Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout17 - IRWD Reclamation Plant & Capacity Expansion ProjectCITY OF NEWPORT BEACH CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Agenda Item No. 17 January 10, 2006 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM: City Manager's Office Sharon Wood, Assistant City Manager 949 - 644 -3222, swood @city.newport- beach.ca.us SUBJECT: Comments on Draft Environmental Impact Report for IRWD's Michelson Reclamation Plant Phase 2 and 3 Capacity Expansion Project RECOMMENDATION: Approve and authorize the Mayor to sign comment letter (attached) DISCUSSION: The Irvine Ranch Water District (IRWD) is proposing to expand the capacity of its Michelson Reclamation Plant in Irvine from 18 million gallons per day (mgd) to 33 mgd by 2025. A subcommittee of the Environmental Quality Affairs Committee has reviewed the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the project, and the full Committee will review the attached draft comments at their meeting of Monday, January 9, 2006. 1 will report any changes that EQAC makes to the draft comments at the City Council meeting. In preparation for this review, staff from IRWD and preparers of the DEIR attended the December EQAC meeting to explain the project and its impacts to the Committee. IRWD also cooperated with the City by agreeing to receive our comments after the deadline of December 28, 2005, to allow time for the EQAC subcommittee to complete their work and have it reviewed by the full Committee and the City Council. Consistent with the City's usual practice when commenting on a DEIR from another agency, I have used EQAC's comments as the basis for a, letter from the Mayor. The changes I have made are to focus the comments on issues that could have a direct impact on Newport Beach, including in this case impacts on Upper Newport Bay. I have deleted comments suggested by EQAC that deal with localized impacts at the project site in Irvine, such as biological resources and noise. Submitted by: �4e;L Sharon Wood Assistant City Manager Attachments: Draft Comments from EQAC Draft Letter from Mayor January 11, 2005 Mr. Gregg Herr Irvine Ranch Water District 15600 Sand Canyon Avenue Irvine, CA 92618 Irvine Ranch Water District Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Michelson Water Reclamation Expansion Project Dear Mr. Herr: The City of Newport Beach appreciates IRWD's courtesy in presenting the Project to our Environmental Quality Affairs Committee (EQAC) in December, and in agreeing to accept the City's comments on the Draft EIR after the deadline for comment on the document. As you are probably aware from past projects, EQAC reviews Draft EIRs and prepares comments for the City Council's consideration. The comments in this letter are based on those prepared by EQAC and are the comments approved by the City Council on January 10, 2006. 3.0 Project Description "Reclaimed Water Pumping" (page 3 -11): The DEIR states that three 9 million gallons per day ( "mgd ") pumps will be added to increase capacity to 33 mgd. However, no information is given about how the additional 15 mgd capacity will be distributed to users. Are new transmission pipes and /or intermediate pumping stations needed? If so, where will they be placed and what environmental impact is expected? These questions need to be fully addressed in the final EIR. 4.0 Environmental Analysis 4.2 Hydrology and Water Quality "Table 4.2 -2" (page 4.2 -5): The final EIR should confirm that the numbers in the Table are correct. It would seem that the year average concentrations should be between the values for wet and dry seasons. Example: see Total Nitrogen (mgll), year maximum and minimum. "NPDES Permit" (page 4.2 -22, 3, 4): The text at the bottom of page 4.2- Mr. Gregg Herr, IRWD January 11, 2006 Page 2 23 refers to a requirement to meet Total Dissolved Solids ( "TDS ") concentrations in the water delivered from the MWRP. It shows that the current facility meets the requirement, by a small margin, according to the 'latest recycled water report." However, it goes on to imply that introduction of differing source waters in the future could prevent MWRP from meeting the NPDES permit requirements. The final EIR should fully analyze this potential impact and provide necessary mitigation to assure that permit requirements will be met. "Nutrients" (page 4.2 -26). It is unclear from the text and Table 4.2 -12 whether any nutrient effluent requirements in this proposed Project related to TMDLs. In fact, computations based on Table 4.2 -1 and 4.2 -2 could lead to the conclusion that the Total Nitrogen Daily Load requirement in 2012 on Table 4.2- 12 is unachievable. Is that true? If not, a simple calculation of the San Diego Creek contribution to Total Nitrogen Load and the MWRP contribution would be essential. Why not do these calculations and present the results in clear tables with consistent units (acre - ft/yr, gals /yr, Ibs, cf /s, mg /I). "4.2.6 Non - Regulated Pollutants Carried by Tertiary Treated Wastewater" (page 4.2 -41): This is an informative exposition of the unresolved problems associated with the detection and mitigation of pharmaceuticals and personal care products in wastewater. Those sections are well written and useful as background, but there are currently no regulatory guidelines to follow. Since some of these pollutants could eventually prove to be problematical, it would be appropriate if IRWD /MWRP would agree to participate in one or more state -of- the -art research programs in this area. In this way, IRWD would be most prepared to take future corrective action regarding identified dangerous pollutants in this category. 5.0 Cumulative Impacts The DEIR concentrates on the cumulative impacts of "projects for which applications have been submitted as well as projects that may foreseeably have impacts that would cumulate with those of the Proposed Project ..." The study area for cumulative impacts includes the San Diego Creek Watershed. However, our comments focus on the cumulative growth inducing impacts that the proposed Project may have. In 2004, IRWD expanded its storage capacity for recycled water with the expansion of the San Joaquin Reservoir. The cumulative effect of the expanded capacity at San Joaquin Reservoir, combined with the proposed Project, which increases the production of recycled water, will free up substantial quantities of potable water. The DEIR makes no attempt to analyze and, if necessary, mitigate such impacts. The potential impacts associated with the expansion of the San Joaquin Reservoir combined with the expansion of the Michelson facility should be 9 Mr. Gregg Herr, IRWD January 11, 2006 Page 3 analyzed to evaluate the long term and cumulative impacts of the proposed Project on the District's Non - Potable Water Supply System. Piecemeal EIRs, according to CEQA, are illegal. The CEQA Guidelines provide that a "project" means "the whole of the action" which has the potential for resulting in "either direct physical change or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment." (CEQA Guidelines, Section 15378) The final EIR should fully analyze the combined environmental impacts of the expansion of the San Joaquin Reservoir and the expansion of the Michelson facility. 6.0 Growth Inducement The Executive Summary states that a Project Objective is to maximize freshwater availability for wildlife needs and resources uses such as agriculture. The DEIR Introduction states: "IRWD has developed water supplies that include: high quality and impaired quality (treated) local groundwater, surface water captured in local reservoirs, treated and untreated imported water provided through the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (MWD) and tertiary treated recycled water." In expanding IRWD's recycled water production capability, the proposed Project will free up potable water supplies, which will affect growth in the area. The DEIR states that "(g)rowth- inducing factors in Orange County are primarily related to availability of buildable land and adequate infrastructure to support growth in new areas." However, in the and Southern California climate, water availability affects land use decisions. Development entitlements are conditioned upon a showing of such availability. Since 2001, with the passage of two laws linking development to water supply, project applicants in California have been required to obtain written confirmation from water suppliers that sufficient water will be available prior to developing a project. The laws apply to residential, commercial, office, hotel, industrial and mixed -use projects that meet certain thresholds. For residential developments, the threshold is the water demand equal to or greater than the amount of water demanded by a 500 dwelling unit project. The additional availability of potable water supplies that will result from the proposed Project has the potential to lead to a greater level of development in the areas where there is available buildable land in Orange County. The final EIR should fully analyze the potential growth- inducing impacts of the proposed Project. I Mr. Gregg Herr, IRWD January 11, 2006 Page 4 Conclusion Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the DER for the Project. We hope that these comments will assist IRWD in the final EIR and the final Project. Sincerely, Don Webb Mayor Cc: Environmental Quality Affairs Committee MEMORANDUM To: Mayor Don Webb and Members of the City Council City of Newport Beach Cc: Homer Bludau, City Manager From: Irvine Ranch Water District Subcommittee of EQAC City of Newport Beach DRAFT Subject: Irvine Ranch Water District Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Michelson Water Reclamation Expansion Project Date: January 9, 2006 Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Draft Environmental Impact Report ( "DEIR ") for the Irvine Ranch Water District's ( "IRWD ") Michelson Water Reclamation Expansion Project (the "Project "). We wish to thank Mr. Norris Brandt and the other IRWD staff members, as well as members of the consulting team that prepared the DEIR, who made an extensive presentation to EQAC at its December 19, 2005 meeting. We thank them for their input. EQAC's comments are as follows: Executive Summary "ES.6.1 Hydrology and Water Quality" (page ES -5): In the "Issues" paragraph, the preparers failed to acknowledge major concerns raised by the University of California Natural Reserve System ( "UCNRS ") regarding subsidence of the marsh in the area of Campus Drive and the increased depth of ground water resources which negatively affects natural habitats in the marsh (See Appendix A, UCI letter dated June 30, 2005). Impacts of the Project on these issues and others raised in the referenced letter should be analyzed as a part of the final EIR, since they affect the viability of the entire marsh and habitat. 3.0 Proiect Description "Reclaimed Water Pumping" (page 3-11): The DEIR states that three 9 million gallons per day ( "mgd ") pumps will be added to increase capacity to 33 mgd. However, no information is given about how the additional 15 mgd capacity will be distributed to users. Are new transmission pipes and /or intermediate pumping stations needed? If so, where will they be placed and what environmental impact is expected? These questions need to be fully addressed in the final EIR. Mayor Don Webb Members of the City Council City of Newport Beach January 9, 2006 Page 2 of 6 Draft "3.6 Environmental Commitments Incorporated into the Project" (page 3 -14): In Appendix A, County of Orange letter dated Judy 1, 2005 suggests items which the County considers important enough to be included in the EIR. Please include responses to the following County of Orange issues raised in the referenced letter in the final EIR: 2. The NOP refers several times to San Diego Creek Channel's "baseline condi- tion." The NOP should define what it means by the term "baseline condition ". The NOP appears to suggest or may mislead the reader into thinking that if OCFCD restores F05 to its "baseline condition" that the potential for flooding of the MWRP will be alleviated. 5. No adverse impacts or worsening of existing conditions would result to County and OCFCD facilities as a result of MWRP expansion project. MWRP should analyze impacts and propose mitigation measures in consultation with County's Flood Control Division to ensure flooding potential is not worsened, floodplains and flooding problems are not shifted elsewhere and erosion is not caused by the proposed project. 8. An anti - terrorism element should be incorporated into the design of the treatment plant expansion and this should be discussed in the EIR. Terrorist event or internal sabotage could result in the release of millions of gallons a day of sewage to upper Newport bay. 4.0 Environmental Analysis 4.2 Hydrology and Water Quality "Table 4.2 -2" (page 4.2 -5): The final EIR should confirm that the numbers in the Table are correct. It would seem that the year average concentrations should be between the values for wet and dry seasons. Example: see Total Nitrogen (mg /1), year maximum and minimum. " NPDES Permit" (page 4.2 -22, 3, 4): The text at the bottom of page 4.2 -23 refers to a requirement to meet Total Dissolved Solids ( "TDS ") concentrations in the water delivered from the MWRP. It shows that the current facility meets the requirement, by a small margin, according to the "latest recycled water report." However, it goes on to imply that introduction of differing source waters in the future could prevent MWRP from meeting the NPDES permit requirements. The final EIR should fully analyze this potential impact and provide necessary mitigation to assure that permit requirements will be met. "Nutrients" (page 4.2 -26). It is unclear from the text and Table 4.2 -12 whether I Mayor Don Webb Members of the City Council City of Newport Beach January 9, 2006 Page 3 of 6 Draft any nutrient effluent requirements in this proposed Project related to TMDLs. In fact, computations based on Table 4.2 -1 and 4.2 -2 could lead to the conclusion that the Total Nitrogen Daily Load requirement in 2012 on Table 4.2 -12 is unachievable. Is that true? If not, a simple calculation of the San Diego Creek contribution to Total Nitrogen Load and the MWRP contribution would be essential. Why not do these calculations and present the results in clear tables with consistent units (acre -ft /yr, gals /yr, Ibs, cf/s, mg /1). "Impact 114" (page 4.2 -31): The DEIR states that "no discernible draw down (in the water level) in the San Joaquin Marsh mitigation area or underneath the ponds due to the current dewatering program of MWRP has been identified." However, the UCNRS Communication in response to the NOP /IS states that subsidence is occurring in that area. The final EIR should address this situation, and provide evidence to assure that MWRP operations will not ]cad to further subsidence. "Impact H -8" (page 4.2 -37): The DEIR asserts, without proof, that the increased storm runoff due to added impervious surfaces will be more than offset by the fact that such runoff water will be pumped to the plant headworks and treated as part of the reclamation process. This assertion needs clarification. What is the additional runoff volume due to the 25 -year frequency, a 24 -hour duration storm, and how does that compare with the increased facility capacity? "4.2.6 Non - Regulated Pollutants Carried by Tertiary Treated Wastewater" (page 4.2 -41): This is an informative exposition of the unresolved problems associated with the detection and mitigation of pharmaceuticals and personal care products in wastewater. Those sections are well written and useful as background, but there are currently no regulatory guidelines to follow. Since some of these pollutants could eventually prove to be problematical, it would be appropriate if IRWD /MWRP would agree to participate in one or more state -of -the -art research programs in this area. In this way, IRWD would be most prepared to take future corrective action regarding identified dangerous pollutants in this category. 4.3 Biological Resources: Mitigation Measure for Direct Impacts to Sensitive Wildlife: The issue is the removal of the 1.2 acres of eucalyptus, which will directly impact nesting raptors. Removing the trees outside of their breeding season would only be a short -term solution. As part of IRWD's mitigation measures, should consider the establishment a buffer around the nesting sites. Q Mayor Don Webb Draft Members of the City Council City of Newport Beach January 9, 2006 Page 4 of 6 4.3.3.2 Impact Analysis Impact BIO -10: The last paragraph of this section is troubling. Should some standards for determining the ecological impact of EDC's be adopted? 4.3.4 Mitigation Measures BIO -1: The measure does not address the diminishment, if any, in the number of remaining nesting sites after the eucalyptus trees are removed. Arc there enough alternative nesting sites"? Should IRWD be required to replace or relocate the trees? BIO -2a: Avoiding is not the same as eliminating. The mitigation measure should be that no construction occur between 12/15 and 9/15. All of these measures should be directed by a qualified biologist. BIO -2b: Mitigation Measure 42 indicates migration as a solution. Do these birds migrate? In Mitigation Measure #3, barriers should only be erected if their installation itself will not cause undue disturbance to the species. Also, is 500 feet based on some accepted standard? If so this is not indicated. BIO -3: Shouldn't construction be limited to daytime unless absolutely necessary and lighting restricted to within the site and at low level only? Also, is 60dBA based on some accepted standard? If so, this is not indicated. 4.6 Noise: The main issue of concern is the Reclaimed Water Pumping, and the additional three 930 HP pumps, which would add to the noise by approximately five dB, assuming that the existing sound wall has no attenuation. The assumption that the wall may not weaken over time may not be a good one to have, so perhaps reinforcement of the wall to extend the life of the sound wall may be in order. 4.6.2.2 Noise Setting In the paragraph entitled Ambient Noise Monitoring, the report indicates that measurements were made 7:00 to 11:00 AM. This measurement period should be extended to sample other times of the day and night to include hours that the proposed construction and improvements will be in operation. The affects of sound on Biological Resources at critical times for the affected species should be addressed. For example, if the sound level is lower at night, but this is a critical breeding time for a particular species, this should be fully a Mayor Don Webb Draft Members of the City Council City of Newport Beach January 9, 2006 Page 5 of 6 analyzed in the final EIR. 4.7 Geology and Soils "Mitigation Measure G -5a" (page 4.7 -I0): UCI has notified IRWD that there has been up to 14 inches subsidence of Campus Drive since construction of MWRP. It is suspected that this subsidence results, at lease partially, from the dewatering operations at the site. However, additional dewatering is proposed, and no mention is made of the potential future impact on Campus Drive or other structures located near, but not within, the Project boundaries. This mitigation measure should be strengthened to deal with the original objection regarding subsidence of Campus Drive. 5.0 Cumulative Impacts The DEIR concentrates on the cumulative impacts of "projects for which applications have been submitted as well as projects that may foreseeably have impacts that would cumulate with those of the Proposed Project ..." The study area for cumulative impacts includes the San Diego Creek Watershed. However, our comments focus on the cumulative growth inducing impacts that the proposed Project may have. In 2004, IRWD expanded its storage capacity for recycled water with the expansion of the San Joaquin Reservoir. The cumulative effect of the expanded capacity at San Joaquin Reservoir, combined with the proposed Project, which increases the production of recycled water, will free up substantial quantities of potable water. The DEIR makes no attempt to analyze and, if necessary, mitigate such impacts. The potential impacts associated with the expansion of the San Joaquin Reservoir combined with the expansion of the Michelson facility should be analyzed to evaluate the long term and cumulative impacts of the proposed Project on the District's Non - Potable Water Supply System. Piecemeal EIRs, according to CEQA, are illegal. The CEQA Guidelines provide that a "project" means "the whole of the action" which has the potential for resulting in "either direct physical change or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment." (CEQA Guidelines, Section 15378) The final EIR should fully analyze the combined environmental impacts of the expansion of the San Joaquin Reservoir and the expansion of the Michelson facility. 6.0 Growth Inducement The Executive Summary states that a Project Objective is to maximize freshwater availability for wildlife needs and resources uses such as agriculture. The DEIR Introduction states: "IRWD has developed water supplies that include: high quality and 1� Mayor Don Webb Members of the City Council City of Newport Beach January 9, 2006 Page 6o[6 Draft impaired quality (treated) local groundwater, surface water captured in local reservoirs, treated and untreated imported water provided through the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (MWD) and tertiary treated recycled water." In expanding IRWD's recycled water production capability, the proposed Project will free up potable water supplies, which will affect growth in the area. The DEIR states that "(g)rowth- inducing factors in Orange County are primarily related to availability of buildable land and adequate infrastructure to support growth in new areas." However, in the and Southern California climate, water availability affects land use decisions. Development entitlements are conditioned upon a showing of such availability. Since 2001, with the passage of two laws linking development to water supply, project applicants in California have been required to obtain written confirmation from water suppliers that sufficient water will be available prior to developing a project. The laws apply to residential, commercial, office, hotel, industrial and mixed -use projects that meet certain thresholds. For residential developments, the threshold is the water demand equal to or greater than the amount of water demanded by a 500 dwelling trait project. The additional availability of potable water supplies that will result from the proposed Project has the potential to lead to a greater level of development in the areas where there is available buildable land in Orange County. The final EIR should fully analyze the potential growth- inducing impacts of the proposed Project. Conclusion Thank you again for the opportunity to comment on the DEIR for the Project. We hope that these comments will assist IRWD in the final EIR and the final Project. "r� "c"vr0 AFTER AGENB January 11, 2005 Mr. Gregg Herr Irvine Ranch Water District 15600 Sand Canyon Avenue Irvine, CA 92618 Irvine Ranch Water District Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Michelson Water Reclamation Expansion Project Dear Mr. Herr: The City of Newport Beach appreciates fRWD's courtesy in presenting the Project to our Environmental Quality Affairs Committee (EQAC) in December, and in agreeing to accept the City's comments on the Draft EIR after the deadline for comment on the document. As you are probably aware from past projects, EQAC reviews Draft EIRs and prepares comments for the City Council's consideration. The comments in this letter are based on those prepared by EQAC and are the comments approved by the City Council on January 10, 2006. 3.0 Project Description "Reclaimed Water Pumping" (page 3 -11): The DEIR states that three -g rnil lien- gallen s- pe"ay- {°�additional pumps will be added to increase capacity to 33 mgd from a current capacity of 18 mqd. However, no information is given about how the additional 15 mgd capacity will be distributed to users. Are new transmission pipes and /or intermediate pumping stations needed? If so, where will they be placed and what environmental impact is expected? These questions need to be fully addressed in the final EIR. "3.6 Environmental Commitments Incorporated into the Proiect" (page 3 -14): In Appendix A County of Orange letter dated July 1 2005 suggests items which the County considers important enough to be included in the EIR. The City of Newport Beach shares the County's concern with flooding potential especially as flooding and dewatering for the new settlement basins may result in the runoff of pollutants into San Diego Creek and Upper Newport Bay. We support the County's request that the EIR analyze impacts and propose mitigation measures to ensure flooding potential is not worsened, floodplains and flooding problems are not shifted elsewhere and erosion is not caused by the project. Mr. Gregg Herr, IRWD January 11, 2006 Page 2 4.0 Environmental Analysis 4.2 Hydrology and Water Quality "Table 4.2 -2" (page 4.2 -5): The final EIR should confirm that the numbers in the Table are correct. It would seem that the year average concentrations should be between the values for wet and dry seasons. Example: see Total Nitrogen (mg /1), year maximum and minimum. ° NPDES Permit' (page 4.2 -22, 3, 4): The text at the bottom of page 4.2- 23 refers to a requirement to meet Total Dissolved Solids (" TDS ") concentrations in the water delivered from the MWRP. It shows that the current facility meets the requirement, by a small margin, according to the "latest recycled water report." However, it goes on to imply that introduction of differing source waters in the future could prevent MWRP from meeting the NPDES permit requirements. The final EIR should fully analyze this potential impact and provide necessary mitigation to assure that permit requirements will be met. "Nutrients" (page 4.2 -26): It is unclear from the text and Table 4.2 -12 whether any nutrient effluent requirements in this proposed Project related to TMDLs. In fact, computations based on Table 4.2 -1 and 4.2 -2 could lead to the conclusion that the Total Nitrogen Daily Load requirement in 2012 on Table 4.2- 12 is unachievable. Is that true? If not, a simple calculation of the San Diego Creek contribution to Total Nitrogen Load and the MWRP contribution would be essential. Why not do these calculations and present the results in clear tables with consistent units (acre- ft /yr, gals /yr, Ibs, cf /s, mg /1). "Impact H -8" (page 4.2 -37): The DEIR asserts without proof, that the increased storm runoff due to added impervious surfaces will be more than offset by the fact that such runoff water will be pumped to the plant headworks and treated as part of the reclamation process. This assertion needs clarification. What is the additional runoff volume due to the facility expansion for a 25 -year frequency, 24 -hour duration storm? Will there be additional floodinq over the settlement basins that could carry Dolluted water to the San Dieqo Creek and Upger Newport Bay? "4.2.6 Non - Regulated Pollutants Carried by Tertiary Treated Wastewater" (page 4.2 -41): This is an informative exposition of the unresolved problems associated with the detection and mitigation of pharmaceuticals and personal care products in wastewater. Those sections are well written and useful as background, but there are currently no regulatory guidelines to follow. Since some of these pollutants could eventually prove to be problematical, it would be appropriate if IRWD /MWRP would agree to participate in one or more state -of- the -art research programs in this area. In this way, IRWD would be most prepared to take future corrective action regarding identified dangerous pollutants in this category. Mr. Gregg Herr, IRWD January 11, 2006 Page 3 5.0 Cumulative Impacts The DEIR concentrates on the cumulative impacts of "projects for which applications have been submitted as well as projects that may foreseeably have impacts that would cumulate with those of the Proposed Project ..." The study area for cumulative impacts includes the San Diego Creek Watershed. However, our comments focus on the cumulative growth inducing impacts that the proposed Project may have. In 2004, IRWD expanded its storage capacity for recycled water with the expansion of the San Joaquin Reservoir. The cumulative effect of the expanded capacity at San Joaquin Reservoir, combined with the proposed Project, which increases the production of recycled water, will free up substantial quantities of potable water. The DEIR makes no attempt to analyze and, if necessary, mitigate such impacts. The potential impacts associated with the expansion of the San Joaquin Reservoir combined with the expansion of the Michelson facility should be analyzed to evaluate the long term and cumulative impacts of the proposed Project on the District's Non - Potable Water Supply System. Piecemeal EIRs, according to CEQA, are illegal. The CEQA Guidelines provide that a "project" means "the whole of the action" which has the potential for resulting in "either direct physical change or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment." (CEQA Guidelines, Section 15378) The final EIR should fully analyze the combined environmental impacts of the expansion of the San Joaquin Reservoir and the expansion of the Michelson facility. 6.0 Growth Inducement The Executive Summary states that a Project Objective is to maximize freshwater availability for wildlife needs and resources uses such as agriculture. The DEIR Introduction states: "IRWD has developed water supplies that include: high quality and impaired quality (treated) local groundwater, surface water captured in local reservoirs, treated and untreated imported water provided through the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (MWD) and tertiary treated recycled water." In expanding IRWD's recycled water production capability, the proposed Project will free up potable water supplies, which will affect growth in the area. The DEIR states that "(g)rowth- inducing factors in Orange County are primarily related to availability of buildable land and adequate infrastructure to support growth in new areas." However, in the arid Southern California climate, water availability affects land use decisions. Development entitlements are Mr. Gregg Herr, IRWD January 11, 2006 Page 4 conditioned upon a showing of such availability. Since 2001, with the passage of two laws linking development to water supply, project applicants in California have been required to obtain written confirmation from water suppliers that sufficient water will be available prior to developing a project. The laws apply to residential, commercial, office, hotel, industrial and mixed -use projects that meet certain thresholds. For residential developments, the threshold is the water demand equal to or greater than the amount of water demanded by a 500 dwelling unit project. The additional availability of potable water supplies that will result from the proposed Project has the potential to lead to a greater level of development in the areas where there is available buildable land in Orange County. The final EIR should fully analyze the potential growth- inducing impacts of the proposed Project. Conclusion Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the DER for the Project. We hope that these comments will assist IRWD in the final EIR and the final Project. Sincerely, Don Webb Mayor Cc: Environmental Quality Affairs Committee MEMORANDUM To: Mayor lion Webb and Members of the City Council City of Newport Beach Cc: Homer Bludau, City Managcr From: Irvine Ranch Water District Subcommittee of EQAC City of Newport Beach Subject: Irvine Ranch Water District Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Michelson Water Reclamation Expansion Project Date: January 9, 2006 Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Draft Environmental Impact Report ( "DF,IR ") for the Irvine Ranch Water District's ( "IRWD") Michelson Water Reclamation Expansion Project (the `'Project''). We wish to thank Mr. Norris Brandt and the other IRWD staff members, as well as members of the consulting team that prepared the DEW, who made an extensive presentation to BQAC at its December 19. 2005 meeting. We thank them for their input. EQAC's comments are as follows: Executive Summary "ES.6.1 I Iydrology and Water Quality" (page ES -5): In the "Issues" paragraph, the preparers failed to acknowledge major concerns raised by the University of California Natural Reserve System ( "UCNRS ") regarding subsidence of the marsh in the area of Campus Drive and the increased depth of ground water resources which negatively affects natural habitats in the marsh (See Appendix A. UCI letter dated .tune 30, 2005). Impacts of the Project on these issues and others raised in the referenced letter should be analyzed as a part of the final EIR, since they affect the viability of the entire marsh and habitat. 3.0 Proicct Description "Reclaimed Water Pumping" (page 3-11): Additional pumps will be added to increase capacity to 33 mgd from a current capacity of 18 mgd. However, no information is given about how the additional 15 mgd capacity will be distributed to users. Are new transmission pipes and /or intermediate pumping stations needed? 11'so, where will they be placed and what environmental impact is expected? These questions need to be fully addressed in the final EIR. Mayor Don Wchh M¢mbers of the City Council City of Newport Beach January 9, 2006 Page 2 of 6 3.6 Fnvironmental Commitments Incorporated into the Project" (page 3 -14): In Appendix A. County of Orange letter dated July 1. 2005 suggests items which the County considers important enough to be included in the E1R. Pleasc include responses to the following County of Orange issues raised in the referenced letter in the final E1R: 2. 'flee NOP refers several times to San Diego Creck Channel's "baseline condi- tion." The NOP should define what it means by the term "baseline condition ". The NOP appears to suggest or may mislead the reader into thinking that if OCFCD restores FO.5 to its "baseline condition" that the potential fin flooding of the MWRP will be alleviated. 5. No adverse impacts or worsening of existing conditions would result to County and OCFC:D facilities as a result of MWRP expansion project. MWRP should analyze impacts and propose mitigation measures in consultation with County's Flood Control Division to ensure flooding potential is not worsened.. floodplains and flooding problems arc not shitted elsewhere and erosion is not caused by the proposed project. 8. An anti- terrorism element should he incorporated into the design of' the treatment plant expansion and this should be discussed in the EIR. Terrorist event or internal sabotage could result in the release of millions of gallons a day of sewage to upper Ncwport bay. 4.0 Environmental Analysis 4.2 Hydrology and Water Quality "Table 4.2 -2" (page 4.2 -5): The final E1R should confirm that the numbers in the Table are correct. It would seem that the year average concentrations should be between the values for wet and dry seasons. Example: see Total Nitrogen (mg /1), year maximum and minimum. "NPDES Pcrmit' (page 4.2 -22. 3, 4): The text at the bottom of page 4.2 -23 refers to a requirement to meet Total Dissolved Solids ( "TDS ") concentrations in the water delivered frarn the MWRP. It shows that the current facility meets the requirement, by a small margin, according to the `latest recycled water report." However, it goes on to imply that introduction of differing source waters in the future could prevent MWIZP from meeting the NI'DES permit requirements. The final FIR should fully analyze this potential impact and provide necessary mitigation to assure that permit requirements will be met. Mayor Don Webb Members of the City Council City of Newport Beach January 9, 2006 Page 3 of 6 "Nutrients" (page 4.2 -26). It is unclear from the text and Table 4.2 -12 whether any nutrient effluent requirements in this proposed Project related to TMDLs. In fact, computations based on Table 4.2 -1 and 4.2 -2 could lead to the conclusion that the Total Nitrogen Daily Load requirement in 2012 on Table 4.2 -12 is unachievable. Is that true? If not, a simple calculation of the San Diego Creek contribution to Total Nitrogen Load and the MWRP contribution would be essential. Why not do these calculations and present the results in clear tables with consistent units (acre- ft /yr, gals /yr, Ibs, cfs, mg /1). "Impact H -4" (page 4.2 -31): The DEIR states that "no discernible draw down (in the water level) in the San Joaquin Marsh mitigation area or underneath the ponds due to the current dewatering program of MWRP has been identified." However, the UCNRS Communication in response to the NOP /IS states that subsidence is occurring in that area. The final EIR should address this situation, and provide evidence to assure that MWRP operations will not lead to further subsidence. "Impact H -8" (page 4.2 -37): The DEIR asserts, without proof, that the increased storm runoff due to added impervious surfaces will be more than offset by the fact that such runoff water will be pumped to the plant headworks and treated as part of the reclamation process. This assertion needs clarification. What is the additional runoff volume chic to the 25 -year frequency, a 24 -hour duration storm, and how does that compare with the increased facility capacity? "4.2.6 Non - Regulated Pollutants Carried by Tertiary Treated Wastewater" (page 4.2 -41): This is an informative exposition of the unresolved problems associated with the detection and mitigation of pharmaceuticals and personal care products in wastewater. Those sections are well written and useful as background, but there are currently no regulatory guidelines to follow. Since some of these pollutants could eventually prove to be problematical, it would be appropriate if IRWD /MWRP would agree to participate in one or more state -of -the -art research programs in this area. In this way, IRWD would be most prepared to take future corrective action regarding identified dangerous pollutants in this category. 4.3 Biological Resources: Mitigation Measure for Direct Impacts to Sensitive Wildlife: The issue is the removal of the 1.2 acres of eucalyptus, which will directly impact nesting raptors. Removing the trees outside of their breeding season would only be a short -term solution. As part of IRWD's mitigation measures, should consider the establishment a buffer around the nesting sites. Mayor Don Webb Members of the City Council City of Newport Beach January 9, 2006 Page 4 of 6 4.3.3.2 Impact Analysis Impact BIO -10: The last paragraph of this section is troubling. Should some standards for determining the ecological impact of EDC's be adopted? 4.3.4 Mitigation Measures BIO -1: The measure does not address the diminishment, if any, in the number of' remaining nesting sites after the eucalyptus trees are removed. Are there enough alternative nesting sites? Should IRWD be required to replace or relocate the trees? BIO -2a: Avoiding is not the same as eliminating. The mitigation measure should be that no construction occur between 12/15 and 9/15. All of these measures should be directed by a qualified biologist. BIO -2b: Mitigation Measure #2 indicates migration as a solution. Do these birds migrate? In Mitigation Measure #3, barriers should only be erected if their installation itself will not cause undue disturbance to the species. Also, is 500 feet based on some accepted standard? If so this is not indicated. BIO -3: Shouldn't construction be limited to daytime unless absolutely necessary and lighting restricted to within the site and at low level only? Also, is 60dBA based on some accepted standard? If so, this is not indicated. 4.6 Noise: The main issue of concern is the Reclaimed Water Pumping, and the additional three 930 HP pumps, which would add to the noise by approximately five dB, assuming that the existing sound wall has no attenuation. The assumption that the wall may not weaken over time may not be a good one to have, so perhaps reinforcement of the wall to extend the life of the sound wall may be in order. 4.6.2.2 Noise Setting In the paragraph entitled Ambient Noise Monitoring, the report indicates that measurements were made 7:00 to 11:00 AM. This measurement period should be extended to sample other times of the day and night to include hours that the proposed construction and improvements will be in operation. The affects of sound on Biological Resources at critical times for the affected species should be addressed. For example, if the sound level is lower at night, but this is a critical breeding time for a particular species, this should be fully Mayor Don Webb Members of the City Council City of Newport Beach January 9. 2006 Page 5 of 6 analyzed in the final EIR. 4.7 Geolot*y and Soils "Mitigation Measure G -5a" (page 4.7 -10): UCI has notified IRWD that there has been up to 14 inches subsidence of Campus Drive since construction of MWRP. It is suspected that this subsidence results, at least partially, from the dewatering operations at the site. However, additional dewatering is proposed, and no mention is made of the potential future impact on Campus Drive or other structures located near, but not within, the Project boundaries. This mitigation measure should be strengthened to deal with the original objection regarding subsidence of Campus Drive. 5.0 Cumulative Impacts The DEIR concentrates on the cumulative impacts of "projects for which applications have been submitted as well as projects that may foreseeably have impacts that would cumulate with those of the Proposed Project ..." The study area for cumulative impacts includes the San Diego Creek Watershed. However, our comments focus on the cumulative growth inducing impacts that the proposed Project may have. In 2004, IRWD expanded its storage capacity for recycled water with the expansion of the San Joaquin Reservoir. The cumulative effect of the expanded capacity at San Joaquin Reservoir, combined with the proposed Project, which increases the production of recycled water, will free up substantial quantities of potable water. The DEIR makes no attempt to analyze and, if necessary, mitigate such impacts. The potential impacts associated with the expansion of the San Joaquin Reservoir combined with the expansion of the Michelson facility should be analyzed to evaluate the long term and cumulative impacts of the proposed Project on the District's Non - Potable Water Supply System. Piecemeal EIRs, according to CEQA, are illegal. The CEQA Guidelines provide that a "project" means "the whole of the action" which has the potential for resulting in "either direct physical change or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the enviromnent." (CEQA Guidelines, Section 15378) The final EIR should fully analyze the combined environmental impacts of the expansion of the San Joaquin Reservoir and the expansion of the Michelson facility. 6.0 Growth Inducement The Executive Summary states that a Project Objective is to maximize freshwater availability for wildlife needs and resources uses such as agriculture. The DEIR Introduction states: "IRWD has developed water supplies that include: high quality and Mayor Don Webb Members of the City Council City of Newport Beach January 9, 2006 Page 6 of 6 impaired quality (treated) local groundwater, surface water captured in local reservoirs, treated and untreated imported water provided through the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (MWD) and tertiary treated recycled water." In expanding IRWD's recycled water production capability, the proposed Project will free up potable water supplies, which will affect growth in the area. The DEIR states that "(g)rowth- inducing factors in Orange County are primarily related to availability of buildable land and adequate infrastructure to support growth in new areas." However, in the and Southern California climate, water availability affects land use decisions. Development entitlements are conditioned upon a showing of'such availability. Since 2001, with the passage of two laws linking development to water supply, project applicants in California have been required to obtain written confirmation from water suppliers that sufficient water will be available prior to developing a project. The laws apply to residential, commercial, office, hotel, industrial and mixed -use projects that meet certain thresholds. For residential developments, the threshold is the water demand equal to or greater than the amount of water demanded by a 500 dwelling unit project. The additional availability of potable water supplies that will result from the proposed Project has the potential to lead to a greater level of development in the areas where there is available buildable land in Orange County. The final EIR should fully analyze the potential growth- inducing impacts of the proposed Project. Conclusion Thank you again for the opportunity to comment on the DEIR for the Project. We hope that these comments will assist IRWD in the final EIR and the final Project.