treatment plant draft mnd -...

Recycled Water Tertiary Treatment Plant

Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration for the

M A R C H 2 0 1 2

El Toro Water District24251 Los Alisos Boulevard

Lake Forest, CA 92630

LEAD AGENCY:

605 Third StreetEncinitas, CA 92024

P R E P A R E D B Y :

DRAFT Mitigated Negative Declaration for the


Prepared for:

El Toro Water District 24251 Los Alisos Boulevard

Lake Forest, California 92630 Contact: Mr. Dennis Cafferty, Director of Operations and Engineering

Telephone: 949.837.7050

Prepared by:

DUDEK 605 Third Street

Encinitas, California 92024 Contact: Shawn Shamlou, AICP

MARCH 2012

Printed on 30% post-consumer recycled material.

Recycled Water Tertiary Treatment Plant Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration

7199 i March 2012

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Section Page No.

1.0 INTRODUCTION..............................................................................................................1 1.1 Background ............................................................................................................. 1 1.2 Project Need and Objectives ................................................................................... 1 1.3 California Environmental Quality Act Compliance ............................................... 2 1.4 CEQA-Plus Evaluation ........................................................................................... 2 1.5 List of Discretionary Actions .................................................................................. 3 1.6 Other Agencies that May Use the Mitigated Negative Declaration ....................... 3 1.7 Public Review Process ............................................................................................ 3

2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ..............................................................................................5 2.1 Project Location ...................................................................................................... 5 2.2 Environmental Setting ............................................................................................ 5 2.3 Project Characteristics ............................................................................................ 6

2.3.1 Project Description ...................................................................................... 6 2.3.2 Project Construction and Schedule ........................................................... 15 2.3.3 Project Design Features ............................................................................ 16

3.0 FINDINGS ........................................................................................................................19 3.1 No Impact or Less-Than-Significant Impact ........................................................ 19 3.2 Less-Than-Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated ............................... 19

4.0 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST ...............................................21 4.1 Aesthetics .............................................................................................................. 34 4.2 Agriculture and Forestry Resources ...................................................................... 36 4.3 Air Quality ............................................................................................................ 37 4.4 Biological Resources ............................................................................................ 45 4.5 Cultural Resources ................................................................................................ 52 4.6 Geology and Soils ................................................................................................. 55 4.7 Greenhouse Gas Emissions ................................................................................... 57 4.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials ........................................................................ 61 4.9 Hydrology and Water Quality ............................................................................... 67 4.10 Land Use and Planning ......................................................................................... 74 4.11 Mineral Resources ................................................................................................ 75 4.12 Noise ..................................................................................................................... 76 4.13 Population and Housing ........................................................................................ 82 4.14 Public Services ...................................................................................................... 83


TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED)

Section Page No.

7199 ii March 2012

4.15 Recreation ............................................................................................................. 84 4.16 Transportation and Traffic .................................................................................... 85 4.17 Utilities and Service Systems................................................................................ 87 4.18 Mandatory Findings of Significance ..................................................................... 89

5.0 REPORT PREPARATION PERSONNEL ...................................................................91

6.0 REFERENCES .................................................................................................................93

APPENDICES (PROVIDED ON ENCLOSED CD)

A Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions B Biological Resources Letter Report C Archaeological Survey Report D Environmental Hazards Report Memorandum E Hydrology and Water Quality Technical Report


TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED)

Page No.

7199 iii March 2012

LIST OF FIGURES

1 Regional Map .......................................................................................................................7 2 Vicinity Map ........................................................................................................................9 3 Aerial Photograph ..............................................................................................................11 4 Site Plan .............................................................................................................................13

LIST OF TABLES

1 Anticipated Construction Equipment .................................................................................15 2 SCAQMD Air Quality Significance Thresholds ...............................................................39 3 Estimated Daily Maximum Construction Emissions (lbs/day unmitigated) ......................41 4 Localized Significance Thresholds Analysis for Construction Emissions ........................43 5 Estimated Project Construction and Operational Air Emissions .......................................45 6 Estimated Annual Construction Greenhouse Gas Emissions ............................................58 7 Estimated Operational Greenhouse Gas Emissions ...........................................................60 8 Conceptual Peak Flow Summary .......................................................................................69 9 Maximum Permissible Noise Levels .................................................................................77 10 Measured Noise Levels ......................................................................................................78 11 Construction Equipment Noise Levels ..............................................................................78 12 Outdoor Mechanical Equipment Noise ..............................................................................81


7199 iv March 2012

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

Acronym/Abbreviation Definition ACOE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers afy acre-feet per year APE Area of Potential Effects AQMP Air Quality Management Plan AST aboveground storage tank BEP Business Emergency Plan BMP Best Management Practice CAAQS California Ambient Air Quality Standards CARB California Air Resources Board Caltrans California Department of Transportation CBC California Building Code CDFG California Department of Fish and Game CEQA California Environmental Quality Act CFS cubic feet per second CHRIS California Historical Resources Information System CO carbon monoxide CO2E carbon dioxide equivalent CWSRF Clean Water State Revolving Fund DAMP Drainage Area Management Plan dB decibel EDR Environmental Data Resources EIR Environmental Impact Report EPA Environmental Protection Agency ETWD El Toro Water District gpm gallons per minute GPS Global Positioning System HCP Habitat Conservation Plan I-5 Interstate 5 kWh kilowatt-hour IBC International Building Code Leq time-averaged sound level LID Low-impact development LUP Linear Underground Project LST Localized Significance Threshold MG million gallon MND Mitigated Negative Declaration MRZ Mineral Resource Zone MWD Metropolitan Water District of Southern California MWDOC Municipal Water District of Orange County


7199 v March 2012

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

Acronym/Abbreviation Definition NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards NAHC Native American Heritage Commission NCCP Natural Communities Conservation Plan NOx oxides of nitrogen NO2 nitrogen dioxide NPDES National Pollution Discharge Elimination System O3 ozone OCFA Orange County Fire Authority OCHCA Orange County Health Care Agency PM2.5 particulate matter with a diameter less than or equal to

2.5 microns PM10 particulate matter with a diameter less than or equal to10

microns RWQCB Regional Water Quality Control Board SCAB South Coast Air Basin SCAQMD South Coast Air Quality Management District SCCIC South Central Coastal Information Center SMARA Surface Mining and Reclamation Act SO2 sulfur dioxide SOCWA South Orange County Wastewater Authority SWPPP Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan SWRCB State Water Resources Control Board TDS total dissolved solids TMDL total maximum daily load UST underground storage tank VOC volatile organic compound WRP Water Recycling Plant WQMP Water Quality Management Plan WQO water quality objective


7199 vi March 2012

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK


7199 1 March 2012

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background

The El Toro Water District (ETWD), founded in 1960, provides domestic water; recycled water; and sanitary sewer collection, treatment, and disposal services to a population of over 50,000 in a 5,430-acre service area that includes portions of the Cities of Aliso Viejo, Lake Forest, Laguna Hills, Mission Viejo, and all of the City of Laguna Woods. ETWD receives its water from two main sources: recycled water and imported water from the Municipal Water District of Orange County (MWDOC). MWDOC is a member agency of the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (MWD).

ETWD operates an existing Water Recycling Plant (WRP) that supplies approximately 500 acre-feet per year (afy) of disinfected secondary-treated recycled water for irrigation of the Laguna Woods Village Golf Course and for irrigation and plant process water at the WRP. The remaining secondary effluent is discharged to the Pacific Ocean via the South Orange County Wastewater Authority (SOCWA) Effluent Transmission Main.

ETWD is proposing to expand their recycled water treatment plant to allow for the delivery of up to 1,175 afy of additional tertiary-treated recycled water to existing dedicated irrigation customers within the ETWD service area, for a total of 1,675 afy. The additional recycled water produced at the proposed Tertiary Treatment Plant would be distributed through a proposed Recycled Water Distribution System Expansion project. The proposed Distribution System Expansion project possesses independent utility per California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Section 21159.27 and would function on its own, without construction of the proposed treatment plant. As such, the proposed Distribution System Expansion project is being analyzed under CEQA in a separate CEQA document.

1.2 Project Need and Objectives

ETWD relies on imported treated water from MWD to meet 95% of their water demands. The remaining 5% comes from recycled water from the WRP. The WRP is one of the oldest water recycling plants in Orange County, having provided recycled water for golf course irrigation since 1963.

The existing WRP was designed and permitted to provide recycled water for restricted irrigation at the golf course, which does not require filtration prior to disinfection. The absence of filtration increases chlorine demand during chlorine disinfection. With the lack of recycled water storage and adequate chlorine dosing control, varying recycled water demands can cause fluctuations in water level of the chlorine contact basin, which can make maintenance of the target contact time


7199 2 March 2012

difficult. As a result, much higher chlorine doses are applied to adequately disinfect the wastewater. High chlorine usage and maintaining a high chlorine residual in recycled water are of concern because they create an adverse impact on the health of the greens at the golf course, and increase the total dissolved solids (TDS) content of the recycled water.

The current recycled water demand for the existing users is estimated at approximately 500 afy (310 gallons per minute (gpm)); however, recycled water demand as high as 1,950 gpm occurs during summer months. The proposed Tertiary Treatment Plant would increase the amount of recycled water available within the service area and the 500 afy of recycled water currently produced by ETWD would be upgraded to tertiary quality. Tertiary treated water is less restrictive than secondary-treated water and can be used more extensively for commercial and public applications.

1.3 California Environmental Quality Act Compliance

ETWD is the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) lead agency responsible for the review and approval of the proposed Recycled Water Tertiary Treatment Plant project. Based on the findings of the Initial Study, ETWD has made the determination that a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) is the appropriate environmental document to be prepared in compliance with CEQA (California Public Resources Code, Section 21000 et seq.). As stated in CEQA, Section 21064, an MND may be prepared for a project subject to CEQA when an Initial Study has identified no potentially significant effects on the environment.

This MND has been prepared by ETWD in conformance with Section 15070(a) of the CEQA Guidelines (14 CCR 15000 et seq.) and in compliance with the ETWD 2012 Local Guidelines for Implementing the California Environmental Quality Act. The purpose of the MND and the Initial Study checklist is to determine if any potentially significant impacts are associated with the proposed project and to incorporate mitigation measures into the project design as necessary to reduce or eliminate the significant or potentially significant effects of the project.

1.4 CEQA-Plus Evaluation

ETWD is seeking a loan from the Clean Water State Revolving Fund (CWSRF) Program administered by the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), Division of Financial Assistance. As required by SWRCB, a “CEQA-Plus” evaluation was completed for the proposed project. The CWSRF requires that projects undergo CEQA-Plus evaluations to comply with federal regulations. The results of this evaluation are provided in the CEQA-Plus Evaluation sections within each relevant resource area (e.g., biological resources).


7199 3 March 2012

1.5 List of Discretionary Actions

Approval of the following discretionary actions will be required in order to implement the proposed project:

• Approval of the project by the ETWD Board of Directors

• City of Laguna Hills Encroachment Permit

• City of Laguna Woods Encroachment Permit.

1.6 Other Agencies that May Use the Mitigated Negative Declaration

This MND is intended for use by responsible and trustee agencies that may have an interest in reviewing the project. All responsible and trustee agencies for the project, listed as follows, will, therefore, be asked to review this document:

• SWRCB

• Regional Water Quality Control Board

• California Department of Public Health

• City of Laguna Woods

• City of Laguna Hills.

1.7 Public Review Process

In accordance with CEQA, a good-faith effort has been made during the preparation of this MND to contact affected agencies, organizations, and persons who may have an interest in this project.

In reviewing the MND, affected public agencies and the interested public should focus on the sufficiency of the document in identifying and analyzing the project’s possible impacts on the environment. A copy of the Draft MND and related documents are available for review at ETWD (see address below) between the hours of 7:30 a.m. and 4:00 p.m., Monday through Thursday, and 7:30 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. alternate Fridays. It should be noted that ETWD is closed every other Friday.


Lake Forest, California 92630


7199 4 March 2012

The document is also available on ETWD’s website (www.etwd.com).

Comments on the MND may be made in writing before the end of the public review period. A 30-day review and comment period from March 30, 2012, to April 30, 2012, has been established in accordance with Section 15072(a) of the CEQA Guidelines. Following the close of the public comment period, ETWD will consider this MND and comments thereto in determining whether to approve the proposed project.

Written comments on the MND should be sent to the following address by 4:00 p.m., April 30, 2012.


Lake Forest, California 92630 Contact: Mr. Dennis Cafferty, Director of Operations and Engineering

Telephone: 949.837.7050 Email: [email protected]


7199 5 March 2012

2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION

2.1 Project Location

The proposed Recycled Water Tertiary Treatment Plant project (proposed project or project) is located in Orange County, within the Cities of Laguna Woods and Laguna Hills. The City of Laguna Woods consists of approximately 4 square miles developed with senior residential communities and accompanying commercial and recreational facilities. The City of Laguna Hills consists of approximately 6.7 square miles developed with a variety of commercial and residential uses, of varying intensities. The Cities of Laguna Woods and Laguna Hills are located approximately 5 miles inland from the coast, east of the Laguna Coast Wilderness Park, north of the City of Aliso Viejo, and south of the City of Irvine. Regional access to the project area is via Interstate 5 (I-5; Figure 1). The project site is located within ETWD’s WRP in the northeast corner of the Laguna Woods Village Golf Course, and extends west along Ridge Route Drive to Santa Vittoria Drive (Figures 2 and 3). Local access to the project site is via Moulton Parkway and Ridge Route Drive.

2.2 Environmental Setting

The project site is located on the existing ETWD WRP site, in the northeastern corner of the Laguna Woods Village Golf Course, and includes a transmission pipeline that would extend beneath Ridge Route Drive from the WRP site to Santa Vittoria Drive to the west (Figure 2). Construction staging and parking areas would be located on the WRP site. The ETWD currently owns the entire WRP site, including construction staging and parking areas; however, the transmission pipeline would be located beneath the public right-of-way of Ridge Route Drive. Vehicular access into the project site is from Moulton Parkway, which is a north–south thoroughfare.

The general vicinity surrounding the project site is developed with a mix of residential and commercial uses. North of the site, across Ridge Route Drive, are commercial and residential development and an associated drainage facility. East of the project site, past the golf course, is the Laguna Woods Village retirement community. The project site extends west along Ridge Route Drive, which passes through a large commercial center along Moulton Parkway, and residential developments further west.

Surrounding General Plan designations are OS – Open Space to the north, CC – Community Commercial to the west, Medium Density Residential to the east, and Open Space to the south and west (City of Laguna Woods 2010). Surrounding zoning designations are OS-2, Drainage Facility and MXU, Mixed Use to the north, RC, Residential Community District to the east, OS-R, and Open Space – Recreation District to the south and west (City of Laguna Woods 2011a).


7199 6 March 2012

2.3 Project Characteristics

2.3.1 Project Description

The proposed Recycled Water Tertiary Treatment Plant project, shown in Figure 3, would include the construction of new tertiary treatment facilities and a 5,000-foot recycled water transmission pipeline.

The proposed tertiary treatment facilities would consist of the following components (Figure 4):

• A new filtration system using cloth media filters

• Tertiary effluent transfer pumps to be installed in the existing wet well for the irrigation pumps

• A new 2.4-million-gallon recycled water storage tank/chlorine contact basin

• Upgrades to the existing sodium hypochlorite feed system

• A new coagulant (i.e., aluminum sulfate (alum), ferric chloride) and/or polymer storage and feed system

• Electrical, instrumentation, and controls upgrades

• A new cover for the existing chlorine contact basin

• A new recycled water pump station with a surge tank.

The proposed tertiary treatment facilities would be located on approximately 1.65 acres within previously disturbed and/or paved areas of the ETWD WRP site. The 5,000-foot recycled water transmission pipeline would be located underground and would extend north from the WRP site to Ridge Route Drive, where it would then extend west to Santa Vittoria Drive, within the existing right-of-way of Ridge Route Drive (Figure 3).

Once constructed, the transmission pipeline would require minimal maintenance. The proposed tertiary treatment facilities would be checked daily to ensure that the facilities are operating properly. The ETWD routinely performs similar maintenance activities for existing facilities; therefore, regular inspection of the proposed tertiary treatment plant would be performed by existing ETWD employees and would not require additional employees to operate.

P

Encinitas

Carlsbad

SanMarcos Escondido

VistaVCe

Camp PendletonSouth Hidden

MeadowsOceanside

Bonsall

CampPendleton

North

Fallbrook

Rainbow

SanClemente

DanaPoint

San JuanCapistrano

LagunaNiguel

AlisoViejo

LagunaBeach

LagunaHills Coto De

Caza

RanchoSanta Margarita

NewportBeach

MissionViejo

TrabucoHighlands

ElToro

El ToroStationCosta

MesaIrvine

HuntingtonBeach

Tustin

SantaAna

SealBeach

TustinFoothills

GardenGrove

LosAlamitos

Orange

AnaheimBuenaPark

Placentia Yorba LindaFullerton

Brea

Temecula

Perris

Corona

MarchAFBWoodcrest

Norco MorenoValley

PedleyMiraLoma

Riverside

Rubidoux

GlenAvon

Wildomar

LakeElsinore

WinchesterSunCity

Nuevo

RanchoPalos

Verdes

ates

LakewoodTorrance

CarsonLong

Beach

Cerritosondoach

BellflowerGardena Compton

egundo Hawthorne Norwalk

SouthGate Downey Santa Fe

Springs

VernonCulver City

HaciendaHeights

DiamondBar

East LosAngeles Industry

Walnut

BeverlyHills

CovinaAlhambraPomona

Claremont

La VerneGlendora

WestCovina

Irwindale

BurbankDuarte

MonroviaAltadena

Pasadena

La CanadaFlintridge

Glendale

ChinoHills

Chino

LomaLinda

BloomingtonYucaipa

OntarioMontclair Colton Redlands

UplandRancho

CucamongaFontana Rialto

SanBernardino

Highland

Running Springs

CrestlineLake

Arrowhead

FountainValley

Westminster

Cypress

LaHabra

tan La Mirada

SouthWhittier

InglewoodLa HabraHeights

RowlandHeightsWhittier

CommercePico

Rivera

Montebello

MontereyPark

RosemeadEl

Monte

SanGabriel

SanDimasBaldwin

Park

TempleCity

SanMarino

AzusaArcadia

LosAngeles

eles County

Orange County

Riverside County

ardino County

Los Angeles County

San Bernardino County

Riverside County

Orange County

Orange

County

San Diego

County

P a c i f i c

O c e a n

241

206170

134

213

56

38

71

57

22

55

83

73

330

79

78

91

173138

19

76

39

66

1

18

2

60

74

101

710

5

105

110

215405

10

210

5

15

FIGURE 1Regional Map

7199RECYCLED WATER TERTIARY TREATMENT PLANT PROJECT

0 155 10Miles

Project Site


7199 8 March 2012


5

FIGURE 2Vicinity Map

7199RECYCLED WATER TERTIARY TREATMENT PLANT PROJECT

SOURCE: USGS 7.5-Minute Series San Juan Capistrano Quadrangle.

0 2,0001,000Feet

Project Site


7199 10 March 2012


FIGURE 3

Aerial PhotographRECYCLED WATER TERTIARY TREATMENT PLANT PROJECT

7199

SOURCE: El Toro Water District, Bing Maps.

0 750375Feet

Project Boundary

Proposed Transmission Pipeline


7199 12 March 2012


FIGURE 4

Site PlanRECYCLED WATER TERTIARY TREATMENT PLANT PROJECT

SOURCE: Tetra Tech, Dec. 2012

7199

0 200100Feet

Project Boundary

Proposed Pipeline

Proposed Building

Existing Building

Building to be Modified

PROPOSEDRECYCLED WATERRESERVOIR/CCB

PROPOSEDRECYCLED WATER

PUMP STATION

PROPOSEDNEW TERTIARY EFFLUENT

TRANSFER PUMPS

PROPOSEDELECTRICALENCLOSURE

PROPOSEDCLOTH MEDIA

FILTER FACILTY

AWMAPUMP

STATION SLUDGESTORAGE

TANK

DAF NO. 1

SOILSCRUBBER

NO. 1

SOILSCRUBBER

NO. 2

EQUALIZATIONBASIN NO. 1

EQUALIZATIONBASIN NO. 2

SCESUE

STATION

STORAGEBLDG

SC NO. 4

SC NO. 3

RASPUMP

STATION

SC NO. 1

DAF NO. 2

WAC

WAREHOUSE

BLOWER/GENERATOR

BLDG

SC NO. 2


7199 14 March 2012



7199 15 March 2012

2.3.2 Project Construction and Schedule

Construction of the proposed project is expected to commence in February 2013, and would last approximately 16 months, ending in May 2014. Construction activities would consist of installation of a new filtration system using cloth media filters; installation of tertiary effluent transfer pumps to replace the irrigation pumps in the existing wet well; construction of a new recycled water storage tank/chlorine contact basin; upgrades to the existing sodium hypochlorite feed system; construction of a new coagulant and/or polymer storage and feed system; electrical, instrumentation, and controls upgrades; and construction of a cover for the existing chlorine contact basin. In addition, the project will include construction of a recycled water pump station with a surge tank and a 5,000‐foot recycled water transmission pipeline. Construction of the project is anticipated to be completed in the following phases, which may overlap:

• Site preparation – 3 weeks

• Grading – 7 weeks

• Building construction, recycled water storage tank/chlorine contact basin and cover for existing chlorine contact basin – 29 weeks

• Trenching, transmission pipeline installation – 13 weeks

• Paving, transmission pipeline – 2 weeks

• Building construction, filtration system and tertiary effluent transfer pumps, recycled water pump station and surge tank – 28 weeks

• Paving, WRP – 2 weeks.

The construction equipment mix for the proposed project is shown in Table 1, Anticipated Construction Equipment. The equipment mix is meant to represent a reasonably conservative estimate of construction activity. It is assumed that heavy construction equipment would be operating at the site for approximately 8 hours per day, 5 days per week (22 days per month).

Table 1 Anticipated Construction Equipment

Construction Phase Equipment Quantity

Site Preparation Truck trips, no equipment n/a

Grading Backhoe (Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes) 1

Front End Loader (Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes) 1

Building Construction (Storage Tank) Cranes 1 Forklifts 1

Generator Sets 1


7199 16 March 2012

Table 1 Anticipated Construction Equipment

Construction Phase Equipment Quantity

Trenching (Transmission Pipeline Installation) Excavators 1

Hand Compactor/Drum Roller (Plate Compactors) 1

Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 2

Paving (Transmission Pipeline) Pavers 1

Paving Equipment 1

Building Construction ( WRP) Boring/Jack Machine (Bore/Drill Rigs) 1

Cranes 1 Forklifts 1

Generator Sets 1

Welding Equipment (Welders) 1

Paving (WRP) Paving Equipment 1

Notes: Equipment types noted in parenthesis represent the equipment equivalent used in CalEEMod construction modeling.

2.3.3 Project Design Features

The project includes, as part of the project design, certain features that would be implemented during project construction and/or operation to minimize potential impacts. Additionally, there are applicable regulatory requirements to which the project will be required to adhere. These design features and regulatory requirements are presented below.

Geology/Soils

• All proposed facilities will be designed and built in accordance with seismic design provision of the International Building Code (IBC) or the California Building Code (CBC). Additionally, all facets of excavation, construction, and facility design will meet the standards established during final engineering design. 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.

• ETWD will perform design-level geotechnical investigations to evaluate the potential for landslide, liquefaction, and seismic instability to affect the approved project and all associated facilities. Where these hazards are detected, appropriate engineering design and construction measures will be incorporated into the project designs. Appropriate measures could include ground improvement of liquefiable zones.


7199 17 March 2012

Hazards/Hazardous Materials

• Hazardous materials will not be disposed of or released onto the ground, the underlying groundwater, or any surface water. Totally enclosed containment will be provided for all trash. All construction waste, including trash and litter, garbage, other solid waste, petroleum products, and other potentially hazardous materials, will be removed to a waste facility permitted to treat, store, or dispose of such materials.

Transportation and Traffic

• ETWD will develop a traffic control plan in coordination with the City of Laguna Hills and the City of Laguna Woods to ensure that adequate residential and emergency access is maintained during project construction. The traffic control plan will meet the requirements of the City of Laguna Hills Traffic Control Plan General Notes (City of Laguna Hills 2009).


7199 18 March 2012



7199 19 March 2012

3.0 FINDINGS

ETWD finds that the project would not have a significant adverse effect on the environment. Potentially significant effects have been identified and mitigation measures have been incorporated to ensure that these effects remain at less-than-significant levels. An MND is proposed to satisfy the requirements of CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines (California Public Resources Code, Section 21000 et seq.; 14 CCR 15000 et seq.).

3.1 No Impact or Less-Than-Significant Impact

Based on the environmental discussion contained in Section 4 of this MND, ETWD has determined that the proposed project would have no impact or a less-than-significant impact in the following environmental issue areas: aesthetics, agriculture and forestry resources, air quality, cultural resources, geology and soils, greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, land use and planning, mineral resources, noise, population and housing, public services, and recreation.

3.2 Less-Than-Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated

Based on the environmental discussion contained in Section 4 of this MND, ETWD has determined that the proposed project would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated in the following environmental issue areas: biological resources, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, utilities and service systems, and mandatory findings of significance.


7199 20 March 2012



7199 21 March 2012

4.0 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST

1. Project title:


2. Lead agency name and address:

El Toro Water District 24251 Los Alisos Boulevard Lake Forest, California 92630

3. Contact person and phone number:

Mr. Dennis Cafferty, Director of Operations and Engineering 949.837.7050 [email protected]

4. Project location:

Treatment Plant: Located within the existing ETWD WRP in the northeast corner of the Laguna Woods Village Golf Course, in the City of Laguna Woods, Orange County, California.

Transmission Pipeline: Located within the existing Ridge Route Drive right-of-way from the ETWD WRP west to Santa Vittoria Drive, in the Cities of Laguna Woods and Laguna Hills, Orange County, California.

5. Project sponsor’s name and address:

El Toro Water District 24251 Los Alisos Boulevard Lake Forest, California 92630

6. General Plan designation:

Treatment Plant: City of Laguna Woods General Plan Map: Open Space Transmission Pipeline: City of Laguna Hills General Plan Map: Local Street.

7. Zoning:

Treatment Plant: City of Laguna Woods Zoning Map: OS-R, Open Space – Recreation District


7199 22 March 2012

Transmission Pipeline: Located within existing road right-of-way, no zoning designation assigned.

8. Description of project/environmental setting, and surrounding land uses.

Refer to Section 2 of this MND for detailed information on the project description, environmental setting, and surrounding land uses.

9. Other public agencies whose approval is required:

The following agencies may be responsible agencies under CEQA. They may need to issue approvals for the project and, thus, rely upon this Initial Study.

• Regional Water Quality Control Board

• California Department of Public Health

• City of Laguna Hills Encroachment Permit

• City of Laguna Woods Encroachment Permit.

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,” as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.

Aesthetics Agriculture and Forestry Resources

Air Quality

Biological Resources Cultural Resources Geology and Soils

Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Hazards and Hazardous Materials

Hydrology and Water Quality

Land Use and Planning Mineral Resources Noise

Population and Housing Public Services Recreation

Transportation and Traffic Utilities and Service Systems

Mandatory Findings of Significance


7199 24 March 2012

EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:

1) A brief explanation is required for all answers except “No Impact” answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites 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 (e.g., the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A “No Impact” answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards (e.g., the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific screening analysis).

2) All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site, cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts.

3) Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than significant. “Potentially Significant Impact” is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are one or more “Potentially Significant Impact” entries when the determination is made, an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) is required.

4) “Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated” applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from “Potentially Significant Impact” to a “Less-Than-Significant Impact.” The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less-than-significant level (mitigation measures from “Earlier Analyses,” as described in (5) below, may be cross-referenced).

5) Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. (14 CCR 15063(c)(3)(D)). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following:

a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review.

b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.

c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are “Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated,” describe the mitigation measures that were incorporated


7199 25 March 2012

or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project.

6) Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated.

7) Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion.

8) This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different formats; however, lead agencies should normally address the questions from this checklist that are relevant to a project’s environmental effects in whatever format is selected.

9) The explanation of each issue should identify:

a) The significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and

b) The mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significant.

Potentially Significant

Impact

Less Than Significant with

Mitigation Incorporated

Less-Than-Significant

Impact No Impact I. AESTHETICS – Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic

vista?

b) Substantially damage scenic resources including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway?

c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings?

d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?


7199 26 March 2012


Impact




Impact No Impact II. AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY 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 agriculture and farmland. In determining whether impacts to forest resources, including timberland, are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to information compiled by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the state’s inventory of forest land, including the Forest and Range Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy Assessment project; and forest carbon measurement methodology provided in Forest Protocols adopted by the California Air Resources Board. Would the project:

a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), 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) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code Section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code, Section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code Section 51104(g))?

d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?

e) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?

III. AIR QUALITY – Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project:

a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan?

b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation?

c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)?

d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations?


7199 27 March 2012


Impact




Impact No Impact e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial

number of people?

IV. 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 the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?

b) Have a substantial adverse effect on 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 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, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means?

d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?

e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?

f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?

V. CULTURAL RESOURCES – Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the

significance of a historical resource as defined in Section 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines?

b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to Section15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines?

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 formal cemeteries?


7199 28 March 2012


Impact




Impact No Impact 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.

ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including

liquefaction?

iv) Landslides? b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of

topsoil?

c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?

d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property?

e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water?

VII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS – Would the project: a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either

directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?

b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?

VIII. 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?


7199 29 March 2012


Impact




Impact No Impact b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the

environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment?

c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?

d) Be located on a site that 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 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?

IX. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY – Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste

discharge requirements?

b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)?

c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on or off site?


7199 30 March 2012


Impact




Impact No Impact d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of

the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on or off site?

e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff?

f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard

area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map?

h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows?

i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam?

j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? X. LAND USE AND PLANNING – Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy,

or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?

c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan?

XI. MINERAL RESOURCES – Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known

mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state?

b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan?


7199 31 March 2012


Impact




Impact No Impact XII. NOISE – Would the project result in: a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise

levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?

b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels?

c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project?

d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project?

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 expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?

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?

XIII. 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 (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)?

b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?

c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?


7199 32 March 2012


Impact




Impact No Impact XIV. PUBLIC SERVICES a) Would the project result in substantial adverse

physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for any of the public services:

Fire protection? Police protection? Schools? Parks? Other public facilities?

XV. RECREATION a) Would the project increase the use of existing

neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated?

b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment?

XVI. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC – Would the project: a) Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or

policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation including mass transit and non-motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle baths, and mass transit?

b) Conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including, but not limited to level of service standards and travel demand measures, or other standards established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways?

c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks?


7199 33 March 2012


Impact




Impact No Impact d) 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? f) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs

regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities?

XVII. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS – Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the

applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board?

b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects?

c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects?

d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed?

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?

f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs?

g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste?

XVIII. 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?


7199 34 March 2012


Impact




Impact No Impact b) Does the project have the potential to achieve

short-term environmental goals to the disadvantage of long-term environmental goals?

c) 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)?

d) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?

4.1 Aesthetics

a) Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?

Less-than-Significant Impact. There are no scenic vistas identified within the City of Laguna Woods due to the graded and built-out nature of the City (City of Laguna Woods 2003). The City of Laguna Hills, however, has a greater range of topographies that provides opportunities for several scenic vistas. The only scenic vista near the project site is from the Lake Hills Corporate Park, which has sweeping views to the north and east (City of Laguna Hills 2008). Although the project could potentially be visible from the Lake Hills Corporate Park, the proposed structures would be consistent with existing development on the site and would not cause a substantial adverse effect on this scenic vista.

The proposed project would add new structures to the existing WRP site, including a recycled water reservoir, recycled water pump station, electrical enclosure, cloth media filter facility, and new tertiary effluent transfer pumps. The height, scale, and character of the structures would be consistent with the existing WRP and would represent a continuation of structures that currently exist on the site. Additionally, once constructed, the transmission pipeline would be completely underground and would not have an adverse effect on any scenic vistas. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.


7199 35 March 2012

b) Would the project substantially damage scenic resources including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway?

Less-than-Significant Impact. There are no dedicated state scenic highways near the proposed project. However, the Orange County Scenic Highway Plan designates Moulton Parkway, through the Cities of Laguna Woods and Laguna Hills, as a Landscape Corridor (County of Orange 2005). A Landscape Corridor is defined as a corridor that traverses developed or developing areas and has been designated for special treatment to provide a pleasant driving environment as well as community enhancement. Views of the proposed project from Moulton Parkway would be nearly identical to existing views. During the 16-month construction period, there may be temporary impacts to this roadway near the intersection with Ridge Route Drive. These potential impacts would be temporary and therefore, impacts would be less than significant.

c) Would the project substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings?

Less-than-Significant Impact. See responses 4.1.a and 4.1.b. The project would consist of the construction of new structures within the WRP site and an associated pipeline under Ridge Route Drive. The proposed structures would largely not be visible from adjacent visual receptors, with the exception of the multifamily residential development located in Laguna Woods, east of the project site. The new facilities would not substantially change the existing visual character of the WRP, which is not considered a significant visual resource. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.

d) Would the project create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?

Less-than-Significant Impact. The existing WRP is a light source in the project area. The proposed project would include the use of the same type of building materials, lighting fixtures, and visual treatment currently present at the WRP. The proposed project may result in a marginal cumulative increase in the amount of light and glare currently being emitted from the WRP. Any cumulative increase in light and glare associated with the project would be directed within the WRP site and therefore would not create a new source of substantial light and glare that would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.


7199 36 March 2012

4.2 Agriculture and Forestry Resources

a) Would the project 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. The project site is not located within an area designated as farmland per the Orange County Important Farmland 2008 Map (California Department of Conservation 2009). Therefore, the proposed project would not convert farmland to non-agricultural use and there would be no impact.

b) Would the project conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract?

No Impact. The project site is currently zoned OS-R Open Space – Recreation, per Chapter 13.12 of the City of Laguna Woods Zoning Code, which does not allow agricultural uses except with an approved Temporary Use/Special Event permit. Additionally, the project site is not designated under any Williamson Act contracts. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a Williamson Act contract and there would be no impact.

c) Would the project conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code Section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code Section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code Section 51104(g))?

No Impact. The project site is not within lands designated as forest land, timberland, or a Timberland Production Zone, as defined by the above-referenced government regulations. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with existing zoning of such lands and there would be no impact.

d) Would the project result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?

No Impact. Refer to response 4.2.c. No forest land would be lost or converted to non-forest use, as a result of the project. Therefore, there would be no impact.


7199 37 March 2012

e) Would the project involve other changes in the existing environment, which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?

No Impact. Refer to responses 4.2.a and 4.2.c. The project would not result in the conversion of additional farmland to non-agricultural use or the conversion of forestland to non-forest use and there would be no impact.

CEQA-Plus Evaluation

Farmland Protection Policy Act:

Is any portion of the project site located on important farmland?

No. The project will not impact farmland.

Yes. Include information on the acreage that would be converted from important farmland to other uses. Indicate if any portion of the project site is located within Williamson Act control and the amount of affected acreage.

4.3 Air Quality

The following analysis relies on the Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Support Document prepared by Dudek, dated February 2012 (see Appendix A).

a) Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan?

Less-than-Significant Impact. The proposed project is located within the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB), which includes all of Orange County and the non-desert portions of Los Angeles, Riverside, and San Bernardino counties, and is within the jurisdictional boundaries of the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). In 2007, the SCAQMD adopted a final Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) for attainment of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for ozone (O3) and PM2.5 within the SCAB, which is the current applicable air quality plan as the 2012 AQMP is still in development. The 2007 AQMP reduction and control measures, which are outlined to mitigate emissions, are based on existing and project land use and development. The project would not conflict with or propose to change existing land uses or applicable policies as designated in the City of Laguna Woods General Plan or the City of Laguna Hills General Plan; thus, the project would not conflict with the applicable air quality plan.


7199 38 March 2012

The project proposes to expand the recycled water treatment and distribution system to deliver as much as 1,175 afy of additional tertiary‐treated recycled water to the existing irrigation customers within the ETWD service area; new demand and the existing 500‐afy demand will be supplied through a new tertiary treatment plant at the ETWD WRP. The proposed tertiary treatment plant would generate additional recycled water to serve existing customers and would not increase population. Once the tertiary treatment plant is installed, project operation would require minimal activity since the tertiary treatment plant and the filtration system are designed to be simple and user-friendly. As maintenance is expected to be minimal, existing employees of the ETWD would perform associated maintenance activities and the project would not necessitate additional employment. Based on these considerations, the proposed project would result in a less-than-significant impact.

b) Would the project violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation?

Less-than-Significant Impact. Project-generated construction emissions would be less than the SCAQMD significance thresholds. The proposed recycled water tertiary treatment plant is not anticipated to generate substantial operational air pollutant emissions. Maintenance activities, including routine inspections to ensure proper operation of proposed treatment facilities, would be accommodated by existing ETWD WRP employees.

SCAB Attainment Designation

An area is designated in attainment when it is in compliance with the NAAQS and/or the California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS). These standards are set by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) or the California Air Resources Board (CARB), respectively, for the maximum level of a given air pollutant that can exist in the outdoor air without unacceptable effects on human health or the public welfare. The criteria pollutants of primary concern that are considered in this air quality assessment include ozone (O3), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), carbon monoxide (CO), sulfur dioxide (SO2), and particulate matter with a diameter less than or equal to10 microns and particulate matter with a diameter less than or equal to 2.5 microns (PM10 and PM2.5, respectively). Although there are no ambient standards for volatile organic compounds (VOCs) or oxides of nitrogen (NOx), they are important as precursors to O3.

The entire SCAB is designated as a nonattainment area for both federal and state O3 standards. The EPA has classified the SCAB as an “extreme” nonattainment area and has


7199 39 March 2012

mandated that the SCAB achieve attainment by no later than June 15, 2024. The entire SCAB has not exceeded the federal standards for NO2 in the past 5 years based on published monitoring data and is currently designated as an attainment area under the federal standards. The federal NO2 standard was revised in 2010, and all areas of California have been designated unclassifiable/attainment. The SCAB is designated as a nonattainment area for the state NO2 standard. The SCAB is designated as an attainment area for federal and state CO and SO2 standards. The SCAB is in attainment with federal lead standards. The Los Angeles County portion of the SCAB is in nonattainment with the state lead standard; however, the remaining portion of the SCAB is in attainment with state lead standards. The SCAB is designated as a “serious” nonattainment area for federal PM10 standards and as a nonattainment area for state PM10 standards. In regards to PM2.5 attainment status, the SCAB is designated as a nonattainment area by CARB and the EPA.

SCAQMD Thresholds

Construction of the proposed project would result in emissions of criteria air pollutants for which CARB and the EPA have adopted ambient air quality standards (i.e., the NAAQS and CAAQS). Projects that emit these pollutants have the potential to cause or contribute to violations of these standards. The SCAQMD has adopted significance thresholds, which, if exceeded, would indicate the potential to contribute to violations of the NAAQS or CAAQS. The relevant SCAQMD thresholds are shown in Table 2. Only those thresholds related to potentially significant construction impacts are identified in Table 2 as the proposed project would not generate substantial criteria pollutant emissions or related impacts associated with operation of the proposed recycled water tertiary treatment plant.

Table 2 SCAQMD Air Quality Significance Thresholds

Pollutant Construction Criteria Pollutants Mass Daily Thresholds

VOC 75 pounds/day NOx 100 pounds/day CO 550 pounds/day SOx 150 pounds/day PM10 150 pounds/day PM2.5 55 pounds/day

Source: SCAQMD 1993.


7199 40 March 2012

Construction Emissions

Construction of the proposed tertiary treatment plant and transmission pipeline would result in a temporary addition of pollutants to the local airshed caused by soil disturbance, dust emissions, and combustion pollutants from on-site construction equipment, as well as from personal vehicles, vendor trucks, and off-site trucks hauling construction materials. NOx and CO emissions would primarily result from the use of construction equipment and motor vehicles. Fugitive dust emissions would primarily result from trenching activities. Construction emissions can vary substantially from day to day, depending on the level of activity, the specific type of operation, and, for dust, the prevailing weather conditions. Therefore, such emission levels can only be approximately estimated with a corresponding uncertainty in precise ambient air quality impacts.

Emissions from the construction phase of the project were estimated through the use of the SCAQMD’s California Emission Estimator Model (CalEEMod) Version 2011.1.1. For the purposes of modeling and based on information provided by the ETWD, it is assumed that construction of the proposed project would commence in February 2013 and would last approximately 16 months, ending in May 2014.

Construction activities would consist of installation of a new filtration system using cloth media filters; installation of tertiary effluent transfer pumps to replace the irrigation pumps in the existing wet well; construction of a new recycled water storage tank/chlorine contact basin; upgrades to the existing sodium hypochlorite feed system; construction of a new coagulant and/or polymer storage and feed system; electrical, instrumentation, and controls upgrades; and construction of a cover for the existing chlorine contact basin. In addition, the project will include construction of a recycled water pump station with a surge tank and a 5,000‐foot recycled water transmission pipeline. Details of the construction emission assumptions and calculations are included in Appendix A.

Table 3 shows the estimated maximum unmitigated daily construction emissions associated with the construction of the proposed project. Emissions estimates presented in Table 3 include emissions from on-site sources (off-road equipment) and off-site sources (hauling and vendor trucks and worker vehicles).


7199 41 March 2012

Table 3 Estimated Daily Maximum Construction Emissions (lbs/day unmitigated)

VOC NOx CO SOx PM10 PM2.5

2013 Estimated Emissions 6.66 42.30 27.54 0.05 9.20 2.80

2014 Estimated Emissions 3.05 21.18 15.57 0.03 2.15 1.19

Maximum Daily Emissions 6.66 42.30 27.54 0.05 9.20 2.80

Threshold 75 100 550 150 150 55

Threshold Exceeded? No No No No No No

Notes: See Appendix A for complete results. The PM10 and PM2.5 estimates reflect control of fugitive dust required by Rule 403.

As shown in Table 3, daily construction emissions would not exceed the thresholds for VOC, NOx, CO, SOx, PM10, or PM2.5. As such, the proposed project would result in a less-than-significant impact during construction.

Fugitive dust suppression techniques, such as frequent light sprays of water and covering of spoil piles, would be performed by the construction contractor during construction activities. In addition, as a condition of project approval, the project must adhere to SCAQMD Rules during construction-related activities: 401 (Visible Emissions), 403 (Fugitive Dust Control), and 431.2 (Low Sulfur Fuel). These construction measures would reduce potential project-generated fugitive dust emissions.

Operational Emissions

Once the proposed tertiary treatment plant and associated components are constructed, no routine daily operational activities that would generate air pollutant emissions would occur. The proposed project would not require additional employees to operate the tertiary treatment plant and associated facilities; as such, there would be no additional vehicular traffic or associated mobile source emissions. The tertiary treatment plant is not expected to generate substantial VOC emissions as a result of the proposed treatment processes.

c) Would the project 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)?

Less-than-Significant Impact. As stated previously, the SCAB is a nonattainment area for O3, NO2, PM10, and PM2.5 under the NAAQS and/or CAAQS. The poor air quality in the SCAB is the result of cumulative emissions from motor vehicles, off-road equipment, commercial and industrial facilities, and other emission sources. Projects that emit these


7199 42 March 2012

pollutants or their precursors (e.g., VOC and NOx for O3,) potentially contribute to poor air quality. As indicated in Tables 2 and 3, the construction and operation emissions from the proposed project would not exceed SCAQMD significance thresholds. Furthermore, the project would not conflict with the SCAQMD 2007 AQMP, which addresses the cumulative emissions in the SCAB. Accordingly, the proposed project would not result in a cumulatively considerable increase in emissions of nonattainment pollutants. Thus, this impact would be less than significant.

d) Would the project expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations?

Less-than-Significant Impact. The SCAQMD recommends the evaluation of localized NO2, CO, PM10, and PM2.5 impacts as a result of construction activities to sensitive receptors in the immediate vicinity of the project site. Sensitive receptors near the proposed project include residences located to the east of the project site adjacent to the Laguna Woods Village Golf Course, which are located as close as 290 meters (951 feet) to the proposed project boundary. These residents would be considered the closest sensitive receptors that could be potentially affected by construction-generated air pollutant emissions.

The project site is located in Source Receptor Area 20 (Central Orange County Coastal). The project construction site within the current ETWD WRP property would be approximately 1.65 acres, which does not include the off-site proposed transmission pipeline. The SCAQMD Localized Significance Threshold (LST) Methodology (SCAQMD 2008) specifies the maximum allowable daily emissions that would satisfy the localized significance criteria. To determine the LST criteria for proposed project, the LSTs for a 1- and 2-acre site with a receptor distance between 200 and 500 meters (656 and 1,640 feet) were interpolated to generate LSTs for a 1.65-acre site with sensitive receptors located within a 290-meter (951-foot) distance from construction activity. Maximum daily on-site emissions within the project boundary, not including the transmission pipeline, would occur during the overlap of the grading phase and the storage tank construction phase. The maximum daily on-site construction emissions (i.e., emissions generated by off-road equipment) during the overlap of these two phases are compared to the allowable emission rates for Source Receptor Area 20 in Table 4. Additional details of the LST analysis are provided in Appendix A.


7199 43 March 2012

Table 4 Localized Significance Thresholds Analysis for Construction Emissions

Pollutant Maximum Construction Emissions (pound/day)

LST Criteria (pounds/day) Exceeds LST?

NO2 24 178 No CO 14 3,883 No Respirable Particulate Matter (PM10) 2 84 No Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5) 2 41 No

Source: SCAQMD 2008. Note: Construction emissions estimates are rounded to nearest pound.

As shown, construction activities would not generate emissions in excess of site-specific LSTs, and impacts at sensitive receptors in the vicinity of the project site would be less than significant.

Operation of the proposed tertiary treatment plant would not result in direct emissions; therefore, the project would not result in exposure to sensitive receptors in the vicinity of the project.

e) Would the project create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people?

Less-Than-Significant Impact. Odors are a form of air pollution that is most obvious to the general public. Odors can present significant problems for both the source and surrounding community. Although offensive odors seldom cause physical harm, they can be annoying and cause concern. Construction and operation of the proposed tertiary treatment plant would not create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people. Impacts would be less than significant.

Construction Odor Impacts

Potential sources that may emit odors during construction activities include diesel equipment and gasoline fumes and asphalt paving material. Odors from these sources would be localized and generally confined to the project site. The release of potential odor-causing compounds would tend to be during the workday, when many residents would not be home. Furthermore, the SCAQMD rules restrict the VOC content (the source of odor-causing compounds) in paints. The proposed project would utilize typical construction techniques in compliance with SCAQMD rules. Additionally, the odors would be temporary. As such, proposed project construction would not cause an odor nuisance, and odor impacts would be less than significant.


7199 44 March 2012

Operational Odor Impacts

Land uses and industrial operations that are associated with odor complaints include agricultural uses, wastewater treatment plants, food processing plants, chemical plants, composting, refineries, landfills, dairies, and fiberglass molding (SCAQMD 1993). The proposed project entails construction of a recycled water tertiary treatment plant and would not result in the creation of sources that would generate odors. While wastewater treatment plants may be a source of odors associated with headworks (e.g., hydrogen sulfide from collection systems) and biological treatment process (e.g., aerobic and anaerobic processes), the proposed tertiary treatment plant does not include equipment or processes that would potentially generate odors. The recycled water would be highly treated and not expected to cause odors as a result of storage. The 5,000-foot recycled water transmission pipeline that would provide recycled water to the distribution system would be installed underground and would not produce a source of odor. Therefore, project operations associated with the treatment plant and the transmission pipeline would result in a less-than-significant odor impact.


Clean Air Act:

Is the project subject to a State Implementation Plan conformity determination?

No. The project is in an attainment or unclassified area.

Yes. The project is in a nonattainment area or attainment area subject to maintenance plans. Include information to indicate the nonattainment designation (e.g., moderate, serious, or severe), if applicable. If estimated emissions (below) are above the federal de minimis levels, but the project is sized to meet only the needs of current population projections that are used in the approved State Implementation Plan for air quality, then quantitatively indicate how the proposed capacity increase was calculated using population projections.

Air Basin Name: South Coast Air Basin.


7199 45 March 2012

The estimated project construction and operational air emissions (in tons per year) are provided Table 5.

Refer to Appendix A for the complete air quality analysis.

Table 5 Estimated Project Construction and Operational Air Emissions

Pollutant

Attainment Status SCAQMD Thresholds of

Significance Construction Emissions

National State Construction Thresholds

(Pounds/Day) (Pounds/

Day) a (Tons/ Year) b

Carbon Monoxide (CO) Attainment Attainment 550 34 1.9

Ozone (O3)c Nonattainment Nonattainment n/a n/a n/a

Oxides of Nitrogen (NOx) n/a n/a 100 52 3.0

Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) Attainment Nonattainment n/a n/a n/a

Particulate Matter (PM10) Nonattainment Nonattainment 150 10 0.4

Reactive Organic Gases (ROG)d

n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a

Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) Unclassified Attainment 150 0.1 0.0

Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC)d

n/a n/a 75 7 0.4

Notes: a Maximum unmitigated daily winter or summer construction emissions during 2013 or 2014. b Maximum unmitigated annual construction emissions during 2013 or 2014. c O3 is a secondary pollutant formed in the atmosphere by a photochemical process involving the sun’s energy and O3 precursors, such as hydrocarbons and NOx. These precursors are mainly NOx and VOCs (also referred to as ROCs or ROGs). Accordingly, the SCAQMD has established thresholds for NOx and VOC, but there are no thresholds O3. d ROG and VOC are considered equal for the purposes of air quality emissions analysis. The SCAQMD established thresholds for VOCs. Although there are no ambient air quality standards or attainment classifications for VOCs or NOx, they are important as precursors to O3.

4.4 Biological Resources

The following analysis relies on the Biological Letter Report for the El Toro Water District Recycled Water Tertiary Treatment Plant Project prepared by Dudek (2012a), dated February 7, 2012 (see Appendix B).


7199 46 March 2012

a) Would the project 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 the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?

No Impact. The study area includes the footprint of the proposed tank, the off-site transmission pipeline, and a 500-foot buffer around the project footprint.

Plant Species

No special-status plant species were identified within the study area during the reconnaissance survey conducted on January 11, 2012. Because the study area is mostly developed and primarily consists of disturbed habitat, there is little potential for special-status plant species to occur on site. A total of 27 vascular plant species, including 10 native species (37%) and 17 non-native species (63%), were recorded during the surveys (Appendix B). No special-status plant species have the potential to occur within the study area due to the lack of suitable habitat. There is no U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)-designated critical habitat for listed plant species within the study area.

Because no special-status species have the potential to occur within the study area, no direct or indirect impacts to special-status plant species would occur as a result of the proposed project.

Wildlife Species

No special-status wildlife species were observed within the study area during the reconnaissance survey conducted on January 11, 2012. Twenty wildlife species were observed during the focused surveys, including common bird species such as Bewick’s wrens (Thryomanes bewickii), Anna’s hummingbird (Calypte anna), house finches (Carpodacus mexicanus), and lesser goldfinches (Spinus psaltria). A full list of wildlife species observed during the survey is provided in Appendix B. Special-status wildlife species are not expected to occur based on the lack of suitable habitat on site. There is no USFWS-designated critical habitat for listed wildlife species within the study area.

Because no special-status wildlife species have the potential to occur, no direct or indirect impacts to special-status animals are expected. Therefore, the proposed project would have no impact on special-status wildlife species.


7199 47 March 2012

b) Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on 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?

Less-than-Significant Impact. The proposed project is located entirely within the ETWD WRP and on existing roadways and disturbed/developed areas and no natural vegetation communities are present within the project footprint. Most of the plant’s ground cover is pavement; however, the undeveloped portions of the WRP, where the proposed expanded facilities would be constructed, consist of disturbed areas used for plant process operations, and disturbed non-native grass area. There is one pine tree within the project boundary. Some vegetation characteristic of urban, disturbed areas exists, including non-native grasses. Within a 500-foot buffer of the project site, there are eucalyptus and pepper trees along the perimeter separating the golf course from the WRP, but the remainder of the 500-foot buffer around the WRP consists of the golf course.

The transmission pipeline would occur within an existing roadway, which is fully developed. The 500-foot buffer around the transmission line is also developed by residences but contains vegetation typical of residential areas, including ornamental trees and shrubs including pepper trees, eucalyptus, pines, and sycamores. The trees that occur along Ridge Route Drive have potential for nesting birds; however, are exposed to high levels of traffic flow. The eastern portion of the Veeh Reservoir falls within the study area and supports dense disturbed riparian vegetation.

There are no sensitive habitats within the project footprint; however, the riparian habitat within Veeh Reservoir is a sensitive habitat. The pipeline footprint is within Ridge Route Drive adjacent to the Reservoir. It is assumed that all construction activities would be limited to the road and no riparian vegetation would be removed. Therefore, no direct impacts to a sensitive habitat would occur.

Indirect impacts would be limited to short-term construction impacts related to noise and dust. With respect to these potential indirect impacts, however, all project grading will be subject to the typical restrictions (e.g., Best Management Practices [BMPs]) and requirements that address erosion and runoff, including the federal Clean Water Act, National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES), and preparation of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). With implementation of these BMPs and permit conditions, potential indirect impacts to sensitive habitat would be less than significant.


7199 48 March 2012

c) Would the project 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, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means?

Less-than-Significant Impact. The project footprint contains no jurisdictional waters, including wetlands, regulated by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE), the California Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) and the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG). Concrete v-ditches within the WRP site convey water used for operation of the facility. These ditches are not connected to navigable waters and do not meet the definition of a streambed under CDFG jurisdiction or a water of the state under RWQCB jurisdiction. A depression was observed adjacent to one of these v-ditches; however, because there was no rain 3 weeks prior to the site visit, it can be assumed that water occurs there due to normal WRP facility processes.

The Veeh Reservoir located north of Ridge Route Drive is a potential jurisdictional water. It is assumed that all construction activities would be limited to the road; therefore, no direct impacts to jurisdictional waters would occur.

Indirect impacts would be limited to short-term construction impacts related to construction runoff and dust. All project grading will be subject to the typical restrictions (e.g., BMPs) and requirements that address erosion and runoff, including the federal Clean Water Act, NPDES, and preparation of an SWPPP. With implementation of these BMPs and permit conditions, potential indirect impacts to jurisdictional waters are not anticipated.

d) Would the project interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?

Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. Wildlife corridors are linear features that connect large patches of natural open space and provide avenues for the migration of animals. Due to the developed nature of the study area, there are no wildlife corridors within the study area.

The study area contains many trees that could potentially be used by migratory birds for breeding within the Laguna Woods Village Golf Course and surrounding residential areas, as well as the patch of habitat adjacent to Ridge Route Road (Veeh Reservoir).

Direct impacts to migratory nesting birds must be avoided in compliance with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. The project would be limited to existing developed roadways


7199 49 March 2012

and no removal of trees or other nesting habitat would occur; therefore, direct impacts to nesting birds are not expected.

Indirect impacts to nesting birds could occur from short-term construction-related noise, resulting in decreased reproductive success or abandonment of an area as nesting habitat. The Laguna Woods Village Golf Course and surrounding residences, as well as the Veeh Reservoir along Ridge Route Drive within the study area, have trees and other shrubs, which could provide potential nesting and foraging habitat for a variety of songbirds and raptors in the area. While no active or inactive nests were identified during the survey in 2011, the survey was conducted outside the breeding season and there is a potential for birds to nest in these areas. Indirect impacts from construction-related noise may occur to nesting birds if construction occurs during the breeding season (i.e., February 15 through September 1).

The following mitigation measure would be implemented to ensure that indirect impacts to nesting birds remain below a level of significance.

Mitigation Measure 4.4-a: In order to avoid potential impacts to nesting birds in conformance with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, a qualified biologist will conduct a nesting bird survey within 1 week of ground disturbance activities. The survey shall consist of full coverage of the proposed project footprint and up to a 300-foot buffer. The buffer will be determined by the biologist and will take into account the species nesting in the area and the habitat present. If no active nests are found, no additional measures are required. If nests are found, the nest locations shall be mapped by the biologist utilizing Global Positioning System (GPS) equipment. The nesting bird species will be documented and, to the degree feasible, the nesting stage (e.g., incubation of eggs, feeding of young, near fledging). The biologist shall establish a no-disturbance buffer around each active nest. The buffer will be determined by the biologist based on the species present and surrounding habitat. No construction or ground disturbance activities shall be conducted within the buffer until the biologist has determined the nest is no longer active and has informed the construction supervisor that activities may resume.

With implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.4-a, potential impacts to nesting birds would be reduced to a less-than-significant level.


7199 50 March 2012

e) Would the project conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?

No Impact. Although there is one pine tree within the project boundary and eucalyptus and pepper trees within the 500-foot buffer, the proposed project does not include removal of these trees, nor would the trees be impacted by the project. Therefore, no impact would occur.

f) Would the project conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?

No Impact. The project site is located within the boundaries of the County of Orange Central and Coastal Subregion Natural Communities Conservation Plan (NCCP)/Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP). However, ETWD is not a participating landowner under this plan and the project is not subject to the provisions of the plan. The project site is not within a designated conservation area of the County of Orange NCCP/HCP. Additionally, the project site does not support suitable habitat for listed species and, therefore, does not have any permit obligations under the California Endangered Species Act or Federal Endangered Species Act. Therefore, the proposed project is not in conflict with the County of Orange NCCP/HCP and no impact would occur.


Federal Endangered Species Act, Section 7:

Does the project involve any direct effects from construction activities, or indirect effects such as growth inducement that may affect federally listed threatened or endangered species that are known, or have a potential, to occur on site, in the surrounding area, or in the service area?

No. Discuss why the project will not impact any federally listed special-status species:

No federally listed wildlife or plant species have potential to occur on site or within 500 feet of the project site due to the lack of suitable habitat. Construction activities will be restricted to existing developed and disturbed areas, including the existing treatment plant and roadways. Therefore, no impacts, direct or indirect, will occur to any federally listed species.


7199 51 March 2012

Yes. Include information on federally listed species that could potentially be affected by this project and any proposed avoidance and compensation measures so that the SWRCB can initiate informal/formal consultation with the applicable federally designated agency. Document any previous ESA consultations that may have occurred with the project.

Refer to Appendix B for the letter report on biological resources, including project-level biological surveys, evaluations analyzing the project’s direct and indirect effects on special-status species, and a current species list for the project area.

Migratory Bird Treaty Act:

Will the project affect protected migratory birds that are known, or have a potential, to occur on site, in the surrounding area, or in the service area?

No.

Yes. Discuss the impacts (such as noise and vibration impacts, modification of habitat) to migratory birds that may be directly or indirectly affected by the project and mitigation measures to reduce or eliminate these impacts. Include a list of all migratory birds that could occur where the project is located:

Construction activities will be restricted to existing developed and disturbed areas, including the existing plant and roadways. There would be no removal of trees or other nesting bird habitat; therefore, no direct impacts to nesting birds would occur. There is suitable nesting bird habitat immediately adjacent to the project site for common urban species and nesting birds could be indirectly effected by construction activities and noise. In order to avoid potential impacts to nesting birds in conformance with the Migratory Bird Treat Act, a qualified biologist will conduct a nesting bird survey within 1 week of ground disturbance activities. The survey shall consist of full coverage of the proposed project footprint and up to a 300-foot buffer. The buffer will be determined by the biologist and will take into account the species nesting in the area and the habitat present. If no active nests are found, no additional measures are required. If nests are found, the nest locations shall be mapped by the biologist utilizing GPS equipment. The nesting bird species will be documented and, to the degree feasible, the nesting stage (e.g., incubation of eggs, feeding of young, near fledging). The biologist shall establish a no-disturbance buffer around each active nest. The buffer will be determined by the biologist based on the species present and surrounding habitat. No construction or ground disturbance activities shall be conducted within the buffer until the biologist has determined the nest is no longer active and has informed the construction supervisor that activities may resume.


7199 52 March 2012

Protection of Wetlands – Executive Order Number 11990:

Does any portion of the project area contain areas that should be evaluated for wetland delineation or require a permit from the ACOE?

No. Provide the basis for such a determination:

There are no potentially jurisdictional waters within the project site. One potentially jurisdictional feature, the Veeh Reservoir, occurs within the study area outside the project footprint. No impacts would occur to the Veeh Reservoir as a result of the project.

Yes. Describe the impacts to wetlands, potential wetland areas, and other surface waters, and the avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures to reduce such impacts. Provide the status of the permit and information on permit requirements.

4.5 Cultural Resources

The following analysis relies on the Archeological Survey Report for the Tertiary Treatment Plant Project prepared by Dudek (2012b), dated February 2012 (see Appendix C).

a) Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in Section 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines?

Less-than-Significant Impact. The project site is located within the previously disturbed and/or paved ETWD WRP site and existing roadways. Based on a records search described in response 4.5.b, no historical resources occur within the project area. Therefore, the proposed project would have a less-than-significant impact on historic resources.

b) Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines?

Less-than-Significant Impact. An archaeological literature and records search was conducted at the California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS) at the South Central Coastal Information Center (SCCIC), California State University, Fullerton, for the proposed project in January 2012. The records search identified all known archaeological sites and historic resources within 0.5 mile of the project area, and any previous cultural resources surveys within the project site. The SCCIC records indicate that no investigations have been undertaken within the project area, and no archaeological sites are located within or adjacent to the project site.


7199 53 March 2012

A search of the Native American Heritage Commission’s (NAHC’s) Sacred Land File conducted in January 2012 indicated that no known Native American heritage resources are identified within the project area. Letters were sent on January 31, 2012, to eight Native American contacts identified by the NAHC who might have knowledge of previously undocumented cultural resources within the project area. No responses have been received to date.

The project’s Area of Potential Effects (APE) incorporates all of the proposed construction and staging/access areas associated with the proposed project. The southern portion of the APE within the ETWD WRP is undeveloped. This portion of the APE has been disturbed to a depth of roughly 5 feet below the surface by construction associated with an existing sewer line. The northern portion of the APE within the ETWD WRP is paved. This portion of the APE has been disturbed by construction associated with the existing chlorine building, chlorine contact basin, and effluent pump station. Construction associated with the existing chlorine contact basin extended roughly 12 feet below the ground surface while construction associated with the existing effluent pump station extended roughly 6 feet below surface. The portion of the APE for a 5,000-foot pipeline is within the public right-of-way for Ridge Route Drive. This portion of the APE has been disturbed by construction associated with existing sewer pipelines and storm drains. No prehistoric cultural material was observed within the project area.

The intensive survey of the APE did not identify any prehistoric archaeological materials, such as chipped stone artifacts, ground stone artifacts, or shellfish fragments, or historic archaeological materials, such as glass bottles or ceramics. Extensive disturbance associated with existing development on the site has most likely destroyed any unknown, intact archaeological materials. Therefore, the project would have a less-than-significant impact on archaeological resources.

c) Would the project directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?

Less-than-Significant Impact. According to Figure VI-9 of the Resources Element of the Orange County General Plan (County of Orange 2011), the project area is located within the Laguna Hills-Dana Point area, which is identified as an area of paleontological sensitivity. However, because all excavation associated with the proposed project would occur within the previously disturbed ETWD WRP site and existing right-of-way, it is highly unlikely that any paleontological resources would be encountered. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.


7199 54 March 2012

d) Would the project disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries?

Less-than-Significant Impact. As described in response 4.5.a, no archeological sites or resources are recorded within or adjacent to the project site. However, if human remains are unearthed during construction, State Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 states that no further disturbance shall occur until the County Coroner has made the necessary findings as to the origin and disposition of the remains pursuant to California Public Resources Code Section 5097.98. Therefore, with compliance with State Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5, impacts to human remains would be less than significant.


National Historic Preservation Act, Section 106:

Identify the APE, including construction, staging areas, and depth of any excavation. (Note that the APE is three-dimensional and includes all areas that may be affected by the project, including the surface area and extending belowground to the depth of any project excavations.)

The APE incorporates all of the proposed construction and staging/access areas associated with the proposed project, including temporary equipment/material staging. The width of trenches for the proposed pipelines will be approximately 3 feet. The vertical APE will be approximately 12 feet for the treatment plant facilities, and generally 5 to 7 feet for the pipelines.

Refer to Appendix C for the records search with maps showing all sites and surveys drawn in relation to the project area, and records of Native American consultation.


7199 55 March 2012

4.6 Geology and Soils

a) Would the project 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.

Less-than-Significant Impact. The project is located within seismically active Southern California, an area where several faults and fault zones are considered active by the California Division of Mines and Geology. Alquist-Priolo earthquake fault zones have been established for the majority of these faults and fault zones. The closest known faults are the San Joaquin Hills Fault, located approximately 1.9 miles from the site; the Newport Inglewood (Offshore) Fault, located 8.6 miles from the site; and the Newport Inglewood (L.A. Basin) Fault, located 11.7 miles from the project site (Leighton Consulting, Inc. 2008). No active faults are mapped or known to cross the site and the project site is not located within a currently designated Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone (California Geological Survey 2007). The proposed project would be constructed per the CBC standards, which address seismic issues. Therefore, the project would have a less-than-significant impact on people or structures due to an earthquake.

ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?

Less-than-Significant Impact. As stated in response 4.6.a.ii., although the project site is not located within an Alquist-Priolo Fault Zone, there is potential for exposure to seismic ground shaking within seismically active Southern California. Severe ground shaking from a seismic event from nearby faults could result in damage to the proposed Treatment Plant. However, adherence to the CBC and the recommendations of the geotechnical engineer, as described in Section 2.3.3, would reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level.

iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction?

Less-than-Significant Impact. According to a geotechnical investigation of the project area performed by Leighton and Associates, Inc., the subsurface soils on the project site consist primarily of medium-stiff to stiff clays and silts, with small quantities of fine- to coarse-grained sands. The absence of sandy soils at the site


7199 56 March 2012

and the general firm to hard consistency of the subsurface soils indicates that the potential for liquefaction on the project site is low (Leighton and Associates, Inc. 1995). Therefore, impacts associated with seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction, would be less than significant.

iv) Landslides?

Less-than-Significant Impact. According to the City of Laguna Woods General Plan, Exhibit S-2, the project site is within an area with landslide potential. However, adherence to the CBC and the recommendations of the geotechnical engineer, as specified in Section 2.3.3, would reduce the potential impact to a less-than-significant level.

b) Would the project result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?

Less-than-Significant Impact. The project site is located on generally level ground and the soil is not highly erodible (Leighton Consulting, Inc. 2008). As listed in Section 2.3.3, BMPs would be utilized during project construction to reduce the potential for soil erosion or loss of topsoil. Therefore, the impact would be less than significant.

c) Would the project be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?

Less-than-Significant Impact. As discussed in response 4.6.a.iv, the site has potential for landslides. A geotechnical report for the site found that near-surface soils are soft to firm, while underlying soils are firm to hard in consistency, resulting in low compressibility (Leighton and Associates, Inc. 1998). There is low potential for liquefaction on the project site. Adherence to the CBC and the recommendations of the geotechnical engineer, as specified in Section 2.3.3, would reduce any potential impacts to a less-than-significant level.

d) Would the project be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property?

Less-than-Significant Impact. The geotechnical reports by Leighton and Associates, Inc. (1995, 1998) found that the near-surface soils have medium to high expansion potential. However, adherence to the CBC and the recommendations of the geotechnical engineer, as specified in Section 2.3.3, would reduce potential impacts to a less-than-significant level.


7199 57 March 2012

e) Would the project 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 disposal systems are proposed as part of the project. Therefore, the project would result in no impact.

4.7 Greenhouse Gas Emissions

The following analysis relies on the Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Support Document prepared by Dudek, dated February 2012 (Appendix A).

a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?

Less-than-Significant Impact. Global climate change is a cumulative impact. A project participates in this potential impact through its incremental contribution combined with the cumulative increase of all other sources of GHGs. Thus, GHG impacts are recognized as exclusively cumulative impacts; there are no non-cumulative GHG emission impacts from a climate change perspective (CAPCOA 2008). This approach is consistent with that recommended by the California Natural Resource Agency, which noted in its Public Notice for the proposed CEQA amendments that evidence indicates in most cases, the impact of GHG emissions should be considered in the context of a cumulative impact, rather than a project-level impact (CNRA 2009a). Similarly, the Final Statement of Reasons for Regulatory Action for amendments to the CEQA Guidelines confirms that an EIR or other environmental document must analyze the incremental contribution of a project to GHG levels and determine whether those emissions are cumulatively considerable (CNRA 2009b).

Neither the State of California nor the SCAQMD has adopted emission-based thresholds for GHG emissions applicable to the proposed project. The Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) issued a technical advisory titled CEQA and Climate Change: Addressing Climate Change through California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Review, which states that “public agencies are encouraged but not required to adopt thresholds of significance for environmental impacts. Even in the absence of clearly defined thresholds for GHG emissions, the law requires that such emissions from CEQA projects must be disclosed and mitigated to the extent feasible whenever the lead agency determines that the project contributes to a significant, cumulative climate change impact” (OPR 2008, p. 4). Furthermore, the advisory document indicates that “in the


7199 58 March 2012

absence of regulatory standards for GHG emissions or other scientific data to clearly define what constitutes a ‘significant impact,’ individual lead agencies may undertake a project-by-project analysis, consistent with available guidance and current CEQA practice” (OPR 2008, p. 6).

While the proposed project would result in emissions of GHGs during construction, there are currently no established thresholds for assessing whether the GHG emissions from a project in the SCAB such as the proposed tertiary treatment plant project would be considered a cumulatively considerable contribution to global climate change; however, all reasonable efforts should be made to minimize a project’s contribution to global climate change. Estimated project-generated GHG emissions and their impact on global climate are addressed below.

Construction GHG Emissions

Construction of the proposed tertiary treatment plant and transmission pipeline would result in GHG emissions, which are primarily associated with use of off-road construction equipment and vehicles and on-road construction and worker vehicles. CalEEMod was used to calculate the annual GHG emissions, expressed in units of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2E), based on the construction scenario described in Appendix A.

Table 6 presents annual construction emissions for 2013 and 2014. Estimates include emissions from on-site (off-road equipment) and off-site (on-road trucks and worker vehicles) sources during all construction phases.

Table 6 Estimated Annual Construction Greenhouse Gas Emissions

MT CO2 MT CH4 MT N2O MT CO2E 2013 297 0.03 0.00 297 2014 103 0.01 0.00 103

Total 400 0.04 0.00 400

Source: See Appendix A for complete results. Notes: MT CO2 – metric tons carbon dioxide MT CH4 – metric tons methane MT N2O – metric tons nitrogen dioxide MT CO2E – metric tons carbon dioxide equivalent

As shown in Table 6, the estimated total GHG emissions during construction would be 297 metric tons CO2E in 2013 and 103 metric tons CO2E in 2014, for a combined total of 400 metric tons CO2E during construction of the proposed project. Construction-related GHG emissions would occur over approximately 16 months and would not represent a


7199 59 March 2012

long-term source of GHG emissions. As the project would not cause a cumulatively considerable contribution, it would result in a cumulative impact in terms of climate change that is less than significant.

Operational GHG Emissions

Operation of the proposed expanded recycled water tertiary treatment plant would result in GHG emissions through electricity consumed during recycled water treatment and distribution. The operation of the tertiary treatment plant would not require additional staff and limited additional truck trips associated with treatment supplies. Thus, nearly all of the additional GHG emissions associated with operation are those resulting from generation of electricity.

ETWD operates an existing recycled water program that supplies approximately 500 afy of disinfected secondary treated recycled water for irrigation of the Laguna Woods Village Golf Course and for irrigation and plant process water at ETWD WRP. The remaining secondary effluent is discharged to the Pacific Ocean via the SOCWA Effluent Transmission Main. The proposed recycled water treatment plant and distribution system would deliver as much as 1,675 afy (546 million gallons (MG) per year) of tertiary-treated recycled water to irrigation customers within the ETWD service area. Estimated project-generated 1,675 afy of tertiary treated water includes the existing 500 afy (163 MG per year) of secondary treated water and 1,175 afy (383 MG per year) of additional recycled water that would be accommodated by the expanded treatment plant. The estimated electricity consumed by the proposed project is based on the treatment and distribution of 1,675 afy of tertiary treated water. As 500 afy of secondary treated water is currently being treated and supplied to existing customers, the increase in supply and distribution of recycled water is assumed to be 1,175 afy (383 MG per year). For the purposes of this analysis, it is assumed that the 1,175 afy of additional tertiary-treated recycled water would be consumed by land uses that would otherwise consume 1,175 afy of potable water.

Electricity would be required to power the proposed six pumps (four duty pumps, one standby pump, and one jockey pump), which are assumed to be in operation 3,650 hours per year. Tertiary treatment of recycled water during cloth media filtration and chlorine disinfection would also consume electricity. Recycled water electricity usage for the proposed tertiary treatment plant is anticipated to be approximately 1,4601 kilowatt-hour

1 The factor of kilowatt-hour per million gallons (kWh/MG) for recycled water was estimated based on the ETWD

Recycled Water Tertiary Treatment Plant Project Preliminary Design Report (CH2MHILL 2012) annual power


7199 60 March 2012

(kWh) per MG per year. Therefore, the anticipated project-generated 1,675 afy (546 MG) of tertiary treated recycled water per year would require approximately 797,000 kWh of electricity annually. This estimate assumes pumping for the existing 500 afy and the additional 1,175 afy of recycled water. As the existing 500 afy of secondary treated water is currently being pumped for distribution to existing customers, the project’s electricity estimate is conservative.

As there is a current demand for recycled water, project-generated tertiary-treated recycled water would be used instead of potable water that is currently being used for irrigation. Electricity is consumed during the supply, treatment, and distribution of potable water. As assumed in CalEEMod, potable water electricity usage is approximately 11,110 kWh/MG (SCAQMD 2011). Annual electricity usage associated with 1,175 afy (383 MG per year) of potable water would be approximately 4,254,000 kWh per year. Accordingly, consumption of recycled water would require less electricity usage than potable water.

Operational GHG emissions generated by the proposed project’s recycled water tertiary treatment and distribution would be reduced compared to GHG emissions associated with the electricity required to supply, treat, and distribute 383 MG of potable water. Table 7 presents the estimated annual operational GHG emissions from electricity usage associated with tertiary treatment and distribution of 546 MG of recycled water generated by the proposed tertiary treatment plant and electricity consumption associated with supply, treatment, and distribution of 383 MG of potable water currently used by future ETWD recycled water customers.

Table 7 Estimated Operational Greenhouse Gas Emissions

MT CO2 MT CH4 MT N2O MT CO2E Proposed Tertiary Treatment Plant Treated Water 232 0.01 0.00 233

Potable Water 1,237 0.06 0.02 1,245 Difference (1,005) (0.03) (0.02) (1,012)

Source: See Appendix A for complete results. Note: Numbers in parenthesis represent a negative number.

cost estimate for Alternative 2, which proposes six new pumps, and the operation and maintenance power cost estimate for cloth media filtration and chlorine disinfection.


7199 61 March 2012

As shown in Table 7, the estimated emissions of GHGs generated by the proposed tertiary treatment plant project would be approximately 233 metric tons of CO2E per year. Estimated emissions of GHGs assuming that existing ETWD customers currently consume 383 MG of potable water per year would be approximately 1,245 metric tons of CO2E per year. As such, the proposed project would reduce GHG emissions associated with the consumption of water by ETWD customers.

As the proposed project would reduce GHG emissions by approximately 1,012 metric tons of CO2E per year, it would result in a beneficial impact to climate change.

b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?

Less-than-Significant Impact. The Climate Change Scoping Plan, approved by CARB on December 12, 2008, provides an outline for actions to reduce California’s GHG emissions. The Climate Change Scoping Plan, approved by CARB on December 12, 2008, provides an outline for actions to reduce California’s GHG emissions. The Scoping Plan requires CARB and other state agencies to adopt regulations and other initiatives to reduce GHGs. Furthermore, neither the ETWD, local jurisdictions, nor the SCAQMD have adopted any GHG-reduction measures that would apply to the GHG emissions associated with the proposed project. At this time, no mandatory GHG regulations or finalized agency guidelines would apply to implementation of this project, and no conflict would occur. Therefore, this cumulative impact would be less than significant.

4.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials

The following analysis relies on the El Toro Water District Recycled Water Treatment Plant Environmental Hazards Report Memorandum, dated February 2012 (Appendix D).

a) Would the project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials?

Less-than-Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated.

Information on past and current chemical storage on the property was obtained from agency file reviews and site representative interviews. Additionally, information on chemical storage and known releases at the subject property or at sites near the subject property, was obtained from review of a hazardous materials database search (known as an Environmental Data Resources (EDR) report, refer to Appendix D).


7199 62 March 2012

A review of these sources indicated that current chemical storage at the WRP site includes the following:

• 10,000-gallon diesel underground storage tank (UST)

• 900-gallon and 325-gallon diesel aboveground storage tanks (ASTs) associated with emergency generators

• Maximum 12,000 gallons sodium hypochlorite stored in ASTs

• Compressed gases stored in cylinders

• Motor oil

• Sodium hydroxide

• Sodium chloride

• Paint

• 2,6-dichlorobenzenonitril

• Silica

• Sulfamic acid

• Small quantities of potassium chromate, sulfuric acid, nickel sulfate hexahydrate, sodium arsenite, nickel sulfate, sodium sulfite, and cureumin reagent.

Construction Impacts

A variety of hazardous substances and wastes would be stored, used, and generated during construction of the proposed project. These would include fuels for machinery and vehicles, new and used motor oils, cleaning solvents, paints, and storage containers and applicators containing such materials. Accidental spills, leaks, fires, explosions, or pressure releases involving hazardous materials represent a potential threat to human health and the environment if not properly treated. Accident prevention and containment are the responsibility of the construction contractors. Provisions to properly manage hazardous substances and wastes are described in Section 2.3.3. Adherence to the project design features listed in Section 2.3.3 and applicable regulations regarding hazardous materials and hazardous waste, including disposal, would reduce impacts associated with project construction. In addition, the following mitigation measure would be implemented to ensure a less-than-significant impact associated with the use of hazardous materials during construction of the proposed project.


7199 63 March 2012

Mitigation Measure 4.8-a: Prior to construction, a hazardous substance management, handling, storage, disposal, and emergency response plan shall be prepared and implemented by ETWD. Hazardous materials spill kits shall be maintained on site for small spills. All chemicals shall be managed in accordance with the California Hazardous Waste Control Law (California Health and Safety Code Division 20, Chapter 6.5) and the Hazardous Waste Control Regulations (CCR, Title 22, Division 4.5). Also prior to construction, the State Department of Toxic Substances Control shall be contacted to determine if a Department of Toxic Substances Control permit is required.

Excavation Impacts

Based on review of the EDR report, while the subject property is listed in several databases noting chemical storage and releases of effluent water and sewage, the site is not included in the list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 (Cortese, LUST, Envirostor, solid waste disposal facilities, or clean-up sites). There are five hazardous materials sites (one closed release site and four sites with no known releases) located in business parks or shopping centers near the intersection of Ridge Route Drive and Moulton Parkway, and along Ridge Route Drive between Peralta Drive and Oceanaire. The information reviewed does not indicate that these sites have impacted the environmental conditions along the proposed pipeline route. However, in the event that evidence of contamination, USTs, or other environmental concerns are encountered during grading or construction of the proposed facilities, a significant impact could occur. Mitigation Measure 4.8-b would be required to ensure that impacts remain below a level of significance:

Mitigation Measure 4.8-b: Prior to construction, ETWD shall prepare a Hazardous Materials Contingency Plan. The plan shall (1) specify measures to be taken to protect worker and public health and safety, and (2) specify measures to be taken to manage and remediate wastes. The plan shall highlight the storage tank areas and the areas near the intersection of Ridge Route Drive and Moulton Parkway and along Ridge Route Drive between Peralta and Oceanaire, as potential areas of soil contamination. The plan shall include the following:

• Identification of the storage tank areas and areas near off-site gasoline release sites;


7199 64 March 2012

• Procedures for monitoring the air and soil for volatile organic compounds using a photoionization device or other similar equipment during excavation in areas of potential contamination;

• Air monitoring action levels based on the California Division of Occupational Safety and Health permissible exposure limits;

• Procedures for temporary cessation of construction activity and evaluation of the level of environmental concern;

• Procedures for limiting access to the contaminated area to properly trained personnel;

• Procedures for notification and reporting, including internal management and local agencies (e.g., fire department, OCHCA), as needed;

• A worker health and safety plan for excavation of contaminated soil;

• Procedures for characterizing and managing excavated soils; and

• Procedures for certification of completion of remediation.

In addition to awareness of the Hazardous Materials Contingency Plan, grading and excavation staff shall undergo training on how to identify suspected contaminated soil and USTs.

Implementation of Mitigation Measures 4.8-a and 4.8-b would ensure that potential impacts during project construction would remain less than significant.

Operational Impacts

The proposed project would not include increases in quantities of existing chemicals stored at the treatment plant. However, the proposed project would include the addition of one 55-gallon drum of a coagulant (i.e., alum or ferric chloride) and/or polymer per month.

The status of alum and ferric chloride as a hazardous substance according to the various federal and state regulations is as follows. Polymers would likely be categorized in the same manner.

• Alum and ferric chloride are hazardous materials per Title 8, Section 339, of the California Code of Regulations.

• Alum and ferric chloride are not extremely hazardous substances, as defined in the Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Chapter 1, Part 355, Appendix A.


7199 65 March 2012

Federal, state, and local regulations control the transportation, use, storage, generation, and disposal of hazardous materials to minimize potential health and environmental hazards that could occur through accidental spills or leakage. OCFA regulates storage of chemicals through its Business Emergency Plan (BEP) program. Since the quantity of the coagulant (i.e., alum or ferric chloride) or polymer to be stored at the site will be limited to one 55-gallon drum, a BEP will not need to be updated for the proposed project.

One drum of coagulant (i.e., alum or ferric chloride) or polymer would be transported to the site via trucks on a monthly basis. Alum and ferric chloride are classified as hazard class eight. The travel route for delivery would either be from I-5 and Lake Forest Drive or from I-5 and El Toro Road. The one-way travel distance using either route is approximately 1.8 miles. Based on estimates of hazardous materials transport accident/incident risk, the risk-per-mile for hazard class eight (corrosives) is 0.409 in a million. The route from I-5 to the project site is approximately 1.8 miles each way, thus the probability of a hazardous material incident occurring on this route is 0.9 in a million for each delivery. The probability of a hazardous material incident specific to hazard class eight substances is 0.7 in a million.

Transportation of hazardous materials will comply with all Department of Transportation, California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), EPA, Department of Toxic Substances Control, California Highway Patrol, and California State Fire Marshal regulations. Overall, impacts associated with the transport of hazardous materials during project operations would be less than significant.

Hazardous Air Emissions Impacts

The subject property is required to maintain permits with the SCAQMD for operation of equipment that emits hazardous air emissions. However, permits with SCAQMD would not be required for storage and use of one drum of alum or ferric chloride. Therefore, hazardous air emissions impacts associated with the proposed project would be less than significant.

b) Would the project 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?

Less-than-Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. Refer to response 4.8.a.


7199 66 March 2012

c) Would the project emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?

Less-than-Significant Impact. The project site is not located within 0.25 mile of an existing or proposed school. Therefore, construction and operations on the project site would not result in impacts associated with hazardous emissions or materials on existing or proposed schools. However, as described in response 4.8.a, the project would require the transport of alum or ferric chloride to the site. Both travel routes (along Lake Forest Drive and Moulton Parkway or along El Toro Road and Moulton Parkway) are located within 0.25 mile of an existing school. However, since the risk of a hazardous material incident is less than one in a million, it is considered a less-than-significant impact.

d) Would the project be located on a site that 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?

Less-than-Significant Impact. Although the subject property is listed in several databases noting chemical storage and releases of effluent water and sewage, the site is not included in the list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 (Cortese, LUST, Envirostor, solid waste disposal facilities, or clean-up sites). Additionally, no sites adjacent to the subject property have reported releases that are likely to have impacted the environmental conditions within the project area. Therefore, impacts associated with the proposed project would be less than significant.

e) Would the project 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?

No Impact. The closest airport to the project site is the John Wayne Airport, located approximately 6 miles to the northwest. The project site is not within an area influenced by an airport land use plan. Therefore, the project would not result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area, and there would be no impact.


7199 67 March 2012

f) Would the project 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 site is not located within the vicinity of an airport. Therefore, the project would not result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area, and there would be no impact.

g) Would the project impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?

Less-than-Significant Impact. Emergency preparedness in the Cities of Laguna Woods and Laguna Hills is managed by their respective Public Safety Departments and is overseen by the Orange County Emergency Operations Center. Both cities and the County have emergency response plans in place.

The proposed treatment plant would be located on the existing WRP site and would not interfere with any emergency response plans. Once constructed, the 5,000-foot pipeline would be entirely underground and would not impair or interfere with the applicable emergency response plans. In addition, during project construction, a traffic control plan will be implemented to ensure adequate circulation is maintained on area roadways and emergency response plans are not impacted. Therefore, the impact of the proposed project would be less than significant.

h) Would the project 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?

No Impact. The project site is located entirely within a developed area and would not interfere with wildlands. Therefore, the project would not expose people or structures to a significant risk involving wildland fires, and there would be no impact.

4.9 Hydrology and Water Quality

The following analysis relies on the Hydrology and Water Quality Technical Report for the Recycled Water Tertiary Treatment Plant Project prepared by Dudek (2012c), dated February 2012 (see Appendix E).


7199 68 March 2012

a) Would the project violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements?

Less-than-Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. The site is located within the jurisdiction of the Santa Ana RWQCB and permanent and construction stormwater quality requirements in the County of Orange’s 2011 Model Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) are identified. According to guidelines set forth in the County of Orange’s WQMP for North County Permit areas, as well as the 2003 County of Orange Watershed Protection Drainage Area Management Plan (DAMP), the proposed project qualifies as a priority development project.

Total Maximum Daily Loads

The purpose of a total maximum daily load (TMDL) is to attain the water quality objectives (WQOs) and restore the beneficial uses for impaired waterbodies under Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act. TMDLs represent a strategy for meeting WQOs by allocating quantitative limits for point and non-point pollution sources. The TMDL is the maximum amount of pollutant of concern that the water body can receive and still attain WQOs. Developed TMDLs for impairments are listed in Appendix E.

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System

The RWQCB issued the municipal stormwater NPDES permit (“Municipal Permit”), Order No. 90-71, for urban areas within Orange County on July 13, 1990. This municipal stormwater permit was known as the first-term permit. The RWQCB has renewed the Orange County MS4 permit through Orders No. 96-31 (second-term permit) and R8-2002-0010 (third-term permit) on March 8, 1996, and January 18, 2002, respectively. The permit was most recently renewed on May 22, 2009, through Order No. R8-2009-0030 (fourth-term permit) and is amended under Order No. R8-2010-0062.

County of Orange’s Drainage Management Plan

Regulations set forth in the Clean Water Act require municipal NPDES permits to prohibit the discharge of non-stormwater discharges to the stormwater conveyance system, except as specified and when measures are taken to the maximum extent practicable to reduce stormwater pollutants. The County of Orange’s DAMP and WQMP provide guidelines to evaluate and address urban as well as post-construction stormwater runoff. The DAMP details the project review and permitting process, identifies BMP selection procedures and implementation for new development and redevelopment projects. Included in the WQMP is the adoption of regional low-impact development (LID).


7199 69 March 2012

Surface Water

An increase of impermeable surfaces would occur at the project site. The stormwater runoff that flows from the project site would increase in volume, as shown in Table 8. Table 8 provides a summary of the calculated increase in stormwater peak-flow discharge as measured in cubic feet per second (cfs). Peak flow rates were estimated using the rational method outlined in the Orange County Hydrology Manual.

Table 8 Conceptual Peak Flow Summary

Storm Event Existing Q (cfs)1 Proposed Q (cfs)1 Change in Q (cfs) 2-YEAR 1.6 2.3 0.7 10-YEAR 3.3 4.3 1.0 50-YEAR 4.6 5.8 1.2 100-YEAR 5.3 6.5 1.2

Notes: 1. Refer to the Stormwater Runoff Flow Calculations in Appendix E for detailed calculations. cfs = Cubic feet per second

A projected maximum increase of runoff from the site of approximately 44% has the potential to impact downstream erosion and siltation. LID BMPs necessitate that projects not increase stormwater runoff rates and duration as a result of development, mimicking pre-existing site hydrological conditions. In addition, the San Diego Creek Reach 2 and Upper and Lower Newport Bay are impaired by bacteria, and bacteria loads within urbanized areas generally originate from urban runoff discharges from Municipal Separate Sewer Systems (MS4s). Therefore, the projected 44% increase in runoff rate from the site could violate water quality standards, and impacts would be significant. Mitigation to achieve no net increase in flow quantities and rates discharged from the site, and to minimize bacteria loading from the site would be required.

The 5,000-foot transmission pipeline is a Type 1 Linear Underground Project (LUP) and is proposed to be placed under an existing paved right-of-way (Ridge Route Drive). No increase or decrease in impervious surface is proposed between pre-development and post-development conditions. The original grade and line of the paved right-of-way is proposed to be maintained. Therefore, stormwater runoff is not anticipated to change as a result of the proposed development. The General Permit (Order 2009-0009-DWQ, as amended by 2010-0014-DWQ) states Type 1 LUPs do not have high potential to impact stormwater quality. These projects are typically not developed during storm events, the construction period is typically short (a duration of weeks or months but less than a year), and disturbed soils from Type 1 LUP developments are typically required to be hauled off site, backfilled into a trench, and/or covered at the end of the construction day.


7199 70 March 2012

To reduce potential impacts to water quality standards that could result from the proposed project, the following mitigation measures would be implemented:

Mitigation Measure 4.9-a: In accordance with the Orange County DAMP, WQMP, and City standards, BMPs shall be implemented by ETWD’s contractor during construction and operation of the proposed project. A full listing of potential BMPs, including those for site design, source control, and treatment control, and are listed in Appendix E of the MND.

In order to mitigate the 44% increase in runoff from the proposed project, LID BMPs shall to be incorporated. This will be accomplished by strategic placement of LID BMPs uniformly throughout the project to mimic the natural flow regime. Recommended LID BMPs to include in the proposed project are as follows:

• Vegetated swales

• Vegetated filter strips

• Harvest and treat runoff from 2 year and 5 year, 3 hour duration storms at the plant. The estimated volume of runoff generated from the proposed project for the 2 year and 5 year, 3 hour duration storms would be approximately 5,781 cubic feet and 7,674 cubic feet, respectively.

A maintenance plan assuring that all permanent BMPs shall be maintained throughout the use of the project components should be developed by ETWD per the DAMP Section 7.6.6. Examples of maintenance include removal of accumulated sediment and trash, thinning of vegetative brush in biotreatment swales, and maintaining the appearance and general status of the vegetation. The contents that shall be included in the maintenance plan are listed in Appendix E.

Mitigation Measure 4.9-b: The Construction General Permit requires the development and implementation of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). Prior to construction, ETWD shall develop an SWPPP that shall contain a site map(s) showing the construction site perimeter, existing and proposed buildings, lots, roadways, stormwater collection and discharge points, general topography both before and after construction, and drainage patterns across the project. The SWPPP shall list BMPs the discharger will use to protect stormwater runoff and the placement of those BMPs in accordance with Caltrans Stormwater Quality Handbooks. Additionally, the SWPPP shall contain a visual monitoring program and a chemical monitoring program for “non-visible” pollutants to be implemented if there is a failure of BMPs.


7199 71 March 2012

With implementation of Mitigation Measures 4.9-a and 4.9-b, impacts would be reduced to below a level of significance.

b) Would the project substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (i.e., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level that would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)?

Less-than-Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. The project site is located in the Santa Ana River Hydrologic Unit, within the East Coastal Plain Hydrologic Sub-area. The Santa Ana River Hydrologic Unit encompasses the Lower Santa Ana River groundwater management zone. The proposed project site lies along the edge of the defined groundwater basin and is not located in a defined groundwater basin.

Due to an increase of impermeable surfaces at the site, infiltration to the groundwater basin will decrease, thus reducing the quantity of groundwater recharge. However, with implementation of Mitigation Measures 4.9-a and 4.9-b, the proposed project would not deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level, and impacts would be reduced to below a level of significance.

If dewatering is required during construction, the potential impact to groundwater would be temporary and would not substantially deplete groundwater supplies.

c) Would the project substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on or –off site?


d) Would the project substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on or off site?



7199 72 March 2012

e) Would the project create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff?


f) Would the project otherwise substantially degrade water quality?

Less-than-Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. The proposed development would not generate significant amounts of pollutants; however, the following constituents are commonly found on similar developments and could affect water quality. The DAMP, Exhibit 7.II Model WQMP identifies the following categories of pollutants that are anticipated and/or could potentially be generated from the proposed project: sediments, nutrients, metals, organic compounds, trash and debris, oxygen-demanding substances, oil and grease, bacteria and viruses, and pesticides.

The development of the proposed tertiary treatment plant facilities would resemble the commercial development category identified in the DAMP (refer to Appendix E). Mitigation Measures 4.9-a and 4.9-b, would be required to mitigate for water quality impacts that would occur from the proposed project. The development of the proposed transmission pipeline will resemble the streets, freeways, and highways category. As the development of the proposed tertiary treatment plant facilities site proceeds, there is a potential for the quantity of the identified, anticipated, and potential pollutants to increase. Construction of the proposed transmission pipeline is not anticipated to change surface, hydraulic, or drainage conditions and is not likely to be a factor when considering increase in pollutants due to change in land use.

With implementation of Mitigation Measures 4.9-a and 4.9-b, the proposed project would not substantially degrade water quality, and impacts would be reduced to below a level of significance.

g) Would the project place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map?

No Impact. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Maps identify flood zones and areas that are susceptible to 100-year and 500-year floods. The proposed project site is not located within a FEMA 100-year or 500-year flood zone (FEMA 2009). Therefore, the project would not place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area and there would be no impact.


7199 73 March 2012

h) Would the project place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows?

Less-than-Significant Impact. Refer to response 4.9.g. Since the project site is not located within a 100-year flood zone, the introduction of new structures as part of the project would result in a less-than-significant impact.

i) Would the project expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam?

Less-than-Significant Impact. Refer to response 4.9.g. Since the project site is not located within a 100-year flood zone, the risk associated with flooding would be less than significant.

j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow?

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 and there would be no impact.


Floodplain Management – Executive Order Number 11988:

Is any portion of the project site located within a 100-year floodplain as depicted on a floodplain map or otherwise designated by FEMA?

No. Provide a description of the project location with respect to streams and potential floodplains:

The project site is located southeast of the Veeh Reservoir and east of the ETWD Recycled Water Reservoir. The areas surrounding these reservoirs, to the north and to the west of the project site, are within FEMA-designated 100-year floodplains. However, the project site is not within these floodplains.

Yes. Describe the floodplain, and include a floodplain map and a floodplains/wetlands assessment. Describe any measures and/or project design modifications that would minimize or avoid flood damage by the project.


7199 74 March 2012

Wild and Scenic Rivers Act:

Is any portion of the project located within a wild and scenic river?

No. The project will not impact a wild and scenic river.

Yes. Identify the wild and scenic river watershed and project location relative to the affected wild and scenic river.

Identify watershed where the project is located: Newport Bay Watershed.

Source Water Protection:

Is the project located in an area designated by the U.S. EPA, Region 9, as a Sole Source Aquifer? (For more information, please visit http://www.epa.gov/region09/water/ groundwater/ssa.html.)

No. The project is not within the boundaries of a sole source aquifer.

Yes. Identify the aquifer (e.g., Santa Margarita Aquifer, Scott’s Valley, the Fresno County Aquifer, the Campo/Cottonwood Creek Aquifer or the Ocotillo-Coyote Wells Aquifer).

4.10 Land Use and Planning

a) Would the project physically divide an established community?

No Impact. The proposed project would be located within the existing WRP site boundaries and within the public right-of-way of Ridge Route Drive. Since no residential communities would be physically divided by the proposed project, there would be no impact.

b) Would the project 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 proposed project would not significantly change the use of the project area. The WRP site is currently designated as Open Space under the City of Laguna Woods General Plan Map. Government and quasi-governmental facilities, such as water districts and electric utilities, are allowable uses under the General Plan Open Space designation. The project site is zoned OS-R, Open Space – Recreation District, on the


7199 75 March 2012

City of Laguna Woods zoning map (City of Laguna Woods 2011a). Public/private utility buildings/structures are an approved use within areas zoned Open Space – Recreation, as specified in Chapter 13.12 of the Laguna Woods Zoning Ordinance. The proposed project would therefore not conflict with the City of Laguna Woods General Plan or Zoning designations and there would be no impact.

c) Would the project conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan?

No Impact. Refer to response 4.4.f. The project site is not located within an HCP area, NCCP area, or area affected by another such plan. Therefore, the project would result in no impact.


Coastal Zone Management Act:

Is any portion of the project site located within the coastal zone?

No. The project is not within the coastal zone.

Yes. Describe the project location with respect to coastal areas, and the status of the coastal zone permit.

4.11 Mineral Resources

a) Would the project result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state?

No Impact. No mineral resources, as defined by the state Surface Mining and Reclamation Act (SMARA), have been identified in the City of Laguna Woods (City of Laguna Woods 2003). However, areas in the northern and eastern portion of the City of Laguna Hills, where the project is located, are designated as Mineral Resource Zone (MRZ) 3 (City of Laguna Hills 2008). MRZ-3 is defined as an area containing mineral deposits of which the significance cannot be evaluated from available data. Since the portion of the project that is located within Laguna Hills is limited to areas within existing paved streets, the project would not result in the loss of MRZ-3 land. Therefore, there would be no impact on a known mineral resource.


7199 76 March 2012

b) Would the project result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan?

No Impact. Refer to response 4.11.a. No mineral resources have been identified in the project area. Therefore, there would be no impact on a locally important mineral resource recovery site.

4.12 Noise

a) Would the project result in exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?

Less-than-Significant Impact. The primary noise sources in the project area are vehicular traffic along Ridge Route Drive and Moulton Parkway. Other noise sources in the project area include background noise from occasional small airplane and helicopter over flights and the existing ETWD facility.

Noise Criteria

The recycled water tertiary treatment plant is located in the City of Laguna Woods and the proposed distribution line is located in both the City of Laguna Hills and the City of Laguna Woods. The Cities’ noise criteria are used in this noise analysis.

Operational Noise Criteria

The City of Laguna Woods Municipal Code, Chapter 7.08, Noise Control, has established noise-level limits applicable to the operational noise levels (stationary sources). The noise-level limits vary depending on time of day and duration of noise and are applied at residential properties. Thus, the project shall not cause the noise level to exceed the applicable noise-level limits shown in Table 9 when measured on any residential property.


7199 77 March 2012

Table 9 Maximum Permissible Noise Levels

Noise Zone1 Period

Permissible Noise Level (dBA) (for a period not exceeding)

Category (1) Category (2) Category (3) Category (4) Category (5) 30 min 15 min 5 min 1 min 0 min

I Exterior 7 a.m. to 10 p.m. 55 60 65 70 75 I Exterior 10 p.m. to 7 a.m. 50 55 60 65 70 I Interior 7 a.m. to 10 p.m. — — 55 60 65 I Interior 10 p.m. to 7 a.m. — — 45 50 55

1Noise Zone Designations: The entire City of Laguna Woods is designated as “Noise Zone I”.

Source: City of Laguna Woods 2011b.

Construction Noise Criteria

The Cities have established construction noise guidelines in their respective municipal codes. The City of Laguna Hills Municipal Code permits construction activities between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, and between 8:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. on Saturday. No construction activity is allowed on Sundays and federal holidays (City of Laguna Hills 2011). The City of Laguna Woods is similar except construction activities are permissible between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m., Monday through Saturday. No construction activity is allowed on Sundays and federal holidays (City of Laguna Woods 2011b).

Ambient Noise Monitoring

The existing noise levels within the project vicinity were monitored on January 24, 2012, between the hours of 11:30 a.m. and 12:30 p.m., and on February 21, 2012, between the hours of 1:00 p.m. and 3:00 p.m. The measurements were made with a calibrated Larson Davis Laboratories Model 700 integrating sound-level meter equipped with a half-inch pre-polarized condenser microphone with pre-amplifier. This sound-level meter meets the current American National Standards Institute standard for a Type 1 precision sound level meter. The sound-level meter was positioned at a height of 5 feet above the ground.

The measured daytime average sound levels ranged from 47 to 65 decibels (dB), as depicted in Table 10. The measurement results are in terms of the time-averaged sound level, Leq. Typically, noise levels during the peak traffic hours are approximately 2 to 3 dB higher than noise levels measured during other off-peak daytime hours.


7199 78 March 2012

Table 10 Measured Noise Levels

Site Monitor Location Monitored Daytime Sound Level (dBA) Noise Sources

1 Ridge Route Drive 15 feet from edge of road 65 Ridge Route Drive 2 Southwestern Property Boundary 54 ETWD Facility 3 Southern Property Boundary 54 ETWD Facility 4 Southeastern Property Boundary 52 ETWD Facility 5 East of Golf Course 47 Background traffic

Construction Noise

Construction of the proposed project would consist of tertiary treatment facilities located on approximately 1.65 acres within previously disturbed and/or paved areas of the ETWD WRP site, and a 5,000-foot recycled water line. Project implementation is anticipated to initiate in February 2013 and would last approximately 16 months.

Noise generated by construction equipment would occur with varying intensities and durations during the various phases of construction. The typical maximum noise levels at a distance of 50 feet for various pieces of construction equipment anticipated to be used during construction are depicted in Table 11. Note that these are maximum noise levels, not an average sound level. The equipment operates in alternating cycles of full power and low power, thus producing noise levels less than the maximum level. The average sound level of the construction activity also depends upon the amount of time that the equipment operates and the intensity of the construction during the time period.

Table 11 Construction Equipment Noise Levels

Equipment Type Typical Noise Level dB(A) at 50 feet Backhoe 80 Compactor 82 Concrete Mixer 85 Crane 83 Generator 81 Loader 85 Paver 89 Roller 74 Truck 88 Saw 76

Source: FTA 2006.


7199 79 March 2012


Construction of the proposed tertiary treatment plant would consist of installation of a new filtration system using cloth media filters; installation of tertiary effluent transfer pumps to replace the irrigation pumps in the existing wet well; construction of a new recycled water storage tank/chlorine contact basin; upgrades to the existing sodium hypochlorite feed system; construction of a new coagulant and/or polymer storage and feed system; electrical, instrumentation, and controls upgrades; and construction of a cover for the existing chlorine contact basin. In addition, the project would include construction of a recycled water pump station with a surge tank and a 5,000‐foot recycled water transmission pipeline.

The closest sensitive receptors to the proposed tertiary treatment plant are residences located approximately 970 feet east of the construction area, adjacent to the Laguna Woods Village Golf Course. The average noise level during the day is anticipated to be approximately 50 dB or less at the closest residences during construction. Due to the short-term duration of the construction activities, and because the construction activities would occur during the City’s allowable time periods, this noise level would result in a less-than-significant impact.

Recycled Water Transmission Line Alignment

The 5,000-foot recycled water transmission pipeline would be located underground and would extend north from the facility site to Ridge Route Drive, where it would then extend west to Santa Vittoria Drive, within the existing right-of-way of Ridge Route Drive.

The pipeline would generally be installed using cut-and-cover (i.e., trenching) construction. Pipeline construction equipment would include the use of excavator(s) and backhoe(s) to construct the trenches lay the pipes, and backfill the soil, heavy trucks to haul the materials and worker vehicles. Pipelines would be delivered using flatbed trailers and installed using a backhoe. Sand would be imported in dump trucks and placed in the trenches. Excavated dirt would temporarily be placed along one side of the pipeline corridor. Thus, excavated soil would not require removal to a temporary off-site storage area. Sand and the pipeline would be installed from the opposite side. The trench backfill would be mechanically compacted and asphalt paving installed. Construction of the pipeline would take approximately 3 months. The construction activity would be limited to the City of Laguna Woods and City of Laguna Hills allowable construction hours and days.


7199 80 March 2012

The pipeline would be adjacent to residences along Ridge Route Drive between Santa Vittoria and Mill Creek Drive. Excavation would proceed at approximately 150 feet of pipeline per day. The daily construction activity would temporarily be located approximately 50 to 150 feet from most of the adjacent residences. The construction activities and resulting noise level would be similar throughout the project area. The average noise level during the day is anticipated to range up to approximately 75 dB at the closest residences during excavation. This noise level would occur for approximately one day at the adjacent residences exposed to the excavation activities. Average noise levels during the remainder of the project would be less as the construction activities progress farther from each residence or less noise intensive construction activities occur. Although the noise could be annoying to some residences, due to the short-term duration of the construction activities, and because the construction activities would occur during the City’s allowable time periods, this noise level would result in a less-than-significant impact.

Operational Noise Impact Analysis

Operational noise would result from new mechanical equipment installed at the project site. The new tertiary treatment plant and recycled water pumping system are anticipated to add the following equipment:

• Recycled Water Pumps—Four at 250 horsepower (hp); three duty, one spare

• Jockey Pump—One at 100 hp, (duty pump)

• Back Wash Return Pumps—Four at 2 hp; two duty (one per filter), two spare (one per filter)

• Filter Drive—Two at 0.75 hp (one per filter)

• Air Compressor—One at 10 hp.

In addition, as a part of the project, the three existing recycled water pumps (two at 75 hp and one at 40 hp) at the existing irrigation pump station would be replaced with three 40 hp pumps to lift the filter effluent to the recycled water storage tank (tertiary effluent transfer pump station).

Based on preliminary design information, equipment noise levels were determined. The new mechanical equipment would be located approximately 1,100 feet from the property line of the closest residences. The mechanical equipment is calculated to generate a noise level of 45 dB at the nearest residential property line. The data used are shown in Table 12. The calculated noise level includes 1 dB attenuation due to atmospheric attenuation


7199 81 March 2012

and 3 dB due to shielding from intervening structures that would attenuate the noise. This noise level complies with the City’s noise criteria, thus the operational noise impact would be less than significant.

Table 12 Outdoor Mechanical Equipment Noise

Equipment

Nearest Residential

Property Line (ft) Equipment Quantity

Typical Run

Quantity Power Rating

1-unit dBA

at 3 ft

All units dBA

at 3 ft

All units dBA at Nearest Residential

Property Line Recycled Water Pumps

1,100 4 3 250 HP

93 98 43

Jockey Pump 1,100 1 1 100 HP

92 92 32

Back Wash Return Pumps

1,100 4 2 2 HP 75 78 23

Filter Drive 1,100 2 2 0.75 HP

71 74 19

Air Compressor 1,100 1 1 10 HP 94 94 39 Replace existing Recycled Water Pumps (TETP)

1,100 3 3 40 HP 88 93 38

All Equipment 45

b) Would the project result in exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels?

Less-than-Significant Impact. Refer to response 4.12.a. Due to the short duration of construction of the proposed project, potential impacts associated with groundborne vibration or noise levels would be less than significant.

c) Would the project result in a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project?

Less-than-Significant Impact. Refer to response 4.12.a. Once constructed, the proposed project would not result in a substantial increase in noise levels. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.


7199 82 March 2012

d) Would the project result in a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project?

Less-than-Significant Impact. Refer to response 4.12.a. Construction of the proposed project would not result in any significant temporary or periodic noise impacts.

e) Would the project be located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?

No Impact. The closest airport to the project site is the John Wayne Airport, located approximately 6 miles to the northwest. The project site is not within an area influenced by an airport land use plan. Therefore, there would be no impact.

f) Would the project be 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 site is not located within the vicinity of a private airstrip. Therefore, there would be no impact.

4.13 Population and Housing

a) Would the project induce substantial population 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. The proposed project involves the addition of a recycled water tertiary treatment plant and 5,000-foot pipeline connecting the plant to a proposed distribution system. The project would enable ETWD to provide up to 1,175 afy of additional tertiary treated recycled water to existing dedicated irrigation customers within the ETWD service area. The project expands ETWD’s recycled water production capacity to meet demands within ETWD’s service area, which might potentially reduce the demand on other previously available water supplies. No direct growth constraints would be removed, nor would a direct stimulus to growth be added. Therefore, the impact on local population growth would be less than significant.


7199 83 March 2012

b) Would the project displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?

No Impact. The project would be located within the existing WRP boundaries and the public right-of-way along Ridge Route Drive. Since no housing currently exists on the site, the project would not displace any housing and there would be no impact.

c) Would the project displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?

No Impact. See responses 4.13.a and 4.13.b. Since there is no housing currently on the project site, the project would not displace any people and there would be no impact.

4.14 Public Services

a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for any of the public services:

Fire protection?

Less-than-Significant Impact. The project would not include the addition of housing, schools, or other community facilities that might require fire protection. The project would also not indirectly induce the addition of housing, schools, or other community facilities (see response 4.13.a). During the 16-month construction phase of the proposed project, the associated construction workers and construction-related activities would result in a less-than-significant increase in need for emergency fire protective services. Due to the limited number of construction workers and the duration of the construction schedule, impacts to fire protection services would be less than significant.

Police protection?

No Impact. The project would not include the addition of housing, schools, or other community facilities that might require police protection. The project would also not indirectly induce additional housing, schools, or other community facilities (see response 4.13.a). Construction of the tertiary treatment plant and pipeline would not change local police protection response times or affect demand for police protection services in the project area. Therefore, there would be no impact to police protection.


7199 84 March 2012

Schools?

No Impact. The project would not involve a housing component that would result in population growth and increased demands on existing schools within the area. Therefore, no impact to schools would occur.

Parks?

No Impact. The project would not involve a housing component or increase employment opportunities that would result in population growth. Therefore, additional demands on existing public parks would not occur as a result of project implementation and there would be no impact.

Other public facilities?

No Impact. Refer to the above responses. Since the project would not involve any housing or increase in employment opportunities within the area, there would be no impact on other public facilities.

4.15 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. The proposed project would not involve a housing component or substantially increase employment opportunities within the area; therefore, the project would not increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities and there would be no impact.

b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities, which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment?

No Impact. The project would not affect existing recreational resources or require the need for new or expanded recreational facilities. Therefore, there would be no impact associated with recreational facilities.


7199 85 March 2012

4.16 Transportation and Traffic

a) Would the project conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance, or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation including mass transit and non-motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle baths, and mass transit?

Less-than-Significant Impact. The project site is accessed by Moulton Parkway, which is a six-lane arterial with average daily traffic ranging from 39,000 and 46,000 vehicles per day. The project also involves construction on Ridge Route Drive, which is a two-lane undivided roadway classified as a primary roadway by the City of Laguna Woods. Average daily traffic on this roadway is approximately 7,500 vehicles per day.

The project has the potential to create temporary lane closures on Ridge Route Drive during the construction of the proposed 5,000-foot pipeline, which may increase congestion during peak travel times. Construction is anticipated to take 16 months to complete. The addition of temporary construction-related traffic would not cause a substantial increase in traffic in relation to existing traffic and capacity of the street system. The City of Laguna Hills requires a Traffic Control Plan for the project that would minimize impacts to area roadways. Therefore, with implementation of a Traffic Control Plan, impacts associated with the construction phase of the proposed project would be less than significant.

Following construction, operation of the proposed project would not result in substantial traffic increases. The pipeline would be below the surface of Ridge Route Drive and would only require repair in emergency situations. The treatment plant facilities would be located on the ETWD property and would not require additional daily trips since no additional ETWD employees would be necessary and because the number of maintenance trips would be minimal. Therefore, traffic impacts associated with operation of the proposed project would be less than significant.


7199 86 March 2012

b) Would the project conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including, but not limited to level of service (LOS) standards and travel demand measures, or other standards established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways?

Less-than-Significant Impact. Although the project would require temporary lane closures and could result in a temporary increase in traffic on local area roadways during construction, the Traffic Control Plan would ensure that this short-term and limited construction-related 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 on local area roadways. In addition, once built, the project would not require additional ETWD personnel and therefore would not create a significant traffic increase on local roadways. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.

c) Would the project result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks?

No Impact. The proposed project does not include any aviation components. It would therefore not result in a change of air traffic patterns or result in substantial safety risks and there would be no impact.

d) Would the project substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?

No Impact. The proposed project would utilize existing roadways and would not involve permanent alteration of existing roadways, nor would it require incompatible vehicular access. Therefore, the project would have no impact in this regard.

e) Would the project result in inadequate emergency access?

Less-than-Significant Impact. Construction of the treatment plant would be limited to the existing ETWD WRP site and would not impact emergency access. However, construction of the proposed pipeline would require temporary lane closures along Ridge Route Drive. A Traffic Control Plan would be developed prior to construction to reduce potential traffic impacts. This plan would identify roadways to be constructed; dates for construction; hours of construction activities; and access requirements for emergency vehicles, residents, and area businesses. Therefore, with implementation of the Traffic Control Plan, impacts would be less than significant.


7199 87 March 2012

f) Would the project conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities?

Less-than-Significant Impact. The proposed project would not result in any conflicts with adopted policies, plans, or programs that support alternative transportation. However, during construction of the transmission pipeline, bicycle lanes and sidewalks along Ridge Route Drive could be temporarily impacted. The required Traffic Control Plan will ensure that adequate notice is given to the Cities of Laguna Hills and Laguna Woods to allow them to make arrangements for the impacted facilities, and that the project complies with Caltrans and American Disability Act standards for pedestrian access. Once constructed, the project would not impact public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities. Therefore, with implementation of the Traffic Control Plan, impacts would be less than significant.

4.17 Utilities and Service Systems

a) Would the project exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board?

Less-than-Significant Impact. The project would increase the capacity for wastewater recycling and would not result in the generation of additional wastewater treatment demands. Therefore, the project would not exceed wastewater treatment requirements and the impact would be less than significant.

b) Would the project require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects?

Less-than-Significant Impact. The project would not generate population growth and would increase the supply of recycled water available for non-potable uses. Therefore, the project would be beneficial and the impact on water and wastewater would be less than significant.

c) Would the project require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects?

Less-than-Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. As described in response 4.9.a, the proposed project would cause an increase in impermeable surfaces and a 44%


7199 88 March 2012

increase in runoff rate from the site. However, potential impacts associated with stormwater runoff would be reduced to a less-than-significant level with implementation of Mitigation Measures 4.9-a and 4.9-b. The mitigation would ensure no net increase in flow quantities and rates discharged from the site. Therefore, impacts associated with stormwater drainage facilities would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.

d) Would the project have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed?

Less-than-Significant Impact. The proposed project would increase the supply of recycled water available for non-potable uses and would not increase the demand for water supplies. Therefore, the project would be beneficial to water supplies and the impact would be less than significant.

e) Would the project 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?

Less-than-Significant Impact. See responses 4.17.a and 4.17.b. Since the proposed project would not result in increased demand for wastewater treatment, the impact would be less than significant.

f) Would the project be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs?

Less-than-Significant Impact. The proposed project, once complete, would not require solid waste material disposal beyond what is currently disposed as part of the existing WRP process. No demolition is proposed as part of the project; therefore, the project is not anticipated to generate a substantial amount of solid waste. In addition, any waste generated during construction would be disposed off site in accordance with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste. Therefore, the impact would be less than significant.

g) Would the project comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste?

Less-than-Significant Impact. See response 4.17.f. Construction of the proposed project would require minimal solid waste material disposal and all waste generated during construction would be disposed off site in accordance with federal, state, and local statues and regulations related to solid waste. Therefore, the impact would be less than significant.


7199 89 March 2012

4.18 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?

Less-than-Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. As discussed in Section 4.4, potential impacts to biological resources, including endangered species or habitat, would be reduced to a less-than-significant level through implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.4-a. Biological issues, as well as other environmental issues, are further discussed in Section 4. Additionally, as discussed in Section 4.5, the project would not significantly impact cultural resources. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.

b) Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term environmental goals to the disadvantage of long-term environmental goals?

Less-than-Significant Impact. The proposed project would achieve both short-term and long-term environmental goals by increasing the amount of recycled water available for irrigation within ETWD’s service area. The increased availability of recycled water would reduce the demand for imported water in the ETWD service area, thereby reducing the environmental impacts associated with importing water. Since the proposed project would achieve both short-term and long-term environmental goals, impacts would be less than significant.

c) 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)?

Less-than-Significant Impact. As discussed in the analysis presented in Section 4 of this MND, the proposed project would not result in significant impacts to aesthetics, agricultural and forestry resources, air quality, cultural resources, geology and soils, greenhouse gas emissions, land use and planning, mineral resources, noise, population and housing, public services, recreation, and transportation and traffic. Mitigation measures recommended for biological resources, hazards and hazardous materials,


7199 90 March 2012

hydrology and water quality, and utilities and service systems would reduce impacts to below a level of significance.

The project would incrementally contribute to cumulative impacts for projects occurring within the ETWD service area, and within the Cities of Laguna Woods and Laguna Hills, and the region. With mitigation, however, no residually significant impacts would result with implementation of the project. In the absence of residually significant impacts, the incremental accumulation of effects would not be cumulatively considerable.

d) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?

Less-than-Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. Based on the analysis contained throughout this MND, all impacts related to the proposed project can be mitigated to a level below significance. Therefore, substantial adverse impacts on human beings would not occur as a result of the proposed project.


7199 91 March 2012

5.0 REPORT PREPARATION PERSONNEL

Dudek

Shawn Shamlou, AICP Senior Project Manager Heather Martinelli Environmental Planner Andrew Greis GIS Specialist Becky Golden-Harrell Technical Editor Hannah Westwood Publications Assistant David Deckman Air Quality Services Manager Jennifer Pace Air Quality/Climate Change Specialist Linda Archer Senior Biologist David Stone, RPA Cultural Resources Manager Ken Victorino, RPA Senior Archaeologist Derek Reed, PE Senior Engineer Nicole Peacock, PE, RG, REA Environmental Engineer/Geologist Trey Driscoll, PG, CHG Associate Hydrogeologist Patrick Rentz Hydrogeologist Mike Komula Acoustician


7199 92 March 2012



7199 93 March 2012

6.0 REFERENCES

14 CCR 15000–15387 and Appendix A–L. Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act, as amended.

CAPCOA (California Air Pollution Control Officers Association). 2008. CEQA & Climate Change: Evaluating and Addressing Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Projects Subject to the California Environmental Quality Act. January 2008.

California Department of Conservation. 2009. “Orange County Important Farmland 2008”

[map]. 1:100,000. Sacramento, California: Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program.

California Geological Survey. 2007. “Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone Maps.” State of

California Department of Conservation Website. Accessed December 21, 2011.

http://www.quake.ca.gov/gmaps/ap/ap_maps.htm.

California Public Resources Code, Section 21000–21177. California Environmental Quality Act

(CEQA), as amended.

CH2MHILL. 2012. El Toro Water District Recycled Water Tertiary Treatment Plant Project Preliminary Design Report. February 2012.

City of Laguna Hills. 2003. “City of Laguna Hills Zoning District Map” [map]. Prepared for the

City of Laguna Hills. Costa Mesa, California: The Planning Center.

City of Laguna Hills. 2008. City of Laguna Hills General Plan. Prepared for the City of Laguna

Hills. Irvine, California: EDAW | AECOM. July 14, 2009. City of Laguna Hills. 2009.

Traffic Control Plan General Notes.

City of Laguna Hills. 2011. Laguna Hills Municipal Code, Title 5 Health and Sanitation,

Chapter 5.24, Noise Control.

City of Laguna Woods. 2002. City of Laguna Woods General Plan Safety Element.

City of Laguna Woods. 2003. City of Laguna Woods General Plan Conservation Element. July

16, 2003.

City of Laguna Woods. 2010. City of Laguna Woods General Plan Land Use Element.

December 15, 2010.


7199 94 March 2012

City of Laguna Woods. 2011a. “City of Laguna Woods Zoning Map” [map]. Prepared for the

City of Laguna Woods. Planning in Motion Hogle-Ireland, Inc.

City of Laguna Woods. 2011b. City of Laguna Woods Code of Ordinances, Title 7 Public Safety

and Welfare, Chapter 7.08, Noise Control.

CNRA (California Natural Resources Agency). 2009a. Notice of Public Hearings and Notice of Proposed Amendment of Regulations Implementing the California Environmental Quality Act. Sacramento, California: CNRA. http://www.ceres.ca.gov/ceqa/docs/ Notice_of_Proposed_Action.pdf.

CNRA 2009b. Final Statement of Reasons for Regulatory Action: Amendments to the State CEQA Guidelines Addressing Analysis and Mitigation of Greenhouse Gas Emissions Pursuant to SB97. December 2009.

County of Orange. 2005. “County of Orange Scenic Highways Plan” [map]. Orange County,

California: Planning GIS.

County of Orange. 2011. County of Orange General Plan Resources Element. March 22, 2011.

Dudek. 2012a. Biological Letter Report for the El Toro Water District Recycled Water Tertiary

Treatment Plant Project.

Dudek. 2012b. Archaeological Survey Report for the Tertiary Treatment Plant Project.

Dudek. 2012c. Hydrology and Water Quality Technical Report for the Recycled Water Tertiary

Treatment Plant Project.

FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency). 2009. “Orange County, California and

Incorporated Areas Flood Insurance Rate Map” [map]. Map Number 06059C0426J,

Panel 426 of 539. Jessup, Maryland: FEMA.

FTA (Federal Transit Authority). 2006. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment. May 2006.

Hoover & Keith, Inc. 2008. Noise Control for Buildings and Manufacturing Plants.

Leighton and Associates, Inc. 1995. Geotechnical Investigation for Proposed Reconstruction of

El Toro Waste Water Reclamation Plan, City of Laguna Hills, California. Prepared for

John Carollo Engineers. April 7, 1995.


7199 95 March 2012

Leighton and Associates, Inc. 1998. Final Report of Geotechnical Investigation for the Proposed

El Toro Waste Water Reclamation Plant Parking Structure, City of Laguna Hills,

California. Prepared for John Carollo Engineers. January 5, 1998.

Leighton Consulting, Inc. 2008. Geotechnical Investigation, Proposed Improvements, North Line

Sewer Pump Station, Laguna Hills, California. Prepared for Dudek and Associates.

October 28, 2008.

OPR (California Governor’s Office of Planning and Research). 2008. Technical Advisory – CEQA and Climate Change: Addressing Climate Change through California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Review. June 19, 2008.

SCAQMD (South Coast Air Quality Management District). 1993. “SCAQMD Air Quality Significance Thresholds.” Originally published in CEQA Air Quality Handbook, Table A9-11-A. Revised March 2011. Accessed February 2012. http://www.aqmd.gov/ ceqa/handbook/signthres.pdf.

SCAQMD. 2008. Final Localized Significance Threshold Methodology. June 2003; revised July 2008.

SCAQMD. 2011. CalEEMod User’s Guide Appendix D Default Data Tables. Table 9-2 Water and Wastewater Electricity Intensity. February 2011.


7199 96 March 2012


treatment plant draft mnd -...

Documents