, July 2004
Irvine Ranch Water District. "Initial Study for Michelson Water Reclamation Plant Riparian
Way and Duck Club Road Improvements." Prepared for the Irvine Ranch Water District,
Irvine. September 2000
May 2005
4633 -0t
IRWD MWRP Phase 2 and 3 Capacity Expansion Project- Initial Study and Environmental Checklist 37
Initial Study and Environmental Checklist
Irvine Ranch Water District Michelson Water Reclamation Plant Power Generation Project,
Negative Declaration and Initial Study Report, April 2002
Irvine Ranch Water District, Wastewater Treatment Master Plan, September 2003
Irvine Ranch Water District, Water Resources Master Plan, November 1999
Natural Resources Conservation Service, Soils, 1978
Zoning Ordinance, City of Irvine, California, Ordinance Number 05 -03, enacted January 11,
2005 (Supplement No. 21)
2005
IRWD MWRP Phase 2 and 3 Capacity Expansion Project - Initial Study and Environmental Checklist
463301
38