Recycled Water Distribution System Expansion

Transcription

1 for the Recycled Water Distribution System Expansion MARCH 2012 LEAD AGENCY: El Toro Water District Los Alisos Boulevard Lake Forest, CA P R E PA R E D BY: 605 Third Street Encinitas, CA 92024

2

3 DRAFT Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Recycled Water Distribution System Expansion Prepared for: El Toro Water District Los Alisos Boulevard Lake Forest, California Contact: Mr. Dennis Cafferty, Director of Operations and Engineering Telephone: Prepared by: DUDEK 605 Third Street Encinitas, California Contact: Shawn Shamlou, Senior Project Manager MARCH 2012

4 Printed on 30% post-consumer recycled material.

5 TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Page No. 1.0 INTRODUCTION Background Project Need and Objectives California Environmental Quality Act Authority to Prepare a Negative Declaration CEQA-Plus Evaluation List of Discretionary Actions Other Agencies that May Use the Mitigated Negative Declaration Public Review Process PROJECT DESCRIPTION Project Location Environmental Setting Project Characteristics Project Description Project Construction and Schedule Project Design Features FINDINGS No Impact or Less-Than-Significant Impact Less-Than-Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST Aesthetics Agriculture and Forestry Resources Air Quality Biological Resources Cultural Resources Geology and Soils Greenhouse Gas Emissions Hazards and Hazardous Materials Hydrology and Water Quality Land Use and Planning Mineral Resources Noise Population and Housing i March 2012

6 TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Page No Public Services Recreation Transportation and Traffic Utilities and Service Systems Mandatory Findings of Significance REPORT PREPARATION PERSONNEL REFERENCES...83 APPENDICES (PROVIDED ON ENCLOSED CD) A B C D E Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Biological Resources Letter Report Archaeological Survey Report Environmental Hazards Report Memorandum Hydrology and Water Quality Technical Report ii March 2012

7 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page No. LIST OF FIGURES 1 Regional Map Vicinity Map Project Components...11 LIST OF TABLES 1 Anticipated Construction Equipment SCAQMD Air Quality Significance Thresholds Estimated Daily Maximum Construction Emissions (lbs/day unmitigated) Localized Significance Thresholds Analysis for Construction Emissions Estimated Project Construction and Operational Emissions Estimated Annual Construction Greenhouse Gas Emissions Ambient Measured Noise Levels Construction Equipment Noise Levels...73 iii March 2012

8 ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS Acronym/Abbreviation Definition ACOE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers afy acre-feet per year APE Area of Potential Effects AQMP Air Quality Management Plan AST aboveground storage tank BEP Business Emergency Plan BMP Best Management Practice CAAQS California Ambient Air Quality Standards Caltrans California Department of Transportation CARB California Air Resources Board CBC California Building Code CDFG California Department of Fish and Game CEQA California Environmental Quality Act CFS cubic feet per second CHRIS California Historical Resources Information System CO carbon monoxide CO2E carbon dioxide equivalent COD chemical oxygen demand CWSRF Clean Water State Revolving Fund DAMP Drainage Area Management Plan db decibel EDR Environmental Data Resources EIR Environmental Impact Report EPA Environmental Protection Agency ETWD El Toro Water District GHG greenhouse gas gpm gallons per minute GPS Global Positioning System HCP Habitat Conservation Plan I-5 Interstate 5 IBC International Building Code Leq equivalent continuous noise level LID Low-impact development LST Localized Significance Threshold LUP Linear Underground Project mg/l milligrams per liter MND Mitigated Negative Declaration MRZ Mineral Resource Zone MWD Metropolitan Water District of Southern California iv March 2012

9 ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS MWDOC NAHC NAAQS NCCP NOx NO2 NPDES OCFA OCHCA OPR PM2.5 PM10 RWQCB SCAB SCAQMD SCCIC SCE SMARA SO2 SOCWA SWPPP SWRCB TDS TIN TMDL UST UWMP VOC WRP WQMP WQO Acronym/Abbreviation Definition Municipal Water District of Orange County Native American Heritage Commission National Ambient Air Quality Standards Natural Communities Conservation Plan oxides of nitrogen nitrogen dioxide National Pollution Discharge Elimination System Orange County Fire Authority Orange County Health Care Agency Governor s Office of Planning and Research particulate matter less than or equal to 2.5 microns in diameter particulate matter less than or equal to 10 microns in diameter Regional Water Quality Control Board South Coast Air Basin South Coast Air Quality Management District South Central Coastal Information Center Southern California Edison Surface Mining and Reclamation Act sulfur dioxide South Orange County Wastewater Authority Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan State Water Resources Control Board total dissolved solids total inorganic nitrogen total maximum daily load underground storage tank Urban Water Management Plan volatile organic compound Water Recycling Plant Water Quality Management Plan water quality objective v March 2012

10 INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK vi March 2012

11 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Background The El Toro Water District (ETWD), founded in 1960, provides domestic water; recycled water; and sanitary sewer collection, treatment, and disposal services to a population of over 50,000 in a 5,430-acre service area that includes portions of the Cities of Aliso Viejo, Lake Forest, Laguna Hills, Mission Viejo, and all of the City of Laguna Woods. ETWD receives its water from two main sources: recycled water and imported water from the Municipal Water District of Orange County (MWDOC). MWDOC is a member agency of the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (MWD). ETWD operates an existing Water Recycling Plant (WRP) that supplies approximately 500 acrefeet per year (afy) of disinfected secondary-treated recycled water for irrigation of the Laguna Woods Village Golf Course and for irrigation and plant process water at the WRP. The remaining secondary effluent is discharged to the Pacific Ocean via the South Orange County Wastewater Authority (SOCWA) Effluent Transmission Main. ETWD is proposing to expand the Recycled Water Distribution System to allow for the delivery of up to 1,175 afy of additional tertiary-treated recycled water to existing dedicated irrigation customers within the ETWD service area. The proposed Distribution System would be supplied by the proposed Tertiary Treatment Plant. The proposed Tertiary Treatment Plant project possesses independent utility per California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Section and would function on its own, without construction of the proposed distribution system expansion. As such, the proposed Tertiary Treatment Plant project is being analyzed under CEQA in a separate CEQA document. 1.2 Project Need and Objectives ETWD relies on imported treated water from MWD to meet 95% of their water demands. The remaining 5% comes from recycled water from the WRP. The WRP is one of the oldest water recycling plants in Orange County, having provided recycled water for golf course irrigation since The current recycled water demand for the existing users is estimated at approximately 500 afy (310 gallons per minute (gpm); however, recycled water demand of as high as 1,950 gpm occurs during summer months. Although ETWD has been able to meet its water demands, the future reliability of the majority of the water supply is dependent on MWD and its imported water system. According to the ETWD Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP), MWD is able to meet with existing supplies, 1 March 2012

12 demands of its member agencies starting 2015 through 2035 during normal years, single-dry years, and multiple-dry years (ETWD 2011). Despite this projection, ETWD could reduce their demand for imported water by increasing their capacity to treat and distribute recycled water for irrigation and potentially other uses. The proposed Distribution System would allow for increased delivery of recycled water to existing ETWD customers. 1.3 California Environmental Quality Act Authority to Prepare a Negative Declaration ETWD is the CEQA lead agency responsible for the review and approval of the proposed Recycled Water Distribution System Expansion Project. Based on the findings of the Initial Study, ETWD has made the determination that a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) is the appropriate environmental document to be prepared in compliance with CEQA (California Public Resources Code, Section et seq.). As stated in CEQA Section 21064, an MND may be prepared for a project subject to CEQA when an Initial Study has identified no potentially significant effects on the environment. This MND has been prepared by ETWD and is in conformance with Section 15070(a) of the CEQA Guidelines (14 CCR et seq.) and in compliance with the ETWD 2012 Local Guidelines for Implementing the California Environmental Quality Act. The purpose of the MND and the Initial Study checklist is to determine any potentially significant impacts associated with the proposed project and to incorporate mitigation measures into the project design as necessary to reduce or eliminate the significant or potentially significant effects of the project. 1.4 CEQA-Plus Evaluation ETWD is seeking a loan from the Clean Water State Revolving Fund (CWSRF) Program administered by the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), Division of Financial Assistance. As required by SWRCB, a CEQA-Plus evaluation was completed for the proposed project. The CWSRF requires that projects undergo CEQA-Plus evaluations to comply with federal regulations. The results of this evaluation are provided in the CEQA-Plus Evaluation section within each relevant resource area (e.g., biological resources). 2 March 2012

13 1.5 List of Discretionary Actions Approval of the following discretionary actions will be required in order to implement the proposed project: Approval of the project by the ETWD Board of Directors City of Laguna Hills Encroachment Permit City of Laguna Woods Encroachment Permit. 1.6 Other Agencies that May Use the Mitigated Negative Declaration This MND is intended for use by responsible and trustee agencies that may have an interest in reviewing the project. All responsible and trustee agencies for the project, listed as follows, will, therefore, be asked to review this document: State Water Resources Control Board Regional Water Quality Control Board California Department of Public Health City of Laguna Woods City of Laguna Hills. 1.7 Public Review Process In accordance with CEQA, a good-faith effort has been made during the preparation of this MND to contact affected agencies, organizations, and persons who may have an interest in this project. In reviewing the MND, affected public agencies and the interested public should focus on the sufficiency of the document in identifying and analyzing the project s possible impacts on the environment. A copy of the Draft MND and related documents are available for review at ETWD (see address below) between the hours of 7:30 a.m. and 4:00 p.m., Monday through Thursday, and 7:30 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. alternate Fridays. It should be noted that ETWD is closed every other Friday. El Toro Water District Los Alisos Boulevard Lake Forest, California The document is also available on ETWD s website ( 3 March 2012

14 Comments on the MND may be made in writing before the end of the public review period. A 30-day review and comment period from March 30, 2012, to April 30, 2012, has been established in accordance with Section 15072(a) of the CEQA Guidelines. Following the close of the public comment period, ETWD will consider this MND and comments thereto in determining whether to approve the proposed project. Written comments on the MND should be sent to the following address by 4:00 p.m., April 30, El Toro Water District Los Alisos Boulevard Lake Forest, California Contact: Mr. Dennis Cafferty, Director of Operations and Engineering Telephone: dcafferty@etwd.com 4 March 2012

15 2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 2.1 Project Location The proposed Recycled Water Distribution System Expansion project (proposed project or project) is located in Orange County, within the Cities of Laguna Woods and Laguna Hills. Regional access to the project area is via Interstate 5 (I-5; Figure 1). The project area consists of approximately 18 miles of pipeline within existing road rights-of-way in residential neighborhoods within the jurisdictions described above (Figures 2 and 3). The project consists of two main portions, one on the east side of Moulton Parkway and one on the west side of Moulton Parkway. The eastern portion is adjacent to the east side of the Laguna Woods Village Golf Course and extends east towards I-5. The western portion extends from Lake Forest Drive in the north to El Toro Road in the south and west to the western limits of the Cities of Laguna Hills and Laguna Woods. 2.2 Environmental Setting The project site is located within the right-of-way under existing paved roadways within the Cities of Laguna Woods and Laguna Hills. Construction staging and parking areas would be located on the ETWD WRP site, as well as along Ridge Route Drive or Santa Maria Drive, in existing developed areas. Vehicular access into the project site is from Ridge Route Drive, El Toro Road, Moulton Parkway, Santa Maria Avenue, Santa Vittoria Drive, and local streets. The general vicinity surrounding the project site is developed with a mix of residential and commercial uses (City of Laguna Hills 2003; City of Laguna Woods 2011a). As described, the project consists of two portions, one on the east side of Moulton Parkway and one on the west side of Moulton Parkway. Primarily planned multifamily developments, as well as the Laguna Woods Village Golf Course, and some commercial uses surround the eastern portion. Singleand multifamily development, parks, and other community facilities surround the western portion, as well as the Laguna Coast Wilderness Park, which is located to the west. 5 March 2012

16 INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 6 March 2012

17 eles County ardino County Crestline Lake Arrowhead La Canada 18 Running Springs Flintridge 170 Altadena 206 Burbank Glendale Monrovia San 330 Pasadena Duarte Bernardino San Arcadia Azusa Glendora Rancho Fontana Marino La Verne 210 Upland Rialto Irwindale Cucamonga Highland 101 Temple San San 66 Beverly Covina Alhambra Gabriel City El Baldwin Dimas Claremont Los 83 West Hills Rosemead Monte Park Montclair Angeles Pomona Colton Monterey Covina Ontario Bloomington Loma Redlands East Los Park Hacienda Linda Heights Walnut Yucaipa Angeles Montebello Glen Culver Industry 60 Avon City 110 Pico Vernon Commerce Diamond Chino Rivera Mira Rubidoux Riverside County Rowland Bar Chino Loma Pedley South La Habra Heights Hills 105 Whittier Inglewood Gate HeightsLos Angeles County 71 Riverside Downey Santa Fe South La Orange County Brea Norco Moreno egundo Springs Whittier Hawthorne 19 Habra Valley March Gardena Compton Norwalk tan La Mirada Bellflower Fullerton Placentia Yorba Linda Woodcrest AFB 91 ondo Cerritos Buena Corona 710 ach 405 Lakewood Park Anaheim Torrance Carson Cypress 215 Nuevo Los Orange Long Perris Alamitos Garden ates Rancho Beach 22 Tustin Seal Grove Palos Foothills Verdes Beach Westminster Santa Ana Fountain Sun Tustin 241 Winchester Huntington Valley City Beach 55 El Toro Project Site Costa Irvine Lake Station El Mesa Elsinore Toro 1 Newport Beach 73 Laguna Beach Laguna Hills Aliso Viejo Laguna Niguel San Juan Capistrano Dana Point Riverside County Orange County Mission Viejo Rancho Santa Margarita Coto De Caza San Clemente Trabuco Highlands 5 Orange County San Diego County 74 Wildomar 15 Fallbrook San Bernardino County Temecula Rainbow 79 P a c i f i c O c e a n Camp Pendleton North Camp Pendleton South Oceanside 78 Carlsbad Bonsall Vista 76 San Marcos Hidden Meadows V Ce Escondido Encinitas P Miles RECYCLED WATER DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM EXPANSION PROJECT FIGURE 1 Regional Map

18 INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 8 March 2012

19 5 Proposed Project Pipelines ,000 2,000 Feet SOURCE: USGS 7.5-Minute Series Quadrangle. FIGURE 2 Vicinity Map RECYCLED WATER DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM EXPANSION PROJECT

20 INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 10 March 2012

21 Recycled Water Distribution System Expansion Pipeline Project Limits Proposed Water Distribution System Pipelines 4" Proposed RW Pipeline 6" Proposed RW Pipeline 8" Proposed RW Pipeline 12" Proposed RW Pipeline 16" Proposed RW Pipeline SOURCE: Tetra Tech, Feb FIGURE 3 Project Components RECYCLED WATER DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM EXPANSION PROJECT

22 INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 12 March 2012

23 2.3 Project Characteristics Project Description The proposed Recycled Water Distribution System Expansion project would include the construction of approximately 94,860 feet or 18 miles of recycled water pipelines beneath existing roadways. The pipelines would range in size from 4 to 16 inches, depending on the location. As described in more detail in Section 2.3.2, the pipelines would require excavation depths of 5 to 7 feet within the existing road rights-of-way. There are existing utilities within these rights-of-way at approximately 8 feet in depth. Once completed, the maximum amount of recycled water to be delivered would be 1,175 afy. The western portion of the proposed project would be located west of Moulton Parkway on the north and south sides of Ridge Route Drive, within portions of the Cities of Laguna Woods and Laguna Hills. The eastern portion would be located primarily within the City of Laguna Woods, beneath existing multifamily attached housing. A small part of the system would extend into the City of Laguna Hills to the north of Ridge Route Drive, where it would serve existing commercial/industrial properties. Both systems would be supplied from the proposed Recycled Water Tertiary Treatment Plant at the ETWD WRP. Figure 3 shows the proposed project components and boundary on an aerial map. Once constructed, the distribution system expansion is not expected to require any maintenance, except in the case of an emergency Project Construction and Schedule Project implementation is anticipated to initiate in fall 2012; the first few months of the construction process would involve mobilization, submittals, and permitting. Construction of the proposed project would commence in approximately January 2013 and would last approximately 18 months, ending in June The project entails expansion of the existing recycled water distribution system within two areas, broadly characterized as the western and eastern portions. Construction of the western portion would be completed by two or three contractors. The eastern portion would be undertaken by one contractor. It was assumed that a total of three contractors would perform construction activities simultaneously. Project construction would consist of saw-cutting the road to prepare for pipe installation, which would be achieved by continuous construction activity. The sequence of activity would start with trenching and excavation, followed by pipe installation, and then covering the pipe and paving the 13 March 2012

24 area. Pipe installation would involve partially filling the trench with sand, laying pipe, and then adding more sand. Excavation to approximately 5 to 7 feet in depth would be required. The length of each train is anticipated to be approximately 300 to 400 feet. It is assumed that each contractor would complete construction of approximately 150 to 200 linear feet of pipeline per day, but could construct up to 250 linear feet in 1 day. Assuming concurrent construction by three contractors, approximately 450 to 600 linear feet of pipeline installation would occur each day. Steel plates or base pavement would be installed if excavated area is left open at the end of each day. Paving of the disturbed roads would occur periodically throughout the pipe installation phase, from January 2013 to May This paving would occur approximately 1 week of every month over a 17- month period. After pipe installation is completed, a portion of the paved roads would require light grading and reapplication of pavement (i.e., grind and cap paving), which would occur during the last month of project construction. Construction phasing is anticipated as follows: Site preparation, concrete saw cutting the first 2 days of each month over 17 months, starting in January 2013 and ending in May 2014, for a total of 24 days in 2013 and 10 days in 2014 Trenching, pipe installation 17 months, starting in January 2013 and ending in May 2014 Paving, continual approximately 5 days in each month over 17 months, starting in January 2013 and ending in May 2014, for a total of 60 days in 2013 and 25 days in 2014 Final paving, grind and cap 1 month, ending in June The anticipated construction equipment mix is shown in Table 1. The equipment mix anticipated for construction activity is based on the ETWD s input and typical construction practices. The equipment mix is meant to represent a reasonably conservative estimate of construction activity. For the analysis, it is generally assumed that heavy construction equipment would be operating at the site for approximately 8 hours per day, 5 days per week (22 days per month). Table 1 presents the number of equipment per each contractor and total equipment, assuming simultaneous construction by three contractors working on the eastern and western portions of the project area. Table 1 Anticipated Construction Equipment Construction Phase Equipment Quantity per Contractor Total Equipment* Site Preparation Concrete/Industrial Saws (16 HP) 1 3 Trenching Excavators 1 3 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes March 2012

25 Table 1 Anticipated Construction Equipment Construction Phase Equipment Quantity per Contractor Total Equipment* Paving (Continual) Pavers 1 3 Hand Compactor/Drum Roller (Plate Compactors) 1 3 Final Paving (Grind and Cap) Pavers 1 3 Paving Equipment 1 3 Notes: *Assuming simultaneous construction by three contractors. Default equipment horsepower (HP) was assumed, except where noted otherwise in parenthesis Project Design Features The proposed project includes, as part of the project design, certain features that would be implemented during project construction and/or operation to minimize potential impacts. Additionally, there are applicable regulatory requirements to which the project will be required to adhere. These design features and regulatory requirements are presented below. Biological Resources Construction personnel will be made aware of the potential jurisdictional channel at Santa Vittoria Drive and all best management practices (BMPs) will be implemented to avoid indirect impacts to the channel. Geology/Soils All proposed facilities will be designed and built in accordance with seismic design provision of the International Building Code (IBC) or the California Building Code (CBC). Additionally, all facets of excavation, construction, and facility design will meet the standards established during final engineering design. Specifically, this will include measures such as the over-excavation of unsuitable base soils and geologic units, the proper composition, placement, and compaction of all construction fill, the use of additional foundation design techniques as necessary, and the utilization of appropriate construction materials and methods. ETWD will perform design-level geotechnical investigations to evaluate the potential for landslide, liquefaction, and seismic instability to affect the approved project and all associated facilities. Where these hazards are detected, appropriate engineering design 15 March 2012

26 and construction measures will be incorporated into the project designs. Appropriate measures could include ground improvement of liquefiable zones. Hazards/Hazardous Materials Hazardous materials will not be disposed of or released onto the ground, the underlying groundwater, or any surface water. Totally enclosed containment will be provided for all trash. All construction waste, including trash and litter, garbage, other solid waste, petroleum products, and other potentially hazardous materials, will be removed to a waste facility permitted to treat, store, or dispose of such materials. Transportation and Traffic ETWD will develop a traffic control plan in coordination with the City of Laguna Hills and the City of Laguna Woods to ensure that adequate residential and emergency access is maintained during project construction. The traffic control plan will meet the requirements of the City of Laguna Hills Traffic Control Plan General Notes (City of Laguna Hills 2009). 16 March 2012

27 3.0 FINDINGS ETWD finds that the project would not have a significant adverse effect on the environment. Potentially significant effects have been identified and mitigation measures have been incorporated to ensure that these effects remain at less-than-significant levels. An MND is proposed to satisfy the requirements of CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines (California Public Resources Code, Section et seq.; 14 CCR et seq.). 3.1 No Impact or Less-Than-Significant Impact Based on the environmental discussion contained in Section 4 of this MND, ETWD has determined that the proposed project would have no impact, or a less-than-significant impact, in the following environmental issue areas: aesthetics, agriculture and forestry resources, air quality, geology and soils, greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, land use and planning, mineral resources, noise, population and housing, public services, recreation, transportation and traffic, utilities and service systems. 3.2 Less-Than-Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated Based on the environmental discussion contained in Section 4 of this MND, ETWD has determined that the proposed project would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated in the following environmental issue areas: biological resources, cultural resources, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, and mandatory findings of significance. 17 March 2012

28 INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 18 March 2012

29 4.0 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 1. Project title: Recycled Water Distribution System Expansion 2. Lead agency name and address: El Toro Water District Los Alisos Boulevard Lake Forest, California Contact person and phone number: Mr. Dennis Cafferty, Director of Operations and Engineering Project location: Located within existing road right-of-way within the Cities of Laguna Woods and Laguna Hills, Orange County, California. 5. Project sponsor s name and address: El Toro Water District Los Alisos Boulevard Lake Forest, California General Plan designation: City of Laguna Hills General Plan Map: Major Streets and Local Streets. City of Laguna Woods General Plan Map: No designation. 7. Zoning: Located within existing right-of-way, no zoning designation assigned. 19 March 2012

30 8. Description of project. Refer to Section 2 of this MND for detailed information on the project description, environmental setting, and surrounding land uses. 9. Other public agencies whose approval is required: The following agencies may be responsible agencies under CEQA. They may need to issue approvals for the project and, thus, rely upon this Initial Study: Regional Water Quality Control Board California Department of Public Health City of Laguna Hills Encroachment Permit City of Laguna Woods Encroachment Permit. ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a Potentially Significant Impact, as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. Aesthetics Agriculture and Air Quality Forestry Resources Biological Resources Cultural Resources Geology and Soils Greenhouse Gas Emissions Hazards and Hazardous Materials Land Use and Planning Mineral Resources Noise Hydrology and Water Quality Population and Housing Public Services Recreation Transportation and Traffic Utilities and Service Systems Mandatory Findings of Significance 20 March 2012

31

32 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: 1) A brief explanation is required for all answers except No Impact answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A No Impact answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g., the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A No Impact answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards (e.g., the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific screening analysis). 2) All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site, cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts. 3) Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than significant. Potentially Significant Impact is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are one or more Potentially Significant Impact entries when the determination is made, an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) is required. 4) Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from Potentially Significant Impact to a Less-Than-Significant Impact. The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less-thansignificant level (mitigation measures from Earlier Analyses, as described in (5) below, may be cross-referenced). 5) Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration (14 CCR 15063(c)(3)(D)). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following: a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review. b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated, describe the mitigation measures that were incorporated 22 March 2012

33 or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address sitespecific conditions for the project. 6) Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated. 7) Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion. 8) This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different formats; however, lead agencies should normally address the questions from this checklist that are relevant to a project s environmental effects in whatever format is selected. 9) The explanation of each issue should identify: a) The significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and b) The mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significant. I. AESTHETICS Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? b) Substantially damage scenic resources including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less-Than- Significant Impact No Impact 23 March 2012

34 II. Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less-Than- Significant Impact No Impact AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Department of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. In determining whether impacts to forest resources, including timberland, are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to information compiled by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the state s inventory of forest land, including the Forest and Range Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy Assessment project; and forest carbon measurement methodology provided in Forest Protocols adopted by the California Air Resources Board. Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code, Section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code, Section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code Section 51104(g))? d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? e) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? III. AIR QUALITY Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? 24 March 2012

35 e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or specialstatus species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? V. CULTURAL RESOURCES Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in Section of the CEQA Guidelines? b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to Section of the CEQA Guidelines? c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less-Than- Significant Impact No Impact 25 March 2012

36 Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less-Than- Significant Impact No Impact Potentially Significant Impact VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS Would the project: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? iv) Landslides? b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in onor off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? VII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS Would the project: a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? VIII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? 26 March 2012

37 Potentially Significant Impact b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? d) Be located on a site that is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? IX. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of preexisting nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on or off site? Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less-Than- Significant Impact No Impact 27 March 2012

38 d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on or off site? e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? X. LAND USE AND PLANNING Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? XI. MINERAL RESOURCES Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? b) Result in the loss of availability of a locallyimportant mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan? Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less-Than- Significant Impact No Impact 28 March 2012

39 XII. NOISE Would the project result in: a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? XIII. POPULATION AND HOUSING Would the project: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less-Than- Significant Impact No Impact 29 March 2012

40 XIV. PUBLIC SERVICES a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for any of the public services: Fire protection? Police protection? Schools? Parks? Other public facilities? XV. RECREATION a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? XVI. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC Would the project: a) Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation including mass transit and non-motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle baths, and mass transit? b) Conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including, but not limited to level of service standards and travel demand measures, or other standards established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less-Than- Significant Impact No Impact 30 March 2012

41 Potentially Significant Impact d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? e) Result in inadequate emergency access? f) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities? XVII. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? c) Require or result in the construction of new stormwater drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider, which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project s projected demand in addition to the provider s existing commitments? f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project s solid waste disposal needs? g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? XVIII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less-Than- Significant Impact No Impact 31 March 2012

42 b) Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term environmental goals to the disadvantage of long-term environmental goals? c) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ( Cumulatively considerable means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? d) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less-Than- Significant Impact No Impact 4.1 Aesthetics a) Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? Less-than-Significant Impact. The proposed pipelines would be placed below the surface within an existing road right-of-way and would not change the visual environment once the pipelines are in place. The construction of the pipeline would last approximately 18 months, and upon completion, would not be visible from the surface. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. b) Would the project substantially damage scenic resources including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? No Impact. There are no dedicated state scenic highways in the vicinity of the proposed project. However, the Orange County Scenic Highway Plan designates Moulton Parkway, through Laguna Woods and Laguna Hills, as a Landscape Corridor (County of Orange 2005). Construction of the proposed pipelines would not impact Moulton Parkway. Therefore, there would be no impact. c) Would the project substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? Less-than-Significant Impact. The proposed pipelines would be placed subsurface within an existing road right-of-way and would not degrade the existing visual character of the site and its surroundings. The existing visual character could be temporarily 32 March 2012