Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSAN JOAQUIN RESERVOIRIII i *NEW FILE* i SAN_JOAQU 1 N_RESERVO1 R NEG DEC Lgpitif,�ji 27i?: t. , DRAFT�;M SEP . .c MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION uur C'C/'4 SAN JOAQUIN RESERVOIR PROJECT -crets #ke Lead Agency: 15600 Sand Canyon Avenue Irvine, CA 92618 Contact: Michael Hoolihan, PE Prepared by: DUDEK, &ASSOCIATES! A California Corporation 605 Third Street Encinitas, California 92024 SEPTEMBER 2000 Mitigated Negative Declaration • San Joaquin Reservoir Project TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION PAGE NO. 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1-1 1.1 Project Need and Objectives 1-1 1.2 Summary of Project Description 1-1 1.3 Authority to Prepare a Mitigated Negative Declaration 1-2 1.4 Content and Format of Mitigated Negative Declaration 1-2 1.5 Other Agencies That May Use the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Initial Study/Environmental Evaluation 1-3 1.6 Public Review Process 1-4 2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 2-1 2.1 Project Location 2-1 2.2 Project Characteristics 2-5 2.2.1 Modifications to Reservoir 2-5 2.2.2 Pump Stations 2-5 2.2.3 Underground Storage Tank 2-6 2.2.4 Reclaimed Water Pipeline 2-6 2.2.5 Chlorination Facility 2-6 2.3 Project Construction and Schedule 2-7 2.4 Operations and Maintenance 2-7 2.4.1 Reservoir Operations 2-10 2.4.2 Water Quality 2-11 2.5 Measures Incorporated into the Project to Reduce or Avoid Environmental Impacts 2-11 3.0 PROPOSED FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT 3-1 3.1 No Significant Effect Finding 3-1 4.0 INITIAL STUDY/ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 4-1 I7 UD E:K & ASSOCIATES, INC. September 2000 2552-01 Table of Contents ?rotationalTam, for Compla Prol.m Mitigated Negative Declaration • San Joaquin Reservoir Project TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED) Section Page No. .5.0 DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 5-1 5.1 Aesthetics 5-1 5.2 Agriculture Resources . 5-3 5.3 Air Quality 5-4 5.4 Biological Resources 5-7 5,5 Cultural Resources 5-14 5.6 Geology and Soils 5-15 5.7 Hazards and Hazardous Materials 5-18 5.8 Hydrology and Water Quality 5-21 5.9 Land Use and Planning 5-25 5.10 Mineral Resources 5-26 5.11 Noise 5-27 5.12 Population and Housing 5-31 5.13 Public Services 5-32 5.14 Recreation 5-33 5.15 Transportation/Traffic 5-34 5.16 Utilities and Service Systems 5-37 5.17 Mandatory Findings of Significance 5-39 6.0 SOURCES/EARLIER ANALYSIS USED 6-1 7.0 REPORT PREPARATION PERSONNEL 7-1 8.0 REFERENCES 8-1 APPENDICES Appendix A Public Distribution List Appendix B Biological Resources Report Appendix C Cultural Resources Report DUDEK & ASSOCIATES, INC. September 2000 2552-01 Pnj„sbml Tin inCanllePnkm Table of Contents r • • Mitigated Negative Declaration • San Joaquin Reservoir Project Page No. LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 Regional Map 2-2 Figure 2 Vicinity Map 2-3 Figure 3 Project Components 2-4 Figure 4 Typical Pipeline Construction Cross Section 2-8 Figure 5 Biological Reconnaissance Map • 5-8 Figure 6 Typical Construction Equipment Noise Generation Levels 5-29 LIST OF TABLES Table 1 Estimated Vehicle Types and Duration of Use 2-9 Table 2 San Joaquin Reservoir Usage Projections (Acre-feet/Year) 2-10 Table 3 Estimated Vehicle Types and Duration of Use 5-35 DI7DEX St ASSOCIATES, INC. September 2000 2552-01 Professional T<mm,Jo.Comp4.Pmjrcu Table of Contents SECTION 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 PROJECT NEED AND OBJECTIVES The San Joaquin Reservoir is located in the San Joaquin Hills of Orange County, adjacent to the City of Newport Beach. Construction of the reservoir was completed in 1966 for the purpose of providing terminal storage of treated water from the East Orange County (EOC) Feeder No. 2. The reservoir is jointly owned by the Irvine Ranch Water District (IRWD), Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (Metropolitan), City of Huntington Beach, City of Newport Beach, Mesa Consolidated Water District, Laguna Beach County Water District, South Coast Water District, and The Irvine Company. The reservoir was drained in 1994 so that modifications including a cover could be added to the reservoir to improve water quality and upgrade operational and maintenance activities. However, after the reservoir was drained, one of the banks caved in. Subsequently, Metropolitan reviewed plans to reconfigure the reservoir and determined that the cost to develop proposed modifications to improve water quality would be cost prohibitive. Therefore, plans to modify the reservoir to improve water quality were abandoned. Today the reservoir stands empty and has resulted in adverse visual impacts to nearby residences. IRWD, as the largest percentage owner (48%), proposes to buy the capacity allocation and ownership from the other owners and convert the reservoir to non -potable water storage to allow IRWD to maximize the use of reclaimed water through additional seasonal storage during low demand winter months. 1.2 SUMMARY OF PROJECT DESCRIPTION Major design components required to convert the San Joaquin Reservoir include: • Repairs and improvements to the reservoir; • Construction and operation of three pump stations, one at the reservoir and two offsite; • Construction of a one-half million -gallon storage tank to be buried on the reservoir property; DU }' E I & ASSOCIATES, INC. n.r..alTom raCamp.Ny,w Irvine Ranch Water DistnctSan Joaquin Reservoir Project 1-1 Mitigated Negahve Declaration September 2000 2552-01 Section 1.0 Introduction • Construction of approximately one mile of reclaimed water pipeline necessary to connect the IRWD system into the reservoir; and • Construction of a chlorination facility at the reservoir. 1.3 AUTHORITY TO PREPARE A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION The IRWD is the lead agency pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and is responsible for acquiring the capacity allocation and ownership of the San Joaquin Reservoir and constructing the proposed facilities. Based on the findings of the Initial Study/Environmental Impact Discussion (see Sections 4 and 5), prepared for this project, the IRWD has made the determination that a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) is the appropriate environmental document to be prepared in compliance with CEQA. As provided for by CEQA §21064.5, an MND may be prepared for a project subject to CEQA when an Initial Study has identified potentially significant effects on the environment but revisions in the project have been made and as a result, there is clearly no significant effect on the environment that would occur. This MND has been prepared by the IRWD as the lead agency and in conformance with §15070, subsection (a), of the State CEQA Guidelines. The purpose of the MND and the Initial Study/Environmental Impact Discussion is to determine the potential significant impacts associated with the proposed project and incorporate mitigation measures into the project design as necessary to reduce or eliminate the significant or potentially significant effects of the project. 1.4 CONTENT AND FORMAT OF MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION This MND includes the following: Section 1.0, Introduction: Provides an introduction to the MND. Section 2.0, Project. Description: Provides a detailed description of the proposed project evaluated in this MND. This section also includes project purpose and need, location, site selection, project characteristics, construction, operation and maintenance and measures incorporated into the project to reduce environmental impacts. DUDE:K & ASSOCIATES, INC. September 2000 2552-01 w.tri.k.T7,..r«G-a.p,.r.. Irvine Ranch Water District San Joaquin Reservoir Project 1-2 Mitigated Negabve Declaration Section 1.0 Introduction • Section 3.0, Proposed Finding of No Significant Effect: Provides finding that theproject would not have a significant effect on the environment and rationale supporting this finding. Sections 4.0 — 5,0, Initial Study/Environmental Discussion: Provides an analysis of environmental issues and concerns surrounding the project. Sections 6.0, Earlier Analysis: Identifies earlier environmental analysis completed relevant to the proposed project. Sections 7.0 and 8.0, Report Preparation/References: Provides report preparation personnel and references. Appendices to the MND; • Appendix A Public Distribution List • Appendix B . Biological Resources • Appendix C Cultural Resources Technical Reports: Separate technical reports providing further project details and analysis include the following: • Geotechnical Evaluations for the San Joaquin Reservoir Modifications, Woodward -Clyde, September 1998. These technical studies are incorporated into this MND by reference and are available for review at IRWD, 15600 Sand Canyon Avenue, Irvine, California. 1.5 OTHER AGENCIES THAT MAY USE THE MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND INITIAL STUDY/ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION This MND is intended to be used by responsible and trustee agencies that may have review authority over the project. The IRWD will obtain all permits as required by law. Based on the analysis in Sections 4 and 5 of this document, other permits by responsible agencies with jurisdiction over the proposed project include the following: DU DEKL & ASSOCIATES, INC vnr..m.ar ,ac—w..Pram Irvine Ranch Water District San Joaquin Reservoir Project 1-3 Mitigated Negabve Declarabon September 2000 2552-01 Section 1.0 Introduction • U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Section 404 Permit • U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service NCCP/HCP Consultation • California Department of Fish and Game Section 1601 Permit and NCCP/HCP Consultation • California Department of Water Resources Division of Safety of Dams • Regional Water Quality Control Board — NPDES Permit • State of California Department of Health Services • South Coast Air Quality Management District • City of Irvine Right -of -Way Permit • County of Orange Right -of -Way Permit • County of Orange Fire Department - Uniform Fire Code • City of Newport Beach Right -of -Way Permit 1.6 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, The distribution list for the MND is provided in APPENDIX A. In reviewing the MND and Initial Study/Environmental Impact Discussion, affected public agencies and the interested public should focus on the sufficiency of the document in identifying and analyzing the possible impacts on the environment and ways in which the significant effects of the project are proposed to be avoided or mitigated. Comments may be made on the MND in writing before the end of the comment period. A 30-day review and comment period from September 8, 2000 to October 9, 2000 has been established, in accordance with §15105(b) of the CEQA Guidelines. Following the close of the public comment period, the IRWD 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 5:00, October 9,, 2000: DUDEK IRVINE RANCH WATER DISTRICT 15600 Sand Canyon Avenue Irvine, CA 92618 Tel.: (949)-453-5553 Attn: Michael Hoolihan,PE, Senior Engineer September 2000 2552-01 @ ASSOCIATES, INC. „y,a.I1 am,I,.Cs.** Pmau Irvine Ranch Water District San Joaquin Reservoir Project 1-4 Mitigated Negative Declaration SECTION 2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION The IRWD proposes to purchase the capacity allocation and ownership from the other existing owners and convert the San Joaquin Reservoir to non -potable water storage to partially alleviate existing and planned IRWD demand for additional storage. The reservoir has an existing total storage volume of approximately 3,000 acre feet (af) and a useable storage volume of approximately 2,400-2,500 af. On a seasonal basis, IRWD would utilize from 500 to 2,500 af of the Reservoir capacity for seasonal storage. Components required to convert the Reservoir to non -potable water storage include the following: • Repairs and improvements to the reservoir; • Construction and operation of three pump stations, one at the reservoir and two offsite; • Construction of a one-half million -gallon storage tank to be buried at the reservoir; • Construction of one mile of reclaimed water pipeline; and • Construction of a chlorination tank storage facility at the reservoir. 2.1 PROJECT LOCATION The San Joaquin Reservoir is located in the San Joaquin Hills of Orange County adjacent to the City of Newport Beach near the southwestern portion of IRWD. Proposed reservoir modifications, Pump Station 1, the storage tank and chlorination facility are proposed within the reservoir site. Pump Station 2 and associated pipeline are proposed within an existing IRWD pump station site located immediately south of Sand Canyon Avenue in the City of Irvine. Pump Station 3 and associated pipeline and access are located on vacant land north of Sand Canyon Avenue in the City of Irvine. Figure 1 shows the regional location of the project site and Figure 2 provides a project vicinity map and Figure 3 illustrates the project components. D TT13' 6c ASSOCIATES, INC. September 2000 2552-01 .wrT , co w�a., u Irvine Ranch Water District San Joaquin Reservoir Project Prof ealMitigated Negative Declarabon 2-1 Whittler Santa Fe Springs Los 'Alamitos Seal Beach 1" - 5.8 Miles County of Los Angeles i La i County of Orange Habra Brea Yorba Linda Fullerton Anaheim Villa Park Huntington Beach Costa Mesa Newport Beach Orange Santa Ana Reservoir Site Laguna Beach Laguna Hills Dana Point Mission Viejo San Clemente Corona Riverside 0'o i County of Riverside I County of San Diego Camp Pendleton IRWD San Joaquin Reservoir Project • Mitigated Negative Declaration Regional Map FIGURE 1 II ! • i SOURCE: USGS 7.5 Minute Serias Laguna Beach & Tustin Quadrangles IRWD San Joaquin Reservoir Project - Mitigated Negative Delclaration Vicinity Map Y FIGURE 2 Section 2.0 Project Description • 2.2 PROJECT CHARACTERISTICS 2.2.1 Modifications to Reservoir Repair and improvements to the reservoir include: 1) Replacement of the clay lining; and 2) Installation of a porous asphaltic concrete overlay to protect the clay lining against scour, erosion and, plant growth. 2.2.2 Pump Stations Three pump stations are proposed as a part of the project. Figure 3 shows the location for the pump stations. Pump stations would be housed in a structure approximately 40 by 48 feet with a maximum height of 25 feet. Pump Station 1 would be located on 0.33 acre of land graded in association with previous reservoir repairs adjacent to the southeast portion of the reservoir. The pump station would be connected to the proposed system through a pipeline proposed within the reservoir and is anticipated to have four pumps, each sized up to 1,000 gallons per minute (gpm). An alternative location for Pump Station 1 would be within the paved area immediately to the north of the existing control building. Both alternative locations are addressed in this document. Pump Station 2 will be located within an existing IRWD pump station site immediately south of Bonita Canyon Drive and west of SR-73. The pump station would be located within an existing pump station building or a new building would be constructed within the paved IRWD site. This pump station is anticipated to have three 5,000 gpm pumps. Pump Station 3 would be located on 0.33 acre of vacant land approximately 2,500 feet east of Sand Canyon Reservoir. Pump Station 3 would be connected with a planned and approved reclaimed water line to be constructed by IRWD within the future Sand Canyon Avenue Extension. The pump station itself would be located adjacent to an existing IRWD water storage tank facility and is anticipated to have three 5,000 gpm pumps. D UNDER & ASSOCIATES, INC. September 2000 2552-01 r,.truT.�m,c.mgar,.rn. Irvine Ranch Water District San Joaquin Reservoir Project Mitigated Negative Declaration 2-5 C Section 2.0 Project Description 2.2.3 Underground Storage Tank An underground storage tank would be located on Horseshoe Hill on the eastern bank of the reservoir to allow for adequate pressure to transfer reclaimed water from the reservoir to the distribution system. The capacity of the tank would be 500,000 gallons. 2.2.4 Reclaimed Water Pipeline As shown inFigure2-2, in general, the proposed reclaimed water pipeline would connect with a reclaimed water pipeline currently being constructed by IRWD within Bonita Canyon Drive. The pipeline connections to the line in Bonita Canyon Drive that will be constructed as a part of the proposed project are described below. A 36-inch line would extend from the terminus of the pipeline currently being constructed by IRWD within Bonita Canyon Drive. The pipeline would extend to the south west' approximately one mile from the existing line within Bonita Canyon Road to existing 60- and 54-inch connections at the northern end of the reservoir. The alignment of pipeline that will extend from Bonita Canyon Road would be confined to an existing paved access roadway as well as an area currently graded in association with planned residential development. A 24-inch pipeline would be extended from Pump Station 3 to the pipeline currently being constructed by IRWD within Bonita Canyon Drive. The pipeline would be buried and covered by 10-foot-wide access road to be utilized to gain access to Pump Station 3. 2.2.5 Chlorination Facility This facility will be similar to facilities built elsewhere in IRWD. It will be used to chlorinate water as it leaves the reservoir and possibly as water enters the reservoir as determined by future water quality analysis. The chlorine facility will be housed in a 5,000 square -foot building, 70 feet by 70 feet and approximately 25 feet high. The objective of the chlorination facility is to treat the water coming out of the reservoir into the reclaimed water system to a chlorine residual level of 5 ppm. It is -currently estimated that this facility will be operating with six 1-ton chlorine containers on line at one time and six in reserve. During peak month reclaimed water usage, IRWD expects to have to change the containers out once a week (6 containers at a time). DUDE K & ASSOCIATES, INC. September 2000 2552.01 ,,,, , r. ,,,� , .hm Irvine Ranch Water District San Joaquin Reservoir Project MNgated Negative Declaration 2-6 • • • Section 2.0 Project Description Metropolitan had two chlorination facilities at the reservoir. The first was a facility housed in the administration building that used chlorine containers. The second was a facility outside the administration building and used a chlorine tanker trailer. IRWD•will site the proposed chlorination facility within the same area to the north of the reservoir (see Figure 3). Piping and other appurtenances from either of these facilities will be used as much as possible in the new facility. 2.3 PROJECT CONSTRUCTION AND SCHEDULE Construction of the proposed project will take approximately 24 months. It is anticipated that construction will begin in mid-2001 and be completed by mid-2003. Construction of reservoir modifications including pump stations, chlorine facility and storage tank would occur Monday through Friday from 7:00 AM to 6:00 PM for approximately 18 months. Construction of the reclaimed water pipeline would be done using open trench conventional construction methods (see Figure 4). As shown in Figure 4, the impact area during construction is estimated to be approximately 20 feet wide and progress at a rate of 150 feet per day. All construction equipment, vehicles, personnel and materials staging areas would be accommodated within the property lines of the reservoir, pump station property or within temporary construction easement shown for the reclaimed water pipeline. Construction equipment would include tractors, scrapers, loaders and trucks for excavating, compacting and grading the site. Concrete trucks, backhoes, crew trucks and pick-up trucks would be coming and going to the site during the installation of modifications to the reservoir and construction of the pump stations, storage tank and chlorine facility. Table 1 provides an estimate of the number of vehicle types required during construction and the duration of use. It is anticipated that 30 to 40 workers would be employed during construction. 2.4 OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE Operation and maintenance of all proposed facilities will be performed by IRWD staff. Two operations aspects are highlighted in this section: reservoir operations as well as operation and maintenance practices to maintain water quality. Si. ASSOCIATES, INC. September 2000 2552-01 rAtrwe.aur for Complex P„iu„ Irvine Ranch Water Distnct San Joaquin Reservoir Project Mitigated Negative Declaration 2-7 iehn 20' +/- M e r c Pipe outside diameter +24" 4' Average ROADWAYS ate WAWA, SHORING AS REQUIRED IRWD SanJoaquinReservoir Project - Mitigated Negative Declaration Typical Pipeline Construction Cross Section FIGURE 4 Section 2.0 Project Description TABLE 1 ESTIMATED VEHICLE TYPES AND DURATION OF USE • Total Construction Duration Reservoir Repairs (15 months) Tank (12 months) Pump Station (12 months) Pipeline (6 months) Equipment Count Duration (Months) Equipment Count Duration (Months) Equipment Count Duration (Months) Equipment Count Duration (Months) Bulldozer 2 15 1 12 1 12 0 6 Earth Mover (scraper) 6 15 2 6 0 0 0 0 Loader 2 15 1 12 1 12 2 6 Sheeps Foot (Compactor) 2 15 1 6 1 6 I 1 4 Crane 0 0 1 9 1 6 0 4 Concrete Trucks 3 4 5 6 3 12 1 2 Backhoe 2 15 2 12 j 1 j 12 i 2 6 Crew Trucks 3 I 15 I 1 I 12 1 12 1 6 Pick-up Trucks 5 1 j 15 i 3 I � 12 3 I j I 12 j 2 6 Personal Vehicles 15 15 • 10 12 5 ; I 12 ; 5 � 6 Grader(Blade) 2 , 15 1 3 0 0 i 1 1 Water Trucks 2 i 15 1 12 1 12 1 I 6 Dump Trucks 5 7 3 I 6 2 3 3 6 i Paving Machine 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 Rollers (paving) ; 3 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 b'IF! e_ September 2000 & ASSOCIATES, INC. NO.utoma Tenor, ru, Comp! u Auluu Irvine Ranch Water District San Joaquin Reservoir Project Mitigated Negative Declaration 2552-01 2-9 Section 2.0 Project Description 2.4.1 Reservoir Operations The reservoir will be used as a seasonal storage reservoir. Generally, it will be in fill mode for six to seven months each year (winter) and in emptying mode the other months. Additionally, the reservoir will be periodically drawn down and cleaned in a manner similar to that conducted by Metropolitan when operating the reservoir. Tablet providesestimated usage. The reservoir drawdown will be limited by drawdown criteria shown in Table 2 as approved by the State of California, Department of Water Resources, Division of Safety of Dams (DSOD). TABLE 2 SAN JOAQUIN RESERVOIR USAGE PROJECTIONS (Acre-feet/Year) ! 2002 I 2005 1 2010 2015 1 •.2020 ; 2025 January i 487 523 I 225 261 298; 559 February i 496 ; 532 ; 227 264 301' 566 March 470 505 ; 220 255 291' 544 April 128 ! 139 116 136 ,' 156' 243 May (129) (36) : 59 65 1 71, 40 June (290) (297) ; (76) (97) (117) (334) July (408) (488) ' (308) (355) (403) I (632) August (451) ; (558) (392) ; (450) t (507) (741) September , (429) (523) (350) • (403) (455) (687) October (199) (149) 25 26 ; 27 i (104) November 60 65 , 95 112 ; 120 ; 183 December 265 285 ' 157 184 ; 21Q 363 _ Required Volume 1,906 ' 2,050 1,125 1 1,304 1,083 2,498 • Reservoir Statistics: • High Operating Water Elevation = 470.5', Volume = 2,930 AF • Low Operating Water Elevation = 400', Volume = 400 AF • • Reservoir Floor = 367' Surface Area of Reservoir @470.5 = 49.3 acres & ASSOCIATES, INC. September 2000 2552-01 Fef.ufaW Tary fa.Cmplu Y,apau Irvine Ranch Water District San Joaquin Reservoir Project Mitigated Negative Declaration 2-10 Section 2.0 Project Description San Joaquin Reservoir Drawdown Criteria W.S. Elevations Maximum Drawdown In Feet During Minimum Holding Period From To Any Day Any Week Any Month Days at MSL Elevations 470.5 438.0 3 10 30 10 at Elev. 438.0 (Phase 1) 438.0 418.0 3 6 17 5 at Elev. 418.0 (Phase 2) 418.8 404.0 3 6 17 10 at Elev. 404.0 (Phase 3) 404.0 Empty 3 6 17 (Phase 4) 2.4.2 Water Quality Reclaimed water produced at the Michelson Wastewater Reclamation Plan (MWRP) for storage at the San Joaquin Reservoir will meet the most stringent requirements of Title 22, Water Reclamation Criteria, established by the State of California for tertiary treated wastewater. Additionally, control of emergent vegetation and algal marts and periodic drawdown and cleaning of the reservoir is anticipated to ensure that water stored in the reservoir not cause aesthetic, insect or odor problems. During project design and prior to filling the reservoir, IRWD will perform a water quality analysis of the reservoir that will predict the range of various water quality parameters. The analysis will be performed for summer and winter months for different reservoir depths. Should the analysis identify specific water quality parameters that are predicted to cause aesthetic, insect or odor problems at the reservoir, IRWD would utilize design solutions such as biological control, aeration/circulation, and/or chemical treatment to maintain water quality. 2.5 MEASURES INCORPORATED INTO THE PROJECT TO REDUCE OR AVOID ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS IRWD has incorporated as a part of the project measures to reduce or avoid potential environmental impacts associated with construction and operation of the proposed project. These measures are listed below: DUDEK & ASSOCIATES, INC. September 2000 2552-01 Ao/m.wW Tuna rer CemOl.+»oNm. Irvine Ranch Water Distnct San Joaquin Reservoir Project Mitigated Negative Declaration 2.11 Section 2.0 Project Description General • Prior to development of reservoir modifications, IRWD will submit project plans to the DSOD. • Following construction, IRWD will implement the following measures to restore all disturbed areas: Al waste material will be disposed offsite at an approved location. Within developed areas, soil removed from trenches and not required for backfill will be disposed offsite at regular intervals at an approved location. - Roadways, landscaped medians, embellished paving, road edge landscaping, signage, and any other special treatment within public ROWs which is damaged during construction will be restored. Geotechnical • As part of the final engineering design and prior to construction, soils and geologic conditions will be mapped and analyzed for the study aroa. Locales with geologic conditions prone to hazards such as slope instability, or' faults or erosion will be identified and appropriate measures will be incorporated into final project design. Construction methods and facility design will,be tailored to site requirements. Project facilities will adhere to all California Uniform Building Code and other appropriate restrictions regarding construction methods and materials for seismically active areas. Water Quality • During construction, IRWD will comply with the current California Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit for construction dewatering (Order Number 98-67) and obtain a NPDES permit for stormwater 'and runoff discharge as required. 'In compliance with the RWQCB requirements and the DUDEI &ASSOCIATES, INC. September 2000 2552-01 ,f, Mama r„c„ Irvine Ranch Water District San Joaquin Reservoir Project okns Mitigated Negative Declaration 2-12 Section 2.0 Project Description NPDES permit a Best Management Practices (BMP) program for stormwater pollution control will be created. • Reclaimed water produced at the MWRP for storage at the San Joaquin Reservoir will meet the most stringent requirements of Title 22, Water Reclamation Criteria established by the State of California for tertiary treated wastewater. • Project operations will include control of emergent vegetation and algal matts and periodic drawdown and cleaning of the reservoir in a manner similar to that conducted by Metropolitan. • During project design and prior to filling the reservoir, IRWD will perform a water quality analysis of the reservoir that will predict the range of various water quality parameters. The analysis will be performed for summer and winter months for different reservoir depths. Should the analysis identify specific water quality parameters that are predicted to cause aesthetic, insect or odor problems at the reservoir, IRWD would utilize design solutions such as biological control, aeration/circulation and/or chemical treatment to maintain water quality. • During design and prior to filling the reservoir, IRWD will perform a site - specific study that will quantify the amount of reservoir seepage and nutrients/constituents expected in comparison to the RWQCB Basin Plan objectives. The study will also address the assimilative capacity of the soil and riparian ecosystem to remove these nutrients/constituents. Should the analysis identify that reservoir seepage would be in violation of RWQCB Basin Plan objectives, IRWD would utilize design solutions such as re -pump of any seepage back into the reservoir, and/or downstream improvements to enhance removal of nutrients/constituents to ensure compliance with RWQCB Basin Plan objectives. Air Quality • IRWD will comply with the South Coast Air Quality, Management District (SCAQMD) rules to reduce fugitive dust emissions and for use of chlorine (see "Public Safety" for further discussion regarding chlorine). DUD ER & ASSOCIATES, INC. RalonenulT Im Cemylu prow, q Irvine Ranch Water Distnct San Joaquin Reservoir Project 2-13 Mitigated Negative Declaration September 200D 2552-01 Section 2.0 Project Description • All construction equipment will meet current emission standards and be maintained per manufacturer's specifications. • All heavy equipment (scrapers and dozers) will receive a low NOx tune-up prior to delivery to the jobsite and then every 90 days thereafter during periods when such equipment is in use. Additionally, IRWD will stipulate to the contractor that equipment should not be left idling for excessive periods of time. • IRWD will periodically drain and clean -out the reservoir to remoVe potential sources of odor. See additional measures under water quality to control odor. Visual Quality • IRWD will design the pump stations and chlorine facility to be compatible with the surrounding area. Specific design features will include landscaping, color, building style and lighting of the facility. • During drawdown, IRWD will periodically wash the reservoir sides and bottom down. See additional measures under water quality. Noise • All construction activities will be limited to 7:00 AM to 6:00 PM Monday through Friday in compliance with the County of Orange, City of Irvine and City of Newport Beach's allowable construction time limits. • Prior to commencement of construction, residences within 300 feet of the project site will be notified of the expected duration and times of construction. • The pump station facilities will incorporate noise abatement measures to comply with the County of Orange, City of Irvine and City of Newport Beach's noise ordinance criteria. Noise abatement measures will include enclosing pumps in a building and may include orienting the louvers away from residences, or using sound attenuation louvers. DUDEK &ASSOCIATES, INC. i September 2000 2552-01 Irvine Ranch Water District San Joaquin Reservoir Project Mitigated Negative Declaration 2-14 Section 2.0 Project Description • Public Safety • In the event that grading, construction, or operation of proposed facilities will encounter hazardous waste, IRWD will ensure compliance with the State of California CCR Title 23 Health and Safety Regulations as managed by the Orange County Department of Environmental Health. • With regard to operation of the chlorine facility, the following standard conditions are required to ensure that potential health and safety hazards remain at less than significant levels. The chlorine facility will be installed in accordance with the Uniform Fire Code (UFC) and the Uniform Building Code. 'Chlorine scrubbers will be installed in the building housing the chlorine containers in accordance with UFC to completely neutralize chlorine in the event of chlorine leakage. Permits will be obtained from the Orange County Fire Department and SCAQMD to develop and operate the facility. IRWD will submit a Risk Management and Prevention Plan to the County of Orange Fire Department and SCAQMD prior to approval of construction drawings. • Vector control methods to control both mosquitos and midge fly will consist of controlling emergent vegetation (e.g., bermuda grass) and algal marts in the water. Public Utilities • IRWD will coordinate the proposed project design with responsible utilities to ensure that the project does not conflict with existing utilities and maintenance of those utilities. Biological Resources • Construction adjacent to or affecting coastal sage scrub habitat and sensitive species which generally breed in and forage in this habitat will be mitigated in DUD E September 2000 2552-01 & ASSOCIATES, INC. PTo(usr .4t T awjmC. nplaPapa. Irvine Ranch Water District San Joaquin Reservoir Project Mitigated Negabve Declaration 2-15 Section 2.0 Project Description ; accordance with the requirements of the Orange County Central and Coastal Subregion NCCP/HCP. In addition, IRWD will ensure that construction activities adjacent to or affecting coastal sage scrub habitat will not be initiated during the breeding season for the California gnatcatcher. • IRWD will obtain a Nationwide Permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE); a Section 1600 Streambed Alteration Agreement from the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG), and a Water Quality Certification from the RWQCB in accordance with Section 401 of the Clean Water Act. These permits will be obtained prior to implementation of grading. • A200 square -foot portion of the pipeline connection between the reservoir and Pump Station 2 in the area south of Chambord Road is within established riparian habitat. IRWD will utilize design solutions such as tunneling when possible to avoid impacts to riparian habitat associated with deveiopmerit of the reclaimed water pipeline in this area. • Construction of Pump Station 3 and associated access will not l?e initiated during the breeding season for the rufous -crowned sparrow. • Construction within or immediately adjacent to riparian areas will not be initiated during the breeding season for the least Bell's vireo and southwestern willow flycatcher. • IRWD will implement the following monitoring and trapping program at the reservoir to control the African clawed frog: In addition to the water quality and vector control measures listed above, IRWD will conduct routine monitoring of the reservoir to document, if any, the presence of African clawed frogs. If African clawed frogs are .encounteredduring monitoring a trapping $ Pp g program will be implemented. Trapping procedures will consist of placement of screens at inlet and outlet structures. • Measures are incorporated into the project to ensure that reservoir seepage will not violate RWQCB Basin Plan objectives or biological resources. See measures described under water quality. DUDEK &ASSOCIATES, INC. September 2000 2552-01 Prof tmosan,ra , c, $atu N.. Irvine Ranch Water District San Joaquin Reservoir Project 2-16 Mitigated Negative Declaration Section 2.0 Project Description • Traffic • When work is done in the public right-of-way, encroachment permits will be obtained from the Orange County and/or City of Irvine and City of Newport Beach as required. • • A traffic control plan will be prepared in accordance with the Orange County's traffic control guidelines and will specifically address construction traffic and any work done within the public right-of-way. The traffic control plan will include staggering of work hours or shuttling program for workers. The traffic control plan will also include provisions for coordinating with local emergency service providers regarding construction times. Paleontological Resources • A county -certified paleontologist will attend a pre -grading conference and establish procedures for surveillance and halting or redirection of work within areas extending to underlying Topanga Formation. If determined necessary by the paleontologist, onsite observation of grading activities, fossil evaluation, savage and report of findings will also be conducted. Cultural Resources • IRWD will provide a county -certified archaeologist to monitor construction in the areas determined to be sensitive by the project archaeologist. Any cultural resources discovered during construction will be tested to determine significance and mitigated through avoidance or data recovery. Should data recovery be necessary, it will be done as mandated by the Natural Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) and CEQA. DUDEK tit ASSOCIATES, INC. September 2000 2552-01 T , c, , .P Irvine Ranch Water District San Joaquin Reservoir Project Mitigated Negative Declaration 2-17 • SECTION 3.0 PROPOSED FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT IRWD finds that the project will not have a significant adverse effect on the environment based on the results of the Initial Study/Environmental Checklist (Section 4) and the Discussion of Environmental Impacts (Section 5). Measures have been incorporated into the project to ensure that any impacts will be less than significant. A Mitigated Negative Declaration is, therefore, proposed to satisfy the requirements of CEQA (PRC 21000 et. seq. 14 Cal Code Regs 15000 et. seq.) This conclusion is supported by the following: 3.1 NO SIGNIFICANT EFFECT FINDING 1. Aesthetics: The San Joaquin Reservoir was drained in 1994 and to date remains empty creating an adverse visual impact to nearby residences. The proposed modifications to the reservoir will make necessary repairs in order for IRWD to refill the reservoir with reclaimed water. Repair and reuse of the reservoir as proposed would represent a beneficial change to existing visual resources. IRWD has incorporated measures to reduce visual impacts from algal growth and periodic drawdown of the reservoir to less than significant. Design of above -ground facilities (pump stations, chlorine facility) will specifically address landscaping, color, building style and lighting to ensure compatibility with the surrounding area and therefore effectively reduce long-term visual impacts from proposed above -ground facilities to less than significant. See Section 2.5,1Vleasures Incorporated into the Project to Reduce or avoid Environmental Impacts, and Section 5.1, Aesthetics, for further discussion. 2. Agricultural Resources: With the exception of Pump Station 3 and associated access road, all facilities would be located within planned or existing roadways or within developed areas around the reservoir. The proposed Pump Station 3 and access road site are not located on prime or unique/important farmland. The site is not within an agricultural preserve and no agricultural products are produced on the site. Therefore, the project would not affect agricultural resources. See Section 5.2, Agricultural Resources, for further discussion. 3. Air Quality: With the exception of NOx emissions, construction emissions are not anticipated to exceed identified significance thresholds and are therefore considered to be less than significant. Furthermore, measures are incorporated into the project which reduce short-term construction effects associated with generation of particulate DUDEK & ASSOCIATES, INC. 3-1 Prof inland Trom,jorCamy4Ho ke. oke. Irvine Ranch Water Distract San Joaquin Reservoir Project Mitigated Negative Declaration September 2000 2552-01 Section 3.0 Proposed Finding of No Significant Effect matter less than 10 microns (PM10) as required by the SCAQMD. See Section 5.3, Air Quality and Section 2.5, Measures Incorporated into the Project to Reduce or Avoid Environmental Impacts for further discussion. It is anticipated that based on the equipment inventory shown in Table 1,.Section 2 of this document, the SCAQMD advisory significance thresholds for NOx would be exceeded during construction. All applicable and quantifiable mitigation measures to reduce NOx emissions have been included into the project. Because of the temporary nature of construction emissions, the mobile nature of construction such that no receptors would be exposed to any significant concentration of equipment exhaust and all applicable and feasible measures have been incorporated into the project to reduce NOx emissions, such emissions are considered adverse but not significant. See Section 5.3, Air Quality and Section 2.5, Measures Incorporated intoithe Project to Reduce ar Avoid Environmental Impacts for further discussion. Air emissions during operation will be minimal. Electrical power will be consumed to operate the pump stations and other ancillary facilities. See Section 5.3, Air Quality, for further discussion. Toxic air contaminants (TACs) such as chlorine will be added to the water in very dilute quantities. Chlorine scrubbers will be installed to vent the building in the event of chlorine leakage in accordance with UPC. Such systems are designed to have no atmospheric discharge of TACs. Therefore, air quality impacts from water treatment activities are considered to be less than significant. See Section 5.3, Air Quality and Section 2.5, Measures Incorporated into the Project to Red}tce or Avoid Environmental Impacts for further discussion. Based on operational experience at IRWD's Sand Canyon and Rattlesnake reclaimed water reservoirs, where periodic scheduled cleaning occurs, it is anticipated that implementation of periodic scheduled cleaning will be able to reduce potential odors perceived by existing residences surrounding the reservoir to less than, significant levels. See Section 5.3, Air Quality and Section 2.5, Measures Incorporated into the Project to Reduce or Avoid Environmental Impacts for further discussion. 4. Biological Resources: Implementation of the proposed project would not result in direct impacts to sensitive upland biological resources. With the exception of Pump Station 3 and the associated access road, all facilities would extend within existing roadways, or within graded/disturbed areas associated with the existing reservoir. &ASSOCIATES, INC. Prof. londT for Complex P,.J,CU Irvine Ranch Water District San Joaquin Reservoir Project 3-2 Mitigated Negative Declaration September 2000 2552-01 Section 3.0 Proposed Finding of No Significant Effect Pump Station 3 and associated access site (0.33 acre) is designated as low quality habitat under the Orange County Central and Coastal NCCP/HCP and therefore is not anticipated to conflict with the County of Orange Central and Coastal NCCP/HCP. See Section 5.4, Biological Resources for further discussion. Mitigation for construction adjacent to or affecting coastal sage scrub and sensitive species which generally breed. and forage in coastal sage scrub will be in accordance with IRWD's approved Section 10(a) permit and NCCP and USFWS and CDFG requirements. In addition to complying with•the requirements of IRWD's NCCP, measures are included to further reduce potential impacts to the California gnatcatcher. Implementation of these measures will reduce indirect impacts to upland biological resources to less than significant. See Section 2.5, Measures Incorporated Into the Project to Reduce or Avoid Environmental Impacts as well as the discussion under Section 5.4, Biological Resources for further discussion. Impacts to wetlands would be less than one -tenth of an acre. Due to the lack of native habitat and that impacts to wetlands will be in accordance with a Nationwide Permit from the ACOE, a CDFG 1600 Streambed Alteration Agreement and RWQCB Section 401 permit, impacts to wetlands are considered to be less than significant. See Section 2.5, Measures Incorporated Into the Project to Reduce or Avoid Environmental Impacts as well as the discussion under Section 5.4, Biological Resources for further discussion. To avoid development of a significant African clawed frog problem, IRWD will implement a monitoring and trapping program at the reservoir. See Section 2.5, Measures Incorporated Into the Project to Reduce or Avoid Environmental Impacts as well as the discussion under Section 5.4, Biological Resources for further discussion. Measures are incorporated into the project to ensure that reservoir seepage will not violate RWQCB Basin Plan objectives or downstream habitat quality. See Section 2.5, Measures Incorporated Into the Project to Reduce or Avoid Environmental Impacts as well as the discussion under Section 5.4, Biological Resources for further discussion. 5. Cultural Resources: The literature search and field survey indicated that cultural resources would not be directly impacted by the project. Furthermore, monitoring during construction is incorporated into the project to ensure that project effects to cultural resources are less than significant. D UD:3K & ASSOCIATES, INC. P.olwapoi Teems tor Complex ',mama Irvine Ranch Water District San Joaquin Reservoir Project 3.3 Mitigated Negative Declaration September 2000 2552-01 Section 3.0 Proposed Finding of Significanti[ifect • 6. Geology and Soils: No geologic hazards would occur with project implementation. Measures have been incorporated into the project design in accordance With a site - specific geotechnicalinvestigation (Woodward -Clyde, 1998) to reduce risks associated with geologic hazards to below a level of significance. See Section 2.5, Measures Incorporated into the Project to Reduce or avoid Environmental Impacts, as well as section 5.6, Geology and Soils, for further discussion. 7. Hazards and Hazardous Materials: Flammable and/or toxic chemicals may be used during project construction and operations. However, through proper construction and maintenance and monitoring in accordance with IRWD's General Conditions and Standard Specifications, the risk of upset including accidental -explosions or release of hazardous substances and associated health hazards would be reduced to less than significant. See discussion under Section 2.5, Measures Incorporated Into the Project to Reduce or Avoid Environmental Impacts, and Section 5.7, Hazards and Hazardous•Materials for further discussion. After construction, there is a possibility of human exposure to disinfection chemicals (e.g., chlorine gas), but that exposure is considered to be less than significant with appropriate and mandated hazardousmaterials management practices approved by both the Orange County Fire Department and SCAQMD. See discussion under Section 2.5, Measures Incorporated Into the Project to Reduce orAvoid Environmental Impacts, and Section 5.7, Hazards and Hazardous Materials for further discussion. Modifications of the reservoir would be under the jurisdiction of the DSOD. It is anticipated that by meeting DSOD requirements, hazards associated with failure of the reservoir would be reduced to less than significant. See discussion under Section 2.5, Measures Incorporated Into the Project to Reduce or Avoid Environmental Itppacts, and Section 5.7, Hazards and Hazardous Materials for further discussion. To avoid public health impacts to surrounding residences from vectors at the reservoir (primarily mosquitos), IRWD will implement control measures such as control of emergent vegetation and algal matts in the water which is anticipated to reduce public health hazards associated with mosquitos to less than significant. See discussion under Section 2.5, Measures Incorporated Into the Project to Reduce or Avoid Environmental Impacts, and Section 5.7, Hazards and Hazardous Materials for further discussion. D:iTD:E1C &ASSOCIATES, INC. gd,n,..mr...„ r<,c<•wksn.i,... Irvine Ranch Water District San Joaquin Reservoir Project 3.4 Mitigated Negative Declaration September 2000 2552-01 • 1 Section 3.0 Proposed Finding of No Significant Effect 8. Hydrology and Water Quality: Measures are incorporated into the project, including compliance with RWQCB NPDES permit requirements, which reduce project effects associated with potential discharge of sediments and runoff during construction to less than significant. Reclaimed water produced at the MWRP for storage in the San Joaquin Reservoir will meet the most stringent requirements of Title 22, Water Reclamation Criteria as established by the State of California for tertiary treated wastewater. Reservoir modifications including repair and installation of the liner will ensure that any seepage of reclaimed water to either groundwater or surface water would be minimal and wouldnot exceed that which previously occurred at the reservoir (less than'/z cfs). Measures are incorporated into the project to ensure that reservoir seepage will not violate RWQCB Basin Plan objectives. Therefore, it is anticipated that any incidental seepage would have a less than significant impact to either groundwater or surface water quality. Additionally, there is no threat of reservoir overflow during a storm event. See Section 2.5, Measures Incorporated Into the Project to Reduce or Avoid Environmental Impacts, as well as the discussion under Section 5.8, Hydrology and Water Quality, for further discussion. 9. Land Use and Planning: Construction of the proposed facilities would be consistent with all relevant land use designations including the County of Orange and City of Irvine General Plan as well as the Orange County Central and Coastal NCCP/HCP. Reservoir modifications including development of Pump Station 1, the chlorine facility and storage tank will be conducted on existing reservoir land. No land use policy or plan conflicts will occur from development of these facilities. Development of Pump Station 2 and associated pipeline will be developed within an existing IRWD pump station site and therefore considered to be consistent with existing and planned land use. Pump Station 3 and associated access/pipeline site is designated as open space/preservation land and as such would result in the loss of open space. However, Pump Station 3 would not conflict with the biological resources preservation goals of the Orange County Central and Coastal NCCP/HCP. See the Section 5.9, Land Use and Planning, for further discussion. 10. Mineral Resources: Implementation of the proposed facilities would not impact any existing valuable mineral extraction resources areas or prevent any planned extraction operations from being implemented. Therefore, implementation of the project would not result in loss of known valuable mineral resources. See Section 5.10, Mineral Resources, for further discussion. September 2000 2552-01 &ASSOCIATES, INC. Ao)mbwlimv)n Cmm➢4+PreR� Irvine Ranch Water District San Joaquin Reservoir Project 3.5 Mitigated Negative Declaration Section 3.0 Proposed Finding of No Significant Effect • 11. Noise: With the exception of pump stations, no features of the proposed' reservoir improvements including the chlorination facility, pipeline, access road or storage tank would generate long term noise. Measures are incorporated into the project to ensure compliance with local noise ordinances during construction and operation of pump stations. Therefore, impacts due to noise are considered to be less than significant. See Seddon 2.5, Measures Incorporated Into the Project to Reduce or Avoid Environmental Impacts, as well as Section 5.11, Noise, for further discussion. 12. Population and Housing: The proposed project would not generate additional population, therefore the approval of the project would have a less than significant effect on human population and housing. See Section 5.42, Population and Housing, for further discussion. 13. Public Services: The proposed project does not involve any new residents, and would not generate a demand for public services; therefore, no impact to public services would occur. See Section 5.13, Public Services, for further discussion. 14. Recreation: Implementation of the project would not affect existing or planned recreational facilities. See Section 5.14, Recreation, for further discussion. 15. Transportation and Circulation: During operation, the proposed project is expected to generate approximately one to two vehicle trips per day. This limited number of vehicle trips would result in less than significant impacts to traffic or traffic congestion. During construction (approximately 24 months), traffic will be generated by construction crews and equipment/material deliveries, It is expected that Short-term construction -related traffic related to equipment and material deliveries would not create a substantial impact on traffic volumes nor change traffic pattern in such a way that congestion and delay would be substantially increased on street segments or at intersections. The addition of construction crews may create impacts, during peak hours. However, traffic control measures in accordance with the County of Orange traffic control guidelines have been incorporated into the project to reduce short-term construction -related traffic to less than significant. See Section 5.15, Transportation/ Traffic and Section 2.5, Measures Incorporated into the Project to Reduce or Avoid Environtnental Impacts, for' further discussion. DUDEK September 2000 2552-01 • & ASSOCIATES, INC. yu,n,,„,,,,Taint far tang. ,,,kM Irvine Ranch Water District San Joaquin Reservoir Project 3.6 Mitigated Negative Declaration • Section 3.0 16. Utilities and Service Systems: Implementation of the project would not involve a demand for new services and utilities. See Section 5. 46, Utilities and Service Systems, for further discussion. Proposed Finding of No Significant Effect September 2000 2552-01 & ASSOCIATES, INC. Proles, en,, Teams m C,w,,a,y„r„„ Irvine Ranch Water District San Joaquin Reservoir Project 3.7 Mitigated Negabve Declaration • SECTION 4.0 INITIAL STUDY/ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 1. Project tide: San Toaquin Reservoir Project 2. Lead agency name and address: Irvine Ranch Water District 15600 Sand Canyon Avenue Irvine, CA 92618 3. Contact person and phone number: Michael Hoolihan, PE, Senior Engineer (949) 453-5553 4. Project location: The San Toaquin Reservoir is located in the San Joaquin Hills of Orange County adjacent to the City of Newport Beach. Proposed reservoir modifications, Pumip Station 1, the storage tank and chlorination facility are proposed within the reservoir site. Pump Station 2 and associated pipeline are proposed within an existing IRWD pump station site located immediately south of Bonita Canyon Drive in the City of Irvine. Pump Station 3 and associated pipeline and access are located on vacant land north of Sand Canyon Avenue in the City of Irvine. 5. Project sponsor's name and address: Irvine Ranch Water District 15600 San Canyon Avenue Irvine, CA 92618 Contact: Michael Hoolihan, PE. Senior Engineer 6. General plan designation: Circulation Element Roadway, Open Space Preservation, Reservoir Residential 7. Zoning: Open space, residential, reservoir 8. Description of project: (Describe the whole action involved, including but not limited to later phases of the project, and any secondary, support, or offsite features necessary for its implementation. Attach additional sheets if necessary.) IRWD, as the largest percentage owner (48%), proposes to buy the capacity allocation and ownership from the other owners and convert the reservoir to non -potable water storage to allow IRWD to maximize the use of reclaimed water through additional seasonal storage. Major design components required to convert the San Joaquin Reservoir include: (1) Modification to the reservoir for repairs; (2) Construction and operation of three pump stations, one at the reservoir and two offsite; (3) Construction of a one-half million - gallon storage tank to be buried at the reservoir; (4) Construction of approximately one mile of reclaimed water pipeline: and (5) Construction of chlorination facility at the reservoir. DUDEK September 2000 2552-01 & ASSOCIATES, INC. Irvine Ranch Water Distnct San Joaquin Reservoir Project 4-1 "Ti"""dr"""f"`""w`a'" MNgated Negative Declaration Section 4.0 Initial Study/Environmental Checklist 9. Surrounding land uses and setting: Briefly describe the project's surroundings: Land use in the immediate vicinity of the San Joaquin Reservoir includes a, mix of open space immediately to the north and south of the reservoir and the low/medium density residential developments within Newport Beach of Harbor View Knoll (multi -family and single-farnily units), Harbor Rid el sin le -family) and Spy Glass Hill (single-family). The area surrounding Pump Station 2 consists of an existing IRWD pump station site. The area surrounding Pump Station 3 consists of open space. 10. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or participation agreement.) • California Department of Fish and Came Section 1601 Permit and .NCCP ,Consultation • California Department of Water Resources Division of Safety f D • City of Irvine Right -of -Way Permit • County of Orange Right -of -Way Permit • City of Newport Beach Right -of -Way • Regional Water Quality Control Board — NPDES Permit • South Coast Air Quality Management District • State of California Department of Health Services • U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Section 404 Permit • U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service NCCP Consultation 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 ❑ Biological Resources ❑ Hazards & Hazardous Materials ❑ Mineral Resources ❑ Public Services ❑ Utilities/ Service Systems DUDEK September 2000 ❑ Agricultural Resources ❑ Cultural Resources Hydrology/ Water Quality Noise Recreation ❑ Air Quality ❑ Geology/ Soils ❑ Land Use/ Planning ❑ Population/ Housing ❑ Transportation/ Traffic ❑ Mandatory Findings of Significance 2552-01 & ASSOCIATES. INC. Irvine Ranch Water District San Joaquin Reservoir Project nycW...rrd..p.r:.wem"' Mitigated Negative Declaration 4-2 Section 4.0 Initial Study/Environmental Checklist DETERMINATION: (To be completed by the Lead Agency) On the basis of this initial evaluation: ❑ I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. • I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. O I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. ❑ I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. ❑ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. lue Signature Date Gregory P. Heiertz, P.E. Dir. of Engineering & Planning Printed Name DUDEK s, west Irvine Ranch Water District For September 2000 2552-01 & ASSOCIATES, INC. Irvine Ranch Water District San Joaquin Reservoir Protect 4-3 "iall"."baj"at Mitigated Negative Declaration Section 4.0 initial Study/Environmental Checklist EXPLANATION FOR ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM: 1) Abrief explanation isrequired '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) "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 EIR is required. 4) "Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less Than Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from Section XVII, "Earlier Analyses," 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. Section 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 which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site - specific conditions for the project. DUDEK September 2000 2552-01 • • &ASSOCIATES, INC. Irvine Ranch Water Distdct San Joaquin Rs�rvo!r Project r 4.4 minunar-ti"/"?'" Mitigated Negative Declaration • • • Section 4.0 Initial Study/Environmental Checklist 6) The checklist incorporates 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) 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 significance. 9) This checklist has been adapted from the form in Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines, as amended effective January 1, 2000. DUDEK September 2000 2552-01 &ASSOCIATES, INC. Irvine Ranch Water Distract San Joaquin Reservoir Project 4.5 P ,onrr .,fr<.p..Am' Mitigated Negative Declaration Section 4.0 Initial Study/Environmental Checklist Less Than Significant Potentially With LessThan Significant Mitigation Significant No ISSUES: Impact Incorporated Impact Impact I. AESTHETICS—Wouldiheproject: Have a) a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? 0 0 0 • h) Substantially damage including, but scenic resources, not limited to, trees, rock 0 a 0 ' outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? Substantially degrade the c) existing visual character or quality of the site and its ra 0 • 0 surroundings? d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect 0 0 ® 0 day or nighttime views in the area? It. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES — In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead "agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Department of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the project: Convert Prime Farmland, Unique a) Farmland, orFarmlandofStatewide Importance 0 • 0 1 • (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non•agrlcultural use? b) Conflict for with existing zoning agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? 0 • -, 0 Involve c) other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or • 0 ® 0 nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non•agricultural use? 111. AIR QUALITY —Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution district may be relied Upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: Conflict implementation , a) with or obstruct of the applicable air quality plan? 0 0 0 ■ b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or 0 -, ■ 0 projected air quality violation? Result in increase c) a cumulatively considerable net of any criteria pollutant for mi 0 0 ■ 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)? di Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? • 0 _, • el Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? 0 ® 0 0 IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES — Would the project: at Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat •_, 0 0 modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? DUDEK September 2000 2552.01 &ASSOCIATES, INC. Irvine Ranch Water District San Joaquin Reservoir Project Mitigated Negative Declaration 4.6 • • Section 4.0 Initial Study/Environmental Checklist ISSUES: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 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, vemal 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 ordinance 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? ❑ 0 0 .. • .. • ■ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ .. ■ ❑ ❑ • .. ® • V. CULTURAL RESOURCES — Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in §15064.5? b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to § 15064.5? c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? ❑ ❑ s .• ■ 0 • .. • • .. ■ ❑ ❑ • .. 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: it Rupture of a known earthquake f ault, 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? • .. ❑ ❑ ❑ • .. ■ ni) Seismic -related ground failure, including liquefaction? ❑ • .. • iv) Landslides? ❑ 0 :. • h) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? ❑ .. ■ ■ DUDEK September 2000 2552-01 &ASSOCIATES, INC. Irvine Ranch Water District San Joaquin Reservoir Project nt.andr 'ir"`"w'hilt.' Mitigated Negative Declaration 4-7 Section 4.0 Initial Study/Environmental Checklist ISSUES: Potentially, Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Then I Significant, Impact No Impact 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 ore or offsite landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? di Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18.141 of the Uniform 0 El ® 0 o • 0 ■ Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? el Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or altemativewastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? 0 0 0 1 _, VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS — Would the project: al Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, of disposal of hazardous materials? 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? di Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Govemment Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? el For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? f) For project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard tor people residing or working in the project area? 0 ® 0 0 0 f 0 0 CD • _, 0 0 • „ at • ID al is • • 0 p o gi 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? 00 0 ; El • 0 • is VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER DUALITY — 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 he 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)? 0 • ., • DUDEK September 2000 2552-01 &ASSOCIATES, INC. Irvine Ranch Water District San Joaquin Reservoir Project P #u...dring rat" mr Mitigated Negative Declaration 4-8 Section 4.0 Initial Study/Environmental Checklist . ISSUES: i Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact c) Substantially altei 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 offsite? • • ., ■ 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 offsite? ❑ • ,_ ❑ 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? s • ., ■ 1) g) otherwise substantially degrade water quality? 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 a100•yearflood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? ❑ • ® ■ it 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? • ❑ a ❑ j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? • ❑ ❑ IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING — Would the project: al Physically divide an established community? ❑ • ■ g. b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, hut 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? ❑ • • ., X. 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? • • ■ lig DUDEK & ASSOCIATES, INC. September 2000 2552-01 Irvine Ranch Water District San Joaquin Reservoir Project ny,,,.,,wTimm jot r..q,.Aria MNgatedNegative Declaration 4-9 Section 4.0 Initial Study/Environmental Checklist ISSUES: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated j Less Than I Significant` Impact ' No Impact XI, NOISE — Would the project result in: a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? • b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundbome 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? i7 0 ® 0 _, 0 ® • • 0 0 0 • ar ,_, • • 0 til • 1) 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? 0 a us ., XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING — Would the project: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly {for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (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? 0 0 0 ® 0 ! 0 0 a • ., 0 El XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered govemmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable serviceratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: Fire protection? 0 0 :. ■ Police protection? 0 , ID ■ ■ Schools? 0 El ■ ■ Parks? Ilil • e, o Other public facilities? • 0 0 0 =1 DUDEK September 2000 2552-01 &-ASSOCIATES, INC. Irvine Ranch Water District San Joaquin Reservoir Project "'"4".""1"` Nnm.rt Mitigated Negative Declaration 4-10 • • Section 4.0 Initial Study/Environmental Checklist ISSUES: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact XIV. RECREATION a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or 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? 0 • ❑ • ,_ XV. TRANSPORTATIDNITRAFFIC — Would the project: a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system fix., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? 0IS/ • • b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard 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? 00 • _, 0 • di 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) Result in inadequate parking capacity? • _, El• • • _, • El • • • g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? 0 ID 12:1 • XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS — Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water 0•, 0 _, Duality Control Board? . b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? 0 • _, • • _, • O • • ., DUDEK September 2000 2552-01 & ASSOCIATES, INC. Irvine Ranch Water District San Joaquin Reservoir Project ,nr.w..lYeast for ro.p.Avert Mitigated Negative Declaration 4-11 Section 4.0 Initial Study/Environmental Checklist - ISSUES: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than , Significant , Impact I No impact el Result in determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the providerls existing commitments? f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? g) Comply with federah state, and localstetutes andregulations related to solid waste? ❑ o i ® El r., 0• • • • • _, XVII. 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?rCumuiativelyconsiderable"meansthat the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, theeffects 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? • _, • • - 0_, s • • • DUDEK &ASSOCIATES,INC. September 2000 2552-01 Irvine Ranch Water District San Joaquin Reservoir Project 4-12 Hs,a..dr..,pr—taim .n Mitigated Negative Declaration SECTION 5.0 DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 5.1 AESTHETICS a) Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. The San Joaquin Reservoir is a man-made water storage facility constructed in the deep canyon lying between low/medium density residential developments to the west and east. The rock dam forming the reservoir is approximately 175 feet in height. The asphalt concrete -lined reservoir is approximately 2,800 feet long and 1,500 feet wide, creating a containment area of over 55 surface acres. The reservoir is ringed by a paved access road, and the reservoir property is surrounded by a high chain link fence. The reservoir was drained in 1994 so that modifications including a cover could be added. However, after the reservoir was drained, one of the banks caved in and subsequently improvement plans were abandoned. Today, the reservoir stands empty and in disrepair and has resulted in adverse visual impacts to many residences located immediately to the west and east of the reservoir. Construction of the proposed project would cause short-term and long-term visual quality impacts to nearby residences. Short-term visual impacts directly related to construction activities may be adverse, but due to their temporary nature, are not considered significant. As discussed below, long-term visual impacts will result from permanent above- ground facilities including reservoir modifications and operations, pump stations and the chlorination facility. Reservoir Modifications and Operations Considering that the proposed modifications are limited to the reservoir which is currently in a state of disrepair, these improvements are anticipated to result in a beneficial impact to existing scenic vistas. Operation and maintenance measures have been incorporated into the project (see Section 2.5) to ensure that visual impacts due to algal matts and seasonal drawdown are effectively reduced to less than significant. DUDEK &ASSOCIATES, INC. September 2000 2552-01 Irvine Ranch Water Distnct San Joaquin Reservoir Project AoJnuonai Tiomrfor Coep4rHgrro Mrtigated Negative Declaration 5-1 Section 5.0 Discussion of Environmental Impacts Pump Stations/Chlorination Facility Pump Stations 1, 2 and 3 would each be housed in a structure approximately". 50 by 48 feet with a maximum height of 25 feet and require approximately 0.33 acre each. The chlorination facility would be housed in a structure approximately 70 feet by 70 feet with a maximum height of 25 feet. The two alternative locations for Pump Station 1 as well as the chlorination facility would be visible from existing residences to the west of the reservoir as well as from existing and planned residential areas currently being constructed immediately to the east of the reservoir. One alternative location for Pump Station 1 would involve an extension of the existing control facility to the north of the reservoir. The pump station structure would be extended into the existing paved parking area north of the control building. The second alternative location for Pump Station 1 would involve placement of the structure in an area currently disturbed in association with previous reservoir modifications and ongoing grading for residences planned to the east of the reservoir. Development of Pump Station 1 at either site or the chlorination facility would not involve disturbance of any native vegetation or natural landforms and would incorporate design and landscaping measures to ensure that they are compatible with the surrounding area (see Section 2.5). Development of these facilities is considered to represent a visual extension of the existing reservoir facilities and therefore would not create a significant adverse impact to existing views from surrounding existing or planned residences. Both Pump Stations 2 and 3 would not be visible from any surrounding existing vantage points. Pump Station 2 would be located within an existing IRWD pump station site. Pump Station 2 would represent a visual extension of the existing facilities and, therefore, would not adversely impact any views of the area from surrounding existing residences or from motorists on Bonita Canyon Drive. Pump Station 3 and the associated access road would be located approximately 3,000 feet to the west of the closest residences located in the vicinity of Ridgeline Road as well as the golf courses associated with William. R Mason Regional Park. Given the distance of Pump Station 3 from the residences and golf course areas and that the structure would incorporate design measures to ensure compatibility with the surrounding area (see Section 2.5), it is anticipated Pump Station 3 would not represent a significant alteration to visual quality. DUDEK &ASSOCIATES, INC. September 2000 2552-01 ny �n..�p.a y�e»y� Irvine Ranch Water District San Joaquin Reservoir Project Mitigated Negative Declaration 5-2 • • • Section 5.0 Discussion of Environmental Impacts . 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. No scenic highways are located within the project vicinity. Construction of the pump stations, pipelines, access roads and reservoir modifications would be located primarily within previously disturbed areas and would not involve disturbance of any trees, rock outcroppings or historic buildings. c) Would the project degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. See response 5.1-a. d) Would the project create a new source of substantial Iight or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? Less Than Significant Impact. Depending upon construction techniques and hours, new sources of light and glare may be present during project construction. However, due to the short-term nature of construction, any light or glare effects are anticipated to be less than significant. During operation, shadows and glare are not expected to be adverse as project facilities would generally be constructed of non -reflective materials. Night lighting will consist of one 100-watt yellow floodlight at each of the proposed pump stations and chlorination facility. Other lighting would be used during emergencies only. Light and glare effects from night lighting associated with the project are therefore considered to be less than significant. 5.2 AGRICULTURE RESOURCES a) Would the project convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? Less than Significant Impact. With the exception of Pump Station 3 and associated access and reclaimed water pipeline connection, all project facilities would be located DUDEK September 2000 2552-01 & ASSOCIATES, INC. r+�f.,, .rn.m./ac..prunym, Irvine Ranch Water District San Joaquin Reservoir Project 5-3 Mitigated Negative Declaration Section 5.0 Discussion of Environmental Impacts within planned or existing roadways or areas previously disturbed in association with existing IRWD facilities and reservoir facilities. The area proposed for Pump Station 3 and associated access road/pipeline is identified as «Grazing Land" by the California Department of Conservation (CDC) Important Farmland Maps. However, no active agriculture operations exist on the property and the property would not be considered active farmland. Development of the property from vacant land to a pump station and associated access would not be a significant conversion of farmland to non-agricultural use. b) Would the project conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? Less than Significant Impact. See response 5.2-a. c) Would the. project involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use? Less than Significant Impact. See response 5.2-a. Areas proposed for Pump Station 3 and associated access road are currently vacant and have been used for grazing in the past. No active agriculture operations however exist on the property and the property would not be considered active farmland. Development of the property from vacant land to a pump station use would not be a significant conversion of farmland to non- agricultural use. Furthermore, the introduction of a pump station into vacant land (designated as a biological preserve) would not increase local economic activity and therefore would not provide incentives to local landowners to develop their property. 5.3 AIR QUALITY a) Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. Construction activities would result in emissions of carbon monoxide, reactive organic hydrocarbons, nitrogen oxides (NOx), sulfur dioxide and.particulatematter less than 10 microns (PM10) , With DUDEK & ASSOCIATES, INC. September 2000 2552-01 ng/Suim.r r,..ufo. a.pm, , Irvine Ranch Water District San Joaquin Reservoir project Mitigated Negative Declaration 5-4 • • Section 5.0 Discussion of Environmental Impacts the exception of NOx, project emissions are not anticipated to exceed the significance thresholds for these pollutants established by the SCAQMD for construction activities due to the short-term nature of construction (no more than 18 months) and total grading of less than 5 acres for new facilities. Grading within the existing reservoir required to make necessary repairs is anticipated to be negligible. Additionally, measures to reduce fugitive dust impacts during construction as required by the SCAQMD have been incorporated into the project (see Section 2.5). It is anticipated that based on the equipment inventory shown in Table 9, the SCAQMD advisory significance thresholds for NOx would be exceeded during construction. It should be noted that the SCAQMD air quality thresholds are guides, and are not absolute criteria for construction projects. All applicable and quantifiable mitigation measures to reduce NOx emissions have been included into the project (see Section 2.5). Because of the temporary nature of construction emissions, the mobile nature of construction such that no receptors would be exposed to any significant concentration of equipment exhaust and all applicable and feasible measures have been incorporated into the project to reduce NOx emissions, such short-term emissions are considered adverse but not significant. Air emissions during operational activities will be minimal. Electrical power will be used to pump reclaimed water and provide limited site security lighting. Operational emissions are anticipated to be well below SCAQMD significance threshold criteria for all pollutants and therefore will have a less than significant impact on air quality. The proposed chlorine storage facility would represent a source for toxic air contaminants (TACs). However, as discussed in Section 2.5, this facility would be designed to have no atmospheric discharge of TACs in compliance with the UFC and SCAQMD requirements. Therefore, air quality impacts from water treatment activities are considered to be less than significant. b) Would the project violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. See response 5.3-a. DUDEK & ASSOCIATES, INC. September 2000 2552-01 Irvine Ranch Water Distnct San Joaquin Reservoir Project 5.5 hvial MWImmfr ami tt Thrill Mitigated Negative Declaration Section 5.0 Discussion of Environmental Impacts c) Would the project result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria 41 pollutant for which the project region is non -attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. Implementation of the project would result in short-term impacts to air quality associated with construction. The cumulative effect of the proposed project and other projects in the vicinity would incrementally contribute to the SCAQMD's inability to attain federal and state Ambient Air Quality Standards..(AAQS) for 03 and PM10. It is anticipated that short- term cumulative effects to air quality due to construction activities can be mitigated to a level of less than significant through implementation of mitigation measures on a project -by -project basis designed to control construction generated particulate matter (PM10) through dust abatement procedures in accordance with SCAQMD rules and control construction -generated 03 and nitrogenoxides (NO,,) through proper maintenance of construction vehicles, and traffic management. Operations of the proposed project would not generate air quality impacts. Therefore, the project would not contribute to long-term cumulative impacts to arizbient air quality. d) Would the project expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? Less than Significant Impact. The nearest sensitive receptors (residence) to the proposed site are located approximately 185 feet to the west of the reservoir and 425 feet to the east of the reservoir. As discussed in response 5.3-a, the proposed project is not expected to release any air emissions during operation and short-term' emissions during construction are expected to be less than significant. In addition, mitigation measures would further reduce impacts as discussed in response 5.3-a. Therefore, emissions associated with the proposed project are expected to have a less than significant impact to sensitive receptors. Refer to response 5.7-a regarding air toxic emissions. e) Would the project create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? Less than Significant. Reclaimed water typically has a higher level of nutrients than typical potable water and, therefore, has the potential to support algae and algae DUDEK September 2000 2552.01 • & ASSOCIATES, INC. nyasi.;:lr,a,lwa.p&Mints Irvine Ranch Water District San Joaquin Reservoir Project Mitigated Negative Declaration 5-6 Section 5.0 Discussion of Environmental Impacts blooms with the potential for odors. Based on operational experience at IRWD's Sand Canyon and Rattlesnake reclaimed water reservoirs, where periodic scheduled cleaning occurs, it is anticipated that implementation of cleaning to remove potential sources of odor will be able to reduce potential odors perceived by existing residences surrounding the reservoir to less than significant levels. Additionally, to ensure that odor impacts are less than significant, IRWD during design will conduct more detailed analysis to determine if further odor control measures are necessary including aeration and chlorination. 5.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES a) Would the project have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. A biological resources inventory and impact analysis was completed for the proposed project by Dudek & Associates in May 2000. The complete report is included as APPENDIX B to this document. The following discussion is a summary of the Dudek & Associates report. Figure 5 provides a biological resources map. Construction Impacts With the exception of Pump Station 3, the 24" pipeline and access road associated with Pump Station 3, and a portion of the proposed 36-inch reclaimed water pipeline, all project facilities would be located entirely within previously disturbed or developed areas. The proposed Pump Station 3 would have minimal biological impacts in that only non-native grassland would be directly or indirectly affected. One sensitive bird species (rufous -crowned sparrow) was observed in the area (see Figure 5). The bird is not expected to nest within the footprint of the proposed pump station, therefore, no direct impacts are expected. IRWD will not initiate construction of this portion of the project during the rufous -crowned sparrow breeding season and therefore, no indirect impacts are anticipated. There are no expected direct or indirect impacts to jurisdictional waters of the U.S., including wetlands, associated with construction of the pump station. DUDEK &ASSOCIATES, INC. September 2000 2552-01 /a..r >.��a�ap� Irvine Ranch Water District San Joaquin Reservoir Project %niMitigated Negauve Declaration 5-7 --IcQOtT,I�•CF;�'�Ri:�+-9TL'_.{)�isl Area 2 N CHAMBORc»'Rd: (IN CDNStRUCTION) '/' .. ''X r% i l �\ ' a = ;.,:.•:'. . • ♦/ *Area 3 o C,_ At 1 1200 Scale oM Feet • / PROPOSED PUMP STATION #2 (ALT 1) � / 'PROPOSED 36"!-\PIPE \\ N• / • ♦ .• • ' . \ q \ S ,\ / / • PROPOSED PUMP,STATIOM#1. a:c:- -_.,AND CHLORINATION FACILITY;y --:'Area 4 ..(ALT-2)' PROPOSED PUMP STATION #1`..c?" (ALT 4) , ,r.; \ PROPOSED 0.5mg- TANK ' \ / _ E'F \ N. W J 0 ' 0 G ; o '} . q F- 0 0 a w Z / Detail "A" Components t N. • is+r�Y-�. 'Tr'"% •ill ',s .../..4 PROPOSECD'PUMP STATION #3 Y / • 0 • 1200 Scale in Feet /. .y ' ,\ a. - —= ... - ::: "s'q: ci %v tice.\ tirv. `;� \4\ / / \dam.:-..`.a--s . r . , .. EXISTING TANK j\ N N / .;11 \ \ \ / NEW 24: PIPE -/ .j' I Area 1 �effNava a-J i irk r. • • / ' ) \ : // ' • /Y. :(lam ♦ ., ( \ 4 / 'r \ • \ / \ ,// // N. Detail "B" Components SOURCE Inane panty Water District, May 2000 IRWD San Joaquin Reservoir Project - Mitigated Negative Delclaration Project Components FIGURE 3 VEGETATION TYPES/LANDCOVERS: CSS - Coastal Sage Scrub DH - Disturbed Habitat SWS - Southern Willow Scrub DEV - Developed Land 0 900 Scale in Feet Chia /r% v' Study Area Detail "A" Area •SOURCE Irvine Ranch Water District May 2000 qt+ VEGETATION TYPES/[ANDCOVERS: AGL - Annual Grassland / y/ Study Area 0 900 Scale in Feet 1' /'. X. Waters of the U.S. NOTE: Number indicates width of unvegetated stream channel. Detail "B" Area 1RWD San Joaquin Reservoir Project - Mitigated Negative Delclaration Biological Reconnaissance Map FIGURE 5 Section 5.0 Discussion of Environmental Impacts The proposed 24" pipe associated with Pump Station 3 would also have minimal biological impacts in that only non-native grassland would be directly affected. As with Pump Station 3, construction will not be initiated during the breeding season for the rufous -crowned sparrow. The proposed pipeline also will cross an unvegetated ephemeral stream channel and will run adjacent to this channel for most of its Length (see Figure 5). In the area of the crossing, the stream channel is approximately one foot wide. Therefore, the anticipated impact area would equal approximately 10 to 15 square feet of jurisdictional area. The stream channel crossing is a direct impact to waters of the U.S. under the jurisdiction of the ACOE and CDFG and will require applications for a Nationwide Permit and Streambed Alteration Agreement, respectively. Indirect impacts to the stream channel may include dust, lighting, runoff, erosion, siltation and noise. Compliance with CDFG, ACOE and RWQCB permit requirements will reduce impacts to less than significant. Placement of the proposed 36-inch reclaimed water pipeline would result in direct impacts to jurisdictional wetlands and indirect impacts to coastal sage scrub habitat (see Figure 5). Although the majority of the pipeline is within an existing asphalt access road, the western end will pass through a riparian corridor containing mature southern willow scrub. Approximately 10 linear feet by 20 feet width of the construction corridor for the pipeline would be impacted. A total of approximately 200 square feet of wetlands would be directly impacted by construction of the pipeline. Impacts to riparian habitat will be avoided through the use of tunneling or other design measures. Indirect impacts associated with construction of the pipeline may occur and affect coastal sage scrub, occupied by the federally -listed threatened California gnatcatcher as well as the riparian corridor in the west and north containing mature southern willow scrub. Potential indirect impacts include dust, noise, lighting and introduction of exotics. Construction in this area will not be initiated during the breeding season for the California gnatcatcher, least Bell's vireo and southern willow flycatcher. Additionally, indirect impacts will be mitigated through use of BMPs to reduce dust, noise; light, and erosion. Therefore, impacts to sensitive species due to construction activities are anticipated to be less than significant (see Section 2.5). DUDEK &ASSOCIATES, INC. September 2000 2552.01 prv/wrona(Traufor Complex livedIrvine Ranch Water Distract San Joaquin Reservoir Project Mitigated Negative Declaration 5-9 Section 5.0 Discussion of Environmental Impacts Operations Impacts The San Joaquin Reservoir has in the past had a problem with African clawed frogs, an invasive non-native species that have been documented to predate on native riparian herpetofauna, fish and invertebrates. In addition to the water quality and vector control measures incorporated into the project (see Section 2.5), periodic cleaning of the reservoir to control emergent vegetation and algal matts, along with a trapping program, is anticipated to control the African clawed frog. The San Joaquin Reservoir dam is designed so that seepage occurs. Historically, seepage from the reservoir has been less than 1/2 cfs and has supported a riparian ecosystem that ultimately drains into the Upper Newport Bay Ecological Preserve. Reservoir modifications, including repair and installation of the liner, will ensure that any seepage of reclaimed water to either groundwater or surface water would not exceed that which previously occurred at the reservoir. Therefore, no increase in historical water flows is anticipated with the project and, as a result, the project is not anticipated to alter hydrologic conditions. Nutrients found in reclaimed water may affect habitat quality. For example, increasing dissolved nutrient concentrations during the growing season can cause periodic increase in algae (algae blooms) and emergent vegetation. While increases in emergent vegetation may have a net benefit on wildlife and overall riparian habitat quality, algae blooms can reduce available dissolved oxygen, lead to eutrophication, and result in adverse impacts on aquatic species (e.g., fish kills). Other potential constituents found in reclaimed water may also affect water quality, habitat and wildlife. Because of the small amount of seepage (estimated to be less than'/z cfs) from the reservoir, it is anticipated that nutrients entering the riparian ecosystem would be absorbed and filtered by the soil and existing riparian vegetation and therefore would have a less than significant impact to downstream biological resources. During design and prior to filling the reservoir, IRWD will perform a site - specific study that will quantify the amount of seepage and nutrients/constituents expected in comparison to the RWQCB Basin Plan objectives. The study will also address the assimilative capacity of the soil and riparian ecosystem to remove these nutrients/constituents. Should the analysis identify that reservoir seepage would be in violation of RWQCB Basin Plan objectives, IRWD would utilize design solutions such as re -pump of any seepage back into the reservoir, and/or downstream improvements to enhance removal of nutrients/constituents to ensure compliance with RWQCB Basin Plan objectives (see Section 2.5). DUDEK September 2000 2552-0i & ASSOCIATES, INC. a,jar�.r n., for Cayran�„� Irvine Ranch Water District San Joaquin Reservoir Protect Mitlgated Negative Declaration 5-10 Section 5.0 Discussion of Environmental Impacts • b) Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies,regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? • Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. See response 5.4-a. c) Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? Less Than Significant with Mitigation incorporated. See response 5.4-a. d) Would the project interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? Less than Significant Impact. All pipeline facilities, the storage tank and, reservoir modifications would either be located underground or would not involve above- ground structures. As a result, implementation of these facilities would not result in long term impacts to wildlife movement. Pump Stations 1 and 2 would be located in previously disturbed or developed areas Pump Station 2 would be located within an existing IRWD pump station facility. Both alternate locations for Pump Station 1 would be located in previously disturbed areas including the parking lot for the existing control building or graded areas to the east of the reservoir that are currently surrounded by areas being graded for residential uses. As a result, it is not anticipated that construction of these facilities would interfere with wildlife movement. Pump Station 3 would be constructed adjacent to an existing IRWD tank facility. As discussed further in Section 5.4-f, the proposed pump station would be located within a permanent habitat reserve area identified in the Orange County Central and Coastal Subregion NCCP/HCP. However; considering the size of the proposed facility (approximately 0.33 acre) and that it would represent an extension of an existing facility it is not anticipated that construction or development of the facility would DUDEK &ASSOCIATES, INC. September 2000 2552-01 tTr/morrar7m.ufor Camp4:thgra Irvine Ranch Water Distract San Joaquin Reservoir Project Mitigated Negative Declaration 5-11 Section 5.0 Discussion of Environmental Impacts interfere with wildlife movement in adjacent NCCP areas. The access road to Pump Station 3 would be approximately 10 feet wide and would not involve any substantial landform alteration that may hinder wildlife movement. e) Would the project conflict with any local policies or ordinance protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? Less than Significant. See response to 5.4-a and 5.4-f. Q Would the project conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? Less than Significant Impact. With the exception of Pump Station 3 and associated 24- inch pipeline and access road, all project facilities would be located entirely within previously disturbed or developed areas. As a result, implementation of these facilities would not directly impact the ability of the local jurisdictions to implement habitat conservation plans. Pump Station 3 and associated access road/pipeline would be located within an area designated as a permanent habitat reserve by the Orange County Central and Coastal Subregion NCCP/HC1'. The intent of the NCCP is to provide adequate habitat conservation through a system of open space preserves to protect sensitive plant and animal species. The Coastal Subregion of the NCCP, which contains the pump station site, includes approximately 18,105 acres located primarily within and surrounding the San Joaquin Hills. The reserve extends from Crystal Cove Park approximately 7.5 miles inland to I-405. Portions of Sand Canyon and the hills associated with Shady Canyon in the project vicinity identified as permanent habitat reserve as a part of the NCCP provide a large contiguous area for wildlife movement within the San Joaquin Hills. Installation of facilities like the proposed Pump Station 3 and access road are permitted uses within the reserve. Section 5.3 of the NCCP summarizes permitted uses within the preserve. The NCCP states that necessary public and quasi -public infrastructure facilities and related operation and maintenance facilities are permitted uses. The NCCP further defines these uses as including, "Construction of new utility and water district facilities, including water lines pumping and storage facilities and DUDEK & ASSOCIATES, INC. September 2000 2552-01 n.,ar...ra.Nfu.a prseyte Irvine' Ranch Water District San Joaquin Reservoir Project Mitigated Negative Declaration 5-12 • Section 5.0 Discussion of Environmental Impacts • transmission lines and ongoing operation and maintenance of these facilities." Section 5.9.3 of the NCCP addresses specific permitted uses for IRWD that include construction of storage tanks, associated distribution lines, and access roads within the preserve system. Section 5.9 of the NCCP lists the following infrastructure siting and operation policies that are relevant to the siting of Pump Station 3: • To the extent feasible, siting of new infrastructure within the reserve system should minimize impacts to CSS, other habitat and target species. • Because many of the proposed facilities will not be constructed in the immediate future (e.g., certain arterial roads and water facilities) and because of the dynamic service environment for public utilities, flexibility will be allowed in future design and siting of the. facilities. • Attempts will be made, as feasible, to undertake activities that impact vegetation supporting identified species outside of the breeding season/nesting season. • Operation and maintenance policies for existing and proposed facilities covered in Section 5.9 must be followed for any infrastructure uses constructed in the reserve. Operation and maintenance policies address: 1) maintenance outside of the cleared area; 2) weed abatement; 3) inspection of existing facilities; 4) development of a plan for the reserve owner/manager detailing operational needs; 5) joint use of access facilities for public trails. Development of Pump Station 3 and the associated access roads would be consistent with policies for permitted uses contained in Section 5.9 of the NCCP as well as the general coastal sage scrub and wildlife corridor preservation goals of the NCCP. Implementation of Pump Station 3 and the access road would result in disturbance of 1.6 acres of non-native agricultural/ruderal vegetation within the permanent habitat reserve. The pump station site would represent an extension of the existing IRWD water tank site and no disturbance of coastal sage scrub is proposed. Therefore, implementation of the pump station and access road would not significantly conflict with the intent of the NCCP to protect biological resources and accommodate wildlife movement. DUDEK &ASSOCIATES, INC. September 2000 2552-01 Irvine Ranch Water District San Joaquin Reservoir Project 'ro/muorml Thou for famO4slhu ce Mitigated Negative Declaration •5-13 Section 5.0 Discussion of Environmental impacts 5.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES a) Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance ofa historical resource as defined in Section 15064.5? Less than Significant Impact. A literature review, record search conducted at the South Central Coastal Information Center (SCCIC) and field survey were conducted for the project by Gallegos & Associates (June 2000) and is included in APPENDIX C to this document. It was determined that only one prehistoric site (CA-ORA 225) is within the project area. This site (CA-ORA 225) was previously tested and identified as significant and impacts were mitigated through the completion of a data recovery program (Mason et al. 1997). Four additional previously recorded prehistoric sites (CA-ORA 221, CA-ORA 222, CA-ORA 226 and CA ORA-227) are adjacent to the project area. The field survey identified a small amount of shell along an unnamed creek, but no artifacts were noted. Therefore, the project is not anticipated to impact cultural resources. However, given the presence of shell and previously recorded sites with or adjacent to the project area, IRWD has incorporated archaeological monitoring during construction (seeSection2.5). b) Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5? Less than Significant Impact. See response 5.5-a. c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? Less Than Significant Impact. The site is underlain primarily within the Topanga Formation. This formation has a low to moderate potential to yield invertebrate or vertebrate paleontologic fossils (Final Environmental Impact Report for the San Joaquin Reservoir Project, SCH # 8811301 MWD 1989). Due to the limited area to be disturbed and minimal depth to ground surface disturbance, and that the study area is primarily located within the Topanga Formation, the potential for encountering important paleontological resources is considered to be low. However, in order to ensure that impacts do not occur to important paleontological resources, a County -certified paleontologist will review and if necessary, observe grading activities in previously undisturbed areas (see Section 2.5). DUDEK September 2000 2552-01 & ASSOCIATES, INC. n�we,.�r.N� a prop Irvine Ranch Water DisMctSan Joaquin Reservoir Project Mitigated Negative Declaration 5-14 • Section 5.0 Discussion of Environmental Impacts d) Would the project disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? No Impact. Based on the results of the cultural resources survey performed for the site, no disturbance of human remains is expected. 5.6 GEOLOGY AND SOILS a) Would the project expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury or death involving: A geotechnical report addressing the proposed modifications to the reservoir was completed by the Woodward -Clyde in 1998. An analysis of potential geotechnical issues associated with improvements in the vicinity of the reservoir including a treatment plant and alternate reservoir sites was completed by MWD in 1992 in association with the Final Environmental Impact Report for the San Joaquin Reservoir Improvement Project (SCH # 8811301). Based on a review of these reports, the following responses are provided. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to' Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. As discussed in the Woodward -Clyde report, due to the proj ect's location within seismically active southern California, the potential for exposure to fault activity and earthquakes does exist. The Newport -Inglewood and Pelican Hill fault zones are the nearest active faults to the site (approximately 1- 6 kilometers) and are considered to be the closest sources for strongest groundshaking. The reservoir site may also be underlain by a blind thrust fault (the San Joaquin Hills blind thrust). Given the presence of seismic activity in the, project vicinity, the potential for impacts to the proposed facilities from ground shaking and rupture could occur. Site specific geotechnical studies completed in accordance with DSOD DUDEK September 2000 2552-01 & ASSOCIATES, INC. Avfwnnaf Team for Conp4s Project'Irvine Ranch Water District San Joaquin Reservoir Protect Mitigated Negative Declarabon 5-15 Section 5.0 Discussion of Environmental Impacts requirements will be completed by the IRWD prior to construction (see Section 2.5). It is anticipated that measures recommended by the geotechnical studies and approved by DSOD can be incorporated into the design of the proposed facilities to reduce project impacts from geotechnical hazards related to seismic ground shaking and fault rupture to less than significant. II. Strong seismic ground shaking? Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. See response 5.6-a. Ill. Seismic -related ground failure, including liquefaction? Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. The risk of seismically induced soil liquefaction occurring in the project vicinity is considered to be high (Final EIR, San Joaquin Reservoir Project, 1992). Site specific geotechnical studies will be completed by the IRWD prior to construction (see Section 2.5). It is anticipated, that measuresrecommended by the geotechnical studies can be incorporated into the design of the proposed facilities to reduce project impacts from geotechnical hazards related to seismic ground shaking and fault rupture tb less than significant. IV. Landslides? Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. As discussed in the Woodward -Clyde report, due to the steep natural terrain, the potential hazard for landslides as well as slope stability is a potential hazard with respect to the proposed reservoir modifications. In 1994-95, the southern bank of the reservoir collapsed. Following the bank collapse, the reservoir was drained and the slope replaced to prevent further collapse. IRWD has incorporated into the project measures recommended in the Woodward -Clyde study including the use of a concrete lining and a rockfill buttress to avoid significant hazards from landslides. Pump Stations 1 and 3 as well as associated pipelines/access roads would be located in areas characterized by sloping terrain where landsliding and slope DUDEK &ASSOCIATES, INC. September 2000 2552-01 ufW_%utIraeu for rapier Pr Irvine Ranch Water District San Joaquin Reservoir Project hdrd Mitigated Negative Declaration 5.16 Section 5.0 Discussion of Environmental Impacts stability may be a consideration for project development. Pump Station 2 and associated pipelines would be constructed in areas characterized by level terrain where landslides and slope stability are not considered to be potential constraint. Site specific geotechnical studies will be completed by IRWD prior to construction (see Section 2.5). It is anticipated that standard measures recommended by the geotechnical studies can be incorporated into the design of the proposed facilities to avoid the potential for damage from geotechnical hazards including slope stability. As a result, impacts from landslides and slope stability of the proposed facilities are considered to be less than significant. b) Would the project result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. Project construction would result in the potential to increase erosion onsite. Erosion control will be employed during the construction phase, including the short-term use of sand bags, matting, mulch, berms, hay bales, or similar devices along all graded areas to minimize sediment transport. The exact design, location and schedule of use for such devices will be determined pursuant to direction and approval by RWQCB (see Section 2.5). 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 offsite landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. The Woodward Clyde report concluded that the proposed reservoir improvements would be feasible from a geologic standpoint. Site specific geotechnical studies will be completed by the IRWD prior to construction (see Section 2.5). It is anticipated that measures recommended by the geotechnical studies can be incorporated into the design of the proposed facilities to reduce project impacts from geotechnical hazards related to seismic ground shaking and fault rupture to less than significant. d) Would the project be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. See response 5.6-c. With implementation of standard site preparation techniques recommended by Woodward Clyde for the reservoir improvements as well as measures recommended in additional site -specific geotechnical studies to be completed for the storage tank, pump stations DUDEK September 2000 2552-01 & ASSOCIATES, INC. Irvine Ranch Water District San Joaquin Reservoir Project 5-17 Rofurmn.l TwmrJor Comply Prgrm Mitigated Negative Declaration Section 5.0 Discussion of Environmental Impacts and associated pipeline/access roads prior to construction, significant adverse impacts to proposed improvements from unstable geologic formations or surficial soils are not anticipated. e) Would the project have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? No Impact. No sewer or wastewater disposal is required as part of the project. 5.7 HAZARDS AND 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? Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. Flammable and/or toxic chemicals may be used during project construction and operations. However, through proper construction and maintenance and monitoring in accordance with IRWD's General Conditions and Standard Specifications, the risk of upset including accidental explosions or release of hazardous substances and associated health hazards would be reduced to less than significant. During construction, air toxic emissions will be generated associated with diesel construction equipment operations. Diesel exhaust particulates have recently been added to the California lists of known carcinogens. Fora maximum 5-acre disturbance "footprint," daily diesel PM-2.5 exhaust emissions of 1.5 pounds would result. An approximate health risk estimate was generated by assuming the 1.5 pounds of diesel exhaust were dispersed into the prevailing winds under typical daytime wind conditions in Newport Beach. The results indicate that the diesel exposure health risk from, construction, of any of the "major" site uses is less than the one -in -a -million risk considered a de minimus risk under SCAQMD toxic risk assessment guidelines. Construction activity diesel exhaust exposure health risk is therefore negligible. After construction, there is a possibility of human exposure to disinfection chemicals (e.g., chlorine gas), but that exposure is considered to be less than significant with DUDEK & ASSOCIATES, INC. September 2000 2552.01 Irvine Ranch Water District San Joaquin Reservoir Project nufw(oe.I7eaw, fnGwpluHujM Mitigated Negative Declaration 5.18 • • - Section 5.0 Discussion of Environmental Impacts appropriate and mandated hazardous materials management practices as regulated by the County of Orange Fire Department and SCAQMD (see Section 2,5). b) Would the project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accidental conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? Less than Significant with Mitigation incorporated. See response 5.7-a. c) Would the project emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one -quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? No Impact. See response 5.7-a. There are no schools located within one -quarter mile of the San Joaquin Reservoir. d) Would the project be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? Less than Significant with Impact Incorporated. It is unknown whether project facilities are located on a hazardous materials site. As part of the final design, a file review shall be performed at the offices of Orange County Department of Environmental Health where hazardous materials or wastes may be encountered. The file review shall identify the current extent of contamination at the location if known. If IRWD chooses to proceed with construction in areas of known contamination, mitigation measures for contaminated soil and/or groundwater shall be coordinated with Orange County Department of Environmental Health and/or the California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Santa Ana (see Section 2.5). With implementation of these measures, it is not anticipated that workers would be subjected to significant hazards associated with construction of the proposed facilities. DUDEK & ASSOCIATES, INC. September 2000 2552-01 rNl.,nanar...,for ra.po.r ym Irvine Ranch Water District San Joaquin Reservoir Project Mitigated Negative Declaration 5-19 Section 5.0 Discussion of Environmental Impacts 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? No Impact. The project site is not located within two miles of,a public airport. f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? No Impact. The project site is not located within the vicinity of a private airstrip. g) Would the project impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? Less than Significant Impact. Some traffic hazards would occur during construction activities which could interfere with emergency response plans or evacuation plans (see response 5.15-d). However, with proper traffic control, construction activities would have a less than significant impact to emergency or emergency evacuation plans. h) Would the project expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving•wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? Less than Significant Impact. Development of above -ground project facilities (pump stations and chlorination facility) would remove all flammable vegetation. Pads would be cleared, graded and paved. No vegetation is proposed immediately adjacent to above -ground facilities. Consequently, the proposed pump stations and chlorine facility (to be approved by the County of Orange Fire Department) is notanticipated to increase the fire hazard in the area. DUDEK &ASSOCIATES, INC. September 2000 2552-01 r��.� .�r,.N�..c..�,o-=r�,.,w Irvine Ranch Water District San Joaquin Reservoir Project 5-20 Mitigated Negative Declaration • Section 5.0 Discussion of Environmental Impacts 5.8 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY a) Would the project violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. During construction grading, there is the potential for some short-term erosion to occur and discharge of pollutants, especially during wet weather seasons. Measures to control erosion and discharge of pollutants, such as sandbagging or other means of stabilization or impoundment will be employed during construction in conformance with the NPDES permit standards (see Section 2.5). Implementation of these measures will reduce surface water quality impacts during project construction to less than significant. During operations, the project could potentially affect water quality through storm runoff from project facilities and seepage from the reservoir. IRWD will include gunite ditches surrounding the pump stations and chlorination facility. Runoff from the project site would be conveyed in the proposed gunite ditches and empty to energy dissipation structures to the natural drainage course. Design and construction of these drainage structures would be in conformance with County of Orange and City of Irvine to assure that water quality standards and waste discharge requirements would not be violated. The San Joaquin Reservoir dam is designed so that seepage occurs. Historically, seepage from the reservoir has been less than cfs. Reservoir modifications, including repairs and installation of the liner, will ensure that seepage will not exceed that which previously occurred at the reservoir. Nutrients as well as other consitutuents found in reclaimed water may affect water quality. Because of the small amount of seepage anticipated for the reservoir (less than'/z cfs), it is anticipated that nutrients as well as other consitutents would be absorbed and filtered by existing soil and riparian vegetation and therefore would have a less than significant impact to surface as well as ground water quality. During design and prior to filling the reservoir, IRWD will perform a site -specific study that will quantify the amount of seepage and nutrients/constituents expected in comparison to the RWQCB Basin Plan objectives. Should the analysis identify that reservoir seepage would be in violation of RWQCB Basin Plan objectives, IRWD would utilize design solutions such as re -pump of any seepage back into the reservoir, and/or downstream improvements to enhance DUDEK &ASSOCIATES, INC. September 2000 2552-01 MNffLIPbl Team for Cnmp4. r..;.n Irvine Ranch Water District San Joaquin Reservoir Project Mitigated Negative Declaration 5-21 Section 5.0 Discussion of Environmental Impacts removal of nutrients/constituents to ensure compliance with RWQCB Basin Plan objectives. 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 a 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)? Less than Significant Impact. The proposed project involves only surface or near - surface improvements which should have a less than significant effect on groundwater flows, quantities, or quality. The project also does not involve any groundwater withdrawals. The additional impervious area associated with the three pump stations, chlorination facility and access driveways;would have a less than significant impact on groundwater recharge. Any potential seepage would also have a less than significant impact to groundwater quantities or quality (see response 5.8-a and 5.8-c). 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 offsite? Less than Significant Impact. See response 5.8-a and 5.8=b. Runoff from the project site would be conveyed in the proposed gunite ditches and empty to energy dissipation structures to the natural drainage course. These channeled drainages would not involve alteration of natural courses nor substantially increase velocities so as to increase erosion or siltation. The San Joaquin Reservoir darn is designed so that seepage occurs. Historically, seepage from the reservoir has been less than 1h cfs and has supported a riparian ecosystem that ultimately drains into the Upper Newport Bay Ecological Preserve. Reservoir modifications, including repair and installation of the liner, will ensure that any seepage of reclaimed water to either groundwater or surface water would not • exceed that which previously occurred at the reservoir. Therefore, no increase in historical water flows is anticipated with the project and, as a result, the project is not anticipated to alter hydrologic conditions. DUDEK ea ASSOCIATES, INC. September 2000 2552-01 nV/mnXXITaN�o.o prX. nqN hvine Ranch Water District San Joaquin Reservoir Project 5-22 Mitigated Negative Declaration • • • - Section 5.0 Discussion of Environmental Impacts d) Would the project substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on or offsite? Less than Significant Impact. Proposed improvements would not substantially change the existing water drainage flow in the area and would not result in flooding on or offsite (see response 5.8-c). e) Would the project create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? Less than Significant Impact. See response 5.8-a, 5.8-b, and 5.8-c. f) Would the project otherwise degrade water quality? Less than Significant Impact. See response 5.8-a. No other degradation of water quality would result from project implementation. g) Would the project place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary of Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? No Impact. No portion of the project would involve the introduction of houses. Therefore, no impact would occur. h) Would the project place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? Less than Significant Impact. Based on a review of Flood Zone information for the project vicinity the pipelines, and pump stations are not located within the 100-year flood plain as defined by the Army Corps of Engineers (Final Environmental Impact Report for the San Joaquin Reservoir Project, SCH # 8811301 MWD 1989). As a result, it is not anticipated that construction of these facilities would impede or redirect flood flow. DUDEK September 2000 2552-01 & ASSOCIATES, INC. Alumna ruu for ro.pu Nu Irvine Ranch Water District San Joaquin Reservoir Project Mitigated Negative Declaration 5-23 Section 5.0 Discussion of Environmental Impacts The existing reservoir is defined as an area susceptible to 100-year flooding through rainfall. However, there is no watershed and overflow due to flooding at the reservoir facility from extensive rainfall will not occur because the reservoir would not be filled to a level where rainfall would overfill the reservoir and cause flooding. i) Would the project expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? Less than Significant Impact. See response 5.8-h. The proposed improvements will be reviewed and approved by DSOD, prior to construction. Compliance with DSOD requirements will ensure that significant risks to the public from' failure of the dam or reservoir would be less than significant. Additionally, all above -ground structures would be placed outside of the 100-year floodplain and therefore, there is no direct risk of exposing structures to flooding hazards. j) Would the project be susceptible to inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? Less than Significant Impact. The project site is located over two miles from the -coast and therefore is not susceptible to inundation by a tsunami. The reservoir has the potential to be subject to seismically induced groundshaking as well as a seiche (seismically induced splashing of water in the reservoir). However, the existing dam has been designed to accommodate the maximum credible earthquake (Final Environmental Impact Report for the San Joaquin Reservoir Project, SCH # 8811301 MWD 1989). No alterations to the dam are necessary to accommodate the proposed reservoir modifications or any other proposed facilities. As a result it is not anticipated that use of the reservoir for storage of reclaimed water would create the potential for downstream flooding from a seiche or failure of the dam associated with seismic activity. Slopes onsite and in the vicinity of all above -ground project facilities are gradual, and therefore, mud flows are not anticipated. DUDEK September 2000 2552-01 & ASSOCIATES, INC. n./�m..rr.N/ u.,.r�m Irvine Ranch Water DisMctSan Joaquin ReservoirProject Mitigated Negative Declaration 5-24 Section 5.0 Discussion of Environmental Impacts 5.9 LAND USE AND PLANNING a) Would the project physically divide an established community? No Impact. The project would involve modifications to an existing reservoir, and construction of Pump Stations 1 and 2 adjacent to existing IRWD facilities. Pump Station 3 and associated access would be constructed within vacant land identified as permanent NCCP open space. As a result, the project would not divide an established community. Project impacts relating to compatibility with surrounding uses relate to aesthetics, air quality, noise and traffic and are discussed in Sections 5.1, 5.3, 5.11 and 5.15 respectively, to this document. b) Would the project conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? Less than Significant Impact. The reservoir as well as Pump Station 1 would be located within the unincorporated County of Orange. Pump Stations 2 and 3 are located within the City of Irvine. Land use plans as they relate to the project site are addressed by both the County of Orange and the City of Irvine General Plan. The project is not within the Local Coastal Program (LCP) for the County of Orange (pers. comm., Ron Tippets, County of Orange, May 30, 2000). The area surrounding the reservoir has been predominantly built out with a combination of residential and commercial uses. The area surrounding Pump Station 3 consists of vacant land preserved as open space by both the Orange County Central and Coastal NCCP/HCP and the City of Irvine General Plan. Reservoir modifications and installation of the storage tank, chlorination facility and pump station will be conducted on existing reservoir land. No land use policy or plan conflicts would occur from modifying the reservoir and development of these proposed facilities. Pump Stations 1 and 2 would be located within or adjacent to existing IRWD public facilities and therefore, no land use policy or plan conflicts would occur. The pipeline facilities would be located primarily within existing roadways or access roads to the reservoir. An approximately 2,000-3,000 foot section of the proposed 36" reclaimed DUDEK Si. ASSOCIATES, INC. September 2000 2552-01 Wailo..r Tian; for Complex Project Irvine Ranch Water District San Joaquin Reservoir Project Mt —gated Negative Declaration 5-25 Section 5.0 Discussion of Environmental impacts water pipeline would extend through an area currently being developed with residential uses immediately to the northeast of the reservoir. However, the proposed pipeline would follow the alignment of planned roadways including Chambord Road within this future development and would not require the relocation or modification to any of the planned facilities. Pump Station 3 and associated access and pipeline would be located within the permanent habitat reserve established by the Orange County Central and Coastal Substation NCCP/HCP. As discussed in response 5.4-f, installation of these facilities are permitted uses within the reserve and therefore would not conflict with the NCCP/HCP. c) Would the project conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? Less Than Significant Impact. See response 5.9-b and 5.4-f 5.10 MINERAL RESOURCES a) Would the project result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? No Impact. Implementation of the proposed facilities would not impact any valuable mineral extraction resources areas. The proposed reservoir modifications, pipelines and Pump Stations 1 and 2 would be located within the existing reservoir property and IRWD facility site. All pipelines would extend through existing or planned roadways. Pump Station 3 and the associated access road/pipeline would be located in an area surrounded by permanent open space that does not currently support any mineral extraction activities. Therefore, implementation of the project would not result in loss of known valuable mineral resources. DUDEK September 2000 2552.01 • St ASSOCIATES. INC. Irvine Ranch Water District San Joaquin Reservoir Project r,./o�.ra..r/..�.yw»q„u Mitigated Negative Declaration 5.26 - Section 5.0 Discussion of Environmental Impacts b) Would the project result in the loss of availability of a locally -important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? No Impact. See response 5.10-a. Mineral extraction operations do not exist onsite. 5.11 NOISE a) Would the project result in exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. Operational Noise: With the exception of the proposed pump stations, operational noise would be negligible. Pump Station 1 (Alternative Location No. 1) is the closest pump station to sensitive receptors and would be approximately 185 feet from the closest residences located to the east. Based on preliminary equipment estimates, it is anticipated that four pumps with motors having a total of 500 horsepower would be used at Pump Station 1. Based on typical pump/motor noise level data, the four pumps/motors would generate a cumulative A -weighted sound level of approximately 95 decibels (dB) at 3 feet. Without a building enclosing the pumps, and assuming the pumps run continuously, the average noise level at the property line would be approximately 60 dB. This noise level would exceed the County's noise standards. The County's noise ordinance states that noise levels at residential zones are not to exceed a one -hour average of 55 dB for 30 minutes between the hours of 7 AM to 10 PM, and 50 dB between 10 PM and 7 AM. However, the project includes enclosing pump stations. A typical pump building would reduce the pump station average noise level to approximately 25 to 50 dB at the closest residential property line and therefore, noise standards would not be exceeded and noise impacts would be less than significant. The second alternative location for Pump Station 1 would be located approximately 700 feet from the closest residences. The pump station mechanical equipment would be enclosed in buildings and would be located away from existing residences, and therefore, would create only minimal operational noise. DUDEK & ASSOCIATES, INC. September 2000 2552-01 wf . .�/��a,� Irvine Ranch Water Distnct San Joaquin Reservoir Project Mrbgated Negative Declaration 5-27 Section 5.0 Discussion of Environmental Impacts Pump Station 2 would be located within an existing IRWD pump station site that is located approximately 1,000 feet from existing residences located along Bonita Canyon Drive. The pump station mechanical equipment would be enclosed in buildings and would be located away from existing residences, andtherefore, would create only minimal operational noise. Pump Station 3 would be surrounded by vacant land preserved as permanent open space as a part of the Central and Coastal NCCP/HCP. Pump Station 3 would be located approximately 3,000 feet to the east of the closest existing residences along Ridgeline Road. The pump station mechanical equipment would be enclosed in buildings and would be located away from existing residences, and therefore, would create only minimal operational noise. Construction. Noise: Noise from construction of the reservoir modifications, Pump Stations 1, 2 and 3 as well as the proposed pipelines would be perceptible to surrounding land uses including existing residential uses. As discussed in Section 2.0, Project Description, construction of the reservoir improvements would take approximately 24 months. Construction of the reservoir modifications as well as the alternative locations for Pump Station1 would be perceptible to existing residences. The closest residences are located in the City of Newport Beach approximately 150 feet to the west of the reservoir. Construction at the reservoir would require the greatest number of pieces of construction equipment and consequently would generate the greatest noise level. As discussed in Section 2.0, Project Description, the construction equipment required to be used during the reservoir repairs is anticipated to include six scrapers, two bulldozers, two loaders, two backhoes, two blades, two water trucks, three rollers, a compactor, paving machine as well as various personal vehicles and crew trucks. However, not all of the equipment would operate at the same time. Typical noise levels generated at 50 feet for this type of equipment are summarized in Figure 6. Based on the typical noise levels generated .by construction equipment, it is anticipated that the closest residences would be exposed to maximum noise levels in the range of approximately 70 to 85 dB during the most intensive construction activity. Noise associated with the construction of the pump station and pipelines would be less because fewer pieces of construction equipment would be required. DUDEK & ASSOCIATES, INC. September 2000 2552-01 rwJ wrbufa�.N�l .e Irvine Ranch Water DisMctSan Joaquin ReseNolrProject . Mitigated Negative Declaration 5-28 © ©NOISE LEVEL (dBA) ©50 FEET EQUIPMENT POWERED BY INTERNAL COMBUSTION ENGINES EARTH MOVING I COMPACTERS (ROLLERS) FRONT LOADERS BACKHOES TRACTORS SCRAPERS, GRADERS PAVERS TRUCKS • '; . ": • : ± •''- . .........•...'..• :•: MATERIALS HANDLING I CONCRETE MIXERS CONCRETE PUMPS CRANES (MOVABLE) CRANES (DERRICK) ' • • STATIONARY I PUMPS . GENERATORS COMPRESSORS ' • • '• ' < • ' IMPACT EQUIPMENT . PNEUMATIC WRENCHES JACK HAMMERS AND ROCK DRILLS PILE DRIVERS (PEAKS) •• . c ,, . „,,,,,,,,,,,,,, z W S o• VIBRATORS SAWS ........... . NOTE: Based an limited available data samples. "'SOURCE: EPA PB 206717, Environmental Protection Agency, Dec. 31,1971, "Noise from Construction Equipment & Operations" IRWD San Joaquin Reservoir Project - Mitigated Negative Declaration Typical Construction Equipment Noise Generation Levels FIGURE 6 Section 5.0 Discussion of Environmental impacts All construction activities will be limited to 7:00 AM to 6:00 PM Monday through Friday in compliance with local noise ordinances relating to construction activities (see Section 2.5). Considering that the construction noise levels associated with the proposed facilities would be temporary and IRWD would adhere to local noise ordinances, the construction noise would be less than significant. b) Would the project result in exposure of persons to or generation of excessive ground borne vibration or ground borne noise levels? Less than Significant impact. See response to 5.11-a. Construction activities including the pipeline road and tank improvements could result in some ground vibration but the vibration would be temporary and given that IRWD would comply with the construction timing requirements of the County and City, significant noise impacts from construction activities are not anticipated. c) Would the project result in a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. See response 5.41-a. d) Would the project result in a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. See response 5.11-a. 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? No Impact. The project is not located within two miles -of a public airport or public use airport. Therefore, no impacts associated with aircraft on construction workers would occur. DUDEK & ASSOCIATES, INC. September 2000 2552-01 Irvine Ranch Water District San Joaquin Reservoir Project ngas.°.'.tifor Comp.* liufras Mitigated Negative Declaration 5-30 • Section 5.0 Discussion of Environmental Impacts For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? No Impact. The project is not located within the vicinity of a private airstrip. Therefore, no impacts associated with aircraft on construction workers would occur. 5.12 POPULATION AND HOUSING a) Would the project induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes or businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? Less than Significant Impact. The proposed project does not involve any increase in IRWD's capacity to produce reclaimed water. The project will not provide additional long-term employment opportunities. No residences are proposed as part of the proposed project, and no extension of services beyond that currently planned for is associated with the proposed project. Therefore, the proposed project would not generate additional population or cumulatively exceed official regional or local population projections, nor would it induce substantial growth in an area either directly or indirectly. b) Would the project displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? No Impact. Existing housing would not be displaced with project implementation. c) Would the project displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? No Impact. The area proposed for the improvements would consist of vacant land, planned roadways or the existing reservoir. As a result, displacement of people would not occur. DUDEK & ASSOCIATES, INC. September 2000 2552-01 ivJcvr..i ,.Nl� r<.Pu w Irvine Ranch Water District San Joaquin Reservoir Project Mitigated Negative Declaration 5-31 Section 5.0 Discussion of Environmental Impacts 5.13 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 government facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the 'following public services: 1. Fire protection? Less than Significant Impact. It is not anticipated that implementation of the proposed facilities would adversely impact local fire protection service. Underground pipelines, the underground storage tank and the reservoir modifications would be inspected and maintained by IRWD and would not require any fire protection services. The proposed pump stations would represent extensions of existing public facilities and would not significantly increase the need for fire protection service beyond that currently needed for IRWD facilities. The chlorination facility would be regulated by the Orange County Fire Department. As discussed in response 5.7-a, this facility would be operated and maintained by IRWD in accordance with the UFC as required by the County of Orange Fire Department. As a result, it is not anticipated that the chlorination facility would necessitate an increase in fire protection service ievels in the project vicinity. II. Police protection? No Impact. As discussed under response5.12-a, the proposed project would not generate population growth; therefore, no new demand would be placed on police protection. III. Schools? No Impact. As discussed in response 5.12-a, the project would not generate population growth; therefore, no new demand would be placed on schools. DUDEK & ASSOCIATES, INC. September 2000 2552-01 Au%aaxM 7m.ufor Camps Hop( Irvine Ranch Water District San Joaquin Reservoir Project Mitigated Negative Declaration 5.32 - Section 5.0 Discussion of Environmental Impacts IV. Parks? No Impact. The proposed facilities would not extend into public active or passive recreation parks. As discussed in response 5.12-a, the project would not generate population growth; therefore, no new demands on parks would be generated. V. Other public facilities? No Impact. All proposed facilities would be constructed, operated and maintained by IRWD. As discussed in response 5.12-a, the proposed project would not generate population growth. Therefore, no new demand would be placed on public facilities. 5.14 RECREATION a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? No Impact. The proposed facilities would not extend into public neighborhood or regional parks. As discussed in Section5.12-a, the project would not generate population growth; therefore, no new demands on parks would be generated. b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? No Impact. The proposed project would not include development of any recreational facilities. DUDEK & ASSOCIATES, INC. September 2000 2552-01 Irvine Ranch Water Distract San Joaquin Reservoir Project lio/mianof Teams for Complex twice! Mitigated Negative Declaration 5.33 Section 5.0 Discussion of Environmental Impacts 5.15 TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC a) Would the project cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. Operation of the proposed reservoir improvements, storage tank, pump stations, pipeline improvements or access roadway improvements would generate minimal traffic. It is anticipated that traffic would be limited to 1-2 maintenance vehicles used to inspect project facilities on a daily basis. As a result, implementation of the project would not result in long term traffic impacts. During construction (approximately 24 months), traffic will be generated by construction crews andequipment/material deliveries. Required equipment for site development is shown in Table 3. It is anticipated that approximately 30 to 40 workers would be employed onsite. All construction equipment, vehicles, personnel and material staging areas would be accommodated within the property lines of the reservoir and proposed pump station(s) properties. Access is expected via the main transportation corridor accessing the reservoir which is from MacArthur Boulevard to Ford Road to the service road. Access to MacArthur will be determined by the direction from which construction vehicles will be originating. Mobilization of equipment and the bringing in of construction supplies will not result in a significant adverse impact to existing traffic flow. The addition of 30 to 40 workers may create adverse traffic impacts during peak hours on Ford Road and at the intersection of Ford Road and MacArthur. Construction workers coming into the area in the morning may cause traffic exiting the residential areas to be delayed due to the residents' inability to make left-hand turns on Ford Road. Also, traffic back-ups at the traffic signal at Ford and MacArthur may present delays in getting through the intersection. A traffic control plan will be prepared in accordance with the County of Orange traffic control guidelines to specifically address construction traffic and any work done within the public right-of-way (see Section 2.5). DUDEK September 2000 2552-01 &ASSOCIATES, INC. nelM.n.rTram for a.tacn.Ru Irvine Ranch Water District San JoaqulnReservoir Prefect Mt —gated Negative Declaration 5-34 Section 5.0 Discussion of Environmental Impacts TABLE 3 ESTIMATED VEHICLE TYPES AND DURATION OF USE Total Construction Duration SJR Repairs (15 months) Tank (12 months) Pump Station (12 months) Pipe ine (6 months) Equipment Count Duration (Months) Equipment Count Duration (Months) Equipment Count Duration (Months) Equipment Count Duration (Months) Bulldozer 2 15 1 12 1 12 0 6 Earth Mover (scraper) 6 15 2 6 • 0 0 0 0 Loader 2 15 1 12 1 12 2 6 Sheeps Foot (Compactor) 2 15 1 6 1 6 1 4 Crane 0 0 1 9 1 6 0 4 Concrete Trucks 3 4 5 6 3 12 1 2 Backhoe 2 15 2 12 1 12 2 6 Crew Trucks 3 15 1 12 1 12 1 6 Pickup Trucks 5 15 3 12 3 12 2 6 Personal Vehicles 15 15 10 12 5 12 5 6 Grader (Blade) 2 15 1 3 0 0 1 1 Water Trucks 2 15 1 12 1 12 1 6 Dump Trucks 5 7 3 6 2 3 3 6 Paving Machine 1 3 1 > 1 1 1 1 1 Rollers (paving) 3 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 The traffic control plan will include the staggering of work hours for workers or the shuttling in of all or a portion of the workers from offsite. Implementation of a traffic control plan will ensure that construction would not create a substantial impact on traffic volumes nor change traffic patterns in such a way that congestion and delay would be substantially increased on street segments or at intersections. DUDEK & ASSOCIATES, INC. September 2000 2552.01 rmi.r m.Nfa raaplet Iw , Irvine Ranch Water District San Joaquin Reservoir Project PrufessiMitigated Negative Declaration 5-35 Section 5.0 Discussion of Environmental Impacts b) Would the project exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the County Congestion Management Agency for designated roads or highways? Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. See response 5.15-a and 5.45-d. With the implementation of a traffic controlplan, short-term and limited construction -related traffic would not create a substantial impact on traffic volumes nor change traffic patterns in such a way as to affect the level of service (LOS) or vehicle to congestion ratio on study area roadways. c) Would the project result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? No Impact. No airport exists within two miles of the project; therefore, the proposed project would not result in an alteration to aircraft traffic or safety risks. Would the project substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. No features of the proposed project would involve permanent alteration of any existing or planned roadways. Access to the site during construction of modifications to the reservoir station would be from MacArthur Boulevard to Bonita Canyon Drive. Some traffic hazards could result on Ford Road and at the intersection of Ford Road and MacArthur Boulevard during construction while slow -moving, heavy equipment access the site. Additional impacts/hazards could occur from construction of underground pipelines in area roadways. A traffic control plan will be included as part of the proposed project. The traffic control plan will be prepared in accordance with local jurisdictional traffic control guidelines and will address construction traffic and all work in publicrights-of- way. Traffic control will include signage and flagmen, as well as timing to avoid peak traffic hours when necessary. The traffic control plan will also include provisions for coordinating with local school hours and emergency service providers regarding construction times. Additionally, an encroachment permit from the County of Orange, City of Irvine and City of Newport Beach where work is done within a public right-of-way will be obtained. These measures will ensure that emergency access will not be restricted, and that hazards resulting from project construction are not substantially increased (see Section 2.5). DUDEK ASSOCIATES, INC. September 2000 2552.01 Tram foptexr a Irvine Ranch Water District San Joaquin Reservoir Project NiemandMitigated Negative Declaration 5.36 - Section 5.0 Discussion of Environmental Impacts e) Would the project result in inadequate emergency access? Less than Significant Impact. See response 5.45-d. The project will not close access to any property or existing roads; therefore, less than significant impact to emergency access or access to nearby uses are expected due to the project. f) Would the project result in inadequate parking capacity? No Impact. Parking areas onsite are sufficient to accommodate construction and operation of the proposed project. Therefore, no impacts to parking capacity onsite or offsite would occur due to the project. g) Would the project conflict with adopted policies, plans or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? No Impact. Implementation of the proposed project would not conflict with adopted policies or involve elimination of facilities supporting alternative transportation such as bus turnouts or bicycle racks. 5.16 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS a) Would the project exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? No Impact. The proposed facilities are designed to allow IRWD to maximize the use of reclaimed water through additional seasonal storage of reclaimed water treated at IRWD's existing Wastewatef Treatment Plant. Project implementation would not impact wastewater treatment. 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 would cause significant environmental effects? Less than Significant Impact. The project will allow IRWD to maximize the use of reclaimed water through additional seasonal storage capacity of reclaimed water DUDEK & ASSOCIATES, INC. September 2000 2552-01 Irvine Ranch Water District San Joaquin Reservoir Project 5-37 AofarienarnanforC"NaAgM Mitigated Negative Declaration Section 5.0 Discussion of Environmental Impacts produced by IRWD. As provided in Section 2.5, measures have been incorporated into the project to ensure that environmental effects are less than significant. c) Would the project require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? Less than Significant Impact. Implementation of the project would not involve the construction of any new storm drain facilities. All pipeline distribution and storage tank facilities would be located underground and would not affect stormwater drainage systems. Drainage from Pump Stations 1 and 2 and the chlorination facility would be collected into existing IRWD storm drain facilities at the reservoir and the existing pump stations. Development of Pump Station 3 and associated access would not significantly increase impervious areas within the local drainage basin. Drainage improvements would be engineered to accommodate minor flows from the project and impacts would not be significant so as to require or alter offsite drainage systems (see response 5.8-a). d) Would the project have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? No Impact. The project would not require the need for a long term new or expanded potable water supplies. Therefore, no impact would occur. e) Would the project result in determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider/s existing commitments? No Impact. No wastewater treatment would be required by the proposed project. f) Would the project be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? Less than Significant Impact. The project will generate a limited amount of solid waste during construction. It is anticipated that the solid waste generated by project construction would have a less than significant impact on local solid waste facilities. No regular solid waste disposal is proposed as part of project operations. Wastes produced by the project by maintenance and repair activities would be transported DUDEK September 2000 2552-01 • & ASSOCIATES, INC. PoliviorkilTram forComptcr Irvine Ranch Water District San Joaquln ReservolrProJect Flora Mitigated Negative Declaration 5-38 • Section 5.0 Discussion of Environmental Impacts back to the central IRWD maintenance facility in Irvine for disposal. It is anticipated that the amount of solid waste generated by the proposed project would not be substantial or interfere with the sufficient permitted capacity of nearby landfills. g) Would the project comply with federal, state, and local statues and regulations related to solid waste? No Impact. See response 5.16-f. All solid waste will be disposed of in an approved site in compliance with federal, state and county regulations. 5.17 MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a flsh 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. As discussed in response 5.4, no threatened or endangered species were identified within the limits of grading for any of the proposed facilities. As a result, direct impacts to sensitive plant and animal species would not occur. Construction of the project could indirectly affect sensitive species including the California gnatcatcher, rufous -crowned sparrow, least Bell's vireo and southwestern willow flycatcher primarily due to construction noise impacts. Mitigation to reduce impacts to sensitive species will be in accordance with the requirements of the Orange County Central and Coastal Subregion NCCP/HCP. In addition, IRWD will not initiate construction during the breeding season in areas immediately adjacent to areas identified as having the potential for sensitive species (see Section 2.5). The San Joaquin Reservoir has in the past had a problem with African clawed frogs, an invasive non-native species that have been documented to predate on native riparian herpetofauna, fish and invertebrates. To avoid development of a significant DUDEK & ASSOCIATES, INC. September 2000 2552-01 Professional Tram / Complex r yw Irvine Ranch Water District San Joaquin Reservoir Project Mitigated Negabve Declaration 5.39 Section 5.0 Discussion of Environmental impacts African clawed frog population, IRWD will implement a trapping program as well as periodic cleaning of the reservoir and control of emergent vegetation and algal matts (see Section .2.5). As stated in response 5.5, no cultural resources have been identified within the proposed limits of grading. However, some sites considered to be significant resources under CEQA are located within 500 feet of the proposed facilities. As a result, a cultural resources monitor will be present during construction (see Section 2.5). Underlying geologic formations impacted by the project have the potential to contain significant paleontological resources. To avoid impacts to paleontological resources during construction, a monitoring and recovery program will be implemented (see Section 2.5). b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. As revealed by the previous discussions for each environmental category, impacts from the proposed project are considered to be less than significant or no irnpact after the incorporation of mitigation measures. Measures are incorporated into the project which reduce impacts associated with geological resources, hydrology and water quality, air quality, traffic, biological resources, hazards, noise, public utilities, visual resources, paleontological and cultural resources to less than significant (see Section 2.5). No long-term significant impacts are associated with the project. In the absence of significant impacts, incremental accumulation of effects would not occur. Therefore, the proposed project does not incrementally contribute to cumulative impacts. c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. Based on the analysis of all the above questions, it has been determined that there would be no significant direct or indirect effect on human beings. DUDEK & ASSOCIATES, INC. September 2000 2552-01 w ..<rr,..up.ro.,r,.h'T° Irvine Ranch Water District San Joaquin ReiervolrProject 5-40 Mitigated Negative Declaration • • SECTION 6.0 SOURCES/EARLIER ANALYSIS USED Analysis from the Environmental Impact Report for the San Joaquin Reservoir Improvement project (State Clearinghouse Number 88113031) certified by the Metropolitan Water District in 1993 was used in the preparation of this document for the following issues: Paleontological Resources: The geotechncial analysis prepared by MWD for the EIR addresses underlying geologic formations affected by construction of pipelines for Pump Stations 1 and 2 within planned roadways as well as construction of Pump Station 3 and associated access road/pipeline. See discussion under Section 5.5. Geotechncial Resources: The geotechnical analysis prepared by MWD for the EIR addresses some geotechnical issues for construction of the pipelines for Pump Stations 1 and 2 within planned roadways as well as construction of Pump Station 3 and associated access road/pipeline. See discussion under Section 5.5. This EIR is available for review at IRWD offices, 15600 Sand Canyon Avenue, Irvine, • California. DU>DEK & ASSOCIATES, INC. September 2000 2552-01 RufenIo IT for Mne Ranch Water Disthct San Joaquin Reservair Project Mrtigated Negative Declaration 6-1 • • • SECTION 7.0 REPORT PREPARATION PERSONNEL Irvine Ranch Water District — Lead Agency Gregory P. Heiertz, P.E. Director of Engineering and Planning Michael Hoolihan, PE Senior Engineer Dudek & Associates, Inc. John Porteous, M.A., C.E.P Project Manager Jim Harry, B.A Environmental Planner Mike Komula, M.S Acoustician Sherri Miller, M.S. Senior Biologist Jeff Priest, B.S. Biologist Vipul Joshi, B.S. Biologist Steve Deering, M.S./P.E. Engineer Lesley Terry, B.S. CADD Operator Tonette Foster, B.S Computer Processing Gallegos at Associates Richard Cerreto, M.A Project Archaeologist Dennis Gallegos, B.A. Senior Archaeologist Giroux 8t Associates Hans Giroux, MS Air Quality DUDEK & ASSOCIATES, INC. September 2000 2552-01 Prof ytona Toter%c�P��% Irvine Ranch Water Distnct San Joaquin Reservoir Project lcu Mitigated Negative Declaration 7-1 • • SECTION 8.0 REFERENCES California Department of Conservation, 2000. Important Farmland Mapping and Monitoring program for the County of Orange. County of Orange, December 7,1995. Natural Community Conservation Plan and Habitat Conservation Plan, County of Orange Central and Coastal Subregion Parts I and II: NCCP/HCP Irvine, City of, 1984. Noise Ordinance from City Municipal Code. Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, June 1992. Environmental Impact Report for the San Joaquin Reservoir Improvement Project. Newport, City of. 1995. Chapter 10.26, Loud and Unreasonable Noise of City Municipal Code. INDIVIDUALS AND AGENCIES CONTACTED Cox, Peter. City of Irvine Planning Department. Personal communication. May 2000. Curtis, Barry. City of Irvine Planning Department. Personal communication. May 2000. Gutierrez, David. California Department of Water Resources. Division of Safety of Dams. Personal communication. May 30, 2000. Shaw, Larry. County of Orange Vector Control District. Personal communication. June 26, 2000. Tippets, Ron. County of Orange Planning Department. Personal communication. May 30, 2000. Vernez, Ernie. County of Orange Planning Department. Personal communication. May 25, 2000. D UDE�K & ASSOCIATES, INC. September 2000 2552-01 Nor.ar ro c�riar Irvine Ranch Water District San Joaquin Reservoir Project MNgated Negative Declaration 8-1 A1'PENI)IX A Public Distribution D'U D<E K 6z. ASSOCIATES, INC. Professional Teams for Complex Projects • • PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION IRVINE RANCH WATER DISTRICT SAN JOAQUIN RESERVOIR PROJECT MND Federal Agencies 1. United States Fish and Wildlife Service 2730 Loker Avenue West Carlsbad, CA 92008 2. United States Department of the Army Corps of Engineers, Regulatory Branch 10845 Rancho Bernardo Road, Suite 210 San Diego, CA 92127 3. United States Department of the Army Corps of Engineers, Regulatory Branch P.O. Box 2711 Los Angeles, CA 90053-2325 State Agencies 4. California State Clearinghouse 1400 Tenth Street Sacramento, CA 95814 5. California Department of Transportation District 12 5347 Michelson Drive, Suite 100 Irvine, CA 92612 California State Water Resources Control Board 411 Burgess Drive Menlo Park, CA 94025-3488 7. Native American Heritage Comm. 915 Capitol Mall, Room 364 Sacramento, CA 95814 September200D 2552-01 & ASSOCIATES, INC. Pelt. ....rr..,r..Conk' hyena Irvine Ranch Water District San Joaquin Reservoir Project 1 Mitigated Negative Declaration PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION IRVINE RANCI1 WATER DISTRICT SAN JOAQUIN RESERVOIR PROJECT MIND 8. California Department of Fish and Game 4949 Viewridge Avenue San Diego, CA 92123 California Department of Health Services 185 Berry Street, Suite 260 San Francisco,. CA 94107-1724 10. California State Air Resources Control Board 202 L Street Sacramento, CA 95814 11. California Regional Water Quality Control Board Santa Ana Region 3737 Main, Ste. 500 Riverside, CA 92501 12. State of California Department of Water Resoures Division of Safety of Dams 1416 Ninth Street, P.O. Box 942836 Sacramento, CA 94236 13. University of California Irvine Irvine, CA 92697 Attention: Local Agencies 14. The Metropolitan Water District of Southern California. P.O. Box'54153 Los Angeles, CA 90054 rASSOCIATES, INC. n.b...nmw F.* . Irvine Ranch Water District San Joaquin Reservoir Project 2 Mitigated Negallve Declaration September2000 2552-01 DU.DEK • • PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION IRVINE RANCI1 WATER DISTRICT SAN JOAQUIN RESERVOIR PROJECT MIND 15. City of Huntington Beach P.O. Box 190 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 16. City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard P.O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92659-1768 17. Mesa Consolidated Water District 1965 Placentia Avenue Costa Mesa, CA 92627 18. Laguna Beach County Water District P.O. Box 987 Laguna Beach, CA 92652 19. South Coast Water District 31592 West Street South Laguna, CA 92677 20. County of Orange Planning & Development Services Department P.O. Box 4048 Santa Ana, CA 92702 21. County of Orange Environmental Health Department 2009 E. Edinger Avenue Santa Ana, CA 92702 Dt DEK September 2000 2552-01 & ASSOCIATES, INC. P ItutsulT .u,..Co..$OPrs.. Irvine Ranch Water Dlstnct San Joaquin Reservoir Project Mitigated Negative Declaration 3 PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION IRVINE RANCH WATER DISTRICT SAN JOAQUIN RESERVOIR PROJECT MND 22. City of Irvine Department of Public Works P.O. Box 19575 Irvine, CA 92623 23. City of Irvine Planning Department P.O. Box 19575 Irvine, CA 92623 24. South Coast Air Quality Management District 21865 East Copley Drive Diamond Bar, CA 91765 25. Orange County Fire Authority 180 South Water Street Orange, CA 92866 26. County of Orange Vector Control District 13001 Garden Grove Boulevard Garden Grove, CA 92843 Attention: Larry Shaw Libraries 27. Newport Beach Public Library Central Library 1000 Avocado, Avenue Newport Beach, CA 92660 & ASSOCIATES. INC. PnftuicaolTeent x. Crooks P..n. Irvine Ranch Water District San Joaquin Reservoir Project September 2000 2552.01 4 Mitigated Negative Declaration • • PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION IRVINE RANCH WATER DISTRICT SAN JOAQUIN RESERVOIR PROJECT MIND 28. Heritage Park Regional Library 14361 Yale Avenue Irvine, CA 92604-1901 Organizations/Individuals 29. The Irvine Company 550 Newport Center Drive Newport Beach, CA 92663 Notices Sent to: Adrian & Susan Gluck 6 Vernon Newport Coast, CA 92657 Rosette Gindi FAX (714) 631-1442 Mamood Namdar 7 Avignon Newport Coast, CA 92657 California Pacific Homes 5 Civic Center Plaza, Suite 100 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Elizabeth Ness 33 Avignon Newport Coast, CA 92657 DUDEK September2000 ' 2552.01 & ASSOCIATES, INC. M1eyukW Tear. prCapLetPm»eu Irvine Ranch Water Distnct San Joaquin Reservoir Project Mitigated Negative Declaration 5 PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION IRVINE RANCH WATER DISTRICT SAN JOAQUIN RESERVOIR PROJECT MND Don & Sally Phelps 2 Calais Newport Coast, CA 92657 James Lorman, Jr. 550 Newport Center Drive P.O. Box 6370 Newport Beach, CA 92658 L.J. Gibson 5 Giverny Newport Coast, CA 92657 Sharon Fisher P.O. Box 8988 Newport Beach, CA 92658 Alfred L. Cook, Jr. 32 Avignon Newport Coast, CA 92657 Michael and Barbara Danzi 41 Avignon Newport Coast, CA 92657 Aret Kalfa P.O. Box 8285 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Sidney I. DuPont (Monserrat Development) 27 Avignon Newport Coast, CA 92657 DU'DE & ASSOCIATES. INC M W *�- x �- •-� Irvine Ranch Water District San Joaquin Reservoir Project 6 Mitigated Negative Declaration September 2000 2552.01 • . PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION IRVINE RANCID WATER DISTRICT SAN JOAQUIN RESERVOIR PROJECT MND Ken Krueger 17 Avignon Newport Coast, CA 92657 Rosie Levin 16 Chantelaine Newport Coast, CA 92657 Chris Moore Fred Sands Realty FAX: 644-7813 Kenneth Hardy (Monserrat Development) 25 Avignon Newport Coast, CA 92657 Karen Masters Grubb & Ellis 23 Corporate Plaza, Suite 190 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Betty Richardson 46 Drake's Bay Drive Corona Del Mar, CA 92625 Nima Sabharwal 37 Avignon Newport Coast, CA 92657 jack Lucas 40 Drake's Bay Drive Corona Del Mar, CA 92625 DfDEK & ASSOCIATES, INC., T,,al...,:sputa C...plea lots Irvine Ranch Water Distract San Joaquin Reservoir Project 7 Mitigated Negative Declaration September 2000 2552-01 PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION IRVINE RANCH WATER DISTRICT SAN JOAQUIN RESERVOIR PROJECT #ND M. Foster 711 W. 17th Street Costa Mesa, CA 92627 Lisa Adams Coldwell Banker Realty 2121 E. Coast Highway Newport Beach, CA 92660 Dick Fleming President, Harbor Ridge Terrace HOA 965-5665 FAX - 964-6331 Greg Lombardi 4 Civic Plaza, Suite 260 Newport Beach, CA 92660 759-3751 Kevin McLaughlin MWD P.O. Box 54153 Los Angeles, CA 90054 Francis Albers 9 Evening Breeze Irvine, CA 92612 Deanna Socoloske 17 Diamondgate Aliso Viejo, CA 92656 tailgagl September2000 2552-01 &ASSOCIATES, INC. P'+d•wb..for r tlu rM,n, Irvine Ranch Water District San Joaquin ReseNolr Protect 8 Mitigated Negative Declaration • • • PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION IRVINE RANCH WATER DISTRICT SAN JOAQUIN RESERVOIR PROJECT MND Sonja Powell Coldwell Banker Realty 2121 E. Coast Highway, Suite 180 Corona Del Mar, CA 92625 Aileen Movsesian 14 Rocky Point Corona Del Mar, CA 92625 Pat LaClair Karen Lynch Realty 2640 E. Coast Highway, Suite 3 Corona Del Mar, CA 92625 DU.DEK �& ASSOCIATES, INC. Pp/ eiwl nw. FGglnY.^Nni Irvine Ranch Water Distnct San Joaquin Reservoir Project 9 Mitlgated Negative Declaration September 2000 2552-01 APP1iNDIX B Biological Resources Report by Dudek st Associates, Inc. July 2000 DUDEK & ASSOCIATES, INC. Profu,bnal Tram, for ComplexProjau 4.0 & ASSOCIATES, INC. resetonal Teams for Complex Protect July 28, 2000 DUDEK • Engineering, Planning, Environmental Sciences and Management Services Irvine Ranch Water District Michael J. Hoolihan, P.E. Project Manager Sand Canyon Drive Irvine, California Corporate Office: 605 Third Street 760.942.5147 Encinitas, California 92024 Fax 760.632.0164 Re: Biological Reconnaissance Report - San Joaquin Reservoir Project Irvine Ranch Water District, Irvine, California Dear Mr. Hoollihan: 2552-01 This letter summarizes the methods and results of the biological reconnaissance study completed by Dudek and Associates, Inc. (DUDEK) for the Irvine Ranch Water District (IRWD) proposed San Joaquin Reservoir project. PROJECT LOCATION The San Joaquin Reservoir is located in the San Joaquin Hills of Orange County adjacent to the City of Newport Beach (Figures 1 and 2). Proposed reservoir modifications, Pump Station 1, the storage tank and chlorination facility are proposed within the reservoir site. Pump Station 2 and associated pipeline are proposed within an existing IRWD pump station site located immediately south of Bonita Canyon Drive in the City of Irvine. Pump Station 3 and associated pipeline and access are located on vacant land north of San Canyon Avenue in the City of Irvine. PROJECT DESCRIPTION IRWD, as the largest percentage owner (48%), proposed to buy the capacity allocation and ownership from the other owners to convert the reservoir to non -potable water storage to allow IRWD to maximize the use of reclaimed water through additional seasonal storage. Major design components required to convert the San Joaquin Reservoir include: (1) Modifications to reservoir for repairs; (2) Construction and operation of three pump stations, one at the reservoir and two offsite; (3) Construction of a one-half million -gallon storage tank to be buried at the reservoir; (4) Construction of approximately one mile of reclaimed water pipeline; and (5) Construction of a chlorination facility at the reservoir (see Figure 3). Biological Reconnaissance Report - San Joaquin Reservoir Project Irvine Ranch Water District, Irvine, California METHODS DUDEK biologists Jeff Priest and Vipul Joshi visited the proposed facility sites with a representative from IRWD on May 16, 2000. The sites were visited between 1100 and 1400 with warm temperatures, clear skies and a light breeze. Varying amounts of time were spent at each site according to the biological resources present. Mr. Priest noted wildlife species either through direct observation or by call, scat, markings, etc. Mr. Priest also evaluated the potential for state- and federally -listed wildlife species at each site. Mr. Joshi noted all vegetation and vegetation communities onsite, including the presence/absence of jurisdictional waters of the U.S., including wetlands. Although aformal wetland delineation (using the United Federal Method) was not conducted, hydrology and vegetation were evaluated for the presence of wetland characteristics. Vegetation communities and sensitive resources were mapped onto an 800-scale line -work GIS map which showed existing and planned roads, facility structures and other development. A 2000-scale color aerial photograph reproduction was also used for general vegetation mapping. EXISTING CONDITIONS The existing biological conditions of the different construction areas for the project are discussed separately for each area. Figure 3 illustrates the locations of the project components and biological resources. Area 1- Proposed Pump Station #3 and Proposed 24" Pipe This area can be found in Detail B of Figure 3. Biological resources are shown in Figure 4. This area currently contains a storage tank facility and access road but is otherwise surrounded by agricultural lands. IRWD proposes placing a pump station directly south of tank and installing a 24"-pipe to extend from the pump station. approximately 1000 feet southeast toward proposed extension of Sand Canyon Avenue. The location of the 24"-pipe should roughly follow an existing, abandoned dirt access road. The pump station would impact non-native annual grassland dominated by several non- native grasses including slender wild -oat (Avena barbata), barley (Hordeum sp.) and bromes DUDEK & ASSOCIATES, INC. r,d.,.+.•alr *GaAsnp.., July 28,2000 2552-01 2 • • • • Biological Reconnaissance Report - San Joaquin Reservoir Project Irvine Ranch Water District, Irvine, California (Bromus madritensis and B. hordeaceous). Other species include a mixture of non-native forbs and remnant native shrub species: artichoke thistle (Cynara cardunculus), wild mustard (Brassica nigra), California poppy (Eschscholzia californica), cholla (Opuntia prolifera), coastal goldenbush (Isocoma menziesii ssp. veneta) and California sagebrush (Artemisia californica). A mixture of common wildlife species were identified in the area surrounding the proposed pump station including northern rough -winged swallow (Stelgidopteryx serripennis), western meadowlark (Sturnella neglecta), common raven (Corvus corax), cliff swallow (Hirundo pyrrhonota), mourning dove (Zenaida macroura), northern mockingbird (Mimus polyglottos), California towhee (Pipilo crissalis), Brewer's blackbird (Euphagus cyanocephalus), European starling (Sturnus vulgaris), Botta's pocket gopher (Thomomys bottae), mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus), coyote (Canis latrans) and brush rabbit (Sylvilagus bachmani). One regionally sensitive species, rufous -crowned sparrow (Aimophila ruficeps), was identified within grasslands west of the project impact area. The 24"-pipeline will be placed in non-native grassland as described above. Although the pipeline will be placed in an old access road that road has not been consistently used and contains vegetation similar to the surrounding non-native grassland. An ephemeral stream channel flows from east to west in this area; the channel varies in width from one to six feet. The stream channel contains a small group of Mexican elderberry (Sambucus mexicanus) trees but no areas contain a predominance of hydrophytic vegetation. Area 2 - Proposed Pump Station #2 This facility would be located in the northern portion shown in Detail A of Figure 3. Biological resources are shown in Figure 4. Pump station #2 is being proposed in an area with an existing pump station. The existing facility is enclosed by a surrounding ten -foot tall concrete wall. Outside the wall a variety of native and non-native weed -like species were recorded. These species include wild mustard, horseweed (Conyza canadensis), red -stemmed filaree (Erodium cicutarium), bristly ox-tongue (Picris echioides), mule fat (Baccharis salicifolia), western jimsonweed (Datura wrightii), wild fennel (Foeniculum vulgare) and cheeseweed (Malva parviflora). Wildlife species detected include cliff swallow, lesser goldfinch (Carduelis psaltria), turkey vulture (Cathartes aura), red-tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis), bushtit (Psaltriparus,minimus), mourning dove, house finch (Carpodacusmexicanus), California towhee, black phoebe (Sayornis nigricans), Say's phoebe (Sayornis saya), European starling, red -winged blackbird (Agelaius phoeniceus), western fence lizard (Sceloporus occidentalis) and pocket gopher. 'DUDEK & ASSOCIATES, INC. , fc.tw.r,o. July 28, 2000 3 2552-01 Biological Reconnaissance Report - San Joaquin Reservoir Project Irvine Ranch Water District, Irvine, California Surrounding land uses around the existing facility include a stream channel containing southern willow scrub habitat immediately south and east, a nursery to the west and north; developed land uses occupy the majority of the general vicinity. Area 3 - Proposed 36" Pipe The pipeline footprint is shown in Detail A of Figure 3. Biological resources are shown in Figure 4. The 36"-connector pipeline is being proposed within an existing access road south of Bonita Canyon Drive, north of San Joaquin Reservoir. The ten- to twelve -foot -wide asphalt access road runs from east to west and cuts through maturecoastalsage scrub. The coastal sage scrub is dominated by typical constituent species such as California sagebrush, coyote brush (Baccharis sarothroides), California buckwheat (Eriogonum fasciculatum) and mule fat. Despite the presence of mule fat, there is no defined drainage within the coastal sage scrub near the access road. The federally -listed threatened California gnatcatcher (Polioptila californica) was detected within coastal sage scrub adjacent to the proposed pipeline alignment. The habitat is of high quality for this listed bird species. Other wildlife species detected include Anna's hummingbird, wrentit, California towhee, lesser goldfinch, spotted towhee (Pipilo maculatus), rough -winged swallow and mourning, dove. The west end of the proposed pipeline crosses a mature southern willow scrub drainage running from south to north. Constituent species within the southern willow scrub include arroyo willows (Salix lasiolepis), mule fat, curly dock (Rumex crispus), pampas grass (Cortaderia sellona), telegraph weed (Heterothecagrandi flora), African umbrella -sedge (Cyperus involucratus) and horseweed. This area was briefly observed for wildlife species and may potentially support the following sensitive bird species: least Bell's vireo (Vireo bellii pusillus), southwestern willow flycatcher (Empidonax traillii extimus), yellow breasted chat (Icteria virens), orange -crowned warbler (Vermivora celata) and yellow warbler (Dendroica petechia). Area 4 - Proposed Pump Station 01 (Alternative 2) and Chlorine Tani(Faci/ity These facilities are shown in Detail A of Figure 3. Biological resources are shown in Figure 4. Alternative 2 for pump station #1 and the chlorine tank facility are located at an existing administration building which contains only ornamental plants. The adjacent land to the north and east contain coastal sage scrub dominated by California sagebrush, California buckwheat and deerweed (Lotus scoparius). The coastal sage scrub supports typical wildlife DUDEK & ASSOCIATES, INC. p ..r, p.c.nlap+.w, July 28,2000 4 2552.01 • • • Biological Reconnaissance Report - San Joaquin Reservoir Project Irvine Ranch Water District, Irvine, California species for a fragmented piece of coastal sage scrub including wrentit (Chamaea fasciata), California towhee, common raven, Anna's hummingbird (Calypte anna), bushtit, house finch, northern rough -winged swallow, northern mockingbird and brush rabbit. The coastal sage scrub does have the potential to support California gnatcatcher, although none were detected during the survey. Area 5 - Proposed Pump Station #1 (Alternative 1) The facility is shown in Detail A of Figure 3. Biological resources are shown in Figure 4. The site of proposed pump station #1 (Alternative 1) is located immediately east of San Joaquin Reservoir on a recently graded pad. The surrounding area is being graded for a planned development and only fragments of regrowing vegetation were observed. House finch was the only wildlife species detected. IMPACT ANALYSIS Area 1- Proposed Pump Station #3 and Proposed 24" Pipe The proposed pump station #3 would have minimal biological impacts in that only non- native grassland would be directly or indirectly affected. One sensitive bird species was observed in the area, rufous -crowned sparrow. The bird is not expected to nest within the footprint of the proposed pump station, therefore no direct impacts are expected but indirect temporary impacts would occur. There are no expected direct or indirect impacts to jurisdictional waters of the U.S., including wetlands, associated with construction of the pump station. The proposed 24" pipe would also have minimal biological impacts in that only non-native grassland would be directly affected. As with the above pump station, construction may indirectly and temporarily affect rufous -crowned sparrow. The proposed pipeline also will cross an unvegetated, ephemeral stream channel and will run adjacent to this channel for most of its length. In the area of the crossing the stream channel is approximately one foot wide. Therefore, the proposed pipe would temporarily impact approximately 10 to 15 square feet of jurisdictional area. The stream channel crossing is a direct temporary impact to waters of the U.S. under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE) and California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) and will require applications for a nationwide permit DUDEK & ASSOCIATES, INC. r d m...ir tot C..pany.v. July 28, 2000 5 2552.01 Biological Reconnaissance Report - San Joaquin Reservoir Project Irvine Ranch Water District, Irvine, California and streambed alteration agreement, respectively and a Section 401 water quality certification from the Regional Water Quality 'Certification Board (RWQCB). Indirect temporary impacts to the stream channel may include runoff, erosion and siltation. Area 2 - Proposed Pump Station 02 (Alternative 1) • Proposed pump station #2, in this location, should not directly impact any sensitive biological resources or native plant communities. The proposed pump station would be placed within the walls or directly south of the existing facility where no habitats were mapped. The riparian corridor, which is confined to a deep, narrow channel to the west and north of the existing facility, should not be directly or indirectly impacted if construction is within the ten -foot walls. If outside the walls, indirect impacts to riparian habitat and species through dust, lighting, runoff, siltation and noise would be expected. Area 3 - Proposed 36" Pipe Placement of a 36"-pipeline in this area would result in direct temporary impacts to jurisdictional wetlands and indirect temporary impacts to coastal sage scrub habitat. Although the majority of the pipeline is within an existing asphalt access road, the western end will pass through a riparian corridor containing mature southern willow scrub. Approximately 10 linear feet, the width of the construction corridor for the pipeline, would be temporarily impacted. A total of approximately 200 square feet (10' x 20') of wetlands would be temporarily impacted by construction of the pipeline. The stream channel crossing is a direct temporary impact to waters of the U.S. under the jurisdiction of the ACOE and CDFG and will require applications for a nationwide permit and streambed alteration agreement, respectively and a Section 401 water quality certification from RWQCB. Indirect temporary impacts associated with construction of the pipeline may occur and affect coastal sage scrub, occupied by the federally -listed threatened California gnatcatcher as well as the riparian corridor in the west and north containing mature southern willow scrub. Potential indirect temporary impacts to habitat and species include dust, noise, lighting and introduction of exotics. DUDEK & ASSOCIATES, INC. p.r..,wr gnc iaPapa. July 2B,2000 6 • 2662-01 • • • • Biological Reconnaissance Report - San Joaquin Reservoir Project Irvine Ranch Water District, Irvine, California Area 4 - Proposed Pump Station #1 (Alternative 2) Proposed pump station #2 in this area does not have the potential to directly impact any biological resources. Indirect temporary impacts to adjacent coastal sage scrub habitat and occupant species may occur with dust, noise and lighting. Area 5 - Proposed Pump Station #1 (Alternative 1) and Proposed O.5mg Tank Construction of the proposed facilities at this location would not result in direct or indirect impacts to any biological resources. TABLE 1 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS • Area Significant Impacts Area 1 Direct temporary impact to 10 to 15 square feet of unvegetated ephemeral stream channel Indirect temporary impacts to unvegetated ephemeral stream channel and rufous -crowned sparrow Area2 Indirect impacts to riparian habitat and species (If construction is outside of existing facility walls/ Area 3 Direct temporary impact to approximately 200 square feet of southern willow scrub (avoidable) Indirect temporary impacts to southern willow scrub and coastal sage scrub occupied by California gnatcatcher Area 4 Indirect temporary impacts to unoccupied coastal sage scrub Area 5 None RECOMMENDED MITIGATION MEASURES Direct Impacts - Upland Habitats No significant direct impacts to upland habitat are expected in any of the construction areas and therefore no mitigation measures are recommended. Direct Impacts - Wet/and Habitats (including Waters of the U.S.) • Direct temporary impacts to waters of the U.S. covering the entire project (i.e., all construction areas) will be permitted through a single nationwide permit for ACOE and a DUDEK & ASSOCIATES, INC. Mrwl.ulTsuji? Ca pt.Theis.. July 28, 2000 2552-01 7 Biological Reconnaissance Report - San Joaquin Reservoir Project Irvine Ranch Water District, Irvine, California single streambed alteration agreement for CDFC. It is recommended that IRWD use tunneling or other design measures in Area 3 to avoid southern willow scrub habitat (see Figure 4). Assuming avoidance of southern willow scrub habitat as shown in Figure 4, then the total impacts to waters of the U.S. from this project would be authorized by ACOE through its existing nationwide permit #12. Under this permit, IRWD can construct the project without notification to the ACOE if the following conditions are met: • Material resulting from trench excavation is temporarily sidecast for no more than three months. • The trench is not constructed in such a manner as to drain waters of the U.S. • Any exposed slopes and stream banks are stabilized immediately upon completion of the utility line crossing. • The access road is of the minimum width necessary and avoids impacts to jurisdictional waters to the maximum extent. • Any temporarily affected waters will be restored to preconstruction contours and elevations. • The total impact is less than 1/10 acre of waters of the U.S. • The portion of the permanent access road, constructed above grade in waters of the U.S., does not exceed 500 feet. • The access road, in the area impacting waters of the U.S., is not constructed with impervious materials. The CDFC streambed alteration agreement application would need to be submitted along with a final adopted document prepared in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Additionally, an application for a Section 401 water quality certification would need to be filed with the RWQCB in order to use nationwide permit 12. Assuming avoidance of wetland impacts in Area 3, the impacts to the unvegetated stream channel in Area 1, associated with construction of a 24" pipe and access road, would be the total direct jurisdictional impact for the project. No mitigation beyond adherence to the permit conditions of ACOE nationwide permit 12 including restoration of preconstruction contours in the streambed with the exception of the access road constructed with pervious materials, are proposed. With compliance with the notification conditions of nationwide permit 12, no -net -loss of wetlands is achieved and direct temporary impacts to waters of the U.S. are reduced below a level of significance. DUDEK & ASSOCIATES, INC. nr..mrTens h.n.nsahelms July 28,2000 8 2552-01 • • • Biological Reconnaissance Report - San Joaquin Reservoir Project Irvine Ranch Water District, Irvine, California Indirect Impacts - Upland Habitats and Species Indirect temporary impacts to sensitive upland habitats, some possibly containing sensitive upland bird species, would occur in Areas 1, 3 and 4. Indirect temporary impacts will be mitigated through use of Best Management Practices (BMP's) during facilityconstructionto reduce dust, lighting and noise impacts. Additionally, it is recommended that construction in Areas 1 and 3, identified as having the potential for sensitive species, not be initiated during the rufous -crowned sparrow and California gnatcatcher breeding seasons: February 15 to August 30. With implementation of these measures, indirect temporary impacts to upland habitats would be reduced below a level of significance. Indirect Impacts - Wetland Habitats and Species Indirect impacts to wetland habitats, some possibly containing sensitive wetland bird species, would occur in Areas 1 and 3. Indirect temporary impacts will be mitigated through use of BMP's during facility construction to reduce dust, lighting, runoff, erosion, siltation and noise impacts. Additionally, it is recommended that construction in Area 3, identified as having the potential for sensitive species, not be initiated during the least Bell's vireo and southem willow flycatcher breeding seasons: April 10 to July 31. With implementation of these measures, indirect impacts to wetland habitats would be reduced below a level of significance. If you have any questions or concerns about the contents of this letter, please do not hesitate to contact me at (760) 942-5147. Very truly yours DUDEK AND ASSOCIATES, INC. A, Jos Project Biologist cc: John Porteous - DUDEK DUDEK A ASSOCIATES, INC. nd.,,kwr k.CompLar W. July 28,2000 9 2552-01 FIGURES Refer to Figure 1 (Regional Map) and Figure 2 (Vicinity Map) in the Mitigated Negative Declaration. Refer to Figure 3 (Project Components) and Figure 5 (Biological Reconnaissance Map) in the Mitigated Negative Declaration a DER & ASSOCIATES, INC. Pro(uebna! Tcmv far Campia Projects APPENDIX C Cultural Resources Report by Gallegos & Associates July 2000 DUDEK 6&, ASSOCIATES, INC. Profa,ionalTmnu for Complex PmJecb • • CULTURAL RESOURCE SURVEY REPORT FOR THE IRVINE RANCH WATER DISTRICT, SAN JOAQUIN RESERVOIR PROJECT ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Prepared for: Dudek & Associates 605 Third Street Encinitas, CA 92024 National Archaeological Data Base Information Type of Study: Literature review and survey Area Covered: Approximately 2+/- acre Sites Within Alignments A & B: None USGS 7.5' Quadrangle: Laguna Beach and Tustin Key Words: Negative Survey Authors Richard Cerreto Project Archaeologist Dennis R. Gallegos Project Manager June 2000 Prepared by: Gallegos & Associates 5671 Palmer Way, Suite A Carlsbad, California 92008 (760) 929-0055 PJ. 14-00 TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION TITLE PAGE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ii 1 INTRODUCTION 1-1 1.1 Project Background 1-1 1.2 Project Location and Setting 1-1 1.3 Background - Prehistory 1-5 1.4 Record Search and Literature Review Results 1-5 2 SURVEY METHODS, RESULTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 2-1 2.1 Field Methods 2-1 2.2 Results and Recommendations 2-1 3 FIGURE REFERENCES CUED 3-1 LIST OF FIGURES TITLE PAGE 1-1 Regional Location of Project 1-2 1-2 Project Area A Shown on Tustin 7.5' USGS Map 1-3 1-3 Project Area B Shown on Tustin and Laguna 7.5' USGS Map 1-4 APPENDIX LIST OF APPENDICES TITLE PAGE A Resumes of Key Personnel B Record Search Results PJ. 14-00 A-1 B-1 June 2000 TITLE: AUTHORS: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Cultural Resource Survey Report for the Irvine Ranch Water District, San Joaquin Reservoir Project Orange County, California Richard Cerreto and Dennis R. Gallegos Gallegos & Associates 5671 Palmer Way, Suite A Carlsbad, California 92008 DATE: June 2000 SOURCE OF COPIES: South Central Coastal Information Center California Historical Resources Information System UCLA Institute of Archaeology, A163 Fowler Bldg. Los Angeles, California 90095-1510 ABSTRACT: This report provides the results of a cultural resource literature review, record search and field survey of the Irvine Ranch Water District, San Joaquin Reservoir Project. The cultural resources survey report focused on the development of proposed reclaimed water pipelines and pump stations 1 and 3 and development of a proposed storage tank. All other project components (e.g. modifications to the reservoir and development of the chlorination facility and pump station 2) would be in developed/disturbed areas and therefore were not inventoried for cultural resources. The proposed waterlines are located west of I-405, between Sand Canyon Avenue and Macarthur Blvd. The project study areas for two pipelines (A and B) and pump stations are approximately 1,000 and 5,000-feet long respectively by 100-feet wide. The property is disturbed by dirt roads and past agricultural use. Visibility was good over most of the property at the time of survey. The record search and field survey identified no cultural resources within the proposed waterline alignments. Given the presence of shell nearProject B, monitoring of construction is recommended. �J. 14-00 Li June 2000 • • • • • SECTION 1 INTRODUCTION 1.1 PROJECT BACKGROUND This study presents the results of a cultural resource survey for the Irvine Ranch Water District (IRWD) San Joaquin Reservoir Project in Orange County. The IRWD proposes to purchase the capacity allocation and ownership from the other existing owners and convert the San Joaquin Reservoir to non -potable water storage to partially alleviate existing and planned IRWD demand for additional storage. Components required to convert the Reservoir to non -potable water storage include the following: 1. Repairs to the reservoir; 2. Construction and operation of three pump stations, one at the reservoir and two offsite; 3. Construction of a one-half million -gallon storage tank to be buried at the reservoir; 4. Construction of one mile of reclaimed water pipeline; and construction of chlorination facility at the reservoir. The cultural resource survey report focused on the development of proposed reclaimed water pipelines and pump stations 1 and 3 and development of a proposed storage tank. All other project components (e.g. modifications to the reservoir, and development of the chlorination facility and Pump Station 2) will be in previously disturbed/developed areas. This study was completed in compliance with Orange County_and California Environmental • Quality Act (CEQA) guidelines. The cultural resource study included a record search at the South Central Coastal Information Center (SCCIC) and a field survey of the project areas. 1.2 PROJECT LOCATION AND SETTING The project is •located west of I-405, between Sand Canyon Avenue and Macarthur Boulevard (Figure 1-1). Project A is the construction of a 24" pipeline (1,000-feet long) and Pump Station 3 (Figure 1-2). Project B is the construction of a 36" pipeline (5,000- feet long) and Pump Station 1 (Figure 1-3). The project topography consists of rolling hills with nonnative grasses. Disturbance includes dirt roads and agricultural use. PJ. 14-00 June 2000 1-1 LOS ANGELES COUNTY .OS ANGELES PROJECT LOCATION P A C 1 P 1 c 0 13 MILES SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO 0 C E A N Gallegos & Associates SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY SAN BERNARDINO OCEANSILIE LA JOLLA RIVERSIDE COUNTY ESCONDIDO SAN DIEGO COUNTY SAN DIEGO Regional Location of Project FIGURE 1-1 • f 0 1{ {MILS MM 1 13W 240 MILS SCALE 1:24000 0 417 Mi a l ty/"` r.Y :^` it 1 MILE 1000 0 Gallegos & Associates 1000 2000 3000 4000 .5 0 5000 6000 1000 FEET 1 KILOMETER Project Area A Shown on Tustin 7.5" USGS Map FIGURE 1-2 • 0 14 4 MILS MN 1 13M' 240 MILS i • I.: I rfep..t1 j j: r i! ''-�q'f�cq_- :- id M1 . .•. i(rti, 7 ��Sl`=: ^t i4 if -..?A �._ r'.'r�. za`\1.V�1a�:'4t {�..'l�n{ { I 1' f'�J. SCALE 1:24000 0 I MILE 1000 0 I +ram Gallegos & Associates 1000 2000 3000 4000 6030 6000 7000 FEET 5 0 1 KILOMETER 1-11 Project Area B Shown on Tustin and Laguna 7.5" USGS Map FIGURE 1-3 1.3 BACKGROUND - PREHISTORY Orange County was occupied as early as 9,000 years ago. Occupation from approximately 8,500 to 3,000 years ago is identified as the Milling Stone Period. Artifact assemblages indicate people of this period hunted, fished, milled plant foods, and collected shellfish. Archaeological sites reflecting this occupation include coastal and inland residential bases with seasonal campsites. Occupation between 3,000 and 1,250 years ago is identified as the Intermediate Period. This period is characterized by new technologies in the hunting of fish, fowl, and marine mammals. The Late Prehistoric Period is associated with occupation from 1,250 years ago to 250 years ago. The economic pattern during this period appears to be one of more intensive adaptation to and exploitation of local resources, particularly a year-round supply of marine resources (Clevenger 1989). Semi -permanent villages located near the coast served as base camps and were established to exploit shellfish, fish, and sea mammals. Small field camps located in the inland foothills were used to take advantage of the greater diversity of plant resources. The generally accepted subsistence pattern involves exploitation of marine resources during the fall and winter months and a shift to inland resources during the spring and summer (Howard 1977:11). Orange County falls within the Gabrielino region. Bean and Smith (1978a) note that the Gabrielino comprised "the wealthiest, most populous and most powerful ethnic group in southern California." The language of the group is classified as Cupak. Artifacts reflecting the Late Period Gabrielino pattern include small triangular projectile points, milling implements including manos and metates as well as mortars and pestles, and bone and shell tools and ornaments featuring more elaborate designs. Tizon Brown Ware or Mission Ware pottery appear in the latter portion of the period (Clevenger 1989). 1.4 RECORD SEARCH AND LITERATURE REVIEW RESULTS The literature review and record search identified 22 prehistoric sites and 26 studies within one mile of Project Area A (Anonymous 1980a,b; Bean 1979; Brechbiel 1998; Conkling et al. 1995; Cottrell 1977; Demcak 1997; Dodge 1978; Douglas 1980, 1981; Drover 1998; Gothold and Maguire 1973; Langston 1998; Mabry 1979a-c; McKenna 1996; McKenna et PJ. 14-00 1-5 June 2000 al. 1996; Paden 1983a,b, 1984a-c, 1996; Weisbord 1981; Weisbord and Weil 1983). No prehistoric or historic sites have been previously recorded within Project Area A. The literature review and record search identified 56 prehistoric sites and 58 studies within one mile of the Project Area B (Anonymous 1938; Bean 1979; Bissell 1988, 1998; Bonner et al. 1996, 1997; Briuer 1977; Brock 1987; Chase 1995; Chase and Cooper 1994; Cooley 1974; Cooper and Chase 1994; Cottrell 1977, 1978, 1983; Cottrell et al. 1979; Crabtree 1973; DeBarros and Koerper 1990a,b; Demcak 1985; Douglas 1981; Drover 1997, 1998; Farnsworth and Whitney-Desautels 1989; Gibson and King 1991; Howard and Carter 1975; Jertberg 1990; Jertberg et al. 1990, 1991; Langenwalter and DiGregorio 1979; Mabry 1979a,b; Mason and Brechbiel 1993; Mason and Peterson 1994; Mason 1987, 1993, 1995, 1997; Mason et al. 1993, 1992, 1997; McKenna and DeBarros 1993a,b; McLean 1994, 1995; Paden 1985, 1988, 1998; Rdsenthal and Paden 1987; Stickel and Howard 1976; Tadlock and Tadlock 1979a,b; Unlmown 1961, 1989, 1993; Van Horn 1977, Van Horn et al. 1983; and, one no name, no date for ITEMID # OR1453). No prehistoric or historic sites have been previously recorded within Project Area B. PJ. 14-00. June 2000 1-6 • • • SECTION 2 SURVEY METHODS, RESULTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 2.1 FIELD METHODS The property was surveyed by R. Cerreto, D. Gallegos and C. Malan, on May 31, 2000. The field survey was conducted on foot using a 10 to 12 m interval between surveyors. Visibility was good with graded roads or disturbed non-native vegetation within the project areas. 2.1 RESULTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Results are provided below by project area. See Section 1 for project areas shown on USGS and Client provided development maps. Project A (proposed Pump Station 3 and 1,000 foot long 24" pipe alignment) This study included a literature review and record search conducted at the South Central Coastal Information Center (SCCIC). No cultural resources (prehistoric or historic) were previously recorded within Project A. The field survey was also negative, identifying no cultural resources within or adjacent to the project area. Project Area B (Proposed Pump Station 1, Altemativesl and 2, tank, and 5,000-foot long 36" pipe alignment) This study included a literature review and record search conducted at the South Central Coastal Information Center (SCCIC). The record search was negative with no previously recorded sites within the project area. The field survey identified a small amount of shell along an unnamed creek, but no artifacts were noted. Given the presence of shell and previously recorded sites near the project area, monitoring during construction is recommended. 2.1 SUMMARY In summary, the literature review for Project Areas A and B was negative. In addition, the field survey identified a small amount of shell near Project Area B, but no artifacts. Given the presence of shell near Project B, monitoring of construction is recommended. PI. 14-00 2-1 June 2000 • • SECTION 3 REFERENCES CITED Anonymous 1938 This Book Presents the Findings of Works Progress Administration Anthropological Project #7680, 4-ORA-107. On file, South Central Coastal Information Center, University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California. Anonymous 1980a Archaeological Investigation of a Late Prehistoric Horizon Site, CA-ORA- 379, City of Irvine, California. On file, South Central Coastal Information Center, University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California. 1980b File Report on CA-ORA-342. On file, South Central Coastal Information Center, University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California. Bean, Lowell J. 1979 Cultural Resources and the High Voltage Transmission Line from San Onofre to Santiago Substation and Black Star Canyon. On file, South Central Coastal Information Center, University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California. Bissell, Ronald. 1988 Archaeological Resources Reconnaissance of the Long Range Development Plan Study Area, University of California, Irvine, Orange County, California. On file, South Central Coastal Information Center, University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California. 1998 Project Area 27 in Irvine, Orange County, California. On file, South Central Coastal Information Center, University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California. Bonner, Wayne H., S. J. Bourscaren, L. Carbone, R. O. Gibson, L. Klug, R. D. Mason, M. L. Peterson and V. Popper 1996 Results of Data Recovery at CA-ORA-482 and CA-ORA-106: New Ford Road Project Irvine, California. On file, South Central Coastal Information Center, University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California. 1997 San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor Results of Data Recovery at CA- ORA-125 and CA-ORA-1295. On file, South Central Coastal Information Center, University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California. Brechbiel, B. A. 1998 Cultural Resources Record Search and Literature Review Report for a Pacific Bell Mobile Services Telecommunications Facility: CM 052-12 In the City of Irvine, California. On file, South Central Coastal Information Center, University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California. Briuer F. L. 1977 Report of the Intensive Archaeological Survey of the Irvine Coastal Region Priority Parcel #1. On file, South Central Coastal Information Center, University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California. PJ. 14-00 3 -1 June 2000 • • • Brock, James 1987 Report on Archaeological/Paleontological Monitoring at Coyote Canyon Sanitary Landfill. On file, South Central Coastal Information Center, University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California. Chase, Paul G 1995 A Cultural/Scientific Resources Survey for the Irvine Planning Area 26, Bonita Canyon -Coyote Canyon, Zone Change 18903ZC, in the City of Irvine, Orange County, California. On file, South Central Coastal Information Center, University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California. Chase, Paul G. and Jon D. Cooper 1994 Newport Coast Archaeological Project: Results of Archaeological & Paleontological Monitoring for Grading Operations of the Buck Gully 66KV Installation & Access Roads, Newport Coast Planning Area. On file, South Central Coastal Information Center, University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California. Conkling, Steve, Brad Sturm and Diann Taylor 1995 Cultural Resources Assessment, Planning Area 22, City of Irvine, Orange County, California. On file, South Central Coastal Information Center, University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California. Cooley, Ted 1974 Preliminary Report -Bonita Mesa. On file, South Central Coastal Information Center, University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California. Cooper, John D. and Paul G. Chase 1994 Newport Coast Archaeological Project: Results of Archaeological and Paleontological Monitoring for Grading Operations of Portions of Newport Ridge, Tract No. 14509, Tentative Tract No. 13455. On file, South Central Coastal Information Center, University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California. Cottrell, Marie 1977 Archaeological Survey Report for Village 12 and Village 14. On file, South Central Coastal Information Center, University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California. 1978 Preliminary Archaeological Survey. Conducted for the San Juaquin Transportation Corridor. On file, South Central Coastal Information Center, University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California. 1983 San Joaquin Transportation Corridor: An annotated List of Archaeological Reports Referenced by Number. On file, South Central Coastal Information Center, University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California. Cottrell, Marie, David Van Horn and Allen Schilz 1979 Report of Archaeological Test Level Investigations Conducted at Sites CA- ORA-483 and CA-ORA-106. On file, South Central Coastal Information Center, University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California. PJ. 14-00 3-2 June 2000 Crabtree, Robert 1973 Harborview Hills Development, Section 3, and 4, Sites 11, 13, and 14. On file, South Central Coastal Information Center, University of 'California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California. De Barros, Philip and Henry C. Koerper 1990 Final Test Investigation Report and Request for Determination of Eligibility for 23 Sites along the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor. On file, South Central Coastal Information Center, University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California. Demcak, Carol 1985 Test Level Investigations Conducted at CA-ORA-673, Coyote Canyon, Orange County, California. On file, South Central Coastal Information Center, University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California. 1997 Final Report of Archaeological Monitoring for L.A. Cellular Site #685.1, City of Irvine, Orange County, California. On file, South Central Coastal Information Center, University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California. Dodge, William A. 1979 An Archaeological Assessment of Eight Cultural Localities along the San Onofre-Santiago 220 Kv Transmission Line. On file, South Central Coastal Information Center, University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California. Douglas, Ronald D. 1980 Assessment of Cultural/Scientific Resources, Village 12, SCE HVTL Relocation, Irvine, California. On file, South Central Coastal Information Center, University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California. 1981 Archaeological and Paleontological Resource Assessment, Turtle Rock Enclave Eight Irvine, California. On file, South Central Coastal Information Center, University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California. Drover, Christopher 1997 Cultural Resources Impact and Constraints Assessment Project Area PA-27 Irvine, California. On file, South Central Coastal Information Center, University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California. • 1998 A cultural Resources Inventory of Planning Area 17, Irvine, California. On file, South Central Coastal Information Center, University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California. Farnsworth, Paul, and N. Whitney-Desautels 1989 Determination of National Register Eligibility and Treatment Plan and Data Recovery Program for Archaeological Sites on the Coyote Canyon Sanitary Landfill Property, Orange County, California. On file, South Central Coastal Information Center, University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California, PJ. 14-00 3-3 June 2000 • • • • Gibson, R. O. and C. D. King 1991 Preliminary Analysis of Beads, Ornaments and Fishhooks from 25 Orange County Sites. On file, South Central Coastal Information Center, University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California. Gothold, Jane and John Maguire 1973 Pacific Coast Archaeological Society Survey Along the North Side of the San Diego Freeway. On file, South Central Coastal Information Center, University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California. Howard, Jerry and Christina Carter 1975 Excavations of the Spyglass Hills Site, CA-ORA-202 and CA-ORA-203 in Orange County, California. On file, South Central Coastal Information Center, University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California. Jertberg, Patricia 1990 Archaeological Monitoring at Coyote Canyon Sanitary Landfill, Orange County, California. On file, South Central Coastal Information Center, University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California. 1991 CA-ORA-1193: Test Program for Determination of National Register Eligibility. On file, South Central Coastal Information Center, University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California. Jertberg, Patricia, Beth Padon and Jane Rosenthal 1990 Archaeological Mitigation Program at CA-ORA-231 Coyote Canyon Landfill. On file, South Central Coastal Information Center, University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California. Langston, Snyder 1999 Archaeological and Paleontological Monitoring results for the Candlewood- Irvine, Parcel 5 Project, City of Irvine, Orange County, California. On file, South Central Coastal Information Center, University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California. Langenwalter, Becky E. and Lee A. DiGregorio 1979 Archaeological Reconnaissance Report Silverado Canyon Day -Use Facility Assessment. On, file, South Central Coastal Information Center, University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California. Mabry, Theo N. 1979a Test Level Investigations Conducted on ORA-379, Irvine, California. On file, South Central Coastal Information Center, University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California. 1979b Archaeological Reconnaissance Survey Enclaves V and VI, Turtle Rock Irvine, California. On file, South Central Coastal Information Center, University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California. 1979c Archaeological Records Search and Reconnaissance Survey Turtle Rock Enclaves 6 and 7. On file, South Central Coastal Information Center, University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California. PJ. 14-00 3-4 June 2000 1981 Archaeological Investigation at CA-ORA-227, A Prehistoric Archaeological Site Located in the San Joaquin Hills Region of Orange County, California. On file, South Central Coastal Information Center, University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California. Mason, Roger D. 1986 Test Plan for National Register Evaluation of Archaeological Sites in the Coyote Canyon Sanitary Landfill Property, Orange County, California. On file, South Central Coastal Information Center, University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California. 1993 Test Program Results and Request for Determination of Eligibility for five Sites in the New Ford Road Alignment, Irvine, California. On file, South Central Coastal Information Center, University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California. 1994 Newport Coast Settlement Systems: Analysis and Discussion. On file, South Central Coastal Information Center, University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California. 1995 Mitigation Monitoring Report New Ford Road, Orange County, California, Mitigation Measure 69.1: Monitoring for Prehistoric Resources. On file, South Central Coastal Information Center, University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California. 1997 San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor Results of Construction Monitoring for Archaeological Resources Mitigation Monitoring Measures 11-1. On file, South Central Coastal Information Center, University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California. Mason, Roger D. and Brant A. Brechbiel 1993 Newport Coast Archaeological Project: Result of Archaeological Grading Monitoring of San Joaquin Hills Road and the Subsurface Test Program Conducted at CA-ORA-1252. On file, South Central Coastal Information Center, University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California. Mason, Roger D, and Mark L. Peterson 1994 Newport Coast Settlement Systems: Analysis and Discussion. On file, South Central Coastal Information Center, University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California. Mason, R., B. Brechbiel, M. Peterson, C. Singer, W. Bonner, L. Klug, T. Morgan and R. Gibson 1992 Newport Coast Archaeological Project. Results of Data Recovery at Three Newport Coast Open Sites CA-ORA-673, CA-ORA-675, and CA-ORA- 684. On file, South Central Coastal Information Center, University of California Los • Angeles, Los Angeles, California. PJ. 14-00 June 2000 3-5 Mason, R. D., S. J. Bouscaren, H. W. Bonner, M. L. Peterson and L. P. Klug 1992 Test Program Results and Request for Determination of Eligibility for Five Sites in the New Ford Road Alignment, Irvine, California. On file, South Central Coastal Information Center, University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California. Mason, R. D., W. H. Bonner, S. J. Bouscaren, L. Carbone, R. O. Gibson, L. Klug, M. L. Peterson, and V. Popper 1997 San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor Results of Data Recovery at CA- ORA-225. On file, South Central Coastal Information Center, University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California. McKenna, Jeanette and Philip De Barros 1993 Archaeological Survey Report Historic Sites Addendum San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor 12-ORA-73 12-102540. On file, South Central Coastal Information Center, University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California. 1993 Historic Study Report San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor 12-ORA- 73 12-102540. On file, South Central Coastal Information Center, University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California. 1996 A Phase II Archaeological Testing Program for CA-ORA-178 and CA- ORA-382 and a Reconnaissance Survey for CA-ORA-334/349, all located in the Sand Canyon Area of Irvine, Orange County, California. On file, South Central Coastal Information Center, University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California McLean, Deborah 1994 Cultural Resources Assessment: Newport Coast Drive Extension. On file, South Central Coastal Information Center, University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California 1995 Cultural Resources Assessment: Newport Coast Drive Extension. On file, South Central Coastal Information Center, University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California. Padon, Beth 1984a Historic Property Survey Report for the Proposed Sand Canyon/I-405 Interchange City of Irvine, California. On file, South Central Coastal Information Center, University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California. 1984b Archaeological Monitoring for Turtle Rock Enclave VI Project. On file, South Central Coastal Information Center, University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California. 1984c Historic Property Survey Report for the Proposed Sand Canyon/I-405 Interchange, City of Irvine, California On file, South Central Coastal Information Center, University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California. PJ. 14-00 3-6 June 2000 1983a Assessment of Archaeological and Paleontological Resources Irvine Medical Complex Irvine, California. On file, South Central Coastal Information Center, University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California. 1983b Assessment of Archaeological and Paleontological Resources Irvine Medical Center Irvine, California. On file, South Central Coastal Information Center, University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California. 1985 Archaeological Resource Inventory: City of Irvine and Its Sphere of Influence. On file, South Central Coastal Information Center, University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California. 1988 Paleontological and Archaeological Monitoring: Coyote Canyon Landfill, Orange County, California. On file, South Central Coastal Information Center, University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California. 1995 Archaeological Assessment Report. On file, South Central Coastal Information Center, University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California. 1998 Paleontological Monitoring for EH & S Building on University of California, Irvine Campus. On file, South Central Coastal Information Center, University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California Rosenthal, Jane and Beth Padon 1987 An Archeological Overview of the Coyote Canyon Sanitary Landfill. On file, South Central Coastal Information Center, University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California. Stickel, Gary E. and Jerry B. Howard' 1976 Final Report of a Cultural Resource Survey of the University of California, Irvine. On file, South Central Coastal Information Center, University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California. Tadlock, Jean and W. Lewis Tadlock 1979 San Joaquin Hills Transportaiton Corridor Cultural Resources Study -- Archaeology—. On file, South Central Coastal Information Center, University of CaliforniaLos Angeles, Los Angeles, California. PJ. 14-00 3-7 June 2000 • • • . Unknown 1961 Index to the Artifacts Collected During the Second Part of the WPA Project. On file, South Central Coastal Information Center, University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California. 1989 Preliminary Draft: Environmental Impact Report for the San Joaquin Reservoir Improvement Program. On file, South Central Coastal Information Center, University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California. 1993 Data Recovery Plan Prehistoric Archaeological Sites CA-ORA-106 and CA- ORA-482 Within the Area of Potential Effect of the Proposed New Ford Road. On file, South Central Coastal Information Center, University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California. 1996 Cultural Resources Assessment: Newport Coast Drive Extension. On file, South Central Coastal Information Center, University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California. Van Horn, David 1977 Archaeological Test Excavations at ORA-227, 275, 619, 620 in the Coyote Canyon Refuse Disposal Station, County of Orange, California. On file, South Central Coastal Information Center, University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California. Van Horn, D.M., J.D. Cooper, E. Crespin, and J.R. Murray 1983 A Cultural/Scientific Resources Investigation of the Planned San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor (Phase ]I). On file, South Central Coastal Information Center, University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California. Weisbord, Jill 1982 Cultural Resource Survey of the Irvine Center DA, Village 13. On file, South Central Coastal Information Center, University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, Califon ia: Weisbord, Jill and Edward Weil 1983 Archaeological Monitoring Activities at CA-ORA-178 University Drive Widening Project, City of Irvine, California. On file, South Central Coastal Information Center, University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California. PJ. 14-00 3-8 June 2000 APPENDIX A RESUMES OF KEY PERSONNEL AND APPENDIX B RECORD SEARCH RESULTS are available for review at: Irvine Ranch Water District 15600 San Canyon Avenue Irvine, CA 92618