north basin groundwater monitoring well project - · pdf filenorth basin groundwater...

North Basin Groundwater Monitoring Well Project

Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration

Prepared By

Orange County Water District 18700 Ward Street Fountain Valley, CA 92708 Contact: Daniel Bott

January 2017

Table of Contents

North Basin Groundwater Monitoring Well Project Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration i

Section Page

SECTION 1.0 INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................... 1-1

1.1 Purpose of Environmental Review ......................................................................... 1-1

1.2 Statutory Authority and Requirements ................................................................... 1-1

1.3 Technical Information and Studies ........................................................................ 1-1

SECTION 2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ...................................................................... 2-1

2.1 Background ............................................................................................................ 2-1

2.2 Well Site Locations ................................................................................................ 2-2

2.3 Construction Activities ......................................................................................... 2-14

2.4 Project Schedule and Equipment Overlap ........................................................... 2-15

2.5 Monitoring Well Long Term Operation and Maintenance Activities ..................... 2-15

2.6 Permits and Approvals ......................................................................................... 2-16

SECTION 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST EVALUATIONS ................................. 3-1

SECTION 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS .............................................................. 4-1

4.1 Aesthetics .............................................................................................................. 4-1

4.2 Agricultural Resources/Forest Resources ............................................................. 4-3

4.3 Air Quality .............................................................................................................. 4-5

4.4 Biological Resources ........................................................................................... 4-19

4.5 Cultural Resources .............................................................................................. 4-24

4.6 Geology/Soils ....................................................................................................... 4-29

4.7 Greenhouse Gas Emissions ................................................................................ 4-33

4.8 Hazards/Hazardous Materials ............................................................................. 4-36

4.9 Hydrology/Water Quality ...................................................................................... 4-40

4.10 Land Use/Planning .............................................................................................. 4-53

4.11 Mineral Resources ............................................................................................... 4-55

4.12 Noise .................................................................................................................... 4-56

4.13 Population/Housing .............................................................................................. 4-64

4.14 Public Services .................................................................................................... 4-65

4.15 Recreation ............................................................................................................ 4-66

4.16 Transportation/Traffic ........................................................................................... 4-67

4.17 Tribal Cultural Resources .................................................................................... 4-72

4.18 Utilities/Service Systems ..................................................................................... 4-74

4.19 Mandatory Findings of Significance ..................................................................... 4-77

SECTION 5.0 REFERENCES ........................................................................................ 5-1

Table of Contents

North Basin Groundwater Monitoring Well Project Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration ii

Tables Page Table 1: Well Drilling/Construction Equipment Mix ........................................................... 2-14 Table 2: Well Development Equipment Mix ....................................................................... 2-15 Table 3: Monitoring Well Sampling and Redevelopment Equipment Mix.......................... 2-16 Table 4: Construction-Related Regional Criteria Pollutant Emissions .............................. 4-11 Table 5: Construction-Related Local Criteria Pollutant Emissions .................................... 4-12 Table 6: Operational Well Sampling and Redevelopment Regional Criteria Pollutant

Emissions ............................................................................................................ 4-13 Table 7: Operational Well Sampling and Redevelopment Local Criteria Pollutant Emissions 4-14 Table 8: Special Status Species List ................................................................................. 4-20 Table 9: Summary of Record Search ................................................................................ 4-25 Table 10: Project Related Greenhouse Gas Annual Emissions ........................................ 4-34 Table 11: 303 (D) Listed Impaired Water Bodies .............................................................. 4-42 Table 12: Beneficial Use Descriptions ............................................................................... 4-44 Table 13: Study Area Water Body/Drainage Facilities Beneficial Uses ............................ 4-46 Table 14: Downstream Receiving Water Bodies Beneficial Uses ..................................... 4-46 Table 15: Water Quality Objectives ................................................................................... 4-46 Table 16: City of Fullerton Exterior Noise Level Standards ............................................... 4-57 Table 17: Well Construction Equipment Inventory Noise Levels ....................................... 4-57 Table 18: Estimated Noise Levels ..................................................................................... 4-58

Figures Page Figure 1: Proposed Monitoring Well Sites .................................................................................. 2-4 Figure 2: Monitoring Well AM-54 Site ........................................................................................ 2-5 Figure 3: Monitoring Well FM-7B Site ........................................................................................ 2-6 Figure 4: Monitoring Well FM-22B Site ...................................................................................... 2-7 Figure 5: Monitoring Well FM-24B Site ...................................................................................... 2-8 Figure 6: Monitoring Well FM-29 Site ........................................................................................ 2-9 Figure 7: Monitoring Well FM-30A Option A, Option B Sites ................................................... 2-11 Figure 8: Monitoring Well FM-31 Site ...................................................................................... 2-12 Figure 9: Monitoring Well FM-32 A/B Option A, Option B ........................................................ 2-13

Appendices

A. Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emission Report, Vista Environmental, December 2016

B. Cultural Resource/Paleontological Resource Record Search/Tribal Coordination

Section 1

North Basin Groundwater Monitoring Well Project Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 1-1

SECTION 1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Purpose of Environmental Review

The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires that all state and local government agencies consider the environmental consequences of projects over which they have discretionary authority before taking action on those projects. This Initial Study has been prepared to disclose and evaluate short-term construction related impacts and long-term operational impacts associated with the implementation of the North Basin Monitoring Well Project (Proposed Project). Pursuant to Section 15367 of the State CEQA guidelines, the Orange County Water District (OCWD) is the Lead Agency and has the principal responsibility of approving and implementing the Proposed Project. As the Lead Agency, OCWD is required to ensure that the Proposed Project complies with CEQA and that the appropriate level of CEQA documentation is prepared. Through preparation of an Initial Study as the Lead Agency, OCWD would determine whether to prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR), Negative Declaration or Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND). If the Lead Agency finds that there is no evidence that a project activity either as proposed or as modified to include the mitigation measures identified in the Initial Study prior to its public circulation, would not cause a significant effect on the environment, the Lead Agency may prepare a Negative Declaration or Mitigated Negative Declaration. Based on the conclusions of this Initial Study, OCWD has recommended that the appropriate level of environmental documentation for the North Basin Monitoring Well Project is a Mitigated Negative Declaration.

1.2 Statutory Authority and Requirements

This Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared in accordance with the CEQA, Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq. State CEQA Guidelines and OCWD CEQA Environmental Procedures.

1.3 Technical Information and Studies

The following technical studies and information have been incorporated in the environmental impact evaluation prepared for the North Basin Monitoring Well Project.

Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emission Report, Vista Environmental, 2016

Cultural Resource/Paleontological Resource Record Search/Tribal Coordination, 2016

Section 2


SECTION 2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION

2.1 Background

The Orange County Groundwater Basin provides 70% to 75% of the potable water supply for over 2.4 million people in central and northern Orange County. One of the primary responsibilities of OCWD is to manage and protected the groundwater basin. The northern portion of the Orange County Groundwater Basin which includes cities of Fullerton and Anaheim has been impacted by volatile organic compounds (VOCs) at concentrations well above primary drinking water standards. This portion of the Orange County Groundwater Basin is referred to as the North Basin area. The predominant VOCs present in the North Basin area are trichloroethylene (TCE), tetrachloroethylene (PCE), 1,1-dichloroethylene (1,1-DCE), and 1,4-dioxane. The co-mingled VOC plumes with concentration above drinking water standards (i.e., California Maximum Contaminant Levels [MCLs] for TCE, PCE and 1,1-DCE, and the Notification Level [NL] for 1,4-dioxane) are approximately five miles long, two miles wide, and locally over 450 feet deep.

To date, four production wells have been destroyed due to VOC contamination, and more wells would be threatened by the uncontrolled spread of contaminated groundwater. The production wells destroyed due to VOC contamination include two wells owned by the City of Fullerton (F-KIM1 and F-FS13), one well owned by the City of Anaheim (A-23), and a private well that was used for manufacturing soda and bottled water (BAST-F). Additionally, the North Basin VOC plume is threatening additional production wells in that area.

OCWD has been working on implementing projects that protect the North Basin area from the continued leaching and migration of VOCs. OCWD had started implementing a regional groundwater containment project named the North Basin Groundwater Protection Project. Initial work on the project included the installation of approximately 70 monitoring wells, 6 large extraction wells and the implementation of a variety water quality studies that focused on mapping the plume, capturing the contamination and preventing its continued spreading both horizontally and vertically. Several years ago, work on the project was temporarily delayed in response to legal entanglements and unfavorable court rulings. In response to the difficulties, the OCWD Board of Directors adopted new policies calling for National Contingency Plan (NCP) methods and a request for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) regulatory oversight. Soon after assuming regulatory responsibility for the area, the USEPA called for the design and installation of 14 additional monitoring wells at eight locations. At some locations adjacent monitoring wells would be installed at different depths to characterize the vertical extent of contamination. These new wells are needed to develop remedial alternatives, and to help with monitoring the performance of the eventually selected

Section 2


remedy. The approximate locations of the 8 well sites were selected by the US EPA for specific purposes and were accepted by the OCWD. The general well locations are included in USEPA’s Administrative Settlement Agreement with OCWD for the Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study of the Orange County North Basin.

2.2 Well Site Locations

The Proposed Project involves the construction and operation of 14 new monitoring wells at eight locations within the cities of Anaheim and Fullerton. At four locations, only one monitoring well would be installed. At the remaining locations, two or three adjacent monitoring wells would be installed. The clustered wells would be approximately 10 feet apart. A total of 17 potential monitoring well sites have been selected for evaluation. Based on final design and final site acquisition, 14 well sites would ultimately be selected for well construction. The regional location of the proposed 8 monitoring well locations is shown in Figure 1.

Each well site would require an approximate 20 foot wide by 100 foot long work area to construct each well and to stage construction equipment. A temporary six foot high fence would be installed around the perimeter of each well site to prevent public access to the work area. During the night when construction activities are not occurring onsite security would be provided. The perimeter fencing and onsite security would be maintained during the entire construction period. Depending on the well site, the construction period would range from approximately two weeks to one month. The descriptions of the proposed monitoring well locations are summarized below.

Monitoring Wells AM-54A, AM-54B, AM-54C

As shown Figure 2, Monitoring Wells AM-54A, AM-54B, and AM-54C are located in the cul-de-sac of Durst Road approximately 10 feet north of the centerline of Durst Road and 1,200 feet east of the centerline of Lemon Street in the City of Anaheim. The well sites are located on USGS Anaheim Quadrangle Map, Township 4 South, Range 10 West and Section 3. The closest sensitive receptor would be residential land uses located approximately 1,200 feet to the north. The construction period would be approximately one month and would require the temporary closure of a traffic lane along a portion of Durst Road. The construction activities would not restrict vehicle driveway access, but would temporary displace some on-street parking along Durst Road.

Monitoring Well FM-7B

As shown on Figure 3, Monitoring Well FM-7B is located on the south side of Orangefair Avenue approximately 20 feet south of the centerline of Orangefair Avenue and 400 feet west of the centerline of Lemon Street in the City of Fullerton. FM-7B would be located adjacent to two existing OCWD monitoring wells. The well site is located on USGS Anaheim Quadrangle Map, Township 4 South, Range 10 West, and Section 3. The

Section 2


closest sensitive receptor would be residential condominiums located approximately 25 feet to the north. The construction period would be approximately two weeks and would require the temporary closure of a traffic lane along a portion of Orangefair Avenue. The construction activities would not restrict driveway vehicle access or result in the loss of parking area.


As shown Figure 4, Monitoring Well FM-22B is located in the parking area of Woodcrest Park in the City of Fullerton. The well site is located approximately 90 feet south of the centerline of Orangethorpe Avenue and 410 feet east of the centerline of Richman Avenue. FM-22B would be located adjacent to two existing OCWD monitoring wells. The well site is located on USGS Anaheim Quadrangle Map, Township 4 South, Range 10 West and Section 4. The closest sensitive receptor would be residential land uses located approximately 180 feet to the north. The construction period would be approximately two weeks and would temporary displace nine parking spaces including one handicap parking space. The construction activities would not restrict public access to Woodcrest Park.


As shown Figure 5, Monitoring Well FM-24B is located in the cul-de-sac of West Houston Avenue approximately centered in the cul-de-sac and 700 feet east of the intersection of Richman Avenue and Houston Avenue in the City of Fullerton. TFM-24B would be located adjacent to two existing OCWD monitoring wells. The well site is located on USGS Anaheim Quadrangle Map, Township 4 South, Range 10 West and Section 4. The closest sensitive receptor would be residential land uses approximately 85 feet to the east. The construction period would be approximately two weeks and would require the temporary closure of a portion of the Houston Avenue cul- de-sac. The construction activities would not restrict access to the emergency gate that provides emergency access to adjacent residential community. The temporary closure of a portion of the cul-de-sac would also temporary displace some on-street parking.

Monitoring Wells FM-29A, FM-29B, FM-29C

As shown Figure 6, Monitoring Wells FM-29A, FM-29B, FM-29C are located in the cul-de-sac of West Oak Avenue approximately 20 feet south of the centerline of West Oaks Avenue and 140 feet east of the centerline of South Adams Avenue in the City of Fullerton. The well sites are located on USGS Anaheim Quadrangle Map, Township 3 South, Range 10 West and Section 33. The closest sensitive receptor would be residential land uses located approximately 50 feet to the west. The construction period would be approximately one month and would require the temporary closure of a portion of the Oak Avenue cul-de-sac. The construction activities would not restrict driveway access, but would temporary displace some on-street parking.

!>

!>FM-29A/B/C

!>

FM-22B

!>

FM-24B

FM-31A/B

!>FM-30A (Option B)

!>

FM-7B

!>

AM-54A/B/C

!>FM-32A/B (Option B)

!>

!>!>

!>

!>!>

!>!>

FM-32A/B (Option A)

FM-30A (Option A)

!>

|ÿ91

FULLERTON

ANAHEIM

VALENCIA DR

HIGHL

AND A

VEROMNEYA DR

ANAHEIM WY

E COMMERCIAL ST

ANAHEIMSHORES DR

BASQ

UE AV

E

EUCL

ID ST

HARB

OR BL

VD

COMMONWEALTH AVE

ORANGETHORPE AVE

LEMO

N ST

W ROMNEYA DR

W BAKER AVE

W KNEPP AVES LEE

AVE

S WOO

DS AV

E

W HOUSTON AVE

W WEST AVE

S RIC

HMAN

AVE

W ELM AVE

WOOD

S AVE

ORANGETHORPE AVE

W WILLIAMSON AVES L

AMBE

RT D

R

W CORONET AVE

W CHEVY CHASE DR

E ELM AVE

BASQ

UE AV

E

DURST RD

RICH

MAN A

VE

N OL

IVE ST

S MAL

DEN A

VE

E TRUSLOW AVE

VICTOR AVE

W ASH AVE

ROBIN

ST

W MAPLEWOOD AVE

WALNUT AVE

EADI

NGTO

N AV

E

S ORC

HARD

AVE

S BAS

QUE A

VE

MEDICAL CENTER D

S LAW

RENC

E AVE

W ARLINGTON AVE

W MALBORO AVE

E AMERIGE AVE

LIBERTY AVE

ORANGEFAIR AVE

W JULIANNA AVE

W AMERIGE AVE

E ROSSLYNN AVE

N W

EST S

T

W SANTA FE AVE

W TRUSLOW AVE TRUSLOW AVE

E PATTERSON WY

FREEDOM AVE

CANARY WY

W OLIVE AVE

N ARB

OR S

T

LIGHT

HOUSE LN

W ORANGETHORPE AVE

LODGE AV

N CR

OWN

ST

CARL KARCHER WY

CUTTER RD

S EAD

INGT

ON AV

E

SWAN

ST

N CI

TRON

ST

W ROSSLYNN AVE

S BAL

COM

AVE

W GREGORY AVE

S HIG

HLAN

D AVE

N LA

WRE

NCE A

VE

E ASH AVE

S ADA

MS AV

E

W FLOWER AVE

ANCHORAGE DR

W HILL AVE

N RI

VIER

A ST

W MAXZIM AVE

E WALNU T AVE

N RA

LEIG

H ST

N DR

AKE A

VE

S ROY

ER AV

E

BLUEJAY LN

W WILLIAMSON WY

SN UG HA R BOR

D R

S POM

ONA A

VE

N

MARIN ER WY

W NEIGHBORS AVE

N BA

LCOM

AVE

S WAS

HING

TON A

VEN

WOO

DS AV

E

S JEF

FERS

ON AV

E

CHER

RY W

Y

SEA C

V

ELM ST

COSTCO WAY

W GLEN AVE

E COMMERCIAL ST

NC I

TRON LN

S CITR

US AV

E

W ROBERTA AVE

N OR

ANGE

AVE

N RI

CHMA

N AVE

N BE

RKEL

EY AV

E

POMO

NA AV

E

NOR

CHARD

AVE

N RA

VENN

A ST

NPR

I NCE

TON

A VE

S LOV

ERIN

G AV

E

S ROO

SEVE

LT AV

E

N DR

ESDE

N PL

S ORA

NGE A

VE

JULIANNE ST

NRO

OSE V

ELTA

VE

SURF DR

S CHE

STNU

T PL SH

ORT S

T FORD

AVE

SOCO DR

NFO

XFIR

E ST

M

AKO LN

W SOUTHGATE AVE

AMER

ICAN

ST

N VOYAG E R LN

N MI

NTEE

R ST

CLIPPER LN

WALNUT WY

N LO

MBAR

D DR

S FOR

D AV

E

FATHOM LN

HOUS

TON AVE

W PORTER AVE

CITR

US AV

E

DRESDEN ST

BALLAST LN

W GAGE AVE

ROSSLYNN AV

S TAM

ARAC

K DR

W ROMNEYA VIA

ATECA PL

W BREWSTER AVE

W WOODCREST AVE

W OAK AVE

E SANTA FE AVE

N PA

TT S

T

W ELM AVE S POM

ONA A

VE

S ROOSEVELT AVE

W WEST AVE

W ASH AVE

E ELM AVE

W OLIVE AVE

W HILL AVE

W ORANGETHORPE AVE

W HILL AVE

W MAXZIM AVE

W BAKER AVE

W PORTER AVE

E WALNUT AVE

SOCO DR

W MAXZIM AVE

W SOUTHGATE AVE

E WALNUT AVE

W ELM AVE

W GAGE AVE

RICH

MAN A

VE

W AMERIGE AVE

W WOODCREST AVE

W HOUSTON AVE

S ORA

NGE A

VEW KNEPP AVE

W ASH AVE

W SOUTHGATE AVE

W ELM AVE

W WEST AVE W WEST AVE

ORANGETHORPE AVE

E ASH AVE

W HILL AVE

W ROBERTA AVE

W ROSSLYNN AVE

S BAL

COM

AVE

W SOUTHGATE AVE

RICH

M AN

AVE

W TRUSLOW AVE

W ASH AVE

W ARLINGTON AVE

S JEF

FERS

ON AV

E

W ELM AVES C

ITRUS

AVE

Proposed Monitoring Well Sites0 1,200 2,400

FeetNorth Basin Groundwater Protection Project

Figure 1

Path:

I:\DM

F\NBG

PP\20

16 W

ell Si

ting\C

EQA\

maps

\Fig1

_NBG

PP_C

EQA_

2016

-11-08

.mxd

!> Proposed Monitoring Well Site

!>

AM-54A!>!>

AM-54B AM-54CDURST RD

N OR

ANGE

THOR

PE W

AY

Monitoring Well AM-54 Site0 50 100


Figure 2

Path:

I:\DM

F\NBG

PP\20

16 W

ell Si

ting\C

EQA\

maps

\Fig2

_NBG

PP_C

EQA_

AM-54

_201

6.mxd

!> Proposed Monitoring Well

!>

FM-7B

ORANGEFAIR AVE

Monitoring Well FM-7B Site0 50 100


Figure 3

Path:

I:\DM

F\NBG

PP\20

16 W

ell Si

ting\C

EQA\

maps

\Fig3

_NBG

PP_C

EQA_

FM-7_

Site_

2016

.mxd


!>

FM-22B

WOODCREST PARK

ORANGETHORPE AVE

ORANGETHORPE AVE

ORANGETHORPE AVE



Figure 4

Path:

I:\DM

F\NBG

PP\20

16 W

ell Si

ting\C

EQA\

maps

\Fig4

_NBG

PP_C

EQA_

FM-22

B_Sit

e_20

16.m

xd


!>FM-24B

W HOUSTON AVE



Figure 5

Path:

I:\DM

F\NBG

PP\20

16 W

ell Si

ting\C

EQA\

maps

\Fig5

_NBG

PP_C

EQA_

FM-24

_Site

_201

6.mxd


!>

FM-29A!>

!>

FM-29BFM-29C

S ADA

MS AV

E

W ELM AVE

W OAK AVE

Monitoring Well FM-29 Site0 50 100


Figure 6

Path:

I:\DM

F\NBG

PP\20

16 W

ell Si

ting\C

EQA\

maps

\Fig6

_NBG

PP_C

EQA_

FM-29

_Site

_201

6.mxd


Section 2


Monitoring Well FM-30A

As shown in Figure 7, are currently two options being evaluated for the location of Monitoring Well FM30-A.

Option (a) would be located in the retail parking lot located on the east side of Lemon Street approximately 70 feet east of the centerline of Lemon Street and 470 feet south of the centerline Orangethorpe Avenue in the City of Fullerton. The well site is located on USGS Anaheim Quadrangle Map Township 4 South, Range 10 West and Section 3. The closest sensitive receptor would be residential mobile home park located approximately 900 feet to the east. The construction period would be approximately two weeks and would require the temporary displacement of 24 parking spaces. The construction activities would not require any traffic lane closures or restrict driveway vehicle access to the property.

Option (b) would be located in the in the retail parking lot located on the east side of Lemon Street approximately 85 feet east of the centerline of Lemon Street and 540 feet south of the centerline Orangethorpe Avenue in the City of Fullerton. The well site is located on USGS Anaheim Quadrangle Map Township 4 South, Range 10 West and Section 3. The closest sensitive receptor would be residential mobile home park located approximately 355 feet to the east. The construction period would be approximately two weeks and would require the temporary displacement of 36 parking spaces. The construction activities would not require any traffic lane closures or restrict driveway vehicle access to the property.

Monitoring Wells FM-31A, FM-31B

As shown Figure 8, Monitoring Wells FM-31A and FM-31B are located on the west side of South Pomona Avenue approximately 10 feet west of the centerline of South Pomona Avenue and 115 feet south of the centerline of East Rosslyn Avenue in the City of Fullerton. The well sites are located on USGS Newport Beach Quadrangle Map, Township 3 South, Range 10 West and Section 34. The closest sensitive receptor would be residential land uses located approximately 50 feet to the west. The construction period would be approximately three weeks and would require the temporary closure of South Pomona Avenue. The construction activities would not require any traffic lane closures, but would temporary displace on-street parking along South Pomona Avenue.

Monitoring Wells FM-32A, FM-32B

As shown in Figure 9, there are two options being evaluated for Monitoring Wells FM32-A and FM32-B.

!>

FM-30A (Option A)

!>

FM-30A (Option B)LE

MON

ST

ORANGETHORPE AVE

Monitoring Well FM-30A Option A, Option B Sites0 100 200


Figure 7

Path:

I:\DM

F\NBG

PP\20

16 W

ell Si

ting\C

EQA\

maps

\Fig7

_NBG

PP_C

EQA_

FM-30

A_FM

-30B_

Site_

2016

.mxd


!>

FM-31A!>

FM-31BFULLERTON

E ROSSLYNN AVE

S POM

ONA A

VE

Monitoring Well FM-31 Site0 50 100


Figure 8

Path:

I:\DM

F\NBG

PP\20

16 W

ell Si

ting\C

EQA\

maps

\Fig8

_NBG

PP_C

EQA_

FM-30

C_FM

-30D_

Site_

2016

.mxd


!>

FM-32A/B (Option A)

RANCHOFULLERTON

!>

FM-32A/B (Option B)

S BAS

QUE A

VE

Monitoring Well FM-32 A/B Option A, Option B0 50 100


Figure 9

Path:

I:\DM

F\NBG

PP\20

16 W

ell Si

ting\C

EQA\

maps

\Fig9

_NBG

PP_C

EQA_

FM-31

_Site

_201

6.mxd


!> !>

Section 2


Option (a) would be located within an existing parking lot, located south of South Basque Avenue in the City of Fullerton. The well sites are located on USGS Anaheim Quadrangle, Township 3 South, Range 10 West and Section 33. The closest sensitive receptor would be residential mobile home park located 240 feet to the west. The construction period would be approximately three weeks and would require the temporary displacement 17 parking spaces.

Option (b) would be located approximately 15 feet south of the centerline of South Basque Avenue and 80 feet west of the centerline of South Basque Avenue in the City of Fullerton. The well site is located on USGS Anaheim Quadrangle, Township 3 South, Range 10 West and Section 33. The closest sensitive receptor would be residential mobile home park located 250 feet to the west.

2.3 Construction Activities

The proposed construction activities would occur in three construction phases. Phase 1 of the Proposed Project involves surveying the well site for possible underground utilities, the installation of a temporary six- foot high fence around the perimeter of the well site work area, and then drilling and construction of the monitoring wells. Phase 2 involves development of the monitoring wells. Phase 3 involves site clean-up and vault installation. All construction operations would occur between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Monday through Friday or as otyherwise specified in the City Encroachment Permits.

Phase 1: Monitor Well Drilling and Construction

Phase 1 of the Proposed Project involves the drilling and construction of the monitoring wells. The equipment mix for well drilling is shown in Table 1. The proposed monitoring wells would be drilled by the direct mud rotary drilling method. The monitoring wells would include 4-inch diameter PVC casing installed in a 10-inch diameter borehole to depths up to approximately 370 feet below ground surface (bgs). Once the well drilling is completed, the well would be constructed. The depth of the borehole, and e depth of the well and well screened interval would be based on lithology observed during drilling and geophysical logging of the borehole.

Table 1: Well Drilling/Construction Equipment Mix

Activity Equipment Pieces of Equipment

Hours of Operation

Days of Operation

Horsepower

Well Drilling & Construction Equipment Well Drilling & Construction

Direct Mud Rotary Drilling Rig

1 9 35 550

Well Drilling & Construction

Mud Tank 1 9 35 75

Well Drilling & Construction

Forklift 1 2 35 75

Construction Trips, 1 trip mobilizing 1 trip demobilizing, 7 trips between sites. All tips assumed 50 miles.

Section 2


Phase 2: Monitor Well Development

Phase 2 of the Proposed Project involves development pumping of the monitoring wells. Table 2 identifies the development equipment mix for well equipping.

Table 2: Well Development Equipment Mix

Activity Equipment Pieces of Equipment

Hours of Operation

Days of Operation

Horsepower

Well Development Pump Rig 1 9 21 325

Well Development Air Compressor 1 9 14 200

Well Development Electrical Generator 1 9 7 20

Development Trips: 8, All tips assumed 50 miles.

Phase 3: Site Cleanup and Traffic Worthy Box Installation

Phase 3 of the Proposed Project involves site cleanup and installation of the below ground traffic worthy box. This phase of work involves minimal equipment and would be done by hand. There is no list of equipment for this phase.

2.4 Project Schedule and Equipment Overlap

Drilling and development tasks would occur concurrently at different sites. The Proposed Project would commence utilizing two drill rigs at two separate sites and would continue through construction operations for the Proposed Project. Starting at week three, there would be concurrent work with two drill rigs and one development rig. The total number of days where two drilling rigs would be working has been estimated to be 10 days. The total number of days where two drill rigs and one development would be working concurrently has been estimated to be 15 days. The total number of days where one drill rig and one development rig would be working concurrently has been estimated to be 5 days. For the last five days of the construction activities, the development rig would only be working.

2.5 Monitoring Well Long Term Operation and Maintenance Activities

Monitoring well operation involves periodically measuring the depth to groundwater, and collecting groundwater samples for laboratory analysis. The depth to groundwater would be measured by hand using a battery powered wire-line sounder. Dedicated submersible pumps would be installed in the monitoring wells for periodic sampling. Operation of a submersible pump would require the use of a small portable generator. OCWD staff would collect groundwater samples and record water levels on a quarterly basis or less. In total, the monitoring wells would be visited by OCWD staff up to 8 times per year. One truck and two workers would access each well site during sampling, assuming a round trip length of 40 miles per trip. One truck and one worker would

Section 2


access each well site during collection of water levels, assuming a round trip length of 40 miles. Every three to five years OCWD would conduct maintenance activities to redevelop the wells. Table 3 identifies the equipment required for well sampling and redevelopment. A typical monitoring well redevelopment process would be completed in one day. All sampling and redevelopment activities would occur during the day.

Table 3: Monitoring Well Sampling and Redevelopment Equipment Mix

Equipment Pieces of

Equipment Hours per Day

Days of Operation

Horsepower

Sampling Equipment

Generator 1 4 1 20

Redevelopment Equipment

Pump Rig 1 9 1 325

Air Compressor 1 9 1 200

Pick-up Truck 1 2 1 300

Sampling & Redevelopment Trips 1, All trips assumed 40 miles.

2.6 Permits and Approvals

The Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared for the North Basin Groundwater Protection Project would be used as the supporting CEQA environmental documentation for the following approvals and permits.

Orange County Water District project approval and related construction contracts and agreements.

City of Anaheim Well Permit.

City of Anaheim Encroachment Permit to construct Monitoring Wells within City right-of-way.

City of Fullerton Encroachment Permit to construct Monitoring Wells within City right-of-way.

County of Orange Health Care Agency Well Permits.

Environmental Checklist For CEQA Compliance


SECTION 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST EVALUATIONS

I. Project Title: North Basin Monitoring Well Project

II. Lead Agency Name and Address: Orange County Water District 18700 Ward Street Fountain Valley, CA 92708

III. Project Contact: Daniel Bott

IV. Location: City of Anaheim and City of Fullerton

V. Environmental Determination On the basis of this initial evaluation, I find that:

a) The proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.

b) Although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions to the project have been made by or agreed to by the applicant. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.

c) The proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.

d) Although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR (EIR No. - ) pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the project, nothing further is required.

e) Pursuant to Section 15164 of the CEQA Guidelines, an EIR (EIR No. - ) has been prepared earlier and only minor technical changes or additions are necessary to make the previous EIR adequate and these changes do not raise important new issues about the significant effects on the environment. An ADDENDUM to the EIR shall be prepared.

f) Pursuant to Section 15162 of the CEQA Guidelines, an EIR (EIR No. - ) has been prepared earlier; however, subsequent proposed changes in the project and/or new information of substantial importance will cause one or more significant effects no previously discussed. A SUBSEQUENT EIR shall be prepared.

_____________________________________________ __________________ Signature Date



Potentially Significant

Impact

Less Than Significant

with Mitigation

Incorporated


Impact No

Impact I. AESTHETICS – Would the project:

a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?

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

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

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

II. AGRICULTURAL AND FOREST RESOURCES: In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model prepared by the California Department of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agricultural farmland. In determining whether impacts to forest resources, including timerberland, are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to information compiled by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the state’s inventory of forest land, including the Forest and Range Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy Assessment project; and forest carbon measurement methodology provided in Forest Protocols adopted by the California Air Resources Board. Would the project:

a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland) to non-agricultural use? (The Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program in the California Resources Agency, Department of Conservation, maintains detailed maps of these and other categories of farmland.)

b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a Williamson Contract?

c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g))

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

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

III. AIR QUALITY –Would the project:

a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of applicable Air Quality Attainment Plan?

b) Violate any stationary source air quality standard or contribute 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




Impact


with Mitigation

Incorporated


Impact No

Impact non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)?

d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations?

e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people?

IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES – Would the project:

a) Have a substantial adverse impact, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive or special status species in local or regional plans, policies or regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services?

b) Have a substantial adverse impact on any riparian habitat or natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, and regulations or by the California Department of fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?

c) Adversely impact federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) either individually or in combination with the known or probable impacts of other activities 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 tree preservation policy or ordinance?

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

V. CULTURAL RESOURCES – Would the project:

a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in Section 15064.5?

b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a unique archaeological resource pursuant to define Section 15064.5?

c) Directly or indirectly disturb or destroy a unique paleontogical resource or site?

d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of dedicated cemeteries?




Impact


with Mitigation

Incorporated


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:

1. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault?

2. Strong seismic ground shaking?

3. Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction?

4. Landslides?

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

c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable or that would become unstable as 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 disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater?

VII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS — Would the project?

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

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

VIII. HAZARDOUS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS – Would the project:

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

b) Create a significant hazard to the public or environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment?

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




Impact


with Mitigation

Incorporated


Impact No

Impact d) Be located on a site which is located on a list of

hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 659662.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment?

e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles where of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area?

f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area?

g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or 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?

VIX. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY – Would the project:

a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements?

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

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

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

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

f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality?




Impact


with Mitigation

Incorporated


Impact No

Impact 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?

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

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

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

e) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?




Impact


with Mitigation

Incorporated


Impact No

Impact f) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive

groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels?

XIII. POPULATION AND HOUSING – Would the project:

a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and business) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)?

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

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

XIV. PUBLIC SERVICES

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

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

XV. RECREATION

a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated?

b) Does the project include recreational facilities or 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




Impact


with Mitigation

Incorporated


Impact No

Impact freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit?

b) Conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including but limited to level of service standards and travel demand measures, or other standards established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways?

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

d) Substantially increase hazards to a design feature (e.g. sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g. farm equipment)?

e) Result in inadequate emergency access?

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

XVII. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES

Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is:

a) Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register or Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k), or

b) A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resource Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe.

XVIII. 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?




Impact


with Mitigation

Incorporated


Impact No

Impact d) Are sufficient water supplies available to serve the

project from existing entitlements and resources or are new or expanded entitlements needed?

e) Result in the determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments?

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

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

XIX. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE –

a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory?

b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited but cumulatively considerable? (“Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, effects of other current projects and the effects of probable future projects).

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

Section 4


SECTION 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS

The following environmental analysis responds to the environmental issues listed on the OCWD CEQA Checklist Form. The analysis identifies the level of anticipated impact that would occur at each well site and where needed includes the incorporation of mitigation measures to reduce potentially significant impacts to the environment to a less than significant level. In cases where all well sites share common constraints or lack of common constraints, all of the well sites have been evaluated together. In cases where issues are specific to a particular well site, the well site has been evaluated separately.

4.1 Aesthetics

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

City of Anaheim

Monitoring Wells AM-54 A, B, C

City of Fullerton

Monitoring Well FM-7B, Monitoring Well FM-22B, Monitoring Well FM-24B, Monitoring Well FM-29A, B, C, Monitoring Well FM-30 A (Options a and b), Monitoring Wells FM-31 A, B, and Monitoring Wells FM-32 A, B (Options a and b)

No Impact: The proposed monitoring well sites are located within urbanized areas and are surrounded by developed land uses. There are no scenic resources near the locations where the proposed monitoring wells would be constructed. Additionally, the City Anaheim General Plan and the City of Fullerton General Plan both do not identify any scenic vistas near the proposed monitoring well sites. The construction and operation of the Proposed Project would not adversely impact existing vistas. No mitigation measures are required.

B. Would the project damage scenic resources, including but limited to, trees, rock outpourings, and historic buildings within a State Highway?

City of Anaheim


City of Fullerton


Section 4


No Impact: According to the California Department of Transportation Scenic Highways Program, the closest designated and/or eligible State Scenic Highway to the study area would be the segment of State Route 91 located east of State Route 55. This segment of State Route 91 is a little over 5 miles from the closest well site. At this distance the closest well site would not be within the view shed of motorist, which would also imply that the remainder of the proposed monitoring wells would also not be within the view shed of motorist. Therefore, construction and operation of the Proposed Project would not have any adverse impact on existing scenic resources located along a State Scenic Highway. No mitigation measures are required.

C. Would the project substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surrounding?

City of Anaheim


City of Fullerton


Less than Significant Impact: The City of Anaheim General Plan and the City of Fullerton General Plan both do not identify any specific design guidelines at any of the proposed monitoring well site locations. The proposed monitoring wells would be located in areas that are developed with residential, commercial and industrial land uses. The proposed monitoring wells would be located underground and under existing roadways and parking areas and would not have a visual presence that would be in conflict with the study area existing aesthetic character. During construction, the visual character of the study area would be temporary altered with construction activity. The construction activity at each well site would be approximately 1 week and once construction operations are completed the well sites would be returned to their pre-project condition. Because of the short period of construction activity occurring at each well site, the potential short term construction impacts to the visual character of the study area would be less than significant. No mitigation measures are required.

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

City of Anaheim


City of Fullerton

Section 4



No Impact: The proposed monitoring wells would be located underground and would not require any permanent on-site lighting. The construction operations and other uses for the monitoring wells would only occur during the day. Therefore, no temporary night lighting would be required. No long term operational or short term construction related adverse light and glare impacts would occur. No mitigation measures are required.

4.2 Agricultural Resources/Forest Resources

A. Would the project convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland or Farmland of Statewide Importance to non-agriculture uses?

City of Anaheim


City of Fullerton


No Impact: The State of California Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program, indicates that there is no Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland or Farmland of Statewide Importance on any of the proposed monitoring well sites. Therefore, the construction and operation of the Proposed Project would not result in adverse impacts to Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland or Farmland of Statewide Importance. No mitigation measures are required.

B. Would the project be in conflict with existing zoning for agriculture use or a Williamson Contract?

City of Anaheim


City of Fullerton


No Impact: The City of Anaheim Zoning Map and the City of Fullerton Zoning Map both show that none of the proposed monitoring well sites are zoned for agriculture land uses. Therefore, the construction and operation of the Proposed Project would not be in conflict with any existing agriculture zoning or existing agriculture leases or contracts on the property. No mitigation measures are required.

Section 4


C. Would the project be in conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of forest land or timberland.

City of Anaheim


City of Fullerton


No Impact: The City of Anaheim and City of Fullerton Zoning Map both show that none of the proposed monitoring well sites are zoned for forest or timberland. The implementation of the Proposed Project would not cause change of zone to existing forest or timberlands. No mitigation measures are required.

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

City of Anaheim


City of Fullerton


No Impact: There is not existing farmland on any of the proposed monitoring well sites. Therefore, the construction and operation of the Proposed Project would not convert forest land to non-forest land. No mitigation measures are required.

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

City of Anaheim


City of Fullerton


Section 4


No Impact: Currently there is not existing farmland on any of the proposed monitoring well sites. Therefore, the construction and operation of the Proposed Project would not directly or indirectly result in the loss of any forest land or result in the conversion forest lands to non-forest lands. No mitigation measures are required.

4.3 Air Quality

The following analysis is based on an Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Analysis Report prepared by Vista Environmental in December 2016. The Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Analysis Report are presented in its entirety in Appendix A.

Setting

The study area is located in the South Coast Air Basin (SoCAB). The SoCAB includes Orange County in its entirety and the non-desert portions of Los Angeles, San Bernardino, and Riverside Counties.

Regulatory Framework

Air pollutants are regulated at the national, state and air basin level. Each agency has a different level of regulatory responsibility. The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulates at the national level. The California Air Resources Board (ARB) regulates at the state level and the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) regulates at the air basin level.

Federal Regulation

The EPA handles global, international, national and interstate air pollution issues and policies. The EPA sets national vehicle and stationary source emission standards, oversees approval of all State Implementation Plans, conducts research, and provides guidance in air pollution programs and sets National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS), also known as federal standards. There are six common air pollutants, called criteria air pollutants, which were identified resulting from provisions of the Clean Air Act of 1970. The six criteria pollutants are Ozone, Particulate Matter (PM10 and PM 2.5), Nitrogen Dioxide, Carbon Monoxide, Lead and Sulfur Dioxide. The NAAQS were set to protect public health, including that of sensitive individuals.

State Regulation

A State Implementation Plan (SIP) is a document prepared by each state describing air quality conditions and measures that would be followed to attain and maintain NAAQS. The SIP for the State of California is administered by the ARB, which has overall responsibility for statewide air quality maintenance and air pollution prevention. The ARB also administers California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS), for the ten air pollutants designated in the California Clean Air Act (CCAA). The ten state air pollutants include the six national criteria pollutants and visibility reducing particulates, hydrogen sulfide, sulfates and vinyl chloride.

Section 4


South Coast Air Quality Management District

SCAQMD develops rules and regulations, establishes permitting requirements for stationary sources, inspects emission sources, and enforces such measures through educational programs or fines, when necessary.

SCAQMD is directly responsible for reducing emissions from stationary, mobile, and indirect sources. It has responded to this requirement by preparing a sequence of Air Quality Management Plans (AQMPs). The 2007 AQMP demonstrated attainment with the 1997 8-hour ozone (80 ppb) standard by 2023, through implementation of future improvements in control techniques and technologies. These “black box” emissions reductions represent 65 percent of the remaining NOx emission reductions by 2023 in order to show attainment with the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. Given the magnitude of these needed emissions reductions, additional NOx control measures have been provided in this AQMP even though the primary purpose of this AQMP is to show compliance with 24-hour PM2.5 emissions standards.

The Final 2012 Air Quality Management Plan (2012 AQMP) was adopted by the SCAQMD Board on December 7, 2012 and was adopted by CARB via Resolution 13-3 on January 25, 2013. The 2012 AQMP was prepared in order to meet the federal Clean Air Act requirement that all 24-hour PM2.5 non-attainment areas prepare a SIP, that were required to be submitted to the U.S. EPA by December 14, 2012 and demonstrate attainment with the 24-hour PM2.5 standard by 2014. The 2012 AQMP demonstrates attainment of the federal 24-hour PM2.5 standard by 2014 in the Air Basin through adoption of all feasible measures, and therefore, no extension of the attainment date is needed.

The 2012 AQMP is designed to satisfy the California Clean Air Act’s (CCAA) emission reductions of five percent per year or adoption of all feasible measures requirements and fulfill the EPA’s requirement to update transportation conformity emissions budgets based on the latest approved motor vehicle emissions model and planning assumptions. The 2012 AQMP updates and revises the previous 2007 AQMP. The 2012 AQMP was prepared to comply with the Federal and State CCAA and amendments, to accommodate growth, to reduce the high pollutant levels in the Air Basin, to meet Federal and State ambient air quality standards, and to minimize the fiscal impact that pollution control measures have on the local economy. The purpose of the 2012 AQMP for the Air Basin is to set forth a comprehensive program that would lead this area into compliance with all federal and state air-quality planning requirements.

The 2012 AQMP builds upon the approaches taken in the 2007 AQMP for the attainment of federal PM and ozone standards, and highlights the significant amount of reductions needed and the need to engage in interagency coordinated planning of mobile sources to meet all of the federal criteria pollutant standards. Compared with the

Section 4


2007 AQMP, the 2012 AQMP utilizes revised emissions inventory projections that use 2008 as the base year. On-road emissions are calculated using CARB EMFAC2011 emission factors and the transportation activity data provided by SCAG from their 2012 Regional Transportation Plan (2012 RTP). Off-road emissions were updated using CARB’s 2011 In-Use Off-Road Fleet Inventory Model. Since the 2007 AQMP was finalized new area source categories such as LPG transmission losses, storage tank and pipeline cleaning and degassing, and architectural colorants, were created and included in the emissions inventories. Composting waste was revised and now includes the emissions from green waste composting covered under SCAQMD Rule 1133.3. The 2012 AQMP also includes analysis of several additional sources of GHG emissions such as landfills and could also assist in reaching the GHG target goals in the AB32 Scoping Plan.

The control measures in the 2012 AQMP consist of three components: 1) Basin-wide and episodic short-term PM2.5 measures; 2) Section 182(e)(5) implementation measures; and 3) Transportation control measures. Many of the control measures are not based on command and control regulations, but instead focus on incentives, outreach, and education to bring about emissions reductions through voluntary participation and behavioral changes. More broadly, a transition to zero- and near-zero emission technologies is necessary to meet 2023 and 2032 air quality standards and 2050 climate goals. Many of the same technologies will address both air quality and climate needs.

In June 2016, the SCAQMD released a draft of its forthcoming 2016 Air Quality Management Plan. The plan will develop integrated strategies and measures to meet the following standards:

8-hour Ozone (75 ppb) by 2032 Annual PM2.5 (12 µg/m3) by 2021-2025 8-hour Ozone (80 ppb) by 2024 (updated from the 2007 and 2012 AQMPs) 1-hour Ozone (120 ppb) by 2023 (updated from the 2012 AQMP) 24-hour PM2.5 (35 µg/m3) by 2019 (updated from the 2012 AQMP)

Although SCAQMD is responsible for regional air quality planning efforts, it does not have the authority to directly regulate air quality issues associated with plans and new development projects throughout the Air Basin. Instead, this is controlled through local jurisdictions in accordance to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). In order to assist local jurisdictions with air quality compliance issues the CEQA Air Quality Handbook (SCAQMD CEQA Handbook), prepared by SCAQMD, 1993, with the most current updates found at http://www.aqmd.gov/ceqa/hdbk.html, was developed in accordance with the projections and programs detailed in the AQMPs. The purpose of the SCAQMD CEQA Handbook is to assist Lead Agencies, as well as consultants, project proponents, and other interested parties in evaluating a proposed project’s

Section 4


potential air quality impacts. Specifically, the SCAQMD CEQA Handbook explains the procedures that SCAQMD recommends be followed for the environmental review process required by CEQA. The SCAQMD CEQA Handbook provides direction on how to evaluate potential air quality impacts, how to determine whether these impacts are significant, and how to mitigate these impacts. The SCAQMD intends that by providing this guidance, the air quality impacts of plans and development proposals will be analyzed accurately and consistently throughout the Air Basin, and adverse impacts would be minimized.

Local – Cities of Anaheim and Fullerton

Local jurisdictions, such as the Cities of Anaheim and Fullerton, have the authority and responsibility to reduce air pollution through its police power and decision-making authority. Specifically, the Cities are responsible for the assessment and mitigation of air emissions resulting from its land use decisions. The Cities are also responsible for the implementation of transportation control measures as outlined in the 2007 AQMP and 2012 AQMP. In accordance with the CEQA requirements, the Cities do not, however, have the expertise to develop plans, programs, procedures, and methodologies to ensure that air quality within the Cities and region would meet federal and state standards. Instead, the Cities rely on the expertise of the SCAQMD and utilize the SCAQMD CEQA Handbook as the guidance document for the environmental review of plans and development proposals within its jurisdiction.

Project Impacts

While the final determination of whether a project is significant is within the purview of the Lead Agency pursuant to Section 15064(b) of the CEQA Guidelines, SCAQMD recommends that its quantitative air pollution thresholds be used to determine the significance of project emissions. If the Lead Agency finds that the project has the potential to exceed these air pollution thresholds, the project should be considered to have significant air quality impacts.

A. Would the project be in conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan or congestion management plan?

City of Anaheim


City of Fullerton


Section 4


Less than Significant Impact: The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires a discussion of any inconsistencies between a proposed project and applicable General Plans and regional plans (CEQA Guidelines Section 15125). The regional plan that applies to the Proposed Project would be the SCAQMD AQMP. Therefore, this section discusses any potential inconsistencies of the Proposed Project with the AQMP.

The purpose of this discussion is to set forth the issues regarding consistency with the assumptions and objectives of the AQMP and discuss whether the Proposed Project would interfere with the region’s ability to comply with Federal and State air quality standards. If the decision-makers determine that the Proposed Project is inconsistent, the lead agency may consider project modifications or inclusion of mitigation to eliminate the inconsistency.

The SCAQMD CEQA Handbook states that "New or amended General Plan Elements (including land use zoning and density amendments), Specific Plans, and regionally significant projects must be analyzed for consistency with the AQMP." Strict consistency with all aspects of the plan is usually not required. A proposed project should be considered to be consistent with the AQMP if it furthers one or more policies and does not obstruct other policies. The SCAQMD CEQA Handbook identifies two key indicators of consistency:

(1) Whether the project would result in an increase in the frequency or severity of existing air quality violations or cause or contribute to new violations, or delay timely attainment of air quality standards or the interim emission reductions specified in the AQMP.

(2) Whether the project would exceed the assumptions in the AQMP or increments based on the year of project buildout and phase.

Both of these criteria are evaluated in the following sections.

Criterion 1 - Increase in the Frequency or Severity of Violations?

As shown in Table 4 and Table 5, based on the air quality modeling analysis contained in this report, short-term regional construction air emissions would not result in significant impacts based on SCAQMD regional thresholds of significance or local thresholds of significance. As shown in Table 6 and Table 7 the ongoing operation of the Proposed Project would generate air pollutant emissions that are inconsequential on a regional basis and local basis and would not exceed SCAQMD thresholds of significance. Therefore, no long-term impact would occur and no mitigation would be required. Therefore, based on the information provided above, the Proposed Project would be consistent with the first criterion.

Section 4


Criterion 2 - Exceed Assumptions in the AQMP?

Consistency with the AQMP assumptions is determined by performing an analysis of the Proposed Project with the assumptions in the AQMP. The emphasis of this criterion is to insure that the analyses conducted for the Proposed Project are based on the same forecasts as the AQMP. The AQMP is developed through use of the planning forecasts provided in the RTP/SCS and FTIP. The RTP/SCS is a major planning document for the regional transportation and land use network within Southern California. The RTP/SCS is a long-range plan that is required by federal and state requirements placed on SCAG and is updated every four years. The FTIP provides long-range planning for future transportation improvement projects that are constructed with state and/or federal funds within Southern California. Local governments are required to use these plans as the basis of their plans for the purpose of consistency with applicable regional plans under CEQA. For this project, the City of Anaheim Land Use Plan defines the assumptions that are represented in the AQMP for the proposed Monitoring Wells, AM-54 A, B, C and the City of Fullerton Land Use Plan defines the assumptions that are represented in the AQMP for proposed Monitoring Wells FM-7B, FM-22B, FM-24B, FM-29A, B, C, FM-30A (Options a and b), FM-31 A,B and FM-32A, B, and FM-A, B, (Options a and b).

All proposed well sites are located within public right-of-ways for public roads, which are technically not designated in General Plans or Zoning Maps. Since well drilling is an allowed use in all land use designations, including public right-of-ways, the Proposed Project is consistent with the current land use designations and would not require a General Plan Amendment or zone change. As such, the Proposed Project would not exceed the AQMP assumptions for the well sites and would be consistent with the AQMP for the second criterion. Based on the above, the Proposed Project would not result in an inconsistency with the SCAQMD AQMP. Therefore, a less than significant impact would occur in relation to implementation of the AQMP.

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

Less than Significant Impact: The following section calculates the potential air emissions associated with the construction and operations of the proposed project and compares the emissions to the SCAQMD standards.

City of Anaheim


City of Fullerton


Section 4


Construction Emissions

The Proposed Project would involve the construction of up to 14 new monitoring wells. The construction emissions have been analyzed for both regional and local air quality impacts.

Construction-Related Regional Impacts

The CalEEMod model has been utilized to calculate the construction-related regional emissions from one monitoring well associated with the Proposed Project. Each monitoring well would be constructed in three phases. Phase 1 involves the drilling and construction of the monitoring wells. Phase 2 involves development of the monitoring wells and Phase 3 involves site clean-up and vault installation. Phase 3 involves site cleanup and below ground vault installation and would involve minimal equipment that would be done primarily by hand and therefore emissions from phase 3 have not been quantified.

Phase 1 and 2 would occur concurrently at separate sites. The Proposed Project has been analyzed utilizing two drill rigs and one development rig with some concurrent construction activity. Starting at week three, there could be concurrent work with two drill rigs and one development rig. It is anticipated that two drill rigs would be working concurrently for a total of 10 days. It is also anticipated that two drill rigs and one development rig would be working concurrently for a total of 15 days. Finally, one drill rig and one development rig would be working concurrently for a total of five days. The worst-case summer or winter daily construction-related criteria pollutant emissions from the Proposed Project for each phase of well construction activities as well as from concurrent operations are shown below in Table 4.

Table 4: Construction-Related Regional Criteria Pollutant Emissions

Pollutant Emissions (pounds/day)

Activity VOC NOx CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5 Monitor Well Drilling and Construction of One Well Site On-Site1 1.65 18.12 11.27 0.04 0.85 0.81

Off-Site2 0.04 0.19 0.52 0.00 0.08 0.02

Total 1.69 18.3 11.7 0.04 0.93 0.83

Monitor Well Development of One Well Site

On-Site 1.63 17.13 9.56 0.02 0.65 0.62

Off-Site 0.03 0.04 0.40 0.00 0.09 0.02

Total 1.66 17.1 9.96 0.02 0.74 0.64

Concurrent Operation of 2 Drill Rigs (Weeks 1 and 2) 3.38 36.6 23.5 0.07 1.87 1.67

Concurrent Operation of 2 Drill Rigs & 1 Development Rig (Weeks 3 and 4)

5.03 53.7 33.5 0.09 2.61 2.31

Concurrent Operation of 1 Drill Rig & 1 Development Rig (Week 5)

3.35 35.4 21.7 0.06 1.67 1.48

Section 4


SCAQMD Thresholds 75 100 550 150 150 55

Exceeds Thresholds? No No No No No No Notes: 1 Onsite emissions from equipment not operated on public roads. 2 Offsite emissions from vehicles operating on public roads. Source: CalEEMod Version 2013.2.2.

Table 4 shows that for each phase of well construction activities none of the analyzed criteria pollutants would exceed the regional emissions thresholds. Table 4 also shows that if monitor well drilling and monitor well development activities were to occur simultaneously at several of the proposed well sites, it would not exceed the SCAQMD regional criteria emissions thresholds. Additionally, because the construction activities involved with the site clean-up and vault installation phase would primarily be done by hand, no equipment mix was analyzed for the site clean-up and vault installation phase. Therefore, construction-related regional criteria pollutant emissions would be less than significant and no mitigation would be required.

Construction-Related Local Impacts

Construction-related air emissions could have the potential to exceed the State and Federal air quality standards in the study area, even though these pollutant emissions may not be significant enough to create a regional impact to the Air Basin. The local air quality emissions from construction were analyzed through utilizing the methodology described in the LST Methodology. The LST Methodology found the primary criteria pollutant emissions of concern are NOx, CO, PM10, and PM2.5. In order to determine if any of these pollutants require a detailed analysis of the local air quality impacts, each phase of construction was screened using the SCAQMD’s Mass Rate LST Look-up Tables. The Look-up Tables were developed by the SCAQMD in order to readily determine if the daily onsite emissions of CO, NOx, PM10, and PM2.5 from the Proposed Project could result in a significant impact to the local air quality.

Table 5: Construction-Related Local Criteria Pollutant Emissions


Phase NOx CO PM10 PM2.5

Monitor Well Drilling and Construction 18.12 11.27 0.85 0.81

Monitor Well Development 17.13 9.56 0.65 0.62

Concurrent Operation of 2 Drill Rigs (Weeks 1 and 2) 53.78 33.53 2.61 2.31

Concurrent Operation of 2 Drill Rigs & 1 Development Rig (Weeks 3 and 4)

53.78 33.53 2.61 2.31

Concurrent Operation of 1 Drill Rig & 1 Development Rig (Week 5)

35.48 21.74 1.67 1.48

SCAQMD Thresholds for 25 meters (82 feet)1 103 522 4 3

Exceeds Threshold? No No No No Notes: 1 The nearest sensitive receptors are residential land uses located as near as 25 feet from proposed well site FM-7. According to SCAQMD Methodology, all receptors located closer than 25 meters (82 feet) are based on the 25 meter threshold. Source: Calculated from SCAQMD’s Mass Rate Look-up Tables for one acre in Air Monitoring Area 16, North Orange County.

Section 4


The data provided in Table 5 shows that none of the analyzed criteria pollutants would exceed the local emissions thresholds for any phase of construction or for any anticipated combination of concurrent operations. Therefore, a less than significant local air quality impact would occur from construction of the proposed project and no mitigation would be required.

Operational Emissions

Monitoring well operation involves periodically measuring the depth to groundwater, and collecting groundwater samples for laboratory analysis. The depth to groundwater would be measured by hand using a battery powered wire-line sounder. Dedicated submersible pumps would be installed in the monitoring wells for periodic sampling. Operation of a submersible pump would require the use of a small portable generator. OCWD staff would collect groundwater samples and record water levels on a quarterly basis or less. In total, the monitoring wells would be visited by OCWD staff up to 8 times per year. Every three to five years OCWD would conduct maintenance activities to sample and redevelop the well. The sampling and well redevelopment activities would generate the highest daily criteria pollutant emissions.

The CalEEMod model has been utilized to calculate the operational regional emissions from the well sampling and well redevelopment activities. The worst-case summer or winter daily operational criteria pollutant emissions from the Proposed Project for the well sampling and redevelopment activities are shown below in Table 6.

Table 6: Operational Well Sampling and Redevelopment Regional Criteria Pollutant Emissions


Activity VOC NOx CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5

Well Sampling Equipment Onsite1

0.10 0.62 0.33 0.00 0.03 0.03

Offsite2 0.01 0.01 0.15 0.00 0.03 0.01

Total 0.11 0.63 0.48 0.00 0.06 0.04

Well Redevelopment Equipment

Onsite 1.27 12.50 7.79 0.02 0.46 0.44

Offsite 0.02 0.03 0.32 0.00 0.09 0.02

Total 1.29 12.53 8.11 0.02 0.55 0.46

SCQAMD Thresholds 55 55 550 150 150 55

Exceeds Threshold? No No No No No No Notes: 1 Onsite emissions from equipment not operated on public roads. 2 Offsite emissions from vehicles operating on public roads. Source: CalEEMod Version 2013.2.2.

Section 4


The data provided in Table 6 shows that none of the analyzed criteria pollutants would exceed the regional emissions thresholds. Therefore, a less than significant regional air quality impact would occur from operation of the Proposed Project and no mitigation is required.

Operations-Related Local Air Quality Impacts

Operational air emissions could have the potential to exceed the State and Federal air quality standards in the study area vicinity, even though these pollutant emissions may not be significant enough to create a regional impact to the Air Basin. The local air quality emissions from well sampling and redevelopment were analyzed through utilizing the methodology described in the LST Methodology. In order to determine if any of these pollutants require a detailed analysis of the local air quality impacts, the operational well sampling and redevelopment activities were screened using the SCAQMD’s Mass Rate LST Look-up Tables. Table 7 shows the onsite emissions from the CalEEMod model for the operational well sampling and redevelopment activities.

Table 7: Operational Well Sampling and Redevelopment Local Criteria Pollutant Emissions


Operational Activities NOx CO PM10 PM2.5

Well Sampling 0.62 0.33 0.03 0.03 Well Redevelopment 12.50 7.79 0.46 0.44 SCAQMD Thresholds for 25 meters (82 feet)1

103 522 1 1 Exceeds Threshold? No No No No Notes: 1 The nearest sensitive receptors are residential land uses located as near as 25 feet from proposed well sites FM-7. According to SCAQMD Methodology, all receptors located closer than 25 meters (82 feet) are based on the 25 meter threshold.

The data provided in Table 7 shows that the on-going operations of the Proposed Project would not exceed the local NOx, CO, PM10 and PM2.5 thresholds of significance. Therefore, the on-going operations of the Proposed Project would create a less than significant operations-related impact to local air quality due to onsite emissions. No mitigation would be required.

C. Would the project result in cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard?

City of Anaheim


City of Fullerton


Section 4


Less than Significant Impact: The Proposed Project would not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the study area is non-attainment under an applicable Federal or State ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors).

Cumulative projects include local development as well as general growth within the study area. However, as with most development, the greatest source of emissions would be from mobile sources, which travel throughout the local area. Therefore, from an air quality standpoint, the cumulative analysis would extend beyond any local projects and when wind patterns are considered would cover an even larger area. Accordingly, the cumulative analysis for the project’s air quality must be generic by nature. The study area is out of attainment for ozone and PM10 and PM2.5 particulate matter. In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15130(b), this analysis of cumulative impacts incorporates a three-tiered approach to assess cumulative air quality impacts.

Consistency with the SCAQMD project specific thresholds for construction and operations;

Project consistency with existing air quality plans; and

Assessment of the cumulative health effects of the pollutants.

Construction-Related Impacts

The project site is located in the South Coast Air Basin, which is currently designated by the EPA as a non-attainment area for ozone and PM2.5 and designated by CARB as a non-attainment area for ozone, PM10, and PM2.5. The regional ozone, PM10, and PM2.5 emissions associated with the proposed project have been calculated and are shown in Table 4. The analysis showed that development of the Proposed Project would result in less than significant regional emissions of the precursors to ozone, PM10, and PM2.5 during construction of the Proposed Project. Therefore, a less than significant cumulative impact would occur from construction of the Proposed Project.

Operational-Related Impacts

Monitoring well operation involves periodically measuring the depth to groundwater, and collecting groundwater samples for laboratory analysis. The depth to groundwater would be measured by hand using a battery powered wire-line sounder. Dedicated submersible pumps would be installed in the monitoring wells for periodic sampling.

Operation of a submersible pump would require the use of a small portable generator. OCWD staff would collect groundwater samples and record water levels on a quarterly basis or less. In total, the monitoring wells would be visited by OCWD staff up to 8 times per year. Every three to five years OCWD would conduct maintenance activities to

Section 4


sample and redevelop the well. The sampling and well redevelopment activities would generate the highest daily criteria pollutant emissions.

The regional ozone, PM10 and PM2.5 emissions associated with the well sampling and redevelopment activities have been calculated and are shown in Table 6. The analysis shows that development of the Proposed Project would result in less than significant regional emissions of the precursors to ozone, PM10, and PM2.5 during operational well sampling and redevelopment activities for the Proposed Project. Therefore, a less than significant cumulative impact would occur from operation of the Proposed Project.

Consistency with Air Quality Plans

All of the proposed well sites are located within public right of ways for public roads, which are technically not designated in General Plans or Zoning Maps. Since well drilling is an allowed use in all land use designations, the Proposed Project is consistent with the current land use designations and would not require a General Plan Amendment or zone change. As such, the Proposed Project is not anticipated to exceed the AQMP assumptions for the project sites and is found to be consistent with the AQMPs for the Air Basin.

Cumulative Health Impacts

The Air Basin is designated as nonattainment for ozone, PM10, and PM2.5, which means that the background levels of those pollutants are at times higher than the ambient air quality standards. The air quality standards were set to protect public health, including the health of sensitive individuals (elderly, children, and the sick). Therefore, when the concentration of those pollutants exceeds the standard, it is likely that some sensitive individuals in the population would experience health effects. The regional analysis in Table 4 shows that the Proposed Project would not exceed the SCAQMD regional significance thresholds for VOC and NOx (ozone precursors), PM10 and PM2.5. As such, the Proposed Project would result in a less than significant cumulative health impact.

D. Would the project expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations?

City of Anaheim


City of Fullerton


Section 4


Less than Significant Impact: The Proposed Project would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. The local concentrations of criteria pollutant emissions produced in the nearby vicinity of the proposed well sites, which may expose sensitive receptors to substantial concentrations have been calculated for both construction and operations, which are discussed separately below. The discussion below also includes an analysis of the potential impacts from toxic air contaminant emissions.

Construction-Related Sensitive Receptor Impacts

The nearest sensitive receptors to the proposed well site sites occur at well site FM-7B where residential land uses are located as close as 25 feet from the proposed well site. The analysis in Table 5 shows that none of the analyzed criteria pollutants would exceed the local emissions thresholds for any phase of construction.

The greatest potential for toxic air contaminant emissions would be related to diesel particulate emissions associated with heavy equipment operations during construction of the Proposed Project. According to SCAQMD methodology, health effects from carcinogenic air toxics are usually described in terms of “individual cancer risk”. “Individual Cancer Risk” is the likelihood that a person exposed to concentrations of toxic air contaminants over a 70-year lifetime will contract cancer, based on the use of standard risk-assessment methodology. Given the relatively limited number of heavy-duty construction equipment and the short-term construction schedule, the proposed project would not result in a long-term (i.e., 70 years) substantial source of toxic air contaminant emissions and corresponding individual cancer risk. Therefore, no significant short-term toxic air contaminant impacts would occur during construction of the Proposed Project. As such, construction of the Proposed Project would result in a less than significant exposure of sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations.

Operations-Related Sensitive Receptor Impacts

Monitoring well operation involves periodically measuring the depth to groundwater, and collecting groundwater samples for laboratory analysis. The depth to groundwater would be measured by hand using a battery powered wire-line sounder. Dedicated submersible pumps would be installed in the monitoring wells for periodic sampling. Operation of a submersible pump would require the use of a small portable generator. OCWD staff would collect groundwater samples and record water levels on a quarterly basis or less. In total, the monitoring wells would be visited by OCWD staff up to 8 times per year. Every three to five years OCWD would conduct maintenance activities to sample and redevelop the well. The sampling and well redevelopment activities would generate the highest daily criteria pollutant emissions. The analysis in Table 7 shows that none of the analyzed criteria pollutants would exceed the local emissions thresholds for the operational well sampling and redevelopment activities.

Section 4


Also, as detailed above for construction, the greatest potential for toxic air contaminant emissions would only occur during the well sampling and redevelopment activities that are limited to approximately one week every three to five years. Given, the infrequent activity schedule, the Proposed Project would not result in a long-term (i.e., 70 years) substantial source of toxic air contaminant emissions and corresponding individual cancer risk. Therefore, no significant short-term toxic air contaminant impacts would occur during operation of the Proposed Project. As such, operation of the Proposed Project would result in a less than significant exposure of sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. Therefore, operation of the Proposed Project would result in a less than significant exposure of sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations.

E. Would the project create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people?

City of Anaheim


City of Fullerton


Less than Significant Impact: The Proposed Project would not create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people. Potential odor impacts have been analyzed separately for construction and operation activities.

Individual responses to odors are highly variable and can result in a variety of effects. Generally, the impact of an odor results from a variety of factors such as frequency, duration, offensiveness, location, and sensory perception. The frequency is a measure of how often an individual is exposed to an odor in the ambient environment. The intensity refers to an individual’s or group’s perception of the odor strength or concentration. The duration of an odor refers to the elapsed time over which an odor is experienced. The offensiveness of the odor is the subjective rating of the pleasantness or unpleasantness of an odor. The location accounts for the type of area in which a potentially affected person lives, works, or visits; the type of activity in which he or she is engaged; and the sensitivity of the impacted receptor.

Sensory perception has four major components: detectability, intensity, character, and hedonic tone. The detection (or threshold) of an odor is based on a panel of responses to the odor. There are two types of thresholds: the odor detection threshold and the recognition threshold. The detection threshold is the lowest concentration of an odor that will elicit a response in a percentage of the people that live and work in the immediate vicinity of the project site and is typically presented as the mean (or 50

Section 4


percent of the population). The recognition threshold is the minimum concentration that is recognized as having a characteristic odor quality this is typically represented by recognition by 50 percent of the population. The intensity refers to the perceived strength of the odor. The odor character is what the substance smells like. The hedonic tone is a judgment of the pleasantness or unpleasantness of the odor. The hedonic tone varies in subjective experience, frequency, odor character, odor intensity, and duration.

Construction-Related Odor Impacts

Potential sources that may emit odors during well construction activities include the extraction of drilling mud and from emissions from diesel equipment. The objectionable odors that may be produced during the construction process would be temporary and would not likely be noticeable for extended periods of time beyond the project site’s boundaries. Due to the transitory nature of construction odors, a less than significant odor impact would occur and no mitigation would be required.

Potential Operations-Related Odor Impacts

Monitoring well operation involves periodically measuring the depth to groundwater, and collecting groundwater samples for laboratory analysis. The depth to groundwater would be measured by hand using a battery powered wire-line sounder. Dedicated submersible pumps would be installed in the monitoring wells for periodic sampling. Operation of a submersible pump would require the use of a small portable generator. OCWD staff would collect groundwater samples and record water levels on a quarterly basis or less. In total, the monitoring wells would be visited by OCWD staff up to 8 times per year. Every three to five years OCWD would conduct maintenance activities to sample and redevelop the well.

Potential sources that could emit odors during well sampling and redevelopment activities would include the extraction of materials from the wells and from emissions from diesel equipment. The objectionable odors that could be produced during the well sampling and redevelopment activities would be temporary and would not likely be noticeable for extended periods of time beyond the well site boundaries. Due to the transitory nature of these odors, a less than significant odor impact would occur and no mitigation would be required.

4.4 Biological Resources

A. Would the project have a substantial adverse impact, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive or special status species in local or regional plans, policies or regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and wildlife Services?

Section 4


City of Anaheim


City of Fullerton


No Impact: The OCWD Natural Resources Department conducted a review of the California Department of Fish and Wildlife California Natural Diversity Data Base for the USGS Anaheim Quadrangle to determine the potential for special status plant and special status wildlife species to occur within the quadrangle area where the proposed monitoring wells would be located. Subsequently, OCWD Natural Resource Department conducted a site visit at each well site to confirm the presence or lack of presence of special status plant and wildlife species and their associated habitat. A complete listing of special status plant and wildlife species that have been identified to have potential to occur within the USGS Anaheim Quadrangle area is shown in Table 8.

As shown in Table 8, all of the proposed monitoring well sites are located within urbanized area and lack adequate amounts suitable habitat to support special status plant or wildlife species. The potential for special status plant or wildlife species to be present would be very low and the potential impact would be less than significant. No mitigation measures are required.

Table 8: Special Status Species List

Species Fed State CNPS Habitat Requirement

Study Area Habitat Condition

Potential Occurrence

Plants Abronia villosa var. aurita (chaparral sand-verbena)

NL NL 1B.1 Chaparral, Coastal scrub, Desert Dunes

All sites improved and lack suitable amount habitat

All Sites Low

Atriplex parishi (Parish’s brittlescale)

NL NL 1B.1 Alkali playas, Chenopod scrub, Vernal Pool


All Sites Low

Centromadia parryi ssp. Australis (Southern Tarplant)

NL NL 1B.1 Marshes and Swamps


All Sites Low

Sidalcea neomexicana (Salt Spring checkerbloom)

NL NL 2B.2 Alkali playas, Coastal scrub, Lower montane


All Sites Low

Section 4


coniferous forest

Syphyotrichum defoliatum (San Bernardino Aster)

NL NL 1B.2 Marshes and Swamps


All Sites Low

Wildlife Buteo Swainsoni (Swainson’s hawk)

NL T NL Riparian forest and woodland


All Sites Low

Coccyzus americannus occidentalis (western yellow-billed cuckoo)

T E NL Riparian Forest


All Sites Low

Eumops perotis californicus (western mastiff bat)

NL SC NL Chaparral, Cismontane woodland, Coastal scrub


All Sites Low

Phrynosoma blainvilli (coast horned lizard)

NL SC NL Chaparral, Cismontane woodland, Coastal scrub


All Sites Low

NL-Not Listed E=Endangered T=Threatened SC=Species Special Concern 1B.1= Seriously Endangered 1B.2= Fairly Endangered 2B= Plants rare in California, more common elsewhere 4=Plants of Limited Distribution

B. Would the project have a substantial adverse impact on any riparian habitat or natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, and regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?

City of Anaheim


City of Fullerton


No Impact: The proposed monitoring well sites are situated within an urbanized setting that have been developed with paved roadways and/or paved parking areas. The proposed monitoring well sites and the surrounding areas do not contain any sensitive

Section 4


vegetation communities that would be regulated by the California Department Fish and Wildlife, or United States Fish and Wildlife Service. The construction and operation of the Proposed Project would not result in adverse impacts to any sensitive vegetation communities. No mitigation measures are required.

C. Would the project have a substantially adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act through direct removal, filling hydrological interruption, or other means?

City of Anaheim


City of Fullerton


No Impact: A preliminary wetland assessment was conducted at the proposed monitoring well site locations in accordance with Regional Supplement to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) Wetland Delineation Manual Arid Region West. Based on the Corp’s Wetland Delineation Manual a three parameter approach was used to identify potential Wetland Waters of the U.S. and State. These parameters include the presence of wetland vegetation, presence of hydrology and the presence of hydric soils. The preliminary wetland assessment showed that all of the proposed monitoring well sites lacked the required parameters that define Wetland Waters of the United States and State. Based on the absence of wetlands, the construction and operation of the Proposed Project would not result in adverse impacts to Wetland Waters of the U.S./State. No mitigation measures are required.

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

City of Anaheim


City of Fullerton

Monitoring Well FM-7B, Monitoring Well FM-24B, Monitoring Well FM-29A, B, C, Monitoring Well FM-30 A (Options a and b), Monitoring Wells FM-31 A, B, and Monitoring Wells FM-32 A, B (Options a and b)

Less than Significant Impact: The proposed monitoring well sites are situated within an urbanized environment. There are no open space linkages or corridors that provide for wildlife movement. Several of the monitoring well sites are near ornamental trees.

Section 4


OCWD Biologist conducted a biological survey to determine the potential for migratory birds to occur within the study area. Based on the highly urbanized environment and the lack of suitable habitat there would low potential for migratory birds to occur. The construction and operation of the Proposed Project would not interfere with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish, birds or other wildlife species. No mitigation measures required.

Monitoring Well Site FM-22B

Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation: The proposed well site is located on paved parking lot at Woodcrest Park. The park site is situated in an urbanized area and provides no open apace linkages or corridors that provide wildlife movement. The construction and operation of the Proposed Project would not interfere with the movement of any wildlife species.

The park site is landscaped with ornamental grasses and trees. There are a few trees in close proximity to the proposed well site that could provide nesting opportunities for migratory birds. The construction activities for the Proposed Project would not involve the removal of any trees. Therefore, potential direct impacts to nesting migratory birds would be avoided. If nesting migratory birds are present when well construction activities are occurring, there would be the potential that indirect construction noise impacts could cause nesting birds to flush, disrupting their breeding patterns. To avoid potential impacts to nesting migratory birds, a biologist would survey the trees to identify if nesting birds are present and if the well construction noise impacts would disrupt their nesting patterns. If the biologist determines that the well construction noise impacts could adversely impact nesting birds, well construction activities would not be allowed to proceed until nesting birds are no longer present. With the implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-1 potential impacts to nesting migratory birds would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measure

BIO-1: If well drilling and well construction activities are proposed at Monitoring Well Site FM-22B during the nesting season, OCWD biologist will survey the study area to determine if nesting birds are present. The survey will occur no more than 3 days prior to the start of construction activities. If nesting birds are present and the biologist determines that the construction noise could adversely impact nesting birds, construction activity at the well will not proceed until nesting birds are no longer present.

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

City of Anaheim


Section 4


City of Fullerton


No Impact. The implementation of the Proposed Project would not remove any vegetation or trees that would be locally protected by the City of Anaheim or City of Fullerton. No conflicts with local policies that provide for the protection of biological resources would occur. No mitigation measures are required.

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

City of Anaheim


City of Fullerton


No Impact. None of the proposed well sites are included within an adopted Habitat Management Plan or Natural Community Conservation Plan. No mitigation measures are required.

4.5 Cultural Resources

Introduction

Cultural resources include prehistoric archaeological sites, historic archaeological sites, historic structures, and artifacts made by people in the past.

Prehistoric archaeological sites are places that contain the material remains of activities carried out by the native population of the area (Native Americans) prior to the arrival of Europeans in Southern California. Artifacts found in prehistoric sites include flaked stone tools such as projectile points, knives, scrapers, and drills; ground stone tools such as manos, metates, mortars, and pestles for grinding seeds and nuts; and bone tools

Historic archaeological sites are places that contain the material remains of activities carried out by people during the period when written records were produced after the arrival of Europeans. Historic archaeological material usually consists of refuse, such as bottles, cans, and food waste, deposited near structure foundations.

Section 4


Historic structures include houses, commercial structures, industrial facilities, and other structures and facilities more than 50 years old.

Record Search

The proposed well sites are located within an urbanized area and surrounded by developed land uses and have been disturbed by some type earthwork activity. To identify the potential for archeological and historical resources, a ½ mile radius cultural resource record search was conducted for each well site at the South Coast Information Center. The records search included a review of all recorded and built-environmental resources as well as review of cultural resource reports on file. Additionally, the California Points of Historical Interest, California Historical Landmarks, the California Register of Historical Resources, National Register of Historic Places and the California

State Historic Properties Directory listings were reviewed. A summary of the records search is shown in Table 9. The record search is presented in Appendix B.

Table 9: Summary of Record Search

Resources/Database Within Study Area

Within ½ Mile Study Area Radius

Archeological Resources 0 2 Built-Environmental resources 1 38 Reports and Studies 6 33 Historic Properties Directory 0 147 California Points of Historical Interest 0 0 California Historical Landmarks 0 0 National Register of Historic Places 0 8 California Register of Historical Resources 0 10

USGS Historic Map Review

The Anaheim, CA 1896 and 1942 USGS Historic Maps were reviewed to determine if any structures were present in the study area. The 1942 USGS Historic Map showed that in 1896 there were several paved roads and many buildings present. One of the paved roads, Orangethorpe Avenue ran directly through two of the proposed well sites. Additionally, the Atchison Topeka and Santa Fe railroad ran directly through two other two proposed well sites. The City of Fullerton boundaries were present on the map as was one intermittent stream. The 1942 USGS Historic Map showed that there was increased development in the study area with more improved roads and more blocks of buildings.

Project Impacts

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

Section 4


City of Anaheim


City of Fullerton


Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation: Based on review of the records search, none of the proposed well sites are considered archaeologically sensitive. However, the records search review did identify that were several cultural resources recorded in the study area and within ½ mile radius of the study area. Because all of the proposed well sites are located in areas where the natural ground surface has been disturbed by urban development, a field survey of the study area would not yield reliable data. Even though the well sites have been previously disturbed, because cultural resources have been recorded in the study area, there would still be the potential for the discovery of historical cultural resources. Therefore, it is recommended that a halt condition should be in place when ground-disturbing activities are occuring. With the implementation of Mitigation Measure CR-1 potential adverse impacts to unknown historical resources would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measure

CR-1: In the event that any evidence of cultural resources is discovered, all work within the vicinity of the find should stop until a qualified archaeological consultant can assess the find and make recommendations.

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?

City of Anaheim


City of Fullerton


Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation: Based on review of the records search, none of the proposed well sites are considered archaeologically sensitive. However, the records search review did identify that there were several cultural resources recorded in the study area and within ½ mile radius of the study area. It is recommended that a halt condition should be in place when ground-disturbing activities are occurring. With the

Section 4


implementation of Mitigation Measure CR-1 potential adverse impacts to unknown archaeological resources would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measure

Mitigation Measure CR-1 required.

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

City of Anaheim


City of Fullerton


Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation: No human remains or cemeteries are known to exist on the proposed well sites. However, because cultural resources have been recorded within the study area, there is always the potential that subsurface construction activities associated with the Proposed Project could potentially damage or destroy previously undiscovered human remains. In the event of the accidental discovery or recognition of any human remains, CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5; Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5; Public Resources Code Section 5097.94 and Section 5097.98 must be followed. With the implementation of Mitigation Measure CR-2 potential impacts to human remains would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measure

CR-2: If human remains are encountered during excavation activities, all work shall halt in the vicinity of the remains and the County Coroner shall be notified (California Public Resources Code, Section 5097.98). The Coroner will determine whether the remains are of forensic interest. If the Coroner, with the aid of a qualified Archaeologist, determines that the remains are prehistoric, s/he will contact the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC). The NAHC will be responsible for designating the most

likely descendant (MLD), who will be responsible for the ultimate disposition of the remains, as required by Section 7050.5 of the California Health and Safety Code. The MLD shall make his/her recommendation within 48 hours of being granted access to the site. If feasible, the MLD’s recommendation should be followed and may include scientific removal and non-destructive analysis of the human remains and any items associated with Native American burials (California Health and Safety Code, Section 7050.5). If the landowner rejects the MLD’s recommendations, the landowner shall rebury the remains with appropriate dignity on the property in a location that will not be

Section 4


subject to further subsurface disturbance (California Public Resources Code, Section 5097.98).

D. Would the project directly or indirectly disturb or destroy a unique paleontological resource or site?

City of Anaheim


City of Fullerton


Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation: The Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County (NHMLAC) was contacted and requested to review their topographical maps for the study area to determine the geology underlying the study area, the sensitivity of the well sites for the presence of fossils, and if any fossil-bearing localities had been recorded.

Surficial sediments within the study area consist of younger terrestrial Quaternary Alluvium, with older terrestrial Quaternary sediments occurring at various depths, resulting from floodplain deposits from the Santa Ana River that currently flows to the east and alluvial fan deposits from the Coyote Hills to the north via Fullerton Creek and from the Puente Hills to the northeast via Carbon Canyon Creek. These deposits typically do not contain significant vertebrate fossils. Deeper excavations that extend into older sedimentary deposits could have potential to contain vertebrate fossil remains. Similar deposits that contain younger terrestrial Quaternary Alluvium and older terrestrial Quaternary sediments have produced vertebrate fossil specimen of a sheep on the west side of the Santa Ana River along Rio Vista Avenue, south of Lincoln Avenue and vertebrate fossil specimen of a horse east of the Santa Ana River, along Fletcher Avenue and east of Glassell Street. Because there could be potential that older sedimentary deposits could be encountered, a halt condition should be in place when ground-disturbing activities are occurring. With the implementation of Mitigation Measure CR-3 potential adverse impacts to unknown paleontological resources would be less than significant.

CR-3: In the event that any evidence of paleontological resources is discovered, all work within the vicinity of the find should stop and a qualified paleontologist will be notified and retained. The Paleontological Monitor will divert heavy equipment away from the fossil site until s/he has had an opportunity to examine the remains.

Section 4


4.6 Geology/Soils

A1. Would the project expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury or death involving rupture of an unknown earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map?

City of Anaheim


City of Fullerton


No Impact: According to the City of Anaheim General Plan and the City of Fullerton General Plan there is not a Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone on or near any of the proposed monitoring well sites. Therefore, it is unlikely that the proposed monitoring wells would be subject to ground rupture impacts. No mitigation measures are required.

A2. Would the project expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury or death involving strong seismic ground shaking?

City of Anaheim


City of Fullerton


Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation: All of the proposed monitoring well sites are located in a seismically active area that could be subject to seismic shaking impacts from several surrounding active earthquake faults situated within the region. The highest seismic risks to the proposed monitoring well sites would be from the Whittier-Elsinore Fault Zone and the Newport-Inglewood Fault Zone. Each of these faults would have the potential to cause moderate to large earthquakes in excess of 7.0 on the Richter Scale. In the event a moderate to large earthquake occurs, the proposed monitoring wells could have the potential for periodic shaking, possibly of considerable intensity. The risk for seismic shaking impacts at all of the proposed monitoring well sites would be similar to other areas in the southern California region. The proposed monitoring wells would be designed to meet the California Department of Water Resources Well Standards to withstand anticipated ground shaking caused by an

Section 4


earthquake within an acceptable level of risk. With the implementation of Mitigation Measure GEO-1 potential seismic shaking impacts would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measure

GEO-1: The OCWD will ensure that the proposed monitoring wells are designed and constructed in compliance with California Department of Water Resources Well Standards Bulletin 74-90 and Bulletin 74-81.

A3. Would the project expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury or death involving liquefaction?

City of Anaheim


City of Fullerton


Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation: Liquefaction is the phenomenon in which loosely deposited soils located within the water table undergo rapid loss of shear strength due to excess pore pressure generation when subjected to strong earthquake induced ground shaking. Liquefaction is known generally to occur in saturated or near-saturated cohesion- less soil at depths shallower than 50-feet below the ground surface.

According to the City of Anaheim General Plan and the City of Fullerton General Plan, the proposed monitoring well sites are within a liquefaction hazard area. The monitoring wells would not be subject to damage as a result of liquefaction. To minimize liquefaction risks, the proposed monitoring wells would be designed to meet the California Department of Water Resources Well Standards to withstand potential liquefaction impacts caused by an earthquake at an acceptable level of risks. With the implementation of Mitigation Measure GEO-1 potential seismic shaking impacts would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures

Mitigation Measure GEO-1 is required.

A4. Would the project expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury or death involving landslides?

City of Anaheim


City of Fullerton

Section 4



No Impact: The areas that are most susceptible to earthquake-induced landslides are steep slopes in poorly cemented or highly fractured rocks, areas underlain by loose, weak soils and areas on or adjacent to existing landslide deposits. According to the City of Anaheim General Plan and the City of Fullerton General Plan, the proposed monitoring well sites are not located in areas that would be subject to landslide risks. No mitigation measures are required.

B. Would the project result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?

City of Anaheim


City of Fullerton


Less than Significant Impact: The drilling operations associated with the construction of the proposed monitoring wells would occur on paved surfaces. No substantial amounts soils would be exposed that would cause significant water and/or wind erosion impacts. Potential erosion impacts 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?

City of Anaheim


City of Fullerton


Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation: The primary geologic concerns at the proposed monitoring well sites would be potential seismic shaking impacts and liquefaction impacts. As previously identified, the proposed monitoring wells would be designed to meet the California Department of Water Resources Well Standards to withstand potential liquefaction and seismic shaking impacts caused by an earthquake at an acceptable level of risks. Compliance with the California Department of Water

Section 4


Resources Well Standards would reduce potential liquefaction and seismic shaking impacts to a less than significant level. With the implementation of Mitigation Measure GEO-1 potential seismic shaking impacts would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measure


D. Would the project be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the uniform Building Code, creating substantial risks to life or property?

City of Anaheim


City of Fullerton


Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation: Expansive soils are characterized as specific clay materials with the capacity to shrink, swell or otherwise significantly change volume due to variations in moisture content. Expansive soils could cause excessive cracking and heaving of structures with shallow foundations and concrete. Preliminary investigations conducted by OCWD did not identify any soil constraints that would increase the risks for damage. The proposed monitoring wells would be designed to meet the California Department of Water Resources Well Standards to avoid adverse soil expansion impacts. With the implementation of Mitigation Measure GEO-1 potential soil expansion impacts would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measure


E. Would the project have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater?

City of Anaheim


City of Fullerton


Section 4


No Impact: The construction of the proposed monitoring wells would not include the construction of septic tanks, or other alternative wastewater disposal systems. No mitigation measures are required.

4.7 Greenhouse Gas Emissions

The following analysis is based on the Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Analysis Report prepared by Vista Environmental in December 2016. The Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Analysis Report are presented in its entirety in Appendix A.

Background

Greenhouse Gas Emissions (GHGs) are comprised of atmospheric gases and clouds within the atmosphere that influence the earth’s temperature by absorbing most of the infrared radiation that rises from the sun-warmed surface and that would otherwise escape into space. This process is commonly known as the “Greenhouse Effect”. GHGs are emitted by natural processes and human activities. GHGs, include carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6). Other greenhouse gases include water vapor, ozone, and aerosols. Water vapor is an important component of our climate system and is not regulated. Although there could be health effects resulting from changes in the climate and the consequences that can bring about, inhalation of greenhouse gases at levels currently in the atmosphere will not result in adverse health effects, with the exception of ozone and aerosols (particulate matter). The potential health effects of ozone and particulate matter are discussed in air quality criteria pollutant analyses. At very high indoor concentrations (not at levels existing in outside areas), carbon dioxide, methane, sulfur hexafluoride, and some chlorofluorocarbons can cause suffocation as the gases can displace oxygen.

Regulatory Framework

California Air Resources Board (CARB) has proposed interim statewide CEQA thresholds for GHG emissions and released Recommended Approaches for Setting Interim Significance Thresholds for Greenhouse Gases under the California Environmental Quality Act, on October 24, 2008 that has been utilized by the SCAQMD’s GHG Significance Threshold Stakeholder Working Group in their framework for developing SCAQMD’s draft GHG emissions thresholds. The State currently has no regulations that establish ambient air quality standards for GHGs. However, the State has passed laws directing CARB to develop actions to reduce GHG emissions. The following is a listing of relevant State laws to reduce GHG emissions. Detail discussion of each State is presented in Appendix A.

Executive Order B-30-15, Senate Bill 32 and Assembly Bill 197 Assembly Bill 1493 Executive Order S-3-05

Section 4


Assembly Bill 32 Executive Order S-1-07 Senate Bill 97 Senate Bill 375 Assembly Bill 341 and Senate Bills 939 and 1374 California Code of Regulations (CCR) Title 24, Part 11

South Coast Air Quality Management District

Since neither CARB nor the OPR has developed GHG emissions threshold, the SCAQMD formed a Working Group to develop significance thresholds related to GHG emissions. At the September 28, 2010 Working Group meeting, the SCAQMD released its most current version of the draft GHG emissions thresholds, which recommends a tiered approach that either provides a quantitative annual thresholds of 3,500 MTCO2e for residential uses, 1,400 MTCO2e for commercial uses, and 3,000 MTCO2e for mixed uses. An alternative annual threshold of 3,000 MTCO2e for all land use types is also proposed.

Project Impacts

A. Would the project generate GHG emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?

City of Anaheim


City of Fullerton


Less than Significant Impact: The Proposed Project would result in the construction and operation of 14 new monitoring wells. The CalEEMod model was utilized to calculate the GHG emissions from each phase of construction activities from one monitoring well associated with the Proposed Project. Additionally, the CalEEMod model was also utilized to calculate the GHG emissions from the operational well sampling and redevelopment activities. A summary of the GHG emissions results is shown below in Table 10.

Table 10: Project Related Greenhouse Gas Annual Emissions

Greenhouse Gas Emissions (Metric Tons per Year)

Category CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e

Construction Monitor Well Drilling and Construction for One 57.95 0.02 0.00 58.26

Section 4


Well Site

Monitor Well Development for One Well Site 21.52 0.00 0.00 21.59 Total Construction Emissions of 19 Well Sites 1,509.89 0.29 0.00 1,517.31 Amortized Construction Emissions (30 years)1

50.33 0.01 0.00 50.58 Operations Well Sampling and Water Levels One Well Site (8 times per year)

0.38 0.00 0.00 0.38

Well Redevelopment for One Well Site 1.03 0.00 0.00 1.04 Amortized Well Redevelopment Emissions (3 years)2

0.34 0.00 0.00 0.35

Total Operational Emission for 19 Well Sites 13.82 0.00 0.00 13.86 Total Annual Emissions (Construction & Operations)

64.15 0.01 0.00 64.43

SCAQMD Draft Threshold of Significance 3,000 Notes: 1 Construction emissions amortized over 30 years as recommended in the SCAQMD GHG Working Group on November 19, 2009. 2 Well Redevelopment amortized over 3 years as that is the worst-case schedule for well redevelopment. Source: CalEEMod Version 2013.2.2.

The data provided in Table 10 shows that the Proposed Project would create 64.43 MTCO2e per year. According to the SCAQMD draft threshold of significance, a cumulative global climate change impact would occur if the GHG emissions created from the proposed project would exceed 3,000 MTCO2e per year. Therefore, a less than significant generation of greenhouse gas emissions would occur from construction and operation of the Proposed Project.

B. Would the project be in conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?

City of Anaheim


City of Fullerton


Less than Significant Impact: The Proposed Project would consist of the construction and operation of 14 new monitoring wells in the Cities of Anaheim and Fullerton. Monitoring well operation involves periodically measuring the depth to groundwater, and collecting groundwater samples for laboratory analysis. The depth to groundwater would

be measured by hand using a battery powered wire-line sounder. Dedicated submersible pumps would be installed in the monitoring wells for periodic sampling. Operation of a submersible pump would require the use of a small portable generator. OCWD staff would collect groundwater samples and record water levels on a quarterly basis or less. In total, the monitoring wells would be visited by OCWD staff up to 8 times

Section 4


per year. Every three to five years OCWD would conduct maintenance activities to sample and redevelop the well.

The Proposed Project would be anticipated to create an average of 64.43 MTCO2e per year, which would be well below the SCAQMD draft threshold of significance of 3,000 MTCO2e per year. The SCAQMD developed this threshold through a Working Group, which also developed detailed methodology for evaluating significance under CEQA. At the September 28, 2010 Working Group meeting, the SCAQMD released its most current version of the draft GHG emissions thresholds, which recommends a tiered approach that provides a quantitative annual threshold of 3,000 MTCO2e for all land use type projects. Although the SCAQMD provided substantial evidence supporting the use of the above threshold, as of December 2016, the SCAQMD Board has not yet considered or approved the Working Group’s thresholds. Originally SCAQMD had stated that they were waiting to approve the Working Group’s thresholds dependent on the outcome of the State Supreme Court decision of the California Building Industry Association v. Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD), which was filed on December 17, 2015. However, since that court decision has been decided for some time now, the most likely time for the SCAQMD Board to consider the Working Group thresholds will be in combination with the consideration of the updated CEQA Air Quality Handbook that is currently being revised by SCAQMD staff. Therefore, the Proposed Project would not conflict with any applicable plan, policy or regulation of an agency adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases.

4.8 Hazards/Hazardous Materials

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

City of Anaheim


City of Fullerton


Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation: The State of California defines hazardous materials as substances that are toxic, ignitable, flammable, reactive,

corrosive, and show high acute or chronic toxicity, are carcinogenic, have bio-accumulative properties that are persistent in the environment or are water reactive. The long-term operation of the proposed monitoring wells would not involve the routine transportation, disposal or emission of hazardous materials or waste. Therefore, the implementation of the Proposed Project would not result in the long term exposure of

Section 4


hazard materials to the public or the environment. Construction and maintenance operations associated with the proposed monitoring wells would involve the handling of incidental amounts of hazardous materials, such as fuels, oils and solvents. The construction and maintenance activities would be required to comply with local, state and federal laws and regulations regarding the handling and storage of hazardous materials. Monitoring wells would not be constructed on the sites where VOCs were released. Consequently, soil cuttings would not be expected to contain VOCs at concentrations that would exceed hazardous waste thresholds. Also VOC concentrations in groundwater generated during well construction would be tested prior to disposal. With the implementation of Mitigation Measures HAZ-1 potential hazardous material safety impacts would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measure

HAZ-1: All construction activities involving the handling of hazardous substances will be conducted in accordance with local, State and Federal laws and regulations.

B. Would the project create a significant hazard to the public or environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment?

City of Anaheim


City of Fullerton


Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation: The long-term operation of the proposed monitoring wells would not involve the routine transportation, disposal or emission of hazardous materials or waste. Construction and maintenance activities associated with the proposed monitoring wells would involve the handling of incidental amounts of hazardous materials, such as fuels and oils. During construction operations Best Management Practices would be implemented that would include hazardous material spill prevention and management practices to minimize the accidental release of hazardous materials into the environment. With the implementation of Mitigation Measures HAZ-2 potential hazardous material safety impacts would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measure

HAZ-2: During construction and maintenance activities Best Management Practices will be implemented to avoid accidental release of hazardous materials into the

Section 4


environment. The Best Management Practices will include, as applicable, the preparation and implementation hazardous material management and spill prevention and clean-up plans, implementation construction equipment delivery and storage procedures and routine vehicle and equipment maintenance.

C. Would the project emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substance or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school.

City of Anaheim


City of Fullerton


Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation: The operation of the monitoring wells would not emit hazardous emissions, or involve the handling of acutely hazardous substances. Construction and maintenance activities associated with the proposed monitoring wells would involve the handling of incidental amounts of hazardous materials, such as fuels and oils. The handling of these substances would be in compliance with local, state and federal laws and regulations. Additionally, to minimize the inadvertent release of hazardous substances, Best Management Practices would be employed onsite when construction and maintenance activities are occurring. With the implementation of Mitigation Measures HAZ-1 and HAZ-2 potential hazardous emission impacts would be less than significant.

D. Would the project be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous material sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and as a result, would create significant hazard to the public or the environment?

City of Anaheim


City of Fullerton


No Impact: The purpose of the Proposed Project is to monitor the groundwater quality within the North Basin area of the Orange County Groundwater Basin to help develop remedial action plan that would remove hazardous contaminates from the groundwater basin. No mitigation measures are required.

Section 4


E. For a project located within an airport land use plan or where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project the result in a safety hazard for people residing or working within the project area?

City of Anaheim


City of Fullerton


Less than Significant Impact: The Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) of Orange County assists local agencies to ensure that there are no direct conflicts with land uses, noise or other issues that would impact the functionality and safety of airport and heliport operations. The ALUC requires that local jurisdiction’s general plans and zoning ordinances are consistent with Airport Environs Land Use Plans (AELUP’s), which contain noise contours, and restrictions for types of construction and building heights in navigable air space, as well as requirements impacting the establishment or construction of sensitive uses within close proximity to airports.

The closest airport to the proposed monitoring well sites would be Fullerton Municipal Airport. According to the Fullerton Municipal Airport AELUP all of the proposed monitoring well sites are outside of the Safety Hazard Zone. Additionally, the proposed monitoring wells would be underground and would not encroach into any navigable air space. The proposed monitoring wells would be a compatible utility and the construction and maintenance activities for the proposed monitoring wells would not cause any airport safety related hazards. No mitigation measures are required.

F. For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area?

City of Anaheim


City of Fullerton


No Impact: There is not private air strips located within the study area. Therefore, the study area would not be subject to aircraft safety hazards from a private air strip facility. No mitigation measures are required.

Section 4


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

City of Anaheim


City of Fullerton


Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation: The construction and maintenance of the proposed monitoring wells would occur within existing roadways and parking areas. The construction operations could potentially require temporary closure of travel lanes and access ways. To avoid emergency access conflicts, at all times emergency access would be maintained and if needed traffic control devices would be in place to direct traffic through the construction area. With the implementation of Mitigation Measure HAZ-3 potential emergency access impacts would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measure

HAZ-3: During construction and maintenance activities emergency access will be maintained at all times.

H. Would the project expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wild land fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wild lands?

City of Anaheim


City of Fullerton


No Impact: According to the City of Anaheim General Plan and the City of Fullerton General Plan, the proposed monitoring well sites are not adjacent to or intermixed with wild lands and would not be susceptible wild land fire impacts. No mitigation measures are required.

4.9 Hydrology/Water Quality

The primary receiving surface water bodies/drainage facilities within the study area would include; Carbon Creek, Fullerton Creek, and Coyote Creek. The downstream

Section 4


receiving water bodies would include the San Gabriel River, Alamitos Bay and the Pacific Ocean. The study area also overlies the Orange County Groundwater Basin.

Carbon Creek

Carbon Creek is a regional flood control facility that drains approximately 20 square miles of urbanized watershed in the northwest part of Orange County. Carbon Creek passes through the Cities of Los Alamitos, Cypress, Buena Park, Anaheim, and Fullerton before emptying into the San Gabriel River.

Fullerton Creek

Fullerton Creek drainage area below Fullerton Dam drains approximately 10,000 acres of area. The watershed includes parts of the cities of Fullerton, Anaheim, Buena Park, and La Palma. Fullerton Creek is tributary to Coyote Creek.

Coyote Creek

Coyote Creek Channel is a major tributary of the San Gabriel River. At its confluence with the San Gabriel River, its tributary area is approximately 100,000 acres. Tributaries of Coyote Creek include North Coyote Creek, Brea Creek Channel, Fullerton Creek Channel, and Carbon Creek.

San Gabriel River

The San Gabriel River flows 43 miles through Los Angeles County and Orange County. It forms a boundary between both counties for a brief stretch before merging with Coyote Creek, one of its main tributaries, near the City of Los Alamitos. The river eventually becomes tidal and empties into the outlet of Alamitos Bay. The reach of the San Gabriel River that the study area would drain into would be Reach 1.

San Gabriel River Estuary

The San Gabriel River Estuary is approximately 3.4 miles long with a soft bottom and concrete rip rap sides and receives flows from Reach 1 of the San Gabriel River.

Alamitos Bay

Alamitos Bay is an inlet on the Pacific Ocean between the cities of Long Beach and Seal Beach and outlet of San Gabriel River Estuary.

Pacific Ocean

The Pacific Ocean is the downstream receiving water for surface water flows from San Gabriel River and Alamitos Bay.

Orange County Groundwater Basin

The Orange County Groundwater Basin underlies central and northern Orange County and is bordered by the Santa Ana Mountains to the east, the Pacific Ocean to the west,

Section 4


the Newport-Inglewood Fault to the southwest and Coyote Hills to the north. The basin is contiguous and directly connected to the Central Basin of Los Angeles County to the northwest. The basin reaches depths of over 2,000 feet and is comprised of a complex series of interconnected sand and gravel deposits. The study area is situated within the North Basin area of the Orange County Groundwater Basin.

Regulatory Setting

The following is discussion of Federal, State and local water resource programs that are applicable to the Proposed Project.

Clean Water Act

The objectives of the Clean Water Act are to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of Waters of the United States. The Clean Water Act establishes basic guidelines for regulating discharges of pollutants into the Waters of the United States and requires states to adopt water quality standards to protect health, enhance the quality of water resources and to develop plans and programs to implement the Act. Below is a discussion of sections of the Clean Water Act that are relevant to the proposed project.

Section 303 (d) Water Bodies

Under Section 303 (d) of the Clean Water Act, the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) is required to develop a list of impaired water bodies. Each of the individual Regional Water Quality Control Boards are responsible for establishing priority rankings and developing action plans, referred to as total maximum daily loads (TMDLs) to improve water quality of water bodies included in the 303(d) list. A list of the study area receiving water bodies that have been listed as 303 (d) impaired water bodies is shown in Table 11.

Table 11: 303 (D) Listed Impaired Water Bodies

Water Body Impairment

San Gabriel River Indicator Bacteria

San Gabriel River Estuary Copper

Alamitos Bay Indicator Bacteria

Section 402

Section 402 of the Clean Water Act established the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) to control water pollution by regulating point sources that discharge pollutants into Waters of the United States. In the State of California, the EPA has authorized the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) to be the permitting authority to implement the NPDES program. The SWRCB issues two baseline general

Section 4


permits, one for industrial discharges and one for construction activities (General Construction Permit). Additionally, the NPDES Program includes the long-term regulation of storm water discharges from medium and large cities through the MS4 Permit Program.

Short-Term Storm Water Management

Storm water discharges from construction sites with a disturbed area of one or more acres are required to either obtain individual NPDES permits for storm water discharges or be covered by a General Construction Permit. Coverage under the General Construction Permit requires filing a Notice of Intent with the State Water Resources Control Board and preparation of Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). Each applicant under the Construction General Permit must ensure that a SWPPP would be prepared prior to grading and implemented during construction. The primary objective of the SWPPP is to identify, construct, implement, and maintain Best Management Practices (BMPs) to reduce or eliminate pollutants in storm water discharges and authorized non-storm water discharges from the construction site during construction. BMPs include: programs, technologies, processes, practices, and devices that control, prevent, remove, or reduce pollution.

Long-Term Storm Water Management

The North Basin Groundwater Protection Program would be implemented in the City of Anaheim and the City of Fullerton. Both the City of Anaheim and the City of Fullerton are co-permitttees to the County of Orange NPDES MS4 Storm Water Permit and would be responsible for the implementation of the permit requirements. Under the NPDES MS4 Storm Water Permit, construction projects are defined as Priority Projects or Non-Priority Projects based on the type of project and/or level of development intensity.

Priority Projects

Projects that are determined to be a Priority Project are required to prepare a Priority Project WQMP based on the County of Orange Model WQMP. The Priority Project WQMP is required to demonstrate that a project would be able to infiltrate, harvest, evapotranspire or otherwise treat runoff generated from an 85th percentile storm over a 24 hour period. The Model WQMP requires that Low Impact Development (LID) site design principles be incorporated into the project to reduce and retain runoff to the maximum extent practicable. Such LID site design principles include, but are not limited to, minimizing impervious areas, and designing impervious areas to drain to pervious areas.

Non-Priority Projects

Certain projects that do not meet the Priority Project criteria are considered Non-Priority Projects and require preparation of Non-Priority Project Plans (NPP). The Non-Priority

Section 4


Project Plan requires documentation of the selection of site design features, source control and any other BMPs included in a project.

State of California Porter Cologne Water Quality Control Act

The Porter Cologne Water Quality Act of 1967 requires the SWRCB and the nine RWQCBs to adopt water quality criteria for the protection and enhancement of Waters of the State of California, including both surface waters and groundwater. The SWRCB sets statewide policy and together with the RWQCB, implements state and federal water quality laws and regulations. Each of the nine regional boards adopts a Water Quality Control Plan or Basin Plan. The study area is included within the Santa Ana Region Basin Plan and the Los Angeles Region Basin Plan.

Basin Plan

Beneficial Uses

The Santa Ana Region Basin Plan and the Los Angeles Region Basin Plan (Basin Plan) designates beneficial uses for waters for the Santa Ana River Watershed and the downstream San Gabriel Watershed and identifies quantitative and narrative criteria for a range of water quality constituents applicable to certain receiving water bodies in order to protect these beneficial uses. Specific criteria are provided for the larger water bodies within the region as well as general criteria or guidelines for ocean waters, bays and estuaries, inland surface waters, and groundwater basins. The beneficial uses in the Basin Plan are described in Table 12.

Table 12: Beneficial Use Descriptions

Abbreviation Beneficial Use

GWR Groundwater Recharge waters are used for natural or artificial recharge of groundwater for purposes that may include, but are not limited to, future extraction, maintaining water quality or halting saltwater intrusion into freshwater aquifers.

REC 1 Water Contact Recreation waters are used for recreational activities involving body contact with water where ingestion of water is reasonably possible. These uses may include, but are not limited to swimming, wading, water skiing, skin and scuba diving, surfing, whitewater activities, fishing and use of natural hot springs.

REC 2 Non-Contact Water Recreation waters are used for recreational activities involving proximity to water, but not normally body contact with water where ingestion of water would be reasonably possible. These uses may include, but are not limited to picnicking, sunbathing, hiking, beachcombing, camping, boating, tide pool and marine life study, hunting, sightseeing and aesthetic enjoyment in-conjunction with the above activities.

WARM Warm waters support warm water ecosystems that may include but are not limited to, preservation and enhancement of aquatic habitats, vegetation, fish, and wildlife, including invertebrates.

LWARM(1) Limited Warm Freshwater Habitat waters support warm water ecosystems which are severely limited in diversity and abundance.

COLD Cold Freshwater habitat waters support coldwater ecosystems. BIOL(1) Preservation of Biological Habitats of Special Significance waters support

Section 4


Abbreviation Beneficial Use

designated areas of habitats. WILD Wildlife Habitat waters support wildlife habitats that may include, but are not

limited to the preservation and enhancement of vegetation and prey species used by waterfowl and other wildlife.

RARE Rare, Threatened or Endangered Species (RARE) waters support habitats necessary for the survival and successful maintenance of plant or animal species designated under state or federal law as rare, threatened or endangered.

MUN Municipal and Domestic Supply waters are used for community, military, municipal or individual water supply systems. These uses may include, but are not limited to drinking water supply.

AGR Agricultural Supply waters are used for farming, horticulture or ranching. These uses may include, but are not limited to irrigation, stock watering, and support of vegetation for range grazing.

IND Industrial Service Supply waters are used for industrial activities that do not depend primarily on water quality. These uses may include, but are not limited to mining, cooling water supply, hydraulic conveyance, gravel washing, fire protection and oil well depressurization.

PROC Industrial Process Supply waters are used for industrial activities that depend primarily on water quality. These uses may include, but are not limited to, process water supply and all uses of water related to product manufacture or food preparation.

NAV Navigation waters are used for shipping, travel, or other transportation by private, commercial or military vessels.

POW(1) Hydropower Generation waters are used for hydroelectric power generation. COMM Commercial and Sportfishing waters are used for commercial or recreational

collection of fish or other organisms EST Uses of water that support estuarine ecosystems including, but not limited to

preservation or enhancement of estuarine habitats, vegetation, fish, shell fish or wildlife.

WET(2) Uses of water that support wetland ecosystems, including but not limited to preservation or enhancement of wetland habitats, vegetation, fish, shellfish, or wildlife, and other unique wetland functions which enhance water quality, such as providing flood and erosion control, stream bank stabilization, and filtration and purification of naturally occurring contaminants.

MAR Use of water that support marine ecosystems including, but not limited to, preservation or enhancement of marine habitats, vegetation such as kelp, fish, shell fish or wildlife.

MIGR(2) Uses of water that support habitats necessary for migration, acclimatization between fresh and salt water, or other temporary activities by aquatic organisms, such as anadromous fish.

SPWN Use of water that support high quality aquatic habitats suitable for reproduction and early development of fish.

SHELL Use of water that support habitats suitable for the collection of filter-feeding shellfish for human consumption, commercial or sports purposes.

As shown in Table 13 and Table 14, the Basin Plan identifies beneficial uses for Carbon Creek, Coyote Creek, San Gabriel River, San Gabriel Estuary, Alamitos Bay and the Orange County Groundwater Water Basin.

Section 4


Table 13: Study Area Water Body/Drainage Facilities Beneficial Uses

Beneficial Use Carbon Creek Coyote Creek Orange County Groundwater Basin

Municipal X X X Groundwater X NL X Agriculture NL NL X Industrial NL NL X Industrial Processes NL NL X Recreation 1 X X NL Recreation 2 X X NL Warm Waters X X NL Wild Waters X X NL Rare Waters X NL NL L- Not Listed, X- Present or Potential Use, I- Intermittent Beneficial Use

Table 14: Downstream Receiving Water Bodies Beneficial Uses

Beneficial Use San Gabriel River

San Gabriel Estuary Alamitos Bay

Municipal P NL X Industrial NL NL X Recreation 1 X X X Recreation 2 X X X Commercial NL X NL Warm Waters P X NL Wild Waters P X X Rare Waters NL X X SPAWN NL X NL MAR NL X X SHEL NL P P EST NL X NL Industrial NL X NL NAV NL X NL MIGR NL X NL Wet NL NL X NL- Not Listed, X- Present or Potential Use, I- Intermittent Beneficial Use

Water Quality Objectives

The Basin Plan establishes water quality objectives to ensure the protection of beneficial uses. The water quality objectives for study area water bodies/drainages are shown in Table 15.

Table 15: Water Quality Objectives

Reach TDS HARD Na CI TIN SO4 COD

Carbon Creek NL NL NL NL NL NL NL Coyote Creek NL NL NL NL NL NL NL Orange County Groundwater Basin 580 NL NL NL NL NL NL San Gabriel River NL NL NL NL NL NL NL San Gabriel Estuary NL NL NL NL NL NL NL

Section 4


Alamitos Bay NL NL NL NL NL Nl NL

NL- Not Listed, (1) Five year moving Average Concentrations in Units of Milligrams Per Liter TDS= Total Dissolved Solids, HARD=Hardness, Na= Sodium, TIN= Total Inorganic Nitrogen, CI=Choride, SO4=Sulfate, COD=Chemical Oxygen Demand

Project Impacts

A. Would the project violate Regional Water Quality Control Board Water Quality standards or waste discharge standards?

City of Anaheim


City of Fullerton


Less than Significant with Mitigation: As shown in Table 13 and Table 14, the Basin Plans identifies Beneficial Uses for Carbon Creek, Fullerton Creek, Coyote Creek, San Gabriel River, Alamitos Bay and the Orange County Groundwater Basin and water quality objectives for the Orange County Groundwater Basin. Additionally, as shown in Table 11, San Gabriel River, San Gabriel River Estuary and Alamitos Bay have been identified as 303 (d) Impaired Water Bodies. The following analysis evaluates if the Proposed Project would conflict with beneficial uses and water quality objectives established in the Basin Plans and if the Proposed Project would further impair any listed 303 (d) Impaired Water Body.

Beneficial Uses

During construction there would be the potential that degraded surface water could be generated from the well sites and conveyed into local drainage facilities. All of the proposed monitoring wells would eventually drain into Carbon Creek or Fullerton Creek before draining into Coyote Creek, San Gabriel River, San Gabriel Estuary and Alamitos Bay. Depending on the constituents in the surface water, the water quality for beneficial uses for downstream water bodies could be reduced. During construction, operation and maintenance of the proposed monitoring wells, Best Management Practices would be implemented to minimize degraded surface water runoff impacts. Such measures could include placement of sand bags and or waddles near drainages, use of rumble racks or wheel washers or other measures to avoid sediment transport. With the implementation of Mitigation Measure HWQ-1 potential construction related storm water impacts would be less than significant.

Section 4


The long term operation of the monitoring wells would periodically involve water sampling and maintenance activities. During water quality sampling and maintenance activities the water in the monitoring well casing would have to be pumped and back washed. There is the potential that the effluent from the back washing could contain constituents that could reduce the water quality for beneficial uses in study area water bodies and downstream receiving water bodies. To avoid potential beneficial use conflicts, the groundwater effluent generated during sampling and maintenance activities would be treated onsite to remove contaminants prior to being discharged into the local storm drain system. With the implementation of Mitigation Measure HWQ-2 potential conflicts with beneficial uses would be avoided.

Water Quality Objectives

As shown in Table 15, the only water body within the study area that has water quality objectives would be the Orange County Groundwater Basin The purpose of the Proposed Project is to evaluate the extent and nature of groundwater contamination within the North Basin area of the Orange County Groundwater Basin. The implementation of the Proposed Project would not conflict with beneficial uses or water quality objectives established for the Orange County Groundwater Basin.

Section 303 (d) Impaired Water Bodies

The RWQCB lists San Gabriel River and Alamitos Bay has impaired for indicator bacteria and San Gabriel River Estuary impaired for copper. It is very unlikely that the construction activities for the monitoring wells would introduce elevated levels of indicator bacteria or copper into any the study drainages or downstream receiving water bodies. During the operation of the monitoring well the groundwater effluent generated during sampling and maintenance activities would be treated onsite to remove contaminants prior to being discharged into the local storm drain system. With the implementation of Mitigation Measure HWQ-1and HWQ-2 potential conflicts with impaired water bodies would be avoided.

Mitigation Measures

HWQ-1: During construction operations Best Management Practices will be used to minimize surface water runoff impacts. Such measures could include; sandbagging, straw waddle, rumble racks and wheel washers or other measures that reduce surface water runoff and sediment transport.

HWQ-2: Groundwater effluent generated during sampling and maintenance activities will be treated onsite to remove contaminants prior to being discharged into the local storm drain system.

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?

Section 4


City of Anaheim


City of Fullerton


No Impact: The purpose of the Proposed Project is to monitor the water quality within the North Basin area of the Orange County Groundwater Basin. The implementation of the Proposed Project would ultimately help to increase ground water supplies for the OCWD service area, which includes both the City of Anaheim and Fullerton. No mitigation measures are required.

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

City of Anaheim


City of Fullerton


Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation: All construction activities would be confined to each well site and would not alter any existing drainage patterns. The drilling operations associated with the construction of the proposed monitoring wells would occur on paved roadway surfaces. A minimal amount if any soil would be exposed that could be subject to water and/or wind erosion impacts. There would be the potential that construction equipment could track sediment from the well site and transport to other locations that could drain into local and/or drainage facilities. To minimize the potential for sediment transport, Best Management Practices would be implemented at the well site during construction, well sampling and maintenance activities. With the implementation of Mitigation Measure HWQ-1 potential sediment transport impacts would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measure

Mitigation Measure HWQ-1 required.

D. Would the project substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or

Section 4


substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on or offsite?

City of Anaheim


City of Fullerton


Less than Significant Impact: The construction of the proposed monitoring wells would occur on existing roadways and parking lots. There would be no increase of impervious surfaces constructed at any of the well sites. Existing rates of surface water runoff and flood risks within the study area would not increase over the current condition.

E. Would the project create or contribute runoff which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff?

Construction Surface Water Management

City of Anaheim


City of Fullerton


Less than Significant with Mitigation: Onsite construction activities associated with the Proposed Project could generate degraded surface water runoff from the well sites into local drainage facilities and downstream receiving water bodies. To prevent degraded storm water runoff pollutants from entering into existing drainage systems, Best Management Practices would be implemented during construction operations to control the surface water runoff and to minimize the potential for it to be conveyed into onsite or offsite drainage systems. With the implementation of Mitigation Measure HWQ-1 potential degraded surface water runoff impacts would be less than significant.

Long Term Surface Water Management

City of Anaheim


Section 4


Less than Significant Impact: The proposed monitoring well is located within the City of Anaheim and would be required to comply with the County of Orange 4th term Municipal NPDES Permit, as implemented by the City of Anaheim. A maximum of 4 square feet of existing roadways surfaces would be replaced at the well site. The amount of replacement impervious surfaces at the well site would not exceed the criteria for a Priority Project under the County of Orange 4th term Municipal NPDES Permit and would not require the preparation of Priority Water Quality Management Plan. Because the Proposed project would not involve any discretionary actions from the City of Anaheim, the Proposed Project would also not require preparation of Non-Priority Project Water Quality Plan. Potential long term surface water runoff impacts would be less than significant. No mitigation measures are required.

City of Fullerton


Less than Significant Impact: The proposed monitoring wells are located within the City of Fullerton and would be required to comply with the County of Orange 4th term Municipal NPDES Permit, as implemented by the City of Fullerton. At each well site a maximum of 4 square feet of existing roadways surfaces would be replaced at each well site, totaling 72 square feet. The amount of replacement impervious surfaces replaced would not exceed the criteria for a Priority Project under the County of Orange 4th term Municipal NPDES Permit and would not require the preparation of Priority Water Quality Management Plan. Because the Proposed project would not involve any discretionary actions from the City of Fullerton, the Proposed Project would also not require preparation of Non-Priority Project Water Quality Plan. Potential long term surface water runoff impacts would be less than significant. No mitigation measures are required.

Mitigation Measure

Mitigation Measure HWQ-1 required.

F. Would the project otherwise degrade water quality?

City of Anaheim


City of Fullerton


Section 4


Less than Significant Impact: The purpose of the Proposed Project is to monitor the groundwater quality within the North Basin area of the Orange County Groundwater Basin. The long operation of the Proposed Project would assist in the remediation of groundwater in the North Basin area of the Orange County Groundwater Basin to help increase local groundwater supplies. To avoid adverse water quality impacts during construction and during maintenance of the monitoring wells Best Management water quality measures would be employed onsite. With the implementation of Mitigation Measures HWQ-1 and HWQ-2 potential degraded water quality impacts would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures

Mitigation Measures HWQ-1 and HWQ-2 are required.

G. Would the project place housing within a 100-year floodplain, as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood insurance Rate map or other flood hazard delineation map?

City of Anaheim


City of Fullerton


No Impact: According to the City of Anaheim General Plan and City of Fullerton General Plan the proposed well sites are not within a 100-year floodplain. No mitigation measures are required.

H. Would the project place within a 100-year floodplain structures which impede or redirect flows?

City of Anaheim


City of Fullerton


No Impact: The proposed well sites are not within a 100-year floodplain. Additionally, the proposed monitoring wells would be constructed at grade and would not redirect or impede any surface water flows. No mitigation measures are required.

Section 4


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?

City of Anaheim


City of Fullerton


No Impact: The Proposed Project involves the construction of below ground monitoring wells and would not expose people or structures to flood risks. No mitigation measures are required.

J. Could the project site be inundated by seiche, tsunami or mudflow?

City of Anaheim


City of Fullerton


No Impact: The City of Anaheim and the City of Fullerton General Plan both indicate that the proposed well sites would not be located within a tsunami run up area and would not be within the vicinity of any impounded water that could be subject to potential seiche impacts. Additionally, there are no slopes within the vicinity of the well sites that would pose mudflow risks. No mitigation measures are required.

4.10 Land Use/Planning

A. Would the project physically divide an established community?

City of Anaheim


City of Fullerton


Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation: The proposed monitoring wells would be constructed and operated underground on public and private property within the City

Section 4


of Anaheim and the City of Fullerton. The long term presence of the monitoring wells would not divide any established communities or result in any long term land uses incompatibilities. The construction operations for the Proposed Project would result in short term construction related impacts. The impacts would be for a short period of time and with the incorporation of mitigation measures short-term construction impacts would be less than significant. To keep the public informed when construction activities for the Proposed Project would occur, OCWD would conduct a community outreach program on the upcoming construction activities. With the implementation of Mitigation Measure LU-1 potential construction impacts to existing land uses would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measure

LU-1: Prior to construction activities at each well site, OCWD will provide residents and business owners with notifications of upcoming construction activities.

B. Would the project be in conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?

City of Anaheim


City of Fullerton


Less than Impact with Mitigation: The Proposed Project would be located within the City of Anaheim and the City of Fullerton. For those well sites proposed in public right-of-way an encroachment permit would be required from either the City of Anaheim or the City of Fullerton. For wells proposed in the City of Anaheim approval of a well permit would be required. Additionally, to construct the proposed monitoring wells OCWD would be required to coordinate with the County of Orange Health Care Agency and comply with State Department of Water Resources well siting requirements. With the implementation of Mitigation Measures LU-2, LU-3 and LU-4 potential land use conflicts would be avoided.

Mitigation Measure

LU-2: Prior to the start of construction, OCWD will coordinate with City of Anaheim or and City of Fullerton encroachment permits for monitoring wells that are proposed in public right-of-way.

LU-3: OCWD will coordinate with County of Orange Health Care Agency and comply with State Department of Water Resources well siting requirements for all wells proposed in the North Basin Groundwater Protection Project.

Section 4


LU-4: Prior to the start of construction, OCWD will receive a well permit from the City of Anaheim.

C. Would the project be in conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan?

City of Anaheim


City of Fullerton


No Impact: The proposed well sites are not included within an approved habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan. No mitigation measures are required.

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.

City of Anaheim


City of Fullerton


No Impact: According to the City of Anaheim General Plan and the City of Fullerton General Plan the lands where the proposed monitoring wells would be constructed are not known to contain regionally important mineral deposits. No mitigation measures are required.

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?

City of Anaheim


City of Fullerton

Section 4



No Impact: According to the City of Anaheim General Plan and the City of Fullerton General Plan, the lands where the proposed monitoring wells would be constructed are not known to contain locally important mineral deposits. No mitigation measures are required.

4.12 Noise

Background

A decibel (dB) is a unit of measurement that indicates the relative intensity of a sound. The zero point on the dB scale is based on the lowest sound level that a healthy, unimpaired human ear can detect. Changes of 3 dB or fewer are only perceptible in laboratory environments. An increase of 10 dB represents a 10-fold increase in acoustic energy, while 20 dB is 100 times more intense, and 30 dB is 1,000 times more intense. Each 10 dB increase in sound level is perceived as approximately a doubling of loudness.

Regulatory Programs

State Office of Noise Control Standards

The California Office of Noise Control has set long term land use compatibility noise standards for different types of land uses and has encouraged local jurisdictions to adopt them. The Proposed Project would not result in long term noise impacts. Therefore, the State Office of Noise Control long term noise standards would not be applicable.

Local Regulations

The City of Anaheim and the City of Fullerton establishes the following exterior and interior noise standards, exemptions and special provisions for the regulation of noise.

City of Anaheim Municipal Code

The following lists the City of Anaheim Municipal Code regulations that are applicable to all construction projects in the City.

Sound Pressure Levels

Section 6.70.010 of the City’s Municipal Code restricts the creation of noise levels to 60 dBA at any point on the property line. Section 6.70.010 exempts construction noise that occurs between 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. from the 60 dBA stationary noise standard. Section 6.70.010 also provides an exemption for governmental units and their contractors from the 60 dBA stationary noise standard.

Section 4


City of Fullerton

The City of Fullerton Noise Ordinance establishes exterior and interior noise standards for residential properties impacted by noise. Below in Table 16 are the exterior and interior noise standards for residential properties.

Table 16: City of Fullerton Exterior Noise Level Standards

Land Use 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p. m 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.

Exterior 55 dBA 50 dBA

Interior 55 dBA 45 dBA

Exemptions to Noise Ordinance Standards

The City of Fullerton Noise Ordinance identifies several activities that would be exempted from City’s exterior and interior noise standards. The following applicable activities would be exempted from the above noise standards.

Noise sources associated with construction, repair, remodeling or grading of property provided it takes place between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. on any day except Sunday or City recognized holiday.

Project Impacts

A. Would the project expose persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?

Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation: This impact discussion analyzes the potential for the Proposed Project to cause an exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of City of Anaheim and City of Fullerton noise standards. The noise levels in the study area would be influenced by well construction activities and from periodic well sampling and well maintenance activities.

Construction Equipment Noise Levels

In order to determine the anticipated noise impacts created from well construction equipment, noise measurements were taken of various pieces of equipment during construction of OCWD’s Monitoring Well SAR-11. The results of the measured reference noise levels are shown below in Table 17.

Table 17: Well Construction Equipment Inventory Noise Levels

Equipment Actual Measured at 50 feet (dBA)

Drill Rig 77 Backhoe 78

Section 4


Compressor (air) 77 Concrete Mixer Truck 79 Concrete Pump 81 Crane 81 Drill Rig Truck 79 Dozer 82 Dump Truck 76 Excavator 81 Flat Bed Truck 74 Front End Loader 79 Generator 81 Grader N/A Pumps 81 Welder/Torch 74

The nosiest piece of equipment that would be involved with the construction, well sampling and maintenance activities for the Proposed Project would be a generator with a noise level of 81 dBA at 50 feet. The estimated noise level at the closest sensitive receptor to each well site is shown in Table 18.

Table 18: Estimated Noise Levels

Monitoring Well Site

City Closest Sensitive Receptor (feet)

Land Use Construction/Maintenance Estimated

Noise Level (dBA) Well Site AM-54A,B, C

Anaheim 1,200 Residential 54

Well Site FM-7B Fullerton 25 Residential 87 Well Site FM-22B Fullerton 180 Residential 69 Well Site FM-24B Fullerton 85 Residential 85 Well Site FM-29A,B,C

Fullerton 50 Residential 81

Well Site FM-30A (Option a)


Well Site FM-30A (Option b)


Well Site FM-31A,B


Well Site FM-32AB (Option a)


Well Site FM-32AB (Option b)


City of Anaheim


Operational Noise Impacts

Section 4


The proposed monitoring well would be equipped with submersible pumps for quarterly (or less frequent) sampling. A small generator would be used to power the pump. The infrequent and short-term duration noise emitted from the generator would not increase long term ambient noise levels within the study area.

Construction/Maintenance Noise Impacts

The City of Anaheim Noise Ordinance establishes daytime exterior noise standard of 60 dBA. As shown in Table 18, the construction noise levels for all proposed monitoring wells, except for Monitoring Well FM-30C, would be below the 60 dB exterior noise standard. The proposed well construction and maintenance activities for Monitoring Well FM-30C would occur during the hours of the day when construction noise would be exempt under the City of Anaheim Noise Ordinance. By limiting the well construction activities to the hours when construction activity would be allowed under the Noise Ordinance, no conflicts with the City of Anaheim standards would occur. With the implementation of Mitigation Measure N-1, N-2, N-3, N-4, N-5 and N-6 potential construction noise impacts would be less than significant.

City of Fullerton


Operational Noise Impacts

The proposed monitoring well would be equipped with submersible pumps for quarterly (or less frequent) sampling. A small generator would be used to power the pump. The infrequent and short-term duration noise emitted from the generator would not increase long term ambient noise levels within the study area.

Construction/Maintenance Noise Impacts

The City of Fullerton Noise Ordinance establishes daytime exterior noise standard of 55 dBA. As shown in Table 18, the construction noise level for all monitoring wells would exceed the 55 dBA exterior noise standard. The proposed well construction and maintenance activities would occur during the hours of the day when construction noise would be exempt under the City of Fullerton Noise Ordinance. With the implementation of Mitigation Measure N-1, N-2, N-3, N-4, N-5 and N-6 potential construction noise impacts would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measure

N-1: All construction activities and maintenance activities will occur during the hours of day when construction noise is exempt under the City of Anaheim and City of Fullerton Noise Ordinance.

Section 4


N-2: All construction operations will comply with Orange County Codified Division 6 (Noise Control) and stockpiling and/or vehicle staging areas will be located as far as practicable from dwellings.

N-3: All construction equipment will operate with mufflers and intake silencers.

N-4: No heavy construction equipment will operate before 7:00 a.m., including the warming up of engines.

N-5: Barriers will be installed around noise sources or directly between the construction area and the nearest residential home to shield residents from direct noise exposure from construction activities.

N-6: Prior to the commencement of construction and during ongoing construction, property owners including residents and businesses within the immediate vicinity of the construction activity will be notified of the construction activities and the construction schedule. Additionally, signs will posted that identifies the address, hotline number and name of designated person to contact for the purposes of responding to questions or complaints during the construction period.

B. Would the project result in a permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project?

City of Anaheim


City of Fullerton


Less than Significant Impact: The proposed monitoring well would be equipped with submersible pumps for quarterly (or less frequent) sampling. A small generator would be used to power the pump. The infrequent and short-term duration noise emitted from the generator would not increase long term ambient noise levels within the study area.

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

City of Anaheim


City of Fullerton

Section 4



Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation: The construction, water sampling and maintenance activities operations associated with the proposed monitoring wells would temporarily increase ambient noise levels within the study area. All of these activities would occur during day when the construction noise would be exempt under the City of Anaheim Noise Ordinance and the City of Fullerton Noise Ordinance. With the implementation of Mitigation Measure N-1 N-2, N-3, N-4, N-5 and N-6 temporary noise impacts would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measure

Mitigation Measure N-1 N-2, N-3, N-4, N-5 and N-6 are required.

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

City of Anaheim


City of Fullerton


Less than Significant: The closest airport to the proposed monitoring wells would be Fullerton Municipal Airport. The Fullerton Municipal Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan identifies 65 CNEL and 60 CNEL noise impact zones around the airport where elevated levels of aircraft noise would occur. The proposed well sites are located outside of the airport’s noise impact zones. No mitigation measures are required.

E. For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?

City of Anaheim


City of Fullerton


Section 4


No Impact: There is not a private air strip located within the study area. Therefore, the study area would not be adversely impacted by aircraft noise from a private air strip.

Vibration

Background

California Administrate Code 15000, Title 14 requires that all state and local agencies implement the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guideline, which requires an exposure analysis of persons to excessive groundborne vibration impacts. Common sources of vibration impacts from construction activities include; blasting, pile-driving and operation of heavy earth-moving equipment. Sensitive receptors for vibration include structures (especially older masonry structures, people and vibration sensitive equipment.

There are several different methods that are used to quantify vibration amplitude such as the maximum instantaneous peak in the vibrations velocity, which is known as the peak particle velocity (PPV) or the root mean square (rms) amplitude of the vibration velocity. Due to the typically small amplitudes of vibrations, vibration velocity is often expressed in decibels and is denoted as (Lv) and is based on the rms velocity amplitude. A commonly used abbreviation is “VdB”, which in this text, is when Lv is based on the reference quantity of 1 micro inch per second.

Typically, developed areas are continuously affected by vibration velocities of 50 VdB or lower. These continuous vibrations are not noticeable to humans whose threshold of perception is around 65 VdB. Off-site sources that may produce perceptible vibrations are usually caused by construction equipment, steel-wheeled trains, and traffic on rough roads, while smooth roads rarely produce perceptible ground-borne noise or vibration.

As vibration waves propagate from a source, the vibration energy decreases in a logarithmic nature and the vibration levels typically decrease by 6 VdB per doubling of the distance from the vibration source. As stated above, this drop-off rate can vary greatly depending on the soil but has been shown to be effective enough for screening purposes, in order to identify potential vibration impacts that may need to be studied through actual field tests.

Vibration Standards

Presently there is not local threshold that quantifies the level at which excessive groundborne vibration occurs. Caltrans issued the Transportation- and Construction-Induced Vibration Guidance Manual in 2004. This manual provides practical guidance to Caltrans engineers, planners, and consultants who must address vibration issues associated with the construction, operation, and maintenance of Caltrans projects. This manual is also used as a reference point by many lead agencies and CEQA practitioners throughout California, as it provides numeric thresholds for vibration

Section 4


impacts. Thresholds are established for vibration, which found that the human response becomes distinctly perceptible at 0.25 inch per second. The manual identifies that potential damage could occur at the 1.0 inch per second PPV threshold to residential structures and the 2.0 inch per second threshold for potential damage to industrial and commercial structures.

Construction Equipment Vibration Levels

Construction activity can result in varying degrees of ground vibration, depending on the equipment used on the site. Operation of construction equipment causes ground vibrations that spread through the ground and diminish in strength with distance. Buildings in the vicinity of the construction site respond to these vibrations with varying results ranging from no perceptible effects at the low levels to slight damage at the highest levels. Table 19 gives approximate vibration levels for particular construction activities.

Table 19: Vibration Source Levels for Construction Equipment Equipment Peak Particle Velocity

(inches/second) Approximate Vibration

Level (Lv)at 25 feet

Pile driver (impact) Upper range typical

1.518 0.644

112 104

Pile driver (sonic) Upper range typical

0.734 0.170

105 93

Clam shovel drop 0.202 94 Vibratory Roller 0.210 94 Hoe Ram 0.089 87 Large bulldozer 0.089 87 Drill Rig 0.089 87 Loaded trucks 0.076 86 Jackhammer 0.035 79 Small bulldozer 0.003 58 Source: Federal Transit Administration, May 2006.

Project Impacts

F. Would the project cause exposure of persons to or generation of excessive ground-borne vibration or ground-borne noise levels?

City of Anaheim


City of Fullerton


Section 4


Less than Significant Impact: Potential vibration impacts from construction and operational activities associated with the Proposed Project would be a function of the vibration generated by construction equipment, equipment location, sensitivity of nearby land uses, and the timing and duration of the construction activities.

The City of Anaheim and the City of Fullerton Municipal Code or General Plan does not provide a quantifiable vibration threshold. To measure potential vibration impacts, Caltrans guidance was utilized, which defines the threshold of perception from transient sources at 0.25 inch per second PPV for potential human perception per second and 2.0 inch per second PPV for potential damage to industrial and commercial buildings occur at 1.0 inch per second for potential damage to residential structures

Table 19 provides a listing of construction equipment that is known sources of vibration. Of the equipment listed in Table 19, a rotary drill rig would be the piece of construction equipment that would be utilized by the Proposed Project with the highest vibration level, at 0.089 inch per second PPV at 25 feet. The closest well site to a structure would be Monitoring Wells AM-54A, B, C, at 25 feet from an existing industrial/commercial building and FM-7B at 25 feet from an existing residential condominium structure. At this distance the vibration level at these well sites would be .089 inch per second PPV, which would be below the 0.25 inch per second threshold for human perception and the 2.0 inch per second threshold for potential structural damage for industrial and commercial buildings and the 1.0 inch per second PPV threshold for potential damage to residential structures. All of the other well sites are greater than 25 feet from a structure and would not exceed the 0.25 inch per second PPV threshold for potential human perception, 1.0 inch per second PPV threshold for potential damage to residential structures or the 2.0 inch per second threshold for potential damage to industrial and commercial structures. Therefore, less than significant vibration impacts are anticipated to occur from construction and operation of the Proposed Project. No mitigation measures are required.

4.13 Population/Housing

A. Would the project induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly or indirectly?

City of Anaheim


City of Fullerton


Section 4


No Impact: The Proposed Project would not extend new infrastructure into any undeveloped area and would not provide underground water supplies to any undeveloped areas. Implementation of the Proposed Project would not induce any substantial population growth into the study area. No mitigation measures are required.

B. Would the project displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?

City of Anaheim


City of Fullerton


No Impact: The implementation of the Proposed Project would not displace any existing housing and therefore would not require the construction of any replacement housing. No mitigation measures are required.

C. Would the project displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?

City of Anaheim


City of Fullerton


No Impact: The implementation of the Proposed Project would not displace any households and therefore would not require the construction of any replacement housing. No mitigation measures are required.

4.14 Public Services

A. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for fire protection police protection, schools, parks or other public facilities.

City of Anaheim


Section 4


City of Fullerton


No Impact: The Proposed Project would be operated and maintained by OCWD and would not increase the demand for public services over the current level of demand and would not require the construction of any new governmental facilities. No mitigation measures are required.

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?

City of Anaheim


City of Fullerton

Monitoring Well FM-7B, Monitoring Well FM-24B, Monitoring Well FM-29A, B, C, Monitoring Well FM-30 A (Options a and b), Monitoring Wells FM-31 A, B, and Monitoring Wells FM-32 A, B (Options a and b)

No Impact. The implementation Proposed Project would not involve any activities that would increase the use of existing neighborhood parks or recreation facilities. No mitigation measures are required.

City of Fullerton


Less than Significant Impact: The construction activities for the proposed monitoring well would temporary displace nine parking spaces from the Woodcrest Park parking lot over a two week period. The temporary loss of parking spaces would not significantly restrict public access to the park causing the public to seek alternative recreation facilities. Implementation of the Proposed Project would not increase the use of existing recreation to where physical deterioration of the facilities would occur.

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

City of Anaheim


City of Fullerton

Section 4



No Impact. The Proposed Project does not propose new recreation facilities or proposes to expand existing recreation facilities. Therefore, no adverse impacts associated with the construction of new recreation facilities would occur. No mitigation measures are required.

4.16 Transportation/Traffic

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

City of Anaheim


City of Fullerton


Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation: The operation of the Proposed Project would not generate any long term traffic trips. Therefore, no long term adverse traffic impacts would occur. The construction operations for the Proposed Project would involve the mobilization and demobilization of construction equipment which if occurred during peak traffic periods could result in short-term adverse traffic congestion impacts along some roadway segments and intersections within the study area circulation system. To avoid potential short-term traffic congestion impacts, the construction equipment mobilization and demobilization activities would occur during non-peak traffic periods.

OCWD periodically would visit each well site and collect water samples. Additionally, every three to five years OCWD would conduct maintenance activities to redevelop the wells. The operation of the Proposed Project would generate a minimal amount of traffic trips and would not reduce the level of service of any project area roadway segment or intersection. To avoid potential short-term traffic congestion impacts, water sampling activities and well redevelopment activities would also occur during non-peak traffic periods. With the implementation of Mitigation Measure T-1 potential short-term traffic impacts would be less than significant.

Section 4


Mitigation Measure

T-1: Construction equipment mobilization and demobilization and water sampling activities and well redevelopment activities will occur outside of peak traffic periods.

B. Would the project be in conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including, but not limited to level of service standards and travel demand measures, or other standards and travel demand measures, or other standards established by County congestion management agency for designated roads and highways.

City of Anaheim


City of Fullerton


Less than Significant Impact: The Orange County Transportation Agency is responsible for the implementation of the County Congestion Management Program (CMP). The CMP is designed to reduce traffic congestion and to provide a mechanism for the coordination of land use and transportation decisions. The CMP identifies deficit highway and intersections in the County of Orange Circulation System and identifies planned performance standards. When a project generates more than 100 peak hour traffic trips along a CMP highway or 51 or more vehicle trips through a CMP intersection, the project is required to prepare a traffic impact study to evaluate the impacts on the CMP highway and intersection. If the amount of traffic trips generated by the project does not require the preparation of a traffic impact study, the traffic would be considered to have a de minimis impact on the CMP circulation system.

The operation of the Proposed Project would not generate any long term traffic trips. Therefore the operation of the Proposed Project would not be in conflict County of Orange Congestion Management Plan. The construction activities and periodic maintenance and well sampling activities would generate a minimal amount of traffic trips. There would be the potential that access to the proposed well sites could require travel along CMP highways and intersections. However, the Proposed Project would not generate 100 peak hour trips or generate 51 peak trips through a CMP intersection. Therefore, the Proposed Project would not require preparation of a traffic impact study and would be considered to less than significant impact on the CMP circulation system. No mitigation measures are required.

Section 4


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?

City of Anaheim


City of Fullerton


No Impact: The Fullerton Municipal Airport AELUP identifies that the proposed monitoring well sites are outside of the AELUP Height Restriction Zone. Additionally, the proposed monitoring wells would be underground and would not encroach into any navigable air space and would not cause a change air traffic patterns that would increase aviation safety risks. No mitigation measures are required.

D. Would the project increase hazards to a design feature or incompatible uses or equipment?

City of Anaheim


City of Fullerton


Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation: The construction activities for the Proposed Project would require an approximate 20 foot by 100 foot construction footprint foot work area. Depending on the well site, the construction activities for the Proposed Project would temporary require travel lane closures and displacement of onsite parking areas within the study area. A summary of the temporary impacts to roadways and parking spaces that would occur from the implementation of the Proposed Project are shown in Table 20.

Table 20: Roadway and Parking Area Impacts

Monitoring Well Site Impact Duration

AM-54A,B,C Temporary traffic lane closure along 225 foot segment Durst Road, west of cul-de-sac.

1 Month

FM-7B Traffic lane closure along 350 foot segment Orangefair Drive, approximately between south Pomona Road and well site.

2 Weeks

FM-22B Temporary displacement 9 parking spaces, including handicap 2 Weeks

Section 4


space. FM-24B Temporary closure portion West Houston Avenue cul-de-sac. Two Weeks FM-29,A,B,C Temporary closure portion West Oak Avenue cul-de-sac. 1 Month FM-30A (Option a) Temporary displacement 24 on-site parking spaces. 2 Weeks FM-30A (Option b) Temporary displacement 36 on-site parking spaces. 2 Weeks FM-31A,B Temporary closure South Pomona Avenue. 3 Weeks FM-32A,B (Option a) Temporary displacement 17 on-site parking spaces. 3 weeks FM-32A,B (Option b) Temporary traffic lane closure along 225 foot segment along

South Basque Avenue. 3 Weeks

Temporary Traffic Lane Closure

The construction activities at Monitoring Well Sites AM-54A, B, C, FM-7B, FM-31A, FM-31A, B and FM-32A,B (Option b) would require temporary closure of a traffic lane in the immediate vicinity of the well site. If needed to ensure safe access during peak traffic periods traffic detour control measures and flagman would be used to direct traffic around the construction area. Additionally, signage would be provided identifying temporary lane closures. With implementation of Traffic Control Plan potential vehicle access hazard impacts would be reduced to a less than significant level.

Temporary Displacement of Parking

The construction activities at Monitoring Well Sites FM-22B, FM-30A (Options a and b) , and FM-32A,B (Option a) would temporarily displace onsite parking spaces at the well site locations. For well sites that are located on commercial and industrial properties, prior two weeks before of the start of construction, OCWD would notify property owners when construction activities would begin and what parking areas would be temporarily impacted by construction. Additionally, OCWD would install temporary signage identifying which parking areas on the property would be temporary closed and the duration of the closure. For well sites located within residential areas, residents within the vicinity of the well site would be notified of upcoming construction schedule and temporary roadway closures and temporary loss of on-street parking near the well site. With the implementation of Mitigation Measures T-2, T-3, T-4 and T-5 potential traffic constraints associated with Proposed Project would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures

T-2: Prior to issuance of encroachment permit for Monitoring Well Sites AM-54 A, B, C, FM-7B, OCWD will coordinate with the City of Anaheim and the City of Fullerton on the need to prepare a Traffic Management that identifies traffic control measures to ensure safe vehicle access through the construction area.

T-3: Prior to two weeks of the start of construction on well sites FM-22B, FM-30A (Options a and b) and FM-32A,B (Option a), OCWD will notify property owners of the upcoming construction schedule construction activities and what parking areas would

Section 4


be temporarily impacted by construction and will install temporary signage that identifies which parking areas would be temporary closed.

T-4: Prior to two weeks of the start of well construction within residential areas, OCWD will notify property owners within the vicinity of the well site of the upcoming construction schedule and temporary roadway closures and temporary loss of on-street parking near well sites.

T-5: Prior to the start of construction of Monitoring Well FM-22B, one the existing parking spaces at Woodcrest Park would temporary identified as a handicap parking space.

E. Would the project result in inadequate emergency access?

City of Anaheim


City of Fullerton


Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation: The construction and operation of the Proposed Project would not require the closure of any streets or driveways that would impede emergency access. Traffic Control Management Plans or other measures would be implemented to ensure that during construction activities adequate emergency access would be maintained at all times. With the implementation of Mitigation Measure T-2 potential emergency safety impacts would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures

Mitigation Measure T-2 is required.

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

City of Anaheim


City of Fullerton


Section 4


Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation: The operation of the Proposed Project would not require closure of public transportation, bicycle or pedestrian circulation systems. During construction the mobilization and demobilization of heavy construction equipment and construction activities at the well sites could result in the temporary closure and detouring of pedestrian sidewalks and/or bike lanes near the work area for safety reasons. The closure would be temporary and an alternative pedestrian access would be provided if needed. With the implementation of Mitigation Measure T-2 potential conflicts with mass transit, pedestrian and bicycle facilities would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measure

Mitigation Measure T-2 is required.

4.17 Tribal Cultural Resources

A. Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with value to a California Native American Tribe and that is listed or eligible for listing in the California Register or Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources.

City of Anaheim


City of Fullerton


Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation: Based on review of the records search conducted by the South Coast Information Center, none of the proposed well sites are considered culturally significant. Additionally, the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) was notified of the proposed project on November 11, 2016, and requested to review its Sacred Lands Files for the presence of any cultural resources on or near the project site.

The records search review and NAHC coordination identified that there were no cultural resources or Native American Sacred lands on the proposed well sites, but that were several cultural resources that have been recorded within ½ mile radius of the study area.

On November 10, 2016, Daniel Bott, Principal Planner at OCWD, contacted the two tribes that have requested to be informed of OCWD projects under AB 52: Joyce Stanfield Perry, Tribal Manager, Juaneño Band of Mission Indians, Acjachemen Nation

Section 4


and Andrew Salas, Chairman, Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians, Kizh Nation. Ms. Perry responded on December 6, 2016, and stated that the tribe has no concerns at this time, but would like to be kept updated if any changes occur. Chairman Salas has not responded to date.

The cultural resource record search conducted for the study area indicated that the proposed well sites have low cultural resource sensitivity. However, because cultural resources have been recorded in the study area vicinity, there is the potential that unknown and unrecorded cultural resources could be present in the subsurface and could be uncovered during construction activities. With the implementation of Mitigation Measure CR-1 and CR-3 potential impacts to tribal resources would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measure

Mitigation Measure CR-1 and CR-3 is required.

B. Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with value to a California Native American Tribe and that is a resource determined by the lead agency in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence to be significant and which the lead agency considers the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe.

City of Anaheim


City of Fullerton


Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation: Based on coordination with local tribes to the study area, it has been determined that no Native American resources are known to occur within the study area. To avoid impacts to unknown cultural resources mitigation measures have been incorporated into the Proposed Project that would require construction activity to cease in the unlikelihood unknown Native American resources are encountered. With the implementation of Mitigation Measure CR-1 and CR-3 potential impacts Native American resources would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures

Mitigation Measure CR-1 and CR-3 is required.

Section 4


4.18 Utilities/Service Systems

A. Would the project exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board?

City of Anaheim


City of Fullerton


No Impact: Groundwater generated during pumping and sampling of the monitoring wells would be treated and discharged under a NPDES permit issued to OCWD by the Santa Ana RWQCB.

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?

City of Anaheim


City of Fullerton


Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation: The Proposed Project involves the construction of 14 new monitoring wells. As identified in the initial study, mitigation measures have been incorporated into the Proposed Project to reduce potentially significant impacts to the environment to a less than significant level.

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?

City of Anaheim


City of Fullerton


Section 4


No Impact: The Proposed Project would not involve construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing storm water drainage facilities. No mitigation measures are required.

D. Are sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources or new or expanded entitlements needed?

City of Anaheim


City of Fullerton


No Impact. The purpose of the Proposed Project is to evaluate the extent and nature of groundwater contamination within the North Basin area of the Orange County Groundwater Basin to help develop remedial action plan that would remove contaminates from the groundwater basin. The operation of the Proposed Project would not require ongoing water supplies or service. No mitigation measures required.

E. Would the project result in the determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the providers existing commitments.

City of Anaheim


City of Fullerton


No Impact: The Proposed Project does not include any plans to construct wastewater treatment facilities. Therefore, the implementation of the Proposed Project would not have any impact on the capacity of wastewater treatment providers to the area. No mitigation measures required.

F. Is the project served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project solid waste disposal need?

City of Anaheim


Section 4


City of Fullerton


Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation: The closest landfill to the study area 2 would be the Brea Olinda Landfill which accepts up to 8,000 tons per day. The long term operation of the Proposed Project would not increase the demand for solid waste disposal over the current level of demand. Construction operations associated with the Proposed Project would generate limited amounts of solid waste. The proposed project would comply with federal, state and local statues and regulations related to solid waste and where possible would recycle discarded construction materials and other solid waste. The amount of construction related solid waste generate from Proposed Project would have a less than significant impact on the capacity of the landfill. To minimize solid waste disposal demands OCWD would investigate all available alternatives, and then select the best method of solid waste disposal and reduction of solid waste stream. With the implementation of Mitigation Measure U-1 potential solid waste disposal needs would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measure

U-1: OCWD will investigate all available alternatives, and then select the best method of solid waste disposal and reduction of solid waste stream as required in the California Integrated Waste Management Act prior to the start of construction.

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

City of Anaheim


City of Fullerton


Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation: Any solid waste generated by the proposed project would be hauled from the site, diverted and recycled, in accordance with the California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989. If any hazardous materials are encountered, the OCWD would coordinate with the Cities of Anaheim and Fullerton and the Orange County Health Care Agency’s Certified Unified Program Agency to ensure that all hazardous wastes would be disposed of properly in accordance with local, state and federal laws. No mitigation measures are required.

Section 4


With the implementation of Mitigation Measure U-1 potential conflicts with federal, state and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measure

Mitigation Measure U-1 is required.

4.19 Mandatory Findings of Significance

A. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory.

City of Anaheim


City of Fullerton


Less than Significant with Mitigation: Implementation of the Proposed Project would not result in direct impacts to sensitive plans, wildlife or habitat. The Proposed Project would also not result in any impacts to any known cultural resources and the potential to encounter unknown cultural resources would be very low. Mitigation Measures have been incorporated into the Proposed Project to avoid significant impacts to unknown cultural resources in the unlikely event they are encountered.

B. Does the project have impacts that are individually limited but cumulatively considerable?

City of Anaheim


City of Fullerton


Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation: The Proposed Project would comply with local and regional planning programs, applicable codes and ordinances, State and Federal laws and regulations and project specific mitigation measures. Compliance with

Section 4


these programs would reduce the Proposed Project’s incremental contributions to cumulative impacts to a less than significant level.

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

City of Anaheim


City of Fullerton


Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation: The Proposed Project would comply with local and regional planning programs, applicable codes, and ordinances, State and Federal laws and regulations and project specific mitigation measures to insure that long term operation activities and short term construction activities associated with the proposed project would not result in direct, or indirect adverse impacts to human beings.

Section 5


SECTION 5.0 REFERENCES

Bowler, P.A. and M.E. Elvin, 2003The Vascular Plant Checklist for the University of California Natural Reserve System San Joaquin Marsh

California Department Fish and Game Natural Diversity Database, Accessed 2015

California Department of Transportation Scenic Highways Program Web Site Accessed, 2016

California Environmental Quality Act, State CEQA Guidelines, 2016.

California Farmland Mapping Monitoring Program, Web Site Access, 2016.

California Geologic Survey Seismic Hazard Zone Map Tustin, Orange Quadrangle, Accessed October 2016.

California Native American Heritage Commission Record Search, 2016.

California Native Plant Society Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants Database, Accessed 2016

City Anaheim General Plan, Site Access 2016.

City of Anaheim Municipal Code, Site Access October 2016.

City of Fullerton General Plan Site Access October 2016.

City of Fullerton Municipal Code Site Access October 2016.

County of Orange Model Water Quality Management Plan, 2011.

Federal Transit Agency, Noise Associated with Typical construction Equipment, 1995.

Federal Transit Agency, Transit Noise and Vibration Assessment, 2006

Melville C. Branch and R. Dale Bland, Noise Levels and Human Response, 1970.

National Water Research Institute Santa Ana River Water Quality and Health Study, 2004.

Orange County Water District Groundwater Management Plan, 2009.

Regional Water Quality Control Board, Santa Ana River Basin Plan, January 1995.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual Arid Wet Region, September 2008.

north basin groundwater monitoring well project - · pdf filenorth basin groundwater...

Documents