Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout18 - IRWD Natural Treatment System Program - Comments on Draft EIRCITY OF NEWPORT BEACH CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Agenda Item No. 18 May 27, 2003 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM: City Manager's Office Sharon Wood, Assistant City Manager 644 -3222, swood @city.newport- beach.ca.us SUBJECT: Comments on Draft EIR on Irvine Ranch Water District's Natural Treatment System Program RECOMMENDATION: Approve and authorize the Mayor to send comment letter. DISCUSSION: The Irvine Ranch Water District (IRWD) has proposed a Natural Treatment System (NTS) using constructed wetlands and existing reclaimed water reservoirs to remove contaminants from urban runoff and improve water quality. The City of Newport Beach is on record as supporting this program. A Draft EIR was released for public review, and the comment period ends on May 30, 2003. The City's Environmental Quality Affairs Committee (EQAC) has reviewed the DEIR and proposed extensive comments on it (Attachment 1). Staff has reviewed EQAC's comments, made some changes and additions, and prepared a comment letter for the Mayor's signature (Attachment 2). Submitted by: Sharon Wood Assistant City Manager Attachments: 1. Memorandum from EQAC 2. Letter to IRWD Attachment 1 MEMORANDUM To: Mayor Steven Bromberg and Members of the City Council From: Environmental Quality Affairs Citizens Advisory Committee Subject: IRWD's Draft Environmental Impact Report (the "DEIR ") regarding the San Diego Creek Watershed Natural Treatment System Program (the "Project ") Date: May 20, 2003 Cc: Homer Bludau, City Manager Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the DEIR for the captioned Project. As we indicated in our comments on the original NOP for the Project, we understand that the City has already recommended the Project to various agencies. As before, nothing in these comments detracts from that support; these comments simply address the REVISED NOP and our comments on the scope of the EIR. As with our original comments, our goal is to assist in improving, if necessary, the environmental document and the Project. These comments incorporate our earlier comments on the Revised NOP as well as our earlier comments on the original NOP for the Project. In addition, we offer the following comments on the DEIR for the Project: 1. Chapter 1.0: "Executive Summary:" Section 1.2 discusses "Regional Setting" including drainage into San Diego Creek. As we commented in connection with the First Notice of Preparation, the San Diego Creek watershed is truncated: it fails to consider and include the runoff from the John Wayne Airport area and the Santa Ana -Delhi Channel. The DEIR continues this flawed watershed delineation. Section 1.5 discusses the unusual organization of the DEIR: it is at once a Program DEIR as well as a Project DEIR. These distinctions are familiar to various agencies and EIR consultants. They are not well known to the public. At the outset, the DEIR should explain the differences and discuss why each is included in the captioned DEIR. Moreover, this unusual dichotomy creates confusion throughout the DEIR. As discussed below, we remain unclear as to the rationale for the Project level discussions. As discussed more fully below, the Project level discussions concern existing sites which may be included in the Mayor Bromberg Members of the City Council City of Newport Beach Page 2 May 20, 2003 Project. The DEIR must explain: (1) the criteria for including such existing sites in the Project since presumably such sites already advance Project goals; (2) the Project features which ensure that the Project does not adversely affect the existing sites; and (3) to the extent that the Project adversely affects such sites, the mitigation proposed to eliminate or moderate such impacts. Section 1.5 indicates that, "[sjince these sites are existing, and no physical disturbance is proposed, these sites were not evaluated for direct construction impacts." However, the DEIR must analyze any indirect construction impacts, e.g. upstream construction drains to increase downstream silt loads. Section 1.7 discusses "Public Outreach." This section notes that the DEIR and related documents are available on IRWD website. This is an important resource. However, IRWD also provided the DEIR on compact disk. We attempted to load these disks. Unfortunately, these disks crashed virtually every computer on which we attempted to load it. Finally, the DEIR contains a multitude of acronyms. Yet the DEIR contains no glossary or index of abbreviations. In order for the DEIR to be generally accessible to the public as required by CEQA, IRWD should include a glossary, or table or index of abbreviations. For instance, the DEIR uses the acronyms NPDES for National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System and WQT wetlands for water quality treatment wetlands. The DEIR does not appear to define such acronyms. Note that, although the DEIR uses the acronym NPDES from the beginning, it only defines it in the middle of the document: page 3.1 -23. 2. Chapter 2.0: "`Plan' Description:" The Project description is one of the key parts of any environmental document. As the County of Invo Court noted long ago, "Only through an accurate view of the project may affected outsiders and public decision - makers balance the proposal's benefit against its environmental cost, consider mitigation measures, assess the advantage of terminating the proposal (i.e., the 'no project' alternative) and weigh other alternatives in the balance. An accurate, stable and finite project description is the sine qua non of an informative and legally sufficient EIR." County of Inyo v. City of Los Angeles (1977) 71 Cal. App. 3d 185, 199. In addition, the CEQA Guidelines section 15124 requires that an EIR describe the project "in a way that will be meaningful to the public, to the other reviewing agencies, and to the decision - makers." Discussion, Guidelines section 15124. The DEIR states that: Mayor Bromberg Members of the City Council City of Newport Beach Page 3 May 20, 2003 "The purpose of the NTS Plan is to comprehensively plan, develop, and implement a large -scale water quality treatment program addressing pollutants affecting the Upper Newport Bay and Peters Canyon Reservoir." DEIR, page 2 -1. IRWD appears to concede that, under the existing conditions "pollutants [affect] the Upper Newport Bay." The DEIR goes further: "The watershed scale of the proposed NTS Plan is intended to respond to conditions within planning area drainages, both present and future, and to carry out the watershed planning emphasis and natural treatment systems Management Measures set forth in the State Nonpoint Source Plan." DEIR, p. 2 -1 (emphasis supplied). The Project apparently attempts to address impacts of future projects and conditions which are unspecified and unknown. The Project cannot mitigate or "respond to" future conditions, because neither IRWD nor other agencies are aware of the nature and extent of such "future conditions." To the extent that the Project is an attempt to mitigate future impacts, the DEIR must identify those impacts, provide a detailed environmental analysis of same and consider various alternatives to such impacts in addition to the Project. The Project objectives include the following: Assist the County and cities and others in meeting Total Maximum Daily Loads ( "TMDL ") and National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System ( "NPDES ") permit requirements. 2. Provide a comprehensive, regional, watershed -wide approach to clean up storm runoff and dry weather flows from: a) existing land uses; and b) future land uses. 3. Improve water quality in the San Diego Creek, Upper Newport Bay Ecological Reserve, Newport Bay, Peters Canyon Reservoirs, and portions of Santiago Creek. 4. Enhance habitat value of aquatic habitats located within the NCCP Reserve. The DEIR contains a detailed discussion of each objective. Probably, the most detailed explanation occurs regarding Objective 2: clean up of flows for existing and future development. The DEIR discusses the NPDES stormwater permitting scheme and its background. Presumably, existing Mayor Bromberg Members of the City Council City of Newport Beach Page 4 May 20, 2003 developments already meet these standards; future development will likely be required to provide additional practices in order to comply with NPDES requirements. The DEIR should clearly explain the Project goals and objectives including discussing existing and future development. Further, to the extent that the Project attempts to address stormwater and related issues for future developments, the DEIR cannot guess at the nature and extent of such development and its runoff characteristics. If the Project is to serve any real purpose relating to these future projects, the DEIR must identify these future projects, discuss their flow characteristics and impacts and provide a mechanism to mitigate such flows fully and completely. Section 2.3.1 discusses other agencies' subsequent use of the DEIR. The only subsequent use discussed in the DEIR is other agencies use of the DEIR in implementing the Project and/or constructing Project related facilities. The DEIR should be clear that this is the only subsequent use. The DEIR should specifically exclude from "subsequent use" future projects which are not identified, discussed, analyzed, and if necessary, mitigated in the DEIR. Section 2.3.2 addresses the Project's and the DEIR's relationship to other agencies plans and regulatory requirements. The DEIR states that IRWD reviewed applicable planning documents to determine "if the proposed wetlands and basins are compatible with other planned regional facilities ...." We understand this to mean that the Project is compatible with various land use plans including specific infrastructure improvements planned or proposed in various areas throughout the watershed. This review does not address the nature and extent of future projects and does not consider any potential runoff from such "future projects." Further, this section discusses the United States Army Corps of Engineers' San Diego Creek Special Area Management Plan ( "SAMP "). It appears that the SAMP may substantially overlap the Project. The DEIR should explain the relationship between the two and the impacts of one on the other. Further, we understand that Corps' SAMP process is a public process. The DEIR should discuss this process, and the Corps should provide detailed information regarding this process, its meetings and agendas. Section 2.4.2 discusses the various Project facilities or wetlands. These include off- line facilities which presumably (the DEIR never states) are located away from flood control facilities, streams or creeks; in -line facilities which are located within existing flood control facilities, streams or creeks; and mixed facilities which include aspects of the earlier facilities. Section 2.4.3 addresses projected load reductions and water quality impacts. The Project will apparently improve mild sediment loads but "is not designed to meet TMDL ...." Although the DEIR seems to indicate that the Project will address TMDL, it will not meet heavy Mayor Bromberg Members of the City Council City of Newport Beach Page 5 May 20, 2003 loads. However, if the Project facilities are improved, e.g. deepened, the Project may meet such loads. The DEIR should discuss such alternatives in the appropriate section. Section 2.5 discusses site determination. The objectives of the Project should be the primary factors for site determination. The DEIR states that the first criterion is availability. Further, Section 2.5 contains a list of site criteria: far down the list is the following: "Is the drainage area a significant source of pollutants ?" The DEIR should explain why this criterion is not the primary consideration. The DEIR should explain and establish the priority of site criteria. Sections 2.6 and 2.7 discuss the Project sites: as indicated above, the DEIR is split between program level analysis and project level analysis. Section 2.6 address the program level; section 2.7 discusses project level analysis. Section 2.7 attempts to provide a complete project level analysis for the twelve (12) sites analyzed at the project level analysis. The DEIR attempts to provide the necessary project level analysis "to avoid the need for further environmental review...." However, the stated purpose of the DEIR is to provide a watershed level analysis. To the extent that the DEIR attempts to analyze the impacts of the Project, the DEIR and subsequent documents must analyze the impacts of the future program level sites on the other sites. Further, the project level analysis addresses three (3) existing sites: the San Joaquin Marsh site; Rattlesnake Reservoir; and Sand Canyon Reservoir. Of these three sites, only one —the San Joaquin Marsh site— currently functions in the manner proposed by the Project. The other two— the Rattlesnake and Sand Canyon Reservoirs— are reclaimed reservoir sites. Section 2.7. 10 addresses the San Joaquin Marsh enhancement. The DEIR does not discuss any physical enhancements. The only enhancement is an increased flow during the year. The DEIR should be revised to analyze any impacts caused by such increased flow and provide mitigation if necessary. Further, Section 2.7.8 also discusses the San Joaquin Marsh site. However, this section fails to distinguish this site from that discussed in Section 2.7.10. Further, Section 2.7.8 discusses the Project proposed improvements to this site. Among others, as noted in the DEIR at page 2 -40: "[T]he intent of the restoration and enhancement plan is to convert habitat resources with lesser long term value to high long -term conservation value to benefit [various protected species]." The DEIR should discuss this past analysis and the rationale for the enhancement in detail. Mayor Bromberg Members of the City Council City of Newport Beach Page 6 May 20, 2003 Section 2.7.11 discusses the Rattlesnake Reservoir which is designated as Site No. 13. Importantly, the DEIR states: "The reservoir is currently used for storage of reclaimed water .... No changes to the reservoir are envisioned as part of the NTS plan." DEIR, p. 2 -43. The DEIR should explain and analyze the relationship between the reclaimed water reservoirs and the Project, how these sites further Project goals, and address any Project related impacts to these reservoirs. Section 2.8.3 addresses operations and maintenance. Among other things, this section discusses sediment and debris removal; Table 2.8 -2 discusses various maintenance tasks for the proposed sites. As indicated above, several sites are currently used for storage of reclaimed water. Although Table 2.8 -2 fails to discuss maintenance and operation of the reservoirs, the Project related operation and maintenance of such reservoirs likely will require removal of additional sediment and debris which will require draining the reservoirs. Draining of the reclaimed reservoirs likely will have additional impacts which the DEIR should analyze, discuss and provide mitigation if necessary. 3. Chapter 3.0: "`Plan' Facilities: Program Level Environmental Analysis:" This Chapter begins with a discussion of program level analysis. However, the DEIR fails to discuss and explain the various levels of analysis, e.g. program level or project level. Further, the DEIR notes that its program level analysis depends on previously generated environmental analysis. The DEIR should contain a complete analysis: to the extent that the DEIR depends upon other analysis, the DEIR should provide a reference and some discussion about the incorporated analysis. A. "Land Use/Planning and Land Use Compatibility:" Section 3.1 attempts to describe the land use /planning and community character of the watershed. As indicated above, the DEIR attempts to provide stormwater capacity for existing and future uses. However, section 3.1 contains a minimal discussion of general plan requirements for portions of the watershed. Such general plans may not be able to provide the specificity necessary for the Project. Further environmental analysis will be necessary for mitigation of future development of the watershed. Moreover, this section includes a discussion of local plans as well as the General Plan for the County of Orange. However, the DEIR discusses only recreational aspects of the County's Mayor Bromberg Members of the City Council City of Newport Beach Page 7 May 20, 2003 General Plan. Other aspects, e.g. residential land use, will likely affect the Project. The DEIR should include such a discussion. In addition, the DEIR concludes that the Project will have no adverse impacts on land use. However, NTS Site 56, which is proposed to be constructed in the first three years, and therefore, was analyzed at the project level, appears to be incompatible with the surrounding land uses. See discussion below in Section 4A. B. "Hydrology and Water Quality:" This section attempts to provide an environmental analysis for direct construction impacts, and long term benefits and impacts. As indicated above, construction impacts may be indirect. Since the Project concerns watershed development, construction at one site may affect another site or other areas in the watershed. The DEIR should include an analysis of indirect construction impacts. The long term analysis concludes that the Project will remove targeted pollutants from surface water flows and increase water quality. As indicated above, the Project includes reclaimed water storage reservoirs. The DEIR fails to analyze the source of pollutants which the reservoirs remove. To the extent that these reservoirs are part of the Project, the DEIR should analyze the source of pollutants removed by such reservoirs. More importantly, the DEIR should analyze the impacts of such reservoirs as Project features. After such analysis, the DEIR may conclude that such features are harmful to the Project and its goals, and should be removed from the Project. In addition, the DEIR concludes that the Project will have no impacts on groundwater quality. However, the DEIR provides no support for such conclusion. The Project will create wetlands which will attempt to remove pollutants. However, a portion of such removal occurs when these pollutants are removed from the facilities during maintenance. Because such removal will occur only periodically, the pollutants may affect groundwater during the interim periods prior to maintenance. Also, Project maintenance — removal of sediments and pollutants— will ensure that surface water percolation to groundwater will be enhanced. Further, the DEIR discusses hydrologic impacts. The focus of this analysis is loss of surface water due to diversion, evaporation and seepage. However, the DEIR fails to address any hydrologic impacts to groundwater: increased percolation may create rising groundwater levels. The DEIR already acknowledges that the Project includes areas of perched groundwater or high groundwater levels. Increased percolation will likely exacerbate these problems. The DEIR should be revised to include an analysis of such effects and, if necessary, propose adequate mitigation. Mayor Bromberg Members of the City Council City of Newport Beach Page 8 May 20, 2003 C. "Biological Resources:" Section 3.3.1, Existing Conditions, page 3.3 -2 states that "(b)iological resources within the San Diego Creek Watershed are governed by several regulatory agencies and applicable statutes and guidelines for which they are responsible ..." Among the statues and guidelines discussed in this section as having governing authority over impacts to the biological resources within each NTS site is the Special Area Management Plan (SAMP), which is currently being developed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for the San Diego Creek. According to the DEIR, the SAMP is a "comprehensive aquatic resources plan to achieve a balance between aquatic resource protection and reasonable economic development." The DEIR also states that Corps "representatives have indicated that the NTS Plan is consistent with the development of the aquatic reserve design and in furtherance of the goals and objectives of the SAMP program." Further, the DEIR states that IRWD will seek authorization for construction of the eighteen Local Facilities and one Regional Retrofit Facility, which are planned for future development, under the SAMP program instead of the traditional Section 404 permitting process. However, the standards for the SAMP program are still under development. If those standards are to be used as governing authority over impacts to the biological resources within each NTS site planned for future development, it is necessary to allow the SAMP standards to be finalized before a determination can be made that the NTS Plan is consistent with that program and, therefore, Corps permitting of the NTS sites would be governed by SAMP instead of the traditional Section 404 permitting process. 4. Chapter 4.0: "Regional Retrofit Facilities Proiect Level Environmental Analysis:" The DEIR's project level analysis concerns the first phase facilities: the three existing sites; and the nine regional retrofit sites. As with Chapter 3.0, this chapter fails to discuss the project level analysis as opposed to the program level analysis. A. "Land Use/Planning and Land Use Compatability (sic):" Site 56 is proposed to be located within a 9.5 -acre park which is surrounded by single - family residential uses, an elementary school and a library. The 1.3 -acre site would contain shallow and open water areas totaling 0.85 acre. Section 4.1.3, Environmental Impacts Analysis, page 4.1 -19 states that "fencing is proposed to be located around the perimeter of the wetlands to serve as a visual and physical access barrier" because of the close proximity of the elementary school to Site 56. Mayor Bromberg Members of the City Council City of Newport Beach Page 9 May 20, 2003 However, Section 2.7.7, Proposed Site Design, Table 2.7 -7, Site Design Features, page 2 -38 indicates that there will only be "fencing around pump wells." There is no discussion of fencing around the shallow and open water areas to keep young children away from this potential hazard. The Final EIR should provide more complete mitigation for this land use compatibility impact. In addition, NTS Sites 27 and 62 are proposed to be located within existing mitigation areas. The environmental analysis for these sites should discuss the existing previously- approved mitigation plan for each site, analyze the impacts, if any, of the NTS site facilities on the previously - approved mitigation plans and, if necessary, provide mitigation. B. "Water Quality:" The DEIR's project level analysis for the existing sites should include water quality impacts of the reclaimed water storage reservoirs to existing water quality and to the Project. Drainage from these reservoirs likely will adversely affect water quality in the watershed downstream of the sites. 5. Chapter 5.0: "Cumulative Impacts:" The Introduction to this section discusses the Guidelines cumulative impacts definitions including the definition of "probable future impacts." The DEIR concludes that, as a result of recent court decisions, the cumulative impacts analysis is limited. However, the DEIR attempts to analyze Project impacts including existing land use and drainage as well as future land use and drainage. The DEIR's cumulative impacts analysis does not extend to the future drainage and land use. The DEIR should be revised to include such analysis. As to cumulative impacts on water quality and hydrology, the DEIR provides no analysis of cumulative hydrologic impacts. The DEIR should be revised to include some discussion of such cumulative impacts. 6. Chapter 6.0: "Alternatives:" The DEIR's alternatives analysis proceeds on the project and program level. On the project level, the DEIR considers and rejects several sites as incompatible or having significant environmental impacts. Among others, the DEIR considered a site, Site 14, near the MCAS Tustin but removed the site at the request of the City of Tustin. The DEIR reasons: "Inasmuch as this was a program level site and that any future development of the WAS property will need to comply with . . . permit requirements issued by the Santa Ana RWQCB," the site was removed. However, this rationale does not differentiate this site from any other site: regardless of the proposed location of the Mayor Bromberg Members of the City Council City of Newport Beach Page 10 May 20, 2003 program level sites, each and every development in their vicinity must meet the RWQCB's requirements. The DEIR should explain in detail the rationale for removing any program level site. As to various treatment alternatives, the DEIR considers three: (1) diversion of low flow to the Orange County Sanitation District's facilities; (2) construction of a new treatment plant for low flows at the Michelson Water Reclamation Plant site; and (3) construction four facilities for treatment of low flows. The DEIR rejects each for similar reasons: cost and expense; loss of the low flows; and additional impacts due to additional construction. However, the DEIR does not discuss the impacts of low flows on the Project and on Project maintenance. Low flows may be a substantial problem for any alternative because these may increase costs and mitigation may create additional impacts. The DEIR should discuss these issues in detail and provide a reasoned analysis for the preferred alternative. Also, the DEIR considers a no project alternative as well as replacing Project sites which are in -line with flood control channels with sites off -line of such channels. The latter issue is important. The DEIR concludes that changing the in -line sites to off -line sites would achieve the objectives of the Project and would not require additional permits for implementation. As discussed below, the in -line sites create a potential impact regarding flooding and flood control resources. Given this potential impact, the DEIR should consider, analyze and provide a reasoned conclusion regarding whether the Project's use of in -line sites is preferable to the off -line alternative. 7. Chapter 7.0: "Long -Term Environmental Effects:" Section 7.1 addresses growth inducing impacts. The DEIR concludes that the Project will be growth accommodating because it may serve to mitigate drainage impacts to existing and planned projects. However, this section also notes that the area is urbanized or approved for urbanization; thus the Project will not be growth inducing. However, the Project will induce growth by providing mitigation for development runoff. The DEIR should be revised to analyze such impact and, if necessary, provide mitigation. 8. Chapter 8.0: "Effects Found Not to be Significant:" This chapter discusses several resources on which the Project will have no significant impacts. Among others, the DEIR notes that flood control impacts will be less than significant. However, the Project includes several in -line facilities. The presence of such facilities in flood control channels requires some environmental analysis. The DEIR should include such analysis, identify impacts, if any, and, if necessary, provide necessary mitigation. Mayor Bromberg Members of the City Council City of Newport Beach Page I 1 May 20, 2003 9. Other Items: Mitigation Monitoring: To be effective, the Project and its proposed mitigation must be monitored. The DEIR should include a discussion of the complete mitigation monitoring plan for the entire Project program as well as such a mitigation monitoring plan for specific sites. Any such mitigation monitoring plans must be designed to address and further the Project goals. Attachment 2 Norris Brandt, P. E. Page 1 May 20, 2003 DRAFT May 28, 2003 Mr. Norris Brandt, P. E. NTS Program Manager Irvine Ranch Water District P. 0. Box 57000 Irvine, CA 92219 -7000 VIA FACSIMILE Comments on Draft EIR San Diego Creek Watershed Natural Treatment System Program Dear Mr. Brandt: Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the DEIR for the captioned Project. As indicated in the City of Newport Beach's comments on the original NOP for the Project, the City has already recommended the Project to various agencies. As before, nothing in these comments detracts from that support; these comments simply address the Draft EIR. As with the original comments, the City's goal is to assist in improving, if necessary, the environmental document and the Project. These comments incorporate our earlier comments on the Revised NOP as well as our earlier comments on the original NOP for the Project. In addition, we offer the following comments on the DEIR for the Project: 1. Chapter 1.0: "Executive Summarv:" Section 1.2 discusses "Regional Setting" including drainage into San Diego Creek. As the City commented in connection with the First Notice of Preparation, the San Diego Norris Brandt, P. E. Page 2 May 20, 2003 Creek watershed is truncated: it fails to consider and include the runoff from the John Wayne Airport area and the Santa Ana -Delhi Channel. The DEIR also fails to include this information. Section 1.5 discusses the unusual organization of the DEIR: it is at once a Program DEIR as well as a Project DEIR. These distinctions are familiar to various agencies and EIR consultants. They are not well known to the public. At the outset, the DEIR should explain the differences and discuss why each is included in the captioned DEIR. Moreover, this unusual dichotomy creates confusion throughout the DEIR. As discussed below, we remain unclear as to the rationale for the Project level discussions. As discussed more fully below, the Project level discussions concern existing sites which may be included in the Project. The DEIR needs to explain: (1) the criteria for including such existing sites in the Project since presumably such sites already advance Project goals; (2) the Project features which ensure that the Project does not adversely affect the existing sites; and (3) to the extent that the Project adversely affects such sites, the mitigation proposed to eliminate or moderate such impacts. Section 1.5 indicates that, "[s]ince these sites are existing, and no physical disturbance is proposed, these sites were not evaluated for direct construction impacts." However, the DEIR should analyze any indirect construction impacts, e.g. upstream construction drains to increase downstream silt loads. Section 1.7 discusses "Public Outreach." This section notes that the DEIR and related documents are available on IRWD website. This is an important resource. However, IRWD also provided the DEIR on compact disk. Members of the City's Environmental Quality Affairs Committee attempted to load these disks, which unfortunately crashed virtually every computer on which the attempt was made. We hope that you are able to resolve this technological problem for future EIRs. Finally, the DEIR contains a multitude of acronyms. Yet the DEIR contains no glossary or index of acronyms and abbreviations. In order for the DEIR to be generally accessible to the public as required by CEQA, IRWD should include a glossary, or table or index of acronyms and abbreviations. 2. Chapter 2.0: "`Plan' Description:" The Project description is one of the key parts of any environmental document. As the County of Inyo Court noted long ago, "Only through an accurate view of the project may affected outsiders and public decision - makers balance the proposal's benefit against its environmental cost, consider mitigation measures, assess the advantage of terminating the proposal (i.e., the'no project' alternative) and weigh other alternatives in the balance. An accurate, stable and ;q Norris Brandt, P. E. Page 3 May 20, 2003 finite project description is the sine qua non of an informative and legally sufficient EIR." County of Invo v. City of Los Angeles (1977) 71 Cal. App. 3d 185, 199. In addition, the CEQA Guidelines section 15124 requires that an EIR describe the project "in a way that will be meaningful to the public, to the other reviewing agencies, and to the decision - makers." Discussion, Guidelines section 15124. The DEIR states that: "The purpose of the NTS Plan is to comprehensively plan, develop, and implement a large -scale water quality treatment program addressing pollutants affecting the Upper Newport Bay and Peters Canyon Reservoir." DEIR, page 2 -1. IRWD appears to concede that, under the existing conditions "pollutants [affect] the Upper Newport Bay." The DEIR goes further: "The watershed scale of the proposed NTS Plan is intended to respond to conditions within planning area drainages, both present and future, and to carry out the watershed planning emphasis and natural treatment systems Management Measures set forth in the State Nonpoint Source Plan." DEIR, p. 2 -1 (emphasis supplied). The Project apparently attempts to address impacts of future projects and conditions which are unspecified and unknown. The Project cannot mitigate or "respond to" future conditions, because neither IRWD nor other agencies are aware of the nature and extent of such "future conditions." To the extent that the Project is an attempt to mitigate future impacts, the DEIR must identify those impacts, provide an environmental analysis of same and consider various alternatives to such impacts in addition to the Project. The Project objectives include the following: 1. Assist the County and cities and others in meeting Total Maximum Daily Loads ( "TMDL ") and National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System ( "NPDES ") permit requirements. 2. Provide a comprehensive, regional, watershed -wide approach to clean up storm runoff and dry weather flows from: a) existing land uses; and b) future land uses. Norris Brandt, P. E. Page 4 May 20, 2003 3. Improve water quality in the San Diego Creek, Upper Newport Bay Ecological Reserve, Newport Bay, Peters Canyon Reservoirs, and portions of Santiago Creek. 4. Enhance habitat value of aquatic habitats located within the NCCP Reserve. The DEIR contains a detailed discussion of each objective. Probably, the most detailed explanation occurs regarding Objective 2: clean up of flows for existing and future development. The DEIR discusses the NPDES stormwater permitting scheme and its background. Presumably, existing developments already meet these standards; future development will likely be required to provide additional practices in order to comply with NPDES requirements. The DEIR should clearly explain the Project goals and objectives including discussing existing and future development. Further, to the extent that the Project attempts to address stormwater and related issues for future developments, the DEIR cannot guess at the nature and extent of such development and its runoff characteristics. If the Project is to serve any real purpose relating to these future projects, the DEIR must identify these future projects, discuss their flow characteristics and impacts and the extent to which the Project will mitigate their impacts. Section 2.3.2 addresses the Project's and the DEIR's relationship to other agencies' plans and regulatory requirements. The DEIR states that IRWD reviewed applicable planning documents to determine "if the proposed wetlands and basins are compatible with other planned regional facilities ...... We understand this to mean that the Project is compatible with various land use plans including specific infrastructure improvements planned or proposed in various areas throughout the watershed. This review does not address the nature and extent of future projects and does not consider any potential runoff from such "future projects." Further, this section discusses the United States Army Corps of Engineers' San Diego Creek Special Area Management Plan ( "SAMP "). It appears that the SAMP may substantially overlap the Project. The DEIR should explain the relationship between the two and the impacts of one on the other. Section 2.4.3 addresses projected load reductions and water quality impacts. The Project will apparently improve mild sediment loads but "is not designed to meet TMDL ...." Although the DEIR seems to indicate that the Project will address TMDL, it will not meet heavy loads. However, if the Project facilities are improved, e.g. deepened, the Project may meet such loads. The DEIR should discuss such alternatives in the appropriate section. Section 2.5 discusses site determination. The objectives of the Project should be the primary factors for site determination. The DEIR states that the first criterion is availability. Further, Section 2.5 contains a list of site criteria: far down the list is the following: i� Norris Brandt, P. E. Page 5 May 20, 2003 "Is the drainage area a significant source of pollutants ?" The DEIR should explain why this criterion is not the primary consideration. The DEIR should explain and establish the priority of site criteria. Sections 2.6 and 2.7 discuss the Project sites: as indicated above, the DEIR is split between program level analysis and project level analysis. Section 2.6 addresses the program level; section 2.7 discusses project level analysis. Section 2.7 attempts to provide a complete project level analysis for the twelve (12) sites. The DEIR attempts to provide the necessary project level analysis "to avoid the need for further environmental review...." However, the stated purpose of the DEIR is to provide a watershed level analysis. To the extent that the DEIR attempts to analyze the impacts of the Project, the DEIR and subsequent documents must analyze the impacts of the future program level sites on the other sites. Further, the project level analysis addresses three (3) existing sites: the San Joaquin Marsh site; Rattlesnake Reservoir; and Sand Canyon Reservoir. Of these three sites, only one —the San Joaquin Marsh site— currently functions in the manner proposed by the Project. The other two — the Rattlesnake and Sand Canyon Reservoirs— are reclaimed reservoir sites. Section 2.7. 10 addresses the San Joaquin Marsh enhancement. The DEIR does not discuss any physical enhancements. The only enhancement is an increased flow during the year. The DEIR should be revised to analyze any impacts caused by such increased flow and provide mitigation if necessary. Section 2.7.8 also discusses the San Joaquin Marsh site. However, this section fails to distinguish this site from that discussed in Section 2.7.10. Further, Section 2.7.8 discusses the Project's proposed improvements to this site. Among others, as noted in the DEIR at page 2 -40: "[T]he intent of the restoration and enhancement plan is to convert habitat resources with lesser long term value to high long -term conservation value to benefit [various protected species]." The DEIR should discuss the rationale for this enhancement and any impacts it may cause or mitigate. Section 2.7.11 discusses the Rattlesnake Reservoir which is designated as Site No. 13. Importantly, the DEIR states: "The reservoir is currently used for storage of reclaimed water .... No changes to the reservoir are envisioned as part of the NTS plan." DEIR, p. 2 -43. The DEIR should explain and analyze the relationship between the reclaimed water reservoirs and the Project, how these sites further Project goals, and address any Project related impacts to or as a result of these reservoirs. Norris Brand[, P. E. Page 6 May 20, 2003 Section 2.8.3 addresses operations and maintenance. Among other things, this section discusses sediment and debris removal; Table 2.8 -2 discusses various maintenance tasks for the proposed sites. As indicated above, several sites are currently used for storage of reclaimed water. Although Table 2.8 -2 fails to discuss maintenance and operation of the reservoirs, the Project related operation and maintenance of such reservoirs likely will require removal of additional sediment and debris which will require draining the reservoirs. Draining of the reclaimed reservoirs likely will have additional impacts which the DEIR should analyze, discuss and provide mitigation if necessary. 3. Chapter 3.0: "`Plan' Facilities: Program Level Environmental Analysis:" This Chapter begins with a discussion of program level analysis. However, the DEIR fails to discuss and explain the various levels of analysis, e.g. program level or project level. Further, the DEIR notes that its program level analysis depends on previously generated environmental analysis. The DEIR should contain a complete analysis: to the extent that the DEIR depends upon other analysis, the DEIR should provide a reference and some discussion about the incorporated analysis. A. "Land Use/Planning and Land Use Compatibility:" Section 3.1 attempts to describe the land use /planning and community character of the watershed. As indicated above, the Project attempts to provide stormwater capacity for existing and future uses. However, section 3.1 contains a minimal discussion of general plan requirements for portions of the watershed. Such general plans may not be able to provide the specificity necessary for the Project. Further environmental analysis may be necessary for future development of the watershed. Moreover, this section includes a discussion of local plans as well as the General Plan for the County of Orange. However, the DEIR discusses only recreational aspects of the County's General Plan. Other aspects, e.g. residential land use, will likely affect the Project. The DEIR should include such a discussion. In addition, the DEIR concludes that the Project will have no adverse impacts on land use. However, NTS Site 56, which is proposed to be constructed in the first three years, and therefore, was analyzed at the project level, appears to be incompatible with the surrounding land uses. See discussion below in Section 4A. B. "Hydrology and Water Quality:" This section attempts to provide an environmental analysis for direct construction impacts, and long -term benefits and impacts. As indicated above, construction impacts ''r Norris Brandt, P. E. Page 7 May 20, 2003 may be indirect. Since the Project concerns watershed development, construction at one site may affect another site or other areas in the watershed. The DEIR should include an analysis of indirect construction impacts. In addition, the DEIR concludes that the Project will have no impacts on groundwater quality. However, the DEIR provides no support for such conclusion. The Project will create wetlands which will attempt to remove pollutants. However, a portion of such removal occurs when these pollutants are removed from the facilities during maintenance. Because such removal will occur only periodically, the pollutants may affect groundwater during the interim periods prior to maintenance. Also, Project maintenance— removal of sediments and pollutants— will ensure that surface water percolation to groundwater will be enhanced. Further, the DEIR discusses hydrologic impacts. The focus of this analysis is loss of surface water due to diversion, evaporation and seepage. However, the DEIR fails to address any hydrologic impacts to groundwater: increased percolation may create rising groundwater levels. The DEIR already acknowledges that the Project includes areas of perched groundwater or high groundwater levels. Increased percolation will likely exacerbate these problems. The DEIR should be revised to include an analysis of such effects and, if necessary, propose adequate mitigation. C. `Biological Resources:" Section 3.3.1, Existing Conditions, page 3.3 -2 states that "(b)iological resources within the San Diego Creek Watershed are governed by several regulatory agencies and applicable statutes and guidelines for which they are responsible ..." Among the statues and guidelines discussed in this section as having governing authority over impacts to the biological resources within each NTS site is the Special Area Management Plan (SAMP), which is currently being developed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for the San Diego Creek. According to the DEIR, the SAMP is a "comprehensive aquatic resources plan to achieve a balance between aquatic resource protection and reasonable economic development." The DEIR also states that Corps "representatives have indicated that the NTS Plan is consistent with the development of the aquatic reserve design and in furtherance of the goals and objectives of the SAMP program." Further, the DEIR states that IRWD will seek authorization for construction of the eighteen Local Facilities and one Regional Retrofit Facility, which are planned for future development, under the SAMP program instead of the traditional Section 404 permitting process. However, the standards for the SAMP program are still under development. If those standards are to be used as governing authority over impacts to the biological resources within each NTS site planned for future development, it is necessary to allow the SAMP standards to be finalized before a determination can be made that the NTS Plan is consistent with that program and, therefore, Corps permitting of the NTS sites would be governed by SAMP Norris Brandt, P. E. Page 8 May 20, 2003 instead of the traditional Section 404 permitting process. 4. Chapter 4.0: "Regional Retrofit Facilities Project Level Environmental Analysis:" The DEIR's project level analysis concerns the first phase facilities: the three existing sites; and the nine regional retrofit sites. As with Chapter 3.0, this chapter fails to discuss the project level analysis as opposed to the program level analysis. A. "Land Use/Planning and Land Use Compatability (sic):" Site 56 is proposed to be located within a 9.5 -acre park which is surrounded by single - family residential uses, an elementary school and a library. The 1.3 -acre site would contain shallow and open water areas totaling 0.85 acre. Section 4.1.3, Environmental Impacts Analysis, page 4.1 -19 states that "fencing is proposed to be located around the perimeter of the wetlands to serve as a visual and physical access barrier" because of the close proximity of the elementary school to Site 56. However, Section 2.7.7, Proposed Site Design, Table 2.7 -7, Site Design Features, page 2 -38 indicates that there will only be "fencing around pump wells." There is no discussion of fencing around the shallow and open water areas to keep young children away from this potential hazard. The Final EIR should provide more complete mitigation for this land use compatibility impact. In addition, NTS Sites 27 and 62 are proposed to be located within existing mitigation areas. The environmental analysis for these sites should discuss the existing, previously approved mitigation plan for each site, analyze the impacts, if any, of the NTS site facilities on the previously approved mitigation plans and, if necessary, provide mitigation. B. "Water Quality:" The DEIR's project level analysis for the existing sites should include water quality impacts of the reclaimed water storage reservoirs to existing water quality and to the Project. Drainage from these reservoirs could adversely affect water quality in the watershed downstream of the sites. 5. Chapter 5.0: "Cumulative Impacts:" The Introduction to this section discusses the Guidelines' cumulative impacts definitions including the definition of "probable future impacts." The DEIR concludes that, as a result of recent court decisions, the cumulative impacts analysis is limited. However, the DEIR attempts to analyze Project impacts including existing land use and drainage as well as future land use and Norris Brandt, P. E. Page 9 May 20, 2003 drainage. The DEIR's cumulative impacts analysis does not extend to the future drainage and land use. The DEIR should be revised to include such analysis. As to cumulative impacts on water quality and hydrology, the DEIR provides no analysis of cumulative hydrologic impacts. The DEIR should be revised to include some discussion of such cumulative impacts. 6. Chapter 6.0: "Alternatives:" The DEIR's alternatives analysis proceeds on the project and program level. On the project level, the DEIR considers and rejects several sites as incompatible or having significant environmental impacts. Among others, the DEIR considered a site, Site 14, near the MCAS Tustin but removed the site at the request of the City of Tustin. The DEIR reasons: "Inasmuch as this was a program level site and that any future development of the MCAS property will need to comply with... permit requirements issued by the Santa Ana RWQCB," the site was removed. However, this rationale does not differentiate this site from any other site: regardless of the proposed location of the program level sites, each and every development in their vicinity must meet the RWQCB's requirements. The DEIR should explain in greater detail the rationale for removing any program level site. As to various treatment alternatives, the DEIR considers three: (1) diversion of low flow to the Orange County Sanitation District's facilities; (2) construction of a new treatment plant for low flows at the Michelson Water Reclamation Plant site; and (3) construction four facilities for treatment of low flows. The DEIR rejects each for similar reasons: cost; loss of the low flows; and additional impacts due to additional construction. However, the DEIR does not discuss the impacts of low flows on the Project and on Project maintenance. Low flows may be a substantial problem for any alternative because these may increase costs and mitigation may create additional impacts. The DEIR should discuss these issues in detail and provide a reasoned analysis for the preferred alternative. Also, the DEIR considers a no project alternative as well as replacing Project sites which are in -line with flood control channels with sites off -line of such channels. The latter issue is important. The DEIR concludes that changing the in -line sites to off -line sites would achieve the objectives of the Project and would not require additional permits for implementation. As discussed below, the in -line sites create a potential impact regarding flooding and flood control resources. Given this potential impact, the DEIR should consider, analyze and provide a reasoned conclusion regarding whether the Project's use of in -line sites is preferable to the off -line alternative. 7. Chapter 8.0: "Effects Found Not to be Significant:" This chapter discusses several resources on which the Project will have no Norris Brandt, P. E. Page 10 May 20, 2003 significant impacts. Among others, the DEIR notes that flood control impacts will be less than significant. However, the Project includes several in -line facilities. The presence of such facilities in flood control channels requires some environmental analysis. The DEIR should include such analysis, identify impacts, if any, and, if necessary, provide necessary mitigation. 8. Other Items: To be effective, the Project and its proposed mitigation must be monitored. The EIR should include a discussion of the complete mitigation monitoring plan for the entire Project program as well as such a mitigation monitoring plan for specific sites. The NTS Draft Master Plan (Section 8, starting on page 135) suggests that "a detailed monitoring plan will be developed for all NTS sites." Such a plan will be integral to the success of NTS, given the scrutiny it will receive as a viable (if NTS performs as expected) alternative to more costly solutions to cleaning up contaminants in stormwater. The City urges IRWD to diligently develop and implement the monitoring plan for all NTS sites and to make the plan's data and analysis available on the District's web site for full public review and understanding. In conclusion, I would like to reiterate the City of Newport Beach's strong support for NTS. The City applauds the District's initiative in proposing, funding and implementing NTS; and we join the District in anticipating that it will become a nationwide model for effective and nature -based pollutant reduction. We especially look forward to its success in reducing contaminants into the waterways of the Newport Bay Watershed. Sincerely, Steve Bromberg Mayor Cc: Environmental Quality Affairs Committee r