HomeMy WebLinkAboutVolume 1 of 4 - Study Session - Presentation by the Planning Recirculated Environmental Imp act Report ( REIR) No . 00 =02 c r o.. 3> - 4 '7.<-...�:�v°x^' A i � � r Seawater Desalination Facility BACKGROUND • Poseidon Resources Corp. is proposing to construct a 50 MGD seawater desalination facility on an 11 acre lease area within the AES generating station property at PCH and Newland `r-ry �luy �� ilk a� P ■■■ � °N .y , 1 H i t • Includes four miles of water transmission lines within the city of Huntington Beach BACKGROUND • Entitlement applications include a Conditional Use Permit and Coastal Development Permit subject to City Council action after certification of the Draft REIR. • Design Review Board reviewed the proposed design, colors, and materials and recommended approval with minor modifications. 3 BACKGROUND • Dec. 2003 City Council denied certification of the EIR and identified three issues to be resolved : 1 . Impingement and entrainment impacts 2. Potential growth inducing impacts 3. Compatibility of the desalination facility's product water • Study session will provide an overview of the new information and revisions contained in the Draft REIR in preparation for tentative hearing date of Sept. 6 , 2005 OVERVIEW • Impingement and Entrainment Impacts ✓ Original EIR assumed 100% mortality from existing AES once through cooling water system; therefore desalination facility will not result in additional impacts. ✓ Draft REIR added a desalination feed water intake study which concludes that the project impacts in regards to impingement and entrainment are not anticipated to be significant: ■ Impingement - desalination facility will not cause any additional impacts because organisms will not be exposed to further screening prior to entering the facility's pretreatment system ■ Entrainment observed mortality — • 94.1% for HBGS • 1 .2% added by desalination plant at flows of 507 mgd and 4.6% at flows of 127 mgd ✓ Comment letter received from National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) on Draft REIR actually notes assumption of 100% mortality from existing AES once through cooling water system is appropriate, consistent with EPA and NOAA's National Marine Fisheries Service assumptions. 5 OVERVIEW • Potential Growth Inducing Impacts ✓ Original EIR looked at the nominal contribution of the desalination facility to the regional water supplies: ■ Project would add less than eight percent of the existing water supply in Orange County and slightly over one percent of the existing water supply in the South Coast Region ✓ Draft REIR added a growth assessment and general plan evaluation which supports conclusion in original EIR of less than significant impacts related to growth inducement. ■ 7 of 12 identified planned new residential development projects of 500 dwelling units or more have water sources independent of desalination facility ■ Even if project were relied upon to serve a new development of 500 dwelling units or more it would not foster growth in excess of that already projected in planning documents OVERVIEW • Compatibility of the desalination facility's product water: ✓ Original EIR touched upon the compatibility of the facility's product water with existing potable water supplies delivered through the regional distribution system. ✓ Draft REIR added disinfection byproduct formation study and distribution system corrosion control study. New mitigation measures also incorporated to reduce impacts to less than significant. OVERVIEW • Other issue areas in the REIR: ✓ Mitigation measures identified for Geology/Soils, Seismicity/Faulting, Liquefaction, Water Quality, Noise, Public Services/Utilities, Aesthetics, Construction Related Impacts ✓ Unavoidable significant impact identified in regards to temporary, short-term construction related emissions of NOx 8 OVERVIEW * Other enhancements in the REIR: ✓ New section on interaction between AES and desalination facility ✓ Analyzed more project alternatives including alternative design (different method of desalination, seawater intake collection, discharge location) and reduced facility size 9 CONCLUSION ✓ Draft REIR incorporates changes in analysis and reports in response to Council direction ✓ Complies with requirements of CEQA ✓ Adequately analyzes project impacts END OF PRESENTATION RESPONSES TO COMMENTS for the SEAWATER DESALINATION PROJECT at HUNTINGTON BEACH James & Cindy Douglas "h/ of Huntingto, 17322 Whetinore Lane APR 2 6 2005 Huntington Beach, Ca 92647 (714) 596-1222 Ricky Ramos City of Huntington Beach Planning Dept. 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 D ear.City of HB: We are strongly opposed to 'a Seawater Desalination Project in Huntington Beach. We feel that the impact from construction-related air quality to our City is a si cant threat to the children and adults who already suffer from a asthma and other airborne allergies. Again, we are opposed to a Seawater Desalination Project in Huntington Beach. Jim & Cindy Douglas Response No. 30 "Construction related air quality impacts would be mitigated through preparations of a dust control plan and adherence to City and South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) regulations. As detailed within Section 5.9 of the DEIR and despite the implementation of standard conditions, project design features and mitigation measures, a significant and unavoidable short-term air quality impact would remain . The proposed project is anticipated to exceed SCAQMD thresholds in regards to short-term air missions(remediation , demolition, construction) Mitigation measures will be implemented, but these measures are unable to reduce NOX emissions to a less than significant level according to SCAQMD thresholds. This impact is overridden by the benefits that could be . provided by the proposed project . There is no feasible alternative that could avoid this significant impact. Moreover the SCAQMD and California Air Resources Board have jurisdiction over stationary and mobile emission sources, respectively. PEOPLE OF HUNTINGTON BEACH OR PO ON ?ECEIVED FROM • J 0 e- 19eeyG,e, AS PUBLIC RECORD FOR �IL MEETM OF a BM. CITY CLERK OPFICE I wanted to make a couple general points today. ,LOAN L FLYNN,CITY CLERK First, This is an extremely complicated question before you. To certify the adequacy of this document, you, and the public, need to fully understand the implications of this project on marine life restoration and management, coastal zone management, energy supply and demand, regional land use planning—not to mention all the complexities of water supply. We just got the response to comments yesterday—and I'm not prepared to say anything about the adequacy of those responses. Quite frankly, I don't know how you could be prepared either. .50 116 S5 40X i5 V 1�j C, i44C �5 Secondly, I just wanted to briefly explain our comment letter. If you read a document like this EIR, and it doesn't accurately reflect the world as you know it—there's something wrong. Remember that CEQA is perfectly clear that, when you're describing environmental settings that are already stressed, the situation demands heightened thresholds for significance. This document, in so many places, is inadequate for that reason. Just for a couple examples: when the EIR is discussing marine life impacts, it uses baselines and theoretical models that few people understand. But, if you have some understanding of these models, the EIR looks like an effort to skew the meaning to fit their purpose. They talk about the Nearshore Fishery management Plan and its allowance to take up to 60% of those managed species' populations. I was on the advisory panel that wrote the Nearshore Plan and I can tell you—that is absolutely NOT what the rule was meant to do. Many of those species are poorly understood, and some are already considered overfished. Both of these factors have dramatic implications on "allowable take." 5 6C 0 The EIR.talks about the cooling water intakes as if the 3 6)4 cc,k) v U,I e-Z, ;i Y C i /-,r e-)e- V/J V I P . The major difference between the environmental setting when the first EIR was drafted and now is the new regulations on cooling water. But, I cannot tell by reading this document that there are dramatic new conditions and mandates imposed on coastal generators like AES. More importantly, it's impossible to detect what AES might do to comply with these new regulations. If the EIR. doesn't adequately describe this situation, I can't imagine how it suffices as a tool to make informed decisions about co-locating a desal facility at AES. j The IR tells,,. at the demand on o lectricity is marginal and 1 insi fic t. BVesr te keeps to in us to prep for sho; gL in s r m er,Re , the2 fic ce is ased n the gust g sett g. It not o d enough to do some simple Vi etic and then disco n the cumu ve imp S. (, On:ela:st:e:x:am:�pJ1e- the EIR doesn't do anywhere near a good enough job fully describing the alternatives to this project. We don't simply need a list of sources —we need an environmental analysis of the alternatives. For instance, if we spend more money on the Groundwater Replenishment program, what is the environmental consequences compared to this desal proposal? Will it reduce ocean discharges. Of course it will. What about investing in more conservation? Will this alternative reduce our urban runoff problem? Of course it will —but you won't fmd that analysis in the "A 0 EIR. 916 C All A Y 1v P We can go on about complicated questions of growth inducement, alternatives for getting desal supply water that don't rely on such dramatic disruptions to marine ecosystems —and on and on. I look forward to reading the Response to Comments. But, as we have said numerous times before—this is a complicated issue and demands thorough analysis before any decision maker should stamp it "adequate." It is about much broader policy decisions than just supplying water. CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH COUNCIL — ADMINISTRATOR COMMUNICATION RECEIVED FROM 1'1A e4L �',lerfz AS PUBLIC RECOR FO I UNCIL EEM OF CITY CLE K OFFICE MAN L FLYK CITY CLERK TO: Mayor and City Council VIA: Ray Silver, City Administrator FROM: William P. Workman, Assistant City Administrator SUBJECT: Update: CEC Action on AES DATE: July 13, 2001 Al Pak, Special Counsel to the City on the AES appeal, wrote the following information. "Well, once again, we won the hearts of the Commission but not its signature. The Commission relieved AES from its obligation to contract with the CDWR, disregarding AES' concessions that it would now sell power to anyone who came forward. The Commission took the position that, with price caps in place, AES would not benefit from selling to anyone other than CDWR since everyone is paying the same price. (This, by the way, disregards the evidence that several power plants were taken off line during recent periods when the price caps were effected by FERC order, causing the spread of the blackouts to Southern Nevada and Northern Arizona. It also disregards AES' own testimony that it prefers to execute contracts with creditworthy fast-pay buyers, which California has a problem with today.)" "The Commission did modify the permit life in one critical aspect. The permit no longer has a specific life of ten years. The preexisting life of ten years was removed from the certificate conditions. AES is required to make a showing that it is complying with all permit conditions, has mitigated or is mitigating environmental impacts and has emission credits sufficient to continue operating. This showing is required within the fifth year of operations, with AES carrying the burden of proof. So the game is on in five years once again, so you will want to take steps to preserve the institutional memory of the city through that time frame in the event you want to oppose the continuation of the permit at that time. In the meantime, Unit 5 will have been dismantled and taken out of operation. By the way, there were two votes for holding the matter over given the what appeared to be an unexpectedly strong opposition to the AES petition. Seeing that, AES acceded to the change in the permit life rather than continue to argue that the change to a five-plus-five was inappropriate. With that concession, Commissioner Moore voted for the decision to relieve AES of the contracting obligations, despite saying that he was embarrassed to do so and that AES's showing indicated that the emergency circumstances justifying the fast tracking of the proceeding no longer appeared to justify the fast track; he said that he would now require that the plant undergo a one-year permitting process if he had to do things all over again. (Remember that he had dissented from accepting the fast-track recommendation of the Staff in February.) Commissioner Laurie sided with the City and would have continued the contract condition, saying that AES should not be relieved of the bad bargain it made. Commissioner Pernell was absent. Final vote was 3-1, Laurie dissenting. If you have any questions, please call." "By the way, Councilmember Boardman attended and spoke. She did a good job, very impassioned." CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH k ' COUNCIL - ADMINISTRATOR COMMUNICATION TO: Mayor and City Council VIA: Ray Silver, City Administrator FROM: William P. Workman, Assistant City Administrator SUBJECT: CEC Action DATE: July 11, 2001 Attached is a copy of the California Energy Commission action on the AES appeal that was held today. Councilmember Connie Boardman represented the city and attended the meeting in Sacramento. Proposed Changes per Commissioner Pernell EMERGENCY-2: This certification is granted by the Energy Commission for a limited period subject to an extension review by the Energy Commission as described below, conducted at the request of the project owner made no sooner than January.1, 2006 and no later than March 31, 2006. The project owner's request for extension review shall be accompanied by evidence from the project owner and others relevant to the findings set forth below. The Energy Commission will shall approve the continuation of this certification if it finds that: • the project owner has substantially complied with the conditions of certification; • the project owner has mitigated or is mitigating the project's contribution to environmental impacts that are the subject of the studies required by the conditions of certification; and • all currently required permits (i.e., NPDES) are in force and the project owner is in substantial compliance with each permit. If the Energy Commission approves the continuation, this certification will expire on September 30, 2011. If the Energy Commission does not approve the continuation or the project owner does not request the continuation before April 1, 2006, this certification will expire on September 30, 2006. CALIFORNIA ENERGY HUNTINGTON BEACH COMMISSION GENERATING STATION RETOOL PROJECT RECENED FROM AS PUBLIC REC0RV NC MEEW Application For Certification 00-AFC-13 OF �n- F� Orange County 'OA"L FLY CITY CLERK z is MW OR ll- � y) f \�a v, r r � X,� r ..' •p, 1 4 #"p. MAY 2001 \ (00-AFC-13) r P800-01-016 4 / Gray Davis, Governor TABLE OF CONTENTS - HOME PAGE Page EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .......................................................................................2 CALIFORNIA'S ELECTRICITY EMERGENCY......................................................4 PROJECTDESCRIPTION ..................................................................................... 11 ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY AirQuality................................................................................................... 16 Biology........................................................................................................38 CulturalResources....................................................................................48 Geology ...................................................................................................... 57 HazardousMaterials.................................................................................. 61 LandUse.....................................................................................................67 Noise...........................................................................................................73 PublicHealth ..............................................................................................83 Socioeconomics ........................................................................................88 Traffic & Transportation............................................................................98 VisualResources....................................................................................... 106 WasteManagement ................................................................................... 122 WaterQuality & Soils................................................................................. 128 WaterResources........................................................................................ 137 Alternatives ................................................................................................ 141 TRANSMISSION & ENGINEERING Efficiency.................................................................................................... 146 FacilityDesign............................................................................................ 150 Reliability..... .............................................................................................. 166 Transmission Line Safety & Nuisance............................ .................................................................... 168 Transmission System Engi ..neering .......................................................... 175 WorkerSafety............................................................................................. 180 GENERAL ORDER NO. 1 — COMPLIANCE MONITORING.................................. 190 ADOPTIONORDER...............................................................................................206 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY EMERGENCY APPROVED CERTIFICATION The Energy Commission approves AES's proposed 450 megawatt Huntington Beach Units 3 & 4 Retool Project in Huntington Beach, California, together with the following highlighted measures to mitigate potential environmental and community impacts: ELECTRICITY SALES ✓ In consideration of this expedited certification pursuant to the IN CALIFORNIA: Governor's Executive Order, AES shall enter into a contract with the Department of Water Resources to sell the generation from the Huntington Beach Units 3 & 4 Retool Project to address California's electricity supply emergency. The Project will be on line approximately 90 days after certification. 10-YEAR ✓ The retooling of a vintage, coastal boiler power plant is warranted EMERGENCY since it can immediately respond to California's electricity CERTIFICATION: emergency; thus certification will be effective for a period of ten years. In 2006, the Energy Commission will determine if AES has complied with all Conditions of Certification and implemented measures to mitigate environmental impacts. AIR QUALITY: ✓ The power plant will use state-of-the-art Best Available Control Technology to minimize emissions. ✓ Complete offsets will be used to compensate for any pollutant for which the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) requires offsets. ✓ To prevent a significant cumulative air quality impact, through December 31, 2002, Units 3 and 4 shall not operate contemporaneously with Unit 5 unless the ISO has declared a Stage 3 Electrical Emergency and the ISO has specifically called- up Unit 5 to avoid an imminent blackout. After December 31, 2002, operation of Huntington Beach Unit 5 shall cease. These requirements may be superseded by SCAQMD's adoption of emission controls by Best Available Retrofit Control Technology or other means applicable to Unit 5. 2 WATER QUALITY: ✓ AES will fund a study of the possible contribution of the power plant project to the occurrence of bacteria in the Huntington Beach surf zone through heated cooling water discharge in the Pacific Ocean. If the power plant project contributes to the impact, AES will provide its proportional share of mitigation. VISUAL RESOURCES: ✓ Structures and fences will be painted in muted colors compatible with the setting. ✓ Shields and motion detectors on plant lighting will minimize nighttime glare. ✓ Tree planting will screen views of the plant, particularly from the Pacific Coast Highway and nearby residences. BIOLOGY: ✓ For cooling water, AES will continue to use the existing ocean water intake and outfall system that entraps and kills a modest amount of fish and other organisms. By restarting operation of Units 3 & 4, flow rates will be doubled compared to recent years. Rather than rely on an extrapolation of 1970s data from other coastal power plants, AES will conduct a one-year entrainment and impingement study at Huntington Beach to assess current project and potential cumulative impacts. AES will also review best available technology for the intake system that might lessen entrainment and impingement. NOISE: ✓ In order to complete the retooling project in July 2001, AES will implement a 20-hour per day construction schedule. To prevent disturbance to nearby residences, AES proposes to limit "noisy" construction from 7:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. daily. Between 8:00 p.m. and 2:00 a.m., activities will be limited to "quiet" construction that will not exceed present nighttime noise levels by a perceptible amount, which is 5 dBA. 3 CALIFORNIA'S ELECTRICITY EMERGENCY The AES Huntington Beach Retool Project as recommended for certification is a creature of California's electricity supply emergency, both in its design and regulatory processing. AES proposes to rebuild and upgrade the internal components of two 1950's vintage boilers that were retired from use by SCE in 1995. AES testified that it purchased the Huntington Beach Generating Station with the intention of replacing the old boilers with state-of-the-art combustion turbine combined cycle units. At some unspecified time and based upon factors to which we are not privy, AES began the process of preparing an Application for Certification to resurrect the idle units. AES's design included the use of air pollution control technology that will allow Units 3 and 4 to burn nearly as cleanly as modern combined cycle units. As a result, AES filed its Application for Certification in December 2000, contemplating a routine, nominal 12-month regulatory review. In the intervening time, instead of remaining routine and nominal, California's electricity supply situation has become an emergency. By various Executive Orders, Governor Davis has declared an energy supply emergency and directed the Energy Commission to marshal state resources to expedite its regulatory reviews to bring new generation resources on line, with a particular emphasis on generation which could be available for the summer of 2001. For its part, AES has responded to the electricity supply emergency by offering to retool Huntington Beach Units 3 and 4 in 90 days from the date of licensing. Therefore, to enable AES to fulfill such a pledge and bring Unit 3 and 4 generation on line by mid-July 2001, the Energy Commission has instituted a highly expedited process that could lead to certification by mid-April 2001. Other energy developers are currently proposing to replace their vintage coastal boiler- type power plants, whether purchased from SCE or PG&E, with new combustion turbine combined cycle units, as AES had originally intended. Duke Energy's Morro Bay Project and Dynergy's El Segundo Redevelopment Project use state-of-the-art emission controls, consume about one-third less natural gas than a boiler unit to produce an equivalent amount of electricity, and return less-heated cooling water to the ocean environment. All of this comes in a low profile, less visually intrusive package than the Huntington Beach proposal by AES. Such facilities model California's future coastal power plants. Absent responding to the current electricity emergency, the AES project does not present sufficient justification to perpetuate the vintage Huntington Beach power plant on a coastline of world-renowned scenic, recreational, and environmental value. Consequently, the Energy Commission will certify the retooled facility for 10 years to be available to fully address the electricity supply emergency, since the initial years of this period will likely coincide with the term of the electricity sales contract which AES 4 testified it is negotiating with the Department of Water Resources (DWR) which is California's agent in securing generation to meet the emergency. In approximately 5 years, AES shall present evidence to the Commission that it is in compliance with all conditions of certification, that it has or is implementing environmental mitigation measures for which it is responsible, and that it is in compliance with any other applicable permits. If the Energy Commission does not find compliance, and AES does not bring the project into compliance in a reasonable time, the Commission may terminate certification or take other action permitted by law. Of particular interest to the Commission is the successful completion of the surf zone bacteria study and the impingement and entrainment study, together with the implementation of appropriate mitigation identified in those studies. The trade-off for the needed electricity during this emergency is that California, and to some extent Huntington Beach, will have to defer the societal and environmental benefits of AES's expressed intention to modernize the Huntington Beach Generating Station. The Energy Commission believes that through a DWR contract and Independent System Operator (Cal-ISO) incentives AES will be sufficiently rewarded for its short-term investment in the retooling to respond to the electricity emergency and well-positioned to invest for the long-term in its intended modernization. This is the win-win scenario for California, for AES, and for our fellow citizens in Huntington Beach. ELECTRICITY SALES IN CALIFORNIA AES's Application for Certification states, "...this project offers an environmentally friendly means of providing much needed generation in Southern California." (AFC § 1.1) At all times during the proceeding, AES has consistently expressed that the retool project is to aid California during its electricity emergency. The City of Huntington Beach and California Unions of Reliable Energy (CURE) seek a condition limiting the sale of electricity generated by this project only to California or within California. Further, the City and CURE seek a condition that would require the Energy Commission to monitor electricity sales from other AES's facilities. The reasons for desiring this condition are to assure that the retool project's generation adds to the net energy supply in California and AES does not use this project's output as a means to sell its other facilities' generation out-of-state. The Committee requested briefs from the parties after the City of Huntington Beach presented a written legal analysis supporting a California sales condition during comments on the Presiding Member's Proposed Decision. A supporting brief was filed by CURE. An opposing brief was submitted by AES. At the Commission hearing to consider the Amended Presiding Member's Proposed Decision, AES expressed acceptance of all Conditions of Certification, including EMERGENCY-1, so long as the term of certification was at least ten years. 5 In consideration of the record on the proceeding and a review of cases and statutes, the Committee believes the following: • California is in the grip of an electricity supply emergency demanding an immediate and effective response to protect the health and welfare of its citizens; • California's electricity supply emergency is a unique circumstance, largely unanticipated in the new deregulated electricity world so that all matters are of first impression; • There is no case directly on point nor any statute or regulation directly addressing this unique circumstance; • This is a gray area of the law, where there has been a traditional tension between state powers reserved under the Tenth Amendment and the Interstate Commerce Clause, both found in the federal Constitution; and • California has undertaken a coordinated effort to address the electricity supply emergency by the Energy Commission's expedited permitting of new power plants pursuant to Executive Orders and the Department of Water Resources' (DWR) contracting to secure those new resources (as well as existing resources) to address our electricity supply shortage. The U. S. Supreme Court cases cited by the parties support the concept that state action as "a trustee or guardian of its citizens" may "affect" interstate commerce, but shall not interfere with federal preemption of the field nor constitute economic protectionism or hoarding of a state's natural resources. The permitting of thermal power plants has long been a traditional state power, which Congress has left unchanged over many decades. In the face of a declared electricity supply emergency, California has tasked the Energy Commission through various Executive Orders to permit new power plants using extraordinary and expedited processes. DWR has been charged with securing these and other electricity supplies to reduce or eliminate blackouts with all their adverse health and safety impacts upon California's population. Under such emergency circumstances, applicable law appears to permit California to establish a Condition of Certification requiring new power plants permitted pursuant to extraordinary Executive Order processes to dedicate their generation to addressing our electricity supply emergency, subject to two important limitations. First, required sales to California can last only for the duration of the emergency, which can appropriately be reflected in the term of a contract with DWR. After expiration of the DWR contract, AES may sell to anyone. Second, the Commission acknowledges the authority of the President of the United States, the federal Secretary of Energy, or the Governor of 6 California to re-direct this project's output to respond to electricity shortages in other states. Moreover, to the extent permitted in the DWR contract, Units 3 and 4's output can be sold to or exchanged with other states. The purpose of this Condition is not impermissible economic protectionism. First and foremost, this Condition is to secure reliable and sufficient electricity supplies to address a critical electricity supply shortage, expected to have very serious public health, safety, and welfare consequences if not addressed. This action does not hoard any natural resources used to produce electricity. The common ingredients to electricity production — natural gas, air, and water— will continue to be available for interstate commerce. Any limitation on the availability of a small fraction of these total resources due to this Condition will be temporary, lasting only for the duration of the electricity supply emergency. An interpretation that this Condition is impermissible per se because it "affects" interstate commerce would deprive the State of ability to effectively respond to this emergency. Taken to its logical conclusion such a position would allow all new power plant licensed under the Executive Orders to sell their entire output to out-of-state consumers, thereby perpetuating California's electricity crisis, not solving it. Such a result is as legally untenable as it is socially unacceptable. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission has repeatedly told California that it must solve its own electricity crisis. Other than aggressive conservation that California is also pursuing, securing new "emergency" electricity supplies to actually reduce California's supply shortage is the least disruptive means of addressing this emergency. However, conservation will not cover the supply deficit. There is no plausible supply alternative to solve the shortage, particularly given supply constraints in neighboring states. Given competing interpretations of the application of the Interstate Commerce Clause, the Commission adopts the supportable conclusion that helps solve California's electricity supply emergency, rather than a conclusion that might exacerbate it. Any electron put on the grid benefits California, even if it is contractually committed out of state. This fact does not, however, translate into electricity resources contractually available to California users. The Governor's charge to DWR to secure reliable and sufficient electricity supplies under contract to California confirms that random electrons on the grid, while beneficial to the grid, are not sufficient to solve this crisis. Some have suggested that a California sales condition is a snub to our neighboring states in the West who provided electricity to us this winter. We are grateful for the contributions of our neighboring states, who themselves are faced with electricity supply issues. By moving to solve its own electricity supply emergency, California is helping other states. 7 With regard to the request of the City of Huntington Beach and CURE for monitoring of other AES electricity sales, the Energy Commission believes that under current circumstances significant and sufficient federal and State resources are being brought to bear on investigating abuses of market power and manipulation so that an added condition is not necessary. DURATION OF CERTIFICATION Energy Commission Staff recommended in its Staff Assessment (p. 339) that certification of the retool project be limited to 5 years. Specifically, Staff's proposed condition was a limitation to either the duration of an electricity sales contract with DWR or September 30, 2006, whichever came first. Staff contends that the limited duration is necessary to review the license for compliance with Conditions of Certification and assess the results of the studies and monitoring plans which are required to more fully assess potential environmental impacts and consider whether the license should be granted permanent status. (SA p. 4) The City of Huntington Beach and CURE support such a condition. The California Coastal Commission also supports a limitation on the duration of certification. These parties argue that the Commission is proposing to license the retooling project with too little environmental information now and too much reliance on future studies of environmental effects and mitigation formulated therefrom. Most particularly, this concern relates to potential project effects related to the thermal discharge contribute to surf zone bacteria leading to public beach closures. Additionally, they are concerned about entrainment of aquatic organisms in the cooling water intake. All of these matters are the subject of either ongoing or future studies. AES opposes a limitation on certification contending that there is no authority to limit power plant certifications and that a limitation amounts to an illegal revocation of certification. AES also asserts that an expiration of certification ignores the Commission's mandate to ensure sufficient and reliable electricity supplies. AES argues that the economic life of a power plant should determine its time in service, not an artificial or imposed limit. Absent the emergency, the retool project would not approach the model of the preferable combustion turbine combined cycle projects, such as are represented by the Morro Bay and El Segundo projects. So the Energy Commission is between a rock and a hard place. The retooling of Units 3 and 4 are vital to addressing California's short-term electricity. Yet, for the long-term, modernization of California's coastal power plants is clearly in the best public interest. These newer facilities consume less natural gas. Effectively, continuing to use natural gas in a boiler plant wastes a critical natural resource. Combined cycle facilities utilize more of the heat from combusted natural gas and consequently return less wasted heat to the ocean environment than do vintage power plants. Heated cooling water perturbs the ocean habitat; and less heated water 8 perturbs it less. The package of combustion turbine and its exhaust stack are visually much more compact than that of the vintage boiler units. In addition, the Commission notes that the fast track process which would enable AES to construct the retooling project in time to contribute to the summer 2001 electricity supplies has meant that potential environmental effects had to be comprehended at a level which assured that no significant, unmitigable adverse effects were apparent. However, the Decision contains Conditions of Certification, which require the further study of those potential effects to fully assess their extent and formulate mitigation in the future. Our preference might be to take more time to do more studies before certification, but doing so eliminates any possibility that the retool project can be used to address a very real emergency. However, the Energy Commission feels confident that in the short span of the emergency there will be no significant adverse environmental effects of sufficient consequence that would justify not allowing this project to address the electricity emergency. For all these reasons, the Energy Commission has granted certification for ten years. In approximately 5 years, AES shall present evidence to the Commission that it is in compliance with all conditions of certification, that it has or is implementing environmental mitigation measures for which it is responsible, and that it is in compliance with any other applicable permits. If the Energy Commission does not find compliance, and AES does not bring the project into compliance in a reasonable time, the Commission may terminate certification or take other action permitted by law. Regarding the future of the Huntington Beach Generating Station, the City of Huntington Beach has requested a condition that AES produce a Master Development Plan during the pendency of this certification. The Commission believes that such a Plan is needed in light of the foregoing discussion. CONDITIONS OF CERTIFICATION EMERGENCY-1: In consideration of this expedited certification pursuant to the Governor's Executive Order and before commencing commercial operation of the project, AES shall enter into an electricity sales contract with DWR to sell the generation from Huntington Beach Units 3 and 4 to address the electricity supply emergency. EMERGENCY-2: This certification is granted by the Energy Commission for a period of ten (10) years. An interim review shall be conducted as follows. No sooner than January 1, 2006 and no later than April 1, 2006, the project owner shall present evidence to the Commission supporting the following Commission findings: • the project owner has substantially complied with the conditions of certification; • the project owner has implemented or is implementing to the extent feasible the mitigation measures it is responsible for implementing as a result of studies required by the conditions of certification; and 9 • all currently required permits (i.e., NPDES) are in force and the project owner is in substantial compliance with each permit. If the Commission determines that it cannot make all the above findings, and if the project owner fails, within a period of 60 days from such determination or such other period as the Commission shall determine to be reasonable under the circumstances, to bring the project into compliance, the Commission may terminate certification or take any other action permitted by law. EMERGENCY-3: On or before June 30, 2004, AES shall submit to the Commission and the City of Huntington Beach a Master Development Plan setting forth its plans for the long-term use of the Huntington Beach Generating Station site beyond September 30, 2006, including but not limited to its plans for the operation, repowering, reconfiguration, closure, decommissioning, moth-balling, demolition, or dismantling of any operating unit then in place. 10 PROJECT DESCRIPTION AES Huntington Beach, Limited Liability Company (referred to as either "AES," or the "applicant") is proposing to retool and operate Units 3 and 4, which currently exist, but are out of service at the Huntington Beach Generating Station. Southern California Edison (SCE) took these units out of service in 1995 when it owned the Generating Station. AES' retool project would restore these units to service. PROJECT OBJECTIVES: (per Project Owner) The applicant's objectives include: provide increased electrical generation while taking advantage of the existing infrastructure at the existing Huntington Beach facility, including the gas supply, transmission facilities, water supply and discharge facilities; minimize the environmental and socioeconomic impacts of the project; and utilize proven technology while incorporating high-efficiency pollution control technology. PROJECT LOCATION: The site for the proposed project is located in the City of Huntington Beach, at 21730 Newland Avenue, southeast of its intersection with Pacific Coast Highway. See Project Description Figure 1, Regional Location. The site plan for the existing plant and location of the retooling project are shown in Project Description Figure 2. POWER PLANT: The AES Huntington Beach Retool Project would retool and place in operation Units 3 and 4 at the existing Huntington Beach Generating Station, which was previously owned by SCE. SCE had retired Units 3 and 4 in 1995 because of limited use. Permits to operate Units 3 and 4 issued by the South Coast Air Quality Management District were subsequently surrendered. AES acquired the site in 1998 and has operated only Units 1, 2, and 5 for the last several years. The existing facility contains two steam turbine generating units, Units 1 and 2, each of which generate 215-megawatts (MW). Unit 5, a 133 MW combustion turbine unit, is used primarily to serve peaking loads. Units 3 and 4 would each be rated at 225 MW. Total generating capacity at the plant, if Units 3 and 4 were approved, would be 1,103 MW. Units 3 and 4 are located on approximately 12 acres in the north-central portion of the existing 53-acre site. The plant is surrounded by industrial and commercial uses to the northeast and east, residential uses to the northwest, wetlands to the southeast, and the Pacific Coast Highway and beaches to the west and southwest. 11 PROJECT DESCRIPTION - Figure 1 Huntington Beach Generating Station Retool Project - Project Components x . 5g eAar a� I 'r' 0 1 f€' _.. ��"9 112 Y,wi �VV{�', 4rVt]IY Calif x Scate 1 Jnch=4,000 feet I,.OGatlf�rt x i c c r s} g z b.�am „ i3�...0:;.e¢ .. r �.� rr � } 3 xH 14F 31, „,. } G s e Sri s«sia 7, r -°'�c�"' �& `'��. `�� s W 40� t - � tz� �":r+e 8�3� �S & e 4 i P f } r 1:'K►r# Adstiv6nt#3 if ., ` . As WN it ,2€ Y, g 7w s . aka `'' s## 7�'."r3'f14 EY?1�� a� 'r r. _�r»w� r } y .x lN dr � n. �K� z �' f & MIS i s 7 e 5a e # v zy� 4Ey z Q 5 i /�,; ��,, n g ..a ♦ -ate weaAr" Arf}l r-n4 !�€. 3.g �i� Huntington Bead? r r Peer MM � 4! Huntington Beach Mk i GneraGng Station Am i i u !I h � r�y -. •�a i y *ate` ��.qr t rZ' •,,„ r i 'I ftiwal •z m tie r a g J�'iOUrCe r" S i Note Base Map trim U S.0 S _ HBGS,is locatedn the southwest corner 7 b�►''inute,Topographics of'Sectron 13 T6S R11W SBBBM in the y Newport Beach C')b �PhotoreVised�,1981*Rancho Las Bolsas M M Si 14 � t tXt ctit2 S6dBeach.•CA:`Photorevised 1g81 ...., ... CALIFORNIA ENERGY COMMISSION,ENERGY FACILITIES SITING&ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION DIVISION,FEBRUARY 2001 SOURCE:Map 3.2-1 FEBRUARY 2001 PROJECT DESCRIPTION PROJECT DESCRIPTION - Figure 2 Huntington Beach Generating Station Retool Project - Site Layout Legend Huntin n c` C I Roadway Plant OIL. Sample Paint f=ice Stairway , FO?Tanks Dike Fuel HH Hose Holuse i Property Lute rem�r�i y,e` :uel Oil f Stcrace Tank �, South iemts'i . Fuel G1 St;raye �,,r Tank Sewer ` Stock � ' € ' Tara ____ _________ HM . ., test rub Oi . ! m Pia i € 220 W Sw"itebYarr3 ratriie#e Tx 2 ' r � a�Stte w I rfl x tarxta�# Paint Lrri l Ad r n �" U ICSi bin r„ � t3ua a Ndt#X}k36@Cs hwh #Exhan a -k :e17N#eiC#tIXf � � n �' moo/ � E 'mate" "• Felkif7ttl ate '�" r� U5t7ru€tt gq N M,' s a tae Tk �•Ta eecna Jes Ea'! at a ceStaC w rt a I Iasi v0 t - r 5 4 3 rT ke Saka �A , L"rstilevWtsr " s r ` a w1 y IH irks i-i~l!I'1 � riding xHt�.l ire'trii '4Mraa• :"� n °' " t �' i torageTz7Filks l Pt rsr <� Alternate,: i �� � I�etgnitpni6�srn Re#�n#r�n Sys€n Not te,Scale i i � o CALIFORNIA ENERGY COMMISSION,ENERGY FACILITIES SITING&ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION DIVISION,FEBRUARY 2001 SOURCE:Figure 3.2-1 FEBRUARY 2001 PROJECT DESCRIPTION The retooling project would occur entirely within the boundaries of the existing plant property. No off- site construction would be involved. The existing natural gas and electrical transmission facilities would be utilized, as well as existing facilities for potable water and wastewater. The existing facility has intake and outfall facilities in the Pacific Ocean, which would be utilized as part of the operations. Modifications made to the steam generators as part of the retooling project would include replacement of combination fuel oil and natural gas burners with new burners that use only natural gas; new gas burner cameras (to monitor the flame characteristics), soot blowers, burner management control system and larger forced draft fans; new inlet air filtration and natural gas fuel system; and a new fire protection system. The project would install selective catalytic reduction (SCR) emission control technology on Units 3 and 4. The SCR would use a urea-to-ammonia system, which would eliminate the need to store aqueous ammonia onsite. The existing power plant facility has two self-supporting steel stacks, each 214-feet tall. Each stack serves two generating units: one serving Units 1 and 2, the other Units 3 and 4. Each stack includes associated appurtenances. Existing buildings at the site include the administration building, control building, Reverse Osmosis/Electro De-ionization (RO/EDI) building, as well as a warehouse and shop building. No new buildings would be constructed as part of the project, nor would any buildings be demolished or significantly modified. AES and Poseidon Company have filed for a Conditional Use Permit with the City of Huntington Beach to construct and operate a water desalination plant on a portion of the 53-acre AES site. The City is conducting an environmental impact analysis that will probably require 9 to 12 months to complete. No definitive time frame for the development of the desalination plant has been indicated. The possible development of a desalination plant would not have an effect on the land use considerations relevant to the proposed project. Any land use impacts generated by the desalination facility would be identified and evaluated in the City's environmental analysis. TRANSMISSION LINES AND NATURAL GAS FACILITIES No additional electrical transmission lines would be needed as a result of the retooling of Units 3 and 4. The existing transmission lines and adjacent switchyard would be used. An existing 30-inch diameter natural gas transmission line supplies natural gas from Southern California Gas Company. No additional pipeline capacity is required, and no changes would be made in the pipeline as part of the project. 14 WATER SUPPLY AND WASTEWATER TREATMENT The facility is served by an existing water line, with water supplied by the City of Huntington Beach. The project would make no change to the existing water connection. Sanitary sewage flows by gravity to a sewage ejector station located northwest of the warehouse. The sewage system is of adequate size to accommodate the operation of Units 3 and 4. CONSTUCTION & OPERATIONS No site grading or earthwork would be required for the project. Construction would occur entirely within the boundaries of the AES site, and all construction laydown areas would be located within the site boundaries. On-site construction and equipment re-tooling needed for the project would require approximately three months, on a 20-hour per day, seven days per week schedule. At peak employment, the retooling project would employ approximately 530 craft and professional personnel on the site. The applicant anticipates that parking during construction would be located either within the site boundary or at a leased off-site parking facilities with shuttle service to the project site. The project is estimated to have a capital cost of approximately $130 million. At project completion, the applicant expects to employ a staff of approximately 43 full-time, on-site employees. Current employment at the project site is 33 full-time employees. 15 AIR QUALITY POWER PLAN ` STIR"BOUND/NG CtJMULATf1/E ° fix FORS 51TE,� :: �SETTING,,, �° IMPA�C7'S �° ,COMPLIANCE�_;� Construction Equipment MITIGATION Construction: Large construction equipment potentially contribute to existing violations of state 24-hour and annual PM10 standards. To minimize NO2 and S02 emissions (as precursors to PM10) and PM10 emissions, AES shall require its construction contractors to minimize emissions from diesel powered earthmoving equipment. MITIGATION: AES shall require construction contractors to tune engines on all heavy earthmoving equipment; use high pressure fuel injection, or timing retardation on non-injected equipment, or meet EPA off-road equipment emission standards. Condition AQ-C3. Additionally, AES shall require contractors to use ultra low-sulfur fuel. Condition AQ-C2. AES shall use electrical power for all stationary construction equipment power needs. Diesel power will only be used when power outages occur on-site. Condition: AQ-C4. Reference: SA pp. 27, 53, 57; 58. Construction MITIGATION None None Dust Grading and excavation activities potentially produce dust that can be transported off-site by wind. To control airborne fugitive dust, AES shall water or apply chemical dust suppressants to disturbed areas, apply gravel or paving to traffic areas, and wash wheels of vehicles or large trucks leaving the site. . MITIGATION: AES shall prepare and implement a Fugitive Dust Mitigation Plan to minimize dust during construction. Condition: AQ-Cl. References: SA pp. 53; 56; 57. 16 I Federal & California Air Quality Standards ■ Ozone (03) MITIGATION]l None None The power plant location is designated extreme non-attainment for ozone, which is formed by chemical reactions between nitrogen oxides and volatile organic compounds in sunlight. Power plant emissions of NOx and VOC as ozone precursors will be minimized by a flue gas recirculation (FGR) system on each boiler, low-NOx burners and Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR) in the flue gas duct work. Since minimum emissions would contribute to a violation of the ozone standards, AES shall obtain NOx and VOC offsets. MITIGATION: AES shall control NOx (as NO2) by using a combination of FGR, low-NOx burners and SCR to meet BACT emission limitations of 5 ppm averaged hourly and corrected to 3% oxygen. PDOC Condition 57-1, 195-2. AES shall i install a continuous emissions monitoring system for NOx and report emissions. PDOC Conditions: 82-1, 305-3, 305-4. AES shall monitor and report ammonia use in the SCR and ammonia emissions. PDOC Conditions: 12-6, 28-2, 28-3, 40- 1, 195-4. AES shall obtain NOx offsets. PDOC Condition: 296-1. References: SA pp. 37, 38, 53, 54. PDOC pp. 5-12, 27-34. f j 17 ■ Nitrogen MITIGATION MITIGATION Dioxide The power plant location is designated attainment for NO2. NO2 is formed in the (NO2; also combustion process. Power plant NOx emissions will be minimized by FGR, low- generically NOx burners and Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR) in the flue gas duct work. known as NOx) MITIGATION: Minimum emissions would not cause a violation of NO2 standards; however, NOx offsets are required as precursors to ozone. PDOC Condition: 296-1. For NO2, the emission rate is limited to 5 ppm averaged hourly and corrected to 3% oxygen. PDOC Condition 57-1, 195-2. NO2 will be continuously monitored in the stack. PDOC Conditions: 82-1, 305-3, 305-4. Cumulative Impacts: Huntington Beach Unit 5 is an old technology combustion turbine peaking unit composed of 8 simple cycle turbines, two exhaust turbines, and one 133 MW generator. Currently, there are no emission controls on Unit 5. The NOx emissions from Unit 5 can cause a violation of California's 1-hour NOx standards. The emissions from Huntington Beach Units 1 & 2 have been significantly reduced by SCR. Consequently, the NOx emissions from the Retool Project, when combined with Unit 5 NOx emissions, cause a significant cumulative air quality impact. MITIGATION: Through December 31, 2002, Units 3 and 4 shall not operate contemporaneously with Unit 5 unless the ISO has declared a Stage 3 Electrical Emergency and the ISO has specifically called-up Unit 5 to avoid an imminent blackout. After December 31, 2002, operation of Huntington Beach Unit 5 shall cease. These requirements may be superseded by SCAQMD's adoption of emission controls by Best Available Retrofit Control Technology or other means applicable to Unit 5. Condition: AQ-4 References: SA pp. 37, 38, 49, 53, 54. PDOC pp. 5-12, 27-34 18 ■ Carbon " MITIGATION • Monoxide The power plant location is designated seriously non- attainment for federal CO, (CO) but attainment for California CO. CO is formed in the combustion process. Power ' plant CO emissions will be minimized by the installation of an oxidizing catalyst in the HSRG that will reduce CO emissions to 5.0 ppm average hourly and corrected to 3% oxygen. CO will be continuously monitored in the stack. AES shall obtain CO offsets per SCAQMD rule requirements. MITIGATION: AES shall control CO by using an oxidizing catalyst to meet BACT emission limitations of 5 ppm averaged over one hour. PDOC Conditions: 57-1, 195-3. AES shall install a continuous emissions monitoring system for CO and report emissions. Conditions: 28-1, 28-2, 40-1, 82-2. AES has obtained CO offsets. I References: SA pp. 37, 53, 54. PDOC pp. 1-10,14, 26-34. ■ Particulate MITIGATION None Noneffill Matter 10 The power plant location is designated non-attainment for PM10. Primary PM10 Microns is formed by the combustion gases in the exhaust stack. Secondary PM10 is (PM 10) formed downstream by mixed gases in the atmosphere. Since minimum emissions would contribute to a violation of the PM10 standards, AES shall obtain PM10 offsets from the Priority Reserve allowed in SCAQMD Rule 1309.1. The rule is being amended to allow electrical generating facilities like the proposed project to use PM10 credits from the Priority Reserve. Credits will be available after final SCAQMD Governing Board approval on April 20, 2001. Emission offsets for NOx and S02 (RTC) and VOC (ERC) will mitigate secondary PM10 impacts. MITIGATION: AES shall control PM10 to meet an emission limitation of 0.82 Ibs/mmscf. PDOC Conditions: 63-1. AES shall conduct source testing and report emissions. Conditions: 28-2, 40-1, 372-1. AES shall obtain PM10 offsets for PM10 mitigation. References:. SA pp.38, 54 PDOC pp. 1-10, 26, 29, 30, 33 ■ Sulfur MITIGATION eli Dioxide The power plant location is designated attainment for S02. Power plant S02 (S02) emissions will be minimized by the exclusive use of natural gas is which very low in sulfur. MITIGATION: AES shall control SOx (as S02) to meet an emission limitation 0.63 Ibs/mmscf. Conditions: AQ-2, PDOC Conditions: 63-1. AES shall conduct source testing and report emissions. Conditions: 28-2, 40-1. AES shall obtain SOx offsets. Condition: 296-1. I - References: SA pp. 38; 53. PDOC pp. 12, 13, 27, I I 19 ■ Volatile MITIGATION - Organic There are no state or federal standards for VOC, per se. VOCs are a precursor Compounds for ozone. (See ozone, above) Consequently, limiting VOC emissions and the (VOC) use of VOC offsets are part of the strategy for ozone attainment. VOCs are formed in the combustion process. BACT for VOC emissions will be achieved by the use of appropriate fuel to air ratio resulting in low VOC emissions of 5 ppm corrected to 3% oxygen. MITIGATION: AES shall control VOC to meet an emission limitation of 0.93 Ibs/mmscf. PDOC Conditions: 63-1. AES shall conduct source testing and report emissions. Conditions: 28-2, 40-1. AES shall obtain VOC offsets for ozone attainment. References: PDOC pp. 16, 29, 30, 31 Commissioning No None es ne & Startup The initial commissioning of a power plant refers to the time frame between completion of construction and the consistent production of electricity for sale on the market. Normal operating emission limits usually do not apply during initial commissioning procedures. The boilers will go through several layers of test during initial commissioning. Commissioning is a one-time event, subject to controls to minimize emissions. AES will limit the number of burners in operation during initial commissioning so that the emissions would be only slightly higher than a normal start-up. Therefore, there are no significant air quality impacts from facility commissioning. AES will insure that emissions are minimized during initial commissioning. Condition AQ-6. Maximum cold start-up will last for 11 hours. Start-up will result in emissions of NOx and CO that are higher than normal operating emission limits, however no violations of ambient air standards will occur. The number of startup events and their duration is limited by SCAQMD permit limits. PDOC Conditions 1-5, 99-1, 99-2. Thus, there is no significant air quality impact from facility startup. Reference: SA pp. 43, 60. PDOC pp. 27, 32. VisibilityNone None Yes A visibility analysis of the project's gaseous emissions is required under the Federal Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) permitting program. The analysis addresses the contributions of gaseous emissions (primarily NOx) and particulate (PM10) emissions to visibility impairment on the nearest Class 1 PSD areas, which are national parks and national wildlife refuges. AES used the EPA approved model VISCREEN to assess the project's visibility impacts, which indicated that the project's visibility impacts would be below. the significance criteria for contrast and perception. The National Forest Service recommended the use of the CALPUFF model and found that visibility impacts will not substantially affect Class I areas. Reference: SA pp. 52. PDOC pp, 20-22. 20 AIR QUALITY — GENERAL This analysis evaluates the expected air quality impacts of the emissions of criteria air pollutants due to the planned construction and operation of the AES Huntington Beach Power Plant. Criteria air pollutants are defined as those for which a state or federal ambient air quality standard has been established to protect public health. They include nitrogen dioxide (NO2), sulfur dioxide (SOA carbon monoxide (CO), ozone (03), volatile organic compounds (VOC) and particulate matter less than 10 microns in diameter (PM10). In carrying out this analysis, the California Energy Commission evaluated the following major points: • whether the Huntington Beach Units 3 & 4 Retool Project conforms with applicable Federal, State and South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) air quality laws, ordinances, regulations and standards; • whether the Huntington Beach Units 3 & 4 Retool Project will cause significant air quality impacts, including a new violation of ambient air quality standards or contribution to existing violations of those standards; and • whether the mitigation proposed for the Huntington Beach Units 3 & 4 Retool Project is I adequate to lessen the potential impacts to a level of insignificance. I i Construction Equipment/Fugitive Dust The power plant itself will take approximately 3 months to construct. The power plant construction requires the use of large construction equipment, which generate considerable combustion emissions themselves, along with creating fugitive dust emissions during demolition, grading, site preparation, foundations and building erection. CEC Staff performed air dispersion modeling analyses of the potential construction impacts at the project site. The analyses included fugitive dust generated from the construction activity and combustion emissions from the equipment. The emissions used in the analysis were the highest emissions of a particular pollutant during a one-month period. The results of this modeling effort show that the construction activities would further exacerbate existing violations of the state 24-hour and annual average PM10 standards. The project's construction impacts are not occasional or isolated events, but are over an area near the project site. Since the general public live and work in the vicinity of the project site, the construction of The HUNTINGTON BEACH UNITS 3 & 4 RETOOL PROJECT may result in unavoidable short-term impacts that may expose the general public to adverse air quality conditions. Thus, construction of the project could have a significant and unavoidable impact on the PM10 ambient air quality standards, and should be avoided or mitigated, to the extent feasible. In consideration of the modeling results suggesting reductions in PM10 and PM10 precursors (NOx and SO2) are needed to avoid a significant impact, Commission staff proposed the following additional mitigation measures which AES has accepted: Identify and implement specific measures in a fugitive dust mitigation plan. • Ensure that all off-road diesel engines use 15 ppm sulfur content diesel fuel. 21 • Ensure that all diesel power construction equipment use EPA certified 1996 low NOx emission engines. • Use only electricity for construction power needs and only in the event of a power outage would internal combustion power equipment be used to supply necessary power. With the implementation of these additional mitigation measures, the construction air quality impacts will be mitigated to the extent feasible and, when combined with the temporary nature of this construction, will be insignificant. MITIGATION: AES shall require all heavy earthmoving equipment to comply with EPA 1996 diesel engine emission standards. Condition AQ-C3. Additionally, AES shall require contractors to use ultra low-sulfur fuel. Condition AQ-C2. AES shall use electrical power for all stationary construction equipment power needs. Diesel power will only be used when power outages occur on-site. Condition: AQ-C4. AES shall prepare and implement a Fugitive Dust Mitigation Plan to minimize dust during construction. Condition: AQ-Cl. Ozone Ozone is not directly emitted from stationary or mobile sources, but is formed as the result of chemical reactions in the atmosphere between directly emitted air pollutants. Nitrogen oxides (NOx) and hydrocarbons (Volatile Organic Compounds [VOC]) interact in the presence of sunlight to form ozone. The SCAQMD is designated extreme non-attainment for ozone, meaning that the South Coast air basin ambient ozone concentration is 0.280 ppm or above, and it will take longer than 17 years (from 1990) to reach attainment. Attaining the federal ozone ambient air quality standard is typically planned for by controlling the ozone precursors NO2 and VOC. The 1997 Ozone State Implementation Plan for the South Coast Air Basin (SCAQMD 1999) relies on the California Air Resource Board (CARB) to control mobile sources, the US Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) to control emission sources under federal jurisdiction, and SCAQMD to control local industrial sources (essentially through RECLAIM). Through these control measures, California and SCAQMD are required to reach attainment of the federal ozone ambient air quality standard by 2010. New EPA 8-hour ozone standards are not in effect due to litigation. Exceedences of the national (and state) ozone ambient air quality standards are centered in the Orange County area. Although there is a significant number of exceedences of the ozone ambient air quality standards, it is important to consider the improvements that have occurred in recent years. SCAQMD leads the nation in air quality management methods and regulatory programs. These programs have significantly improved the air quality in spite of the growing population and industrial and commercial enterprises. Ozone reduction requires reducing NOx and VOC emissions. To reduce NOx emissions, AES proposes to use low NOx burners in the boilers, use Flue Gas Recirculation of exhaust gases back into the furnace, and a post-combustion Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR) system with an ammonia injection grid. To reduce VOC (and CO) emissions, AES proposes to use a combination of good combustion and maintenance practices, along with an oxidizing catalyst. Low-NOx Burners To minimize NOx formation during combustion, AES will use a low-NOx burner design, identified in the PDOC as Todd Dynaswirl 750 LN, each rated at 87 MMBtu/hr, 24 burners per boiler. 22 Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR) To further reduce the emissions before they are exhausted into the atmosphere, flue gas controls, primarily catalyst systems, will be installed. Selective catalytic reduction refers to a process that chemically reduces NOx by injecting ammonia into the flue gas stream over a catalyst in the presence of oxygen. The process is termed "selective" because the ammonia reducing agent preferentially reacts with NOx rather than oxygen, producing inert nitrogen and water vapor. The performance and effectiveness of SCR systems are dependent upon remaining in a range of operating temperatures, which may vary with catalyst designs. Flue gas temperatures through the catalyst system will be approximately 730°F. (PDOC, p. 6) Catalysts generally operate between 600 to 750OF (ARB 1992), and are normally placed inside the boiler duct work where the flue gas temperature has cooled. At temperatures lower than 600°F, the ammonia reaction rate may start to decline, resulting in increasing ammonia emissions, called ammonia j slip. At temperatures above about 800°F, damage to some catalysts can occur depending on the type of material used in the catalyst. The catalyst material most commonly used is titanium dioxide, but tmaterials such as vanadium pentoxide, zeolite, or a noble metal are also used. These newer catalysts i (versus the older alumina-based catalysts) are resistant to fuel sulfur fouling at temperatures below 770°F (EPRI 1990). Regardless of the type of catalyst used, efficient conversion of NO, to nitrogen and water vapor requires uniform mixing of ammonia into the exhaust gas stream. Also, the catalyst surface has to be large enough to ensure sufficient time for the reaction to take place. Moreover, the maintenance and periodic replacement of the catalyst are necessary to avoid significant ammonia emissions due to ammonia slip. AES is proposing to use low-NOx burners, flue gas recirculation and SCR with ammonia injection to control NOx emission levels to 5 ppm on a 1-hour average corrected to 3% oxygen. The concentration of the NOx emissions will be continuously monitored in the stack. Even with the power plant using BACT, the NOx and VOC emissions will contribute to ongoing exceedences of the ozone standards. Thus, AES must mitigate these new emissions by obtaining offsets. Conceptually, offsets result from the closure or controlling of permitted pollution sources. For this power plant to be permitted, other businesses in the air basin either stop operating or additional pollution controls are put in place to reduce emissions. In the SCAQMD, offsets are either Emission Reduction Credits (ERC) or RECLAIM trading credits (RTC). ERCs and RTCs must be purchases from a "bank" of inventoried credits within the air basin listed by SCAQMD. ERCs must be purchased prior to licensing and last for the lifetime of the project. RTCs last for one year and must be purchased annually. Critics of the offset concept point out that an offset won't mitigate a project impact unless the offset source and the project are in close proximity. However, on a planning and programmatic level, the use of offsets that treat the air basin as a "bubble" has lead to improved, overall air quality. This is particularly applicable for ozone. MITIGATION: AES shall control NOx (as NO2) by using a combination of FGR, low-NOx burners and SCR to meet BACT emission limitations of 5 ppm averaged hourly and corrected to 3% oxygen. PDOC Condition 57-1, 195-2. AES shall install a continuous emissions monitoring system for NOx and report emissions. PDOC Conditions: 82-1, 305-3, 305-4. AES shall monitor and report ammonia use in the SCR and ammonia emissions. PDOC Conditions: 12-6, 28-2, 28-3, 40-1, 195-4. AES shall obtain NOx offsets. PDOC Condition: 296-1. 23 I Nitrogen Dioxide Nitrogen dioxide (NO2) can be emitted directly as a result of combustion or formed from nitric oxide (NO) and oxygen. NO is typically emitted from combustion sources and readily reacts with oxygen or ozone to form NO2. The NO reaction with ozone can occur within minutes and is typically referred to as ozone scavenging. By contrast, the NO reaction with oxygen is on the order of hours under the proper conditions. The South Coast Air Basin is designated attainment for both the state and federal NO2 ambient air quality standards. As discussed above for ozone, AES proposes to reduce NOx emissions by using low NOx burners in the boiler and a post-combustion Selective Catalytic Reduction system with an ammonia injection grid. Even with BACT, AES must obtain NOx offsets to avoid significant ozone impacts. No significant impact from NO2, itself, is expected. Carbon Monoxide Carbon monoxide (CO) is a directly emitted air pollutant as a result of combustion. The South Coast Air Quality Management District is designated Serious Non-Attainment for the federal 1-hour and 8- hour CO ambient air quality standards. This means that the area has an average CO concentration value of 16.5 ppm or above. However, the exceedences of the federal CO standard occur in Los Angeles County, which is a considerable distance from the project site. SCAQMD is designated attainment for the state 1-hour and 8-hour ambient air quality standards. Oxidizinq Catalyst To reduce carbon monoxide (CO) emissions, AES proposes to install an oxidizing catalyst, which is similar in concept to catalytic converters used in automobiles. The catalyst is usually coated with a noble metal, such as platinum, which will oxidize unburned hydrocarbons and CO to water vapor and carbon dioxide (CO2). The CO catalyst is proposed to limit the CO concentrations exiting the stack to 5 ppm, corrected to 3 percent excess oxygen and averaged over 1-hour. CO emissions from the stack will be continuously monitored. With the power plant using BACT, the CO emissions will contribute 446 pounds per day of CO to ongoing exceedences of the federal CO standards. (PDOC p. 9) Thus, AES must mitigate these new emissions by obtaining offsets for CO. AES has obtained 536 pounds per day of ERCs for CO, which will reduce potential impacts to insignificance due to the excess of offsets. (PDOC pp. 10; 14) MITIGATION: AES shall control CO by using an oxidizing catalyst to meet BACT emission limitations of 5 ppm averaged over one hour. PDOC Conditions: 57-1, 195-3. AES shall install a continuous emissions monitoring system for CO and report emissions. Conditions: 28-1, 28-2, 40-1, 82-2. AES has obtained CO offsets. Particulate Matter— PM10 PM10 is a particulate that is 10 microns in diameter or smaller that is suspended in air. PM10 can be directly emitted from a combustion source (primary PM10 or PM2.5) or soil disturbance (fugitive dust) or it can form downwind (secondary PM10) from some of the constituents of combustion exhaust (NOx, 24 SOx and ammonia). The South Coast air basin has been designated as a non-attainment zone for the state 24-hour and annual PM10 ambient air quality standards. The historic trend of 24-hour PM10 concentrations shows maximum concentrations have been significantly reduced from 1987 to 1999. Although violations of the state standard are still numerous, violations of the federal standard is coming under control for the South Coast air basin. Emissions of primary PM10 are reduced by the exclusive use of natural gas as the power plant fuel. Natural gas contains very little noncombustible gas or solid residue. In addition, the low sulfur content of natural gas reduces the formation of downwind, secondary PM10. The project's PM10 emissions will contribute to an existing violation of the state 24-hour and annual average PM10 standards. Thus, AES must mitigate these new emissions by obtaining PM10 offsets. The project will emit 80.16 pounds per day of PM10; AES will purchase priority reserve PM10 credits once the Priority Reserve Rule 1301.1 is amended to allow projects such as electrical generating units to use priority reserve credits. (PDOC p. 26). That rule amendment approval will take place no sooner than April 20, 2001. MITIGATION: AES shall control PM10 to meet an emission limitation of 0.82 Ibs/mmscf. PDOC Conditions: 63-1. AES shall conduct source testing and report emissions. Conditions: 28-2, 40-1, 372- 1. AES shall obtain PM10 offsets for PM10 mitigation. Sulfur Dioxide f Sulfur dioxide is typically emitted as a result of the combustion of a fuel containing sulfur. Fuels such as natural gas contain very little sulfur and consequently have very low S02 emissions when combusted. Sources of S02 emissions within the South Coast Air District come from every economic sector and include a wide variety of fuels, gaseous, liquid and solid. The South Coast air basin is designated attainment for all the S02 state and federal ambient air quality standards. Notwithstanding attainment for S02, SCAQMD rules require offsets for SOx as SOx emissions are precursors to secondary PM,o formation. AES will emit 59.52 pounds per day of SOx and will enter the RECLAIM market to secure the necessary RTC. (PDOC p. 27) As a result, potential S02/SOx impacts are insignificant. MITIGATION: AES shall control SOx (as S02) to meet an emission limitation 0.63 Ibs/mmscf. Conditions: AQ-2, PDOC Conditions: 63-1. AES shall conduct source testing and report emissions. Conditions: 28-2, 4.0-1. AES shall obtain SOx offsets. Condition: 296-1. Volatile Organic Compounds There are no state or federal standards for VOC. VOCs are significant emissions since they are precursors (contributors) to ozone. Ozone attainment, therefore, requires minimum VOC emissions and, as appropriate, VOC offsets. VOCs are formed in the combustion process. BACT for VOC will be achieved by use of low-NOx burners, which use air to fuel ratios that result in low combustion VOC while still maintaining low NOx levels. BACT for VOC has historically been use of best combustion practices, since the majority of VOC emissions are compounds that are not susceptible to control by oxidizing catalysts. 25 Additionally, VOC offsets are necessary for ozone attainment. AES proposes to obtain 148 pounds/year in VOC offsets, which is an excess of VOC required (108 pounds/day). (PDOC pp. 13, 14) MITIGATION: AES shall control VOC to meet an emission limitation of 0.93 Ibs/mmscf. PDOC Conditions: 63-1. AES shall conduct source testing and report emissions. Conditions: 28-2, 40-1. AES shall obtain VOC offsets for ozone attainment. Commissioning and Start-Up The initial commissioning of a power plant refers to the time frame between completion of construction and the consistent production of electricity for sale on the market. Normal operating emission limits usually do not apply during initial commissioning procedures. The boilers will go through several layers of test during initial commissioning. During the first set of tests, post-combustion control will not be operational (i.e., the SCR and oxidation catalyst). Both the initial commissioning and start-up sequences are subject to SCAQMD rule to minimize emissions. Since these event are of short duration and subject to controls and procedures to minimize emissions, there will not be a significant impact from commissioning and start up so longs as SCAQMD rules are met. Visibility Impacts A visibility analysis of the project's gaseous emissions is required under the Federal Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) permitting program. The analysis addresses the contributions of gaseous emissions (primarily NOx) and particulate (PM10) emissions to visibility impairment on the nearest Class 1 PSD areas, which are national parks and national wildlife refuges. The nearest Class 1 areas to the Huntington Beach Units 3 & 4 Retool Project site are the Aqua Tibia Wilderness area, the Cucamonga Wilderness area, and the San Gabriel Wilderness Area. AES used the EPA approved model ISCST3 to assess the project's visibility impacts. The results from the VISCREEN modeling analysis indicated that the project's visibility impacts would be below the significance criteria for contrast and perception. Therefore the project's visibility impact on these Class 1 areas is insignificant. (SA p. 52.) Cumulative Impacts To evaluate the cumulative emission impacts of the HBGS Retool Project along with other probable future emission sources, the CEC staff gathered and evaluated District records to determine other sources, which along with the HBGS retool project, may cumulatively impact the site area. Stationary sources located within six miles of the HBGS site that meet the following criteria were used to identify other emission sources that may cause cumulative impacts: (a) Have received an Authority to Construct (ATC) permit but are not yet operational; or (b) Have submitted complete ATC applications to the District. Staff reviewed a list of potential cumulative emission sources provided by the District. Staff identified approximately 15 possible candidate sources for further investigation. Upon reviewing the types of sources, the size (by quantity of fuel consumed), the emissions, and their location relative to the HBGS, staff determined that a cumulative modeling assessment that includes sources other than the Units 1-5 of the HBGS was not necessary. It is staff's judgement that there would be no emission plume overlap 26 N between the HBGS sources and the possible candidate sources, thus rendering an air dispersion modeling exercise not necessary. The Energy Commission is aware of the proposed Poseidon Resources Corporation desalination plant that is planned to be located on the HBGS property. At this time this plant is in the preliminary planning stages and there are no air quality permit applications submitted to the District; therefore, at this time no cumulative impacts can be assessed for this project in conjunction with the HBGS Retool Project. However, the EIR that will be prepared for the proposed desalination project will have to assess its impact in conjunction with the rest of the HBGS. Huntington Beach Unit 5 CEC Staff is concerned about the potential for significant adverse cumulative impacts occurring from the combined operation of Units 3 and 4 with Units 1, 2 and 5. It is staff's position that the modeling analysis shows that the operation of Unit 5 can, by itself, cause a violation of the State 1-hour NO2 ambient air quality standard. The reasons for the large impact from Unit 5 is due to the old turbine technology of the gas turbine engines which results in exceedingly high NOx emissions and the relatively short stack heights of the two exhaust stacks. The high emissions along with the short stack heights coupled with steady-state winds can produce a downwash effect, bringing emission plumes to the ground. The downwash efffect causes the results in high short term impacts. Air Quality Figure 1 represents Staff's comparison of the NOx emissions per megawatt for the Retool Project, Unit 5, and other combined cycle projects reviewed by the Energy Commission. According to Staff, the PM10 impacts from the operation of all five units would cause a further exacerbation of violations of the state and federal PM10 standards. The overwhelming majority of PM10 impacts (approximately 99 percent) is from the operation of Unit 5. Furthermore, based upon eyewitness accounts by a number of local citizens to the HBGS, a "yellow or brownish" cloud of emissions appears to emanate from the stacks of Unit 5. Staff believes that the emissions from Unit 5 cause "detriment, nuisance, or annoyance to any considerable number of persons or to the public" and further, that if violations of the 1-hour NO2 were occurring because of the operation of Unit 5, this emission source "endangers the comfort, repose, health, or safety of any such persons or the public." Staff has proposed Conditions of Certification that restrict the operation of Unit 5 during 2001 and early 2002, to only those times when the megawatts generated from that unit are absolutely necessary as required by the ISO. Subsequently, Staff is recommending in the long term that Unit 5 have emission controls applied to significantly reduce the NOx emissions from Unit 5 and thus the significant impacts that this Unit has on the ambient air quality in the area. Alternatively, the Staff believes the Applicant can decide to permanently shutdown Unit 5, thus avoiding the significant air quality impact altogether. 27 k AIR QUALITY- Figure 1 Huntington Beach Generating Station Retool Project NOx Emission Rats Comparison 5 . 2.6 Q 3 INOx m .. 0.5 _.. 0 HB-45OMW CC-53OMW .-1 MW CC-12 l W SC-fit MW UNIT 1 Q UNfT 5 UNIT 1&2(a) CALIFORNIA ENERGY COMMISSION,ENERGY FACILITIES SITING&ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION DIVISION,MARCH 2O01 The City of Huntington Beach and CURE concur with Staff's position and recommendation of a condition limiting the contemporaneous operation of Units 3, 4, and 5. AES opposes any restrictions by the Energy Commission on the use of Unit 5 on the grounds that Unit 5 is not part of the "project" as defined by CEQA. AES points out that between Units 1, 2, 3, and 4, emissions at the Huntington Beach Generating Station have been reduced by 80 percent. Since Units 3 and 4, themselves, will not cause an air quality impact, the Commission should not be examining the effect of Unit 5. The Commission finds a narrow interpretation of cumulative impacts is inappropriate when attempting to assure that all reasonable contributors to a potential cumulative air quality (and possibly related public health) impact are identified. The evidence that Unit 5 is a significant air pollution source is not denied by AES. So, the question is whether to authorize the addition the emissions from Units 3 and 4 to the emissions of Unit 5 and cause a significant cumulative NOx and PM10 air quality impact or to act to reduce or eliminate that cumulative impact. Given that the effects of Unit 5 are nearly off the chart, the Commission must act to prevent the cumulative impact. Taking all the circumstances into account, common sense suggests that Unit 5 not operate unfettered, so that Units 3 and 4 can generate nearly three times the megawatts more cleanly and efficiently than Unit 5. Yet, Unit 5 is a valuable resource at the time of a Stage 3 Electrical Emergency. Using Unit 5 to avert impending blackouts is in the public interest, since the contribution of Unit 5's electricity to public health and safety under such circumstances outweighs the potential emissions impact to the public from short duration operation. The Commission notes that SCAQMD has publicly discussed potentially controlling the emissions from sources such as Unit 5 through the application of Best Available Retrofit Control Technology (BARCT). MITIGATION: Through December 31, 2002, Units 3 and 4 shall not operate contemporaneously with Unit 5 unless the ISO has declared a Stage 3 Electrical Emergency and the ISO has specifically called- up Unit 5 to avoid an imminent blackout. After December 31, 2002, operation of Huntington Beach Unit 5 shall cease. These requirements may be superseded by SCAQMD's adoption of emission controls by Best Available Retrofit Control Technology or other means applicable to Unit 5. Condition: AQ-4. MISCELLANEOUS CURE proposed several additions to Staff's proposed Conditions of Certification. CURE suggested amending AQ-C2 to require the use of PuriNOx, a brand of diesel fuel additive, which claims to lower PM10 emissions. Traditionally, the Commission does not adopt a condition that tends to favor a particular vendor's product. The Staff's suggested 15 ppm sulfur content fuel is adequate to reduce construction emissions and is not available exclusively from one vendor. CURE also asked that Condition AQ-C3 be modified to require construction equipment to be CARB certified since that would be more restrictive than the EPA 1996 standard. The Commission has used the EPA 1996 standard sufficiently often that it has become de facto a standardized condition. The Commission believes that it does not have sufficient information at this time to change to the "CARB- certified" standard, particularly since, if approved, this project will begin construction immediately. It is not clear to the Commission that a more restrictive standard at this time would sufficiently improve emissions to risk the non-availability of equipment for this project. 29 CURE also sought to add to Staff's proposed AQ-3 a requirement for toxic emissions testing in addition to the source testing of Unit 5. The Commission believes that any additional testing await the results of the source testing required by AQ-3. If results warrant, the SCAQMD is the appropriate forum for consideration of toxic emissions testing, particularly if it contemplates a new BARCT rule. Finding With the implementation of the Conditions of Certification below, the project conforms with applicable laws related to air quality, and all potential adverse impacts to air quality will be mitigated to insignificance. CONDITIONS OF CERTIFICATION AQ-Cl: Prior to the commencement of project construction, the project owner shall prepare a construction Fugitive Dust Mitigation Plan that will specifically identify fugitive dust mitigation measures that will be employed for the construction of the HBSG Retool Project and related facilities. a) The Construction Fugitive Dust Mitigation Plan shall specifically identify measures to limit fugitive dust emissions from construction of the project. Measures that shall be addressed include the following: • the identification of the employee parking area(s) and surface of the parking area(s); the frequency of watering of unpaved roads and disturbed areas; • the application of chemical dust suppressants; • the stabilization of storage piles and disturbed areas; • the use of gravel in high traffic areas; • the use of paved access aprons; • the use of posted speed limit signs; • the use of wheel washing areas prior to large trucks leaving the project site; and • the methods that will be used to clean mud and dirt tracked-out from the project site onto public roads. b) The following measures should be addressed for the transportation of the any borrow fill materials to the HBGS Retool Project site and the transmission and natural gas line sites, if any, and the transportation of export soils and construction debris: • the use of covers on the vehicles; • the wetting of the material; and • insuring appropriate freeboard of material in the vehicles. Verification: At least 5 days prior to the start of construction, the project owner shall provide the CPM with a copy of the Construction Fugitive Dust Mitigation Plan for approval. Construction shall not commence until CPM approval of the Plan. AQ-C2: The project owner shall use exclusively 15 ppm sulfur content fuel (such as ECD-1 or equivalent) in all diesel off-road construction equipment. Verification: The project owner shall submit to the CPM records of purchase of the diesel fuel that includes the sulfur content of that fuel as part of monthly compliance reports. 30 AQ-C3: The project owner shall use EPA certified 1996 low NOx emission construction equipment or demonstrate that its equipment complies with the EPA 1996 diesel engine emission standards. The project owner shall ensure that all heavy earthmoving equipment including, but not limited to, bulldozers, backhoes, compactors, loaders, motor graders and trenchers, and cranes, dump trucks and other heavy duty construction related trucks, have been properly maintained and the engines tuned to the engine manufacturer's specifications. Verification: The project owner shall submit to the CPM, no later than 15 days after initiating construction, a written evaluation signed by a California registered professional engineer that demonstrates that all construction diesel engines comply with this requirement and if available copies of the EPA or CARB engine certifications. AQ-C4: The project owner shall only use internal combustion powered generating equipment to provide electrical power for the Unit 3 and 4 construction activities during power outages. Verification: The project owner shall maintain an operating log on all fuel-fired internal combustion engines that are used to supply electricity for the construction of Units 3 and 4. The operating log will identify at a minimum the dates and times of use and a daily record of equipment hour gauge data. A copy of this operating log will be provided to the CPM each month during construction, and will be made available to CEC or District staff at all times. AQ-05: The project owner shall provide to the CPM and the District, vendor and design data for the SCR and Oxidation catalyst systems, which will include performance guarantees that demonstrate that the systems have been designed to meet the NOx and CO emission concentration limits (5 ppm corrected to 3% 02 for each pollutant) Additionally, the SCR vendor data shall include ammonia slip performance guarantees of 5 ppm corrected to 3% 02. Verification: At least 30 days prior to the installation of the catalyst systems, the project owner shall provide the CPM and the District with a copy of the SCR and Oxidation catalyst systems vendor and design data for approval. OPERATING CONDITIONS AQ-1: The project owner shall operate the post-combustion emission control devices (SCR and Oxidation catalyst systems) at all times, except during start-up or breakdowns, as defined by District Rule 430 and 2004, during boiler operation. Verification: The project owner shall provide operating interlocks, or other control systems, that require the emission control equipment to be in operation during normal operation. At least 15 days prior to the installation of the catalyst systems, the project owner shall provide the CPM documentation on the control systems, procedures, etc. that will be used to ensure proper control of equipment operation. AQ-2: The project owner shall use only pipeline quality natural gas to fuel Units 3 and 4 and the total sulfur content of the fuel shall be limited to 0.25 grain/100 scf, expressed as 1­12S. Verification: The project owner shall test on-site the total sulfur content of the fuel quarterly and shall provide the results of the tests, expressed as equivalent grains of H2S per 100 scf. to the CPM within 30 days of performing each test. 31 AQ-3: The project owner shall source test Unit 5 for the following pollutants and exhaust parameters prior to September 1, 2001: Nitrogen Oxides (and NO to NO2 ratio) Carbon Monoxide Reactive Organic Gases PM10 Exhaust Velocity. Temperature During this source test the project owner shall keep operating records, such as fuel flow, in order to determine appropriate emission factors for Unit 5. Verification: The project owner shall provide the CPM with the source test protocol and schedule for review 30 days prior to conducting the source test on Unit 5, and shall provide the source test report to the CPM within 30 days of performing the source test. Additionally, the project owner shall allow CEC staff, CEC contractors, or other regulatory agency staff access to the site to observe the Unit 5 source tests. AQ-4: Through December 31, 2002, Units 3 and 4 shall not operate contemporaneously with Unit 5 unless the ISO has declared a Stage 3 Electrical Emergency and the ISO has specifically called-up Unit 5 to avoid an imminent blackout. After December 31, 2002, operation of Huntington Beach Unit 5 shall cease. These requirements may be superseded by SCAQMD's adoption of emission'controls by Best Available Retrofit Control Technology or other means applicable to Unit 5. Verification: The project owner shall maintain operating records that identify contemporaneous periods of operation for Units 3 and 4 and Unit 5 along with the ISO emergency declaration or other documentation that verifies compliance with this condition. This compliance documentation shall be submitted to the CPM on a quarterly basis. If the project owner intends to install Best Available Retrofit Control Technology (BARCT) on Unit 5, the project owner will provide the CPM a BARCT assessment document prior to initiating air quality permitting and shall provide the CPM a copy of all permitting documents for review during the BARCT permitting process. AQ-5: The project owner shall investigate the feasibility of installing continuous emission monitors (CEMs) for ammonia on the stacks of Units 1 and 2 and Units 3 and 4 as a means of demonstrating compliance with required ammonia limits. If the use of an ammonia CEM system is found to be feasible and cost effective, it shall be installed and operating by the time Units 3 and 4 begin normal operation. Verification: The project owner shall provide to the CPM the ammonia CEM feasibility report 30 days prior to beginning the normal operation of Units 3 and 4. The feasibility report, at a minimum will identify the available ammonia monitoring systems, their technical specifications and detection ranges, costs; if necessary, any reasons why these systems are not technically feasibility for the HBGS; and if applicable the installation schedule and record keeping procedures for the ammonia CEMs that may be installed. AQ-6: The initial commissioning of the Unit 3 and Unit 4 boilers shall not be performed concurrently, initial commissioning shall be limited to 48 hours for each boiler, and the input heat rate during initial commissioning of each boiler shall be limited to a total of 120 MMBtu/hr. 32 Verification: The project owner shall provide to the CPM, within 1.5 days of initial commissioning, the hourly fuel flow data for the initial commissioning period of each boiler. AQ-7: The Unit 3 and Unit 4 boilers shall not be operated in start-up mode concurrently, each start-up (not including initial commissioning) shall be limited to 12 hours for each boiler, and the heat rate during initial commissioning of each boiler shall be limited to a total of 120 MMBtu/hr until the SCR is operational. Verification: The project owner shall provide to the CPM quarterly records of the hourly fuel flow data and SCR operating data for the start-ups for each boiler. AQ-8: The project owner shall maintain compliance with the District's FDOC and. PTC/PTO conditions, including all monitoring and record keeping provisions. Verification: The project owner shall provide to the CPM, on a quarterly basis within 30 days of the end of each quarter, a summary of the permit compliance status that, at a minimum, includes a summary of compliance with all District permit conditions and all CEC Air Quality Conditions of Certification, a listing and copies of notices of violation received from SCAQMD, ongoing status of any SCAQMD enforcement actions, and a listing of air quality related (i.e. odor, opacity, etc.) community complaints received by the project owner. AQ-9: The project owner shall maintain compliance with the District's source testing requirements. Verification: The project owner shall provide to the CPM copies of all District required source tests within 45 days of conducting those tests. AQ-10: The project owner shall maintain compliance with the District's continuous emissions monitoring system (CEMS) requirements, including all record keeping requirements. Verification: The project owner shall provide to the CPM, on a quarterly basis within 30 days of the end of each quarter, summaries of the CEMS data as required to be kept by District permit conditions, and as necessary to summarize data from CEMS that may be required by other CEC Conditions of Certification. AQ-11: Units 3 and 4 shall not be operated unless the project owner demonstrates that the facility holds sufficient RTCs to offset the prorated annual emissions increase for the first compliance year of operation. In addition, the equipment shall not be operated unless the project owner demonstrates that, at the commencement of each compliance year after the first compliance year of operation, the facility holds sufficient RTCs in an amount equal to the annual emissions increase. Verification: The project owner shall provide operating records, including fuel use data and total operating hours for Units 3 and 4 and Unit 5, to the CPM on a quarterly basis within 30 days of the end of each quarter. The project owner shall also provide to the District and the CPM a quarterly NOx emissions profile of the entire Huntington Beach Generating Station verifying that there are sufficient NOx RECLAIM trading credits allocated for continued project operation. 33 LAWS, ORDINANCES, REGULATIONS & STANDARDS AIR QUALITY DESCRIPTION,..,, FEDERAL Clean Air Act §111: Establishes standards of performance to limit the emission of criteria 42 USC §7411; 40 CFR Part pollutants for which the EPA has established national ambient air 60, subparts Db and GG quality standards NAAWS . Clean Air Act §112 Establishes national emission standards to limit hazardous air pollutant 42 USC §7412; 40 CFR Part (HAP) emissions from existing major sources of HAP emissions in 63 specific source categories. Clean Air Act §160-169A Requires pre-construction review and permitting of new or modified 42 USC §7470-7491; 40 CFR major stationary sources of air pollution to prevent significant Parts 51 & 53 deterioration of ambient air quality. PSD applies only to pollutants for which ambient concentrations do not exceed the corresponding NAAQS (i.e., attainment pollutants Clean Air Act §171-193 Requires pre-construction review and permitting of new or modified 42 USC 501 et seq.; 40 CFR major stationary sources of air pollution to allow industrial growth Parts 51 & 52 without interfering with the attainment of ambient quality standards. Clean Air Act §401 Requires monitoring and reduction of emissions of acidic compounds 42 USC 654 et seq.; 40 CFR and their precursors. The principal source of these compounds is the Part 72 combustion of fossil fuels. Therefore, Title IV established national standards to limits Sox and NOx emissions from electrical power generating facilities. Clean Air Act §501 (Title V) Requires the issuance of operating permits that identify all applicable 42 USC §7661; 40 CFR Part federal performance, operating, monitoring, record-keeping and 70 reporting requirements. Title V applies to major facilities, acid rain facilities, subject solid waste incinerator facilities, and any facility listed by EPA as requiring a Title V permit. Clean Air Act 501 (Title V) Requires facilities to monitor the operation and maintenance of 42 USC §7414; 40 CFR Part emissions control systems and report any control system malfunctions 64 to the appropriate regulatory agency. Emergency Planning and EPCRA requires certain facilities and establishments to report toxic Community Right-to-Know releases to the environment if they: Act 1. Manufacture more than 25,000 lbs. of a listed chemical per year; § 313 (EPCRA) 2. Process more than 25,000 lbs. of a listed chemical per year; or 3. Otherwise use more than 10,000 lbs. of a listed chemical per year. STATE Health & Safety Code Required by the Clean Air Act, the State Implementation Plan (SIP) (H&SC) §39500 et seq. must demonstrate the means by which all areas of the state will attain NAAQS within the federally mandated deadlines. H&SC §40910-40930 The California Clean Air Act requires local Air Pollution Control District's (APCD) to attain and maintain both national and state AAQS at the earliest practicable date. 34 MY APPLICABLELAW, DE RIPTION H&SC §39650-39675 The Toxic Air Contaminant Identification and Control Act creates a two-step process to identify toxic air contaminants (TAC) and control their emissions. The ARB identifies and prioritizes the pollutants to be considered for identification as Tacos. The ARB then assesses the potential for human exposure to a substance while the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment evaluates the corresponding health effects. California Public Resources Establishes requirements in the Sec's decision making process on an Code §25523(a); 20 CCR application for certification that assures protection of environmental §§1752, 1752.5, 2300-2309, quality. and Div. 2 Chap. 5, Art.1, Appendix B, Part(k) LOCAL SCAQMD Air Quality Plan; The SCAQMD plan defines the proposed strategies, including H&SC §40914 stationary source control measures and new source review rules whose implementation will attain the state AAQS. SCAQMD Rule 201; H&SC Rule 201 (Permit to Construct) establishes an orderly procedure for the §40000 et seq.; H&SC review of new and modified sources of air pollution through the §40400 et seq. issuance of permits. Rule 201 specifies that any facility installing nonexempt equipment that causes or controls the emission of air pollutants must first obtain a Permit to Construct from the SCAQMD. H&SC §40000 et seq.; H&SC SCAQMD Regulation XIII, Regulation XVIII, and Rule 2005 40400 et seg. requirements SCAQMD Rule 1401(New Rule 1401 establishes allowable risks for new or modified sources of Source Review of Toxic Air TAC emissions and specifies limits for maximum individual cancer risk Contaminants); H&SC (MICR), cancer burden, & non-carcinogenic acute and chronic hazard §40000 et seq. and H&SC indices (HI) for new or modified sources of TAC. 40400 et seg. SCAQMD Regulation XXX— Regulation XXX (Title V Permits) provides for the issuance of federal Federal Operating Permit; operating permits that contain all federally enforceable requirements H&SC §40000 et seq., H&SC for stationary sources as mandated by Title V of the Clean Air Act. §40400 et seq. Regulation XXX requires major facilities and acid rain facilities undergoing modifications to obtain an operating permit containing the federally enforceable requirements mandated by Title V of the Clean Air Act. SCAQMD Regulation XXXI — Regulation XXXI provides for the issuance of acid raid permits in Acid Rain Permit; H&SC accordance with Title IV of the CAA. Regulation XXXI requires a §40000 et seq., H&SC subject facility to hold emissions allowances for SOx, and to monitor 40400 et seg. SOx, NOx and CO2 emissions and exhaust flow rates. SCAQMD Regulation IX— Regulation IX incorporates, by reference, the provisions of Part 60, Standards of Performance for Chapter 1, Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations. It requires 35 New Stationary Sources; compliance with federal Standards of Performance for Industrial- H&SC §40000 et seq., H&SC Commercial-Institutional Steam Generating Units and Stationary Gas 40400 et seg. Turbines. SCAQMD Rule 401 —Visible Establishes limits for visible emissions from stationary sources. This Emissions rule prohibits visible emissions as dark or darker than Ringlemann No. 1 for periods greater than three minutes in any hour. Rule 402 — Nuisance Prohibits the discharge from a facility of air pollutants that cause injury, detriment, nuisance, or annoyance to the public or that damage business or property. Rule 403 — Fugitive Dust Establishes requirements to reduce the amount of PM entrained in the ambient air as a result of man-made fugitive dust sources. Rule 407 — Liquid and Establishes limits for CO and SOx emissions from stationary sources. Gaseous Air Contaminants Rule 409 — Combustion Establishes limits for particulate emissions from fuel combustion Contaminants sources. Rule 431.1 — Sulfur Content Limits for the sulfur content of natural gas to 16 ppmv. of Gaseous Fuels Rule 431.2 — Sulfur Content Limits the sulfur content of diesel fuel to 0.05 percent by weight. of Gaseous Fuels Rule 474 — Fuel Burning Establishes limits for NOx. Huntington Beach Units 3 & 4 Retool Equipment— Oxides of Project is also a NOx RECLAIM facility, therefore, Rule 474 is not Nitrogen applicable to the project. Rule 475 — Electric Power Establishes limits for combustion contaminants from subject Generating Equipment equipment. Rule 476 — Steam Generating Establishes limits for NOx and combustion contaminants from subject Equipment equipment. NOx RECLAIM facilities are exempt from the NOx provisions of Rule 476. Therefore, Rule 476 is not applicable to AES. Rule 53A— Specific Establishes limits for sulfur compounds and combustion contaminants Contaminants from stationary sources. Rule 1110.2 — Emissions Establishes limits for emissions of NOx, VOC and CO from the from Stationary Internal stationary internal combustion reciprocating engines. Since the Combustion Engines emergency generator and fire pump engines will each be limited to operating less than 200 hours per year, they are exempt from this regulation. Therefore, Rule 1110.2 is not applicable to Huntington Beach Units 3 & 4 Retool Project. Rule 1134 — Emissions of Establishes limits for emissions of NOx from the stationary gas Oxides of Nitrogen from turbines. NOx RECLAIM facilities are exempt from the provisions of Stationary Gas Turbines Rule 1134. Therefore, Rule 1134 is not applicable to Huntington Beach Units 3 & 4 Retool Project. Rule 1135— Emissions of Establishes limits for emissions of NOx from the electricity generating Oxides of Nitrogen from systems. NOx RECLAIM facilities are exempt from the provisions of Electric Power Generating Rule 1135. Therefore, Rule 1135 is not applicable to Huntington 36 Systems Beach Units 3 & 4 Retool Project. Rule 1146— Emissions of Establishes limits for emissions of NOx and CO from industrial, institutional, Oxides of Nitrogen from and commercial steam generating units. Industrial, Institutional, Commercial Boilers, Steam Boilers used to generate electricity are exempt from this regulation. Generators & Process Heater Therefore, Rule 1146 is not applicable to HUNTINGTON BEACH UNITS 3 & 4 RETOOL PROJECT. Rule 1404— Hexavalent Prohibits addition of hexavalent chromium-containing water treatment Chromium Emissions from chemicals to cooling tower-circulating water. Cooling Towers 37 BIOLOGY � Pf�WER PLANT SURRUUNDIM CUMiILAT, La) S' ..<, ; 51TE ....... k;. , SETTING -= IMPACTS CDMPLIANCE. _ Protected Species MITIGATION • Impact The power plant site, located within the fenced boundary of the existing Huntington Beach Generating Station, is un-vegetated soil and devoid of biological resources. Thus, there will be no on-site biological resource impacts. The area southeast of the power plant boundary is marsh habitat, called Huntington Beach Wetlands, which supports a variety of biological resources. The Huntington Beach Wetland has been degraded by the lose of tidal influence and the presence of non-native plant species. Units 3 and 4 will use the existing cooling water intake and outfall structures which are located approximately 1,500 feet offshore at a.water depth of 27 feet Mean Lower Low Water. MITIGATION: Terrestrial biological resources at the Huntington Beach Wetlands may be indirectly impacted by noise, lighting, or surface water runoff during project construction and operation. Off-site noise limits are provided in NOISE-6. Off-site lighting mitigation is provided in VIS-6. Controls for surface water runoff are provided in B10-1. References: SA 231-252 Long-termNone None Habitat Loss/ By constructing the proposed power plant at an existing power plant site, the project Degradation will not cause any long-term habitat loss or degradation. Reference: SA 231-252 Operation MITIGATION, MITIGATION Impact Power plant operation causes the impingement and entrainment of aquatic resources in the cooling water intake structure. Currently, the effects of the Huntington Beach intake are based on 20-year-old data from other generating stations. Recent analysis of the queenfish and white croaker provide sufficient concern of cumulative impingement and entrainment impacts to warrant a new study of the effect from the Huntington Beach Generating Station. MITIGATION: AES will conduct a one-year monitoring program of Huntington Beach Generating Station impingement and entrainment losses, conduct a cumulative effect analysis on nearshore fish populations, and if appropriate provide mitigation. Conditions: 1310-3 and 1310-4. Entrained fish usually become trapped in the forebay portion of the cooling water intake system, where ultimately they are killed during heat treatment or die of exhaustion. The intake design may not be the best technology currently available for reducing impacts to marine life. MITIGATION: AES will study the feasibility of retrofitting newer technology in the cooling water intake system to reduce fish trapped in the forebay. If feasible, such technology will be implemented. Condition: 1310-5. Reference: SA 231-252 38 BIOLOGY - GENERAL The proposed power plant site is within the existing AES Huntington Beach Generating Station (HBGS). Protected Species Impact No significant biological resources are located on the power plant site. The HBGS is located in Orange County's northern coastal area. This area is characterized by broad sandy beaches backed by low bluffs and mesas, coastal sand dunes, non-native dominated grasslands and lowland areas that once held extensive wetlands. Urbanization has obscured much of these vegetation characteristics in' the project vicinity. However, coastal salt marsh, sand dune and ruderal vegetation are found adjacent to or within a one-mile radius of the project site. Areas of coastal salt marsh occur approximately 0.5 mile to the northwest and immediately to the southeast of HBGS. The latter is an Orange County-protected wetland resource and is referenced as the Huntington Beach Wetlands, which is noticeably dominated by pickleweed. Formerly this marsh would have been open enough to maintain an ocean inlet and sufficient tidal action; however, urbanization over time has altered this hydrology to support shallower water, diminished tidal action and limited ocean connection, with potentially greater influence from fresh water. Coastal salt marshes demonstrate noticeable seasonality in terms of water quality, plant life histories, and resident and migratory waterfowl. They are among some of the most productive ecosystems and provide habitat to several hundred species of birds, mammals, reptiles, mollusks and insects. There are small areas of sand dune vegetation near HBGS that border the Huntington Beach Wetlands. In these areas, aggressive non-native species such as ice plant are noticeably present. Ruderal areas are dominated by highly competitive and invasive non-native species mixed with a few native species. These areas are characterized by significant and/or repeated surface disturbance. The ruderal vegetation identified at the HBGS is a Super Fund site slated for clean-up, located to the northwest in a fenced field. ' These plant communities support a limited number of wildlife species because they are fragmented and impacted by surrounding residential, recreational, commercial and flood control uses, in addition to the existing industrial activities at the HBGS site. However, because of the proximity of the marshes, beaches and dunes in the project area to less disturbed areas, it is not surprising that several species of shorebirds and gulls use the upper beach for foraging and possibly nesting. Similarly the Huntington Beach Wetland may provide a refuge for migrant and wintering waterfowl, waders, shorebirds and terns. Marine habitats in the vicinity of HBGS consist primarily of sand substrate. A wide sandy beach, broken by various jetties and groin fields, extends from the entrance to Newport Harbor about 6.5 miles southeast of the generating station upcoast to Anaheim Bay. The intake and outfall structures for the cooling water system are located approximately 1500 feet offshore at a water depth of approximately 27 feet Mean Lower Low Water (MLLW). The seafloor in the vicinity of the study area is a gently sloping sand bottom. 39 I 1 MBC Applied Environmental Sciences has monitored the marine environment in the vicinity of HBGS for the past 25 years. The community of invertebrates living in the sand (infauna) is dominated by annelid worms, crustaceans and molluscs. Common epifaunal invertebrates (living on top of the sand) in the vicinity of HGBS include the tube worm, the blackspotted bay shrimp, the tuberculate pear crab, the yellow rock crab, sea anemones, the sea star, and unidentified crabs, tube worms, and brittle stars. Fish populations in the vicinity of HBGS are typical of southern California nearshore soft bottom habitats. Although there has been variability in fish abundance over the 25 years of surveys, the fish community in the area has remained fairly consistent over time. In most years white croaker), queenfish), and northern anchovy are the most abundant species caught. An exception was in 1999 in which the most abundant species were California lizardfish and speckled sanddab. Fish impingement sampling is conducted during representative periods of normal operation and during all heat treatment procedures to obtain an estimate of total impingement for the year. Queenfish was the dominant species impinged in 2000, and, except for 1999, it has been the most abundant fish in impingement collections since 1979. White croaker and jacksmelt were the other most abundant fishes impinged in 2000. During this 21 year period, queenfish accounted for 81.8% of the fish impinged and queenfish, white croaker and northern anchovy accounted for 91.3% of the impinged fishes. Common bird species in the ocean waters offshore HBGS include the California brown pelican, surf scoter, western gull, western grebe, and double-crested, Brandt's and pelagic cormorants. The sandy beach in the vicinity of HBGS is used for foraging by a variety of shorebirds. The State and Federal Endangered California least tern nests on the sandy beach a little over a mile south of HBGS adjacent to the Santa Ana River mouth. The western snowy plover is a Federal Threatened species and a California Species of Special Concern. The closest regular snowy plover nesting site to HBGS is in the Bolsa Chica wetlands approximately 5 miles to the northwest. Snowy plovers nested within the Huntington Beach California least tern colony in 1993. Wintering snowy plovers have been observed to forage along the sandy intertidal zone in the vicinity of HBGS. The Federal and State Endangered California brown pelican nests on Anacapa and Santa Barbara Islands, off the Pacific Coast of Baja California, Mexico and in the Gulf of California, Mexico. California brown pelicans are common in the waters offshore HBGS especially during the non-breeding season of July through December. They feed primarily on northern anchovy. The other sensitive species would be expected to occur only very rarely in the nearshore waters in the vicinity of HBGS. There are no direct impacts associated with the project footprint or laydown area. In the present case terrestrial biological resources in the Huntington Beach Wetlands may be indirectly impacted by noise, lighting and surface water runoff during project construction and operation. MITIGATION: Terrestrial biological resources at the Huntington Beach Wetlands may be indirectly impacted by noise, lighting, or surface water runoff during project construction and operation. Off-site noise limits are provided in NOISE-6. Off-site lighting mitigation is provided in VIS-6. Controls for surface water runoff are provided in BIO-1. 40 Long-term Habitat Loss/Degradation The power plant site is either paved or un-vegetated and has no biological resources. Therefore, as to the site, no habitat resource is being lost or degraded. Operation Impact The applicant proposes to use the existing cooling water system. No modification of the existing intake or outfall is proposed. Therefore, construction impacts to marine resources will not occur. Potential impacts of the HBGS Retool Project to marine resources are related to entrainment and impingement by the intake and the temperature effects of the thermal discharge. Impingement refers to the trapping of organisms on the screens of the intake. Entrainment refers to the process by which organisms are sucked into and through the cooling water system. Intake and discharge volumes are expected to be within historic levels when Units 1, 2, 3, and 4 were operating, but greater than levels since 1995 when Units 3 and 4 were phased out. Ocean water surface temperatures off Huntington Beach average approximately 52 to 62 degrees Fahrenheit (F) in the winter and 65 to 75 degrees F in the summer. The applicant has provided information on current and expected temperature changes in ocean waters in the vicinity of the discharge (AES 2001). The HBGS's current National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit allows a difference between the intake and discharge temperatures (Delta T) up to and including 30 degrees F. Typically, Delta T averages about 20 degrees. Daily measurements of intake temperatures during the summer months from August 1996 to August 2000 ranged from approximately 54 to 88 degrees F and discharge temperatures ranged from approximately 80 to 100 degrees F. During winter months, intake temperatures ranged from 54 to 65 degrees F and outfall temperatures from 57 to 96 degrees F. In addition to the discharge of heated water as a result of unit operation, the applicant proposes to .conduct monthly heat treatments to eliminate fouling organisms that grow within the cooling water system. During the treatment, heated effluent water from the discharge conduit is re-entrained via cross-connecting tunnels to the intake conduit until the temperature reaches approximately 105 degrees F. This temperature is maintained for at least one hour. Mussels, barnacles, fish and invertebrates living in the intake unit and forebay are killed, impinged onto the traveling screens and then removed from the forebay. Heat treatment raises discharge water temperatures to approximately 112 to 122 degrees F. The HBGS NPDES permit allows a Delta T of up to 125 degrees F during adjustment of the recirculation gate and allows a Delta T of up to 130 degrees F for no more than 30 minutes. Even during heat treatments elevation of temperatures above 4 degrees F are limited to within a few hundred feet surrounding the outfall. Except for individuals trapped by currents within the forebay of the intake during heat treatments, fishes and mobile invertebrates will avoid water temperatures that are above their thermal tolerance. An elevation in ocean water temperature of 4 degrees F or less generally is within the natural range of ocean water temperatures off Huntington Beach and would be expected to be within the tolerance level of most marine organisms. Annual monitoring of fishes and invertebrates in the vicinity of HBGS has noted few differences between the marine life around the intake and discharge structures and control areas. The slight differences noted were of infaunal invertebrates and flatfish (sanddabs) in the immediate vicinity of the structures and were more likely related to the physical effect of the structures 41 on sediments than on temperature differences. The thermal effects of normal operations of the HBGS on marine life are expected to be insignificant. The Huntington Beach colony of the State and Federal Threatened California least tern is dependent on an adequate prey base of small fishes in the vicinity of the colony. Terns from this colony forage heavily in ocean waters in the vicinity of the HBGS intake and outfall structures. . Fish including the prey of California least terns (primarily topsmelt and northern anchovy) would be expected to avoid any portions of the thermal plume outside their tolerance range. Because the area elevated more than 4 degrees ambient is within a 400-foot or less radius of the discharge, the amount of foraging habitat for the California least tern adversely affected by the discharge would be minimal (5 acres or less). Impacts to the California least tern of the increased thermal discharge by the HBGS Retool Project would be expected to be insignificant. Other sensitive seabird species, such as the endangered California brown pelican, that forage in nearshore waters near HBGS also would not be expected to suffer a significant impact from the increased discharge. Any thermal effects on fish populations would be limited to within a 400-foot radius of the discharge plume. Federal Threatened western snowy plovers forage on the beach near HBGS. The Thermal Effect Study for the HBGS did not find that there was a reduction in sandy beach organisms near the power plant compared to transects further away. Therefore, the discharge would not be expected to affect the prey base of the western snowy plover. To predict the effects of entrainment and impingement by the intake on marine resources, the applicant has presented the results of a 1983 study done by Southern California Edison to comply with Section 316(b) of the Clean Water Act (SCE 1983). The HBGS 316(b) study was part of a demonstration for all Southern California Edison's (SCE) power plants with intakes in offshore southern California marine waters and protected harbor waters including HBGS, then owned and operated by SCE. Instead of measuring entrainment impacts for each individual facility, the study estimated entrainment for each facility by studying representative sites and applying those results to facilities with similar intake structures. The Ormond Beach Generating Station and San Onofre Generating Station Unit 1 were the representative sites for entrainment sampling for the group of physically and biologically similar intakes into which HBGS was classified. All three power plant intakes are located in the shallow nearshore zone of the Southern California Bight. The Ormond Beach Generating Station is in the City of Oxnard in Ventura County. The San Onofre Generating Station is in San Diego County near San Clemente. Mean daily entrainment at the Ormond Beach Generating Station and San Onofre Generating Station Unit 1 was determined from monthly samples collected from August 1979 through July 1980. Mortality of entrained larvae was assumed to be 100%. Estimates of entrainment at the HBGS intakes were developed by applying a flow rate adjustment to daily entrainment observed at the Ormond Beach and San Onofre Generating Station intake systems. The most abundant fish larvae collected at both the Ormond Beach and San Onofre Generating Station intakes were those of northern anchovy, white croaker and queenfish. These three species comprised 78 % of the entrained individuals. Adult fish losses at HBGS result from impingement in the station cooling water system. To estimate the total impact to fish populations of entrainment and impingement at HBGS, Southern California Edison adapted a fish population model developed by MacCall et al. (1983). The model calculates the magnitude of the probability (Rc) of a fish surviving entrainment and impingement mortality through five years of age. The statistic (1-RJ indicates the percent probability of mortality due to station operation. 42 r With the exception of queenfish, all of the target species either had a probability of mortality (1-Rc) due to the intake of less than 1 % or were entrained or impinged in numbers too low to calculate. an Rc value. Queenfish, however, had an Rc value of 93.4 resulting in a 6.6% probability that individuals will experience entrainment or impingement mortality at HBGS. This impact was due primarily to the large numbers of adult queenfish impinged on the intake and is considered potentially significant. The study concluded that the impact was not significant because queenfish have continued to be common in fish collections in the Southern California Bight and have not been observed to decline. However II 9 , it is not clear that sampling for this species has been systematic enough to observe a decline if it were occurring. The study calculated Re for queenfish in the Southern California Bight as 0.857 suggesting that the impingement losses would not result in economic or ecological impacts and determined that the impact was insignificant. However, the analysis only used impingement and entrainment at HBGS in the model, and did not take into account impingement and entrainment losses at all power plants within the Southern California Bight. When the effect of these other intakes is considered, it is possible that the stock of queenfish in the Southern California Bight is being depleted below self-sustaining levels for the region. Thus, impacts of the HBGS intake system on queenfish are considered to be potentially significant. CEC staff is concerned that the determination of the effects of the HBGS intake is based on studies done 20 years ago for other generating stations. Recent analysis indicates that populations of queenfish and white croaker within the Southern California Bight may, in fact, have experienced a long- term decline. The HBGS Retool Project would be expected to increase flow rates to a level similar to that prior to 1994 when all units were operating. Mean daily flow between 1979 and 1993 ranged between 134.6 and 476.2 million gallons per day (mgd) compared to between 144.1 and 163.8 mgd after 1994. Total estimated fish impingement between1979 and 1994, when Units 1 through 4 were operating, ranged between 3,679 and 905,003 individuals per year. Fish impingement at HBGS is significantly related to flow rate, although other factors also appear to be important (AES 2001). Therefore, because flow rate would be expected to increase, the HBGS Retool Project would be expected to increase fish impingement over current levels. The HBGS has a large forebay on site, and many fishes apparently become trapped in the forebay. They swim into the structure and, because of the strong currents generated by the intake, cannot leave (C. Mitchell, MBC, pers. comm. 2001). All of the fishes trapped in the intake structure are killed during heat treatments although, because they apparently cannot escape, they might be lost anyway. CEC staff is concerned that the design of the HBGS intake does not represent the Best Available Technology for the protection of marine life. Methods, such as a fish return system, may be available to reduce the number of fish trapped within the forebay. MITIGATION': AES will conduct cone-year monitoring program of Huntington Beach Generating Station impingement and entrainment losses, conduct a cumulative effect analysis on nearshore fish populations, and if appropriate provide mitigation. Conditions: 113I0-3 and 13I0-4. MITIGATION: AES will study the feasibility of retrofitting newer technology in the cooling water intake system to reduce fish trapped in the forebay. If feasible, such technology will be implemented. Condition: 113I0-5. AES opposes Staff's original proposed condition B10-5 requiring up-front payment of the costs of the impingement and entrainment studies. Given the possible term of certification, the Commission now 43 believes that up-front payment by AES will best assure that Condition 131O-3 will be complied with in the early stages of the operation of the facility. CURE requests that the intake system retrofit studies (now B1O-5) include examination of the proposals in the El Segundo Redevelopment Project Application for Certification and immediate implementation. Staff suggested implementation upon AES's assessment of the long-range plans for the Huntington Beach Generating Station or the renewal of the NPDES permit. The Commission believes that the Staff-proposed timetable is sufficient, particularly given long-range planning for the best future for the HBGS. Cumulative Impacts With regard to cumulative impacts to terrestrial biological resources, power plants that are under development or application in the region are at too great a distance to contribute to the noise lighting, and surface water impacts. However, potential impacts from noise and lighting may change when considered together with operation of Units 1, 2 and 5 and, because of their intimate association with Units 3 and 4. No additional cumulative impacts to terrestrial species_have been identified. The impacts of impingement and entrainment by the HBGS cooling water intake on nearshore fish populations-in the Southern California Bight will act cumulatively with the impacts of impingement and entrainment at the other Southern California power plants that draw water from the ocean for their cooling water systems. The 316(b) demonstration for the HBGS indicated that impacts of impingement on queenfish were close to significant. When the impacts of impingement and entrainment of queenfish at the HBGS are added to the impacts of impingement and entrainment at all the Southern California generating stations, the cumulative impacts on this and other marine species could be significant, but mitigable. Findings With the implementation of the Conditions of Certification below, the project conforms with applicable laws related to biological resources, and all potential adverse impacts to biological resources will be mitigated to insignificance. CONDITIONS OF CERTIFICATION STORMWATER RUNOFF BIO-1 Prior to operation of Units 3 and 4, project owner's Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan shall be updated, and approved by the CEC CPM, to ensure that all berms and surface drainage installations are constructed, or existing features modified, to prevent any treated or untreated surface water runoff originating within or crossing the AES property from reaching the Huntington Beach Wetlands. Verification: No less than 30 days after certification, the project owner shall submit to the CEC CPM and City of Huntington Beach a copy of the revised Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan that specifies all modification to berm and surface drainage installations and any other related facilities necessary to prevent any treated or untreated surface water runoff originating within or crossing the AES HBGS property from reaching the Huntington Beach Wetlands. This plan must incorporate all requirements specified by the City of Huntington Beach for the protection of water quality contained in Municipal Code Title 14. The project owner shall submit to the CEC CPM verification from the City of Huntington Beach that the revised plan complies with all applicable local requirements. This condition is consistent with SOIL &WATER-1. 44 LANDSCAPING TO PROTECT HUNTINGTON BEACH WETLANDS BIO-2: The project owner shall incorporate native plant species into the landscape at the property perimeter adjacent to the Huntington Beach Wetlands to prevent further degradation of the marsh habitat through the introduction of non-native plant species consistent with the City's General Plan Policy C7.2.4. Native plant species to be used must be compatible with the native species currently found in the Huntington Beach Wetlands. Verification: The project owner shall provide a final Landscaping Plan to the CPM at least 30 days prior to the beginning of commercial operation. The final plan shall include a list of native species that will be immediately used for landscaping within the AES HBGS property when landscaping is implemented. IMPINGEMENT AND ENTRAINMENT BIO-3: The project owner will prepare a monitoring/study plan and conduct one year of monitoring to determine the actual impingement and entrainment losses resulting from the operation of the cooling water system for the new Units 3 and 4 and the existing Units 1 and 2. The project owner will sample the intake and source water to determine fractional losses relative to their abundance in the source water. Protocol: Sampling design and data analysis protocols should follow those developed from the most recent 316(a) and 316(b) studies at Diablo Canyon, Moss Landing and Morro Bay power plants and/or MacCall (1983), and the results used to determine the significance of impingement and entrainment losses on fish populations. This analysis shall consider the cumulative effect of all Southern California coastal power plants on nearshore fish populations. The study objectives, sample design, metrics and methods (protocols) shall be submitted to CEC CPM and approved by the CPM. The study protocols will be developed and put into a study plan within 60 days of project certification. The project owner will commence the monitoring within 30 days of the start of commercial operation of the new Units 3 and 4. The methods, analysis, results, and conclusions of the monitoring study will be documented in a scientific style report and submitted to the CPM for review and approval. Other agencies, including the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the California Department of Fish and Game, shall be included in the review of the draft report, if they so request. A final report shall be prepared upon completion of the field sampling. The study results will be utilized during the NPDES permit renewal evaluation to be completed by the Santa Ana Regional Water Control Board in June 2005. Verification: The project owner will submit a draft study plan to the CEC CPM within 60 days of project certification for review and approval. Within 90 days of certification, an agency and CEC- approved final study plan will be provided to the CEC CPM. The project owner will submit quarterly reports to the CPM during the study sampling period within 60 days following the completion date of that quarter of field sampling. The project owner will submit to the CEC CPM a draft report that discusses the results of the impingement, entrainment and source water sampling studies within six months of the end of field sampling, and a final report to the CEC CPM within nine months from the end of field sampling_ BIO-4: The project owner will provide a check for $1,500,000 (One million and five hundred thousand) to the Center for Natural Lands Management (Contact: Ms. Sherry Teresa, Executive Director, 425 E. Alvarado Street, Suite H, Fallbrook, CA 92028-2960, (760) 731-7790) to establish the Huntington Beach Generating Station Trust Account to be used to fund the project's impingement, entrainment, and source water sampling studies. The CEC will authorize the project owner's expenditures from the 45 fund for the field study protocol development and implementation (impingement, entrainment and source water sampling), data analysis, draft and final report preparation, and implementation of mitigation measures. Verification: No later than 30 days prior to the start of commercial operation, the project owner will provide written confirmation to the CEC CPM that 1) a check for $1,500,000 has been provided to the Center for Natural Lands Management and 2) that the Huntington Beach Generating Station Trust Account has been established. Any unspent funds, plus all accumulated interest, will be returned to the project owner upon completion of the studies identified in BIO-3, above. BIO-5: If the entrainment and impingement study determines that significant impacts to one or more species of coastal fish is occurring, the project owner will provide mitigation/ compensation funds for mitigation/compensation for impacts to Southern California Bight fish populations. Upon consultation with the project owner, the mitigation/compensation funds should be used for such things as tidal wetlands restoration, creation of artificial reefs, or some other form of habitat compensation that is sufficient to fully address the species impacts identified in the final report required by Condition of Certification BIO-3, above. The CEC; CPM, in consultation with the project owner and state, federal and local resource agencies, will determine the amount and final application of the compensation funds. When appropriate mitigation is determined, the project owner will prepare and sign a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the entity that will receive the compensation funds. The MOU will clearly identify acceptable uses of the funds, including an accounting of how the funds will be spent. Verification: The CPM will review the draft MOU to ensure the wording is clear, meets the terms of the mitigation, and that it is.enforceable. The CPM will ensure the MOU is completed within 120 days of determination of the need for mitigation/compensation. The project owner will provide written verification to the CEC CPM that the mitigation/compensation funds have been paid within 30 days after signing the MOU for the disposition of required compensation funds. COOLING WATER INTAKE IMPROVEMENTS BIO-6: The project owner shall conduct a study to determine if there is a feasible methodology that would greatly reduce the number of fishes trapped in the intake forebay. If the study determines that a feasible method(s) exists to reduce the number of fishes trapped in the cooling water system the project owner shall implement those methods. Verification: The project owner will submit a draft study plan to the CEC CPM and resources agencies within 60 days of the date of certification for review and approval. CEC and resource agency staff will provide comments on the draft study plan, and within 90 days of project certification a CEC and resource agency approved final study plan will be provided to the CEC CPM. The project owner will submit an interim report on the progress of the study within 90 days following commencement of the study. The project owner will submit a draft report that discusses the results of the study within 45 days following completion of the study and will submit a final report within 3 months of completion of the study. If the study determines that a feasible method(s) exists to greatly reduce fish losses in the intake, the project owner will implement the selected methodology upon CEC Huntington Beach Generating Station Project long-term operation reassessment and/or NPDES permit renewal June 30, 2005, and provide verification to the CEC CPM that the agreed to improvements have been implemented. 46 LAWS, ORDINANCES, REGULATIONS & STANDARDS BIOLOGY APPLICABLELAW A$:'', ,� \ ;\ DESCRiPT�ON FEDERAL Endangered Species Act of Designates and provides for protection of threatened and endangered plants 1973 (16 USC, Section 1531 et and animals and their critical habitat. seq.) and implementing regulations, (CFR, Section 17.1 et seg.) National Environmental Policy NEPA must be addressed if an Environmental Impact Statement(EIS)would Act(NEPA) of 1969 (42 USC be required for a Federal action/permit that would have a significant effect on 4341 et seq.) and implementing the environment. regulations (40 CFR Parts 1500- 1508 Section 404 of the Clean Water Prohibits the discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of the United Act(33 USC Section 404 et States without a permit. A 404 Nationwide permit 12 is applicable for utility seq.) line placement near waters of the U.S. causing temporary discharge of material. Executive Order 11990, Requires governmental agencies take action to minimize the destruction, loss, Protection of Wetlands or degradation of wetlands, and to preserve and enhance the natural and beneficial values of wetlands in carrying out their responsibilities. STATE California Endangered Species Protect California's endangered, threatened, and rare species. Act of 1984, (Fish and Game Code, Section 2050 et seg.) Streambed Alteration Agreement Requires the Department to review any project planning to substantially divert (Fish and Game Code Section or obstruct the natural flow or substantially change the bed, channel or bank 1603) of any river, stream or lake prior to commencement. LOCAL Policies set forth in the Protection of terrestrial and marine habitat and species. Huntington Beach General Plan 47 CULTURAL RESOURCES 7 POWER PLANT SlIRR©CIIUDINkG CUIVlULATII/E y'� L:OR � , /SITE .. .KIMPAC�S CO>�1PLlANCE... Cultural MITIGATION None None Resources Construction: No cultural resources have been identified on the project site or within ■ Known Site one-half mile of the project site. However, because foundation construction may impact ■ Unknown the original ground surface below the imported fill and, because the original ground Resource surface could not be examined during the survey, there is the potential for encountering cultural resources during construction. MITIGATION: AES will designate a cultural resource specialist who will prepare a cultural resource recovery plan, provide resource identification training to employees, monitor excavation, and provide for the handling and curation of any recovered cultural resources. Conditions: CULT - 1 through CULT- 9. References: SA pp. 199-209 CULTURAL RESOURCES- GENERAL This analysis discusses cultural resources, which are defined as the structural and cultural evidence of the history of human development and life on earth. Cultural resources may be found on the ground surface or buried beneath the surface. Evidence of California's early occupation is becoming increasingly vulnerable due to the ongoing development and urbanization of the state. Potential cultural resources are identified through records searches and filed surveys. Since project development and construction usually entail surface and sub-surface disturbance of the ground, the proposed project has the potential to adversely affect both known and unknown cultural resources. Direct impacts are those which may result from the immediate disturbance of resources, whether from vegetation removal, vehicle travel over the surface, earth-moving activities, or excavation. Indirect impacts are those which may result from increased erosion due to site clearance and preparation, or from inadvertent damage or outright vandalism to exposed resource materials due to improved accessibility. Cumulative impacts to cultural resources may occur if increasing amounts of land are cleared and disturbed for the development of multiple projects in the same vicinity as the proposed project. Prehistory Prehistoric archaeological resources are those resources that resulted from prehistoric human occupation and use of an area. Such resources include sites and deposits, structures, artifacts, rock art, and trails. In California the prehistoric period began over 11,500 years ago and extended into the 18th century when the Euro-Americans first explored and settled the region. The proposed power plant location yielded no physical evidence of cultural resources. Since construction would entail subsurface disturbance of the ground, the proposed project has the potential to adversely affect previously unknown cultural resources that might exist in the native soils. AES has indicated that 2 to 3.5 feet of fill exist on top of the old ground surface. A concrete slab foundation 3.5 to 4 feet thick covers the fill. Excavations for the new foundations for SCR equipment for Units 3 and 4 are expected to require 3.5 feet for the new slab foundation plus 2 to 3 feet of over-excavation in the 48 underlying fill material. Impacts would likely not extend into the native soil as a result of excavations for SCR equipment foundations. However, it is possible that the estimated maximum depth of excavation could exceed the minimum estimated existing depth of slab and fill. Therefore, previously unknown prehistoric (as well as historic or ethnic heritage) resources could be affected in these areas. (SA p. 206.) MITIGATION:'. To mitigate any potential impact to unknown buried prehistoric resources, AES will designate a cultural resource specialist who will prepare a cultural resource recovery plan, provide resource identification training to employees, monitor excavation, and provide for the recovery, handling and curation of any recovered cultural resources. Conditions: CUL-1 through CUL-9. Historic Historic period resources are those resources that resulted from human activity after the beginning of a written historical record. In California the historic period began in the 18th Century when Euro- Americans first explored and settled the region. Historic period resources include archaeological deposits, sites, structures, traveled ways, artifacts, documents, buildings and objects. The proposed power plant location yielded no physical evidence of historic cultural resources. The absence of sites in the project vicinity indicates a low potential for previously unknown historic and prehistoric archeological resources to be encountered and affected during project construction. There are no historic resources within one mile of the project site. Therefore, the proposed project would not affect the setting of any historic resources. The mitigation applied to unknown prehistoric resources (above) is also applicable to potential unknown historic resources. Ethnic Heritage Ethnographic resources are those resources important to the heritage of a particular ethnic or cultural group, such as Native Americans, African, European, or Asian immigrants. They may include traditional resource collecting areas, ceremonial sites, topographic features, cemeteries, shrines, or ethnic neighborhoods and structures. No Native American cultural resource is known to exist at the site. The mitigation applied to unknown prehistoric resources (above) is also applicable to potential unknown ethnic heritage resources.. Cumulative Impacts The potential for cumulative impacts may be associated with the degree of prehistoric and historic sensitivity. The HBGS site is proposed in an area that is not sensitive for archeological or historical resources. The proposed project is in an area of industrial and mobile home park uses. The Poseidon desalination facility is planned for 3.9 acres of the AES Huntington Beach project site. An impact from this facility would only occur if unanticipated cultural resources are discovered in this area during ground disturbance. There are no previously identified cultural resources on the HBGS site. Although it is always possible that unanticipated cultural resources might be discovered, it is unlikely in this location. Therefore, unless there is a discovery, there will be no cumulative impacts to cultural resources from the proposed project. 49 Finding With the implementation of the Conditions of Certification, below, the project conforms to applicable laws related to cultural resources and all potential cultural resource impacts will be mitigated to insignificance. CONDITIONS OF CERTIFICATION CUL-1: The cultural resource specialist (CRS) shall be retained to conduct or supervise monitoring activities during ground disturbance that may exceed existing fill and in the vicinity of the selective catalytic reduction (SCR) unit. Prior to the start of ground disturbance (defined in general conditions), in areas where ground disturbance may exceed existing fill and in the vicinity of the SCR, the project owner shall provide the California Energy Commission (Energy Commission) Compliance Project Manager (CPM) with the name and statement of qualifications of its Cultural Resource Specialist. (CRS), and an alternate CRS, if an alternate is proposed, who would be responsible for implementation of all cultural resources Conditions of Certification. The statement of qualifications for the CRS and alternate shall include all information needed to demonstrate that the specialist meets the minimum qualifications specified by the National Park Service, Heritage Preservation Services and shall be qualified by the Register of Professional Archaeologists (RPA). The minimum qualifications include the following: a. a graduate degree in anthropology, archaeology, California history, cultural resources management, or a comparable field; b. at least three years of archaeological resource mitigation and field experience in California; and C. at least one year experience in each of the following areas: 1. leading archaeological resource field surveys; 2. leading site and artifact mapping, recording, and recovery operations; 3. marshaling and use of equipment necessary for cultural resources recovery and testing; 4. preparing recovered materials for analysis and identification; 5. determining the need for appropriate sampling and/or testing in the field and in the lab; 6. directing the analyses of mapped materials; and recovered artifacts; 7. completing the identification and inventory of recovered cultural resources material; and 8. preparing appropriate reports to be filed with the receiving curation repository, the SHPO, and the appropriate regional archaeological information center. The statement of qualifications shall include: a. a list of specific projects that the specialist has previously worked on; 50 b. the role and responsibilities of the specialist for each project listed; and C. the names and phone numbers of contacts familiar with the specialist's work on these referenced projects. Verification: At least 30 days prior to the start of ground disturbance that may exceed the level of fill and in the vicinity of the SCR, the project owner shall submit the name and statement of qualifications of its CRS and alternate CRS to the CPM for review and approval. At least 10 days, prior to the start of any ground disturbance that may exceed existing fill and ground disturbance in the vicinity of the SCR, the project owner shall confirm in writing to the CPM that the approved CRS will be available and is prepared to implement the cultural resource Conditions of Certification. At least 10 days prior to the termination or release of a CRS, the project owner shall obtain CPM approval of the replacement specialist by submitting to the CP-M the name and a statement of qualifications of the proposed new CRS. CUL-2: Prior to the start of ground disturbance, where ground disturbance may exceed existing fill and in the vicinity of the SCR, the project owner shall provide the CRS and the CPM with maps and/or drawings showing the footprint of the SCR and/or areas where disturbance may exceed existing fill. The project owner shall also provide a schedule of anticipated construction in the vicinity of the SCR and in areas where ground disturbance may exceed existing fill. If the footprint or construction schedule in any of these areas of ground disturbance changes, the project owner shall provide maps and/or drawings reflecting these changes, to the CRS within three days and to the CPM within 5 days. Verification: At least 10 days prior to the start of ground disturbance in the vicinity of the SCR or areas where ground disturbance may exceed existing fill, the project owner shall provide the CRS and the CPM with the maps and/or drawings and a construction schedule of these areas. Copies of maps, drawings or schedules reflecting changes shall be submitted to the CPM within five days of the changes. CUL- 3: Prior to the start of ground disturbance, in the vicinity of the SCR and in areas where ground disturbance may exceed existing fill, the CRS shall prepare, and the project owner shall submit to the CPM for review and approval, a Cultural Resources Monitoring and Mitigation Plan (CRMMP), identifying general and specific measures to minimize potential impacts in the event of an unanticipated discovery. The CRMMP shall include the following elements and measures. a. Identification of the person(s) expected to perform monitoring tasks (resumes); a description of each team member's qualifications and their responsibilities; b. A discussion of the requirement that all cultural resources encountered will be recorded and mapped (may include photos) and that all significant or diagnostic resources will be collected for analysis and eventual curation into a public repository or museum. The public repository or museum must meet the standards and requirements for the curation of cultural resources set forth at Title 36 of the Federal Code of Regulations, Part 79. c. A discussion of the availability and the designated specialist's access to equipment and supplies necessary for site mapping, photographing, and recovering any cultural resource materials encountered during construction. 51 Verification: At least 15 days prior to the start of ground disturbance, in the vicinity of the SCR or in areas that may exceed existing fill, the project owner shall provide the CRMMP, prepared by the CRS, to the CPM for review and approval. CUL-4: The CRS, alternate or the monitor(s) shall have the authority to halt or redirect construction if previously unknown cultural resource sites or materials are encountered. If such resources are found, the halting or redirection of construction shall remain in effect until: • The specialist has notified the CPM and the project owner of the find and the work stoppage; • The specialist, the project owner, and the CPM have conferred and determined what, if any, data recovery or other mitigation is needed; and • Any necessary data recovery and mitigation has been completed. The specialist, the project owner, and the CPM shall confer within five working days of the notification of the CPM to determine what, if any, determination of significance, data recovery or other mitigation is needed. If data recovery or other mitigation measures are required, the specialist and team members shall monitor construction activities and implement data recovery and mitigation measures, as needed. If unearthed cultural resources appear to be Native American in origin, a monitor who traces ancestry to the affected area shall be added to the cultural resource team. The Native American monitor shall be present during any monitoring of cultural resources that appear to be Native American in origin. All required data recovery and mitigation shall be completed expeditiously unless all parties agree to additional time. For any cultural resource encountered, the project owner shall notify the CPM within 24 hours after the find. Verification: At least 5 days prior to the start of ground disturbance, the project owner shall provide the CPM with a letter confirming that the CRS, alternate and monitor(s) have the authority to halt construction activities in the vicinity of a cultural resource find. Within 3 days of obtaining a Native American monitor, the project owner shall notify the CPM by letter.that the monitor has been obtained. CUL-5: Throughout monitoring and mitigation (if necessary), phases of the project, the CRS, alternate and monitor(s) shall keep a daily log of any resource finds and the progress or status of the resource monitoring, mitigation, preparation, identification, and analytical work being conducted for the project. The daily logs shall indicate where and when monitoring has taken place and where cultural resources were found. The CRS and monitor(s) may informally discuss the cultural resource monitoring and mitigation activities with Energy Commission technical staff. Verification: Throughout the monitoring activities and during any data recovery (if necessary), the project owner shall ensure that copies of the daily logs are included in the monthly compliance report. 52 CUL-6: If cultural resources are discovered, the project owner shall ensure that the CRS performs the recovery, preparation for analysis, analysis, preparation for curation, and delivery for curation of all cultural resource materials encountered and collected during the monitoring, data recovery, mapping, and mitigation activities related to the project. Verification: If cultural resources are discovered, the project owner shall maintain in its compliance files, copies of signed contracts or agreements with the museum(s), university(ies), or other appropriate research specialists. The project owner shall maintain these files for the life of the project and the files shall be kept available for periodic audit by the CPM. Information as to the specific location of sensitive cultural resource site shall be kept confidential and accessible only to qualified cultural resource specialists. CUL-7: The project owner shall ensure that the CRS prepares a Cultural Resources Report (CRR). The project owner shall submit the report to the CPM for review and approval. 1 The CRR shall include (but not be limited to) the following: a. For all projects: 1. description of pre-project literature search, surveys, and any testing activities; 2. maps showing areas surveyed or tested; 3. description of any monitoring activities; 4. maps, including maps of any areas monitored; and 5. conclusions and recommendations. b. For projects in which cultural resources were encountered, include the items specified under "a" and also provide: • site and isolate records and maps; • description of testing for, and determinations of, significance and potential eligibility; and • a discussion of the research questions answered or raised by the data from the project. c. For projects regarding which cultural resources were recovered, include the items specified under"a" and "b" and also provide: • a description of the methods employed in the field and laboratory; a description (including drawings and/or photos) of recovered cultural materials; • results and findings of any special analyses conducted on recovered cultural resource materials; • an inventory list of recovered cultural resource materials; an interpretation of the site(s) with regard to the research design; and • the name and location of the public repository receiving the recovered cultural resources for curation. 53 Verification: The project owner shall ensure that the CRS completes the CRR within 60 days following the monitoring activity and within 90 days following completion of the analysis of the recovered cultural materials, if cultural materials are discovered. Within seven days after completion of the report, the project owner shall submit the CRR to the CPM for review and approval. CUL-8: The project owner shall submit an original, an original-quality copy, and a computer disc copy (or other format to meet the repository's requirements), of the CPM-approved CRR to the public repository to receive the recovered data and materials for curation, with copies to the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO), the appropriate regional California Historical Resources Information System information center(s). If the report is submitted to any of these entities on a computer disc, the disc files must meet SHPO requirements for format and content. Protocol: The copies of the CRR to be sent to the entities specified above shall include the following (based on the applicable scenario [a, b, or c] set forth in condition CUL-7): a. originals or original-quality copies of all text; b. originals of any topographic maps showing site and resource locations; C. originals or original-quality copies of drawings of significant or diagnostic cultural resource materials found during pre-construction surveys or during project monitoring and mitigation and subjected to post-recovery analysis and evaluation. d. photographs of any cultural resource site(s) and the various cultural resource materials recovered during project monitoring and mitigation and subjected to post-recovery analysis and evaluation. The project owner shall provide the curation repository with a set of negatives for all of the photographs. Verification: Within 30 days after receiving approval of the CRR, the project owner shall provide to the CPM documentation that the report has been sent to the public repository receiving the recovered data and materials for curation, the SHPO and the regional California Historical Resources Information System information center(s). For the life of the project the project owner shall maintain in its compliance files copies of all documentation related to the filing of the CPM-approved CRR with the public repository receiving the recovered data and materials for curation. CUL-9: If cultural resources are discovered, following the filing of the CPM-approved CRR with the appropriate entities, specified in condition CUL-8, the project owner shall ensure that all cultural resource materials, maps, and data collected during data recovery and mitigation for the project are delivered to a public repository that meets the US Secretary of Interior requirements for the curation of cultural resources. The project owner shall pay any fees for curation required by the repository. Verification: If cultural resources are discovered, the project owner shall ensure that all recovered cultural resource materials are delivered for curation within 30 days after providing the CPM-approved CRR to the entities specified in CUL-8. If cultural resources were discovered, the project owner shall provide a document that identifies the public institution and that discussed requirements, specifications or funding needed for the curation of the materials and how they will be met. Also the name and phone number of the contact person at the institution shall be provided. If cultural resources were discovered, for the life of the project the project owner shall maintain in its compliance files, copies of signed contracts or agreements with the public repository to which the 54 project owner has delivered for curation all cultural resource materials collected during data recovery and mitigation for the project. 55 LAWS, ORDINANCES, REGULATIONS & STANDARDS CULTURAL RESOURCES :APRLICABL1fLAW �� �....� � � ..� DESCRIF -16 FEDERAL National Historic Preservation Applicable if federal permits are required, Federal funding provided, or lands Act 916 USC 470, et seq.) owned by Federal government. Requires consultation with lead Federal agency, SHPO, &Advisory Council on Historic Preservation. 36 CFR 61 Appendix A Professional qualification standards/procedures for state and local government historic preservation programs/cultural resources management. STATE California Environmental Quality Construction may encounter archaeological resources. Act(CEQA) Guidelines Sections 15064.5 & 15126.4 Health & Safety Code 7050.5 If Native Americans graves encountered, coroner calls Native American Heritage Commissioner. Public Resources Code Section If Native American graves are encountered, Native American Heritage 5097.9 Commissioner assigns most likely descendent. 56 GEOLOGY POWEf2 PLANS 5URR JUNDIN�G CUNIULAT#1/E j Earthquake MITIGATION The project is located in seismic zone 4 and is near the Newport Inglewood Fault zone. The project will be designed and constructed to withstand strong j earthquake shaking as specified in the 1998 California Building Code for seismic zone 4. See FACILITY DESIGN. References: SA pp. 275 - 281. Instability Due to groundwater levels under the alluvial soils in the project area, there is a potential of liquefaction. See FACILITY DESIGN. Reference: SA p. 277- 278. Mineral None None None Resources There are no known surficial geologic resources at the power plant. The Huntington Beach oil field is beneath the site. References: SA p.279. Fossils None None None Yes (Paleontology) There are no known paleontological resources at the power plant site. References: SA p. 279. FloodNone None None The power plant elevation is not subject to inundation from a tsunami. Reference: SA p. 279. GEOLOGY— GENERAL The Huntington Beach Generating Station Retool Project (project) is located on a coastal plain between the northwestern limit of the Peninsular Range physiographic province and the Transverse Range physiographic province. The project is not crossed by known active faults. The Newport-Inglewood Fault Zone is the dominant fault zone within the immediate vicinity of the project. No surface water bodies are located at the project. However, the Pacific Ocean and the Huntington Beach and Talbert Flood Control Channels are nearby. The depth to ground water at the site varies between 5 and 9 feet below existing grade. Site near-surface geology consists of artificial fill and alluvium. The project site lies at an elevation of approximately 6 to 10 feet above mean sea level. Existing grade at the power plant site is less than 5%. The existing site drainage is sheet flow in nature and drains locally via on-site drainage channels into a retention basin. Earthquake The project is located within seismic zone 4 as delineated on Figure 16-2 of the 1998 edition of the California Building Code. Energy Commission staff reviewed the California Division of Mines and Geology publications "Geologic Map of the Santa Ana Sheet" dated 1985 (CDMG 1985) and the "Fault Activity Map of California and Adjacent Areas with Locations and Ages of Recent Volcanic Eruptions," 57 dated 1994 (CDMG 1994). The existing ground surface at the site is highly disturbed. The footprint where the bulk of the retooling project will take place is covered by units 3 and 4 of the HBGS. No active faults are known to cross the power plant footprint. The closest active fault to the project is the North Branch of the Newport Inglewood Fault Zone. It is understood that the existing power plant was in operation during both the Sylmar moment magnitude 6.4 earthquake and Northridge moment magnitude 6.7 earthquake but was not-damaged in either earthquake. The North Branch of the Newport-Inglewood Fault Zone is a type B, right lateral strike slip fault with a slip rate of approximately 1 mm/year (International Conference of Building Officials 1998, Page XV) and is located approximately 0.6 mile from the site. The South Branch of the Newport-Inglewood fault is suspected of crossing underneath the northeastern fuel oil tank at a depth of approximately 2,370 feet (Bryant 1988). This suspected fault was based upon observations of Bryant on oil well logs in the vicinity of the project (Bryant 1988). The South Branch of the Newport-Inglewood Fault Zone is not considered an active fault. The suspected fault does not manifest itself in the surface within the: boundaries of the project. The peak horizontal ground acceleration for the site is estimated by the applicant to be 0.6g (AES, February 22, 2001) based upon a moment magnitude 6.9 earthquake occurring approximately 0.6 mile east of the site on the Newport-Inglewood Fault Zone. Other faults near the project site include the Palos Verdes-Coronado Fault and the Elsinore Fault. Both of these faults are capable of earthquakes with a magnitude of similar size to the Newport-Inglewood Fault Zone, but the Newport-Inglewwod Fault Zone is considered the fault upon which the design earthquake may occur since it is closer to the site than either the Palos Verdes-Coronado Fault or the Elsinore Fault. Instability Liquefaction is a condition in which a cohesionless soil may lose shear strength due to a sudden increase in pore water pressure. Three of the parameters used to assess the potential for liquefaction are the density, depth to groundwater, and the peak horizontal ground acceleration estimated for the site. The depth to groundwater at the project is approximately 5 feet below existing grade. The peak horizontal ground acceleration for the design earthquake is 0.6g, which may be high enough when combined with the shallow ground water and locally loose sands to trigger liquefaction at the project site. The Applicant has acknowledged that the site is located in an area of high liquefaction potential. The project site is located in area mapped as liquefaction hazard zone (CDMG 1997). Energy Commission staff recommend that the AES conduct a detailed liquefaction analysis of the project site and linear facilities prior to the completion of the final design for the project. Soils that contain a high percentage of expansive clay minerals are prone to expansion, if subjected to an increase in water content. Expansive soils are usually measured with an index test such as the expansive index potential. In order for a soil to be a candidate for testing, the soil must have a high clay content and the clay must have a high shrink-swell potential and a high plasticity index. No test results for the potential for the.shrink-swell potential, expansive index potential, or the consolidation or bearing capacity of the soils have been submitted to the CEC. AES has indicated in the AFC that silty-clay and clayey-silt soils above the water table may be prone to consolidation and/or the absorption of significant amounts of water. Staff suggests that prior to the final design of the foundation for the SCR, AES should have a foundation investigation report conducted and reviewed by the CBO at the time that the construction plans for the SCR are to be reviewed by the CBO. See Facility Design. Fossils Paleontology The project is located in the Huntington Beach Oil Field. The project location is designated as Mineral Resources Zone-3, an area of undetermined mineral resources potential (AES 2000a, AFC Page 5.3- 58 7). The oil within the Huntington Beach Oil Field my be obtained through the use of directional drilling and well construction as well as installation of near-by oil production wells, should the area of the oil field be redeveloped for petroleum production. There are no known paleontological resources at the proposed power plant location. Regarding paleontological resources, Energy Commission staff reviewed the paleontological resources technical report (AES 2001X, AFC Appendix H) and section 5.8. The project site is highly disturbed and partially covered by artificial fill. No significant paleontological resources were reported by the applicant's paleontologist during the paleontological archive and literature reviews. No paleontological resources were observed at the project site during a site visit on February 21, 2001. Flooding A tsunami is a wave of water that may be generated by an earthquake or a large underwater landslide. The estimated run-up for a tsunami was indicated.by the Applicant to be approximately 5.7 feet. The epicenter of the 1933 Long Beach earthquake was located in the Pacific Ocean, approximately 3.5 miles southwest of Newport Beach (4 miles south of the project site). Wood recorded that no tsunami was observed after the March 10, 1933 Long Beach earthquake (Wood 1933). The site is in an area designated "A99" on the Federal Emergency Management Agency Flood Map, meaning that the area is to be protected by a federal flood protection system under construction. Cumulative Impacts The potential for a significant adverse cumulative impact on paleontological resources, geological resources, or surface water hydrology is unlikely, if the project is constructed according to the Conditions of Certification found in the Facility Design and Soils and Water Resources sections. The construction and operation of both the retooling project and the seawater desalination project are not seen to adversely impact geological or paleontological resources or surface water hydrology. The site is not known to have significant paleontological or geological resources in the near surface, but does have an existing on-site drainage system adequate to serve the existing facilities and the desalination project. The site is located in the Huntington Beach Oil Field, and , directional drilling would allow for oil to be recovered from the field beneath the site. Findings The project will have no adverse impact with respect to geological and paleontological resources and surface water hydrology. With the implementation of the Conditions of Certification in the Soil and Water Resources and the Facility Design sections of this Decision, the project conforms to applicable laws related to geological hazards and surface water hydrology. . CONDITIONS OF CERTIFICATION None I j 59 LAWS, ORDINANCES, REGULATIONS & STANDARDS GEOLOGY APPI IGABLE',LAW `.. D,ESCR1PTiON .... .. FEDERAL There are no Federal LORS N/A related to geological hazards and resources. STATE Uniform Building Code Specifies acceptable seismic hazard analysis criteria, grading requirements, excavation requirements, and requirements'for the preparation of both the engineering geologic report and the final engineering eolo is report. California Building Code Specifies acceptable seismic hazard analysis criteria, grading requirements, excavation requirements, and requirements for the preparation of both the engineering eolo is report and the final engineering eolo is report. LOCAL No local LORS related to N/A geologic hazards and resources. PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES APPLIGABCE'LAW. may. .... �.. FEDERAL There are no applicable LORS for this section. STATE California Environmental Quality Defines significant impacts on a fossil site. Project construction might Act encounter fossil site/remains. Public Resource Code Section Defines any unauthorized disturbance or removal of fossil site/remains on 5097.5 public land as a misdemeanor. Project construction might encounter fossil site/remains; construction workers might remove fossil remains. Warren Alquist Act Requires CEC to evaluate energy facility siting in unique areas of scientific concern. Project construction might encounter fossil site/remains. LOCAL There are no applicable LORS for this section. 60 HAZARDOUS MATERIALS P©WERPLANTy S�URR©UNDIN CUMULA3TIVE ' $ETTJIIIG, .. lIV1PAC.TS f»$OMP�1=l.9N, Transportation MITIGATION • Construction: Hazardous materials delivered during construction will be limited to gasoline, diesel fuel, motor oil, hydraulic fluid, solvents, cleaners, sealants welding flux, lubricants, paint and paint thinner. No acutely hazardous materials will be transported to the power plant or pipeline construction sites. Operation: There will be two truck deliveries per day to the power plant site of hazardous materials, such as hydrazine, sulfuric acid, hydrochloric acid, gasoline, etc. MITIGATION: Deliveries of hazardous materials will be over pre-arranged routes selected for their safety features, including the absence of obstructions and curves, and minimal railroad traffic. Haulers will be specially licensed by the California Highway Patrol. Condition: TRANS-3. References: SA p. 140. amn Storage & Use MITIGATION' • Construction: No acutely hazardous materials related to construction will be used or stored on-site at either the power plant or pipeline route. Some hazardous materials such as gasoline, diesel fuel, motor oil, hydraulic fluid, solvents, cleaners, sealants welding flux, lubricants, paint and paint thinner will be used at the construction sites. Given the nature of these substances, the risk of off-site exposure is insignificant. Operation: Hazardous and acutely hazardous material, such as hydrazine, sulfuric acid, hydrochloric acid, and natural gas will be used for power plant operation. On-site maximum inventories of such materials will be well below the threshold amount requiring a Risk Management Plan. Natural gas will not be stored on-site. MITIGATION: AES shall not store and use amounts of acutely hazardous materials in excess of proposed quantities. Condition: HAZA. AES shall prepare a revised Business Plan and Hazardous Materials Safety Plan for local fire and safety agencies. Condition: HAZ-2 & HAZ-3. References: SA pp.89-95. Disposal MITIGATIONNone None Hazardous wastes will include recyclable materials such as used oil, filters, rags, etc. Non-recyclable hazardous wastes include oil absorbents, welding materials, paints, used grit, weak acids, used batteries, and asbestos and are properly disposed at Class I landfills. (See WASTE MANAGEMENT section.) HAZARDOUS MATERIALS — GENERAL The purpose of this analysis is to determine if the proposed AES Huntington Beach Retool Project handling, storage, or disposal of hazardous materials at the proposed facility. 61 This analysis does not address potential exposure of workers to hazardous materials used at the proposed facility. (See WORKER SAFETY.) There are specific regulations applicable to protection of workers in general the standards for exposure and methods used to protect workers are very different than those applicable to the general public. Employers must inform employees of hazards associated with their work and workers accept a higher level of risk than the general public in exchange for compensation. Workers are thus not afforded the same level of protection normally provided to the public. Further, special protective equipment and training can be used to protect workers and reduce the potential for health impacts associated with the handling of hazardous materials. Application of this type of mitigation would not be appropriate for the general public. For additional information regarding hazardous materials transportation, see TRAFFIC & TRANSPORTATION. For additional information on hazardous waste disposal, see WASTE MANAGEMENT. Impacts Though the HBGS site would be using a number of hazardous materials, none of materials exceed specified threshold amounts, above which some action is required by statute based on available information provided by the AES. The USEPA RMP, CaIARP and Cal/OSHA PSM programs each individually list threshold-planning quantities for specific hazardous materials. If the quantity of a material on site exceeds the threshold amount, the facility needs to implement chemical accident prevention and preparedness measures that may include a Risk Management Plan (RMP), pursuant to each regulation. The RMP is a detailed engineering analysis of the potential accident factors at a business and the mitigation measures that can be implemented to reduce accident potentials. According to the above programs, only materials that met certain toxicological, physical and accident criteria were identified and listed. Materials above the thresholds were thought to pose a significant hazard to the community as they could cause death, injury or serious adverse effects to human health and are commonly referred to as acutely hazardous materials. Of the listed materials, only hydrazine, sulfuric acid and hydrochloric acid are identified as being on site as part of the HBGS. AES has indicated that the on-site maximum inventories of these materials are well below the threshold amounts specified by the USEPA RMP, CaIARP and Cal/OSHA PSM programs. The project therefore does not require the implementation of chemical accident prevention and preparedness safeguards as required by those programs. Both sulfuric and hydrochloric acids are very corrosive materials. Both have relatively low vapor pressures and will not readily volatize in the event of a release. AES has indicated that a gallon of hydrochloric acid and less than five gallons of sulfuric acid would be on site. Given these conditions, the potential for any off site significant threat to the public is low. Hydrazine, in the liquid form, on the other hand, is not only corrosive but also flammable and toxic. It also has a relatively high vapor pressure. AES has indicated that a 35% hydrazine solution would be used and the maximum on-site volume would be 180 gallons. A 3:1 (approximately 35 percent) solution of hydrazine in water renders it low to moderately inflammable. Staff is of the opinion that practices proposed by AES, though prudent, need to be supplemented by additional precautions for hydrazine storage and use. These are outlined in the Conditions of Certification, HAZ-3, and should not only limit but also mitigate any potential off-site consequences. The remaining hazardous materials are those that are common and also pose less off-site risks to the public as they typically exhibit characteristics, which are less hazardous than hydrazine, sulfuric or 62 hydrochloric acids. Further, hazardous materials storage and use for the HBGS are not proposed to be in bulk quantities or on a scale that would typically be encountered in a chemical production plant or petroleum refinery. Either very small quantities or limited quantities of hazardous materials would be stored or used for the HBGS. By lowering the quantity of a hazardous material stored on site, the severity of the hazard associated with it is reduced. Natural gas, which will be used as a fuel by the HBGS, poses a fire and/or explosion risk as a result of its flammability. While natural gas will be used in significant quantities, it will not be stored on site. No changes are expected to be needed to the existing piping network for the HBGS. The risk of a fire and/or explosion from natural gas can be reduced to insignificant levels through adherence to applicable codes and the development and implementation of effective safety management practices. Safeguards that are already in place at the generating station would be incorporated into the HBGS: Additional proposed safeguards and measures to greatly reduce the opportunity for, or extent of, exposure to hazardous materials would supplement these in turn. AES has indicated that that it has safety systems that add several layers of protection and defense between hazardous materials and the public as part of accident prevention. These include • Mechanical integrity programs for inspection of critical equipment • Preventive maintenance programs to maintain equipment in acceptable working order • Interlocks to monitor and stop operations if they exceed preset limits • Concrete dikes and secondary containment to contain spills • Detectors to identify releases • Separate storage of incompatible hazardous materials • Pollution prevention measures such as on going product substitution for more benign or less hazardous materials • Storage of limited amounts of hazardous materials through administrative controls • Training programs for plant personnel in hazardous materials handling • Use of a Safety and Environmental Specialist for hazardous materials management • Fire extinguishing and spill response equipment for emergencies • Use of written plans and procedures for hazardous materials management In the unlikely event of a serious release, an in-house plant hazardous materials response team would be activated. The hazardous materials capabilities of the Huntington Beach Fire Department would also be secured and used, as needed, in such an event. The closest fire station with first responder responsibility is Magnolia Station # 4. Edwards Station # 6 is also available to provide full-fledged hazardous materials response if warranted. Response times are anticipated to be between three to five minutes. A significant number of modern power plants routinely store and use anhydrous ammonia or aqueous ammonia directly for NOx control purposes and the Energy commission has licensed many such plants. The HBGS is proposing to store urea on site and convert it to vapor phase ammonia in a reactor for NOx control purposes. The maximum amount of ammonia that is anticipated to be present in the urea to ammonia process is approximately 165 pounds at any one time according to AES. Of the 165 63 pounds, approximately 5 pounds of vapor phase ammonia would be generated from the urea solution, which would have approximately 160 pounds of free ammonia in it. Urea is not considered an acutely hazardous material like anhydrous or aqueous ammonia and is therefore, not a listed material according to any of the above regulatory programs. It is a benign and stable material and its use significantly reduces much of the hazards and risks associated with the use of either anhydrous or aqueous ammonia. The quantity of ammonia in the reactor is well below the thresholds specified according to USEPA RMP (anhydrous ammonia-10, 000 pounds, aqueous —20%-20,000 pounds), CalARP (anhydrous and aqueous ammonia-500 pounds) and Cal/OSHA (anhydrous-10000 pounds, aqueous-44%-15,000 pounds) programs to pose any significant risks to the public. CUMULATIVE IMPACTS As proposed, the facility will cause no significant risk of off-site impacts. Thus, the direct impacts of the HBGS will not add to any existing accidental release risks, so no cumulative impacts are possible. Findings With the implementation of the Conditions of Certification, below, the project conforms to applicable laws related to hazardous materials management and all potential adverse impacts related to hazardous materials management will be mitigated to insignificance. CONDITIONS OF CERTIFICATION HAZARDOUS MATERIALS INVENTORY HAZ-1: The project owner shall not use any hazardous material not listed, or in greater quantities than those identified by chemical name in Section 5.15.2.2 of the AFC dated December 2000 and the Applicant's data response of February 22, 2001 to Energy Commission's data request # 35, unless approved in advance by the CPM. Verification: The project owner shall provide to the CPM, in the Annual Compliance Report, a list of hazardous materials contained at the facility in quantities that require disclosure under City of Huntington Beach Municipal Code, Chapter 17.58. BUSINESS PLAN HAZ-2: The project owner shall provide an updated Business Plan. Verification: At least 45 days prior to the startup of the HBGS boiler/steam turbine Units 3 and 4, the owner shall undertake a hazardous materials floor plan exercise with the Huntington Beach Fire Department, and provide a copy of the revised Business Plan approved by the City of Huntington Beach Fire Department to the CPM. HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SAFETY PLAN HAZ- 3: The project owner shall update the existing HBGS Safety Manual, Oil and Hazardous Substances Spill and Prevention Plan, HBGS Emergency Response Plan and facility standard operating procedures to accommodate the changes triggered by the HBGS. The project owner shall ensure that hydrazine is not unloaded using a forklift, that it is stored separately from oxidizers and acids, that a portable hydrazine vapor detector area will be used to sweep the storage area at the start and end of each shift, that the storage area is free of ignition sources and that the storage area is 64 adequately ventilated, that hydrazine delivery is supervised and monitored by at least one facility staff person who shall stand by with a pressurized water hose and that spill neutralization chemicals are stored in close proximity to the unloading area, as a minimum. Verification: At least 60 days prior to startup of Units 3 and 4, the project owner shall furnish an updated copy of the Safety Manual and the Emergency Response Plan, to the CPM for approval. Copies of the Plan and Manual shall also be furnished to the City of Huntington Beach Fire Department. 65 LAWS, ORDINANCES, REGULATIONS & STANDARDS HAZARDOUS MATERIALS � . APPLICABLE'LAW:::�.... ,�. �.,;. D'ESCRIPTIONF.�,.,,.: FEDERAL Clean Air Act (40 CFR 68) Requires a RMP if listed hazardous materials are stored above threshold quantities (TQ). Clean Water Act 40 CFR 112 Requires preparation of an SPCC plan if oil is stored above TQ. SARA Title III, Section 302 Requires certain planning activities when EHSs are present in excess of TQ. Aqueous ammonia to be used onsite in excess of TQ. SARA Title III, Section 311 MSDSs to be kept onsite for each hazardous material. Required to be submitted to SERC, LEPC and local fire department. SARA Title III, Section 313 Requires annual reporting of releases of hazardous materials. 49 CFR 171-177 Governs the transportation of hazardous materials, including the marking of the transportation vehicles. STATE Health & Safety Code §25500, Requires preparation of HMBP if hazardous materials are handled or stored in et se Waters Bill excess of I-Q. Health & Safety Code §25531, Requires registration of facility with local authorities and preparation of RMP if et seg. hazardous materials stored or handled in excess of TQ. CCR Title 8, Section 5189 Facility owners are required to implement safety management plans to ensure safe handling of hazardous materials. California Building Code Requirements re ardi na the storage and handling of hazardous materials. California Government Code, Restricts issuance of COD until facility has submitted a RMP. Section 65850.2 LOCAL None 66 LAND USE P41NER PLANT S#JP OUNal111C�' CUML1L}lT1�_ LC?RS y e� 400 e 51 5ET7"lN. , IMPAC� S .m.. O Will IAN�C .. R General/Special Plans ' IPowerPlant: The power plant site conforms to the public use designation for ilities in the General Plan of the City of Huntington Beach. References: SA pp. 109 - 124. ZoningNone IN ININNY The City of Huntington Beach Zoning Ordinance designates the site as General Industrial. The power plant stack height and acreage do not conform to the Zoning Ordinance that was adopted following original construction, but the facility is a recognized pre-existing use. References: SA p.118 Existing/ one Planned Uses The Retooling Project will not result in a level of activity or change in the configuration of the Huntington Beach Generating Station that is substantially different from that which has been experience for many years. Nor will the Retooling Project interfere with existing or planned uses surrounding the site. Potential project-related air quality, public health, noise, visual and traffic impacts, including those to neighboring residences, have been mitigated to a level of maximum feasibility or insignificance. References: SA pp. 121-122 LAND USE - GENERAL Power Plant The AES facility occupies approximately a 53-acre parcel in the City of Huntington Beach. Much of the city has been developed, with many of the remaining undeveloped parcels committed to development by specific plans and development agreements or preserved for open space. The City's General Plan indicates that the "...fundamental patterns, distribution, and form of development of use have been established" (General Plan, page 11-LU-1). General Plan/Specific Plan The General Plan for the City of Huntington Beach, adopted May 13, 1996, provides the framework for management and utilization of the City's physical, economic and human resources. The General Plan establishes the location, types, intensity and distribution of land uses throughout the city, including areas within the coastal zone. The General Plan is organized into the following Chapters: Community Development; Infrastructure and Community Services; Natural Resources; and Hazards. In addition, the City has adopted a Coastal Element that serves as the city's Local Coastal Program, and was certified by the Coastal Commission in March 1985. The General Plan designates the site as Public, which includes public utility use. 67 Zoning Ordinances The Zoning Ordinance establishes specific zone districts and land use regulations for properties within the city. The project site is located in the City of Huntington Beach, in the General Industrial zone district. See Figure LU-2, City of Huntington Beach, Zoning Designations in the Vicinity of the HBGS Retool Project. (See LAND USE Figure 1 and LAND USE Figure 2). City of Huntington Beach Urban Design Guidelines The Urban Design Guidelines implement the Urban Design Element of the General Plan. The Guidelines provide guidance for various types of uses, as well as specific comments regarding lighting, landscaping, and other features of specific sites within the community. City of Huntington Beach Specific Plans The proposed project is located in the vicinity of two specific plan areas. While not included within either specific plan area, the project site is identified in the Downtown Specific Plan and Magnolia Specific Plan as reserved for power. Existing/Planned Uses The proposed facility is located in the General Industrial Zone District and is consistent with the 1and use designation in the City of Huntington Beach The proposed project would re-tool two power generating units (Units 3 and 4) that were retired from use in 1995. The units had been operated prior to that time. The power plant site is an established use in the vicinity. With the exception of concerns raised in the General Plan and Huntington Beach staff comments regarding stack height and landscaping/screening issues, the project site appears to have co-existed with the variety of other land uses in the project vicinity for a period of years. The proposed project would not result in a level of activity at the site that would be substantially greater than was previously experienced. Total employment, for example, is project to be 43 full-time personnel, while the plant's previous maximum employment was 41 full-time personnel. The construction, operation and maintenance of Units 3 and 4 would be consistent with existing and planned land uses in the immediate vicinity. Construction and operation of the proposed project, therefore, would not conflict with either existing or planned land uses in the vicinity. The project would not divide an established community. Land uses in the immediate vicinity of the project include mobile home and single-family residential, industrial, schools and parks, and a small area of commercial. The proposed project would not substantially alter the type or intensity of activity on the project site. Neither construction nor operation of the proposed facility would adversely impact these activities. 68 LAND USE-Figure 1 Huntington Beach Repower-Zoning Designations ........................................................... D a<r { t : _. �, ,{^ y" r .. v ..._�_ Legend ..:... BE .} E- .& Y",�.'�eys�g4d /� 6 rt P A' S i �Genaal'Co+rneeda i�tAa,sp�a+nxw.amW rrsa�v�an�ri � t / u4 � �� I f� Neb Catrtw� Ci,n taiilel Eke Data ° `' ' � . ,nq,w.•uroeaYen<nams_ a:w�m, arr�w,w w/, 'r ®gg' p1 %y` s Sii n4�fw+aMru�..v p r sa fewer s t. Pi a .fit+ kariJ:ecte MHtme War &t^�spomsvV - a � S � r 9 W t�9a On pr �� �KI .ar <, ,._a�;- £•<„ & 6 aS N aN 2. a 1-Mile 'Study Area i } `l� �,� _ h �'� ar Ala �� �� W/A✓- .Sii -t ' ME " t z p q �a'� E ,�• xn to : �,.. '=� �'%""� s �3� tit¢K��� r Even�"°eta Wit / r . is '- E a F f o I zmeA M2a = s '�5M`� x � _ Huntington Beach € } Generating ? x v f 3 Station Fz, w TTi*s' T x000 # f v amnnceaBam Map r U.S GS •., ' E �- ' N t0a tow pp...�7 Newport T ach,6a •i; tlalii� 011 to m CALIFORNIA ENERGY COMMISSION,ENERGY FACILITIES SITING&ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION DIVISION,MARCH 2O01 SOURCE:Figure 5.9-1 it LAND USE-Figure 2 Huntington Beach Repower-General Plan tea d t [ E -z a pa 4✓i k (---- I .�CIP SPa fiE:a sy ♦...y :. e � � 9 E Y �� 351 ♦ - a�/ � � gam � � -i � _ _�°*" ���, g� i F7 aes'artuai Mztl um Gen.i� ,#�• ,�� � f d a g - { �nr'do^eai HrD�Pens ry `m 1 iStudyArea Ny l! ems^ -a�� ti � •Y ,� a �,. k E r t ai n k 1 r f Huntington ii,�Lr a� yf N Beach Generating jr? a Station U ^a R - •�• `` i'^-,.y �`� P�"� •.t\L�av:xi e<�r_[�,A R rEx.,.s��iu=� ..F�". .,a._w 1 � � f \; r� tC`allf�,� _�`{€ 1 W. Z _..__ 'oration / C m CALIFORNIA ENERGY COMMISSION,ENERGY FACILITIES SITING&ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION DIVISION,MARCH 2O01 SOURCE:Figure 5.9-2 Cumulative Impacts The proposed facility is located in a portion of the City of Huntington Beach zoned for such use, and would be consistent with the pattern of development proposed for the site and vicinity. The project is not related to any other project, and would not have the potential to encourage other similar uses. No cumulative impacts in terms of land use have been identified for the project. Findings The project conforms to applicable laws related to land use and all potential land use impacts and would be compatible with existing and planned land uses in the vicinity of the project. CONDITIONS OF CERTIFICATION There are no conditions of certification. 71 I LAWS, ORDINANCES, REGULATIONS & STANDARDS LAND USE 4 I 'AP#'LICABL('�,L 4W DESCRIPTION FEDERAL Federal Aviation Administration Interruption of flight patterns by exhaust stacks. STATE California Coastal Act, Public The Coastal Commission may designate uses consistent with the Act. Resources Code § 30000 LOCAL City of Huntington Beach Requires the coordination of land use policies within local cities. General Plan City of Huntington Beach Zoning Implements the General Plan land use provisions. Ordinance 72 NOISE POWER PLANT' SURP_J UNP1 C(�MULATl1/E �� 3 G .... $.ATE ,5 TT1NG v lNl,PACTS Loudness/ Time of Day MITIGATION, MITIGATION 4 Construction — Power Plant: The closest residential receptors include the Huntington-By-The-Sea RV Resort and the Huntington-By-The-Sea Mobil Resort, located approximately 250 feet and 455 feet, respectively, from Unit 4. See NOISE — Figure 1, ML2. The Huntington Beach Municipal Code exempts noise due to construction during the hours of 7 a.m. to 8 p.m., except Sundays and holidays. At any other time, construction is allowed, provided that noise due to it does not exceed Code requirements. Construction activities after 8:00 p.m. are permitted with a variance. Nighttime noise limits at the nearest residential receptor are 55 dBA. Current ambient noise levels at this receptor currently are between 53 to 56 dBA. Nighttime construction, 7 days per week is necessary in order to bring the project's generation on line during the 2001 summer peak loads. Noisy nighttime construction will significantly affect the sleep and peace of nearby residential receptors. MITIGATION: AES will notify neighboring residents and business owners of impending construction at the power plant site and disseminate a telephone "hotline" number to report any undesirable noise conditions. Condition: NOISE-1. Additionally, AES.will create a noise complaint process through which AES will attempt to resolve all noise complaints. Condition: NOISE-2. Noisy construction work will be restricted to 7 a.m. to 8 p.m. Nighttime construction is limited to "quiet" construction that will not exceed current ambient nighttime noise levels by 5 dBA.. Condition: NOISE-6. It is necessary to clear the steam pipes of debris that would damage the steam turbine blades. This flushing process, known as a steam blow, is traditionally accomplished by venting high-pressure steam to the atmosphere, which would produce a very loud noise at the nearest residential receptor. Use of exhaust silencers on the steam blow piping can reduce the noise, and AES is considering the. use of either a new, quieter steam blow process or alternative flushing processes. MITIGATJON: If AES uses high-pressure steam blow, AES will so notify nearby residents and use silencers and limit hours of steam blow. Conditions: NOISE-3 & NOISE-4. Operation: During its operating life, the project will represent essentially a steady, continuous noise source day and night. The noise emitted by power plants during normal operations is generally broadband, steady state in nature. Occasional short-term increases in noise level will occur as steam relief valves open to vent pressure, or during startup or shutdown, as the plant transitions to and from steady-state operation. MITIGATION: AES will conduct a "before and after" comparative community noise survey once the power plant achieves full operation to determine if the project conforms to applicable daytime and nighttime noise limitations. If necessary, AES will perform additional noise mitigation to achieve applicable noise limitations. Condition: NOISE-5. References: SA pp. 150-154 73 NOISE — GENERAL The construction and operation of any power plant creates noise, or unwanted sound. The character and loudness of this noise, the times of day or night that it is produced, and the proximity of the facility to sensitive receptors combine to determine whether the facility would meet applicable noise control laws and ordinances, and whether it would exhibit significant adverse environmental impacts. In some cases, vibration may be produced as a result of power plant operation or construction practices, such as pile driving. The ground-borne energy of vibration has the potential to cause structural damage and annoyance. The purpose of this analysis is to identify and examine the likely noise and vibration impacts from the construction and operation of the Huntington Beach Generating Station Retool Project (Retool Project), and to recommend procedures to ensure that the resulting noise and vibration impacts would be adequately mitigated to comply with applicable laws, ordinances, regulations, and standards (LORS). Existing Noise Levels In order to predict the likely noise effects of the project on adjacent sensitive receptors, AES commissioned an ambient noise survey of the area. The survey was conducted, at various hourly time intervals, at four off-site locations on November 14 and 15, 2000. The noise survey was conducted using two sound level meters, with the microphones mounted approximately five feet above ground level to simulate the average height of the human ear. The noise survey monitored existing noise levels at the following four off-site measurement locations (MLs): • 25 consecutive 1-hour measurements were taken near the west entry gate of the HBGS (Measurement Location 1 [ML1]). • Three 1-hour measurements, one each during the day, evening, and nighttime periods, were taken at the east boundary of the Huntington By The Sea Mobil Resort (MI-2), which is approximately 250 feet west of the project site. • Three 1-hour measurements, one each during the day, evening, and nighttime periods, were taken at the north side of Hamilton Avenue (ML3), which is approximately 2,000 feet north of HBGS Units 3 and 4. • Three 1-hour measurements, one each during the day, evening, and nighttime periods, were taken adjacent to the intersection of Banning Avenue and Magnolia Street (ML4), which is approximately 2,300 feet east of the HBGS Units 3 and 4. During the noise measurement periods, only Unit 1 at the HBGS was in operation. Noise from the HBGS, typical residential noise, and traffic contributed to the noise environment at ML1 and ML2. Noise from vehicular traffic on Hamilton Street contributed to the noise environment at ML3. Noise from vehicular traffic on Magnolia Street and Banning Avenue contributed to the noise environment at M L4 . 74 NOISE- Figure 1 Huntington beach Generating Station Retool Project ] X . a1 "hiai�tndC Lii� i , �, E ,C.aW.� �acaYe i t1 4, tw&-a,,,_ Z FRO s s �A, I �. ��" '. t �a ma TO r K j `i °'tea'' i s Y "ate' t a .. '` #. "�4. �^ �" S- •� 4 CC..a ^�? �L sj �& \PI - � �. 4A, }� a w ✓af _ u 3T Y '� a 91 ca t � j IF CALIFORNIA ENERGY COMMISSION,ENERGY FACILITIES SITING&ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION DIVISION,MARCH 2O01 SUMMARY OF MEASURED NOISE LEVELS Measurement Sites Measured Noise Levels, dBA Nigh ime CNEL, dB Leg L90 ML1 59.1 53.8 68.1 ML2 56.4 53.1 63.6* ML3 51.1 44.4 58.3* ML4 55.5 47.1 62.6* *-Applicant's estimate Since the Applicant measured noise levels when only Unit 1 was in operation, Energy Commission staff requested additional data describing the expected noise levels at the four measurement sites during operation of Unit 5, which consists of eight "peaking" combustion turbine generator units. The applicant responded with information based upon noise measurements conducted a distance of 200 feet from Unit 5, on January 20, 2000. According to City of Huntington Beach staff, an amplified sound system is used at the existing HBGS to communicate with workers on the plant grounds and equipment. The amplified voices are reportedly audible and distracting to the nearest residents, and have been the source of some complaints to the City. City staff also noted that, since the prevailing winds are from the ocean, there was some concern that the'noise monitoring conducted by the applicant did not include a measurement site directly down wind of the HBGS, near the intersection of Hamilton Avenue and Magnolia Street. Loudness/Time of Day Construction — Power Plant: Routine daytime construction, including noisy construction, should not create a significant impact at neighboring residential receptors. The Huntington Beach Municipal Code exempts noise due to construction during the hours of 7 a.m. to 8 p.m., except Sundays and holidays. At any other time, construction is allowed, provided that noise due to it does not exceed Code requirements. However, the nighttime construction required to bring this project on line to provide critically needed electricity to summer 2001 peak loads would, if not mitigated, cause a significant impact on nearby residents. AES contemplates a 20-hour per day, seven days per week construction schedule. Nighttime and Sunday or federal holiday construction requires a variance under the Huntington Beach Municipal Code. The Energy Commission has determined that without nighttime and Sunday or federal holiday construction the Retool Project will not be available in summer 2001 as contemplated by the Governor's Executive Order D-22-01. Therefore, such construction must be permitted, subject to the substantive requirements of the Municipal Code's variance provisions. The Energy Commission finds that overriding circumstances require nighttime construction, which can be mitigated by restrictions upon "noisy" construction. MITIGATION: The Energy Commission will permit "quiet" nighttime construction from 6:00 a.m. to 7:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. to 2:00 a.m. that will not exceed the pre-construction ambient average noise level measured at the nearest residential receptor (ML2) by more than 5 dBA, which is the threshold of perceived change of noise. The Commission will also permit Sunday and federal holiday construction subject to the same nighttime limitation. Conditions NOISE-5 & NOISE-6 76 Operation — Power Plant: During its operating life, the Huntington Beach Units 3 & 4 Retool Project will represent essentially a steady, continuous noise source day and night. The noise emitted by power plants during normal operations is generally broadband, steady state in nature. Occasional short-term increases in noise level will occur as steam relief valves open to vent pressure, or during startup or shutdown, as the plant transitions to and from steady-state operation. At other times, such as when the plant is shut down for lack of dispatch or for maintenance, noise levels will decrease. The City of Huntington Beach Municipal Code is potentially more restrictive than the Noise Element of the General Plan, in that the nighttime noise standard for steady-state noise is 50 dBA, unless the ambient noise level is higher. In this case, the ambient noise level is higher. Commission staff's analysis showed that unmitigated project noise levels would likely not comply with the Huntington Beach Municipal Code. Estimated increases in noise level would approach or exceed 5 dBA. In the case of the Huntington-By-The-Sea Mobile and RV Resorts, estimated increases in unmitigated noise level approached 9 dBA. Generally, a change of at least 5 dBA is required before a change in noise level is noticeable. AES has proposed a number of noise mitigation measures, including unspecified engineering noise controls and solid sound barriers along the perimeters of the Huntington-By-The-Sea Mobile and RV Resorts. MITIGATION: AES will conduct a "before and after" comparative community noise survey once the .....:....... power plant achieves full operation to determine if the project conforms to applicable daytime and nighttime noise limitations. If necessary, AES will perform additional noise mitigation to achieve applicable noise limitations. Condition: NOISE-5. Cumulative Impacts Future development near the project site includes two commercial projects and one oilfield remediation project. The potential noise impacts from these projects are traffic related, and thus would not be of consequence when combined with the proposed project. The potential effects of the on-site Poseidon Company Desalination Project will be the subject of a separate environmental assessment. Findings With the implementation of the Conditions of Certification, below, all potential noise impacts will be mitigated to insignificance. Although the facility as conditioned does not comply with the Huntington Beach Municipal Code provisions regarding construction noise emissions, the proposed project is required for the public convenience and necessity. It is necessary to provide the increased electric generating capacity in order to avoid the disruption of electric service and the consequent threats to the health and safety of Californians and that increased capacity must be provided as soon as possible. In the context of California's current shortage of generating capacity for the summer peak season, any delay in the start of operation of the facility beyond July 1, 2001 that can be avoided is unacceptable. There is no more prudent and feasible means of achieving the above public convenience and necessity than to allow the construction noise to exceed the limits provided in the City's ordinance. Construction must take place 20 hours per day, Sundays and holidays included, in order to complete construction and place the generating capacity on line by the middle of July 2001. 77 These findings regarding LORS compliance and the Commission's approval of the HBGS Retool Project are consistent with the Governor's direction in Executive Order D-28-01 to "follow substantive requirements designed to achieve environmental protection and the protection of public health and safety to the maximum extent consistent with the prompt execution of those executive orders" [requiring action to improve the supply of electricity]. CONDITIONS OF CERTIFICATION PRE-CONSTRUCTION NOTICE & CONSTRUCTION NOISE COMPLAINT HOTLINE NOISE-1: At least 15 days prior to the start of project-related ground disturbing activities, the project owner shall notify all residents and business owners within one-half mile of the site, by mail or other effective means, of the commencement of project construction. At the same time, the project owner shall establish and disseminate a 24-hour"hotline" telephone number for use by the public to report any undesirable noise conditions associated with the construction of the project. This telephone number shall also be posted at the project site during construction in a manner visible to passersby. This telephone number shall be maintained until the project has been operational for at least one year. The project owner shall designate a noise monitoring officer for each construction shift. The noise monitoring officer shall be trained in the use of an audiometer and shall be empowered to halt any construction activities causing or likely to cause an exceedence of the Conditions of Certification herein. The noise monitoring officer shall carry a portable electronic device (such as telephone or pager) to receive any incoming "hotline" call. The noise monitoring officer shall log each construction noise complaint on a CPM-approved complaint form and attempt to resolve the complaint. For construction noise complaints received from 10 p.m. to 7 a.m., the noise monitoring officer shall take immediate steps to determine whether power plant construction is causing the noise and, if so, reduce the noise level of that activity as quickly as possible not to exceed one hour in order to comply with the Conditions of Certification for nighttime "quiet" construction. The noise monitoring officer, as appropriate, shall measure site fence-line noise levels to assure compliance. If the noise complaint is not resolved to the satisfaction of the complainant, the noise monitoring officer shall provide the Commission's toll free compliance telephone number (800- 858-0784). In the event of construction noise complaints, either from a single affected residence or multiple, residences, for two consecutive nights (10 p.m. to 7 a.m.), the project owner shall monitor noise levels from the receptor for no less than the following two nights. If noise levels exceed the Conditions of Certification, the project owner shall either offer off-site noise abatement mitigation at the affected residence or shall establish a program for temporary lodging for the occupants of such an affected residence. Verification: The project owner shall transmit to the Energy Commission Compliance Project Manager (CPM) in the first Monthly Construction Report following the start of project-related ground disturbing activities, a statement, signed by the project manager, attesting that the above notification has been performed, and describing the method of that notification. This statement shall also attest that the telephone number has been established and posted at the site and that the noise compliance officers has been designated. 78 Within 5 days of receiving a complaint for construction noise occurring between 7 a.m. to 8 p.m., the project owner shall file a copy of the Noise Complaint Resolution Form, or similar instrument approved by the CPM, with the City of Huntington Beach, and with the CPM, documenting the resolution of the .complaint. If mitigation is required to resolve a complaint, and the complaint is not resolved within a 3- day period, the project owner shall submit an updated Noise Complaint Resolution Form when the Mitigation is finally implemented. Within 24 hours of receiving a complaint for construction noise occurring between 10 p.m. and 7 a.m., the project owner shall file a copy of the Noise Complaint Resolution Form, or similar instrument approved by the CPM, with the City of Huntington Beach, and with the CPM, documenting the resolution of the complaint. If mitigation is required to resolve a complaint, and the complaint is not resolved within a 3-day period, the project owner shall submit an updated Noise Complaint Resolution Form when the mitigation is finally implemented. OPERATION NOISE COMPLAINT PROCESS NOISE-2: Throughout the operation of the project, the project owner shall document, investigate, evaluate, and attempt to resolve all project-related noise complaints. The project owner or authorized agent shall: • if the telephone is not staffed 24 hours per day, the project owner shall include an automatic answering feature, with date and time stamp recording, to answer calls when the phone is unattended; • use the Noise Complaint Resolution. Form, or functionally equivalent procedure acceptable to the CPM, to document and respond to each noise complaint; • attempt to contact the person(s) making the noise complaint within 24 hours; • conduct an investigation to determine the source of noise related to the complaint; • if the noise is project related, take all feasible measures to reduce the noise at its source; and • submit a report documenting the complaint and the actions taken. The report shall include: a complaint summary, including final results of noise reduction efforts; and if obtainable, a signed statement by the complainant stating that the noise problem is resolved to the complainant's satisfaction. Verification: Within 5 days of receiving a noise complaint, the project owner shall file a copy of the Noise Complaint Resolution Form, or similar instrument approved by the CPM, with the City of Huntington Beach, and with the CPM, documenting the resolution of the complaint. If mitigation is required to resolve a complaint, and the complaint is not resolved within a 3-day period, the project owner shall submit an updated Noise Complaint Resolution Form when the mitigation is finally implemented. STEAM BLOW MANAGEMENT NOISE-3: If a traditional, high-pressure steam blow process is employed, the project owner shall equip steam blow piping with a temporary silencer that quiets the noise of steam blows to no greater than 85 dBA measured at a distance of 200 feet. The project owner shall conduct steam blows only during the hours of 9 a.m. to .5 p.m., unless the CPM agrees to longer hours based on a demonstration by the project owner that offsite noise impacts will not cause annoyance. If a low-pressure continuous steam blow process is employed, the project owner shall submit a description of this process, with expected noise levels and projected hours of execution, to the CPM, who shall review the proposal with the objective of ensuring that the resulting noise levels and impacts are consistent with the above noise 79 standards and hours of operation. If the low-pressure process is approved by the CPM, the project owner shall implement it in accordance with the requirements of the CPM. Verification: At least 15 days prior to the first high-pressure steam blow, the project owner shall submit to the CPM drawings or other information describing the temporary steam blow silencer and the noise levels expected, and a description of the steam blow schedule. At least 15 days prior to any low- pressure continuous steam blow, the project owner shall submit to the CPM drawings or other information describing the process, including the noise levels expected and the projected time schedule for execution of the process. STEAM BLOW NOTIFICATION NOISE-4: At least 15 days prior to the first steam blow(s), the project owner shall notify all residents or business owners within one mile of the site of the planned steam blow activity, and shall make the notification available to other area residents in an appropriate manner. The notification may be in the form of letters to the area residences, telephone calls, fliers or other effective means. The notification shall include a description of the purpose and nature of the steam blow(s), the proposed schedule, the expected sound levels, and the explanation that it is a one-time operation and not a part of normal plant operations. Verification: Within five (5) days of notifying these entities, the project owner shall send a letter to the CPM confirming that they have been notified of the planned steam blow activities, including a description of the method(s) of that notification. NOISE RESTRICTIONS NOISE-5: Prior to initiating construction, the project owner will conduct a 25-hour community noise survey, at the closest residential receptor (applicant's ML2 location). In addition, the applicant shall conduct three one-hour noise measurements during day, evening and nighttime hours in the vicinity of Magnolia Street, approximately halfway between Hamilton and Banning Avenues (MI-5). The project design and implementation shall include noise mitigation measures adequate to ensure that the project operations will not cause noise levels to exceed the noise standards of the City of Huntington Beach Municipal Code, or to exceed the ambient background noise level (L90) at residential receivers by more than 5 dBA. On-site noise reduction shall be the primary noise mitigation method. If off-site mitigation is additionally required, such as the proposed noise barrier (wall) at the perimeter of the Huntington By The Sea Mobil and RV Resorts, implementation will be subject to the approval of the landowner. Within 30 days of the project first achieving a sustained output of 80 percent or greater of rated capacity, the project owner shall conduct three one-hour noise measurements during day, evening and nighttime hours at sites ML3, ML4 and ML5. In addition, the applicant shall conduct an additional 25- hour community noise survey at ML2. The survey during power plant operations shall also include measurement of one-third octave band sound pressure levels to ensure that no new pure-tone noise components have been introduced. No single piece of equipment shall be allowed to stand out as a source of noise that draws legitimate complaints. Steam relief valves shall be adequately muffled to preclude noise that draws legitimate complaints, and to ensure compliance with the Huntington Beach Municipal Code. 80 If the results from the two noise surveys (pre-construction vs. operations) indicate that the background noise levels (L90) at any of the noise sensitive receptors (ML2, ML3, ML4 or ML5) have increased by more than 5 dBA for any given hour during the measurement period, or if the measured noise levels exceed the standards of the City of Huntington Beach Municipal Code, additional mitigation measures shall be implemented to reduce noise to a level of compliance with this limit. Verification: Within 15 days after completing the survey, the project owner shall submit a summary report of the survey to the City of Huntington Beach and to the CPM. Included in the report will be a description of any additional mitigation measures necessary to achieve compliance with the above listed noise limits, and a schedule, subject to CPM approval, for implementing these measures. Within 15 days of completion of installation of these measures, the project owner shall submit to the CPM a summary report of a new noise survey, performed as described above and showing compliance with this condition. CONSTRUCTION TIME RESTRICTIONS NOISE-6: Heavy equipment operation and noisy construction work shall be restricted to the times of day delineated below: Any Day 7 a.m. to 8 p.m. Noise due to start-up steam blows shall be restricted to the times of day delineated below: Any Day 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. All other construction shall be limited to 20 hours per 24-hour day (6:00 a.m, to 2:00 a.m.), except that the noise levels due to such work that occur outside the hours of 7 a.m. to 8 p.m. shall not exceed the ambient background noise levels (1-90) at residential receivers by more than 5 dBA.. Verification: The project owner shall transmit to the CPM in the first Monthly Compliance Report a statement acknowledging that the above restrictions will be observed throughout the construction of the project. 81 LAWS, ORDINANCES, REGULATIONS & STANDARDS NOISE _ :DESCRI vti. ._. .. 'APPLICABLELAW...'', ham.,; � PTION�,. ..... ....... .�,e:;j.,a^ , FEDERAL EPA 1974 Noise Guidelines Guidelines for State and Local Governments HUD Circular 1390.2 Directions for noise levels at construction site boundaries not to exceed 65 dBA for 9 hours in a 24-hour period. 29 CFR Section 1910.95 (OSHA Exposure of workers to over an 8-hour shift should be limited to 90 dBA. Health and Safety Act of 1970 STATE California Vehicle Code§23130 Regulates vehicle noise limits on California Highways. and 23130.5 8 CCR §5095 et seq. (Cal- Sets employee noise exposure limits. Equivalent to Federal OSHA OSHA) standards. LOCAL Chapter 8.40, City of Huntington Establishes City of Huntington Beach noise limits and provides an exemption Beach Municipal Code for weekday and Saturday daytime construction. 82 PUBLIC HEALTH f't R PLAN7` StlRR©UN©SIN C(lMIILATIVE �R5 5/,T,E "r SE,TTlNG,,, IMPACTS � OM� ANCE..,,,, Construction Health Risks None MITIGATION -Large construction equipment potentially causes a violation of the California 1-hour NO2 standard and contributes to existing violations of state 24-hour and annual PM10 standards. To minimize NO2 and PM 10 emissions, AES shall require its construction contractors to minimize emissions from diesel powered equipment and use low sulfur fuel. Excavation activities potentially produce dust which can be transported off-site by wind. To control airborne fugitive dust, AES shall water or apply chemical dust suppressants to disturbed areas, apply gravel or paving to traffic areas, and wash wheels of vehicles or large trucks leaving the site. MITIGATION: AES shall require construction contractors to tune engines on all heavy equipment and meet EPA off-road equipment emission standards. Condition AQ-C3. AES shall use low sulfur diesel fuel. Condition: AQ-C2. AES shall prepare and implement a Fugitive Dust Mitigation Plan to minimize dust during construction. Condition: AQ-Cl. References: SA pp. 63-70. Cancer Risks The health risk assessment for non-criteria air pollutants conducted under California Air Pollution Control Officer's Association guidelines finds a maximum exposure to the highest level of carcinogenic project pollutants for 70 years has a cancer risk of 0.312 in a million, well below the 1 in a million benchmark for a potential health impact. Reference: SA p. 68-69 Non-Cancer Risks The health risk assessment for non-criteria air pollutants conducted under California Air Pollution Control Officer's Association guidelines finds an exposure to the highest level of project pollutants produces a chronic hazard index of 0.00148 and an acute hazard index of 0.0022. Both are below a threshold hazard index of 1.0, and thus not a significant health impact. Ongoing exceedences of the California 1-hour ozone standard and 24-hour PM10 standard suggest a background health hazard. AES has fully mitigated project ozone and PM10 impacts through offsets, thus making the project's ozone and PM10 contributions insignificant in terms of public health impact. (See Air Quality) References: SA pp. 68-69 PUBLIC HEALTH — GENERAL Operating the proposed power plant would create combustion products and possibly expose the general public and workers to these pollutants as well as the toxic chemicals associated with other aspects of facility operations. The purpose of this public health analysis is to determine whether a significant health risk would result from public exposure to these chemicals and combustion by- 83 products routinely emitted during project operations. The issue of possible worker exposure is addressed in the WORKER SAFETY section. Exposure to electric and magnetic fields_ (EMF) is addressed in the TRANSMISSION LINE SAFETY AND NUISANCE section. The exposure of primary concern in this section is to pollutants for which no air quality standards have been established. These are known as non-criteria pollutants, toxic air pollutants, or air toxics. Those for which ambient air quality standards have been established are known as criteria pollutants. The criteria pollutants are also identified in this section because of their potentially significant contribution to the total pollutant exposure in any given area. Furthermore, the same control technologies may be effective for controlling both types of pollutants when emitted from the same source. Construction Health Risks For most projects, the construction-phase impacts of concern in this analysis would be those from exposure to toxic chemicals, either adsorbed on to the wind-blown dust from site grading and other construction-related activities, or emitted from the heavy equipment and vehicles to be used for such construction. The potential for significant impacts is discussed in the Air Quality section for the wind- blown dust itself and the other criteria pollutants in terms of (a) exposures above the applicable air quality standards and (b) compliance with SCAQMD-specified mitigation measures. Since no site grading would be associated with this proposed, there would be no on-site exposure to fugitive dust- bound toxic pollutants capable of the effects of concern. As reflected in the information from the Applicant (AES 2000a, pages 5.2-5, 5.2-43 and Appendix C), the toxic emissions from construction-related tailpipes would be confined within the project site at levels Staff considers insignificant for the three-month construction period involved. Diesel fuel with a sulfur content of 15ppm or less (referred to as ECD-1) is currently available in the Los Angeles area at a rate of 1 million gallons per day. This is compared to the EPA sulfur limit for on-road diesel fuel of no more than 500ppm. ECD-1 has been tested in a variety of on-road and off-road diesel engines, is shown to significantly reduce the sulfur component of particulate emissions and has an added cost of only 5 cents per gallon. Compared to the use of EPA standard low sulfur fuel (500 ppm or less), the use of ECD-1 would result in an approximately a 30 percent reduction of PM10. For NO2 construction emissions mitigation, the Staff recommends the Applicant use available EPA certified 1996 low NOx emission heavy-duty construction equipment or demonstrate that their equipment complies with the EPA '1996 diesel engine emission standards. Based on EPA Tier 1 emission factors for new equipment (circa 1996-2002), the use of low NOx equipment has the potential to reduce NOx emissions by at least 15 to 20%. The Applicant will be required to determine the availability of low NOx heavy-duty construction equipment during their construction services procurement process and detail a methodology for including this factor in the construction bid analysis. AES has indicated that there will be an emergency power generator at the site to provide power in the event of a power outage. Staff recommends that the use of this engine be conditioned to only occur during power outages and that a record of its operations be kept and submitted for compliance verification. MITIGATION: AES shall require construction contractors to tune engines on all heavy equipment and meet EPA off-road equipment emission standards. Condition AQ-C3. AES shall use low sulfur diesel fuel. Condition: AQ-C2. AES shall prepare and implement a Fugitive Dust Mitigation Plan to minimize dust during construction. Condition: AQ-C1. 84 Cancer Risks According to present understanding, cancer from carcinogenic exposure results from biological effects at the molecular level. Such effects are currently assumed possible from every exposure to a carcinogen. Therefore, Energy Commission staff and other regulatory agencies generally consider the likelihood of cancer as more sensitive than the likelihood of non-cancer effects for assessing the environmental acceptability of a source of pollutants. This accounts for the prominence of theoretical cancer risk estimates in the environmental risk assessment process. For any source of specific concern, the potential risk of cancer is obtained by multiplying the exposure estimate by the potency factors for the individual carcinogens involved. The Energy Commission health staff considers a potential cancer risk of one in a million as the de minimis level, which is the level below which the related exposure is negligible (meaning that project operation is not expected to result in any increase in cancer). Above this level, further mitigation could be recommended after consideration of issues related to the limitations of the risk assessment process. AES conducted a health risk assessment for the project-related non-criteria pollutants of potential significance. This assessment was conducted according to procedures specified in the 1993 California Air Pollution Control Officer's Association (CAPCOA) guidelines for sources of this type. The following non-criteria pollutants were considered with respect to a possible cancer risk: acetaldehyde, benzene, 1,3 butadiene, formaldehyde, PAHs and propylene oxide. Energy Commission staff concurred with AES's findings with regard to the numerical public health risk estimates expressed numerically in terms of a cancer risk for estimated levels of the carcinogenic pollutants. The highest cancer risk possible for the exposed individual was calculated as 0.312 in a million. This risk was calculated using existing procedures, which assume that the individual would be exposed at the highest possible levels to all the carcinogenic pollutants from the project for 70 years. The risk is much below Energy Commission staff's de minimis level of 1 in a million, as well as SCAQMD's acceptable level for power plant sources. CURE asserts that the health risk assessment underestimates health risk since it uses emission factors published by the Ventura County Air Pollution Control District for small auxiliary boilers, not utility scale boilers. CURE claims that if metals were included in the emission factors, the cancer risk would increase to 27 in one million. CURE seeks a condition to require a source test which would include facility-specific toxics emission data, including metals. The Commission gives weight to the fact that both the independent Energy Commission staff and the SCAQMD accept the use of the same emission factors found in the Staff Assessment and the Preliminary Determination of Compliance. Given that the calculated risk was well below 1 in a million, let alone the significance threshold, the Commission is satisfied that the cancer risk has been appropriately assessed. Non-Cancer Risk AES's health risk assessment reviewed the following non-criteria pollutants with respect to non-cancer effects: acetaldehyde, acrolein, ammonia, barium, benzene, 1,3 butadiene, cadmium, chromium, copper, cyanide, ethylbenzene, formaldehyde, hexane, lead, manganese, mercury, naphthalene, 85 phenols, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), propylene, propylene oxide, sulfates, toluene, xylenes, and zinc. A chronic hazard index of 0.00148 was calculated for the maximally exposed individual, with and acute hazard index of 0.0022 calculated for the same individual. These indices are below the levels of potential health significance (hazard index 1.0), suggesting that no significant health impacts would likely be associated with the project's non-criteria pollutants. Cumulative Impacts When toxic pollutants are emitted from multiple sources within a given area, the cumulative, or additive, impacts of such emissions could, in concept, lead to significant health impacts within the population, even when such pollutants are emitted at insignificant levels from the individual sources involved. Analyses of such emissions have shown, however, that the peak impacts of such toxic pollutants are normally localized within relatively short distances from the source. Toxic pollutant levels normally fall within ambient background levels beyond the points of maximum impacts. Therefore, potentially significant cumulative impacts are only expected in situations where new sources are located adjacent to one another. Since no significant sources of non-criteria pollutants are presently located or proposed for the project's impact area, no exposures of a cumulative nature are expected during the operational phase. Finding With the implementation of the Conditions of Certification in other sections of this Decision, the project conforms with applicable laws related to public health, and all potential adverse impacts to public health will be mitigated to insignificance. 86 LAWS, ORDINANCES, REGULATIONS & STANDARDS PUBLIC HEALTH r ..;'APPLICgBLE LAWf;. ,J . PESCRIPTIONs �' FEDERAL Clean Air Act, §109 and 301(a). Established air quality standards to protect the public health from exposure to 42 USC §7401 et seq. and 40 air pollutants. CFR 50 " Clean Air Act§112(g), 42 USC Requires review of new or modified sources prior to promulgation of the §7412, and 40 CCR 63 standard and establishes emissions standards for HAP from specific source types including gas turbines. AES will not be a major source of HAP and hence is not subject to these provisions at this time. STATE Health and Safety Code Requires posting of facilities that have chemicals known to cause cancer and §25249.5 et seq. (Safe Drinking public notification of significant risks. Water and Toxic Enforcement Act—Proposition 65 Health and Safety Code§39650- Provides for a special statewide program directed by the ARB to evaluate the 39625 risks associated with emissions of chemicals designated as TAC and to develop and mandate methods to control these emissions. Health and Safety Code §44300 Requires facilities that emit listed criteria or toxic pollutants to submit et seq. (Air Toxics"Hot Spots" emissions inventories to the local air district. Such facilities may also be Information and Assessment Act required to conduct a health risk assessment. —AB2588 LOCAL SCAQMD Rule 402 (Health and Prohibits discharge of air contaminants that cause injury, detriment, nuisance Safety Code §41700 or annoyance to the public, or that damage businesses or property. SCAQMD Rule 1401 Establishes allowable risks for new or modified sources to TAC emissions. SCAQMD Rule 1404 Prohibits the use of hexavalent chromium as a water treatment in cooling towers. 87 SOCIOCECONOMICS POWER PLANT %SURROUNDING CtlMiJLATI�% LOR TTING. IMPACTS .., ' CO1NPLl1'NOE Employment None', None :None Construction: The construction workforce, peaking at 548 workers, will come from a pool of approximately 82,000 construction works in the Orange County area; thereby, creating no employment or population impacts. The project will benefit local employment directly. Operation: The permanent operation workforce of 43 employees will come existing employees or from a pool of surplus plant operations workers in the area. Only one to four new employees may come from outside the study area, which causes no employment or population impact. References: SA p. 222 HousingWone None None Construction: Most of the construction workforce, peaking at 548 workers during the 3-month construction period, is expected to commute to the project. There are sufficient housing resources for any non-commuting workers including hotels, motels, and recreational vehicle parks. Operation: Most (90 to 95 percent) of the operation workforce, estimated at 43 permanent employees, is expected to commute 'to the project. There are sufficient housing resources for any permanent employees to relocate to the project without impacting housing in the study area. References: SA p. 222 Schools • Most of the construction workforce and permanent operators is expected to commute to the project. There would be no impact to the school districts in Huntington Beach or nearby areas. References: SA p, 222. Utility/PublicNone Services Construction: Construction is not expected to create an additional demand for utilities, including landfill disposal or wastewater treatment. Operation: The operation of the power plant increases the potential risk for the use of fire fighting services. Through the development agreement between AES and the City of Huntington Beach, AES will pay a fee for fire fighting services. References: SA p. 224. 88 Economy/ •ne Government Construction: Construction payroll is approximately $43 million. Cost of locally Finance purchased materials is $5 million. To assure the project will benefit local employment directly as well as the local and regional economy through the multiplier effect in the purchase of goods and services AES will recruit workers and make purchases to the extent possible. MITIGATION: AES and its contractors shall recruit employees from the local area to the extent permitted by law and to the extent qualified personnel are available. Condition: SOCIO-1. Operation: Operation payroll for first year is approximately $1.5 million. Capital cost is $130 million. The HBGS generates about $1 million in local tax revenues. With the Retool Project improvements, Huntington Beach should receive an additional $187,000 in property tax revenue, with the High School and Elementary School Districts receiving $264,000 and $268,000 annually, respectively. Reference: SA p.224 Environm None None None Justice Minority/Low Income Population: According to 1990 Census data, approximately 10% of the census tracts within a 6-mile radius had a minority population of 25 to 49% .and no tracts had a minority population exceeding 50%. According to Claritas projections of 2000 census data, there are now three census tracts (out of 80) with a minority population exceeding 75%, and five additional tracts with a minority population between 50 and 74%. However, none of these are the tracts closest to the project site. The low income population proportion is low and does not approach the standard of a 'low income" community. Disproportionate Impacts: There are no significant project-related unmitigated adverse environmental or public health impacts. Potential air quality, public health, and hazardous materials handling impacts to the public have been mitigated to less than significance through the Conditions of Certification in this Decision. The location of the project at an existing power plant site causes no significant land use impact. There are no significant cumulative project impacts, nor adverse impacts that fall disproportionately upon minority or low-income populations. Reference: SA pp. 225-226. 89 SOCIOECONOMICS — GENERAL The socioeconomic impact analysis evaluates the potential direct and cumulative project-induced impacts on community services and/or infrastructure including schools, medical and protective services and related community issues such as environmental justice. The project is at the existing Huntington Beach Generating Station at 21730 Newland Street, southeast of the intersection of Newland Street and Pacific Coast Highway in the City of Huntington Beach. The study area (defined as the five-county southern California area — Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, and Ventura) in the AFC was identified using the Electric Power Research Institute's report titled "Socioeconomic Impacts of Power Plants," which finds among other things that construction workers will commute as much as two hours to construction sites from their homes rather than relocate. Additionally, the report states operational workers will commute as much as one hour to a power plant site from their homes rather than relocate. Employment AES expects that most construction workers would commute daily two hours or less each way to the project site. Most construction workers would not be expected to relocate during construction. During the engineering, procurement, and construction periods extending nine months, peak employment would be 548 (only 0.7% of all construction jobs in Orange County) workers, including 538 craft workers and 10 contractor staff. Employment during operation (or permanent employees) is approximately 10 full-time workers. The construction and operation of the project would not have a significant impact on employment either regionally or locally. In general, full-time jobs have a multiplier effect on the local and regional economy by supporting additionally indirect job growth. It is estimated that two to three indirect jobs would be supported by each construction job, such as those that would be generated by the proposed project. A net benefit is therefore likely to occur. Housing The demand for housing within the study area is not expected to increase appreciably as a result of the proposed project because the vast majority of the work force is expected to commute from within a two- hour distance of the project site. A small percentage of construction workers may choose to commute on a weekly basis; however, there are adequate hotels/motels, recreational vehicle parks, and campgrounds within the local project vicinity to accommodate these workers. The construction of the proposed project will not significantly increase the demand for housing. Schools Due to the large resident labor force available for construction and small permanent labor force that will operate the proposed project, there will not be any enrollment impact on the Huntington Beach or other 90 nearby school districts. One-time school impact fees would not be generated by the project since no additional square footage will be added. Utility/Public Services Construction and operation of the project is not expected to create a demand for utilities that cannot be met by local utility providers. There is adequate water, natural gas and electrical supplies, as well as available landfill space to meet the project's construction and operational demands. Project construction and operation may result in a potential for increased calls to the Huntington Beach Police and Fire Departments. However, the construction and operation of the retool project is not expected to result in any significant impacts on emergency services. (SA p. 224.) Economy/Government Finance AES estimates that the total capital cost of the proposed project is $130 million. The total construction payroll is estimated to be $43 million. The operational payroll for the project is estimated to be approximately $1.5 million annually. This estimate excludes payroll taxes. To assure the project will benefit local employment directly as well as the local and regional economy through the multiplier effect in the purchase of goods and services AES will recruit workers and make purchases to the extent possible. MITIGATION: AES and its contractors shall recruit employees from the local area to the extent permitted by law and to the extent qualified personnel are available. Condition: SOCIO-1. To assure qualified workers, CURE and Local 246 of the Utility Workers of America seek an additional condition that each contractor hire a journey level workforce of which at least 50 percent of the workers are graduates on an approved apprenticeship program. With the imminent commencement of construction of this project pending certification, the Commission does not believe it prudent to affect construction worker hiring at this time. The proposed project is anticipated to provide an estimated $200,000 in local property tax revenue. The High School and Elementary School Districts will receive $264,000 and $268,000 annually, respectively. Project construction and operation would create a beneficial impact on both the study area's economic base and fiscal resources through employment of both local and regional workers. Tourism and beach usage are important to the Huntington Beach economy. Past beach closures due to bacteria in the surf zone have significantly affected the economy of Huntington Beach. AES will undertake a study to determine whether the thermal discharge into the ocean is contributing to the presence of bacteria in the surf zone. Condition: WATER QUALITY-3. Environmental Justice Presidential Executive Order 12898, entitled "Federal Actions to address Environmental Justice (EJ) in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations," focuses federal attention on the environment and human health conditions of minority communities and calls on agencies to achieve environmental 91 justice as part of this mission. The order requires the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and all other federal agencies (as well as state agencies receiving federal funds) to develop strategies to address this issue. The agencies are required to identify and address any disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs, policies, and activities on minority and/or low-income populations. For all siting cases, the Energy Commission follows the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's guidance in conducting a two-step environmental justice analysis. The analysis assesses: • Whether the population in the area potentially affected by the proposed project is more than 50 percent minority and/or low-income, or has a minority or low-income population percentage that is meaningfully greater than the percent of minority or low income in the general population, or other appropriate unit of geographic analysis; and • Whether significant environmental impacts are likely to fall disproportionately on the minority and/or low-income population. .Commission staff determined the affected area for this environmental justice analysis to be the area within a six-mile radius of the proposed project site. This area corresponds to the area analyzed for potential air quality and public health impacts. Federal guidance does not give a percentage of population threshold to determine when a low-income population becomes recognized for an environmental justice analysis. The Energy Commission uses the same greater than 50 percent threshold that is used for minority populations, as well as a "meaningfully greater" percentage population. According to 1990 Census data, approximately 10% of the census tracts within a 6-mile radius had a minority population of 25 to 49% and no tracts had a minority population exceeding 50%. According to Claritas projections of 2000 census data, there are now three census tracts (out of 80) with a minority population exceeding 75%, and five additional tracts with a minority population between 50 and 74%. However, none of these are the tracts closest to the project site. The low income population proportion is low and does not approach the standard of a "low income" community. Therefore, there is no significant low-income environmental justice issue associated with the proposed project. In addition, based on previous power plant siting projects, no significant adverse impact within a 6-mile radius are expected. (See SOCIOECONOMICS Figures 1 and 2). Cumulative Impacts Cumulative impacts were assessed by researching other large-scale construction projects in the study area. There are on-going projects in Huntington Beach that may overlap with construction of the HBGS Retool Project. The only potential cumulative socioeconomic impact would be the possible shortage of workers in some trades. However, because of the available large labor force in Orange County and the five-county study area, there would be an adequate number of workers. Similarly, there were no cumulative impacts identified from operation of the proposed project, as most permanent project personnel will be hired from the five-county area and would not likely relocate. 92 Consequently, no significant cumulative impacts on the socioeconomics of the study area are anticipated to occur due to operation. Findings With the implementation of the Conditions of Certification, below, the project conforms to applicable laws related to socioeconomic matters and all potential socioeconomic impacts will be mitigated to insignificance. 93 r SOCIOECONOMICS-FIGURE 1 Huntington Beach Power Plant-Percentage People of Color by Census Tract 1990 099227 • w, ro'' 09940 99410 099241`. N 099225 � ,074101 rn 0 099405 099411 099242' o 074104 N 09941 m o. 099228' 099229 b 074106 ..099402 07410 Project 099413 '^• - 099232 N Location1'^ - «N 099231 a, 063907 063907 _ e 099415 063805 ` .�; o o, - 0639 ..-- 0992t6 063806' -' 'c 099214 063903 o N 06380 099308.+ '.m o -m 063802 9i€IuEIE o 0 099215 -063904v - .062610 -m''. 09930 �` 063807. 063101 AT 99302 o w '� rn o 06390 o o 0 063102 oG 063803 0 �063 S n�� 63 09930 099220 ryo� 3009 063501 0637 OrD� 06300 TIN ON CH POWER LANT 063602 os3s 6300 ••, �` ' 063603 06 10 0634 '0635 6300 0629 `063006 Legend 6270 Huntington Beach Repower Six Mile Buffer 0628 - Cities -�, �• 6 Mile Census Tracts People of Color by Census Tract 0-24.9% Six Mile.Radius 25.0%-a9.9% ssi 50.0%-74.9% _ 75.0%-100.0 CALIFORNIA ENERGY COMMISSION,ENERGY FACILITIES SITING&ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION DIVISION,MARCH 2O01 SOURCE:California Energy Commission Statewide Transmission&Power Plant Maps 2001, 1990 Census TIGER Data I,I DEMOGRAPHIC-FIGURE 2 Huntington Beach Repower-Percentage People of Color by Census Tract Claritas 2000 Estimates i � �� � o '09940 8941 099241 � ,'099225 099411,. 099242', �✓ -99405 M F ntaln Palley �•: N N F () 9922 Q74106 ` R € o o o€ ay v�Q7g1Q O �� ��• .... € �099413. �� 019923 M �� €�,,a.. Project' w 063907 063907 €€ w 099231 Location - 099415 a; Hunhngton ";�.o o _ 063805 fl639 - a Beach �� 099214 ©9921 063806„ 0638D� 099308 $ 099215 063802 06 o ` 2610 i 09930 .. ^« Costa M g Ay1 UOm . s2 c'- §a,✓y r' c�i a: �' m 063807 o 099302 8310 390 ., 083803 06 0 .6 np�e9 09930 099220 M 063601R 2 06��0� 63009 , HUNTINGTON BEACH REPOW 0630 �u 0633 0 06300 063603 I At 063010 s ' 0834 Newport 0635 each 6300 Legend os o0 � � €•-. . 0630 Huntington Beach Re power �•, ,,, -• 'a 6270 Six Mile Buffer Cities w i# 28 x 0 6 Mile Census Tracts 9 ` Claritas 2000 Estimates %People of Color by Census Tract . 0-24.9% gyp" w€ ._ '�asF"� '�aOW ' % ate°* - � �. S�� R€ 25.0%-49.9% N e m` - a .,np .; CC 50.0%-74 9°/n r a y _ c ,€€ ed� t Six Mile Radius I All ski. . CALIFORNIA ENERGY COMMISSION,ENERGY FACILITIES SITING&ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION DIVISION,JANUARY 2001 SOURCE:California Energy Commission Statewide Transmission&Power Plant Maps 2001, Claritas 2000 Estimates Data CONDITIONS OF CERTIFICATION LOCAL RECRUITMENT SOCIO-1: Not less than 35% of the labor used during construction related to the retooling project shall be drawn from the local labor force contained within Orange and Los Angeles Counties. At least 50% of the labor force used during construction shall consist of California residents. Verification: At least thirty (30) days prior to the start of construction activities, the project owner shall submit to the Energy Commission Compliance Project Manager (CPM) copies of guidelines stating hiring requirements and procedures. The project owner shall retain copies of all contractor and subcontractor contracts onsite for CPM inspection. 96 LAWS, ORDINANCES, REGULATIONS & STANDARDS SOCIOECONOMICS �.. APFt.ICABCE LAW+ �. DESCRIPTION' FEDERAL Executive Order 12898 Executive Order 12898, "Federal Actions to address Environmental Justice (EJ) in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations," focuses federal attention on the environment and human health conditions of minority communities and calls on agencies to achieve environmental justice as part of this mission. The Order requires the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and all other federal agencies (as well as state agencies receiving federal funds) to develop strategies to address this issue. The agencies are required to identify and address any disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs, policies, and activities on minority and/or low-income populations. STATE California Government Code Includes provisions for levies against development projects in school districts. 65995-65997 The Unified School District will implement school impact fees based on new building s are footage. LOCAL 97 TRAFFIC & TRANSPORTATION P©WER PLANT �SURR©l/ND/NG C1IMtlLATl1%E y' LC?RS N SITE;.. SETTING. .,.. r ..1MPAC:TS , COMPLIANCE. .z F Congestion MITIGATION • Power Plant Construction: Truck deliveries to the site of construction equipment and supplies, estimated at 5-6 deliveries per month, are within the design limits of Interstate 405, Beach Boulevard, the Pacific Coast Highway, and Newland Street. Commuting construction workers, estimated to peak at 530 workers, could cause an insignificant level of congestion during peak commute hours. MITIGATION: AES's Traffic Management Plan can mitigate these traffic impacts by measures such as staggered arrival and departure times, car-pooling and use of alternative routes. Condition: TRANS-5. Power Plant Operation: AES expects 14 truck deliveries per month for materials associated with project operation and a permanent operating labor force of approximately 43 full-time employees, working and commuting over three shifts. Neither operation deliveries nor commuting will impact traffic on local streets or Interstate 405. References; SA 2p.134-136. Safety MITIGATION Construction: Construction will require the use of large vehicles, occasionally including oversize or overweight trucks. Additionally, there will be deliveries to the power plant site of hazardous construction substances, such as gasoline, diesel fuel, oils, solvents, cleaners, paints, etc. MITIGATION: Caltrans permits control vehicle size and weight. Condition: TRANS-1. California Highway Patrol and Caltrans permits control transport of hazardous substances. Condition: TRANS-3. Operation: There will be 4 truck deliveries or more per month to the power plant site of hazardous materials, such as urea, sulfuric acid, sodium hypochlorite, sodium hydroxide, gasoline, etc. Deliveries of hazardous materials will be over pre-arranged routes selected for their safety features, including the absence of obstructions and curves. MITIGATION: Hazardous materials haulers must be specially licensed by the California Highway Patrol. Condition: TRANS-3; See also Hazardous Materials section. References:. 98 Parking ` :� ' MITIGATION • Construction: Designated off-street parking near the power plant site is being made available for construction workers. MITIGATION: AES's will mitigate construction parking impacts by providing a designated parking area and restricting residential on-street parking. Condition: TRANS-6. Operation: Adequate on-site parking is available for power plant personnel. No parking will be required for operation of the pipeline. Reference: Site Observation. CONSTRUCTION TRAFFIC — GENERAL The potential traffic impacts of the project can arise from the construction of the power plant, which will cause additional trips by construction workers and delivery trucks to and from the site, increasing daily traffic volumes on the freeways and local streets. The potential impact of the project is measured by the LOS (Level of Service) of the surrounding roadway segment based upon average daily traffic volume. LOS is measured in a range from LOS A to LOS F. A LOS of A refers to little or no congestion, whereas LOS F is heavy congestion with significant delays and significantly reduced travel speeds. Congestion Power Plant Construction: Workers are generally expected to access the project from Interstate 405 to State Highway 39 south onto State Highway 1 (Pacific Coast Highway) and exit at Newland Street. Hypothetically, if all the maximum workforce of 530 workers traveled the same route, levels of service would drop below the threshold of LOS D at all the signal controlled intersections and LOS C for other roadway segment links. During the peak construction period, project-related vehicle traffic will affect the Beach Boulevard and Pacific Coast Highway, resulting in traffic increases of 1 to 3 percent. The main local road impacted by the project is Newland Street. Construction traffic will require approximately 16 to 20 heavy truck deliveries to the project site during the 3-month construction period MITIGATION: AES shall prepare a Transportation Management Plan so that construction and commute traffic do not create unacceptable congestion impacts. Condition: TRANS — 5. Power Plant Operation:" Operation of the generating plant will require an additional labor force of approximately 10 full-time employees, in addition to the current 33 employees. 99 The likely preferred route for these employees will be Interstate 405 to State Highway 39 south onto State Highway 1 (Pacific Coast Highway) and exit at Newland Street. The additional traffic associated with the operating personnel will not change the existing LOS. Therefore, transportation impacts associated with the power plant operating personnel are not expected to be significant. The facility will have truck traffic associated with the deliver of various cleaning chemical, gasoline and diesel fuel, lubricants, urea, sulfuric acid and other hazardous material associated with plant operation. It is expected that there will be 14 truck deliveries per month to the operating facility. It is assumed that the truck routes would travel to the plant site by Interstate 405 to State Highway 39 south onto State Highway 1 (Pacific Coast Highway) and exit at Newland Street. These additional truck trips along with the-vehicle trips associated with operational personnel would not change the LOS. Safety Construction: Construction will require the use of large vehicles, occasionally including oversize or overweight trucks. Additionally, there will be deliveries to both the power plant site and the pipeline sites of hazardous construction substances, such as gasoline, diesel fuel, oils, solvents, cleaners, paints, etc. MITIGATION: Caltrans permits control vehicle size and weight. Condition: TRANS-1. California Highway Patrol and Caltrans permits control transport of hazardous substances. Condition: TRANS-3. Operation: There will be truck deliveries to the power plant site of hazardous materials, such as urea, sulfuric acid, sodium hypochlorite, sodium hydroxide, gasoline, etc. MITIGATION: Hazardous materials haulers must be specially licensed by the California Highway Patrol. Condition: TRANS-3 (See also Hazardous Materials section.) Parking Construction: Limited off-street parking is available for construction workers and delivery trucks at the power plant site. AES has arranged for off-site parking across the Pacific Coast Highway in the State Beach parking lot through June 30, 2001. MITIGATION': AES's will mitigate construction parking impacts by providing designated off-site parking and restricting parking within public rights-of-way along the Pacific Coast Highway, Beach Boulevard, and Newland Street. Condition: TRANS-6. Operation: Adequate on-site parking is available for power plant personnel. 100 Cumulative Impacts Although the City of Huntington Beach has a number of proposed and ongoing projects involving roadway construction, the implementation of the Conditions of Certification would avoid cumulative construction traffic impacts. Findings With the implementation of the Conditions of Certification, below, the project conforms to applicable laws related to traffic and transportation and all potential adverse traffic and transportation impacts will be mitigated to insignificance. CONDITIONS OF CERTIFICATION OVERWEIGHT & OVERSIZE VEHICLES TRANS-1: The project owner shall comply with Caltrans and the City of Huntington Beach on limitations on vehicle sizes and weights. In addition, the project owner or its contractor shall obtain necessary transportation permits from Caltrans and all relevant jurisdictions for roadway use. I Verification: In the Monthly Compliance Reports, the project owner shall submit copies of any oversize and overweight transportation permits received during that reporting period. In addition, the project owner shall retain copies of these permits and supporting documentation in its compliance file for at least six months after the start of commercial operation. LOCAL ENCROACHMENT PERMITS TRANS-2: The project owner or its contractor shall comply with Caltrans and City of Huntington Beach limitations for encroachment into public rights-of-way and shall obtain necessary encroachment permits from all relevant jurisdictions. Verification: In Monthly Compliance Reports, the project owner shall submit copies of any encroachment permits received during the reporting period. In addition, the project owner shall retain copies of these permits and supporting documentation in its compliance file for at least six months after the start of commercial operation.. LICENSED HAZARDOUS MATERIALS HAULERS TRANS-3: The project owner shall ensure that permits and/or licenses are secured from the California Highway Patrol and Caltrans for the transport of hazardous materials and all regulations for the transport of hazardous materials are observed. Verification: The project owner shall include in its Monthly Compliance Reports, copies of all permits/licenses acquired by the project owner and/or subcontractors concerning the transport of 101 hazardous substances. The project owner shall maintain copies of these permits at the project site for inspection by the CPM. ROADWAY REPAIRS TRANS-5: Following completion of HBGSR project construction, the project owner shall repair any damage to Newland Street north of State Highway 1 (Pacific Coast Highway) to the Main Gate entrance to the Huntington Beach Generating Station incurred during construction to the road's pre-project construction condition. Protocol: Prior to start of construction, the project owner shall photograph, videotape or digitally record images of Newland Street from State Highway 1 to the HBGSR Main Gate entrance (project entrance). The project owner shall provide the Compliance Project Manager (CPM), the City of Huntington Beach and Caltrans (as necessary) with a copy of these images. Prior to start of construction, the project owner shall also notify the City of Huntington Beach and Caltrans about the schedule for project construction. The purpose of this notification is to postpone any planned roadway resurfacing and/or improvement projects until after the project construction has taken place and to coordinate construction related activities associated with other projects. Verification: Within 30 days after completion of the retool project construction, the project owner shall meet with the CPM, the City of Huntington Beach and Caltrans (as needed) to determine and receive approval for the actions necessary and schedule to complete the repair of identified sections of public roadways to original or as near original condition as possible. Following completion of any regional road improvements, the project owner shall provide to the CPM a letter from the City of Huntington Beach and Caltrans if work occurred within their jurisdictional public right of way stating their satisfaction with the road improvements. TRANSPORTATION MANAGEMENT PLAN TRANS-5: The project owner shall develop a Transportation Management Plan which shall include a construction traffic and transportation demand implementation program that limits construction-period truck and commute traffic during peak periods in coordination with the City of Huntington Beach and Caltrans subject to the satisfaction of the CPM. Verification: Prior to site preparation or earth moving activity, the project owner shall provide the Transportation Management Plan to the City of Huntington Beach and Caltrans for review and comment and, after receipt of comments, to the CPM for review and approval. INTERIM PARKING PLAN TRANS-6: The project owner shall submit an interim parking and building materials storage plan to the City of Huntington Beach Planning Department so as to assure adequate parking and restroom facilities are available for employees, customers and contractors during the project's construction phase and that adjacent properties will not be affected by the location of parking and restroom facilities. If adequate parking for construction employees cannot be provided on-site, sufficient off-site parking arrangements with shuttle transportation to and from the site shall be arranged. No off-site parking shall 102 affect or use designated beach parking facilities unless permitted by the State of California Department of Parks and Recreation, Orange Coast District. Verification: Prior to start of construction, the project owner shall submit a parking and staging plan for all phases of project construction to the City of Huntington Beach Planning Department for review and after City review to the CPM for approval. TRANS-7: The project owner shall pay a Fair Share Traffic Impact Mitigation Fee paid to the City of Huntington Beach in accordance to Chapter 17.65 of the City's Municipal Code for the generation of the net additional vehicle trips on City streets cause by the ten (10) new permanent employees to be hired as a result of the retool project. Verification: Prior to start of construction, the project owner shall submit to the CPM a copy of the receipt issued by the City of Huntington Beach demonstrating payment of the Traffic Mitigation Fee. TRANS-8: During construction and project operation delivery trucks shall be limited to travel on State Highway 39, State Highway 1 and Newland Street. Truck traffic shall be limited on Newland Street between State Highway 1 and the Main Gate Entrance of the Huntington Beach Generation Facility. Verification: The project owner shall include this specific route in its contracts for truck deliveries and maintain copies onsite for inspection by the CPM. I 103 f f LAWS, ORDINANCES, REGULATIONS & STANDARDS TRAFFIC & TRANSPORTATION . APPLICABLE LAW' DESCRIPTION FEDERAL 49 CFR §171-177 Governs the transportation of hazardous materials, including the marking of the transportation vehicles. 14 CFR §77.13(2)(i) Requires applicant to notify FAA of any construction greater than an imaginary surface as defined by the FAA. 14 CFR 77.17 Requires applicant to submit Form 7460-1 to the FAA. AES has received approval. 14 CFR §§77.21, 77.23 & 77.25 Regulations which outline the obstruction standards which the FAA uses to determine whether an air navigation conflict exists. STATE California State Planning Law, Requires each city and county to adopt a General Plan consisting of seven Government Code§65302 mandatory elements to guide its physical development, including a circulation element. CA Vehicle Code §35780 Requires approval for a permit to transport oversized or excessive load over state highways. CA Vehicle Code§31303 Requires transporters of hazardous materials to use the shortest route possible. CA Vehicle Code §32105 Transporters of inhalation hazardous materials or explosive materials must obtain a Hazardous Materials Transportation License. California Department of Requires Traffic Control Plans to ensure continuity of traffic during roadway rransportation Traffic Manual, construction. Section 5-1.1 Streets and Highways Code, Requires Encroachment Permits for excavations in city streets. Division 2, Chapter 5.5, Sections 1460-1470 104 ",APPLICABLE LAw � � � . � � DESCRIPTIONz TRAFFIC& TRANSPO.RT;ATION �, v. LOCAL City of Huntington Beach Level of service requirements. Circulation Element 105 VISUAL RESOURCES P©WER Pa?�1N SURROUNDING T , CUNlULATl1/E LORS F `' TE M . <% , SETF/NG IMPACTS, C.O,.MPLlANCE Objectionable Appearance/ MITIGATION_ MITIGATION View Blockage: Construction: Construction equipment at the power plant site will have a temporary visual impact, and thus be less than significant,. Operation: The proposed retooling project will not significantly alter the present appearance of Units 3 & 4. However, the power plant is a visually dominant feature in the coastal zone. MITIGATION: AES shall paint project structures and fences in non-reflective, neutral colors to further mitigate visual impacts. Conditions VIS-1. To mitigate visual impacts from the Pacific Coast Highway, beaches, and nearby residences, AES will plant landscape screening, and architectural screening as necessary, to reduce visual impacts of the power plant. Condition: VIS-2. References: SA pp. 169— 192. Scenic • • Designation The coastal zone is a scenic viewshed. The Huntington Beach Generating Station is a pre-existing use. Reference: SA pp. 174 Lighting MITIGATION Construction: Construction during nighttime hours will require temporary lighting, which will be mitigated by shielding, and thus insignificant. Operation: Power plant lighting could cause nighttime visual impacts, unless mitigated by designing hooded or shielded lighting consistent with worker safety. MITIGATION: Consistent with worker safety requirements, AES shall install project lighting so that light bulbs and reflectors are not visible from public viewing areas and illumination of the vicinity and the nighttime sky is minimized. Condition: VIS-4. References:AFC 6.6.3.4.1; SA E. 257 Visible Plume • + e Operation: Power plant operation creates a water-vapor plume from the exhaust stack that will be visible fora limited number of mostly morning hours per year in winter when the facility is at reduced load. Plume mitigation is accomplished by raising exhaust stack temperatures during reduced loads. Burning excess fuel would be necessary to cause such temperature increases, which reduces efficiency and increases air pollution. Thus, no plume mitigation is required. Reference: SA pp. 181-182; Reporter's Transcript 106 VISUAL RESOURCES - GENERAL Visual resources analysis has an inherent subjective aspect. However, the use of generally accepted criteria for determining impact significance and a clearly described analytical approach aid in developing an analysis that can be readily understood. The CEQA Guidelines defines a "significant effect" on the environment to mean a "substantial, or potentially substantial, adverse change in any of the physical conditions within the area affected by the project including . . . objects of historic or aesthetic significance (Cal. Code Regs., tit.14, § 15382). (AFC 6.6.3.1; SA p. 234.) Appendix G of the Guidelines, under Aesthetics, lists the following four questions to be addressed regarding whether the potential impacts of a project are significant: 1. Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? 2. Would the project substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? 3. Would the project substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? 4. Would the project create a new source of substantial light or glare that would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? Objectionable Appearance/View Blockage Construction: Construction cranes currently located atop Units 3 and 4 would presumably remain until construction is completed - estimated by the Applicant to be approximately 3 months from start of construction. Although the cranes alter and increase the visual silhouette of the plant, adding to its industrial character, this effect would be temporary, short-term, and thus less than significant. Other physical alterations due to construction, including equipment, scaffolding, etc. are not anticipated to result in prominent adverse impacts due to the already highly industrial character of the facility. Material and equipment storage could have an adverse effect on foreground viewers, particularly if visible from adjoining beaches and PCH. However, effects lasting no longer than three months would be short-term and thus less than significant. Nighttime construction lighting has the potential to disturb neighboring residents across Newland Street and viewers on PCH with disruptive glare, resulting in a potential significant adverse impact. Direct, unshielded construction lighting would impose dominant and obtrusive glare on high sensitivity residential receptors. Mitigation: The project owner shall design and install all new, and modify existing, project lighting to minimize potential night lighting impacts. Condition: VIS-4 107 Operation: Power Plant: The analysis of operation impacts of the power plant relies on criteria from the CEQA Guidelines, Appendix G. Photographs from Key Observation Point(s) (KOP) shown in Visual Resources Figure 1 identify the most potentially adverse visual impacts. Key Observation Points 1 & 2 — Pacific Coast Highway & Beaches This predominant landscape unit of the coastal zone comprises a narrow strip including PCH, Huntington Beach State Park, and occasional adjoining wetlands, and extends for miles along the shoreline, offering long and expansive views of the ocean. It is characterized by very high visual quality and very high visual sensitivity. Highly sensitive observers are exposed to views of the plant at distances ranging from 200 feet to 2 miles. KOP 1 is representative of foreground distance viewers at Huntington Beach State Park, across PCH from the project site looking east. Viewer sensitivity at the State Park is high. KOP 2 is representative of southbound motorists' views in the plant's visual foreground. Again, views directly to the site are strongly impaired and dominated by the plant. However, views overall at this location, particularly views down the highway scenic corridor including beach and sea, are high. Viewer sensitivity in this location and condition is high. Key Observation Point 7—Trailer Park Visual Resources Figure 2 The trailer park adjoining the HBGS directly northwest across Newland Street is located roughly 100 feet from the western plant boundary. Views of the plant are highly dominant, though partially screened and filtered by the 10-15 foot tall hedge on the plant boundary, and palm trees along the north side of Newland Street. Visual quality in the trailer park is moderately low, dominated by the existing view of the HBGS, with limited views to the sea, and devoid of on-site landscaping or other visual amenities. Visual sensitivity is regarded as high due to its residential use. Key Observation Point 3 & 3A— Neighborhood Visual Resources Figure 3 A small residential area is located approximately 1/3 -'h mile north of the HBGS, extending to the east and west of Newland Street. KOP 3, Edison Community Park, is located in this neighborhood (see Visual Resources Figure 4). Visual exposure to the existing HBGS is highly filtered by intervening structures and trees, but isolated prominent views of the plant are found throughout the area at foreground and near-middleground distances. Views of the SCR units themselves would be hidden by the existing facility from these locations. Visual quality is moderate, typical of residential areas. Visual sensitivity is regarded as high due to its residential use. KOP 4. Residential neighborhood east of site. (Supplemental Information Figure 5.13-6). Another residential neighborhood east of Magnolia Avenue is located approximately 1/3 mile from the HBGS site. Visual quality is moderate, typical of residential areas. Visual sensitivity is regarded as high due to its residential use. Despite its proximity, visual exposure to the HBGS is generally limited in this area. KOP 4 illustrates a worst-case view from this area at its closest point, looking over the wetlands adjoining the HBGS. North of this point, views toward the plant are blocked by the tall landscaped berm bounding Magnolia Avenue on its west side. Views from within the community consist primarily of occasional, isolated views of the top of plant stacks, and of occasional vapor plumes (KOP 4B). 108 Key Observation Point 8 & 8A— Downtown Huntington Beach/Pacific Ocean Visual Resources Figure 5. These KOPs, although also located in the coastal zone, are representative of key viewing locations downtown and from the water. Downtown Huntington Beach is located approximately 1-1/2 miles northeast of the project site. Visual quality is moderate to high in this area, with coherent architectural and streetscape design and outstanding ocean views. Visual sensitivity is regarded as very high at this primary visitor destination. Views of the HBGS, though visually subordinate at this distance, are visible, prominent, and tend to attract the eye due to the conspicuous height and location of the plant. Visitor-oriented commercial uses are concentrated in this part of town, notably the Huntington Beach Pier, KOP 8A. Visual Resources Figure 6. Compliance with Laws, Ordinances, Regulations, and Standards The City of Huntington Beach has stated in a letter to the Energy Commission dated December 21, 2000 that "without intensified landscaping and screening efforts, the existing [structure] and proposed retooling project does not comply with applicable land use policies established in the General Plan (City of Huntington Beach, 2001)." Staff determined that the HBGS Retool project as proposed does not comply with all applicable policies of the Coastal and Urban Design Elements of the City of Huntington Beach General Plan, as described above. Specifically, no concrete mitigation proposals to address the policies and goals cited above have been made by the applicant in connection with this (Units 3 and 4) project. Policy C 8.4.2 however, states that the City shall `(R)equire any power plant expansion or alteration proposals to include adequate buffer and screening measures.' Pursuant to Section 30251 of the Coastal Act, the basic goal of the Coastal Element Visual Resource policies is to "(P)reserve and, where feasible, enhance and restore the aesthetic resources of the City's coastal zone ." The policies and related analysis presented above identify the HBGS as a `visual weakness' of the City's coastal zone, and indicate a clear intent to lessen the adverse impacts of the existing facility on the visual resources of the coastal zone. Accordingly, the project would be required to apply feasible measures to enhance and restore the visual quality of the coastal zone in order to meet the intent of Policy C 8.4.2 and other similar policies and goals cited above. With Conditions of Certification VIS-1 and VIS-2, Staff believes that the project would continue to have a degrading influence on the coastal viewshed and would remain substantially unscreened due to its height and bulk. However, these measures would implement landscape and/or architectural screens and buffers as called for in Urban Design Policy UD 2.2.1, and Land Use Policy LU 12.1.8, and constitute, in effect, a comprehensive screening plan as called for in Coastal Element Energy Policy 14c. These measures would enhance the existing visual quality of the plant to a limited, if not complete, extent. This combination of measures represents the extent of feasible, available mitigation; thus, the project, with these measures, would substantially comply with applicable policies of the General Plan and current Coastal Element. IVIITIGATIO,N: AES shall paint project structures and fences in neutral colors to reduce visual impacts, and prepare and implement a visual screening plan. Conditions VIS-1 &VIS-2. 109 VISUAL RESOURCES - Figure 1 Huntington Beach Repower - Key Observation Points and Landscape Units J, 1# U7� r 4 x , afr rf, s�X00K ��' WIN a n d s .'x :� f ti t: a ...., y \"e�,y \�'\ 4 �,�� 'i�`•�III / � i� ��f l .; \ \_ iRl �. zr Al e m✓ / �` a a' 1,� �4 a�,� _ ,••i AcA' / / MR 3 3 Photo Key&ObservationPoints 3 i, Yfi \ l 1750-1 /$ RRRestdent�alpiX `\ CZ/ OS Costal ON Zone I o7,7 , en SpaceF \ � ©T Downtown \ �� wv���,'s„a .. �1��-; ��C:r..�..... : �ar ...a.,r'.. .. ', .� � •..'."�'ta .nerrx .. ���� .._.,,_. �`� ., 7�°�,�n� ...... CALIFORNIA ENERGY COMMISSION,ENERGY FACILITIES SITING&ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION DIVISION, MARCH 2O01 SOURCE:Figure 5.13.1.jpg MARCH 2O01 VISUAL RESOURCES VISUAL RESOURCES-Figure 2 Huntington Beach Repower-KOP#7 v ' D s wy M all fm O � r H r ' ds£ �6 6 � � A E& 6 xmv{ a� z III �91�, & � w; 9_ � i x' D ' r m �E�• C , m CALIFORNIA ENERGY COMMISSION,ENERGY FACILITIES SITING&ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION DIVISION,MARCH 2O01 SOURCE:Fig 2.jpg VISUAL RESOURCES Figure 3 Huntington Beach Repower- KOP#3a n � f leQ 4g^h� Y✓�K �, >. 5 3 , F eft w v�,�� �����.•' d •,-'�, rays , 4•; k TBy 711 f e� �e MC fr c D r m O c M) O m rn CALIFORNIA ENERGY COMMISSION,ENERGY FACILITIES SITING&ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION DIVISION,MARCH 2O01 SOURCE:Fig 3-kop 3a.jpg VISUAL RESOURCES-Figure 4 yy Huntington Beach Repower-KOP#3 a P s F <� r ( 3 r x, i i G U) C D r m U) O c m O m U) CALIFORNIA ENERGY COMMISSION,ENERGY FACILITIES SITING&ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION DIVISION,MARCH 2O01 SOURCE:Fig 4-kop 3.jpg , VISUAL RESOURCES-Figure 5 Huntington Beach Repower- KOP#8 D x �_ O - ..,•, „sue ' - yL ' �. f � . � 3 i Mew 0) C D r m O C 3J n m cn CALIFORNIA ENERGY COMMISSION,ENERGY FACILITIES SITING&ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION DIVISION,MARCH 2O01 SOURCE:Fig 5-kop 8.jpg VISUAL RESOURCES-Figure 6 Huntington Beach Repower- KOP#8a 'n �' /i*� �:: �� � \ T� �. v`:2 snit,. a•� ,� y, /., � Haicz� �� 1 t »" a s�'.� d� ✓n�• � Vic.. ��,��.-:,-d 1� m`�� ✓r*:+x� s � 3 � H �-./ ��c:: s�// �,�i�� � ✓ � x��s'�'��.. �`e�� F r ,2* .r .ass �� _.y.�'� � � / ✓ ?F, �� <� �i�=��'�"��� i C c C D r m U) O C m CALIFORNIA ENERGY COMMISSION,ENERGY FACILITIES SITING&ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION DIVISION,MARCH 2O01 SOURCE:Fig 6-kop 8a.jpg Lighting Construction: Nighttime construction lighting has the potential to disturb neighboring residents across Newland Street and viewers on PCH with disruptive glare, resulting in a potential significant adverse impact. Direct, unshielded construction lighting would impose dominant and obtrusive glare on high sensitivity residential receptors. MITIGATION: All construction lighting will be completely shielded or screened so as not to be visible to residents of the adjacent trailer park across Newland Street, Pacific Coast Highway and Huntington State Beach. Condition: VIS-4(e) Operation: The proposed project would require nighttime lighting for operational safety and security. To reduce the offsite impacts from this night lighting, AES has committed to directing the lights towards the middle of the property and away from the outer site boundaries to reduce light scatter and glare. Additionally, fixtures are to be of the non-glare type. These measures as part of a comprehensive lighting plan will mitigate any potentially significant adverse visual impacts from lighting. MITIGATION: Consistent with worker safety requirements, AES shall install project lighting so that light bulbs and reflectors are not visible from public viewing areas and illumination of the vicinity and the nighttime sky is minimized. Motion detectors will be used where feasible. Condition: VIS-4. Visible Plumes A water-vapor plume will result from the operation of the power plant and will be visible for a limited number of hours per year depending on meteorological conditions. Whether the plume would be visible also depends on whether the observation is made during daylight or nighttime hours. The height and width of the visible water-vapor plume will also depend on meteorological conditions. Based on the results of the plume visibility model staff ran, views of maximum size plumes would be available from a relatively large geographic area, extending beyond the area from which the power plant structures are visible. Visible plume formation potentially exceeding staff's impact significance criteria (visually dominant plumes 10% of daytime no fog hours per season or more) were predicted in winter when the facility is operating at 50 percent load. Due to the fact that highly sensitive receptors of plume impacts are located at near foreground distances from the plant, on PCH and at nearby portions of the beach (represented by KOPs 1 and 2), even relatively small dimension plumes are potentially visually dominant. Thus, predicted plumes were considered to have a high likelihood of resulting in significant impacts in the sensitive visual foreground if their predicted frequency exceeded the 10% daytime no fog seasonal criterion. Thus, visible plumes of potentially significant size and frequency could occur under certain operating regimes during winter resulting in significant adverse impacts, although the plant would have to be in operation at reduced operating load levels for extensive periods of time to exceed the significant impact criteria. 116 Staff recommended a condition of certification that would limit operations during daytime winter hours so that exhaust temperatures from the stack would be sufficiently high to reduce or eliminate water vapor plume formation. AES testified that exhaust stack temperatures are raised by increasing gas flow when loads don't require it, thus using excess fuel, decreasing efficiency, and creating more air pollution. The Commission finds visible plumes will not be a significant visual impact since plumes occur during a limited number of cold winter morning hours during limited operational conditions. Cumulative Impacts Cumulative impacts to visual resources would occur where project facilities or activities (such as construction) occupy the same field of view as other built facilities or impacted landscapes. It is also possible that a cumulative impact could occur if a viewer's perception is that the general visual quality of an area is diminished by the proliferation of visible structures (or construction effects such as disturbed vegetation), even if the new structures are not within the same field of view as the existing structures. The significance of the cumulative impact would depend on the degree to which (1) the viewshed is altered; (2) visual access to scenic resources is impaired; (3) visual quality is diminished; or (4) the project's visual contrast is increased. Potential past, present, and foreseeable future projects potentially affecting cumulative project visual impacts include the existing Units 1, 2 and 5 of the HBGS itself; the County sewage treatment facility one mile south of HBGS; and the proposed future Poseidon desalination project, which would introduce various industrial structures ranging from 15 to 60 feet in height on the HBGS site. Cumulative visual effects from project facilities were not significant due to the de minimis contribution the proposed SCR and ammonia injection units would represent. I Plumes from the proposed boiler exhaust stacks would occur infrequently and then mostly during nighttime and early morning hours in winter. At those times that the plumes would be visible, they would contribute to cumulative visual impacts on views from the project area. However, the low frequency of visibility would result in adverse but not significant cumulative visual impacts. Finding With the implementation of the Conditions of Certification, below, the project conforms to applicable laws related to visual effects and all potential visual impacts will be mitigated to insignificance. CONDITIONS OF CERTIFICATION STRUCTURE COLOR PLAN VIS-1: At the earliest feasible time after start of commercial operation, the project owner shall paint or treat Units 3 and 4 structures visible to the public in a harmonizing color or colors with a low to medium gloss finish to blend with the surroundings. 117 The project owner shall submit a treatment plan for the project to the City of Huntington Beach for review and comment, and to the California Energy Commission Compliance Project Manager (CPM) for review and approval. The treatment plan shall include: 1) specification, and 11" x 17" color simulations at life-size scale, of the treatment proposed for use on project structures, including structures treated during manufacture; 2) a detailed schedule for completion of the treatment; and, 3) a procedure to ensure proper treatment maintenance for the life of the project. For any structures that are treated during manufacture, the project owner shall not specify the treatment of such structures to the vendors, and shall not perform the final treatment on any structures on site until the project owner receives notification of approval of the treatment plan by the CPM. Verification: Not later than 30 days prior to ordering the first structures that are color treated during manufacture, the project owner shall submit the treatment plan to the CPM for review and approval. If the CPM notifies the project owner of any revisions that are needed before the CPM will approve the plan, within 15 days of receiving that notification the project owner shall submit to the CPM a revised plan. Not later than 30 days after the start of commercial operation, the project owner shall notify the CPM that all treated structures are ready for inspection. The project owner shall provide a status report regarding treatment maintenance in the Annual Compliance Report. VISUAL SCREENING PLAN VIS-2: Prior to start of commercial operation the project owner shall prepare a visual screening plan. The project owner shall implement the screening plan at the earliest feasible time but no later than one year after operation. The screening shall, at a minimum, include landscaping surrounding the site on the northwest and southwest boundaries of the project site and on the southeast boundary if acceptable to the California Department of Fish and Game. Final plant selection shall be made in consultation with the CPM and. the City of Huntington Beach and be designed to provide the maximum amount of feasible screening in the shortest feasible period of time. Planting shall be installed at a minimum height of 24" box size at the time of planting, and designed to achieve at least 40 feet in height at maturity. Suitable irrigation shall be installed to ensure survival and desired rate of growth. The landscape screening and irrigation system shall be monitored for a period of five years to ensure survival. During this period all dead plant material shall be replaced. Prior to start of commercial operation, the project owner shall submit a landscape screening plan to the City of Huntington Beach and State Department of Fish and Game for review and comment, and to the CPM for review and approval. The plan shall include, but not be limited to: • A detailed landscape, grading, and irrigation plan, at a reasonable scale, which includes a list of proposed tree and shrub species and installation sizes, and a discussion of the suitability of the plants for the site conditions and mitigation objectives. A list of potential tree 118 species which would be viable in this location shall be prepared by a qualified professional arborist familiar with local growing conditions, with the objective of providing the widest possible range of species from which to choose. The plan shall demonstrate how the screening conditions called for above shall be met, including evidence provided by a qualified professional arborist that the species selected is both viable and available. • Elevation views or visual simulations of the landscape screening at installation; at 5 years' growth after installation of the landscaping from the time of startup of operation of the facility; and at maturity, in order to show the extent of screening that the landscaping is expected to achieve in these time frames. • Maintenance procedures, including any needed irrigation and a plan for routine annual or semi-annual debris removal; and • A procedure for monitoring for and replacement of unsuccessful plantings. If, upon review of elevation views or simulations of the landscape screening, landscaping measures alone are found infeasible or fail to achieve adequate visual screening, the CPM will direct the applicant to submit a new screening plan for review and approval. The new screening plan may include alternative landscape concepts or a combination of architectural screening and landscape improvements that would enhance the visual quality of the power station, such as light-weight mesh screening on the power block superstructure or other, similar measures consistent with structural, safety, and ventilation requirements. However, intensified landscaping would remain the preferred approach. The applicant shall consult with a qualified artist, designer, and/or architect to evaluate, recommend, and implement such screening measures. Upon approval by the CPM, with input from the City of Huntington Beach, the project owner shall be required to implement the new screening plan. The project owner shall not implement the plan until the project owner receives approval of the plan from the CPM. Verification: At least 60 days prior to start of commercial operation, the project owner shall submit the landscape plan to the City of Huntington Beach and the State Department of Fish and Game for comment, and the CPM for review and approval. If the CPM notifies the project owner that revisions of the submittal are needed before the CPM will approve the submittal, within 30 days of receiving that notification, the project owner shall prepare and submit to the CPM a revised submittal as described. above. The project owner shall notify the CPM within seven days after completing installation of landscaping that the planting and irrigation system are ready for inspection and, if architectural screening has been required, within seven days of completion of installation. The project owner shall report landscape maintenance activities, including replacement of dead vegetation, for the previous year of operation in the Annual Compliance Report. 119 VIS-3: Twelve months prior to the end of term of this certification, the project owner shall submit a facility closure plan for dismantling of Units 3 and 4,if an AFC for continued operation has not been filed with the commission. At a minimum the facility closure plan shall include dismantling of the stack, power block, and any outdated technology. Upon approval of the facility closure plan, the project owner shall dismantle the plant according to the approved plan. Verification: The project owner shall submit the facility closure plan to the CPM for review and approval at the time required above, if an application for continued operation of Units 3 and 4 has not been filed with the commission. VIS-4: The project owner shall design and install all new, and modify existing, project lighting to minimize potential night lighting impacts, as follows: a) All lighting shall be of minimum necessary brightness consistent with operational safety. b) All lighting shall be shielded and directed downward to prevent all uplighting and all direct light trespass (direct lighting extending outside the boundaries of the facility). c) Wherever feasible and safe, lighting shall be kept off when not in use and motion detectors employed. d) A lighting complaint resolution form (following the general format of that in Attachment 1) shall be maintained by plant operations, to record all lighting complaints received and to document the resolution of that complaint. e) Consistent with construction personnel safety, all construction lighting will be completely shielded or screened so as not to be visible to residents of the adjacent trailer park across Newland Street, and to viewers on Pacific Coast Highway and at Huntington State Beach. 2 The project owner shall develop a lighting plan for the project incorporating the above measures and submit it to the CPM for review and approval. Verification: At least 60 days before ordering the exterior lighting, the project owner shall provide the lighting plan to the CPM for review and approval. If the CPM notifies the project owner that any revisions of the plan are needed before the CPM will approve the plan, within 30 days of receiving that notification the project owner shall submit to the CPM a revised plan. The project owner shall notify the CPM within seven days of completing exterior lighting installation and modification that the lighting is ready for inspection. The project owner shall report any lighting complaints and documentation of resolution in the Annual Compliance Report, accompanied by any lighting complaint resolution forms for that year. 120 LAWS, ORDINANCES, REGULATIONS & STANDARDS VISUAL �APPICABLE; AWDESCRIPTION FEDERAL NA There are no applicable Federal LORS for the section of visual. STATE NA There are no applicable State LORS for the section of visual. LOCAL The project is subject to visual requirements of the California Coastal Act (Public Resources Code, Division 20) as implemented by a local coastal program certified California Coastal Act by the State Coastal Commission and administered by the local jurisdiction. Scenic and visual qualities of coastal areas shall be considered and protected as a resource of public importance. City of Huntington Beach, Minimize the visual impact of utilities upon coastal, scenic surroundings; maximize General Plan &Zoning use of landscape screening of mechanical equipment. Ordinance 121 WASTE MANAGEMENT PGIWER PLAN7" j SURR©CINfllNG� �sC�UMIJLATt1/ LOB SETTING IMPACTS COMPL/ANCE: F ,yy Excavation MITIGATION • Though unlikely, contaminated soil may be encountered during construction excavation. MITIGATION: Contaminated soils will be tested and, if appropriate, treated or disposed at a Class I landfill. Condition: WASTE-4. References: SA . 105. Construction MITIGATION :None None Wastes Power plant and pipeline construction will generate typical construction wastes, such as lumber, plastic, scrap metal, glass, excess concrete, empty containers, and packaging. These construction wastes are either recycled or disposed at a Class III landfill. MITIGATION: AES shall prepare a waste management plan to assure the appropriate handling of wastes. Condition: WASTE—2. References: SA p. 102. Non-hazardous None None Wastes Typical non-hazardous operation wastes include a small volume of maintenance-related trash, office trash, empty containers, broken or used parts, used packaging materials, and used air filters. These non-hazardous wastes will be routinely collected by a licensed hauler and disposed at a Class III landfill. Reference:AFC 5.14.2.1. Hazardous MITIGATION - gil Wastes Hazardous wastes will include recyclable materials such as used oil, filters, rags, etc. Non-recyclable hazardous wastes include oil absorbents, welding materials, paints, used grit, weak acids, used batteries, and asbestos and are properly disposed at Class I landfills. There are no hazardous wastes associated with the operation of the pipeline. MITIGATION: A licensed hauler will transport non-recyclable hazardous wastes to a Class I landfill. AES shall prepare a waste management plan and report any potential enforcement action related to waste management. Conditions: WASTE-1 and WASTE-2. Reference:AFC 5,14.1.2. Disposal None None • Capacity The capacities of available Class I and Class III landfills far exceed the construction and operation wastes generated by this project. Reference:AFC Tables5.14-1, 5.14-2. CONSTRUCTION WASTE MANAGEMENT - GENERAL Different types of wastes will be generated during the construction and operation of the proposed project and must be managed appropriately to minimize the potential for adverse human and environmental impacts. These wastes are designated as hazardous or non-hazardous according to the toxic nature of their respective constituents. This analysis assesses the adequacy of the waste 122 management plan with respect to handling, storage and disposal of these wastes in the amounts estimated for the project. The handling of project's wastewater, for which a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit is required, is discussed in WATER QUALITY. Excavation If contaminated soil is encountered during construction, such contamination will be assessed using procedures that allow for identification of best disposal options. If the soil is classified as hazardous (according to RCRA and Cal. Code of Regs., title 22), the Huntington Beach Fire Department, Hazardous Materials Division, and Orange County Environmental Health Division, and Long Beach Substance Control will be notified for guidance and disposal. (SA pg. 106) MITIGATION: Contaminated soils will be tested and, if appropriate, treated or disposed at a Class I landfill. Condition: WASTE-2 &WASTE-4. Construction Wastes Construction and preparation of the power plant and pipelines will generate both hazardous and non- hazardous wastes. The non-hazardous component of the construction-related wastes will include waste paper, wood, glass, scrap metal, and plastics, from packing materials, waste lumber, excess concrete, insulation materials, and non-hazardous chemical containers. Management of these wastes will be the responsibility of the contractors. AES has provided estimates of the amounts to be generated along with the methods for their management. These wastes will be segregated, where practical, for recycling. Those that cannot be recycled will be placed in covered containers and removed on a regular basis by a certified waste handling contractor for disposal at a Class III facility. The relatively small quantities of hazardous materials to be generated during this construction phase will mainly consist of used oil, waste paint, spent solvents, materials, used or batteries, and cleaning chemicals. These wastes will be recycled or disposed of at licensed hazardous waste treatment or disposal facilities. The construction contractor will be considered the generator of the hazardous waste produced during construction and will be responsible for compliance with applicable federal and state regulations regarding licensing, personnel training, accumulation limits, reporting requirements, and record keeping. (AFC 5.14.2.1.1.) MITIGATION: AES shall prepare a waste management plan to assure the appropriate handling of wastes. Condition: WASTE— 2. Non-Hazardous Wastes Under normal operating conditions, the typical, solid non-hazardous wastes will include routine maintenance-related trash, office wastes, empty containers, broken or used parts, and used packaging materials and air filters. Some of the wastes will be recycled to minimize the quantity to be disposed of in a landfill. The non-recyclables will be disposed of at a non-hazardous waste disposal facility. The volume of non-hazardous wastes from the proposed and similar gas-fired facilities is typically small and readily accommodated within area disposal facilities. For the proposed facility for example, such 123 wastes are expected to be negligible compared to the capacity available Class III landfills. (AFC 5.14.2.1, Table 5.14.1) Hazardous Wastes The hazardous waste quantities generated by the project will be minimal. The facility likely will be classified as a small-quantity generator. The operations-related hazardous wastes will include spent air pollution control catalysts, used oil and air filters, used cleaning solvents, and used batteries. Some of these wastes will be recycled. These will include the spent air pollution control catalysts, used oil from equipment maintenance, and oil-contaminated materials such as rags or other cleanup materials. The non-recyclables will be disposed of in a Class I disposal facility. (AFC 5.14.1.2; SA p. 105) MITIGATION: A licensed hauler will transport non-recyclable hazardous wastes to a Class I landfill. AES shall prepare a waste management plan, obtain a USEPA identification number, and report any potential enforcement action related to waste management. Conditions: WASTE-1 through WASTE-4. Disposal Capacity AFC Table 5.14-1 lists nonhazardous disposal facilities that can be used for wastes generated by the AES project. The two facilities listed that are located in Orange County have total remaining capacities of about 42 and 32 million tons and expected remaining lifetimes of 12 and 23 years, respectively. A third landfill in Orange County, Prima Deshecha has about 45 million tons of remaining capacity and is anticipated to remain open until about 2040 (Hull 2001). Landfills operated by the Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County, such as Puente Hills, will not accept wastes from out of the county. Nontheless, the Orange County landfills have adequate remaining capacity such that wastes from the AES project will comprise less than one percent of their remaining capacity. Three Class I landfills in California, at Kettleman Hills in King's County, Buttonwillow in Kern County, and Westmoreland in Imperial County, are permitted to accept hazardous waste (AES 2000a, AFC p. 5.14-2). There is a combined total in excess of twenty million cubic yards of remaining hazardous waste disposal capacity at these facilities with remaining lifetimes in excess of.50 years. The amount of hazardous waste being transported to these landfills has decreased in recent years due to source reduction efforts by generators, and the transport of waste out of state that is hazardous under California law, but not federal law. Cumulative Impacts Due to the minor amounts of wastes generated during project construction and operation, the insignificant impacts on individual disposal facilities, and the availability of additional regional landfills, cumulative impacts will be insignificant for both hazardous and nonhazardous wastes. 124 Finding With the implementation of the Conditions of Certification, below, the project conforms to applicable laws related to waste management and all potential adverse impacts related to waste management will be mitigated to insignificance. CONDITIONS OF CERTIFICATION WASTE MANAGEMENT ENFORCEMENT ACTION WASTE-1: Whenever aware of any impending waste management-related enforcement action, the project owner shall notify the CPM of any such action whether it is to be taken against the project owner, the waste transporter under contract, or the disposal or treatment facility to be used. Verification: The project owner shall notify the CPM in writing within 10 days of becoming aware of an impending enforcement action. WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN WASTE-2: Prior to the start of both construction and operation, the project owner shall prepare and submit to the CPM, for review and comment, a waste management plan with respect to all wastes generated during construction and operation of the facility, respectively. The plans shall contain, at a minimum, the following: • A description of all waste streams, including projections of frequency, amounts generated and hazard classifications; • Methods of managing each waste, including treatment methods and companies contracted with for treatment services, waste testing methods to assure correct classification, methods of transportation, disposal requirements and sites, and recycling and waste minimization/reduction plans; and • Provisions for personnel training and emergency procedures in response to the accidental release of hazardous wastes. Verification: No less than 20 days prior to the start of construction, the project owner shall submit the construction waste management plan to the CPM for review. The operations-related waste management plan shall be submitted no less than 20 days prior to the start of operation. The project owner shall submit any required revisions within 10 days of notification by the CPM (or on a mutually agreed upon date). In the Annual Compliance Reports, the project owner shall document the actual waste management methods used during the year compared to planned management methods. 125 ENVIRONMENTAL PROFESSIONAL WASTE-3: The project owner shall have an environmental professional available for consultation during soil excavation and grading activities. The environmental professional shall be given full authority to oversee any earth moving activities that have the potential to disturb contaminated soil. The environmental professional shall meet the qualifications of such as defined by the American Society for Testing and Materials designation E 1527-97 Standard Practice for Phase I Environmental Site Assessments as evidenced by one of the following or similar credentials: (1) Certified Industrial Hygienist with experience in worker exposure monitoring, (2) Qualified Environmental Professional certification, (3) Registered Environmental Assessor ll, or (4) Registered Professional Engineer or Geologist with experience in remedial investigation and feasibility studies. Verification: At least 20 days prior to the start of construction, the project owner shall submit the qualifications and experience of the environmental professional to the CPM for approval. CONTAMINATED SOIL WASTE-4: If potentially contaminated soil is unearthed during excavation at either the proposed site or linear facilities as evidenced by discoloration, odor, detection by handheld instruments, or other signs, the environmental professional shall inspect the site, determine the need for sampling to confirm the nature and extent of contamination, and file a written report to the project owner and CPM stating the recommended course of action. Depending on the nature and extent of contamination, the environmental professional shall have the authority to temporarily suspend construction activity at that location for the protection of workers or the public. If, in the opinion of the environmental professional, significant remediation may be required, the project owner shall contact representatives of the Orange County Environmental Health Division and the Long Beach Regional Office of the California Department of Toxic Substances Control for guidance and possible oversight. Verification: The project owner shall submit any reports filed by the environmental professional to the CPM within 5 days of their receipt. 126 LAWS, ORDINANCES, REGULATIONS & STANDARDS WASTE MANAGEMENT ..I x DESCRfPT10N,',... .-,.-..PPLiCABL „ , FEDERAL 42 U.S.C. §§6901-6992k, RCRA Regulates non-hazardous and hazardous wastes. Laws implemented by the Subtitle C and D State. 40 CFR 260, et seq. Implements regulations for RCRA Subtitle C and D. Implemented by the US EPA by delegating to the State. Federal Clean Water Act, 33 Regulates wastewater discharges to surface waters of the US. NPDES U.S.C. §1251 et se program administered at the State level. STATE Public Resources Code §40000 Implements RCRA regulations for non-hazardous waste. et seq. (California]nteg rated Waste Management Act Water Code§13000, et seq. Regulates wastewater discharges to surface and groundwaters of California. (Porter-Cologne Water Quality NPDES program implemented by State Water Resources Control Board. Control Act 22 CCR §66262.34 Regulates accumulation periods for hazardous waste generators. Typically hazardous waste cannot be stored on-site for greater than 90 days. Health & Safety Code §25100 et Regulates hazardous waste handling/storing. Implemented by City of seq. (California Hazardous Huntington Beach Fire Department, Hazardous Materials Division. Waste Control Law LOCAL There are no applicable local LORS for Waste Management. 127 WATER QUALITY & SOILS C1hlt ATE t Erosion, MITIGATION • Sedimentation Construction: The project will require no grading and limited excavation. Excavation and & Drainage hauling activities potentially produce dust which can be transported off-site by wind. Excavation may also create the potential for transportation loosened soils by rainwater or on-site release of fluids. Existing permanent catchment basins and temporary containment barriers can control potential sedimentation impacts to waterways or sensitive habitat. MITIGATION: To control airborne fugitive dust, AES shall water disturbed areas and apply chemical dust suppressants, apply gravel or paving to traffic areas, wash wheels of vehicles of large trucks leaving the site. Condition: AQ — C1. Prior to site clearing and grading, AES shall update as necessary its erosion control and stormwater pollution prevention plans to contain and process runoff on-site and to prevent or contain any spill or leak of construction materials onto soils or into runoff waters. Conditions: WATER QUALITY-1 and WATER QUALITY-5. Operation: Stormwater drainage over compacted or graveled surfaces has the potential to impact off-site waterways or sensitive habitats by carrying contaminants deposited on the surface or by channeling volumes of fast moving water. AES proposes to collect surface run-off in a large catchment basin before being discharged. MITIGATION: Prior to site clearing and grading, AES shall prepare erosion control and stormwater pollution prevention plans to contain and process runoff on-site and to prevent or contain any spill or leak of materials onto soils or into runoff waters. Conditions: WATER QUALITY-1 References: SA p. 265. Prior Soil MITIGATIONNone ftne Contamination Though unlikely, soil contaminated by disposal practice or accidental spills or leaks may be encountered at the power plant site during construction excavation. MITIGATION: Contaminated soils will be tested and, if appropriate, treated or disposed at a Class I landfill. Condition: WASTE-1. References: SA p. 102. 128 Contamination MITIGATION MITIGATION • of Surface Construction: AES will not release any substance onto the power plant site soils or Waters & into a nearby waterway which will degrade either surface water quality or Groundwaters groundwater quality. Operation: AES will not release any substance onto the power plant site soils or into a nearby waterway which will degrade either surface water quality nor groundwater quality. AES will store all hazardous and acutely hazardous materials in tanks with catchment basins to retain spills or ruptures. (See HAZARDOUS MATERIALS, Storage & Use). AES will store and, as appropriate, cover small quantities of hazardous materials to prevent contamination of soils or water quality, directly or by runoff. MITIGATION: The storage of urea for producing ammonia shall include a secondary containment basin. Condition: WATER QUALITY-5. AES shall prepare erosion control and stormwater pollution prevention plans to contain and process any spill or leak of hazardous materials onto soils or into runoff waters. Conditions: WATER QUALITY-1. Thermal Discharge: The HBGS discharge of heated water to the Pacific Ocean may or may not be contributing to the presence of bacteria in the surf zone causing the closure of public beaches. Studies hypothesize that thermal discharge from AES's outfall causes an up-welling which brings deeper waters bearing bacteria, possibly from the Sanitation District's sewage outfall, nearer to the surface, where tidal action and winds bring the bacteria to shore. MITIGATION: AES will fund a non-duplicative study focused on the HBGS's potential contribution to the surf zone water quality problems and implement solutions recommended by the study results. Condition: WATER QUALITY-3. References: SA pp.263-268. Wastewater one Sanitary wastes will be directed to the existing sanitary sewage system. Wastewater will be generated at the plant in various systems, including boiler blowdown, condenser cooling water, metal cleaning wastes, storm water runoff, etc. AES plans to collect all plant wastewater streams and discharge them through the outfall to the ocean under the current NPDES permit from the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board. References: SA p. 264 WATER QUALITY— GENERAL This section analyzes potential effects on water quality and soil resources that could result from construction and operation of the project, specifically focusing on the potential for erosion and sedimentation and degradation of surface and groundwater quality. Flooding is addressed in the GEOLOGY section of this decision. Solid waste and contaminated soil disposal is discussed in the WASTE MANAGEMENT section. 129 Erosion, Sedimentation & Drainage The proposed project does not involve any major ground disturbance, such as grading or excavation (AES 2000, p. 5.4-3). Most access is limited to existing paved roads in the construction area to minimize site compaction. Installation of the selective catalytic reduction (SCR) units will require the removal of asphalt near the generating units resulting in minor soil disturbance. In addition the construction of the urea reactor tank will also require removal of the existing asphalt cover where the foundation and loading area for this tank will be located. The surrounding asphalt will remain unaltered. Exposure of the soils can lead to their entrainment in surface water flows. AES proposes to institute measures to minimize soil erosion during construction. MITIGATION: To control airborne fugitive dust, AES shall water disturbed areas and apply chemical dust suppressants, apply gravel or paving to traffic areas, wash wheels of vehicles of large trucks leaving the site. Condition: AQ — C1. Prior to site clearing and grading, AES shall update as necessary its erosion control and stormwater pollution prevention plans to contain and process runoff on-site and to prevent or contain any spill or leak of construction materials onto soils or into runoff waters. Conditions: WATER QUALITY-1 and WATER QUALITY-5. Prior Soil Contamination Excavation may unearth soils contaminated by prior disposal practices or accidental spills or leaks. If contaminated soil is encountered during construction, such contamination will be assessed using procedures that allow for identification of best disposal options. If the soil is classified as hazardous (according to RCRA and CCR Title 22), the soil will be hauled to a Class I landfill or other appropriate soil treatment and recycling facility. MITIGATION: Contaminated soils will be tested and, if appropriate, treated or disposed at a Class I landfill. Condition: WASTE-1. Contamination of Surface Waters & Groundwaters A site spill contingency plan may need to be updated for chemical spill control and management of the hazardous materials that will be stored and used on the site (refer to the Hazardous Materials section for more information). As described in the SWPPP, AES hazardous materials would be surrounded by secondary containment structures, protected from precipitation by covers, and stored in drums approved by the Department of Transportation. These drums would be placed on spill containment skids and housed at a storage area. MITIGATION: AES shall update its erosion control and stormwater pollution prevention plans to contain and process any spill or leak of hazardous materials onto soils or into runoff waters. Conditions: WATER QUALITY-1. The storage of urea for producing ammonia shall include a secondary containment basin. Condition: WATER QUALITY-3. 130 Renewal of the HBGS' NPDES permit did not require an assessment of the potential environmental impacts on the current environment associated with the proposed increased operation. Concerns were raised by the City of Huntington Beach that increasing the water volume intake from and discharge to the ocean by HBGS may result in further surf zone water quality impairment and beach closures. Over the last two years Huntington Beaches (both state and city) have been closed because of the presence of indicator bacteria in the surrounding surf zone. Although sometimes naturally occurring, indicator bacteria can be a sign of fecal contamination. A study published in December 2000 suggests a possible link between the intake/discharge of the power plant and elevated surf zone levels of indicator bacteria (UCI et al, 2000). The report suggests that an upwelling of the bacteria by the power plant's wastewater discharge transports the bacteria to the near-shore region. Although not identified as a possible source of the bacteria, current available analysis is unclear as to the extent of this link. Additional efforts are underway to further analyze conditions in the surf zone, the sources of the bacteria and mechanisms that may transport the indicator bacteria to the surf zone (including the power plant's outfall). AES is currently participating in a task force lead by the Orange County Sanitation District created to develop the next phase of analysis. It is not clear at this time if these studies will clarify whether or not HBGS' operation has an effect on the occurrence of the bacteria in the vicinity the beaches. Since efforts are already underway, staff believes that it is important for any analysis regarding the impacts associated with HBGS's intake/discharge be done in cooperation with and complementary to these other efforts. Therefore, staff is recommending a condition of certification that directs the project owner, under the direction of the Energy Commission, to provide for an analysis of the influence and interaction of the HBGS ocean intake and discharge on the indicator bacteria in the surf zone of Huntington Beaches. MITIGATION: AES shall fund a non-duplicative study focused on the HBGS's potential contribution to the surf zone water quality problems and implement solutions recommended by the study results. Condition: WATER QUALITY-3. The City of Huntington Beach has proposed a condition to create an up-front $14 million mitigation guaranty fund to assure payment of mitigation. The Commission believes that AES will have a sufficient income stream from project operation to pay for necessary mitigation on a pay-as-you-go basis. With respect to the surf zone study (WATER QUALIY-3), the Commission believes that the accompanying condition recommended by Staff for pre-payment of the study funds (WATER QUALITY-4)is appropriate to assure the accomplishment of the study. ! Additionally, the City of Huntington Beach proposes a condition that to mitigate impacts to the local area, its residents and visitors, AES pay $ 500,000 to the City Park and Recreation fund to assist in improvement of the quality of life in the City. The Commission does not believe that the record supports with specificity the impacts asserted by the City nor the amount requested as mitigation. Wastewater Under existing operation, several waste streams are directed to the facility's ocean discharge as permitted by the Santa Ana RWQCB (SARWQCB 2000). These include the boiler blowdown, condenser cooling water, metal cleaning wastes and flows from the retention basin. Waste directed to 131 the retention basin include stormwater and low volume wastes (water softener regeneration brines, reverse osmosis/deionization unit brines, boiler condensate, drains, laboratory and sampling streams). The existing NPDES permit specifies wastewater thermal discharge is not to exceed 30 degrees F above the natural temperature of the receiving waters with allowance for the waste discharge to not exceed 125 degrees F during adjustment of the re-circulation gate (heat treatment for bio-fouling control). Thermal limits also include increases of no more than 4 degree F at the shoreline, the surface of any ocean substrate and the ocean surface beyond 1,000 feet from the discharge point maintained at least 50 percent of the duration of any complete tidal cycle. Several constituent concentration limits are established for the waste discharge to the outfall (Discharge Serial No. 001) and are contained in the NPDES permit. Residual chlorine concentrations in excess of 0.2 milligrams per liter are prohibited and measured pH levels must be within 6.0 and 9.0. Maximum wastewater flow is 516 mgd. Based on the Applicant's calculations, wastewater discharge from Discharge Serial No. 001 is not expected to exceed 513.5 mgd (AES, Data Response#52, February 23, 2001). Cumulative Impacts Although a proposed project may not result in any direct or indirect adverse impacts, it may contribute to cumulative adverse impacts when considered with other proposed development in an area. To the extent that such an impact is probable, a developer may be required to mitigate the increment of the impact attributable their proposed project. Staff is aware of one other development with the potential to cause a cumulative impact when considered in relationship with HBGS. Poseidon Resources Corporation (Poseidon) has submitted an application to the City of Huntington Beach to construct and operate the Seawater Desalination Project at AES' Huntington Beach Generating Station. According to a brief description supplied to staff by City of Huntington Beach representative, this project will use wastewater discharge from the power plant as its source water and return its saltwater by-product to the power plants discharge conduit. Many of the other facilities at the HBGS will be utilized for operation of the desalination facility. HBGS' current NPDES permit does not include this desalination facility. Changes to the physical or chemical characteristics of HBGS discharge resulting from the construction and operation of the desalination facility will require the existing permit be re-evaluated and may require the existing NPDES permit be modified, revoked or re-issued. Based on information available to staff there is the potential for a cumulative impact to occur; however, inadequate information is available to determine the extent of the impact. Impacts associated with the Poseidon desalination facility will be evaluated by the City of Huntington Beach, the Santa Ana RWQCB and other appropriate agencies as part of their permitting processes and the City's CEQA analysis of the proposal. In order to approve the desalination facility, the City will address mitigation of any direct, indirect.and cumulative environmental impacts from the development of the desalination facility at the HBGS site. 132 Findings 1. Although the project has a potential significant impact on the environment due to its possible contribution to the transportation of indicator bacteria to the surf zone, specific social and economic considerations—the immediate need to increase electric generating capacity in order to avoid the disruption of electric service and consequent threats to the health and safety of Californians—make infeasible any additional mitigation measures or project alternatives that would postpone or delay the proposed project. Until the study of the extent of the project's contribution to the transport of bacteria, if any, is conducted, the Commission lacks the information to design or evaluate further measures beyond the study itself. Alternative projects that would provide power for use in the summer of 2001 and beyond are needed in addition to the HBGS project in order to further close the gap between supply and upcoming summer's peak demands. 2. Further the benefits of the project—significant new generating capacity which helps meet the peak summer electricity needs—are overriding considerations in approving the project at this time and outweigh what may be a significant impact. 3. With respect to the potential environmental impacts of the proposed Poseidon desalination project, that project is within the authority of the City of Huntington Beach. Application for the appropriate permits has been made to the City and an environmental impact study is or will be undertaken. From the information provided by that study, the City can and should be adopt changes or mitigations in the project to mitigate any environmental impacts. 4. As to all other significant effects identified in this proceeding, changes or alterations have been required by conditions or incorporated into the project which mitigate or avoid each of those significant effects. These findings regarding the potentially significant impact and the Commission's approval of the HBGS projects are consistent with the Governor's direction in Executive Order D-28-01 to "follow substantive requirements designed to achieve environmental protection and the protection of public health and safety to the maximum extent consistent with the prompt execution of those executive orders [requiring action to improve the supply of electricity]. CONDITIONS OF CERTIFICATION WATER QUALITY-1: Prior to operation of Units 3 and 4, the project owner will update and implement the HBGS Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan, and Spill Prevention Control and Counter Measure Plan based on recommendations by the City of Huntington Beach to comply with all requirements of federal, state and local agencies as specified in NPDES No. CA0001163, Order No. 00-5, including Municipal Code Title 14 requirements for the protection of water quality. The applicant will work in cooperation with the City of Huntington Beach to determine what changes are necessary to bring the facility in compliance with local requirements. No stormwater runoff or industrial waste discharge from HBGS is to be discharged to surrounding wetlands or sensitive habitat. All recommended improvements and maintenance specified by the City of Huntington Beach will be implemented by the 133 f project owner prior to operation of Units 3 and 4 and during the units operation. All structural improvements and or modifications must be completed by the beginning of the rainy season, November 1, 2001. Immediately following certification by the Energy Commission, the project owner will submit the HBGS Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan and Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasure Plan to the City of Huntington Beach for their review and determination of compliance with the City's Municipal Code Title 14. Verification: No less than 30 days after certification the project owner will submit to the CEC CPM and City of Huntington Beach a copy of the revised plans and Verification from the City of Huntington Beach that the revised plans comply with all applicable local requirements and obtain CEC CPM approval for the revised plans prior to operation of Units 3 and 4. .All structural improvements and or modifications specified in the revised plans must be completed by the beginning of the rainy season, November 1, 2001. WATER QUALITY-2: Prior to commercial operation of Units 3 and 4, the project owner shall execute a water service agreement with the City of Huntington Beach's Water Department that reflects all terms and conditions of municipal water service. As required by the City, the project owner will conduct or cause to occur supply and reservoir studies required to verify or identify if any upgrades or modifications to the existing system are necessary to serve HBGS. The project owner will fund all capital and administrative costs associated with the planning, design and building of upgrades or improvements to the City's existing system necessary to service any increased demands of HBGS, including those incurred by the City. Prior to commercial operation of Units 3 and 4, all specified upgrades or modifications identified in this study will be implemented. The project owner will submit a copy of the water service agreement to the CEC CPM and include details of the City's recommended upgrades or modifications required, costs, schedule for the implementation of these improvements, and any mitigation necessary to address impacts associated with these upgrades or modifications. Verification: Within 30 days of Commission certification, the project owner will submit copies of the executed water service agreement, and the results of the approved supply and reservoir studies to the CEC CPM. Prior to commercial operation of Units 3 & 4, the project owner will submit verification from the City of Huntington Beach that all necessary upgrades or modifications have been completed as specified in the studies. WATER QUALITY-3: The project owner will participate in the Stakeholder Group established to study HBGS's ocean water intake and waste water discharge impacts on the surf zone water quality, including effects on levels of indicator bacteria and beach closures. The project owner will fund all costs associated with the study(s) undertaken to determine if the HBGS is contributing to the surf zone water quality problems, and implement solutions recommended by study results, as determined by the Energy Commission staff in consultation with the Stakeholder Group. These mitigation measures will be implemented by the project owner within a schedule defined by the Energy Commission Staff, in consultation with the Stakeholders Group, no later than the HBGS NPDES permit renewal on June 30, 2005, or CEC re-certification (whichever comes sooner). This condition does not intend to require the 134 project owner to conduct duplicative studies. The project owner may cost-share on any study(ies) undertaken, as appropriate. Verification: Within 30 days after the final approval of the final monitoring and study plan by the CEC Water Resources Technical Staff and CPM, the project owner will submit a recommended schedule for the completion of all required mitigation measures to the CEC CPM for review and approval. The project owner shall provide a letter of verification to the CEC CPM that these methods have been implemented or completed within 15 days after their implementation or completion but no later than the HBGS NPDES permit renewal on June 30, 2005, or CEC Re-certification whichever is sooner. WATER QUALITY-4: The project owner will provide a check for $1 million to the Center For Natural Lands Management (contact: Ms. Sherry Teresa, Executive Director, 425 E. Alvarado Street, Suite H, Fallbrook, CA 92028-2960) to establish the HBGS Water Quality Trust Account to administer and conduct the approved study(s) specified in Soil & Water 3 above. All payments from the trust account must be authorized by the CEC CPM. The $1 million is for development of study need and protocol, Technical Advisor Group (TAG), and to conduct the stud s . Unspent funds and interest will be returned to the project owner or additional funds maybe required. Any required mitigation that is a result of the HBGS will be paid for by the project owner and be in addition to funds ($1 Million) discussed here. Verification: No later than 30 days prior to commercial operation of Units 3 and 4, the project owner will provide written verification from the Center for Natural Lands Management to the CEC CPM that 1) a check for $1 Million was provided to the Center, and 2) the HBGS Water Quality Trust Account was established. WATER QUALITY-5: Secondary containment will be designed and operated for the urea reactor tank to hold 110 percent of the capacity of the largest tank plus the freeboard precipitation of a 24 hour, 25- year storm event or other specified storm event standard appropriate for this site. Verification: No more than two weeks after the installment of the urea tank reactor, the applicant will provide verification from the Santa Ana RWQCB that required secondary containment is installed and operational. 135 LAWS, ORDINANCES, REGULATIONS & STANDARDS WATER QUALITY & SOILS ,APPLICABLE LAW 'DESCRIPTION' FEDERAL Clean Water Act; 33 U.S.C. Regulates discharges of wastewater and stormwater. Applies to wastewater §1251 et seq. discharged from cooling tower basins and stormwater runoff. These discharges are subject to NPDES permits obtained through the RWQCB at the state level. STATE Porter Cologne Water Quality Established jurisdiction of nine RWQCBs to control pollutant discharges to Control Act, Water Code §13000 surface and groundwater. et seg. SWRCB Water Quality Order Regulates industrial stormwater discharges during construction and operation. Nos. 91-13-DWQ and 92-08- These discharges subject to NPDES permits obtained through the RWQCB. DWQ Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Prohibits the discharge of any substance known to cause cancer or birth Enforcement Act(Prop. 65 defects to sources of drinking water. LOCAL 136 WATER RESOURCES POWER PLANT,,, SURROUNDING CUMIJLAT1VEy� E' LORS IMPACTS Water Supply Policy None None ' ne Yes Operation: As proposed, the HBGS will increase the demand for ocean and potable water to serve Units 3 and 4. Under normal operations, Units 3 and 4 will require 176,000 gpm (253.4 mgd) of ocean water for cooling. The use of ocean water conforms to the State Water Resources Board policy regarding power plant water sources. The Retool Project will require approximately 50 percent more potable water from the City of Huntington Beach for operational uses. City of Huntington Beach indicated that the applicant needs to contract with the City for water supply. References: SA p. 263. WATER RESOURCES — GENERAL The proposed HBGS Retooling Project will use existing intake and outfall structures (constructed in the late 1950s) to supply Units 3 and 4 with cooling water from the Pacific Ocean. Designed to serve Units 1 through 4, the existing circulating cooling water system consists of a 14-foot diameter intake structure, intake and traveling screens, pumps, and a 21-foot diameter discharge pipe. Located approximately 1,650 feet offshore in roughly 27 feet of water (mean low low water), the intake structure rises 15.8 feet above the ocean floor and is equipped with a velocity cap. Maximum mean velocity specified in the NPDES permit at the intake is 2.0 feet per second. With Units 1 and 2 operating, the discharge velocity is 1.1 ft/s. Eight circulator pumps can deliver up to 44,000 gpm (507 mgd) each for a total capacity of 352,000 gpm (4056 mgd). Currently, 176,000 gpm of circulating water and boiler component cooling water is required for Units 1 and 2. The water is carried through a concrete conduit from the intake point into a screening facility. The initial screen system is designed to remove marine life and debris, while the traveling screens remove smaller debris and marine organisms. The Discharge structure is located approximately 1,500 feet off shore in water 25 feet deep, about 350 feet from the intake structure. With a diameter of 21-feet, the discharge pipe rises approximately 15 feet above the ocean floor (SARWQCB 2000). Water Supply Policy State Water Resources Control Board Resolution 75-58, discourages the use of fresh inland water for power plant cooling and prioritizes the source water of power plant cooling water: (1) wastewater discharge to the ocean, (2) ocean water, (3) brackish water from natural sources or irrigation return flow, (4) inland waste waters of low TDS, and, lastly, (5) other inland waters. As proposed, the HBGS will increase the demand for ocean and potable water to serve Units 3 and 4. Under normal operations, Units 3 and 4 will require 176,000 gpm (253.4 mgd) of ocean water for 137 cooling, doubling the current water demands for the power plant (AES 2000, p. 3.4-4; 3.4-6) to 352,000 gpm (506,000 mgd) on average and peak (AES 2000, Table 5.5-21). According to the applicant, Units 1 and 2 will serve intermediate loads and Unit 5 will primarily serve peaking loads (AES 2000, p. 3.1-1) once Units 3 & 4 are operational. The Applicant reported no water use for Unit 5. In their revised total municipal water demand estimates, AES indicates that HBGS will require 0.367 to 0.637 mgd (AES, Data Response #52, February 23, 2001). This represents an increase of approximately 50 percent over current demand based on estimates given in February 23, 2001 Date Response #52 submittal of 0.285 mgd average and 0.445 mgd peak. Make-up water for the steam turbines must first be treated to produce high purity demineralized water. Treatment includes reverse osmosis and electrical deionization. In their letter dated Dec. 21, 2000, the City of Huntington Beach indicated that the applicant needs to contract with the City for water supply and reservoir studies required to verify or identify if any upgrades or modifications to the existing system are necessary to serve HBGS. According to the City, these studies are required because of changes to and increased demands on the system that supplies City water to HBGS since Units 3 and 4 were retired in 1995. Staff concurs and recommends Soil & Water 2 (below) to address this needed analysis and the need to determine if any modifications are required to the existing system to serve Units 3 & 4 Cumulative Impacts Although a proposed project may not result in any direct or indirect adverse impacts, it may contribute to cumulative adverse impacts when considered with other proposed development in an area. To the extent that such an impact is probable, a developer may be required to mitigate the increment of the impact attributable their proposed project. Staff is aware of one other development with the potential to cause a cumulative impact when considered in relationship with HBGS. Poseidon Resources Corporation (Poseidon) has submitted an application to the City of Huntington Beach to construct and operate the Seawater Desalination Project at AES' Huntington Beach Generating Station. According to a brief description supplied to staff by City of Huntington Beach representative, this project will use wastewater discharge from the power plant as its source water and return its saltwater by-product to the power plants discharge conduit. Many of the other facilities at the HBGS will be utilized for operation of the desalination facility. HBGS' current NPDES permit does not include this desalination facility. Changes to the physical or chemical characteristics of HBGS discharge resulting from the construction and operation of the desalination facility will require the existing permit be re-evaluated and may require the existing NPDES permit be modified, revoked or re-issued. Based on information available to staff there is the potential for a cumulative impact to occur; however, inadequate information is available to determine the extent of the impact. Impacts associated with the Poseidon desalination facility will be evaluated by the City of Huntington Beach, the Santa Ana RWQCB and other appropriate agencies as part of their permitting processes and the city's CEQA analysis of the proposal. In order to approve the desalination facility, the City will address mitigation of any direct, indirect and cumulative environmental impacts from the development of the desalination facility at the HBGS site. 138 Findings There are no significant water resources impacts. CONDITIONS OF CERTIFICATION None 139 LAWS, ORDINANCES, REGULATIONS & STANDARDS WATER RESOURCES APPLICABCE'LAW � DESCRIRTION' .' FEDERAL STATE State Water Resources Control SWRCB Resolution 75-58,discourages the use of fresh inland water for power plant cooling and Board Policy 75—78; California Prioritizes the source water of power plant cooling water: (1)wastewater discharge to the ocean, Water Code, Sections 461 and (2)ocean water, (3)brackish water from natural sources or irrigation return flow, (4)inland waste waters of low TDS,and,lastly,(5)other inland waters. 13552, and by Water Commission Resolution 77-1 ;APPLICABLE LAW ..• a �z:' DESCRIPTION WATER RESOURCES' ,,,,. ,., . .. Mae LOCAL 140 ALTERNATIVES f Alternative POWER PLANT SITE IS PREFERABLEO ANY ALTERNATIVE Sites No alternative site is preferable to the existing site because it maximizes use of existing transmission and other infrastructure. The proposed site creates no impacts that cannot be mitigated to a level of insignificance, except potentially nighttime construction noise that has been mitigated to the extent feasible. References: SA pp. 331-337. Alternative Design ' A AES is leaving the existing equipment in place, adding emission control technology so that Units 3 and 4 are far less polluting than their former configuration. For the objective of contributing generation to aid California's electricity supply emergency beginning in summer 2001, no alternative design is either feasible or preferable. Reference: SA pp. 331-337. Alternative Technology AES is leaving the existing equipment in place, adding emission control technology so that Units 3 and 4 are far less polluting than their former configuration. For the objective of contributing generation to aid California's electricity supply emergency beginning in summer 2001, no alternative technology is either feasible or preferable. References:AFC 5.3; SA . 516-517. "No Project" ® rr« � r: ♦ r � w ® wr�r� , rr� Alternative The "no project" alternative and determined that it would make less efficient use of the region's infrastructure and energy resources. Without retooling of these existing units, AES would operate the existing power plant at times of peak demand particularly in the summer of 2001. Electricity demand, which is expected to grow in Southern California in general and in Orange Counties in particular, would be met either by increased use of existing facilities or the development of other new power plants. California's pressing need for new generating capacity would not be met by the "no project" alternative. The "no project" alternative would eliminate the expected economic benefits which the proposed project would bring to City of Huntington Beach and Orange County. Reference:AFC 5.1; SA P. 514. 141 ALTERNATIVES — GENERAL The Energy Commission's Power Plant Siting Regulatory Program is a "certified regulatory program" under CEQA. With regard to the "Alternatives" analysis required in a certified siting proceeding, the CEQA Guidelines (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, §15252) state that the environmental documentation shall include either: • Alternatives to the activity and mitigation measures to avoid or reduce any significant or potentially significant effects that the project might have on the environment, or • A statement that the agency's review of the project showed that the project would not have any significant or potentially significant effects on the environment and therefore no alternatives or mitigation measures are proposed to avoid or reduce any significant effects on the environment. This statement shall be supported by a checklist or other documentation to show the possible effects that the agency examined in reaching this conclusion." The Warren-Alquist Act specifies that an Application for Certification of a natural gas fired power plant "modification" (such as the AES project) is not required to provide any information in its application on alternative sites for the proposed facility. (Pub. Resources Code, §25540.6(a) and (b)). However, the Energy Commission's Siting Regulations (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 20, §1765) require that: "At the hearings . . . on an application exempt from the [Notice Of Intent] requirements pursuant to Public Resources Code section 25540.6, the parties shall present information on the feasibility of available site and facility alternatives to the applicant's proposal which substantially lessen the significant adverse impacts of the proposal on the environment. . . . In light of these provisions, AES presented in its AFC an alternatives analysis, excluding alternative sites. The Energy Commission staff presented information in its Staff Assessment on the "feasibility of available site and facility alternatives to the applicant's proposal that substantially lessen the significant adverse impacts of the proposal on the environment" (Cal. Code Regs., tit: 20, §1765). Staff also analyzed whether there are any feasible alternative designs or alternative technologies, including the "no project alternative," that may be capable of reducing or avoiding any potential impacts of the proposed project while achieving its major objectives. Alternative Sites Consistent with the CEQA Guidelines, the consideration of alternative sites was guided by whether most project objectives could be accomplished at alternative sites and whether locating the project at an alternative site would substantially lessen any identified potential impacts of the project (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14 §15126.6(a)). AES's basic objectives are to provide economically competitive electricity in Southern California while minimizing impacts and costs by making use of an existing power plant site and related infrastructure to the extent feasible. The project would make use of much of the infrastructure of the existing site, the 142 existing boilers and generating units, the existing water supply, and access to the adjacent SCE .switchyard to connect to the transmission grid. The Commission concludes that an alternative site would not be preferable to the. proposed site, and a more detailed alternative site analysis is not needed. Alternative Design /Alternative Technology Demand Side Management One alternative to a power generation project could be programs to reduce energy consumption. These programs are typically called "energy efficiency," "conservation," or "demand side management" programs. One goal of these programs is to reduce overall electricity use; some programs also attempt to shift such energy use to off-peak periods. The Energy Commission is responsible for several such programs, the most notable of which are energy efficiency standards for new buildings and for major appliances. The California Public Utilities Commission supervises various demand side management programs administered by the regulated utilities, and many municipal electric utilities have their own demand side management programs. The combination of these programs constitutes the most ambitious overall approach to reducing electricity demand administered by any state in the nation. The Energy Commission is also responsible for determining what the state's energy needs are in the future, using 5 and 12 year forecasts of both energy supply and demand. The Commission calculates the energy use reduction measures discussed above into these forecasts when determining what future electricity needs are, and how much additional generation will be necessary to satisfy the state's needs. The Warren-Alquist Act prohibits the agency, in its alternatives analysis, from considering such conservation programs to be alternatives to a proposed generation project (Pub. Resources Code, §25305(c)). This is due to the fact such programs have already been accounted for in the "integrated assessment of need," and the programs would not in themselves be sufficient to substitute for the additional generation calculated to be needed. The Warren-Alquist Act was amended in 1999 to delete the necessity of a Commission finding of "need" in power plant licensing cases. Nevertheless, the Commission's most recent need determination, adopted in 1997, makes it abundantly clear that conservation programs alone can not displace the need for power generation for California's growing economy. (SA p. 334) Generation Technology Alternatives Staff compared various alternative technologies with the proposed project, scaled to meet the project's objectives and time frame. Technologies examined were those principal electricity generation technologies that do not burn fossil fuels such as geothermal, solar and wind. Each of these technologies could be attractive from an environmental perspective because of the absence or reduced level of air pollutant emissions. C 143 I Solar and wind resources require large land areas in order to generate 50 megawatts of electricity. Specifically, utility-scale solar thermal projects require between four and ten acres per megawatt depending on the type of system (parabolic trough, parabolic dish, or central receiver) (CEC 1996, pp. B.15.1-2). A project comparable to the proposed 450 megawatt retooling project would require a minimum of 1,800 acres, or more than 35 times the amount of space occupied by the 53-acre parcel, of which the project is a part. Wind generation "farms" generally require about 17 acres per megawatt, and 450 megawatts would require in excess of 7,600 acres, more than 150 times the amount of space occupied by the 53-acre parcel (CEC 1996, pp. B.16.1). Solar and wind technologies have the potential for significant land use impacts due to the large land areas required. Limited land is available for immediate solar or wind energy development along the southern California coast. Nor has it been demonstrated that solar or wind generation capacity would be feasible in the project vicinity. Such projects involve land use issues, moreover, that could limit the size and feasibility of such alternative generation sources, and could affect the timing of such facilities becoming available if they were proposed. In addition, a key objective of this project is to supply electricity during the Summer 2001 peak demand period. Development of solar or wind facilities would not be feasible within such a short time period. Therefore, such facilities do not provide an alternative to the proposed project. Geothermal resources are available in limited areas of California, including the Geysers area northern California (CEC 2000). No significant geothermal resources are available in the Huntington Beach area. While development of additional geothermal resources in California is possible, geothermal power is not a feasible alternative to the proposed project. "No Project" Alternative One of the project objectives is to complete the project on schedule to meet Summer 2001 peak load demands. The process of identifying an alternative site, preparing and processing an application, and construction of a facility would involve substantial time periods that would preclude the applicant from satisfying this objective. Nor would the development of an undeveloped site satisfy another objective, which is to utilize existing infrastructure in terms of gas supply, electrical transmission, water supply and wastewater streams. This analysis of alternatives is governed by the "rule of reason" as stated in the CEQA Guidelines, which requires that project alternatives satisfy most of the basic objectives of the project: Identification of new undeveloped sites as alternatives to the HBGS site could not feasibly accomplish this result. No project identified as an alternative site, and not already planned, could feasibly be licensed and constructed to be on-line in the summer of 2001. Findings The Commission has analyzed in alternatives to the project design and related facilities, alternative technologies, and the "no project' alternative. Developing the project at an alternative site would not 144 allow AES to make use of infrastructure at the existing site, one of the objectives of the project, and would not substantially lessen the potential impacts of the project which are mitigated to insignificance by the Conditions of Certification. Plus, the facility could not come on line in the summer of 2001 as critically needed. The Commission does not believe that energy efficiency measures and alternative technologies (geothermal, solar, and wind) present feasible alternatives to the proposed project. The "no project" alternative will not meet urgent California electricity demand in a timely manner and will cause the lose of local economic benefits. Therefore, the "no project' alternative is inferior to the proposed project. i 145 EFFICIENCY Local/Regional Energy COMPLIES WITH APPLICABLE Supplies Natural gas fuel will be supplied to the project by SoCalGas pipeline (AES 2000a, AFC §§ 1.3.3, 3.4.6, 3.7.1, 3.9.2.6.3). This line has proven to be of sufficient size to serve the HBGS, and should provide adequate access to natural gas fuel. There is no real likelihood that the Retool Project will require the development of additional energy supply capacity. References: SA M. 314-315 Energy Consumption COMPLIES WITH APPLICABLE LAWS&REGULATIONS Rate Energy Commission predictions are that natural gas supplies will be adequate for many years into the future. It is therefore highly unlikely that the Retool Project could pose a substantial increase in demand for natural gas in California. Reference: SA pp. 314-315. EFFICIENCY - GENERAL CEQA Guidelines state that the environmental analysis "...shall describe feasible measures which could minimize significant adverse impacts, including where relevant, inefficient and unnecessary consumption of energy" (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 15126.4(a)(1)). Appendix F of the Guidelines further suggests consideration of such factors as the project's energy requirements and energy use efficiency; its effects on local and regional energy supplies and energy resources; its requirements for additional energy supply capacity; its compliance with existing energy standards; and any alternatives that could reduce wasteful, inefficient and unnecessary consumption of energy (Cal. Code regs., tit. 14, § 15000 et seq., Appendix F). AES Huntington Beach LLC (AES) proposes to retool and return to service the existing Huntington Beach Units 3 and 4 power plants to generate load following and peaking power and provide ancillary services, selling directly to customers via contract and on the spot market (AES 2000a, AFC §§ 2.2, 3.4.1, 3.9.2.1, 3.9.2.1.1, 3.9.2.1.2, 3.9.2.6). (Note that the project's nominal rating of 450 MW, or 225 MW per unit, is based upon past experience operating these units. The project's actual maximum generating capacity may differ from this figure.) The Retool Project will involve refurbishing and upgrading the boilers and steam turbines, adding selective catalytic reduction (SCR) to control air emissions, and returning the units to service by the summer of 2001 (AES 2000a, AFC §§ 1.1, 1.2, 1.3.2, 3.4.1, 3.4.2, 3.4.3, 3.4.5). Local/Regional Energy Supplies Natural gas fuel will be supplied to the project by the existing 18-inch diameter pipeline that supplies the HBGS from an existing 30-inch diameter SoCalGas pipeline (AES 2000a, AFC §§ 1.3.3, 3.4.6, 3.7.1, 3.9.2.6.3). This line has proven to be of sufficient size to serve the HBGS, and should provide 146 adequate access to natural gas fuel. There is no real likelihood that the Retool Project will require the development of additional energy supply capacity. Energy Consumption Rate Any power plant large enough to fall under Energy Commission siting jurisdiction will consume large amounts of energy. The Retool Project will burn natural gas at a nominal rate up to 6.3.billion Btu per year HHV (higher heating value)(AES 2000a, AFC § 3.4.1). This is a substantial rate of energy consumption, and holds the potential to impact energy supplies. Under expected project conditions, electricity will be generated at a full load efficiency of 36 to 37 percent HHV (AES 2000a, AFC §§ 1.3.2, 3.4.1; Appendix A). This compares favorably to the average fuel efficiency of many typical, older California utility company steam power plants, commonly used today for peaking power, at approximately 32 percent HHV. The applicant has described its sources of supply of natural gas for the Retool Project (AES 2000a, AFC §§ 1.3.3, 3.4.6, 3.7.1, 3.9.2.6.3, 3.9.4, 3.11.5, 4.3.3). The project will burn natural gas from the existing Southern California Gas Company (SoCalGas) pipeline that has served (and continues to serve) the existing HBGS. The SoCalGas gas supply infrastructure is extensive, offering access to vast reserves of gas from California, the Rocky Mountains, Canada and the Southwest. This source represents far more gas than would be required for a project of this size. Energy Commission predictions are that natural gas supplies will be adequate for many years into the future. It is therefore highly unlikely that the Retool Project could pose a substantial increase in demand for natural gas in California. (SA pp. 314-315) No standards apply to the efficiency of the Huntington Beach Units 3 & 4 Retool Project or other non- cogeneration projects. (SA p. 315) Cumulative Impacts Nearby power plant projects include the Nueva Azalea Project in South Gate (00-AFC-3), the planned Long Beach District Energy Facility, a planned expansion or modernization of the Redondo Beach Generating Station, and the El Segundo Power Redevelopment Project (00-AFC-14). The Applicant also refers to other non-power plant projects in the Los Angeles basin (AES 2000a, AFC § 5.18.2). The applicants of these power plant projects will be required to address fuel supply impacts when those projects are presented to the Energy Commission. None of the non-power plant projects are known to pose any threats of impacts on the electric system or the natural gas supply system. Construction and operation of the Retool Project will not bring about cumulative impacts, in the form of additional fuel consumption, that would not have occurred but for the Retool Project. Any peaking power brought on- line by the summer of 2001 would not be more efficient. Thus, no indirect impacts are likely. (SA p. 316.) i 147 Finding Without Conditions of Certification, the project conforms to applicable laws related to efficiency; and all potential adverse impacts regarding the efficient consumption of energy will be mitigated to insignificance by other Conditions of Certification of this Decision. CONDITIONS OF CERTIFICATION None. 148 LAWS, ORDINANCES, REGULATIONS & STANDARDS EFFICIENCY APPLICABLE LAW DESCRIPTION STATE Title 14, California Code of CEQA Guidelines state that the environmental analysis "...shall describe Regulations, § 15126.4(a)(1) feasible measures which could minimize significant adverse impacts, including where relevant, inefficient and unnecessary consumption of energy" (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 15126.4(a)(1)). Appendix F of the Guidelines further suggests consideration of such factors as the project's energy requirements and energy use efficiency; its effects on local and regional energy supplies and energy resources; its requirements for additional energy supply capacity; its compliance with existing energy standards; and any alternatives that could reduce wasteful, inefficient and unnecessary consumption of energy (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 15000 et seq., Appendix F . 149 FACILITY DESIGN Engineering - GeneralCOMPLIES WITH APPLICABLE LAWS&REGULATIONS To protect public health and safety as well as the viability of the project, the new applicable power plant equipment, pipelines, and other non-transmission line structures shall be designed and constructed in accordance with the 1998 California Building Code, or its successor. The Energy Commission's delegate Chief Building Official shall review and approve the relevant design criteria and plans submitted by AES and conduct all necessary inspections. CONDITIONS: AES shall construct the project using the most recent California Building Code with the oversight and approval of the local Chief Building Official; shall assign California registered engineers to the project; and shall pay necessary in-lieu permit fees. Conditions: GEN-1 through GEN-8. Reference: SA pp. 285. Engineering Geology ' APPLICABLE REGULATIONS Since no major grading is proposed for the project, no conditions are required. A Foundation Investigation Report for the SCR will be required by CBC section 1804. See GEN-5. Reference: SA p. 281. Civil Engineering COMPLIES WITH APPLICABLEREGULATIONS To ensure proper conditions for foundations and other features, any adverse soil or geologic conditions shall be reported and corrected during site grading. CONDITIONS: AES shall submit grading plans and erosion/sedimentation control plans, perform inspections and submit as-built plans for approval. Conditions: CIVIL-1, CIVIL-3, CIVIL-4. If appropriate, the resident engineer shall stop construction if unknown, adverse geologic conditions are encountered. Condition: CIVIL-2. Reference: SA p.285. 150 Structural EngineeringCOMPLIES APPLICABLE • Major structures and equipment are those necessary for power production, costly or time-consuming to repair, or those used for the storage of hazardous materials. The AFC lists the design essential to ensuring that the project is designed in a manner that protects the environment and public health and safety. CONDITIONS: For earthquake safety of major structures, foundations, supports, anchorages, and tanks, AES will submit appropriate lateral force calculations, designs and plans to the Chief Building Official for approval. In addition, to ensure the safety of storage tanks, some of which contain hazardous materials, AES will submit plans and specifications to the Chief Building Official for approval. Conditions: STRUC-1 through STRUC-4. Reference: SA p.285. Mechanical Engineering COMPLIES WITH APPLICABLE The mechanical systems include not only the power train with its major components but also water and wastewater treatment facilities, pressure vessels, piping systems and pumps, storage tanks, air compressors, fire protection systems, heating and ventilation, and water and sewage. CONDITIONS: To ensure the safety of piping and pressure vessels, some of which transport or store hazardous materials, AES will submit plans and specifications to the Chief Building Official for approval. Heating and air conditioning equipment, as well as plumbing, will be reviewed and inspected by the Chief Building Official. Conditions: MECH-1 through MECH-4. Reference: SA p. 286. Electrical Engineering COMPLIES WITH APPLICABLEREGULATIONS Major electrical features of the project, other than transmission, include generators, power control wiring, protective relays, grounding systems, and site lighting. CONDITIONS: For new electric systems or components of 480 volts or higher, AES shall submit plans to the Chief Building Official for approval. Conditions: ELEC-1, ELEC-2. Reference: SA p. 286. FACILITY DESIGN — GENERAL With the implementation of the Conditions of Certification, below, the project conforms to applicable laws related to facility design and related engineering fields. 151 CONDITIONS OF CERTIFICATION CALIFORNIA BUILDING CODE GEN-1: With respect to new construction, the project owner shall design, construct and inspect the project in accordance with the 1998 California Building Code (CBC) and all other applicable LORS in effect at the time initial design plans are submitted to the CBO for review and approval. The CBC in effect is that edition that has been adopted by the California Building Standards Commission and published at least 180 days previously. All transmission facilities (lines, switchyards, switching stations, and substations) are handled in Conditions of Certification TSE-1, TSE-2 and TSE-3 in TRANSMISSION SYSTEM ENGINEERING. Protocol: In the event that the AES is submitted to the CBO when a successor to the 1998 CBC is in effect, the 1998 CBC provisions identified herein shall be replaced with the applicable successor provisions. Where, in any specific case, different sections of the code specify different materials, methods of construction, or other requirements, the most restrictive shall govern. Where there is a conflict between a general requirement and a specific requirement,.the specific requirement shall govern. Verification: Within 30 days (or a lesser number of days mutually agreed to by the project owner and the CBO) after receipt of the Certificate of Occupancy, the project owner shall submit to the California Energy Commission Compliance Project Manager (CPM) a statement of verification, signed by the responsible design engineer, attesting that all designs, construction, installation and inspection requirements of the applicable LORS and the Energy Commission's Decision have been met in the area of facility design. The project owner shall provide the CPM copy of the Certificate of Occupancy within 30 days of receipt from the CBO [1998 CBC, Section 109 — Certificate of Occupancy.] DESIGN SCHEDULE GEN-2: The project owner shall furnish to the CPM and to the CBO a schedule of facility design submittals, a Master Drawing List, and a Master Specifications List. The schedule shall contain a description of, and a list of proposed submittal packages for design, calculations, and specifications for major structures and equipment. To facilitate audits by Energy Commission staff, the project owner shall provide designated packages to the CPM when requested. Verification: At least 15 days (or a lesser number of days mutually agreed to by the project owner and the CBO) prior to the start of rough grading, the project owner shall submit the schedule, a Master Drawing List, and a Master Specifications List to the CBO and to the CPM. The project owner shall provide schedule updates in the Monthly Compliance Report. IN-LIEU PERMIT FEES GEN-3: The project owner shall make payments to the CBO for design review, plan check and construction inspection, equivalent to the fees listed in the 1998 CBC, Chapter 1, Section 107 and Table 1-A, Building Permit Fees; Appendix Chapter 33, Section 3310 and Table A-33-A, Grading Plan Review Fees; and Table A-33-B, Grading Permit Fees. If the CBO has adjusted the CBC fees for design review, plan check and construction inspection, the project owner shall pay the adjusted fees. 152 Verification: The project owner shall make the required payments to the CBO at the time of submittal of the plans, design calculations, specifications, or soil reports. The project owner shall send a copy of the CBO's receipt of payment to the CPM in the next Monthly Compliance Report indicating that the applicable fees have been paid. ASSIGNED CALIFORNIA RESIDENT ENGINEER GEN-4: Prior to the start of rough grading, the project owner shall assign a California registered architect, structural engineer or civil engineer, as a resident engineer (RE), to be in general responsible charge of the project [Building Standards Administrative Code (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 24, § 4-209, Designation of Responsibilities).]. All transmission facilities (lines, switchyards, switching stations, and substations) are handled in Conditions of Certification TSE-1, TSE-2 and TSE-3 in TRANSMISSION SYSTEM ENGINEERING. The RE may delegate responsibility for portions of the project to other registered engineers. Registered mechanical and electrical engineers may be delegated responsibility for mechanical and electrical portions of the project respectively. A project may be divided into parts, provided each part is clearly defined as a distinct unit. Separate assignment of.general responsible charge may be made for each designated part. The RE shall: • Monitor construction progress to ensure compliance with LORS; • Ensure that construction of all the facilities conforms in every material respect to the applicable LORS, these Conditions of Certification, approved plans, and specifications; Prepare documents to initiate changes in the approved drawings and specifications when directed by the project owner or as required by conditions on the project;. • Be responsible for providing the project inspectors and testing agency(ies) with complete and up-to-date set(s) of stamped drawings, plans, specifications and any other required documents; • Be responsible for the timely submittal of construction progress reports to the CBO from the project inspectors, the contractor, and other engineers who have been delegated responsibility for portions of the project; and • Be responsible for notifying the CBO of corrective action or the disposition of items noted on laboratory reports or other tests as not conforming to the approved plans and specifications. The RE shall have the authority to halt construction and to require changes or remedial work, if the work does not conform to applicable requirements. If the RE or the delegated engineers are reassigned or replaced, the project owner shall submit the name, qualifications and registration number of the newly assigned engineer to the CBO for review and approval. The project owner shall notify the CPM of the CBO's approval of the new engineer. Verification: At least 15 days (or a lesser number of days mutually agreed to by the project owner and the CBO) prior to the start of rough grading, the project owner shall submit to the CBO for review and approval, the name, qualifications and registration number of the RE and any other delegated engineers assigned to the project. The project owner shall notify the CPM of the CBO's approvals of the RE and other delegated engineer(s) within five days of the approval. If the RE or the delegated engineer(s) are subsequently reassigned or replaced, the project owner has five days in which to submit the name, qualifications, and registration number of the newly assigned engineer to the CBO for 153 review and approval. The project owner shall notify the CPM of the CBO's approval of the new engineer within five days of the approval. OTHER PROJECT ENGINEERS GEN-5: Prior to the start of rough grading, the project owner shall assign at least one of each of the following California registered engineers to the project: A) a civil engineer; B) a geotechnical engineer or a civil engineer experienced and knowledgeable in the practice of soils engineering; C) a design engineer, who is either a structural engineer or a civil engineer fully competent and proficient in the design of powerplant structures and equipment supports; D) a mechanical engineer; and E) an electrical engineer. [California Business and Professions Code section 6704 et seq., and sections 6730 and 6736 requires state registration to practice as a civil engineer or structural engineer in California.]. All transmission facilities (lines, switchyards, switching stations, and substations) are handled in Conditions of Certification TSE-1, TSE-2 and TSE-3 in TRANSMISSION SYSTEM ENGINEERING. The tasks performed by the civil, mechanical, electrical or design engineers may be divided between two or more engineers, as long as each engineer is responsible for a particular segment of the project (e.g., proposed earthwork, civil structures, powerplant structures, equipment support).. No segment of the project shall have more than one responsible engineer. The transmission line may be the responsibility of a separate California registered electrical engineer. The project owner shall submit to the CBO for review and approval, the names, qualifications and registration numbers of all engineers assigned to the project. [1998 CBC, Section 104.2, Powers and Duties of Building Official.] If any one of the designated engineers is subsequently reassigned or replaced, the project owner shall submit the name, qualifications and registration number of the newly assigned engineer to the CBO for review and approval. The project owner shall notify the CPM of the CBO's approval of the new engineer. A: The civil engineer shall: • Design, or be responsible for design, stamp, and sign all plans, calculations, and specifications for proposed site work, civil works, and related facilities. At a minimum, these include: grading, site preparation, excavation, compaction, construction of secondary containment, foundations, erosion and sedimentation control structures, drainage facilities, underground utilities, culverts, site access roads, and sanitary sewer systems; and • Provide consultation to the RE during the construction phase of the project, and recommend changes in the design of the civil works facilities and changes in the construction procedures. B: The geotechnical engineer or civil engineer, experienced and knowledgeable in the practice of soils engineering, shall: • Review all the engineering geology reports, and prepare final soils grading report; • Prepare the soils engineering reports required by the 1998 CBC, Appendix Chapter 33, Section 3309.5 —Soils Engineering Report, and Section 3309.6 — Engineering Geology Report; • Be present, as required, during site grading and earthwork to provide consultation and monitor compliance with the requirements set forth in the 1998 CBC, Appendix Chapter 33, section 3317, Grading Inspections; 154 • Recommend field changes to the civil engineer and RE; • Review the geotechnical report, field exploration report, laboratory tests, and engineering analyses detailing the nature and extent of the site soils that may be susceptible to liquefaction, rapid settlement or collapse when saturated under load; and, • Prepare reports on foundation investigation to comply with the 1998 CBC, Chapter 18 section 1804, Foundation Investigations. This engineer shall be authorized to halt earthwork and to require changes; if site conditions are unsafe or do not conform with predicted conditions used as a basis for design of earthwork or foundations. [1998 CBC, section 104.2.4, Stop orders.] C: The design engineer shall: • Be directly responsible for the design of the proposed structures and equipment supports; • Provide consultation to the RE during design and construction of the project; • Monitor construction progress to ensure compliance with LORS; • Evaluate and recommend necessary changes in design; and • Prepare and sign all major building plans, specifications and calculations. D: The mechanical engineer shall be responsible for, and sign and stamp a statement with, each mechanical submittal to the CBO, stating that the proposed final design plans, specifications, and calculations conform with all of the mechanical engineering design requirements set forth in the Energy Commission's Decision. E: The electrical engineer shall: • Be responsible for the electrical design of the project; and • Sign and stamp electrical design drawings, plans, specifications, and calculations. Verification: At least 15 days (or a lesser number of days mutually agreed to by the project owner and the CBO) prior to the start of rough grading, the project owner shall submit to the CBO for review and approval, the names, qualifications and registration numbers of all the responsible engineers assigned to the project. The project owner shall notify the CPM of the CBO's approvals of the engineers within five days of the approval. If the designated responsible engineer is subsequently reassigned or replaced, the project owner has five days in which to submit the name, qualifications, and registration number of the newly assigned engineer to the CBO for review and approval. The project owner shall notify the CPM of the CBO's approval of the new engineer within five days of the approval. ASSIGNED INSPECTOR GEN-6: Prior to the start of an activity requiring special inspection, the project owner shall assign to the project, qualified and certified special inspector(s) who shall be responsible for the special inspections required by the 1998 CBC, Chapter 17, Section 1701, Special Inspections, Section, 1701.5 Type of Work (requiring special inspection), and Section 106.3.5, Inspection and observation program. All transmission facilities (lines, switchyards, switching stations, and substations) are handled in Conditions of Certification TSE-1, TSE-2 and TSE-3 in TRANSMISSION SYSTEM ENGINEERING. 155 The special inspector shall: • Be a qualified person who shall demonstrate competence, to the satisfaction of the CBO, for inspection of the particular type of construction requiring special or continuous inspection; • Observe the work assigned for conformance with the approved design drawings and specifications; • Furnish inspection reports to the CBO and RE. All discrepancies shall be brought to the immediate attention of the RE for correction, then, if uncorrected, to the CBO and the CPM for corrective action; and • Submit a final signed report to the RE, CBO, and CPM, stating whether the work requiring special inspection was, to the best of the inspector's knowledge, in conformance with the approved plans and specifications and the applicable provisions of the applicable edition of the CBC. A certified weld inspector, certified by the American Welding Society (AWS), and/or American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) as applicable, shall inspect welding performed on-site requiring special inspection (including structural, piping, tanks and pressure vessels). Verification: At least 10 days prior to the start of an activity requiring special inspection, the project owner shall submit to the CBO for review and approval, with a copy to the CPM, the name(s) and qualifications of the certified weld inspector(s), or other certified special inspector(s) assigned to the project to perform one or more of the duties set forth above. The project owner shall also submit to the CPM a copy of the CBO's approval of the qualifications of all special inspectors in the next Monthly Compliance Report. If the special inspector is subsequently reassigned or replaced, the project owner has five days in which to submit the name and qualifications of the newly assigned special inspector to the CBO for approval. The project owner shall notify the CPM of the CBO's approval of the newly assigned inspector within five days of the approval. STATUS REPORT GEN-7: The project owner shall keep the CBO informed regarding the status of engineering and construction. If any discrepancy in design and/or construction is discovered, the project owner shall document the discrepancy and recommend the corrective action required. The discrepancy documentation shall be submitted to the CBO for review and approval. The discrepancy documentation shall reference this condition of certification and, if appropriate, the applicable sections of the CBC and/or other LORS. Verification: The project owner shall submit monthly construction progress reports to the CBO and CPM. The project owner shall transmit a copy of the CBO's approval or disapproval of any corrective action taken to resolve a discrepancy to the CPM within 15 days. If disapproved, the project owner shall advise the CPM, within five days, the reason for disapproval, and the revised corrective action to obtain CBO's approval. 156 AS-BUILT APPROVAL GEN-8: The project owner shall obtain the CBO's final approval of all completed work. The project owner shall request the CBO to inspect the completed structure and review the submitted documents. When the work and the "as-built" and "as graded" plans conform to the approved final plans, the project owner shall notify the CPM regarding the CBO's final approval. The marked up "as-built" drawings for the construction of structural and architectural work shall be submitted to the CBO. Changes approved by the CBO shall be identified on the "as-built" drawings [1998 CBC, Section 108, Inspections.] Verification: Within 15 days of the completion of any work, the project owner shall submit to the CBO, with a copy to the CPM, (a) a written notice that the completed work is ready for final inspection, and (b) a signed statement that the work conforms to the final approved plans. GRADING PLAN- EROSION CONTROL PLAN CIVIL-1: Prior to the start of site grading, the project owner shall submit to the CBO for review and approval the following: • Design of the proposed drainage structures and the grading plan; • An erosion and sedimentation control plan; • Related calculations and specifications, signed and stamped by the responsible civil engineer; and • Soils report as required by the 1998 CBC, Appendix Chapter 33, Section 3309.5, Soils Engineering Report and Section 3309.6, Engineering Geology Report. Verification: At least 15 days prior to the start of site grading, the project owner shall submit the documents described above to the CBO for review and approval. In the next Monthly Compliance Report following the CBO's approval, the project owner shall submit a written statement certifying that the documents have been approved by the CBO. UNFORESEEN GEOLOGIC CONDITION CIVIL-2: The resident engineer shall, if appropriate, stop all earthwork and construction in the affected areas when the responsible geotechnical engineer or civil engineer experienced and knowledgeable in the practice of soils engineering identifies unforeseen adverse soil or geologic conditions. The project owner shall submit modified plans, specifications and calculations to the CBO based on these new conditions. The project owner shall obtain approval from the CBO before resuming earthwork and i construction in the affected area. [1998 CBC, Section 104.2.4, Stop orders.] Verification: The project owner shall notify the CPM, within five days, when earthwork and construction is stopped as a result of unforeseen adverse geologic/soil conditions. Within five days of the CBO's approval, the project owner shall provide to the CPM a copy of the CBO's approval to resume earthwork and construction in the affected areas. 157 GRADING INSPECTION CIVIL-3: The project owner shall perform inspections in accordance with the 1998 CBC, Chapter 1, Section 108, Inspections; Chapter 17, Section 1701.6, Continuous and Periodic Special Inspection; and Appendix Chapter 33, Section 3317, Grading Inspection. All plant site-grading operations shall be subject to inspection by the CBO and the CPM. If, in the course of inspection, it is discovered that the work is not being done in accordance with the approved plans, the discrepancies shall be reported immediately to the resident engineer, the CBO, and the CPM. The project owner shall prepare a written report detailing all discrepancies and non-compliance items, and the proposed corrective action, and send copies to the CBO and the CPM. Verification: Within five days of the discovery of any discrepancies, the resident engineer shall transmit to the CBO and the CPM a Non-Conformance Report (NCR), and the proposed corrective action. Within five days of resolution of the NCR, the project owner shall submit the details of the corrective action to the CBO and the CPM. A list of NCRs, for the reporting month, shall also be included in the following Monthly Compliance Report. AS-BUILT GRADING PLAN & EROISION CONTROL PLAN APPROVAL CIVIL-4: After completion of finished grading and erosion and sedimentation control and drainage facilities, the project owner shall obtain the CBO's approval of the final "as-graded" grading plans, and final "as-built" plans for the erosion and sedimentation control facilities [1998 CBC, Section 109, Certificate of Occupancy.] Verification: Within 30 days of the completion of the erosion and sediment control mitigation and drainage facilities, the project owner shall submit to the CBO the responsible civil engineer's signed statement that the installation of the facilities and all erosion control measures were completed in accordance with the final approved combined grading plans, and that the facilities are adequate for their intended purposes. The project owner shall submit a copy of this report to the CPM in the next Monthly Compliance Report. LATERAL FORCE PROCEDURE APPROVAL STRUC-1: Prior to the start of any increment of construction, the project owner shall submit to the CBO for review and approval the proposed dynamic and static lateral force procedures for new project structures and the applicable designs, plans and drawings for the new project structures. [1998 CBC, Section 3401 and Section 3403] Proposed lateral force procedures, designs, plans and drawings shall be those for: • Dynamic analysis of the lateral force resisting system; • Major project structures; • Major foundations, equipment supports and anchorage; • Large field fabricated tanks; and • Turbine/generator pedestal. 158 Protocol: In addition, the project owner shall, prior to the start of any increment of construction, get approval from the CBO of the dynamic and static lateral force procedures proposed for the new project structures to comply with the lateral force provisions of the 1998 CBC. The project owner shall: • Obtain approval from the CBO of dynamic and static lateral force procedures proposed for the new project structures; • Obtain approval from the CBO for the final design plans, specifications, calculations, soils reports, and applicable quality control procedures. If there are conflicting requirements, the more stringent shall govern (i.e., highest loads, or lowest allowable stresses shall govern). All plans, calculations, and specifications for foundations that support the new structures shall be filed concurrently with the structure plans, calculations, and specifications [1998 CBC, Section 108.4, Approval Required]; • Submit to the CBO the required number of copies of the structural plans, specifications, calculations, and other required documents of the new structures prior to the start of on-site fabrication and installation of each structure, equipment support, or foundation [1998 CBC, Section 106.4.2, Retention of plans and Section 106.3.2, Submittal documents.]; and • Ensure that the final plans, calculations, and specifications clearly reflect the inclusion of approved criteria, assumptions, and methods used to develop the design. The final designs, plans, calculations and specifications shall be signed and stamped by the responsible design engineer [1998 CBC, Section 106.3.4, Architect or Engineer of Record.] Verification: At least 15 s da or a lesser number of days mutual) agreed to b the project owner Y ( Y Y 9 Y and the CBO) prior to the start of any increment of construction, the project owner shall submit to the CBO, with a copy to the CPM, the responsible design engineer's signed statement that the final design plans, specifications and calculations conform with all of the requirements set forth in the Energy Commission's Decision. If the CBO discovers non-conformance with the stated requirements, the project owner shall resubmit the corrected plans to the CBO within 20 days of receipt of the nonconforming submittal with a copy of the transmittal letter to the CPM. The project owner shall submit to the CPM a copy of a statement from the CBO that the proposed structural plans, specifications, and calculations have been approved and are in conformance with the requirements set forth in the applicable LORS. SPECIAL INSPECTION REPORTS STRUC-2: The project owner shall submit to the CBO the required number of sets of the following: • Concrete cylinder strength test reports (including date of testing, date sample taken, design concrete strength, tested cylinder strength, age of test, type and size of sample, location and quantity of concrete placement from which sample was taken, and mix design designation and parameters); • Concrete pour sign-off sheets;. Bolt torque inspection reports (including location of test, date, bolt size, and recorded torques); • Field weld inspection reports (including type of weld, location of weld, inspection of non- destructive testing (NDT) procedure and results, welder qualifications, certifications, qualified procedure description or number (ref: AWS); and 159 • Reports covering other structure activities requiring special inspections shall be in accordance with the 1998 CBC, Chapter 17, Section 1701, Special Inspections, Section 1701.5, Type of Work (requiring special inspection), Section 1702, Structural Observation and Section 1703, Nondestructive Testing. If a discrepancy is discovered in any of the above data, the project owner shall, within five days, prepare and submit an NCR describing the nature of the discrepancies to the CBO, with a copy of the transmittal letter to the CPM. The NCR shall reference the condition(s) of certification and the applicable CBC chapter and section. Within five days of resolution of the NCR, the project owner shall submit a copy of the corrective action to the CBO and the CPM. Verification: The project owner shall transmit a copy of the CBO's approval or disapproval of the corrective action to the CPM within 15 days. If disapproved, the project owner shall advise the CPM, within five days, the reason for disapproval, and the revised corrective action to obtain CBO's approval. FINAL DESIGN CHANGES STRUC-3: The project owner shall submit to the CBO design changes to the final plans required by the 1998 CBC, Chapter 1, Section 106.3.2, Submittal documents, and Section 106.3.3, Information on plans and specifications, including the revised drawings, specifications, calculations, and a complete description of, and supporting rationale for, the proposed changes, and shall give the CBO prior notice of the intended filing. Verification: On a schedule suitable to the CBO, the project owner shall notify the CBO of the intended filing of design changes, and shall submit the required number of sets of revised drawings and the required number of copies of the other above-mentioned documents to the CBO, with a copy of the transmittal letter to the CPM. The project owner shall notify the CPM, via the Monthly Compliance Report, when the CBO has approved the revised plans. HAZARDOUS MATERIALS TANK DESIGN STRUC-4: Tanks and vessels containing quantities of toxic or hazardous materials exceeding amounts specified in Chapter 3, Table 3-E of the 1998 CBC shall, at a minimum, be designed to comply with Occupancy Category 2 of the 1998 CBC. Chapter 16, Table 16—K of the 1998 CBC requires use of the following seismic design criteria: I = 1.25, 1 p = 1.5 and I w = 1.15. Verification: At least 15 days (or a lesser number of days mutually agreed to by the project owner and the CBO) prior to the start of installation of the tanks or vessels containing the above specified quantities of toxic or hazardous substances, the project owner shall submit to the CBO for review and approval, final design plans, specifications, and calculations, including a copy of the signed and stamped engineer's certification. The project owner shall send copies of the CBO approvals of plan checks to the CPM in the following Monthly Compliance Report. The project owner shall also transmit a copy of the CBO's inspection approvals to the CPM in the Monthly Compliance Report following completion of any inspection. 160 PIPING PLANS MECH-1: Prior to the start of any increment of piping construction, the project owner shall submit, for CBO review and approval, the proposed final design drawings, specifications and calculations for each plant piping system (exclude domestic water, refrigeration systems, and small bore piping, i.e., piping and tubing with a diameter less than two and one-half inches). The submittal shall also include the applicable QA/QC procedures. The project owner shall design and install all piping, other than domestic water, refrigeration, and small bore piping to the applicable edition of the CBC. Upon completion of construction of any piping system, the project owner shall request the CBO's inspection approval of said construction [1998 CBC, Section 106.3.2, Submittal documents, Section 108.3, Inspection Requests.] The responsible mechanical engineer shall submit a signed and stamped statement to the CBO when: • The proposed final design plans, specifications and calculations conform with all of the piping requirements set forth in the Energy Commission's Decision; and • All of the other piping systems, except domestic water, refrigeration systems and small bore piping have been designed, fabricated and installed in accordance with all applicable ordinances, regulations, laws and industry standards, including, as applicable: o American National Standards Institute (ANSI) B31.1 (Power Piping Code); o ANSI B31.2 (Fuel Gas Piping Code); o .ANSI B31.3 (Chemical Plant and Petroleum Refinery Piping Code); o ANSI B31.8 (Gas Transmission and Distribution Piping Code); and o Specific City/County code. The CBO may require the project owner to employ special inspectors to report directly to the CBO to monitor shop fabrication or equipment installation [1998 CBC, Section 104.2.2, Deputies.] Verification: At least 15 days (or a lesser number of days mutually agreed to by the project owner and the CBO) prior to the start of any increment of piping construction, the project owner shall submit to the CBO for approval, with a copy of the transmittal letter to the CPM, the above listed documents for that increment of construction of piping systems, including a copy of the signed and stamped engineer's certification of conformance with the Energy Commission's Decision. The project owner shall transmit a copy of the CBO's inspection approvals to the CPM in the Monthly Compliance Report following completion of any inspection. PRESSURE VESSEL CERTIFICATION MECH-2: For all pressure vessels installed in the plant, the project owner shall submit to the CBO and California Occupational Safety and Health Administration (Cal-OSHA), prior to operation, the code certification papers and other documents required by the applicable LORS. Upon completion of the installation of any pressure vessel, the project owner shall request the appropriate CBO and/or Cal- OSHA inspection of said installation [1998 CBC, Section 108.3— Inspection Requests.] 161 The project owner shall: • Ensure that all boilers and fired and unfired pressure vessels are designed, fabricated and installed in accordance with the appropriate section of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, or other applicable code. Vendor certification, with identification of applicable code, shall be submitted for prefabricated vessels and tanks; and • Have the responsible design engineer submit a statement to the CBO that the proposed final design plans, specifications and calculations conform to all of the requirements set forth in the appropriate ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code or other applicable codes. Verification: At least 15 days (or a lesser number of days mutually agreed to by the project owner and the CBO) prior to the start of on-site fabrication or installation of any pressure vessel, the project owner shall submit to the CBO for review and approval, final design plans, specifications and calculations, including a copy of the signed and stamped engineer's certification, with a copy of the transmittal letter to the CPM. The project owner shall send copies of the CBO plan check approvals to the CPM in the following Monthly Compliance Report. The project owner shall also transmit a copy of the CBO's and/or Cal-OSHA inspection approvals to the CPM in the Monthly Compliance Report following completion of any inspection. HVAC PLANS MECH-3: Prior to the start of construction of any heating, ventilating, air conditioning (HVAC) or refrigeration system, the project owner shall submit to the CBO for review and approval the design plans, specifications, calculations and quality control procedures for that system. Packaged HVAC systems, where used, shall be identified with the appropriate manufacturer's data sheets. The project owner shall design and install all HVAC and refrigeration systems within buildings and related structures in accordance with the applicable edition of the CBC. Upon completion of any increment of construction, the project owner shall request the CBO's inspection and approval of said construction. The final plans, specifications and calculations shall include approved criteria, assumptions and methods used to develop the design. In addition, the responsible mechanical engineer shall sign and stamp all plans, drawings and calculations and submit a signed statement to the CBO that the proposed final design plans, specifications and calculations conform with the applicable LORS [1998 CBC, Section 108.7, Other Inspections; Section 106.3.4, Architect or Engineer of Record.] Verification: At least 15 days (or a lesser number of days mutually agreed to by the project owner and the CBO) prior to the start of construction of any HVAC or refrigeration system, the project owner shall submit to the CBO the required HVAC and refrigeration calculations, plans and specifications, including a copy of the signed and stamped statement from the responsible mechanical engineer certifying compliance with the applicable edition of the CBC, with a copy of the transmittal letter to the CPM. The project owner shall send copies of CBO comments and approvals to the CPM in the next Monthly Compliance Report. The project owner shall transmit a copy of the CBO's inspection approvals to the CPM in the Monthly Compliance Report following completion of any inspection. 162 PLUMBING PLANS MECH-4: Prior to the start of each increment of plumbing construction, the project owner shall submit for CBO's approval the final design plans, specifications, calculations, and QA/QC procedures for all plumbing systems, potable water systems, drainage systems (including sanitary drain and waste), toilet rooms, building energy conservation systems, and temperature control and ventilation systems, including water and sewer connection permits issued by the local agency. Upon completion of any increment of construction, the project owner shall request the CBO's inspection approval of said construction (1998 CBC, Section 108.3, Inspection Requests, Section 108.4, Approval Required.] The project owner shall design, fabricate and install: • Plumbing, potable water, all drainage systems, and toilet rooms in accordance with Title 24, California Code of Regulations, Division 5, Part 5 and the California Plumbing Code (or other relevant section(s) of the currently adopted California Plumbing Code and Title 24, California Code of Regulations); and • Building energy conservation systems and temperature control and ventilation systems in accordance with Title 24, California Code of Regulations, Division 5, Chapter 2-53, Part 2. The final plans, specifications and calculations shall clearly reflect the inclusion of approved criteria, assumptions and methods used to develop the design. In addition, the responsible mechanical engineer shall stamp and sign all plans, drawings and calculations and submit a signed statement to the CBO that the proposed final design plans, specifications and calculations conform with all of the requirements set forth in the Energy Commission's Decision. Verification: At least 15 days (or a lesser number of days mutually agreed to by the project owner and the CBO) prior to the start of construction of any of the above systems, the project owner shall submit to the CBO the final design plans, specifications and calculations, including a copy of the signed and stamped statement from the responsible mechanical engineer certifying compliance with the applicable edition of the CBC, and send the CPM a copy of the transmittal letter in the next Monthly Compliance Report. The project owner shall transmit a copy of the CBO's inspection approvals to the CPM in the next Monthly Compliance Report following completion of that increment of construction. ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT & SYSTEMS PLANS ELEC-1: For the .480 volts and higher systems, the project owner shall not begin any increment of electrical construction until plans for that increment have been approved by the CBO. These plans, together with design changes and design change notices, shall remain on the site for one year after completion of construction. The project owner shall request that the CBO inspect.the installation to ensure compliance with the requirements of applicable LORS [1998 CBC, Section 108.4, Approval Required, and Section 108.3, Inspection Requests.] All transmission facilities (lines, switchyards, switching stations, and substations) are handled in Conditions of Certification TSE-1, TSE-2 and TSE-3 in TRANSMISSION SYSTEM ENGINEERING. The following activities shall be reported in the Monthly Compliance Report: • Receipt or delay of major electrical equipment; • Testing or energization of major electrical equipment; and • The number of electrical drawings approved, submitted for approval, and still to be submitted. 163 Verification: At least 15 days (or a lesser number of days mutually agreed to by the project owner and the CBO) prior to the start of each increment of electrical construction, the project owner shall submit to the CBO for review and approval the final design plans, specifications and calculations for electrical equipment and systems 480 volts and greater, including a copy of the signed and stamped statement from the responsible electrical engineer attesting compliance with the applicable LORS, and send the CPM a copy of the transmittal letter in the next Monthly Compliance Report. ELECTRICAL PLANS ELEC-2: The project owner shall submit to the CBO the required number of copies of items A and B for review and approval and one copy of item C [CBC 1998, Section 106.3.2, Submittal documents.] All transmission facilities (lines, switchyards, switching stations, and substations) are handled in Conditions of Certification TSE-1, TSE-2 and TSE-3 in TRANSMISSION SYSTEM ENGINEERING. A. Final plant design plans to include: • one-line diagrams for the 13.8 kV, 4.16 kV and 480 V systems; • system grounding drawings; • general arrangement or conduit drawings; and • other plans as required by the CBO. B. Final plant calculations to establish: short-circuit ratings of plant equipment; • ampacity of feeder cables; • voltage drop in feeder cables • system grounding requirements; • coordination study calculations for fuses, circuit breakers and protective relay settings for the 13.8 kV, 4.16 kV and 480 V systems; • system grounding requirements; • lighting energy calculations; and • other reasonable calculations as customarily required by the CBO. C. A signed statement by the registered electrical engineer certifying that the proposed final design plans and specifications conform to requirements set forth in the Energy Commission Decision. Verification: At least 15 days (or a lesser number of days mutually agreed to by the project owner and the CBO) prior to the start of each increment of electrical equipment installation, the project owner shall submit to the CBO for review and approval the final design plans, specifications and calculations, for electrical equipment and systems 480 volts and greater enumerated above, including a copy of the signed and stamped statement from the responsible electrical engineer certifying compliance with the applicable LORS. The project owner shall send the CPM a copy of the transmittal letter in the next Monthly Compliance Report. 164 LAWS, ORDINANCES, REGULATIONS & STANDARDS FACILITY DESIGN „ APP..LIGABLE,xLAW ti D'ESCR1PT10N €• Title 24, California Code of The applicable LORS for each engineering discipline, civil, structural, Regulations, which adopts the mechanical and electrical, are included in the application as part of the current edition of the California engineering appendices, Appendix D and summarized in Section 7, Building Code (CBC); the 1998 Applicable LORS for construction and design (AES 2000a). CBC for design of structures; American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code; and National Electrical Manufacturers Association NEMA standards. 165 RELIABILITY Plant Availability ` REGULATIONS AES expects to operate at an overall availability of 90 to 95 percent, well within industry standards. The Huntington Beach Units 3 & 4 Retool Project provides inherent reliability that will be enhanced by redundancy of critical equipment. References: SA pp. 309. Maintainability 'OMPLIES WITH APPLICABLE LAWS&REGULATIONS Adherence to industry standard inspection and maintenance procedures as part of an overall plant maintenance program will cause predictable levels of availability from year to year. Reference: SA pp. 307. Fuel Availability I k -COMPLIES WITH APPLICABLE LAWS& REGULATIONS Natural gas will be purchased from Southern California Gas Company, which has vast supplies and a reliable infrastructure to provide fuel to the project. Reference: SA p. 308. Water Availability COMPLIES WITH APPLICABLEREGULATIONS Water for cooling and other plant uses will be obtained from a combination of reliable and adequate sources: ocean water and municipal water.. Reference: SA p. 308. Natural Disasters COMPLIESREGULATIONS The project site is not within a flood zone. Although located within seismic zone 4, the plant will perform as well as others in the electric power system by complying with the latest seismic design criteria of the California Building Code on new components. See FACILITY DESIGN. Reference: SA pp. 308-309 166 RELIABILITY - GENERAL Presently, there are no laws, ordinances, regulations or standards (LORS) that establish either power plant reliability criteria or procedures for attaining reliable operation. However, the Energy Commission must make findings as to the manner in which the project is to be designed, sited and operated to ensure safe and reliable operation (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 20, § 1752(c)). In past proceedings, the Commission.has taken the approach that a project is acceptable if it does not degrade the reliability of the utility system to which it is to be connected. Thus, a project should exhibit reliability at least equal to that of other power plants on that system. In the regulated monopoly electric industry of past decades, the utility companies assured overall system reliability, in part, by maintaining a "reserve margin." This amounted to having on call, at all times, sufficient generating capacity, in the form of standby power plants, to quickly handle unexpected outages of generating or transmission facilities. The utilities generally maintained a seven- to ten-percent reserve margin. Now, in the newly restructured competitive electric power industry, the responsibility for maintaining system reliability falls largely to the California Independent System Operator (Cal-ISO) to purchase, dispatch and sell electric power throughout the state. How Cal-ISO will ensure system reliability is currently being determined; protocols are being developed and put in place that will, it is anticipated, allow sufficient reliability to be maintained under the competitive market system. Until the restructured competitive electric power system has undergone a shakeout period, and the effects of varying power plant reliability are understood and compensated for, the Commission believes it prudent to require new power plant owners to continue to.build and operate their projects to the level of reliability to which all in the industry have become accustomed. (SA pp. 473—474.) Finding Without Conditions of Certification, the project conforms to industry standard levels of reliability. LAWS, ORDINANCES, REGULATIONS & STANDARDS RELIABILITY APP.LIGABLELAW •. ,.. ... �.. .. DESCRIPTION None 167 TRANSMISSION LINE SAFETY & NUISANCE Electric &Magnetic Fields COMPLIES APPLICABLEREGULATIONS ince electric or magnetic field health effects have neither been established nor ruled out [fS or lines such as those proposed for this project, the public health significance of any project-related field exposure cannot be characterized with certainty. The short-term exposures associated with the proposed and the other lines in its field impact area are typical of similar SCE lines. The long-term residential magnetic exposure primarily at the root of the present health concern will be insignificant in the case of the proposed project since the lines will be located entirely within the project site. CONDITION: AES shall operate the transmission line in accordance with the CPUC's GO —95 and SCE's EMF-reduction measures. Condition: TSLN-1. COMPLIES WITH APPLICABLE LAW&Aviation Safety REGULATIONS The project will not adversely impact aviation safety since the existing transmission lines at the switchyard have not historically caused an impact to aviation. Radio & TV Interference COMPLIES WITH APPLICABLE LAW& REGULATIONS The proposed transmission lines will have a low corona effect, thus not causing radio and TV signal interference. CONDITION: AES shall make a reasonable effort to identify and correct complaints of radio and TV interference. Condition: TLSN-2 Audible Noise COMPLIES • The proposed transmission lines will not add to audible noise due to their low corona design and materials. Fire Hazard REGULATIONSCOMPLIES WITH APPLICABLE LAW& Since the proposed transmission lines are located entirely within the site and away from combustible materials, there is no significant fire risk from the transmission lines. Shocks REGULATIONSCOMPLIES WITH APPLICABLE LAW& By designing and operating the transmission lines with the clearance and grounding requirements of CPUC General Order 95 (GO-95) and SCE's standards, there will not be a significant risk of hazardous or nuisance shocks. TRANSMISSION LINE SAFETY & NUISANCE — GENERAL The Warren Alquist Act requires the Commission to "prepare a written decision ... which includes: 168 (a) Specific provisions relating to the manner in which the proposed facility is to be designed, sited, and operated in order to protect environmental quality and assure public health and safety, [and] (d)(1) Findings regarding the conformity of the proposed site and related facilities...with public safety standards...and with other relevant local, regional, state and federal standards, ordinances, or laws..." (Pub. Resources Code, § 25523). The Retool Project will consist of two out of service 225 megawatt (MW) nominal output units (units 3 & 4) for a total nominal output of 450 MW. At present each unit is connected to an existing, 246 MVA, 13.8 kV to 230 kV step-up transformer bank (consisting of three single phase, 82 MVA, 13.8/132.8 kV transformers). The high voltage terminals of the transformer bank are connected to the existing Huntington Beach 230 kV switchyard of SCE located within the boundary of the Huntington Beach Generating Station (HBGS) by overhead conductors and through a 1200 ampere motor operated disconnect switch (AESHB 2000a, AFC page 3.4-5). The SCE HB 230 kV switchyard consists of double bus construction (north & south), each bus sectionalized by a circuit breaker and connected to two gang disconnect switches into A & B sections with each section normally carrying a generating unit and two outgoing 230 kV transmission lines to SCE's 230 kV Ellis substation. The disconnect switch for Unit 3 transformer terminals is connected to section B of the north bus and the disconnect switch for Unit 4 transformer terminals is connected to section B of the south bus (AESHB 2000a, AFC page 3.6- 1). This configuration for the interconnection and switchyard is in accordance with good utility practices and is acceptable. Electric & Magnetic Fields The possibility of health effects from exposure to electric and magnetic fields has increased public concern in recent years about living near high-voltage lines. Both fields occur together whenever electricity flows, hence the general practice of considering exposure to both as EMF exposure. The available evidence, as evaluated by California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) and other regulatory agencies, has not established that such fields,pose a significant health hazard to exposed humans. However, the Energy Commission considers it important, as does the CPUC, to note that while such a hazard has not been established from the available evidence, the same evidence does not serve as proof of a definite lack of a hazard. Therefore, in light of present uncertainty, it is appropriate to reduce such fields where feasible, until the issue is better understood. The challenge has been to establish when and how far to reduce them. While there is considerable uncertainty about the EMF/health effects issue, the following facts have been established from the available information and have been used to establish existing policies: • Any exposure-related health risk to the exposed individual will likely be small. • The most biologically significant types of exposures have not been established. • Most health concerns relate to the magnetic field. 169 • The measures employed for such field reduction can affect line safety, reliability, efficiency and maintainability, depending on the type and extent of such measures. No federal regulations have been established specifying environmental limits on the strengths of fields from power lines. However, the federal government continues to conduct and encourage research necessary for an appropriate policy on the EMF issue. In the face of the present uncertainty, several states have opted for design-driven regulations ensuring that fields from new lines are generally similar to those from existing lines. Some states (Minnesota, Florida, New York, Montana, and New Jersey) have set specific environmental limits on one or both fields in this regard. These limits are, however, not based on any specific health effects. All regulatory agencies believe that health-based limits are inappropriate at this time. They also believe that the present knowledge of the issue does not justify any retrofit of existing lines. Before the present health-based concern developed, measures to reduce field effects from power line operations were mostly aimed at the electric field component, whose effects can manifest as radio noise, audible noise and nuisance shocks. The present focus is on the magnetic field because only it can penetrate building materials to potentially produce the types of health impacts at the root of the present concern. As interest has focused on magnetic fields from high-voltage power lines, it important to note that use of some common household appliances creates short-term exposure to much stronger fields. (National Institute of Environmental Health Services and the U.S Department of Energy 1995.) Scientists have not established which of these types of exposures would be more biologically meaningful in the individual. In California, the CPUC (which regulates the installation and operation of high-voltage lines in California) has determined that only no-cost or low-cost measures are presently justified in any effort to reduce power line fields beyond levels existing before the present health concern arose. The CPUC has further determined that such reduction should be made only in connection with new or modified lines. It required each utility within its jurisdiction to establish EMF-reducing design guidelines for all new or upgraded power lines and related facilities within their respective service areas. The CPUC further established specific limits on the resources to be used in each case for field reduction. Such limitations were intended by the CPUC to apply to the cost of any redesign to reduce field strength or relocation to reduce exposure. Utilities not within the jurisdiction of the CPUC voluntarily comply with these CPUC requirements. This CPUC policy resulted from assessments made to implement CPUC Decision 93-11-013 of 1989. In keeping with this CPUC policy, the Energy Commission requires a showing that each proposed line will be designed according to the EMF-reducing design guidelines applicable to the utility service area involved. Since each new line in California is currently required to be designed according to the EMF- reducing guidelines of the utility in the service area involved, their fields are required under existing CPUC policies to be similar to fields from similar lines in that service area. Since electric fields depend only on applied voltage that will remain the same on the SCE lines to be used, there will be no change in the strengths of the electric fields. 170 The added power from the proposed units would increase the system's magnetic fields along the rights- of-way since magnetic fields (unlike electric fields) vary with current flow. These higher field strengths are similar to SCE lines of the same voltage and current-carrying capacity. These higher magnetic field strengths are less than the regulatory limits of some states for fields at the edge of the right-of-way. Since electric or magnetic field health effects have neither been established nor ruled out for lines such as those proposed for this project, the public health significance of any project-related field exposure cannot be characterized with certainty. The short-term exposures associated with the proposed and the other lines in its field impact area are typical of similar SCE lines. The long-term residential magnetic exposure primarily at the root of the present health concern will be insignificant in the case of the proposed project since the lines will be located entirely within the project site. (AFC 2.14.4.1; 2.14.4.2; SA pp. 123-124.) CONDITION: AES shall operate the transmission line in accordance with the CPUC's GO — 95 and SCE's EMF-reduction measures. Condition: TSLN-1. Aviation Safety The existing transmission lines at the HBGS have not historically been a hazard to aviation, Radio & TV Interference Radio and TV interference is most commonly caused by irregularities (such as nicks and scrapes on the conductor surface), sharp edges on suspension hardware and other irregularities around the conductor surface. Such interference is usually of concern only for lines of 345 kV or greater. AES's 220 kV transmission line would use a low-corona conductor design, construction, and maintenance methods that should minimize the potential for such interference. No significant communications interference is expected, as with the existing SCE 220 kV lines designed according to SCE guidelines. Since the lines are to be located entirely onsite, away from area residences, no communication interference is expected from the project. Nonetheless, FCC regulations require each project owner to ensure mitigation of any such communication interference, if it occurs, to the satisfaction of the affected individual. CONDITION: AES shall make a reasonable effort to identify and correct complaints of radio and TV interference. Condition: TLSN-2. Audible Noise As with radio and TV interference, the low-corona conductor proposed for The Huntington Beach Units 3 & 4 Retool Project line and currently used in the SCE 220 kV lines will minimize the potential for audible noise. Thus, the transmission lines will not add significantly to existing background noise levels in the project area. 171 Fire Hazard Since the transmission lines will be located entirely within the project site and operated according to SCE's fire prevention guidelines, Huntington Beach Units 3 & 4 Retool Project transmission lines do not pose a fire hazard during operation. Shocks As with all SCE transmission lines, the connection lines will be designed according to GO-95 requirements against hazardous shocks from direct or indirect human contact with the overhead energized line. Since the transmission lines will be grounded according to SCE requirements, they do not pose a significant risk of on-site nuisance shock. Ensuring GO-95-required ground clearance, as with all SCE lines, will minimize the potential for the electrical charging for which such grounding would be necessary. Therefore, the transmission lines do not pose a hazardous or nuisance shock risk on site. Cumulative Impacts The strengths of electric and magnetic fields from the proposed line were calculated (and will be required) to be measured to factor the interactive effects of all area lines. These calculated field strength values, therefore, reflect the cumulative exposure of an individual to fields from all lines within the impact area of the proposed lines. They reflect the implementation of the field-reducing guidelines incorporated in SCE field designs as currently required by the CPUC. There are no significant cumulative impacts. Finding With the implementation of the Conditions of Certification, below, the project conforms to applicable laws related to transmission line safety. CONDITIONS OF CERTIFICATION ELECTRIC & MAGNETIC FIELDS MITIGATION TLSN-1: The project owner shall construct the proposed transmission line according to the requirements of GO-95, GO-52, Title 8, Group 2, Sections 2700 through 2974 of the California Code of Regulations and SCE's EMF-reduction measures arising from CPUC Decision 93-11-013. Verification: Fifteen days before the start of operation, the project owner shall submit to the Commission's Compliance Project Manager (CPM) a letter signed by a California registered electrical engineer affirming that the transmission line meets the requirements of GO-95, GO-50, Title 8, Group 2, Sections 2700 through 2974 of the California Code of Regulations, and SCE's EMF reduction guidelines arising from CPUC Decision 93-11-013. 172 RADIO & TV INTERFERENCE TLSN-2: The project owner shall make every reasonable effort to identify and correct, on a case- specific basis, all complaints of interference with radio or television signals from operation of the line and related facilities.. In addition to any transmission repairs, the relevant corrective actions should include, but shall not be limited to, adjusting or modifying receivers, adjusting or repairing, replacing or adding antennas, antenna signal amplifiers, filters, or lead-in cables. The project owner shall maintain written records for a period of five years, of all complaints of radio or television interference attributable to operation together with the corrective action taken in response to each complaint. All complaints shall be recorded to include notations on the corrective action taken. Complaints not leading to a specific action or for which there was no resolution should be noted and explained. The record shall be signed by the project owner and also the complainant, if possible, to indicate concurrence with the corrective action or agreement with the justification for a lack of action. Verification: All reports of line-related complaints shall be summarized and included in the Annual Compliance Report to the CPM. 173 LAWS, ORDINANCES, REGULATIONS & STANDARDS TRANSMISSION LINE SAFETY AND NUISANCE APPLICABLE Li4W " .,,. � �.. �D'ESCRIPTION .. . . .. ... FEDERAL 14 CFR Part 77—Objects Provides regulates that specify the criteria used by the FAA for determining Affecting the Navigation Space whether a Notice of Proposed Construction or Alteration is required for potential obstruction hazards. Title 47 CFR §15.25 Prohibits operation of any devices producing force fields that interfere with radio communications, even if such devices are not intentionally designed to produce radio-frequency energy. STATE CPUC General Order 52 Governs the construction and operation of power and communications lines CPUC General Order 95 Specifies tree-trimming criteria Title 14 CCR §1250 . Specifies utility-related measures for fire protection. Title 8 CCR, §2700 et seq. Establishes requirements and standards for safely installing, operating and maintaining electrical installations and equipment. LOCAL There are no applicable Local LORS for this area. 174 TRANSMISSION SYSTEM ENGINEERING System Reliability ' APPLICABLE ` REGULATIONS No significant additional new facilities will be required for interconnection of the Retool Project to meet NERC, WSCC, and Cal-ISO reliability criteria. The issuance of the Cal- ISO's final interconnection approval will assure conformance with NERC, WSCC and Cal- ISO reliability criteria. A condition of certification TSE-1 h provides for Energy Commission review of the Cal-ISO final interconnection approval letter and the project owner Generator Special Facility Agreement(GSFA). CONDITION: AES shall ensure that the design, construction and operation of the proposed transmission facilities will conform to applicable requirements. In addition the AES shall construct its transmission lines in accordance with CPUC GO—95 and utility industry standards. Conditions: TSE-1; TSE-2; TSE-3. Reference: SA pp. 322-324 TRANSMISSION SYSTEM ENGINEERING — GENERAL The Retool Project will consist of two out of service 225 megawatt (MW) nominal output units (units 3 & 4) for a total nominal output of 450 MW. At present each unit is connected to an existing, 246 MVA, 13.8 kV to 230 kV step-up transformer bank (consisting of three single phase, 82 MVA, 13.8/132.8 kV transformers). The high voltage terminals of the transformer bank are connected to the existing Huntington Beach (HB) 230 kV switchyard of SCE located within the boundary of the Huntington Beach Generating Station (HBGS) by overhead conductors and through a 1200 ampere motor operated disconnect switch (AESHB 2000a, AFC page 3.4-5). The SCE HB 230 kV switchyard consists of double bus construction (north & south), each bus sectionalized by a circuit breaker and connected to two gang disconnect switches into A & B sections with each section normally carrying a generating unit and two outgoing 230 kV transmission lines to SCE's 230 kV Ellis substation. The disconnect switch for Unit 3 transformer terminals is connected to section B of the north bus and the disconnect switch for Unit 4 transformer terminals is connected to section B of the south bus (AESHB 2000a, AFC page 3.6-1). This configuration for the interconnection and switchyard is in accordance with good utility practices and is acceptable. System Reliability An Operational Interconnection Study (AESHB 2001 a, AFC supplemental I, Appendix H, pages i-iii & 1- 9) was performed by SCE to identify the system impacts of reconnecting the HBGS Units 3 & 4 to the existing electric grid in the summer of 2001 with no system upgrades and to identify any system upgrades when needed before or after the summer of 2001. The study was performed for two system conditions: (a) 2001 heavy summer load forecast and (b) 2001 light spring load forecast. Under both conditions, the generation in the basin area including all other proposed generation projects in queue up to AES HBGS units 3 & 4 is maximized to identify any potential congestion in the transmission system. The study which included Load Flow study, Transient Stability study, Post-transient Voltage study and Short Circuit study, focused on thermal overloads, voltage deviations, system stability and short circuit duties (with 230 kV buses at the SCE HB switchyard operated in parallel or as split) by applying the applicable reliability criteria. 175 The study report concludes that Returning AES HBGS units 3 & 4 to service can be accommodated in 2001 without the need for congestion management provided no additional market generators come on line in 2001. SCE will allow AES HBGS units 3 & 4 to interconnect by May 1, 2001, to their system provided the project owner pays for all 9 breakers (4 breakers in the Hinson 230 kV substation and 5 breakers in the Villa Park 230 kV substation) with appropriate cost sharing and all engineering requirements made to operate the units in a split bus configuration of the HB 230 kV switchyard along with the 9 breaker replacements. In case the project owner decides to operate the HB 230 kV switchyard buses in parallel, then it will be necessary to replace all 9 breakers and to install TRV capacitors in all ten breakers of the HB 230 kV switchyard prior to energizing units 3 & 4. The fault Duty on the breakers at the Hinson and Villa Park 230 kV substations will be allowed to be violated only on a temporary basis until the breakers can be replaced as soon as practicable, the reason being marginal overload risk during maximum generation conditions.(SA pp. 320-321) The Operational Interconnection Study for the Retool Project in conjunction with the Cal-ISO's preliminary approval letter indicate there will be no significant transmission facilities, beyond those previously described in the Retool Project AFC, which are within the existing fence lines of the HB 230 kV switchyard, Hinson and Villa Park 230 kV substations. CUMULATIVE IMPACTS The Retool Project is located in a major load center, the Huntington Beach basin area, which will minimize potential cumulative impacts on the existing transmission system. FINDINGS No significant additional new facilities will be required for interconnection of the Retool Project to meet NERC, WSCC, and Cal-ISO reliability criteria. The power plant switchyard, outlet lines, and termination are acceptable and will comply with LORS assuming the recommended conditions of certification are implemented". The issuance of the Cal-ISO's final interconnection approval will assure conformance with NERC, WSCC and Cal-ISO reliability criteria. A condition of certification, TSE-1 h, provides for Energy Commission review of the Cal-ISO final interconnection approval letter and the project owner Generator Special Facility Agreement (GSFA). CONDITIONS OF CERTIFICATION TSE-1 The project owner shall ensure that the design, construction and operation of the proposed transmission facilities will conform to requirements listed below. The substitution of Compliance Project Manager (CPM) approved "equivalent" equipment and equivalent switchyard configurations is acceptable. (a) power plant switchyard, outlet line and termination shall meet or exceed the electrical, mechanical, civil and structural requirements of CPUC General Order 95, CPUC Rule 21, Title 8, CCR, Articles 35, 36 and 37 of the, "High Voltage Electric Safety Orders", National Electric Code (NEC), and related Industry Standards. 176 (b) Beakers and buses in the power plant switchyard (i.e. SCE's existing 230 kV Huntington Beach switchyard) and other switchyards/substations, where applicable, shall be sized to comply with the SCE short circuit study. (c) The existing Huntington Beach 230 kV switchyard has a double sectionalized bus which shall be operated as either as a split bus or in parallel. (d) The outlet line will use conductors sufficient to carry full load currents of the generator. (e) Termination facilities at the interconnection shall comply with applicable Cal-ISO and SCE interconnection standards (SCE Interconnection Handbook and CPUC Rule 21). (f) Outlet line crossings and line parallels with transmission and distribution facilities shall be coordinated with the transmission line owner and comply with the owner's standards. (g) The project owner shall provide a Detailed Facilities Study including a description. of remedial action scheme sequencing and timing and an executed Generator Special Facilities Agreement (GSFA) for the transmission interconnection with SCE. The Detailed Facilities Study and GSFA shall be coordinated with and approved by the Cal-ISO. Verification: . At least 30 days prior to start of construction of transmission facilities, the project owner shall submit for approval to the CBO: (a) Design drawings, specifications and calculations conforming with CPUC General Order 95 and related industry standards, where applicable, for the poles/towers, foundations, anchor bolts, conductors, grounding systems and major switchyard equipment. (b) For each element of the transmission facilities as identified above, the submittal package to the CPM or CBO shall contain the design criteria, a discussion of the calculation method(s), a sample calculation based on "worst case conditions" and a statement by the registered engineer in responsible charge (signed and sealed) that the transmission element(s) will conform with CPUC General Order 95, Title 8, CCR, Articles 35, 36 and 37 of the, "High Voltage Electric Safety Orders", the NEC, SCE Interconnection Handbook, CPUC Rule 21 and related industry standards. (c) Electrical one-line diagrams signed and sealed by the registered professional electrical engineer in responsible charge, a route map, and an engineering description of equipment and the configurations covered by requirements a through h above. The Detailed 'Facilities Study .and GSFA shall concurrently be provided. Substitution of equipment and substation configurations shall be identified and justified by the project owner for CPM approval. TSE-2 The project owner shall inform the CPM of any impending changes, which may not conform to the requirements 1 a through 1 h of TSE-1, and have not received CPM approval, and request approval to implement such changes. A detailed description of the proposed change and complete engineering, environmental, and economic rationale for the change shall accompany the request. Construction 177 involving changed equipment, transmission facilities or switchyard configurations shall not begin without prior written approval of the changes by the CPM and CBO. Verification: At least 15 daysf prior to construction of transmission facilities, the project owner shall inform the CPM and CBO of any impending changes which may not conform to requirements of TSE-1 and request approval to implement such changes. TSE-3 The project owner shall be responsible for the inspection of the transmission facilities during and after project construction and any subsequent CPM approved changes thereto, to ensure conformance with CPUC General Order 95, Title 8, CCR, Articles 35, 36 and 37 of the, "High Voltage Electric Safety Orders", the NEC, SCE Interconnection Handbook, CPUC Rule 21 and related industry standards. In case of non-conformance, the project owner shall inform the CPM in writing within 10 days of discovering such non-conformance and describe the corrective actions to be taken Verification: Within 60 days after first synchronization of the project, the project owner shall transmit to the CPM: (a) "As built" engineering description(s) and one-line drawings of the electrical portion of the facilities signed and sealed by the registered electrical engineer in responsible charge. A statement attesting to conformance with CPUC General Order 95, Title 8, CCR, Articles 35, 36 and 37 of the, "High Voltage Electric Safety Orders", the NEC, SCE Interconnection Handbook, CPUC Rule 21 and related industry standards, and these conditions shall be concurrently provided. (b) An "as built' engineering description focused on safety provisions of the mechanical, structural, and civil portion of the transmission facilities signed and sealed by the registered engineer in responsible charge. (c) A summary of inspections of the completed transmission facilities, and identification of any nonconforming work and corrective .actions taken, signed and sealed by the registered engineer in responsible charge. 178 LAWS, ORDINANCES, REGULATIONS & STANDARDS TRANSMISSION SYSTEM ENGINEERING . APPLICABLE.LAW FEDERAL There are no applicable Federal LORS STATE Provides the performance standards used in assessing reliability of the interconnected system. CPUC General Order 95, Formulates uniform requirements for construction of overhead lines. Rules for Overhead Electric Line Construction. CPUC Rule 21 Provides standards for the reliable connection of parallel generating stations connected to participating transmission owners. Western Systems Provides the performance standards used in assessing reliability of the Coordinating Council interconnected system. (WSCC) North American Electric Provides policies, standards, principles and guides to assure the Reliability Council NERC ade uac and security of the electric transmissions stem. Cal-ISO Provides the performance standards used in assessing reliability of the interconnected system. LOCAL There are no applicable Local LORS for this area. 179 WORKER SAFETY COMPLIES WITH APPLICABLE LAWS&REGULATIONS Fire Protection The proposed fire protection system at the site will include fire alarms, detection systems, fire hydrants, water storage, and both primary electric and backup diesel water pumps and hose stations throughout the facility. The system will be designed and operated in accordance with National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) standards and recommendations. Prior to construction and operation of the project, the Huntington Beach Fire Department shall confirm the adequacy of the proposed fire protection systems and plans CONDITION: AES shall submit fire protection plans for the construction and operation of the project. Conditions: WORKER SAFETY-1, WORKER SAFETY-2 References: SA pp. 73-86 Safety & Injury Prevention COMPLIES WITH APPLICABLEREGULATIONS Construction: During the construction phase of the project, workers will be exposed to hazards typical of construction of a gas-fired combined cycle facility. Construction Safety Orders are promulgated by Cal/OSHA and are applicable to the construction phase of the project CONDITION: AES shall prepare a Construction Safety and Health Program for the review and approval of Cal/OSHA and, as appropriate, the City of Huntington Beach Fire Department. Condition: WORKER SAFETY-1. Operation: prior to operation, AES shall prepare the Operations Safety and Health Program, which will include an Injury and Illness Prevention Program, an Emergency Action Program/Plan, a Fire Protection and Prevention Program; and a Personal Protective Equipment Program. CONDITION: AES shall prepare an Operations Safety and Health Program for the review and approval of Cal/OSHA and, as appropriate, the Huntington Beach Fire Department. Condition: WORKER SAFETY-1. References: SA pp. 73-86. COMPLIES WITH APPLICABLE LAWS& REGULATIONS Noise Cal-OSHA regulations provide the maximum noise level over an 8-hour work period is 90 dBA. Areas above 85 dBA need to be posted as high noise level areas and appropriate hearing protection will be provided. AES will also adopt a hearing conservation program in accordance with Cal-OSHA regulations. CONDITION: AES shall institute an occupational noise control program to reduce exposure to high levels of construction noise. Condition: WORKER SAFETY-3. AES shall conduct an occupational noise survey to identify noise hazardous areas and, if necessary, prepare mitigation in consultation with Cal/OSHA to reduce noise to prescribed limits. Condition: WORKER SAFETY-4. Reference: SA p. 152. 180 WORKER SAFETY - GENERAL The requirements for worker and fire protection are enforced through Federal, State, and local regulations. The State of California Department of Industrial Relations is charged with the responsibility for administering the Cal/OSHA plan. Effective implementation of worker safety programs at a facility is essential to the protection of workers from workplace hazards. These programs are documented through project-specific worker safety plans. Industrial workers at the proposed facility will operate equipment, handle hazardous materials, and face other workplace hazards that may result in accidents or serious injury. The worker safety and fire protection measures proposed for this project are designed to either eliminate or minimize such hazards through special training, use of protective equipment or implementation of procedural controls. (SA pp.73-76) Fire Protection The Energy Commission staff reviewed the information provided in the AFC regarding on-site fire . protection, which will be adequate for fighting incipient fires. The proposed fire protection system at the site will include fire alarms, detection systems, fire hydrants, water storage, and both primary electric and backup diesel water pumps and hose stations throughout the facility. Fixed fire suppression systems will be installed at pre-determined fire risk areas, such as the transformers, turbine lubrication oil equipment, and cooling tower. The system will be designed and operated in accordance with National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) standards and recommendations. Sprinkler systems will be installed in the Control/Administration Building and Fire Pump Building, as required by NFPA requirements. Hand-held fire extinguishers will be located in accordance with NFPA 10 throughout the facility. AES will also be required to provide final diagrams and plans of fire protection systems to the Energy Commission and to the Huntington Beach Fire Department, prior to construction and operation of the project, to confirm the adequacy of the proposed fire protection systems and plans. All Fire Department access roads, water mains, and fire hydrants shall be installed and operational during construction in accordance with Article 87 of the Fire Code. A final inspection by the Fire Department will be required to confirm that the facility meets all the Fire and Building Code requirements. These measures are sufficient to ensure adequate protection of workers and the public from impacts associated with fire hazards posed by the proposed facility. (SA p.76) MITIGATION: AES shall submit fire protection plans for the construction and operation of the project. Conditions: WORKER SAFETY-1, WORKER SAFETY-2. Safety& Injury Prevention Industrial environments are potentially dangerous. Workers could be exposed to chemical spills, hazardous waste, fires, moving equipment, and confined space entry and egress problems. It is important to have well-defined facility-specific policies and procedures, training, and hazard recognition and control to minimize work place hazards and to protect workers from unavoidable hazards. Energy Commission staff has reviewed AES's proposed measures for protection of workers during construction and operation of the proposed project. These measures are described below. These measures are adequate to protect workers from work place hazards associated with the proposed project and to comply with applicable laws. 181 Construction: During the construction phase of the project, workers will be exposed to hazards typical of construction of a gas-fired combined cycle facility. Construction Safety Orders are published at Title 8 of the California Code of Regulations beginning with section 1502 (8 CCR § 1502, et seq.). These requirements are promulgated by Cal/OSHA and are applicable to the construction phase of the project. The Construction Safety and Health Program will include the following: Construction Injury and Illness Prevention Program (8 CCR § 1509) Construction Fire Protection and Prevention Plan (8 CCR § 1920) Personal Protective Equipment Program (8 CCR § 1514-1522) Additional programs include General Industry Safety Orders (8 CCR § 3200-6184), Electrical Safety Orders (8 CCR §2299-2974) and Unfired Pressure Vessel Safety Orders (8 CCR § 450-544). The AFC includes adequate outlines of each of the above programs. Prior to construction of the Huntington Beach Units 3 & 4 Retool Project, detailed programs and plans will be provided pursuant to the Condition of Certification WORKER SAFETY-1. (SA p. 86.) CONDITION: AES shall prepare a Construction Safety and Health Program for the review and approval of Cal/OSHA and, as appropriate, the City of Huntington Beach Fire Department. Condition: WORKER SAFETY-1. Operation: Upon completion of construction and prior to operation, AES shall prepare the Operations Safety and Health Program pursuant to regulatory requirements of Title 8 of the California Code of Regulations, which will include the following programs and plans: Injury and Illness Prevention Program (8 CCR § 3203) Emergency Action Program/Plan (8 CCR § 3220); Fire Protection and Prevention Program (8 CCR § 3221); and; Personal Protective Equipment Program (8 CCR § 3401-3411) Additional programs also include General Industry Safety Orders (8 CCR § 3200-6184), Electrical Safety Orders (8 CCR §2299-2974) and Unfired Pressure Vessel Safety Orders (8 CCR § 450-544). The AFC includes adequate outlines of each of the above programs. Cal/OSHA will review AES's program and provide comments as a result of a consultation request. A Cal/OSHA representative will complete a physical survey of the site, analyze work practices, and assess those practices that may likely result in illness or injury. (AFC 6.11.3.2; SA pp. 103-104.) CONDITION: AES shall prepare an Operations Safety and Health Program for the review and approval of Cal/OSHA and, as appropriate, the City of Huntington Beach Fire Department. Condition: WORKER SAFETY-2. Noise Construction: The applicant acknowledges the need to protect construction workers from noise hazards, and states that a noise evaluation will be conducted after retooling is complete to ensure that employees are adequately protected in accordance with OSHA/Cal-OSHA requirements (AES 2000a, AFC § 5.12.2.3). To ensure that construction workers are, in fact, adequately protected, Energy 182 i Commission staff has proposed a Condition of Certification (NOISE-3 renamed WORKER SAFETY-3). (SA p. 154.) CONDITION: AES shall institute an occupational noise control program to reduce exposure to high levels of construction noise. Condition: WORKER SAFETY-3. Operation: The applicant recognizes the need to protect plant operating and maintenance personnel from noise hazards, and has committed to comply with applicable LORS (AES 2000a, AFC § 5.12.2.3). Signs would be posted in areas of the plant with noise levels exceeding 85 dBA (the level that OSHA recognizes as a threat to workers' hearing), and hearing protection would be required. The applicant would implement a comprehensive hearing conservation program. To ensure that construction workers are, in fact, adequately protected, Energy Commission staff has proposed a Condition of Certification (NOISE-7 renamed WORKER SAFETY-4). CONDITION: AES shall institute an occupational noise control program to reduce exposure to high levels of operational noise. Condition: WORKER SAFETY-4. Finding With the implementation of the Conditions of Certification, below, the project conforms to applicable laws related to worker safety. CONDITIONS OF CERTIFICATION CONSTRUCTION SAFETY & HEALTH PROGRAM WORKER SAFETY-1: The project owner shall submit to the CPM a copy of the Project Construction Safety and Health Program, containing the following: A construction Injury and Illness Prevention Program A construction Fire Protection and Prevention Plan A personal Protective Equipment Program Protocol: The Construction Injury and Illness Prevention Program and the Personal Protective Equipment Program shall be submitted to the California Department of Industrial Relations, Division of Occupational Safety and Health (Cal/OSHA) Consultation Service, for review and comment concerning compliance of the program with all applicable Safety Orders. The Construction Fire Protection and Prevention Plan shall be submitted to the City's of Huntington Beach Fire Department for review and acceptance. Verification: At least 15 days prior to the start of construction, or a date agreed to by the CPM, the project owner shall submit to the CPM a copy of the Project Construction Safety and Health Program and the Personal Protective Equipment Program, with a copy of the cover letter transmittal of the programs to Cal/OSHA Consultation Service. The project owner shall provide a letter from the City of Huntington Beach Fire Department stating that they have reviewed and accepted the Construction Fire Protection and Prevention Plan. 183 OPERATION SAFETY & HEALTH PROGRAM WORKER SAFETY-2: The project owner shall submit to the CPM a copy of the Project Operation Safety and Health Program containing the following: An Operation Injury and Illness Prevention Plan An Emergency Action Plan On Operation Fire Protection Plan A Personal Protective Equipment Program Protocol: The Operation Injury and Illness Prevention Plan, Emergency Action Plan, and Personal Protective Equipment Program shall be submitted to the California.Department of Industrial Relations, Division of Occupational Safety and Health (Cal/OSHA) Consultation Service for review and comment concerning compliance of the' program with all applicable Safety Orders. The operation's Emergency Action Plan and Fire Protection Plan shall be submitted to the City of Huntington Beach Fire Department for review and acceptance. The final versions of the operation Injury and Illness Prevention Plan, Emergency Action Plan, Fire Protection Plan and Personal Protective Equipment Program shall incorporate Cal/OSHA and City of Huntington Beach Fire Department comments. Verification: At least 30 days prior to the start of operation, the project owner shall submit to the CPM a copy of the final version of the Project Operation Safety & Health Program with a copy of the cover letter to Cal/OSHA"s Consultation Service, and City of Huntington Beach Fire Department comments .stating that they have reviewed and accepted the specified elements of the proposed Operation Safety and Health Plan. The project owner shall notify the CPM that the Project Operation Safety and Health Program (Injury and Illness Prevention Plan, Fire Protection Plan, the Emergency Action Plan, and Personal Protective Equipment requirements), including all records and files on accidents and incidents, is present on-site and available for inspection. WORKER NOISE CONTROL PROGRAM WORKER SAFETY-3: Prior to the start of project-related ground disturbing activities, the project owner shall submit to the CPM for review a noise control program. The noise control program shall be used to reduce employee exposure to high noise levels during construction and also to comply with applicable OSHA and Cal-OSHA standards. Verification: At least 15 days prior to the start of project-related ground disturbing activities, the project owner shall submit to the CPM the above referenced program. The project owner shall make ! the program available to OSHA upon request. f WORKER NOISE SURVEY WORKER SAFETY-4: The project owner shall conduct an occupational noise survey to identify the noise hazardous areas in the facility. The survey shall be conducted within 30 days after the facility is in I full operation, and shall be conducted by a qualified person in accordance with the provisions of Title 8, California Code of Regulations, sections 5095-5099 (Article 105) and Title 29, Code of Federal Regulations, section 1910.95. The survey results shall be used to determine the magnitude of employee noise exposure. The project owner shall prepare a report of the survey results and, if R I i 184 I necessary, identify proposed mitigation measures that will be employed to comply with the applicable California and federal regulations. Verification: Within 30 days after completing the survey, the project owner shall submit the noise survey report to the CPM. The project owner shall make the report available to OSHA and Cal-OSHA upon request. The following conditions were proposed by the City of Huntington Beach and are adopted by the Commission. FIRE PROTECTION-1: Fire Protection Systems-Water storage, supply and movement 1. Provide the size(s) of any onsite water storage tank(s), if any, dedicated exclusively for fire service. With respect to any such storage tank, indicate whether the tank is always maintained at its maximum fill capacity. If it is not always maintained at its maximum fill capacity, provide operating information specifying how and when the tank is filled and depleted. 2. If there is currently an onsite water storage tank dedicated exclusively for fire service, indicate whether a multi-purpose water storage tank is integrated into the fire service system that would be available for use during emergencies. If so, indicate whether the storage tank is maintained at its maximum fill capacity. If not, provide detailed operating information specifying how and when the tank is filled and depleted. 3. Provide current detailed information on the fire-system pumps and their associated drivers, i.e., manufacturer data sheets, pump curves, and other performance data. Indicate whether pumps and drivers work in series or parallel 4. Provide the current fire-flow capacity on a gallon per minute basis that AES maintains onsite and the duration over which that capacity can be sustained before a demand sure is placed on the City's water system. 5. Provide an independent third party consultant, selected by the Huntington Beach Fire Department, to review, comment, evaluate and certify AES fire protection systems. The review, evaluation, certification and all associated costs are to be paid by AES. Provide copies of any reports provided by that consultant service and the certification. Additionally, provide all available reports describing the performance of the fire protection systems, hydrants, tanks, pumps and fixed systems for adequate fulfillment of fire-flow requirements for worst case scenarios. 6. Provide a current detailed plan of the fire water protection fixtures, line sizes and any other appurtenances that are connected to or otherwise integrated into the fire protection system. 185 7. Provide other fire prevention and protection staples as required by Huntington Beach and Uniform Fire Codes to include but no be limited to: • Portable fire extinguishers • Designated and posted fire lanes • Fire alarm systems with manual pull stations, water flow valve tamper and trouble detection • 24 hour supervision • Automatic sprinkler systems Barriers to protect key elements of fire protection equipment FIRE PROTECTION-2 Other Systems, Policies, Plans Programs & Procedures 1. Provide detail of fire protections systems (non-water) to include drawings of those systems with detection, pull stations, panel locations, alarm bells, strobe lights and all other appurtenances associated with detection or suppression systems. 2. Provide, in writing, a "Spill/Release Policy and Procedures Program" and onsite spill mitigation and disposal plans to the City Fire Chief for approval and include a policy with procedures requiring and certifying the immediate reporting of any hazardous material spill or leak to the Huntington Beach Fire Department with follow-up procedures. 3. Provide a written submittal of an "Emergency Response Plan" that includes detailed in-house response actions and associated employee training programs to support qualified employee response to any and all possible emergencies to the Fire Chief for approval and publish when approved. 4. Provide a "Hazardous Waste Contingency Plan" with documentation and drawings to show the location of the hazardous waste storage area, ownership of land that houses the hazardous, waste storage area, emergency equipment available, procedures for handling and storing hazardous waste, training and certification provided to employees assigned to handle hazardous waste, labeling requirements of hazardous waste and manifesting procedures for arranging for disposal of hazardous waste. 5. Provide public health and safety plans and programs where required by (LOBS) local ordinances and regulations to .include all changes related to the retooling to include but not limited to: • Hazardous Communication Programs to include Employee Training Plans • Spill Prevention Control & Countermeasure Plan (SPCC) if required • Personal Protective Equipment Survey and Plan (PPE) • Earthquake and Emergency Flood Contingency Plans I 186 • Injury & Illness Prevention Programs as required by Federal and State Regulations and any other plans mentioned in this document • Chemical Hygiene Plans • Facility Closure Plans as specified by City specifications • Solid and Liquid Waste Disposal Control Plans • Construction Safety and Training Programs 187 LAWS, ORDINANCES, REGULATIONS & STANDARDS WORKER SAFETY AND FIRE PROTECTION .;APPLICABLE LAW, fi,. DESCRIPTION s ,FEDERAL Title 29 CFR §651 et seq. Established the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 to protect the health and safety of workers Title 29 CFR §1910 et seq. Contains the minimum occupational health and safety standards for general industry in the U.S. Title 29 CFR §1926 et seq. Contains the minimum occupational health and safety standards for construction industry in the U.S. Title 29 CFR §1952.170-1952- Gives California full enforcement responsibility for relevant federal 175 et se occupational health and safety standards. Title 49 CFR §192 U.S. Department of Transportation Pipeline Safety Regulations. Adopted by the California Public Utility Commission. Governs the California utilities on design, construction, testing, maintenance, and operation of piping systems. STATE Title 8 CCR §5144 Re uirements for res irato rotection programs for construction workers. Title 8 CCR §1920 et seg. Regulations for fire prevention during construction. Title 8 CCR §450-560 et seq. Applicable requirements of the Division of Industrial Safety, including Unfired Pressure Vessel Safety Orders, Construction Safety Orders, Electrical Safety Orders, and General Industry Safety Orders. Title 8 CCR §1509, 1514-1522, Outlines employer requirements for preparation of Illness and Injury 3203, 3220-3221, 3380-3390, Prevention Program, Emergency Action Plan, Fire Prevention Plan, and 3401-3411 Personal Protective Equipment Program for construction and operations workers. Health & Safety Code §25915- Outlines requirements for Asbestos Management Plan including employee 25919.7 notification and handling procedures. Applies to presence of asbestos in the existing Units 1 &2. Labor Code §142.3 Authorizes the Occupational and Safety Health Board to establish safety standards. Labor Code §6300 et seq. Establishes the responsibilities of the Divisions of Occupational Health and Safety. 24 CCR §501 et seq. Building code established to provide minimum standards to safeguard human life, health, property, and public welfare by controlling design, construction, and qualitv of materials of building. California Public Utility Additional restrictions to govern the California utilities on pipeline safety. Commission General Order No. 112-E j 188 APPLIG`aBLE LAW lk DESCRIPTION INDUSTRY STANDARDS Uniform Fire Code Standards Contains provisions necessary for fire prevention and information about fire safety, special occupancy uses, special processes, and explosive, flammable, combustible and hazardous materials. 189 GENERAL ORDER NO. 1 - GENERALCONDITIONS INCLUDING COMPLIANCE MONITORING AND CLOSURE PLAN Introduction The project General Conditions Including Compliance Monitoring and Closure Plan (Compliance Plan) have been established as required by Public Resources Code section 25532. The plan provides a means for assuring that the facility is constructed, operated and closed in conjunction with air and water quality, public health and safety, environmental and other applicable regulations, guidelines, and conditions adopted or established by the California Energy Commission (Energy Commission) and specified in the written decision on the Application for Certification or otherwise required by law. The Compliance Plan is composed of the following elements: 1. General conditions that: a) set forth the duties and responsibilities of the Compliance Project Manager (CPM), the project owner, delegate agencies, and others; b) set forth the requirements for handling confidential records and maintaining the compliance record; c) state procedures for settling disputes and making post-certification changes; d) state the requirements for periodic compliance reports and other administrative procedures that are necessary to verify the compliance status for all Energy Commission approved conditions; and e) establish requirements for facility closure plans. 2. Specific conditions of certification: Specific conditions of certification that follow each technical area contain the measures required to mitigate any and all potential adverse project impacts associated with construction, operation and closure to an insignificant level. Each specific condition of certification also includes a verification provision that describes the method of verifying that the condition has been satisfied. GENERAL CONDITIONS OF CERTIFICATION DEFINITIONS j i To ensure consistency, continuity and efficiency, the following terms, as defined, apply to all technical areas, including Conditions of Certification: SITE MOBILIZATION: Moving trailers and related equipment onto the site, usually accompanied by minor ground disturbance, grading for the trailers and limited vehicle parking, trenching for utilities, installing utilities, grading for an access corridor, and other related activities. Ground disturbance, grading, etc., for site mobilization are limited to the portion of the site necessary for placing the trailers and providing access and parking for the occupants. Site mobilization is for temporary facilities and is, therefore, not considered construction. i i 190 i i GROUND DISTURBANCE: Onsite activity that results in the removal of soil or vegetation, boring, trenching or alteration of the site surface. This does not include driving or parking a passenger vehicle, pickup truck, or other light vehicle, or walking on site. GRADING: Onsite activity conducted with earth-moving equipment that results in alteration of the topographical features of the site such a leveling, removal of hills or high spots, or moving of soil from one area to another. CONSTRUCTION: [From section 25105 of the Warren-Alquist Act.] Onsite work to install permanent equipment or structures for any facility. Construction does not include any of the following: a) The installation of environmental monitoring equipment. b) A soil or geological investigation. c) A topographical survey. d) Any other study or investigation to determine the environmental acceptability or feasibility of the use of the site for any particular facility. e) Any work to provide access to the site for any of the purposes specified in a, b, c, or d, above. COMPLIANCE PROJECT MANAGER (CPM) RESPONSIBILITIES A CPM will oversee the compliance monitoring and shall be responsible for: 1. ensuring that the design, construction, operation, and closure of the project facilities is in compliance with the terms and conditions of the Commission Decision; 2. resolving complaints; 3. processing post-certification changes to the conditions of certification, project description, and ownership or operational control; 4. documenting and tracking compliance filings; and, 5. ensuring that the compliance files are maintained and accessible. The CPM is the contact person for the Energy Commission and will consult with appropriate responsible agencies and the Energy Commission when handling disputes, complaints and amendments. All project compliance submittals are submitted to the CPM for processing. Where a submittal required by a condition of certification requires CPM approval, it should be understood that the approval would involve all appropriate staff and management. The Commission has established a toll free compliance telephone number of 1-800-858-0784 for the public to contact the Commission about power plant construction or operation-related questions, complaints or concerns. Pre-Construction and Pre-Operation Compliance Meeting 191 The CPM may schedule pre-construction and pre-operation compliance meetings prior to the projected start-dates of construction, plant operation, or both. The purpose of these meetings will be to assemble both the Energy Commission's and the project owner's technical staff to review the status of all pre construction or pre-operation requirements contained in the Energy. Commission's conditions of certification to confirm that they have been met, or if they have not been met, to ensure that the proper action is taken. In addition, these meetings shall ensure, to the extent possible, that Energy Commission conditions will not delay the construction and operation of the plant due to oversight or inadvertence and to preclude any last minute, unforeseen issues from arising. Pre-construction meetings held during the certification process must be publicly noticed unless they are confined to administrative issues and processes. Energy Commission Record The Energy Commission shall maintain as a public record, in either the Compliance file or Docket file, for the life of the project (or other period as required): 1. all documents demonstrating compliance with any legal requirements relating to the construction and operation of the facility; 2. all monthly and annual compliance reports filed by the project owner; 3. all complaints of noncompliance filed with the Energy Commission; and, 4. all petitions for project or condition changes and the resulting staff or Energy Commission action taken. PROJECT OWNER RESPONSIBILITIES It is the responsibility of the project owner to ensure that the general compliance conditions and the conditions of certification are satisfied. The general compliance conditions regarding post-certification changes specify measures that the project owner must take when requesting changes in the project design, compliance conditions, or ownership. Failure to comply with any of the conditions of certification or the general compliance conditions may result in reopening of the case and revocation of Energy Commission certification, an administrative fine, or other action as appropriate. Access The CPM, responsible Energy Commission staff, and delegate agencies or consultants, shall be guaranteed and granted unrestricted access to the power plant site, related facilities, project-related staff, and the records maintained on site, for the purpose of conducting audits, surveys, inspections, or general site visits. Although the CPM will normally schedule site visits on dates and times agreeable to the project owner, the CPM reserves the right to make unannounced visits at any time. Compliance Record j The project owner shall maintain project files on-site or at an alternative site approved by the CPM, for the life of the project. The files shall contain copies of all "as-built" drawings, all documents submitted 192 I as verification for conditions, and all other project-related documents for the life of the project, unless a lesser period is specified by the conditions of certification. Energy Commission staff and delegate agencies shall, upon request to the project owner, be given unrestricted access to the files. Compliance Verifications Each condition of certification is followed by a means of "verification". The verification describes the Energy Commission's procedure(s) to ensure post-certification compliance with adopted conditions. The verification procedures, unlike the conditions, may be modified, as necessary by the CPM, and in most cases without full Energy Commission approval. Verification of compliance with the conditions of certification can be accomplished by: • reporting on the work done and providing the pertinent documentation in monthly and/or annual compliance reports filed by the project owner or authorized agent as required by the specific conditions of certification; • appropriate letters from delegate agencies verifying compliance; Energy Commission staff audits of project records; and/or • Energy Commission staff inspections of mitigation and/or other evidence of mitigation. Verification lead times (e.g., 90, 60 and 30-days) associated with start of construction may require the project owner to file submittals during the certification process, particularly if construction is planned to commence shortly after certification. A cover letter from the project owner or authorized agent is required for all compliance submittals and correspondence pertaining to compliance matters. The cover letter subject line shall identify the involved condition(s) of certification by condition number and include a brief description of the subject of the submittal. The project owner shall also identify those submittals not required by a condition of certification with a statement such as: "This submittal is for information only and is not required by a specific condition of certification." When submitting supplementary or corrected information, the project owner shall reference the date of the previous submittal. The project owner is responsible for the delivery and content of all verification submittals to the CPM, whether such condition was satisfied by work performed by the project owner or an agent of the project owner. All submittals shall be addressed as follows: Compliance Project Manager California Energy Commission 1516 Ninth Street(MS-2000). Sacramento, CA 95814 193 If the project owner desires Energy Commission staff action by a specific date, they shall so state in their submittal and include a detailed explanation of the effects on the project if this date is not met. Compliance Reporting There are two different compliance reports that the project owner must submit to assist the CPM in tracking activities and monitoring compliance with the terms and conditions of the Commission Decision. During construction, the project owner or authorized agent will submit Monthly Compliance Reports. During operation, an Annual Compliance Report must be submitted. These reports, and the requirement for an accompanying compliance matrix, are described below. The majority of the conditions of certification require that compliance submittals be submitted to the CPM in the monthly or annual compliance reports. Compliance Matrix A compliance matrix.shall be submitted by the project owner to the CPM along with each monthly and annual compliance report. The compliance matrix is intended to provide the CPM with the current status of all compliance conditions in a spreadsheet format. The compliance matrix must identify: 1. the technical area, 2. the condition number, 3. a brief description of the verification action or submittal required by the condition, 4. the date the submittal is required (e.g., 60 days prior to construction, after final inspection, etc.), 5. the expected or actual submittal date, 6. the date a submittal or action was approved by the Chief Building Official (CBO), CPM, or delegate agency, if applicable, and 7. the compliance status for each condition (e.g., "not started", "in progress' or"completed date"). Completed or satisfied conditions do not need to be included in the compliance matrix after they have been identified as completed/satisfied in at least one monthly or annual compliance report. Pre-Construction Matrix Prior to commencing construction a compliance matrix addressing only those conditions that must be fulfilled before the start of construction shall be submitted by the project owner to the CPM. This matrix will be included with the project owner's first compliance submittal. It will be in the same format as the compliance matrix referenced above. i Tasks Prior to Start of Construction Construction shall not commence until the pre-construction matrix is submitted, all pre-construction conditions have been complied with, and the CPM has issued a letter to the project owner authorizing 194 I construction. Project owners frequently anticipate starting project construction as soon as the project is certified. In some cases it may be necessary for the project owner to file submittals prior to certification if the required lead-time for a required compliance event extends beyond the date anticipated for start of construction. It is also important that the project owner understand that pre-construction activities that are initiated prior to certification are performed at the owner's own risk. Failure to allow specified lead-time may cause delays in start of construction. Various lead times for verification submittals to the CPM for conditions of certification are established to allow sufficient staff time to review and comment, and if necessary, allow the project owner to revise the submittal in a timely manner. This will ensure that project construction may proceed according to schedule. Monthly Compliance Report The first Monthly Compliance Report is due the month following the Energy Commission business meeting date on which the project was approved, unless otherwise agreed to by the CPM. The first Monthly Compliance Report shall include an initial list of dates for each of the events identified on the Key Events List. The Key Events List is found at the end of this section. During pre-construction and construction of the project, the project owner or authorized agent shall submit an original and five copies of the Monthly Compliance Report within 10 working days after the end of each reporting month. Monthly Compliance Reports shall be clearly identified for the month being reported. The reports shall contain at a minimum: 1. a summary of the current project construction status, a revised/updated schedule if there are significant delays, and an explanation of any significant changes to the schedule; 2. documents required by specific conditions to be submitted along with the Monthly Compliance Report. Each of these items must be identified in the transmittal letter, and should be submitted as attachments to the Monthly Compliance Report; 3. an initial, and thereafter updated, compliance matrix which shows the status of all conditions of certification (fully satisfied and/or closed conditions do not need to be included in the matrix after they have been reported as closed); 4. a list of conditions which have been satisfied during the reporting period, and a description or reference to the actions which satisfied the condition; 5. a fist of any submittal deadlines that were missed accompanied by an explanation and an estimate of when the information will be provided; 6. a cumulative listing of any approved changes to conditions of certification; 7. a listing of any filings with, or permits issued by, other governmental agencies during the month; 195 8. a projection of project compliance activities scheduled during the next two months. The project owner shall notify the CPM as soon as any changes are made to the project construction schedule that would affect compliance with conditions of certification; 9. a listing of the month's additions to the on-site compliance file; and 10. any requests to dispose of items that are required to be maintained in the project owner's compliance file. 11. a listing of complaints, notices of violation, official warnings, and citations received during the . month; a description of the resolution of any complaints which have been resolved, and the status of any unresolved complaints. Annual Compliance Report After the air district has issued a Permit to Operate, the project owner shall submit Annual Compliance Reports instead of Monthly Compliance Reports. The reports are for each year of commercial operation and are due to the CPM each year at a date agreed to by the CPM. Annual Compliance Reports shall be submitted over the life of the project unless otherwise specified by the CPM. Each Annual Compliance Report shall identify the reporting period and shall contain the following: 1. an updated compliance matrix which shows the status of all conditions of certification (fully satisfied and/or closed conditions do not need to be included in the matrix after they have been reported as closed); 2. a summary of the current project operating status and an explanation of any significant changes to facility operations during the year; 3. documents required by specific conditions to be submitted along with the Annual Compliance Report. Each of these items must be identified in the transmittal letter, and should be submitted as attachments to the Annual Compliance Report; 4. a cumulative listing of all post-certification changes approved by the Energy Commission or cleared by the CPM; 5. an explanation for any submittal deadlines that were missed, accompanied by an estimate of when the information will be provided; 6. a listing of filings made to, or permits issued by, other governmental agencies during the year; 7. a projection of project compliance activities scheduled during the next year; 8. a listing of the year's additions to the on-site compliance file, and 196 9. an evaluation of the on-site contingency plan for unexpected facility closure, including any suggestions necessary for bringing the plan up to date [see General Conditions for Facility Closure addressed later in this section]. 10. a listing of complaints, notices of violation, official warnings, and citations received during the year; a description of the resolution of any complaints which have been resolved, and the status of any unresolved complaints. Confidential Information Any information, which the project owner deems confidential shall be submitted to the Energy Commission's Docket with an application for confidentiality pursuant to Title 20, California Code of Regulations, section 2505(a). Any information, which is determined to be confidential, shall be kept confidential as provided for in Title 20, California Code of Regulations, section 2501 et. seq. Department of Fish and Game Filing Fee Pursuant to the provisions of Fish and Game Code Section 711.4, the project owner shall pay a filing fee in the amount of eight hundred and fifty dollars ($850). The payment instrument shall be provided to the Commission's Project Manager at the time of project certification and shall be made payable to the California Department of Fish and Game. The Commission's Project Manager will submit the payment to the Office of Planning and Research at the time of filing of the notice of decision pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21080.5. Reporting of Complaints, Notices, and Citations Prior to the start of construction, the project owner must send a letter to property owners living within one mile of the project notifying them of a telephone number to contact project representatives with questions, complaints or concerns. If the telephone is not staffed 24 hours per day, it shall include automatic answering, with date and time stamp recording. The telephone number shall be posted at the project site and easily visible to passersby during construction and operation. In addition to the monthly and annual compliance reporting requirements described above, the project owner shall report and provide copies of all complaint forms, notices of violation, notices of fines, official warnings, and citations, within 10 days of receipt, to the CPM. Complaints shall be logged and numbered. Noise complaints shall be recorded on the form provided in the NOISE conditions of certification. All other complaints shall be recorded on the complaint form on the following page. 197 COMPLAINT REPORT/RESOLUTION FORM PROJECT NAME: AFC Number: COMPLAINT LOG NUMBER Complainant's name and address: Phone number: Date and time complaint received: Indicate if by telephone or in writing (attach copy if written): Date of first occurrence: Description of complaint (including dates, frequency, and duration): Findings of investigation by plant personnel: Indicate if complaint relates to violation of a CEC requirement: Date complainant contacted to discuss findings: Description of corrective measures taken or other complaint resolution: Indicate if complainant agrees with proposed resolution: If not, explain: Other relevant information: i If corrective action necessary, date completed: Date first letter sent to complainant: (copy attached) ! Date final letter sent to complainant: (copy attached) This information is certified to be correct. Plant Manager's Signature: Date: (Attach additional pages and supporting documentation, as required.) i I i 198 FACILITY CLOSURE At some point in the future, the project will cease operation and close down. At that time, it will be necessary to ensure that the closure occurs in such a way that public health and safety and the environment are protected from adverse impacts. Although the project setting for this project does not appear, at this time, to present any special or unusual closure problems, it is impossible to foresee what the situation will be in 30 years or more when the project ceases operation. Therefore, provisions must be made which provide the flexibility to deal with the specific situation and project setting that exist at the time of closure. LORS pertaining to facility closure are identified in the sections dealing with each technical area. Facility closure will be consistent with LORS in effect at the time of closure. There are at least-three circumstances in which a facility closure can take place, planned closure, unexpected temporary closure and unexpected permanent closure. Planned Closure A planned closure occurs at the end of a project's life, when the facility is closed in an anticipated, orderly manner, at the end of its useful economic or mechanical life, or due to gradual obsolescence. Unexpected Temporary Closure An unplanned unexpected temporary closure occurs when the facility is closed suddenly and/or unexpectedly, on a short-term basis, due to unforeseen circumstances such as a natural disaster, or an .emergency. Unexpected Permanent Closure An unplanned unexpected permanent closure occurs if the project owner closes the facility suddenly and/or unexpectedly, on a permanent basis. This includes unexpected closure where the owner remains accountable for implementing the on-site contingency plan. It can also include unexpected closure where the project owner is unable to implement the contingency plan, and the project is essentially abandoned. General Conditions for Facility Closure Planned Closure In order to ensure that a planned facility closure does not create adverse impacts, a closure process . that provides for careful consideration of available options and applicable laws, ordinances, regulations, standards, and local/regional plans in existence at the time of closure, will be undertaken. To ensure adequate review of a planned project closure, the project owner shall submit a proposed facility closure plan to the Energy Commission for review and approval at least twelve months prior to commencement of closure activities (or other period of time agreed to by the CPM). The project owner shall file 120 copies (or other number of copies agreed upon by the CPM) of a proposed facility closure plan with the Energy Commission. The plan shall: 1. identify and discuss any impacts and mitigation to address significant adverse impacts associated with proposed closure activities and to address facilities, equipment, or other project related remnants that will remain at the site. 199 2. identify a schedule of activities for closure of the power plant site, transmission line corridor, and all other appurtenant facilities constructed as part of the project; 3. identify any facilities or equipment intended to remain on site after closure, the reason, and any future use; and 4. address conformance of the plan with all applicable laws, ordinances, regulations, standards, local/regional plans in existence at the time of facility closure, and applicable conditions of certification. .Also, in the event that there are significant issues associated with the proposed facility closure plan's approval, or the desires of local officials or interested parties are inconsistent with the plan, the CPM shall hold one or more workshops and/or the Commission may hold public hearings as part of its approval procedure. In addition, prior to submittal of the proposed facility closure plan, a meeting shall be held between the project owner and the Commission CPM for the purpose of discussing the specific contents of the plan. As necessary, prior to, or during the closure plan process, the project owner shall take appropriate steps to eliminate any immediate threats to public health and safety and the environment, but shall not commence any other closure activities, until Commission approval of the facility closure plan is obtained. Unexpected Temporary Closure In order to ensure that public health and safety and the environment are protected in the event of an unexpected temporary facility closure, it is essential to have an on-site contingency plan in place. The on-site contingency plan will help to ensure that all necessary steps to mitigate public health and safety, and environmental impacts, are taken in a timely manner. The project owner shall submit an on-site contingency plan for CPM review and approval. The plan shall be submitted no less that 60 days (or other time agreed to by the CPM) prior to commencement of commercial operation. The approved plan must be in place prior to commercial operation of the facility and shall be kept at the site at all times. I The project owner, in consultation with the CPM, will update the on-site contingency plan as necessary. The CPM may require revisions to the on-site contingency plan over the life of the project. In the annual compliance reports submitted to the Energy Commission, the project owner will review the on- site contingency plan, and recommend changes to bring the plan up to date. Any changes to the plan must be approved by the CPM. The on-site contingency plan shall provide for taking immediate steps to secure the facility from trespassing or encroachment. In addition, for closures of more than 90 days (unless other j arrangements are agreed to by the CPM), the plan shall provide for removal of hazardous materials and hazardous wastes, draining of all chemicals from storage tanks and other equipment and the safe shutdown of all equipment (also see specific conditions of certification for the technical areas of Hazardous Materials Management and Waste Management). i In addition, consistent with requirements under unexpected permanent closure addressed below, the nature and extent of insurance coverage, and major equipment warranties must also be included in the I 200 on-site contingency plan. In addition, the status of the insurance coverage and major equipment warranties must be updated in the annual compliance reports. In the event of an unexpected temporary closure, the project owner shall notify the CPM, as well as other responsible agencies, by telephone, fax, e-mail, etc., within 24 hours and shall take all necessary steps to implement the on-site contingency plan. The project owner shall keep the CPM informed of the circumstances and expected duration of the closure. If the CPM determines that a temporary closure is likely to be permanent, or for a duration of more than twelve months, a closure plan consistent with that for a planned closure shall be developed and submitted to.the CPM within 90 days of the CPM's determination (or other period of time agreed to'by the CPM). Unexpected Permanent Closure The on-site contingency plan required for unexpected temporary closure shall also cover unexpected permanent facility closure. All of the requirements specified for unexpected temporary closure shall also apply to unexpected permanent closure. In addition, the on-site contingency plan shall address how the project owner will ensure that all required closure steps will be successfully undertaken in the unlikely event of abandonment. In the event of an unexpected permanent closure, the project owner shall notify the CPM, as well as other responsible agencies, by telephone, fax, e-mail, etc., within 24 hours and shall take all necessary steps, to implement the on-site contingency plan. The project owner shall keep the CPM informed of the status of all closure activities. A closure plan consistent with that for a planned closure shall be developed and submitted to the CPM within 90 days of the permanent closure (or other period of time agreed to by the CPM). DELEGATE AGENCIES To the extent permitted by law, the Energy Commission may delegate authority for compliance verification and enforcement to various state and local agencies that have expertise in subject areas where specific requirements have been established as a condition of certification. If a delegate agency does not participate in this program, the Energy Commission staff will establish an alternative method of verification and enforcement. Energy Commission staff reserves the right to independently verify, compliance. In performing construction and operation monitoring of the project, the Energy Commission staff acts as, and has the authority of, the Chief Building Official (CBO). The Commission staff retains this authority when delegating to a local CBO. Delegation of authority for compliance verification includes the authority for enforcing codes, the responsibility for code interpretation where required, and the authority to use discretion, as necessary, in implementing the various codes and standards. Whenever an agency's responsibility for a particular area is transferred by law to another entity, all references to the original agency shall be interpreted to apply to the successor entity. 201 i i ENFORCEMENT The Energy Commission's legal authority to enforce the terms and conditions of its Decision is specified in Public Resources Code sections 25534 and 25900. The Energy Commission may amend or revoke the certification for any facility, and may impose a civil penalty for any significant failure to comply with the terms or conditions of the Commission Decision. The specific action and amount of any fines the Commission may impose would take into account the specific circumstances of the incident(s). This would include such factors as the previous compliance history, whether the cause of the incident involves willful disregard of LORS, inadvertence, unforeseeable events, and other factors the Commission may consider. Moreover, to ensure compliance with the terms and conditions of certification and applicable laws, ordinances, regulations, and standards, delegate agencies are authorized to take any action allowed by law in accordance with their statutory authority, regulations, and administrative procedures. NONCOMPLIANCE COMPLAINT PROCEDURES Any person or agency may file a complaint alleging noncompliance with the conditions of certification. Such a complaint will be subject to review by the Energy Commission pursuant to Title 20, California Code of Regulations, section 1230 et. seq., but in many instances the noncompliance can be resolved by using the informal dispute resolution process. Both the informal and formal complaint procedure, as described in current State law and regulations, are described below. They shall be followed unless superseded by current law or regulations. Informal Dispute Resolution Procedure The following procedure is designed to informally resolve disputes concerning interpretation of compliance with the requirements of this compliance plan. The project owner, the Energy Commission, or any other party, including members of the public, may initiate this procedure for resolving a dispute. Disputes may pertain to actions or decisions made by any party including the Energy Commission's delegate agents. This procedure may precede the more formal complaint and investigation procedure specified in Title 20, California Code of Regulations, section 1230 et. seq., but is not intended to be a substitute for, or prerequisite to it. This informal procedure may not be used to change the terms and conditions of certification as approved by the Energy Commission, although the agreed upon resolution may result in a project owner, or in some cases the Energy Commission staff, proposing an amendment. The procedure encourages all parties involved in a dispute to discuss the matter and to reach an agreement resolving the dispute. If a dispute cannot be resolved, then the matter must be referred to the full Energy Commission for consideration via the complaint and investigation process. The procedure for informal dispute resolution is as follows: Request for Informal Investigation Any individual, group, or agency may request the Energy Commission to conduct an informal investigation of alleged noncompliance with the Energy Commission's terms and conditions of certification. All requests for informal investigations shall be made to the designated CPM. 202 Upon receipt of a request for informal investigation, the CPM shall promptly notify the project owner of the allegation by telephone and letter. All known and relevant information of the alleged noncompliance shall be provided to the project owner and to the Energy Commission staff. The CPM will evaluate the request and the information to determine if further investigation is necessary. If the CPM finds that further investigation is necessary, the project owner will be asked to promptly investigate the matter and within seven (7) working days of the CPM's request, provide a written report of the results of the investigation, including corrective measures proposed or undertaken, to the CPM. Depending on the urgency of the noncompliance matter, the CPM may conduct a site visit and/or request the project owner to provide an initial report, within forty-eight (48) hours, followed by a written report filed within seven (7) days. Request for Informal Meeting In the event that either the party requesting an investigation or the Energy Commission staff is not satisfied with the project owner's report, investigation of the event, or corrective measures undertaken, either party may submit a written request to the CPM for a meeting with the project owner. Such request shall be made within fourteen (14) days of the project owner's filing of its written report. Upon receipt of such a request, the CPM shall: 1. immediately schedule a meeting with the requesting party and the project owner, to be held at a mutually convenient time and place; 2. secure the attendance of appropriate Energy Commission staff and staff of any other agency with expertise in the subject area of concern as necessary; 3. conduct such meeting in an informal and objective manner so as to encourage the voluntary settlement of the dispute in a fair and equitable manner; and, 4. after the conclusion of such a meeting, promptly prepare and distribute copies to all in attendance and to the project file, a summary memorandum which fairly and accurately identifies the positions of all parties and any conclusions reached. If an agreement has not been reached, the CPM shall inform the complainant of the formal complaint process and requirements provided under Title 20, California Code of Regulations, section 1230 et. seq. Formal Dispute Resolution Procedure-Complaints and Investigations If either the project owner, Energy Commission staff, or the party requesting an investigation is not satisfied with the results of the informal dispute resolution process, such party may file a complaint or a request for an investigation with the Energy Commission's General Counsel. Disputes may pertain to actions or decisions made by any party including the Energy Commission's delegate agents. Requirements for complaint filings and a description of how complaints are processed are in Title 20, California Code of Regulations, section 1230 et. seq. The Chairman, upon receipt of a written request stating the basis of the dispute, may grant a hearing on the matter, consistent with the requirements of noticing provisions. The Commission shall have the authority to consider all relevant facts involved and make any appropriate orders consistent with its jurisdiction (Title 20, California Code of Regulations, sections 1232 - 1236). 203 POST CERTIFICATION CHANGES TO THE COMMISSION DECISION: AMENDMENTS, INSIGNIFICANT PROJECT CHANGES AND VERIFICATION CHANGES The project owner must petition the Energy Commission, pursuant to Title 20, California Code of Regulations, section 1769, to 1) delete or change a condition of certification; 2) modify the project design or operational requirements; and 3) transfer ownership or operational control of the facility. A petition is required for amendments and for insignificant project changes. For verification changes, a letter from the project owner is sufficient. In all cases, the petition or letter requesting a change should be submitted to the Commission's Docket in accordance with Title 20, California Code of Regulations, section 1209. The criteria that determine which type of change process applies. are explained below. Amendment (1769(A)(3)) A proposed project modification will be processed as an amendment if it alters the intent or purpose of a condition of certification, has potential for significant adverse environmental impact, may violate applicable laws, ordinances, regulations or standards, or involves an ownership change. Insignificant Project Change (1769(A)(2)) If a proposed modification does not alter the intent or purpose of a condition of certification, have potential for significant adverse environmental impact, violate applicable laws, ordinances, regulations, or standards, or result in an ownership change, it will be processed in accordance with Section 1769(a)(2). In this regard, as specified in Section 1769(a)(2), Commission approval is not required. Verification Change The proposed change will be processed as a verification change if it involves only the language in the verification portion of the condition of certification. This procedure can only be used to change verification requirements that are of an administrative nature, usually the timing of a required action. In the unlikely event that verification language contains technical requirements, the proposed -change must be processed as an amendment. 204 KEY EVENT LIST PROJECT DATE ENTERED DOCKET# PROJECT MANAGER DATE EVENT DESCRIPTION ASSIGNED Date of Certification Start of Construction Completion of Construction Start of Operation (1 st Turbine Roll) Start of Rainy Season End of Rainy Season Start T/L Construction Complete T/L Construction Start Fuel Supply Line Construction Complete Fuel Supply Line Construction Start Rough Grading Complete Rough Grading Start of Water Supply Line Construction Completion of Water Supply Line Construction Start Implementation of Erosion Control Measures Complete Implementation of Erosion Control Measures 205 ADOPTION ORDER The Commission adopts this Decision on the AES Huntington Beach Power Plant and incorporates the amended Presiding Member's Proposed Decision. This Decision is based upon the record of the proceeding (Docket No. 00-AFC-013). The Commission hereby adopts the following findings in addition to those contained in the accompanying text: 1. The Conditions of Certification contained in this Decision, if implemented by the project owner, ensure that, to the extent stated herein, the whole of the project will be designed, sited and operated in conformity with applicable local, regional, state, and federal laws, ordinances, regulations, and standards, including applicable public health and safety standards, and air and water quality standards. Otherwise, the benefits of the project — significant new generating capacity which helps meet the peak summer electricity needs — are overriding considerations in approving the project through September 30, 2006, (or as extended) and outweigh what may be a significant impact. 2. Implementation of the Conditions of Certification contained in the accompanying text will ensure protection of environmental quality and assure reasonably safe and reliable operation of the facility. The Conditions of Certification also assure that the project will neither result in, nor contribute substantially to, any significant direct, indirect, or cumulative adverse environmental impacts. 3. Existing governmental land use restrictions are sufficient to adequately control population density in the area surrounding the facility and may be reasonably expected to ensure public health and safety. 4. The record does not establish the existence of any environmentally superior alternative site. 5. The analysis of record assesses all potential environmental impacts associated with the 450 MW configuration.. 6. This Decision contains measures to ensure that the planned, temporary, or unexpected closure of the project will occur in conformance with applicable laws, ordinances, regulations, and standards. 7. The proceedings leading to this Decision have been conducted in conformity with the applicable provisions of Commission regulations governing the consideration of an Application for Certification and thereby meet the requirements of Public Resources Code, sections 21000 et seq.', and 25500 et seq. Therefore, the Commission ORDERS the following: 1. The Application for Certification of the AES Huntington Beach Power Company, LLC, as described in this Decision is hereby approved and a certificate to construct and operate the project to September 30, 2011, is hereby granted. 206 2. The approval of the Application for Certification is subject to the timely performance of the Conditions of Certification and Compliance Verifications enumerated in the accompanying text. The Conditions and Compliance Verifications are integrated with this Decision and are not severable therefrom. While the project owner may delegate the performance of a Condition or Verification, the duty to ensure adequate performance of a Condition or Verification may not be delegated. 3. For purposes of reconsideration pursuant to Public Resources Code section 25530, this Decision is deemed adopted when filed with the Commission's Docket Unit. 4. For purposes of judicial review pursuant to Public Resources Code section 25531, this Decision is final thirty (30) days after its filing in the absence of the filing of a petition for reconsideration,or, if a petition for reconsideration is filed within thirty (30) days, upon the adoption and filing of an Order upon reconsideration with the Commission's Docket Unit. 5. The Commission hereby adopts the Conditions of Certification, Compliance Verifications, and associated dispute resolution procedures as part of this Decision in order to implement the compliance monitoring program required by Public Resources Code section 25532. All conditions in this Decision take effect immediately upon adoption and apply to all construction and site preparation activities including, but not limited to, ground disturbance, site preparation, and permanent structure construction. 6. The Executive Director of the Commission shall transmit a copy of this Decision and appropriate accompanying documents as provided by Public Resources Code section 25537 and California Code of Regulations, title 20, section 1768. Dated: May 10, 2001 ENERGY RESOURCES CONSERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION WILLIAM J. KEESE ROBERT A. LAURIE Chairman Commissioner ROBERT PERNELL ARTHUR H. ROSENFELD Commissioner Commissioner Commissioner Michal Moore was absent. 207 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS ANALYSIS 1.0 Introduction The Commission Decision requires the AES Huntington Beach Entrainment and Impingement Study to "consider the cumulative effect of all southern California coastal power plants on nearshore fish populations." There are 13 coastal power plants in southern California (between Pt. Conception and the U.S./Baja California border) that utilize once-through cooling (Figure 6-1). Such a cumulative impacts analysis is not only unprecedented for the region, few such analyses have been performed in the United States. Realizing this, the BRRT convened a workshop on 5 October 2004 to determine potential methods of performing a cumulative impacts analysis in southern California. The methods identified during this workshop were used in the analysis, and are detailed in Section 6.2. it. cttCp#t7rtt y y IN E y ii y s 10 2 � � C}n'i'io de8C � 5catteCgacad � �i �� i Seguriclo_. Redclndo Beacilp Santa Long Beach Monica Alam�t s Bay .. ' ,Haynes ti ffi Hianttn torn Beach �/ y Sari dnofre � Et3Cina " 3°N an 1196 1N 118 W South 3 , . ., s Figure 1. Location of the 13 coastal generating stations in southern California. 1 Cumulative Impacts of Southern California Coastal Generating Stations Workshop The Cumulative Impacts Workshop convened at the Moss Landing Marine Laboratories on October 5, 2004. Attending were: ➢ California Energy Commission — Dick Anderson, Rick York, Noel Davis, Mike Foster (Moss Landing Marine Labs), and Pete Raimondi (U.C. Santa Cruz). ➢ AES Huntington Beach L.L.C. —Rick Tripp and Paul Hurt. ➢ MBC Applied Environmental Sciences—Chuck Mitchell and Shane Beck ➢ Tenera Environmental— David Mayer, John Steinbeck, and John Hedgepeth ➢ U.C. Davis, Bodega Marine Lab—John Largier ➢ NOAA Fisheries, Santa Cruz—Alec MacCall CEC Staff and MBC presented introductory information, including California coastal facility overviews and a summary of EPA's Tampa Bay cumulative impact analysis. The discussion ten focused on appropriate methods for describing cumulative effects of entrainment at coastal generating stations given the limited recent data available. An initial depiction of cumulative impact would be to estimate entrainment mortality for each coastal power plant based on cooling water intake volume. Estimates of proportional entrainment (PE) would be calculated for each plant using permitted cooling water intake volumes and a common source volume, such as the volume along the Southern California Bight out to a depth of 35 or 75 m, approximating the depth of the shelf. A source water volume to the 75-m isobath was used in an entrainment study at the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station (Parker and DeMartini 1989). The analysis would include all southern California coastal generating stations except Duke's South Bay Power Plant due to its location in south San Diego Bay, which limits its effects on the open coastal areas of the Southern California Bight. The PE estimates from the individual plants would be used as estimates of daily mortality to calculate proportional mortality (P,,,) over a range of larval durations. Both the individual PE and Pm estimates would be plotted to describe the geographical pattern of power plant induced mortality. The Pm estimates would be converted to survival to estimate the cumulative effects because the product of the survival estimates would account for potential overlapping effects of multiple power plants. This product of the survival estimates would be converted to a cumulative estimate of Pm. The initial analysis would assume that the effects of the plants are overlapping producing a single cumulative effect. This initial approach can be expanded using current data to identify discrete areas affected by individual power plants. Where these areas overlap survival estimates can be accumulated to estimate the cumulative mortality. The overlapping levels of mortality can be plotted to show variation along the coast in contrast to the uniform estimate from the initial analysis. 2 Impingement data (fishes and macro invertebrates impinged during the 2003 study year) were presented for 12 of 13 coastal generating stations. Data for Encina Generating Station were not currently available, and macroinvertebrate impingement data are not collected at San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station. Sampling types and frequency vary among generating stations, but annual estimates would be made based on extrapolated normal operations and heat treatment surveys where available. MBC would compile 2003 annual fish and macroinvertebrate loss estimates for all 12 generating stations for the cumulative impact analysis. Facility Overview Huntington Beach Generating Station is one of 13 coastal generating stations along the coast of the Southern California Bight (SCB) that utilizes once-through cooling (Figure 1). Six generating stations have nearshore, velocity-capped intakes, four have shoreline intakes, and three have canals (Table 1). There are also three desalination facilities not included in this analysis: two that utilize subsurface wells (Pebbly Beach on Santa Catalina Island and the U.S. Navy facility on San Nicholas Island), and one facility (Chevron Gaviota in Santa Barbara County) that has relatively low flow volume (<0.5 mgd). The intake flows from these three desalination facilities combined comprise less than one percent of the permitted flow volume in southern California. Table 1. Overview of cooling water intake systems of southern California coastal generating stations. Facility Location Immediate Source Intakes Max. Flow Water (m d Reliant Mandalay Oxnard Channel I. Harbor 1 canal 255 Reliant Ormond Oxnard Nearshore 1 velocity-capped 689 Beach LADWP Scattergood Los Angeles Santa Monica Bay 1 velocity-capped 496 NRG El Segundo Los Angeles Santa Monica Bay 2 velocity-capped 607 AES Redondo Los Angeles Santa Monica Bay/King 2 velocity-capped 889 Beach Harbor LADWP Harbor Los Angeles Los Angeles Harbor 1 shoreline 108 NRG Long Beach Long Beach Long Beach Harbor 1 shoreline 265 AES Alamitos Long Beach Alamitos Bay 2 canals 1,283 LADWP Haynes Long Beach Alamitos Bay 1 canal 1,014 AES Huntington Huntington Nearshore 1 velocity-capped 507 Beach Beach SCE San Onofre San Clemente Nearshore 2 velocity-capped 2,390 NRG Encina Carlsbad A ua Hedionda 1 shoreline 860 Duke South Ba San Diego San Diego Bay 1 shoreline 601 Totals: 17 intakes 9,964 3 Overview of Cumulative Impact Analyses Cumulative impact analyses are required as part of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). However, the extent and depth of such analyses vary considerably. As a component of every Environmental Impact Statement, Environmental Impact Report, and Environmental Assessment, the project proponent is required to assess the potential cumulative impacts of the proposed project. The analysis of a project's potential cumulative impact generally focuses on the areas of transportation, socioeconomics, air quality, and land-based natural resources. Cumulative impact analyses focusing on marine resources are often limited in scope. In most cases, this reflects the shortcoming of contemporary marine and fishery science to provide meaningful, integrated cause-and-effect analyses in open- ocean settings of more than one or two stressors acting on populations. Fortunately, our ability to make environmental decisions is not normally constrained by the demands of the analysis, but is advanced by a process of narrowing the focus of the analysis. There are a few recent examples of cumulative impact analyses .with respect to impingement and entrainment (I&E) at coastal generating stations. The U.S. EPA .recently published examples used in equating benefits associated with reductions in I&E at Tampa Bay (Florida) and the Delaware Estuary Transition Zone (Delaware and New Jersey) (EPA 2002). Analysis methods at the two locations were similar; losses of fishes due to entrainment and impingement were all converted to Age-1 equivalents to standardize the calculation of foregone fishery yield and production foregone. Economic losses were calculated using available recreational and commercial fishery statistics. Effects of improved fishing opportunities resulting from cessation of I&E were assessed using a Random Utility Model (EPA 2002). This model is based on the premise that anglers would get greater satisfaction, and thus greater economic value,-from sites where the catch rate is higher, all else being equal. Analyses such as these are useful because they equate biological losses with economic values. However, many of the fishes and invertebrates most affected by I&E in the SCB are not targeted by commercial or recreational fishermen, so the conversion of I&E losses to dollars based on utilitarian approaches may be of little use. Another example of a recent cumulative impacts analysis is a project initiated by the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (ASMFC) that was requested by its member States to investigate the cumulative impacts on commercial fishery stocks, particularly overutilized stocks, attributable to cooling water intakes located in coastal regions of the Atlantic. Specifically, the ASMFC study intended to evaluate the potential cumulative impacts of multiple cooling water intakes on Atlantic menhaden (Brevoortia tyrannus), which ranges along most of the U.S. Atlantic 4 coast, with a focus on revising existing fishery management models so that they accurately consider and account for losses of fishes from multiple cooling water intakes. Typically, assessments of power plant mortality have focused on individual power plant impacts with little information being provided on the cumulative effects on migratory species. Additionally, mortality estimates have often been expressed in terms of numbers of fish killed, which is difficult to relate to the mortality estimates provided by stock assessments, usually expressed as a fishing mortality rate or spawning stock biomass. The panel working on the issue has found that the biggest obstacle to developing cumulative assessments was lack of data on impingement and entrainment from power plants on the East Coast (L. Barnthouse pers. comm. 2004). There are only a handful of plants for which entrainment and impingement losses were routinely monitored. At the other plants, the only I&E data available consisted of one-time studies done to support 316(b) demonstrations, and many of these were performed in the 1970s. 2.0 Methods The collection of I&E data at all southern California facilities was outside the scope of the current project at the HBGS. Impingement data are collected at most generating stations as part of NPDES monitoring, though the types (normal operations and/or heat treatments) and frequency (e.g. weekly, monthly, etc.) of monitoring vary by location. Unlike impingement, entrainment is not a usual monitoring component for any of southern California's generating stations. Major factors in determining methods for analysis of cumulative impacts with respect to entrainment included (1) the availability of recent entrainment data, and (2) the availability of recent oceanographic current data. Entrainment Although some eggs and larvae of fishes and invertebrates survive passage through power plant cooling water systems, impact modeling assumes that all organisms die during entrainment, representing mortality due to power plant operations in addition to natural mortality. Because more than one power plant may entrain eggs and larvae there can be cumulative (additive) mortality upon a single population. This entrainment analysis focuses on 12 of the 13 generating stations listed in Table 1. Duke Energy's South Bay Power Plant is relatively isolated from the coastal oceanic flow and is not considered in the analysis of cumulative entrainment impacts. The larval source population in the SCB is assumed to be shoreward of the 75-m depth limit, a distance that varies from more than 20 km off of San Pedro Bay to less than 1 km off of La 5 Jolla submarine canyon (Figure 2). Although some species live outside or are more restricted inside this limit, the definition follows Lavenberg et al. (1986)who used ichthyoplankton transects shoreward of the 75-m isobath to be representative of the coastal zone. Five of six species they studied occurred predominantly shoreward of the 36-m isobath. Other species, such as those belonging to the genera Engraulis, Paralabrax, Stenobrachius and Sebastes, occurred further offshore (McGowen. 1993, Lavenberg et al. 1986). McGowen (1993) found that while the density of many species peaked at the 36-m isobath, others were found primarily at the offshore stations (36 and 75 m). The analysis of cumulative impacts will use the 75-m limit as an initial limit and also .a range from 30 to 75 m for comparison. That is, effects on mortality of changing this offshore limit will be examined by varying the depth limit from 75 m to as shallow as 30 m. . e `0go PermittedFlow(mgd)` 168 ta'2,380 mgd 26'34 31 36-a4 41.0 :61-a i66-70 D . a 25 50 4a6 lSwEleters- ,S. . .. Figure 2. Bathymetry of the coastal zone of the Southern California Bight from Pt. Conception to 28 km south of the US-Mexico border,and permitted cooling water flow at twelve generating stations. 6 The SCB has been defined extending southward from Pt. Conception as "the region of the North American west coast where the coastline bends almost 90 degrees toward the east, indenting the relatively straight coastline to the north and south for about 300 km" (Hickey et al. 2003). Although the SCB extends south of Ensenada, Baja California,to Cabo Colnett, a boundary 28 km south of the border was chosen because it is approximately the same distance from the southernmost plant as the northernmost power plant is from Point Conception. The bathymetry of this area is shown in Figure 2. Also depicted in Figure 2 are power plant locations and the relative permitted cooling volumes. Volumes of water along the coast from Pt. Conception to 28 km south of the US-Mexico border (the northern and southern boundaries of the SCB) from the 30-m to the 75-m isobath were calculated using ESRI ArcView GIS (Table 2). In a historical perspective, a study of adult equivalent loss at the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station used the 75-m limit (7 km offshore at San Onofre) in extrapolation of intake losses to the coastal zone of the SCB from Pt. Conception to Cabo Colnett, Mexico (Parker and DeMartini 1989). The San . Onofre study used a coastline length of 500 km and a volume of 10" m3 (26,417,205 Mgal). We found a similar length and volume of 548 km and 26,904,345 Mgal even though Cabo Colnett is about 100 km south of the US-Mexico border. Table 2. Coastal zone volume as a function of the offshore boundary. Offshore Volume (106 gallon) Cumulative fraction Depth (m) (Pt. Conception to 28 km S of US-Mexico Border) 30 6,700,271 0.249 35 8,409,239 0.313 40 10,259,441 0.381 45 12,374,840 0.460 50 14,510,720 0.539' 55 16,766,557 0.623 60 19,121,614 0.711 65 21,545,822 0.801 70 24,146,959 0.898 75 26,904,345 1.000 In the following analysis of cumulative effects, the terms "mortality" and "survival" refer to values associated only with cooling water system effects from coastal generating stations. Larval fish and invertebrate survival S over t days is calculated following MacCall et al. (1983) and applied similarly in Parker and DeMartini (1989) as. 7 (1) where PE=Cooling Water Volume per day Coastal Volume The term PE, or proportional entrainment; estimates the relative effects of entrainment by using the ratio of entrainment volume and larval source population volume. The survival calculation assumes that larval densities are constant throughout the coastal volume and that the coastal volume adequately describes the source population. We modeled a range of larval durations from 5 to 40 days based on estimated larval durations of target species presented in Section 4.3.3. Table 3 presents the estimates of larval durations of 10 of the species entrained at HBGS. Although some of these species may not be entrained at all of the 13 coastal power plants, we believe that the range of durations is typical. The larval durations were based on the difference between the lengths of the 1s' and 951n percentiles and a growth rate found in the literature. The range of values of the period that larvae were vulnerable to entrainment was used in the above equation to estimate larval survival. Table 3. Larval durations of target study species entrained at HBGS. Taxon Common Name Larval Duration (days) Gobiidae (CIQ complex) gobies 34 Roncador stearnsi spotfin croaker 5 Engraulidae anchovies 38 Seriphus politus queenfish 31 Genyonemus lineatus white croaker 27 Hypsoblennius spp. blennies 9 Cheilotrema saturnum black croaker 7 Hypsopsetta guttulatus diamond turbot 13 Paralichthys californicus California halibut 25 Cancer spp. rock crab 12 Impingement Impingement sampling at coastal generating stations is comprised of normal operations monitoring and/or heat treatment monitoring. Methods at all the generating stations generally conform to those described in Section 3.4.2 of this report. At the 5 October 2004 workshop, participants agreed to exclude 2 of the 13 generating stations from the impingement analysis: NRG Encina Power Plant in Carlsbad and Duke South Bay Power Plant in San Diego Bay. NRG Encina was excluded due to the lack of recent impingement data (although an impingement study 8 is currently underway) and Duke South Bay Power Plant was excluded because of its unique source water. The majority of organisms impinged at Duke South Bay are primarily residents of South San Diego Bay (Tenera 2004). We compiled available, recent, annual fish and macroinvertebrate impingement data from the remaining 11 coastal generating stations. Macroinvertebrates excluded fouling organisms, algae, and seagrasses. The time period analyzed varied by location. Data from the current impingement study at HBGS (2003-2004) were used, data from January 2002 through December 2003 were used for SONGS, and data from October 2002 through September 2003 were used for the remaining nine generating stations. All data were derived from published 2003 NPDES monitoring reports. For generating stations with more than one intake or screening facility, all data were combined to produce totals for each generating station. Of the 11 generating stations analyzed, all but Scattergood conducted at least one normal operation impingement sample during the period analyzed. Of these 10 generating stations, results from the normal operations surveys at all but three of the plants were extrapolated to annual totals based on generating station flow, the same method employed in the HBGS analysis. Heat treatment surveys were conducted at all generating stations except Harbor Generating Station, which does not perform heat treatments. Lastly, of the 11 generating stations, all except SONGS monitor macro invertebrate impingement as well as fish impingement. A summary of survey parameters and results is presented in Table 4. 9 Table 4.Fish and invertebrate impingement:Cumulative impact analysis survey and data summary by generating station. MGS OBGS SGS ESGS RBGS HGS LBGS AGS HnGS HBGS SONGS EPP Total 2003 Surveys Normal Ops(N.O.) 4 12 0 20 16 3 11 7 1 52 8 NA 134 N.O.Extrapolated? Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes No No Yes Yes NA Heal Treatments 2 4 4 4 3 0 1 2 10 6 16 NA 52 Fish No.of Species 11 53 62 45 35 7 1 16 12 57 70 NA 100 Abundance 7,724 11,332 29,711 1,756 1,134 52 153 498 96 51,082 3,564,419 NA 3,667,655 Biomass(kg) 186.8 771.3 1,512.1 671.4 85.7 8.3 0.5 4.8 1.4 1,291.6 21,918.4 NA 26,452.3 Macroinvertebrates No.of Species _ 4 20 17 20 9 3 6 11 10 35 NA NA 56 Abundance 20 1,196 2,019 2,232 1,371 3 14 73 104 70,636 NA NA 77,676 Biomass(kg) 4.5 373.9 119.3 473.1 222.5 0.8 1.3 0.9 1 167.6 NA NA 1,366.0 Cooling Water Systems Number of Intakes 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 2 1 1 - 2 1 16 Intake Type Canal VC VC VC VC Shoreline Shoreline Canal Canal VC VC Shoreline Max.Flow m d 255 689 496 607 889 108 265 1,283 1,014 507 2,390 860 9,363 Key:MGS(Mandalay),OBGS(Ormond Beach),SGS(Scattergood),ESGS(El Segundo),RBGS(Redondo Beach),HGS(Harbor),LBGS(Long Beach),AGS(Alamitos), HnGS(Haynes),HBGS(Huntington Beach),SONGS(San Onofre Nuclear),and EPP(Encina). HBGS data from the present CEC study(July 2003—July 2004). SONGS data from January 2003 through December 2003(SCE 2004). All other data from October 2002 through September 2003(Compiled from NPDES Monitoring Reports). NA=Not available. VC=Velocity capped. South Bay Power Plant excluded from analysis. 10 3.0 Results Bight-Wide Entrainment The mortalities (1-S) due to each power plant are shown in Figure 3 for durations (t) of 5, 10, 20, 20 and 40 days, and assuming the total source volume of the SCB inshore of the 75-m isobath. This assumption is discussed below as it has a profound impact on the mortality estimates. The cumulative cooling water volume (sum of all plants' permitted flow) is 9,363 mgd. If one assumes a homogeneous impact of power plant cooling then the overall survival and mortality rates are shown in Table 5 for two source water volumes, inshore of 35 m.and 75 m. By way of comparison, HBGS mortality rates were between 5.4 and 5.6 percent of the cumulative mortality from the 12 intake locations. This is approximately the same as HBGS percentage of total permitted cooling water by the 12 power plants, 5.4%. Larval Mortality based on Shelf Volume from Pt.Conception to Mexico 0.0040 0.0035 0.0030 ll Mortality 5d 0.0025 Mortality 10d 0.0020 El Mortality 20d 0.0015 ■Mortality 30d 0.0010 — 13 Mortality 40d 0.0005 - - — 0.0000 C T t 'D O .0 L N N t ` 1p O ° R O O 'O O O M. O N O C 0 O C a a rn 5 af0i ,� a10i 'E >, af6i O w U £ w W O° p -j w 0 w z o 0 a O o z � W Q J 0) ym Q W Z = Y J Q w N Q 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 km from Pt.Conception Figure 3. Larval mortality for five larval durations at twelve power plant locations in the Southern California Bight. 11 ' Table 5. Overall survival and mortality for several larval durations of susceptibility based on cumulative cooling flow of twelve power plants and the coastal zone volume shoreward of 35 m and 75 m, extending from Pt. Conception to 28 km south of the US-Mexico border. Shelf Duration of Susceptibility (days) Limit(m) Survival 5 10 20 30 40 35 0.9944 0.9889 0.9780 0.9671 0.9564 75 0.9983 0.9965 0.9931 0.9896 0.9862 Mortality 35 0.0056 0.0111 0.0220 0.0329 0.0436 75 0.0017 0.0035 0.0069 0.0104 0.0138 Percentage Huntington Beach Generation Station of 5 10 20 30 40 Cumulative 35 5.429% 5.443% 5.472% 5.501% 5.530% Mortality 75 5.419% 5.424% 5.433% 5.442% 5.451 Figure 4 shows the relation between different source water volumes and the resulting mortality estimates. Mortality estimates increase exponentially as source water volumes become smaller. Bight-wide Entrainment Mortality versus Source Water Volume 0.0600 0.0500 -Mortal ity-40d -Mortality-30d 0.0400 -Mortal ity-20d c Mortality-10d -- 0.0300 .............Mortality-5d `t3 0 0.0200 0.0100 __...._.......... ......_..__._........._ 0.0000 5000000 10000000 15000000 20000000 25000000 30000000 Source Water(Mgal) Figure 4. Cumulative larval mortality from twelve power plant locations in the Southern California Bight and for five larval durations as a function of the source water volume. The range of source water volume corresponds to the offshore depth limit of the Bight's shelf,from 30 m to 75 m. 12• Overall survival rates from Table 5 are useful for normalizing the following simulation of mortality where survival increases linearly with distance from each power plant location. The simulation assumes that survival is 1 at each end of the coastal zone strip, i.e. at Pt. Conception and at 28 km S of the US-Mexico-border. The survival at each power plant location is adjusted so that values along the coast are linear and that they integrate over distance to the same value as the spatially homogenous survival. In this simulation, overall survival is the product of the power plant contributions. Cumulative mortality impact, i.e. one minus the overall survival, is unimodal, centered at 320 km from Pt. Conception for all larval durations (Figure 5). As expected, the greatest mortality is found with the longest larval duration. Cumulative Mortality 0.025 —40 d Mortality —30 d Mortality 0.020 —20 d Mortality ---10 d Mortality 5 d Mortality o i 0.015 0 0.010 0.005 -.;.w.__. 0.000 0 100 200 300 400 500 Distance from Pt.Conception(km) Figure 5. Cumulative larval mortality simulation from twelve power plant locations in the Southern California Bight and for five larval durations based on a common source volume. Survival is 1 at the ends of the graph. Small circles (100-500 km) show power plant locations. 13 A second simulation models cumulative mortality where mortality diminishes linearly with distance from each power plant (as in the first) but the distance of impact is a function of larval duration. This dependence on larval duration could result from currents, for example. The excursion distance can extend beyond Pt. Conception or 28 km south of the Mexican border. The simulation assumes that the 40-day survival is 1 at a distance of one-half the 548-km coastal zone extent distance from each generating station location. The 30-day simulation assumes that the effective distance is of the coastal zone extent, and so on for 20-, 10- and 5-day durations. Survival, at each power plant location is adjusted so that the survival (or alternatively mortality) values along the coast are linear and that they integrate over distance to the same value as the case of spatially homogenous survival. The survival rates between plants are multiplied along the coast. The sum of the products, shown in Figure 6, is normalized so that the area under the mortality curves is the same as shown in Figure 5. Cumulative Mortality 0.025 —40 d Mortality -----30 d Mortality 0.020 20 d Mortality 10 d Mortality .......... 5 d Mortality 0.015 --- o � 0 0.010 i r 0.005 � 0.000 1-4 0 100 200 300 400 500 Distance from Pt.Conception(km) Figure 6. Cumulative larval mortality simulation from twelve power plant locations in the Southern California Bight and for five larval durations based on a common source.volume and differential zones of influence.The distance from each plant where survival is 1 is a function of larval duration. Small circles (100-500 km) show power plant locations. As durations lessen, the apparent mortality lessens but the effects of individual power plants (or groups of power plants) can be seen in multiple modes of cumulative mortality due to the zone of influence being a function of larval duration. In addition to distance from each generating station, a second factor that contributes to the volume of the affected larval source 14 population is the extent of the offshore boundary. When this boundary is brought inshore from 75 m to 30 m, perhaps reflecting such factors as species behavior, prevalence, larval duration and oceanic currents, the shape of the curves does not change. The magnitude of mortality, however, does change. As the source water volume lessens cumulative mortality increases exponentially similar to the change shown in Figure 4. A third simulation allows the source volume to be a linear function of larval duration. This simulation applies the zone of influence based on larval duration as well as setting the source volume equal to d/40 times the bight's.source volume shoreward of the 75-m depth limit, where d is the number of days of larval duration of susceptibility to entrainment. The results rely on the assumption that a 40-day larval duration of susceptibility is associated with the total Bight source volume. Analysis shows that the mortalities at individual power plants are the same regardless of duration as a result of the modified source volume. Survival S is modified to form a survival S' which is independent of duration of susceptibility t: VE — Et Vs ma. S=e. P =e (2) 1!s — V1, '= e .0 =e 1! A\ where Gax =40 days, VE= Entrainment Volume, and V,,a,= Bight Volume. Table 6 shows the source volumes and coastal lengths associated with average cumulative mortality estimates. Figure 7 shows the resulting cumulative mortalities using a 75 m depth limit of the source volume. Average cumulative mortalities are equivalently estimated using Equation 1, the sum of the permitted maximum intake flows (9,363 Mgal d-), the source volumes in Table 6 and larval durations of susceptibility. Figure 7 is similar to Figure 6 due to similar cumulative source water volumes. Although estimated mortality at a particular power. plant is the same for all durations of larval susceptibility, the volumes and zones of influence are different for different durations. In addition, the zones of influence and source volumes accumulate due to the spread of locations. Though simulation was restricted to the Southern California Bight, if allowed, the zone of influence (based on an assumption that the 40-day coastal zone of influence was 548 km centered at each plant) would have extended beyond Pt. Conception and 28 km south of the US Mexico border for durations of 30 and 40 d. 15 Table 6. Source volume and coastal zones of influence based on simulation and a shelf depth limit of 75 m. Individual intake source volumes are a linear function of larval susceptibility where the maximum was equal to the volume of the Southern California Bight to the 75-m depth limit, 26,904,345 million gallons. Cumulative source volume is, proportional to coastal length affected. Larval Susceptibility Source Volume Cumulative Coastal Cumulative (d) per Plant(Mgal) Source Volume Length (km) Mortality (M al) 5 3,363,043 16,201,522 330 0.00289 10 6,726,086 20,620,118 420 0.00453 20 13,452,173 26,413,390 538 0.00707 30 20,178,259 26,904,345 548 0.01040 40 26,904,345 26,904,345 548 0.01382 Cumulative Mortality 0.025 —40 d Mortality -30 d Mortality 0.020 —20 d Mortality 10 d Mortality 5 d Mortality o 0.015 — — 0 0.010 4 ,. 0.005 0.000 •: .. .� • • . • 0 100 200 300 400 500 Distance from Pt.Conception(km) Figure 7. Cumulative larval mortality simulation from twelve power plant locations in the Southern California Bight and for five larval durations based on differential source volumes. The distance from each plant where survival is 1 and the source volume are a function of larval duration. Small circles (100-500 km)show power plant locations. Cumulative mortality estimates were dependent on the definition of source water population that is susceptible to entrainment. By way of comparison, if the source water were restricted to the 35-m depth limit, cumulative mortalities would be over three times higher due to the restricted source volumes. However, the affected coastal zones (not volumes) would remain the same as shown in Table 6. 16 Cumulative mortality applies to coastal volumes and lengths that are not only a function of duration but also the spread of power plant locations. Such features as coastal currents, eddies and biological factors play an important role in determining the actual extent of mortality power plants have on a source population. So far, we have assumed a source covering the Southern California Bight as well as providing more realistic estimates of mortality by allowing the source water volume to be a function of the duration larvae are susceptible to entrainment. Although actual.results based on estimates of larval excursions at each power generation facility may be similar to Figure 7, it is expected that source volumes and coastal zones will not be the same as portrayed in the figure or in Table 6. Estimates based on refined studies of local conditions will provide a more realistic portrayal of power plants' cumulative effect on larval mortality. One result of the coastal spread of locations of power plant intakes is an extension of vulnerable source water volume and coastal zone of influence (Figure 7 and Table 6). A hypothetical example shows that the extension is not only a function of larval durations but also of the relative locations, using the same assumptions as the final simulation for a 5-day larval duration of susceptibility and a 75 m depth as the outer shelf limit. If all the power plants were sited at the same location, then the coastal zone of influence would be limited to 5/40 of the Bight's 548 km coastal length or 68 km corresponding to a source volume of 3,363,043 Mgal and resulting in a mortality of 0.01382. In simulation, due to the actual plant locations, the coastal zone of influence was 330 km and 16,201,522 Mgal with cumulative mortality of 0.00289. Bight-Wide Impingement Fish impingement data were collected during 134 normal operations and 52 heat treatment surveys at the 11 coastal generating stations. An estimated total of 3,667,655 fish representing at least 98 species and weighing 26,452 kg (58,327 lb.) was impinged at the 11 generating stations over a 12-month period that varied by location (Table 7). Impingement at SONGS Units 2 and 3 combined represented 97% of fish abundance and 83% of fish biomass (Table 4.). Bight-wide impingement, abundance was dominated by northern anchovy (87%), queenfish (9%), and Pacific sardine (2%). Impingement biomass was also dominated by northern anchovy (51%), queenfish (200/o), and Pacific sardine (9%) (Table 7). 17 Table 7. 2003 fish impingement totals (top 10 speceis) from 11 coastal generating stations in the SCB. Bight-wide Impingement Cumulative Total HBGS contribution to: Species No. Wt. k %No. %Wt. No. Wt. northern anchovy 3,173,100 13,411 86.5% 50.7% 0.1% 0.1% queenfish 330,773 5,165 95.5% 70.2% 10.8% 12.5% Pacific sardine 64,876 2,436 97.3% 79.4% 0.2% 0.3% Pacific pompano 27,554 591 98.1% 81.7% 2.2% 2.7% jacksmelt 12,979 847 98.4% 84.9% 2.6% 3.5% shiner perch 9,643 96 98.7% 85.2% 41.9% 53.9% white croaker 9,159 277 98.9% 86.3% 53.5% 34.4% California grunion 7,737 186 99.1% 87.0% 1.8% 0.4% walleye surfperch 5,511 143 99.3% 87.5% 8.6% 11'.0% white sea perch 5,162 62 99.4% 87.8% 16.8% 30.6% Total 100 taxa 3,667,655 26,452 100.0% 100.0% 1.4% 4.9% Fish impingement abundance was highest at SONGS (97%), and was followed by the HBGS (1%) and LADWP's SGS�(0.8%); fish impingement abundance at all other generating stations contributed 0.3% or less to the Bight-wide total (Figure 8). Fish biomass was also highest at SONGS (83%), and was followed by LADWP's SGS (6%), the HBGS (5%), and the OBGS (3%); fish biomass at all other generating stations each contributed less than 3% to the Bight- wide biomass total (Figure 9). 2003 Fish Impingement Abundance 4,000,000 3,564,419 3,500,000 3,000,000 c £ 2,500,000 w 2,000,000 w ° 1,500,000 - - d E 1,000,000 Z 11,332 1,756 153 500,000 - 7,724 29,711 1,134 52 498 96 51,082 . 0 Figure 8. Bight-wide fish impingement abundance by generating station, upcoast (left) to downcoast(right). 18 2003 Fish Impingement Biomass 25,000 21,918.4 .o 20,000 - a E t 15,000 W w - O a� 10,000 - W . 771.3 6714 E 5,000 os ca 1,512.1 1.4 1,291.6 186.8 85.7 8.3 4.8 0 I I Figure 9. Bight-wide fish impingement abundance by generating station, upcoast (left) to downcoast(right). An estimated total of 77,676 macro i nverteb rates representing at least 56 species and weighing 1,366.0 kg (3,012.0 lb) was impinged at the 11 generating stations (Table 8). r Impingement abundance was highest at the HBGS (91% of the Bight-wide total) (Figure 10), while impingement biomass was highest at the ESGS (35%) (Figure 11). Bight-wide impingement abundance was dominated by the nudibranch Dendronotus frondosus (80%), yellow rock crab (5%), and Pacific rock crab (4%). Impingement biomass was dominated by the purple-striped jelly Chrysaora colorata (49%), California spiny lobster(21%), and Pacific rockcrab (10%) (Table 8). Table 8. 2003 macroinvertebrate impingement totals (top 10 species) from 11 coastal generating stations in the SCB. Bight-wide Cumulative Total HBGS contribution to: Impingement Species No. Wt. k %No. %Wt. No. wt. D.frondosus 62,150 15 80.0% 1.1% 1 Mo% 100.0% yellow rock crab 4,119 36 85.3% 3.8% 69.4% 63.5% Pacific rock crab 3,082 138 89.3% 13.9% 33.3% 7.1% graceful rock crab 1,772 6 91.6% 14.3% 84.4% 48.3% tuberculate pear crab 1,034 1 92.9% 14.4% 95.1% 94.6% purple-striped jelly 683 670 93.8% 63.5% 7.8% 3.2% California spiny lobster 664 282 94.6% 84.2% 4.8% 7.0% red rock shrimp 653 1 95.5% 84.2% 24.5% 22.5% striped shore crab 499 3 96.1% 84.4% 35.3% 18.0% red rock crab 478 6 96.7% 84.9% 92.5% 96.6% Total(56 taxa) 77,676 1,366 100.0% 100.0% 90.9% 12.3% 19 2003 Invertebrate Impingement Abundance 75,000 d rn c CL E N 50,000 m m c 0 25,000 E 1 196 w 0 2,232 14 E20 2,019 1,371 3 73 p4 z 0 I ' Figure 10. Bight-wide macro i nverteb rate impingement abundance by generating station, upcoast(left)to downcoast(right). 2003 Invertebrate Impingement Biomass " 600 c_ 0' 373.9 473.1 - E 500 U) d y 400 m m 'c 300 222.5 c.> 200 . p 119.3 Y 100 - 13 1.0 y 4.5 0.8 0.9 f6 0 E o m Figure 11. Bight-wide macroinvertebrate impingement biomass by generating station, upcoast(left)to downcoast(right). 20 A large portion of the California spiny lobsters impinged at coastal generating stations is returned to the ocean each year since they can survive impingement much better than other invertebrate species. Only those lobsters that do not appear thermally stressed or injured are returned, and even those that are returned are included in impingement totals because their ultimate survival cannot be determined. In 2003 for example, 18 of 78 (23%) were returned at ESGS Units 3&4, 69 of 161 (4 3%) were returned at SGS, and at least 80 of 84 (95%) were returned from two heat treatments at RBGS Units 7&8. The proximity of these facilities to their source waters (King Harbor and Santa Monica Bay) facilitates the prompt return of the lobsters, increasing their chances of survival. Macroinvertebrate impingement abundance was highest at the HBGS (91%), and was followed by the ESGS (1%) and LADWP's SGS (0.8%); impingement abundance at all other generating stations contributed 0.3% or less to the Bight-wide total (Figure 10). Macroi nverteb rate biomass was highest at the ESGS (35%), followed by OBGS (27%), RBGS (16%), and the HBGS (12%); macroinvertebrate biomass at all other generating stations each contributed less than 9% to the Bight-wide biomass total (Figure 11). Although macroinvertebrate abundance was highest at the HBGS, biomass was only fourth highest due to the abundance of small nudibranchs (Dendronotus frondosus). At the .two generating stations where macroinvertebrate biomass was highest (ESGS and OBGS), impingement biomass was dominated by purple-striped jelly (Chrysaora colorata). At the RBGS, where macroinvertebrate abundance and biomass ranked third, impingement biomass was dominated by California spiny lobster (Panulirus interruptus). As noted previously,, a large portion of these are returned to the ocean but still included in impingement totals nonetheless. 6.4 Discussion CEQA Guidelines (§15064-15065) identify potentially significant cumulative impacts as those effects that... "are individually limited but cumulatively considerable"., Furthermore, the guidelines state... "The mere existence of significant cumulative impacts caused by other projects alone shall not constitute substantial evidence that the proposed project's incremental effects are cumulatively considerable." The guidelines define `cumulatively considerable as the incremental effects of an individual project that are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, other current projects, and probable future projects. There are no plans that we are aware of for construction of new coastal generating stations in southern California. However, there are repowering efforts proposed at the NRG ESGS and the LADWP Haynes Generating Station (HnGS). 21 Entrainment The cumulative entrainment analysis presented here was essentially a first-order analysis 'designed to give some indication of potential mortalities from entrainment at coastal generating stations. It is important to note that this was based on mathematical calculations using maximum flow volumes, assumed source water volumes, and hypothetical larval durations, and did not involve the collection of biological data. The analysis also did not take into account other potential sources of mortality on source populations. However, the analysis showed that cumulative mortality was very dependent on the volume of the source water larval population, i.e. that body that is potentially susceptible to entrainment. As source water volume lessened (for a given larval duration of susceptibility), larval mortality exponentially increased. This suggests that in the presence of limiting factors, such as circulation that would restrict larval populations, larval mortality would be much higher than indicated using a volume of water of the shelf of the Southern California Bight. A key determinant of the entrainment effects of individual' and multiple intakes is the dispersal distance (or, preferably, two or more length parameters describing dispersal of eggs and larvae — e.g., advection and diffusion coefficients) (Largier 2003). As Dr. Largier (pers. comm.) described: "If these length scales are short, then the impact of entrainment on mortality is large but localized. If the length scales are shorter than the spacing of the intakes, then cumulative impacts (in the sense addressed here) are negligible. On the other hand, if dispersal length scales are long, then the entrainment impact on mortality is small but more widespread. If the length scales are longer than the spacing of the intakes, then cumulative impacts are important and mortality may be significant between intakes." The selection of source water volume has a profound effect on the calculation of PE and ultimately mortality. Estimates of dispersal lengths are needed in developing entrainment models. Although first order estimates of dispersal lengths can be calculated, it is not practical to do so within this report. The numbers in the report are useful as an illustration and show that cumulative effects can be important, but they are not intended as a basis for management or policy decisions. Further analyses could take into account multiple source boundaries based on known distributions or preferences of different species. Impingement There are several points worthy of comment with respect to cumulative :impingement impacts in the SCB. A large proportion of fish impingement occurs at SONGS (97% abundance and 83% biomass) compared to all other generating stations. Flow volume is fairly high at 22 SONGS compared to all other coastal generating stations in the SCB, and the SONGS Unit 2 and 3 intakes are sited near areas of hard bottom substrate and kelp beds. Total impingement at SONGS in 2003 (nearly 3.6 million fish weighing 22,000 kg) was within the range of variability from 2000-2002 (approximately 1.5 million to 3.6 million fish weighing 15,000 to 28,000 kg). In the absence of macroinvertebrate impingement data from SONGS, impingement abundance was highest at the HBGS compared to the other generating stations, but impingement biomass contributed only 12%to the SCB total, primarily due to the low weight of Dendronotus frondosus. Also worthy of note is the history of the SONGS mitigation projects, which are in various stages of implementation and completion. The history is too complex to list here, but will be briefly summarized. Studies to determine the environmental effects from the operation of the CWIS at SONGS began in 1974 and continued for 15 years. In 1991, the California Coastal Commission ordered the operators of SONGS to implement a comprehensive mitigation package to address impacts to marine resources (CCC 2000). Mitigation included (1) 150 acres of wetland restoration, (2) 300 acres of kelp reef construction, (3) reduction of impingement through installation and maintenance of fish behavioral modification devices, (4) reduction of impingement through the fish elevator and fish chase procedure, and (5) funding for the Hubbs-Sea World Research Institute white seabass hatchery. Additionally, SCE and its partners have funded the independent monitoring and technical oversight committees of all mitigation projects. The performance of behavioral devices (light and sonic stimuli) have been demonstrated to be ineffective in substantially reducing impingement(see Section 7.0). Cumulative impingement data were compared with 2003 landings reported in the PSMFC RecFIN database for southern California as a whole (PSFMC 2004). For most species, the numbers impinged at the 11 coastal generating stations represented less than one percent of recreational landings in southern California (Table 8). For some species, however, impingement losses were larger compared to the total recreational take: white seaperch (85%), giant kelpfish (56%), shiner perch (38%), queenfish (33%), jacksmelt (11%), sargo (7%), white croaker (5%), walleye surfperch (4%), rubberlip seaperch (3%), black perch (3%), topsmelt (2%), and yellowfin croaker(1%). Many of these species, especially the perches, are caught primarily by recreational fishers from piers. In total, impingement abundance in the SCB was equivalent to 8% of the recreational catch in the SCB in 2003 for those species that are fished. 23 Table 8. Comparison of 2003 fish impingement abundance in the SCB and 2003 recreational fishing landings in southern California as reported in the RecFIN database (ranked by RecFIN landings, top 29 species) (PSFMC 2004). Common Name 2003 Southern California 2003 SCB Cumulative Proportion of Impingement Recreational Landings Impingement to Recreational Capture queenfish 974,312 330,773 33.9% pacific mackerel 828,490 80 <0.1% barred sand bass 802,096 538 0.1% kelp bass 595,291 352 0.1% white croaker 180,002 9,159 5.1% vermillion rockfish 160,170 17 <0.1% walleye surfperch 143,524 5,511 3.8% California halibut 142,075 107 0.1% California scorpionfish 130,126 490 0.4% jacksmelt 118,464 12,979 11.0% halfmoon 110,425 28 <0.1% topsmelt 93,605 2,112 2.3% yellowfin croaker 71,932 972 1.4% California sheephead 69,843 2 <0.1% blacksmith 66,822 365 0.5% opaleye 51,956 28 0.1% white seabass 50,521 265 0.5% black perch 42,120 1,050 2.5% brown rockfish 36,193 188 0.5% shiner perch 25,114 9,643 38.4% California corbina 19,680 87 0.4% sargo 17,159 1,243 7.2% spotfin croaker 16,977 65 0.4% pile perch 8,926 83 0.9% rock wrasse 6,728 34 0.5% rubberlip seaperch 6,520 217 3.3% white seaperch 6,110 5,162 84.5% spotted sand bass 3,538 1 <0.1% giant kelpfish 1,281 718 56.1% Totals: 4,780,002 _ 382,269 8.0% Impingement in the SCB was also compared with recreational landings reported in the NOAA Fisheries Recreational Sport Fisheries Database for Southern California (NOAA Fisheries 2004). This database was originally compiled for NOAA Fisheries by Mitchell (1999), and includes sportfish catch by landing as reported daily in the Los Angeles Times from 1959 through 2003. Our analysis of the NOAA database was limited to recreational landings from Santa Barbara south to Oceanside (Table 9). 24 ;1 Table 9. Comparison of 2003 fish impingement abundance from 11 coastal generating stations in the SCB and recreational fishing landings between Santa Barbara and Oceanside (20 ports) as reported in the NOAA Fisheries Los Angeles Times Sportfish Database (NOAA Fisheries 2004). 1999-2003 1959-2003 2003 SCB Average Annual Average Annual Common Name Impingement 2003 SCB Landings SCB Landings SCB Landings barred sand bass 538 469,588 547,480 254,573 kelp bass 352 233,997 203,475 373,796 "sanddab" 607 172,591 161,419 22,073 California barracuda 5 103,713 224,275 230,362 California scorpionfish 490 89,303 114,740 47,003 blue rockfish 0 46,706 51,483 56,971 chub mackerel 80 19,021 36,097 355,551 white seabass 265 9,710 11,615 4,414 blacksmith 365 9,131 3,701 655 California halibut 107 6,542 9,732 30,037 opaleye 28 4,899 2,521 .506 sargo 1,243 4,134 2,003 675 jack mackerel 1,334 3,117 2,411 1,909 yellowfin croaker 972 2,047 1,098 256 white croaker 9,159 615 969 5,038 cabezon 693 275 1,252 573 giant seabass 0 169 332 178 halfmoon 28 132 158 1,489 black croaker 193 77 38 66 leopard shark 5 45 21 7 black surfperch 1,050 30 61 17 rubberlip seaperch 217 26 6 1 jacksmelt 12,979 5 16 1,660 kelp greenling 12 3 1 3 bocaccio 2,468 0 3,717 1,521 olive rockfish 38 0 267 335 brown rockfish 188 0 22 69 queenfish 330,773 0 13 1,688 grass rockfish 5 0 8 5,811 barred surfperch 2 0 2 10 California lizardfish 217 0 2 3 spotted sand bass 1 0 2 2 spotfin croaker 65 0 0 26 horn shark 8 0 0 0 turbot 550 0 0 2 California corbina 87 0 0 9 walleye surfperch 5,511 0 0 0 Totals: 370,700 1,175,876 1,378,939 1,397,316 SCB Ports included: Santa Barbara, Goleta, Ventura, Oxnard, Port Hueneme, Paradise Cove, Malibu, Santa Monica, Marina del Rey, Hermosa Beach, Redondo Beach, San Pedro,Wilmington, Long Beach, Seal Beach, Huntington Beach, Newport Beach,Dana Point,San Clemente,and Oceanside. Catches of species fluctuate over time because species not only vary in their availability and abundance, but also in their desirability to anglers. Table 9 presents total catch numbers but does not take into account variability in fishing effort over time. Catch from three different time. periods (2003, 1999-2003, and 1959-2003) are presented to show trends through time. The annual number of sport anglers in southern California has varied little over the last 40 years, remaining at about 620,000 angler trips per year, though the total number of fish landed has steadily decreased (Dotson and Charter 2003). Between San Pedro and San Clemente, the total catch per angler peaked in 1980, then steadily decreased by about 50% to 1999. A similar trend was observed between Wilmington and Goleta. The authors noted that fishing regulations, 25 w, if iY 'a Lc including size limits, take limits, and closures, have affected catch 'rates in southern California (Dotson and Charter 2003). For the ten most abundant sportfish taxa reported in,2003, Bight-wide impingement was relatively minor (4% or less) compared to the reported catch for 2003. The percentages were higher, however, for species such as sargo, jack mackerel, and yellowfin croaker. These three species are not historically important targets of sportfishers, but their increasing importance is apparent by the increasing catch through time (Table 9). Impingement in the SCB was equivalent to about one-third of the reported sportfish catch. However, queenfish accounted for 89% of the impinged species included in the sportfish comparison, and jacksmelt comprised another 4%. These two species are not usually common sportfishing targets. Jacksmelt are caught by pier and shore anglers, and are especially important in central and northern California (Gregory 2001): Queenfish are likely caught by anglers from piers and shore. 26 i i AES HUNTINGTON BEACH L.L.C. GENERATING STATION ENTRAINMENT AND IMPINGEMENT STUDY REOF 7mo� FINAL REPORT AS MEETING April 2005 JOAN L.FLYNN,CITY CLERK Prepared for. AES Huntington Beach L.L.C. Aelfington Raw&LLC_ Huntington Beach, California California Energy Commission Sacramento, California Prepared by: MBC Applied Environmental Sciences `�--� Costa Mesa, California o� .� TENERAEnvironmental San Luis Obispo, California AES HUNTINGTON BEACH L.L.C. GENERATING STATON ENTRAINMENT AND IMPINGEMENT STUDY FINAL REPORT April 2005 Prepared for: AES Huntington Beach L.L.C. 21730 Newland Street Huntington Beach, California 92646 California Energy Commission 1516 Ninth Street Sacramento, California 95814 Prepared by: MBC Applied Environmental Sciences 3000 Redhill Avenue Costa Mesa, California 92626 Tenera Environmental 141 Suburban Road Suite A2 San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 ii AES HBGS Entrainment and Impingement Study, Final Report PROJECT STAFF AES Huntington Beach L.L.C. P.R. Hurt E. Pendergraft L.R. Tripp MBC Applied Environmental Sciences Project Management D.S. Beck C.T. Mitchell Marine Scientists S.A. Adams S.M. Beck C.J. Brandt R.J. Cadiz M.A. Carver M.D. Chapman C.L. Cherbone M.D. Curtis T.C. Duvall C.L. Gongol P.K. Johansson B.D. Lombard M.J. Mancuso E.F. Miller R.H. Moore J.M. Richard D.G. Vilas Tenera Environmental E. Calix J. Carter A. Harmer J. Hedgepeth S. Helberg D. Hopkins D. Innis S. Kohler-Buechner D. Mayer C. McBride S. Peters C. Salter L. See J. Steinbeck J. Strampe TABLE OF CONTENTS a� Page LIST OF FIGURES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ix LIST OF TABLES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xi EXECUTIVE SUMMARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xiii 1.0 INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 1.1 Development of the Study Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 1.2 Overview of the Study Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Target Organisms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 1.3 Report Organization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE AES HUNTINGTON BEACH GENERATING STATION AND WATERS OFFSHORE HUNTINGTON BEACH . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2.1 Description of the Generating Station . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Cooling Water Intake System Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Operational Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 2.2 Description of the Physical Environment Surrounding the AES Huntington Beach Generating Station . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Huntington State Beach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Santa Ana River and Talbert Marsh . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 2.3 Description of the Biological Environment in the Vicinity of the AES Huntington Beach Generating Station . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 2.2.1 Invertebrate Communities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Benthic Infauna . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Benthic Macrofauna . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Impinged Macroinvertebrates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Intertidal Organisms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 2.2.2 Fish Communities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 HBGS Trawl Surveys . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 HBGS Impingement Sampling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Commercial Fisheries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Fishes of the Lower Santa Ana River . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Fishes of Talbert Marsh . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 3.0 METHODS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 3.1 Target Organisms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 3.2 Entrainment and Source Water Sampling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 3.2.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 3.2.2 Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 3.2.2.1 Entrainment Sample Collection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 3.2.2.2 Source Water Sample Collection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 3.2.2.3 Laboratory Processing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 3.3 Estimating Entrainment Effects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 3.3.1 Demographic Approaches . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 3.3.1.1 Adult Equivalent Loss(AEL) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 3.3.1.2 Fecundity Hindcasting (FH) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 3.3.2 Empirical Transport Model (ETIW) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 3.4 Impingement Sampling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 3.4.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 3.4.2 Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 3.4.2.1 Normal Operation Impingement Sampling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 3.4.2.2 Heat Treatment Impingement Sampling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 3.4.3 Impingement Data Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 i iv AES HBGS Entrainment and Impingement Study, Final Report Page 4.0 RESULTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 4.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 4.2 Physical Oceanography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 4.3 Entrainment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 4.3.1 Weekly Entrainment Abundance Estimates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 4.3.2 Monthly and Semimonthly Source Water Abundance Estimates . . . . 41 4.3.3 Individual Species Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51 4.3.3.1 CIQ Goby Complex(Clevelandia, llypnus, and Quietula) . . . 51 Habitat Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51 Reproduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52 Age and Growth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52 Population Trends and Fishery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52 Sampling Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53 Impact Assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53 Fecundity Hindcasting (Fl) ... . . . . . . . . . . . . 53 Adult Equivalent Loss (AEL) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54 Empirical Transport Model (ETM) . . . . . . . . . 55 4.3.3.2 Northern Anchovy (Engraulis mordax) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59 Habitat Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59 Reproduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59 Age and Growth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60 General Ecology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60 Population Trends and Fishery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60 Sampling Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61 Impact Assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61 Fecundity Hindcasting (FH) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62 Adult Equivalent Loss (AEL) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63 Empirical Transport Model (ETM) . . . . . . . . . 63 4.3.3.3 Spotfin croaker(Roncador stearnsil) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67 Habitat Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67 Reproduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67 Age and Growth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68 General Ecology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68 Population Trends and Fishery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68 Sampling Results . . : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69 Impact Assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69 Empirical Transport Model (ETM) . . . . . . . . . 69 4.3.3.4 Queenfish (Seriphus politus) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73 Habitat Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73 Reproduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73 Age and Growth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74 General Ecology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74 Population Trends and Fishery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74 Sampling Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74 Impact Assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . 75 Empirical Transport Model (ETM) . . . . . . . . . 75 4.3.3.5 White croaker(Genyonemus lineatus) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79 Habitat Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79 Reproduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79 Age and Growth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79 General Ecology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80 Population Trends and Fishery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80 Sampling Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81 Impact Assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81 Page AES HBGS Entrainment and Impingement Study, Final Report v Empirical Transport Model (ETM) . . . . . . . . . 81 4.3.3.6 Black croaker(Cheilotrema saturnum) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85 Habitat Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85 Reproduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85 Age and Growth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86 General Ecology . . : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86 Population Trends and Fishery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86 Sampling Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86 Impact Assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87 Empirical Transport Model (ETM) . . . . . . . . . 87 4.3.3.7 Salema (Xenistius californiensis) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91 Habitat Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91 Reproduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91 Age and Growth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91 General Ecology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91 Population Trends and Fishery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92 Sampling Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92 I mpact Assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92 4.3.3.8 Combtooth blennies (Hypsoblennius spp.) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95 Habitat Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95 Reproduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96 Age and Growth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96 General Ecology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97 Population Trends and Fishery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97 j Sampling Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97 Impact Assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97 Fecundity Hindcasting (FM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98 Empirical Transport Model (ETM) . . . . . . . . . 98 4.3.3.9 Diamond turbot(Hypsopsetta guttula) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103 Habitat Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103 Reproduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103 Age and Growth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103 General Ecology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103 Population Trends and Fishery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104 Sampling Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104 Impact Assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104 Empirical Transport Model (ETM) . . . . . . . . 105 4.3.3.10 California halibut(Paralichthys californicus) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109 Habitat Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109 Reproduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109 Age and Growth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109 General Ecology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110 Population Trends and Fishery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110 Sampling Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111 Impact Assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111 Empirical Transport Model (ETM) . . . . . . . . 111 4.3.3.11 Sand crab (Emerita analoga) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115 Habitat Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115 Reproduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115 Age and Growth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115 General Ecology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116 Population Trends and Fishery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117 Sampling Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117 Impact Assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 118 Page vi AES HBGS Entrainment and Impingement Study, Final Report 4.3.3.12 California spiny lobster(Panulirus interruptus) . . . . . . . . . 119 Habitat Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119 Reproduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119 Age and Growth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119 General Ecology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120 Population Trends and Fishery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120 Sampling Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120 Impact Assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120 4.3.3.13 Ridgeback rock shrimp (Sicyonia ingentis) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121 Habitat Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... 121 Reproduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121 Age and Growth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121 General Ecology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122 Population Trends and Fishery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122 Sampling Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122 Impact Assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122 4.3.3.14 Market squid (Loligo opalescens) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123 Habitat Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123 Reproduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123 Age and Growth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124 General Ecology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124 Population Trends and Fishery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125 Sampling Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125 4.3.3.15 Rock crabs (Cancerspp.) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 126 Habitat Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 126 Reproduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127 Age and Growth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127 General Ecology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129 Population Trends and Fishery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129 Sampling Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 130 Impact Assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131 Empirical Transport Model (ET" . . . . . . . . 131 4.4 Impingement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 134 4.4.1 Fish Impingement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 134 Normal Operations Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 134 Heat Treatment Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 134 4.4.2 Fish Results by Species . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 136 4.4.2.1 Queenfish (Seriphus politus) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 136 Sampling Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 136 4.4.2.2 White croaker(Genyonemus lineatus) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137 Sampling Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 138 4.4.2.3 Shiner perch (Cymatogaster aggregata) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 139 Habitat Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 139 Reproduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 139 Age and Growth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 140 Population Trends and Fishery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 140 Sampling Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 140 4.4.2.4 Northern anchovy (Engraulis mordax) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 141 Sampling Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 141 4.4.3 Macroinvertebrate Impingement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 142 Normal Operations Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 142 Heat Treatment Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 144 4.4.4 Macroinvertebrate Results by Species . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 144 4.4.4.1 Nudibranch (Dendronotus frondosus) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 144 Page 4.4.4.2 Yellow rock crab (Cancer anthonyl) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 144 AES HBGS Entrainment and Impingement Study, Final Report vii 4.4.4.3 Two-spotted octopus (Octopus bimaculatus/bimaculoides) . 145 4.4.4.4 Purple-striped jelly (Chrysaora colorata) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 146 4.4.4.5 California Spiny Lobster(Panulirus interruptus) . . . . . . . . . . 146 4.4.5 Factors Affecting Impingement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 146 5.0 DIRECT IMPACT ASSESSMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 152 5.1 Entrainment Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 153 5.2 Impingement Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 158 5.3 Direct Impact Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 168 6.0 IMPINGEMENT REDUCTION EVALUATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 171 6.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 171 6.2 Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 172 6.3 History of Entrapment Studies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 172 6.3.1 Previous Attempts to Reduce Entrapment at HBGS . . . . . . . . . . . . . 173 Velocity Caps . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 173 Fish Pumps and Return Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I . . . . . . . . . . . 174 Fish Netting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 174 6.3.2 Previous Entrapment Reduction Studies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 176 Huntington Beach Generating Station . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 176 Redondo Beach Generating Station . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 177 6.4 Potential Impingement Reduction Systems and Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 178 6.4.1 Behavioral Barriers and Technologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 178 Sonic Stimuli . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 178 Sonalysts Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 180 Light Stimuli . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 182 Bubble Curtains . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 182 6.4.2 Screening Technologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 183 Fish Barrier Net . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 183 Aquatic Filter Barrier . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 184 Traveling Screen and Fish Return System Options . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 185 Modified Vertical Traveling Screen with Fish Return System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 185 Fine Mesh Screens with Fish Return System . . . . . . . . . . . . 186 Dual Flow and Centerflow Screens with Fish Return System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 188 6.4.3 Fish Elevator . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 188 Modified Fish Return System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 190 6.4.4 Intake Relocation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 192 Shallow Relocation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 192 Offshore Relocation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 192 6.4.5 Flow Modifications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 193 Flow Volume Reduction/ Larger Intake Opening . . . . . . . . . 193 6.5 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 194 Behavioral Barriers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 195 Screening Technologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 195 Fish Elevators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 196 Intake Relocation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 197 Flow Modifications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 197 7.0 LITERATURE CITED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 198 8.0 GLOSSARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 222 APPENDICES A Temperature and Salinity Profiles B Entrainment and Source Water Data C Impingement Data I viii AES HBGS Entrainment and Impingement Study, Final Report D Master Species Lists E Cumulative Impacts Analysis F Model Parameterization AES HBGS Entrainment and Impingement Study, Final Report ix Page LIST OF FIGURES Figure 2-1. Location of the HBGS study area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Figure 2-2. Schematic of the AES HBGS cooling water intake system . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Figure 2-3. Schematic of the AES HBGS intake structure: velocity cap (top) and intake profile (bottom) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Figure 3-1. Location of entrainment and source water sampling stations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 Figure 3-2. Bathymetry and areas used in calculating sampling volumes for each station used calculating source water ETM calculations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 Figure 4-1. Surface temperatures at Station E during each cycle of each entrainment and source water survey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 Figure 4-2. Cumulative onshore and upcoast (alongshore) current vectors from an InterOcean Systems S4 current meter moored off the HBGS from 17 June 1999 - 24 June 2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 Figure 4-3. Total number of taxa per survey collected at HBGS entrainment Station E from September 2003 through August 2004. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 Figure 4-4. Mean concentrations (#/1000 m3) and standard error for all larval fishes collected at HBGS entrainment station E from September 2003 through August 2004. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 Figure 4-5. Mean concentrations (#/1000 m3) and standard error for all larval fishes collected at seven source water stations (D2, D4, E, U2, U4, 02, 04) from September through August 2004 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 Figure 4-6. Concentrations (#per 1000 m) of larval CIQ gobies, northern anchovy, and white croaker at entrainment and source water stations in a) September 2003 and b) October 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 Figure 4-7. Concentrations(#per 1000 m)of larval CIQ gobies, northern anchovy, and white croaker at entrainment and source water stations in a) November 2003 and b) December 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46 Figure 4-8. Concentrations(#per 1000 m3)of larval CIQ gobies, northern anchovy, and white croaker at entrainment and source water stations in a) January 2004 and b) February 2004 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47 Figure 4-9. Concentrations (#per 1000 m)of larval CIQ gobies, northern anchovy, and white croaker at entrainment and source water stations in a) March 2004 and b) April2004 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 Figure 4-10. Concentrations (# per 1000 m) of larval CIQ gobies, northern anchovy, and white croaker at entrainment and source water stations in a) May 2004 and b) June2004 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 Figure 4-11. Concentrations (# per 1000 m) of larval CIQ gobies, northern anchovy, and white croaker at entrainment and source water stations in a)July 2004 and b) August2004 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 Figure 4-12. Survey mean concentration(#/1000 m)of CIQ goby complex larvae collected at the HBGS entrainment (A) and source water (B) stations with standard error indicated (+1 SE) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57 Figure4-13. Length frequency distribution(mm)of CIQ goby complex larvae collected from the HBGS entrainment station from September 2003 through August 2004 . . . . . . . . .58 Figure 4-14. Survey mean concentration(#/1000 m3)of northern anchovy larvae collected at the HBGS entrainment (A) and source water (B) stations with standard error indicated (+1 SE) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .65 Figure 4-15. Length frequency distribution(mm)of northern anchovy larvae collected from the HBGS entrainment station from September 2003 through August 2004 . . . . . . . . .66 Figure 4-16. Survey mean concentration(#/1000 m3)of spotfin croaker larvae collected at j the HBGS entrainment (A) and source water (B) stations with standard error indicated (+1 SE) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .71 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Figure 4-17. Length frequency distribution(mm)of spotfin croaker larvae collected from the HBGS entrainment station from September 2003 through August 2004 . . . . . . . . . . . . 72 I r x AES HBGS Entrainment and Impingement Study, Final Report Page Figure 4-18. Survey mean concentration (#/1000 m3) of queenfish larvae collected at the HBGS entrainment (A) and source water(B) stations with standard error indicated (+1 SE) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .77 Figure 4-19. Length frequency distribution (mm) of queenfish larvae collected from the HBGS entrainment station from September 2003 through August 2004 . . . . . . . . . . . . 78 Figure 4-20. Survey mean concentration (#/1000 m3) of white croaker larvae collected at the HBGS entrainment(A) and source water(B) stations with standard error indicated (+1 SE) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .83 Figure 4-21. Length frequency distribution(mm)of white croaker larvae collected from the HBGS entrainment station from September 2003 through August 2004 . . . . . . . . . . . . 84 Figure 4-22. Survey mean concentration (#/1000 m3) of black croaker larvae collected at the HBGS entrainment(A) and source water(B) stations with standard error indicated (+1 SE) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .89 Figure 4-23. Length frequency distribution(mm)of black croaker larvae collected from the HBGS entrainment station from September 2003 through August 2004 . . . . . . . . . . . . 90 Figure 4-24. Survey mean concentration (#/1000 m3) of salema larvae collected at the HBGS entrainment (A) and source water(B) stations with standard error indicated (+1 SE) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93 Figure 4-25. Length frequency distribution(mm)of salema larvae collected from the HBGS entrainment station from September 2003 through August 2004 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94 Figure 4-26. Survey mean concentration (#/1000 m) of combtooth blenny larvae collected at the HBGS entrainment(A) and source water(B) stations with standard error indicated (+1 SE) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .101 Figure 4-27. Length frequency distribution(mm)of combtooth blenny larvae collected from the HBGS entrainment station from September 2003 through August 2004 . . . . . . . . 102 Figure 4-28. Survey mean concentration (#/1000 m3) of diamond turbot larvae collected at the HBGS entrainment(A) and source water(B) stations with standard error indicated (+1 SE) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107 Figure 4-29. Length frequency distribution (mm) of diamond turbot larvae collected from the HBGS entrainment station from September 2003 through August 2004 . . . . . . . . 108 Figure 4-30. Survey mean concentration (#/1000 m3)of California halibut larvae collected at the HBGS entrainment (A) and source water(B) stations with standard error indicated (+1 SE) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113 Figure 4-31. Length frequency distribution(mm)of California halibut larvae collected from the HBGS entrainment station from September 2003 through August 2004 . . . . . . . . 114 Figure 4-32. Survey mean concentration(#/1000 m)of sand crab megalops stage larvae collected at the HBGS entrainment station with standard error indicated (+1 SE) . . . . 118 Figure 4-33. Survey mean concentration (#/1000 m) of Cancer crab megalops collected at the HBGS entrainment (A) and source water (B) stations with standard error indicated (+1 SE) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133 Figure 4-34. Length-frequency distribution of queenfish(Seriphus politus)in impingement samples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137 Figure 4-35. Length-frequency distribution of white croaker (Genyonemus lineatus) in impingement samples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . 138 Figure 4-36. Length-frequency distribution of shiner perch (Cymatogaster aggregata) in impingement samples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 141 Figure 4-37. Length-frequency distribution of northern anchovy (Engraulis mordax) in impingement samples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 142 Figure 4-38. Weekly cooling water flow volume, normal operation fish impingement abundance, and normal operation fish impingement biomass, July 2003 - July2004 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 148 Figure 4-39. Weekly cooling water flow volume, normal operation macroinvertebrate impingement abundance, and normal operation macroinvertebrate impingement biomass, July 2003—July 2004 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 149 AES HBGS Entrainment and Impingement Study, Final Report xi Page Figure 4-40. Normal operation fish (top) and macro invertebrate (bottom) impingement parameters and their relations to survey flow volumes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .151 Figure 5-1. Trawl abundance (CPUE) for select fish species offshore the HBGS, 1976 -2004 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 166 Figure 5-2. Fish impingement(CPUE) from 1976 to the present at the HBGS . . . . . . . . . . . 166 Figure 5-3. Macroinvertebrate impingement (CPUE)from 1994 to the present atthe HBGS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 167 Figure 5-4. Annual sea surface temperature anomaly (departure from 82-year average) from 1970-2002 at Scripps Pier, La Jolla, CA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 168 Figure 6-1. AES HBGS Forebay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 171 Figure 6-2. Examples of velocity cap types at southern California coastal generating stations. (From Schlotterbeck et al. 1979) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 174 LIST OF TABLES Table 3-1. Area,volume,and average depths of HBGS source water sampling locations, including the values for the two extrapolated source water areas, 11 and 12 . . . . . . . . . 31 Table 4-1. Larval fishes collected during 45 entrainment surveys from September 2003 through August 2004 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 Table 4-2. Invertebrate larvae (select taxa) collected during 45 entrainment surveys from September 2003 through August 2004 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 Table 4-3. Larval fishes collected during 12 source water surveys from September 2003 through August 2004 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 Table 4-4. Larval fishes collected at source water stations other than entrainment Station E from September 2003 through August 2004 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 Table 4-5. Larval invertebrates (target taxa) collected during 12 source water surveys from September 2003 through August 2004 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 Table 4-6. Results of FH modeling for CIQ goby complex larvae entrained during the September 2003—August 2004 sampling period . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54 Table 4-7. Results of AEL modeling for CIQ goby complex larvae entrained during the September 2003—August 2004 sampling period . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55 Table 4-8. ETM data for CIQ goby complex larvae . . 56 Table 4-9. Average PS values and ETM estimates for alongshore current and offshore extrapolated models for CIQ gobies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56 Table 4-10. Results of FH modeling for northern anchovy larvae entrained during the September 2003—August 2004 sampling period . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62 Table 4-11. Results of AEL modeling for northern anchovy larvae entrained during the September 2003—August 2004 sampling period . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63 Table 4-12. ETM data for northern anchovy larvae . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64 Table 4-13. Average PS values and ETM estimates for alongshore current and offshore extrapolated models for northern anchovy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64 Table 4-14. ETM data for spotfin croaker larvae . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70 Table 4-15. Average PS values and ETM estimates for alongshore current and offshore extrapolated models for spotfin croaker . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . 70 Table 4-16. ETM data for queenfish larvae . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76 Table 4-17. Average PS values and ETM estimates for alongshore current and offshore extrapolated models for queenfish . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76 Table 4-18. ETM data for white croaker larvae . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82 Table 4-19. Average PS values and ETM estimates for alongshore current and offshore extrapolated models for white croaker . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82 Table 4-20. ETM data for black croaker larvae . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88 Table 4-21. Average PS values and ETM estimates for alongshore current and offshore extrapolated models for black croaker . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88 xii AES HBGS Entrainment and Impingement Study, Final Report Page Table 4-22. Results of FH modeling for combtooth blenny larvae entrained during the September 2003—August 2004 sampling period . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98 Table 4-23. ETM data for combtooth blenny larvae . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100 Table 4-24. Average PS values and ETM estimates for alongshore current and offshore extrapolated models for combtooth blenny . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100 Table 4-25. ETM data for diamond turbot larvae . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106 Table 4-26. Average PS values and ETM estimates for alongshore current and offshore extrapolated models for diamond turbot . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106 Table 4-27. ETM data for California halibut larvae . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112 Table 4-28. Average PS values and ETM estimates for alongshore current and offshore extrapolated models for California halibut . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112 Table 4-29. ETM data for commercially fished Cancer crab megalops . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 132 Table 4-30. Average PS values and ETM estimates for alongshore current and offshore extrapolated models for Cancer crab megalops . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 132 Table 4-31. Fish impingement totals from 52 normal operation and 6 heat treatment surveys. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135 Table 4-32. Macroinvertebrate impingement totals from 52 normal operation and 6 heat treatment surveys . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 143 Table 5-1. Summary of entrainment modeling estimates for target taxa based on the three modeling techniques (FH, AEL, and ETM[PJ) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 153 Table 5-2. Summary of entrainment modeling estimates for target taxa and estimation of area of production foregone . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 157 Table 5-3. Summary of annual impingement estimates for the most abundant fish species (top) and macroinvertebrate species contributing most to impingement abundance and biomass (bottom) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 158 Table 5-4. Commercial value of impinged fish and macroinvertebrates at the HBGS, July 2003 -July 2004 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 161 Table 5-5. Annual fish impingement abundance and projected annual losses from larval entrainment at the HBGS compared to 2003 recreational landings in southern California as reported in the RecFIN database . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 162 Table 5-6. Comparison of fish impingement abundance at the HBGS from 2003-2004 and recreational fishing landings from Huntington, Newport, and Long Beach as reported in the NOAA Fisheries Los Angeles Times Sportfish Database (NOAA Fisheries 2004) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 163 Table 6-1. Summary of technologies/measures considered for impingement reduction atthe HBGS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 196 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This report presents data from in-plant and offshore field surveys performed for the AES Huntington Beach Generating Station (HBGS) Entrainment and Impingement Study. This study was performed to satisfy Conditions of Certification BIO-4 and BIO-6 of the AES HBGS Retool Project. Impingement sampling began in late July 2003, and entrainment and source water sampling began in September 2003. Field studies were completed in late-August 2004. This report presents all entrainment, source water, and impingement data collected as part of the study. Thirty-two entrainment surveys and twelve combined entrainment/source water surveys were performed from September 2003 through August 2004. Fish larvae from 57 different taxonomic groups were collected during the entrainment surveys. Unidentifiable CIQ gobies were the most abundant fishes in the entrainment samples, contributing 37% to the total. This group is comprised of one or more of the following nearshore gobies that cannot be distinguished during early larval stages: arrow goby (Clevelandia ios), cheekspot goby (llypnus gilberti), and shadow goby (Quietula y-cauda). Other abundant larval fish taxa included: northern anchovy (Engraulis mordax; 18%), spotfin croaker (Roncador stearnsii; 14%), white croaker (Genyonemus lineatus; 7%), and queenfish (Seriphus politus; 5%). Seventy-nine larval fish taxa were collected during the source water surveys. Six taxa comprised 80% of the total fishes collected from the source water samples: CIQ gobies (37%), northern anchovy (18%), queenfish (10%), white croaker (9%), unidentified croakers (4%), and combtooth blennies (Hypsoblennius spp.; 3%). Of the five proposed target invertebrate taxa, only two were collected in entrainment samples: sand crab (Emerita analoga) and rock crab (Cancer spp.). Sand crab larvae comprised nearly 99% of the entrained target invertebrate density. Almost all of the sand crab larvae were in the earliest stage of their larval development (Zoea Stage 1). No California spiny lobster (Panulirus interruptus), market squid (Loligo opalescens), or ridgeback prawn (Sicyonia ingentis) larvae were collected from entrainment samples. CIQ gobies, northern anchovy, and combtooth blennies were assessed using demographic modeling (Adult Equivalent Loss [AEL] and/or Fecundity Hindcasting [FH]) and the Empirical Transport Model (ETM). An additional six larval fish taxa, as well as rock crabs (Cancer spp.), were assessed using only the ETM. Impact assessment modeling could not be performed for salema (Xenistius californiensis) due to lack of life history parameters and the lack of sufficient larvae at both entrainment and source water stations during surveys. For fishes, AEL estimates were 304,125 individuals (northern anchovy) and 147,493 individuals (CIQ gobies) (Table ES-1). b xiv AES HBGS Entrainment and Impingement Study, Final Report FH estimates ranged from 3,233 adult females (combtooth blennies) to 101,269 adult females (CIQ gobies). Table ES-1. Summary of entrainment modeling and impingement estimates for target taxa. The shoreline distance (km) used in the alongshore extrapolation of PM is presented in parentheses next to the estimate. Pm Impingement Estimated Alongshore+ Taxon Annual 2-FH AEL Alongshore Offshore No. Weight Entrainment Extrapolation Extrapolation (kg) CIQ gobies 113,166,834 202,538 147,493 1.0%(60.9 km) 1.0% 0 0.0 n.anchovy 54,349,017 53,490 304,125 1.2%(72.0 km) 0.7% 2,193 14.9 spotfin croaker 69,701,589 NA NA 0.3%(16.9 km) 0.3% 49 1.8 queenfish 17,809,864 NA NA 0.6%(84.9 km) 0.5% 35,847 648.2 white croaker 17,625,263 NA NA 0.7%(47.8 km) 0.4% 4,903 95.4 black croaker 7,128,127 NA NA 0.1%(19.4 km) 0.05% 65 7.0 salema 11,696,960 NA NA NA NA 46 0.5 blennies 7,165,513 6,466 NA 0.8%(12.8 km) 0.3% 3 0.02 diamond turbot 5,443,118 NA NA 0.6%(16.9 km) 0.3% 0 0.0 California halibut 5,021,168 NA NA 0.3%(30.9 km) 0.08% 21 9.9 shiner perch 4,045 51.8 sand crab megalops 69,793 NA NA NA NA Calif.spiny lobster 0 NA NA NA NA 32 19.6 ridgeback rock shrimp 0 NA NA NA NA 0 0.0 market squid 0 NA NA NA NA 7 0.4 rock crab 6,411,171 NA NA 1.1%(26.5 km) 0.8% 5,820 42.1 D.frondosus - NA NA - - 65,150 15.0 two-spotted octopus NA NA - 61 25.4 purple-striped jelly NA NA - 53 21.7 NA=Not available due to insufficient life history information or low abundance in entrainment samples. -=Not analyzed. Two probability of mortality (Pm) estimates were calculated for each of the target taxa: one based solely on alongshore current movement, and the other on alongshore current movement and an extrapolation of densities offshore to a distance bounded by either the extrapolated densities or onshore current movement. Larval durations of target fish taxa ranged from 5 days (spotfin croaker) to 38 days (northern anchovy), while the rock crab megalops stage was vulnerable to entrainment for 12 days. The Pm estimates based on alongshore current displacement ranged from 0.1% to 1.2% (Table ES-1). The length of coastline (km) used in extrapolating the estimates of Pmranged from 12.8 to 84.9 km (Table ES-1). An estimate of the area of larval production lost due to entrainment (area of production foregone) can be estimated by multiplying the Pm estimates by the alongshore source water length and the width of the source water area sampled (5 km). Estimates of the area of production foregone ranged from 0.11 to 4.47 km2, and averaged 1.50 km2 (Table ES-2). AES HBGS Entrainment and Impingement Study, Final Report xv Table ES-2. Summary of entrainment modeling estimates for target taxa and estimation of area of production foregone. The shoreline distance (km) used in the alongshore extrapolation of P,,, is presented in parentheses next to the shoreline distance estimate. Estimated Pm Alongshore Shoreline Distance(km) Taxon Annual Area of Production Entrainment Extrapolation of Production Foregone Foregone(kmz CIQ gobies 113,166,834 1.0%(60.9 km) 0.604 3.024 n.anchovy 54,349,017 1.2%(72.0 km) 0.894 4.471 spotfin croaker 69,701,589 0.3%(16.9 km) 0.050 0.248 queenfish 17,809,864 0.6%(84.9 km) 0.531 2.657 white croaker 17,625,263 0.7%(47.8 km) 0.340 1.699 black croaker 7,128,127 0.1%(19.4 km) 0.023 0.115 salema 11,696,960 NA NA NA blennies 7,165,513 0.8%(12.8km) 0.098 0.492 diamond turbot 5,443,118 0.6%(16.9 km) 0.098 0.488 California halibut 5,021,168 0.3%(30.9 km) 0.077 0.386 rock crab 6,411,171 1.1% 26.5 km 0.284 1.418 A total of 52 normal operation impingement surveys was conducted from July 2003 to July 2004, and six heat treatment impingement surveys were conducted through July 2004. Results from the weekly normal operation surveys were extrapolated based on cooling water flow, and summed with heat treatment results to estimate total annual impingement. A total of 51,082 fishes representing 57 species and weighing 1,292 kg was impinged, with most (75%) of the losses attributable to heat treatments. Queenfish was the most abundant species impinged, accounting for 70% of total abundance. Other abundant fish species included white croaker, shiner perch (Cymatogaster aggregata), and northern anchovy. A total of 70,638 macroinvertebrates representing 37 species and weighing 168 kg was impinged, with most(98%) of the losses attributable to normal operations. The most abundant species were the nudibranch Dendronotus frondosus, yellow rock crab (Cancer anthony), slender rock crab (Cancer gracilis), and brown rock crab (Cancer antennarius). Estimates of entrainment and impingement of fishes and macroinvertebrates at the HBGS were compared with local recreational and commercial fishery landings. Four of the larval fish and invertebrate species assessed have some commercial value: California halibut (Paralichthys californicus), white croaker, northern anchovy, and rock crabs. Estimated entrainment losses, based on ETM values, on these commercial fisheries (in 2003 and 2002 dollars) totaled $204 and $224, respectively. Estimated impingement losses on local commercial fisheries (in 2003 and 2002 dollars) totaled $1,072 and $823, respectively. If impinged queenfish were included with white croaker in landing totals, the estimated total losses for 2002 and 2003 would be$2,887 and $2,367, respectively. Estimated entrainment losses, based on ETM values, on southern California recreational fisheries were calculated for queenfish, white croaker, California halibut, and spotfin croaker. Entrainment losses based on alongshore P,n values totaled 7,583 individuals, while losses based 0 xvi AES HBGS Entrainment and Impingement Study, Final Report on alongshore and offshore Pm values totaled 5,757 individuals. In both cases, queenfish comprised the majority (77% or more) of these losses. Estimated impingement losses on southern California recreational fisheries were determined using two databases. Impingement losses were equivalent to 1% of southern California recreational landings using the RecFIN database, and about 10% of local landings from Huntington Beach, Newport Beach, and Long Beach, California, as reported in the NOAA Fisheries Los Angeles Times database. However, there was a large disparity between the most abundant species impinged and the most abundant species reported in landings. A first-order analysis of cumulative entrainment and impingement impacts in southern California was performed. The cumulative entrainment analysis relied on the maximum cooling water volumes from 12 of the 13 generating stations and a source water area that extended from Pt. Conception down into Baja California and offshore to depths of 35 m and 75 m. Modeling results over a range of larval durations showed that the maximum average entrainment mortality was 1.4% for a larval duration of 40 days using a source volume out to the 75-m isobath. The maximum peak entrainment mortality of ^-2.3% occurred at the geographic center of the cooling water flows from all of the power plants. Restricting the source water to the 35-m isobath increased the average estimated mortality to 4.4%. HBGS mortality rates were between 5.4 and 5.6 percent of the cumulative mortality from the 12 intake locations. This is approximately the same as the HBGS percentage of total permitted cooling water by the 12 power plants (5.4%). Impingement results were available for 11 of 13 generating stations, though monitoring protocols varied by location. Bight-wide fish impingement was estimated at nearly 3.7 million fishes weighing over 26,400 kg in 2003, with impingement at the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station representing 97% of impingement abundance and 83% of biomass. Bight-wide macroinvertebrate impingement was estimated at over 77,600 individuals weight 1,366 kg, with impingement at the HBGS representing 91% of the impingement abundance but only 12% of the biomass. Cumulative impingement data were compared with 2003 landings reported in the PSMFC RecFIN database for southern California as a whole. For most species, the numbers impinged at the 11 coastal generating stations represented less than one percent of recreational landings in southern California. In total, impingement abundance in the SCB was equivalent to 8% of the recreational catch in the SCB in 2003 for those species that are fished. Impingement in the SCB was also compared with recreational landings reported in the NOAA Fisheries Recreational Sport Fisheries Database for Southern California (between Santa Barbara and Oceanside). For the ten most abundant sportfish taxa reported in 2003, Bight-wide impingement was relatively minor(4% a AES HBGS Entrainment and Impingement Study, Final Report xvii or less) compared to the reported catch for 2003. Overall, Impingement in the SCB was equivalent to about one-third of the reported sportfish catch. Analysis of potential methods to reduce entrapment and impingement at the HBGS was summarized, and included both technologies (such as behavioral barriers and screens) and operational measures (such as intake relocation and flow reduction). There is a limited number of proven technologies, especially in the coastal environment, to reduce impingement and/or increase survival. Based on the feasibility, performance, and relative estimated cost of these technologies/measures examined, none are recommended for implementation at the HBGS to reduce impingement. 1.0 INTRODUCTION In December 2000, AES Huntington Beach L.L.C. submitted its Application for Certification to the California Energy Commission (CEC) for the AES Huntington Beach L.L.C. generating station Retool Project (AES and URS 2000). The Project consisted of restoring and operating Units 3 and 4, which were retired from service in 1995. In March 2001, the CEC issued its Staff Assessment of the project, which recommended, "a license be issued for a restricted time period consistent with AES's electrical generating contract with the Department of Water Resources or until September 30, 2006" (CEC 2001). As part of this conditional license, AES was required to comply with several conditions, including Condition of Certification BIO-4: "The project owner will prepare a monitoring/study plan and conduct one year of monitoring to determine the actual impingement and entrainment losses resulting from the operation of the cooling water system for the new Units 3 and 4 and the existing Units 1 and 2. The project owner will sample the intake and source water to determine fractional losses relative to their abundance in the source water...The methods, analysis, results, and conclusions of the monitoring study will be documented in a scientific style report and submitted to the CPM for review and approval. Other agencies, including the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the California Department of Fish and Game, shall be included in the review of the draft report, if they so request. A final report shall be prepared upon completion of field sampling. The study results will be utilized during the NPDES permit renewal evaluation to be completed by the Santa Ana Regional Water Control Board in June 2005." Furthermore, Condition of Certification BIO-6 states: "The project owner shall conduct a study to determine if there is a feasible methodology that would greatly reduce the number of fishes trapped in the intake forebay. If the study determines that a feasible method(s) exists to reduce the number of fishes trapped in the cooling water system the project owner shall implement those methods." The Entrainment and Impingement Study was designed and performed to satisfy Conditions of Certification BIO-4 and BIO-6. 1.1 Development of the Study Plan In accordance with Conditions of Certification BIO-4 and BIO-6, MBC Applied Environmental Sciences (MBC) submitted a draft entrainment and impingement study plan to the CEC in October 2001. After reviewing the study plan, CEC staff and consultants met on 5 October 2001 to discuss specifics of the study plan. In July 2002, MBC submitted a revised draft 2 AES HBGS Entrainment and Impingement Study, Final Report study plan to the CEC and the Biological Resources Research Team (BRRT), which consists of interested parties representing regulatory agencies, consultants, and the applicant (AES Huntington Beach L.L.C.). Comments and recommendations to the study plan were submitted by the BRRT and discussed at a meeting on 9 October 2002. The final study plan, which incorporated further comments and recommendations, was published in July 2003. 1.2 Overview of the Study Plan The entrainment and impingement study is designed to estimate losses of fishes and shellfish due to operation of the cooling water system of the AES Huntington Beach Generating Station (HBGS). The sampling methodologies and analysis techniques are derived from recent entrainment and impingement studies conducted for the Diablo Canyon Power Plant, Morro Bay Power Plant, and Moss Landing Power Plant (Tenera 2000a, 2000b, 2001). Similar projects were I' performed nation-wide in the last 25 years to comply with Section 316(b) of the Federal Clean j Water Act, including the 1996-1999 study at the Diablo Canyon Power Plant. The 1999-2000 studies at Morro Bay and Moss Landing were performed as part of the California Energy Commission CEQA process for permitting power plant modernization projects. For the Huntington Beach entrainment study, the numbers of fishes and target invertebrates entrained by the generating station are estimated from plankton samples collected just offshore of the intake structure. Samples collected at the entrainment station and at six other stations extending 4 km upcoast, downcoast, and offshore the intake structure, are used to estimate the source water populations at risk of entrainment. For the impingement study, A impingement samples are collected from the screening facility within the generating station. Target Organisms The BRRT selected the following organisms for analysis (target organisms) during the entrainment and impingement study at the HBGS: Vertebrates: 0 Fishes (all life stages beyond egg) AES HBGS Entrainment and Impingement Study, Final Report 3 Invertebrates: • Cancer spp. (rock crab megalopal life stage) • Loligo opalescens (market squid larvae) • Panulirus interruptus (California spiny lobster phyllosoma larvae) • Sicyonia ingentis(ridgeback rock shrimp phyllosoma larvae) • Emerita analoga (sand crab larvae) Fishes, rock crabs, and sand crabs were chosen because of their respective ecological roles and because some of them are commercially or recreationally important. Market squid, California spiny lobster, and ridgeback rock shrimp (ridgeback prawn) were selected because of their commercial and/or recreational importance in the area; these three species had the highest combined invertebrate biomass from 1999 through 2001 in the two California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) catch blocks off Huntington Beach (CDFG 2002). The organisms analyzed in this report are limited to those that were sufficiently abundant to provide reasonable assessment of impacts. For the purposes of this study, assessments were limited to the most abundant fish taxa that together comprised 90 percent of all larvae entrained and/or juveniles and adults impinged by the generating station. Concentrations of all larvae are expressed as number per 1,000 cubic meters (#/1,000 m). 1.3 Report Organization Section 2 of this report characterizes the AES HBGS and the surrounding physical and biological environments. Methods used for data collection and analysis are presented in Section 3. Results of the entrainment and impingement study are presented in Section 4, including assessments for each of the target taxa in separate subsections. Included in each subsection is a summary of the organism's ecology, life history, population trends, entrainment and impingement estimates, and assessment results. An entrainment and impingement impact assessment is presented in Section 5. An evaluation of potential impingement reduction technologies/measures is presented in Section 6. A listing of literature cited in this report is presented in Section 7, and a glossary is provided in Section 8. Temperature and salinity profiles are presented in Appendix A, entrainment and source water data are presented in Appendix B, and impingement data in Appendix C. Master species lists are provided in Appendix D. A cumulative (Bight-wide) impact analysis is presented in Appendix E, and demographic and ETM parameterizations are provided in Appendix F. 4 AES HBGS Entrainment and Impingement Study, Final Report 2.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE AES HUNTINGTON BEACH GENERATING STATION AND WATERS OFFSHORE HUNTINGTON BEACH The following section describes the HBGS and the surrounding aquatic environment. A description of the generating station and its cooling water intake system (CWIS) is presented in Section 2.1. Section 2.2 characterizes the physical environment in the vicinity of HBGS, including the nearshore shelf, Huntington State Beach, the lower Santa Ana River, and Talbert Marsh. Section 2.3 examines the invertebrate and fish communities off Huntington Beach. 2.1 Description of the Generating Station The HBGS is located on the Orange County coast in the city of Huntington Beach (Figure 2-1). The generating station consists of four steam-powered electric generating units. Steam is supplied to each turbine generator from oil- and gas-fired boilers. Units 1 and 2 are each rated at 215 megawatts (MW) and Units 3 and 4 are each rated at 225 MW. Units 3 and 4 were operated very sparingly after 1989 and were retired from service from 1995 until completion of the retool project in 2003. Unit 5, a multiple-jet-turbine pecker unit (133 MW), was retired from service in 2002. The current total station rating is 880 MW; however, the plant operated at about 44% capacity in 2001 and only about 14% capacity in 2002, largely due to retool construction efforts (MBC 2001, 2003a). Cooling Water Intake System Description Ocean water for cooling purposes is supplied to the generating station via a single cooling water system. Seawater for Units 1-4 is withdrawn from an intake structure located 457 m (1,500 ft) offshore (Figure 2-2). The intake structure is located in approximately 10 m of water, and rises approximately 4 m off the bottom. The vertical riser section is 6.4-m inside-diameter (ID), and the horizontal conduit to the generating station is 4.3-m ID. The vertical riser is fitted with a velocity cap, and the vertical opening between the riser and the velocity cap is about 1.5 m (Figure 2-3). Entrance velocities at the point of withdrawal have been measured at 0.6 and 1.2 m/sec(FES et al. 1980, McGroddy et al. 1981). Seawater is drawn into the plant by up to eight circulating water pumps, each capable of delivering 44,000 gallons per minute, or about 63.4 million gallons per day (mgd), for a station maximum of about 507 mgd (1,919,000 m). The flow is directed to a 4-m x 15.2-m open rectangular forebay and screening facility within the plant. The screen system is composed of AES HBGS Entrainment and Impingement Study,Final Report 5 Figure 2-1.Location of the HBGS study area.(Depths in fathoms.) 6 AES HBGS Entrainment and Impingement Study, Final Report Circ.Water Pumps Unit 4 Unit 3 Unit 2 Unit 1 Forebay and Traveling Screens Fenceline 930 ft 1,500 ft 1,200 ft Discharge -22 ft Intake -28 ft Figure 2-2. Schematic of the AES HBGS cooling water intake system. AES HBGS Entrainment and Impingement Study, Final Report 7 33'-0" NOTE, 21'-0- ALL ELEVATIONS ARE BELOW MLLW a I / 11 A N I " - - - - -� (o)) -- — — VELOCITY CAP PLAN WATER SURFACE-7 `4 EL.(-) 17'-6" 4'-0- I 3 ! 4 /` \•/ /i/ / f 5.-0n I z a I a o a Q 4 INV. EL.(-)47-6" TREMIE CONC. 21'-0" SECTION Figure 2-3. Schematic of the AES HBGS intake structure: velocity cap (top) and intake profile (bottom). 8 AES HBGS Entrainment and Impingement Study, Final Report vertical bar racks spaced 76.2 mm (Y) on center and vertical traveling screens with 9.5-mm (3/8") mesh designed to remove trash, algae, marine life, and other incidental debris incoming with the cooling water. After flowing through the screen system, the cooling water is pumped to two steam condensers, one per turbine generator. At full load, the temperature increase through the condensers (AT) is approximately 10°C (18°F). After passing through the condensers the water is directed to a single 4.3-m concrete discharge conduit, which extends approximately 366 m (1,200 ft) offshore. The discharge structure resembles the intake structure, except there is no velocity cap. Discharged waters are directed vertically to the surface to allow for dilution and atmospheric cooling. Units 1-4 have closed cooling water systems to cool auxiliary equipment. Demineralized water is cooled by part of the main cooling stream, which is diverted to a heat exchanger and returned to the main stream. Each unit diverts about 9,750 gpm (14 mgd), and this water is subsequently elevated 4.6°C (AES and URS 2000). No modifications to the cooling water system were made as part of the Repowering Project. Operational Procedures To control the growth of bacteria and other micro-fouling organisms within the cooling water system, the cooling water is treated with sodium hypochlorite in accordance with the station's National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit. Biofouling within the cooling water conduits and forebay is controlled by heat treatment. During heat treatments, a portion of the heated discharge water is diverted into the forebay and intake conduits until the water temperature rises to approximately 40.5°C (105°F). Temperature of discharge waters during this procedure is about 440 to 50°C (1120 to 122°F). This temperature is maintained for about one hour, during which time all mussels, barnacles, fishes, and other invertebrates within the cooling water system succumb to the high water temperature. This procedure has been used for decades at most of southern California's coastal generating stations (Graham et al. 1977), and is done in compliance with NPDES permit limitations. Divers also periodically remove accumulated debris, such as mussel and barnacle shells and sand, from the forebay and in-plant conduits. AES HBGS Entrainment and Impingement Study, Final Report 9 2.2 Description of the Physical Environment Surrounding the AES Huntington Beach Generating Station The physical and biological characteristics of the subtidal environment off Huntington Beach have been studied extensively by the Huntington Beach Generating Station operators (SCE and AES Huntington Beach L.L.C.) and by the Orange County Sanitation District (OCSD), which discharges primary- and secondary-treated wastewater from a diffuser outfall about four nautical miles offshore the generating station in about 60 m of water. Studies performed for the generating station have examined the physical and biological characteristics of the nearshore zone (depths to about 10 m), while studies performed by OCSD. have been focused in deeper waters around the wastewater outfall. The coastline of Huntington Beach runs, in general, from west-northwest to east- southeast. The continental shelf offshore the generating station is gently sloping; the 30-m isobath is nearly four miles from shore. Subtidal sediments are predominantly sand, with lesser amounts of silt and clay (OCSD 2000, 2003a). Off Huntington Beach, grain size generally decreases with depth, grain size generally increases upcoast from the OCSD wastewater outfall, and the Newport and San Gabriel Submarine Canyons (downcoast and upcoast of the generating station, respectively) are depositional areas. The nearest stand of giant kelp (Macrocystis pyrifera) is located inside the Newport Harbor entrance jetty 11.0 km downcoast. Huntington State Beach The Huntington Beach Generating Station is located just across Pacific Coast Highway (inland) from the Huntington State Beach, and the intake and discharge structures for the generating station are just offshore the state beach. The state beach is a little over two miles in length, extending north from the Santa Ana River mouth past the generating station to Beach Boulevard. At Beach Boulevard, the state beach borders the Huntington City Beach. Over 11 million people visit the beaches of Huntington Beach annually. Santa Ana River and Talbert Marsh The mouth of the Santa Ana River is approximately 2.4 km downcoast from the generating station. The Santa Ana River is the largest river system in southern California, with a watershed of about 2,450 mil. Flow volume in the river is intermittent, and is partially dependent on the amount of precipitation in the watershed. Diversion and storage of water behind dams 10 AES HBGS Entrainment and Impingement Study, Final Report during winter and subsequent slow release during summer result in continual flow in some stretches of the river that would be dry otherwise (MBC 2000). In addition, there is year-round input from dischargers, including wastewater treatment facilities. Talbert Marsh is a recently restored salt marsh located just west of the Santa Ana River mouth. The marsh, which was previously isolated from tidal exchange, was restored in the late 1980s, and is connected to the ocean through a 30-m wide entrance channel adjacent to the river mouth. Both the Santa Ana River and Talbert Marsh are sources of fecal indicator bacteria (fecal coliform and enterococcus) during ebb tides, and these bacteria are transported parallel to shoreline resulting in frequent beach postings in the vicinity of the generating station (Kim et al. 2004). 2.3 Description of the Biological Environment in the Vicinity of the AES Huntington Beach Generating Station 2.3.1 Invertebrate Communities Benthic Infauna Infaunal organisms off Huntington Beach were studied annually from 1975 through 1993 (MBC 1993). In the 19 years of sampling, an average of 43 individuals representing 17 species were collected per liter of sediment. Dominant species included the polychaetes Apoprionospio pygmaea and Goniada littorea, the amphipod Rhepoxynius menziesi, the cumacean Diastylopsis tenuis, and the gastropod Olivella baetica. These species are common in the sandy nearshore environments of southern California (Morris et al. 1980). Benthic Macrofauna Diver surveys at four to six locations offshore the generating station were conducted annually from 1975 through 2001 (MBC 2001). On average, divers observed 34 species per year during the surveys, though interannual variation was high, ranging from 22 species in 1975 to 55 species in 1984. Average density of organisms recorded by divers was 61 individuals per m2, with values ranging from 12 individuals per m2 (1976 and 1977) to 161 individuals per m2 (1989). In 2001, biologist-divers recorded 25 species at an average density of 51 individuals per m2. Polychaete worms were numerically dominant in 2001, comprising 79% of the total abundance, followed by arthropods with 13%. A single species, the onuphid polychaete Diopatra splendidissima, accounted for 75% of the abundance. This species provides stability to the sediments and enhances the diversity of the bottom community by providing habitat for AES HBGS Entrainment and Impingement Study, Final Report 11 macrofaunal inhabitants of the shallow sandy subtidal. The density of many other macrofaunal species is intimately tied to that of Diopatra as it effectively acts as a biological artificial reef on an otherwise featureless sandy bottom. Diopatra tubes are colonized by larval organisms that require stable substrate for attachment, such as slippersnails, kelp scallops, barnacles, hydroids, bryozoans, and tube-building amphipods. Small, unidentified spider crabs (Majidae) comprised 9% of the abundance in 2001, followed by the slippersnail Crepidula adunca (4%), Maldanid worms (3%), barnacles in the genus Balanus(3%), and brittlestars (Ophiuroidea; 2%). A total of 10 epibenthic macroinvertebrate species was collected during the 2001 trawl surveys offshore the generating station (MBC 2001). The most abundant species was the spiny sand star Astropecten armatus, comprising 34% of trawl-caught abundance. Other abundant trawl-caught invertebrates included the penicillate jellyfish (Polyorchis penicillatus; 24%), tuberculate pear crab (Pyromaia tuberculata; 18%), blackspotted bay shrimp (Crangon nigromaculata; 14%), and Pacific sand dollar(Dendraster excentricus; 5%). Impinged Macroinvertebrates A total of 30 macroinvertebrate species was collected in the 2002 fish impingement surveys at the generating station (MBC 2003a). The dominant species were the opalescent nudibranch (Hermissenda crassicornis), yellow rock crab (Cancer anthonyr), frond-aeolis (Dendronotus frondosus), tuberculate pear crab, and Pacific rock crab (Cancer antennarius). From 1994 through 2002, other abundant species impinged at the generating station were giant frond-aeolis (Dendronotus iris), penicillate jellyfish, red rock shrimp (Lysmata californica), common salp (Thetys vagina), California aglaja (Navanax inermis), and graceful rock crab (Cancer gracilis). Intertidal Organisms The intertidal community adjacent to the generating station was studied quarterly in 1971 and 1972 (EQA/MBC 1973). The major components of the intertidal community were the polychaetes Hemipodus borealis, Nephtys californiensis, and Nerinides acuta, the sand crab Emerita analoga, the Pismo clam Tivela stu/torum, and the bean clam Donax gou/dii. Species richness and densities of these species were lower than those recorded at similar sites in southern California. It was concluded that several factors, potentially including wave action and disturbance from beach-goers, limited the population. 12 AES HBGS Entrainment and Impingement Study, Final Report 2.3.2 Fish Communities HBGS Trawl Surveys Demersal fish surveys were conducted off the HBGS annually since 1976 (MBC 2001). Six to twelve trawls were performed at stations directly offshore the generating station, and one mile upcoast and downcoast from the generating station. At least 64 species of fishes have been collected in the trawl surveys. The catch was numerically dominated by northern anchovy (Engraulis mordax; 50%), white croaker (Genyonemus lineatus; 27%), and queenfish (Seriphus politus; 18%). Combined, these three species accounted for more than 95% of the trawl-caught fish abundance. Other historically abundant species include surfperches, such as white seaperch (Phanerodon furcatus), walleye surfperch (Hyperprosopon argenteum), barred surfperch (Amphistichus argenteus), and shiner perch (Cymatogaster aggregate), and flatfishes such as California halibut (Paralichthys californicus) and speckled sanddab (Citharichthys stigmaeus). Numbers of several surfperches collected by trawl and in fish impingement surveys declined by more than 90% between 1979 and 1984, and abundances have remained relatively low since then. This coincided with a warming of ocean waters in southern California (Beck and Herbinson 2003), as well as a decrease in upwelling (Allen et al. 2003). Numbers of California halibut collected by trawl declined in 1994 when sampling effort was halved. HBGS Impingement Sampling In-plant fish impingement sampling has been conducted since the 1970s. From 1979 through 2002, queenfish was the dominant species in impingement samples, comprising 82% of the total abundance (MBC 2003a). Similar to trawl catches off the generating station, white croaker and northern anchovy were also abundant in impingement samples, accounting for 6% and 3% of the total abundance, respectively. Other abundant species were walleye surfperch, white seaperch, Pacific pompano (Peprilus simillimus), California grunion (Leuresthes tenuis), jacksmelt (Atherinopsis califomiensis), shiner perch, and deepbody anchovy (Anchoa compressa). Similar to long-term trends observed in the trawl data, numbers of walleye surfperch, white seaperch, and Pacific pompano declined dramatically from 1979 through 1984. In 2002, the most abundant fish species impinged were queenfish (83%), white croaker (4%), shiner perch (2%),jacksmelt(2%), and deepbody anchovy (1%). AES HBGS Entrainment and Impingement Study, Final Report 13 Commercial Fisheries Two of California Department of Fish and Game's Catch Blocks are located directly offshore the HBGS: Blocks 738 and 739. Though ports of origin for most landings are reported from San Pedro, Terminal Island, and Newport Beach, some are reported from as far away as San Diego and San Francisco. From 1999 through 2001, three-year top commercial landings in Block 738 included Pacific sardine (Sardinops sagax; 23.9 million pounds [MP]), market squid (Loligo opalescens; 2.1 MP), Pacific mackerel (Scomber japonicus; 1.2 MP), northern anchovy (0.9 MP), California spiny lobster (Panulirus interruptus; 0.08 MP), and jack mackerel (Trachurus symmetricus; 0.06 MP) (CDFG 2002). The pelagic species (Pacific sardine, market squid, Pacific mackerel, northern anchovy, and jack mackerel) were generally caught by purse seine, drum seine, and long-line, while California spiny lobster were collected by crab/lobster trap. Landings of Pacific sardine ranked first economically ($13.3 million from 1999-2001), followed by Pacific mackerel ($1.0 million), market squid ($0.5 million), and northern anchovy ($0.39 million). From 1975 to 1981, the annual commercial catch in Catch Block 738 was fairly stable, ranging from 1.3 to 2.6 MP, and then increased to over 7 MP in 1982 due to a large increase in northern anchovy landings. From 1983 to 1986, landings in Block 738 declined to 0.07 to 0.18 MP. From 1999 through 2001, landings in Block 738 ranged from 0.82 to 15.8 MP per year. From 1999 through 2001, top commercial landings in Block 739 included Pacific sardine (42.3 MP), Pacific mackerel (5.7 MP), market squid (2.9 MP), northern anchovy (1.2 MP), jack mackerel (0.3 MP), and California halibut (0.15 MP). Jack mackerel were caught primarily by purse seine; Pacific sardine, market squid, and northern anchovy by purse seine and drum seine; Pacific mackerel by purse seine, set gillnet and set longline; and California halibut by gillnet and trawl. Economically important landings included Pacific sardine ($1.8 million), California halibut ($0.49 million), Pacific mackerel ($0.33 million), and market squid ($0.26 million). A setline dory fishery off Newport Beach has existed since 1891, and is one of the few traditional dory fisheries remaining on the west coast. Fisherman use dories launched from the shores of Newport Beach to fish on the continental shelf and slope with setlines at depths of about 100 to 600 m. In a yearlong study of the fishery in 1983 and 1984, most of the fishing was concentrated at slope depths of 380 to 580 m (Cross 1984). Some of the fishing areas frequented in that study were located about 10 km directly offshore the HBGS. Principal species landed in this localized fishery include sablefish (Anoplopoma fimbria), thornyhead (Sebastolobus spp.), and rockfishes (Sebastes spp.). While dory landings of these species pale in comparison to overall commercial landings, they represent a fishery that has changed little in over 110 years. 14 AES HBGS Entrainment and Impingement Study, Final Report Fishes of the Lower Santa Ana River In 1987, seven species of fishes were collected by a variety of methods from the tidally influenced lower Santa Ana River, which is concrete-lined (Marsh 1992). Only two species were native: California killifish (Fundulus parvipinnis) and striped mullet (Mugil cephalus). The other five species were introduced, and included common carp (Cyprinus carpio), fathead minnow (Pimephales promelas), mosquitofish (Gambusia affinis), green sunfish (Lepomis cyamellus), and Mozambique tilapia (Tllapia mossambice). Of these seven species, only three were impinged at the HBGS from 1979 through 2002. Mozambique tilapia occurred in 11 of the last 24 years, but not after 1998 (MBC 2003a). The highest annual impingement for this species was 105 individuals in 1983. Eleven California killifish were impinged in 1995, and three striped mullet were impinged in 1979. Fishes of Talbert Marsh From 1989 through 1990 eleven species of fishes were collected by beach seine from Talbert Marsh (Gorman et al. 1990). California killifish, topsmelt (Atherinops affinis), Pacific staghorn sculpin (Leptocottus armatus), and arrow goby (Clevelandia ios) were the most abundant species. Fishes collected in small numbers (10 individuals or less) included shiner perch, white croaker, longjaw mudsucker (Gillichthys mirabilis), walleye surfperch, bay goby (Lepidogobius lepidus), California halibut, and bay pipefish (Syngnathus leptorhynchus). AES HBGS Entrainment and Impingement Study, Final Report 15 3.0 METHODS The sampling plan and analysis techniques of the Entrainment and Impingement Study were developed by the Biological Resources Research Team (BRRT), which was formed by the California Energy Commission (CEC). The BRRT consists of representatives of AES Huntington Beach L.L.C., MBC Applied Environmental Sciences, Tenera Environmental, California Energy Commission staff and consultants, Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, NOAA Fisheries (formerly National Marine Fisheries Service), California Department of Fish and Game, and the California Coastal Commission. Members of the BRRT reviewed and commented on two drafts of the study plan, the first quarterly data report, and the Six-Month and Nine-Month Reports. 3.1 Target Organisms Several types of organisms are susceptible to entrainment by the generating station. The intent of this study is to estimate entrainment effects on two types of organisms: fish larvae and larvae of the following invertebrate species: rock crabs (Cancer spp.), market squid (Loligo opalescens), California spiny lobster (Panulirus interruptus), ridgeback rock shrimp (Sicyonia ingentis), and sand crab (Emerita analoga). Assessment of entrainment effects were limited to the most abundant fish taxa that together comprised 90 percent of all larvae entrained and/or juveniles and adults impinged by the generating station. 3.2 Entrainment and Source Water Sampling 3.2.1 Introduction The purpose of the entrainment study is to determine the extent of potential impacts from the operation of the cooling water system of the HBGS on larval fishes and selected invertebrate larvae (target species). Entrainment refers to the incorporation of aquatic organisms into the cooling water intake structure of the generating station. The entrainment study focuses on larval life stages, while the impingement study focuses on juvenile and adult forms. The entrainment sampling plan was designed to characterize the composition and abundance of those organisms both 1) entrained by the generating station, and 2) present in the source waters and potentially at risk of entrainment. 16 AES HBGS Entrainment and Impingement Study, Final Report 3.2.2 Methods 3.2.2.1 Entrainment Sample Collection To determine composition and abundance of ichthyoplankton entrained by the generating station, sampling in the immediate proximity of the cooling water intake was conducted twice monthly in September and October 2003, weekly from November 2003 through July 2004, and twice during August 2004. During each sampling event, two replicate tows at the entrainment station were collected four times per 24-hr period—once every six hours. Sampling cycles were initiated at approximately 1200 hr, 1800 hr, 2400 hr, and 0600 hr. The second and fourth cycles were initiated to correspond with sunset and sunrise, respectively. Sampling was conducted offshore (within 100 m) of the submerged intake structure (Figure 3-1) using an oblique tow that sampled the water column from approximately 13 cm off the bottom and then back to the surface. Two replicate tows were taken with a minimum target sample volume of 30 to 40 m3 for each net on the bongo frame. The net was redeployed if the target volume was not collected during the initial tow. The wheeled bongo frame was fitted with 60-cm diameter net rings with plankton nets constructed of 333-µm Nitexo nylon mesh, similar to the nets used by the California Cooperative Oceanic Fisheries Investigations (CalCOFI). Each net was fitted with a Dacron sleeve and a cod- end container to retain the organisms. Each net was equipped with a calibrated General Oceanics flowmeter, allowing the calculation of the amount of water filtered. At the end of each tow, nets were retrieved and the contents of the net gently rinsed into the cod-end with seawater. Contents were washed down from the outside of the net to avoid the introduction of plankton from the wash-down water. Samples were then carefully transferred to prelabeled jars with preprinted internal labels. Samples from one of the two nets were preserved in 4 percent buffered formalin- seawater, while contents of the other net were preserved in 70 to 80 percent ethanol. Larvae preserved in ethanol can be made available for genetic and/or otolith analysis, if required. Genetic analyses have been performed in recent studies in attempts to validate the identity of certain species. AES HBGS Entrainment and Impingement Study, Final Report 17 K IVI'li tern rr i De1tFt$Itl f #�1(AtT1S) r Ul .. , �FiunUngton Beaeh� a N H w U2 tflv i s a v , s r `\ \ / A IN x < r 02 G12 y N part Beach D4 04 ~ 1 10 d _ 20 - — Figure 3-1. Location of entrainment (E) and source water sampling stations (U4, U2, D2, D4, 02, and 04), where U, D, and 0 designate stations upcoast, downcoast and offshore of the intake, respectively. Also shown are the 6-fathom (11-m), 10-fathom (18-m), and 20- fathom (36-m) isobaths. 3.2.2.2 Source Water Sample Collection To determine composition and abundance of ichthyoplankton in the HBGS source water, sampling was conducted monthly in September and October 2003, twice per month from November 2003 through July 2004 (during the peak spawning period for fishes in late winter and spring), and once in August 2004. Besides the entrainment station, source water sampling occurred at six additional source water stations located upcoast, downcoast, and offshore from the intake structure (Figure 3-1). 18 AES HBGS Entrainment and Impingement Study, Final Report Two source water stations were located 2 km and 4 km upcoast(U2 and U4) and downcoast (D2 and D4) from the intake on the intake isobath, and two stations were located approximately 1.5 km and 3 km offshore (02 and 04) from the intake structure. Water depth at the upcoast and downcoast stations is similar to the depth at the intake (9.5 m) while the depth at the two offshore stations is approximately 14 m and 22 m. Tows were performed in the same manner as the entrainment tows (obliquely). The sampling grid is similar in design to that used during the study of cooling water system effects at the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station (Barnett et al. 1983). All stations were sampled with a wheeled bongo using the same oblique tow technique described for the entrainment sampling. During each source water survey, the additional six source water stations (plus the entrainment station) were sampled four times per 24-hr period— once every six hours. Two replicates were collected at each station during each of the four sampling periods. During sampling at the seven stations (six source water plus one entrainment), the entrainment station was always bracketed by the source water station sampling. . Conductivity, temperature, and depth (CTD) profiles were collected at both entrainment and source water stations during most surveys, beginning with the second survey in September 2003 and ending August 2004. The purpose of these profiles was to determine if any oceanographic features, such as influxes of brackish or fresh water from nearby marshes, were related to the distribution of larval fishes in the study area. 3.2.2.3 Laboratory Processing Ichthyoplankton samples were returned to the laboratory, and after approximately 72 hours the samples preserved in 4 percent buffered formalin-seawater were transferred to 70-80 percent ethanol before processing. One net from each replicate was processed from the entrainment surveys. Only the samples initially preserved in formalin from the first of the two bimonthly source water surveys (November through July) were processed, with the samples from the second monthly survey archived for potential future sorting and analysis. If analysis of entrainment results suggests relatively high concentrations of some species of interest (e.g., rockfishes), the second bimonthly source water samples were processed. Samples were examined under dissecting microscopes and fish larvae and targeted invertebrate larvae were separated from debris and other zooplankton. Larvae were identified to the lowest practical taxonomic level (species for most larvae) and enumerated. Fish eggs were not sorted or identified, as their taxonomy remains difficult and time-consuming. AES HBGS Entrainment and Impingement Study, Final Report 19 Myomere counts and pigmentation patterns were used to identify the larval fishes; however this was problematic for some species. Some larval fishes could not be identified to the species level using microscopic techniques and were recorded at the lowest taxonomic classification possible (e.g., genus or family level). For example, many species of the family Gobiidae share morphologic and meristic characters during early life stages (Moser 1996) making identifications to the species level difficult. Larvae of the arrow goby (Clevelandia ios), cheekspot goby (llypnus gilberi), and shadow goby (CQuietula y-cauda) are difficult to identify to species when they are newly hatched. Therefore, these three species were combined into an "unidentified goby" category referred to as the"CIQ goby complex". Larval combtooth blennies (Hypsoblennius spp.) can be easily distinguished from other larval fishes (Moser et al. 1996). However, the three sympatric species that could occur in the area cannot be distinguished from each other on the basis of morphometrics or meristics at the smaller sizes common in the samples. Therefore, the combtooth blennies were grouped into an "unidentified combtooth blennies" category (e.g., Hypsoblennius spp.). A number of larvae from the Family Sciaenidae (croakers) were collected during the study. The larvae in this family are recognized by their relatively large, somewhat bulbous head, compact coiled gut and relatively slender, tapering tail. Pigmentation ranges from light(e.g., white croaker) to heavy (e.g., white seabass Atractoscion nobilis) (Moser 1996). A great majority of yolk-sac stage larvae collected during the summer surveys belonged to the family Sciaenidae. Identification to the species level for these early developmental stages is very difficult because some of the species (e.g., queenfish and spotfin croaker Roncador stearnsh) have similar initial pigmentation patterns along the dorsal margin, migrating down as the larvae develop. White seabass, black croaker Cheilotrema saturnum, California corbina Menticirrhus undulatus, and yellowfin croaker Umbrina roncador have moderate to heavy pigmentation for this developmental stage allowing them to be separated from other species of sciaenids. The white croaker has a distinct pigmentation pattern that allows it to be separated from other sciaenids. Despite these difficulties in identifying the yolk-sac stages of this family, unidentified yolk-sac sciaenid larvae accounted for only 12 percent of the total sciaenid larvae collected from the entrainment station. Therefore, the individual species were not combined into a single group for analysis because of the difficulty in interpreting the results for a taxonomic grouping that includes both commercial and non-commercial species with varying life histories. In addition, the primary method of assessment, the Empirical Transport Model, uses an estimate of plant-induced mortality that would not be affected by small changes in the estimates from the entrainment and source water sampling as long as the proportion between the two estimates didn't change. 20 AES HBGS Entrainment and Impingement Study, Final Report The lengths (notochord/standard lengths) of larvae collected from the entrainment station were measured to estimate the age of the entrained larvae. A representative number of individual larvae of each of the most abundant taxa, or species with recreational or commercial fishery importance, collected during each survey, were measured using a video capture system and OptimusTM image analysis software. The average length calculated from these measurements was used to estimate the average age of the larvae by dividing the difference between the average and minimum lengths by a larval growth rate (mm/d) obtained from the scientific literature for the species or a closely related species. The 1 st percentile value was used as the minimum length to account for outliers in the measurements. The difference between the 1st and 95th percentile values was used to estimate the maximum period of time that the larvae would be exposed to entrainment. 3.3 Estimating Entrainment Effects Estimates of daily larval entrainment for the sampling period from September 2003 through August 2004 at HBGS were calculated from data collected at the entrainment station. Assessment of entrainment effects were limited to the most abundant fish taxa (target taxa) that together comprised 90 percent of all larvae entrained and/or juveniles and adults impinged by the generating station. Estimates of entrainment loss, in conjunction with demographic data collected from the fisheries literature, were used in modeling entrainment effects on target taxa using adult equivalent loss (AEL) and fecundity hindcasting (FH) (Appendix F). Data for the same target taxa from sampling of the entrained larvae and potential source populations of larvae was used to calculate estimates of proportional entrainment (PE) and used to estimate the probability of mortality (Pn,) due to entrainment using the Empirical Transport Model (ETM). In the HBGS entrainment and impingement studies each approach (e.g., AEL, FH, and ETM), as appropriate for each target taxon, was used to assess effects of power plant losses. 3.3.1 Demographic Approaches Adult equivalent loss models evolved from impact assessments that compared power plant losses to commercial fisheries harvests and/or estimates of the abundance of adults. In the case of adult fishes impinged by intake screens, the comparison was relatively straightforward. To compare the numbers of impinged sub-adults and juveniles and entrained larval fishes to adults, it was necessary to convert all these losses to adult equivalents. Horst(1975) provided an early example of the equivalent adult model (EAM) to convert numbers of entrained early life AES HBGS Entrainment and Impingement Study, Final Report 21 stages of fishes to their hypothetical adult equivalency. Goodyear(1978) extended the method to include the extrapolation of impinged juvenile losses to equivalent adults. Demographic approaches, exemplified by the EAM, produce an absolute measure of loss beginning with simple numerical inventories of entrained or impinged individuals and increasing in complexity when the inventory results are extrapolated to estimate numbers of adult fishes or biomass. We used two different but related demographic approaches in assessing entrainment effects at the HBGS: AEL, which expresses effects as absolute losses of numbers of adults, and FH, which estimates the number of adult females whose reproductive output has been eliminated by entrainment of larvae. Both approaches require an estimate of the age at entrainment. These estimates were obtained by measuring a representative number of larvae of each of the target taxa from the entrainment samples and using published larval growth rates to estimate the age at entrainment. The age at entrainment was calculated by dividing the difference between the size at hatching and the average size of the larvae from entrainment by the growth rate obtained from the literature. Age-specific survival and fecundity rates are required for AEL and FH. Adult-equivalent loss estimates require survivorship estimates from the age at entrainment to adult recruitment; FH requires egg and larval survivorship up to the age of entrainment plus estimates of fecundity. Furthermore, to make estimation practical, the affected population is assumed to be stable and stationary, and age-specific survival and fecundity rates are assumed to be constant over time. Each of these approaches provides estimates of adult fish losses, which ideally need to be compared to standing stock estimates of adult fishes. Species-specific survivorship information (e.g., age-specific mortality) from egg or larvae to adulthood is limited for many of the taxa considered in this assessment. These rates when available are inferred from the literature along with estimates of uncertainty. Uncertainty surrounding published demographic parameters is seldom known and rarely reported, but the likelihood that it is very large needs to be considered when interpreting results from the demographic approaches for estimating entrainment effects. For some well-studied species (e.g., northern anchovy), portions of early mortality schedules and fecundity have been reported. Because the accuracy of the estimated entrainment effects from AEL and FH will depend on the accuracy of age-specific mortality and fecundity estimates, lack of demographic information may limit the utility of these approaches. 22 AES HBGS Entrainment and Impingement Study, Final Report The precursor to the AEL and FH calculations is an estimate of total annual larval entrainment. Estimates of larval entrainment at HBGS were based on weekly sampling where ET is the estimate of total entrainment for the study period and Ei is the weekly entrainment estimate. Estimates of entrainment for the study period are based on two-stage sampling designs, with days within periods and cycles (four six-hour collection periods per day) within days. The within- day sampling is based on a stratified random sampling scheme with four temporal cycles and two replicates per cycle. There were usually no estimates of variation available for the life history information used in the models. The ratio of the mean to standard deviation (coefficient of variation) was assumed to be 50 percent for all life history parameters used in the models. 3.3.1.1 Adult Equivalent Loss (AEL) The AEL approach uses estimates of the abundance of the entrained or impinged organisms to project the loss of equivalent numbers of adults based on mortality schedules and age-at-recruitment. The primary advantage of this approach is that it translates power plant- induced early life-stage mortality into numbers of adult fishes that are familiar units-to resource managers. Adult equivalent loss does not require source water estimates of larval abundance in assessing effects. This latter advantage may be offset by the need to gather age-specific mortality rates to predict adult losses and the need for information on the adult population of interest for estimating population-level effects (i.e., fractional losses). Starting with the number of age class j larvae entrained Ey it is conceptually easy to convert these numbers to an equivalent number of adults lost AEL at some specified age class from the formula: AEL = Eis J (1) J=I where n = number of age classes from the average age at entrainment to adult recruitment; Ej= estimated number of larvae lost in age class j; and Sj= survival probability for the j th class to adulthood (Goodyear 1978). Age-specific survival rates from the average age at entrainment to recruitment into the fishery must be included in this assessment method. The average age at entrainment was estimated from lengths of a representative sample of larvae measured from the entrainment AES HBGS Entrainment and Impingement Study, Final Report 23 samples (Section 3.2.2.3). For some commercial species, natural survival rates are known after the fish recruit into the commercial fishery. For the earlier years of development, this information is not well known for commercial species and may not exist for some non-commercial species. An alternative expression of adult-equivalent loss would be to standardize AEL by the size of the adult population of interest to estimate the relative magnitude of the equivalent adult loss such that, RAEL— AEL (2) P where P = estimated size of the adult population of interest. Information on adult source populations will be limited for many species and thereby limit the utility of Equation (2), although the same approach will be used to place the estimated losses into context for taxa with published commercial or recreational fishery catch data. 3.3.1.2 Fecundity Hindcasting (FI-I) The FH approach compares larval entrainment losses with adult fecundity to estimate the amount of adult female reproductive output eliminated by entrainment, hindcasting the numbers of adult females effectively removed from the reproductively active population. The accuracy of these estimates of effects, as with those of the AEL above, is dependent upon accurate estimates of age-specific mortality from the egg and early larval stages to entrainment and accurate estimates of the total lifetime female fecundity. If it can be assumed that the adult population has been stable at some current level of exploitation and that the male:female ratio is constant and 50:50, then fecundity and mortality are integrated into an estimate of adult loss by converting entrained larvae back into females (e.g., hindcasting) and multiplying by two. A potential advantage of FH is that survivorship need only be estimated for a relatively short period of the larval stage (e.g., egg to larval entrainment). The method requires age-specific mortality rates and fecundities to estimate entrainment effects and some knowledge of the abundance of adults to assess the fractional losses these effects represent. This method assumes that the loss of a single female's reproductive potential is equivalent to the loss of two adult fish, assuming a 50:50 male:female ratio. In the FH approach, the total larval entrainment for a species, E,, was projected backward from the average age at entrainment to estimate the number of breeding females required to provide the numbers of larvae seen in the entrainment samples. The estimated 24 AES HBGS Entrainment and Impingement Study, Final Report number of breeding females FH whose fecundity is equal to the total loss of entrained larvae was calculated as follows: FH= —E, (3) TLF•H Si l=1 where ET = total entrainment estimate; S; = survival rate from eggs to entrained larvae of the j th stage ; TLF = average total lifetime fecundity for females, equivalent to the average number of eggs spawned per female over their reproductive years. The two key input parameters in Equation (3) are total lifetime fecundity TLF and survival rates S; from spawning to the average age at entrainment. The average age at entrainment was estimated from lengths of a representative sample of larvae measured from the entrainment samples (Section 3.2.2.3). Descriptions of these parameters may be limited for many species and are a possible limitation of the method. TLF is approximated using the "average" age for the females using the following formula: TLF=Average eggs/yearXAverage number of years of reproductive life =Average eggs/year• Longevity- Age at maturation 1 2 J An alternative interpretation of FH is possible by expressing the estimate in terms of the relative size of the adult fish stock in the source populations where RFH ^ FH (4) P and where P = estimated size of the adult population of interest. Information on adult source populations will be limited for many species and thereby limit the utility of Equation (4), although the same approach can be used to place the estimated losses into context for taxa with published commercial or recreational fishery catch data where RFH is the proportion of the breeding females whose fecundity was lost due to entrainment by the HBGS. 3.3.2 Empirical Transport Model (ETM) The ETM calculations provide an estimate of the probability of mortality due to power plant entrainment. The calculations require not only the abundance of larvae entrained but also AES HBGS Entrainment and Impingement Study, Final Report 25 the abundance of the larval populations at risk of entrainment. Sampling at the cooling water intake is used to estimate the total number of larvae entrained for a given time period, while sampling in the coastal waters around the HBGS intake is used to estimate the source population for the same period. On any one sampling day, the conditional entrainment mortality can be expressed as PE, =Ei (5) Ni where Ei = total numbers of larvae entrained during the i th survey; and Ni= numbers of larvae at risk of entrainment, i.e., abundance of larvae in source water. The values used in calculating PE are population estimates based on the respective larval densities and volumes of the cooling water system flow and source water areas. The abundance of larvae at risk in the source water during the i th survey can be directly expressed as _ 9 _ Ni =9Vsk •Pik (6) k=] where VSA denotes the static volume of the source water at station k, and pik denotes an estimate of the average larval density in the source water for station k during survey i. The number of source water stations include seven sampled stations (E, D1, D2, U1, U2, 01, and 02) and two areas (11 and 12) where the densities were interpolated using an inverse distance weighted average of the densities at the other stations (Figure 3-2). This was done to allow for a rectangular shaped source water area that could be extrapolated using alongshore current displacement, otherwise the layout of the sampling locations would have required separate source water estimates for the offshore (01 and 02) and alongshore station areas (E, D1, D2, U1, and U2). Regardless of whether the species has a single spawning period per year or multiple overlapping spawnings the estimate of total larval entrainment mortality can be expressed by N Pn,, =1—�f(1—) E'Ps� (7) where q = number of days the larvae are exposed to entrainment, 26 AES HBGS Entrainment and Impingement Study, Final Report PS =the proportion of the sampled source water population to the total source water population vulnerable to entrainment, and f= estimated fraction of total larval population present during the i th survey. I i I II I Figure 3-2. Bathymetry and areas used in calculating sampling volumes for each station l used in calculating source water for ETM calculations. Station E is located near the plant intake where entrainment samples were collected. Source water stations U4, U2, D2, D4, 02, and 04 designate stations upcoast(U), downcoast(D) and offshore (0)of the intake, respectively. Densities in areas 11 and 12 were interpolated using an inverse distance- weighted average from the densities at the other stations. I i I i i I AES HBGS Entrainment and Impingement Study, Final Report 27 To establish independent survey estimates, it is assumed that during each survey a new and distinct cohort of larvae is subject to entrainment. The number of days a taxon was exposed to entrainment was estimated by dividing a larval growth rate into the difference between the 1st and 95th percentile values of length measurements from the entrainment samples (Section 3.2.2.3). Each of the monthly surveys is weighted by f and estimated as the proportion of the total population at risk during the i th survey period. In the original study plan we proposed to use the proportion of the larvae entrained during each i th survey period as the weights for the ETM model. The weights were proposed to be calculated as follows: E; E7atar where E; is the estimated entrainment during the i th survey period, and EToral is the estimated entrainment for the entire study period. Equation 8 conflicts with Equation 5 for PE that uses the population in the source water during the i th survey period to define the population at risk. If the weights are meant to represent the proportion of the population at risk during each survey then the weights should be calculated as follows: _ N; N7'otat (9) where Ni is the estimated fraction of the source population spawned during the i th survey period, and NTotai is the total source population for the entire study period. The weights calculated using Equation 8 redefine the population at risk as the population entrained and represent a logical inconsistency in the model as presented in the study plan. As shown in Equations 5 and 6 the estimates of PE are based on larval population estimates within specific volumes of water. While a reasonably accurate estimate of the volume of the cooling water intake flow can be obtained, estimating the volume of the source water is more difficult and will vary depending upon oceanographic conditions and taxa group. ETM estimates of PM were calculated using two estimates for PS, the proportion of the sampled source water population to the total source population. One estimate was based on alongshore and onshore current displacement while the other used only alongshore current displacement. The current displacement was calculated over the period of time that the larvae were estimated to be exposed to entrainment. This period of time was estimated using length data from a representative number of larvae (100-200) from the entrainment samples for each target taxon. The maximum age was calculated as the upper 951h percentile value of the lengths measured from the samples. The maximum age at entrainment was calculated by dividing the difference between the upper 95th 28 AES HBGS Entrainment and Impingement Study, Final Report percentile values of the lengths and the lower 1st percentile value of the lengths by an estimated larval growth rate. The incorporation of Ps into the ETM model is typically defined by the ratio of the area or volume of the study grid to a larger area or volume containing the population of inference (Parker and DeMartini 1989). If an estimate of the larval (or adult) population in the larger area is available, it can also be computed using the estimate of the larval or adult population in the study grid, defined by Ricker (1975) as the proportion of the parental stock. If the distribution in the larger area is assumed to be uniform, then the value of Ps for the proportion of the population will be the same as the proportion computed using area or volume. For target taxa whose larval distribution extends to the offshore edge of the study grid, Ps will be calculated as the ratio: P,. =N(;/N,, , (10) where NG is the number of larvae in the study grid, and Np is the number of larvae in the population of inference. The numerator NG is the same as the estimate, Ni (Equation 5), used in the calculation of PE, i.e. 9 _ NG =�Ack 'Dk 'Pk (11) k=1 where k = area of source water sampling area station k, Dk = average depth of the k th station, and P k = density (per m) of larvae in kth station during survey i. Np was estimated by offshore and alongshore extrapolation of the study grid densities, using water current measurements. First, a conceptual model was formulated to extrapolate larval densities (per m) offshore of the grid: 9 _ _ I LG, 'Wk 'Dk 'Pk NG _ k=1 N — Kmax (_ 12) 1 I LPk 'Wk 'Dk 'Pk k=1 where LC;k = alongshore length of source water sampling area station k, Wk = average width of the k th station, Dk = average depth of the k th station, Pk = estimated average density (per m) of larvae in k th station, Kmax = index of offshore extent, based on current data AES HBGS Entrainment and Impingement Study, Final Report 29 and L,k = alongshore length of the population based on current data, The denominator in Equation 12 includes an extrapolation offshore that is a discrete version of a conceptually continuous function. Therefore, to ease implementation, an essentially equivalent formulation that incorporates the use of the sampling station densities for stations E, 02, and 04 during the i th survey and integrates a linear extrapolation of density (per m) calculated by multiplying the density by the station depth as a function of offshore distance: NG Nc. N, 7 L, N( W (13) ' '� +L, f p(w)dw h=t LCk WO where L,, = alongshore length of the population (P) in the i th study period based on current data, p(w) = density of larvae (per m2) as a linear function of w, distance offshore, and Wmax, WO= limits of integration for extrapolation outside study grid. The limits of the integration are from the offshore margin of Station 04 to a point estimated by the onshore movement of currents, where the extrapolated density is zero, or to the edge of the shelf at a depth of 75 m (distance of 8,500 m). Note that the population number, Np, is composed of two components that represent the alongshore extrapolation of the sampled source population and the offshore extrapolation of the sampled source population. Parameter values needed in performing the extrapolation were obtained through a regression analysis using the data from all of the surveys. This resulted in the calculation of a common slope and intercept for all of the surveys for each of the target taxa. The differences in onshore currents changed the limit of the extrapolation used for each survey. For a Ps using only alongshore current, displacement was calculated without using the offshore extrapolation based on onshore or offshore current movement to predict a coastwise fraction of the population of inference. The total alongshore displacement in the i th survey, includes both upcoast and downcoast movement calculated during a period equal to the larval duration before each survey. The Ps using only alongshore current was calculated as: 30 AES HBGS Entrainment and Impingement Study, Final Report P =Ni = Nc' s; Nji 9 LA NG;k (14) k-1 LGik The current data for both estimates were from data collected for the Orange County Sanitation District from June 1999 to June 2000 at station Q (33' 37.874'N, 117' 59.804'W with 14.8 m depth) directly offshore from the HBGS. The historical data was collected near the HBGS intake from June 17, 1999 to June 24, 2000. Measurements were taken at 30-min intervals, 3-hr low pass filtered, and then resampled at 1-hr intervals. North and east currents were rotated to a shore direction of 3071T. The instrument was positioned 5 m below the surface over a bottom depth of 14.8 m MLLW at 33.631290 N latitude and 117.996730 W longitude (re: NAD83). This location lies 1.47 km at 2360 from the HBGS intake. The magnetic vectors were corrected to true north using a 13.350 east variation. These true vectors were then rotated to align with the coastline. Hourly excursion distances were calculated in the alongshore (positive upcoast) and cross shelf (positive onshore) directions using sums of the excursions based on the 1-hr resampled currents. Data from the current meter deployed for this study were not used because of a failure of the internal compass during the last deployment. The failure of the system also raised concerns about the data from other deployments that were generally not characteristic of currents j described from the area by Noble et al. (2003) that described, for summer 2001, a downcoast average current over the shelf with a maximum near the surface on the outer shelf, decreasing in magnitude and depth and toward shore. The source water volumes for the sampling areas were calculated from bathymetric data for the coastal areas around Huntington Beach (Figure 3-2, Table 3-1). These volumes were used in calculating the total number of larvae for target taxa in the sampled source water, and used with the total volume of the HBGS cooling water system (1,919,204 m3 per day, 507 mgd) in i calculating PE estimates used in the ETM calculations. The areas of the extrapolated stations are approximately four times the area of the sampled stations, while the volume for station 12 is also approximately four times the volume of the sampled stations, the volume of station 11 is substantially larger because the area includes deeper depths associated with the drop-off into Newport Canyon (Figure 3-2). II AES HBGS Entrainment and Impingement Study, Final Report 31 Table 3-1.Area, volume, and average depths of HBGS source water sampling locations, including the values for the two extrapolated source water areas, 11 and 12. Average Station Area (m) Volume(m3) Depth (m) D2 3,349,340 28,487,976 8.5 D4 4,164,939 34,138,031 8.1 E 3,613,797 28,360,943 7.7 02 2,765,512 43,697,047 15.8 04 4,234,490 99,644,641 23.7 U2 3,211,727 21,159,762 6.2 U4 3,651,953 21,696,873 5.6 11 13,804,831 398,613,394 28.3 12 12,692,946 232,359,192 18.2 3.4 Impingement Sampling 3.4.1 Introduction The purpose of the impingement study is to determine the extent of potential impacts from the operation of the cooling water system of the Huntington Beach Generating Station on fishes and selected invertebrates. Impingement occurs when organisms larger than the traveling screen mesh size (9.5 mm or 3/8") become trapped against the screens, either because they are too fatigued to swim against the intake flow at the screens or they are dead. The sampling plan and analysis techniques were developed by the BRRT. There are two facets to the impingement study: normal operation sampling and heat treatment sampling. Samples collected during normal operations were used to characterize fish loss from the day-to-day operation of the generating station. Normal operations samples were collected over a 24-hr period to determine the daily loss from operation of the CWIS. Samples were also collected during heat treatments, when waters within the CWIS were heated and essentially all fishes and invertebrates succumbed to the high temperatures. Heat treatment procedures were carried out at approximately eight-week intervals to control biofouling within the CWIS. Combined, normal operation and heat treatment samples were used to estimate the annual loss of juvenile and adult fishes and selected macroinvertebrates due to operation of the CWIS. a 32 AES HBGS Entrainment and Impingement Study, Final Report 3.4.2 Methods . 3.4.2.1 Normal Operation Impingement Sampling i MBC sampled fishes and macroinvertebrates impinged on traveling screens during normal operation of the HBGS on a weekly basis beginning in late-July 2003 and continuing through July 2004. Once per week, fish impingement samples were collected for one approximately 24-hr period in coordination with generating station operations personnel. Twenty- four hours prior to each survey, the screens were run and the accumulation dumpster emptied. The following day, traveling screens were operated for approximately 10 minutes, enough time to complete one rotation and sufficient to bring up any impinged organisms from the forebay for identification. Accumulated fishes, invertebrates, algae, and debris from the 24-hr sample were sorted, and fishes and macroinvertebrates were identified to species (whenever possible), li enumerated and batch-weighed. Standard length of up to 200 individual fishes of each species III was measured, and sex of up to 50 individuals of selected species was determined by external morphology or inspection of gonads. Algae and shell debris were identified and batch-weighed by species. Station operation data (number of circulator pumps operating, intake temperature, and discharge temperature) and general weather conditions were recorded during sampling. Circulating water flow through the plant during the 24-hr sample period was determined by consulting with plant personnel. Results from each weekly 24-hr impingement sample were extrapolated to a weekly impingement total using cooling water flow for the 7-day period (Saturday through Friday). The normal operation impingement total is the sum of the weekly extrapolations based on the cooling water flow of the HBGS. 3.4.2.2 Heat Treatment Impingement Sampling MBC sampled fishes and macroinvertebrates impinged on traveling screens during all scheduled heat treatment operations at the HBGS. The results of all six heat treatments are presented in this analysis. Heat treatments are performed periodically (usually once every six to eight weeks) to control growth of fouling organisms in the cooling water system. During these procedures, a portion of the heated discharge water is circulated through the forebay and intake conduits, raising the water temperature to approximately 41°C (106°F), and marine life succumbs to the elevated temperature. During each survey, traveling screens were run until no more organisms were impinged on the traveling screens. Fishes, invertebrates, algae, and debris were sorted, and fishes and I i AES HBGS Entrainment and Impingement Study, Final Report 33 invertebrates were identified to species (whenever possible), enumerated and batch-weighed. Standard length of up to 200 individual fishes of each species was measured, and sex of up to 50 individuals of selected species was determined by external morphology or inspection of gonads. Algae and shell debris were identified and batch-weighed by species. Station operation data (number of circulator pumps operating, intake temperature, and discharge temperature) and general weather conditions were recorded during sampling. 3.4.3 Impingement Data Analysis Total impingement at the generating station was calculated by summing the extrapolated normal operations estimates with the sum of the heat treatment survey data. Additional statistical analyses performed on impingement data from the HBGS as well as from additional coastal generating stations is further described in Section 5.0. Common and scientific names of fishes are from Nelson et al. (2004), and invertebrate names were derived from several sources, including Turgeon et al. (1988) and Williams et al. (1988). 34 AES HBGS Entrainment and Impingement Study, Final Report 4.0 RESULTS 4.1 Introduction The following section presents results of the AES Huntington Beach Entrainment and Impingement Study, including data on entrainment and source water larval densities collected from September 2003 through August 2004, and data on impinged organisms collected from July 2003 to July 2004. Estimates of entrainment were derived from samples collected just offshore of the intake structure. Source water estimates were derived from samples collected up to four kilometers upcoast, downcoast, and offshore of the intake structure. Impingement samples were collected from within the generating station cooling water system. 4.2 Physical Oceanography Sea surface temperatures recorded at the entrainment station displayed seasonal variation (Figure 4-1). Maximum temperatures were recorded in fall and summer, and lowest temperatures were recorded in winter. Analysis of profiles indicates that during the onset of sampling in September 2003, summer conditions prevailed and the water column was fairly stratified with a discernable thermocline (Appendix A). Beginning in the second week of October 2003, the transition to winter conditions began, and the thermocline dissipated. Winter conditions (cool water and no thermocline) were recorded from late November 2003 through early March 2004, with coolest temperatures recorded in February 2004. Warming of the water column began in March 2004 and the transition to summer conditions (warm water and establishment of a thermocline) continued through May 2004. In many cases, warmest waters were recorded during daytime cycles initiated at 1200 hr and 1800 hr. Brackish or fresh water was detected in the study area during a few surveys. During Entrainment Survey HBS005 (first week of November 2003), light rain fell during the first cycle of sampling, and a lens of brackish water (19 to 30 practical salinity units [psu]) was present in the upper two meters of the water column. Surface salinity was also low throughout the study area during Source Water Survey HBS023 (8-9 March 2004). During that survey, lowest near-surface salinities were recorded at the offshore stations (10 psu), followed by upcoast stations (16 psu) and entrainment and downcoast stations (22 psu). Approximately two inches of rain fell in the week prior to the 8-9 March survey. Even though rain occurred during some other surveys, AES HBGS Entrainment and Impingement Study, Final Report 35 Surface Temperature, Entrainment Station 25 •Cycle 1 •Cycle 2 •Cycle 3 <.Cycle 4 7 A � �• e CL • • ® �v• 15 yy • • �'" ^v• • v � 10 - 22-Sep-03 3-Nov-03 15-Dec03 26-Jan-04 8-Mar-04 19-Apr-04 31-May-04 12-Jul-04 23-Aug-04 Date Figure 4-1. Surface temperatures at Station E during each cycle of each entrainment and source water survey. salinity in the nearshore waters was generally >33 psu, which is considered normal for southern California nearshore waters. Currents generally moved onshore and downcoast from June 1999 to June 2000 (Figure 4-2). Overall, during the period, there was 499 km of onshore movement and 659 km of downcoast excursion. From June through September currents moved nearly 226 km downcoast and 128 km onshore. During October through December there was onshore movement of 180 km and 145 km downcoast movement. From January through March there was similar onshore and downcoast movement of 192 km and 131 km. From April through June 24, there was no onshore movement and a 155 km downcoast excursion. Other researchers have reported similar current patterns in the area near HBGS. Noble and Xu (2003) described the currents near the HBGS and found that larger-scale coastal processes influenced local current patterns more than tides and localized wind conditions. They found that, in summer 2001, currents moved predominantly in a downcoast direction over the continental shelf with maximum velocities occurring near the surface on the outer portion of the shelf. Currents tended to decrease as a function of proximity to the shore. 36 AES HBGS Entrainment and Impingement Study, Final Report 100 7/1/99 -100 10/1/99 -300 0 1/1/00 U Q -500 - 4/1/00 6/1/00 -700 -100 100 300 500 700 Onshore (km) Figure 4-2. Cumulative onshore and upcoast (alongshore) current vectors from an InterOcean Systems S4 current meter moored off the HBGS from 17 June 1999-24 June 2000. Squares show cumulative monthly positions. AES HBGS Entrainment and Impingement Study, Final Report 37 4.3 Entrainment The U.S. EPA defines entrainment as "the incorporation of all life stages of fish and shellfish with intake water flow entering and passing through a cooling water intake structure and into a cooling water system" (USEPA 2002a). At the HBGS, organisms are entrained when they are drawn into the offshore intake structure and conveyed with the cooling water flow to the generating station. Larval fishes and invertebrates are comparatively weak swimmers, and enter the cooling water flow passively. The following sections present entrainment and source water results for larval fishes collected in 45 surveys from September 2003 through August 2004. Survey HBS026 (26-27 March 2004)was aborted due to high winds. 4.3.1 Weekly Entrainment Abundance Estimates A total of 6,950 fish larvae in 57 different taxonomic groups was collected during the 45 entrainment surveys completed during the September 2003 through August 2004 period (Table 4-1), including 227 unidentified or damaged specimens. Ten taxa comprised 90% of the total larvae collected: unidentified gobies (mainly of the genera Clevlandia, llypnus, and Quietula [CIQ complex]), spotfin croaker, unidentified anchovies (>95% northern anchovy), queenfish, white croaker, salema, unidentified croakers (newly hatched larvae of several species), combtooth blennies, black croaker, and diamond turbot. The life histories and potential impacts from entrainment on the local populations of these taxa and California halibut, which is an important recreational and commercial species and ranked 111h overall, are analyzed in greater detail in this report (See Section 4.3.3—Individual Species Results). The target taxa are not presented in the order of abundance so that the results for the four species of Sciaenidae could be presented i together. Of the five target invertebrate taxa included in the study (Cancer crab megalops, market squid hatchlings, mole crab (sand crab), California spiny lobster, and ridgeback rock shrimp) only mole crab and Cancer crabs were found in the entrainment samples (Table 4-2). Mole crab zoeae comprised almost 99% of the entrained target invertebrates. Almost all of the mole crab larvae collected were in the earliest stages of their larval development (Zoea Stage 1); only two megalopal stage larvae were collected from entrainment samples and none were collected from source water samples. Sampling results are presented for Cancer and mole crabs, but no assessments of potential entrainment impacts were conducted for mole crab because of the low numbers collected and absence of megalops in the source water samples. Complete sampling data are presented in Appendix B. The measured larval densities during each survey were multiplied by a total daily maximum intake flow of 1,919,204 m3 (507 mgd) that equates to an estimated annual cooling water volume of 702,428,664 m3. Approximately 350 million fish larvae were calculated to have been entrained during the study (Table 4-1). The number of individual taxa increased during the 38 AES HBGS Entrainment and Impingement Study, Final Report study with greatest numbers of taxa occurring in summer 2004, from an average of approximately 8 taxa per survey from September through February to 18 taxa per survey in summer 2004, including a survey in late July when over 30 taxa were collected (Figure 4-3). The greatest overall abundances occurred in late summer 2004 when densities were approximately five times greater than earlier months (Figure 4-4). Although gobies and anchovies were abundant throughout the sampling period, high concentrations of spotfin croaker, salema, and queenfish contributed to peak abundances in August 2004 (Appendix A). Low concentrations of larvae were measured during some surveys in early February and early March, although abundances generally increased through spring when many fishes start reproducing. 35 30 25 M X e6 20 O d M E 15 - — M Z 10 - - ----- - 5 —— ------ ----- ------ -- - - - - --- - 0 , 1-Sep- 1-Oct- 1-Nov- 1-Dec- 1-Jan- 1-Feb- 1-Mar- 1-Apr- 1-May- 1-Jun- 1-Jul-04 1-Aug- 1-Sep- 03 03 03 03 04 04 04 04 04 04 04 04 Figure 4-3. Total number of taxa per survey collected at HBGS entrainment Station E from September 2003 through August 2004. Entrainment samples were characterized by large numbers of gobies, b►ennies, and several other fishes common in bay environments whose larvae were probably exported into the open ocean by tidal currents from estuarine spawning areas upcoast and downcoast of the HBGS. Some commercially and recreationally important taxa such as California halibut, white seabass, and rockfishes comprised a small percentage of the total number of taxa entrained, but others, including northern anchovy and several croaker species, comprised nearly 50% of the total fish larvae collected (Table 4-1). AES HBGS Entrainment and Impingement Study, Final Report 39 Table 4-1. Larval fishes collected during 45 entrainment surveys from September 2003 through August 2004. A flow volume of 702,428,664 m3 was used to estimate total entrainment for the sampling period. Mean Total Sample Percent of Cumulative Density Estimated Entrainment Taxon Common Name Count Total Percent (#/1000m3) Entrainment Std.Error 1 Gobiidae(CIQ complex) gobies 2,484 36.95 36.95 151.56 113,166,834 6,568,091 2 Roncadorstearnsi spotfin croaker 912 13.57 50.51 53.07 69,701,589 8,636,383 3 Engraulidae anchovies 1,209 17.98 68.50 74.46 54,349,017 4,355,775 4 Seriphus politus queenfish 306 4.55 73.05 18.17 17,809,864 2,415,487 5 Genyonemus lineatus white croaker 446 6.63 79.68 28.14 17,625,263 1,491,336 6 Xenis6'uscalifodensis salema 153 2.28 81.96 7.70 11,696,960 5,186,479 7 Sciaenidae croaker 244 3.63 85.59 14.73 10,534,802 1,004,033 8 Hypsoblennius spp. blennies 166 2.47 88.06 10.28 7,165,513 580,175 9 Cheilotrema saturnum black croaker 96 1.43 89.48 5.41 7,128,127 1,481,158 10 Hypsopsetta guttu/ata diamond turbot 87 1.29 90.78 5.28 5,443,118 476,544 11 Paralichthys califomicus California halibut 98 1.46 92.24 6.40 5,021,168 447,516 12 Atherinopsidae silverside 97 1.44 93.68 5.98 3,654,229 577,117 13 Menticirrhus undulatus California corbina 43 0.64 94.32 2.33 2,809,417 807,329 14 Paralabrax spp. sand bass 48 0.71 95.03 2.93 2,793,730 518,724 15 Citharichthys spp. sanddabs 31 0.46 95.49 2.15 1,913,607 314,973 16 Hypsypopsrubicundus garibaldi 43 0.64 96.13 2.44 1,622,966 776,711 17 Oxyjulis californica senorita 27 0.40 96.53 1.66 1,190,449 311,376 18 Sphyraena argentea California barracuda 14 0.21 96.74 0.79 1,133,103 258,040 19 Pleuronectidae flounders 17 0.25 97.00 1.02 982,419 131,877 20 Umbrina roncador yellowfin croaker 24 0.36 97.35 1.63 962,905 266,187 21 Gillichthys mirabilis longjaw mudsucker 20 0.30 97.65 1.29 834,682 155,798 22 Lepidogobius lepidus bay goby 18 0.27 97.92 1.16 683,887 161,835 23 Syngnathidae pipefishes 17 0.25 98.17 0.91 591,496 353,236 24 Leptocottus armatus Pacific staghorn sculpin 16 0.24 98.41 0.97 584,664 115,109 25 Pleuronichthys ritten spotted turbot 12 0.18 98.59 0.75 561,958 87,434 26 Triphoturus mexicanus Mexican lampfish 8 0.12 98.71 0.51 536,324 95,606 27 Acanthogobius flavimanus yellowfin goby 15 0.22 98.93 0.88 522,589 176,940 28 Diaphus theta California headlight fish 11 0.16 99.09 0.63 486,274 110,942 29 Myctophidae lantemfishes 6 0.09 99.18 0.39 423,578 94,314 30 Haemulidae grunts 5 0.07 99.26 0.28 368,219 121,028 31 Atractoscion nobilis white seabass 5 0.07 99.33 0.29 347,306 114,685 32 Gibbonsia spp. clinid kelpfishes 10 0.15 99.48 0.55 341,921 87,691 33 Pleuronichthys verticalis hornyhead turbot 3 0.04 99.52 0.17 198,470 52,984 34 Sardinops sagax Pacific sardine 4 0.06 99.58 0.25 166,724 117,891 35 Peprilus simillimus Pacific butterfish 2 0.03 99.61 0.14 138,138 56,479 36 Semicossyphus pulcher California sheephead 2 0.03 99.64 0.13 129,222 52,033 37 Stenobrachiusleucopsarus northern lampfish 3 0.04 99.69 0.21 111,109 46,395 38 Labrisomidae labrisomid kelpfishes 3 0.04 99.73 0.18 108,964 58,784 39 Halichoeres semicinctus rock wrasse 1 0.01 99.75 0.06 97,344 45,888 40 Paralichthyidae lefteye flounders&sanddabs 2 0.03 99.78 0.12 95,195 45,031 41 Medialuna californiensis halfmoon 2 0.03 99.81 0.13 77,804 58,815 42 Scomberjaponicus Pacific mackerel 2 0.03 99.84 0.10 61,004 32,608 43 Scorpaenidae scorpionfishes 1 0.01 99.85 0.09 50,467 38,150 44 Symphums atricauda California tonguefish 1 0.01 99.87 0.07 42,344 32,009 45 Strongylura exilis California needlefish 1 0.01 99.88 0.07 40,637 30,719 46 Oxylebius pictus painted greenling 1 0.01 99.90 0.07 40,289 30,456 47 Typhlogobius californiensis blind goby 1 0.01 99.91 0.06 36,976 27,951 48 Merluccius productus Pacific hake 1 0.01 99.93 0.06 33,954 25,667 49 Coryphopterus nicholsi blackeye goby 1 0.01 99.94 0.06 33,202 25,099 50 Agonidae poachers 1 0.01 99.96 0.05 30,817 23,295 51 Ruscanus creaser rouchcheek sculpin 1 0.01 99.97, 0.05 30,813 23,293 52 Pleuronectiformes flatfishes 1 0.01 99.99 0.05 30,192 22,823 53 Cottidae sculpins 1 0.01 100.00 0.05 28,990 21,914 6,723 406.91 344,570,635 larvae,unidentified yolksac unidentified yolksac larvae 136 9.23 6,100,663 1,148,559 larval fish fragment unidentified larval fishes 51 3.08 2,508,742 386,659 larval/post-larval fish unid, larval fishes 39 2.37 1,655,508 246,622 larval fish-damaged unidentified larval fishes 1 0.06 41,681 29,473 227 14.74 10,306,594 40 AES.HBGS Entrainment and Impingement Study, Final Report Table 4-2. Invertebrate larvae (select taxa) collected during 45 entrainment surveys from September 2003 through August 2004. A flow volume of 702,428,664 m3 was used to estimate total entrainment for the sampling period. Mean Total Sample Percent of Cumulative Density Estimated Entrainment Taxon Common Name Count Total Percent (#/1000m3) Entrainment Std.Error Emerita analoga(zoea) mole crabs-larva 10,399 98.73 98.73 658.95 465,806,877 91,912,298 Cancer anthonyi(megalops) yellow crab 77 0.73 99.46 4.68 5,207,996 1,320,180 Cancergracilis(megalops) slender crab 31 0.29 99.75 1.97 1,304,771 311,450 Cancer antennarius(megalops) brown rock crab 18 0.17 99.92 1.15 973,538 202,088 Cancer productus(megalops) red rock crab 3 0.03 99.95 0.18 164,478 53,672 Emerita analoga(megalops) mole crabs-larva 2 0.02 99.97 0.17 69,793 54,061 Cancer spp.(megalops) cancer crabs 2 0.02 99.99 0.11 65,159 34,834 Cancer spp. cancer crabs 1 0.01 100.00 0.06 35,885 27,126 10,533 667 473,628,497 4800 4400 n 4000 ^L, W a) 3600 L 3200 0 0 2800 0 0 2400 0 2000 0 LCU 1600 c 1200 c U 800 400 i 1 1�1111j 111111.1.E Ai �i o iiialill 01-Sep 01-Nov 01-Jan 01-Mar 01-May 01-Jul 01-Sep 2003 2003 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 Survey Figure 4-4. Mean concentrations (#/1000 m3) and standard error for all larval fishes collected at HBGS entrainment Station E from September 2003 through August 2004. AES HBGS Entrainment and Impingement Study. Final Report 41 4.3.2 Monthly Source Water Abundance Estimates A total of 14,627 fish larvae in 79 different taxonomic groups was collected during the 12 source water surveys completed during the September 2003 — September 2004 period (Table 4-3), including 299 unidentified or damaged specimens. Eleven taxa comprised nearly 90% of the total larvae collected: unidentified gobies (36.8%; mainly of the genera Clevelandia, llypnus, and Quietula.[CIQ complex]), unidentified anchovies, queenfish, white croaker, unidentified croakers (newly hatched larvae of several species), combtooth blennies, unidentified sea bass, California halibut, spotfin croaker, silversides, and Pacific sardine (Table 4-3). During the 12 source water surveys there were 23 additional taxa collected at stations other than the single entrainment Station E during 45 entrainment surveys (Table 4-4). Similar to the entrainment station densities, lowest larval densities in the source water were measured in winter and greatest in summer (Figure 4-5). The composition of the target invertebrates collected at the source water stations was similar to the entrainment samples with mole crab larvae comprising nearly 95% of the target invertebrates (Table 4-5). Almost all of the mole crab larvae collected were in the earliest stage of larval development (Zoea Stage 1); only two megalopal stage larvae were collected at the entrainment station during one of the paired entrainment-source water surveys. In addition to Cancer crab larvae, one California spiny lobster puerulus stage larva was collected (Table 4-5). Concentrations of the CIQ goby complex, northern anchovy, and white croaker, three of the most abundant fish taxa, varied spatially among the seven sampling stations and temporally among months (Figures 4-6 through 4-11). The CIQ goby complex was generally more abundant at the inshore stations in all months and also tended to be more abundant at the intake (entrainment) and downcoast stations. Northern anchovy did not show a strong distributional trend among stations whereas white croaker was more abundant offshore in summer (Figure 4-11). 42 AES HBGS Entrainment and Impingement Study, Final Report Table 4-3. Larval fishes collected during 12 source water surveys from September 2003 through August 2004. Sample totals and mean densities were calculated from all seven stations, which includes entrainment Station E. Mean Sample Percent of Cumulative Density Density Taxon Common Name Count Total Percent (#I1000m3) Std.Error 1 Gobiidae(CIQ complex) gobies 5,275 36.82 36.82 169.83 46.30 2 Engraulidae anchovies 2,525 17.62 54.44 81.41 17.20 3 Seriphus politus queenfish 1,418 9.90 64.34 45.85 21.80 4 Genyonemus lineatus white croaker 1,239 8.65 72.98 39.46 9.32 5 Sciaenidae croakers 541 3.78 76.76 17,92 5.90 6 Hypsoblennius spp. blennies 439 3.06 79.82 13.82 3.93 7 Paralabrax spp. sand bass 408 2.85 82.67 13.61 24.05 8 Paralichthys californicus California halibut 399 2.78 85.46 12.70 3.60 9 Atherinopsidae silversides 333 2.32 87.78 10.55 4.41 10 Sardinops sagax Pacific sardine 147 1.03 88.81 4.91 20.01 11 Sphyraena argentea California barracuda 145 1.01 89.82 4.73 6.35 12 Chromis punctipinnis blacksmith 166 1.16 90.98 4.59 20.83 13 Citharichthys spp. sanddabs 141 0.98 91.96 4.53 2.21 14 Hypsopsetta guttulata diamond turbot 122 0.85 92.81 3.96 1.40 15 Ophidiidae cusk-eels 99 0.69 93.50 3.26 12.49 16 Lepidogobius lepidus bay goby 86 0.60 94.10 2.73 1.65 17 Pleuronichthys ritten spotted turbot 68 0.47 94.58 2.10 0.89 18 Pleuronichthys verticalis hornyhead turbot 65 0.45 95.03 2.07 1.34 19 Cheilotrema saturnum black croaker 61 0.43 95.46 1.90 1.67 20 Xenistius califoriensis salema 50 0.35 95.81 1.75 7.07 21 Typhlogobius californiensis blind goby 56 0.39 96.20 1.73 6.28 22 Oxyjulis californica senorita 51 0.36 96.55 1.64 1.48 23 Roncador stearnsi spotfin croaker 53 0.37 96.92 1.62 2.62 24 Gillichthys mirabilis longjaw mudsucker 40 0.28 97.20 1.28 0.71 25 Pleuronectidae flounders 41 0.29 97.49 1.25 0.77 26 Leptocottus armatus Pacific staghorn sculpin 28 0.20 97.68 0.91 1.04 27 Acanthogobius flavimanus yellowfin goby 23 0.16 97.84 0.78 1.36 28 Icelinus spp. sculpins 25 0.17 98.02 0.75 1.70 29 Gibbonsia spp. clinid kelpfishes 21 0.15 98.16 0.64 0.67 30 Xystreurys liolepis fantail sole 20 0.14 98.30 0.62 1.53 31 Triphoturus mexicanus Mexican lampfish 19 0.13 98.44 0.62 0.54 32 Hypsypops rubicundus garibaldi 20 0.14 98.58 0.60 1.09 33 Syngnathus spp. pipefishes 20 0.14 98.72 0.58 1.95 34 Menticirrhus undulatus California corbina 14 0.10 98.81 0.46 1.09 35 Atractoscion nobilis white seabass 14 0.10 98.91 0.43 0.92 36 Gobiesocidae clingfishes 12 0.08 98.99 0.39 0.51 37 Semicossyphus pulcher California sheephead 13 0.09 99.09 0.37 1.23 38 Sebastes spp. rockfishes 11 0.08 99.16 0.36 1.64 39 Labrisomidae labrisomid kelpfishes 9 0.06 99.23 0.29 0.54 40 Stenobrachius leucopsarus northern lampfish 9 0.06 99.29 0.27 0.49 41 Peprilus simillimus Pacific butterfish 7 0.05 99.34 0.26 2.28 42 Paralichthyidae lefteye flounders&sanddab! 8 0.06 99.39 0.26 0.43 43 Hippoglossina stomata bigmouth sole 7 0.05 99.44 0.24 0.64 44 Umbrina roncador yellowfin croaker 7 0.05 99.49 0.22 0.56 45 Ruscarius creaseri rouchcheek sculpin 6 0.04 99.53 0.19 0.50 46 Symphurus atricauda California tonguefish 6 0.04 99.57 0.18 1.29 47 Coryphopterus nicholsi blackeye goby 5 0.03 99.61 0.16 0.40 48 Diaphus theta California headlight fish 5 0.03 99.64 0.16 0.45 49 Haemulidae. grunts 5 0.03 99.68 0.16 0.67 50 Merluccius productus Pacific hake 5 0.03 99.71 0.15 1.04 51 Myctophidae lanternfishes 4 0.03 99.74 0.14 0.46 52 Halichoeres semicinctus rock wrasse 3 0.02 99.76 0.11 1.00 53 Etrumeus teres round herring 3 0.02 99.78 0.10 0.65 54 Medialuna californiensis halfmoon 3 0.02 99.80 0.09 0.63 55 Labridae wrasses 2 0.01 99.82 0.07 0.83 56 Lythrypnus spp. gobies 3 0.02 99.84 0.07 0.83 57 Cottidae sculpins 2 0.01 99.85 0.06 0.39 58 Kyphosidae sea chubs 2 0.01 99.87 0.06 0.77 59 Oxylebius pictus painted greenling 2 0.01 99.88 0.06 0.38 60 Hexagrammidae greenlings 2 0.01 99.90 0.06 0.37 (table continued) AES HBGS Entrainment and Impingement Study, Final Report 43 Table 4-3 (continued). Larval fishes collected during 12 source water surveys from September 2003 through August 2004. Sample totals and mean densities were calculated from all seven stations, which includes entrainment Station E. Mean Sample Percent of Cumulative Density Density Taxon Common Name Count Total Percent (#/1000m3) Std.Error 61 Artedius lateralis smoothhead sculpin 1 0.01 99.90 0.04 0.48 62 Girella nigricans opaleye 1 0.01 99.91 0.04 0.47 63 Anisotremus davidsonil sargo 1 0.01 99.92 0.04 0.44 64 Scorpaenichthys marmoratus cabezon 1 0.01 99.92 0.04 0.42 65 Parophrys vetulus English sole 1 0.01 99.93 0.03 0.40 66 Aulorhynchus flavidus tubesnout 1 0.01 99.94 0.03 0.39 67 Zaniolepis spp. combfishes 1 0.01 99.94 0.03 0.36 68 Artedius spp. sculpins 1 0.01 99.95 0.03 0.34 69 Pleuronectiformes flatfishes 1 0.01 99.96 0.03 0.33 70 Agonidae poachers 1 0.01 99.97 0.03 0.33 71 Scorpaenidae scorpionfishes 1 0.01 99.97 0.03 0.32 72 Chaenopsidae tube blennies 1 0.01 99.98 0.03 0.31 73 Scombridae mackerels&tunas 1 0.01 99.99 0.02 0.27 74 Clupeiformes herrings and anchovies 1 0.01 99.99 0.02 0.26 75 Pomacentridae damselfishes 1 0.01 100.00 0.02 0.22 14,328 460.52 larvae,unidentified yolksac unidentified yolksac larvae 168 5.08 3.44 larval fish fragment unidentified larval fishes 87 2.60 1.07 larval/post-larval fish unid. larval fishes 43 1.46 0.95 larval fish-damaged unidentified larval fishes 1 0.03 0.39 299 9.17 Table 4-4. Larval fishes collected at source water stations other than entrainment Station E from September 2003 through August 2004. Taxon name Common Name Anisotremus davidsoni sargo Artedius lateralis smoothhead sculpin Artedius spp. sculpins Aulorhynchus flavidus tubesnout Chaenopsidae tube blennies Chromis punctipinnis blacksmith Clupeiformes herrings and anchovies Etrumeus teres round herring Girella nigricans opaleye Gobiesocidae clingfishes Hexagrammidae greenlings Hippoglossina stomata bigmouth sole Icelinus spp. sculpins Kyphosidae sea chubs Labridae wrasses Lythrypnus spp. gobies Ophidiidae cusk-eels Parophrys vetulus English sole Pomacentridae damselfishes Scorpaenichthys marmoratus cabezon Sebastes spp. rockfishes Xystreurys liolepis fantail sole Zaniolepis spp. combfishes 44 AES HBGS Entrainment and Impingement Study, Final Report Table 4-5. Larval invertebrates (target taxa) collected during 12 source water surveys from September 2003 through August 2004. Sample totals and mean densities were calculated from all seven stations, which includes entrainment Station E. We-an Sample Percent of Cumulative Density Density Taxon Common Name Count Total Percent (#/1000m3) Std.Error Emerita analoga (zoea) mole crabs-larva 5,476 94.54 94.54 173.26 109.94 Cancergracilis(megalops) slender crab 107 1.85 96.39 3.48 2.50 Cancer anthonyi(megalops) yellow crab 106 1.83 98.22 3.41 3.72 Cancer antennarius (megalops) brown rock crab 92 1.59 99.81 2.96 2.75 Cancerspp. (megalops) cancer crabs 4 0.07 99.88 0.11 0.32 Cancer productus (megalops) red rock crab 3 0.05 99.93 0.10 0.43 Cancer spp. cancer crabs 3 0.05 99.98 0.09 0.64 Panulirus interruptus (puerulus) California spiny lobster 1 0.02 100.00 0.03 0.34 5,792 183.44 2400 2200 2000 a� E 1800 U L 1600 0 U O 1400 0 0 1200 c 1000 0 co 800 c c 600 0 U 400 200 i 1 r 01-Sep 01-Nov 01-Jan 01-Mar 01-May 01-Jul 01-Sep 2003 2003 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 Survey Figure 4-5. Mean concentrations (#/1000 m3) and standard error for all larval fishes collected at seven source water stations (D2, D4, E, U2, U4, 02, 04) from September 2003 through August 2004. AES HBGS Entrainment and lmpinpement Study Final Report 45 l4). �? September 2003 CIQ goby complex Northern anchovy e�vr�'zs:vcxc7x ae,tc� i°{i White croaker ...... .......... �+�± z s S� F as f. _i u� -no. r I it C�..iz dE• y _-t 10 Y tttt { INTAIff mE' T,71 }� n. +; ti''«, 7.n mrX, hM•y i,Heyh-1 1) ro ...1'V.�r.iUo ti A J• n 4... -�'v�. r� �TO WER� I4' • f. ' u' O4 77 Y; & P Y l B) a, �� October 2003 t ^ , 4�>' CIQ goby complex to �� I Northern anchovy .J117 1 rCITON scar +i� White croaker �F .rt 'T.an tooD � 1 iia t t i u t INTAFff'+E { cat � ,o —, �.5fEMQ u T, a LQ2 {{ wJ f lk ntntG {'.a.V}:-i'Hc yh':i y:•.1 71 '.7LfC}F A sl 4 'T TOV:It A EA a .{ I aE•jy lr3 h9.'iE Figure 4-6. Concentrations (# per 1000 m) of larval CIQ gobies, northern anchovy, and white croaker at entrainment and source water stations in a) September 2003 and b) October 2003.Abundances are plotted on a logarithmic scale. 46 AES HBGS Entrainment and Impingement Study. Final Report 41 November 2003 CIQ goby complex Northern anchovy C 'U tttr'r r ivGTON peke 7F+ White croaker r, + rart_ v t� - tmo F 4s - it �. 51nnv, 1U2 rk ,Au-, au OD tao � J F � tit �:'S, rnur; he:,�'1'Hd til83 t r" 0,0,4 17 tF C..ti. f € 97tC ems' a ,,. December 2003 CIQ goby complex rr; Northern anchovy r.,,,Y `- , iva+� Ecvrrttv+� x B6scx +r white croaker F 4a •� �� I � ^T y�r ' J •rl th ip N. „t. .rE 56 r li4T a r•v rrM +^? - +E INTAif IE" .. tao 1? ^•?* ?, '+R tf«J ,R1',/ �,'*,� ��:. h...'„'F H It.v �/. n o 41D4� n EN �:..Is ' 4� ip�X A u 1304 -� !` AN 4s h3- it+-i Figure 4-7. Concentrations (# per 1000 m) of larval CIQ gobies, northern anchovy, and white croaker at entrainment and source water stations in a) November 2003 and b) December 2003.Abundances are plotted on a logarithmic scale. AES HBGS Entrainment and Impingement Study, Final Report 47 1 4 p• A� A January 2004 0 CIQ goby complex Northern anchovy tJ4 ttveT►vcTox s6ac p�+ White croaker F as`" 4U2 ' 4� /r Ins INtAFff'*" „r 2 0 CIP •` o a 4'13 DA' try ® 11304 Q, 17 �nC February 2004 CIQ goby complex U4 ,�, Northern anchovy tivart N'TC+x BEAC 1 White croaker .. - to c •` , tttt INTAKE'IE" % 13DZ 52 2 I.'HNIA f d F• 't.11• 1',J f 5 W,-T 4 F D4 r fir• , Y 1304 Figure 4-8. Concentrations (# per 1000 m) of larval CIQ gobies, northern anchovy, and white croaker at entrainment and source water stations in a)January 2004 and b) February 2004.Abundances are plotted on a logarithmic scale. 48 AES HBGS Entrainment and Impingement Study, Final Report 4 t L March 2004 CIQ goby complex Northern anchovy �Ltf'r�a U4 ttLt[YTIYC?UN S6AC ;r 5: White croaker rr.: at rri. ,aoa £: '¢:1114 fi u ;Sou ' tia .. Y IHBI -- A� a r` tJCL c�,l . low " AL92 INTAKE'e .. y.. 7 tw�� �'.. MWER lo J obi L}TSA is as TPtS�.`'"`. 4?: a ' April 2004 ' CIQ goby complex e; ,o Northern anchovy �lUa� Ltr rroN sac ;Y ® White croaker 51 � 1 L +, a' 1 x SEu?. fps IN KE low r: r 3. al l r -,,Olt A 1' z' 104 r 17 7. Figure 4-9. Concentrations (# per 1000 m) of larval CIQ gobies, northern anchovy, and white croaker at entrainment and source water stations in a) March 2004 and b)April 2004. Abundances are plotted on a logarithmic scale. AES HBGS Entrainment and Impingement Study, Final Report 49 � �4, May 2004 CIQ goby complex ,o Northern anchovy U, tvcxcx s6ec �;1s White croaker s,' �•—• arr�t r 74 � f•" F' I � l•• d3i l H y",r t k c z At R INtAAKE`c" 13 �2 k WO ® 04 17 41 June 2004 CIQ goby complex • ,o Northern anchovy emu, T.Wrj-4�Grox BZ4C { White croaker 51 F as I Aw INTAItE`+E" �•. .,aao ( r 13 2 too °! FI �...; >rep:, F•t ""'�,. tu,p , a• � r Pt3ftT AY �6 1304 �. '1 a, 41, � y Figure 4-10. Concentrations (# per 1000 m) of larval CIQ gobies, northern anchovy, and white croaker at entrainment and source water stations in a) May 2004 and b) June 2004. Abundances are plotted on a logarithmic scale. 50 AES HBGS Entrainment and Impingement Study, Final Report 41 July 2004 CIQ goby complex `yo Northern anchovy t q'du sxrr�x��ox s�tr ���r White croaker 5 x d ASS ' tF' Y•to 4,' . ID2 'V 0N ,OP +jam• 'v:' '1Y fE✓1 f\F :`C�l'hI3 .,. s 1 04 ,..; UT�T A 3 17 � 4y� „ August 2004 ' CIQ goby complex Northern anchovy �' U4 tcv x Stag white croaker r � r 1�7 r�: fit?, ws z r bj I, Y IRS, its Gl; I INTAKf Ok -3 2 a< ''POR A I. 04 e ' a Figure 4-11. Concentrations (# per 1000 m) of larval CIQ gobies, northern anchovy, and white croaker at entrainment and source water stations in a)July 2004 and b)August 2004. Abundances are plotted on a logarithmic scale. i AES HBGS Entrainment and Impingement Study, Final Report 51 4.3.3 Individual Species Results 4.3.3.1 Unidentified Gobies: CIQ Goby Complex (Clevelandia, llypnus, and Quietula) The family Gobiidae is the largest family of marine fishes, comprised of about 1,875 species in 212 genera (Nelson 1994, Moser 1996). In the CaICOFI study area (from northern California to southern Baja California), 21 species in 16 genera have been collected (Moser 1996). In southern California, 14 species of gobies occur in nearshore waters, and 11 are considered common (Miller and Lea 1972). Tidewater goby (Eucyclogobius newberryl) is listed as federally endangered, but is not known to occur in the Huntington Beach area. The nearest known populations of tidewater gobies to HBGS are in Malibu Creek(Los Angeles County) and in San Mateo Lagoon (San Diego County) (Swift, pers. comm. 2002; Gutierrez 2003). Longtail goby (Ctenogobius sagittula) is considered rare in southern California (Miller and Lea 1972), and prior to 1998 was not collected in California since the early 1900s. However, during the warm-water years of 1997-98, several longtail gobies were collected in southern California, including in Newport Bay and Long Beach Harbor(Lea and Rosenblatt 2000). Larval gobiids are distinctive and unlikely to be confused with other larval fishes in the CalCOFI study area. However, positive identification of larval gobies to the species level remains difficult. Three species cannot be differentiated with certainty during early larval stages: arrow goby (Clevelandia ios), cheekspot goby (llypnus gilberti), and shadow goby (Quietula y-cauda) (Moser 1996). All three of these species are considered common in southern California (Miller and Lea 1972), and arrow goby is known to occur in Talbert Marsh (Gorman et al. 1990). These three species were combined into the CIQ goby complex for analysis. The larvae of arrow goby, cheekspot goby, shadow goby, longjaw mudsucker (Gillichthys mirabilis), and yellowfin goby (Acanthogobius flavimanus) were collected in nearby Upper Newport Bay from 1997 to 1999 (MBC 1999). Juvenile or adult arrow goby, bay goby (Lepidogobius lepidus), longjaw mudsucker, yellowfin goby, and cheekspot goby were also collected from Upper Newport Bay (MBC 1999). Descriptions of the life histories of arrow, cheekspot, and shadow goby were compiled by Brothers (1975) and were used to parameterize the models used in the following analysis. Habitat Requirements Most adult gobies are small (<10 cm) and inhabit bays, estuaries, lagoons, and nearshore open coastal waters (Allen 1985, Moser 1996). Marine gobies occupy a variety of habitats, including mudflats and reefs. Many of the soft-bottom species live in burrows. In southern California, arrow gobies use the burrows constructed by bay ghost shrimp (Neotrypaea californiensis)to flee predators or to escape aerial exposure at low tides (Brothers 1975). Shadow gobies construct burrows that are usually near eelgrass (Zostera marina) or below mats of Ova 52 AES HBGS Entrainment and Impingement Study, Final Report or Enteromorpha. The cheekspot goby also constructs burrows as a refuge from predators, to escape aeration, and as a brood site for eggs guarded by the male. Bay gobies are typically found on the middle and outer shelf(Allen et al. 2002) and are also common in the Los Angeles- Long Beach Harbor complex (MBC 2002a, b). Reproduction Arrow gobies mature at one year, but cheekspot and shadow gobies mature at about three years (Brothers 1975). Gobies are oviparous, and the demersal eggs are elliptical, typically adhesive, and about 2-4 mm long (Moser 1996). Parental care of the nests is common, though the arrow goby does not guard its nest. Primary spawning activity of arrow goby occurs from March through June (Prasad 1958). Protracted spawning is likely in arrow, shadow, and cheekspot gobies (Brothers 1975). High abundances of arrow goby larvae in southern California were seen from March to September corresponding to the timing of settlement (Brothers 1975). Settlement of shadow and cheekspot goby occurs in late summer and early fall (Brothers 1975). Age and Growth The arrow goby grows faster than the cheekspot and shadow goby (Brothers 1975). After maturity, however, the growth rate in the arrow goby levels off. Shadow and cheekspot gobies settle at smaller sizes and grow more slowly, but the growth rate is relatively constant for their entire life. Shadow and cheekspot gobies live up to four years, while arrow goby rarely live longer than three years. In southern California, arrow gobies reach maximum lengths of 32 mm, shadow gobies reach 40 mm, and cheekspot 46 mm (Brothers 1975). Brothers (1975) estimated that the population mortality of arrow gobies in Mission Bay following settlement was 91% in the first year and nearly 99% thereafter. He also calculated that the annual mortality rates after settlement were 66-74% for cheekspot gobies, and 62-69% for shadow gobies. CIQ goby larvae hatch at a size of 2-3 mm (Moser 1996). Using data available in Brothers (1975), the average growth rate of this group was estimated at 0.16 mm/day for the 60- day period from hatching until settlement. Brothers (1975) estimated that larval mortality for this period was 98.3% for arrow gobies, 98.6% for cheekspot, and 99.2% for shadow. Based on the total mortality for this period average daily survival was calculated at 0.93 for the three species. Juveniles settle to the bottom at a size of about 10-15 mm SL (Moser 1996) Population Trends and Fishery There is no known recreational or commercial goby fishery in southern California. No population estimates or trends are available for southern California gobies. Densities of arrow goby have been reported for two locations within 22 km of the HBGS. During the final year of a five-year monitoring project, MBC (2003) reported seasonal densities of 0.72 to 4.53 AES HBGS Entrainment and Impingement Study. Final Report 53 • _ individuals/m2 at the Golden Shore Marine Reserve. The study site was a created wetland at the mouth of the Los Angeles River. At Anaheim Bay, MacDonald (1975) reported densities of arrow goby of 4 to 5 individuals/m2, though investigation of individual burrows resulted in much higher densities(up to 20 fishes per m2). Sampling Results The CIQ goby complex larvae were the most abundant taxon collected during this study from both the entrainment and source water stations, comprising 37% of the total larvae collected (Tables 4-1 and 4-3). CIQ gobies were abundant at the entrainment station throughout the sampling period but were in highest abundance during July (Figure 4-12a). Mean abundance in the source water samples was greatest in the September survey and lowest during the November survey (Figure 4-12b). The source water stations weren't sampled during the July survey when the highest abundances occurred at the entrainment station. The number and density of larval CIQ gobies collected during each entrainment and source water survey is presented in Appendix B. The length frequency distribution of measured CIQ gobies (Figure 4-13) illustrates that the majority of the larvae were recently hatched based on the reported hatch length of 2-3 mm (Moser 1996). The mean, maximum, and minimum sizes for the measurements were 3.8, 19.2, and 1.9 mm, respectively. A larval growth rate of 0.16 mm/day was estimated from Brothers (1975) using his reported transformation lengths for the three species and an estimated transformation age of 60 days. The difference in the lengths of the first (1.9 mm) and 95th (7.4 mm) percentiles of the measurements was used with the larval growth rate to estimate that the larvae were exposed to entrainment for a period of 34.4 days. Impact Assessment The following sections present the results for demographic and empirical transport modeling of the effects of the HBGS circulating water system. A comprehensive comparative study of the three goby species in the CIQ complex by Brothers (1975) provided the necessary life history information for both the FH and AEL demographic models. Total entrainment was estimated at approximately 113 million larvae for the period of September 2003 through August 2004. The estimated mean entrainment per survey was variable, ranging from zero to about 490 CIQ goby larvae per 1,000 m3 (Figure 4-12a). Fecundity Hindcasting (FM The entrainment estimate for CIQ gobies for the September 2003 through August 2004 study period was used to estimate the number of breeding females needed to produce the 54 AES HBGS Entrainment and Impingement StudV, Final Report number of larvae entrained (Table 4-1). No estimates of egg survival for gobies were available, but because egg masses in gobies are demersal (Wang 1981) and parental care, usually provided by the adult male, is common in the family (Moser 1996), egg survival is probably high and was assumed to be 100 percent. Estimates of larval survival for the three species from Brothers (1975) were used to estimate an average daily survival of 0.93. Survival to the average age at entrainment (11.6 days)was then estimated as 0.93116 = 0.44. An average batch fecundity estimate of 615 eggs was based on calculations from Brothers (1975) on size-specific fecundities for the three species. Brothers (1975) found eggs with two to three different vitellogenic stages in the ovaries. Therefore, an estimate of 2.5 spawns per year was used in calculating FH (615 eggs/spawn times 2.5 spawns/year= 1,538 eggs/year). Average ages of maturity and longevity of 1.0 and 3.3 years, respectively, from Brothers (1975) for the three species were used in the model. The estimated number of adult females whose lifetime reproductive output was entrained through the HBGS circulating water system for the September 2003 — August 2004 study period was 101,269 (Table 4-6). The results show that the variation in our estimate of entrainment had much less of an effect on the range of the FH estimate than the life history parameters used in the model. Table 4-6. Results of FH modeling for CIQ goby complex larvae entrained during the September 2003—August 2004 sampling period. The upper and lower estimates are based on a 90% confidence interval of the mean. The upper and lower estimates for total entrainments were calculated by using the range of entrainment estimates in the FH calculations. FH FH Std. Lower Upper FH Parameter Estimate Error Estimate Estimate Range FH 101,269 89,398 23,703 432,662 408,959 Total Entrainment 113,166,834 19,372,798 72,751 129,787 57,035 Adult Equivalent Loss (AEL) The parameters required for calculating AEL include larval survival from entrainment to settlement and survival from settlement to the average age of reproduction for a mature female. Larval survival from mean age at entrainment through settlement was estimated as 0.9360-11.6 = 0.03 using the same daily survival rate used in formulating FH. Brothers (1975) estimated that mortality in the first year following settlement was 99 percent for arrow, 66-74 percent for cheekspot, and 62-69 percent for shadow goby. These estimates were used to calculate a daily survival of 0.995 that was used to estimate a finite survival of 0.21 for the first year following AES HBGS Entrainment and Impingement Study, Final Report 55 settlement. Daily survival through the average female age of 1.71 years from life table data for the three species (Brothers 1975) was estimated as 0.994 and was used to calculate a finite survival of 0.195. The estimated number of larvae entrained through the HBGS circulating water system for the September 2003 - August 2004 study period was used to calculate an estimate of 147,493 equivalent adults (Table 4-7). The results show that the variation in our estimate of entrainment had much less of an effect on the variation of the AEL estimate than the life history parameters used in the model. If all of our life history parameters and assumptions regarding lifetime fecundity were accurate the AEL estimate should approximately equal twice the FH estimate. The results show that 2-FH is approximately 35% greater than the AEL estimate, but is within the range of the 90% confidence interval around the estimate. Table 4-7. Results of AEL modeling for CIQ goby complex larvae entrained during the September 2003-August 2004 sampling period. The upper and lower estimates are based on a 90% confidence interval of the mean. The upper and lower estimates for total entrainments were calculated by using the range of entrainment estimates in the AEL calculations. AEL AEL Lower Upper AEL Parameter Estimate Std. Error Estimate Estimate Range AEL 147,493 167,545 22,763 955,676 932,913 Total Entrainment 113,166,834 19,372,798 105,958 189,027 83,069 Empirical Transport Model (ETM) The larval duration used to calculate the ETM estimates for CIQ gobies was based on the difference between the lengths of the 1st (1.9 mm) and 95th (7.4 mm) percentiles and a growth rate of 0.16 mm/day. These values were used to estimate that CIQ goby larvae were vulnerable to entrainment for a period of approximately 34 days. The PE estimates used to calculate ETM estimates for CIQ gobies for the September 2003-August 2004 ranged from 0.0003 to 0.006 (Table 4-8). The average PE was very close to the ratio of the entrainment volume to source water volume of 0.0021. The values of f show that the highest numbers of CIQ goby larvae were collected during the August 2004 survey. The values in the table were used to calculate two PM estimates: one based on alongshore current movement, and the other based on alongshore current movement and an extrapolation of densities offshore to a distance bounded by either the extrapolated densities or onshore current movement. These two estimates of PM were identical for CIQ gobies because the densities 56 AES HBGS Entrainment and Impingement Study, Final Report decreased with increasing distance offshore resulting in an extrapolated density of zero that was inside the limits of the sampling area (Table 4-9). Therefore the Ps estimate for the extrapolated offshore PM was calculated with only alongshore current displacement; the same data used for the alongshore estimate. The estimate of PM for the 34-day period of exposure was 0.0099 (0.99%) over an area that was estimated to extend 60.9 km alongshore. Table 4-8. ETM data for CIQ goby complex larvae. ETM calculations based on sampling grid volume of 908,157,859 m3, and daily circulating water volume of 1,919,204 m3. Average PE estimate calculated from all surveys with PE> 0. Survey PE PE f; Date Estimate Std. Error f; Std. Error 17-Sep-03 0.00248 0.00250 0.09340 0.06636 13-Oct-03 0.00138 0.00217 0.15955 0.10306 10-Nov-03 0.00115 0.00245 0.00218 0.00179 8-Dec-03 0.00034 0.00054 0.07560 0.07003 5-Jan-04 0.00264 0.00380 0.03845 0.02670 9-Feb-04 0.00069 0.00073 0.06557 0.05367 8-Mar-04 0.00138 0.00191 0.09670 0.08870 5-Apr-04 0.00417 0.00549 0.01810 0.01134 3-May-04 0.00381 0.00307 0.09705 0.05630 1-Jun-04 0.00156 0.00178 0.05763 0.04882 12-Jul-04 0.00608 0.00901 0.10986 0.08383 31-Aug-04 0.00185 0.00237 0.18591 0.18621 Average= 0.00229 Table 4-9. Average Ps values and ETM estimates for alongshore current and offshore extrapolated models for CIQ gobies. Current displacement (km) for alongshore extrapolation included in parentheses with estimate of Ps for alongshore estimate of PM. Average Ps ETM Estimate ETM Upper Lower Parameter (displacement) (PM) Std. Err. 95%CI 95%CI Alongshore Current 0.1714(60.9) 0.00993 0.29534 0.30527 0 Offshore Extrapolated 0.1714 0.00993 0.29534 0.30527 0 AES HBGS Entrainment and Impingement Study Final Report 57 1200 TV 1000 900 800 700 L 600 500 E 400 U 300 200 ll !1 ll U 100 _ 00 C) 01-Sep 01-Nov 01-Jan 01-Mar 01-May 01-Jul 01-Sep C) 2003 2003 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 T_ Survey it- 0 600 FB) C6 550 L -1-0 500 V 450 400 U 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0LIM 01-Sep 01-Nov 01-Jan 01-Mar 01-May 01-Jul 01-Sep 2003 2003 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 Survey Figure 4-12. Survey mean concentration (#/1000 m) of CIQ goby larvae collected at the HBGS entrainment (A) and source water (B) stations with standard error indicated (+1 SE). Note that the Y-axis range is different on the two graphs. 58 AES HBGS Entrainment and Impingement StudV, Final Report 60 N=213 Mean= 3.8 50 40 U L 4) d 30 20 10 0 0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 &0 10.0 12.0 14.0 16.0 16.0 20.0 Midpoint for Length Category(mm) Figure 4-13. Length frequency distribution (mm) of CIQ goby larvae collected from the HBGS entrainment station from September 2003 through August 2004. AES HBGS Entrainment and Impingement Study, Final Report 59 4.3.3.2 Northern Anchovy(Engraulis mordax) Northern anchovy (Engraulis mordax Girard 1854) range from Cape San Lucas, Baja California to Queen Charlotte Island, British Columbia, and offshore to 480 km (Hart 1973). They are most common from Magdalena Bay, Baja California to San Francisco Bay and within 157 km of shore (Hart 1973, MBC 1987). Northern anchovy is one of four species of anchovies (Family Engraulidae) that occurs off California (Miller and Lea 1972). Deepbody anchovy (Anchoa compressa) and slough anchovy (Anchoa delicatissima) are found in the vicinity of the HBGS, while the anchoveta (Cetengraulis mysticetus) is considered rare north of Magdalena Bay, Baja California. Three genetically distinct subpopulations are recognized for northern anchovy; (1) Northern subpopulation, from northern California to British Columbia; (2) Central subpopulation, off southern California and northern Baja California; and (3) Southern subpopulation, off southern Baja California (Emmett et al. 1991). Habitat Requirements The reported depth range of northern anchovy is from the surface to depths of 300 m (984 ft) (PFMC 1983). Juveniles are generally more common inshore and in estuaries. Eggs are found from the surface to 50 m, and larvae are found from the surface to 75 m in epipelagic and neritic waters (Garrison and Miller 1982). Northern anchovy larvae feed on dinoflagellates, rotifers, and copepods (MBC 1987). Juveniles and adults feed on zooplankton, including planktonic crustaceans and fish larvae (Fitch and Lavenberg 1971, Frey 1971, Hart 1973, PFMC 1983). Northern anchovy feed largely during the night, though they were previously thought to feed during the day (Allen and DeMartini 1983). Reproduction Northern anchovy spawn throughout the year off southern California, with peak spawning between February and May (Brewer 1978). Most spawning takes place within 100 km from shore (MBC 1987). On average, female anchovies off Los Angeles spawn every 7 to 10 days during peak spawning periods, approximately 20 times per year (Hunter and Macewicz 1980, MBC 1987). In 1979, it was determined that most spawning occurs at night (2100 to 0200 hr), with spawning complete by 0600 hr (Hunter and Macewicz 1980). Northern anchovies off southern and central California can reach sexual maturity by the end of their first year of life, with all individuals being mature by four years of age (Clark and Phillips 1952, Daugherty et al. 1955, Hart 1973). Bergen and Jacobsen (2001) stated that they are mature by two years of age, and that maturation of younger individuals is dependent on water temperature. Love (1996) reported 60 AES HBGS Entrainment and Impingement Study, Final Report that they release 2,700-16,000 eggs per batch, with an annual fecundity of up to 130,000 eggs per year in southern California. Parrish et al. (1986) and Butler et al. (1993) stated that the total annual fecundity for one-year old females was 20,000-30,000 eggs, while a five-year old could release up to 320,000 eggs per year. Age and Growth The northern anchovy egg hatches in two to four days, has a larval phase lasting approximately 70 days, and undergoes transformation into a juvenile at about 35-40 mm (Hart 1973, MBC 1987, Moser 1996). Larvae begin schooling at 11 to 12 mm SL (Hunter and Coyne 1982). Northern anchovy reach 102 mm in their first year, and 119 in their second (Sakagawa and Kimura 1976). Growth in length is most rapid during the first four months, and growth in weight is most rapid during the first year (Hunter and Macewicz 1980, PFMC 1983). They mature at 78 to 140 mm in length, in their first or second year (Frey 1971, Hunter and Macewicz 1980). Maximum size is about 230 mm and 60 g (Fitch and Lavenberg 1971, Eschmeyer et al. 1983). Maximum age is about seven years (Hart 1973), though most live less than four years (Fitch and Lavenberg 1971). General Ecology Northern anchovy are random planktonic feeders, filtering plankton as they swim (Fitch and Lavenberg 1971). They feed mostly on larval crustaceans, but also on fish eggs and larvae (Fitch and Lavenberg 1971). Temperatures above 25°C are avoided by juveniles and adults (Brewer 1974). Numerous fishes and marine mammals feed on northern anchovy. Elegant tern and California brown pelican production is strongly correlated with abundance of northern anchovy (Emmett et al. 1991). Larval survival is strongly influenced by the availability and density of appropriate phytoplankton species (Emmett et al. 1991). Storms and strong upwelling reduce larval food availability, and strong upwelling may transport larvae out of the Southern California Bight(Power 1986). However, strong upwelling may benefit juveniles and adults. Population Trends and Fishery Northern anchovy are fished commercially for reduction (e.g., fish meal, oil, and paste) and live bait (Bergen and Jacobsen 2001). This species is the most important bait fish in southern California, and is also used in Oregon and Washington as bait for sturgeon (Acipenser spp.), salmonids (Oncorhynchus spp.), and other species (Emmett et al. 1991). Northern anchovy populations increased dramatically during the collapse of the Pacific sardine (Sardinops sagax) fishery, suggesting competition between these two species (Smith 1972). AES HBGS Entrainment and Impingement Study, Final Report 61 Estimates of the central subpopulation averaged about 359,000 tons from 1963 through 1972, then increased to over 1.7 million tons in 1974, then declined to 359,000 tons in 1978 (Bergen and Jacobsen 2001). Anchovy biomass in 1994 was estimated at 432,000 tons. The stock is thought to be stable, and the size of the anchovy resource is largely dependent on natural influences such as ocean temperature. In the seven commercial Catch Blocks off Huntington Beach, northern anchovy were reported in landings from five blocks from 1999 through 2001 (CDFG 2002). Maximum annual landings in Catch Block 738 by weight were in 2000 (782,707 Ibs worth $32,760). During the three-year period 1999-2001, northern anchovy were among the top five species landed (by weight) in all five blocks. Sampling Results Engraulidae larvae (over 95% northern anchovy) were the second most abundant taxon at the entrainment station and source water stations during the September 2003 through August 2004 sampling period (Tables 4-1 and 4-3). The larvae that were identified as Engraulidae, and not northern anchovy, were either very small or damaged specimens and could not be identified beyond the family level. The estimated mean entrainment per survey was variable, ranging from zero to almost 400 larvae per 1,000 m3 with high abundances in May, June and July (Figure 4-14a). Highest mean abundances of larvae sampled in the source water occurred in June 2004 (about 320 larvae per 1000 m), while abundances were low in January and February 2004 (Figure 4-12b). The number and density of larval northern anchovies collected during each entrainment and source water survey is presented in Appendix B. The length frequency distribution of measured northern anchovy larvae show a bimodal distribution with approximately 20% being recently hatched larvae based on the reported hatch length of 2-3 mm (Moser 1996) and a large number of larger larvae ranging from 8-16 mm (Figure 4-15). The mean, maximum, and minimum sizes for the measurements were 10.6, 26.2, and 1.4 mm, respectively. A larval growth rate of 0.49 mm/day was estimated from Methot and Kramer(1979) and used with the difference in the lengths of the first(1.7 mm) and 95th (20.2 mm) percentiles of the measurements to estimate that the larvae were exposed to entrainment for a period of approximately 38 days. Impact Assessment The following sections present the results for demographic and empirical transport modeling of circulating water system effects on northern anchovy larvae. Total entrainment was estimated at 54.3 million larvae for the study period. 62 AES HBGS Entrainment and Impingement Study, Final Report Fecundity Hindcasting (FH) The entrainment estimate for northern anchovy for the September 2003 — August 2004 sampling period was used to estimate the number of breeding females needed to produce the estimated number of larvae entrained (Table 4-10). Butler et al. (1993) modeled annual fecundity and egg and larval survivorship for northern anchovy. Their "best' estimate can be derived by fitting the range of mortality estimates from field collections to the assumption of a stable and stationary population age structure. Instantaneous daily mortality estimates from Butler et al. (1993) were converted, over their average stage durations, to finite survivorship rates for each developmental stage. Egg survival for the period of 2.9 days was estimated as 0.51 using an instantaneous mortality rate of 0.23 from Butler et al. (1993). Fishes at the mean age of entrainment include yolk sac, early, and late stage larvae. Therefore, survival estimates for all three stages were combined to obtain a finite survival value up to the mean age at entrainment (18.3 days) of 0.015. Clark and Phillips (1952) reported age at sexual maturity as 1-2 years. Similarly, Bergen and Jacobsen (2001) report that 47 to 100 percent of one-year olds may be mature in a given year while all are mature by two years. For modeling purposes we used a mid-value of 1.5 years. For longevity, Hart (1973) reports a value of seven years, but Bergen and Jacobsen (2001) state that northern anchovy in the fished population rarely exceed four years of age. A value of four years was used to represent the most likely reproductive life span. The reproductive life span was used to estimate an average annual fecundity of 147,622 over the four-year period using the data presented in Butler et al. (1993). The estimated number of adult female northern anchovies whose lifetime reproductive output was entrained through the HBGS circulating water system for the September 2003 — August 2004 study period was 26,745 (Table 4-10). The results show that the variation in our estimate of entrainment had much less of an effect on the variation of the FH estimate than the life history parameters used in the model. Table 4-10. Results of FH modeling for northern anchovy larvae entrained during the September 2003-August 2004 sampling period. The upper and lower estimates are based on a 90% confidence interval of the mean. The upper and lower estimates for total entrainments were calculated by using the range of entrainment estimates in the FH calculations. FH FH Std. Lower Upper FH Parameter Estimate Error Estimate Estimate Range FH 26,745 24,093 6,076 117,715 111,638 Total Entrainment 54,349,017 13,485,655 15,828 37,661 21,833 AES HBGS Entrainment and Impingement Study, Final Report 63 Adult Equivalent Loss (AEL) The larval entrainment estimate for northern anchovy was used to estimate the number of equivalent adults lost to entrainment. Stage-specific instantaneous mortality rates used to compute finite survival were estimated from the life table produced by Butler et al. (1993) in which survivorship from larvae to recruitment was apportioned into several developmental stages. AEL was estimated for the average age of sexually mature females (2.75 years; midpoint between 1.5 and 4 years) used in the FH model estimates. The estimated number of adult northern anchovies equivalent to the number of larvae entrained through the HBGS circulating water system for the one-year study period was 304,125 (Table 4-11). The results show that the variation in our estimate of entrainment had much less of an effect on the variation of the AEL estimate than the life history parameters used in the model. If all of our life history parameters and assumptions regarding lifetime fecundity were accurate the AEL estimate should approximately equal twice the FH estimate. The results show that the range of AEL estimates greatly exceed the FH estimate although the large range of the estimate does encompass the FH estimate. The large range also indicates the high level of uncertainty associated with the life history parameters that are available and used in the model. Table 4-11. Results of AEL modeling for northern anchovy larvae entrained during the September 2003—August 2004 sampling period. The upper and lower estimates are based on a 90% confidence interval of the mean. The upper and lower estimates for total entrainments were calculated by using the range of entrainment estimates in the AEL calculations. AEL AEL Std. Lower Upper AEL Parameter Estimate Error Estimate Estimate Range AEL 304,125 359,787 43,439 2,129,225 2,085,785 Total Entrainment 54,349,017 13,485,655 179,989 428,261 248,273 Empirical Transport Model (ETM) The PE estimates used to calculate ETM for northern anchovies for the September 2003 —August 2004 study period ranged from 0.001 to 0.004 (Table 4-12). The average PE was very close to the ratio of the entrainment volume to source water volume of 0.0021. As shown in the values of f the largest abundance of anchovy larvae were collected during the June 2004 survey. The values in the table were used to calculate two PM estimates: one based on alongshore current movement, and the other based on alongshore current movement and an extrapolation of densities offshore to a distance bounded by either the extrapolated densities or onshore current 64 AES HBGS Entrainment and Impingement Study, Final Report movement. The estimate of PM for the 38-day period of exposure calculated using offshore extrapolated densities (0.007, 0.7%) is less than the estimate calculated using alongshore current displacement (0.012, 1.2%) because of the larger overall volume of the source area calculated due to the offshore extrapolation (Table 4-13). The Ps estimates indicate that the ratio of the sampled source water to the total population for the offshore and alongshore PM estimates were 4.5 and 15.5 percent, respectively. The alongshore estimate of PM was extrapolated over a shoreline distance of 72.0 km. Table 4-12. ETM data for northern anchovy larvae. ETM calculations based on sampling grid volume of 908,157,859 m3, and daily circulating water volume of 1,919,204 m3. Average PE estimate calculated from all surveys with PE> 0. Survey PE PE f; Date Estimate Std. Error f; Std. Error 17-Sep-03 0.00366 0.00465 0.03292 0.03400 13-Oct-03 0.00193 0.00261 0.07234 0.04127 10-Nov-03 0.00148 0.00160 0.03914 0.02047 8-Dec-03 0.00308 0.00393 0.01453 0.01320 5-Jan-04 0.00279 0.00509 0.00852 0.01003 9-Feb-04 0.00150 0.00342 0.00352 0.00391 8-Mar-04 0.00381 0.00727 0.01642 0.01736 5-Apr-04 0.00119 0.00166 0.05654 0.02337 3-May-04 0.00304 0.00348 0.12008 0.06606 1-Jun-04 0.00249 0.00347 0.34788 0.14091 12-Jul-04 0.00246 0.00250 0.23432 0.09584 31-Aug-04 0.00241 0.00335 0.05380 0.02862 Average= 0.00249 Table 4-13. Average Ps values and ETM estimates for alongshore current and offshore extrapolated models for northern anchovy. Current displacement (km) for alongshore extrapolation included in parentheses with estimate of Ps for alongshore estimate of PM. Average Ps ETM Estimate ETM Upper Lower Parameter (displacement) (PM) Std. Err. 95%Cl 95%CI Alongshore Current 0.1450(72.0) 0.01242 0.22369 0.23610 0 Offshore Extrapolated 0.0450 0.00713 0.21241 0.21954 0 AES HBGS Entrainment and Impingement Study, Final Report 65 1200 1100 (A) 1000 900 800 700 600 500 400 Cn 300 200 U100 0 ■ ■ j��.a+ i�iai� �+ ■■ ■�� ■ + ■ ■■ Z v 01-Sep 01-Nov 01-Jan 01-Mar 01-May 01-Jul 01-Sep C) 2003 2003 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 o Survey c :r 480 fis (^\ +`r 440 LKjl1 C U 400 C U 360 320 280 240 200 160 120 80 40 . 0 01-Sep 01-Nov 01-Jan 01-Mar 01-May 01-Jul 01-Sep 2003 2003 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 Survey Figure 4-14. Survey mean concentration (#/1000 m) of northern anchovy larvae collected at the HBGS entrainment (A) and source water (B) stations with standard error indicated (+1 SE). Down arrows indicate surveys when no northern anchovy larvae were collected. 66 AES HBGS Entrainment and Impingement Study, Final Report 30 N=216 Mean= 10.6 25 20 N U i N 15 10 5 0 ■� ■■ _ 0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0 14.0 16.0 18.0 20.0 22.0 24.0 26.0 28.0 30.0 Midpoint for Length Category (mm) Figure 4-15. Length frequency distribution (mm) of northern anchovy larvae collected from the HBGS entrainment station from September 2003 through August 2004. AES HBGS Entrainment and Impingement Study, Final Report 67 4.3.3.3 Spotfin Croaker(Roncador stearnsit) Spotfin croaker(Roncador stearnsii) is a croaker(Family Sciaenidae) common to the San Diegan fauna, which ranges from Mazatlan, Mexico to Point Conception, California, including the Gulf of California and occurs in depths ranging from the surf zone to 17 m (Miller and Lea 1972). Seven species of croaker, in addition to spotfin croaker, are common to the Southern California Bight (SCB). These include white croaker (Genyonemus lineatus), queenfish (Seriphus politus), yellowfin croaker (Umbrina roncador), white seabass (Atractoscion nobilis), California corbina (Menticirrhus undulatus), black croaker (Cheilotrema saturnum), and shortfin corvina (Cynoscion parvipinnis) (Miller and Lea 1972). Two species [orangemouth corvina (Cynoscion xanthulus) and bairdiella (Bairdiella icistia)] are currently believed to be restricted to the Salton Sea, California (Nelson et al. 2004). Individuals from all species common to coastal California waters, except shortfin corvina, have been observed in impingement samples at HBGS since 1979 (MBC 2004). Habitat Requirements Pondella and Allen (2000) noted a predominantly coastal distribution throughout the SCB, indicated by an absence in samples from the California Channel Islands. Allen (1985) indicated spotfin croaker to be a common member of the open-coast, sandy-beach ichthyofauna, with seasonal occurrences in bays and harbors within the SCB. Love et al. (1984) observed spotfin croaker primarily on the 6.1-m (20-ft) isobath over soft-substrate, with diminishing abundances with increasing depth. Limbaugh (1955) reported sporadic occurrences of spotfin croaker in the rocky bottom/kelp bed biotope. Valle and Oliphant (2001) noted spotfin croaker prefer depressions in the sandy bottom in water depths greater than 3 m. Reproduction Spotfin croaker is an oviparous broadcast spawner with pelagic eggs and larvae (Moser 1996). Gonosomatic index (GSI [gonad weight expressed as percent of gonad-free body weight)) peaked for both sexes in June (Miller et al. in prep a), while peak larval abundances were observed from June to September (Moser 1996). Although usually found in small groups (< 5 individuals), observations have been made of large aggregations (> 50 individuals; Feder et al. 1974). Initially thought to migrate offshore to spawn (Valle and Oliphant 2001), recent observations within the SCB indicate an inshore spawning ground, such as Seal Beach, California, based on seasonal fluctuations in catch per unit effort and GSI (Miller et al. in prep a). Within spawning aggregations, gender ratios were significantly skewed towards males with nearly a 10:1 male to female ratio (Miller et al. in prep a). In groups not exhibiting reproductive activity (high GSI), the gender ratio is nearly 1:1 (Miller et al. in prep a). Valle and Oliphant (2001) 68 AES HBGS Entrainment and Impingement Study, Final Report estimated males to mature at two years old and 228.5 mm SL, while females mature, on average, in their third year and 317.4 mm SL. Age and Growth At hatching, spotfin croaker yolk sac larvae are 2.1 mm NIL (notochord length), 5.5 mm NL at flexion, and greater than 11 mm SL (standard length) at transformation (Moser 1996). Miller and Lea (1972) indicate the maximum length for spotfin croaker at 685.8 mm SL. Joseph (1962) observed the maximum age for spotfin croaker at ten years based on scale aging. Spotfin croaker exhibit the greatest growth rate during the first and second year, with a mean increase of 100 mm SL, quickly tapering off to less than 30 mm SL per year after age five (Joseph 1962). No information on variation in growth by gender or mortality estimations is available for spotfin croaker. General Ecology Spotfin croaker feeds primarily on benthic invertebrates commonly found in sandy environments, such as clams and polychaetes, but also mysids (Joseph 1962). This species undergoes seasonal migrations, indicated by individuals tagged near Los Angeles, California and subsequently recaptured near Oceanside, California (Valle and Oliphant 2001). California corbina (Menticirrhus undulatus) is frequently encountered with spotfin croaker, due to the strong similarities in habitat affinities between the two species (Miller et al. in prep a). Within southern California, spotfin croaker populations are historically known to exhibit "runs" (Valle and Oliphant 2001) due to the formation of large aggregations, principally during spawning season (Miller et al. in prep a). Notably absent during the majority of the year near Seal Beach, California, spotfin croaker abundance rises dramatically between April and August, with peaks in abundance typically occurring in June (Miller et al. in prep a). Population Trends and Fishery Spotfin croaker is the least frequently impinged croaker at coastal generating stations within the SCB (Herbinson et al. 2001). Since 1977, four generating stations within the SCB between San Onofre and Redondo Beach have reported spotfin croaker in impingement samples (Herbinson et al. 2001). Based on these impingement samples, spotfin croaker populations in southern California have been low since 1983, although their abundance was less than all other croakers except white seabass (Herbinson et al. 2001). Nearshore gillnet sampling within the SCB has indicated a general rise in abundance, corresponding to a general rise in sea surface temperatures (Miller et al. in prep a). Spotfin croaker has been reserved for recreational angling within California State waters since 1915, with a ban on the use of nets imposed in 1909 and a ban on commercial sale in 1915 AES HBGS Entrainment and Impingement Study, Final Report 69 (Valle and Oliphant 2001). Incidental catches were possible in the nearshore gillnet white seabass fishery, which was closed in 1992 by legislative action. Recreational angling, specifically surf-fishing, continues, as anglers enjoy greater success during periods of dense aggregation, such as spawning periods. Sampling Results Spotfin croaker larvae had the third highest mean density of all taxa collected in the entrainment samples for the study period with a mean density of 53.1 larvae per 1,000 m3 (Table 4-1), but was relatively scarce in the combined source water samples with an overall mean density of only 1.6 larvae per 1000 m3 (Table 4-3). The higher abundance in the entrainment samples resulted from very high concentrations of larvae during a single survey in August 2004 when the mean density was measured at over 1,800 larvae per 1000 m3 (Figure 4-16a). The high, localized larval concentrations substantiate observations of nearshore spawning aggregations of spotfin croaker in summer. Spotfin croaker larvae in the source water samples were absent from September 2003 through April 2004 and were most abundant during August/September 2004 (Figure 4-16b). The number and density of larval spotfin croaker collected during each entrainment and source water survey is presented in Appendix B. The length frequency distribution of measured spotfin croaker larvae show an extremely limited size range dominated by recently hatched larvae based on the reported hatch length of 2.1 mm (Moser 1996) (Figure 4-17). The mean, maximum, and minimum sizes for the measurements were 2.0, 2.5, and 1.3 mm, respectively. A larval growth rate of 0.20 mm/day for white croaker (Murdoch et al. 1989) was used with the difference in the lengths of the first (1.4 mm) and 951h (2.4 mm) percentiles of the measurements to estimate that the larvae were exposed to entrainment for a period of 5 days. Impact Assessment The following sections present the results for empirical transport modeling of entrainment effects on spotfin croaker larvae. Demographic model estimates of entrainment effects were not calculated because of the absence of life history information necessary to parameterize the models. A total of nearly 70 million spotfin croaker larvae was calculated to have been entrained through the HBGS cooling water system during the study. Empirical Transport Model (ETM) Only two PE estimates were calculated for spotfin croaker for the September 2003 — August 2004 study period (Table 4-14). These estimates do not necessarily reflect the actual abundance of spotfin croaker because the highest abundances occurred during surveys when 70 AES HBGS Entrainment and Impingement Study, Final Report only the entrainment station was sampled (Figure 4-16). In addition to the large temporal variation in abundances, during one of the paired entrainment source water surveys the larvae were collected at the source water stations but not at the entrainment station indicating that the larvae may also be patchily distributed. Even though there were only two estimates the average of the two was very close to the ratio of the entrainment volume to source water volume of 0.0021. The two PM estimates, one based on alongshore current movement (0.003, 0.3%) and the other based on alongshore current movement and an extrapolation of densities offshore to a distance bounded by either the extrapolated densities or onshore current movement (0.003, 0.3%) (Table 4-15) are both low reflecting the short period of time (5 days) that the larvae were exposed to entrainment. The alongshore estimate of PM was extrapolated over a shoreline distance of 16.9 km, which was much less than the values for gobies or anchovies due to the shorter period of time the spotfin croaker larvae were exposed to entrainment. Table 4-14. ETM data for spotfin croaker larvae. ETM calculations based on sampling grid volume of 908,157,859 m3, and daily circulating water volume of 1,919,204 m3. Average PE estimate calculated from all surveys with PE>0. Survey PE PE f; Date Estimate Std. Error fi Std. Error 17-Sep-03 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 13-Oct-03 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 10-Nov-03 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 8-Dec-03 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 5-Jan-04 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 9-Feb-04 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 8-Mar-04 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 5-Apr-04 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 3-May-04 0.00361 0.00568 0.16060 0.19528 1-Jun-04 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 12-Jul-04 0.00000 0.00000 0.08960 0.15792 31-Aug-04 0.00046 0.00103 0.74979 0.26538 Average= 0.00204 Table 4-15. Average Ps values and ETM estimates for alongshore current and offshore extrapolated models for spotfin croaker. Current displacement (km) for alongshore extrapolation included in parentheses with estimate of Ps for alongshore estimate of PM. Average Ps ETM Estimate ETM Upper Lower Parameter (displacement) (PM) Std. Err. 95% Cl 95%CI Alongshore Current 0.6163(16.9) 0.00294 0.36785 0.37079 0 Offshore Extrapolated 0.5981 0.00287 0.36778 0.37065 0 AES HBGS Entrainment and Impingement Study, Final Report 71 4800 4400 (A� 4000 3600 3200 2800 L 2400 Q� 2000 1600 V 1200 .� 800 (� 400 0 0 i 0 01-Sep 01-Nov 01-Jan 01-Mar 01-May 01-Jul 01-Sep 0 2003 2003 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 Survey 0 24 + \�/ (� 22 L 1--r 20 U 1s 16 0 U 14 12 10 8 6 4 2- 0— 01-Sep 01-Nov 01-Jan 01-Mar 01-May 01-Jul 01-Sep 2003 2003 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 Survey Figure 4-16. Survey mean concentration (#/1000 m) of spotfin croaker larvae collected at the HBGS entrainment(A) and source water(B) stations with standard error indicated (+1 SE). Down arrows indicate surveys when no spotfin croaker larvae were collected. 72 AES HBGS Entrainment and Impingement Study, Final Report 100 N= 153 g0 Mean= 2.0 80 70 c 60 50 40 30 20 10 min 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 5.5 &0 Midpoint for Length Category (mm) Figure 4-17. Length frequency distribution (mm) of spotfin croaker larvae collected from the HBGS entrainment station from September 2003 through August 2004. AES HBGS Entrainment and Impingement Study, Final Report 73 4.3.3.4 Queenfish (Seriphus politus) Queenfish (Seriphus politus Ayres 1860) range from west of Uncle Sam Bank, Baja California, north to Yaquina Bay, Oregon (Miller and Lea 1972). Queenfish are common in southern California, but rare north of Monterey. They are one of eight species of croaker or 'drums' (Family Sciaenidae) found off California. The other croakers include: white seabass (Atractoscion nobilis), black croaker (Cheilotrema saturnum), white croaker (Genyonemus lineatus), California corbina (Menticirrhus undulatus), spotfin croaker (Roncador stearnsii), yellowfin croaker (Umbrina roncador), and shortfin corvina (Cynoscion parvipinnis). All but shortfin corvina have been collected in impingement samples at the HBGS since 1979 (MBC 2004). Shortfin corvina was common off the California coast as far north as San Pedro in the late 1800s (Jordan and Evermann 1896), but has not been common off the California coast since the 1930s (Miller and Lea 1972). It presently occurs as far north as San Diego Bay (Tenera 2004). Habitat Requirements The reported depth range of queenfish is from the surface to depths of about 37 m (120 ft) (Miller and Lea 1972); however, in southern California, Allen (1982) found queenfish over soft bottoms between 10 and 70 m, with highest abundance occurring at 10 m. During the day, queenfish hover in dense, somewhat inactive schools close to shore, but disperse to feed in midwater after sunset (Hobson and Chess 1976). It is active throughout the night, and feeds several meters off the seafloor in small schools or as lone individuals. Reproduction Queenfish is a summer spawner. Goldberg (1976) found queenfish to enter spawning condition in April and spawn into August, while DeMartini and Fountain (1981) recorded spawning in queenfish between March and August. Spawning is asynchronous among females, but there are monthly peaks in intensity during the waxing (first quarter) of the moon (DeMartini and Fountain 1981). They also stated that mature queenfish spawn every 7.4 days on average, regardless of size. Duration of the spawning season is a function of female body size, ranging from three months (April—June) in recruit spawners to six months (March—August) in repeat spawners (>13.5 cm SL). Based on the spawning frequency and number of months of spawning, these two groups of spawners can produce about 12 and 24 batches of eggs during their respective spawning seasons (DeMartini and Fountain 1981). Goldberg (1976)found no sexually mature females less than 14.8 cm SL in Santa Monica Bay. This differs from the findings of DeMartini and Fountain (1981) off San Onofre. They found females sexually mature at 10.0-10.5 cm SL at slightly greater than age-1. Batch fecundities in 74 AES HBGS Entrainment and Impingement Study, Final Report queenfish off San Onofre ranged from 5,000 eggs in a 10.5-cm female to about 90,000 eggs in a 25-cm fish. The average-sized female in that study (14 cm, 42 g) had a potential batch fecundity of 12,000-13,000 eggs. Murdoch (1989a) estimated the average batch fecundity to be 12,700 for queenfish collected over a five-year period. Based on a female spawning frequency of 7.4 days, a 10.5-cm female that spawns for three months (April—June) can produce about 60,000 eggs/year, while a 25-cm female that spawns for six months (March through August) can produce nearly 2.3 million eggs/year(DeMartini and Fountain 1981). Age and Growth Queenfish mature at 10.5 cm (DeMartini and Fountain 1981) to 12.7 cm (Love 1996), during their first spring or second summer. Maximum reported size is 30.5 cm (Miller and Lea 1972). Immature individuals grow at a rate of about 2.5 mm/day, while early adults grow about 1.8 mm/day (Murdoch et al. 1989b). Mortality estimates are unavailable for this species. General Ecology Queenfish feed mainly on crustaceans, including amphipods, copepods, and mysids, along with polychaetes and fishes (Quast 1968, Hobson and Chess 1976, Hobson et al. 1981, Feder et al. 1974). Population Trends and Fishery Queenfish was the most abundant sciaenid impinged at five generating stations (including the HBGS) from 1977 to 1998, and accounted for over 60% of the total fishes impinged (Herbinson et al. 2001). Annual abundance fluctuated from year to year, with notable declines during the strong El Nino events of 1982-83, 1986-87, and 1997-98. However, abundance remained relatively high throughout the over 20-year study period. Sampling Results Queenfish larvae were the fifth most abundant taxon collected from the entrainment station and the third most abundant from the source water stations during the sampling period (Tables 4-1 and 4-3). They comprised about 4.6 and 9.9 percent of the larvae collected at the entrainment and source water stations, respectively. This species was found in the entrainment samples collected from May through August, with a peak abundance of over 300 larvae per 1,000 m3 during August 2004 (Figure 4-18a). Queenfish larvae were found at the source water stations during the same period of the year with a few individuals also being seen in October 2003 and January 2004 at the source water stations (Figure 4-18b). The number and density of larval queenfish collected during each entrainment and source water survey is presented in Appendix B. AES HBGS Entrainment and Impingement Study, Final Report 75 The length frequency distribution of the measured queenfish at the entrainment station is presented in Figure 4-19. The mean, maximum and minimum measurements were 5.0, 20.4 and 1.5 mm, respectively. The majority of the larvae collected were not newly hatched, as Moser (1996) reported a hatch length of about 1.6 mm for queenfish. Only about 15% of the collected queenfish larvae were between 1 and 3 mm in total length. Impact Assessment The following sections present the results for empirical transport modeling of entrainment effects on queenfish larvae. Demographic model estimates of entrainment effects (FH and AEL) were not calculated because of the absence of information on life history parameters necessary for model calculations. It was estimated that approximately 17.8 million queenfish larvae are entrained annually by the HBGS cooling water system. Empirical Transport Model (ETM) The larval duration used to calculate the ETM estimates for queenfish was based on the difference between the lengths of the 1st (1.5 mm) and 95th (7.7 mm) percentiles and a growth rate of 0.2 mm/day. These values were used to estimate that queenfish larvae were vulnerable to entrainment for a period of 30.6 days. Only two PE estimates could be calculated for queenfish for the September 2003 — August 2004 period (Table 4-16). This was due to queenfish larvae only being present in two of the paired entrainment and source water surveys (Figure 4-18). Although queenfish larvae were collected at only the source water stations in three additional surveys, over 99% of the total source population were collected during the two surveys when they were also collected at the entrainment station. These two PE values for these surveys were similar in value, 0.0017 and 0.0015. The average of the two estimates was less than the ratio of the entrainment volume to source water volume of 0.0021. The Ps estimates (Table 4-17) were 0.123 (12.3%) for the alongshore current and 0.089 (8.9%) for offshore-extrapolated current movement for the 30.6-day exposure period. The two estimates of mortality, PM, were 0.006 (0.6%) using the alongshore current and 0.005 (0.5%) using the offshore extrapolation. The alongshore estimate of PM was extrapolated over a shoreline distance of 84.9 km. 76 AES HBGS Entrainment and Impingement Study, Final Report Table 4-16. ETM data for queenfish larvae. ETM calculations based on sampling grid volume of 908,157,859 m3, and daily circulating water volume of 1,919,204 m3. Average PE estimate calculated from all surveys with PE>0. Survey PE PE f; Date Estimate Std. Error f; Std. Error 17-Sep-03 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 13-Oct-03 0.00000 0.00000 0.00309 0.00647 10-Nov-03 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 8-Dec-03 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 5-Jan-04 0.00000 0.00000 0.00249 0.00507 9-Feb-04 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 8-Mar-04 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 5-Apr-04 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 3-May-04 0.00000 0.00000 0.00122 0.00245 1-Jun-04 0.00000 0.00000 0.00305 0.00382 12-Jul-04 0.00165 0.00245 0.23174 0.19339 31-Aug-04 0.00146 0.00188 0.75841 0.19441 Average= 0.00156 Table 4-17. Average Ps values and ETM estimates for alongshore current and offshore extrapolated models for queenfish. Current displacement (km) for alongshore extrapolation included in parentheses with estimate of Ps for alongshore estimate of PM. Average Ps ETM Estimate ETM Upper Lower Parameter (displacement) (PM) Std. Err. 95%Cl 95%CI Alongshore Current 0.1230 (84.9) 0.00626 0.28409 0.29036 0 Offshore Extrapolated 0.0891 0.00496 0.28222 0.28718 0 AES HBGS Entrainment and Impingement Study, Final Report 77 1200 „oo (q� 1000 900 800 700 L 600 a) 500 400 V 300 200 (� 100 p o 0 01-Sep 01-Nov 01-Jan 01-Mar 01-May 01-Jul 01-Sep Q 2003 2003 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 Survey 600 (� 550 (� L ♦'' 500 V 450 400 U 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 01-Sep 01-Nov 01-Jan 01-Mar 01-May 01-Jul 01-Sep 2003 2003 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 Survey Figure 4-18. Survey mean concentration (#/1000 m) of queenfish larvae collected at the HBGS entrainment(A) and source water(B) stations with standard error indicated (+1 SE). Down arrows indicate surveys when no queenfish larvae were collected. 78 AES HBGS Entrainment and Impingement Study, Final Report 60 N = 159 Mean= 5.0 50 40 N U N d 30 20 10 0 ■ 0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8-0 10.0 12.0 14.0 16.0 18.0 20.0 22.0 Midpoint for Length Category(mm) Figure 4-19. Length frequency distribution (mm) of queenfish larvae collected from the HBGS entrainment station from September 2003 through August 2004. AES HBGS Entrainment and Impingement Study, Final Report 79 4.3.3.5 White Croaker(Genyonemus lineatus) White croaker (Genyonemus lineatus) range from Magdalena Bay, Baja California, north to Vancouver Island, British Columbia (Miller and Lea 1972). They are one of eight species of croakers (Family Sciaenidae) found off California. The other croakers include: white seabass (Atractoscion nobilis), black croaker (Cheilotrema saturnum), queenfish (Seriphus politus), California corbina (Menticirrhus undu/atus), spotfin croaker(Roncador stearnsh), yellowfin croaker (Umbrina roncador), and shortfin corvina (Cynoscion parvipinnis). All but shortfin corvina have been collected in impingement samples at the HBGS since 1979 (MBC 2004). Habitat Requirements The reported depth range of white croaker is from the surface to depths of 183 m (600 ft) (Miller and Lea 1972, Love et al. 1984); however, in southern California, Allen (1982) found white croaker over soft bottoms between 10 and 130 m, and it was most frequently collected at 10 m. Reproduction White croakers are oviparous broadcast spawners. White croaker mature between about 130 and 190 mm TL, somewhere between their first to fourth year. About one-half of males mature by 140 mm TL, and one-half of females by 150 mm TL, and all fishes are mature by 190 mm TL in their third to fourth year (Love et al. 1984). Off Long Beach, California, white croaker spawn primarily from November through August, with peak spawning from January through March (Love et al. 1984). However, some spawning can occur year-round. Batch fecundities ranged from about 800 eggs in a 155-mm female to about 37,200 eggs in a 260-mm female, with spawning taking place as often as every five days (Love et al. 1984). In their first and second years, females spawn for three months for a total of about 18 times per season. Older individuals spawn for about four months and about 24 times per season (Love et al. 1984). Some older fish may spawn for seven months. The nearshore waters from Redondo Beach (Santa Monica Bay, California) to Laguna Beach, California, are considered an important spawning center for this species (Love et al. 1984). A smaller spawning center occurs off Ventura, California (Love et al. 1984). Age and Growth Newly hatched white croaker larvae are 1-2 mm SL and not well developed (Watson 1982). Larvae are principally located within 4 km from shore, and as they develop tend to move shoreward and into the epibenthos (Schlotterbeck and Connally 1982). Murdoch et al. (1989) estimated a daily larval growth rate of 0.20 mm/day. Maximum reported size is 414 mm (Miller 80 AES HBGS Entrainment and Impingement Study, Final Report and Lea 1972), with a life span of 12-15 years (Frey 1971, Love et al. 1984). White croakers grow at a fairly constant rate throughout their lives, though females outgrow males from age 1. Growth rates of white croaker from Dana Point and Palos Verdes are described in Moore (2001). No mortality estimates are available for any of the life stages of this species. General Ecology White croaker are primarily nocturnal benthic feeders, though juveniles may feed in the water column during the day (Allen 1982). Important prey items include polychaetes, gammaridean amphipods, reptantian decapods, and chaetognaths (Allen 1982). In Outer Los Angeles Harbor, Ware (1979) found important prey items to include polychaetes, benthic crustaceans, free-living nematodes, and zooplankton. Younger individuals feed on holoplankonic crustaceans and polychaete larvae. White croaker may move offshore into deeper water during winter months (Allen and DeMartini 1983); however, this pattern is apparent only south of Redondo Beach, California (Herbinson et al. 2001). Population Trends and Fishery White croaker was the second most abundant sciaenid impinged at five generating stations (including the HBGS) from 1977 to 1998 (Herbinson et al. 2001). Annual abundance declined during that period, with marked decreases during the strong El Nino events of 1982-83, 1986-87, and 1997-98. White croaker is an important constituent of the commercial and sport fisheries of California. Prior to 1980, most of the croaker catch was in southern California. However, since 1980, the majority of the commercial catch occurred in central California, and has been attributed to the entrance of Southeast Asian refugees into the fishery (Moore and Wild 2001). Most of the recreational catch is still in southern California from piers, breakwaters, and private boats. Before 1980, state-wide white croaker landings averaged 685,000 Ibs annually, exceeding 1,000,000 Ibs in several years (Moore and Wild 2001). Highest landings in 1952 corresponded with the collapse of the Pacific sardine fishery. Since 1991, landings averaged 461,000 Ibs and steadily declined to an all-time low of 142,500 Ibs in 1998. State-wide landings by recreational fishermen aboard commercial passenger fishing vessels (CPFVs) averaged about 12,000 fish per year from 1990-1998, with most of the catch in southern California (Moore and Wild 2001). From 1999 through 2001, white croaker commercial landings off Huntington Beach were far more substantial in Catch Blocks 738, 739, and 740 compared with the other five blocks (CDFG 2002). Landings ranged from 0 Ibs to 86,630 Ibs ($64,817) in Catch Block 740 south of AES HBGS Entrainment and Impingement Study, Final Report 81 San Pedro in 1999. In Block 738, off Huntington Beach, landings ranged from 5,355 Ibs ($10,710 in 2001) to 13,541 Ibs ($23,532 in 2000). Most commercially caught white croaker are caught by gillnet and hook-and-line (Moore and Wild 2001). Sampling Results White croaker was the fourth most abundant taxon collected during the study from both the entrainment and source water stations, comprising about 7% of all of the larvae collected at the entrainment station (Tables 4-1 and 4-3). The estimated mean entrainment per survey was variable, ranging from zero to about 135 white croaker larvae per 1,000 m3 (Figure 4-20a). Peaks in abundance occurred during April and May 2004. The May peak in abundance coincided with the peak abundance at the source water stations (Figure 4-20b), but a second peak at the source water stations in August 2004 wasn't reflected in the data from the entrainment station. The number and density of larval white croakers collected during each entrainment and source water survey is presented in Appendix B. The length frequency distribution of measured white croaker larvae show a relatively wide size range which is dominated by recently hatched larvae based on the reported hatch length of 1-2 mm (Watson 1982) (Figure 4-21). The mean, maximum, and minimum sizes for the measurements were 3.4, 8.6, and 1.5 mm, respectively. A larval growth rate of 0.20 mm/day for white croaker (Murdoch et al. 1989c) was used with the difference in the lengths of the first (1.6 mm) and 95th (7.0 mm) percentiles of the measurements to estimate that the larvae were exposed to entrainment for a period of 27 days. Impact Assessment The following sections present the results for empirical transport modeling of circulating water system effects on white croaker larvae. No age-specific estimates of survival for later stages of development were available from the literature for white croaker; therefore no estimates of FH or AEL were calculated. Total entrainment through HBGS was estimated at approximately 18 million white croaker larvae for the period of September 2003 through August 2004. Empirical Transport Model (ETM) The PE estimates used to calculate ETM for white croaker for the September 2003 — August 2004 period varied considerably among surveys and ranged from nearly 0 to 0.003 (Table 4-18). The average PE was slightly less than the ratio of the entrainment volume to source water volume of 0.0021. The largest PE estimate was calculated for the September 2003 survey, but the largest proportions of the source population were present during the May and August 2004 surveys. The small PE estimate during the August survey indicates that larvae were not 82 AES HBGS Entrainment and Impingement Study, Final Report abundant at the entrainment station (Figures 4-20a and b). The values in the table were used to calculate two PM estimates: one based on alongshore current movement, and the other based on alongshore current movement and an extrapolation of densities offshore to a distance bounded by either the extrapolated densities or onshore current movement. The estimate of PM for the 27- day period of exposure calculated using offshore extrapolated densities (0.004, 0.4%) is less than the estimate calculated using alongshore current displacement (0.007, 0.7%) because the effects of entrainment are spread over a much larger source population (Table 4-19). The Ps estimates indicate that the ratio of the sampled source water to the total population for the alongshore and offshore PM estimates were 21.8 and 7.0 percent, respectively. The alongshore estimate of PM was extrapolated over a shoreline distance of 47.8 km. Table 4-18. ETM data for white croaker larvae. ETM calculations based on sampling grid volume of 908,157,859 m3, and daily circulating water volume of 1,919,204 m3. Average PE estimate calculated from all surveys with PE>0. Survey PE PE f; Date Estimate Std. Error f; Std. Error 17-Sep-03 0.00340 0.00611 0.01722 0.01426 13-Oct-03 0.00144 0.00241 0.02892 0.02256 10-Nov-03 0.00028 0.00035 0.07104 0.03526 8-Dec-03 0.00087 0.00162 0.11844 0.07330 5-Jan-04 0.00181 0.00314 0.05064 0.02916 9-Feb-04 0.00252 0.00333 0.02628 0.01944 8-Mar-04 0.00227 0.00366 0.02362 0.01357 5-Apr-04 0.00049 0.00103 0.02002 0.01315 3-May-04 0.00195 0.00170 0.28073 0.10793 1-Jun-04 0.00132 0.00216 0.06375 0.06356 12-Jul-04 0.00000 0.00000 0.02898 0.02505 31-Aug-04 0.00004 0.00008 0.27036 0.15099 Average= 0.00149 Table 4-19. Average Ps values and ETM estimates for alongshore current and offshore extrapolated models for white croaker. Current displacement (km) for alongshore extrapolation included in parentheses with estimate of Ps for alongshore estimate of PM. Average Ps ETM Estimate ETM Upper Lower Parameter (displacement) (PM) Std. Err. 95%CI 95%CI Alongshore Current 0.2183(47.8) 0.00711 0.23364 0.24074 0 Offshore Extrapolated 0.0701 0.00359 0.22654 0.23013 0 AES HBGS Entrainment and Impingement Study, Final Report 83 300 275 250 225 200 175 L150 125 E 100 V 75 50 V 25 ■■ �+ �♦i� i C) a 111 O 01-Sep 01-Nov 01-Jan 01-Mar 01-May 01-Jul 01-Sep O 2003 2003 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 Survey C O 180- (B) 165 L 150 V 135 C 120 U 105 90 75 60 45 30 10 01-Sep 01-Nov 01-Jan 01-Mar 01-May 01-Jul 01-Sep 2003 2003 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 Survey Figure 4-20. Survey mean concentration (#/1000 m) of white croaker larvae collected at the HBGS entrainment (A) and source water (B) stations with standard error indicated (+1 SE). Down arrows indicate surveys when no white croaker larvae were collected. 84 AES HBGS Entrainment and Impingement Study, Final Report 60 N = 181 Mean= 3.4 50 40 N U 30; 20 10 0 ■■__ 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 TO 8.0 9.0 10.0 Midpoint for Length Category (mm) Figure 4-21. Length frequency distribution (mm) of white croaker larvae collected from the HBGS entrainment station from September 2003 through August 2004. AES HBGS Entrainment and Impingement Study, Final Report 85 4.3.3.6 Black Croaker(Cheilotrema saturnum) Black croaker (Cheilotrema saturnum) is a member of the drums and croakers family (Sciaenidae) and ranges from Point Conception, California to central Baja California (including the Gulf of California) in depths from 3-50 m (Limbaugh 1961, Miller and Lea 1972). Seven species of croaker, in addition to black croaker, are common to the Southern California Bight (SCB), including white croaker (Genyonemus lineatus), queenfish (Seriphus politus), yellowfin croaker(Umbrina roncador), white seabass (Atractoscion nobilis), California corbina (Menticirrhus undulatus), spotfin croaker (Roncador stearnsu), and shortfin corvina (Cynoscion parvipinnis; Miller and Lea 1972). Two other species [orangemouth corvina (Cynoscion xanthulus) and bairdiella (Bairdiella icistia)] are currently believed to be restricted to the Salton Sea, California within the SCB (Nelson et al. 2004). Individuals from all species, except shortfin corvina, are common in coastal southern California waters and have been observed in impingement samples at HBGS since 1979 (MBC 2004). Habitat Requirements Black croaker is common to open-coast, shallow rocky reefs and kelp beds (Limbaugh 1961, Allen 1985) with large adults occupying shelters within the reef structure and smaller individuals typically occurring above the sand substrate in and around the reef(Limbaugh 1961). Nocturnal in nature, aggregations have been observed migrating away from the reef to feed and reproduce at night, while remaining relatively sessile within the reef area during the day (Limbaugh 1961). Limbaugh (1961) observed aggregations of adults concentrated near the 7-m isobath, but as deep as 50 m. He noted that individuals were more abundant in the shallower portion of their depth distribution. Reproduction Black croaker is an oviparous broadcast spawner with pelagic eggs and larvae (Moser 1996). Greater than 50% of both males and females are reproductively mature by 150 mm standard length (SL) or approximately one year of age (Miller et al., in prep b). Spawning is most prevalent in the late spring to summer months, with a peak in June and July based on histological examination (Goldberg 1981) and seasonal gonosomatic index(GSI) analysis (Miller et al. in prep b). Late-stage larvae have been collected as early as July (Miller et al., in prep b), with regular collections from August through October (Limbaugh 1961, Moser 1996). Spawning populations were found to be statistically skewed towards males at a ratio of 1.22:1 (male:female), with each sex represented in all size and age classes (Miller et al., in prep b). 86 AES HBGS Entrainment and Impingement Study, Final Report Age and Growth Moser (1996) reported newly hatched black croaker larvae to be 1.5 mm NL (notochord length). Flexion occurs at approximately 5.6 mm NL and transformation occurs at standard lengths in excess of 11 mm (Moser 1996). Black croaker grows rapidly during the first six years, attaining an average length of 200 mm SL before growth rates slow(Miller et al., in prep b). Black croaker reportedly grows to 380 mm SL (Miller and Lea 1972) and 22 years old with no significant differences in the growth rates between males and females (Miller et al., in prep b). The strongest recruitment year within the last decade occurred in 1997, which corresponded to the highest sea surface temperature in the same time period (Miller et al. in prep b). The estimated annual survivorship rate for black croaker is 0.85 (0.15 mortality) (Miller et al., in prep b). General Ecology Gut contents of adults indicate their diet consists primarily of demersal crustaceans such as crabs, shrimp, and amphipods (Limbaugh 1961). Recent anecdotal observations of one adult black croaker gut contents included two blackeye gobies (Rhinogobiops nicholsh) (Miller, personal observation). Nearshore gillnet sampling from Newport Beach to Santa Barbara, California, including Santa Catalina Island, indicated the largest sustaining population to occur near the Palos Verdes Peninsula, California (Miller et al. in prep b). Pondella and Allen (2000) also noted higher population densities occurred at mainland sites compared to Santa Catalina Island sites. However, the individuals collected at the island sites were larger on average than those encountered along the mainland (Miller et al. in prep b). Black croaker is commonly found in association with sargo (Anisotremus davidsonii) and salema (Xenistius californiensis), with the juveniles of both species displaying similar body coloration to those of young black croaker (Limbaugh 1961). Population Trends and Fishery Historically, black croaker has been the third most abundant croaker species among impingement samples at southern California coastal generating stations since 1976, surpassed only by white croaker and queenfish (Herbinson et al. 2001). Long-term trends in impingement observations indicate an overall declining abundance, with a minor upturn in 1997. Currently, no commercial fisheries target black croaker, and only incidental catches occur in the recreational fishery. Sampling Results Black croaker larvae ranked 111h in mean density in entrainment samples (5.41 per 1,000 m 3; Table 4-1) and 19th in the source water samples (1.90 per 1,000 m3;Table 4-3). They were collected from April though September 2004 with peak densities recorded in August in both the AES HBGS Entrainment and Impingement Study, Final Report 87 entrainment and source water samples (Figure 4-22). The highest entrainment densities occurred in late August when average concentrations exceeded 160 larvae per 1,000 m3. The length frequency distribution of measured black croaker larvae show an extremely limited size range dominated by recently hatched larvae based on the reported hatch length of 1.5 mm NIL (Moser 1996) (Figure 4-23). The mean, maximum, and minimum sizes for the measurements were 2.1, 11.5, and 1.5 mm, respectively. A larval growth rate of 0.20 mm/day for white croaker (Murdoch et al. 1989) was used with the difference in the lengths of the first (1.5 mm) and 95th (2.9 mm) percentiles of the measurements to estimate that the larvae were exposed to entrainment for a period of 7 days. Impact Assessment The following sections present the results for empirical transport modeling of entrainment effects on black croaker larvae. Demographic model estimates of entrainment effects were not calculated because of the absence of information on life history necessary to parameterize the models. Total entrainment through HBGS was estimated at approximately 7.1 million black croaker larvae for the period of September 2003 through August 2004. Empirical Transport Model (ETM) Only two PE estimates were calculated for black croaker for the September 2003 — August 2004 period (Table 4-20). As shown in Figure 4-22 these estimates were not necessarily reflective of actual black croaker abundances because the highest abundance at the entrainment station occurred during a survey when the source water stations were not sampled. The values of f show that almost 60% of the black croaker larvae were collected during surveys when no entrainment occurred. In addition, the PEs were calculated from surveys that represent two separate spawning seasons. The two PM estimates calculated from these estimates (Table 4-21) were both low reflecting the short period of time (7 days) that the larvae were exposed to entrainment. This was also reflected in the estimate of the shoreline distance of 19.4 km which was shorter than the value for taxa with longer larval durations. 88 AES HBGS Entrainment and Impingement Study, Final Report Table 4-20. ETM data for black croaker larvae. ETM calculations based on sampling grid volume of 908,157,859 m3, and daily circulating water volume of 1,919,204 m3. Average PE estimate calculated from all surveys with PE>0. Survey PE PE f; Date Estimate Std. Error f; Std. Error 17-Sep-03 0.00155 0.00382 0.09932 0.13513 13-Oct-03 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 10-Nov-03 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 8-Dec-03 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 5-Jan-04 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 9-Feb-04 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 8-Mar-04 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 5-Apr-04 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 3-May-04 0.00000 0.00000 0.11678 0.11218 1-Jun-04 0.00000 0,00000 0.11582 0.14993 12-Jul-04 0.00000 0.00000 0.36378 0.22890 31-Aug-04 0.00050 0.00107 0.30430 0.19281 Average= 0.00103 Table 4-21. Average Ps values and ETM estimates for alongshore current and offshore extrapolated models for black croaker. Current displacement (km) for alongshore extrapolation included in parentheses with estimate of Ps for alongshore estimate of PM. Average Ps ETM Estimate ETM Upper Lower Parameter (displacement) (PM) Std. Err. 95%CI 95%CI Alongshore Current 0.5375(19.4) 0.00119 0.37910 0.38029 0 Offshore Extrapolated 0.2287 0.00050 0.37849 0.37899 0 AES HBGS Entrainment and Impingement Study, Final Report 89 360- 330 (A) 300 270 240 210 L 180 +-i 150 E 120 U 90 60 V 30 o � �l i C) 01-Sep 01-Nov 01-Jan 01-Mar 01-May 01-Jul 01-Sep C) 2003 2003 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 V_ Survey I` 0 12 ( CO 11 ON L 10 U s C s U ' 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 01-Sep 01-Nov 01-Jan 01-Mar 01-May 01-Jul 01-Sep 2003 2003 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 Survey Figure 4-22. Survey mean concentration (#/1000 m) of black croaker larvae collected at the HBGS entrainment (A) and source water(B) stations with standard error indicated (+1 SE). Down arrows indicate surveys when no black croaker larvae were collected. 90 AES HBGS Entrainment and Impingement Study, Final Report 90 N=78 80 Mean= 2.1 70 60 U a`) 50 d 40 30 20 10 0 ■ 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0 10.0 11.0 12.0 13.0 Midpoint for Length Category(mm) Figure 4-23. Length frequency distribution (mm) of black croaker larvae collected from the HBGS entrainment station from September 2003 through August 2004. AES HBGS Entrainment and Impingement Study, Final Report 91 4.3.3.7 Salema (Xenistius californiensis) Salema (Xenistius californiensis) is one of two grunts (Family Haemulidae) common to southern California, and ranges from Peru to Monterey Bay, California, including the Gulf of California in depths ranging from 1-12 m (Miller and Lea 1972). Sargo (Anisotremus davidsonil) is the other representative of the grunt family common to southern California (Miller and Lea 1972). Both are common in impingement samples from southern California coastal generating stations. Life history information for salema is scarce. Habitat Requirements Salema are mainly found in shallow rocky reefs and kelp bed habitats throughout the Southern California Bight (SCB), areas also frequented by black croaker (Cheilotrema saturnum) (Quast 1968, Allen 1985). Salema are nocturnal and can form large schools around piers and on weed-covered rocky reefs (Robertson and Allen 2002). They were found to be quite abundant during nocturnal sampling of mid-water plankton by diver operated plankton nets (Hobson and Chess 1976). Reproduction Moser (1996) indicated that salema are oviparous, producing planktonic eggs and larvae during the summer months. Preliminary observations of salema gonads indicate reproductive activity from June to September, with gonads being reduced to being nearly unidentifiable during April (E. Miller, MBC, personal observation). Gonosomatic index analyses indicate peak spawning in August with dramatic declines by October in both sexes (Miller unpubl. data). Gillnet sampling resulted in significantly higher percentages (Chi squared test, x2=6.28, df=1, p=0.01) of females during peak spawning periods (Miller unpubl. data). No further information was found on salema or sargo reproduction within the primary literature. Age and Growth No information on the age and growth of salema is currently available. The recorded hatch length of the larvae is less than 2.2 mm (Moser 1996). Miller and Lea (1972) reported that salema have a maximum length of 25.4 cm (10 in.). General Ecology Adult salema generally occur in greatest abundance during nocturnal periods, and are notably absent during the day (Hobson and Chess 1976). The species is planktivorous, feeding mainly on crustaceans, including gammaridean amphipods and mysids available in the midwater in kelp beds and above rocky reefs (Quast 1968, Hobson and Chess 1976). Sikkel (1986) 92 AES HBGS Entrainment and Impingement Study, Final Report reported that salema were preyed upon by yellowtail (Seriola lalandi) and kelp bass (Paralabrax clathratus), at La Jolla Cove, San Diego County, California. Population Trends and Fishery Quast (1968) noted salema densities to be 2.57 kg/acre in kelp beds near Corona Del Mar, California. Salema have been observed in impingement samples at most coastal generating stations throughout the SCB, especially those in the vicinity of kelp beds. Impingement rates for salema at ESGS since 1978 indicate an increase in salema populations (MBC and Herbinson, unpublished data). Currently, no commercial or recreational fishery targets salema, probably due to their nocturnal activity and small size. Incidental catches may have occurred in nearshore gillnet fisheries prior to the legislative ban in 1992, which removed gillnets from state waters within three miles of shore. Sampling Results Although salema ranked as the sixth most abundantly entrained fish species (Table 4-1), it was only collected in substantial numbers during a single entrainment survey in late August 2004 (Figure 4-24a). The concentrations during this survey (>300 per m), however, were high enough to make it an important entrained taxon in the overall annual sampling. It was present in much lower abundances at the source water stations in July and August 2004 (Figure 4-24b). This indicates a strong inshore distribution and a highly seasonal reproduction period. The number and density of larval salema collected during each entrainment and source water survey are presented in Appendix B. The length frequency distribution of measured salema larvae (Figure 4-25) shows an extremely limited size range dominated by recently hatched larvae, based on the reported hatch length of 2.2 mm NL (Moser 1996). The mean, maximum, and minimum sizes for the measurements were 2.0, 2.6, and 1.7 mm, respectively. Impact Assessment Total annual entrainment of salema was calculated as 11.7 million larvae. Because no salema larvae were collected in the entrainment samples and source water samples during the same survey, we did not calculate proportional losses using the ETM modeling approach. Salema larvae were present in the entrainment samples during the week previous to the final source water survey (Figure 4-24a, b), but the modeling methods are based on a comparison of paired larval concentrations in the entrainment and source water from the same surveys. The lack of co- occurrence further highlights the high temporal and spatial variation of these larvae. AES HBGS Entrainment and Impingement Study, Final Report 93 1200 1100 1000 900 800 700 600 500 E 400 U 300 200 U 100 O o O 01-Sep 01-Nov 01-Jan 01-Mar 01-May 01-Jul 01-Sep 2003 2003 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 Survey C O 36 +-+ (� 33 QN L 4-a 30 C: V 27 C 2a O U 21 18 15 12 9 6 3 0 01-Sep 01-Nov 01-Jan 01-Mar 01-May 01-Jul 01-Sep 2003 2003 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 Survey Figure 4-24. Survey mean concentration (#/1000 m) of salema larvae collected at the HBGS entrainment(A) and source water(B)stations with standard error indicated (+1 SE). Down arrows indicate surveys when no salema larvae were collected. 94_ AES HBGS Entrainment and Impingement Study, Final Report 100 N =72 g0 Mean= 2.0 80 70 c 60 a) d 50 40 30 20 10 0 ■ • 1.0 1,5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 5.5 6.0 Midpoint for Length Category (mm) Figure 4-25. Length frequency distribution (mm) of salema larvae collected from the HBGS entrainment station from September 2003 through August 2004. AES HBGS Entrainment and Impingement Study, Final Report 95 4.3.3.8 Combtooth Blennies (Hypsoblennius spp.) Combtooth blennies form a prominent group among the subtropical and tropical fish fauna that inhabit inshore rocky habitats throughout much of the world. They are members of the family Blenniidae within the order Blennioidei. The family Blenniidae, the combtooth blennies, contains about 345 species in 53 genera (Nelson 1994, Moser 1996). They derive their common name from the arrangement of closely spaced teeth in their jaws. Combtooth blennies are all relatively small fishes that typically grow to a total length of less than 200 mm (7.9 in.) (Moser 1996). Most have blunt heads that are topped with some arrangement of cirri (Moyle and Cech 1988, Moser 1996). Their bodies are generally elongate and without scales. Dorsal fins are often continuous and contain more soft rays than spines (Moyle and Cech 1988). Coloration in the group is quite variable, even among individuals of the same species (Stephens et al. 1970). Combtooth blennies are represented along the California coast by three members of the genus Hypsoblennius: bay blenny (H. gentilis), rockpool blenny (H. gilberti), and mussel blenny (H.jenkinsi). These species co-occur throughout much of their range although they occupy different habitats. The bay blenny is found along both coasts of Baja California and up the California coast to as far north as Monterey Bay, (Miller and Lea 1972, Robertson and Allen 2002). The rockpool blenny occurs from Magdalena Bay, Baja California to Point Conception, California (Miller and Lea 1972, Stephens et al. 1970). The range of the mussel blenny extends from Morro Bay to Magdalena Bay, Baja California and in the northern Gulf of California (Tenera 2001, Robertson and Allen 2002). The three species of Hypsoblennius found in California waters are morphologically similar as early larvae (Moser 1996, Ninos 1984). For this reason most Hypsoblennius identified in HBGS plankton tows collections were identified as Hypsoblennius spp. Certain morphological features (e.g., preopercular spines) develop at larger sizes and allow taxonomists to identify some larvae to the species level. Habitat Requirements Blennies inhabit a variety of hard substrates in the intertidal and shallow subtidal zones of tropical and subtropical marine habitats throughout the world. They may occur to depths of 24 m (80 ft) but are more frequently found in water depths of less than 5 m (15 ft) (Love 1996). Combtooth blennies are common in rocky tidepools, reefs, breakwaters, and on pier pilings. They are also frequently observed on encrusted buoys and boat hulls. 96 AES HBGS Entrainment and Impingement Study, Final Report The California blennies have different habitat preferences. The mussel blenny is only found subtidally and inhabits mussel beds, the empty drill cavities of boring clams, barnacle tests, or in crevices among the vermiform snail tubes Serpulorbis spp. (Stephens 1969, Stephens et al. 1970). They generally remain within one meter of their chosen refuge (Stephens et al. 1970). The bay blenny is usually found subtidally but appear to have general habitat requirements and may inhabit a variety of intertidal and subtidal areas (Stephens et al. 1970). They are commonly found in mussel beds and on encrusted floats, buoys, docks, and even fouled boat hulls (Stephens 1969, Stephens et al. 1970). Bay blennies are also typically found in bays as the common name implies and are tolerant of estuarine conditions (Stephens et al. 1970). They are among the first resident fish species to colonize new or disturbed marine habitats such as new breakwaters or mooring floats after the substrate is first colonized by attached invertebrates (Stephens et al. 1970, Moyle and Cech 1988). Rockpool blennies are mainly found along shallow rocky shorelines and kelp forests along the outer coast. Reproduction Female blennies mature quickly and reproduce within the first year, reaching peak reproductive potential in the third year(Stephens 1969). The spawning season typically begins in spring and may extend into September (Stephens et al. 1970). Blennies are oviparous and lay demersal eggs that are attached to the nest substrate by adhesive pads or filaments (Moser 1996). Males are responsible for tending the nest and developing eggs. Females spawn 3-4 times over a period of several weeks (Stephens et al. 1970). Males guard the nest aggressively and will often chase the female away; however, several females may occasionally spawn with a single male. The number of eggs a female produces varies proportionately with size (Stephens et al. 1970). The mussel blenny spawns approximately 500 eggs in the first reproductive year and up to 1,500 eggs by the third year (Stephens et al. 1970). Total lifetime fecundity may be up to 7,700 eggs (Stephens 1969). Age and Growth Larvae are pelagic and hatch at a size of 2.3-2.6 mm (0.09-0.10 in) (Moser 1996). The planktonic phase for Hypsoblennius spp. larvae may last for 3 months (Stephens et al. 1970, Love 1996). Hypsoblennius larvae are visual swimmers (Ninos 1984). Captured larvae released by divers have been observed to orient to floating algae, bubbles on the surface, or the bottoms of boats or buoys. The size at settlement ranges from 12-14 mm (0.5-0.6 in.). After the first year mussel and bay blenny averaged 40 and 45 mm (1.6 and 1.8 in.) total length, respectively (Stephens et al. 1970). The bay blenny grows to a slightly larger size and lives longer than the mussel blenny, reaching a size of 15 cm (5.9 in.) and living for 6-7 years (Stephens 1969, Stephens et al. 1970, Miller and Lea 1972). Mussel blennies grow to 13 cm (5.1 in.) and have a AES HBGS Entrainment and Impingement Study, Final Report 97 life span of 3-6 years (Stephens et al. 1970, Miller and Lea 1972). Male and female growth rates are similar. General Ecology Juvenile and adult combtooth blennies are omnivores and eat both algae and a variety of invertebrates, including limpets, urchins, and bryozoa (Stephens 1969, Love 1996). Population Trends and Fishery There is no fishery for combtooth blennies and therefore no records on adult population trends based on landings data. Sampling Results Combtooth blenny was the eighth most abundant taxon collected in the entrainment samples and sixth most abundant in the source water samples (Tables 4-1 and 4-3). Combtooth blenny densities at the entrainment and source water stations peaked in summer (June—August 2004) and they were present in the study area throughout the year (Figures 3.3-20a and b). Maximum concentrations were recorded at the entrainment station in late June 2004 (105 per 1000 m), and source water concentrations peaked in late August 2004 (66 per 1000 m). Minimum entrainment and source water concentrations generally occurred from January through April. The number and density of larval combtooth blennies collected during each entrainment and source water survey is presented in Appendix B. The length frequency distribution for a representative sample of combtooth blenny larvae is presented in Figure 4-27. The mean, maximum and minimum lengths were 2.3, 13.0, and 1.6 mm, respectively. The majority of the larvae was recently hatched based on a reported hatching size of 2.5 mm (Moser 1996). Impact Assessment The following sections present the results for demographic and empirical transport modeling of HBGS circulating water system effects. Species-specific life history information for combtooth blennies is scarce. Larval survival was estimated using data from Stephens (1969) and Stevens and Moser (1982). There was enough information on reproduction to parameterize the FH demographic model, but not to calculate the AEL model. Larval growth was estimated from information from Stevens and Moser (1982). The total annual entrainment estimate for the September 2003 through August 2004 sampling period was 7.17 million larvae (Table 4-1). 98 AES HBGS Entrainment and Impingement Study, Final Report Fecundity Hindcasting (FH) The annual entrainment estimate for combtooth blenny larvae was used to estimate the number of breeding females needed to produce the entrained larvae (Table 4-22). No estimates of egg survival for combtooth blenny were available, but because egg masses are attached and guarded by the male (Stephens et al. 1970), egg survival is probably high and was assumed to be 100 percent. The mean length for larval combtooth blenny larvae in entrainment samples was 2.3 mm. A larval growth rate of 0.20 mm/day was derived from growth rates using data in Stevens and Moser (1982). The mean length and the length at the 1st percentile (1.9 mm) were used with the growth rate to estimate that the mean age at entrainment was 3.3 days. A daily survival rate of 0.89 computed from Stephens (1969) was used to calculate survival to the average age at entrainment as 0.893.8= 0.63. An average batch fecundity estimate of 550 eggs was based on data from Stephens (1969), and an estimate of 2.3 spawns per year based on information from Stevens and Moser(1982)were used to calculate an annual fecundity of 1,281 eggs. An average longevity for mussel blenny of 3-6 yr from Stephens (1969) and an age of maturation of 0.4 yr from Stevens and Moser (1982)were used in the model. The estimated numbers of adult female combtooth blennies whose lifetime reproductive output was entrained through the HBGS circulating water system for the September 2003 through August 2004 period was 3,233 (Table 4-22). This was based on an annual entrainment of about 7.2 million larvae. Table 4-22. Results of FH modeling for combtooth blenny larvae entrained during the September 2003 —August 2004 sampling period. The upper and lower estimates are based on a 90% confidence interval of the mean. The upper and lower estimates for total entrainments were calculated by using the range of entrainment estimates in the FH calculations. FH FH Std. Lower Upper FH Parameter Estimate Error Estimate Estimate Range FH 3,233 2,907 736 14,191 13,455 Total Entrainment 7,165,513 1,735,739 1,945 4,521 2,576 Empirical Transport Model (ETM) The larval duration used to calculate the ETM estimates for combtooth blenny was based on the lengths of entrained larvae. The difference between the lengths of the 1st (1.7 mm) and 95th (3.5 mm) percentiles was used with a growth rate of 0.20 mm/day to estimate that combtooth blenny larvae were vulnerable to entrainment for a period of about 9.3 days. AES HBGS Entrainment and Impingement Study, Final Report 99 The monthly estimates of proportional entrainment (PE) for combtooth blennies for the September 2003 — August 2004 period varied among surveys and ranged from 0 to 0.021 (Table 4-23). The average estimate was 0.00430 which was almost twice the volumetric ratio of the entrainment to source water volumes, but the average was affected by the large PE estimate for February 2004 which occurred when the proportion of blennies in the source waters were low. A weighted average, similar to the calculation for PM, would reduce the value. While the largest PE estimate was calculated for the February survey, the largest proportion of the source population was present during the August survey (f;= 0.42 or 42%). The small PE estimate for the August survey (0.00025) indicates that larvae were not abundant at the entrainment station during this survey (Figures 4-26a and b). The results also show that there were several surveys when blenny larvae were collected at the source water stations, but not at the entrainment stations. The values in the table were used to calculate two PM estimates: one based on alongshore current movement, and the other based on alongshore current movement and an extrapolation of densities offshore to a distance bounded by either the extrapolated densities or onshore current movement. The estimate of PM for the 9.3-day period of exposure calculated using offshore extrapolated densities (0.0029, 0.29%)was less than the estimate calculated using alongshore current displacement (0.0077, 0.77%) because the effects of entrainment are spread over a larger source population that includes offshore areas (Table 4-24). The PS estimates indicate that the ratio of the sampled source water to the total population for the alongshore and offshore PM estimates were 81.4 and 41.7 percent, respectively. The alongshore estimate of PM was extrapolated over a shoreline distance of 12.8 km. 100 AES HBGS Entrainment and Impingement Study, Final Report Table 4-23. ETM data for combtooth blenny larvae. ETM calculations based on sampling grid volume of 908,157,859 m3, and daily circulating water volume of 1,919,204 m3. Average PE estimate calculated from all surveys with PE>0. Survey PE PE f; Date Estimate Std. Error fj Std. Error 17-Sep-03 0.00000 0.00000 0.54350 0.02820 13-Oct-03 0.00000 0.00000 0.03255 0.03161 10-Nov-03 0.00423 0.00812 0.06645 0.05730 8-Dec-03 0.00167 0.00347 0.03080 0.02040 5-Jan-04 0.00133 0.00292 0.02438 0.02325 9-Feb-04 0.02108 0.07994 0.00138 0.00447 8-Mar-04 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 5-Apr-04 0.00000 0.00000 0.00147 0.00393 3-May-04 0.00000 0.00000 0.02012 0.01690 1-Jun-04 0.00071 0.00097 0.12027 0.06204 12-Jul-04 0.00082 0.00125 0.23727 0.17700 31-Aug-04 0.00025 0.00033 0.42181 0.16879 Average= 0.00430 Table 4-24. Average Ps values and ETM estimates for alongshore current and offshore extrapolated models for combtooth blenny. Current displacement (km) for alongshore extrapolation included in parentheses with estimate of Ps for alongshore estimate of PM. Average Ps ETM Estimate ETM Upper Lower Parameter (displacement) (PM) Std. Err. 95%CI 95%CI Alongshore Current 0.8145 (12.8) 0.00768 0.27717 0.28485 0 Offshore Extrapolated 0.4166 0.00285 0.26937 0.27222 0 AES HBGS Entrainment and Impingement Study, Final Report 101 180 165 (A) 150 135 120 105 L 90 75 60 V 45 30 V 15 ��il� 1 �� j� �� ■ ■ ■ O 0 O 01-Sep 01-Nov 01-Jan 01-Mar 01-May 01-Jul 01-Sep 2003 2003 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 Survey 1= O 96 ss (B) 80 U 72 C: 64 O U 56 48 40 32 24 16 i � 01-Sep 01-Nov 01-Jan 01-Mar 01-May 01-Jul 01-Sep 2003 2003 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 Survey Figure 4-26. Survey mean concentration (#/1000 m) of combtooth blenny larvae collected at the HBGS entrainment (A) and source water (B) stations with standard error indicated (+1 SE). Down arrows indicate surveys when no combtooth blenny larvae were collected. 102 AES HBGS Entrainment and Impingement Study, Final Report 100 N= 159 90 Mean = 2.3 80 70 c v 60 N a 50 40 30 20 10 0 fi r• _ 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0 10.0 11.0 12.0 13.0 14.0 Midpoint for Length Category (mm) Figure 4-27. Length frequency distribution (mm) of combtooth blenny larvae collected from the HBGS entrainment station from September 2003 through August 2004. AES HBGS Entrainment and Impingement Study, Final Report 103 4.3.3.9 Diamond Turbot(Hypsopsetta guttulata) Diamond turbot Hypsopsetta guttulata is classified in the family of right-eyed flatfishes (Pleuronectidae). It is one of twenty pleuronectid species that occur off California, and ranges from Cape San Lucas, Baja California to Cape Mendocino, California (Eldridge 1975). An isolated population has also been reported from the upper Gulf of California (Miller and Lea 1972). The scientific name of this species changed from Hypsopsetta guttulata to Pleuronichthys guttulatus during the course of this study (Nelson et al. 2004). H. guttulata is used in this report to maintain consistency with the Six-Month and Nine-Month Reports. Habitat Requirements This species is found on muddy or sandy substrates in bays or along nearshore coastal areas. The diamond turbot occurs in water depths between less than 1 m and 50 m, but is most common in shallow water less than 10 m (Lane 1975). Reproduction Little is known of the reproductive habits of the diamond turbot. Females become sexually mature at two to three years (Fitch and Lavenberg 1975), but no equivalent information is available concerning the males. Both sexes are sexually mature at a total length of 16.5 cm (6.5 in.) (Love 1996). Spawning occurs year-round and appears to peak during the winter months (Eldridge 1975). Eggs collected in San Francisco Bay averaged 0.8 mm in diameter (Eldridge 1975). Age and Growth The largest diamond turbot reported in the literature was 46 cm (18 in.) in total length (Lane 1975). The maximum age for this species, based on otoliths and scales, is about eight years (Love 1996, Fitch and Lavenberg 1975). Newly hatched larvae collected in San Francisco Bay averaged 1.6 mm NL (Eldridge 1975). Larvae are planktonic and settle to the bottom in shallow water after about five to six weeks. Standard length at the time of settlement is about 1.1- 1.2 cm (Eldridge 1975, Love 1996). Early growth rates appear to be similar to other flatfishes including the California halibut (Paralichthys californicus). Gadomski et al. (1990) calculated the growth rate to flexion of California halibut to be 0.231 mm/day. Total length of diamond turbot at one year is about 14 cm (5.5 in.) (Lane 1975). General Ecology Diamond turbot are found in bays and shallow coastal waters with sandy or muddy bottoms. They feed primarily on invertebrates that live on top of, or in the upper layers of the 104 AES HBGS Entrainment and Impingement Study, Final Report substrate. Gut contents of diamond turbot collected in Anaheim Bay, California included polychaete worms, crustaceans, and mollusks (Lane 1975). This species feeds primarily during daylight hours. Predators include angel shark, Pacific electric ray, and other piscivorous fishes. Population Trends and Fishery Diamond turbot makes up a minor portion of the California marine sport fishery (Leos 2001). They are taken by anglers fishing from the shore, piers, or boats in shallow bays and estuaries. This species has little commercial importance but is taken occasionally as part of the incidental catch. It is usually reported under the grouping of `turbot' along with several other flatfish species. California Department of Fish and Game reported annual landings of 'turbot' in California of about 13,000 and 6,600 Ibs for the years 2001 and 2002 respectively. The proportion of this total contributed by diamond turbot is not known. Sampling Results Diamond turbot was the 121h most abundant taxon collected from the entrainment station and 14th most abundant at the source water stations, comprising about 1.3% of all of the larvae collected at the entrainment station (Tables 4-1 and 4-3). The estimated mean entrainment per survey was variable, ranging from zero to about 100 diamond turbot larvae per 1,000 m3 (Figure 4-28a). Diamond turbot larvae were present during many of the surveys with a pronounced peak during August 2004. The peak concentration at the source water stations occurred in October 2003 (Figure 4-28b). The number and density of larval diamond turbot collected during each entrainment and source water survey is presented in Appendix B. The length frequency distribution of measured diamond turbot larvae showed that the samples were dominated by recently hatched larvae based on the reported hatch length of 1.6 mm SL (Eldridge 1975) (Figure 4-29). The mean, maximum, and minimum sizes for the measurements were 2.3, 4.7, and 1.3 mm, respectively. A larval growth rate of 0.231 mm/day calculated from data in Gadomski et al. (1990) for California halibut was used with the difference in the lengths of the first(1.3 mm) and 951h (4.3 mm) percentiles of the measurements to estimate that the larvae were exposed to entrainment for a period of 13 days. Impact Assessment The following sections present the results for empirical transport modeling of entrainment effects on diamond turbot larvae. Demographic model estimates of entrainment effects were not calculated because of the absence of information on life history necessary to parameterize the models. Total entrainment was estimated at approximately 5.4 million larvae for the period of September 2003 through August 2004. AES HBGS Entrainment and Impingement Study, Final Report 105 Empirical Transport Model (ETM) The PE estimates for diamond turbot ranged from 0 to 0.02 (Table 4-25). The average PE estimate was 0.00517, which is greater than the ratio of the entrainment and source water volumes of 0.00211. As shown in Table 4-25 the values of f indicate that diamond turbot larvae were present throughout much of the year in the source water and there were several surveys when they were present at the source water stations, but were not collected at the entrainment station. The values in the table were used to calculate two PM estimates: one based on alongshore current movement, and the other based on alongshore current movement and an extrapolation of densities offshore to a distance bounded by either the extrapolated densities or onshore current movement. The estimate of PM for the 13-day period of exposure calculated using offshore extrapolated densities (0.003, 0.3%) is less than the estimate calculated using alongshore current displacement (0.006, 0.6%) because the effects of entrainment are spread over a much larger population for the offshore extrapolated estimate (Table 4-26). The PS estimates indicate that the ratio of the sampled source water to the total population for the alongshore and offshore PM estimates were 61.7 and 28.7%, respectively, and the alongshore estimate was extrapolated over a shoreline distance of 16.9 km. 106 AES HBGS Entrainment and Impingement Study, Final Report Table 4-25. ETM data for diamond turbot larvae. ETM calculations based on sampling grid volume of 908,157,859 m3, and daily circulating water volume of 1,919,204 m3. Average PE estimate calculated from all surveys with PE>0. Survey PE PE f; f; Date Estimate Std. Error Estimate Std. Error 17-Sep-03 0.00000 0.00000 0.07266 0.07101 13-Oct-03 0.00120 0.00155 0.20314 0.10636 10-Nov-03 0.00163 0.00373 0.08881 0.09327 8-Dec-03 0.00000 0.00000 0.03104 0.04430 5-Jan-04 0.00079 0.00166 0.19283 0.11089 9-Feb-04 0.00000 0.00000 0.04220 0.05032 8-Mar-04 0.00115 0.00255 0.13051 0.11381 5-Apr-04 0.02108 0.07994 0.00564 0.01816 3-May-04 0.00000 0.00000 0.08152 0.07454 1-Jun-04 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 12-Jul-04 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 31-Aug-04 0.00000 0.00000 0.15164 0.11536 Average= 0.00517 Table 4-26. Average Ps values and ETM estimates for alongshore current and offshore extrapolated models for diamond turbot. Current displacement (km) for alongshore extrapolation included in parentheses with estimate of Ps for alongshore estimate of PM. Average Ps ETM Estimate ETM Upper Lower Parameter (displacement) (PM) Std. Err. 95%Cl 95%CI Alongshore Current 0.6166 (16.9) 0.00578 0.28065 0.28643 0 Offshore Extrapolated 0.2866 0.00275 0.27619 0.27894 0 AES HBGS Entrainment and Impingement Study, Final Report 107 180 165 150 135 120 105 L 90 a--+ 75 E 60 V 45 30 V 15 O o 0 01-Sep 01-Nov 01-Jan 01-Mar 01-May 01-Jul 01-Sep Q 2003 2003 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 r Survey C 24 (� 22 L 20 U 1s 16 0 U 14 12 10 8 6 4 02 03p 02003v 02004n 02004r 02 04y 02004I 02 04p Survey Figure 4-28. Survey mean concentration (#/1000 m3) of diamond turbot larvae collected at the HBGS entrainment (A) and source water (B) stations with standard error indicated (+1 SE). Down arrows indicate surveys when no diamond turbot larvae were collected. 108 AES HBGS Entrainment and Impingement Study, Final Report 60 N =70 Mean= 2.3 50 40 N U L n 30 20 10 0 ,. .■� 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 5.5 6.0 Midpoint for Length Category (mm) Figure 4-29. Length frequency distribution (mm) of diamond turbot larvae collected from the HBGS entrainment station from September 2003 through August 2004. AES HBGS Entrainment and Impingement Study, Final Report 109 4.3.3.10 California Halibut(Paralichthys californicus) California halibut is an important part of California's commercial and recreational fisheries (Starr et al. 1998, Kramer and Sunada 2001). It ranges from northern Washington to Bahia Magdalena, southern Baja California and is found from very shallow nearshore waters in bay nursery grounds to depths of at least 185 m (Miller and Lea 1972, Haaker 1975). Habitat Requirements Juveniles and adults typically occur on sandy sediments at depths less than 30 m but sometimes concentrate near rocks, algae, or Pacific sand dollar (Dendrester excentricus) beds (Feder et al. 1974). As with other flatfishes, they frequently lie buried or partially buried in the sediment. Newly settled and juvenile halibut often occur in unvegetated shallow embayments and occasionally on the outer coast, suggesting that bays are an important nursery habitat for this species (Kramer and Sunada 2001). Reproduction California halibut is a broadcast spawner with eggs being fertilized externally. The spawning season is generally thought to extend from February to August with most spawning occurring in May (Frey 1971), although some fall spawning may also occur. The average number of eggs per spawn is 313,000-589,000 with an average reproductive output of approximately 5.5 million eggs per spawning season (Caddell et al. 1990). During spawning season females may release eggs every 7 days and the largest individuals may produce in excess of 50 million eggs per year (Caddell et al. 1990). Captive specimens were observed to spawn at least 13 times per season (Caddell et al. 1990). Halibut eggs are 0.7-0.8 mm in diameter(Ahlstrom et al. 1984) and are most abundant in the water column at depths less than 75 m and within 6.5 km from shore (Kramer and Sunada 2001). Age and Growth Upon hatching, the larvae (1.6-2.1 mm NIL [Moser 1996]) are pelagic (Frey 1971), and most abundant between Santa Barbara, California, and Punta Eugenia, Baja California Sur (Ahlstrom and Moser 1975) from January through April and June through August (Moser 1996). California halibut have a relatively short pelagic larval stage, from 20-29 days (Gadomski et al. 1990). Larval transformation occurs at a length of about 7.5-9.4 mm SL (Moser 1996) at which time the young fish settle to the bottom, generally in bays but also occasionally in shallow substrates along the open coast (Haugen 1990). Kramer (1991) found that 6-10 mm California halibut larvae grew <0.3 mm/day, while larger 70-120 mm halibut grew about 1.0 mm/day. In a 110 AES HBGS Entrainment and Impingement Study, Final Report laboratory study, California halibut held at 160C grew to a length of 11.1 mm ± 2.61 (SD) in two months from an initial hatch length of 1.9 mm (Gadomski et al. 1990). After settling in the bays, the juveniles may remain there for about two years until they emigrate to the outer coast. Males mature at 2-3 years and 20-23 cm SL; females mature at 4-5 years and 38-43 cm SL (Fitch and Lavenberg 1971, Haaker 1975). Males emigrate out of the bays when they mature (i.e. at 20 cm) but females migrate out as subadults at a length of about 25 cm (Haugen 1990). Subadults remain nearshore at depths of 6-20 m (Clark 1930, Haaker 1975). California halibut may reach 152 cm and 33 kg (Eschmeyer et al. 1983). Individuals may live as long as 30 years (Frey 1971). General Ecology California halibut feed during the day and night, but show a preference for daytime feeding (Haaker 1975). The species is an ambush feeder, typically lying partially buried in the sand until prey approaches. They prey on Pacific sardine (Sardinops sagax), anchovies, squid, and other nektonic nearshore fish species (Kramer and Sunada 2001). Small halibut in bays eat small crustaceans and become increasingly piscivorous with size. Other similar species of flatfishes such as sand sole and bigmouth sole may compete with California halibut within their range (Haugen 1990). Because of an extensive overlap in diet, habitat, geographic and bathymetric distributions, and probable foraging behavior, the California lizardfish may be the most important potential competitor of medium-sized California halibut (Allen 1982). Population Trends and Fishery California halibut have a high commercial and recreational fishery value. The fishery for California halibut was reviewed by Kramer and Sunada (2001) and recent catch statistics are available through the PSMFC PacFIN (commercial) and RecFIN (recreational) databases. Historically, halibut have been commercially harvested by three principal gear types: otter trawl, set gill and trammel net, and hook and line. Presently there are numerous gear, area, and seasonal restrictions that have been imposed on the commercial halibut fishery for management purposes. Since 1980 the state-wide commercial catch has averaged approximately one million pounds per year. In southern California (San Diego, Orange and Los Angeles counties) the average annual commercial catch and ex-vessel revenue from halibut for the years 2000-2004 was approximately 56,000 Ibs and $202,000 respectively. During this time the greatest catches were in 2000 (82,225 Ibs) and the least were in 2003 (38,113 Ibs). It appears that the size of the California halibut population may be limited by the availability of shallow-water nursery habitat, and a long-term decline in landings corresponds to a decline in these habitats in southern California associated with dredging and filling of bays and wetlands (Kramer and Sunada 2001). A fishery-independent trawl survey for halibut conducted in AES HBGS Entrainment and Impingement Study, Final Report 111 the early 1990s estimated that the southern California biomass was 6.9 million pounds (3.9 million adult fish) and the central California biomass was 2.3 million pounds (0.7 million fish) (Kramer and Sunada 2001). Sampling Results California halibut was the ninth most abundant taxon collected from the entrainment station and eighth most abundant at the source water stations, comprising about 1.5% of all of the larvae collected at the entrainment station (Tables 4-1 and 4-3). The estimated mean entrainment per survey was variable, ranging from zero to about 130 California halibut larvae per 1,000 m3, with most larvae occurring from April through August (Figure 4-30a). The peak concentration at the entrainment station was recorded in June but the peak source water concentrations occurred in August (Figure 4-30b). The number and density of larval California halibut collected during each entrainment and source water survey is presented in Appendix B. The length frequency distribution of measured California halibut larvae showed a bi- modal size distribution which was dominated by recently hatched larvae based on the reported hatch length of 1.6-2.1 mm (Moser 1996)and a second peak at 7.0 mm (Figure 4-31). The mean, maximum, and minimum sizes for the measurements were 2.1, 7.4, and 1.1 mm, respectively. A larval growth rate of 0.231 mm/day calculated from data in Gadomski et al. (1990) was used with the difference in the lengths of the first (1.1 mm) and 95th (6.8 mm) percentiles of the measurements to estimate that the larvae were exposed to entrainment for a period of 25 days. Impact Assessment The following sections present the results for empirical transport modeling of entrainment effects on California halibut larvae. Demographic model estimates of entrainment effects were not calculated because of the absence of information on life history necessary to parameterize the models. Total entrainment was estimated at approximately 5 million larvae for the period of September 2003 through August 2004. Empirical Transport Model (ETM) The PE estimates for California halibut correspond to both the 2003 and 2004 spawning periods (Table 4-27). The values of f indicate increasing abundances of California halibut larvae in the source waters when the study was completed at the end of August 2004. This isn't necessarily problematic if the assumption that the PE estimates are not related to changing abundances in source water is correct. The values of f also indicate that although there were surveys when no larvae were collected at the entrainment station (PE=O), PE estimates were available for the surveys when the majority of the halibut larvae were found in the source water 112 AES HBGS Entrainment and Impingement Study, Final Report samples. The values in the table were used to calculate two PM estimates: one based on alongshore current movement, and the other based on alongshore current movement and an extrapolation of densities offshore to a distance bounded by either the extrapolated densities or onshore current movement. The estimate of PM for the 25-day period of exposure calculated using offshore extrapolated densities (0.0008, 0.08%) is less than the estimate calculated using alongshore current displacement (0.0025, 0.25%) because the effects of entrainment are spread over a much larger population for the offshore extrapolated estimate (Table 4-28). The PS estimates indicate that the ratio of the sampled source water to the total population for the alongshore and offshore PM estimates were 33.8 and 11.3 percent, respectively and the alongshore estimate was extrapolated over a shoreline distance of 30.9 km. Table 4-27. ETM data for California halibut larvae. ETM calculations based on sampling grid volume of 908,157,859 m3, and daily circulating water volume of 1,919,204 m3. Average PE estimate calculated from all surveys with PE>0. Survey PE PE f; f; Date Estimate Std. Error Estimate Std. Error 17-Sep-03 0.00000 0.00000 0.02009 0.01309 13-Oct-03 0.00000 0.00000 0.00987 0.01394 10-Nov-03 0.00142 0.00200 0.03617 0.03166 8-Dec-03 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 5-Jan-04 0.00000 0.00000 0.00616 0.01307 9-Feb-04 0.00000 0.00000 0.00158 0.00498 8-Mar-04 0.00000 0.00000 0.00873 0.01183 5-Apr-04 0.00000 0.00000 0.00599 0.00930 3-May-04 0.00137 0.00184 0.05424 0.02912 1-Jun-04 0.00043 0.00091 0.10875 0.08657 12-Jul-04 0.00089 0.00116 0.13504 0.06103 31-Aug-04 0.00010 0.00020 0.61338 0.16245 Average = 0.00084 Table 4-28. Average PS values and ETM estimates for alongshore current and offshore extrapolated models for California halibut. Current displacement (km) for alongshore extrapolation included in parentheses with estimate of PS for alongshore estimate of PM. Average PS ETM Estimate ETM Upper Lower Parameter (displacement) (PM) Std. Err. 95%CI 95%CI Alongshore Current 0.3378 (30.9) 0.00250 0.20636 0.20886 0 Offshore Extrapolated 0.1125 0.00079 0.20246 0.20324 0 AES HBGS Entrainment and Impingement Study, Final Report 113 240 220 (A) 200 180 160 140 L 120 0 100 E 80 U 60 40 0 0 IL TV 91 0 01-Sep 01-Nov 01-Jan 01-Mar 01-May 01-Jul 01-Sep Q 2003 2003 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 Survey 0 180 M (`'') (� 165 L '~'' 150 I` V 135 120 0 U 105 g0 75 60 45 30 15 °2 03p °2 03v °2004n °2 04r °2004y °20041 °2 04p Survey Figure 4-30. Survey mean concentration (#/1000 m) of California halibut larvae collected at the HBGS entrainment (A) and source water (B) stations with standard error indicated (+1 SE). Down arrows indicate surveys when no California halibut larvae were collected. 114 AES HBGS Entrainment and Impingement Study, Final Report 60 N=75 Mean= 2.1 50 40 a� U N d 30 20 10 0 • 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 TO &0 Midpoint for Length Category(mm) Figure 4-31. Length frequency distribution (mm) of California halibut larvae collected from the HBGS entrainment station from September 2003 through August 2004. AES HBGS Entrainment and Impingement Study, Final Report 115 4.3.3.11 Sand Crab (Emerita analoga) The sand crab, also known as the Pacific mole crab, is a common filter-feeding crustacean that occurs intertidally along sandy beaches of the Pacific coast of North and South America. The species ranges in the northeastern Pacific from Kodiak Island, Alaska, to Magdalena Bay, Baja California, and in the southeastern Pacific from Salavery, Peru south to False Bay, Argentina (Efford 1970). An isolated population has also been reported to occur in the northern Gulf of California (Efford 1969). A similar but larger species, the spiny mole crab (Blepharipoda occidentalis), occurs in the low intertidal and subtidal zone from Stinson Beach, California to Bahia Ballenas, Baja California (Morris et al. 1980). Habitat Requirements Juvenile and adult sand crabs inhabit sandy beaches, where they burrow in the swash zone just under the sand surface. Prime locations are on exposed beaches at, or above, the low tide line where waves and surf action are highest (Johnson 1939). Dense aggregations of up to 40,000 animals per square meter have been observed (Richards 1996). Larvae are planktonic and occur in nearshore coastal waters. Reproduction Mating occurs in spring and summer, with the main breeding period from March to November (Morris et al. 1980). During breeding season, females carry the eggs under the telson attached to their abdominal appendages. Several males collect near the female when she is ready to deposit her eggs, and sperm is deposited about 12 hr before eggs are laid (MacGinitie 1938). During the reproductive season females can produce one clutch per month of approximately 50-50,000 eggs with larger crabs producing more eggs per clutch. Eggs are incubated through the cleavage and embryonic stages while attached to the female and take approximately 30 days to develop fully. The larvae are released as free-swimming organisms in the first zoeal stage. Wenner et al. (1987) found that egg production varies by age class, location, and season. Females may breed repeatedly if conditions are favorable, and in the laboratory, females produced up to four consecutive egg masses (Cox and Dudley 1968). In southern California, the bulk of larvae are hatched during July and early August(Johnson and Lewis 1942). Fusaro (1980a) determined that water temperature strongly affected egg production, with seven times as many females producing eggs at 250C than at 12°C. Age and Growth Sand crab larvae are planktonic zoeae, which are in the plankton for about four and one- half months. The pelagic larvae molt through five zoeal stages increasing in size from 0.53 mm 116 AES HBGS Entrainment and Impingement Study, Final Report carapace length (CL) in the first zoeal stage to 3.50 mm CL in the fifth zoeal stage (Johnson and Lewis 1942). Based on a laboratory rearing experiment, the first zoeal stage can last up to 34 days before molting to the second stage (Johnson and Lewis 1942). However, cultured larvae experienced difficulty in feeding, and Johnson (1939) speculated that the time required to complete each developmental stage is less under natural conditions where suitable food resources are more readily available and growth is more rapid. The longevity of subsequent stages can only be inferred from the abundances of specimens collected in the field because later stages were not successfully reared under laboratory conditions. Each of the stage 2-5 zoea probably lasts from approximately 20-30 days depending on environmental conditions. During this time, zoeae are subject to alongshore and onshore/offshore currents, and Stage 4 larvae have been found >100 miles offshore beyond the Channel Islands (Johnson 1939). Stage 5 larvae were scarce in Johnson's samples, presumably due to downward movement in preparation for assuming a benthic existence. The final larval stage is the megalops in which the body form resembles the first benthic crab stage. In one study, megalopae arrived at Scripps Beach in La Jolla, California, beginning in early August, with peak numbers arriving in early June (Efford 1970). However, in Santa Barbara, megalopae arrived on the beach in fall (Barnes and Wenner 1968). Once on the beach, megalopae molt and develop into juveniles, then into small males and females. Sand crabs reproduce in the first summer following settlement, and the females (at least) live to the second summer when they reproduce and die the following autumn. While sand crabs range widely from Alaska to Baja, the population structure differs from beach to beach (Barnes and Wenner 1968). Crabs from southern sites tend to reproduce at smaller sizes and younger ages and attain smaller maximum sizes than crabs from northern sites (Dugan et al. 1991). Adult male sand crabs are smaller than females, and in some areas the ratio of males to females shifts with season (Morris et al. 1980). Sexually mature females range from 9-38 mm carapace length (CL), while mature males range from 6-12 mm CL (Dudley 1967, Dugan et al. 1991). Fusaro (1978) found large differences in growth rates between sand crabs at Goleta Bay and at Santa Cruz Island, which are only 42 km apart—sand crabs grew more rapidly on the mainland than at the island. He attributed this to the colder water and reduced filterable material suspended in the water at the island site. Dugan et al. (1991) also found that size at maturity and the size distribution of ovigerous crabs were inversely correlated with water temperature. General Ecology When moving up or down the beach, sand crabs swim until the flow of water slackens, then immediately burrow, facing toward the sea (MacGinitie 1938). Feeding is performed by screening out microorganisms such as dinoflagellates as water passes over their plumose antennae, which protrude from the surface of the shifting sands. Food items are transferred to the AES HBGS Entrainment and Impingement Study, Final Report 117 mouth by wiping the antennae through the mouthparts. Efficient feeding occurs with the receding wash of the breakers, and the animals tend to maintain themselves at a tidal level where the maximum wash occurs (MacGinitie 1938). Dillery and Knapp (1970) determined that sand crabs made longshore movements corresponding to alongshore current and sediment movement. At Goleta, California, the overall mean eastward movement of 114 crabs was about 15 m (48 ft) per day. The most rapidly moving sand crab was one that was tracked 693 m (2,275 ft) in five days, a mean of 139 m (455 ft) per day. Diel movements were also reported by Fusaro (1980b), with distribution shifting seaward daily and shoreward nightly relative to the same tidal level. In southern California, a portion of the Emerita population tends to move offshore to subtidal waters in winter when wave motion increases, and return to beaches in spring (Morris et al. 1980). The beach population is augmented by the settlement of megalops larvae. Population Trends and Fishery Sand crabs are fished primarily for bait, and the recently molted soft-shelled individuals are targeted. The first commercial catch was reported in 1963, with 4,673 pounds landed state- wide (Herbinson and Larson 2001). By 1967 landings totaled over 8,300 pounds worth $17,152. Since 1977, however, catch decreased greatly, averaging only 22 pounds per year. This is likely due to reduced harvest effort and replacement of sand crab with other bait species, such as ghost shrimp, clams, and mussels. There were no reported commercial landings of sand crabs within any of the CDFG catch blocks off the HBGS in 2003 (CDFG 2004) and sport catches are not reported. Sampling Results Sand crab larvae were the most abundant of the targeted invertebrates in entrainment (average of 659 zoea per 1,000 m3; Table 4-2) and source water samples (average of 173 larvae per 1,000 m3; Table 4-5). All of the zoea larvae collected were Stage 1. The entrainment estimate for the study period was 465,806,877 zoea (Table 4-1). Larval abundances in entrainment and source water surveys showed an increasing trend with the highest abundances in the August 2004 surveys (Appendix B). The greater abundances at the inshore stations (Appendix B) are consistent with the littoral distribution of the adult spawning population. Only two megalops (at a concentration of 0.17 megalopae per 1,000 m3; Table 4-2) were collected at the entrainment station, and none were collected at the source water stations. 118 AES HBGS Entrainment and Impingement Study, Final Report Impact Assessment No impact assessment modeling of entrainment effects on sand crabs was done because megalops larvae were not collected in sufficient abundance, and did not occur in paired entrainment and source water surveys during the study. 24 j 22 L ^� 20 W E 18 _U 16 U � 14 O O 12 *k 10 � O 8 Ca 6 L C N 4 U O 2 O U 0 01-Sep 01-Nov 01-Jan 01-Mar 01-May 01-Jul 01-Sep 2003 2003 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 Survey Figure 4-32. Survey mean concentration (#/1000 m) of sand crab megalops larvae collected at the HBGS entrainment station with standard error indicated (+1 SE). There were no sand crab megalops collected at the source water stations. Down arrows indicate surveys when no sand crab larvae were collected. AES HBGS Entrainment and Impingement Study, Final Report 119 4.3.3.12 California Spiny Lobster(Panulirus interruptus) California spiny lobster ranges from Monterey Bay, California, to Manzanillo, Mexico, and there is also a small population along the northwestern shore of the Gulf of California (MBC 1987). They are the only representative of the spiny lobster family (Palinuridae) in southern California. Habitat Requirements During the first two years, juveniles inhabit surfgrass beds from the lower intertidal to depths of about 5 m (16 ft). Juveniles and adults are considered benthic, though they have been observed swimming near the surface, and occur from the intertidal zone to about 80 m (262 ft). Preferred habitats include mussel beds, rocky areas, and in kelp beds (Morris et al. 1980, Barsky 2001). Reproduction California spiny lobster are oviparous, the sexes are separate, and fertilization is external. With few exceptions, adult females spawn every year. Barsky (2001) reported that mating occurs from November through May, and Wilson (1948) indicated the primary spawning season was from March to August. Mating takes place on rocky bottoms in water depths of 10-30 m (33-98 ft) (Mitchell et al. 1969). Spawning occurs from the Channel Islands off southern California to Magdalena Bay, Baja California, including other offshore islands and banks, such as Cortez and Tanner (MBC 1987). Females move inshore to depths less than 10 m (33 ft) to extrude and fertilize the eggs. At San Clemente Island, females carried between 120,000 eggs (66 mm [2.6 in] CL) and 680,000 eggs (91 mm [3.6 in]CL) (Barsky 2001). Age and Growth Hatching occurs from March to December. Larvae are pelagic and are found from the surface to depths of 137 m (449 ft), and within 530 km (329 mi) of shore (MBC 1987). Upon hatching, transparent larvae (phyllosoma) go through 12 molts, increasing in size in each subsequent molt. Phyllosoma larvae are infrequently collected in the Southern California Bight (Johnson 1956, MBC 1987). After five to ten months, the phyllosoma transforms into the puerulus larval stage which resembles the adult form but is still transparent. The puerulus actively swims inshore where it settles in shallow water. At La Jolla, puerulus appeared in nearshore waters in late May and occurred there through mid-September (Serfling and Ford 1975). It is hypothesized that the puerulus stage of California spiny lobster lasts approximately two to three months (Serfling and Ford 1975). 120 AES HBGS Entrainment and Impingement Study, Final Report A 6.1-mm CL juvenile specimen goes through 20 molts to reach 45.7 mm CL at the end of its first year (Barsky 2001). Spiny lobsters molt four times during the second year, and three times during the third year. Mitchell et al. (1969) found adult spiny lobsters (larger than 41 mm CL) molt once yearly. Both sexes reach maturity at approximately 5-6 years at a mean size of 63.5 mm CL (Barsky 2001). It takes a spiny lobster 7-11 years to reach the legal fishery size of 83 mm CL. Females grow faster (4.4 mm/yr) than males (3.7 mm/yr) (Mitchell et al. 1969). Males may live up to 30 years, and reach a maximum length of 91 cm TL and weight of 15.8 kg (34.8 ►b). Females may live up to 17 years, and reach a maximum size of 50 cm TL and 5.5 kg (12.1 lb) (MBC 1987). General Ecology Lobsters are nocturnal, seeking crevices in which to hide during the day, and moving about the bottom at night (Wilson 1948). Panuhrus is an omnivorous bottom forager, feeding on snails, mussels, urchins, clams, and fishes (Tegner and Levin 1983, Barsky 2001). A large portion of the population makes seasonal migrations stimulated by changes in water temperature, with an offshore migration in winter, and an inshore migration in late-spring and early summer (Mitchell et al. 1969, Barsky 2001). By the end of August, berried females and juveniles comprise the bulk of the shallow-water population. Warmer water temperatures shorten the development time of lobster eggs. By late September, the thermocline breaks down and lobsters move to deeper water(10-30 m [33-98 ft])where they remain for the winter(MBC 1987). Population Trends and Fishery California spiny lobster have been fished commercially in southern California since the late 1800s (Barsky 2001). They are fished with traps, most of which are constructed of wire mesh. Most traps are fished in shallow rocky areas in waters shallower than 31 m (100 ft) deep. Landings in Catch Block 738 off the HBGS totaled 19,776 Ibs ($136,930) in 2003 and 13,095 Ibs ($86,707) in 2002 (CDFG 2004). Landings were substantially smaller in the other two catch blocks off the HBGS, totaling 1,448 Ibs in 2003 and 1,523 lb in 2002 in Block 739, and 2,680 Ibs in 2003 and 5,909 Ibs in 2002 in Block 740. Almost all landings were from crab/lobster traps, though some were reported from set Ionglines. Sampling Results Only a single spiny lobster puerulus larva was collected from the source water samples. It was collected during the first source water survey at Station U2. No spiny lobster puerulus larvae were collected from the entrainment station samples. AES HBGS Entrainment and Impingement Study, Final Report 121 Impact Assessment No impact assessment modeling of entrainment effects on spiny lobster was done because only a single lobster puerulus larva was collected in all of the samples. 4.3.3.13 Ridgeback Rock Shrimp (Sicyonia ingentis) Ridgeback rock shrimp (ridgeback prawn) ranges from Monterey, California to Isla Maria Madre, Nayarit, Mexico, including the Gulf of California (MBC 1987). Major concentrations of ridgeback rock shrimp occur in the Santa Barbara Channel between Point Conception and Ventura, off Santa Monica Bay, and off Oceanside, California (Sunada 1984, MBC 1987, Sunada et al. 2001). Another sicyoniid, the target shrimp (Sicyonia penicillata), was one of several southern decapods collected in southern California during and after the 1997-1998 El Nino (MBC 1999, LACSD 2000). It normally occurs in the Gulf of California and off the southern half of Baja California (Word and Charwat 1976, Blake and Scott 1997). Habitat Requirements Sunada (1984) and Sunada et al. (2001) reported a depth range for ridgeback rock shrimp of 45 to 162 m; however, MBC (1987) listed a depth range of 5 to 307 m. Off the Palos Verdes Peninsula (Los Angeles County) from 1978 through 2000, ridgeback rock shrimp was most abundant on the 137-m isobath, less abundant on the 61-m isobath, and did not appear to be collected on the 23-m isobath (LACSD 2000). They were the most abundant invertebrate collected in 2000 on the 55-m isobath off Huntington Beach (OCSD 2000). Eggs and larvae are pelagic and neritic, while juveniles and adults are benthic (MBC 1987). They occur on substrates of sand, shell, and mud (Sunada et al. 2001). Reproduction Ridgeback rock shrimp are oviparous. Spawning in the Santa Barbara Channel occurs from June through October, with possible multiple spawning occurring throughout summer (Anderson et al. 1985a). The sexes are separate, and fertilization is likely external, occurring as eggs are extruded (MBC 1987). Fecundity is estimated at 47,000 to 131,000 embryos per spawn, with an average of 86,000 (Anderson 1985b). Age and Growth The maximum life span of ridgeback rock shrimp is about five years (Sunada et al. 2001). Females reach a maximum length of 45 mm CL, and males 37 mm CL (Sunada 1984). Ridgeback rock shrimp move deeper as they grow; hence, smaller individuals are usually found closer to shore. In one study, monthly sampling of rock shrimp revealed a narrow size range (23— 122 AES HBGS Entrainment and Impingement Study Final Report 47 mm CL) at 145 m depth, while shrimp collected at 60 m were usually smaller, with a length- frequency distribution peak at about 30 mm CL (Anderson et al. 1985b). In that same study, shrimp collected at 40 m were most commonly 10-25 mm CL. Molt frequency is high in late spring, prior to the onset of spawning (Anderson et al. 1985a). Females begin a synchronous molt cycle in June that lasts until late-October or early- November, after the spawning season. Males exhibit a similar molt synchrony, but with a shorter period and more variability. General Ecology Ridgeback rock shrimp feed on detritus, diatoms, sponges, snails, polychaetes, copepods, ostracods, amphipods, and euphausiids (Mearns 1982, MBC 1987). Population Trends and Fishery In one study of the mainland shelf of southern California, ridgeback rock shrimp was one of the most frequently occurring species; it occurred in 61% of the area surveyed, and accounted for 15% of the abundance and 9% of the biomass (Allen et al. 1998). Off the Palos Verdes Peninsula, highest catches of ridgeback rock shrimp occurred during and after El Nino events (e.g. 1982-1984, 1986-1987, and 1998-2000) (LACSD 2000). The commercial take of ridgeback rock shrimp is exclusively by trawl, and there is a closed season between 1 October and 31 May (CDFG 1999). Ridgeback rock shrimp enter the fishery at age 1 (Anderson et al. 1985b). In 1998, 35 vessels participated in the ridgeback rock shrimp fishery, and over 98% of rock shrimp were caught in the Santa Barbara Channel. A total of 185 tons was landed in 1998, compared with 174 tons in 1997 (CDFG 1999). There were no reported landings of ridgeback rock shrimp in the catch blocks off Huntington Beach in 2002 or 2003. Sampling Results No ridgeback rock shrimp late-mysid stage larvae were collected in any of the entrainment or source water samples. Impact Assessment No impact assessment modeling of entrainment effects on ridgeback rock shrimp was done because no late-mysid stage larvae were collected. AES HBGS Entrainment and Impingement Study, Final Report 123 4.3.3.14 Market Squid (Loligo opalescens) Market squid range from offshore British Columbia to Bahia Asuncion, Baja California, including Guadalupe Island off Baja California (Morris et al. 1980, MBC 1987). However, they are found in highest numbers between Monterey and San Diego, California, and are found north of Puget Sound only during or following El Nino events. The distribution of this species is classified as `Transitional Endemic' since market squid are limited to the California Current and the eastern portion of the Northeast Pacific Transition Zone. Market squid are managed under the Coastal Pelagic Species Fishery Management Plan (PFMC 1998). Habitat Requirements Eggs of the market squid are benthic, while juveniles and adults are considered pelagic (Fields 1965). They are actually found over the continental shelf from the surface to depths of at least 800 m (PFMC 1998). Recksiek and Kashiwada (1979) found larvae in much higher concentrations near bottom than in the water column. Mature squid form large spawning aggregations in nearshore waters, and in southern California, these usually occur from November through August (Fields 1965). Reproduction During copulation, a male holds the female from below, and a bundle of spermatophores is subsequently transferred from the mantle cavity of the male to a position near the female's oviduct (Hurley 1977). In southern California, squid spawn primarily in winter (November through August), though spawning has also been recorded in July (Morris et al. 1980). Fields (1965) suggested nighttime spawning in market squid; however, recent observations suggest this species spawns exclusively during daytime (Forsythe et al. 2004). Market squid are terminal spawners, spawning once then dying. Age at first reproduction is 24-28 weeks (Yang et al. 1986). Egg capsules are usually deposited on sandy substrate, often at the edges of canyons or rocky outcroppings (McGowan 1954). Egg deposition occurs between depths of 5 and 55 m, and is most common between 20 and 35 m (PFMC 1998). Each egg capsule contains 180 to 300 eggs (Morris et al. 1980). Egg development is dependent on water temperature; eggs hatch at 19-25 days at 17°C, 27-30 days at 15°C, and 30-35 days at WC (Yang et al. 1986). Females produce 20-30 egg capsules, and each capsule is individually attached to the substrate (PFMC 1998). Fields (1965) reported four females depositing 17,000 eggs in 85 capsules in one evening, equivalent to about 21 capsules and 4,250 eggs per squid. Recksiek and Frey (1978) reported a fecundity of 4,000 to 9,000 eggs per female (MBC 1987). Macewicz et al. (2004) report an average fecundity of 3,844 oocytes based on an average female length of 129 mm dorsal mantle length (DML). 124 AES HBGS Entrainment and Impingement Study, Final Report Age and Growth Young squid hatch within three to five weeks after the capsule is deposited (McGowan 1954, Fields 1965). Newly hatched squid (paralarvae) resemble miniature adults and are about 2.5-3.0 mm in length. After hatching, young Loligo swim upward toward the light, bringing them to the sea surface (Fields 1965). Butler et al. (1999) determined growth averages about 0.6 mm dorsal mantle length (DML) per day, and maximum ages in 1998 were 238 days for females and 243 days for males. Yang et al. (1986) recorded a maximum life span of 235 and 248 days for two laboratory-reared populations. Yang et al. (1986), Butler et al. (1999), and Jackson (1998) determined that Fields (1965) and Spratt (1979) underestimated growth and overestimated longevity—squid were initially reported to live as long as three years. Growth increases exponentially during the first two months, then slows to logarithmically thereafter (Yang et al. 1986). Schooling behavior has been observed in squid as small as 15 mm DML (Yang et al. 1986). Squid spawned in early summer (August -May) will grow rapidly during the summer growing season when nutrients from increased upwelling cause plankton blooms. As spawning continues from June through September, newly hatched squid have less time available in the growing season, which can slow the growth rate (Spratt 1979). Adults measure up to 305 mm total length and weigh between 56 and 84 g (Vojkovich 1998), with spawning males normally being larger than females. Males reach 19 cm DML, a maximum weight of about 130 g, and have larger heads and thicker arms than females (PFMC 1998). Females reach about 17 cm DML and a maximum weight of 90 g. General Ecology Planktonic invertebrates are the primary food source of young squid (Spratt 1979). Squid feed mostly on crustaceans, and to a lesser degree fishes, cephalopods, gastropods, and polychaetes (Karpov and Cailliet 1979). The diet of market squid changes with water depth and location, but does not differ much among size classes or between sexes (Karpov and Cailliet 1979). Squid captured in deeper water feed more frequently on euphausiids and copepods, whereas squid captured near the surface feed predominantly on euphausiids, as well as cephalopods, fishes, mysids, and megalops larvae. In spawning schools, 75% of stomachs examined had remains of market squid (Fields 1965). Cailliet et al. (1979) determined affinities of multiple species with market squid. In Monterey Bay, the species with the highest affinities with market squid were northern anchovy, Pacific electric ray (Torpedo californica), Scyphomedusae (jellies), plainfin midshipman (Porichthys notatus), Pacific sanddab (Citharichthys stigmaeus), and white croaker. AES HBGS Entrainment and Impingement Study, Final Report 125 Population Trends and Fishery Large-scale fluctuations are characteristic of the squid stock, due primarily to its short life span and from the influence of wide variations in oceanographic conditions (NMFS 1999). However, the short life history of this species allows for squid to recover after natural population declines as soon as ocean conditions improve. The best information indicates squid have a high natural mortality rate (approaching 100% per year) and that the adult population is composed almost entirely of new recruits (PFMC 1998). In 1997, California passed Assembly Bill AB 364, which not only initiated closures and established a fishery permit fee, but designated funds from the permits to be used for squid research and management. The California fishery for market squid began in Monterey Bay in the late-1800s (Vojkovich 1998). It expanded into southern California only after the 1950s, and prior to 1987, catches in southern California rarely exceeded 20,000 metric tons. After that, landings increased four-fold until the fishery collapsed in 1998, and California squid fishers sought federal disaster assistance (Zeidberg et al. 2004). In California, most squid marketed for human consumption is frozen, but smaller amounts are canned or sold fresh (PFMC 1998). Squid are also sold live and frozen for bait. Landings in Catch Block 738 off the HBGS totaled 34,260 Ibs ($6,852) in 2003 and 4,138,223 Ibs ($388,878) in 2002 (CDFG 2004). Landings in the other two catch blocks off the HBGS totaled 252,277 Ibs ($42,813) in 2003 and 913,326 lb ($109,728) in 2002 in Block 739, and 133,230 Ibs ($27,544) in 2003 and 76,578 Ibs ($7,658) in 2002 in Block 740. The majority of the landings were from purse seine and drum seine, though some were reported from brail (dip-nets). Sampling Results No newly hatched market squid were collected in any of the entrainment or source water samples. 126 AES HBGS Entrainment and Impingement Study, Final Report 4.3.3.15 Rock Crabs (Cancer spp.) Crabs of the genus Cancer are widely distributed in the coastal waters of the west coast of North America. They occur in intertidal and shallow subtidal habitats on both rock and sand substrate. Of the nine species known to occur in the northeast Pacific, four species contribute to economically significant fisheries. Dungeness crab (Cancer magister) has the highest economic value among these, and three species of rock crabs (yellow crab C. anthonyi, brown rock crab C. antennarius, and red rock crab C. productus) comprise the remainder of the catches. These three species of rock crab, and the smaller slender crab (C. gracilis) may all be found in the vicinity of HBGS. Each species in the genus has characteristic differences in distribution, preferred habitat, growth rates, and demographic parameters. For example, brown rock crab is a relatively large species (carapace width >200 mm) that lives primarily on sand and mud substrates in estuarine and coastal shelf areas. Slender crab is a smaller species (carapace width >130 mm) associated with mixed rock-sand substrates in shallow outer coast habitats. Maximum clutch sizes in Cancer crabs can range from as many as 5,000,000 eggs in C. anthonyi to approximately 50,000 in pygmy rock crab (C. oregonensis), one of the smaller Cancer species (Hines 1991). These types of differences imply that specific information on life history parameters cannot readily be generalized among Cancer species. Habitat Requirements The brown rock crab primarily inhabits rocky shores and rocky subtidal reefs, but may bury in coarse to silty sands adjacent to preferred habitat. Ovigerous brown rock crabs have been observed buried in sand at the base of rocks in shallow water and are found more commonly in water less than 18 m (59 ft) deep in southern California. The nearshore distribution of crab larvae depends upon developmental stage. Shanks (1985) presented evidence that early stage larvae of rock crabs (probably yellow crab in his southern California study) generally occur near the bottom, in depths up to 80 m; late stage larvae, however, were more abundant near the surface. He suggested that a combination of physical factors (primarily including wind-generated surface currents and tidally forced internal waves) caused megalopae to be transported shoreward. Late stage larvae (megalops) generally begin to recruit to the nearshore habitat in spring (Winn 1985). During their planktonic existence, crab larvae can become widely distributed in nearshore waters. In one study in Monterey Bay, Graham (1989) found that brown rock crab Stage 1 zoea are most abundant close to shore and that subsequent zoeal stages tend to remain within a few kilometers of the coastline. The adult population primarily resides in relatively shallow rocky AES HBGS Entrainment and Impingement Study, Final Report 127 areas, and the nearshore retention of larvae in Graham's study (1989) was related to the formation of an oceanographic frontal zone in northern Monterey Bay that prevented substantial offshore transport during upwelling periods. The slender crab is commonly found on mud flats and in beds of eelgrass although it is usually not found intertidally south of central California (Morris et al. 1980). It occurs from Prince William Sound, Alaska to Bahia Playa Maria, Mexico in the low intertidal to 143 m (470 ft) (Jensen 1995). Although seasonally found in bays, the slender crab does not tolerate brackish conditions. Reproduction All species of Cancer crabs share certain fundamental life history traits. Eggs are extruded from the ovaries through an oviduct and are carried in a sponge-like mass beneath the abdominal flap of the adult female. After a development period of several weeks, the eggs hatch and a pre-zoea larva emerges, beginning the planktonic life history phase. As in all crustaceans, growth progresses through a series of molts. The planktonic larvae advance through six stages of successive increases in size: five zoea (not including the brief pre-zoea stage) and one megalopal. After several weeks as planktonic larvae, the crabs metamorphose into the first crab stage (first instar) and settle out to begin their benthic life history phase. Maturity is generally attained within 1-2 years. Mature females mate while in the soft shell molt condition and extrude fertilized eggs onto the abdominal pleopods. Females generally produce one or two batches per year, typically in winter. The main determinant of brood size and reproductive output in brachyuran crabs is body size, and the range of egg production in Cancer crabs generally reflects this relationship (Hines 1991). Yellow crab, the largest of the species found in the HBGS samples, produce on average 2.21 million eggs per brood. The next largest species, red rock crab, produces 877,000 eggs per brood. Brown rock crab females seem to be an exception to this relationship because they are, on average, smaller than the red rock crab, yet produce an average of 1.2 million eggs per batch. Slender crab is the smallest of the four species living near HBGS and their average egg production per brood is 454,000. Female Cancer crabs on average produce a single batch per year, generally in the winter; however, due to occasional multiple spawnings, the average number of batches per year may be greater than one (Carroll 1982, Hines 1991). Age and Growth Anderson and Ford (1976) described the growth of yellow crab under laboratory conditions. Total larval development times from hatching through the megalops stage were 33 days and 45 days at 220C and 18°C, respectively. The total time spent in the megalops stage 128 AES HBGS Entrainment and Impingement Study, Final Report averaged 8 days at 220C and 12 days at 18°C. Yellow crab can live at least 5 years and attain a carapace width of 170 mm after 16 crab instars (molts). Brown rock crab eggs require a development time of approximately 7-8 weeks from extrusion to hatching (Carroll 1982). Larval development in the brown rock crab was described by Roesijadi (1976). Eggs hatch into pre-zoea larvae that molt to first stage zoea in less than 1 hour. Average larval development time (from hatching through completion of the fifth stage) was 36 days at 13.8°C. Although some crabs molted to the megalops stage, none molted to the first crab instar stage, so the actual duration of the megalops stage is unknown. Based on a predicted megalops duration of approximately 12 days measured for the closely related yellow crab, the estimated length of time from hatching to settling for brown rock crab is approximately 48 days. Brown rock crabs mature at an age of about 18 months post-settlement with a size of approximately 60 mm carapace width and a weight of 73 g (Carroll 1982). Faster growth rates may occur in highly productive environments such as on the supporting members of offshore oil platforms and females may become reproductive in less than 1 year post-settlement (D. Dugan, pers. comm.). Brown rock crabs can probably live to a maximum age of about 6 yr. Size at recruitment to the fishery is approximately 125 mm carapace width, at an age of 4 years for males and 4.5 years for females. Slender crab larval development was described by Ally (1975). Eggs hatch into pre-zoea larvae, which quickly molt to first stage zoea. Average larval development time (from hatching through completion of the megalops stage) was 48.9 days at 17°C, with most zoeal stages lasting approximately one week. Ally (1975) found an average duration of the megalops stage of 14.6 days. Based on field growth studies, it was estimated that slender crabs matured at an age of about 10 months post-settlement to a size of approximately 60 mm carapace width (Orensanz and Gallucci 1988). Growth occurs through 11-12 instars, with crabs attaining an estimated maximum age of 4 years post-settlement. There are no published estimates of rock crab larval mortality. However, data from the abundance of brown rock crab zoea and megalops in the Diablo Canyon Power Plant 316(b) demonstration (Tenera 2000a) was used to estimate mortality between stages. First stage zoea of the taxa Cancer antennarius, C. anthonyi, and C. gracilis (combined because of uncertainties in identification) were substantially more abundant, on average, than all other stages combined. The proportions of each species of zoea stage 1 were derived by using the proportions of each species in zoea stage 2 that could be identified to species. An instantaneous larval mortality of 0.158/day was estimated by fitting an exponential curve to the estimated numbers of entrained densities of zoea stage 1 and megalops and using 38 days as the time between stages (i.e., 5 days and 43.3 days, respectively). AES HBGS Entrainment and Impingement Study, Final Report 129 General Ecology Cancrid crabs function as both scavengers and predators in the marine environment. Prey varies as a function of age and size of the individual but benthic invertebrates such as clams, worms, and snails comprise the majority of prey species. Claw morphology of each species is adapted to the types of preferred prey. For example, the heavier crusher claws of the brown rock crab and yellow crab facilitate the breaking of gastropod shells whereas the tapered dactyls of the slender crab are used to probe in soft sediments for worms and other soft-bodied prey. Winn (1985) documented the occurrence of cannibalism among rock crabs, particularly adults on juveniles. However, since juveniles generally inhabited shallower areas than adults, effects on the younger cohorts were diminished. During their planktonic existence, crab larvae can become widely distributed in nearshore waters. In a study in Monterey Bay, Graham (1989) found that slender crab stage 1 zoeae were very abundant close to shore (within 6 km) during March and August. Later stage larvae, including megalopae, were found further from shore during all times of the year. This offshore larval distribution, compared to the nearshore distribution of brown rock crab larvae found by Tenera (2000a), probably reflects the fact that adult slender crabs are widely distributed in coastal shelf areas, further offshore than brown rock crabs. The megalops larvae and juvenile crabs are frequently found crawling unharmed on and under the bells, and even in the stomachs, of larger jellyfishes, especially Chrysaora colorata (Morris et al. 1980). Juvenile rock crabs are an important prey item for a variety of fishes and invertebrates. In southern California, this includes barred sand bass (Paralabrax nebulifer), shovelnose guitarfish (Rhinobatos productus) and the sand star(Astropecten verrilli) (Roberts et al. 1984, VanBlaricom 1979). Population Trends and Fishery Rock crabs are fished along the entire California coast with crab pots, though some landings are reported from set gill nets and trawls as well (CDFG 2004). Three species are harvested commercially: brown rock crab, red rock crab, and yellow crab. There is no commercial fishery for the slender crab. The rock crab fishery is most important in southern California (from Morro Bay south), which produces a majority of the landings, and of lesser importance in northern areas of California where a fishery for the more desirable Dungeness crab takes place. Most rock crabs are landed alive for retail sale by fresh fish markets. The commercial harvest has been difficult to assess on a species-by-species basis because the fishery statistics are combined into the general "rock crab" category. From 1991 through 1999 state-wide rock crab landings (including claws) averaged 1.2 million lb./year(Parker 2001). 130 AES HBGS Entrainment and Impingement Study, Final Report Regulations currently specify a minimum harvest size of 4.25-in. carapace width. A small recreational fishery for rock crabs also exists, with a 4.00-inch minimum carapace width and a personal bag limit of 35 crabs per day. Crabs are collected by divers or shore pickers with hoop nets and crab traps. Recent catch statistics from the PSMFC PacFIN (commercial) database were examined for the years 2000-2004 for southern California (San Diego, Orange and Los Angeles counties). The average annual commercial catch and ex-vessel revenue from rock crab for the years 2000-2004 was approximately 99,000 Ibs and $120,000, respectively, with most of the landings from San Diego County. During this period the greatest catches for all counties combined were in 2000 (119,483 Ibs) and the least were in 2004 (68,491 Ibs). The following commercial landings statistics were compiled from California Department of Fish and Game landings records: Yellow rock crab. There were no reported landings for yellow rock crab in Catch Blocks 738 and 739 off the HBGS in 2002 and 2003 (CDFG 2004). There were 53 Ibs ($65) reported from Catch Block 740 in 2003, but no landing from that block in 2002. Rock crab — unspecified. Landings in Catch Block 738 off the HBGS totaled 1,340 Ibs ($730) in 2003 and 5,569 Ibs ($5,121) in 2002 (CDFG 2004). Landings in the other two catch blocks off the HBGS totaled 2,893 Ibs ($2,949) in 2003 and 642 lb ($658) in 2002 in Block 739, and 3,729 Ibs ($4,212) in 2003 and 9,771 Ibs ($13,533) in 2002 in Block 740. Crab claws — unspecified. Crab claw landings reported in Catch Block 738 off the HBGS totaled nine pounds ($0) in 2003, with no landings in 2002 (CDFG 2004). Landings in the other two catch blocks off the HBGS totaled 66 Ibs ($58) in 2003 and 14 lb ($14) in 2002 in Block 739, and 187 Ibs ($164) in 2003 and 717 Ibs ($769) in 2002 in Block 740. Sampling Results Yellow crab were the most abundant rock crab megalops in the entrainment samples followed by slender crab, brown rock crab, and red rock crab (Table 4-2). In the source water samples yellow crab and slender crab megalops were collected in nearly equal concentrations, followed by brown rock crab and red rock crab (Table 4-5). A plot of entrainment sample concentrations of all species combined showed a strong seasonal occurrence in summer months with a periodicity of approximately six weeks and increasing amplitude through the August survey (Figure 4-33a). Greatest concentrations occurred in July in the source water samples (Figure 4- 33b). AES HBGS Entrainment and Impingement Study, Final Repot 131 Impact Assessment The total annual estimated entrainment of megalops of the three commercially fished crab species (yellow crab, brown rock crab, and red rock crab) was 6,411,171 (including Cancer spp. megalops). The following section presents the results for empirical transport modeling of circulating water system effects on these combined species because they are not differentiated in catch records and all three species are similar and co-occur in the study area. There was not enough information available on mortality rates to parameterize the demographic models. Empirical Transport Model (ETM) The PE estimates for rock crabs range from 0 to 0.01 (Table 4-29). The values of f indicate that rock crab larvae were most abundant in the source water during the June through August period with a peak in July. There were four surveys when larvae were collected at the source water stations, but were not collected at the entrainment station. The values of f indicate that these were periods when crab larvae were less abundant in the source water. The values in the table were used to calculate two PM estimates: one based on alongshore current movement, and the other based on alongshore current movement and an extrapolation of densities offshore to a distance bounded by either the extrapolated densities or onshore current movement. A megalops larval duration of 12 days was used for the number of days at risk to entrainment based on laboratory rearing data of larvae cultured at 180C (Anderson and Ford 1976). The estimate of PM for the 12-day period of exposure calculated using offshore extrapolated densities (0.009, 0.9%) is less than the estimate calculated using alongshore current displacement (0.011, 1.1%) because the effects of entrainment are spread over a much larger population for the offshore extrapolated estimate(Table 4-30). The PS estimates indicate that the ratio of the sampled source water to the total population for the alongshore and offshore PM estimates were 39.4 and 24.5% percent, respectively and the alongshore estimate was extrapolated over a shoreline distance of 26.5 km. 132 AES HBGS Entrainment and Impingement Study, Final Report Table 4-29. ETM data for commercially fished Cancer crab megalops. ETM calculations based on sampling grid volume of 908,157,859 m3, and daily circulating water volume of 1,919,204 m3. Average PE estimate calculated from all surveys with PE>0. Survey PE PE f; f; Date Estimate Std. Error Estimate Std. Error 17-Sep-03 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 13-Oct-03 0.00000 0.00000 0.00241 0.00766 10-Nov-03 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 8-Dec-03 0.00000 0.00000 0.01801 0.03054 5-Jan-04 0.01356 0.02684 0.00908 0.01540 9-Feb-04 0.00000 0.00000 0.00235 0.00714 8-Mar-04 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 5-Apr-04 0.00000 0.00000 0.00299 0.00811 3-May-04 0.00560 0.01466 0.00899 0.01596 1-Jun-04 0.00199 0.00282 0.16365 0.14691 12-Jul-04 0.00325 0.00622 0.66245 0.23482 31-Aug-04 0.00131 0.00310 0.13007 0.15900 Average= 0.00514 Table 4-30. Average Ps values and ETM estimates for alongshore current and offshore extrapolated models for Cancer crab megalops. Current displacement(km)for alongshore extrapolation included in parentheses with estimate of Ps for alongshore estimate of PM. Average PS ETM Estimate ETM Upper Lower Parameter (displacement) (PM) Std. Err. 95%Cl 95%CI Alongshore Current 0.3940 (26.5) 0.01070 0.33544 0.34614 0 Offshore Extrapolated 0.2453 0.00854 0.33268 0.34122 0 AES HBGS Entrainment and Impingement Study, Final Report 133 300 275 (A) 250 225 200 �\ 175 L 150 (D 4--0 125 (3) E 100 C) 75 50 V 25 • • vy O 01-Sep 01-Nov 01-Jan 01-Mar 01-May 01-Jul 01-Sep Q 2003 2003 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 Survey C O 96 (� 88 L 80 V 72 64 O U 56 48 40 32 24 16 8 o 01-Sep 01-Nov 01-Jan 01-Mar 01-May 01-Jul 01-Sep 2003 2003 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 Survey Figure 4-33. Survey mean concentration (#/1000 m) of Cancer crab megalops collected at the HBGS entrainment (A) and source water (B) stations with standard error indicated (+1 SE). Down arrows indicate surveys when no Cancer crab megalops were collected. 134 AES HBGS Entrainment and Impingement Study, Final Report 4.4 Impingement The U.S. EPA defines entrainment as "the entrapment of all life stages of fish and shellfish on the outer part of an intake structure or against a screening device during periods of intake water withdrawal" (USEPA 2002a). At the HBGS, impingement occurs when organisms are held with the cooling water flow against the bar racks or traveling screens within the facility. Impinged organisms may be alive or dead. 4.4.1 Fish Impingement In total, an estimated 51,082 fishes representing 57 species were impinged during 52 normal operations and six heat treatment surveys (Table 4-31). Surveys were conducted from July 2003 through July 2004. Total impingement biomass was 1,292 kg (2,848 lb). The most abundant fish species were queenfish (70%), white croaker (10%), shiner perch (8%), and northern anchovy (4%). Abundance during six heat treatment impingement surveys accounted for 75% of total impingement abundance. Data are presented by survey in Appendix C. Normal Operations Results An estimated 12,694 fish representing 36 species were impinged during 52 weeks of normal operations surveys (Table 4-31). Highest normal operations abundance occurred on 28 January 2004. Aside from this somewhat anomalous impingement total, there were slight seasonal peaks of abundance in Sept.-Oct. 2003 (mainly queenfish and northern anchovy) and in Apr.-May 2004 (primarily queenfish and white croaker). The most abundant species were queenfish (83%), northern anchovy (7%), white croaker (2%), and shiner perch (2%). Abundance during the 52 normal operations surveys accounted for 25% of total impingement abundance. Fish biomass for the survey year totaled 290 kg (639 lb). Biomass was dominated by larger elasmobranchs, such as Pacific electric ray (Torpedo californica; 45%), thornback (Platyrhinoidis triseriata; 6%), and bat ray (Myliobatis californica; 4%), as well as some of the more abundant fish species, including queenfish (20%) and specklefin midshipman (Porichthys myriaster, 4%). Heat Treatment Results An estimated 38,388 fish representing 55 species were impinged during six heat treatment surveys (Table 4-31). The most abundant species were queenfish (66%), white croaker AES HBGS Entrainment and Impingement Study, Final Report 135 Table 4-31. Fish impingement totals from 52 normal operation and 6 heat treatment surveys. (Continued on following page). Normal Operation Heat Treatment Impingement Percent of Totals Totals Totals Total Species Common Name No. Wt. k No. Wt. k No. Wt. k No. Wt. Seriphus politus queenfish 10,468 58.015 25,379 590.141 35,847 648.156 70.2 50.2 Genyonemus lineatus white croaker 274 3.374 4,629 92.047 4,903 95.421 9.6 7.4 Cymatogasteraggregata shiner perch 215 2.014 3,830 49.813 4,045 51.827 7.9 4.0 Engraulismordax northern anchovy 824 5.513 1,369 9.343 2,193 14.856 4.3 1.2 Phanerodon furcatus white seaperch 80 0.485 789 18.588 869 19.073 1.7 1.5 Peprilus simillimus Pacific butterfish 131 2.096 470 13.826 601 15.922 1.2 1.2 Hyperprosopon argenteum walleye surfperch 30 0.498 446 15.255 476 15.753 0.9 1.2 Atherinopsis californiensis jacksmelt 23 2.370 309 27.298 332 29.668 0.7 2.3 Atherinops affinis topsmelt - - 231 3.664 231 3.664 0.5 0.3 Leuresthes tenuis California grunion 49 0.211 91 0.498 140 0.709 0.3 0.1 Paralabrax clathratus kelp bass - - 138 46.965 138 46.965 0.3 3.6 Scorpaena guttata California scorpionfish 35 5.528 75 21.066 110 26.594 0.2 2.1 Sardinops sagax Pacific sardine 69 3.322 38 3.994 107 7.316 0.2 0.6 Urobatis halleri round stingray 52 17.322 48 22.331 100 39.653 0.2 3.1 Porichthys myriaster specklefin midshipman 99 10.249 1 0.006 100 10.255 0.2 0.8 Embiotoca jacksoni black perch 12 1.873 54 5.288 66 7.161 0.1 0.6 Cheilotrema saturnum black croaker 21 0.330 44 6.682 65 7.012 0.1 0.5 Paralabrax nebulifer barred sand bass 7 0.364 55 9.301 62 9.665 0.1 0.7 Atractoscion nobilis white seabass 11 0.135 49 4.793 60 4.928 0.1 0.4 Roncador stearnsii spotfin croaker - - 49 1.766 49 1.766 0.1 0.1 Chromis punctipinnis blacksmith 7 0.015 39 2.241 46 2.256 0.1 0.2 Xenistius californiensis salema 11 0.101 35 0.345 46 0.446 0.1 <0.1 Pleuronichthys ritteri spotted turbot 35 2.438 4 0.007 39 2.445 0.1 0.2 Menticirrhus undulatus California corbina - - 33 3.104 33 3.104 0.1 0.2 Torpedo californica Pacific electric ray 31 129.444 - - 31 129.444 0.1 10.0 Heterostichus rostratus giant kelpfish 21 1.045 9 0.708 30 1.753 0.1 0.1 Synodus lucioceps California lizardfish 29 1.130 - - 29 1.130 0.1 0.1 Pleuronichthys verticalis hornyhead turbot 27 0.277 1 0.144 28 0.421 0.1 <0.1 Myliobatis californica bat ray 19 10.659 5 7.267 24 17.926 <0.1 1.4 Citharichthys stigmaeus speckled sanddab 14 0.043 9 0.054 23 0.097 <0.1 <0.1 Paralichthys californicus California halibut 15 4.068 6 5.868 21 9.936 <0.1 0.8 Anchoa compressa deepbody anchovy 6 0.032 14 0.144 20 0.176 <0.1 <0.1 Leptocottus armatus Pacific staghorn sculpin 17 0.870 3 0.103 20 0,973 <0.1 0.1 Platyrhinoidis triseriata thornback 18 15.812 2 1.242 20 17.054 <0.1 1.3 Girella nigricans opaleye 7 4.274 12 8.378 19 12.652 <0.1 1.0 Rhacochilus vacca pile perch - - 19 4.729 19 4.729 <0.1 0.4 Anisotremus davidsonii sargo 17 1.434 17 1.434 <0.1 0.1 Rhacochilus toxotes rubberlip seaperch 17 0.745 17 0.745 <0.1 0.1 Scomberjaponicus chub mackerel 17 0.336 17 0.336 <0.1 <0.1 Medialuna californiensis halfmoon - - 13 3.545 13 3.545 <0.1 0.3 Porichthys notatus plainfin midshipman 9 3.267 1 0.003 10 3.270 <0.1 0.3 Trachurus symmetricus jack mackerel 7 0.030 2 0.253 9 0.283 <0.1 <0.1 Ophidion scrlppsae basketweave cusk-eel 7 0.378 1 0.011 8 0.389 <0.1 <0.1 Pleuronichthys guttulatus diamond turbot 6 0.849 2 0.358 8 1.207 <0.1 0.1 Ophichthus zophochir yellow snake eel 6 1.332 1 0.200 7 1.532 <0.1 0.1 Chilare taylori spotted cusk eel - - 7 0.128 7 0.128 <0.1 <0.1 Umbrina roncador yellowfin croaker 6 1.934 6 1.934 1 <0.1 0.1 Continued on next page. 136 AES HBGS Entrainment and Impingement Study, Final Report Table 4-31. (Continued). Normal Operation Heat Treatment Impingement Percent of Totals Totals Totals Total Species Common Name No. Wt. k No. Wt. k No. Wt. k No. Wt. Halichoeres semicinctus rock wrasse - 4 1.391 4 1.391 <0.1 0.1 Hypsoblennius gilberti rockpool blenny - 3 0.016 3 0.016 <0.1 <0.1 Rhinobatos productus shovelnose guitarfish - - 2 11.174 2 11.174 <0.1 0.9 Sebastes auriculatus brown rockfish - - 2 1.184 2 1.184 <0.1 0.1 Triakis semifasciata leopard shark - - 2 0.812 2 0.812 <0.1 0.1 Syngnathus californiensis kelp pipefish - - 2 0.007 2 0.007 <0.1 <0.1 Paralabrax maculatofasciatus spotted sand bass - - 1 0.900 1 0.900 <0.1 0.1 Semicossyphus pulcher California sheephead - - 1 0.359 1 0.359 <0.1 <0.1 Odontopyxis trispinosa pygmy poacher - - 1 0.005 1 0.005 <0.1 <0.1 Sebastes miniatus vermillion rockfish - 1 0.002 1 0.002 <0.1 <0.1 Totals: 12,694 289.763 1 38,388 1,001.80 51,082 1,291.559 100.0 100.0 No.of Species:Species:1 36 55 57 (12%), shiner perch (10%), and northern anchovy (4%). Abundance during the six heat treatment impingement surveys accounted for 75% of total impingement abundance. Highest heat treatment abundance was recorded in May 2004 (primarily queenfish and white croaker) and in September 2003 (primarily queenfish and shiner perch). Fish biomass during the six heat treatment surveys totaled 1,001.8 kg. Biomass was dominated by the most abundant species, such as queenfish (59%), white croaker (9%), and shiner perch (5%), and larger fish such as kelp bass (Paralabrax clathratus; 5%) and jacksmelt (Atherinopsis californiensis; 3%). 4.4.2 Fish Results by Species Species-specific analyses are limited to the four species that together comprised 92% of total impingement abundance and 63% of impingement biomass: queenfish, white croaker, shiner perch, and northern anchovy. 4.4.2.1 Queenfish (Seriphus politus) Information on the life history, ecology, population trends, and fishery of queenfish (Seriphus politus) is summarized in Section 4.3.3.4. Sampling Results Queenfish was the most abundant species collected in both normal operations and heat treatment impingement samples (Table 4-31). Total impingement for the survey period was 35,847 individuals. It occurred in 31 of 52 normal operations surveys, and all six heat treatment AES HBGS Entrainment and Impingement Study, Final Report 137 surveys (Appendix C). Highest normal operations abundance occurred in late January, and highest heat treatment abundance occurred in late May. The queenfish measured in impingement surveys ranged from the 40 to 190 mm size classes (Figure 4-34). Distribution was bimodal with peaks at 60-70 mm and 120 mm. Queenfish mature at about 127 mm, during their first spring or second summer (Love 1996). Maximum reported size is 305 mm (Miller and Lea 1972). Therefore, most of the fish impinged were young- of-the-year (YOY) and Age-1 fish. Mean length of fish measured during the six heat treatments was greatest in August(mean of 132 mm SL) and lowest in February (mean of 97 mm SL). Of the 352 mature fish inspected for determination of during the study year, 253 (72%)were female, and 99 (28%)were male. Queenfish (n = 1880 measured) 400 - --- - - -- -- - - -- -_ - -- 350 - - - -- --- -- - c 300 - -- - - -- L u 250 - - - - --- - M E 200 — a� 150 Z 100 50 0 30 50 70 90 110 130 150 170 190 Length (mm SL) Figure 4-34. Length frequency distribution of queenfish (Seriphus politus) in impingement samples. 4.4.2.2 White Croaker(Genyonemus lineatus) Information on the life history, ecology, population trends, and fishery of white croaker (Genyonemus lineatus) is summarized in Section 4.3.3.5. 138 AES HBGS Entrainment and Impingement Study, Final Report Sampling Results White croaker was the third most abundant species in normal operations impingement samples, and the second most abundant species in heat treatment samples (Table 4-31). It was collected in only 8 of 52 normal operation samples, but in all six heat treatment samples (Appendix C). Highest normal operations losses were recorded in August 2003 and April-May 2004, and highest heat treatment abundance occurred in May 2004. The white croaker measured in impingement surveys ranged from the 50 to 200 mm size classes, with most fish in the 80-90 mm size classes (Figure 4-35). White croaker mature between about 130 and 190 mm, somewhere between their first to fourth year (Love et al. 1984, Love 1996). Therefore, most of the white croaker impinged were probably in their first year. Mean length of fish measured during the six heat treatments was greatest in February (mean of 133 mm SL) and lowest in August 2003 and May 2004 (mean of 95 mm SL). New recruits (50 to 60 mm) were most common in late winter through spring (January through May 2004). Of the 108 mature individuals inspected for determination of sex during the study year, 61 (56%) were female and 47 (44%)were male. White croaker(n = 620 measured) 200 - - ---- - - - - - d 150 - - -- N 10 d E 100 - --- - - - -- CD E Z 50 - --- 0 �� _.�. __� _� _.� _�. ,-T-....I-■� -.�-a-, a-�-ate -i'-T--- 50 70 90 110 130 150 170 190 210 Length (mm SL) Figure 4-35. Length frequency distribution of white croaker (Genyonemus lineatus) in impingement samples. AES HBGS Entrainment and Impingement Study, Final Report 139 4.4.2.3 Shiner Perch (Cymatogaster aggregata) Shiner perch (Cymatogaster aggregata) ranges from San Quintin Bay, Baja California, to Port Wrangell, Alaska (Miller and Lea 1972). There are 19 species of Pacific nearshore surfperches (Family Embiotocidae) that occur off southern California (Miller and Lea 1972). Most inhabit nearshore waters, bays, and estuaries, though some are found further offshore. Of the 19 species of surfperches that occur in southern California, 10 species besides shiner perch have been collected either within or directly offshore the AES HBGS: shiner perch, walleye surfperch (Hyperprosopon argenteum), white seaperch (Phanerodon furcatus), black perch (Embiotoca jacksonl), kelp surfperch (Brachyistius frenatus), pile perch (Rhacochilus vacce), barred surfperch (Amphistichus argenteus), rubberlip surfperch (Rhacochilus toxotes), striped surfperch (Embiotoca lateralis), rainbow surfperch (Hypsurus caryi), and pink seaperch (Zalembius rosaceous) (Appendix C-5). Habitat Requirements Shiner perch occurs primarily in shallow-water marine, bay, and estuarine habitats (Emmett et al. 1991), and is demersal on sandy and muddy bottoms. On the southern California shelf, shiner perch are found at depths to 90 m, and Allen (1982) reported most occur at about 70 m. It has been reported to depths of 146 m (Miller and Lea 1972). Juveniles and adults occur in oligohaline to eurohaline waters, and even occasionally in fresh water. This species forms schools or aggregations during the day (Fitch and Lavenberg 1975), but solitary individuals are found on the bottom at night. Important prey items for this species off southern California include calanoid copepods and chaetognaths (Allen 1982). It is a predominantly diurnal visual plankton picker, but larger individuals may engage in nocturnal epibenthic searching (Allen 1982). Shiner perch, along with white croaker, formed Allen's (1982) "nearshore schoolers" recurrent group; the two species occur commonly off southern California even though shiner perch is considered a cold-temperate, outer-shelf species, while white croaker is a temperate, inner-shelf species. Reproduction Eggs of the shiner perch are fertilized internally, and females give birth to live young. Mating occurs primarily in the spring and summer in California (Bane and Robinson 1970). The reproductive capacity of this species is directly related to female size; smaller females produce as few as 5 young, while larger females can produce over 20 young (Wilson and Millemann 1969). 140 AES HBGS Entrainment and Impingement Study, Final Report Age and Growth Shiner perch have no larval stage. At birth, fully developed young are about 34 to 78 mm in length (Wilson and Millemann 1969, Hart 1973). Shiner perch live for about eight years and reach about 180 mm in length (Miller and Lea 1972, Hart 1973). Population Trends and Fishery This species is not commercially important, but some shiner perch are landed for bait and human consumption (Emmett et al. 1991). Shiner perch are fished recreationally, especially from piers and in bays and estuaries. Total statewide recreational landings of "surfperches" were 489,000 fish in 1999, with most of the catch in central and northern California (Fritzche and Collier 2001). Numbers of shiner perch in southern California waters declined after the mid- 1970s, and this is likely related to warming ocean temperature, decreased zooplankton biomass, and reduced upwelling (Stull and Tang 1996, Beck and Herbinson 2003, Allen et al. 2003). Sampling Results Shiner perch ranked fourth in normal operations abundance, and third in heat treatment abundance, with 95% of the impingement occurring during heat treatments (Table 4-31). Total impingement for the study year was 4,045 individuals. This species occurred in only 6 of 41 normal operations surveys, but in all six heat treatment surveys (Appendix C). Highest abundances were recorded in September 2003. The shiner perch measured in impingement surveys ranged from the 50 to 120 mm size classes, with most fish in the 70 mm size class (Figure 4-36). Therefore, most of the impinged fish were YOY. The smallest shiner perch (40 and 50 mm size classes) appeared in May 2004, corresponding to the known spawning season of shiner perch (Bane and Robinson 1970). Of the 170 mature fish inspected for determination of sex during the study year, 130 (76%)were female, and 40 (24%)were male. AES HBGS Entrainment and Impingement Study, Final Report 141 Shiner perch (n = 802 measured) 400 300 d L 7 M N E 200 L d Z 100 - -- - - 0 ----- - - - ,-T-�--r - --- 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 Length(mm SL) Figure 4-36. Length frequency distribution of shiner perch (Cymatogaster aggregata) in impingement samples. 4.4.2.4 Northern Anchovy (Engraulis mordax) Information on the life history, ecology, population trends, and fishery of northern anchovy (Engraulis mordax) is summarized in Section 4.3.3.2. Sampling Results Northern anchovy were the second most abundant species in normal operations impingement samples, and the fourth most abundant species in heat treatment samples (Table 4- 31). It was collected in 16 of 52 normal operation samples, and during all six heat treatment surveys (Appendix C). Highest normal operations abundance occurred in September-October, and highest heat treatment abundance was recorded in September. The northern anchovy measured in impingement surveys ranged from the 20 to 130 mm size classes, with most fish in the 80-90 mm size classes (Figure 4-37). Northern anchovy reach 102 mm in their first year, and 119 in their second (Sakagawa and Kimura 1976). Therefore, most of the impinged fish were Age-0 and Age-1 fish. Of the 86 mature individuals inspected for determination of sex during the study year, 74 (86%)were female and 12 (14%)were male. 142 AES HBGS Entrainment and Impingement Study, Final Report Northern anchovy (n = 706 measured) 300 - - - _ - d N 200 d E L d £ 100 - n z 0 — -_ 1__j t I _ T- ,- - 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 Length(mm SL) Figure 4-37. Length frequency distribution of northern anchovy (Engraulis mordax) in impingement samples. 4.4.3. Macroinvertebrate Impingement In total, an estimated 70,638 invertebrates representing 37 species were impinged during the study year (Table 4-32). Total biomass was 168 kg (369 lb). The most abundant macroinvertebrate species were the nudibranch Dendronotus frondosus (88%), yellow rock crab (Cancer anthonyi; 4%), graceful rock crab (Cancer gracilis; 2%), and Pacific rock crab (Cancer antennarius; 2%). Abundance during six heat treatment impingement surveys accounted for less than 2% of total impingement abundance. Data are presented by survey in Appendix C. Normal Operations Results An estimated 69,432 macro invertebrates representing 31 species were impinged during 52 normal operations surveys (Table 4-32). Impingement was highest in late-March 2004 (primarily Dendronotus) and early-December 2003 (mainly Dendronotus). The most abundant species were the nudibranch Dendronotus frondosus (90%), yellow rock crab (4%), and graceful rock crab (2%). Abundance during 52 normal operations surveys accounted for more than 98% of total impingement abundance. Macroinvertebrate biomass during all 52 normal operations surveys totaled 150 kg (332 lb). Biomass was dominated by two-spotted octopus (Octopus bimaculatus/bimaculoides; 15%), shell debris of the Pacific littleneck(Protothaca staminea; 15%), AES HBGS Entrainment and Impingement Study, Final Report 143 Table 4-32. Macroinvertebrate impingement totals from 52 normal operation and 6 heat treatment surveys. Normal Operation Heat Treatment Impingement Percent of Totals Totals Totals Total Species Common Name No. Wt. k No. Wt. k No. Wt. k No. Wt. Dendronotus frondosus nudibranch 62,150 14.963 - - 62,150 14.963 88.0 8.9 Cancer anthonyi yellow rock crab 2,706 21.754 151 1.342 2,857 23.096 4.0 13.8 Cancer gracilis graceful rock crab 1,484 2.905 11 0.079 1,495 2.984 2.1 1.8 Cancer antennerius Pacific rock crab 958 8.588 68 1.179 1026 9.767 1.5 5.8 Pyromaia tuberculata tuberculate pear crab 597 0.955 386 0.382 983 1.337 1.4 0.8 Cancer productus red rock crab 417 6.101 25 0.165 442 6.266 0.6 3.7 Crangon nigromaculata blackspotted bay shrimp 336 0.511 2 0.004 338 0.515 0.5 0.3 Polyorchis penicillatus jellyfish 326 4.207 - - 326 4.207 0.5 2.5 Pachygrapsus crassipes striped shore crab 27 0.088 149 0.401 176 0.489 0.2 0.3 Hermissenda crassicornis nudibranch 50 0.031 ill_ 0.114 161 0.145 0.2 0.1 Lysmata californica red rock shrimp 20 0.026 140 0.194 160 0.220 0.2 0.1 Portunus xantusii Xantus swimming crab 47 0.292 16 0.055 63 0.347 0.1 0.2 Octopus bimaculatus/bimaculoides two-spotted octopus 27 22.919 34 2.474 61 25.393 0.1 15.2 Heptacarpus palpator intertidal coastal shrimp 27 0.068 31 0.018 58 0.086 0.1 0.1 Chrysaora colorata purple-striped jelly 53 21.674 - - 53 21.674 0.1 12.9 Pisaster sp. sea star(decomposed) 48 9.872 - - 48 9.872 0.1 5.9 Ophiothrix spiculata spiny brittlestar 26 0.082 14 0.007 40 0.089 0.1 0.1 Pugettia producta shield-backed kelp crab 26 0.114 11 0.199 37 0.313 0.1 0.2 Panulirus interruptus California spiny lobster 12 10.998 20 8.637 32 19.635 <0.1 11.7 Salpidae salp, unid. 18 0.108 - - 18 0.108 <0.1 0.1 Cerebratulus californiensis ribbon worm 17 0.186 - - 17 0.186 <0.1 0.1 Navanax inermis California aglaja - - 15 0.038 15 0.038 <0.1 <0.1 Dendronotus subramosus stubby dendronotus - - 14 0.028 14 0.028 <0.1 <0.1 Neotrypaea californiensis bay ghost shrimp 13 0.060 - - 13 0.060 <0.1 <0.1 Urechis caupo innkeeper worm 6 0.577 2 0.025 8 0.602 <0.1 0.4 Flabellina iodinea Spanish shawl 7 0.007 - - 7 0.007 <0.1 <0.1 Loligo opalescens market squid 7 0.442 7 0.442 <0.1 0.3 Parastichopus parvimensis warty sea cucumber 7 0.459 7 0.459 <0.1 0.3 Loxorhynchus crispatus masking crab 7 0.212 7 0.212 <0.1 0.1 Hemigrapsus oregonensis yellow shore crab 6 0.006 6 0.006 <0.1 <0.1 Penaeus californiensis yellowleg shrimp 5 0.185 - - 5 0.185 <0.1 0.1 Pisasterochraceous ochre starfish - - 3 1.103 3 1.103 <0.1 0.7 Loxorhynchus grandis sheep crab 1 0.657 1 0.657 <0.1 0.4 Pachycheles pubescens pubescent porcelain crab 1 0.001 1 0.001 <0.1 <0.1 Pachycheles rudis thick-clawed porcelain crab - - 1 0.001 1 0.001 <0.1 <0.1 Protothaca staminea Pacific littleneck(debris) 22.012 - - - 22.012 <0.1 13.1 Petricola californiensis California petricolid (debris) 0.058 - - - 0.058 <0.1 <0.1 Totals: 69,432 150.462 1,206 17.103 70,638 167.565 100.0 100.0 No.of Species. 31 22 37 yellow rock crab (14%), purple-striped jelly (Chrysaora colorata; 14%) and the nudibranch Dendronotus frondosus (10%). No whole Pacific littleneck were impinged; instead, bits of shell debris were collected in 11 of 41 surveys, and in larger amounts (> five kilograms per week) during two of those nine surveys in July and September 2003. It is likely that individuals colonized the surfaces of the CWIS along with barnacles, mussels, and turf. 144 AES HBGS Entrainment and Impingement Study, Final Report Heat Treatment Results An estimated 1,206 macroinvertebrates representing 22 species were impinged during six heat treatment surveys (Table 4-32). The most abundant species were the tuberculate pear crab (32%), yellow rock crab (13%), striped shore crab (Pachygrapsus crassipes; 12%), and red rock shrimp (Lysmata californica; 12%). Abundance during the heat treatment impingement surveys accounted for only 2% of total impingement abundance. Heat treatment abundance was highest in late-May 2004, and the sample was comprised primarily of small crustaceans, including tuberculate pear crab, red rock shrimp, yellow rock crab, and striped shore crab. 4.4.4. Macro invertebrate Results by Species Species-specific analyses are limited to the five species that together comprised 92% of total impingement abundance and 63% of impingement biomass: the nudibranch Dendronotus frondosus, yellow rock crab, two-spotted octopus, purple-striped jelly, and California spiny lobster. 4.4.4.1 Nudibranch (Dendronotus frondosus) The nudibranch (Dendronotus frondosus) is a cosmopolitan nudibranch that lives intertidally and subtidally in the northern hemisphere (Morris et al. 1980, Behrens 1991). It lives on, and feeds on, a wide variety of hydroids, including species of Tubularia, Hydractinia, Sarsia, Obelia, Sertularia, Abietinaria, Aglaophenia, and others (Morris et al. 1980). This species was only impinged during 5 of 41 normal operations surveys, and was absent in heat treatment surveys (Appendix C). An estimated total of 62,150 individuals were impinged during the study year, but only weighed 15.0 kg, equal to an average of over 4,150 individuals per kg (Table 4-32). It was the most abundant macroinvertebrate impinged, comprising 88% of impingement abundance. Highest impingement occurred coincident with, or immediately following, impingement of large amounts of turf (Syncoryne eximia, formerly Sarsia). It is likely individuals settled within the CWIS, and were inhabiting and grazing on the turf growing in the CWIS. 4.4.4.2 Yellow Rock Crab (Cancer anthonyi) Information on the life history, ecology, population trends, and fishery of rock crabs (Cancer spp.) is summarized in Section 4.3.3.15. An estimated total of 2,857 individuals weighing 23.1 kg were impinged during the study year (Table 4-32). This species was impinged in 19 of 52 normal operations surveys, and only three of the six heat treatment surveys (Appendix C). Highest normal operations abundance occurred in January and May—June 2004, and highest heat treatment abundance was recorded in May 2004. Carapace lengths were not measured, so AES HBGS Entrainment and Impingement Study, Final Report 145 estimated size classes cannot be estimated. However, the individuals impinged at the HBGS during the study year were small, averaging 8 g per crab. 4.4.4.3 Two-Spotted Octopus (Octopus bimaculatus/bimaculoides) There are two similar octopus species that occur in southern California: Octopus bimaculatus and O. bimaculoides. Both are referred to as the two-spotted octopus since they are difficult to distinguish, and for more than 60 years were thought to represent a single species (Morris et al. 1980). O. bimaculoides ranges from San Simeon, California, to Bahia San Quintin, Baja California, and is found in a variety of habitats to depths of 20 m (Lang and Hochberg 1997). The sibling species O. bimaculatus has a similar geographic distribution, occurring from Santa Barbara, California, south to Punta Eugenia, Baja California, and in some locations within the Gulf of California. It also occurs in slightly deeper depths (to 50 m) (Morris et al. 1980, Lang and Hochberg 1997). They both occur in a variety of habitats, including mudflats, intertidal zones, reefs, crevices, and kelp beds. O. bimaculoides females lay their eggs under rocks from late winter to early summer, and brood them continuously for two to four months (Morris et al. 1980). Females lay between 200 and 800 eggs, depending on female size and condition (Lang and Hochberg 1997). The young remain on the bottom after hatching, and often move toward the intertidal. Adults feed on mollusks, crustaceans, and fishes. In the rocky intertidal zone, O. bimaculoides drills and feeds principally on limpets (Collisella and Notoacmea), snails (Tegula spp.), Pacific littleneck, and hermit crabs (Pagurus spp.) (Morris et al. 1980). They also feed on mussels (Mytilus spp.) and the Pacific calico scallop (Argopecten ventricosus) (Lang and Hochberg 1997). O. bimaculatus spawns throughout most of the year, though there is a distinct seasonal peak from April through July (Lang and Hochberg 1997). Hatching takes place in a relatively short time-frame since there is an inverse relationship between development time and water temperature (Ambrose 1981). Ambrose (1981) also reported an average clutch size of about 20,000 eggs for a female weighing about 260 g. After hatching, young octopuses are planktonic for several months, then settle to the bottom (Lang and Hochberg 1997). Juvenile O. bimaculatus feed on small crustaceans, while adults consume a wide variety of motile benthic invertebrates. An estimated total of 61 individuals weighing 25.4 kg were impinged during the study year (Table 4-32). This species was impinged in 4 of 52 normal operations surveys, and five of the six heat treatment surveys (Appendix C). Highest normal operations abundance occurred in 146 AES HBGS Entrainment and Impingement Study, Final Report May and June 2004, and highest heat treatment abundance was recorded in August and September 2003. Mantle lengths were not measured, so estimated size classes cannot be estimated. However, the individuals impinged during normal operations (average of 0.85 kg each) were about 12 times the size of those impinged during heat treatments (average of 0.07 kg each). 4.4.4.4 Purple-Striped Jelly (Chrysaora colorata) Purple-striped jelly (Chrysaora colorata, formerly Pelagia colorata) is found along the coast of California in oceanic and slope waters (Morris et al. 1980, Wrobel and Mills 1998). The purple-striped jelly feeds on ctenophores, pelagic tunicates, fish eggs and larvae, planktonic crustaceans, and other Scyphomedusae. Unlike most jellyfishes, the fertilized egg of the purple- striped jelly develops to a planula larva, which then develops directly into a free-swimming ephyra stage without intervention of a sessile, asexually reproducing polyp stage. Chrysaora is fed upon by ocean sunfish (Mola mola) and blue rockfish (Sebastes mystinus). An estimated 53 purple- striped jellies weighing 21.7 kg were impinged during 5 of 52 normal operations surveys, though none were impinged during heat treatments (Table 4-32). They were most abundant in June and July 2004 (Appendix C). 4.4.4.5 California Spiny Lobster(Panulirus interruptus) Information on the life history, ecology, population trends, and fishery of California spiny lobster (Panulirus interruptus) is summarized in Section 4.3.3.12. A total of 32 spiny lobsters weighing 19.7 kg was impinged during the study year; an estimated 12 during two weeks of normal operations and 20 during four heat treatment surveys (Table 4-32). This species was most abundant in August and September 2003, which coincides with their inshore distribution during mating season. Of the 19 spiny lobsters measured, carapace lengths averaged 63 mm, ranging from 9 to 98 mm. The average length (63 mm) is the reported size at maturity and indicates an age of five to six years (Barsky 2001). Of the 14 lobsters examined, 10 (71%)were female, and 4 (29%) were male. Sex was not determined for 5 of the 19 lobsters measured. 4.4.5. Factors Affecting Impingement Weekly flow during the one-year survey period ranged from 6,233,895 m3 (1,647 mgd) to 12,950,150 m3 (3,421 mgd) and averaged 9,280,820 m3 (2,452 mgd). The highest normal operation fish impingement abundance was recorded during the 27'h week (27 January 2004), where 1,346 fishes (mostly juvenile queenfish) representing 12 species were collected during a 24-hr sample period, for an extrapolated weekly impingement of 7,571 individuals weighing 95.6 AES HBGS Entrainment and Impingement Study, Final Report 147 kg (Figure 4-38). This represents 60% of the total annual normal operations impingement abundance. This was not the week with the highest weekly flow volume; however, all eight circulator pumps were in operation during the impingement sampling period. The highest normal operation macroinvertebrate impingement was recorded during the 30 March 2004 survey (Figure 4-39). 148 AES HBGS Entrainment and Impingement Study, Final Report Weekly Flow 4000 3500 3000 ` 2500 3 c 2000 LL 1500 Y m 1000 d 3 500 0 - - - Weekly Impingement Abundance - Fish 8000 - 7000 6000 N m 5000 J 4000 7 v 3000 - c 2000 i 1000 -I 0 Weekly Impingement Biomass - Fish 120 100 80 N 60 E 40 m 20 _I_I- ,A , M M M M M (7 Q Q Q Q Q V O O O O O O O O O O O O 0) 0) W O O Q1 O O O 0) 0) W N N N N N N N N N N N N I� a0 0) O ^ N M V tD Figure 4-38. Weekly cooling water flow volume, normal operation fish impingement abundance, and normal operation fish impingement biomass, July 2003 — July 2004. Abundance and biomass were extrapolated based on survey period and weekly cooling water flow volume. AES HBGS Entrainment and Impingement Study, Final Report 149 Weekly Flow 4000 v £ 3000 3 0 2000 LL , m 1000 d 3 o - Weekly Impingement Abundance -Macroinvertebrates 70000 60000 - ,� 50000 40000 >_ 30000 S 20000 10000 0 — r T- -- --- —� Weekly Impingement Biomass -Macroinvertebrates 40 35 Y 30 25 yr 20 15 _0 10 I (") c) m co co m m m m m m m 'ct V V V V V V V V V V V V V O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O) N c0 M CO r— V o0 N (O O m r` O V Q1 m (O CD00 � W C2 N N � N p N N m N N M N V- N � N r— CO00 M — D \ N N N N Cl) V LO CO CO r Figure 4-39. Weekly cooling water flow volume, normal operation macroinvertebrate impingement abundance, and normal operation macroinvertebrate impingement biomass, July 2003—July 2004. Abundance and biomass were extrapolated based on survey period and weekly cooling water flow volume. 150 AES HBGS Entrainment and Impingement Study, Final Report Impingement rates at coastal generating stations are dependent on intake flow and the abundance and distribution of source populations. Intake flow can vary daily, seasonally, and annually. The abundance and distribution of fish and invertebrate populations is affected by oceanographic conditions (such as water temperature and upwelling), biological processes (such as spawning, recruitment, and predation), and human influences (such as fishing and anthropogenic impacts). The relation between intake flow volume and fish impingement has been examined before at coastal generating stations. Results of previous analyses are discussed further in Section 7.4.5. In the present study, normal operations impingement parameters for both fishes and macroinvertebrates exhibited no correlation with flow volume (Figure 4-40). Though not required for the present study, water clarity (as measured by Secchi disk) of the HBGS intake forebay was recorded during all normal operation surveys. From October 2003 — September 2004, the 2004 HBGS NPDES monitoring period, normal operation fish impingement CPUE was positively correlated with Secchi depth (rz = 0.44, p = 0.02). However, it should be noted that Secchi visibility may have been affected by turbulence during periods of higher flow volumes and not necessarily turbidity. The lack of strong correlations between flow and impingement rates likely results from (1) fluctuations in densities of fishes and invertebrates in the zone of influence of the intake structure, and (2) the presence of relatively low flow areas within the forebays of some generating stations that allow entrapped organisms to survive and not immediately become impinged after they are entrained. AES HBGS Entrainment and Impingement Study, Final Report 151 Survey Flow v.Abundance Survey Flow v.6iomass Survey Flow v.Species Richness 1600 -- 20 14 1400 FF=0.0876 R2=0.0994 12 R2=0.1353 1200 x 15 m 10 1000 H m 8 0 C 800 10 0. R 600 0 0 L 6 0 0 J? N O 0 1) 400 a 5 LL 4 0 0 �0'11 2000 LL0 0 =. W 0 190 253 317 380 443 507 190 253 317 380 443 507 190 253 317 380 443 507 Survey flow(mgd) Survey flow(mgd) Survey flow(mgd) Survey Flow v.Abundance Survey Flow v.ENomass Survey Flow v.Species Richness 10000 6 0 14 ------ y 0 rn 5 R2=0.0517 12 R2=0.0033 8000 R2=0.0183 w A w q 2 10 c 6000 m av 8 0 E 3 m 4000 Q 6 0 2 0 > 2000 w 1 0 0 O 4 © © 0 no 0c c 0 2 0 0 ' 0 0 00 000 O C O 0 190 253 317 380 443 507 190 253 317 380 443 507 190 253 317 380 443 507 Survey flow(mgd) Survey flow(mgd) Survey flow(mgd) Figure 4-40. Normal operation fish (top) and macroinvertebrate (bottom) impingement parameters and their relations to survey flow volumes. 152 AES HBGS Entrainment and Impingement Study, Final Report 5.0 DIRECT IMPACT ASSESSMENT The purpose of the AES HBGS Entrainment and Impingement Study is to assess the effects on populations of marine fishes and invertebrates from operation of the AES HBGS cooling water intake system. The results presented in this report were collected during a one-year entrainment study (Sept. 2003—Aug. 2004) and a one-year impingement study (July 2003—July 2004). Entrainment was measured by collecting samples near the HBGS intake structure, while impingement was estimated by direct measurements of fishes and macroinvertebrates impinged at the HBGS during normal operations and heat treatment surveys. Cumulative impacts due to entrainment and impingement were also analyzed for 11 coastal generating stations in southern California. The cumulative impacts assessment is presented separately in Appendix E of this report. The analysis of effects due to operation of the CWIS at the HBGS was limited to the most abundant fishes and a list of target invertebrates collected during the course of the study. This approach was taken primarily because of the uncertainty associated with assessments of organisms that are in low abundance in the samples. The most abundant organisms may also have higher risk for population-level impacts, but their high entrainment levels also reflect their high overall abundance in the source water. Therefore all of the estimates need to be placed in context, either through the estimates of the source water areas affected or through independent estimates of the adult populations. At the other extreme, although no State- or Federally-listed threatened or endangered species were entrained or impinged during the study, even very low levels of impacts to these species would need to be assessed. The limits of our analyses also resulted from the uncertainty associated with assessments based on few direct observations. By focusing our analyses on the most abundant species in entrainment and impingement surveys, more accurate assessments could be made on those species. The entrainment estimates were based on a set of conservative assumptions resulting in estimates that represented 'worst-case losses' for the year. These assumptions included: (1) the estimation of entrainment losses based on maximum permitted flow at the HBGS, even though actual flow for the study year was much less, and (2) an assumed entrainment survival rate of zero. The larval fishes entrained by the HBGS CWIS differed somewhat from the juvenile and adult fishes that were impinged. The most abundant fish larvae in entrainment samples (CIQ gobies) comprised 37% of the total fishes collected during entrainment sampling, but no gobies were collected in impingement samples. Two of the other abundant larval fish species, white croaker and northern anchovy, were well represented in impingement samples. Conversely, the most abundant fish species collected in impingement samples (queenfish) was not as abundant in the entrainment samples, comprising <5% of total entrainment. Furthermore, the various AES HBGS Entrainment and Impingement Study, Final Report 153 surfperch species, which were relatively abundant in impingement samples, are not subject to entrainment impacts because they bear live young that are too large to be entrained. 5.1 Entrainment Summary Entrainment impacts were assessed using two demographic models, Adult Equivalent Loss (AEL) and Fecundity Hindcasting (FH), which translate larval entrainment estimates into adult losses. The third modeling approach, the Empirical Transport Model (ETIW), compared the numbers of larvae entrained with the numbers of larvae at risk of entrainment in the source waters to obtain an estimate of the proportional mortality caused by entrainment. Results from these modeling estimates are presented in Table 5-1. Table 5-1. Summary of entrainment modeling estimates on target taxa based on the three modeling techniques (FH, AEL, and ETM [PM]). The FH model estimates an equivalent number of breeding adult females, therefore this estimate is multiplied by two for comparison with the AEL model that estimates an equivalent numbers of adults irrespective of sex. The comparison assumes a 50:50 ratio of males:females in the population. The shoreline distance (km) used in the alongshore extrapolation of PM is presented in parentheses next to the estimate. Estimated PM PM Offshore Taxon Annual 2-FH AEL Alongshore +Alongshore Entrainment Extrapolation Extrapolation CIQ goby complex 113,166,834 202,538 147,493 1.0% (60.9 km) 1.0% northern anchovy 54,349,017 53,490 304,125 1.2% (72.0 km) 0.7% spotfin croaker 69,701,589 NA NA 0.3% (16.9 km) 0.3% queenfish 17,809,864 NA NA 0.6% (84.9 km) 0.5% white croaker 17,625,263 NA NA 0.7% (47.8 km) 0.4% black croaker 7,128,127 NA NA 0.1% (19.4 km) 0.05% salema 11,696,960 NA NA NA NA blennies 7,165,513 6,466 NA 0.8% (12.8 km) 0.3% diamond turbot 5,443,118 NA NA 0.6% (16.9 km) 0.3% California halibut 5,021,168 NA NA 0.3% (30.9 km) 0.08% sand crab megalops 69,793 NA NA NA NA California spiny lobster 0 NA NA NA NA ridgeback rock shrimp 0 NA NA NA NA market squid 0 NA NA NA NA rock crab megalops 6,411,171 NA NA 1.1% (26.5 km) 0.8% NA-Estimate not available due to either insufficient life history information or low abundance in entrainment samples. An estimated 345 million larval fishes were entrained during the one-year study period, an average of about 945,000 per day. The CIQ goby complex was the most abundant fish taxon in both the entrainment and source water samples and comprised 37% of the total larvae collected at the entrainment station (Table 4-1). The CIQ goby complex is comprised of up to three species that are common in southern California bays and estuaries (arrow, shadow, and/or cheekspot gobies) and, as early larvae, cannot be reliably identified to the species level. Northern 154 AES HBGS Entrainment and Impingement Study, Final Report anchovy was the second most abundant fish taxon collected in both entrainment and source water, comprising 18% of the total in both sets of samples. Four species of croakers were also included in the assessment. White croaker larvae were relatively abundant throughout the sampling period, while queenfish, spotfin croaker, and black croaker were not abundant until the latter part of the study in July and August 2004. The fish taxa that were the focus of our analysis have different distributions and life histories. They include fishes that are primarily distributed in estuarine and enclosed bay habitats, in coastal nearshore habitats, and in coastal open ocean habitats. The CIQ goby adults are generally not found along the open coast where the HBGS intake structure is located—only 25 gobies have been impinged at the HBGS since 1979 (3 cheekspot and 22 arrow gobies), and none have been collected in annual trawls off the HBGS since 1976. Adult gobies are relatively small, bottom-dwelling fishes and may not have been adequately sampled by the mesh of the traveling screen or otter trawls. However, the coastal habitat off the generating station is not well suited for any of these three species of gobies, and it is unlikely there are large numbers of adult gobies off the coast of Huntington Beach. More likely, the adult populations are concentrated in nearby coastal embayments and harbors, such as Alamitos Bay, Anaheim Bay, and Talbert Marsh, and their larvae are dispersed in these environs and transported to coastal waters by tidal flushing and prevailing currents (Horn and Allen 1976). The arrow goby is an abundant constituent of the fish community at the Golden Shore Marine Reserve, a created wetland at the mouth of the Los Angeles River approximately 22 km (13 mi) upcoast from the HBGS (MBC 2003b). During the final year of a five-year mitigation monitoring project, densities of arrow goby ranged from 0.7 individuals/m2 in winter to 4.5 individuals/m2 in summer, but may have been even higher due to some escapement through the 6-mm seine mesh used for sampling. MacDonald (1975) found densities of 4 to 5 individuals/m2 in Anaheim Bay in winter, although concentrations of up to 20 individuals/m2 were found in some individual burrows. Combtooth blennies and diamond turbot are two other target taxa that are primarily distributed in estuarine and bay habitats (Love 1996). The ETM results showed that the additional mortality to the source population resulting from entrainment was very low for gobies, blennies and diamond turbot. The estimates of the additional mortality due to entrainment (PM) were 1.0% or less for all three taxa (Table 5-1). Demographic modeling (AEL and Fh) of CIQ gobies larval entrainment estimates showed potential losses of approximately 150,000 to 200,000 adults. The ETM and demographic modeling results overestimate the entrainment effects on the adult populations of these taxa, which are primarily distributed in bay and estuarine areas. Adult populations of CIQ gobies, in particular, are almost entirely restricted to estuarine areas and the larvae of these species are probably capable of swimming behavior that reduces their transport into coastal waters by tidal AES HBGS Entrainment and Impingement Study, Final Report 155 currents (Barlow 1963, Pearcy and Myers 1973, Brothers 1975). Although the larvae that are transported into coastal waters provide for genetic exchange between estuarine areas along the coast (Dawson et al. 2002), they also experience much higher rates of mortality than larvae that are retained in estuarine areas. As a result, the survival rates from an estuarine area (Brothers 1975) used in the demographic models were probably much lower than the actual survival in the open coastal waters resulting in overestimates of the actual effects at the adult population level. Similarly, the magnitude of any effects at the adult population level would be much less than the PM estimate of 1.0%, because this is an estimate of the mortality on the larvae population in open coastal waters and not the larvae in estuarine areas that would be contributing to adult recruitment. Entrainment effects on fishes primarily distributed along outer coastal habitats, including California halibut, queenfish, white croaker, spotfin croaker, and black croaker were also low, with the estimated additional mortality due to HBGS entrainment of approximately 1% or less (Table 5-1). Estimated effects from the ETM were even less when the potential source population was increased to include offshore areas. Another open coastal taxon, salema, was not assessed using any of the models because it was only present during two surveys at the source water and entrainment stations, but not during the same surveys. Therefore, we were unable to calculate estimates of PE for salema for the ETM assessment. In addition, there is very little life history information available for salema that can be used in demographic modeling approaches. Surprisingly, critical life history information such as larval survival rates necessary for calculating the demographic models was also not available for common coastal species such as white croaker, which is found over soft-bottom habitat off the entire southern California coast, and was the second most abundant fish collected in annual trawl surveys. It also ranked second in historical impingement abundance. Despite its nearshore distribution and abundance in the areas offshore the HBGS, the estimated additional mortality from entrainment based on the ETM modeling was less than 1%. Two of these species, California halibut and white croaker, are part of the local commercial fishery. The projected ex-vessel value of California halibut and white croaker lost as a result of larval entrainment was calculated for CDFG Catch Block 738 (10 km x 10 km directly off off HBGS) by multiplying the annual fishery value of reported landings for each species in that catch block by the modeled PM alongshore extrapolations. For halibut, the fishery value from Block 738 was $18,245 in 2003 and $5,483 in 2002. The alongshore PM estimate of 0.003 (Table 5-1) translates to values of $55 and $16 in 2003 and 2002, respectively. For white croaker, the fishery value was $9,783 in 2003 and $11,755 in 2002. The alongshore PM estimate of 0.007 (Table 5-1) translates to values of$68 and $82 in 2003 and 2002, respectively. 156 AES HBGS Entrainment and Impingement Study, Final Report Northern anchovy is a pelagic species found out to 480 km from shore, and is one of the most abundant fish species off the southern California coast. Juvenile northern anchovy, which were abundant in HBGS impingement samples, are usually found closer to shore, including in embayments and estuaries. Northern anchovy is the numerically dominant fish collected in annual trawl surveys off the HBGS, and ranks third in historical impingement abundance. Live- bait boats commonly fish the nearshore areas between the HBGS and Newport Harbor for this species. The estimated entrainment mortality based on both offshore and alongshore extrapolation of the source population is probably the most appropriate estimate to use for this wide-ranging species and this estimate from ETM indicates that the additional mortality resulting from entrainment is approximately 1% over a coastal distance of 72 km (Table 5-1). Although the two demographic model estimates for northern anchovy provide a wide range of estimates, the estimated numbers of adults lost due to entrainment are also low given the large adult populations of northern anchovy in the Southern California Bight. These adult losses can be compared to recent stock estimates of 388,000 MT of northern anchovy in the region from San Francisco to Punta Baja, Mexico (Jacobson et al. 1994). Northern anchovy are fished commercially off of Huntington Beach. The projected ex- vessel value of northern anchovy lost as a result of larval entrainment was calculated for CDFG Catch Block 738 (directly off of HBGS) by multiplying the annual fishery value reported for anchovy landings in that catch block by the modeled PM alongshore and offshore extrapolations. The fishery value was $15,094 in 2003 and $12,784 in 2002. The alongshore PM estimate of 0.012(Table 5-1)translates to values of$181 and$153 in 2003 and 2002, respectively. Rock crabs (genus Cancer) were the only target invertebrate taxa collected in sufficient abundance to warrant analysis. Although large numbers of sand crab larvae were collected, only two of the larvae were in the later megalops stage chosen as target organisms for assessment. The other invertebrate target taxa were not collected in any of the entrainment samples. Similar to the results for the fishes, the estimated increased mortality due to entrainment for rock crab megalops larvae was low--0.8 to 1.1% (Table 5-1). The projected ex-vessel value of rock crab lost as a result of larval entrainment was calculated for Catch Block 738 (directly off of HBGS) by multiplying the annual fishery value for reported rock crab landings in that catch block by the modeled PM alongshore extrapolations. The fishery value was $730 in 2003 and $5,121 in 2002. The alongshore PM estimate of 0.011 (Table 5-1) translates to values of$8 and $56 in 2003 and 2002, respectively. The estimated levels of PM for the HBGS are less than estimated results from recent 316(b) entrainment studies at other California power plants. One of the potential reasons for the differences is the habitat where the intake structures for these power plants are located. Some of AES HBGS Entrainment and Impingement Study, Final Report 157 these studies were conducted in estuarine areas that have very limited source water bodies relative to the open coastal source water for the HBGS. The decreased source water bodies for these studies contribute to the higher PM estimates relative to the HBGS. The results from the HBGS are also lower than a similar study conducted at the Diablo Canyon Power Plant (DCPP) located on the open coast in San Luis Obispo County in central California. Unlike the HBGS, the nearshore areas around the DCPP CWIS are heterogeneous with rocky reefs, kelp beds and sandy areas. In addition, the CWIS at the DCPP is protected by a rock jetty that provides additional habitat for fishes. In contrast to the DCPP and other similar CWIS intakes, the habitat around the HBGS intake is homogeneous sand flats that extend for several kilometers north, south and offshore of the intake. This homogeneous environment probably results in a more uniform distribution of larvae throughout the sampling area resulting in average estimates of PE that closely approximated the volumetric ratio of the cooling water to the sampled source water volume of 0.002% for several of the more abundant target taxa. As a result the PM estimates for the HBGS are more dependent on the estimated larval durations and currents used to calculate the source water body. This result helps support the approach taken in the cumulative impact assessment that relies solely on the volumetric withdrawal of cooling water in estimating proportional entrainment for the model. The PM estimates based on alongshore current displacement ranged from 0.1% to 1.2% (Table 5-1). The length of coastline (km) used in extrapolating the estimates of PM ranged from 12.8 to 84.9 km (Table 5-1). An estimate of the area of larval production lost due to entrainment (area of production foregone) can be estimated by multiplying the PM estimates by the alongshore source water length and the width of the source water area sampled (5 km). Estimates of the area of production foregone ranged from 0.12 to 4.47 km2, and averaged 1.50 km2 (Table 5-2). Table 5-2. Summary of entrainment modeling estimates for target taxa and estimation of area of production foregone. The shoreline distance (km) used in the alongshore extrapolation of PM is presented in parentheses next to the shoreline distance estimate. Estimated Shoreline Distance Pm Alongshore Taxon Annual (km)of Production Area of Production Entrainment Extrapolation Foregone Foregone km2 CIQ gobies 113,166,834 1.0% (60.9 km) 0.604 3.024 n. anchovy 54,349,017 1.2% (72.0 km) 0.894 4.471 spotfin croaker 69,701,589 0.3% (16.9 km) 0.050 0.248 queenfish 17,809,864 0.6% (84.9 km) 0.531 2.657 white croaker 17,625,263 0.7% (47.8 km) 0.340 1.699 black croaker 7,128,127 0.1% (19.4 km) 0.023 0.115 salema 11,696,960 NA NA NA blennies 7,165,513 0.8% (12.8 km) 0.098 0.492 diamond turbot 5,443,118 0.6% (16.9 km) 0.098 0.488 California halibut 5,021,168 0.3% (30.9 km) 0.077 0.386 rock crab 6,411,171 1.1% 26.5 km 0.284 1.418 158 AES HBGS Entrainment and Impingement Study, Final Report 5.2 Impingement Summary An estimated 51,082 fishes representing 57 species and weighing 1,292 kg were impinged during the one-year study period, an average daily impingement of about 140 individuals weighing 3.5 kg (7.8 lb) (Table 5-3). Heat treatments accounted for 75% of fish impingement abundance and 78% of biomass. The most abundant species were queenfish (70%), white croaker (10%), shiner perch (8%), and northern anchovy (4%), and all species impinged during the one-year study were present in previous impingement studies at the generating station. Queenfish, white croaker, and northern anchovy are the overall long-term dominants in annual HBGS impingement sampling since 1979. Shiner perch was abundant at the HBGS in 1979, but abundance declined dramatically though 1984, and remained low thereafter. The decreasing numbers of shiner perch (as well as white seaperch and walleye surfperch) were not limited to the waters off the HBGS; similar declines were noted at several locations in southern California. This decline coincided with increasing water temperatures, decreased zooplankton biomass, and reduced upwelling in the SCB (Roemmich and McGowan 1995, Allen et al. 2003). The increasing numbers of shiner perch in impingement samples the last few years could have resulted from the increased flow volume at the HBGS, increasing standing stock in the source waters, or both. Table 5-3. Summary of annual impingement estimates for the most abundant fish species (top) and macro invertebrate species contributing most to impingement abundance and biomass (biomass). Normal Operations Heat Treatments Annual Impingement' No. Wt. (kg) No. Wt. (kg) No. Wt. (kg) Fishes queenfish 10,468 58.02 25,379 590.14 35,847 648.16 white croaker 274 3.37 4,629 92.05 4,903 95.42 shiner perch 215 2.01 3,830 49.81 4,045 51.82 northern anchovy 824 5.51 1,369 9.34 2,193 14.86 Percent of total 92% 63% Macroinvertebrates D. frondosus 62,150 14.96 - - 62,150 14.96 yellow rock crab 2,706 21.75 151 1.34 2,857 23.10 graceful rock crab 1,484 2.90 11 0.08 1,495 2.98 Pacific rock crab 958 8.59 68 1.18 1,026 9.77 two-spotted octopus 27 22.92 34 2.47 61 25.39 purple-striped jelly 53 21.67 - - 53 21.67 California spiny lobster 12 11.00 20 8.64 32 19.64 Percent of total 96% 70% 'Annual impingement is the sum of Normal Operations and Heat Treatments.Annual values may differ slightly from actual due to rounding. AES HBGS Entrainment and Impingement Study, Final Report 159 All fish species impinged during the present study have been collected previously at the HBGS. The only species impinged in the present study that is classified as 'rare' was yellow snake eel (Ophichthus zophochir). The classification comes from Miller and Lea (1972), indicating 20 or less were taken prior to 1972. The scarcity of this species likely results from its burrowing behavior. Lea and Rosenblatt (2000) speculated that tropical ophichthids are transported to higher latitude waters during warm-water years, settle out, and live an expatriated existence. This species was taken in impingement samples at HBGS in seven survey years since 1979, and has also been collected at other generating stations in southern California (SCE 2000). Of the 60 white seabass impinged at the HBGS during this study, 49 were returned to MBC's laboratory and scanned for coded wire tags to determine if they were hatchery-reared or part of the natural population (Vojkovich and Crooke 2001). Of the 49 white seabass scanned, only 4 (8%) were hatchery-reared fish with tags. Coincidentally, a survey of 2-3-year-old white seabass caught by sportfishers in 2000 indicated that 7% were hatchery-reared fish with tags (Dotson and Charter 2003). All of the hatchery fish collected in impingement samples were returned to the Hubbs Sea- World Research Institute Hatchery for further analysis. An estimated 70,638 macroinvertebrates representing 37 species and weighing 168 kg were impinged during the one-year study, an average daily impingement of about 196 macroinvertebrates weighing 0.5 kg (1.0 lb). Unlike fish impingement, most macroinvertebrates (98%) were impinged during normal operations. The most abundant species were the nudibranch Dendronotus frondosus (88%), yellow rock crab (4%), graceful rock crab (2%), and Pacific rock crab (2%). The average annual macroinvertebrate impingement over the last ten years exceeded 16,000 individuals weighing about 146 kg. Abundances of the nudibranchs Hermissenda crassicornis and Dendronotus frondosus were higher in 2002 and 2003 than in any other survey year since 1994 (for which long-term macroinvertebrate data are compiled). Cause(s) for the increase in impingement of these species are unknown, but the highest abundances of these individuals coincided with surveys where large amounts of turf(Syncoryne eximia)were collected. It is possible that the small nudibranchs settle among the fouling invertebrates, including turf, within the CWIS. The individuals collected at the HBGS were very small (4,154 individuals per 1.0 kg for Dendronotus). Comparison of impingement losses of juvenile and adult fishes and invertebrates with source water populations (as was done for larval fishes and target invertebrates) is not possible due to insufficient source water data. However, to put impingement results in context, we compared them to: (1) commercial landings from commercial Catch Block 738, located offshore the HBGS, (2) southern California recreational landings as reported by the Pacific States Marine 160 AES HBGS Entrainment and Impingement Study, Final Report Fisheries Commission's (PSMFC) Recreational Fisheries Information Network database (RecFIN), and (3) recreational landings from Huntington, Newport, and Long Beach as reported by the NOAA Fisheries Los Angeles Times Sportfish Database. A discussion of cumulative impingement impacts from 11 of 13 southern California generating stations is presented in Section 7.0. To compare impingement at the HBGS with local commercial landings, we multiplied the biomass of impinged (commercially-caught) species by the commercial value (price per pound) reported from Catch Block 738 (offshore the HBGS) in 2002 and 2003 (CDFG 2004). This analysis was limited to those fish and macroinvertebrate species that were both impinged and commercially caught offshore the HBGS during at least one of those two years. It also assumed that the fishes and macroinvertebrates impinged would otherwise be caught and sold commercially. Combined annual fish and macroinvertebrate impingement at the HBGS amounted to $823 using 2002 Catch Block values and $1,072 using 2003 Catch Block values (Table 5-4). The top-valued species were California spiny lobster, white croaker, surfperches, and California scorpionfish (Scorpaena guttata). AES HBGS Entrainment and Impingement Study, Final Report 161 Table 5-4. Commercial value of impinged fish and macroi nverteb rates at the HBGS, July 2003-July 2004(ranked by 2003 commercial value). Annual impingement 2003 price 2002 price biomass 2003 2002 Category per pound per pound kg Ibs value value California spiny lobster $6.92 $6.62 19.64 43.30 $299.77 $286.66 white croaker $1.27 $1.08 95.42 210.40 $267.40 $226.62 surfperch-unspec. $1.00 - 99.29 218.93 $218.93 - California scorpionfish $1.93 $1.94 26.59 58.64 $113.30 $113.56 California halibut $3.46 $3.30 9.94 21.91 $75.88 $72.24 rock crab-unspec. $0.54 $0.92 42.11 92.86 $50.59 $85.38 shovelnose guitarfish $0.66 $0.83 11.17 24.64 $16.23 $20.51 white seabass $1.45 - 4.93 10.87 $15.76 - rockfish-unspec. $2.00 $2.20 1.19 2.62 $5.23 $5.74 California sheephead $3.53 $3.75 0.36 0.79 $2.79 $2.97 jacksmelt $0.03 - 29.67 65.42 $1.96 - northern anchovy $0.05 $0.03 14.86 32.76 $1.51 $1.09 leopard shark $0.77 - 0.81 1.79 $1.37 - Pacific sardine $0.04 $0.04 7.32 16.13 $0.61 $0.72 sanddab-unspec. $2.66 $2.66 0.10 0.21 $0.57 $0.57 market squid $0.20 $0.09 0.44 0.97 $0.19 $0.09 jack mackerel $0.10 $1.69 0.28 0.62 $0.06 $1.05 Pacific mackerel $0.07 $0.23 0.34 0.74 $0.05 $0.17 octopus - $0.10 25.39 55.99 - $5.60 Totals: $1,072.21 $822.97 Note: It is unknown if queenfish were included in the white croaker landing totals,since there were no reported queenfish landings. Using the price per pound of white croaker, impingement of queenfish would equal $1,815 (2003) and $1,544 (2002),raising the annual totals to$2,887(2003)and$2,367(2002). Impingement at the HBGS was also compared with local recreational landings. This analysis was limited to those fish and macroinvertebrate species that were both impinged in the current study and caught recreationally in southern California in 2003 and reported in at least one of the sportfishing databases: PSMFC's RecFIN database (PSMFC 2004) and/or the NOAA Fisheries Southern California Recreational Sport Fisheries Database (NOAA Fisheries 2004). The two databases were compiled using different methods. The RecFIN database relied heavily on phone surveys, while the NOAA Fisheries database was compiled using sportfish landing data from daily reports published in the Los Angeles Times. Data from the PSMFC RecFIN database were analyzed for southern California as a whole (analysis on a finer scale was not possible). For most species, the numbers impinged at the HBGS represented less than one percent of recreational landings in southern California (Table 5-5). Exceptions to this included giant kelpfish (2%), white croaker (3%), queenfish (4%), white seaperch (14%), and shiner perch (16%). There are no known recreational fisheries for queenfish or giant kelpfish in southern California. White seaperch and shiner perch are likely targeted by fishermen from piers and breakwaters. 162 AES HBGS Entrainment and Impingement Study, Final Report Table 5-5. Annual fish impingement abundance and projected annual losses from larval entrainment at the HBGS compared to 2003 recreational fishing landings in southern California as reported in the RecFIN database (ranked by RecFIN landings, top 29 species) (PSFMC 2004). 2003 Southern Proportion of Estimated Estimated California HBGS Impingement to PM PM Offshore Losses Losses Common Name Recreational Impingement Recreational Alongshore + using PM using PM Landings Capture Alongshore Alongshore Offshore+ Alongshore queenfish 974,312 35,847 3.7% 0.006 0.005 5,846 4,872 pacific mackerel 828,490 17 <0.1% NA NA NA NA barred sand bass 802,096 62 <0.1% NA NA NA NA kelp bass 595,291 138 <0.1% NA NA NA NA white croaker 180,002 4,903 2.7% 0.007 0.004 1,260 720 vermillion rockfish 160,170 1 <0.1% NA NA NA NA walleye surfperch 143,524 476 0.3% 0 0 0 0 California halibut 142,075 21 <0.1% 0.003 0.0008 426 114 California scorpionfish 130,126 110 0.1% NA NA NA NA jacksmelt 118,464 332 0.3% NA NA NA NA halfmoon 110,425 13 <0.1% NA NA NA NA topsmelt 93,605 231 0.2% NA NA NA NA yellowfin croaker 71,932 6 <0.1% NA NA NA NA California sheephead 69,843 1 <0.1% NA NA NA NA blacksmith 66,822 46 0.1% NA NA NA NA opaleye 51,956 19 <0.1% NA NA NA NA white seabass 50,521 60 0.1% NA NA NA NA black perch 42,120 66 0.2% 0 0 0 0 brown rockfish 36,193 2 <0.1% NA NA NA NA shiner perch 25,114 4,045 16.1% 0 0 0 0 California corbina 19,680 33 0.2% NA NA NA NA sargo 17,159 17 0.1% NA NA NA NA spotfin croaker 16,977 49 0.3% 0.003 0.003 51 51 pile perch 8,926 19 0.2% 0 0 0 0 rock wrasse 6,728 4 0.1% NA NA NA NA rubberlip seaperch 6,520 17 0.3% 0 0 0 0 white seaperch 6,110 869 14.2% 0 0 0 0 spotted sand bass 3,538 1 <0.1% NA NA NA NA giant kelpfish 1,281 30 2.3% NA NA NA NA 4,780,002 47,435 1.0% White croaker are targeted primarily by fishermen from piers, breakwaters, and private boats (Moore and Wild 2001). Impingement at the HBGS was also compared with recreational landings reported in the NOAA Fisheries Recreational Sport Fisheries Database for Southern California (NOAA Fisheries 2004). This database was originally compiled for NOAA Fisheries by MBC, and includes sportfish catch by landing as reported daily in the Los Angeles Times from 1959 through 2003 (Mitchell 1999). Our analysis of the NOAA database was limited to recreational landings from Long Beach, Huntington Beach, and Newport Beach (Table 5-6). AES HBGS Entrainment and Impingement Study, Final Report 163 Table 5-6. Comparison of fish impingement abundance at the HBGS from 2003-2004 and recreational fishing landings from Huntington, Newport, and Long Beach as reported in the NOAA Fisheries Los Angeles Times Sportfish Database(NOAA Fisheries 2004). 1999-2003 1959-2003 Average Annual Average HBGS Annual Annual Common Name Impingement 2003 Landings Landings Landings California barracuda 0 50,094 95,620 90,694 "sea bass" 21 14 57,440 white seabass 60 3,404 3,407 1,022 brown rockfish 2 0 19 7 bocaccio 0 0 1,495 219 black croaker 65 77 37 24 white croaker 4,903 296 645 1,756 queenfish 35,847 0 0 1,020 spotfin croaker 49 0 1 18 yellowfin croaker 6 1,120 573 111 California corbina 33 0 0 1 "croakers" 54 27 9 black surfperch 66 30 13 10 rubberlip perch 17 2 1 1 "perch" 5,492 21,793 14,110 5,296 blacksmith 46 2,732 1,901 375 kelp bass 138 77,004 66,783 79,203 barred sand bass 62 219,721 242,771 86,648 halfmoon 13 110 66 202 California sheephead 1 7,490 10,061 3,193 California halibut 21 2,350 2,726 8,561 jack mackerel 9 415 1,268 658 chub mackerel 17 3,974 15,338 98,519 jacksmelt 332 2 2 502 leopard shark 2 14 8 2 olive rockfish 0 0 43 136 opaleye 19 374 428 133 "sanddab" 23 32,680 43,680 7,220 sargo 17 1,020 728 210 California scorpionfish 110 32,390 35,981 12,559 round stingray 100 0 0 1 "turbot" 75 0 0 1 Totals: 47,479 457,167 537,746 455,751 Catches of species generally fluctuate over time because species not only vary in their availability and abundance, but also in their desirability to anglers. Table 5-6 presents total catch numbers, and does not take into account variability in fishing effort over time. Catch from three different time periods (2003, 1999-2003, and 1959-2003) are presented to show trends through time. The annual number of sport anglers in southern California has varied little over the last 40 years, remaining at about 620,000 angler trips per year, though the total number of fish landed has steadily decreased (Dotson and Charter 2003). Between San Pedro and San Clemente, the 164 AES HBGS Entrainment and Impingement Study, Final Report total catch per angler peaked in 1980, then steadily decreased by about 50% to 1999. The authors noted that fishing regulations, including size limits, take limits, and closures, have affected catch rates in southern California (Dotson and Charter 2003). There are no known stock estimates of fishes or macroinvertebrates in southern California for species other than those managed by NOAA fisheries (e.g., Pacific groundfish and coastal pelagics), and those stock estimates are generally for population units in areas much larger than solely in the SCB. The Bight '98 Study, performed in 1998, is the latest of the regional monitoring efforts for which fish and invertebrate data are available (Allen et al. 2002). The purposes of the Bight '98 study were to describe patterns in fish and invertebrate population attributes in the SCB, to describe fish and invertebrate assemblages, and to assess the condition and extent of anthropogenic impact on fish and invertebrate populations based on the extent and distribution of tissue contamination in flatfishes, anomalies and sublethal effects, the status of population attributes in affected areas compared with reference areas, assemblage biointegrity and organization, and debris. The Regional Monitoring Surveys coordinated by the Southern California Coastal Water Research Project(SCCWRP), which were performed in 1994, 1998, and 2003 are useful in describing the fish and invertebrate communities of the SCB, but these surveys did not determine stock estimates. The Bight '98 study included sampling in bays and harbors, and extended the sampling area inshore of the 20-m isobath (the inshore limit of the 1994 Pilot Project) to the 5-m isobath. White croaker, queenfish, northern anchovy, and shiner perch accounted for 28%, 6%, 5%, and 1% of survey fish abundance, respectively, with white croaker being the most abundant species in the Bight. The authors compared fish population attributes (such as abundance, biomass, and diversity) in the SCB from three different time periods: 1957-1975, 1994, and 1998. Though there were slight differences among the time periods, Allen et al. (2002) note "Fish population attribute mean values for the SCB were very similar between the three time periods: fish abundance was 156-173 individuals/haul; biomass was 4.9-7.1 kg/haul; species richness was 10.1-11.7 species/haul; and diversity was 1.28-1.59 bits/individual/hauf'. Herbinson et al. (2001) reported a long-term decline in white croaker abundance in the SCB from 1976 through 1998. In spite of this, white croaker still appear (as of 1998) to be the most abundant fish species on the southern California shelf. The macroinvertebrate species most affected by the generating station were not well- represented in the 1998 trawl survey. Tuberculate pear crab comprised 1% of the survey abundance, with all other commonly impinged invertebrates comprising <0.2% of survey abundance or less in trawl samples (Allen et al. 2002). Ridgeback prawn (one of the entrainment target species in the present study)was the second most abundant invertebrate in the Bight-wide AES HBGS Entrainment and Impingement Study, Final Report 165 trawl survey, comprising 16% of total abundance. Unlike fish population attributes (such as abundance, biomass, and diversity), Allen et al. (2002) noted that invertebrate population attributes in 1998 were generally lower than in 1994 or 1957-1975, with highest abundance and biomass per haul occurring in 1994, and highest species richness in 1957-1975. Diversity was not measured in 1957-1975, but dropped from 1.09 to 0.99 per haul between 1994 and 1998. We summarized results of annual trawl surveys offshore the HBGS from 1976-2004 for the most abundant species in impingement samples (Figure 5-1). The trawl surveys were conducted annually each August off the HBGS between the Santa Ana River mouth and the Huntington Beach Pier. From 1976-1993, a total of twelve trawls was performed, including six performed perpendicular to shore. Beginning in 1994, sampling effort was reduced to six trawls per year, with all performed parallel to shore on the discharge isobath. Fish abundance offshore the generating station in summer declined after 1994, when the trawl program was halved (Figure 5-1). This could be due to reduced numbers of fishes in the study area, reduced sampling effort, and/or the elimination of trawls that extended further offshore. The trawl locations were limited to the discharge isobath, and cannot account for cross- shelf shifts in fish populations. However, when the relationship between fish abundance and flow rate is considered, it is likely there has been a decrease in fish abundance offshore Huntington Beach through time (Figure 5-2). 166 AES HBGS Entrainment and Impingement Study, Final Report All fish Northern anchovy White croaker 2500 1800 800 ° 1600 O O 2000 1400 600 O 1500 ° 1000 rn o00 CI- 1000 s° o 0 800 ° 400 • o 600 w 500 ° o° 400 ° 200 ® e ° t1 0 ° p Oooe° 200 •e ° -° ° ®° 0 ° a°O°• °0 O O o 00 1975 1985 1995 2005 1975 1985 1995 2005 1975 1985 1995 2005 Queenfish Shiner perch White seaperch 400 — 15 40 R 300 ° ° 10 0 30 °o e n 200 ° ° e 20 ° _ • 0 5 ° ° 10 100 e o 0 LL ° o °•° 0 00 0° 0 0 o e e o 0 0 0 0 0 1975 1985 1995 2005 1975 1985 1995 2005 1975 1985 1995 2005 Figure 5-1. Trawl abundance (catch-per-unit-effort [CPUE]) for select fish species offshore the HBGS, 1976-2004. Surveys performed in August of each year, except 2002-2003 (no surveys). Trawl effort was halved in 1994. Note: Y-axis values are different for each graph. Annual impingement rate Annual impingement rate 1979-2004 1979-2004 R2=0.7073 R2=0.7487 2,000 so 1,500 —_ °_*��y 45 e♦ 1,000 30 — 500 • 15 • 0 ♦ • ee 0 ♦ • 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 Figure 5-2. Fish impingement (CPUE) from 1976 to the present at the HBGS. CPUE expressed as individuals (left) and biomass (right) per 1,000,000 gallons per day of cooling water flow. The long-term dataset for impinged macroinvertebrates is not as complete as that for fishes-, annual macroinvertebrate impingement totals are available only from 1994 to present. During that time period, the impingement rate has increased slightly with respect to abundance, but biomass has remained stable (Figure 5-3). AES HBGS Entrainment and►mpinciement Study, Final Report 167 Annual impingement rate Annual impingement rate 1994-2004 1994-2004 R2=0.3668 R2=7E-05 _m...m..... _.m®.. 200 —♦ •-- ---160 - 120 - __ --- - - -♦_ -- 400 ♦ - • - — - — 0 ♦ ♦ • 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 Figure 5-3. Macro!nvertebrate impingement (CPUE) from 1994 to the present at the HBGS. CPUE expressed as individuals (left) and biomass (right) per 1,000,000 gallons per day of cooling water flow. Trend analysis may provide insight to population trends; however, it would be extremely difficult to determine the reasons for the annual variations and patterns. Numerous factors, such as regional oceanographic conditions, availability of food resources, and anthropogenic impacts (including I&E), probably affect the composition and abundance of nearshore fishes and invertebrates. Most of our the long-term impingement data set was collected under a warm oceanic regime in the SCB, and further influenced by a series of El Nino/Southern Oscillation events within this time period (Moser et al. 2001) (Figure 5-4). These included El Nino events in 1982-1983, 1993, and 1997-1998, and La Nina events in 1988-1989 and 1999. In addition to periodic El Nino and La Nina events, the lower frequency Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) describes multidecadal cycles of warm and cold oceanic regimes off California. The PDO affects ocean climate (water temperature, upwelling, productivity, precipitation, and runoff) along the Pacific Coast. When the Aleutian Low atmospheric pressure cell is strong, there is a warm temperature regime off California. During this time, the California Current is weak, upwelling is reduced, and productivity is low. However, precipitation and runoff are high. When the Aleutian Low is weak, the California Current is strong, upwelling is greater, and precipitation and runoff are low. These regime shifts have caused shifts in fish populations in the Pacific Ocean (Allen et al. 2004). From 1951 through the mid-1990s, macrozooplankton biomass in waters off southern California decreased by 80%, coinciding with a temperature increase in the oceanic surface layer (Roemmich and McGowan 1995). All of the fish species examined (Figure 5-1) feed on zooplankton with the decrease possibly affecting overall fish abundance. Holbrook et al. (1997) estimated a 69% decrease in populations of 75 fish species at King Harbor and off Palos Verdes, California, between 1975 and 1993. Brooks et al. (2002) examined impingement data from four 168 AES HBGS Entrainment and Impingement Study, Final Report coastal generating stations, including the HBGS, and determined that the abundance of 37 fish species declined an average of 41% from 1978 to 1992. The authors attributed this to a regional decline in productivity. Scripps SST anomaly 2.50 2.00 U 150 - -- ---- - ---- - - 4� 100 - - - - - --- m 0.50 - - - --- - ® - - - - 0.00 o, 50 -100 - — - -- - -- -- -- --- m -150 ---- -- - -- - --- - - - - 0 _2.00 -2.50 Figure 5-4. Annual sea surface temperature anomaly (departure from 82-year average) from 1970-2002 at Scripps Pier, La Jolla, CA. 5.3 Direct Impact Summary CEQA does not provide a clear definition of significant impact with respect to biological resources, only that it equates to a "substantial, or potentially substantial, adverse change in any of the physical conditions within the area affected by the project..." (CEQA Guidelines §15382). The operation of the cooling water intake system at present results in an annual estimated impingement of 51,082 fishes weighing 1,292 kg (2,848 lb.), and an estimated 70,368 macroinvertebrates weighing 168 kg (369 lb.). These estimates are equal to approximately 140 fish weighing 3.5 kg (8 lb.) per day, and 194 macroinvertebrates weighing 0.5 kg (1 Lb) per day. There are no source population estimates for impinged species with which to determine if the losses are"substantial' on a population level. Impacts to SCB fish and invertebrate populations caused by the entrainment of planktonic larvae through the HBGS MIS can only be assessed indirectly through modeling (Section 5.1). These impacts are additive with the direct impingement losses. The definition of "effects" or "impacts" in CEQA is not limited to direct impacts, such as impingement losses, but may also include "...indirect or secondary effects which are caused by the project and are later in time or farther removed in distance, but are still reasonably foreseeable..." (CEQA Guidelines AES HBGS Entrainment and Impingement Study, Final Report 169 §15358). Of the ten abundant fish species entrained at HBGS, seven have some commercial or recreational fishery value. The ETM procedure estimates the annual probability of mortality due to entrainment (PM). It puts the entrainment estimate into context by comparing it with a known source population at risk of entrainment. The Pm estimates for all of the target taxa were approximately one percent or less (Table 5-1). The alongshore estimates indicate that these impacts occur over an estimated 13 to 85 km of coastline. The distance of shoreline potentially affected is directly proportional to the estimate of time that the larvae are exposed to entrainment. Nearly half of the 53 different fish taxa entrained belonged to species with some direct fishery value (e.g., sand basses, white seabass, California barracuda) even though most of those were very infrequent in the samples. Because of their low abundance in the samples, most of these taxa were not modeled for potential impacts. The single invertebrate taxon modeled for entrainment impacts, Cancer crabs, had projected impacts of 1.1% of a source water population extrapolated along a shoreline distance of 27 km. Even in a heavily exploited commercial species these levels of additional mortality would be considered very low, especially when the populations of these species extend over a much larger geographic range than the extrapolated source water bodies. There were a few fishes where the combined effects of entrainment and impingement could be assessed. This was done using the RecFIN data presented in Table 5-4. Estimates of entrainment effects based on PM estimates when added to impingement resulted in losses to the recreational catch for southern California totaling 4.2% for queenfish, 3.4% for white croaker, 0.3% for California halibut, and 0.6% for spotfin croaker. The entrainment estimates were determined by multiplying the P,,,estimates by the total southern California landing estimates. Key findings of the entrainment study are as follows: • No State- or Federally-listed threatened or endangered species were entrained in the year-long study; • Annual entrainment losses of equivalent adults could only be projected for CIQ gobies (101,269 using FH and 147,493 using AEL) and northern anchovy (26,745 using FH and 304,125 using AEL); • Fish entrainment losses were equivalent to 0.1% to 1.2% of the source water populations of those species modeled. Approximately one-half of the taxa entrained through HBGS had some direct value to sport or commercial fishers, although most were entrained in very low abundance. 170 AES HBGS Entrainment and Impingement Study, Final Report • The five most abundantly entrained fish species (CIQ gobies, anchovies, spotfin croaker, white croaker and queenfish) represented fishes from a variety of habitats including bay/wetland (gobies), benthic nearshore (croakers), and pelagic nearshore/offshore (anchovies). Of these species spotfin croaker is probably the least abundant in the SCB. The most abundantly impinged macroinvertebrate larvae (sand or mole crabs) are widely distributed along shorelines in the SCB. • Cost estimates for entrainment losses based on using the PM estimate as a proportion of the dollar value of the catch landed from Catch Block 738 totaled $307 and $312 based on 2002 and 2003 data, respectively. These estimates underestimate the potential value of the losses because they are based on PM estimates for only four of the target taxa, and the size of the block is much smaller than the potential source water for the species analyzed. The following is a summary of impingement impacts: • No State- or Federally-listed threatened or endangered species were impinged in the year-long study; • Impingement losses (fishes and macroinvertebrates) were equivalent to $823— $2,367 using 2002 commercial catch data, and $1,072—$2,887 using 2003 data; • Fish impingement losses were equivalent to 1% of southern California recreational landings as reported by PSFMC (2004), and about 10% of recreational landings from Huntington, Newport, and Long Beach as reported by NOAA Fisheries (2004). However, many of the species most commonly impinged are those which are not highly prized by sport fishers; • The four most abundantly impinged fish species are fairly abundant in the SCB, together comprising 40% of fish abundance from the 1998 Regional Monitoring Study in the SCB. The most abundantly impinged macroinvertebrates were not nearly as abundant in the Bight-wide study, however. Based on results of long-term impingement and trawl studies at the HBGS, numbers of fishes at intake depth off the HBGS have declined since the 1970s and 1980s. It is unclear whether this resulted from coastwise or cross-shelf population shifts, or a reduction in stocks through time, and what led to these changes (e.g., oceanographic conditions, anthropogenic impacts, etc.). • AES HBGS Entrainment and Impingement Study, Final Report 171 6.0 IMPINGEMENT REDUCTION EVALUATION 6.1 Introduction EPA defines entrainment as "the incorporation of all life stages of fish and shellfish with intake flow entering and passing through a cooling water intake structure and into a cooling water system" (EPA 2002). Impingement refers to the entrapment of fishes and shellfishes on screening structures during cooling water withdrawals. At the HBGS, juvenile and adult fishes that are entrained in the cooling water intake structure are drawn downstream to the generating station screening structure where they are susceptible to impingement on the traveling screens. However, upcurrent from the traveling screens, the intake conduit directs the cooling water flow to an open-air forebay (Figure 6-1). Figure 6-1.AES HBGS forebay. 172 AES HBGS Entrainment and Impingement Study, Final Report This forebay is larger and deeper in dimension than the intake conduit and, as a result, there are portions of the forebay with lower water velocities than those found in the intake conduit. Some fishes are impinged and removed during normal plant operations. However, many of the fishes that are drawn into the generating station's cooling water intake system (CWIS) remain within the forebay until the plant conducts a heat treatment, at which time all of the fishes and macro invertebrates in the forebay succumb to the heated water and are subsequently impinged on the traveling screens and removed from the system. During the AFC proceedings for the Retool Project it was hypothesized by some individuals that netting entrapped fishes out of the intake forebay may be feasible to reduce impingement losses. Subsequently, the CEC imposed Condition of Certification BIO-6 upon AES Huntington Beach L.L.C., which specifies the following: The project owner shall conduct a study to determine if there is a feasible methodology that would greatly reduce the number of fishes trapped in the intake forebay. If the study determines that a feasible method(s) exists to reduce the number of fishes trapped in the cooling water system the project owner shall implement those methods. 6.2 Methods The purpose of this study is to examine a variety of ways to reduce impingement at the HBGS, and to evaluate the feasibility of each method. Here we examine different methodologies for reducing fish entrapment at HBGS, discuss their principles of effectiveness, performance, and cost, and determine their feasibility for use at the HBGS. Section 6.3 summarizes the history of entrapment studies and attempts at reducing entrapment at other power stations in California. Section 6.4 examines a variety of potential methods for reducing fish entrapment, including behavioral barriers, fish collection and return systems, and alternative intake locations. Section 6.5 discusses the results of our analysis and prioritizes the available technologies/methods based on feasibility. 6.3 History of Entrapment Studies There are six coastal generating stations in southern California with offshore, velocity- capped intake structures, including the HBGS. In total, there are nine such intake structures in southern California coastal waters; all others are shoreline-type intake structures or intake canals that withdraw cooling water from bays, harbors, or lagoons. Entrapment at generating stations with offshore intake structures occurs when organisms are drawn into the intake structure and AES HBGS Entrainment and Impingement Study. Final Report 173 transported, along with the cooling water flow, to the generating station. Impingement occurs when entrapped organisms are trapped on traveling screens designed to remove organisms and debris from the cooling water. This occurs when the fishes die, or their swimming ability is no longer capable of countering intake flow. Fish entrapment is largely a function of cooling water intake flow, fish distribution, and fish density. At the HBGS, fish entrapment is dominated by only a few species, including queenfish (Seriphus politus), shiner perch (Cymatogaster aggregata), northern anchovy (Engraulis mordax), and white croaker (Genyonemus lineatus) (MBC 2004). Helvey (1985) considered queenfish, northern anchovy, and white croaker to be"transient" in that they are rarely observed at intakes during the day, and their nocturnal interactions with intake structures are largely incidental. Shiner perch were considered by Helvey (1985) to be "intake-associated" in that they remain associated with reefs for most of their lives. The previous owners of the HBGS studied ways to reduce entrapment at the generating station (and other similar coastal generating stations), and also implemented methods to reduce entrapment. This section summarizes both actual demonstrations and studies to reduce entrapment at some of southern California's coastal generating stations, including the HBGS. 6.3.1 Previous Attempts to Reduce Entrapment at HBGS Velocity Caps Southern California Edison (SCE), the former operator of the HBGS, began studying ways to reduce impingement in the 1950s, including behavioral barriers such as light and sound. The velocity cap, in use at HBGS today, was considered a feasible method to greatly reduce entrapment and impingement not only at HBGS, but at all generating stations with offshore intakes. The velocity cap is a concrete cap that is supported above the vertical intake riser, and it acts to direct intake flows horizontally rather than vertically (many fishes are more sensitive to horizontal flows than vertical flows) (Downs and Meddock 1974). There are different shapes (e.g., circular and rectangular) and configurations of velocity caps (Figure 6-2). The velocity cap at the HBGS intake and at the two intakes at the El Segundo Generating Station (ESGS) are similar in design and referred to as "overhang cap" since the cap extends horizontally beyond the riser (Schlotterbeck et al. 1979). Others are "flush" if the cap and riser are the same shape and diameter, and "overhang cap and riser lip" if both the cap and riser are extended horizontally. Studies at the ESGS and Scattergood Generating Stations, which draw cooling water from Santa ^ 174 AES HBGS Entrainment and impingement StudV, Final Rego Monica Boy, indicated velocity caps reduced entrapment and subsequent impingement by up to 0096 (Weight 1058; SCE 1875). CANAL VELOCITY SHORELINE INTAKE 1.7 fps 1.5 fps LOW FLOW FLUSH CAP OVERHANG CAP OVERHANG CAP ond RISER- LIP SCE COOLING WATER INTAKES Figure 6-2. Examples of velocity oo9 types at southern California coastal generating stations. (From Soh|ottmrbmnkat al. 1979). Fish Pumps and Return Systems SCE studied fish return (via pump) as early as 1956, and by 1968 a pump system for fish removal was installed at the HBG8 (SCE 1Q75. Sdpanov1Q78) The pump used otHBGS was on eight-inch diameter food-handling pump. A similar pump was also used at Pacific Gas & Electric's Contra Comte Power Plant in Antioch, California (Bechtel 1971) At the HBGG, fishes were pumped out ofthe forabay and into the discharge conduit. The concrete platform constructed for this operation is still in place in the HBGS foreboy. The number offishes removed was estimated by a photoelectric cell counter within the pump pipe. The system was designed to transfer fish up to3O'om (12-in.) in length (SCE 1075. Gdpanov1Q7Q) The system was operated during the nighttime, and a light was suspended in the forebay to attract fishes into the vicinity of the pump. The effect of different periods of light on fish attraction was studied (e.g.. constant light versus a variety of intervals of alternating light and dark) Removal rates were relatively similar during all of the light regimes. Fish removal rates gradually decreased to almost zero after about two hours of pump oparadon, and after consecutive days of two-hour oparatinn, the removal note continued to decrease. It was r AES HBGS Entrainment and Impingement Study Final Report 175 hypothesized that this resulted not from a decrease in fish abundance, but from fish acclimatization to the light operation and their avoidance of the area. SCE estimated the pump removal effectiveness to be as high as 55%; however, given the high variability in observed removal rates, and the lack of data on survivability, this estimate was probably not reliable. There were also times when stunned or deceased fish were found on the adjacent state beach, probably after they had been discharged from the generating station (C.T. Mitchell, MBC, pers. comm. 2003). Fish Netting In 1995, MBC took part in a study that examined responses of several fish species to sonic stimuli at Redondo Marine Laboratory (see Section 6.4.1). The four target species were northern anchovy, white croaker, queenfish, and Pacific sardine, which were collected using a variety of methods, including netting from the HBGS forebay. Prior to a heat treatment on 26 April 1995, MBC personnel used a modified net to collect approximately 400 queenfish and white croaker from the HBGS forebay. These fishes were placed in a specially designed holding tank filled with ambient intake water from the generating station and equipped with aeration. The test organisms were then driven to the Redondo Marine Laboratory in Redondo Beach, approximately 30 miles upcoast from Huntington Beach. Field notes from the transfer indicate that survival of white croaker was approximately 75%, while only "few queenfish lived." It is MBC's experience in working with trawl-caught or impinged queenfish that they do not tolerate handling well in comparison with similar-sized individuals of many other species, including other sciaenids (croakers)found off southern California. MBC biologists removed Pacific electric rays (Torpedo californica) from the HBGS forebay for many years, and continue to do so. When entrapped in the forebay, these fishes often cruise slowly at the water surface and are visible to plant personnel. Removal was accomplished through the use of a custom net fitted with four long bridles that enabled biologists to lower and retrieve the net from the concrete platform surrounding the forebay. One side of the net was weighted so the net could be positioned under the swimming electric ray. Once captured, it would be brought to the surface, placed in an aerated holding tank, and transported to the nearest appropriate release site. Most often, the rays were released at the public dock near the entrance to Newport Harbor(Newport Beach, CA), approximately six miles from the generating station. 176 AES HBGS Entrainment and Impingement Study, Final Report 6.3.2 Previous Entrapment Reduction Studies Huntington Beach Generating Station Fish Encounter Studies (FES) et al. (1980) examined trends in fish entrapment in southern California to determine if they were associated with differences in intake structure design, capacity, siting, and environmental parameters. In-plant entrapment and offshore abundance data were collected simultaneously for queenfish, white croaker, and northern anchovy at the HBGS. The authors calculated "vulnerability indices" as follows: Vulnerability = E/B Where: E = Entrapment biomass B = Density of fishes surrounding the intake structure Entrapment biomass was determined by incapacitating all fishes within the cooling water intake system so they could be impinged, removed by the traveling screens, and processed. This was accomplished by two methods: abbreviated heat treatment and sodium hypochlorite treatment. The density of fishes surrounding the intake structure was calculated by hydroacoustics. As the hydroacoustic surveys were underway, a simultaneous lampara and gill net sampling program was initiated to determine the species composition of a subsample of the acoustic targets. The following is a summary of the results. Diel Variation. At HBGS, the mean rate of hourly fish entrapment was highest at night compared with crepuscular (dawn/dusk) and diurnal (daylight) periods (Friedman's p>0.05) (FES et al. 1980). Further diel entrapment studies indicated that entrapment rates were 7.9 times higher between midnight and dawn than during the remaining hours of the day. One possible explanation for this disparity was the vertical migration of queenfish and white croaker at night, leading to an increased frequency of encounter with the intake system. Water Clarity. Water clarity measurements were recorded at the HBGS forebay during daylight hours (FES et al. 1980). Measurements were made by observing the number of rungs visible on a submerged grid in the forebay, and comparing them with Vulnerability indices during days of full flow and "normal" operating conditions. For some species, there was a significant negative correlation between vulnerability and water clarity. Spearman rank correlation coefficients were -0.790 for queenfish, -0.804 for white croaker, and -0.793 for all species AES HBGS Entrainment and Impingement Study. Final Report 177 combined, and were statistically significant (p<0.01). Northern anchovy entrapment was not significantly affected by water clarity (-0.274, p>0.05). Intake Velocity. FES et al. (1980) deployed an electromagnetic current sensor on the velocity cap to measure intake currents at a distance of about 1.2 m from the riser bowl at the HBGS intake structure. Comparison of Vulnerability Indices and entrance velocities yielded no significant relationships. Intake velocities of up to 1.2 m/s were recorded at that location. Intake Volume. FES et al. (1980) compared nocturnal fish entrapment during half-flow (four cooling water pumps) and full flow (eight cooling water pumps) conditions. Vulnerability Indices were then compared to determine if entrapment rates were more closely related to changes in flow than with changes in offshore population densities. Mean hourly entrapment rates for queenfish, white croaker, northern anchovy, and all species combined were 75% or lower on nights with reduced flows than on nights with full flows. However, there were large fluctuations in offshore densities, and the variability in the data suggested that the differences were not statistically significant. In conclusion, it was noted: "For queenfish...there was some evidence supporting the conclusion that reduced flow, and not changes in abundance, was the factor responsible for the observed decreases in entrapment. This latter observation is encouraging in that queenfish comprise a very large percentage of SCE's fish entrapment." Redondo Beach Generating Station Johnson et al. (1976) studied factors affecting entrapment at the Redondo Beach Generating Station (Redondo Beach, California) from 1974 to 1976. The Redondo Beach Generating Station Units 7&8 intake is similar in design to the one off the HBGS, and withdraws cooling water from the mouth of King Harbor. The authors of this study concluded the following: • The highest fish impingement was associated with storms producing winds greater than 15 kn. Twenty-one percent of total impingement during the two-year study occurred during two storms with high wind speeds. • Higher water temperatures (180-230C) were associated with increased entrapment. This, however, coincided with the seasonal presence of small schooling fishes in the intake area and was most likely a spurious correlation. 178 AES HBGS Entrainment and Impingement Study, Final Report • Relative swimming ability was not an apparent factor in impingement relative to cooling water intake flow; however, surge during storm events may have led to increased impingement. • Females, particularly those in an advanced reproductive state, were more frequently impinged than males. The reproductive state of females has been shown to affect swimming ability. 6.4 Potential Impingement Reduction Systems and Methods The following section examines potential means of reducing fish impingement at HBGS. Some systems are in use at generating stations, while others are considered experimental. The different options considered are classified as behavioral barriers/technologies, screening and return technologies, fish elevators, intake relocation, and flow modifications. 6.4.1 Behavioral Barriers and Technologies Behavioral barriers/technologies include light stimuli, sonic stimuli, and bubble curtains (EPA 2004). Some of these technologies have been considered for generating stations with CWIS designs similar to that of the HBGS. In 1991, the California Coastal Commission required the operators of the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station (SONGS; San Clemente, California) to "install and maintain behavioral barriers including but not limited to mercury lights and sonic devices at SONGS Units 2 and 3 to reduce midwater fish impingement losses." Studies determined mercury lights were not effective in reducing impingement, and acoustic technology was deemed infeasible due to logistical difficulties and high costs (CCC 2000). Though these technologies are not in use at SONGS, the operators utilize a "fish chase" procedure which reduces fish impingement by optimizing the effectiveness of the fish return system. The following is a discussion of behavioral barriers/technologies considered for the HBGS. Sonic Stimuli Sonic stimuli, or sound barriers, rely on mechanical or electronic equipment that generates sound patterns to elicit avoidance responses in fishes. Sound has been shown to effectively deter certain species of fishes. Very low frequency (VLF) sound has been demonstrated to reduce the numbers of chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) yearlings and sockeye salmon (O. nerka) from entering an irrigation canal intake in Chelan County, Washington (Hays et al. 1995). Crude tests were conducted to evaluate the effectiveness of AES HBGS Entrainment and Impingement Study. Final Report 179 acoustic barriers in southern California in the 1970s (Schuler 1974). EPA (2004) notes that most studies performed to document the performance of such technologies "have been inconclusive or have shown no significant reduction in impingement or entrainment. As a result, the full-scale application of behavioral devices has been limited. Where data are available, performance appears to be highly dependent on the types and sizes of species and environmental conditions. One exception might be the use of sound systems to divert alewife." Alewife (Alosa pseudoharengus) is a common, anadromous clupeid on the Atlantic coast. In general, sonic systems are implemented to reduce impingement of one, or a few, target species. In 1972, Virginia Electric and Power Company conducted preliminary tests on the use of sound (primarily rock music) from underwater speakers to repel fishes from the vicinity (Schuler 1974). Test results suggested sound could be used to effectively deter fishes from specific areas. Subsequently, studies were performed at SCE's Long Beach Generating Station (Long Beach, California). The studies used various sounds (rock music, a "killer whale tape," and a range of frequencies from 20 to 15,000 cycles per second) aimed at eliciting startle responses in various fish species, including black perch, shiner perch, kelp perch, northern anchovy, and queenfish. No startle response in these fishes was observed by divers. The striking of a mallet on partially submerged wooden planks did elicit a startle response, suggesting the absence of a shock wave in the taped sounds may have reduced their effectiveness. In that same study at the Long Beach Generating Station, an underwater pneumatic device (referred to as a "popper") was tested (Schuler 1974). Fishes demonstrated a startle response within 60 ft of the popper, especially when it was cycled continuously. The same device was tested at two offshore intake structures off the Redondo Beach Generating Station. The popper was placed at each intake structure in the intake opening between the top of the riser and the velocity cap. Upon activation, all observable fishes (surfperches, kelp bass, and spotted sand bass) within approximately 12 ft of the intake left the immediate vicinity. Fishes on the other three sides of the intake structure showed no reaction. After approximately three hours, with the device operating continuously at 6 to 12 cycles per minute, a few individual surfperches were observed approximately five to eight feet from the popper, but below and away from the intake opening. No fishes were ever observed in the intake opening while the popper operated. Currently, there are no such systems available that have proven effectiveness at deterring fishes (Popper pers. comm. 2005). 180 AES HBGS Entrainment and Impingement Study, Final Report Sonalysts Study Introduction. The potential use of sonic stimuli to reduce fish impingement and improve fish-return performance at SCE's San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station (SONGS) was studied in 1995 (Sonalysts and MBC 1995a). It was hypothesized that sonic devices could be installed in the forebay of SONGS to direct fishes to the fish return system (FRS), and/or that sonic devices could be installed at the offshore intake structure(s) to deter fishes from the area. The experiment was designed to evaluate the response of selected species to acoustic stimuli. The target species selected for analysis were northern anchovy, white croaker, queenfish, and Pacific sardine. Combined these four species represented 91.3% of impingement abundance and 73.6% of impingement biomass at HBGS between 1979 and 2002. Walleye surfperch (Hyperprosopon argenteum) was also analyzed since it was incidentally collected with the other test organisms. From 1979 through 2002, this species comprised 2.3% of impingement abundance and 2.4% of impingement biomass at HBGS. Methods. Fishes were collected and placed in a large, redwood-walled holding tank supplied with running seawater at SCE's Redondo Marine Laboratory. The tank was large enough that fishes were presumed to be free-swimming and capable of making preferential selections of the acoustical environments. The tank was 25 ft in diameter with a concrete bottom and lower sides. A 12-ft diameter circular"island" was installed in the center of the tank to form a circular water path that was approximately 6 ft wide, and water depth in this raceway was maintained at approximately 6 ft. Seawater flow in the raceway was unidirectional so as to produce circular water flow that the fishes were able to orient to. Within the tank, two identical tunnels (test flues) were installed, and each tunnel was fabricated with access ports for transducers, underwater lights, and video equipment for recording observations. The tunnels were located about mid-depth in the water column, and a concrete barrier between the two tunnels prevented acoustic contamination between them. To minimize turbulence, a ramp composed of cinder blocks was placed at the entrance and exit of each tunnel. Overall, the setup was designed to provide fishes with identical paths, provide acoustic isolation, and minimize background noise. Transducers were installed under the test flues and video recorders were installed above them to record fish movements. Recordings were made during periods of normal (no acoustic stimuli) behavior and all periods of fish behavior when test signals were broadcast. Results. Very Low Frequency (VLF) signals always elicited avoidance responses from the test subjects. The most dramatic results were recorded when circulating (swimming) fishes were exposed to recorded signals of other swimming fishes. It was hypothesized that large- magnitude VLF sound fields are interpreted by fishes as either an attacking predator or large 4 AES HBGS Entrainment and Impingement Study. Final Report 181 obstacle that must be avoided. With sonic stimuli enacted, white croaker approached the flues every few minutes, yet they turned around and swam away every time. Interestingly, with good visibility and no threat visible, avoidance continued. Medium Frequency (MF) signals elicited weak startle responses from northern anchovy and Pacific sardine, but not from white croaker and walleye surfperch. It was concluded that MF signals were not effective in altering the behavior of the target species. Very High Frequency (VHF) signals elicited no response from any of the test species. Discussion. Overall, the project demonstrated that "biologically significant sound can be artificially generated and that it elicited a consistent, repeatable avoidance response from four species of fishes" (Sonalysts and MBC 1995a). Subsequently, the feasibility of installing an acoustic behavioral barrier at SONGS was analyzed (Sonalysts and MBC 1995b). The feasibility study analyzed the installation of both 1) a system within the forebay/screenwell that increased the number of fishes entering the FRS, and 2) a system at one of the offshore intake structures to deter fishes from the intake area. While this study was specific to SONGS, the similarity in impingement catches between SONGS and HBGS, as well as the similarity in cooling water systems, results from SONGS could potentially be applicable to HBGS. Installation of an acoustic barrier at one of the SONGS offshore intake structures was analyzed. In theory, such a barrier would have to continuously deter fishes from entering the cooling water intake system, while allowing local fishes to reside in the area. Transducer mounting was considered 1) at a point midway between the velocity cap and lower flange and directed outward, and 2) in a similar configuration as (1), but at a reduced radius from the center of the intake structure. A cost estimate associated with the first option included 40 transducers ($480,000), 14 amplifiers ($20,000), a PC-based digital acquisition system ($10,000), and submersible cable ($20,000 to $40,000). Additional costs would be associated with the design and implementation of an appropriate system to ensure cable integrity, the design and fabrication of custom transducer mounts, and labor and travel expenses required for design, preparation, installation, and periodic monitoring of the acoustic deterrence system. In the end, it was determined that the system was not feasible at SONGS due to the potential for impacts to fishes and marine mammals, and the technological limitations of such a system. Currently, EPA does not consider some of the fairly basic sonic systems (pneumatic air gun, pulser, and hammer) to be reliable, while the more sophisticated systems, such as the one evaluated for SONGS, require relatively expensive systems (EPA 2004). However, since no system has been permanently installed at a facility, there is no reliable cost information. 182 AES HBGS Entrainment and Impingement Study, Final Report Light Stimuli Light barriers consist of the controlled application of strobes or mercury vapor lights to lure fishes away from a MIS or to deflect natural migration patterns (EPA 2004). As with sonic stimuli, EPA notes that full-scale application of this technology has been limited due to inconclusive or poor results from pilot studies. SCE studied the effect of various combinations of artificial lighting on the success of the FRS at SONGS in the late-1990s. Incandescent lights were installed in 1998, and a three-phased experiment investigating the effects of these lights in reducing fish losses was conducted between February and December 1999. The first phase studied the effectiveness of the lights in diverting fishes to the fish return system (FRS). Results of this first phase showed "no evidence that lights worked as an effective behavioral barrier device" (CCC 2000). The second phase of the light study used a lower light intensity because it was hypothesized that there was too much light reaching the waters directly upcurrent of the traveling screens. Results of this phase of the experiment, which lasted two months, indicated "no significant effects of the treatment; however, there was a trend for the lights-off condition to reduce impingement and increase fish return via the FRS."The third phase of the study controlled ambient light entering the screenwell. The two-month study showed that "impingement was increased in the dark condition (compared to ambient light) and there was no difference in fish return under the two conditions." SCE studies also indicated that strobe lights "showed inconsistent results for northern anchovy and apparent attraction for Pacific sardines. Strobe lights were therefore eliminated from consideration due to the probability that they would increase fish impingement at SONGS" (CCC 2000). Bubble Curtains Bubble curtains consist of an air header with jets arranged to provide a continuous curtain of air bubbles over a cross-sectional area (EPA 2004). The bubbles, in theory, would repel fishes that might otherwise approach a CWIS. These systems have been tested primarily in estuarine and freshwater systems, and results are highly variable (LMS 1982). In summary, most tests and application of air bubblers for fish protection "have produced negative results." Results of these studies also indicated better effectiveness during the day than at night. There is no available information on expected biological performance or cost to implement such a system at the HBGS. AES HBGS Entrainment and Impingement Study, Final Report 183 6.4.2 Screening Technologies Screening technologies include barrier nets and traveling screens. Barrier nets would reduce entrapment by preventing juvenile/adult fishes from entering the CWIS. Conventional traveling screens are currently used at the HBGS and other coastal generating stations in southern California. However, there are modifications or changes to these screens, and other screening technologies that, when coupled with an effective return system, could reduce impingement at the HBGS. These are discussed in the following section. Fish Barrier Net Fish barrier nets are designed specifically to reduce fish impingement by excluding them from areas where they would be susceptible to entrainment/impingement. They consist of netting and a support system. Design considerations include the size of fishes to be excluded, near-field hydraulic conditions (velocity), and debris loading (EPA 2004). Such systems have been used successfully, but there are no known open coastal applications; barrier nets are usually used to exclude fishes from intake canals. EPA notes that these systems "lend themselves to intakes where the seasonal migration of fish and other organisms require fish diversion facilities for only specific times of the year." SCE evaluated a barrier net system in the 1970s, and a prototype net was developed for installation at El Segundo Generating Station (El Segundo, California), which has two offshore intakes similar to the one at HBGS (SCE 1975). The net was constructed of heavy polyethylene line and designed to minimize the probability of trapping fishes by the gills. The mesh size used for this prototype net was not documented, but based on its description, seems to have been designed primarily to prevent entrainment of juvenile and adult fishes, not larvae. The prototype was installed at El Segundo in 1972, but the anchoring system was inadequate and the net was removed after only four days. 184 AES HBGS Entrainment and Impingement Study, Final Report Aquatic Filter Barrier Aquatic microfiltration barriers are exclusionary systems designed for deployment near cooling water intake structures. The filter fabric of the system allows for passage of water into a cooling water system while excluding aquatic organisms. The extent of exclusion is largely dependent on the mesh size of the barrier. Gunderboom, Inc. has designed and patented a full- water-depth curtain made up of polyethylene or polypropylene fabric that is suspended by flotation billets at the surface of the water and anchored to the substrate below(EPA 2001, 2004). The curtain is fabricated with unwoven fibers with small pores (0.4 to 2.0 mm) in the fabric that can be sized to satisfy the specific requirements of each installation. The system is also equipped with an air-burst system that periodically agitates the filter material and passes air bubbles through the system to prevent the buildup of debris on the curtain. The Gunderboom Aquatic Filter Barrier (AFB) has been used at some facilities on the east coast of the U.S., but as of 2001 the EPA designated the technology as still "experimental in nature" (EPA 2001). The Lovett Generating Station on the Hudson River in New York, (Orange & Rockland Utilities, Inc.) has been using a Gunderboom AFB since the mid-1990s to reduce ichthyoplankton entrainment. Reductions of up to 82% for eggs and larvae were recorded from 1999 through 2001, though there have been some operational difficulties to overcome. Tearing, overtopping, and plugging/clogging have been addressed through design modifications, though EPA notes that these same problems "could be significantly greater concern [sic] at marine sites with higher wave action and debris flows" (EPA 2001). The Gunderboom system has been considered for use at Contra Costa Power Plant along the San Joaquin River, and also at Morro Bay Power Plant in central California. A feasibility study for its use at a coastal generating station (NRG El Segundo Generating Station, El Segundo, California) with wave exposure and bathymetry similar to HBGS, is proposed for the near future. Use of an aquatic filter barrier at the HBGS would be experimental. Current uses of the Gunderboom are primarily at river sites with unidirectional flow. Due to the configuration and location of the intake structure, the barrier would have to either 1) surround the intake structure, or 2) cover the intake structure, like a dome. At the present time, no AFB systems have been installed at any coastal facility similar to HBGS. Any such installation would require a detailed feasibility study. Gunderboom is presently conducting a pilot study at the Arthur Kill Power Station (Staten Island, NY) at an estimated cost of $750,000. Vendor costs provided by EPA (2004) are for a floating boom system anchored onshore, with the fabric suspended by the boom and weighted at the bottom. The system would AES HBGS Entrainment and Impingement Study, Final Report 185 also include an air backwash system to prevent sediment/debris buildup entrained in the filter fabric. This design would probably not work at the HBGS; instead, a fixed-support system would most likely be necessary. Nonetheless, capital costs at a facility with a cooling water flow volume of 352,000 gallons per minute (gpm) would cost between $7,310,000 and $9,092,000 (costs based on EPA [2004] estimates). Annual operational and maintenance costs are estimated at $779,000. Traveling Screen and Fish Return System Options One potential method to reduce fish entrapped in the HBG$ forebay includes the removal of impinged fishes by traveling screens and returning them to the nearshore waters off the HBGS. This would involve either retrofitting or replacing the vertical traveling screens currently in use at the HBGS, and installing a fish return system whereby live fishes are discharged back to the nearshore waters. There are currently four sets of conventional vertical traveling screens at the HBGS. Each set of traveling screens is 10 ft wide, extends approximately 35 ft below the concrete pad upon which it sits, and has a screen mesh size of 9.5 mm (3/8 in.). These screens were designed for debris removal and to prevent fishes from passing through the CWIS and entering the facility's steam condenser. There are, however, new screen types and technologies that could aid in reducing fish entrapment by facilitating their live removal from the intake system. These systems include: (1) adding fine mesh overlay panels to the existing vertical traveling screens and installing a fish return sluiceway; (2) replacing the traveling screens with double- entry/single-exit(dual-flow) or single-entry/double-exit(centerflow)traveling screens and installing a fish return sluiceway; and (3) replacing the traveling screens with modified vertical traveling screens with fish-handling capabilities and installing a fish return sluiceway. Modified Vertical Traveling Screens with Fish Return System Modified vertical traveling screens are conventional traveling screens with the addition of a collection bucket beneath each of the screen panels. When the screens are operated, the collection bucket retains water along with any impinged fish while moving upward, thereby enhancing their survival (EPA 2004). At the uppermost point of travel during screen operation, water drains from the collection bucket while the impinged organisms and debris are retained in the screen panel by a deflector plate. Two material removal (spray) systems are often provided instead of a single, high-pressure system common to many vertical traveling screens. The first is a low-pressure spray that gently washes fish from the collection bucket into a recovery trough. The second is a typical high-pressure spray that rinses the remaining debris into a second trough. 186 AES HBGS Entrainment and Impingement Study, Final Report The effectiveness of a screening system such as this is enhanced by continuous operation, keeping impingement times to a minimum. Screening systems with fish collection and return capabilities have been tested, or are in use, at 10 generating stations across the United States, with the majority of the systems located on the east coast. The EPA (2004) states that these screening systems "have good potential for alleviating impingement mortality." However, they also note that latent mortality can be high, especially with fragile species. At the Dominion Power Surry Station (Virginia) installation of modified traveling screens and a fish return system resulted in a 94% impingement survival rate (EPA 2004). The Arthur Kill Power Station has both conventional vertical traveling screens and modified traveling screens with collection troughs and a fish return system. Average 24-hr survival rate for the conventional screens is 15%, while the modified screens with troughs have 79-92% survival rates (EPA 2004). EPA notes that continuous operation of such screening systems can result in undesirable maintenance problems. Such a system at the HBGS would require installation of new screen units with collection buckets, spray pumps, and a fish return system to return impinged fishes and macroinvertebrates to the ocean. Equipment costs for removal of the existing screens and replacing the panels with fish handling screens (1/8-in. by %- in. smooth top) is estimated at approximately $1.4 million for all four screen units at the HBGS (EPA 2004). Costs for downtime, labor, and power and water requirements are unknown. Capital costs for a 2,400-ft above-ground fish return flume (12-inch fiberglass pipe supported by wood pilings) and spray pump would cost an additional $560,000. However, a fish return structure at the HBGS would also need to be directed underground beneath the Pacific Coast Highway and Huntington State Beach, which would require excavation, trenching, and permitting. The pump required for oceanic discharge would need to be considerably more powerful than a conventional sluiceway pump to counter the increased head pressures associated with the system. The costs of these added requirements are unknown. Fine Mesh Screens with Fish Return System The vertical traveling screens currently in use at the HBGS could be retrofitted with fine mesh panels to potentially enhance fish survival. Depending on the mesh size, these screens are also effective at removing entrained fish eggs, larvae, and juvenile fish. However, while reducing entrainment, fine mesh screening systems inherently increase impingement. Regardless of the target organisms to be removed, the overall effectiveness of these systems is contingent on the application of satisfactory handling and recovery facilities to allow the safe return of impinged organisms to the aquatic environment. AES HBGS Entrainment and Impingement Study, Final Report 187 The EPA (2004) specifies that "biological effectiveness of the whole cycle, from impingement to survival in the source water body, should be investigated thoroughly prior to implementation of this option." Design considerations include low through-screen velocities to prevent larval damage or mortality, low-pressure wash sprays, smooth return sluiceway flows to prevent turbulence, and screen mesh material. Due to the smaller mesh size, these screens will clog much faster than conventional screens, and they will require frequent maintenance. Fine mesh screening systems have been used at the Big Bend Power Plant(Tampa Bay, Florida) and at the Brunswick Power Plant (North Carolina). At Big Bend, the 0.5-mm mesh Ristroph screens were 95% efficient in screening fish eggs, and 86% efficient in screening larvae (EPA 2004). However, latent survival was 80% for drum eggs, 93% for bay anchovy eggs, 65% for drum larvae, and 66% for bay anchovy larvae. At Brunswick, entrainment has been reduced by 84%with similar screens. At HBGS additional fish handling capabilities could be added to the existing conventional traveling screens and combined with construction and operation of a fish return system. This would involve replacing the 3/8" screens with finer panel overlays (<0.5-mm) and adding additional spray water pumps and a fish return flume. Capital costs for screen retrofit are $2,400,000, with Operation & Maintenance (O&M) costs estimated at about $255,000 (EPA 2004). Additional modifications to the intake forebay would be required to increase the surface area of the screens to provide lower through-screen flow velocities. Through-screen velocities during a 1978 study averaged 0.2 to 0.3 m/sec (0.8 to 1.0 fps), and individual measurements ranged from 0.1 to 0.8 m/sec (0.2 to 2.7 fps) (SCE 1983). Capital costs for a 2,400-ft above- ground fish return flume (12-inch fiberglass pipe supported by wood pilings) and spray pump would cost an additional $560,000. However, a fish return structure at the HBGS would also need to be directed underground beneath the Pacific Coast Highway and Huntington State Beach, which would require excavation, trenching, and permitting. The pump required for oceanic discharge would need to be considerably more powerful than a conventional sluiceway pump to counter the increased head pressures associated with the system. The costs of these added requirements are unknown. 188 AES HBGS Entrainment and Impingement Study, Final Report Dual Flow and Centerflow Traveling Screens with Fish Return System Dual flow traveling screens, also referred to as double-entry/single-exit screens, are designed to filter water continuously using both upward and downward moving screens (EPA 2004). The screens are oriented so that the screen face is parallel to the flow direction. Centerflow traveling screens operate on a similar concept, except water passes through the center (single-entry) and exits on both sides (double-exit) of the vertical screen conveyer. Both systems allow finer mesh sizes to be used without increasing through-screen velocity, and they also require a fish return system. Coupled with an appropriate return system, centerflow screens have demonstrated relatively high survival of impinged organisms. Therefore, use at the HBGS would rely on the construction of an appropriate fish return system. Actual biological benefits from installation of such a system are unknown. Capitol costs for dual-flow screens are estimated at $1.8 million (EPA 2004). This does not include labor, operation and maintenance, and station downtime. Capital costs for a 2,400-ft above-ground fish return flume (12-inch fiberglass pipe supported by wood pilings) and spray pump would cost an additional $560,000. However, a fish return structure at the HBGS would also need to be directed underground beneath the Pacific Coast Highway and Huntington State Beach, which would require excavation, trenching, and permitting. The pump required for oceanic discharge would need to be considerably more powerful than a conventional sluiceway pump to counter the increased head pressures associated with the system. The costs of these added requirements are unknown. 6.4.3 Fish Elevator The fish elevator is a form of fish return system that does not use actual traveling screens to convey fishes to a sluiceway. Instead, a lifting bucket that retains water is hoisted vertically and 'dumped' into the sluiceway. The San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station (San Clemente, California) is the only coastal generating station on the west coast of the United States that operates an elevator fish return system (FRS). Fish elevators have been used for decades at hydroelectric facilities for transporting migratory fishes, primarily salmonids, around dams (LMS 1982). There are two FRSs at SONGS, one each at Units 2 and 3. Each FRS is comprised of a network of guiding vanes, louvers, a fish return elevator, and a fish return sluiceway (Love et al. 1989). At each unit, the intake conduit opens into a forebay, where fishes within the cooling water flow encounter concrete vanes and angled plastic louvers in front of the angled traveling screens. The vanes and louvers are angled toward a bypass area away from the traveling screens. The AES HBGS Entrainment and Impingement Study Final Report 189 fishes sense the pressure differential created by the vanes and louvers and are directed toward the fish elevator, a relatively quiet-water basin measuring approximately 4.9 x 4 m. A watertight elevator basket, open at the top, is capable of ascending and collecting fishes within this basin. Once at its maximum height, the elevator tips slightly, and the fishes spill into the fish return sluiceway. Unidirectional flow within the sluiceway is maintained and the fishes are discharged into a pipe that terminates approximately 400 m from shore in about 6 m of water. Each FRS is operated by equipment operators at least twice daily at SONGS (SCE 2001). At each unit, a "fish chase" is performed prior to each heat treatment (conducted at about six-week intervals at each unit). During the fish chase, a portion of the discharge water is routed to the intake waters, such that the temperature in the screenwell is raised approximately 0.5°F per minute. Manipulation of intake cross-over gates also creates eddy currents that dislodge fish congregating in areas of low flow. The elevated temperatures and changes in flow patterns agitate fishes in the screenwell, and many seek new habitat and find their way to the FRS and are subsequently released. Before the screenwell water temperature reaches a lethal limit, the fish chase is terminated and the temperature slowly returns to ambient. During each elevator lift, a biologist estimates the abundance of each species visible in the elevator prior to their release. After completion of the fish chase, the heat treatment then proceeds. MBC biologists have recorded fish return and heat treatment data at SONGS since the 1980s. Both the efficiency and survivorship of the FRSs at SONGS have been studied (Love et al. 1989). Efficiency was measured by dividing the estimated number of fish returned by the total number of fish entrained by each unit (number returned + number impinged). Survivorship was measured by collecting returned fishes in a holding net moored at the fish return conduit terminus and assessing returned fishes by biologist-divers for 96 hours. In 1984 and 1985, fishes were diverted and returned by the FRSs at SONGS with high frequency (Love et al. 1989). Overall efficiencies were 96% in 1984 and 75% in 1985. The two most abundant species during each year, northern anchovy and queenfish, were diverted with higher efficiencies in 1984 (99% and 88%, respectively) than in 1985 (94% and 74%, respectively). Stronger swimmers were generally returned at higher rates than weaker swimmers. Most fishes also survived transit through the FRS, though there were size-specific trends. Northern anchovy (94% and 98% at Units 2 and 3, respectively) and salema (Xenistius californiensis) (100%) had higher survival than queenfish (32% and 54%), white croaker (50% and 25%), and slough anchovy (Anchoa delicatissima) (0% at Unit 2). Fish return efficiency is evaluated each year by comparing the number of fishes returned during fish chase operations and the total number of fishes entrained by each unit (number 190 AES HBGS Entrainment and Impingement Study, Final Report returned plus the number impinged). In 2000, total return efficiencies for Units 2 and 3 combined were 30% by abundance and 65% by biomass (SCE 2001). Returns were particularly low for some of the most abundant species, including queenfish (21% abundance and 12% biomass), northern anchovy (13% abundance and 31% biomass), and white croaker (14% abundance and 17% biomass). Annual normal operation return efficiencies from 1984 through 1994 and 1999 were variable at each unit. At Unit 2, return efficiency ranged from 42% in 1989 to 97% in 1984, averaging 74%. At Unit 3, return efficiency ranged from 37% in 1990 to 95% in 1984, averaging 67%. For potential use at HBGS, a FRS similar to the ones used at SONGS would entail the following: 1) construction of guiding vanes and louvers within the intake forebay, 2) construction of a fish elevator system, 3) construction of a fish return sluiceway to the ocean. The configuration of the intake forebay at HBGS is currently not well-suited for such a system. However, modifications to the intake system, or modifications to a FRS design could be considered. At SONGS, the linear distance from where the intake conduit joins the forebay to the FRS is approximately 46 m. The guiding vanes are located such that fishes entering the system with the cooling water flow can be directed away from traveling screens and toward the FRS. At HBGS, the forebay is much smaller, and the linear distance between the intake conduit terminus and the trash racks is only about 4.3 m. Therefore, the forebay would need to be redesigned to accommodate an effective guiding system. Costs for such a system are unknown. Modified Fish Return System A variant of the FRS design currently in use at SONGS could potentially be used at HBGS. The system would need to be adapted to the HBGS cooling water system configuration, but still be designed to maintain high removal and return efficiencies. The components of such a system would include (insert): 1. A crowding system, designed to"herd" fish in the forebay toward the elevator, 2. A fish elevator, similar to the ones used at SONGS. The elevator would be comprised of a watertight fish basket and a conveyance system to raise and lower it out of the forebay, 3. A sluiceway to convey the fishes from the elevator to the discharge conduit. AES HBGS Entrainment and Impingement Study, Final Report 191 The crowding system would be composed of a wire mesh panel that would be moved across the forebay, 900 to the flow (lengthwise). This would concentrate the fishes in the forebay to the side of the forebay where the elevator would be located. The crowding screen would presumably be composed of 3/8" wire mesh, similar to that used on the traveling screens. If the screen were designed to fit within the forebay, extending up to the high water line and down to within a few feet from the forebay bed (to allow for accumulation of sediment), it would be able to divert fishes throughout most of the vertical cross-section of the forebay. The screen could travel on a rail system and be powered by motors. The elevator system would be similar to the ones currently in use at SONGS. The elevator would consist of a stainless steel, watertight fish basket, sufficiently deep to allow for the estimated number of fishes to be removed. The basket is powered by motor, and is driven by chain-sprockets. The elevator would be able to be lifted out of the water, brought to the forebay deck, held so biologists could ascertain species composition and abundance, and then dumped into/onto the interface. The elevator would need to be lifted well above the forebay deck surface. The concrete pads currently installed in the forebay would need to be removed. The conveyance system between the elevator and the discharge conduit would be an angled, stainless steel flume, whereby the fishes would be dumped into the flume and they would slide into the conduit. The conveyance system could be outfitted with rinse-water (such as a bubbling system)to facilitate the transfer of fish to the conduit. The biological performance of this option would be largely dependent on the survival of fishes 1) in transfer from the elevator to the conduit, and 2) in transit to the discharge point. If the conveyance flume transferred fishes from an elevator at the southern end of the forebay to the discharge vault, the fishes would be "discharged" into the discharge vault, which could result in some mortality due to the vertical drop into the cooling water flow. Additional mortality could result from stress associated with exposure to higher water temperatures. At full operating capacity, the temperature differential across the condensers is about 10°C (180F). Removal procedures during periods of low thermal input would increase chances of survival. However, the current operating configuration of the generating station does not allow the station to "shed load" to decrease the temperature differential. The cost associated with this option would include construction and installation of the crowding system, elevator, and conveyance system, and operation/maintenance costs, which are presently unknown. 192 AES HBGS Entrainment and Impingement Study, Final Report 6.4.4 Intake Relocation The offshore intake structure at HBGS could potentially be "relocated," either by shortening the intake conduit and installing a shallow-water or shoreline intake, or by extending the intake conduit so the intake terminus would be in deeper water. Subsequent reductions in fish entrapment would rely on decreased densities of fishes in the relocation areas. If offshore relocation resulted in substantially cooler source water, it is possible that less water would be required by the generating station to achieve the same degree of cooling. Since the present study did not collect juvenile/adult fishes at offshore locations, available historic data would need to be analyzed. Shallow Relocation Relocation of the intake structure to a point inshore, either submerged with a velocity cap or on the shoreline, is likely not feasible due to the safety hazard it would impose on the public using the nearshore waters of Huntington State Beach. In addition, no studies have been conducted on the larval, juvenile, or adult fish communities inshore of the existing intake, and densities may be greater than those found at the current location. Offshore Relocation Unlike relocation of the intake structure to an inshore location, extending the intake conduit offshore would not impose the same public safety issues. A decrease in impingement could potentially occur if 1) fewer fishes in the deeper source water were susceptible to entrainment, and/or 2) deeper, cooler intake water provided an equivalent cooling capacity at a lower volume. In 1999 it was hypothesized that the HBGS intake interacted with the wastewater effluent discharged by the Orange County Sanitation District (OCSD) nearly five miles offshore (Grant et al. 2000). In 1999-2000, the OCSD discharged an average of 236 mgd, though peak flows during storm periods can exceed 550 mgd (OCSD 2000). To date, there has been no evidence that the plume contacts the shoreline off the HBGS, nor is there any evidence that effluent is drawn into the generating station's intake system. However, plume tracking and monitoring studies tracked the wastewater plume inshore to depths ranging from 10 to 20 m directly offshore the generating station (Boehm et al. 2002). An extension of the intake structure, and potentially the discharge structure, could affect the distribution of the wastewater plume by 1) entrainment with incoming cooling water and subsequent discharge, and/or 2) entrainment of the wastewater within the cooling water discharge plume and transport toward the sea surface. The OCSD is reconfiguring their wastewater facilities to provide full secondary treatment to all AES HBGS Entrainment and Impingement Study. Final Report 193 wastewaters discharged offshore. The potential sanitary effects of the relocation of the HBGS intake structure would still need critical study. The demersal fishes in the vicinity of the OCSD discharge have been examined for many years. In 2000, the dominant species in the OCSD study area were yellowchin sculpin (Icelinus quadriseriatus), Pacific sanddab (Citharichthys sordidus), longfin sanddab (Citharichthys xanthostigma), California tonguefish (Symphurus atricauda), and California lizardfish (Synodus lucioceps). Most of these fishes comprise the"Middle Shelf Assemblage" described by Allen et al. (1998) during a 1994 assessment of Southern California Bight fish populations; this group occurred between depths of 42 to 89 m. These are some of the species that might be more susceptible to entrainment/entrapment if the intake were extended beyond the 40-m isobath. Cost of extending the intake is unknown, but would likely be extremely high. Estimated cost of relocating the existing intake to the 22-m isobath was estimated at $73.5 million in 1983 (SCE 1983). 6.4.5 Flow Modifications The flow velocities that fishes are exposed to at the offshore intake structure are determined by the flow rate of the cooling water pumps operating, the size and shape of the intake opening and velocity cap, and the ambient currents in the source waters. Here we discuss the possibility of (1) reducing cooling water flow volume of the generating station, and (2) increasing the size of the offshore intake structure to reduce intake flow velocities. Flow Volume Reduction/ Larger Intake Opening Expanding the offshore intake opening would increase the cross-sectional area of the intake, thereby decreasing the velocity of the incoming water. In theory, this could lead to a decrease in juvenile/adult fishes entrained and entrapped in the HBGS CWIS. A similar effect could potentially occur with a decrease in actual flow volume, although this would lead to a proportional decrease in entrainment. However, the current operational status of the generating station does not allow for a reduction in cooling water flow. The swimming performance of many of the species most commonly impinged has not been studied. Dorn et al. (1979) studied the swimming performance of nine fish species, including some common in HBGS impingement samples (shiner perch, walleye surfperch, white seaperch, and white croaker). The authors of this report documented both the continuous swimming speed of a given size class for each species, as well as the burst swimming speed. In summary, they 194 AES HBGS Entrainment and Impingement Study, Final Report concluded: "The results of our experiments in conjunction with impingement data demonstrate that the intake velocity should not be a major consideration in evaluating the causative factors of fish entrainment. Swimming performance tests would not appear to be useful for such future analytical endeavors." A combination of additional factors, including wave surge, light level, schooling, and feeding behavior, where thought to influence the degree of impingement. Downs and Meddock (1974) studied the velocity-capped intake structure at the RBGS and determined "the lower the approach velocity, the more effective the structure. However, below 1.5 fps, the advantage of the lower velocity decreased. Accordingly, a 1.5 fps approach velocity was considered optimum. Above 1.5 fps, the fish intake was directly proportional to the increase in velocity." At the Scattergood Generating Station, impingement was higher during periods of low and medium flow than during periods of high flow, but only at night (IRC 1981). Daytime impingement conditions were unrelated to flow conditions. The reason for the lower impingement at higher flow rates could potentially be attributed to fewer fishes in the source water, or the fishes may have better sensed the intake currents at higher velocities and avoided the area (IRC 1981). Herbinson (1981) analyzed impingement differences between the two intakes at the El Segundo Generating Station, which are approximately 150 m apart. The two intakes are different in size and cycle different volumes of water, but under maximum flow conditions, intake entrance velocities are identical (2.4 fps). However, high impingement rates were as likely to occur during periods of reduced flow as during full flow. The same trend was observed at Alamitos Generating Station, where three intakes all draw water from Alamitos Bay. In conclusion, it was determined that impingement rates were driven by the densities of fishes in the immediate vicinity of the intake structures as opposed to flow rates. In summary, there is little evidence that a predictable biological benefit would result from decreased flow velocities resulting from an expanded intake opening. There are no cost estimates available for expanding the intake opening. 6.5 Conclusions This evaluation considered technologies and measures under five categories: behavioral barriers, screening technologies, fish elevators, intake relocation, and flow modifications. A summary of the screening considerations is presented in Table 6.1. I AES HBGS Entrainment and Impingement Study, Final Report 195 Behavioral Barriers There are no known applications of behavioral barriers/devices (sonic stimuli, lights, and bubble curtains) in an offshore, marine environment. A crude sonic device, the "popper', showed promise in deterring fishes from the Redondo Beach Generating Station intake structures, which are similar to the intake for the HBGS, but are located in King Harbor. However, there are currently no known offshore applications of this technology. Use of such a technology would also require an analysis of potential effects to protected species, including marine mammals and sea turtles. Previous studies indicated potential harmful effects to hearing systems of marine mammals, and the potential to attract mammals or sea turtles. Therefore, behavioral barriers are not considered feasible to reduce impingement at the HBGS. Screening Technologies There are no known applications of barrier nets or aquatic filter barriers (such as the Gunderboom AFB) in an offshore, marine environment. The exposed coastal location of the HBGS renders these options infeasible at present. The three screening options (modified vertical traveling screens with fish handling, fine mesh traveling screens with fish handling, and dual flow or centerflow screens with fish handling) would all require a dedicated fish return system. The cost of such a return system to return fishes to the nearshore waters, which would entail tunneling under Pacific Coast Highway and Huntington State Beach, is unknown. 196 AES HBGS Entrainment and Impingement Study, Final Report Table 6-1. Summary of technologies/measures considered for impingement reduction at the HBGS. In Use at a Impingement Technology/Measure Coastal Facility? Benefit Comments Behavior Barriers/Devices Sonic stimuli No known application Unknown Popper Testing only Unknown Effects to mammals would need study. Lights No known application Unknown Bubble Curtain No known application Unknown Screening Technologies Barrier net No known application Based on mesh Aquatic filter barrier No known application Based on mesh Modified vertical traveling screens Yes Up to 94%survival Cost of FRS prohibitive. Fine mesh screens Unknown Unknown Cost of FRS prohibitive. Dual flow/centerflow screens Unknown Unknown Cost of FRS prohibitive. Return Systems Fish elevator Yes Cost of FRS prohibitive. Modified fish elevator No known application Unknown Cost of FRS prohibitive. Intake Relocation Shallow relocation Not applicable Unknown Cost prohibitive. Offshore relocation Not applicable Unknown Cost prohibitive. Flow Reduction Flow reduction Not applicable Unknown Not possible. Larger intake opening Not applicable Unknown Cost prohibitive. Survivorship of queenfish (which comprised 70% of impingement abundance during the current study) during 96-hr return studies at the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station (SONGS) was calculated to be 32% at Unit 2 and 54% at Unit 3, an average of 43% (Love et al. 1989). Survivorship of white croaker (10% of impingement abundance at the HBGS) was 50% at Unit 2 and 25% at Unit 3, an average of 38%. Assuming all queenfish and white croaker could be returned at the HBGS, it is estimated impingement mortality might decrease from 40,750 individuals (normal operations and heat treatments combined) of the two most abundant species to 23,473, a reduction of approximately 42% for those two species. While the cost of a return system at the HBGS is not estimated, it is likely prohibitive based on the relative biological benefit. Fish Elevators Construction of a fish elevator similar to the one in use at SONGS would entail modifications to the intake forebay and construction of a return system. Construction of a modified elevator, without extensive modifications to the forebay, would also require construction AES HBGS Entrainment and Impingement Study, Final Report 197 of a fish return. While the cost of a return system at the HBGS is not estimated, it is likely prohibitive based on the relative biological benefit. Intake Relocation Relocation of the intake to deeper depths is likely not feasible due to potential interactions with the OCSD wastewater plume. This could also lead to a potential increase in effects on protected groundfish, such as rockfishes. Relocating the intake to shallower waters would require construction of a shoreline intake at Huntington State Beach. The anticipated biological benefits of either option are unknown. The estimated cost of relocating the intake structure to the 22-m isobath was$73.5 million in 1983, and is likely much higher at present. Flow Modifications Lacking a strong correlation between impingement rate and flow velocity (or flow volume), the expected biological benefit, if any, from enlarging the intake structure or reducing intake flow cannot be calculated. The average flow rate for the study year (350 mgd) was nearly 50% higher than the 25-year average (236 mgd), while fish impingement abundance during the present study (51,082 individuals) was 21% lower than the 25-year average (64,294 individuals). Costs to enlarge the existing intake opening are unknown, but would likely far outweigh any benefit achieved by such a modification. The current operating configuration of the HBGS does not allow for voluntary flow reductions. Therefore, reduced cooling water flow is considered infeasible for the reduction of impingement at the HBGS. In short, the value of impinged fishes and macroinvertebrates at the HBGS is likely much higher than the equivalent commercial value of less than $2,000. Even so, impingement at the HBGS is not significant to warrant the substantial modifications to the intake system that would be required to definitively reduce impingement rates. 198 AES HBGS Entrainment and Impingement Study, Final Report 7.0 LITERATURE CITED AES Huntington Beach L.L.C. and URS. 2000. Application for Certification: AES Huntington Beach Generating Station Retool Project. Prepared for the California Energy Commission. Dec. 2000. AES. See AES Huntington Beach L.L.C. Ahlstrom, E.H. and H.G. Moser.1975. Distributional atlas of fish larvae in the California Current region: flatfishes, 1955 through 1960. CalCOFI Atlas No. 23. 207 p. Ahlstrom, E.H., K. Amaoka, D.A. Hensley, H.G. Moser, and B.Y. Sumida. 1984. Pleuronectiformes: development. Pages 640-670 in H.G. Moser, W.J. Richards, D.M. Cohen, M.P. Fahay, A.W. Kendall, Jr., and S.L. Richardson, eds. Ontogeny and systematics of fishes. Amer. Soc. Ichthyol. and Herpetol., Spec. Publ. No. 1. 760 p. Allen, L.G. 1985. A habitat analysis of the nearshore marine fishes from southern California. Bull. So. Calif. Acad. Sci 84:133-155. Allen, L.G. and E.E. DeMartini. 1983. Temporal and spatial patterns of nearshore distribution and abundance of the pelagic fishes off San Onofre-Oceanside, CA. Fish. Bull. U.S. 81(3):569- 586. Allen, M.J. 1982. Functional structure of soft-bottom fish communities of the southern California shelf. Ph.D. dissertation, Univ. Calif., San Diego, La Jolla, CA. 577 p. Allen, M.J., A.K. Groce, D. Diener, J. Brown, A. Steinert, G. Deets, J.A. Noblet, S.L. Moore, D. Diehl, E.T. Jarvis, V. Raco-Rands, C. Thomas, Y. Ralph, R. Gartman, D. Cadien, S.B. Weisberg, and T. Mikel. 2002. Southern California Bight 1998 Regional Monitoring Program: V. Demersal fishes and megabenthic invertebrates. So. Calif. Coast. Wat. Res. Proj., Westminster, CA. 272 p. plus appendices. Allen, M.J., R.W. Smith, E.T. Jarvis, V. Raco-Rands, B. Bernstein, and K. Herbinson. 2003. Temporal trends in southern California nearshore fish populations relative to environmental influences. Paper presented at the So. Calif. Acad. Sci., California State University Northridge, 9 May 2003. Allen, M.J., S.L. Moore, K.C. Schiff, S.B. Weisberg, D. Diener, J.K. Stull, A. Groce, J. Mubarak, C.L. Tang, and R. Gartman. 1998. Southern California Bight 1994 Pilot Project: V. Demersal AES HBGS Entrainment and Impingement Study, Final Report 199 fishes and megabenthic invertebrates. So. Calif. Coast. Wat. Res. Proj., Westminster, CA. 324 p. Allen, M.J., R.W. Smith, E.T. Jarvis, V. Raco-Rands, B.B. Bernstein, and K.T. Herbinson. 2004. Temporal trends in southern California coastal fish populations relative to 30-year trends in oceanic conditions. Pp. 264-285 in: So. Calif. Coast. Water Res. Proj. Annual Report: 2003- 2004. So. Calif. Coast. Water Res. Proj., Westminster, CA. Ally, J. R. R. 1975. A description of the laboratory-reared larvae of Cancer gracilis Dana, 1852 (Decapoda, Brachyura). Crustaceana 23:231-246. Ambrose, R.F. 1981. Observations on the embryonic development and early post-embryonic development of Octopus bimaculatus. Veliger 24:139-146. Anderson, W.R. and R.F. Ford. 1976. Early development, growth and survival of the yellow crab Cancer anthonyi Rathbun (Decapoda, Brachyura) in the laboratory. Aquaculture, 7: 276-279. Anderson, S.L., L.W. Botsford, and W.H. Clark. 1985b. Size distributions and sex ratios of ridgeback prawns (Sicyonia ingentis) in the Santa Barbara Channel (1979-1981). CalCOFI Rep. 26:169-174. Anderson, S.L., W.H. Clark, and E.S. Chang. 1985a. Multiple spawning and molt synchrony in a free spawning shrimp (Sicyonia ingentis: Penaeoidea). Biol. Bull. 168:377-394. Bane, G.W. and M. Robinson. 1970. Studies on the shiner perch, Cymatogasteraggregata Gibbons, in upper Newport Bay, California. Wassmann J. Biol. 28(2):259-268. Barlow, G.W. 1963. Species structure of the Gobiid fish Gillichthys mirabilis from coastal sloughs of the Eastern Pacific. Pac. Sci., 17:47-72. Barnes, N.B. and A.M. Wenner. 1968. Seasonal variation in the sand crab Emerita analoga (Decapoda, Hippidae) in the Santa Barbara area of California. Ecol. 49:465-475. Barnett, A.M., A.E. Jahn, P.D. Sertic, and W. Watson. 1983. Distribution of ichthyoplankton off San Onofre, California, and methods for sampling very shallow coastal waters. Fish. Bull. U.S. 82(1):97-111. Barnthouse, L. 2004. Consultant to the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission. Telephone conversation with S. Beck, 24 September 2004. 200 AES HBGS Entrainment and Impingement Study, Final Report Barsky, K.C. 2001. California spiny lobster. Pp. 98-100 in: Leet, W.S., C.M. Dewees, R. Klingbeil, and E.J. Larson (eds). California's living marine resources: A status report. Calif. Dept. of Fish and Game. 592 p. Bechtel Incorporated. 1971. Report on fish pumps. Prepared by the Hydro and Community Facilities Division, San Francisco, CA. 12 p. plus figures. Beck, D.S. and K.T. Herbinson. 2003. Declines in abundance of three nearshore surfperches off Huntington Beach, California, 1971-2001. So. Calif. Acad. Sci., California State University Northridge, 9 May 2003. Behrens, D.W. 1991. Pacific coast nudibranchs: A guide to the opistobranchs, Alaska to Baja California. Sea Challengers, Monterey, California. 107 p. Bergen, D.R. and L.D. Jacobsen. 2001. Northern anchovy. Pp. 303-305 in: W.S. Leet, C.M. Dewees, R. Klingbeil, and E.J. Larson (eds.), California's living marine resources: A status report. Calif. Dept. Fish and Game. 592 p. Blake, J.A. and P.H. Scott. 1997. Taxonomic atlas of the benthic fauna of the Santa Maria Basin and Western Santa Barbara Channel. Vol. 10. The Arthropoda — The Pycnogonida — The Crustacea Part 1 — The Decapoda and Mysidacea. Santa Barbara Museum of Natural History. 151 p. Boehm, A.B., B.F. Sanders, and C.D. Winant. 2002. Cross-shelf transport at Huntington Beach. Implications for the fate of sewage discharged through an offshore ocean outfall. Envir. Sci. Tech. 36:1899-1906. Brewer, G. 1974. Thermal tolerance and sediment toxicity studies. Pp. 21-43 in: D.F. Soule and M. Oguri (eds.), Part 3, Marine studies of San Pedro Bay, California. Allan Hancock Found., Univ. So. Calif., Los Angeles, CA. 86 p. Brewer, G.D. 1978. Reproduction and spawning of northern anchovy, Engraulis mordax, in San Pedro Bay, CA. Calif. Fish. Game 64(3):175-184. Brooks, A.J., R.J. Schmitt, and S.J. Holbrook. 2002. Declines in regional fish populations: have species responded similarly to environmental change? Mar. Freshwater Res. 53:189-198. Brothers, E.B. 1975. The comparative ecology and behavior of three sympatric California gobies. Ph.D. Dissertation, Univ. Calif., San Diego. 370 p. AES HBGS Entrainment and Impingement Study, Final Report 201 Butler, J.L., P. E. Smith, and N.C.H. Lo. 1993. The effect of natural variability of life-history parameters on anchovy and sardine population growth. CaICOFI Rep. 34:104-111. Butler, J., D. Fuller, and M. Yaremko. 1999. Age and growth of market squid (Loligo opalescens) off California during 1998. CaICOFI Rep. 40:191-195. Caddell, S.M., D.M. Gadomski, and L.R. Abbott. 1990. Induced spawning of the California halibut, Paralichthys californicus, under artificial and natural conditions. California Department of Fish and Game, Fish Bulletin 174:175-197. Cailliet, G.M., K.A. Karpov, and D.A. Ambrose. 1979. Pelagic assemblages as determined from purse seine and large midwater trawl catches in Monterey Bay and their affinities with the market squid, Loligo opalescens. CaICOFI Rep. 20:21-30. California Coastal Commission. 2000. Executive Director's determination that fish behavioral barriers tested at SONGS are ineffective. Staff Report TH-15. Sep. 2000. California Department of Fish and Game. 1999. Review of some fisheries for 1998: Pacific sardine, Pacific mackerel, Pacific herring, market squid, sea urchin, groundfishes, swordfish, sharks, nearshore finfishes, abalone, Dungeness crab, prawn, ocean salmon, white seabass, and recreational. CaICOFI Rep. 40:9-24. California Department of Fish and Game. 2002. Catch Block data. California Department of Fish and Game. 2004. Catch Block data. California Energy Commission. 2001. Staff Assessment: AES Huntington Beach Generating Station Retool Project. Application for Certification 00-AFC-13. Orange County. March 2001. Carroll, J.C. 1982. Seasonal abundance, size composition, and growth of rock crab, Cancer antennarius, off central California. J. Crustacean Biol. 2(4):549-561. Carroll, J.C., and R.N. Winn. 1989. Species profiles: life histories and environmental requirements of coastal fishes and invertebrates (Pacific Southwest): brown rock crab, red rock crab, and yellow crab. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Biology Report 82(11.117). 16 p. CCC. See California Coastal Commission. CDFG. See California Department of Fish and Game. CEC. See California Energy Commission. 202 AES HBGS Entrainment and Impingement Study, Final Report Clark, G.H. 1930. California halibut. Calif. Fish and Game 16:315-317. Clark, F.N. and J.B. Phillips. 1952. The northern anchovy (Engraulis mordax) in the California fishery. Calif. Dept. Fish and Game No. 38(2):189-208. Cox, G.W. and G.H. Dudley. 1968. Seasonal pattern of reproduction of the sand crab, Emerita analogs, in southern California. Ecol. 49(4):746-751. Cross, J. 1984. The Newport dory fishery. Pp. 69-80 in: Southern California Coastal Water Research Project Biennial Report, 1983-1984. So. Calif. Coast. Wat. Res. Proj., Westminster, CA. 332 P. Daugherty, A.E., F.E. Felin, and J. MacGregor. 1955. Age and length composition of the northern anchovy catch off the coast of California in 1952-53 and 1953-54. California Department of Fish and Game Fishery Bulletin 101:36-66. Dawson, M.N., K.D. Louie, M. Barlow, D.K. Jacobs, and C.C. Swift. 2002 Comparative phylogeography of sympatric sister species, Clevlandia ios and Eucyclogobius newberryi (Teleostei, Gobiidae), across the California Transition Zone. Molecular Ecol. 11:1065-1075. DeMartini, E.E. and R.K. Fountain. 1981. Ovarian cycling frequency and batch fecundity in the queenfish, Seriphus politus: attributes representative of serial spawning fishes. Fish. Bull. U.S. 79(3):547-560. Dillery, D.G. and L.V. Knapp. 1970. Longshore movement of the sand crab, Emerita analoga (Decapoda, Hippidae). Crustaceana 18:233-240. Dorn, P., L. Johnson, and C. Darby. 1979. The swimming performance of nine species of common California inshore fishes. Trans. Amer. Fish. Soc. 108(4):366-372. Dotson, R.C. and R.L. Charter. 2003. Trends in the southern California sport fishery. CaICOFI Rep. 44:94-106. Downs, D.I. and K.R. Meddock. 1974. Engineering application of fish behavior studies in the design of intake systems for coastal generating stations. Presented at Amer. Soc. Civil Eng. Nat. Water Res. Conf., Los Angeles, CA. Jan. 21-25, 1974. 30 p. Dudley, G.H. 1967. Population dynamics of the sand crab Emerita analogs (Stimpson) (Decapoda, Anomura). M.S. Thesis, San Diego State College. Aug. 1967. 115 p. Dugan, D. Tenera Environmental. Personal communication with J. Carroll. AES HBGS Entrainment and Impingement Study, Final Report 203 Dugan, J.E., A.M. Wenner and D.M. Hubbard. 1991. Geographic variation in the reproductive biology of the sand crab Emerita analoga (Stimpson) on the California coast. J. Exp. Mar. Biol. Ecol., 150:63-81. Efford, I.E. 1969. Egg size in the sand crab, Emerita analoga (Decapoda, Hippidae). Crustaceana 16(2):15-26. Efford, I.E. 1970. Recruitment to sedentary marine populations as exemplified by the sand crab, Emerita analoga (Decapoda, Hippidae). Crustaceana 18:293-308. Eldridge, M.B. 1975. Early larvae of the diamond turbot, Hypsopsetta guttulata. Calif. Fish and Game 61:26-34. Emmett, R.L., S.L. Stone, S.A. Hinton, and M.E. Monaco. 1991. Distribution and abundance of fishes and invertebrates in west coast estuaries, Vol. ll. Species life history summaries. ELMR Rep. No. 8. NOAA/NOS Strategic Environmental Assessments Division, Rockville, MD. 329 p. Environmental Quality Analysts, Inc. and Marine Biological Consultants, Inc. 1973. Huntington Beach Generating Station Thermal Effect Study. Final Summary Report. Prepared for Southern California Edison Company. Sept. 1973. EPA. See U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. EQA/MBC. See Environmental Quality Analysts, Inc. and Marine Biological Consultants, Inc. Eschmeyer, W.N., E.S. Herald, and H. Hammann. 1983. A field guide to Pacific Coast fishes of North America. Houghton-Mifflin Co., Boston, MA. 336 p. Feder, H.M., C.H. Turner, and C. Limbaugh.1974. Observations on fishes associated with kelp beds in southern California. Calif. Dept. Fish and Game, Fish Bull. 160. 138 p. FES. See Fish Encounter Studies (Occidental College). Fields, W.G. 1965. The structure, development, food relations, reproduction, and life history of the squid Lo/igo opa/escens Berry. Calif. Dept. of Fish and Game. Fish Bull. 131. Fish Encounter Studies (Occidental College), Fisheries Research Institute (Univ. Wash.), and Applied Physics Laboratory (Univ. Wash.). 1980. Southern California Edison fish entrapment study. 1979 summary report. March 1980. 204 AES HBGS Entrainment and Impingement Study, Final Report Fitch, J.E. and R.J. Lavenberg.1971. Tidepool and nearshore fishes of California. Univ. Calif. Press, Berkeley, CA. 156 p. Fitch, J.E. and R.J. Lavenberg.1975. Marine food and game fishes of California. Univ. Calif. Press, Berkeley, CA. 179 p. Forsythe, J., N. Kangas, and R.T. Hanlon. 2004. Does the California market squid (Loligo opalescens) spawn naturally during the day or at night? A note on the successful use of ROVs to obtain basic fisheries biology data. Fish. Bull. U.S. 102(2):389-392. Frey, H.W. (ed.). 1971. California's living marine resources and their.utilization. Calif. Dept. Fish and Game. 148 p. Fritzche, R.A. and P. Collier. 2001. Surfperches. Pp. 236-240 in: California's living marine resources: A status report. Calif. Dept. Fish and Game. Fusaro, C. 1978. Growth rate of the sand crab, Emerita analogs, (Hippidae) in two different environments. Fish. Bull. U.S. 76(2):369-375. Fusaro, C. 1980a. Temperature and egg production by the sand crab, Emerita analoga (Stimpson) (Decapoda, Hippidae). Crustaceana 38(1):55-60. Fusaro, C. 1980b. Diel distribution differences in the sand crab, Emerita analoga (Stimpson) Decapoda, Hippidae). Crustaceana 39(3):287-300. Gadomski, D.M., S.M. Caddell, L.R. Abbot, and T.C. Caro. 1990. Growth and development of larval and juvenile California halibut Paralichthys californicus, reared in the laboratory. California Department of Fish and Game, Fish Bulletin 174:85-98. Garrison, K.J. and B.S. Miller. 1982. Review of the early life history of Puget Sound fishes. Fish. Res. Inst., Univ. Wash., Seattle, WA. FRI-UW-8216. 729 p. Goldberg, S.R. 1981. Seasonal spawning cycle of the black croaker, Cheilotrema saturnum (Sciaenidae). Fish Bull 79(3): 561-562Quast, J. C. 1968. Estimates of the populations and the standing crop of fishes. In: W. J. North and C. L. Hubbs (eds.) Utilization of Kelp-Bed Resources in Southern California. Calif. Fish Game. Fish Bulletin 139. 264pp. Goldberg, S.R. 1976. Seasonal spawning cycles of the sciaenid fishes Genyonemus lineatus and Seriphus politus. Fish. Bull. U.S. 74(4):983-984. AES HBGS Entrainment and Impingement Study, Final Report 205 Goodyear, C.P. 1978. Entrainment impact estimates using the equivalent adult approach. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Ser., FWS/OBS-78/65. Ann Arbor, MI. Gorman, G.C., L.W. Murray, and G.V. Leipzig. 1990. Talbert Marsh Restoration Project, Monitoring Report#1, Pre-Restoration to Spring, 1990. Huntington Beach Wetlands Conservancy. 24 p. Graham, J.W., J.N. Stock, and P.H. Benson. 1977. Further studies on the use of heat treatment to control biofouling in seawater cooling systems. Oceans '77:23A1-6. Graham, W.M. 1989. The influence of hydrography on the larval dynamics and recruitment of five Cancer crab species in northern Monterey Bay. M.S. Thesis, University of California, Santa Cruz. 170 p. Grant, S.B., C. Webb, B.F. Sanders, A. Boehm, J.H. Kim, J.A. Redman, A.K. Chu, R. Morse, S. Jiang, N. Gardiner, and A. Brown. 2000. Huntington Beach Water Quality Investigation Phase II: An analysis of ocean, surf zone, watershed, sediment, and groundwater data collected from June 1998 through September 2000. Final Report. Dec. 15, 2000. Prepared for the Nat. Water Res. Inst., County of Orange, Orange County San. Dist., and Cities of Hunt. Beach, Fountain Valley, Costa Mesa, Santa Ana, and Newport Beach. Gregory, P.A. 2001. Silversides. Pp. 243-245 in: W.S. Leet, C.M. Dewees, R. Klingbeil, and E.J. Larson (eds.), California's living marine resources: A status report. Calif. Dept. Fish and Game. 592 p. Gutierrez, A.T. 2003. Successful reintroduction of a tidewater goby (Eucyclogobius newberryl) population at San Mateo Lagoon, USMC Camp J. Pendleton, California. Southern California Academy of Sciences, California State University Northridge, 9 May 2003. Haaker, P.L.1975. The biology of the California halibut, Paralichthys californicus(Ayres), in Anaheim Bay, California. Pages 137-151 in E.D. Lane and C.W. Hill, eds. The marine resources of Anaheim Bay. Calif. Dept. Fish and Game, Fish Bull. 165. Hart, J.L. 1973. Pacific fishes of Canada. Fish. Res. Board Can., Bull. 180. 740 p. Haugen, C. W. (ed.) 1990. The California Halibut, Paralichthys californicus, Resource and Fisheries. State of California Resources Agency, Department of Fish and Game, Fish Bulletin 174. 475 PP. Hays, S., R. Nason, and J.R. Skalski. 1995. Effects of an acoustic behavioral barrier on juvenile salmonid entrainment at an irrigation canal intake on the Wenatchee River at Dryden Dam, 206 AES HBGS Entrainment and Impingement Study, Final Report Washington. Prepared for Sonalysts, Inc. by Mid-Columbia Consulting, Inc. and Skalski Statistical Services. Sep. 1995. 44 p. Helvey, M. 1985. Behavioral factors influencing fish entrapment at offshore cooling-water intake structures in southern California. Mar. Fish. Rev. 47(1):18-26. Herbinson, K.T., M.J. Allen, and S.L. Moore. 2001. Historical trends in nearshore croaker (Family Sciaenidae) populations in southern California from 1977 through 1998. pp. 253-264 in S. B. Weisberg and D. Hallock(eds.), Southern California Coastal Water Research Project Annual Report 1999-2000, So. Calif. Coast. Wat. Res. Proj., Westminster, CA. Herbinson, K.T. 1981. 316(b) fish impingement inventory. So.Calif. Edison Co. 87-RD-9. Apr. 1981. 221 p. Herbinson, K.T. and M. Larson. 2001. Sand crab. Pp. 138-139 in: Leet, W.S., C.M. Dewees, R. Klingbeil, and E.J. Larson (eds). California's living marine resources: A status report. Calif. Dept. of Fish and Game. 592 p. Hickey, B.M., E.L. Dobbins, and S.E. Allen. 2003. Local and remote forcing of currents and temperature in the central Southern California Bight. J. Geophys. Res. 108(C3): art. no. 3081. Hines, A.H. 1991. Fecundity and reproductive output in nine species of Cancer crabs (Crustacea, Brachyura, Cancridae). Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences. 48:267-275. Hobson, E.S. and J.R. Chess. 1976. Trophic interactions among fishes and zooplankters near shore at Santa Catalina Island, California. Fish. Bull. U.S. 74(3):567-598. Hobson, E. S., W. N. McFarland, and J. R. Chess. 1981. Crepuscular and nocturnal activities of Californian nearshore fishes, with consideration of their scotopic visual pigments and the photic environment. Fish. Bull. U.S. 79(1): 1-17. Holbrook, S.J., R.J. Schmitt, and J.S. Stephens, Jr. 1997. Changes in an assemblage of temperate reef fishes associated with a climate shift. Ecol. Appl. 7(4):1299-1310. Horn, M.H. and L.G. Allen. 1976. Numbers of species and faunal resemblance of marine fishes in California bays and estuaries. Bull. So. Calif. Acad. Sci. 75(2):159-170. Horst, T.J. 1975. The assessment of impact due to entrainment of ichthyoplankton. Pp. 107-118 in: S.B. Saila (ed.). Fisheries and energy production: A symposium. Lexington Books, D.C. Heath and Co., Lexington, MA. AES HBGS Entrainment and Impingement Study, Final Report 207 Hunter, J.R. and B.J. Macewicz. 1980. Sexual maturity, batch fecundity, spawning frequency, and temporal pattern of spawning for the northern anchovy, Engraulis mordax, during the 1979 spawning season. CaICOFI Rep. 21:139-149. Hunter, J.R. and K.M. Coyne. 1982. The onset of schooling in northern anchovy larvae, Engraulis mordax. CaICOFI Rep. 23:246-251. Hurley, A.C. 1977. Mating behavior of the squid Loligo opalescens. Mar. Behay. Physiol. 1977(4):195-203. Intersea Research Corporation. 1981. Scattergood Generating Station cooling water intake study: 316(b) demonstration program. Prepared for Los Angeles Dept. of Water and Power. Nov. 1981. IRC. Intersea Research Corporation. Jacobson, L.D., N.C.H. Lo, and J.T. Barnes. 1997. A biomass based assessment model for northern anchovy, Engraulis mordax. Fish. Bull. U.S. 92:711-724. Jackson, G.D. 1998. Research into the life history of Loligo opalescens: where to from here? CaICOFI Rep. 39:101-107. Jefferts, K. 1983. Squid distribution, biology, and life history. Pp. 3-10 in Proceedings of the West Coast Squid Symposium, Newport, OR. Oregon St. Univ. Sea Grant Rep. Jenkins, S.A. and J. Wasyl. 2002. Hydrodynamic modeling of source water make-up and concentrated seawater dilution for the ocean desalination project at the AES Huntington Beach Power Station. Part II: Analysis of issues to source water. Revised 13 Jan. 2002. Submitted to Poseidon Resources, Long Beach, CA. 78 p. plus appendices. Jensen, G.C. 1995. Pacific coast crabs and shrimps. Sea Challengers, Monterey, CA. 87 p. Johnson M.W. and W. M. Lewis. 1942. Pelagic larval development of the sand crab Emerita analoga (Stimpson), Blepharipoda occidentalis Randall, and Lepidopa myops Stimpson. Biol. Bull . 83:67-87 Johnson, L., P. Dorn, K. Muench, and M. Hood. 1976. An evaluation of entrapment associated with the offshore cooling water intake system at Redondo Beach Steam Generating Station Units 7 and 8. Report for Phase II: Aug. 1975 to Aug. 1976. Prepared for Southern California Edison Company. 77-RD-12. 36 p. 208 AES HBGS Entrainment and Impingement Study, Final Report Johnson, M.E. and H.J. Snook. 1927. Seashore animals of the Pacific Coast. Dover Publ., New York, N.Y. 659 p. Johnson, M.W. 1939. The correlation of water movements and dispersal of pelagic larval stages of certain littoral animals, especially the sand crab, Emerita. J. Mar. Res. 2:236-245. Johnson, M.W. 1956. The larval development of the California spiny lobster, Panulirus interruptus, (Randall), with notes on Panulirus gracilis Streets. Proc. Calif. Acad. Sci. Fourth Series 29(1):1-19. Jordan, D.S. and B.W. Evermann. 1896. The fishes of Middle and. North America: A descriptive catalogue of the species of fish-like vertebrates found in the waters of North America, north of the isthmus of Panama. Part I. Smithsonian Inst., U.S. Nat. Mus., Wash. D.C. Joseph, D. C. 1962. Growth characteristics of two southern California surffishes, the California corbina and spotfin croaker, Family Sciaenidae. Calif. Dept. Fish and Game. Fish Bull. 119. 53 p. Karpov, K. A. and G.M. Cailliet. 1979. Prey composition of the market squid, Loligo opalescens Berry, in relation to depth and location of capture, size of squid, and sex of spawning squid. CaICOFI Rep. 20:51-57. Kim, J.H., S.B. Grant, C.D. McGee, B.F. Sanders, and J.L. Largier. 2004. Locating sources of surf zone pollution: A mass budget analysis of fecal indicator bacteria at Huntington Beach, California. Env. Sci. Tech. 38(9):2626-2636. Kramer, S.H. 1991. Growth, mortality, and movements of juvenile California halibut Paralichthys californicus in shallow coastal and bay habitats of San Diego County, California. Fish. Bull. U.S. 89(2):195-207. Kramer, S.H. and J.S. Sunada. 2001. California halibut. Pp. 195-197 in: Leet, W.S., C.M. Dewees, R. Klingbeil, and E.J. Larson. (eds.). California's Living Marine Resources: A Status Report. Calif. Dept. Fish and Game. 592 pp. LACSD. See Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts. Lane, E.D. 1975. Quantitative aspects of the life history of the diamond turbot, Hypsopsetta guttulata (Girard), in Anaheim Bay. pp. 153-173 in E.D. Lane and C.W. Hill (eds.), The Marine Resources of Anaheim Bay. Calif. Dept. Fish and Game. Fish Bull. 165. AES HBGS Entrainment and Impingement Study, Final Report 209 Lang, M.A and F.G. Hochberg (eds). 1997. Proceedings of the Workshop on the Fishery and Market Potential of Octopus in California. Univ. So. Calif., Catalina Mar. Sci. Center, 31 Aug. — 8 Sep. 1989. Smith. Inst., Wash. D.C. 191 p. Largier, J.L. 2003. Considerations in estimating larval dispersal distances from oceanographic data. Ecol. Appl. 13(1) Supplement:S71-S89. Lavenberg, R.J., G.E. McGowen, T.C. Sciarrotta, A.E. Jahn, and J.H. Peterson. 1986. Abundance of Southern California nearshore ichthyoplankton: 1978-1984. CaICOFI Rep. 27:53-64. Lawler, Matusky & Skeller Engineers. 1982. Intake technology review: final draft. Prepared for Southern California Edison Company. Sep. 1982. Lea, R.N. and R.H. Rosenblatt. 2000. Observations on fishes associated with the 1997-98 El Nino off California. CaICOFI Rep. 41:117-129. Leet, W.S., C.M. Dewees, R. Klingbeil, and E.J. Larson. 2001. California's Living Marine Resources: A Status Report. Calif. Dept. Fish and Game. 592 pp. Leos, R. 2001. Other flatfishes. Pp. 203-204 in: Leet, W.S., C.M. Dewees, R. Klingbeil, and E.J. Larson (eds.). California's Living Marine Resources: A Status Report. Calif. Dept. Fish and Game. 592 pp. Limbaugh, C. 1955. Fish life in the kelp bed and the effects of kelp harvesting. Calif Inst Mar Res, IMR Ref. 156pp. Limbaugh, C. 1961. Life-history and ecological notes on the black croaker. Calif. Fish Game 47: 163- 174. LMS. See Lawler, Matusky & Skeller Engineers. Los Angeles County Sanitation District. 2000. Palos Verdes Ocean Monitoring Annual Report. Love, M. 1991. Probably more than you want to know about the fishes of the Pacific Coast. Really Big Press, Santa Barbara, CA. 215 p. Love, M. 1996. Probably more than you want to know about the fishes of the Pacific Coast. Really Big Press, Santa Barbara, CA. 381 p. 210 AES HBGS Entrainment and Impingement Study, Final Report Love, M.S., G.E. McGowen, W. Westphal, R.J. Lavenberg, and L. Martin. 1984. Aspects of the life history and fishery of the white croaker, Genyonemus lineatus (Sciaenidae) off California. Fish. Bull. U.S. 82(1):179-198. Love, M.S., M. Sandhu, J. Stein, K.T. Herbinson, R.H. Moore, M. Mullin, and J.S. Stephens, Jr. 1989. Analysis of fish diversion and survivorship in the fish return system at San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station. NOAA Tech. Rep. NMFS 76. April 1989. 16 p. MacCall, A.D., K.R. Parker, R. Leithiser, and B. Jesse. 1983. Power plant impact assessment: A simple fishery production model approach. Fish. Bull. U.S. 81(3):613-619. MacDonald, C.K. 1975. Notes on the family Gobiidae from Anaheim Bay. Pp. 117-121 in: Lane, E.D. and C.W. Hill (eds.). The marine resources of Anaheim Bay. Calif. Dept. Fish and Game, Fish Bull. 165. 195 p. Macewicz, B.J., J.R. Hunter, N.C.H. Lo, and E.L. LaCasella. 2004. Fecundity, egg deposition, and mortality of market squid (Loligo opalescens). Fish. Bull. U.S. 102(2):306-327. MacGinitie, G.E. 1938. Movements and mating habits of the sand crab, Emerita analoga. Amer. Mid. Nat. 19(2):471-481. Marsh, G. 1992. Plants and animals of the Santa Ana River in Orange County. Prepared for Orange County Environmental Management Agency. July 1992. 180 p. MBC and K.T. Herbinson. Unpublished El Segundo Generating Station heat treatment data 1976- 2003. MBC Applied Environmental Sciences. 1987. Ecology of important fisheries species offshore California. OCS Study 86-0093. Prepared for Minerals Management Service, Pacific OCS Region. 251 p. MBC Applied Environmental Sciences. 1993. National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System, 1993 receiving water monitoring report, AES Huntington Beach L.L.C. generating station, Orange County, California. 1993 survey. Prepared for Southern California Edison Company. 49 p. plus appendices. MBC Applied Environmental Sciences. 1999. Upper Newport Bay, Special Studies of Fishes. Year Three Final Report. Prepared for the Irvine Ranch Water District. 25 June 1999. 26 p. plus appendices. AES HBGS Entrainment and Impingement Study, Final Report 211 MBC Applied Environmental Sciences. 2000. Results of vegetation mapping in the Santa Ana River, between Riverside Ave. and the San Bernardino Water Reclamation Plant, for the fourth year of operation of the RIX Facility, Agua Mansa Rd., San Bernardino County, California. Prepared for Colton/San Bernardino Regional Tertiary Treatment and Water Reclamation Authroity, San Bernardino, California. 24 p. plus appendices. MBC Applied Environmental Sciences. 2001. National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System, 2001 receiving water monitoring report, AES Huntington Beach L.L.C. generating station, Orange County, California. 2001 survey. Prepared for AES Huntington Beach L.L.C. 54 p. plus appendices. MBC Applied Environmental Sciences. 2002a. National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System, 2002 receiving water monitoring report, Harbor Generating Station, Los Angeles County, California. 2002 survey. Prepared for Los Angeles Dept. Water and Power. 43 p. plus appendices. MBC Applied Environmental Sciences. 2002b. National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System, 2002 receiving water monitoring report, Long Beach Generating Station, Los Angeles County, California. 2002 survey. Prepared for Long Beach Generation L.L.C. 76 p. plus appendices. MBC Applied Environmental Sciences. 2003a. National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System, 2002 fish impingement monitoring report, AES Huntington Beach L.L.C. generating station, Orange County, California. Annual Report. Prepared for AES Huntington Beach L.L.C. February 2003. 15 p. plus appendices. MBC Applied Environmental Sciences. 2003b. Physical and biological monitoring Golden Shore Marine Reserve, Long Beach, California, Year 5 (2002). Final Report. Prepared for the City of Long Beach. Jan. 2003. 45 p. plus appendices. MBC Applied Environmental Sciences. 2004. National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System, 2003 fish impingement monitoring report, AES Huntington Beach L.L.C. generating station, Orange County, California. 2003 Survey. Prepared for AES Huntington Beach L.L.C. February 2004. 16 p. plus appendices. MBC. See Marine Biological Consultants or MBC Applied Environmental Sciences. McGowan, J.A. 1954. Observations on the sexual behavior and spawning of the squid, Loligo opalescens, at La Jolla, California. Calif. Dept. Fish and Game. 40(1):47-54. 212 AES HBGS Entrainment and Impingement Study, Final Report McGowen, G.E. 1993. Coastal ichthyoplankton assemblages with emphasis on the Southern California Bight. Bull. Mar. Sci. 53(2):692-722. McGroddy, P.M., L.E. Larson, and D.R. Deneen. 1981. Physical and hydraulic descriptions of Southern California Edison Company generating station circulating water systems. Southern California Edison Company Research & Development Series 79-RD-63. Jan. 1981. 184 p. Mearns, A.J. 1982. Assigning trophic levels to marine animals. Pp. 125-141 in: W. Bascom (ed.). Coastal Water Research Project Biennial Report 1981-1982. So. Calif. Coast. Wat. Res. Proj. Long Beach, CA. 294 p. Methot, R. D., Jr. and D. Kramer. 1979. Growth of the northern anchovy, Engraulis mordax, larvae in the sea. Fish. Bull. U.S. 77:413-420. Miller, D.J. and R.N. Lea. 1972. Guide to the coastal marine fishes of California. California Fish Bulletin No. 157. 249 p. Miller, E.F. MBC Applied Environmental Sciences. Personal observation of salema gonadal condition, April, June, and September 2004. Miller, E.F., D.J. Pondella, and L.G. Allen. In prep a. Aspects of the life history of black croaker, Cheilotrema saturnum, within the Southern California Bight. Miller, E. F., D. J. Pondella, and L. G. Allen. In prep b. Distribution and reproduction of two common southern California sciaenids, spotfin croaker (Roncador stearnsh) and California corbina (Menticirrhus undulatus). Mitchell, C.T. 1999. The southern California commercial sportfish catch database. Prepared for NMFS. Saltonstall-Kennedy Grant No. NA76FD0050. Mitchell, C.T. 2003. President, MBC Applied Environmental Sciences. Conversation with S. Beck, 10 July 2003. Mitchell, C.T., C.H. Turner, and A.R. Strachan. 1969. Observations on the biology and behavior of the California spiny lobster, Panulirus interruptus (Randall). Calif. Fish and Game 55(2):121- 131. Moore, S.L. 2001. Age and growth of white croaker (Genyonemus lineatus) off Palos Verdes and Dana Point, California. Pp. 154-163 in: SCCWRP Annual Report 1999-2000. So. Calif. Coast. Wat. Res. Proj., Westminster, CA. March 2001. 308 p. AES HBGS Entrainment and Impingement Study, Final Report 213 Moore, S.L. and P.W. Wild. 2001. White croaker. Pp. 234-235 in: W.S. Leet, C.M. Dewees, R. Klingbeil, and E.J. Larson (eds.), California's living marine resources: A status report. Calif. Dept. Fish and Game. 592 p. Morris, R.H., D.P. Abbot, and E.C. Haderlie. 1980. Intertidal invertebrates of California. Stanford Univ. Press, Stanford, CA. 690 p. Moser, H.G. (ed.). 1996. The early stages of fishes in the California Current Region. CaICOFI Atlas No. 33. Allen Press, Inc., Lawrence, KS. 1505 p. Moser, H.G., R.L. Charter, P.E. Smith, D.A. Ambrose, W. Watson, S.R. Charter, and E.M. Sandknop. 2001. Distributional atlas of fish larvae and eggs in the Southern California Bight region: 1951-1998. CaICOFI Atlas No. 34. 166 p. Moser, H.G., R.L. Charter, P.E. Smith, D.A. Ambrose, W. Watson, S.R. Charter, and E.M. Sandknop. 2002. Distributional atlas of fish larvae and eggs from manta (surface) samples collected on CaICOFI surveys from 1977 to 2000. CaICOFI Atlas No. 35. 97 p. Moyle, P.B. and Cech. 1988. Fishes: An Introduction to Ichthyology. Department of Wildlife and Fisheries Biology, U.C. Davis. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ. Murdoch, W.W., B.J. Mechalas, and R.C. Fay. 1989a. Technical Report to the California Coastal Commission. D. Adult-Equivalent Loss. 33 pp. Murdoch, W.W., B.J. Mechalas, and R.C. Fay. 1989b. Technical Report to the California Coastal Commission. N. Integration of local repressions and increases in fish stocks with inplant losses. Murdoch, W.W., R.C. Fay, and B.J. Mechalas. 1989c. Final Report of the Marine Review Committee to the California Coastal Commission, MRC Doc. No. 89-02, 346 p. National Marine Fisheries Service. 1999. Our living oceans. Report on the status of the U.S. living marine resources, 1999. U.S. Dept. Commerce, NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-F/SPO-41. 301 p. NCSS. See Number Cruncher Statistical Systems. Nelson, J.S., E.J. Crossman, H. Espinoza-Perez, L.T. Findley, C.R. Gilbert, R.N. Lea, and J.D. Williams. 2004. Common and Scientific Names of Fishes from the United States, Canada, and Mexico. American Fisheries Society Special Publication 29, Bethesda, MD. 386 p. 214 AES HBGS Entrainment and Impingement Study, Final Report Nelson, J. S. 1994. Fishes of the World, 3�d Ed. John Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York, NY. 600 p. Ninos, M. 1984. Settlement and metamorphosis in Hypsoblennius (Pisces, Blenniidae). Ph.D Thesis, University of Southern California. 86 p. NMFS. See National Marine Fisheries Service. NOAA Fisheries. 2004. Recreational Sport Fisheries Data for Southern California. Website: http://swfscdata.nmfs.noaa.gov/latimes. Noble, M. and Jingping Xu (eds.). 2004. Huntington Beach Shoreline Contamination Investigation, Phase III, Final Report. Coastal circulation and transport patterns: The likelihood of OCSD's plume impacting Huntington Beach shoreline. U.S. Geol. Sur. Open-File Report 2004-1019 Ver. 1.0. http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2004/1019. Number Cruncher Statistical Systems. 2000. NCSS 2000 Statistical System for Windows. OCSD. See Orange County Sanitation District. Orange County Sanitation District. 2000. Marine monitoring 2000 annual report. CD-ROM. Orange County Sanitation District. 2005. ftp://ftp.ocsd.com/OCSD%20Offshore%20&%20Shoreline%20Data/OCSD%20H istorical%20 Data/1999-2000%20Currents/Orange_nodc/. Orensanz, J. M. and V. F. Gallucci. 1988. Comparative study of post-larval life-history schedules in four sympatric species of Cancer (Decapoda: Brachyura: Cancridae). J. Crustacean Biol., 8(2):187-220. Pacific Fishery Management Council. 1983. Northern anchovy management plan incorporating the final supplementary EIS/OPIR/IRFA. Pac. Fish. Mgmt. Council, Portland, OR. Pacific Fishery Management Council. 1998. Coastal Pelagic Species Fishery Management Plan (Amendment 8 to the Northern Anchovy Fishery Management Plan). Dec. 1998. Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission. 2004. Recreational Fisheries Information Network (RecFIN). Website: http://www.psfmc.org/recfin. Parker, D. 2001. Rock crabs. Pp. 112-114 in: Leet, W.S., C.M. Dewees, R. Klingbeil, and E.J. Larson (eds). California's living marine resources: A status report. Calif. Dept. Fish and Game. 592 P. AES HBGS Entrainment and Impingement Study, Final Report 215 Parker, K.R. and E.E. DeMartini. 1989. Chapter D: Adult-equivalent loss. Technical Report to the California Coastal Commission. Prepared by Marine Review Committee, Inc. 56 p. Parrish, R.H., C.S. Nelson, and A. Bakun. 1986. Transport mechanisms and reproductive success of fishes in the California Current. Biol. Oceanog. 1(2):175-203. Pearcy, W.G. and S.S. Myers. 1974. Larval fishes of Yaquina Bay, Oregon: nursery ground for marine fishes? Fish. Bull. 72:201-213. PFMC. See Pacific Fishery Management Council. Plummer, K.M., E.E. DeMartini, and D.A. Roberts.1983. The feeding habits and distribution of juvenile-small adult California halibut(Paralichthys californicus) in coastal waters off northern San Diego County. CaICOFI Rep. 24:194-201. Pondella, D.J. and L.G. Allen. 2000. The nearshore fish assemblage of Santa Catalina Island. The proceedings of the fifth California Islands Symposium, Minerals Management Service and Santa Barbara Museum of Natural History. Pp. 394-400. Popper, A.N. Professor, Dept. Biology, Univ. Maryland, Co-Director, Center for Comparative and Evolutionary Biol. of Hearing. Electronic mail transmittal to S. Beck. April 2005. Power, J.H. 1986. A model of the drift of northern anchovy, Engraulis mordax larvae in the California Current. Fish. Bull. U.S. 78(4):855-876. Prasad, R.R. 1958. Reproduction in Clevelandia ios (Jordan and Gilbert), with an account of the embryonic and larval development. India Nat. Inst. Sci., Proceed. Vol. 25, B(1):12-30. PSFMC. See Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission. Quast, J. C. 1968. Observations on the food of the kelp-bed fishes. California Department of Fish and Game, Fish Bull. 139:109-142. 55 p. plus appendices. Recksiek, C.W. and H.W. Frey. 1978. Background of market squid research program, basic life history, and the California fishery. Pp. 7-10 in: C.W Recksiek and H.W Frey (eds.), Biological, oceanographic, and acoustic aspects of the market squid, Loligo opalescens Berry. Calif. Dept. of Fish and Game Bull. 169. Recksiek, C.W. and J. Kashiwada. 1979. Distribution of larval squid, Loligo opalescens, in various nearshore locations. CaICOFI Rep. 20:31-34. 216 AES HBGS Entrainment and Impingement Study, Final Report Richards, D.V. 1996. Sand beach and coastal lagoon monitoring, Santa Rosa Island, 1994 Annual Report. National Park Service, Channel Islands National Park. Tech. Rep. CHIS-95-06. Ricker, W.E. 1975. Computation and interpretation of biological statistics of fish populations. Fish. Res. Board of Canada. Bull. 91. 382 p. Roberts, D.A., E.E. DeMartini, and K.M. Plummer. 1984. The feeding habits of juvenile—small adult barred sand bass (Paralabrax nebulifer) in nearshore waters off northern San Diego County. CaICOFI Rep. 25:105-111. Robertson, D. R. and G. R. Allen. 2002. Shorefishes of the tropical eastern Pacific: an information system. Smithsonian Tropical Research Institution, Balboa, Panama. Roemmich, D. and J. McGowan. 1995. Climatic warming and the decline of zooplankton in the California Current. Science 267:1324-1326. Roesijadi, G. 1976. Descriptions of the prezoeae of Cancer magister Dana and Cancer productus Randall and the larval stages of Cancer antennarius Stimpson (Decapoda, Brachyura). Crustaceana 31:275-295. SAIC. See Science Applications International Corporation. Sakagawa, G.T. and M. Kimura. 1976. Growth of laboratory-reared northern anchovy, Engraulis mordax, from southern California. Fish. Bull.U.S. 74(2):271-279. SCE. See Southern California Edison. Schlotterbeck, R.E. and D.W. Connally. 1982. Vertical stratification of three nearshore southern California larval fishes (Engraulis mordax, Genyonemus lineatus, and Seriphus politus). Fish. Bull. U.S. 80(4):895-902. Schlotterbeck, R.E., L.E. Larson, P. Dorn, R.C. Miracle, R.G. Kanter, R.R. Ware, D.B. Cadien, and D.W. Connally. 1979. Physical and biological categorization process for selection of Southern California Edison Company representative 316(b) study sites. Marine Biological Consultants and Southern California Edison Company. May 1979. 63 p. Science Applications International Corporation. 2001. Strategic Process Study#1: Plume Tracking — Ocean Currents. Final Report to OCSD. 61 p. AES HBGS Entrainment and Impingement Study, Final Report 217 Schuler, V.J. 1974. Experimental studies in the reduction of intake of fishes at offshore intake structures. Prepared for Southern California Edison Company by Ichthyological Associates, Inc., Middletown, DE. Apr. 1974. 42 p. Seber, G.A.F. 1982. The Estimation of Animal Abundance and Related Parameters. McMillan. London. 654 p. Serfling, S.A. and R.F. Ford. 1975. Ecological studies of the puerulus larval stage of the California spiny lobster, Panuhrus interruptus. Fish. Bull. U.S. 73(2):360-377. Shanks, A.L. 1985. Behavioral basis of internal-wave-induced shoreward transport of megalopae of the crab Pachygrapsus crassipes. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 24:289-295. Sikkel, P. C. 1986. Interspecific cleaning by juvenile salema, Xenistius californiensis (Pisces, Haemulidae). Calif. Fish and Game. 72:172-174. Smith, P.E. 1972. The increase in spawning biomass of northern anchovy, Engraulis mordax. Fish. Bull. U.S. 70:849-874. Sokal, R.R. and F.J. Rolf. 1995. Biometry: The principles and practice of statistics in biological research. W.H. Freeman and Co., New York, N.Y. 887 p. Sonalysts, Inc. and MBC Applied Environmental Sciences. 1995a. Testing responses of fishes to acoustic signals at the Redondo Marine Laboratory. Prepared for Southern California Edison Company. November 17, 1995. Contract No. C4035907. 36 p. plus appendices. Sonalysts, Inc. and MBC Applied Environmental Sciences. 1995b. Feasibility study for an acoustic behavioral barrier at the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station. Prepared for Southern California Edison Company. November 17, 1995. Contract No. C4035907. 21 p. Southern California Edison. 1975. Summary of experiences with, and studies of, methods to reduce fish entrainment at coastal generating stations. Prepared for Scripps Institution of Oceanography. Southern California Edison. 1983. Huntington Beach Generating Station 316(b) demonstration. Prepared for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Santa Ana Region. July 1983. 36 p. plus appendices. Southern California Edison. 2000. Annual marine environmental analysis and interpretation: San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station. Report on 1999 data. 218 AES HBGS Entrainment and Impingement Study, Final Report Southern California Edison. 2001. 2000 Annual marine environmental analysis and interpretation: San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station. July 2001. Southern California Edison. 2004. 2003 Annual marine environmental analysis and interpretation: San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station. July 2004. Spratt, J.D. 1979. Age and growth of the market squid, Loligo opalescens Berry, from statoliths. CaICOFI Rep. 20:58-64. Starr, R.M., J.M. Cope, and L.A. Kerr. 2002. Trends and fisheries and fishery resources associated with the Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary from 1981-2000. Publ. No. T-046. California Sea Grant College System, Univ. Calif., La Jolla, CA. 156 p. Starr, R.M., K.A. Johnson, E.A. Laman, and G.M. Cailliet. 1998. Fishery resources of the Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary. Publ. No. T-042. California Sea Grant College System, Univ. Calif., La Jolla, CA. 102 p. Stephens, J. S. Jr. 1969. Growth, longevity, and the effect of size on the biology of certain Blennioid fishes. Final Report. Nat. Sci. Found. GB 5940. 83 pp. Stephens, J.S. Jr., R.K. Johnson, G.S. Key and J.E. McCosker. 1970. The comparative ecology of three sympatric species of California blennies of the genus Hypsoblennius Gill (Teleostomi, Blenniidae). Ecol. Monogr. 40(2):213-233. Stevens, E.G. and H.G. Moser. 1982. Observations on the early life history of the mussel blenny, Hypsoblennius jenkinsi, and the bay blenny, Hypsoblennius gentilis, from specimens reared in the laboratory. CaICOFI Rep. 23:269-275. Stipanov, J.A. 1979. Investigations into minimizing fish loss at steam electric generating stations. Pp. 198-218 in: Report of a Workshop on the Impact of Thermal Power Plant Cooling Systems on Aquatic Environments. Electric Power Res. Inst. EPRI SR-38, Vol. I and II. Special Report. Stull, J.K. and C. Tang. 1996. Demersal fish trawls off Palos Verdes, Southern California, 1973- 1993. CaICOFI Rep. 37:211-264. Sunada, J. 1984. Spot prawn (Pandalus platyceros) and ridgeback prawn (Sicyonia ingentis) fisheries in the Santa Barbara Channel. CaICOFI Rep. 25:100-104. AES HBGS Entrainment and Impingement Study, Final Report 219 Sunada, J.S., J.B. Richards, and L.M. Laughlin. 2001. Ridgeback prawn. Pp. 124-125 in: Leet, W.S., C.M. Dewees, R. Klingbeil, and E.J. Larson (eds). California's living marine resources: A status report. Calif. Dept. Fish and Game. 592 p. Swift, C.C. 2002. Biological consultant, telephone conversation 31 December 2002. Tegner, M.J. and L.A. Levin. 1983. Spiny lobsters and sea urchins: Analysis of a predator-prey interaction. J. Exp. Mar. Biol. Ecol. 73:125-150. Tenera Environmental. 2000a. Diablo Canyon Power Plant: 316(b) Demonstration Report. Prepared for Pacific Gas and Elec. Co., San Francisco, CA. Doc. No. E9-055.0. Tenera Environmental. 2000b. Moss Landing Power Plant Modernization Project: 316(b) Resource Assessment. Prepared for Duke Energy Moss Landing, L.L.C., Oakland, CA. Tenera Environmental. 2001. Morro Bay Power Plant Modernization Project 316(b) Resource Assessment. Prepared for Duke Energy Morro Bay LLC. Tenera Environmental. 2004. SBPP Cooling Water System Effects on San Diego Bay, Volume II: Compliance with Section 316(b) of the Clean Water Act for the South Bay Power Plant. Prepared for Duke Energy South Bay. Tenera. See Tenera Environmental. Turgeon, D.D., A.E. Bogan, E.V. Coan, W.K. Emerson, W.G. Lyons, W.L. Pratt, C.F.E. Roper, A. Scheltema, F.G. Thompson, and J.D. Williams. 1988. Common and scientific names of aquatic invertebrates from the United States and Canada: mollusks. Amer. Fish. Soc., Special Publication 16. 277 p. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2001. Technical Development Document for the final regulations addressing cooling water intake structures for new facilities. EPA-821-R-01-036. Nov. 2001. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2002a. National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System-- Proposed Regulations to Establish Requirements for Cooling Water Intake Structures at Phase II Existing Facilities; Proposed Rule. 40 CFR Parts 9, et al. Federal Register, April 9, 2002. 17122-17225. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2002b. Case study analysis for the Proposed Section 316(b) Phase 11 Existing Facilities Rule. EPA-821-R-02-002. Feb. 28, 2002. 220 AES HBGS Entrainment and Impingement Study, Final Report U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2004. Technical Development Document for the Final Section 316(b) Phase II Existing Facilities Rule. Feb. 12, 2004. USEPA. See U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Valle, C. F. and M. S. Oliphant. 2001. Spotfin croaker. In: W.S. Leet, C.M. Dewees, R. Klingbeil, and E.J. Larson (eds.) California's Living Marine Resources: A Status Report. University of California, Agriculture and Natural Resources Publication SG01-11, 592pp. VanBlaricom, G.R. 1979. Experimental analyses of structural regulation in a marine sand community exposed to oceanic swell. Ecol. Monogr., Vol. 52(3), pp. 283-305. Vojkovich, M. 1998. The California fishery for market squid (Loligo opalescens). CaICOFI Rep. 39:55-60. Vojkovich, M. and S. Crooke. 2001. White seabass. Pp. 206-208 in: Leet, W.S., C.M. Dewees, R. Klingbeil, and E.J. Larson (eds). California's living marine resources: A status report. Calif. Dept. Fish and Game. 592 p. Wang, J.C.S. 1981. Taxonomy of the early life stages of fishes - Fishes of the Sacramento-San Joaquin Estuary and Moss Landing Harbor-Elkhorn Slough. Prepared for Pacific Gas and Electric Company. San Francisco, California. Ware, R.R. 1979. The food habits of the white croaker Genyonemus lineatus and an infaunal analysis near areas of waste discharge in Outer Los Angeles Harbor. Thesis, Calif. State Univ., Long Beach. August 1979. 163 p. Watson, W. 1982. Development of eggs and larvae of the white croaker, Genyonemus lineatus Ayres (Pisces: Sciaenidae) off the southern California coast. Fish. Bull. U.S. 80(3):403-417. Weight, R.H. 1958. Ocean cooling water system for 800 MW power station. Proc. of the Amer. Soc. of Civil Eng., Proc. Paper 1888. Dec. 1958. Wenner, A.W., D.M. Hubbard, J. Dugan, J. Shoffner, and K. Jellison. 1987. Egg production by sand crabs (Emerita analoga) as a function of size and year class. Biol. Bull. 172:225-235. Williams, A.B., L.G. Abele, D.L. Felder, H.H. Hobbs, Jr., R.B. Manning, P.A. McLaughlin, and I. Perez Farfante. 1988. Common and scientific names of aquatic invertebrates from the United States and Canada: decapod crustaceans. Amer. Fish. Soc., Special Publication 17. 77 p. AES HBGS Entrainment and Impingement Study, Final Report 221 Wilson, D.C. and R.E. Millemann. 1969. Relationships of female age and size embryo number and size in the shiner perch, Cymatogaster aggregata. J. Fish. Res. Board Can. 267:2339-2344. Wilson, R.C. 1948. A review of the southern California spiny lobster fishery. Calif. Fish and Game 34(2):71-80. Winn, R.N. 1985. Comparative ecology of three cancrid crab species (Cancer anthonyi, C. antennarius, C. productus) in marine subtidal habitats in southern California. Ph.D. Dissertation, Univ. So. Calif. 235 p. Word, J.Q. and D.K. Charwat. 1976. Invertebrates of southern California coastal waters. II. Natantia. So. Calif. Coast. Wat. Res. Proj. 238 p. Wrobel, D. and C. Mills. 1998. Pacific coast pelagic invertebrates: A guide to the common gelatinous animals. Sea Challengers and Monterey Bay Aquarium, Monterey, California. 108 p. Yang, W.T., R.F. Hixon, P.E. Turk, M.E. Krejci, W.H. Hulet, and R.T. Hanlon. 1986. Growth, behavior, and sexual maturation of the market squid, Loligo opalescens, cultured through the life cycle. Fish. Bull. U.S. 84(4):771-798. Zeidberg, L.D., W. Hamner, K. Moorehead, and E. Kristof. 2004. Egg masses of Loligo opalescens (Cephalopods: Myopsida) in Monterey Bay, California following the El Nino event of 1997- 1998. Bull. Mar. Sci. 74(1):129-141. 222 AES HBGS Entrainment and Impingement Study, Final Report 8.0 GLOSSARY AEL Adult Equivalent Loss. Forecast the number of adults that would have resulted from the number of entrained larvae, assuming the larvae survived entrainment. Calculated using available estimates of natural mortality rates applied to various life stages. benthic Occurring on or in the seafloor. BRRT Biological Resources Research Team. The working group overseeing the development, implementation, and analysis of the Entrainment and Impingement Study. CaICOFI California Cooperative Oceanic Fisheries Investigations. Large-scale physical and biological monitoring program sponsored by the California Department of Fish and Game, the National Marine Fisheries Service, and the Scripps Institute of Oceanography. Catch Block 10-km x 10-km areas fishery management areas offshore California. Overseen by the California Department of Fish and Game. CCC California Coastal Commission. CDFG California Department of Fish and Game. CEC California Energy Commission. CIQ Goby Complex A group of three goby species (Clevelandia ios, llypnus gilberti, and CQuietula y-cauda) that cannot be distinguished during their earliest larval stages. CPFV Commercial Passenger Fishing Vessel. CTD An instrument used to collect conductivity, temperature, and depth measurements as a function of depth. CWIS Cooling Water Intake System. The entire cooling water system of the HBGS, including the offshore intake structure, conduits, forebay, condensers, and discharge structure. demersal Living close to the seafloor(just above bottom). entrainment Passage of planktonic organisms through the HBGS cooling water system. entrapment The occurrence of organisms within a cooling water intake system that have been entrained but not impinged on traveling screens, and cannot escape the cooling water intake flow. EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. ETM Empirical Transport Model. A mathematical model that estimates the total annual probability of mortality (Pm) due to entrainment using PE estimates. AES HBGS Entrainment and Impingement Study, Final Report 223 FH Fecundity Hindcasting. The number of larvae entrained are hindcast to estimate the number of eggs by applying mortality estimates; the number of eggs is then used to estimate the number of adult females that would have produced that quantity of eggs. forebay The exposed area of the cooling water intake system at the HBGS directly upcurrent from the trash racks and traveling screens (see Figure 6-1). FRS Fish Return System. A mechanical system designed to collect juvenile and adult fish (and invertebrates) entrained in a cooling water intake system and return them alive to the source waters. HBGS The AES Huntington Beach L.L.C. Generating Station, formerly the Huntington Beach Generating Station. heat treatment Operational procedure to eliminate the growth of marine organisms, primarily mussels and barnacles, within a cooling water intake system. During this procedure, heated discharge waters are circulated through the cooling water intake system to raise the water temperature for a sufficient time period to eliminate fouling marine organisms that occlude cooling water flow. impingement The entrapment of macroscopic fish and invertebrates on traveling screens. MBC MBC Applied Environmental Sciences, formerly Marine Biological Consultants. megalops Advanced larval stage of crabs following zoea. mgd Million gallons per day. molt Periodic shedding of the cuticle (outer skeletal structure) in arthropods (crabs, shrimps, and lobster). NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service, now referred to as NOAA Fisheries. normal operations Referring to the normal operation of the cooling water intake system of a generating station. Distinguished from heat treatment operations. NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System. Permitting system of Section 401 of the Clean Water Act to enforce effluent limitations. oblique At a slanted angle; neither perpendicular nor parallel to a given surface. OCSD The Orange County Sanitation District. PE Proportional Entrainment. A mathematical value comparing the number of larvae entrained to the number of larvae available in the source water body. pelagic Occurring in the open water, between the water surface and the seafloor. PFMC Pacific Fishery Management Council. 224 AES HBGS Entrainment and Impingement Study, Final Report phyllosoma Early larval (zoea) stage of California spiny lobster. Pm Annual probability of mortality due to entrainment. PS The proportion of the population of inference represented by the number of larvae in the source water(study grid). PSMFC Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission. puerulus Final larval stage of California spiny lobster, resembling the adult, transparent, and free-swimming. recruitment Measure of the number of fish that enter a class during a specified time period, such as the spawning class. Usually refers to the first year class settling from larvae. RWQCB Regional Water Quality Control Board. There are three RWQCBs in southern California: the Los Angeles RWQCB, the Santa Ana RWQCB, and the San Diego RWQCB. SONGS San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station (San Clemente, California). subpopulations A group of individuals of a species which interbreeds but is reproductively isolated from other such groups of the same species. traveling screens Mechanical system designed to prevent debris and marine organisms larger than the screen mesh size (usually 3/8-in. or 5/8-in.) from passing through the condensers and through the cooling water system. Usually rotated at periodic intervals. upwelling Offshore transport of surface waters usually resulting from steady northwest/west winds, causing deep, colder, nutrient-rich water to rise to the surface. velocity cap Concrete pad mounted above offshore cooling water intake structures. Designed to direct cooling water flow horizontally rather than vertically (see Figure 2-3). Z Instantaneous mortality rate. zoea Early larval stage in crustaceans. Appendix A-1.Temperature and salinity profiles at the entrainment station, Sept.2003 to Sept.2004. Cycle 1 - Cycle 2 Cycle 3 Cycle 4 HBS002, 29-30 Sep. 03 Temp(°C) Salinity(PSU) 10 15 20 25 27 29 31 33 35 �- 0 0 2 2 - 4 - 4 6 6 - 8 - 10 . { 10 1 'i 12 12 J— HBS003, 13-14 Oct. 03 10 15 20 25 27 29 31 33 35 _ 0 i 0 � 2 - 2 i 4 4 . E i r 6 6 l 8 8 10 10 - 12 I 12 f �Q HBS004, 20-21 Oct. 03 10 15 20 25 27 29 31 33 35 �. 0 0 . E 2 E 2 - 4 - 4 I i 6 • 6 - 10 - 10 12 E 12 i 14 l.. Appendix A-1.(Cont) 1 Cycle 1 --Cycle 2 Cycle 3 Cycle 4 HBS005, 3-4 Nov. 03 Temp("C) Salinity(PSU) + 10 15 20 25 15 20 25 3D 35 0 0 2 i 2 - ; 4 4 i 6 1 I i 8 8 Note:Change in PSU scale., i Rain during survey. 10 I 10 i 12 — � 12 i! HBS006, 10-11 Nov. 03 10 15 20 25 27 29 31 33 35 0 ' 0 2 i = 2 - 4 4 E ar 6 6 i m { 0 8 j s , 10 10 12 I 12 HBS007, 17-18 Nov. 03 10 15 20 25 27 29 31 33 35 0 0 2 2 4 - 4 • 6 - R 6 I 8 8 10 I 10 12 -- — — 12 —----------- — y(- i Appendix A-1.(Cont) —Cycle i —Cycle 2 —Cycle 3 —Cycle 4 r" HBS00$, 24-25 Nov. 03 Temp(°C) Salinity(PSU) 10 15 20 25 27 29 31 33 35 { o 0 I 2 2 f4 4 i s l 6 8 ; 8 10 I 10 j 12 12 J3 HBS009, 1-2 Dec. 03 10 15 20 25 27 29 31 33 35 _+ 0 f 0 2- 2 - 4 4 a6 j 10 I 10 • 12 - 12 HBS090, 8-9 Dec. 03 .. 10 15 20 25 27 29 31 33. 35 0 — 0 4 2 - 2 • ; f 4- 4 - l f a 6 - I 6 • 8 i 8 i f 10 12 --- ---- 12 - ---------— Appendix A-1.(Cont) —Cycle 1 —Cycle 2 --Cycle 3 —Cycle 4 HBS011, 15-16 Dec. 03 Temp('C) Salinity(PSU) 1U 15 20 25 27 29 31 33 35 0 - 0 2 E 2 4 1 4 i 6 6 8 • 8 0 Light rain day before 10 Cycle 1 I - i 12 J 12 J -- r HBS012, 22-23 Dec. 03 ` 10 15 20 .25 27 29 31 33 35 0 0 2 0 2 i 4 j 4 E 6 6 m 8 • s o ' 10 10 12. 12 i 14 J 14 HBS013, 29-30 Dec. 03 10 15 20 25 27 29 31 33 35 0 0 ' 2 2 4 i 4 6 s 8 8 - 10 . 10 • 12 12 -- ----- ----- r ff ', Appendix A-1.(Cont) f � - --Cycle 1 ---Cycle 2 —Cycle 3 —Cycle 4 HBS014, 5-6 Jan. 04 Temp(°C) Salinity(PSU) 10 15 20 25 27 29 31 33 35 0 0 ' 2 I 2 . f 4 f 4 i 6 6 i i $ 8 i 10 10 • i j 12 ---- ' 12 - ! HBS015 12-13 Jan. 04 10 0 15 20 25 27 29 31 33 35 r 2 2 4 4 i CL 6 ! 6 I } 0 8 a 1d ' 10 - 12 12 HBS016, 19-20 Jan. 04 k 10 15 20 25 27 29 31 33 35 0 2 2 �- 4 i 4 i � . 6 i 6 8 8 i 10 10 12 -1 12 - - -- - —-- l Appendix A-1.(Cont) Cycle 1 Cycle 2 —Cycle 3 Cycle 4 HBS017, 26-27 Jan. 04 Temp(°C) Salinity(PSU) 10 15 20 25 27 29 31 33 35 0 0 2 2 I 4 4 I 1 6 ; 6 8 8 • � 10 i 10 - 12 — 12 i HBS018, 2-3 Feb. 04 10 15 20 25 27 29 31 33 35 a 2 i i 2 4 4 E 6 - 8- 10 - 10 12 i 12 14 I+ 14 HBS019, 9-10 Feb. 04 10 15 20 25 27 29 31 33 35 0 I 0 I 2 f 2 4 4 - 6 - 8- 8 - 10 . I 10 12 _ _ ___I 12 __-- Appendix A-1.(Cont) t Cycle i Cycle 2 —Cycle 3 Cycle 4 r : HBS020 Salinity(PSU) t Temp(°C) 10 15 20 25 27 29 31 33 35 a � z 2 4 I 4 fi No data collected. 6 No data collected. 8 I 8 10 • 10 12 — I 12 - — -- - HBS021, 23-24 Feb-.04 f, 10 15 20 25 27' 29 31 33 35 � . 0 � 2 2 4 - 4 a fi 1 ro fi i I A 8 8 10 - 10 - I I 12 ---- -- - 12 --—. --- —� HBS022, 3 Mar. 04 q 10 15 20 25 27 29 31 33 35 0 - 2 . i .� 4 . 4 • I { 6 - 8 10 • � 10 12 12 t Appendix A-1.(Cont) —Cycle 1 —Cycle 2 —Cycle 3 Cycle 4 - HBS023, 8-9 Mar. 04 Temp('C) Salinity(PSU) 10 15 20 25 27 29 31 33 35 0 0 I 2 I Z I 4 I 4 - 6 - 8 8 10 i 10 - 12 ------ - ----- 12 ——— -- ------- — HBS024, 15-16 Mar. 04 10 15 20 25 27 29 31 33 35 0 0 2 I 2 i 4 4 E I r 6rL 6- 10 - 12 -- ——---—�.� 12 -- T —,— H83025, 22-23 Mar. 04 10 15 20 25 27 29 31 33 35 2' ' 0 _ f 2 4 4 6 6 8 i 8 • 10 10 i 12 ---------��—, 12 ------------.-.__ - - - Appendix A-1. (Cont) Cycle 1 Cycle 2 —Cycle 3 —Cycle 4 HBS026 Temp C salinity(PSU) 10 15 20 25 27 29 31 33 35 0 - 0 �y 2 ' 2 ' i. 4 ! 4 6 No data collected. 6 No data collected. I $ a j 10 - 10 12 - — — - — 12 - -- - .: HBS027 10 15 20 25 27 29 31 33 35 0 0 I 2 I 2 _ 4 . i 4 i a 6 . No data collected. i 6 No data collected. m a - i 10 10 12 - -- 12 — — HBS028, 12-13 Apr. 04 10 15 20 25 27 29 31 33 35 0 I 0 - 2 2 - 4 1 4 - 8 j a 10 - I 10 I Appendix A-1.(Cont) Cycle 1 Cycle 2 —Cycle 3 —Cycle 4 HBS029, 19-20 Apr. 04 Temp(°C) Salinity(PSU) 10 15 20 25 27 29 31 33 35 0 0 2 2 I • 4 - 4 6 j 6 I 10 10 12 -- _-- 12 -------—--____ - I HBS030, 23 Apr. 04 10 15 20 25 27 29 31 33 35 0 0 2 - ; 2 4 4 E a fi 6 m i o � ; 8 • � g. 10 t, 10 f I 12 12 HBS031, 3-4 May 04 10 15 20 25 27 29 31 33 35 0 0 • 2 ,� ' 2 i 4 4 i 6 6 i 8 8 10 - 10 - 12 12 --_ --- -_- - -•- ------ - r c S • Appendix A-1. (Cont) Cycle i —Cycle 2 ----•Cycle 3 --Cycle 4 HBS032, 6-7 May 04 ~ Salinity(P8U) Temp(°C) 10 15 20 25 27 29 31 33 35 0 y 0 i 2 i 2 4 4 6 6 i ` 8 B { .• 10 . 10 • 12 - 12 - .. HBS033, 17-18 May 04 10 15 20 25 27 29 31 33 35 .. 0 0 i 2 2 i f 4 i 4 I 11 E 6 6 m O $ � 8 t i S 10 10 I 12 —� 12 - HBS034, 24-25 May 04 10 15 20 25 27 29 31 33 35 �._ 0 i 0 f, 2 - 2 4 sE� i 4 i ! 6 i 6 g 10 - i0 12 __- 12 -- -------- ---- - - I, I Appendix A-1.(Cont) Cycle 1 Cycle 2 ----Cycle 3 Cycle 4 HBS035, 1-2 June 04 Temp("C) Salinity(PSU) t0 15 20 25 27 29 31 33 35 0 0 2 2 I • i 4 ± 4 , 6 , I 6 - 8 - 10 10 12 — _ 12 _.----- 1 HBS036 10 15 20 25 27 29 31 33 35 0 0 - 2- 2 - 4 - 4 s No data collected. s CL No data collected. CD 8 8 ; i 10 - 12 12 — HBS037 10 15 20 25 27 29 31 33 35 0 n i z i 2 4 4 s No data collected. 6 No data collected. s s - 10 1a 12 ----—__------- ------- __---- ._ ._. EEr l e . Appendix A-L (Cont) Cycle 1 —Cycle 2 -----Cycle 3 —Cycle 4 HBSO44,24-25 Aug. 04 Temp("C) Sallnity(PSU) 10 15 20 25 27 29 31 33 35 0 0 2 � 2 4 4 - 6 6 i 4 s I s 10 10 i 1.., HBSO45, 31 Aug. - 1 Sep. 04 10 15 20 25 27 29 31 33 35 0 0 IL f 2 2 E 4 4 0 6 6 10 10 1. i t. . 12 --- 12 -� t., r L Appendix A-2.Temperature and salinity profiles at Station U2,Sept. 2003 to Sept 2004. F : Cycle 1 —Cycle 2 ------Cycle 3 —Cycle 4 ' HBS003, 13-14 Oct. 03 Temp(°C) Salinity(PSU) 10 15 20 25 27 29 31 33 35 0 -- 0 IV 2 2 f �... 4 - 10 - 10 -., 12 ---- — -- 12 r HBS006, 10-11 Nov. 03 10 15 20 25 27 29 31 33 35 t 0 0 2 i 2 E 4 } 4 i r 6 6 i a s 8 10 I 10 12 f " HBS010, 8-9 Dec. 03 10 15 20 25 27 29 31 33 35 0 I 0 2 � 2 4 4 I 6 • 6 . I 8 8 [ 10 10 (J � 12 -- - -- --- -— --- 12 ---- ---- ---- - } y l ' Appendix A-2.(Cont) Cycle 1 —Cycle 2 --Cycle 3 —Cycle 4 HBS014, 5-6 Jan. 04 Temp(°C) Salinity(PSU) 10 15 20 25 27 29 31 33 35 0 .0 i 2 . 2 . 4 - 4 6 6 8 8 I i 10 • i 10 i 12 — 12 4 HBS019, 9-10 Feb. 04 j t0 15 20 25 27 29 31 33 35 0 0 z ; 2 4 E J i 4 ' w 6 6 . a 8 ' I 8 10 10 - 12 -_ — 12 -- -- HBS023, 8-9 Mar. 04 10 15 20 25 27 29 31 33 35 0 0 2 2 4 4 6 i 6 i - 10 10 12 12 E Appendix A-2.(Cont) 1. —Cycle 1 Cycle 2 --—Cycle 3 Cycle 4 HBS027 l Temp(°C) Salinity(PSU) 10 15 20 25 27 29 31 33 35 4.' 0 . i 0 2 - 4 4 . 6 • No data Collected. fi No data collected. i l 8 8 10 10 j 12 ----- - — 12 -- — - -- —I c• _ HBS031, 3A May 04 10 15 20 25 27 29 31 33 35 0 _ a e 2 2 4 4 - E i CL 6 6 CD l 10 10 - 12 ---.— �� --__ __-� 12 �i HBS035, 1-2 June 04 10 15 20 25 27 29 31 33 35 0 0 2 ; 2 aq C.. 4 4- 6 - 8 8 ( 10 10 12 12 t r Appendix A-2. (Cont) Cycle 1 Cycie 2 —Cycle 3 Cyc[e 4 HBSO45, 31 Aug. -1 Sep. 04 10 15 20 25 27 29 31 33 35 0 0 . 2 2 4 4 E a 6 6 81 8 10 10 12 - 12 - --' i a- i Appendix A-3.Temperature and salinity profiles at Station U4, Sept 2003 to Sept.2004. Cycle 1 —Cycle 2 --Cycle 3 Cycle 4 HBS003, 13-14 Oct. 03 Temp('C) Salinity(PSU) 10 15 20 25 27 29 31 33 35 0 0 i • 2 2 t 4 I 4 i 5 6 10 10 I 12 ----- -— -- 12 — E HBS006, 10-11 Nov. 03 10 15 20 25 10 15 20 25 30 35 0 is 0 1 2 2 1 4 4 E C L 6 6 1 0 1 S 8 i 10 i0 12 ------ — ---- 12 --- --_--� HBS010, 8-9 Dec. 03 10 15 20 25 27 29 31 33 35 0 -+ 0 I ' 2 2 L= 4 • 4 1 i 8 8 ( 10 12 14 ji12 -- — _-- - - -------—--— — _ Appendix A-3.(Cont) Cycle 1 Cycle 2 ---Cycle 3 Cycle 4 HBS014, 5-6 Jan. 04 Temp(°C) Salinity(PSU) 10 15 20 25 27 29 31 33 35 0 0 2 2 - 4- 4 6 6 - 8 8 10 10 - 1 12 12 I HBS019, 9-10 Feb. 04 10 15 20 25 27 29 31 33 35 0 0 2 2 .. 4 4 S C 6 - 6 a 8 10 10 12 ---- 12 HBS023, 8-9 Mar. 04 10 15 20 25 27 29 31 33 35 0 0 2 2 4 - 4 6 - 6 - 8 - 10 I 10 f . Appendix A-3.(Cont.) Cycle 1 Cycle 2 —Cycle 3 —Cycle 4 r , E HBS027 i Temp(°C:) Sallnity(PSU) 10 15 20 25 27 29 31 33 35 i 0 i 0 ti 2 2 4 4 s No data collected. fi No data collected. I 10 + 10 12 -- — --- ' ... ' 12 HBS031, 3-4 May 04 � 0 10 15 20 25 27 29 31 33 35' 0 2 2 4 4 r j a I om 6 $ j 8 8 �. 10 10 -- -- - -- -- ( HBS035, 1-2 June 04 10 15 20 25 27 29 31 33 35 0- 0 2 2 , 4 4 1 q ; [ 6 6 j 8 j 8 S i i !l 10 -._ ..__._._..—...- _ ._.. - --- ---- -- 10 Appendix A-3. (Cont) --Cycle 1 Cycle 2 Cycle 3 Cycle 4 HBSO45, 39 Aug.-1 Sep. 04 10 15 20 25 27 29 31 33 35 0 I ---- 0 2 2 4 4 - 6 - 8 - 10 10 12 - - 12 —�� --- i i ; F" Appendix A-4.Temperature and salinity profiles at Station 132, Sept.2003 to Sept. 2004. --Cycle 1 Cycle 2 —Cycle 3 —Cycle 4 r ` HBS003, 13-14 Oct. 03 Temp(`C) Salfnity(PSU) 10 15 2D 25 27 29 31 33 35 • 0 0 2 2 4 4 6 6 - 10- 12 12 ------ - HBS006, 10-11 Nov. 03 F, 10 15 20 25 27 29 31 33 35 0 0 2 2 E 4 1 4 w 6 a 6 " 8 8 i 10 i 10 12 --- --- 12 --- �r HBS010, 8-9 Dec. 03 f 10 15 20 25 27 29 31 33 35 _ 0 -- 0 t 2 2 4 4 f 6 - 6 t 8 8 [ 10 10 12 - - -- - --_--- -- ---- — - - ` 12 --- -- -- ----- - - Appendix A-4. (Cont) Cycle 1. Cycle 2 —Cycle 3 —Cycle 4 HBS014, 5$Jan. 04 Temp(°C) Salinity(PSU) 10 15 20 25 27 29 31 33 35 p 1 1 0 2 2 4 4 6 6 8 - 8 10 10 , 12 12 HBS019 10 15 20 25 27 29 31 33 35 0 - 2 2 _ 4 4 E r 6 . No data collected. s No data collected. m c s s 10 10 i 12 12 -- HBS023, 8-9 Mar. 04 10 15 20 25 27 29 31 33 35 0 I 0 2 2 i 4 4. 6 i 6 8 8 10 10 i 12 -..- —--- ---- - - - - - -- - - 12 - ------ -__-- - - 1 Appendix A-4.(Cont) -----Cycle 1 Cycle 2 —Cycle 3 —Cycle 4 HBS027 Temp('C) Sallnity(PSU) 10 15 20 25 27 29 31 33 35 0 - D . 2 2 I 4 4 6 No data collected. 8 No data collected. g g 10 10 i HBS031, 3-4 May 04 10 15 20 25 27 29 31 33 35 0 0 2 i 2 E 4 4 a 6 6 10 • 10 12 12 -- -- --------- HBS035, 1-2 June 04 10 15 20 25 27 29 31 33 35 r: 0 - 0 2- i 2 4 4 i 8 g 10 10 JL 12 12 -- { l Appendix A-4.(Cont) —Cycle 1 Cycle 2 —Cycle 3 Cycle 4 HBSO45, 31 Aug. - 1 Sep. 04 'hemp(°C) Salinity(PSU) 10 15 20 25 27 29 31 33 35 0 0 2 j 2 4 4 E E 6 6 CL a s I 8 10 ! 10 - 12 —--- --- 12 —-- --- ---- l r r' J S { Appendix A-5.Temperature and salinity profiles at Station D4,Sept_2003 to Sept.2004. --Cycle 1 --Cycle 2 —Cycle 3 Cycle 4 i HBS003, 13-14 Oct. 03 Temp('C) Salinity(PSIS) 10 15 20 25 27 29 31 33 35 f 0 0 2 2 4 4 6 6 8 8 I' 10 10 i 12 -- ---� 12 —— $! HBS006, 10-11 Nov. 03 10 15 20 25 27 29 31 33 35 { , 0 0 r , 2 2 4 4 � I a 6 6 m p 8 8 i 10 10 12 ---- --- 12 r m HBS010, 8-9 Dec. 03 10 15 20 25 27 29 31 33 35 Z 0 0 2 2 _ 4 4 - 6 - 8 - 10 - 10 • J+ - ------- — --- __- - — - -- - Appendix A-5. (Cont.) --Cycle 1 Cycle 2 -------Cycle 3 ----Cycle 4 HBS014, 5-6 Jan. 04 Temp('C) Sallnity(PSU) 10 15 20 25 27 29 31 33 35 0 0 2 ' 2 4 4 6 6 8 8 I 10 10 12 - 12 -- ----.-- ------ HBS019 10 15 20 25 27 29 31 33 35 0 0 2 2 4 4 . E Q 6 No data collected. 6 - No data collected. m a 8 g i t0 10 12 ' 12 HBS023, 8-9 Mar. 04 10 15 20 25 27 29 31 33 35 0 p 2 i 2 i k 4 z 4 6 6 8 ! 8 10 10 12 --- - -- - — -- -- ---- ----- - 12 __ - _. _...__-••------ -- -- f Appendix A,5-(Cont) --Cycle 1 Cycle 2 —Cycte 3 Cycle 4 r HBS027 Temp VC) Salinity(PSU) 10 15 20 25 27 29 31 33 35 0 0 ' 2 .2 i 4 4 6 - No data collected. 6 No data collected. g i 8 i I + i 10 10 i i 12 — 12 �.i Q _ HBS031, 3-4 May 04 10 15 20 25 27 29 31 33 35 l ° 0 2 2 4 + + � � 4 t 6 1 CL ti m a 8 + 8 10 10- 12 ------- —---- 12 --------- -- - HBS035, 1-2 June 04 10 15 20 25 27 29 31 33 35 0 0 2 ` 2 j €, 4 4 I i 1 6 I 6 t• 8 8 i 10 10 12 12 -- - - --- - ------- -_ Appendix AS. (Conti) Cycle 1 Cycle 2 --Cycle 3 Cycle 4 HBSO45, 31 Aug, - 1 Sep. 04 Temp('C) Salinity(PSU) 10 15 20 25 27 29 31 33 35 0 — 0 2 2 4 4 , E � • ;s 6 6 a m 8 8 10 10 i 12 -- ----_ — _ _—_ 12 ----— ------- r Appendix A-6.Temperature and salinity profiles at Station 02,Sept 2003 to Sept 2004. —Cycle 1 —Cycle 2 —Cycle 3 —Cycle 4 HBS003, 13-14 Oct. 03 Temp VC) Salinity(PSU) 10 15 20 25 27 29 31 33 35 0 0 f 5 5 i 10 10 15 15 - HBS006, 10-11 Nov. 03 10 15 20 25 27 29 31 33 35 0 - 0 - 5 5 E fi 10 m 10 , O 15 15 . � I 20 -- -J 20 } HBS010, 8-9 Dec. 03 10 15 20 25 27 29 31 33 35 0 , i 5 5 C.: I 10 10 15 15 20 20 ---- -------- --- -— -_ Appendix A-6. (Cant) Cycle 1 Cycle 2 --Cycle 3 Cycle 4 HBS014, 5-6 Jan. 04 Temp("C) Salinity(PSU) 10 15 20 25 27 29 31 33 35 0 - 0 5 - 10 - 10- Is- 15 - 20 - 20 ---- - —� —- HBS019 10 15 20 25 27 29 31 33 35 a 0 5 - 5 E i 10 No data collected. 10 No data collected. 15 15 I 20 20 t i HBS023, 8-9 Mar. 04 10 15 20 25 27 29 31 33 35 0 0 fKf 5 - 10 - 10 20 20 —- ------ - -- — - — .. . s_ _ € Appendix A-6. (Cont) l - r —Cycle 1 —Cycle 2 —Cycle 3 —Cycle 4 i HBS027 Temp("C) Salinity(PSU) 10 15 20 25 27 29 31 33 35 0 0 5 - $ i 10 No data collected. 10 No data collected. 15 15 I 20 - 20 c- k HBS031, 3-4 May 04 10 15 20 25 27 29 31 33 35 0 5 5 E ' , 10 - 10 CD a i o 15 I 15 2° zo - - - - I - - - -- HBS035, 1-2 June 04 10 15 20 25 27 29 31 33 35 6 0 0 i 5 5 C , 10 - 10 15 - 15 20 -•- . .._. -- -- ---__ ...._..- - ------ 20 -- -- - - - ------- f - Appendix A4. (Cont) Cycle 1 Cycle 2 —Cycle 3 ---Cycle 4 HBSO45, 31 Aug. 1 Sep. 04 Temp(°C) Salinity(PSu) 10 15 20 25 27 29 31 33 35 0 0 5 5 i 10 10 Cii C 15 i 15 i i 20 -- ---- ..._. 20 - ------- ---,.-�� _. l� r I r f f Appendix A-7.Temperature and salinity profiles at Station 04, Sept 2003 to Sept 2004. Cycle 1 Cycle 2 ----Cycle 3 Cycle 4 HBS003, 13-14 Oct. 03 Temp(°C:l salinity(PSU) 10 i5 20 25 27 29 31 33 35 0 0 •. 5 5 10 10 15 15 I 20 20 � I 25 — - - --' 25 - HBS006, 10-11 Nov. 03 10 15 20 25 27 29 31 33 35 0 � 0 I 5 5 10 10 Q 0 15 i5 i 20 20 i - 25 ---- HBS010, 8-9 Dec. 03 10 15 20 25 27 29 31 33 35 0 0 5 5 10 10 - 20 - 20 - Appendix A-7. (Cont.) Cycle 1 Cycle 2 -----Cycle 3 ---Cycle 4 HBS014, 5-6 Jan. 04 Temp('C) Salinity(PSU) 10 15 20 25 27 29 31 33 35 0 0 5 - 10 - 10 , r 15 15 20 20 • 25 - - -- 25 -- HBSa19 I 10 15 20 25 27 29 31 33 35 0 0 0.2 0.2 _ 0.4 0.4 E ' a 0.6 No data collected. U No data collected. 0.s 0.8 1 1 1.2 -- 1.2 HBS023, 8-9 Mar. 04 1D 15 20 25 27 29 31 33 35 0 0 5 5 10 10 15 15 20 20 25 ------- -- --_____----__ -- 26 --- - -- - ---- ----____--- -- Appendix A-7.(Cont.) Cycle i Cycle 2 —Cycle 3 Cycle 4 _ HBS027 Temp("C) Salinity(PSU) 10 15 20 25 31 32 33 34 35 5 5 10 10 No data collected. No data collected. i 15 15 ' I 20 20 25 — -- — -- -1 25 ------ E� HBS031, 3-4 May 04 10 15 20 25 27 29 31 33 35 0 - 0 - F 5- 10 - 10 Q I 0 15 15 20 - 20 f25 ---- — ---- 25 —---- - �� C' HBS035, 1-2 June 04 i0 15 20 25 27 29 31 33 35 .: ❑ ; 0 j 5 5 10 i 10 i 15 15 I 20 - I 20 25 25 II Appendix A-7.(Cont) --Cycle 1 —Cycle 2 Cycle 3 Cycle 4 HBSO45, 31 Aug. - 1 Sep. 04 Temp(T) Sallnity(PSU) 10 15 20 25 27 29 31 33 35 0 0 i 5 � 5 10 10 - p 15 15 20 20 25 - _ _--- __ 25 ------------ _ -_- r .1 3 Appendix B-1. Larval fish and target invertebrate counts and mean concentrations(#/I000m)for entrainment surveys. Survey 1 2 3 4 8 Data 09117103 =29103 1WI3103 10/20103 1IM3103 Z Sample Count a 8 e 8 8 Mean Mann Mean Mean Mean Taxon Common Name Total Count Canc. Count Cone. Count Cone- Count Conc. Count Cone. Hdae unid. 0 r-• Engrau8s mdrdax nanhem anchovy 1.152 20 53A 30 82,6 32 77,e 30 76.1 4 1DA Ronca"Sfearnsf "tiln cramer 912 _ Genyonerrw meatus White croaker 446 7 17,0 7 19A 4 11,2 0 16.0 1 3.0 Sedphus POWs quernflsh 306 - - _ Sciamidse unld. croakers 244 1 3.2 - - _ _ Hy;sdble'W-spp_ blenrdes tot - 1 2-2 - D 27.0 Xerrfsfrus cakwensis Salem 153 kuvae,unidentMed yoNsac unidentified yewksac larvae 138 P4rafc4ihys caffornIcus CalIforrtla hallbut 96 - - 1 2.0 - Ctreliobeme salumum black croaker 96 1 2.4 - - - - Hypsopsetld guftudafa diamond lurnoi 87 - - 2 5,4 2 5-0 3 11,0 AMeAmpsls cafforrdensis Jacksmen 59 r Engrauiidae anchovies 57 8 18.9 larval rish(segment unldenWied Larval tunes 51 - I liypsypops MU=ndus garibaldi 43 - - I menficfrrhus undufahrs Cakfamla corNna 43 larvallpost4arval fish umd. larval 03hes 39 Paralabrax app. send bass 36 - - ClOaftWhys stfgmaeus apecfded nanddab 30 1 312 - - Qxy/ufs caitamrca senalte 27 - Athedr»pskfae saversides 25 ftA--Ober, dleekspot goby 24 1 2.4 - - 2 5.9 Umbrfna mncador yetlowful weaker 24 - - - Gflfichrhys rrfrabffs Ion&NY mud Sucker 20, - 2 5.1 - I ephkgob/us fepklra vary goby to _ - - Leplocotaa armabrs Padflc slaghorn sculpin le AcartfhogabhisfJevlmanus yellowfrngoby 15 - Syngnettddee unld. plpeflahes 15 - - - Spmy7mum arganfes Cafrarrrabarrrrcuda 14 Laurasthes renuis Ca arrde grur0on 13 Pare Jebrax dahlrebrs kelp bass 12 Pkkaorarrhthys litters apotletl tur6bl 12 Pfau-thmys spp, kubots 12 lNephus•fhata Ce4fomleneaclightfish it GM—W app. diN4 kelpfishes 10 Trlphohaus nwjdcanus Mexican lamphsh 8 - - - - - _ _ _ • _ Myrtophidee uric, lantemfishes 8 1 3.2 Alraksbschn nohr@s white eeabass 5 - - Fteenxrlldae grunts 5 Hypsablennlus Jenklnsl musser blenny 5 Pleumnedtdae urdd, flounders 5 1 3.0 .7arcrnops sagax PedfiC sardhe 4 I_Bbduxiddae unkl. Iabrisemld kdprLshes 3 PkurorrlchlhyT V Cafs P"nyhsod turbot 3 Sleno"Odus rem*pserus northern lampfish 3 `{ Ckvm"a fas arrow poby 2 Med/akare caflofA44sls haffmoon 2 OpHdor scfppsae besketweave tusk-eel 2 Parallchtilyidae unid. fefleye sounders d 2 - - - - 1 2.9 - - - Nprhus shnimmra Padfic twhorf-Sh 2 - - - - SeommrJAPorfcus Pacft mackerel 2 • serra✓cossyphus Pukher OWdonlle sheephead 2 t: Aponkiae unld. poa&— 1 Cldlsftfllhys app. eanddabs 1 Rhklogebfolu rlfdroW Mackey goby 1 Co&e=x nld, ca ortns 1 _ - CaoblesGu app. cklgflsltea 1 Haf hoeras samWnchrs rock wresse 1 larval foh-damaged unklenUfed larval(Sates 1 Merluodus prodrreha Padfic hake 1 QxyreWus pictrrs painted greening 1 Pieuroned9omles unki. flatfishes 1 Ruscarfusereesad munccheeksculpin 1 Scurpeenldae arnrpionfntes 1 Sebasfes spp_V rockfishes t Sebastes app.V tie rockfishes t _ Sebasies spp.VO rocklUttes 1 S&Wwkma edfs Caftomie needlefish 1 Symphurw africeuda CeHfomta tongueltsh 1 Syngna thus k3piloMyrichus baypipehsh 1 Syngnamus 3PP• poenshea 1 -• 7yPhbgoblla cauromhWWs btlnd goby 1InYfffMMfeq Emerrre analogs(zoea) mole crab 10.399 9 30.0 3 7.9 10 29.0 3 7.7 _ Causer enftn Canvergraclf((Meng.)) Slander cab 31 1 2.8 t Cancerarrtennarlus(meg.) brown rock crab 19 CancarAV&dus(Meg•) red rack crab 3 Cancer spp.(meg.) Cancer cabs 3 - - - EmerNe aneldpe(m%) mole crab 2 at (Wrrfiraredj S i . *r, S 4 C_ Appendix 8-1.(Continued). ' Survey a 7 8 9 10 Date 11110103 11117/03 IV241`03 12101f03 t2f09f03 Station Count a a 8 8 8 Mean Mean Mean Mean Mean Taxon Common Name Total Count Cone. Count Cone. Count Cone. Count Cone. Count Cone. GobilaSe um . gables F�lyrau6s mordar northern anchovy 1,152 11 31.1 11 25.1 z 5.1 3 7.8 9 24,0 Roncadorsteamsi spotfln croaker 912 - - - - - - Genyoneims Oneatus whhe croaker 446 2 5.2 18 37.7 17 43A 4 12.9 10 26.8 Seripnuspo6fus Queert0sh 300 - - - - - - - - - Sciaenidae unld. croakers 244 - - - - - Hypsobknnius spp. blennles 161 to 28.1 2 5.0 2 5.3 2 5.1 XeOISDus caiftdensfs salema 153 - - - - - - - Larne,unldenblied yolksac unldantifled yohksac Larvae 138 - Puatidh1hys ca&bmkvs Californie halibut 98 2 5.5 - - - - Cheila ttma satumurn black croaker g0 - HypsopM&AguMutafa diamond turbot. 87 1 3.1 1 2.3 3 5.5 2 5,7 - - Afnednoos cadfafnierWs }arksmell 59 - - - - 1 3.2 - - Engraulidae anchovies 57 - - - - lanrdi fish fragment unfdenUned Larval fishes 51 1 2.8 1 Z2 - - - - Hypaypopsrubkuadua garlbafdi 43 - - - - - - MenWhftus undulalus California corbina 43 - IarraUpostaervel fish unto. larval fishes 39 - - - 1 2.5 - Paralabrar spp. sand bars 36 - Cilhsrkhl hys stigmseus speckled senddab 30 - QS&§S cafrfbmka senorita 27 - - - - Atherinopsldas silversides 25 - 1 2.9 llypeus ghberB cheekspot goby 24 - 1 2.9 4 17.5 Unibrina roneador yellowfin croaker 24 - - - - - - - Gigchtbys mrrablis longlaw mud sucker 20 1 2,3 - 1 3.2 1 2.7 Lapldogobfus lepidus bay goby is - - f.eptocom a amfafus Pacific staghom sculpin 16 - 1 2.4 - 2 a.t Acanthogobfus ffavlmanus yellow0n goby 15 - - - - Syngnathldaeunid. plpefishes 15 - - • - - - Splhyrnena aTentea Calftomla barracuda fa - - - - - Leuresthes tenrds Calffomla grunion 13 Paralabia daMfus kelp bass 12 - - - - - - - - Pteuro" hfhys Mied spotted turbot 12 - PleuronichMys spp. turbots 12 - - - - - - - aiaphusmete Califomis headlight fish 11 - - - - - - - Gibbonsla SM. tlinid kelpfishes 10 Tolpthohrrus medcanus Mexican lampfisi'h 8 1 2.9 - - Mydcphtdae unkl, lantemnshes 6 - - - - Abacoscon nobf3s white seabass 5 - - Meemulldae grunts 5 - - - - - - hhypseblenNus janldnsl mussel blenny 5 - - - - - Pteumnecifdae unld. noundere 5 1 2.9 1 2.3 Sandinops aagax Pacft sardine 4 - - - - Labrlsomldas unid, labrisomld kelpfisnes 3 Pleurankhthys ve+tiea6S homyhead turbot 3 - - - - - - - SfenobracMus feucopsarus northern lampfhsh 3 Clevetendla16S armwgoby 2 - Mersatrna cafrlorruensls hadmoon 2 - Qphicion sCtppsae basketweave rusk-eel z Paralldhthyfdae unld. Iefteye Rounders b 2 - - - - - Paprika SI N11Fmus Pacific butlernsh 2 Scomberjaparhlws PaellicmackemJ 2 Serrhtcassyphus pukher California sheephead 2 Agonidae uric. poachers t Cdharidhthys spp. sanddabs 1 1 2.6 Rnlnogoblaps nic hour bleckeye goby 1 - CoUldae urlkl. schlpins 1 - - Goblemx spp. clingnshes 1 - - - - - Ha6chceres semidnaus rock wrasse 1 - larval RM-damaged unldanlKed larval Qshes 1 - MeducdusprbductErs Pac0chake 1 - - - - - - - Orytebiu3 pidus painted greenling 1 - - - - - - - Pisurenectlfonnes unld. flat0shos 1 - Ruseadusargased rouchoeeksrulpin 1 - Scorpaenldae scohphonashes 1 Sebasfbs 5pp.V rockfishes 1 1 2.0 - - - - - Sebasles spp.V Ue roddsnes 1 1 2.9 - - - - - Sebastes go.VO roctdhshea 1 1 7.9 Shangyfura"03 California needlefish 1 - - - - - - - - Symphurus aklcauda California tonguefhsh 1 - SyrWatlwskptorhyndhtts Day pipe ash 1 - - Syn�riemus spp. pipefishes t - - Typt+kgofa6rs callomienafs blind goby 1 - - - - - - [fD3>�aaaS Ernerifa analoga(7bea) mole crab 10.399 8 15.8 1 Z4 8 18.5 2 6.2 5 13.0 Canceranmonyi(Meg.) yellow crab 77 - - - - - - - C--gmdos(Meg.) alendercrab 31 - - - 1 2.9 - Canoeranlennaefus(nwg.) brown rock Cab to - - - - - - - - Cancerproduefus(Meg.) red rock crab 3 - - - - • _ - Camxx app.(Meg.) cancerciaba 3 - - - - - Emerfhr anaroga(meg.) mole crab 2 f L . Appendix B.I.(Continued). Survey 11 12 13 14 15 Date 12115/03 12127J03 12)29r03 01105104 0111210-4 Station Count a 1s is 18 18 i Mean Mean Mean Mean Mean Taxon Common Name Total Count Conc. Count Conc. Count Conc. Count Cone- Count Conc. -Gobr e un ies Engrauis mordax northern anchovy 1.152 63 180.0 4 5.7 11 14.2 4 5.6 2 2.8 Rdncadorsteamsl spotfin croaker 012 - - - - - - �' Genyonemus Gnea(us white croaker 445 30 83.8 3 4.3 t 1_2 8 10.5 22 30.9 Sedphus POWs 308 _ _ _ - - - - 1} Sclamidas unid. croakers 244 1 1.2 1 1.5 4 5.6 Hypsoblenalus spp. blennles 151 1 2.7 1 1.5 1 1.4 xenl3fta Wfbdensis salema 153 - - - - - - - Larvae,unldentiRed yalksac unidenlffied yolksac Larvae 136 - - - - - - - r PareIchlhys ra4fomfous California halibut 98 - - - - - 1`t Cheflohame sarumum black croaker 96 Hypsopseda goulafa diamond turbot 87 2 2.0 4 4.9 1 1.4 Athednopsis eafifamlensis Jaeksmett 59 1 1.5 1 1.4 Engrau0dan anchovies 57 - - - - - larval fish fragment un)denNed larval fishes 51 2 e_4 2 2.0 - - - r HypsyWps rubkuiWus garlbeldi 43 - - - - - Menb'dn*o3 undulahrs Caltfomla corolna 43 - - - - - larvalfporiaerval M unid. larval Wes 39 - - - - - - - - .-• Pararabrax spp. sand bass 38 - - - - - - - Cltkadchfhys stlgmaeus speckled sanddab 30 Oryju6s cafdbmlra senorita 27 - - - - - - - Amerlaopsidae sitversides 25 1 2.7 1 1.4 1 1.3 - flypnus ptibedl dteekspot goby 24 1 2.7 1 t.4 1 1.1 3 4,2 - - Umbrfna mncador yellawfin soaker 24 - - - - - - - - - - Gjachthys fdrablis Mr1g)aw mudsuckor 20 3 8.9 1 1.4 - - - Lopldogbbhrs"idus bay goby 18 7 19.9 - - - - 1 1.5 2 2A Leptocofhrs amlaba Pacific sfaghorn sculpin 18 2 5.7 - 1 1.2 - - 4 5.7 AcanMgXtdus ffavimanus yenawfrn goby 15 8 22.0 - - - - 5yrtgtiamldae unid_ plpenshes 15 - Sphynrens argenrea California barracuda 14 Leurasffies tenuls California grunlan 13 Paralabrax dbUiralus kelp bass 12 Pfeumnich1hys dffad spotted turbot 12 Pleumnfchfhys Epp, turbots 12 - - 014pAus Meld California heaWOM fish 11 Gibborrsia spp. crinid kelpnshes 10 7'dphoturus mexfcanus Ma)dcan lampfish S Myctophidae unid, lenlem5shes 8 A"cft)sdan nobfis wtslle seabass 5 Fraemulidea grunts s - Hypsdbiennfus fenklnsl mussel bienny 5 Pleurvncctidae unid. flounders 5 i Sardinops sagax Pacific sardine 4 Labrlsomldae unld. tabdsomid kelpnehes 3 PleurentchMO verbcalis homyheard turbot 3 Stenobradrius faucopsarus northern lampnsh 3 - - - 1 1.2 Cieveiandiafos arrow goby 2 Medyakma Caifomienafs natfmoon 2 Ophidian sralppsae basketweave dusk-ool 2 _ Peratidithyldae unid. It"Rounders 6 2 PeprWa Simllimus Pao fio Lutter8sh 2 Seomberjaponicus PacBlc mackerel 2 Semlaass)"us pincher Calrfomle sheephead 2 Agenldae unid. poachers 1 Cimadchfhys spp. sanddabs t i RAindgablops nfchoW blacker goby L - - - - - Co0ldae unid, sarlpins t GaGresor spp. dingfishes t Hakthoerr3 serridadus roa wrasse 1 JG� taml fish-damaged rrnldenWled larval fishes 1 Meducdusprbduefus PardRchake 1 - - - - - �•: Oxylabfuspicbrs pointedgroening t Pleuronediformes unid_ Ramshes RLMrAdus creased rouC Meek scu Ipin Scogwenidae teorplonfishes Sebastes spp.V De htckllshes Sebastes Epp.VD rvcktlshes SbangyNra erns Callfomba heedleiish 1 - - Sympliums ablcauda California tonguensh r Syngnathus lepforhy ichus bey piperish - syngnamus spp. plpefishas 1 TypAAfgebWus csftW tnsfs blind goby 1 i Irtvartehrafes Ernedta analogs(mea) mole crab 10.399 2 5.1 14 19.7 5 8.5 14 20.1 9 12.8 Canceranrhonyf(meg.) yellow crab 77 - - - - _ - - 2 2.0 Cancergradis(meg.) slenderaab 31 - Cancer anfennadus(Meg.) brown rock crab 18 Cancerpmductus(mwg.) red rock crab 3 - - - 2 2.7 Can-sap-(meg.) kancercrebs 3 - - - t 1.2 - Emrra er anLAW(meg.) mole crab 2 ( - TalaT-17Zag 209 73- 55. '84 l (continued) • r Appendix B-1. (Continued). Survey t8 17 to 19 20 Date 91118114 01126/04 02102104 02/09/04 02►I7104 Station Count a 6 8 6 e Mean Mean Mean Mean Mean Talton Common Name Total Count Cona Count Conc. Count Cone. Count Cone. Courrt Colic. Col;112155u g6biai avraulismord" northem anchovy 1.152 5 t3.9 1 2.5 - - 1 2.0 2 5A Roncadorsteamsl spotlln croaker 912 - - - - - _ Genyonemus 8neafus while croaker 448 34 04.4 11 28,3 8 15.0 3 7.2 Sedphus PDX= queenfish 305 - - - - - SdawAaa unid. Croakers 244 Hypsobknnfus spp. blennles 181 - , z,e 1 2.4 Xenjeus cafNddensls salema 153 - - - - - - _ - - larvae;unlden8fied yolksac unidentified yblksac larvae 136 - _ - _ Parafichthy$Cali M(Cu5 Calliomie halibut 98 - - - _ _ Chel"ema safumum black croaker 96 - - _ Hyp3opselta gullufata diamond turbot a7 1 2.8 3 6.1 1 2.6 - - 2 5.1 Athelfnopsls calFlavrtferW5 }acUrnalt 59 8 22.7 1 2,2 5 13.5 1 2.5 3 5A Engrauildae anchaWes 57 - - - - - - - larval fish fragment unidentified larval fishes 51 3 6.8 - - 1 2.5 - Hypsypops rubkundus gadbstdl 43 - - McRvoinnus undulafus Carifomla corbina 43 - - IarvaUpastdarvel fish unid. larval fishes 39 1 2.e - - - - - - Paralabrax spp. sand bass 36 - - Clthark147ryssdgrlaeus apeckfed sanddab 30 4 11.6 Qxy/u4S cal<lbmka senorita 27 - Athednopsidae lfivereidea 25 1 2.7 - - - - - iMm-gdbertf cheekspot goby 24 - - Umb&a nxtcador yeltow0e croaker 24 - GischVtys rdrahims long}ew mudsucker 20 1 2.8 - - - - 1 2A t 2.7 Lepldogobfus kpfdus bay goby to 2 5.9 - - - 1 2.9 2 5.3 Leptaoomm armalvs Pacillc staghom soulpin 18 2 all - - - - 1 2.6 1 2.4 AcanMogohrus ffavfmsnus .yelloydn goby 15 - 5 12A - - - 1 2.3 Syngnal tklae unid. pipefiehas 15 - - - - Sphyraena argentee California barracuda 14 Lerrrasthes fenvis California grunion 13 Parakbrw cfaMrstus kelp bass 12 PlaarMid)Crys diterl spatted turbot 12 1 3_1 - - - - Pleuronkhdrys am. turbots 12 - - - - - - - Dfaphuslhela California headlight fish 11 - - - - - - GrbbMsie spp. din Id kelpfishea 10 1 2.8 - - - rdphobnus mexicanus Mexican lampfish a - - Myctophtdae unid. lantemfishes 6 - - AUaCf)DSdM n0bigs while seahass 5 - - Haemulidee grunts 5 - - - - - - - - Hypsoblennlus Jenkins/ mussel Wenny 5 - - Pieurunedldae unid, fiotalders 5 - Serdlnops sagax Pacific sardine 4 - - - t abrl5omidaa unto. tabdsomld keipirshes 3 - - - - - - - Plettiorildtthys verdtcafis homyltead turbot 3 - - - - - - SfenoBrakydus leucopsanrs northern lampfish 3 - - Cuvelandla cos arm goby 2 - - - - - Medraluna ea0rortdensis hatfmoon 2 - - - OpWion salppsae basketweevs ersk-eet 2 - - - - - - - - ParaliCh"dae unid. left"flounders a 2 - - - - - - PepolussWranars Pacific,buttertsh 2 - - - - - Scomberlaponlws Pacific mackerel 2 - - - - SenYoossyphus puther Guldomla amephead 2 - - Agonklee unid. poadiecs 1 - - - CHharlchthys spp. santldaus t - - - - - - - RNnagablops n/Mols/ Madkeye goby 1 - - COWCE39 Urrid, sculpins f - - - - - - - - - Goblasox Wp- cingflshes 1 - - - - - H88cltoeresserhidadus lackwrasse t - - - larval sell-damaged unidentified larval fishes 1 - - - Meducelus produchrs Padfib hake t - - - - 1 2.5 - - Chyleb U3 pfdw painted greenling 1 - - - - - - Pleuronectlarmesunid. Radishes, 1 - - - - - - Ruscaduscreased roudicheekseulpin 1 - - - - - - Scorpaenidae seorplonashes 1 - - - - Sebasfes Opp.V rtxstflshea 1 - - - - - - - - - Sebasres Epp•%_-De mddlshes 1 - - - - - - - - - - Sebasfes spp,Vo rockfishes t - - - - - - - - ShnnayLrra"as California needlefish 1 - - - - - - - Symphurus aMeauds Celifomia tonguel'sn 1 - - - - - - - - - Synpnathus reptoMynehus tray plpettah t Syngrrathus spp_ Pipatimes t - - - - - - TyphlogoWvs cafrtorrdetWs Wind goby t - - - - - - rnverfebrafes ErW to enaloge(xaea) mole crah 10.399 3 8.5 5 13.7 6 172 1 2.4 2 5,0 Canceraefhonyl(Meg.) yallowaab 77 - - - - - Cancargrord6s Peg') slender crab 31 1 2.9 - - - - Cancerenlannerfus(meg,) brown rock crab 19 - - Cancerproductus(mea,) red rock crab 3 - - - - - - - - Cancer spp.(meg.) cancer nabs 3 - - - - - - - Emedta ena+dMe(meg•)_ more freb 2 - - - To Si - 25 (oonanued) t _ Appendix B-1.(Continued). Survey 21 22 23 24 25 Rate 02123t04 03103104 03100/04 0311U04 01122/04 Station Count a 2 a a a Mean Mean Mean Mean Mean Texon Common Name Tofal Count Conc. Count Cone. Count Cane. Count Conc. Count Conc. 444Gobudaeuni , gobigs Engraulls mordax northern anchovy 1,152 - - 12 33.0 13 35.0 24 68.0 Roncadorsfeemsl spotfin croaker 912 - - - - - - - m ( Genyoneus 6neetes wh lie croaker 448 1 12.0 5 14.0 2 5.3 20 54.0 t SedphusPORUS queengsh 706 - - - - - - tt Sclaenldae unld. croakers 244 Hypsoblennlus spp. btennles 161 Xenlsdus caBfwiensfs salemu 153 larvae,unkfenatsed yofksae unldenufied yolksac larvae 135 - - - - - r ParaAchthys califomlcus California halibut 98 - r Chellot rams safumum black coakef 96 - - - - - - - - - j Hypsopsette gndulala dlamand turbot 87 - _ 1 12 - 1 2.7 l AdleRrrapslscaf trlensls Jaclsmelt 59 4 9.6 7 19.0 Engraulldaa anchovies 57 - - _ - _ larval 05h fragment unkientHfed larval ftshes 51 7 Hypsypops wolcundus gadbaldt 43 - - - MeaWrrfru$undulates Celnorrda corbina 43 1 lalvaltpeaNecvet fish unfd, larval Wes 39 1 2.5 - - - - - i Parafebrax spp. sand Baas 36 Cidfadch1hys sdgmaeus speeded sanddab 30 _ 1 12.0 - - - - - Oxylufscaafbrnica serwrha 27 AtherinopWae silversldes 25 - - 1 3.0 3 9.1 '"a-gffber'd cheekspot goby 24 - - - 1 3.0 2 4,8 1 3,3 UmbrGfa rancedor yeilowlfn croaker- 24 GAOOMysrrilrablgs long)awmudsudfer 20 1 2.8 - - t 3.0 - - 1 3.3 Laplddgobfus leodus bay goby 111 - - - Leplovonus armafas Pacific staghom sculpin 16 2 4.5 Aeanthogdbfus Aavfmanus yellow0n goby 15 1 2.1) - - - - - e _ Syngnalhldae unlo. pipefishes 15 Sphyraena atWnrea California barracuda 14 Leuresthes fenuls Calflomla grunion 13 Paralsbraxdadfratus kelp bass 12 PieumnkhHrys rlfted spatted turbot 12 Pleurnnkhthys spp, turbots 12 - Diaphus Mate California headlight fish 11 - Glbbonsla Epp, clinid keiptishes 10 4 0.7 Tdphobrrus mexkanus Mexican lampfish 8 Mfyetophdae until, tanlemllshes 6 Abacksdon naUgs while seabass 5 Hasmullwe grunts 5 Hlypsablennlus Jenkins) mussel blenny 5 Pleuroneclidae,unld. flounders 5 Sardhrops$agar Pecitle sardine 4 tabrlsomldae unld. labdsamld ketpfishes 3 PMUMIclVhys verfieau homyheod turbot 3 Sknobrachfusleucopsarus northern lampfhsh 3 Clevehmd7a Ids arrow goby 2 hk-wakura cwomlens(s hartmoon 2 Ophidlon scrlppsae basketweave tusk-oil 2 Paralkhttryidas unid, lefteye nounders b 2 Pepr(hrs slm4bmus Pacfic butternsh 2 Scamber/aponkus Pacific mackerel 2 Semkeasyphus pukher California sheephead 2 ti Agonkiae unkd. poachers 1 Cdhadchlhys spp- sanddabs 1 Rhfnogobldps nfdfolsi blaster goby 1 - Canwe uric, sadpins 1 Gable=spp, dingfishes 1 Hadfhoeres senidnaYus rock wrasse 1 larval fish-damaged unidentified tarval ashes. 1 Merfuedus proeludus Pacific hake 1 OxyleWuspktus painted greenling 1 PleuraneWforcresunld. fla01shes t . - Ruscartus creased rourhrneek sculpirl 7 T Scupaenkme scorplonfishes 1 Sebakes spp.V rock fshes 1 Sebasfes spp.V_Oe rockftshes 1 Sebastas Epp,VO rocJ"es t - Slrorrgytura exlfis Cal famla ne"ensh 1 Symplu tus aldcauda CalHomla tonguenstr 1 Syrlgaa6lus leptbrhyrlor as bay pip&h 1{f S yynnppnnathus epp. pipanshes. 1 i Typhkrgobfus cafrfomlensts bltid goby t 1111 lnvarfabratas Eirrerita anakiga(20ea) mohe crab 10,399 3 7.0 - 9 24.7 33 92.5 Cadcerarhlhonyl(Meg-) ye Dow crab 77 - - - - Cancergrad6s(meg.) gender crab 31 - ! Canceranfenna6vs(Meg.) brown roa cab 18 t_ Cadcerpmducbrs(Meg.) red rock Crab 3 Cancer spp.(Meg.) cancer crabs 3 Errierffe analogs(me0.) mole crab 2 o11,459 1w of - - - - (conll'nueQ d . C.: Appendix B-1. (Continued). Survey 25 27 2a 29 30 Oate 03r26,M4 04105104 0012104 04119M4 04123MA Station Count 0 6 a 5 6 Mean Mean Mean Mean !Kean Taxon Common Name Total Count Cone. Count Cone. Count Cone. Count Cone, Count Cone- -Sobridae unid. gobles Engraufsmordar northern enchovy 1.152 13 31.6 to 44.4 26 87.8 15 51.7 Roncedorsleamsl spotfin croaker 912 - - _ - Genyonemus finealus white Croaker 445 1 2.6 35 83.1 29 97.6 17 b8.0 Sedphuspo5fus queenkah am - - _ _ _ croakers unid. nakers 244 - 2 C5 1 3.2 2 8.1 Hypsoblenalus spp. blennles 161 - 1 2.2 3 10.4 2 7.5 XenlsOus Webrfensfs Salome 153 - - - - - - larum.unidentifed yolksac unidentified yoiksac larvae 138 2 4.5 - - - - 2 7.0 Peralydlfhyscouromfclrs Celftomtahatimit 98 1 2.3 1 3.7 9 33.1. Che0alremasatumum black croaker 95 - - - - _ 2 7.1 Hypsopsetfs gutfulats diamond turbot 87 1 2.5 5 11.8 2 6.5 1 3.5 A Mednopsis cakAlmlensis Jecksmefi 59 1 2.5 1 2A - - - - Engraulldae anchovies 57 2 4.5 - larval nsh fragment unidentified larval Ashes 51 - - Hypsypops rubkundus gadbaidi 43 Afeafldaflus undulatus California corbina 43 lervatlpost-larval Rah unid. larval fishes 39 1 2.7 - f 3.2 - - Paralabrax spp. sand bass 3B - - _ - _ _ - CflhadchMA sdgmaeus apedded sanddau 30 2 4.2 _ _ 2 7.0 Oxy/uis cafrfamfca senorita 27 1 2A Atherinopsidae sliversldes 25 - 3 10.5 - forr-gilbero cheekspot goby 24 1 2.7 1 2-5 1 3.6 - Umbdna roneadar yeuowfin croaker 24 - _ _ _ Gil chillysrdrlrabfis Iongjawmudsucker 20 1 2.5 - - 1 3,1 - Lepldogobluslepldus bay goby 18 - 1 .2.3 - - - - Leploeorlus amtatus Padit alagnom scuoin 111 Acanthogobfus Aayfmanus yeilowfin goby 15 5yngnathtdae unld. plpefishes 15 - - - - - Sphyraena aryentea California barracuda 14 teuresthes lenuis California grunion 13 Parakbraxclalhrahrs kelp bass 12 Pteumni hlbys lilted Spoiled turbot 12 - Pleurwuchmys spp, turools 12 1 2.3 - - t7laphus fhefa California headlight fish 11 - - Gti3bonsfa spp._ dinid kelprlshes 10 Tdphoturusmerdcanus Mexican lampfish 8 Myctophldae unid. lanteMttsnes e AvacWsdan noblis while seabass 5 - - - - - - Maemulldae grunts 5 - - - Hypsablenntus)cnklnsl mussel bienny 5 - - - - - - Pleuroneaidae unid. Rounders 5 - - - - - - - sardtnops sagax Pacific sardine 4 L9b660mldae unid, labrlsomld kolpfishes 3 - - - Pmurankhthys vervwft horrrytkead turbot 3 - - - - Stenobrachlus kucepurus northern lampfish 3 - 1 3.1 - Chwelandfalos arrowgoby 2 - Medlatuna caRfornknsls hatlmoon 2 - - - - - - Ophidion scdppsae basketweave cusk-eel 2 - - - - - - Parallchthyldae unid. re"Rounders S 2 Pepilbrs 3fmff8Mus Pacific bunerfisn 2 - - - - - - Scornber/apordcus PacMe mackerel 2 - - - - - - - serr romyphus Pukher California sheephead 2 - - - - - - - Agonidae unid. poachers 1 - - - - - - - CfMadaAlhys spp. sanddabs 1 - - - - - - - RNIT09OWPs nkhotst btadteye goby - CAttldae unid, swiping - Gobfesdx app, dingfthoa i - - HaBCheerE3 serridadus rock wrasse larval fish-damaged unidentified larval fishes 1 Maduedus productus Pacific hake 1 - - - - - - Oxylebluspkfus painted greenling 1 - - - - - - - - Pfeumnedtlormes unid. nafthes 1 - - 1 2.2 - - - Ruscadus CmOserl _ rouchcheek awiptn - Scarpaenldae sewpidrdlshes - Sebastes spp.V rockfishes - Sebastes spp.V Do roddishes - Sebastes$pp.VD roddlshes 1 - - - strongylara"is California neediefiart 1 - - - - - - SynOurus stdcauda California tonguensh 1 - - - - Syrl MUAFS kpforhyndwS bay plpefish 1 - - - - - - Syngnathus W. plpoRshes 1 - - - 71yphkgobtus eailornlenzds blind goby 1 +nvertebra[es Emedte snaioga(mea) mole crab 10.309 114 295.0 416 1.053.7 54 187,0 77 275.6 CanceranManyl(Meg_) yellow crab 77 - - - - 1 3.2 1 3.5 Cenoergradit(Meg-) Slender crab 31 _ 1 3.0 - - Cancer ammnnarfus(Meg.) &own rook deb 18 - - - - - - Caneerproductus(Meg.) red rock crab 3 - - - - - - Cancer sop.(Meg.) cancer crabs 3 - - - - - - En erfta anakga(meg.) more crab 2 2 7.3 (confinued) } E . Appendix B-1.(Continued). Survay 31 32 33 34 35 onto 05103f04 06107MA 05117104 05124104 06101/04 r� Station Count E 6 8 a 6 Mean Mean Moan Mean Mean Talon Common Nome Total Count Conc. Count Cone. Count Cone. Count Cone. Count Cone. (iobudae unici, gooles l rrg trU mordar northern anchovy 1.152 75 166.6 17 55.2 23 86.3 88 160.5 123 365.E Roncaddrsteamsl spotfin croaker 912 2 4.8 - - 7 18.3 11 26.7 . - Genyonemuslrneafus white croaker 440 56 137.9 35 117.6 25 71.7 16 39.2 5 1L5 Sedphus poftus queenBsh 306 - - - 11 31.1 2 4,5 - - Sdaenldae unid. croakers 244 4 1 D.0 - - 17 451 28 CA.1 1 2.0 flypsoblennlus spp. blenMes lot - - 4 15.2 9 25.5 7 17.9 3 6.8 Xenlstfus coRiodensis salame 453 - - - - - - - - tarvae,unklentined ydksoc unidentified yolksac:larvae 136 3 8.6 - 2 5.1 3 922 ParefcWhys caNfam(ws CaliforNe hallbut 98 3 7.6 - 1 3.0 2 5.0 2 4,0 ChOafrilrrra safumum black soaker 96 - - 7 20.2 t 2.3 - Nypsopseda quCulafa diamond turbot 67 - - 2 7.1 3 BA - - Athertneps7s COOdmlensls )adcsmalt 59 23 57.4 2 0.9 - - - - - Engraubdae anchovies 57 1 2.5 4 14.7 1 3.0 7 10-0 3 5.9 tarv2l fish fragment unldentifled larval Was 51 1 2.5 - - 3 8.9 2 4.7 - - f HYPSYPops rlrbicundus geribafdl 43 - - - - - - - Menadrmus undula fus Caltfomla corbina 43 - - - tarvaltpestaarval lisp unid- larval fishes 39 - - - - 1 2.3 3 6.9 . : Paratahrax spp. sand;bass 36 - - - - 2 5.6 - - - Clurs"Mys sfigmaeus speckled sanddeb 30 1 3.0 - 3 9.0 1 2.8 - - Ocypas cam mica serwala 27 - - - - 2 4.9 1 2.3 •, Alnennepaidae silversides 25 7 17.5 _ _ 1 2-3 5 12.8 ` r"llus glmerd c heekspol poor 24 3 7.5 Umbrina rbncaddr yeBorrBn croaker 24 - - - - 1 2-0 - a Giltidithya mfrabas langjaw mudsucW, 20 2 5.0 - - - - - - - Lepldogobius lepidus bay goby 18 1 2.6 1 3.5 - - - - - LopfoCathssarmahrs PeCllcslaghom saulpin 18 - - - - - - - - - ;: AcaninogobfusAavlmanus yenavfingoay 15 Syngnafhldae unid- plpegshes 15 - - 15 34.4 Sphyroena argenfea California barracuda 14 - Leumsm=tenuls California grunion 13 - - - - - 1 2.8 2 6.0 Paralabrax dathrntus kelp bass 12 - - - - - - - PteuranlonHlys d&rf spotted turbot 12 - - - 1 3.0 - - - Pleuror"thys spp. turbots 12 2 4.9 - - 3 8.2 - - Dlaphus theta Callfowde headllgnl nsh 11 I Glbbonsla Epp. diald kelpUbas 10 4 10A - - iTdpnontrus mecfcanus Merdcan Iampfulh a - - 1 3.0 - - - - Myctophldae unid. lantemfishes 6 - - - - - - - - - Abactasdan nob+os while seabass 5 - - - - - - - - maemundae grunts 5 - - - - f Hyp sable nn to s jenkInal mussel blenny 5 - - - - PleuranecUdne unld. pounders 5 - - - - - - - - Sardlnops sagax Padfk sardine 4 - - - - - - - - Labtlsomldae unld. 1abrlsomld kelpfisnes 3 - - - - - - - - - Pleumnfcftys verdca6s nomyhead turbot 3 - - - - - Stenobrachtus Mucapserus northern lompash 3 - - 1 3.5 Chwfandra los arrow Roby 2 2 4.5 - - MedlalunacaWorniermis hallmoon 2 - _ Ophldon swppsae basketweave cusk•eel 2 - - Pa suc hltryldae unto. IeRays Bounders E 2 1 2.5 - - - - - - - Pepdkrs Stay Brmus Fad311c butlertlah Z - - - - - Soomber/aponlcus Pacific mackerel 2 - 1 7.3 - Semlcossyphuspukher California sheephead 2 - - - - - E. Agonldae urlid, poachers 1 - - - - - - - 1 2.3 Cidlellethys spp. sanddabs 1 - - - - - - - - - - - RNnogowaps rddrotsl blacreye goby 1 - - - - - - - CoWdae unid. 9culpins - Goblesax spp. clingflahes Haidyloeres sonifdactus rock wraeae 7 larval fish-damaged unldentIlied Larval fishes t - V Mernrodus produ his Padff:hake t Oxylehrvs pkhrs painted greenling 1 - - - - - - Reurerleddorma unid. Banishes 1 - Ruscarlus croasert rouahch ask salon 1 - - - - - - - Scorpaenldae seorplonfi hes 1 - - - - - - Seb-les spp.V rockfishes - Sehestes spp,V De rockfishes - Sebodes sip.VD roclishes 1 Shbngytura wd6s California needWfisn 1 Symphunrs aMcauda Calfornie longuensll 1 - - - - Syngnethuz/eptorhynchus bay plpefish l Syngnamus spp. plpeBshes i - - �. Ty7;h"blus cafdarrrlensls blind geby 1 In"rteDrare.s Errienta analega(urea) mole crab 10.399 78 175.1 202 1,020.9 119 348.1 276 573.1 16 41.1 h Canceranthonyt(Meg.) yellowcmb 77 - - 1 3.0 - 2 4,6 ` Cancergra ias(meg.) slender crab 31 fl _ - - - - 8 23.3 Canaranfennadus(Meg_) bro m rock 18 3 a.0 CanCerpraduclus(Meg.) red rock crab 3 - - - - Cancer sop.(meg.) cancer crabs 3 1 2.5 - - - - Emerfla analoga (men_) mote rsab 2 - - total, 17,489-41 - 271- 390 Z27 - (condwued) r r • e t Appendix B-1. {Continued}_ Survey 36 37 38 39 40 Date O6107104 08114/04 06/21104 0812W4 07MOM4 Station Count 8 8 8 8 6 Mean Mean Mean Mean Mean Talton Common Name Total Count Cone. Count Coec- Count Conc. Count Cane. Count Cone. a umgabies Engraatismaldan n m onnaand" 1,152 4 10.7 45 134.4 91 720.3 82 217.3 16 42.4 Roncedarsfeamsl spatfin croaker 912 - - 18 59.1 - 2 4.5 152 405.7 GenyonemusOneatus white croaker 440 1 2.3 1 2.5 2 4.6 - - 1 2.9 SeAphusPONIUS queenflsh 308 - 7 24.4 - - 3 8.1 2 5.8 Sdaenklae unfd. croakers 244 - - 69 205.0 3 7.4 27 871 30 74.9 H"=brenntus W. blannies 151 8 15.8 8 25.2 3 7.7 41 1O4J 6 22.3 Xef?/Shus cahwensfs salerna 153 - - - - - - - - larvae,unWenb6ed yolksac unldentMed yoiksac larvae 138 2 5.1 58 224.3 - 38 1022 - - Porafictihys caftmicus California nalibut 98 - - 41 125.E 1 2.2 4 10.1 1 3.5 ChelwWw sebrmwra bled[croaker Be - - 3 0.1 - 3 7.2 3 9.0 Hypsapsefla gutwiala diamond turbot 87 - - - - - - - 2 51 Atbednopsis COVOmlensls jacksmen 59 - - - - - - - - Engraundae andhorles 57 - - 10 33.5 2 5.5 10 28.8 - - larval no fragment urUdenbW larval fishes 51 - e 20.6 - 4 12,0 - - Hypsypops ruakundus gartbaldi 43 - - 5 15.7 35 82.9 MenDdrrhas undulates California eorbina 43 2 5.0 - 10 27.4 t 2.2 lentaitpostaarlral fish unfd. larval Was 39 - - 11 292 9 25.8 6 15.2 - Paralabrari spp: sand bass 38 - - 9 31.2 - - 10 242 1 2.1 Cifheddhttrys sOgmaeus speckled sanddab 30 - - - - - 4 10.1 1 2.e Qgolfs caaibmtCO senorita 27 - - - - - 20 55.3 - AtneMdpslaae, slrversldee 25 - - - IWO 9(mery cheekspol goby 24 Umbdaa tbacador yetlowAn awker 24 - - 2t 64,5 1 2.2 1 2.3 - - GINchmys nlfrabifrs Mng)aw mudsuc er 20 - - - - - - - Lapidoflobfus kplWrs Day 9oby 18 - - - - - - Lepkrwdrrsem+afus Pedficstaghomsculpin le - - - - - - AeanfhapobfusRavfmanus yellowfingOby 15 - - - - Syngnalhldae unfd. plpe05hes 75 - - - - - Sphyraens argentea CaldOMLa barracuda 14 - 1 3.2 - Leurestnesfentds California grunion 13 - - - 1 2.2 3 9.0 3 8.5 Parafabrarclathrafus kelp bass 12 - - - - - - - - - - Pkuronkihthys Auer, spotted turbot 12 - 6 17.5 - - - - - Pl umnklhthys sm. turbots 12 Dfaphus Meta California headlight rish 1 t - - - - - - - 9 22,5 GROWS%$pp. cinld ketprisnes 10 - - - - 1 2.3 - Trfphofurusrnedeanus Mecdcanlamptlsh 8 - - - - - 2 5.6 klyctophldee unfd. -iantemnshas 8 - - - - - - - - 2 5.6 Abadosdan noWis white scabass 5 - 2 4.8 - - - - - HaemuUdae grunts 5 - - - - - - - )fypsobknnlus/enklnSl mussel blenny 5 2 5.0 - - - - PfeuroneWdae unfd, neunders 5 - - - - - - - - Sardlnopssagm Padllcsardine 4 - - Labttsomidas urdd. labrisomld kelpilshes 3 - - - - 2 5.0 PleuronkhMYS verfkaffs homyhead turbot 3 - - - - - - - Stendbrlrohfus reucopsarus nonhem iamprisn 3 - - - - - - - - - Ckvekndfa his Orrow 9oby 2 - - - - - - - - 1NedfaArnaCakforrdenslS halfmoon 2 - - - - - 2 5.8 Ophklkn,Seppsee basketweave ask-eel 2 .1 3.3 - - - - - - Paragddhyldae unfd, lefleye rivundeis 6 2 - - - - - Peprflus Slawin us PadRc butterfish 2 - - 1 3,9 - - Scomber/apanicus Padrre mackerel 2 - - - - 1 2.3 - - Seftdo tsypnus Pulcher Cafikxnla sheephead 2 - - - - - 1 3,2 - - Agonidae unkf. poachers 1 - - - - - - - Clfbarkhthys spp. sanddabs 1 - - - - - - - Rhfnogohfdps nkYholsl bladkeye flaw 1 1 2.5 - - - Cothdae urdd. sculpins 1 - - - - - - - Gobiesmr spp. dingRshes 1 - - - - - - Haichoems Wnildncius rank wrasse 1 - - - - - - - larval fish-damaged unldentiried larval fishes 1 - - - - - - - - Merfuodusprodudus Padfichake 1 - - - - - - - - Oryk&us pkt- painted greenfing 1 - - - - - - - - Pleuroned7rxmos urdd. flatfishes t - - - - - - - Ruscadus creased rouchcheek sWpin 1 1 2.3 - - - - - Scorpaenldae rcarpionWes 1 - - 1 3.8 - - - SebaSMS spp-V rocidlshas 1 - - - - - - - - - Sebades spp.V to roddfshes 1 - - - - - - Sebastes spp.VD rvcddiches t - - - - - - - - Sfrong*m ead$s CORfomda needle0sh 1 1 3,0 - - - - - - SyulFhurus ahkauds California(onguefish 1 - - 1 3.2 - - - - S)7wafhus leptorhyndhus tray plpeRsh 1 - - - - - - - - Syngnalhus spp. plpeflshes 1 1 2.8 - - - - - Typhbgohhls caftrafensis blind goby 1 - - 1 2.0 - - - - - - rrrvertabratss Emafta analog&(aoea) mote crab 10,399 515 1,357.4 1.142 3.633.1 773 2,004.8 1,674 4.775.0 2,349 6,305.5 Canoerantlrbno(Meg.) yerldwcm ?) 77 - - - - - - - - 1 2.8 Carrcergredifs(Meg,) alender cab 31 4 11.2 1 3.8 1 2,4 1 3.0 - - CarKeranhnnarius(Meg•) Crown cock crab 18 - - - - - - - - - - Caneerprodudus(ring.) led reczuab 3 - - - - - - - Cattcer spp.(Meg.) cancer cabs 3 - - - - - Ernertfa anaido(Meg-) mofe crab 2 - - fconffaued) t E Appendix B-1.(Continued). survey 41 42 43 d4 45 Date 07112104 07A9104 07/26104 0SQ4104 081311B4• r- Station Count 8 8 8 8 8 Mean mean mean mean mean j Talton C nwnonName Total Court Cone, Count Cane. Count Cone. Count Conc. Count Cone. Gobudae unid. gebes EngrarsrSmordax northern anchovy 1,152 72 187,5 45 119.4 7a 219.8 18 46.7 24 64.9 Rorradorsleamsl spod in croaker 912 - 3 8.2 716 1,803.9 1 2.7 r-. Genyunemus lrnealus white croaker 446, - - - 1 2.4 Senphuspdrfus queenfish 305 20 74-1 10 28.9 7 183 111 2Bl,3 125 322.4 Sclaenrdae umd croakers 244 13 34.6 6 16,4 24 56.2 12 27,5 HypsoNen+rus spp- Wenmes 161 5 12.2 15 40.2 3 8.6 9 73.1 3 7.8 Xen)g)useallfonensrs salema 153 - - 1 2.5 152 336.1 - - larvae,unidentified yoiksac unidentified yolkslc larvae 136 2 5,2 - - 3 7.8 8 19.4 3 6.7 r Pamuchinyscaflkil,mus Calffamiaheldtut 98 3 8.0 1 2.5 8 21-4 14 35.9 3 60 C"AN+ema salunum blackeroaker 96 - 7 18.5 68 151.3 1 2.0 Hypsopsaffs pvildala diamond turbot 87 _ _ 1 2.5 _ _ 4D 101.1 _ _ Arhennopsls calrlornrensrs )acksmell 59 Engrauhdae anchovies 57 2 4,8 - 8 21.2 larval fish fragment unidenilfied Larval fishes 51 1 2.4 3 BA 2 5.2 11 24.1 8 MID Hypsypopsrubicundus garibaldi 43 3 8.6 . Menivrfts undulafus California corbina 43 30 67.9 larrallpost-larval frsh urud. larval fishes 39 4 11,1 Paralabrax sop- sand bass 36 7 19.1 4" 9,7 3 7-8 CdhaaMLhyssbgmaeus soedded sanddabi 30 - 9 23A 1 3,1 OxylW(scal+lomica senonta 27 3 8.1 - Alherinopsidae sitversides 25 - - Pl pnusgdo" dteekspot poby 24 - Umbnna roncadm yellowfvl croaker 24 G+ffighlhys mmabrhs kx)glaw mudsucker 20 1 3.9 Leprdogobrus fep)dus bay 0oby 1B - Leplol;Wus armatus Padfic staghom sculpin 16 Acanfhogob+u511awmanus yellowim goby 15 - Syngnathidee unid- pfpefishers 15 Sphyraena argentea California barracuda 14 6 15.6 7 15.9 - - Leurasmostenu)s Caldomra0 run Ion 13 _ 1 3.2 - - _ 2 51 Paralabrdx clathrafus kelp bass 12 7 18.8 5 10.7 P7eumnlcn1hys nften spotted turbot 12 1 2.9 1 2,6 1 2.2 1 2.0 Preuronilt-rmys&pp. turbots 12 1 2-5 2 5-7 3 8.2 - r Diaphus fhela California headhghtfish 11 . 2 5.3 - 1 Gibbonsia spp. dmid kefpfrshes 10 - - - - Tnphofurusmexxzlnus Mexican lampfish 8 _ _ _ 3 8.0 1 2.7 Myelophkfae unid- lantemfishes 6 1 2.7 1 2.7 1 2.7 Afrdcfo�scion nobrr+s white seabass 5 2 6.0 1 2.2 Haemulidae grunts 5 1 2.6 3 6.6 1 2.7 r Hypsobtenrvus/enhnsr mussel blenny 5 = - 2 5.3 1 2.0 1 Pleuronecl)dae unid. flounders 5 1 2.8 1 2.0 Sardmops sagaz Pacific sardine 4 4 103 Labrisomidae unfd- fal risomid kelpishes 3 1 2,7 Pleuronshrhys vencceds homyhead turbot 3 - - - - - - 2 4.4 1 3-1 Slenwiramusfm=psarus nerthemlampish 3 - Cleyelandra Jos arrow goby 2 Medraluna aVitomreos+s halfmoon 2 Ophidian='ppsae basketweave tusk-eel 2 1 2.5 Peralrchlhyidae unld. ielleye flounders F 2 Pepnlus smdtrmvs Pacific butterfrsh 2 - 1 2.5 ScornbarJaponxus Parificmadrerel 2 - - Senimnssyphuspukher Caldbm[asheephead 2 - 1 2.5 Agonfdae unid. poachers 1 - - Crmanchillys spp, sanddabs 1 - �, Rhrnogabuops motrolsr blackeye goby 1 Cotltdae unid. sculpuu 1 - Goblesox sop- ciingfishes 1 1 23 - - Handlci�semxanclus rockwrasse 1 - r- larval fish-damaged unidentified larval fishes 1 - MwfuoCruspradrrcrus Pacific hake t - pxymbiusprtius pafnted greenling 1 Pleuronectdormes unid- nattishes 1 - - Rusicanuscreasen roucheheeksculprn 1 Scorpaenidae scorpionfrshes 1 _ _ - Sebastea sop.V rockfishes 1 - - L Sebastas spp:V_Oe rockfishes 1 - E SebW%spp.VO rockfishes t Sf Wura errlis California needlefish 1 Symphur s atncauda CaliforniatonguefrM 1 Syngnamvs lepfcfhynchus bay pipetrsh 1 1 2.6 Syngnafhus spD, pipefrshes - Typhk+pobius calrtomiensrs blind goby 1 - frlyeriebrarea Emenla anak+ga(zoea) mole crab 10,399 1.072 2.954.4 60 161,6 236 683,7 1,042 2.718.1 3 8.6 Cancer anfnrny(Meg.) yellow crab 77 22 59.8 3 7.7 3 9,0 41 106.7 - Career gracdrs(Meg.) slender crab 31 3 8.0 3 7.7 2 5,3 4 9-9 Cancer anfennancs(Meg-) brown rock crab 10 3 3.2 4 .12.2 1 3.2 4 10.1 3 8.1 Cancer produclus(Meg.) red rock crab 3 1. 2.6 Carew spp.(Meg-) cancercrabs 3 1 2.7 - Emeara ana"a (Meg) mole crab 2 oZ.4-14 E ' E � Appendix B-2. Larval fish and target invertebrate counts and mean concentrations (AMOOOm')For source water surveys. Survey-1 Stations 02 04 02 - 04 U2 U4 Start Date; 09f1703 sample count 8 8 8 8 8 8 SurvaY Ween Mean Moan Moen Moan Mean Taxon Common Name Count Count Cori caul cone Cowl Cori Corot Conc Cmnd Cone Coure Coat Goblidse unld. gables 534 246 549.5 2D5 543.6 16 32.4 8 MD 36 89A 25 60.9 EngraulfS Mord- northern anchovy 49 13 30.9 4 10.7 10 24.3 7 17.6 9 22.4 6 15,8 Sariphus politus queenfesh - - - - - - _ _ _ Genydnemos Mesita white croaker 27 2 3.8 4 9.6 9 20.1 2 4,5 5 12.2 5 13.0 Sdoenkiaeunid. eraaker 7 3 1.8 1 2.0 - - 2 5.2 - - 1 2.8 Pare ichfhys caMomkirs CaOtornla halibut 11 1 1.9 - - 2 6.5 8 14.5 1 2.4 1 2.6 yypsoblennius spp- blannles 20 - - 2 6.2 5 15.4 11 25.4 1 2.3 1 2.8 Pamlebmx spp- sand bass Par8labraX CfamfefuS kelp bass - - Atharfnopsls Confamfensfs jacksmeK - - Chromfs punc8Upinrds blacksmgh - larvae•unklentined yolksac larvae - Sphymensargentea Callfomia barracuda - i Sardlnops segex Pacific sardine - hW$apseffa guffutata dlemond turbot 12 1 2.7 1 2.9 3 4.6 1 2.1 4 9.a 2 5.4 cimarromys strgmaeus speckled sanddeb 1 1 2.1 - - - _ _ _ _ Engrauiklas andmies 42 41 10.0 - - - - 1 2.8 - - Lepkfogoblus lepldus bay gdby 5 - - 4 8.6 1 2.5 - - - - larval fish fragment unidentified larval fishes 6 - - 1 2.4 - - 2 3.9 2 4.9 1 2.8 Leuresthes tenuls California grunion Pleurcrikhthys rifted spoiled turbot 1 - - - 1 3.1 - - - Pleuronkhmys l er6talls hornyhead turbot e - - - 2 .6_8 6 11.8 - - - Ophfdion srxlppsas basketweave cusk-eeI - - - - - - - Cheuobema sebrmum bRick croaker 10 - - 1 2.5 1 2.6 1 2.9 7 17,2 TWMgobius CelUomtensfs blind goby - - - - - - - - - - OxyJufs ca6fomica senorita Rdncedorsteamsl spoThi croaker XeMsdus 4WMa lensis salema Atherinopsklae sllverslde Iervallposlaarval fish unld. larval fishes 3 1 3.2 - - 1 3.1 1 3,1 - - HypsoblenrdusleWrisl mussel blenny 1 - - - - - 1 2.2 - - - - tlypnus 98bers eheeMpot goby - - - - - Ophkiffdae unkl. tusk-eels Givchmysrnfrabfls long) wmudsucker 1 - - T 1.5 peuron/ctimys spp. turbots lcefnus spp. sarlpIns tepfocoffus armahrs Pacific staghorn sculpin Acend;ogobfus ffavfmanus yellowfal goby - - - - - - - - tdypsypops rubicundus geribaldi Xysfrdurys fdepls fantag sole 7'rfphofraus ma:icanus Mexican larnprah 1 1 2.7 - - - - - Glbbonsla spp. cilnkt kelpfishes 1 1 1.9 AbVcfosaforr ndblfis white seabass 2 - - - - - - - - 2 5.1 Menddahus undulsfus Caffornia cdrbina - - - - - _ _ - Cftharlchmys sdrradus Pee fie sanddeb - Serrdoussyphus pulcher Callfomla sheephead SferrObmclrius leuoopsarus northem Lampfiah Clmalfchmys spp. sanddabe Gobiesax spp. clingnsha+ Lebrisomidee rinld, labdsomkd kelpnahes Nlppogkx,Wna stomata blgmouth sole 1 - - - 1 2.6, - - Peprlfus slrnffmus Pacific butterfish - - - - - - _ Pieumectidee unid, flounders 4 4 7.7 Umbdyla rmceder yelkMfin soaker - - - - - - - - PamlkllthyUae und. sanddabe 3 - 1 2A 1 3.1 - 1 25 - Ruscadus creaser) rvuchcheek eeuipin Symphunusbicauda Cel'fomlatongueffsh - AU*dnopsaMills topsmeK RMnogoblaps nfchotsl blackeye goby - OlapAus fheta California headlight fish (continued) Appendix B-2.(Continued). Survey;1(continued) Stations 02 D4 02 - 04 U2 U4 ( Start Dam: 09117J03 Sample Counl e a a a a 8 Survey Mean Mean Moan Mures Mean MMun i- Tuon Common Name -Gaud Count Cone Count Conc Courd Core Covert Cesare Courk Cane Count Coec Atherinidaa unit. sllvMklee - - - - - - - - - - - S Heamulktee grunls - - - - - - - J Meducriusproductus Pacific hake Sl Ehumeus feras round herring Haflchoerss semldndus rack wrasse - - - - - - - - Lythrypnus spp. gobles 3 - - - - 3 5.8 - Medfatuns cardbrtefensis haffmoon - - - - - - - - - - Sebasles app.V rockfishes Syngnathas spp- pipefishes Clevelandie hs arrow goby - - - - - - - r GoWescucftssodan California clingnsn - - - - - - - - - - }+f HeMrammldeeunld. greenlinps Kyphasfdae sea chubs Lebridee wressea - - - - - - - - - - Adpotophfdae unk1, lenlemishea 1 - - - - - - 1 2.9 - Qrrytebluspkfus painted greenling - - - - - - - - - Sebasfes spp. rocknoes - - - - - - - - Sebastes spp.V D mdcrishes - - - - - - - - - - S)rrynafhus repforhynchus bay pipefish - - - - - - - - - - Anlso"mus davldsonlf sergo _ Arfedius laferaps smoothheed swlpfn Arfedus app. sculpins - - - - - - - - - Auforhynchus tfavidus tubesrtaut - - - - - - - - Chaenapsldee unid. tube blennies 1 - - , - - t 2.2 - - - - Clupedormes herrings and anchovies - - - - - - - - i. CoRldaeuntd. swlpins - - - - - - - 1 GwIa nlgrfcans opaleye - - - - - - - - - - - Goblesocidae vnid. cibrgfishes - - - - - - - - - - 011goc,WuzICllnocotlus scutpins - - - - - - - - Pamphrys vefulus EngSsh sole Pleuronectffomies unit, flatfishes - - - - - - Pomeeenbldee demseKshes Seombridas unit. mackerels 6 tunas 7 1 1,9 - - - - - Scorpsenkhthysmarmomfus wbezon - - - - - - - Soorpaenklee scorplonflshes 1 1 2.2 Sebasles spp.VD, rockflahes - - - - - - - Zanldepis app, comblfshes - - - - - - - - tnvereebreles Emerifa snaloga(zoea) male crab 73 2 5.4 4 10.9 13 301 - 53 109.3 1 2.2 Cancer gmcftfs(meg,) slender crab - - - - - - - - CanseraMennadus(meg.) brown rock crab - - - - - - - - CancaranUmnyt(meg.) yegow crab - Cancer spp-(erg•) cancer crabs - Canceroregonsis(zoea V) pygmy rock crab _ Cancerprdducfus(meg) red rock crab Panedhus_krfenupf2as _ _ CaMomle spiny lobster 1 - - - - - - - 1 2.3 - - Total- 832 M4 223 69 58 115 53 4 Appendix 8-2. (Continued). Survey..3 Stedons 02 D4 02 - 04 U2 U4 Start 0do: 10113/2003 Sample Count 8 a a 8 6 8 Survey Akan Mart Mean Moan Wean Man Tanon Common Name Count Count Corte CeueA Cone Count Cone Count Conc Count Conc Count Cane Goblidao urdd, gables 697 51 146.3 602 1.695.1 1 2-5 2 5.0 28 74.9 13 37.5 CngraWs mondax northern anchovy 178 42 107.5 32 91.1 11 28,3 41 117,8 42 116.3 10 25.6 Sedphaspolitus queenfish 4 4 11.6 - - - - - - - Genyonernus flnsefus white croaker 30 2 SA 13 36.6 3 9.0 a 24.5 4 10.6 - - Scieeoidee unid. croaker - - - - - - Parefidtthys ca6lamkus Celifomla halibut 3 - - - 3 10.1 - - - Hypsobfannlus spp. Wennies 20 - 11 29_1 - 2 6.6 7 20.7 Paralahm spp- sand bass - - - - - - - - Paralabrax dathrefus kelp bass Afhennopsis caldbmiensis jacksmelt 1 1 2.3 - ChrontfspuncUpinnls blacksmith - - - - - - - - - lervae,unidentified ydksac larvae - - - - - Sphyraena argenlea CafifomW barracuda - - - - - - - - - - Serdfnops saga. Pacific sardine - - - - - - - - - Hypsopsefta gulY dafa diamond turbot 23 4 11.6 3 8.4 2 5-9 1 3.3 5 t8,1 8 24.6 Ciihaddnthys sffgmaeus speckled sanddeb 3 - - - - - - 2 4.9 - - 1 2.5 Engrat4dae anchovies - - - - - - - - - - - - Lepidogobius lepidus bay goby 2 - - 1 2.3 1 2.5 - larvalfishfragment unidentified larval fishes 1 - - 1 2.3 - - - - - Leursdhes tents Califomla grunlon - - - - - - - - - - - - - Pleuronichthys rifferf spotted turbot 2 - - - - - 2 5.1 - - - Pleurwddrthys verticefis homyhead turbot 3 - - - - - - 1 2.6 1 3.2 1 3.5 Ophlden scdppsaa basketweam cusk•eel - - - - - - - Chellofrtrma saturrwm black croaker - - - - - - - - - - - - 7yphkgoblus caldorrnlerWS blind goby - - - - - - Oxylrutis catifamke sentrrira - - - - - - - Roncadorsteamsi spotfin croaker - - - - - - - - - - - Xenlstius caftriensts salema - - - - - - - Athadnopsldee sllveralde - - - - - - - IarvaVpost4arval fish unid. larval fishes 2 1 2.4 1 3.6 - - HypsadeanlusJenWnsf mussel blenny - - - - - - - - - - - Itypnus p8berb cheekspot 90by 1 - - 1 2-9 - - - - - - - Ophddrklae unid. cusk-eels - - - - - Gl�tchOys m4aWlis lorK w mudsudter 2 - 1 2.9 1 3.0 - - - - - Pleuradchthys spp. turbots 3 - - 1 2-6 - - 1 3.3 1 3-1 1Cebau3 spp. sculpins - - - - - - - - - - - . Leplomlllw am Wus Pacific staghom srsdpin - - - - - - - - AcanthogoNus Revlmanus yellowlin goby - - - - - - - - Hypsypopsrubkundus gadbaldi XYsfraurys lfo/eprs fantag sole - - - - - - - - - rdphohrrus numia nus Merdcan lampfrsh 1 - - - - 1 3.6 Gibbonsfa spp. dinid kelpfrshes 1 - - - - - - - - 1 2.5 Atracfcsdan nobills while seabsss - - - - - - - - - hfenHdnitus undulalus . Calitonde corbina - - - - -• - - - - Cithadchthys SoOdus Pacific sanddeb - Sernitassypltus pufdrer California sheephead - - - - - - - - - Stertabraddus fet=psw= rarthem lempfish - - - - - - - - - - - Cfttradthfhys spp. sanddabs 1 - - - - - - - 1 2.5 - - Goblesox spp, dingfrshes 1 - 1 3.0 - - - - - - - - Lebrlsomidee unid. labri3cmid kelpfishes - - - - - - - - - - - Hlppoglossfna stomata bigmouth ode - - - - - - Peprdus sirriffinws Pedfic bulterfrsh - - - - - - - - Ptetuonectidae unid. Bounders - - - - - - - - - - Urnbrina roncadar yeziumiAn croaker Parallchthyidae unid, sanddabs - - - - - - - - - - - Ruscarfus croased munccheek sculpin - - - - - - - SynVhurus at■fcauds CslKomla tooguersh - - - - - - - - - - AUtennopsafFris topsmelt - - - - - - - - - Rhfnogoblbps rddWsf blackeye goby - - - - - - - - - - - - Dfsplxu Crete California headghht fish - - - - - (corndnued) S Appendix S-2.(Continued). Survey.3(continued) Stations D2 D4 02 04 U2 U4 Start Date: 1011312003 Sample Count a e a 8 8 8 • Survey atean Man Mean Mean Bean Man Taxon Common Name Count Count Cone Count Cone Count Cone Count Conc Court Cone Courd Cone Atherinides unid. silveraides - - - - - - - - •• Haern)Adea grunts - - - - - - - Moduccius pradtrdus Pacific hake - - - Etrumeus fares round herring Ha6rhowas serricindus rock wrasse - - - - - - - - Lyd ypnus spp. toaes - - - - - - - - - j Medsluna califomiensis halimoon - Sebasles app.V rockfishes - - - - - - - - - Syngnathus Opp. pipefiishes 1 - 1 3.2 - - - - - Cleveland,7 ios arrow goby - - - - - - - - - Gablesox rflessodon California dlngfish - Hexegrammidee unid. greeNings - - - - - - - - Kyphosidee sea drubs - Lebridae wnasses - - - - - - - - - - - - Myctophidee unid. lanlemfishes - - - - - - - - - Oxyfeblus pk7us painted greeamg - - - - - - - �.; sebastes Epp. roWShPS sebastes spp.N D rock ishes - Sy+rrgnalhus laptorhync*us bay pipefish - - - - - - - Anisohartxrs dawdsarul sanyo Arfedus lalerdis smwhhead seulpin - - - - Aetsdfus spp. sculpins - Aulorhyrx&s Navidus lubesnout r Chaenopddae unid. tube blennles - - - - - - - - Clupeiformes herrings and anchovies - - - - [ Cottldae unid. sculpias - - - - - - Girella nlgdcans opaleye - Goblesocidae unid. cdingGshes - - - - - - - - ( 01Igocottus I Cllnocoltus sculpins - - - - - - - - Ptuvp*ys vefulus English sole - - - - - - - - - I Aleuronecdormes unid. Nalfishea - - - - - - Aornarer"dae damselfishes - - - - - - Scombridae unid. mackerels&tunas - - - - - - - - Scorpaenich1hys mamx"Ns eabezon - - Scorpaenidas seorptoatishes Sebestes spp.VD rockfishes - - - - - - - - - zardorePls spp. combfishes - - - - - - - - - 'Imrerfebrstas Emerita analogs(zoea} mole crab 116 15 40.7 19 58.8 2 5.5 3 9.5 9 24.9 68 228.1 Ca—rgradfis(meg.) slender crab - - - - - - - - - - - ' Cancer antennadus(meg.) brown rack crab Cancer-65orryf(Meg.) Yellow crab Cancer ap ,(meg.) cancer crabs 1 1 20 CanceroregarWs(zoee V) pygmy rock crab - - Canoerprodudus(meg.) red rock crab - Panuftskdamrpfus Californiaslanxlobster - - - - - - - - - - - - Total: 1.097 116 680 32 67 93 109 r E R 4 k Appendix 8-2.(Continued). Survey:fi Statlons D2 D4 02 - 04 U2 U4 " Start Date: 1tf10n003 Sam pie Count B 8 8 8 B a Survey Mean Mean Wan Mean Mean Mean Taxon Common Name Count Count Conc Count Conc Count Conc Count Conc Count Coos Count Cone Goblidae unid. goblea 10 1 3.0 3 8.4 1 2.5 1 2.7 2 5A 2 5.7 Ertgrau0s morMw northern anchovy 99 17 46.8 15 43.3 15 38.1 18 47.0 13 35.5 21 58.7 serfphus Po6fus queenfish - - - - - - - - - - - - Genyonemus finesfus white croaker 97 3 7.8 4 12.1 39 104.9 14 38.1 14 40.4 23 65.5 Sciaendae unid. croaker 6 - - - 3 7.3 1 2.4 1 2.8 1 2.7 Para6dlthys califomlcrrs California halibut t8 1 2.6 - 5 12.5 6 15.6 3 8.5 3 8.8 Hypsobtenn[us spp. blennles 35 4 9.e 2 5.7 7 15.2 - - 7 19.0 15 41.1 Paretabno spp. sand bass - - - - - - - - - - - Peralabrax datltratus kelp bass - - - - - - - - - - - A[herfnopsrs caffamiensds jecksmelt 6 - - 1 2.5 - 2 5.5 3 7.7 ChmaispuncripinMs blacksmith - - - - - - - - - - - - - larvae,unidentified yolksar. larvae - - - - - - - - - - - Sphyraena argen[ea California barracuda - - - - - - - - - - - - - I, SerdPnopssagax Padficsardine HypsopseSe guHulafa diamond turbot 11 1 2.0 - - 3 8.7 - - 1 2.7 6 17.4 c1maddt1hys s8gmeaus specided sanddab 35 2 5.5 - - 13 33.5 13 33.4 - - 7.18A Engraulldse anchovies 2 - - 1 2.9 - - 1 2.4 - - - Lepldogodus tepfdus bay 90by 1 - - 1 2.4 - - - - larval fish fragment unidentified Larval fishes 3 - - - - - - - - - - 3 7.7 Leurasttres fends Ceiifomia grunion - - - - - - - - - - - - - P►oul aaddtfhys ritteri spotted turbot 3 - - - - 2 4.8 - 1 2.6 Pteumrdchthys venccat[s homyhead turbot 2 - - 1 2.8 1 3.1 0phlddon sodPPsee besketweave cusk•eal - - - - - - - - - - - Cheimmaw sahrmum black croaker - - - - - - - - - Typh[ogobius ca[ifomiens[s blind goby O rgulis Cau arnica senorita Roncadorsteemst spotlit croaker - - - - - - - - - - - Xeafsdus ca$Wensis salema - - - - - - - - - Aihednopsidea - Iarvallpost-larval fish unid. larval fishes 11 3 6.3 - - 2 5:6 1 2.7 3 8.3 2 5.4 Hypsobleonfusjw1dasl mussel blenny - - - - - - - - - - - flypnus gfrberd cheekspol baby 1 - 1 2.5 - - - - - - - Qphldildse unid. tusk-eels - - - - - - - - - - Miehthys mirebiGs. ton&w mad sucker - - - - - - - - - P[euranlchthys spp. turbots 1 - - - - - - - 1 2.8 [rernus epp. sculpins - - - - - • - Lepfooaf&a arma[us Pacific staghom sculpin - - - - - - - - - AcanhhxW fus AaWmanus yellowfin gobs - - - - - - - - - - - HypsyPoPs rubicundus geribakdi - - - • - - - - - Xystreurys AnfePFs fentail We 1 - - - - - 1 3.1 - - Mpfwturusrnexlcanus Maxleanlampfish - - - - - - - - - - Gibborwe app. cilnid kWpfishea - - - - - - - - - - - - Afradoscion nobil s white a"bass - - - - - - - - - - - - MenBdahus undufalus California corbina - - - - - - - - - - - cithandNhys sorckws Pacific sanddab 9 - - 1 3.0 3 8.2 4 11.5 1 2.5 - - Semieowryphuspurdter Csfifomiasheephead - - - - - - - - SfenobraoWurs feucopsarus northern Iampflsh 2 - - - - - 1 2.3 1 2.8 - - Cf tarichthys spp. sanddabe 7 - - - 1 2.5 3 9.0 2 5.9 1 2-4 Gobfesox app. dinuMes - - - - - - - - - - - - Labrisomidae unit. labrisomkb kelpftshes - - - - - - - - - H[PPag[ass[ne stomsfe blgmouth sole - - - - - - - - - - - PeAdlus sint[[5rmus Pacific,butterfish - - - - - - - - - - Pfauronectidae unid, flounders 2 - - - - - - 1 2.6 1 3.1 ttmbeina ronc,ador yeaowfin croaker - - • - - - - - - - - Paral'ichthyidemunld. sanddabs 1 - - - - - - 1 2.7 - - Ruscarfus Crewed muc hdheek sculpin - - - - - - - - - - - Symphyras etricauda California tonguefish - - - - - - - - - - - - AtheAnops a[ffn[s tnpsmeit - - - - - - - - - - - RMnapobloPs nrdwls► bladteye goby - - - - - - - - - - -MOWS theta California headlight fish - - - - - - - - - - (conbncted) Appendix B-2.(Continued). Surrey:6(continued) Stations D2 134 02 _ 04 U2 U4 Start Dote: 1111 012 0 0 3 Sample Count 8 8 8 8 8 e Sunny Mean Mean Mean Mean Mean Akan Tax*" Common Name Count Count Cenc Court Coot Count Cone Count Cone Count Conc Count Cone Alherinidae unid, silversides - - - - - - - - - - - Haemulidae grunts Merluadusproductus Pacific hake - - - - - - - - - E&Urnausteres round herring - - - - - - - - - - HalJchoems sarnldncfus rock wrasse LYmrYPnus app. gobles - - - - - - - - - - - - 'p Medraluna ca&19mfensls hakfmoon - - - - • - - - - Sebastes App.V rockfishes 3 - - 1 2.7 2 5.6 - I Syngnefhus app. plpefishes - - Cis velanaGa tos arrow gotry - - - - - - - - - - - - Gobiasox rtressodon CalHamla dingfiah - - - - - - - - - } Hexagrammidee unld. gre-enlings - - - - - - - - - L Kyphosldee sea chubs - - - - - - - - - - - t-abridae wrasses - - - - - - - - - - - _ Mydophidse unid. tanlamfishes - - - - - - - - Webruspfei- painted greenling - - - - - - - - Sebastas app. rockfishes 2 - - - Z 5.4 - Sebasfes app.% D rockfishes 2 - - - - - 1 2.5 1 2.5 - - Syngnathus leptorhyndrus bay piperfish - - - - - - - - - - - - - Ardsoberrtms davldsonif same - - - - - - - - - - E Arfedivstaferals smoothhead saulpin - - - - - - - k Arfedus spp. sculpins - - AuOMynchus Aevtdus tubesnout - - - - - - - - - - - - Chaenopsidae unit. tube blennies - - - - - - - - - - - Clupedormes herrings and anchovies - - - - - - - - { CoWdae unid. sculpins - Glrefle nigricens opaleye Gobiesoddae unld. dingfishes - - - - - - - - - - - - - OUgocam s f Clipocoffus swlplrts - - - - Parophrys vetufus Engl4str sole - - Pleuroneictitormes unid. flatfishes - - - - - - - - - - - Pomecentridee damselkshes - - - - - - - - - - - Scombddae unld_ mackerels a tunas - - - - ScorpeeakWhysmearmwa(us cabezon 1 t 2.9 + Scorpaenldae scorpionfishas - - - - - - - - - - - - Sebastes app_VD rockfishes 1 - - - - - - 1' 3.1 - - - - Iardakpis spp. combfishes - - - - - - - - rmrorra6ralas Emedla,analopa(zoea) mole crab 11 2 5.2 - - - 3 7.6 1 2.7 5 14A Cancer gradfis(meg.) slendercrab - - - - - - - - - - Cancer oaWmartus(meg.) brown rock Crab - - - - - - - - - - - CancaranlhOnyi(Mg.) yellow crab - - - - - - - - - - - - Cancer app.(meg.) Cancer crabs - - - - - - - - - - - - Canceroregonsfs(zoea V) pygmy red*(cab _ _ _ Cancerprodudus{meg_} red rock crab - - - - - - - - - - - - Panugwinfemrpfus California spiny lobster - - - - - - - - - - Total: 383 34 28 98 71 58 94 1 1, Appendix B-2. (Continued). SurvW.10 Q2 04 02 _ 04 U2 U4 StartOate: 12=003 Semple Count 8 8 8 8 8 8. Svnray Mean Mean Wean wean Mean Mean Talon Common Name Count Count Cone Count Cone Count Cone count Cone Count Cane Court Cone Goblidae unid, gobles 361 72 192.7 246 634.4 20 56.1 3 7.9 14 38.0 6 15.6 Engrauss morttax northern anchovy 37 15 39.9 6 14.7 4 .11.5 3 8.0 7 18.9 2 5.1 Sadphus po tus queenflah - - - - - - - - - Genyonemus Gneefus whits croaker 142 12 29.8 45 119,5 39 107.8. 26 68.0 9 24A 10 26.1 i Sciaeoldee unid. croaker - - _ _ - _ _ ParafdVlys califatucus California halibut - - - - - - - - - - Hyipapbfenrdus spp. blennies 16 t 2.8 4 9.9 3 a.2 1 2.8 3 8.4 4 10,5 i Paralabrax spp. sand bass - - - - - - - - - - Parafabrax dathralus kelp bass - - - - - Alhadnopsfs cafeba ensis ]acksmelt 13 2- 5.1 9 22.2 1 2.6 - - - - 1 2.8 ChronYs punadprnnfs blacksmith - - - - larvae,un Wen ffled yolkeac Larvae Sphyrsene argentes Qdifomia barracuda Sanft)pssagax Pecifiesardine Hypsopsalta gurfurala diamond sabot 3 - 1. 3.0 1 2,a 1 2.8 - citadchthys 36 maeus speckled sanddeb - - - - - - _ Engraulldae anchovies - - - - - - - - LepfdogWus lepfduS bay goby 20 - - 1 2.7 15 44.9 4 10.7 - - - - larval Fish fragment unidentified larval fishes - - - - - - _ Laursstbes tenufs Callfomla grunlan - Preuronidrthys deed spotted turbot 1 - - - - - 1 2.7 - Pleumnicbthys verbcars honryhead turbot 1 - - - - 1 2.5 - Ophidon scAppsae baskenveave cask-eel - - - - - - - Cheilahems salumum black croaker 7yy3hrogWws cefrf rnlensfs blind goby Daduis cafrfilrrdca sencuita Roncedor steamsi spotfin croaker Xenfsffus caffbtfaeWs sale ns - - - - - - - - - - Athertnopsklae severside - - - - - - - - - - - larvallpostdarval fish unid. larval fishes 1 - Hypsobfenaiusjenldnsf mussel blenny - flypnus glows cheekspot goby 17 2 4.8 11 2a.2 - - 1 2.6 - - 3 8.1 Ophidildes unid, rusk-eels - - - - - - - - - Gilfrchlhysrdrabffs longlawmudsucker 6 2 4.9 4 10.3 Pleuronfamys spp, turbotS 1 1 2.2 - - fceflnus spp, sculpins - - - - - LepMwUus ermalus Pacino staghom VAdpin 17 5 13.4 6 16.4 2 6.0 - - 3 82 1 25 Acentbogodusfrevfmanus yMRNAngoby 11, - - 1 2.5 10 30.0 - - - - - - Hypsypopsrubicundus geribaldi Xy36eurys Iola* fenta8 sole 7dphafurus mexrcenus McAcan lamptish Glbborrse app. dlnkt kelpllshes - Ahactasraon nobifs white e008,53 - - - - - - - - Mentydnhus urWufatus Califomle corbuta - GGherichlhys sor:Fdus Pacific sanddeb - S-ifcossyphuspulcher Cal famis sheeptlead StenobraaMus feucopsarus northern lampfish 2 - - - - - -. 2 5.1 - - - - GMedahbVS spp. eanddabs - - - - - - - - Gabfesox spp. dingfishes Labrlsomktas unid, labrlsomid kelpf Mes - Hippogfosslns sfomare blgmouth sole - - - - - - - - - - - Pepdrus siailyrrars Pe fio butler6sh - -• - - - - - - _ - - PleumneeNdae unid. flounders - Umbdoe melcador ye8o"n croaker - - - - - - - - - - - Parallchthyldae unid, sanddalrs 1 1 2.a - - - - - _ Rusradus creased roudreheek sculpin 1 - - - - - 1 2.9 - - - Symphurus abfcauda CeBfomle,tonguefish - Alhednopaaffira topsmeit - Rhrncgobfops nldrWsf blackeye g0by Dfephus Mels Caiifomia headlight fish (corlunued) f t , Appendix B-2.(Continued). Survey:10(continued) D2 D4 02 04 U2 U4 Start Date: 1210=03 Sample Count 8 8 8 _ 8 8 8 Survey Mean Mean Mean Mean Mean Mean Taxon Common Name. Count Count cone Count Cane count Conc count Canc Count Cone Count Conc r Atherinidae unid, siversidea - - - - - - - - - - - - Haemulldae grunts - - - - - - - - - - Meduedus producfus Paclfic hake - - - - - - - - - - - - Etrumeus fares round herring - - - - - - - Halichoeres samicinctus rock wrasse - - - - - - - - [[[ LyMryptus app. gobies Mediafuna cakfomlensis hatfmoon - - - - - - - - - - - Sebastes epp.V rocKshes - - - - - - - f Syngnamus spp. piperishes - Clevelandra ios enuw gobY - - - - - - - - - - - - - C-Wesoxrhassodon Calfomladingfish - - - - - - - - - - Hexegrammidas unid. greenlings - - - - - - - - - - - - - Kyphosldae sea Chubs - - - - - - - - - - - i Labridae morasses - - - - - - - - - - - - Myctophldae unid, lanternfishes - - - - - - - - - - - Oxytediuspfdvs painted greenling 1 1 2.6 - - - - - - - - Sebasfes spp. racldtshes - - - - - - - - - - Sebasfes spp.V_D ro!dishes - - - - - - - - - Syrtgrefbvs lepforf;r-d us bay pipefish Ardsotrernus davidsonif cargo - - - - - - - - - Arfedruslaferais sm0othheadsadpin - - - - - - - - - �Y Adedrus app. sculpirts Auforhynchus RaWckis tubesnout - - - - - - - - - - Chaenopsidaeunid. tube blenn're - - - - - - - - Clupei<ormse herrings and anchovies - - - - - - - - - - - - - Contdas unid. sculpins - - - - - - - - - - - Gfrells nigdcans opafeye Gobiesoci lae unid. dingfishes - - - - - - - - - - - CdigocotnrsrCltnocohus sculpins ies Pleuro rec vermes English sole - PleuronedAormesunld. ilatrshes Pomacentridae damselfthes Scombridse unid. mackerels 6 tunas - - - - - - - - - - - r Scoepaenicnitrys marmoratus cabezon + Soorpaenldae scorpionrrshes - - - - - - - - - - {` Sebastes spp.VD- rockfishes ZanlokVs app. comb4shes rrrvartebrate-s Emerite enatoge(urea) mote crab 54 17 39.2 1 2.7 6 16A 4 10.6 16 42.5 10 28.2 Cancergradlis(meg.) slender crab - - - - - - Concerantennadvs(meg.) brown rock rrab - - - - - - - - - - - - - GarreeranBronyt(Meg.) yellow crab 4 1 2.6 2 5.2 - - 1 2.8 - - Career spp.(meg_) cancer crabs - Carceroragonsis(xoea V) pygmy rxk cab Canner produrlus(meg.) red rock crab Panuirus infermptus Celifomia spiny tlobster Total: 710 132 337 102 48 54 37 1 ( i t_, Appendix B-2. (Continued). Survey:la Stations 02 04 02 _ 04 U2 U4 Start Date,. 0IM6104 Sample Count 16 16 16 i6 16 16 Survey Mean Won Mean Mean Moan Mean Taxon Common Name Count Count Cone. Count Cone Count Conc. Count Cone. Count Cent Carat Conn Gobl-rdae unid, gobies 152 58 81.0 69 94.4 5 7.3 1 1.4 9 f 2.4 10 13.4 Engraufls mordex northern anchovy 19 9 12.5 5 6,6 2 2.8 - 2 2.5 1 1.4 SerfphuspoGtus queenfish 3 - - 1 1.4 2 3.1 - - - - Genyonemus Nneatus white croaker 51 15 20.3 4 5.3 7 10.0 13 18.6 9 12.4 3 4.1 Sciasnidea unid, croaker 12 7 9.5 4 5.5 1 1.6 - - - Parafchthys cakfomi= California halibut 2 - - - - - - 2 2,6 - - - - Hypsoblennius spp. blennles 11 A 5.5 2 2.6 1 1.4 1 1.2 1 1,4 2 2,8 Paralebrox spp. . sand bass - - - - - - - - - - - Paralat m efafhrm(rs kelp bass - - - - - - - - - - Athednopsfs caffomlensis jecksmelt - 7 1 1.5 2 2.7 1 1.4 1 1.3 2 2-3 Chromes punc6pinnfs bladtsmlth - - - - - - - - - - larvae,unidentified yolksec larvae • - - - - - - - - Sphyrsena aryenlea Caldomia barracuda Sardr,gPSsagax Pacific sardine - - - - - - - - - Hypsopsette gulfulare diamond turbot 19 - - 2 2.9 - - 3 4.4 14 12.2 - Olherichthys sb'Qmaeus speckled sanddab - - - - - - - - - - - Engraulidae anchovies - - - - - - - - - - - LeptdooWus iepfdus bay goby 7 - - 3 4,5 4 5.9 - - - - larval fish fragment unkfentifred larval fishes 1 1 1.4 - - - - - - - - - Leuresi tes fenuis California grunion - - - - - - - - - - PleuronfeWys ruled spotted turbot - - - - - - PleuronFddhys verf"Ns homyhead turbot - - - - - - - - - - Ophldon scdppsaa besketweave cusk-eel - - - - - - - - - - - - O )btrema satumum black croaker - Typhlosobfus caf erriensis blind goby - - - - - - - - - - OxWufs callomks senorita - - - - - - - - - - - Ronesdorstearnsf spotfin croaker - - - - - - - - - - - - - Xenfsfusce&Wensfs salema Atherirropsidae sllverslde 8 3 4.6 1 1.2 2 2.9 1 1.4 - - 1 1.4 Iarval/postaerval fish unid. larval fishes - - - - - - - • - _ HypsoblennfusOn►dnsi musses blenny - - - - - - - - - - - - ltypdusyldberd cheekspat goby 3 - 2 2.5 - - - - - 1 1.4 Ophididae unid. tusk-cels - - - - - - - • - Glxchthys"mbius longlaw mudsucker - - - - - - - - - - - Pleumnfchfhys spp. turbou - - - - - - - - kxfinus spp. scuipins - Leptoeom s armehrs Pacific stag horn saalpin 2 1 IA - - - 1 1.6 - - - Acanfhogubfus lfavfmanus yeilowfin goby 1 - - - - - - 7 1.6 - - - - Hypsypops rublcundus geribeldi - - - - - - - - - - - ?fysheurys frolepts fanlal sole - - - - - - - - - - - Tdphatunrs mardcanus Mexican lampfish - - - - - - - - - - - - - Gibboasia spp. dinid kelpfishes 1 - - 1 1.4 - - - - - - Ahwo.sdon nobifs white seabase - - - - - - - - - - Mentiafrrhus undulatus Cal'domia corbbra - Othadchthys sovddus Pacific sonddab - - - - - - - - - - Semfcossyphus puolcher California sheephead - - - - - - - Stenobrachfus►eacopsanrs northem lampfish - - - - - - - - - - Offie k»Mys spp. senddaba - - - - - - - - - - - - - Gow"cor spp. dini;Wtes - - - - - - - - - - Labdwmklae unia, lebrisomki kelpfishes 1 - - 1 1.2 - - - - - - - Hippogfossine stomata bigmouth We - - - - - - - - - - - - - PepdtUS smilfmus Pacific butterfish - - - - - - - - - Pleuronactidae unid. flounders - - - - - - - - - - - Umbdna roncador yell wfin croAer - - - - - - - - - - - Parellchthyldae unid, sanddabs - - - - - - - - - - - Ruwidus classed muchcheek eeuipin 1 1 1.4 - - - - - - - - - Symphurus abfcaude California tonguefish - - - - - - - - - - - - - Afhwrfnops etlsnis topsmelt - - - - - - - - - - - - RhOogoblopa nk Wsi, buckeye goby 1 - - - - 1 1.6 - - - - Diephu3 theft Cafifomla headlight fish (conllnued). r k Appendix B-2. (Continued). Survey:14(continued) Stations D2 D4 02 Q4 U2 U4 Start Date: 01105104 Sample Count 16 16 16 _ 16 16 16 Survey mean Mean Mean Mean bean mein Teton Common[dame Count Court Cone Count Cone Count Cone Count Cone Covert Cane Count Cone Atherinidae unid, saversides - - - - - - - - - - - Haemuildee grunts - - - - - - - - - - Merfucdus pmdattus Pacific hake - - - - - - - - - - - Efrumeus Ceres round herring - - - - - - - - - - Harrcboeres serrVdactus rock wresse - - - - - - - - - - - - Lythrypnus spp. gobiea - Medlaluns ca&/orniensis halfmoon - - - - - - - - - - r Sebasies spp.V rockfishes - - - - - - - - - i Syngnathus spp. plpefshes - - - - - - - Clevelands ios arrow Roby - - - - - - - - - Gablaurrhesscdan Califomladingrrsh - - - - - - - - - - - - Hexagrammidaeunid. greenlings - - - - - - - - - - - Kyphosidae sea chubs - - - - - - - - - Labridae wrOlsses - - - - - - - - - - Myctophidas unid. Iantamfishes - - - - - - - - - Oxylebius pidus painted greenling 1 - - 1 1.3 sebastes spp. rockfishes - - - - - - - - - - - - Sebastas Epp.V D roddlishes - - - - - - - - - - - - SYMM8rhus leptorhynchus bay plpt:rrsh - - - - - - - - - - Ardsotranxrs dsvidsoMI aargn - - - - - - - - - - - Arfadruslatera5s smoothhead sarlpin - - - - - - - - - ArtecIus spp. scuipins - - - - - - - - - - - AuforhyrlcRus flaHdus tubesnout Chaenopstdae unkf, bibs blennies ColUdamtes herrings and anchovies Cottldae unid. sculpins Girellarligrc ns opaleye Goblesoddae unid. rlingfishas - - - - - - - - - - 011gbcatbrs 1 Clinocottus wWpins Parophrys vetulus English We i PIeuronecformes unId. flatrisbea r Pomecenlridee damselfishes Scombridae unid. markerets&tunas Scorpaenichthysmarrnoratus cabemn (If Scorpaenldae scorplontishes (. Sebastes spp.VD nlddishes Ianfolapls spp. combfishes tnvertebretes - Emerfta analogs(zoea) mole crab 10 6 8.0 1 is - 1 1.5 2 2.6 CancergradBs(meg.) slendercrab 2 - - - - 1 1.4 - - - - 1 1-4 Cancer antenne fus(meg,) brown rock crab 1 - - - - - - - - 1 1.4 - Canceran2nnyi(meg.) ye8owcrab - - - - - - - - - Cancer spp,(meg.) cancercrabs Canceroregonsls(zoea V) Pygmy rock crab Cancerproductus(meg.) red rock crab PanuFrus Infemrpfus Caldomia spiny lobster Total: 310 106 96 26 27 38 23 F Appendix B-2. (Continued). Survtry:l9 Stations D2 D4 02 04 1f2, U4 Start Date: 02/UW04 Sample Count e 8 B B 8 a Surrey Mean Mean Mean Kenn Mean Men ' Tenon Common Name Count Count Conc Covert Conc Count Conc Count Conc Count Cane Count Conc GoWidae unid. gables 314 156 388.0 131 368A 2 5.8 1 2.6 18 44.8 6 15.8 EjVraulfs molder northern anchovy B 1 2.7 4 11.5 1 2.8 - - 1 2.4 1 2.3 Sedphus Poffbu queenfish - - - - - - - - - - Genyonemus6nealus white croaker 33 11 26.6 7 1B.6 6 15.0 - - 4 10_8 5 12A Sdaenidae unid. cmaker - - - - - - - Peralchthys ca&iamicars Celifomla halibut 1 1 2.4 - - - - Hypsoblennius spp. Mennles Parelabrax spp. send bass Paralabraxdathratus kelp bass AtWitnopsfs caffomferWs jadwmelt 20 2 4.6 14 39.2 1 2.6 2 5_e - - 1 2.3 MorryspuncitpYnnls blacksmith - - - - - - - - - - - larvae.unktentified yalksac larvae Sphymena armente8 Califomla barracuda Serdfnops sagax Pacifit sardine Hypsopseira guffurata diamond turbot 5 2 4.8 1 2.8 - - - 2 5.7 CilhadchfhyS stigmaeus spedded sanddab - - - - - - - - - - Engmulldae anchoV s - - - Lepfdogobfus fepfdefs bey goby e 3 7.5 1 2.8 - - - 2 4.9 - - larval fish fragment unidentified larval fishes t - - 1 2.4 - - Launwhes tends C.Mftmta grunion Pleumrdchfhys dfferf spotted turbot - Pleuturde lhys ved icelis homyheed turbot - - - - - - - - - - - - Opbidon scrlppsae basketwuve cusk-eel CtWkfrema satumurn black croaker Wfogabhrs caftffivnsis Wind gob) - 02WO s cafrfomko samdta Roncadarsreamsi spotfn cmker - - - - - - - Xenisfusca&forfensrs safema Athadnopsidae sliveralde lenradpost-tarval fish unid. larval fishes 1 - - - 1 2.9 HAmWennfuslanidnsl mussel Wenny - - - - - - !typhus g1lbero cheekepot gob) Ophid'udee unid. cask-"a GilfohMp rrirabibs longjaw mudsucker 3 2 4.8 - - - - - 1 2.5 - Pfauronrdrahys spp. turbots - fce6nus spp. sculpfns - Eeptowdusamtafus Padfic steghom sculpin 5 1 2.5 3 8.2 - - - - 1 2.7 Acanlhogoblus flaWmanus yellowfin goby 4 1 2.5 3 8.4 - - - - - - - Hypsypops rubicundus gatibaldi - - Xyshaurys frolep5 fantail sole - Trfphotunu nwdcanus Mexican lampMh - - - - - - - - - - - Gibbansia spp. dink!kelprLshes - - - - - - - - - - Atraclosdon no&gs white seabasa - - - - - - - - - - - - - Menbontau unduletuS Callfomta corWne - - - - - - - - - - - - Gltharkhfhys sofddus Pacific sanddab - Semkvmyphuspaidrer Califomlasheepnead Stenobradrks feucopsanis northern lempW 1 - - - - - - - - - 1 2.3 Oifharidid"app, sanddabs - - - - - - - - - - - - Gowesox app. dingfishes Lahrlsomldas unld• labrisomid kelpfzahes 1 1 2.5 - - - - - - - - - - Hippogkasdna stomata bigmouth sole - - - Peprihrs sfrraffn s Pacific butterfish - - - - - - - - - - - Pleumnectidae unid. Aoundcrs - - - - - - - - - - - - Umbdne mocador yegowffn croaker - - - - - - - - - - - - Paralichthyidas unid. sanddabs - - - - - - - - - - - - - RuscarluS creased roucheheek sculpin - - - - - - - - - - Synu frtrnrs ahicauda Califomla mnguefish - Aftrfnopsa8frvs lopamelt - - - - - - - - - - - RhinopobOw n1dwisf blackeye 9obY - - - - - - - - - - - - bfaOus daft Calftmla headlight fish - - - - - - (conHnued) r• - Appendix B-2. (Continued). Survey:19(continued) Stations 132 O4 02 04 U2 U4 Start Date. OVUM Sample Count 6 8 a - a 8 8 Survey Mean Mean Main Mean Neon Mean - Taxon Common Name CcurA Count Conc Coura Conc Count Conc Coura Conc Count Conc Count Cone Athadnidae unld. silversides Haamulldee grunts - - - - - - - - - - - McAucauspro&ctus. Pecific hake 4 2 4.5 2 4.9 - - - - - - . Efrurrms Ceres round herring - - - - - HaGGweres semldndus rock wrasse - - - - Lytbiyplus app. gobies - - - - - - - - - - - - Medtaluns ca6tbrr8ens0s ' he9moon - - - - - - - - - - - - Sebastes spp,V rockfishes - - - - - - - - - - - - + Syngnattw spp. piperrshes - - - - - - - - - - - - clevelandra 105 arrow golry Gobiesoxrhessadon Califomlacingflsh - - - - - - - - - - - Hexagrammidaeunid. greenlings 1 - - - 1 2.4 - Kyphosides sea chubs Labridae. wrosses Mydophidee unid. lantemfishes - - - - - - - - - - oxyJebiusplCtus painted greenling - - - - - - - - - - - Sebasfes app., roclfshes - - - - - - - - - - Sebastes spp,V 13 rockfishes - - - - - - - - - Syngnathuslaptvrhynchus baypiperieh - - - - - - - - - - - Anfsofremus davfdsonil sargo - - - - - - - - AnWus latereffs smoothhead sculpin - - - - - - - - - Anedtus spp. sculpins 1 i 2-4 - - - - - - - - - AuloMynchus Ravfdus tubesnoue - - - - - - - - - Chaenopsldae unid. tube Nennies - - - - - - - - - Clupe4ormes herrings and arxhovies - - - - - - - - - - - - Cottidasunid. scuipina Giraffe ntgdcens apeleye Gobiesocidee unid. ding<shes - - - - - - - - - - - Oldgocomis 101nocattus sculpins - - - - - - - - - - PamphW vetutus English sole - - - - - - - - - - - PleuronecUFormes unid- flatrahes - - - - - - - - - - - - Pomacentridae damselfishes - - - - - - - Scombridae unid. mackerels&tunas - - - - - - - - - - j Scorpaemchthys mamrorafus cabezon - - - - - - - - - - Scorpaanldse sWrplonnshes - L Sebasies spp.VD rockfishes - - - - - - - - - Zenfoiepis app, combrrshes - - - - - - - - lnyerlebretes r Ernedla analoga(zoea) mole crab B - 3 8.1 - - 1 Z5 4 103 - - Cancergradtfs(me@,) slander crab 2 - - - - - - 2 5.7 - - - Cancerantennedus(meg.) brown rock crab - - - - - - - - - Canceranthanyf(meg.) Yeldowcrab - - - - - - - - - - - - Caner spp.(meg.) cancer crabs 1 - - - - - - - - - 1 _ 2.3 Cancaroregonsis(zoes V) pygmy rock crab - _ _ _ _ - _ _ - - Cancsrproducfus(meg.), red rock dab - - - - - - - - - - - Panu6rus inferruplus California spiny lobster - - - - - - - - - Total: 420 164 169 12 7 30 is r K - s. , r Appendix S-2. (Continued). SurvW.23 Stations 02 04 02 04 U2 U4 StartUate. 03108104 Sample Count a 8 8 a 8 a Surrey Mean Mean Mean Mean Mean Mean Taxon Common Nsme Count Count Cone Count Cone Count Cone Coven Cane Count Cone Count Cane Gobildae unid. gobies 451 205 565.5 224 619.4 3 8.0 2 4.5 19 55.9 8 23.0 Engrautlsmordax northemanchovy 42 13 35.9 8 20.4 3 7.9 - - 16 48.3 2 5.7 sedphuspoffhrs queen5sh - - - - - - - - - - - - - Genyonemus ffnealus white croaker 30 1 2.8 8 20,3 5 13.7 3 Q4 4 lt6 g 23.5 Sciaenidae unld, croaker - - - - - - - - - - - - p8mychow cardbMicus California halibut 3 - - - - - - 3 8.5 - - - - HypsoWennius spp. blerrrrles - - - - - - - - - - - - - Paralabrex,spp. sand bass - - - - - - - - - - Paralabrax dethratus kelp besa - - - - - - - Atherinopsls Cafdfomlensis }acMmelt 4 1 3.2 1 2.3 - - - - 2 4.8 - - Chmnis puncdpfnafs blacksmith - - - - James.Linldentifiedyolksac larvae - - - - - - - - - - - Sphyraena ergenfea Califomis barracuda - - - - - - - - - sar®nopssagax Paeille sardine - - - - - - - - - - Nypsopseffa gutrulats diamond turbot 16 a z2.6 1 2.2 - 1 2.4 1 2.7 5 12.9 Cifharichfhys sugmaeus sperlded sanddab - - - - - - - - Engraulidoe anchavies - - - - - - - - - - - LepldOgobius fepldus bay goby 3 - - 2 5.0 - - - - - - 1 2.8 larval fish fragment unidentified larval fishes 2 - - - - - 2 6.2 - Leurestrres lanais Callfomla grunion - - - - - - - - - - Pleumvchfhys voted spotted turbot - - - - - - - - - - - - PfeuronfchHrys verBaaGs homytroad turbot - - - - - - - - - - Ophidian-djppsee b2skeiweave cusk-eel - - - - - - - - - - - - Cfref)oframa satumum black croaker - - - - - - - - - - - - Typhkgo&us Cardomfensis blind goby - - - - - - - - Oxy/ufs cafyamka senorfta - - - - - - - - - - - - Roncedorsteamsf spmfin croaker - - - - - - - - - - - Xenfstrus eafdorfensfs salema - - - - - - - - - Atherinopsldas aSuerslde t - - 1 2,5 - - - - - - - IarvaUpOst-lafval fish unid- larval fishes - - - - - - - - - - - - Hypsoblenn/us jenlansi mussel bdenny - - - - - - - - - - - Ifypnus gdlberff cheekspot goby 2 2 5.5 pphid'sdae unid. tusk-eels - - - - - - - - - - - - Gllbahfhys mfrabibs longjaw muds ticker a 3 8.2 4 10.9 - - - - 1 3.1 - - pleuranlaheip spp. turbots i - - 1 3,0 - . - - - - dcefinus app• sculpins - - - - - - - - - - - - Leplocafrus armatus Pacific staghom sculptn 1 1 2.8 - ACanMogoWus Rawmsnus yelimfin goby 5 3 8.4 2 6.3 - - - - - - - - Hypsypops roWarndus gsribeldi - - - - - - - - - - Xysfisurysfialepls fantail ads - - - - - - - - - - - - Ti7phohrrus mexlcanus Mexican daMpflsh - - - - - - - - - - - Gibbansia spp. din Id kelpfkaltes - - - - - - - - - - - - Atradosdon nobids white seabass - - - - - - - - Meabarrturs undulafus Caldomla cotblrut - - - - - - - - - - - Crfherkhthya'sorddus Pac frc sanddab - - - - - - - - - - - - Sendoossyphuspuk*er Calftmie sheephead - - - - - - - - - - - - slenobradrfos let=psarus northern lampfish - - - - - - - - - - - - Clddalicharys spp. sanddalu - - - - - - - - - Gohfesox spp. dingfishes - - - - - - - - - Lebrisomklse unid, labrfsomid kefpfUlies - - - - - - - - - - - HippOgrossina sfomafe bigmouth sole - - - - - - - Pepifussirrrlfmrs Pacific butterfish - - - - - - - - - - Pleuroneclidae unid. flounders UrriDdns mricedor yeRawfin croaker - - - - - - - - Perslkhthyidae unkd. senddabs - - - - - - - - - - - Rtucaduscreased rouchcheek surlpin 2 1 2.8 - 1 2.7 - - - - - - Symphurus of icauda CaldomIa tongue6sh - - - - - - - - - - - - AfherfrNhw alTrals topsmell - - - - - - - - - - - RhlnogoWaps nkhold blaCkeye goby 7 - - - - - - 1 2.2 - - - Dapfws diets Califomla headlight fish - - - - - - - pconffnved) C . Appendix 8-2.(Continued). rr Survey:23(continued) Stationo D2 D4 02 . 04 U2 U4 Start Date: 0310fft04 Sample Count 8 8 a a a 8 Surrey Mean Wan Mean Man Mean Ykan. Talon Common Nome Count Count Conc Count Cone Court Cone Count Conc Count Conc Count gone Atherinidae unid. silversides - - - - - - - - - - Heemulldee grunts - - - - - - - - Meducaus productus Pacific hake - - - - - - - - - Ehumeus Ceres round herring - - - - - - - - Ho droeres senrdnetus rock wrasse - - - - - - - - - Lythrypnus spp. gobles - - - - - - - - - Medraluns caftmiensis halmoon - - - - - - - Sebasfas spp.V rockfishes - - - - - - - - - - Syngnalhus spp. pipefrshes - - - - - - - Clevelande ios onvw gobY - - - - - - - - - - - GdWesoz Messodon Caflfomla dingl♦sh 2 - - 2 5.7 - - - - - Hexagrammldae unid, greerlings - - - - - - - - - - fKyphosidee sea chubs f Labridas wrassea - - - - - - - - - - - t Mydophkfae unid. tantemfishes - - - - - - - Oxylabluspictus pointed greenling Sebastes spp. rockfishes - - - Sebastes app.V D rodduhes - - - - .' Syngnafts lep►artrynchus bay pipefish - - - - - - - - - - - - Adubemus davldsonil sergo - - - - - - - - - r Arfeduslaterals smoathhead.1pin - ARedrus app. scuipins - - - - - - - - - Aufarhyrxhus ffavfdus tubesnout - Chaenopsidae unid. tubeblenniea - Oupedormas herrings and anchovies - CoWdae unld, =Ipins - Girds rrigricans opaleye - Goblesocidae unid. dingfishes Ongoeatlus t Cllnocottus sculpins F - Paroplrrys whrlus English sole i Pfeuronectifonnes unid, flatfishes - i Pomaennlridae dam elfishes Scombridee unid. mackerels&tunas - _ f Scorpaenkbfhys marmorstus cabezon - - - - - - - - - f Scorpaenldae scorpionfrshes - Sabastes spp-VD rockfishes - Zardolepls spp. combfishes Lrrverrebrefes Enerito enaroga(zoea) mole crab 15 8 21.5 3 7.3 t 3.2 1 2.2 1 2,1 1 2.7 Caneergradlls(meg.) ale rider crab _ Cancer arikwedus(meg.) brown rock crab Canaeranthonyi(Meg.) yellow=b Cancer spp,(meg.) cancer cabs - - - - - - - - - Canoeror 9o"s(zoea V) pygmy rock crab Caneerpmducfus(meg.) red rock crab Penu5rus Inferruptus Califomia spiny lobster - - • Total; 599 245 258 13 11 46 26 �w F k Appendix B-2. (Continued). Survey.27 02 04 02 - 04 U2 U4 Start Data: 04105104 Sample Count 8 8 8 8 8 8 Survey Mean Mean Idaan Wan Mean Mean Taxon Common Name Count Count Conc Count Conc Cc Led Cone Courd Cox Count Conc Count Cone Gobildes udd, gobles 104 11 25.4 8 21.2 2 5.0 4 11.0 34 86.5 45 116.7 Engroulis axwdax nonhem anchovy 139 11 27.1 19 48.0 23 50.7 43 111.9 32 84.1 11 28.3 Sedphuspollfus queenfish Genyomflws finealus white croaker 25 1 2.4 3 7.2 8 19.6 8 21.5 2 5.2 3 7.2 Sciaeddne unid. croaker 3 1 2.4 1 2.2 1 2.1 - - - _ _ Para6ch1hys raffamicus Califomla halibut 4 1 2.7 - - 3 6.6 - - - Hypsoblennius spp. denies 1 - - 1 2.1 - - - - Pandfla ax W. sand bass - - - - - _ - Parelabrax daftehrs kefp bass - - - AUrerinopsls calftniensis jacksmelt 10 2 4.9 2 5.0 - - - - 6 15.3 Chrvrds pundlpinnis blacksmith - - - - larvae.unidentified yolksac larvae 5 4 9.6 - - 1 2.5 - - - Sphyraena ergentes California barracuda - - - - - - - - Sardhopssagax Pacific sardine Hypsopsefts gutfdele _ diamond turbos Citharldrthys sligeraeus apedded sanddab 3 - - - - - 3 8.2 - - Engraufidae anchovles 9 6 152 1 2.3 - - - 1 2 A 1 2.6 LapldogoNusfepfdus bay goby 1 - - - - 1 2.8 - larval fish fragment unidentified larval fishes - - - _ Leumsthes fenurs Callfomla grunion - - - - - - - - - _ Pleurodd thys n'fted spotted turbot - Pleur"ch hys verdcaffs homyhead turbot 2 - - - 2 5.5 - - Ophldion scvfppsae basketweave cusk-eel - - - - - - _ Ch*MD&errra salurnurn black croaker - i Typhfogobfus cafit ffdensis blind goby 49 - - - - - _ 1 2.9 48 124.6 I wuas cab wnica senorita - - - - - - - - - - I Roncadorsfeamsi spotfin croaker - - - - - - xenistius CaMb lends selema Athednopardae sllverside i - - - 1 2.4 - - - - - - IarvaUpod-serval fish unid, larval fishes 2 - - 1 2.5 - - 1 28 - - Hypsablennrus jenldnv mused tRenny Ilypntrs gffbertf cheekspol gobY - - - - - - - - - - Ophidii dae,udd. cusk-eels - - - - - - GilydrUrys mfrabilis longlaw mudsucker 1 - - - - - - 1 26 - - Pleuronfchthys Epp. turbots 1 - - 1 22 loeknus spp. sm1pins 1 - - - - - - 1 2.7 - LepfccoUus emratvs Pacific slaghorn sculpin - - AcenBrpgtrblusffarimanus yeilawfin goby 1 - - - - - 1 2.3 Hypsypcps rubfoundus gadbaldi - - - - - - - _ - - XYsLOurys lfolepls fanlil sole - - - - - - - - - TdpbpWwmexlcanus Mcdcanlampfish Glbbonsis spp. dinld kelpfrshas 1 - - - - - - - - - - 1 2.5 Abactosdon nobllis white saabass - - - - - - - - - - Mepffefafrris ondrdabrs CaMomla corbina - - - - - - - - - - - CilharichUrys sortidus Pacific sarxidab - - - - - - - - Sw*oossyph-ptidrer Cafdomia sheephead - - - - - - • - - - _ _ SlanobrarhlusleuP*wars narthemlampiish - Gtherlchlhys spp. sanddabs - OcUes+or spp- . ca"fimes - - - - - - - - - Ubd5omidaa meld. labrisomid kellXshes - - - - - - - - - - - Hippogfosdna sfonrafa bigmouth sole Papn7us s/rrimmus Pacific butterfish - - - - - - - - - - - - - Pleuroneo6dae unid, flounders - - - - - - - - - Urnbdna rmcador yellowfin croaker - Pareflehfhyides unid. sanddabs 1 - - - - - 1 2.5 - - - Ruscadus creased rouchcheek sculpin 2 2 4.5 - - - - - - - - - - symphuWatdcauda Californtatonguefish - Alherfoops eftFrrs topsmelt - RhfaogabMps rYdrdsf buckeye gob) Dfaphus thefe Carffomia headlight fish fconano" J Appendix B-2.(Continued). Survey.27(continued) D2 D4 02 04 U2 U4 Start Date: 04105M Sample Count a a e 8 a a Survey Mean Mean Mean Mean Mein Mean �~ Taxon Common Name Gourd Gourd Cone Coved Cone Count Cone Gourd Cone Count Cone Ce>tmt Cone # Atherinidae unid_ silvenddee Haemulidee grunts Aferlacdos productus Pacific hake Ebumeus feres round herring Hallchoeras wa idncfus rock wrasse l Lythwm-spp. goblas Meckaluna caMomian.sls halfmoon Sebesfes spp.V rarkWies - - - - Syngnalhus spp_ pfpefishes 1 1 2.7 i Clevetanda/as amnr goby - - - - - - Gobiesax rhessodon Celitomis engfish Hexagrammidae unid, greenlingS f lt K br(da ae sea chubs t,ebrtdae wras9es Mydophldae unid, larrlemrimhes Ox)iebfvspictus painledgreenling Sebastes spp. rockfishes - - - - - - Sebastes spp.V D rodduhes Syngnafhus leploetipict—. bay R�sh - - - - - - - - - Ani ofran=dovk1sonit cargo Arredus latemU smodhhead sculpin Arfedrus spp. sculpins Adorhyrickis flavidus lubesnoert - - - - - - Chaenopsidae unid, tube blennies Clupeitorrnes herrings and anchovies Cottidae unid. sculpins Glrella rugdcons opaicye 7 Gobiesoddae unid. dingrishes - Olfgocotlus i ClinocaHus sculpins Pamph"WOW English We { Pleuronectifonnes unid, ifatfishes 1 - 1 2.3 - - !r PomacerAridae dan4sefthes Soombddae unid, mackerels S tunas Scorpaemchthys manroomWs cabezon Scorpeenidne soarpionfishes Sebastes spp.VD McIdishes Zaniolepis spp. cembfishes 1 - - 1 2.5 _ tnverfebrates Emerifsanaloge(urea) molecrab 1,059 32 78,9 98 218.1 42 92.7 48 132-D liB 175-6 773 2.006.4 Cancergradfis(meg.) slendercrab - - - - - - - Cancerantannadus(meg.) brown rode crab CanceranUxh*(meg.) yalk)W crab 5 Ca—Slip.(nw,) cancer warn 1 - - - 1 2.1 Canceraragonsis(zoea V) pygmy rode cmb Caneerprodad-(meg,) red rock crab Pondlrus Interru tus California spiny lobster Total: 1.429 71 134 l33 t f 3 139 889 r. Appendix 8-2. (Continued). Survey;31 stations 02 04 02 _ 04 U2 U4 Staff.Onto, 05103iO4 Sample Caunt 8 a B 8 8 a Survey Mean Mean Been Mean Mean Mean Taxon Common Hama Count Count Cone Court Cone Count Cone Count Cone Count Cone count Cone Gobildae unld, gobics 491 90 250.1 92 245,4 10 24,0 1 2.2 86 209.6 212 578.1 EngrauffsmordaX northern anchovy 337 2a 71.1 30 76.7 .40 1022 19 48.5 99 253.9 121 328,9 Sadpnuspo6fus queenfish 2 - - 1 2.3 1 2A - - - - - - Genyonemuslinearus white croaker 361 24 62.6 28 74.6 110 265,0 59 157.2 53 126.6 87242.2 Saaenidae unid. croaker 59 12 30.7 3 7.6 11 28.3 12 29.7 12 31.5 9 25.4 Pamichoys caffomrcrs California halibut 25 2 5.3 4 10.2 4 9.3 9 24.1 2 4.9 4 10.6 Hypsobtennlus app. blennies 11 2 4.8 - - - - 3 7.9 2 4.7 4 11.3 Pargtabrax spp. sand haas - - - - - - - - - - - - Parafabrax dathratus kelp bass - - - - - - - - Arherinopsis c0femreng$ jacksmelb 75 9 24.5 5 11.8 4 10.0 3 a.2 45 108.6 9 24.1 Mrwrifs punctfpinnis blacksmith - - - - - - - - larvae,unidentified yolksac larvae 23 2 4.9 6 14,5 6 16.0 4 10.7 5 12.6 Sphyraena argentea Celifomta barracuda - - - Serdnops sagax Pacific sardine - - - - - - - - - - Hypsopserts gurfurate diamond turbot 10 4 10.7 - 1 22 1 2.6 4 10.8 CBharldrfhysskgmaeus apackiedsanddab 5 - - 1 2.7 2 4.7 1 2.9 1 22 - - Engmulkbas anmhovies 4 1 2.4 1 2.7 - - 2 5.2 - - - Lepfdogobfus lep?dus bay goby 14 3 T3 1 2.2 5 12.5 1 2.8 2 4.7 2 5.2 larval rash fragment unidentified larval fishes 10 2 5.5 - - - - 4 10.8 2 4.7 2 6.7 Leurestlhes fenuis Caldomia grunion - - - - - - - - - - - - Preuronlchthys naeri spotted turbot 2 - - 1 2.4 1 .2.6 PiecrWichrhys verticaffs homyhead turbot t - - - - - - 1 2.8 Oph1dion scdppsae basketweave tusk--M - - - - - - - - - - - - Chalfotrama safumum black croaker 9 2 6.0 1 2.3 2 5.4 3 7.5 1 2.2 r TyphfogoWus coMbryvensis blind goby - - - - - - - - - - - - ! Oxy/ufs ta&rumko senorfla 2 - - - - 1 2.2 1 2.S - - - - f?orresdorsteemsl spotfin emu ker 7 2 4.8 1 2.5 1 2.7 - - 2 5.0 1 3.0 Xenls5uscaffiuierWs ealems - - - - - - - - - - Atherinopsidee aSvemide 14 5 13,9 - - 3 8,0 - - 2 4.9 4 10.2 tarvaflpost4arval fish unld_ larval fishes 1 - - - - - - - 1 2.5 - - Hypsoblennius jenidnsi mussel btenny - - - - - - - - - 11yjwus gFberff dieekspat goby 13 2 4.8 5 11.7 - - - - 4 10.3 2 SA Ophidrdaeunid. cuak-eels - - - - - - - - - - G!&drthysadrablBs longiawmudsucker 7 4 11.8 1 2.7 1 2.1 - - 1 2.6 - Pieumnfrhthys app. turbots 3 1 2.2 - - 1 2.1 - 1 2.8 Icefrnus W, sculpins 5 - - - - 5 11.6 - - - - Leptecofrus armatus Pacific staghom sculpin - - - - - - - - - - AcendxwWus Aavfmanus yellawfin goby 1 1 27 - - - - - - - - - 1 Hypsypops rubtcundus garlbaldi - - - - - - - - Xysrreurys ffolepis fantail sate - - - - - - - - - - - - Tdphotunrs mexrcanus Mexican lampfrsh - - - - - - QbborWa spp. cinld kelpfishes 13 2 5.5 4 10.1 1 2.1 1 2.5 2 4.9 3 9.0 Abadosdan MWBs white seabass - - - - - - - - - -Man tidMwstmdu(9fus CalCamlacorbha - - - - - - - - Ckhadchtbys sonMus Paciric sanddab - - - - - - - - - - - - - Semfcossyphuspurerrer Califamiasheephead - - - - - - - - - - Stenobmcwus Ierrcopsams northem lampfish 4 - - 1 3.1 1 2.6 - - - - 2 .4.8 cimarichthys$pp. sanddebs - - - - - - - - - - - Goblasox app. dingfishes 1 1 IS - - - - - - - - Labnsomldae unld. labrlsomld kelpfthes - - - - - - - - - - - - Hlppogfmssfna stomata bigmouth sale - - - - - - - - - - Paprffus sfrn INOW Pacific butterfish - - - - - - - - - Pleumnecwae unid. flounders - - - - - - - - - - - Lrmbrina rtmeadar yeaowfin croaker - - - - - - - - - - - - - Paralichthyidae unid. sanddabs - - - - - - - - - - - - Ruscerfuscreased rouchcheek eculpin - Symptwnis Oftuds Callfomla tornguefish - Afherinops allirds topsmeH - - - - - - - - - - - - RNnogabfops nfdrWsf blackeye goby - - - - - - - - - Dlaphus owfa California headlight fish 1 - - 1 2.9 - {corrfrrwedl f . i Appendix B-2.(Continued). C' Survey:31(continued) Stations D2 D4 02 ; C64 U2 U4 Start Date; 015103104 Sample Count 8 a a 8 8 6 Survey Mean Mean Mean Mean Mein Mean Taxon Common Name Corm Courd Cone Count Cone Covert Cone Count Conc Count Corr Count Conc Atherinidae unid. silversides - - - - - - - - - - - Heemulidae grunts - - - - - - - - - - - - Merlucdus produclus Paci is hake - - - - - - - - - - Ehumeus Ceres round haring - - - - - - - - - - - - fda6choems semicirxtrrs rock wrasse - - - - - - - - - Iythrypnus sop. gobles Meddaluna caffromiensis haNmoon - - - - - - - - - - - Sebaslas spp.V rockfishes - - - - - - - - - - Syrgnafhus spp_ pipefishes - - - - - - - - - - - Oevelancfa ios arrow goby 2 - 1 3.1 - - 1 2-7 - - Goblesox rhessodon CaWomla dingtish - - - - - - - - - - - Hexagrammldee unid_ greenlings 1 - - - - - 1 2.7 - - - Kyphosidee sea chubs - - - - - - - - - . Lebridae wrasses - - - - - - - - - - - Myctophtdae unid, lantemfinhes - - - - - - - - Oxyrebiuspdctus painted Greenling - - - - - - - - - - t~, Sebasles spp, rockfishes - sebesies spp.V_D rockfishes - - - - - - - - - - - - - Syng-thas leplwhyrrchus bay pipefish - - - - - - - - - - - Ardsotreaus davddsonll sargo - - - - - - - - - - ArfedFuslafeB6s smoothhead scuiptn 1 1 3.4 Arradus app. scuipins - - - - - - - - t•; Aulomynrhus ffavidus tubesnout - - - - - - - - - - - Chaenopsidaa unid. tube blennies - - - - - - - - - - - Ctupe7dormes herrings and anchovies - - - - - - - - - - CoWdee unid- =Ipins - - - - - - - - Gleelle,ndgwans opaleye - - - - - - - - - - - - - Gobiesocidae unid. dingfishes ollgooms 1 Cllnoconus sculpins 1 - - - - - - 1 2.7 - - - - Parophrys vefrrdus English sole 1 - - - 1 2.8 - - - PleurDnectiformes unid. flarFishes - - - - Pomecentridae damse}fishes - - - - Scombridae unid. madkereis 8 tunas - - - - - - - - Scorpaenldrfhys mamroralus cahezon - - - - - - - - - - Scorpsenidas scorpionfishes Sebasres epp.VD rockfishes Zanrolepks spp, combhshes - - - r lrrvertebratas Emedls analogs(zoea) mole crab 398 9 25.1 49 122.4 24 64.1 12 31.3 213 547.9 81 242.2 Canter grdoddrs(meg_) slender crab 2 - - - - - - 1 2.9 1 2.7 - - Cancer antennadus(meg.) brawn rock crab 2 - - - - 1 2.6 - - 1 21 - - Cenceranihonyi(meg.) yellow crab - - - - • _ _ _ _ _ Cancer spp.(neg.) cancer crabs - - Cancercregonsis(zoea V) pygmy rock curb - - Cancer productus(meg.) red rock crab - - Panulims lnhmrpfus California spiny lobster - - Totaf: 1.909 209 229 230 148 544 549 d . f • Appendix S-2. (Continued). survay:35 Stations D2 04 02 _ 04 92 ll4 Stunt Date: 06/01/04 Sample Count a 8 8 a a 8 I Survey Moan ibon Wan Allan Mann - Mean Taxon Common Name Court Corot Conc Court Cone count Cane Count Cone Count Cone Court Cone Gobiidae unid, gobies 245 100 297.0 56 149.0 4 10.6 2 5.0 59 161,4 24 64.2 Engrautis morliar northern anchovy 643 75 216.0 37 97.0 149 409.4 104 301.2 146 435.5 132 350.9 Seriphuspolitus queenfish 3 - - - - - - 2 6.0 - 1 2.4 Genyorremus Gneafus wftile croaker 59 3 8.6 1 2,5 37 104.6 13 34.5 - 5 12-8 Saaenidae unid. croaker 13 2 5.7 2 5.4 - - 1 2.4 7 19.1 1 2,7 Pandichibys calif imiuu Califorrda halibut 34 2 6.0 1 2.4 9 23.9 21 61.5 - - 1 2.5 Hypsobiennfus Opp. blennies 45 2 5.8 6 14.8 - - 16 44.0 9 26,0 12 32.2 Pararsbrar spp. sand bass - - - - - - - - Perafatimirdathratus kelp bass - - - - - - - - - Atherinopsfs ca&lomiensis jacksmelt 32 2 6.3 6 16.3 - - - - 22 60,4 2 5,7 Chromis puncopinnis blacksmith - - - - - lenres,unidentified yolksac larvae 3 1 2.5 1 2.4 - - - t 2.8 Sphyreenawyenfea Cali WrIabanaeuda - Sardnops sager Pacific sardine Hypsopsede gutfufafa diamond turbot - - - - - - CifharidrOhys s9gmaeus speckled sanddab 7 - - - - - 7 22.4 - - r Engraulidee anchovies 38 1 2.5 8 20.7 5 128 18 49.3 1 3.4 5 13-1 Lepfdogobius fepidvs bay goby 4 - 1 2,9 3 7.2 - - - - larval fish fragment. unidenifed lar.-A fishes 2 1 2.5 - - 1 2.4 - - Leuresfhes rendds Carl Wria grunion fib 49141.0 1 27 - - - - 3 9.1 13 34-2 Pfeuronlchfhys rfiterf spotted turbot 4 - - - 2 5.5 2 5.0 - - - - Pfeuronichlhys vedc8iis homyhead turbot 3 - - - 1 2.9 2 5.0 - - - - Ophidion sdfppsae basketweave cask-eef - - - - - - - - - - Cheliotrems satumum btndd poaker 5 2 5.3 1 24 - - 2 7.0 - - - - Typhlogotdus catifomiensfs blind goby 6 • - - - 1 U 1 2.6 - - d 10.3 OXdL&s`caldb[Wca senorita 1 - - - - 1 2.5 - - - - Roncadarsteamisl spotfin croaker - - - - - - - - - - Xerds6us rafiWansfs salema - - - - - - - - - - Athednopsidas silverside 16 3 8.2 5 13,4 - - 2 5-8 6 16.0 larvatlposl4anral fish unid, larval fishes 6 3 8.3 2 5.1 - - - 1 2.5 - HypsWe-nnfuSjofIWnsl mussel blenny - - - - - - - - - - - ilypnus g"berff cheekspot goby - - - - - - - - - Ophldirdeaunid. cask-eels - - - - - - - - - Gr7 CNhys ndrabi6s longjaw mudsucker 1 - - - 1 29 - _ _ Pfeuronfchthys Opp, tutbats 5 - - 1 2.7 - 3 7.6 - - 1 2.5 lceanus Opp- scrlpins 2 - - - - - 2 5,0 - - - - Leplocatfus armeltrs Pacific staghom sculpin - - - - - - - - AcenfhogoWus Aavimsnus yellowfm goby - - - - - - - - - - f Hypsypops ruNcun tus garibaidt 5 2 5.1 2 5.3 - - t 2.7 ! Xystrewys9010s fartfell sde - - - - - TrfphohuusrnexAMUs Maidcan lampflsh - - - - - - - - Gr'bbonsm app. diridkelprishes - - - - - - - - - Atracfos6on notx7rs white sesbeas 2 - - - 1 29 - - 1 2,7 Afenbdrrhrss UwWatus CeBfwrda corbina - - - - - - - - - - - - . Cidtaddiftrys sofackrs Pacific sanddeb - - - - - - - - semoossyphus puldrer CsObniie sheephead 1 - - - - 1 2.4 - - - $ferw&sc Nus feucopsanrs northern Iamptlstl - - - - - - - - - Ciftdchfhys spp. sanddaba - - - - - - - - - - - Gobtesax Opp. dingfishes - - - - - - - - Labrfsomidas urdd, labdsomld ketpfishes - - - - - - - - - - - Hippogiossins stomate bigmouth ado - - - - - - - - - - - - Pepdus simfmmos PWiie butterfish - - - - - - - - - - - Ptetrronectidoe unid. flounders - - - - - - - - - - - tlmbvins roncedor yellowfin croaker 1 1 2.5 - - - - - - - - ParalieMhyidae urdd. sanddabs - - - - - - - - - - - - RusCartus creased fouchcheek scuipin - - - - - - - Syfhpfwrus atricauda Califamfa longuerish • - - - - - - - - - - Atf* hops affinis topsmeh 5 - - - - - - - - 5 14.2 Rhlnogoblops niaholsl bladteye 00by - - - - - - - - - - Dia^3 theta California head0ght fish 1 - 1 2.5 - (cantlnued) y. r, Appendix B-2. (Continued). i Survey:36(continued) Stations M D4 02 04 U2 U4 Startoata: 06101104 Sample Count 8 8 8 - a 8 8 r- ' Survey Mann Clean Mann Mean Paean Mean . TSxon Common Name Court Courd Cori Count Cori Courd Conc Count Cone Courd Conc Court Cone Atherinidae unid_ silversides - - - - - - - - Haemulldae grunts - - - - - Maducdus prvdudus Pacific hake - - Etrumeus ferns round herring - - - - Ha(rchoems sem drrctus rock wrasse - - - - - Lythrypnus spp. gobies - Me&aluna calihomlensls haltmoon - - - - - - - r Sebasles epp.V rock fishes - - - - - Syngnatturs app. pipefishes 1 1 2.6 - - Clevelaacla ios anow goby - Gobiesox fiessodm California dingfish - - - - - - - - HaxBgrommldae rand. greenAngs - - - - - Kyphasldae sea chubs - - - - - Labddae morasses - - - - - - Myctophldee unid. lanlemrrshes - - - Oryiebius pidus painted greenling - - - - - - Sebastas spp. rock lshes - - - - - - - - sebas?es epp.N D rocKiishes - - - - - - - Syngnathus leptorhWchus bey pipefish. 2 1 3.3 1 2.9 - - - Anlsafrarrrus davidsantl sargo - - - - - - - - Arfedus laterars amWhhead sc:ulpin - - - - - - Adedus spp. eatpins - Aukvhyrxhus Aavidus tubesnout - Chaenopsidae unid. tube bfennies - - - - - - - - - - Clupedormes herrings and ancluMee - - - - - - - - - ( Cottfdea unid. =Upins - - - - - - - - 4 Girella nigricans apeleye - - - - - - - 1 Gobi�aadae unid. dingfishes 1 1 3.0 Oligo=ffus!Cllnocous sculpins - - - - - - - - - - - Paroph"vehdus English sole - ( Pleurvnectiformes unid. 6aMishes - - - - - - - - - - - iPamacentridae damselfishes - Scombddae unid. mackerels&tunas Scarpaentrhthys rrremwralus cabezon - - - - - - - Seorpaenldae scorplorffishes - Sebastes spp.VD rockfishes - - - - - - - - - - zadotepws spp. combfishes - lnvertabratas Emerr7a analoga(zoea) male cab 1.747 10 26.7 112 269.4 22 61.2 112 303.6 285 909.6 1.206'3.113A Cartrargradris(meg.) Blender cab 28 1 2.8 9 23.1 12 32.0 1 2.5 1 3.4 4 11.2 Canceranlennadus(meg.) brown rock crab 24 4 11.6 4 10.8 10 27.1 4 11.1 1 2.5 1 2.7 Canceranmanyi(meg.) yeuow crab 6 - - - 2 5.5 - - 3 9.5 1 2.5 Cencer spp.(Meg.) cancer crabs - - - - - - - Canceroregonsls(zoes V) pygmy rock crab - - - - - - CancarpMductus(mag.) red rock cab - rani grus interrupfus CaOfarnia spiny tobstef Totak 3.067 265 255 259 320 542 1.426 l E Appendix 8-2.(Continued). Survvy:41 Stations D2 D4 02 04 U2 U4 Startbate: 07112f04 Sample Count 8 a a .8 8 8 Surrey Mears Mean Mean Mean Mean Mean Taxon Common Name Courd court' Cone Count Cone Court Cane Count Cane Count Cone Count Cons Gobildae unid, gobfes 269 87239.2 111 287.8 19 45.9 3 8.9 44 114,8 5 132 Engmuffsmordax northern anchovy 332 58 162.5 47 120.0 40 105.6 78 214.4 4D 1D6.8 69 154.8 sedphus pORUS queenfish 230 57 155.0 07 232.2 3 7.8 5 13.1 39 1035 39 100,9 ; Genyonemtr36neafus white croaker 1s - - - 8 21.7 11 29.2 - - - - Sdaenidae unid, croaker 20 - - 1 2.6 2 5.4 13 35.2 1 32 3 9.2 ParREMMys carrfomicus California halibut 34 1 2.9 2 5.6 3 7.9 22 50.3 6 15.7 - - Hypsoblennfus app. hlenniss 75 16 40.7 5 126 27 742 8 21.8 12 30.2 7 18,4 Parafabrax spp. send bass 15 1 2.9 - 2 5.9 9 24.4 - 3 8.8 Parefebmdalhrafus kelp bass 22 - - - - 3 8.1 14 51.5 - - - - Atherinopsfs ca6fomiensfs jacksmelt - - - - - - - - - - - ChramispuncWnnls blacksmith 4 - - - - 2 5.0 1 2.5 - - 1 2.5 larvae,unidentified yolksec larvae 21 1 3.0 - - 3 8.8 10 25.5 1 2.2 6 16.7 Spbyraena argentea California barracuda 3 2 5.6 1 2.9 - - - - - - - sarrffnops Sagan Pacific sardine - - - - - - Hypsopsetts gnitulala dlemend turbot - - - - - - Cffbarfchfhys xffVmaeus speckled sanddab 13 - - - _ 1 2.7 12 30.0 - - - - Engraulldae anchovies 15 2 6.0 - - 2 5.5 9 24.5 - - 2 5.8 LepldogoDn+S lepfdus bay goby 20 - - - 8 21.0 12 32.0 - - - larval fish fragment unidentified larval fishes a 1 2.9 3 7.9 - - - - - 2 5.3 2 5.0 Lwmsdtes tennis CalQomla grunion - - - - - - - - - - - `I PleumnichMys rifled spotted turbot 8 1 2.8 - 3 7.4 4 10.4 - - - - 1 Pleuronichfts verticals homyhead turbot 13 - -. - - 6 16.3 6 16.0 1 2.2 - - 111 Ophfdon sufppsaa basketweave cusk-eel - - - - - - - - _ - - OW10trerna satumum blechcraaker. 18 5 12.2 3 7.9 4 11.1 - - 4 10.8 t TyphfogWus cafffomlensis blind goby 1 - - - 1 2.8 - - - - - - {!I OxWub caFfomka senorita 18 - - 1 2.7 2 5,5 11 30.9 - - 4 12,2 ROncedaraleamsl ,spotrut croaker 3 1 2.4 1 22 - - _ 1 2.9 Xerdsluseatiforfenss saiema 4 - _ _ - - - 4 11.0 - - - - Atherinopsidae sllvembde 2 - - 1 2.6 - - 1 2.9 - - larval/post4arval fish unld. larval fishes 1 - - - - - - - - - 1 2.5 Hypsoblennfusienidnsf mussel blenny 2 - - 1 2.8 - - 1 2.6 - - - - 11"Mus gibed cheekepot goby - - - - - - - - - - - Ophid-ndas unid, tusk-aels - - - - - Gfafdrthys mlrabibs longlaw mudsucker 2 1 3.0 1 2.7 Pleuranlchfhys app. turbots 3 - - - - - - 3 T.6 - - - - keinus app. sculpins 17 - - - - 1 2.5 16 41.1 - - - - Leplocotlus armatus Pacific staghom scrrlpin - - - - - - - - - - - - - Acsnf xWWus ffavlmanus yen oyAn goby - - - - - - - - - - - Hypsypopsrubfcundus garibaldi 14 3 7.1 4 10.4 2 5.5. - 4 9.0 1 2.9 Xystnaurys lolaos fantail sole - - - - - - - - - - - - - Tdphofums rnexlCanus Mardean fampfish 12 - - t 2.a 3 8.2 7 18.7 - - 1 2.8 Gibbonsfa spp. dinki kelpfishes - - - - - - - - - - - Abactosdon nobfffs white seabass 9 2 5.1 - - - - 7 18.3 - - - Mentiprrhus uriduletu5 California corbina 7 - - - - 3 8.3 2 5.2 - - 2 5,3 Gfherlchlhyssorddus Pacific sanddab 1 - - - - - - 1 2.5 - - - Samicnssyphus pukher California sheephead - - - - - - - - - - - Sterx0m hfus leucopsarus northern lamplisn - - Cllharid4tby3 Epp. sanddabs - - - - - - - - - - - - GoWesax spp, dingfrshes 6 - - - - 1 2.5 - - 1 2.8 4 10.5 Labrfsomidae unid. labriaomld kelpfishes 4 - - - - - - - 4 11.0 - - ffippopfassne sfomate blgmouth sole 1 - 1 2.7 - - - - - Peprflus slnYhimus Pacific butterfish - - - - - - - - - - - Pleuronectidee unid. flounders 1 - - 1 2.6 - - - - Umbdna roncador yellowfin croaker - 2 - - - - 1 2.7 1 2.7 - - - Paralk hthydne unid. sanddabs - - - - - - - - - - - Ruscadfuscreased mudldteeksculpin - - - - - - - - - Symptarrrusabicauda Cal ifamlatonguefish - - - - - - - - - - - AtherinopsaAfrtfs topsmelt - - - - - - - - - - - Rhfnogoofops nkaholsl blackeye goby 1 - - - - 1 2.6 - - - - - - Diaphrrs theta Cal'domia headlight fish 3 1 2.7 2 5.3 (conllnued) r ' Appendix B-2.(Continued). ' Survey'41(continued) stations 02 04 02 04 U2 L14 Start.Data: 07112104 Sample Count 9 8 8 - 8 8 a r- sravOy Mean Mun Moon Mean Mean Wan fTexorr Common Home Count Count cone Count cone Counr cone Coot come count Cone count cone L Atheriridae tnki. sllvereldes - - - - - - - - - - - Haerttr4kias gums 3 - - - - 1 3.2 2 5.1 - - MerruCdus productus Pacific hake Ebtmeus tares round herring - - - - - - 1 Malichoerw semlclnctus rock wrasse - - - - - - - - - - Lythrypnus spp. gobies - - - - Modaluna califomlerrsis haffmoon - - - - - - - - Sebastes spp.V rocld'ahea - - - - - - - - - Syngnathus spp_ pipefikea Clevelan6g los arrow potty+ - - - - - - - - - Gobfamfhessodon Californiaclin�ish - - - - - - - - f Hexagrammidae unid, geenlings - - - - - - - - - I KyphcWdae sea ctube - - - Il Labddae wmsses Myclophidae unid. tartern ishes 1 - - - 1 2.6 oxytebfus pkhrs painted greenling - - - - - - - Sebastes spp. rockfishes SebaVes spp.V D rockfishes Syngrrathus teptorhynchus lay plpefish - - - - - - - Anlsormmusdavldscmil ssrgo - - - - - - - - - Arrediusteferdlis srnoothhead=Apin - - - - - - Artadlus spp. sculpire - - - - - Aedarhyncht s ffavidus tubesnout Cheenopaidae tnki tube biennies - - - - - - - - Clupetformes herrings and anchovies - - Codidae uric sculpins 1 1 2-7 i Girslla nlg6um opaTem Goblesoc lac unid congfishea - - - - - - - - - 011gocottus/0inocotlus swiping - - - - - - - - - { Pleuronec verme English cola - - - - - - [! Pleuroneetiformee urrld. twftlres Pornaeerilddae damseirl"s Scombridae unid. mackerels&Ihutaa - Scapaadchfhys marnxvatus cabezorr Sompaeridaa seorplonfishes - - - - - - - - - - Sebaslas spp.VD rockfishes - - - - - - - - Zaniofepfs spp. combfishes lnyorrobraros Pmertts analoga(toes) meae crab 428 237 619.7 78 168.3 - - 2 4.9 89244.9 22 58-0 ll Canaergra ft(meg.) alendercrab 47 2 5.8 4 10.8 11 29.2 7 19.2 15 42.0 9 23.2 Cancer anforrrarius(meg.) brown rock gab 33 2 5.6 5 13.4 9 23.9 5 13.3 5 14,3 7 19.8 Censer-M-jl(rneg,) yellow crab 60 13 36.7 8 21.3 9 23.9 7 18.8 17 46.6 6 188 6 Camay spp,(rrreg.) cancercrabs 2 - - 1, 2e - 1 2.5 - - - Cancer aegonsis(zoee V) pfgrny rock crab - - - - Cancer proot►etas (rneg.) red rock crab 1 - - - 1 2.8 - - - PanEthn lnfern plus California spiry lobster - - - -_ - - - - - - - - Total. 1,827 493 366 180 306 264 198 L f r Appendix B-2. (Continued). Survey:45 autiona 02 W 02 04 UZ Start Data: 08131/84 Semple Count 8 8 8 8 8 8 Srravvj YMn mean rMfl r.an wan Mean Taxon Con, 91 Name Corot Count can court cone Count Conc Count Cone Count Canc Count Canc Gobfidaa unid. gobles 823 162 462.0 412 1.177.3 26 75.5 - 54 157.8 159 44&0 BVrauks mordex northern and wy 114 13 35.3 15 42.7 29 8&1 24 63.2 19 •49.9 14 4117 SedphusPoales queenfish 1.023 133 351.2 r4118 1.151.7 100 289.0 104 274,9 73 180.8 205 560.6 Gan)onemus lineatus whits croaker 259 - . 118 345.8 132 367.9 9 25.3 - - Sdeenidaeunld. croaker 402 25 68.3 6 10.3 108 304,7 133 379,9 44 105.7 88 261.2 parawthys califomicus California halibut 251 7 21.8 3 8.8 50 137.2 147 408.1 27 5tL9 17 43.5 hWsoblennius spp. blennies 142 7 21.2 2 6.7 28 97.5 66 180,3 13 23.4 26 77.4 parslebrax spp. sand bass 212 10 27.9 2 6.6 50 149.0 116 315.2 14 28.6 18 53.2 Paralabrax dathrefus kelp bass 151 4 14.8 1 3.0 33 99.3 95 277,6 11 26.6 7 21.7 Al wirwas caldrarniensis iacksmeh - - - - - - - Chromis pum0pfnnls btedwmllh IQ - - - - 5 11.2 158 361.3 - - 1 3.0 larvae,unldendied yaiksac larvae 106 3 8.4 2 5.7 42 101.8 22 60.2 12 1a.8 25 72-2 Sphyr-aena am-too California barracuda 142 4 15.1 - - 32 95.2 98 258.0 4 10.8 4 9.8 Samunops sagax Pacific sardine 143 - - - 33 94.4 86 241,9 11 29.4 13 36.2 Fypsnp.ette gr ttulafa diamond turbot 17 4 11.3 2 5.3 3 7.6 2 62 2 3.5 4 9.8 CAhanchlhys stigmawa speckled sanddab 47 - - - - 4 9.8 40 112.6 1 3.5 2 4.4 EngratAdae anchovies 3 1 2.5 1 3.6 - - 1 2.8 - - LePldogobius Wdus bay Golly - - - - - . larval fish fragment unidenbred larval fshes 41 2 5.0 2 5.1 9 23.9 16 45.4 12 22.6 - - Leuruslhes MOWS California grunlon 4 1 2.5 1 3.2 - - 2. 5.4 - - 1 Pfeumnkhthys 177fed spotted turbot 46 2 6.9 - 11 27.7 25 66.6 3 5.2 5 lie Pleurarrkhthys veftalls homyhead turbot 31 - 6 17.2 22 59.4 1 2.1 2 5.0 ophldicrn scrwppsae baskehYewe tusk-eet 63 - - - 7 21.4 55 145,7 1 1.4 cAedoberna salumum black croaker 19 1 2.8 3 a.7 5 13.7 4 11.9 3 5.2 3 8.6 TyphiogoWuscafrfamiansis blind goby - - - - Ox&AScali&xnics senorita 29 1 2.8 2 5.2 4 12.7 17 43.3 2 4.7 3 8.3 Ponca"sfeamd spotfin croaker 40 6 19.9 3 8,5 1 1.6 1 2.9 13 30.1 16 39.8 Xenlsfiuscamorrensls salema 46 - - - 24 72.6 19 56.3 2 5.1 1 3.0 Anwrinopsldae silverside - - - - - - - - - - - tarvallposl-larval fish unid, larval fishes 11 2 5.0 - - 8 24.5 1 3.2 Hypsobleaalusjenidnsl mussel bienny 34 1 2.5 - 6 15.3 23 55.9 2 5.0 2 5.0 liypnusgilb" Cheekspot goby - - - Ophidiidae unld. eusk-eels 38 3 8.1 - 10 23.2 19 58.1 1 2.1 3 8.7 each"nilrabilrs longjaw mudsucker - - - - - PkVronichihys spp. turbots 12 - - - 2 3.6 6 18.3 3 9.2 1 3.1 will"S sPP- sculpins - - - - - - - Leplocoffus armalus Pacific staghom sculpin - - - - - - - - - Aranlhopoblus Aavimanus yelkrwfnn goby - - - - - - - - fypsypcpsrubkwrtdus garibaldl 1 - - - - - - 1 2.5 hysfreurysAOWS fantail sole 19 - - - 7 16.3 7 19.3 2 5.7 3 7.6 rdphofums maxicanus Mead an lampfrsh 4 - 2 5.3 - - 2 5.1 - - - - Gibbonsia spp, clinid kelpfishes - - - - - - - - - Abadosciort nobifis white seabasa 1 - - - 1 1.8 - - - - - Menfidrrbus undulsfus Californla oorbina 7 - 1 2.9 - - - - - - 6 17.0 CVwzohMys skrdidus Padfic sanddab 3 - - - - - 3 7.3 - - - . Sendooa'syphuspukher California sheephead 12. - - - 5 13.0 7 15,8 - - - SforrobradAis Waoopsarus northern lampfish - - - - - - - - - - - G7harkhthys spp. eanddabs - - - - - - - - - - - - Gobkwr app. dingfrehe8 - - - - - - - - - - - Lsbrisomides unki. labrisomkf kelpWee 2 - 1 2.9 - - 1 2A - - - Hippogiassfna domala bigmouth sole 5 - - 2 6.0 3 8.6 - - - - Peprirus slmll6mus Pacific butterfish 7 - 1 3.0 6 19.1 - - - Pleuronecbdae unit. flounders - - - - - - - - - tknbdns roricador yelkmfin croaker 4 1 2.9 1 2.9 1 2.3 - - 1 2.8 Paralichthyidae unkl. sanddabs - - - - - - - - - Ruwaduscraased roudreheeksculpin - - - - - - Symphunls abicauda California tonguefrsh 6 - - 6 15.3 - - Alherincps alTnis topsmelt RhlnogoblopsnkWsl bladkeye goby 2 - - - - 2 5.7 - - - Ofsphus theta Colifomla headlight fish - - - - - (confinusdy Appendix B-2. (Continued). Survay:45(continued) Stations D2 04 02 04 U2 u4 Start0ats: 0=1104 Sample Count 8 8 a 8 e e - Surmy Mun Umn MNn Mean Mean Man Taxon Common Name Co+d taunt Cone Count Conc Cams Cone Covert Cone Count Cori Count Cant Atherinldaeunld, aliversides 4 - - 1 2.9 - 3 U - - F-• Haemulldee grunts i - - - - - 1 2.1 - ' Maduccfaspmduclus Pacific We - - - - - - Ehumeusteres round herttng 3 - - - 1 3.2 2 5,5 Naflahoeras semn cinclus rock wrasse 3 - - 1 3.2 2 6.2 - - - - Lythrypnus app. gobles - - - - - - - fttedfakwa califomands halfmoon 3 - - - 1 2.9 1 2.1 - - 1 2.5 - sabaslss epp.V roctdisbes Syr gnafhus epp- pipe Cleva ianWa Fos arrow gob) - - - - - - - - Gobiesau rhassodon California dingfrsh Hexagrammidae unid. greenlings - - - - - - Kyphaddae sea dubs 2 - - - 2 5-4 - - - Labridae WSW" 2 2 5.8 - - - - myctophldae unid, lanteral'shes - - - - - - Oxyfabiuspiclus painted greenling - - - - - - - - - Sabastes spp. roddrshes - - - - - - - sebastes spp.V O roewlshes - - - - - - - - - Syngna8hus lepforhyrtdrus bay pipefish - - - - - - - - Arllsobemus davfdsom7 sargo 1 - - - - - - 1 It Artedius leterells emoothhead sottlpin. - - - - - - - Adedius spp. scufpins - - - - - Aubmnyndtus flavkfus tubesnout t - - 7 2.7 - - - - - - Chaenopsldee unid_ tube blennles - - - - - - - - Clupedonnes herrings and anaht vies 1 - - - - 1 118 - - - - Catudaeunld- sculpin9 Girefia nigricans opaleye 1 1 3.3 Goblewcidae.unld. clingrishee - - - - - - - 1 0(igoccaus 1 Ciincoodus sculpins - - - - Pamphrys►olulus English sole - - - - - Pleuronediformes unid. natfishes - - - - Pomwmntridae damsetftshes - - - - - Scombridae unid. mackerels 8 tunas - - - - - - - Smrpawkhlhysmarmorafus cabeaon - - - - - - - - - - Scorpeenidae soorpionfishes - - - - - - - - - { Sebasfes spp.VD. rockfishes Ysniolepls spp. co mbfishes - - - fnverrrrbrafee Em-ffa—kva ( oDw) mole crab 239 3 10.6 - - 91 251.6 9 22.3 135 330.1 1 2-5 CenaargraWs(meg,) slender crab 11 1 3.0 1 2.9 2 5.8 3 8.6 4 91 - - Canceranfennarha(meg.) brwrn rock crab 23 1 2A 1 2.9 3 9.0 3 7.7 13 32-4 2 5.1 17. CancerenMwyf(meg.) yellavcrab 12 - - - 2 5.8 2 5.7 7 15.4 1 2.5 Cancer'epp.(meg.) cancercfebs - - - - - [ - - ancarcmgonsfs(2oea V) pygmy rock Drab Z - 2 5.7 Cancerprodudus(meg.) red rock cab - - - - AinuEr s urferrupfus Caldomia spiny lobster - - - - - Tri3l;4.791 397 872 870 .1.504 513 635 I i Appendix B-3. Estimated entrainment of HBGS entrainment target species by survey. CEO gobles northern anchovy spotfin croaker Days in Period Entrainment Period Entrainment Period Entrainment Survey pate Period Entrainment Std.Error Entrainment Std.Error Entrainment Std.Error HBSOOI W18/20M 19 9.763.905 6,961,B71 2,637,926 1,939.235 0 0 Has= 9129120M 12 4.942.612 3.115.340 1.902,173 1,522.446 0 0 HBS003 10113/20M 11 4,959.000 7.039,118 1.637,744 2,018.418 0 0 HBS004 10/2012003 10 2.042,279 2,349,529 1,459,738 2,490.356 0 D HBS005 11/32003 11 1,858,154 1.753,450 279,946 559,892 0 0 HBS006 11110/20M 7 34.621 69,243 417,603 404.931 0 0 HBS007 1111712003 7 2.506.595 3.467,022 345,362 471.093 0 0 HBSOOB 11124/2003 7 937.064 866,153 68,105 80.295 0 0 HSS009 12/112003, 7 1.780.282 2,377,385 105,454 125.473 0 0 HBS01O 121812003 7 359.485 457.961 322.292 295.1M 0 0 HBSO11 .1211512003 7 3.303.348 1.963,821 2,417,927 3,434.637 0 0 H8SO12 12/22/2003 7 1.783,140 2,128,965 152,890 205.972 0 0 H9SO13 12/2912003 7 1.559.717 763,133 379,870 581,588 0 0 H3SO14 IM004 7 1.232.451 1.579,086 149,928 210,800 0 0 HBSOiS 1/12/2004 7 1.436.569 1.177.765 75,086 150,172 0 0 HBS016 111=004 7 1.054,365 1.047,181 186,833 230.674 0 0 HBS017 1/26/2004 7 2,889.116 1,226,888 33,218 66,435 0 0 HBS016 2IV2004 7 182.559 267.950 0 0 O 0 HBS019 .=12004 7 562.313 382.491 34,337 65.674 0 0 HBSOZO 2/17/2004 7 249.875 217.548 72.535 84.274 0 0 HBS021 223/2004 8 4,333.117 7.624.209 0 0 0 0 HBS022 WN2004 7 101.125 0 O 0 0 i HBS023 3IW2004 6 1.578.937 1.577.955 386.427 616,148 0 0 HBS024 3/152OD4 7 3.323.459 1.942,136 470,690 551,490 0 0 HBS025 3222OD4 10 2,577.297 1.716,506 1.322,35.4 1,568,970 0 0 HBS027 4IW2004 11 1.641.550 1.962,205 761,978 1,028,047 0 0 HBS028 4/122004 7 461.735 537,881 596.744 501.731 0 0 HBS029 4/192004 5 1.554.005 1.621.313 842,925 451.615 0 0 HBS030 4232004 7 40.499 70.146 695,085 650,71S 0 0 HBS031 51.3/2004 7 4.943.840 2.929.025 2.541,328 2.527,280 64,409 74,431 HBS032 5l7INN 7 2,574,053 2.453,940 938,986 595,791 0 0 HBS033 5/172004 9 1.614.503 1.976,404 1,197.871 624.159 315,526 215,sm HBS034 51242004 7 680.326 366.737 2.409,481 2.238,136 359.224 171,155 HBS035 6/1/2004 7 996.027 767,680 4.993,619 6,324,286 0 0 HBS036 8/7/2004 7 318.403 313,128 143,152 118,181 0 0 HBS037 611412004 7 1,236.673 1,060,869 2.256,271 1.149,322 794,500 726.474 HB5038 6121/2004 7 1.879.662 1.193,451 3,114.339 2,827,049 0 0 14BS030 6/28/2004 7 1.623.829 2,261,321 3,303,709 2,669,029 60,830 121,660 HBSO40 7162004 7 6,583.673 4.467.024 570,1D5 399,564 5,464,332 6,178,803 HBSO41 7/12/2004 7 5,758.655 7.215,016 2,583,753 2.359,182 0 O HBSO42 7/192004 7 4.016.185 5,722,304 1.603,501 1,939,648 0 0 HBSO43 726/2004 18 6.835,516 3,183,680 8,326.402 7,846,825 282,947 '370.068 HBSO44 824/2004 18 9,915.429 1.879.568 1.614,609 2.343,448 62.317,931 35.251.477 HBSO45 EM112004 8 5.080.879 2.264,615 996,937 1.290.573 41,890 83.780 113.166,833 54,349,021 69,701,599 Appendix B-3. (Continued). queenFieh white croaker black cracker Days in Period Entrainmant Parlad Entminment Period Entrainment Survey Date Period Entrainment Std.Error Entrainmont Std.Error Entrainment SSd.Error H8S001 9/18/2003 19 0 0 621.719 1.001,194 87,422 174,845 H13SO02 9129/2003 12 0 0 446,570 488.034 0 0 y HBSDO3 10113120M 11 0 0 236,706 354.742 0 0 F HBS004 102012003 10 0 0 306.897 379,484 0 O .• HBS005 1 U32003 11 0 b 63,669 127,338 0 0 HBS006 1111012003 7 0 0 69.941 50,769 0 0 HBS007 11117120D3 7 0 0 5011,417 314,563 0 0 HB5D08 112412003 7 0 0 582.951 539,511 0 0 [ HBS009 12/12003 7 0 0 173.834 347,668 0 0 HBS010 12/8/2003 7 0 0 360.166 630,777 0 0 HBSO11 121152003 7 0 0 1,123,540 893,076 0 0 { HBS012 12n2/2003 7 0 0 114.657 229.314 0 0 f HBS013 12292003 7 0 0 32.042 64,085 0 0 HSS014 M20D4 7 0 0 260,532 482.330 0 0 HaSO15 1112/2004 7 D 0 827,911 1.552,401 0 0 HSS016 V19/2004 7 0 0 1.268,216 295,474 0 0 HBS017 1/26/2004 7 0 0 379,601 466,112 0 0 "BSO18 2212004 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 HBS019 2/9/2004 7 0 0 208,937 233,414 0 0 HBS020 2/1712004 7 0 0 96,196 118.796 0 0 _ HB5021 2232004 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 HBS022 3IW2004 7 D 0 161.125 0 0 HBS023 318f2004 6 0 0 16002 244,948 0 0 HBS024 311S12004 7 0 0 70.552 61,619 0 0 HBS025 M212004 10 0 0 1,036.912 974,438 0 0 HBS027 4/512004 11 D 0 54,242 108.484 0 0 HBS028 4112R004 7 0 0 1.116,812 1.304,875 0 0 HBSD29 4/19f2D04 5 0 0 936.570 876,949 0 0 HBS030 4232004 7 D 0 752.025 900.105 95,558 82,768 j HBS031 Sr.32D04 7 0 0 1,852,787 1.406.469 0 0 HBS032 Sf712004 7 D 0 1,580,488 1.410,799 0 0 HBS033 511720D4 9 536.753 369.006 1,239,186 1.286,931 348.260 316,953 HBS034 5r2412004 7 61.100 70.552 526,170 571,779 30,510 61,020 HBS035 61112004 7 D 0 235,136 299,384 0 0 4 HBS036 6172004 7 0 0 30,937 61,873 0 0 HBS037 6/1412004 7 327.S88 335.536 33,479 66.956 108,195 130.697 HBS038 621/2004 7 0 0 61,956 123.912 0 0 HBS039 6rt82004 7 108,219 146.983 0 0 97.189 194.379 HBSO40 7162004• 7 78,202 90,391 39,027 78,054 121.023 242,045 HBSO41 7112/2004 7 9954105 1.178.519 0 0 0 0 HBSO42 7/192004 7 388.690 609.623 0 0 0 0 HBSO43 72620D4 18 647.366 788.438 0 0 638,447 311.889 HBSO44 8f242004 18 9,716.995 5.305.198 0 0 5571,043 6.231.731 HBSO45 M120D4 8 4,949.B45 5,620,490 '36,473 72,948 30.480 60.961 17,809.883 17,625.261 7,128,127 6 5 Appendix B3.(Continued). solemn eombtooth blennies dlaznond turbot Days In Perlod Entrainment Period Entrafnment Period Entrainment Survey Date Perlod Entrainment Std.Error Entrainment Std,Error Entrainment Std.Error HBS001 9/18/2003 19 0 0 0 0 0 0 HBS002 9/2912003 12 0 0 51.247 102.494 0 0 HBS003 10/13/2003 11 0 0 0 0 113.051 132.009 HBS004 10/2012003 10 0 0 0 0 95,824 191.947 HBS005 I UN2003 11 0 0 583,665 447,948 231.263 317.251 HBS008 11/10/2003 7 0 0 376,S66 648,490 41,219 82.437 HBS007 11/1712003 7 0 0 0 0 30.721 61.443 HBS008 11f2412003 7 0 0 67.602 79,698 114,442 138.476 HBS009 1211/2003 7 0 0 70,715 83,050 76,696 88.567 HBSOiO 12/8/2003 7 0 0 68.637 137.674 0 0 H88011 12/15/2003 7 0 0 35.788 71,536 0 0 HBS012 12R2/2003 7 0 0 41,052 82.105 74,541 86.104 HBSO13 12129/20❑3 7 0 0 0 0 132.535 107.157 HBS014 1MMM 7 0 0 38,047 76,093 38,138 76,277 HBSO15 111212004 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 H8SO16 1119=04 7 0 0 0 0 38,197 70.394 HBS017 126120G4 7 0 0 . 0 0 108.261 136,499 HBS018 2/212004 7 0 0 0 0 34.546 69.092 H88019 2/9/2004 7 0 0 35.303 70.606 0 0 HBS020 2117120D4 7 0 0 32,435 64.870 68.528 79,354 HBS021 2123/2004 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 HBSO22 3/312006 7 0 0 0 HBS023 3/8/2004 6 0 0 0 0 36,655 73,310 HBS024 3/15/2004 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 HBS025 322/2004 10 0 0 0 0 52,640 105,281 HBS027 4/5/2004 11 0 0 0 0 53.246 106,491 f HBS028 4112/2004 7 0 0 29.420 58.841 158.273 120.180 H9SO29 4/1912004 5 0 0 99,769 105,033 62,176 107.692 HBS030 4R312004 7 0 0 100,926 92.375 47,301 81,927 HOS031 $02004 7 0 O 0 0 0 0 HBS032 SM2004 7 0 0 204,519 179.507 95,083 164,889 HBS033 5/17/2004 9 0 0 440,064 523.694 144.449 99.099 HBS034 512412004 7 0 0 240.369 131,691 0 0 HBS035 Bf112004 7 0 0 91,995 118.095 0 0 HBS038 6/7/2004 7 0 0 212.576 54,337 0 0 I] HBS037 &1412004 7 0 0 404.869 297,390. 0 0 HBSO38 621/2004 7 0 0 102,892 69.495 0 0 HBS039 6/18/2004 7 0 0 1.406.634 710.572 0 0 j HBSO40 7/B/2004- 7 0 0 299.867 599.735 68.685 90.773 HBSO41 7112/2004 7 0 0 183,288 196.416 0 0 HBSO42 7119/2004 7 0 0 539,435 277,308, 34.014 68.027 HBSO43 726/2004 18 86,333 172.666 205,574 392,788 0 0 HBSO44 824/2004 18 11.610.627 22.003,691 982,007 833.364 3.492.636 1,818.773 HBSO45 8/3112004 S 0 0 149.729 178,757 0 0 11.696,960 7.165.510 5.443.120 L Appendix B-3, (Continued). California hallbut Days in Period .Entrainment Survey Date Period Entrainment Std.Error H BSOO1 9/1 MGM 19 0 0 HBS0D2 9292003 12 46,158 92,317 HBSDM 10/13/2003 11 0 0 HBS004 102D2003 10 0 0 HBS005 11I312003 it 0 0 HBSOD6 11/102003 7 73,624 85.153 { HBS007 11117/2003 7 0 0 HBSDO8 11242003 7 0 0 HBSDO9 12112003 7 0 0 HBSO10 12fM003 7 0 0 HBS011 121152003 7 0 0 HBS012 12122/2003 7 0 0 HES013 121292003 7 0 0 HBS014 V 2004 7 0 0 r HBS015 1112/2004 7 0 0 HBS018 111912004 7 0 0 H13SO17 1126/2004 7 0 0 HBS018 22/2004 7 0 0 HB5019 219/2004 7 0 0 HBS020 21172004 7 0 0 HBS021 2/232004 8 0 0 H13SO22 3132004 7 0 HBS023 W82004 6 0 0 HSS024 3/152004 7 0 0 HBS025 3222004 10 0 0 �• HBS027 4152DO4 11 0 0 H BS028 4/1212004 7 31.110 62.221 r HBS029 41192DO4 5 35.728 61,883 HBS030 423l2DO4 7 445.098 333,817 HBS031 5f312004 7 102,680 132.650 HBS032 5f72D04 7 0 O HBS033 5/17/2004 9 51,305 10209 jl HBS034 52412DD4 7 66,638 78.421 HBS035 6f12DO4 7 53.075 106,150 HBS036 6/7/2004 7 0 0 HBS037 611412004 7 1.690.567 866,751 HBSO38 6/212OD4 7 29.508 59,016 HBSD39 62812OD4 7 130.144 180.466 HBSO40 7/62004 7 46,767 93.535 H13SO41 7/12/2004 7 107.760 137,465 HBSO42 7/192004 7 34,014 68,027 HBSO43 7262004 18 739,401 566,589 �; Ht3SO44 W412004 18 1.240.150 803.738 HBSO45 8/312004 a 91.441 182,882 t 5,021,168 f E . . Appendix C4.Extrapolated normal operations and heat treatment fish Impingement fosses by survey. Surrey Type; Normal Op Normal Op Normal Op Normal Op Normal Op Normal Op Survey No.: 1 2 3 4 5 6 k Date: 29,1ul-03 5-Aug-03 12•Aug•03 22-Aug-03 26-Aug4)3 3-Sep-03 Sedphus polHus queonfiah 32 6 23 31 Genyonemus Iineatus white croaker 13 82 5 ErWauhs mordex northern anchovy 25 6 51 Phanerodon furoatus white seaperch 32 - - 5 Cymatogaster aggregate shiner porch 13 - 10 - 29 82 Hyperprosopon argentsum walleye surfporch 6 12 - - - Para fichthys califomicus California halibut - - 10 5 MyNobaffs califomice but ray - - - 12 Porichthys mydaster specklefin midshipmen - - 6 - Sardinops sapax Pacific sardine - - - - 29 S Pajodfus s1m1111mus Pacific butterfish - - - 12 31 Pleuronlchthya verticalis homyhead turbot - - - 6 - Chellodema salumum black croaker - Hatichoeres semlcIndus rock wrasse Mentich7hus undulates California aorbIna Scorpsens gutials California scorplonfish - - - - - Medlefuns califomlensis halfmoon - - - - - Giraffe n$neans opaleyo - - - - Anlsolremus davidsonli surge - - - - Heferos(ichus ros(ratus giant kolpfish - - - - - Embiotoca facksonl black porch - - Chmmis punc(ipirnis blacksmith Rhacochilus vacca pile perch Umbrfna roncedor yellowfin croaker - - - Sebasles aurfcularus brown rockfish - Paralebrax nebulifer bared sand bass Para labrax crathra(us kelp bass Rhlnobefos productus shovalnoso gultarfish - - - - Athednopsk califamiensis jacksmaft - - - - - - Leurssthes(enuls California grunlon - - - - - - Platyrhinoidis hfserisfe lhomback Lepfocoftus annefus Pacific staghom scuipin - - - - 10 Synodus lucloceps California I¢ardfish - - - - 5 j Pleuronlchfhys rNerf spotted turbot - - - - 1 Perafabrax mecutetofasclatus spotted sand bass Trachurus symmetricus jack mackerel - - - - - Atherfm*s afnis lopsmoh - - - - Hypsoblennius gfiberti rockpool blenny Cftherich(hys stigmaeus specklod sanddab A(ractoscfon nobilis white seabass - - - - Scombeeleponlous chub mackoral - - - - Xenisflus cardorniensts salema Rhacochdus toxoles rubberlip seaperch - Urobafis hailed round stingray - - - - Torpedo califomica Pacific electric ray - - - - - Ophlchthus zophochlr yellow snake eel - - - �' Roncadorsleamsd spotfin croaker - - - - - - Pleurontah(hys guttufalus diamond turbot - - - Anchoe compresse deepbody anchovy - - - - - Semlcossyphus pulcher California sheophead - - - - - - lll Tdakis semifescla(a leopard shark - - - - - Chr7era(aylori spotted tusk eel - - - Syngnathus californlensls kelp pipe6sh IL Sebeafes minfatus vermillion rockfish Ophidion scdppsee basketweave tusk-eel - - - - Odontopyxis tdspiriose pygmy poacher - - - - - Porichthys notsfus plainfin midshipman - - - - Total: 121 19 19 204 236 No,of Species: 6 2 2 - 9 11 Appendix 0-1.(Cont.) Survey Type; Normal Op Normal Op Normal Op Normal Op Normal Op Normal Op Normal Op Normal Op Normal Op Normal Op survey No.: 7 8 g 10 It 12 13 14 15 16 Oat*: 10-Sep-03 16Sep-03 23-Sep-03 30-Sep-03 7-Oct-03 14-Oct-03 21-Oct-03 28-Oct-03 4-Nov-03 11-Nov-03 queenrish - ' 47 28 52 208 1190 So - white croaker - - northern anchovy - 29 250 - - 59 28 106 - - whfte seapamh - - - - - - - - - shiner perch 68 - - - - - walleye surfporch - - - -California halibut - - - - - - - bat ray - - 7 - - speckdorin mldshipman - 7 7 - - Pacific sardine - - 7 - - - Pacific butterfish - - 27 - - - homyheadturbot - - 7 - 7 - - 7 - black croaker - - - 14 - rockwrasso - - - - - - Caliiomla corbina - - - - - Cafifomla scorplonfish - 14 14 - - 7 - haffmoon - - - - - - - opaleye - - - - - - - sargo - - - giant kelpfish - - 7 7 - - black perch - - - - - - blacksmith - - - - 7 - - - pile perch - - - - - - - yellowfin croaker brown rockfish - - - - bared sand bass - - - - - - kelp bass - - - - - - shovelnose gultarfish - - - - - - - Jack smelt - - - - - - -California grunion - - - - - - 42 thomback - - 7 Pacific staghom sculpin - - - - - - - California li ardfish a potted turbot - 14 - - 15 - spotted sand bass - - - - - - - Jaek mackerel - - - - 7 topsm It - - - - roclgwol Manny - - - - - - speclded sanddab - white seabass - - - - - - chub mackerel - - - - salema - - - - - - rubbedip seaperch - - - - - - - round stingray - - - - - - - Pactfic electric ray - - - - yellow snake eel - - - - - - spotfin croaker. - - - - - - - - diamond turbot - - - - doopbody anchovy - - - -California sheephead - - - - - - leopard shark - - - - - spotted tusk eel - - - - kelp pipofish - - - - - vormillion rockfish - - - - - - basketweave tusk-eel - - - - - pygmypoacher - - - - - plainfinmidshlpmen Total: - 43 439 - 49 163 250 1366 50 - No.ofSpeciea: - 2 9 - 4 S 4 6 1 - • Appendix C4.(Cont.) F Survey Type: Normal Op Normal Op Normal Op Normal Op Normal Op Normal Op Normal Op Normal Op Normal Op Normal Op Survey No.: 17 18 19 26 21 22 23 24 25 26 Data: 20-Nov-03 28-Nov-03 2•Doc-03 9-Dee-03 164Rec-03 23-flee-03 30-Dee-03 9-Jan-04 16-Jon-04 20-Jan-04 queenfish - - - 370 21 21 7 - 14 white croaker - - - - - - { nocthem anchovy 7 - - - 6 7 7 - 21 white seaparch - - - - - - - - shiner perch - - - - - r walleye surfperch Cal lomla halibut - - - - - - - - - - bat ray - - - - - - specklefin midshipmen - - - - 37 - 14 - - ( Pacific sardine - - - - - - - - + Pacific butterfish - - - - - - - - homyhoad turbot - - - - - - - - block croaker - - - - 7 - - rock wrasse - - - - - - - - - - California corbina - - - - - - - - California scorpionfish - - - - - halfmoon - - - - - - opaleye - 7 - - - - - - - Bargo giant kolpfish - - - - - - - black perch - - - blacksmith ipile perch - - - yeliowfin croaker - - - - brown rockfish - - - - - barred sand bass - - - - - - ' kelp bass - - - - - - j ' shovelnoss gu'rtarfish - - - - - - - - jeckamelt - - - - - - California grunion - - - - _ thomback - - - - - Pacific staghom sculpin - - - - - - 7 -California ruardfrsh - - - - - - spotted turbot - - - - - - 7 - spotted sand bass - - - - - jack mackerel - - - - topsmalt - - - - - - - rockpool blonny - - - - - - - speckled sanddab - - - - - 7 - white sea bass chub mackerel - - - - - - - - a salema - - - - - rubberllp seaperch - - - - - - - - - i round stingray - - - - Pecific aIecblc ray - - - 6 - - yellow snake eel - - - 6 - - - spotrm croaker - - - - - diamond brfbot - - doopbody anchovy - California sheophasd - - leopard shark - - - - - - .. spotted tusk eel - - - - - - kelp plpefish - - - - - vermilllon rockfish - - - - basketweeve tusk-eol - - - - - - - - - pygmy poacher - - - - - - - - plalrsfin midshipmen - - - - - - Total: 7 7- - 426 35 63 7 - 35 No.of Species: i 1 - 5 3 6 1 2 tL.: pk C. Appendix C4.(Cont.) Survey Type: Normal Op Normal Op Normal Op Normal Op Nomral Op Normal Op Normal Op Normal Op Normal Op Normal Op Survey No.: 27 26 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 Date: 27Jsn•04 3•Feb-04 10-Fab-04 18-Feb-04 24-Feb-04 2-Mar-04 9-Mar-04 18-Mer•04 23-Mar-04 30-Mar-04 queenfish M17 15 26 7 21 35 7 14 94 97 white croaker - - - - - - i northern anchovy - - - - - - 114 white seaperch - - - - - - shlnar perchwalleys surfparch - - - - - - - Califomia hallbvt - - - - - -betray - - - - - - - specideCin midshipman - - - - 28 - - - Pacific swdlne - 6 - - 7 -Pacific butterfish 34 - - - - 7 7 7 7 - homyhoad turbot - - - - - - - - - - black croaker - - - - - - - - - rockwrasse - - - -California corbins - - - - - - Califomla scorplonfish - - - - halfmoon - - opalaye - - - - - - - - sargo - - - - - - - - - giant kelpfish - - - - - 7 - black perch - - - - - - blacksmith - - - - - - - - - pile perch - - - - - - - yellowBn croaker - - - - - brown rockfish - - - - - - - barrod sand bass - - - 7 kelp bass - - - - - - - - shovelnoso guitarfish - - - - - - Jacksmelt 17 - Califomia grunion - - - 7 - - - - thomback 8 - - - - - - - Pacific staghom sculpin - - - - California I¢ardfish 11 - - - - - - ,spatted turbot - spotted sand bass Jack mackerel topsmeh - - - - - - - - rockpool blanny - - - - - - - - speckled sanddab - - - - - - - - - white saabass 11 - - - - - - - chub mackerel - - - - - - - - salerna - rubbedlp seaparch - - - - - - - - round stingray - - - - - 7 - Pacific electric ray 11 - - - - - - 7 yellow snake eel - - - - - - - - spolfin croaker diamond turbot 6 - - - - deepbody anchovy - - - - - - - Californiasheephead - - - - - - - - - leopard shark - - - spotted cuskaal - - - - - - - kelp plpef li - - - vermillion rockfish - - - - basketweave tusk-eal - - 7 - - - - - pygmy poacher - - - - - plalnHn midshipman - - - - - - - - Total: 7571 23 26 14 28 84 22 29 215 104 No.of Species: 12 2 1 2 2 5 3 3 3 2 _ Appendix C-1.(Cont.) Survey Type: Normal Op Normal Op Normal Op Normal Op Normal Op Normal Op Normal Op Normal Op Normal Op Normal Op Survey No.: 37 38 38 40 41 42 43 44 45 48 Daio- 6-Apr-04 1:t-Apr-04 20-Apr-04 27-Apr-04 4-May-04 11-May-04 18-May-04 25-May04 34un-04 8Jun-04 queenfrsh 7 305 123 28 247 -8 - - - ? whits croaker 65 12 13 ea - - - f• northern anchovy - 7 - - - - ti ' white soaporch - - - 43 - - - - shiner perch - - - - - - - - walleye surfperch - - - - - - - - S y California halibut - bat ray - - - specklef3n midshipman - - - - - - S Pacific sardine - Pacific butterfish - - - - - - - homyhoad turbot - black croaker - - - - - - - 1 rock wrasse - - - - - - - Caldomlacorbina California scorplonfish halfmoon - - - - - - - - - opaleye - - - - - aerge - - - - - - - giantkelpfish - - - - - - - - black perch - - 12 - - - - blacksmith - - - - pile perch yellowfrn croaker brown rockfish - - - - - - - - - barred sand_ bass - - - - - - kelp bass - - - - .; shovolnosoguiterfish Jacksmett' - - - 6 - ' r California grunion. 1 thomback Pacific staghom sculpin California lizandfish - - - 6 spotted turbot" - - - spatted sand bass Jack mackorol rockpool blenny speckled sanddab white seabass chub mackerel Salome rubbed1p,sea porch round stingray - - - 7 - 33 _ Pacific electric ray - - - - - _ yellow snako oal spotfln croaker diamond turbot doopbody anchovy - 6 California shaephead leopard shark spotted tusk oel kelp pi perish vormllllon rockfish ` basketweave tusk-eel _ pygmy poacher plalnfin midshipman - - - _ _ _ - g _ F Total: 7 383 146 52 370 41 8 - 5 No.of Species: 1 4 3 4 5 2 - 1 - t.- Appendix C4.(Cont.) .Survey Type: Normal Op Normal Op Normal Op Normal Op Normal Op Normal Op Survey No.: 47 48 49 50 51 52 Date: 15-Jun-04 22-Jun-04 29-Jun-04 7-Jul-04 13.Jut-04 20Ju1434 queenrish - — - white croaker northern anchovy white seaporch - - - - shinor porch - - - - 14 walleye surfperch - - - - - California halibut - - - - - bat ray - - - - - specklefin midshipman - - - - Pacific sardine - Pacific butterfish' homyhoad turbot - - - black croaker _ - - rock wrasae - - - - California carbine - - - - California scorplonfish - - - haffmoon - - - - - opaleye - - - sargo giant korpfish - - - - block porch - - - blacksmith pile porch Ya croaker - - - -ot I wfin brown rockfish - - - - barred sand bass - - - - kelp bass - - - shovelnosa guitarfish - - - - JecksmeR - - - - - - Califomla grunion - - - - - thomback - - PacIfic staghom sculpin - - - - California lizardfrsh - - - - - spotted turbot - - - spotted sand bass - - - - Jeckmackerel - - - - topsmalt - - - rockpool blonny - - - speckled sanddab - - - - white soabass - chub mackerel - - - - Salema - - - - - rubbedip seaperch - - - round stingray $ - Pacific electric ray - 7 yellow snake eel - - - spoMin croaker - - - diamond turbot - - - - - deepbody anchovy - - - - California sheephead - - - - - leopard shark - - - - - spotted tusk eel - - - - kelp plpefish - - - vermillion rockfish - - - - basketweave tusk-eel - - - - pygmy poacher - - - plalnfin midshipman - - Total: 6 7 - $ - 14 No.of Species: c Appendix C-1.[COnt.) Survey Typo: Heat Treat Heat Trost Heat Treat Heat Treat Heat Treat Heat Treat Survey No, 1 2 3 4 5 6 Dato: 16-Aug-03 26Sop-03 7-Nov-03 64an-04 22fo3r44 30-May-04 quoonfish 3200 3548 42721 4529 4204 5626 whito croaker 1192 407 17 44 10 2869 r northom anchovy 70 643 167 482 4 3 l white sesperch 388 102 86 64 81 90 shiner perch 665 2428 570 46 1 120 walleye surfporch 47 15 100 106 S5 123 fCalifornia hailbut 2 1 2 - - 1 bat ray 2 - 1 1 1 speckiefin midshipman - - 1 Pacific sardine 2 17 4 - 14 1 Pacific butterfish 4 134 41 26 146 119 homyhead turbot - - 1 black croaker 9 3 17 11 1 3 rock wrosse 1 2 1 - California corbina 3 2 1 11 14 2 California scorplonfish 11 13 16 5 2 28 hatfmoon 7 5 1 opateyo 4 2 - 1 5 serge 5 - 8 4 - - giant kelpfish 1 1 1 6 black perch 1 5 9 3 2 34 blacksmith 1 13 12 8 - 5 pllo porch 3 2 1 9 2 2 yellowfin croaker 1 5 brown rockfish 1 - 1 - r barred sand bass 12 20 20 3 kolp bass 45 28 46 4 1 14 shoveln038 guitarfish 1 1 Jacksmeit 20 5 18 22 48 196 California grunion 47 12 32 thomback 2 Pacific staghom sculpin - - 3 California Uardfish - - spotted turbot - - - 4 f spotted sand bass 1 - t[ jack mackerel 1 1 topsmalt - 122 57 52 - - rockpool blenny 1 1 1 speckled sanddab - 2 7 - white seabass - - 8 21 a 12 chub mackerel - 17 - Salome - 3 17 14 1 rubbedip seaporch 1 16 round stingray - - 2 6 2 38 Pacific electric ray - - - - - - yellow snake eel - - - 1 - spotfin croaker - 28 21 diamond turbot 1 1 doepbody anchovy - - - 2 6 6 California shoephaad - - - 1 leopard shark 2 - spotted tusk eel - 7 kelp plpefish 2 vermllllon rockfish 1 - basketwoave tusk-eel pygmy poacher plainfin midshlprnan 1 - Total: 5743 7629 5532 5520 4615 9340 g No,of Species; 28 29 31 36 26 29 2 Appendix C-1.(Cont.) Survey Type: Normal Operations Heat Treatments Survey No,: Total Occurrence Total Occurrence Total Date: Abundance (n-52) Abundance- (n-6) Impingement quoenrish 10468 31 25379 _ 6 35847 white croaker 274 8 4829 a 49M northom anchovy 824 16 1389 6 2193 white seaperch s0 3 789 6 869 shiner perch 215 9 3830 6 4045 walloye surfperch 30 3 446 6 476 California halibut 15 2 6 4 21 bat ray 19 2 5 4 24 speckiefin midshipman 99 6 1 1 100 Pacific sardine 69 7 38 5 107 PactBc buttedtsh 131 8 470 A 601 hornyhead turbot 27 4 1 1 28 black croaker 21 2 44 6 65 rock wrasse 4 3 4 California corbina 33 6 33 California scorplonfish 35 3 75 6 110 haifmoon 13 3 13 opaloye 7 1 12 4 19 sergo 17 3 17 giant kelprish 21 3 9 4 30 black perch 12 1 54 6 66 blacksmith 7 1 39 5 46 pile perch - - 19 6 19 { yellowfrn croaker - 6 2 6 E brown rockfish 2 2 2 barred sand bass 7 1 55 4 62 kelp bass - - 138 6 13B shoveinose gulmrrsh 2 2 2 Jacksmalt 23 2 309 6 332 California grunion 49 2 91 3 140 ftrnback 18 3 2 1 20 Pacific staghom sculpin 17 2 3 1 20 Calitotnls lizarditsh 29 4 29 spotted turbot 35 3 4 1 39 spotted sand bass 1 1 1 Jack mackerel 7 1 2 2 9 topsmolt 2311 3 231 rockpool blenny 3 3 3 specldad sanddeb 14 2 9 2 23 white seabass 11 1 49 4 60 chub mackerel 17 1 17 salema 11 1 35 4 48 rubberlip seaperch - - 171 2 17 round stingray 52 A 4BI 4 100 Poe vie olect is ray 31 4 - 31 yellow snake eat 6 1 1 1 7 spotfin croaker - 49 2 49 diamond turbot 6 1 2 2 8 deepbody anchovy e 1 14 3 20 California shoophoad - 1 1 1 leopard shark - 2 1 2 spotted tusk eel 7 1 7 kelp plpefish - 2 1 2 vermillion rockfish 1 1 1 besketweave tusk-eel 7 1 1 1 8 pygmy poacher i plainfin midshipman 9 1 1 1 10 Total: 12694 38388 51082 No.of Specles: 36 55 57 Appendix C-2.Extrapolated normal operation and heat treatment fish'impingement biomass(kg) by survey. Survey Type: Nomtal Op Normal Op Normal Op Normal Op Normal Op Normal Op Survey No.: 1 2 3 4 5 6 Date: 29-1uf-03 5-Aug-03 12-Aug-03 22-Aug-03 26-Aug-03 3-Sep-03 queenfish 0.907 0,099 - - 0.449 0.805 t� white croaker 0.444 - - - 1.120 0.056 i northem anchovy 0.305 - - - 0.064 0.261 white seaperch 0.286 - - - - 0.082 shiner perch 0.089 - 0.095 - 0.333 0.774 (, walleye surlperch 0.057 0.143 - - - - Califomia halibut - 3.827 - 0,241 bat ray - - - 9.269 - specklefin midshipman - - - - 1.989 - PBclfIC sardine - - - 2.444 0.318 Pacific butterfish - - - - 0.111 0.405 homyhead turbot - - - - 0.023 - black croaker - rock wrasse - - - - - Califomla corbina - - - - - - Califomia scorplonfish - - - - - - halfmoon - - - - - opaleye - - - - - - sarga - - - - - - giant keipfish - - - - - black perch - - - - - - ` blacksmith - - - - - - spile perch - - - - - yellowt in croaker - - - - - - brown rockfish - - - - - ' barred sand bass - - - - - - kelp bass shovelnose guitarfish - - - - - - jacksmelt - - - - -California grunion - - - - - thombeck - - - - - 6.150 Pacific staghom sculpin - - - - - 0.149 California lizardfish - - - - - 0,103 spotted turbot - - - - spotted sand bass lack mackerel - topsmett - - - - - - rockpool6lenny - - - - - - speckled sanddab - - - - - white seabass - - - - - - chub mackerel - - - - - - saleme - - - - - - 3 rubberlip seaperch - - - - - - �I round stingray - - - - - - Pacific electric ray - - - - - yellow snake eel - - - - - - { spotfn croaker - - - - - ` diamond turbot - - - - - - deepbody anchovy - - - - - - a Califomla sheephead leopard shark - - - - spotted cusk eel - - - - - - kelp plpefish - - - - - vermillion rockfish - - - - - - basketweave cusk-eel - - - - - - i_� pygmy poacher - - - - - plainfin midshipman - - - - - - - Total: 2.088 0.242 3.922 15.803 9.343 > No.of Species: 6 2 2 - 9 11 Appendix C-2.(Cont.) Survey Type: Normal Op Normal Op Normal Op Normal Op Normal Op Normal Op Normal Op Normal Op Survey No.: 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Date: 10-Sep-03 16•Sep-03 23-Sep-03 30-Sep-03 7-Oct-03 14Oct-03 21-Oct-03 28-Oct-03 queenfish - - 0.891 - _147 1.1T7 0.688 3.712 white croaker - - northern anchovy - 0.216 2.315 - 0.348 0.104 0.556 white seaperch shiner perch - - 0.628 walleye surfperch - California halibut - bat ray - - - - - 1.390 - specklefin midshipman - - 0.007 - - 0.030 - - PacHic sardine - - - - 0.084 - Pacific butterfish - - 0.331 - hornyhead turbot - - 0.155 0.070 - - 0.028 black croaker - - - - - - - 0.092 rock wrasse California carbina - - - California scorplonfish - 2.549 1.937 - - 1.042 _ halfmoon_ - - - _ _ _ opaleye cargo - - - - - - - giant kelpfish - - - - 0.119 0.807 - - black perch - - - - - _ blackrrnKh - - - - - 0,015 - plle perch yellowfin croaker brown rockfish barred sand bass kelp bass shovelnose g4derfish Jacksmett California grunion - - - - - _ _ 0.169 thomback - - - - - - 5.747 Pacific staghom sculpin California iizardfish - - 0.776i spotted turbot - - 1.789 - - 0.614 - - spotted sand bass - - - - - - Jack mackerel - - - - 0.030 - - lopsmeR rockpool blenny - - - - - - - - speclded sanddab - - - - - 0.022 - white seabass chub mackerel selema rubberilp seaperch - round stingray Pacific electric ray yellow snake eel - - - - - - - - spotfin croaker diamond turbot deepbody anchovy California sheephead - - - - - - leopard shark spotted cusk eel - - - - - - - kelp pipensh vermillion rockfish - - - - basketweave cusk-eel - - - - - - pygmy poacher - - - - - - - plainfin midshipman - - - - - - - - Total: - 2.765 6.829 - 0.420 3.041 3.224 10.305 No.of Species: - 2 • 0 - 4 8 4 6 Appendix C-2.(Cont) Survey Type: Normal Op Normal Op Normal ap Normal Op Normal Op Normal Op Normal Op Normal Op ' Survey No.: 115 16 17 16 19 20 21 22 ` Date: 4-Nov-03 11-Nov-03 20-Nov-03 28-Nov-03 2-Dec-03 9-Dec-03 16-Dec-03 23-Dec-03 C queenfish 0.162 - - - 1.289 0.238 1 white croaker - - - - - - - - northern anchovy - - 0.028 - - - 0.019 0.035 . whte seaperch - - - - - _ - _ shiner perch walleye surfperch Califomia halibut bat ray - specklefin midshipman - - - - - - 4.674 Pacific sardine - - - - _ - Pacific butterfish homyhead turbot - - - - _ _ _ black croaker - - - - - - - 0.238 rock wrasse Califomia corbina Callfomia scorplonfish halfmoon ' opaleye - - - 4,274 sargo - - - - - - - giant kelpfish black perch blacksmith pile perch - yeliowfin croaker - brown rockfish barred sand bass - kelp bass shoveinose guitarfish Jacksmelt California grunion l thomback Pacific staghom sculpinCalifornia lizardfish spotted turbot - - - - - - - 1 spotted sand bass Jack mackerel topsmelt rockpool blenny speckled sanddab white seabass chub mackerel salema rubberlip seaperch round stingray - _ _ _ _ Pacific electric ray - - - - - 15.417 - yellow snake eel - - - - - 1.332 - J spotfin croaker - - - _ _ _ . £ diamond turbot deepbody anchovy California sheepheed leopard shark Spotted cusk eel - kelp plpef{sh vermillion rockfish basketweave cusk-eel pygmy poacher plalnfin midshipman Total: 0.162 - 0.028 4.274 - - 22.730 0.511 { No.of Specles: i - 1 1 - - 5 3 Appendix C-2.(Cont.) Survey Type: Normal Op Normal Op Normal Op Normal Op Normal Op Normal Op Nomral Op Survey No.: 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 Date: 30-Dec-03 9-Jan-04 16-Jan-04 20,1an-04 27-Jan-04 3-Feb-04 10-Feb-04 queenfish 0.350 0.142 - 0.055 40.793 0.099 0.118 whHe croaker - - - - 0.951 -north am anchovy 0.028 - - 0.083 0.506 _ white seaperch - _ _ shiner perch walleye surfperch - - - - 0.298 -California halibut bat ray - specldefin midshipman 3.353 Pacific sardine - - - _ _ 0.106 _ Pacific butterfish - - - 0.653 _ homyhead turbot - - _ _ _ _ black croaker - rock wrasee California corbina - California scorplonfish - - halfmoon opalaye - - - - - - - sargo - - - - - - - giant kelpfish black perch blacksmith - pile perch yellowfin croaker brown rockfish barred sand bass kelp bass shove(hose gultarfish Jacksmelt - - - 1.643 - Califomia grunion - - - _ thomback - - - - 3.915 - - Pacific staghom sculpin 0.721 Callfomla llzardfish - - - - 0.141 - spotted turbot 0.035 spotted sand bass Jack mackerel topsmeit rockpool blennY - speckled sanddab 0.021 - - - _ while seabass - - - - 0.135 - chub mackerel saleme - - - - 0.101 - rubbedip seaperch - - - - _ round stingray Pacific electric ray - - - - 45.563 - - yellow snake eel spotfin croaker diamond turbot - - - - 0.849 deepbody anchovy California sheephead leopard shark spotted cask eel kelp pipefish - - - - - vermillion rockfish - - - - - basketweave cusk-eel - - - - pygmy poacher - - - - plalnfin midshipman Total: 4.508 0.142 - 0.139 95.548 0.206 0.118 No.of Species: 6 1 2 12 2 1 ' p Appendix C-2.(Cont.) Survey Type: Normal Op Normal by Norrhe"i Op Noftal Op Normal Op Normal Op Normal Op Normal Op Survey No.: 30 31 32 33 . 34 35 36 37 Date: 1B-Feb-04 24-Feb-0.4 2-Mar-04 9-Mar-04 16-Mar-04 23-Mer-04 30-Mar-04 6-Apr-04 queenrah 0.042 0.413 0.553 0.052 0.079 0.343 0.584 O.o27 while croaker - - - - - - - - northern anchovy - white sesperch - - - - - - - - shiner perch - - - - - - - - walleye surfperch - - - - - - - California halibut - - - - - - bat ray - - - - - - specklefln midshipman Pacific sardine - - - 0.136 - - - Pacific butterfish - 0.119 0.318 0.006 0.074 - - hornyhead turbot - - - - - - - black croaker - - - - - - rock wrasse California corbina California scorplonfish - - - - - - - hatfmoon opeleye - - - - - cargo - - - - - - giantkelpfish 0.119 - - - - F., black perch - - - - e blacksmith - - - - - - - > pile perch - - - - - - - yeliowfin croaker - - - - - - - brown rockfish - - - - - barred sand bass - 0.364 kelp bass - - - - - - - shoveinose guharfish - - - - - - JacksmettCalifornia grunion 0.042 thomback - - - - - Pacific staghom sculpin - - - - - - - Callfornla lizardfish - - - - - - - spotted turbot - - - - spotted sand bass - - - - - lack mackerel - - - - topsmett - - - - - - - rockpool blenny - speckled sanddab - - - - - - white seabass - - - - - - - chub mackerel salema - - - - - - Tubberrip seaperch round stingray - - 1.954 - - - - Paclfic electric ray - - - - - 52.138 yellow snake eel spotfin croaker - - - - - - diamond turbot deepbody anchovy California sheephead leopard shark spotted tusk eel kelp plpefiah vermillion rockfish - basketweave tusk-eel 0.378 pygmy poacher - - - - - - plainfin midshipman - - - - - - _ Total: 0.084 0.791 1.351 2.324 0.301 1,035 52.722 0.027. No.of Species: 2: 2 5 3 3 3 2 1 t_. Appendix C-2.(Cont.) Survey Type: Normal Op Normal Op Normal Op Normal Op Normal Op Normal Op Normal Op Survey No.: 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 Date, 13-Apr-04 20-Apr-04 27-Apr-04 4-May-04 11-May-04 18-May-04 25-May-04 queenfish 1.475 8.583 0.111 1.610 0.024 - white croaker 0.273 0.070 0,06S 0.395 - - northern anchovy - - 0.026 white seaperch - - - 0,117 -shiner perch walleye surfperch Calirornia halibut bat ray - specklefin midshipman - Pacific sardine 0.071 - - - - - Pacific butterfish - homyhead turbot - black croaker - rock wrasse - - - - - - Callromla corbtns California scorplonfish halfmoon opafeye - - - - - - - sargo - - - - - - - giant kelprish black perch - 1.873 blacksmith pile perch yelfavAn croaker brown rockfish barred sand bass kelp bass shovetnose guitarfsh - _ _ jacksmett - - - 0.728 California grunlon - _ _ thomback Pacific staghom sculpIn California lizardfish spotted turbot spotted sand bass Jack mackerel topsmelt rockpool blenny speckled sanddab - - - - - - - whhe seabass chub mackerel salema - rubberllp seaperch round stingray - - 1.937 - 10.608 - Pacific electric ray - - - - - _ yellow snake eel - - - - - - - spotfin croaker - - - - - - - diamond turbot deepbody anchovy 0.032 - - - - - - California sheephead leopard shark spotted tusk eel - - - - - kelp pfpefish - - - - - - - vermlllfon rockfish - - - - - - - basketweave cusk-eel - pygmy poacher - - - - - plalnfin midshipman - - - - - - 3,267 Total: 1.852 2,526 2.139 2.960 10.632 - 3,267 No.of Species: 4 3 4 5 2 1 F : Appendix C-2.(Cont.) Survey Type: Normal Op Normal Op Normal Op Normal Op Normal Op Normal Op Normal Op Normal Op Survey No.: 45, 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 . Date: 3-.tun-04 8-Jun-04 15-Jun-04 22-Jun-04 29-Jun-04 7-Jul-04 13-Jul-04 20-Jul-04 queenfish white croaker northern anchovy - - - - - - - - white seaperch - - - - - - - - shiner perch - - - - - - - 0.096 walleye surfperch - - - - - - - - ' Catiromla halibut bat ray - - - - - - - specklefin midshipman - - - - - - - - Pacific sardine - 0.162 - - - - - Pacific butterfish - - - - - - - - homyhead turbot - - - - - - - - black croaker - - - - - - - rockwrasse - - - - - - - 1 California corbina - - - - - - - California soorplonfrsh - - - - - - halfmoon - - - - - - - opaleye - - - - - - - - sargo - - - - - - - - giant kelpfish - - - - - - - black perch - - - - - - - blacksmlth - - - - - - - pile perch - - - - - yellowfin croaker - - - - - brown rockfish ` barred sand bass kelp bass shaveinose guitarfish - - - - - - - - jacksmeft - - - - - - - California grunion thomback - - - - - - Pacific staghom sculpin California Ilzardrish - spotted turbot spotted sand bass - jack mackerel topsmelt - - - - - - rockpool blenny t speckled sanddab [ white seabass chub mackerel safema - rubberlip seaperch - - - - round stingray - - - - - 2.823 - - Pacific electric ray - - 16.327 - - - yellow snake eel - - - - ' spotfln croaker �-= diamond turbot deepbody anchovy California sheephead } leopard shark spotted tusk eel kelp plpefish Vermillion rockfish - basketweave tusk-eel pygmy poacher plainfln midshipman { Total: _ 0.162 16.327 _ 2.823 - 0.046 r No,of Species: t. f �1 , Appendix C-2.(Cont.) Survey Type: Heat Treat Heat Treat Heat Treat Heat Treat Heat Treat Heat Treat Survey No.: 1 2 3 4 5 6 Date: 16-Aug-03 26-Sep-03 7-Nov-03 6.Jan-04 22-Feb-04 30-May-04 queenflsh 116.908 104.300 106.810 88.728 52.445 120.950 white croaker 21.19fi 8.570 0.848 1,643 0,252 59.540 northern anchovy 1.806 3.317 1,100 3.084 0.021 0.015 white seaperch 4.645 2.530 2.452 2.526 2.215 4.220 shiner perch 6.748 31.570 9.092 1.207 0.035 1.161 walleye surfperch 0,780 0.400 3.208R323 2.790 6.100 California halibut 2.210 1.050 0.688 - 1.920 I, bat ray 4,261 1.478 1 W specklefin midshipman Pacific sardine 0,086 1.400 0.298 2.195 0,015 Pacific butterfish 0,135 2.900 1.578 3,530 .030 homytiead turbot - black croaker 3.128 0.800 1.111 0.365 0.564 rock wrasse 0.366 0.550 0,475California corhlna 0.672 0.379 0,17D 0.576 0.298 Califomla scorpronfsh 2,583 4.220 5.201 0.515 6.840 halfmoon 2.005 1.150 0.390 opaleye 2.40D 1.200 - 0.593 4.185 sargo 1.207 0,174 0.053 - giant kelprish 0.125 0.140 0,050 0.393 - black perch 0.135 1.500 2.544 0.140 0.236 0.733 blacksmith 0,031 1.000 0.448 0.303 - 0.461 plle perch 1.173 TWO 0.804 1.250 0.241 0.411 yellowfin croaker 0.154 1.750 . - - brown rockfish 0.733 - 0.4511 - barred sand bass 2.930 3.670 2.533 0,168 kelp bass 22-6T7 9.870 2.700 0.919 0.240 10.559 shovelnose guitarfish 3.674 7.500 - - - jacksmelt 1.365 0.225 1.026 1.825 4.485 18.370 California grunion 0.189 0.097 0.212 Ihomback - 1.242, - Pacific staghom scuipin - - 0.103 California ilzardfish - - - - spotted turbot - - - 0,007 spotted sand bass - 0.900 - - - Jack mackerel 0.082 - - 0,171 topsmelt 1.200 0.644 1.B20 - rockpool blenny - 0.003 0.007 - 0.006 f speckled sanddab - - 0.004 0.050 - white seabass LOW 1.667 0.160 1.968 chub mackerel - 0.336 - salema - 0.120 0,111 0.111 0.003 rubberiip seaperch - 0,620 - - 0.125 round stingray - 1.236 2.485 1.220 17.390 Pacific electric ray - - yellowsnakeeel - - - 0,200 - spotfin croaker N - 0.616 - 1.150 diamond turbot - 0.220 0.138 deepbody anchovy - - 0.011 0.063 0,070 Cafifamia sheephead - - 0.359 - - leopard shark - 0.812 - - spotted cusk eel - - 0.128 kelp pipeffsh - - 0.007 vermillion rockfish - - 0,002 basketweave cusk-eel - - - .0.011 pygmy poacher - - 0,005 - pfainrin midshipman - O,DO3 - Total• 204.352 193.124 149.345 118.6138 72.680 263.607 No,of Species: 28 29 31 36 26 29 s Appendix C-2.tCont.y Survey Type: formal Operations Heat Treatments Survey No.: Total Occurrence Total Occurrence Total Date: Abundance (n=52) Abundance (n=6) Impingement �} queenfish 58.015 31 590.141 6 648.156 white croaker 3.374 8 92.047 6 95.421 northern anchovy 5.513 16 9.343 6 14.856 while seaperch 0.485 3 18.588 6 19.073 _ shiner perch 2.014 6 49.813 6 51.827 walleye surfperch 0.498 3 15.255 6 15.753 California halibut 4.068 2 5.868 4 9,936 bat ray 10.669 2 7.267 4 17.926 specklefin midshipman 10.249 6 0.006 1 10.255 Pacific sardine 3.322 7 3.994 5 7.316 Pacific butterfish 2,096 8 13.826 6 15.922 homyheed turbot 0.277 4 0.144 1 0.421 black croaker 0.330 2 6.682 6 7.012 rock wrasse - 1.391 3 1,391 California corbina - - 3.104 6 3.104 California scorplonrrsh 5.528 3 21.066 6 26.594 halfmoon - 3.545 3 3.545 opaleye 4.274 1 6.378 4 12.652 sargo - - 1.434 3 1.434 giant keipfish 1.045 3 0.708 4 1.753 black perch 1.873 1 5.288 6 7.161 blacksmith 0.015 1 2.241 5 2.256 pile perch - - 4.729 5 4.729 yellowfin croaker - 1.934 2 1.934 brown rockfish - - 1.184 2 1.184 barred sand bass 0.WA 1 9.301 4 9.665 kelp bass - 46.965 6 46.965 shovelnose guitarfish - - 11.174 2 11.174 jacksmelt 2.370 2 27.298 6 29.668 California grunion 0.211 2 0.498 3 0.709 1 thomback 15.812 3 1.242 1 17.054 l Pacific staghom sculpin 0.870 2 0.103 1 6,973 California Uardfish 1.130 4 - - t,130 spotted turbot 2.438 3 0.007 1 2.445 spotted sand bass - - 0,900 1 0.900 Jack mackerel 0.030 1 0,253 2 0.283 lopsmelt - - 3.664 3 3,664 rockpool blenny - 0.016 3 0,016 L specified sanddab 0.043 2 0.054 2 0.097 white seabass 0.135 1 4.793 4 4.928 chub mackerel - 0,336 1 0.336 salema 0.101 1 0.345 4 0.448 rubberllp seaperch - - 0.745 2 0.745 round stingray 17.322 4 22.331 4 39.853 Pacific electric ray 129.444 4 - - 129.444 yellow snake eel 1.332 1 0.200 1 1.532 spotfrn croaker - - 1.766 2 1_766 diamond turbot 0.849 1 0.358 2 1.207 deepbody anchovy 0.032 1 0.144 3 0.176 California sheepheadi - 0,359 1 0.359 leopard shark - 0.812 1 0,812 - spotted cusk eel - - 0.128 1 0.128 kelp pipefish - - 0.007 1 0,007 r vermillion rockfish - - 0.002 1 0.002 l{ basketweave cusk-eel 0.378 1 0.011 1 0.369 pygmy poacher - 0.005 1 0.005 plainfin midshipman 3.267 1 0.003 1 3.270 Total: 289.763 1001.796 1291.559 No.of Species: 36 55 57 Appendix C-3. Extrapolated normal operations and heat treatment macrolnvertebrate losses by survey. Survey Type: Normal Op Normal Op Normal Op Normal Op Normal Op Normal Op Survey No.: 1 2 3 4 5 6 Date: 29Jul-03 5-Aug-03 12-Aug-03 22-Aug-03 26-Aug-03 3-Sep-03 Urechis coupo Innkeeper worm 6 Neotrypass caralomlensis bay ghost shrimp 6 - _ _ - Pofyorchls penkilefus Jellyflsh - 6 Lysmata caficmfce _ red rock shrimp - 6 Chrysaara coiorafs purple-striped Jelly - 10 _ Salpfdae selp,unld; - _ 18 Cancer entennedus Pacific rock crab Cancer anthonyl yellow rock crab Hamlgrapsusoregonensts yellow shore crab Pachygrapsus cressipas striped shore crab Panutlrusinferruptus California spiny lobster Plsesferochraceous ochre starfish Pons aus carabnrtensis yellowleg shrimp _ g Pyromafe tuberculate tuberculate pear crab - Portunusxenfusir Xantus swimming crab Hepfacerpus palpefor intertidal coastal shrimp - Nevanaxlnenrvs Califomia agiaja Dendmnotus frondosus nudibranch - Hermissende cresstcomis nudibranch Pugef s products- shleld-backed kelp crab Lolgo opalescens market squid Ophlothrur spice/ate spiny brittlestar Crangon nlgromecufare blackspotted bay shrimp Csncergracffs graceful rock crab Cencerproduclus red rock crab Pachychefes pubescens pubescent porcelain crab Cambratufus caftmiensis ribbon worm Dendronotus subramosus stubby dendrbnotus Pilaster sp, sea star(decomposed) Flabeibna fodinee Spanish shawl j Parasfichopusparvimensis warty sea cucumber Octopus bimaculoides Two-spotted octopus - - - _ 6 Profolheca staminea Pacific littleneck(shell debris) - - - - - Loxorhynchus crispatus masking crab - Loxorhynchus grandis sheep crab - - - Pachycheles rud?s thlck-clawed.porcelain crab Pehicola cabfomiensis California petricolid(shell debris) - Total: 13 12 10 18 6 10 No.of Species: 2 2 1 1 1 2 Appendix C-3. (Cont.) Surve T Normal O Nomial Q Normal O Normal O Normal b Normal O Normal O 1 Y YPe� P p p P p P p Survey No.: 7 e 1 9 10 _ 11 12 13 Date: 1;0-Sep-03 16-Sep-03 23-Sep-03 30-Sep-03 7-Oct-03 14-Oct-03 21-Oct-03 innkeeper worm - - - - - - - bay ghost shrimp - - - - - - - jellyfish - 7 14 6 7 37 - red rock shrimp - - 7 - - - - purple-striped jelly - - - - - - - sale,unid. - - - - - - - �' Pacific rock crab - - - - 7 - yellow,rock crab - - - 6 - - - yellow shore crab - - - 6 - striped shore crab i California spiny lobster 7 ochre starfish - - - - - - yeilowleg shrimp - - - - - - - _ tuberculate pear crab - 7 - - - - - Xantus swimming crab - - 7 - - - - Intert1dal coastal shrimp - - - - - - c California egle)a - - - - - - - nudibranch - - - - - nudibranch - - - - - - jshield-backed kelp crab . market squid spiny brittiestar - - - - - - biackspotted bay shrimp - - - - - - - graceful rock crab red rock crab - - - - -pubescent porcelain crab - - - - - - - - ribbon worm - - - - - - stubby dendronotus - - - - - - - ( sea star(decomposed) - - - - - - - f Spanish shawl - - - - L warty sea cucumber - - - - - - Two-spotted octopus - Pacific littleneck(shell debris) - - - - - - - masking crab - - - - sheep crab - - - - - - thick-clawed porcelain crab - - - - - - Celitomla petdcolid(shell debris) - - - - - - - Total: - 14 34 19 14 37 - No.of Species: - 2 4 3 2 1 - l E} : Appendix C-0. (Cont.) Survey Type: Normal Op Normal Op Normal Op Normal Op Normal Op Normal Op Normal Op Survey No.: 14 15 16 17 _ 18 19 20 Date: 28-Oct-03 4-Nov-03 11-Nov-03 20-Nov-03 28-Nov-03 2-Dec-03 9-Dec-03 [nnkeeperworm bay ghost shrimp 7, jellyflsh - - - - _ _ 7 red rock shrimp purple-striped jelly sale,unld, Pacific rock crab - - - 7 yellow rock crab - 12 yellow shore crab - striped shore crab - Caliromla spiny lobster ochre starfish yellowleg shrimp tuberculate pear crab Xantus swimming crab - 7 Intertidal coastal shrimp - - - - - - Callromia aglaja - - - - 1 nudibranch - 50 - - _ 3464 nudibranch shield-backed kelp crab - 6 - - _ 7 market squid - - - - 7 - spinybrittlestar blackspotted bay shrimp - - - - - gracerul rock crab red rock crab pubescent porcelain crab ribbon worm stubby dendronotus sea star(decomposed) - Spanish shawl warty sea cucumber Two-spotted octopus Pacific IrNleneck(shell debris) masking crab - - - - - - sheep crab - - - - - - thick-clawed porcelain crab Callfornla petdcorld(shell debris) Total: 7 118 7 7 7 - 3478 No.of Species: 1 4 1 1 1 - 3 E `. i Appendix C-3. (Cont.) 1? f� Survey Type: Normal Op Normal Op Normal Op Normal Op Normal Op Normal Op Normal Op Survey No_: 21 22 23 24 _ 25 26 27 Date: 16-Dec-03 23-Dec-03 30-Dec-03 9.Jan-04 16-Jan-04 20.1an-44 27-Jan-04 { _ Innkeeper worm - - - - - - - bay ghost shrimp - - - - - - Jellyfish 31 21 - 115 - - 6 [ red rock shrimp - - - 7 - - - purple-striped jelly - - - - - - - selp,unld. - - - - - - - Pacific rock crab 112 - 7 - - 6 yellow rock crab - - 7 615 - 7 - • yellow shore crab - - - striped shore crab Caliromla spiny lobster ochre starfish - - - - - - - yerlowleg shrimp - - - - - tuberculate pear crab - - - - - - Xentus swimming crab - - - - - 7 . Intertidal coastal shrimp - - 14 - -California aglaja - - - - - - nudibranch 31 - - - - - - nudibranch - - - - - -shield-backed kelp kelp crab 6 - - - - - market squid - - spiny brtttlester - 7 - - - - blackspotted bay shrimp - - - 7 - 14 - graceful rock crab - - - 7 red rock crab pubescent porcelain crab - - - - - ribbon worm - - - _ 17 stubby dendronotus sea star(decompose6) - Spanish shawl warty sea cucumber Two-spotted octopus Pacific littleneck(shelf debris) masking crab sheep crab - - - - - thick--clawed porcelain crab Callfomla petricolid(shell debris) Total: 80 28 21 756 - 28 34 No,of Species: 4 2 2 6 - 3 4 Appendix C-,3. (Cont.) Survey Type: Normal Op Normal Op Normal Op Normal Op. Normal Op Normal Op Normal Op Survey No.: 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 Date: 3-Feb404. 10•Feb-04 18-Feb-04 24-Feb-04- 2-Mar-04 9-Mar-04 i6-Mar-04 Innkeeper worm - bay ghost shrimp Jellyfish - - - - - 22 . red rock shrimp - - _ _ _ - purple-striped jelly - salp,unid. - - - _ _ - - Paclfic rock crab - - - 14 - 7 7 yellow rock crab 23 - - - _ - yellow shore crab - - - - striped shore crab - - - 7 Callfomle spiny lobster - - - _ - ochre starfish yelkrMeg shrimp tuberculate pear crab Xantus swimming crab - - - - 7 Intertidal coastal shrimp - - - - _ California aglaja nudibranch - - 210 nudibranch - - - - - - shield-backed kelp crab - - - - - market squid - - - - - - spiny brittlestar blackspotted bay shrimp - - 49 - 14 - - graceful rock crab - - - - - - - red rock crab pubescent porcelain crab ribbon worm - stubby dendronotus - sea star(decomposed) - - - 7 - - Spanish shawl - - - - - 7 - warty sea cucumber - - - - - - 7 Two-spotted octopus - - - - _ _ Pacific littleneck(shell debris) masking crab - - - - - - - sheep crab - - - - - thlck-clawed porcelain crab - - - - -California pelrlcolid(shell debris) - - - - - - Total: 23 - 259 28 21 37 14 No.of Species: 1 - 2 3 2 3 2 I Appendix C-0. (Cont.) L Survey Type: Normal Op Normal Op Normal Op Normal Op Normal Op Normal Op Normal Op Normal Op Survey No.: 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 Date: 23-Mar-04 30-Mar-04 6-Apr-04 13-Apr-04 20-Apr-04 27-Apr-04 4-May-04 11-May-04 Innkeeper worm - - - - - - - - bay ghost shrimp - - - - - - - E Jellyfish - - - 6 - - 19 - red rock shrimp purple-striped Jelly salp.unld. - - - - - - - - Pacific rock crab - - - - 23 - 31 - yellow rock crab 13 - 34 84 35 26 321 122 yellow shore crab - - - - - - - - striped shore crab - _ = 7 = _ Califomla spiny lobster ochre starfish - - - - - - - yellowleg shrimp - - - - -: tuberculate pear crab - - - - 6 Xantus swimming crab - 7 - - - - 12 - Intertidal coastal shrimp - - - - - - 6 - California aglaja nudibranch - 58394 - - - - - - nudibranch - shield-backed kelp crab market squid - spiny britUestar biackspotted bay shrimp - - - - - 253 graceful rock crab - 14 - - _ _ red rock crab - - - - - - 19 _ j pubescent porcelain crab = - _ - `t ribbon worm stubby dendronotus sea star(decomposed) Spanish shawl warty sea cucumber Two-spotted octopus Pacific littleneck(shell debris) masking crab sheep crab thick-clewed porcelain crab .. California petricolid(shell debris) - Total: 13 58415 34 91 58 33 666 131 ( No.of Species: 1 3 1 2 2 2 8 2 I I Appendix C-0.(Cont.) Survey Type: Normal Op Normal Op Normal Op Normal Op Normal Op Normal Op Normal Op Normal Op Survey No.: 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 so Date: 18-May-04 25-May-04 3-Jun-04 . 8-Jun-04 15-Jun-04 22-Jun-04 29-.Jun-04 7-Jut-04 Innkeeper worm bay ghost shrimp Jellyfish red rock shrimp - - - _ purple_striped jelly - - - - - 13 7 - salp,unid. - - - - _ _ - Pacific rock crab - - 191 - - yellow rock crab 344 9 888 - 25 - _ 23 yellow shore crab - - - - atdped shore crab - - 14 California spiny lobster ochre starfish yelweg shrimp - - - - _ _ _ - tuberculate pear crab 25 112 - - _ _ _ 12 Xentus swimming crab - - - - - Intertidal coastal shrimp - - 7 California aglaja - - - nudlbranch nudibranch shield-backed kelp crab - - 7 market squid spiny brittlestar - 19 blackspotted bay shrimp - - - graceful rock crab - - 116 - _ 7 red rock crab 34 9 365 - - _ _ _ pubescent porcelain crab ribbon worm stubby dendronotus sea star(decomposed) - - 41 Spanish shawl - - - warty sea cucumber Two-spotted octopus 8 - - - 6 7 - - Paclnc littleneck(shell debris) masking crab sheep crab - - - - - - - thlck-clawed porcelain crab CaUfomia petricolid(shell debris) - - - - - _ _ Total: 412 149 1626 - 31 20 14 35 No,of Species: 4 4 9 - 2 2 2 2 Appendix C-3.(Cont.) Survey Type: Normal Op Normal Op Heat Treat Heat Treat Heat Treat Heat Treat Heat Treat Heat Treat Survey No.: 51 52 ` 1 2 - 3 4 5 6 Date: 13-JUI-04 20-Jul-04 16•Aug-03 26-Sep-03 7-Nov-03 6-Jan-04 22-Feb-04 30-May-04 Innkeeper worm - 2 - - - - bay ghost shrimp - - - - - - - r jellyfish 16 7 - red rock shrimp. - - 3 4 - - - 133 purple-striped jelly 16 - - - - - - - sale,unld. - - - - - _ - - Pacific rock crab 16 630 1 13 2 S2 yellow rock crab - 110 - - - 21 20 110 i yellow shore crab - - - - - - - - I striped.shore crab - - 17 1 7 2 11 24 68 4 Califomla spiny lobster - - 11 6 1 - - 2 ochre starfish - - 3 - - - - - yeilcrMeg shrimp - - - - - - - tuberculate pear crab 31 404 - 9 1 27 - 349 Xantus swimming crab - - - - 11 4 1 Intertldei coastal shrimp - - - 2 - 14 4 11 Callfomla aglaJa - - - 3 - 4 & - nudibranch - - - - - - - nudibranch - - - - 2 - 85 24 shleld-backed kelp crab - - - - - 1 1 9 f.' market squid - - - - - - - - spiny brittlester - - - - - - 14 blackspotted bay shrimp - - - - - - 2 - graceful rock crab 233 1102 - - - - - 11 red rock crab - - - - - 2 - 23 pubescent porcelain crab - - - - - 1 - - ribbon worm - - - - - - - stubby dendronotus - - - - - 14 sea star(decomposed) - - - - - - - - Spanish shawl - - - - - - - - warty sea cucumber - - - - - - - - Two-spotted octopus - - 12 14 2 - 1 5 Pacific littleneck(shell debris) - - - - - - - - masking crab - - - - - - sheep crab thlck-clawed porcelain crab California petricolid(shell debris) Total: 310 2252 49 58 10 92 163 834 No.of Species: 5 5 7 8 6 9 10 15 I Appendix C-3.(Cont.) Survey Type: Normal Ops Heat Treat Survey No.: Total Occurrence Total _ Occurrence Total Date: Abundance (n=52) Abundance 0=5) Impingement innkeeper worm 6 1 2 1 8 bay ghost shrimp 13 2 - - 13 jellyfish 326 16 - - 326 red rock shrimp 20 3 140 3 160 . purpl"dped Jelly 53 5 - 53 salp,unld. 18 1 Pacific rock crab 958 13 68 4 1026 yellow rock crab 2706 19 151 3 2857 yellow shore crab 6 1 - - 6 striped shore crab 27 3 149 6 176 CalIfornia spiny lobster 12 2 20 4 32 ochre starfish - - 3 1 3 yallowleg shrimp 5 1 - - 5 tuberculate pear crab 597 7 386 4 983 Xentus swimming crab 47 6 16 3 63 intertidal coastal shrimp 27 3 31 4 58 4 California aglaja - - 15 3 15 nudibranch 82150 5 - - 62150 nudibranch 50 1 111 3 161 shield-backed kelp crab 26 4 11 3 37 market squid 7 1 - - 7 spiny brittlestor 26 2 14 1 40 blacks potted bay shrimp 336 5 2 1 338 graceful rock crab 1484 7 11 1 1495 red rock crab 417 4 25 2 442 pubescent porcelain crab - - 1 1 1 ribbon worm 17 1 - - 17 stubby dendronotus - - 14 1 14 sea star(decomposed) 48 2 - 48 Spanish shawl 7 1 - 7 warty sea cucumber 7 1 - 7 Two-spotted octopus 27 4 34 5 61 Pacific littleneck(shell debris) - - - - - masking crab 7 1 - - 7 sheep crab thick-clawed porcelain creb California petdcolld(shell debris) - - - - - Total: 69432 1206 70638 No.of Species: 29 21 35 Appendix C-4. Extrapolated normal operations and heat treatment macroinvertebrate biomass(kg)by survey. Normal Op Normal Op .Normal Op Normal Op Normal Op Normal Op 1 2 3 4 5 6 29-Jul-03 5-Aug-03 12-Aug-03 22-Aug-03 26-Aug-03 3Sep-03 ^ Urechis caupo Innkeeper worm O.577 Neotrypsea cafifomfensfs bay ghost shdmp 0.032 - - - - Polyorehfs penlclatus Jellyfish - 0,012 - - - - r-' Lysmata caftmfcs red rock shrimp - 0.012 - - - Chryssors colorsta purple-striped Jelly - - 7.797 - Safpfdae salp.unid. - - - 0.108 - - Cancer antennarfus Pacific rock crab - - - - - - Cancer anthonyi yellow rock crab hfarrdgrapsus oregonensls yellow shore crab - - - - - Pachygrapsus crasslpes striped shore crab - - - - - Panuffnis lnterruptus California spiny lobster - - - - - 5.125 Plsasler ochra coo us ochre starfish Peneeus caRlomfensls yellowleg shrimp - - - - - 0.185 Pyrorrrafe tuberculate tuberculate pear crab - - - - - - 3 Portunus xentusk Xantus vMmming crab Neplacarpus pelpalor Intertidal coastal shrimp - - - - - Navanaxlnamrfs Ceiifomia agla)a 7 - - - _ Dandronodrsb+ondosus nudibranch - Nerrrrfssends crasslcomis nudibranch Puget&products shletd-backed kelp crab ~ Lofigo opalescens market squid - - - - - - Ophlothrbr spfcufata spiny brthlestar Crangon nfgromaculafe blackspotted bay shrimp - - - - - Cancergracffs graceful rock crab - - - - - Cancerproductus red rock crab - - - - - Paehycheles pub escens pubescent porcelain crab - - - - - Cerebratulus cablomfensls ribbon worm • Dandronotus subramosus stubby dendmnotus Pisastersp. sea star(decomposed) Rabel6ne fodlnea Spanish shawl Parastfchopus pammensis warty sea cucumber - - - - Octopus blmaculoldes two-spotted olopus - - - - 1.108 _ s Protothaca stamina Pacific Weneck(shell debris) 7M9 - - 0,875 1.025 Loxorhynchus c&patus masking crab - - - _ Loxorhynchus grandis sheep crab Pachycheles rue7s thick-clewed porcelain crab - - - _ _ _ PetrfcoM caHomfensis Caliromla petricolld(shell debris) - - - 0.058 - 8,478 0.025 7.797 0.108 2.042 6.335 3 2 1 1 3 3 L .I E • R � 1 Appendix C-4.(Cont.) Normal Op Normal Op Normal Op Normal Op_ Normal Op Normal Op Normal Op 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 10-5e 15Se 23-Se 3 30-Sep-03 7-Oct-03 14-Oct-03 21-Oct-03 Innkeeper womb bay ghost shrimp - jellyfish - 0.079 0.216 0.115 0.098 0.155 - red rock shrimp - - 0.007 - purple-striped jelly salp,unid. Pacific rock crab - - - - 0.035 - - yellow rock crab - - - 0.013 - yellow shore crab - - 0.005 striped shore crab California spiny lobster - - 5.873 ochre starfish - - - yellowleg shrimp - tuberculate pear crab - 0.007 Xantus swimming crab - - 0.034 fntertidat coastal shrimp - - - - - California eglala - - - - - nudibranch - - - - - - nudibranch - - - - - - shield-backed kelp crab - - - - - marketscluid spiny brittlesta r - - - - - - - blackspolted bay shrimp graceful rock crab - - - - - - red rock crab - pubescent porcelain crab - - - - - - - Hbbonworm - - - - - - stubby-dendronotus - - - - - - - sea star(decomposed) Spanish shawl - - - - - - warty sea cucumber - - - - - - - two-spotted octopus - - - - - - - Pacific littleneck(shell debris) 0.339 - 6.075 - - 0.347 masking crab - _ sheep crab - - - - - - - thick-clawed porcelain crab - - - - Cellfomla petricofld(shell debris) - - - - - - 0.339 0.086 12.204 0.134 0.133 0.155 0.347 1 2 5 3 2 1 1 E' Appendix C-4. (Cont.) Normal Op Normal Op Normal Op Normal Op-Normal Op Normal Op Normal Op 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 28-Oct-03 4-Nov-03 11-Nov-03 20-Nov-03 28-Nov-03 2-Dec-03 9-Dec-03" f Innkeeper worm bay ghost shrimp 0.028 jeltyfish - - - - - - 0.014 red rock shrimp - - - - - _ LLL purple-striped jelly - - - - - - saip,unid. . Pacific rack crab 0.007 yellow rock crab - 0.019 yellow shore crab }}1 striped store crab - California spiny lobster ochre starfish yetiowleg shrimp tuberculate pear crab Y.antus swimming crab - - 0,013 - - - - Intertidal coastal shrimp - - - California aglaja nudibranch - 0.037 - - _ _ 3.118 nudibranch - 0.031 - - - - shleld-backed kelp crab - 0.012 - - - 0.007 market squid - - - - 0,442 - - spiny brittlestar - blackspotted bay shrimp - graceful rack crab - red rock crab - pubescent porcelain crab i ribbon worm stubby dendronotus I sea star(decomposed) f Spanish shawl warty sea cucumber two-spotted octopus - Pacific littleneck(shell debris) 3.522 0.156 masking crab - sheep crab thick-clawed porcelain crab Califomla petrlcolid(shell debris) 3.550 0.255 0.013 0.007 0.442 - 3.139 2 5 1 1 1 0 3 I L - ! i i a - 6 `_ I 1 I Appendix C-4. (Cont.) Normal Op Normal Op Normal Op Normal Op Normal Op Normal Op Normal Op 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 i6-Dec-03 23-Dec-03 30-Dec-03 9-Jan-04 18-Jan-04 20-Jan-04 27Jan-04 Innkeeper worn bey ghost shrimp Jellyfish 0.062 0.042 - 0.804 - - 0.011 red rock shrimp - - - 0.007 - - - purple-striped Jelly - - _ - - _ salp,unid. - - - - - - Pacific rock crab 0.012 - - 0.027 - 0.039 yellow rock crab - - 0.014 0.702 - 0.007 _ yellow shore crab _ _ _ - _ _ _ striped share crab Califomla spiny lobster ochre starfish - - - - yeliowleg shrimp tuberculate pear crab JCantus swimming crab - - - - 0.007 _ Intertidal coastal shrimp - - 0.028 -California aglaJa - _ _ nudlbranch 0.031 nudlbranch - shield-backed kelp crab 0.006 market squid spiny britWestar - 0.007 - blackspotted bay shrimp - - - 0.014 0.021 - graceful rack crab - - - 0.020 - - 0.068 red rock crab - - - - pubescent porcelain crab - - - _ i ribbon worm - - - - - - 0.186 } stubby dendronotus sea star(decomposed) - - - - - - Spanish shawl warty sea cucumber - - - - - two-spotted octopus - - - - - Pacific littleneck(shell debris) - - - - masking crab sheep crab - - - - - - - thick-clawed porcelain crab California petricolid(shell debris) - - - - - 0.111 0.049 0.042 1.573 0.035 D.304 4 2 2 6 0 3 4 F c Appendix C4.(Cont.) Normal Op Normal Op Normal Op Normal Op Normal Op Normal Op 28 29 30 &1 32 33 3-Feb-04. 10-Feb-04 18-Feb-04 24-Feb-04 2-Mar-04 9-Mar4l4 Innkeeper worm - bay ghost shrimp - - - - - - jellyfish - - - - - 0.155 I red rock shrimp I purpl"fiped jelly - salp,unld. - - - - - Pacific rock crab - - - 0,196 - 0.141 yellow rock crab 0.030 - - - - - yellow shore crab - - - - - striped shore crab - = 0.028 = Califomfa spiny lobster ochre starfish - - - - - yellowleg shrimp - - - - (ubercutate pear crab - - - - - - Xantus swimming crab - - - - 0.112 - Interildal coastal shrimp California agla)a - - - - - - nudibranch - - 0,098 - - - nudlbranch - - - - - shield--backed kelp crab - - - - market squid - spiny brittlestar - - - -blacks potted bay.shrimp - - 0.046 0.049 . graceful rock crab - - - - - _ red rock crab pubescent porcelain crab - - ribbon worm stubby dendronotus r sea star(decomposed) - - - 1.050 - t Spanish shawl - - - - 0.007 Warty sea cucumber - - - two-spotted octopus Pacific littleneck(shelf debris) masking crab sheep crab thick-clawed porcelain crab Cal lfomla petricolid(shell debris) 0.030 - 0.144 1.274 0.161 0.303 1 0 2 3 2 3 r . I, � I i Appendix C-4. (Cant.) Normal Op Normal Op Normal Op Normal Op- Normal Op Normal Op Normal Op 34 35 38 37 _ 38 39 40 16-Mar-04 23-Mar-04 30-Mar-04 6-Apr-04 13-A r-04 20•Apr-04 27-A r-04 Innkeeper worm - - - - - bay ghost shrimp jeilyfish - - - - 0.019 - red rock shrimp - - - - purple-striped jelly satp,unld. - - - - - - - Pacific rock crab 0.014 - - - - 0.047 yellow rock crab - 0.034 - 0.098 0.260 0.076 0.065 yellow shore crab - - - - - - striped shore crab - - - - - 0.028 California spiny lobster - - - - - - - ochre starfish - - - - - - - yellawleg shrimp - - - - - - - tuberculate pear crab Xantus swimming crab - - 0.028 - - - intertidal coastal shrimp - - - - - CaMomla aglaja nudibranch - - 11.679 nudlbranch - - - - - - - shleld-backed kelp crab - - - - - - - market squid - - - - - spinybrittlester - - - - - - - blackspotted bay shrimp - - - - - - _ grsceful rack crab - - 0.042 - - - red rock crab - - - - - - - pubescent porcelain crab - - - - - - ribbon worm - - - - - - - stubby dendronotus - - - - - - sea star(decomposed) - - - - - - - Spanish shawl - - - - - - - warty sea cucumber 0.459 - - - - - - iwo-spatted octopus - - - - - - - Pacific littleneck(shell debris) - 0.558 - - - - - masking crab - - - - - - - sheep crab - - - - - - - thlck-clawed porcelain crab - - - - -California petricolid(shell debris) - - - - - - - 0.473 0.591 11.748 0.096 0.279 0.123 0.091 2 2 3 1 2 2 2 F ' Appendix C4. (Cont.) Normal Op Normal Op Normal Op Normal Op Normal Op Normal Op Normal Op 41 42 43 44 _ 45 46 47 4-Ma -04 it-Ma -04 16-May-04 25-May-04 3-Jun-04 8-Jun-04 15-Jun-04 Irinkeeperworm - - - - - - - bay ghost shrimp - - - - - - Jellyfish 0.062 - - - - - ' red rock shrimp, - - - - - - - 111 purple-striped Jelly - 2.611 - - - - salp,unld. - - - - - Pacific rock crab 0,222 - - 4.947 - yellow rock crab 0.543 0.188 0.773 0.233 16.721 - .0,025 yellow shore crab - - - - striped shore crab - - - - 0.034 - - lCalifornia spiny lobster - - - - ochre starfish - - - - yellowleg shrimp - - - - - tuberculate pear crab 0.006 - 0.050 0.364 - - - Xantus swfmmfng crab 0.099 - - - intertidal coastal shrimp 0.006 - - - 0.034 - - California aglaJa - nudibranch nudibranch shield-backed kelp crab - - _ _ 0.089 market squid - - - - spiny brittlestar - - 0.075 - - - blackspotted bay shrimp 0.382 - - - graceful rock crab - - - - 1.155 - red rock crab 0.025 - O.o67 0.167 5.822 - pubescent porcelain crab - - - - ribbon worm stubby dendronotus ( sea star(decomposed) - - - 8.822 - - Spanish shawl - - - _ - warty sea cucumber two-spotted octopus - - 9,887 - - - 5.589 Pacific littleneck(shell debris) - - - - - masking crab . - - - - 0.212 - - sheep crab - Mck-clawed porcelain crab - - - - - California petricoiid(shell debris) 1.344 2.799 10.T77 0.859 37.836 - 5.614 8 2 4 4 9 0 2 I i I I i � I k` Appendix C-4.(Cont.) Normal Op.Normal Op Normal Op Normal Op Normal Op 48 49 50 51 52 224un-04 29-Jun-04 7-Jul-04 13-Jul-44 20.1ul-04 Innkeeper worm bay ghost shrimp Jellyfish - - - 0.062 2.300 red rock shrimp - - - _ - purple-striped jelly 5.081 4.711 - 1.474 - salp,unld. - - - - _ Pacific rock crab - - _ d.217 2.683 yellow rock crab - - 0,012 - 1.944 yellow shore crab - - - _ _ striped share crab California spiny lobster ochre ate rrish yellowleg shrimp - tuberculate pear crab - - 0.018 0,031 0.470 Xantus swimming crab Intertidal coastal shrimp California aglaja - - - - nudibranch nudibranch shield-backed kelp crab market squid spiny brittlestar - - - - blackspotted bay shrimp - - - - - graceful rock crab - 0.007 - 0.279 1,335 1 red rock crab - - - _ _ pubescent porcelain crab ribbon worm - - - - - stubby dendronotus sea star(decomposed) Spanish shawl warty sea cucumber - - - two-spotted octopus 6.335 - - - Pacific littleneck(shell debris) - - 0.408 0.838 - masking crab - - - sheep crab - - - - - lhlck-clawed porcelain crab - - - - - Caiifomla peiricolld(shell debris) 11,416 4.718 0.438 2,901 8.741 2 2 3 6 5 yAppendix C-4. (Cont.) Heat Treat Neat Treat Heat Treat Heat Treat Heat Treat Heat Treat 1 2 3 4 _ 5 6 16-Aug-03 26-Se 7-Nov-03 r-Jan-04 22-Feb-04 30-May-04 Innkeeper worm 0.025 bay ghost shrimp - - - - - - Jellyfish - - - - - �l red rock shrimp 0.008 0.006 - - - 0.180 t purple-striped jetty - - - - - - ` salp•unld, - - - - - - 1 Padficrockcrab 0.056 0,008 0.010 - - 1.105 yellow rock crab - - 0.037 0.035 1.270 yellow shore crab - - - - - striped shore crab 0.028 0.030 0.042 0.046 0.052 0.203 j California spiny lobster 5.000 2.750 0.604 - - 0.283 ochre starfish 1.103 - - - - yellowleg shrimp - - - - _ luberculate pear crab 0.006 0.002 0.028 - 0.346 Xantus swimming crab - - 0.019 0.020 0.016 Interlldal coastal shrimp - 0.001 - 0.005 0.004 0.008 California agiaja - 0.005 - 0.015 0.018 - nudibranch - - - - - - nudlbranch - - 0.004 - 0,095 0,015 T shleid-backed kelp crab - - - 0.054 0.015 0.130 • market squid - - - - - _ spiny brittlestar _ _ _ _ 5 7 blackspotted bay shrimp - - 0.004 - graceful rack crab - - - - - 0.079 red rock crab - - - 0.018 - 0.147 pubescent porcelain crab _ _ 0.001 _ - ribbon worm - - - - - _ stubby dendronolus - - - _ 0.028 _ sea star(decomposed) Spanish shawl warty sea cucumber - _ two-spotted octopus 0.047 0.041 0.030 - 1.556 0.844 Pacific ItMeneck(shell debris) masking crab sheep crab - - - 0.657 thick-clawed porcelain crab - _ _ 0001 California petricolid(shell debris) 6.267 2.847 0.692 0.223 1.827 5.247 { 7 a 6 9 10 16 j f �1 . t et` � Appendix C-4. (Cont.) Normal Ops Heat Treat Total Occurrence Total Occurrence Total Biomass (n=52) Biomass (n=6) Impingement Innkeeper worm 0.577 1 0.025 1 0.602 bay ghost shrimp 0.060 2 - - 0.060 jellyfish 4.207 16 - - 4.207 red rock shrimp 0.026 3 0.194 3 0.220 purple-striped Jelly 21.674 5 - - 21.674 salp,unld. 0.108 1 - - 0.108 Pacific rock crab 8.588 13 1.179 4 9.767 yellow rock crab 21.754 19 1.342 3 23.096 yellow shore crab 0.006 1 - - 0.006 striped shore crab 0.088 3 0.401 6 0.489 Callfomla spiny lobster 10.998 2 8.637 4 19.635 ochre starfish - - 1.103 1 1.103 yellowteg shrimp 0,185 1 - - 0.185 tuberculate pear crab 0.955 7 0.382 4 1.337 Xantus swimming crab 0.292 6 0.055 3 0.347 lnterUdal coastal shrimp 0.068 3 0.018 4 0.086 I California aglaja - - 0.038 3 0.038 nudibranch 14.963 5 - 14.963 nudibranch 0.031 1 0.114 3 0.145 shield-backed kelp crab 0.114 4 0.199 3 0.313 market squid 0.442 1 - - 0.442 spiny brtttlester 0.082 2 0.007 1 0,089 blackspotted bay shrimp 0.511 5 0.004 1 0.515 graceful rock crab 2,905 7 0.079 1 2,984 red rock crab 6.101 4 0.165 2 6,266 pubescent porcelain crab - - 0.001 1 0.001 ribbon worm 0.186 1 - - 0.188 stubby dendronotus - - 0.028 1 0.028 sea star(decomposed) 9.872 2 - - 9.872 1 Spanish shawl 0.007 1 - - 0.007 warty sea cucumber 0.459 1 - - 0.459 two-spotted octopus 22.919 4 2.474 5 25,393 Pacific littleneck(shell debris) 22.012 11 - - 22.012 masking crab 0.212 1 - - 0.212 sheep crab - - 0.657 1 0.657 thick-clawed porcelain crab - - 0.001 1 0.001 California petricolld(shell debris) 0.058 1 - - 0.058 150.462 17.103 167.565 31 22 37 - Appendix C-S.Temporal normal operation and heat treatment Impingement patterns by species, HSGS 2003-2004. E Queenfish HBGS normal operations impingement 2003-2004 Total = 10,458 `''E wo 400 20D Jr ■ : Queenfish HBGS normal operations Impingement - 2003-2004 Biomass = 58.0 kg f 4 3 L �JE _ Ib 2 Y _ _ - ; :L_ Appendix G3.(Cont) Queenfish HBGS heat treatments 2003-2004 Total = 25,379 6000 5000 ' 4000 20oo 1000 l - i Queenfish HBGS heat treatments 2003-2004 Biomass = 590.1 kg 140 120 CD goo = 80 = _ 40 _ 20 = O Appendix CS.(Cont) P White croaker HBGS normal operations impingement �, 2003-2004 Total = 274 12 10 S g e 2 � ems • ; . . . . . . . . . . . . White croaker HBGS normal operations impingement 2003-2004 Biomass = 3.4 kg 0.20 a 0.15 0.10 n.os � . _ Appendix C-S.'(Cont) White Croaker HBGS heat treatments 2003-2004 Total = 4,629 3500 3000 25M M 2000 cQ - 1500 1000 500 + i 0 ' White croaker HBGS heat treatments 2003-2004 Biomass = 92.0 kg 7o 60 B C 50 E m 40 m 20 10 0 • T . Appendix C-5. (Cant) Northern anchovy HBGS normal operations impingement 2003-2004 kF Total = 824 as 20 h is ` i0 + • `g . : 0 c ... [ • f .. i f .. ... - .•-i • •••••• c •e•• S •IS•to •••••••• Northern anchovy HBGS normal operations Impingement - 2003-2004 Biomass = 5.5 kg 0.20 `IE qb 0.10 0.0s ? i $ - j - 1 � Appendix C-5.(Cant) Northern anchovy HBGS heat treatments 2003-2004 Total = 1.369 Tao s0o 500 400 r . 300 200 • 900 - _ _ l o - • j Northern anchovy HBGS heat treatments 2003-2004 Biomass = 9.3 kg 4 • 3 • 2 0 Appendix C-5.(Cont) Shiner perch HBGS normal operations impingement 2003-2004 Total = 215 10 r 7E 1 y 4 �T • • 0 • E • •ws • ••••••••• .rww.•w•w•w••••'!'TI wt•••••11T Shiner perch { HBGS normal operations impingement I 2003-2004 Biomass = 2.0 kg 0.0s . g� 0.06 r 0.04 • i 0,02 I IL Appendix C5.(Cont.) Shiner perch HBGS heat treatments 2003-2004 ' Total = 3,830 3000 2500 2000 1500 1000 s 500 = 0 • Shiner perch HBGS heat treatments 2003-2004 Biomass = 49.8 kg 35 • 30 25 c' 20 1s m 10 = s - - o Appendix C-5.(Cont) Paclflc(brown)rack crab Cancer anfennarius HEMS normal operations Impingement - `. 2003-2004 f Total-958 60 L 50 C _ I 30 20 • ,0 Paciflc(brown)rock crab Cancer antennerius HBG5 normal operations Impingement 2003-2004 Biomass n 8.6 kg 0.6 } 0.5 • 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 1 Appendlx C�5,(ConL) Pacific(brown)rock crab Cancer sniennarius HBGS heat treatments 2003-2004 Total- 68 60 • 50 �i -E 40 E •N 90 _ C 2Q 10 l Pacific(brown)rock crab Cancer antennertus HBGS heat treatments 2003-2004 Biomass=1.2 kg 1.2 • 1.0 F E o = _ 0.4 0.2 0.0 SS tt gg• • y II tt rr Appendix CS. (Cont.) Yellow rock crab Cancerenfhony! HBGS normal operations Impingement .� 2003-2004 Total+2.706 100 ' gp e f. r . so 20 = l : Yellow rock crab Cancer enthonyl HBGS normal operations Impingement ! 2003-2004 $lomass-21.8 kg 1.8 l 1.4 = 1.2 Y 1.0 0.8 . 0.6 0.4 0.2 t (( 0.0 ; . e -oil me t" Appendix C-5.jConL) Yellow rock crab Cancer enthonyi HBGS heat treatments 2003-2004 Total= 151 120 i0o go - so - Mg G 40 20 0 f f f Yellow rock crab Cancer anthonyi HBGS heat treatments 2003-2004 Biomass= 1.3 kg 1.4 1.2 1 q CL a O.ti 0.6 0.4 0.2 - 0.0 Appendix C-S. (Cont) Slender(graceful)rock crab Cancer gradlis HBGS normal operations Impingement s. 2003-2004 7 Total-1.484 i . 100 ( nE I 60 N 40 20 • 0 ••r • . .-of rrr•r• • •.!. Slander(graceful)rock crab Cancer gracills HBGS normal operations Impingernent ' 2003-2004 Blomass-2.9 kg 0.14 0.12 0.10 0.04 0.02 • 0.00 r.. •.• ••.•u•!rr•..■..�.. 1. . . . ... i ••.••••• 2 •r.!• i Appendix C-5.(Cant.) Slander(graceful)rock crab Cancer gracift HBGS heat treatments 2003-2004 Total=l l 12 • 10 �i 8 E .N 5 6 - 4 - 2 - 0 SS� ff� II Slender(graceful)rock crab Cancer greciNs HBGS heat treatments 2003-2004 Blomasa=0.68 kg 0.10 0.08 4 0.06 Le 0.04 0.02 0.00 • ■ • • • E Appendix C-S.(Cant) Red rock crab Cencer productus HBGS normal operations Impingement- 2003-2004 Total-417 40 'E 30 I 20 Li 1O Red rock crab Cancer productus HBGS normal operations Impingement f 2003-2004 Slomasa.6.1 kg 0.7 0.6 • f O.S !>, OE 0.4 Y 0.3 0.2 r' 0.1 I_ i � 12 Appendix CS.(Cont) Red rock crab Cancer productus HSGS heat treatments 2003-2004 Total=25 25 20 ` ca C 9 15 g 10 . 5 _ • 0 • • -------------- Red rock crab Cancer productus HBGS heat treatments 2003-2004 Biomass 0.2 kg { 0.16 I 0.14 �j 0.12 0.10 0.08 m 0.06 0.04 0.02 Appendix C-5.(Cont) Tuberculate pear crab Pyrornals tuberculate HSGS normal operations Impingement 2003-2004 Tote1-597 E 35 - 30 ff 1b 25 20 5 Q •■.... - ■ .. •.• 4�••...••..■•...i••.••.•. .••. i E . Tuberculate pear crab Pyromale tuberculate HBGS normal operations Impingement 2003.2004 Biomass- 1.0 kg 0.06 • 0.05 �. . 0.04 0.03 0.02 - - 0.01 Appendix CS.(Cant) Tuberculate pear crab - Pyromsls fuberculefs HBGS heat treatments 2003-2004 Total-386 400 • �i 300 5 200 100 Ij - 4 • Tuberculate pear crab Pyromels tuberculate HBGS heat treatments 2003-2004 Biomass=0.4 kg OA 0.3 M E m ' Ze, 0'.2 m - 0.1 0.0 . • It f Appendix D-1. Master species list of fishes entrained and/or impinged at the AES HBGS,July 2003 -A►rgust 2004. �Y E = PHYLUM Class Family Species Common Name VERTEBRATA Elasmobranchiornorphi Carcharhinidae Triakis semifasicata leopard shark Torpedinidae Torpedo californica Pacific electric ray Platyrhinidae PlatY rhinoidis triseriata thornback Rhinabatidae Rhinobatos productus shovelnose guitarfish _ Urolophidae Urolophus halleri round stingray 5_ = Urolobatis hafted i Myliobatidae %4iobaUs californica bat ray Osteichthys l Ophichthidae F Ophichthus zophochir yellow snake eel f , Clupeidae E mmsus fares round herring Sardinops sagax Pacific sardine Engraulidae Anchoa compressa deepbody anchovy Engraulis rnordax northern anchovy { Synodontidae } Synodus/ucioceps California lizardfish ! Myctophidae l� Diaphus theta California headiightfish L . Stenobrachius leucopsarus northern lampfish Trrphotorus mexicanus Mexican lampfish f Merlucciidae Marluccius productus Pacific hake c • �S E . Appendix 0-1.(Cont.) PHYLUM{ Class Family Species Common Name _ Ophidiidae Chilara taylori spotted cusk eel Ophidion scrippsae basketweave cusk-eel Betrachoididae Porichthys rrryriaster specklefin midshipman Porfchthys notalus plainfin midshipman Gobiesocidae Gobiesox rhessodon California clingfish Atherinopsidae Atherinops affinis topsmelt Atherinopsis califomiensis jacksmell Leuresthes tenuis California grunion i Belonidae Sfrongylura exilis California needlefish Aulorhynchidae Aulorhynchus flavidus tubesnout Syngnathidae Syngnethus californionsis kelp pipeTish Syngnethus lepforhynchus bay pipefish Scorpaenidae Scorpaena guttata California scorplonfish Sebastes auriculatus brown rockfish Sebastes miniatus vermillion rockfish Sebastes spp. V 16 potential rockfish Sebastes spp. V De KGB Rockfish Cmplx. Sebastes spp, VD Hexagrarnmidae Oxylebius pictus painted greenling Zaniolepis spp. combfishes Cottidae Artedius laterafis smoothhead sculpin Leptocottus armatus Pacific staghom sculpin Ruscarius creaseri roughcheek sculpin Scorpsenichthys marmoratus cabezon Appendix D.I. (Cont.) PHYLUM — Class 1 Family 1 Species Common Name Agonidae Odonfopyxis trispinosa pygmy poacher Serranidoe Perelabrax clethratus kelp bass Paralabraxmaculatofasciafus spotted sand bass Peralabrax nabu fer barred sand bass Carangidae Trachurus symmetricus jack mackerel Haemulidae Anisotremus devidsonii sargD Xenislius californiensis salerna Sciaenidae Afractoscion nobilis white seabass Cheilotrema seturnum black croaker Genyonemus lineatus white croaker Menficirrhus undulatus California corbina Seriphus polifus queenfish Roncador stearnsd spotiin croaker Umbrina roncador yellowfin croaker Kyphosidae Girella nigricans opaleye Medialune cafrforniensis halfmoon Embiotocidae Cymatogaster aggregata shiner perch E'mbiotoca Jackson black perch Hyperprosopon,argenteum walleye surfperch Phanerodon furcatus white seaperch Rhacochilus toxotes rubberlip seaperch f Rhacochflus vacca pile perch Pomacentridae Chromis punctipinnis blacksmith Hypsypops rubicundus garibaldi ot.•. Appendix 0-1. (Cont.) PHYLUM Class Family Species Common Name Labridae Halichoeres semicincfus rock wrasse Oxyjulis californica senorita Semicossyphus pulcher California sheephead Labrisomidae labrisomid blennies Clinidae Gibbonsia spp. kelp blennies Haferoslichus rosfralus giant kelpfish Chaenopsidae tube blennies Blenniidae Hypsoblennius gilberli rockpool blenny Hypsoblennius jenkinsi mussel blenny Gobiidae Acanfhogobius llavimenus yellowfin goby.. Cleviandia ids arrow goby Coryphoplerus nicholsi blackeye goby =Rhinogoblops nicholsi Gi ichthys mirabilis longjaw mudsucker llypnus gilberfi cheekspot goby Lepidogobius lepidus bay goby Quielula y-cauda shadow goby Typhlogobius californiensis blind goby Sphyraenidae Sphyraena argenfea Pacific barracuda Scombridae Scomberjaponkus Pacific(chub)mackerel Stromateidae Peprllus simigimus Pacific butterfish Paralichthyidae Cifharichthys sordidus Pacific sanddab Citharlchthys stigmaeus speckled sanddab Hippoglossina slomafa bigmouth sole Paralichfhys cafifomicus California halibut Xyslreurys liolepis fantail sole r ' s . Appendix D-'i.(Cont.) r� PHYLUM Class Family Species Common Name Pleuronectidae l Nypsopsatta yuttulala diamond turbot =Pleuronichthys guttulatus Parophrys vatulus English sole ' Pleuronichthys fitted spotted turbot Pleuronichthys verticalis hornyhead turbot Cynoglossidae Symphurus africauda California tonguefish =Symphurus ahicaadus r� c : 'j Appendix D-2. Master species list of macroinvertebrates impinged during normal operation and/or heat treatment surveys at the HBGS, July 2003- July 2004. PHYLUM Class Family Species Common Name CNIDARIA Hydrozoa Polyorchidae i Polyorchis penicillatus jellyfish Pelagiidae Chrysaora colorato purple-striped jelly NEMERTEA Anopla Lineidae Cerebrefulus californiensis ribbon worm MOLLUSCA Gastropods Aglajidae Navanexinermis California aglaja Dendronotidae , Dendronotus frondosus nudibranch Dendronotus subramosus stubby dendronotus Flabellinidae Flabellina iodinea Spanish shawl 'Facelinidae Hermissenda crassicornis nudibranch also hermissenda Bivalvia Veneridae Protofhace-staminea Pacific littleneck Petricolidae Petricola californiensis California petricola Cephalopoda Loliginidae Loligo opalescens market squid Octopididae Octopus bimaculatus Ibimaculoides two-spotted octopus i , Appendix D-2. (Cont.) PHYLUM Class Pamily Species Common Name ECHIURA Echiuridea Urechidae Urechis caupo innkeeper worm AR'THROPODA Malacostraca Peneeidae Penaeus califomiensis yellowleg shrimp Hippolytidae Napfacarpus palpator intertidal coastal shrimp Lysmata californica red rock shrimp f Crangonidae Crangon nigromaculata blackspotted bay shrimp Callianassidae Neolrypaea californiensis bay ghost shrimp Palinuridae ({4 Panufirus interruptus California spiny lobster i , • Porcellanjdae Pachycheles pubescens pubescent porcealain crab Pachycheles rudis thick-clawed porcelain crab Majidae J Loxorhynchus crispatus masking crab also moss crab Loxorhynchus grandis sheep crab Pugelfia producfa shield-backed kelp crab also northern kelp crab Pyromaia luberculafa tuberculate pear crab Cancridae Cancer aniennafius Pacific rock crab also brown rock crab Cancer anfhon3d yellow rock crab Cancer gracilis graceful rock crab also slender crab Cancer productus red rock crab Appendix D-2.(Cont.) PHYLUM Class Family Species Common Name Portunidae Porfunus xanfusii Xantus swimming crab Grapsidae Hemigrapsus oregonensis yellow shore crab Pachygrapsus crassipes striped shore crab ECHINODERMATA Asteroidea Asteriida e Pisaster sp sea star Pisasterochraceus ochre starfish Ophiuroidea Ophictricidae Ophiothrix spiculafa spiny brittlestar Holothuroidea Stichopodidae Parastichophus parvimensis warty sea cucumber CHORDATA I Thaliacea Salpidae salp,.unid. r, c . tCUMULATIVE IMPACTS ANALYSIS 1.0 introduction The Commission Decision requires the AES Huntington Beach Entrainment and Impingement Study to "consider the cumulative effect of all souther _California coastal power plants on nearshore fish populations." There are 13 coastal power plants in southern Califomia j (between Pt. Conception and the U.S,/Baja California border) that utilize once-through cooling (Figure E-1). Such a cumulative impacts analysis is not only unprecedented for the region, few j such analyses have been performed in the United States. Realizing this, the BRRT convened a l workshop on 5 October 2004 to determine potential methods of performing a cumulative impacts analysis in southern California. The methods identified during this workshop were used in the analysis, and are detailed in Section 6.2. C -_ _�)_A.- ""�•'.,l ✓_!•. t.•._=e��;'f.� -J+. i"- 7f. r.•om..�:..K.. J. t�Y�d+:+ • r -a,.'+°"`H �i ;J;7-:!ec. - •++ -3}•r fk:�l. .+,,,.is - '*• � + �'•w��•�•--5�,w✓,-i'S=!J„"..r•-.'+'• �.'S'�Y• _ •�!*'.T .�-`.�.i! -�:::�..;':Csu.jc:.. v.,Fif'=•XTo-`�-_",`- s,:, y_ :d• tiw,. .�7ff 4'f %s:S:i.`,'� e•`s..e'4• •'-7' a rr sk. �zS-h.W :u>. '} .•.`t�,+'a�h c' 'Sk��� '� ��r �,._ �y ✓'�,1y:3- ,. �•� _ .w+iOC��rTi :•"`W�.' - :.J•:"•"ic;= 1 � !. ^••}•1' "` ti �.� Aim::• L A"!°ti-C r.-�, .]•Y.nGr.s" �'1'7nE:'l'�.Z•u :..,a yLastr:•..;� �•��, �'`t'b"' c;,;'::•:,,'s• �,.v' L 'ram Ormoiicl�Bea `"`� { Scattergood ,106 ^'��{5�•_''_"fir �:,- ,�<EI•S un O s, :�.' ;�.,��� •� 136doiidaOar )13each. 34,sNrati Santa `� -�L�ong;Beaclj"'` �` ` ?f Monica �a '•4 �� Alamitos �•- - ►lay - ..��z• ': a�5?a��' r.�.::�, s >J '}.-r"s ;rye -�y' `s1•• `�;:_r,7.��'%'.: fr(} HUntington,Seach�-. 4 �P�_7sii ri�� .9�f_bf•�� ncEna K" q 1194W 118°W ��5ou#ti'Ba Figure 1. Location of the 13 coastal generating stations in southern California. r Cumulative Impacts of Southem California Coastal Generating Stations Workshop The Cumulative Impacts Workshop convened at the Moss Landing Marine Laboratories on October 5, 2004. Attending were: ➢ California Energy Commission — Dick Anderson, Rick York, Noel Davis, Mike Foster (Moss Landing Marine Labs), and Pete Raimondi (U.C. Santa Cruz). ➢ AES Huntington Beach L.L.C.—Rick Tripp and Paul Hurt. ➢ MSC Applied Environmental Sciences—Chuck Mitchell and Shane Beck ➢ Tenera Environmental—David Mayer, John Steinbeck, and John Hedgepeth ➢ U.C. Davis, Bodega Marine Lab—John Largier ➢ NOAA Fisheries, Santa Cruz—Alec MacCall CEC Staff and MBC presented introductory. information, including California coastal facility overviews and a summary of EPA's Tampa Bay cumulative impact analysis. The discussion ten focused on appropriate methods for describing cumulative effects of entrainment at coastal generating stations given the limited recent data available. An initial depiction of cumulative impact would be to estimate entrainment mortality for each coastal power plant based on cooling water intake volume. Estimates of proportional entrainment(PE) would be calculated for each plant using permitted cooling water intake volumes and.a common source volume, such { as the volume along the Southern California Bight out to a depth of 35 or 75 m, approximating the depth of the shelf. A source water volume to the 75-m isobath was used in an entrainment study at the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station (Parker and DeMartini 1989). The analysis would include all southern California coastal generating stations except Duke's South Bay Power Plant due to its location in south San Diego Bay, which limits its effects on the open coastal areas of the Southern California Bight. i The PE estimates from the individual plants would be used as estimates of daily mortality . to calculate proportional mortality(P,n)over a range of larval durations. Both the individual PE and Pm estimates would be plotted to describe the geographical pattern of power plant induced mortality. The P, estimates would be converted to survival to estimate the cumulative effects because the product of the survival estimates would account for potential overlapping effects of multiple power plants. This product of the survival estimates would be converted to a cumulative estimate of Pm. The initial analysis would assume that the effects of the plants are overlapping producing a single cumulative effect. This initial approach can be expanded using current data to identify discrete areas affected by individual power plants. Where these areas overlap survival estimates can be accumulated to estimate the cumulative mortality. The overlapping levels of mortality can be plotted to show variation along the coast in contrast to the uniform estimate from the initial analysis. 2 F L . E = Impingement data (fishes and macroinvertebrates impinged during the 2003 study year) were presented for 12 of 13 coastal generating stations. Data for Encina Generating Station were not currently available, and macroinvertebrate impingement data are not collected at San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station. Sampling types and frequency vary among generating stations, but annual estimates would be made based on extrapolated normal operations and heat treatment surveys where available. MBC would compile 2003 annual fish and macroinvertebrate loss estimates for all 12 generating stations for the cumulative impact analysis. Facility Overview Huntington Beach Generating Station is one of 13 coastal generating stations along the coast of the Southern Califomia Sight (SCS) that utilizes once-through cooling (Figure 1). Six generating stations have nearshore ve[ocit -ca d intakes four g g y ppe have shoreline intakes, and three have canals (Table 1). There are also three desalination facilities not included in this Y analysis: two that utilize subsurface wells (pebbly Beach on Santa Catalina Island and the U.S. Navy facility on San Nicholas Island),and one facility(Chevron Gaviota in Santa Barbara County) that has relatively low flow volume (<0.5 mgd), The intake flows from these three desalination facilities combined comprise less than one percent of the permitted flow volume in southern California. Table 1. Overview of cooling water intake systems of southern California coastal generating stations. Facility Location Immediate Source Intakes Max. Flow Water mgd + Reliant Mandalay Oxnard Channel 1. Harbor 1 canal 255 Reliant Ormond Beach Oxnard Nearshore 1 velocity-capped 689 IADWP Scattergood Los Angeles Santa Monica Bay 1 velocity-capped 496 NRG El Segundo Los Angeles Santa Monlca Bay 2 ve[ocjty-cq22ed 607 AES Redondo Los Angeles Santa Monica Bayll(ing 2 velodty-capped 889 Beach Harbor LADWP Harbor Los Angeles Los Angeles Harbor 1 shoreline 108 NRG Long Beach Long Beach Long Beach Harbor 1 shoreline 265 AES Alamitos Long Beach Alamitos Bay 2 canals 1,283 tADWP Haynes Long Beach Alamitos Bay 1 canal 1 014 AES Huntington Huntington Nearshore 1 velocity-capped 507 Beach Beach SCE San Onofre San Clemente Nearshors 2 velocity-cappad 2 390 r NRG Encina Carlsbad A ua Hedionds 1 shoreline 860 Duke South Bay San Diego San Diego Bay 1 shoreline 601 Totals: 17 intakes 9 964 3 Overview of Cumulative Impact Analyses Cumulative impact analyses are required as part of the Califomia Environmental Quality Act(CEQA)and the National Environmental Policy Act(NEPA). However,the extent and depth of such analyses vary considerably. As a component of every Environmental Impact Statement, Environmental Impact Report, and Environmental Assessment, the project proponent is required to assess the potential cumulative impacts of the proposed project. The analysis of a projects potential cumulative impact generally focuses on the areas of transportation, socioeconomics, air quality, and land-based natural resources. Cumulative impact analyses focusing on marine resources are often limited in scope. In most cases,this reflects the shortcoming of contemporary marine and fishery science to provide meaningful, integrated cause-and-effect analyses in open- ocean settings of more than one or two stressors acting on populations. Fortunately, our ability to I make environmental decisions is not normally constrained by the demands of the analysis, but is advanced by a process of narrowing the focus of the analysis. f There are a few recent .examples of cumulative impact analyses with respect to impingement and entrainment (I&E) at coastal generating stations. The U.S. EPA recently I published examples used in equating benefits associated with reductions in I&E at Tampa Bay (Florida) and the Delaware Estuary Transition Zone (Delaware and New Jersey) (EPA 2002). Analysis methods at the two locations were similar; losses of fishes due to entrainment and impingement were all converted to Age-1 equivalents to standardize the calculation of foregone fishery yield and production foregone. Economic losses were calculated using available recreational and commercial fishery statistics. Effects of improved fishing opportunities resulting from cessation of I&E were assessed using a Random Utility Model (EPA 2002). This model is based on the premise that anglers would get greater satisfaction,-and thus greater economic value,from sites where the catch rate is higher, all else being equal. Analyses such as these are useful because they equate biological losses with economic values. However, many of the fishes and invertebrates most affected by I&E in the SCB are not targeted by commercial or recreational fishermen, so the conversion of I&E losses to dollars based on utilitarian approaches may be of little use. Another example of a recent cumulative impacts analysis is a project initiated by the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (ASMFC)that was requested by its member States to investigate the cumulative impacts on commercial fishery stocks, particularly overutilized stocks, attributable to cooling water intakes located in coastal regions of the Atlantic. Specifically, the ASMFC study intended to evaluate the potential cumulative impacts of multiple cooling water intakes on Atlantic menhaden(Brevoorfia tyrannus),which ranges along most of the U.S. Atlantic 4 r: revising exist' fishery management models so that the accurate)coast, with a focus on re g existing h ry g t y y consider and account for losses of fishes from multiple cooling water intakes. Typically, assessments of power plant mortality have focused on individual power plant impacts with little information being provided on the cumulative effects on migratory species. Additionally, mortality estimates have often been expressed in terms of numbers of fish killed, which is difficult to relate to the mortality estimates provided by stock assessments, usually expressed as a fishing mortality rate or spawning stock biomass. The panel working on the issue has found that the biggest obstacle to developing cumulative assessments was lack of data on impingement and entrainment from power plants on the East Coast (L. Barnthouse pens. Comm. 2004). There are only a handful of plants for which entrainment and impingement losses were routinely monitored At the other plants, the only I&E data available consisted of one-time studies done to support . 316(b)demonstrations, and many of these were performed in the 1970s. 2.0 Methods The collection of I&E data at all southern California facilities was outside the scope of the current project at the HBGS. Impingement data are collected at most generating stations as part of NPDES monitoring, though the types (normal operations and/or heat treatments) and frequency (e.g. weekly, monthly, etc.) of monitoring vary by location. Unlike impingement, entrainment is not a usual monitoringcomponent for an of southern California's generating P Y g 9 stations. Major factors in determining methods for analysis of cumulative impacts with respect to entrainment included (1) the availability of recent entrainment data, and (2) the availability of recent oceanographic current data. Entrainment Although some eggs and larvae of fishes and invertebrates survive passage through power plant cooling water systems, impact modeling assumes that all organisms die during entrainment, representing mortality due to power plant operations in addition to natural mortality. Because more than one power plant may entrain eggs and larvae there can be cumulative (additive) mortality upon a single population. This entrainment analysis focuses on.12 of the 13 generating stations listed in Table 1. Duke Energy's South Say Power Plant is relatively isolated from the coastal oceanic flow and is not considered in the analysis of cumulative entrainment impacts. The larval source population in the SCS is assumed to be shoreward of the 75-m depth f limit, a distance that varies from more than 20 km off of San Pedro Bay to less than 1 km off of La L.. 5 Jolla submarine canyon (Figure 2). Although some species live outside or are more restricted inside this limit, the definition follows Lavenberg et al. (1986)who used ichthyoplankton transects shoreward of the 75-m isobath to be representative of the coastal zone. Five of six species they studied occurred predominantly shoreward of the 36-m isobath. Other species, such as those belonging to the genera Engraulis, Paralabrax, Stenobrachius and Sebastes, occurred further offshore (McGowan 1993, Lavenberg et al. 1986). McGowan (1993)found that while the density of many species peaked at the 36-m isobath, others were found primarily at the offshore stations r (36 and 75 m). The analysis of cumulative impacts will use the 75-m limit as an initial limit and also a range from 30 to 75 m for comparison. That is, effects on mortality of changing this offshore limit will be examined by varying the depth limit from 75 m to as shallow as 30 m. Permitted Flow(mgd} 108to 2,390 mgd 3� DEPR{-H - - itl• 8-70 .� 11-15 ® 58-20 ]1-36 -60 . = 65-m W r 0- 25 5tm TOQ 15Q �@ � 71-rs �(�ORA S Figure 2. Bathymetry of the coastal zone of the Southern California Bight from Pt. Conception to 28 km south of the US-Mexico border, and permitted cooling water flow at twelve generating stations. 6 The SCB has been defined extending southward from Pt. Conception as "the region of the North American west coast where the coastline bends almost 90 degrees toward the east, indenting the relatively straight coastline to the north and south for about 300 km" (Hickey et aL 2003). Although the SCB extends south of Ensenada, Baja California to Cabo Colnett, a boundary 28 km south of the.border was chosen because it is approximately the same distance from the southernmost plant as the northernmost power plant is from Point Conception. The bathymetry of this area is shown in Figure 2. Also depicted in Figure 2 are power plant locations and the relative_permitted cooling volumes.Volumes of water along the coast from Pt. Conception i to 28 km south of the US-Mexico border(the northern and southern boundaries of the SCB) from the 30-m to the 75-m isobath were calculated using ESRI ArcViiew GIS (Table 2). In a historical perspective, a study of adult equivalent loss at the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station used the 75-m limit(7 km offshore at San Onofre) in extrapolation of intake losses to the coastal zone of the SCB from Pt. Conception to Cabo Colnett, Mexico (Parker and DeMartini 1989). The San Onofre study used a coastline length of 500 km and a volume of 10" 0(26,417,205 Mgal). We found a similar length and volume of 548 km and 26,904,345 Mgal even though Cabo Colnett is about 100 km south of the US-Mexico border. Table 2. Coastal zone volume as a function of the offshore boundary. Offshore (Volume (I OP gallon) Cumulative fraction Depth(m) (Pt. Conception to 28 km S of US-Mexico Border) 30 6.700,271 0.249 35 8.409,239 0.313 40 10,259.441 0.381 45 12,374,840 0.460 f 5t7 14,510,720 0.539 L , . 55 16,766,557 0.623 60 19,121,614. 0.711 65 21,545,822 0.801 i 70 24.146,959 0.898 75 26,904,345 1.000 In the following analysis of cumulative effects, the terms"mortality° and "survival"refer to values associated only with cooling water system effects from coastal generating stations. Larval = fish and invertebrate survival S over t days is calculated following MacCall et al. (1983) and applied similarly in Parker and DeMartini (1989)as: 7 S=e—PE r its • where PE=Cooling Water Volume perday Coastal`blame The term PE, or proportional entrainment, estimates the relative effects of entrainment by using the ratio of entrainment volume and larval source population volume. The survival calculation assumes that larval densities are constant throughout the coastal volume and that the coastal volume adequately describes the source population. We modeled a range of larval durations from 5 to 40 days based on estimated larval durations of target species presented in Section 4.3.3. Table 3 presents the estimates of larval L durations of 10 of the species entrained at HBGS. Although some of these species may not be entrained at all of the 13 coastal power plants, we believe that the range of durations is typical. i The larval durations were based on the difference between the lengths of the lot and 95th percentiles and a growth rate found in the literature.The range of values of the period that larvae were vulnerable to entrainment was used in the above equation to estimate larval survival. Table 3. Larval durations of target study species entrained at HBGS. Taxon Common Name Larval Duration (days) Gobiidae (C1Q complex) gobies 34 Roncador stearnsi spotfin croaker 5 Engraulidae anchovies 38 Sedphus polifus queenfish 31 Genyonemus lineatus white croaker 27 Hypsoblennius spp. blennies 9 Cheilotreme satumum black croaker 7 Hypsopsetta guttulatus diamond turbot 13 Paraiichthys califamicus California halibut 25 Cancer spp, rock crab 12 Impingement Impingement sampling at coastal generating stations is comprised of normal operations monitoring andfor heat treatment monitoring. Methods at all the generating stations generally conform to those described in Section 3.4.2 of this report. At the 5 October 2004 workshop, participants agreed to exclude 2 of the 13 generating stations from the impingement analysis: NRG Encina Power Plant in Carlsbad and Duke South Bay Power Plant in San Diego Bay. NRG Encina was excluded due to the lack of recent impingement data(although an impingement study 8 �l is currently underway) and Duke South Bay Power Plant was excluded because of its unique source water. The majority of organisms impinged at Duke South Bay are primarily residents of South San Diego Bay(Tenera 2004). We compiled available, recent, annual fish and macroinvertebrate impingement data from t the remaining 11 coastal generating stations. Macroinvertebrates excluded fouling organisms, algae, and seagrasses: The time period analyzed varied by location. Data from the current impingement study at HBGS (2003-2004)were used, data from January 2002 through December 2003 were used for SONGS, and data from October 2002 through September 2003 were used for the remaining nine generating stations. A11 data were derived from published 2003" NPDES monitoring reports. For generating stations with more than one intake or screening facility,all data were combined to produce totals for each generating station. Of the 11 generating stations analyzed, all but Scattergood conducted at least one normal operation impingement sample during the period analyzed. Of these 10 generating stations, results from the normal operations surveys at all but three of the plants were extrapolated to annual totals based on generating station flow, the same method employed in the HBGS analysis, Heat treatment surveys were conducted at all generating stations except Harbor Generating Station,which does not perform heat treatments. Lastly, of the 11 generating stations, all except SONGS monitor macroinvertebrate impingement as well as fish impingement. A summary of survey parameters and results is presented in Table 4. I " 9 Table 4. Fish and Invertebrate impingement: Cumulative impact analysis survey and data summary by generating station. MOS OBOt SOS ESGS RBGS HOS LEGS ASS HnOS HBGS SONGS EPP Total 2003 Surveys Normal Ops(N.O.) 4 12 0 20 16 3 11 7 1 52 8 NA 134 N.Q.Extrapolated? Yes Yes Yes Yes No . Yea No No Yee Yes NA Heat Treatments 2 4 4 4 3 0 1 2 10 6 16 NA 52 Fish No.of Species 11 53 62 45 35 7 1 16 12 57 70 - NA 100 Abundance 7,724, 11.332 29,711 1,756 1,134 62 153 498 96 . 51.082 3,564,419 NA 3,667,655 Blomass(kg) 186.8 771.3 1,512.1 671.4 85.7 8.3 0.5' 4.8 1.4 1.291.6 21,918.4 NA 26,452,3 Macroinvertebrates No.of Species 4 20 17 20 9 3 6 11 10 35 NA NA 56 Abundance 20 1.196 2,019 2,232 1,371 3 14 73 104 70,636 NA NA 77,676 Blomass(kg) 4.5 373.9 119.3 473.1 222.5 D.8 1.3 0.9 1. 167.6 NA NA 1,366.0 Cooling water Systems Number of intakes i 1 1 2 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 16 Intake Type Canal VC VC VC VC Shoreline Shoreline Canal Canal VC VC Shoreline Max.Flow m 255 689 496 607 889 108 265 1283 1,014 507 2,390 860 9,363 Key.MGS(Mandalay),OBGS(Ormond Beach),SGS(Scattergood),ESGS(El Segundo),RBGS(Redondo Beach),HGS(Harbor),LEGS(Long Beach),AGS(Alamitos), HnGS(Haynes),HBGS(Huntington Beach),SONGS(San Onofre Nuclear),and EPP(Encino). HBGS data from the present CEC study(July 2003—July 2004). SONGS data from January 2003 through December 2003(SCE 2004). All other data from October 2002 through September 2003(Compiled from NPOES Monitoring Reports). NA=Not available. VC-Velocity capped. South Day Power Plant excluded from analysla. 10 r-. r• L ; 3.0 Results Bight-Wide Entrainment The mortalities (1-3)due to each power plant are shown in Figure 3 for durations(t)of 5, 10, 20, 20 and 40 days, and assuming the total source volume of the SCB inshore of the 75-m isobath. This assumption is discussed below as it has a profound impact on the mortality estimates. The cumulative cooling water volume (sum of all plants' permitted flow) is 9,363 mgd. r If one assumes a homogeneous impact of power plant cooling then the overall survival and I mortality rates are shown in Table 5 for two source water volumes, inshore of 35 m and 75 m. By. f. way of comparison, HSGS mortality rates were between 5.4 and 5.6 percent of the cumulative mortality from the 12 intake locations. This is approximately the same as HBGS percentage of total permitted cooling water by the 12 power plants, 5.4%. Larval Mortality based on Shelf Volume from Pt.Conception to Mexico 0.0040 0.0035 0.0030 ®Mortality Sd 0.0025 ®Mortality l Od r . 0.0020 O Mortality 20d 0.0015 A Mortality 30d 0.0010 ®Mortality 40d 0.0005 0.0000 O Lu pp i� S O to ti V V c V a v d an d a`0i E w C u is IU ro ��! d 0 z m = m G w ti a Q e = a w p` Q Q J a m o p Z y z = U► E LU x S Q w CO l Q 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 km from Pt Conception Figure 3. Larval mortality for hive larval durations at twelve power plant locations in the Southern California Bight. 19 i I Table 5. Overall survival and mortality for several larval durations of susceptibility based on cumulative cooling flow of twelve power plants and the coastal zone volume shoreward of 35 m and 75 m,extending from Pt.Conception to 28 km south of the US-Mexico border. Shelf Duration of Susceptibility (days) Limit(m) Survival 5 10 20 30 40 35 0.9944 0.9889 0,9780 0.9671 0.9564 75 0.9983 0.9965 0.9931 0.9896 0.9862 Mortality 35 0.0056 0.0111 0.0220 0.0329 0.0436 75 0.0017 0.0035 0.0069 0.0104 0.0138 Percentage Huntington Beach Generation Station Of 5 10 20 30 40 Cumulative 35 5.429% 5.443% 5.472% 5.501% 5.530% Mortali 75 5.419% 5.424% 5.433% 5.442% 5.451% Figure 4 shows the relation between different source water volumes and the resulting mortality estimates. Mortality estimates increase exponentially as source water volumes become smaller. Bight-wide Entrainment Mortality versus Source Water Volume 0.0600 0.0500 Mortailty-40d ---Mortality30d 0.0400 -Mortality-20d c -!Mortality-10d 0.0300 MortaIIty3d , . g 0.0200 0.0100 0.0000 5000000 10000000 15000000 20000000 25000000 30000000 Source Water(Mgal) Figure 4. Cumulative larval mortality from twelve power plant locations in the Southem California Bight and for five larval durations as a function of the source water volume. The range of source water volume corresponds to the offshore depth limit of the Bight's shelf,from 30 m to 75 m. 12 t `r - ti [ . Overall survival rates from Table 5 are useful for normalizing the following simulation of mortality where survival increases linearly with distance from each power plant location. The simulation assumes that survival is 1 at each end of the coastal zone strip, i.e. at Pt. Conception and at 28 km S of the US-Mexico border. The survival at each power plant location is adjusted so that values along the coast are linear and that they integrate over distance to the same value as the spatially homogenous survival. In this simulation, overall survival is the product of the power plant contributions. Cumulative mortality impact, i.e. one minus the overall survival, is unimodal, centered at 320 km from Pt. Conception for all larval durations (Figure 5), As expected, the f greatest mortality is found with the longest larval duration. Cumulative Mortality 0.025 —40 d Mortality ` —30 d Mortality 0.020 —20 d Mortality 10 d Mortality O.Oi 5 5 d Mortality 0 0.010 1 , 0.005 0.000 0 100 200 300 400 500 Distance from Pt.Conception(km) Figure S. Cumulative larval mortality simulation from twelve power plant locations in the Southern California Bight and for five larval durations based on a common source volume. Survival is 1 at the ends of the graph. Small circles (100-500 km) show power plant locations. 13 A second simulation models cumulative mortality where mortality diminishes linearly with distance from each power plant (as in the first) but the distance of impact is a-function of larval duration. This dependence on larval duration could result from currents, for example. The excursion distance can extend beyond Pt. Conception or 28 km south of the Mexican border. The simulation assumes that the 40-day survival is 1 at a distance of one-half the 548-km coastal zone extent distance from each generating station location_ The 30-day simulation assumes that the effective distance is 3/of the coastal zone extent, and so on for 20-, 10-and 5-day durations. Survival at each power plant location is adjusted so that the survival (or alternatively mortality) values along the coast are linear and that they integrate over distance to the same value as the case of spatially homogenous survival. The survival rates between plants are multiplied along the coast. The sum of the products, shown in Figure 6, is normalized so that the area under the mortality curves is the same as shown in Figure 5. Cumulative Mortality 0.025 i —40 d Mortality —30 d Mortality 0.020 ---20 d Mortality —10 d Mortality 5 d Mortality - ��. `_�1•` c 0.015 f { 0.005 0.000 0 100 200 300 . 400 500 Distance from Pt.Conception tlmrj Figure 6. Cumulative larval mortality simulation from twelve power plant locations in the Southem California Bight and for five larval durations based on a common source volume and differential zones of influence.The distance from each plant where survival is 1 is a function of larval duration. Small circles(100-500 km)show power plant locations. As durations lessen, the apparent mortality lessens but the effects of individual power plants (or groups of power plants) can be seen in multiple modes of cumulative mortality due to the zone of influence being a function of larval duration. In addition to distance from each generating station, a second factor that contributes to the volume of the affected larval source 14 t . population is the extent of the offshore boundary. When this boundary is brought inshore from 75 m to 30 m, perhaps reflecting such factors as species behavior, prevalence, larval duration and oceanic currents, the shape of the curves does not change. The magnitude of mortality, however, does change. As the source water volume lessens cumulative mortality increases exponentially similar to the change shown in Figure 4. A third simulation allows the source volume to be a linear function of larval duration. This simulation applies the zone of influence based on larval duration as well as setting the source { volume equal to d/40 times the bight's source volume shoreward of the 75-m depth limit, where d 1 is the number of days of larval duration of susceptibility to entrainment. The results rely on the assumption that a 40-day larval duration of susceptibility is associated with the total Bight source 1 volume. Analysis shows that the mortalities at individual power plants are the same regardless of duration as a result of the modified source volume. Survival S is modified to form a survival S' which is independent of duration of susceptibility t ' V. r C - (2) YS + r vs. — Vs a I� _e VS. where fmax=40 days, VE= Entrainment Volume, and V, ,,= Bight Volume. ` Table 6 shows the source volumes and coastal lengths associated with average t. cumulative mortality estimates. Figure 7 shows the resulting cumulative mortalities using a 75 m depth limit of the source volume. Average cumulative mortalities are equivalently estimated using Equation 1, the sum of the permitted maximum intake flows (9,363 Mgal d"'), the source volumes" in Table 6 and larval durations of susceptibility. Figure 7 is similar to Figure 6 due to similar" �r cumulative source water volumes. Although estimated mortality at a articular power g y p p plant is the same for all durations of larval susceptibility, the volumes and zones of influence are different for different durations. In addition, the zones of influence and source volumes accumulate due to the spread of locations. I Though simulation was restricted to the Southern California Bight, if allowed, the zone of influence (based on an assumption that the 40-day coastal zone of influence was 548 km centered at each plant) would have extended beyond Pt. Conception and 28 km south of the US Mexico border for durations of:30 and 40 d. L . i5 �I I Table 6. Source volume and coastal zones of influence based on simulation and a shelf depth limit of 75 m. Individual intake source volumes are a linear function of larval susceptibility where the maximum was equal to the volume of the Southern California Bight to the 75-m depth limit, 26,904,345 million gallons. Cumulative source volume is proportional to coastal length affected. Larval Susceptibility Source Volume Cumulative Coastal Cumulative (d) per Plant(Mgal) Source Volume Length (km) Mortality M al 5 3,363,043 16.201,522. 330 0.00289 10 6,726,086 20,620,118 420. ❑,00453 20 13,452,173 26,413,390 538 0.00707 30 20,178,259 . 26,904,345 548 0.01040 40 26.904,345 26,904,345 548 0.01382 Cumulative Mortality 0.025 —40 d Mortality —30 d Mortality 0.020 —20 d Mortality —10 d Mortality — 5 d Mortality r 0.015 0.010 %0.005 1� V/ 0.000 0 100 200' 300 400 500 Distance from Pt.Conception(km) Figure 7. Cumulative larval mortality simulation from twelve power plant locations in the Southern California Bight and for five larval durations based on differential source volumes.The distance from each plant where survival is 9 and the source volume are a function of larval duration. Small circles(100-500 km)show power plant locations. Cumulative mortality estimates were dependent on the definition of source water population that is susceptible to entrainment. By way of comparison, if the source water were restricted to the 35-m depth limit, cumulative mortalities would be over three times higher due to the restricted source volumes_ However, the affected coastal zones (not volumes) would remain the same as shown in Table 6. 1s Cumulative mortality applies to coastal volumes and lengths that are not only a function of duration but also the spread of power plant locations. Such features-as coastal currents,eddies and biological factors play an important role in determining the actual extent of mortality power plants have on a source population. So far, we have assumed a source covering the Souther California Bight as well as providing more realistic estimates of mortality by allowing the source l , water volume to be a function of the duration larvae are susceptible to entrainment. Although r~ actual results based on estimates of larval excursions at each power generation facility may be similar to Figure 7, it is expected that source volumes and coastal zones will not be the same as portrayed in the figure or in Table 6. Estimates based on refined studies of local conditions will provide a more realistic portrayal of power plants' cumulative effect on larval mortality. One result of the coastal spread of locations of power plant intakes is an extension of vulnerable source water volume and coastal zone of influence (Figure 7 and Table 6). A hypothetical example shows that the extension is not only a function of larval durations but also of the relative locations, using the same assumptions as the final simulation for a 5-day larval duration of susceptibility and a 75 m depth as the outer shelf limit. If all the power plants were sited at the same location, then the coastal zone of influence would be limited to 5140 of the Bight's 548 km coastal length or 68 km corresponding to a source volume of 3,363,043 Mgal and resulting in a mortality of 0.01382. In simulation, due to the actual plant locations, the coastal zone of influence was 330 km and 16,201,522 Mgal with cumulative mortality of 0.00289. i Bight-Wide Impingement 1 . Fish impingement data were collected during 134 normal operations and 52 heat treatment surveys at the 11 coastal generating stations. An estimated total of 3.667,655 fish representing at least 98 species and weighing 26,452 kg (58,327 lb.) was impinged at the 11 generating stations over a 12-rrionth period that varied by location (Table 7). impingement at SONGS Units 2 and 3 combined represented 97% of fish abundance and 63% of fish biomass (Table 4).. Bight-wide impingement abundance was dominated by northern anchovy (87%), queenfish(9%), and Pacific sardine (2%). Impingement biomass was also dominated by norther - anchovy(51%), queenfsh (20%), and Pacific sardine(9%)(Table 7). r •. A i 17 t L Table 7. 2003 fish impingement totals (top 10 speceis)from 11 coastal generating stations in the SCB. Bight-wide Impingement Cumulative Total HBGS contribution to: Species No. Wt k %No. %Wt No. WL northern anchovy 3,173,100 13,411 $6.5% 50.7% 0.1% 0.1% queenfish 330.773 5,165 95.5% 70.2% 10.8% 12.5% Pacific sardine 64.876 2,436 97.3% 79.40/6 0.2% 0.3% Pacific pompano 27.554 591 98.1% 81.7% 2.2% 2.7% jacksmeft 12,979 847 98.4% 84.9% 2.6% 3.5% shiner perch 9,643 96 98.7% 85.2% 41.9% 53.9% white croaker 9,159 277 98.9% 86.3% 53.5% 34.4% California grunion 7,737 186 99.1% 87.0% 1.6% 0.4% walleye surtperch 5,511 143 99.3% 87.5% 8.6% 11.00A white sea perch 5,162 62 99.4% 87.8% 16.8% 30.6% Total 100 taxa 3.667,655 25.452 100.0% 100.0% 1.40/6 4.9% Fish impingement abundance was highest at SONGS (97%). and was followed by the HBGS (1%) and tADWP's SGS (0.8%); fish impingement abundance at all other generating stations contributed 0.3%or less to the Bight-wide total(Figure 8). Fish biomass was also highest at SONGS (83%), and was followed by IADWP's SGS (6%), the HBGS (5%), and the OBGS (3%); fish biomass at all other generating stations each contributed less than 3% to the Bight- wide biomass total (Figure 9). 2003 Fish Impingement Abundance 3,500,000 3,000,000 c M 2,500,000 2,000,0a0 1.500.000 d E 1,000,000 Z 50O.D0a " ...... W C6 cc •� m . m Y m m .Fj T ■ y a j a d _ o = Y E N V 0 CN c- 2 4 N S � Figure 8. Bight-wide fish impingement abundance by generating station, upcoast (left) to downcoast(right). 18 2003 Fish Impingement Biomass `. E 25,000 20,000 C 15,000 N �F- .wr R 10,000 - Y E 5,000 o e 6 � a Figure 9. Bight-wide fish impingement abundance by generating station, upcoast (left) to downcoast(right). An estimated total of 77,676 macroinvertebrates representing at least 56 species and weighing 1,366.0 kg (3,012.0 Ib) was impinged at the 11 generating stations (Table 8). Impingement abundance was highest at the HBGS (91% of the Bight-wide total) (Figure 10), while impingement biomass was highest at the ESGS(35%)(Figure 11). Bight-wide impingement t_ abundance was dominated by the nudibranch Dendronotus frondosus (80%), yellow rack crab (5%),and Pacific rock crab(41%). Impingement biomass was dominated by the purple-striped jelly L Chrysaora colorata(490/6), Califomia spiny lobster(21%), and Pacific rock crab(10%)(Table 8). Table 8. 2003 macroinvertebrate impingement totals (top 10 species) from 11 coastal generating stations in the SCB. Bight-wide Cumulative Total HBGS contribution to: Impingement Species No. Wt k %No. %Wt- No. Wt. D.frondosus 62.150 15 80.0% 1.1% 100.0% 100.0% yellow rock crab 4,119 36 85.3% 3.6% 69.4% 63.5% Pacific rock crab 3.0822 136 89.3% 13.9% 33.3% 7.1% graceful rock crab 1,772 6 91.6% 14.3% 84.4% 48.3% tuberculale pear crab 1,034 1 92.9% 14.49X6 95.1% 94.6% purple-striped jetty 603 670 93.8% 63.5% 7.8% 3.2% California spiny lobster 664 282 94.6% 84.2% 4.8% 7.0% red rock shrimp 653 1 95.5% 842% 24.5% 22.5% striped shore crab 499 3 96.1% 84.4% 35.3% 18.0% red rock crab 478 6 96.7% 84.9% 92.5% 96.6% Total 56 taxa 77,676 1.366 100.0% 100.0% 90.9% 12.39% r r . 19 o C 'TE O Z'I o Biomass(kg)of macroinvertebrates impinged O Number of macroinvertebrates impinged .--.j .-. O O o m o 0 0 0 �. ;* 2 Ort or P�-Oanu�4:nn 3 M CL O O CL l�1 A M yR.J).n4fi.na.l.r y ju .� n N Rician4H.mi.1.Y QO �� Q R.1).n49rmrn�Br.ch O �• O C rtC- W .fir CD �K... l4DWPScA4rpo1 _ 'y CDD t0 Q NRG[IS.�.n�. Q LADWPSc.kwq—1 .� la .� NRGEIS.pn�. ALSR.1.n/ob..c6 m c� ' pC5 R.�n.do Bw ch lD GI LADWPHw6.r LADWPHw►oe `J 3 - 12 M CD HRGL.n,IB...6 ED CD 9 AESAI.milrr 3 co ACSA14M;U. M CD M LADWPHgnw M LADWPHgnw ACSHvnii.4tonBr.c6 O 0 cr ACSHvnr3n'tnnB..c6 0 3 M CL m rn aID 3 N 9C[$DH GS N SOCSOHGS N n iD CC NRGEncf.. c � MRD[ndn. m CR 3 a G1 m Di fA fA iy � kIk' E ' A large portion of the California spiny lobsters impinged at coastal generating stations is returned to the ocean each year since they can survive impingement much better than other invertebrate species. Only those lobsters that do not appear thermally stressed or injured are retumed, and even those that are returned are included in impingement totals because their ultimate survival cannot be determined. In 2003 for example, 18 of 78 (23%) were returned at ESGS Units 3&4, 69 of 161 (430A) were returned at SGS, and at least 80 of 84 (95%) were returned from two heat treatments at RBGS Units 7&8. The proximity of these facilities to their source waters (King Harbor and Santa Monica Bay)facilitates the prompt return of the lobsters, increasing their chances of survival. i ` Macroinvertebrate impingement abundance was highest at the HBGS (91%), and was followed by the ESGS (1%) and LADWP's SGS (0.8%); impingement abundance at all other generating stations contributed 0.3%or less to the Bight-wide total(Figure 10).Macroinvertebrate biomass was highest at the ESGS (35%), followed by OBGS(27%), RBGS (16%), and the HBGS (12%); macroinvertebrate biomass at all other generating stations each contributed less than 9% to the Bight-wide biomass total (Figure 11). Although macroinvertebrate abundance was highest at the HBGS, biomass was only fourth highest due to the abundance of small nudibranchs (Dendronotus frondosus)• At the two generating stations where macroinvertebrate biomass was { highest. (ESGS and OBGS), impingement biomass was dominated by purple-striped jelly (Chrysaora colorata)• At the RBGS, where macroinvertebrate abundance and biomass ranked third, impingement biomass was dominated by Califomia spiny lobster(Panulirus interruptus).As noted previously, a large portion of these are returned to the ocean but still included in impingement totals nonetheless. 6.4 Discussion CEQA Guidelines (§15064-15065) identify potentially significant cumulative impacts as those effects that... "are individually limited but cumulatively considerable'. Furthermore, the guidelines state... "The mere existence of significant cumulative impacts caused by other projects alone shall not constitute substantial evidence that the proposed project's incremental effects are cumulatively considerable." The guidelines define 'cumulatively considerable' as the incremental effects of an individual project that are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, other current projects, and probable future projects. There are no plans that we are ff aware of for construction of new coastal generating stations in southern California. However, there are repowering efforts proposed at the NRG ESGS and the LADWP Haynes Generating Station(HnGS). i 21. Entrainment The cumulative entrainment analysis presented here was essentially a first-order analysis designed to give some indication of potential mortalities from entrainment at coastal generating stations. It is important to note that this was based on mathematical calculations using maximum flow volumes, assumed source water volumes, and hypothetical larval durations, and did not involve the collection of biological data.The analysis also did not take into account other potential sources of mortality on source populations. However, the analysis showed that cumulative mortality was very dependent on the volume of the source water larval population, Le. that body that is potentially susceptible to entrainment.As source water volume lessened(for a given larval duration of susceptibility), larval mortality exponentially increased. This suggests that in the presence of limiting factors, such as circulation that would restrict larval populations, larval mortality would be much higher than indicated using a volume of water of the shelf of the Southern California Bight. y A key determinant of the entrainment effects of individual and.multiple intakes is the dispersal distance (or, preferably, two or more length parameters describing dispersal of eggs and larvae - e.g., advection and diffusion coefficients) (Largier 2003). As Ur. Largier (pers. comm.)described: "If these length scales are short, then the impact of entrainment on mortality is large but localized. If the length scales are,shorter than the spacing of the intakes, then cumulative impacts (in the sense addressed here) are negligible. On the other hand, if dispersal i length scales are long, then the entrainment impact on mortality is small but more widespread. If the length scales are longer than the spacing of the intakes, then cumulative impacts are important and mortality may be significant between intakes.° The selection of source water volume has a profound effect on the calculation of PE and ultimately mortality. Estimates of dispersal lengths are needed in developing entrainment models.Although first order estimates of dispersal lengths can be calculated, it is not practical to do so within this report.The numbers in the report are useful as an illustration and show that cumulative effects can be important, but they are not intended as a basis for management or policy decisions. Further analyses could take into account multiple source boundaries based on known distributions or preferences of different species. Impingement There are. several points worthy of comment with respect to cumulative impingement impacts in the SCB. A large proportion of fish impingement occurs at SONGS (97% abundance and 83% biomass) compared to all other generating stations. Flow volume is fairly high at 22 r • SONGS compared to all other coastal generating stations in the SCB;and the SONGS Unit 2 and �. 3 intakes are sited near areas of hard bottom substrate and kelp teds. Total impingement at # SONGS in 2003 (nearly 3.6 million fish weighing 22,000 kg) was within the range of variability Y from 2000-2002 (approximately 1.5 million to 3.6 million fish weighing 15,000 to 28,000 kg). In 1-' the absence of macroinverteb rate impingement data from SONGS, impingement abundance was highest at the HBGS compared to the other generating stations, but impingement biomass contributed only 12% to the SCB total, primarily due to the low weight of Dendronotus frondosus. { Also worthy of note is the history of the SONGS mitigation projects, which are in various stages of implementation and completion. The history is too complex to Iist here, but will be briefly summarized. Studies to determine the environmental effects from the operation of the CWIS at r SONGS began in 1974 and continued for 15 years. In 1991, the California Coastal Commission ordered the operators of SONGS to implement a comprehensive mitigation package to address impacts to marine resources (CCC 2000). Mitigation included (1) 150 acres of wetland restoration, (2) 300 acres of kelp reef construction, (3) reduction of impingement through installation and maintenance of fish behavioral modification devices, (4)reduction of impingement through the fish elevator and fish chase procedure, and (5) funding for the Hubbs-Sea World Research Institute white seabass hatchery. Additionally, SCE and its partners have funded the independent monitoring and technical oversight committees of all mitigation projects. The performance of behavioral devices (light and sonic stimuli) have been demonstrated to be ineffective in substantially reducing impingement (see Section 7.0). t Cumulative impingement data were compared with 2003 landings reported in the PSMFC RecFIN database for southern California as a whole (PSMMC 2004). For most species, the numbers impinged at the 11 coastal generating stations represented less than one percent of recreational landings in southern California (Table 8). For some species, however, impingement losses were larger compared to the total recreational take, white seaperch (85% , giant kel fish ) 9 kelp fish shiner perch (38%), queenfish (33%), jacksmelt (11%), sargo (7%), white croaker(5%), walleye surfperch (4%), rubberlip seaperch (3%), black perch (3%), topsmelt(2%), and yeilowfin croaker(1%). Many of these species, especially the perches, are caught primarily by recreational fishers from piers. In total, impingement abundance in the SCB was equivalent to 8% of the recreational catch in the SCB in 2003 for those species that are fished. f 23 f . k, Table 8. Comparison of 2003 fish impingement abundance_ in the SCB and 2003 recreational fishing landings in southern California as reported in the RecFIN database (ranked by RecFIN landings, top 29 species)(PSFMC 2004). Gammon Name 2003 Southern Califomla 2003 SC8 Cumulative Proportion of Impingement Recreadonal Landings Impingement to Recreational Capture queenfish 974.312 330,773 33.9% pacific mackerel 828,490 80 <0.1% barred sand bass 802,098 538 0.10/0 kelp bass 595.291 352 0.1% white croaker 180,002 9,159 vermilQon rockfish 160,170 17 walleye surfperch 143,524 5,511 3.8% California halibut 142,075 107 0.1% Califomla smrplonfish 130.126 490 0.4% jacksmett 118,464 12,979 11.0% helfmoon 110,425 28 <0.1% topsmelt 93.605 2,112 2.39.E yellowfin croaker 71,932 972 1 A% California eheephead 69.843 2 <0.1% blacksmith 66,822 365 0.5% opeleye 51,956 28 0.1% white seabass 50,521 265 0.6% black perch 42.120 1,050 2.5% brown rockfish 36,193 188 0.5% shiner perch 25.114 9,643 38.4% Celtfomla corbina 19,680 87 0.4% sargo 17,159 1243 7.2% spotfin croaker 16,977 65 0.4% pile perch 8,926 83 0.9% rock wresse 6,728 34 0.5% III rubberfip seaperch 6,520 217 3.3% white seaperch 6,110 5,162 84.5% f i spotted sand bass 3,538 1 <0.1% ! ! Ant kelpfish 1,281 718 56.1% � Totals: 4,780.002 382,269 8.0% I� t i Impingement in the SCB was also compared with recreational landings reported in the NOAA Fisheries Recreational Sport Fisheries Database for Southern California (NOAA Fisheries 2004).This database was originally compiled for NOAA Fisheries by Mitchell(1999), and includes sportrish catch by landing as reported daily in the Los Angeles Times from 1959 through 2003_ Our analysis of the NOAA database was limited to recreational landings from Santa Barbara south to Oceanside(Table 9). 24 i'° i Table 9. Comparison of 2003 fish impingement abundance from 11 coastal generating stations in the SCB and recreational fishing landings between Santa Barbara and j. Oceanside (20 ports) as reported In the NOAA Fisheries Los Angeles Times Sporttish { Database(NOAA Fisheries 2004). 1999-2003 1959-2003 2003 SCB Average Annual Average Annual t Common Name lmpingement 2003 SCB Landings SCB Landings SCB Landings barred sand bass 538 469,588 547,4Bo 254,573 kelp bass 352 233,997 203,475 373,796 "sanddab" 607 172,591 161.419 22,073 Cardomla barracuda 5 103,713 224.275 230,362 Calfornia scorplonfish 490 89,303 114.740 47,003 blue rockfish 0 46,706 51,483 56,971 r ' chub mackerel 80 19,021 36,097 355,551 white seabass 265 9,710 11,615 4.414 blacksmith 365 9,131 3,701 655 Califomla halibut 107 6,542 9,732 30,037 opareye 28 4,899 2,521 506 sargo 1,243 4,134 2.003 675 i Jack mackerel 1,334 3,117 2.411 1,909 yellowfin croaker 972 2,047 1,098 256 white croaker 9.159 615 969 5,038 '• cabezon 693 275 1252 573 glantseabass 0 169 332 178 halfmoon 28 132 158 1,489 black croaker 193 T7 38 66 leopard shark 5 45 21 7 black surfperch 1,050 30 61 17 rubbedip seaperch 217 26 6 1 jacksmelt 12.979 5 16 1.660 kelp greenling 12 3 1 3 bocacclo 2,468 0 3,717 1.521 olive rockfish 38 0 267 335 brown rockfish 186 0 22 69 queenfish 330,773 0 13 1,688 grass rockfish 5 0 8 5,811 barred surfperch 2 0 2 10 California Gzardrish 217 0 2 3 spotted sand bass 1 0 2 2 spotfin croaker 65 0 0 26 ham shark 8 0 0 0 hubot 550 0 0 2 California corbina 87 0 0 9 walleye suriperch 5,511 0 0 0 Totals: 370.700 1.175,876 1,378.939 1,397.316 SCB Ports Included: Santa Barbara, Goleta, Ventura, Owzard, Port Hueneme, Paradise Cove, Malibu, Santis Monica, Marina del Rey,Hermosa Beach, Redondo Beach,San Pedro,Wilmington,Long Beach, Seal Beach, Huntington Beach, Newport Beach,Dana Point,San Clemente,and Oceanside. Catches of species fluctuate over time because species not only vary in their availability and abundance, but also in their desirability to anglers.Table 9 presents total Catch numbers but does not take into account variability in fishing effort over time. Catch from three different time periods (2003, 1999-2003, and 1959-2003) are presented to show trends through time. The f annual number of sport anglers in southern California has varied little over the last 40 years, I.. remaining at about 620,000 angler trips per year, though the total number of fish landed has steadily decreased (Dotson and Charter 2003). Between San Pedro and San Clemente, the total catch per angler peaked in 1980, then steadily decreased by about 50%to 1999.A similar trend was observed between Wilmington and Goleta_ The authors noted that fishing regulations, 25 i including size limits, take limits, and closures, have affected catch rates in southern California (Dotson and Charter 2003). For the ten most abundant sportfish taxa reported in 2003, Bight-wide impingement was ! relatively minor (4% or less) compared to the reported catch for 2003. The percentages were higher, however, for species such as sargo, jack mackerel, and yellowfin croaker. These three species are not historically important targets of sportfishers, but their increasing importance is apparent by the increasing catch through time (Table 9). Impingement in the SCB was equivalent j to about one-third of the reported sportfish catch. However, queenfish accounted for 89%of the impinged species included in the sportfish comparison, and jacksmelt comprised another 4%, These two species are not usually common sportfishing targets. Jacksmeit are caught by pier and shore anglers, and are especially important in central and northern California (Gregory 2001)_ Queenfish are likely caught by anglers from piers and shore. ' I I I 28 s . g'• i . t : Appendix F1 Estimating Total Entrainment r The following sections describe calculations used for assessing entrainment effects at the Huntington Beach Generating Station(HBGS). The equations are presented in a general form that is applicable to sample designs that may have differing numbers of stations, sampling periods,or replicates. The present design for the HBGS entrainment study will sample one station with two replicates four times per sample day. As described below,there will be one sampling day per monthly sampling period. While summation signs over stations are presented in the equations they will be summing over an n of one in the actual calculations and therefore will drop out of the formulas. A general form can be written for summing entrainment over stations at an intake or entrainment f' site using cycles within a day and days within time periods. Let i= period (i=l,...,N);. �{ j=day within period {j=1,...,Art); k=cycle within day (k=I,—,N,); 1=station (1=I,—,N" ; m =volume at station within cycle("Z=1,...,N ya). The total larval entrainment at an intake source can be expressed as N Nr Nu Nyk (AI) ET "�Z Z Z pykI VjV k=r r where pya =density of larvae at the Ith station within the kth cycle on the jth day in the ith time period; . Vyv =volume of water passing the at the Ith station within the kth cycle on the jth day in the ith time period. i . This summation assumes that stations represent the total intake volume of the power plant. It also assumes that the larval density in the volume of water passing a station is constant over time and space over any cycle. An estimate of the total larval entrainment can be made by taking n , samples of the N,,a volumes passing a station as 'r nr'k1 (A2) ET —EF J� P1kfm ;=1 J=1 k=1 1=1 nrJk1 MA If we also assume that entrainment volume is constant and the same at all stations then i N �N•'` NU N�;''k` 1 Ilk`! (A3) ET —z Jk12 t f L�p►J m f=1 j=1 k=1 1=1 nt)kl m=1 Strata will be defined as the stations and cycles with constant N1 and Nijk. In addition,we sample n; days of the N; possible during a period so that A N 1 Ni' Ni k 1 MW (A4) ET NjNiNik�Jld L 2 PJk1m 1=1 n, j=1 k=1 1=1 NifNlknijrd m=1 N 1 nr N/ Nijk 1 n"kr2 n..r-1 n, j-1 k_1 1=1 NlNyk fk! P,Jk1m m=1 where Nr Nij K vVfkr or N1NLNjkYyu since VJkf is constant. j-11-1 kA If only one day per period is sampled Equation A4 can be expressed as ET— Y�k=l N..N.. n.. P;jkr,�:=1 1 ,,k ,frd m=1 —�V N_N P#k1 with estimated variance f E FarEr =�Y,.2 N� 1 z 1_ niju Farijk P;.o (A6) f 1 L (fr' l J i=l k=l !_t NijNifk Nlk1 nikr where 110,(Pab" )2 n.--1 _ Pyki. Pytr — t'.. nJ, Estimates of ET based on Equation A5 will be used in FH and AEL calculations to estimate annual effects of entrainment on fishes and invertebrates. Equation A6 will underestimate the true variance because it does not include within-period variance. In practice, we ignore the mite P P � gr► population correction, 1—NU because N1jd is large.Estimators similar to Equation A5 and yId Equation A6 are used for calculating survey period estimates of intake and source populations for use in ETM calculations. 3 r ' Appendix F2 Estimating Proportional Entrainment and the ET'M Calculations The empirical transport model (ETM is used to estimate the total mortality probability for larvae from power plant entrainment. The estimate is based on periodic estimates of the probability of entrainment mortality based on daily samples_ In the following calculations we assume all larvae } entrained die_ Generally, sampling takes place over the course of a year so that larval mortality of various species is estimated. i The daily probability of entrainment can be defined as PEI _ abundance of entrained larvae; abundance of larvae in source population; =probability of entrainment in ith time period (i=1,...,N). In turn,the daily probability can be estimated and expressed as ' (131) PEI = - I ' where E� =estimated abundance of larvae entrained in the ith time period (i I,,N); R, =estimated abundance of larvae at risk of entrainment from the source population.in the ith time period (i=1,...,N). Estimating Daily Entrainment The estimate of total Huntington Beach Generating Station(HBGS)entrainment on day j in period i can be expressed from equation(M) as r- i ' i 6' a 1 1 2 (B2) Etf = Viu-- PUkt. k=i r�l 2.,.1 4 1 1 2 VU ( with associated variance f � 2 a i(j)2(j 22 ($3) Var Enk=1 !=1'EU2 `N spw JE which can be estimated by _ _ = l2�L..`12 2 2 (B4) Var(EU) V� k=1 ref Lg� 1—N Spy ow The finite population correction[i.e., 1— 2 ] can be ignored because N is exceedingly Nyk l large. Only one day is sampled per period. The period estimated entrainment and variance are _ t j 1 2 (BS) r ( ) a 1 1 2 (B6) l Var(Er)=Vr2 (—) s2 k-1 1-1 L.: Y g Estimating Numbers of Larvae at Risk With the defined and agreed-upon sources for Huntington Beach(S)larvae,the daily abundance of larvae at risk can be estimated by Sff —yS PS1 (B7) where Vs denotes the agreed upon volume of the Huntington Beach source water(S), and p denotes an estimate of average density in the source water body. The variance of Expression [, B7 can be written as Var(P"i 11�,)=Vs Yar tPSY I Ps�J) 8) The individual variances within Formula B8 describe temporal-spatial variance in density within the source population during the day of sampling. Seven source water locations are sampled in the Huntington Beach source water body(including the entrainment station). Ideally, tow samples would be collected randomly through time and space during a sampling day over a potential source population_ However,the large sampling area required the use of a sampling { design with fixed time and locations. Our source water estimates of population and variance are made for each period using only one day,i.e. I =I�� and Yar(Ili =Yar(�� Icy). Period Entrainment and ETM Calculations By dividing estimated period entrainment(B5)by the corresponding source population(M)an '. estimate of entrainment mortality can be written as .. PEA — E, (B9) Variance for the Estimate of .PE; j The variance for the period estimate of PE, can be expressed as i I i Yar(PE,I PE,)=Yar ]p' E„R, l +YJ Assuming zero covariance between the entrainment and source and using a Taylor series approximation,the Delta method(Seber 1982),the variance of an estimator formed from a quotient(like PE,)can be effectively approximated by rA Yar��4 aLBJ aCB� B��Yar(A) 8.4 +Yar(P) gB The delta method approximation of Var(PE,) is shown as Var(PE,�=Yar _.. - which by the Delta method can be approximated by f z z (B 10) Far PE l Yar(E _ t r ►} 1-- +Yar(VS ps, E z and is equivalent to =PE'z�CV(Ky+CV V •l s Ps,� � where r 1� =VS psi and l CV(Bj 0)= 2 6 Regardless of whether the species has a single spawning period per year or multiple overlapping spawnings the estimate of total larval entrainment mortality can be expressed by i.. PM (1—PE,) (B11) i r=� where q =number of days of larval life, and l f =estimated annual fraction of total larvae hatched during the ith survey period. Formula(B11)is based on the total probability law where P(AI B,)_(1—PE,)4,the conditional survival and . P(A)=ZP(A1B,)•P(B,). ►e, In the above example,the event A is larval survival and event B is hatching with P(B) estimated by f where E , - r where E, ;estimated entrainment for the A survey period. Then based on the Delta method Var(f,)=Var E' Er Ej =Var _ _ i �N E + E J �sr f,Z(1—A), Var(E,)+Var(ET) --2 —2 E, Er The estimates of PE, and f and their respective variance estimates can be combined in an estimate of the variance for PM following the Delta method for variance and covariance as follows: N Var(PM)=Var 1—�f,(1—PE()9 1� x -� =Var E f f(1-PE,)4 N f =E[Var(f,}(1-PE,)zq +��Yar(PE,){f,q(1-PEf)4-'}z +2FZcov�f, fj}(1-PEf)q(1-PE,)q where w PI z cov� f,f��= 1 [?,TVa,(1: Eg +f,{1-f�}E,+f�(1-fr)Ef . Er s�+,� Appendix F3 Demographic Model Calculations Fecundity Hindcasting (FH) The estimated total larval entrainment for a species(ET)was used to estimate the number of breeding females needed to produce the number of larvae entrained. The estimated number of breeding females (FH)whose fecundity was equal to the estimated total loss of entrained larvae - is calculated as follows: FH= Er TL F•11 S, (Cl) i r.l where n= number of larval stages vulnerable to entrainment, �- L'r = estimated total entrainment, S,= survival rate from eggs to larvae of the ith stage,and TLF= estimated total life time fecundity for females,equivalent to the average number of eggs spawned per female over their reproductive years. Equation C 1 is based on the simplified case of a single synchronized spawning b a species. For q P g Yn p g Y P gr� species with overlapping or continuous spawning, larval abundance would have to be specified E, by week and age class (i.e., Ef ).However, we used the mean size of all larvae entrained to r- estimate a representative age of larvae,and then estimated a survival rate to this representative age. Two input parameters in Equation C1 that may not be available for many species, and thus may limit the method,are lifetime fecundity(TLF)and survival rates (S,)from spawning to entrainment. In practice, survival was estimated by either one or several age classes,depending on the data source,to the estimated age at entrainment. The expected total lifetime fecundity E(TLF) was 1 ' �ti approximated by modeling a linear survivorship for a female once she reached the age of maturity, and using a constant number of eggs produced per year. 1 4 •. da CL t C ` 21 a.s N ` o ` A (Age) The number of eggs produced per year was approximated as the average number of eggs per year. Thus T'LF=a� F(A)s(A)dA =F� AL _A M AL—Am AL -Am ll z where s(A) =survivorship of a female; F(A)=eggs produced; A�,=age of maturity; and AL=age at death. r� o - In other words, TLF=Estimated Total Lifetime Fecundity =Average eggs/year-Average number of years of reproductive life (C2) =Average eggs/year• Longevity-Age at maturation} 2 J The expected length of reproductive life was approximated as the midpoint between the times of maturation and longevity. The approximation of linear survivorship between these events implies uniform survival. For exploited species such as northern anchovy and sardine,the expected i number of years of reproductive life may be much less than predicted using this assumption. Simulation, comparing exponential survival, shows that the calculation of TLF will be negatively biased for species with short reproductive lifer ans and positively biased for those � Y P� F P i p Y with longer durations. The variance of FH was approximated by the Delta method(Appendix 132)(Seber 1982): Yar(A j+Yar(A ) Yar{FH)=(FH}� CV2(ET)+ICY2(S )+CY2(F)+ ( L M where CV(Er)=CV of estimated entrainment(estimated by CV(I)when available), CV(SI) =CV of estimated survival of eggs and larvae up to entrainment, z CV(F)=CV of estimated average annual fecundity, Av =age at maturation, and AL =age at maturity. The behavior of the estimator for FH appears log-linear,suggesting that an approximate confidence interval can be based on the assumptions that ln(FH) is normally distributed and uses the pivotal quantity, Z 1nFH-1nFH Var(FH ��2 FH " A 90%confidence interval for FH was estimated by solving for FH and setting Z equal to +/-1.645, i.e. FH e to FH-e ROE Adult Equivalent LOSS (AEL) The AEL approach uses estimates of the abundance of entrained or impinged organisms to forecast the loss of equivalent numbers of adults. Starting with the number of age class j larvae entrained(EI), it is conceptually easy to convert these numbers to an equivalent number of adults lost(.4EL) at some specified age class from the formula: AEL (0) where n= number of age classes, Ef= estimated number of larvae lost in age class j,and S! = survival rate for the jth age class to adulthood(Goodyear 1978). Age-specific survival rates from larval stage to recruitment into the fishery(through juvenile and l early adult stages)must be included in this assessment method_ For some commercial species, survival rates are known for adults in the fishery,but for most species, age-specific larval survivorship has not been well described. When age-specific survival rates from larval stage to recruitment into the fishery were available, AEL was calculated using survival from a representative age of the entrained larvae. This age was calculated by dividing the average larval length at entrainment(minus hatch length)by a literature-based growth rate.Age-specific survivorship for any interval of time(t) was then calculated following the formula(Ricker 1975) N, _e-zr No r: F t where N,= number of animals in the population at time 1, I No= number of animals in the population at time t=0, Nr =S (finite survivorship to time r), No e=2.71828...(base of the natural log),and Z= instantaneous mortality rate. Survivorship to recruitment,to an adult age, was apportioned into several age stages,and AEL was calculated using the total entrainment as (C4) l I-� { where l n= number of age classes from entrainment to recruitment and S,= survival rate from the beginning to end of the jth age class. The variance of AEL can be estimated using the Delta method as Var(AEL)=AEL CV2(4)+ CV2(S,) (C5) An alternative analysis would be to compare AEL with the size of the adult population of interest or with fishery harvest data. This method converts numbers of adult losses into fractional loss of the population of interest(e.g.,stock assessment). However, information describing adult stocks is limited for many species, and independent field estimates of survival from time of entrainment to adulthood are not available for some species. For some species where such information is unavailable,we can estimate this parameter by assuming a stationary population where an adult female must produce two adults(i.e.,one male and one female). Overall survival (Sr) can then be estimated from total lifetime fecundity(TLF)by the quantity [. = 2 =S S .s TLF °� [ which leads to 2 Sir —TLF.S"W .Sr';'� (C6) Substituting Equation I I into the overall form of the AEL equation where AEL=Er S (C7) yields I � Sags•St,,,,,•TLF where l AEL=20. (C8) f kWithout independent adult survival rates and assuming a 50:50 sex ratio, TEL and FH are deterministically related according to Equation C8,with an associated standard error of fSE(AEL)=2SE(FH). Equation C8 should be aligned so that the average female age is also the age of recruitment used in computing .EL. This alignment is accomplished by solving the simple exponential survival equation(Ricker 1975) N =N e- f , o by substituting numbers of either equivalent adults or hindcast females,their associated ages, and mortality rates into the equation where, I { N, = number of adults at time!, t t No = number of adults at time to, Z= instantaneous rate of natural mortality,and t= age of hindcast animals(FH)or extrapolated age of animals(AEL). This allows for the alignment of ages in either direction such that 2FH=AEL since they are either hindcast or extrapolated to the same age. The estimates of mortality calculated from the AEL and FH approaches can be compared for the same time periods for taxa where independent estimates are available for(1)survival from entrainment to recruitment into the fishery and(2) entrainment back to hatching. These comparisons serve as a method of cross-validation for the demographic approaches to impact assessment. Joan L. Flynn, City Clerk City of Huntington BeachTE •� 012H.16209932 Office of the City Clerk �sus •�°9•. P.O. Box 190 tr 4 a, $00.352 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 08125/200 w let; A• REQUESTED Mai!ad('rats; 92648 CL U� 6 US POSTAGE LEGAL NOTICE 1PUR ARW '----= STINGTpy�`` �MtARPORA7f0 F,� " O 114 150 53 8 OCCUPANT 21752 PACIFIC COAST H #38 y Q? HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 9 4 1909.P° Q cppMTY P,ETURN r-- TO SENDER NO SUCH ADDRESS r r ���{i' i- !'i! f (ifl3i {11t�i{J 1Si}39's !i?i�( 3 G�+''�'�e '1!'rS 1l �9��J 'Cr r3�� ��41:!!3i{1753�!!?�7i�}1 iv q I Y) 1�!�11!lltl�8t{11l Joan L. Flynn, City Clerk ,r.,,, City of Huntington Beach ® • •� 012HI6209932 Office of the City Clerk ADDRESS Uj P.O. Box 190 $00.352 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 SERVICE 08125/2005 EQUESTEDrf G1 a Ma!!ed 1;oss! 92648 . 6T �' US POSTAGE EGAL NOTICE-?MROWWARWG I NGTpy 114 150 53 8 6 OCCUPANT 21752 PACIFIC COAST H 2 9 ^�' HUNTINGTON BE CA 9 #4 BEACH . CF Es�l,1909.E cppMTY E T URPd TO SENDER t' NO SUCH ADDRESS ' 1r:iF:WY'•MP i Joan L. Flynn, City Clerk City of Huntington Beach Office of the City Clerk 4fFADDRESS Uj , P.O. Box 190 E Huntington Beach CA 92648 SERVICE REQUESTED �r #.�= Mail �.. U5 LEGAL NOTICr-"-P WW`-� `M*G=* I NGTUy �i- __ �F9y ` 6 V tJ 11415053 8 _ OCCUPANT = 21752 PACIFIC COAST H #39 Z HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92 �UUNTY ETURN TO SENDTEP. NO SUCH ADDRESS { {{ f#i rff !# -3 ifi: I :,i � ::i it Joan L. Flynn, City Clerk City.of Huntington Beach `�- Office of the City Clerk V11 tB ADDRESS 9 P.O. Box 190 It v t F; Huntington Beach, CA 926 8 a, C EQUESTED f US LEGAL NOTICE }-P-009-WA-AIR6 ING 11LEOT�y��' y 114 150 53 8 CCUPANT 9 Q 21752 PACIFIC COAST H #30 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 9 y�+' •�z lsaa.> O FCUU gyp` _ NTY RETURN TO SCNOERf NO SUCH ADDRESS Joan L. Flynn, City Clerk City of Huntington Beach 012HI6209932 Office of the City Clerk P.O. Box 190 ADDRESS LU W $00.352 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 SERME Q3"' tz 08/25/2005 LU co EQUESTED Ce Lt maiped;:rom 92648 US POSTAGE LEGAL NOTIC5-*4` L9t-W*ARRM INTING 114 150 53 8 OCCUPANT co 21752 PACIFIC COAST H #27 HUN71NGTON BEACH CA 64 NTY ETURN TO SENDER CH ADDRESS Joan L. Flynn, City Clerk City of Huntington Beach Office of the City Clerk 012HI6209932 �9ADDRESS W U) P.O. Box 190 �i:5 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 SERME 00 $00.352 001- to 08125/2005 re 1% EQUESTED a-4mailed From 92648 US POSTAGE EGAL NOTICE -+4UK't-" `O`���Nw INGT�yB �//�J/� , /A� /`^X/1' `//may 114 150 53 8 OCCUPANT ZA 21752 PACIFIC COAST HWY(#�24 646 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 9 NTY Cp RETURN TO SENDER NO SUCH ADDRESS MP i 'in, City Clerk Jngton Beach ie City Clerk 0 012HI6209932 ADDRESS LLD 3ox 190 $00.352 m )ach, CA 92648 `05 08'25f20 Lu CO QUESTED m Ma.zlei From 92648 E US POSTAGE LEGAL NOT IC : IG7- *,4r 114 150 53 8 s VVV OCCUPANT 21752 PACIFIC COAST H #40 W� HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 9 4 ETURN TO SENDER NO SUCH ADDRESS 1, City Clerk igton Beach 012H16209932 City Clerk ADDRESS S, )x 190 ich, CA 92648 u $00.352 C I Z v I 4�!C (h ;- a 08.325/2005 Lu 0) = Mlaifed From 926'8 UESTED 1A US POSTAGE LE LPN OTI C E-t-?M40-W-ARiNG ; Q-A'6' d�9� � �' 6 �� 114 150 53 8 OCCUPANT 3 21752 PACIFIC COAST HVV Y J43) HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92 Ca RETURN TO SENDER NO SUCH ADDRESS LZ 1- 11. ?i-is n, City Clerk igton Beach _ •Y ,�ti - •�. ,��, h , City Clerk ADDRESS 226 '• -Bch, CA 92648 , SERME EQUESTED mailed From. 92648 IL US POSTAGE, - LEGAL NOTICE' `PEA111 - = - -=- -- - 3r0y 114 150 72 15 OCCUPANT y q-- 6 S7 21851 NEWLAND ST#130 ` u HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 � v ETURN �; >�d� a ��� `O1 gyp- a i ri JN'v.• Imo. '1 {a�ar f's TO SENDER`�,,,r UNDELIVERABLE - --- . - --- -- - - -- ------- -------- - S ADDRESSED in, City Clerk ngton Beach ,®• .., e City Clerk �� •- € 012H162Q�'�32 ox 190 i i $00.352 ach, CA 92648 $;151010 REQUESTED Mailed Frorn 92648 PAM > US POSTAGE V2�� GAL NOTIC .' Pf' WPA%C� ' 4!f Sara Beebe 9683 Kensington Drive Huntingtor Roach CA 92646 CP`\ t-f i'.F.is t o--j ` .:-1&3'-}s:7..1L 0 0-?. 3.90.4 41-5 RETURN TO SENDER BEEBE MOVED LEFT NO ADDRESS UNA8LE To FORWARD ?^G 4 ek— �y d7i2w 92, 2, Joan L. Flynn, City Clerk City of Huntington Beach 012HI6209932 Office of the City Clerk P.O. Box 190 �5 - - v $00.352 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 SERVICE ° sn m 08/25/2005 it Mailed From 92648 REQUESTED i I" US POSTAGE. LEGAL NOTICE` -pIW W-flf Iw iNGTpyd�, �,, .... 114 150 53 8 z OCCUPANT � 21752 PACIFIC COAST H #36 9y^ o Q� HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92 V� 4 q I908.P' cppNTY �a RETURN TO SENDER NO SUCH ADDRESS 3'f1.W-Am I1S {!}33f�? 4i.: :iiiiii}};}.r;i.ssill�l�Il ieii#:�f31i'.ii3fl:�j Joan L. Flynn, City Clerk city of Huntington Beach �s2 � 2 :a;�2 Office of the City Clerk ADDRESS 3w 2 P.O. Box 190 dt 00. 52 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 SERVICE 08125/200 5 3�ai3ed From 92648 REQUESTED - - us POSTAGE LEGAL N0TICr:R.Pfj89 WAMNGG- =- ���NT INGTp�, �O 'RpRPORq�fo F � .'_ qy (�,� "' �` � 114 150 53 8 of OCCUPANT ►:►�=�- Q 21752 PACIFIC COAST H 33 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 9 4 NTY ETURN TO SENDS - NO SUCH ADDRESSwtM AMP £4t q }{Z1?filP � 3}1'!"tt�iii}�ii :: : t 33i i } i'i'rili�- }:i3??f}3i?I! Joan L. Flynn, City Clerk City of Huntington Beach Office of the City Clerk �e ADDRESS P.O. Box 190 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 SERME 'A Qrt� . $00352 U, I- C),8 25 2005 13 0 miaord From 926,48 REQUESTED . US POSTAGE MInQ r. LEGAL NOTIC-Vi- ING toRPORq re, 9 , 6 14812122 %0 "T Occupant 8521 Edison Ave Huntington-Beach CA 92646 NTY ETURN TO SENDER H ADDRESS .9 Hzild Aiis-A.IM-11HIIH11i �01­' Joan L. Flynn, City Clerk City of Huntington Beach Office of the City Clerk 6ADDRESS LU U) P.O. Box 190 :5 - 2 $00.352 0! Huntington Beach, CA 92Y48 SERVICE 0 M 0811/2 512 0 0 M 5 92648 REQUESTED US POSTAGE fiTING LEGAL N OTI CF!MtMr:WARAGB' 00, 6 11415072 15 OCCUPANT 21851 NEWLAND ST44:316 HUNTINGTON BEA C 646 NT ETURN TO SENDER NO SUCH ADDRESS. lit "''Mpf At HP 91 Joan L. Flynn, City Clerk City of Huntington Beach ^ �R �° .e 012H16209932 Office of the City Clerkte ADDRESSua - P.O. Box 190 r $00.352 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 SERVICE 08/25/2005 Lu w w Mailed From 92648 US POSTAGE. EGAL NOTICE��PLMLMj I�R13G --�='= = "- --: 1 w iN troy s 6 0S7, 72 15 ANC 9y _ QZ OCG #231 A N 2646 p V �r) /999•'° O HU�INGTON gE CH NTY ETURN TO SENDEa _ NO SUCH ADDRESS 7 }} tt }}{ ==EE s yy }} { 13 , 1 V.Z y; iiSi1S'ilil?�7SSi xi £isiiiilSiS??ii1Si'.?II"SiS4ifSt?'.SSSi:iIj Joan L. Flynn, City Clerk City of Huntington Beach 012H16209932 Office of the City Clerk ADDRESS Uj P.O. Box 190 t11 9 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 $ 08125"2005 t r 9 REQUESTED s u� Mailod FFon: 24 US POSTAGE LEGAL NOTIC5t-V8L AR G N 'NGTOy�e�' -_ 9� Q 114 150 53 8 !^` OCCUPANT co 10 21752 PACIFIC COAST H #37 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92 s e NTY ETURN TO SENDER NO SUCH ADDRESS . i� 3 i ii i4 i i {6i ! ii1 i i i{{ i ii 3"naf-Atip r City Clerk ]ton Beach �. `�° '. '�' V 12H 162V99 JL City Clerk ADDRESS w K 190 r - $00.352 SERVICE ;h, CA 92648 " _ 9 $ .. maned Front 92648 LL ` US POSTAGE LEGAL NOTICE'S+Utbt EA148 `3- �yB 114 150 72 15 F9 q OCCUPANT21851 NEWLANDST 17)92646 HUNTINGTON BEAC t �c,��t�Q' re ss �1®wn TO SENDER �I� NO SUCHAD0RESS n, City Clerk ngton Beach /� .�.o 012H16209932 City Clerk �9ADDRESS Ju to % ox 190 3ch, CA 92648 + 41 98,"9-5>2905 EQUESTED #c W hgai{ed From9-9648- % US, POSTAGE ` EGAL NOTICE*= P�E)8ftAIG == - �rpy 114 150 53 8 OCCUPANT 21752 PACIFIC COAST H #34 ,a pQZ HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92 ETURN TO SENDER NO SUCH ADDRESS �•— - � •ti AM!" •� zii�?SSiEf#Eli::ffie#£i{3i'fi??i?i3s£#£i£:i,ix i?.�i#?.i�3 i?_i:li## Joan L. Flynn, City Clerk City of Huntington Beach Office of the City Clerk ADDRESS E8 2 �r f_ P.O. Box 190 ° ° Huntington Beach, CA 92648 I r 9= as m 08 25'2005 _ _ � Mailed From �3vJ� US POSTAGE LEGAL NOTIGE1 Kfflbg'HEARING-•=~" `=---_-`= `o��UhSINGTOyB .. E `�CANiORq)f0 114 150 53 8 OCCUPANT 21752 PACIFIC COAST H #35 s Z HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 9 4 NTY C t ETURN TO SENDER NO SUCH ADDRESS ( ( tt } { } } C)1 RIMAf4P ? ?.I?;i..1i�:}ids.?.}i:S?I?iIilli ?i?i-fl-I: .Eit :S.3t?tlil{i_i??li { Joan L. Flynn, City Clerk City of Huntington Beach °� 012H16209932 Office of the City Clerk /4111 So' P.O. Box 190 as $00.352 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 IV v 1 ra � �� � 08125120005 REQUESTED R Mailed From 92648 p dd& LL US POSTAGE LEGAL NOTICE P 'fF� At1G= TINGrO,y�F i OCCUPANT i 21752 PACIFIC COAST HWY#32 y HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92 46 F f��1, f999• c00NTY Ca „ RETURN TO S.N 0 E RZ,-',j�N NO SUCH ADDRESS �•�£`:' *0 AHp •1 , i ?t't s14:xil{?t 3:tli ll{iti?i? fit?}�S?i}�i7?}'iil???t?3 Joan L. Flynn, City Clerk A�7_q City of Huntington Beach 01 Office of the City Clerk " s E � P.O. Box 190 •; Huntington Beach,CA 92648 t}ry� ♦� �f 8LE 7�FOR !! 0 11' LEGAL NOTIC = 'lfK AR . �V SINGTp�, P� % -7 t . 148 082 12 241 CA hristine& Do Id Machr P ! C2 pppNT Y F.UP-1 AMP J rJ: i1-?i1?sl.�{i/1?.tillil{it{{Il11ttllllt#i9lltli#.i�ltl,tlt�. ,r Joan L. Flynn, City Clerk ,, // r ' City of Huntington Beach �^`-L 01 Office of the City ClerkADDRESS 4 � P.O. Box 190 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 $�i REQUESTED us LEGAL NOTICF�TU8W- ARI ��uhTINGTpy �i0_�Mcoaroa4 B�9y -S Louis Berkin 9 707 Broadway yC�. •�;, ;;,,.� �OQ San Diego CA 92101 CppNTY Ca�� ,.r. i3nF sLE'ro FORWARD RETURN TO`U1�tVER,, r Fr0 ea, {3 1.-3 7�t�r v��'v .mn..o:.»em:x;swrKsuss�nm.n�mmn�mmnnmm�n .. - Joan L. Flynn, City Clerk 7 pr_t� City of Huntington Beach °';° 012H16209932 Office of the City Clerk ADDRESS Uj to P.O. Box 190 �5 } 00,3 2 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 SERME 00 to 08/25/2005 REQUESTED Wiled From 9268 US POSTAGE. GAL NOTIC5,` Pf��-ff-A MNG= _�=-�__t,r• -MNTINGTp 1„Cupoe f yd�9 114 160 75 25 STATE OF CALIFORNIA "� (0 2501 Pullman St o -- Q Santa Ana CA 92705 pGpNT Y T U R h �`~--�.�- - - - T0 SENDS - FWDG ORDE-R EXPIRED i; '� • 2�J {i�iiiL31{!I5!!t1i!1I111J !!!!!ii{ Joan L.Flynn, City Clerk City of H C� �J P Mu !-' Ci Office of the City Clerk ». P.O. Box 190 2s AUG Huntington Beach,CA 92648 10 0 2 '2 0 jf AL NOTICE- PUBLIC HEAkING TINGTpy � iMcoarogg7fe �� !/ 7-7 o ,;r,,, Q �` Walter Winrow 501 S. Broadway 9yC�e.Cfej; 1909: �oQ San Diego CA 92138 N TY ` FORWARD 14 ° ��""'�a'3,G.FsA$ � t'i�ti-'3�'� .. t��T$3'T191�iii�'15i1�1i�11113111T113TIIIIiT311iy;3�11�}iltllfi}�}�� Joan L. Flynn, City Clerk City of Huntington Beach �� 8 012Fd16209932 Office of the City Clerk w � d C P.O. Box 190 �5 ti • n 00.352 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 0� � 08i2512005 REQUESTED Mailed From 92648 US POSTAGE LEGAL NOTICE-- P� - `AR��G---- _ _ _ MINGrp�Y f&Q-e �" "w9P9RgrfO 6�9 149 021 03 373 _ s Richard & Pam Nixon _ �� ,-� 9091 Mahalo Dr o .:- ;,�;,�,;; Huntington Beach CA 92646 cpGNTY �a FORWARD V504 SENDS/30i0c NIXON 109 TANB.ARb; RD BROOKINGS OR 97415-9036 F:fi�ioY4j'MP �' III IiII ! Il iit li i 11 i1 li ! If Joan L. Flynn, City Clerk City of Huntington Beach Office of the City Clerk ADDRESS w P.O. Box 190 $00-352 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 SERMEs "S r REQUESTED iz IIa;Si:°d From 92648 US POSTAGE GAL NOTICE-+PI P AR =- - - - _ - _ INGTpy�� —(p--� William Tappan M , ,.:; 7 Posacla Irvine CA 92614-5379 rppNTY TAPP007 926143019 1704 56 08/30/45 FORWARD TIME EXP RTN TO SEND TAPPAN PO BOX 1750 SOLDOTNA AK 99669-i750 F7 U4 eMP 921 '��Gf.,4�#��.)�+�r-i'•"'"�t> I ill3 i i kil Ii !! i d}3iiif i 451�SI3rFiil i}'.}iI 3`1 Flynn, City Clerk mtington Beach (a 012HI6209932 `the City Clerk � '~ 1. Box 190 Beach, CA 92648 5 REQUESTEDf� �. - i ai3ed From 92648 �- US POSTAGE GE Q LEGAL NOTICL�'•'•�PC f6W-AF ftG*" fill, Tpy 911io'?""4 00- 9y 114 150 53 8 OCCUPANT 21752 PACIFIC COAST H 25 HUNTING.TON BEACH CA 926 ITY 1 ETURN TO SENDER NO SUCH ADDRESS U l 1:; t i f {{{{.;.I. f i {} •� Ils�ls?s�3� "�.Ia?y;sa��ti:c'�1_j,t)t.?.I � ;?:i?�? :ai?:...i-..7: .. Flynn, City Clerk untington Beach 1.J A012H16209932 )f the City Clerk ADDRESS �. Box 190We s 2 Beach, CA 92648 o _ 08/255-12005 Mailed From 92648 ioul"� REQUESTED a.E 'ip # US POSTAGE do&_Ia� t��LEGAL NOTICR:n.PESPI F`ANG=-==:- '-=-_----'- - coaroga�fo f 9y 114 150 53 8 OCCUPANT 21752 PACIFIC COAST H #31 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 64 /7,1909• VTY "ETURN TO SENDS NO SUCH ADDRESS ij i t'7RW 'tl3e�T.2??%1iiiiita`iiii?liiin=?eis!.ii? i3�i2?I!eii ii)E'i3f S:ff Joan L. Flynn, City Clerk City of Huntington Beach b—q Office of the City Clerk ADDRESS P.O. Box 190 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 i //�� • REQUESTED us F �taiieef & s r c,dry-', LEGAL NOTICE z-PLMt-V�i*VARM ---- =---=-'-r _ ao��pgTINGTp,�,�cr 114150 72 15 OCCUPANT �+'� ``"�z 1909•� �O 21851 NEWL AND S #309 COUNTY f.Q` HUNTINGTON BEA CA 9 46 RETURN �: �,,,"'� TO SENDER NO SUCH ADDRESS Joan L. Flynn, City Clerk j1 y, ` � . City of Huntington Beach !J `"7 Office of the City Clerk ADDRESS - P.O. Box 190 Huntington Beach, CA 92648REQUESTED US r r. r.��� �•�....'V�....i:r LEGAL NOTICL'��-P ` AfG�fi- ING 148-044-25 _ James Thies Q 8563 Amazon River Circle y 1` it 19g ? Fountain Valley,CA 92708 CF 9• ``� NTY URN TO SENDER,,� UNDELIVERABLE S ADDRESSEQ T L �"t 1 it i ii {•}� Yr9c�i' !— :ili.s'x� �.��i=;l . .si:{-rr'us.t�4c.'ii= Joan L. Flynn, City Clerk City of Huntington Beach b �'� �..•�• �.� ..g�•d n Office of the City Clerk ADDRESS Q " P.O. Box 190 - Huntington Beach, CA 92648 SERME Q 0 MREQUESTED . sus a. a e 7 d- "" LEGAL NOTICE-1-PUBMe-REARM INGT��Y �`O_`rtARPORq)fo ��Sy Q 114 150 72 15 i OCCUPANT 0i NTY Cp`��c - HUNTINGTON BEA #C 5 2646 RETURN _ — - T0' SENDERZ - - -- --� — -- --- NO SUCH ADDRESS -ii Joan L. Flynn, City Clerk I)` City of Huntington Beach �•• a •b12 Office of the City Clerk ADDRESS w ` P.O. Sox 190 r Huntington Beach, CA 92648 g>g if- to REQUESTED a. Ez US F LEGAL NOTICr PWM�4NMG� IM6RFORToy�c�' — = 9� 49 v g 11415072 15 ~� Q OCCUPANT s 21851 NEWLAND S #318 T Y I-UNTINGTON BEA C 2646 Cp RETURN TO SENDER _. NO SUCH ADDRESS if i t it. 3ar i €t ib i 77i Ilbts.:?iti?9E11 :Bf23 ?'-:: :tt r8ts:.fit .-li It Joan L. Flynn, City Clerk City of Huntington Beach .�, 012F Office of the City ClerkADDRESS P.O. Box 190 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 0:0SERVICE 0 k l" t .0 � cE> �� � Ee�ailecd F a `�Q . US P EGAL NOTICF=lP WMWAR G TING Tp�Y _ 114 150 72 15 - s OCCUPANT 21851 NEWLAND ST L HUNTINGTON BEAC )92646 2 CF 6�L 1999.E `0 RETURN TO SENDER - - -> - - - -- : - - - -- -- ---- -NO SUCH ADDRESS. i} i f_E f ! €j #4, j : E: x i� 3i a yiEitrttif4is .,�4`}SI�t Joan L. Flynn, City Clerk City of Huntington Beach Office of the City ClerkADDRESSes w P.O. Box 190 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 SERVICE M REQUESTED E3. . Mailec Us INs LEGAL NOTICE 4)U89 `ARI rpy C0� =ocoaroxq,f _ Q 114 150 72 15 9 moo. QZ OCCUPANT 21851 cFppUNTY Ca`��O - 07 HUNTING / 3ON BEAC A 646 RETURN _ TO SENDER - ---= - - - ---- - - ----=--- --_--- - N0 SUCH ADDRESS , 3 t IA-din 33iIEiiE 'Ei.Ei .?.4.s i.,.iiRixi::=s:i IA?Ifi:i:liit Joan L. Flynn, City Clerk City of Huntington Beach Office of the City Clerk W W �5 P.O. Box 190 SERME '-• �' �' 2Huntington Beach, CA 92648 0 013 rX� �a-g-� REQUESTED tiled NOTICE:O TTUBMO-WAR1 ; ���►TINGTp�, -� -Q C.2 Q�' `wWRPoq I REo` C'77 114 150 72 15 OCCUPANT 21851 NEWLAND ST#308 HUNTINGTON BEAC 92646 cppNTY CPS - RETURN T 0 SENDER -- - ----- --- - - -- _ . _. NO SUCH ADDRESS lilt,et Z's.°� Joan L. Flynn, City Clerk City of Huntington Beach ��>-� Office of the City Clerk ADDRESS LU (0 d - P.O. Box 190 a� Huntington Beach, CA 92648 SERME REQUESTED ' u LEGAL NOTIM-1-RMME`AMNG:%& - �VhS I NGTp6' waoE_ `�rpRPo4gTfo`��9S "/ c -- 114 150 72 15 OCCUPANT 9 -ga 9 o QZ 21851 NEWLAND SU ycFcppNTY O HUNTINGTON BEAC646 R E T U R t1 '�---TO S E N D E R T--j_ - ----- - --- -------. ..- --..._ NO SUCH ADDRESS yypp } T ifitrr- P i�'1�. r� Joan L. Flynn, City Clerk City of Huntington Beach j•b 01 Office of the City Clerk ADDRESS W(0 s P.O. Box 190 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 SERME d _ C REQUESTED �` us ' G LEGAL NOTICE'=-PUf3U =14E-AtRI �VhTIN6Tpy O� 114 150 72 15 tstwaroaq'fo`B�.9y OS OCCUPANT 21851 NEWLAND ST#54 HUNTINGTON BEA C 92646 Q 9 Z` yCF `fe sx teo9.>~o t`�Q cppNTr �a`\ RETURN TO SENDER --- ---- - -NO SUCH ADDRESS }y ss 4 s s is € s3 , 38 :tt j t si fi [)-{!a�"1FT.t��i i'ti•�p t Joan L. Flynn, City Clerk City of Huntington Beach "T �•J • g �1� Office of the City Clerk am V P.O. Box 190 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 SERME 0 ' l-- a= • 08 - LUg a. Mailed US I LEGAL NOTICFA STINGTp,�, \i%'sMcoaroagrfo C., ._ y 114 150 72 15 OCCUPANT = _" Q 21851 NEWLAND T#317 - 9so QZ HUNTINGTON BEA H 92646 CF ��7 19a9•a �� - RETURN TO SENDER NO SUCH ADDRESS •?S•�T�`h.GY4ryi!"� �� T.i:3?ii31 i.�a�i- fS�3:.:;gtt�iil35�Ir -F1i�;ifs} 'v.F'I.!j�!EiiI..i-1i14 Joan L. Flynn, City Clerk City of Huntington Beach Office of the City Clerk ADDRESS ww P.O. Box 190 rX1-- $ Huntington Beach, CA 92648 SERME LU to m 9; MaHei CL U REQUESTED us ING P�.-t.� d,"L LEGAL NOTICE' UBV VA RPOgq, 114 150 72 15 ;S� OCCUPANT 21851 NEWLAND T#2 �F�p�lYTV9.cP``�O 9 Tl� HUNTINGTON BEA H CA 646 PIE I U H,1`4 TO SENDER NO SUCH ADDRESS i1*1*i;J(1:fl:j1'.- j �J4 p Joan L. Flynn, City Clerk ID City of Huntington Beach 0121 Office of the City Clerk ADDRESS P.O. Box 190 $0 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 D.-I v (a 08, LU X 1z REQUESTED Maded F • pal- • us P Ala-t-'L jX11111 LEGAL NOTIOV"- ING "044 11415053 8 OCCUPANT V #29 21752 PACIFIC COAST H �) HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 9 pppNTY c ETURN TO SENDER NO SUCH ADDRESS i I i, I it 11 1 if AA it i t S C.)p'f 1z Joan L. Flynn, City Clerk City of Huntington Beach J)— �`O�J Q '� 01: Office of the City Clerk ADDRESS Ulu) :g P.O. Box 190 � Huntington Beach, CA 92648 ` -----f -° OE • ut 0 S _ r _ Ptaited us G LEGAL NOTIGE-1 R%19HEARFNG o��VNTINGjp B v 114 150 72 15 9 Z OCCUPANT G'e�' `B 1909•P� �O� 21851 NEWLAND S i #267 CO(/NTy C \ - -= HUNTINGTON BEAC CA 2646 RETURN - TO SENDER - ---- --- - --- -- --- ------ ----- NO SUCH ADDRESS _ ii { J.t' iti i l fi i �ir3i�it�i? . ti?.?i2i3!{!i{??i ?.ii#!ii {ii' :i,i!{=i?.i?:.fi:. Joan L. Flynn, City Clerk �_� �� City of Huntington Beach ffw "§�ffl Office of the City ClerkADDRESS P.O. Box 190 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 M D8 UJI VESTED tY Maileda: us I LEGAL NOTICE-1. INGTp�, �O� ='WRPORq�fG �C' V V Bonita Canyon Maintenance Association C/O Merit Property z Q 25910 Acero Street 9$ — oQZ Mission Viejo, CA 92691 CF 4�� 19C9. p�NTy ETLiRN TO SENDEfl -- - ---- — - = -- - ----- --------- - WDG ORDER EXPIRED if -{ s 1 S 1:r*v:k%t'P _ ..: �::r�,�-_.__ ._..r.,.�.«. �^° .--���-•---~'--==�--- :.mow • - .._ =1ynn, City Clerk intington Beach ' '' '`- 012H16209932 f the City Clerk ADDRESS � ). Box 190 $00.352 Beach, CA 92648 lko A..I`v a�a a•}' M 08!25!2005 cc IrREQUESTED e Mailed From 92648 US POSTAGE LEGAL NOTICE*=F'.PIIgC ''fIEA'RfNG TING P04q•f d� 114 150 78 18 Hamilton Cannery 601 Bollinger Canyon Way San Ramon CA 94582 z 1909•� \c�0 PTY C'P` NIXIE 945 1 BO 0$131fos RETURN TO SENDER NO SUCH NUMBER UNABLE TO FORWARD BC: 92549019090 k290S-00917-31-31 92E40%0190 II11,1Itltltli,tlltlllt,ItJlttt„tlll,it,lltttl,l„II,,,ttl,ll 'lynn, City Clerk intington Beach ✓ T r T �C.� • `� 012H16209932 the City Clerk ADDRESS LU Box 190 0: $00.352 Beach, CA 92648 SERME to � �•• M 08/25/2005 EST Mailed Fram 92648 _ US POSTAGE LEGAL NOTICE--"- �'4iPAR - [IN6T��, rF 7Xi0Rq�fC �� 114 481 13 45 Margaret Lourtie -s 332 Hawthorne St _ O South PasarlPna II j# NIXIr- 910 1 01 00131/0.5 RETURN TO SENDER No DELIVERABLE AS ADDRESSED UNABLE TO FORWARD fL,� CC: 92540019090 2700-0121;0-31--2'7 t•.�.UYAN 4f37f��R�J illl„1.tltl,altt,anlltilllltltutlll,l„lllul,l,tllttta�llll I iynn, City Clerk ntington Beach 012H16209932. the City Clerk ADDRESS Lu (n ;. 3each1 CA 92648 VIA A i. ��� �- y//� n 'nREQUESTED "- A a M 08/25/2005 YC�V�//D - ti tJiaiFedFrom 92648per• US POSTAGE P GAL NOTICE 'U 'fAi( - I NG afC4q�f��� ( ✓� +� s Mr. Karl Kemp g General Manager �- QZ MESA Consolidated Water District 965 Placentia Avenue Ty C TURN Costa Mesa, CA 92627 TO SENDER NSUFFICIENT - - — - —- ---_ -= - - -- - - -- - - DDRESS 1i.aTi:7. Ltiis y I1,l i i II ll.�.�„I,tJ, ynn, City Clerk -ve-- ntington Beach N 6 CsB,�• , V12 i1 L 77 the City Clerk � � ��' Box 190 00.352 3each, CA 92648 SERVICE °., ice 0Ai25;2005 STD � M ,� �'� � Mailed From9264$ COL •- US POSTAGE EGAL NOTICE=-T)Lf8 fIr`AR I N6T� � -— -- - - - - Mr. Wayne Hubbard s California Dept. of Health Services Division of Drinking Water .� 601 N 7"' Street, MS 92 A �-�n n.-IEA Sacrainen`- DEPA601 958142158 1804 27 08/30/05 �y FORWARD TIME EXP RTN TO SEND :CA DEPT OF HEALTH SERVICES PO BOX 997413 SACRAMENTO CA 95899-7413 g£r.-y/dry 4S i i RETURN TO SENDER 1 ( ! 3 r✓A ek—U Z�19.�1ri�iii�� ��•�i� 5111}±[-1�3�11#fF3#'?S#6Ft{F�#}SifE}�11S�FFIi?Fl1f#??�fiF{FFS£�{ in, City Clerk ington Beach -- o Cn 012H16209932 ie City Clerk ADDRESS Sox 190 0 $00.35 2 -� m _ ?ach, CA 92648 SERME REQUESTED u _ Mailed From 92648a US POSTAGE GAL NOTICE-TTU8 X"" AR1 = = = - IGT�y B Mr. Bill Ault s Director of Public Works City of Fountain Valley 18240 Ward Street Fountain Valley, CA 92708 RETURN �^--�-- TO SENDER - = - ---=- -- -:: -- - ----- - --,- - FWDG ORDER EXPIRED nn, City Clerk tington Beach � '� i T �i�"" 012H16209932 ie City Clerk ADDRESS � `'�. Sox 190 tR0 SERME � $00.35 2 each, CA 92648 Cn to 08/25/2005 I OC 5r_ mailed From 9264 8 REQUESTED US POSTAGE � c.,o�,Y• EGAL NOTICE='+LMWF4EAflrW MGtOy 114 150 72 15 OCCUPANT 21851 NEWLAND ST#16 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 R`TURN' - TO SENDER FWOG ORDER EXPIRED " �='= '• °�-Flu 4,I-amj 5*264 Joan L. Flynn, City Clerk City of Huntington Beach �••• � 012E Office of the City Clerk ADDRESS LU P.O. Box 190 °` Huntington Beach, CA 92648 0 LU £S .4'PBEIed E US AL NOTICE :#?lt =iEAr INGTp�, f 114 150 72 15 - OCCUPANT pppNTY R E.` R IN .- 21851 NEWLAND ST#265 l �—RY HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646. . TO SENDEP,T-- J ._ FWDG ORDER EXPIRED 1 Joan L. Flynn; City Clerk City of Huntington Beach t�� [� a s,�• oil, Office of the City Clerk J/ ADDRESSsic ws �Y P.O. Box 190 . o Huntington Beach, CA 92648 SERVICE (a 1z 0€ REQUESTEDA,�- °L US p�Jd LE L NOTICE-'-PAt I Rfi �'=- J INGTp�, - va — ^--_ -o`--- qs �..r�' S 114 150 72 15 _ _ _ OCCUPANT U Q 21851 NEWLAND ST#214 \ 9 Q2 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 ycF 39°9•' pppNTY RETilR'N T J S E ND E R`�------w � - - - - -=- ----------=---------------- FWDG ORDER EXPIRED MY. .� I-y iT T } sp t y It v 3' Wiz,e^.^-.—•�°� ir{3. f� .jt.!.e:.t.a3.. Joan L. Flynn, City Clerk City of Huntington Beach (� . .. � �., Office of the City Clerk 7 ' as c�E P.O. Box 190 ADDRESS w = t Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Qp U ' / LU REQUESTED rL U; �0,0 � �.nr,. LEGAL NOTICE=�I'�$��'E -ARM ==-`l ='=-- r io INGTpy�F 114 150 53 8 OCCUPANT g 21752 PACIFIC COAST HWY#41 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 v� fe q 1909•� (o NtY RETURN TO SENOrER FWDG ORDER EXPIRED i• - r-," j 1 6'`i` i lY '3 }r, �i t t t j ...... :?iiia:c°ii Joan L. Flynn, City Clerk ,Q City of Huntington Beach In Office of the City Clerk �P.O. Box 190 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Q 0 0 REQUESTED sett us L L NOTI100=4)1�3� ARG = - wNTINGTpy C'7 "'iii'll 114 150 72 15 s OCCUPANT 0 � -~- 21851 NEWLAND ST#35 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 TY RETURN TO SENDER FWDG ORDER EXPIRED 3 1 P.ni"I A1� 264i ? .h—iii;Mill t?'.S..t..i;ii .a...i.:.ct......... Joan L. Flynn, City Clerk i1 . City of Huntington Beach !-' ` W'• ` '�`` '°� 0t. Office of the City Clerk ADDRESS ru w •=a ,� P.O. Box 190 i Huntington Beach, CA 92648 SERVICE {� YREQUESTED to w- • 5 ikEaf4ec us EGAL NOTICE----Pt1`� AFMG POW — ��pMSINGTp�Y �O =MCARPoRqV 114.150 72 15 _ OCCUPANT Q 21851 NEWLAND ST#319 y �, HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 CF ). 1909. O cGGNTY Ca�� z F TO S ENO EP,` --- _ FWDG ORDER EXPIRED r%(AMP g.fi�J� Joan L. Flynn, City Clerk �,,,,Q City of Huntington Beach k.-� `T T �'—� t IF 012H Office of the City Clerk ADDRESS Uj Cc P.O. Box 190 ti a� 01 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 .^ 9 � Ix M fled R REQUESTED SERME LU �aT, r ��GC,I�r� _ -- • - - �,_ - -US -Pt LEGAL NOTICE Y 'lJftsRl I NGTp �v—C)'5- ,,wR«oRq,fo d� 114 150 72 15 - _ _ y OCCUPANT 21851 NEWLAND ST#4 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 c�pNTY cps RETi;RN TO SENDER, - - - FWDG ORDER EXPIRED - - ;, Jrt ,4{t I-•.�Yilt - '-T nn, City Clerk tington Beach v 012HI6209932 he City Clerk Q U Box 190 �5 $00.352 each, CA 92648 � 11ry`e t 08/21511-2005 /Je� REQUESTED it cc T. mailed From 92648 CL US PuSTACE. LEGAL NOTICOMLW AI G =.n -' o= oagrfO = 9� 114 150 53 8 OCCUPANT 21752 PACIFIC COAST HWY#46 QZ HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 Y ETURN �?— TO SENDER _____!_ bVDG ORDER EXPIRED , f n i o zt. 1 Si?1;1-11Al; P 926414 lynn, City Clerk intington Beach 612H16209932 the City Clerk ADDRESS UJ Beach, CA 92648 ` t - l 08i25,'206 LU REQUESTED ce �• Malted From 92648 CL�` US POSTAGE. • LEGAL NOTICE INGTp�Y C�_ aroagr ��. 7 ' Chris Stacy Cabrillo Wetland Preservation Org Q•� 21752 Pacific Coast Highway#14 Huntington Beach CA 92646 TY RETiJRN —� Tt) SENDER FWDG ORDER EXPIRED s11rWMA.r iP 32 4. n, City Clerk 4b—.0 f ngton Beach . , 012H16209932 City Clerk ADDRESS aR�z ox 190 w 0 s $00.352 ach, CA 92648 0 cr, .€_ ,$° • 0v,2 5- 2005 EQUESTED a ° Nbiled From 92648 ` US POSTAGE LEGAL NOTICE =P8HtWAR r ,Q(� s 114 150 53 8 \V�` OCCUPANT - 21752 PACIFIC COAST HWY#28 QZ HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 R E T is R NTO SENDER -------r__ !=WRG ORDER EXPIRED pimp yL�� ..J. r r n, City Clerk �- ngton Beach „.�� 012H16209932 City Clerk ADDRESS w 00 h1 CA 92648 } .3 2 ^ � ., •4� 08i25/2005 %Ialed From. 92648 REQUESTED US POSTAGE .j LEGAL NOTICE-'-+U AWWR oy 0 114 150 53 8 s OCCUPANT ' 21752 PACIFIC COAST HWY#44 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 pQ IL Rrr T URN Tt) SENDER i FWOG ORDER EXRlREf3 p IMY 14rip 9:t�f�', - - }, ..t £ ii➢::Ie',f.x..,...o-..s,..:s_.:_._. : } :o?::'ii}ii)iiiiii eii3 Joan L. Flynn, City Clerk City of Huntington Beach m••,�• �••�`•, u�. Office of the City Clerk ADDRESS P.O. Box 190 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 SERVICE fu 0C R. E P�f3tie%t: P� • us oE��aTINGNo LORPORq Tp,�,��` 148121.01 o 3d� 9 Z Occupant 2`1 502 Newland St �ppNtY ILL.a j� N-- ~v ' Huntington Beach CA 92646 RETURN TO SENDE`P'�%_�'V FWOG ORDER EXPIRED - 'i 3 ! 1 fF [i 3 3} ii � iF 1 i _] 3 '•i �(;�..*/ yam. t. t-'':1j* AMP ����Y t4:�3:: 31ti^. � ::!l i:si.fi ?- -�!iS E::ie:'•?:�s Joan L. Flynn, City Clerk City of Huntington Beach Office of the City Clerk P.O. Box 190 Q I Huntington Beach, CA 92648 SERVICE .. tau to 9 REQUESTED �il,V. Mai3ec _�. us ts4ec�GQ L AL NOTICr--=.Pd'8C - `�411G' INGTpy = _ _ _ -_ 939-480-06 o Q Occupant r+'� tB�7 1909.E c�OQ 21591 Surveyor Circle CO(/NTY cP� Huntington Beach, CA 92646 RETURN - TO SENDER ) - - --=---- ---- -- FWOG ORDER EXPIRED - - --- 3 13{.':Rfi7 i MP 264i nn, City Clerk t.f tington Beach a �• a• • •z �;2u;FiGV�rJL ie City Clerk ADDRESS Cc `- Sox 190 _ $®0.35 L each, CA 92648 SERMEL j • �� 15 L'8;'251205 LUtra REQUESTEDw y igaiied From US POST.-AGE LEGAL NOTICE*ytCIRP 44, 939 480 18. Oc:upant 21562 Survevor Cir { 19:;0 oQZ Huntington Leach CA 92646 RE.TURIN TO SENDER { FWOG ORDER EXPIRED ii yy i =� t ti if; --- ------- i, City Clerk i ton Beach a"=: a•. e��'� u12�3525�32 ►x it90 Clerk A • s b ^0 7 .ch, CA 92648 vs w® 08 125/2005 REQUESTED ]x ..a Maifeti From 92648 US POSTAGE — — _ GAL NOTICP=u=-Pti it - FfAG TO I s 989, 480 06 523 0-cupant 21591 Surveyor Cir _ Huntington Beach CA 92646 R it T U RN TO SENDER SENDER FWDG ORDER EXPIRED £ _ �-1Fr; i''M4iP i in, City Clerk in ton Beach •�ti�vs4Msa ecvs r It +can r�� e City Clerk w � 2 u„�����,� .3 _ :ox 190 � 0 2 ach, CA 92648 ' &n ors I �,°$/25i2QG5 eL gm �E@ a h7a lze5 From 92 $ P • • US POSTAGE LE-CkA N 0 T I C r-*-'P%bb4*A qWG s 149 031 s Occ nt �:� oQ� 1 Bobbie Cir Huntington Beach CA 92646 R E T J R N. TO SENDER, FWDG ORDER EXPIRE IIS IS I If i'i"3�yymp `.52y _r� � 6-4: 3F:S2i2el cliff?iiciii isili'ii' :E3:i�:i�io'.Ei.'•;:iiiii3t:e'e31i-is: i n, City Clerk f� igton Beach '$ `' 012H16209932 City Clerk ADDRESS W y 00.352 3ch, CA 92648 SERME 00 to 08/25/2005 1 EST � c. !Nailed From a C US POSTAGE LEGAL - �rpy 14901 370 La oe s 142 Kahului Dr Huntington Beach CA 92646 QZ Its_ , iJ ; ,TO— TEM - - A'- i=;r -.�. ,� Joan L. Flynn, City Clerk _f City of Huntington Beach _'L aw� a , .� r a ot2 I6209932 j Office of the City Clerk 7 W CO P.O. Box 190 i I XlE�'`' w "• a00.352 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 t 1.-ji lik V a%W 6— 08125112005 EST � mailed From 92648 US POSTAGE J LEGAL NOTICE PEBWE`AMNGS� � � �• ` " ��" aO���hTINGTpy�c�' — 9y 114 150 53 8 OCCUPANT ; 21752 PACIFIC COAST HWY#26 9y QZ HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 NTY Cps Ca RETURN TO SENDEP, I FWDG ORDER EXPIREC) ! . F:X :s e- ... •.....{' ��.5,^ 'r..F. I'f,�.,;13}li.F11,11 1i 1:I I Ii{ifil.f.l1'11111)1'f.�21}i f-I i'1 I I I t l diI Joan L. Flynn, City Clerk City of Huntington Beach Office of the City Clerk uJ a '•'' o12N16209932. P.O. Box 190 ADDRESS r` CUD 40 32 e� Huntington Beach, CA 92648 o u of - A.- REQUESTED w .^` F0ailed Fro m`926�i �� a . US POSTAGE LEGAL NOTICE*"P.POE+C"''T4 RM ''=' o� %%NT I NGTpy� ��. � `r�XiORA/fO �A� ✓/ .i 6 �O� .. 114 481 32 A Q Occupant ddress 9 � .v Q� 8901 Banning Ave u{{icient.p► 1909.> o p Ins ted Unknown Huntington Beach CA etnp r pppNTY TURN Such Numb TO SENDER NO SUCH ADDRESS � •., 1`�r)—�rS , ,i?;!?E;4iS;{�?'4I'liilii.i3ii i??fiiiii7_'; iii:?.?.i?iii�i?ii.?r??"ii i, City Clerk I igton Beach \�^'(.f a• 4�•e v% n� fLe cnn o City Clerk ADDRESSlr •. V,L„�VL.,S9�2 u)x 190 wf r 0 $00.35 2 .. f � ich, CA 92648 SERVICE ees k•• d �, M 08f2,5 2005 j REQUESTED a Mailed From 92648 � US POSTAGE LEGAL NOTIC�=-4Ptit44�AFW-- �- 1 i ,T,yB�9 9 �' 114 150 72 15 OCCUPANT "1 s 21851 NEWLAND ST#129 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 OQ } RETURN TO SENDER FWDG ORDER EXPIRED - '•,. ; :t i i '[ i 1 's ii1! ' ' +;7 t ' i iiti ; ii Ei::i�i.?:_�.._: City Clerk tin tington Beach y(� `�' �,•'. •.q�:�y'A �•r� n,nylcnnr�•r��s V iLt iVLV JL ie City Clerk 3ox 190 f . 00.352 :ach, CA 92648 SERVICE 08i25f20?5 REQUESTED ffi Mailed From 92648 US POSTAGE LEGAL N0TICff=-P AFMG =' ---=--`-- - IGj�y 114 150 72 15 ►�-a• OCCUPANT _ 21851 NEWLAND ST#310 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 TO SENDER, FW"uG ORDER EXPIRE:F� --- r 3 p.,. r i .i. ���T��''�=sN1l '�.�>t•�FJ =.:t.:. Joan L. Flynn, City Clerk City of Huntington Beach +J�\ Office of the City Clerk 6121;1� °w y': "2099'2 ADDRESS P.O. Box 190 w v ti $00.352 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 RV)C ,LU a) . ,z 08,25,2005 REQUESTED ,X� d mailed From 92648 pGG�7'C,K� US POSTAGE LEGAL NOTICE—Y-411M- ARRTNG''�'= = r1=—?%n INGTpy %*tDRPORq�Fo 6�, 114 150 72 15 OCCUPANT 21851 NEWLAND ST#118 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 0 17 1809MTY •� `0 RETURN TO SENDER FWDG ORDER EXPIRED F 7Y.ii (*f4P 92 6 4� I 4 Joan L. Flynn, City Clerk City of Huntington Beach �� }�` �J ADDRESS W 012H16209932 Office of the CityClerk P.O. Box 190 $00.352 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 IC - tA �- M tR Q8125?26n6 EST ED wm Mailed From 92648�LU $�' US POSTAGE LEGAL NOTICE�=.'l L�-€i AlRff '�===_ '== �'=`� I NGTp G} Y60"C 114 150 72 15 1 OCCUPANT 21851 NEWLAND ST#103 oo Q HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 pMTY ,ET,URN �� I . TO SENDER FWOG ORDER EXPIREO F -_..�-a'....�. ,.�.}l? Ft:.ii:. ..}�l :i:!1 ? �:?7 i, City Clerk igton Beach �— •. �•r 012f 11162-09932 City Clerk ADDRESS fl us ch1 CA 92648 U _ �� 2 rREQUESTED as Mailed From 92648 US POSTAGE ® LEGAL NOTICE'�-PLft4 t r0y r d� 114 150 72 15 =�. Q OCCUPANT �Z 21851 NEWLAND ST#301 0 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 C :r TO SENDE �� FWD.G ORDER EXPIRED - ---- i'` .i i i t }} i ii -+T1R L1,�Amp �i'61..�} t..t..::7:1Y�1??:?::}}ii?:t�it:il7i`.:i71t:i::i7il.•.ei�t:?::c: ' City Clerk i ,\ gton Beach JY) City Clerk CO �" 012H16209932 ADDRESS UJ i �x 190 6 � t. B Q. 2 ich, CA 92648 IV iE WeiM6 . `08125/2005 �L"✓zMailed From 92648� - US POSTAGE LEGAL NOTICF-P E-MiC = 'TOy 114 150 72 15 OCCUPANT s 21851 NEWLAND ST#186 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 ILps RETURN TO SENDER FWDG ORDER EXPIRED f$r'.iJ1+WiAMP JZ r:}iis}i:.,�t�.c......�. ...........a:7? i, City Clerk ��� igton Beach 012H46209932 J • x•. City Clerk ADDRESSS m •••� :• ch1 CA 92648 M v f = U. ®�•�� 'n E' m 08125/2005 L REQUESTED i a: y„ Mailed From 92648 II I"E7 ` o US POSTAGE EGAL NOTICE f O`�E A( Tpy '`� Harbor Kidge hstates Maintenance Associat' n C/O Naiic an 2900 Bristol Street,Bldg. D-104 Z �OQ Costa Me! P`\ FORWARD TIME-6261 EXP�iRTN604 TO SEND l30/05 :RYAN COMMUNITY CONSULTANTS 15160 SHORELINE DR W 1{ ORNVILLE OH 43076-8862 it i i # it {i i i# iii' # I !! # i1 i it S2 14 r)1S;I.S7IF'-M>� .Lr��".'i' •�.l?i;?# I.si ?!!I??f#;'i#ii#?!?iii##iii!?lis?;i! in, City Clerk ington Beach vti 012H16209932 e City Clerk W U cox 190 $0Q•35 2 ach, CA 92648 SERME ^ v sv - �� G +0 08125t2005 ` REQWESTEDr Mailed From 92648 US POSTAGE AL NOTICE HARfIG== "� JJ GTpy V g' 149 021 01 371 Becky Hardonniere 21842 Kiowa l.n Q Huntington Beach CA 92646 -- Z HARD84R 926463002 1504 10 08/30/05 FORWARD TIME E XP RTN 'TO SEND HARDONNIER ' BEC{'.Y PO BOX S675 NEWPORT BEACH CA 92662-5675 i=:Tw fAli? iissa;?ei?liliiis,�ss€lill J l?iis??lll:ii?ii??ilil?;ii? ?s s l Joan L. Flynn, City Clerk City of Huntington Beach Office of the City Clerk ADDRESS 0 � b P.O. Box 190 fit: Huntington Beach, CA 92648 U � ie a. rs a. w 0 Mails. 2 REQUESTED us LEGAL NOTICF4 P# WA 1Gj- - E�VhSINGT�', —_- f-_. 9� 114 150 53 8 � s OCCUPANT 21752 PACIFIC COAST H #45 �CF ,fQ-�zo �OQZ HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 9 46 NTY ETU RN TO SE NOEfi NO SUCH ADDRESS —�r�7�+ •�i fi�l} � ;;?{! t8:{::.�...-.i?i??Fi .l.�ii?!liii.��?i .iii??Ii�.?}l i?31?�?i Council/Agency Meeting Held: Deferred/Continued to: ,�,���,c,� *pproved ❑ Conditionally Approved ❑ Denied llb-"'"' / City ler ' Signa e Council Meeting Date: September 6, 2005 Department ID Number: PL05-25 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH REQUEST FOR ACTION N p o M SUBMITTED TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS.. o—+ MC:) SUBMITTED BY: PENELOPE CULBRETH-GRAFT, City AdministratorCr�"., PREPARED BY: ROSS CRANMER, Acting Director of Planning tC D SUBJECT: CERTIFY RECIRCULATED ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 00-02 (SEAWATER DESALINATION PROJECT) 1FSt,t of Issue, Funding Source, Recommended Action,Alternative Action(s),Analysis, Environmental Status,Attachment(s) Statement of Issue: Transmitted for your consideration is Recirculated Environmental Impact Report (REIR) No. 00-02 which is a request by Poseidon Resources Corporation to analyze the potential environmental impacts associated with a request to construct and operate a 50 million gallons per day seawater desalination project on an approximately 11 acre site. The project also includes up to 10 miles of water transmission lines to connect to an existing regional transmission system, and two off-site booster pump stations. The Planning Commip-ion certified the original EIR No. 00-02 on August 12, 2003. On appeal the City Council denied certification of the original EIR No. 00-02 on December 15, 2003 and directed staff to re-examine the following areas: 1. Impingement and entrainment impacts; 2. Growth inducing impacts; and 3. Compatibility of the desalination facility's product water with existing potable water supplies delivered through the regional water distribution system. Staff is recommending the City Council certify the REIR because it incorporates changes in the analysis and reports in response to Council direction, adequately analyzes the potential environmental impacts associated with the project, and identifies mitigation measures to lessen the project's impacts consistent with General Plan policies. Funding Source: Not applicable. J - � REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: September 6, 2005 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PL05-25 Recommended Action: STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Motion to: "Certify REIR No. 00-02 as adequate and complete in accordance with CEQA requirements by approving Resolution No.,A6a - (Attachment No. 1)." Alternative Action(s): The City Council may make the following alternative motion(s): 1. "Deny certification of REIR No. 00-02." 2. "Continue certification of REIR No. 00-02 and direct staff accordingly." Analysis: A. PROJECT PROPOSAL: Applicant: Poseidon Resources Corporation, 3760 Kilroy Airport Way, #260, Long Beach, CA 90806 Location: 21730 Newland Street (East side of Newland, south of Edison Ave) Recirculated Environmental Impact Report (REIR) No. 00-02 represents an analysis of potential environmental impacts associated with the construction and operation of a 50 million gallons per day (MGD) seawater desalination project including a 10,120 square foot administration building, a 38,090 square foot reverse osmosis building, a 36,305 square foot product water storage tank, and miscellaneous accessory structures on an approximately 11 acre site. The project includes up to 10 miles of water transmission lines to an existing regional water distribution system, and two off-site booster pump stations. The project also proposes perimeter landscaping and fencing along the project's frontage on Newland Street and Edison Avenue. The REIR provides a discussion of impacts by issue area and provides mitigation measures, where appropriate. Specific issue areas discussed in the REIR include: Land Use/Relevant Planning, Geology/Soils/Seismicity, Hydrology/Drainage/Storm Water Runoff, Air Quality, Noise, Public Services and Utilities, Aesthetics/Light and Glare, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Construction Related Impacts, Ocean Water Quality and Marine Biological Resources, and Product Water Quality. All other issues including Agricultural Resources, Mineral Resources, Population and Housing, Recreation, and Transportation/Traffic were fully evaluated in the Initial Study/Notice of Preparation for the proposed project. An analysis of alternatives to the proposed project and long-term implications resulting from project implementation is also provided. PL05-25 Poseidon EIR -2- 8/22/2005 11:02 AM REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: September 6, 2005 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PL05-25 An analysis of the proposed development of the property is presented in a companion report that will be considered by the City Council after action on the REIR. The companion report reviews applications for Conditional Use Permit No. 02-04 and Coastal Development Permit No. 02-05. B. STAFF ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATION: On December 15, 2003 the City Council denied certification of the original EIR and directed staff to re-examine impingement and entrainment impacts, growth inducing impacts, and compatibility of the desalination facility's product water with existing potable water supplies delivered through the regional water distribution system. The REIR includes significant new information in these three areas of concern as well as updated and additional information in other topical areas to clarify and further support the conclusions provided. However, no impact conclusions have changed as part of the REIR. The analysis below focuses on the three issues identified by the City Council as well as highlighting the other additional information in the REIR. The City Council staff report for the original EIR provides a comprehensive overview of all EIR issues and is included as Attachment No. 3 to this report. Impingement and Entrainment Impacts The original EIR assumed 100 percent mortality of marine organisms from the existing Huntington Beach Generating Station (HBGS) once through cooling water system and therefore concluded that the desalination project will not result in additional impacts. In response to City Council direction to specifically look at the desalination project's potential impacts on impingement and entrainment, an Intake Effects Assessment was completed and incorporated in the REIR as Appendix T and discussed in Section 5.10, Ocean Water Quality and Marine Biological Resources. The study was designed to investigate the potential for the desalination project feed water intake withdrawn from the HBGS cooling water system to increase the HBGS entrainment mortality and assess the significance of this potential entrainment effect on the source water. The desalination facility's feedwater would be withdrawn from the HBGS discharge and not directly from the open ocean, and its withdrawal does not affect HBGS intake requirements. The proposed project source water intake would not increase the volume or the velocity of the HBGS cooling water intake, nor would it increase the number of organisms entrained or impinged by the HBGS cooling water intake system. The study concludes that the desalination project will not cause any additional impingement losses to the marine organisms impinged by HBGS. It should be noted the Clean Water Act and US Environmental Protection Agency 316(b) regulations apply to the party responsible for withdrawing water from the ocean, HBGS, and hold HBGS responsible for compliance. Since the desalination project is reusing the waste cooling water and not withdrawing water from the ocean, it is not covered by these regulations. PL05-25 Poseidon EIR -3- 8/24/2005 10:02 AM REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: September 6, 2005 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PL05-25 The study also determined, based on in-plant testing, that HBGS has an observed entrainment mortality of 94.1 percent. The desalination project is estimated to increase mortality by 1.2 percent (from 94.1 percent to 95.3 percent) at flows of 507 MGD and by 4.6 percent (from 94.1 percent to 98.7 percent) at flows of 127 MGD. Therefore, the estimated larval fish loss attributed to the proposed desalination project would be 0.02 percent of the total population of larvae in the local area surrounding the HBGS intake. In comparison, at the minimum cooling water intake flow of 127 MGD and assuming 100 percent mortality, HBGS has an entrainment loss of 0.33 percent. The REIR notes that the most frequently entrained species are very abundant in the area of the HBGS intake and the Southern California Bight, and therefore, the actual ecological effects due to any additional entrainment from the desalination project are insignificant. Six taxa (gobies, blennies, croakers, northern anchovy, garibaldi and silversides) and a group of larvae that could not be identified were found to comprise 97 percent of all the fish larvae present in the HBGS cooling water system from which the proposed project would withdraw its source water supply. Species of direct recreational and commercial value constitute a very small fraction of the entrained organisms in the HBGS offshore intake and therefore, the operation of the desalination project does not result in significant ecological impact in CEQA context. Impacts due to the operation of the proposed desalination facility in regards to impingement and entrainment are not anticipated to be significant. Staff believes that the additional analysis and study provided in the REIR adequately respond to the City Council's request for additional information regarding impingement and entrainment impacts. Potential Growth Inducing Impacts The original EIR looked at the nominal contribution of the desalination project to the regional water supplies. The project was estimated to add less than eight percent of the existing water supply in Orange County and slightly over one percent in the South Coast Region. In response to City Council direction to further analyze potential growth inducing impacts, a Growth Assessment and General Plan Evaluation was completed and incorporated in the REIR as Appendix P and discussed in Section 6.2, Growth-Inducing Impacts of the Proposed Action. The study looked at the projected number of dwelling units at build out in the county based both on the Housing Elements of all the jurisdictions within the county and the Orange County Projections adopted by the Orange County Council of Governments. The study also identified 12 planned new residential development projects of 500 dwelling units or more in the county which are required by law to identify and verify the water sources available to serve the project. Seven of the projects have identified water sources independent of the desalination project. The desalination project cannot be ruled out as a water source for one or more of the five planned residential projects that have not yet identified water sources. The REIR notes that typically, the growth-inducing potential of a project would be considered significant if it fosters growth or a concentration of population in excess of what is assumed in pertinent general plans, or in projections made by regional planning agencies. Even if the PL05-25 Poseidon EIR -4- 8/22/2005 11:02 AM REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: September 6, 2005 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PL05-25 project were relied upon to serve a new development of 500 dwelling units or more, it would not foster growth in excess of that already assumed and projected in pertinent planning documents. The REIR acknowledges that since no water supply agreements have been executed with water agencies within Orange County, the precise locations/uses where the desalinated water would be allocated are not known. Therefore, there is a potential for the project to induce growth in unidentified areas. However, all proposed projects and water sources would be subject to environmental analysis prior to approval. The REIR concludes that in consideration of population and housing projections within the County and the recognized need for seawater desalination as a supply source within the water management and other related plans discussed in the REIR, any impacts in regards to growth inducement would be less than significant. Staff believes that the additional analysis and study provided in the REIR adequately respond to the City Council's request for additional information regarding growth-inducing impacts. Product Water Compatibility The original EIR included analysis of the compatibility of the facility's product water as part of the EIR section on Public Services and Utilities. In response to City Council direction for more information, the REIR now includes an entire section on product water quality (Section 5.11) that provides an analysis of the quality of potable water produced by the desalination project and its potential impacts on existing potable water quality and the distribution system within Orange County. An analysis of the desalinated product water's compliance with regulatory drinking water standards is provided, in addition to a description of potential impacts to existing water supplies in regards to corrosion, chlorine residual, disinfection byproducts, taste/odor, and hydraulics. To supplement the analysis in the original EIR regarding the compatibility of the facility's product water, a Disinfection Byproduct Formation Study and Distribution System Corrosion Control Study were added to the REIR as Appendices N and O. The additional analysis and studies have resulted in the identification of several new mitigation measures addressing product water quality, reliability, and compatibility with the water distribution system. Staff believes that the additional analysis and studies provided in the REIR adequately respond to the City Council's request for additional information regarding product water compatibility. Other Updated and Additional Information in the REIR As noted in Section 2.2 of the REIR, the previously circulated Draft EIR has also been revised as summarized below: ❖ The REIR includes a summary description of the areas of controversy and issues raised during the hearings held before the City of Huntington Beach Planning Commission and City Council (see Section 2.4, PUBLIC SCOPING PROCESS). PL05-25 Poseidon EIR -5- 8/22/2005 11:02 AM REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: September 6, 2005 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PL05-25 ❖ The REIR includes technical references with new and updated information (see Section 2.7, INCORPORATION BY REFERENCE, Section 10.0, BIBLIOGRAPHY, and Section 11.0, APPENDICES). Of particular note are the Hydrodynamic Modeling Report (Appendix C), the Pressure Surge Analysis (Appendix D) and the Report on Local and Regional Power Requirements and Generation Resources (Appendix Q). ❖ Section 3.0, PROJECT DESCRIPTION has been revised to include: 1) more detail concerning the interaction between the project and the Huntington Beach Generating Station (HBGS) operated by Applied Energy Services Corporation (AES); 2) more detail about the project's off-site improvements; and 3) to eliminate discussion of the aboveground product water storage tank as an option to the underground product water storage tank. The project now includes an aboveground product water storage tank. ❖ A new Section (Section 4.0, EXISTING CONDITIONS) has been included to provide additional information regarding the existing conditions and environmental setting of the project. This new section provides additional background and baseline information in order to assist decision makers and the public in their analysis of the potential environmental impacts of the project. ❖ The discussion of Cumulative Impacts has been updated and revised (see Section 6.3). ❖ The discussion of Alternatives to the Proposed Action has been updated and revised (see Section 7.0). The original EIR included the following alternatives: 1. A no project alternative; 2. An alternative site; 3. An above ground product water storage tank alternative that would eliminate the originally proposed underground storage tank; 4. A reduced output alternative; and 5. An alternative desalination method alternative The REIR revises the no project alternative analysis to include a more detail review of how Orange County's water supply needs could be met without the project. The REIR also analyzes more project alternatives by including alternative ownership and several alternative designs involving different methods of desalination, seawater intake collection, and discharge location. C. SUMMARY REIR No. 00-02 serves as an informational document with the sole purpose of identifying potential environmental impacts associated with the desalination project, alternatives that minimize those impacts, and appropriate mitigation measures. Staff recommends that the City Council certify REIR No. 00-02 because: PL05-25 Poseidon EIR -6- 8/22/2005 11:02 AM REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: September 6, 2005 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PL05-25 ■ It incorporates changes in the analysis and reports in response to City Council direction; ■ The REIR adequately addresses the environmental impacts associated with the proposed project consistent with CEQA requirements; ■ Identifies project alternatives and mitigation measures to reduce the project's impacts to a level of insignificance consistent with General Plan policies; and ■ No long-term significant impacts have been identified. Environmental Status: In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act, RBF Consulting, a consultant hired by the City, prepared REIR No. 00-02 to analyze the potential environmental impacts of the project. The document must be adopted and certified by the City Council prior to any action on Conditional Use Permit No. 02-04 and Coastal Development No. 02-05. The REIR is intended to serve as an informational document for decisions to be made by the City and responsible agencies regarding the proposed project. It analyzes the potential environmental impacts associated with the proposed desalination project, accessory structures, water transmission lines, and off-site booster pump stations. REIR No. 00-02 discusses potential adverse impacts in the areas of Land Use/Relevant Planning, Geology/Soils/Seismicity, Hydrology/Drainage/Storm Water Runoff, Air Quality, Noise, Public Services and Utilities, Aesthetics/Light and Glare, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Construction Related Impacts, Ocean Water Quality and Marine Biological Resources, and Product Water Quality. The direct, indirect and cumulative impacts of the proposal are addressed, as are the impacts of project alternatives. 1. Environmental Procedures — The following table outlines the procedure followed during the preparation of REIR No. 00-02: DATE ACTIVITY Nov. 17 and Public hearing before the City Council to certify EIR No. 00-02. Dec. 15, 2003 Dec. 7, 2004 An Agency Consultation Meeting was held in the central library to receive agency input on potential impacts of the proposed project. April 5, 2005 Notice of Completion filed with the State Clearinghouse. Notice of Recirculation mailed to all property owners and tenants within a 2,000 ft radius, all interested parties, all attendees at scoping meetings, and all interested agencies. Draft REIR available for public review and comment for over forty-five days from April 5, 2005 through May 27, 2005. Draft REIR available for review at City Hall, Central Library, Banning Branch Library, and city website. May 27, 2005 Comments on REIR accepted up to 5:00 PM. A total of 52 comment letters were received. August 22, 2005 Response to Comments on Draft EIR and Final EIR are made available for public information and sent to Responsible Agencies and commenting parties. (CEQA requires Response to Comments be sent to Responsible Agencies 10 days prior to certification hearing.) PL05-25 Poseidon EIR -7- 8/22/2005 11:02 AM REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: September 6, 2005 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PL05-25 2. Summary of REIR No. 00-02 In the preparation of an environmental impact report, potential impacts associated with the proposed development are identified and analyzed pursuant to the requirements of CEQA. These impacts are categorized into three levels of significance. They are: less than significant impacts; impacts that can be mitigated to a level less than significant; and unavoidable significant impacts. The level of impacts associated with the proposed project are identified below: a) Less Than Significant Impacts The project will result in impacts to some environmental resources or conditions that are concluded not to be significant if the development proposal complies with standard conditions of approval suggested in the entitlement staff report. The following topical areas were determined to result in no environmental impacts or less than significant environmental impacts: ■ Agricultural Resources ■ Air Quality (long-term) ■ Ocean Water Quality and Marine Biological Resources ■ Hazards and Hazardous Materials ■ Land Use/Relevant Planning ■ Mineral Resources ■ Population and Housing ■ Recreation ■ Transportation/Traffic b) Adverse Impacts That Can Be Mitigated to Less Than Significant Through the use of appropriate mitigation measures identified in the REIR, the majority of the potentially adverse impacts associated with the project (CUP and CDP) can be mitigated to a level of insignificance. Areas where impacts may occur and a brief description of the key recommended mitigation measures are as follows: ■ Aesthetics/Light and Glare - Utilize minimum light levels for safety and security and lighting shall be directed to avoid spillage onto adjacent properties - Screen exterior mechanical equipment from view ■ Construction Related Impacts - Limit construction hours to Monday-Saturday, 7 am to 8 pm pursuant to Noise Ordinance - Submit erosion and dust control plan - Construction shall include Best Management Practices to control pollutants PL05-25 Poseidon EIR -8- 8/22/2005 11:02 AM REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: September 6, 2005 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PL05-25 - Dewatering plan shall by approved by the Public Works Department, Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board, and Orange County Water District - Noise reduction by muffling and distance separation - All structures to be cleaned of hazardous materials prior to off-site transportation - Prepare and implement Traffic Management Plan for City approval - Conduct pre-construction nesting survey of savannah sparrows adjacent to desalination plant site - Conduct pre-construction surveys of California gnatcatcher, Bell's vireo, southwestern pond turtle, raptor nests, and sensitive biological resources at booster pump station site - Archaeologist to evaluate any historical and archaeological resources discovered during the construction of the booster pump ■ Geology/Soils/Seismicity - Submit geotechnical report to include recommendations regarding grading, foundations, remedial work, overexcavation/recompaction, dewatering, lateral spreading, flood control channel bank stability, liquefaction potential, and ground water constraints and incorporate recommendations into the grading plan - Comply with NPDES - Complete removal and recompaction of compressible soils or use of piles and grade beams to support on-site structures - Perform special studies and subsurface investigation to determine fault rupture potential of South Branch fault which underlies the site - Compliance with Uniform Building Code for seismic safety and liquefaction ■ Hydrology/Drainage/Storm Water Runoff - Submit a Water Quality Management Plan for approval by the Public Works Department to control pollutant runoff - Perform hydrology and hydraulic analysis to address storm water drainage and flooding - Install on-site drainage system to address stormwater ■ Noise - Submit an acoustical analysis to assure that all stationary noise sources comply with the city's Noise Ordinance ■ Product Water Quality/Water Distribution System - Product water quality shall be regulated by the California Department of Health Services - Prior to operation install corrosion monitoring system and OC-44 feeder monitoring program - Prior to operation perform additional pressure surge impacts modeling - Prior to operation coordinate and obtain approval from applicable local water agencies PL05-25 Poseidon EIR -9- 8/22/2005 11:02 AM REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: September 6, 2005 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PL05-25 ■ Public Service and Utilities - Pay traffic impact, sewer connection, water service connection, and school impact fees - Incorporate solid waste reduction and recycling methods for project construction and operation These impacts can be reduced by mitigation measures suggested in the REIR and summarized in this report. Staff recommends incorporation of these mitigation measures into the conditions of approval for the development project (CUP and CDP). c) Unavoidable Significant Impacts There is one adverse environmental impact that cannot be completely eliminated through mitigation measures: short-term construction related emissions of nitrogen oxides from the proposed project. Environmental impacts associated with implementation of a project may not always be mitigated to a level considered less than significant. In such cases, a Statement of Overriding Considerations must be prepared prior to approval of the project, and in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Sections 15091 and 15093. CEQA requires decision makers to balance the benefits of the proposed project against its unavoidable environmental risks in determining whether to approve the project. If the benefits of a proposed project outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects, the City may consider the adverse environmental effects acceptable. In this particular case, staff believes the social, economic, and ecosystem/biological resources benefits of the proposed project outweigh the adverse impact to air quality during the construction process. A Statement of Overriding Considerations is required to describe the specific reasons for approving the project, based on information contained within the Final REIR, as well as any other information in the public record. Prior to certification and adoption of the REIR by resolution, the City Council may amend the document. It should be noted, however, that removal of any of the recommended mitigation measures requires findings and justification. Additionally, all mitigation measures that are approved with the REIR must be applied to the approved project. PL05-25 Poseidon EIR -10- 8/24/2005 10:02 AM REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: September 6, 2005 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PL05-25 Attachment(s): City Clerk's Page Number No. Description 1 City Council Resolution No. — Certifying Final REIR No. 00- 02 2 Final REIR No. 00-02, Technical Appendices, Response to Comments, Errata (under separate cover— not attached) 3 Request for Council Action dated November 17, 2003 4 Letters in opposition and in support received after REIR comment period 5 PowerPoint Presentation 6 Responses to EIR related Questions Raised at August 22, 2005 Study Session RCA Author: R. Ramos/M. Broeren PL05-25 Poseidon EIR -11- 8/30/20054:30 PM ATTACHMENT 1 RESOLUTION NO. 2 0 0 5-6 2 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH CERTIFYING THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 00-02 (SCH#2001051092) FOR THE POSEIDON SEAWATER DESALINATION PROJECT WHEREAS, an Environmental Impact Report, State Clearinghouse #2001051092 ("EIR") was prepared by the City of Huntington Beach to address the environmental implications of the proposed Poseidon Seawater Desalination Project (the "Project"); and On May 17, 2001, a Notice of Preparation/Initial Study for the Project was prepared and distributed to the State Clearinghouse, other responsible agencies, trustee agencies and interested parties. An update to the Notice of Preparation/Initial Study was prepared and distributed on March 4, 2002; and After obtaining comments received in response to the Notice of Preparation, and comments received at the two public scoping meetings held at the Edison Community Center in the City of Huntington Beach on June 6, 2001 (2:30 pm and 7:15 pm), the City completed preparation of the Draft EIR, dated September 19, 2002, and filed a Notice of Completion with the State Clearinghouse; and The Draft EIR was circulated for public review and comment from September 19, 2002 to November 4, 2002 and was available for review at several locations including City Hall and the Huntington Beach Public Library; and The Planning Commission held public meetings on the EIR on May 27, June 3, July 8, July 22, and August 12, 2003 in which comments were received on the EIR; and The Planning Commission certified the EIR on August 12, 2003; and Public comments have been received on the Draft EIR, and responses to those comments have been prepared and provided to the City Council in a separately bound document entitled "Responses to Comments for the Poseidon Seawater Desalination Project" (the "Responses to Comments"), dated March 21, 2003; and The City Council held a public meeting on the EIR on November 17, 2003 and December 15, 2003 and received and considered public testimony; and The City Council directed staff to provide additional information in the EIR; and On April 5, 2005, a Notice of Completion and Notice of Recirculation were prepared and distributed to the State Clearinghouse, other responsible agencies, trustee agencies and interested parties; and The Draft Recirculated EIR was made available for public review and comment from April 5, 2005 to May 27, 2005 and was available at several locations including City Hall, the Huntington Beach Public Library, and the City's website; and 05reso/poseidon eir 1 Res. No. 2005-62 Public comments have been received on the Draft Recirculated EIR, and responses to those comments have been prepared and provided to the City Council in a separately bound document entitled "Responses to Comments for the Seawater Desalination Project at Huntington Beach" (the "Responses to Comments"), dated August 22, 2005; and The City Council held a public meeting on the Recirculated EIR on September 6, 2005 and received and considered public testimony; and The City Council and the Redevelopment Agency have previously certified a Final Environmental Impact Report for the Southeast Redevelopment Project in which the Poseidon Project is located; and In the event the City Council and the Redevelopment Agency take any actions in the future in furtherance of and to carry out the Southeast Redevelopment Project which involve the Poseidon Project, any such actions would be based on the information contained in the Final Environmental Impact Reports for both the Southeast Redevelopment Project and the Poseidon Project. NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach does hereby find, order, determine, and resolve as follows: SECTION 1. Consistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15132, the Final EIR for the Project is comprised of the Draft Recirculated EIR and Appendices, the comments received on the Draft Recirculated EIR, the Responses to Comments, the Errata(bound together with the Responses to Comments), the Appendices to the Responses to Comments and all Planning Department Staff Reports to the City Council, including all minutes, transcripts, attachments, incorporation, and references. SECTION 2. The City Council makes the findings contained in the attached "Statement of Facts and Findings" with respect to significant impacts identified in the Final EIR and finds that each fact in support of the findings is true and is based upon substantial evidence in the record, including the Final EIR. The Statement of Facts and Findings is attached as Exhibit "A" to this Resolution and incorporated herein by this reference. SECTION 3. The City Council finds that the Final EIR has identified all significant environmental effects of the Project and that there are no known potential environmental impacts not addressed in the Final EIR. SECTION 4. The City Council finds that all significant effects of the Project are set forth in the Statement of Findings and Facts and the Final EIR. SECTION 5. The City Council finds that although the Final EIR identifies certain significant environmental effects that will result if the Project is approved, all significant effects which can feasibly be mitigated or avoided have been mitigated or avoided by the incorporation of Project design features, standard conditions and requirements, and by the imposition of mitigation measures on the approved Project. All mitigation measures are included in the "Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Checklist" (also referred to as the "Mitigation Monitoring Program") attached as Exhibit "B"to this Resolution and incorporated herein by this reference. 05reso/poseidon eir 2 Res. No. 2005-62 SECTION 6. The City Council finds that the Final EIR has described reasonable alternatives to the Project that could feasibly obtain the basic objectives of the Project (including the "No Project" Alternative), even when these alternatives might impede the attainment of Project objectives and might be more costly. Further, the City Council finds that a good faith effort was made to incorporate suggested alternatives in the preparation of the Draft Recirculated EIR and that a reasonable range of alternatives was considered in the review process of the Final EIR and ultimate decisions on the Project. SECTION 7. The City Council finds that no "substantial evidence" (as that term is defined pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15384) has been presented which would call into question the facts and conclusions in the EIR. SECTION 8. The City Council finds that no "significant new information" (as that term is defined pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5) has been added to the Draft Recirculated EIR since its distribution. The City Council finds that the refinements that have been made in the Project do not amount to significant new information concerning the Project, nor has any significant new information concerning the Project become known to the City Council through the public hearings held on the Project, or through the comments on the Draft Recirculated EIR and Responses to Comments. SECTION 9. The City Council finds that the Mitigation Monitoring Program establishes a mechanism and procedures for implementing and verifying the mitigations pursuant to Public Resources Code 21081.6 and hereby adopts the Mitigation Monitoring Program. The mitigation measures shall be incorporated into the Project prior to or concurrent with Project implementation. SECTION 10. The City Council finds that the unavoidable significant adverse effects of the Project as identified in Section 5.0 of the Statement of Facts and Findings (short-term construction related impacts in regards to air quality) have been lessened in their severity by the application of standard conditions, the inclusion of Project design features and the imposition of the mitigation measures. The City Council finds that the remaining unavoidable significant impacts are clearly outweighed by the economic, social, and other benefits of the Project, as set forth in the "Statement of Overriding Considerations" included as Section 7.0 of the Statement of Facts and Findings. The City Council adopts the recitation of overriding considerations which justify approval of the Project notwithstanding certain unavoidable significant environmental effects which cannot feasibly be substantially mitigated as set forth in the Statement of Overriding Considerations. SECTION 11. The City Council finds and certifies that the Final EIR reflects the independent review and judgment of the City of Huntington Beach City Council, that the Final EIR was presented to the City Council, and that the City Council reviewed and considered the information contained in the Final EIR prior to approving Conditional Use Permit No. 02-04 and Coastal Development Permit No. 02-05. SECTION 12. The City Council finds that the Final EIR serves as adequate and appropriate environmental documentation for the Project. The City Council certifies that the Final EIR prepared for the Project is complete, and that it has been prepared in compliance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act and CEQA Guidelines. 05reso/poseidon eir Res. No. 2005-62 PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at a regular meeting thereof held on the 6t-h day of September , 2005. leoo�, � REVIEWED AND APPROVED: jA4ROVED TO FORM: City A inistrator INITIATED AND APPROVED: / c.T-jj Director of Planning 05reso/poseidon eir 4 coos -d 4 SEAWATER DESALINATION PROJECT'E�xH1,61T „I v SCH# 2001051092 STATEMENT OF FACTS AND FINDINGS AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS 1.0 INTRODUCTION The California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") in Public Resources Code Section 21081 provides that: "[N]o public agency shall approve or carry out a project for which an environmental impact report has been certified which identifies one or more significant effects on the environment that would occur if the project is approved or carried out unless both of the following occur: (a) The public agency makes one or more of the following findings with respect to each significant effect: (1) Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment. (2) Those changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and have been, or can and should be, adopted by that other agency. (3) Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including considerations for the provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or alternatives identified in the environmental impact report. (b) With respect to significant effects which were subject to a finding under paragraph (3) of subdivision (a), the public agency finds that specific overriding economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits of the project outweigh the significant effects on the environment." The City of Huntington Beach certifies the Seawater Desalination Project at Huntington Beach Environmental Impact Report ("E1R") and approves the following project components: construction and operation of a seawater desalination facility, which includes an administration building, a reverse osmosis facility building, a pretreatment filter structure, a chemical storage/solids handling building, a bulk chemical storage building, product water and influent pump stations (situated underground) and surge tank, a rinse tank, a lime silos, a wash water tank, carbon dioxide tanks, an ammonia tank, an electrical substation building, an aboveground product water tank, appurtenant facilities, and pipelines and pump stations to deliver drinking water into the regional water distribution system. Also part of the project includes the demolition of three fuel storage tanks and interior berms, a conditional use permit ("CUP") and a Coastal Development Permit ("CDP"). Due to the potential impacts to the environment and because the proposed action constitutes a project under CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines, the City of Huntington Beach has prepared a Final Recirculated EIR (FREIR)(State Clearinghouse No. 2001051092). The FREIR identified certain potentially significant effects that may occur as a City of Huntington Beach August 22, 2005 Page 1 of 47 Seawater uesallnation Nroject at tiuntington beacn HNUIN(ob Ur rAU I J Recirculated EIR No. 00-02 result of implementation of the project, unless mitigation measures, project design features and/or standard conditions are adopted for the project. The mitigation measures, project design features, and standard conditions identified in the FREIR are proposed to be adopted for the project. The DREIR was circulated for public review and comment for over a 45-day period (April 5, 2005 to May 27, 2005) as specified in the State CEQA Guidelines. Public comments were received by the City and have been responded to by the City in accordance with CEQA requirements. The City of Huntington Beach determines that the Final EIR, comprised of the DREIR, a list of persons, organizations and public agencies commenting on the DREIR, comments received from the public and interested agencies, the Responses to Comments prepared by the City (including Errata to the DREIR), and all attachments and documents incorporated by reference is complete and adequate, and has been prepared in accordance with CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines. The FREIR identified certain significant effects on the environment that may occur if the project is approved or carried out. Therefore, in accordance with CEQA, the City of Huntington Beach adopts this Statement of Facts and Findings and makes one or more of the three Section 21081 findings for each significant impact identified. For all but one of the significant effects identified in the FREIR, changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project that mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment. In addition, for certain significant effects that may occur, the Final EIR has identified changes or alterations that are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of other public agencies. Those changes or alterations have been, or can and should be, adopted by those other agencies. The FREIR also identified one unavoidable significant effect on the environment that may occur as a result of the project, even with the implementation of mitigation (see Section 5.0 of this Statement of Facts and Findings). Where the decision of a public agency allows the occurrence of a significant effect, which is identified in the FREIR but is not avoided, the agency must state in writing the specific reasons to support its action based on the FREIR and other information in the record. Such a statement is called a Statement of Overriding Considerations. In accordance with CEQA, therefore, the City of Huntington Beach adopts the Statement of Overriding Considerations included as Section 7.0 of this Statement of Facts and Findings. This Statement of Facts and Findings, including the Statement of Overriding Considerations, is adopted by the City of Huntington Beach as part of its action to certify the FREIR and approve the Seawater Desalination Project at Huntington Beach. 2.0 DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT PROPOSED FOR APPROVAL The proposed project involves the construction and operation of a seawater desalination facility producing approximately 50 million gallons per day (mgd) of potable water. The facility would take source water for the desalination facility from the existing condenser cooling seawater discharge pipe system of the HBGS, purify it utilizing reverse osmosis (RO) technology, discharge concentrated seawater byproduct water through the existing HBGS outfall, and deliver potable product water to the distribution system. The product drinking water will be delivered to the existing regional water distribution system to meet the needs of Orange County. A more detailed project description is provided in Section 3.0, PROJECT DESCRIPTION of the DREIR. City of Huntington Beach August 22, 2005 Page 2 of 47 6eawater uesalination rroject at Huntington beacn riNuiNUb ur t-AU i 5 Recirculated EIR No. 00-02 Off-site components necessary to effectuate delivery of the potable product water into the existing regional water distribution system include a water transmission pipeline alignment extending into the City of Costa Mesa and two booster pump stations (one within an unincorporated portion of Orange County and another within the City of Irvine). 3.0 FINDINGS CONCERNING IMPACTS FOUND TO BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT In evaluating the potential impacts associated with the project, the FREIR identified potential impacts that would not be significant. This section of the Statement of Facts and Findings identifies those impacts that may occur with project implementation, but were found to be below the threshold of significant. CEQA does not require findings for impacts that are found to be less than significant, and therefore do not require mitigation. Nevertheless, the following information is provided in order to summarize the bases for determinations of non-significance for the potential impacts as presented in the Section 5.0, ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS, in the FREIR. (Note that Section 8.0, EFFECTS FOUND NOT TO BE SIGNIFICANT, provides an examination of potential project impacts that were found not to be significant in the Initial Study. That information is not repeated herein, but is incorporated by reference as if set forth in full in this Statement of Facts and Findings.) In some cases, the impacts addressed in this Statement of Facts and Findings are found not to be significant due to their nature. In other cases, the determinations take into account certain design features of the project. Although impacts determined to be not significant do not themselves require mitigation, in some cases mitigation measures that have been required to address other impacts found to be potentially significant and in need of mitigation will also further reduce the non-significant impacts. In these cases, the mitigation measures are noted, although the impacts would be less than significant even without such measures. Mitigation measures are referenced in this Statement of Facts and Findings using the same numbering system employed in the Mitigation Monitoring Program and the FREIR. Refer to Attachment B, MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM for a complete listing of mitigation measures and monitoring requirements. A. IMPACTS RELATED TO LAND USE/RELEVANT PLANNING (DREIR page 5.1-1 to 5.1-11) Section 5.1 of the DREIR addresses the potential impacts related to land use/relevant planning. Both topics (land use and relevant planning) are addressed in this Section of the Statement of Facts and Findings. Finding for Potential Land Use Impacts The Seawater Desalination Project at Huntington Beach will not create any significant impacts to surrounding land uses. Less than significant impact. In addition, mitigation measures NOI-1, ALG-1, ALG-2, and CON-1 through CON-47, inclusive, further reduce these less than significant impacts. Facts in Support of Finding Based on the analysis presented in Section 5.1 of the DREIR, land use impacts are less than significant without mitigation. Potential land use impacts have been eliminated or substantially lessened to a level of less than significant by virtue of project design features identified in the City of Huntington Beach August 22, 2005 Page 3 of 47 Seawater uesalination rrolect at Huntington beacn riNuiN(36 Ur rHU 15 Recirculated EIR No. 00-02 DREIR. Moreover, mitigation measures NOI-1, ALG-1, ALG-2, and CON-1 through CON-45, inclusive, further reduce these less than significant impacts. Finding for Potential Relevant Planning Impacts The Seawater Desalination Project at Huntington Beach will not conflict with applicable relevant planning programs. No impact. Facts in Support of Finding Based on the analysis presented in Section 5.1 of the DREIR, relevant planning impacts are not significant. The project as described in Section 2.0 of this Statement of Facts and Findings will be consistent with the City of Huntington Beach General Plan, Local Coastal Program, Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance, and with the SCAG Regional Comprehensive Plan and Guide. There is no need to change any General Plan or Zoning designations. During the design development stage, the Applicant will be submitting more detailed plans reflecting code and policy compliance with specific issues. The design will be required to comply with all applicable standard development conditions. B. IMPACTS RELATED TO GEOLOGY, SOILS, & SEISMICITY (DREIR pages 5.2-1 to 5.2-13) Section 5.2 of the DREIR addresses the project's potential impacts related to geology, soils and seismicity. The DREIR addresses six topics, two of which (topography and off-site pipelines and underground pump stations) are addressed in this Section. The remaining four topics are addressed in Section 4.0-B of this Statement of Facts and Findings. Finding for Topography The Seawater Desalination Project at Huntington Beach will have no significant impact on the natural topography of the project area. Less than significant impact. Facts in Support of Finding Based on the analysis presented in Section 5.2 of the DREIR, topography impacts are less than significant without mitigation. No significant landform impacts will result because the project area is relatively flat. The proposed desalination facility site consists of three fuel storage tanks on a flat surface, surrounded by containment berms of 10 to 15 feet in height. The western and southern berms would be removed prior to construction of the desalination facility, while the eastern and northern berms (the northern berm exists outside of the project boundaries) will not be removed. The site does not contain any unique physical or topographical features. Finding for Off-Site Pipelines and Underground Pump Stations The Seawater Desalination Project at Huntington Beach off-site pipelines and underground pump stations will not subject to significant hazards related to geology, soils and seismicity. Less than significant impact. In addition, applicable mitigation measures contained within Section 5.9 of the DREIR, inclusive, further reduce these less than significant impacts. City of Huntington Beach August 22, 2005 Page 4 of 47 Seawater uesallnation F'rojeCT at Huntington beacn FINUINUb Ur t-AU I J Recirculated EIR No.00-02 Facts in Support of Finding Based on the analysis presented in Section 5.2 of the DREIR, impacts related to geology, soils and seismicity for the project's off-site pipelines and pump stations are less than significant. No significant impacts will result because the majority of the pipeline alignment will occur within existing street right-of-way and various utility lines currently exist along the alignment. The pump station locations are also located in close proximity to existing pipelines. Standard conditions similar to those to be implemented for the on-site desalination facilities will apply to minimize impacts and design level geotechnical investigations will be performed. Moreover, applicable mitigation measures contained within Section 5.9 of the DREIR, inclusive, further reduce these less than significant impacts. C. IMPACTS RELATED TO HYDROLOGY, DRAINAGE AND STORM WATER RUNOFF (DREIR pages 5.3-1 to 5.3-8) Section 5.3 of the DREIR addresses the project's potential long-term impacts related to hydrology and water quality. The DREIR addresses four topics, two of which are addressed in this Section. The remaining topics are addressed in Section 4.0-C of this Statement of Facts and Findings. The topics where the impacts were found to be less than significant are: • Fertilizer and Pesticides • Water Quality Impacts to Nearby Coastal Wetlands from On-site Spillage Finding for Fertilizer and Pesticides The use of fertilizers and pesticides on landscaping at the Seawater Desalination Project at Huntington Beach will not have a significant impact on water quality. No significant impact is found. In addition, mitigation measure HWQ-1 further reduces this less than significant impact. Facts in Support of Finding The project will incorporate both native and non-native landscaping on site, as explained in Section 5.3 of the DREIR. Non-native vegetation may require periodic fertilization and pest control. The use of fertilizers and pesticides would comply with the City of Huntington Beach standards as well as the guidelines set forth in the Orange County Management Guidelines. The landscaping will be maintained in accordance with City of Huntington Beach standards. Based on the size of the landscaped areas, small amounts of fertilizers and pesticides will be needed. Use of these chemicals on project landscaping will not result in a significant impact to groundwater, adjacent Ocean waters, or surrounding uses. Moreover, mitigation measure HWQ-1 further reduces this less than significant impact. Finding for Potential Water Quality Impacts to Nearby Coastal Wetlands from On-Site Spillage Potential on-site spillage from the Seawater Desalination Project at Huntington Beach will have no significant impact on nearby coastal wetlands. Less than significant impact. Facts in Support of Finding As explained in Section 5.3 of the DREIR, the project design incorporates appropriate leak/spill containment features that minimize the likelihood for hazardous materials being stored, used or transported on-site from impacting adjacent uses. Moreover, nearby coastal wetlands, including City of Huntington Beach August 22, 2005 Page 5 of 47 Jeawater uesallnation Nroject at Iuntington beacn t-INUINIib Ur FAU 15 Recirculated EIR No. 00-02 the privately owned open space/wetlands area that abuts the edge of the southwest corner of the desalination facility site, are physically separated from the desalination facility by existing berms (that will remain in place). D. IMPACTS RELATED TO AIR QUALITY (DREIR pages 5.4-1 to 5.4-17) Section 5.4 of the DREIR addresses the potential impacts related to air quality. Four topics (long-term mobile source emissions and electricity consumption, chemical storage facilities, off- site pipelines and underground pump stations, and consistency with regional plans) are addressed in this Section of the Statement of Facts and Findings. Finding for Mobile Source Emissions and Electricity Consumption The Seawater Desalination Project at Huntington Beach will not result in significant impacts in regards to mobile or off-site energy related air emissions. Less than significant impact. Facts in Support of Finding The analysis in Section 5.4 of the DREIR shows that the desalination facility would generate nominal amounts of on-site area source and off-site mobile source emissions. In addition, off- site energy emissions associated with the proposed facility's electricity consumption have been previously accounted for within local and regional planning documents as well as environmental documentation prepared for SCAQMD's Regional Clean Air Incentives Market (RECLAIM) and New Source Review programs. Impacts in this regard are not anticipated to be significant. Finding for Chemical Storage Facilities The proposed project would not result in significant air quality impacts in regards to chemical storage facilities. Less than significant impact. Facts in Support of Finding As explained in Section 5.4 of the DREIR, the proposed desalination plant would use fewer chemicals of lower dosages than existing conventional water treatment plants in Southern California. In addition, based on the types of chemicals stored on site and their containment methods, odors are unlikely to emanate from the project site. Chemical storage and the use of chemicals during the desalination process are not anticipated to have significant impacts to air quality in the region. Finding for Off-Site Pipelines and underground Pump Stations The Seawater Desalination Project at Huntington Beach will not significantly impact air quality. The impacts associated with the operation of diesel-power generators are anticipated to be less than significant. Facts in Support of Finding It would be necessary to apply for a Special Application for Temporary Emergency Authorization To Operate Electric Backup Generator(s) During Involuntary Power Service Interruptions Permit.' The project would obtain all required air quality permits. Therefore, impacts associated ' South Coast Air Quality Management District, http://www.agmd.gov/permit/em back up gen.html, November 29,2004. City of Huntington Beach August 22, 2005 Page 6 of 47 seawater uesaunation vrolect at Huntington beacn HNUINbb Ur t-AU 1 5 Recirculated EIR No. 00-02 with the operation of diesel- powered generators are anticipated to be less than significant, as explained in Section 5.4 of the DREIR. In addition, water transmission lines would not result in criteria pollutant emissions and therefore would not have any significant impacts to air quality. Finding for Consistency with Regional Plans The Seawater Desalination Project at Huntington Beach will not conflict with local and regional air quality planning documents. Less than significant impact. Facts in Support of Finding As explained in Section 5.1 of the DREIR, the proposed project does not involve a General Plan amendment, zone change, or other change in land use, and is consistent with the County of Orange and City of Huntington Beach land use assumptions. The regional Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) is based on the City and County's General Plan assumptions, and the project is consistent with these assumptions. Consequently, as explained in Section 5.4 of the DREIR, the project would be considered consistent with the AQMP. In addition, according to SCAG, the project is consistent with the Regional Comprehensive Plan and Guide (RCPG). Impacts in this regard are not anticipated to be significant.DR E. IMPACTS RELATED TO NOISE (DREIR pages 5.5-1 to 5.5-13) Section 5.5 of the DREIR addresses the project's potential impacts related to noise. The DREIR addresses two topics (mobile noise sources and stationary noise sources). Mobile noise sources and stationary noise sources for the off-site pipelines and booster pump stations are addressed in this Section. Stationary noise sources for the desalination facility site are addressed in Section 4.0-E of this Statement of Facts and Findings. Finding for Mobile Noise Sources The Seawater Desalination Project at Huntington Beach will not generate a significant amount of noise resulting from mobile noise sources. Less than significant impact. Facts in Support of Finding As explained in Section 5.5 of the DREIR, the project would generate a nominal amount of noise resulting from mobile sources as a result of employee trips and truck-generated traffic. The proposed desalination facility would employ a total of approximately 18 people, with an average of five to seven people on-site per shift on weekdays. In addition, facility operation would require a maximum of four truck trips per day for solid waste disposal and chemical delivery. Noise generated by mobile sources as a result of the proposed desalination facility is so nominal that impacts in this regard will be less than significant. Finding for Noise from Long-Term Operations of Off-Site Pipelines and Underground Booster Pump Stations The proposed desalination project would not generate a significant amount of noise resulting from long-term operations off-site pipelines and underground booster pump stations. City of Huntington Beach August 22, 2005 Page 7 of 47 Seawater uesallnation Nroject at Huntington beacn rINuINVJ Ur t-AU 15 Recirculated EIR No. 00-02 Facts in Support of Finding As explained in Section 5.5 of the DREIR, the proposed product water pipelines would occur entirely underground. Upon completion of construction, these pipelines would not generate noise. In addition, as the OC-44 booster pump station would be placed underground, the off- site underground booster pump station is not anticipated to adversely affect the NCCP/HCP area along the eastern border of the City of Newport Beach. Similarly, the coastal junction booster pump station would both be located underground and contain an adequate amount of acoustical shielding. Impacts in this regard are not anticipated to be significant. F. IMPACTS RELATED TO PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES (DREIR pages 5.6-1 to 5.6-14) Section 5.6 of the DREIR addresses the project's potential impacts related to public services and utilities. The DREIR addresses fourteen topics, eight of which are addressed in this Section. The remaining topics are addressed in Section 4.0-F of this Statement of Facts and Findings. The topics where the impacts were found to be less than significant are: • Fire Service • Police Service • Libraries • Parks and Recreation • Reclaimed Water • Electricity • Gas • Telephone and Cable Finding for Fire Service The Seawater Desalination Project at Huntington Beach will not have a significant impact on the demand for fire service within the City of Huntington Beach. Less than significant impact. Facts in Support of Finding It is not anticipated that project implementation would result in the need for additional Fire Department facilities. The project is not of the scope or nature to create a significant increase in demand for services requiring physical additions to the City of Huntington Beach Fire Department. As explained in Section 5.6 of the DREIR, impacts are less than significant. Finding for Police Service The Seawater Desalination Project at Huntington Beach will not have a significant impact on the demand for police service within the City of Huntington Beach. Less than significant impact. Facts in Support of Finding Implementation of the project will not create a significant increase in service calls to the project area nor is it expected to result in the need for additional police facilities within the City of Huntington Beach. As explained in Section 5.6 of the DREIR, impacts are less than significant. City of Huntington Beach August 22, 2005 Page 8 of 47 Seawater uesannation vrotect at Huntington beacn r-iNuiNUs yr rHU i a Recirculated EIR No. 00-02 Finding for Libraries The Seawater Desalination Project at Huntington Beach will not have a significant impact on the City of Huntington Beach library system. Less than significant impact. Facts in Support of Finding The proposed desalination project is not anticipated to have significant impacts on the City of Huntington Beach library system. Although the nearest library facility to the project site (the Banning Branch Library) is small in size, the project is anticipated to have a negligible impact on the branch. The applicant will be required to pay standard library enrichment fees concurrent with building permit issuance. As explained in Section 5.6 of the DREIR, impacts are less than significant. Finding for Parks and Recreation The Seawater Desalination Project at Huntington Beach will not have a significant impact on the demand for parks and recreational facilities within the City of Huntington Beach. Less than significant impact. Facts in Support of Finding The desalination plant will employ approximately 18 people, with five to seven people on duty during regular working hours Monday through Friday, and a minimum of two people on duty during swing shifts, graveyard shifts, and weekends. Consequently, the project is anticipated to have a negligible impact on parks and recreation facilities within the City of Huntington Beach. As explained in Section 5.6 of the DREIR, impacts are less than significant. Finding for Reclaimed Water The Seawater Desalination Project at Huntington Beach will not have a significant impact on the availability of the City's reclaimed water facilities. Less than significant impact. Facts in Support of Finding The proposed project will not require the use of reclaimed water or installation of reclaimed water facilities, as the project itself will be a new water reclamation source. As explained in Section 5.6 of the DREIR, impacts are less than significant. Finding for Electricity The Seawater Desalination Project at Huntington Beach will not have a significant impact on the electrical facilities providing service to the project vicinity. Less than significant impact. Facts in Support of Finding The project would consume approximately 720 to 840 megawatt hours per day. The facility may utilize off-peak power to the maximum extent practicable. Electric power generating plants are distributed throughout the state, and the project's electrical demand would be met by dozens of power plants connected to a regional power supply source, with many of those plants located outside of Southern California. SCE is prepared to install electrical distribution facilities to the project site. As explained in Section 5.6 of the DREIR, impacts are less than significant. City of Huntington Beach August 22, 2005 Page 9 of 47 seawater uesailnatlon Nroject at Huntington beach h-INUINUZ5 UF- 1--AU I s Recirculated EIR No.00-02 Finding for Gas The Seawater Desalination Project at Huntington Beach will not have a significant impact on local natural gas facilities. Less than significant impact. Facts in Support of Finding The Southern California Gas Company can provide gas service to the proposed project via numerous gas mains surrounding the subject site. Project implementation would not result in any construction related impacts to the service area. As explained in Section 5.6 of the DREIR, impacts are less than significant. Finding for Telephone and Cable The Seawater Desalination Project at Huntington Beach will not have a significant impact on telephone or cable service facilities within the vicinity of the project area. Less than significant impact. Facts in Support of Finding Both Verizon (telephone) and Time Warner (cable) will be available to provide service to the subject site from existing facilities surrounding the subject site. As explained in Section 5.6 of the DREIR, impacts are less than significant. G. IMPACTS RELATED TO AESTHETICS/ LIGHT AND GLARE (DREIR pages 5.7-1 to 5.7-7) Section 5.7 of the DREIR addresses the project's potential impacts related to aesthetics/light and glare. The DREIR addresses three topics, one of which (off-site light and glare) is addressed in this Section. The remaining two topics are addressed in Section 4.0-G of this Statement of Facts and Findings. Finding for Off-Site Light and Glare The Seawater Desalination Project at Huntington Beach will not have a significant off-site light and glare impact. Less than significant impact. Facts in Support of Finding As explained in Section 5.7 of the DREIR, off-site light and glare impacts are less than significant. Project implementation may result in an insignificant increase in the amount of light and glare off-site from vehicles utilizing the facility. However, additional lighting or glare- inducing surfaces will not occur as a result of the water transmission pipeline or underground pump stations because those facilities will be underground. Impacts in this regard are less than significant. H. IMPACTS RELATED TO HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS (DREIR pages 5.8-1 to 5.8-10) Section 5.8 of the DREIR addresses the potential impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials. City of Huntington Beach August 22, 2005 Page 10 of 47 Seawater uesaunatlon vrotect at rluntington tseacn VINUINUb Ur I-AU I J Recirculated EIR No. 00-02 Finding for Hazards and Hazardous Materials The Seawater Desalination Project at Huntington Beach will not result in significant impacts in regards to on-site hazards or hazardous materials. Less than significant impact. Facts in Support of Finding While potential future uses may require the storage, use, transportation, and/or handling of hazardous materials, as explained in Section 5.8 of the DREIR, any such hazards would be minimized by adherence to Federal, State, and City regulations. These requirements include monitoring devices, spill control, emergency response plans, appropriate on-site safety equipment, and the proper design of all facilities. With the implementation of standard conditions and required design features, impacts in this regard will be less than significant. Finding for Off-Site Pipeline Alignments and Underground Booster Pump Stations The proposed desalination project would not result in long-term operational impacts in regards to off-site pipeline alignments and underground booster pump stations. Less than significant impact. Facts in Support of Finding As explained in Section 5.8 of the DREIR, the proposed off-site pipeline alignments would occur adjacent to a variety of land uses. Hazardous materials impacts due to long-term operation of the pipelines are not anticipated to occur, as the only liquid proposed for conveyance is potable water. The OC-44 pump station and coastal junction pump station would both require a diesel storage tank that would be placed underground and adequate safety measures would be implemented. Impacts in regards to the off-site use, storage, and transport of hazardous materials are not anticipated to be significant. I. IMPACTS RELATED TO CONSTRUCTION (DREIR pages 5.9-1 to 5.9-36) Section 5.9 of the DREIR addresses the project's potential impacts related to construction. All of which are addressed in Section 4.0-1 and Section 5.0 of this Statement of Facts and Findings. J. IMPACTS RELATED TO OCEAN WATER QUALITY AND MARINE BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES (DREIR pages 5.10-1 to 5.10-41) Section 5.10 of the DREIR addresses the project's potential impacts related to ocean water quality and marine biological resources. Red Tides and Algal Toxins is addressed below, in Section 4.0-K, Impacts Related to Product Water Quality. The topics where the impacts were found to be less than significant are: • Potential Sources of Contamination in Proximity to the HBGS Intake • Elevated Bacteria Levels in the Huntington Beach Surf Zone • Concentrated Seawater Discharge • Reverse Osmosis Membrane Cleaning Solution • Impingement and Entrainment City of Huntington Beach August 22, 2005 Page 11 of 47 seawater uesannation vroiect at Huntington beacn HNuiNUZ5 Ur I-AU i 5 Recirculated EIR No.00-02 Finding for Potential Sources of Contamination in Proximity to the HBGS Intake The Seawater Desalination Project at Huntington Beach will not be significantly impacted by Orange County Sanitation District (OCSD) wastewater discharge, urban storm water runoff, dry weather runoff, the recirculation of HBGS discharge, the Los Angeles and San Gabriel Rivers, cruise ships and fishing boats, recreation, oil and gas production facilities, the operation of HBGS, or elevated bacteria levels in the Huntington Beach surf zone. Less than significant impact on the HBGS seawater intake. Facts in Support of Finding Oceanographers from the Scripps Institution of Oceanography conducted modeling studies using a computer model that simulates ocean conditions near the HBGS intake and outfall (refer to Appendix C, HYDRODYNAMIC MODELING REPORT of the DREIR). The modelers from Scripps used their many years of experience working along the Southern California coast to determine the worst case conditions that would be modeled. The worst case conditions were chosen to determine if any adverse water quality or environmental impacts occurred under extreme ocean and weather conditions that were most likely to show an effect. The analysis in Section 5.10 of the DREIR shows that there will be a less than significant impact on the HBGS intake from potential contamination sources. Impact from OCSD Wastewater Discharge: The worst-case model results show that the OCSD discharge is diluted 30 million to one at the HBGS intake. Any contaminants discharged at the OCSD outfall would be diluted far below background levels at the intake to the HBGS. Therefore, the OCSD discharge does not have a significant source of contamination at the HBGS intake. As far as other constituents of concern for the OCSD discharge, the desalination facility discharge water quality would be well within the limits established in the Ocean Plan. Impacts in this regard will be less than significant. Impact from Urban Storm Water Runoff During a 24-hour extreme runoff period only 0.0003 percent of the water at the HBGS intake would come from the Santa Ana River and Talbert Marsh and the remaining 99.9997 percent would be seawater. These results show that contaminants are not transported to the HBGS intake from the Santa Ana River and Talbert Marsh during extreme storm conditions. More detailed modeling results are presented in Appendix C of the DREIR, HYDRODYNAMIC MODELING REPORT. Impacts will be less than significant in this regard. Impact from Dry Weather Runoff: Tidal flushing of the Talbert Marsh would have the greatest potential to impact water quality at the HBGS intake during high spring tides combined with summer El Nino conditions when currents are flowing northwest from the marsh towards the intake. Under these worst-case conditions, the marsh water is diluted 20,000 to one and essentially does not reach the intake. This is due to the fact that the marsh water is released into the surf zone and the onshore waves keep the marsh water in the shallow nearshore waters, whereas the HBGS intake is located 1,840 feet offshore at a depth of approximately 33 feet. Impacts will be less than significant. Impact from the Recirculation of HBGS Discharge.- The HBGS outfall is located approximately 1,500 feet offshore and 340 feet from the HBGS intake. The potential for recirculation of the discharge into the intake was examined. The discharge consists primarily of cooling water, but a small amount of power plant process City of Huntington Beach August 22, 2005 Page 12 of 47 Seawater uesannation rrotect at Huntington beacn riNuiNUS ur 1­-Ht;1 Recirculated EIR No. 00-02 wastewater and storm water can be mixed with the cooling water. The concentrated seawater from the proposed desalination facility will also be mixed with the power plant cooling water. Recirculation of the HBGS discharge would have the greatest potential to impact water quality at the intake during El Nino storm conditions when the maximum amount of storm water is being discharged through the outfall. The hydrodynamic model for recirculation of the HBGS discharge was run using the El Nino conditions of February 1998 and the maximum allowable discharge of 1.66 MGD of generating station process wastewater and storm water. In addition, the proposed desalination facility was assumed to be running at full capacity so that 50 MGD of concentrated seawater discharge was mixed with the cooling water discharge. Furthermore, recirculation potential was examined under two generating scenarios: 1) one generating unit on- line with a total discharge of 78.4 MGD of cooling water, storm water, and wastewater, and the concentrated seawater discharge and 2) four generating units on-line producing a total discharge of 458.6 MGD of cooling water, storm water, and wastewater, and the concentrated seawater discharge. The model results under worst case conditions for a 7-day extreme runoff period show that only 0.3 percent of the HBGS discharge would be recirculated to the intake. The results for four generating units show a greater dilution with only 0.1 percent of the HBGS discharge recirculated to the intake. Based on these results, the recirculation of the HBGS discharge during storm events has been shown to not affect the source water quality at the HBGS intake. Impacts are less than significant in this regard. Impacts from the Los Angeles and San Gabriel Rivers: The Los Angeles River discharges to the ocean approximately 16 miles upcoast (i.e. northwest) from HBGS, while the San Gabriel River discharges approximately 11 miles upcoast. The amount of dilution that occurs and the fact that the generating station intake is at a depth of approximately 33 feet indicates that contaminants entering the ocean from these two rivers would not likely affect the water quality at the HBGS intake. Impacts in this regard are less than significant. Impacts from Cruise Ships and Shipping Boats: The nearest major port for cruise ships is located approximately 16 miles northwest of the HBGS intake. Ingress/egress routes for cruise ships for Long Beach and Los Angeles Harbors do not come in close proximity to the HBGS. In addition, given the limited nature of sportfishing that occurs in the project site vicinity, impacts are less than significant. Impacts from Recreation: Any contaminants released into the ocean due to recreational use are likely to be small in quantity greatly diluted due to tidal action. It would be difficult for such contaminants to reach the HBGS intake due to its depth of approximately 33 feet below the ocean surface. Impacts in regards to recreational uses are not anticipated to be significant. Impacts from Oil and Gas Production Facilities: There are two offshore oil platforms approximately 1.5 miles west of the HBGS intake and four platforms approximately 10 miles west of the intake. There have not been any reportable spills or leaks from the offshore oil platforms or the pipelines. A catastrophic event at one of the offshore platforms that is near the coast could affect water quality at the HBGS intake. However, given the relatively low probability based on operational history, impacts in this regard are less than significant. Impacts from Operations at HBGS.- There are numerous water quality constituents regulated in drinking water supplies. Samples were collected from the HBGS intake vault and from the outlet of the condensers (where the City of Huntington Beach August 22, 2005 Page 13 of 47 beawater uesaiination Hroject at Huntington beacn VINuINUb Vr rAU 15 Recirculated EIR No.00-02 desalination facility intake will be located). Although maximum contaminant levels (MCLs) apply to treated drinking water, raw water concentrations that exceed MCLs provide an indication of potential contaminants of concern. None of the primary MCLs are exceeded in the intake water and the only secondary MCLs that are exceeded are salts (TDS, chloride, sulfate) that would be removed by the reverse osmosis process. Impacts are less than significant in this regard. Cycle water is discharged to the cooling water system at various locations as the cooling water flows through the generating station. The cycle water is under vacuum so the cooling water leaks into the cycle water but the cycle water does not leak into the cooling water. There are several locations where cycle water is discharged into the cooling water system. The contaminants in these discharges will be greatly diluted by the large volume of cooling water compared to the small volume of the discharges. The only chemical of concern in a drinking water source is nitrite. The other chemicals in the discharges are not toxic to humans and drinking water standards have not been established. Because the volume of cooling water represents a maximum of 0.002 percent of the cooling water flowing through one unit at the HBGS, the nitrite concentration of 800 mg/L will be diluted to about 0.02 mg/L in the cooling water that would reach the desalination facility. This level of nitrite is well below the drinking water MCL of one mg/L. Nitrite and the other chemicals present in the cycle water discharges will easily be removed by the reverse osmosis membranes. As a result, impacts in this regard are less than significant. Storm runoff from the HBGS site and a limited amount of off-site urban runoff is currently discharged to the cooling water system upstream of the intake to the desalination facility. The applicant would coordinate with HBGS to reroute these discharges during construction of the desalination facility so they would be downstream of the desalination intake and not affect water quality at the desalination intake. The off-site urban runoff is from approximately 70 acres of land near the HBGS. Dry weather runoff collects in a ditch alongside Newland Street and is currently pumped into the HBGS outfall pipeline. The City of Huntington Beach plans to modify the system so that it flows into the HBGS site by gravity when improvements are made to Newland Street as part of the conditions placed upon the project by the City of Huntington Beach. Impacts are less than significant in this regard. Low volume wastes, metal cleaning wastes, and pipeline hydrostatic test water are diverted to the HBGS retention basin and then to the outfall, where the wastewater is mixed with cooling water. Currently this waste is discharged downstream of the intake to the desalination facility and would not be included in the source water for the proposed desalination facility. As a result, impacts in this regard are not anticipated to be significant. A number of petroleum products and other hazardous materials are stored and used at the generating station. Although unlikely due to spill prevention measures and clean-up procedures in place at the HBGS, there is the potential for a spill to reach the floor drain or the storm drainage system and enter the cooling water system. The floor and yard drainage system currently enters the outfall line downstream of the point where the desalination facility will be located and would not be included in the desalination facility's source water. As a result, impacts in this regard are not anticipated to be significant. Periodically water from the discharge vault is diverted back into the facility and reheated. This reheated water is then used to clean the discharge line of biological growths ("bio-film"). This recirculated water contains wastes that have been discharged to the discharge vault prior to the flow being reversed in the facility. The proposed desalination facility would not intake water from the HBGS cooling water system during heat treatments. In this regard, impacts are less than significant. City of Huntington Beach August 22, 2005 Page 14 of 47 Seawater uesannauon i roiect at Huntington beacn rINuINVS Ut- t-AU t 5 Recirculated EIR No. 00-02 Impacts from Elevated Bacteria Levels in the Huntington Beach Surf Zone: Contaminants are not transported to the HBGS intake from the Santa Ana River and Talbert Marsh during extreme storm event conditions. In addition, dry weather urban runoff at Talbert Marsh during tidal flushing essentially does not reach the HBGS intake. Although the cause of the elevated bacteria levels in the Huntington Beach surf zone has not been determined, the seawater desalination process would have the ability to remove bacteria and produce potable water meeting all State Title 22 standards. Impacts in this regard are less than significant. Finding for Elevated Bacterial Levels in the Huntington Beach Surf Zone The Seawater Desalination Project at Huntington Beach will not contribute to elevated bacterial levels in the Huntington Beach Surf Zone. Less than significant impact. Facts in Support of Finding The modelers from Scripps used their many years of experience working along the Southern California coast to determine the worst case conditions that would be modeled, as explained in Section 5.10 of the DREIR. The worst case conditions were chosen to determine if any adverse water quality or environmental impacts occurred under extreme ocean and weather conditions that were most likely to show an effect. The effect of the Santa Ana River and Talbert Marsh storm water on water quality at the HBGS intake was modeled assuming a very large, prolonged storm event and ocean currents flowing from the mouth of the river towards the HBGS facility. Normally, ocean currents flow in the opposite direction, down the coast (southeast) away from the HBGS. Extensive bacterial studies have shown that the Santa Ana River and Talbert Marsh appear to be the primary sources of fecal indicator bacteria to the near shore ocean. In addition, bird droppings and a reservoir of bacteria stored in the sediment and on marine vegetation may continue to be the source of bacteria at the mouths of the river and marsh. Modeling studies and monitoring data indicate that there is likely another unidentified source of bacteria in the vicinity of Stations 6N and 9N. However, three separate studies conducted between 2001 and 2002 have demonstrated that HBGS is not the source of bacteria in the surf zone. Less than significant impact on the Huntington Beach surf zone is expected. Finding for Concentrated Seawater Discharge The proposed desalination project concentrated seawater discharge will not significantly impact ocean water quality or marine biological resources in the area. Less than significant impact. Facts in Support of Finding As explained in Section 5.10 of the DREIR, the proposed project's discharge would not have a significant effect on organisms living around the discharge or organisms that would pass through the area. Most of the marine organisms living near the HBGS also occur in other areas of the Southern California Bight where naturally occurring salinities can be higher than what is anticipated at the HBGS outfall. Plankton, fishes, and other water-column species would have brief exposure to the concentrated seawater discharge field, and the area of benthic impacts would be relatively small and localized. In addition, no endangered species or kelp beds exist within the vicinity of the HBGS outfall. As ocean water quality impacts and impacts to marine biological resources are not anticipated to be significant, a separate routine monitoring process is not proposed as part of the project. However, if applicable, ocean water quality and biological City of Huntington Beach August 22, 2005 Page 15 of 47 Seawater uesannation Nroject at Huntington beacn rINuINUb UF- t-AU I J Recirculated EIR No. 00-02 monitoring during long-term project operation will be conducted as directed by the RWQCB. Impacts are less than significant in this regard. Finding for Reverse Osmosis Membrane Cleaning Solution The Seawater Desalination Project at Huntington Beach will not significantly impact ocean water quality or marine biological resources due to the discharge of reverse osmosis membrane cleaning solution through the HBGS outfall. Less than significant impact. Facts in Support of Finding As stated in the DREIR in Section 3.0, PROJECT DESCRIPTION, the reverse osmosis system trains will be cleaned using a combination of cleaning chemicals such as industrial soaps (e.g. sodium dodecylbenzene, which is frequently used in commercially available soaps and toothpaste) and weak solutions of acids and sodium hydroxide. The "first rinse' treated waste cleaning solution from the washwater tank will be discharged into the local sanitary sewer for further treatment at the OCSD regional wastewater treatment facility. The cleaning rinse water following the "first rinse" will be mixed with the RO facility concentrated seawater, treated waste filter backwash, and the AES plant discharge and sent to the ocean. This "second rinse` water stream will contain trace amounts of cleaning compounds and would be below detection limits for hazardous waste. An Industrial Source Control Permit from the OCSD for discharge of waste cleaning solution into the sanitary sewer system will be required for the project. In addition, the discharge must comply with the limits and requirements contained in the OCSD's Wastewater Discharge Regulations. The analysis in Section 5.10 of the DREIR shows that impacts to the local marine environment would be less than significant. As explained in Section 5.10 of the DREIR, an alternative to discharging the "first rinse" of the RO membrane cleaning solution into the OCSD system is to discharge the solution ("first rinse" and all subsequent rinses) into the Pacific Ocean via the HBGS outfall. The majority of the chemicals within the membrane cleaning solution would be either below detection levels or regulatory limits, even before dilution with other desalination facility and HBGS discharges. Dilution at a 260 to one ratio would further minimize impacts to the marine environment and would assure NPDES compliance. Impacts to the local marine environment would be less than significant. Finding for Impingement and Entrainment The proposed desalination facility will have less than significant impacts on marine biological resources in regards to impingement and entrainment effects. Less than significant impact. Facts in Support of Finding As explained in Section 5.10 of the DREIR, the proposed project source water intake would not increase the volume, or the velocity of the HBGS cooling water intake nor would it increase the number of organisms entrained or impinged by the HBGS cooling water intake system. Therefore, the impingement and entrainment effects of the HBGS are not included in assessing the proposed project's effects, as these organisms would not be exposed to further screening prior to entering the desalination facility's pretreatment system. The proposed desalination facility would not have a separate direct ocean water intake and screening facilities, and would only use cooling water that is already screened by HBGS's intake. In response to City Council direction to specifically look at the desalination project's City of Huntington Beach August 22, 2005 Page 16 of 47 Jeawater Uesailnation vroject at Huntington beacn FINUINCiS OF FHI:1,3 Recirculated EIR No. 00-02 potential impacts on impingement and entrainment, an Intake Effects Assessment was completed and incorporated in the REIR as Appendix T and discussed in Section 5.10, Ocean Water Quality and Marine Biological Resources. The study was designed to investigate the potential for the desalination project feed water intake withdrawn from the HBGS cooling water system to increase the HBGS entrainment mortality and assess the significance of this potential entrainment effect on the source water. The study concludes that the desalination project will not cause any additional impingement losses to the marine organisms impinged by HBGS. The study also determined, based on in-plant testing, that HBGS has an observed entrainment mortality of 94.1 percent. The desalination project is estimated to increase mortality by 1.2 percent (from 94.1% to 95.3%) at flows of 507 MGD and by 4.6 percent (from 94.1% to 98.7%) at flows of 127 MGD. Therefore, the estimated larval fish loss attributed to the proposed desalination project would be 0.02 percent of the total population of larvae in the local area surrounding the HBGS intake. In comparison, at the minimum cooling water intake flow of 127 MGD and assuming 100 percent mortality, HBGS has an entrainment loss of 0.33 percent. The REIR notes that the most frequently entrained species are very abundant in the area of the HBGS intake and the Southern California Bight, and therefore, the actual ecological effects due to any additional entrainment from the desalination project are insignificant. Six taxa (gobies, blennies, croakers, northern anchovy, garibaldi and silversides) and a group of larvae that could not be identified were found to comprise 97 percent of all the fish larvae present in the HBGS cooling water system from which the proposed project would withdraw its source water supply. Species of direct recreational and commercial value constitute a very small fraction of the entrained organisms in the HBGS offshore intake. Impacts due to operation of the proposed desalination facility in regards to impingement and entrainment are less than significant. K. IMPACTS RELATED TO PRODUCT WATER QUALITY (DREIR pages 5.11-1 to 5.11- 24) Section 5.11 of the DREIR addresses the project's potential impacts related to product water quality which are addressed below, in Section 4.0-K of this Statement of Facts and Findings. L. CUMULATIVE IMPACTS Section 6.3 of the DREIR addresses the project's potential cumulative impacts. The topics where the impacts were found to be less than significant are: • Local Cumulative Impacts • Regional Cumulative Impacts Finding for Potential Local Cumulative Impacts The Seawater Desalination Project at Huntington Beach will not result in significant local cumulative impacts. Less than significant impact. Facts in Support of Finding Section 6.3 of the DREIR addresses the cumulative impacts associated with the Seawater Desalination Project at Huntington Beach. The cumulative impact analysis was based primarily on build-out of the City's General Plan, Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance, and General Plan City of Huntington Beach August 22, 2005 Page 17 of 47 Seawater Desalination Frotect at Huntington beacn FiNUINUS Ur t-A;t 5 Recirculated EIR No. 00-02 EIR. The analysis also identified, listed and considered the potential cumulative impacts resulting from the currently known probable projects at the time of DREIR publication. Section 6.3 of the DREIR specifically analyzed potential cumulative impacts in the areas of land use/relevant planning, geology and soils, hydrology and water quality, air quality, noise, public services and utilities, aesthetics/light and glare, hazards and hazardous materials, construction related, biological resources (terrestrial only), and product water quality impacts. No significant cumulative impacts were identified. Finding for Potential Regional Cumulative Impacts The Seawater Desalination Project at Huntington Beach will not result in significant regional cumulative impacts. Less than significant impact. Facts in Support of Finding The DREIR notes in Section 6.3, that additional seawater desalination facilities were being considered by various cities and agencies along the Southern California coast. Because those projects are in various stages of conceptual consideration, and construction has not begun, the Final REIR does not attempt to quantify or evaluate potential cumulative impacts of all of those projects. Such an analysis is speculative at best, and is not required under CEQA Guidelines, Section 15130[b]. However, an analysis is provided for certain proposed desalination facilities along the Southern California coast (see Table 6-4). The Final REIR notes that the project, together with these other proposed desalination projects, may facilitate new development in south Orange County or elsewhere. Potential growth-inducing cumulative impacts, further discussed below in Section 3.0-M of the Statement of Facts and Finding and explained in Section 6.2 of the DREIR, are considered less than significant. All potentially significant impacts to long-term water quality and marine biological sources would be reduced to less than significant levels, as explained in Section 6.3 of the DREIR, through regulatory compliance, and project design features and implementation of the recommended mitigation measures. Potential cumulative impacts upon ocean water quality and marine biological resources are considered less than significant. The impact of the additional electric energy demand by the proposed project is less than one percent in Southern California and is therefore, less than significant. M. GROWTH-INDUCING IMPACTS Section 6.2 of the DREIR addresses the project's potential growth-inducing impacts. Finding for Potential Growth-Inducing Impacts The Seawater Desalination Project at Huntington Beach will not result in significant growth- inducing impacts. Less than significant impact. Facts in Support of Finding As required under CEQA, Section 6.2 of the DREIR included a discussion of the ways in which the Seawater Desalination Project at Huntington Beach could be growth-inducing. Under CEQA, growth inducement is not considered necessarily detrimental, beneficial, or of little significance to the environment. Typically, the growth-inducing potential of a project would be considered significant if it fosters growth or a concentration of population in excess of what is assumed in pertinent master plans, land use plans, or in projections made by regional planning agencies such as the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). Significant growth impacts could also occur if the project provides infrastructure or service capacity to City of Huntington Beach August 22, 2005 Page 18 of 47 seawater uesannation rrolect at Huntington beacn FiNuiNUb OF FHU i 5 Recirculated EIR No.00-02 accommodate growth beyond the levels currently permitted by local or regional plans and policies. It must first be noted that the project will sell water on a wholesale basis to water agencies who in turn will sell the water to customers at retail prices. The project does not propose to sell water at a retail level. On page 3-30, the DREIR explains how the water produced by the proposed seawater desalination facility will be delivered into the regional distribution system operated by the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California ("MWD"). The regional system operated by MWD serves Orange County and most of the South Coast Hydrologic Region. It will be up to the Orange County water agencies served by that system to determine how best to allocate the water produced by the project. The project may have the potential to indirectly induce growth because additional or supplemental water supplies will be made available to the County of Orange as a result of the project's implementation. However, while the provision of additional/supplemental water realized by the desalination facility may be characterized as reducing one of the barriers to growth, implementation of the project will not necessarily induce growth because the new water supply made available by the project may be required to simply replace anticipated reductions in available imported water supplies. Growth in Orange County will occur with or without the Seawater Desalination Project at Huntington Beach. Implementation of the project will provide greater flexibility for Orange County water agencies to meet existing water supply needs during times of drought, but it is only one part of the solution to meet existing and future water needs in Orange County. Other water supplies such as imported water, groundwater replenishment, water reuse, and more aggressive forms of conservation must also be considered as part of the solution because the project would only result in the addition of less than eight percent (8%) of the existing supplies used in Orange County_ With a projected population growth of approximately two percent (2%) per year, the project's water supply would soon fail to keep up with existing growth projections for Orange County. A Growth Assessment and General Plan Evaluation was completed and incorporated in the FREIR as Appendix P and discussed in Section 6.2, Growth-Inducing Impacts of the Proposed Action. The study looked at the projected number of dwelling units at build out in the County based both on the Housing Elements of all the jurisdictions within the County and the Orange County Projections adopted by the Orange County Council of Governments. The study also identified 12 planned new residential development projects of 500 dwelling units or more in the county which are required by law to identify and verify the water sources available to serve the project. Seven of the projects have identified water sources independent of the desalination project. The desalination project cannot be ruled out as a water source for one or more of the five planned residential projects that have not yet identified water sources. The FREIR notes that typically, the growth-inducing potential of a project would be considered significant if it fosters growth or a concentration of population in excess of what is assumed in pertinent general plans, or in projections made by regional planning agencies. Even if the project were relied upon to serve a new development of 500 dwelling units or more, it would not foster growth in excess of that already assumed and projected in pertinent planning documents. The FREIR acknowledges that since no water supply agreements have been executed with water agencies within Orange County, the precise locations/uses where the desalinated water would be allocated are not known. Therefore, there is a potential for the project to induce growth in unidentified areas. However, all proposed projects and water sources would be subject to environmental analysis prior to approval. The FREIR concludes that in consideration of population and housing projections within the County and the recognized need for seawater desalination as a supply source within the water management and other related plans discussed in the FREIR, any impacts in regards to growth inducement would be less than significant. The project will not result in significant growth-inducing impacts. City of Huntington Beach August 22, 2005 Page 19 of 47 Seawater uesailnation Nroject at tuntington beacn rINUINUb Ur VAU 15 Recirculated EIR No. 00-02 4.0 FINDINGS FOR SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS The following issues were determined to be "less than significant with mitigation" as set forth in the DREIR. The City of Huntington Beach finds that these potentially significant adverse impacts can be mitigated to a level that is considered less than significant after implementation of the existing City development review requirements, standards, codes, and the mitigation measures identified in the DREIR. Mitigation measures are referenced in this Statement of Facts and Findings using the same numbering system employed in the Mitigation Monitoring Program and the DREIR. Refer to Attachment B, MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM for a complete listing of mitigation measures and monitoring requirements. A. IMPACTS RELATED TO LAND USE/RELEVANT PLANING Section 5.1 of the DREIR addresses the project's potential impacts related to land use/relevant planning which are all addressed above, in Section 3.0-A of this Statement of Facts and Findings. B. IMPACTS RELATED TO GEOLOGY, SOILS, & SEISMICITY Section 5.2 of the DREIR addresses the project's potential impacts related to geology, soils and seismicity. The DREIR addresses six topics, four of which are addressed in this Section. The remaining topics were addressed in Section 3.0-B of this Statement of Facts and Findings. The topics where the impacts were found to be less than significant after implementation of mitigation are: • Wind/Water Erosion • Geology/Soils • Seismicity/Faulting • Liquefaction Potential Finding for Wind/Water Erosion The Seawater Desalination Project at Huntington Beach may create significant impacts in regards to wind and water erosion during grading activities. However, changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project that avoid or substantially lessen the potential significant environmental effects identified in the DREIR, including standard erosion control practices as typically required by the City of Huntington Beach and mitigation measure HWQ-1. Less than significant impact with mitigation. Facts in Support of Finding As explained in Section 5.2 of the DREIR, the potential impacts related to wind and water erosion have been eliminated or substantially lessened to a level of less than significant by virtue of project design considerations, standard conditions and mitigation measure HWQ-1, all of which have been incorporated into the project. The proposed project will require a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) to minimize wind and water erosion impacts. Finding for Geology/Soils The Seawater Desalination Project at Huntington Beach may be subject to significant impacts resulting from unstable soils and shallow groundwater conditions in the vicinity of the project area. However, changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project City of Huntington Beach August 22, 2005 Page 20 of 47 Seawater uesalination vrolect at tuntington beacn HNuINUb car- rHu i Zj Recirculated EIR No. 00-02 that avoid or substantially lessen the potential significant environmental effects identified in the DREIR, including adherence to standard Uniform Building Codes (UBC) conditions and incorporation of mitigation measures GEO-1 through GEO-5, inclusive. Less than significant impact with mitigation. Facts in Support of Findings As explained in Section 5.2 of the DREIR, the potential impacts related to geology/soils have been eliminated or substantially lessened to a level of less than significant by incorporation of mitigation measures. These mitigation measures include submitting a detailed geotechnical report, the submittal of application for a precise grading permit, approval of the geotechnical report by the City Engineer, all dewatering activities will be in compliance with NPDES regulations, compressible soils will be removed and recompacted or the use of piles or grade beams will be used to support on-site structures, and type V cement will be used for concrete and buried metal pipes shall utilize special measure to protect against the effects of corrosive soils. Finding for Seismicity/Faulting The Seawater Desalination Project at Huntington Beach may be subject to significant hazards from seismicity and faulting. However, changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project that avoid or substantially lessen the potential significant environmental effects identified in the DREIR, including adherence to standard UBC conditions and incorporation of mitigation measures GEO-6 and GEO-7. Less than significant impact with mitigation. Facts in Support of Finding As explained in Section 5.2 of the DREIR, adequate measures shall be taken to protect building foundations and on-site pipelines from the effects of seismicity, including compliance with all UBC standards and California Division of Gas and Geothermal Resources (DOGGR) Special Publication 117. Additionally, special studies and a subsurface investigation (as a part of the detailed geotechnical survey) will be performed to examine potential impacts from the South Branch Fault. Finding for Liquefaction Potential The Seawater Desalination Project at Huntington Beach may be subject to significant hazards due to high liquefaction potential in the vicinity of the project site. However, changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project that avoid or substantially lessen the potential significant environmental effects identified in the DREIR, including adherence to standard UBC conditions and incorporation of mitigation measures GEO-8 through GEO-10, inclusive. Less than significant impact with mitigation. Facts in Support of Finding As explained in Section 5.2 of the DREIR, adequate measures shall also be taken to protect against liquefaction, including compliance with all UBC standards and California Division of Gas and Geothermal Resources (DOGGR) Special Publication 117. Additionally, the detailed geotechnical survey will analyze the potential for lateral spread on-site. Methods such as overexcavation, recompaction, in-situ soil densification, injection grouting, and deep soil mixing will be performed to stabilize structures from liquefiable soils. City of Huntington Beach August 22, 2005 Page 21 of 47 Seawater Desalination Project at tiuntington beacn F-INUINUzi Ur FAU 1.5 Recirculated EIR No. 00-02 C. IMPACTS RELATED TO HYDROLOGY, DRAINAGE AND STORM WATER RUNOFF Section 5.3 of the DREIR addresses the project's potential impacts related to hydrology, drainage and storm water runoff. The DREIR addresses many topics, one of which is addressed in this Section. The remaining topics were addressed in Section 3.0-C of this Statement of Facts and Findings Finding for Flooding and Storm Water Drainage The Seawater Desalination Project at Huntington Beach may have significant long-term hydrology and water quality impacts related to flooding and storm waterdrainage. However, changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project that avoid or substantially lessen the potential significant environmental effects identified in the DREIR, including project design features and incorporation of mitigation measures HWQ-1 through HWQ-3, inclusive. Less than significant impact with mitigation. In addition, the State Water Resources Control Board working through the Regional Water Quality Control Board for the Santa Ana Region has the responsibility and jurisdiction to issue a NPDES permit. Facts in Support of Finding As explained in Section 5.3 of the DREIR, potential impacts in regards to hydrology and water quality have been eliminated or substantially lessened to a level of less than significant by virtue of project design features and mitigation measures HWQ-1 through HWQ-3, inclusive which have been incorporated into the project. The proposed project will require a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) which identifies Best Management Practices (BMPs) and implementation measures specified in the Countywide NPDES Drainage Area Management Plan (DAMP). In addition, appropriate site-specific hydrology and hydraulic analysis will be performed for the project prior to the issuance of grading or building permits, which ever comes first. The analysis shall include mitigation measures, if necessary, in regards to storm water drainage and flooding. An on-site drainage system will also be installed integrating permanent storm water quality features. It should be noted that an aboveground tank would increase the total impervious area of the project site, thereby increasing the amount of storm water runoff. In order to contain storm water on-site, an on-site storm water system will direct storm water to the desalination facility's storm water system, ultimately discharging into the Pacific Ocean via the AES outfall. In addition, containment berms surrounding the northern and eastern side of the tank site would be left in place further containing storm water on-site. D. IMPACTS RELATED TO AIR QUALITY Section 5.4 of the DREIR addresses the project's potential impacts related to air quality, all of which are addressed above, in Section 3.0-D of this Statement of Facts and Findings. E. IMPACTS RELATED TO NOISE Section 5.5 of the DREIR addresses the project's potential impacts related to noise. Stationary noise sources are addressed in this Section; the remaining topics are addressed in Section 3.0- E of this Statement of Facts and Findings. Finding for Stationary Noise Sources The Seawater Desalination Project at Huntington Beach may create significant impacts to sensitive receptors adjacent to the desalination facility site from long-term stationary noise City of Huntington Beach August 22, 2005 Page 22 of 47 Jeawater uesallnation Nroject at tiuntington beacn FINUINQib VF F-AU I J Recirculated EIR No. 00-02 sources associated with project operation. However, changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project that avoid or substantially lessen the potential significant environmental effects identified in the DREIR, including project design features and incorporation of mitigation measure N0I-1. Less than significant impact with mitigation. Facts in Support of Finding As explained in Section 5.5 of the DREIR, potential noise impacts have been eliminated or substantially lessened to a level of less than significant by virtue of project design features incorporated into the project and through incorporation of mitigation measure NOW. Prior to the issuance of any building or grading permits, an acoustical analysis report and appropriate plans shall be prepared. This documentation will describe the stationary noise generation potential and noise mitigation measures (such as the installation of sound enclosures or placing noise-generating equipment indoors), if needed, which shall be included in the plans and specifications of the project. All stationary equipment shall be designed to meet the noise criteria as specified in the City of Huntington Beach Municipal Code Chapter 8.40 (Noise Control), and will be subject to the approval of the City of Huntington Beach. F. IMPACTS RELATED TO PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES Section 5.6 of the DREIR addresses the project's potential impacts related to public services and utilities. The DREIR addresses many topics, six of which are addressed in this Section. The remaining topics are addressed in Section 3.0-F of this Statement of Facts and Findings. The topics where the impacts were found to be less than significant after implementation of mitigation are: • Schools • Roadway Maintenance • Wastewater • Storm Water Drainage • Water • Solid Waste Finding for Schools The Seawater Desalination Project at Huntington Beach may place additional demand on schools located within the project vicinity_ However, changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project that avoid or substantially lessen the potential significant environmental effects identified in the DREIR, including incorporation of mitigation measure PSU-1. Less than significant impact with mitigation. Facts in Support of Finding As explained in Section 5.6 of the DREIR, the project does not include housing or other student- generating uses. According to the Huntington Beach Union High School District, the project is anticipated to have negligible impacts on school facilities within the City of Huntington Beach, and is anticipated to have a student generation rate of 0.0000340242 per square foot. However, in consideration of A.B. 2926, the Applicant would be required to pay a commercial fee of $0.36 per square foot for non-residential development within the Huntington Beach Union High School District, of which the High School District would receive 39 percent or $0.1404 per City of Huntington Beach August 22, 2005 Page 23 of 47 seawater uesalination Nrolect at Huntington beach VINUINhs Ur l AU I s Recirculated EIR No.00-02 square foot of the total fee.2 The Huntington Beach City School District would receive the remaining 61 percent ($0.2196 per square foot) of the commercial fee, and does not anticipate that the proposed project would have significant student-generating impacts or require other assessment fees or mitigation measures. The project is not expected to generate the need for additional school facilities.3 Any potential additional demand on schools located in the project vicinity has been lessened to a level of less than significant by virtue of the incorporation of mitigation measure PSU-1. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant will pay applicable school mitigation fees pursuant to State law to properly mitigate impacts to schools. Finding for Roadway Maintenance The Seawater Desalination Project at Huntington Beach may create an increased demand on streets nearby the project site and an increased need for roadway maintenance services. However, changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project that avoid or substantially lessen the potential significant environmental effects identified in the DREIR, including conditions of approval and incorporation of mitigation measure PSU-2. Less than significant impact with mitigation. Facts in Support of Finding To properly mitigate any increased demand on streets nearby the project site and any increased need for roadway maintenance services, adequate traffic impact fees will be paid by the project applicant as determined by the City of Huntington Beach Department of Public Works to provide for additional facilities, if necessary. As explained in Section 5.6 of the DREIR, the project applicant will be required to provide certain street improvements as a condition of approval. Any potential increased demand on streets nearby the project site or increased need for roadway maintenance service has been lessened to a level of less than significant by virtue of the incorporation of mitigation measure PSU-2 and the conditions of approval. Finding for Wastewater The Seawater Desalination Project at Huntington Beach may create an increased demand on the local wastewater system. However, changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project that avoid or substantially lessen the potential significant environmental effects identified in the DREIR, including project design features and incorporation of mitigation measure PSU-3 and PSU-4. Less than significant impact with mitigation. Facts in Support of Finding To properly mitigate any increased demand on the local wastewater system, adequate sewer connection fees will be paid by the project applicant to provide for additional facilities, if necessary. As explained in Section 5.6 of the DREIR, the project would produce nominal amounts of domestic wastewater, as the plant would employ approximately 18 people. The Orange County Sanitation District has indicated that it has capacity to accommodate any waste cleaning solution that may be discharged into the local sanitary sewer by the project. Any potential increased demand on the local wastewater system has been lessened to a level of less than significant by virtue of project design features and the incorporation of mitigation measure PSU-3. With the incorporation of mitigation measure PSU-4, encroachment permits 2 Letter,Ms. Patricia Koch,Huntington Beach Union High School District, December 2004. 3 Letter, Mr. Richard Masters, Huntington Beach City School District, December 4, 2004. City of Huntington Beach August 22, 2005 Page 24 of 47 Seawater uesannation Nroject at Huntington beacn r1NUINCUS Ur rAU 1 5 Recirculated EIR No. 00-02 will be obtained from the County, prior to work, for all work within, over and under the OCFCD and county of Orange right-of-way. Finding for Storm Water Drainage The Seawater Desalination Project at Huntington Beach may create increased storm water drainage. However, changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project that avoid or substantially lessen the potential significant environmental effects identified in the DREIR, including project design features and incorporation of mitigation measures HWQ- 1, HWQ-2 and HWQ-3. Less than significant impact with mitigation. In addition, the State Water Resources Control Board working through the Regional Water Quality Control Board for the Santa Ana Region has the responsibility and jurisdiction to issue a NPDES permit for the project discharge through the AES outfall into the Pacific Ocean. Facts in Support of Finding The Orange County Flood Control District and the City of Huntington Beach operate the storm water drainage system within the City. The system removes water runoff from streets and transports the runoff to the Ocean. As explained in Section 5.6 of the DREIR, the addition of impervious surfaces at the project site will increase the potential amount of surface runoff. However, an on-site local storm water drainage system will be included as one of the project design features. Storm water will be collected on site and treated (using a clarification process) before it is transported to the Ocean via the AES outfall. The inclusion of project design features and the incorporation of mitigation measures HWQ-1, HWQ-2 and HWQ-3 will mitigate any increased storm water drainage impacts to less than significant levels. In addition, the State Water Resources Control Board working through the Regional Water Quality Control Board for the Santa Ana Region has the responsibility and jurisdiction to issue a NPDES permit for the project discharge through the AES outfall into the Pacific Ocean. Finding for Water The Seawater Desalination Project at Huntington Beach may create an increased demand for City water service and may create impacts in regards to water compatibility, water quality and hydraulics. However, changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project that avoid or substantially lessen the potential significant environmental effects identified in the DREIR, including project design features and incorporation of mitigation measures PSU-5 and PW-1. Less than significant impact with mitigation. In addition, the California Department of Health Services has the responsibility to review and approve the quality of the drinking water produced by the project. Moreover, the owners and operators of regional water systems that will deliver project water must approve and accept the blending of the project water in their system. Facts in Support of Finding To properly mitigate any increased demand for City water service, adequate water connection fees will be paid by the project applicant to provide for additional facilities, if necessary. As explained in Section 5.6 of the DREIR, it is anticipated that the normal domestic demand created by the approximately 18 employees at the plant can be provided with desalinated water generated on-site. Adequate backflow prevention devices will be required as a condition of receiving any water service from the City. Any potential increased demand for City water service has been lessened to a level of less than significant by virtue of conditions of approval and the incorporation of mitigation measure PSU-5. The product water created by the City of Huntington Beach August 22, 2005 Page 25 of 47 seawater uesannation rroject at Huntington beacn 1­-1Nu1NCiS Ur VAU i Recirculated EIR No. 00-02 desalination facility will be blended with the imported water delivered by the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (MWD). It is anticipated that the water produced by the desalination facility will be comparable in physical characteristics to the MWD water. However, prior to project operation, coordination, testing and monitoring with involved water agencies will be required as a condition of approval. The owners and operators of regional water systems that will deliver project water must approve and accept the blending of the project water in their system. Moreover, all Department of Health Services water quality requirements must be met before the blended supply can be delivered to water customers by the applicable retail water agencies or City water departments. Also, prior to project operations, all required drinking water permits would be obtained from the California Department of Health Services including a Wholesale Drinking Water Permit and an Administrative Change to Retail agencies' Drinking Water Permit. Any potential impacts in regards to water compatibility or water quality have been lessened to a level of less than significant by virtue of conditions of approval and the incorporation of mitigation measure PW-1. Final project design features will reflect coordination with the owners and operators of the regional water systems that will deliver project water and address any hydraulic and surge control issues to insure that no significant impacts to regional pipelines will result from project operation. Finding for Solid Waste The Seawater Desalination Project at Huntington Beach may create an increased demand on solid waste disposal facilities. However, changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project that avoid or substantially lessen the potential significant environmental effects identified in the DREIR, including project design features and incorporation of mitigation measures PSU-6 and PSU-7. Less than significant impact with mitigation. Facts in Support of Finding As explained in Section 5.6 of the DREIR, the project applicant must coordinate with the City of Huntington Beach recycling representative to ensure compliance with the City's waste reduction and recycling program, and will be required to prepare a waste reduction plan for the generation of construction and operational waste from the proposed project. The inclusion of project design features and the incorporation of mitigation measures PSU-6 and PSU-7 will mitigate any increased demand on solid waste disposal facilities to less than significant levels. G. IMPACTS RELATED TO AESTHETICS/LIGHT & GLARE Section 5.7 of the DREIR addresses the project's potential impacts related to aesthetics/light and glare. The DREIR addresses three topics, two of which (site character and on-site light and glare) are addressed in this Section. The remaining topic is addressed in Section 3.0-G of this Statement of Facts and Findings. Finding for Site Character The Seawater Desalination Project at Huntington Beach may create significant site character impacts. However, changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project that avoid or substantially lessen the potential significant environmental effects identified in the DREIR, including project design features and incorporation of mitigation measure ALG-1 Less than significant impact with mitigation. City of Huntington Beach August 22, 2005 Page 26 of 47 Seawater uesaiination vroject at Huntington beacn HNUINU5 Ur VAU I J Recirculated EIR No. 00-02 Facts in Support of Finding As explained in Section 5.7 of the DREIR, potential aesthetic impacts have been eliminated or substantially lessened to a level of less than significant by virtue of project design features incorporated into the project and through incorporation of mitigation measure ALG-1. Mitigation measure ALG-1 requires that exterior mechanical equipment be screened and setback 15 feet from the exterior edges of the building. All such screening shall be architecturally compatible with the building. In addition, the existing berms on the perimeter of the property will partially screen the project from view. The existing project site can be described as low to non-existent in aesthetic value. As designed and with mitigation, the project will improve the aesthetic character of the site. Finding for On-Site Light and Glare The Seawater Desalination Project at Huntington Beach may generate light and glare through on-site nighttime security lighting and additional automobile traffic. However, changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project that avoid or substantially lessen the potential significant environmental effects identified in the DREIR, including project design features and incorporation of mitigation measure ALG-2. Less than significant impact with mitigation. Facts in Support of Finding As explained in Section 5.7 of the DREIR, on-site light and glare impacts have been eliminated or substantially lessened to a level of less than significant by virtue of project design features and through the incorporation of mitigation measure ALG-2. To mitigate impacts from light and glare, light intensity shall be limited to only that necessary for adequate security and safety, and light "spillage" onto adjacent properties shall be controlled by directional or shielded lighting fixtures. H. IMPACTS RELATED TO HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS Section 5.8 of the DREIR addresses the project's potential impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials above, in Section 3.0-H of this Statement of Facts and Findings. I. IMPACTS RELATED TO CONSTRUCTION Section 5.9 of the DREIR addresses the project's potential short-term construction related impacts. The DREIR addresses nine topics, eight of which are addressed in this Section. The remaining topic is addressed in Section 5.0 of this Statement of Facts and Findings. The topics where the impacts were found to be less than significant after implementation of mitigation are: • Hydrology and Water Quality • Noise • Public Services and Utilities • Aesthetics/Light and Glare • Hazards and Hazardous Materials • Traffic • Biological Resources • Cultural Resources City of Huntington Beach August 22, 2005 Page 27 of 47 Jeawater uesallnation Project at Huntington beacn rINUINU6 Ur VAU 15 Recirculated EIR No. 00-02 Finding for Hydrology and Water Quality The proposed Seawater Desalination Project at Huntington Beach may have adverse short-term construction related impacts in regards to hydrology and water quality. However, changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project that avoid or substantially lessen the potential significant environmental effects identified in the DREIR, including standard conditions, project design features and incorporation of mitigation measures CON-1 through CON-8, inclusive. Less than significant impact with mitigation. Facts in Support of Finding As explained in Section 5.9 of the DREIR, potential short-term construction related impacts in regards to hydrology and water quality have been eliminated or substantially lessened to a level of less than significant by appropriate project design features and through incorporation of mitigation measures CON-1 through CON-8, inclusive. Short-term impacts in regards to hydrology and water quality will be mitigated through adherence to NPDES and Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board regulations, preparation of a City-approved Erosion Control Plan, and the acquisition of appropriate permits/approvals for dewatering activities. Overall short-term construction impacts related to hydrology and water quality will be reduced because an aboveground storage tank will involve substantially less grading and excavation than an underground tank. Finding for Noise The proposed Seawater Desalination Project at Huntington Beach may have adverse short-term construction related impacts in regards to noise. However, changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project that avoid or substantially lessen the potential significant environmental effects identified in the DREIR, including standard conditions, project design features and incorporation of mitigation measures CON-11 through CON-13, inclusive. Less than significant impact with mitigation. Facts in Support of Finding As explained in Section 5.9 of the DREIR, potential short-term construction related impacts in regards to noise have been eliminated or substantially lessened to a level of less than significant by appropriate project design features and through incorporation of mitigation measures CON-11 through CON-13, inclusive. The project will be in compliance with the City's Noise Ordinance and construction activities will adhere to various standards in regards to construction equipment, staging areas, and hours of construction operations. Overall short-term construction impacts related to noise will be reduced because an aboveground storage tank will involve substantially less grading and excavation than an underground tank. Finding for Public Services and Utilities The proposed Seawater Desalination Project at Huntington Beach may have adverse short-term construction related impacts in regards to public services and utilities. However, changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project that avoid or substantially lessen the potential significant environmental effects identified in the DREIR, including standard conditions and incorporation of mitigation measure CON-14. Less than significant impact with mitigation. City of Huntington Beach August 22, 2005 Page 28 of 47 aeawater Desalination vroject at runtington beacn HNUINl�S Ur rAU 15 Recirculated EIR No. 00-02 Facts in Support of Finding As explained in Section 5.9 of the DREIR, potential short-term construction related impacts in regards to public services and utilities have been eliminated or substantially lessened to a level of less than significant by standard conditions and through incorporation of mitigation measure CON-14. In order to mitigate impacts to public services and utilities, the project engineer shall perform geophysical surveys to identify subsurface utilities and structures, the findings of which shall be incorporated into site design. Pipelines or conduits which may be encountered within the excavation and graded areas shall either be relocated or be cut and plugged according to the applicable code requirements. Finding for Aesthetics/Light and Glare The proposed Seawater Desalination Project at Huntington Beach may have adverse short-term construction related impacts in regards to aesthetics/light and glare. However, changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project that avoid or substantially lessen the potential significant environmental effects identified in the DREIR, including standard conditions, project design features and incorporation of mitigation measures CON-15 and CON- 16. Less than significant impact with mitigation. Facts in Support of Finding As explained in Section 5.9 of the DREIR, potential short-term construction related impacts in regards to aesthetics/light and glare have been eliminated or substantially lessened to a level of less than significant by appropriate project design features and through incorporation of mitigation measures CON-15 and CON-16. Aesthetic impacts will be minimized by installation aesthetic screening around the construction site, and by concentrating construction activities and staging areas away from adjacent sensitive receptors, to the extent feasible. Finding for Hazards and Hazardous Materials The proposed Seawater Desalination Project at Huntington Beach may have adverse short-term construction related impacts in regards to hazards and hazardous materials. However, changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project that avoid or substantially lessen the potential significant environmental effects identified in the DREIR, including standard conditions, project design features and incorporation of mitigation measures CON-16 through CON-29, inclusive. Less than significant impact with mitigation. Facts in Support of Finding As explained in Section 5.9 of the DREIR, potential short-term construction related impacts in regards to hazards and hazardous materials have been eliminated or substantially lessened to a level of less than significant by standard conditions, appropriate project design features and through incorporation of mitigation measures CON-17 through CON-30, inclusive. Numerous measures will be implemented to mitigate impacts in regards to hazards and hazardous materials, including, but not limited to, clearing the site of excess vegetation, surface trash, piping, debris, and other deleterious and/or hazardous materials prior to rough grading, asbestos and lead-based paint removal, and adherence to standards as administered by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, South Coast Air Quality Management District, State Division of Oil, Gas, and Geothermal Resources, Regional Water Quality Control Board, County Integrated Waste Management, Orange County Health Care Agency, Solid Waste Local Enforcement Agency, and City of Huntington Beach Fire Department. City of Huntington Beach August 22, 2005 Page 29 of 47 Seawater uesalination Nroject at Huntington beacn riNuiNVS Ur t-AU 15 Recirculated EIR No. 00-02 Finding for Traffic The proposed Seawater Desalination Project at Huntington Beach may have adverse short-term construction related impacts in regards to traffic. However, changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project that avoid or substantially lessen the potential significant environmental effects identified in the DREIR, including standard conditions, project design features and incorporation of mitigation measures CON-31 through CON-36, inclusive. Less than significant impact with mitigation. Facts in Support of Finding As explained in Section 5.9 of the DREIR, potential short-term construction related impacts in regards to traffic have been eliminated or substantially lessened to a level of less than significant by standard conditions, appropriate project design features and through incorporation of mitigation measures CON-31 through CON-36, inclusive. Traffic related impacts will be reduced by the implementation of a Traffic Management Plan, the use of flagmen and construction traffic signage to control traffic, obtaining and satisfying the requirements of the necessary right-of-way permits, and the development of a truck and construction vehicle routing plan. Overall short-term construction impacts related to traffic will be reduced because an aboveground storage tank will involve substantially less grading and excavation than an underground tank. Finding for Biological Resources The proposed Seawater Desalination Project at Huntington Beach may have adverse short-term construction related impacts in regards to biological resources. However, changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project that avoid or substantially lessen the potential significant environmental effects identified in the DREIR, including standard conditions, project design features and incorporation of mitigation measures CON-37 through CON-44, inclusive. Less than significant impact with mitigation. Facts in Support of Finding As explained in Section 5.9 of the DREIR, potential short-term construction related impacts in regards to biological resources have been eliminated or substantially lessened to a level of less than significant by standard conditions, appropriate project design features and through incorporation of mitigation measures CON-36 through CON-43, inclusive. Impacts to biological resources will be reduced by performing focused surveys to determine the potential for endangered species and other sensitive species and coordinating with the USFWS to avoid special status species or to develop mitigation if avoidance is not possible, by preparing and implementing a Frac-Out Contingency Plan, and by performing a jurisdictional delineation and obtaining and complying with the appropriate permits, if applicable. Finding for Cultural Resources The proposed Seawater Desalination Project at Huntington Beach may have adverse short-term construction related impacts in regards to cultural resources. However, changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project that avoid or substantially lessen the potential significant environmental effects identified in the DREIR, including standard conditions, project design features and incorporation of mitigation measures CON-45 through CON-47. Less than significant impact with mitigation. City of Huntington Beach August 22, 2005 Page 30 of 47 Seawater uesaiination rroject at Huntington beacn r-iNuiNUZ5 Ur t-AU i s Recirculated EIR No. 00-02 Facts in Support of Finding As explained in Section 5.9 of the DREIR, potential short-term construction related impacts in regards to cultural resources have been eliminated or substantially lessened to a level of less than significant by appropriate project design features and through incorporation of mitigation measures CON-45 through CON-46. In order to mitigate potential impacts in regards to cultural resources, a paleontological resource recovery program shall be implemented, and all construction activities will be halted should historical, archaeological, or paleontological resources be discovered during excavation until a qualified archaeologist can evaluate the nature and significance of the finds. Additionally, a qualified paleontologist shall be retained to monitor grading operations and salvage significant fossil remains. J. IMPACTS RELATED TO OCEAN WATER QUALITY AND MARINE BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Section 5.10 of the DREIR addresses the project's potential impacts related to ocean water quality and marine biological resources which are addressed above, in Section 3.0-J of this Statement of Facts and Findings. K. IMPACTS RELATED TO PRODUCT WATER QUALITY Section 5.11 of the DREIR addresses the project's potential impacts related to product water quality. The DREIR addresses three topics, all of which are addressed in this Section: • Product Water Quality • Product Water Reliability • Orange County Water Distribution System Finding for Product Water Quality The proposed desalination project product water quality may be impacted by several factors, including ocean water quality fluctuations, red tide algal bloom events, HBGS non-routine operations and RO membrane performance. However, changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project that avoid or substantially lessen the potential significant environmental effects identified in the DREIR, including project design features and incorporation of mitigation measures PW-1 through PW-3, inclusive. Less than .significant impact with mitigation. Facts in Support of Finding The product water of the proposed seawater desalination facility may be impacted by natural changes in ocean water salinity, temperature, turbidity and pathogen concentration. Typically, ocean water salinity and temperature changes are triggered by natural seasonal events. As discussed in DREIR Section 5.10, OCEAN WATER QUALITY and the Watershed Sanitary Survey (Appendix E of the DREIR), the intake ocean water turbidity and pathogen concentration changes are mainly driven by rain events. In order to maintain a consistent quality of desalinated product water, the applicant would be required to obtain a drinking water permit from the California Department of Health Services (DHS) that would address monitoring of source water quality and its effects on product water quality. The applicant has been working with DHS for the last four years to obtain such a City of Huntington Beach August 22, 2005 Page 31 of 47 Seawater uesalination Nr0)ect at Huntington tseacn FINUINliS Ut- I-AU I J Recirculated EIR No. 00-02 permit. On August 10, 2002, DHS issued a conceptual approval letter for the Seawater Desalination Project at Huntington Beach. The desalination facility intake water quality in terms of turbidity (which is a surrogate indicator for potential elevated pathogen content) and salinity would be measured automatically and monitored continuously at the desalination facility intake. Instrumentation for continuous monitoring and recording of these parameters would be installed at the desalination facility intake pump station. In event of excessive increase in intake seawater turbidity and/or salinity, this instrumentation would trigger alarms that would notify desalination facility staff. If the intake pathogen count reaches a preset maximum level, this instrumentation would automatically trigger chlorination of the source water, thereby reducing the source water pathogens to acceptable levels even before the water reaches the RO treatment facilities. In addition to the automation provisions, turbidity and salinity would also be measured manually by the desalination staff at least once a day and the intake seawater would be analyzed for pathogen content at least once per week. In the event of elevated intake seawater turbidity, laboratory pathogen content analysis would be performed more frequently. In addition to the intake water quality monitoring instrumentation, the desalination facility pretreatment filtration facilities would be equipped with filter effluent turbidimeters and particle counters. This equipment would allow facility operators to continuously monitor pretreatment filter performance and to trigger adjustments of desalination facility operations to accommodate intake water quality changes. Desalinated product water quality would also be monitored continuously for salinity and chlorine residuals and would be tested frequently for pathogen content. In summary, desalinated product water quality would be tested in accordance with the requirements of the California Code of Regulations (Title 22) and the DHS. Product water quality impacts due to ocean water quality fluctuations are not anticipated to occur upon implementation of the design features described above. The desalination facility would be designed to maintain high quality potable water (consistent with regulatory standards) in the event of a red tide event. As explained in Section 5.11 of the DREIR, it would have a number of provisions/barriers to protect against the passage of red tide- related algal organic compounds through the treatment processes. These include a deep intake configuration to minimize algae entrainment, the chlorination of intake seawater, an enhanced coagulation of intake seawater, a microfiltration or dual media sand filtration algae barrier, microfiltration or dual media sand filter covers, a cartridge filter algae barrier, the RO membranes, a final disinfection, and an emergency facility shutdown procedure. Also, there are no documented cases of red tide health or safety problems associated with the operation of RO seawater desalination facilities worldwide which is indicative of the capability of these systems to perform reliably and effectively under red tide conditions. Unusual activities at the HBGS, such as seawater emergency intake pump shut downs and failures, electricity equipment malfunctions, excessively high temperature of the cooling water, etc., may impact product water quality and desalination facility performance. The Seawater Desalination Project at Huntington Beach would have six different provisions incorporating several protection/notification devices to account for non-routine operations at the HBGS: City of Huntington Beach August 22, 2005 Page 32 of 47 Seawater uesaianation rrofect at Huntington beacn riNUINUZ5 Vi- VAU i 5 Recirculated EIR No. 00-02 ❖ Automatic control interlock between HBGS pumps and desalination facility intake pumps: The shutdown controls of the desalination facility intake pumps would be interlocked with the HBGS pumps, so when HBGS pump operation is discontinued to prepare for heat treatment, non-routine or even routine pump shutdown, this would automatically trigger an alarm at the desalination facility along with shutdown of the desalination intake pumps. After this emergency shutdown, the intake pumps would have to be started up manually, and the operations staff would be required to check the reason of shutdown with the HBGS staff before restarting the treatment facility intake pumps. ❖ Continuous Intake Pump Flow Measurement Devices: Seawater intake pumps would be equipped with flow meters, which would record the pumped flow continuously. If the intake flow is discontinued for any reason, including non-routine HBGS operations, this would trigger automatic intake pump shutdown. ❖ Continuous Intake Water Temperature Measurement Devices: The desalination facility intake pump station would be equipped with instrumentation for continuous measurement of the intake temperature. Any fluctuations of the intake temperature outside preset normal limits would trigger alarm and intake pump shutdown. This monitoring equipment would provide additional protection against heat treatment or other unusual intake water quality conditions. ❖ Continuous Intake Water Salinity/Conductivity Measurement Devices: The desalination facility intake pump station would be equipped with instrumentation for continuous measurement of the intake seawater salinity. Any fluctuations of the intake salinity outside preset normal operational limits would trigger an alarm and initiate intake pump shutdown. This monitoring equipment would provide additional protection against discharge of unusual fresh water/surface water streams in the facility outfall. ❖ Continuous Intake Water Oil Spill/Leak Detection Monitoring Devices: The desalination facility intake pump station would be equipped with instrumentation for oil spill/leak detection. Detection of oil in the intake water even in concentrations lower than 0.5 mg/L would automatically trigger an alarm and initiate intake pump shutdown. This monitoring equipment would provide additional protection against unusual intake water quality conditions. ❖ Routine Communication with HBGS Staff: The desalination facility staff of each shift would be required to contact HBGS personnel at least once per shift and enquire about unusual planned or unplanned events at the HBGS. If non-routine operations are planned at the HBGS, the desalination facility would be informed and would modify desalination facility operations accordingly. Implementation of the six provisions described above would minimize impacts in this regard to less than significant levels. As the RO membrane elements age, their rejection capabilities decrease. This may trigger a change in product water quality from the Seawater Desalination Project at Huntington Beach. The RO system membrane performance would continuously monitor feed seawater and permeate conductivity and the differential pressure through the membranes. If permeate salinity (i.e. total dissolved solids [TDS]) concentration exceeds the design level, membranes would be cleaned to recover their original performance capabilities. In addition, an average of 10 to 15 City of Huntington Beach August 22, 2005 Page 33 of 47 Seawater uesalination Project at Huntington beacn t-INUINUZ5 ut- t-AL;1 5 Recirculated EIR No. 00-02 percent of the membrane elements would be replaced every year, thereby maintaining the product water quality at a steady level. The Seawater Desalination Project at Huntington Beach would produce product water with lower TDS levels than that currently delivered to Orange County water purveyors by MWD. The TDS product water quality estimate of 350 mg/L is based on the use of high-rejection seawater desalination membranes at the second year of desalination facility operations. Typically, during the first two years of facility operations, the average product water quality TDS concentration would be lower than 350 mg/L. After the second year of operations, a portion (typically 10 to 15 percent per year) of the desalination facility membrane elements would be replaced to maintain the product water quality close to the target TDS concentration of 350 mg/L. Membrane replacement is a standard approach commonly used in seawater desalination facilities to maintain product water quality at a long-term steady target level. In addition, chloride and sodium are estimated to average 180 mg/L and 120 mg/L, respectively. These estimated water quality levels for TDS, chloride, and sodium are well below the newly adopted narrative water quality objectives in the amended Basin Plan and when the desalinated water is integrated into the water supply system it is unlikely that recycled water would exceed the amended Basin Plan narrative water quality objectives. The desalination facility would use industry standard eight-inch desalination membrane elements, which are available from a number of specialized membrane manufacturers. The membrane element manufacturers and their products pre-qualified for this project are: - Hydranautics (SWC3 or better) - Filmtec/Dow (SW30HR-380 or better) - Koch/Fluid Systems (TFC2822SS or better) - Toray (SU820L or better). Key design membrane element parameters common for the products of these suppliers are: - Membrane Type: Spiral-wound, thin film composite; - Applied Flux: eight to 12 gpd/sf at recovery rate of 45 to 50 percent; - Nominal Salt Rejection: 99.6 percent or higher; - Applied Pressure: 800 to 1,100 pounds per square inch (psi); - Maximum Pressure Drop per Element: 10 psi; - Maximum Feed Water SDI (15 min): 5.0; - Free Chlorine Resistance: less than 0.1 mg/L; - Operating pH Range: two to 11; and - QA/QC Membrane Production and Testing Procedures. The actual membrane element that would be used for the proposed desalination facility would be selected during the detailed engineering design phase of this project. The product water projections are performed for two conditions: new membranes at facility start up and membranes at the second year of facility operations. All projections are completed for low flow scenario conditions in terms of intake water salinity and temperature and membrane performance characteristics. At the beginning of the desalination facility operation the TDS concentration of the RO system permeate is projected to be between 226 and 308 mg/L, and at the end of the second year of desalination facility operations is projected to be between 257 and 349 mg/L (based on projections of product water quality and membrane performance in accordance with modeling City of Huntington Beach August 22, 2005 Page 34 of 47 Seawater uesailnation Nroject at I1unungIon beacn f INUINUJ Vf t-AU 15 Recirculated EIR No. 00-02 specifications provided by two of the four membrane suppliers, Toray and Hydranautics). As previously indicated, the permeate water quality would be maintained at a second-year operations level over the entire 30-year period of facility operations by replacement of a portion of the membrane elements every year. It should be noted that the projections above are for the water quality of the RO system permeate as it exits the desalination system. Prior to distribution, the desalination facility permeate would be conditioned by lime and carbon dioxide for stabilization and corrosion control, and with chlorine for final disinfection. The addition of these conditioning chemicals would increase the final product water TDS concentration by 30 to 50 mg/L. Therefore, at facility start-up the TDS of the product water delivered to the distribution system is expected to be in a range of 260 to 340 mg/L, while for the entire 30-year period of facility operations the TDS concentration would be in a range of 300 to 400 mg/L and would average 350 mg/L. The projections presented above are developed using conservative assumptions for the type and performance of the membrane elements, intake water salinity and temperature. The applicant's previous pilot testing experience in Tampa and Carlsbad and the actual performance of the same Toray membranes in Trinidad indicate that the membrane manufacturer projections carry a safety factor of 10 to 15 percent and the actual product water quality is always better than that projected by the software. Advances in membrane technology over the next 30 years are expected to yield membrane elements capable of producing water of TDS concentration below 300 mg/L for most of the useful life of the desalination facility. Therefore, the projected product water TDS concentration of 350 mg/L is a reliable and conservative estimate of the potable water quality that would be delivered to the distribution system by the Seawater Desalination Project at Huntington Beach. As described in Section 3.0, PROJECT DESCRIPTION, the facility would be capable of meeting all drinking water standards through multiple treatment processes, which include: pretreatment filters; cartridge filters; reverse osmosis membranes; and product water conditioning and disinfection facilities. A comparison between the product water quality of the Seawater Desalination Project at Huntington Beach and the DHS primary and secondary water quality standards is presented in DREIR Table 5.11-3, PRODUCT WATER QUALITY COMPARISON. Review of this table indicates that the desalination facility product water quality meets all current DHS water quality MCL standards. The project would also be consistent with all requirements of the SARWQCB Basin Plan. Thus, impacts in this regard would not be significant. In addition to the Safe Drinking Water Act, which sets the primary and secondary MCLs for water quality constituents, the California DHS has established health-based advisory levels, known as "action levels", for specific chemicals which may be found in drinking water. As explained in Section 5.11 of the DREIR, boron is the only compound that is detectable in the product drinking water from the seawater desalination facility. After the reverse osmosis treatment process the desalted water boron level is approximately 0.6-0.8 mg/l, which is below the DHS action level. Impacts to the product water quality are less than significant. Finding for Product Water Reliability The proposed desalination project product water reliability may be impacted by earthquakes or other unscheduled outages. However, changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project that avoid or substantially lessen the potential significant environmental effects identified in the DREIR, including project design features and incorporation of mitigation measure PW-4. Less than significant impact with mitigation. City of Huntington Beach August 22, 2005 Page 35 of 47 Seawater uesallnation hfiOJect at Huntington beacn VINu1NUb VF rAU 1,5 Recirculated EIR No. 00-02 Facts in Support of Finding The desalination facility operations would be fully automated and key systems would be provided with redundant equipment and controls per the requirements of Title 22 of the California Code of Regulations. In the event of an underground booster pump station power outage, the booster pump station would be equipped with on-site power generators that would allow their operation to continue even if the main source of power supply has been interrupted. The desalination facility would be provided with two independent sources of power supply, which includes an electrical power grid and/or the HBGS auxiliary reserve bank to assure uninterrupted operations during emergencies. The desalination facility would be manned 24 hours per day, 365 days per year by skilled and certified operators, which would coordinate facility and pump station operations with that of all other water purveyors delivering water to or operating the water distribution system facilities. As a part of desalination and pumping station operations, the operations staff would develop an earthquake mitigation and preparedness plan, which would be coordinated with the City of Huntington Beach. This plan would define coordination measures to assure continuous facility operations and water delivery under earthquake emergency conditions. The desalination facility would be designed with one standby reverse osmosis train to provide additional reliability of water production and supply. Typically, desalination facilities, including the existing desalination facilities in California, are designed to operate with all available reverse osmosis trains in operation at all times. During the times of potential outages caused by scheduled or unscheduled maintenance or emergency events, such as an earthquake, these facilities operate at reduced capacity or are down for a certain period of time. The proposed desalination facility would be designed to produce 50 mgd of product water with 12 RO trains, and would be constructed with an additional 13th RO standby train, which can produce up to 4.2 mgd of water at any time. This additional train would provide increased reliability and redundancy that exceeds current reliability standards and common practices for desalination facility design. The proposed desalination facility would be the first facility in California with such additional production standby capacity and reliability provisions. The issues of reliability of the supply and emergency service provisions would be dictated by the terms of the institutional agreements negotiated with the regional water purveyors (including MWDOC and Metropolitan Water District) and by the terms of the water supply agreements negotiated with potential customers that would purchase the product water produced at the desalination facility. Thus, impacts are anticipated to be less than significant in this regard with mitigation. Finding for Orange County Water Distribution System The introduction of the proposed desalination project product water into the existing Orange County distribution system may result in impacts in regards to blended water quality, corrosivity, chlorine residual, disinfection byproduct concentration, taste and odor or hydraulics. However, changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project that avoid or substantially lessen the potential significant environmental effects identified in the DREIR, including project design features and incorporation of mitigation measures PW-5 through PW-9, inclusive. Less than significant impact with mitigation. City of Huntington Beach August 22, 2005 Page 36 of 47 seawater uesannation vroject at riuntmgton beacn HNUINUs vt- VAU I s Recirculated EIR No. 00-02 Facts in Support of Finding As explained in Section 5.11 of the DREIR, blending could have water quality improvement benefits, especially if the receiving agencies are predominantly using imported water, which has higher levels of TDS, sulfate, hardness and disinfection byproducts than desalinated water. The desalination facility would produce drinking water of very high and consistent quality, which meets or exceeds all applicable regulatory requirements established by the EPA and the DHS. The desalinated water would be produced applying state-of-the-art seawater RO membranes which are capable of removing practically all contaminants in the source water: turbidity; taste, odor, color, bacteria, viruses, salts, proteins, asbestos, organics, etc. Currently, EPA recognizes RO membrane treatment as a best available technology for water treatment and for meeting future water quality regulations. The desalinated water would have approximately 100 mg/L lower salinity (i.e. TDS) than the existing drinking water. The lower drinking water salinity would result in better taste and lower overall water distribution system corrosivity. The desalinated seawater would be softer than the existing water sources. Softer water has a number of benefits such as: better taste; formation of less calcium deposits on household appliances and cutlery; and lower detergent use. The desalinated water would have order-of- magnitude lower disinfection byproducts, such as total trihalomethanes and halocetic acids, or TTHM and HAA, respectively) concentrations than the existing drinking water (refer to the DREIR Appendix N, DISINFECTION BYPRODUCT FORMATION STUDY). Disinfection byproducts are well known carcinogens and their reduction in the drinking water as a result of the blending of the desalinated water with other water sources would be an added benefit. The blending of desalinated product water with existing distribution systems has less than significant impacts. As stated above, the proposed project would include several features to accommodate changes in ocean water quality and red tide algal bloom events. In addition, in regards to corrosivity, blending the desalinated product water with existing water from other sources may change the water quality of the blend in terms of its corrosion effect on the existing water distribution system. When evaluating potential short-term and long-term impacts of blending treated waters from different sources, one of the most important considerations is the potential for corrosion of pipes and residential fixtures. Excessive corrosion over time might lead to colored water in homes, stained fixtures, pipe failures, and non-compliance with the Lead and Copper Rule. In 1992, the EPA promulgated the Lead and Copper Rule to protect drinking water consumers from excessively high concentrations of lead and copper in the drinking water caused by corrosion of household and public building plumbing systems. The rule sets limits for lead and copper in samples collected from faucets with risk for elevated lead and copper concentrations. The limits for lead and copper are 15 µg/L (micrograms per liter), and 1.3 mg/L, respectively. Similar to all other potable water sources in the distribution system, product water from the Seawater Desalination Project at Huntington Beach would be chemically conditioned at the treatment facility prior to delivery to the distribution system to mitigate its corrosivity. Lime, in combination with carbon dioxide, would be added for post-treatment stabilization of the RO water as a source for pH and alkalinity adjustment and hardness addition. A corrosion control study describing in detail the type and amount of corrosion control chemicals planned to be used for this project are presented in Appendix O of the DREIR, DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM CORROSION CONTROL STUDY. The product water from the seawater desalination facility would be suitable for delivery through the existing water distribution system and would be comparable and compatible to the other water sources currently delivering water to the same system. Prior to delivery to the water distribution system the desalinated water would be conditioned using lime and carbon dioxide to City of Huntington Beach August 22, 2005 Page 37 of 47 Jeawater uesailnation Nroject at Huntington beacn FINUINU6 OF FAU I J Recirculated EIR No. 00-02 achieve the following corrosion control driven water quality parameters, which are known to be consistent with water currently distributed throughout Orange County: • pHof8to8.5; • Langelier Saturation Index (LSI) of 0.0 to 0.5, and • Alkalinity of 40 mg/L or higher. These water goals are established based on current practices of the MID, MIDOC, and most water agencies and municipalities in Orange County. The water goals are rooted in the Safe Drinking Water Act's water quality standards. These water quality goals would be achieved by the addition of the following chemicals: • Lime at dosage of 25 to 50 mg/L (average of 30 mg/L) • Carbon dioxide at dosage of zero to 30 mg/L (average of six mg/L) Adopting this proven corrosion control strategy would result in a non-corrosive product that can be seamlessly integrated into the system. In addition, a corrosion monitoring system would be installed in the proposed transmission pipeline at points of interconnection with the existing water distribution system to ensure that the proposed corrosion control measures are effective and adequate. As such, impacts in regards to corrosion are not anticipated to be significant upon implementation of the design features described above. The desalinated product water would be disinfected prior to delivery to the distribution system. Chlorine, in the form of sodium hypochlorite, would be added as a disinfectant to meet DHS water quality standards for potable water disinfection. The desalted water would meet current imported water disinfection methods so as to not change any disinfection protocol currently being used by water agencies. As explained in Section 5.11 of the DREIR, the desalinated water would be chloraminated by sequential application of sodium hypochlorite and ammonia to achieve a chloramine residual concentration at the point of delivery to the distribution system is in a range of two to 2.5 mg/L. A detailed description of the proposed chloramination process is provided in Appendix N of the DREIR, DISINFECTION BYPRODUCT FORMATION STUDY. This study confirms that after blending of the chloraminated product water from the desalination facility with disinfected product water from other sources, the chloramine residual of the blend meets the target level in the distribution system of two to 2.5 mg/L. As such, impacts in this regard are not anticipated to be significant. As explained in Section 5.11 of the DREIR, blending desalinated water with existing sources of supply would result in a product that is comparable to existing supplies and meets all disinfection byproduct limits. Desalinated seawater contains lower levels of organics than existing Orange County sources. Therefore, blending of desalinated water with other source waters in the distribution system would have a beneficial effect, and would lower the overall disinfection byproduct concentration of the blend. The results of Appendix N in the DREIR, DISINFECTION BYPRODUCT FORMATION STUDY confirm the beneficial effect of the desalinated water on the blended water quality in terms of disinfection byproducts. As such, impacts in this regard are not anticipated to be significant. City of Huntington Beach August 22, 2005 Page 38 of 47 Seawater uesallnation h'roject at Huntington beacn VINUIM3� Uf t-AU I J Recirculated EIR No. 00-02 In regards to hydraulics and/or pressure surges, implementation of the proposed project may have hydraulic impacts on the regional water distribution system. A total of three pump stations would be necessary for operation of the project: 1) a product water pump station at the desalination facility site; 2) the OC-44 underground booster pump station in unincorporated Orange County; and 3) the Coastal Junction underground booster pump station in Irvine. Project implementation could potentially alter the flow rate and pressure of multiple transmission lines serving the vicinity. Based on hydraulic modeling performed for the proposed project, the following water transmission mains in the project vicinity are not anticipated to be impacted by the proposed project (it is assumed that all facilities discussed below have design features to prevent hydraulic surges): ❖ East Orange County Feeder#2 Irvine Cross Feeder ❖ Coast Supply Line ❖ Aufdenkamp Transmission Main ❖ Tri-Cities Transmission Main Newport Beach Wells Supply Line However, the hydraulic characteristics of the OC-44 pipeline may be affected in one of two ways, depending on whether the pipeline segment in question is east or west of the proposed OC-44 connection point: 1) west of the proposed OC-44 connection point, the flow rate and flow direction would remain unchanged, while a change in water pressure would be negligible (a change of less than five psi); and 2) east of the proposed connection point, the direction of flow would be reversed, the flow rate would increase, and water pressure would decrease. It is anticipated that maximum flow velocity through this portion of the pipeline would be 7.5 fps. All flow rate, pressure, and velocity changes, which may occur in the existing pipelines, are within pipeline design specifications. In addition, the hydraulic characteristics of the East Orange County Feeder No. 2 (EOCF #2) may be affected in one of two ways, depending on whether the pipeline segment in question is north or south of the Coastal Junction (the point at which the Tri-Cities and Aufdenkamp Transmission Mains connect to the EOCF #2). 1) north (upstream) of the Coastal Junction, the flow rate within EOCF #2 would decrease (this decrease may allow water pressure to rise, but the resulting change in water pressure would be well within allowable design pressure for the existing pipeline); and 2) south (downstream) of the Coastal Junction, the direction of flow would be reversed, the water pressure would rise, and the flow rate would increase to a maximum velocity of 3.6 fps. Based on the hydrodynamic model, the pressure class of the existing pipeline is of sufficient strength to accommodate changes incurred by the proposed project. Thus, impacts in this regard would not be significant. Appendix D of the DREIR, PRESSURE SURGE ANALYSIS, provides a discussion of potential impacts of the three pump stations associated with the project. The report includes the effect of pressure surges on: The proposed desalinated water 42-to 48-inch pipeline (between the desalination facility and the OC-44 transmission main) ❖ East Orange County Feeder#2 ❖ Irvine Cross Feeder ❖ Coast Supply Line ❖ Aufdenkamp Transmission Main ❖ Tri-Cities Transmission Main City of Huntington Beach August 22, 2005 Page 39 of 47 Seawater Desalination Nroject at Huntington beacn 1-INulNU5 Ul- rHL 1,5 Recirculated EIR No. 00-02 Analysis concludes that in the event of a loss of power to the booster pump stations, a low- pressure wave is predicted to propogate out from the discharge site of each booster pump station and into the associated pipelines. As the water travels toward its applicable destination (reservoirs, demand locations, and booster pump stations), the low-pressure waves cause the pipeline pressure to fall. Simultaneously, a pressure upsurge wave is predicted to propagate out from the suction side of the OC-44 and Coastal Junction pump stations. Following the loss of power to the pump station located at the desalination site, a vapor condition is created in the desalinated water conveyance pipeline. When the product water conveyance pipeline is re-pressurized by a reflected waterhammer wave, any vapor cavities that are formed would collapse, and may create extremely high local pressure spikes that may damage the pipeline, resulting in premature corrosion and the development of leaks. When subjected to negative pressure, a leak could become a source of pathogen intrusion. If the piping does not have sufficient strength to withstand a full vacuum, the pipeline could collapse under such low pressures. To eliminate large negative pressures and the possibility of vapor cavity formation in the delivery pipeline system above, surge protection measures for proposed project facilities are recommended as follows: ❖ Incorporation of pressurized surge tanks at booster pump station locations; and ❖ Vacuum relief and air release valve improvements. Hydraulic modifications recommended for the existing water distribution system include the following: • Hydraulically operated isolation valves; ❖ Elimination of existing valves; and ❖ Pressure control valve improvements. Additional modeling would be performed during the design phase of the project to confirm that the proposed project would not have significant impacts on regional water transmission facilities. 5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS WHICH WOULD REMAIN SIGNIFICANT AND UNAVOIDABLE AFTER MITIGATION IMPACTS RELATED TO CONSTRUCTION —AIR QUALITY Section 5.9 of the DREIR addresses the project's potential short-term construction related impacts. The DREIR addresses nine topics, one of which (air quality) is addressed in this Section. The remaining topics are addressed in Section 4.0-1 of this Statement of Facts and Findings. Finding for Short-Term Air Quality The proposed Seawater Desalination Project at Huntington Beach may have adverse short-term construction related impacts in regards to air quality_ Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project that avoid or substantially lessen the potential significant environmental effects identified in the DREIR, including standard conditions, project design features and incorporation of mitigation measures CON-9 and CON-10. In addition, the South Coast Air Quality Management District and California Air Resources Board have jurisdiction over stationary and mobile emission sources, respectively. Even after incorporation City of Huntington Beach August 22, 2005 Page 40 of 47 Seawater uesannation Nroject at Huntington beacn rINuINUb Ur VAL;15 Recirculated EIR No. 00-02 of mitigation measures CON-9 and CON-90, the Project will result in an unavoidable significant impact in regards to short-term construction related reactive organic gases (ROG), nitrogen oxides (NOJ, and carbon monoxide (CO). Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including considerations for the provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible additional mitigation measures or alternatives identified in the DREIR. The City of Huntington Beach is adopting the Statement of Overriding Considerations set forth in Section 7.0 of this Statement of Findings and Facts to address this impact of the Project. Facts in Support of Finding Construction related air quality impacts will be mitigated through preparation of a dust control plan and adherence to City standards and South Coast Air Quality Management District Rules 402 and 403. As detailed within Section 5.9 of the DREIR, and despite the implementation of standard conditions, project design features and mitigation measures CON-9 and CON-10, significant and unavoidable short-term air quality impacts remain. The proposed project is anticipated to exceed South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) thresholds in regards to short-term air emissions (remediation, demolition, construction). Mitigation measures will be implemented, but these measures are unable to reduce ROG, NO, and CO emissions to a less than significant level according to SCAQMD thresholds. Thus, air quality impacts in this regard are considered an unavoidable significant impact of the Seawater Desalination Project at Huntington Beach. This impact is overridden by the project benefits as set forth in the Statement of Overriding Considerations (Section 7.0 of this Statement of Facts and Findings). There are no feasible alternatives that could avoid this significant impact. Moreover, the South Coast Air Quality Management District and California Air Resources Board have jurisdiction over stationary and mobile emission sources, respectively. 6.0 FINDINGS REGARDING PROJECT ALTERNATIVES Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21002 and the CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6, an EIR must assess a reasonable range of alternatives to the project action or location. (a) Section 15126.6 places emphasis on focusing the discussion on alternatives which provide opportunities for eliminating any significant adverse environmental impacts, or reducing them to a level of insignificance, even if these alternative would impede to some degree the attainment of the project objectives, or would be more costly. In this regard, the EIR must identify an environmentally superior alternative among the other alternatives. (b) As with cumulative impacts, the discussion of alternatives is governed by the "rule of reason". (c) The EIR need not consider an alternative whose effect cannot be reasonably ascertained, or does not contribute to an informed decision-making and public participation process. The range of alternatives is defined by those alternatives, which could feasibly attain the objectives of the project. Accordingly, Section 6.0 of the DREIR analyzes various alternatives to the proposed project in evaluating the opportunity for avoiding or substantially lessening environmental impacts. Section 6.0 of the DREIR provides descriptions and analysis of each alternative in adequate detail to allow the decision-maker(s) to evaluate the proposed project in comparison to identified alternatives. City of Huntington Beach August 22, 2005 Page 41 of 47 Seawater uesannation vrolect at Huntington beacn t-INUINCiS Vr VAU 1 5 Recirculated EIR No.00-02 As directed in CEQA Guidelines section 15126.6(c), an EIR shall include alternatives to the project that could feasibly accomplish most of the basic objectives of the project. A specific objective of the project was to provide a reliable local source of drinking water. While water conservation efforts have resulted in successfully stretching the existing water supply, and more gains from conservation are projected for the future, conservation in and of itself is not a "source of drinking water." It must also be emphasized that although an objective of the project is to provide a reliable local source of drinking water, most of the project objectives emphasize development of a drinking water source that is "independent of," "decreases pressures on" and "minimizes demands on" existing drinking water supplies (i.e., imported water supplies and local groundwater supplies). (See the list of project objectives on page 6-1 of the DREIR) Desalinated seawater is unique because it does not fall into the categories of either "imported water" or"local groundwater." In contrast, water reuse projects are dependent on existing water supplies because, by their very nature, they "recycle" existing imported or local groundwater supplies. In addition, water reuse projects do not produce direct use potable/drinking water. DHS will not allow recycled water to be used as a direct use potable water source. Because there are no feasible alternative water sources to evaluate that meet the objectives of the project, an alternative water source "alternative" was not included in the DREIR. As directed in CEQA Guidelines section 15126.6(c), an EIR shall include alternatives to the project that could avoid or substantially lessen one or more of the significant effects. The DREIR notes (at page 6-1) that with the exception of short-term air quality emissions associated with construction activities, "all potentially significant impacts" (which includes potential impacts to marine organisms and water quality) can be "mitigated to less than significant levels." Therefore, it is not anticipated that increased conservation efforts or any alternative water source (assuming there is one) will avoid or substantially lessen significant impacts when compared to the project. Section 6.0 of the DREIR evaluates five ternatives, including a "No Project/No Development' alternative, "Alternative Site" alternative, "Alternative Ownership and Operation" alternative, "Alternative Project Design" alternative, and "Reduced Facility Size" alternative. The "No Proiect/No Development' alternative conflicts with the primary purpose of the proposed project, and is not being considered by the City for the following reasons: The "No Project/No Development' alternative would: • not meet basic project objectives; • not remediate petroleum hydrocarbon contamination known to exist on-site; • not minimize demand on existing imported water system; • not create ecosystem and biologic resource benefits due to decreased pressures on existing water resources; • leave the existing degraded, abandoned fuel oil storage tanks in place; and • not preclude site development of a similar or worse nature. City of Huntington Beach August 22, 2005 Page 42 of 47 Seawater Uesallnation F roject at tiuntington beacn HNUINCoS Ur t-AU 15 Recirculated EIR No. 00-02 Table 1 ALTERNATIVE IMPACTS Alternative Impact Summary Matrix Alternative Impact Meets (compared to the proposed project) Feasible Objectives No Project/No Development Less Yes No Alternative Site Equal/Greater Potentially No Alternative Ownership and Equal Yes Yes Operation Alternative Project Design Equal No Yes Reduced Facility Size* Less/Equal Yes Yes "Environmentally superior to the Applicant's proposal The "Alternative Site" alternative would potentially result in impacts greater than or equal to those of the proposed project situated in Huntington Beach (depending on site-specific conditions). This alternative would implement the project on either a site adjacent to the proposed subject site (identified in the Initial Study/NOP for this project) or within the City of San Clemente, City of Dana Point, or in San Onofre. This alternative is not being considered by the City for the following reasons: The "Alternative Site" alternative would: • not substantially reduce identified impacts associated with the proposed project; • not avoid the unavoidable significant impact for short-term air quality; • result in potentially greater impacts for those alternative sites requiring a new ocean intake/outfall; • may result in significant aesthetic and/or marine biological impacts; and • would have greater impacts due to sensitive surrounding areas. The "Alternative Ownership" Alternative would not change any of the design or operational features of the project. Rather, this alternative consists of the exact same project owned and operated by a public entity. The project proponent, a private entity, has already obtained lease rights to the site through negotiations with the current land owner(AES Huntington Beach, LLC). For this alternative to be feasible, a public entity would first need to negotiate with the applicant or otherwise obtain lease rights to the site. Assuming that lease rights of the site were acquired by a public entity, this alternative would result in the same environmental impacts as the proposed project (under private ownership). Consequently, the "Alternative Ownership" alternative and the project as proposed would result in the same potential impacts on the environment. The "Alternative Project Design" alternative would incorporate a different method of desalination (such as multi-effect distillation, or IVIED) or an alternative seawater intake collection system (such as vertical wells, Ranney wells, infiltration galleries, and seabed infiltration systems). The MED alternative is infeasible due to the extreme height required for operation of the vertical tubes (300 feet) and the dependency on an electrical power plant for generation of steam. Alternative intake methods are infeasible primarily due to the number of vertical/Ranney wells City of Huntington Beach August 22, 2005 Page 43 of 47 Seawater uesannation Froject at Huntington beacn rINUINUZ5 ur I-A;i 5 Recirculated EIR No.00-02 necessary for a 50 mgd project (at least 24 individual wells), and the area of disruption necessary for an infiltration gallery or seabed infiltration system. An alternative discharge location (the Orange County Sanitation District [OCSD] outfall) was also analyzed as an alternative. This alternative is also rejected, since OCSD has indicated that they do not have the capacity to accommodate the waste stream from the proposed desalination project. The "Alternative Project Design" alternative would: • Not substantially reduce impacts in comparison to the proposed project; and • Be either technically or financially infeasible to implement. The "Reduced Facility Size" Alternative would reduce the output of project water to approximately 25 mgd. The design and operation of the proposed desalination facility would generally remain the same. However, this alternative would reduce the size of the facility, the amount of seawater required to produce water, and the amount of concentrated seawater discharged back into the HBGS outfall. The 25 mgd alternative would not significantly reduce potential environmental impacts when compared to the proposed project. In addition, this alternative would result in a substantial decrease in the amount of desalinated water that could be produced, and thus a substantial increase in the cost of the desalinated water. While the Reduced Facility Size alternative may result in slightly reduced impacts in comparison to the proposed project, the 25 mgd alternative would result in providing water at a cost that would not be acceptable to Orange County water purveyors, and would not produce a sufficient amount of desalinated water to meet projected future demand. Implementation of the 25 mgd alternative would not avoid the project's identified unavoidable construction related air quality impact, and would reduce the water quality benefits of the project as proposed. As such, this alternative is not presently under consideration. The "Reduced Facility Size" alternative would: • Not provide a sufficient amount of water that would meet the projected future water needs; and • Reduce overall water supply reliability that is sustainable and independent of climatic conditions. 7.0 STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS Pursuant to Section 15093 of the CEQA Guidelines, decision-makers are required to balance the benefits of a project against its unavoidable environmental risks in determining whether to approve a project. In the event the benefits of a project outweigh the unavoidable adverse effects, the adverse environmental effects may be considered "acceptable". The CEQA Guidelines require that, when a public agency allows for the occurrence of significant effects which are identified within the Final REIR but are not at least substantially mitigated, the agency shall seek in writing the specific reasons the action was supported. Any statement of overriding considerations should be included in the record of project approval and should be mentioned in the Notice of Determination. To the extent the significant effects of a project are not avoided or substantially lessened to a level of insignificance, the City of Huntington Beach, having reviewed and considered the information contained within the Final Recirculated Environmental Impact Report for the project, City of Huntington Beach August 22, 2005 Page 44 of 47 Seawater uesallnation Nroject at Huntington beach FINUINUb VF VAU I J Recirculated EIR No. 00-02 and having reviewed and considered the information contained within the public record, and having balanced the benefits of the project against the unavoidable effects which remain, finds that such unmitigated effects to be acceptable in consideration of the following overriding considerations discussion. The City finds that all feasible mitigation measures have been imposed to lessen project impacts to a less than significant level where feasible, and furthermore, that alternatives to the project are either infeasible because they have greater environmental impacts, do not provide the benefits of the project, do not eliminate the project's unavoidable significant air quality impact, or are otherwise socially or economically infeasible. The environmental analysis undertaken for the Seawater Desalination Project at Huntington Beach indicates that, while mitigation measures would be effective in reducing the level of certain short-term air quality impacts, the project may still result in significant adverse impacts in regards to short-term air quality. It should be noted that the project's unavoidable adverse impacts would occur under current General Plan designations. The City of Huntington Beach, as lead agency and decision-maker for the project, has reviewed and considered the information contained in the Final REIR prepared for the Seawater Desalination Project at Huntington Beach and the public record. The City finds that the benefits of the Project include the following: ❖ The Seawater Desalination Project at Huntington Beach will provide a reliable source of potable water to Orange County that is sustainable independent of climatic conditions and the availability of imported water supplies and local groundwater supplies. The Project offers Orange County's water agencies up to 50 million gallons per day (MGD) or 56,000 acre-feet of water per year to include in their portfolio of available water resources. Water conservation efforts have resulted in successfully stretching the developed water supply, and more gains from conservation are projected for the future. Still, the California Department of Water Resources predicts that the South Coast Region (and the entire State) will face significant water shortages by the year 2020. While the amount of water produced by the Project is only a small percentage of the current 650 MGD (710,000 acre-feet per year) Orange County water demand, it is an important drought-proof, renewable supply that will enhance the overall portfolio of water resources available to Orange County water agencies. ❖ The Seawater Desalination Project at Huntington Beach will provide product water that meets the requirements of the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) and the California Department of Health Services (DHS). ❖ The Seawater Desalination Project at Huntington Beach will reduce the salt imbalance of current imported water supplies by providing a potable water source with lower salt loads for blending with existing supplies. ❖ The Seawater Desalination Project at Huntington Beach will remediate the subject site of on-site contaminants resulting from approximately 35 years of use as a fuel oil storage facility thereby protecting the health and safety of those in the surrounding community. ❖ The Seawater Desalination Project at Huntington Beach will create ecosystem and biological resources benefits that may accrue due to decreased pressures on existing water sources. The Orange County Water District (OCWD) has identified that Santa Ana River Groundwater Basin has been overdrafted by more City of Huntington Beach August 22, 2005 Page 45 of 47 seawater Desalination Nroject at Huntington beacn 1­1NUINUb Ut- FAU 1 5 Recirculated EIR No. 00-02 than 400,000 acre feet due to drought conditions of the last three years. The Project could offset withdrawals from the groundwater basin during dry years, allowing the Groundwater Basin to recharge. The Project could also offset demands on imported supplies transported from the Colorado River and/or Northern California, allowing more water to remain available for use in environmentally sensitive areas in those locations. ❖ The Seawater Desalination Project at Huntington Beach will minimize demands on the existing imported water system. Southern California could not exist without its extensive imported water supply system. The Metropolitan Water District of Southern California ("MWD"), together with many local water agencies, operates numerous water facilities to transport, store and recycle water supplies to meet the needs of Orange County and the surrounding Southern California region. Given the announced cutbacks of water supply from the Colorado River and the continuing environmental water demands on the State Water Project in Northern California, the water produced by the Seawater Desalination Project at Huntington Beach could be dedicated by Orange County water agencies to simply replacing existing water supplies for current Orange County residents and future generations. The Seawater Desalination Project at Huntington Beach will provide a continuous monitoring and protection of the Pacific Ocean water in the vicinity of the HBGS intake pipeline located offshore from Huntington Beach. ❖ The Seawater Desalination Project at Huntington Beach will serve high quality desalinated water through portions of the City distribution system and provide a drought proofing of 33% of the City's imported water supply. The Seawater Desalination Project at Huntington Beach will provide a local emergency water supply. ❖ The Seawater Desalination Project at Huntington Beach will improve the aesthetics of the area through the demolition of three unused 40-foot high fuel storage tanks and replacing them with lower profile, modern, and more attractive structures. ❖ The Seawater Desalination Project at Huntington Beach will install perimeter improvements including a 10 foot (Edison) to 20 foot (Newland) landscape planter and an eight foot high wall along the project's street frontage for an overall cohesive appearance with the HBGS facility along Newland Street. The Seawater Desalination Project at Huntington Beach will improve the circulation in the area through the dedication and improvement of additional right- of-way along Edison Avenue. ❖ The Seawater Desalination Project at Huntington Beach will provide a new source of long term annual property tax revenue for the city, especially the redevelopment zone located in the South East area of the City. ❖ The Seawater Desalination Project at Huntington Beach will provide a new source of long term annual revenue for the city from Franchise Agreement. City of Huntington Beach August 22, 2005 Page 46 of 47 Seawater uesaunation Nroject at runtington beach HNuwVS Ut- rHL 15 Recirculated EIR No. 00-02 ❖ The Seawater Desalination Project at Huntington Beach will provide higher water pressure in a portion of City's distribution system, thereby allowing the city to realized a cost savings. The Seawater Desalination Project at Huntington Beach will provide these benefits at no cost to the tax payers. Based on this Statement of Facts and Findings and on all of the evidence presented, the City of Huntington Beach finds that the benefits of the Seawater Desalination Project at Huntington Beach (as described above) outweigh the adverse short-term air quality impacts associated with the construction of Project (as described in Section 5.0 of this Statement of Facts and Findings). City of Huntington Beach August 22, 2005 Page 47 of 47 SEAWATER DESALINATION PROJECT AT HUNTINGTON BEACH SCH# 2001051092 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING CHECKLIST MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires that when a public agency completes an environmental document, which includes measures to mitigate or avoid significant environmental effects, the public agency must adopt a reporting or monitoring program. This requirement ensures that environmental impacts found to be significant will be mitigated. The reporting or monitoring program must be designed to ensure compliance during project implementation (Public Resources Code Section 21081.6). In compliance with Public Resources Code Section 21081.6, the attached MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING CHECKLIST has been prepared for Seawater Desalination Project at Huntington Beach. This Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Checklist is intended to provide verification that all applicable Conditions of Approval relative to significant environmental impacts are monitored and reported. Monitoring will include 1) verification that each mitigation measure has been implemented; 2) recordation of the actions taken to implement each mitigation; and 3) retention of records in the Seawater Desalination Project at Huntington Beach file. This Mitigation Monitoring Program delineates responsibilities for monitoring the project, but also allows the City of Huntington Beach flexibility and discretion in determining how best to monitor implementation. Monitoring procedures will vary according to the type of mitigation measure. Adequate monitoring consists of demonstrating that monitoring procedures took place and that mitigation measures were implemented. Reporting consists of establishing a record that a mitigation measure is being implemented, and generally involves the following steps: • The City of Huntington Beach distributes reporting forms to the appropriate entities for verification of compliance. • Departments/agencies with reporting responsibilities will review the EIR, which provides general background information on the reasons for including specified mitigation measures. • Problems or exceptions to compliance will be addressed to City of Huntington Beach as appropriate. • Periodic meetings may be held during project implementation to report on compliance of mitigation measures. • Responsible parties provide the City of Huntington Beach with verification that monitoring has been conducted and ensure, as applicable, that mitigation measures have been implemented. Monitoring compliance may be documented City of Huntington Beach August 22, 2005 1 Seawater Desalination Project at Huntington Beach MITIGATION MONITORING Recirculated EIR No.00-02 AND REPORTING CHECKLIST through existing review and approval programs such as field inspection reports and plan review. • The City of Huntington Beach or Applicant prepares a reporting form periodically during the construction phase and an annual report summarizing all project mitigation monitoring efforts. • Appropriate mitigation measures will be included in construction documents and/or conditions of permits/approvals. Minor changes to the Mitigation Monitoring Program, if required, would be made in accordance with CEQA and would be permitted after further review and approval by the City of Huntington Beach. Such changes could include reassignment of monitoring and reporting responsibilities, program redesign to make any appropriate improvements, and/or modification, substitution or deletion of mitigation measures subject to conditions described in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162. No change will be permitted unless the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program continues to satisfy the requirements of Public Resources Code Section 21081.6. City of Huntington Beach August 22, 2005 2 Seawater Desalination Project at Huntington Beach MITIGATION MONITORING Recirculated EIR No. 00-02 AND REPORTING CHECKLIST MITIGATION MEASURE RESPONSIBLE MONITORING ENFORCEMENT MONITORING DOCUMENTATION OF COMPLIANCE IMPLEMENTATION PERIOD AGENCY AGENCY PARTY 5.1 LAND USE/RELEVANT PLANNING None required. 5.2 GEOLOGY, SOILS & SEISMICITY GEO-1 A detailed geotechnical Project Soils Engi- Concurrent City of Hunting- City of Huntington report shall be pre- neer with Building ton Beach De- Beach Planning pared and submitted Permit Appli- partment of Pub- Department with the building permit cation lic Works/De- (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoing Agency) application for the pro- partment of posed desalination fa- Building and cility. This analysis Safety shall include on-site soil (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) sampling and labora- tory testing of materials to provide detailed rec- (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) ommendations regard- ing grading, founda- tions, retaining walls, streets, utilities, reme- (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) dial work, over excav- tion/recompaction, de- watering, water quality, and chemical/fill prop- (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature Date of Monitoring Agency) erties of underground items including buried pipe and concrete and (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) protection thereof. The reports shall specifically address lateral spread- ing, flood control chan- (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) nel bank stability, lique- faction potential and groundwater Con- (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) straints. Appropriate recommendations shall City of Huntington Beach 3 August 22, 2005 i Seawater Desalination Project at Huntington Beach MITIGATION MONITORING Recirculated EIR No. 00-02 AND REPORTING CHECKLIST be provided to mitigate (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) potentially adverse conditions. The geo- technical report shall also be submitted to the Department of Pub- lic Works for review and approval in con- junction with the grad- ing plan. GEO-2 In conjunction with the Project Engineer Concurrent City of Hunting- City of Huntington submittal of application with Prelimi- ton Beach De- Beach Planning for a precise grading nary/Precise partment of Pub- Department permit, the Applicant Grading Per- lic Works/Build- (Tine of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) shall demonstrate to mits ing and Safety the satisfaction of the City Engineer that the preliminary geotechni- (Tine of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) cal report recommen- dations have been in- corporated into the (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) grading plan unless otherwise specified in the final geotechnical report and/or by the (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) City Engineer. (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) City of Huntington Beach 4 August 22, 2005 Seawater Desalination Project at Huntington Beach MITIGATION MONITORING Recirculated EIR No. 00-02 AND REPORTING CHECKLIST GEO-3 Excavation for the pro- Construction Con- During Con- City of Hunting- City of Huntington posed project shall im- tractor struction ton Beach De- Beach Planning plement dewatering ac- partment of Pub- Department tivities in compliance lic Works (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) with NPDES regula- tions. Pumped groundwater shall be sampled, tested, and(if (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) deemed necessary) treated prior to dis- charge. (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitonng Agency) (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency). (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) GE04 As native on-site soils Project Engineer Plan Review City of Hunting- City of Huntington are compressible upon ton Beach De- Beach Planning placement of structural partment of Pub- Department loads, project imple- lic Works/De- (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) mentation shall imple- partment of ment complete removal Building and and recompaction of Safety compressible soils or (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) use of piles and grade beams to support on- City of Huntington Beach 5 August 22, 2005 Seawater Desalination Project at Huntington Beach MITIGATION MONITORING Recirculated EIR No. 00-02 AND REPORTING CHECKLIST site structures. (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) (Title of MonAoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) GEO-5 Type V cement shall be Project Engineer Plan Review City of Hunting- City of Huntington used for concrete and ton Beach De- Beach Planning buried metal pipes shall partment of Pub- Department utilize special meas- lic Works/De- Title of Monitoring g Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) ures (coatings, etc.) to partment of protect against the ef- Building and fects of corrosive soils. Safety (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Data of Monitoring Agency) (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) City of Huntington Beach 6 August 22, 2005 Seawater Desalination Project at Huntington Beach MITIGATION MONITORING Recirculated EIR No. 00-02 AND REPORTING CHECKLIST (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) GEO-6 Due to the potential for Construction Con- During Con- City of Hunting- City of Huntington ground shaking in a tractor struction ton Beach De- Beach Planning seismic event, the pro- partment of Pub- Department ject shall comply with lic Works (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) the standards set forth in the UBC (most re- cent edition) to assure seismic safety to the (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) satisfaction of the De- partment of Building and Safety prior to is- (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) suance of a building permit, including com- pliance with California Division of Mines and (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) Geology Special Publi- cation 117 (Guidelines for Evaluating and Miti- (TiVe of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) gating Seismic Hazards in California, adopted March 13, 1997). How- ever, given the prox- (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) imity of the site to the Newport-Inglewood and Compton Blind Thrust (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) Faults, more stringent measures may be war- ranted. (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) City of Huntington Beach 7 August 22, 2005 Seawater Desalination Project at Huntington Beach MITIGATION MONITORING Recirculated EIR No. 00-02 AND REPORTING CHECKLIST (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) GEO-7 As the South Branch Project Engineer Prior to Issu- City of Hunting- City of Huntington Fault (situated beneath ance of Build- ton Beach De- Beach Planning the subject site) is clas- ing Permit partment of Pub- Department sified as Category C by lic Works/De- (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) the City of Huntington partment of Beach General Plan, Building and special studies and Safety subsurface investiga- (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) tion (including a site specific seismic analy- sis) shall be performed (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) prior to issuance of a grading permit, to the approval of the City Engineer. The subsur- (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) face investigation shall include CPT and ex- ploratory borings to de- (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) termine the fault rup- ture potential of the South Branch Fault, which underlies the (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) subject site. (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) GEO-8 Due to the potential for Project Soils Engi- Prior to Issu- City of Hunting- City of Huntington liquefaction within the neer ance of Grad- ton Beach De- Beach Planning project vicinity, the Ap- ing Permit partment of Pub- Department plicant shall comply lic Works/De- (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) with the standards set partment of forth in the UBC (most Building and City of Huntington Beach 8 August 22, 2005 Seawater Desalination Project at Huntington Beach MITIGATION MONITORING Recirculated EIR No. 00-02 AND REPORTING CHECKLIST recent edition)for struc- Safety (Title of Monitoring Report) (SignaturelDate of Monitoring Agency) tures on-site to assure safety of the occupants to the satisfaction of the (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) Department of Building and Safety prior to is- suance of a building permit. These Stan- (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) dards include compli- ance with the California Geological Survey Spe- (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Data of Monitoring Agency) cial Publication 117 (Guidelines for Evaluat- ing and Mitigating Seismic Hazards in (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) California, adopted March 13, 1997) and Recommended Proce- (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) dures for implementa- tion of California Geo- logical Survey Special Publication 117 - (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) Guidelines for Analyz- ing and Mitigating Liq- uefaction in California (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) (Dr. Geoffrey R. Martin et al, May 1999). GEO-9 The proposed project Project Engineer Prior to Issu- City of Hunting- City of Huntington shall incorporate ade- ance of Build- ton Beach De- Beach Planning quate measures to sta- ing Permit partment of Pub- Department bilize structures from lic Works/De- (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) on-site soils known to partment of be prone to liquefac- Building and tion. Typical methods Safety include, but are not lim- (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) ited to: • Over excavation and recompaction of (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) soils; • in-situ soil densifi- cation (such as vibro- flotation or vibro- (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Dale of Monitoring Agency) replacement); • injection grouting; City of Huntington Beach 9 August 22, 2005 Seawater Desalination Project at Huntington Beach MITIGATION MONITORING Recirculated EIR No. 00-02 AND REPORTING CHECKLIST and (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) • deep soil mixing. (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) GEO-10 The site specific geo- Project Engineer Plan Review City of Huntjng- City of Huntington technical investigation ton Beach De- Beach Planning for the proposed project partment of Pub- Department shall analyze the poten- lic Works/De- Title of Monitoring Repo) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) tial for lateral spread Partment of on-site. If deemed a Building and possibility, adequate Safety subsurface stabilization (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) practices (similar to those utilized for lique- faction) shall be incor- (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) porated prior to the construction of on-site structures. (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) City of Huntington Beach 10 August 22, 2005 Seawater Desalination Project at Huntington Beach MITIGATION MONITORING Recirculated EIR No. 00-02 AND REPORTING CHECKLIST (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) (TiVe of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) 5.3 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY HWQ-1 Prior to issuance of Applicant Prior to Issu- City of Hunting- City of Huntington precise grading or ance of Grad- ton Beach De- Beach Planning (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) building permits, which ing/Building partment of Pub- Department ever comes first, the Permit lic Works applicant shall submit and obtain approval Title of Monitoring Report) Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) from the City of Hunt- ington Beach of a Wa- ter Quality Manage- (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) ment Plan (WQMP) specifically identifying Best Management (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) Practices (BMPs) that will be used on-site to control predictable pol- lutant runoff. This (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) WQMP shall identify, at a minimum, the routine, structural and non- (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) structural measures specified in the Coun- tywide NPDES Drain- age Area Management (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) Plan (DAMP) Appendix which details imple- mentation of the BMPs (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) whenever they are ap- plicable to a project,the assignment of long- City of Huntington Beach 11 August 22, 2005 Seawater Desalination Project at Huntington Beach MITIGATION MONITORING Recirculated EIR No. 00-02 AND REPORTING CHECKLIST term maintenance re- (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) sponsibilities to the ap- plicant, and shall refer- ence the location(s) of structural BMPs. The applicable BMPs in- clude: • Plant materials that require fertilization and pest control shall be maintained in accor- dance with Orange County Management Guidelines for Use of Fertilizers and Pesti- cides;and • BMP structures and facilities shall be cleaned and main- tained on a scheduled basis by a Facility Op- erator appointed per- son. HWQ-2 Appropriate site spe- Project Hydrologist Prior to Issu- City of Hunting- City of Huntington cific hydrology and hy- ance of Grad- ton Beach Public Beach Planning draulic analysis will be ing/Building Works Department performed for the pro- Permit (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) ject prior to the issu- ance of grading or building permits, which ever comes first. The (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) analysis shall include mitigation measures, if necessary, in regards (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) to storm water drainage and flooding. (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) City of Huntington Beach 12 August 22, 2005 Seawater Desalination Project at Huntington Beach MITIGATION MONITORING Recirculated EIR No. 00-02 AND REPORTING CHECKLIST (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) HWQ-3 Prior to the issuance of Project Engineer Prior to Issu- City of Hunting- City of Huntington building permits (not in- ance of Grad- ton Beach De- Beach Planning cluding demolition per- ing/Building partment of Pub- Department mits) an appropriate Permit lic Works (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) on-site drainage sys- tem shall be installed for the project that inte- grates permanent (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) stormwater quality fea- tures. (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitorng Agency) City of Huntington Beach 13 August 22, 2005 Seawater Desalination Project at Huntington Beach MITIGATION MONITORING Recirculated EIR No. 00-02 AND REPORTING CHECKLIST (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) 5.4 AIR QUALITY None re uired. 5.5 NOISE N0I-1 Prior to the issuance of Acoustical Consult- Prior to Issu- City of Hunting- City of Huntington any building or grading ant ance of Grad- ton Beach Plan- Beach Planning permits, the Applicant ing/Building ning Department Department shall prepare an acous- Permit (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) tical analysis report and appropriate plans, pre- pared under the super- vision of a City- (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) approved acoustical consultant, describing the stationary noise (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) generation potential and noise mitigation measures (such as the installation of double (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) walls, sound absorbing materials, acoustic bar- riers, sound control cur- (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Data of Monitoring Agency) tains, and sound baf- fles), if needed, which shall be included in the plans and specifica- (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) tions of the project. All stationary equipment shall be designed to in- (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) sure that noise levels at the HBGS property line do not exceed the City's Industrial noise (Title or Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) standard of 70.0 dBA and will be subject to the approval of the City (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) of Huntington Beach. City of Huntington Beach 14 August 22, 2005 Seawater Desalination Project at Huntington Beach MITIGATION MONITORING Recirculated EIR No. 00-02 AND REPORTING CHECKLIST 5.6 PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES PSU-1 Prior to the issuance of Applicant Prior to Issu- City of Hunting- City of Huntington building permits, the ance of Build- ton Beach Plan- Beach Planning applicant will be re- ing Permit ning Department/ Department quired to pay applicable Affected School (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) school mitigation fees District pursuant to State law. (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) (TiVe of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) PSU-2 The Applicant will be Applicant Prior to Issu- City of Hunting- City of Huntington required to pay appro- ance of Build- ton Beach De- Beach Planning priate traffic impact ing Permit partment of Department fees as determined by Building and (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) the City of Huntington Safety/Depart- Beach Department of ment of Public Public Works. Works (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) City of Huntington Beach 15 August 22, 2005 Seawater Desalination Project at Huntington Beach MITIGATION MONITORING Recirculated EIR No. 00-02 AND REPORTING CHECKLIST (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitorng Agency) PSU-3 The Applicant will be Applicant Prior to Issu- City of Hunting- City of Huntington required to pay five per- ance of Build- ton Beach De- Beach Planning cent of the OCSD con- ing Permit partment of Pub- Department nection fee to the City lic Works/OCSD (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) of Huntington Beach. (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) City of Huntington Beach 16 August 22, 2005 Seawater Desalination Project at Huntington Beach MITIGATION MONITORING Recirculated EIR No. 00-02 AND REPORTING CHECKLIST (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) PSU4 All work within, over and under the OCFCD and County of Orange right-of-way should not commence until en- croachment permits for the proposed work have been obtained from the County. PSU-5 The Applicant will be Applicant Prior to Issu- City of Hunting- City of Huntington required to pay appro- ance of Build- ton Beach De- Beach Planning priate fees for water ing Permit partment of Pub- Department service connections, lic Works (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) installation, and meters. In addition, the City re- quires payment of a service fee for industrial (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) customers. (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitonng Agency) (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) City of Huntington Beach 17 August 22, 2005 Seawater Desalination Project at Huntington Beach MITIGATION MONITORING Recirculated EIR No. 00-02 AND REPORTING CHECKLIST (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) PSU-6 The Applicant will coor- Applicant Prior to Issu- City of Hunting- City of Huntington dinate with the City's ance of Build- ton Beach De- Beach Planning recycling representative ing Permit partment of Pub- Department to ensure that the pro- lic Works (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) posed project is in compliance with the City's waste reduction and recycling program. (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) City of Huntington Beach 18 August 22, 2005 Seawater Desalination Project at Huntington Beach MITIGATION MONITORING Recirculated EIR No. 00-02 AND REPORTING CHECKLIST PSU-7 Prior to the issuance of Applicant Prior to Issu- City of Hunting- City of Huntington (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) a grading permit, the ance of Grad- ton Beach De- Beach Planning Applicant will prepare a ing Permit partment of Pub- Department waste reduction plan lic Works (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) for the generation of construction and opera- tional waste from the proposed project. This (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) plan will be submitted to the recycling coordi- nator from the City of Title of Monitoring g Report) p ) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) Huntington Beach who will ensure that AB 939 requirements are prop- erly addressed. (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) 5.7 AESTHETICS/LIGHT &GLARE ALG-1 For areas visible by Project Architect Plan Review City of Hunting- City of Huntington adjacent existing or ton Beach Plan- Beach Planning proposed residential ning Department Department areas, exterior me- (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) chanical equipment shall be screened from view on all sides, and rooftop mechanical (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) equipment shall be set back 15 feet from the City of Huntington Beach 19 August 22, 2005 Seawater Desalination Project at Huntington Beach MITIGATION MONITORING Recirculated EIR No. 00-02 AND REPORTING CHECKLIST exterior edges of the (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) building. Equipment to be screened includes, but is not limited to, (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) heating, air condition- ing, refrigeration equip- ment, plumbing lines, duct-work and trans- (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) formers. Said screen- ing shall be architectur- ally compatible with the building in terms of ma- (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) terials and colors. If screening is not de- signed specifically into (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitonng Agency) the building, a rooftop mechanical equipment plan showing screening (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) must be submitted for review and approval with the application for building perm(t(s). (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) ALG-2 If outdoor lighting is Project Architect Plan Review City of Hunting- City of Huntington included, light intensity ton Beach De- Beach Planning shall be limited to that partment of Department necessary for adequate Buildingand security and safety. All (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) Y Y Safety/Planning outside lighting shall be Department directed to prevent spillage" onto adjacent (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) properties and shall be shown on the site plan and elevations. - (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Data of Monitoring Agency) (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) City of Huntington Beach 20 August 22, 2005 Seawater Desalination Project at Huntington Beach MITIGATION MONITORING Recirculated EIR No. 00-02 AND REPORTING CHECKLIST (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) 5.8 HAZARDS & HAZARDOUS MATERIALS None required. 5.9 CONSTRUCTION RELATED IMPACTS CON-1 Concurrent with the Project Engineer Concurrent City of Hunting- City of Huntington (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) submittal of the Grad- with Submittal ton Beach De- Beach Planning ing Plan, the Applicant of Grading partment of Pub- Department shall submit an Erosion Plan lic Works Control Plan to the City of Huntington Beach Department of Public Works which would in- clude the following measures: a) Where necessary, temporary and/or ,per- (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) manent erosion control devices, as approved by the Department of Public Works, shall be employed to control erosion and provide safety during the rainy season from October City of Huntington Beach 21 August 22, 2005 Seawater Desalination Project at Huntington Beach MITIGATION MONITORING Recirculated EIR No. 00-02 AND REPORTING CHECKLIST 15th to April 15th. b) Equipment and (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) workers for emergency work shall be made available at all times during the rainy sea- son. Necessary mate- rials shall be available on-site and stockpiled at convenient locations to facilitate the rapid construction of tempo- (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) rary devices when rain is imminent. c) Erosion control de- vices shall not be moved or modified without the approval of the Department of Pub- lic Works. d) All removable ero- sion protective devices (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) shall be in place at the end of each working day when the 5-day rain probability forecast exceeds 40%. e) After a rainstorm, all silt and debris shall be removed from streets, check berms and basins. f) Graded areas on (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) the permitted area pe- rimeter must drain away from the face of the slopes at the con- clusion of each working day. Drainage is to be directed toward desilt- ing facilities. City of Huntington Beach 22 August 22, 2005 Seawater Desalination Project at Huntington Beach MITIGATION MONITORING Recirculated EIR No. 00-02 AND REPORTING CHECKLIST g) The permittee and (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) contractor shall be re- sponsible and shall take necessary precau- tions to prevent public trespass onto areas where impounded wa- ter creates a hazardous condition. h) The permittee and contractor shall inspect the erosion control (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) work and ensure that the work is in accor- dance with the ap- proved plans. i) Water shall be ap- plied to the site twice daily during grading operations or as other- wise directed by the County of Orange In- (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) spector in compliance with South Coast AQMD rule 403 (Fugi- tive Dust Emissions). A grading operations plan may be required includ- ing watering proce- dures to minimize dust, and equipment proce- dures to minimize vehi- cle emissions from (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) grading equipment. CON-2 Construction of the Project Engineer Plan Review City of Hunting- City of Huntington project shall include ton Beach De- Beach Planning Best Management partment of Pub- Department City of Huntington Beach 23 August 22, 2005 Seawater Desalination Project at Huntington Beach MITIGATION MONITORING Recirculated EIR No. 00-02 AND REPORTING CHECKLIST Practices (BMPs) as lic Works (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) stated in the Drainage Area Management Plan (DAMP) by the Orange Title of Monitoring( g Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) County Stormwater Management Program. BMPs applicable to the project include the fol- (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) lowing: • Potential pollutants include but are not (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) limited to: solid or liquid chemical spills; wastes from paints, stains, seal- (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) ants, glues, limes, pesticides, herbi- cides, Wood pre- (Title of Monitoring Report) p ) (Signature/Data of Monitoring Agency) servatives and sol- vents; asbestos fi- bers, paint flakes, or stucco frag- (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) ments; fuels, oils, lubricants, and hy- draulic, radiator, or (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) battery fluids; fertil- izers, vehi- City of Huntington Beach 24 August 22, 2005 Seawater Desalination Project at Huntington Beach MITIGATION MONITORING Recirculated EIR No. 00-02 AND REPORTING CHECKLIST cle/equipment (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) wash water and concrete wash wa- ter; concrete, de- tergent, or float- able wastes; wastes from any engine/equipment steam cleanings or chemical degreas- ing; and superchlo- rinated potable wa- ter line rinsings. • During construc- tion, disposal of such materials should occur in a specified and con- trolled temporary area on-site, physi- cally separated from potential stormwater run-off, with ultimate dis- posal in accor- dance with local, state, and federal requirements. CON-3 As part of its compli- Applicant Prior to Issu- City of Hunting- City of Huntington ance with the NPDES ance of Grad- ton Beach De- Beach Planning requirements, the Ap- ing Permit partment of Pub- Department plicant shall prepare a lic Works/ (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) Notice of Intent(NOI)to SARWQCB be submitted to the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) Board providing notifi- cation and intent to comply with the State (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) of California general permit. Prior to con- struction, completion of a Storm Water Pollution (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) Prevention Plan (SWPPP) will be re- City of Huntington Beach 25 August 22, 2005 Seawater Desalination Project at Huntington Beach MITIGATION MONITORING Recirculated EIR No. 00-02 AND REPORTING CHECKLIST quired for construction (Title of Monitoing Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoing Agency) activities on-site. A copy of the SWPPP shall be available and (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) implemented at the construction site at all times. (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) CON-4 Prior to any dewatering Applicant Prior to Dewa- City of Hunting- City of Huntington activities, the Applicant tering Activi- ton Beach De- Beach Planning shall obtain and comply ties partment of Pub- Department with a general dewater- lic Works/ Title of Monitoring Re ing NPDES permit from SARWQCB ( g Report) (Signature/Data of Monitoring Agency) the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board. (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) City of Huntington Beach 26 August 22, 2005 Seawater Desalination Project at Huntington Beach MITIGATION MONITORING Recirculated EIR No. 00-02 AND REPORTING CHECKLIST (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) CON-5 The Applicant shall Project Engineer/ Plan Re- City of Hunting- City of Huntington submit a dewatering Construction Con- view/During ton Beach De- Beach Planning plan for review and ap- tractor Construction partment of Pub- Department proval by the Santa lic Works Title of Monitoring s Report)p ) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board and the City of Hunting- ton Beach Department (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) of Public Works. The Applicant would comply with the approved de- (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) watering plan. (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) CON-6 The Applicant shall Applicant/Con- Prior to Dewa- Orange County City of Huntington inform the Orange struction Contractor tering Opera- Water District Beach Planning County Water District tions/During Department City of Huntington Beach 27 August 22, 2005 Seawater Desalination Project at Huntington Beach MITIGATION MONITORING Recirculated EIR No. 00-02 AND REPORTING CHECKLIST (OCWD) of its plans for Construction (Title of Monitoring Report)ort ) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) on-site dewatering, and, if necessary, would acquire neces- (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) sary permits and ap- provals from the OCWD to ensure that no adverse impacts on (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) the groundwater basin or seawater intrusion barrier occur as a result (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) of the proposed project. The Applicant would comply with any ap- proved dewatering (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) permits or plans. (title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Dale of Monitoring Agency) (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) CON-7 During dewatering op- Survey Crew During Dewa- City of Hunting- City of Huntington erations, a survey pro- tering Opera- ton Beach De- Beach Planning gram shall be con- tions partment of Pub- Department ducted on surrounding lic Works (Tllte of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) properties and struc- tures to ensure that movement or settle- ment from on-site de- (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) watering operations does not occur. This survey program would be subject to approval Title of Monitoring Report) Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) by the City Engineer. City of Huntington Beach 28 August 22, 2005 Seawater Desalination Project at Huntington Beach MITIGATION MONITORING Recirculated EIR No. 00-02 AND REPORTING CHECKLIST (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date Of Monitoring Agency) (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) (Title of Monflonng Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) CON-8 Should on-site dewater- Applicant Prior to Dewa- City of Hunting- City of Huntington ing operations require tering Opera- ton Beach De- Beach Planning discharge into the sani- tions partment of Pub- Department tary sewer system, the lic Works/OCSD (Title of Monitoring Report) p ) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) Applicant shall obtain applicable permits and approvals from the Or- ange County Sanitation (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) District (OCSD) and City of Huntington Beach Department of (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) Public Works. Should the dewatering dis- charge be directed to existing AES storm (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) drain facilities, the Ap- plicant shall ensure that dewatering is ad- (Title of Monitoring Report) p ) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) dressed in the Appli- cant's SARWQCB NPDES permit. (Title of Monitoring Report) (SigaaturelDate of Monitoring Agency) City of Huntington Beach 29 August 22, 2005 Seawater Desalination Project at Huntington Beach MITIGATION MONITORING Recirculated EIR No. 00-02 AND REPORTING CHECKLIST (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) CON-9 The project shall com- Construction Con- During Con- City of Hunting- City of Huntington ply with SCAQMD Rule tractor struction ton Beach De- Beach Planning 402, which prohibits the partment of Pub- Department discharge from a facility lic (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) of air pollutants that Works/SCAQMD cause injury, detriment, nuisance, or annoy- ance to the public or (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) that damage business or property. (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) City of Huntington Beach 30 August 22, 2005 Seawater Desalination Project at Huntington Beach MITIGATION MONITORING Recirculated EIR No. 00-02 AND REPORTING CHECKLIST CON-10 During clearing, grad- Construction Con- During Con- City of Hunting- City of Huntington ing, earth moving, or tractor struction ton Beach De- Beach Planning excavation operations, partment of Department excessive fugitive dust Planning/ (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring ngAgency) emissions shall be con- SCAQMD trolled by regular water or other dust preventive measures using the fol- (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) lowing procedures, as specified in the SCAQMD Rule 403. (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) • On-site vehicle speed shall be lim- ited to 25 miles per hour. (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) • All material exca- vated or graded would be suffi- (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) ciently watered to prevent excessive amounts of dust. Watering Would (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) occur at least twice daily with complete coverage, prefer- (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) able in the late morning and after work is done for the day. (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) • All material trans- ported on-site or City of Huntington Beach 31 August 22, 2005 Seawater Desalination Project at Huntington Beach MITIGATION MONITORING Recirculated EIR No. 00-02 AND REPORTING CHECKLIST off-site would be (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) either sufficiently watered or se- curely covered to prevent excessive amounts of dust. • The area disturbed by clearing, grad- ing, earth moving, or excavation op- erations would be minimized so as to prevent excessive amounts of dust. • These control techniques would be indicated in pro- ject specifications. Compliance with the measure would be subject to peri- odic site inspec- tions by the City. • Visible dust be- yond the property line emanating from the project would be pre- vented to the maxi- mum extent feasi- ble. CON-11 Prior to the issuance of Construction Con- During Con- City of Hunting- City of Huntington any grading permits, tractor/Project En- struction/Plan ton Beach De- Beach Planning the Applicant shall en- gineer Review partments of Department sure evidence accept- Planning and (Title of Monitoring Report) p ) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) able to the City of Hunt- Public Works ington Beach Depart- ment of Planning and Public Works that. (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) • All construction vehicles or equip- ment, fixed or mo- (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) bile, operated within 1,000 feet of City of Huntington Beach 32 August 22, 2005 Seawater Desalination Project at Huntington Beach MITIGATION MONITORING Recirculated EIR No. 00-02 AND REPORTING CHECKLIST a dwelling shall be (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) equipped with properly operating and maintained (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) mufflers; • All operations shall comply with the City of Huntington (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) Beach Municipal Code Chapter 8.40 (Noise Control); (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) • Stockpiling and/or vehicle staging ar- eas shall be lo- cated as far as (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) practicable from residential areas; and (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) • Notations in the above format, ap- propriately num- bered and included with other nota- tions on the front sheet of grading plans, would be considered as adequate evidence of compliance with this condition. CON-12 Should the project re- Construction Con- During Con- City of Hunting- City of Huntington quire off-site im- tractor struction ton Beach De- Beach Planning port/export of fill mate- partment of Pub- Department real during demolition, lic (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) remediation, and con- Works/Caltrans struction, trucks shall utilize a route that is least disruptive to sen- (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) sitive receptors, pref- erably Newland Street to Pacific Coast High- (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) way to Beach Boule- vard to 1-405. Con- City of Huntington Beach 33 August 22, 2005 Seawater Desalination Project at Huntington Beach MITIGATION MONITORING Recirculated EIR No. 00-02 AND REPORTING CHECKLIST struction trucks shall be (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) prohibited from operat- ing on Saturdays, Sun- days and federal holi- me of Monitoring Report)R p ) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) days. (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) CON-13 To reduce project- Project Construc- During Con- City of Hunting- City of Huntington related construction tion Contractor struction ton Beach De- Beach Planning noise impacts gener- partment of Pub- Department ated by the proposed lic Works (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) project, the following conditions shall be im- plemented: • Construction aCtIVI- (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) ties shall be limited to hours specified by the City Noise (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) Ordinance;and • Unnecessary idling of internal combus- tion engines shall (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitonng Agency) be prohibited. (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) City of Huntington Beach 34 August 22, 2005 Seawater Desalination Project at Huntington Beach MITIGATION MONITORING Recirculated EIR No. 00-02 AND REPORTING CHECKLIST (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) CON-14 Unless underground Project Engineer Prior to the City of Hunting- City of Huntington utility locations are well Issuance of ton Beach De- Beach Planning documented, as deter- Grading Per- partment of Pub- Department mined by the City of mit lic Works (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) Huntington Beach Pub- lic Works Department, the project engineer shall perform geophysi- (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) cal surveys to identify subsurface utilities and structures, the findings (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) of which shall be incor- porated into site de- sign. Pipelines or con- duits which may be en- (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) countered within the excavation and graded areas shall either be re- (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) located or be cut and plugged according to the applicable code re- quirements. (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) City of Huntington Beach 35 August 22, 2005 Seawater Desalination Project at Huntington Beach MITIGATION MONITORING Recirculated EIR No. 00-02 AND REPORTING CHECKLIST CON-15 During construction, a Construction Con- During Con- City of Hunting- City of Huntington security fence, the tractor struction ton Beach De- Beach Planning height of which shall be partment of Pub- Department determined by the City l(c Works (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoing Agency) of Huntington Beach Department of Building and Safety, shall be in- stalled around the pe- (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) rimeter of the site. The construction site shall be kept clear of all (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) trash,weeds, etc. (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) CON-16 Construction activities, Construction Con- During Con- City of Hunting- City of Huntington to the extent feasible, tractor struction ton Beach De- Beach Planning shall be concentrated partment of Pub- Department away from adjacent lic Works (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) residential areas. Equipment storage and soil stockpiling shall be at least 100 feet away (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) from adjacent residen- tial property lines. City of Huntington Beach 36 August 22, 2005 Seawater Desalination Project at Huntington Beach MITIGATION MONITORING Recirculated EIR No. 00-02 AND REPORTING CHECKLIST (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) CON-17 Prior to excavation of Remediation Con- Prior to Grad- City of Hunting- City of Huntington the contaminated and tractor ing ton Beach De- Beach Planning other areas for rough partment of Pub- Department grading, the project site lic Works (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) shall be cleared of all excess vegetation, sur- face trash, piping, de- bris and other deleteri- cline of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) ous materials. These materials shall be re- moved and disposed of (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) properly (recycled if possible). (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) City of Huntington Beach 37 August 22, 2005 Seawater Desalination Project at Huntington Beach MITIGATION MONITORING Recirculated EIR No. 00-02 AND REPORTING CHECKLIST (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) CON-18 Proper excavation pro- Remediation Con- During Reme- City of Hunting- City of Huntington cedures shall be fol- tractor diation ton Beach De- Beach Planning lowed to comply with partment of Pub- Department OSHA's Safety and llc Works/De- (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) Health Standards, If partment of applicable, the South Building and Coast Air Quality Man- Safety/ agement District OSHA/SCAQMD (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) (SCAQMD) Rule 1166 permit shall be ob- tained prior to the com- (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) mencement of excava- tion and remedial activi- ties. (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) City of Huntington Beach 38 August 22, 2005 Seawater Desalination Project at Huntington Beach MITIGATION MONITORING Recirculated EIR No. 00-02 AND REPORTING CHECKLIST (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) CON-19 The contractor shall Remediation Con- During Reme- City of Hunting- City of Huntington follow all recommenda- tractor diation ton Beach De- Beach Planning tions contained within partment of Pub- Department the adopted Remedial lic Works/ (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) Action Plan for the pro- OCHCA ject site. (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) CON-20 If asbestos or lead- Remediation Con- During Reme- City of Hunting- City of Huntington based paints are identi- tractor diation ton Beach De- Beach Planning fied in any on-site partment of Pub- Department structures, the contrac- lic Works/Plan- (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) for shall obtain a quali- ning Depart- fied contractor to sur- ment/Departmen City of Huntington Beach 39 August 22, 2005 Seawater Desalination Project at Huntington Beach MITIGATION MONITORING Recirculated EIR No. 00-02 AND REPORTING CHECKLIST vey the project site and t of Building and (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) assess the potential Safety/SCAQMD hazard. The contractor shall contact the (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) SCAQMD and the City of Huntington Beach Departments of Plan- ning, Building and (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) Safety, and Fire prior to asbestos/lead paint removal. (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) CON-21 If any hazardous mate- Remediation Con- During Reme- City of Hunting- City of Huntington rials not previously ad- tractor diation ton Beach Fire Beach Planning dressed in the mitiga- Department Department tion measures Con- (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) tained herein are identi- fied and/or released to the environment at any. point during the site (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) cleanup process, op- erations in that area shall cease immedi- (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) ately. At the earliest possible time, the con- tractor shall notify the City of Huntington (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) Beach Fire Department of any such findings. City of Huntington Beach 40 August 22, 2005 Seawater Desalination Project at Huntington Beach MITIGATION MONITORING Recirculated EIR No. 00-02 AND REPORTING CHECKLIST Upon notification of the (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) appropriate agencies, a course of action would be determined subject Title of Monitoring g Report)D ) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) to the approval of the by the City of Hunting- ton Beach Department of Public Works. (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) CON-22 All structures must be Remediation Con- During Reme- City of Hunting- City of Huntington cleaned of hazardous tractor diation ton Beach De- Beach Planning materials prior to off- partment of Pub- Department site transportation, or lic Works/Fire (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) hauled off-site as a Department waste in accordance with applicable regula- tions. (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency)" (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency): (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) City of Huntington Beach 41 August 22, 2005 Seawater Desalination Project at Huntington Beach MITIGATION MONITORING Recirculated EIR No. 00-02 AND REPORTING CHECKLIST (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) CON-23 Structure removal op- Remediation Con- Prior to Reme- City of Hunting- City of Huntington erations shall comply tractor diation ton Beach De- Beach Planning with all regulations and partment of Pub- Department standards of the lic Works/ (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) SCAQMD. SCAQMD (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency), (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency). (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency)F (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) CON-24 The contractor shall Remediation Con- Prior to Reme- City of Hunting- City of Huntington post signs prior to tractor diation ton Beach Plan- Beach Planning commencing remedia- ning Depart- Department City of Huntington Beach 42 August 22, 2005 Seawater Desalination Project at Huntington Beach MITIGATION MONITORING Recirculated EIR No.00-02 AND REPORTING CHECKLIST (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature Date of Monitoring Agency) tion, alerting the public ment/Departmen to the site cleanup op- t of Public Works erations in progress. The size, wording and (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) placement of these signs shall be reviewed and approved by the City of Huntington (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) Beach Departments of Planning and Public Works. (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) .. (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency)„: (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) •• CON-25 Any unrecorded or un- Construction Con- During Reme- City of Hunting- City of Huntington known wells uncovered tractor diation/Con- ton Beach Fire Beach Planning during the excavation struction Department/ Department or grading process DOGGR (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) shall be immediately reported to and coordi- nated with the City of Huntington Beach Fire (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) Department and State Division of Oil, Gas, and Geothermal Re- (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) sources(DOGGR). City of Huntington Beach 43 August 22, 2005 Seawater Desalination Project at Huntington Beach MITIGATION MONITORING Recirculated EIR No. 00-02 AND REPORTING CHECKLIST (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) CON-26 During remediation, if Remediation Con- During Reme- City of Hunting- City of Huntington any soil were found to tractor diation ton Beach De- Beach Planning be hazardous due to partment of Pub- Department contamination other lic Works/Fire (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) than petroleum hydro- Department carbons, it would be segregated, stockpiled, and handled sepa- (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) rately. (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) City of Huntington Beach 44 August 22, 2005 Seawater Desalination Project at Huntington Beach MITIGATION MONITORING Recirculated EIR No. 00-02 AND REPORTING CHECKLIST (Title of Monitoring Report) - (SignatureiDate of Monitoring Agency) (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) CON-27 Dust and volatile or- Construction Con- During Con- City of Hunting- City of Huntington ganic emissions from tractor struction ton Beach De- Beach Planning excavation activities partment of Pub- Department shall be controlled lic Works/ (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) through water spray or RWQCB/ by employing other ap- SCAQMD proved vapor suppres- sants including hy- (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) dromulch spray in ac- cordance with Regional Water Quality Control (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) Board(RWQCB)Waste Discharge Require- ments and the South Coast Air Quality Man- (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) agement District (SCAQMD) permit con- ditions. (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) (Title of Monitoring Report) (SignatureiDate of Monitoring Agency) (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) City of Huntington Beach 45 August 22, 2005 Seawater Desalination Project at Huntington Beach MITIGATION MONITORING Recirculated EIR No. 00-02 AND REPORTING CHECKLIST CON-28 Prior to the excavation Construction Con- Prior to Pipe- County of Or- City of Huntington process for pipeline tractor line Construc- ange Integrated Beach Planning construction, the con- tion Waste Manage- Department tractor shall coordinate ment Depart- (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) with the County of Or- ment ange's Integrated Waste Management Department in order to (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date Of Monitoring Agency) ensure that proposed pipeline construction does not impact drain- (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) age of the former Can- nery Street Landfill. (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) (Title of Monitoring Report) (SignaturelDate of Monitoring Agency) (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) CON-29 Methane migration fea- Project Engineer Plan Review City of Hunting- City of Huntington tures would be consis- ton Beach De- Beach Planning tent with the require- partment of Pub- Department ments of the City of lic Works/Or- (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) Huntington Beach ange County Specification Number Health Care 429 and other applica- Agency ble state and federal (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Data of Monitoring Agency) regulations. The meth- ane migration features City of Huntington Beach 46 August 22, 2005 Seawater Desalination Project at Huntington Beach MITIGATION MONITORING Recirculated EIR No. 00-02 AND REPORTING CHECKLIST shall be submitted for (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) review and approval to the Orange County Health Care Agency (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) (OCHCA), Environ- mental Health Division. (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) CON-30 Studies to evaluate the Landfill Gas Con- Prior to Pipe- City of Hunting- City of Huntington potential for landfill gas sultant line Construc- ton Beach De- Beach Planning (LFG) generation and tion partment of Pub- Department migration would be lic Works/Fire (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) completed prior to im- Department/ plementation of the pro- SCAQMD/ posed water delivery OCHCA/ component of the pro- RWQCB (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) ject. Appropriate miti- gation measures would be coordinated with the (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) South Coast Air Quality Management District, Solid Waste Local En- forcement Agency, Re- (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) gional Water Quality Control Board, and the City of Huntington (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoing Agency) Beach Fire Depart- ment. Mitigation City of Huntington Beach 47 August 22, 2005 Seawater Desalination Project at Huntington Beach MITIGATION MONITORING Recirculated EIR No. 00-02 AND REPORTING CHECKLIST measures could entail (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) active or passive ex- traction of LFG to con- trol surface and off-site (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) migration and passive barriers with vent layers and alarm systems be- low trenches and within (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) 1,000 feet of the former Cannery Street Landfill boundary. A compre- Title of Monitoring g Report) p ) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) hensive monitoring network would be es- tablished along the pipeline alignment ad- jacent to the landfill. Periodic monitoring of the monitoring network would be performed. City of Huntington Beach 48 August 22, 2005 Seawater Desalination Project at Huntington Beach MITIGATION MONITORING Recirculated EIR No. 00-02 AND REPORTING CHECKLIST CON-31 A Traffic Management Appli- Two Weeks City of Hunting- City of Huntington Plan (TMP) shall be cant/Construction Prior to Pipe- ton Beach De- Beach Planning prepared and imple- Contractor line Construc- partment of Pub- Department mented to the satisfac- tion/ During lic Works/ Af- (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) tion of the affected ju- Construction fected Jurisdic- risdiction within which tion the facilities are to be' (Title of Monitoring Report) (Si nature/Date of Monitoring Agency) constructed when the g g g y) facilities are to be lo- cated where construc- tion would affect road- ways. The TMP shall (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) include, but not be lim- ited to, the following measures. (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) • Limit construction to one side of the road or out of the roadbed where possible (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Data of Monitoring Agency) • Provision of con- tinued access to com- mercial and residential (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) properties adjacent to construction sites; • Provide alternate bicycle routes and pe- (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) destrian paths where existing paths/ routes are disrupted by con- (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) struction activities, if any; City of Huntington Beach 49 August 22, 2005 Seawater Desalination Project at Huntington Beach MITIGATION MONITORING Recirculated EIR No. 00-02 AND REPORTING CHECKLIST • Submit a truck (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Dateof Monitoring Agency) routing plan, for ap- proval by the City of Huntington Beach, County, and other re- sponsible public agen- cies in order to mini- mize impacts from truck traffic during material delivery and disposal; • Where construc- tion is proposed for two-lane roadways, confine construction to one-half of the pave- ment width. Establish one lane of traffic on the other half of the roadway using appro- priate construction signage and flagmen, or submit a detour plan for approval by the City Traffic Engineer; • The Traffic Man- agement Plan shall be approved by affected agencies at least two weeks prior to con- struction. Per Caltrans requirements, the ap- plicant shall submit the Traffic Management Plan to Caltrans at the 90-percent design phase; • Construction activi- ties shall, to the extent feasible, be coordi- nated with other con- struction activity taking place in the affected area(s); and • Provide for tempo- rary parking, where necessary, during in- stallation of pipelines within the AES site. City of Huntington Beach 50 August 22, 2005 Seawater Desalination Project at Huntington Beach MITIGATION MONITORING Recirculated EIR No. 00-02 AND REPORTING CHECKLIST CON-32 Prior to initiating the Construction Contrac- Prior to Removal City of Huntington City of Huntington removal of structures for of Structures Beach Department Beach Planning and contaminated ma- and Materials of Public Works Department terials, the contractor (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) must provide evidence that the removal of ma- terials would be subject to a traffic control plan, (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) for review and approval by the by the City of Huntington Beach De- (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) partment of Public Works. The intent of this measure is to minimize the time pe- (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) riod and disruption of heavy-duty trucks. • (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) CON-33 Construction related Construction Contrac- During Construc- City of Huntington City of Huntington activities would be sub- for tion Beach Department Beach Planning ject to, and comply of Public Works/ Department with, standard street County of OrangePlanning and De (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) use requirements im- velopment Ser- posed by the City of vices Department/ Huntington Beach, Affected Jurisdic- County and other public tlon (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) agencies, including the use of flagmen to assist City of Huntington Beach 51 August 22, 2005 Seawater Desalination Project at Huntington Beach MITIGATION MONITORING Recirculated EIR No. 00-02 AND REPORTING CHECKLIST with haul truck ingress (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) and egress of construc- tion areas and limiting the large size vehicles (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) to off-peak commute traffic periods. (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) CON-34 The Contractor shall Construction Con- Prior to Pipe- City of Hunting- City of Huntington obtain the necessary tractor line Construc- ton Beach De- Beach Planning right-of-way encroach- tion partment of Pub- Department ment permits and sat- lic Works/Af- (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) isfy all permit require- fected Jurisdic- ments. Nighttime con- tion struction may be per- formed in congested (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) areas. Also, any night- time construction activi- ties shall have prior ap- (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) proval by the City of Huntington Beach De- partment of Public Works. (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) City of Huntington Beach 52 August 22, 2005 Seawater Desalination Project at Huntington Beach MITIGATION MONITORING Recirculated EIR No. 00-02 AND REPORTING CHECKLIST (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) CON-35 During periods of heavy Construction Con- During Con- City of Hunting- City of Huntington equipment access or tractor struction ton Beach De- Beach Planning truck hauling, the Con- partment of Pub- Department tractor would provide lic Works/Af- (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) construction traffic fected Jurisdic- signage and a con- tion struction traffic flagman to control construction Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) and general project traffic at points of in- gress and egress and (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) along roadways that require a lane closure. (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) City of Huntington Beach 53 August 22, 2005 Seawater Desalination Project at Huntington Beach MITIGATION MONITORING Recirculated EIR No. 00-02 AND REPORTING CHECKLIST (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) CON-36 The Applicant shall Applicant Prior to Issu- City of Hunting- City of Huntington coordinate with the De- ance of Grad- ton Beach De- Beach Planning partment of Public ing/Building partment of Pub- Department Works, Traffic Engi- Permit lic Works (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) neering Division in de- veloping a truck and construction vehicle routing plan. This plan (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) shall include the ap- proximate number of truck trips and the pro- (Title of Monitoring Report) p ) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) posed truck haul routes. It shall specify the hours in which transport activities Can (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) occur and methods to mitigate construction related impacts to adja- (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) cent residents and the surrounding area. The plan shall take into consideration any Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monito ng Agency) street improvement construction occurring in the vicinity, These (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) plans must be submit- ted for approval to the Department of Public Works. (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) CON-37 Prior to construction on Project Biologist Prior to OC-44 County of Or- City of Huntington the proposed OC-44 Pump Station ange Planning Beach Planning booster pump station Construction and Develop- Department site, three focused ment Services (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) coastal California gnat- Department/ catcher surveys shall USFWS City of Huntington Beach 54 August 22, 2005 Seawater Desalination Project at Huntington Beach MITIGATION MONITORING Recirculated EIR No. 00-02 AND REPORTING CHECKLIST be performed for the (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) site in accordance with USFWS protocols, preferably during the (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) gnatcatcher breeding season. Should the species be observed on or adjacent to the site, (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) consultation and per- mitting through the USFWS would be re- (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) quired. (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring.Agency) (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) CON-38 Prior to construction on Project Biologist Prior to OC-44 County of Or- City of Huntington the proposed OC-44 Pump Station ange Planning Beach Planning booster pump station Construction and Develop- Department site, eight focused least ment Services (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) Bell's vireo surveys Department/ shall be performed for USFWS the off-site under- ground booster pump (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) station (at least 10 days apart during the vireo nesting season of April (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) and July)in accordance with USFWS protocols. Should the species be observed on or adja- (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) cent to the site, consul- tation and permitting City of Huntington Beach 55 August 22, 2005 Seawater Desalination Project at Huntington Beach MITIGATION MONITORING Recirculated EIR No. 00-02 AND REPORTING CHECKLIST through the USFWS (Titfe of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) would be required. This measure may not be necessary if con- (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) struction phasing can avoid the vireo nesting season. (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) CON-39 Prior to construction on Project Biologist Prior to OC-44 County of Or- City of Huntington the proposed OC-44 Pump Station ange Planning Beach Planning booster pump station, a Construction and Develop- Department qualified biologist shall ment Services (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) perform a habitat as- Depart- sessment for the south- ment/CDFG western pond turtle at the pump station site. (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) If habitat for this spe- cies is observed, a trapping program would (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) be implemented to de- termine the presence or absence of these spe- cies. If present, pond (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) turtles must be trapped and relocated prior to the start of construc- (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) tion. (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) City of Huntington Beach 56 August 22, 2005 Seawater Desalination Project at Huntington Beach MITIGATION MONITORING Recirculated EIR No. 00-02 AND REPORTING CHECKLIST (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) CON-40 A survey for active rap- Project Biologist 30 Days Prior County of Or- City of Huntington for nests shall be per- to OC-44 ange Planning Beach Planning formed by a qualified Pump Station and Develop- Department biologist 30 days prior Construction ment Services (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) to the commencement Depart- of construction activi- ment/CDFG ties on the OC-44 pro- posed booster pump (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) station site. Any occu- pied nests discovered during survey efforts (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) shall be mapped on construction plans for the site. If recom- mended by the biolo- (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) gist, restrictions on construction activities may be required in the (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) vicinity of the nest until the nest is no longer active. (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) CON-41 Prior to the com- Applicant Prior to Com- City of Hunting- City of Huntington mencement of any di- mencement of ton Beach De- Beach Planning rectional boring for wa- Directional partment of Pub- Department City of Huntington Beach 57 August 22, 2005 Seawater Desalination Project at Huntington Beach MITIGATION MONITORING Recirculated EIR No. 00-02 AND REPORTING CHECKLIST ter conveyance pipeline Boring lic Works (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) implementation, the applicant shall prepare a Frac-Out Contin- (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) gency Plan. The plan shall establish criteria under which a bore would be shut down (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) (e.g., loss of pressure, loss of a certain amount of returns) and (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) the number of times a single bore should be allowed to frac-out be- fore the bore is shut (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) down and reevaluated. It would also clearly state what measures (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) would be taken to seal previous frac-outs that have occurred on a given bore to ensure (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) that it does not become the path of least resis- tance for subsequent (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) frac-outs. Additionally, the site-specific Frac- Out Contingency Plan (Title Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date a/Date of Monitoring Agency) would be prepared and reviewed by the City Engineer and appropri- ate resource agencies prior to each major bore. CON-42 In order to minimize Project Biologist Prior to De- City of Hunting- City of Huntington potential construction salination Fa- ton Beach Plan- Beach Planning impacts to nesting sa- cility Construc- ning Depart- Department vannah sparrows adja- tion ment/CDFG (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) cent to the proposed desalination facility, a pre-construction nest- ing survey would be (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) performed by a quali- fied biologist in consul- tation with applicable (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) regulatory agencies. Should nesting savan- City of Huntington Beach 58 August 22, 2005 Seawater Desalination Project at Huntington Beach MITIGATION MONITORING Recirculated EIR No. 00-02 AND REPORTING CHECKLIST nah sparrows be found, (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) adequate mitigation (such as relocation, construction noise (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) abatement measures, etc.) would be imple- mented as appropriate based on the findings (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature Date of Monitoring Agency) of the pre-construction survey. (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) CON-43 All focused surveys for Project Biologist Prior to OC-44 County of Or- City of Huntington sensitive biological re- Pump Station/ ange Planning Beach Planning sources performed Desalination and Develop- Department prior to proposed pro- Facility Con- ment Services (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) ject implementation struction Depart- shall include a review ment/CDFG of data within the Cali- fornia Natural Diversity (Title of Monitoring Repot) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) Data Base (CNDDB) to obtain current informa- tion on any previously (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) reported sensitive spe- cies/habitat, including Significant Natural Ar- eas identified under (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) Chapter 12 of the Fish and Game Code. (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) City of Huntington Beach 59 August 22, 2005 Seawater Desalination Project at Huntington Beach MITIGATION MONITORING Recirculated EIR No. 00-02 AND REPORTING CHECKLIST (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring.Agency) (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) CON-44 Prior to implementation Regulatory Special- Prior to Pump County of Or- City of Huntington of the proposed off-site ist Station Con- ange Planning Beach Planning OC-44 booster pump struction and Develop- Department station adjacent to the ment Services (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) NCCP/HCP boundary, Department/ a jurisdictional delinea- CDFG/USACOE tion of the proposed pump station site shall (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) be performed to deter- mine the extent of ju- risdictional area, if any, (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) as part of the regulatory permitting process. (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) (Title of Monitoring Report) - (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) City of Huntington Beach 60 August 22, 2005 Seawater Desalination Project at Huntington Beach MITIGATION MONITORING Recirculated EIR No. 00-02 AND REPORTING CHECKLIST CON-45 Should buried histori- Project Archaeolo- During Exca- County of Or- City of Huntington cal/archaeological re- gist vation for ange Planning Beach Planning sources be discovered Pump Station and Develop- Department during excavation on (Five Feet ment Services (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) the proposed OC-44 Below Ground Department booster pump station Surface or site, all construction Lower) work in that area shall (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) be halted or diverted until a qualified archae- ologist can evaluate the (Tile of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) nature and significance of the finds. (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency). (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) CON-46 During excavation of Project Paleontolo- During Exca- County of Or- City of Huntington five feet below ground gist vation for ange Planning Beach Planning surface or lower on the Pump Station and Develop- Department OC44 proposed (Five Feet ment Services booster pump station Below Ground Department site, a paleontological Surface or resource recovery pro- Lower) gram for Miocene inver- tebrate fossils shall be implemented. This program shall include, but would not be limited to,the following: City of Huntington Beach 61 August 22, 2005 Seawater Desalination Project at Huntington Beach MITIGATION MONITORING Recirculated EIR No. 00-02 AND REPORTING CHECKLIST • Monitoring of ex- cavation in areas identi- fied as likely to contain paleontologic resources by a qualified paleon- tologic monitor. The monitor shall be equipped to salvage fossils as they are un- earthed to avoid con- struction delays and to remove samples of sediments, which are likely to contain the re- mains of small fossil in- vertebrates and verte- brates. The monitor must me empowered to temporarily halt or di- vert equipment to allow removal of abundant or large specimens. Monitoring may be re- duced if the potentially fossiliferous units de- scribed herein are not encountered, or upon exposure are deter- mined following exami- nation by qualified pa- leontologic personnel to have low potential to contain fossil re- sources; Preparation of re- covered specimens to a point of identification and permanent preser- vation, including wash- ing of sediments to re- cover small inverte- brates and vertebrates; • Identification and curation of specimens into a museum reposi- tory with permanent re- trievable storage. The paleontologist should City of Huntington Beach 62 August 22, 2005 Seawater Desalination Project at Huntington Beach MITIGATION MONITORING Recirculated EIR No. 00-02 AND REPORTING CHECKLIST have a written reposi- tory agreement in hand prior to the initiation of mitigation activities; and • Preparation of a report of findings with appended itemized in- ventory of specimens. The report and inven- tory, when submitted to the appropriate Lead Agency, would signify completion of the pro- gram to mitigate im- pacts to paleontologic resources. CON-47 A qualified paleontolo- Project Paleontolo- During Grad- City of Hunting- City of Huntington gist shall be retained to gist ing ton Beach Plan- Beach Planning monitor grading opera- ning Department Department tions at the proposed desalination facility site, and, if necessary, to salvage scientifically significant fossil re- mains. The paleon- tologist shall have the authority to temporarily divert or direct grading efforts to allow evalua- tion and any salvage of exposed fossils. 5.10 OCEAN WATER QUALITY AND MARINE BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES None required. 5.11 PRODUCT WATER QUALITY PW-1 Prior to project opera- Applicant Prior to Project California De- City of Huntington tions, the applicant Operations partment of Beach Planning shall obtain all required Health Services Department drinking water permits from the California De- partment of Health Ser- vices. These permits are anticipated to con- sist of: City of Huntington Beach 63 August 22, 2005 Seawater Desalination Project at Huntington Beach MITIGATION MONITORING Recirculated EIR No. 00-02 AND REPORTING CHECKLIST • A Wholesale Drink- ing Water Permit; and • An Administrative Change to Retail Agen- cies' Drinking Water Permit (to include de- salinated water from the proposed project as an approved source of supply for their agency). PW-2 During final design of Applicant During Final City of Hunting- City of Huntington the proposed project, Design ton Beach De- Beach Planning the applicant shall in- partment of Pub- Department corporate the following lic six provisions to protect Works/California water quality in the Department of event of "non-routine" Health Services operations at the HBGS (defined as operations such as seawater emergency intake pump shut downs and failures, electricity equipment malfunc- tions, excessively high temperature of the cooling water,etc.): • Automatic control interlock between HBGS pumps and de- salination facility intake pumps: The shutdown controls of the desali- nation facility intake pumps shall be inter- locked with the HBGS pumps, so when HBGS pump operation is dis- continued to prepare for heat treatment, non- routine or even routine pump shutdown, this would automatically trigger an alarm at the desalination facility along with shutdown of City of Huntington Beach 64 August 22, 2005 Seawater Desalination Project at Huntington Beach MITIGATION MONITORING Recirculated EIR No. 00-02 AND REPORTING CHECKLIST the desalination intake pumps. After this emergency shutdown, the intake pumps shall be started up manually, and the operations staff would be required to check the reason of shutdown with the HBGS staff before re- starting the treatment facility intake pumps. • Continuous Intake Pump Flow Measure- ment Devices: Sea- water intake pumps shall be equipped with flowmeters, which would record the pumped flow continu- ously. If the intake flow is discontinued for any reason, including non- routine HBGS opera- tions, automatic intake pump shutdown shall occur. • Continuous Intake Water Temperature Measurement Devices: The desalination facility intake pump station shall be equipped with instrumentation for con- tinuous measurement of the intake tempera- ture. Any fluctuations of the intake tempera- ture outside preset normal limits shall trig- ger alarm and intake pump shutdown. This monitoring equipment shall provide additional protection against heat treatment or other un- usual intake water qual- ity conditions. City of Huntington Beach 65 August 22, 2005 Seawater Desalination Project at Huntington Beach MITIGATION MONITORING Recirculated EIR No. 00-02 AND REPORTING CHECKLIST • Continuous Intake Water Salin- ity/Conductivity Meas- urement Devices: The desalination facility in- take pump station shall be equipped with in- strumentation for con- tinuous measurement of the intake seawater salinity. Any fluctua- tions of the intake salin- ity outside preset nor- mal operational limits shall trigger an alarm and initiate intake pump shutdown. This moni- toring equipment shall provide additional pro- tection against dis- charge of unusual fresh water/surface water streams in the facility outfall. • Continuous Intake Water Oil Spill/Leak Detection Monitoring Devices: The desalina- tion facility intake pump station shall be equipped with instru- mentation for oil spill/leak detection. Detection of oil in the intake water even in concentrations lower than 0.5 mg/L shall automatically trigger an alarm and initiate intake pump shutdown. This monitoring equipment shall provide additional protection against un- usual intake water qual- ity conditions. Routine Communi- cation with HBGS Staff: The desalination facility City of Huntington Beach 66 August 22, 2005 Seawater Desalination Project at Huntington Beach MITIGATION MONITORING Recirculated EIR No. 00-02 AND REPORTING CHECKLIST staff of each shift shall be required to contact HBGS personnel at least once per shift and enquire about unusual planned or unplanned events at the HBGS. If non-routine operations are planned at the HBGS, the desalination facility shall modify de- salination facility opera- tions accordingly. PW-3 During project opera- Applicant During Project City of Hunting- City of Huntington tions, the RO mem- Operations ton Beach De- Beach Planning brane system shall be partment of Pub- Department continuously monitored lic for feed seawater and Works/California permeate conductivity Department of and the differential Health Services pressure through the membranes. If perme- ate salinity (i.e. total dissolved solids) con- centration exceeds the design level, mem- branes shall be cleaned to recover their original performance capabili- ties. PW-4 Prior to project opera- Applicant Prior to Project City of Hunting- City of Huntington tions, the desalination Operations ton Beach De- Beach Planning facility operations staff partment of Pub- Department shall develop an earth- lic Works quake mitigation and preparedness plan, which shall be coordi- nated with the City of Huntington Beach. This plan shall define coordination measures to assure continuous plant operations and water delivery under earthquake emergency conditions. City of Huntington Beach 67 August 22, 2005 Seawater Desalination Project at Huntington Beach MITIGATION MONITORING Recirculated EIR No. 00-02 AND REPORTING CHECKLIST PW-5 Prior to project opera- Applicant Prior to Project City of Hunting- City of Huntington tions, a corrosion moni- Operations ton Beach De- Beach Planning toring system shall be partment of Pub- Department installed in the pro- lic posed transmission Works/California pipeline at points of in- Department of terconnection with the Health Services existing water distribu- tion system to ensure that the proposed cor- rosion control meas- ures are effective and adequate. PW-6 To protect against po- Applicant Prior to Project City of Hunting- City of Huntington tential taste and odor Operations ton Beach De- Beach Planning problems associated partment of Pub- Department with the startup of facil- lic ity operations, a se- Works/California quential rinsing pro- Department of gram shall be initiated Health Services just prior to project startup that shall be coordinated with the in- volved water agencies to minimize any sedi- ment disturbance that might occur due to flow reversal in a portion of the existing distribution system. City of Huntington Beach 68 August 22, 2005 Seawater Desalination Project at Huntington Beach MITIGATION MONITORING Recirculated EIR No. 00-02 AND REPORTING CHECKLIST PW-7 Prior to project opera- Applicant Prior to Project County of Or- City of Huntington tions, a sampling loca- Operations ange Planning Beach Planning tion shall be estab- and Develop- Department lished near the physical ment Services connection of the Depart- transmission pipeline to ment/California the OC-44 feeder. A Department of monitoring program Health Services shall be implemented for this location incor- porating the following parameters: coliform bacteria, heterotrophic bacteria, chlorine re- sidual, disinfection by- products, and aesthetic parameters such as turbidity, odor, and color, as well as corro- sion indices. PW-8 Prior to project opera- Applicant Prior to Project City of Hunting- City of Huntington tions, additional model- Operations ton Beach De- Beach Planning ing shall be performed partment of Pub- Department to confirm that the pro- lic posed project shall not Works/Affected have pressure surge Jurisdiction impacts upon the exist- ing regional water dis- tribution.system. The model shall recom- mend appropriate facili- ties to prevent pressure surges, such as • Incorporation of pressurized surge tanks at booster pump station locations; • Vacuum relief and air release valve im- provements; • Hydraulically oper- ated isolation valves; • Elimination of ex- isting valves; and/or • Pressure control valve improvements. City of Huntington Beach 69 August 22, 2005 Seawater Desalination Project at Huntington Beach MITIGATION MONITORING Recirculated EIR No. 00-02 AND REPORTING CHECKLIST PW-9 Prior to project opera- Applicant Prior to Project Affected Jurisdic- City of Huntington tions, the applicant Operations tion Beach Planning shall coordinate with Department and obtain approval as required from applica- ble local water agen- cies that own and op- erate the distribution system in which the desalinated water would come in contact with. Various operating approvals and corre- sponding agreements shall be signed before the desalinated water is introduced into the local distributions stem. City of Huntington Beach 70 August 22, 2005 Res. No. 2005-62 STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss: CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ) I, JOAN L. FLYNN the duly elected, qualified City Clerk of the City of Huntington Beach, and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of said City, do hereby certify that the whole number of members of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach is seven; that the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted by the affirmative vote of at least a majority of all the members of said City Council at an regular meeting thereof held on the 6th day of September, 2005 by the following vote: AYES: Hansen, Coerper, Green, Bohr NOES: Sullivan, Hardy, Cook ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None Ci Clerk and ex-officio Vlerk of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach, California ATTACHMENT 2 Final Recirculated Environmental Impact Report No. 00-02, Technical Appendices, Response to Comments and Errata Are available for review in the Department of Planning and the City Clerk's Office 2000 Main St., Huntington Beach ATTACHMENT 3 Council/Agency Meeting Held: Deferred/Continued to: ❑Approved ❑ Conditionally Approved ❑ Denied City Clerk's Signature Council Meeting Date: November 17, 2003 Department ID Number: PL03-30 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH REQUEST FOR ACTION SUBMITTED TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS w o z SUBMITTED BY: RAY SILVER, City AdministratorXF& C yam=+ I o::;-<< � <C PREPARED BY: HOWARD ZELEFSKY, Director of Planning ' `— SUBJECT: CERTIFY ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 00-02 (POSEIDON SEAWATER DESALINATION PLANT) -APPEA]ff �003 Statement of Issue,Funding Source,Recommended Action,Alternative Action(s),Analysis,Environmental Status,Attachment(s) Statement of Issue: Transmitted` for your consideration is .an appeal by Mayor Boardman of the .Planning Commission's certification of Environmental Impact Report (EIR) No. 00-02. This application represents a request by Poseidon Resources Corporation to analyze the potential environmental impacts associated with a request to construct a 50 million gallons per day seawater desalination plant on an approximately 11 acre site. The project also includes up to 10 miles of water transmission lines to connect to an existing regional transmission system, and two off-site booster pump stations. The Planning Commission certified the EIR and staff is recommending the City Council also certify the EIR because it adequately analyzes the potential environmental impacts associated with the project and identifies project alternatives and mitigation measures to lessen the .project's impacts consistent with General Plan policies. Mayor Boardman appealed the Planning Commission's ,action on.the basis that the EIR does not adequately analyze the project's impacts . relative to ocean water quality, marine biology, growth inducement, and the adjacent wetland. Funding Source: Not applicable. Recommended Action: PLANNING COMMISSION AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Motion to: "Certify EIR No. 00-02 as adequate and complete in accordance with CEQA requirements by approving Resolution No;03-%-;L, (Attachment No. 1)." REQUEST FOR ACTION ETING DATE: November 17, 2003 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PL03-30 Iternative Action(s): "he City Council may make.the.following alternative motion(s): 1. "Deny certification of EIR No. 00-02." (Appellant's Request) '2. "Continue the appeal of EIR No. 00-02 and direct staff accordingly." Planning Commission Actions: Planning Commission Action on May 27, 2003: THE MOTION MADE BY RAY, SECONDED BY SHOMAKER, TO CONTINUE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 00-02 CARRIED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: DAVIS, STANTON, KOKAL, SHOMAKER, DINGWALL, RAY NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE ABSTAIN: NONE MOTION PASSED Planning Commission Action on June 3, 2003. THE MOTION MADE BY DAVIS, SECONDED BY SHOMAKER, TO REOPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING ON ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 00-02 AND COMBINE WITH THE PUBLIC HEARING ON CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 02-04 AND COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 02-05 CARRIED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: DAVIS, STANTON, KOKAL, SHOMAKER, RAY NOES: DINGWALL ABSENT: NONE ABSTAIN: NONE MOTION PASSED THE MOTION MADE BY DAVIS, SECONDED BY SHOMAKER, TO CERTIFY ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 00-02 AS ADEQUATE AND COMPLETE IN ACCORDANCE WITH CEQA REQUIREMENTS BY APPROVING RESOLUTION NO. 1581 AND TO INCLUDE LANGUAGE TO MITIGATE CONCERNS ISSUED BY THE IRVINE RANCH WATER DISTRICT RELATED TO SODIUM AND CHLORIDE CONTENTS: AYES: DAVIS, STANTON, SHOMAKER NOES: KOKAL, DINGWALL, RAY 'ABSENT: NONE 13STAIN: NONE TION FAILED -2- 10/31/2003$:19 AM REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: November 17, 2003 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PL03-30 THE MOTION MADE BY DINGWALL TO CONTINUE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT.NO.:00- 02WITH .PUBLIC HEARING .CLOSED TO JULY 8, 2003 WITH ISSUES IDENTIFIED.:BY THE . .COMMISSION FOR STAFF RESPONSE ON JULY 8, 2003. WITH NO SECOND, MOTION FAILED THE MOTION MADE BY DINGWALL, SECONDED BY RAY, TO CONTINUE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 00-02 WITH PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED TO JULY 8, 2003 WITH ISSUES IDENTIFIED BY THE COMMISSION FOR STAFF RESPONSE ON JULY 8, 2003. AYES: KOKAL, DINGWALL, RAY NOES: DAVIS, STANTON, SHOMAKER ABSENT: NONE ABSTAIN: NONE MOTION FAILED THE MOTION MADE BY SHOMAKER, SECONDED BY. RAY, TO CONTINUE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 00-02 WITH PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED TO JULY 8, 2003 WITH ISSUES IDENTIFIED BY.THE COMMISSION FOR STAFF RESPONSE ON.JULY 8, 2003 CARRIED..BY.THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: STANTON, KOKAL, SHOMAKER, DINGWALL, RAY NOES: DAVIS ABSENT: NONE ABSTAIN: NONE MOTION PASSED Planning Commission Action on July 8, 2003: THE MOTION MADE BY KOKAL TO DENY CERTIFICATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT_ REPORT NO. 00-02 -AS ADEQUATE AND COMPLETE IN ACCORDANCE WITH CEQA REQUIREMENTS. - WITH NO SECOND, MOTION FAILED THE MOTION MADE BY STANTON, SECONDED BY DAVIS, TO CERTIFY ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 00-02 AS ADEQUATE AND COMPLETE IN ACCORDANCE WITH CEQA REQUIREMENTS BY APPROVING RESOLUTION NO. 1581 WITH THE FOLLOWING MODIFICATIONS TO THE ERRATA: 1) ADDING LANGUAGE THAT STATES ADDITIONAL EIR OR EQUIVALENT WILL BE REQUIRED IF THE AES FACILITY CEASES TO OPERATE; 2) CORRECT MISINFORMATION RELATED TO THE CALIFORNIA STATE LANDS COMMISSION LAND LEASE WITH AES HUNTINGTON BEACH, LLC, CARRIED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: DAVIS, SCANDURA, STANTON, SHOMAKER NOES: KOKAL, DINGWALL, RAY ABSENT: NONE PL03-30 3 -3- 10/31/2003 a;19 AM REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: November 17, 2003 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PL03-30 ABSTAIN: NONE MOTION PASSED Plannin4 Commission Action on July 22, 2003: THE MOTION WAS MADE BY DAVIS, SECONDED BY DINGWALL, TO RECONSIDER ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 00-02 AT THE AUGUST 12, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING CARRIED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: DAVIS, KOKAL, DINGWALL, RAY NOES: SCANDURA, STANTON, SHOMAKER ABSENT: NONE ABSTAIN: NONE MOTION PASSED THE MOTION WAS MADE BY DAVIS, SECONDED BY SHOMAKER, FOR STAFF TO PREPARE RESPONSES TO THE FOLLOWING ISSUES: 1) CONTRACT AN INDEPENDENT CONSULTANT TO VERIFY SALINITY LEVELS AND DILUTION MODELS PROPOSED IN EIR NO. 00-02; 2) PROVIDE_GENERAL SALINITY INFORMATION ON THE SOUTHERN CALIFORNIABIGHTAND:. HOW IT.AFFECTS.HUNTINGTON BEACH AND AREA SEA ORGANISMS' 3) CONTRACT AN INDEPENDENT CONSULTANT TO VERIFY MODELING RELATED TO OCEAN INTAKE THAT IS DISCHARGED BY THE ORANGE COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT; AND, 4)VERIFY AES PUMP FIGURES, CARRIED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: DAVIS, SCANDURA, STANTON, KOKAL, SHOMAKER, DINGWALL, RAY NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE ABSTAIN: NONE MOTION PASSED THE MOTION WAS MADE BY KOKAL, SECONDED BY RAY, DIRECTING STAFF TO PROVIDE INFORMATION ON PUBLIC POLICY.ISSUES TO HELP INFORM THE PUBLIC AND COMMISSION MEMBERS HOW TO UNDERSTAND ITEMS OUTSIDE_ THE SCOPE OF.THEIR JURISDICTION, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: KOKAL, DINGWALL, RAY NOES: DAVIS, SCANDURA, STANTON, SHOMAKER ABSENT: NONE ABSTAIN: NONE MOTION FAILED Planning Commission Action on August 12, 2003: / THE MOTION WAS MADE BY DAVIS, SECONDED BY KOKAL, TO INCORPORATE AND CONSIDER ALL PROJECT-RELATED INFORMATION OR TESTIMONY RECEIVED TO DATE PL03-30 -4- 10/31/2003$:19 AM REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: November 17, 2003 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PL03-30 (MAY 27, JUNE 3, JULY 8, JULY 22, AND AUGUST 12,2003) PRIOR TO VOTING ON CERTIFICATION OF-EIR 00-02, CARRIED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: . AYES: DAVIS, SCANDURA, STANTON, KOKAL, SHOMAKER, DINGWALL, RAY NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE ABSTAIN: NONE MOTION PASSED A MOTION WAS MADE BY DAVIS, SECONDED BY SCANDURA, TO CERTIFY EIR NO. 00-02 AS ADEQUATE AND COMPLETE IN ACCORDANCE WITH CEQA REQUIREMENTS BY APPROVING RESOLUTION NO. 1582, CARRIED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: DAVIS, SCANDURA, STANTON, SHOMAKER NOES: KOKAL, DINGWALL, RAY ABSENT: NONE ABSTAIN: NONE MOTION PASSED Analysis: A. PROJECT PROPOSAL: Applicant: Poseidon Resources Corporation, 3760 Kilroy Airport Way, #260, Long Beach, CA 90806 Location: 21730 Newland Street (East side of Newland, south of Edison Ave) Environmental Impact Report No. 00-02 represents an analysis of potential environmental impacts associated with the construction of a 50 million gallons per day (MGD) seawater desalination plant including a 10,120 square foot administration building, a 38,090 square foot reverse osmosis building, a 36,305 square foot product water storage. tank,. and miscellaneous accessory structures on an approximately.11 acre site. .The project.includes up to 10 miles of water transmission lines to an existing regional transmission system, and two off-site booster pump stations. The project also proposes perimeter landscaping and fencing along the project's frontage on Newland Street and Edison Avenue. The EIR provides a discussion of impacts by issue area and provides mitigation measures, where appropriate. Specific issue areas discussed in the EIR include: Land Use/Relevant Planning, Geology/Soils/Seismicity, Hydrology and Water Quality, Air Quality, Noise, Public Services and Utilities, Aesthetics/Light and Glare, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, and Construction Related Impacts: = All other issues; : including Population and Housing, Transportation/Traffic, Biological Resources, Mineral Resources, Cultural Resources, Recreation, and Agricultural Resources were determined to result in no environmental impacts or less than significant environmental. impacts. These issue areas were fully PL03-30 -5- 10/31/20038:19 AM REQUEST FOR ACTION . MEETING DATE: November 17, 2003 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PL03-30 evaluated in the Initial Study/Notice of Preparation for the proposed project, which is included as Appendix A to the EIR document. An analysis of alternatives to the proposed project and long-term implications resulting from project implementation are also provided. An analysis of the proposed development of the property is presented in a companion report that will be considered by the City Council after action on the EIR. The companion report reviews applications for Conditional Use Permit No. 02-04 and Coastal Development No. 02- 05. B. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AND RECOMMENDATION: At the May 27, 2003 Planning Commission hearing staff summarized the findings of the EIR. Twenty-one people spoke regarding the project. The majority were opposed to the project citing concerns primarily about impacts to water quality, marine life, the neighborhood, the city's redevelopment efforts, growth inducement, the adjacent wetland, as well the lack of benefits to the city and the use of a public resource by a private party for profit. In addition to the applicant's development team, one other person spoke in favor. The applicant's consultants summarized the results of the hydrodynamic modeling and the analysis of the salinity impacts to the marine biology. The Planning Commission discussed the different jurisdictions involved in the review.and regulation of various aspects of the. project. Staff and RBF Consulting were asked to respond to a variety of questions, including the EIR inadequacies cited by California Earth Corps and how the EIR addresses growth-inducing impacts. The Planning Commission continued the EIR to the June 3, 2003 meeting and directed staff to respond to a variety of issues. At the June 3, 2003 hearing, staff and RBF Consulting responded to several primary issues raised at the last meeting including: ■ an analysis of the pipeline connection between AES and the proposed desalination plant; • CEQA requirements for baseline thresholds; ■ land.use analysis; effects of trace compounds in discharge water; ■ CEQA review for the AES generating station; and ■ California Earth Corps 14 areas of concern with the EIR (see Attachment No. 5, June 3, 2003 Staff Report Updates). At the hearing 12 people spoke, six of whom were opposed repeating the same concerns presented at the previous meeting. The applicant presented the project's benefits and the basis for selecting the project site. In addition to the applicant's development team, one other person spoke in favor. Discussion occurred regarding a variety of topics including, among others, Irvine Ranch Water District's (IRWD) concerns about the project, the hydrodynamic modeling, and jurisdictional limits. The Planning Commission continued the EIR to the July 8, 2003 meeting with .the public hearing closed and directed staff to respond to a variety of issues. PL03-30 -6- 6 10/31/2003 8:19 AM REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: November 17, 2003 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PL03-30 At the July 8, 2003 meeting staff and RBF Consulting responded to issues.identified by the Planning Commission at the last meeting including: ■ AES heat treatment/reverse flow process; • growth inducement (end users); ■ AES entrainment/impingement study; ■ NPDES review of AES discharge; • leakage from AES discharge vault; ■ growth inducement discussion in May 8, 2003 Coastal Commission letter; ■ product water compatibility with IRWD; ■ Surfrider National Foundation May 27, 2003 letter; ■ impacts of project on future restored adjacent wetland; ■ archaeological resources within the project boundary; and ■ growth inducement in regards to Santa Margarita Water District and the Rancho Mission Viejo, Saddle Creek, Saddle Crest, and Saddleback Meadow developments. Discussion ensued regarding a variety of subjects including, among others, CEQA requirements and lead agency, responsibilities, the heat treatment process, entrainment, impingement, bacteria.levels in.the ocean, and the dynamics of the ocean, `The Planning Commission then certified the EIR. At the July 22, 2003 meeting Commissioner Davis requested that the EIR be reconsidered due to inaccurate information provided by the applicant regarding salinity levels and historic AES flows. Discussion ensued regarding the appropriateness of a reconsideration, what issues are to be discussed during the reconsideration, and the impacts to the appeal already filed to the City Council. The Planning Commission voted to reconsider the EIR at the August 12, 2003 meeting and directed staff as follows: ■ contract an independent consultant to verify salinity levels and dilution models proposed in the-EIR; ■ provide general salinity information on the Southern California bight and how it affects Huntington Beach and area sea organisms;. • contract an independent consultant to verify modeling related to ocean intake that is discharged by the Orange County Sanitation District; and ■ verify AES pump figures At the August 12, 2003 meeting staff presented a response to the items requested by the Planning Commission. Twelve individuals spoke at the hearing, six of whom were opposed citing similar reasons noted at prior hearings. In addition to the applicant's development team, four other individuals spoke in favor pointing to the need for a reliable source of water, the current use of desalination_in other places, and the studies that have been done to support the conclusions-of the environmental review. After some discussion, the Planning Commission voted to certify the EIR. Those who voted against certification cited concerns PL03-30 -7- 10/31/2003-8:19 AM REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: November 17, 2003 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PL03-30 about inadequate analysis of entrainment, impingement, growth inducement, bacterial concentration, and alternatives. C. APPEAL: On August 13, 2003, Mayor Boardman filed an appeal of the Planning Commission's certification of the EIR. The basis for the appeal (Attachment No. 4) is the EIR's inadequate analysis of the project's impacts relative to ocean water quality, marine biology, growth inducement, and the adjacent wetland. D. STAFF ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATION: The EIR provides a detailed analysis of potential impacts associated with the proposed project. The issues discussed in the EIR are those that have been identified in the course of extensive review of all potentially significant environmental impacts associated with the project. The direct, indirect and cumulative impacts of the project are addressed, as are the impacts of project alternatives. Through the use of appropriate mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR, all potentially adverse impacts associated with the project can be mitigated to.a level of insignificance, with the.exception of short-term construction related emissions which cannot be completely.eliminated through mitigation measures. The Findings of Fact, as required by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), review each of the impact areas and list the recommended mitigation measures, which are also included in the CEQA mitigation monitoring program (see companion report for Conditional Use Permit and Coastal Development Permit). Staff believes that the EIR is adequate and complies with the requirements of CEQA. The Planning Commission staff reports from May 27, June 3, July 8, and August 12, 2003 (Attachment No. 5) provide a detailed review of the EIR, its history and the various issues raised through the Planning Commission public hearing process. The analysis below focuses on the four issues listed in the appeal letter. Ocean Water Quality and Marine Biology The project's ocean water quality and marine biology impacts are discussed. in Section 4.3, Hydrology and Water Quality, of the EIR. The analysis was based on the following technical studies included in the EIR Technical Appendices, among other information: Hydrodynamic modeling of both source water and receiving water by Dr. Scott Jenkins Consulting; Watershed Sanitary Survey Report by Archibald and Wallberg Consultants; and Marine Biology Analysis by MBC Applied Environmental Sciences. The watershed sanitary survey was conducted to identify all potential sources of contaminants to the desalination plant source water. The hydrodynamic modeling was then performed to determine if stormwater and wastewater are possible constituents of the source water at the AES generating station intake. The modeling considered discharges from the Santa Ana River, Talbert Marsh, Orange County Sanitation District, and the AES generating station outfall. The hydrodynamic modeling looked at a worst-case scenario where a series PL03-30 -8- g 10/31/2003$:19 AM REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: November 17;2003 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PL03-30 of unlikely events would all occur simultaneously (i.e. extreme storm event, AES facility pumping the maximum amount of cooling water, etc.). ..The.analysis concluded that impacts. to the source water are not anticipated to be significant. A second part to the hydrodynamic modeling looked at the mixing and dilution of the concentrated seawater discharge from the desalination plant after it is combined with the AES cooling water and discharged back into the ocean. The modeling again looked at the worst-case scenario which assumes that the AES facility has only two circulating pumps operating (one generating unit running) and that no additional mixing from natural causes such as wind or wave action would occur. The analysis concludes that a maximum of 15.6 acres of ocean floor (benthic area) and 18.3 acres of the water around the discharge (pelagic area) are expected to be exposed to water with a salinity 10 percent higher than the ambient seawater during the worst case scenario. This worst-case scenario has less than a one percent chance of occurring. The model also looked at average conditions with normal power plant operations (four circulating pumps associated with two AES generating units), typical environmental conditions, and desalination plant production of 50 mgd. During this condition, a maximum of 6.5 acres of benthic area (ocean floor) and 8.3 acres of pelagic area (open seas or oceans) are expected to.be .exposed to water with .a salinity 10 percent higher than ambient water. Average case conditions are expected to occur 50 percent of the time the desalination plant is operating. The EIR concludes that the pelagic and benthic areas exposed to a 10 percent increase in salinity as a result of the desalination plant even during the worst-case are relatively small. The EIR builds on the results of the receiving waters modeling by considering the results of the marine biology analysis conducted by MBC Applied Environmental Sciences. The analysis notes that a 10 percent anomaly is within the natural variability of seawater salinity and would be tolerated by most fish and planktonic species. Additionally, mobile species have the ability to avoid areas they cannot tolerate. The analysis also states that benthic (ocean floor) species will have similar salinity tolerances. However, during average conditions the salinity of the.water at the ocean floor, immediately around the discharge will be higher than local normal oceanic variation. This will likely lead to:a replacement of the existing benthic community with estuarine species that can tolerate increased salinity and that will be functionally similar to the existing community. At the request of the Planning Commission, the hydrodynamic modeling was reviewed and verified by Dr. Stanley Grant (see Attachment No. 5, August 12, 2003 Planning Commission Report). In addition, more information on elevated salinity impacts on marine life in the Southern California bight was provided. Staff believes that the EIR and Response to Comments as well as the model verification and additional information provided as a result of the Planning Commission review thoroughly and accurately disclose the potential impacts to ocean water quality and marine biology. - PL03-30 -9- 10/31/2003-8:19 AM REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: November 17, 2003 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PL03-30 Growth Inducement The.project's growth inducing impacts are discussed in Section 5.2, Growth-Inducing Impacts of the Proposed Action, of the EIR. The Poseidon EIR has properly analyzed the projecfs potential growth-inducing impacts by focusing on the relationship between the amount of the new supply that would be available to end users and the water supply demand projections for Orange County and the surrounding area. Based on projections provided by the Department of Water Resources, the EIR concluded (on page 5-6) that it is likely that much of the desalinated water supply produced by. this project will be allocated to replace existing imported water supplies that are lost to increased environmental restrictions and water supply regulations. Still, the EIR also provided an analysis (on page 5-5) that assumed all of the water produced by the desalination plant would be allocated by local water agencies as supplemental supply to support new growth. The calculations in the EIR show that the total amount of water projected to be produced by the desalination plant would equal less than one percent of the total supply for the South Coast Region and less than eight percent of the supply for Orange County. Consequently, the project results in only a nominal addition to regional supplies and even if all the desalinated water were only allocated within Orange County, the project could not supply enough water to keep pace with the long-term projected population growth. Staff believes that the EIR conclusion that the potential growth-inducing impacts of the project are not anticipated to.be significant is supported by an adequate level of analysis in the EIR and Response to Comments. Adjacent Wetland Analysis and mitigation for potential impacts to receptors surrounding the proposed project site (including the adjacent wetland area) are provided throughout the Draft EIR, including Sections 4.3 (marine biology issues associated with water quality) and Section 4.9 (construction-related impacts). The EIR considers the potential impacts of any accidental spill of product or byproduct water from the desalination plant as well as impacts in regards to noise, lighting, air quality, urban runoff/stormwater, erosion, and nesting birds. Additionally, the buffeting provided by the existing concrete containment berm on the project site was also considered. Additional discussion is also provided within Responses.3d and 3h of the Responses to Comments.document. Concerns from the Huntington Beach.Wetlands Conservancy were addressed within Response 13b. Staff believes that the adjacent wetlands were adequately considered in the EIR analysis. E. SUMMARY Environmental Impact Report No. 00-02 serves as an informational document with the sole purpose of identifying potential environmental impacts associated with the Poseidon desalination plant project, alternatives that minimize those impacts, and appropriate mitigation measures. P L03-30 -10- 1611� 10/31/2003$:19 AM REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: November 17, 2003 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PL03-30 Staff recommends that the City Council certify EIR No. 00-02 because: ■ The EIR adequately addresses. the environmental impacts. associated with the proposed project; and ■ Identifies project alternatives and mitigation measures to lessen the project's impacts consistent with General Plan policies. Environmental Status: In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act, RBF Consulting, a consultant hired by the City, prepared EIR No. 00-02 to analyze the potential environmental impacts of the project. The document must be adopted and certified by the City Council prior to any action on Conditional Use Permit No. 02-04 and Coastal Development No. 02-05. The EIR is intended to serve as an informational document for decisions to be made by the City and responsible agencies regarding the proposed project. The EIR analyzes the potential environmental impacts associated with the proposed seawater desalination plant, accessory structures, water transmission lines, and off-site booster pump stations. EIR No. 00-02 discusses potential adverse impacts in the areas of Land Use/Relevant Planning, Geology/Soils/Seismicity, Hydrology and Water Quality, Air Quality, Noise, Public Services. and Utilities, Aesthetics/Light and Glare, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, and Construction Related Impacts. The direct, indirect and cumulative impacts of the proposal are addressed, as are the impacts of project alternatives. 1. Environmental Procedures - The procedure that was followed during preparation of EIR No. 00-02 is outlined below: DATE ACTIVITY May 17, 2001 Staff and RBF conducted an initial study and determined that an EIR would be necessary for the project. May 17, 2001 A Notice of Preparation was sent to responsible agencies and filed with the State Clearinghouse to notify the public of the intent to prepare an EIR. A Notice of Availability was published in the Independent and sent to area property owners within a 2,000 ft. radius as well as interested parties. A 307day public review period was established from May 17,2001 through June 15, 2001. June 6, 2001 A Public Scoping Meeting was held at the Edison Community Center(at 2:30 pm and 7:15 pm) for the public to review the proposed project, discuss any concerns and issues, and inquire about the CEQA process, Sept. 19, 2002 Notice of Completion filed with the State Clearinghouse. Notice of Availability mailed to all property owners and tenants within a 300 ft radius, all interested parties, all attendees at scoping meetings, and all interested agencies. Draft EIR available for public review and comment for forty-five days from Sept. 19 through Nov. 4, 2002. Draft EIR available for review at City Hall, Central Library, and Banning Branch Library. Nov. 4, 2002 . Comments on El accepted up to 5:00 PM. A total of 21 comment letters were received. March 21, 2003 Response to Comments on Draft EIR and Final EIR are made available for public information and sent to Responsible Agencies and commenting parties. (CEQA PL03-30 // -11- 10131/2003 8:37 AM REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: November 17, 2003 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PL03-30 requires Response to Comments be sent to Responsible Agencies and commenting parties 10 days `prior to certification hearing.) May 27, June 3, Public hearing before Planning Commission to Certify EIR No. 01-02. . July 8, and August 12, 2003 2. Summary of EIR No. 00-02 In the preparation of an environmental impact report, potential impacts associated with the proposed development are identified and analyzed pursuant to the requirements of CEQA. These impacts are categorized into three levels of significance. They are: less than significant impacts; impacts that can be mitigated to a level less than significant; and unavoidable significant impacts. The level of impacts associated with the proposed project are identified below: a) Less Than Significant Impacts The project will result in impacts to some environmental resources and conditions that are concluded not to be significant if the development proposal complies with standard conditions of approval:..suggested in the entitlement staff report.. The following topical .areas. were determined to result in no environmental impacts or less than significant. environmental impacts: • Agricultural Resources • Air Quality (long-term) • Biological Resources • Cultural Resources • Hazards and Hazardous Materials • Land Use/Relevant Planning • Mineral Resources • Population and Housing • Recreation • Trans portation/Traffic b) Adverse Impacts That Can Be Mitigated to Less Than Significant Through the use of appropriate mitigation measures identified in the EIR, the majority of the potentially adverse impacts associated with the project (CUP and CDP) can be mitigated to a level of insignificance. Areas where impacts may occur and a brief description of the key recommended mitigation measures are as follows: • Aesthetics/Light and Glare Utilize minimum light levels for safety and security and lighting shall be directed to avoid spillage onto adjacent properties • Construction Related Impacts PL03-30 -12- 11/4/2003-2:39 PM REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: November 17, 2003 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PL03-30 Limit construction hours to Monday-Saturday, 7 am to 8 pm Submit erosion and dust control plan Construction shall include Best Management Practices to control pollutants - Dewatering plan shall by approved by the Public Works Department, Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board, and Orange County Water District - All structures to be cleaned of hazardous materials prior to off-site transportation - Conduct nesting survey of savannah sparrows adjacent to desalination plant site - Conduct surveys for California gnatcatcher, Bell's vireo, southwestern pond turtle, raptor nests, and sensitive biological resources at booster pump station site - Archaeologist to evaluate any historical and archaeological resources discovered during the construction of the booster pump. • Geology/Soils/Seismicity - Submit geotechnical report to include recommendations regarding grading, foundations, remedial work, overexcavation/recompaction, dewatering, lateral spreading, flood control channel bank stability, liquefaction potential, and ground water constraints and incorporate recommendations into the grading plan - Complete removal and recompaction of compressible_ soils.or. use of piles and grade beams to support on-site structures . = Perform special studies and subsurface investigation to determine fault rupture potential of South Branch fault which underlies the site • Hydrology and Water Quality - Submit a Water Quality Management Plan for approval by the Public Works Department to control pollutant runoff - Perform hydrology and hydraulic analysis to address storm water drainage and flooding - Install on-site drainage system to address stormwater - Product water quality to be regulated by the California Department of Health Services • Noise Submit an acoustical analysis to assure that all stationary noise sources comply with the city's Noise Ordinance • Public Service and Utilities - Pay traffic impact, sewer connection, water service connection, and school impact fees - Incorporate solid waste reduction and recycling methods for project construction and operation These impacts can be reduced by mitigation measures suggested in the draft environmental impact report and summarized in this report. Staff recommends incorporation of these PL03-30 /� -13- 10/31/2003.8:37 AM REQUEST FOR ACTION ,AEETING DATE: November 17, 2003 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PL03-30 k, mitigation measures into the conditions of approval for the development project (CUP and CDP). ., c) Unavoidable Significant Impacts There are adverse environmental impacts that cannot be completely eliminated through mitigation measures relating to short-term construction related emissions of carbon monoxide, reactive organic compounds, and nitrogen oxides from the proposed project. Environmental impacts associated with implementation of a project may not always be mitigated to a level considered less than significant. In such cases, a Statement of Overriding Considerations must be prepared prior to approval of the project, and in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Sections 15091 and 15093. CEQA requires decision makers to balance the benefits of the proposed project against its unavoidable environmental risks in determining whether to approve the project.. If the benefits of a proposed project outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects, the City may consider the adverse environmental effects acceptable. In this particular case, staff believes the social, economic, and ecosystem/biological resources benefits of the proposed project outweigh the adverse impacts to air quality during the construction process. A Statement of Overriding Considerations is required to describe the specific reasons for approving the project, .based on information contained within the Final EIR, as well as any other information in the public record. Prior to certification and adoption of the EIR by resolution, the City Council may amend the document. It should be noted, however, that removal of any of the recommended mitigation measures requires findings and justification. Additionally, all mitigation measures that are approved with the EIR must be applied to the approved project. Attachment(s): City Clerk's Page Number No. Description '. City Council Resolution No.Zt O—TA, Certifying Final EIR No. 00-02 v� v 2 Final EIR No. 00-02, Technical Appendices, Response to Comments (under separate cover— not attached) 3 3 Errata pages to Final EIR 4 Appeal Letter By Mayor Boardman dated August 13, 2003 5 ■ Planning Commission Staff Reports dated May 27, June 3, July 8, and August 12, 2003 ■ Report Updates dated May 22, 2003 ■ Late Communication dated May 27, 2003 ■ Revised Errata dated June 3, 2003 PL03-30 -14- /�j 11/4/2003-6:54 AM REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: November 17, 2003 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PL03-30 ■ Executive Summary .of Impacts and Mitigation Measures dated June 3,.-2003 ■ Late Communication dated June 3, 2003. ■ Late Communication dated July 8, 2003 ■ Late Communication dated July 22, 2003 ■ Staff Report Supplement dated August 12, 2003 ■ Late Communication dated August 12, 2003 3�y 6 Planning Commission Minutes dated May 27, June 3, July 8, July 22, /O and August 12, 2003 33 7 Letters in opposition and in support 8 PowerPoint Presentation RCA Author: Ramos/Broeren PL03-30 /`� -15- 11/4/2003-6:54 AM .! d i _ - _ ..Fer - S irt� 3 ^ '[ f'- I t+ Jam. 1'.,�,ar r�w��..,:r:�. ^:- :. :^,: ��.;'-r z:., :y<. .,.: i`i; _�'.:;_. _.;tea. RESOLUTION NO. ;�e03- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH CERTIFYING THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 00-02 (SCH#2001051092) FOR THE POSEIDON SEAWATER DESALINATION PROJECT . WHEREAS, an Environmental Impact Report, State Clearinghouse #2001051092 ("EIR") was prepared by the City of Huntington Beach to address the environmental implications of the proposed Poseidon Seawater Desalination Project(the"Project"); and On May 17, 2001, a Notice of Preparation/Initial Study for the Project was prepared and distributed to the State Clearinghouse, other responsible agencies, trustee agencies and interested parties. An update to the Notice of Preparation/Initial Study was prepared and distributed on March 4, 2002; and After obtaining comments received in response to the Notice of Preparation, and comments received at the two public scoping meetings held at the Edison Community Center in the City of Huntington Beach on June 6, 2001 (2:30 pm and 7:15 pm), the City completed preparation of the Draft EIR, dated September 19, 2002, and filed a Notice of Completion with the State Clearinghouse; and The Draft EIR was circulated for public review and comment from September 19, 2002 to November 4, 2002 and was available for review at several locations including City Hall and the Huntington Beach Public Library; and The Planning Commission held public meetings on the EIR on May 27, June 3, July 8, July 22, and August 12, 2003 in which comments were received on the EIR; and The Planning Commission certified the EIR on August 12, 2003; and Public comments have been received on the Draft EIR, and responses to those comments have been prepared and provided to the City Council in a separately bound document entitled "Responses to Comments for the Poseidon Seawater Desalination Project" (the "Responses to Comments"), dated March 21, 2003; and The City Council held a public meeting on the EIR on November 17, 2.003 and received and considered public testimony; and The City Council and the Redevelopment Agency have previously certified a Final Environmental Impact Report for the Southeast Redevelopment Project in which the Poseidon Project is located; and In the event the City Council and the Redevelopment Agency take any actions in the future in furtherance of and to carry out the Southeast Redevelopment Project which involve the Poseidon Project, any such actions would be based on the information contained in the Final Environmental Impact Reports for both the Southeast Redevelopment Project and the Poseidon Project. 03reso/eir 00-02110/14/03 17 1 NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach does hereby find, order, determine,and resolve as follows: SECTION 1. Consistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15132, the Final EIR for the Project is comprised of the Draft EIR and Appendices, the comments received on the Draft EIR, the Responses to Comments, the Errata (bound together with the Responses to Comments),..the Appendices to the Responses to Comments..and all Planning Department Staff Reports to the City Council, including all minutes, transcripts, attachments, incorporation, and references. SECTION 2. The City Council makes the findings contained in the attached "Statement of Facts and Findings" with respect to significant impacts identified in the Final EIR and finds that each fact in support of the findings is true and is based upon substantial evidence in the record, including the Final EIR. The Statement of Facts and Findings is attached as Exhibit "A" to this Resolution and incorporated herein by this reference. SECTION 3. The City Council finds that the Final EIR has identified all significant environmental effects of the Project and that there are no known potential environmental impacts not addressed in the Final EIR. SECTION 4. The City Council finds that all significant effects of the Project are set forth in the Statement of Findings and Facts and the Final EIR. SECTION 5. The City Council finds that although the Final EIR identifies certain significant environmental effects that .will result if the Project is approved, all significant effects which can feasibly be mitigated or avoided have been mitigated or avoided by.the incorporation of Project design features, standard conditions and requirements, and by the imposition of mitigation measures on the approved Project. All mitigation measures are included in the "Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Checklist" (also referred to as the "Mitigation Monitoring Program") attached as Exhibit "B"to this Resolution and incorporated herein by this reference. SECTION 6. The City Council finds that the Final EIR has described reasonable -alternatives to the Project that could feasibly obtain the basic objectives of the Project(including the "No Project" Alternative), even when these alternatives might impede the attainment of Project objectives and might be more costly. Further, the City Council finds that a good faith effort was made to incorporate suggested alternatives in the preparation of the Draft EIR and that a reasonable range of alternatives was considered in the review process of the Final EIR and ultimate decisions on the Project. SECTION 7. The City Council finds that no "substantial evidence" (as that term is defined pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15384) has been presented which would call into question the facts and conclusions in the EIR. SECTION 8. The City Council finds that no "significant new information" (as that term is defined pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5) has been added to the EIR. The City Council finds that the refinements that have been made in the Project do not amount to significant new information concerning the Project, nor has any significant new information concerning the Project become known to the City Council through the public hearings held on the Project, or through the comments on the Draft EIR and Responses to Comments. 03reso/eir 00-02J10/14/03 2 �� SECTION 9. The City Council finds that the Mitigation Monitoring Program establishes a mechanism and procedures for implementing and verifying the mitigations pursuant to Public Resources Code 21081.6 and hereby adopts the Mitigation Monitoring Program. The mitigation measures shall be incorporated into the Project prior to or concurrent with Project implementation. SECTION 10. The City Council finds that the unavoidable significant adverse effects of the Project as identified in Section 5.0 of the Statement of Facts and Findings (short-term construction related impacts in regards to air quality) have been lessened in their severity by the application of standard conditions, the inclusion of Project design features and the imposition of the mitigation measures. The City Council finds that the remaining unavoidable significant impacts are clearly outweighed by the economic, social, and other benefits of the Project, as set forth in the "Statement of Overriding Considerations" included as Section 7.0 of the Statement of Facts and Findings. The City Council adopts the recitation of overriding considerations which justify approval of the Project notwithstanding certain unavoidable significant environmental effects which cannot feasibly be substantially mitigated as set forth in the Statement of Overriding Considerations. SECTION 11. The City Council finds and certifies that the Final EIR reflects the independent review and judgment of the City of Huntington Beach City Council, that the Final EIR was presented to the City Council, and that the City Council reviewed and considered the information contained in the Final EIR prior to approving Conditional Use Permit No. 02-04 and Coastal Development Permit No. 02-05. SECTION 12. The City_ Council finds that the Final EIR serves as adequate and appropriate environmental documentation for the Project. The City Council certifies that the Final EIR. prepared for the Project is complete, and that it has been prepared in compliance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act and CEQA Guidelines. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at a regular meeting thereof held on the day of ,2403. Mayor ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Clerk ity Atto ey REVIEWED AND APPROVED: INIT D AND APPROVED: P , City Adm' strator rector of Planning 03reso/eir 00-02J 10/14/03 Attachment No. 2 Final EIR No. 00-02 . Technical Appendices' .- Response to Comments- (Under Separate Cover — Not Attached) On File for Public =� Review in the Office of=the- City ClerkT: , C , :. T ' 'A � , gj v4- 4,V 4r Q. w .7Z .1.. M rm -h QFQ rm. ru �A. F4! j. rm CD 1 v,v r F s,. r ii• 4 �' r y ,ry :{ } A` .JY A•tt r',•. J �i w e 3 s !r f *♦K, r 1 t�'' ri �� �.�,g�•o � 3 r .wy � � ,•,�'�d9r{�$W j'a •i� 'Y , �rBl JA� � � .Pwl''{' ,� t�rtf.�� d� '# it `5, rr sv7' L 4����.-7, }i'� , 'r�,if,,,} ,en+.. '4tWt„. Li i-,}.nA±rw•+a. d �4j•i§ .et'�,` a 1}�iN' r..9,"'J4" y 1'�.r !•}• z Tr, i r J. '�`. ,aJ�",iG. y^f•.ayY.C�lt4 '�y,tGd. ,?..' `s'H "`'"t" •p.. �`- .� :'j�,s:t:r v '+�''"'�:'i .,^'r'�V w"'°rR'F,�4Y..��r'"�T.-tS'tn"'l*:»„ •`+ J. �r ,`+'.;:R':,�+� .' :. f• ,,„„�;;.$ ..�t ,. r'L..rti, i;.;:yga♦r, ,:.t liS, •y .n M 't ,r!'.�.A•- '�• A�€• ;t= ~ !_ •s, rw• N�r,,4�r .` 'lu „s 1 .� �!«x .I;yeP-:�' :J :;t du';,J.:Vc.n �1.Hd .'•'1�, :� n ..,f,, Q"'J»�"T t r.r�`1�{ .E t,a:t�l'At �.^u Gtn: "•'1`' 'i♦,, y�V'r ,i t .P Ln•d't � r..x. '�".t+? r;v` i L'S',$7 �C...,74••( a�...�.r�v�.•A.#i•" `'?;Sbt.`,p, pr�' �,�7 k «`c.'r'YrM ;,f'roP.J'S••>f. :ry �'•�'t.:;. .,��P y, s ry A .'1jA.a' i iV ♦; t_"a- '. ..tY^•;., �,; '� tC u: -��r.S:'.t d. !:� ,•"a:.+.,� �,. r LL� 6i: r�r. .,.� #., �,Cns1'fY,��;n:a 1P 1 b�i:r�.. ��t ."»,. T ~„ t e 43% f .yr,.;!"P., ,�.'r��*r';tt+:lT"i•E: � ,}+ ��. ,y. '��r, v. a '-,'�,.,.: >�,•f: ♦.. r1.�P<..,,a.3�.p r xY„ _d a�'�-• c t ..>�'� � �. u,�,.,. �., n.` '•,e(d -,fi,;� .ilr: : p o!.:� j. f+f «,:Af�. '6. rr"C,.:}�, 4 + - s.i3tt"71 y rs�^• ,a } ,^e,.. ..y. ,s.,:. �,i �s,:. a,t �Y ,(..1 +a cpY ..iR.r1Y. n �' x.f�.,a r +4, gt'•Ye s F',wn a i .$rrp�, wr a� st. •JY.1, fii {'•Y "'��� r. �� r' � •�a, rr� 7,• 3ati t•�' c"" r.&a•r .�4r,. :i.• k.,'� t .,i r-.. pr?•r.r. I ?,:•• :a �'.'+r.R "r.• 'N,r a.J ' r � .((�ro...�a i. ,i',.� Re z 0, '.7 A' r : r „rix kv ^ 110 L. a r •4 P �rr 5'.t { ,:•. 4R. a�Z" a +3. '•'".'' ra�,q. �, �ir. �''" -,S"r, .1.. �. i.. K. � Y�«.., ,^}. •is i• -n. .?;. aq. .� rrr: d. J. k•}. b ,a ,.>..r,rP,..a,1SP,..a• r.� .,,t�,�. '1rr- ri � �:, ,?., r � +,.k U� -..rv.. 1' .<rY::,:_ I. -• ,.'� fi' ,p Y "+?"� s..`�u•: '^�• .:Rr% aP =r.� �y x.2 �• .a ,�S, k r, ,r},,: �7 a._+..i -.,f4: .... r r j 2r, }.,„ ,,rr.. .. ,.' - t 1:.;,,..:J• - �>,..6 .7:� :+3 '...r+', s9_',..�,*.. ..'•,a„ 1.. ''Mr. .a. >, r{ S`3 r' ,L. � :!- •r" f•r.}"�lv. :1. yn.-,Y'. Y .'4 }[� , t�. "*'3 n• r�{p •t�: -.i:',. r" .atn�• i y. ,'Ph :Cr,{ ,:1.: Y s '� > 17;t _.r_.5 .w7 i'r�-.. "r r� �i�'.n,•r;"ai 'Fv, :j }, sr.a-yy��''rt �aI.�.3'�,•.n::1 't', �,'Inrt1?v �;.:t.�n d'" ti, ' �. r+:,s:,7, .k'• C ra -� r,. X. I J:+r.'. r,,., ..t. t+x .,a ji.•t•,s + '.: r,.� {, :-a..>;•' a a.. .':� -Rr .'i� ti.,( y _1k a�,. �"�. `7,� J .:1 S ^.i.,F.,, wr•As ). 1 Z .+A,.;vi. p�•�>'3. M h'.. •u ♦ t .2- .,1. r.F - Y:3•: fl<\'-+.4 e .,J w, +m�'t' +A`t. •{y +'.i .t, },\;.:. X' -d'. '6pA.'1-, f:-xt '..�• ,:aE�' .ar: .�,: C= r.: --Pik :f try a,l'. ,{. ..p,. �-, , c,. b .y '� +:J,�` �,I' «rx.,a�. .pt •v�� fir^ 'x^.':,r`„ o.1a.. :.h:•1 .:t.rr.•""+�^ .N: :i' w'f. � ..� r c �,." � '! n.;S? k• .{-,,,t f '.td a .,.A. w`z.:�., ,av }x!� xe ld r•/, ,rhit. � �rrr?I .{,. •4"� a:{, st 7 r1w ..:... a �. :' .,.e.' -,w , :�.. S:a- .� •-., ..'t'z't. £t �r7- _ ..F....: .-e. d".fu ,a•�sa.. 1 "�lsa� x.,f rS•♦ �d ,.r. :,c. ...t 4,.� 1 L:'sSI."' .�!i:'>e. - � ..:..,.. t.*'3... ).. .,' ,.. .. r J •�y+-`+ `.`. + q, ,t,:- nf:. ,_r .s ..%;,, .j., �'xp'.i„ry k,l y: p r � �~r;n. s ?t'�.r,r1F 'ti r :.t .i,.. rf, A.: n t.. H .a-v!s!", Hs:s;s. 7 t �:..:. ''+;.. d 3.�3,... �C,J•.Y,:r nfa'. a• ,� :...-, g..._..r..� .. .+S,bR n,. ,.. s.r,.;4•- Y I, - r,swt+. :d 'f�:9r, �• t • d.. 1 di.Yr�,,y�t«., ,.",_., .ti„i }- ,.. n 4. Y, ,_R $ r. "�•v'r f ' +'a,,. fad..P«px .,,, ., ' - �' ,- •'+ �' ..F",':.{y�{g �,8" .x. . P rr a2... .t. r.� a. t „r #. ,t.» ...1_ s„ 1:'.,tza +{,»2.str �Y�, -°` •'• w R."•S..r , #i. J'ft�l r•,.trr.F..wY ;'t:{T v. a r, 'r.R ;'.i-ry.. •-t '9r•, �'F, ^if'�„, Jy. -:L.,r y+. q...,rt:F ,•i,� d �'-r,.:rw�1�' ";r k vMc>#i z.•.c 1 +':9 , .,moo,c,....�' '":t#�,:: , e�?-.. F+� ,�q. - -r V. � W..;Y :t:�'1���,.#}'. rrt�S9,? n- 3':Q'.e ��L�'aP•�'r,•ry�,.5f"<?` s,L...t '^G ."4'..is..rr :,•r 7s.. y;+ ?:'9 '�, s,t' •.�p' Y, ;.�:1 e -d.�. .�. b.'•'p r.,�'i!. X'Z � .�; j,•n: .,�3t�>rt u. +s C"` '�fipi ;y.{.tat i";5.-r�!.��t�:. �= .i .�s3'n1`t' +1S`'.`i i e 3.;€-51a. 4 v� yy��",,�-.�+ � ��C E�,i� 3 4�;�ti#+;?:`" .�+i sF' :�"!', t. ,�.- g,» r 2„ + �J .a ,{• .a• ,?'r,J,a �7t;P 'k��.r 1 #.'i + y�,'s+rot"3q", r r1'+Y 'ru•>✓.�a^^�+ Y �»�,...• �'+�. ?',+. t. , it. ,cS; 3 d c,;51'...a d. U. 'ti 1 q �}FK' ., rid se F ,P Itr s., i, t r'. r'^. {{ .. },riiFT^ •Xi :x 's. y ?".'�+ :"! :r. ro .d`'q ,Vv d, r., 'd, ,.,S wa': q .as Pr`<- :r. '1 :Y ,. �,��. E :4 1' K 5�Y''P'cB.C"•f�i, .1� i', S ;,i 't'r � e K,Y•,k"„'.rr ',J3 qel" ,. •tr #�:°t7•r' ''' vl sa.udPi.4 t I t 8.. ? •r,• ,.t} 7 L.A,•w•r m r 6 .i. +w S .;r :.+i i4d Na•.,rr,'•'fin, r�i �,r e„ .. xr �Y•'+a -.< t -<„ ri`A-( F'.. .,'," i 'J�., ;� ,1x7 ''.;"7�. x .,fit• ,•! � ;� !• >.,'hs. }::vr-'}+a{��Vr d � r y:7Y - 'L•.7a7 S, ^n Ip. , . + .4.:a9 'kY'th i�,v;j•C,�,': �I a � k:: d��, '.•r 1,,. !f.' ':t 4�e r.. }'••a a .r"I �U• T;r, i, r.rtd`Cs .CY.` "r „1.+Mr''r'it ja, 1 x.. :.,.;u j,.., 1 a`�.r,,,,.r.• 9:,:• c'4...xr,.:. "i:s it �r:. ,?'.1�•.. °" ,t+" .�.3�•}. �y.��({ +,".rr°*y 'o.,N ..h 'Rld'•f,r i lr.,,3,,d•r, .:rT i+. :.r.y��,;i f. $ .f"at' •"':•.: .�-. 1 z, a� 1 ..ri.l•1 ..r:'t.•9'.�F'A. r-'Jr^:•nw �Y :tt:i:•��%`' i.. "�' � '-s. •.v .•� f'.t,,s r�{ •ni^ i. ,:u. wiw� MY., ,,+ �t' t �sXs.c [ itSei`g�r#•g1,r< � `rd e`tL.r• .R.r "7 'r t., -...dam.f iy.. 1i �. ,d x,.,�:..9. >~ N". ....`� c r .f KJJ }. - 'Ir� '�r., '3 it e.t!`.!. .r1,;,:•'„s,.lt�r: •i:+ _ . , "•'.;'!h '�-?yr 4: r J Y,:,!, , s, ' °'s' ��z arfi •>F if. .� ;=x.. 'S+• :�.y:::`it;a )., •T;, ,:Pry.rr.,�:.; , �r♦,.r .�-,:y,« rj... q:., .d�r12 n.••,rta :t 1.# •��"P „i ,rill- fillt' .Y...,1L7:,.'r` .,r .(.i i rP,• r .} � ..r19' i 1; ;++��•, +:� + �� ,n .� :Gc f. ..:N, f•,;�:1, RP, ;c. •�_\ ,rx. .,4. J�, r �-Tall >, t :J'+ � :.•�' 'r' "i•'•lrif ` tr�" �'"ry. fi.} `'4'' S:+'�,• .tk;;N,.3k ' 1 RM,. it";r; {"•' A. A. �i " }z y r $A„ 1c s, 'F .' T.r, '{ x.s �,'' ,.r. .1 ,`r}�g t .r.. ,,!�.,'i !`.,fr, 7 .n:12%• •'(:� '.. r+ .•'�i.9.. TI ,.,y+.+. �. •J k bl`•'''o'h M A'.'T;xf,�r tr'r S„F` ,,,�• r� ,t�.{{ �- t(�:" .,�' t Y+l••7 1' 7:`'".n t J�.. r�.. ni �y�,,r ra +, .I" ,'�SS. r IR:.' w"+. ,p ...;Wr:�., -�, .•�i..,��l,:t!.r n}Y C. �,;. fir; .ih�.At�lJ,d'' a{{L,•,,-('•,�ry i�t i".,Iy}6�:r+ :,�J}:,^�•�-,oIR ,a rG'cY,ER d�MI f�•�.,�.ItYPr:. 1-4 T 3r;*"$',''}.�;.i.r..i „�{ �.•7:'.���'..f^Ja+•t.��:�t;,;t�C{.eL:..�(,y t,F t§:�1t>,�'�l,x:,,�x-•':.i"�T:�".:Kt,r,4�.yk,.l(,"5`�4:!'-�y.1- •MI�.rY.Y.�,,Gy:':,,.i�'. :`,?r�3'K�Y't; r,f is�n'+i',i M.x' r>, :'j:r 7'iMv b.;i'�-:,y,i ks''w.,t..tr•ord1.�;,d�tl*t„rir.`L'+YrT+'rf�f•I 1-.7,1t1',,'.c;r,�t` :A Lk f.'�""a 7, p.a�•,.a; 'YS��• , 46 pT�' ,.x+ Y ,y '�"iit .4 •"`� .: .f 'r �. �7 $ � r� r.J, �. } t •Y?�'.Y, .+ ea� °s '..,i�,,r,,i7 r:�;,, :.�'y;:i.j R.''o. ��� P,:.,T'�.h:r:i�i 7:(i:t s" � yM1 'P e': ���..�s,' ♦,s�!+ Sn,J r ."V,• ...Jry• F: �?.'.:} { '{ , .rl. i,:'Y ,iW, '+ •n "1� '�Ci :tr `:>,.a,.��,•I,P;<,ti:.ehi a�.y+.�r,'�: '}i; :,S/ ,Y :P, f t y� „ �� ' ,.#a;; , f�g{1�`;�'SJ.'v eS� �i �j• 1:n-. x.� 4.t r r a. �i�..'�r•n, y r'a• ,1e,. e!'cu.t �nr:u. s ..r,'..,.. 3� M,rf;.Ii?�o:, •tra i� �1 n... ,p :."M�j. • ' P t� $ fir„ �� 1�i stay h h a. ,.i,t),:, I 1.Mi•..k,.r.r� yam, .4�':'fit burp 4� r,,��,,,y.S1 4,3+1 SA,� I t' { � r• w�rtn,r. i«h '�.t 1 •1� 1..%t 48 , i ..5: 5� i� uG•S'L mt, .{):1 A}R :K. •li w,�,Y .� c\ '�,^$ �4� 1.. q. t.d � �h +?' �. �'Drlt r A.. -•iy' �., :'t. .d, .�, :Y: Yy,,: -;15. I i"�9! �tt"1 it. ;�• `�'' "��.,.,•, P:, H: e,��•.. ''F.,.1 „{. �, .d't I t �}ty c.,. -a � P, .,s�.f,1+-♦.r w1�f �, %+" 1•��:rs' w ct¢I F�,�;..q,,!, .:,r,�.- A�t+�.g, ';N: ,�' i'cF J:. :>,•Gi #i a,,Yt��+. 1, 1 <T') r'tIy' ,� y+'�>F J• .d"" ` ,y�1�• y.xw a �* :� �•'d':� ((>,ff �V�i � Is 2 r• f i I#F,tt Ih r I. CP♦✓ :};Y' � r.ai � A r , �rS < �f kA•�P � i t h � � i J,c rr��ai� ,w.ltt I ,y T �A y i�,�,{1�A���,��r��,15[! `�r, 1 ,:, ��, .,yt:n.P fL�1,1�''1 �i��.1�+,t�''�PI.gla't'� t � .:�. •li'iri rJJ� ''aF;�ii .�� •r. �� ,'Y�. .+�♦�i rt y2\,at;x�;?�•. �'�f� t �},.rn-Y..: 48.p, t;..,4,1r tr�7�4 '(4"1,'{��f{f'A• 'te'j :.r yt.s �u r, �It 'q' t •� "{rr�i t41�..,C � F�• \.d.• 4 O iY�tlw, t�ln +p� 'rj. i•� � �:qd 4 ��:�i�S r� r` "�':d� �(.:+'i�9 J,� 11 rt.r*s� ,"� , �� '�• }bpi � rr y, �{�d• I,1 � �1i� # . r� FL : r'.•f'��'' �' .� +K;1� r f,��..rc , r ,+yi i�l •� ���i��° r �i .,to ,1�•A''i. y���y5i y!�� ,s,�.dYfL; 'i�,.' c�• 4�! (r S?� � i+h �Y„ � k!..t-7' 15 L`,7 Jf tM:t• ..#•',rl_4 j .7 k„A,:gri: .,,.,., .t �,qy,;b ,1 l+ NJ'`rT J � :fa d. Ir W ,p'',. .t . ,:a'ti t P+'f�1,:ln• :•J,, ,. ,.:d 1 pi.':a,; ,.il.�L.•a, a -b + rr. t ,., 1, •i}i. (�•ce Y".w.,� u..+. s., w . ,. gSLsY•f :.-1 A n:'?.�.-#aL,, ,)f+H ? r _Da'�;',`Nr. %t t :;1,•: .4r>rl ;"rr,,. i�.y) y,"� �r, A } .:(;{,� � �,., fi y 4 j ,.M T :,I t: •.Il',{„ }+n+fie s�'? t y�sa T:,;rv�. � :�,irtrt, „�,�J v: 14�:`• ,1' !�n 9i.byi rigt f 4 •�• „y Y F+.�,.� 1' ?Frl',Mtflt �•• 'I �k., 9��Y�I,Y y r .tr<rJl � .M1•w�'t.... tt,lJby 'I•e'4 3A.V.. 1 :t ..} j+Y..y5.n'r��_:zti _t`t I I. ;l .r.,,,L �sS`!t,.,+:11F.-1e �} 'e .y'i A), s , I' � .�! �• �S�F°�1�,; 'yy.Ll.c�i(,I�L-tt��•ttr.5, � '�tx.,: ,.^t' rr,' $ry'il,e+ 1{ ! <r. Va ♦ �Ti'�4t W. C� �.5�q'1•. r!4. 'A IC� •, 'r '�;.� Ss'�fYY+ •� ` 1=i"i :s�{af't�v.71'�' r.�;F,,} h,�.. ,.ate` Y�°i't :F+- �, tTs {'k 4 }:,'�� •>t;' fir. .!"�A- at�},,4i;. ,,r. hrd)'.,ti: i t a7i:PT 'Ia`.:K� 1►• �•i'e' .11t};' .}� a •e�,t. ",�iif S� n tJF IM !��l'�u; i� �, t`✓ �'r',i D� t� a ,5�..{ �i4��:l" •1, .»Y a ..�'�.,r�;,41'•-. t' 6 +� � ��' k •r .P { .l�i : rtr,�h�it'w:r.w. (�' .,J� '••�IIN.. i,. y �` •�, �y� .1 1" Fy r?F`• a ,k r`�.°���i5��'1'`J`��I�"*J:•� ."t^!n.�ye ;��t •r ,i�.f �'ir. y„lh ,�r'f� $ :•F%� 'r'• �:h•r t� ,,� �'.h�.,�',1 � �t' ( n -{7+ $tXw' H.l$..tp ! ¢w Af••f9: `.�L f ii� d yfr :-, iF Lt7i��a .. i ,S �^' :.n r n3+ f +` ]�"' 1{}r•. . P's�:f�+d Nj.G!. ''� ';�,.:•y�a�uR '� ���r�. :;1-� '.hri y�,fr,1'; ll�y�.Jlel�`� •t�9� t,. •� Yg ,,.R1•'`t* m?T+f '.1'�� .11r fr_ �� 1 ,�.' �$t, "ra_� PY Stet �+ s ri. ,'kg W,F\ '},',• f�. �• •�.. .�J-," �� ' _t "''°7� -y�, "�$4''t�- �'� 'a ',s�, c"�t..r� +� � yY'Y,k�,1'C�i��pp�>., �:+t!�"H�L "•t W ,� E i. r ny�. ���E l! �� en. ;s._ x ,1 ?� ..fir, .e£,,r�4ttKau�'i`t� �r� C k;YK'1. �'J�' • �,,i � "x` '4,{{.. � r n1' r' r.�� r ,�( 2�r � -y k... ;a�K•l•�-S�..y,.t� 3',.� >^ a1i J' ay., �' �1: a- 1s'•r•', -p+}'D"M ,q A, � '� � '.v �;p.st 1 c�.r:,y� :r. �r�.iA..'��{�;,`��y.',$: ,�zr��a,�t�4. f � " :�" �_ ..� r •�S'� '�`ir�'a�.T,�a A. r. R^�d.;;r� ,a '•�"^, 'S '�' `° I b. Gy�..� "11�t 1 Ai��H2b.3"''' �j 3{T � ' 'y.,y. �sx7:+�i.. t"' -r„ r"j . 4.` � 'r�; r• � �, Y �� 9 1'+ ,.� � � e k u +•ors.• r�N� ,:t t •t.: r ty `fir:.�"3�'.�,5-`C� r,i� ��,=i" pp � ♦ ,,y, i • IF i 4, t x •�-. t�l�{riir�'tr. .t}wJ''�p'7,>�,{+'1V ,F. ,�;x � � ,% � �'•��,� !, :f -y: �,r..�$ .„ 3`""iY ,�}� i. .r•P3 i'tYr `l4'r?�``y�M, 4f, '.'lyd��ls.^ �k.� •.4,. �, •' r i �• "I j��atN:.l TJ r « ` `RI• 5���'' + ';i'' +i'. ,C r`y'M�y �.�� �`,7r�'��Y�j�i1`. l:'k`". ,�• Y +y ' ��"�.!�,'�s< sr.,pp:•:,t 's y� '�,�„ �yT ,y�. `y A I4tt x c;#3 rr e v�Vfi•� � ::+.i, •JY...L 55,.Y;�k '' y t;,tl r.r,?.,�Y'' y,((.! �e'�Y .�t.. 4=. :P°., •1M ;tt..° ln. I.; �'y{ry4,4D i4l '1. �Li �j k a.''.b. ' F ..�k 'Y q.`C... p g i•'p a ,; "i ,iil; l het'?}• . -):}, ;1 ?'3 .`.3'(�tl �` 1�{{/�(,�„ "Wi. e ?+w ..F.T^ 'f.4� �!: •i ,a5tf r'I�t e�¢et r+�1:• ^, FF.}1 �,**1',f P. I. .i'�d t i�,rr .: '�S. ► e 4� 9a1�(:E: '�L" •#iw' #� d r� 8YS { ,rfatirr t� �•+vS' •Y,'S; +J6 +� � 1 ` i d«d ��y`�adr}�r�pFy�y ,:�• „3 }$11', r/t� *j 4 7¢ ' roPPr� ® ';'irki&S•+� 1 ' s����"�{r �•+'+.-1..�1••• o a, v M Yin''JJ7� t�i'fia V�SY,.,P� td r"�y+,�.' di "� ,It � p}' 4 a -r -�' �•� r,'� �r 1 � �;yr�w �• } d !� , ,g, ,� 'd',��fy �J. i• n �! .99t�. .� Ir J;}i�'lkli4 1 71� y� y.� q+ =�{�7�9tr�i -�y �ij��dk �(,(r t �' \ i{' .ktrri..i°ni w��Tl:•y�p :1 ,', ,i,� ',11 .I.�Nr+� R7i ��iJ�.IR��� �',11,J gg -F'. :F'( ,.1. •'ly�. 1}.� '4;' �� !d'�i. 'Nr rt�pl4j f Y ,t�•?'1�'�>J.'C' �� •�. � r !�.f�.'t•4 �'R h,�•' bH w.'�'.�++&- f'b"A�,fs yl � �fa.�;x 4:4 w�,,,+{ n � :d;7'r �I; a'�hl;�,r.�^ t['�f•yti U'�' 0 t.'.1:.1� .( �}��'• +f. 1. F i t�f8+°,e„-�i•+ '��.�y. �� .�u gy�, Lt .r�k �'rZ-:�•�'1�( ¢��.l..v k.�. v� ..A.l.Y - t �r� .?, A '�l i Pa �i'd,. V�` dy, �.n r?i.+d ► lr7A'' r;.' � 5 xj�i'ttf•' rtJ: � r,W {�'`{� ' " �p;, { 6 5 l9 ' sty A, &� _;���, tT`nP✓r�if 4�'','�i,h.' ,� i to �EI 'd rP � ( ,' S 't' w�' '',rF�J!� •�r' �I+,�a�''% °' i' i :3'� 7''� �9:r ��^ N `�v +' p�l'�y�Y,!r•y � I� t I pt�',lr ..?�3>4 s� a t' ,,$y�� f ,y �°�,tP�T: �L�✓,r, t f�, r �!�'Y.?,ry ..a i y" kr rrr ,' ;:3`,r�'F�a r.. ® r' rj! I I �� 11 r °3:- } r tk. Nlr Q tL`y�p� ,4E?g55�Y�j A!✓ r bi}' L a ;5 �`,}yT 1is tY,,��' S K t,•'1 n.Y :y`•7r.r *? 1 " ��-} �.� t ! r�Aw;,'SF-�," ..j' S" �t'' ��i',r ! •t?S,�jy v'�Git� r �#• � :A( �Fj a )1� 'ffa+M 7'I LI�'�+'� i Y�`;�,�",rr�cy� d �a' � i�a��>��'+P� J�`wrl ` :�t•;q t s. i�, a! yin Y• g#kA J n" s d�,*��YY'd � r��>rJr"' }1 "�5. a r'k•� � "�,�y � �:�r �• �. X♦�„r.� .1t q f .rfy,ip�, .t. ,o� `u'�Jg i.I pt;,f+'!'• �pL *, -:� ,t�P ,n.,, qi. r a�i - ..�Y{�+. '.i:J^iiJ,���'b �( :r• , q.: .f. +' t 1w <d s�l.,. ..•3? ...' ,;`•,T+ r' .a a`„ ,•E,, 4,+, :^:.ta:.•itrw.. +A: s,Y`.". rr .,r. � ',,••• a `a$>: '�Ix1L ..,s a:t °e #i, h("��.g-t�} �.:i' 1 � .' J^ i ,11. a !r t. y� t3 j .Ri' � -:F. .5.. .J :`h ,ta� •,.•{�',r y-`" „ya� ..T": 1.��pp' ,:y• 'P-�! ,�1tt i-¢>e�>�:>'}�/v,.-✓•ta... x+ } 't7 n 't t4,+1%; r '.}t.r? � 'i ,i, ti,: •at:'. ,k.i - a, MR, ..t. ys, ,�•,'� ..F. :A.•..! .51„• 1j,�r• b:i• xs?L 7 .� yr, �•yr,. sf- t �c:"'y7 ,t• j� g - I °.� �. �r, �h ,r',.. "",G.''d•a5. e.k; ..=�Cn+rT. ,i.: .r�•'k.�. ',F".. ,,r �a Fti•A i Y t ,.rx yy;t:rt: ..:k a. 'f�. :.,t ,i...r . -w +�fu 'Haf i' .:rY, `v.r, ,•;1"'° 6 t C'1 Y; � vi3� P. { n t,.- t L' ',C �.\ f.`1 >;•!4. �.Z sit- e.•„ d F 7 , "i '.t_•+.+., i ?"rC,:1i. •. i•, a-.r`'+ ! :"'.:•:..' •, y , t:a• r ,`. t. r- � E Ar i { kr r,„s. z+:..'{, �: rt a' .,,t ..?Jrr Yr�}�,�tr}'i• I .:\. _.lr •M U. •I •V y.:..,'„ Y {p } .% J,I\t. .}Y i'�f26j `,. c4n y t .�„ yr. �-,}�, j4J':�`. �CAt'iY,SY•CL�'?•.,.,...io..r+ .y`° -' '^,r• '.k4r-s,v,ir�:rt5- r:4s .r I "�:+:.: ..,�,r.,. iv bg.,•,.:!"•a••k t;a <3 ri, ,i:_. r �.tR"s• a, e.r.,'^r ' i> +� •iV•, ta,�-f', r. ..cu:b>:G,.x..<,+.'i....'$%";,�+ t`>aa .,se...,...3.rr.�P.v,:�•a-+S.a'rtl• '` ,.. x.,4L,.0.>tr'" '� •ie<. - � ^t,.1, m ,,•,.:. � Y «+ .L ,rs�i`o rtYYY arm,: «r~;�r�+ '.r, :;'" ,' `� < ,�.'ri+,tkd` •.•' �.,�.` RESPONSES TO COMMENTS for 'the _ POSE1 DON SEAWATER s- .�, ,� a DESALINATION PROD ECT t = _ MARCH 21, 2003 s _ f j _ -f, - - - Lead A en g cY= City-of Huntington.Beach Consultant: RBF Consulting �.'� '� :„ r eq _ y roc 1 ss �� � � � ..- li �Y �� i ¢4. �� Poseidon Seawater Desalina' Project SPONSES TO COMMENTS Environmental Impact Report 3.0 ERRATA 3.0 ERRATA TO DRAFT EIR TEXT (revised July 10, 2003) Changes to the EIR are noted below. Additions to the text are indicated with shading. Deletions to the text are indicated with stricken text. Changes have been analyzed and responded to in Section 2.0, Responses to Comments. The changes to the EIR do not affect the overall conclusions of the environmental 'document. Changes are listed by page and where appropriate by paragraph. NOTE TO REVIEWER: This Errata has been prepared in response to comments received on the Draft EIR, which was available for public review from September 19, 2002, to November 4, 2002. Additional editorial corrections have been initiated by City staff. These clarifications and modifications are not considered to result in any new or greater impacts than identified in the Draft EIR. To avoid redundancy, it should be assumed that additions, modifications, or deletions of text within Sections 4.1 through 4.9 of the Draft EIR, when applicable, are reflected in Section 1.0, EXECUTIVE SUMMARY. Page 1-3, EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 4.1 LAND USEIRELEVANT PLANNING LAND USE The proposed desalination facility is not.anticipated to None required.. However,. refer to mitigation measures create any impacts to surrounding uses with regards to contained in SeGtie^ 4.4 ( &. Quality), Section 4.5 air quality, noise, aesthetics, hazards and hazardous .(Noise), Section 4.7(Aesthetics/Light&.Glare), SestieR materials, and short-term construction. Significance: , and Section Less than significant. 4.9(Construction Related Impacts). ABOVEGROUND PRODUCT WATER STORAGE TANK OPTION: Implementation of this option is anticipated to result in similar impacts to those of the proposed project. Page 3-1, ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING ".....and would not require modifications to the coastal/marine portions of the existing AES ocean intake/dischafge facilities. _ However, ,it should be noted -that the existing !AES intake/discharge facilities traversem land owned by he:.California State Lands Commission. (CSLC), and the land is leased to AES A lease agreement between the CSLC,:AES, and the project applicant will be required.prior to proiectapproval ' Page 3-9, Proposed Buildings and Structures "All proposed buildings and structures will comply with state'and local standards in regards to fire and structural safety. The proposed desalination project would consist of the following buildings and structures: ❖ Administration Building (approximately 158'L x 544'W x 158'H, 9,90010 120. s.f.): This building is proposed to be Type-II, non-rated (generally defined liy the California Building Code as structures incorporating _non-combustible materials [steel, ;iron,' City of Huntington Beach July 10,2003 164 Poseidon Seawater Desalinatic. 'roject R PONSES TO COMMENTS Environmental Impact Report 3.0 ERRATA concrete, or masonry] for structural elements, floors, walls, ,and roofs) and will be constructed of steel. The exterior will feature flat metal wall panels running vertically along the face of the structure. A metal panel roof system will be screened with a metal fascia using deep-ribbed metal panels running horizontally. All glazing will be tinted and will include clear anodized window frames. ❖ Reverse Osmosis Building (approximately 2923'L x 132-0'W x 25'H, 38,544090 s.f.): This building will be a Type-II, non-rated, steel-constructed building housing the reverse osmosis components of the desalination plant and associated indoor pumps. The exterior will feature flat metal wall panels running vertically along the face of the structure. A continuous metal reveal band will be placed mid-height to break up the 25-foot structure vertically. A metal panel roof system will be screened with a metal fascia using deep-ribbed metal panels running horizontally. Full height louvers will match the wall panel color and will be recessed slightly from the face of the structure to allow for shadowing. Panel coloring will match the Administration Building. ❖ Pretreatment Filter Structure (approximately 232106'L x 444195'W x 16'H, 42,00038,270 s.f.): This open-air structure will house the pretreatment filter components of the plant. It will feature concrete walls matching the color of the Reverse Osmosis Building. The concrete walls will "stair-step" in elevation to a peak that will be finished with the deep-ribbed metal panels running horizontally. These panels will match the fascia of the Administration and Reverse Osmosis Buildings. A painted band will be included to match the reveal band of the Reverse Osmosis Building. Chemical Storage/Solids Handling Building (approximately 00170'L x 9250'W x 21'H, 7-,=7,590 s.f.): This Type-II, non-rated, steel-constructed building will house the chemical storage and solids handling equipment associated with plant operation. The building will architecturally match the Administration Building, featuring flat metal wall panels running vertically along the face of the structure. The metal panel roof system will be screened with a metal fascia using deep-ribbed metal panels running horizontally. ` Bulk Chemical Storage Structure (approximately n112'L x 5&39'W x 2a-3'H, 4,368 s.f.): This structure will also feature Type-ll, non-rated, canopy steel construction and will house various chemicals stored in bulk. The metal panel roof system will be screened with a metal fascia using deep-ribbed panels running horizontally. ❖ Electrical Room/Substation Building (approximately 60'L x 30'W x 12'H, 1,800 s.f.): This Type-11, non-rated, steel-constructed building will match the Administration Building architecturally. The exterior design utilizes flat metal wall panels running vertically along the face of the structure. The metal panel roof system will be screened with a metal fascia using deep-ribbed metal panels running horizontally. ❖ Lime Silos (six tanks approximately 20' in diameter and 25' high, 314 s.f. ): The lime silo tanks will be arrange in two rows of three tanks each within the northern portion of the subject site in an 'area approximately 80 feet long by 57 feet wide. These tanks will be placed within an open air, welded steel structure incorporating aesthetic treatments to enhance the character of the site. City of Huntington Beach July 10,2003 165 Poseidon Seawater Desalinat Project 3PONSES TO COMMENTS Environmental Impact Report 3.0 ERRATA ❖ Washwater Tank (approximately 45' in diameter by 19' high, 1,590 s.f.): This single tank will store washwater and will be constructed of steel, painted to match the surrounding buildings and structures. The approximate capacity of this tank would be 200,000 gallons. ❖ flush Tank (approximately 25' in diameter by 29' high, 491 s.f.): This single tank will:store the desalination plant's flush water.and would have.an approximate capacity of 100,000 gallons. This tank will be constructed of steel and will be painted to match the surrounding buildings and structures. ❖ Ammonia Tank (approximately 6' in diameter by 6' high, 28.35 s.f.): This single tank will store ammonia and will be constructed of high density polyethylene or fiberglass reinforced polyester, and would have an approximate capacity of 1,000 gallons. ❖ Aboveground Product Water Storage Tank ( ' ' approximately 215' ,in diameter and 40' high [30' above_grade and 10'wbe''lo"v�i grade]): The I aboveground. product water storage tank would be eithef circular eF Festatgt4er-in shape and would have an approximate capacity of 10 million gallons. For a detailed discussion of the proposed aboveground undeFgFouRd product water storage tank, refer to page 3-16 of the.Draft EIR or Section 4.9, CONSTRUCTION-RELATED IMPACTS." Page 3-11, Proposed Desalination Plant Flow Process ".....An intake pump station will be located near the pre-treatment filters of the proposed plant to lift the water out of the intake pipeline and into the RO pre-treatment facilities (refer to Exhibit 6, DESALINATION PROCESS FLOW SCHEMATIC). The proposed plant would divert approximately 100 mgd of water from the AES condenser cooling water-system. it should=be noted that the proposed project would utilize AES pumps circulating a total of 126 mgd These pumps would operated constantly by AES even durina times when Dower is not be`jno -generated. Should the AES fact cease to operate, the proposed desalination facility would continue to produce and distribute potable water subject to required approvals including EIR or equivalent; To prevent growth of marine organisms in the intake system, chlorination....... Page 3-20, OFF-SITE IMPROVEMENTS "....booster pump station, including both the generators and diesel fuel storage tank, would be placed entirely underground to maintain the natural character of the surrounding resource preservation easement. Any displaced vegetation would be replaced. City of Huntington Beach July 10,2003 166 Poseidon Seawater Desalinatioi. . roject RE. ONSES TO COMMENTS Environmental Impact Report 3.0 ERRATA Page 3-20, OFF-SITE IMPROVEMENTS ".....potential water compatibility impacts that may result from introduction of desalinated seawater into the regional water system). Edison Avenue Improvements As a condition of approval by the City of Huntington Beach for the proposed project, applicant Will be required to complete Improvements along the southern side of Edison Ave (situated north of the subject site as shown in Exhibit 2 of the Draft EIR, SITE VICINITY Mti These improvements would consist of the dedication of 12 feet along the frontage of the existin Edison Avenue (for curb, gutter, paving, and street lighting improvements) for 'a tots o approximately 600 linear feet. It should be noted that AES Huntington Beach, LLC woui�e responsible for dedication of property to the City for these improvements, as AES ownii entire southern frontage of Edison Avenue and would lease property to the applicant;fb6t proposed project. However, the project applicant would be.responsible for completing these roadway and landscaping improvements as a condition of-approval for the project subse40e`no . property.dedication: ,.It should also be noted that street widening along Newland Street (west;oi the proposed project site) would be' performed by the City, with separate entitlementsa environmental evaluation. AES Huntington Beach, LLC would dedicate the necessary 174, f way along Newland Street and both AES and the project applicant would be required to, their fair share of the cost. Page 3-20, PROJECT NEED AND OBJECTIVES ....Although the region has made a significant financial investment in the imported water system and the system has met all of the region's supplemental water supply needs (eNseRt-ice with the exception of a one year period from March 1991 to Marc 1992), there is a present concern regarding the amount of water....." Page 3-21, PROJECT NEED AND OBJECTIVES ".....Solutions to potential water shortage and reliability problems include water management programs on imported water systems as well as an increased reliance on many different sources of water supply and a continued emphasis on water conservation through implementation of State-approved Best Management Practices (BMP's). Orange County has implemented several successful programs including ultra low flow toilet and low flow shower head programs, conservation based rate structure programs, landscape conservation programs and commercial, industrial and institutional conservation programs. However, according to the Orange County Water District Master Plan Report (Section 5.6.2), potential conservation savings will be limited to no more than 30,000 to 60,000 acre feet per year. This amount is hardly.sufficient.to .offsetplieG anticipated water shortages due to increases in population and economic activity. City of Huntington Beach , July 10, 2003 167 Poseidon Seawater Desalina Project 3PONSES TO COMMENTS Environmental Impact Report 3.0 ERRATA Water recycling (reclamation of wastewater to produce water that is safe and acceptable for various non-potable uses, but not approved for drinking and other domestic uses) is a technology that has provided a valuable source of water supply for Southern California. Southern California (and Orange County in particular) leads the way in producing recycled water to offset potable water demands. In 1996 the major imported water supplier in the .region, MWD, adopted its so-called "Southern California's Integrated.Water Resources Plan (IRP) representing a dramatic shift in water management and resource planning for the region. The IRP identified 80 different local recycling projects producing over 150,000 acre feet per year of water supply available to the region. Depending upon technological advancements and economic constraints, the IRP projected that as much as 800,000 acre feet of recycled water could be made available to the region tiy_2o20. Recycled water projects will certainly be relied upon to meet the demands o projected growth in the region. However, recycled water has not been approved for drinking or for other potable uses. Desalinated seawater can be made directly available for drinking and other potable uses. Consequently, seawater desalination was also one of several potential.resource^.options. identified in the IRP. The IRP also recommended that groundwater recovery projects, storage projects, water recycling projects, water transfer projects and water conservation projects be included in the "resource mix". The IRP pFed+sts states that f _ " base'�o _ _. feasibility studies on potential projects, about 200,000 acre-feet per year(of desalinated o e'ag water) could be developed ,by 2010 (p. 3-12). The proposed Poseidon Seawater Desalination Project represents an opportunity to develop approximately 56,000 acre-feet per year, -or. approximately one fourth of that PFGjeGt Supply Reed the potential for seawater .desallnatton development identified by the-1996.IRP,." Page 3-22, PROJECT NEED AND OBJECTIVES ".....and environmental impacts to biological resources. In general, anticipated statewide shortages can be expected to translate to equivalent local and regional shortages, with similar economic and environmental effects. Senate Bill (SB)221 and SB 610 require de monstration;;of, water supply reliability prior.to development." Page 3-25, AGREEMENTS, PERMITS, AND APPROVALS REQUIRED ".....The following agreements, permits, and approvals are anticipated to be necessary: Approval/Permit. Permits to Operate Agency Final EIR Certification City of Huntington Beach Conditional Use Permit City of Huntington Beach Coastal Development Permit' City of Huntington Beach Franchise Agreement City of Huntington Beach 94R" Domestic Water Supply Permit State of California Department of Health Services Coastal Development Permit2 California Coastal Commission (CCC) The City's Coastal Development Permit approval may be appealed to the California Coastal Commission. 2 A CDP is required directly from the CCC for the ocean discharge. City of Huntington Beach a July 10,2003 168 Poseidon Seawater Desalinatio, roject RL 'ONSES TO COMMENTS Environmental Impact Report 3.0 ERRATA NPDES Permit Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board Permit to Operate South Coast Air Quality Management District Encroachment Permits U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Santa Ana River Crossing) Caltrans, District 12 (SR-55 undercrossing) County of Orange . (channel ' crossings, pump. station) City of Huntington Beach (product water pipeline) City of Costa Mesa (product water pipeline) Mesa Consolidated Water District (product water pipeline)__.-----------..._. --- Metropolitan .Water District of Southern California (product water pipeline) Institutional Agreements Various cities, agencies, and regional water purveyors. Lease Agreement California State Lands Commission Industrial Source Control Permit Orange County Sanitation District Page 4.1-9, RELEVANT PLANNING ".....Policy HM 1.4.4 (Page V-HM-8): "Require that owners of contaminated sites develop a remediation plan with the assistance of the Orange County Environmental Management Agency (EMA). Southeast Coastal Redevelopment Plan The proposed project site is located within the Southeast Coastal Redevelopment Plan ar a This redevelopment plan became effective in August of 2002, with the associated Program EIR certified in June of 2002. As adoption of the Southeast Coastal Redevelopment Plan didno change any General Plan'or zoning designations within the redevelopment area (including+the proposed desalination facility site), the proposed Poseidon Seawater Desalination Protect wills be consistent with the Southeast Coastal Redevelopment Plan, General Plan, and zon'i Asia result of this redevelopment plan, the proposed desalination project may be eligible to receive tax increment funding from the redevelopment area for use in developing infrastructure/aesthetic improvements and hazardous materials remediation (in accordance k the goals contained within the redevelopment plan)." Page 4.1-10, RELEVANT PLANNING ":....As such, the proposed desalination facility's ocean discharge will require separate review and approval by the California Coastal Commission of a Coastal Development Permit. SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION/ OF GOVERNMENTS (SCAG) REGIONAL COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND GUIDE Growth Management Chapter ❖ 3.03: The timing, financing, and location of public facilities, utility systems,a d transportation systems shall be used by SCAG to implement the region's`growth policies. City of Huntington Beach July 10,2003 169 Poseidon Seawater Desalin. Project 3PONSES TO COMMENTS Environmental impact Report 3.0 ERRATA ❖ 3.18: Encourage planned development in locations least likelyto cause adverse environmental impacts., ❖ 321: Encourage the implementation of measures aimed at the preservati protection of recorded and unrecorded cultural resources and archaieo gg sites. ❖ 3.22: Discourage development, or encourage the use of special.... es g requirements,'in areas with steep slopes, high_fire, flood,_and seismic bazar S. A_ 3.23: Encourage mitigation measures that.reduce noise in certain .locati s measures aimed at preservation of biological .,and ..ecological r esou measures that would reduce exposure to seismic hazards, minimize earthqua e damage, and to develop emergency response and recovery plans: Air Quality Chapter ❖ 5.11: Through the environmental document review process, ensure that plans all levels of government (regional, air basin, county, subregional, and ljocanshi consider air quality, land use, transportation, and economic relatiops o ensure consistency and minimize conflicts." Page 4.1-10, LAND USE " .: Ion -term plant operation. The proposed pipeline alternatives and ,underground pump- statiolare adjacent-to a variety of land uses, including residential, open space, commercial, educational, medical, institutional, and recreational. However, the pipelines and underground pump statio will be subsurface and are not antics ated to result in an Ion -term land use im acts. Page 4.1-11, RELEVANT PLANNING "The project evaluated within this EIR proposes to implement a 50 mgd desalination plant within an industrial area. Project implementation would be consistent with the City of Huntington Beach General Plan, Local Coastal Program, and Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance, ai SCAG Regional Comprehensive Plan and Guide (RCPG). During the "design development". stage, the Applicant.:..." Page 4.3-11, Impacts on Source Water from the OCSD Outfall ".....The OCSD discharges up to 480 mgd of wastewater that has received primary treatment and some secondary treatment at an outfall that is located approximately five miles offshore at a depth of 195 feet. It should be noted that OCSD has committed to provide secondary treatma for 100 percent of all effluent it receives. The development of facilities to provide this additions secondary treatment could take up to 11 years to plan, design, construct, and commission.. more detailed implementation plan is being developed by the District and will be completed early 2003. City of Huntington Beach �j July 10,2003 170 Poseidon Seawater Desalinatit .'roject R PONSES TO COMMENTS Environmental Impact Report 3.0 ERRATA In addition, on August 12, 2002, the OCSD began disinfecting its wastewater per Regiona Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) requirements. The OCSD is presently adding bleach as a disinfectant followed by sodium bisulfite to remove residual prior to ocean discharge,a dl continue to do so for the next three to five years. Testing and studies are,underway to','evaluate other disinfection technologies, including ultraviolet light, ozone, and peracetic acid for longterm application.' . The OCSD wastewater discharge would have the greatest potential to impact water quality at the AES intake with summer El Nino conditions when currents are flowing northwest towards the AES facility... In addition, for. "worst case" conditions,-the model assumed that OCSD was discharging at its maximum allowable rate of 480 mgd and that the temperature conditions in the ocean would allow the wastewater plume to be near the depth of the AES intake. The model showed that under these extreme conditions, the OCSD discharge would be diluted 10 million to one at the AES intake and would not affect water quality at the intake. This d U-1on would be further increased in consideration of OCSD's proposed secondary treatment process and current disinfection process, which were not accounted.for within modeling in this Dr_aft'ElRi Impacts in this regard are anticipated to be less than significant." Page 4.3-19, Water Quality Impacts to Marine Biological Resources The "first flush" treated waste cleaning solution from the washwater tank will be discharged into the local sanitary sewer for further treatment at the Orange County Sanitation District (OCSD) regional wastewater treatment facility. The cleaning flush water following the "first flush" will be mixed with the RO plant brine concentrate, treated-waste filter backwash, and the AES:plant discharge and sent to the ocean. This"second flush"water stream will contain trace arnounts of cleaning compounds and would be below detection limits for hazardous waste. An Industnai Source Control Permit from the OCSD for discharge of waste cleaningsolution into the sanitary sewer system will be required for the project. In addition, the discharge must comply_with the limits and requirements contained in the OCSD's Wastewater Discharge Regulations.: Impacts to the local marine environment in this regard would be less than significant. Page 4.6-3, Roadway Maintenance "The City of Huntington Beach Public Works Department provides roadway maintenance to the City of Huntington Beach. The Department performs regular maintenance on City owned roadways in the form of re-paving, pothole/curb repairs, and striping, as well as roadway widenings, expansions, and improvements. It should be noted that the City of Huntington Beach Public Works Department has Red-te be-;M d with G Fb q tter, sib conditioned, the widening of both Newland Street (located west of the subject site) and Edison Avenue (situated north of the subject site). The applicant would be required to complete improvements alongA southern side of Edison Avenue as a condition of approval for the project, while the City'wouid be responsible for improvements along Newland Street with the applicant responsible for paying their fair share. For more information refer to the"Impacts" section below." City of Huntington Beach July 10,2003 171 Poseidon Seawater Desalina Project SPONSES TO COMMENTS Environmental Impact Report 3.0 ERRATA Page 4.6-4, Storm Water Drainage ".....The OCFCD and the City of Huntington Beach Public Works Department operate the storm water drainage system within the City of Huntington Beach. The storm drainage system removes water runoff from streets, and, , transports the runoff to the ocean. The OCFCD owns, operates, maintains, and improves regional flood control facilities. The .City of Huntington Beach owns and operates 145 storm. drainage channel pumping stations which pump the runoff water into the channels and to the ocean. No runoff from the project site....... Page 4.6-5, Reclaimed Water ".....The City of Huntington Beach iS GUFFeRfly paFtiGipatiRff participated in the Green Acres project (GAP) in association with the OCSD and the Orange County Water District (OCWD). The OCSD produces secondary treated water for the OCWD, where the water is treated once again and distributed for potential industrial use and landscape irrigation ifl for the Cities of Fountain Valley, Santa Ana, Costa Mesa, Newport Beach, and Huntington Beach. lR additioR; EGA The GWRS is a major flew reclamation project currently being developed by the OCSD and OCWD. This project could increase the City's use of reclaimed water to 400 afy. At the present time, no conveyance facilities are available at or near the subject site, and it is not anticipated that the proposed desalination project will require the use of reclaimed water." Page 4.6-8, Roadway Maintenance "As, previously stated, both Newland Street and Edison.Avenue have has--Feseat4}. been conditioned to be improved, steFage taRk E)PtiGR be seleGted, F=diSGR Avenue will FequiFe GUFb, gutter, sidewalk, StFeet light'^^, and paViRg ii:RpFeyements by the City of Huntington Beach Department of Public Works. As a condition of approval by the City of Huntington Beach for the_proposed project`the applicant will be required to complete improvements along the southern side of Edison Avenue (situated north of the subject site as shown in Exhibit 2 of the Draft EIR, SITE VICINITY.MAP) These improvements would consist of the dedication of 12 feet along the frontage of the existing Edison Avenue (for curb, gutter, paving, and street lighting improvements) for a total of approximately 600 linear feet. It should be noted that AES Huntington Beach, LLC would;be responsible for dedication of property to the City for these improvements, as AES owns.,the entire southern frontage of Edison Avenue.and would lease property to the applicant lbrjhe proposed project. However, the project applicant would be responsible for completing'ttese roadway and landscaping improvements as a condition of approval for the project subsequent-to property dedication. It should also be noted that street widening along Newland Street (west of the proposed. ro ect site would be performed b the City, „.,.. p p -project ) p y y, ;with.separate entitlements`:and, environmental evaluation. AES Huntington Beach, LLC would dedicate the necessary right of way along Newland Street and both AES and the project applicant would be required to`pa�I their fair share of the cost. In addition, traffic impact fees as determined by the City of Huntington Beach will be collected upon project implementation in order to offset any costs incurred for roadway widenings and intersection capacity improvements.3 Impacts in this regard are anticipated to be less than significant. 3Letter, Mr.Todd Broussard, City of Huntington Beach Public Works Department;July 16, 2001. City of Huntington Beach &V3 July 10,2003 172 Poseidon Seawater Desalinatic, 'roject R ?ONSES TO COMMENTS Environmental Impact Report 3.0 ERRATA Page 4.6-9, Wastewater ".....eight-inch sewer conveyance pipeline leading off-site to the existing 48-inch OCSD sewer pipeline located within Newland Avenue or a 54-inch OCSD line within Pacific Coast Highway. OCSD has also indicated that the pH and flowrate of the washwater tank discharge would be acceptable, contingent upon the acquisition of a Sewer Connection Permit from the City of Huntington Beacli and an Industrial Waste INGsharge Source..Contro( Permit from the OCSD. It should be noted that the County of Orange's....:`' Page 4.6-17, Hydraulics . ".....However, the hydraulic characteristics of the OC-44 Pipeline may be affected in one of two ways, depending on whether the pipeline segment in question is east or west of the proposed Poseidon/OC-44 connection point. West of the proposed Poseidon/OC-44 connection point, the flow rate and flow direction would remain unchanged, while a change in water pressure would be negligible (a change of less than five pounds per square inch). East of the proposed connection point, the direction of flow would be reversed, the flow rate would increase, and water pressure would decrease. It is anticipated that maximum flow velocity through this portion of the pipeline would be 7.5 feet per second (fps). All flow rate, pressure, and velocity changes which may occur in the existing pipelines are within pipeline design specifications. it should be noted that the OC-44 connection is operated .by a Joint Powers Authority (with Mesa Consolidated Water District as the approving agency). The applicant will obtain appropriate approvals from the Mesa Consolidated Water District prior to project operation in order to ensure that impacts to the .00-44 do not .adversely impact the Joint Powers Authority ; In addition, the,proposed. project would hot inhibit.the City.of Huntington Beach's ability to operate the OC-44 from zero. to 13 cubic feet per 'second (CFS) Without restriction*.or, need..fo"r,' notification." Page 4.6-18, Reclaimed Water "The City of Huntington Beach is not currently utilizes utilizing lirinited ameuRts 9 reclaimed water, although the City is may in the future through the Green Acres Project and Groundwater Replenishment System. The proposed project is not anticipated to require the use of reclaimed water or installation of reclaimed water facilities, as the project itself will be a new reclamation source. Impacts in this regard are not anticipated to be significant. Page 4.6-21, MITIGATION MEASURES "PSU-1 Prior to the issuance of building permits, eena ersial—€ee-ef $Q.Q9T per Fe feat f9i. nnr. .ic irinn4��1 deyelrvp e+# the applicant will be required to pay applicable school mitigation fees pursuant to,State law." Page 4.9-19, BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ".....not anticipated to be significant (refer to Appendix L, BOOSTER PUMP STATION BIOLOGICAL CONSTRAINTS SURVEY, for additional information). It should also be noted that any displaced vegetation would be replaced. City of Huntington Beach / �j�/ July 10, 003 v / 173 Poseidon Seawater Desaline Project SPONSES TO COMMENTS Environmental Impact Repo. 3.0 ERRATA In addition, implementation of the proposed project may result in impacts to waterways duesto "frac-outs" potentially occurring during pipeline construction. "Frac-outs" occur when drilling fluids (usually bentonite) seep to the surface via cracks in the,ground. Prior to the performance of any directional boring, the applicant will prepare a Frac-Out Contingency Plan. The plan'wiI[ establish criteria under which a bore would be shut down (e.g., loss of pressure, loss of-,a certain amount of returns) and the number of times a single bore should be allowed to frac=out before'.the bore is. shut down and reevaluated. It will also.clearly state what measures �nnll'be taken to seal previous frac-outs that have occurred on a given bore to ensure that it does.ho become the path of least resistance for subsequent frac-outs. Additionally, the site-sp16 Frac-Out Contingency Plan will be prepared and_reviewed by the City Engineer and appropriate resource agencies prior to each major bore:" Page 4.9-28, MITIGATION MEASURES ".....of the roadway using appropriate construction signage and flagmen, or submit a detour plan for approval by the City Traffic Engineer. The Traffic Management Plan shall be approved by affected agencies at least two weeks prior to construction. Per Caltrans requirements,;the applicant shall submit the Traffic Management Plan to Caltrans at the 0,9 percent design phase;" Page 4.9-30, MITIGATION MEASURES .:..restrictions on construction .activities may be required in the vicinity of the nest until the nest is no longer active. CON-40 Prior to the commencement of any directional boring for water conveyance. pipeline implementation, the applicant shall prepare a Frac-Out Contingency Plan. The plan shall establish criteria under which a bore would be shut down (e.g., loss of pressure, loss of a certain amount of returns) and the number `of times a single bore should be allowed to frac-out before the bore is shut down and reevaluated. It will also clearly state what measures will be taken to seal previous frac-outs that have occurred on a given bore to ensure that it does'not become the path of least resistance for subsequent frac-outs. Additionally, the site-specific Frac-Out Contingency Plan will be prepared and reviewed by..the City Engineer and appropriate resource agencies prior to each major bore. CON-41 In order to minimize potential construction impacts to nesting savannah sparrows adjacent to the proposed desalination facility, a pre-construction nesting survey will be performed by a qualified biologist in consultation with applicable regulatory agencies. Should nesting savannah sparrows be found, adequate mitigation (such as relocation, construction noise abatement measures, etc.) will be implemented as appropriate based on the findings of the pre-construction survey` CON-42 All focused surveys for sensitive biological resources performed prior, .to proposed project implementation shall include a review of data within, the, California Natural Diversity Data Base (CNDDB) to obtain current informafion on any previously reported sensitive species/habitat, including Significant Natural Areas identified under Chapter 12 of the Fish and Game Code. City of Huntington Beach July 10, 2003 174 Poseidon Seawater Desalinath_ Project RL .1ONSES TO COMMENTS Environmental Impact Report 3.0 ERRATA 0� N-43 ._,,.__Prior to implementation of the proposed off site booster pump station adjacent the NCCP/HCP boundary, a Junsdictional delmeatfon of the -'proposed u' station sate shall be performed to determine,the extent o ,unsdlct ion aI area any, as,_part of_the regulatory permitting.process' CULTURAL RESOURCES. CON-404 Should buried historical/archaeological resources be discovered during excavation on the proposed booster pump station site, all construction work in that area shall be halted or diverted until a qualified archaeologist can evaluate the nature and significance of the finds. CON-445 During excavation of five feet below ground surface or lower on the proposed booster pump station site, a paleontological resource recovery program for Miocene invertebrate fossils shall be implemented. This program shall include, but will not be limited to, the following: ❖ Monitoring of excavation in areas identified as likely to contain paleontologic resources by a qualified paleontologic monitor. The monitor shall be equipped to salvage fossils as they are unearthed to avoid construction delays and to remove samples of sediments which are likely to contain the remains of small fossil invertebrates and vertebrates. The monitor must me empowered to temporarily halt or divert equipment to allow removal of abundant or large specimens. Monitoring may be reduced if the potentially fossiliferous units described herein are not encountered, or upon exposure are determined following examination by qualified paleontologic personnel to have low potential to contain fossil resources; ❖ Preparation of recovered specimens to a point of identification and permanent preservation, including washing of sediments to recover small invertebrates and vertebrates; ❖ Identification and curation of specimens into a museum repository with permanent retrievable storage. The paleontologist should have a written respository agreement in hand prior to the initiation of mitigation activities; and ❖-Preparation of a report of findings with appended itemized inventory of specimens. The report and inventory, when submitted to the appropriate Lead Agency, would signify completion of the program to mitigate impacts to paleontologic resources." Page 5-7, Geographic Scope of Cumulative Impact Assessment ".....As discussed in Section 5.2, GROWTH INDUCING IMPACTS, the project may facilitate new development in sewth Orange County and the South Coast Region." Appendix E, Watershed Sanitary Survey, Page E-41, Wastewater Collection, Treatment, and Discharges Refer to Responses 17b and 17c of the Responses to Comments, above. City of Huntington Beach �� July 10,' 003 ' 175 j i t- � Irv.°�-+-{'�u i'y .F T l���A Y� � F ti I i� f �, tr � i� :�� Fes' �,a �E �,y t: � Ki L A �"' � ,�, t _ G, ivy+�-" ' r Y RN ,+,t+1 � 'z`�` '} 4 „x - t � x �/ � °AJ CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH CITY COUNCIL COMMUNICATION TO: Connie Brockway, City Clerk FROM: Mayor Connie Boardman SUBJECT: APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DECISION TO CERTIFY EIR NO. 00-02 (POSEIDON DESALINATION PLANT) AS ADEQUATE AND COMPLETE DATE: August 13, 2003 At their August 12, 2003 meeting the Planning Commission certified EIR No. 00-02 (Poseidon Desalination Plant) as adequate and complete. I am hereby appealing the Planning Commission's action to the City Council because the EIR does not adequately analyze the project's impacts relative to ocean water quality, marine biology, growth inducement, and the adjacent wetland. cc: City Council Planning Commission Ray Silver, City Administrator .Howard Zelefsky, Director of Planning o a -n -� n n D (BoardmanEIR0002Appea12) . }���� . \ . . ����\ � ^ � � � \ . � , � � � . � � �\ � � � . � � � \ J��. �y . �m/ ~�\ ° � � \ . . � °�� . . . ' ��K ` . � . � �ee : . . ���\ � . . � � . 2 ��; � � . :�; : , - . � . ��z � � � . . . � � . �.� :�; . . . . ��� � . . . : ��2 � � « . . : � � � . w�� � ` � � � � \ ��� � � \\ \ - ��/ � . � . . � _����/ . � . ���y � � . . � . . ����/ � . � � « � . \7��`t � . � . � � . City of Huntington Beach Planning Department Via STAFF REPORT HUNnNGTON BEACH .. TO: Planning Commission FROM: Howard Zelefsky,Director of Planning BY: Ricky Ramos, Associate Planner4==, DATE: May 27, 2003 SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 00-02 (Poseidon Seawater Desalination Plant) APPLICANT: Poseidon Resources Corporation, 3760 Kilroy Airport Way, #260, Long Beach, CA 90806 PROPERTY OWNER: AES Huntington Beach,LLC,21730 Newland Street,Huntington Beach,CA 92646 LOCATION: 21730 Newland Street(East side of Newland, south of Edison Ave) STATEMENT OF ISSUE: • Environmental Impact Report No. 00-02 (EIR No. 00-02)request: - Analyze the potential environmental impacts associated with a request to construct a 50 million gallons per day (MGD) seawater desalination plant including a 10,120 square foot administration building, a 38,090 square foot reverse osmosis building, a 36,305 square foot product water storage tank, and miscellaneous accessory structures on an approximately 11 acre site. The project also includes up to 10 miles of water transmission lines to connect to an existing regional transmission system, and two off-site booster pump stations. - Documents potential impacts to Land Use/Relevant Planning, Geology/Soils/Seismicity, Hydrology and Water Quality, Air Quality, Noise, Public Services and Utilities, Aesthetics/Light and Glare, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, and Construction Related Impacts. Evaluates four alternatives to the original project proposal. Concludes that the project results in no environmental impacts or. less than significant environmental impacts in the areas of Agricultural Resources, Air Quality (long-term), Biological Resources, Cultural Resources, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Land Use/Relevant Planning, Mineral Resources,Population and Housing,Recreation,and Transportation/Traffic. - Concludes that potential impacts can be mitigated to less than significant levels in the areas of Geology/Soils/Seismicity, Hydrology and Water Quality, Noise, Public Services and Utilities, Aesthetics/Light and Glare, and Construction Related Impacts. - Concludes that potential impacts cannot be mitigated to less than significant levels in the area of Short-Term Construction Related Emissions. . • Staff s Recommendation: Certify EIR No. 00-02 as adequate and complete and adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations based upon the following: �1�� - Compliance with California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA) 00B 005O o �, gaaa�aa ° b 00 00' MOD on co Z i ao�°`�� °Do°noDnaD DDg ' M aaoaa�ano c Soo°a ooBQd p Z D m ,' /' ,� DIlao�Daa[�pDano.O.On��e� r oTIM :k ri:. r /; u MAL 9�1 Ri-F Rp; Cl) 0 Wx LN f cn Z v / 00 o0 0 U) N / fl/ rnEl 'NY ,\ J f rr N •4 y'. 63 o dar1GTt'��-' oN, U V`-iu �- y --Ir E - Compliance with the City of Huntington Beach General Plan goals,policies, and objectives - Compliance with the City of Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance - Potentially significant environmental impacts have been eliminated or substantially lessened Remaining significant unavoidable impacts are found to be acceptable due to overriding considerations Benefits of the project are balanced against its unavoidable environmental impacts RECOMMENDATION: Motion to: "Certify EIR No. 00-02 as adequate and complete in accordance with CEQA requirements by approving Resolution No. 1581 (Attachment No. 1)." ALTERNATIVE ACTION(S): The Planning Commission may take alternative actions such as: A. "Deny certification of EIR No. 00-02 with findings for denial." B. "Continue certification of EIR No. 00-02 and direct staff accordingly." .PROJECT PROPOSAL: Environmental Impact Report No. 00-02 represents an analysis of potential environmental impacts associated with the construction a 50 million gallons per day(MGD) seawater desalination plant including a 10,120 square foot administration building, a 38,090 square foot reverse osmosis building, a 36,305 square foot product water storage tank, and miscellaneous accessory structures on an approximately 11 acre site. The project includes up to 10 miles of water transmission lines to an existing regional transmission system, and two off-site booster pump stations. The project also proposes perimeter landscaping and fencing along the project's frontage on Newland Street and Edison Avenue. The EIR provides a discussion of impacts by issue area and provides mitigation measures, where appropriate. Specific issue areas discussed in the EIR include: Land Use/Relevant Planning, Geology/Soils/Seismicity; Hydrology and Water Quality, Air Quality,Noise, Public Services and Utilities, Aesthetics/Light and Glare, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, .and Construction Related Impacts. All. other issues, including Population and Housing, Transportation/Traffic, Biological Resources, Mineral Resources, Cultural Resources, Recreation, and:Agricultural Resources were determined to result in no environmental impacts or less than significant environmental impacts. These issue areas were fully evaluated in the Initial Study/Notice of Preparation for the proposed project, which is included as Appendix A to the EIR document. An analysis of alternatives to the proposed project and long-term implications resulting from project implementation are also provided. An analysis of the proposed development of the property is presented in a companion report that will be considered by the. Planning Commission .after action on the EIR. The companion report reviews applications for Conditional Use Permit No. 02-04 and Coastal Development No. 02-05. (03SR05 EIR00-02) ISSUES: Subiect Property And Surroundinz Land Use,Zoninz And General Plan Designations: LOCATION GENERAL PLAN ZONING LAND USE Subject Property and P (Public) PS-O-CZ-FP2 (Public- AES Generating South of Subject Semipublic—Oil Production Station Property Overlay—Coastal Zone Overlay—Floodplain Overlay) North of Subject I-172-d (Industrial) IG-0-CZ-FP2 (General Animal Hospital, Property Industrial) Industrial,Beach (across from Edison Maintenance Facility Ave) East of Subject RM-15-sp(Residential SP-10 (Magnolia Pacific Flood control channel, Property Medium Density), P Specific Plan), PS-O-CZ- ASCON-NESI landfill, Public FP2 Tank Farm West of Subject RM-15 IL-O-CZ-FP2 (Limited Vacant,Mobile Home Property(across Industrial), RMP-CZ-FP2 Park, RV Park from Newland St) (Manufactured Home Park) General Plan Conformance: A detailed discussion of the project's conformity with goals, policies, and objectives of the General Plan is presented in Section 4.1 (Land Use/Relevant Planning) of the EIR. The proposed project is consistent with the Land Use designation and the goals, policies, and objectives of the City's General Plan as follows: A. Land Use Element LU 2 - Ensure that development is adequately served by transportation infrastructure, utility infrastructure,and public services. LU 4.1.1 - Require adherence to or consideration of the policies prescribed for Design and Development in this Plan, as appropriate: LU 4.1.2 - Require that an appropriate landscape plan be submitted and implemented for development projects subject to discretionary review. LU 4.2.1 - Require that all structures be constructed in accordance with the requirements of the City's building and other pertinent codes and regulations; including new, adaptively re-used, and renovated buildings. LU 4.2.4 - Require that all development be designed to provide adequate space for access, parking, supporting functions, open space, and other pertinent elements. PC Staff Report—5/27/03 3 (03SR05 EIR00-02) LU 7.1.1 - Accommodate existing uses and new development in accordance with the Land Use and Density Schedules. LU 12.1.4 -Require that new and recycled industrial.projects be designed and developed to achieve a high level of quality, distinctive character, and be compatible with existing uses. LU 12.1.5 -Require that new and recycled industrial structures and sites be designed to convey visual interest and character and to be compatible with adjacent uses, considering the: a. use of multiple building masses and volumes to provide visual interest and minimize the visual sense of bulk and mass; b. architectural design treatment of all building elevations; c. use of landscaping in open spaces and parking lots, including broad landscaped setbacks from principal peripheral streets; d. enclosure of storage areas with decorative screening or walls; e. location of site entries to minimize conflicts with adjacent residential neighborhoods;and f.mitigation of noise, odor, lighting,and other impacts. LU 12.1.7 - Control the development of industrial uses that use, store, produce, or transport toxins, generate unacceptable levels of noise or air pollution, or result in other impacts that may adversely impact Huntington Beach. LU 13.1.8 - Ensure that the City's public buildings, sites, and infrastructure improvements are designed to be compatible in scale, mass, character, and architecture with existing buildings and pertinent design characteristics prescribed by this General Plan for the district or neighborhood,in which they are located, and work with non-City public agencies to encourage compliance. The General Plan Land Use Map designation on the subject property is P (Public)which permits a variety of public and institutional uses such as governmental facilities and utilities. The proposed desalination plant is consistent with this designation. The proposed structures are compatible with the industrial development on-site and surrounding industrial area. The structures will be lower in height and have a more attractive design consistent with the General Plan and Design Guidelines. The new structures include multiple building masses and consistent architectural treatment that is carried throughout all the structures, including the architectural screen for the various tanks, for a cohesive appearance. The project provides code required parking and landscaping pursuant to the zoning ordinance including at 10-foot landscape planter with.an eight-foot high block wall along the project's Newland and Edison street frontages. The perimeter wall and landscaping will help screen the site and improve the aesthetics of the area. The new structures will be built according to the City's building and other pertinent codes and will include all necessary utility infrastructure needed to support the use. Potential impacts relating to noise, odor, lighting, and use of hazardous materials are addressed by code requirements, mitigation measures, and recommended conditions of approval. B. Urban Design Element UD 2.1: Minimize the visual impacts of new development on public views to the coastal corridor, including views of the sea and wetlands. UD 2.1.1: Require that new development be.designed to consider coastal views in its massing,height, and site orientation. YX/11 (03 SR05 EIR 00-02) The proposed desalination plant structures will not impact public views to the coast. There are limited views across the AES generation station site due to the height of the existing structures. However, views will be improved to the extent that the proposed desalination plant structures have a lower profile than the existing fuel storage tanks and the AES facility. C. Circulation Element CE 2.3 - Ensure that the location, intensity and timing of new development is consistent with the provision of adequate transportation infrastructure and standards as defined in the Land Use Element. CE 2.3.1 - Require development projects to mitigate off-site traffic impacts and pedestrian, bicycle, and vehicular conflicts to the maximum extent feasible. CE 2.3.2 - Limit driveway access points and require adequate driveway widths onto arterial roadways and require driveways be located to ensure the smooth and efficient flow of vehicles, bicycles and pedestrians. CE 2.3.3 - Require, where appropriate, an irrevocable offer of mutual access across adjacent non-residential properties fronting arterial roadways and require use of shared driveway access. CE 2.3.4 -Require that new development mitigate its impact on City,streets, including but not limited to, pedestrian,bicycle,and vehicular conflicts,to maintain adequate levels of service. CE 7-Maintain and enhance the visual quality and scenic views along designated corridors. To improve circulation in the area, the project will be required to dedicate property along the project's frontage on Newland (10 foot dedication) and Edison (12 foot dedication) for street widening. In addition, the applicant will be required to improve the area to be dedicated on Edison as well as pay their fair share of the cost of widening Newland Street. These improvements will further the city's goal of improving the circulation in the immediate area consistent with the adopted standards. The applicant will also be required to pay traffic impact fees to be used for improvements to the city's overall circulation system. Consistent with policies for mutual access, the applicant is proposing to access the site through the existing AES entrance off Newland Street to limit driveway access points_onto arterials. To enhance the visual quality of the site, the project is required to provide a 10-foot perimeter landscape planter to enhance the overall appearance of the site and area. The landscaping improvements are proposed to be consistent with the approved AES landscaping for a cohesive appearance. D. Coastal Element C 1.1.1 - With the exception of hazardous industrial development, new development shall be encouraged to be located within, contiguous or in close proximity to, existing developed areas able to accommodate it or, where such areas are not able to accommodate it, in other areas with adequate public services, and where it will not have significant adverse effects, either individually or cumulatively, on coastal resources. - -" (03SR05 EIR 00-02) C 1.2.1 - Accommodate existing uses and new development in accordance with the Coastal Element Land Use Plan and the Development and Density Schedule Table C-1. C 1.2.3 -Prior to the issuance of a development entitlement, the City.shall make the finding that adequate services (i.e.,water, sewer, roads, etc.) can be provided to serve the proposed development, consistent with'policies contained in the Coastal Element, at the time of occupancy. C 4.2.1 -Ensure that the following minimum standards are met by new development in the Coastal Zone as feasible and appropriate: a. preservation of public views to and from the bluffs,to the shoreline and ocean and to the wetlands;b. adequate landscaping and vegetation; c. evaluation of project design regarding visual impact and compatibility; and d. incorporate landscaping to mask oil operations and major utilities,such as the electrical power plant on Pacific Coast Highway. C 4.7 - Improve the appearance of visually degraded areas within the Coastal Zone. C 4.7.1 -Promote the use of landscaping material to screen uses that detract from the scenic quality of the coast along public rights-of-way and within public view. C 4.7.5 - Require the review of new and/or expansions of existing industrial and utility facilities to ensure that such facilities will not visually impair the City's coastal corridors and entry nodes. C 4.7.8 Require landscape and architectural buffers and screens around oil production facilities and other utilities visible from public rights-of-way. C 6.1.1 - Require that new development include mitigation measures to enhance water quality, if feasible; and, at a minimum,prevent the degradation of water quality of groundwater basins, wetlands, and surface water. C 6.1.13 -Encourage research and feasibility studies regarding ocean water desalinization as an alternative source of potable water. Participate in regional studies and efforts where appropriate. C 7.1.3 - Development in areas adjacent to environmentally sensitive habitat areas and parks and recreation areas shall be sited and designed to prevent impacts which would significantly degrade those areas, and shall be compatible with the continuance of those habitat and recreation areas. C 7.1.4- Require that new development contiguous to wetlands or environmentally sensitive habitat areas include buffer zones. Buffer zones shall be a minimum of one hundred feet setback from the landward edge of the wetland, with the exception of the following: A lesser buffer may be permitted if existing development or site configuration precludes a 100 foot buffer, or conversely, a greater buffer zone may be required if substantial development or significantly increased human impacts are anticipated. In either case,the following factors shall be considered when determining whether a lesser or wider buffer zone is warranted. Reduced buffer zone areas shall be reviewed.by the Department of..Fish and Game prior to implementation. a) Biological significance of adjacent lands: The buffer should be sufficiently wide to protect the / functional relationship between wetland and adjacent upland. P('araffPPnnrt— 5/17/01 6 (03SR05 EIR 00-02) b) Sensitivity of species to disturbance: The buffer should be sufficiently wide to ensure that the most sensitive species will not be disturbed significantly by permitted development,based on habitat requirements of both resident and migratory species and the short and long term .adaptability of various species to human disturbance. c) Susceptibility of parcel to erosion: The buffer should be sufficiently wide.to allow for interception of any additional material eroded as a result of the proposed development based on soil and vegetative characteristics, slope and runoff characteristics, and impervious surface coverage. d) Use existing cultural features to locate buffer zones: The buffer zone should be contiguous with the environmentally sensitive habitat area and make use of existing features such as roads, dikes, irrigation canals, and flood control channels where feasible. The proposed use is consistent with the Land Use designation for the site of P (Public) which permits a variety of public and institutional uses such as governmental facilities and utilities. Adequate services can be provided to serve the project because the project is an infill development and all services already exist in the surrounding vicinity. The project will help improve the appearance of the area by replacing the existing 40-foot high fuel storage tanks with more attractive lower profile structures (maximum height 30 ft.) and installing perimeter landscaping along the project's Newland and Edison street frontages. The proposed structures will be located behind an existing concrete berm (10 ft. high) away from any wetland or sensitive habitat areas. The buildings are adequately buffered and will have no impact to sensitive habitat. E. Air Quality Element AQ 1.8.1 - Continue to enforce construction site guidelines that require truck operators to minimize particulate emission. AQ 1.8.2 - Require installation of temporary construction facilities (such as wheel washers) and implementation of construction practices that minimize dirt and soil transfer onto public roadways. Recommended conditions and mitigation measures will require the contractor to maintain equipment in peak operating condition,use low-sulfur diesel fuel in all equipment, shut off engines when not in use, and discontinue operation during second stage smog alerts. Furthermore, other measures will be required such as washing tires and undercarriages and covering all trucks leaving the construction site, and providing for street sweeping as needed. The implementation of these measures will help to reduce impacts to the surrounding area during construction. F. Environmental Hazards Element EH 1.2.1 - Require appropriate engineering and building practices for all new structures to withstand groundshaking and liquefaction such as stated in the Uniform Building Code(UBC). The Building and Safety Department will require the applicant to comply with the Uniform Building Code. Also, recommended conditions and mitigation measures will require the applicant to submit a geotechnical report addressing a variety of issues including liquefaction and perform specials studies and investigation to address fault rupture potential. (03SR05 EIR 00-02) G. Noise Element N 1.2.2 - Require new industrial and new commercial land uses or the major expansion of existing land uses to demonstrate that the new or expanded use would not be directly responsible,for causing,ambient noise levels to exceed an exterior Ldn of 65 dB(A) on areas containing "noise sensitive" land uses as depicted on Figure N-1. N 1.6-Minimize the impacts of construction noise on adjacent uses: N 1.6.1 -Ensure that construction activities be regulated to establish hours of operation,to prevent and/or mitigate the generation of excessive or adverse noise impacts through the implementation of the existing Noise Ordinance and/or any future revisions to the Noise Ordinance. A recommended mitigation measure will require the applicant to submit a noise analysis indicating compliance with the City's Noise Ordinance. The Noise Ordinance states that exterior noise standards in all residential properties shall not exceed 55 dbA from 7 am to 10 pm and 50 dbA from 10 pm to 7 am. Noise sources during construction are exempt from the Noise Ordinance provided that a valid building/grading permit has been obtained from the City. Construction hours are limited to between the hours of 7 am to 8 pm, Monday through Saturday and prohibited on Sundays and Federal holidays. Recommended mitigation measures will also require that equipment operated within 1,000 feet of a dwelling be.muffled, stockpiling and vehicle staging areas be located as far as possible from residential areas, and unnecessary idling of engines be prohibited. H. Hazardous Materials Element HM 1.1.4 - Implement federal, state and local regulations for the handling, storage and disposal of hazardous materials. HM 1.2.2 - Ensure that hazardous waste transportation activities are conducted in a manner that will minimize risks to sensitive uses. HM 1.4.4 - Require that the owners of contaminated sites develop a remediation plan with the assistance of the Orange County Environmental Management Agency(EMA). The desalination plant will be using chemicals in its. operations both to clean the reverse osmosis membranes and to treat the potable product water. The project will comply with all federal, state and local regulations for the handling, storage and disposal of hazardous materials. The transportation of chemicals to the desalination plant will be conducted by registered haulers and is required to comply with all Caltrans regulations. The plant is also required to develop hazardous waste management and safety plans pursuant to Occupational Health and Safety Association (OSHA) and US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) requirements. The Fire Department will also require the applicant to submit for their approval a complete chemical inventory and use, storage, and handling plan prepared by a qualified professional. The project will incorporate leak and containment measures to minimize any risk to employees and the surroundings. All chemicals.will be stored in concrete containment structures with a 100 percent spill containment capacity. Zoning Compliance: Not applicable. or ofuP.,, r_sr�-srn; 8 (03SR05 EIR00-02) Urban Desizn Guidelines Conformance: Not applicable. Environmental Status: In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act, RBF Consulting, a consultant hired by the City, prepared EIR No. 00-02 to analyze the potential environmental impacts of the project. The document must be adopted and certified by the Planning Commission prior to any action on Conditional Use Permit No. 02-04 and Coastal Development No. 02-05. The EIR is intended to serve as an informational document for decisions to be made by the City and responsible agencies regarding the proposed project. The EIR analyzes the potential environmental impacts associated with the proposed seawater desalination plant, accessory structures, water transmission lines, and off-site booster pump stations. EIR No. 00-02 discusses potential adverse impacts in the areas of Land Use/Relevant Planning, Geology/Soils/Seismicity, Hydrology and Water Quality, Air Quality, Noise, Public Services and Utilities, Aesthetics/Light and Glare, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, and Construction Related Impacts. The direct, indirect and cumulative impacts of the proposal are addressed, as are the impacts of project alternatives. 1. Environmental Procedures The procedure that was followed during preparation of EIR No. 00-02 is outlined below: DATE 'ACTIVITY May 17, 2001 Staff and RBF conducted an initial study and determined that an EIR would be necessary for the project. May 17, 2001 A Notice of Preparation was sent to responsible agencies and filed with the State Clearinghouse to notify the public of the intent to prepare an EIR. A Notice of Availability was published in the Independent and sent to area property owners within a 2,000 ft.radius as well as interested parties. A 30-day public review period was established from May 17,2001 through June 15, 2001. June 6,2001 A Public Scoping Meeting was held at the Edison Community Center(at 2:30 pm and 7:15 pm) for the public to review the proposed project,discuss any concerns and issues, and inquire about the CEQA process. Sept. 19,2002 Notice of Completion filed with the State Clearinghouse. Notice of Availability mailed to all property owners and tenants within a 300 ft radius, all interested parties, all attendees at Scoping meetings, and all interested agencies. Draft EIR available for public review and comment for forty-five days from Sept. 19 through Nov. 4,2002. Draft EIR available for review at City Hall, Central Library, and BanninE Branch Library. Nov. 4, 2002 Comments on EIR accepted up to 5:00 PM. A total of 21 comment letters were received. March 21, 2003 Response to Comments on Draft EIR and Final EIR are made available for public information and sent to Responsible Agencies and commenting parties. (CEQA requires Response to Comments be sent to Responsible Agencies and commenting parties 10 days prior to certification hearing.) May 27,2003 Public hearing before Planning Commission to Certify EIR No. 01-02. PC StafFRenort—5/27/03 9 (03SR05 EIR 00-02) 2. Summary of EIR No. 00-02 In the preparation of an environmental impact report, potential impacts associated with the proposed development are identified and analyzed pursuant to the requirements of CEQA. These impacts are categorized into three levels of significance. They are: .less than significant impacts; impacts than can be mitigated to a level less than significant; and unavoidable significant impacts. The level of impacts associated with the proposed project are identified below: a) Less Than Sign cant Impacts The project will result in impacts to some environmental resources and conditions that are concluded not to be significant if the development proposal complies with standard conditions of approval suggested in the entitlement staff report. The following topical areas were determined to result in no environmental impacts or less than significant environmental impacts: • Agricultural Resources • Air Quality (long-term) • Biological Resources • Cultural Resources • Hazards and Hazardous Materials • Land Use/Relevant Planning • Mineral Resources. • Population and Housing • Recreation • Transportation/Traffic b)Adverse Impacts That Can Be Mitg_ated to Less Than Significant Through the use of appropriate mitigation measures identified in the EIR, the majority of the potentially adverse impacts associated with the project (CUP and CDP) can be mitigated to a level of insignificance. Areas where impacts may occur and a brief description of the recommended mitigation measures are as follows: • Aesthetics/Light and Glare Utilize minimum light levels for safety and security and lighting shall be directed to avoid spillage onto adjacent properties All exterior mechanical equipment shall be screened from view • Construction Related Impacts - Concentrate construction activities away from adjacent residential uses as feasible - Limit construction hours to Monday-Saturday, 7 am to 8 pm - All construction equipment shall have mufflers - Install construction security fence - Submit erosion-and dust control plan Construction shall include Best Management Practices to control pollutants Complete a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan prior to construction .,, o. rso cis �7n2 10 (03SR05 EIR 00-02) - Dewatering plan shall by approved by the Public Works Department, Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board, and Orange County Water District - Post informational signs on site prior to starting remediation - All structures to be cleaned of hazardous materials prior to off-site transportation - Contractor to follow all recommendations within the adopted Remedial Action Plan - A Traffic Management Plan shall be approved for all work in roadways - A truck and construction vehicle routing plan shall be approved by the Public Works Department - Conduct nesting survey of savannah sparrows adjacent to desalination plant site - Conduct surveys for California gnatcatcher, Bell's vireo, southwestern pond turtle, raptor nests, and sensitive biological resources at booster pump station site - Archaeologist to evaluate any historical and archaeological resources discovered during the construction of the booster pump. • Geology/Soils/Seismicity - Submit geotechnical report to include recommendations regarding grading, foundations, remedial work, overexcavation/recompaction, dewatering, lateral spreading, flood control channel bank stability, liquefaction potential, and ground water constraints and incorporate recommendations into the grading plan - Complete removal and recompaction of compressible soils or use of piles and grade beams to support on-site structures - Compliance with the Uniform Building Code and California Division of Mines and Geology's Guidelines for Evaluating and Mitigating Seismic Hazards and Guidelines for Analyzing and Mitigating Liquefaction - Incorporate adequate measures to stabilize structures from on-site soils known to be prone to liquefaction - Perform special studies and subsurface investigation to determine fault rupture potential of South Branch fault which underlies the site • Hydrology and Water Quality - Submit a Water Quality Management Plan for approval by the Public Works Department to control pollutant runoff - Perform hydrology and hydraulic analysis to address storm water drainage and flooding - Install on-site drainage system to address stormwater - Product water quality to be regulated by the California Department of Health Services • Noise - Submit an acoustical analysis to assure that all stationary noise sources.comply with the city's Noise Ordinance • Public Service and Utilities - Pay traffic impact, sewer connection, water service connection, and school impact fees - Incorporate solid waste reduction and recycling methods for project construction and operation These impacts can be reduced by mitigation measures suggested in the draft environmental impact report and summarized in this report. Staff recommends incorporation of these mitigation measures into the conditions of approval for the development project(CUP and CDP). PC Staff Report—5/27/03 11 (03 SR05 EIR 00-02) l c) Unavoidable Sisnificant Impacts There are adverse environmental impacts that cannot be completely eliminated through mitigation measures relating to short-term construction related emissions of carbon monoxide, reactive organic compounds, and nitrogen oxides from the proposed project. Environmental impacts associated with implementation of a project may not always be mitigated to a level considered less than significant. In such cases,a Statement of Overriding Considerations must be prepared prior to approval of the project, and in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Sections 15091 and 15093. CEQA requires decision makers to balance the benefits of the proposed project against its unavoidable environmental risks in determining whether to approve the project. If the benefits of a proposed project outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects, the City may consider the adverse environmental effects acceptable. In this particular case, staff believes the social, economic, and ecosystem/biological resources benefits of the proposed project outweigh the adverse impacts to air quality during the construction process. A Statement of Overriding Considerations is required to describe the specific reasons for approving the project, based on information contained within the Final EIR, as well as any other information in the public record. Prior to certification and adoption of the EIR by resolution, the Planning Commission may amend the document. It should be noted, however, that removal of any of the recommended mitigation measures requires findings and justification. Additionally, all mitigation measures that are approved with the EIR must be applied to the approved project. Environmental Board.- The City's Environmental Review Board reviewed the EIR at their meeting of October 3, 2002. In addition, the Board submitted a letter during the 45-day public comment period. The letter has been responded to by the consultant and is included as part of the Response to Comments (see Attachment No. 2). In summary, the Board commented on the following: • Use of the most energy efficient motors available to drive the 36 large electric water pumps • Coordinate with other agencies on possibility of co-locating other needed pipelines to minimize impacts • Impacts to water quality and marine biology • Reduced impacts from use of aboveground water storage tank in lieu of underground tank option Coastal Status: The proposed project is within the appealable portion of the Coastal Zone. Coastal Development Permit No. 02-05 is being processed concurrently with EIR No. 00-02 and Conditional Use Permit No. 02-04 pursuant to Chapter 245 of the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance. The project's compliance with Coastal Zone issues is discussed in a separate report. Redevelopment Status: The project is located in the Huntington Beach Southeast Coastal Redevelopment Project area. Discussion of the proposed project's effect on redevelopment issues is discussed in a separate report. PC Staff Report—5/27/03 12 (03SR05 EIR 00-02) Design Review Board: Not applicable. Subdivision Committee: Not applicable. -Other Departments Concerns and Requirements: The EIR was circulated to other Departments for review and comment. All Department comments and recommendations are incorporated into the EIR and its mitigation measures. No conditions of approval apply to the EIR. As development of the proposed project occurs, compliance with mitigation measures will be enforced through the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, which is attached to the staff report for the development. Public Notification: Legal notice was published in the Huntington Beach/Fountain Valley Independent on May 15, 2003, and notices were sent to property owners of record and occupants within an expanded radius of 2,000 ft. from the subject property, individuals/organizations requesting notification (Planning Department's Notification Matrix), applicant, and interested parties. Since this report was completed prior to the notices being sent and the legal notice being published, no written communication supporting or opposing the request was received prior to the completion of this report. Any such written communication received subsequently will be forwarded to the Planning Commission under separate cover. Application Processing Dates: DATE OF COMPLETE APPLICATION: MANDATORY PROCESSING DATE(S): Dec. 12, 2000—Application Submitted September 21, 2003 March 16, 2001 -EA Completed September 19, 2002—Draft EIR.Completed March 21, 2003 —Response to Comments Completed ANALYSIS: The analysis section provides a brief overview of the EIR and its conclusions, a review of the project alternatives, a brief discussion of the Statement of Overriding Considerations, and a summary of the response to comments. EIR Overview The EIR provides a detailed analysis of potential impacts associated with the proposed project. The issues discussed in the EIR are those that have been identified in the course of extensive review of all potentially significant environmental impacts associated with the project. The EIR discusses potential adverse impacts in nine issue areas. The direct, indirect and cumulative impacts of the project are addressed, as are the impacts of project alternatives. PC Staff Report—5/27/03 13 (03 SRO EIR 00-02) ♦ Aesthetics/Light and Glare The proposed project will improve the aesthetics of the area by replacing three 40-foot high fuel storage tanks with lower profile, modern, and more attractive structures together with perimeter landscaping and an eight-foot high block wall. The new structures include variations in form, building details, colors,.and, materials to create visual interest. The design is. carried throughout all the structures, including the architectural screen for the various tanks, for a cohesive appearance. To provide a unified appearance, a 10-foot wide planter with an eight-foot high block wall will be provided along the project's street frontage consistent with the wall design approved for the AES generating station. A mitigation measure is recommended to require all exterior mechanical equipment to be screened from view to so as not to detract from the appearance of the area. The project will also introduce new lighting sources within the project area as well as a minimal amount of additional reflective surfaces on proposed structures. Glare effects from the proposed structures are deemed relatively minor compared to the existing levels in the vicinity. With implementation of standard conditions of approval and a mitigation measure to prevent light spillage across property lines and utilizing minimum light levels for safety, the effects of increased light and glare will be less than significant. e Air Quality The long-term on-site and off-site air emissions for the proposed project were modeled as recommended by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). The results indicate that long-term impacts would not exceed any SCAQMD thresholds and are not anticipated to be significant. The off-site emissions resulting from the production of electricity to operate the desalination plant were also considered. Based on the expected power consumption for the plant, the project may create regional impacts in regards to air quality. However, it would be speculative to quantify such emissions as the electricity used by the project will come from a regional power supply grid. Given that the project conforms to the General Plan and zoning designations, impacts in this regard have been accounted for in local and regional planning documents. Moreover, the project will be subject to review by the SCAQMD for consistency with regional air quality plans. Based on this no mitigation measures were included. Short-term air quality impacts are discussed under the Construction Related Impacts section. ♦ Construction Related Impacts Air quality impacts during construction include fugitive dust and exhaust emissions from construction and motor vehicles. Recommended mitigation measures to address these impacts include requiring watering of the site and using low-sulfur diesel fuel. However, short-term impacts relating to carbon monoxide, reactive organic gases, and nitrogen oxides emissions from construction equipment,particularly during the hauling of materials off-site, exceed SCAQMD thresholds and are considered an unavoidable significant impact because they cannot be mitigated. The project will also generate noise impacts during the construction process from remediation, demolition, and construction activities_as a result,of power tools, j ackhammers, pile drivers, truck trips, etc. Mitigation measures are recommended that require equipment to be muffled, the prohibition of unnecessary idling of equipment, compliance with construction hours in the Noise Ordinance, and adoption of a truck route that is least disruptive to sensitive receptors.. PC Staff Renort—5/27/03 �` " 14 (03SR05 EIR 00-02) During construction, construction equipment and high levels of truck traffic may adversely impact the area. Mitigation measures are recommended that require fencing the construction site and locating equipment storage, stockpiling, and construction activities away from residential areas to the greatest extent feasible. Construction of the water transmission line will cause temporary disruption to area streets. Traffic impacts during construction will be addressed by several mitigation measures which require submittal of a Traffic Management Plan and a construction vehicle routing plan, among others. Impacts from potential exposure to hazardous materials during the construction process will be addressed through compliance with existing federal, state, and local regulations as well mitigation measures which require, among others, the approval of a Remedial Action Plan and compliance with requirements for the proper handling and disposal of hazardous materials. The project is anticipated to create water quality impacts during excavation, grading, and construction through the discharge of dust or sediment laden runoff. Several mitigation measures are proposed to address this issue including a requirement for submittal of an erosion control plan and a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan. Construction of the underground booster pump in an area within unincorporated Orange County as well as the desalination plant in Huntington Beach may have impacts to biological resources by disrupting their habitat. The EIR identifies mitigation measures to address these impacts which require the completion of various biological resource surveys pursuant to the,requirements of the appropriate federal and state . agencies. Any potential impacts to cultural resources are addressed by mitigation measures.to implement a paleontological resource recovery program as well as a requirement to halt any construction upon discovery of any historic/archaeological resources until an archaeologist can be consulted. Construction of the booster pump will require permits from the County. ♦ Geology/Soils/Seismicity The EIR includes an analysis of existing topography, geology, seismicity, and liquefaction conditions at the project site and analyzes the potential environmental effects of the project. In addition, this section describes potential impacts from landslides, tsunamis, and seiche waves. The EIR includes recommended mitigation measures to -address potential impacts. The mitigation measures require design level geotechnical reports.to minimize or avoid impacts related to compressible materials, lateral spreading, liquefaction potential, ground shaking,. and flood control bank stability: Also, complete removal and recompaction of compressible soils or use of piles and grade beams to support on-site structures will be required. To address seismic impacts, a mitigation measure is recommended to require special studies and subsurface investigation to determine fault rupture potential of South Branch fault which underlies the site. Potential impacts from tsunamis and seiche waves are anticipated to be less than significant given that previous evaluations noted in the General Plan put the tsunami potential for the city at very low. Additionally, the existing concrete berm along the perimeter of the site provides additional protection from any potential waves that might impact the site. ..Report—5/27/03 15 (03 SR05 EIR 00-02) ♦ Hazards and Hazardous Materials The EIR states that the project is expected to have a beneficial impact by facilitating the remediation of contamination surrounding the fuel storage tanks and distillate fuel tank. In addition, demolition of the tanks would also abate any asbestos and lead paint on the. structures.. The operation of the plant involves the use of hazardous materials with: 1) periodic cleaning of the reverse osmosis membranes which filter impurities from seawater; 2).treatment of potable product water; and 3) storage of diesel fuel for emergency back electricity generators.at the off-site underground.booster pump stations. The materials to be used are described in detail in the EIR, Section 4.8. The project will incorporate leak and containment measures to minimize any risk to employees and the surroundings. All chemicals will be stored in concrete containment structures with a 100 percent spill containment capacity. The transportation of chemicals to the desalination plant will be conducted by registered haulers and is required to comply with all Caltrans regulations. The plant is also required to develop hazardous waste management and safety plans pursuant to Occupational Health and Safety Association (OSHA) and US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) requirements. The Fire Department will require the applicant to submit a complete chemical inventory including a use, storage, and handling plan prepared by a qualified professional. The EIR concludes that project design implementation and compliance with existing requirements reduce anticipated impacts to less than significant. ♦ Hydrology and Water Quality The project's hydrology and water quality impacts are proposed to be addressed by mitigation measures that require the preparation of a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) which will identify Best Management Practices (BMPs), the submittal of a site-specific hydrology and hydraulic analysis, and the installation of an on-site drainage system subject to the approval of the Public Works Department. Concerns about the quality of the product water will be addressed by compliance with California Department of Health Services requirements. The EIR concludes that the project will impact water quality in the long term by increasing runoff from impervious surfaces. An on-site local storm water drainage system would be implemented with the project and the storm water will be discharged into the ocean via the AES outfall_. Through the use of appropriate mitigation, the impacts are reduced to a less than significant level. An analysis of the potential impacts to the source water from,the Pacific Ocean was also conducted. The computer model concluded that under the worst-case scenario during an El Nino winter and with the AES facility pumping the maximum amount of cooling water, water drawn into the intake would be comprised of 0.001 percent water from the Santa Ana River and Talbert Marsh. The study also concludes that dry weather runoff from the Talbert Marsh under the worst-case scenario is released into the surf zone and onshore waves keep the marsh water in the shallow near shore waters. In contrast, the AES intake is 2,292 feet offshore in 34 feet of water. The model further concludes that under the worst-case scenario the Orange County Sanitation District discharge would be diluted 10 million to one at the AES intake. Lastly, the re-circulation of the AES outfall into the intake was also studied and under the worst-case scenario will only make up.0.1"peicent.of the,intake.water. The analysis concluded that impacts to the source water are not anticipated to be significant. Therefore, impacts are less than significant. PC Staff Report—5/27/03 16 (03SR05 EIR 00-02) Potential impacts of the brine discharge to marine biology were also analyzed. The analysis concludes that, under the worst-case scenario which assumes that the AES facility has only two circulating pumps operating (one generating unit running) and that no additional mixing from natural causes such as wind or wave action would occur, a maximum of 15.6 acres_ of ocean floor (benthic area) and 18.3 acres of the . water around the discharge (pelagic area) are expected to be exposed to water with a salinity 1.0 percent higher than the ambient seawater during the worst case scenario. This worst-case scenario has less than a one percent chance of occurring. During average conditions with normal power plant operations (four circulating pumps associated with two AES generating units), typical environmental conditions, and desalination plant production of 50 mgd, a maximum of 6.5 acres of benthic area (ocean floor) and 8.3 acres of pelagic area (open seas or oceans) is expected to be exposed to water with a salinity 10 percent higher than ambient water. Average case conditions are expected to occur 50 percent of the time the desalination plant is operating. The EIR notes that a 10 percent anomaly is within the natural variability of seawater salinity and would be tolerated by most fish and planktonic species. Additionally, mobile species have the ability to avoid areas they cannot tolerate. No significant impact to local fish and planktonic populations is expected as a result of the brine discharge. The analysis also states that benthic species will have similar salinity tolerances. However, during average conditions the salinity of the water at the ocean floor immediately around the discharge will be higher than local normal oceanic variation. This will likely lead to a replacement of the existing benthic community with estuarine species that can tolerate increased salinity and that will be functionally similar to the existing community. The analysis concluded that impacts to benthic species are not anticipated to be significant. ♦ Land Use/Relevant Planning The EIR includes information on the existing land use characteristics of the project site and the adjacent areas relative to the desalination plant, water transmission lines, and booster pump stations. The Land Use section of the Initial Study (Appendix A) determined that the proposed project would not physically divide an established community, nor would it conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan. Consequently, this section addresses conformity of the proposed project with local land use plans and policies, and existing and planned land uses in the project vicinity. The proposed project is consistent with the General Plan Land Use and zoning designations for the project site. The EIR concluded that the proposed project would be consistent with applicable goals, objectives, and policies of the Huntington Beach General Plan and Local Coastal Program. Any impacts the proposed project might create relative to air quality, aesthetics, construction, hazards and hazardous materials, and noise are addressed in the corresponding EIR sections. Given that the water transmission line and booster pump stations are underground no long-term land use impacts are expected. The EIR concluded that the proposed project would,therefore,result in a less-than-significant land use impact. ♦ Noise The EIR examines existing ambient noise levels on-site, at nearby surrounding sensitive receptors, along "he proposed water transmission line alignments, and at the booster pump station sites and evaluates the -)tential noise impacts resulting from implementation of the proposed project. Stationary noise sources —aff-Report—5/27/03 17 �� (03 SR05 EIR 00-02) on-site were considered and include 36 electric water pumps and air conditioning system components. The pumps will either be operated indoors or will be provided with enclosures to.dampen noise. Additionally, intervening structures such as the concrete berm and the proposed wall, together with significant setbacks, will further reduce noise. A mitigation measure is recommended which requires the applicant to submit a noise analysis prepared by a qualified acoustical consultant which identifies stationary noise sources from the project and necessary measures to assure compliance with the city's noise ordinance prior to issuance of a grading or building permit. The EIR concluded that with the mitigation measure, the potential impacts would be reduced to less than significant. The off-site booster pump stations will be placed underground to minimize potential noise impacts. Because the project will only employ up to 18 staff and will require approximately three truck deliveries per day, impacts from mobile sources are anticipated to be less than significant. Short-term noise impacts are discussed under the Construction Related Impacts section. ♦ Public Services and Utilities The EIR includes a discussion of the existing public services and utilities available to the proposed project. Services evaluated include fire, police, schools, libraries, roadway maintenance, parks, water, wastewater, storm water, reclaimed water, solid waste, electricity, gas, telephone, and cable. All public services impacts would be less than significant after implementation of recommended mitigation measures. The recommended mitigation measures include payment of school impact fees, traffic impact fees, sewer connection fees, and water service connection fees. To address solid waste impacts, a mitigation measure is recommended which requires the submittal of a waste,reduction plan. Alternatives to the Proposed Project CEQA requires that an EIR describe a range of reasonable alternatives to the project or its location that .could feasibly attain the basic objectives of the project (see page 3-23 of the EIR), but would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant impacts of the project. An EIR need not consider every conceivable alternative to a project;rather, it must consider a range of potentially feasible alternatives that will foster informed decision-making and public participation. An EIR should also evaluate the comparative merits of the alternatives. Four project alternatives-were selected for review. The Alternative Project Design alternative was ultimately found to be infeasible. The three remaining alternatives were further studied to identify ways to mitigate or avoid the significant environmental effects resulting from the proposed project. These three alternatives are described below. • No Project/No Development Alternative = Maintain the project site in its current state with no development. • Alternative Site Alternative—An alternative site for the project is located southwest of the current project site and was the proposed project site in the Initial Study. However, this option was rejected due to potentially significant impacts to AES parking, access, and operations. Several alternative locations outside Huntington Beach were also considered including the mouth of San Juan Creek in Dana Point, San Onofre, and along the coast in San Clemente. These alternatives are not being considered for various reasons including environmental concerns with a new ocean PC Staff Report—5/27/03 18 (03SR05 EIR 00-02) intake/discharge system (Dana Point and San Clemente) and engineering and acquisition issues (San Onofre). • Aboveground Product Water Storage Tank Alternative — Development of the. project with an aboveground storage tank in lieu of an underground storage tank. A summary of the three feasible project alternatives, and a comparison of environmental impacts relative to the proposed project, is presented in the table below: Summary of Project Alternatives issueArea No Projed/!Vo Devdopmient AlternadwSite Aboveground Tank Option Land Use/Relevant Planning < N/A = Geology/Soils/Seismicity < Hydrology and Water Quality < =h > Air Quality < Noise < =h = Public Services and Utilities > (water supply) Aesthetics/Light and Glare < =h > Hazards and Hazardous < U = Materials Construction Related Impacts < </_ < Legend: Impact is equivalent to impact of proposed project(neither environmentally superior or inferior) < Impact is less than impact of proposed project(environmentally superior) > Impact is greater than impact of proposed project(environmentally inferior) A detailed analysis of environmental impacts for these alternatives compared to the proposed project is included in Section 6.0, Alternatives To The Proposed Action, of the EIR. As discussed in Section 6.5, the No Project Alternative was determined to be the most environmentally superior alternative. Among the other alternatives, the Aboveground Product Water Storage Tank alternative is anticipated_to produce a lower amount of short-term construction related emissions as it would require less grading and excavation that the underground tank design. :The Alternative Site alternative is not anticipated to significantly reduce impacts as implementation is expected to result in overall similar or greater environmental impacts. Statement of Overriding Considerations Environmental impacts associated with implementation of a project may not always be mitigated to a level considered less than significant. In such cases, a Statement of Overriding Considerations must be prepared prior to approval of the project, and in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Sections 15091 and 15093. Because implementation of the proposed project would create significant unavoidable impacts a Statement of Overriding Considerations is required to describe the specific reasons for approving the 19 (03SR05 EIR.00-02) project, based on information contained within the Final EIR, as well as any other information in the public record. The proposed project would result in the following significant unavoidable adverse impact: • Air Quality Short-term construction related emissions of carbon monoxide; reactive organic compounds, and. nitrogen oxides Although the project results in adverse impacts to the environment that cannot be mitigated or avoided, the Planning Commission may still approve the project if a Statement of Overriding Considerations is adopted. CEQA requires decision makers to balance the benefits of the proposed project against its unavoidable environmental risks in determining whether to approve the project. If the benefits of a proposed project outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects, the City may consider the adverse environmental effects acceptable. In this particular case, staff believes the social, economic, and ecosystem/biological resources benefits of the proposed project outweigh the adverse impacts to air quality during the construction process. Errata Section 3.0 of the Response to Comments outlines the changes to the Draft EIR (see Attachment No. 4). The changes consist of additional information on the required improvements along Edison Avenue, a discussion of the relevance of the Southern California Association of Governments' Regional Comprehensive Plan and.Guide, and the addition and modification of a few mitigation measures in response to the comments received on. the Draft EIR. In addition, it also. :includes other minor clarifications to the text. Public Comments As mentioned above, the Draft EIR was circulated to the public for review and all interested parties, property owners, and occupants within three hundred feet of the site were notified of the document's availability. The public and responsible agencies were therefore able to review the document and submit comments within the forty-five day public comment period. The 21 written comments received from the public have been responded to in the Response to Comments (see Attachment No. 2) of the EIR. The comments covered a wide spectrum of issues and concerns including but not limited to: impacts to biological resources, impacts to water quality and marine biology, geologic hazards, growth inducing impacts, cumulative impacts, and impacts to the water supply/quality and distribution system. One follow up letter dated May 8, 2003 was received from the Coastal Commission (see Attachment No. 5). Any further written communication received subsequent to the preparation of the staff report as well as a response to the Coastal Commission letter will be forwarded to the Planning Commission under separate cover. SUMMARY: Environmental Impact Report No. 00-02 serves as an informational document with the sole purpose of identifying potential environmental impacts associated with the Poseidon desalination plant project, alternatives that minimize those impacts, and appropriate mitigation measures. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission certify EIR No. 00-02 because: PC Staff Report—5/27/03 ��� 20 (03 SR05 EIR 00-02) ■ The EIR adequately addresses the environmental impacts associated with the proposed project; and ■ Identifies project alternatives and mitigation measures to lessen the project's impacts consistent with General Plan policies. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Resolution No. 1581 (Final EIR No. 00-02) 2. Final EIR No. 00-02 including Response to Comments (under separate cover—not attached) 3. Technical Appendices EIR No. 00-02 (under separate cover—not attached) 4.- Efmta pages to Final 5. Coastal Commission letter dated May 8, 2003 SH:HF:RR:rl PC Staff Report—5/27/03 21 (03SR05 EIR 00-02) RESOLUTION NO. 1581 RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COADUSSION OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH,CALIFORNIA, CERTIFYING THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (SCH#2001051092)FOR THE POSEIDON SEAWATER DESALINATION PROJECT WHEREAS, an Environmental Impact Report, State Clearinghouse #2001051092 ("EIR") was prepared by the City of Huntington Beach ("City")to address the environmental implications of the proposed Poseidon Seawater Desalination Project (the "Project"). • On May 17, 2001, a Notice of Preparation/Initial Study for the Project was prepared and distributed to the State Clearinghouse, other responsible agencies, trustee agencies and interested parties. An update to the Notice of Preparation/Initial Study was prepared and distributed on March 4,2002. • After obtaining comments received in response to the Notice of Preparation, and comments received at the two public scoping meetings held at the Edison Community Center in the City of Huntington Beach on June 6, 2001 (2:30 pm and 7:15 pm), the City completed preparation of the Draft EIR; dated September 19, 2002, and filed a Notice of Completion with the State Clearinghouse. • The Draft EIR was circulated for public review and comment from September 19, 2002 to November 4, 2002 and was available for review at several locations including City Hall and the Huntington Beach Public Library; and WHEREAS, public comments have been received on the Draft EIR, and responses to those comments have been prepared and provided to the Planning Commission ina separately bound document entitled "Responses to Comments for the Poseidon Seawater Desalination Project" (the "Responses to Comments"), dated March 21, 2003; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public meeting on the EIR on May 27, 2003, and received and considered public testimony. NOW, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of Huntington Beach, California, DOES HEREBY RESOLVE, as follows: SECTION 1. Consistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15132, the Final EIR for the Project is comprised of the Draft EIR. and Appendices, the comments received on the `Draft EIR,. the Responses to Comments, the: Errata (bound together with the Responses to Comments), the Appendices to the Responses to Comments and all Planning Department Staff Reports to the Planning Commission, including all minutes, transcripts, attachments, incorporation, and references. SECTION 2. The Planning Commission makes the findings contained in the attached "Statement of Facts and Findings with respect to significant impacts identified in the Final EIR and finds that each fact in support of the findings is true and is based upon substantial evidence in the record, including the Final EIR. The Statement of Facts and Findings is attached as Exhibit"A" to this Resolution and incorporated herein by this reference. SECTION 3. The Planning Commission finds that the Final EIR has identified all significant environmental effects of the Project and that there are no known potential environmental impacts not addressed in the Final EIR. SECTION 4. The Planning Commission finds that all significant effects of the Project are set forth in the Statement of Findings and Facts and the Final EIR. SECTION 5. The Planning Commission finds that although the Final EIR identifies certain significant environmental effects that will result if the Project is approved, all significant effects which can feasibly be mitigated or avoided have been mitigated or avoided by the incorporation of Project design features, standard conditions and requirements, and by the imposition of mitigation measures on,the approved Project. All mitigation measures are included in the "Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Checklist" (also referred to as the "Mitigation Monitoring Program") attached as Exhibit "B"to this Resolution and incorporated herein by this reference. SECTION 6. The Planning Commission finds that the Final EIR has described reasonable alternatives to the Project that could feasibly obtain the basic objectives of the Project (including the "No Project" Alternative), even when these alternatives might impede the attainment of Project objectives and might be more costly. Further, the Planning Commission finds that a good faith effort was made to incorporate suggested alternatives in the preparation of the Draft EIR and that a reasonable range of alternatives was considered in the review process of the Final EIR and ultimate decisions on the Project. SECTION 7. The Planning Commission finds that no "substantial evidence" (as that term is defined pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15384) has been presented which would call into question the facts and conclusions in the EIR. SECTION 8. The Planning Commission finds that no "significant new information" (as that term is defined pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5) has been added to the EIR. The Planning Commission finds that the refinements that have been made in the Project do not amount to significant new information concerning the Project, nor has any significant new information concerning the Project become known to the Planning Commission through the public hearings held on the Project, or through the comments on the Draft EIR and Responses to Comments. L� 2 SECTION 9. The Planning Commission finds that the Mitigation Monitoring Program establishes a mechanism and procedures for implementing and verifying the mitigations pursuant to Public Resources Code 21081.6 and hereby adopts the Mitigation Monitoring Program. The mitigation measures shall be incorporated into the Project .prior to or concurrent with Project implementation. SECTION 10. The Planning Commission finds that the unavoidable significant adverse effects of the Project as identified in Section 5.0 of the Statement of Facts and Findings (short-term construction related impacts in regards to air quality) have been lessened in their severity by the application of standard conditions, the inclusion of Project design features and the imposition of the mitigation measures. The Planning Commission finds that the remaining unavoidable significant impacts are clearly outweighed by the economic, social, and other benefits of the Project, as set forth in the "Statement of Overriding Considerations" included as Section 7.0 of the Statement of Facts and Findings. The Planning Commission adopts the recitation of overriding considerations which justify approval of the Project notwithstanding certain unavoidable significant environmental effects which cannot feasibly be substantially mitigated as set forth in the Statement of Overriding Considerations. SECTION 11. The Planning Commission finds that the Final EIR reflects the independent review and judgment of the City of Huntington Beach Planning Commission, that the Final EIR was presented to the Planning Commission, and that the Planning Commission reviewed and considered the information contained.in the Final EIR prior to approving Conditional Use Permit No. 02-04 and Coastal Development Permit No. 02-05. SECTION 12. The Planning Commission finds that the Final EIR serves as adequate and appropriate environmental documentation for the Project. The Planning Commission certifies that the Final EIR prepared for the Project is complete, and that it has been prepared in compliance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act and CEQA Guidelines. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED, this 27t' day of May, 2003 by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: . Howard Zelefsky, Secretary Chairperson,Planning Commission STATE OF CALIFORNIA—THE RESOURCES AGENCY GRAY DAVIS,GOVERNOR CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION -5 FREMONT, SUITE 2000 .N FRANCISCO, CA 94105-2219 Y OICE AND TDD (4I5) 904-5200 e FAX (415) 904-5400 Y 8, 2003 Mr. Ricky Ramos City of Huntington Beach Planning Department 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 VIA FACSIMILE (714) 374-1648 RE: Coastal Commission staff review of City's Response to Comments for proposed Poseidon Seawater Desalination Project Draft Environmental Impact Report. Dear Mr. Ramos: Thank you for providing the Responses to Comments document of March 21, 2003 for the proposed Poseidon Seawater Desalination Project. The document provides responses to comments the City received on its Draft Environmental Impact Report(EIR) for the proposed project, including comments provided by Coastal Commission staff in a letter dated November 4, .2002. The proposal involves constructing and operating a desalination facility to be located at the Huntinzon Beach Generating Station:(HBGS) in Huntington Beach. A portion of the proposed project is within the City's Local Coastal Plan jurisdiction and will require a coastal development permit from the City. Additionally,p:.rt of the proposal is within the Coastal Commission's retained jurisdiction as well as within the Commission's appeal jurisdiction, so it will require additional review and approval by the Commission. We have several concerns about the responses that we would like you to-incorporate into the CEQA review before the City considers adopting a Final EIR for the proposed project. We understand the Planning Commission has scheduled a hearing on the matter for May 27, 2003. Our concerns are based on the level of information needed to review the proposed project's conformity to the Coastal Act as well as to provide adequate evaluation under CEQA. We are especially interested in ensuring this proposal undergoes proper review, since it represents what would be the largest coastal desalination facility in the U.S. and the first one to be reviewed in-. California for over a decade. To better ensure this environmental review is done comprehensively and efficiently,we recommend the comments below be incorporated into the City's EIR review before the City and the Coastal Commission start their reviews for coastal development permits. General Comments: The responses in several issue areas do not provide adequate information for reviewing the proposed project for conformity to the Coastal Act, and may not be adequate for review under CEQA. Our primary concerns relate to the EIR's evaluation of the proposed project's biological impacts, the alternatives analysis, growth-inducement, and cumulative impacts. Letter re; "Responses to Comments" on Poseidon Seawater Desalination Project DEIR . May 8, 2003 Page 2 of 6 One additional area of concern that underlies several of the comments in our November letter regards the applicability of various ordinances, regulations, and laws to this proposed project. The proposal involves using a private entity to produce potable water from a public resource (i.e.,seawater), and selling that product to one or more public water districts. Providing a public water supply has, in the past,been done most commonly by public entities. Our concerns in this matter take two forms: • Whether laws, ordinances, and regulations applicable to public entities providing a water supply apply differently, if at all, to private water suppliers. Public water districts are subject to a number of requirements that are based in part on their characteristics as public agencies. For example,rates are set for public water districts based largely on the operational and maintenance costs of providing a public service, not on profitability. Additionally,the Coastal Act includes several policies with provisions or requirements for public works facilities, but not for similar"private works facilities." We recommend the EIR provide an analysis of this issue to ensure that anticipated regulatory requirements and mitigation measures would indeed apply to this proposed project. Of course, a more fundamental question to be asked and answered outside the context of CEQA is whether privatizing water supplies is sound public policy. . • Whether international trade law adversely affects the ability of state and local jurisdictions to regulate proposals such as this. Recent decisions by international trade tribunals and other developments in international trade law raise concerns that private companies operating internationally may not be subject to state or local environmental regulations if those regulatory actions interfere with profitability. For example, a company may argue that producing and selling water in California includes restrictions, such as flow limits,mitigation requirements, or compliance with Coastal Act resource protection policies,that are not required in other countries where-the company produces and sells water, and that these restrictions adversely affect profitability. Such an argument could limit or eliminate state and local environmental protection requirements, and may abrogate many of the mitigation measures identified during environmental review. We therefore recommend the City consider how international trade agreements, treaties, and laws may apply to this proposal, and whether anticipated environmental mitigation measures could be compromised. Attached is a copy of a presentation given to the Coastal Commission in February of this year regarding Coastal Act policies that may apply differently to public and private proposals. The City may wish to evaluate its own Local Coastal Plan policies and other applicable City ordinances in a similar manner and include the evaluation as part of the EIR. Please also note that at several places in our November comment letter,we requested additional information be provided in"subsequent environmental documents". This was meant to refer to subsequent CEQA-related documents to be developed as part of the City's CEQA review, such as a supplemental EIF ,an addendum, or other similar documents. / b -G; .'Z Letter re: "Responses to Comments" on Poseidon Seawater Desalination Project DEIR May 8, 2003 Page 3 of 6 Specific Comments: • Water Quality and Marine Biological Resources: Our comment letter requested.that the EHR include additional information about the proposed project's impacts on biological resources. We note that several other federal and state regulatory agencies (including the U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service, California Department of Fish and Game, the Regional Water Quality Board, and the State Lands Commission)also stated in their comment letters that the DEIR did not adequately address various aspects of the proposed project's impacts to biological resources. However,rather than make changes to the analyses based on comments from these agencies,the "Responses To Comments" document largely re-iterates what was stated in the DEIR. There are a number of assumptions used in the E]R analysis that do not appear to accurately reflect conditions at the project site or characteristics of the existing and proposed facilities; therefore, the EIR's determination that there are no significant impacts to marine resources may not be accurate. We have provided more detailed comments on this issue below. • Entrainment: Our comment letter stated that results of the HBGS entrainment study would be needed to identify the existing level of impacts to marine biological resources and to help determine impacts.of this proposed project, Our letter also cited the City's. LCP Policy 6.1.19,which requires mitigation be identified before approving any new.or expanded seawater pumping facilities. The City's response to our comments states that the project would not result in increased entrainment, entrapment, or impingement of marine organisms, and that results of the study would therefore not be necessary. We disagree, for several reasons: o First, the DEIR appears to base its assumptions about entrainment impacts on the permitted water use at HBGS rather than actual use. We note that several recent CEQA-equivalent analyses by the California Energy Commission to review proposed changes to coastal power plants have used as their baseline the actual amount of water used by a power plant, rather than the maximum permitted amount. This approach provides a more accurate assessment of existing versus proposed conditions and meets the CEQA requirement to establish baseline levels by determining the actual, existing environmental conditions at the time of review. The EIR analysis should therefore be based on the actual amount of water used at the power plant during a recent representative period of time, and the analysis should compare this rate and pattern of use with the water use anticipated for the desalination facility. o Next, the DEIR states that the desalination facility would not increase entrainment over that caused by the power plant because some of the power plant's pumps would be used to circulate water for use by the desalination facility even when the power plant was not generating electricity. While this measure might reduce the difference between the rates of entrainment caused by either process, it does not provide the level of information needed to determine entrainment impacts for either facility. Without additional detailed information about each facility's pumping rates, the relationship between water use for power generation and for desalination(e.g.,the Letter re: "Responses to Comments" on Poseidon Seawater Desalination Project DEIR May 8, 2003 Page 4 of 6 timing and rate of desalination operations during power plant shutdown, long-term operation of the desalination facility without power production, etc.), and the different entrainment effects that may result from power generation and desalination,we are unable to determine whether entrainment rates would increase, decrease, or remain the same. o Additionally,-the.entrainment study currently underway for the power plant is meant to not only determine entrainment impacts but to identify what mitigation measures are available and necessary if the study results show significant impacts. The study could therefore result in mitigation measures that might require structural or operational changes to the once-through cooling system affecting both the power plant and the desalination facility. Since part of the purpose of CEQA review is to identify significant impacts and available mitigation,we believe it is necessary to include the results of the entrainment study as part of the review for the proposed desalination facility. o Finally, we note that the California Energy Commission(CEC) and the Regional Water Quality Control Board(RWQCB)will use the results of the entrainment study to help determine whether alternative cooling systems may be feasible and necessary at the power plant. The CEC recently provided a 10-year certification for the power plant, and the.power plant's NPDES (National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System) permit is subject to review and renewal by.the RWQCB every five years: Since alternatives to the existing cooling system such as dry cooling,wet-dry cooling, and others will likely be considered during these upcoming reviews and within the approximate 20-year planning horizon of this CEQA analysis, the EIR should evaluate the effect that selecting a cooling system other than once-through cooling would have on the desalination facility, and should also evaluate the effect the presence of an existing desalination system might have on the choice of alternative cooling systems. The issues and concerns above regarding marine biological resources and entrainment should also be incorporated into the EIR's cumulative impacts analysis. This issue is of particular concern because the offshore waters that would serve as both source and receiving waters for the facility are subject to significant ongoing stresses that adversely affect water quality and biological resources. Additional adverse effects related to entrainment or brine discharges may exacerbate these existing adverse conditions. • Modeling water quality and biological impacts: The EIR needs to include more detailed information about the modeling and assumptions used to develop and evaluate the "worst-case" scenario for impacts to water quality and marine biological resources. The modeling results provided show increased salinity extending over up to several hundred acres of water surface and benthic habitat. While the EIR points out that part of this increase is within,the natural range of variability in seawater, it does not describe how that variation correlates seasonally or with ambient ocean conditions in the vicinity of the discharge, and does not describe the effect an ongoing increased salinity.discharge would have on marine organisms that would otherwise experience seasonal or ambient ��� conditions. Additionally, the modeling identifies an impact that maybe significant and Letter re: "Responses to Comments" on Poseidon Seawater Desalination Project DEIR May 8, 2003 Page S of 6 that would occur over a relatively large area, but does not evaluate mitigation measures to avoid or minimize that impact, such as structural or operational changes to the facility's outfall. We recommend these be included in the.EIR. • Lack of site-specific or general information: We also requested that the EIR include information about the impacts of other similar desalination facilities and mitigation measures used at those facilities. We believe this would help determine whether there were issues or knowledge gained elsewhere that might be applicable to the proposed project. The City's response states that this information is not necessary. However, we refer back to our concerns mentioned above about another of the City's responses, which stated that the findings of the current entrainment study are not needed, either. We are therefore left with no recent, applicable data about the effects of desalination facilities in general, or about this proposed facility in particular. The absence of one set of these data may be acceptable,but the absence of both provides very little credible information on which to base the CEQA analysis. • Inadequate Alternatives Analysis: There are likely several reasonable and feasible alternatives that have not yet been incorporated into review of the proposed project, and that will be needed both for completeness under CEQA and for conformity to Coastal Act policies. In our November comment letter,we requested additional alternatives analyses be done that identified other sources of water that might be used to provide drinking water. In its response, the City stated that alternatives were not needed because the.use of ocean water would not cause significant impacts. However, based on our concerns about entrainment and water quality mentioned above, we believe the City should reconsider this position, since the proposal may indeed result in significant entrainment impacts. The City also staters that other water sources were not being considered because part of. the project purpose is to provide a reliable local source of drinking water, and that sources such as reclaimed or recycled water were not considered local since they were derived from imported water or groundwater. We note,however, that the recent Metropolitan Water District(MWD) document, "Report on Metropolitan's Water Supplies" (March 25, 2003) considers recycled water as a local water source. Since the proposed facility is within the MWD service area, and is subject in part to N WD planning projections, we believe it would be reasonable to define the sources of supply consistent with the definitions used by MWD. This approach would allow for an adequate alternatives analysis under CEQA and would also allow for consideration of recycled or reclaimed water sources that may have fewer adverse environmental impacts. Even if seawater were to be the only water source evaluated, there are several methods of using seawater, such as beach wells, covered intakes, etc., that would avoid or reduce what may be significant levels of entrainment caused by using a once-through ocean water cooling system. While these alternatives may require that new structures be built or existing structures be modified, the construction-related impacts may be relatively short-term and minimal compared to the ongoing adverse entrainment effects that may occur. We therefore recommend the EIR provide additional evaluation of these or other similar alternatives. �� Letter re "Responses to Comments" on Poseidon Seawater Desalination.ProjectDE1R May 8, 2003 Page-6 of 6 • Inadequate Analysis of Growth-Inducement: The EIR does not provide adequate information about the known or likely use of the water to be produced by the proposed facility; therefore, it is not possible to adequately evaluate the growth-related or cumulative impacts of that use. Regarding growth-inducement, CEQA requires a discussion of how the proposed project.could foster growth. The analysis should, at the very least, include information about where the produced water is either known to be going(due to existing contracts to purchase the water) or is likely to go (based on the economics of producing and transporting water from coastal,low-elevation Huntington Beach to other locations in the water supply service area). The analysis should also evaluate effects of the potential growth on the resources of the surrounding area,pursuant to the CEQA guidelines, and should also address the impacts of that growth on coastal resources, as required by the Coastal Act. In closing,we recommend that these concerns be incorporated into either a Final or Supplemental Draft EIR before review begins to determine the proposed project's conformity to the Coastal Act. 'Thank you for the opportunity to comment, and please feel free to contact me at (415) 904-5248 or tluster(a),coastal.ca._gov if you have any questions. i Since ly, Tom Luster Energy and Ocean Resources Unit Cc: Poseidon Resources—Billy Owens U.S.Fish&Wildlife Service—Jonathan Snyder CA Dept. of Fish&Game—William Paznokas Regional Water Quality Control Board, Santa Ana Region—Mark Adelson State Lands Commission—Jane Smith f V ` S-Q- STATE OF CALIFORNIA-THE RESOURCES AGENCY GRAY DAVIS,GOVERNOR CALIFORNIA COASTAL. COMMISSION FREXONT. SUITE 2000 i FRANCISC0, CA 94105-2219 ° ACE AND TDD (415) 904-5200 FAX (415) 904-5400 W10a . Febru 20, 2003 To: Coastal Commissioners and Interested Public From: Jaime Kooser,Deputy Director Alison Dettmer,Manager, Energy and Ocean Resources Unit Tom Luster, Energy.and Ocean Resources Unit Re: Briefing on the Applicability of Coastal Act Policies to Public and Private Desalination Facilities .INFORMATIONAL ITEM ONLY Summary:This briefing summarizes.Coastal Act policies that may apply differently to - desalination facilities proposed by public.or private entities. The briefing provides only a conceptual level review of how these policies are likely to apply differently to public or private proposals, as each proposed facility will require case-by-case review to determine how and whether a particular policy applies. It identifies many of the questions and concerns that the Commission may consider when reviewing a proposed desalination facility for Coastal Act conformity. The briefing is being provided based on interest recently expressed by the Commission and due to staff anticipating that several large-scale desalination facilities requiring review under the Coastal Act will soon be proposed by both public and private entities. It is also offered in advance of a more comprehensive report on coastal desalination in California being prepared by staff in conjunction with the Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary. That report is intended to provide the Commission, staff, applicants, and the public guidance on how Coastal Act policies may apply to a much wider range of issues associated with desalination, and will identify the types of information likely to be needed to review proposed facilities for conformity to the Coastal Act. The report will also support the work of the California Department of Water Resources Task Force on Desalination,which is charged with determining opportunities for, and constraints on, desalination in the state. This briefing groups the various applicable Coastal Act policies into several categories—growth- inducement, alternatives analysis, coastal-dependency,priority development,placing fill in coastal waters, and the capacity of public works facilities—and provides an analysis of each category. The briefing also includes a discussion of the Public Trust Doctrine as it may apply differently to public or private proposals. Finally, it includes a list of existing and proposed desalination facilities along the California coast. i i Briefing to Coastal Commission on Public/Private Desalination INFORM4TIONITEM OALY February 20, 2003 Page 2 of 17 INTRODUCTION Development along the California coast has long been either accommodated or limited by the amount of fresh water available. Past efforts to provide adequate water have included importing water from other areas, increasing water availability through storage projects, using groundwater, and promoting conservation. Efforts to provide water through seawater desalination have generally been Limited in both size and number due to technological or economic constraints and its effects on coastal resources. Recent changes in desalination technology, along with a growing interest by state and local govenunents, water districts, and private entities to increase and diversify sources of potable water along the coast, have led to a number of proposed projects that would significantly increase the amount of water provided through desalination. There are currently about a dozen desalination facilities along the California coast, none capable of producing more than several hundred thousand gallons of potable water per day. Over the past two years,there have been about 20 proposals for desalination facilities along the coast,including several with an anticipated capacity of 30 to 50 million gallons per day. [A list of existing and proposed coastal desalination projects in California is provided at the end of this briefing.] These proposed facilities are largely at the.conceptual or design levels; it is likely,however, that several will be subject to review for coastal development permits in the near future. In anticipation of reviewing these proposed facilities, Commission staff is updating a report prepared in 1993, "Seawater Desalination in California". The updated report will identify Coastal Act policies that apply to proposed desalination facilities and is intended to provide general guidance on the types of information needed and considerations to be addressed during review of these proposals for conformity to the Coastal Act. Proposed facilities need to conform to a range of Coastal Act policies, such as those related to water quality,protection of marine organisms, visual resources, and will be subject to other applicable federal, state, and local requirements. Today's briefing, however, focuses on only one element—how policies of the Coastal Act might apply differently to public or private proposals to provide desalinated seawater. ` Why is this an issue? Interest in"public vs.private" aspects of desalination has been generated in part by recent changes in the way water is being provided to the public. Until recently,public water supplies in California have most commonly been provided by some type of community service or municipal-water district, with a smaller number provided by investor-owned utilities or privately-held mutual.water companies'. Recent trends towards utility deregulation and interest by various government entities to privatize some services are creating opportunities for private entities to take on some of the risks and responsibilities of providing water to the public. Additionally, water is increasingly being seen as a commodity rather than a public resource or public good, and is being produced, transported, and used increasingly based on market forces rather than on non-market public interests. As public entities face growing budget constraints, they may be less able or willing to make significant infrastructure improvements orincrease their t The Department of Water Resources reports that in 1994-96, of the 2850 water agencies in California, 195 (or about 7%)were private investor-owned facilities(Source:California Water Plan Update:Bulletin 160-98}._ Briefing to Coastal Commission on Public/Private Desalination IIVFORMATIONITEM ONLY February 20, 2003 Page 3 of 17 service areas, and may chose to turn over all or some of their water supply duties to private entities. Conversely,public entities may choose to take on some characteristics of private entities in the way they market their water supplies or expand the area in which they provide water through various forms of public-private partnerships2. These changes are occurring at the same time that technological and economic changes in desalination make it increasingly feasible for entities along the California coast to tap into the Pacific Ocean and provide large amounts of water at economic costs approaching the costs of other more commonly available sources, such as water imported from the Central Valley or Colorado River. While a number of issues associated with these changes will be under the purview of other government bodies, such as the state's Public Utilities Commission or State Water Resources Control Board,the Coastal Commission has an important role in determining whether such changes conform to the policies of the Coastal Act and result in the necessary protection of coastal resources. Coastal Act Policies Applicable to Public/Private Water Supplies The Coastal Act includes a number of policies that may apply differently to public or private water purveyors. In general, the Act emphasizes coastal resources as.public resources subject to public oversight and the capacity of public infrastructure. Specific Coastal Act policies evaluated in this briefing are grouped in the following categories: • Growth-inducing Impacts • Alternatives Analysis • Coastal Dependency • Priority Development • Fill in Coastal Waters • Capabilities of Public Works Facilities This briefing evaluates each of the above policy issues separately and describes how each could apply to public orprivate entities, and in some cases public-private partnerships. The review of a specific proposed facility for conformity to Coastal Act policies, however,will require case-by- case analysis of how these policies apply. In addition to evaluating the policies listed above, the briefing includes a description of the Public Trust Doctrine, a legal construct that underlies many of the provisions of the Coastal Act, and how it may apply to some aspects of the use of ocean water for desalination. Z Rates established by the state Public Utilities Commission for water sales do not allow public agencies to profit from their water sales,but allow private entities a regulated amount of profit based on elements such as delivery costs, characteristics of the service area,and other considerations. `R !•+: � _"ate;'Z ^ p F Briefing to Coastal Commission on Public/Private Desalination INFORMA TION ITEM ONLY February 20, 2003 Page 4 of 17 ANALYSIS OF APPLICABLE COASTAL ACT POLICIES I. Growth-inducing Impacts Section 30250(a) states: New residential, commercial, or industrial development, except as otherwise provided in this division, shall be located within, contiguous with, or in close proximity to, existing developed areas able to accommodate it or, where such areas are not able to accommodate it, in other areas with adequate public services and where it will not have significant adverse effects, either individually or cumulatively, on coastal resources... " Section 30254 states: New or expanded public works facilities shall be designed and limited to accommodate needs generated by development or uses permitted consistent with the provisions of.this division;provided, however, that it is the intent of the Legislature that State Highway Route 1 in rural areas of the coastal zone remain a scenic two-lane road. Special districts shall not be formed or.expanded except where assessment for, and provision of, the service would not induce new development inconsistent with this division. Where existing or planned public works facilities can accommodate only a limited amount of new development, services to coastal dependent land use, essential public services-and basic industries vital to the economic health of the region, state, or nation,public recreation, commercial recreation, and visitor-serving land uses shall not be precluded by other development. Analysis: In some areas along the California coast, desalination could remove what may be the single largest constraint to growth, a limited supply of potable water. Constructing new desalination facilities, especially large-scale facilities, is likely to lead to new development and population increases in some coastal areas. Without adequately evaluating these facilities,the increased development and population could expand beyond the rate and direction of growth anticipated in local or regional growth management plans, could result in new and unanticipated pressures on local populations and infrastructure, and could have significant adverse effects on coastal resources. The Coastal Act addresses the growth-inducing effects of proposed development from two somewhat different perspectives. The first focuses on whether proposed development can be supported by available public services;the second focuses on whether public facilities can adequately support proposed development: • Section 30250(a):Review under this section requires, in part, that new development be in or near existing developed areas able to accommodate it or in areas with adequate public services. This section is meant to prevent new development from outpacing the ability of local communities to provide necessary services and to promote concentrated development patterns. t ._ 1 Briefing to Coastal Commission on Public/Private Desalination INFORMA TION ITEM ONLY February 20, 2003 Page S of 17 Section 30254:As in section 30250(a) above,this section establishes that the permitted level of development be tied to the capabilities of local services,but also establishes that the capacity of existing or expanded public works facilities and service districts be based on the level of development an area can accommodate in a manner consistent with the policies of Chapter 3 of the Coastal Act: It also provides that certain types of development—coastal-dependent, essential public services and industries, recreation, and visitor-serving land uses—not be precluded by other development, and that new development conform to the policies and standards contained in any applicable Commission-certified local coastal plans (LCPs). These policies may relate to regional water and growth management goals or how limited water resources are allocated. Both sections emphasize that new development be tied to the capabilities of up blic services and public works facilities. Public control of these facilities generally provides mechanisms such as public hearings,public election or appointment of officers, and other forms of public oversight, that better ensure such developments are linked to local growth management plans and allow the public to be involved in decision-making. Public ownership is also likely to allow for a more comprehensive approach to resolving issues related to local and regional growth,the types of development to be considered, and the directions in which it occurs. The ongoing public review or oversight provided,by a public rather than private entity is also likely to allow more complete consideration of other specific aspects of growth-inducing impacts such as those below. • Is the water meant to provide a new supply, or is it proposed to replace an existing supply? If a facility is meant to provide a new supply,the review of growth-inducing impacts may need to consider how allocation of that new supply will be subject to growth-related goals contained in LCPs or other local or regional planning efforts. Such a review is also likely to involve a more far-reaching evaluation of cumulative impacts. If a facility is meant to instead provide a replacement source—for instance,to reduce or eliminate withdrawals from a surface water body affecting fish or wildlife habitat or to replace groundwater withdrawals causing subsidence—there may be few, if any growth- inducing effects associated with such a facility, and the review of growth-inducing impacts would likely be more limited. A coastal development permit issued for such a facility may need to include a condition requiring additional review,and permit amendment if the water use is later proposed to go beyond replacement of an existing source'. In either case, ongoing public oversight is likely to better ensure that the supply is used as proposed. • Is the facility meant to provide a baseline supply of water, or is it to be used only during droughts or emergencies? Similar to the above, some desalination facilities have been proposed to provide water only during drought or emergency situations rather than provide a continuous, baseline water supply. Such facilities are less likely to result in growth-inducing impacts. Again, however,publicly-owned facilities are likely to have 3 As an example,the California-American Water Company(Cal-Ain),which supplies water to much of the Monterey Peninsula,is proposing a desalination facility to replace a portion of its water supply currently being withdrawn from the Carmel River. Other entities are considering whether the proposed facility might also be used to provide a new and increased source of water for other areas nearby. _ Briefing to Coastal Commission on Public/Private Desalination INFORMATIONITEM ONLY February 20, 2003 Page 6 of 17 better oversight mechanisms to ensure that any changes that may result in growth-related impacts are adequately reviewed. Additionally,private facilities intended to operate only during severe situations may not be able to generate the necessary revenues, and may need to provide additional supplies to remain solvent. For proposed projects intended to provide only emergency or drought-related water supplies, the Commission may opt to include a condition requiring.additional review and a permit amendment if the project intent changes. Is the service area for the water defined? A desalination facility may be proposed to serve a specific service area or provide water to a specific set of users, or it may be intended to serve a less well-defined and possibly more extensive area or unspecified set of users. It is easier to determine growth-inducing impacts when the water supply area is specifically defined, through identifying growth or infrastructure limits in the service area, long-term contracts with users, or other similar methods. This aspect of review is specifically addressed in section 30254, which states that special districts shall not be formed or expanded where the resulting development would be inconsistent with Coastal Act policies. As trends towards water marketing increase and the potential for interbasin or even international water transfers occurs, any difference in public oversight over public or private facilities is likely to have more far-reaching growth-inducing consequences. Longer distance transfers also raise issues associated with determining whether local impacts to coastal resources are worth benefits that may accrue elsewhere. II. Alternatives Analysis The Coastal Act requires in some instances that proposed development undergo an alternatives analysis to determine whether there are feasible, less environmentally damaging alternatives to the proposed action. Applicable sections include: Section 30233(a)states: The diking,filling, or dredging of open coastal waters, wetlands, estuaries,.and lakes shall be permitted in accordance with other applicable provisions of this division, where there is no feasible less environmentally damaging alternative, and where feasible mitigation measures have been provided to minimize adverse environmental effects... Section 30260 states: Coastal-dependent industrial facilities shall be encouraged to locate or expand within existing sites and shall be permitted reasonable long-term growth where consistent with this division. However, where new or expanded coastal-dependent industrial facilities cannot feasibly be accommodated consistent with other policies of this division, they may nonetheless be permitted in accordance with this section and Sections 30261 and 30262 if Briefing to Coastal Commission on Public/Private Desalination .NFORMATIONITEM ONLY February 20, 2003 Page 7 of 17 (1) alternative locations are infeasible or more environmentally damaging; (2) to do otherwise would adversely affect the public welfare; and(3) adverse environmental effects are mitigated to the-maximum extent feasible.. Analysis: Section 30233(a)requires in part thatprojects involving fill in coastal waters be allowed only under particular conditions, including a determination that there is no feasible, less environmentally damaging alternative. Section 30260 states that coastal-dependent facilities may be permitted even if they do not fully comply with other Coastal Act policies,but only if there are no feasible, less environmentally damaging alternative locations. One primary purpose of an alternatives analysis is to determine whether there are alternatives that would avoid or substantially reduce any significant adverse effects of a proposed project. In either case, a public entity proposing a project is likely to have a greater number of alternative locations available than a private proponent. A city or water district, for example, may own or control a larger land base from which to choose sites for a proposed facility. Similarly, a public entity may,in many cases,have greater control over available resources or infrastructure needed to support a desalination facility. For example, a municipal utility may have electrical power plants that can provide both a site and power for desalination, or it may have available amounts of stormwater or wastewater that can serve as a less environmentally damaging alternative to using seawater as the water.source. Public entities may also be able to invoke eminent domain in determining whether various sites are feasible. For proposed private facilities, the alternatives . analysis may, in some cases,need to evaluate whether using or providing a public water source is a feasible option and whether such a source would result in fewer adverse impacts. Feasibility:The Coastal Act requires the alternatives considered to be feasible. Section 30108 of the Act defines "feasible" as "capable of being accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of time, taking into account economic, environmental, social, and technological factors". These factors will likely be weighed differently in reviewing a given public or private proposal, as the range of options available to either type of entity may differ significantly—for example, as mentioned above, a public entity may have a greater number of feasible locations available to it due to having a larger land base or having power of eminent domain. Cost is another feasibility factor that may apply differently to public and private proposals. Because desalination is still a relatively costly form of providing a water supply,it is likely that the alternatives deemed feasible will include some that are relatively costly. These costs are likely to be borne differently by public or private facilities due to the funding mechanisms imposed on or provided by each. 111. Coastal Dependency Section 30101 states: "Coastal-dependent development or use"means any development or use which requires a site on, or adjacent to, the sea to be able to function at all. Briefing to Coastal Commission on Public/Private Desalination INFORAM TION ITEM ONLY February 20, 2003 Page 8 of 17 Section 30260 states: Coastal-dependent industrial facilities shall be encouraged to locate or expand within existing sites and shall be permitted reasonable long-term growth where consistent with this division. However, where new or expanded coastal-dependent industrial facilities cannot feasibly,be accommodated consistent-with other policies of-this division, they may nonetheless be permitted in accordance with this section and Sections 30261 and 30262 if (1) alternative locations are infeasible or more environmentally damaging, (2) to do otherwise would adversely affect the public welfare; and(3) adverse environmental effects are mitigated to the maximum extent feasible. Analysis:Desalination, in and of itself,is not coastal-dependent. Many desalination facilities are located at inland sites and are used to desalt groundwater,irrigation water, or other water sources. Even desalination facilities using seawater as their source water might not be coastal- dependent, as they may need only to be located close to the coast, and not necessarily adjacent to the ocean. Section 30260 of the Coastal Act recognizes that some types of facilities must be located on or adjacent to the ocean, even if they do not fully conform to all applicable Coastal Act policies. Such"coastal-dependent' facilities may be permitted, however, only if alternative locations are infeasible or more environmentally damaging, if to do otherwise would adversely affect public welfare, and if adverse environmental effects are mitigated to the maximum extent feasible. Therefore, desalination facilities that do not conform to all applicable policies of the Act and proposed to be located on or adjacent to the ocean must be reviewed individually to determine whether they are coastal-dependent. If this case-by-case review determines a particular facility is coastal-dependent, the facility can be reviewed for conformity to section 30260: Are there available alternative locations for the facility that would have fewer adverse effects on coastal resources? Are the adverse environmental effects of the proposal mitigated to the maximum extent feasible? - Is denying the proposed project inconsistent with the public welfare? In reviewing whether a facility is consistent with the public welfare, it is likely that there will be significant differences between public and private proposals. A review of a proposal's effects on public welfare may include.evaluation of whether the water will be used solely by a private entity or provided to the public, comparison of private versus public benefits that may accrue from the proposal, along with the degree of adverse impacts to public resources. It could also include a review of whether the type of public or private development that may benefit from a facility is a priority development identified in the Coastal Act as described in the section below. r� I LI Briefing to Coastal Commission on Public/Private Desalination INFORMATION ITEM ONLY February 20, 2003 Page 9 of 17 IV. Priority Development Several sections of the Coastal Aci4 mandate that certain types of development, such as lower- cost visitor and recreation facilities; coastal agriculture, upland coastal recreation, coastal- dependent facilities, and others,receive priority over other types. Analysis: The Coastal Act's identification of the types of development to prioritize in the coastal zone raises at least three distinct issues related to whether a water supply is public or private: • First, whether non-priority development that includes its own water supply might be able to proceed at the expense of priority development that may not be able to provide its own supply; • Second, whether locating a desalination facility in a coastal area might preclude or adversely affect the use of the site or adjacent sites by priority uses; and, • Third,whether a private desalination facility would allocate water in a manner reflecting the same priorities as a public facility. Regarding the first issue,the types of development prioritized in the Coastal Act do not necessary come with their own water supply. In areas where development is limited by the available water, private.facilities that provide their own water might be able to proceed while other higher priority developments that.do:not have the ability to provide their own water might. not. A private,non-priority development could therefore override Coastal-Act preferences for priority coastal uses or might not be subject to water allocation decisions made by a local public water purveyor. Because desalination remains a relatively costly process, a development's ability to provide its own desalinated water may be largely based on financial considerations rather than whether the proposed development is recognized as a priority development for coastal areas. A lower-cost visitor and recreation facility, for instance, may not be able to compete with the ability of a higher-cost facility to provide its own water, and so a coastal site suitable for either type of development may end up used by the latter at the expense of the former. One other consequence of this issue could show up during difficult financial times, in that a private development dependent on its own water supply may, for various reasons,no longer be able to afford the costs of desalination and instead increase the burden on the local public water purveyor. This additional burden could further limit the ability of public.agencies to allocate water or land to priority coastal uses. [This issue is also discussed later in Section VI 4 These sections include: • Section 30213—lower-cost visitor and recreation facilities. • Section 30222—"visitor-serving commercial recreational facilities designed to enhance public opportunities for coastal recreation. This section also prioritizes those facilities over private residential,general industrial,or general commercial development,but not over agriculture or coastal-dependent industry. • Section 30222.5—aquaculture facilities. • Section 30223—upland areas for coastal recreation. • Section 30224—recreational boating and associated facilities. �} • Section 30234—commercial fishing and recreational boating facilities. j • Section 30241—prime agricultural land. • Section 30255—coastal-dependent development. • Section 30254—priority developments must not be precluded by other development due to the limited capacity of public works facilities. k. 1 c. Briefing to Coastal Commission on Public/Private Desalination INFORA14 TION ITEM ONLY February 20, 2003 Page 10 of 17 of this briefing.] A similar resource-allocation issue may arise due to the relatively high electrical demand associated with desalination, in that the demand from a desalination facility used by a non-priority development could limit or preclude the ability of local electrical supplies to support priority developments: Regarding the.second issue,.a desalination facility located on or adjacent to coastal sites suitable for higher-priority developments could remove or reduce land available for such developments. Desalination facilities may result in several types of adverse effects on coastal resources—visual, noise, public access, water quality, etc.—any of which, even if mitigated,could reduce the ability of priority developments to be sited nearby. This would in turn diminish the coastal uses associated with these priority developments, and may therefore be inconsistent with Coastal Act goals. As an example, in Consistency Determination#CD-16-94(U.S. Army, Fort Ord), the Commission determined that a desalination facility being considered in the coastal zone near the cities of Marina and Seaside would diminish public access and recreational opportunities in that area, and further concluded that a feasible, less environmentally damaging alternative site was available east of Highway 1 away from the shoreline area. Regarding the third issue,public ownership and oversight of desalination facilities, especially in areas with certified LCPs,is more likely to ensure that water allocations will occur in a manner consistent with the priority developments identified in:the Coastal Act and in the LCP: Allocations from public facilities are likely to be subject to more ongoing public review,whereas allocations from private facilities may be primarily market driven and might not adequately reflect Coastal Act priorities. This difference in how public or private entities rni.ght allocate water is likely to be moderated in areas where the state Public Utility Commission has provided exclusive retail rights to a municipal water district. In these areas, a private desalination facility would be able to act only as a water wholesaler and sell only to the water district where the allocation decisions would be made. V. Projects Involving Fill in Coastal Waters Section 30233(a) states: The diking,filling, or dredging of open coastal waters, wetlands, estuaries; and lakes shall be permitted in accordance with other applicable provisions of this division; where there is no feasible less environmentally damaging alternative, and where feasible mitigation measures have been provided to minimize adverse environmental effects, and shall be limited to the following: (1) New or expanded port, energy, and coastal-dependent industrial facilities, inchiding commercial fishingfacilities. (2) Maintaining existing, or restoring previously dredged, depths in existing navigational channels, turning basins, vessel berthing and mooring areas, and boat launching ramps. (3) In wetland areas only, entrance channels for new or expanded boating facilities; and in a degraded wetland, identified by the Department of Fish and Game pursuant to subdivision o Section 3041.1, or boatin acilities if, in conjunction P (b) f f gf . � � .1 with such boating facilities, a substantial portion of the degraded wetland is Briefing to Coastal Commission on Public/Private Desalination INFORMATIONITEM ONLY February 20, 2003 Page 11 of 17 restored and maintained as a biologically productive wetland. The size of the wetland area used for boating facilities, including berthing space, turning basins, necessary navigation channels, and any necessary support service facilities, shall not exceed 25 percent of the degraded wetland. (4) In open coastal waters, other than wetlands, including streams, estuaries, and lakes, new or expanded boating facilities and the placement of structural pilings for public recreational piers that provide public access and recreational opportunities. (5) Incidental public service purposes, including but not limited to, burying cables and pipes or inspection of piers and maintenance of existing intake and outfall lines. (6) Mineral extraction, including sand for restoring beaches, except in environmentally sensitive areas. (7) Restoration purposes. (8) Nature study, aquaculture, or similar resource dependent activities. Analysis: Section 30233(a) of the Coastal Act applies to proposed projects involving diking, dredging, or filling in coastal waters, and contains strict limits on desalination facilities,public or private, that would require new inwater structures. This section identifies eight types of development under which fill may be permitted. Of these eight, coastal desalination facilities are likely to fall under, at most,two of these types—coastal-dependent industrial facilities,or incidental public service purposes. Some desalination facilities may fall under neither. Fill for coastal-dependent industrial facilities:Regarding the first of these two types, desalination, as stated in the previous section, is not in and of itself a coastal-dependent use. Again, this will require case-by-case review and may depend, in part, on the different opportunities that may be available to public or private entities as described above. Fill for incidental public purposes: The type of allowable fill makes,a clear distinction between public and private purposes. By definition, a public facility is likely to include a greater presumption that it is for a public purpose than is a private facility. This Coastal Act provision further defines the type of fill allowed as an incidental public purpose as ".,.including but not limited to,burying cables and pipes or inspection of piers and maintenance of existing intake and outfall lines". The element common to these examples, and the interpretation provided by past Commission findings, is that this type of fill involves only temporary impacts. For instance, the impacts associated with burying a cable or pipe are generally limited to the immediate effects associated with construction, such as turbidity, short-term disturbance to marine organisms, and the like. The type of fill allowed under this provision does not include new open intakes and outfalls (unless they are considered.coastal-dependent and therefore allowable under the other fill provision), and does not provide for the types of ongoing adverse environmental effects associated with such structures, such as entrainment of marine organisms, discharges of various contaminants or increased brine concentrations, or other similar impacts. This interpretation is strengthened by the policy specifically mentioning maintenance of existing intakes and outfalls, which presumably have impacts considered part of a site's baseline conditions,versus constructing new intakes or outfalls,which would result in new and ongoing impacts. - h Briefing to Coastal Commission on Public/Private Desalination . INFORMA TION ITEM ONLY February 20, 2003 Page 1.2 of 17 VI. Capacity of Public Works Facilities Section 30254 states: New or expanded public works facilities shall be designed and limited to accommodate needs generated by development or uses permitted consistent with the provisions of this division;provided, however, that it is the intent of the Legislature that State Highway Route 1 in rural areas of the coastal zone remain a scenic two-lane road. Special districts shall not be formed or expanded except where assessment for, and provision of, the service would not induce new development inconsistent with this division. Where existing or planned public works facilities can accommodate only a limited amount of new development, services to coastal dependent land use, essential public services and basic industries vital to the economic health of the region, state, or nation,public recreation, commercial recreation, and visitor-serving land uses shall not be precluded by other development. Analysis: This section of the Act ties development to the capabilities of public works facilities. Such facilities are protected from failure,bankruptcy, or other economic difficulties differently than are private facilities. If aprivate desalination facility ceases operations,the burden of supporting the developments using water from that facility may suddenly shift to a nearby public water supply. This public system may not have the capacity to serve these developments, and perhaps more importantly for purposes of the Coastal Act, the capacity that maybe diverted to users previously supplied by a private facility may limit the ability of the public system to provide for the priority developments discussed in a previous section above. VH. The Public Trust Doctrine The Public Trust Doctrine is a long-held legal construct of American property law. The doctrine as applied in the U.S.is an expanded version of the form contained in English Common Law dating from the era of the Magna Carta in the 13'h Century. The essence of the Public Trust Doctrine is that the public has the right to use and enjoy lands underlying navigable waterbodies. Its most common uses have been to ensure the public has access to navigable waters and tidelands for navigation, commerce, fishing, and shellfish harvest. The flexibility inherent in the doctrine has resulted in each state applying it differently. In California, the doctrine is invoked in portions of the state Constitutions. California courts have recognized it as being sufficiently flexible to encompass changing public needs, and over time have determined the doctrine applies to not only to the land underlying the water but also to the California Constitution.Article 1, Section 25:"The people shall have the right to fish upon and from the public lands of the State and in the waters.thereof,,excepting upon lands set aside for fish hatcheries,and no land owned by the State shall ever be sold or transferred without reserving in the people the absolute right to fish thereupon; and no law shall ever be passed making it a crime for the people to enter upon the public lands within this State for the (/ purpose of fishing in any water containing fish that have been planted therein by the State;provided,that the legislature may by statute,provide for the season when and the conditions under which the different species of fish may be taken." Briefing to Coastal Commission on Public/Private Desalination INFORMA TION ITEM ONLY February 20, 2003 Page 13 of 17 water itself 6, and applies not only to navigation and commerce but also to water quality. Courts in this.state have also recognized that the doctrine allows the public to use navigable waters for "...boating, swunm ng, fishing,huntin�, and all recreational purposes"g, "preservation". and other"ecological and aesthetic values" 0. While private uses are allowed, they are generally limited to those that wouldnot harm public trust values, including the uses identified above. Review of proposed coastal desalination facilities using seawater from either the open ocean or estuaries may need to include evaluations as to whether the proposal will fully support these public trust values. Some of these evaluations may be already included in other elements of the review—for example, determining whether the volume and rate of a facility's intake and discharge adversely affects marine organisms is generally done as part of review for conformity to the Coastal Act's policies on marine biological resources—however, the review may also need to determine whether other "ecological and aesthetic values"incorporated into the Public Trust Doctrine are supported. Importantly, approval of a private desalination facility would result in the use of a public trust resource for private benefit. To ensure the Public Trust Doctrine is supported, proj ect review should evaluate whether the proposed use for private benefit would allow continuation of the other public uses. CONCLUSION. . This briefing has provided only a conceptual level review of how various Coastal Act policies are likely to apply differently to public or private desalination proposals. Given the complexities of the issue and site-specific characteristics, each proposal will require case-by-case review to determine whether and how each of these policies applies. 6 National Audubon Society v. Superior Court,(1983)33 Cal.3d 419 People v. Gold Run Ditch and Mining Co. (1884)66 Cal. 138 8 People V.Mack, 19 Cal.App. 3d 1040, 1045,97 Cal. Rptr.448 (1971) 9 Marks v. Whitney, 6 Cal.3d 251, 259,491 p.2d 374,98 Cal.Rptr. 790(1971)—"[O]ne of the most important public uses of the tidelands... is the preservation of these lands in their natural state..." L0 National Audubon Society v. Superior Ct.,33 Cal.3d 419,435, 658 p.2d 709, 189 Cal.Rptr.49(1983)—"The principle values the plaintiff seeks to protect,however,are recreational and ecological—the scenic views of the lake and its shore,the purity of the air, and the use of the lake for the nesting and feeding by birds. Under Marks v. Whitney, 6 Cal. 3d 251 [491 P.2d 374,98 Cal.Rptr. 790](1971),it is clear that protection of these things is among the purposes of the public trust." Also City of.Berkeley v. Superior Court, 26 Cal.3d 515,521, 606 P.2d 362, 162 IJ Cal.Rptr.327 (1980)—"Although early cases expressed the scope of the public's rights in tidelands as encompassing navigation, commerce and fishing,the permissible range of public uses is far broader,including the right to ...preserve the tidelands in their natural state as ecological units for scientific study." Briefing to Coastal Commission on Public/Private Desalination 17VFORMATIONITEM ONLY February 20, 2003 Page 14 of 17 BIBLIOGRAPHY Anderson,Richard F.,PhD, and Paulo Heyman. Public/Private Partnerships in Municipal Water and Wastewater Systems: Case Studies of Selected Cities. The United States Conference of Mayors Urban Water Council, Washington,D.C. February 2000. The California Water Plan Update, Bulletin 160-98, Appendix 4-A Urban and Agricultural Water Pricing. Public Citizen, California Water: A Primer, from Public Citizen's Critical Mass Energy and Environmental Program, n.d. Slade,David C., Esq., R. Kerry Kehoe, Esq., and Jane K. Stahl, Esq.Putting the Public Trust Doctrine to Work: The Awlication of the Public Trust Doctrine To the Management of Lands, Waters, and Living Resources of the Coastal States, fd Edition. Coastal States Organization, Inc.,Washington,D.C. June 1997. Sommariva,.Corrado and Simon Harrison. Risks and opportunities in private desalination projects, from Global Water Intelligence;p. 14-15. May 2002. Briefing to Coastal Commission on Public/Private Desu.,nation INFORMA TION ITEM ONLY February 20, 2003 Page 15 of 17 EXISTING DESALINATION FACILITIES ALONG THE CALIFORNIA COAST Operator/Location: Public/ Purpose: Maximum Source Water: Discharge: Status: Private: Ca aci : Chevron/Gaviota Private 'Processing 410,800 gpd, Ocean Ocean Active 460 AF/yr. City of Morro Bay Public Domestic 600,000 gpd, Seawater wells Not known Not known 672 AF/yr. City of Santa Barbara Public Domestic Ocean Not known Inactive Duke Energy!Morro Bay Private Power plant 430,000 gpd,. Ocean Blend Not known Power Plant 482 AF/yr. w/cooling water Duke Energy/Moss Private Power plant 480,000 gpd, Ocean Blend Active Landing Power Plant 537 AF/ . wlcooling water Marina Coast Water District Public Domestic 45,000 gpd, Seawater wells Injection well' Active 50 AF/yr. Monterey Bay Aquarium Private Aquarium 40,000 gpd, Ocean Combined Active visitor use 45 AF/yr. w/other seawater discharges PG&E,Diablo Canyon/San Private Power plant 576,000 gpd, Ocean Blend Not known Luis Obis o County 645 AF/yr. w/cooling water San Simeon/San Luis Public Visitor center 10,000 gpd Ocean Not known Inactive Obispo County 11 AF/yr. Santa Catalina Island Public Domestic 132,000 gpd. Seawater wells Not known Not known 148 AF/yr. U.S.Navy/San Nicolas Public Domestic 24,000 gpd Seawater wells Not known Not known Island (Military). 27 AF/yr. Various offshore oil&gas Private Platform uses 2,000—*34,000 gpd, Ocean Ocean .Active platforms 2—38 AF/ 1 Briefing to Coastal Commission on Public/Private Desalination INFORMATION ITEM ONLY rebrctary 20, 2003 Page 16 of 17 PROPOSED DESALINATION FACILITIES ALONG THE CALIFORNIA COAST Proponent/Location: Public/ Purpose: Maximum Source Water: Discharge: Status: Private: Ca aci : Cambria Community Public Domestic 430,000 gpd, 481 Ocean Pipeline to Planning Services District AF/yr. ocean Cannery Row Marketplace Private Domestic 5,000 gpd. 6 AF/yr, Ocean Pipeline to Planning /Monterey ocean Carmel Area Wastewater Public Not known Not known Not known . Not known District City of San Buenaventura Public Not known Not known Not known Not known Not known City of Sand City Public Domestic 45,000 gpd, 50 Seawater wells Injection well Planning. AF/yr. East-West Ranch/Cambria Private Domestic Not known. Not known Not known Withdrawn Fort Ord State Park/ Public Domestic Not known Not known Not known Not known Monterey County Metropolitan Water Domestic 5 mgd, 5600.AF/yr. Ocean Not known, Not known District of Southern California Monterey Bay Shores/ Private Private 2%000 gpd Seawater wells Injection well Not known Monterey County development Monterey Peninsula Water Public Domestic 3-4 mgd Seawater wells Injection well Planning Management District, Carmel River/Sand City Poseidon Resources I Private Not known 30-50 mgd Ocean Blend DEIR Huntington Beach w/cooling • water Poseidon Resources/Long Public/ Not known 40 mgd Ocean Blend Planning Beach private w/cooling partnership water San Diego County Water Public/ Domestic 50 mgd, 56,000 Ocean Not known '1 Authorit &Poseidonprivate AF/yr. �y Briefing to Coastal Commission on Public/Private Desalination INFORMATIONITEM ONLY February 20, 2003 Page 17 of 17 Proponent/Location: Public/ Purpose: Maximum Source Water: Discharge: Status: Private: Capacity: Resources!Encina partnership Sand City Public Domestic 450,000 Seawater wells Injection well Planning Sterling Hotel/ Sand City Private Private 20 AF/yr. Seawater wells Not known Not known development Santa Cruz County Public Domestic 3-14 mgd Not known Not known Planning Sanitation District U.S.Navy,North Island Public Power plant 700,000 gpd Seawater wells Not known Not known Naval Air Station/San (Military) Diego Orange County Public Domestic 27 mgd, 30,240 Applicant for Metropolitan Water A.F/yr. MWD subsidy District/Dana Point San Diego Water District Public/ Domestic 50 mgd, 56,000 Applicant for &Poseidon Resources/ private AF/yr. MWD subsidy Carlsbad partnership West Basin Municipal Public Domestic 20 mgd, 22,400. Applicant for Water District AF/yr. MWD subsidy Long Beach Public Domestic 8-10 mgd, 9-11,000 Applicant for AF/yr. MWD subsidy Los Angeles. Public Domestic 10 mgd, 11,000 Applicant for AF/yr. MWD subsidy a CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH Inter Office Communication Planning Department TO: Planning Commission FROM: Howard Zelefsky, Director of Planning BY: Ricky Ramos,Associate Planner. DATE: May 22, 2003 SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 00-02/CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 02-04/COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 02-05 (POSEIDON SEAWATER DESALINATION PLANT)—REPORT UPDATES The following attachments provide additional information and revisions to the two May 27, 2003 Staff Reports for the Poseidon desalination plant distributed to.the.Planning Commission on May 13, 2003: 1. Response to May 8, 2003 Coastal Commission letter(Attachment No. 5 of the EIR Staff Report) 2. Revised Planning Commission Resolution which incorporates additional language to facilitate the Redevelopment Agency's ability to enter into an agreement with the developer to provide for an in-lieu payment from any future tax-exempt owner as a covenant which would run with the land in case the project is sold(see underlined text). The original Planning Commission Resolution is included as Attachment No. 1 of the EIR Staff Report. 3. Revised conditions of approval 4(i) and 4(n)(1) (Attachment No. 1 of the CUP/CDP Staff Report) 4. Letters in support/opposition 5. Intake Water.Quality Characterization(as requested by Chairperson Kokal) HZ:SH:HF:RR f rv\AdmLtr\Admltr03\0503rrldoc CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH Inter Office Communication Planning Department TO: Planning Commission FROM: Howard Zelefsky, Director of Planning BY: Ricky Ramos, Associate Planner. DATE: May 22,2003 SUBJECT: RESPONSE TO MAY 8,2003 COASTAL COMMISSION LETTER REGARDING EIR NO. 00-02 (POSEIDON SEAWATER DESALINATION PLANT) ISSUES PRESENTED IN THE MAY 8 COASTAL COMMISSION LETTER: As the Staff.Reports were being prepared,the.City received a follow-up letter dated May 8,. 2003, from California Coastal Commission staff member,Mr. Tom Luster, Coastal Program Analyst, Energy and Ocean Resources Unit, addressing concerns about the City's responses to the Coastal Commission's comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report(EIR). The Coastal Commission submitted a comment letter during the 45-day comment period and a response has been included in the March 21, 2003 Response to Comments. It should be noted that there is no legal requirement under the California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA) or the State CEQA Guidelines to prepare a formal written response to Mr. Luster's May 8 follow-up letter. However, for the benefit of the Planning Commissioners,this supplement to the Staff Report summarizes the issues presented by Mr. Luster in his follow-up letter and staffs position on those issues. The primary issue raised by Mr. Luster is whether the information and analysis provided in the Final EIR(including the responses to comments)is adequate under CEQA to certify the Final EIR and for approval of the Conditional Use Permit(CUP) and Coastal Development Permit (CDP), or whether additional information and analysis is required. CONCLUSION: The information and analysis presented to date is adequate under CEQA for the Planning Commission to certify the Final EIR.and for approval of the CUP and CDP. As noted in the CEQA Statement of Facts and Findings (Attachment No. 5 to the CUP/CDP Staff Report), additional information and analysis may be required by various Responsible Agencies and additional mitigation measures may be added to obtain Coastal Act compliance(Coastal Commission), Clean Water Act compliance (Regional Water Quality Control Board) and compliance with other public agency requirements. The various Responsible Agencies must . make those determinations at the time that the project is brought before them for approval. It �- should also be noted that the Coastal Commission has approval authority over the project's GAAdmLtr\Adm1tr03\0503rrldoc Coastal Development Permit for the brine discharge and, as such, has the authority to request further clarification of these issues if desired. DETAILED REPORT: As noted in the Staff Report for the CUP/CDP,the proposed project is within the appealable portion of the Coastal Zone. The City has jurisdiction over the issuance of a Coastal Development Permit for a project in the Coastal Zone that is located inland of the mean high tide line. Coastal Development Permit No. 02-0 for the construction of the desalination plant and an approximately one mile portion of the water transmission line in the Coastal Zone is being processed concurrently with Conditional Use Permit No. 02-04 pursuant to Chapter 245 of the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance. The City's Coastal Development Permit can be appealed to the Coastal Commission. A project that is located on seaward of the mean high tide line falls under the jurisdiction of the California Coastal Commission. After the City's action on the project the California Coastal Commission will require the applicant to submit a separate Coastal Development Permit application for utilizing ocean water and discharging into the ocean. Mr. Tom Luster provided the City with comments on the Draft EIR in a letter dated November 4, 2002. That seven-page letter(also sent on behalf of the Coastal Commission)was among the most comprehensive of the 21 comment letters received by the,City on the Draft EIR. The City provided a.good faith, reasoned analysis in response to the November 4, 2002 comment letter.. The City's eight-page response provided clarifying information, described the disposition of issues raised by Mr. Luster and, where appropriate, gave reasons why specific comments and suggestions were not accepted. Essentially,the response explained that the extensive modeling and analysis of ocean water quality and marine biology issues resulted in a conclusion that there would be less than significant impacts in those areas. Some of the issues raised in Mr. Luster's May 8, 2003 letter restate issues raised in his November 4, 2002 letter and, as noted below,the City's response has not changed. Staff continues to recommend that the Planning Commission certify the Final EIR as adequate and complete in accordance with CEQA. The following addresses the bullet points in Mr. Luster's May 8 letter in the order that he presented each issue. • Private vs.public water supply issues: CEQA does not require this type of public policy analysis. The EIR is a tool for disclosing and analyzing potential environmental impacts, regardless of whether the project is a-public or private venture. • International trade laws: Again, CEQA does not require this type of analysis. In addition, this comment letter does not provide any substantive argument or specific example of a recommended mitigation measure that would be adversely affected in the stated manner. The City, Coastal Commission and other Responsible Agencies have the authority to condition and monitor project mitigation measures, as set forth in the Mitigation Monitoring Program. - • Water quality and marine biological issues: The City provided good faith,reasoned - analysis in response to all comment letters that raised water quality and/or marine biological issues, including comment letters received from.the U.S. Fish and Wildlife rr. a._r._ �a..-1..11'1111:f1Zrr1 rinr 's ... Service, the California Department of Fish and Game,.the Regional Water Quality Control Board, and the State Lands Commission:'To date,the City has only received one follow-up letter(the May 8 letter from Mr. Luster) and that letter does not cite any additional specific concerns with the EIR beyond that previously noted and responded to in the Responses to Comments document. The assumptions used in the EIR analysis for water quality and marine biological issues have been validated by the City's independent consultants and the applicant's consultants. • Entrainment issues: The Coastal Commission has original jurisdiction over the entrainment issues because the AES intake facility is located on the waterside of the mean high tide line. It is important to emphasize that other public agencies have statutory authority to approve or withhold approval of necessary permits based on their own independent analysis and in accordance with specific statutory criteria. Addressing the issue of whether the "baseline" should be current operations or permitted operations, note that Page 3-10 of the Draft EIR and responses to comments 1o, 2b, 2d, and 2e(see response to comments pages 8 and 18-20) explain that there will be no changes to the "operational schedule" for seawater intake by AES. The current average flow is higher than the 126 MGD "worst case" low flow that was analyzed for the modeling. In other. words, the project will not have greater entrainment impacts than already occur. Note also that the"worst case" for discharge(lower flows) is always a"better case" for entrainment. Cumulative marine biological resources and entrainment impacts are addressed through the modeling,which takes into account all factors affecting the offshore waters. • Modeling issues: This comment asks for additional detailed modeling information. However, detailed modeling information has already been provided to the Coastal Commission and.the public through the EIR and Appendices. The model shows a less than significant impact,not an "impact that may be significant." Also, the worst case 10% salinity increase occurred in an area of approximately 18 acres (see response to comment 2e) not"several hundred acres" as stated in the May 8 letter. The average case impact area is reduced to 8.3 acres (see page 4.3-13 of the Draft EIR). Consequently, the City correctly characterized the impact area as "relatively small" (see response to comment 711,bottom of p. 67), not"relatively large." • Information about other desalination facilities: This information was previously asked for in Mr. Luster's November 4,2002 letter. A response was provided in the City's responses to comments 2g and 2n (see response to comments pages 20 and 24-25). • Analysis of alternatives: This information was previously asked for in Mr. Luster's November 4., 2002 letter. A response was provided in the City's response to comment 21 (see response to comments pages 21-23). • Analysis of growth-inducing impacts: This information was previously asked for in Mr. Luster's November 4, 2002 letter.. A response was provided in the City's response to comment 2m (see response to comments pages 23-24). HZ:SH:HF:RR (;'\AAmf tr\AAmltr(i�\(15(13rr'i.dnc LEGISLATIVE DRAFT (May 22, 2003) RESOLUTION NO. 1581 RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA, CERTIFYING THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (SCH#2001051092)FOR THE POSEIDON SEAWATER DESALINATION PROJECT WHEREAS, an Environmental Impact Report, State Clearinghouse #2001051092 ("EIR") was prepared by the City of Huntington Beach ("City") to address the environmental implications of the proposed Poseidon Seawater Desalination Project (the"Project"). • On May 17, 2001, a Notice of Preparation/Initial Study for the Project was prepared and distributed to the State Clearinghouse, other responsible agencies, trustee agencies and interested parties. An update to the Notice of Preparation/Initial Study was prepared and distributed on March 4, 2002. • After obtaining comments,received in response to the Notice of Preparation, and comments received at the two public scoping meetings held at the Edison Community Center in the City of Huntington Beach on June 6, 2001 (2:30 pm and 7:15 pm), the City completed preparation of the Draft EIR, dated September 19, 2002, and filed a Notice of Completion with the State Clearinghouse. • The Draft EIR was circulated for public review and comment from September 19, 2002 to November 4, 2002 and was available for review at several locations including City Hall and the Huntington Beach Public Library; and WHERF,AS, public comments have been received on the Draft EIR, and responses to those comments have been prepared and provided to the Planning Commission in a separately bound document.entitled "Responses to.Comments,for the . Poseidon Seawater Desalination Project" (the "Responses to Comments"), dated March 21, 2003; and WHEREAS,the Planning Commission held a public meeting on the EIR on May 27, 2003,and received and considered public testimony. WHEREAS, the City Council and the Redevelopment Agency have previously certified a Final Environmental Impact Report for the Southeast Redevelopment Project in which the Poseidon Project is located; and WHEREAS, in the event the City Council and the Redevelopment Agency take any actions in the future in furtherance of and to carry out the Southeast Redevelopment Project which involve the Poseidon Project, any such actions would be based on the information contained in the Final Environmental Impact Reports for both the Southeast Redevelopment Project and the Poseidon Project. NOW, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of Huntington Beach, California, DOES HEREBY RESOLVE, as follows: SECTION 1. Consistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15132, the Final EIR for the Project is comprised of the Draft EIR and Appendices, the comments received on the Draft EIR, the Responses to Comments, the Errata (bound together with the Responses to Comments), the Appendices to the Responses to Comments and all Planning Department Staff Reports to the Planning Commission, including all minutes, transcripts, attachments,incorporation, and references. SECTION 2. The Planning Commission makes the findings contained in the attached "Statement of Facts and Findings" with respect to significant impacts identified in the Final EIR and finds that each fact in support of the findings is true and is based upon substantial evidence in the record, including the Final EIR. The.Statement of Facts and Findings is attached as Exhibit"A to this Resolution and incorporated herein by this reference. SECTION 3. The Planning Commission finds that the Final EIR has identified all significant environmental effects of the Project and that there are no known potential environmental impacts not addressed in the Final EIR. SECTION 4. The Planning Commission finds that all significant effects of the Project are set forth in the Statement of Findings and Facts and the Final EIR. SECTIQN 5. The Planning Commission finds that although the Final EIR identifies certain significant environmental effects that will result if the Project is approved, all significant effects which can feasibly be mitigated or avoided have been mitigated or avoided by the incorporation of Project design features, standard conditions and requirements, and by the imposition of mitigation measures on the approved Project. All mitigation measures are included,in the "Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Checklist" (also referred to as the "Mitigation Monitoring Program") attached as Exhibit "B"to this Resolution and incorporated herein by this reference. SECTION 6. The Planning Commission finds that the Final EIR has described reasonable alternatives to the Project that could feasibly obtain the basic objectives of the Project (including the "No Project" Alternative), even when these alternatives might impede the attainment of Project objectives and might be more costly. Further, the Planning Commission finds that a good faith effort was made to incorporate suggested 2 alternatives in the preparation of the Draft EIR and that a reasonable range of alternatives was considered in the review process of the Final-EIR and ultimate decisions on the Project. SECTION 7. The Planning Commission.finds.that no "substantial evidence" (as that term is defined pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15384) has been presented which would call into question the facts and conclusions in the EIR. SECTION 8. The Planning Commission finds that no "significant new information" (as that term is defined pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5) has been added to the EIR. The Planning Commission finds that the refinements that have been made in the Project do not amount to significant new information concerning the Project, nor has any significant new information concerning the Project become known to the Planning Commission through the public hearings held on the Project, or through the comments on the Draft EIR and Responses to Comments. SECTION 9. The Planning Commission finds that the Mitigation Monitoring Program establishes a mechanism and procedures for implementing and verifying the mitigations pursuant to Public Resources Code 21081.6 and hereby adopts the Mitigation Monitoring Program. The mitigation measures shall be incorporated into the Project prior to or concurrent with Project implementation. SECTION 10. The Planning Commission finds that the unavoidable significant adverse effects of the Project as identified in Section 5.0 of the Statement of Facts and Findings (short-term construction related impacts in regards to air quality) have been lessened in their severity by the application of standard conditions, the inclusion of Project design features and the imposition of the mitigation measures. The Planning Commission finds that the remaining unavoidable significant impacts are clearly outweighed by the economic, social, and other benefits of the Project, as set forth in the "Statement of Overriding Considerations" included as Section 7.0 of the Statement of Facts and Findings. The Planning Commission adopts the recitation of overriding considerations which justify approval of the Project notwithstanding certain unavoidable significant environmental effects which cannot feasibly be substantially mitigated as set forth in the Statement of Overriding Considerations. SECTION 11. The Planning Commission finds that the Final EIR reflects the independent review and judgment of the City of Huntington Beach Planning Commission, that the Final EIR.was presented to the Planning Commission, and that the Planning Commission reviewed and considered the information contained in the Final EIR prior to approving Conditional Use Permit No. 02-04 and Coastal Development Permit No. 02-05. SECTION 12. The Planning Commission finds that the Final EIR serves as adequate and appropriate environmental documentation for the Project. The Planning Commission-certifies that the Final EIR prepared for the Project is complete, and that it r has been prepared in compliance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act and CEQA Guidelines. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED, this 27"' day of May, 2003 by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: Howard Zelefsky, Secretary Chairperson, Planning Commission LEGISLATIVE DRAFT (May 22, 2003) Revised Suggested Conditions of Approval—Conditional Use Permit No. 02-04/Coastal Development Permit No. 02-05: 4. Prior to issuance of grading permits, the following shall be completed: i. Prior to issuance of any permit aff Ohe,...,,~s f--OF al-e -e~A,the applicant shall enter into a Franchise agreement with the City for the generation and transport of product water from the site, and through and across the city's streets, rights-of-way or properties. (PV ) n. A Street Improvement Plan, prepared by a Licensed Civil Engineer, shall be submitted to the Public Works Department for review and approval. The following public improvements shall be shown on the plan: (PVV) 1) Curb, gutter, sidewalk and A.C. paving to the centerline of the street along the Newland Street lease frontage, within a 50-foot half-width street Right-of-Way per City Standard Plan Nos. 102 (84'/100'), 202 and 207. In lieu of constructing the Newland improvements, the applicant may pay the cost of their proportionate share of the Newland Street Widening Project. The total amount due the City for the proportionate share of Newland Street improvements shall be $186,269.33 based on current figures and the lease area frontage. This fee is subiect to change depending on when the fee is paid. .( GARAMOS\Poseidon\Revised Conditions LEGISLATIVE DRAFT May 22,2003.doc �,, P a 3 l HUNTINGTON BEACH TOMORROW P. O. BOX 865, HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 92648 "Making a difference today for Huntington Beach tomorrow" Phone: (714) 840-4015 E-Mail: info@hbtomorrow.org May 21, 2003 Planning Department City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main St. Huntington Beach CA 92648 Subject: Poseidon Desalination Plant CUP/EIR Comments HB Tomorrow has reviewed the EIR, EIR responses and CUP/EIR staff reports. Our findings are as follows: The discharge of reverse osmosis train first flush effluent to the ocean outfall in lieu of the OCSD sewer line has not been adequately assessed. Disposal of first flush effluent to the ocean should be denied as an acceptable alternative to disposal through the OCSD system. The noise control conditions have insufficient remedial action if exceeded. Continuous monitoring and recording of .noise levels by the applicant should :be required for the life of the facility to ensure required noise levels are not exceeded. Loss of tax revenue if this plant is sold or taken over by a governmental or other non-taxable entity is unacceptable. The loss of tax revenue is especially crucial since the facility is in a redevelopment area that was formed to tax advantage of property tax increments to finance local area improvements. A condition of approval is needed requiring the applicant to agree to a binding contractual commitment or covenant which requires this and any future property owner to pay property taxes or equivalent tax in-lieu payments. _ The financial and health impacts of the construction and use of the proposed pipe line to Costa Mesa on the. citizens of this city has not been assessed and mitigation measures delineated. The elements of a franchise agreement that adequately compensates the city and its citizens for use of public property should be known and agreed upon prior to project approval. Recommendation: Continue action on the EIR and conditional use permit until conditions of approval are developed that satisfactorily address the above concerns. Edward Kerins President, Huntington Beach Tomorrow :. �. {R 14 - 05/22/03 10:12 FAX 949 476 11 IR1VD WATER QUALITY 0 002 L 4Yr1S= etv!?tEtU�fB �HlAt5ii0tL��tILT'C! A �T •m�it n �m� .Il��r!!1IIl '{CU i A vR DISSICi i5eo0 Sand Canyon Ave.,P.O.Box.57000,Irvine,CA 9261E-7000 (949)453-5300 May 22,2003 VIA FAX(Original by Mail) Mr.Ricky Ramos City of Huntington Beach Planning Department 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92649 Re. Response to Comments for the Poseidon Seawater Desalination Project Dear Mr. Ramos: The hvine Ranch Water District(IRWD)has reviewed the Response to Comments for the Poseidon Seawater Desalination Project. IRWD is supportive of efforts to develop a cost- effective seawater desalination water supply to augment water supplies in Orange County. .However,IRWD finds certain.responses to comments inadequately or improperly address major issues of concern. Sodium and Chloride Constraints on Water Reuse. The issue related to the IRWD limits for sodium and chloride are improperly addressed. The permit limits as set by the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Board(RWQCB)are reclaimed water effluent permit limits,not treated domestic water limits. Water discharged to the sewer picks up incremental increases in total dissolved solids and the ions that make up TDS,such as sodium and chloride. The blended desalted water(50.50)with MWDSC water would have sodium of 118 mg/L and 13& mg/L for chloride. The lirrlits (125 mg/L sodium and 150 mg/L chloride)are for reclaimed water effluent which is treated wastewater. Historically,MWRP reclaimed water effluent realized average increases in sodium and chloride levels over the domestic water levels by 47 mg1L and 75 mg/L, respectively. in 2002, IRWD's MWRP exceeded the 125 mg/L limit for sodium 90%of the time and 70% of the time for chloride. Adding the increments for sodium and chloride to the proposed desalted blend will exceed both limits. This will seriously jeopardize IRWD's compliance with its discharge permit for its reclamation system,particularly during the whiter months when MWDSC is the primary source of domestic water for IRWD. One option is to have MWDSC provide IRWD with the funds to install and operate sidestream RO treatment of its MWRP reclaimed effluent to maintain compliance with its RWQCB permit limits for sodium and chloride. Customer Acceptance. The issues of customer acceptance and economic impacts are not regtdred by CBQA,but are considered optional. The project, as proposed,has to potential to negatively impact the.taste of the water served to IRWD customers. As a results, customers may perceive the water to be substandard,or even unsafe,which could significantly alter the customers' water consumption or irrigation practices. Additionally,responding to the potential V _ 14.2 05/22/03 10:13 FAX 949 476 11117 IRWD WATER QUALITY 0 003 Mr. Ricky Ramos City of Huntington Beach May 22,2003 Page 2 increase in customer complaints to IRWD could substantially impact district resources.. Given the potential for such a significant impact to customer acceptance, IRWD feels very strongly that this issue,though optional,must be addressed. Membrane Performance. There was no Appendix E provided that discussed increases in membrane permeate TDS and ions with membrane operating time provided with the document IRWD received. Please provide complete document with all appendices. Water Stabilization and Corrosion Control. The response provided does not adequately address this topic or the topic DBPs. Based on the water quality data provided in the EIR,the corTosivity (Langelier Index)of the finished water is estimated to be—1.4 SI. A negative value indicates the product water would be corrosive. A corrosive water has the potential to leach lead and copper from plumbing fixtures: deteriorate metal pipe materials leading to premature failure and to leach lead in older homes where lead containing solder may have been used. Lead is a documented health hazard. Premature failure of metal pipes in distribution systems and customer homes would like result in the release of chlorinated water to storm drains and receiving waters where the elevated chlorine levels could negatively impact certain aquatic species. Additionally, IRWD has significant issues related to bromide and brominated species of total THM formation on this treated water. These issues need to be addressed via a technical report and bench/pilot levels studies. As noted in our original comment letter by Richard Bell,IRWD is requesting that the current version of the DEIR for the Poseidon Seawater Desalination Project,which we consider to be inadequate,be substantially modified to so as to represent a fully-developed and technically feasible project. We request that the City of Huntington Beach not certify the DEIR.in its current form and require Poseidon Resources to further develop the project, conduct and provide . sufficient technical analyses supporting key aspects of the project as described above and in IRWD's original comments, revise the THEIR accordingly, and re-circulate the revised DEIR for comments. If you should have any questions or need additional information,please contact me at(949)453- 5858 or via email at oldewaee@irwd.com. Thank you_ Sincerely, Lars D. Oldewage Laboratory Manager, Water Quality Department' Cc: K. Seckel, MWDOC . , ..`;4.a .yid'i^�.B G •��` Ma-4 22 03 10: 13a Pose . on Resources 562-4 -2403 p.2 •7J� Wayn¢A.Cerk Directaar MadcltaI Water lV abIct of(>mAge County Petra:l torre9patUlen¢s May 19,2003 The Honorable Cowrie Boardmrzr, Mayor Vie City 01.714untington Beaell 2000 Maia S'trcet Huntington Reaeh,CA 92649 ?oar AUyur Boar2lmmu As you may b we read in the press lately,all of Southern Calif©ux a,including 0=9e-County must adjust to the federal mandate that has reduced our takes of the Colorado River water by one-fifth.B=auw of our relatively Wet wimer.,we do not Dave an immediate crisis;however we and be responsible in our long-term water management planrtl*.The Metropolit w WaW DiWict of South=California. (MWDSC)has assured all its momber a rarrzies,inciuiiing the Municipal Water.Distrlat Of Orange County(MWI)OC)that t1Vre VV0.be plenty of water-for the rza 20 yirara so long as the member agencies cordinue water conservation,improve grousldwater managerr a and develop new water resources,inchAtng desalinetiotl. For coaswi comawriidea lU outs,seawater deaagnation is the most raliabte,new source of drinking water available. Through its draft Environmental Impact ltport, Poseidon Resources has proposed that it can provide 50 n-dwon gallons of clew drinking water per day to Orange County without=sing a sig Mcant impact on the enviromnent. Orange County wilt benefit from diveraifying its "water portfolio"$ad becoxue more self reliant through spec tc projects h1m Groundwater Xupienishment Syst m and Poseidon Resources'proposed seawater deWination facility in Huntington Dewh,We need a diverse water portfolio,and both of ftse projects will bi;imltortant and significant components to#blftiling thane Colmty's long-term water nee&, SiYlf:ereAar4 e Ditantox Nfurticipal Water District of orange County CC: Tfuntiiagton Beach City Council Fim6ngtoxx Beach Plaztning Commission 2021 Businem Center Driv%Suite 107,Irvine CA 92612 Tel.949/679-9676 MAY 22 '03 03: 11PM BC.r")NSVY 714 846 1114 P.1 Bolsa Chica... A Non-Profit, Non-Political Corporation for the BenefZtofBolsa Chica Wetlands Conservwicy May 22, 2003 Randy Kokal Chair,Planning COm1 ission The City of Huntingt(n Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Dear Chairman Koka, The Bolsa Chica Con iervancy is a non-profit organization dedicated to the advocacy of the preservation an restoration of the Bolsa Chica wetlands through public education, outreach a A leadership. The Conservancy is a coalition of responsible community leaders fr)m science,business,education, and government. We have met with.Poseidon Resoul ces and are confident that its proposed desalination facility will not have any negative impact on the Bolsa Chica wetlands. Poseidon Resources l as been helpful in providing bottled water at Conservancy events and has proves i to be supportive of our efforts to preserve the wetlands. Sincerely, Adfianne Morrison Email xecutive Director adrisnne®bolas,hita.o olsa Chica Consery Mcy Phone (714)846-1114. cc: Huntington Beach City Council 71( 4)846-4065 Huntington B ach PlanningCommission 71 3942 Warner Avenue Huntington Beach California 92649-4263 4/17/2003 HUNTING TON BEACH SEAWATER DESALINATION PLANT INTAKE WATER QUALITY CHARACTERIZATION ION November 2001 —December 2002 HUN71NGTON BEACH SEAWATER DESALINATION PLANT INTAKE WATER QUALITY CHARACTERIZATION NOVEMBER 2001 -DECEMBER 2002 EVENTS LIMIT FINDING GROUP A Biochemical oxygen Demand 1 10 0 0 0 miliigrams/L COD 2 1 50.000 60.000 0.000 120.000 milli rams/L Total Organic Carbon 12 0.5 0.05 0,0 0.6 milli rams/L Total Suspended Solids 8 0A 13 10 . 25 milli rams/L Ammonia as N 4 0.01 0.04 0.00 0.09 milli rams/L Temperature (winter 4 18.4 16.0 21.0 de rees C Temperature summer 5 21.9 18.7 25.7 degrees C H 12 0A 7.8 7.0 8.2 pH units GROUP B Bromide 9 0.1 75 56 84 milli rams/L Boron 8 0.5 4.6 2.5 5.6 milligrams/I.. Color 1 3 3 3 3 color units Coliforms,fecal 10 2 5 0 23 MPN/100m1 Fluoride 4 0.01 1.6 1.2 1.9 milli ramsIL Nitrate as Nj 4' 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.03 milligrams Oil and Grease 11 0.1 0.2 . 0.0 0.9 milli rams/L Phosphorus,total 2 0.060 0.033 0.000 0.066 milli rarns/L Radioactivity Gross Beta 1 180 180 180 picocuries/L Total Alpha Radium 226) 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 picocuries/L Radium 228 1 0.224 0.224 0.224 picocuriesIL Sulfate 4 0.01 2,643 2,460 2,620 milli rams/L Sulfide 1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 milli rams/L Sulfite 1 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 milli rams/L Surfactants 1 0.050 0.065 0.065 0.065 milli rams/L Aluminum 8 0.01 204 62 496 micro rams/. Barium 2 1.0 2.9 0.0 5.8 rnicEoRrarnsll. Cobalt _ 8 0.006 0.362 0.090 1.200 micro ramsiL Iron 8 0.01 204 70 660 micro yarns/L Ma nesium 8 5.0 1,278 1,230 1,340 milli rams/l. Mol bdenum 8 0.005 10 9.2 11 micro rams/L Manganese 8 0.005 - 6.2 2.5 9.6 micro rams/L Tin• 8 0.005 0.011 0.000 0.030 micro rams/L Titanium 8 0,005 20 5.7 49 micro rams/L SECTION 1 Antimony a 0.01 0.11 0.10 0.14 micro rarns/L Beryllium 8 0.006 0.004 0.000 0.02 micrograms/L Chromium,total 8 0.006 1.3 0.1 4.8 micro rams/L Lead 8 0.005 0.2 0A 0.4 micro rarns/L Nickel 8 0.006 2.9 0.9 8.6 micro rams/L Silver 8 1 0.005 0.01 0.00 j 0.06 micro rams/L inc S 0.005 2.9 1.6 5.8 micr camslt 41 PA jo I- i t 4 14UNTINGTON BEACH SEAWATER DESALINATION PLANT INTAKE WATER QUALITY CHARACTERi7-ATION NOVEMBER 2001 -DECEMBER 2002 EVENTS LIMIT FINDING Phenols see individual phenolics) Q Arsenic 8 0.01 1.6 1.3 2.5 micro ramslL Cadmium 8 0.005 0.04 0.00 0.30 micro rams/L a r 8 0.005 1.1 0.6 2.0 micrograms/L. Mercury 8 0.005 0.02 0,00 0.05 micrograms/L eienium a 0.01 0.03 0.00 0.06 micro rams/L Thallium a 0.005 0.011 0.000 0.025 micro rams/L Cyanide 4 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 milli rams/L ECTiON 2 2,3,7,8-TCDO 1 1.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 pico rams/L SECTION 3 Volatile Or snits ail VOCs 1 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 micro rams/L in Table 2D-2 are ND cid Com ounds 2-Chloro henot 4 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 micrograms/L 2,4-Oimeth i henol 4 oAo 0.00 0.00 0.00 micro rams/L 2,4-Dinitro henol 4 0.20 0.00 0.00 0.00 micro rams/L itro henot 4 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 micro rams/L Pentachloro henol 4 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.00 micro rams/L 2,4,6-Trichioro henol 4 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 micro rams/L 2,4-Dichloro henol 4 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.00 micro rams/L 2-Mathyl-4,6-dinitrop henol 4 0.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 micro rams/L 2-Nitro phenol 4 DA0 0.00 0.00 0.00 micro rams/!.. 4-Chloro-3-meth I henol 4 oAo 0.00 0:00 0.00 micro rams/L Phenol 4 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 micro rams/L BaselNeutrals Dena hthene 4 . 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.000 micro rams/L nthracene 4 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.000 micro rams/L Benz a anthracene 4 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.000 micro rams/L Benzo b fluoranthene 4 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.000 micro rams/L Benz k fluoranthens 4 0.0026 0.000 0.000 0.000 micro ramslL bis(2-Chloroeth I)ether 4 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 micro rams/t bis 2-Eth Ihex i hthalate 1 4 0.01 0A 4 0.06 0.29 micograms/L 6 Ibe 1 phthalate 4 0.010 0.013 0.007 0.022 micro rams/L hloro hen 1 hen lether 1 4 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.00 micro rams/L Dibenz a,h anthracene 4 0.0025 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 micro rams/L 1,3-Dichiorobenzene 4 0.010 0.000 1 0.000 0.000 micro rams/L 3,3'-Dichlorobenzidine 4 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.00 micr rams/L J Dimeth (phthalate 4 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 micro rams/L ,4-Dinitrotoluene 4 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.00 �nrllcro gram i-n-ac t phthalate, 4 0,01 0.00 0.00 0.00 icrograms/L HUNTINGTON BEACH SEAWATER DESALINATION PLANT INTAKE WATER QUALITY CHARACTERIZATION NOVEMBER 2001 -D►CEMBER 2002 -g-A7P= OEMN A s EVENTS LIMIT FINDING. Fluoranthene 4 0.0025 0.000 0.000 0,000 micrograms/L Hexachlorobenzene 4 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.000 micrograms/L Hexachloroc cia entadiene 4 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 micro rams/L lndeno 1,2,3-c rene 4 0.0025 0.000 0.000 0.Oo0 micro rams/L Naphthalene 4 0.0023 0.000 0.000 0.000 micro rams/L N-Nitrosodimeth famine 4 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 micro rams/L N-Nitrosadi hen !amine 4 0.20 0.00 0.00 0.00 micra rams/L P rene 4 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.000 micro racnslL Acena hth lene 4 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.000 micro ramslL Benzidine 4 0.20 0.00 0,00 0.00 micro rams/L Benzo a rene 4 0.001 0,000 0.000 0.000 micra rams/L Benzo ,h,l) a (ene 4 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.000 micro rams/L bis 2-Chloroethox methane 4 0.20 0.00 0.00 0.00 micra rams/L bIs 2-Chloroiso ro !)ether 4 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 micro rams/L 4-Brom2 henyl hen Tether 4 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 micro rams/L 2-Cbiorona hthelene 4 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 micro rams/L Ch sene 4 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.000 micro rams/L 9,2-Dichlorobenzene 4 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 micrograms 1,4-Dichlorobenzens 4 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 micro rams/L Dleth (phthalate 4 0.01 0.05 0.02 0.07 micro rams/L Dibut 1 phthalate 4 0.01 0.03 0.01 0.04 micr rams/L 2,6-DinKrototuene 4 0.05 0.00 0.00 0,00 micro rams/L Azobenzene 4 0.20 0.00 0.00 0,00 micro rams1L Fluarene 4 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.000 micrograms/1 Hexachlorobutad'aene 4 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 micra rams/L - exach(oroethane 4 .0.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 micro rarns/L Iso horone 4 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 micro rame/L Nitrobenzens 4 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 micro rams/L N-nitrosodi-n- ro !amine 4 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 micro rams/L Phenanthrene 4 0.0025 0.000 0.000 0.000 micro rams/L 11,2,4-Trichlorobenzene 4 0.01 0.00 0,00 0.00 micro rams/L PESTICIDES Aldrin 4 0.001 O.D00 0.000 0.000 micro rams/L BHCai ha 4 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.000 micra rams/L BHC-beta 4 0.002 0.000 0.000 0.000 micro ramsiL 4,4•-DDD 4 0.001 0.000 01000 0.000 micro rams/L 4,4'-DDT 4 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.000 micro rams/L Endosu(fan i 4 0.005 0.000 0.000 0.000 micr rams/L Endosuifan it 4 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.000 micro rams/L Endosuifan sulfate 4 0.002 0.000 0.000 0.000 micro rams/L, Endrin 4' 0,001 0.000 0.000 0.000 micro rams/L Endrin aldehyde 4 0.010 0.000 0.000 0.000 micro rams/L Ne tachlor 4 0,002 0.000 0.000 0.000 micro rams/L Heptachlor epoxide 4 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.000 micra rams/L Arochlor5(PCBs) 4 0.010 0.000 0.000 O.Doo micro rams/L Toxa hene 4 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.000 micro rams/L SHC-delta 4 0,001 0,000 1 0.000 1 0.000 lmicrogramsrL r 4/17/03 HUNTINGTON BEACH SEAWATER DESALINATION PLANT INTAKE WATER QUALITY CHARACTERIZATION NOVEMBER 2001 -DECEMBER 2002 c EVENTS LIMIT FINDING 9HC amma Lindane 4 0.002. 0.000 0.000 0.000 mlcro rams/L. Chlordane-alpha 4 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.000 micro rams/L Chlordane-gamma 4 0.001 0.000 0.000 0,000 micro rams/L 4,4'-DDE 4 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.000 micrograms] Dieldrin 4 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.000 micro rams/L OTHERS 1-Meth Ina hthalene 4 0.001 0.000 0.000 0,000 micro rams/L 1-Meth I henanthrene 4 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.000 micra rams/L 2,3 5-Trimeth Ina htholene 4 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.000 micro rams/L 2,4':DDD 4 0.001 . 0.000 0.000 0.000 micro rams/L 2,4'-DDE 4 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.000 micro rams/L [2-Methylnaphthalene ,4'-DDT 4 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.000 micro rams/L 6-Dimeth na hthalene 4 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.000 LE Ims/L ms/L d 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.000 ms/l enzo a ne 4 0.0025 0.000 0.000 0.000 i hen i 4 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.000 ms/L echo chlor 4 0.006 0.000 0.000 0.000 msli. Minx .4 0.010 0.000 0A00 0.000 micro rams/L Perylene 4 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.000 micro rams/L 'Polychlorinated bi henyls(PCB 4 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.000 micro rams/L ns-Nonachlor 4 0.001 1 0.000 1 0.000 1 0.000 micro rams/L oi� 4117103 n . °� CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH 11 Inter Office Communication Planning Department TO: Planning Commission FROM: Howard Zelefsky, Director of Planning BY: Ricky Ramos,Associate Planner_ DATE: May 27, 2003 SUBJECT: LATE COMMUNICATION Attached are additional comment letters received since Thursday May 22, 2003 from the parties listed below regarding the Poseidon seawater desalination plant. Attachment: 1. J: Geever, Surfrider Foundation dated May 27, 2003 2. Don Schulz, Surfrider Foundation dated May 26, 2003 3. California Earth Corps/Don May dated May 27, 2003 4. Commissioner Dingwall dated May 27,2003 5. James Iverson dated May 20, 2003 6. Charlie Butler dated May 23, 2003 - 7. Thomas Wilson dated May 23, 2003 8. City of Newport Beach dated May 20, 2003 9. Dick White dated May 27, 2003 GAAdmLtAAdm1cr0310503 rr4.doc Page 1 of 1 Ramos, Ricky From: Ssurfdad@cs.com Sent: Tuesday, May 27, 2003 11:27 AM To: Subject: Poseidon Desalination Plant EIR Comments(SF National) Comment letter from J. Geever at SF National. Don Schutz 5/27000/ 1 I First we want to make clear that the Surfrider Foundation does not oppose the use of desalination plants in every instance. To the contrary, we are hopeful that future desalination projects can be designed and regulated in such a way that they can provide environmental benefits. However,for the reasons stated below, we feel very strongly that the decision to certify the Huntington-Poseidon EIR is premature. We ask the Planning Commission to postpone any decision until further investigation can clarify key elements. of the project that will have a significant bearing on the adequacy of the EIR. While we recognize that in many cases delaying the certification of EIRs will create financial difficulties for project proponents,we do not believe that this is reason enough to sacrifice the public's right to review projects thoroughly. Nor do we believe that is the case here. From reading the EIR, we are unable to identify the intended recipient of the water product from this proposal. This makes it nearly impossible to identify all the potential impacts from this new supply of water-and equally important,negates the urgency of certifying the EIR.at this time. Our current concerns include: 1) As I mentioned,we are concerned that the ultimate recipient of the new supply of water will have a significant bearing on the adequacy of the EIR. The final destination of this new supply of water will have a direct bearing on growth inducement and an indirect bearing on exacerbating sewage treatment capacity problems and urban runoff problems. The severity of the environmental impact will differ depending on the recipient of the water supply. On the other hand, there is potential for recognizing an environmental benefit from the new supply in the form of offsetting our unsustainable dependence on local groundwater and other import sources. Again, realizing these benefits is a function of the recipient of the new water. Therefore, we request that the certification of the EIR be postponed until the recipient of the new water is identified and the consequential negative or positive environmental impacts are thoroughly documented 2) We are also concerned that the EIR doesn't sufficiently cover the impacts of the cooling water intake on marine life. We understand that the project proponent has relied on the cooling water permit for the AES generator station and argues that there are no additional environmental impacts from entrainment and impingement as a result of the desalination process. But, in our opinion, the reliance on the, generator cooling water makes Poseidon a co-operator and does not completely insulate them from responsibilities to mitigate and/or cooperatively eliminate the enormous environmental impact from impingement and entrainment. - First, it is our understanding that the cooling water intake was permitted during an unusual emergency action and no environmental assessment was conducted. Therefore,relying on the existing permit is, in effect, certifying an EIR for a project that has never undergone the public scrutiny guaranteed by the California Environmental Quality Act. - Furthermore, the EIR does not address the inevitability that the US Environmental Protection Agency will be issuing new regulations for i Z- cooling water intakes under a court order. It is entirely feasible that the AES generating station will have to dramatically change their once- through cooling water system to meet Best Technology Available standards once the regulations are finally promulgated. The EIR does superficially address the future of the desalination plant in the possible event that the generator would discontinue operations.However, once again, the project proponent relies on the existing permit, which will make them solely responsible for the dramatic marine life mortality. Finally, the presumption that there is no additional marine life mortality as a result of the desalination process is not thoroughly investigated or documented in the EIR. Because the studies of marine life mortality for this plant are not available, or are not appended to this EIR, it inadequately documents the assumption of no additional impact from the desalination process. Therefore, we request that the certification of the EIR be postponed until.1) the EIR includes studies of the marine life mortality that results from the generator's cooling water system,2) explores alternatives to the existing once- through cooling water system and how this would impact the project design, and 3) thoroughly discusses research into alternatives for seawater supplies that do not have the dramatic mortality rates associated with the current intake process. 3) The discharge is a subject of some controversy. Dr: Jenkins' modeling suggests that the impact of the brine discharge and thermal variant will not cause significant impacts. In fact,there is some speculation that brine concentrate and a cooler discharge may actually improve current conditions. However, it should be documented whether or not the current conditions meet the requirements of California's Ocean Plan. For example, beyond the Zone of Dilution there should not be any impact on indigenous populations. We are concerned that the current discharge is causing dramatic ecosystem impacts. In fact,the EIR suggests that the salinity variant may disrupt marine life communities by making the salinity variances inhospitable to certain species, yet attractive to others with higher tolerance to.changes in salinity. This dislocation and replacement of indigenous populations is inconsistent with the Ocean Plan and only go to raise other questions about marine life impacts. Are predator/prey relationships being disrupted?Are there disruptions to the collection of species attracted to the area? And more directly,how are these disruptions impacted by the alteration of the discharge? 4) There is also some human health concerns about using this area for desalination source water. Inexplicably, the health standards and required treatment for source waters in reclamation processes is much stricter than those applicable to desalination processes. From a policy perspective, this raises serious concerns about the dis-incentives to perfect and implement water reclamation projects. Furthermore, there may be reasons for a similar heightened scrutiny and treatment standards for desalination source water where there is a history of contamination— as is the case in the AES intake area. We still don't fully understand the sources 2 1 .3 and dynamics of nearshore water pollution in this area. Furthermore, we have not fully considered the impact of a new source of water in this area on our current Basin Plan. As mentioned above, if it were documented that this new source of water was strictly limited to reducing our unsustainable dependence on local groundwater and imports, than these concerns are dramatically less. However, if this new source of water is an addition to the current supply, our problems of pollution control are only being exacerbated before we can get a handle on the current problems we face. If the additional water supply (as opposed to offsetting current unsustainable supplies) is delivered to communities along the Santa Ana River, does the increased urban runoff exacerbate nearshore water quality problems in the area of the AES intake?Does this in turn raise concerns about the source water for the desalination plant? Therefore, once again, we request that the certification of the EIR be postponed until the ultimate recipient of the water is identified. If it turns out that the recipient is currently serviced by the OCSD, the EIR should thoroughly discuss how the increased flow of sewage and diverted stormwater will impact the relationship between the discharge plume and the source water intake. Furthermore,studies should be conducted to document the relationship between Santa Ana River water, the AES intake, and the health impacts of the two. 5) Further, because the project proponent has not identified the end user of the water, it is entirely impossible to evaluate this project as either a private or a public entity. However,because the alternative analysis does not include different potential sites for locating the plant, one of the negative aspects of private projects is already apparent. Further, it is impossible to determine if the water will interfere with coastal priority projects by supplying water to lower priority projects that would otherwise have to compete with public projects. Finally, because this project is more akin to a private project, there are several Public Trust issues that need to be resolved before the approval of this project sets adverse precedent. 6) The EIR avoids a range of alternatives to the project by narrowly defining the purpose of the project. The project proponents have characterized the project as a "new" supply of water and disregarded other methods for meeting our water demands as inconsistent because they rely on a more sustainable use of"existing" water supplies. Arguably,the demand for water could be met with more progressive conservation and reclamation projects. Therefore, we request that the certfcation of the EIR be postponed and the document be amended to give the project a broader definition ofpurpose so that alternatives like water reclamation and conservation are consistent with the project purpose. 7) The EIR does not adequately address the issue of solid waste management. As the EIR states, daily operations at Huntington Beach's landfills are already at full capacity. Therefore,the introduction of solid waste from the pre-filtration processes at the Project has no where to go without some adjustment to the Waste Management Plan. Furthermore,without further evaluation of the constituents that are removed during the pre-filtration process, it is impossible to determine whether hazardous or toxic material will be involved. Should the pre-filtration 1/ 3 process entrap toxins,it may well trigger Resource Conservation and Recovery Act(RCRA)compliance—as well as create.liability for the Huntington Landfill and the city of Huntington Beach under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act(Superfund liability).This possibility has not been explored in the EIR. Therefore, we request studies of the intakeIsource water to determine if there are toxins that would require special disposal, and if so, a documented plan for toxic disposal. i I I ` rety-ei -v.� vo:•-roRa e-re�.. 41' 3.�G-4ubb Y.uSlinfrider Huntington Beach/Seal Beach Chapter May 26,2003 T 0: Planning Crnmitsion, City of Huntington S CC:-Cowcil Members, City of Hurttingten Beach RE: ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 00-02 (Powidon Swrwater DeWindm Plant) Deer Planning Commission Members, 1 understand that the period for public comanertt for the above referenced Elit has expired, however,in view of the fact that the Poseidon Seawater Desalination Plant is planning to utilize resources made availablc to them(wastewater,heat and cncrgy)from the adjacent AES Huntington Beach Power Generating Station(HBGS),I believe that the EM may bin deficient in Fee0gnizing the environmental impaa that the DeWina6on Plant will}lave on the Permit currently held by AES Huntington Bcaeh LLC, HBGS. Specifically, RE:ORDER NO.004 NPDES NO.CA0001163 AES Huntington Beach LLC Huntington Beach Generating Station stater;(hest page) states: PERM r RE-OPENING,REVISION, REVOCATION,and RE-ISSUANCE, l.). "This order may be ro-opened to address any changes in State or Federal plans,policies or regulations which would affect the quality requirements for the discharge." Also,pg. 4 states; "...compliance with California Ocean Plan amended most-recently"(July 23, 1997). The most recent-CaWbrnia Ocean Plan is dated Dec.3,2001. The California Ocean Plan dated Dec. 3,2001 has several ame idmenrs which are not reflected in the current AES NPDES discharge permit such as; 1.Replacement of acute toxicity effluent limitation. 2.Revise and changes water quality objectives for the protection of human health. 3:Addition of provisions for compliance determination for chemical water quality objectives. 4.Sample reporting protocol.(DNQ Vs-ND) 5. Power plant compliance reporting(mass emissions). It is my opinion that all of these changes and arrmondrnents have both a direct and indirect bewing on the decision to allow a 50MOD desalination plant to op€rate in conjunction with the HBGS. r May-Z/-u3 05 : 48A PKC: 415- 2-4056 P .03 Also,it is my understanding that the water quality requirements of the Caliibmia Ocean Plan (Cop)do not require Federal(EPA)approval to bmarne effective in state- wned wirers Federal requirements(if any)are additional to state mandated regulations. NPDES discharge permits are supposed to be reviewed periodically(every .;years)unless °administratively extended."CEQA allows for public cornment to be held 1mor to revisions or a nendments to a renewed NPDES permit. Local Coastal Plans(i.CP's)are subject to review every 10 years. The Basin Plan is cumently beiisg reviewed and revised. It is over 5 years old,and is=bJect to review and revision every S year.The NPDES permit currently held by Orangg County Sanitation District(OCSD)specifically prohibits the presence of the sewage discharge plume in the vicinity of drinking water reclamation plants.The bacterial water quality in the surf zone directly in front of the AES HBGS frequently exceeds A13411 bacterial standards for reasons that are presently not known.An investige4on of the AES HBGS pl,mt as a possible source of this contamination is currently being conducted by the Regional Water Quality Hoard (SARWQCB).Both the COP and the Basin Platt do not specifically designate reclamation of seawater for drinking water purposes as a"beneficial use of power plant wastewater.Source control standards for seawater included in the current COP and Basin Plan may not be sufficiently stringent for the protection ofhuman health.'ne water quality standards for the treatment of wastewater prior to discharge into the salt water barrier-and the groundwater settling ponds in Santa Ana(the ORS Project)are more stringent(`bottled water"standards)then are the standards proposed by the Poseidon Desalination Plant("drinking war"standards). Our sources of imported water are being reduced,and our groundwater reserves are overdrawn. Redwnstion of seawater for drinking water purposes(desalination plants)are certainly wonky of serious consideration,and together with the GRS wastewater project,will greatly improve the -reliability of fresh water sources for our watushesd residents.However,it is suggested thst.the Plwming Commission consider pos-gsoning a decision on the Poseidon Seawater Desalination LPtanA until these issues are resolved,and the carrent NPDES permit held by AES HBGS can ba rep-opened,reviewed and revised prior to being re-issued by the Regional Weser Quality Control Board. 1 appreciate this opportunity to make these comments to the Huntington Bea.-h City Council, and lan ngCo r1iSSitcdtulz 30-2 Surfrider Foundation Huntington BewAYSeal Beach Chapter CALIFORNIA EARTH CORPS 4927 Minturn Avenue Lakewood, CA 90712 (562) 630-1491 May 27, 2003 Huntington Beach Planning Commission 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, California Re : Poseidon Desalination Project Dear Commissioners; California Earth Corps has reviewed the EIR and attended several technical workshops held by Poseidon on plant operations and marine impacts. While most of the document is well done and will provide a reliable basis for decisions not only by this Commission, but also by the other Regulatory Agencies who must issue discretionary permission for construction and operation, there are some areas that are quite significant. to us that have not been addressed adequately or not at all, others that are in conflict with other sections in the document, and some that are errors of fact. GROWTH INDUCING IMPACTS have not been addressed as required under CEQA or to the criteria properly described in 5 . 1 . The 50 million gallons per day of produced 300 ppm TDS water will supply 30, 000 households, or a City about the size of Manhattan Beach, even without considering its' capability to dilute high TDS water down to meet consumer standards . Because Poseidon is a wholesaler and will never retail to meet the needs of a specific development, or . because the new households will be distributed across OC Met' s service area, or because this new water will offset the need for additional inter basin water transfers, does not mean that the additional infrastructure requirements of 30, 000 new households generated by this new water do not have to be iterated and analyzed. These Growth Inducing Impacts may not be dismissed in 7 . 0 as Not Significant as stated in 7 . 2, Population and Housing. l CEC, 5/27/03 page 2 5 . 3 Long Term Cumulative Impacts: should iterate, analyze and determine if the infrastructure necessary to support these additional households exists; if not, how they would be funded, i .e . , fire, police, schools, roads, rail and airports, electrical supply and sewerage ..capacity, etc . It seems to us that 50, 000 mgd of new water induces 50, 000 mgd of sewage treatment and ocean discharge in any consideration. POTENTIAL IMPACTS UPON ADJACENT WETLAND California Earth Corps has recently assisted the Huntington Beach Wetland .Conservancy in completing the acquisition of the Picirrelli Property, allowing the restoration of an additional 150+ acres of fully tidal wetland bounded by the Talbert Channel Magnolia, Pacific Coast Highway and the proposed Poseidon Project . In addition to the $1 . 65 million for this 45 acres and the $.4 ..+ million.. val.ue of . the additional private, State and County lands is. the -$30 . + million in private and State funds committed to 'this restoration. We are willing, even eager to participate as Huntington Beach & the Conservancy move forward with this exciting and regionally important restoration, but this Commission has the responsibility to protect this substantial investment in our children' s future through such Conditions of Permit to this Project as may be required to protect this investment . We believe that Poseidon, as a good corporate citizen, will look favorably on these opportunities to partner with the City and with the community in protecting and enhancing, even with the custodial responsibility for the adjoining Tidal Wetland. This EIR now . before. you is the source document the other Agencies will utilize to evaluate the appropriateness of issuance of their own Permits . Failure to consider the .. impacts on . the Wetland may introduce substantive delays, even Permit denials, as Agencies scurry to fill the data gaps created by EIR oversight . We understand that you also have before you a Statement of Overriding Considerations, but we feel that the omission of evaluation of these potential impacts on the Wetlands are far better addressed and mitigated as Conditions of Permit . 1 CEC 05/27/03 Page 3 4 . 2 Geology, Soils and Seismicity, notes that the loose, comp-actable sandy soils of the top 15 'feet are subject to liquifaction when wet .The water table is at 5 feet, subject to the tide . The site is atop .the Inglewood/Newport section of the Santa Monica/Baja coastal zone of deformation, an association of en echelon faults running from Punta Bunda in Mexico to Holister just south of San Jose, where it intersects the San Andreas system. It has been determined to be capable of a 6 . 9 event, based on a fault length of 44 miles . While this would most probably result in the plant, at least the product water tank, settling into the soil to the level of buoyancy and riding the "lateral spread" from five feet above sea level to the water, breaking pipes, making product water unavailable for emergencies and releasing chlorine gas from the chemical storage area, emergency services would be preoccupied with other things around town, where broken gas pipes would ignite to fuel a mini Dresden firestorm with no available water and outside help .preoccupied with a double core meltdown at the San Onofre Nuclear Plant built to withstand a 6 . 5 event within 50 miles . Fleeing citizens could meet a cloud of chlorine gas coming the other way. A more probable 6 . 5 amplitude Maximum Credible Event with a 50o probability within twenty years would cause liquifaction to produce a low head landslide, with the plant slip slidin' away into the middle of the Wetland. Even a 4 . 9 event, with 1/20th the energy, could cause settling, liquifaction and pipe breaks, with the possible release of chlorine gas . Corrogated sheeting along Channel referred to in EIR was and is intended to be temporary, to be removed during Wetland restoration to form the inlet for tidal waters. It would pose no barrier to contain "lateral spread" or mudslide anyway. 7 . 3 Says No Significant Impacts are anticipated from Geology Soils & Seismicity; the disaster scenarios are dismissed and not considered. We would guess that even the 6 . 9 event would probably result in property damage, not grave injury or loss of life on site, except for the chlorine . We consider the EIR inadequate, absent any review of these potential Geophysical hazards, and suggest: J CEC 05/27/03 Page 4 MITIGATION: Chlorine storage and injection area in the chemical storage building should be in a Containment Structure capable of withstanding a. 6. 9 event or 2 g' s of strong motion in all three axes and fitted with seismic shutoff valves . 4 . 2-2 Existing Conditions Ascon/Nesi Toxic Dump site . Apparently, materials disposed of here before Toxic Chemical definitions and standards were established may be Class I Priority chemicals by todays' standards . Since the Dump site is located above the Project site and under hydrostatic pressure, has the plume of contaminants reached the Project site yet? Which chemicals? What concentrations? Where is it'? How fast is it moving? What do the core samples from the mandatory Phase III evaluation reveal? Why are they not included in the _EIR7 What remediation is expected? Has DTSC done a site. investigation? Where-is the Cannery Street Land Fill? What is in it and does it impact the Project site? How can these chemical plumes be interdicted before they reach the Wetlands? 4 . 3 Hydrology and Water Quality. -2 The EIR is internally inconsistent regarding On Site Drainage : "in times of heavy rainfall, stormwater runoff is either released by manual valve (to where? Surely not the wetland) or-pumped into the channel", elsewhere in the EIR, "pumped out the . outfall", elsewhere, "contained within the 10 foot or 15 foot" (which?) containment berms . We believe all the above are the wrong answer (s) . The NPDES Permit required by the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board will require Standard Urban Stormwater Mitigation Plans (SUSMPs) and Best Available Control Technology (BACT) . We believe all stormwater runoff, at least the first . 75 inch of any event carrying the first flush of toxicants, must be retained and stripped of toxicants to the still-to-be-determined TMDLs (Total Maximum Daily Loads ) . The Clean Water Act (CWA) non-degradation policy requires discharge be cleaner. than the receiving waters (of the Channel) ; CEQA requires these options be explored to 1 2.L CEC 05/27/03 Page 5 provide the data for responsible decisions by the discretionary agencies such as yourselves . 7 . 4 b says No Substantial Impact, therefore no evaluation or mitigation. We disagree, and would suggest: MITIGATION: Applicant shall utilize the 10 (or 15) foot berms or construct a suitable berm to contain stormwater runoff and a linear "constructed freshwater wetland" containing rushes, sedges or other aquatic plants known to strip suspended solids, dissolved solids, pollutants, toxicants and other undesirable contaminants from runoff, at the base of the berm enclosing the facility, to contain and cleanse the first . 75 inch of any storm event, before percolation through the sands and into the water table . Pumps capable of removing runoff over the . 75 numerical standard from a 100 year capital storm into either the Channel or ocean outfall shall be provided. 4 . 3-.3 Water Quality, Ocean No data is provided for. the AES intake; at "507 mgd to 200 mgd"under what. 'circumstances? No biologicals are stated or referred, no survival rates for plankton, bacteria, pathogens or otherwise, passing through AES heat exchangers . What will Poseidon do if AES shuts down? What specific criteria will Department of Health Services require? 4 . 3-4 Beneficial Uses : "No potential beneficial uses in the Project vicinity, including . . wildlife habitat, threatened listed, or endangeredspecies, or habitat, spawning or reproduction habitat, . no marine or. shellf.ish habitat" except for the tidal wetland planned adjacent to the Plant. The EIR totally fails to address . this fundamental CEQA requirement and is accordingly inadequate by definition. Minimum Conditions of Permit: Must meet Marine Water Quality Objectives , to wit: • Thermal Plan. Plant discharge must meet the State Water Resources Control Board Thermal Plan maximum 20 degree delta T without varience. � r CEC 05/27/03 Page 6 • Bacterial. <10 E. coli /ml max; we believe DHS standards are higher. Biological. Must meet non degradation standard; must demonstrate that a "Balanced Indigenous Population exists and will be maintained outside the Zone of Initial Dilution • Wetland Beneficial Uses as a nursery to near shore biota must be protected. We are aware that Applicant believes they can meet, and the SARWQCB will require these objectives, but the EIR does not evaluate and the suggested Coastal Permit does not require compliance, as a consistency determination suggests . 4 . 3 Subsurface Water Quality. Subsurface plumes of pollutants from the Ascon/Nesi and Cannery Street toxic dump sites must be evaluated and methods of interdiction reviewed and, where appropriate, mitigation required. 4 . 4 Air Quality. Remediation is not discussed! The EIR acknowledges and the Phase II study documents that the Fuel Storage Tanks are, and have been, leaking; that substantial soil contamination exists . Where are the core samples and evaluation? (What contaminants? What concentrations? Where located, How deep, What volume?) Where is the Remediation Plan? Should not the Site be Remediated before the Project is approved? What quantities and concentration of toxicants will be released to the airshed during remediation? Release of VOCs during remediation should be addressed and mitigating containment required. _ 4 . 5 Noise Wetland and shorebirds are quite sensitive to noise; sudden sounds often provoke migrating birds to flight, unnecessarily expending energy reserves needed for migration. Sound barriers such as vegetated berms are effective and can be made esthetically pleasing . MITIGATION: Sound Barriers should be required. CEC 05/27/03 Page 7 4 .7 Light and. Glare Wetland and shorebirds are also sensitive to light and glare . Birds migrating at night are often misdirected by urban lights, becoming lost or .even crashing into things . Wetland destinations ofnocturnal migrating birds appear as dark spots; when wetlands are inadvertently illuminated, migratory bird counts drop. Many just don' t make it to their final destination. MITIGATION: Lights should be directed away and wetlands shielded from all illumination. 4 . 8 Hazardous Materials Precautions for safely handling and storing chlorine should be discussed and the Permit properly conditioned to protect public health and safety, especially through any seismic event . Additionally, many serious and mitigable Impacts are dismissed ,as Insignificant: 7 . 0 Not Significant Impacts - that are substantial and can be mitigated: 7 .2 Population and Housing : Growth Inducing Impacts are significant, have not been addressed, and should be analyzed at 5 . 3 . 7 . 3 Geology and Soils : Impacts are significant and should be analyzed at 4 . 2 . 7 . 4 a) states Huntington Beach draws 700 of its' drinking Water from groundwater aquifers, other places, 75%, still others, 66% . Which number is factually correct? b) probabilities of a 30+ foot tsunami every 100 or so years do not seem insignificant to us; while not particularly applicable here, the risk - and preparations to control property damage should be reviewed by the Planning Commission of all Coastal Cities . Mudflows in liquifaction prone areas with even mild gradients are not low; they are a near certainty. 7 . 5 Air Quality adverse impacts from VOCs released during remediation are not insignificant . /� CEC 05/27/03 Page 8 7 . 6 Traffic, transportation and Emergency: Chlorine spills or accidental release, with safety precautions should be analyzed. 7 .7 Biological: Subsurface Booster Pump located in NCCP area must be mitigated for loss of habitat . We suggest : MITIGATION: Disturbed area should have all exotic and non native plants removed and be replanted after completion of water pipeline and Booster Pump in NCCP area with a palatte of as many indigenous plants as practicable with supplemental watering and care provided during the first year, or until they are established, and with weeding out of invasive non natives and replacement of failed natives until the Booster Pump is no longer required and has been removed. Poseidon' s actions as a good corporate citizen and: environmental steward may inspire the operators of the other Booster Pumps in the area to do likewise. 7 . 9 b) Haz Mat Code Sec . 65962 .5 et seq re : chlorine must be implemented. 7 . 10 Noise impactes on Wetland must be precluded. 7 . 11 Public Services required by Growth Inducing Impacts must be evaluated. 7 . 12 Utilities and Services required to support induced growth must be evaluated. 7 . 13 Esthetics : A buffer between the Wetland and the Stormwater Containment Berm should be required and planted. with a palatte of plants indigenous to the Coastal Sage community and providing public access via a pathway along the Plant perimeter bordering the Wetland but screened from it such . as not to disturb birds, yet affording views and vistas of wildlife for residents and visiting schoolchildren . MITIGATION: Require a Ccdition of Public Access via such pathway to be designed and constructed in coordination with the Huntington Beach Wetland Conservancy and the 2 forthcoming 'Talbert Marsh Conceptual Plan. C/ CEC 05/27/03 Page 9 7 . 14 Cultural, Archeology This site has been a temperate seashore where people have .congregated to fish and dig clams since time immemorial . The top 15 feet contains the unbroken record of habitation and human land use since humanity entered North America . We have been drawn to this seashore, to this site for over 10, 000 years . It is difficult to believe that no record of our presence exists, or will be uncovered during Project construction . We suggest a Condition of Permit : When cleaning soils during site remediation and when removing or moving soils during construction, all personnel will be alert for artifacts of human occupation, and to save and entrust all such items of interest to the City for display at a future Marsh Visitor Center or other .Civic venue. 7 . 15 Recreation. Coastal Act provisions for Public. Access and Preservation of 'public views to and from the site, of seashore, ocean and Wetlands call for a Condition of Permit providing such access as suggested above at 7 . 13 . With full consideration of all these inadequacies , errors and omissions in this Environmental Impact Report, and in the hope that a better Project, with fewer delays to fill the data gaps in the Record, will result, it is our request that this EIR be withdrawn, and a supplemental and correcting EIR be prepared, commented upon and returned to this Commission for Certification at a future meeting. Thank you for your attention. Do ay, resident California Earth Corps The Poseidon Project MAY 2 7 2003 Why we must be cautious: In 1905. a Spanish born American philosopher by the name of George Santayana stated(in his book, The Life of Reason), "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it Let us take a look at Huntington Beach, circa 1955: Southern California Edison Company proposes to build an Electrical.Generating Plant that would use Bunker Oil as a fuel, delivered to an off shore terminal, piped to on shore storage tanks and used to heat water into steam for the steam powered turbines connected to the electrical generators. Edison proposes that their plant will act as a catalyst to bring other industry into the area, all of which would greatly expand the Industrial Tax Base, Signal Oil Company is said to be willing to build an oil refinery in the adjacent area. Our city fathers of the time were convinced(in part)to accept the proposal on the basis that: 1. It would "draw-in" additional industrial expansion. 2. It would provide lower cost electricity (no long distance transmission overhead). 3. It would provide jobs. 4. It would increase the Tax Base, 5. It would help relieve the shortage of a much needed utility. 6. It would"enhance" our city in many ways. 7. They were not asking for any"entitlements", it would be paid for entirely with private capital. 8. There was no "down side"to the proposal(according to all the experts of the time). Who could resist such a proposal? Huntington Beach didn't. And so the Edison Plant was built. The first thing to go wrong was that Signal Oil Co. did not build a refinery in the area, in fact no one built any other significant industrial facility in the area, Huntington Beach relied heavily on the advice of"experts" about there being little or no disadvantages to having the Edison Plant along the beach. As we learned later(after it was too late),the sum total of the"experts" knowledge base on the subject (at that time)was close to zero (0). You might say that the whole project was somewhat experimental at that time. A few years later,the monsters began to jump out of the box: 1. The burning of bunker oil to provide steam for the turbines produced great quantities of contaminates that contributed heavily to air pollution and smog. ' 2. The local air was turned a dirty gray 3. The air was filled with small unburned hydrocarbon particles. 4. Freshly washed linens and whites hung out to dry in the summer sun and ocean breeze, were turned a dirty gray in a matter of just a couple of hours. 5. Light colored automobiles parked out of doors had a dirty gray covering with small black spots. 6. Through civic and governmental action, the Edison Co. was forced to change over to natural gas as a fuel. Some of the problems were solved, but not all. Air pollution is still an on-going battle. 7. In the 1990's the installation was sold to.a private company. S. In 2000 when the energy crunch hit and Huntington Beach really needed the locally generated electricity, that company virtually"thumbed their combined noses at Huntington Beach". The bottom line is: A. At the time it was built, the Edison Plant was EXPERIMENTAL at least in part. B. At the time the Edison Plant was built, the knowledge base for such things was little more that ZERO( 0 ). C. At the time the Edison Plant was-built, the so called "experts"were basing their opinions on the knowledge base of that time. D. At the time he Edison Plant was built,Huntington Beach took part in an EXPERPOENTAL PROJECT with no reward for that "risk taking". If Huntington Beach is to take part in an EXPERZMEWAL P�ti GJECT AGAIN, it will require a certain amount of"RISK TAKIIITG", for which Huntington Beach MIST BE REWARDED UP FRONT. With the above in mind, I would like to make a motion that the following conditions be made apart of whatever decision this Planning Commission makes relative to the Poseidon Application. 1. TAXES A. Utility Taxes: If for any reason the Poseidon Operation and/or it's successors are deemed exempt from the Huntington.B each Utility Tax, an"In-Lieu" fee be established in an amount equal to what said Utility Tax would have been. Said In-Lieu Fee to be calculated on or about the Fifteenth( 15) Day of March, each Calendar Year by the Huntington Beach Department of Finance. The Poseidon Organization or it's successors will cooperate fully in this calculation. Said In-Lieu Fee will be paid to the City of Huntington Beach no later that the fifth (5 )day of July, each calendar year. B. Real Property and/or Right, Title and Interest Tag. If for any reason the Poseidon Operation and/or it's successors are deemed exempt from Real Property Tax,Business Tax(of any kind), Inventory Tax, l Leasehold Tax, or any other tax normally paid by other businesses in Huntington Beach, , an"In-Lieu" fee be established in an amount equal to what said Tax would have been. _ ? _ Li .2. Said In-Lieu Fee to be calculated on or about the Fifteenth( 15) Day of March, each Calendar Year by the Huntington Beach Department of Finance. The Poseidon Organization(or it's successors)will cooperate fully in this calculation. Said In-Lieu Fee will be,paid to the City of Huntington Beach no later that the fifth( 5 )day of July, each calendar year. C. Sales Tax For all products developed and/or sold by Poseidon(or it's successors) in Huntington Beach, the official Point of Sale must be Huntington Beach, California. 2. Environmental Concerns A. Visual Blight A perimeter of natural trees, of sufficient height and density(at 75% maturity)to completely block off any view of the Poseidon Project on all sides except the Pacific Coast Highway side. The views from the sides outlined above and the present or future home sites, are to be blocked so that the Poseidon Project will look like a dense stand of trees. B. Ocean Contamination All materials used in cleaning and/or maintenance of the Poseidon]Equipment, either initially or periodically, whether they be solids, solids in liquid or liquid will be delivered (either by truck or pipeline) to the Orange County Sanitation District for further processing prior to being returned to the sea or landfill. The cost of this activity to be borne by the Applicant. All liquid run-off from equipment,yard, grounds,spills, landscaping or for any other reason will be handled the same as above. 3. Right-of-way Fees A. An "In-Lieu"fee An In-Lieu Fee will be included into the Right-of-Way Agreement for the use of Huntington Beach City Property in an amount equal to three(3 %)percent of Poseidon(or it's successors)Gross Annual Income. Said In-Lieu Fee to be calculated on or about the Fifteenth( 15) Day of March, each Calendar Year by the Huntington Beach Department of Finance. The Poseidon Organization(or it's successors)will cooperate fully in this calculation. Said In-Lieu Fee to have a"Cost of Living"escalator clause based on the Annual Cost of Living Increase for the Huntington Beach area. (p ' The formula to be used is: o Last Years Fee+Cost of Living Increase, or three(3/o) percent of Gross Annual Income, whichever is greatest. Said In-Lieu Fee will be paid to the City of Huntington Beach no later that the fifth( 5 ) day of July, each calendar year. Robert E. (Bob)Dingwall Planning Commissioner. James H Iverson 19350 Ward St., Sp. 23 " "'•4.`� Huntington Beach, CA 92646-3001 Ph: (714) 378-5180 Fax: (714) 556-2364 May 20, 2003 Planning Commission Chairman Randy Kokal City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Dear Chairman Kokal: I have wondered for years why we didn't tap into the Pacific Ocean to solve our recurring water problems. The Federal government is threatening to cut California's share of the Colorado River, the weather refuses to give us a constant supply, and you can bet other cities and agencies will try to.beat us out of water. Poseidon Resources has an application before the Huntington Beach Planning Commission to build a desalination facility at the AES plant. I would like it to be a larger facility than they are planning, but lets get what we can to prove the theory works as well as it has in Arab countries. My understanding of this project is that it will provide us with additional water at reasonable rates while adding to our tax base and consequently our taxes collected. The company is willing to fund the facility with private money, which I consider another point in their favor. I urge your yes vote when this matter comes before the City Planning Commission. Sincerely, / James H. Iverson, ( E CC: Mayor Boardman 1 Page 1 of 1 Lugar, Robin m: Zelefsky, Howard Sent: Tuesday, May 27,2003 3:11 PM To: Lugar, Robin Subject: FW:.Poseldon comment letter ---Original Message---- °rom: CharlieButler2@aol.com [mailto:ChariieButier2@aol.comj sent:Tuesday, May 27, 2003 1:25 PM ro: hzelefsky@surfcity-hb.org Subject: Fwd: Poseidon comment letter Ar Zelefsky: understand that you are the Director of Planning. 1 recently sent this letter to the City Council, and Ron Davis. I would like it alaced into the public record in regards to the reasons that I oppose the proposal to approve the Poseidon Desalisination facilities. Thank you very much. Respectfully Charlie Butler 5/27/2003 lc . t Page 1 of 1 Lugar, Robin From: CharlieButier2@aol.com Sent: Friday, May 23, 2003 12:24 PM To: City Council Public Correspondence Subject: Poseidon comment letter To the City Council: I am writing as an individual to express my opposition to the Poseidon project. I respectfully request that this project not be allowed. I fully understand that it would generate tax revenues but further deteriorating the Southeast Huntington Beach area is not an "acceptable trade off'in any manner.Tax revenues at that cost are far too high. There are many more reasons to oppose this project and this is just a start. The desalinization plant would depend on the AES input and output"tubes"into and out of our Ocean. The AES electricity generating plant is old, inefficient, and pollutes the air,amongst other problems.When AES spoke to us they originally promised a new modernized plant with lower profile and cleaner pollution standards,they also promised other things that never happened.When the"electricity crisis"hit, AES quickly changed their minds and stuck with old technology and activated two more burners. Now AES has financial issues, as their public filings can detail for anyone interested.With these problems, it is not highly probable that AES will upgrade their HB plant, as they currently are in more of an international asset sale mode. On top of that,this area has become crowded with residences compared to when the power plant and the waste processing facilities were built.The load through the waste processing facilities has increased dramatically as the Orange County population increases. So.the input and output of the AES circulation tubes has,more pollution issues to deal with than if it were in a rural area,or when it was planned. Our beaches have been closed due to pollution many times, and scientists cannot. determine why. Until this is determined and corrected it can only deepen the problem to add another polluter to the mix.The newspaper and television coverage on closed beaches in the summer damages our economy and our tourism. How happy will the new Hotels be with closed beaches? Yet,in a small area we have a waste processing facility that releases treated and untreated "human pollution"near the input and output tubes that draw Ocean water and its unwelcome additives back into the beaches to an electricity plant located in front of recreational beaches.There have been many sightings of the"plumes"around the output tubes.Add to this the urban runoff that is channeled to the same location from inland as far away as the Chino dairy farms. Using the time honored "common sense"approach; one would normally not expect this combination to produce good results. If scientists cannot determine the cause of the current beach closures, why do we feel that consultants hired by Poseidon can accurately determine their effects? Now to add one more processing plant to the input and output tubes is on the table. Should this be approved,AES will be subsidized, and it is even more unlikely that the electricity plant will ever be retired,reduced in usage, or updated to new technology.Plus there would be far more pollution from the generators lowering the air quality.The output from the Poseidon plant would change the water quality.This is.a beach, not an industrial dump. Few could logically object to desalinized drinking water;we all understand this is really a dessert.The issue is a small area with urban runoff, a waste plant, a polluting power plant, a new polluter, and another use of the"tubes"in an area that has become heavily-populated with human beings.-The issue is not a trust between politicians and citizens; it is pollution and human beings.The issue should not be generating property tax increments into the redevelopment zone fund at any cost; because the cost of more beach closures can be greater than the revenues brought in. Please also consider the voters and the pollution in residential neighborhoods,the health of the residents and tourists, and the quality of life.There are many spots in rural areas that could be used to desalinize water. Trading tax revenues for deteriorating the Ocean and neighborhood,and the risk of more beach closures is not a long-term strategy to allow. People travel all over the world to go on vacation to beaches.This generates resort areas,tourist revenues, entertainment and other more enjoyable uses of the Ocean.This should.be a focus. Thanks for your time Charlie Butler 5/27/2003 " -• ''t. THOMAS W. WILSON ....i CHAIRMAN MAY27 9dpj ` ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 1 a i1v ; SUPERVISOR, FIFTH DISTRICT '4 ' •a _= 10 CIVIC CENTER PLAZA, P.O.BOX 687, SANTA ANA,CALIFORNIA 92702-0687 "......v' PHONE: (714) 834-3550 FAX: (714) 834-2670 wEBSITE: http://www.oc.ca.gov/supes/fifth EMAIL: thomas.wilson@ocgov.com May 23, 2003 The Honorable Connie Boardman Mayor, City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Dear Mayor Boardman: The preservation,protection and restoration of our watershed and coastline have always played a major role in our policy-making decisions as County Supervisors. As a founder of the Orange County Coastal Coalition,it has been my mission to bring together.business,public.agencies, environmental groups and concerned individuals to protect Orange County's_coastline. Poseidon Resources has exhibited its commitment to water quality with exhaustive biological and oceanographic testing to analyze the effect its proposed desalination facility will have-on the.marine habitat. I am pleased to support Poseidon Resources' desalination facility because there is no evidence that it will harm our coastline environment. In fact, once the public realizes that it is drinking desalinated seawater, it may be most motivated to proactively protect our ocean from pollutants. The environmental community must embrace business like Poseidon that care about our coastline and show concern with active participation in environmental protection programs. Sincerely, THOMAS W.WILSON Chairman of the Board cc: Huntington Beach City Council "Huntington Beach Planning Commission r, ; � C �W POST;b 10 e CITY OF NEWPORT. BEACH MAY 2 7 2003 May 20, 2003 City of Huntington Beach Planning Department Randy Kokal Ch:airrn=-n, Hunntington Beach Planninn Commission. 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 RE: Poseidon Seawater Desalination Project EIR Dear Chairman Kokal, During our review of the Responses .to Comments for the Poseidon Seawater Desalination Project Environmental. Impact Report (DEIR), we became aware of an alternate location in Bonita Canyon Sports Park for the proposed pump station. Apparently, this alternate location was not identified in the DEIR, but was presented in response to comments from the State Department of Fish and Game. The City of Newport Beach agrees with the evaluation in the Response to Comments. The construction of this facility would require severely disrupting the use of the Bonita Canyon Sports Park parking lot for an extended period of time. The Bonita Canyon Sports Park is scheduled to open in July 2003 and has already generated tremendous interest. This long awaited youth sports park was designed to relieve the lack of sports fields for Newport Beach's youth. These youth sports groups have been waiting anxiously due to the lack of fields in the City even with the new park. The groups.were disappointed by the unavailability of the fields during the spring season and had to wait until the opening in July. It is anticipated that the five fields and practice fields will be used seven days per week, 12 months of the year. There are over 5,000 children enrolled in youth sports programs in Newport Beach. The park also has heavy anticipated use for the playground and picnic area as we open it up to reservations. Any delay or disruption of this facility would profoundly impact a neighborhood in great need of parks and recreational facilities. We also agree that by reducing the facility's parking capacity, the users will be forced to park their vehicles on adjacent residential streets. While the City shares the concerns of resource agencies on proposed pump station's impacts to the habitat resources in the area, we agree with the conclusion that the City Hall e 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, California 92663-3884 www.citymewport-beach.ca.us alternative location would result in greater impacts to the Bonita Canyon Sports Park and the adjacent residential areas. Sincerely, Sharon Z. Wood Assistant City Manger 2 05/27/2003 Dick white, 17811 Misty Lane,HB., 92649-4916 The Honorable Connie Boardman Mayor The City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Subject:Water for the future Dear Mayor Boardman: We have an opportunity to mitigate the ever-increasing shortage of water in our coastal city. As a Huntington Beach resident,I appreciate our seaside community and would not want anything introduced that might damage our precious coastal habitat. That is one reason I believe it to be beneficial that Poseidon Resources be permitted to build its 50-million gallon desalination facility at the AES plant. If our coastal waters are purified to make drinking water,it will be incumbent upon Poseidon to constantly test the water off our coast to make sure that water is clean. Another benefit is the inevitability of a desalination plant on our coast. Dwindling groundwater in our aquifer, and dwindling water in our down stream position for Colorado River water dictates aggressive water conservation and acquisition programs. Conservation is now,under way—Poseiden is the only known solution for the latter and it surely must come about some day as it has in many places around the world. The desalination process is "seawater in,seawater out." It is my understanding that no chemicals will be introduced to the ocean that don't already exist there. It is essential that Huntington Beach and all of Orange County develop its own new water sources. With an infinite water supply in our ocean,the desalination-of seawater is the most logical solution to our impending clean water crisis. This facility would not cost the taxpayers a dime. Poseidon Resources will pay thousands of dollars in taxes to the City of Huntington Beach. This desalination facility makes sense economically,environmentally,and will benefit all Huntington Beach residents. Sincerely, Dick White cc: Huntington Beach City Council Huntington Beach-Planning Commission Brian Lockery—Poseidon CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH Inter Office Communication Planning Department TO: Planning Commission FROM: Howard Zelefsky, Director of Planning BY: Ricky Ramos,Associate Planner'., DATE: June 3, 2003 SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 00-02/CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 02-04/COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 02-05 (POSEIDON SEAWATER DESALINATION PLANT)—REPORT UPDATES The following attachments provide additional information relative to the Poseidon Seawater Desalination Plant: 1. Response to issues raised at the May 27, 2003 Planning Commission hearing 2. Additional letters in opposition/support HZ:SH:HF:RR G-'W m Lt r\Ad m I tr03\0503 rr6.doc CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH Inter Office Communication Planning Department TO: Planning Commission FROM: Howard Zelefsky, Director of Planning BY: Ricky Ramos, Associate PlannertF-- DATE: May 29, 2003 SUBJECT: RESPONSE TO ISSUES RAISED AT THE MAY 27,2003 PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING ON ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 00-02lCONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 02-04/COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 02-05(POSEIDON SEAWATER DESALINATION PLANT) As directed by.the Planning Commission at the May 27, 2003 Planning Commission:hearing on the subject project, staff prepared the following responses to substantive issues raised at the May 27, 2003 hearing, in addition to issues identified in correspondence received following the close of the Draft EIR public review period. As stated at the hearing by staff, the City's environmental consultant and the applicant, the issues raised at the hearing and in the additional correspondence have substantially been addressed in the Draft EIR and Responses to Comments document. This staff report has been prepared to further clarify staff s position and the EIR analysis, and to specifically address the key issues requested by the Planning Commission. As set forth below, the information and analysis presented to date is adequate under CEQA for the Planning Commission to certify the Final EIR and for approval of the CUP and CDP. DETAILED REPORT: .The CEQA process for the proposed Poseidon Seawater Desalination Project has involved several opportunities for public comment on the project: As noted in the May 27, 2003 Staff Report, the Draft EIR was circulated for public review between September 19 and November 4, 2002. The City received a total of 21 comment letters on the Draft EIR, and prepared formal written responses to all comments, as required by CEQA. The City completed the Response to Comments document on March 21, 2003, after several months of additional research and analysis to address Draft EIR comments. The Responses to Comments document, although only required by CEQA to be distributed to Responsible Agencies that submitted comments, was provided to all commenting parties (both public and private). It should be noted that, of the 21 comment letters and responses provided by City staff, the City only received three replies from agencies that commented on the Draft EIR(see items 1, 3 and 4 below). G:WdmLtr\Adm1tr03\0503rr5.doc 1 'S s :s CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED FOLLOWING CLOSE OF DRAFT EIR PUBLIC REVIEW PERIOD: 1. Tom Luster, California Coastal Commission (letter dated May 8, 2003): This letter primarily restates issues raised in a November 4, 2002 letter. A separate`response has been prepared by staff and was attached to the staff report update dated May 22, 2003. 2. Edward Kerins, Huntington Beach Tomorrow(dated May 21, 2003): Mr. Kerins' letter primarily expresses concerns regarding RO flushing effluent, noise, loss of tax revenue, and pipeline financial impacts. The RO train issue is addressed in the Draft EIR and in several Responses to Comments, including No. 6b and No. 17. Noise issues are addressed in the Draft EIR(including Sections 4.5 and 4.9), as well as various responses. Financial/tax issues are not relevant to CEQA. 3. Lars D. Oldewage, Irvine Ranch Water District (dated May 22, 2003): Mr. Oldewage's letter expresses concerns regarding product water quality, product water customer acceptance, RO membrane performance, and water stabilization/corrosion control. These issues have been addressed within Response to Comment Nos. 14, 15 and 16. 4. Wayne Clark, Municipal Water District of Orange County (dated May 19, 2003): This letter expresses support for the project. 5. Adrianne Morrison, Bolsa Chica Conservancy (dated May 22, 2003): This letter expresses support for the project. 6. J. Geever, Surfrider National Foundation (dated May 27, 2003) Mr. Geever's . comments on the proposed project focused on growth inducement, marine biology, discharge salinity/temperature, source water quality, public/private ownership, alternatives, and solid waste management. These issues are addressed in the Draft EIR and Responses to Comments (in particular, refer to Response 2m for growth, 4b for AES permit issues, 2c for Ocean Plan issues, 21 for alternatives, and 11 c for solid waste). Additional discussion of these issues is provided below, as they are similar to issues raised by California Earth Corps' "14 points"letter. 7. Don Schulz, Surfrider Foundation, Huntington Beach/Seal Beach Chapter (dated May 26, 2003): Mr. Schulz's letter expressed concerns primarily relating to the proposed project's California Ocean Plan/NPDES consistency. This issue is addressed in Response 4b and below as part of the California Earth Corps response. 8. Don May, California Earth Corps (dated May 27, 2003): Mr. May's comments on the proposed project focused on growth inducement, coastal/terrestrial biological impacts, geological hazards, Ascon/Nesi hazardous materials, on-site drainage, AES. shutdown scenario, permitting requirements, groundwater/soil contamination, noise, light and glare, operational use of hazardous materials, drinking water supply, tsunami potential, aesthetics, and cultural resources. This letter was specifically requested by the Planning Commission to be addressed in more detail by staff. Refer to the "California Earth Corps' 14 Various Categories" discussion below. 9. Robert E. Dingwall, Planning Commissioner (dated May 27, 2003): Mr. Dingwall's letter expressed concerns primarily relating to the history of the AES Generating Station and project benefits for the City of Huntington Beach. The letter also proposes several conditions on the project that include taxes, fees, and design requirements. It should be noted that aesthetic and water quality issues are addressed in the Draft EIR. 10. James H. Iverson, Huntington Beach Resident (dated May 20, 2003): Mr. Iverson's l letter focuses on the benefits of the project,in regards to water supply/reliability, tax base G:\AdmLtr\AdmItr0310503rr5.doc 2 3 77a income, and lower public risks due to private funding. Mr. Iverson recommends certification of the EIR. 11. Charlie Butler (email dated May 23, 2003): Mr. Butler's email (unsigned) expressed concerns relating to impacts from the AES facility, existing bacterial plume along the Huntington Beach coast, and discharge water quality. The Draft .EIR and technical appendices provided extensive discussion of the project's relationship to the existing beach contamination, including detailed plume modeling. This issue was addressed at length during the hearing, including specific responses provided by Dr. Jenkins of Scripps Institute. 12. Thomas W. Wilson, Orange County Board of Supervisors (dated May 23, 2003): Mr. Wilson's letter focuses on the benefits of the project in regards to a lack of evidence showing the project would harm the coastline environment and Poseidon's involvement in environmental protection programs. Mr. Wilson is supportive of the proposed project. 13. Sharon Z. Wood, City of Newport Beach (dated May 20, 2003): Ms. Wood's comment letter expresses agreement with analysis contained within the Responses to Comments document that found that impacts would be greater if the Bonita Canyon Pump Station site is utilized rather than the site nearby the NCCP/HCP boundary within unincorporated Orange County. 14. Dick White, Huntington Beach Resident (dated May 27, 2003): Mr. White's letter focuses on project benefits including ocean water quality, water supply/reliability, tax income to the City, and private funding. Mr. White is supportive of the proposed project. 15.Bruce Monroe,The Sierra Club, Coast and Ocean Sub-Committee of the California and Nevada Regional.Conservation Committee (dated May 27, 2003): Mr. Monroe's letter expresses concerns in regards to economics, planning/growth, siting, entrainment and impingement, and by-product discharge. These issues are similar to those raised by the Coastal Commission (see separate staff response), Surfrider and California Earth Corps (see Items 2 and 3 above, and "California Earth Corps' 14 Various Categories" discussion below). 16. Robert Thomas, Huntington Beach Resident (dated May 27, 2003): Mr. Thomas' letter expresses concerns regarding land use compatibility, discharge water quality, bacterial plume concerns, and underground utility conflicts. These issues are addressed in the Draft EIR and.Responses to Comments, as well as the "Land Use/Relevant Planning Consistency" discussion below. 17. Jan Vandersloot, Ocean Outfall Group (dated May 27, 2003): Mr. Vandersloot provided the Planning Commission with two graphics (one taken from the Draft EIR showing the project's potential salinity plume and one showing City/County stormwater pump stations/OCSD surfzone monitoring stations) and two pages from the Huntington Beach Shoreline Contamination Investigation, Phase III report dated March 21, 2003. Mr. Vandersloot utilized these documents during his presentation to the Planning Commission on May 27,2003. May 27,2003 Planning Commission—Public Hearing Comments In addition, as part of the CEQA process for the proposed desalination facility, input from the community.-in the form of-local-organizations and residents was received.before the City of Huntington Beach Planning Commission on May 27, 2003. A total of 27 oral comments (by 23 t different individuals) regarding the proposed project were heard (22 comments during the Planning Commission Public Hearing, and five during the Study Session preceding the Public GAAdmLtr\Admltr03\0503rr5.doc 3 Hearing). A list of speakers is provided below ("*" indicates that the speaker also submitted written comments, either as part of the Draft EIR review period or following-close of public review): Planning Commission Study Session 1. *Don Schulz, Surfrider Foundation- Opposed to Project 2. Bruce Monroe, Sierra Club- Opposed to Project 3. Randy Fuhrman- Opposed to Project 4. Jan Vandersloot, OOG- Opposed to Project 5. *Don May, CA Earth Corps - Opposed to Project Planning Commission Public Hearing 1. Dean Albright, OOG—Opposed to Project 2. Norm Westwell— Supportive of Project 3. *Joe Geever, Surfrider Foundation- Opposed to Project 4. Mark Bixby- Opposed to Project 5. Ed Demeulle, SEHBNA- Opposed to Project 6. Randy Fuhrman- Opposed to Project 7. Bruce Monroe, Sierra Club- Opposed to Project 8. Deborah Zisch Opposed to Project 9.`. Jan Vandersloot, Ocean Outfall Group (OOG) - Opposed to Project 10. Larry Porter- Opposed to Project 11. *Don May, CA Earth Corps - Opposed to Project 12. Stephanie Barger, Earth Resource Foundation- Opposed to Project 13. Monica Galluccio, SEHBNA- Opposed to Project 14. David Guido - Opposed to Project 15. John Scott, SEHBNA- Opposed to Project 16. Tim Anderson- Opposed to Project 17. Billy Owens—Project Applicant 18. Ron Van Blarcom—Project Applicant Team 19. Scott Jenkins—Project Applicant Team 20.Nikolay Voutchkov—Project Applicant 21. Jeffrey Graham—Project Applicant Team 22. Eileen Murphy- Opposed to Project STAFF RESPONSE WITH RESPECT TO SUBSTANTIVE ISSUES RAISED As directed by the Planning Commission, it is the purpose of this Staff Report to provide responses to substantive environmental issues raised at the May 27, 2003 public hearing. Brief responses are provided above for all late correspondence. In addition, the following issues were requested by the Planning Commission for further clarification. It should be noted that the majority of both late communications and oral comments received by the Planning Commission pertained to issues that have previously been addressed in the Draft EIR or have been responded to either in the Responses to Comments document or Staff Report dated May 27, 2003. The following discussion addresses primary EIR issues raised in late communications received after l May 22, 200) or oral comments received before the Planning Commission on May 27, 2003: ' GAAdmLtr\Admltr03\0503rr5.doc 4 j, �_4 ' +A � , . ❖ Analysis of Pipeline Connection Between Generating Station Intake Facilities and Proposed Desalination Plant within AES Site: There was some question as to whether or not the EIR addresses the project-related, infrastructure necessary to connect the, . desalination facility to AES facilities.. The EIR provides concept site plans and graphics illustrating these connections, which were accounted for in the EIR. (see specific discussion on page 4.9-3 of the Draft. EIR). In addition, on-site facility/pipeline connections were considered as part of the construction and operational impacts of the desalination plant, which resulted in relocating the desalination plant from its originally contemplated located within the AES property to minimize disruption to AES operations. ❖ CEQA Requirements for "Baseline" Thresholds: Several comments raised the issue of whether or not the EIR should evaluate project operation in the event that the AES facility were to shut down. It is important to note that CEQA requires an EIR to evaluate a project's impacts based upon the existing conditions at the time the Notice of Preparation (NOP) is prepared, and discourages evaluation of speculative scenarios. Therefore, it is appropriate that the EIR base its analysis on continued operation of the AES power plant. Nonetheless, responses to this issue have been provided, both at the public hearing, and in response to Coastal Commission comments (see Response Nos. 2d and 2e). This issue is addressed in further detail below as part of the "California Earth Corps' 14 Various Categories" discussion. Land Use/Relevant Planning Consistency: The proposed project would comply with the General Plan and Zoning designations, and is consistent with the Southeast Coastal Redevelopment Plan. The facility would occur within a primarily industrial area. Proposed on-site structures would replace dilapidated fuel oil storage tanks constructed several decades ago. The project would comply with all City requirements in regards to aesthetic screening, architecture, and building height. The project would also be required to comply with the City's Municipal Noise Ordinance. Noise and aesthetic issues are addressed in detail within Sections 4.5, 4.7 and 4.9 of the Draft EIR. The project is not anticipated to have an adverse impact on the surrounding community in regards to land use and relevant planning (see Section 4.1 of the Draft EIR). ❖ Effect of Trace Compounds in Discharge Water: The Draft EIR includes analysis of water quality issues based on extensive water quality modeling conducted .by the applicant and input provided by other agencies as part.of the.EIR process. Poseidon Resources has completed several efforts to characterize the intake and discharge water quality of the Huntington Beach seawater desalination plant. These efforts include: completion of sanitary survey (included as Appendix E in the DEIR), collection of desalination plant intake water quality information for the last two years, and operation of seawater desalination pilot plant for the last six months. The results of these efforts indicate that the Huntington Beach desalination plant source water does not contain significant amounts of hazardous compounds (such as lead, mercury, arsenic, etc.) that can pose a health hazard or have a measurable impact to marine aquatic life. The concentrations of the compounds of concern measured at the desalination plant intake are summarized in Table 4-2 of Appendix E in the EIR. Review of this data 6 indicates that the desalination plant source water contains very low concentrations of the rv\'AdmT.tr\Admitr01\niO3rri.doc 5 compounds in question. Under worst-case scenario, the concentration of these compounds in the desalination plant discharge can increase no more than two times the background seawater concentration (without taking credit for power plant discharge dilution). When taking into consideration that the desalination plant discharge .will be blended with the powerplant cooling water,. the blended water .-will have compound concentrations no more than 1.65 times background levels when initially discharged at the offshore outfall. Dilution factors 'of the blended discharge (calculated by the hydrodynamic model) indicate that ocean mixing will rapidly reduce the concentrations of these compounds. Concentrations will be less than 10 %over background levels within a distance of 330 ft from the outfall, declining further to less than 1% over background within 1,300 ft from the outfall. Typically, the concentration of heavy metals and other hazardous compounds in seawater and the desalination plant discharge is several orders of magnitude lower than the maximum contaminant levels (MCLs) defined in the Safe Drinking Water Act. Therefore, the concentrate discharge to the ocean will not pose a health risk and will not have a negative impact of the beneficial uses of the ocean water (swimming, boating, fishing and other recreational or commercial activities). In addition to not being a human health risk, the desalination plant concentrate discharge will not have a measurable effect on the aquatic life because of the very low levels of various metals and other hazardous compounds in the concentrate, which are typically several times lower than the discharge limits established by the California Ocean, Plan. The California Environmental Protection Agency, in a close coordination with the Regional Water Quality Control Boards (RWQCB), including the Santa Ana RWQCB which regulates discharges in the Huntington Beach area, has established maximum concentration limits for the compounds that would have a measurable impact on marine life when discharged into the ocean. These limits have been determined by the California Environmental Protection Agency staff based on extensive research and ocean water quality analysis completed by EPA staff scientists supported by outside experts. The applicability and adequacy of the California Ocean Plant limits as measures for adequate protection of marine environment in the.Huntington Beach area is also confirmed by extensive site-specific environmental studies completed at 14 ocean monitoring stations in the vicinity of the AES discharge completed over a 25-year period in a response to monitoring requirements stipulated in the AES NPDES discharge permit. Results of these. extensive environmental monitoring efforts indicate that maintaining discharge concentration below the Ocean Plan limits resulted in a long-term preservation of the marine environment in the vicinity of the discharge. If a concentration of a compound in the concentrate is below the limit established by the Ocean Plan, than the compound discharge will not have a significant effect on marine life. As indicated previously, the desalination water concentrate will contain compounds (such as lead, copper, etc.) of concentrations several times to several orders of magnitude lower than the Ocean Plan limits, which will ensure the preservation of the marine biota in the discharge area. For example, the MCL for Mercury is 0.002 mg/L. The maximum ' concentration of Mercury measured in the desalination plant source seawater is less than 0.0001 mg/L. If we conservatively assume that it is 0.0001 mg/L, then the desalination plant discharge under a worst-case scenario would have Mercury concentrations of LP G:\AdmLtr\AdmItr03\0503rr5.doc 6 0.0002 mg/L, which is 10 times lower than the MCL for safe drinking water; therefore, the concentrate discharge will not pose public health risk. The maximum limit for mercury in the Ocean Plan is 0.0004 mg/L, which is two times higher than the maximum discharge concentration, rendering the desalination plant discharge safe for aquatic life. Similarly, the maximum concentration of lead in the desalination.plant water is 0.0002 mg/L, the MCL for Lead is 0.015 mg/L and the Ocean Plan Limit for Lead is 0.02 mg/L (i.e. 100 higher than the Lead concentration in the intake and 50 times higher than that in the discharge under worst-case scenario). The source water that will be filtered out by reverse osmosis and returned to the ocean in the byproduct water will not been changed in any way other than their concentration. Because these compounds, which are natural components of seawater and because of the chemical makeup of ocean organisms, the return of these existing compounds to the sea in the byproduct water discharge does not otherwise raise significant environmental risk for the marine life. In addition, it should be noted that evaporation from the sea surface does precisely the same activity as the proposed desalination plant, only in quantities of constituent water removal that dwarf the capacity of this project. In spite of the enormous evaporative losses of constituent water occurring daily at the sea surface, no one has ever been able to detect higher concentrations of the metals in question at the sea surface versus near the seabed or in .the interior of the water column. Ocean mixing is more than. sufficient to erase the local concentrating effects of evaporation, just as it will be for the saline discharge of this project. In the case of emergencies such as spills of chemicals or oils in the ocean in the vicinity of the desalination plant, the elevated concentration of the chemicals in question will be detected through continuous monitoring of the desalination plant intake water quality. As indicated on page E-71 (Appendix E) of the EIR, when the contaminants are detected by the monitoring system, the desalination plant will automatically adjust operations or shutdown. ❖ CEQA Review for the AES Generating Station: It was suggested that the AES project did not have to comply with CEQA, and therefore this project should address AES intake/discharge impacts. First, it is important to note that the project before the commission does. not include any modifications to the AES power plant. or AES intake/discharge lines other than utilizing of the AES intake water for desalination and existing AES discharge line. These impacts are addressed in the EIR. Issues associated with project operation in the event of potential future inoperation of the AES plant are addressed below under California Earth Corps' 14 Various Categories. Issues associated with AES plant operation and recent "Huntington Beach Generating Station Retool Project Application for Certification 00-AFC-13" were addressed by the California Energy Commission as part of their facility siting process, in accordance with the Warren-Alquist Act and CEQA. The Energy Commission's Final Decision, dated May f 2001, for the AES retool project was a 207-page document addressing a comprehensive range of environmental issues including air quality, water quality and marine biology. In addition, Article 17 of the State CEQA Guidelines specifically exempts the California GAAdmLtr\Admltr03\0503rr5.doc 7 Energy Commission facility siting process from CEQA (CEQA Guidelines Section 15251(k). In addition, the Planning Commission and members of the public asked several questions pertaining to the existing regulation.of the AES intake facility and what might happen to the Poseidon Seawater Desalination Project if regulatory changes were made in the future regarding the operation of the AES facility. It is important to emphasize that the EIR specifically identifies that the "intake system" for the project is "the existing condenser cooling water circulation system from the AES facility" and not the "existing ocean water intake pipeline" (see Draft EIR page 3-10). The "desalination plant's intake structure" is "located downstream of the steam condensers" (see Draft EIR page 3-11). Exhibit 6 in the Draft EIR (page 3-12) graphically depicts the physical relationship between the Poseidon Desalination Plant and the AES Huntington Beach Power Station. This distinction means that the desalination project as described may only use water that is already in the AES system. In the future, if the AES intake facility were no longer operational or if future regulatory action diminished the intake flows below 126 MGD as analyzed in the EIR,Poseidon would be required to make substantial changes to its intake system. Any such changes in the project would require subsequent environmental and permit review in accordance with CEQA and applicable state/federal regulatory agencies In his May 8, 2003 letter, Mr. Tom Luster of the California Coastal Commission staff asked this question in a slightly different way focusing instead on the "baseline" used in the EIR evaluation of intake flows. The response to this comment is essentially the same. The impact analysis in the EIR evaluated the current maximum permitted flow for the AES intake facility as well as a "worst case" flow (126 MGD) that is lower than the current average flow. (See Attachment No. 1.3 to the May 22, 2003 Inter Office Communication from staff to the Planning Commission.) ❖ California Earth Corps' "14 Various Categories": A late communication submitted by Mr. Don May of the California Earth Corps was submitted to the .Planning Commission on May 27, 2003. In addition, Mr. May spoke to the Planning Commission during the public hearing. In his oral comment, he referenced that the EIR was deficient in "14 various categories", and that these "14 deficiencies" were referenced in his comment letter. As such, provided below are responses to the "14 deficiencies" that Mr. May referenced, many of which have been previously addressed either in the Draft EIR or Responses to Comments. It should also be noted that this comment letter was written primarily in the context of potential impacts to the Huntington Beach Wetlands Conservancy. The Conservancy provided minor comments on the Draft EIR (Comment No. 13) and did not respond to the formal written response provided on March 21, 2003. As stated by Staff and noted above, Staff believe that the EIR is adequate under CEQA. Growth Inducing/Cumulative Impacts: This issue has been previously responded to within the Responses to Comments document, Responses 2m and 2n. Several members of 1 the public and Planning Commission members raised issues relating to the EIR's analysis GAAd m Ltr\.Adm 1 tr03\0 5 03 rr5.doc 8 !._.q. . .— r'c, of the project's potential growth-inducing impacts. Questions were asked relating to the potential end users of the project's desalinated water supply. In Orange County (as,is the.case in most of Southern.California), retail water agencies and cities have the statutory authority and the duty to provide water service.to end users within their service area. End users include existing customers and potential new customers, which conceivably could include expanding commercial or residential developments or new infill developments in Orange County. However, the retail agencies and cities have choices in the potential water supply they use to serve their customers. They can use groundwater and other local supplies (like recycled water) to the extent those supplies are available. They can negotiate water transfers from other areas of the State that have surplus supplies and they can emphasize conservation methods to stretch existing supplies. In addition, most retail agencies and cities depend on (and choose to purchase) imported water from the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California ("MWD") through their local wholesaler. In Orange County, the local wholesaler of water is the Municipal Water District of Orange County (see support letter Attachment No. 4.4 to the May 22, 2003 Inter Office Communication from staff to the Planning Commission). Under California law, all water agencies (wholesale and retail) must prepare and adopt an Urban Water Management Plan describing existing and future sources of water supply. These plans are required to be updated every five years. Moreover, recent laws require that any end user that intends to develop 500. or more new homes, commercial office projects over 250,000 sq.ft. or retail centers over 500,000 sq.ft. must (in conjunction with the proposed retail water supplier) prepare a "Water Supply Assessment" detailing and analyzing the proposed water supply for the development project. The Water Supply Assessment is prepared in addition to other environmental review documents required as part of the land use planning and zoning process. Land use policies of cities and counties regulate growth at the local level. All of these documents are subject to public review as part of the environmental review process. Speculating on the various future water supply choices that may be made by retail water providers and end users throughout Orange County is not required by CEQA. It is unknown how many retail water agencies or cities will negotiate to purchase desalinated project water from Poseidon Resources. Finally, even when some water wholesale or retail agency purchase project water, it is unknown how they will allocate the supplies. In any case, CEQA will require environmental review of those choices at the time they are made. Accordingly, the Poseidon EIR has properly analyzed the project's potential growth- inducing impacts by focusing on the relationship between the amount of the new supply that would be available (to several end users) and the water supply demand projections for Orange County and the surrounding area. The response to comment 2m provides a summary review of the EIR's analysis of the project's potential growth-inducing impacts. Response to Comment 2n provides additional discussion regarding cumulative impacts. I Potential Impacts to Adjacent Wetland: Impact analysis and mitigation' for potential u � P Y impacts to receptors surrounding the proposed project site (including the adjacent G:AdmLtr\.Adm1tr03\0503rr5.doc 9 ;':? :i '.',�^ `• `U, wetland area) are provided throughout the Draft EIR, including Sections 4.3 (marine biology issues associated with water quality) 'and Section 4.9 (construction-related impacts). This comment letter raises similar issues to those identified by California Department of Fish and Game, for which additional discussion (and mitigation measures) are provided within Responses 3d and 3h of the:Responses to Comments document. Concerns from Gary Gorman of the Huntington Beach Wetlands Conservancy were addressed within Response 13b. Geolow, Soils, and Seismicity: Mr. May's concerns regarding liquefaction and seismic activity are addressed within Section 4.2 of the Draft EIR and Responses 2i and 16d of the Responses to Comments document. The proposed project underwent third-party geotechnical review by Scott Magorien, CEG, to examine potential site-specific impacts in regards to geology, soils and seismicity. Mitigation measures as contained within the Draft EIR will be implemented, along with recommendations provided within a site- specific, construction-level geotechnical report. Such measures will pertain to grading, foundations, retaining walls, streets, utilities, remedial work, overexcavation/recompaction, dewatering, water quality, and chemical/fill properties of underground items including buried pipe and concrete, and protection thereof. The geotechnical report shall specifically address lateral spreading, flood control channel bank stability, liquefaction potential, and groundwater constraints. In addition, as a response to Mr. May's concerns regarding the release of chlorine gas during a seismic event, the Draft EIR(page.4.8-6) states that no chlorine gas will be present.on-site. Ascon/Nesi Hazardous Materials: As stated on page 4.8-2 of the Draft EIR, groundwater sampling data provided within CH2M Hill's Phase II Site Assessment (1996), groundwater contamination in the forms of total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH) and volatile organic compounds (VOCs) was not found near the northern border of the subject site with the Ascon/Nesi landfill. It should be noted that both the Cannery Landfill and Ascon/Nesi landfill are situated upgradient from the subject site. Prior to project construction, the subject site would be tested and remediated as necessary pursuant to all local, state, and federal requirements. This concern is also addressed in Response 1 ld of the Responses to Comments document. On-Site Storm Water Drainage: As stated within Section 4.3 of the Draft EIR, in times of heavy rainfall, stormwater (which is trapped on-site due to existing .10 to 15-foot fuel oil tank containment berms) is presently either released through the manual valve of a drain line or pumped (after testing) into the Huntington Beach Channel. Subsequent to project implementation, all storm water would be contained on-site and directed to the AES outfall line, the City's local storm water system, or the AES local storm water system (all of.which ultimately flow into the Pacific Ocean via the AES outfall). No storm water would be discharged into the adjacent Huntington Beach Channel. The project will comply with all NPDES and associated Drainage Area Management Plan (DAMP) requirements. What Happens if AES Shuts Down: Several of the formal comments received on the Draft EIR raised similar issues relating to the hypothetical future shut down of the AES plant. The responses to comments lo, 2b, 2e, 2f, 19a and 19b provide additional I information addressing this general topic. GAAdmLtr\Adm1tr03\0503rr5.doc 10 �' ,'lk r� lk rn.­ Deficiency in Analysis of Adjacent Wetland Area: Refer to the response to Mr. May's concern regarding the adjacent wetland, above. This issue was addressed within the Draft EIR and several Responses to Comments, particularly Response No. 3. Subsurface Water Quality: Refer to the response to Mr. May's concern regarding the Ascon/Nesi and Cannery Street Landfills, above. Air Quality During On-Site Remediation: As stated within Section 4.9 of the Draft EIR, remediation-related air emissions are accounted for within the overall construction- related air emissions analysis. In addition, a detailed description of contaminants and their locations and concentrations found within the 1996 Phase II Site Assessment conducted by CH2M Hill is found within Section 4.8 of the Draft EIR. As stated within Response 1 ld of the Responses to Comments document, a Remedial Action Plan will be prepared prior to project implementation, which will address the potential for airborne contaminants and suggest applicable containment measures;if necessary. Noise Impacts to Adjacent Wetland: Refer to Section 4.5 of the Draft EIR. On-site stationary noise generators will be attenuated (if necessary) to comply with the City's Noise Ordinance. This issue is addressed in Section 4.9 of the Draft EIR and in Response to Comment No. 3n. Li ht and Glare Impact to Adjacent Wetland: Refer to Draft EIR Section 4.7 and Mitigation Measure ALG-2, which recommends directional lighting to prevent light "spillage" onto adjacent uses. This issue is addressed in Section 4.9 of the Draft EIR and in Response to Comment No. 3n. Hazardous Materials Handling and Storage: Section 4.8 of the Draft EIR provides extensive information on site design in regards to the storage and handling of hazardous materials. The project would adhere to all Occupational Health and Safety Association (OSHA) and US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)requirements. Biological Impacts of the Off-Site Pump Station Nearbv the NCCP/HCP Area: The applicant will be required to consult with applicable regulatory agencies, and, upon consultation, appropriate mitigation measures for plant and wildlife species will.be determined. This issue is also addressed within Section 4.9 of the Draft EIR and Response to Comment No. lc. Archaeological Resources: According to the City of Huntington Beach General Plan EIR, archaeological resources within the City have mostly been destroyed by development. The remaining archaeological resources are likely to be found in vacant, undeveloped areas of the City. As all elements of the proposed project (excluding the proposed pump station nearby the NCCP/HCP area in unincorporated Orange County) occur within developed areas, the project is not expected to impact archaeological / resources. In addition, a discussion of potential impacts and mitigation measures for the (� proposed pump station nearby the NCCP/HCP area in unincorporated Orange County is provided within the Draft EIR in Section 4.9, CONSTRUCTION RELATED IMPACTS. G:\AdmLtr\Admltr03\0503rr5.doc 11 " N :'`:5 n r= '.+70 7 97 FROM LARRY PORTER FAX NO. 9497229166 lay. 29 2003 03:15PM P1 Larry Portcr 1_50i Westcliff Dr#201 Newport Beach California 92660 Phone : Home& Fax 949 722 9166 Email Dubbietvbnaol.com Huntington Beach Planning Commission Q`f`: May 29th Poseidon Resources Matter �tL.-1k 5 A6,,.M Mr RAc;wy gm405 ;;q7c '714-3 Ili• 1S4� Dear Commissioners: Allow me to address you please and discuss the reality of the enviornment affecting the project.Thank you I was very involved with the movement to change the behavior of the Orange County Sanitation District that led to the District not seeking to renew its waiver. Soon it became apparent that the parameters ,quide lines,rules governing the discharge where most inadequate,that the agencies "responsible"for oversight—well—were—Let's say "asleep at the helm" REALITY.OF THE DISCHARGE? The governance did not consider, 1) WIND DIRECTION 2) CURRENT DIRECTION 3) BOYANCY /SPECIFIC GRAVITY OF THE DISCHARGE CONSTITUENTS 4) PE,STICIDFS 5) PHARMACEUTICALS 255/o METABOLIZED/USED—75%POOP&OR PEE TO SEWER. 6) ENDOCRINE SYSTEM DISRUPTORS/MINUCKERS 7) ORGANIC CI• hUCALS 8) VIRUSES 9) OIL AND GREASE 10)SOLVENTS: MEK TOLUENE ACETONE and etc and etc SILLY &FUZZY SCIENCE Their"Silly Science"concluded that the plume would never grow in size-and-that it migrates off shore-and-that it is ALWAYS held below a THERMOCLINE that never changes or moves PLEASE NOTHING COULD BE MORE FROM THE TRUTH And to further add insult —that-61,500 lbs(allowed in their permit)of oil and grease don't float. REALLY Oh not with this OCSD discharge—it's different. FIELLO !' SILLY &FUZZY SCIENCE H ITS NOT JUST WHAT'S SAID—IT'S WHAT IS NOT SAID FROM LARRY PORTER. FAX NO. 9497229166 .ay. 29 2003 03:1GPM P2 The AES intake does not pull the wastc field Ipluntc of the OCSD discharge toward it. That would be like a vacume cleaner pulling dust from the corner of a room.is chat to say that since stuff froin OC San's discharge surrounds the ABS intake—take a deep breath— that.stuff won't be sucked in the intake '???? Now you see it—now you don't The Bight: San Pedro to Newport Beach The Enviornment Affecting the Quality of the Intake LET COMMON SENSE BE YOUR GUIDE This is not a pristine body of water by any strech of the imagination.This is a body of water that is subject to many discharges , insults,and much urban runoff(from 8 million people—I guess)—The Domingues Creek ,Los Angeles River,San Gabriel River and near coastal water sheds.This is the stuff of JUST"SEA SALTS" Seals are washing up on the beach dead.Surfers are being advised to proactively get hepatitis shots. SILLY &FUZZY SCIENCE III AES PIPES 300 TO 400YDS OFFSHORE—20 FEET OF WATER The"GOO"from the Los Angeles River and The San Gabriel River and the Dominguez Channel and other"Stuff from runnoff of the Port of Los Angeles—Long Beach and .from the marry ships at anchor and that frequent the port which is enclosed a great deal by the break water extending from San Pedro to the San Gabriel River that has a large opening facing sount toward Huntington Beach -- HOLD YOUR BREATH Do not in iluence the'QUALITY ,let me repeat QUALITY of AES's intake?? Do not jepordize the membranes in the treatment process?? OF COURSE NOT -HOW COULD IT??? If this isn't FUZZY SCIENCE THE DEVIL IS IN THE DETAILS RO MEMBRANES ARE INCREDIBLE AND DELICATE Was it brought to your attention the"stuff'that would render the membranes unless? Would it be prudent to know the details ahead of time?Measure twice—cut once.An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. Error on the side of caution. I DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SERVICES BLESSING? NO NO Please read their letter dated: August 6th 2002 Why do they have so many questions and coaditions ?Why is there so much requested detail? Why was the detail i not supplied to begirt with? THE PEOPLE OF HUNTINGTON BEACH THEIR QUALITY OF LIFE AND HAPPINESS Does the Planning Commission have a overiding responsibilty to provide a site to manufacture water that would benefit some one else?, I don't think so Could the area be put to a"Higher and Better"use for the benefit of HUNTINGTON BEACH? CART BEFORE THE HORSE THIS POSEIDON PROJECT? JUST `SEA SALTS"BEING DISCHARGED?PLEASE i FROM LARRY PORTER FAX NO. 9497229166 ay. 29 2003 O3:16PM P3 It's obvious,that there a many many "uncrossed is and undotted i T, why are the beaches always posted either side of the AES plant? Please deny this Poseidon Project Sincerely, Larry Porter s May 8, 2003 . RE.CEtVED The Hon. Connie Boardman MAY 2 8 2003 Mayor The City of Huntington Beach City of Huntington 8 city counal ach 2000 Main Street Offk:e Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Dear Mayor Boardman: i As a long-time Huntington Beach resident, I whole-heartedly endorse Poseidon Resources' proposed desalination facility. Recent technological advancement has finally made it economically viable to tap into the world's largest water resource—the ocean. Most of the infrastructure that is needed for this important project is already in place. The noise generated by the pumps will not be heard over the noise level that already exists at the AES facility. Additionally,the site already has industrial facilities and is the perfect spot for a desalination facility. Not only will Poseidon be a quiet, unobtrusive neighbor,but it will bring thousands of tax dollars to our city. These tax dollars will help pay,for the upkeep of our parks and supplement our public safety programs. It is my understanding that Poseidon will also fund the widening and beautification of both Newland Ave. and Edison St. Huntington Beach will also have the opportunity to receive the desalinated seawater Poseidon purifies. Desalinated seawater is not only higher in quality than the tap water to which we currently have access, but Huntington Beach would also have the added benefit of higher water pressure. High water pressure is of particular importance to firefighters who rely on high water pressure to assist them when they put out fires. In short, Poseidon brings all of the benefits of a good corporate neighbor with none of the negative side effects. Sincerely, Rich Kolander 21152 Strathmoor Huntington Beach, CA 92646 cc: Huntington Beach City Council j Huntington Beach Planning Commission lE� t �3i _i1 '� l 1 iIF.: ::ae� 6 isc CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH Inter Office Communication Planning Department TO: Planning Commission FROM: Howard Zelefsky, Director of Planning BY: Ricky Ramos, Associate Planner�- DATE: June 3, 2003 SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 00-02/CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 02-04/COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 02-05 (POSEIDON SEAWATER DESALINATION PLANT)—REVISED ERRATA Attached is a revised Errata Section (revised May 30, 2003)to EIR No. 00-02. The revision consists of a description of the off-site booster pump station proposed within the parking lot of St. Paul's Greek Orthodox Church in the city.of Irvine (see pages 166, 167, and 170 of the attached Errata Section). HZ:SH:HF:RR G:\AdmLtr\Adm]tr03\0503 rr7.doc lop Poseidon Seawater Desalination Project RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Environmental Impact Report 3.0 ERRATA 3.0 ERRATA TO DRAFT EIR TEXT (revised May 30, 2003) Changes to the EIR are noted below. Additions to the text are indicated with shading. Deletions to the text are indicated with stricken text. Changes have _been analyzed and responded to in Section 2.0, Responses,to Comments. The changes to the EIR do not affect the overall conclusions of the environmental document. Changes are listed by page and where appropriate by paragraph. NOTE TO REVIEWER: This Errata has been prepared in response to comments received on the Draft EIR, which was available for public review from September 19, 2002, to November 4, 2002. Additional editorial corrections have been initiated by City staff. These clarifications and modifications are not considered to result in any new or greater impacts than identified in the Draft EIR. To avoid redundancy, it should be assumed that additions, modifications, or deletions of text within Sections 4.1 through 4.9 of the Draft EIR, when applicable, are reflected in Section 1.0, EXECUTIVE SUMMARY. Page 1-3, EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 4.1 LAND USE/RELEVANT PLANNING LAND USE The proposed desalination facility,is not anticipated to None required. However, refer to mitigation measures create any impacts to surrounding uses with regards to contained in ; Section 4.5 air quality, noise, aesthetics, hazards and hazardous (Noise), Section 4.7 (Aesthetics/Light& Glare),SestiGR materials, and short-term construction. Significance: 4.9- (Wazapds aRGI Hazy.daus Materials), and Section Less than significant. 4.9(Construction Related Impacts). ABOVEGROUND PRODUCT WATER STORAGE TANK OPTION: Implementation of this option is anticipated to result in similar impacts to those of the proposed project. Page 3-1, ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING .....and would not-require modifications to the coastal/marine portions of the existing AES ocean intake/discharge facilities. However; It-,should be noted.. that the existing :-AES intake/discharge facilities traverse land owned by the California State Lands :Comlrusslon (CSLC),.and the land;is_leased td.AES ' A (ease agreement between the CSLC AES, and the project applicant will be required prior fo.prole. approval;" Page 3-9, Proposed Buildings and Structures "Ail.proposed buildings and, structures- ili comply with state and local standards in regards to fire arid. ;structural;safety_ The proposed desalination project would consist of the following buildings and structures: Administration Building (approximately 158'L x&764'W x 168'H, 9-,M10,120 s.f.): This building is proposed to be.Type-Il, non rated (generally defined by the California Building Code as structures incorporating non-cori bustible materials ;'[steel,-: Iron; City of Huntington Beach March 21, 2003 I 1R4 Poseidon Seawater Desalinat,..,i Project t 3PONSES TO COMMENTS Environmental Impact Report 3.0 ERRATA concrete„ or;masonry] for structural elements, floors, walls, and. roofs) and will be constructed of steel. The exterior will feature.flat metal wall panels running vertically along the face of the structure. A metal panel roof system will be screened with a metal fascia using deep-ribbed metal panels running horizontally. All glazing will be tinted and will include clear anodized window frames. Reverse Osmosis Building (approximately 2923'L x 1320'W x .25'H; 38,544090 s.f.): This building will be a Type-II, non-rated, steel-constructed building housing the reverse osmosis components of the desalination plant and associated indoor pumps. The exterior will feature flat metal wall panels running vertically along the face of the structure. A continuous metal reveal band will be placed mid-height to break up the 25-foot structure vertically. A metal panel roof system will be screened with a metal fascia using deep-ribbed metal panels running horizontally. Full height louvers will match the wall panel color and will be recessed slightly from the face of the structure to allow for shadowing. Panel coloring will match the Administration Building. . ❖ Pretreatment Filter Structure (approximately 24219.... 'L x 4441.95'W x 16'H, 42,00038,270 s.f.): This open-air structure will house the pretreatment filter components of the plant. It will feature concrete walls matching the color of the Reverse Osmosis Building. The concrete walls will "stair-step" in elevation to a peak that will be finished with the deep-ribbed metal panels running horizontally. These panels will match the fascia of the Administration and Reverse Osmosis Buildings. A painted band will be included to match the reveal band of the Reverse Osmosis Building. Chemical Storage/Solids Handling Building (approximately 0170'L x 8250W x , 21'H, �;3087590, s.f.): This Type-II, non-rated, steel-constructed building will house the chemical storage and solids handling equipment associated with plant operation. The building will architecturally match the Administration Building, featuring flat metal wall panels running vertically along the face of the structure. The metal panel roof system will be screened with a metal fascia using deep-ribbed metal panels running horizontally. Bulk Chemical Storage Structure (approximately 741121 x 5539'W x 24.3 H, 4,368 s.f.): This structure will also feature Type-ll, non-rated, canopy steel construction and will house various chemicals stored in bulk. The metal panel roof system will be screened with a metal fascia using deep-ribbed panels running horizontally. ❖ Electrical Room/Substation Building (approximately 60'L x 30'W x 12'H, 1,800 s.f.): This Type-II, non-rated, steel-constructed building will match the Administration Building architecturally. The exterior design utilizes flat metal wall panels running vertically along the face of the structure. The metal panel roof system will be screened with a metal fascia using deep-ribbed metal panels running horizontally. Lime Silos (six tanks approximately 20' in diameter and 25' high, 314 s.f. ): The lime silo tanks will be arrange in two rows of three tanks each within the northem portion of the subject site in an area approximately 80 feet long by 57 feet wide. These tanks will be placed within an open air, welded steel structure incorporating aesthetic treatments to enhance the..character of.the site. City of Huntington Beach March 21, 2003 165 7,- Poseidon Seawater Desalinabut, Project RL-6PONSES TO COMMENTS Environmental Impact Report 3.0 ERRATA Washwater Tank (approximately 45' in diameter by 19' high, 1,590 s.f.): This single tank will store washwater and will be constructed of steel, painted to match the surrounding buildings and structures. The approximate capacity of this tank would be 200,000 gallons. ❖ Flush Tank (approximately 25' in diameter by 29' high', 491 s.f.): This single tank will store the desalination plant's flush water and would have an approximate capacity of 100,000 gallons. This tank will be constructed of steel and will be painted to match the surrounding buildings and structures. ❖ Ammonia Tank (approximately 6' in diameter by 61 high, 28.35 s.f.): This single tank will store ammonia and will be constructed of high density polyethylene or fiberglass reinforced polyester, and would have an approximate capacity of 1,000 gallons. Aboveground Product Water Storage Tank ( ' approximately:215' in !diameter and 40' high ;[30' above;grade and 10' ;below grade]): The wi;deFgFouRd aboye. ground product water storage tank would be either circular eFres'tangWlar in shape and would have an approximate capacity of 10 million gallons. The FertallgWIGIF option would 6itilize FeiRfGFGed GGRGFete GqRStFWGtiGR, While steel. For a detailed discussion of the proposed aboveg rountl Wndernd product water storage tank, refer to page 3 16of theDraft EIR or Section 4.9, CONSTRUCTION-RELATED IMPACTS." Page 3-11, Proposed Desalination Plant Flow Process ".....An intake pump station will be located near the pre-treatment filters of the proposed plant to lift the water out of the intake pipeline and into the RO pre-treatment facilities (refer to Exhibit 6, j DESALINATION PROCESS FLOW SCHEMATIC). The proposed plant would divert I approximately 100 mgd of water from the AES condenser cooling water system._ It should be noted that the proposed project would .Uti ize..pumps circulating a total of 126 mgd These purpps would:.:operate constantly and would be independent of";the AES Generating Station: Should tfe AES facility cease #o: operate, the proposed desalination fac�lEty would,continue produce :and tlstnbute potable water To prevent growth of marine organisms in the intake system, chlorination-..." Page 3-20, OFF-SITE IMPROVEMENTS "....booster pump station, including both the generators and diesel fuel storage tank, would be placed entirely underground to maintain the natural character of the surrounding resource preservation easement. Any displaced vegetation would be replaced. Y`—u'/ A second underground booster pump station is proposed�nnthm the parking lot of St PauC s Greek Orthodox�Church vr�thin the City of Crvine� CocaecEat 4949,=ACtor PaIcwaybCfi undergro'and pump station would be constructed wrE �ri the northfnorttiwestem'po �on o€ e church parking Cot, �rt an area used for btatlt parKhg and volleyball:activ�tiesTCie, sitet surrounded by the St Paul°s Ghurch to'the south, fhen111loodbacige Utllage associat�orhe west, an apartment comptex to the east, ar�d open space to the north They foofpnnt of�tC� f t f proposec(�trndergraund,purrip_statro� woutcE b_. . e_apprQximai�ely'CDQ,feet b}L,'[OQ feeand�"�ivoti c I City of Huntington Beach March 21-, 2003 i 166 -- .- Poseidon Seawater Desalinat.-., Project APONSES TO COMMENTS Environmental Impact Report 3.0 ERRATA require a construction easement of 125 feet by 125 feet ,The pump station would be entirely V y, 'f r� underground except fora sma(I pipe vent and aground-level steel access doorkfor mamtenanc� (the access door would not impede ,parking afterconstructron) It should 4be noed�thatSt Paul's Greek Orthodox Church has been contacted by tfie app'�icant and;has issued a sfafement of rnterest for the underground pump station site Refer,to YRes�onse 14d witl%in the:Responses to Comments document for additional infio�mation?". - Page 3-20, OFF-SITE IMPROVEMENTS ".....potential water compatibility impacts that may result from introduction of desalinated seawater into the regional water system). Edison Avenue Improvements Asa condition:of approval by the City of Huntington Beach. for the proposed project, the applicant will be r6g6ired to.complete improvements along the-southern side .:of Edison Avenue (situated north of the subject site as shown in Exhibit 2 of the:Draft E1R; SITE VICINITY MAP): These improvements.would consist;of the dedicatiori of 12 feet:along the`frontage of the existing Edison Avenue :(for curb, gutter,"',paving, -and 'street lighting rnprovemenfs) for a total of approximately 600 linear feet It should .be noted that AES Huntington Beach, ib would be responsible for ded►cation of, property:_to the City .for. these improvements, as AES owns the entire:southern'frontage of Edison Avenue anc would lease property'to the: applicant for the proposed pro'bt However,' the project applicant would be responsible for_completing these roadway antl landscaping imp rovements:as a condition of approval ford a project subsequent tg property.dedication It'should. also-be noted that street widening along Newland Street (west of the. propo ed project site) would be performed by he City, with separate entitlements and environmental evaluation AES Huntington Beach, CLC would detlicate the necessary right of= ay::along?Newland Street.:*and_ both AES and the,po�ect applicant would be required to pay w theit-fair share„of the.cost. Page 3-20, PROJECT NEED AND OBJECTIVES ".....Although the region has made a significant financial investment in the imported water system and the system has met all of the region's supplemental water supply needs (e3csep times Gf extFeme dp@6ight wifh the exception of: a.-,.one._year period .from March 1.991 to ... . 1992), there is a present concern regarding the amount of water....." Page 3-21, PROJECT NEED AND OBJECTIVES ".....Solutions to potential water shortage and reliability problems include water myna 9 .ement 9 Yp programs on imported water systems as wel( as an increased reliance on many different sources of water supply and a continued emphasis on water conservation through implementation of State-approved Best Management Practices (BMP's). Orange County has implemented several.-successful programs including ultra low flow toilet and low flow shower head programs, conservation based rate structure programs, landscape conservation programs and commercial, industrial and institutional conservation programs. However, according to the Orange County Water District Master Plan Report (Section 5.6.2), potential conservation savings will be limited to no more than 30,000 to 60,000 acre feet per year. This amount is hardly sufficient to offset ^^+�^}^' '^c^^c ~,^^�*~�' �, ^^' ^ anticipated water shortages`due to.increasesin population.and econorriic.activity. City of Huntington Beach March 2T, 2003 Poseidon Seawater Desalination Project RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Environmental'Impact Report 3.0 ERRATA Water recycling (reclamation of wastewater to produce water that is safe and acceptable for various non-potable uses, but not approved for drinking and other domestic uses) is a technology that has provided a valuable source of water supply for Southern California. Southern California (and Orange County in particular) leads the way in producing recycled water to offset potable water .demands. In 1996 .the major imported water. supplier in the region, MWD; adopted_ its so-called "Southern. California's Integrated Water. Resources Plan" (IRP) representing a dramatic shift in water management and resource planning for the region. The IRP identified 80 different local recycling projects producing over 150,000 acre feet per year of water supply available to the region. Depending upon technological advancements and economic constraints, the IRP projected that as much as 800,000 acre feet of recycled water could be made available to the region by 2020. Recycled water projects will certainly be relied upon to meet the demands;'- projected growth in the region. However, recycled water has not been approved for drinking or for other potable uses. Desalinated seawater can be made directly available for drinking and other potable uses. Consequently, seawater desalination was also one of several potential resource options identified in the IRP. The IRP also recommended that groundwater recovery projects, storage projects, water recycling projects, water transfer projects and water conservation projects be included in the "resource mix". The IRP pFedists states that, "abeu 200,000 nnre feed per vcnr !nf rlaceliriefed_nnaap utetcoLnn�drJ he rle�ielnper4 by 7n'In° based Qn _... ..... .. ..._....__.... _... _..... . ...._.. _ feasibility tudles on potenfial projects, about.200,00_.acre-feet per year (of desalinated ocean water) could be_developed Fby 2010 (p. 3-12). The proposed Poseidon Seawater Desalination Project represents an opportunity to develop..approximately 56,000 acre-feet per year, or approximately one fourth of }h-f prnipcA s apply r,ecrl the potential for seawater.. esalmation . _ development Identifi 'di by the 19961RP." Page 3-22, PROJECT NEED AND OBJECTIVES ".....and environmental impacts to biological resources. In general, anticipated statewide shortages can be expected to translate to equivalent local and regional shortages,with similar economic and environmental effects. Senate Bill (SB) 221 and SB 610 require derrionstration of water supply reliability prior to development:" Page 3-25, AGREEMENTS, PERMITS, AND APPROVALS REQUIRED '.....The following agreements, permits, and approvals are anticipated to be necessary: Approval/Permit, Permits to Operate Agency Final EIR Certification City of Huntington Beach Conditional Use Permit City of Huntington Beach Coastal Development Permit' City of Huntington Beach Franchise Agreement. City of Huntington Beach Or+rking Domestic Water Supply. Permit State of California Department of Health Services Coastal Development Permit2 California Coastal Commission (CCC) The City's Coastal Development Permit approval may be appealed to the California Coastal Commission. 2 (�{! A CDP is required directly from the CCC for the ocean discharge. City of Huntington Beach March 21, 2003 .- Poseidon Seawater Desalination Project h�SPONSES TO COMMENTS Environmental Impact Report 3.0 ERRATA NPDES Permit Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board Permit to Operate South Coast Air Quality Management District Encroachment Permits U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Santa Ana River Crossing) Caltrans, District 12.(SR-55 undercrossing) County of. Orange (channel crossings, pump station) City of Huntington Beach (product water pipeline) City of Costa Mesa (product water pipeline) Mesa Consolidated Water District (product water pipeline)...... Metropolitan V1Jater _Distrct of Southern :California (product viater pipelinej` Institutional Agreements Various cities, agencies, and regional water purveyors. Lease Agreement:: ; California ;State'Landsmmission (ndustna1.Sod rce Control Permit Orange County Sanitation District Page 4.1-9, RELEVANT PLANNING ".....Policy HM 1.4.4 (Page V-HM-8): "Require that owners of contaminated sites develop a remediation plan with the assistance of the Orange County Environmental Management Agency (EMA). Southeast Coastal Redevelopment Plar The Proposed project site is located within the`Southeast pas` a`r Redevelopment Plan area: This.redevelopment,plan became effective m A'ugust of 2002, with�the associated Program EIR certified m June of 2002 As adoption of the Southeast Coastal Redevelopment Plan d[d_ngt change any General Plan or zoning designations within the;redevelopment area (including the proposed desalination facility;site);:the proposetl Poseidon Seawater Desalination P,rpJect=;will be consistent:with the Southeast Coastal Redevelopment Plan, General Pfan,`.and zoning As a resuit of this redevelopment;Plan, the proposed'desalination project may be eligible'to receive tax increment funding from i'the `redevelopment area for use m developirt:g infrastructurelaesthetic improvements and:haza�dous:materials re: diation (in:accordance;with the_goals_contamed' ithin the_redevelopment plan);" Page 4.1-10, RELEVANT PLANNING ".....As such, the proposed desalination facility's ocean discharge will require separate review and approval by the California Coastal Commission of a Coastal Development Permit. SOUTHERN CAl-IFORNIA' ASSOCIATION OF: GOVERNMENTS. (SCAG) -REGIONAL COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND GUIDE Growth Man agementChapter ❖ 3.03 . The' timing' fnancing, and location of public facilities, utility systems, and transportation systems shall be used by:SCAG to`implement the regions;growth policies: J City of Huntington Beach March 21, 2003 Poseidon Seawater Desalination Project RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Environmental Impact Report 3.0 ERRATA ❖ 3.18: Encourage planned development in locations feast like ly to ca use adve rse environmental impacts: Encourage the:implementation of measures aimed at the preservation and :. protection of recorded and:unrecorded cultural resources and archaeoiogical sites.. . . . ❖ 3:22s Discourage development,: or. encourage the use of special design requirements, M.areas*with steep slopes, high fire;:flood, and seismic hazards: Encourage mitigation. measures that reduce noise in certain locations'. prsevaonof biologic armed ,and ecological resources; measures that would reduce exposure to seismic hazards, minimize earthquake damage, and to'develop emergency response and recovery plans: Air;Quafity ChaOft ❖ 5.A. 1 Through the environmental document review process,s ensure that plans`at all z.lev6ls of governmen ronal.. air=basin, ;county, subregronal, .and local) consrtler air quality, Land use, transpo f tron,; and economic relationships 'to ensure consistency and minimrze.,conflicts." Page 4.1-10, LAND USE " ....long-term, plant operation. The proposed pipeline alternatives and 'underground pump . stations are adjacent to a variety of land uses, including residential, open space, commercial, educational, medical, institutional, and recreational. However, the pipelines and underground ump stations will be subsurface and are not anticipated to result in any long-term land use impactsnY,addifionr atshoulciY6`no dthat S Paul G eeCc hodox Chf:t h�ha' n� �1 notlfied4of� faer proposed;pump sttoris'anc �has pra�r�ded a letter'olrnteresf anM1es'ponseY re ert Respons ,.,.14 of t the espoases t to CoLnrnents =document:'.for morea tciformatron anc� environrnerrtai trnpact;artalysisIT Page 4.1-11, RELEVANT PLANNING "The project evaluated within this EIR proposes to implement a 50 mgd desalination plant within an industrial area. Project implementation would be consistent with the City of Huntington Beach General Plan, Local Coastal Program, ar4 Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance, and SLAG. Regional;Comprehensive Plan and:Guide.(RCPG). During the "design development" stage, the Applicant....." Page 4.3-11, Impacts on Source Water from..the OCSD Outfall ".....The OCSD discharges up to 480 mgd of wastewater that has received primary treatment and some secondary treatment at an outfall that is located approximately five miles offshore at a depth of 195 feet. It should be'noted that OCSD has committed to'provide secondary reatme„nt for.1,00 percent of.all effluent ....receives:: .The development of facilities to provide this'additional secondary treatment could take up.to 11:years to plan, design,.construct; and commission ;A morn A.6tailed implementation, plan;is being developed by the District and:will be competed in early`20C3& I � City of Huntington Beach March 21,-2003 Poseidon Seawater Desalinatk_ Project R. .'ONSES TO COMMENTS Environmental Impact Report 3.0 ERRATA _. In addition, on_August 12, 2002;:the O,,SD"began disinfecting. its wastewater per Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWIQCB) requirements. The OCSD is presently adding bleach as a disinfectant followed by.sodium"bisulfite to remove residual prior,to ocean discharge, and will :. continue to do".so for.the next three.to five years.. Testing and"studies are underway:to evaluate other disinfection technologies; including ultraviolet light, ozone,and peracetic acid for long-term application.; The OCSD wastewater discharge would have the greatest potential to impact water quality at the AES intake with summer El Nino conditions when currents are flowing northwest towards the AES facility. In addition, for "worst case" conditions, the model assumed that OCSD was discharging at its maximum allowable rate of 480 mgd and that the temperature conditions in the ocean would allow the wastewater plume to be near the depth of the AES intake. The model showed that under these extreme conditions, the OCSD discharge would be diluted 10 million to one at the AES intake and would not affect water quality at the intake. Th s dilution ........_ .. would be furthe_r.increase'd in consideration of•OCSD's proposed secondary treatment process and current"dismfection.process, whichwere,not,accounted.forwithin modeling;inthis`Draft`E(R: Impacts in this regard are anticipated to be less than significant." Page 4.3-19, Water Quality Impacts to Marine Biological Resources The "first flush" treated waste cleaning solution from the washwater tank will be discharged into the local sanitary sewer for further treatment at the Orange County Sanitation District (OCSD) regional wastewater treatment facility. The cleaning flush water following the "first flush" will be mixed with the RO plant brine concentrate, treated waste filter backwash; and the AES plant discharge and sent to the ocean. This "second flush" water stream will contain.trace amounts of cleaning compounds and would be below detection limits for hazardous waste An Industrial Source Control Permitfrom:the OCSD for.Aischarge of waste cleaning solution Imto:the sanitary. sewer system wi l be required for the project ;',ln addition, the discharge;mustcomply with_the limits and requirements contained 'In the OCSD`s Wastewater Discharge::Regula ions Impacts . to the local marine environment in this regard would be less"than significant. Page 4.6-3, Roadway Maintenance "The City of Huntington Beach Public Works Department provides roadway maintenance to the City of Huntington Beach. The Department performs regular maintenance on City owned y p g, p p roadways in the form of re-paving, othole/curb repairs, and striping, as well as roadway widenings, expansions, and improvements. It should be noted that the City of Huntington Beach Public Works Department has !.. conditioned'the widening of both Newland Street (located west of the subject site) and Edison Avenue i(situated north of the..subject::site) The applicant would be required to'corn plete improvements along the southern"side of Edison Avenue as a condition;of approval for the.prole ct, while the'City would be`responsible for improvements along Newland Street with the:applicant responsible for paying their.fair siiare."'For more information referto the "Impacts" section:below:" City of Huntington Beach March 21, 2003 171 ,,�� " l '4 .: _ .Poseidon Seawater Desalination Project RtSPONSES TO COMMENTS Environmental Impact Report 3.0 ERRATA Page 4.6-4, Storm Water Drainage ".....The OCFCD and the City of Huntington Beach Public Works Department operate the storm water drainage system within the City of Huntington Beach. The storm drainage system removes water runoff from streets, and, after filtpati^^, transports the runoff to the ocean. The OCFCD owns, operates, maintains, and improves regional.flood control facilities. The City of Huntington. Beach. owns and operates 145. storm drainage channel pumping stations which pump the runoff water into the channels and to the ocean. No runoff from the project site....." Page 4.6-5, Reclaimed Water .....The City of Huntington Beach is participated in the Green Acres project (GAP) in association with the OCSD and the Orange County Water District (OCWD). The OCSD produces secondary treated water for the OCWD, where the water is treated once again and distributed for potential industrial use and landscape irrigation 44 for the Cities of Fountain Valley, Santa Ana, Costa Mesa, Newport Beach, and Huntington Beach. Ia-additiGR, (GWRS). The GWRS is a major Re reclamation project currently being developed by the OCSD and OCWD. This project could increase the City's use of reclaimed water to 400 afy. At the present time, no conveyance facilities are available at or near the subject site, and it is not anticipated that the proposed desalination project will require the use of reclaimed water." Page 4.6-8, Roadway Maintenance "As previously stated, both. Newland Street 'and Edison Avenue have. ^c FeGeRtly been conditioned to be improved, l+g#tir+g, _ _ _ by the City of Huntington Beach Department of Public Works As a condition of approval by the_City of Huntington Beachfor the proposed protect; the applicant will be required to comprete improvements along the southern aide of Edison Avenue (situated north of the subject site as shown m Exhibit 2 of the Draft EIR;=3/TE VIC/NITY MAP):: These improvements would consist of the dedication of 12 feet along the frontage of the existrng Edison Avenue ;(for curb, :gutter, paving, and street lighting improvements) fora total of PIP 600 linear feet It shoultl be noted that AES Huntington Beach, LLC:.would,,be responsible for dedication of.property to ahe City for.these improvements, as AES: owns;the entire southern frontage.of.Edison'Avenue and would lease property to the ;applicant for the proposed project However,.the project applicant would be responsible for ;completing these roadway and landscaping improvements as a condition of.approval-for the project subsequent#o property dedication :;It should also be noted that street widening along:Newland Street (west of thew-proposed project site)'would be performed by he -City, with separate entitlements and environmental evaluation. AES Huntington Beach, LLC would dedicate the necessary right of way.along Newland ;Street and both,:AES and ahe project applicant would be required to pay their fair :.share".,!of the cost.. 1n addition; traffic impact fees as determined by the City of Huntington Beach will be collected upon project implementation in order to offset any costs incurred for roadway widenings and intersection capacity improvements.3 Impacts in this regard are anticipated to be less than significant. J 3Letter, Mr.Todd Broussard, City of Huntington Beach Public Works Department,July 16, 2001. City of Huntington Beach March 21, 2003 Poseidon Seawater Desalinat._.. Project SPONSES TO COMMENTS Environmental Impact Report 3.0 ERRATA Page 4.6-9, Wastewater ".....eight-inch sewer conveyance pipeline leading off-site to the existing 48-inch OCSD sewer pipeline located within Newland Avenue or a 54-inch OCSD line within Pacific Coast Highway. OCSD. has also indicated that the pH and flowrate of the washwater tank discharge would be acceptable, contingent upon the acquisition of a„ Sewer Connection Permit from the City .of Huntington Beach and an Industrial a Source Control Permit from the OCSD. It should be noted that the County of Orange's....." . Page 4.6-17, Hydraulics ".....However, the hydraulic characteristics of the OC-44 Pipeline may be affected in one of two ways, depending on whether the pipeline segment in question is east or west of the proposed Poseidon/OC-44 connection point. West of the proposed Poseidon/OC-44 connection point, the flow rate and flow direction would remain unchanged, while a change in water pressure would be negligible (a change of less than five pounds per square inch). East of the proposed connection point, the direction of flow would be reversed, the flow rate would increase, and water pressure would decrease. It is anticipated that maximum flow velocity through this portion of the pipeline would be 7.5 feet per second (fps). All flow rate, pressure, and velocity changes which may occur in the existing pipelines are within pipeline design specifications It should be noted .that the OC-44 corinectto'n is operated 6y a Joint Powers. Autlonty ith Mesa Consolidated 1/Vater District as the approving agency) The applicant wilt obtain appropriate approvals from the .Mesa Consolidated.,Water District prior to ;project operation" order to -- . ensure t�iat impacts to the.00 44do not adversely impact the Joint Powers Authority In addition, the proposed project would not,inhibit the City of Huntington Beach's ability to operate the ;OG=44 from zero to 13 cubic feet er econd CFS without rest>iction or need fob P.. ( .. . ) . . . notification:" Page 4.6-18, Reclaimed Water "The Cityof Huntington Beach ►s;not currently uses utilizing 9 _. ,._...._ Y utilizes i reclaimed water, although the City is nlaRNRO to expand its use of ,q +er may in' the ;future through the Green Acres Project and Groundwater Replenishment System. The proposed project is not anticipated to require the use of reclaimed water or installation of reclaimed water facilities, as the project itself will be a new reclamation source. Impacts in this regard are not anticipated to be significant. Page 4.6-21, MITIGATION MEASURES "PSU-1 Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant will be required to pay,applicable school mitigation fees pursuant to Stete _. law:" Page 4.9-19, BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ".....not anticipated to be significant (refer to Appendix L, BOOSTER PUMP STATION BIOLOGICAL CONSTRAINTS SURVEY, for additional information). It should also be noted that any displaced vegetation would be replaced. l � City of Huntington Beach March 21, 2003 173 l i� Poseidon Seawater Desalination Project RE-jPONSES TO COMMENTS Environmental Impact Report 3.0 ERRATA in addition; implementation.of the.proposed project':may result in impacts to waterways,due to "frac=outs".:potentially occurring during pipeline;construction "Eric outs"` occur when drilling fluids.(usually benton.' seep to the_surface via`cracks in the ground. Prior,to.ahe:perrormance of any directional boring, the applicant will prepare a:Fiat'Out Contingency Plan The plan will estabhsh;cnteria ;under which a bore'would,.be shut down (e g. : loss of pressure;.:;loss of a certain amount of returris) and the number of times a single bore;should,be allowed to frac;out before the bore :is shut down. and reevaluated 'It will:also clearly;state what measures will be taken to seal previous.frac outs that have occurred;on a given bore to ensure that it-does:rno# become the path of least resistance for subsequent..frac outs Additionally, `the site specific Frac=Out Contingency Plan will be prepared and reviewed by the City Engineer and appropriate resource agencies prior to each major bore.;" Page 4.9-28, MITIGATION MEASURES ".....of the roadway using appropriate construction signage and flagmen, or submit a detour plan for approval by the City Traffic Engineer. ❖ The Traffic Management Plan shall be approved by affected agencies at least two weeks prior to construction. Per;: Caltrans requirements, ;the applicant shall submit the Traffic Management Plan to Caltrans:at the 90 percent design phase.;" Page 4.9-30, MITIGATION MEASURES ".....restrictions on construction activities maybe required in the vicinity of the nest until the nest is no longer active, . CON440 Prior to ,the commencement of any, directional boring;for water conveyance pipeline;;implementation, the applicant;:shall ;prepare a Frac Out Contingency Plan The plan shall: establish criteria under which a bore would be shut down (e.g x loss of pressure, loss of a certain amount of returns) and, the number of times a single:bore should be allowed ao fiat-out before he bore is shut down and reevaluated It will also clearly state what measures will be taken to seal . previous:fiat outs that have occurretl :on.a given bore to ensure:that it does not become:the path of:least resistance for subsequent frac;outs iAdditiottally, the site specific Frac Out Contingency Play► wdl;.be prepared.and reviewed by ahe City€ngineer and appropriate resource agencies prior to each maior_pore _ --- CbN=41 In:orderao min'imize'potential construction impacts to nesting savannahzparrows , adjacent to the, proposed desapnafion,facility, a pre-constructon nesting survey will be performed by a qualified biologist in consultation with applicable regulatory agencies. Should nesting. savannah sparrows be::found; adequate.mitigation (such' as relocation; construction :noise abatement measures, etc:) will 'be implemented;as appropriate based„on.the findings,;of.the;pre construction survey: _ : .__.._ .... .CON-42 All...focused .surveys for sensitive biological resources performed prior to proposed project implementation shall nclude a .review of>;.data `within he California Natu.ral,Diversity Data Base (CNDDB) #o :obtain current information'on any .previously reported sensitive_.species/habitat; 'including Significant N_atural f , Areas identified under:Chapter 1.2 ofahe'Fish and-.Game Code. City of Huntington Beach March 21, 2003 174 s.--� -_ . � . . .i 1 t f Poseidon Seawater DesalinaL-d Project , ;PONSES TO COMMENTS Environmental Impact Report 3.0 ERRATA CON 43 Prior to implementation of the proposed off-site booster pump station adjacent to the NCCP/HCP. boundary; a jurisdictional.`deline'ation of the proposed pump station ite:shall;be performed to.determine the.extent of.jurisdictional.:area, if any, as part of the reguI tory`permitting process: CULTURAL RESOURCES CON-404 Should buried historical/archaeological resources be discovered during excavation on the proposed booster pump station site, all construction work in that area shall be halted or diverted until a qualified archaeologist can evaluate the nature and significance of the finds. CON-44-5 During excavation of five feet below ground surface or lower on the proposed booster pump station site, a paleontological resource recovery program for Miocene invertebrate fossils shall be implemented. This program shall include, but will not be limited to, the following: ❖ Monitoring of excavation in areas identified as likely to contain paleontologic resources by a qualified paleontologic monitor. The monitor shall be equipped to salvage fossils as they are unearthed to avoid construction delays and to remove samples of sediments which are likely to contain the remains of small fossil invertebrates and vertebrates. The monitor must me empowered to temporarily halt or divert equipment to allow removal of abundant or large specimens. Monitoring may be reduced if the potentially fossiliferous units described herein are .not encountered, or upon exposure are determined following examination by qualified paleontologic personnel to have low potential to contain fossil resources; Preparation of recovered specimens to a point of identification and permanent preservation, including washing of sediments to recover small invertebrates and vertebrates; Identification and curation of specimens into a museum repository with permanent retrievable storage. The paleontologist should have a written respository agreement in hand prior to the initiation of mitigation activities; and Preparation of a report of findings with appended itemized inventory of specimens. The report and inventory, when submitted to the appropriate Lead Agency, would signify completion of the program to mitigate impacts to paleontologic resources." Page 5-7, Geographic Scope of Cumulative Impact Assessment ".....As discussed in Section 5.2, GROWTH INDUCING IMPACTS, the project may facilitate new development in seuth Orange County arid.t.ie South Coaat Region." Appendix E, Watershed Sanitary Survey, Page E-41, Wastewater Collection, Treatment, and Discharges Refer to Responses 17b and 17c of the Responses to Comments, above. /^ l City of Huntington Beach March 21, 2003 175 J 1'J Poseidon Seawater Desalination Project 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Draft Environmental Impact Report. ..�V1 N� '3 ?�CaD� 1.2 ENVIRONMENTAL SUMMARY 1 Referto the following summary of project impacts, mitigation measures,and unavoidable significant impacts. IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURE 4.1 LAND USE/RELEVANT PLANNING _LAND USE The proposed desalination facility is not anticipated to None required. However, refer to mitigation measures create any impacts to surrounding uses with regards to contained in Section 4.5 (Noise), Section 4.7 air quality, noise, aesthetics, hazards and hazardous (Aesthetics/Light&Glare),and Section 4.9(Construction materials, and shoe-term construction. Significance: Related Impacts). Less than significant ABOVEGROUND PRODUCT WATER STORAGE TANK OPTION: Implementation of this option is anticipated to result in similarimpacts to those of the proposed project. RELEVANT PLANNING The proposed Poseidon Seawater Desalination Project None required. will be consistent with the City of Huntington Beach General Plan, Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance, and. Local Coastal Program, and does not propose to change any General Plan or Zoning designations. Significance: No Impact ABOVEGROUND PRODUCT WATER STORAGE TANK OPTION: Implementation of this option is anticipated to result in similar impacts to those of the proposed project. 442 GEOLOGY,SOILS, &SEISMICITY WINDiWATER EROSION Implementation of the .proposed desalination project Refer to Mitigation Measure HWQ-1, below. would create adverse impacts in regards to wind and watererosion. Significance:Less than significant with mitigation. ABOVEGROUND PRODUCT WATER STORAGE TANK OPTION: implementation of this option is anticipated to result in similar impacts to those of the proposed project. TOPOGRAPHY No significant landform impacts are anticipated, as the None required. existing project area is relatively flat and contains no unique geological or physical features. Significance: Less than significant ABOVEGROUND PRODUCT WATER STORAGE TANK OPTION: implementation of this option is anticipated to result in similar impacts to those of the proposed project. CQ r GEOLOGY/SOILS Z. City of Huntington Beach ' _S tuber 19, 2002 le . A-�o IAA J'J Poseidon Seawater Desalin& __, Project 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Draft Environmental Impact Report IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURE The project site's high liquefaction potential and shallow GEO-1 A detailed geotechnical report shall be prepared groundwater conditions may create geologic hazards for and submitted with the building permit the proposed desalination facility. Significance:Less application for the proposed desalination plant. than significant with mitigation. This analysis shall include on-site soil sampling and laboratory.testing of materials to.provide detailed recommendations regarding grading, ABOVEGROUND PRODUCT WATER STORAGE TANK. foundations, retaining walls, streets, utilities, OPTION: implementation of this option is anticipated to remedial work, overexcavation /recompaction, result in similarimpacts to those of the proposed project. dewatering, water quality, and chemical/fill It should be noted that Mitigation Measures GEO-3 and properties of underground items including buried GEO-4 would not be applicable to this option. pipe and concrete and protection thereof. The reports shall . specifically address lateral spreading, flood control channel bank stability, liquefaction potential and groundwater constraints. Appropriate recommendations shall be provided to mitigate potentially adverse conditions. The geotechnical report shall also be submitted to the Department of Public Works for review and approval in conjunction with the grading plan. GEO-2 In conjunction with the submittal of application for preliminary or precise grading permits, the Applicant shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the City Engineer that the preliminary geotechnical report recommendations have been incorporated into the grading plan unless otherwise specified in the final geotechnical report and/or by the City Engineer. . GEO-3 Excavation for the proposed underground product water storage tank shall implement dewatering activities in compliance with NPDES regulations. Pumped groundwater shall be sampled, tested, and (if deemed necessary) treated prior to discharge. GEO-4 In order to prevent the underground product water storage tank from "floating" when water levels in the tank are lowered,the tank shall be either"anchored"utilizing piles,weighted,and/or have adequate soil placed across the top of the tank to hold the tank in place within shallow groundwater known to exist within subject site boundaries. GEO-5 As native on-site soils are compressible upon placement of structural loads, project implementation shall implement complete removal and recompaction of compressible soils or use of piles and grade beams to support on- site structures. GEO-6 Type V cement shall be used for concrete and buried metal pipes shall utilize special measures (coatings, etc.) to protect against the effects of corrosive soils. SEISMICITY/FAULTING The project area is subject to seismic activity, as it is GEO-7 Due to the potential for ground shaking in a situated within 1.25 miles of an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake seismic event,the project shall comply with the I Fault Zone. Significance: Less than significant with standards set forth in the UBC (most recent City of Huntington Beach September 19, 2002 1-4 Poseidon Seawater Desalination Project ..a EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Draft Environmental Impact Report IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURE mitigation. edition) to assure seismic safety to the satisfaction of the Department of Building and ABOVEGROUND PRODUCT WATER STORAGE TANK Safety prior to issuance of a building permit, OPTION: Implementation'of this option is anticipated to including compliance with California Division of result in similarimpacts to those of the proposed project. Mines and Geology Special Publication 117 (Guidelines for Evaluating and Mitigating Seismic Hazards in California, adopted March 13, 1997). However, given the proximity of the site to the Newport-Inglewood and Compton Blind Thrust Faults, more stringent measures may be warranted. GEO-8 As the South Branch Fault(situated beneath the subject site)is classified as"Category C"by the City of Huntington Beach General Plan,special studies and subsurface investigation(including a site specific seismic analysis) shall be performed prior to issuance of a grading permit, to the approval of the City Engineer. The subsurface investigation shall include CPT and exploratory borings to determine the fault rupture potential of the South Branch Fault which underlies the subject site. LIQUEFACTION POTENTIAL The proposed project will be subject to liquefaction GEO-9 Due to the potential for liquefaction within the hazards, seismically-induced settlement, and lateral project vicinity.the Applicant shall comply with spread, as the project area has a very high potential for the standards set forth in the UBC(most recent liquefaction. Significance:Less than significant with edition)for structures on-site to assure safety of mitigation. the occupants to the satisfaction of the Department of Building and Safety prior to ABOVEGROUND PRODUCT WATER STORAGE TANK issuance of a building permit. These standards include compliance with California Division of OPTION: Implementation of this option is anticipated to Mines and Geology Special Publication 117 result in similar impacts to those of the proposed project. (Guidelines for Evaluating and Mitigating Seismic Hazards iri California, adopted March 13, 1997) and 'Recommended Procedures for implementation of CDMG Special Publication 117 - Guidelines for Analyzing and Mitigating Liquefaction in California' (Dr. Geoffrey R. Martin et al,May 1999). GEO-10 The proposed project shall incorporate adequate measures to stabilize structures from on-site soils known to be prone to liquefaction. Typical methods include,but are not limited to: . Overexcavation and recompaction of soils; in-situ soil densification (such as vibro- flotation or vibro-re place ment); injection grouting;and o deep soil mixing. GEO-11 The site specific geotechnical investigation for the proposed project shall analyze the potential for lateral spread on-site. If deemed a possibility, adequate subsurface stabilization practices (similar to those utilized for liquefaction) shall be incorporated prior to the construction of on-site structures. City of Huntington Beach September 19, 2002 Poseidon Seawater Desalinal. Project 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Draft Environmental Impact Report IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURE OFF-SITE PIPELINES AND UNDERGROUND PUMP STATION The proposed off-site.components of.the project may Refer. to Section 4.9, CONSTRUCTION RELATED result in hazards in regards to geology and soils. IMPACTS. Significance: Less than significant with mitigation. . ABOVEGROUND PRODUCT WATER STORAGE TANK OPTION: implementation of this option is anticipated to result in similarimpacts to those of the proposed project. 4.3 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY:.. LONG-TERM WATER QUALITY IMPACTS The proposed desalination plantmayhave hydrologyand HWQ-1 Prior to issuance of precise grading or building water quality impacts in regards to flooding and storm permits, which ever comes first, the applicant waterrunoff. Significance:Less than significant with shall submit and obtain approval from the City of mitigation. Huntington Beach of a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) specifically The proposed desalination plantmay have hydrology and identifying Best Management Practices(BMPs) water quality impacts in regards to the local that will be used on-site to control predictable marine%oastal environment. Significance: Less than pollutant runoff. This WQMP shall identify,at a significant. minimum, the routine, structural and non- structural measures specified in the Countywide ABOVEGROUND PRODUCT WATER STORAGE TANK NPDES Drainage. Area Management Plan OPTION:7 Implementation of this option is anticipated to (DAMP)Appendix which details implementation result in greater impacts in comparison to those of the of the BMPs whenever they are applicable to a proposed project. However, due to project design, no project, the assignment of long-term mitigation measures beyond those identified for the maintenance responsibilities to the applicant, proposed project are required. Significance: Less than and shall reference the location(s)of structural significant with mitigation. BMPs. The applicable BMPs include: Plant materials that require fertilization and pest control shall be maintained in accordance with Orange County Management Guidelines for Use of Fertilizers and Pesticides; and BMP structures and facilities shall be cleaned and maintained on a scheduled basis by a Facility Operator appointed person; HWQ-2 Appropriate site specific hydrology and hydraulic analysis will be performed for the project prior to the issuance of grading or building permits, which ever comes first. The analysis shall include mitigation measures, if necessary, in regards to storm water drainage and flooding. HWQ-3 Prior to the issuance of grading or building permits, which ever comes first, an appropriate on-site drainage system shall be installed for the project that integrates permanent stormwater quality features. HWQ-4 Product water quality will be permitted by the California Department of Health Services to ensure safe, reliable water quality to the consumer. City of Huntington Beach September 19, 2002 1-6 Poseidon Seawater Desalination Nroject ,.d EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Draft Environmental Impact Report IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURE 4.4 AIR QUALITY LONG-TERM EMISSIONS The proposed Poseidon Seawater Desalination Project None required. would create long-term air quality emissions impacts through on-site station, off-site mobile, and off-site energy-related emissions. Significance: Less than significant ABOVEGROUND PRODUCT WATER STORAGE TANK OPTION: Implementation of this option is anticipated to result in similarimpacts to those of the proposed project. CONSISTENCY WITH REGIONAL PLANS Air quality emissions and related impacts for the None required. proposed project have been accounted forboth regionally and locally. Significance:Less than significant ABOVEGROUND PRODUCT WATER STORAGE TANK OPTION: Implementation of this option is anticipated to result in similarimpacts to those of the proposed project. SENSITIVE RECEPTORS The proposed project may impact sensitive receptors None required. Refer to Section 4.9, CONSTRUCTION surrounding the project site in regards to air quality. RELATED IMPACTS, for a. discussion of short-term Significance:Less than significant construction related air quality impacts. ABOVEGROUND PRODUCT WATER STORAGE TANK OPTION: Implementation of this option is anticipated to result in similarimpacts to those of the proposed project. 4.5 NOISE LONG-TERM STATIONARY SOURCES The proposed project may have long-term stationary NOIA Prior to the issuance of any building or grading noise impacts on surrounding sensitive receptors. permits, the Applicant shall prepare an Significance:Less than significant with mitigation. acoustical analysis report and appropriate plans, prepared under the supervision of a City- ABOVEGROUND PRODUCT WATER STORAGE TANK approved acoustical consultant, describing the OPTION: Implementation of this option is anticipated to stationary noise generation potential and noise result in similarimpacts to those of the proposed project mitigation measures (such as the installation of sound enclosures or placing noise-generating equipment indoors), if needed, which shall be included in the plans and specifications of the project. All stationary equipment shall be designed to meet the noise criteria as specified in the City of Huntington Beach Municipal Code Chapter 8.40(Noise Control),and will be subject to the approval of the City of Huntington Beach. City of Huntington Beach September 19, 2002 1-7 Poseidon Seawater Desalina... ., Project 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Draft Environmental Impact Report IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURE 4.6 PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES FIRE SERVICE The proposed project could increase demand forfire and None required. emergency services within the City. Significance:Less than significant. ABOVEGROUND PRODUCTWATER STORAGETANK OPTION. Implementation of this option is anticipated to resultin similarimpacts to those of the proposed project. POLICE SERVICE The proposed project is not anticipated to create a None required. significant increase in service calls to the project vicinity nor is it expected to create a need for additional police facilities within the City. Significance: Less than significant impact ABOVEGROUND PRODUCT WATER STORAGE TANK OPTION: Implementation of this option is anticipated to result in similarimpacts to those of the proposed project. SCHOOLS The proposed project may place additional demand on PSU-1 Prior to the issuance of building permits, the schools located within the vicinity of the project area. applicant will be required to pay applicable Significance:Less than significant with mitigation school mitigation fees pursuant to State law. ABOVEGROUND PRODUCT WATER STORAGETANK OPTION: Implementation of this option is anticipated to resultin similarimpacts to those of the proposed project.. LIBRARIES The Poseidon Seawater Desalination Plan may increase None required, demand on the City's library system. Significance:Less than significant ABOVEGROUND PRODUCT WATER STORAGETANK OPTION: Implementation of this option is anticipated to result in similarimpacts to those of the proposed project. ROADWAY MAINTENANCE Additional traffic generated by the proposed project may PSU-2 The Applicant will be required to pay increase demand on streets nearby the project site. appropriate traffic impact fees as determined by Significance:Less than significant with mitigation the City of Huntington Beach Department of Public Works. ABOVEGROUND PRODUCT WATER STORAGE TANK OPTION: implementation of this option is anticipated to resultin similarimpacts to those of the proposed project.. City of Huntington Beach September 19, 2002 1-8 Poseidon Seawater Desalination Project ..0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Draft Environmental Impact Report IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURE PARKS AND RECREATION The desalination project may increase demand on park None required. facilities. within the vicinity of the project area: Significance:Less'than significant. ABOVEGROUND PRODUCT WATER STORAGE TANK OPTION. Implementation of this option is anticipated to result in similarimpacts to those of the proposed project. WASTEWATER Implementation of the proposed desalination plant could PSU-3 The Applicant will be required to pay the increase demand on the iocal wastewater system. prevailing sewer connection fee plus five Significance:Less than significant with mitigation. percent of the OCSD connection fee. ABOVEGROUND PRODUCT WATER STORAGE TANK OPTION: Implementation of this option is anticipated to result in similar impacts to those of the proposed project. STORM WATER DRAINAGE The proposed project may increase demand on the local Refer to Section 4.3, Hydrology and Water Quality. storm water drainage system. Significance: Less than significant impact with mitigation. ABOVEGROUND PRODUCT WATER STORAGE TANK OPTION: Implementation of this option is anticipated to result in similar impacts to those of the proposed project. WATER The proposed project's product watermay create impacts PSU-4 The Applicant will be required to pay appropriate in regards to water supply. Significance: Less than fees for water service connections,installation, significant with mitigation. and meters. In addition, the City requires payment of a service fee for industrial customers. The proposed project's product watermay create impacts in regards to water compatibility, water.quality, and. hydraulics. Significance: Less than significant ABOVEGROUND PRODUCT WATER STORAGE TANK OPTION: implementation of this option is anticipated to result in similar impacts to those of the proposed project. RECLAIMED WATER The project site does not currently utilize reclaimed None required. water, and is not anticipated to utilize reclaimed waterin the future. Significance:Less than significant impact 1 ABOVEGROUND PRODUCT WATER STORAGE TANK OPTION: Implementation of this option is anticipated to City of Huntington Beach September-19,.2002 1-9 Poseidon Seawater Desalinai. Project 0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Draft Environmental Impact Report IMPACT. 7-T MITIGATION MEASURE result in similar impactsto those of the proposed project. SOLID WASTE Project implementation may increase the generation of PSU-5 The Applicant will coordinate with the City's solid waste, thereby increasing demand on solid waste recycling representative to ensure that the disposal facilities within the vicinity. Significance:Less proposed project is in compliance with the than significant with mitigation. City's waste reduction and recycling program. PSU-6 Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the ABOVEGROUND PRODUCT WATER STORAGE TANK Applicant will prepare a waste reduction plan for OPTION: Implementation of this option is anticipated to the generation of construction and operational result in similar impacts to those of the proposed project. waste from the proposed project.This plan will be submitted to the recycling coordinator from the City of Huntington Beach who will ensure that AB 939 requirements are properly addressed. ELECTRICITY The desalination project may create impacts in regards to None required. increased electricity demand. Significance:Less than significant. ABOVEGROUND PRODUCT WATER STORAGE TANK OPTION: Implementation of this option is anticipated to result in similarimpacts to those of the proposed project. GAS Existing gas facilities in and surrounding the project area None required. are capable of accommodating additional demand resulting from the proposed project. Significance:Less than significant. ABOVEGROUND PRODUCT WATER STORAGE TANK OPTION: Implementation of this option is anticipated to result in similar impacts to those of the proposed project. TELEPHONE AND CABLE Existing telephone and cable facilities in and surrounding None required. the project area are capable of accommodating additional demand resulting from the proposed project. Significance:Less than significant ABOVEGROUND PRODUCT WATER STORAGE TANK OPTION: Implementation of this option is anticipated to result in similar impacts to those of the proposed project y fd r City of Huntington Beach September 19, 2002 1-10 Poseidon Seawater Desalination Project ..0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Draft Environmental Impact Report IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURE 4.7 AESTHETICS/LIGHT&GLARE SITE CHARACTER. .The Poseidon Seawater Desalination Project may alter ALG-1 .For areas visible by adjacent existing or the site character of the project area, including. proposed residential areas,exterior mechanical undeveloped portions of the project area. Significance: equipment shall be screened from view on all Less than significant with mitigation. sides,and rooftop mechanical equipment shall be set back 15 feet from the exterior edges of ABOVEGROUND PRODUCT WATER STORAGE TANK the building. Equipment to be screened includes, but is not limited to, heating, air OPTION: Implementation of this option is anticipated to conditioning,refrigeration equipment, plumbing result in greater impacts in comparison to those of the lines, duct-work and transformers. Said proposed project. However, due to project design, no screening shall be architecturally compatible mitigation measures beyond those identified for the with the building in terms of materials and proposed project are required. Significance:Less than colors. If screening is not designed specifically significant with mitigation. into the building, a rooftop mechanical equipment plan showing screening must be submitted for review and approval with the application for building permit(s). LIGHT AND GLARE The proposed project may generate light and glare ALG-2 If outdoor lighting is included,light intensity shall through on-site nighttime security lighting. Significance: be limited to that necessary for adequate Less than significant with mitigation. security and safety. All outside lighting shall be. directed to prevent "spillage" onto adjacent properties and shall be shown on the site plan The proposed project may create additional light and and elevations. glare through project-generated automobile traffic. Significance: Less than significant ABOVEGROUND PRODUCT WATER STORAGE TANK OPTION: Implementation of this option is anticipated to result in greater impacts in comparison to those of the proposed project. However, due to project design, no mitigation measures beyond those identified for the proposed project are required.Significance:Less than significant with mitigation. 4.8 HAZARDS&HAZARDOUS MATERIALS LONG-TERM OPERATIONAL IMPACTS . The proposed project may create hazards due to the None required,other than project design implementation storage, transportation, and/or handling of hazardous of existing regulations and requirements. materials, thereby posing a threat to on-site occupants and surrounding uses. Significance: Less than significant. ABOVEGROUND PRODUCT WATER STORAGE TANK OPTION: Implementation of this option is anticipated to result in similarimpacts to those of the proposed project. 4.9 CONSTRUCTION RELATED IMPACTS HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY I Proposed project construction may generate erosive CON-1 Concurrent with the submittal of the Grading conditions including sedimentladen storm runoffordust, Plan, the Applicant shall submit an Erosion City of Huntington Beach September 19, 2002 1_11 Poseidon Seawater Desalina i Project 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Draft Environmental Impact Report IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURE which could have adverse impacts in regards to Control Plan to the City of Huntington Beach hydrology and water quality. Significance: Less than Department of Public Works which will include significant with mitigation. the following measures: ABOVEGROUND PRODUCT WATER STORAGE TANK a) Where necessary, temporary and/or. OPTION: Implementation of this option is anticipated to permanent erosion control devices, as result in reduced impacts in comparison to those of the approved by the Department of Public proposed project. However, all mitigation measures in Works, shall be employed to control regards to construction related hydrology and water erosion and provide safety during the quality would remain applicable to this option. rainy season from October 15th to April Significance:Less than significant with mitigation. 15"'. b) Equipment and workers for emergency work shall be made available at all times during the rainy season. Necessary materials shall be available on-site and stockpiled at convenient locations to facilitate the rapid construction of temporary devices when rain is imminent. c) Erosion control devices shall not be moved or modified without the approval of the Department of Public Works. d) Ali removable erosion protective devices shall be in place at the end of each working day when the 5-day rain probability forecast exceeds 40%.. e) After a rainstorm,all silt and debris shall be removed from streets, check berms. and basins. f) Graded areas on the permitted area perimeter must drain away from the face of the slopes at the conclusion of each working day. Drainage is to be directed toward desilting facilities. g) The permittee and contractor shall be responsible and shall take necessary precautions to prevent public trespass onto areas where impounded water creates a hazardous condition. _ h) The permittee and contractor shall inspect the erosion control work and ensure that the work is in accordance with the approved plans. i) Water shall be applied to the site twice daily during grading operations or as otherwise directed by the County of Orange Inspector in compliance with South Coast AQMD rule 403 (Fugitive Dust Emissions). A grading operations plan may be required including watering procedures to minimize dust, and equipment procedures to minimize vehicle emissions from grading equipment. CON-2 Construction of the project shall include Best Management Practices (BMPs) as stated in the Drainage Area Management Plan(DAMP) by the Orange County Stormwater Management Pro ram. BMPs applicable to / City of Huntington Beach September 19, 2002 l 1-12 Poseidon Seawater Desalination Project ..0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Draft Environmental Impact Report IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURE the project include the following: Potential pollutants include but are not limited to:solid or liquid chemical spills; wastes from paints, stains, sealants, glues, limes, pesticides, herbicides, wood preservatives and solvents; asbestos fibers, paint flakes, or stucco fragments; fuels, oils, lubricants, and hydraulic, radiator, or battery fluids; fertilizers, vehicle/equipment wash water and concrete wash water; concrete,detergent,or floatable wastes; wastes from any engine/equipment steam cleanings or chemical degreasing; and superchlorinated potable water line flushings. During construction, disposal of such materials should occur in a specified and controlled temporary area on-site, physically separated from potential stormwater run-off, with ultimate disposal in accordance with local,state, and federal requirements. CON-3 As part of its compliance with the NPDES requirements, the Applicant shall prepare a Notice of Intent.(NO[), to be submitted to the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board providing notification and intent to' comply with the State of California general permit. Prior to construction,completion of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) will be required for construction activities on-site. A copy of the SWPPP shall be available and implemented at the construction site at all times. CON-4 Prior to any dewatering activities, the Applicant shall obtain and comply with a general dewatering NPDES permit from the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board. CON-5' The Applicant shall submit a dewatering plan . for review and approval by the City of Huntington Beach Department of Public Works. The Applicant will comply with the approved dewatering plan. CON-6 The Applicant shall inform the Orange County Water District(OCWD)of its plans for on-site dewatering, and, if necessary, will acquire necessary permits and approvals from the OCWD to ensure that no adverse impacts on the groundwater basin or seawater intrusion barrier occur as a result of the proposed / project. The Applicant will comply with any !/ r approved dewatering permits or plans. CON-7 During dewatering operations, a survey City of Huntington Beach September 19, 2002 1_1'� Poseidon Seawater Desalina,_i Project ,.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Draft Environmental Impact Report IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURE program shall be conducted on surrounding properties and structures to ensure that movement or settlement from on-site dewatering operations does not occur.. This survey program will be subject to approval by. the City Engineer. CON-8 Should on-site dewatering operations require discharge into the sanitary sewer system,the Applicant shall obtain applicable permits and approvals for the Orange County Sanitation District(OCSD)and City of Huntington Beach Department of Public Works. Should the dewatering discharge be directed to existing AES stormdrain facilities, the Applicant shall ensure that dewatering is addressed in the Applicant's SARWQCB NPDES permit. AIR QUALITY Short-term construction processes for the proposed CON-9 Prior to the issuance of grading permits or project would have short-term air quality impacts. approval of grading plans, the City shall Significance:Unavoidable significant impact. include a dust control plan as part of the construction contract standard specifications, which shall include measures to meet the ABOVEGROUND PRODUCT WATER STORAGE TANK requirements of the City and SCAQMD Rules' OPTION: Implementation of this option is anticipated to 402 and 403. Such measures may include, result in.reduced impacts in comparison to those of the but are not limited to;the following: proposed project. However, an unavoidable significant impact would still occur. During grading operations,the following shall be complied with: Attempt to phase and schedule activities to avoid high-ozone days and first-stage smog alerts; Discontinue-operation during second- stage smog alerts; o All haul trucks shall be covered prior to leaving the site to prevent dust from impacting the surrounding areas; : Comply with AQMD Rule 403,particularly to minimize fugitive dust and noise to surrounding areas; Moisten soil each day prior to commencing grading to depth of soil cut; Water exposed surfaces at least twice a day under calm conditions and as often as needed on windy days when winds are less than 25 mile per day or during very dry weather in order to maintain a surface crust and prevent the release of visible emissions from the construction site; Treat any area that will be exposed for extended periods with a soil conditioner to stabilize soil or temporarily plant with vegetation; Wash mud-covered tires and under carriages of trucks leaving construction I I City of Huntington Beach September 19, 2002 1-14 Poseidon Seawater Desalination Project ,.J EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Draft Environmental Impact Report IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURE sites; : Provide for street sweeping, as needed, on adjacent roadways to remove dirt dropped by construction vehicles or mud which would otherwise be carried off by trucks departing project sites; .• Securely cover all loads of fill coming to the site with a tight fitting tarp; Cease grading during periods when winds exceed 25 miles per hour; Maintain construction equipment in peak operating condition so as to reduce operating emissions; Use low-sulfur diesel fuel in all equipment; Use electric equipment whenever practicable;and Shut off engines when not in use. NOISE Construction processes for the proposed desalination CON-10 Prior to the issuance of any grading permits, project may generate significant amounts of noise and the Applicant shall ensure evidence vibration, impacting adjacent sensitive receptors. acceptable to the City of Huntington Beach Significance: .Less than significant with mitigation. Departments of Planning.and Public Works that: ABOVEGROUND PRODUCT WATER STORAGE TANK All construction vehicles or equipment, OPTION: implementation of this option is anticipated to fixed or mobile, operated within 1,000 result in reduced impacts in comparison to those of the feet of a dwelling shall be equipped with proposed project. However, all mitigation measures in properly operating and maintained regards to construction related noise would remain mufflers; applicable to this option. Significance: Less than All operations shall comply with the City significant with mitigation. of Huntington Beach Municipal Code Chapter 8.40(Noise Control); Stockpiling and/or vehicle staging areas shall be located as far as practicable from residential areas;and Notations in the above format, appropriately numbered and included with other notations on the front sheet of grading plans, will be considered as adequate evidence of compliance with this condition. CON-11 Should the project require off-site import/export of fill material during demolition, remediation, and construction, trucks shall utilize a route that is least disruptive to sensitive receptors,preferably Newland Street to Pacific Coast Highway to Beach Boulevard to 1-405. Construction trucks shall be prohibited from operating on Saturdays, Sundays and federal holidays. CON-12 To reduce project-related construction noise impacts generated by the proposed project, the following conditions shall be / implemented: City of Huntington Beach September 19, 2002 1_�5 Poseidon Seawater Desalina, , Project 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Draft Environmental Impact Report IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURE Construction activities shall be limited to hours specified by the City Noise Ordinance; and •:• Unnecessary idling of internal : combustion engines shall be prohibited.. PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES Project implementation may create an increase demand CON-13 Unless underground utility locations are for public services and utilities. Significance: Less well documented,as determined by the City than significant. of Huntington Beach Public Works Department, the project engineer shall Project implementation may conflict with underground perform geophysical surveys to identify I p r9 subsurface utilities and structures, the utilities along the proposed pipeline alignment. findings of which shall be incorporated into Significance:Less than significant with mitigation. site design. Pipelines or conduits which may be encountered within the excavation ABOVEGROUND PRODUCT WATER STORAGE TANK and graded areas shall either be relocated OPTION: Implementation of this option is anticipated to or be cut and plugged according to the result in similar impacts to those of the proposed project. applicable code requirements. Significance:Less than significant with mitigation.. AESTHETICS/LIGHT&GLARE Project-related construction may adversely impact views CON-14 During construction, a security fence, the of and across the proposed project site through debris, height of which shall be determined by the equipment, and truck traffic. Significance: Less than City of Huntington Beach Department of significant with mitigation. Building and Safety, shall be installed around the perimeter of the site.. The ABOVEGROUND PRODUCT WATER STORAGE TANK construction site shall be kept clear of all trash,weeds, etc. OPTION: Implementation of this option is anticipated to result in greater impacts in comparison to those of the CON-15 Construction activities, to the extent proposed project. however, no mitigation measures feasible, shall be concentrated away from beyond those identified for the proposed project are adjacent residential areas. Equipment required. Significance: Less than significant with storage and soil stockpiling shall be at mitigation. least 100 feet away from adjacent residential ro ert lines. City of Huntington Beach September 19, 2002 1-16 Poseidon Seawater Desalination Project ..0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Draft Environmental Impact Report IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURE HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS Project implementation may pose a risk to on-site CON-16 Prior to excavation of the contaminated and. . workers and adjacent land uses with regards to short- other areas for rough grading,the project term construction related hazards and hazardous site shall be .cleared. of all excess materials. Significance: Less than significant with vegetation, surface trash, piping, debris mitigation. and other deleterious materials. These materials shall be removed and disposed ABOVEGROUND PRODUCT WATER STORAGE TANK of properly(recycled if possible). OPTION: Implementation of this option is anticipated to CON-17 Proper excavation procedures shall be result in greater impacts in comparison to those of the followed to comply with OSHA's Safety and proposed project. However, no mitigation measures Health Standards. If applicable,the South beyond those identified for the proposed project are Coast Air Quality Management District required. Significance: Less than significant with (SCAQMD) Rule 1166 permit shall be mitigation. obtained prior to the commencement of excavation and remedial activities. CON-18 The contractor shall follow all recommendations contained within the adopted Remedial Action Plan for the project site. CON-19 If asbestos or lead-based paints are identified in any on-site structures, the contractor shall obtain a qualified contractor to survey the project site and assess the potential hazard. The contractor shall contact the SCAQMD and the City of Huntington Beach Departments of Planning and Building and Safety prior to asbestos/lead paint removal. CON-20 If any hazardous materials not previously addressed in the mitigation measures contained herein are identified and/or released to the environment at any point during the site cleanup process,operations in that area shall cease immediately. At the earliest possible time, the contractor shall notify the City of Huntington Beach Fire Department of any such findings. Upon notification of the appropriate agencies, a course of action will be determined subject to the approval of the by the City of Huntington Beach Department of Public Works. CON-21 All structures must be cleaned of hazardous materials prior to off-site transportation,or hauled off-site as a waste in accordance with applicable regulations. CON-22 Structure removal operations shall comply with all regulations and standards of the SCAQMD. CON-23 The contractor shall post signs prior to Z6 commencing remediation, alerting the public to the site cleanup operations in progress. The size, wording and City of Huntington Beach September 19, 2002 1-17 Poseidon Seawater Desalina. Project .0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Draft Environmental Impact Report IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURE placement of these signs shall be reviewed and approved by the City of Huntington Beach Departments of Planning and Public Works. CON-24 Any unrecorded .or . unknown wells. uncovered during the excavation or grading process shall be immediately reported to and coordinated with the City of Huntington Beach Fire Department and State Division of Oil, Gas, and Geothermal Resources (DOGGR). CON-25 During remediation, if any soil is found to be hazardous due to contamination other than petroleum hydrocarbons, it will be segregated, stockpiled, and. handled separately. CON-26 Dust and volatile organic emissions from excavation activities shall be controlled through water spray or by employing other approved vapor suppressants including hydromulch spray in accordance with Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB)Waste Discharge Requirements and the South Coast Air Quality Management, District (SCAQMD) permit conditions. CON-27 Prior to the excavation process for pipeline construction, the contractor shall coordinate with the County of Orange's Integrated Waste Management Department in order to ensure that proposed pipeline construction does not impact drainage of the former Cannery Street Landfill. CON-28 Methane migration features will be consistent with the requirements of the City of Huntington Beach Specification Number 429 and other applicable state and federal regulations. The methane migration features shall be submitted for review and approval to the Orange County Health Care Agency (OCHCA), Environmental Health Division: CON-29 Studies to evaluate the potential for landfill gas(LFG)generation and migration will be completed prior to implementation of the proposed water delivery component of the project. Appropriate mitigation measures will be coordinated with the South Coast Air Quality Management District, Solid Waste Local Enforcement Agency, Regional Water Quality Control Board, and the City of Huntington Beach Fire Department. Mitigation measures could entail active or passive extraction of LFG to control surface and off-site migration and passive barriers with vent layers and alarms stems below } City of Huntington Beach September 19, 2002 1-18 Poseidon Seawater Desalination Project i.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Draft Environmental Impact Report IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURE trenches and within 1,000 feet of the former Cannery Street Landfill boundary. A comprehensive monitoring network will be established along the pipeline alignment adjacent to the landfill.Periodic monitoring of the monitoring network will be performed. TRAFFIC Short-term project construction (of both on-site and off- CON-30 A Traffic Management Plan(TMP)shall be site elements)could potentially create impacts in regards prepared and implemented to the to traffic. Significance: Less than significant with satisfaction of the affected jurisdiction mitigation. within which the facilities are to be constructed when the facilities are to be ABOVEGROUND PRODUCT WATER STORAGE TANK located where construction would affect OPTION: Implementation of option is anticipated to roadways. The TMP shall include,but not P p P be limited to,the following measures: result in reduced impacts in comparison to those of the proposed project. However, all mitigation measures in o Limit construction to one side of the regards to construction related noise would remain road or out of the roadbed where applicable to this option. Significance: Less than possible; significant with mitigation. Provision of continued access to commercial and residential properties adjacent to construction sites; Provide alternate bicycle routes and pedestrian paths where existing paths/ routes are disrupted by construction activities, if any; Submit a truck routing plan, for approval by the City of Huntington Beach, County, and other responsible public agencies in order to minimize impacts from truck traffic during material delivery and disposal; Where construction is proposed for two-lane roadways, confine construction to one-half of the pavement width. Establish one lane of traffic on the other half of the roadway using appropriate construction signage and flagmen, or submit a detour plan for approval by the City Traffic Engineer; " /V) The Traffic Management Plan shall be approved by affected agencies at least two weeks prior to construction. Per City of Huntington Beach September 19, 2002 1_1Q Poseidon Seawater Desalinatit . Project ,.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Draft Environmental Impact Report IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURE Caltrans requirements, the applicant shall submit the Traffic Management Plan to Caltrans at the 90-percent design phase; Construction activities shall, to. the extent feasible, be coordinated with other construction activity taking place in the affected area(s); and •3 Provide for temporary parking, where necessary, during installation of pipelines within the AES site. CON-31 Prior to initiating the removal of structures and contaminated materials,the contractor must provide evidence that the removal of materials will be subject to a traffic control plan,for review and approval by the by the City of Huntington Beach Department of Public Works. The intent of this measure is to minimize the time period and disruption of heavy duty trucks. CON-32 Construction related activities will be subject to,and comply with,standard street use requirements imposed by the City of Huntington Beach,County and other public agencies, including the use of flagmen to assist with haul truck ingress and egress of construction areas and limiting the large size vehicles to off-peak commute traffic periods. CON-33 The Contractor shall obtain the necessary right-of-way encroachment permits and satisfy all permit requirements. Also, nighttime construction maybe performed in congested areas. CON-34 During periods of heavy equipment access or truck hauling,the Contractor will provide construction traffic signage and a construction traffic flagman to control construction and general project traffic at points of ingress and egress and along roadways that require a lane closure. CON-35 The developer shall coordinate with the . Department of Public Works, Traffic Engineering Division in developing a truck and construction vehicle routing plan. This plan shall include the approximate number of truck trips and the proposed truck haul routes. It shall specify the hours in which transport activities can occur and methods to mitigate construction related impacts to adjacent residents and the surrounding area. The plan shall take into consideration any street improvement construction occurring in the vicinity. These plans must be submitted for approval to the Department of Public Works. I V Pity of Huntington Beach September 19, 2002 1-20 Poseidon Seawater Desalination Project �.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Draft Environmental Impact.Report IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURE BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Construction of the proposed project may result in CON=36 Prior .to construction on the proposed impacts to sensitive biological resources. Significance: booster pump station site, three focused Less than significant with mitigation: coastal California gnatcatcher surveys shall be performed in accordance with USFWS protocols, preferably during the ABOVEGROUND PRODUCT WATER STORAGE TANK gnatcatcher breeding season. Should the OPTION: Implementation of this option is anticipated to species be observed on or adjacent to the result in similar impacts to those of the proposedproject site, consultation and permitting through the USFWS would be required. i CON-37 Prior to construction on the proposed booster pump station site, eight focused least Bell's vireo surveys shall be performed for the off-site underground booster pump station (at least 10 days apart during the vireo nesting season of April and July)in accordance with USFWS protocols. Should the species be observed on or adjacent to the site,consultation and permitting through the USFWS would be required. This measure may not be necessary if construction phasing can avoid the vireo nesting season. CON-38 Prior to construction on the proposed booster pump `station site, a qualified biologist shall perform a habitat assessment for the southwestern pond turtle. If habitat for this species is observed, a trapping program will be implemented to determine the presence or absence of these species. If present,pond turtles must be trapped and relocated prior to the start of construction. CON-39 A survey for active raptor nests shall be performed by a qualified biologist 30 days prior to the commencement of construction activities on the proposed booster pump _ station site. Any occupied nests discovered during survey efforts shall be mapped on construction plans for the site. If recommended by the biologist,restrictions on construction activities may be required in the vicinity of the nest until the nest is no longer active. CON-40 Prior to the commencement of any directional boring for water conveyance pipeline implementation, the applicant shall prepare a Frac-Out Contingency Plan. The plan shall establish criteria under which a bore would be shut down (e.g., loss of pressure, loss of a certain amount of returns) and the number of times a single bore should_be allowed to Frac-out before the bore is shut down and reevaluated.It will also clearly state what measures will be taken to seal i City of Huntington Beach September 19, 2002 Poseidon Seawater Desalino. ;,i Project 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Draft Environmental Impact Report IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURE previous frac-outs that have occurred on a given bore to ensure that it does not become the path of least resistance for subsequent frac-outs. Additionally,the site-specific Frac-Out Contingency Plan will be prepared and reviewed by the City Engineer and appropriate resource agencies prior to each major bore. CON-41 In order to minimize potential construction impacts to nesting savannah sparrows adjacent to the proposed desalination facility, a pre- construction nesting survey will be performed by a qualified biologist in consultation with applicable regulatory. agencies. Should nesting savannah sparrows be found,adequate mitigation (such as relocation, construction noise abatement measures, etc.) will be implemented as appropriate based on the findings of the pre-construction survey. CON-42 All focused surveys for sensitive biological resources performed prior to proposed project implementation shall include a review of- data within the California Natural Diversity Data Base (CNDDB) to obtain current information on any previously reported sensitive species/habitat, including Significant Natural Areas identified under Chapter 12 of the Fish and Game Code. CON-43 Prior to implementation of the proposed off-site booster pump station adjacent to the NCCP/HCP boundary,a jurisdictional delineation of the proposed pump station site shall be performed to determine the extent of jurisdictional area, if any, as part of the regulatory permitting process. CULTURAL RESOURCES Construction of the proposed project may result in CON-44 Should buried historical/archaeological impacts to cultural resources. Significance: Less than resources be discovered during excavation significant with mitigation, on the proposed booster pump station site, all construction work in that area shall be halted or diverted until a qualified ABOVEGROUND PRODUCT WATER STORAGE TANK archaeologist can evaluate the nature and OPTION: Implementation of this option is anticipated to significance of the finds. result in similarimpacts to those of the proposed project. CON-45 During excavation of five feet below ground surface or lower on the proposed booster pump station site, a paleontological resource recovery program for Miocene invertebrate fossils shall be implemented. This ro ram shall include, but will not be City of Huntington Beach September 19, 2002 1-22 i Poseidon Seawater Desalination Project ,.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Draft Environmental Impact Report i IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURE limited to,the following:' i Monitoring of excavation in areas identified as likely to contain paleontologic resources by a qualified. paleontologic monitor. The monitor shall be equipped to salvage fossils as they are unearthed to avoid construction delays and to remove samples of sediments which are likely to contain the remains of small fossil invertebrates and vertebrates. The monitor must be empowered to temporarily halt or divert equipment to allow removal of abundant or large specimens. Monitoring may be reduced if the potentially fossiliferous units described herein are not encountered, or upon exposure are determined following examination by qualified paleontologic personnel to have low potential to contain fossil resources; Preparation of recovered specimens to a point of identification and permanent preservation, including washing of sediments to recover small invertebrates and vertebrates, Identification and curation of specimens into a museum repository with permanent retrievable storage. The paleontologist should have a written respository agreement in hand prior to the initiation of mitigation activities; and Preparation of a report of findings with appended itemized inventory of specimens. The report and inventory, when submitted to the appropriate Lead Agency,would signify completion of the program to mitigate impacts to paleontologic resources. i UNAVOIDABLE SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS AIR QUALITY The proposed Poseidon Seawater Desalination Project may have unavoidable significant impacts in regards to short-term, construction related CO, ROG,and NO,,emissions. However, impacts in this regard have been adequately analyzed within the City's General Plan EIR, as the project will be consistent with all General Plan and zoning designations. No other unavoidable significant impacts have been identified for the Poseidon Seawater Desalination Project. i 1.3 SUMMARY OF PROJECT ALTERNATIVES "NO PROJECT/NO DEVELOPMENT" ALTERNATIVE City of Huntington Beach September 19, 2002 .BCITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH Inter Office Communication Planning Department TO: Planning Commission FROM: Howard Zelefsky, Director of Planning BY: Ricky Ramos, Associate Planner�l DATE: June 3,2003 SUBJECT: LATE COMMUNICATION Attached are additional comment letters received since Thursday May 29, 2003 as well as comment letters distributed at the May 27, 2003 hearing from the parties listed below regarding the Poseidon seawater desalination plant. Attachment: (New comment letters since Thursday May 29, 2003) 1. Jan Vandersloot, dated May 29,2003 2. Joe Geever, Surfrider Foundation dated May 30, 2003 3. Rich Kolander,dated May 8,2003 4. Robert Harrison, dated May 30, 2003 - 5. Don May, dated June 3, 2003 10. Tom Luster, dated June 3, 2003 (Comment letters distributed at the May 27, 2003 hearing) 6. Larry Porter, dated May 27, 2003 7. Bruce Monroe, dated May 27, 2003 8. Jan Vandersloot, dated May 27, 2003 9. Robert Thomas, dated May 27,2003 61" G AA d m L tr\A d m l tr03 W 603 rr 1.d o c JAN D.VANDERSLOOT,M.D. Diplomate, American Academy of Dermatology 8101 Newman, Suite C Huntington Beach, CA 92647 Phone (714) 848-0770 Email JonV3 a,aol.6om Fax (714) 848-6643 May 29, 2003 Mr. Randy Kokal, Chairman,.and Huntington Beach Planning Commission City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92647 c/o shess@surfcity-hb.org Dear Chairman Kokal, and Huntington Beach Planning Commissioners, At the Planning Commission meeting on May 27, 2003, Commissioner Dingwall asked that I refine and reinforce the comments I made to the Planning Commission on that date. As you may recall, I passed out a four-page handout at the Study Session and I i incorporated that handout by reference at.the Planning Commission Public Hearing, as well as incorporating the comments made by the Coastal Commission staff in its May 8, 2003 letter to the Planning Commission. I asked that you consider those comments and choose to take discretionary action in voting for the Alternative Action of. "B. "Continue certification of EIR No. 00-02 and direct staff accordingly". i i I would like to discuss the handout and the Coastal Commission letter more thoroughly. The first page of the handout was figure 13 of the Poseidon EIR.This figure showed "Projected Mid-Depth Salinity Over the AES Outfall- "Worst Case" Scenario". The figure showed how the salinity discharged from the Poseidon operations will cause a plume emanating from the AES outfall pipe, and how this plume hugs the beach south of the AES plant, including Station 9N. Since salinity is one way to measure the extent of a plume from an outfall,my purpose was to show how constituents emanate from the AES discharge outfall, including,but not limited to, salinity, including bacteria. The salinity is one marker for the plume caused by the AES discharge pipe, but the plume will include other things, including bacteria and chemicals used by the desalination plant, cleaning solutions, concentrated metals, etc. Figure 13 shows what the AES plume looks like. The second page of the handout was "Figure 2: Huntington Beach Aerial Location Map". This came from the Huntington Beach Closure Investigation,Phase I. It shows the location of bacterial testing stations 9N, 6N, and 3N, these numbers referring to r 1 JAN D. VANDERSLOOT,M.D. Diplomate, American Academy of Dermatology 8101 Newman, Suite C Huntington Beach, CA 92647 Phone (714) 848-0770 Email JonV3 craol.com Fax (714).848-6643 thousands of feet north from the Santa Ana River. 9N is the station immediately south of the AES plant: These bacterial testing stations,particularly station 9N, have been the source of persistently high bacterial readings on the beach, often causing posting of the beach at the end of Magnolia. The source of these elevated bacterial readings has been mysterious,not having been solved even after a$5.1 million dollar Huntington Beach Shoreline Contamination Investigation, Phase III. If you then compare the two pages, you will note the apparent coincidence of the discharge plume from the AES plant with the bacterial testing stations, especially 9N,the end of Magnolia, where the worst beach bacteria problems occur. This would indicate to me, and I hope to you, that discharge from the AES plant may be contributing to the beach bacteria problems. The possible role of the AES plant in causing beach bacteria problems is corroborated by additional comments by scientists; including the Peer Review Panel Summary Report for the Huntington Beach Shoreline Contamination Investigation,Phase III, prepared by the University of Southern California Sea Grant Program and the University of California, Santa Barbara, Marine Science Institute. The third page of the handout is the face page of this Peer Review Panel Summary Report, and the fourth page of the handout is page 6 of the report. I put a star next to Paragraph 4, and underlined the phrase "AES Power Plant plume". My purpose in doing this is to show the concern that these scientists have in studying the role of the AES power plant discharge plume, as well as other sources, in determining the proportion of beach contamination due to the OCSD effluent. In addition,I will fax the entire Executive Summary of this report on Friday, May 30, 2003, to be included in the EIR. This summary is important, as it outlines further studies which should be done to define the important issue of bacterial contamination causing beach closures, as well as stating that one of the original objectives was to: "1) characterize the physical oceanographic processes involved in possible cross-shelf transport of the wastewater plume in the vicinity of the AES thermal discharge outfall" (see page 1 of this-report). In addition, UCI scientist Stanley Grant, in his presentation to the OCSD Technical Advisory Committee meeting of April 3, 2003, stated that the bacterial problems at 9N were different from those at Station 0,the Santa Ana River, and 3N,the Talbert Marsh, showing a different Total Coliform/Fecal Colifonn ratio. He also stated that there appears to be an as-yet unidentified offshore cause of the bacterial problems at 9N. � J 2 f JAN D.VANDERSLOOT,M.D. Diplomate,American Academy of Dermatology 8101 Newman, Suite C Huntington Beach, CA 92647 Phone (714) 848-0770 Email jonV3@aol.com Fax (714)-848-6643 Therefore, could the plume caused by the AES plant discharge pipe be a factor in the bacterial problems at 9N?If so, could an additional influence of the Poseidon operations affect the AES plume and thus impact the bacterial problems at 9N? The answer should be discovered before the EIR for Poseidon is approved as complete. We know that Poseidon will influence the salinity and temperature of the AES discharge plume. What about bacteria generated by the AES operations, including decomposition of marine life entrained and impinged by the once through cooling system and killed by the 30 degree temperature change within the pipes?Larvae,plankton,and small fish trapped and killed within the pipe may cause a level of bacteria. What are the bacterial levels within the AES pipeline? What are the bacterial levels at the discharge pipe? i Any bacteria levels over the ambient ocean conditions (<10 MPNI100 cc) that are found within the cooling system pipe or at the discharge outfall may come to the beach only 1500 feet away,as.showri by the shape of the AES discharge plume, ocean currents,and wind driving.the bacteria to the beach. Even low levels of bacteria can be reconcentrated at the surfzone or at the beach, or be adsorbed to sediment particles, as. suggested by Phase III Peer Review Panel, pages 4 and 5. Without knowing baseline conditions of the AES discharge plume with regard to pollution at station 9N, it would be impossible to know how Poseidon operations may affect these impacts, or what mitigation measures should be required. That is one reason why I suggest you require additional environmental documentation such as a Subsequent EIR or Supplemental EIR. This Supplemental EIR should examine the AES power plant operations as a baseline, since an EIR has never been completed for the AES plant. Once the AES baseline conditions are known, including actual, existing conditions,rather than permitted conditions, then the Poseidon effects on the AES plant can be determined, and mitigation requirements imposed. For example,one of the baseline conditions not currently known,is the HBGS entrainment and impingement study currently being done,but not yet finished, and therefore the results are unknown. This study is investigating the marine life, including larvae and plankton present in.the vicinity of the intake and outfall pipes. r 3 . _ JAIN D. VANDERSLOOT, M.D. Diplomate, American Academy of Dermatology 8101 Newman, Suite C Huntington Beach, CA 92647 Phone (714) 848-0770 Email JonV3r&aol.eom Fax (714).848-6643 The Poseidon operations may impact the entrainment and impingement of these organisms if AES power plant operations are curtailed or suspended for maintenance or other reasons. What responsibility should Poseidon have for effects on this marine life if the AES power plant goes offline for whatever reason? What mitigations should be the responsibility of Poseidon? With regard to mitigations that are required, what will happen if Poseidon sells its operations to an international or multinational company subject to international trade laws as mentioned in the May 8, 2003 Coastal Commission letter? Will any local mitigations remain in effect?Now is the time to lock in the mitigations. Will there be any element of public oversight of this private company? Is it proper for a private company to utilize a public resource such as ocean water for private gain without public oversight? Has the EIR considered and analyzed alternative locations for the Poseidon Operations such as Plant 2 at the Orange County Sanitation District? Has the EIR considered mitigations such as requiring the RO reject brine to be routed through the OCSD sewage treatment system,thus avoiding adverse ocean water quality impacts from its direct discharge to the ocean? Has the EIR considered the human impacts from increased salinity in the area proximate to the discharge pipe, including station 9N. Will the increased salinity cause mucous membrane irritation, such as eye irritation to surfers and swimmers in the vicinity of the increased salinity? For all these reasons, and the reasons brought up by the Coastal Commission staff,I respectfully request the Planning Commission either request further environmental documentation or reject the draft EIR outright. Since this is the first and largest of the coastal desalination plants to be considered along the California coast in the past 10 years, it is important to get it right the first time. I personally do not see the need to rush this project through without waiting for the studies to be done and to analyze the results. 4 _ JAN D. VANDERSLOOT, M.D. Diplomate, American Academy of Dermatology 8101 Newman, Suite C Huntington Beach, CA 92647 Phone (714) 848-0770 Email JonV3 a,aol.com Fax (714),848-6643 And lastly, what good is this project doing for the citizens of Huntington Beach? .I have . yet to see a good reason for how this project will benefit the people of Huntington Beach. The vast majority of the speakers from the community seem to be opposed to this project. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. Sincerely, Jan D. Vandersloot, MD �� 5 MA.Y-27-03 13 ,44 FROM-OCf a0MIN ID� 7149F 13SS FACE 2/'tta Huntington Beach Shorti e Contamination. Investigation, Phase III Vela Review Panel Summary Rep®r Prepared by University of Southem California. Sea Grant Program and . . University of California,Santa Barbara Marine Science Institute March 21, 2003 I I :'r1_.-27-03 23p4S FROM+DCSD irN ID,714SS20 S PACE W Ito Ezeentive Summary of Rovievv Pmel Comments ou the . Huntington Beach Phs—st III Final Draft Report March 21,2003 Backgound High bacteria courts at Huatington State Beach forced a two-month beach closure in the summer of 1999,at significant cost to the community. This occurred immediately upon implementation of the AB411 beach closure suMar&.The Orwnge County Sanitation District(OCSD)conducted a secries of studies to determine the source of the bacteria. Initial studies suggested that contamination from the sewage outF,alI 7]an off th6 east end of the beach was unlikely,but not impossible.Sewage leakage from beach restsvoms,and animal waste from nearby Talbert Marsh have been implicated in tracer studies.but the source of the contamination had not been clearly identifsed as of spring,2001. ScietatMc Objectives Phase III of the Huntington Beach Sboreline Contamination Investigation re-focused attention on the sewage outfall,with specific hypotheses ooncerning onslaore transport of the sewage plums.The study objectives,as originally stated in the Huntington Beach Shoreline�Coamminstiion Invest gadon,Phase III Wcrkplan are: "I)characterizes the physical oceanographic processes involved in possible cross4helf trannort of the wastewater plum to g e vicinity of the AEStenrW dt�ge outfall;2)determine if there is a tau t ween a shore an su zone rta an re plume constituents;and 3)determine if the conditions during the sununer of 2001 are similar to chose of 1999 and other years with unusual surf zone bacteria.levels The Principal Investigators(PIs)in the study,after careful consideration, re-deftaed the objectives In October.2002 thus:"The principal objective for this multifaceted measurement program was to deu mnine if there is a causal link between offshore wastewater discharge and significant bacterial contamination at or above state beach sanitation standards(i.e.,AB411)along the Huntington Beach shoreline.This objective includes the aim of idend*ing coastal ocean processes that could explain any observed linnb.A socondary objective was to determine the principal coastal-ocean circularaaa patters in this region,allowing the evaluation of any new ideas that may arise or gain recognition during or following this study.Thirdly,conditions during the summer of 2001 would be comps to those of 1999 and other years with a high incidence of surf zone bacteria contamination:' By this statement,the PIs defined the important issue as bacterial contamination causing beach closures,not a more general question about i bacterial transport. 1 4.'1 MAY-?7-03 13:QS FROM•OCSD MIN" ID 719962T "58 PAGE v/ae Study Result As stated in the Phase III Draft Report. "... there were no direct observations of either the high bacteria concentrations seen in the OCSD plume at the shelf break reaching the shoreline in signincant levels or of an association between the existence of a coastal ocean process and beach contamination at or above AB411 levels. It is concluded that the OCSD plume is not a major cause of beach contamination;no causal Iinks could be demonstrated. This conclusion is based on the absence of direct observation of Iinks between bacteria in the outfall plume and beach contamination,on analysis of spatial and temporal patterns of shoreline contamination and coastal processes, and on the observation of higher levels of contamination at the beach than in the plume." Review Process The University of Southern California Sea Grant Program convened an independent panel of experts to conduct a peer review of the Huntington Beach Phase III Study. The purpose of this review was to"evaluate the scientific process,data,and interpretation of scientific results,and provide ongoing feedback to help guide the investigators in their. analysis of these studies," The Review Panel met with the Principal Investigators in person in April 2002 for preliminary presentations of the Phase III Study results and analyses. Subsequent to this first meeting,the Panel submitted a Preliminary Report to OCSD on their initial findings of the Phase III Study on May 15,2002. In August 2002, the Paget and Pls met again to further discuss the analyses of the Phase In data Following the August meeting,the Panel submitted a second response to the PIs with recommendations for further improvement of the Phase III analyses. The Panel and PIs have also corresponded via phone and email throughout the review process. A written Fn81 Draft report was trade available by the PIs in January 2003 for review by the Panel. This Executive Summary is the result of a concerted peer review effort by the Review Panel over the last two months and represents a synopsis of their collective comments on the Phase III Final Draft Report. The Review Panel consisted of. John alien,Ph.D. Oregon State University Theoretical geophysical fluid dynamics;Coastal ocean dynamics Jack Barth,Ph.D. Oregon State•University Coastal ocean dynamics; Flow-topography interactions 2 IS MA'S-P7-03 13-45 FROM-OcsD )MIN ID-714862 n 6 PAGE V5/id i Walter E.Frick,Ph.D. USEPA Ecosystems Research Division. Plume models for ourfall design and assessment;Low-velocity compressible flow theory Roger Fujioka,Ph.D. Water Resources Research Center,University of Hawaii Environmental water quality;Public health microbiology Trisb Holden,Ph.D. University of California.Santa Barbara Microbiology;Bacterial community fingerprinting Jesus Pineda,Ph.D. Woods Hole Oceanographic InstlMdon Cross-shore transport of planktonic larvae;Benthic population ecology i - Cynthia Cudaback,Ph.D. (Co-chair)- University of California,Santa Barbara Inner shelf transport and effect on biological commu d ies Judy Letnus,Pb.D.(Co-chair) Sea Grant Program,University of Southern California Marine Advisory.Program Leader . Review Panel Objectives OCSD initiated Phase Ill of the HB studies to determine whether sewage discharged offshore from Huntinpri Beach can be transported to the beach and under what conditions it may do so. Therefore,the Panel has focused on three main questions: 1.Do the studies adequately answer the specific investigatory objectives that were addressed? 2. Were the data properly interpreted and presented in the preliminary reports? 3.Are there other studies that could be conducted to determine the risk of plume trlsurgency onto the shoreline? General Comments The Panel acknowledges that the Phase III field studies conducted during the summer of 200I were of high quality and represent a commendable undertaking. The size and completeness of the data that this study has generated set is also impressive. Given the amount of time available to the Principal Investigators, the analyses are progressing well. i 3 MAY-27-03 r 3,49 FROM t OCst)' MIN 1 D:714582az55 1�fu+t u. ... The Panel considers the Final Draft Report to be a good start at analyzing the full complement of data and expect that several new contributions to the field of ocean coastal circulation will be forthcoming from this work. The main conclusion of the Final Draft Report, "It is concluded that the OCSD plume is not a major cause of beach contamination;no causal links could be demonstrated,"is complete,with two separate statements. The second statement,„no causal links could be demonstrated,"is based on temporal and spatial disconnects between the outfall, transport processes,and beach contamination.Although events that might drive onshore transport of bacteria were observed(such as cold water entering the surf zone),these events did not coincide with or precede beach contamination events in exceedence of the A.B411 standards.High bacterial concentrations were observed new the outfall and at the beach,but measurements also'indicated that there was a zone of lower concentration between the two regions.Given the current status of analyses on the Phase III studies and based on the available measurements,this conclusion seems to be reasonable and accurate. However,with respect to the first half of the conclusion, "the OCSD plume is not a major cause of beach contamination,"the Panel finds that this statement is not supportable because of the incomplete nature of the analyses and to limitations in the spatial and temporal resolution of the Phase III sampling. While a connection between the OCSD outfall and beach contamination has not been found,a lack of understanding of some key parameters warrants caution;categorical dismissal of the OCSD plume as a major cause of beach contamination is not scientifically justifiable at this point. Several variables that remain in question are discussed below. 1)Bacterial sampljiL1; The Panel recognizes the difficulty of collecting and analyzing bacterial data,but notes that the spatial and temporal resolution of sampling in this study was Heavily weighted towards hydrographic data White these field experiments far exceeded previous studies in sampling intensity,and the number of bacterial samples processed by OCSD was extraordinary,the bacterial monitoring data remain a limitation. Accordingly,the transport and behavior of bacteria in the coastal ocean is not adequately understood. Another limitation of the surfzone bacterial analyses is that a large percentage of the data are not graphically represented because samples with less than 20 MEN total or fecal . coliform or less that 10 MIEN enterococci,are not included (.11B-III Final Draft Report, Ft as.2a,2b,2c). 2)Spatial discon-n on The argumeat that the OCSD outfall plume is not a major source of beach contamination relies on the spatial gap between high bacterial concentrations in the care of the plume and the high bacterial concea=ons measured at the beach. Given that the transport properties of bacteria in the coastal ocean are not well understood, it seems prudent to allow for the possibility of a range of plausible behaviors.A possible mechanism for bridging the observed spatial disconnect could be in the reconcentration of bacteria either within the surfzone or during transport. If the beach is considered to be the end of the transport pathway,and bacteria transported to shore remain on shore or trapped in the surf-zone,possibly adsorbed to sediment particles,then low concentrations of bacteria just 4 I • 1C f XA'r1-27-03 13+45 FROM,OC9D IN ID) 7149620' 5 PHt;t �i srs i offshore can be reconcen=tcd at the beach. The potential for resusper;sion of fecal indicator bacteria within the surfzone was not addressed in the Phase III study and therefore cannot be ruled out as a possible somte of beach contamination_ Another explanation involvesahe gravitational collapse of the plume,.which tends to liLnit its vertical extent. As a vertically collapsed lens,the plume could penetrate coarse vertical salmlpling grids,and thereby lead to substantial bacteria maxima beino nussed. 3)Patc�hinesS The spatial discontinuity between high concentrations of bacteria in the outfall plume and high concentrations of bacteria at the beach may be due to a patchy distribution of bacteria and other plume tracers.The Phase III data clearly demonstrate that the pltnne field can be patchy(Fig_5.12,Volume II),and that patches of the plume can sometimes come close to shore (H-s.3-11 and 6-12,Vole II). Although the region between the plume signature and the beach contains low bacterial concentrations,the distance ` between the two is sufficiently close to warrant careful consideration of sampling adequacy. Additionally,these high values at shallow depths are coincident in time with high baeterial concentrations near the beach. 4)Surface transg= The wind-driven surface transport of buoyant particles should be examined as a possible pathway for the transport of plume bacteria onto shore. The possibility of this mechanism was acknowledged in the Final Draft Report,but not included in the design of the Phase III studies for several reasons involving the unlikely association of bacteria With grease and oil particles,both offshore and at the beach. Indeed,the Phase Ill.data . indicate that the plume is almost always submerged beneath the then mocline. Independent modeling by one member of the Panel(W. Prick)supports these results. However,low concentrations of bacteria have been measured at the surface by OCSD personnel,and features of the.plume were occasionally observed at the surface during the Phase Il investigations(Fgs. 3-14 and 4-13 of MB-1II Final Draft Report). Finally,the accumulation of buoyant particles at onshore propagating fronts associated with an internal tide has been observed in Southern California(Pineda, 1999). i 5)Crass-shelf trans=mechanisms A thorough consideration of cross-shelf transport of physical water properties and plume material is=. yet complete.For example,additional analyses should be directed at quantifying-ihe nature of the across-shelf transport of the temperature field as a function of spatial location on the shelf and as a function of frequency. In addition,internal solitary waves,which are often associated with the internal tide and capable of transporting particles onshore, are not adequately addressed in the Filial Draft Report. Likewise,the association of at least one cold Water intrusion into the nearshore indicates the plausibility, if not probability,of this mechanism and deserves further analysis. A third mechanism that could also be investigated is transport in the bottom boundary layer by breaking internal waves near a sloping boundary. 5 .i.l !tA`1-`17-03 1� 96 FROM'ocso )MI N I D s 714962r SG PAGE BI 10 Future Studies There are two main areas of concern that could benefit from further research:cross-shelf transport and circulation mecbanis;ns,and accurate tracking of plume bacteria. C,zss-shelf trarspon and circulation mechanisms 1) The spatial and temporal variability of the intemal tide must be investigated in order to better understand the role of internal tidal motions in across-shelf transport. Field observations are needed to conclusively discard internal solitary waves as a mechanism for onshore transport of plume effluent bacteria. 2) Further dye tracking experiments,with a release outside the surfzone,may be useful to determine whether water-borne particles can be transported from the 15m isobath to the surfzone. If possible,adding dye to the effluent after the 200:1 dilution near the outfall may also yield profitable results. This latter experiment would need to be Timed with the'occurroace of spring tides. 3) The nature of the across-shelf circulation could be further explored by examining in more detail the coupled behavior of the temperature and velocity field.This analysis should include calculations of the mean across-shelf and along-shelf flues of teiltperature(uT and VT)as afunction of depth and spatial location on the shelf,including a breakdown into contributions from different frequency bands. 4) A comprehensive model of plume rise,ocean circulationi,and very possibly bottom and sea-surface atmospheric interaction is necessary to help synthesize the complex processes and interactions involved in the transport and fate of the OCSD effluent. Such a model,including the AES Power Plant plume and other sources, will likely be the only way to reach definitive conclusions about what proportion of beach contamination is duc to the OCSD effluent. Trackins of plume bacteria I) Ono important issue that remains unanswered,and should be addressed in future studies,is the question of which chemical and physical oceanographic measurements are suitable tracers for fecal indicator bacteria and for pathogens directly. 2) Good high-resolutioa time series data of some plume indicator other than temperature and salinity would be beneficial. This will not be possible for.. bacteria,but could be done for tracers,such as nutrients,as one (J.Largier)has used in other areas. Commercially available moored nutrient sensors could be deployed along the potential_pathway to provide high-temporal resolution measurements of a then-4cal signature of the plume. 6 I.1 Z i MAY-27-03 13 47 FROPS:OCSD F ;N rD: 71498203' i j 3) Although the objective of the current study was to demonstrate whether the oc= outfall was responsible for high bacterial counts in the surfzone,the probability that measurable but low levels(1-50 MPN/100 ml)of fecal bacteria in ocean effiuertt do reach the surf zone remains an important question to answer for all ocean outfalls. i 4) The possibility of beach contamination due to Ioeal sources on the beach should be Further addressed. Land based sources of bacteria are not restricted to restroorns, Talbert Marsh or the Santa Ana River. Bird feces,dog feces,seaweed,and soil on the beach,and marine mammals are other known,sources of fecal indicator bacteria, While bird counts and marine mammal observations have been performed in previous Huntington Beach contamination studies,this contingency could be more thoroughly explored. 3) A good model of bacterial transport and die-off would be useful.However, bacterial die-off is a difficult issue and quantitative die-off models are rare.One such model is the Mancini model(1578)that expresses a decay coefficient as a function of light intensity,salinity,and femperature.A review of Mancinf's data reveal considerable scatter,testifying to the unceawnry implicit in the decay rates derived from the model. However,the Mancini model does at least allow one to determine the sensitivity of coliform bacteria to suolight intensity.A more complete model of bacterial die-off would necesssrily be considerably more complex than.the Mancini model. i Editorial Comments The final report by the PIs should be written for an audience that is potentially unfamiliar with the issues at Huntington Beach.This requires greater clarity and more careful explanations. [a many chapters,shorter paragraphs would be helpful.The report requires a number of edits,the most general of which are discussed in this section.Detailed editorial comments arc contained within the appendices. The rule to follow is that a short j explanation should be stated for each statement or conclusion.The authors should pay close attention to grammar for all chapters.The executive sunnntury,especially,should be carefully edited for clarity,since this is the only section that most people will read. Each chapter should be understandable and complete unto itself,or at least have clear refer=ces to chapters where certain issues are explained. Some chapters are long with many subheading some are very short with few subheadings.Also,some important information is contained oaly in the figures and tables,making the reader's task more difficult.in general,readers should be informed of the experimental design of the study before the results are discussed.The document would be easier to read if each chapter had this structure: l.1nuoduction 2.Goals or Objectives 3. Experimental Design and Methods 7 V t I . l� MAX-27-03 23,47 FAOMIOCSr WIN rD: 714962�"i5b --• 4. Results S. Conclusions In Chapter 1, the objectives of the study must be clearly stated in a separate sub-,section (objectives are not hypotheses),and those objectives must match the charter as understood by the s.The objectives listed here resemble those in the original work order, which caused so much confusion at the last meeting between the Panel and s.Is the objective of this study to determine where the plume goes,whether it affects the beach at all,or whether it causes AB41 1 beach closures? This c'napter should more effectively introduce the complex nature of the study,particularly the bacterial sampling,to readers, explaining the rationale for creating the type 1,type 2 and type;violations and discuss how the authors would use these categories of violation to interpret results. Without an explanation,these chosen types appear to be arbitrary. Chapter 2 weeds a better introduction to the bacterial sampling methods,and should be organized 81onb the lines described above.The three bacterial violation categories are used in the discussion of this chapter,however,since the basis for these three types of violations were not clearly established;the reader cannot determine the significance of these violation events.In addition,Chapter 9,the methods section,could precede Chapter 2. Also in Chapter 2,combine the plots for total cohforrn on a sin,le page,one above the other,to shove the consistent M2 pattern and along-shore propagation. Do the same for each species.This will allow a clearer discussion of patterns and make Iife easier for the.. reader.Compare the timing of observed poleward motions of total coliform with timing of flood currents measured at the ADCP closest to the shore. The PIs should also plot tht bacteria data from lines 1 and 2 in Figure 3-16 of Volume 2. This would allow them to examine the question of sampling aliasing.The analysis in Figure 3-16 should be repeated for all the intensive sampling periods. It is also important to plot vertical sections(not 3D renditions)of the ammonium data like-was done for the bacteria data so that they can be examined for coherent cross-shelf structure. )E;eferences Mancini,J.L (1978). Numerical estimates of coliform mortality rates under various conditions.Journal of the Water Pollution Control Federation Nov:2477-2.484. Pineda,J. (1999). Circulation and larval distribution in internal tidal borc warm fronts. Umnology and Oceanography 44:1400-1414 8 i Ramos, Ricky From: Joe Geever ogeever@surfrider.org] Sent: Friday, May 30,2003 1:28 PM To: rramos@surfcity-hb.org Cc: Ssurfdad@cs.com Subject: Poseidon EIR comments Huntington desal EIR follow-up... Mr. Ramos, Please find attached a comment letter that Surfrider Foundation would like to submit as a response to several items that were discussed by the Planning Commission at the May 27, 2003 hearing concerning the Poseidon EIR. Thank you for your continued willingness to review and consider our comments. Please forward these comments to the members of the Planning Commission for their consideration. I am available to answer any questions you may have regarding these comments prior to or at the meeting scheduled for June 3. I can most often be reached at (310) 410-2890 and check this e-mail address routinely over the course of the day. Thank you again for your consideration, Joe Geever Joe Geever Surfrider Foundation Southern California Chapter Coordinator PO Box 6010 San Clemente, CA 92674-6010 (949) 492-8170 or (310) 410-2890 Please help our Mother Ocean by becoming a Surfrider Foundation member! <https://host.trustcommerce.com/surfrider/membership.htm>Click here to join. i 6WL' � 1 - TO: Planning Commission, City of Huntington Beach FROM: Surfrider Foundation—National Office DATE: May 30,.2003 RE: ENVIRONMENTAL EM[PACT REPORT NO. 00-02 (Poseidon Seawater Desalination Plant) Dear Mr. Ramos, We are writing for the Surfrider Foundation, our more than 35,000 members and 60 chapters nationwide. We hope to offer some clarification of our comments at the Huntington Beach Planning Commission hearing on May 27, 2003. First we want to thank the Commission for accepting these late comments and for giving them full consideration before making your final decision. As you know, the Environmental Impact Report(EIR) for the Poseidon Desalination Facility covers a complicated project proposal with multi-discipline concerns and multi- jurisdictional potential consequences. Therefore, it has not only taken us considerable time to consider all the potential impacts treated in the EIIZ, but.to look beyond the stated impacts to those neglected by the study. Given the dramatic and complicated nature of this project proposal, once again we ask the Planning Commission to postpone their decision on this EIR until all the foreseeable impacts are fully documented and responded to. Several questions were raised by the Commissioners during the public hearing and we would like to add our concerns for your consideration(below). First, we would like to clarify some of the discussion concerning the scope of authority resting with the Commission, as well as the separate duties in certifying the EIR. It is true that the project will be submitted to several agencies with discretionary authority to approve or deny permits for the project. In this context,the.Huntington Beach Planning Commission is constrained to permitting under the limits of their authority. However,this should not be confused with the duties of certifying an EIR. It is not true that these separate agencies will require separate EIRs if they find this one lacking in sufficient detail—as suggested by staff and the Poseidon representatives. We are not aware of any situation where a responsible agency has found the lead agency's certification lacking and then proceeded with a separate CEQA process. Therefore, the certification of the EIR before the Planning Commission is final and the information contained in the EIR will be utilized by the permitting agencies in their future deliberations. This is why we feel that it is critical to ensure that the EIR is thorough and completely assesses every foreseeable environmental impact. 1) The Commission raised concerns about the lack of any environmental assessment for the existing AES operation. There is the obvious problem of the Poseidon EIR bootstrapping, or in the Commissioners' terms"piggybacking," their desalination plant onto the existing AES generator permits. Relying on an existing permitted project for an environmental assessment may be in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA)in some circumstances. But, as the Commission pointed out, in the present situation,this EIR would be relying on an assessment that is not available. The Commission focused this discussion on the discharge plume. We want to reiterate that our concerns also cover the dramatic destruction of marine life that is caused by the AES intake and cooling water process. It is well documented that cooling water intakes kill marine life in two ways: a)by trapping larger individuals on the intake screens (impingement), and b) by circulating smaller individuals (e.g., larvae and fish eggs) through the cooling water process (entrainment). This is of even greater concern where there is a possibility that the cooling water process is destroying marine life that is listed as endangered or threatened, or species undergoing rebuilding plans from years of overfishing. The degree to which these cooling water intakes destroy marine life is a function of numerous variables— some of the more relevant here are the temperatures and pressures created in the intake and cooling process. In fact, numerous large coastal generators are currently conducting research to determine the mortality rate from entrainment. While inconclusive,the studies suggest that there may be some percentage of the larvae and fish eggs that survive the process, and that these survival rates may be correlated to exposure of these animals to temperature variances. Therefore, it is feasible that some percentage of marine life that enters the intake would survive the cooling process only to later be killed by the desalination process. Furthermore, this percentage of survival from the cooling process, and subsequent mortality in the desalination process, may be different during periods when the generators are shut down for maintenance, and dramatically different should the AES plant be shut down permanently—as would be the case in some of the EIR"worst case scenarios." Assuming that no marine life could survive the Reverse Osmosis filtration process, diverting 100 million gallons of water a day would have dramatic impacts on marine life floating.or swimming within . range of the intake. Therefore,given that there are no studies of marine life mortality from the AES generator considered in this EIR, and consequently no evaluation of the additional mortality caused by the desalination process, the EIR fails to address a foreseeable environmental impact and is not in full compliance with CEQA. As an aside,the Commission should also be aware that the US Environmental j Protection Agency is currently reviewing and drafting new regulations for cooling water intakes under a court-ordered consent decree responding to marine life mortality. The outcome of that process could be the imposition of new regulations that would dramatically curtail the amount of water allowed for cooling water intakes. Therefore, it is not only the occasional maintenance shut-downs, and possible de-commissioning of the AES plant that have a bearing on the marine life mortality in this EIR, but the very existence of a cooling water intake in the future. 2) The second issue raised by the Commission was the consideration of"growth inducement" impacts and the degree to which these can be specified without documentation of the"end users" of the new water supply. These discussions raised new considerations when the Poseidon representatives admitted for the first time that there were contractual agreements to supply 25mgd of de-salted water to the Santa Margarita Water District. It has been our concern that"growth inducement" should be treated under two separate considerations. The first consideration is a broader study of population predictions and the ability of the affected water districts to both meet these projected demands while simultaneously reducing our unsustainable reliance on imported water and local groundwater supplies. However, it is also necessary to specifically identify the recipients of the new supply and do a separate and more thorough analysis of local impacts. For example, the Santa Margarita distribution could possibly induce growth on a larger scale than water distributed to other communities. Furthermore, increasing impervious groundcover (e.g., streets,... driveways, etc) while simultaneously supplying more water to an area will have dramatic impacts on urban runoff problems—not to mention the increased pressure on existing sewage treatment facilities. These new pressures should be assessed within the context of the watershed that is being impacted. In the case of the Santa Margarita transfer, it is foreseeable that there will be potential impacts on coastal water quality at Doheny State Beach, an area already considered one the most impacted beaches in the state. These more localized impacts are only identifiable when the project proponents have identified the "end users."This type of assessment is currently applicable for the 25 mgd proposed for distribution to the Santa Margarita Water District. Therefore, we continue to assert that the EIR is inadequate until it more specifically identifies the "end users"of the product water and provides an analysis of the impacts on local water bodies and sewage treatment capacity. These are `foreseeable"impacts in the case of the Santa Margarita transfer. The remaining 25mgd distribution should also be identified with some level of"end user"so that similar assessments can be prepared for the public and decision makers. We still feel strongly about the other issues raised in our letter dated May 27, 2003. We also want to endorse the comments of our Huntington/Seal Beach Chapter which were submitted by Don Schulz. We are simply providing these comments for some clarification of the issues discussed at the hearing. Once again, thank you for your willingness to accept and consider these supplementary comments. This is a major project which raises new issues and concerns for many of us. a i We appreciate the enormous service the Planning Commission and staff are providing the community in ensuring the EIR is comprehensive both in its scope and depth of analysis. Please feel free to contact me about any questions you have regarding these comments or j any other subject. I will also plan to attend the hearing on.Tuesday June_3,2003 to answer any questions you may have. j Sincerely, Joe Geever Southern California Chapter Coordinator Surfrider Foundation PO Box 6010 San Clemente, CA 92674-6010 (310) 410-2890 jgeever@surfrider.org I I i 1 i i i -, C May 8, 2003 R E C E I V E D The Hon. Connie Boardman MAY 2 8 2003 Mayor n City p1 Hunti The City of Huntington Beach CityuntiCouncilt n teach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Dear Mayor Boardman: As a long-time Huntington Beach resident,I whole-heartedly endorse Poseidon Resources' proposed desalination facility. Recent technological advancement has finally made it economically viable to tap into the world's largest water resource—the ocean. Most of the infrastructure that is needed for this important project is already in place. The noise generated by the pumps will not be heard over the noise level that already exists at the AES facility. Additionally, the site already has industrial facilities and is the perfect spot for a desalination facility. Not only will Poseidon be a quiet, unobtrusive neighbor; but it will bring thousands of tax dollars to our city. These tax dollars will help pay for the upkeep of our parks and supplement our public safety programs. It is my understanding that Poseidon will also fund the widening and beautification of both Newland Ave. and Edison St. Huntington Beach will also have the opportunity to receive the desalinated seawater Poseidon purifies. Desalinated seawater is not only higher in quality than the tap water to which we currently have access,but Huntington Beach would also have the added benefit of higher water pressure. High water pressure is of particular importance to firefighters who rely on high water pressure to assist them when they put out fires. In short, Poseidon brings all of the benefits of a good corporate neighbor with none of the negative side effects. Sincerely, C/ Rich Kolander 21152 Strathmoor Huntington Beach, CA 92646 cc: Huntington Beach City Council Huntington Beach Planning Commission i i May 30, 2003 9332 Greenwich Drive Huntington Beach, CA 92646-3526 - CE, Randy Kokal Chairman Planning Commission 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Dear Chairman Kokal, I am a 33 year resident of Huntington Beach and spent 40 years working as a process control systems engineer. I am a registered Control Systems Engineer in California. I retired from Boeing where I spent the last part of my career designing guidance, navigation and control systems for space craft. I currently teach courses in process control systems at Cal State Fullerton. The Poseidon Desalination project is designed to use the current cooling feedwater infrastructure for the power plant. The biggest problem with the current system is the thermal elevation of the discharge water resulting in a rather large thermal gradient. This results in a thermal plane which can, and does, interact with the sewage discharge from the plant at Brookhurst and PCH. The desal project will use this water and the thermal content therein. This will result in the discharge temperature being lower than the current temperature, thus alleviating part of the current problem. The discharge brine concentration (salinity) will be increased due to the water being extracted. The amount of salt will remain the same as current levels which is the amount ingested from the ocean. In the early 1970s a desal plant was part of the OCWA Water Factory 21 at Ellis and Ward. It was an evaporation process which consumed extremely large amounts of fossil fuel and generated enough noise that it could be heard from our home over two miles away. It was dismantled and now is used in Saudi Arabia. This was replaced by a reverse osmosis (RO) process similar to the one proposed by-Poseidon. The RO desal process. is clean and environmentally friendly. It does not require the use of additional fossil fuel and the accompanying generated pollution. It makes use of the existing infrastructure and helps alleviate the current thermal problem. It is also a very quiet process and will not be a disturbing influence in the neighborhood. I am quite familiar with this process. From an engineering standpoint, and my perspective, this project is a winner and should be approved. Sincerely, I �Cb Robert W Harrison, P.E. r Ramos, Ricky rom: Don May Sent: Tuesday, June 03, 2003 2:23 PM To: RRamos@surfcity-hb.org Cc: Billy Owens Subject: FW:.Poseidon EIR comments LILJ Poseidon 6-3-03 Comments.doc Ricky, this is the response that went out last Saturday midnight; I apologise, I should have sent it formally to you on Monday. See you tonight. Don May -----Ori inal Message----- DearCommissioners and Planning Staff: Thank you for the opportunity to expand on our comments of May 27, and for taking precious time from your weekend to review them. You have been Commissioned by your elected Councilpersons to issue discretionary Permits. when you .:can find that the ;proposal would result in a .net benefit to the residents of Huntington Beach. All entitled improvements and projects in conformance with the General Plan.. , . and LCP are issued pro forma directly by Planning and do not need to come before you; only those requireing your discretion for approval are brought forward for your consideration. Since each action you take results in some increase in density or dilution of the infrastructure paid for by the currant residents, and therefore, some loss of financial investment or dilution or the community quality of life or increased extractive use of the City commons, you must be able to find that the net result is a-benefit and betterment to the residents, or else permission must be denied. The Environmental Impact Report is the source document, the compilation of dependable factual information you must rely upon to make the decisions whether the matter before you will be in our common interest. This is a heavy burden, one that is not conveyed or assumed lightly, a responsibility conferred by your peers on those thoughtful citizens of the highest integrity to be trusted with protecting and sustaining the quality of our neighborhoods .and the quality of our lives. It is a great honor and reflects. the esteem with which.you are held in your community. No less is the standard of excellence and completeness demanded of the EIR, for we all ultimately depend upon its' predictive capability to avoid the adverse impacts on our community or any deterioration of our lifestyle. That is why you must demand the full disclosure, completeness and accuracy of all information necessary to make the best possible decisions for the protection and enhancement of the entire community. Your Staff is provided by the community to provide you with the information, including the EIR, to make those decisions. If you need additional information, or documentation or any other data you feel will assist in your task, whether from your Staff, the Applicant or from the public, please never hesitate to ask. Thank you again for taking time from your weekend to consider our comments. Yours, truly Don May, President 'i'i. i CALIFORNIA EARTH CORPS 4927 Minturn Avenue Lakewood, CA 90712 (562) 630-1491 June 3, 2003 Huntington Beach Planning Commission 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, California Re: Poseidon Desalination Project Dear Commissioners; Thank you for continuing your consideration of the EIR for ' the Poseidon. Project until next Tuesday, June 3rd and allowing us to clarify our comments. In particular, your Commission has asked that we specifically identify those fourteen areas where the EIR completely fails to address substantial and significant issues that are required to provide the information necessary in order to make your Finding that the approval of this .discretionary Conditional Use Permit and Coastal Development Permit will further the Public Interest of the residents of Huntington Beach. If factual data is not in the EIR to support a net benefit to Huntington Beach, you cannot approve the Permits. As it stands, the EIR does not meet these criteria. i I. GROWTH INDUCING IMPACTS have not been addressed as required under CEQA or to the criteria properly described in 5 . 1. The 50 million gallons per day of produced 300 ppm TDS water vill supply 112, 000 households*, even without considering its' capability to dilute high TDS water down i to meet consumer standards. This new .supply of water will support new households under any analysis, regardless of where they are located, thus are Growth Inducing Impacts under CEQA that may not be dismissed in 7. 0 as Not Significant as stated in 7 . 2, Population and Housing. The EIR does not perform any analysis of this, as required. • The average household in Orange County consumes '/2 acre foot of water per year; at 325,851 gallons/acrefoot, 50 mgd will supply 112,014 households. � , i CEC, 5/27/03 page 2 II . LONG TERM CUMULATIVE IMPACTS WERE NOT ANALYZED. 5. 3 Long Term Cumulative Impacts must iterate, analyze and . determine if the infrastructure necessary to support these additional households exists; if not, how they would be funded, i. e . , fire, police, schools, roads, rail and airports, electrical supply and sewerage capacity, etc. In the case of Santa Margarita Water District, where Poseidon acknowledges that discussions are underway to contract for a firm forty year supply of half, 25 mgd, of their new water production, this would meet the requirement to demonstrate a firm water source before permitting subdivision of land. Since no other source of new water exists, by definition this is allowing new housing to proceed. Even if this Induced Growth is distributed across other areas in Orange County, it will still require the same additional infrastructure .to support the additional growth. Since Huntington Beach will .NOT be contracting for this water, it will NOT receive ANY Benefits from the Project while ALL of the liabilities and environmental insults will visited upon its' residents and City environment. For example, much of the exported 50, 000 mgd of new water will be returned to Huntington Beach as sewage, to be treated in an expanded Huntington Beach (OCSD) facility and dumped into Huntington Beach nearshore waters . How can this Commission Find that this impact is to the benefit of Huntington Beach residents? That is why is analysis is required in the EIR; absent this data, you cannot make the Finding and- so cannot issue either the CUP or CDP. III. HAZARDOUS MATERIALS AND POTENTIAL RELEASES 4 . 2 Geology, Soils and Seismicity, notes that the loose, compactable sandy soils of the top 15 feet are subject to liquifaction when wet .The water table is at 5 feet, subject to the tide. The site is atop the Inglewood/Newport section of the Santa Monica/Baja coastal zone of deformation, an association of en echelon faults running from Punta Bunda in Mexico to Holister just south of San Jose, where it intersects the San Andreas system. It has been determined to be capable of a 6 . 9 event, based on a fault length of 44 CEC 05/27/03 Page 3 miles . While this would most probably result in the plant, at least the .product water tank, settling into the soil. to. . the level of buoyancy and riding the "lateral spread" from . five feet above sea level to the water, breaking pipes, making product water unavailable for emergencies and releasing chlorine gas from the chemical storage area. A more probable 6. 5 amplitude Maximum Credible Event with a 50% probability within twenty years would cause liquifaction to produce a low head landslide, with the plant slip slidin' away into the middle of the Wetland. Even a 4 . 9 event, with 1/20th the energy, could cause settling, liquifaction and pipe breaks, with the possible release of chlorine gas. 7 . 3 Says No Significant Impacts are anticipated from Geology Soils & Seismicity; these disaster scenarios are dismissed and not considered. We consider the EIR inadequate, absent any review of these potential Geophysical hazards, and. suggest.: MITIGATION: Chlorine storage and injection area in the chemical storage building should be in a Containment Structure capable of withstanding a 6. 9 event or 2 g' s of strong motion in all three axes and fitted with seismic shutoff valves. IV. REMEDIATION OF SUBSURFACE TOXICANTS NOT CONSIDERED 4 . 2-2 Existing Conditions: i Soils contaminated by leaking above ground fuel storage tanks must be remediated prior to Plant construction: I, Methodology selected for the cleanup must' be evaluated along with release of toxicants to the airshed and fate of j toxicants scrubbed from the soil. F Ascon/Nesi Toxic Dump site. Apparently, materials dumped here before Toxic Chemical definitions and standards were established may be Class I Priority chemicals by todays' standards . Since the Dump site is located above the Project site and under hydrostatic pressure, the contaminant plume has probably reached the Project site. EIR must disclose which chemicals, what concentration and. where it is. t i CEC 05/27/03 Page 4 4 . 3 Subsurface Water Quality. Subsurface plumes of pollutants from. the Ascon/Nesi and Cannery Street toxic dump sites must be evaluated and methods of interdiction reviewed and, where appropriate., mitigation required. What do the core samples from the mandatory Phase III evaluation reveal? Why are they not included in the EIR? What remediation is expected? Has DTSC done a site investigation? Where is the Cannery Street Land Fill? What is in it and does it impact the Project site? How will these chemical plumes be interdicted before they reach the Wetlands? Where is there ANY discussion of these issues? DETERMINATION OF APPROPRIATE MITIGATION TO PROTECT THE INTERESTS OF THE RESIDENTS OF HUNTINGTON BEACH IS NOT POSSIBLE WITHOUT ADAQUATE DISCLOSURE AND EVALUATION. V. HANDLING & DISPOSAL OF STORMWATER. RUNOFF NOT CONSIDERED 4 .3 Hydrology and Water Quality. -2 The EIR is internally inconsistent regarding On Site Drainage: "in times of heavy rainfall, stormwater runoff is either released by manual valve (to where? Surely not the wetland) or pumped into the channel", elsewhere in the EIR, "pumped out the outfall", elsewhere, "contained within the 10 foot or 15 foot" (which?) containment berms . We believe all the above are the wrong answer (s) . The NPDES Permit required by the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board will -require Standard Urban Stormwater Mitigation Plans (SUSMPs) and Best Available Control Technology (BACT.) . We believe all stormwater runoff, at least the first . 75 inch of each storm event carrying the first flush of pollutants, should be retained and scrubbed before release. Of available appropriate SUSMPs, we suggest: MITIGATION: Applicant shall utilize the 10 (or 15) foot berms or construct a suitable berm to contain stormwater runoff and a linear "constructed freshwater wetland" containing rushes, sedges or other aquatic plants known to strip suspended solids, dissolved solids, pollutants, toxicants and other undesirable. contaminants from runoff, at the base of the berm enclosing the facility, to contain 1 CEC 05/27/03 Page 5 and .cleanse the first . 75 inch of any storm event, before percolation through the sands and into the water table . Pumps capable of removing runoff over the . 75' numerical standard from a 100 year capital storm into either the Channel or ocean outfall shall be provided. VI . INTAKE COOLING WATER IMPACTS ON THE OCEAN HAVE NEVER BEEN EVALUATED 4 . 3-3 Water Quality, Ocean. No data is provided for the AES intake. Entrainment and impingement of plankton depress the I "Indigenous Populations" and -shift populational dynamics outside the Zone of Initial Dilution, in violation of the Clean Water Act and criteria for issuance of the NPDES Permit required by Poseidon. Insertion of the Poseidon Plant into the discharge of the AES discharge terminates AESs' responsibilities at the point of diversion. A new NPDES Permit is now required by Poseidon to shoulder this .,responsibility; therefore, these impacts must be . considered, evaluated and mitigation recommended by this I EIR. No biologicals are stated or referred, no survival rates for plankton, bacteria, pathogens or otherwise, passing through AES heat exchangers. What will Poseidon do if AES shuts down? What specific criteria will Department of Health Services require? Minimum Conditions of Permit: Poseidon must meet Marine Water Quality Objectives and non degradation Policy: • Thermal Plan. Plant discharge must meet the State Water Resources Control Board Thermal Plan maximum 20 degree delta T without variance. • Bacterial . <10 E. coli /ml max; we believe DHS standards are higher. • Biological. Must meet non degradation standard; must demonstrate that a "Balanced Indigenous Population exists and will be maintained outside the Zone of Initial Dilution.,... • Wetland Beneficial Uses as a nursery to near shore biota must be protected. CEC 05/27/03 Page 6 We are aware that Applicant believes they can meet, and the SARWQCB will require these objectives, but the EIR .does not evaluate and the suggested- Coastal Permit does not require compliance, as a consistency determination requires. VII .THE EIR DOES NOT CONSIDER POTENTIAL IMPACTS UPON ADJACENT RESTORED WETLAND 4 . 3-4 Beneficial Uses : "No potential beneficial uses in the Project vicinity, including . . wildlife habitat, threatened listed, or endangered species, or habitat, spawning or reproduction habitat, no marine or shellfish habitat" except for the tidal wetland planned adjacent to the Plant. The EIR totally fails to address this fundamental CEQA requirement and is accordingly inadequate by definition . The Beneficial Uses described at 4.3-4 are those to be restored .to the degraded site adjacent to the Plant and are the criteria for .achieving "functionality" The restored estuary is an ESHA (Environmentally Sensitive Habi.tat. Area) and an Area of Special Biological Sensitivity by definition California Earth Corps has recently assisted the Huntington . Beach Wetland Conservancy in completing the acquisition of the Picirrelli Property, the last parcel required for restoration of 150+ acres of fully tidal wetland bounded by the OCFC Talbert Channel, Magnolia, Pacific Coast Highway and the proposed Poseidon Project. In addition to the $1. 65 million for this 45 acres and the $4 .+ million value of the additional 100+ acres private, State and County lands acquired, for this restoration, is the -$30 . + million in private, State and Federal funds committed to fully restore a tidal wetland. Present plans call for the completion of this restoration before completion of the Plant. This Commission has the responsibility to protect this substantial investment in our children' s future through such Conditions of Permit to this Project as may be required to protect this investment. We believe that Poseidon, as a good corporate citizen, will look favorably on these opportunities to partner with the City and with the community in protecting and enhancing, even with the custodial responsibility for the adjoining Tidal Wetland. CEC 05/27/03 Page 7 This EIR now before you is the source document the other Agencies will utilize to evaluate the appropriateness of issuance of their own Permits. Failure to consider the impacts on the Wetland may introduce substantive delays, even Permit denials, as Agencies scurry to fill the data gaps created by EIR oversight. EIR CONSIDERED ONLY THE EXISTING "SEVERLY DEGRADED" WETLAND and the resource agencies only responded to projected Plant impacts on the degraded fields. The EIR must consider the impacts of the Plant on the wetland that will be fully restored by the time the Plant is built . IIX. IMPACT OF CONTAMINANT PLUME FROM PLANT ON ESTUARY NOT CONSIDERED 4 . 3 Subsurface Water Quality. Impacts on the wetland from subsurface plumes of pollutants from the leaking fuel storage tanks, Ascon/Nesi and Cannery Street toxic dump sites must be evaluated and methods of interdiction reviewed and, where appropriate, mitigation required. IX. IMPACTS OF FUGITIVE TOXICANTS FROM REMEDIATION TO THE AIRSHED NOT CONSIDERED 4 . 4 Air Quality. Remediation is not discussed! The EIR acknowledges and the Phase II study documents that the Fuel Storage Tanks are, and have been, leaking; that substantial soil contamination. exists.. Where are the core samples and evaluation? (What contaminants? What concentrations? Where located, How deep, What volume?) Where is the Remediation Plan?. Should .not the Site be Remediated before the Project is approved?What quantities and concentration of toxicants will be released to the airshed during remediation? Release of VOCs during remediation should be addressed and mitigating containment required. CEC 05/27/03 Page 8 X. IMPACTS OF NOISE . ON A. RESTORED ESTUARY NOT CONSIDERED 4 . 5 Noise impacts on the currant degraded fields were dismissed as Insignificant, while the substantial impacts on a restored estuary were not considered. Wetland and shorebirds are quite sensitive to noise; sudden sounds often provoke migrating birds to flight, unnecessarily expending energy reserves needed for migration. Sound barriers such as vegetated berms are effective and can be made esthetically pleasing. MITIGATION: Sound Barriers should be required. XI. IMPACTS OF LIGHT AND GLARE ON A RESTORED ESTUARY WERE NOT CONSIDERED 4 . 7 Light and Glare: Wetland and shorebirds are also sensitive to light and glare. Birds migrating at night are often misdirected by urban lights, becoming lost or even crashing into things . Wetland destinations of nocturnal migrating birds appear as dark spots; when wetlands are inadvertently illuminated, migratory bird counts drop. Many just don' t make it to their final destination. MITIGATION: Plant lighting should be directed away from wetlands, which should be shielded from all illumination. II . HAZARDOUS MATERIALS (above) .4 . 8, Hazardous Materials Precautions for safely handling and storing chlorine. should have been discussed and the Permit properly conditioned to protect public health . and safety, especially through any seismic event. 1 J' i CEC 05/27/03 Page 9 7 .0 The Poseidon EIR dismisses many serious and mitigable Impacts are dismissed as . Insignificant: 7 . 2 Population and Housing: Growth Inducing Impacts are significant, have not been addressed, and should be analyzed at 5. 3. 7 . 3 Geology and Soils: Impacts are significant and should be analyzed at 4 . 2. 7 . 4 a) states Huntington Beach draws 70% of its' drinking Water from ground water aquifers, other places, 75%, still others, 66% . Which number is factually correct? b) probabilities of a 30+ foot tsunami every 100 or so years do not seem insignificant to us; while not particularly applicable here, the risk - and preparations to control property damage should be reviewed by the Planning Commission of all. Coastal Cities, .Mudflows in liquifaction prone areas with even mild gradients are not low; they are a near certainty. 7 . 5 Air Quality adverse impacts from VOCs released during remediation are not insignificant. 7 . 6 Traffic, transportation and Emergency: Chlorine spills or accidental release, with safety precautions should be analyzed. i XII. IMPACTS FROM THE PIPELINE AND BOOSTER PUMP BURIAL IN A NCCP CONSERVATION AREA WAS NOT ADAQUATELY ADDRESSED. I . 7 . 5 Biological:. Subsurface Booster Pump located in NCCP area must be mitigated for loss of habitat . We suggest: MITIGATION: Disturbed area should have all exotic and non native plants removed and be replanted after completion of water pipeline and Booster Pump in NCCP area with a palatte of as many indigenous plants as practicable with supplemental watering and care provided during the first year, -or until they are established, and with weeding out of invasive non natives and replacement of failed natives until the- Booster Pump is .no. longer required and has been removed. CEC 05/27/03 Page 10 Poseidon' s actions as a good corporate citizen and environmental steward may inspire the operators of the . other Booster Pumps in the area to do likewise. 7 . 9 b) Haz Mat Code Sec. 65962 . 5 et seq re: chlorine must be implemented. 7 . 10 Noise. impacts on Wetland must be precluded. 7 . 11 Public Services required by Growth Inducing Impacts must be evaluated. 7 . 12 Utilities and Services required to support induced growth must be evaluated. XIII . BUFFER APLEA TO SEPARATE INDUSTRIAL LAND USE FROM ESHA 7 . 13 Esthetics : A buffer between the Wetland and the Stormwater Containment Berm should be required and planted with a palatte of plants indigenous to the Coastal Sage community and providing public access via a pathway along the Plant perimeter bordering the .Wetland but screened. from it such as not to disturb birds, yet affording views ._and vistas of wildlife for residents and visiting school children. MITIGATION: Require a Codition of Public Access via such pathway to be designed and constructed in coordination with the . Huntington Beach Wetland Conservancy and the forthcoming Talbert Marsh Conceptual Plan. XIV. EIR FAILS TO ADDRESS PRESERVATION OF ARTIFACTS 7 . 14 Cultural, Archeology This site has.. been, a temperate seashore where people have congregated to fish and dig clams since time immemorial. The top 1`5 feet contains the unbroken record of habitation and human land use since humanity entered North America. We have been drawn to this seashore, to this site for over 10, 000 years . It is difficult to believe that no record of- our presence- exists, or will be uncovered during Project construction. We suggest a Condition of Permit: When cleaning soils during site remediation and when removing or moving soils during construction, all personnel will be alert for artifacts of human occupation, and to r � i f f CEC 05/27/03 Page 10 save and entrust all such items of interest to the City for display at a future Marsh .Visitor Center or. other Civic venue. 7 . 15 Recreation. Coastal Act provisions for Public Access and Preservation of public views to and from the site, of j seashore, ocean and Wetlands call for a Condition of Permit providing such access as suggested above at 7 . 13. With full consideration of all these inadequacies, errors and omissions in this Environmental Impact Report, and in the hope that a better Project, with fewer delays to fill the data gaps in the Record, will result, it is our request that this EIR be withdrawn, and a supplemental and correcting EIR be prepared, commented upon and returned to this Commission for Certification at a future meeting. Thank you for your attention. i Don May, President California Earth Corps i I I.,11.1-V Porter 1501 Westcliff Dr#201 Newport Beach California 92660 Phone : Homc & Fax 949 722 9166 Email : Duhhiett�h���'aol.rom Huntington Beach Planning Commission May 27 200; Poseidon Resources TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. Chart San Pedro Channel '. l.oe An,cles &Chan!7e Counties AAA Safi Pedro to Newport Beach Loc�ition of i)is; barge I'Inntc.- f)('S1) 4. Discharge Constitients- OCSD -t)il�t(irra .t 5. Rising Discharge Plume- F,PA 301 H Fxamhle 6. .Discharge Plunge Underwater-OCSD 7. Prescription for Worry-OC Register Sept 9th 2001 8. Huntington Beach Independent -Cartoon&E.litorial&Readers respond 9. LA"Times / Huntington Beach Independent - -Wave Goodby to the Sewage Waiver" 10. Department of Health Services John Cttrpltcy to Poseidon &Josie McKinley 11. 0C.. Rcaisr_rr .. ' Douhts Sink Some ��atrr 1%ral� C fficlals, Say Firm Seeking to Build Desaiin"160n Plrnt in Huntington Het 1; ISTI'' V\,"Orkin�7 VIIII l nourh Oversight" . Fly t ii 12. Daily Pilot . "Smoking Gun- Bolton ai;i P(:ricr 13. Huntington Beach Independent- "Plume oi't)oom" ala Porter 14. "Traeey of the. Coast- a, LA I'imcs . :-Marine Life Withers t.;rn r a Vi :!\e of 1 um.ut Caused Diseases- 16. OC Weekly--The 1•lonster" 11801 17 l0 7� — tl T Noutical.Milns Yards ' •000 D 5000 b � 10 \ r br S _—n 7� �y 4' o�Q�gIM1SE OF dadad i COAST AND GEODETIC SURVEY I I ,n1 ; ►o:,o g `. s e i s 4 UNITED STATES — WEST COAST 9 9 7 61 +: �E CALIFORNIA 1 1, 4 = 1 SPIR (� 101 9 6; 4 14 �� 11 101 8 6 G'°\6�V 4 k 33 let 10}' sEVA ! EMMY 6} 5,;a44 _ 1L L-2 IIU1 13 5 t L Mercator Projection g - z .—. j �4 % , sin - -Hayen 12 9' B / �\ Off, 43�-; ' - Scale 1:80,000 at Lat. 33031' F'sn Hc•rn /1 North American Datum-of 1983 ., •- :e --,min 10b. to(rtA min1;rms)' M1CC1 v N 11 Fl 4s (World Geodetic S)atotn 1984 14 9t ' �slaln.a.43 ' n�5 SOLTNDII�TGS IN I''ATHODiS 13 A , STACKS AT MEAN LOIi'Elt- Lc)1t7 N\".�'iLlt \ - - wo, i Y BNB' / `sie:% 4 ` Q C"IL U-1 4 •- 0} 9 f F1 Y 10s BELL/ 17 1 Pnvf 7 ,.\ 10 n0) 16 y ... R— 17 Obs1n:_; qb FI(2)R 5s. / 15 /14 5 , 12 :��} 7i \ R Tr O F;V 4a BELL / 11 47� 'O�srn 7 `, Si ,\� 43 �} �sl \,, BUILDING Nswperl Hd/hn A:'. 15 t /�+F+-'•(8'h Ims leP1 2` ` 21 , \ f4 12 06stri` ;r;;,,•: 199DI 6 Y 1 Hosp lg 16 , Subm buoy g'isP t 5 '\ 21 rna// 17 / "' J TOWER \ 16 S ' n 1541 i 23 22 14i ah, 1 19 i!18 17 16 , 14 ii 19 9 8 , 53 4 ' 14 4do�\ 7 \ e �\ 51 We 23 17 16 13 Qbsrn 11 C' SPIR! Bess/ 35 29/ 27 / 41 19 ' 16 ( 15 test)Haven �. i AtA I 69 i / 19 i lau�h15n 10,1mj ... 8 S/, 8 i 1"-`.. KERS Tow - 157 , \ f 17 IS / i / 9 ` r f Subtle buoy .1 12 9'. /39 r64 1 7 3i. �,•.. 23 21 kv 19 (15;tms rep ` �•. 8'�Qi B 42 1 / 32 p M 19 19 yp 19 f 16 13 '`• �.t . N �F i--� 7V / �� . Obs/n 19 6 `�' ! 11 I B 26 i Subm b oy 21 21 21 �_�•/ 17\ �ti I�_r ;C \ 43 \' ' S 23 / 34 a 1 �n \63 \ 23 a \ 25 2 31 J M 29 ;. �z 2S 5 9D 39 \ 1j"1ai; 90 107 R'4' 36 69 t._„Obsln 28 4 F7 R 4 BELL y I30 1 132 \ 42 r, Sudn uoy ` \ 9 / A/ i Sub ,buoy 9 tit) 75 ,83`\ 04� 86 t 132 5 dJ ''r 5; ms1ep1 29'. 1' r r 71 'Pl 35 12 117 I LOS AN( 1,ES S )RANGCOUNTIES E i Ihu ARf(51A SUER �► ' 11 r HERMDSA BEACH..... �! _-.� I . 's%� LUNV x[ACH PARK AND VICINITY 1 I1.n CERRITDS. - w TURRANCE INYrwvrsli )eWWao�y,1 „.. �, ; I � LEGEND P FiAR llurhn.,tlartiru<. } [^E �`,r OOMIN6U[2 �•�� IA[Mr xIE-, ,unr i..M REDONDO BEACH :=3 FREEWAY INTENSIATEIUGiWAY - - _ , _ - •' �' LI a i xkwA:+A ` s ANAH I r CY AESS � E M r .Y GARDENS it if--�,Jo u •`•n FREEWAY UNDER 1 r• •.. r.. - '� •xPl^ = I i aau r [ ara"f.R ' CONSTRUCTION s=� l01 U.S MCNWAY I oisres.r r c C.ti. P.,,,c r •: .,rr•:1a —y DIVIDED HIGHWAY IMAJORI m CALIFORNIA n[aKl LDMI A J - ��'� 1' .;;[;�.;,,� - �STAHTON i I• STATE IIIGIIWAY AIa;aA•u/•nu+ LI a I Mv0. WAIOv. •i,t s c N i .r11.• avi PAVED ROAU PALOS VEROES ESTATE$.!/ ••ry IS ' SIGHAI-% ' ILL ' R.. '.BRAN COUNTY HIGHWAY - HAKaOI •.S i V N2 LL tone - e ARx=Teae� LI /, ., ' xRL J _ 's GARDEN GROPE`[• ' S" Lru/;t'o.r 40 'il (CITY nn r b[RI[ CH!r PL��Y[ �.i —LOCAL ROAD IPAVEDI 6 -'DiHER STATE HIGHWAY r ROl STA IS o�jO ® ESIATLS lr. � x.xiw f!, 1R � °l •. L' �'• // I \, I - ..�GRAVEL ROAD I i 11v. N�+' 01. . ... L c..wx o.wt / .'t• �=-i STATE SCENIC MCMWAY Or, Yr Inl•1 Vrrda M.(„ i• cM' AOL IN' , WILMINGTdN :-�-• 'i"- BELMONi no,,.•, _ tabooVIJt _+ao GRADGDDIRr ROAD ROADSIDE REST Ll.nadR dR.- fR -hr>. ��; ' SHOR[ .N,•i•.•�'- wL111 :'' n [..... - 1 S �• C � 'y�xa'•"Ti '`[Uvr CIM1 b h'[t •< Ii1WM'nA'•1D .. �Y IHw+ln " ilx ...nrL: Vlr�►�j" T d - A'[ , �. :' 11 './P � 1.1 .•U.5 NAY A:-+ 1 DIRT STOW SiwNCTIONS S S 1 MrttF �' a.0 � � LON�'"�°y�'` > '+� ' \\;-+WESIMINSTEA s RANCHO PALOS VENDES•_ wgMetaS San Prdro" •P•'`r/ •`•.� d r Hce t ;•, y ' POOR ROAD - MILEAGE DART C�/IPOAtueV[S[ °Hill !! I/ f 8. Ai �.•, tiWCAe'CVS� a:as tad_:... ", aL %u c NRXIrC11M ,ILrdM1 JLNa / •.nilr mt w7i` •'' •. / , BEACH t [A�� ' MIowAT et uP ! LOCKED GATE r iL YK•01 SAN+ _ ,l I U'• MRFAGE BETWEEN DARTS (.�� �^� PEDAO �y A,,, .,..;Gru:!:' arr ^� �.-�t I-•• GnY SANTA +.• RAILROAD SWING lenp Plu off, �,A „a n 1or �T• Ant;ry�'1 tlertx>r - � SEu�Ew�m' .� -te�ea Av[. rdAen Avt CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY b• v i.l ar nr \ � _-A 5t MINE M PATXOLOFFICE � P 3\e+P+ ' ' (/\� �, /�+r�`°�"•'ro .. A a..�t. i ANA wI Id 'ios- v LIl /Yc+rZ G�., SUNSET BFAC NUXItNGTOM Q D I ` While PI. M .Hi'P 1f,1111tD1111� LL'a - HARBOUR " AUTOMOBILE CUM OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA IaXrnttust qer; / \ .ja.rl.l �, wl` Ir»t rLt••uay neon. Pl.fermi t RECREATION �T „,,:.,.r/ / dr (VALLEYN �'f _r j DARK • IMPROVED CAMPGROUND 'I� - F.. `• T. \\ 1•�e 1/ UMMPROVEO GMPGROUND . ;�TOU j s PUBLIC GOLF COURSE +o.rs aI •' •j•' �` PRNATEtYOPERATED \�,` CAMPGROUND av n PRIVATEISEMI•PRIVATE \ / HUNTINGTO iti++�COIF COURSE ♦ BOAT RENTALANOLAUNdHIO -\ ! c'T �. •¢•0Aa at JJJ"' -:% yC'. BEACH \ ,�—- - WINTER SPORTS AREA ♦ BOAT RENTALONLY t / % ftCOSTA AUTO RACETRACK/ A BOAT LAUNCHING ONLY ` / COSTA DRAG STRIP 5 / -M COMMERCIAL FISHING POND MESA ( A e k OF(RCIE WAY M. POR . DEEP SEASTFISHUW LANDING •�:...' - PUBLIC SHOOTING RANGE ♦ SUMIING ARIA �, `��` / `•_ `.. SCALE rY NEW RTJ BEACH ': coA % 1'' r.'�r D t a s e It MILES , \4 �,. - BALBO G COPYRICttT p 9999 I �^/ r ro[E•c TOMOBILE CLUB OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA MICS DEPARTMENT IrAIL STOP A375 •��: / •/- nlarAwuwl1a11D COSTA MISA nax �� S:� � � ' 1rN rrN � jt < �' N rAo •;r 1,a%.Cwern R. Cop t r„ • r „rw` -P -'"'� LTHI.Gi6rollDr i ' 7turfa, 1 \7r.,+ilb•hn.:,1!:: 4y� �/ � ' -'- Zf rixrn..Il'•;., »9 ACE i I / r,o Vi Srnlinal fF=;� Roclr, •, = M���I`rFbslil.i:[:[. .11'IIh,,;rr•,. / � /� �7 i poi irg '-'---'1 NM wtfMA Y,:x .� •. n y .9 frog Rock am ..rti � , t• - / / /. Wu111t1 PI�t <a ,i are Shown i k..��.r / �t ry[Lu 1, t, [ they are •. _.a;o `��.�-;=` r La ALO i ea covered l \.` -3 .. rtA.r SY dun �•A tone------ aide to Los L. CRcrpP all System China Point Pfak _t afSfO The distance between Santa Catalina Island Reproduction of thi: JewF;ah W. and the mainland has been distorted in any portion thereof cc SohM V. Canym _ '� ' order to show the entlra`Island. The i - infringement of eepyr • - tarr,l4ng :.• tuat distance Is approximately-.22 miles. 0 V . 4 _ 5 fi 7 8 9 � Disenuir L y . r.a•,.:,p o, �'T� ofvaon Of mane ! Sara 1 P A 'vet r , �7 •��, l 1 l 1; Y f.. i ! 1�1, l li 1 f;� ),r}! 1 . .♦ ., 1 �, �f 1 11 t t({ l r h, ITt{ 7 ,Yf�h 1 I , t• 1 �HOnt�n r ! r�Ly It• , I 't,a 1 { t r f)`y r 1 � S� 3� PLA 7 '! 7 '�'i t 1 r c � AES Outfallt r r l r � 1a4;xNl ��►�I�/� 1y t , + 7 t.4.�C�iGArh1 i' ' rt T 't f,ti � rt iq, 7a ry19 rl n+F • �` r,, } tl, +t�+r"al, t� � ` `i i.'it�sr Its/I��t{h� ♦_t•s -.1 `'ERG � `�{��;j Plume F frequently found r A p Fact Sheet-continuation Page 11 of 17 1211 BI97 DRAFT Order No. 98-5, NPDFS Permit No. CA0110604 County Sanitation Districts of Orange County Reclamation Plant No. 1 and Treatment Plant No.2 from the diversion of effluent flows to water reclamation, if.. the discharger can demonstrate that the proposed increases in concentration are consistent with federal 301 (h) decision criteria and other pezmi•tting requirements. To facilitate this process, the EPA and the Regional Board will work with the discharger to assess the effects of the discharge on the marine environment at actual mass emission rates and concentrations observed during the permit term. The draft permit contains the following effluent limitations for major wastewater constituents and properties, as specified in Table A of the Ocean Plan: : <<<: s:;Goistrt erg n y: m. r. Grease and oil mg/I 25 40 75 Ibs/day 61,500 98,400 184,000 Suspended Solids n/a As 30-day average, 75% removal from influent stream or 60 mg/I, whichever rate is higher Settleable Solids ml/I 1.0 1.5 3.0 Turbidity NTU 75 100 225 pH units Within 6.0 to 9.0 at all times Acute Toxicity TUa 1.5 2.0 2.5 The need for effluent limitations based on water quality objectives in Table B of the Ocean Plan was determined in accordance with 40 CFR 122.4.4 (d) and EPA guidance for statistically determining the %reasonable potential" for a discharged pollutant to exceed an, objective, as outlined in the revised Technical Support Document for Water Quality-based Toxics Control (TSD; EPA/505/2-90-001, 1991) .. This statistical approach combines knowledge of effluent variability (as estimated by a coefficient of variation) with the uncertainty due to a limited number of effluent data to estimate a maximum effluent value at a high level of confidence. This estimated maximum effluent value -is-calculated -at -the 99- pe=cerif confidence Zevel of_ the 9_9th percentile based on a lognormal distribution of daily effluent ,values. Projected receiving water values, based on the estimated I ' 'SURFACE . - DEPTH ' • ' : PYICNOCLINE •TRANSt 014 EC�N ZONE REED t MERGING j r ZONE RISING PLUMES HEIGHT- OF-RIm JOr ENT'RAMMEW wATER C t1RREElff SIP- dip., lip- 6 N Or--tl ,� h Lrm ' ir MINN- T I Cat. So PPACT' I Subsu oCe plmme 2040 M doss March-Nov be[ . (off Decembsr4anuory I'!lkft I '1r•1,y ti�nftf � l t 'il luJ r�� J4���IO X1�1'0.vNa � Gi15�11� �!h 4'.M 1 �. � - -•.,..J 14:1 dilution within 200 I11N:`•r,ak i �ntl 'r�+d'� tl l ��r 1�.�v r.,,.l' .eat 14of l"� 1A +ref�1Ujfdj 4di�Se * �iw�L, A der., ,�I. ,r.•,r. �n'1: •F:.,r L.i,• ,,. ", •� 1 , �' i ��� E!lr����t'i I��7`�j����d q'I'(t i �' Mlyj li CIF i ^ � 1'h���� �K��i i i(�q ��� I � � � �5C 1(• I 1. r - tl�•yT {� f�dr`!a t'i (+!' 74r ��• rF` ('11Y4��l`k"r. I', r.ilrl` r.Pip.����� , . .. •1;rT�°i, `I 1 4 � 41,'�'�(,y�i'' "li`1�f,l i,y I .+'4' 7tJ}`JW • � � •' �•' tiMl. Sn.� �at�� t' r pr �'�l�r'htlil S,�C r �4i`4�`,�'� �l��� •. . . . �. �' ti.."..'.`'r�... .. 3'�yt! r,5sl',tuy �,, ,1}��,,,;,r.�"' '.��1'�ul��r. ltll'�1: •. S -9-Zoos . •TI 1T ORANGE C,OU N ! Y Prim: Sundry —j Orange Countyfs information snuree since 190S•"-w ocregister cam retionfor w. o • Pharrnaccuticz-Os pass through our bodies and into our sewers. ` . No.one knows how rousing that water- might*affect humans. - - ` " ms_�hodical.�h�ige-aftei.. e osure The waiver In allow amml in-' AI T[RI StrORZA urd dumping of minimally in bhorainry studirs at ` • "It's a major problem Wait Tre•nl University in Canada, onlyfor fish,but for . le. The Orange County Register wrath. And, al,e is raising Chris Metcalfe exposed sai Dave Schubert of The ' • wrath. And, a $GOU million A mysterious stew of drugs - •plan'to pump highly treated aquarium fish for 100 days to Salk Institute for Biological which have passed.unmetabolited, waste water underground to._ the synthetic female hormone. Sciences.He points to studies through the human body-cascades replenish .Orange .raiintv's ethinylestradinl at levels as in Europe linking.high hor- into America's waterways drily. Drinking-water supply is cars- low• as one part per trillion. moot levels to low sperm Antibiotics,- hormones from ing eyebrows. Officials ap The male fish had coin counts in human males,-al- birth-control pills, chemotherapy proved the first stage of that sex reversal,he found though such studies arc hotly agents,blood thinners,anti-inflate- plan in March. . Ethinylestradiol is used in debated by scientists. matory drugs, beta blockcrs, anti- `The question is, what is birtb-control and estrogen- 'These' are : things we depressants, caffeine, nicotine and the impact of Injecting very replacement pills - medic:- haven't thought about." said thousands of other pharnt:ccuticals minute concentrations of all liotss people take every day.It Gut7lette.-We assumed,once 0 • sorts of different compounds has been found in sewage out of our bodies these things • into the ground water?" said waste water in the United were no longer environmcn- and "personal-care products" arc Christian ground cad wz cr?on,chief' Kirsdom, Germany. Canada tally active-that once they not removed from sewage by tndi of the U.S. Environme ntal and the United St:tes at gent to the sewage-treatment tional treatment processes. Scien- protection A en _ftsb-feminixing concentra- _ plant.we didn't have to worry lists have found them in treated g. cy's OII" mental Chetnutry Branch in tions,Metcalfe said about them. waste water that pumps into rivers La5 Vegas.-The normal dcg- Something similar was hap- But with the reuse of wa- and oceans all over the world. radation processes that hap- petting In alligators in Florida. ter, this is becoming a real :. The chemicals occur in tiny con- en above round arc veryYoung males had shrunken concern.And it's not going to ecntrations-so small that the tech- featly attenuated bcloi genitals. There was a sharp go away as the human pop. ' nology to measure them has ground. There are many 'drop-off in the number of alli- eaterged only in recent years.But - ator that hatched. ulation increases- NGA these low doses may pro- fewer bacteria,no sunlight,so 6s • impact wildlife and lead to things can last a lode, long In a controlled experiment; found) y. P time. Guillcite and colleagues col- a •.more resistant strains of bacteria. What's the significance of lected alligator eggs from rd- ANTIBIOTICS - that?I don't think anyone can atively clean lakes and coin- . No one knows how it all affects ad them with -eggs Antibiotics are also flush- humans,or what the dangers of answer that question right F ce g now,, exposed to estrogenic them- ing into the sewage system. so many drugs mixing together When antibiotics became Said Louis J.Guiltcuc jr-a troy be: teals at levels found in some widely'�4aHabic in the '40s, professor at the University of they were hailed as miracle Every day, Orange. County's Florida waters. Result: The ey Florida: Florida scares the heck sewage-treatment plants pump chrmical-exposed alligators drugs that could kill bad bac- out of some of us; teria while s about 270 million gallons of � developed the same problems paring healthy waste water into the ocean,none of r e as alli tors in the wild,while human eella.Use has soarrd:2 . which u screened for the presence it s similunknar t heaped ap 4 P rail similar 'toilet-to-tap" the-clean"alligators did not. trillion pounds was produced of pharmaceuticals because no such prole as in Los Angeles•and At the University of Cali- in 1954•more than SO raillion requirements exist San Diego.Orange Count}of- fornia,Berkeley,David L_Se- pounds are produced today. Only 150rcriillion gallons gets two fiei:]s say that won't happen disk here been analyzing waste Bacteria have rallied their water-from sevcnl-Bay-area• - - •natural dctcnscs to-fight this - , levels of tintrneot,as.rr IL 6err= - - - scwage-treatment plante- Be onslaught. Today bacteria quired under the Clean Water found concentrations of cs- have grown stronger and are Act; the remaining 120 mil- HORMONES tmgcnic hormones compare- tougher to kill than ever be- lion gallons gets just a pri- Ten years ago,John Sump- ble to those that cause femi- fore,and many steins are in- mvy level of treatment,re- to and his collcayares in the nination of male fish. Even creashigly unfazed by med- moviog mainly solids, United Kingdom noticed that after the waste water received icine's fiercest antibiotics. because ofawaiverof the law sorsrething.very strange was. secondary sewage treatment, 1 . that's up for renewal in 2003. 4 happening to•mate'fish that designed to remove-organic swim in waste-waterefllucnt- material, 30 percent of the Thrvwere hcrnmir,,.fo -1~ hormnnes remained. r '' • This bodes ill for human European scientists have source of Orange County's .heen far ahead of their Amer OLD WATER health,warns the II S.rentrrs driokiitg neater s+tpk+lY•. for Uisrasr Cmilrol and Vie. ican cotwtrrpmils in rrvratrh -11%r %millirrit Califorttia lltrrc is ttu new water,offi- vrntinn. '11n• ClIC estimatrs hilt Iltc issue,partly hcransc wwrr syMcm I not.really vials stress. "11te planet has that between 50 million and denser cities and older scw- been thoroughly studied with been recycling the same stuff 150 million antibiotic pre- age systems make the prob• rMpeet Io these other com- for about 3 billion years, and scriptions every year arc un- icros there more acute. pounds'said-UCI's Ogunsci- what-runs through rivers to. needed- prescribed to treat But the U.S.Geological Sur- tan,.1 laeent seen a lot of day ran through dinosaurs, colds and viral infections that vey is trying.to close the gap.' talk,in Orange County in par- docin birds and wonlly r-am- antibiwics are uselt-ss to Its Toxic Sul+stances I lydrol: tirulrr, about the.chemical ' fight. ogy Program has been anall-z- components in our sewers' moths millions of years ago. Not all of these medications ing•dozens of American wa. By the time the Mississippi arc fully melabolized in the lcrways over the past several TROUBLE? River reaches New Orleans, body.They pass into sewers years to figurc out what's in its,watcr has been consumed and arc released into oceans them. Detailed results won't it was little more than 18 _ and expelled 'some seven and rivers through treated be released until winter. But months ago that the EPA's times,they say. and-untreated waste water- Daughtonco-authoredthepa-' The human body is id de- and via urban runoff from an a technical said Ill brit per that focused -America's signed to handle toxins. said , farms,•where many cows and year. scientists sail they've eyes on the problem. Corn- Guillette.But he worries that of the 100 com- d many chickens arc even more over- foun Alex combinations of phar- we've pushed things toot far.pounds they're testing for in medicated than humans. maeeutials and 'perso- "We've been exposed to Several studies have found American waterways, from nal-care products" arc toxins for cons,but the thing that bacteria in waterways caffeine to codeine,antacids, continually entering water- that's different today is the near sewage-treatment plants chniesterol-lowering agents ways in quantities that rival number of kinds of chemicals ressants and birth are resistant to a wide array of anti-dep agricultural chemicals, he out bodies are exposed to ev- antibiotic control iormones including vanco- include& cry day; he said. -In the mycin,one of the toughest in This harm a is 'particu- 1960s. (the book) 'Silent _ . INTO THE DRINK early troublesome" because Spring'was concerned about The arsenal USGS researcher tarry marine life is exposed to it 24 a couple of-hundred them. in Chical,•n, bacteria from Barber hours a day, seven days a icals.Today,were being ex. wild geese were found to be Week,generation after gencr- posed ib tens of thousands of resistant to tetra cling in shampon from a sca- ry hen- a o-trcatmcnt plant in Los anion 1-mi means unnatural chemicals every day,and that icillin,am icillin and c hro- 8 F t soap is so complex. P M Than:rs could accumulate so m tin peoAngples in.Pir waneoaredby 1 y `It's our N-k in try and fig-. Y ducal• that the. would rc- Spain. bacteria down- Whir .r in 1 ire chemiceraal and y tire out which ones we nerd Pa main uietlrtt•+'te•d until Ile• stream of a waste-wa_ danger r. ,Ba1ir chrsaid, ut t :ascadcd into profound,irrc- to pay attention to,and as sci- . ter-treatment plant were shows our,Barber said,but is versible change - "change entists•we're doing that. But shows that these chemicals more resistant to numerolts are entering the drinkin wr that would otherwise be otter- we're trying to catch the antibiotics than bacteria up- g g- hutrd to natural adaptation: horses after they've been out -stream.. Stich resells have he wrote: of the liarn and running been found all over the world_ ter supply. I The iesearch to date has around for decades. These "The sewer hai•become a A German study discovered c-,amined this chemical or chemicals are released into selective pool for all soils of that as well.The water cycle that ►uit no one has any idea the environment-with little cvolut'ona advancements was truly completed,said m t ry. understanding of their cco- for all sorts or organisms." searcher. Thomas Hebcrcr. what ha when a1l�tbese The same drug that originally PPms logical impact. or purr said Dele Ogunseitan, a pro- low-dose drugs mix together- lie-health impact We know •fmsor in the University of Passed through someone's 'if you take pollutant X. it almost nothing• about what C-•+lifornia, Irvine, Depart- kidneys was found in file might be onc-tenth of that M— happens when they mix." ment of Environmental Anal- drinking water that went into quired to have any type of ef- ysis and Design who•re- someone's mouths. fcct,•Daughton said. "But if- ---searched caffeine in•waste All this raises questions you also have pollutant Y.Z- .Contact Sfam at 914 7%-6910 or water from the Irvine Ranch about reusing water, which .A and B-and their modes of Water DistricL Orange County is poised to action are the same or very , do. siri�-you have an additive + -If+cc'rcaddintantibiothcs, The introduction of effect that could be'detee- we're selecting for anti. waste-water effluent into table » biotic-resistant bacteria, and, drinking water aquifers and Daugbton has co-authored that may ultimately prove surface waters as a deliber- a book cri the topic,just pub- very dangerous" otely planned activity is be- fished by the American coming more common,' UC Chemical So6cry and Oxford DRUG STEW Berkeley's Scdlak wrote in an University Press. article urging caution 'But Most cgs are detected in Also found in waste watee while an increased reliance parts-per-trillion and ibuprofen, cloftbric acid on such water recyclitg may eoncentra- (from a cholesterol-lnwering be necessary to stretch a parts-per-billion, opposed to other pol- lutants,salicylic acid(from as- scarce resourcc,the potential which are usually pirin), tranquilizers; prescr- health and ecological effects measured in 'parts-per-=H- vatives,herbal remedies,vita- of exposure to chemical coo- lion.`We're talking about an •coins taminants are not well under eyedropper-full in a lake In japan,live oral polinvi- stood..—Their presence in rc- aid Sedlak rus was found in sewer and cycled waters raises broader But that's not necessarily river water. in Germany, 36 -questions about the risks and comforting. "For some of different drur.were found in benefits of water recycling theme compounds, it mates sewer effluent.And the f1cah and our approaches for antici- sense that low doses can have ' - - - - pating the emergence of new_ -profound. _impacts,", said of carp,perch,eels and other contaminants' ' Herbert T.Buxton,eoordina- - fish 'downstream of sc%v- Local sewer agencies don't for of the USGS's Toxic Sob- ' agrtrcatment plants• con- test effluent for the presence stances Hydrology Program- tained high concentrations of of pharmaceuticals because "Hormones,in particular,are • the chemicals used in per-' the eompounds'aren't rcgu- designed to be active at-those Fumes, shampoos, detergents laced, and no tcsting•is rc- law levels. and sunscreens. quued.But in the future,such 'there are many different testing might become routine. implications of all this There scientists suggest.The Santa are questions.We don't have Ana River is primarily many answers." r_ Gr NTI B - EA CHDENT INDE z� �'o► HV N GT0N A gooa clean BOLTON �{: � .� is J .�" Y •• �y. .•declslon: f - r :: :. theslurunaof7999.whencon- f�: h6CityCouncildeserves -•s` u t. �. �'•• stant beach,absures wrecked usual- r ,f.,.• ?, ,••:applause for its decision rF Y, ly iofitabie.t>rjdtuhsforikrwntuwn S1•` r' r eprlier this month to P '-�a� businesses ` lump aboard the grow- �5. : For tesidants who go to the r.c r•. ��p }Can of coasts[cilia that• ;being�bie to go in the water .k'R t•� .,'tng co •.. ''F4.. a.. _.plats iQCppOSe a bell federal Waiver J,; :z-ti:yiJ t v —let alone sit anywhere on the y�r=;, a+. L/ allpa+aag the Prange C•otmry Sanita s don District to sand they like—is part of why re r�.• ;f RUNTINGTON EDiTORIAI pump pariially b thcy,live in cnicd that ljoy and obenefit,they '•kip B EVr treated sewage 4 1/Z undo off the city's shores. may as well live in Missouri. } •For the"council, decision . •k ie waiver,which is serto counc ,when a / i Wll benefit all consttuents,the " r in 2003,waz grant ll i i h verdict might seem an easy one. ed to the district bythe Environ- mental Protection Agency;Without But it was still a bold one,as it it,all 236-million gallons of sewage Joined only Seal Beach:as early the district sends into the ocean opponents of the waiver-(Just this each day would have to be treated week,New Beach added a fully.Now,half of the sewage has third,influential voice to the only had-the,solid waste removed. opposition.) -Thewa]yeS'trivirotunenialists say, ;.-'Now,this trio of cities needs to �stt� J•. (✓ W"aNAva leaves'#'hte v0th baeleria. , work on other,non coastal towns r H `�rla'• y o` '< Huntington Beach leaders,.resi- to get aboard the waiver battle. ;d&its and ti isiricss nwncrs all have Come November 2002.when the s '}'� ;e 'many tfasotis' to want the water to sanitation district will decide y `.:be:at 83 an as possible. whetheatopush for the waiver's •Fos',the city's businesses,the continuation,the coutity's tides will importance of a clean beach and need to be united in opposition.it water.was clearly dcmonstralc�J in will be the right thing id do. .•...r�,.,�: •' READERS RESPOND •~ FltLl SU(T�° , .. . .•... oa . t�tiesue;'Do you agree Will nr•nth•Iluritln ton Retch and N-,vrrnrt ....-- ). !leach vuled. -the cigj'decision to fight the The mayors of Carden time.west- 711 .. waiver that allows partially nrinster•Los Aimnitoa,Rutxu!'ark, treated sewage to be dam CO Fullerton.Rea.Yorba lirda.Ccrritns, g P Anaheim,Tustin,Santa Ana,Placrntia, intoits-coastal waters? orange.Villa Park,U Palm pre a,Cyss• Fountain Valley acid-U Habra should be �.T,he sitswer,Is tuts dly has already spo- contacted by their cid=n(s and aslsed to - kenr.(11te:dtycotmcil]is unanimous- vote against the aaivea.• fq?gainstthcyalven� Fullrccordaryiswhatae'havem The waiver allows SOSprimary twat- demand the Cihih a Courity Sardtation Dis, ORANGE COUNTY EDITION scent otth4d lueciFsewage to,bedumped. trict io go to in coinplianee with.the Clean "•l3itD, OCean.:a�:i4:i:.)..4• • Y WlltefAcL - y •✓ SeEGean WeteiAct demands full sce•:: ' EILEEN MURPH Beach •h ng el Ca Ll`t ttt"•!1 ,'.wdary treatment of si wam Full secondary. ::Huntington tcincar98%of the sdidaof the sewsge. s '• iiivasu(r. scrrr�tnre ir.:aot--- _ —••..... .. ,before d[sc7tacgtng it Into the ocean.Sou• - Following the mandate or the Clean_ — ondary:trestment also greatly reduces Water Act of 1972 u the mWmum that - -pethogens,.which are bacteria and viruses, - one should do regarding aewagc trertmenit..: ., - - - - and enhanoea Furth&proecuing to mcinim. the w2iver eIluwm us tv arcvinvrnt ttu:and muse die resulting fresh wuter. . . - 'What is needed now:is for all of us minimum:one or the b(rz w t of recent leading this who have friends and family in limas h proactive.Doing lets than i)w min- turrotmding cities to have their city court- imam is r--ro so less than active and any- clla vote apinst-Ihe waiver, think hot pru. All that is needed is 13 cities to vote DON MCOEF �j against it and the waiver will be toast.Swl. Huntington Brach f, . tC SEP•t 27- Z001 ORANGE COUNTY EDITION cc oo , Aa ero ` Qim . oa rat ht,er>ft.rywUn„6MM« T H U R S D A Y, S E P T E M B E R 27, 2001 Carvuarr=KCt7Zhyt stir HUNTING. TON BEACH - INDEP NDENT ON THE WElk WWW.HSINDY.COM _ FOR THE WEEK QF SEMMSER 27-OCTOBER 3,2001 SERVING THE COMMUNITY SXCZ 1955 + Irndeper+dent • Thurtday.Septerstbe•77.2001 A9 NATURAL PERSPECTIVES _ Wave oodb e to.sewage waiver e w7nt to 4Kpruss our disinfecting sewage effluent before des• tact will have to upgrade the treatment prosecution that bears the burden of thanks to the City Coup- .. charging it. level.This will greatly reduce the proving its case.In othcs.scros.a oil for doing the right The council.we're happy to say, amount of bacteria that is discharged dcfendanl has to prove to own inns thing on Monday Sept. N agreed to look at his ideas too, into the occan offshore of Huntington cencc.In regard to sewer discharge,it 17.The council voted unanimously to t Public comments from the audience Beach.but it certainly won't eliminate makes a big diffcmtce v3o burs tl„r urge the Orange County Sanitation Dis• ; on Monday night saw speaker after it.To do that.w•e d need to disinfect burden of proof,The sauauxm district trice to upgrade its icvcf of sewage S speaker address the issue—all in favor our sewage before dumping it ai sca,as says that ifs discharge is act get mg t, treatment.something everyunc in of upgrading sever treatment.Must Ls done in Santa Monies.Thai's certain. .the beach and it doeestr't,i=on chang. Orange County deserves. speakers framed the issue in terms of ly something that should be considered. ing its ways until oppanets prove thtt . Of the seven yes votes,the one cast the infamous waiver.Whitt they're Huntington Beach is-Surf City then:is a problem.Fmoanmemial by Peter Green was even more signifi. VIC LEIPZIG AND LOU MURRAY referring to is this:most communities USA.'We live in a beach town with groups,and now ptewrmbiy the city ill cant than those of his six evuncil col• an•niptirud by ih,•('Tenn 1Vrner Act to ialll'uxu of heach visitors per year suul I lunlingtemu(leech,fed tie t.-hunk,i kagues because Green save on tee inadequate,treatment process.This tss• give Ihcir sewage full secondary trial• numerous beach-dependent businesses. should be on the distried.Thw Li.il.-t bard oldiccctots of the sanitation cis• oluthon will tx delivered to the sanita- inert.But here in Orange County.the Naturally In Huntington Beach water treatment should be upg:ssdcd unlec trkt as the delgatc from Huntington tion district.Ralph Bauer also pro- sanitation district has a waiver from the' cicanlincst is mmit to Godlires;s.Bacte• the district can prove bc7ond a xhadw Beach The sanitation district staunchly posed language for adoption by the federal Environmental Protection rim in the water makes people sick and of a doubt that there is no problem. defends the current level of Iratmem, council.Unfortunately a few,folks in Agency that allows theme to get by with is definitely not good for business. Very possibly neither side vial be•abic which is to treat half the sewage with the environmental community misread giving secondary treatment to only half Peter Green is a dedicated environ. to provide absolute,rock-sdfd proof. secondary trcuricnt Lind half with only his proposal as an attempt to water our sewage.This waiver results in a lot mentalist who wants what's bat for his Who should win the dchate in that primary trestmemk So Gran's vote was dram the mayor's resolution.In fact,if more bacteria being dumped into the city.Yet he has been reluctant to tea? in our opinion.in esse of doubt. a parieadatty tough one.Our thanks go anything,Bacter's language was even occaa - upp6=the waiver.How an that be? opt on the side of saksf Prctra the to Grin especially. stronger.I1c thinks—and we agree Tfn:catchy slogan-Do us a favor— I les a rational•dsuughdial scientist. erovittxvtt Rot. Mayor Pam Julien Houchen put for- that even secondary Treatment may not Get rid of the waiver'=proses many Can't science resolve this issue?It .V C LoraG aners d LOUter!sn n s2 tier 3_ ward a wog-worded, -wor ,formal resolution he sufficient and that the sanitation dis- peopie's wistimcnis.Without the waiv wn comes do to burden of proof. ,con Such resdenti and etrwe erer•.aysts T-ry opposed to continuing with the current. trict should investigate the possibility of ere the Orange County Sanitation Dis. In an American court of law•it's the _ can be n idmd at-dev=g*err_^ Le. State of Califomia--Health and Human Services Agency Department of Health Services _ Cgfomh • ff+p.Kn-ent or - . Nnith EeMoes "�•�'Y DiANA M.soNTA,R.N.,Dr.P.N. CRAY DAWS i Director z.-. :a.*q ,- doxernor August 6, 2002 Ms. Josle McKinley, Project Manager Poseidon Resources Corporation 3760 Kilroy Airport Way, Suite 260 Long Beach, CA 90806 Dear Ms. McKinley: SYSTEM NO. 3010 110-ORANGE COUNTY DESALINATIO14 PROJECT This letter is in response to your letter dated July 10, 2002, and our subsequent meeting to discuss the letter and inspect1he proposed site at Huntington Beach. Your letter was in response to our May 10, 2002 letter in which we raised several questions regarding 0s.10.o z the project. The proposed Orange County Ocean Desalination Plant will be located at the AES Huntington Beach,; .L.L.C. power plant., .We have reviewed the supporting technical material included in your July. 10 letter further supporting the Report titled "Poseidon Resources, Orange County.Desalination Plant: Watershed Sanitary Survey Report prepared by Archibald &'Wallberg Consultants. - Conditional conceptual approval is hereby granted for the Orange County Ocean Desalination Plant at Huntington Beach. . The conditional conceptual approval includes the following treatment process.: chemical coagulation, flocculation, filtration, reverse ! osmosis, free chlorine contact time and chloramines. The entire treatment process will be granted 3-log removal of Giardia and 4-tag removal of viruses. Following the ".Department's policy on multibarrier treatment, the Orange County Ocean Desalination S Plant will need to provide 0.5=1og inactivation of Giardia and 2-log inactivation of viruses. Final approval will be granted through the issuance of a water supply permit allowing construction of the-plant, its operation and delivery of potable water to the participating water suppliers in the area. The Domestic Water Supply Permit application needs to be submitted to our Santa Ana District office for processing prior to construction. The following items were.addressed in your letter: 1. Poseidon indicates the toxins associated with poten'Hal red tidelaigal bloom episode(s) in the waters around.the plant intake should not pass through the various treatment processes. The information you submitted indicates that the proposed treatment process (chemical coagulation, flocculation, filtration, reverse osmosis and free chlorine) will remove the algae particles and also the biotoxins from the water. Your review also indicates there are no cited He%ymr Do your-pat to help Calfcmla save-enargy.Toleam.mwe-about saybW energy.-visa ft following web 8W. www.cpnguffwrenerayeenter.2WWmclexhtrrd Scuthem Gallfomla Drinking Water Field Operations Branch,South Coasts!Rogron 1180 Eugenia Place,Suite 200,Carpinteria,CA 93013 (805)565-1326: (805)746.8196 fax Irnemet Address:htiplhvww.dhs.ca.00vinsldttwsm/lectmlcat+dwnl¢ fndox htrn Ms. Josie McKinley Page 2 reports of toxins problems associated with ocean water desalination treatment facilities. You also indicate if a problem were to occur the treatment plant could be shut down. Parameters need to be developed which would trigger a plant shutdown.. We will, require that a monitoring program be developed by. Poseidon if it is shown to be a problem. Based on the information contained in your letter we do not expect this issue to be a major obstacle. We however request that a more detailed report be submitted validating your conclusions. We also feel a study needs to be conducted which verifies the blotoxin is removed by the reverse osmosis and disinfection treatment processes. 2. The additional information submitted indicates the pretreatment filtration: process to be provided ahead of the reverse osmosis membranes Is adequate. A modified direct filtration process is described, Flocculation will be provided in a basin and in the pipeline prior to the filters. It has been shown that the reverse osmosis (RO) treatment process does not remove all virus and adequate disinfection (CT and free chlorine along with chloramines) is needed. -The process will include about 5 hours of free chlorine contact time. If additional virus removal credit is requested through the treatment plant or reverse osmosis process, a study will need to be conducted. 3. The proposed piping modifications to address the source of bacteria and ammonia in the intake vault must be successful in addressing these contaminants. Fallow-up monitoring must document that the source has been permanently removed. if these modifications are not successful in correcting Y the unidentified source of bacteria and ammonia in the intake, the Departmert s position concerning the level' of treatment needed will be different than that which is outlined in the Sanitary Survey Report. The Department will require 4-log glardia and 5-log virus removaVinactivation if the -�- intake coliform and ammonia levels are not reduced after the modifications are completed. 4. There were recent news releases which indicated the effluent plume may be responsible for some of the Huntington Beach area high beach bacteriological results.. The Orange County Sanitation District (OCSD) is reviewing its 301 waiver to full secondary treatment along with providing disinfection of the wastewater treatment plants ocean discharge. If it shown to be a source of bacteria-, the Department will require 4-tog giardia and 5-log virus removal/inactivation for the desalination treatment plant. 5. Poseidon submitted additional information on the complete list of 'other chemicals in the bearing cooling water" which are stated as "not toxic to humans", along with the chemicals being adequately diluted in the intake water to the reverse osmosis treatment unit 6. Poseidon will need to submit a plant operations plan which must adequately address the notification process that is to be used to assure all "heat treatment and non-routine operations or discharges to the cooling water" will result in a plant shut down to prevent these waters from being processed • .:•�ji4 Y I••�•\o n I Ms. Josis McKinley Page 3 through the desalination plant. You indicated that the operations plan wilt adequately address this issue. 7. Poseidon's project team will conduct a study to assure that the disinfection byproducts (DBPs) that will be formed as a result of the water supply from this plant do not interact with DBPs of the water systems.receiving the water and result in a shift in the make-up of the regulated DBP constituents causing compliance problems for the systems receiving the water. The study protocol was submitted and is acceptable. 8. The facility will need to be permitted as a Wholesale Domestic Water System. The water utilities receiving the water will need to obtain amended domestic water--supply-permits,--Poseidon will need to--apply for a domestic water supply permit pursuant to the Regulations Relating to Domestic Water Systems. This includes the submission of: • information necessary to comply with the Technical, Managerial and Financial(TMF) Capacity requirements,-----,-----. I • A Water Quality Emergency Notification Plan (ENP), • An Engineering Report describing how the proposed new facilities will comply with the treatment, design, performance and reliability i provisions of the Surface Water Treatment Rule(SWTR), i . • California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) clearance information. Plant operations pian. Permit provisions for similar projects include but are not limited to: • Submittal of plans and specifications for Department approval prior to construction, Compliance with the Surface Water Treatment Rule (SWTR) — including the treated water turbidity; disinfection residuals and CT levels, • All water must be treated—no bypassing, • Complete water quality analyses conducted by an approved laboratory, • Adequate corrosion control, • Adequate cross-connection control program, • Updated watershed sanitary surrey every five years, Mandatory use of ANSifNSF approved chemicals, Raw water bacteriological monitoring, Certified treatment and distribution operators, Ms. Josle McKinley Page 4 Submission of monthly operation reports and a report after the first year of operation detailing the effectiveness of the plant's performance, a list of any Violations and a list of any needed additions or operational changes. We suggest that you review our website at www.dhs.ca.gav/os/ddwern which lists the California Drinking Water Program's rules and regulations relating to domestic water systems. If we can be of further assistance, please contact Mr. Frank Hamamura, District Engineer, Santa Ana District at (714) 558-4708. Sincerely, ,John Curphey, P.E., hief South Coastal Region DRINKING WATER FIELD OPERA TIC?NS BRANCH CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SERVICES �n t� DEC ILf ZvvI December 14, 2002, Saturday . SECTION: Local i THE ORANGE COUNTY DO LENGTH: 1053 words, RX-1 HEADLINE: romution n in°° 0 'wwv veom Doubts sink some water deals H Officials say firm seeking to build desalination plant in Huntington Beach isn't working with enough oversight. BYLINE: By JIM HINCH, The Orange County Register BODY: A tiny company seeking to build the nation's largest seawater desalination plant in Huntington Beach is raising questions among some Southern California water officials who say the company is little more than a middleman that has misled officials and worked without sufficient public oversight. For the past two years, Poseidon Resources, a 7-year-old Stamford, Conn., company staffed by about two dozen former power-plant developers, has been locking up exclusive agreements with coastal California power plants to use.the plants' cooling pipes to draw seawater into desalination plants Poseidon hopes to build. Armed with those agreements, which essentially shut out competition, Poseidon has approached local water agencies and begun applying for development permits. Company officials say that when they line up enough customers, they will hire engineers to build the plants. Two years ago, the company signed an agreement with AES Corp. to build a $230 million desalination plant on eight acres adjacent to AES' seaside Huntington Beach power plant. The desalination plant would produce 50 million gallons of fresh water per day --about 8 percent of Orange County's total drinking needs. Company executives said their business.model, a public-private partnership new in the,water.industry, saves.money because the company can pick the best- - and possibly cheapest-- firms for specific jobs. Poseidon does no construction itself and hires others to design and build the plants. Water agencies benefit from the company's willingness to shoulder the financial risks of Large construction projects, executives said. Once completed, Poseidon- silts either the fresh water or the plant itself to the public agency. Officials at some Southern California water agencies, however, worried enough about the company's approach that they either backed out of deals to.buy water from Poseidon or asked the company to guarantee more public oversight of construction. Kevin Wattier, general manager of the Long Beach Water Department, said he allowed a tentative deal with Poseidon to.expire because "they're not an engineering firm," and Wattier saw no reason to "pay someone an additional profit' to build a plant that the department, using technology it is developing, could operate for 20 percent less. Wattier also said Poseidon officials approached him saying they had an exclusive operating agreement with AES' Long Beach power plant. Wattier said he checked but found no evidence of such an agreement. Tony Chavez, AES general manager, said he had no exclusive agreement with Poseidon. "They've got a good game going, and I'm not going to get in the middle of it," Wattier said. "If they can fool others, that's fine. They're not going to fool me." Billy Owens, Poseidon vice president, said the company had "a preliminary agreement to explore the feasibility" of the Long Beach site, but negotiations got derailed by real estate complications at the AES plant beyond Poseidon's.control. , Owens said Poseidon parted with Wattier on friendly terms when both parties realized they had philosophical differences about"a private party participating with a public entity." Wattier said Poseidon's experience in Tampa Bay, Fla., where a desalination plant is nearing completion, also gave him pause. There, two companies Poseidon hired to build the plant went bankrupt. Tampa Bay Water, the agency that hired Poseidon, ended up buying the company out of the project for$10 million and completing the plant itself. Koni Cassini, finance manager for Tampa Bay Water, said her agency is satisfied with Poseidon's performance and bought the company out to use tax-exempt financing to lower the project's cost. Poseidon President Andy Shea said the companies hired in Tampa went bankrupt for reasons unrelated to the project. That the plant was completed on time and on budget despite setbacks is "an excellent example of why (Poseidon's business model) is so resilient," Shea said. The Municipal Water District of Orange County also recently backed out of a deal to buy water from Poseidon_in_part because the.company's_contr_of over the project made it difficult for the agency to "know if we're getting a good deal or not," said Karl Seckel, district engineer. �-~ Various water officials have considered building a desalination plant in Huntington Beach for years, but were hindered by old technology that made the cost of producing drinking water prohibitive. In 2005, when Poseidon intends to start up its plant, it would produce water for about$.800 per acre-foot, the amount two families use in a year. At that time, the district expects to buy water elsewhere for about $600 per acre-foot, Seckel said. In San Diego, where Poseidon seeks to build another 50-million-gallon-per-day plant, local water agency officials asked the company to sign an agreement guaranteeing public participation in selection of construction companies after agency board members voiced concern about lack of public oversight. Officials from the San Diego County Water Authority said they plan to buy the plant five years after it opens and will have final say over whom Poseidon hires to build the project-- though Shea emphasized that "we own the project. We're selling the water. We're building the project." Shea said water agencies are wary because their industry moves slowly to embrace new technology and methods. "We do have a different approach. Sometimes its accepted. Sometimes it's a huge threat to the established way of doing things,".he said. Owens said the Santa Margarita Water District recently signed a contract to buy half of the Huntington plants output-- a crucial step, because the company needs commitments to buy before it can secure financing. Poseidon will share information and consult with customers during construction, Owens said. Owens said Poseidon has made desalination a viable alternative in a region rapidly running out of water sources. The Metropolitan Water District of Southern California "has been talking about desalination for 20 years and nothing has happened," Owens said. "We're not looking to make an egregious profit. ... We believe the costs are competitive." (714) 445-6688-or jhinch j f �� j � 1 : 1 1 �./ �'^�•� � � � Jam.` i�•y } sin1 f � \v 1 rj + 1 :I r'•9a• t R., t l�. i f t r .r .l:,' .,i.� �!/• lit��i✓t �� f I'• r •� •_'.'� � P1/'4 � r/.4.��. •+. fir~, t.,� ti3;, � — I.�" ZO: lop �1 '�Y . t Fit,. :k•-r.! .�. •�:i• ��' . Q. .• f. ply,. 1''��y>, � �✓ a{ . �.' 4,� .17• `� , ' , �i�> r• , :its� •tr' ' • r 'i ,s�• vA Ef a 'j sr • r Y a3+`Ya r r. f -N Yl'{ ��1 sirr.►���51td'y' ,;��d w�'j�' li•/n�r 4wri\rtty+ �+ h 1-r �ba1� Yh7:'V G.tw�jti,, 'is '�.� yr.�3••�y„�wd�>t��d,t� �"� +k t. ':...'.%,_�"Kr 7'1r«�fi'. SftP a'�tSu'' ti,.•:t.��r4! '��}It � §r.ttiA,.t�jn,,(�r�i- r:. !-4Sl:.y..,� 9 l�:•����r rU�" � T-:3ti�f �r�w'a' r - yti•�'"4:�t r �4'�i• ` ' y t a r'.'r`3��" 'r jr sy�r Sr1Ynr �Y�_i '�•'l^1L+��ii � r tip i mil} e1�!�..T t�•�,�t�a .1f4� k , 3s''��...r .;rP�+��a;ri:r� ` �7� , ��. `�fit;'' ••;- � F�. �. zdnz, OkA'NGE COUNTY 18"D•ITION. ' . . e 41, o - A4 : . � � t>,LTheioteraenwwwUt[titsmtt — ",� ;.... MOI�IDAY;` JULY'.1., -2002:�. =� Com,e,rrrooveoo"rraass socl> Ari w. r -•..,;t., - _ ..,s.,,,:.: r--•-.e.+•.•-+s:ass._. ,e•.•.•,a' .,,w• -':.•.•1'r' s:'�: iacv a�lle;r ju =iIs" - O R A LT '., r '.}'- ifr.xJ 1. r•r'�,s ^-. :•,, .•j ) ).. •- a4 .y. �,..:: .,�••+;f_ - - •SECTION .•Y�. .y ,•j. - :�; ��� v, .. . ' :•Vi it +e•i. - _a":.-lT. • _ !'i' 1 'r •'S. a,rrr .'twin /:{'y` �. - t c.: �c��.y.-- '�,ti•y �K•} 2 �..:, s7r�aki+i � ,,-�'.�•��3y. '•1' ..`<4r vt.1t a i =+- _ '4_ + '.£"hS�err.+�•s` ai •r,.' II. .+s ,�^ f!:.E?' .rj?•`� 'it` •� oroc _ ,.�,�}��, �,..�°.��:=ITaS Ange{'¢s�imef; �.,-�; ,:�.�-� �..* n� `.• .�, .`��......�._���;•.,: :•� • LOSA✓`CELE5TISILS OC MONDAY,JULY 1,2002 811-, Commentary Marine Life Withers,Under a Wave of Human-Caused Diseases By C&M GBAYDAVID6ON number of marine,epidadr_s has„erpilft the devastating marlae called the'rain forests at the sus a erred wastelands,a perfect toedi Oeank oral Atmaspbers Admfcds been burning through populations-.outbreaks.Fbr years humans have to algae-covered rabble-Tie pus- for microbes Were turning our tmb— ' t it hardy news that the of sea Creatures to the point that also been flooding costal waters sle of this massive duwff wu coast into a giant peal dish,.a'_ A century before. Cousteau ocans are to trouble.Afterextinction th eaters some species. .with mstrients Agricultural nmoff partly solved when a team of scien- pathogea•fdendly eavironmest in•opened our eyes to the wondrous aka, ifs been'more than Same of thtse plagues are otd from 5eids and giant feedlots flows fists announced recently that'it whlcb microbes flourish at the a• world beneath the wave,and the three decades since the and well lacwq reawakeatd with into rivers and eventtany fends its had Isolated the agent responsible.pease of sea life. destruction we're causing there, late Sacgoea-Yves Caul unexpected virulence.Others are way to the seen,providing a veri.., for one of the diseases the bacte- It is possible to return our the father of modern pathology,• taut 5rst tatrodu ed millions of awed by pathogens new to sci- table smorgasbard for diseases then.Serrutia rnarresems. The coastal waters to health.but it will Rudolph Vi chow,wrote that'epi- televE+on viewers to the glories of coca After years of specubdim'causing organisms name may be usi matu•,yet it is require action on a number-of demics ass &e vznposu from the •zaderaea world and to the two recent nodies go much further This overabundance of nutri- not an exotic deep•sm pathogen fronts We must fight global which the statesman of stature an havoc that'htmmaaa bad already be- than ever in implicating bumans in eats—and the introduction of hu- but one commonly found is human warmatg by implementing the read that i distrbrict has or gunyfrvalor g ten marine t ie this'marine metademic.'A study titan Sewage in some places—plays feces and sewage. Kyoto Protocol and by Etopping cur red in the del '+kcal of his . .ver.the old Flem��man-cl- v:blished recently in the Journal a Critical role in the marine meta- The list of human msWLs to the the abrud dithering aver whether nation that not even e•relc:s poII- the-M hirself would be shocked Science suggests that ocean waters demic.Take the Case of elkhco ocean goes beyond global warming the problem even exis'A as the tics an overlook.'It is part time to by the rr*ditions we've created in heated by global warming are al- coral.This magnificent branching and introduction of nutrients We Buab administration continues to beed the many vntery sigmpavts the omm today, especially m baling bacteria,fungi and viruses coral was once the mast abundant averfish nearly everywhere,ek - des.We mtsst taelude agricultural arerling eats that all a rot Tell in the coastal water,the she-and bays to repraCrce faster,and range tu- led-building species to the Carib- toting herbivorous ash:that-once-rmmff under Me Cl&n'Witer Act nation of the sea j where moei-per*uirmetolnow 'thee, ),.;cheumd.by'-the older._.bean.Now ftis Virtually wiped oat kept harmful algae-in eherlr We-increase the number of marine pro- and enjoy the sex.Tbx waters cooler cycles of climate.:ir"­'.' .+. ' The result is an ecologiW caters-.dram wetiande and dredge Chan-'tected satutuuia where aquatic Qsba Gtnq Davkbmi c eutho;. are sick and growing sicla by the Global warming playi in mupor�`'trophe a Shift from Spectacularly* nets and huliots,.ttaaiog cleat.�fife Can regroup foam human.as- ,:Fire in the TSrs 1k Souse'(PtJ3lic day. fm tecm3'}ears,a starthag teat role,but it alone doesn't htUy'•biodivene coral rertae aometizoes aandy-bottom areas into mu*-eov- sadtr and fully fund the National..dUaim'=A, : e .a.m;-, t {tr1 :}. 11 T.) 3:4 y..7+} ,.�� � .7 r•{e rig f� s ^V f' ! { 1, ;Ik�t � �, - � $i �.;;'• tj ,,/,t t .. �:7 y�..,lf i t'3 7 �y i>: c, -� r'"<•a�(- , �r �' ,,:7;) ,ruJ ,,.�, t•.p1 .., ,{,,,�'n.. ..,.i a,'l,{ yv,. ,t 7•r 'r` !� �t ��11- t? rta .:r �j " '�.`',t.+� ,.��;.:, .Y^n .;. E,•.• i.r• t+'Arr L:,. �� i� 4 }t 7 �,al �"�" 1,� :�. .('•tt!� „t+ s•t '��.. r.,. 'n'. , id t.+ ��1 •'.G. -�f�!�l f ra. }, .I..�.� ,.I't'�fY"tty -J f u � •^��t -'.,ar,$,Fn .) :`' :� � .•1,l.'r ;l;ft r'=t>;6'•1�Fn .t, 4 (<•���lt�$ {, ,;"� �.�� (t, I ,.�F t rS,+,'!!'.( "r'� .� `!•n. �t� 15 ....A,; � 7S fi.' y j t la,�/. F1 7 r t;, .. ��t'S•u t )q_ � 7�) tit i r t •:r�}}.` .n.• 4... (:.,rr ^:i�w Itt 4 ,.,r; �� :.� :4vv S(,!4t , > �I , �_ '; am...�s.r,..,. ttV„tyV,.77t �•uy.,' A'ti T. R L �.rl t• ..'! ..�V•3.1 r'�fli?r`4t 1. t :t •A". it•rs d'{{tf - i� �•.i �r.{ -n t i.i �' d};,(' t -.n.• V�.I.O frf1�".t�i -{�t����� t. ( a t,V Llfd. iS. ,r ;R 4• I •1� h .. �,}:l L :a'�-i 'i';{•{t, h ,: tCr; t:K t: �lr. { -1 ,. rt n?.• � + �r 7 r•o d t...,a� „. � d i„''�"^f�Ya`t.•t�:bv F,t ,. ,:! (.,�,, ��l '' ... fD�dN. �s ,. 'f.' •2�R? t1� � .. i�/Yl( kt- .�19 .c a'x ,9, '1 . '`�` ./ S,� ! (.a a, /'l� '"lijt,i:•' gTr jrplars•ev �3yt.: r. Ilk �,�µi.�{Nit{1'j ,'}r! i.it;'tS � 1_:,•' II, t�r g •,j,.d. 'j {S.t .�l >'', ,, ��"�, K :•y it .E�ti• '�1:.••;I q '�. .[2�;l�g.it� +�: { `.P f .. Y (ft ,1.;,,1. '' tr' ;'� f�„r{,. `t r'��i' r7�" p:,. 7A.� { t'J\ ':r• t r ��{�{�' '4 C h. �l4''^'!i� Y. .�+i'•� �! tr{�Si •,Gr t 1: 4 ..Y. .. •y+y(lµ'a�tt �.1 #p`7 .: :..,7 �.� }! ..Ut .!! Ji(I'� 'i:rs-:.rUa -^M L b V r t :1! 'SY ,.5. i;.!•J, { ;rdd. {f It.. :i. Sj `�t {•' + ( Y �irhy�(ik.�✓! �'bN r' _ rF�'t" �;.y '4..• l r"�'. t .if.,r+ •:u, ::� t, 1, ' �:.t`s f� i tX, ✓1 °p::� :F3{�(�•�� �i ' �1, k. � Ar>�a (' ! _� y_! r n 'i:.'.4t.�1`;.t s. j s{{{...,ip;.d 1 �Uuwty .. •trf"c;7`.,1'• ) t 'L;(.'��7�}jt',l' ���1.%T'r:-'! �Pt'+�7 n :tk' '! • 4,i ,.;, ..i 1' �i.4',17 *tr{ ., '��L.j p.., �' r2^.,r„ .r r�' � � ,h •�Qi••L 9f ,,{�^�:t ;,` e'�tj{.•9 t?: t�,•f.� r 1 :i�" S,.u,t' r .i.. •:1 E- �"S",�SOt , t {,! ;�,� r,`1'','�4��. «r,,r j` ir�{� ..t• ,,�h., ttNt� 'P�r :; �r� .•�;'.rp: �t n.,. �.:,` t. ',. •.; n:: t!!, •1{I, f`i �YI',t � b � . , HS t ,,; ti, 1 �'•�t• .:� 1,. 1• 4 •p'1 ,. M . .2 :'� I \i 1 'M. } 'l- '• ,N'1 S ;4 INn l''F• Et., n, "m ,.�•, r'• t 1 F is+:? i', � :;r•. .t?i.�: th d ,.1. tir•,:!:•,{ :2 r,rt.. �� Wr. lt. ,,M;)' '.; ,'i 1 1 y. t tt�typ t.. �n.U�lip71 i,S$`,�(1,,7 ,�'. ;�t:ty(,I li.•.}: t, p.•'/., •i ,ir j I..v, r' Ve �;. NY»dF?�t.,pyi}{ki, .f,i s `,;, t c' 1�.{�IISW'IN' i•«,::..1 v ,ty:��!'17l{7th :i; °i ,gA.7t1 I S,tH�1 1L 7 Jt';1 1 f ly' igY.�.e It,; '.i' �N.•mt.. '•"'�m^i,, 1 to 4�t � .,i c 7, i '�til{ �I %r � `�V::E orlt� C t1'`t• .'":T }�S.!. z, ` FO 1 t i.. Nan t., n.�tt.i,!.t -'• q (\• 'ti:. 'i � �'t: �`..,t ,tn,"00.t,'��i. rk`I `[,: 4 'i •,,fie �r �� ;�.' 1 !}7,.,T. .. '. ,�'Gr fi It t[( l l t,�, }^y 7 r lya '°"`i"dttj +1 }4,, Ctj 7 tp�'�C• � }I ..,iii't.,,! �: 1 l�:vs.t,1'ti' •,r.+`�t'tl fr_ .. ♦;`'1 •vi:�t'•} 6� �� t! 1 r`K �ty. � � 14� Fi ,f.. i,yk, ,,� _ t7, �. ,� r;-ti �;;� .er 1 F - (`�':� '� 1 f •,�'• ,i'a1�rJ+'r� _ tra-� EE .t• � i :S (f i.. ♦�: ��r1� f 7�'3'C' ,` r El, .i r, 1 F•. .r'.-r'Rf y t :�, y } .,.a ^•:,)f� ir.r. ' - F rf`Fr1 ';• � (Y,'t�-'tl' ! °a::� i 1{. T)ts. S '^:Y tin ..v � .°�.:�..+r •d,°Sift..•lr,,,- 1 "';i� 1�t ;ra ! ,i` � ��,r;.�}t� ��; i . • �,.Pvr:jt�•��y( h�pj �1,•... 1��,, t t. r-t•tilt'{ , �{ t.1• ;1t r t - .. }1 q�Y'� �1' , t L'r.i1.�161�d�.i, yp� a}•t;: rl" ( i. ...` , •i•�.. 13{ r. 3�,+ ,.y+.•J,1 7, t; 1•s ,'1 :;E,r u.,;r: 'rr"'�'T,,r.,• .?.: a c G, 1. 7 ; - '�d', s r t•: st:i}'.;' s:r112.,',:}:r�7 a _ 'b 7 0 t � ,.. ,a•t�r a*fi' d d a ''1t.L14 �t .1 ` aCj7E'7J s4,t ,vJ n t 1 , 4LrC ,p7 { ��; •• �^' c'. �Ij tVTq?t.:t. •,'a hr t :r,�'rdt/�,'�J��d�! F2,I��' .l� � n i ,i `[,'i f t ;�: ; ...... .. +,��� !�i•t ;�t+,';:}',°il ,Y,._l� J 1a• t{T: lair`t,T"gy irti j7/,� li 1g r." i?t' {.' .. r. , � Ir,�1) �1���j,1{1y�j1)fA,Sa �ii';i1. r,(?'c° Ii � ,� .� •iP{�.:)Y 'r: r. -tL,2{� I {t . .'a•v''7••- �! p. .. /. ��i5�i��11ii ��!'6"7.1 :1,••t� d 1 ya,V .,t• � i�J. A1,. ':.1,14j y,!,Yf� fij��,.7• d t� C ly!.�L=� J(r .. ... .� � � ��FI��E�t`'t. a i\{ t Y'4fQ`�'iY'•: •�: 7,�..1 ,F,, r,. :t. t,r.'• ..1',v, ,�{ Sal.al :� , Jt•t�L•!. ��� r.: ! :•ti i. t;-'' �*{}'�; ..3 1::.eN, .,r,r�.5; ,•/� tj Y7. �t. �a t:ii' V -, ' •->t'.:. {r' },.;yv,�o :. Vj,�}- :r..�•M1 t,. ,� .,rt� .:/ , +, 2t l t •:t.th� µAI 'rnr „"i ( i �� 1{� }Ir�r. 'lr d. j'• 'If �• i r •• � ,� ., �'•'1„�cji!'i}�j 1 � ' \�•'1 , M �p r f', !1 ! ;t �`t byI}11;'I�,�tl l � •' � ��; I - ,K r1,tt`t.��'T�(#. � `i(�jry���,;� ��� p"IPA 7.;9� yy t •:� t .�;�� 1 V tJet 7f �r.l•7 3.. (( t - .. ., .. ��if_i�1�YC r..t�:��.'.�,:��u�l..u�}..:��rnMir �{ J�.�•_� rr '{ n' yip.•-J ` X � :� F , • t'v.. .i• t, X 1 .,t, �•�71-_ {}a. .�.,1 {f {,� T��� �` ,7/ �, I•�, t�l,yr 1 1 .7. � .. it�S, ,t? ' r� �'. qq i.. - t .. tyi't1 Vh'flr•'yq��'n"`1Y2_ �'�j�r.tLL"Yl" :�3: yr Y + r ',:,i ''.T.t:`JF� mow: � �F .� t !•, t n4 S' � t,+' •�n.�,1d�1 .. r���p�t,rt{r�fj�����li't JS�.� �•�� ��i��'� ' r ,+:.rn t t t: '.;.;1 ' / t" V:.:�:,. .• I7 , , G4 'W 1 �jt{Fvl�l(.eS �;kl fJ, {' tj t.,.N 2 � .{ + �. •>, �� � r r-` 11{ w4. tktV. ,ttr:itv�74 t. 't'�.. ^t rt ,S, ,.,i /7 �Ilr f::V v:,•)';71 (..,,1 w<' j.' IV 1 t. �•.`>,, ,. ..,. ,rf ap,�� :{t 1`er VS 1 ..J :,,..) ) tyillY t t �r;: {.14,r 4 h,� ,,� F' '� �• 7f:•. ,'t' Lk p� "�:::; J }7 t�r� t .....�: .l ,r:`•;({ ,t+ t�' � S. t' ,i ' p y{s..{t C''' •+� •; i' Itbq�ro¢ 'i, t,� Ott �r v.• .. .�r��i�e�t±' { trt�ib� +':tti\+�S�a�11�1�'. 7� ,� �{{ �• :.'�.',•� {� t ,+. t ��v, t.: � � .`F t, j V ,. S •�R t .t '�'t '��'ty tt^•81f ' .'L - .. ,i' ,��„,�I •`a '1,', y+„y h \Y. �X r �,�\, r,`1�,,.�r t•'� ��{.•,.�1 'Ca:7 t r( ,t "1 S "¢�t1 � �r3LL�ria� � v c�' Y �;�":, "_-I� p'1 f rrd ,r,J �t :+" p• «!,:t r. j4 i}s.7 Eli 1 I:tu t` �"� r3 7 rTi `�i. ��� t:•' ! •��S.c t !'�, .elf/•..l a..:' l •v' !, '�` ,' r" 4t., 4 't" •., at t,.p: f7. `F , •S r Y >"• w• 'i;ti •.� c1 ;t( „e� r 1 i ,t �:fi 1:: ,� jC�{,�, ' �y���t�t �7qt ,o ;t;},:1�,�1'::,t..•r ea 7.c: ;'i: ,,.: "Clr�.+i?V Y. If t { ;�:^' ';w•f r�! .'�77'-h t'�•t'{Y'� -N 71.,{ t . .i,' (ii _1t f�;.J� -'� ��r4�• fp'tll.vt CrJ µ (,r�f.Y.!�t. :�1�$ 1� 1�n � ,.- " -.bi` , . �(1,�f i �:' .�7a i%'ii..ltl..�. S f "� `.t .-7. +.m .`.c t.�l ry .,_ i 1 ..,t Ll, X.:• {?.t ?t::�t {�u •''+ aa`, .Fr'3 t •F.u..a i:i•' Y, �f..;... �,:� ,b�, .1� I w. po.. :$'••;:; ..,a t,a -•�:;' rr�r .,�;1 ,?', ,7{ej{ t.. '.l .. r � X7':.( } 7 �� t,�R%`i o ��� �r. 'Lrd '��:�'nn 0 ,�,,..' , 'ti•,_1 pp .+e„ ',f� d•�i..� I I I f.;� �jd .,tl r { ,:� `�p :syi n �L;:.'�zF 4.� .,°...: .:V,�ld1r V t' �.• ;`'4t, Y• t ^tr^ �trT, tgg'llf ';� 1r: 4i ...... r 7I�•' `.ti?. U� , ,:}•,{t. ni � h;f f i!.� tttV t,(� � . ... rrm r„ �>t�� •'1' \,r,l ;'� f1 r'� S. ,� E .r 3, �'i. i r ;3 t' (:' .� :;`.�La t' i. rY�l��- - •FR E E '( h u yl.1 ti 9: � #�. {fa•r,I)i;t' ;� 9: •, A, 1 1(frt',.:jr' °V � :,. tr r t r..t 1p :r"'`! ! r( f (.t e.;i.y! ii •�tfflr 'n, ,LS !'� 4•ii•';.tn t �� '''i } .°'r� .�.tl ,t\•� 7 ! S.. r rt* t 7t i,"�, t rl.: �' o�,r. `l p' ':, r.. "VV" ��p�p r 7•t .5••,r;t;,it;: .i ) fa ), t t'' i !•r+-.'• '.t:}al.:t:4 1 ';;�t ,..:r., .F.•:.,. R- iCl •ly .•7 y�s3f±,:a iii. '7.. t�.t'`.,'... f2 1F• f E •1�X�J,r:.i t ,C VYS tt t .a- t*r. &Wr Vr� .Yi-�.,,. ' c\1,�•..sr-.r.' �1- �. Poseidon.Desalination Plant Comments NPDES CA 0001163 Presented to the Huntington City Council PY . Tuesday May 27, 2003 by V Bruce Monroe, Spokesperson, Regional Conservation Committee Chair, Coast and Ocean Sub-Committee of the. California & Nevada Regional Conservation Committee,The Sierra Club i The Sierra Club national policy on water concerns three aspects: conservation, supply,and quality.The full text of this policy is found at:ym.-y.sierrg.c!ub.o��. i The California regional policy, because of regional differences in weather, geology,and needs, is determined on a case-by-case basis. In every instance,we are first interested in conservation We resist new supplies or increased supplies until such time as attempts at conservation have been exhausted: Our reasoning about this specific permit is guided by five issues: 1. Economics 2. Planning and growth 3. Siting 4. Entrainment/Impingement 5. Distribution and Outfalls. Economics --We are concerned that this permit would allow a facility the operation of which would increase utility costs to the public. Planning and growth—We are concerned that the increased supply will encourage use and discourage conservation. Conservation remains our first priority. Siting —we are concerned about situated a large for profit utility on beach front public trust lands that are better suited for public use as defined in the California Coastal Act. We question the legality of using a non-renewable, life sustaining public resource,and salt water,in a monopolistic manufacturing process,which ultimately calls for the repurchase of the processed water by the public. We question whether is it legal for the discharger to charge the public a fee to"purchase"the processed commodity. Entrainment and Impingement—We are concerned that any permitted water by this process will increase the total daily throughput in the host electrical generating plant and entrain or impinge additional marine life forms and natural processes: Distribution and outfalls—We are concerned that the resulting manufacturing.waste (brine) distributed through the outfalls will further damage marine resources and unbalance the salinity and mineral content of the naturedly occurring ocean water. In summary: The Sierra Club strongly opposes this application for the reasons stated above. tyl: T lie first meeting of California's Desalination Task Force will not be held until May 29, 2003,two days this meeting. A report will probably not be forthcoming for about a year. �'"� rp V U :��...n '• '`..:. w :,.f ter,::., .._Jl„-:: \ Beach; ...% ..y.. �. �':r;�.ti'+•1 fir•+•*: I '• J_.i � j.. :. albert......: k. .j.�� T j Marsh 1: ,� "'.•!" .=.�`�,= 'tip _'� :�' •,�. (C 5 4 co }y _ Go Figure . 30 dap average of salinity 3z mid water column ikpth for concentrated sei water from:R.O. 50 m,i, Plant flue Racesummeiconditions. m Soace: Pasedun n"curc#srcrxrao3rt August 20a2' POSEIDON, SERI7VAIIR DESALINATION FR01EEr Projected Salinity Over the AES Outfall 'Worst Case" Scenarso. 1 m7.. �I,i.wn.w� f orea>• • towsim.7rnaM _.._. • m w .co..uu,•.n - 'S ,.,q• , r• 4 •.. fir* ��� � � . :: � �t7iti rn '���IIS I��I:'• t� . .• :. fir.,..^�'� - .�,; .. .i .. •�'R. I Nunlinlito'iF. a• —: t #�� FriwJ? VIVr ILimiltroAyr •""!':� w Ce.-vArtiot-wit :ire i)�r ��{ r1k, z•.. ',•s T PnVrr�r, tat , d' 1✓G•.7iJ FigureNo Aerial Location Map CitylCounty Stounwater Pump Stations, .� OCSD Surfmne • • • is I• 1<r 05/28/2003 15:40 7148486661 HBDERM rout n� MAY-27- 03 13.44 FROM I OCSC )MIN i t)F 7149H2( 5 PAGU ti +w Huntington Beach Shoreline Contamination Investiga.tion., Phase III Peer Review Panel Summary Report Preparcd by University of Southem California Sea Grant Program. and University of California,Santa Barbara Marine Scicnce Institute- March 21,2003 05/28/2003 15:40 71484866a HBDERM rput nc MAy-27-03 13146 FROM:OGSD A.,iIN 1D-. 7149B203 FACE H/t Future Studies There are two main areas of concern that could benefit from further research:cross-shelf transport and circulation mechanisms,and accurate tracking of plume bacteria. C'gggs-steel transporter and circul na on rr�echa_njsms 1) The spatial and temporal ,ariability of the intemal tide must be i-evestigated in. order to better understand the role of internal tidal motions in across-shelf transport.Field observations are needed to conclusively discard internal solitary waves as a mechanism for onshore transport of plume effluent bacteria. 2) Further dye tracking experiments,with a release outside the surfzone,may be useful to determine whether water-borne particles can be transported from the 15m isobath to the surfzone. If possible,adding dye to the effluent after the 200:1 dilution near the outfall may also yield profitable results. This latter experiment would need to be timed with the occurrence of spring tides. 3) The nature of the across-shelf circulation could be further explored by examining in more detail the coupled behavior of the temperature and velocity field.This analysis should include calculations of the mean across-shelf and along-shelf fluxes of tel iperarjre(uT and vT)as a.function of depth and spatial location on the shelf.including a breakdown into contributions from different frequency bands.. 4) A comprehensive model of plume rise,ocean circulation,and very possibly bottom and sea-surface atmospheric interaction is necessary to help synthesize the complex processes and interactions involved in the transport and fate of the OCSD effluent. Such a model,including the AES Power Plant plume and other sources, will likely be the only way to reach definitive conclusions about what proportion of beach contamination is due to the OCSD effluent. TrackinY of plume bacteria 1) One important issue that remains unanswered,and should be addressed in future studies is the question of which chemical and physical ocean,aphic measurements are suitable tracers for fecal indicator bacteria and for pathogens directly. 2) Good high-resolution time series data of some plume indicator other than temperature and salinity would be beneficial. This will not be possible for .. bacteria,but could be done for tracers,such as nutrients,as one (3.Largier)has used in other areas. Commercially available moored nutrient sensors could be deployed along the potential pathway to provide hi;h-temporal resolution measurements of a chemical sionatum of the plume. 6 MAY 27, 2003 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ROBERT THOMAS PLANNING COMMISSION 9152 'PLAYA DR. MR. RICKY RAMOS HUNTINGTON BEACH, 92646 DEAR MR. RAMOS: THIS LETTER IS TO ASK THAT YOU DENY THE REQUEST BY POSEIEDON RESOURCES FOR THE SEAWATER DESALINATION PLANT AT 21730 NEWLAND STREET. THE PLANT IS NOT COMPATIBLE WITH THE CURRENT DEVELOPMENT AND GROWTH IN THE SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOODS . SOUTHEAST HUNTINGTON BEACH ALREADY HAS MUCH MORE THAN ITS FAIR SHARE OF PUBLIC UTILITIES . MY MAIN. AREAS OF CONCERN ARE THE EFFECT OF DRAWING SO MUCH WATER INTO INTO THE PLANT. THE HB STATE BEACH AT NEWLAND IS VERY POLLUTED AND SCIENTISTS THEORIZE THE AES PUMPS MAY BE DRAWING OCSD OUTFALL CLOSE TO THE PUBLIC BEACH. ADDITIONAL CONCERNS INCLUDE THE CONSTRUCTION OF OF WATER TRANSMISSION LINES IN AN AREA WITH MULTIPLE SEWAGE AND POWER LINES . I RESERVE THE RIGHT TO BRING LEGAL ACTIONS, IF NEEDED, ABOUT THESE OR ANY UNDISCOVERED ENVIRONMENTAL OR HEALTH PROBLEMS CAUSED BY THIS INDUSTRIAL PROJECT. PLEASE PROTECT THE CITIZENS OF HUNTINGTON BEACH FROM THE HAZARDS OF THIS PLAN. THANK YOU, ROBERT J. THOMAS STATE OF CALIFORNIA—THE RESOURCES AGENCY GRAY DAVIS,GOr'xxoR CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION 45 FREMONT, SUITE 2000 SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94105-2219 n. VOICE AND TOO (415) 904-5200 FAX (415) 904-5400 June 3,2003 Planning Commissioners City of Huntington Beach Planning Department 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 RE: Review of the Environmental Impact Report for Proposed Poseidon Desalination Facility Dear Commissioners: I have been asked to provide information about the purpose of, and need for, the entrainment study being done at the AES Huntington Beach Generating Station and how results of that study may affect the outcome of the City's CEQA review for the proposed Poseidon desalination project at the AES facility. As stated in our previous comment letters,part of the purpose of CEQA review is to identify a proposed project's significant adverse impacts along with available mitigation measures that would eliminate or reduce those impacts. .CEQA review is also meant to provide decision- . makers with a systematic approach to address the impacts and mitigation measures so that their final decisions are based on adequate information about the environmental consequences of the project. For the reasons below, I believe the likely impacts of entrainment associated with power plant and desalination operations suggest that the results of the current study should be incorporated into the CEQA documents to use in your decision-making. Generally, entrainment is one of the main impacts associated with coastal power plants that use once-through ocean water cooling systems. In some cases, the loss of plankton and larvae due to power plant operations can cause significant adverse impacts to local or regional marine biological communities. The study underway at the AES facility is meant to determine the type and extent of entrainment impacts and to identify mitigation measures that may be available to avoid or minimize those impacts. This study(equivalent to what is known as a"316(b) study" established by the U.S. EPA)has become a standard requirement for reviewing entrainment impacts associated with coastal power plants using once-through cooling. Results of this study are of particular interest because there has never been an adequate entrainment study done at AES Huntington Beach. Information provided previously about entrainment at the facility is based on data collected in the late 1970s from other power plants along the coast. Since then,more recent developments in sampling and modeling, along with improved,understanding of marine ecosystem dynamics have shown that entrainment data for such once-through cooling systems must be recent(e.g., within just a few years) and local(e.g., adjacent.to the intake)to be of value in determining impacts. The California Energy Commission(CEC) recognized these issues in its May 2001 approval of the AES facility upgrade. The CEC approval included a requirement that the operator conduct a study to `�U determine the type and extent of entrainment,in large part due to the concerns mentioned above Comments to Huntington Beach Planning Commission re: Poseidon Desalination EIR June 3, 2003 Page 2 of 2 —that there were no data from recent or local entrainment studies, and that the only data available were from distant power plants and were more than two decades old'. As mentioned above,the purpose of these entrainment studies is not only to identify the impacts, but to assess mitigation measures that may be appropriate. At other coastal power plants recently reviewed by the CEC (including the Moss Landing, Morro Bay, and Potrero power plants), results of the updated entrainment studies have been used to require significant changes to facility designs, operations, and mitigation measures to avoid or reduce entrainment impacts. For the AES facility,the CEC's approval includes a requirement that the results of the study be used to determine whether alternative cooling systems or other mitigation measures would be feasible and necessary to address entrainment impacts. This could easily lead to significant changes in power plant operations that would also affect the operations of the proposed desalination facility. Until the results of the AES entrainment study are available, it is not possible to determine the type and extent of entrainment impacts associated with the power plant operations, nor will it be possible to determine the degree to which those impacts may be associated with the desalination facility. Likewise, it is not yet possible to determine what feasible mitigation measures may be necessary to avoid or reduce those impacts and what affect those measures would have on the design or operation of the once-through cooling system or proposed desalination facility. Even though the desalination facility is tied closely to the power plant, there are likely to be times when maintenance requirements or market conditions would limit power plant operations, and entrainment occurring during those periods would be due largely to desalination. However, as stated above, without the results of the entrainment study, it is not possible to determine the associated impacts nor the necessary mitigation and therefore, it is difficult to ensure compliance with CEQA or other applicable requirements. As a final point,the Coastal Commission will need the results of the entrainment study to complete its review for the facility's coastal development permit. We would prefer that this occur as an appropriate part of the CEQA review, especially since a decision by the Planning Commission to move forward at this time without the study results will not speed the overall review process. Thank you for attention to these issues. I hope this is helpful to your deliberations. Please feel free to contact me at (415) 904-5248 or at tluster gcoastal.cagov if you have questions. Sincerely, Tom Luster Energy and Ocean Resources Unit Note: The CEC's review of the AES Huntington Beach upgrade was done under an Emergency 2-Month Review classification. All other recent CEC coastal power plant reviews have required that the entrainment studies be completed prior to CEC approval. - Ir � City of Huntington Beach Planning Department STAFF REPORT HUNTINGTON BEACH TO: Planning Commission FROM: Howard Zelefsky, Director of Planning BY: Ricky Ramos, Associate Planner 4Z$2. DATE: July 8,2003 SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 00-02 (Continued from June 3, 2003 With Public Hearing Closed)(Poseidon Seawater Desalination Plant) APPLICANT: Poseidon Resources Corporation, 3760 Kilroy Airport Way, 4260, Long Beach, CA 90806 PROPERTY OWNER: AES Huntington Beach, LLC, 21730 Newland Street, Huntington Beach, CA 92646 LOCATION: 21730 Newland Street(East side of Newland, south of Edison Ave) STATEMENT OF ISSUE: • Environmental Impact Report No. 00-02(EIR No. 00-02) request: Analyze the potential environmental impacts associated with a request to construct a 50 million gallons per day (MGD) seawater desalination plant including a 10,120 square foot administration building, a 38,090 square foot reverse osmosis building, a 36,305 square foot product water storage tank, and miscellaneous accessory structures on an approximately 11_acre site. The project also includes up to 10 miles of water transmission lines to connect to an existing regional transmission system,and two off-site booster pump stations. Documents potential impacts to Land Use/Relevant Planning, Geology/Soils/Seismicity, Hydrology and Water Quality, Air Quality, Noise, Public Services and Utilities, Aesthetics/Light and Glare, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, and Construction Related Impacts. - Evaluates four alternatives to the original project proposal. Concludes that.the project results. m no environmental impacts or less than significant environmental impacts in the areas of Agricultural Resources, Air Quality (long-term), Biological Resources, Cultural Resources, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Land Use/Relevant Planning, Mineral Resources, Population and Housing,Recreation, and Transportation/Traffic. - Concludes that potential impacts can be mitigated to less than significant levels in the areas of Geology/Soils/Seismicity, Hydrology and Water Quality, Noise, Public Services and Utilities, Aesthetics/Light and Glare, and Construction Related Impacts. Concludes that potential impacts cannot be mitigated to less than significant levels in the area of Short-Term Construction Related Emissions. Continued Item Planning Commission meeting June 3,2003 - Planning Commission requested clarification regarding ten items pertaining to the EIR. Staff s Recommendation: Certify EIR No..00-02 as adequate and complete and adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations based upon the following: Compliance with California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA) Compliance with the City of Huntington Beach General Plan goals,policies, and objectives Compliance with the City of Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance Potentially significant environmental impacts have been eliminated or substantially lessened Remaining significant unavoidable impacts are found to be acceptable due to overriding considerations - Benefits of the project are balanced against its unavoidable environmental impacts RECOVI WNDATION: Motion to: "Certify EIR No. 00-02 as adequate and complete in accordance with CEQA requirements by approving Resolution No. 1581 (Attachment No. 1)." ALTERNATIVE ACTION(S): The Planning Commission may take alternative actions such as: A. "Deny certification of EIR No. 00-02 with findings for denial." B. "Continue certification of EIR No. 00-02 and direct staff accordingly." PROJECT PROPOSAL: Environmental Impact Report No. 00-02 represents an analysis of potential environmental impacts associated with the construction of a seawater desalination plant that will convert up to 50 million gallons per day(MGD) of seawater into potable water. The project includes a 10,120 square foot administration building, a 38,090 square foot reverse osmosis building, a 36,305 square foot product water storage tank, and miscellaneous accessory.structures on an approximately 11 acre site. There will also be up to 10. miles of water transmission lines to an existing regional transmission system, and two off-site booster pump stations. The project also proposes perimeter landscaping and fencing along the project's frontage on Newland Street and Edison Avenue. BACKGROUND: As requested by the Planning Commission, staff prepared responses to specific issues identified by the Planning Commission at the June 3, 2003 hearing on the subject project. In addition, this staff report summarizes issues identified in correspondence received subsequent to the May 27, 2003 Planning Commission hearing and oral testimony at the June 3, 2003 Planning Commission hearing. As stated at 67 , PC Staff Report—7/8/03 2 (03 SR05A EIR 00-02) the two previous public hearings by staff, the City's environmental consultant, and the applicant, the issues raised at the hearing and in the additional correspondence have substantially been addressed in the Draft EIR, Responses to Comments document, and previous staff reports. This staff report has been prepared to further clarify staff s position and the EIR analysis, and to specifically address the key issues requested by the Planning Commission. As set forth below, the information and.analysis presented to date is adequate under CEQA for the Planning Commission to certify the Final EIR. DETAILED REPORT: The CEQA process for the proposed Poseidon Seawater Desalination Project has involved several opportunities for public comment on the project. As noted in the May 27, 2003 Staff Report, the Draft EIR was circulated for public review between September 19 and November 4, 2002. The City received a total of 21 comment letters on the Draft EIR, and prepared formal written responses to all comments, as required by CEQA. The City completed the Responses to Comments document on March 21, 2003, after several months of additional research and analysis to address Draft EIR comments. The Responses to Comments document, although only required by CEQA to be distributed to Responsible Agencies that submitted comments, was provided to all commenting parties (both public and private). It should be noted that, of the 21 comment letters and responses provided by City staff, the City only received three replies from agencies that commented on the Draft EIR. Of those three replies,two agencies continued to raise concerns with the EIR(Coastal Commission staff member Tom Luster provided letters dated May 8, 2003 and June 3, 2003 and IRWD staff member Lars Oldewage provided a letter dated May 22, 2003 and IR)YD staff member Gregory.Heiertz provided,a letter dated. June 5, 2003), while one agency simply. . emphasized that the seawater desalination project at Huntington Beach is needed_to fulfill .Orange County's long-term water needs (Municipal Water District of Orange County (MV DOC) Board of Directors member Wayne Clark provided a letter dated May 19, 2003). PREVIOUS SUPPLEMENTAL STAFF RESPONSES A total of 39 comment letters have been received subsequent to the public review period for the Draft EIR. In addition, a total of 43 oral comments have been received by the Planning Commission at the May 27, 2003 and June 3, 2003 hearings. Prior to submittal of the May 29, 2003 staff report, 17 comment letters had been received by the City subsequent to the Draft EIR public review period. In addition, 27 oral comments regarding the proposed project were received at the May 27, 2003 public hearing. These comments were responded to within two staff reports (dated May 27 and May 29, 2003). This staff report addresses the comment letters received at or after the June 3, 2003 hearing as .well as the 16 oral comments. received at that hearing. As noted in this report, the comment letters and oral comments . focused on similar topics, such as salinity, marine biological impacts, and the proposed project's relationship to the OCSD outfall and bacterial plume. STAFF RESPONSES WITH RESPECT TO SPECIFIC REQUESTS FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOR FURTHER INFORMATION OR CLARIFICATION OF ISSUES Commissioner Kokal: 1. AES Heat Treatment/Reverse Flow Process: Periodically, the AES power plant completes a heat treatment procedure to"control the amount of marine organisms naturally occurring PC Staff Report—7/3/03 3 (03SR05A EIR 00-02) in the seawater that attach to the walls of the power plant intake structure and pipeline, and interfere with plant operations. The heat treatment procedure is typically completed once every six to eight weeks and continues for six to eight hours per heat treatment event. Heat treatment is a part of the routine operation of every power plant and as such this process is permitted and regulated by the AES power plant NPDES discharge permit. The main goal of heat treatment is to detach the living marine organisms from the power plant intake structure and pipelines and to return the marine organisms back into the ocean through the power plant intake. Therefore, for the duration of a heat treatment event, the power plant intake and discharge are reversed (i.e. cooling water enters from the power plant discharge and discharges through the power plant intake). The marine organisms detached from the power plant intake structure and pipelines cannot be released through the power plant discharge outfall because they cannot pass through the power plant condenser tubes. The marine organisms are several times larger in size than the condenser tube openings. Under normal operations the cooling water is collected through the intake structure pumped through the power plant condenser tubes which exchange heat with the cooling water, and then the heated water is discharged through the power plant discharge outfall. During heat treatment, a very small amount of seawater flow is actually taken from the ocean, and most of the cooling water flow is recirculated within the power plant system rather than discharged through the power plant outfall. By recirculating the seawater flow, rather than discharging it to the ocean, thel seawater temperature in the recirculation loop . within the power plant rises. The higher water temperature triggers the detachment of the marine organisms from the intake structure and pipeline walls so that they may be released back into their natural environment in the ocean. Once the heat treatment process is complete and before the discharge is released to the ocean, the discharge is cooled to meet the temperature discharge limit under AES Power Plant's NPDES Permit. There is no separate temperature limit for the heat treatment process. Because the heat treatment process reverses the flow direction in the discharge line, the proposed desalination facility would not be able to discharge its saline concentrate. Therefore, the desalination plant will not be operational during periods of heat treatment. Because the desalination plant will not take water for treatment during power plant heat treatment operations,the desalination plant has no effect on entrapment and entrainment of marine organisms during that.process. The relationship between the power plant heat treatment process and the desalination plant operations was addressed in the Draft EIR (see Appendix E, page E-9). As stated on this page "Poseidon will not take water into the desalination plant during heat treatments". 2. Growth Inducement (End Users): Concern about the Draft EIR's analysis of the project's growth inducing impacts was raised by Coastal Commission staff member, Mr. Tom Luster, in his November 4, 2002 comment letter. Mr. Luster raised this issue again in late comment letters and the issue has also been raised by several others who submitted late comments on the Draft EIR. At the public hearings before the Planning Commission on C ` PC Staff Report—7/8/03 4 (03SR05A EIR 00-02) May 27, 2003 and on June 3, 2003 this issue was raised in oral comments and discussed by the Commissioners. On each occasion, staff has responded that the Draft EIR's analysis of the project's potential growth-inducing impacts has been completed in compliance with the legal requirements of CEQA. Growth is managed on a number of fronts: General Plans are adopted by local and county governments to set forth accepted activities within the jurisdictions as it relates to density, land use and related infrastructure. Most local governments also work with the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) and related planning groups to refine expectations for the future. In Orange County, water agencies work with the California Department of Water Resources, SCAG, and the Metropolitan Water District of Southem California (MWD) to develop their respective Urban Water Management Plans to project how they will serve customers within the relevant approved General Plan areas. Urban Water Management Plans and General Plans are formulated only after receiving required public input. Amendments to these plans require further public input and, in the case of General Plans, environmental determinations. The examination of the project's potential growth-inducing impacts is contained in Section 5.2 (pages 5-2 through 5-6) of the Draft EIR(refer to Attachment No. 1 to the staff report). Section 3.5 of the Draft EIR. (pages 3-20 through 3-23) examined the related topics and addressed the need for the project (refer to Attachment No. 2 to the staff report). The following excerpts from the response to comment 2m.are reproduced below to clarify the approach taken by the Draft EIR in analyzing the project'.s potential growth-inducing: impacts. As stated in the Draft EIR, the proposed project consists of construction of a seawater desalination plant, storage facilities, and pipelines to produce drinking water for delivery into the regional water distribution system to meet the needs of the Southern California Region and particularly Orange County. It should be noted that the project will sell water on a wholesale basis to water agencies who in turn will sell the water to customers at retail prices. The project does not propose to sell water at a retail level nor is it allowed to by law. At page 3-20,the Draft EIR explains in-some detail how the water produced by the proposed seawater desalination facility will be delivered into the regional distribution system operated by the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California(MWD). The regional system operated by MWD serves Orange County and most of the South Coast Hydrologic Region. The analysis of potential growth- inducing impacts recognized that water supplies are typically allocated on an aggregate basis and, consequently, potential impacts in both the South Coast Region and in Orange County were examined. The Draft EIR (on page 5-6) concludes that the potential growth-inducing impacts of the project are not anticipated to be significant.... ...The comment requests information (to the extent that information is known) regarding the potential allocation:of the.project's desalinated water PC Staff Report—7/8/03 5 (03SR05A EIR 00-02) supply by various water agencies. It is beyond the scope of this EIR to specifically address how local water agencies will allocate the desalinated water supply produced by this project. By way of response, however, it should be noted that in Section 5.2, the Draft EIR referenced several water supply plans and provided an analysis for certain allocation scenarios.` .Based on projections provided by the Department of Water Resources (DWR), the Draft EIR concluded (on page 5-6) that it is likely that much of the desalinated water supply produced by this project will be allocated to replace existing imported water supplies that are lost to increased environmental restrictions and water supply regulations. Still, the Draft EIR also provided an analysis (on page 5-5) that assumed all of the water produced by the desalination plant would be allocated by local water agencies as supplemental supply to support new growth. The calculations in the Draft EIR show that the total amount of water projected to be produced by the desalination plant would equal less than one percent of the total supply for the South Coast Region and less than eight percent of the total supply for Orange County. Consequently, the project results in only a nominal addition to regional supplies. Moreover, as noted on page 5-5, even if all of the project water was only allocated within Orange County, the project could not supply enough water to keep pace with long-term projected population growth. The Draft EIR (on page 5-6) concludes that the.potential growth-inducing.impacts of the project are not anticipated to be significant." One of the main concerns raised repeatedly regarding the Draft EIR relates to the Draft EIR's inability to identify the specific "end users" of the water to be supplied by the Poseidon Seawater Desalination Project. At the Planning Commission hearings for this project, the Commissioners have questioned the applicant regarding the existence of an agreement between the applicant and Santa Margarita Water District (SMWD) by which SMWD would purchase the rights to receive (via a water exchange) up to one half of the proposed project's water supply(up to 25 million gallons per day). At the public hearings, the applicant confirmed the existence of this agreement, but also noted that the agreement is not legally binding unless a series of conditions are met. The applicant further clarified that even if the agreement went forward, there is no requirement addressing how SMWD would allocate the water within the SMWD service area. As stated in the Draft EIR and confirmed by the applicant's testimony, it can be concluded that the project's water will be delivered into the existing regional water distribution system used to meet the water needs of Orange County. Those needs could include the water needs of end users in the SMWD service area (if the exchange agreement is carried out) and/or the needs of water users in the service area of any of the other cities and water agencies in Orange County. The following excerpts from the May 29, 2003 staff report are reproduced below to clarify what might happen to the project's water once it is delivered into the regional distribution system. PC Staff Report—7/8/03 6 (03 SR05A EIR 00-02) "In Orange County (as is the case inmost of Southern California), retail water agencies and cities have the statutory authority and the duty to provide water service to end users within their service area. End users include existing customers and potential new customers, which conceivably could include expanding commercial or residential developments`or new infill developments in Orange ,County. However, the retail agencies and cities have choices in the potential water supply they use to serve their customers. They can use groundwater and other local supplies (like recycled water) to the extent those supplies are available. They can negotiate water transfers from other areas of the State that have surplus supplies and they can emphasize conservation methods to stretch existing supplies. In addition, most retail agencies and cities depend on (and choose to purchase) imported water from the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California ("MWD") through their local wholesaler. In Orange County, the local wholesaler of water is the Municipal Water District of Orange County (see support letter Attachment No. 4.4 to the May 22, 2003 Inter Office Communication from staff to the Planning Commission). Under California law, all water agencies (wholesale and retail)must prepare and adopt an Urban Water Management Plan describing existing and future sources.of water supply. . These plans are required to be updated every five years. Moreover, decent laws require that any end user that intends, to develop 500 or more new homes, commercial office projects over 250,000 sq.ft. or retail centers over 500,000 sq.ft. must (in conjunction with the proposed retail water supplier) prepare a "Water Supply Assessment" detailing and analyzing the proposed water supply for the development project. The Water Supply Assessment is prepared in addition to other environmental review documents required as part of the land use planning and zoning process. Land use policies of cities and counties regulate growth at the local level. All of these documents are subject to public review as part of the environmental review process. Speculating on the various future water supply choices that may be made by .retail water providers .and end users throughout Orange County is not required by CEQA. It is unknown how many retail water agencies or cities will negotiate to purchase desalinated project water from Poseidon Resources. Finally, even when some water wholesale or retail agency purchase project water, it is unknown how they will allocate the supplies. In any case, CEQA will require environmental review of those choices at the time they are made. Accordingly, the Poseidon EIR has properly analyzed the project's potential growth-inducing impacts by focusing on the relationship between the amount of the new supply that would.be available (to several end users) and the water supply demand projections for Orange County and the surrounding area." PC Staff Report—7/8/03 7 (03 SR05A EIR 00-02) 3. AES Entrainment/Impingement Study: Section 316(b) of the Federal Clean Water Act reads as follows: "Any standard established pursuant to sectiori.301 or section 306 of this Act and applicable to a point source.shall require that the location, design, construction, and capacity of cooling water intake structures reflect the best technology available for minimizing adverse environmental impact." In 1977, the U.S. EPA published draft guidelines for conducting 316(b) demonstrations for compliance with Section 316(b) of the Federal Clean Water Act (Section 316(b) is summarized above). Such studies were planned and conducted in southern California with oversight from the Los Angeles, Santa Ana, and San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Boards (RWQCBs), National Marine Fisheries Service, and the California Department of Fish and Game. Studies were conducted in the late 1970s and early 1980s, and study results were submitted to EPA in 1982-1983. In the early 1990s, EPA was sued by Riverkeeper and others for not implementing Section 316(b), since demonstration guidelines were never finalized and no updated studies were required. A Consent Decree from District Court was filed in 1995 that provided EPA until 2001 to finalize 316(b) regulations. Subsequent orders gave EPA more time. The final rule for.Phase I (new) facilities was published.in November 2001. The proposed rule for Phase II (existing) facilities was published:in April 2002, and final guidelines are projected to be issued in February 2004. The Phase II rule currently applies to facilities that: 1. Both generate and transmit electric power or generate electric power but sell it for transmission; 2. Use a cooling water intake structure(s) or obtain water by any sort with an independent supply who has a cooling water intake structure; 3. Draw cooling water from waters of the U.S. and at least 25% of the water is used solely for contact or non-contact cooling purposes; 4. Have an NPDES permit, or are required to have an NPDES permit; and 5. Have flows of 50 mgd or more (those with less than 50 mgd, as well as certain existing manufacturing facilities, and offshore and coastal oil and gas extraction facilities, will be subject to the Phase III rule). It is likely that when the Phase II rule is enacted, all existing coastal generating stations in Ventura, Los Angeles, and Orange Counties will be required to perform new 316(b) demonstrations and comply with new Performance Standards. Most of the generating stations' NPDES permits will be up for renewal in 2005. South Bay Power Plant (San Diego County) was recently required to perform a 316(b) demonstration as part of its NPDES permit renewal process, and was specifically directed to follow the proposed Phase II guidelines. Several generating stations north of Point Conception (Diablo Canyon Power Plant, Mono Bay Power Plant, Moss Landing Power Plant, and Potrero Power Plant) all performed 316(b) demonstrations in the last four years or so. These studies used PC Staff Report—7/8/03 8 (03 SR05A EIR 00-02) methods agreed upon by the power plant operators and regulatory agencies (primarily Regional Water Quality Control Boards). In December 2000, AES Huntington Beach L.L.C. submitted the Application for Certification to the California Energy Commission (CEC) for the AES Huntington Beach L.L.C. Generating ,Station Retool Project: In. March 2001, the CEC issued.its Staff Assessment of the project, which recommended "a license be issued for a restricted time period consistent with AES's electrical generating contract with the Department of Water Resources or until September 30, 2006". As part of this conditional license, AES is required to complete several tasks, including Condition of Certification Bio-4: "The project owner will prepare a monitoring/study plan and conduct one year of monitoring to determine the actual impingement and entrainment losses resulting from the operation of the cooling water system for the new Units 3 and 4 and the existing Units 1 and 2. The project owner will sample the intake and source water to determine fractional losses relative to their abundance in the source water. The methods, analysis, results, and conclusions of the monitoring study will be documented in a scientific style report and submitted to the CPM for review and approval. Other agencies, including the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the California Department of Fish and Game, shall be included in the review of the draft report, if they so request. A final report shall be prepared upon completion of field sampling. The study results will be utilized during the NPDES permit renewal. evaluation to be completed by the Santa Ana Regional Water Control.Board in June . 2005." Initially, AES staff planned for Unit 3 to be in commercial operation on or about November 12, 2001 and Unit 4 to be in commercial operation on or about November 26, 2001 (R. Tripp, pers. comm. 2001). However, due to unforeseen circumstances, this did not occur. According to AES staff, Unit 3 was made operational on June 26, 2003 and Unit 4 is expected to be operational sometime this summer. In accordance with Bio-4, MBC Applied Environmental Sciences (MBC) submitted a draft entrainment and impingement study plan to the CEC. After reviewing the study plan, CEC staff and consultants met on October 5, 2001 to discuss specifics of the study plan. In July 2002, MBC submitted a revised draft study plan to the CEC and the Biological Resources Research Team (BRRT), which consists of interested parties representing regulatory agencies, consultants; and.the applicant (AES Huntington Beach L.L.C.). Comments and recommendations to the study plan were submitted by the BRRT and discussed at a meeting on October 9, 2002. . The study plan is now in final form, as members of the BRTT have agreed on sampling and analysis methodologies. On June 19, 2003, the CEC authorized MBC to commence the biological monitoring for the AES Huntington Beach entrainmeni/impingement study, the results of which will be included in a formal report to be prepared after monitoring has occurred for one year. AES submitted $1.5 million to the CEC to conduct the study. As it is currently proposed, data will be collected for one year. A Final Report is due to the CEC within 10 months of 'the end of sampling.-CEC Condition of Certification Bio-5 specifies "If the entrainment PC Staff Report—7/8/03 9 (03SR05A EIR 00-02) and entrapment study determines that significant impacts to one or more species of coastal fish is occurring, the project owner will provide mitigation/compensation funds for mitigation/compensation for impacts to Southern California Bight fish populations. Upon consultation with the project owner, the mitigation/compensation funds should be used for such things as tidal wetlands restoration, creation of artificial reefs, or some other form of habitat compensation that is sufficient to fully address the species impacts identified in the final report required by the Condition. of Certification Bio-3..." AES and the CEC will then present their cases on what the significance of impacts is, and what appropriate mitigation should be required. The Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board will also review the results of the study prior to reissuance of the generating station's NPDES permit in 2005. In the Section 316(b) Phase II Proposed Rule, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency explains that "the mortality rate of entrained organisms varies by species; mortality rates for fish can vary from two to 97 percent depending on the species and life stage entrained." However, it should be noted that, in an effort to be as conservative as possible, the CEC will require that the forthcoming entrainment/impingement study for the AES Generating Station assume a 100 percent mortality rate for all marine organisms entrained through the AES intake. It is important to note that the purpose of the AES entrainment and impingement study is not to determine the mortality rate of organisms entrained through the AES intake structure, but rather to determine the number of individuals and types of marine organisms impacted, as well as the extent of impacts to source water populations offshore of the generating station. All entrainment and impingement effects determined from the CEC study are attributable only to generating station operations and'are being properly addressed though the ongoing permitting certification process. As such, the 316(b) study for the AES facility would not serve as an indicator of potential mortality impacts to entrained marine organisms. 4. NPDES Review of AES Discharge: As stated within Response 4b of the Responses to Comments document, the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit (No. CA0001163) issued to AES Huntington Beach, LLC by the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) includes specific monitoring requirements for monitoring the discharge through the outfall. This permit will need to be renewed in 2005. NPDES requirements will continue to apply in the event of proposed project implementation. In addition, the project will be required to obtain a separate NPDES permit from the RWQCB that will also include monitoring requirements. The discharge from the desalination plant will be required to meet all Ocean Plan standards regulated by the RWQCB. 5. Leakage from AES Discharge Vault (bacterial levels): The bacteria levels in the AES Power Plant intake well are generally less than 1,000 MPN (most probable number) per 100 mL (milliliter) but occasionally exceed this level. The intake well levels are often higher than the bacteria levels in the ocean near the intake, based on intensive monitoring conducted by MBC Applied Environmental Sciences during the summer of 2001. This indicates that there is a source of bacteria to the intake well. Power plant staff has confirmed that the only discharges to the intake well are screen wash water and a small PC Staff Report—7/8/03 10 (03 SR05A EIR 00-02) amount of pump seal water and that there may be leakage through the gates separating the intake well from the discharge vault. The discharge vault currently receives the following sources: condenser cooling water discharge; . ❖ on-site storm drain water and process wastewater from the power plant's retention basins; and ❖ off-site City of Huntington Beach storm drain water from urban runoff from the mobile home park near the power plant. The power plant's retention basins and the City's storm drain system may contribute to bacteria levels in the discharge vault. The potential leakage between the discharge vault and the intake well may be a source of bacteria in the intake well. The California Department of Health Services (DHS) bases pathogen removal requirements for drinking water treatment plants on monthly median total coliform bacteria levels in the source water. The monthly median levels in the intake well range from <2 to 705 MPN/100 mL. These levels are sufficiently low that DHS granted conceptual approval for the minimum required removal of pathogens for the desalination plant. In addition, the desalination plant has multiple treatment processes to remove and inactivate bacteria and other.pathogens in the source water. The bacteria and other pathogens that will be removed by the desalination plant will be present in the concentrated discharge from the plant. There will be two mechanisms for killing the bacteria to insure that the concentrated discharge from the desalination plant does not increase the levels of bacteria discharged to the ocean through the power plant outfall. First, the influent will be chlorinated to kill the bacteria whenever total coliform levels reach 1,000 MPN/100 mL and then de-chlorinated prior to the treatment process to protect the RO membranes. Second, the high pressures associated with forcing water through the reverse osmosis membranes will kill bacteria. Pilot testing conducted at the Carlsbad Pilot Plant has shown that the total coliform levels in the concentrated discharge are consistently less than 2 MPN/100 mL. Commissioner Dingwall: . 1. Growth Inducement - California Coastal Commission comment letter (dated 5/8/03): See response to Commissioner Kokal's Issue No. 2, above. 2. Product Water Compatibility with Irvine Ranch Water District (IRWD): IRWD's operational'concerns associated with the blend of desalinated water with Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (MWD) water could be resolved by implementation of one or more measures, including (a) modification of the IRWD discharge limits for sodium and chloride to accommodate the use of desalinated as a new water supply source and/or (b) modification of desalinated plant water quality to accommodate the IWRD limits, if any, at the time the desalination plant is operational and ready to begin delivering / water into the regional distribution system. PC Staff Report—7/8/03 11 (03SR05A EIR 00-02) Another factor to be taken into consideration in addressing IRWD.concerns is that the above mentioned sodium and chloride limits stem from limitations defined in the Water Quality Control Plan (groundwater basin plan defined by the Santa Ana RWQCB) applicable to the.IRWD project.. Currently, this plan is being amended. The amended plan may further accommodate the use of the desalinated water blend. The applicant understands that it must work with the RWQCB, MWD and other users of the regional water distribution system to address all specific concerns and regulations governing water quality at the time when the plant is actually going to be ready to deliver water. The applicant has indicated that it is committed to produce water quality that is in compliance with all pertinent regulatory requirements at the time the project begins commercial operations. This commitment is going to be enforceable by intergovernmental agreements with MWD and others which stipulate performance and water quality standards (as identified in the Draft EIR). It should be noted that the applicant has initiated and continues to conduct workshops with Municipal Water District of Orange County (MWDOC), its member agencies and MWD. These workshops are designed to identify and resolve integration/operation issues of the new water source with all affected parties. IRWD has been invited to attend these workshops. In addition, technical reports on issues pertaining to water chemistry, hydraulics, and related subjects have been made available to IRWD and other receiving water agencies, and will continue to be made available as the project progresses. The first two such papers on corrosion control strategies, and hydraulic modeling were provided to agencies attending the project's first technical workshop held at MWDOC on February 13, 2003. IRWD did not attend this workshop. Consequently, the applicant set up a separate meeting held on March 26, 2003 to present all of the work effort that has been completed to IRWD and to discuss the ongoing work effort needed to address IRWD's and other water agencies' concerns. Mr. John Hills, IRWD staff, confirmed in his June 3, 2003, oral testimony before the Planning-Commission that the applicant is working with IRWD to address their water quality issues and work towards resolution. Mr. Hill.also informed the Commissioners that as of June 3, 2003 no resolution had been reached. He wanted these facts disclosed in the record of proceedings before the Planning Commission. As a result of IRWD's concerns regarding the compatibility of the proposed project's product water with their recycled water facilities, staff recommends a condition be incorporated into the Conditional Use Permit (CUP) associated with the proposed project to ensure that the interests of the IRWD are addressed. The condition shall read as follows: "The applicant shall produce potable water of quality that is in compliance with all applicable regulatory requirements. In addition, the applicant shall PC Staff Report—7/8/03 12 (03SR05A EIR 00-02) supply Irvine Ranch Water District (IR)XrD) with water of quality that does not cause the IRWD to violate the pertinent limits of the IRWD reuse permit, applicable to the desalinated water quality at the time the proposed project is ready to begin the supply of desalinated water to the IRWD. The applicant shall reach'an agreement with the Municipal Water District'of Orange County (MWDOC) and its affected member.agencies regarding the specific requirements of the quality of the desalinated water prior to beginning construction of the desalination plant. If agreement between the two parties is not reached by then, MWDOC has the right to reject the use of desalinated water." . 3. Responses to Comments 2c, 21, 4b, and llc - Surfrider National Foundation comment. letter(dated 5/27/03): Mr. Joe Geever of the Surfrider National Foundation submitted written comments to the Planning Commission regarding the proposed project in a letter dated May 27, 2003. Commissioner Dingwall specifically requested an examination of issues raised by Surfrider's May 27, 2003 letter in regards to product water quality, alternatives, intake water quality monitoring, and solid waste disposal. Many of the issues raised within this letter have been previously addressed within the Responses to Comments document. As such, Responses 2c, 21, 4b, and llc from the Responses to Comments document are provided below: Response 2c - Product Water Quality: This project does not require that the Pacific Ocean in the vicinity of the intake be designated as supporting the beneficial use of drinking water (MUN). The Sources of Drinking Water Policy, adopted by the State Water Resources Control Board in 1988, requires that all waters of the state, with certain exceptions, be protected as existing or potential sources of municipal and domestic supply. One of the exceptions is water with a total dissolved solids (TDS) concentration exceeding 3,000 mg/L, which is applicable to the Pacific Ocean. The MUN designation affords some additional chemical protection of a waterway because maximum contaminant levels(MCLs) are to be achieved in ambient waters. There is no additional protection provided for microbial contaminants because MCLs have not been established for pathogens or coliforms. The Pacific Ocean in the vicinity of the intake is high quality and, in fact, has concentrations of some chemicals that are far below the drinking water MCLs prior to any treatment. An MUN designation would not provide any additional protection because the intake water quality is not influenced by storm water discharges, the Santa Ana River, the Talbert Marsh, or the Orange County Sanitation District (OCSD) wastewater discharge, as described in the hydrologic modeling studies included in the Draft EIR Appendix (Appendices C and D). Requiring these discharges to meet MCLs PC Staff Report—7/8/03 13 (03SR05A EIR 00-02) in ambient waters would provide no improvement in water quality at the intake to the desalination plant. The treated water from the Poseidon Desalination Plant will be required to meet all drinking water standards in Title 22 of the California Code of . Regulations. As described in the Watershed Sanitary Survey Report (Draft EIR, Appendix E) and in the Draft EIR (pp. 4.6-11 through 4.6-17), the plant will have multiple treatment processes, including reverse osmosis membranes, and will be capable of meeting all of the drinking water standards. The applicant will be required to obtain a drinking water permit from the California Department of Health Services that will address monitoring of source water quality (intake supplies). The desalination plant intake water quality in terms of turbidity (which is a surrogate indicator for potential elevated pathogen content) and salinity will be measured automatically and monitored continuously at the desalination plant intake facilities. Instrumentation for continuous monitoring and recording of these parameters will be installed at the desalination plant intake pump station. In event of excessive increase in intake seawater turbidity and/or salinity, this instrumentation will trigger alarms that will notify desalination plant staff. If the intake turbidity and salinity reaches a preset maximum..level, this instrumentation will automatically trigger plant shutdown procedures. . In .' . addition to the automation provisions, turbidity and salinity will also be measured manually by the desalination staff at least once a day and the intake seawater will be analyzed for pathogen content at least once per week. In the event of elevated intake seawater turbidity, laboratory pathogen content analysis will be performed more frequently. In addition to the intake water quality monitoring instrumentation, the desalination plant pretreatment filtration facilities will be equipped with filter effluent turbidimeters and particle counters. This equipment will allow to continuously monitor pretreatment filter performance and to trigger adjustments of desalination plant operations to accommodate intake water quality changes. Response 21 — Alternatives: Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15126.6(a), an EIR shall describe a range of reasonable alternatives to the project. According to the Draft EIR, (Section'), PROJECT DESCRIPTION, page 3-8) "the proposed project consists of construction of a seawater desalination plant, storage facilities, and pipelines to produce drinking water for delivery into the regional water distribution system to meet the needs of the Southern California Region and particularly Orange County." The comment does not discuss the main component of the project (construction of a seawater desalination plant) and, focusing on the drinking water production aspect of the project, suggests that the. EIR "evaluate possible PC Staff Report—7/8/03 14 (03SR05A EIR 00-02) alternative sources of water that might be available" to meet the drinking water needs of Orange County and the region. As directed in CEQA.Guidelines section 15126.6(c), an EIR shall include alternatives to the project that could feasibly accomplish most of the basic objectives of the project.Although an objective of the project is to provide a reliable local source of drinking water to Orange County and the surrounding region, most of the project objectives emphasize development of a drinking water source that is "independent of," "decreases pressures on" and "minimizes demands on" existing drinking water supplies (i.e., imported water supplies and local groundwater supplies). (See the list of project objectives on page 6-1 of the Draft EIR.) "Comments are most helpful when they suggest additional specific alternatives," as stated in CEQA Guidelines section 15204(a)' Except for desalinated seawater, the lead agency is not aware of(and the comment does not identify) any "other water sources" that do not fall into the categories of either "imported water" or"local groundwater." For example, water reuse projects are dependent on existing water supplies because, by their very nature, they "recycle" existing imported or local groundwater supplies. In addition, water reuse projects do not directly produce potable/drinking water. Consequently, there are no feasible "other water sources" to evaluate that meet the objective of the prol ect. As directed in CEQA Guidelines section 15126.6(c), an EIR shall include alternatives to the project that could avoid or substantially lessen one or more of the significant effects. The Draft EIR notes (on page 6-1)that with the exception of short-term air quality emissions associated with construction activities, "all potentially significant impacts" (which includes potential impacts to marine organisms and water quality) can be "mitigated to less than significant levels." Therefore, it is not anticipated that any alternative water source (assuming there is one) will avoid or substantially lessen significant impacts when compared to the project. The comment suggests that "subsequent environmental documents" should evaluate various factors related to the availability of water supplies in the region. Because that aspect of the comment does not address the sufficiency of this Draft EIR for the Poseidon Seawater Desalination Project,no further response is necessary. Several factors regarding the availability of water supplies in the region have been reported since the start of the public review period of the Draft EIR. The Orange County Water District (OCWD) has identified the overdraft of the Santa Ana River Groundwater Basin by more than 400,000 acre-feet due to drought conditions of the last three years.' The project could serve, for example, to offset withdrawals from the groundwater basin "O.C.Sees Cheap water Era Ending",Orange County Register,September 29,2002. PC Staff Renort—7/8/03 15 (03SR05A EIR 00-02) during dry years (allowing it to recharge) and to offset the need for imported water in wetter years. For further information about the availability of water supplies in the region, reference is made to the Metropolitan Water District's (MWD) Integrated Resource Plan and the current situation with the reduction.of Metropolitan's Colorado River allocation. Metropolitan's December 10, 2002 Board documents contain an approval of further support of increasing the volume of desalinated water to manage potential supply shortfalls and drought conditions. Finally, it should be noted that MWD established its Local Resources Program (LRP) to encourage the development of local programs for water conservation, recycling, desalination and storage to establish a diversity of approaches to improve regional supply reliability. The program is also intended to assist in the management of drought conditions as well. The comment suggests that Section 3.5 of the DEIR does not "adequately discuss other sources of water." Section 3.5 is the portion of the PROJECT DESCRIPTION that sets forth the "need" for the project and the project objectives. While a statement of objectives is required as part of the project description section of an EIR2, the information regarding the "need" for the project (Draft EIR at pages 3-20 through 3-23) was simply included as supplemental background information relating to water supply availability in Orange County and the region. On page 3-23 the Draft EIR.reproduces a table created by the California Department of Water Resources .(DWR, the governmental agency in California that has statutory responsibility with respect to water supplies). The table summarizes the projected availability of surface water, groundwater and recycled water supplies. The table projects a water supply shortage of 944,000 acre-feet for the South Coast Region in 2020. Finally, the comment suggests that the benefits and effects of the proposed project should be compared with water supply projects "such as" the 80 projects referenced in the "Southem California Integrated Water Resource Plan" (IRP). As stated in the Draft EIR at page 3-22, the IRP was adopted in 1996 by the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (MWD), the major imported water supplier in the region. As described in the Draft . EIR, each of the "80 projects" referred to by the comment were existing water recycling projects. The Draft EIR(on page 3-21) further describes the difference between the proposed project and water recycling projects. Water recycling consists of the "reclamation of wastewater to produce water that is safe and acceptable for various non-potable uses, but not approved for direct use drinking and other domestic uses." The proposed project will produce water that is approved for direct use drinking and for other potable uses. A comparison of two different supplies with different objectives is not required. It should also be noted that the proposed project«zll only produce � CEQA Guidelines Section 15124[b]. C7L�L'�/ PC Staff Report—7/8/03 16 (03SR05A EIR 00-02) approximately 56,000 acre-feet per year of potable water supply (not 15.0,000 acre-feet per year as stated in-the comment). Response 4b—Intake Water Quality Monitoring: The National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (i\PDES) permit(No. CA0001163) issued to AES Huntington Beach, LLC by the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) includes specific monitoring requirements for monitoring the discharges through the outfall. Those requirements will continue to apply. In addition, the project will be required to obtain a separate NPDES permit from the RWQCB that will also include monitoring requirements. The RWQCB's Ocean Plan human health standards are designed to protect the beneficial use of body-contact recreation. The discharge from the desalination plant will be required to meet all Ocean Plan standards regulated by the RWQCB. Response 11c — Solid Waste Disposal: As stated within Section 4.9, CONSTRUCTION RELATED alFACTS, of the Draft EIR, the applicant shall prepare a waste reduction plan for construction/operational waste and the project will be in compliance«ith AB 939 requirements. 4. Impacts of Project on Future Restored Adjacent Wetland — California Earth Corps comment letter (dated 5/27/03): Impact analysis and mitigation for potential impacts to receptors surrounding the proposed project site (including the adjacent wetland are are provided throughout the Draft EIR, including Sections 4.3 (marine biology issues associated with water quality) and Section 4.9 (construction-related impacts). This comment letter raises similar issues to those identified by California Department of Fish and Game, for which additional discussion (and mitigation measures) are provided within Responses 3d and 3h of the Responses to Comments document. Concerns from Gary Gorman of the Huntington Beach Wetlands Conservancy were addressed within Response 13b. Although the Draft EIR was prepared prior to City staff gaining knowledge that the adjacent wetland area would be restored, several mitigation measures were included in the Draft EIR that would mitigate potential impacts to the adjacent wetland, even in a restored state. These mitigation measures apply to potential impacts in regards to noise, nighttime lighting, and nesting birds, and are pro,-ided below: NOI-1 Prior to the issuance of any building or grading permits, the Applicant ,shall prepare an acoustical analysis report and appropriate plans, prepared under the supervision of a City- approved acoustical consultant, describing the stationary noise generation potential and noise mitigation measures (such as the installation of sound enclosures or placing noise-generating equipment indoors), if needed, which shall be included in the plans and specifications of the project. All stationary equipment shall be designed to meet the noise criteria as specified in the City of Huntington Beach Municipal Code Chapter 8.40 (Noise PC Staff Report—7/8/03 17 (03SR05A EIR 00-02) Control), and will be subject to the approval of the City of Huntington Beach. ALG-2 If outdoor lighting is included, light intensity shall be limited to that necessary for adequate security and safety. All outside . lighting shall be directed to prevent "spillage onto' adjacent properties and shall be shown on the site plan and elevations. CON-12 To reduce project-related construction noise impacts generated by the proposed project, the following conditions shall be implemented: ❖ Construction activities shall be limited to hours specified by the City Noise Ordinance; and ❖ Unnecessary idling of internal combustion engines shall be prohibited. CON-41 In order to minimize potential construction impacts to nesting savannah sparrows adjacent to the proposed desalination facility, a pre-construction nesting survey will be performed by a qualified biologist in consultation with applicable regulatory agencies. Should nesting savannah sparrows be found, adequate mitigation (such as relocation, construction "noise abatement. measures, etc.) will be implemented as appropriate based on the findings of the pre-construction survey. Additional mitigation measures throughout the Draft EIR would also minimize impacts to the adjacent wetland area in regards to air quality, urban runoff/storm water, and erosion. It should also be noted that the existing containment berm (approximately 15 feet in height) running along the border of the project site adjacent to the wetland area would be left in place, further minimizing potential impacts to biological resources. Response 3d. The Huntington Beach Wetlands are situated southeast of the desalination site and occupy a 131 acre, 1.5 mile long area along the coast, bordered by Pacific Coast Highway to the southwest, and the Talbert and Santa Ana River Flood Control Channels to the north and southeast.3 The wetlands are divided into two major components. To the southeast, the 17-acre Talbert Marsh opens to the ocean through a 100 ft-wide entrance adjacent to the mouth of the Santa Ana River. The Talbert Marsh is a recovering wetland area reintroduced to tidal influence on February 17, 1989.4 The second component of the Huntington Beach wetlands, separated from the Talbert Marsh by Brookhurst Street, includes 89 privately owned acres abutting the edge of the southeast corner of the proposed project site. This acreage has limited tidal access, and water sources are primarily limited to rainfall, urban runoff, and groundwater seepage.5 3 MEC,1991. 4 Reish and Massey,1990. ' MEC,1991. PC Staff Report—7/8/03 18 (03SR05A EIR 00-02) Salinities are extremely high in the soils and seasonal ponds,water duality of the brackish water marsh is poor, and the area in general is considered degraded. The remaining area of the Huntington Beach Wetlands includes almost 20 acres of open water channel of the Talbert Flood Control System. The privately owned area of the Huntington Beach wetlands (abutting the edge of the. southeast comer of the desalination plant site) is primarily a seasonally flooded estuarine intertidal habitat dominated by pickleweed, along with other plant species that can tolerate high soil salinities and seasonal saturation and drought, such as saltgrass and alkali heath. Many areas of the wetland are heavily disturbed and unvegetated. The back dune habitat along the Pacific Coast Highway supports a moderate number of species including introduced plant species. The dunes have been replanted with native plant species. The site functions as a seasonal wetland for some wildlife, while seasonal ponding in former tidal sloughs supports limited fish and invertebrate use. As stated in the Draft EIR, a spill at the desalination facility of either product or byproduct water is likely to have negligible effects on the Huntington Beach Wetlands and.Talbert Flood Control System. Soils of wetlands are already flooded by freshwater during the rainy season, forming standing pools. Product water spills will do the same. Soils are already hypersaline, so spills of byproduct water will contribute little to the salinity of soils. Spills into the local Talbert Channel are also likely to have minimal impact. The channel already has .multiple year-round fresh water inputs, so product water. spills will have no impact. Byproduct water spills will be diluted`by these fresh water inputs, although if the channel contains ocean water at the time of a spill, salinities may be overly elevated. Species likely to be found in the channel, such as topsmelt, can tolerate wide variations in salinity. Western snowy plover (Charadrius nivosus, federally-listed as threatened and a state species of concern) forage primarily on sand at the beach-surf interface where they feed on small invertebrates. Snowy plovers nest most commonly on sands3its, dune-backed beaches, beach strands and open areas near river mouths and estuaries. Western snowy plover is a winter migrant in southern California and a localized breeding resident April through September.9 Reduced tidal influence in the marsh adjacent to the proposed project make it unlikely that western snowy plover will forage in this area. Plovers would also be unlikely to nest in this, or other adjacent marsh areas due to.human activity. Western . snowy plover nesting was last observed in the area in -1993., when one nesting pair was observed at the protected California least tern breeding area located on the Huntington State Beach.10 Belding's savannah sparrow (Passerculus sandwichensis beldingii, state-listed as endangered) may use the pickleweed of the Huntington Beach wetlands for breeding, nesting and feeding habitat. 1 Construction impacts, including short-term, temporary noise u 6 Coats and Josselyn 1990,CDFG 1982,cited in MEC,1991. ' MEC, 1991. ' nelander and Crabtree,1994. ' AES and URS,2000. . 10 Personal communication,Jonathan Snyder,United States Fish and Wildlife Service,2003. NEC, 1991. PC Staff Report—7/8/03 19 (03SR05A EIR 00-02) disturbance, could lead to disruption in Belding's savannah sparrow nesting activities in the marsh adjacent to the project site. A spill at the desalination plant site of either product or byproduct water could potentially impact Belding's savannah sparrow through inundation of.any of the bird's low- or ground-lying nests in the area. However, such a spill is unlikely to occur as the existing on-site containment berms abutting the wetland area would remain in place, thereby keeping product water or byproduct water- from impacting the wetland area. Adult birds are likely to avoid areas of construction and operational impacts, minimizing potential effects on adults. As noted in Section 3.0, ERRATA, in order to minimize potential construction impacts to nesting savannah sparrows, a pre-construction nesting survey will be performed by a qualified biologist in consultation with applicable regulatory agencies. Adequate mitigation (such as relocation, construction noise abatement measures, etc.) will be implemented as appropriate based on the findings of the pre-construction survey. California least tem (Sterna antillarum brownii, state- and federally-listed as endangered) are known to fly over the Huntington Beach wetlands, and to feed in the open water of the Talbert Channel.12 Least terns forage on small shallow-water. fish such.as anchovies and topsmelt.13 In order to provide abundant food for their chicks, California least terns breed in loose colonies along the coast near areas of seasonally abundant small fish, such as estuaries, river mouths and shallows. Nests are shallow depressions in sandy open areas with little vegetation. Nests and chicks are highly vulnerable to predation from native and introduced predators. A protected 7.9.-acre California least tern breeding area is located on the Huntington.State Beach between the:Talbert Marsh opening.and the mouth of the Santa Ana River, approximately 5,000 ft south east of the proposed project area. Typically'200 to 300 nesting pairs of California least terns utilize this breeding site each year.14 This area is likely to be unaffected by construction impacts. The nesting site is also well outside the modeled area of elevated salinities from the offshore discharge.15 Least terns nest above the high tide level, so they would not be directly impacted by water of varying salinities as might occur in the case of accidental release of high saline-water. California least tern forage species are mobile, surface-schooling fish species can be expected to tolerate all salinity conditions resulting from project operations (refer to Appendix C of these Responses to Comments), limiting least tem exposure to high salinities during foraging. California least terns are not likely to be impacted as a result of RO plant operations. Response 3h. A.biological constraints report was prepared to assess potential biological resource impacts at the proposed underground pump station, while a review was conducted to assess potential marine biological and coastal terrestrial impacts at the proposed desalination site. Rare plants and natural communities may exist adjacent to the proposed underground booster pump station location (for further information, Refer to Response lc, above). However, in response to agency comments, the underground pump station location will be sited adjacent to existing pipeline facilities, and no sensitive vegetation/community will be replaced. 12 MEC, 1991. 17 'thelander and Crabtree, 1994. 14 Personal communication,Keane,2001. Is Jenkins and Wasyl,2001(Appendix D of the Draft EIR). � 1 PC Staff Report—7/8/03 20 (03SR05A EIR 00-02) As indicated in Response 3d, above, the wetland area abutting to the southeastern boundary of the desalination plant site features high salinities in the soils and seasonal ponds, poor water quality of the water marsh, and the area in general is considered degraded. This area is dominated by pickleweed, along with other plant species that can tolerate high soil salinities and seasonal saturation and drought,such as saltgrass and alkali. heath. Many areas of the wetland are.heavily disturbed and unvegetated. The back dune habitat along the Pacific Coast Highway supports a moderate number of species including introduced plant species. The dunes have been replanted with native plant species. The desalination plant is not anticipated to impact vegetation in the adjacent wetland area. However, should construction have the potential to impact suitable habitat for nesting birds within 500 feet of project construction/staging areas, applicable pre-construction nesting surveys will be performed in coordination with appropriate resource agencies. In addition, the proposed water conveyance pipeline alignment would primarily travel within existing street right-of-way and easements. No sensitive vegetation or natural communities are anticipated to be impacted through pipeline implementation (also see Response 3e above regarding flood control channel crossings). Commissioner Ray: 1. Impacts of Project on Future Restored Adjacent Wetland/Possibility of Buffer Area— California Earth Corps comment letter (dated 5/27/03): See response to Commissioner . Dingwall's Issue No. 4, above: 2. Archaeological Resources within Proposed Project Boundaries: According to the City of Huntington Beach General Plan EIR, archaeological resources within the City have mostly been destroyed by development. The remaining archaeological resources are likely to be found in vacant, undeveloped areas of the City. As all elements of the proposed project (excluding the proposed pump station nearby the NCCP/HCP area in unincorporated Orange County) occur within developed areas, the project is not expected to impact archaeological resources. In addition, a discussion of potential impacts and mitigation measures for the proposed pump station nearby the NCCP/HCP area in unincorporated Orange County is provided within the Draft EIR in Section 4.9, CONSTRUCTION RELATED'IMPACTS. 3. Growth Inducement in Reyards to Santa Margarita Water District and the Rancho Mission Viejo, Saddle Creek, Saddle Crest, and Saddleback Meadow developments: Refer to Commissioner Kokal's #2 response, above. It should be noted that the Santa Margarita Water:District.would.only provide service to one of the specific developments mentioned by Commissioner Ray (the Rancho Mission Viejo development), as the Saddle Creek, Saddle Crest, and Saddleback Meadow residential developments are within the service area of the Trabuco Canyon Water District, not SMWD.16 4. AES Heat Treatment/Reverse Flow Process: See response to Commissioner Kokal's Issue No. 1, above. 16 http://www.tcwd.ca.gov/service.htm PC Staff Report—7/8/03 21 (03 SR05A EIR 00-02) ADDITIONAL COMMENTS RECEIVED AT OR AFTER THE JUNE 3, 2003 PLANNING COM USSION HEARING WRITTEN COMMENTS: A brief summary of each comment letter received either at or after the June '3, 2003. Planning. .Commission hearing is provided below (refer to each individual comment letter as provided by City staff in previous staff reports or late communication packets for more information): 1. Rich Kolander, Huntington Beach Resident (dated May 8, 2003): Mr. Kolander's letter provides information on the benefits of the proposed project, focusing on the industrial nature of the project area, existing infrastructure, tax revenues, and improvements in water pressure. Mr. Kolander endorses the proposed project. 2. Jan Vandersloot, M.D., Huntington Beach Business Owner (dated May 29, 2003): Mr. Vandersloot's letter provides information regarding the proposed project's salinity plume and suggests a relationship to the results of bacterial testing performed as part of the Huntington Beach Closure Investigation, Phase I. Information from the Huntington Beach Shoreline Contamination Investigation, Phase III, is also included. The letter also expresses concerns regarding entrainment/impingement, public/private desalination plant ownership, alternative locations, by-product brine disposal, and recreational impacts. Attached to Mr. Vandersloot's letter is the executive summary from the Huntington Beach Shoreline Contamination Investigation, Phase III Peer Review Panel Summary Report. Mr. Vandersloot recommended continuation on the Draft EIR for the project. 3. Larry Porter, Newport Beach Resident (dated May 29, 2003): Mr: Porter's letter focuses on the existing bacterial plume off-shore of Huntington Beach and its potential relationship to the proposed project. The letter also contains information regarding the Southern California Bight and pollutants discharged into the Bight from local waterways. Mr. Porter also states concerns with reverse osmosis membrane durability and the Department of Health Services conceptual approval letter. Mr. Porter recommends denial of the proposed project. 4. Robert W. Harrison, P.E., Huntington Beach Resident (dated May 30, 2003): Mr. Harrison's letter focuses on thermal impacts of the existing AES facility and potential effects of the proposed project. The letter provides information on benefits of the project, such as environmental benefit and use of existing infrastructure. Mr. Harrison recornmen`ds approval of the proposed project. 5. Joe Geever, Surfrider Foundation — National Office (dated May 30,. 2003): Mr. Geever's letter focuses on.entrainmentlimpingement and potential impacts of the project on organisms surviving the AES cooling process and growth inducement. Mr. Geever recommends continuation of the Draft EIR for the proposed project. 6. Don May, California Earth Corps (dated June 3, 20030: Mr. May's comment letter largely reiterates text found in his previous letter dated May 27, 2003. Mr. May's comments on the proposed project focused on growth inducement/cumulative impacts, coastal/terrestrial/wetland biological impacts, geological hazards, Ascon/Nesi hazardous materials, on-site drainage, AES entrainment/impingement, permitting requirements, groundwater/soil contamination, noise, light and glare, operational use of hazardous materials, drinking water supply, tsunami potential, aesthetics, and cultural resources. Mr. May recommends continuation of the Draft EIR. ri 9 PC Staff Report—7/8/03 22 (03SR05A EIR 00-02) 7. Tom Luster, California Coastal Commission (dated June 3, 2003): Mr. Luster's letter focuses on the 316(b) study to be performed-for the AES Generating Station. Mr. Luster repeats the comment included in his November 4, 2002 and May 8, 2003 letters that the results of this study are necessary to appropriately make a determination on the Draft EIR. Mr. Luster recommends continuation, of the Draft EIR until this entrainment study is completed: 8. Gregory P. Heiertz, P.E., Irvine Ranch Water District (dated June 5, 2003): Mr. Heiertz's letter suggests that product water from the proposed project would cause Irvine Ranch Water District (IRWD) to exceed reclaimed water permit limits set by the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board (SARWQCB), due to elevated sodium and chloride levels. Mr. Heiertz recommends that mitigation measures to ensure reclaimed water quality permit compliance should be included into the EIR prior to certification. 9. Don Schulz, Surfrider Foundation (dated June 19, 2003): Mr. Schulz's letter provides information regarding the Groundwater Replenishment System(GWRS). 10. Mike Seymour, Huntington Beach Resident (dated May 29, 2003): Mr. Seymour's letter indicates support for the project. 11. Michelle Kremer, Surfrider Foundation National Office (dated July 2, 2003): Ms. Kremer's letter urges the Planning Commission not to certify the EIR until deficiencies relative to growth inducement and marine life mortality, among others, are addressed. 12. Richard Kolander, Huntington Beach Resident (dated July 1, 2003): Mr. Kolander's letter includes articles on water supply problems in the western United States. 13. Bill Holman, Huntington Beach Resident (dated July 3, 2003):. Mr..Holman expresses support of the project: ORAL CONEVIENTS: In addition, as part of the CEQA process for the proposed desalination facility, input from the public was received by the City of Huntington Beach Planning Commission on June 3, 2003. A total of 16 oral comments regarding the proposed project were heard during the public hearing. A list of speakers and a brief summary of their comments is provided below. In addition please note that "*" indicates that the speaker also submitted written comments, either as part of the Draft EIR review period or following close of public review. 1. Don McGee — Opposed to Project: Mr. McGee stated his concerns in regards to the AES facility's financial situation, public versus private ownership of the proposed project, and conservation of water instead of desalinated water. 2.. Dean Albright, Ocean Outfall Group (OOG) — Opposed to Project: .Mr. Albright's comments focused on sewagelbacterial impacts and their relationship.to marine.biology and potential salinity impacts of the proposed project. 3. Chris Jepsen — Opposed to Project: Mr. Jessup stated his concerns in regards to AES air pollution and potential. project-.related impacts in regards to product water pipeline implementation, adjacent wetland impacts, desalination facility electricity consumption, and land use issues. 4. *John Hills, IRWD — Expressed Concerns About the Adequacy of the EIR: Mr. Hills' comments focused on potential impacts to .IRWD reclaimed water quality, customer acceptance of water, reverse osmosis membrane performance, and potential corrosion impacts from.desalinated product water. PC Staff Report—7/8/03 23 (03SR05A EIR 00-02) 5. Billy Owens - Project Applicant: Mr. Owens provided a brief project overview and responses to some recurring comments on the proposed project. 6. *Joe Geever, Surfrider Foundation -Opposed to Project: Mr. Geever stated his concerns in regards to growth inducement and marine life mortality impacts of the proposed project. 7. *Rich Kolander, Supportive of Project: Mr. Kolander provided an analogy of the proposed project to an early-era Ford automobile factory. 8. Greg Jewell, Surfrider Foundation - Opposed to Project: Mr. Jewell stated his concerns that an alternate site should be utilized for the proposed project. 9. Randy Furman - Opposed to Project: Mr. Furman provided comments regarding a lack of benefits of the proposed project for the City of Huntington Beach, alternative sites, and the relationship of the project in regards to the Southeast Coastal Redevelopment Plan. 10. *Don May, California Earth Corps - Opposed to Project: Mr. May stated his concerns in regards to growth inducement, permit acquisition for the project applicant, and issues raised by the California Coastal Commission and California Department of Fish and Game. 11. *Larry Porter - Opposed to Project: Mr. Porter provided comments in regards to the relationship of the OCSD discharge and the AES intake and potential salinity issues of the proposed project. 12. Ron Van Blarcom — Project Applicant Team: Mr. Van Blarcom stated the relationship between the proposed project and the legal requirements of CEQA. 13. Jeffrey Graham — Project Applicant Team: Dr. Graham provided information regarding potential marine biological impacts due to the by-product brine discharge of the proposed proj ect. - 14. Elaine Archibald-Project Applicant Team: .Ms. Archibald stated information found in the Watershed Sanitary Survey, and that there is no relationship between the bacterial plume off the coast of Huntington Beach and the AES intake. 15. Nikolay Voutchkov — Project Applicant: Mr. Voutchkov provided information regarding product water quality and its relationship with IRWD. 16. Scott Jenkins -- Project Applicant Team: Mr. Jenkins stated that the AES intake does not have a relationship to the bacterial plume near the Huntington-Beach coast, as well as the AES intake's relationship to local marshes and the Santa Ana River. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Resolution No. 1581 ('Final EIR No. 00-02) 2. Excerpt from Draft EIR pages 5-2 through 5-6. 3. Excerpt from Draft EIR pages 3-20 through 3-23 4. Additional Comment Letters a) Don Schulz, Surfrider Foundation Local Chapter, dated June 19, 2003 b) Mike Seymour, dated May 29, 2003 c) Gregory Heiertz, Irvine Ranch Water District, dated June 5, 2003 d) Michelle Kremer, Surfrider Foundation National Office, dated July 2, 2003 e) Rich Kolander, dated July 1,2003 f) Bill Holman, dated July 3, 2003 5. Planning Commission Staff Reports (Previously Distributed—Not Attached) a) EIR No. 00-02 Staff Report dated May 27, 2003 b) CUP No. 02-04/CDP No. 02-05 Staff Report dated May 27, 2003 0 3 PC Staff Report—7/8/03 24 (03 SR05A EIR 00-02) c) Late Communication dated May 27,2003 d) Report Updates dated May 22, 2003 e) Report Updates dated June 3, 2003 fl Late Communication dated June 3, 2003 g) Revised Errata dated June 3, 2003 PC Staff Report—7/8/03 25 (03SR05A EIR 00-02) RESOLUTION NO. 1581 RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA, CERTIFYING THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (SCH#2001051092) FOR THE POSEIDON SEAWATER DESALINATION PROJECT WHEREAS, an Environmental Impact Report, State Clearinghouse #2001051092 ("EIR") was prepared by the City of Huntington Beach ("City' to address the environmental implications of the proposed Poseidon Seawater Desalination Project (the"Project"). • On May 17, 2001, a Notice of Preparation/Initial Study for the Project was prepared and distributed to the State Clearinghouse, other responsible agencies, trustee agencies and interested parties. An update to the Notice of Preparation/Initial Study was prepared and distributed on March 4,2002. • After obtaining comments received in response to the Notice of Preparation, and comments received at the two public scoping meetings held at the Edison Community Center in the City of Huntington Beach on June 6, 2001 (2:30 pm and 7:15 pm), the City completed preparation of the Draft EIR, dated September 19,. 2002, and filed a Notice of.Completion with the State Clearinghouse. • The Draft EIR was circulated for public review and comment from September 19, 2002 to November 4, 2002 and was available for review at several locations including City Hall and the Huntington Beach Public Library; and WHEREAS, public comments have been received on the Draft EIR, and responses to those comments have been prepared and provided to the Planning Commission in a separately bound document entitled "Responses to Comments for the Poseidon Seawater Desalination Project" (the "Responses to Comments'D, dated March 21, 2003; and _ WHEREAS,the Planning Commission held a public meeting on the EIR on May 27, 2003, and received and considered public testimony: WHEREAS, the City Council and the Redevelopment Agency have previously certified a Final Environmental Impact Report for the Southeast Redevelopment Project in which the Poseidon Project is located; and WHEREAS, in the event the City Council and the Redevelopment Agency take any actions in the future in furtherance of and to carry out the Southeast Redevelopment Project which involve the Poseidon Project, any such actions would be based on the information contained in the Final Environmental Impact Reports for both the Southeast Redevelopment Project and the Poseidon Project. NOW, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of Huntington Beach, California, DOES HEREBY RESOLVE, as follows: SECTION L. Consistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15132, the Final EIR , for the Project is comprised of the Draft EIR and Appendices, the comments received on the Draft EIR, the Responses to Comments, the Errata (bound together with the Responses to Comments), the Appendices to the Responses to Comments and all Planning Department Staff Reports to the Planning Commission, including all minutes, transcripts, attachments, incorporation, and references. SECTION 2. The Planning Commission makes the findings contained in the attached "Statement of Facts and Findings" with respect to significant impacts identified in the Final EIR and finds that each fact in support of the findings is true and is based - upon substantial evidence in the record, including the Final EIR. The Statement of Facts and Findings is attached as Exhibit"A" to this Resolution and incorporated herein by this reference. SECTION 3. The Planning Commission finds that the Final EIR has identified all significant environmental effects of the Project and that there are no known potential environmental impacts not addressed in the Final EIR. SECTION 4. The Planning Commission finds that.all significant effects of the Project are set forth in the Statement of Findings and Facts and the Final EIR. SECTION 5. The Planning Commission finds that although the Final EIR identifies certain significant environmental effects that will result if the Project is approved, all significant effects which can feasibly be mitigated or avoided have been mitigated or avoided by the incorporation of Project design features,-standard conditions and requirements, and by the imposition of mitigation measures on the approved Project. All mitigation measures are included in the "Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Checklist" (also referred to as the "Mitigation Monitoring Program") attached as Exhibit "B"to this Resolution and incorporated herein by this reference. SECTION 6. The Planning Commission finds that the Final EIR has described reasonable alternatives to the Project that could feasibly obtain the basic objectives of the Project (including the "No Project" Alternative), even when these alternatives might impede the attainment of Project objectives and might be more costly. Further, the Planning Commission fords_that a good faith effort was made to incorporate suggested alternatives in the.preparation of the Draft EIR and that a reasonable range of alternatives was considered in the review process of the Final EIR and ultimate decisions on the Project. SECTION 7. The Planning Commission finds that no "substantial evidence" (as that term is defined pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15384) has been presented which would call into question the facts and conclusions in the EIR. 2 SECTIONS. The Planning Commission finds that no "significant new information" (as that term is defined pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5) has been added to the EIR. The Planning Commission finds that the refinements that have been made in the Project do not amount to significant new information .concerning the Project, nor has any significant new information concerning the Project become known to . the Planning Commission through the public hearings held on the Project, or through the comments on the Draft EIR and Responses to Comments. SECTION 9. The Planning Commission finds that the Mitigation Monitoring Program establishes a mechanism and procedures for implementing and verifying the mitigations pursuant to Public Resources Code 21081.6 and hereby adopts the Mitigation Monitoring Program. The mitigation measures shall be incorporated into the Project prior to or concurrent with Project implementation. SECTION 10. The Planning Commission finds that the unavoidable significant adverse effects of the Project as identified in Section 5.0 of the Statement of Facts and Findings (short-term construction related impacts in regards to air quality) have been lessened in their severity by the application of standard conditions, the inclusion of Project design features and the imposition of the mitigation measures. The Planning Commission finds that the remaining unavoidable significant impacts are clearly outweighed by the economic, social, and other benefits of the Project, as set forth in the "Statement of Overriding Considerations" included as Section 7.0 of the Statement of Facts and Findings. The Planning Commission adopts the recitation of overriding considerations which justify approval of the Project notwithstanding certain unavoidable significant environmental effects which cannot feasibly be substantially mitigated as set forth in the Statement of Overriding Considerations. SECTION 11. The Planning Commission finds that the Firial EIR reflects the independent review and judgment of the City of Huntington Beach Planning Commission, that the Final EIR was presented to the Planning Commission, and that the Planning Commission reviewed and considered the information contained in the Final EIR. prior to approving Conditional Use Permit No. 02-04 and Coastal Development Permit No. 02-05. SECTION 12. The Planning Commission finds that the Final EIR serves-as adequate and appropriate environmental documentation for the Project. The Planning Commission certifies that the Final EIR prepared for the Project is complete, and that it has been prepared in compliance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act and CEQA Guidelines. 3 � - 1.3 PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED, this 27 ' day of May, 2003 by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: Howard Zelefsky, Secretary Chairperson, Planning Commission 4 l �. ATTACHMENT NO. 2 EXCERPT FROM THE DRAFT EIR (pages 5-2 through 5-6) 5.2 GROWTH-INDUCING IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED ACTION The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires a discussion of the ways in which a proposed project could be growth-inducing. The CEQA Guidelines identify a project as growth-inducing if it would foster economic growth or population growth or the construction of additional housing, either directly or indirectly, in the surrounding environment [CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.2(d)]. For example, new employees from commercial and industrial development and new population from . residential development represent direct forms of growth. These direct forms have a secondary effect of expanding the size of local markets and,inducing additional economic activity in the area. A project could also indirectly induce growth by reducing or removing barriers to growth, or by creating a condition that attracts additional population or new economic activity. However, a project's potential to induce growth does not automatically result in growth. Growth can only happen through capital investment in new economic opportunities by the private or public sectors. Development pressures are a result of economic investment in a particular locality. These pressures help to structure the local politics of growth and the local jurisdiction's posture on growth management and land use policy. Land use policies of local municipalities and counties largely regulate growth at the local level. Under CEQA, growth inducement is not considered necessarily detrimental, beneficial, or of little significance to the environment. Typically, the growth-inducing potential of a project would be considered significant if it fosters growth or a concentration of population in excess of what is assumed in pertinent master plans, land use plans, or in projections made by regional planning agencies such as the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). Significant growth impacts could also occur if the project provides infrastructure or service capacity to accommodate growth beyond the levels currently permitted by local or regional plans and policies. In general, growth induced by a preject is considered a significant impact if it directly or indirectly affects the ability of agencies to provide needed public services, or if it can be demonstrated that the potential growth significantly affects the environment in some other way. Population The population of the County of Orange was 2,867,700 as of January 1, 2000 and 2,925,700 as of January 1, 2001, This represented a 2.0 percent increase in population over this time period. The population of the City of Huntington Beach was 190,300 as of January 1, 2000 and 193,700 as of January 1, 200V This represented a 1.8 percent increase in population over this time period. Therefore, the population of the City of 1 California Department of Finance,"City/County Population Estimates,with Annual Percent Change, January 1, 2000 and 2001! May 2001. a�� Huntington Beach increased at a slightly slower rate than that of the County over the past year. In 2001, the population of the City of Huntington Beach represented 6.6 percent of the total population of the County of Orange. The California Department of Finance estimates an increase in County population to 3,031,440 in the year 2005, and to 3,168,942 in the year 2010.2 The proposed project may have .the potential to indirectly induce growth because additional or supplemental water supplies will be made available to the South Coast Hydrologic Region of California and particularly to Orange County as a result of the project's implementation. However, while the provision of additionallsupplemental water realized by the desalination plant may be characterized as reducing one of the barriers to growth, implementation of the project may not necessarily induce growth because the new water supply made available by the project will be needed to replace anticipated reductions in available imported water supplies. In addition, implementation of the project will provide greater flexibility in meeting existing water supply needs during times of drought. Housing The California Department of Finance estimated approximately 967,112 housing units with a vacancy rate of 3.52 percent in the County of Orange, and 75,524 housing units with a vacancy rate of 2.65 percent in the City of Huntington Beach as of January 1, 2000.3 The desalination project would occur within an industrial area and would not involve the construction of any new housing or the relocation of any existing housing. Employment . The proposed project site is currently occupied with several fuel storage tanks. The existing facility does not require the employment of any personnel. Implementation of the proposed desalination would generate minor short-term and nominal long-term employment within the City of Huntington Beach. The proposed plant would employ a total of 18 people, with five to seven people working on-site Monday through Friday and a minimum of two people on duty during swing shifts, graveyard shifts, and weekends. Project implementation would not appreciably affect the projected employment figure of 1,667,778 jobs in the year 2005 for the County of Orange, Jobs/Housing Balance Information obtained from the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) indicates that the City's jobs/housing ratio was .1.109 in 2000. This ratio indicates that more job positions exist within the City of Huntington Beach than housing units. This trend is anticipated to increase into the future. The jobs/housing ratios for 2000-2025 are included in Table 5-1, CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH JOBS/HOUSING RATIO, 2000-2025: 2 Center for Demographic Reserach, 'Orange County Facts and Figures", March 2002. 3 California Department of Finance, Report E-5, 'City/County Population and Housing Estimates, 2000 and 2001." July 2001. 4 Center for Demographic Research,"Orange.County Facts and Figures",March 2002. The proposed desalination project will not affect General Plan or Zoning designations for the project area and, as such, will not affect SCAG's current jobs/housing balance projections for the City. Table 5-1 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH JOBS/HOUSING RATIO, 2000-2025 Year Jobs/Housing Ratio 2000 1.109 2005 1.171 2010 1.213 2015 1.239 2020 1.266 2025 1.289 Source:Javier Minjaves, Southern California Association of Governments, 11/21/01 Water Supply Water supplies are typically allocated on an aggregate basis among diverse demands (urban, agricultural, and environmental) and across a geographically broad market. In California, water supplies are generally managed to be available for use within defined regions or service areas. This project, and primary users of water made available by this project, lie within a region defined by the California Department of Water Resources in Bulletin 160-98 (the California Water Plan Update) as the South Coast Hydrologic Region (the South Coast Region).s The South Coast Region is bounded by the Santa BarbaraNentura County line and the San Gabriel and San Bernardino Mountains to the north; a combination of the San Jacinto Mountains and low-elevation mountain ranges in central San Diego County to the east; the Mexican border to the south; and the Pacific Ocean to the west. The South Coast Region is described as "Califomia's most urbanized hydrologic region" containing only seven percent of the state's total land area, but roughly 54 percent of the state's population (Bulletin 160-98, page 7-47). Through an integrated system of pipelines, pumps, and treatment facilities, the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (MWD) delivers imported water to approximately 95 percent of the South Coast Region (Bulletin 160-98, page 7-48). 5 In 1957,the Department of Water Resources published Bulletin 3,the California Water Plan. Bulletin 3 was followed by the Bulletin 150 series. The Bulletin 160 series was published six times between 1966 and 1993, updating the California Water Plan. A 1991 amendment to the California Water Code directed the Department to update the plan every five years. Bulletin 160-98 is the latest in the series. /�(l The County of Orange and the service area of the Municipal Water District of Orange County (MWDOC) are located at the center of the South Coast Region. In addition to the statewide water planning information available in the California Water Plan, local water planning information is also readily available for Orange County water supplies. The Urban Water Management Planning Act of 1983 requires all urban water suppliers to prepare and adopt an Urban Water Management Plan, and to update that plat! every five years using a 20-year planning horizon. MWDOC supplies imported water to.32 local water agencies and cities throughout.the County of Orange. The most recent MWDOC Regional Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) is dated December 20, 2000. Neither CEQA, or the CEQA Guidelines provide a specific methodology for determining whether or not a project will have growth-inducing impacts. One methodology would be to assume a "worst case" scenario, wherein all water produced by the desalination plant, or indirectly made available by implementation of the project, would be directed entirely toward supporting new growth. The Department of Water Resources has long recognized the entire South Coast Region as hydrologically interconnected, as well as physically connected by the MWD pipeline system. The proposed desalination plant project would produce 50 mgd (or 56,000 acre feet per year) of potable water for ultimate use within the South Coast Region. In comparison, the total 1995 water use in an average year for the South Coast Region was 5,224,000 acre feet (Bulletin 160-98, Table 7-21). The project would result in the nominal addition of slightly over one percent of the existing supplies used in the South Coast Region. If the. potential growth impact area is theoretically.narrowed to only include Orange County, the project's contribution is greater. MWDOC reported the total Orange County water use for the year 2000 as 703,000 acre feet (MWDOC UWMP, page 2-2). Under the "worst case" scenario analysis, the project would result in the addition of less than eight percent of the existing supplies used in Orange County. With a projected population growth of approximately two percent per year, the project alone would not supply enough water to serve long-term growth projections for Orange County. Water planning documents are legally required to provide projections of future water needs (based on population projections and other factors) and to identify, to the extent feasible, where the water supplies to meet those needs will be found. In the South Coast Region (and particularly in Orange County) those planning documents have identified sea water desalination as one of the future supplies necessary to provide water for projected growth. Bulletin 160-98 identifies a projected year 2020 need.of 6,084,000 acre feet per year in the South Coast Region. The Department of Water Resources has identified 5,141,000 acre feet of available water supply for 2020 (83,000 acre feet less than was available in 1995). This would result in a 944,000 acre feet shortage of available water in 2020 in an average year, and a 1,317,000 acre feet shortage in a drought year (refer to Bulletin 160-98, Table 7-21 and Table 3-2, SOUTH COAST REGION WATER BUDGET). Substantial reductions in the amount of imported Colorado River supplies and in the amount of imported State Water Project supplies from Northern California have been mandated and have been reflected in the projections. The Department of Water Resources identified seawater desalting as one of several management options available to offset these reductions,:.and. stated "seawater desalting is sometimes described as the ultimate solution to Southern California's water supply shortfall" (Bulletin 160-98, page 7-70). However, the supplemental supply of 56,000 acre feet per year from this project will not be enough to replace the amount of existing supplies that are projected to be lost, much less offset the future supply needs. In Orange County, 2020 water needs are projected to be as high as 856,000 acre feet in an average year (MWDOC UWMP, page.2-10), and the desalination project has already been identified as part of the solution to offset projected losses and meet projected needs. The MWDOC UWMP specifically states that "seawater desalination is undoubtedly in the future of Orange County's water supplies," and describes a seawater desalination facility within the City of Huntington Beach (situated adjacent to the AES Huntington Beach Generating Station) as a "future water supply for Orange. County." (MWDOC UWMP, page 3-13). Bulletin 160-98 describes the water supply reliability situation in the South Coast Region as follows: "Since local supplies are insufficient to meet water demands, the (South Coast) region imports more than 60 percent of its supply. A natural disaster or other emergency that would curtail or limit imports to the region would be detrimental. Water supply is a critical issue for the region and water agencies are seeking to ensure a more reliable and adequate supply in case of emergencies" (Bulletin 160-98, page 7-54). The objective of the proposed project is to meet that stated need by creating a drought-proof supply of domestic water and reducing Orange County's dependence on imported water. As the proposed project's product water would aid in supplying a projected water supply shortage for the region and has been identified as an ,important water source in .the MWDOC UWMP (the applicable regional, planning, water. supply document), potential growth-inducing impacts are not anticipated to be significant. ATTACHMENT NO. 3 EXCERPT FROM THE DRAFT EIR (pages 3-20 through 3-23) 3.5 PROJECT NEED AND-OBJECTIVES NEED FOR PROJECT It is common knowledge that Southern California could not exist without its extensive imported water system. There are three main parts to the region's imported water system: the Los Angeles Aqueduct (operated by the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power); the State Water Project (operated by the Department of Water Resources); and the Colorado River Aqueduct (operated by the Metropolitan Water District). The MWD and others operate numerous transmission pipelines necessary to distribute imported water supplies throughout the region. Although the region has made a significant financial investment in the imported water system and the system has met all of the region's supplemental water supply needs (with the exception of a one year period from March 1991 to March 1992), there is present concern regarding the amount of water that will continue to be available for delivery through the imported water system. Increasing regulatory activity and environmental water use needs in Northern California and in the Mono Lake area have reduced the amount of imported water supply (compared to system capacity,and earlier, projections) that. is available to Southern California. Likewise, there is a!fundamental change occurring in the availability and use of Colorado River water because California; for the first time, will be required to reduce the amount of Colorado River water it uses. California is currently finalizing its Colorado River Water Use Plan. Implementation of the Plan will, among other things, result in a reduction of up to 1 million acre feet per year as compared to the highest amount diverted in the past 25 years (from a high of 5.4 million acre feet per year to the California allotment of 4.4 million acre feet per year). Solutions to potential water shortage and reliability problems include water management programs on imported water systems as well as an increased reliance on many different sources of water supply and a continued emphasis on water conservation through implementation of State-approved Best Management Practices (BMP's). Orange County has implemented several successful programs including ultra low flow toilet and low flow shower head programs, conservation based . rate structure programs, landscape conservation programs and commercial, industrial and institutional conservation programs. However, according to the Orange County Water District Master Plan Report (Section 5.6.2), potential conservation savings will be limited to no more than 30,000 to 60,00.0 acre feet per year. This amount is hardly sufficient to offset anticipated water shortages due to increases in population and economic activity. Water recycling (reclamation of wastewater to produce water that is safe and acceptable for various non-potable uses, but not approved for drinking and other domestic uses) is a technology that has provided a valuable source of water supply for Southern California. Southern California (and Orange County in particular) leads the way in producing recycled water to offset potable water demands. In 1996 the major imported water supplier in the region, MWD, adopted its so-called "Southern California's Integrated Water Resources Plan" (IRP) representing a dramatic shift in water management and resource planning for the region. The IRP identified 80 different local recycling projects producing over 150,000 acre feet per year of water supply available to the region. Depending upon technological advancements and economic constraints, the IRP projected that as much.as..800,000 acre feet of recycled water could be made available to the region by 2020. Recycled water projects will certainly be relied upon. to .meet the demands of projected growth in the region. However, recycled water has not been approved for drinking or for other potable uses. Desalinated seawater can be made directly available for drinking and other potable uses. Consequently, seawater desalination was also one of several potential resource options identified in the IRP. The IRP also recommended that groundwater recovery projects, storage projects, water recycling projects, water transfer projects and water conservation projects be included in the "resource mix". The IRP states that based on feasibility studies on potential projects, about 200,000 acre-feet per year (of desalinated ocean water) could be developed by 2010 (p. 3-12.) The proposed Poseidon Seawater Desalination Project represents an opportunity to develop approximately 56,000 acre- feet per year, or approximately one fourth of the potential for seawater desalination development identified by the 1996 IRP. Further, as a new reliable and sustainable water, source, water produced through the desalination process may become increasingly important in meeting increasing water demands generated by anticipated statewide population growth and related development.activities.. In this regard, the California Department of Water Resources (DWR) provides an assessment of anticipated statewide population growth and related, water consumption statistics in their "Bulletin 160 series". The DWR employs these projections in developing and implementing long-range strategies addressing California's water demands. Information from Bulletin 160-98 (the most recent of the Bulletin 160 series) is presented in Table 3-1, CALIFORNIA - 1995 TO 2020 WATER DEMANDS AND RELATED STATISTICS. Table 3-1 CALIFORNIA - 1995 TO 2020 WATER DEMANDS AND RELATED STATISTICS Change 1995 2020 Forecast. (percenta e) Population(million) 32.1 47.5 +15.4 Irrigated craps(million acres) 9.5 9.2 -0.3 Urban water use(million acre feet) 8.8 12.0 +3.2 Agricultural water use (million acre feet) 33.8 31.5 -2.3 Environmental water use(million acre feet) 36.9 37.0 +0.1 Source: California Department of Water Resources,Bulletin 160-98:California Water Plan Based on the State's assessment of future water availability, and the water demand Information presented in Table 3-1, DWR projects 2020 statewide water shortages at approximately 2.4 million acre feet in an average water year, and 6.2 million acre feet in drought years. Effects of water shortages are typically evidenced in required rationing, curtailment of development, and environmental impacts to biologic resources. In general, anticipated statewide shortages can be expected to translate to equivalent local and regional shortages, with similar economic and environmental effects: Senate Bill (SB) 221 and SB 610 require demonstration of water supply reliability prior to development. In a more localized context, Bulletin 160-98 presents an assessment of existing and projected water supplies and demands for the South Coast Hydrologic Area. Extending eastward from the Pacific ocean, the South Coast Hydrologic Area (South Coast Region, or Region) is generally defined as that area bounded by the Santa Barbara-Ventura County line. and the San Gabriel and San Bernardino mountains on the north, and a combination of the San Jacinto Mountains and low-elevation mountain ranges in central San Diego County on the east, and the Mexican border on the south. The South Coast is California's most urbanized region. Although it covers only about 7 percent of the State's total land area, it is home to approximately 54 percent of the State's population. The largest cities in the region are Los Angeles, San Diego, Long Beach, Santa Ana, and Anaheim. Although highly urbanized, about one-third of the Region's land is publicly owned. About 2.3 million acres is public land, of which 75 percent is national forest. Previously discussed anticipated statewide water shortages will likely be reflected locally within the South Coast Region, and as indicated in Table 3-2, will become acute under drought. conditions where demands may exceed available water sources by up.to 21 percent. PROJECT OBJECTIVES The overall objective of the project is to provide Orange County and the surrounding region with a long-term, reliable, high quality local source of potable water. Project implementation will create a local drought-proof supply of domestic water and would reduce Orange County's dependence on imported water, consistent with the goal of integrated water resource management. A key advantage of the selected site is to utilize existing ocean intake/discharge lines of sufficient seawater volume to avoid the impact of constructing new ocean intake/discharge facilities. The project is intended to realize the following objectives: ❖ Provide a reliable local source of potable water to Orange County and the surrounding region that is sustainable independent of climatic conditions and the availability of imported water supplies or local groundwater supplies; •:• Provide product water that meets or exceeds the requirements of the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) and the Department of Health Services (DHS); ❖ Reduce salt imbalance of current imported water supplies by providing a potable water source with lower salt loads for blending with existing supplies; Table 3-2 SOUTH COAST REGION WATER BUDGET (THOUSAND ACRE FEET) ' 1995 2020 Average Drought Average Drought Water Use Urban 4,340 4,382 5,519 5,612 Agricultural 784 820 462 484 Environmental 100 82 104 86 Total 5,224 F5,283 Fro. 84 6,181 - 7 Supplies Surface Water 3,839 3,196 3,625 3,130 Groundwater 1,177 1,371 1,243 1,462 Recycled and 207 207 273 273 Desalted Total 5,224 4,775 5,141 4,865 Shortage 0 508 944 1,317 Source: California Department of Water Resources,Bulletin 160-98:California Water Plan. ❖ Remediate the subject site of on-site contaminants resulting from approximately 35 years of use as a fuel oil storage facility in order to protect the health and safety of those in the surrounding community; ❖ Create ecosystem and biologic resources benefits that may accrue due to decreased pressures on existing water resources and reduced contamination within receiving waters; and ❖ Minimize demands on the existing imported water system. Water uselsupply totals and shortages may not sum due to rounding. r Jun-20-03 02 : 52P PRC 415-"'2-4056 P.02 . . Huntington Beach/Sea] Beach Chapter June 19,2003 TO: Planning Commission, City of Huntington.Beach CC: Council Members, City of Huntington Beach RE:Poseidon Resources GWRS vs. Seawater R/O Desalination Water Quality Comments. Dear Planning Commission Membcrs. Some of the technical information that you may have received from Poseidon Resources during the Poseidon Desalination Plant E1R hearings regarding the comparative water quality of Seawater RIO Desalination water vs, reclaimed fresh water is not completely accurate(see attachments). This may raise an issue regarding the credibility of their statements in other areas. I would encourage you to question the Poseidon technical staff on all matters relating to water quality that are not fully disclosed in the Ea Thank you for our consideration of this suggestion. vo Sc ulz Chapter Executive Member Attach. 1)E-mail Dtd. 6/09/03 to Billy Owens Poseidon Resources Vi„e President. 2)Letter Dtd. 5/23/03"GWRS vs. Seawater R/O Desalination;Differences in Treatment Methods." 3)E Mail Dtd. 6/12/03 from Ron Wildermuth,Communications Director @OCWD.com. 4)E-Mail from Phil Anthony,Chair Joint Cooperative Committee GRS Jun-20-03 02 : 52P PRC 415-332-4056 P. 03 6/09/03 Billy Owens Thanks for the information regarding your intention to apply fora separate NPDF.S permit from the RWQCB for the desalination project. AES will also have to apply for an amendment to their NPDES permit in order to supply the source water for this project. We are looking forward to the opportunity for public comment to both permit applications when they become available for review. 1 believe that your comparison of the GVItRS vs. Desalination Project water quality contains some misconceptions regarding the GWRS project water. Because of the stringent source control and pre-treatment(microfiltration,chlorination and de-clorination) process that the GWRS must undergo prior to further treatment at water factory 21, the water quality for the GWRS water presently being used to re-charge our aquifer and our salt water barrier is superior to the Desalination Project product water that you are planning to sell to distributors. The Poseidon Desalination Project water contains no comparable sea water source control and pre-treatment before R/O. 2 have forwarded your Comparison of GWRS vs, Desalination Project Water to GWRS and OCSD staff for their review and comment. They are included in this distribution. Your comments are appreciated. Don Schulz Attach:1 _ ` ' ZI Jun-Lu-u�j u'L : `JGP PRU 415-3: '--4055 P .04 Attach: 2 GrouricWaW R ttishrt+*rd Stern (GWRS) &Sitar RR® Detaliration: Diftfooces in Trwtmeftt MOMMS May 23,2=1 Some questions have been raised about why the proposed GWRS, which uses a reverse osmosis (R/0) system, is using additional treatment beyond the RIO process even though the water will not be consumed as drinfi ng water. The Poseidon Seawater proposed plant will be producing drinwng water ham the ocean, but does not use the aMficnal trezitments. The simple answer is that the source water for each treatment system is different; sewage wastewater contains more contaminants then seawater, therefore it requires more aggressive treatment. The standards are set by the California Department of Health Services(DHS)for both proposed facilities. Desalinated water is "cleaner" by definition in the sense that GWRS product (treated water produced by the process)cannot be used directly as a potable water souroo but the desalinated water can. The GWRS source water is treated sewage which is loaded with all sorts of inorganic and organic chemicals from industrial and domestic waste discharges. Only about 10% of these contaminants in wastewater can be identified by analysis, so a much mono stringent treatment technique is required by DHS before the GWRS product water can be used to recharge the. groundwater basin. DHS requires that the recharged water remain in the ground for a defined period (6 months to 2 years depending on the groundwater basin) so that additional in-situ treatment (breakdown of organics) can occur before groundwater containing recycled water can be pumped into the potable supply system for use. GWRS is using UV disinfection, followed by the addition of hydrogen peroxide, to destroy N- Nitrasodimethylamine (NDMA)which is one of the most powerful carcindijene known. NDMA forms in treated wast&m5ter when chlorine is used as's disinfectant The GWRS,source water has relatively high levels of NOMA both from direct industrial discharges irto the sewer system and from formation of NOMA during chlorination of the wastewater. Tho RiO in the GWRS will remove about 50% of the NDMA and the rest is destroyed by the UV treatment. NDMA Is not found in the Huntington Beach seawater source water and will not be formed after RIO because the NDMA precursors are removed. There is a very particular reason why GWRS needs to treat their RO water with UV disinfection in combination with hydrogen peroxide: their source water(i.e. the wastewater) contains two highly carcinogenic compounds: N-nitrosodimethylamine(NDMA)and 1,4-dloxsns, which are regulated by the California DHS. Unfortunately,therm are some of the few organic ownpounds that cannot be effectively removed by the RO system and the only cbst-elfective way of their treatment known today is a combination of UV irradiation followed by a hydrogen peroxide oxidation, The purpose of the W irradiation is to break the complex organic molecules of the NDM4 and 1,4-dioxane to smaller molecules, which are than oxidized by hydrogen peroxide to carbon dioxide and water. The source of NDMA and 1,4-dioxane in the wastewater is unknown in this time .(OCWD developed a comprehensive program to find it), but is typically gasNuet related or originates from some industries. .The desalination plant treats its RIO water with lime and chlodnelamonia only. The desalination pretreatment and the.GWRS pretreatment system are similar, although GWRS uses membrane micxofittration and the desalination plant may or may not use membrane preteatment. A significsru benard of the Huntington®each source seawater(and seawete•r in general)is that it does not contain NDMA and 1,4-dioxene — therefore we do not need the additional iN end Pnaairion Rasrnrrras— Hkintinaton FlAanh i .Jun-GU-U3 OZ : b:SP PRC 415-332-4056 P.05 Attach: 2 hydrogen peroxide systems to deal with theso compounds. We have measured the concentration of both compounds in the HS Carlsbad Intake seawater and they are non-detectible. Several additional key water quality differences between the Huntington Beach source seawater and GWRS source water(which is actually wastewater)are that: 1. Seawater contains several orders of magnitude loweir pathogens concentration (coii beoeds) then GWRS source water. The Wi count in the Huntingb on Beach desal pleat source seawater is usually in the range at 0 to 1tD bacteria cells per titer(typically batons 50), the coli count of the GWRS water is in the order of million tuiclariel ce11a per liter. The DHS gives only two log pathogen mr rval creWt for the RO system in s>'ath cases— HS decal plant and the GYURRS. Because the RO systems in Hundntiton Beach desal and GWRS are given the acme log removal credit (read pathogen rem wal capabilities) but, the GWRS has to deal with several orders of magnitude higher pathogen count, they have to do an additional RO water past treatment —which the UV and peroxide do for them. Berth of these technologies are credited for additional psthofren removal,which is needed in the GWRS case to deal with the higher pathogen content in the source water. 2. Seawater contains an order of magnitude lower concentration od arsenic (i.e. arsenic is not present/non-detect) than the GWRS source water. There are rwmerous sources of arsenic in the wastewater— most of them are industrial installations. Arsenic is very difficult to treat and requires more complicated and conservative pretreatment and RO design. 3. Intake water total suspended solids content. The GWRS source water has turbidity of 10 to 100 NTU, and turbidity usually averages around 15 to 20 NTU. The seawater turbidity is typically 1 to 4 NTU (i.e. several times lower). This cifference requires more robust and expensive pretreatment 4, intake water organic content. The total organic carbon in the GWRS water is in a ran" of 4 to 10 mg/L. Theo Huntington Beady seawater contains TOC of less than 0.2 mg/L (i.e. is below detection limits). This requires a more complicated pretreatment and a more conservativety designed RO system,which makes the RO system bigger. There are a number of other compounds that are different in a positive way (such as nutrients)— the GWRS has a large amount, seawater does not —which make the treartmentt of wastewater more =npllcated and expensive. The differences listed above are not an exception for the GWRS only—most water reuse insWations in the US face the same probhams, which will make water reuse even more expensive in the future as carripwad to the downward cost trend of seawater desalination. Pogaidon Ranotirr:as— Huntinaton SaAnh 2 t R Jun-20-03 02 : 53P PRC 415-3-1.-4056 P.06 Page 1 of I Subj: Desal 6 GWRS Date: 6/12/200312:13:53 PM Park Daylight Time From: RW4denYA9h0kxxAcom To: $m,8fd �q,Com Received from Internet Don, Thanks for sending us the handout from Poseidon. The reel answer is that different sources of water require different treatments. Both systems can provide very healthy water. We feel it is environmentally responsible to reuse our water because the technology is here to produce sate, high quality water. Unfortunately,there are many Inaccuracies in the Poseidon Information piece. Most are the result of look of information and understanding about the GWR System, its source water and its treatment process. For example, the Poseidon paper says GWRS source water has a turgidity of 10 to 100 NTu, and usually averages 16-20 NTU. The fact is that GWRS source water wilt have a turbidity of 2-5 NTU based on over seven years of testing. The paper says the treating wastewater is more complicated and expensive. Our estimate of the cost of GWRS water is about$500,00 an acre-foot,while desalting the ocean is$900.00 to 1,000.00 an acre-foot. I am not going to go through the whole paper; I think you get the point. Our General Manager,Virginia Grebbien,will,talkto.Poeeidon and hopefully ensure that irtforrnation about GWRS is referred to us for fact checking prior to use in the future. Ron Ron Wildermuth Communications Director Orange County Water District _ PO Box 8300, Fountain Valley, CA 9272"300 10500 Ellis Ave..Fountain Valley, CA 92708 rwi Idermuth(gocwd.co m www.ocwd.com 714)378.3351 714)963-0291 fax _ Attach: 3 Friday,June 13,2003 CompuServe:Ssurfdad Jun-20-03 02 : 53P PRC 415-332-4056 P.07 Attach: 4 A number of opinion editorials have recently been published in newspapers around the atete, launching an attack on a soon-to-be released report by the Startei£lll s Recycled Water Task Force. Unfortunately, the authors of the opinion,editorials are being hasty in their comments. They do not haws the benefit of reviewing the Recycled Water Task FonoabE n's final report,nor do they take into consideration the technological advances that make recycled water a viable part of calif rriam*ros water supply portfolio. The Task Force is made up of expefte in the field of wstsr and was established to develop strategies and policies for new water n3use projects that would produce 200,000 bore-feet of new water annually in Cali1'ormia. With increased demand, decreased availability of imported water and the increased water treatment requirements,water supplies will becorne even more limited and a cpenaive. California communities need new, reliable and locally-controlled sources of water, such..as the Groundwater Replenishment(GWR)System. i want to assure you that the GWR System will produce safe, high-quality water. The GWR System stands alone in the state reuse picture due the extremely high quality water being produced. You can be confident and proud of the extensive lengths the GWR System is going through in order to ensure the water produced is of the highest quality, somewhere between bottled drinking water and distilled water. As you know,the GWR System will take highly treated sewer water currently released to the environment and send it through one of the worid@ETMs most advanced treatment processes W mic ofittration, reverse osmosis and ultraviolet light with hydrogen peroxide treatment.These are the same systarns used to purity baby foods,medicir:es,and fruit juices. They also have a proven track record in providing safe, high quality water for many businesses indudnhg bottled water companies. The GWR System has been developed from extensive study and experience with similar projects throughout the country. The GWR System will be the largest membrane technology project of its kind in the world and will become the model.for other communities to follow. If you have any questions, please feet free to contact Ron Wildermuth, Direclor of. Communications for the Orange County Water District, at 714-378-3351 or rwi ldermuth accwd.com. Sincerely, Phil Anthony Chair, Joint Cooperative Committee Groundwater Replenishment System To ensure that the factual information about the Grounctwater ReplenishmenN.System does not get lost in inaccuracies perpa"ted by individuals who are not familiar with it,here are some of the ways this project demonstrates that water quality and prolecling public twialth are the Orange County Water DistricibETMs and Orange County Sanitation DistrictaE7vs top priorities. A§The water.produced by the GWR System will meet and surpass state anc,federal drinking water standards. A§The Quality will be as good as bottled water due to the advanced treatment processWmicrofiltration,reverse osmosis and ultraviolet light and peroxideZCas well as natural ground filtration. A§The advanced oxidation pro mss with ultravidet light plus hydrogen peroxide will eliminate emerging oontaminants, such as 1,4-dioxane and NDMA, and others. A§The GWR System wiil remove complex pharmaceuticals using the latest rnuttiple barrier Jun-20-03 02 : 53P PRC 415-3- --4056 P . 08 Attach: 4 technology so that the water produced by the GWR System will actually be purer than other current local and imported sources. AS An outside,independent study of the water quality found GWR System water to be safer than water from any of our current supplies,including imported water. AS Leading health and science experts from around the world endorse the Groundwater Replenishment SystemWws technology to purify wastewater. One of the researchers made the comment: NcsYou could put WI the viruses in the world ahead of fhis system and none would make it through.Wo AS GWR System product water has been tested for more than seven years send no significant contaminants and no viruses made it through the system. AS The GVVR System product water is so pure it cannot be put into a normal concrete pipe, cecause it would leach the minerals Vora the pipe and destroy it. We actually have to add mineral tack to the water before transportation, similar to what Mottled water companies do for taste. Porter Novelli P: (949)583-2600 E: (949)583-2601 , 1 41 May 29, 2003 City of Huntington Beach LOG7,Z t1 iVilr- Planning Commissioner.Ron.Davis 2000 Main St Huntington Beach CA 92648 Dear Ron, I'm betting its that"small world„we talk about... might you be the Ron Davis that wrote articles (that I liked) in the Huntington Beach Independent? I have been excited about the prospect of the desalinization plant adjacent to the AES plant. I figured (incorrectly)that it would be a "slam-dunk", good-for- everybody project that would arrive in the nick of time to help us with the looming water shortage. I read today in the HB Independent that there is major opposition from assorted people. I trust your final decision; and the decision of the Commission as a whole. You all.have the best information; not I... but please know that I am 99% for this project. I don't understand how pumping brine back to the ocean is any less an issue than sending treated wastewater out there... if we want to live in.houses, we need water.....! Sincerely, r � Mike Seymour 21081 Greenboro Ln Huntington Beach CA 92646 s_ '. d: W,MOLSfft[Cr MDT RPM NAM.DISTRICT 15600 Sand Canyon Ave.,P.O.Box 57000,Irvine, CA 92619-7000 (949)453-5300 June 5, 2003 Mr. Ricky Ramos City of Huntington Beach Planning Department 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Re: Poseidon Seawater Desalination Project EIR Dear Mr. Ramos: John Hills, Director of Water Quality for Irvine Ranch Water District(IRWD), provided testimony on the Poseidon Seawater Desalination Project EIR at the Huntington Beach Planning Commission meeting on June 3, 2003. That testimony outlined several concerns that IRWD has regarding the adequacy of the draft EIR and the City's responses to our comments on those inadequacies. I understand that a representative of the project proponent offered rebuttal testimony at the Planning Commission meeting to the effect that the concerns of IRWD, particularly with regard to water quality and permit compliance issues, had been addressed and that the IRWD Engineering staff was satisfied with the project proponent's approach. I would like to clarify for the City that IRWD's concerns, particularly with regard to water quality and permit compliance issues,have not been satisfactorily addressed by the project proponent in the EIR. IRWD continues to believe the EIR is inadequate because it does not address and mitigate_a potential adverse impact of the project on IRWD's reclaimed water system. Specifically, the increased sodium and chloride contained in the proposed project's product water will be introduced into IRWD's domestic water system, pass into our wastewater,. then cause increased sodium and chloride levels in reclaimed water that is produced from our wastewater stream. The increased levels of sodium and chloride will cause IRWD to exceed permit limits for reclaimed water set by the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Board for these constituents. This is particularly problematic during winter months when IRWD relies on the East Orange County Feeder#2,which is proposed to have high levels of product water from the proposed project, as our primary source of domestic water. As such, implementation of the project without the appropriate mitigation measures has the potential to limit or curtail our annual production of 13,000 acre-feet of reclaimed water from the Michelson Water Reclamation Plant. If not mitigated,this potential reduction in existing water supply has local, as well as regional, adverse environmental consequences. CEQA requires evaluation and mitigation of such environmental consequences. t Mr. Ricky Ramos City of Huntington Beach June 5,2003 Page 2 We believe that the EIR should not be certified by the City of Huntington Beach until the . aforementioned issue, as well as the other issues raised in our May 22.1 2003 letter to you,are addressed. We urge that specific and effective mitigation measures be included in the EIR to address the adverse environmental impact of the project on IRWD's water reclamation program. We further believe that these mitigation measures must not be deferred, but should be incorporated into the EIR and mitigation monitoring plan before it is certified by the City of Huntington Beach. IRWD is willing to work with the City and project proponent in developing potential mitigation measures. If you have any additional questions about the IRWD Engineering staff position on this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me directly at(949) 453-5560. Sincerel Gregory P.Heiertz, P.E. Director of Engineering and Planning GPH/clg cc: B. Owens, Poseidon Resources N. Voutchkov, Poseidon Resources K. Seckel, MWDOC J. Hills, IRWD P. Jones, IRWD F:/gmi/wrd/gph/Itrs/poscmnts.doc �.'..r,..:::J.• =�' ��Iy��y •V1``(tom 4•�� — - . it .� .— '=• Surfrider July.2;2oos Foiundatton City of Huntington Beach Via Facsimile Planning Department Original Via Standard Mail Planning Commission , 2000 Main' Street Huntington.Beach, CA 92648 RE: Huntington=Poseidon Environmental Impact Report Dear Commissioners, Thank you for your diligence in reviewing the Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) submitted by the Poseidon consultants -regarding the construction and operation of a.desalination plant on-the.AES Huntington Beach Generating Facility. 'We strongly urge you not to certify this Draft EIR until the-Draft deficiencies are addressed and re-circulation of a modified EIR-is.made available for public comment. During the public hearings on June 3,2003, Commissioners Kokal,'Dingwall, and Ray all requested information about growth inducement and end users for the additional. water, and marine life.mortality from cooling water entrainment/impingement. They also requested additional information on a variety of other issues such as,but not limited to. AES Heat Treatmeni/R.everse Flow Process, NPDES review of AES discharge, leakage from AES discharge vault(bacteria levels), product water compatibility,impacts..on -adjacent wetlands,and concerns about archeological resources, The Surfrider]Foundation agrees that iri order for the EIR to be adequate'it.would . need to include information about the end users of this new water supply. Information.on the end users of the potential new water supply is missing in the Draft EIR.'The Ea .suggests that-the new supply of water would go to'pastially relieve demand on ' unsustainable imported anal groundwater supplies created by the natural population growth predicted for.the year 2020. :Not included in the_analysis is the fact that 25 million gallons a day, approximately half of the plant's output, is contracted for transfer to Santa Margarita-We agree with the Commissioners' concerns that this makes the current draft of the EIR misleading and inadequate. Not only does this new 'information suggest much,of the new water supply may ga to development not likely to occur.in its absence;it-also points out the lack of any guarantees that the remaining new supply will actually.relieve our reliance on other sources. Therefore, revisions to the.EIR to include. this important new information.should be circulated to the public and allowed ample time for public review and comment. - We also,agree with Commissioner Kokal's request for more information about marine life mortality from entrainment and impingement. The EIR has inadequately -reviewed the impact of entrainment. from _the generator cooling water process. Importantly, the EIR does not thoroughly address alternatives to once-through cooling !, NATIONAL.OFFICE • P.O.BOX 6010„•. SAN CLEMENTE;Ca.92674=601`0 (949)492-8170 a FAX(949)492-8142 • www.surfrider.org . E-MAIL info@surfrider.or9 - a mcrrE2r Of Earth hdr: that may still supply source water for the desalination plant (e.g., wet cooling towers). Furthermore, the EIR has not thoroughly reviewed additional marine life mortality resulting from.additional loads on the generator to supply energy to the desalination plant. 'The EIR. should analyze whether this increased-energy demand requires the plant to withdraw even more ocean water because of the Poseidon plant. In addition, the EIR does not review studies offered by the enemy industry: suggesting that some portion.of the marine life entrained in the cooling water may actually survive. In a bizarre paradox, the energy Industry. is arguing that they don't kill all the marine life entrained in their cooling water,while their partners in the desalination business claim that the generators do.' While it is true that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency assumes 100°Io mortality in their entrainment studies;this assumption is an effort to apply the "precautionary principle" to once-through cooling. Here-we are reviewing the additional mortality caused by forcing marine life through a desalination process. Applying the "precautionary principle"'in this instance would require-assuming that marine life survived the cooling water process: Growth inducement . and marine. life mortality are Just two :examples of deficiencies in the -EIR. listed by the Commissioners.at the June hearing and are not. representative.of an exhaustive list of concerns regarding.the adequacy of the EIR.'We believe any additional information regarding these issues, and the .others listed. by the_. Commission, represent "significant new information" that requires.a.recirculation of the . draft EIR for public comments Once again, we thank the Commission for their serious and thorough attention to this EIR. Please,feel free to contact us with any.questions regarding our concerns,about . the project and the certification of an IIR that is. in fulf compliance with the-California Environmental Quality.Act.. ricer Michele emer Surfrider Foundation National Office Cc: Ricki Ramos;Planning Commission Staff . 7. t Section 21092:1'of the California Environmental Quality Act from the'Public Resources Code mandates: 'When significant new information is added to'an environmental impact report after notice has been given pursuant to section 21092,and'consultation has occurred pursuant to sections 21-104 and 21153, but prior to certification,the public agency shall give notice again pursuant to section 21092, and consult- again pursuant to sections 21104 and 2-1153.' before ' certifying' the environmental.impact report. CA Stat &2l092.1.f 194'. The California State Supreme Court interpreted§21092.1 in Laurel Heights'Improvements Assoc.. of San Francisco Inc v The Regent's of the University of California, 6 Cal. 4th 1112, 1120 and held a public agency must re-circulate an EIR when the"information added to the EIR changes the EIR in a way that deprives the-public of a meaningful opportunity.to comment upon a substantial adverse environment ' effect of the project" �� � City of Huntington Beach July 120013 Planning Dept. 2000 Main St. Huntington Beach CA, 92648 Attn: Mr. Randy Kokal Ref: EIR# 00-02 Gentlemen: Enclosed please find articles on water supply problems facing other areas in the Western United States. This may be a precursor to what could occur in Southern California. To quote a member of the Palm Desert City Council, " People have lived in this false water utopia." Another article concerns Lake Powell.They point out that prior to the lake level dropping 50% they were given ample warning by scientist's, "but our water management experts don't listen." They close the article by saying that those reliant on Colorado River water could get"plunged into a crisis with no plan of action." Don't we also get water from the Colorado. River via MWD? Staff`s recommendation on the EIR states it is "adequate and complete."We are fortunate to have a staff that works so diligently and articulates their position in an intelligent and well thought out manner. Poseidon has hired experts to answer any questions concerning the installation. Individuals who have a lifetime of experience in their respective fields. And yet, it appears our Planning Dept puts more faith in individuals with no credentials, who put forth a specious and disingenuous argument. Judgment requires data , and they have none to bolster their position. Sincerely. Richard Kolander _ - Retired electrical engineer enc: articles Boston Ulobe Unline/ Nation I Wand / In L�a1tr., desert resorts reel.water pincll Yage 1 of 2 Calif., desert resorts feel water pinch By Seth Hettena,Associated Press,6/15/2003 ALM DESERT, Calif. --In the middle of the Southern California desert, resort guests can travel by gondola to waterfront bistros, homeowners can water-ski on a.man-made.lake, and golfers can tee off at more.than. 100 courses made lush and green from constant watering. How much longer can this go on? That is what some are wondering since the federal government in April cut the amount of water California can draw from the Colorado River—a rollback that has thrown into question the long-term future of the Coachella Valley, a resort and retirement mecca 110 miles east of Los Angeles. "We've gone from being assured that we lived in this magical place where the rules of water didn't apply to now having, I think, a very appropriate wake-up call about the fact that we.do live in the.California desert, said Buford Crites, a 17-year member of the Palm Desert City Council. "People have lived in this false water utopia. For years, California has been using more than its fair share of water from the Colorado River, which flows to seven Western states. Drought and booming growth around the West finally prompted the government to crack down and demand that the state's water agencies work out a deal to redistribute the water. When a deal fell through Dec. 31,the government cut back the state's share of river water by 15 percent. The bulk of that cut landed on the Coachella Valley. The valley's water agency halted deliveries of Colorado River water to about a dozen golf courses, at least one construction company, and the lake built for water skiing amid a housing development. Also, a landscaping ordinance that had been in the works before the cutbacks and went into effect on June l requires new developments to use 25 percent less water than existing ones. Water rates also may go up. Dave Twedt, the land development manager for the new Trilogy Golf Club at La Quinta, is looking for water to ensure his greens are not brown when Tiger Woods and other top golfers arrive this fall for the popular Skins Game. The club is one of several spending more than $200,000 each to drill into the aquifer fax beneath the course. "You don't have a whole lot of choices," Twedt said. "It's not like we'll be put out of business because, thank goodness, we can drill an irrigation well." Drilling wells, though, may not be the long-range answer, either. The many homes, farms, golf courses, and other resorts that already use well water are sucking so httn•//unvwhnctnn cnm/dgilvalnhP2/166/natinn/Tn C`.alif de..-,art rPcnrts feel water ninnh+shtml 6115/200, tsoston triooe uniuie i ivauon l w o- - i ul t-aiii., aeserc resorts reei water pir-•n . raUe: Ui much from the ground that the valley floor sinks more than an inch a year in spots — a process that could accelerate if the water agency cannot get more Colorado River water, which is usually poured onto the ground and allowed to soak into the earth to replendsh the aquifer. If officials cannot line up more water,the water agency may be forced to impose tougher restrictions on wells and usage to protect the aquifer. It was cheap and abundant water from the aquifer that transformed this desert — described by 19th-century explorer John Wesley Powell as "the most desolate region on the continent" --into a lush landscape of fairways and luxury neighborhoods decorated with waterfalls and lakes. The 300-square-mile valley stretches from the former Rat Pack getaway of Palm Springs, which sprang up in the 1950s, south to the briny shores of the Salton Sea. The population boomed 170 percent between 1980 and 2001 to about 330,000. Golf courses are the selling point for many of the developers building gated corrununities in the valley. Last year, golf helped attract 3 1/2 million visitors, who pumped an estimated $1 billion into the economy. In this self-ordained golf capital of the world, the cut in Colorado water has shocked golf course managers and development firms. "Because the club has not been properly forewarned and has not been given a reasonable amount of time to transition to a private water supply,there is a real possibility of incurring catastrophic. damages," John Heckenlively, president of The Plantation golf club,wrote in an April 30 letter to the water district. Meanwhile, fruit and vegetable growers, who use most of the valley's Colorado River water allotment, face a crisis of their own. They are paying $15 million over five years— nearly 10 times the usual cost--to buy excess water from farmers in nearby Palo Verde. Water officials hope that the valley and three other Southern California water agencies reach an agreement to share the Colorado River and secure enough water to supply farmers and recharge the aquifer for the next 35 years. Whether the valley finds more water or not,there will probably be no more projects like Palm Desert's Desert Springs Marriott,where guests ride gondolas to feast on ahi steaks by the edge of a sprawling lake,.said Crites,the city councilman. "That was done in Palm Desert at a different time --when people really believed we could pretend we were Hawaii'," he said. "There was,really no.-organized group saying the emperor had no clothes." This stop-ran on page Ala of the Boston Globe on 6/15/2003. (C' Colivrieht 2003 Globe Newspaper Company. [Send this stop* to a friend I Easy--r+rint version Search areh Ives htto://www.boston.con-/dailvalobe2/166/natioivin Calif desert resorts feel: water pinch+.shtmi; 6/15/200 LleLlveirVSL.l:util - VY 11Le1J ull naumue ra,e 1 Q1 View Previous News Select an Edition EMAIL ARTICLE _ LINK TO ARTICLE =PRINT ARTICLE Article Published:Sunday,March 02, 2003-12.00:00 AM MST writers on the range OTHER COLUMNS Lake Powell: Going, J 5 Should we preserve going gone? roads on public land? Tun. 15 By John Weisheit, Moab Utah - Who needs Superfund when we've got reality Who would have believed it? Water levels at Lake Tv? Powell have dropped to 50 percent for the first Jun.7 time since it filled in 1980. This draining is likely - Keep biopharming in to continue to the point where the reservoir could greenhouses vanish in the next three or four years. Jun. 2 - With a little help. native With snowpack below 25 percent of normal, and species can burgeon warnings from the U.S. Geological Survey, EPA Jun.s and others of a severe and sustained drought, - `Nest must start and Lake Powell's days may be numbered. A 1995 fight fires study published by the American Water May. 26 Resources Association predicted that a severe homecA.mountainoming�hamlet's drought would lead to Lake Powell's draining May. within eight years. Things are right on schedule. 19 - Real ranches don't have 'ette' in their name Now that Lake Powell is down by some 87 feet, three boat ramps have been closed.The National Park Service is working with a $3 million emergency appropriation to extend other ramps as the reservoir continues to decline. But construction of the recently approved $70 million Antelope Point marina complex is in limbo, because boats can't be launched from what has been revealed by drought to be a cliff. Once Lake Powell drops-an additional 28 percent, it will no longer generate hydroelectricity because Glen Canyon Dam's penstocks will be exposed, and water will no longer be able to turn the generators. There's also a problem with sediment, since fluctuating river flows that occur during low reservoir levels will speed the movement of sediment toward Glen Canyon Dam. The U.S. Geological Survey says that major droughts of the past, such as the years from 1942 to 1977, went largely unnoticed. We notice this drought because the West has four times the population and we've been mining our groundwater. Federal scientists have also informed us that the previous century was ' 20 percent wetter than normal. That means our ability to put water to .I'C1 work was helped by luck as much as it was by massive engineering 4 projects. Even at those inflated levels, Colorado River water allocations r are 20 percent above what the river delivered. littn://www.denvernost.corn/Stories/O.1413.36%7E 172%7E 1209566.00.html - 6/15/2003 iJenvewost.com- Writers on Kancre Ya?e 1 of We've managed to avoid crises in the past because not all the Colorado River Basin states used their full allocations. Even so, the river reached the sea only twice In the past two decades. Add to all this a drought cycle that is predicted to last 25 years, and Lake Powell, along with every other reservoir in the upper Colorado River storage system, won't have water to store. Vanishing bodies of water in the Western United States shouldn't surprise us: It's part of our legacy. In 1890, the Geological Survey's first professional paper discussed the principles of global climate change. The publication analyzed how a body of water that was once 800 feet deep, Lake Bonneville, had reduced itself into the briny and shallow Great Salt Lake. In the 19th century, the physical geography of the planet provided undeniable evidence that humans can become victims of climate change. In the 20th century, we gained new tools, such as tree-ring data, that allowed us to reconstruct the climate of the last 400 years. This reaffirmed that the Earth's climate varies dramatically. Scientists have given us ample warning, but our water-management experts don't listen. At a recent gathering in Moab, Utah, John Keys, commissioner of the Bureau of Reclamation, worked to calm the fears of those concerned that the Colorado River may soon be unable to provide for the 25 million people plumbed into his system. "They [the reservoirs] are doing exactly what they were designed to do," he said. But when it was pointed out that these reservoirs are declining more than 10 percent per year, he had no plan for how the federal government would handle the shortages. It would be truly unfortunate if the warnings these declining levels represent are not heeded, and all those presently reliant on the overuse of Colorado River water get plunged into a crisis with no plan of action. 14-1 litti)://www.denveroost.com/Stories/0.1413.36%7E172%7E1209566.00.htm1.. - 6/15/2003 i i i July 3, 2003 . + Mr. Randy Kokal, Chairman Huntington Beach Planning Commission I 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Subject: Poseidon Seawater Desalination Project: Dear Mr. Kokal and Commissioners: I am writing to express support for the Poseidon Seawater Desalination Project under consideration by the Planning Commission. As you know, Southern California is largely dependent on Imported water to meet our growing demand for safe drinking water. As our region continues to grow into the 216? century, it is imperative that we develop new and alternative sources of fresh water. The desalination of ocean water will provide us with an unlimited, reliable supply of clean, safe water. With Huntington Beach and Orange County facing depletion of their groundwater supply and uncertainty in the reliance of Its Imporled water, desalination provides the safest and most environmentally sensitive alternative In obtaining a safe and reliable water supply. The reverse osmosis process makes sense, has worked elsewhere, and Huntington Beach provides a perfect location for this type of process. Orange County needs to be more self-reliant when it comes to its water supply. The supply of imported water will decrease as more Colorado River water gets diverted to other states (Arizona, Nevada. Colorado) - but the need for water in Southern California will continue to increase as the population throughout the region continues to grow. Logic dictates that the cost for that imported water will go up. Orange County needs to supplement its own water sources to avoid having to choose between expensive imported water or water rationing. 1 know you will give this important project your thorough and thoughtful consideration, and I urge your yes vote. Sinc ely, `f Bill Holman 5861 Raphael Drive Huntington Beach, CA 92649 i r • CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH Inter Office Communication PIanning Department TO: Planning Commission FROM: Howard Zelefsky, Director of Planning BY: Ricky Ramos, Associate Planner DATE: July 8, 2003 SUBJECT: LATE COMMUNICATION Attached are corrections to page four of the July 8, 2003 staff report as well as additional comment letters received since Thursday July 3, 2003 regarding the Poseidon seawater desalination plant. Attachment: 1. Corrections to page four of July 8, 2003 staff report 2. Don May, California Earth Corps, letter dated July 8, 2003 3. Tom Luster, California Coastal Commission, letter dated July 7,2003 4. Norm Westwell, letter dated July 8, 2003 t� GA AdmLtr\AdmItr03\0703rr1.doc CORRECTION TO JULY 8, 2003 STAFF REPORT - PAGE 4 in the seawater that attach to the walls of the power plant intake structure and pipeline, and interfere with plant operations. The heat treatment procedure is typically completed once every six to eight weeks and continues for six to eight hours per heat treatment event. Heat treatment is a part,of the routine operation of every power plant and as such this process is permitted and regulated.by the AES power plant NPDES discharge permit: The main goal of heat treatment is to detach the living marine organisms from the power plant intake structure and pipelines for collection and disposal th., s baek inte the o . Therefore, for the duration of a heat treatment event, the power plant intake and discharge are reversed (i.e. cooling water enters from the power plant discharge and discharges through the power plant intake). The marine organisms detached from the power plant intake structure and pipelines cannot be released through the power plant discharge outfall because they cannot pass through the power plant condenser tubes. The marine organisms are several times larger in size than the condenser tube openings. Under normal operations the cooling water is collected through the intake structure pumped through the power plant condenser tubes which exchange heat with the cooling water, and then the heated water is discharged through.the power plant discharge outfall. During heat treatment, a very small amount of seawater flow is actually taken from the ocean, and most of the cooling water flow is recirculated within the power plant system rather than discharged through the power plant.outfall. By.recirculating the seawater flow, rather than discharging it to the ocean, the seawater temperature in the recirculation loop Within the power plant rises. The higher water temperature triggers the detachment of the marine organisms from the intake structure and pipeline walls so that they may be collected and disposed of released baek inl their- natural a nt i +tee eeean. Once the heat treatment process is complete and before the discharge is released to the ocean, the discharge is cooled to meet the temperature discharge limit under AES Power Plant's NPDES Permit. There is no separate temperature limit for the heat treatment process. Because the heat treatment process reverses the flow direction in the discharge line, the proposed desalination facility would not be able to discharge its saline concentrate. Therefore, the desalination plant will not be operational during periods of heat treatment. Because the desalination plant will not take water for treatment during power plant heat treatment operations, the desalination plant has no effect on entrapment and entrainment of marine organisms during that process. The relationship between the power plant heat treatment process and the desalination plant operations was addressed in the Draft EIR (see Appendix E, page E-9). As stated on this page "Poseidon will not take water into the desalination plant during heat treatments". 2. Growth Inducement (End Users): Concern about the Draft EIR's analysis of the project's growth inducing impacts was raised by Coastal Commission staff member, Mr. Tom Luster,'in his November 4, 2002 comment letter. Mr. Luster raised this issue again in late comment letters and the issue has also been raised by several others who submitted late comments on the Draft EIR. At the public hearings before the Planning Commission on CALIFORNIA EARTH CORPS 4927 Minturn Avenue Lakewood, CA 90712 (562) 630-1491 July 8, 2003 Hon. Randy Kokal, Chairman Huntington Beach Planning Commission 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Re: Poseidon DeSalination EIR, SOC, CUP & LCP Dear Chairman Kokal and Commissioners: California Earth Corps has commented by statement and testimony at the May 27 and June 3 Hearings as to the omission or inadequate disclosure of factual information on the predictable environmental impacts of the Poseidon Project as required under CEQA. Most glaringly: GROWTH INDUCING IMPACTS The disclosure of the proposed Santa Margarita purchase demonstrates that the Poseidon Business Plan is to market desalinated water through local agencies to developments who must show firm water supplies before subdivision is permitted. This is a clear showing .of.how growth is directly induced by .the Poseidon Project whose impacts. must.therefore be fully evaluated under CEQA. DRINKING WATER QUALITY IMPACTS The testimony at the June 3 Hearing by the Irvine Water District revealed that the actual R/O water produced by Poseidon would be received not by the purchaser, but by the users located closest to the injection point into the MWD plenum. Since this water has a lower pH than the ground water used 65-70% of the time, the Irvine WD Quality Control manager described how the rush and organics released would discolor laundry and how the mildly acid R/O water could corrode copper pipe and lead solder to release toxic metals into the drinking water, causing Irvine to exceed safe drinking water standards. Since the Costa Mesa injection point is closer to Huntington Beach than Irvine, the potential adverse impacts on Huntington Beach drinking water may be zubstantially greater. The EIR does not address this issue at all, even though it potentially impacts HB Public Health and Safety. POTENTIAL IMPACTS ON ADJACENT WETLANDS While the wetlands adjacent to the 'Project will not have been restored by the time the NOD is issued, should this Commission chose to act tonight, the land has been acquired and the restoration planning is underway, thus the EIR must address the impacts of the;,Project. upon a: restored,' fully tidal wetland, so that valuable planning options will not be lost. However, the Commission can act tonight to avoid or mitigate the adverse impacts through Conditions of Permit: Water Quality: The greatest threat to both the beach and to restored wetlands comes from contaminated stormwater runoff, mostly in the first flush from each rain. That is why the City must obtain an NPDES Permit from the Regional Water Quality Control Board to discharge to the ocean CEC, 07/08/03 Page 2 While the Orange County Board has not yet promulgated standards, most of US has adopted Standard Urban Stormwater Mitigation Plans (SUSMPs) w_th both narrative and numeric standards (cf: LA RWQCB) ; the former describing strategies to .interdict contaminants from reaching State and. .. Federal waters; the latter requiring retention of the first .75 inches of each precipitation event (1) . MITIGATION: A Condition of Permit to require all surface runoff to be directed to and contained behind a modification of the existing barrier retention berm and into a trench sized to contain .75 inches times the total area of the Project. The trench would be filled with cobble and gravel decreasing in size to sand at the bottom and planted with rush, sedges and other aquatic plants known for their abilities to scrub the various impurities from runoff (the French Drain Option) . Clarified bibremediated water would percolate into the saltwater table at --5 feet and onward into the wetland. Having retained and cleansed the first flush, the relatively clean runoff in excess of .75 inches will meet standards, including future TMDLs, for discharge by gravity drain into the Flood Control Channel or pumped into the ocean outfall. Groundwater Quality: The EIR does not speak to potential plumes of groundwater contaminated by the upgradient landfills or washout of the residual contaminants after the remediation of leakage from the fossil fuel storage tanks. In fact, it.offers no existing concentrations or even species.-or spatial .locations of contaminants under the leaking tanks, much less methodology or numeric standards for remediation. In the absence of any evaluation of post remediation monitoring, we can only assume that none is planned. MITIGATION A Condition of Permit to require groundwater monitoring of wells located around the periphery of the Project with an action plan for containment and abatement should contaminants be detected, is appropriate to protect the (wetland) resources of the State, before it becomes the responsibility of the City to clean up under the Clean Water Act. Light and Noise: will disturb and adversely impact residents of the restored wetland and may interrupt migration patterns or divert birds away from the wetland yet can be avoided with simple low cost measures: MITIGATION A Condition of Permit to require all lighting to be directed away from the wetlands, and shielded in such a way that no artificial light falls outside the reconstructed containment berm, and that the berm be planted with a palette of native shrubs and trees selected to muffle noise, block light, provide a visual buffer from the wetlands, screen industrial operations and improve the public viewshed. Esthetics and Public Access: A buffer should be required between the wetland and the stormwater containment berm and planted with a palette of plants indigenous to the Coastal Sage Community and providing public access via a pathway along the Project perimeter bordering the wetland but screened from it so as not to disturb birds, yet affording views ^` and vistas of wildlife and wetland for residents and schoolchildren. �/J CEC, 07/08/03 Page 3 MITIGATION a Condition of Permit should be required to provide for public access via such a trail as will be designed and constructed by the Huntington Beach Wetlands Conservancy as a component of. the forthcoming Talbert Marsh Conceptual . Plan. Curtural and Archeology: This site has been a temperate seashore where people have gathered to fish and dig clams since time immemorial. The top 15 feet contains the unbroken record of human occupation and land use since humanity entered North America. We have been drawn to this seashore, to this site for over 10, 000 years. It is difficult to believe no record of our presence exists, or won't be uncovered during Project construction. The National Historic Preservation Act and the Cultural Resource Management Act (CRM) require a Section 106 process. MITIGATION A Condition of Permit should acknowledge the likelihood of middens and tool scatters and require the CRM Section 106 process. When moving or cleaning soils during site remediation and when excavating or moving soils during construction, all personnel shall be alert for shell middens and artifacts of any human activity, and, should any materials be found, to immediately alert the City, Coastal Commission and State Historic Preservation Officer to their presence, and to save and entrust all such items of interest to the City for display at a future Marsh Visitor Center or other Civic venue. Chemical storage and handling: The EIR does not speak to, or' evaluate. handling, - storage & plans to prevent the' release of toxic chemicals or emergency plans should they be released. You have heard conflicting testimony that chlorine will not be stored on site and that the Department of Health Services requires chlorination before product water is stored. MITIGATION a Condition of Permit to require all toxic or hazardous chemicals be handled and stored in a HazMat explosion proof seismically safe Containment Structure capable of withstanding a 6. 9 earthquake or 2 g's of strong motion in all three axes and fitted with seismic shutoff valves. Habitat losses at the Subsurface Booster Pump located in an NCCP area must be mitigated. The EIR does not discuss this requirement, or the Habitat Conservation Plan for this restrictive area. MITIGATION The disturbed area within the NCCP should have all exotic and non native vegetation removed and be replanted after completion of the product water pipeline and Underground Booster Pump with a palette of native plants originally indigenous to the area and maintained free of invasive and exotic plants until the Pump has been removed according to a Planting and Maintenance Plan to be developed in coordination with the California Native Plant Society and US Fish & Wildlife. We believe that this Commission should remand the EIR back for revision to address these and other omissions and inadequacies. Failing that, you must at least adopt these mitigations for the adverse impacts of the Poseidon Desalination Project. CEC, 07/08/03 Page 4 Sincerely, Don May, Executive Director California Earth Corps (1) The final BMP handbooks are now available as PDF files at http://www.CABMPHandbooks.com/. It's a big 'file, 450 pages, or I would have attached it. You will also find an order form if you wish to purchase hardcopies. STATE OP CALIPORNIA-THE RESOURCES AGENCY GRAY DAVIS.COYlKNON CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION i 4! PRUMONT, SUITO 2000 SAN DRANCISCO, CA 9410:.2:I9 4 VOICE: AND TOO (4I5) 904.5200 July 7,2003 VL4 FA,csimmri,(714)374-1648 Planning Commissioners City of Huntington Beach Planning Department 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach,CA 92648 RE: City of Huntington Beach Review of Proposed Poseidon Desalination Facility Dear Commissioners: I have been asked to respond to several questions about the City's review of the proposed Poseidon desalination facility as it relates to Coastal Act and related CEQA requirements. The main questions relate to the overall scope of the Environmental Impact Report (EIR)and its adequacy in addressing elements of the proposed project that would affect coastal resources. Our primary concern,as expressed below and in comment letters provided earlier during the CEQA review process,is that the EIR does not yet adequately describe the proposed project's impacts to coastal resources and the mitigation measures that may be necessary to address those impacts. We believe,therefore,that the EIR does not yet provide an adequate basis for making a decision about the proposal's conformity to the City's Local Coastal Program(LCP)or the Coastal Act. This let=discusses several,but not all,of our concerns about the currently inadequate EIR and recommends that the City significantly revise several sections of the EIR before adopting it as final. Part of our interest in this proposed project and in having the CEQA work done adequately is that the proposal would be the first coastal desalination plant in California in about a decade,and would be the largest coastal desalination facility in the U.S. Given its location in California's coastal zone and its potential to cause significant impacts to coastal resources,we believe the CEQA review should be thorough enough to adequately inform decision-makers about the proposal's conformity with applicable policies of the City's LCP and the Coastal Act. To reflect that interest,Coastal Commission staff previously provided comments during several stages of the Ciry's CEQA review,including a June 14,2001 letter in response to the City's Notice of Preparation, a November 4,2002 lerter on the Draft EIR,a May 8,.2003 letter regarding the Response to Comments,and a June 3,2003 in response to requests from several Planning Cornmissioners. .The comments focused on elements of the proposed project that will need to be evaluated during the coastal development permit review by both the City and the Coastal Comments to Huntington Beach Planning Commission re:Poseidon Desalination.EIR July 7, 2003 Page 2 of 6 Commission.) This letter expands on a number of the cornmeats we provided previously, including those related to growth-inducement, entrainment,project and mitigation alternatives, and the ability of state and local agencies to adequately regulate the proposal. We have also been asked to address the scope of the.City's role as lead agency in review of the project. Extent of CEQA review: There have been several questions about the jurisdictional scope of the City's CEQA review and about whether the City, as lead agency, needs to consider project impacts or mitigation measures outside of its jurisdiction. The CEQA statute and guidelines are very clear in establishing that a lead agency is to review a proposed project in its entirety, without limiting its review to the particular jurisdiction of that agency. For example,the CEQA definition of"lead agency" makes no distinction about only reviewing aspects of the proposal within the agency's jurisdiction;in fact,the lead agency is required to consult with other agencies that have jurisdiction over parts of the proposal and incorporate their concerns and recommendations into its review.2 If lead agencies were required to address only those issues within their jurisdiction,many proposed projects would be reviewed under a number of separate EMs produced by several different agencies,which is clearly not the case. One example with this proposed project of an element that may be outside the City's jurisdiction but within the City's responsibility as lead agency is"growth-inducement". In our previous comment letters,Coastal Commission staff requested the EIR include a more thorough analysis of the growth-inducing effects of the proposed project. However,the discussion of growth- inducement in both the EIR and the Response to Comments is inadequate,in that it only describes the 50 million gallons per day of water to be provided by the facility as being used as pan of the overall water supply for somewhere in Orange County.or Southern California. Apparently, the City has been informed that the applicant has contracted to provide half of the produced water to the Santa Margarita Water District. At the very least,the EIR should evaluate the growth-inducing effects of these 25 million gallons per day on the Water District's service area, and should also determine where the remainder of the water will be sent and its anticipated growth-inducing impacts. Even if the contract includes conditions (which is a normal aspect of contracts), it is reasonable to assume that the water is meant to be provided to the Santa Margarita Water District and therefore rises above the Ievel of being speculative. Additionally, this information about growth-inducement will be needed as part of the Coastal Commission's permit review. Note:Part of the proposed project is within the retained jurisdiction of the Coastal Commission and will require a coastal development permit from tho Commission. Portions of the proposal are also within the Commision'i appeal jurisdiction;therefore,the City's docWon as to whether or not to issue a coastal development permit maybe appealed to the Commission. Section 21067 of the CEQA Statute defines"lead agency"as meaning"the public agency which has the principal responsibility for carrying out or approving a project which may have a significant effect upon the environment". Otber sections of the CEQA Statute and Guidelines identify the lead agency's obligation to coordinate with other agcncios with jurisdiction,to adequately incorporate the concerns and responsibilities of those agettcies,and to produce an environmental document that adequately assesses the proposed project's environmental effects and necessary mitigation measures. �1�3 Comments to Huntington Beach Planning Commission re.Poseidon Desalination EIR July 7, 2003 Page 3 of 6 Entrainment: The proposed project, in and of itself,would result in entrainment and mortality of marine organisms at what could be significant adverse levels of impact beyond what is caused by the power plant;however,this is not addressed in the EIR. Information about entrainment caused by the desalination facility is needed as part of the EIR for several reasons—first,to determine the effects of the facility on the marine environment;next,to identify mitigation measures that may be necessary to address those effects; and finally, for both the City and the Coastal Commission to determine whether the proposal conforms to policies of the City's Local Coastal Program and the Coastal Act. The analysis needed in the EIR to determine conformity to these policies is separate from any requirements under the federal Clean Water Act or state water quality standards. The City's LCP Policy 6.1.19 states: "Prior to approval ofany new or expanded seawater pumpingfacilities, require the provision of maximum feasible mitigation measures to minimize damage to marine organisms due to entrainment in accordance with State and Federal law. " Sections 30230 of the Coastal Act states: Marine resources shall be maintained, enhanced, and where feasible,restored. Special protection shall be given to areas and species of special biological or economic significance. Uses of the marine environment shall be carried out in a manner that will sustain the biological productivity of coastal waters and that will maintain healthy Populations of all species of marine organisms adequare for long-term commercial, .' recreational, scientific, and educational.purposes. Section 30231 of the Coastal Act states: The biological productivity and the quality of coastal waters,streams, wetlands, estuaries, and lakes appropriate to maintain optimum populations of marine organisms and for the protection of human health shall be maintained and, where feasible;restored through, among other means, minimizing adverse effects of waste water discharges and entrainment, controlling runoff,preventing depletion ofground water supplies and substantial interference with surface water flow, encouraging waste water reclamation, maintaining natural vegetation buffer areas rhatprorect riparian habitats, and minimizing*alteration of natural streams. The proposed facility includes new seawater pumping facilities(see,for example,Exhibit 3 in the Draft EIR); therefore, the above LCP policy applies to time proposal, However,neither the ER nor the CDP Staff Report identify the entrainment effects associated with new seawater pumping or the mitigation measures needed-to minimize those effects. In fact,the BIR analysis erroneously assumes that any entrainment mortality that would be associated with the desalination facility is already occurring due to power plant operations. In the City's R=onse to Comments (issued March 21,2003,p. 8),the City stated: "No increase in entrainment or impingement of marine organisms would occur upon project implementation,as project operation would not result in an increased intake of ocean water through tho AES intake Comments to Huntington Beach Planning Commission re:r iseidon Desalination EIR July 7. 2003 Page 4 of 6 structure. The desalination facility would divert ocean water for desalination subsequent to its use as cooling water by the AES Generating Station." I3owever,in the Errata section of the same document,the City adds the following to the EIR:"It should be noted that the proposed project would utilize pumps circulating a total of 126 mgd. These pumps would operate constantly and would be independent of the A1S Generating Station. Should the AES facility cease to operate, the proposed desalination facility would continue.to produce and distribute potable water." The proposed desalination facility would cause entrainment mortality when it operates while the power plant is not generating electricity. Although the desalination facility is tied closely to the power plant,there are likely to be times when maintenance requirements or market conditions would cause the power plant to shut down,and entrainment mortality occurring during those periods would be due largely to desalination. During those periods when the power plant is not producing electricity but is only running its circulation pumps,the entrained organisms are not likely to experience the same mortality rates since they will not be subjected to the higher temperatures and pressures that occur during power generation. However, the desalination process itself will cause entrainment mortality and without the results of an appropriate entrainment study,it is not possible to determine the type and scope of those impacts or the mitigation that may be needed,nor is it possible to ensure compliance with CEQA or applicable LCP or Coastal Act requirements. Therefore,the characterization in the EIR that there would be no change or increase in entrainment is in error,and the document does not include the analysis necessary to conform to CEQA or the LCP and Coastal Act sections cited above 3 To address this inadequacy,at the very least,the City,needs to.include in the EIR the results of an entrainment study describing the entrainment and water quality impacts associated with the proposed use of 126 mgd of ocean water,and describes the maximum feasible mitigation measures to minimize these entrainment impacts. The entrainment study being implemented by AES,due to start later this month,will likely be adequate for purposes of the EIR. Although the study results will not be available for approximately 14.16 months,they are necessary as part of the EIR's environmental review. [Note: We first identified the need for this type of information in our comment letter on the City's NOP in June 2001. At any time,the City or the applicant could have initiated the entrainment study on its own rather than wait for the AES study to be concluded.] Results of this study are of particular interest for this proposed project because entrainment data have never been collected at AES Huntington Beach. Information provided previously about entrainment at the facility is based on data collected in the late 1970s from other power plants along the coast. Therefore, absent the results of the study about to be initiated(or a similar study using the same protocols), there is no recent,local;and scientifically valid data about the likely e entrainment impacts that would result from the desalination facility, and therefore no way to d.eterraine conformity to CEQA, the LCP,or the Coastal Act. 3 We note further that the EIR does not adequately describe the relationship between AES and Poseidon,either as it relates to operation of the paver plant and desalination facility or as it relates to any leases or contracts between the two parties. As pan of the application for a coastal development permit from the Coastal Commission,the applicant (Poseidaa)will need to provide doctuncatation of the underlying landowner'3 approval,Along with any conditions of that approval that may affect operations. Comments to Huntington Beach Planning Commission re: Poseidon Desalination EIR July 7, 2003 Page S of 6 Project and Mitigation Alternatives: The discussion above on entrairunent impacts and mitigation treasures that may be necessary to address those impacts leads to consideration of alternatives. Without the results of the entrainment study,the EIR cannot adequately address alternatives that may be.necessary to mitigate entrainment impacts. The current EIR dismisses the necessary.alternatives analysis because of its conclusions that there would be no increase in entrainment. As shown above,this conclusion is not yet timely and may be erroneous. Therefore, along with incorporating the results of the entrainment study and deternmining whether there are significant adverse entrainment impacts,a revised EIR would need to evaluate whether there are feasible alternatives that would avoid or reduce those significant impacts. Again,this cannot be done before the entrainment study is completed,but would likely require consideration of alternatives that could significantly alter the proposal,including using recycled water, siting the facility or pipelines in different locations,and others. Applicability and enforceability of local and state requirements: One important part of CEQA review is to identify the regulations that would apply to a proposed project. In a previous comment letter,we identified two specific concerns about this issue: Whether laws,ordinances,and regulations applicable to public entities providing a water supply apply differently, if at all,to private water suppliers; and, ® Whether international trade law adversely affects the ability of state and local jurisdictions to regulate proposals such as this. Even though these issues may not.be entirely within the City's jurisdiction,they are within the City's resporisibility as CEQA lead agency,since the answers to the questions raised will affect how and whether the proposed project's environmental effects are regulated. Regarding the first issue, the Coastal Act includes several policies that differentiate between public and private entities. We therefore again request that the EIR provide an analysis of this issue to ensure that the regulatory requirements and mitigation measures described in the document would indeed apply to this private proposal. Concerning the second issue,because of recent trade agreements and decisions by international trade tribunals,there is some question as to how and whether local and state regulations apply to private entities operating in the international arena. We again request that the EIR include an evaluation of how international trade agreementsitreaties, and laws may apply to this proposal,and whether anticipated environmental mitigation measures could be compromised. Closing: In summary,the existing EIR and the Response to Comments are not adequate for CEQA,nor are they adequate to determine whether the proposal conforms to applicable LCP or Coastal Act policies. To address these shortcomings,we recommend the City revise the EIR to include..the.assessments.described above. We also request that the City re-open the comment period for the EIR so that we may provide further comments on these and other areas of concern. Finally, we refer the City to our previous comment letters for more details on the issues raised in this letter as well as other issues raised about the adequacy of the EIR. Comments to Huntington Beach Planning Commission re:Poseidon Desalination EIR July 7, 2003 Page 6 of 6 Thank you for attention to these issues, I hope this is helpful in your deliberations. Please feel free to contact me at(415) 904-5249 or at fluster Ocoastal.ca.gov if you have questions. Sincerely, Tom Luster Energy and Ocean Resources Unit Cc: Poseidon Resources—Billy Owens Department of Water Resources—Jonas Minton,Chuck Keene Coastal Commission,Long Beach Office—Steve Rynas Ramos, Ricky From: Norm Westwell- H Sent: Tuesday, July 08, 2003 1:03 PM To: rramos@surfcity-hb.org Subject: Late Communication -Desalination plant Dear Planning Commission; I happened to recently meet a government marine biologist who shared with me his remarkable knowledge on our local issue of the desalination plant. I'm sorry I do not have his name. However, I am quite certain anyone respected in this field of study would ultimately arrive at the same conclusions. He expressed to me the near zero impact of this forward thinking project. As California water sources diminish, history will show the vision of municipal water PRODUCTION systems. He clearly believed the public benefit would greatly outweigh any minor negative environmental impacts. In the near future, water is likely to be as scarce as tax dollars are today. California's water resources are being reallocated at record pace. Lack of municipal potable water is a major public safety issue. Let us use what god has bountifully given us. The ocean. The planning commission should not frivolously delay this project. I respectfully urge the commission to SUPPORT the proposed DESALINAT-sON. project: . Your friend, ------------------------- HB Libertarian Party Representative Norm "Firecracker" Westwell norm@ModernPublic.com \ I / THERE IS A PRICE FOR BEING FREE Torch of Liberty, enlightening the world www.ModernPublic.com It's your government --GET INVOLVED! i j 0 ORANGE COUNTY COASTKSSPISR 441 Old Newport Blvd, Suite 103 Newport Beach, California 92663 Office: (949)723-5424 Fax: (949) 675-7091 Email: coastkeeperl@enrthiink,net da http://www.coastkeeper.org June 26,2003 Mr. Rlc y Ramos Planning Departr lent City of H intIngton Beach 2000 Ma n Street Huntin n Beath, CA 92648 (ilia Fa lmlle 714 374-1"8) RE: Proposed Poseidon Seawater Desalination Plant Project Dear Mr.!Ramos, The Orange County Coastkeeper is an environmental organization with a mission o protect and preserve the marine habitats and watershed of Orange County rough programs of education,.restoration, advocacy.and enforcement. We have reviewed the Draft Environmental Impact Report and consulted with marine �ologists and other Interested stakeholders to develop a position relative to the a titlement of this project. 1'*ee statements need to be made at the outset: 1) We believe the ft,ture water su 3ply of southern California Is a combination of both desalinated seawatei generated from desalination plants and reclamation water generated from Pu Iic Owned Treatment Works(POTW's). 2) This particular project Is the first sign�Acant desalination plant of a series of desailnatlon plants that will be propose throughout the State. Unfortunately, there is no existing regional or State gu delines and policies, or many scientific studies to assist In the entitlem nt process. 3)The Huntington Beach Planning Commission Is only the first ste of a very lengthy.entitlement process that will require approximately 17 different'permits or certifications, under the authority of approximately 13 dlfferenil agencies, It will be through this entitlement process that guidelines and policies Will be developed, Its the case of Poseidon, two Coastal Development Permits (CDP$)will be mquired•from the California Coastal Commission, one for the actual construction of the pliant, and one for the changes in ocean discharge at the A1=S outfall pipe. The di.0arge of liquid brine waste from desalination operations Is regulated the Clean Water Act, through the National Pollution Discharge Elimination ILI- under. . i system dministered by the Regional Water Quality Control Board. Discharge of liquid brines into California waters is also regulated under the Porter-Cologne Water uality Control Act and the California Ocean Plan. Cur review of the Poseidon Report demonstrates there are environmental impacts-from desalination. The impacts that are major concern to Coastkeeper are 1) construction Impacts, 2) waste discharge Impacts, 3) coastal development impacts 4) reinforcement of the long-term need for AES power plant to remain on the coast, and 5) Private Control onstruction Impacts: Coastkeeper will want to review specific water quality fans for both construction and post-construction of the plant. The applicant should evelop a comprehensive Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), utilizing appropriate Best Management Practices. Post construction water quality plans s ould Include a surface water treatment train that ensures capture and treatme t of stromwater and any affluent not to exceed the numeric water quality standa s contained In the California Toxic Rule (C1R). 1�laste Discharge Impacts: Normal seawater has a salt concentration of roughly!35,000 parts per million (ppm). According to the Poseidon EIR, the average salt concentration of the brine discharge into the ocean will be 68,000 ppm, plus the addition of 4 million gallons per day of filter backwash. Coastkeeper was concerned with thl seemingly significant Increase in salt concentrate and contents of the filter backwe h, 'After asking our staff marine biologist and other marine biologists to review a EIR documents,their combined response was the elevated salt concent ate will affect a relatively small area and the concentrate will repel some species f fish and possibly attract other species of fish, but given their mobility, fish kills wo41d not be the result. e EIR states water temperature would not be elevated and adequate mixin would occur so as to prevent long-term stratification of brine on the bottom g P 9 of the mixing zone, esides heavy metals, originating naturally In source water or through contact Ith pipes and plant components, other chemicals, such as coagulants, anti- scalants- cleaning agents, filter storage chemicals, and anti-foam agents are used In the deslination process. Coastkeeper wants to see more specifically the consUtu nts of the filter backwash wastewater and assurances that the anti- coagula is do not remain In the discharge. Further, chemicals for cleaning equipmint MUST be discharged to the POTW; and not the ocean discharge. Coastal Development Impacts: Growth along the southern Callfomla coast Is Expected to Increase by 5.6 million people by 2020. Limited fresh water potentially can be the major Impediment to new development and further growth, i . i The ad iitional water provided by Poseidon could reduce this constraint, and lead to more g�wth within the water service area. The Issue is the proper management of growth, which Is the responsibility of local, county and State government and should be deal with in the appropriate forums. Management of growth via withholding infrastructure is, in our opinion, short sighted.and hardly management at all. In the case of range County, we need addltaonal water.sources to ensure:a stable water supply t compensate for the loss of Colorado River water and the potential of future reductions from the California Aqueduct supply from northern Califomia. The Metro litan Water District, which supplies water at significantly less cost, recently publish d a report stating the District could supply Orange County enough water to accom odate this future growth and development. Therefore, there is a real probabi ty that Poseidon, at 50 m.g.d,will hardly be significant enough to Impact future development as there are other alternative sources for water that developers can acg6ire. 'n Important point Is that Poseidon will only have several customers, all public ater agencies that are required to receive public testimony In their decision making rocesses. Poseidon should not be permitted to sell to any entity other than a public;agency. elnforcement of AES power plant's need to be located on the coast: Today's-technology In power plant construction commonly utilizes dry-cooling generat ng systems, Power plants no longer need to be located near huge volumes of water that can be utilized for cooling, Coastkeeper's long=term vision Is to have the AES power plant removed from our coastline. We have a concern that the shared #lumbing of source water and discharge water, without separate permitting, will onl reinforce AES's long-term justification to be located on the coast. Coastk ' per would like Poseidon to obtain separate permitting for the Intake and dischar facilities, so at some point in the future, the AES power plant could be relocat to a location off the coast. i Private Control: A major statewide concern Is the potential fnr developers to build a private desalination plant to provide themselves with a water service letter. as of California's central coast, for example, could be opened for massive develop ent. Certainly the permitting of desalination plants need to be reviewed on an Indiv dual case basis for it Impacts. On the Issue of privatization of ocean water, it currently takes place hundreds of times each day. Examples are many.Cases In . point ar the privately owned for-profit cruise ships that intake ocean water and make d nking water for their passengers. Privately owned companies, such as Edison, -built power plants. AES, another privatefy owned company, currently owns the po er plant in Huntington Beach. They are regulated by the Public Utilities Comm, ion, as most probably will desalination plants if and when they are built. i At this time, the Orange County Coastkeeper supports Poseidon's application to the City of Huntington Beach to build a plant and provide desalinated water. However, as we have stated in this letter, we still have several concerns that have not been addressed and must be answered before final approval Is given. Our reason for support Is that we have carefully studied the EIR and.have had a scientific review by our staff marine biologists and other biologists. This is just the beginning of a lengthy review of this project. During this review those agencies that have the expertise and staff will fully evaluate the complexities of such a major project, and remaining questions of concern will be addressed and answered. As this project goes through the entitlement, every issue can be addressed. If It Is necessary, protective conditions will be placed on the project and if additional concern are raised the project could be denied. We feel that it Is Important that the project continue through the entire process, so that all agencies have the chance to use their experts to do an Independent evaluation. This is Important to the future of California, especially Southern California where water issues continue to be of the highest priority. Water will always be one of the most Important issues for the State of California and whether we like It or not, we must explore every option available to us. Desalinatlon Is a part of our future and we should give this project a fair hearing and a decision based on scientific evidence, not emotional rhetoric or unsubstantiated claims. Sincere , Garry ine Execu v Director Memorandum To: Ron Davis CC: Ricky Ramos From: Billy Owens Date: July 17, 2003 Re: Salinity Range References for Poseidon EIR / Power Plant Operation You have asked Poseidon to confirm sources for the above items based upon your discussion and questions in the July 8U' public hearing. Salinity You requested the specific locations and references supporting statements in the Poseidon EIR documents that define the 10% salinity variation ranges mentioned by Dr. Jenkins in the July 8`h public hearing. Our response is as follows: Poseidon believes that you may have confused two different references and circumstances- related to a 10% salinity value; a) one for the natural ocean salinity variation; b) another for the marine life (benthic organisms),tolerance and sensitivity to increased. salinity. The natural ocean salinity variation of 10% (D-6, Appendix D) stated by Dr. Jenkins was in the summary sections of the reports. The ocean salinity off Huntington Beach has a 10% natural variation...not +/- 10%,which would be a 20% variation under that interpretation. Maximum ocean salinity was 34.3 ppt during the 1998 summer El Nino when southerly winds transported high salinity water from southern Baja up into the Southern California Bight. Minimum salinity was about 31 ppt during the 1993 winter flood. The variation between maximum and minimum salinity is about 3.3 ppt, which is about 10% of the average salinity of 33.5.ppt The sources for these data are many. In Dr. Jenkins' reports, he referenced the monitoring . reports of OCSD 1993, OCSD 2000 and MBC 2001, but there are also many other studies and databases (long term ocean water sampling programs for regulatory agencies) for the Southern California Bight that indicate the same thing, including daily salinity monitoring from Scripps Pier and the CalCOFI cruise data. These studies are identified in the Bibliography to Appendix D, pages D 109-113. Poseidon's worst case dilution scenario was based on a"Worst Month". The worst month was largely selected based on the occurrence of minimal wind, wave and current mixing, and the salinity that coincided with these conditions was 33.49 ppt, lower and within 2% of the 1998 (34.3 ppt) salinity maximum. A 99% reduction in dilution due to retarded mixing levels is certainly more representative of worst case than is a 2% higher �j� Gol�l�tn tv(tom-1�i 71vz1 n--�. POSE I DON RE S. O U R C- E 'S c� background salinity. (99% is the drop off in near field dilution for the wind, waves and tides of the worst case scenario versus the winds, waves and tides during the summer of 1998— effectively calm conditions). The salinity record for 1980-2000 (attached pdf table file) to you can see what the salinity data in the .above referenced monitoring reports looks like when plotted for 20 years. The worst case is an extreme condition that may occur only one week every three to seven years, primarily in the summer during strong La Nina conditions (page D-5). Poseidon made the extreme case more extreme by extending the period to.a month to ensure that our analysis was conservative. Certain marine life are sensitive to increased salinity. From the Southern California Bight to the tip of Baja California, Mexico, the marine population and character are fairly consistent. This region also has recorded salinities ranging from the typical 33.49 ppt to 38 ppt in various bays and estuaries in the Southern California Bight. Text and footnotes found on pages 4.3-13 through 4.3-18 DEIR Summary Report, dated September 2002 discuss the ability of marine life to tolerate salinity levels up to 40 ppt without significant harm. The report further addresses the potential for marine life to accommodate the expected saline plume at the discharge point. Additional marine biology supporting data are found in the literature citations of Appendix F, page F-15. Power Plant Operations_ Statements made by Dr. Jenkins about the average capacity factor of the Huntington Beach Generating Station are not from the EIR documents. Independent of the previous EIR work, Dr. Jenkins has been correlating the 20 year water sampling data with the same 20 year (1980-2000) period of the power plant operation. It is likely that a review of a more recent and smaller time period may show the plant capacity factor or operating hours to be different than the above 20 year period. Units 3&4 did not operate for parts of the past several years. The anticipated return to service of units 3&4 for commercial operation in 2003 may place the plant operations closer to the previous operating profile. I hope this is responsive to your questions. 1 L� J � 2 07/17/2003 11:02 SIO/C i,< FOR COASTRL STLDIES SM967tt815624�-__403 NO.553 002 CL b. S= 33.51 ppt! ,`S w 33.52 opt 34.0 'a 33.0 U), a 32.0 ! , 20.5 year Iverage = 33.52 ppt 31.0 T= 25.0 °C! , T= 17.6 'C 25 C. o , e g -20 i r Z, i o ECL 15 20.5 year can = 17.6 C 10 77min --0.74 ft NGVD, 1 71 min= -1.96 R NGVD Eao4 m > mean= 2 w Z 3 2.97 ft 2 ® � 1 MSL E a a _ >-2 c mean= W Z-3 I .2.33 ft 4 1980 1984 1988 1992 . 1996 2000 Year APPENDIX B: Period of record for ocean water mass properties and boundary conditions,Huntington Beach, 1980-2000: b) daily mean salinity, station 8d, (from MBC, 2001, OCSD, 2000, 1993); e) daily mean temp erawre, station 8d, (from MBC,2001, OCSD, 2000, 1993); d) daily f maximum and minimum water levels (from NOAA aide gage#9410660). City of Huntington Beach Planning Department STAFF REPORT MUNTNGTON BEACH TO: Planning Commission . FROM: Howard Zelefsky, Director of Planning BY: Ricky Ramos, Associate Plannerlz"- DATE: August 12, 2003 SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 00-02 (Poseidon Seawater Desalination Plant) APPLICANT: Poseidon Resources Corporation, 3760 Kilroy Airport Way, #260, Long Beach, CA 90806 PROPERTY OWNER: AES Huntington Beach, LLC,21730 Newland Street,Huntington Beach, CA 92646 LOCATION: 21730 Newland Street(East side of Newland, south of Edison Ave) -------- STATEMENT OF ISSUE: Environmental Impact Report No. 00-02 (EIR No.00-02)request: Analyze the potential environmental impacts associated with a request to construct a 50 million gallons per day (MGD) seawater desalination plant including a 10,120 square foot administration building, a 38,090 square foot reverse osmosis building, a 36,305 square foot product water storage tank, and miscellaneous accessory structures on an approximately 11 acre site. The project also includes up to 10 miles of water transmission lines to connect to an existing regional transmission system, and two off-site booster pump stations. Documents potential impacts to Land Use/Relevant Planning, Geology/Soils/Seismicity, Hydrology and Water Quality, Air Quality, Noise, Public Services and Utilities, Aesthetics/Light and Glare, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, and Construction Related Impacts. Evaluates four alternatives to the original project proposal. Concludes that the project results.in.no environmental impacts or less than significant environmental impacts in the .areas of Agricultural Resources, Air Quality (long-term), Biological Resources, Cultural Resources, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, 'Land Use/Relevant Planning, Mineral Resources, Population and Housing, Recreation, and Transportation/Traffic. - Concludes that potential impacts can be mitigated to less than significant levels in the areas of Geology/Soils/Seismicity, Hydrology and Water Quality, Noise, Public Services and Utilities, Aesthetics/Light and Glare, and Construction Related Impacts. - Concludes that potential impacts cannot be mitigated to less than significant levels in the area of Short-Term Construction Related Emissions. Reconsidered Item Planning Commission meeting July 22, 2003 -Planning Commission voted to reconsider the certification of the EIR. Staff s Recommendation: Certify EIR No. 00-02 as adequate and complete and adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations based upon the following: Compliance with California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA) Compliance with the City of Huntington Beach General Plan goals, policies, and objectives Compliance with the City of Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance - Potentially significant environmental impacts have been eliminated or substantially lessened Remaining significant unavoidable impacts are found to be acceptable due to overriding considerations Benefits of the project are balanced against its unavoidable environmental impacts RECONLMENDATION: Motion to: "Certify EIR No. 00-02 as adequate and complete in accordance with CEQA requirements by approving Resolution No. 1581 (Attachment No. 1)." ALTERNATIVE ACTION(S):. The Planning Commission may take alternative actions such as: A. "Deny certification of EIR No. 00-02 with findings for denial." B. "Continue certification of EIR No. 00-02 and direct staff accordingly." PROJECT PROPOSAL: Environmental Impact Report No. 00-02 represents an analysis of potential environmental impacts associated with the construction of a seawater desalination plant that will convert up to 50 million gallons per day(MGD) of seawater into potable water. The project includes a 10,120 square foot administration building, a 38,090 square foot reverse osmosis building, a 36,305 square foot product water storage tank, and miscellaneous accessory structures on an approximately 11 acre site. There will also be up to 10 miles of water transmission lines to an existing regional transmission system, and two off-site booster pump stations. The project also proposes perimeter landscaping and fencing along the project's frontage on Newland Street and Edison Avenue. BACKGROUND: The EIR was certified by the Planning Commission on July 8, 2003. However, at the July 22, 2003 meeting the Planning Commission voted to reconsider the certification of the EIR and requested that the following items be provided: PC Staff Report—8/12/03 2 (03SR65B EIR 00-02) 1) Independent review of the hydrodynamic modeling for concentrated seawater dilution (see Attachment 2); 2) Independent review of the hydrodynamic modeling for source water quality(see Attachment 2); 3) Additional information on elevated salinity impacts on marine life in the Southern California bight (see Attachment 3); and 4) Clarification.on the historical flow of the AES Generating Station(see Attachment 4). ATTACHMENTS: (Attachment Nos. 7-18 were previously provided and not attached) 1. Resolution No. 1581 (Final EIR No. 00-02) 2. Review of the hydrodynamic modeling of the source water make up and concentrated seawater dilution by Dr. Stanley Grant dated August 4,2003 3. Analysis of salinity impacts to the marine life in the Southern California bight by MBC Applied Environmental Sciences dated August 4, 2003 4. Letter from Poseidon Resources Corporation dated August 6, 2003 regarding AES flow rates 5. Letter from Poseidon Resources Corporation dated August 7, 2003 6. Letters in opposition 7. May 27,2003 EIR Staff Report 8. May 22, 2003 Staff Report Updates 9. May 27,2003 Late Communication 10. June 3, 2003 Staff Report Updates 11. June 3, 2003 Late Communication 12. June 3, 2003 Revised.Errata 13. June 3, 2003 ExecutiveSummary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures 14. July 8, 2003 EIR Staff Report 15. July 8, 2003 Late Communication 16. July 8,2003 Late Communication (Coastkeeper letter) 17. July 22,2003 Late Communication 18. July 17, 2003 Memorandum from Billy Owens to Commissioner Davis HZ:SH:MBB:RR:rl PC Staff Report—8/12/03 3 (03SR05B EIR 00-02) RESOLUTION NO. 1581 RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA, CERTIFYING THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (SCH#2001051092) FOR THE POSEIDON SEAWATER DESALINATION PROJECT WHEREAS, an Environmental Impact Report, State Clearinghouse 92001051092 ("EIR") was prepared by the City of Huntington Beach ("City") to address the environmental implications of the proposed Poseidon Seawater Desalination Project (the"Project"). • On May 17, 2001, a Notice of Preparation/Initial Study for the Project was prepared and distributed to the State Clearinghouse, other responsible agencies, trustee agencies and interested parties. An update to the Notice of Preparation/Initial Study was prepared and distributed on March 4, 2002. • After obtaining comments received in response to the Notice of Preparation, and comments received at the two public scoping meetings held at the Edison Community Center in the City of Huntington Beach on June 6, 2001 (2:30 pm and 7:15 pm), the City completed preparation of the Draft EIR, dated September 19, 2002, and filed a Notice of Completion with the State Clearinghouse. • The Draft EIR was circulated for public review and comment from September 19, 2002 to November 4, 2002 and was available for review at several locations including City Hall and the Huntington Beach Public Library; and WHEREAS, public comments have been received on the Draft EIR, and responses to those comments have been prepared and provided to the Planning Commission in a separately bound document entitled "Responses to Comments for the. Poseidon Seawater Desalination Project" (the "Responses to Comments"), dated March 21, 2003; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public meeting on the EIR on May 27, June 3, July 8, July 22, and August 12, 2003, and received and considered public testimony. WHEREAS, the City Council and the Redevelopment Agency have previously certified a Final Environmental Impact Report for the Southeast Redevelopment Project in which the Poseidon Project is located; and WHEREAS, in the event the City Council and the Redevelopment Agency take any actions in the future in furtherance of and to carry out the Southeast Redevelopment Project which involve the Poseidon Project, any such actions would be based on the f( 7, A crC information contained in the Final Environmental Impact Reports for both the Southeast Redevelopment Project and the Poseidon Project. NOW, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of Huntington Beach, California, DOES HEREBY RESOLVE, as follows: SECTION 1. Consistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15132, the Final EIR for the Project is comprised of the Draft EIR and Appendices, the comments received on the Draft EIR, the Responses to Comments, the Errata (bound together with the Responses to Comments), the Appendices to the Responses to Comments and all Planning Department Staff Reports to the Planning Commission, including all minutes, transcripts, attachments, incorporation, and references. SECTION 2. The Planning Commission makes the findings contained in the attached "Statement of Facts and Findings" with respect to significant impacts identified in the Final EIR and finds that each fact in support of the findings is true and is based upon substantial evidence in the record, including the Final EIR. The Statement of Facts and Findings is attached as Exhibit"A"to this Resolution and incorporated herein by this reference. SECTION 3. The Planning Commission finds that the Final EIR has identified all significant environmental effects of the Project and that there are no known potential environmental_impacts not addressed in the Final EIR. SECTION 4. The Planning Commission finds that all significant effects of the Project are set forth in the Statement of Findings and Facts and the Final EIR. SECTION 5. The Planning Commission finds that although the Final EIR identifies certain significant environmental effects that will result if the Project is approved, all significant effects which can feasibly be mitigated or avoided have been mitigated or avoided by the incorporation of Project design features, standard conditions and requirements, and by the imposition of mitigation measures on the approved Project. All mitigation measures are included in the "Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Checklist" (also referred to as the "Mitigation Monitoring Program") attached as Exhibit "B"to this Resolution and incorporated herein by this reference. SECTION 6. The Planning.Commission finds that the Final EIR. has described reasonable alternatives to the Project that could feasibly obtain the basic objectives of the Project (including the "No Project" Alternative), even when these alternatives might impede the attainment of Project objectives and might be more costly. Further, the Planning Commission finds that a good faith effort was made to incorporate suggested alternatives in the preparation of the Draft EIR and that a reasonable range of alternatives was considered in the review process of the Final EIR and ultimate decisions on the Project. 2 SECTION 7. The Planning Commission finds that no "substantial evidence" (as that term is defined pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15384) has been presented which would call into question the facts and conclusions in the EIR. SECTION 8. The Planning Commission finds that no "significant new information" (as that term is defined pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5) has been added to the EIR. The Planning Commission finds that the refinements that have .been made in the Project do not amount to significant new information concerning the Project, nor has any significant new information concerning the Project become known to the Planning Commission through the public hearings held on the Project, or through the comments on the Draft EIR and Responses to Comments. SECTION 9. The Planning Commission finds that the Mitigation Monitoring Program establishes a mechanism and procedures for implementing and verifying the mitigations pursuant to Public Resources Code 21081.6 and hereby adopts the Mitigation Monitoring Program. The mitigation measures shall be incorporated into the Project prior to or concurrent with Project implementation. SECTION 10. The Planning Commission finds that the unavoidable significant adverse effects of the Project as identified in Section 5.0 of the Statement of Facts and Findings (short-term construction related impacts in regards to air quality) have been lessened in their severity by the application of standard conditions, the inclusion of Project design features and the imposition of the mitigation measures. The Planning Commission finds that the remaining unavoidable significant impacts are clearly outweighed by the economic, social, and other benefits of the Project, as set forth in the "Statement of Overriding Considerations" included as Section 7.0 of the Statement of Facts and Findings. The Planning Commission adopts the recitation of overriding considerations which justify approval of the Project notwithstanding certain unavoidable significant environmental effects which cannot feasibly be substantially mitigated as set forth in the Statement of Overriding Considerations. SECTION 11. The Planning Commission finds that the Final EIR reflects the independent review and judgment of the City of Huntington Beach Planning Commission, that the Final EIR was presented to the Planning Commission, and that the Planning Commission reviewed and considered the information contained in the Final EIR prior to approving .Conditional Use Permit No. 02-04 and Coastal Development Permit No. 02-05. SECTION 12. The Planning Commission finds that the Final EIR serves as adequate and appropriate environmental documentation for the Project. The Planning Commission certifies that the Final EIR prepared for the Project is complete, and that it has been prepared in compliance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act and CEQA Guidelines. 3 PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED,this 12th day of August, 2003'by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES:. ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: Howard Zelefsky, Secretary Chairperson, Planning Commission 4 TO:. Kevin Thomas, RBF Consulting FROM: Stanley B. Grant,Ph.D. DATE: August 4, 2003 SUBJECT: Poseidon Seawater Desalination Project, Third Party Technical Review of Water Quality Studies Thank you for the opportunity to review the following documents pertaining to the planned Poseidon Seawater Desalination Project at Huntington Beach: 1. "Hydrodyanamic modeling of source water make-up and concentrated seawater dilution for the ocean desalination project at the AES Huntington Beach power station Part II: Analysis of issues to source water"by S.A. Jenkins and J.Wasyl, dated 10 October 2001 (revised 13 January 2002). 2. "Hydrodyanamic modeling of source water make-up and concentrated seawater dilution for the ocean desalination project at the AES Huntington Beach power'station. Part I: Analysis of issues to receiving water"by S.A. Jenkins and J. Wasyl,dated.19 August 2001 (revised 20 December 20, 2001). Summajy of Finding Both documents describe coastal modeling studies. The first document describes modeling studies aimed at assessing whether water quality at the power plant intake is impacted by nearby sources of contaminated water, including tidal and stormwater discharges from the Santa Ana River and Talbert marsh outlets,the submarine wastewater outfall operated by the Orange County Sanitation Districts (OCSD), and contaminated effluent from the power plant outfall. The second document examines how the blending of power plant cooling water with high salinity effluent from the desalination plant will affect the distribution of salinity in the region surrounding the . power plant outfall. In reviewing these documents,I considered two basic questions: (1)Are the model predictions of nearshore current patterns "robust and reasonable? (2)Are the model predictions of pollutant sources and nearshore pollutant transport robust and reasonable? Summary of Findings: Predictions of Nearsh ore Current Patterns. To predict nearshore current patterns,the consultants employed a numerical model that solves momentum and mass conservation equations,subject to tidal and wave forcing. 1 j j i i The calculations are carried out using up-to-date and sophisticated hydrodynamic modeling tools, and the methodologies and parameters employed are meticulously documented and referenced. The input parameters used for the hydrodynamic model appear reasonable. In addition, tidal and wave-driven coastal circulation patterns predicted by the hydrodynamic model appear to be consistent with current measurements in the nearshore region at Huntington Beach. To illustrate this point,I have attached a figure from a recent paper prepared by my research group that schematically illustrates the tidal phasing and orientation of tidal and wave-driven currents at Huntington Beach. The wave-driven currents illustrated in the figure are for typical summertime conditions when southerly waves generate an upcoast littoral drift in the surf zone. The important point is that the current patterns illustrated in this figure,which are based on field measurements collected at different times over the past several years, coincide closely with the hydrodynamic model predictions reported by.Jenkins and Wasyl. Summary of Findings: Predictions of Pollutant Sources and Transport. The transport modeling effort focused on two different issues: (1)the probability that the power plant intake will ingest pollutants from nearby point sources of sewage (OCSD outfall) or runoff(Santa Ana River and Talbert marsh outlets,power plant outfall), and .(2)the.degree to which high salinity effluent from the desalination plant will affect salinity levels in the coastal region around the power plant outfall: The fate and transport model used in the modeling effort is well developed, and key parameters appear appropriate and well documented. For the purposes of evaluating water quality impacts,the modelers examined worst-case scenarios in which the maximum pollution loads were released during environmental conditions most likely to transport the pollutants to the power plant intake. These worst case scenarios were also compared with nominal cases when pollutant loading and environmental conditions were "average". For the worst case scenarios,the model predicts that the footprint of elevated salinity(10%above ambient on average)will range from 6.8 to 15.6 acres. Furthermore, the model predicts that water quality at the power plant intake will not be significantly impacted by any of the pollution point sources considered in the analysis. The approach adopted here--of using worst-case scenarios to evaluate potential impacts--is excellent, and the conclusions reported-appear reasonable. While the results described in the reports appear adequate for planning purposes, as with any modeling effort there are additional issues that could be explored. In that spirit,I offer below.some points for consideration.. Some reflect my own curiosity about the model, while others(such as reporting of variability)might be worth pursuing down the road. In any case,these points should not be viewed as criticisms of the modeling effort. As indicated above, I believe the consultants have done an excellent job preparing their analysis. 2 Points for Consideration: 1. The hydrodynamic model predictions could be compared with field measurements of current velocities and temperature distributions collected in the nearshore region at " Huntington Beach(e.g:,using data from ADCPs and thermister strings deployed by the USGS during the summer of 2001, or by OCSD on numerous occasions). Depending on " the outcome,such a comparison would either validate the existing hydrodynamic model, or provide insights into areas where it could be improved. 2. As I understand it, the present modeling effort does not take into account the effects of regional-scale circulation patterns on local currents offshore of Huntington Beach. Would the hydrodynamic model predictions be more robust if the current fine-scale model was embedded within a course scale model that captures circulation at the scale of the southem California Bight(e.g., the UCLA ROMS model)? 3. If pollutants from known point sources cannot be transported to the power plant intake (as suggested by the modeling effort),then why is water quality in the power plant intake well intermittently poor? OCSD conducted several special surveys in which water samples were collected from offshore of Huntington Beach in the vicinity of the power plant intake structure, and simultaneously from the intake well inside the AES power plant. As reported by Archibald/Wallberg Consultants(report dated November 2001, revised January 2002), the water offshore has relatively low concentrations of coliform bacteria,while water in the"intake well at the AES power plant intermittently harbors high concentrations of coliform bacteria. One interpretation is that the bacteria.detected in the intake well are from(as yet unidentified) in-plant sources. Another interpretation is that the power plant intermittently ingests contaminated water from offshore. Presumably,a careful analysis of water quality data already collected by various agencies over the past year would help clarify the origin of fecal pollution in the power plant intake line. 4. As presented in the report, the modeling results are, in nearly all cases, averaged over a 24 hour to 30 day period (e.g., see Figures 2.1 through 2.11 in Part 2 of the report). Plots of time averaged predictions are useful, but they only tell part of the story. For example, the time averaged concentrations at a particular site(say the power plant infall) could be negligible, yet the spread of predicted values (e.g.,standard deviation) could be quite large. In this regard it would have been useful to see plots of the maximum values predicted by the model over the same windows of time (e.g., 24 hours to 30 days). The use of such plots to evaluate potential impacts would be in-line with the conservative stance adopted by the modelers. 5. The modelers report predicted dilutions ranging over seven decades (or 10 million fold) on a logarithmic scale. It seems likely(at least to me)that numerical error associated with the model will not permit accurate determination of dilution over this enormous range. By way of comparison, a recent study of error associated with numerically solving the advective-diffusion equation for open channel flow applications 3 concludes that no more than three decades of logarithmic dilution can be predicted with confidence (unpublished manuscript by Sanders et al., 2003). 4 Poe, 33� . Huntington fi O, Beach Pier • 15N ` aRt power plant - Talbert as ter ' i+ " • k�aa waste water is Y , � £ tt );! s4rf gN ^w ,Marsh treatment system ..y I�',3 ��7�i)J r45�) l '�b.lu'b�f l ,� Y )•� c" w Santa Ana River thermal VI 'OUITa o- V�;;�q , gf 4' , Figure 6 Kim et A c5 ( IMPACTS OF INCREASED SALINITY ON MARINr_ SPECIES SPECIFIC TO THE SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA BIGHT With a normal range from 33.0 to 34.0 parts per thousand(ppt)(Allan Hancock Foundation 1965)and a long- term mean of 33.5 ppt, the 10%anomaly modeled by Jenkins and Wasyl(2001)as a result of the addition of the brine plume represents a localized salinity increase to 36.9 ppt. Although naturally occurring salinities in this range are the exception in the Southern California Bight, salinities up to 37 ppt are known to occur in southern California embayments,including the relatively open Los Angeles Outer Harborwhere salinities up to 36.99 ppt have been found (Soule and Oguri 1974). Salinities .up to 37 ppt are below the 40 ppt cited by Pomory(2000) as the upper limit of salinity tolerance for most marine organisms: The California Ocean Plan (SWRCB 2001) includes no discharge requirements or water quality objectives concerning discharge of brine or an increase in salinity.The EPA(1986, the Gold Book)in discussing Quality Criteria for Dissolved Solids and Salinity states all species of fish and other aquatic life must tolerate a range of dissolved solids concentrations in order to survive under natural conditions and continues, marine species also exhibit variance in ability to tolerate salinity changes, then cites examples of salinity induced fish kills when salinity exceeded 75 ppt.The Gold Book recommends a limit in salinity variation from natural levels not exceed 4 ppt to protect wildlife habitats,when natural salinity occurs between 13.5 and 35 ppt. In the case of the proposed project, an increase of 10%above mean local salinity of 33.5 ppt would be 3.4 ppt, noticeably lower than the EPA=s recommended upper limit of 37.5 ppt in local marine waters. In southern California, most ocean discharges tend to either not affect or to lower the salinity of the receiving waters,as occurs from discharges from once-though cooling or industrial and municipal outfalls,respectively. For this reason little work on the effects of elevated salinity has been done (SCCWRP 1994). In general, studies of salinity tolerances of marine organisms focused on the reduction of salinity through the introduction of freshwater,either from natural sources(such as rivers)or from municipal discharges. Studies conducted in natural systems tend to examine species occurrence in estuaries as related to temperature, seasonality and tolerance of species to naturally reduced salinity.Historically,laboratory experiments designed to test salinity.tolerances examined reduction in salinity,often testing synergistic effects of reduced salinity With other variables, such as.increased nutrients or decreased oxygen levels,-'as would occur in the vicinity of a municipal wastewater discharge. In 1993, Southern California Coastal Water Research Project(SCCWRP) conducted bioassays on varying concentrations of brine to determine at what concentrations increased salinity could affect survival,growth or reproductive success for sensitive life stages of three species of marine organisms:giant kelp(Macrocystis pyrifera),amphipods(Rhepoxynius abronus),and sea urchins(Strongylocentrotus purpuratus).These species are widely used and acceptable test organisms utilized to test toxic effects of effluents discharged into saline waters throughout southern California.This test was designed to simulate the effects of the discharge of brine from a reverse osmosis (RO) plant in Santa Barbara. The results of exposure to increased salinity indicated that desalination plant brine and elevated salinity(up to 43 ppt) did not produce toxic effects on amphipods, kelp spores or affect sea urchin fertilization(SCCWRP 1994). Kelp spore groyAh was found to be reduced when tested at a salinity of 43 ppt, but not at a salinity of 38.5 ppt.Sea urchin embryos demonstrated a significant reduction in normal development when exposed to a 10%increase in salinity. Further testing on sea urchin embryos found a small reduction in normal development at 36.5 ppt and a much greater reduction at 38.5ppt. SCCWRP concluded that desalination waste brine was not toxic to amphipods, kelp spores or sea urchin embryos at the 35 ppt concentration expected to occur locally in the vicinity of the discharge. Specific'.examples of California marine species= ability to tolerate elevated salinity are scarce. Salinity tolerances for amphipods, an important food source for many fish species, vary by species, but some gammerids are able to tolerate salinities from 2 ppt up to 59 ppt(Grosse and Pauley 1989). Ghost shrimp (Neotrypaea californiensis), common in shallow muddy areas of the Southern California Bight survive in salinities from about 25%to 125%of normal seawater,a range from about 8 ppt to 41 ppt(Homig et al. 1989). California grunion(Leuresthes tennis), an important sportfishing species,tolerates salinity up to 41 ppt in the prolarvae stage and up to 38 ppt when 20-day-old larvae(Reynolds et al. 1976,Hubbs 1965).Additionally,two other fish species,sargo(Anisotremus devidsonir)and longjaw mudsucker(Gillichthys mirabilis),are known to occur in both southern California coastal waters and the Salton Sea,where salinities range up to 41 ppt(Black 1988),while the striped mullet(Mugil cephalus),common in southern California embayments,was found in the lv .. MBC Applied Environmental Sciences . August 4, 2003 . Salton Sea at salinities up tc ppt(Walker 1961). Salinity tolerances of many marine species may also be inferred by the geographical range in which the species is known to occur. For example, in southern California, Pt. Conception is widely recognized as the northern boundary of many subtropical and tropical fish species(Cross and Allen 1993).Northern species also tend to occur off of southern California, but at deeper depths than north of Pt. Conception. Many of the fish that occur in coastal waters of southern California are also found commonly off Baja California, and occasionally into the Gulf of California and Central America.While a salinity of 33.5 ppt is considered normal for southern California coastal waters, typical salinity in coastal waters of Baja is 34.5 ppt (Hickey 1993). Salinity in the Gulf of California generally ranges from 35.to 36 ppt, but may increase to.39 ppt in.shallow. areas (Brusca 1980)..Many of the local coastal fish species are common where salinity is greater than.in southern California, such as offshore of Baja California. Using range information, Table 1 provides an _expected minimum upper end salinity tolerance for the twenty most abundant species of fish impinged at the Huntington Beach Generating Station between 1979 and 2001. Most southern California fish species are exposed to some variation in salinity throughout their range and should be able to tolerate a localized salinity elevation in the range that is projected for the project, even if they are unable to avoid the plume. Similarly,several invertebrate species that dominate the invertebrate community offshore of Huntington Beach also occur in shallow areas of the Gulf of California where salinities may reach 39 ppt(Table 2).As mentioned above,some local invertebrate species,especially those commonly found in estuaries where salinity may vary dramatically on a seasonal basis, are able to tolerate a wide range of salinities. Still, in the event of localized salinity increase, some changes in the invertebrate community in the immediate vicinity of the increase are expected. Invertebrates for the most part are not as mobile as fish. Due to short life-spans and rapid colonization, it is expected that there may be a local replacement of infaunal invertebrate species in the immediate vicinity of the discharge. Replacement species will likely be species that are already present in southern California, although they may be more common in southern waters,or those that have wide salinity tolerances such as occur in local estuaries. These species will function in a similar way in the ocean ecosystem as occurs now, feeding on detritus, filtering water,.and providing a food source for fish. Citations Allan Hancock Foundation,University of Southern California.1965.An oceanographic and biological surveyof the souther California mainland shelf. Submitted to the California State Water.Quality Control Board. Publ. No. 27. December 1963. 227 p. Black, G.F. 1988. Description of the Salton Sea sport fishery, 1982-83. California Dept. of Fish and Game, Region 5, Inland Fisheries. Downloaded from: http://www.sci.sdsu.edu/salton/SSSportFishery1988.htmf Brusca, R.C. 1980. Common intertidal invertebrates of the Gulf of California. Second Edition. Univ. Ariz. Press, Tucson,AZ. 513 p. Cross. J.N. and L.G. Allen. 1993. Fishes. Chapter 9 in: Dailey, M.D., D.J. Reish, and J.W. Anderson (eds.). 1993. Ecology of the Southern California Bight:A synthesis and interpretation.Univ.Calif.Press,Los Angeles, CA. 926 p. EPA 1986. Quality criteria for water 1986,AGold Book@. EPA 440/5-86-001. Office of Water Regulations and Standards, Washington DC. Grosse, D.J., and G.B. Pauley. 1989. Species Profiles: Life histories and environmental requirements of coastal fishes and invertebrates(Pacific southwest).Amphipods. U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service Biological Rpt. 82(11.92) January 1989. U.S.Army Corps of Engineers, TR EL-82-4. 16 p. Hickey, B.M. 1993. Physical Oceanography. Chapter in: Dailey,M.D., D.J.Reish,and J.W.Anderson(eds.). 1993. Ecology of the Southern California Bight:A synthesis and interpretation. Univ.Calif.Press,Los Angeles, CA. 926 p Hornig, S.,A. Sterling,and S. D.Smith. 1989. Species Profiles: Life histories and environmental requirements of coastal fish and invertebrates (Pacific northwest). Ghost shrimp and blue mud shrimp. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Biological Rpt. 82(11.93). U.S.Army Corps of Engineers, TREL-82-4. 14 p. Hubbs, Clark. 1965.Developmental temperature tolerance and rates of four southern California fishes, Fundulus parvipinnis, Atherniopsis affinis, Leuresthes tenuis, and Hypoblennius sp. Calif. Fish and Game 9 MBC Applied Environmental Sciences August-4, 2003 . 3.� 51(2):113-122. Jenkins, S. A. and J. Wasyl. 2001. Hydrodynamic modeling of source water make-up and concentrated seawater dilution for the ocean desalination project at the AES Huntington Beach power station. Part I: Analysis of issues to receiving water. Revised December 2001. Love, M. 1996. Probably more than you want to know about the-fishes of the Pacific Coast.,Really Big Press, Santa Barbara, CA. 381 p. MBC Applied Environmental Sciences. 2001. AES.Huntington Beach L.L.C. Generating Station: Marine Mammal Protection Act-Small Take Permit Application. Submitted to National Marine Fisheries Service, Long Beach, CA.. Prepared for AES Huntington Beach L.L.C.generating station,.Huntington Beach, CA. 15 p. plus attachment. . Pomory, C. 2000. Benthic impact of the discharge from desalination plant. Letter report to Poseidon Resources. 3 p. Reynolds, W.W., D.A. Thomson, and M.E. Casterlin. 1976. Temperature and salinity tolerances of larval California grunion Leuresthes tenuis, a comparison with gulf grunion, Leuesthes sardina. J Exp. Mar. Biol. ECOL. 24(1):73-82, Riley,J.P.,and R. Chester. 1971. Introduction to marine chemistry.Academic Press, London and New York. 465 p. Soule, D.F., and M. Oguri (eds.). 1974. Marine studies of San Pedro Bay, California. Part V. Data report. Temperature, salinity, oxygen and pH in outer Los Angeles harbor June 1971 to November 1973. Allan Hancock Foundation, Harbors Environmental Projects, and Office of Sea Grant Programs, University of Southern California. USC-SG-3-74. 76 p. State Water Resources Control Board. 2001 California Ocean Plan. California Environmental protection Agency. Southern California Coastal Water Research Project. 1994..Toxic effects of elevated salinity and desalination , Waste brine In:SCCWRP Annual report 1992-93. 166 p. Walker, B. W., ed. 1961. The ecology of the Salton Sea, California, in relation to sportfishery. State of California, Department of Fish and Game, Fish Bull. 113. 204 p. MBC Applied Environmental Sciences. August4,-2003 August 6, 2003 INFORMATION ON AES FLOW RATES Response to "Issue 94" as Raised by Commissioner Davis at the July 22 Meeting. . The minimum AES intake flow rate is one component of the worst case analysis of the project's potential impacts relating to the increase of ocean salinity levels. As stated in the EIR (at page 4.3-12) the "worst-case scenario assumes that the AES facility has only two circulating pumps operating(one generating unit) and that no additional mixing from natural causes such as wind or wave action would occur." EIR Appendix D (at page D- 79) lists the combined capacity of a two-pump flow at 126.7 million gallons per day (mgd). At the 22 July 03 meeting, Commissioner Davis questioned whether the EIR worst case flow rate of 126 mgd was correct. Referencing selected annual summary sheets for the NPDES permit of the AES power plant (included in EIR Appendix C at pages C-80 through C-92), Commissioner Davis questioned why recent "annual flow averages" shown on those summary sheets were lower than 126 mgd, citing references to 104 mgd and 109 mgd. This led to some confusion because no combination of pumps at AES could deliver 109 mgd. Staff was directed to review the data in the EIR Appendix and provide a response at the next meeting. Inspection of the NPDES summary sheets in EIR Appendix C reveals that Commission Davis was referring to a charts showing numbers for "Serial Discharge 003A," retention basin effluent discharges, and not the chart showing numbers for `'Serial Discharge 001A," for the outfall. The actual number on the retention basin summary sheet for 1998 (EIR Appendix C-81) was 103,981 gallons per day (GPD not mgd). Likewise, the actual number on the retention basin summary sheet for 2000 (EIR Appendix C-81) was 109,386 gallons per day(GPD not mgd). The summary sheet for the outfall discharge for 1999 (EIR Appendix C-85) shows a combined discharge flow of 156.98 million gallons per day (mgd) and the monthly figures show that the flow was never less than 126 mgd. The average annual flow rates of the AES plant from 1979 through 2002 are shown on the attached bar chart ("Figure 3")..The bar chart was created from NPDES data courtesy . of MBC (the City's consultant). Flow rates at AES during 2000 =2001 and for a number .. years preceding that time had been depressed while the plant underwent refit for modern clean air equipment and for the re-powering of Unit 3. However, at no time from 1979 through 2002 (the EIR study period) did the annual average of the daily flow rates at AES fall below the 126 mgd level used in the EIR for the worst-case salinity dilution modeling scenario. 'L.l• �uj� yi'� t'S;L�'7 x � r�ki �r,�tc 9•+�'y B.R'VMI zR �yi�S"{ ia}�'"� i �PiM1V V V �Y}Te4 �.i 1 ,y,y`' •A"�I�"4W Tkr y3r +"0. r`-:'•i j y x sai# I� >yu 1 1I4 IC's-��yi a r $SI �kA zli.0 r � ��� �"S`'r3w}�kc � fi 7t r Y7� 'di. xr• r� Yd� r 4 h ,.ehR;� WE " �f �, y tl" L M'`P- gef"� 3y T+Ff.J r i a3a4 r srG l�r 3r a rx�'! - Imo+sI dt"1slN, ��"-t .dR ,nly �• "'.^ .3'"`g � b' G ,i :.yt 's C �.��?u} —3y'Sn'V„ ��;nI ,.."'i>�`".+�{' a � a *; �•�°'� M s..�,-� " l z'� v �e� Mc'3 M1'^ i K �.W d L'f h YYY J L'•C v r ; E 1 �! 1-r 2 S j7 °+'if 4,. SL �'' � �' � Af S.'" t P y� .r�' •+.�. gg� `;rS �'ac 9'37 rt�''vs �.�u,o J�ryyy a 4 tfi 4•t{.,F, L'� t 4 1 V '4y 3� k '�.�+16�i rY "1�lv,�l�{��33�sh-r��.���1+''si'?'.1� .ct�;+ 4a ir��d §�, „e x5i S-�+Lr.�F u•r��t�g,'s, 'rFIA" . ^� i, ;r �.t�i."�� r ZZ k �h�5 fi'�.�+'e ems' � —'S e�. ��J� C 3 � �'� �" •£�4y e 1 1 '` 1 yu.��''�, �4� �'�a• �T"1 a.�'"x�l'��� �'�� 7 —: r. h� �.✓'P��•t q��y t d�.'S '' r y i�i tFr�. l AlY+ti' ������c ��.-.-:�';•� All an • • August 7, 2003 Planning Commission Members City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, California 92648 Re: Reconsideration of Environfnental Impact Report No. 00-02 (Poseidon Seawater Desalination Plant) Dear Commissioners: As you know, I represent Poseidon Resources Corporation ("Poseidon"). At the July 22°d Planning Commission meeting, The Commission reconsidered its certification of the desalination project EIR. This letter is offered to clarify information presented in the EIR and Appendix and to correct the misstatement made by one of the members of the Poseidon consulting team at your July 8th meeting. Poseidon has reviewed tapes of the July 8 meeting and regrets the misstatement made by Dr. Scott Jenkins in response to Commissioner Ron Davis. By this letter we respond to the.offer made by Commissioner Ron Davis to"find[the information] in the . appendix"and attempt to present that information in a clear and concise manner..We subrrut that there is no question as to the accuracy of the hydrodynamic modeling presented in the EIR and the EIR Appendix. We also believe that it cannot be denied that Dr. Scott Jenkins is an expert in this field of study, (His accomplishments are noted in his extensive resume.) In addition, the EIR analysis received peer review and was approved by the City's expert consultants, RBF and M 3C Consulting, as well as by the "staff marine biologists and other marine biologists"consulted by Orange County Coastkeeper. (See page 2 of the June 26, 2003 letter provided by Orange County Coastkeeper.) According to Commissioner Ron Davis' July 18 memorandum to Commission Chair Randy Kokal, "The reason for reconsideration is based upon subsequent evidence of potential inaccuracies in the hydrodynamic modeling of source water and concentrated seawater dilution relative to salinity and.worst-case scenarios." Discussion by the Commissioners at your July 22 meeting clarified specific concerns regarding natural variations in ocean salinity levels, the salinity dilution modeling and the worst-case dilution scenario analyzed in the EIR. This letter and the enclosures are offered to addresses those concerns. The following are included as enclosures to this letter. (1) A brief transcript of a portion of the testimony of Dr. Scott Jenkins under questioning by Commissioner Ron Davis (relating to the "10% variation"). Poseidon Resources corporation 3760 I:ilroy Airport Way,Suite M.bona Beach.CA 90606.USA 562-490.2003 Fax:562-490-2403 c,ecutive Oftice: 1055 Washington Boulevard.Stamford,CT 06901 i •. . d' }. _ Planning Commission Members City of Huntington Beach August 7, 2003 Page 2 (2). A.letter fiom Dr. Scott Jenkins correcting the record and clarifying information provided in the garding ocean salinity, the salinity dilution modeling and the worst case EIR. and Appendix re scenario. (3) Dr. Scott Jenkins' VITA. It should be noted that the references in the EIR to the data sources for the ocean modeling assumptions are drawn from public records at the State Water Resources Control Board(SWRCB). The information was supplied by the Orange County Sanitation District and the AES (formerly Edison) power plant in compliance with the discharge (NPDES) permits governing facility discharges into the ocean. The monitorina,data for the discharges is filed monthly and annually. The data is referred to as OCSD 1982- 2001,iVIBC 2001,etc. as it is found in the SWRCB. The data collected is extensive and covers a number of parameters, including salinity. At your last meeting, Poseidon's attorneys (Ron Van. Blarcom and John Erskine) objected to your reconsideration of the EIR for three reasons:the mandatory CEQA processing date was fast approaching, the reconsideration action violated the. Planning Commission's procedural rules and the Planning Comrriission no longer had jurisdiction over the EIR due to the.appeal filed by Mayor Connie Boardman. For strictly legal reasons,Poseidon is not waiving any of those arguments. However,we will continue to work with your Commission, to answer all questions and address all issues that have been raised concerning the EIR. Please consider this letter and the enclosures in connection with your reconsideration of the EIR. Please do not hesitate to call on me with any questions you may have concerning this letter or the attachments. Be assured that the entire Poseidon consulting team will be available, should you request further input from Poseidon during your reconsideration of the EIR. Very Truly Yours, - Billy Owe Sr. Vice President Poseidon Resources Corporation Enclosures H - 7 Transcript of a Portion of the Testimony of Dr. Scott Jenkins Under Questioning by Commissioner Ron Davis Huntington Beach Planning Commission Meeting July 8, 2003 Davis: But let me go to another point that is really troubling in terms of the analysis that we've gotten here. In your report- you did a study back in 2001 that's part of our Appendix. Correct? Jenkins: Correct: Davis: And in that report you indicated something about the salinity levels varying between essentially plus or minus ten percent that that's a normal variation? Jenkins: Yeah, for the Southern California bight that's correct. Davis: OK now typically when I read scientific studies and there is an extensive bibliography here such a statement is ordinarily foot noted or referred to so I can go back and look at the source for that material in this case in your article this is not the case. Jenkins: Well actually if you review the TNJBC monitoring data which was in the appendix of my report the ten percent variation is there in their data IT _ �1 Davis: Well I'm just looking at your statement because 1 saw throughout the course of the thing you did refer to a lot of things but with reference to that ten percent issue you didn't have a source that I could look at. But I did take a moment to try and do some research on the internet and correct me if I'm wrong what I find is that various areas of the ocean some places in the Atlantic and some places in the Pacific have higher or lower elevations in salinity Jenkins: That's correct Davis: But the variation, do we have any evidence or maybe you can refer me to a section in the appendix where we monitored in the area of the outflow pipe where we can show the variations, range of plus or minus ten percent? Jenkins: Well yeah that's the MBC Monitoring data they measure salinity along with a number of other variables the temperature, salinity, and so on their data shows the ten percent variation Davis: Maybe one of your colleagues can find that in the appendix and give it to i me after I'm through for a second Jenkins: OK August 7, 2003 Planning Commission Members . City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, California 92648 Re: Reconsideration of Environmental Impact Report No. 00-02 (Poseidon Seawater Desalination Plant) Dear Commissioners: Please accept this letter as a correction of a portion of my testimony at your 8 July 03 meeting and as an attempt to further clarify important issues discussed in the EIR and Appendix relating to natural variations in ocean salinity, the salinity dilution modeling and the worst case scenario analyzed in the EIR and Appendix. Correcting the Record: It has been my pleasure to appear before the Planning Commission on these matters. I testified during the noticed public hearing on the EIR and I have provided additional comments during the public comment period. From time to time, I have been called to the podium by various Commissioners and examined,with respect to specific issues. On the night of 8 July 03, I was called to the podium by Commissioner Davis and questioned about the natural variation in ocean salinity levels. In the two prior hearings of 27 May and 3 June 03, I provided testimony about ocean salinity levels. I have reviewed the tapes and feel compelled to point out that I never used the prefix "plus and minus" when describing ocean salinity variations, nor did I use those words myself during the 8 July hearing. "Plus and minus 10%"were the words of Commissioner Davis in a yes-no question posed to me around 11:00 PM on 8 July 03. I should have said no, but I answered affirmatively(see excerpt from July 81h hearing below). Davis: And in that report you indicated something about the salinity levels varying between essentially plus or .minus: ten percent that that's a normal variation? Jenkins: Yeah, for the Southern California bight that's correct. I did not listen carefully enough to the question. It was entirely my mistake for not catching and correcting Commissioner Davis when he added the "plus and minus" prefix to my 10 % figure on ocean salinity variations. I missed it main a few moments later (and my response shows that, again, I was not listening clearly). Commissioner Davis said "plus or minus ten percent." I answered affirmatively, but responded"the ten percent variation" (see excerpt from July 8 hearing below). L Planning Commission Members City of Huntington Beach August 7,2003 Page 2 Davis: But the variation, do we have any evidence or maybe you can. refer me to a section in the appendix .where we monitored in the area of the outflow pipe where we can show the variations, range of plus or minus ten percent? Jenlcins: Well yeah that's the M 3C Monitoring data they measure salinity along with a number of other variables the temperature, salinity, and so on. Their data shows the ten percent variation(emphasis added). I did not take the opportunity during the meeting on the night of 8 July 03 to correct the record or to provide Commissioner Davis with any specific references to the EIR or Appendix. Unfortunately, I assumed the objective of Mr. Davis' line of questioning was to the potential effect upon the ocean environment of the higher salinity discharge in the average and worst case scenarios. Reference was indeed made to the EIR analysis and previous testimony of Dr. Graham on the effects upon marine life in the area based upon the higher salinity and the results concluded no significant harm to the ocean or marine life. Since this was not disputed in the exchange, the potential significance of the ocean natural salinity slipped in importance. The manner in which.the hearing progressed offered little opportunity for subsequent discussion.of this issue as other commissioners introduced new topics between 11:00 pm and 1:00 am the next moming prior to adjournment. In closing comments, Commissioner Stanton complained that his speaker light had been on for over 2 hours and that he was never given an opportunity to speak. The Commission meeting of 22 July 03 afforded no opportunity for clarification or rebuttal of Mr. Davis' concerns about salinity or the explanatory document sent to Mr. Davis (at his request)by Poseidon on the issue prior to the 22 July 03 meeting. Obviously, my verbal mistake is not contained in the EIR, and should not impinge the credibility of the EIR. In the remainder of this letter, I hope to clarify the actual facts as presented in the-EIR and Appendix. Ocean Salinity: It is an observational fact, supported by 20 years of NPDES monitoring data of the AES and OCSD outfalls (see Figure 1), that the ocean salinity varies by.10%o between summer maximums and winter minimums, with a long term average value of 33.5,.parts_per thousand (ppt). Maximum salinity was 34.3 ppt during the 1998 summer El Nino when southerly winds transported high-salinity water from southern Baja up into the Southern California Bight. Minimum salinity was about 31.0 ppt during the 1993 winter floods. The variation between maximum and minimum salinity is about 3.3 ppt, which is about 10 % of the average value of 33.5 ppt. Averages never tell the whole story and can sometimes be misleading. In this case, the ocean salinity exceeded the 33.5 ppt average,value during 2,488 days of the period of record and was below average during 1,543.days.. Therefore, above average salinities are Planning Commission Members 3 City of Huntington Beach August 7, 2003 Page 3 more common than below average salinities. Average salinities were observed a total of 3,492 days during the period of record, or about 46 % of the time. Adding the prefix "plus or minus" to the 10% number for natural variability renders the information factually incorrect. Ocean salinity does not vary symmetrically (as in a"bell curve" or Gaussian probability distribution) and plus or minus 10 % would actually represent a 20 % variation. Nowhere is it written in the EIR or its technical appendices that the ocean salinity off Huntington Beach varies by"plus or minus" 10%. The EIR Summary Report, page 4.3-3, and Appendix D, D-6, are the specific references on the natural salinity of the ocean in the California Bight. The salinity data sources for the ocean modeling assumptions in Appendix D are drawn from public records at the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). The OCSD and AES/MBC files were selected because of the proximity to the proposed project location and extensive records. The reports,referred to as OCSD 1982-2001, MBC 2001, etc., provided monitoring data on a monthly and annual basis. The City's EIR consultant is familiar with and has examined these sources as they have been used for other studies. Salinity Dilution Modeling: Dilution of the concentrated.seawater produced by the Poseidon project was evaluated in the EIR for two basic modeling scenarios: average . case and worst case. There are seven (7) controlling variables in this problem: four{(4) that affect the strength of ocean mixing and ventilation, and three (3) that affect the source strength (salinity concentration). Mixing/ventilation variables include .wird, current, wave and tidal range data, while source strength data include the power plant flow rate, ocean salinity and temperature. a) average case: This condition is constructed from the long term means of the ocean mixing and source strength variables. Based on analysis of the AES plant operations data and the ocean monitoring data (illustrated in Figure 1), the following parameter assignments were made for average case dilution modeling: 1) AES intake flow rate=253.4 mad 2) Desalination production rate=50 mgd 3) Combined discharge=203.4 mgd 4) Ocean salinity=33.52 ppt 5) End-of pipe combined discharge salinity=41.42 ppt 6) Combined discharge temperature anomaly DT= 10' C 7) Combine discharge density anomaly Dr/r= 0.44 % 8) Wave height= 1.1 m 9) Wave period= 11 sec 10) Wave direction= 2670 11) Wind= 5 knots 12) Tidal range = Syzygian spring/neap cycle • '- '.< .., a d=.. . Planning Commission Members 4 City of Huntington Beach August 7, 2003 Page 4 13) Daily maximum tidal current=45.1 cm/sec Under average conditions, the maximum salinity is at mid water column depth in the core of the discharge jet, and reaches 41.7 ppt, which is only 25 %higher than the background seawater salinity. The EIR again gives the pessimistic description of the plume by following the long axis of the egg-shaped plume, along which the discharge salinity in the water column decreases to 38.5 ppt(15 % above background seawater salinity)within only 20 feet from the discharge outfall tower. Within 500 feet from the outfall tower the discharge salinity will be only 10 %higher than the background seawater salinity over an area of 8.3 acres. Considering the eccentricity of the egg-shape plume, the 10 % saline anomaly contour extends an average distance of about 330 feet away from the outfall. The highest salinity on the seafloor for average conditions is found at the base of the outfall tower and is 37.6 ppt (only 12 % above background seawater salinity). The discharge salinity drops to less than 10 % above the background seawater salinity in only 430 feet away from the discharge along the long axis of the egg shaped plume, or an average distance of 300 feet, which was the dimension I used to characterize the size.of the plume in the.hearings of 27 May and 6 June 03. b) worst case. This condition is caused by the simultaneous occurrence high salinity concentrations and low intensity ocean mixing. Salinity 'concentration.is maximized when the.AES flow.rate is at the minimum operational level while the natural ocean salinity is at maximum. Minimum ocean mixing levels were found to occur in the autumn of 1992. However, the ocean salinity in the autumn of 1992 (of the data set used) was 33.49 ppt , not the salinity maximum of 34.3 ppt as identified in Figure 1. This is due to the fact that salinity maximums are mutually exclusive with mixing minimums. Salinity maximums are caused by vigorous southerly winds that_create a well-mixed coastal ocean while pushing high salinity water masses into the Southern California Bight. Worst case dilution modeling was based on the following set of parameters: 1) AES intake.flow rate = 126.7 mgd 2) Desalination production rate=50 mad 3) Combined discharge=76.7 mgd. 4) Ocean salinity=33.49 ppt 5) End of pipe combined discharge salinity= 55.37 ppt 6) Combined discharge temperature anomaly DT = 100 C 7) Combine discharge density anomaly Dr/r= 1.59 % 8) Wave height=0.6 m 9) Wave period= 8 sec 10) Wave direction=2550 11) Wind=0 knots 12) Tidal range= Syzygian spring/neap.cycle 13) Daily maximum tidal current=21 cm/sec Planning Commission Members 5 City of Huntington Beach August 7, 2003 Page 5 Ocean conditions represented by these parameter assignments nments did not persist in the long term record for more than a..week. However, in. the model simulations these conditions were perpetuated for 30 days to verify the stability of the computed results. The recurrence of worst case environmental extremes is about 1 week every 3 to 7 years. Worst case dilution calculations indicate that the desalination project will result in an egg-shaped saline plume around a jet of water discharged vertically upward toward the sea surface from the outfall tower. In the core of this jet the highest salinity reaches 55.0 ppt at mid depth in the water column, about 64 % higher than the background ocean water salinity (33.52 ppt). The difference between the discharge salinity and the background seawater salinity rapidly decreases with increasing distance from the discharge outfall tower. The EIR gives numbers for the salinity decay in the water column following the long axis of the egg-shaped plume, stating a decrease to 40 ppt (20 % above background seawater salinity) within 20 feet from the discharge outfall .tower; a decrease to 15 % above the background seawater salinity at approximately 100 feet away from the outfall tower; and a decrease to 10 % above background seawater salinity within 1,200 feet from the outfall tower. The EIR gave the most pessimistic description of the. size, of.the saline plume for worst case. Since.the total area of the plume within: the 10 % saline anomaly is 18.3 acres, the size of the plume in terms of the average dimensions of its egg-shape would extend to about 500 feet away from the outfall, (or about 150 meters). No specific dimensions of the worst case plume were given at the 27 May and 6 June 03 hearings; although I believe I mentioned the 150 m average dimension for worst case at the 8 July hearing. No seafloor dimensions of the plume were mentioned at any of the hearings, as the size and strength of the plume are a bit less on the seafloor than in the water column. Again, the EIR gives the most pessimistic outlook of the seafloor footprint by following the long axis of the egg-shape. The highest salinity on the seafloor is at the base of the outfall tower and is 48.3 ppt (44 % above background seawater salinity). The discharge salinity drops to, less than 15 % (38.5 ppt) above the background seawater salinity in only 100. feet away from.the discharge. The bottom discharge salinity is reduced to 10 % of the background salinity within 1,000 feet from the discharge outfall tower. This 10 % anomaly contour covers 15.6 acres of the seafloor, so for an average of the egg-shaped plume, the seabed salinity decreases to within 10 % of background within a distance of 465 feet from the outfall, or about 140 meters. Worst Case AES Intake Flow Rate: During the hearings of 27 May, 3 June and 8 July 03, I emphasized the fact stated in the EIR and Appendix; namely, that the worst case scenario for concentrated seawater dilution is based on the minimum AES generating configuration. This configuration involves one generating unit on line, using two circulation pumps that produce a combined flow rate of 126.7 million gallons per day (mgd). The minimum flow rate was rounded off in testimony to 126 or 127 mgd. AES is Planning Commission Members 6 City of Huntington Beach August 7, 2003 Page 6 not equipped with variable speed pumps and it is not possible to generate electricity at any flow rate less than 126.7.mgd. The minimum operational flow rate provides the least amount of"in-the-pipe" dilution and results in the highest salinity concentrations that would be discharged from the desalination plant. Consequently, the 126.7 mad flow rate was included in the worst case dilution modeling parameters. Thank you for the opportunity to correct a portion of my testimony at your 8 July 03 meeting. I hope that this letter has also helped clarify important issues discussed in the EIR and Appendix. Sincerely, " " Dr. S.at A. Jenkins,P tea , J . Natural Variability = (Smax - Smirl) 133.52 = 9.7% 10% r 34.0 - n r- c 33.0 ,ro C, 32.0 20.5 year average = 33.52 ppt rridn A , 1980 1984 1988 1992 1996 2000 � Year Figure 1. Period of record for ocean water daily mean salinity, Huntington Beach, '1980-2000. frinta from NPDFS monitorinca renorts for AES and OCSD orrtfalls. per. MB(,,. ?oo,i - nc,,sn IAA )nnm VITA Dr. SCOTT ALAN JENKINS Senior Engineer Scripps Institution of Oceanography Center for Coastal Studies, 0209 University of California, San Diego La Jolla, California 92093-0209 (858) 534-6480 Home/Consulting: 14765 Kalapana St., Poway, CA 92064 Born/Raised: Aurora, Illinois/Albuquerque, New Mexico Education: Yale University, B. S., Chemistry, 1972 University of California, Scripps Institution of Oceanography Ph. D., Physical Oceanography, 1980 Academic Honors: * Yale National Scholar, 1972 * Howard Douglas Moore Prize, Yale University, 1972 * Andrew Mellon Foundation Fellow, 1981-1983 * Inventor of the Year, 1985, San Diego Patent Law Association * American Council of Consulting Engineers, GRAND AWARD, 1988, Best Special Project for Grays Harbor Jet Array, Co-recipient HNTB * 1995 Lincoln Award Patents: U. S. Patent No. 4,560,304, "Apparatus for impeding fine sediment deposition in harbors and navigation channels" U.. S. Patent No. 4,661,013, "Improved apparatus for impeding sediment deposition in marine. berths" U. S. Patent No. 4,957,392, "Method and apparatus for active prevention of sedimentation in harbors" U. S. Patent No. 5,558,460,."Apparatus for enhancing wave height in ocean waves" 1 Employment History: Employed at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography since age 16, beginning with summer jobs through high school and college. Since then the following job titles were held at Scripps: - Laboratory Assistant, 1966-1972, (summers only) Research Assistant, 1972-1974 - Sea Grant Fellow, 1974-1976 - Staff Research Associate IV, 1978-1981 - Mellon Research Fellow, 1981-1983 - Assistant Research Oceanographer, 1983-1988 - Lecturer, 1987-1993 - Assistant Research Engineer, 1988-1993 - Associate Development Engineer, 1993-1994 - Senior Engineer 1995 to present Consulting History: Provided consulting services in coastal processes, hydrodynamics, aerodynamics and hydraulics of harbors and estuaries. Services include both field measurements and numerical modeling. A partial list of clients includes: - City of Carpinteria, 1983 - Moffatt & Nichol Engineers, 1983 U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1983 Port of Grays Harbor, 1983-1990 - Port of Mobile, 1984-1989 - Exxon Production Research Co., 1984-1990 - City of Oceanside, 1983-1984 - Port of San Francisco, 1985-1986 - Port of Benecia, 1987-1989 - Nolte Engineering, 1987-1988 - San Diego Gas and Electric Co., 1987-present - Sierra Club Legal Defense Fund, 1991-present - Abam Engineers, Inc., 1992 - Southern California Edison, 1992-present MEC Analytical Systems, 1992-present Science Applications International Co., 1993-present Naval Research and Development Laboratory 1995 - present Irvine Company NRG Energy, Inc. Cabrillo Power Operations, Inc. Poseidon Resources, Inc. Headlands Reserve, LLC Teaching: (1982 to present), Co-instructor SIO 216A, "Physics of Sediment Transport" with Professor Douglas L. Inman. .77 - . 2 (1982 to present), Co-instructor SIO 216B, "Coastal Processes" with Professor Douglas L. Inman. (1984 to present), Member AOS, Applied Ocean Science curricular group. Graduate advisor to Peter Mull, who graduated with an M. S. degree from Applied Ocean Sciences curricular group of Scripps Institution of Oceanography in January 1987. . Graduate advisor and thesis committee Co-Chairman to Saima Aijaz, who graduated with a Ph. D. degree from the AOS curricular group of Scripps Institution of Oceanography on March 16, 1993. Undergraduate advisor to Kelly Boardman, who graduated with a B. S. degree from UCSD Urban Studies in June 1993. (1994 to present), solo instructor MARS-20, "Introduction to Physical Oceanography," 3-hr. lecture and 3-hr. lab., Marine Science Department, University of San Diego. Environmental and Professional Societies: - National Research Council Committee on Sedimentation Control in Strategic Harbors and Waterways - Scripps Institution of Oceanography Long Range Planning Committee - American Geophysical Union - San Diego Clean Water Program . . - Surfrider Foundation, Environmental Director, 1990-1993 . - Technical Advisory Committee, San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board, 1995 to present Television: - ESPN, "Surfer Magazine Show," Host of"Surf-Science Segment," 1988- 1992 - CBS, "Eye on the Earth," Interview with Dan Rather, 1992 - Discovery, "Hidden Treasures," Host, 1994 - BBC, "Walking on Water," Opening Host, 1994 Books or Chapters Submitted for Publication: Inman, D.-L. & S. A. Jenkins, in preparation, Coastal Processes: Physics. of Transport by Waves, Winds and Currents, John Wiley and Sons, New York, 968 pp. Peer Reviewed Publications: Jenkins, S. A. & D. L. Inman, 1985, On a submerged sphere in a viscous fluid excited by small-amplitude motions, Jour. Fluid Mech.,"v. 157, p. 199-224. Jenkins,.S. A..& J. A. Bailard; 1.989, Anti-sedimentation system for harbors, World Wide Shipping, v. 52, n. 1, p. 70-75. Heinz, R. A., J. A. Bailard & S. A. Jenkins, 1989, Water jets fight silt, Civil Engineering, v. 59, n. 1, p. 54-58. Inman, D. L. & S. A. Jenkins, 1989, Wave overtopping at San Maio seawall, Shore and Beach,v. 57, n. 3, p. 19-25. Jenkins, S. A. & J. Wasyl, 1990, Resuspension of estuarial sediments by tethered wings, Jour. Coastal Res., V. 6, n. 4, p. 961-980. Jenkins, S. A. & J. Wasyl, 1990, Optimization of glides for constant wind fields and course headings, Jour. of Aircraft, AIAA, v. 27, n. 7, p. 632- 638. Jenkins, S. A., L. Armi & J. Wasyl, 1992, Glide optimization during cross- country wave flights, Technical Soaring, v. 16, n. 1, p. 3-16. Jenkins, S. A., J. Wasyl & D. W. Skelly, 1992, Tackling trapped sediments, Civil Engineering, v. 62, n. 2, p. 61-64. Jenkins, S. A., S. Aijaz & J. Wasyl, 1992, Transport of fine sediment by hydrostatic jets, Coastal and Estuarine Studies, American Geophysical Union, v. 42, p. 331-347. Inman, D. L., M. Hany S. Elwany & S. A: Jenkins, 1993, Shoreline and bar-berm profiles on ocean beaches, Jour. Geophys. Res., v. 98, n. C10, p. 18,181-18,199. Aijaz, S. & S. A. Jenkins, 1993, Dynamics of shearing in flocculating fine sediment suspension, Makromol. Chem., v. 76, p. 89-93. Aijaz, S. & S. A. Jenkins, 1994, On the electrokinetics of the dynamic shear stress in fluid mud suspensions, Jour. Geophys. Res., v. 99, n. C6, p. 12,697-12,706. Inman, D. L. & S. A. Jenkins, 1999, Climate change and the episodicity of sediment flux of small California rivers, Jour. Geology, v. 107, p. 251- 270. Jenkins, S. A. & D. L. Inman, 1999, Sand transport mechanics for equilibrium tidal inlets, Shore & Beach (Magoon Volume, Jan 99), v.. 67, n. 1, p. 53-58. Jenkins, .S. A. and D. L. Inman, submitted, Thermodynamic solutions for ocean beach profiles, Jour. Marine Res., 32 pp. Inman, D. L. & S. A. Jenkins, in press 2002, Climate change in the coastal zone, p. to in M. Schwartz, ed., Encyclopedia of Coastal Science, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, Netherlands. Inman, D. L. & S. A. Jenkins, in press 2002, Energy and sediment budgets of the global coastal zone, p. to in M. Schwartz, ed., 4 Encyclopedia of Coastal Science, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, Netherlands. Inman, D. L. & S. A. Jenkins, in press 2002, Accretion and erosion waves on beaches, p to in M. Schwartz, ed., Encyclopedia of Coastal Science, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, Netherlands. Inman, D. L. & S. A. Jenkins, in press 2002; Scour and burial of objects in shallow water, p. to in M. Schwartz, ed., Encyclopedia of Coastal Science, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, Netherlands. Conference Proceedings and Technical Publications: Jenkins, S. A. & D. L. Inman, 1976, Forces on a sphere under linear progressive waves, Proc. 15th Coastal Eng. Conf., Amer. Soc. Civil Eng., v. 1,p. 2413-2418. Jenkins, S. A. & D. L. Inman, 1977, Tilting spar directional wave sensor, Proc. Nat. Sed. Trans. Study Workshop at Scripps Institution of Oceanography, Institute Marine Resources No. 78-102 and Sea Grant Publ. No. 62, p. 143-149. Jenkins,S. A., 1980, Directional wave and current data from a weakly buoyant tilting spar, Proc. 17th Int. Conf. Coastal Eng.;Amer. Soc. Civil Eng., v. 1, p 32-33. Jenkins; S. A., D. L. Inman & J. A. Bailard, 1980, Opening and maintaining tidal lagoons and estuaries; Proc.. .17th Int. Coastal Eng. Conf., Amer. Soc. Civil Eng., v. 2, p. 1528-1547. Jenkins, S. A. 1980, Sedimentation control experiments at Mare Island Naval shipyard, Proc. Dredging Sedimentation Control, P. Shelly, ed., Pub. EG&G, Washington, p. (4-1) - (11-6). Jenkins, S. A. 1980, Alternatives for sedimentation control at the Pier 10- 11-12 complex, Norfolk, Naval Station, Proc. Dredging Sedimentation Control, P. Shelly, ed., Pub. EG&G, Washington, p. (11-1) - (11-6). Bailard, J. A. & S. A. Jenkins, 1983, Experimental sand bypass system at Oceanside Harbor, Phase 1 a fluidizer and eductor crater system design report, U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, No. L-203440, 75 p. Jenkins, S. A. 1983, Notes on the L/Dmax of soaring sea birds, Soaring, v. 47, n. 8, p. 27-28. Jenkins, S. A., 1983, Vortex foils, Popular Science, v. 162, September, P. 66. . . Inman, D. L. & S. A. Jenkins, 1984, The Nile littoral cell and man's impact on the coastal zone of the southeastern Mediterranean, Proc. 19th Coastal,Eng. Conf., Amer. Soc. Civil Eng., Ch. 109, p. 1600-1617. Bailard, J. A. & S. A. Jenkins, 1984, Systems for reducing sedimentation in berthing facilities, Proc. Dredging '84, Amer. Soc. Civil Eng., v. 1, p. 11-320. Bailard, J. A. & S. A. Jenkins, 1985, Evaluation of two concepts for reducing sedimentation at Mayport Naval Station, Naval Facilities Engineering Command TN.#N-1725, 47 pp. - 5 Inman, D. L. & S. A. Jenkins, 1985, Erosion and accretion waves from Oceanside Harbor, p. 591-593, in Oceans '85: Ocean Engineering and the Environment, IEEE and Marine Technology Society, v. 1, 674 pp. Jenkins, S. A. 1985, Secondary flows in thermal waves, Proc, of IAMAP11APSO Joint Assembly, Honolulu, Hawaii,-Int.. Union of Geodesy & Geophysics, Washington, p. 96-97. Inman, D. L. & S. A. Jenkins, 1986, Budget of sediments for estuarine harbors, Proc. Symp. on Sed. Control., National Research Council, Marine Board, July 7-10, Washington, D. C., 8 pp. Jenkins, S. A., 1986, Existing facility modification, Proc. Symp. on Sed. Control, National Research Council, July 7-10, Washington, D. C., 8 PP. Jenkins, S. A., 1986, Passive remedial measures for controlling sedimentation in channels and parallel berths, Proc. Symp. on Sed. Control, National Research Council, Marine Board, July 7-10, Washington, D. C., 36 pp. Jenkins, S. A., 1986, Scour and erosion of fine sediments due to horseshoe vortices, EOS, v. 67, n. 44, p. 1020. Jenkins, S. A., 1987, Downbursts, Soaringly. 51, n. 7, p. 37-41. Ballard, J. A. & S. A. Jenkins, 1987, An evaluation of two concepts for reducing sedimentation at Mayport Turning Basin, Florida, Proc. Sediments '87, ASCE,.New York, v. 2, p. 100-116. Jenkins, S. A., D. L. Inman& D. W. Skelly, 1989, The impact of dam building on the Califomia coastal zone, Waterfront Age, v. 5, n. 1, p. 12-16. Wasyl, J., S. A. Jenkins & D. W. Skelly, 1991, Sediment bypassing around dams - a potential beach erosion control mechanism, The California Coastal Zone Experience, ed. Domurat, G. W., ASCE, p. 251-265. Jenkins, S. A., L. Armi & J. Wasyl, 1991, Glide optimization during cross- country wave flights, Proc. XXII OSTIV Congress, DFVLR, D-8031 Wessling, Germany, p. 16.2-16.3. Jenkins, S. A., & J. Wasyl, 1991, Research and development of sedimentation control for marinas and harbors, Proc. 1991 National Applied Marina Research Conference, Intemational Marina Institute, Wickford, RI, 20 pp. - Aijaz, S. & S. A. Jenkins, 1993, Fluid=sediment interactions and dynamic shear stress in fine sediment suspension, Powders & Grains `93, Thornton (ed.), Balkema, Rotterdam, ISBN 90 5410 323, p. 437-438. Aijaz, S. & S. A. Jenkins, 1993, Fluid-sediment interactions and dynamic shear stress in fine sediment suspensions, Proc. of the Second Int. Conf. on Micromechanics of Granular Media, Birmingham, UK, Balkema, Rotterdam, p. 413-419. Hyman, M., J. Rohr, J. Schoonmaker, T. Ratcliffe, B. Chadwick, K. Richter, 6 S. Jenkins, & J. Wasyl, 1995, Mixing in the wake of an aircraft carrier, . Proc. Oceans, 95, v. 1, p. 221-237. . Inman, D. L., S. A. Jenkins, and M. Hany S. Elwany, 1996, Wave climate cycles and coastal engineering practice, Coastal Eng., 1996, Proc. 25th Int. Conf., (Orlando), Amer. Soc. Civil Eng., Vol. 1, Ch. 25, p. .314-327. Inman, D. L. & S. A. Jenkins, 1997, Changing wave climate and littoral drift along the California coast, p. 538-549 in O. T. Magoon et al., eds., California and the World Ocean >97, ASCE, Reston, VA 1756 PP. Inman, D. L. & S. A. Jenkins, 1997, Climate change and the sediment flux of small California rivers, p. 60-63 in R. E. Flick & C. Willis, eds., Coastal Impacts of an El Nino Winter(Proceedings of a Workshop), University of California, San Diego, Scripps Institution of Oceanography, SIO Reference Series No. 97-10, 63 pp. Jenkins, S. A. & D. L. Inman, 1998, A coastal monitor/forecast system," p. 491-502 in O. T. Magoon et al., eds., California and the World Ocean `97, Amer. Soc. Civil Eng., Reston, VA, 1756 pp. (v. 16; A-189). Jenkins, S. A. & D. L. Inman, 19.98, Analytic solutions for equilibrium profiles on ocean beaches, EOS, Amer. Geophys. Union, Trans., v., 79, n. 45, p. F446. Inman, D. L. & S. A.Jenkins,.1998, Erosion.cycle of coastal drainage basins due to climate change, EOS, Amer. Geophys. Union; Trans., v. 79, n. 45, p. F371. Jenkins, S. A. & D. L. Inman, 1999, AEI Nino and global warming effects on tidal inundation of a southern California wetland restoration,@ p. 52 in Southern California Academy of Sciences, Los Angeles, Abstracts Volume, Annual Meeting, April 30-May 1, 1999, Dominguez Hills, 80 pp. Inman, D. L. & S. A. Jenkins, 2001, Processes on narrow beaches with sandy foreshores and cobble berms, Restoring the Beach: Science, Policy and Funding, CSBPA& CalCoast, 8-10 November 2001, San Diego, CA, 2 pp. Jenkins, S. A. & D. L. Inman, 2001, Beach recovery following river mouth scour at Del Mar, CA, Restoring the Beach: Science, Policy and Funding,.CSBPA & CalCo.ast, 8-10 November 2001, San Diego, CA, 2 PP. Jenkins, S. A., D. L. Inman & P. M. Masters, 2002, Coastal watershed model for ENSO-driven discharges of sediment and sorbed chemicals, Solutions to Coastal Disasters Conference, ASCE San Diego, 24-27 February 2002. Technical Reports: Jenkins, S. A., D. L. Inman &W. G. Van Dom, 1981, "Evaluation of sediment management procedures," SIO Reference Series No. 81-22, 212 pp. f Inman, D. L. & S. A. Jenkins, 1983, "Oceanographic report for Oceanside Beach facilities," City of Oceanside Beach facilities, City of Oceanside, 206 pp. Jenkins, S. A., & D. W. Skelly, 1983, "Jet array site suitability study at Charleston Naval Station," SIO Reference Series No. 83120, 146.pp. . Jenkins, S. A., D. L. Inman & D. W. Skelly, 1983, "The action of sea level inequalities upon sediment influx events at Mayport Naval Station," SIO Reference Series No. 83-19, 57 pp. Jenkins, S. A., & D. W. Skelly, 1983, "Port of Grays Harbor jet array site suitability study," SIO Reference Series No. 83-19, 47 pp. Inman, D. L.& S. A. Jenkins, 1984, "The Nile littoral cell and man's impact on the coastal zone of the south-eastern Mediterranean," SIO Reference Series No. 84-31, 43 pp. Jenkins, S. A., 1985, "Alternatives for maintaining tidal circulation in the Batiquitos Lagoon, California," SIO Reference Series No. 85-16, 51 pp. Jenkins, S. A., 1985, "Clandestine methods for the determination of beach trafficability," SIO Reference Series No. 85-27, 62 pp. Inman, D. L., S. A. Jenkins, D. M. Hicks & H. K. Kim, 1986, "Oscillatory bursting over beds of fine sand," SIO Reference Series No. 86-13, 50 PP. Jenkins, S. A. & D. W. Skelly, 1986, "Balanced equilibrium tidal plan for Batiquitos Lagoon,".Prepared. for Nolte Engineering, 59 pp. Jenkins, S. A., 1987, "Hydrodynamics of artificial seaweed," SIO Reference Series No. 87-16, 66 pp. Jenkins, S. A., D. W. Skelly & J. Wasyl, 1988, "MARFAC sedimentation control: site suitability study and conceptual system design," SIO Reference Series No. 88-12, 28 pp. Jenkins, S. A., J. A. Nichols & D. W. Skelly, 1989, "Coupled physical- biological dispersion model for the fate of suspended solids in sewage discharged into the ocean," SIO Reference Series No. 89-3, 53 pp. Jenkins, S. A. & D. W. Skelly, 1989, "An evaluation of the coastal data base pertaining to sea water diversions at Encina power plant," SIO Reference Series No. 89-4, 52 pp. Jenkins, S. A., D. W. Skelly & J. Wasyl, 1989, "Dispersion and momentum flux study of the cooling water outfall at Agua Hedionda," SIO Reference Series No. 89-17, 36 pp. Jenkins, S. A., 1990, "Test and evaluation plan for the gliding submarine tactic," prepared for COMSUBDEVRON 12, Groton, CT, 14 pp. Jenkins, S. A. & I. Flynn, 1991, "White paper- a procedure for remotely determining suitability of amphibious landing beaches," prepared for Amphibious Liaison, Naval Ocean Systems Center, Pt. Loma, CA, 22 pp. Aijaz, S., S. A. Jenkins & D. L. Inman, 1993, "Dynamic shear stress in fluid-mud suspension," SIO Reference Series No. 92-23, 106 pp. / _ 8 Jenkins, S. A. & J. Wasyl, 1993, "Hydraulics and coastal processes modeling for three wetland restoration alternatives at San Dieguito Lagoon, CA," submitted to Southern California Edison Co.,-173 pp. Jenkins, S. A. and J. Wasyl, 1994, "Numerical modeling of tidal hydraulics and inlet closures at Agua Hedionda Lagoon," submitted to . San Diego Gas and Electric Co., 91 pp. Jenkins, S. A. and J. Wasyl, 1994, "Time stepped suspended transport model for the dispersion of optical particles in coastal waters," submitted to Office of Naval Research, Code 1153, 84 pp. Hammond, R. R., S. A. Jenkins, J. S. Cleveland, J. C. Talcott, A. L. Heath, J. Wasyl, S. G. Goosby, K. F. Schmitt & L. A. Leven, 1995, "Coastal water clarity modeling," SAIC, Technical Report 01-1349-03- 4841-000, 491 pp. Jenkins, S. A. & J. Wasyl, 1996, "Wave transport corrections to the inlet closure problem of the San Dieguito Lagoon, CA," submitted to Southern California Edison Company, 101 pp. Jenkins, S. A. and J. Wasyl, 1996, "Far field dispersion of paper particulates from surface vessel discharges in marginal seas," submitted to Naval Research and Development Lab., Code 574, 210 PP. Jenkins, S. A. and J. Wasyl, 1996, "Analysis of inlet closure risks at Agua Hedionda Lagoon, CA.and potential remedial measures," submitted to San Diego Gas and Electric, Co., 316 pp. Jenkins;S. A. and J. Wasyl, 1996, "Hydrodynamic transport study of constituent net additions from the SDG&E South Bay Power Plant," submitted to San Diego Gas and Electric Co., 25 pp. Jenkins, S. A. & D. L. Inman, 1996, "A coastal monitor/forecast system," SIO Reference Series No. 96-12, 20 pp, Inman, D. L. & S. A. Jenkins, 1996, "A chronology of ground mine studies and scour modeling in the vicinity of La Jolla," SIO Reference Series No. 96-13, 26 pp. Inman, D. L., S. A. Jenkins & J.Wasyl, 1998, "Database for streamflow and sediment flux of California rivers," University of California, San Diego, Scripps Institution of Oceanography, SIO Reference Series No. 98-9, 13 pp. + 3 tbls. + .18 figs. + 4 appens. Jenkins, S. A. and J. Wasyl, 1998, AAnalysis of coastal processes effects due to the San Dieguito Lagoon restoration project final report: July 23, 1998;@ submitted to Southern California Edison Company, 333 pp, + 126 figs., + 11 appens. Jenkins, S. A. and J. Wasyl, 1998, ACoastal processes analysis of maintenance dredging requirements for Agua Hedionda Lagoon,@ submitted to San Diego Gas and Electric Company, 176 pp. + 60 figs. + 8 appens.. ��' _ 9 I: Analysis of issues to receiving water,@ submitted to Poseidon Resources, revised 20 December 200.1, 111 pp. Jenkins, S. A. and J. Wasyl, 2001, AHydrodynamic modeling of dispersion and dilution of concentrated seawater produced by the Ocean Desalination.Project at the:Encina Power.Plant, Carlsbad, . CA;@ submitted to Poseidon Resources,.186 pp. Jenkins, S. A. and J. Wasyl, 2002, AHydrodynamic modeling of source water make-up and concentrated seawater dilution for the ocean desalination project at the AES Huntington Beach Power Station, Part Il: Analysis of issues to source water,@ submitted to Poseidon Resources, revised 13 January 2002, 78 pp. Jenkins, S. A. and J. Wasyl, 2002, AHydrodynamic modeling of source water make-up and concentrated seawater dilution for the ocean desalination project at the AES Huntington Beach Power Station, Part III: Analysis of salinity profiles and exposure time,@ submitted to Poseidon Resources, 26 pp. Research Grants: 1) Evaluation of Sediment Management Procedures (with D. L. Inman), Naval Facilities Engineering Commmand #N00014-76-C-063, 1 October 1980-30 September 1982, $230,000. 2) Vorticity and Sedimentation Mechanisms, Office of Naval Research, Contract#N000.14-82-K-0111, 1 October`1981-30 September 1982, $240,000. . . 3) Vorticity and Sedimentation Mechanisms, Phase II, Office of Naval Research, Contract#N00014-82-K-0111, 1 November 1982-31 October 1983, $195,000. 4) Studies in Sedimentation Control for NAS Mayport and Charleston Naval Shipyard, Naval Civil Engineering Laboratory,-Pt. Hueneme, Contract #N62474-82-C-8300, 1 September 1982-15 June 1983, $60,150. 5) Dynamics of Settling Floc Layers in Navy Harbors, Office of Naval Research, Contract#N0001 4-892-K-01 11, 1 November 1983-31 October 1984, $207,849. 6). Sedimentation Reduction in Finger,Pier Complexes, Office of Naval Research, Contract#N00014-82-K-01111 1. June 1984-31 December 1984, $49,996. 7) Fluid-Sediment Interactions on Beaches and Shelves, Office of Naval Research, Contract#N00014-83-C-0182 (with D. L. Inman & R. T. Guza), 1 February 1983-30 September 1984, $407,372. 8) Ship Resistance in Fluid Mud, Office of Naval Research, Contract #N00014-82-K-0111, 1 November 1984-30 September 1985, $210,000. 9) Growth Supplement to, "Ship Resistance in Fluid Mud," Office of Naval Research, Contract#N00014-82-K-0111, 1 November 1984-31 October 1985, $17,750. _ 11 Jenkins, S. A. &J. Wasyl, 1999, APerformance and optimization of the Mixed Habitat Plan*in long-term inundation simulations, (*a restoration concept for San Dieguito Lagoon, CA),@ submitted to Southern California Edison Company, 62 pp. + 36 figs. + 8 appens. Jenkins, S. A. & J. Wasyl, 1999, Along-term inundation simulations of alternative restoration plans*for the San Dieguito Lagoon, CA, . (*RESTORATION CONCEPTS INCLUDING: The Maximum Tidal Basin Plan, Maximum Salt Marsh Plan, Hybrid Alternative and the Reduced Berm Alternative), a submitted to Southern California Edison Company, 57 pp. Jenkins, S. A. & J. Wasyl, 1999, ALong-term tidal inundation frequency analysis for credit evaluation of the San Dieguito Lagoon restoration alternatives,@ submitted to Southern California Edison Company, 10 pp., + 3 appens. Jenkins, S. A. &J. Wasyl, 1999, AHydroperiod functions for habitat mapping of restoration alternatives for San Dieguito Lagoon,@ submitted to Southern California Edison Company, 15 pp. Jenkins, S. A., M. Josselyn & J. Wasyl, 1999, AHydroperiod and residence time functions for habitat mapping of restoration alternatives for San Dieguito Lagoon,@ submitted to Southern California Edison Company, 30 pp., + appen. Jenkins, S. A. and J. Wasyl, 1999, ACoastal currents in the neighborhood of Agua Hedionda Lagoon during the migration period of the Tidewater Goby,@ submitted to Cabrillo Power 1 LLC, 34 pp., + 2 appens. Inman, D. L., S. A. Jenkins & P. M. Masters, 2000, ABudget of sediment and fate of DDT at the ocean edge of the Southern California Bight,@ a technical report dated 30 March 2000, prepared for Latham and Watkins, Costa Mesa, CA 92626, 57 pp., 9 tables, 18 figs. Jenkins, S. A., 2000, AResuspension of bottom sediments in San Diego Bay due to propeller wash and circulation pump discharge from CVN 75 class aircraft carriers,@ submitted to SPAWAR System Center, San Diego, 24 pp., + appen. Inman, D. L. & S. A. Jenkins, in preparation, AMine scour and burial a primer for fleet use,a University of Califomia, San Diego, Scripps Institution of Oceanography, SIO Reference Series No. 02-8, Jenkins, S. A. & D. L. Inman, 2002, AModel for mine scour and burial; an illustrated abstract with technical appendix,@ University of California, San Diego, Scripps Institution of Oceanography, SIO Reference Series No. 02-2,.42.pp. Jenkins, S. A. and J. Wasyl, 2001, AHydrodynamic modeling of fresh water ingestion and concentrated seawater dilution for the Long Beach Ocean Desalination Project at Alamitos Power Station,@ submitted to Poseidon Resources, 89 pp. Jenkins, S. A. and J. Wasyl, 2001, AHydrodynamic modeling of source water make-up.and concentrated seawater dilution for the ocean desalination project at the AES Huntington Beach Power Station, Part 10 10)A Study on the Effects and Mechanisms of Artificial Seaweed, California Department of Boating and.Waterways, UCSD, Contract #85/621 R, 1 July 1985-30 June 1986, $40,000. 11)Tidal Study of Batiquitos Lagoon, George Nolte & Associates, UCSD, Contract #85/147R, 22 May 19.85 - unspecified end.date, $9,556. 12)Fluid Sediment Interactions on Beaches and Shelves (with D. L. Inman, R. E. Flick & R. T. Guza), Office of Naval Research, Contract #N00014-83-C-0182, 1 November 1984-31 October 1986, $580,000. 13)Thermo- and Hydrodynamics for Advanced Ports and Harbors, Office of Naval Research, Contract#N00014-82-K-0111 , 1 November 1985- 31 October 1986, $210,931. 14)Sediment Management Study at the Port of San Francisco, Port of San Francisco, Contract#1351, 1 May 1986-31 March 1987, $164,781. 15)Bedform Response on Beaches and Shelves (with D. L. Inman, Office of Naval Research, Contract#N00014-83-C-0182, 1 November 1986- 31 October 1988 $250,000. 16)Formation and Separation of DC-Rectified Flows in Harbor Inlets, Office of Naval Research, Contract#N00014-82-K-0111 , 1 November 1986-31 October 1987, $200,000. 17)Mechanics of Wave Driven Shoaling in Fortified Harbor Inlets, Office of Naval Research, Contract#N00014-82-K-0111, 1 November 1987-30 September 1988 $210,000. 18)Dispersion Model for the Suspended Solids of Sewage Discharged into the Ocean, State of California Water Resources Control Board, Contract#SWRCB4-136-250-1, $30,000. 19)Harbor Breakwater Wave Overtopping, California Department of Boating and Waterways, UCSD #88/472R, 1 July 1988-30 June 1990, $60,000. 20)Internal Reflection Due to Boundary Rectification, Office of Naval Research Contract#N00014-82-K-0111, 1 October 1988-30 September 1989, $210,000. 21)Scattering of Surface Gravity Waves by Arrays of Tetrahedrons, Office of Naval Research, Contract #N00014-89-J-1117, 1 October 1989-30 September 1990, $150,000. 22)Offshore Breakwaters and Surge, California Department of Boating and. Waterways, UCSD Contract #9.0, 1 July 1990-6 June 1992, $60,000. 23)Excitation of High Frequency Surface Waves by Periodic Boundary Layers on Submerged Obstacles, Office of Naval Research, Contract #N00014-90-J-1117, 1 October 1990-30 September 1991, $150,000. 24)The Generation of Cross Stream Wave Number with a Blue Shift Due to Gravity Wave Propagation Over a Porous Obstacle, Office of Naval Research, Contract #N00014-90-J-1117, 1 October 1991-30 September 1992, $150,000. 25)The Effects of Suspensions of Cohesive Sediments on Surge Propagation Through Breakwaters and Channels, Office of Naval , _ 12 Research, Contract#N00014-92-J-1117, 1 October 1992- September 1993, $150,000. 26)The Effects of Suspension of Cohesive Sediments on Shear Stress and Transport (with D. L. Inman), Office of Naval Research, Contract #N00014-94-1-0012, 1 October 1993-September 1995, $150,000. 27)A Vortex Lattice Model for the Prediction of Scouring and Burial of _ Mines, (with D. L. Inman), Office of Naval Research, Contract #N00014-95-1-0005, 1 October 1995-1 April 1997, $250,117. 28)A Vortex Lattice Model for the Prediction of Scouring and Burial of Mines, (with D. L. Inman), Office of Naval Research, Contract #N00014-95-1-0005--Supplement, 15 April 1997-30 September 1997, $58,112. 29) Scour Mechanics of Aggregate Obstacle Fields with Application to Mine Countermeasures (with D. L. Inman), Office of Naval Research, Contract#N00014-95-1-0005, 1 October 1997-30 September 1999, $351,013. 30)Numerical modeling of station keeping effects due to modifications of the VSW Neutralization Marker (with D. L. Inman), Office of Naval Research, Contract#N00014-95-1-0005, 15 November 1999-30 September 2000, $22,705. 31)Optimizing portability of a mine scour/burial model by means of a geomorphic coastal classification system (with D. L. Inman), Office of Naval `Research, Contract#N00014-95-1-0005, 15 November 1999-30 . September 2001, $360,252: 32)Enhancement and validation of a model for mine scour/burial (with D. L. Inman), Office of Naval Research Grant#N00014-01-1-0350, 15 January 2001, 31 December 2002, $300,000. 33)Model to predict mine migration and related bedform (with D. L. Inman), Office of Naval Research, Contract#N00014-02-1-0232, 1 January 2002 to 31 December 2003, $244,000. 34)Facing the coastal challenge (with D. L. Inman and Patricia M. Masters), The Kavli Institute, 1 February 2002 to 1 January 2004, $861,579. 35) _ Total Extramural Funds as Sole-Principal Investigator (1980-2002), $2,566,013. Total Extramural Funds as Co-Principal Investigator (1980-2002), $4,275,150. Total Extramural Funding (198.0-2002), $6,841,163. 26 August 2002 hsaj_vita.02 13 July 28,2003 - . _. ... Huntington Beach Planning Commission 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Subject: Poseidon Project Dear Commission Members: Although my family resides in Orange, we spend considerable time and money in HB. I have been visiting your city nearly every weekend for most of my 52 years of age. I would like to briefly express just a few of my views regarding Poseidon and why I am opposed to it. + Much:of the water that.would.be produced is slated for proposed development in Rancho Santa Margarita. HB currently has an excellent groundwater, reclamation plan. Continue to use this resource and upgrade as needed. Lastly and most importantly of all, it would unquestionably be environmentally unfriendly. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Steve Tyler 2564 Franki St Orange, CA 92865 I IVV VV VJ ry L..V V 1 'J'1 111 t L.111 VV I 11L VL.1I IL.I1 1 1111 IIV, L J 1 VJL'"'VJJ 1 VC A-P-A-trust. J, 2003 r';t} aF Funtington Beach Via Facsimile 11,;.nn.ing Department Original Via Standard Nfail Pf nning CoM_mission 3'rUU lain Street Ht:.pitiigton Beach, CA 92648 JZL�:: Huntington-Poseidon Eraviraara3rei;ial Ianpacfi Report Re-Consideration il'1€ NI: Surfrider Foundation h;±ar Commissioners, I am writing as a representative of the Surfrider Foundation and'our 60 chapters ar!,J more than 37,000 members. As you know from our previous communications, we ar _ cc.ncerned about the adequacy of the Huntington-Poseidon Environmental Impact ReF1or. and strongly recommend significant revisions to that document. First, Nye want- to thank the Huntington Beach Planning Commission for your ,i diligent;. in reviewing the Environmental Impact Report(EIR) submitted by the Poseidon ccr i.su1.ants regarding the construction and operation of a desalination plant. on the AES Hentirngton Beach Generating Facility. We. support the most recent. decision by the Ca,rnmission to re-consider the certification of-the EIR and review.all aspects.of the an l ysas that raised concerns for the Commissioners and the public. The public process or:=evie%Ying this EIR has uncovered several discrepancies and otniss.ions,that cause us to su�pedt the thoroughness and accuracy of the analysis as a whole. For-example,we want to-�:tha* Commissioner .Davis for his diligence in uncovering discrepancies in the disrha�ue analysis and Commissioner Ray for uncovering Poseidon's contract to sell wa�rar t'o the Santa Margarita Water District. These significant revelations, and others that hay e ►"'nly been uncovered during the public testimony phase of the FIR review, require siani.tit;ant revisions to the EIR and a subsequent thorough public review and comment Period. Below you will Lind an outline of several concerns that have not been adequately adcj.-es;ed during the public.comment period in reviewing the .EIR. We also want to ink rpoirate the comments contained in our letters of May 27, May 30, and July 2, as well as Oic comments.of our Huntington Beach/Seal Beach Chapter, into this comment letter. W(e::sti"1 argue that the issues raised in those letters have not been sufficiently addressed in t:he;ubsequent responses. In conclusion, we want to support the recommendations we have heard to contract out idE::and objective consultants to review the current draft of the EIlZ. We believe the cur nt consultants have been unresponsive to the significant information and questions thar::ha:ve been uncovered during puhlic review and testimony to date, We also are more 1 . ,3G S- _ . ,; ;... nuv UV VJ NLV VI -V4 111 I Lnln 1WInL VIL11ILA rna IVV. 1JIWVVIY.IJJ r. uJ u;.I;ivi:rrced than ever :hat the document is both inherently flawed and inadequate. 'Flit. c.tIlY 74solution for these defects is a thorough revision of the document followed by a n w grid complete pub-lic review and comment period. Ui,4ver ;li.,itt ern California Rei-onaI Manager Su i frider Foundation PC}T3ax 6010 Sa.n Clemente, CA 92674-6010 (3'0) s.10-2890 or ;F,rt"uTsurfrider car_= C ; tticki Ramos, Planning Commission Staff Examples of Unresolved ;inadequacies in Huntington-Poseidon EVR 1) Project Description . Fir.zt,the project is too narrowly defined to allow a thorough review of alternatives that fulfill the purpose of supplying additional drinking water for a growing pop ulation with potentially shrinking water supplies. The project description chr'•ac erizes the desalination product water as a"local" source of water for the region and coftrasts that with"existing imports" supplies. Responses to comments in this reyardconclude that alternatives such as waste water reclamation and conservation do not ms t tl e project description and purpose because they are still reliant on imports and, in then—.Oe of water reclamation, do not supply water approved for drinking. This narrow desrrir'dion precludes the analysis and documentation of alternatives that would pertentlally serve the more accurate,yet unstated,purpose of supplying water(in general) to the iegion. .For example,supplying water from reclamation for the limited purpose of irri,` tian would.stillm have the indirect affect of conserving ore water for drinking. Th';� inherent flaw in the ELR has disallowed the comparison of supplying water to the region:through expanded efforts at waste water reclamation and water conservation. In a re_Ibn:,that is plagued with problems of non-point source pollution and limited sewage tre; me;nt capacity, the flawed project characterization has precluded alternatives that are ar ab_V more environmentally sound and economically preferable. Therefore, theE_IR sh"ld rye revised to describe the project in a manner that allows thorough analysis of 2 36 . ,� �I,•'!i'a YA J S HUtl-Uti-UJ WLU U 1 ;!)o rn rLHYH 'S 1 HL t;t;N 1 t.K Nils NU. 1 J 1 UJV ��1JJ r. Ub cil:.a r.i raves that serve the purpOse of responding tO our current unsustainable reliance ott-grqund►water,and imported water. "Fp*thermore, the project description suggests that the"new" water product will of}'set tht;.refvon's c-,rr ent demand for unsustainable groundwater and iroports while delivering a.aipf,ly of water that will meet natural population growth predictions. However,there is 116.doc;i.imentation or analysis of how this claim will be assured success. This is discussed i1 r;zare detail in.Example 3 below.. Therefore,.the EZR should be revised to either srr„snr n iate the claint.t►iat the desalination water product will in fact offset our URi linable reliance on other sources, or inform the public that there arr no as.f,4irronces where, when or how this rater will be used This is signViicani information tlirre tli1 public and decision makers should be aware of, and the Ei'E should be revised to lh dnare any misleading.statements to the contrary. Treatment of Entrain mentllmpingement 'Tlie EIIZ argues that the addition of the desalination facility to the AES generator farilitfr will'not create"additional" marine life mortality from entrainment and imi.inienient. This is a significant issue that deserves thorough analysis and public rev,llew. Recent concerns and actions by both state and federal fisheries management awborities have highlighted threats to numerous species of marine life and healthy marine.ecosystems, as well as the commercial and recreational fisheries that are a part of th=fabric of our coastal.communities and'economies. 76ire are several issues that potentially undermine the assumption that the de ,4litAtion facility will not create"additional" marine life mortality. Issues of concern un�9ov iited during the public comment period, as well.as during public testimony include: discrepancies between the energy.industry's public comments to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and Poseidon's comments to the Huntington Beach Planning Commission. Briefly,the energy industry has argued that their once-through ,cooling practices do not kill all marine life that is impinged or entrained in the process ---while Poseidon argues just the opposite. testimony.by the consultant to AES, Chuck Mitchell from MBC,that some species of marine life will likely survive the cooling water process. questions raised by Commissioner Davis about the interaction of supply water `. from the generator during shut-downs and the concentration of brine. Will AES have an incentive to run its cooling water pumps at an elevated capacity doting maintenance shut downs and low demand periods, only to supply"su$icient amounts of water for the desalination facility(including enough pass-through water to dilute,the brine discharge)? More vn.point, does the cooling water system continue to kill marine life at the assumed 100%mortality rate when the generator is not operating-•and if not, does the desalination facility then become liable for"additional"marine Iife mortality? discussion,abov.t the inapplicabilityofthe Clean Water Act Section 316(b) studies to the question of"additional" marine life mortality. As the Commission heard,the 316(b) studies assume 1001/6 mortality as a precautionary approach to r recording the impact of cooling water intakes. This assumption is not applicable to the question of survival rates at the generator, in order to test for marine life mortality from the desalination facility. 3 AUG-06-03 WED U 1 :bb FM NLAYF "U5'IR UEN_11 FAX NU. 131 UUU^'U33 F. U4 the question of whether the additional load on.existing electrical supply, caused by the desalination facility, will cause the generator to run at times it would otherwise be shut down. This concern is arguably exacerbated, and also taking on regional iinplications, as news reports uncover plans to build desalinario.n facilities in at least 6 of 7 other locations in the Southern California Bight (Oxnard, El Segundo, long Beach, San Onofre, Carlsbad and San Diego). The cumulative energy demand for these numerous desalination facilities, and the accompanying additional marine He mortality, demands more in-depth analysis of the contractual agreements for energy supply, as well as analysis of the true technical aspects of delivering electricity to the desalination facilities. In other words, do the desalination facilities actually draw energy from the co-located generator(thereby taking advantage of the diminished transmission costs), or are the energy demands met by foreign generators supplying electricity through the arid? 'If the issue of"additional' marine life mortality is deferred to reliance on the grid, and the supply market, how will the cumulative energy demands of numerous desalination plants affect the regional operations of coastal generators? What is the pattern of coastal gener s operation during"peak demand" —which will arguably occur more frequently with the addition of desalination facilities—and how does this impact marine life populations and ecosystems in the Southern California.Bight? It is inadequate for the EIR to simply state without support that the desalination plant will crEa�te additional marine life mortality. :Thereforg, the.EIR should be reprised to . eloc Mtn-lent these issues,aced analyze the impact of the Ifuntingtnn-Poseidon facility and: and:for.eseeable future facilities. 3) Documentation of".End Users"and Effect on Regional Water Supply .TIfe EIR inappropriately dismisses the need to document the"end user"(or delivery point)of the desalination product water. As noted above, instead the OR wakes general sta:,;rn'-nts about the water being delivered to the.rel,*ion to offset the need for imported water fo supply a growth rate predicted for the year 2020. Nonetheless, during the public tes(.-)ny period of comment, Poseidon was pressured to admit that 25 million gallons a da;«ofthe product water was to be delivered to the Santa Margarita Water District. Since .then, tf'ere has been much debate about whether or not this water will remain available fora)ffiietting population growth in the region beyond the dramatic development proposed for:= he91ancho Santa Margarita area. This has only highlighted the need for full distaosure of the"end users" of the product water.This EIR, at its core, is about full dis�aosure of.information and analyses so that decision makers can make informed dedsicias, and the public can scrutinize their care for the environment. .-I7virefore, certification of the EIR should be denied until the prnjeet proponent can idQ-#ft the end user of the full amount o f water product: .Furthermore, the contract whA:.54nta Margarita Water District should be documented in the EIR and the for�,seiable impacts from the delivery of 25 million gallons a day to this Brea fully an"'y;,�d Alternatively, the EIR could be amended to state that there are no assarmices that any of the water supplied by this project will be reserved to offset curremgb�unrnstninablo reliance on groundwater and intports This is a en'ticul 4 f?t�zR. tr�rT� AUG-06-03 WED 01 :56 PM PLAYA STAL CENTER FAX N0, 131030E '33 P, 05 ei, nui}at of the public's understanding of the purpnse.of th s project and the EIR slzipuk be perfectly clear on this point Tim-issues raised above are simply examples ofthe numerous inadequacies in the current E'r-t. 'We remain concerned about the thoroughness of this L re lR not only for the dict iRjAir.:tions of the project at the local Ievel, but for the precedent it may set for the elvt lusit.ion of future desalination projects: as well as the cumulative impacts as more and inure gesalination facilities are proposed for the region. We understand and appreciate th.: di Ticulties this responsibility creates for the Huntington Beach Planning Commission ar.� staff. Nonetheless, it is the duty imposed by CEQA that the EIR adequately inform tt; , public about foreseeable impacts from projects like the.Huntington-Poseidon Di�-�=alination:Facility. We look forward to further debate. Please Feel free to contact me at my time to discuss this comment letter. 1 3 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH Inter Office Communication Planning Department TO: Planning Commission FROM: Howard Zelefsky, Director of Planning BY: Ricky Ramos,Associate Planner�-�'— DATE: August 12, 2003 SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 00-02 (POSEIDON SEAWATER DESALINATION PLANT) The following items are part of the staff report for item B-1. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Letter from John Erskine dated August 6,2003.Regarding Planning Commission Reconsideration of EIR No. 00-02 2. Response from City Attorney dated August 7, 2003 HZ:SH:MBB:RR G:WdmLtr\Adm1tr03\0803rr1.doc -1- LAW OFFICES -- NOSSAMAN, GUTHNER, KNOX & ELLIOTT, LLP WALTER L. NOSSAMAN SUITE 1800 JOHN T. KNOX ' (1888-1964) 18101 VON KARMAN AVENUE WARREN G. ELLIOTT W ILLIAM E.GUT HHER,JR. IRVINE, CALIFORNIA 92612-0177 OF COUNSEL (1932.1999) TELEPHONE (949)833-7800 FACSIMILE (949) 833.7 87 5 SAN FRANCISCO WASHINGTON D.0 THIRTY-FOURTH FLOOR SUITE 370.S 50 CALIFORNIA STREET 601 13" STREET N.W. SAN FRANCISCO.CA 94111-4799 _ WASHINGTON, D.C.,20005 (415)398-3500 (262) 783-7272 LOS ANGELES SA RAM NTO THIRTY-FIRST FLOOR -SUITE 1000 445 SOUTH FIGUEROA STREET August 6,2003.,,, 91S L STREET LOS ANGELES,CA 90071-1602 ' SACRAMENTO. CA 95814.3705 (213)612-T800 .......'.:. ��� �� (916) 142-8 BB6 REFER TO FILE NUMBER 270210-0005 VIA FACSIMILE AND HAND DELIVERY Jennifer McGrath, Esq. City Attorney City of Huntington Beach P. O. Box 190 2000 Main Street,4th Floor Huntington Beach,CA .92648 Re: Planning Commission Reconsideration and Rehearing of EIR No. 00-02 (Poseidon Desalination Plant) Dear Jennifer: As you are aware,the City of Huntington Beach Planning Commission("Planning Commission")certified EIR No. 00-02 (Poseidon Desalination Plant) as adequate and complete on July 8,2003. On July 14,Mayor Connie Boardman appealed the Planning Commission's action to the City Council. The basis of the appeal is that the EIR does not adequately analyze the project's impacmrelative to ocean water quality,marine biology, growth inducement,and adjacent wetland. We are informed that the appeal of the Planning Commission certification of the EIR is being agendized for a City Council hearing in September. Eight days after the Mayor's appeal and fourteen days after the certification decision, on July 22, 2003, Planning Commissioner Ron Davis made a motion to reconsider the EIR,which was approved by the Commission majority on a 4-3 vote. The reconsideration was based on Commissioner Davis' stated concern that Dr. Scott Jenkins made inaccurate statements regarding salinity studies referenced in the Appendices to the EIR during a July 8 post-hearing question and answer exchange. As a result of the reconsideration, the Planning Commission is scheduled to reopen the hearing on the previously certified EIR at the next regularly scheduled Commission meeting on August 12, 2003. 231974 1.DOC - NOSSAMAN, GUTHNER, KNOX&ELLIOTT, LLP Jennifer McGrath, Esq. August 6, 2003 Page 2 ISSUE PRESENTED. Whether the Planning Commission's July 22, 2003 motion for reconsideration of the July 8, 2003 certified EIR and potential reopening of the hearing on the EIR on August 12, 2003 is barred by local or State law? BRIEF ANSWER. Yes. The Planning Commission may not reconsider the previously certified EIR for the following reasons. 1. The Commission's July 22, 2003 motion for reconsideration was ineffective in that an appeal of the July 8, 2003 certification had already been perfected and could not be withdrawn or mooted by any subsequent action. Moreover, even if there was no appeal, such motion was made more than ten days after the Planning Commission decision and therefore too late to have any application to a certification that had become final. (See Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision.Ordinance ("Zoning Code"), § 248.30 ["A decision on a discretionary approval becomes effective at the end of the appeal period."].) Therefore, the certification of the EIR would be effective ten days from July 8, 2003. 2. CEQA, the CEQA Guidelines and the Zoning Code already provide a method by which the Planning Commission's decision can be appealed. To permit a rehearing on the certification concurrently with an appeal to the City Council would result in confusion and uncertainty by creating two separate EI Rs and two hearing records, each potentially based on different information. 3. The only provisions for reopening the EIR process after certification relate to preparation of a subsequent or supplemental EIR; CEQA provides no other basis for reopening the EIR process. A subsequent EIR is required when there is "new information" or"substantial changes" in the project or circumstances that involve"new significant environmental effects"not previously considered. (Pub. Resources Code, § 21166; Guidelines, § 15162, subd. (a).) Dr. . Jenkins' studies were available prior to the certification and were extensively discussed and considered by the Planning Commission and the public at the hearings held on May 27 and June 2, 2003. Dr. Jenkins' post-hearings explanation of his prior studies—even if the source of misunderstanding or miscommunication as to facts within such studies—does not constitute "new information"that would require a subsequent EIR. 4. Reopening the EIR process would raise questions about the integrity of the entire decisionmaking process, since the Planning Commission certified that the EIR complied The hearing on the draft EIR was closed by the Planning Commission on June 2, 2003. Dr. Jenkins spoke under oral comments at the beginning of the July 8, 2003 Commission �L; meeting. /v 231974_1.DOCZ- NOSSAMAN, GUTHNER, KNOX &ELLIOTT, LLP Jennifer McGrath, Esq. August 6, 2003 Page 3 with CEQA, that they reviewed and considered the information in the EIR, and that they exercised their independent judgment and analysis with respect to such EIR. (Pub.Resources Code, § 21082.1, subd. (c)(3); Guidelines, § 15090.) DISCUSSION. A. Procedural Requirements. 1. Certification. CEQA states that"(a]II local agencies shall ... certify the completion of[] an environmental impact report on any project that they intend to carry out or approve which may have a significant effect on the environment.". (Pub. Resources Code, § 21151, subd. (a), emphasis added.) Prior to approving a project, the lead agency must certify that the final EIR has been completed in compliance with CEQA(Guidelines, § 15090, subd..(4)(1)), that the final EIR was presented.to the decisionmaking body,which reviewed and considered the information in: the final EIR before approving the project(id., § 15090, subd. (a)(2)), and that the final EIR reflects the lead agency's independent judgment and analysis.(id., § 15090, subd. (a)(3); Pub. Resources Code, § 21082.1, subd. (c)(3)). On July 8, 2003, the Planning Commission certified the Poseidon EIR as adequate and complete, based on the information in the draft EIR and testimony and materials submitted to the Commission during the hearings held on May 27 and June 2, 2003. 2. Appeal of Certification. CEQA allows nonelected decisionmaking bodies to decide whether or not to certify an EIR,but it also allows for an appeal process to a higher, elected decisionmaking body. "If a nonelected decisionmaking body of a local lead agency certifies an environmental impact report," that certification "may be appealed to the agency's elected decisionmaking body, if. any." (Id., § 21151, subd. (c).) The Guidelines also allow for such appeals. (Guidelines; §.15090,subd. (b) ["When an EIR is certified by a non-elected decision-making body within a local lead agency,that certification may be appealed to the local lead agency's elected decision- making body, if one exists. For example, certification of an EIR ... by a city's planning commission may be appealed to the city council. Each local lead agency shall provide for such appeals."].) The Guidelines state that where an agency allows administrative appeals upon the adequacy of an environmental I document, such appeals must be handled in accordance with the procedures of that agency. (Guidelines, § 15185.) The City of Huntington Beach sets forth appeal procedures in its Zoning Code. "A City Council member or a Planning Commissioner 231974 1.DOC - �? NOSSAMAN, GUTHNER, KNOX &ELLIOTT, LLP Jennifer McGrath, Esq. August 6, 2003 Page 4 may appeal a decision of the ... Planning Commission...." (Zoning Code, § 248.28(A).) "A' decision on a discretionary approval is not final until the time for appeal expires. The time for appeal from a decision by ... the Planning Commission shall be filed within ten calendar days after the date of the decision...." (Id., §§ 248.16, 248.30.) The City Council has jurisdiction over an appeal of a decision of the Planning Commission, and will consider the appeal at a de novo hearing. (Id., §§ 248.18, 248.20(D).) The Planning Commission has, at the point of a perfected appeal, no jurisdiction over such hearing and may not expand it or restrain it in any way.z The City Council may consider testimony and evidence presented at the hearing on appeal in addition to all pertinent information from the file as a result of the previous hearings from which the appeal is taken. (Id., § 248.20(D).) The decision of the City Council is final. (Ibid.) On July 14, Mayor Boardman appealed the certification of the.Poseidon EIR to the City Council pursuant to these provisions. We understand that the appeal of the Planning Commission certification of the EIR is being agendized for a City Council hearing in September. B. The Planning Commission Should Not Be Permitted to Reconsider the Previously Certified EIR. 1. The Motion for Reconsideration is Ineffective. Commissioner Davis' motion for reconsideration of the certified EIR, which was made at the July 22 Planning Commission meeting, was ineffective in that the appeal of the certification to the City Council had already been perfected. Even if an appeal had not been filed within the appeal period, such motion was made more than ten days after the Planning Commission decision and therefore too late to have any application to a certification that had become final. The Planning Commission's certification of the EIR would have been final and effective on July 18,ten days after the Planning Commission's decision. '(Zoning Code, § 248.30 ["A decision on a discretionary approval becomes effective at the end of the appeal period."].) Clearly, Commissioner Davis' motion for reconsideration would have been ineffectual had an appeal not been filed because it was not made until July 22, after the appeal period ended. 2 A memorandum"request to agendize a motion for reconsideration" sent to the City Attorney prior to the end of the ten day period would not render such a decision ineffective, since a notice of motion to reconsider is not a reconsideration and a reconsideration is not possible without a majority vote of the Commission. 231974_1.DOC NOSSAMAN, GUTHNER, KNOX &ELLIOTT, LLP Jennifer McGrath, Esq. August 6, 2003 Page 5 2. There is Already a Method by which the Planning Commission's Decision Can be Appealed. The Huntington Beach Planning Commission should not be permitted to reconsider the certification since CEQA,the CEQA Guidelines and the Zoning Code already provide a method by which the Planning Commission's decision can be appealed. To permit a concurrent review and rehearing of the previously certified EIR would be unnecessarily duplicative and would result in confusion and uncertainty among decisionmakers, the courts, and the public by essentially creating two EIRs3, each based on different information, further compounding the anomalies in the procedural record. (See Fort Mojave Indian Tribe v. California Dept. of Health Services (1995) 38 Cal.App.4h 1574, 1595 f"fr]outine allowance of conflicting scientific opinions created after the decision".would render the finality of administrative decisions uncertain and attenuated].) Mayor Boardman has appealed the Planning Commission's decision to the City Council. Thus,the City Council currently.has jurisdiction over the Poseidon E1R. The City. Council will review the EIR in a de novo hearing that we understand will be scheduled in September 2003, at which time the City Council.will consider any testimony and evidence presented at the hearing as well as information from the file. The City Council's decision will be final on the date of its decision. (Zoning Code, § 248.30.) Reopening the certification hearing would be burdensome and would be counter to the policies and procedures set forth in CEQA, the CEQA Guidelines, and the Zoning Code. To permit reconsideration of the certification would render the appeal of the certification moot and would render the procedures enunciated in the Zoning Code ineffectual. Because the appeal is a de novo hearing, Commissioner Davis can effectively raise his expressed concern about Dr. Jenkins'studies at the City Council appeal either in personal testimony,written communication or through a minute order taken by a majority of the vote of.the Commission. 3. The Only Provisions for Reopening the EIR Process After Certification Relate to Subsequent or Supplemental EIRs. Although neither the statutes nor the Guidelines address the precise question of whether reconsideration of a previously certified EIR is appropriate, the requirements for subsequent EIRs provide guidance. 3 Re-opening the hearing on the previously certified EIR would create the previously certified �-y EIR,which has been appealed to the City Council, and the "uncertified"EIR that is being 3/ reconsidered by the Planning Commission. 231974_1.DOC NOSSAMAN, GUTHNER, KNOX &ELLIOTT, LLP Jennifer McGrath, Esq. August 6, 2003 Page 6 Public Resources Code section 211.66 and CEQA Guidelines sections 15162 and 15163 discuss when a subsequent or supplemental EIR is required. A subsequent EIR is required when there is new information or substantial changes in the project or circumstances that involve new significant environmental effects not previously considered. (Guidelines, § 15162,subd. (a)•) Once approval of an EIR has been given, the lead agency's role in project approval is completed unless further discretionary approval is required. (Fort Mojave Indian Tribe v. California Dept. of Health Services, supra, 38 Cal.App.41' 1574, 1596-1597 [scientific report submitted after approval of EIR was "another point of view,"not new information that required reopening of a completed EIR].) Information appearing after approval does not require reopening of that approval. If qualified new information develops, a supplemental or subsequent EIR must be prepared; however, information appearing after the approval does not require reopening of that approval. (Id.; Guidelines, § 15162, subd. (c).) CEQA provides no other basis for reopening the EIR process. In a July 8pgst7hearing exchange;Commissioner Davis posed further questions to Dr. Jenkins regarding the accuracy of the science in Dr. Jenkins' salinity studies. On July 22,. two weeks after the Planning Commission's certification of the EIR, Commissioner Davis made a motion to reconsider the EIR based on his view that Dr. Jenkins' scientific studies (and/or the explanation of the science in response to a post-hearing question from Commissioner Davis) were faulty. Commissioner Davis explained the reasoning for his motion to reconsider in a written memorandum to Commission Chair Randy Kokal: "The reason for reconsideration is based upon subsequent evidence of potential inaccuracies in.the hydrodynamic modeling of source water and concentrated seawater dilution relative to salinity and worst-case scenarios." However, Dr. Jenkins' studies were available prior to the certification and were extensively discussed and considered by the Planning Commission and the public at the hearings held on May 27 and June 2, 2003. The analysis of these studies is not "new information" and does not raise new issues about the significant effects on the environment since the studies were previously available and extensively discussed. Thus, a subsequent or supplemental EIR would not be required, and there is no valid reason to reopen the EIR process. 4. Re-Opening the Hearing on the Certification Would Raise Questions About the Integrity of the Entire Decision-Making Process. The EIR is intended to demonstrate to an apprehensive citizenry that the agency has,in fact,.analyzed and considered the ecological implications of its action. (No Oil, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles (1974) 13 Ca1.3d 68, 86; Guidelines, § 15003, subd. (d).) `Because the EIR must be certified or rejected by public officials, it is a document of accountability." (Laurel Heights )is Improvement Assn. v. Regents of the University of California (1988) 47 Cal.3d 376, 231974 1.DOC NOSSAMAN, GUTHNER, KNOX & ELLIOTT, LLP Jennifer McGrath, Esq. August 6, 2603 Page 7 The Planning Commission has already certified that the EIR complies with CEQA (Guidelines, § 15090, subd. (a)(1)),was presented to the decision-making body,which reviewed and considered the information in the EIR before approving the project(id., § 15090,subd. (a)(2)), and reflects the lead agency's independent judgment and analysis(id.,'§ 15090, subd. (a)(3);Pub. Resources Code, § 21082.1, subd. (c)(3)). By certifying the EIR,the Planning Commission informed the public that it reviewed and considered the information contained in the Poseidon EIR as required by CEQA. The Planning Commission's post-certification decision to re-open the hearing on the Poseidon EIR questions the integrity of the entire City decision- making process and we respectfully urge that your office advise the Commission and City Council accordingly. Sincerely John .Erskine OSSAMAN, GUTHNER,KNOX&ELLIOTT,LLP JPFJchc cc: Ray Silver Paul D'Alessandro, Esq. Howard Zelefsky Scott Hess Mary Beth Broeren 231974_LDOC J� CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH Inter-Department Communication To: HON. CHAIR KOKAL AND PLANNING COMMISSIONERS From: JENNIFER, McGRATH, City Attorney Subject: Reconsideration of Poseidon EIR Date: August 7, 2003 The Planning Commission approved the certification of the EIR for the 'Poseidon Desalination Plant at its meeting of July 8, 2003. On July 14, Mayor Boardman appealed the decision. At the next Planning Commission meeting,held on July 22, the Commission approved.a motion to reconsider its previous decision to certify the EIR. The EIR is now on the agenda,for the next Planning Commission meeting, to be held on August 12, 2003. Some questions have arisen regarding the current procedural posture of the EIR, primarily related to the effect of Mayor Boardman's appeal, and the effect of the Commission's decision to reconsider its earlier certification of the EIR. In a nutshell, we have concluded the following: 1. The appeal filed by Mayor Boardman prevented the Planning Commission's decision from becoming a final decision on the E1R'on behalf of the City. If there had been no appeal filed during the ten-day appeal period, the decision would have become a "final decision" as. referred to in the law, and therefore,'not subject to reconsideration. However, the filing of the appeal stayed the finality of the decision,- allowing the motion to reconsider to be placed on the Commission's agenda. 2. Further, the well-established practice of the City Council and its subsidiary and advisory bodies is to permit a motion to reconsider an action at either the meeting during which the action was taken, or at the next subsequent meeting. (See City Council Manual, 1.04.21) Since the motion to reconsider was made at the Commission's next meeting, in conformance with this well-established practice, and since the finality of the decision had been stayed by the appeal, we believe the motion was permitted. PDA:03memos:Poseidon reconsideration AT I j4.CHW,ENT !W 3. When the Commission approved the motion to reconsider, the appeal became moot, because there was no longer any action to appeal. Essentially, by approving reconsideration, the Commission's earlier action was vacated. (See, e.g., City Council Manual, Section 1.04.21: 'The effect of the adoption of a motion to reconsider is to vacate the vote taken on the motion to which it applies. . .") We have reviewed the letter on behalf of Poseidon from Mr. John Erskine dated August 6, 2003, and find many of the points therein to be well waken. Unfortunately, however, the Zoning Code is not entirely clear on whether the Commission's jurisdiction over the EIR was completely divested by Mayor Boardman's appeal. In fact, the City's past practice to allow reconsideration, combined with the fact that the decision had not yet become final, lends weight to the conclusion that the Commission was not completely divested of its jurisdiction over this matter. As always, reasonable minds may differ. We also note that there has been no prejudice to the applicant. If there had been no reconsideration by the Commission, Mayor Boardman's appeal would have placed the EIR before the City Council as a de novo matter, and the certification of the EIR would have been put at issue yet again. Finally, an important caveat. In this memorandum, we have attempted to set forth some of the potential legal arguments that would support the Commission's action to reconsider the EIR. However, as we noted above, many of the arguments made in Mr. Erskine's letter are well taken. Further, we are well aware that the City's staff strongly urged the Commission against the reconsideration of the EIR for many of the same reasons that are set forth in.Mr. Erskine's letter. Thus, the Commission should be forewarned that if challenged, we cannot guarantee that a reviewing court will sustain the Commission's action, or that any action by the Commission on the EIR at its August 12 meeting will have any legal effect. Please contact me at your earliest convenience if you have any further questions. 1 t r JENNIFER MCGRATH City Attorney cc Non. Mayor'Boardman and Members of the City Council Ray Silver, City Administrator Howard Zelefsky, Director of Planning 12 .1 ` 2 PDA:03memos:Poseidon reconsideration _ CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH Inter Office Communication Planning Department B . TO: Planning Commission FROM: Howard Zelefsky, Director of Planning BY: Ricky Ramos, Associate Planner DATE: August 12, 2003 SUBJECT: LATE COMMUNICATION Attached are late communications regarding the Poseidon seawater desalination plant. Attachment: 1. Table 1 and Table 2 Referenced in the Analysis of Salinity Impacts to Marine Life in the Southern California Bight by MBC Applied Environmental Sciences dated August 4, 2003 (Attachment No. 3 to the August 12, 2003 Environmental Impact Report No. 00-02 staff report) 2. Robert Thomas, letter dated August 12,2003 3. Ed Derneulle, SEHBNA, letter dated August 12, 2003 4. Nancy Donaven, letter dated August 12, 2003 GAAdmLtr\Adm1tr03\0803 rr2.doc Table 1.Twenty most abundant fish species collected during impingement sampling at the Huntington Beach Generating Station, 1979-.2001, species southern range,and minimum upper salinity tolerance for each species. Common Name Species Southern Extension Salinity Tolerance Queenfish Seriphus politus South Central Baja California 34.5 White croaker Genyonomus lineatus Southern Baja California 35 ppt Northern anchovy Engraulis mordax Southern Baja and into the Gulf of California 35-36 ppt Walleye surfperch Hyperprosopon argenteum Central Baja California 34.5 ppt White seaperch Phanerodon fur6atus Northern Baja California 34.3 ppt Pacific pompano Peprilus simillimus Southern Baja California 35 ppt California grunion Leuresthes tenuis Southern Baja California 35 ppt Jacksmelt Atherinopsis californiensis Southern Baja California 35 ppt Shiner perch Cymatogasteraggregata Central Baja California 34.5 ppt Deepbody anchovy Anchoa compressa Northern Baja California 34.3 ppt Topsmelt Atherinops affinls Gulf of California 35-36 ppt,up to 39 ppt Salema Xenistius califomiensis Peru and into Gulf of California 35-36 ppt,up to 39 ppt Round stingray Urolophus halleri Panama Bay and into Gulf of California 35-36 ppt,up to 39 ppt Plainfin midshipman Porichthys notatus Southern Baja and into.the Gulf of California 35-36 ppt Barred sand bass Paralabrax nebulifer Southern Baja California 35 ppt Black perch Embiotoca jacksoni Central Baja California 34.5 ppt California corbina Menticirrhus undulatus Central Baja California 34.5 ppt White Seabass Atractoscion nobilis Southern Baja and Northern Gulf of California 35-36 ppt,up to 39 ppt Kelp perch Brachyistius frenatus Gulf of California 35-36 ppt,up to 39 ppt California halibut Paralichthys califomicus Southern Baja and into the Gulf of California 35-36 ppt source: Riley and Chester 1971,Brusca 1980, Love 1996, MBC 2001 Table 2.Numerically dominant invertebrate species (>10%of total)for each of three invertebrate sampling aspects of the Huntington Beach NPDES monitoring program in 2001, all stations or samples combined,species southern range, and minimum upper salinity tolerance for each species. Common Name Species Impingement Trawls Macrofauna Southern Range Salinity Tolerance t' Spiney sand star Astropectin armatus 33% Gulf of California 35-36 ppt, up to 39 ppt �• Tube Worm Diopatra spledidissima 75% Gulf of California 35-36 ppt,up to 39 ppt Red striped shrimp Lysmata califomica 41% Gulf of California 35-36 ppt,up to 39 ppt Tuberculate pear crab Pyromaia tuberculata 26% 18%. Gulf of California 35-36 ppt,up to 39 ppt source: Brusca 1980,-MBC 2001 2} r Rug 12 03 03: 13p Eye(--ire Optomtry (714) 993-5369 P- 1 1 � Iver ew on Ir /Va 7 Ar Ivewe„41 0 531- '7'D 7i � s N %"N-" top ow 40 ,e �: SEIMNA Southeast Huntington Beach Neighborhood Association "Neighbors taking Responsibility for their Neighborhood" PO Box 6696,Huntington Beach,CA 92615 Email:sehbna(a)sehbna.oro•Website:sehbna.org Phone:(714)962-7661 •Fax:(714)963-9452 August 12, 2003 Randy Kokal, Chairperson, and Commissioners Huntington Beach Planning Commission 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Dear Commissioners, The Southeast Huntington Beach Neighborhood Association is very concerned about the proposed Poseidon desalination plant. As you know, SEHBNA has been opposed to the project since March of this year and continues to be so. However, in view of the fact that the Planning Commission may be moving on to the Conditional Use Permit process,we propose that the following conditions be incorporated into the CUP. 1. We are concerned that an agreement by AES to supply power to Poseidon at.a reduced rate via the grid will artificially increase the output of AES and thus the air pollution generated by the plant,impacting the local neighborhood in order to provide Poseidon with inexpensive power.This should be prevented. 2. Poseidon should be required to route the"first flush" (EIR 4.3-19)of cleaning chemicals used to clean the filter membranes out through the Orange County Sanitation District and*not* allowed to use the stated alternative of discharge out to the ocean. 3. Noise from the plant should not only be limited to 70dbA(HBMC 8.40.050 Zone 4) but should also be limited at the residential levels (HBMC 8.40.050 Zone 1) on the property perimeters adjacent to residential property. 4. Regular monitoring of the long term effects of increased salinity on sealife near the AES Outfall should be required. 5. There should_ be no loss of tax revenue if the plant is sold to a governmental or other non-taxable entity through In-Lieu Fees. 6. We understand that there is the potential for the leaching of toxins, such as lead, from pipes due to the ultra-purity of the water output from the plant. This should controlled by adjusting the chemical content of the water output. 7. Poseidon should be required to utilize no more than a fixed proportion of the AES flow in order to maintain "best case"dilution of the concentrated seawater output of the plant. The EIR showed 100MGD out of 500MGD AES flow which would result in 50MGD returned to the ocean. Thus,Poseidon output would be limited to 10%of the current infalUoutfall flow through the AES plant. 8. There should be a condition that states that Poseidon should not be allowed to artificially influence the rate of seawater pumped in and out of the AES plant above that which the power plant requires for normal operation. Please do not construe the above comments as our tentative approval. As stated above, we continue to be opposed to the project. However, should you approve the project the impacts need to be minimized if they cannot be eliminated. Sincerely, ,Edward DeMeulle Chairman } „`:''�.,q k... eis= N171 1 Nancy M Donaven 4831 Los Patos Avenue Huntington Beach, CA 92649 .714/840. 7496 ndonaven@fea.net August 12,2003 Randy Kokal, Chair Huntington Beach Planning Commission 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Regarding: Poseidon EIR for Desalination Dear Mr.Kokal and Members of the Planning Commission: It sometimes is important to focus on what a document doesn't say rather than what it does say. Therefore, I will ask some questions which you should be able.to answer with a resounding"Yes" or the document in question tonight should not be certified. Question 1: Does the document deal with the question of the pollution in the waters off of Huntington Beach, giving a clear cause of the pollution and the effect of this desalination plant on the pollution problem? Question 2: Does the document deal with the problem of private companies in the business of providing water supplies? Question 3: Does it talk about the problem of possible takeover of private corporations by international corporations which would be able to flaunt our environmental laws? These are only some of the problems which I see ahead. I hope you will consider them before casting your vote. you. Nancy M. Donaven CC: Planning Commissioners August 12, 2003 Planning Commissioners, I am a 33 year resident of Huntington Beach and spent 37 years working as a control systems engineer. I am a registered Control Systems Engineer in dalifornia and am a Fellow in.the ISA (Instrumentation, systems � Automation) international technical society. I retired from Boeing where I spent the last 16 years of my career designing guidance, . navigation and control systems for space craft. The prior 21 years were spent analyzing and designing process control systems including those used for water purification and waste water treatment. I currently teach courses in process analysis and control at Cal State Fullerton. Since retirement I have been actively involved with the water quality and testing program at Bolsa Chica. I am also on the Board 6f Dik48t6k9 of th4 Amigos de B61sa Chida, B619d Chida F6dfiddEl6n and the Bolsa Chica Conservancy. The Poseidon Desalination project is designed to use the current cooling feedwaier infrastructure for the AES power plant, but does not depend on the AES plant being in an operational state. The biggest problem with the current AES plant system is the thermal elevation of .the discharge water resulting in a rather large thermal gradient. This results in a thermal plane which can, and does, interact with the sewage discharge from the OC9D plant at Brockhurst and PCH. The desal project will use this cooling water and the thermal content therein. TFiis hill resiilt i.n the disdh&ir46 tempezatii=e being 16vier than the &UiT: enf- temperature, thus alleviating part of the current problem. The discharge btinE ,conceattati6n _(i.e. saliaity) Will $e incteaseti fr4c�s► the n6ftinal 35PPT (3.5$) due to the purified water being extracted. However, the amount of discharge salt will actually lie Power th9h the durreiit level as some 'salt will be extracted in the settling tanks. In the early 1970s, a desal plant was part of the OCWD Water Factory 21 at Ellis and Ward. It was an evaporation process which consumed extremely large amounts of fossil fuel and generated enough noise that it 'could be heard from our home over two miles away. Due_ to the large energy consumption, it was dices,=ntled and now is. used in Saudi Arabia. This was replaced by a reverse osmosis (RO) process similar to the one proposed by Poseidon. The RO desal process is clean and environmentally friendly. It does not i il f require the use additional fossuel and the accompanying generated pollution: It ma kes use of the ex n isting infrastructure ad helps alleviate the current thermal problem. It is also a very quiet process and will not be. a distuFbing influence in the nelghborho©d: I am quite familiar with th3:s process; 3n fact, I have one in my home for water purification. From a scientific and engineering standpoint, and an environmental perspective, this project is a winner and should be approved. ctfully submitted, Robert W. Harrison, PE Rharrison@socal.rr.com L4� C'<20 N LA N 1 C1':=1oq (714) 968-1369 $li-)4o�, � � ATTACHMENT 6 �yo PC Minutes May 27,2003 Page 2 3. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 00-02/CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 02-04/COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 02-05 (POSEIDON SEAWATER DESALINATION PLANT)— Ricky Ramos Ricky Ramos, Associate Planner,.made a presentation to the Commission: PUBLIC COMMENTS — Regarding Study Session portion of Meeting Don Schulz, Surfrider Foundation, voiced concerns about water quality and the notion that the proposed project would provide safe drinking water and improve bacteria levels in the ocean water near the AES Power Plant. He thanked Ricky Ramos for his assistance in providing information, and also voiced concerns about Poseidon's association with the AES, and what the permit guidelines issued to AES will allow. Bruce Monroe, Sierra Club, spoke in opposition to the item, voicing concerns about the regional affects of the proposed project. He provided a website address for interested parties wishing to review the Sierra Club's national policy on the environment, and also discussed the Club's position on reverse osmosis and desalination. He voiced concerns related to siting, entrainment, impingement, and outfall discharge. He referenced several special interest groups with similar concerns, and expressed concerns about decreased property values and quality of life. Randy Fuhrman, Roundhill Drive, spoke in.opposition to the item and how it will affect . Southeast Huntington Beach. He urged the Commission to consider alternate avenues to improve the area. He asked the Commission to consider how the City will benefit from approving the proposed project. He urged the Commission to postpone decision until further study was performed. Jan D. Vandersloot, Ocean Outfall Group, provided written material to the Commission and spoke in opposition to the item, calling the desalination process flawed because of the brine being put back into the ocean. He discussed how the proposed project would impact the AES Power Plant discharge and harm the marine environment. He urged the Commission to postpone action on the item until certain information is gathered The Commission asked Dr. Vandersloot about salinity calculations. Dr. Vandersloot referenced a section of the EIR that reports worst-case salinity conditions. Don May, California Earth Corps, voiced concerns about how the proposed project will affect California Earth Corps wetland restoration project near the proposed project area. He informed them of property acquisition and discussed issues related to the Talbert Marsh, sand bar removal, estuary bacteria and the increased lighting that may divert wildlife from the wetlands area. WITH NO ONE ELSE PRESENT TO SPEAK, PUBLIC COMMENTS WERE CLOSED. Questions/comments included: ■ What is the velocity of water in the intake pipe? ■ Has there been an investigation for bacteria within the AES Power Plant outflow? ■ Where does the City's jurisdiction end in the ocean waters, and how does that affect permitting on the water intake line? (Mean high tide line; seaward of mean3W (03pcm0527) PC Minutes May 27,2003 Page 3 high tide line is under the jurisdiction of the California Coastal Commission. Discharge is regulated by the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board). \P.M. ENDA REVIEW- Herb Fauland provided a brief overview of the agenda for the blic hearing portion for tonight's meeting. 6: - RECESS FOR DINNER 7:00 P.M.-C COUNCIL CHAMBERS i j PLEDGE OF ALL GIANCE P P P P P ROLL CALL: Da v Stanton,Kokal,Shomaker, Dingwall, Ray j AGENDA APPROVAL i Commissioner Dingwall prese ted a resolution thanking City staff for their involvement in expeditiously providing the publi information on significant projects to allow full and complete public scrutiny prior to action by t Planning Commission during the public hearing process. A. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Dean Albright, Breda Lane, Hunti ton Beach, discussed issues related to Public Hearing Item Nos. B-2A&B (Poseid Seawater Desalination Plant), including the information provided by the Orange unty Sanitation District relative to marine life and water temperature. Mark Bixby, Hillgate Lane, Huntington Bea , discussed information located on the City website, and voiced concerns related to Pub Hearing Item Nos. B-2A&B (Poseidon j Seawater Desalination Plant). i B. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS - PROCEDURE: Comm sion Disclosure Statement(s), Staff Report Presentation, Commission Questions, Public aring, Discussion/Action. B-1. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 03-09 IBIZA STAU RANT-DANCING): Applicant: Jeff Bergsma Request: To permit dance in conjunction with existing live entertainment on two 50 square-foot dam floors; one within an existing 2,767 square foot restaurant and one on the 2, 0 square foot rooftop ! deck. The request includes participation in the Downtown arking In-Lieu Fee program for two additional parking spaces required for the posed dance floor. Location: 209 Main Street (West of Main Street, north of Wal t Avenue). Proiect Planner. Paul Da Veiga, Associate Planner i Conditional Use Permit No. 03-09 request: - Permit dancing within the restaurant and on the rooftop deck, 'n conjunction with existing live entertainment on two 50 square- of dance I' floors. N (03p=0527) . Ji II PC Minutes May 27,2003 Page 10 THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED: Norm Westwell spoke in support of the item and urged the Commission to approve Environmental Impact Report (EIR) No. 00-02. Joe Geever, Surfrider Foundation, voiced concerns about the how the water intake and cooling system will affect marine life. He also stated that the EIR did not indicate who the final recipient of processed water would be, and inadequately address the growth inducement element. He urged the Commission to postpone the item until further study was done. Mark Bixby, Hillgate Lane, Huntington Beach, spoke in opposition to the item citing lack of trust in private water companies, brine and water quality issues, and cleaning solution being added to the ocean water. He suggested a condition of approval be added that all cleaning solutions be discharged through the Orange County Sanitation District (OCSD). Ed DeMeulle, Southeast Huntington Beach Neighborhood Association, urged the Commission to postpone the item. Randy Furhman, Roundill Drive, Huntington Beach, voiced concerns about the EIR reporting no negative impacts. He discussed the bacterial plume and urged the Commission postpone their decision on the item until more research was done. Bruce Monroe; Sierra Club, spoke in opposition to the item, informing the Commission that a meeting of the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board (SARWQCB)would be held on Thursday, May 29, 2003 to discuss water quality. He stated that the SARWQCB provides opinion on a case-by-case basis, and that a study on regional water was scheduled for release in September 2003. Deborah Zisch, Niguel Circle, spoke in opposition to another industrial project being constructed in a redevelopment area, and urged the Commission to consider another commercial use similar to Wal-Mart or the recently approved Strand project. Jan D. Vandersloot, Ocean Outfall Group, urged the Commission to approve Alternate Action °Bn (continue certification and direct staff accordingly). He stated that the EIR was incomplete, and that recommendations by the California.Coastal Commission were not known and should be considered as part of the certification process. Larry Porter, Ocean Outfall Group, spoke in opposition to the item and discussed the outfall conditions associated with OCSD and the AES Power Plant facilities. He distributed informational handouts and made an overhead projected presentation informing the Commission of noticeable discharge products. Don May, California Earth Corps, spoke in opposition to the item. He voiced concerns that the wetlands restoration project adjacent to the proposed project site was not discussed in the EIR. He also discussed additional impacts such as light, noise, and public access, along with possible mitigation measures. (03p=0527) _ PC Minutes May 27,2003 Page 9 B-2a. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 00-02 (POSEIDON SEAWATER DESALINATION PLANT): Applicant: Poseidon Resources Corporation Request: To analyze the potential environmental impacts associated with the implementation of the proposed project. Location: 21730 Newland (east side, south of Edison Avenue) Proiect Planner: Ricky Ramos, Associate Planner Environmental Impact Report No..00-02 (EIR No. 00-02) request: - Analyze the potential environmental impacts associated with a request to construct a 50 million gallons per day (MGD) seawater desalination plant including a 10,120 square foot administration building, a 38,090 square foot reverse osmosis building, a 36,305 square foot product water storage tank, and miscellaneous accessory structures on an approximately 11 acre site. The project also includes up to 10 miles of water transmission lines to connect to an existing regional transmission system, and two off- site booster pump stations. Documents potential impacts to Land Use/Relevant Planning, Geology/Soils/Seismicity, Hydrology and Water Quality, Air Quality, Noise, Public Services and Utilities, Aesthetics/Light and Glare, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, and Construction Related Impacts. Evaluates four alternatives to the original project proposal. Concludes that the project results in no environmental impacts or less than significant environmental impacts in the areas of Agricultural Resources, Air Quality (long-term), Biological Resources, Cultural Resources, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Land Use/Relevant Planning, Mineral Resources., Population and Housing, Recreation, and Transportation/Traffic. - Concludes that potential impacts can be mitigated to.less than significant levels in the areas of Geology/Soils/Seismicity, Hydrology and Water Quality, Noise, Public Services and Utilities, Aesthetics/Light and Glare, and Construction Related Impacts. Concludes that potential impacts cannot be mitigated to less than significant levels in the area of Short-Term Construction Related Emissions. Staffs Recommendation: Certify EIR No. 00-02 as adequate and complete and adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations based upon the following: - Compliance with Califomia Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Compliance with the City of Huntington Beach General Plan goals, policies, and objectives - Compliance with the City of Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance - Potentially significant environmental impacts have been eliminated or substantially lessened: - Remaining significant unavoidable impacts are found to be acceptable due to overriding considerations Benefits of the project are balanced against its unavoidable environmental impacts Ricky Ramos,Associate Planner, made a presentation to the Commission. (03p=0527).. _ PC Minutes May 27,2003 Page 11 Stephanie Barger, Earth Resource Foundation, urged the Commission to postpone the item. She discussed the lack of water conservation efforts in place, including drought resistant landscaping, and provided information on the number of gallons discharged by the OCSD per day. Monika Galluccio, Southeast Huntington Beach Neighborhood Association, urged the Commission to postpone the item. She discussed the wetlands restoration project and voiced concerns about pollution affecting the ocean water quality near the AES Power Plant between Newland and Magnolia. David Guido, Lochlea Lane, Huntington Beach, urged the Commission to postpone the item and conduct further study within the EIR on salinity levels within the Pacific Ocean. John F. Scott, Southeast Huntington Beach Neighborhood Association, spoke in opposition to the item and informed the Commission of the number of beach closures in 2001 due to poor water quality near the AES Power Plant. He discussed pollutants discharged by OCSD and AES, and the reverse osmosis plan in place by the Orange County Water District. Tim Anderson, 14'h Street,Westminster, spoke in opposition to the item proposing that the City build down by opposing future projects. Billy Owens, Applicant, Poseidon Resources, made a PowerPoint presentation and spoke in support of the item. He informed the Commission that all items questioned during the.response to comments period in September 2002 had been addressed, and that the EIR deserves certification. Ron Van Blarcom, legal counsel for Poseidon Resources, spoke in support of the item, pointing out that many of the issues and concerns being addressed have been repeatedly covered within the EIR in several different areas. He also informed the Commission that the EIR is meant to disclose_information, not provide opinion. Dr. Scott Jenkins, Scripps Institute of Oceanography spoke in support of the item. He discussed his studies of the climate history and flow rates of California rivers, sea salt removal and how it affects bacteria content, and the effects of water temperature which creates a "plume" affect and is measured through state-of-the- art technology. He stated that the proposed project would increase sea salt outfall by 10%. . The Commission asked Dr. Jenkins to explain what causes ocean water pollution in front of the AES Power Plant. Dr. Jenkins stated that the cause is unknown, but explained that the Plant is responsible for meeting the standards and conditions associated with the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit process. Dr. Jenkins also discussed urban runoff and the chemical analysis of constituent parts affecting the AES Power Plant intake pipes. Nikolay Voutchkov, Poseidon Resources, spoke in support of the item. He discussed source water intake compounds (organics, heavy metals, toxic compounds) to identify water quality and discharge water quality, and information (03Pcm0527) _ %% PC Minutes May 27,2003 Page 12 related to sample collection during the 2.5 year Sanitary Survey documented within the EIR. He noted that water samples were collected from the Santa Ana Riverbed, Talbert Marsh and AES Power Plant outtake discharge.. The Commission again asked Dr. Jenkins to explain what causes the poor water quality in front of the AES Power Plant. Dr. Jenkins again stated that the cause was unknown, and that the Commission should not let existing conditions inhibit future possibilities in water quality improvement within that area. Dr. Jeffrey Graham, Scripps Institute of Oceanography spoke in support of the item. Dr. Graham is an expert in the.way organisms adapt to a change in their environment. He indicated that the findings within the EIR are accurate, and discussed salinity ranges, citing areas studied for high saline content. The Commission asked the Scripps Institute consultants to explain the level of metallic or unnatural by-product compounds concentrated within discharge water. Dr. Voutchkov referenced Table 4.2 on page E-55 within the EIR Appendices, and discussed treatment and/or removal procedures. He also mentioned that the SARWQCB guidelines dictate the maximum level of compounds (weak acids and sulfuric acids) allowable for potable water. Dr. Jenkins discussed water flow rates between the AES Power Plant and the proposed Poseidon Desalination Plant during worse case conditions. Eileen Murphy, Bolsa Chica Land Trust, urged the Commission to postpone action on the item until further information/data was collected. Staff read into the record late communication from Robert Thomas in opposition to the item. WITH NO ONE ELSE PRESENT TO SPEAK, THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Discussion ensued regarding jurisdiction over the review and regulation of various aspects of the project. The Commission inquired about the differences in standards between intake and outfall discharge permits. The Commission asked about the impacts of lead.accumulation, and suggested that the applicant consider additional treatment to reduce lead concentration before discharging into the ocean. Consultants explained that the SARWQCB regulates the allowable concentration levels in discharge water. Kevin Thomas, RBF Consultants, ensured the Commission that staff, outside consultants and reporting agencies have provided an adequate level of review on the proposed project. i The Commission discussed the benefits of capturing additional constituent material during the desalination process. Consultants explained that with = minimal impact on the environment, increased removal of constituent material is unnecessary. (03p=0527) I PC Minutes May 27, 2003 Page 13 The Commission asked if their authority included the right to impose conditions of approval pertaining to the portion of the project seaward of the mean high tide line. Staff and consultants responded that establishing conditions on an area outside of the Commission's jurisdiction was not possible. The Commission asked about the California Coastal Commission's jurisdictional boundaries for ocean water. Staff answered that the boundary line begins at the mean high tide line and ends 3 miles outward: Kevin Thomas called Huntington Beach the lead agency for the proposed project, granting them the authority to provide analysis and impose conditions. However, outside jurisdictional agencies, at their own discretion, may request further analysis, including a new EIR. Discussion ensued regarding how the project relates to Growth Inducing Impacts, located on Section 5.2 of the EIR. Kevin Thomas explained the relationship of water supply to regional planning documents. He stated that because regional planning authorities report that California's future water demand is so severe, and that integration of the proposed water supply 24 hours per day will help alleviate shortage in Orange County, the proposed project is not considered to cause a growth inducing impact. If the proposed project were considered growth inducing, mitigation measures would have been provided within the EIR. The Commission asked if any contracts are in place with end users. The applicant confirmed that one preliminary agreement has been entered into with the Santa Margarita.Water District for the projected water supply for future development in South Orange County. Benchmark housing figures were provided. The Commission asked staff and consultants to respond to California Earth Corps communication dated May 27, 2003 identifying 14 elements within the EIR that they feel do not meet CEQA requirements. Charles Mitchell, MBC Consulting, discussed outflow temperature guidelines followed by the AES Power Plant, including intake to outflow temperature differential, ambient conditions and thermal mapping. A MOTION WAS MADE BY RAY, SECONDED BY SHOMAKER, TO CONTINUE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 00-02 (POSEIDON SEAWATER DESALINATION PLANT) WITH PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED TO JUNE 3, 2003, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Davis, Stanton, Kokal, Shomaker, Dingwall, Ray NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED (03p=0527) �`� PC Minutes May 27,2003 Page 14 B-2b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 02-041COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 02-05(POSEIDON SEAWATER DESALINATION PLANT): Applicant: Poseidon Resources Corporation Request: To construct a 50 million gallons per day seawater desalination plant including a 10,120 sq. ft. administration building, a 38,090 sq. ft. reverse osmosis building, a 36,305 sq. ft. product water storage tank, and miscellaneous accessory structures on an 11 acre lease area. The- proposed improvements include up to four miles of water transmission lines in Huntington Beach, one mile of which will be within the Coastal Zone, to connect to an existing regional transmission system in Costa Mesa. The project also includes perimeter landscaping and fencing along Newland Street and Edison Avenue. Location: 21730 Newland (east side, south of Edison Avenue) Proiect Planner: Ricky Ramos, Associate Planner Conditional Use Permit No. 02-04 and Coastal Development Permit No. 02- 05 request: - To permit a seawater desalination plant which includes construction of a 10,120 square foot administration building, a 38,090 square foot reverse osmosis building, a 36,305 square foot product water storage tank, and miscellaneous accessory structures to produce 50 million gallons per day (MGD) of potable water. - Improvements also include water transmission lines to an existing regional transmission system and perimeter landscaping and fencing along the project's frontage on Newland Street and Edison Avenue. Staffs.Recommendation: Approve Conditional Use Permit No. 02-04 and Coastal Development Permit No. 02-05 based upon the following: - The project is compatible with surrounding uses and is buffered from residential and other sensitive uses by significant setbacks, perimeter landscaping, and fencing. - The project will improve the appearance of the area by demolishing three existing 40-foot high fuel storage tanks and replacing them with lower profile, modem, and more attractive structures. - The proposed structures are in substantial compliance with the Design Guidelines by employing variations in form, building details, colors, and materials that create visual interest. The design is carried through all the _ structures including the architectural screen for all the tanks for a unified theme. This coupled with the 10-foot perimeter landscape planter and screen wall will enhance the overall appearance of the site compared to the existing condition. All other impacts pertaining to noise, light/glare, odors, and use of chemicals are addressed to avoid detrimental impacts to the area. The project:is.consistent with the General Plan Land Use designation of P (Public)for the site. The project is consistent with General Plan and Coastal Element goals, policies, and objectives. The project conforms to the requirements of the Coastal Zone Overlay and will not impede access to the coast or any public recreation opportunities in the area. (03pom0527) PC Minutes May 27,2003 Page 15 A MOTION WAS MADE BY RAY, SECONDED BY SHOMAKER, TO CONTINUE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 02-04 AND COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 02-05 (POSEIDON SEAWATER DESALINATION PLANT) TO JUNE 3, 2003, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Davis, Stanton, Kokal, Shomaker, Dingwall, Ray NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 11:10 p.m. to June 3, 2003 at 7:00 p.m., City Council Chambers, Huntington Beach Civic Center. HZ:H F:rl APPROVED BY: _ _ y Ho and Zelefsky, Secretary Randy Kokaairperson E' (03p=0527) ° MINUTES HUNTINGTON BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION TUESDAY, JUNE 3, 2003 HUNTINGTON BEACH CIVIC CENTER .2000 MAIN STREET, HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92648 . . 7:00 P.M. —CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS—The meeting was called to order at 7:10 p.m. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE P P P P P P ROLL CALL: Davis, Stanton, Kokal, Shomaker, Dingwall, Ray AGENDA APPROVAL A. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Julie Bixby, Hillgate Lane, thanked staff for posting the Planning Commission Agenda on the City's website and made suggestions on how to improve its location. Don McGee, Ocean Outfall Group, spoke in opposition to Public Hearing Item No. B-1a (Environmental Impact Report No. 00-02/Poseidon Seawater Desalination Plant). Dean Albright, Breda Lane, spoke in opposition to Public Hearing Item No. B-1a (Environmental Impact Report No. 00-02/Poseidon Seawater Desalination Plant). Chris Jepson, Huntington Beach, spoke in opposition to Public Hearing Item No. B-1a (Environmental Impact Report No. 00-02/Poseidon Seawater Desalination Plant). John Mills, Irvine Ranch Water District, spoke in opposition to Public Hearing Item No. B-1a (Environmental Impact Report No. 00-02/Poseidon Seawater Desalination Plant). B. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS -PROCEDURE: Commission Disclosure Statement(s), Staff Report Presentation, Commission Questions, Public Hearing, Discussion/Action. A MOTION WAS MADE BY DAVIS, SECONDED BY SHOMAKER, TO REOPEN THE . PUBLIC HEARING ON ITEM NO. B-1A(ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT.REPORT NO. 00-02 -- POSEIDON SEAWATER DESALINATION PLANT, CONTINUED FROM MAY 271 2003 WITH PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED), AND COMBINE WITH PUBLIC HEARING-ITEM NO. B-1B (CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 02-04/COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 02-05 --POSEIDON SEAWATER DESALINATION PLANT, CONTINUED FROM MAY 27, 2003), BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Davis, Stanton, Kokal, Shomaker, Ray NOES: Dingwall ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED (03p=0603) PC Minutes June 3,2003 Page 2 B-1a. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 00-02 (POSEIDON SEAWATER DESALINATION PLANT -CONTINUED FROM MAY 27, 2003 WITH PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED): Applicant: Poseidon Resources Corporation Request: To analyze the potential environmental impacts associated with the implementation of the proposed project. Location: 21730 Newland (east side, , south of Edison Avenue) Project Planner: Ricky Ramos, Associate Planner RECOMMENDATION: Motion to: "Certify EIR No. 00-02 as adequate and complete in accordance with CEQA requirements by approving Resolution No. 1581." Ricky Ramos, Associate Planner, made a presentation to the Commission by outlining Response to Comments included in the May 27, 2003 staff reports, and response to issues raised at the May 27, 2003 Planning Commission meeting. Mary Beth Broeren, Principal Planner, and Kevin Thomas, RBF Consulting, were available to comment or answer questions. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED: Billy Owens, Poseidon Resources (applicant), spoke in support of the item. He discussed the number of agencies involved in a project of this type and size, identified three (3) major sources to the California water system, ground water stress factors, saltwater.intrusion, Metropolitan Water District (MWD) future supply/demand, and drought insurance. He explained the deciding factors behind Poseidon's choice of location, including use of the existing AES facility for water intakeJoutfall, zoning and land use consistency, and access to the regional water system. He stated that the proposed project would provide economic benefits and area improvement by heightening coastal cleanliness. Joe Geever, Surfrider Foundation, spoke in opposition to the item. He voiced concerns related to the Growth Inducement Element of the EIR and purchase of water from the Santa Margarita Water District, runoff within the watershed, and marine life mortality caused by the proposed cooling process. Rich Kolander, Strathmoor Lane, spoke in support of the item. He discussed past environmental projects considered controversial, citing the Ford Plant in Dearbome, Michigan as an example of cutting-edge technology whose initial harmful environmental impacts through production of carbon monoxide causing air pollution later served as a gateway to the transportation revolution. Greg Jewell, Surfrider Foundation, spoke in opposition to the item, urging the Commission to consider alternate locations. He also provided comments on build-out within Orange County, and the proposed project's impact on the Orange County Sanitation District (OCSD). Randy Furman, Roundhill Drive, spoke in opposition to the item. He suggested the proposed project area be upgraded with support from the City's Redevelopment Agency. He voiced concems about the project's impact on coastal water, and its lack of financial benefits to the City. He urged the Commission to consider alternate locations. (03p=0603) _ /�/ PC Minutes June 3,2003 . Page 3 Don May, California Earth Corps, spoke in opposition to the item. He expressed concerns about the EIR ignoring the project's growth-inducing impacts. He stressed the importance of comments from outside agencies that classified certain areas within the EIR as incomplete. He called the EIR inadequate and urged the Commission to deny the request for certification. Larry Porter, Ocean Outfall Group, spoke in opposition to the item. He showed slides to demonstrate the location of the OCSD discharge plume. He voiced concerns about the project's benefits to the City, and urged the Commission to deny the request for certification of the EIR. Ron Van Blarcom, CEQA Attorney for Poseidon Resources, spoke in support of the item. He explained that mitigation measures related to AES Power Plant operations were not identified as significant. He discussed jurisdictional parameters, stating that CEQA does not grant power to agencies outside their jurisdiction and, that project findings, conditions, mitigation measures, etc. may be imposed by other agencies. He also discussed the nexus between the project and legitimate government interests. Dr. Jeffrey Graham, Poseidon Resources,,spoke in support of the item. He explained that the lack of warning signs for negative impacts caused by the project through scientific analysis does not support the need for mitigation measures. He also cited examples of marine life that performs well near areas with a high salinity factor. Elaine Archibald, Poseidon Resources, spoke in support of the item. She provided credentials and discussed analysis on intake water quality provided in the Sanitary Survey. She assured the Commission that studies show that the proposed project will provide no connection between beach closures due to high-level bacteria and the process of desalination. Nikolay Voutchkov, Poseidon Resources, spoke in support of the item. He addressed concerns voiced by the Irvine Ranch Water District(IRWD) and conditions of approval issued by the State Department of Health Services. He also discussed safe drinking water standards and how various water sources are integrated. Dr. Scott Jenkins, Poseidon Resources, spoke in support of the item. He substantiated the project's need by discussing California's threatened water supply. He discussed on- shore and offshore flow patterns, explaining that the maximum wastewater discharge from the OCSD takes place off shore. He also discussed salinity levels in the offshore plume. WITH NO ONE ELSE PRESENT TO SPEAK, THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. THE COMMISSION TOOK A BRIEF RECESS. Commissioners Davis, Stanton, Kokal, Shomaker, Dingwall and Ray made project disclosures, including speaking with the applicant, related associates and numerous members of the public, and touring the project facility. Commissioner Dingwall also spoke with representatives from the Califomia Coastal Commission (CCC) and the IRWD. The Commission asked Ron Van Blarcom, CEQA Attorney for Poseidon to explain earlier statements about appropriate language to approve or deny certification of the EIR. Mr. Van Blarcom explained that the main purpose of an EIR is to properly disclose (03p=0603). _ PG Minutes June 3,2003 Page 4 impacts, therefore necessary language to certify the document should include that the EIR either provides "proper or improper disclosure of impacts". The Commission asked John Hills, official representative for the IRWD, to substantiate his concerns about Poseidon's high sodium and chloride content mixing into IRWD's wastewater distribution system, causing the IRWD to violate permit requirements by exceeding acceptable chemical limits established by the State of California. Billy Owens, Poseidon Resources, explained that IRWD would most likely receive Poseidon water through source intake by the MWD, and that a formal agreement to purchase water for commercial purposes had not been discussed. The Commission asked if a mitigation measure would be appropriate within the EIR that protects outside agencies that receive Poseidon water. Mr. Hills urged Poseidon to resolve sodium and chloride issues prior to EIR certification. Corrosion control was discussed, including elevated lead and copper content levels. The Commission asked if pipe corrosion was highly likely. Mr. Hills replied that the proposed project would increase risk factors, but that the data type could not be quantified. The Commission asked if the EIR is conditioned upon affects to other agencies and/or end users. Staff suggested that at the Commission's request, a generic mitigation measure could be included in an appropriate area of the EIR that addresses regional agency's acceptance of water. Nicolay Voutchkov,1 Poseidon Resources, was asked to provide a brief description of how chemical/physical components react in aggressive water. He provided information on Ph and calcium, treatment and reverse osmosis. Dr. Jenkins, Poseidon Resources, explained the location of the OCSD discharge plume. He discussed the outfall process and how the AES Plant intake system is not strong enough to pull in the OCSD discharge plume. Discussion ensued regarding the NPDES permit system and how it relates to AES and the California Energy Commission (CEC). Consultants explained that a study evaluating water intake and outfall, including evaluation of loss of sea life,would be released as soon as Unit 3 of the AES facility becomes commercially operational. It was also mentioned that the study includes 20 years of collected data. Discussion ensued regarding the entrainment study.mentioned in correspondence. received from the CCC dated June 3, 2003. Discussion ensued regarding the heat treatment process identified in the Sanitary Survey. It was mentioned that AES is obligated to notify Poseidon when the heat treatment process is being performed so that Poseidon can operate"offline". A long discussion about jurisdiction parameters took place between the Commission, staff and consultants. Ocean water jurisdiction was identified, and Kevin Thomas of RBF Consultants stated the EIR addresses all issues regardless of what agency has jurisdiction. He also stated that experts all agree that environmental concerns voiced by interested parties have been adequately addressed, based upon the data brought before the Commission. (03pcm0603) _ �/ PC Minutes June 3,2003 Page 5 A MOTION WAS MADE BY DAVIS, SECONDED SHOMAKER, TO CERTIFY EIR NO. 00-02 AS ADEQUATE AND COMPLETE IN ACCORDANCE WITH CEQA REQUIREMENTS BY APPROVING RESOLUTION NO. 1581, AND TO INCLUDE LANGUAGE TO MITIGATE CONCERNS ISSUED BY THE IRVINE RANCH WATER DISTRICT RELATED TO SODIUM AND CLOURIDE CONTENTS. Discussion ensued on the urgency of certifying the EIR without further discussion, citing examples of other City projects that endured a long-term analysis period. The Commission also referenced a letter dated May 8, 2003 from the California Coastal Commission discussing project impacts on development. The Commission called for the question: AYES: Davis, Stanton, Shomaker NOES: Kokal, Dingwall, Ray ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION FAILS A MOTION WAS MADE BY DINGWALL TO CONTINUE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 00-02 (POSEIDON SEAWATER DESALINATION PLANT)WITH PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED TO JULY 8, 2003 WITH ISSUES IDENTIFIED BY THE COMMISSION FOR STAFF RESPONSE ON JULY 8, 2003. WITH NO SECOND,THE MOTION FAILED, Discussion ensued on how to proceed to ensure that issues raised by the Commission would receive a response from staff. Commissioner Ray requested that Commission Dingwall restate his motion. A MOTION WAS MADE BY DINGWALL, SECONDED BY RAY, TO CONTINUE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 00-02 (POSEIDON SEAWATER DESALINATION PLANT)WITH PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED TO JULY 8, 2003; AND WITH ISSUES IDENTIFIED BY THE COMMISSION FOR STAFF RESPONSE ON JULY 8, 2003, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Kokal, Dingwall, Ray NOES: Davis, Stanton, Shomaker ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION FAILS Staff requested that the Commission identify issues for follow up on July 8, 2003. The Commission provided individually a list of issues to be addressed at the July 8, 2003 meeting. (03p=0603) _ PC Minutes June 3, 2003 Page 6 A MOTION WAS MADE BY SHOMAKER, SECONDED BY RAY, TO CONTINUE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 00-02 (POSEIDON SEAWATER DESALINATION PLANT)WITH PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED TO JULY 8, 2003; AND WITH ISSUES IDENTIFIED BY THE COMMISSION FOR STAFF RESPONSE ON JULY 8, 2003, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Stanton, Kokal, Shomaker, Dingwall, Ray NOES. Davis ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSES Staff requested that the Commission provide issues for follow-up by staff on July 8, 2003. The Commission responded as follows: Commissioners Davis, Stanton, and Shomaker: No additional information requested. Commissioner Kokal: 1. AES Heat Treatment/Reverse Flow Process 2. Growth Inducement (End Users) 3. 316(b) Entrainment Study 4. NPDES Review of AES Discharge .5. Leakage from AES Discharge Vault (bacterial levels) Commissioner Dingwall: 1. Growth Inducement - California Coastal Commission comment letter (dated 5/8103) 2. Product Water Compatibility with Irvine Ranch Water District 3. Responses to Comments 2c, 21, 4b, and 11 c - Surfrider National Foundation comment letter(dated 5/27/03) 4. Impacts of Project on Future Restored Adjacent Wetland - California Earth Corps comment letter(dated 5/27/03) Commissioner Ray: 1. Impacts of Project on Future Restored Adjacent Wetland/Possibility of Buffer Area Califomia Earth Corps comment letter(dated 5127/03) 2. Archaeological Resources within Proposed Project Boundaries 3. Growth Inducement in Regards to Santa Margarita Water District and the Rancho Mission Viejo, Saddle Creek, Saddle Crest, and Saddle Meadow developments 4. AES Heat Treatment/Reverse Flow Process (03p=0603) _ PC Minutes June 3,2003 Page 7 B-1 b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO, 02-04/COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 02-05(POSEIDON SEAWATER DESALINATION PLANT - CONTINUED FROM MAY 27. 2003): Applicant: Poseidon Resources Corporation Request: To construct a 50 million gallons per day seawater desalination plant including a 10,120 sq. ft. administration building, a 38,090 sq. ft. reverse osmosis building, a 36,305 sq. ft. product water storage tank, and miscellaneous accessory structures on an 11 acre lease area. The proposed improvements include up to four miles of water transmission lines in Huntington Beach, one mile of which will be within the Coastal Zone, to connect to an existing regional transmission system in Costa Mesa. The project also includes perimeter landscaping and fencing along Newland Street and Edison Avenue. Location: 21730 Newland (east side, south of Edison Avenue) Project Planner: Ricky Ramos, Associate Planner STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Motion to: A) "Approve Conditional Use Permit No. 02-04 and Coastal Development Permit No. 02-05 with staff recommended findings and suggested conditions of approval'; B) "Approve CEQA Statement of Findings and Fact with a Statement of Overriding Considerations"; and C) "Approve the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program." A MOTION WAS MADE BY DINGWALL, SECONDED BY KOKAL,TO CONTINUE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 02-04/COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 02- 05(POSEIDON SEAWATER DESALINATION PLANT) TO JULY 8, 2003 WITH PUBLIC. HEARING CLOSED, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Stanton, Kokal, Shomaker, Dingwall, Ray NOES: Davis ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 12:10 a.m. to June 10, 2003 at 5:15 p.m., Room B-8, Huntington Beach Civic Center. HZ:H F:rI APPROVED BY: and Zelefsky, Secretary Randy Ko I, Chairperson (03p=0603) PC Minutes July 8,2003 Page 2 2. PUBLIC WORKS CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM — Rosemary Medel R emary Medel, Associate Planner, explained the Commission's role in the General. Plan onformance process. Dave\IMPROVEM ngineer, identified various improvements including pavement maintning and park enhancements. Bob Sblic Works Transportation Manager, was present to answer quest Discu r arding: ARTEVEM TS: ■ Ellis Avenue Widening dwards to Goldenwest) ■ Garfield Widening @ De ware (new widen to 4 lanes, add curb, gutter) TRAFFIC IMPROVEMENTS: ■ Pacific Coast Highway CCTV mera (install cameras to monitor traffic flow) ■ Hazard Elimination Safety (HES) Edinger& Gothard; Warner & Gothard; Warner & Edwards (grant fund to cover ar s that have significant left turn accidents) DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS: ■ Newland Station Reconstruction (rebuild rainage pump station) SEWER IMPROVEMENTS: ■ Edison Lane Sewer (install new line) ■ Alabama Storm Drain (construct storm drain to r oute flow into sewer system) WATER IMPROVEMENTS: ■ Pipeline Corrosion Control (begin large steel line corro 'on control program) The Commission asked staff why the Planning Commission's evious condition of approval to install a traffic signal and crosswalk at a certain loca n on Goldenwest near the newly constructed Sports Complex had not been completed. aff stated that the decision was appealed to the City Council and the condition of appro al was deleted by the City Council at the recommendation of the Public Works Commissi Discussion ensued regarding the Commission's role/responsibility in meeti mandatory processing times for entitlements. 3. AGENDA REVIEW— Herb Fauland Ricky Ramos, Associate Planner, identified staff report corrections and late communication received for Public Hearing Item Nos. B-1a & B-1b (Poseidon Seawater Desalination Plant). Scott Hess, Planning Manager, provided the Commission a template to use when establishing alternate findings on conditional use or coastal development.permits. (03p=0708) �Oz PC Minutes July 8,2003 Page 3 PUBLIC COMMENTS— Regarding Study Session portion of Meeting Doug Korthof, Seal Beach, spoke in opposition to Public Hearing Item Nos. B-1 a and B-1 b (Poseidon Seawater Desalination Plant). 6:30 P.M. — RECESS FOR DINNER 7:00 P.M. —COUNCIL CHAMBERS PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE P P P P P P P ROLL CALL Davis, Scandura, Stanton, Koka/, Shomaker, Dingwall, Ray AGENDA APPROVAL A MOTION WAS MADE BY DAVIS TO REOPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR ITEM NOS. B- 1A AND B-11B. WITH NO SECOND, THE MOTION FAILED. Staff noted the public that comments heard during oral communications would not be considered part of the Public Hearing record. A. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Chris Stacy, Cabrillo Wetland Preservation Organization, spoke in opposition to Public Hearing Item Nos. B-1a and B-1b (Poseidon Seawater Desalination Plant). He voiced concerns about the project extending the life of the AES Power Plant. Charles C. Kelber, Cabrillo Wetlands Preservation Organization, spoke in opposition to Public Hearing Item Nos. B-1 a and B-1 b (Poseidon Seawater Desalination Plant). He voiced concerns about construction reliability and using redevelopment funds that may result in economic failure. Larry Porter, Newport Beach, spoke in opposition to Public Hearing Item Nos. B-1 a and B-1 b (Poseidon Seawater Desalination Plant). He voiced concerns about the Orange County Sanitation District (OCSD) discharge plume, stating that test results were intermittent, and not indicative of the environment. Eric Carlisle, Huntington Beach,'spoke in support of Public Hearing Item.Nos. B-1 a and B-1 b (Poseidon Seawater Desalination Plant). Brittany Buscomb, Huntington.Beach, spoke in support of Public Hearing Item Nos. B-1a and B-1 b (Poseidon Seawater Desalination Plant), stating the project would generate tax revenue and increase the region's water supply. Karl Wysock, Huntington Beach, spoke in opposition to Public Hearing Item Nos. B-1a and B-1 b (Poseidon Seawater Desalination Plant). Doug Korthof, Seal Beach, spoke in opposition to Public Hearing Item Nos. B-1a and B- 1b (Poseidon Seawater Desalination Plant), calling the EIR insufficient and voicing concerns about building an unsightly industrial facility within the coastal region. yc� (03p=0708) PC Minutes July 8,2003 Page 4 Nancy Donovan, Huntington Beach, spoke in opposition to Public Hearing Item Nos. B- 1 a and B-1 b (Poseidon Seawater Desalination Plant), urging the Commission to delay the decision until findings from the California Energy Commission (CEC) entrainment study are published relative to the AES Power Plant discharge plume. Mark Bixby, Huntington Beach, spoke in opposition to Public Hearing.ltem Nos. 13-1a and B-1 b (Poseidon Seawater Desalination Plant), voicing concerns related to high bacteria counts at Magnolia Street. He also discussed issues raised by the California Coastal Commission (CCC) provided under late communications. Joey Racano, Huntington Beach, spoke in opposition to Public Hearing Item Nos. B-1a and B-1 b (Poseidon Seawater Desalination Plant), voicing concerns about brine and lead compound levels negatively affecting the ocean. He stated that the proposed project violates the Coastal Act by sidestepping the check and balance system. Gino Rapagna, Huntington Beach, spoke in support of Public Hearing Item Nos. B-1 a and B-1 b (Poseidon Seawater Desalination Plant), stating that AES is not tied to the Poseidon project, that issues with adjacent neighborhoods can be mitigated, and that Huntington Beach is environmentally conscientious. Stephanie Gledhill, Huntington Beach, spoke in support of Public Hearing Item Nos. 13- 1 a and B-1 b (Poseidon Seawater Desalination Plant). Joe Geever, Surfrider Foundation, spoke in opposition to Public Hearing Item Nos. B-1 a and.B-1 b (Poseidon Seawater Desalination Plant), calling the EIR inadequate. He discussed issues raised at the June 3`d meeting including information related to CEQA, transfer of water to Rancho Santa Margarita Water District, and entrainment and impingement. Don May, California Earth Corps, spoke in opposition to Public Hearing Item Nos. B-1a and B-1 b (Poseidon Seawater Desalination Plant). He voiced concerns about how Poseidon water will affect pipes that transport Irvine Ranch Water District (IRWD) wastewater, and the project's impact on wetlands restoration in the Natural Community Conservation Planning (NCCP) area (habitat). He urged the Commission to include mitigation measures that protect the wetlands restoration area. Philip Yasskim, Huntington Beach, spoke in support of Public Hearing Item Nos. 13-1a and B-1 b (Poseidon Seawater Desalination.Plant), urging the Commission to support a process that will provide an unlimited water supply when other resources are expiring. Mike Revelle, Huntington Beach, spoke in support of Public Hearing Item Nos. B-1a and B-1 b (Poseidon Seawater Desalination Plant)for future water resources. Kami Celano, Huntington Beach, spoke in support of Public Hearing Item Nos. B-1a and B-1 b (Poseidon Seawater Desalination Plant)for future water resources. Patrick Clynes, Huntington Beach, spoke in support of Public Hearing Item Nos. B-1 a and 1371 b (Poseidon Seawater Desalination Plant), calling the desalination process environmentally friendly. Karin-Keene, Huntington Beach, spoke in support of Public Hearing Item Nos. B-1a and B-1 b (Poseidon Seawater Desalination Plant) for future water resources. (03p=0708) �L/ PC Minutes July 8,2003 Page 5 Gary Kutscher, Huntington Beach, spoke in support of Public Hearing Item Nos. B-1 a and B-1 b (Poseidon Seawater Desalination Plant) for future water resources. Michele Blair Revelle, Huntington Beach, spoke in support of Public Hearing Item Nos. B-1 a and B-1 b (Poseidon Seawater Desalination Plant), welcoming new technology and water use for existing customers. Allan Beek, Newport Beach, spoke in support of Public Hearing Item Nos. B-1 a and 13- 1 b (Poseidon Seawater Desalination Plant) and praised the staff report. He voiced concerns about consumers paying more for a stand-by water supply, and that new development will take water away from existing users. Christine Carr, Newport Beach, spoke in opposition to Public Hearing Item Nos. B-1 a. and B-1 b (Poseidon Seawater Desalination Plant). Eben Sprague, Dana Point, spoke in opposition to Public Hearing Item Nos. B-1 a and B- 1 b (Poseidon Seawater Desalination Plant). He discussed how the continued build-out of the region is harming the environment and voiced concerns about waste products being near the ocean where his children frequently visit. Marco Gonzalez, Surfrider Foundation, spoke in opposition to Public Hearing Item Nos.. B-1 a and B-1 b (Poseidon Seawater Desalination Plant). He discussed cumulative reclamation, synergistic impacts and growth inducement. He stated that the request should be dealt with at the State level. Eileen Murphy, spoke in opposition to Public Hearing Item Nos. B-1.a and B-1 b (Poseidon Seawater Desalination Plant), urging the Commission to postpone certification until all issues are completely addressed. B. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS - PROCEDURE: Commission Disclosure Statement(s), Staff Report Presentation, Commission Questions, Public Hearing, Discussion/Action. . B-1 a. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 00-02 (POSEIDON SEAWATER DESALINATION PLANT -CONTINUED FROM JUNE 3. 2003 WITH PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED): Applicant: Poseidon Resources Corporation Request: To analyze the potential environmental impacts associated with the implementation of the proposed project. Location: 21730 Newland (east side, south of Edison Avenue) Project Planner: Ricky Ramos, Associate Planner Environmental Impact Report No: 00-02 (EIR No. 00-02) request: Analyze the potential environmental impacts associated with a request to construct a 50 million gallons per day (MGD) seawater desalination plant including a 1.0,120 square.foot administration building, a 38,090 square foot reverse osmosis building, a 36,305 square foot product water storage tank, and miscellaneous accessory structures on an approximately 11 acre site. The project also includes up to 10 miles of water transmission lines to connect to an existing regional transmission system, and two off-site booster pump stations. - Geology/Soils/Seismicity, Hydrology and Water Quality, Air Quality, Noise, Public Services and Utilities, Aesthetics/Light and Glare, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, and Construction Related Impacts. Evaluates four alternatives to the original project proposal. (03p=0708) PC Minutes July 8,2003 Page 6 Concludes that the project results in no environmental impacts or less than significant environmental impacts in the areas of Agricultural Resources, Air Quality (long-term), Biological Resources, Cultural Resources, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Land Use/Relevant Planning, Mineral Resources, Population and Housing, Recreation, and Transportation/Traffic. - Concludes that potential impacts can be mitigated to less than significant levels in the areas of Geology/Soils/Seismicity, Hydrology and Water Quality, Noise, Public Services and Utilities, Aesthetics/Light and Glare, and Construction Related Impacts. Concludes that potential impacts cannot be mitigated to less than significant levels in the area of Short-Term Construction Related Emissions. Continued Item: Planning Commission meeting June 3, 2003 - Planning Commission requested clarification regarding ten items pertaining to the EIR. Staffs Recommendation: Certify E1R No. 00-02 as adequate and complete and adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations based upon the following: - Compliance with California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA) - Compliance with the City of Huntington Beach General Plan goals, policies, and objectives - Compliance with the City of Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance Potentially significant environmental impacts have been eliminated or substantially lessened Remaining significant unavoidable impacts are found to be acceptable due.to overriding considerations - Benefits of the project are balanced against its unavoidable environmental impacts Ricky Ramos,Associate Planner, made a presentation to the Commission by responding to specific issues identified by the Planning Commission at their June 3, 2003. Kevin Thomas, RBF Consulting,discussed growth-inducing impacts related to the Rancho Santa Margarita Water District, entrainment and impingement, water quality, and the relationship between AES and Poseidon. Staff identified late communication items. Commissioner Scandura made disclosures, including receipt of correspondence from John Scott and visiting the project site with Billy Owens of Poseidon, Vic Leipzip, and Rick Tripp,AES. Commissioner Dingwall made disclosures, including discussions with Vic Leipzig and Huntington Beach Tomorrow. (03pcm0708) - ��� PC Minutes July 8,2003 Page 7 Commissioner Davis made disclosures, including receipt of correspondence from John Scott, a site visit to the Orange County Sanitation District (OCSD), and discussions with Don May, Jan Vandersloot, Billy Owens, John Erskine and John Scott. Commissioner Ray made disclosures, including receipt of correspondence from John Scott and,discussions with Doug Korthof;-Don May.and Billy Owens. Commissioner Shomaker made disclosures, including a discussion with Larry Porter. Chairman Kokal made disclosures, including discussions with Billy Owens and various individuals. AT 8:16 P.M. A MOTION WAS MADE BY RAY, SECONDED BY DINGWALL, TO RECESS UNTIL 8:30 P.M. BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Davis, Stanton, Kokal, Shomaker, Dingwall, Ray NOES: Scandura ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSES AT 8:30 P.M., THE MEETING RESUMED. The Commission shared information located within the CEQA Guidelines that discusses the environmental impact review process, including the general concepts and responsibilities of governmental agencies to protect the environment and keep the general public informed. A quote was also read from information received by the California Coastal Commission (CCC) stating that lead agencies must review a project in its entirety without limiting its review to the particular jurisdiction of that agency. The Commission asked if staff had received test information from the California Energy Commission (CEC) on water quality and the AES power plant during a prese.Dtation to staff. Staff replied test information had not been received, and that the CEC made a presentation to staff related to landscaping and the AES plant. The Commission voiced concerns about information on bacteria levels, and the presence of an intestinal virus found in a yard sump and flood control channel. The Commission and staff discussed Irvine Ranch Water District's (IRWD) acceptance of staffs incorporation of a condition of approval stating that"the applicant shall supply IRWD with water of quality that does not cause the IRWD to violate the pertinent limits of the IRWD reuse permit, applicable to the desalinated water quality at the time the proposed project is ready to begin the supply of desalinated water to the IRWD". The Commission discussed.deferred studies referenced in staff report material. The Commission discussed lead agency responsibilities and the importance of public participation. (03p=0708) _ PC Minutes July 8,2003 Page 8 The Commission asked the applicant to explain the heat treatment process, including providing temperature figures in the outflow(discharge) pipe, and maximum levels permitted by National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) regulations. Nikolay Vouchkov; Poseidon Resources, identified.figures related to the water temperature during the heat treatment process, and the maximum allowed by NPDES permit standards. Mr.Vouchkov used a diagram by Corolla Engineers to explain the elaborate process, including the time span of collection and return of organic substances to the ocean. Charles Mitchell, MBC Applied Environmental Sciences (MBC), was called upon to discuss the Environmental Protection Agency's State Task Force on cooling water discharge regulations. He also defined entrainment and impingement and discussed coastal generating stations examined by government and local agencies. Billy Owens, Poseidon Resources, discussed broad-based data gathering, including site-related impediments, environmental justice, coastal dependency, siting (intake & discharge), community requirements and impacts,and public or state policy created for the desalination process. Joe Geever, Surfrider Foundation, provided information on State task force agencies that study entrainment: Elaine Archibald, Poseidon Resources, discussed information provided in the Sanitary Survey, including standard procedures related to bacteria counts. Discussion ensued regarding the CEC's consideration of rerouting urban runoff. Charles Mitchell discussed how bacteria levels found in tidal components of discharge water rise when high tides flood storm drain basins. Dr. Scott Jenkins, Poseidon Resources, discussed how bacteria levels vary between the shallow surf zone waters where higher concentration is found, and off share waters, where water depth reaches 25 to 30 feet and concentration levels are low. He explained how bacteria found in the surf zone becomes trapped in "closed circulation cells," keeping it from circulating into the off shore*. waters. He mentioned that experts have.not yet discovered the source for chronic bacteria concentration found at the 9 North/Pacific Coast Highway and Magnolia location. He identified acceptable levels of measured bacteria, and provided information on the modeling data provided to Poseidon by MBC related to the.AES facility discharge and NPDES permit requirements. He stated that the model used seven (7) physical variables (ocean waves, current flow, wind, salinity levels, water temperature, plant flow and the Delta T (plant operating temperatures)to study worst and average case scenarios for water quality. He stated that surf zone levels at the 9 North location had reached as high as 16,000 MPN, but were more consistently measured at 5,000 to 6,000 MPN. He stated that beach closures result when concentration levels exceed 1,000 MPN. He also stated that concentration levels near the AES outfall pipe never reached 1,000 MPN. (03p=0708) - _11j5- PC Minutes July 8, 2003 Page 9 The Commission inquired about IRWD's water distribution system agreement. Billy Owens explained that the agreement provides conditions that offer the IRWD a guarantee that all water quality standards are met, with emphasis on bacteria and chlorine content and maximum allowable water temperature during the heat treatment process. Nikolav Vouchkov confirmed that the process produces water temperature.5 to 15 percent above ambient_ocean conditions.' The Commission asked if the data provided on constituent collection were factual. Charles Mitchell stated that he was confident that the data were adequate, and explained that conditions on entrainment are measured and reported on annually by scientists who study the material. The Commission asked if any viable options were available to control the constituent material. Mr. Mitchell answered few. The Commission discussed late communication from Tom Luster, California Coastal Commission (CCC), Attachment 3.5 referencing project and mitigation alternatives not mentioned in CEC's scope of work. Staff explained that violation of a condition could cause examination of the project's conditions of approval to determine if mitigation measures are necessary. Staff also mentioned that the CEC would not address mitigation measures. The Commission discussed intake water velocity. Charles Mitchell mentioned that although shell life survival rate is dependent on the species, mortality is significant. He also explained the function of centrifugal pumps. The Commission asked if any testing for viruses were conducted. Elaine Archibald answered that such tests are only necessary when health agencies are notified of high coloform counts, and that the techniques used to measure virus activity are problematic and expensive. The Commission asked Dr. Jenkins to explain how water flow varies between the shallow surf zone and deep offshore zone. Dr. Jenkins described the two areas as separate systems, stating that the surf zone flow is dominated by on shore wave motion and rip currents that cause it to circulate, inhibiting a seaward motion. He added that the off shore system is dominated by tidal currents that flow along the shore, rather than into the surf zone. The Commission asked if contaminants from the off shore zone integrate into the surf zone. Mr. Jenkins answered occasionally. The Commission inquired about.the legal issues involved in the CEQA process and Poseidon proposing to tie in with the AES plant's existing intake and discharge lines that pump water to produce electricity. Kevin Thomas stated that permits issued for,the AES.plant call for continuous pumping of seawater, and that the applicant is not proposing to operate independently from that activity. He also discussed worst-case scenarios identified in pumping percentages to ensure that the proposed project will not cause AES to violate permit requirements. The Commission voiced concerns about the split jurisdiction between the State Public Utilities Commission and Huntington Beach and asked if anyone representing AES were present in the audience to respond to issues related to conditions of approval that may affect the,pumping process. With no one present, the Commission commented that AES should be responsible for acceptance of j� conditions. (03p=0708) PC Minutes July 8,2003 Page 10 The Commission voiced concerns about the EIR not including an entrainment and impingement study. Discussion ensued regarding salinity levels and the number of sea life trapped during the intake and outfall process. Kevin Thomas explained that the NPDES permitting process will govem whether or not the applicant is required to provide an entrainment and impingement study,and that the EIR did not include such a study because the proposed project ties into an existing facility, and because all five (5) conditions under the Phase 11 rule listed on page 8 of the staff report must apply, and this was not the case. Discussion ensued regarding the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Phase II rule for existing facilities requiring a 316(b) demonstration as part of the NPDES permit process. Discussion ensued further on species that survive the entrainment process, and how CEC guidelines assume a 100% mortality rate. The Commission asked Dr. Jenkins to confirm information provided in his report that salinity levels vary between plus or minus ten percent. Dr. Jenkins confirmed. The Commission asked for source material for that finding, stating that a footnote was not in the report. Dr. Jenkins stated that the source was located within the appendix of the data provided by MBC. The Commission mentioned viewing outside research studies indicating that various areas of the ocean have higher or lower elevations in salinity. Dr. Jenkins agreed. The Commission asked Dr. Jenkins to provide the location of the documented evidence showing variations (range).of plus or minus ten percent for the outflow pipe area. Dr. Jenkins referred to the MBC Monitoring data appendix. The Commission asked for assistance in locating the appendix. The Commission pointed out differences in language relating to the amount of water pumped daily by AES included in the Response to Comments and the EIR Errata. Discussion ensued regarding Poseidon Resources easement agreement, and the language within the EIR Errata that relates to AES leasing land and/or surface area from the California State Lands Commission. It was mentioned that the CCC will require AES and Poseidon to submit landowner's approval, along with conditions of that approval. The Commission asked Joe Geever, Surfrider Foundation to explain the EPA precautionary process. Staff addressed concerns reported by the CCC related to entrainment and Poseidon's operating independently from AES. The Commission suggested a condition that mitigates any archeological finds. The Commission called upon Don May to address issues related to the degraded wetlands. Don May requested that staff add conditions that address storm water runoff diversion, provide alternative lighting and landscaping to inhibit unwanted light and noise, provide for berm reconstruction, and require a 316B study (entrain mentfimpingement study). The Commission discussed the growth inducing impacts of the proposed project and how they relate to the City as the lead agency. Kevin Thomas discussed a (03p=0708) PC Minutes July 8, 2003 Page 11 CEQA requirement to include information on how the project relates to growth, regionally and cumulatively. He also discussed opinions heard by other agencies on this issue. Billy Owens provided percentage figures on residential development in the Rancho Santa Margarita District. A MOTION WAS MADE BY KOKAL TO DENY CERTIFICATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT No. 00-02 AS ADEQUATE AND COMPLETE IN ACCORDANCE WITH CEQA REQUIREMENTS. WITH NO SECOND,-THE MOTION FAILED. A MOTION WAS MADE BY STANTON, SECONDED BY DAVIS, TO CERTIFY ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 00-02 AS ADEQUATE AND COMPLETE IN ACCORDANCE WITH CEQA REQUIREMENTS WITH THE FOLLOWING MODIFICATIONS TO THE ERRATA: 1)ADDING LANGUAGE THAT STATES ADDITIONAL EIR OR EQUIVALENT WILL BE REQUIRED IF THE AES FACILITY CEASES TO OPERATE; 2) CORRECT MISINFORMATION RELATED TO THE CALIFORNIA STATE LANDS COMMISSION LAND LEASE WITH AES HUNTINGTON BEACH, LLC, BY APPROVING RESOLUTION NO. 1581, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Davis, Scandura, Stanton, Shomaker NOES: Kokal, Dingwall,.Ray ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSES B-1 b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 02-04/COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 02-05(POSEIDON SEAWATER DESALINATION PLANT - CONTINUED FROM JUNE 3, 2003 WITH PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED): Applicant: Poseidon Resources Corporation Request: To construct a 50 million gallons per day seawater desalination plant including a 10,120 sq. ft. administration building, a 38,090 sq. ft. reverse osmosis building, a 36,305 sq. ft. product water storage tank, and miscellaneous accessory structures on an 11 acre lease area. The proposed improvements include up to four miles of water transmission lines in Huntington Beach, one mile of which will be within the Coastal Zone, to connect to an existing regional transmission system in Costa Mesa. The project also includes perimeter landscaping and fencing along Newland Street and Edison Avenue. Location: 21730 Newland (east side, south of Edison Avenue) Proiect Planner: Ricky Ramos,-Associate Planner STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Motion to: A) "Approve Conditional Use Permit No. 02-04 and Coastal Development Permit No. 02-05 with staff recommended findings and suggested conditions of approval"; B) "Approve CEQA Statement of Findings and Fact with a Statement of Overriding Considerations"; and C) "Approve the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program." A MOTION WAS MADE BY STANTON, SECONDED BY SHOMAKER,TO CONTINUE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 02-04/COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 02-05(POSEIDON SEAWATER (03p=0708) PC Minutes July 8,2003 Page 12 DESALINATION PLANT)WITH PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED TO JULY 22, 2003 WITH ISSUES TO BE IDENTIFIED BY THE COMMISSION FOR STAFF RESPONSE ON JULY 22, 2003, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Davis, Scandura, Stanton, Kokal, Shomaker, Dingwall, Ray NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSES C. CONSENT CALENDAR MOTION WAS BY KOKAL, SECONDED BY DAVIS, TO CONTINUE CONSENT C ENDAR ITEM NOS. C-1, C-2 AND C-3 (PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DA D APRIL 22, 2003, MAY 13, 2003, AND MAY 27, 2003) TO JULY 22, 2003, BY THE F LOWING VOTE: THE Davis, Scandura,Stanton, Kokal, Shomaker, Dingwall, Ray NOES: one ABSENT: N e ABSTAIN: Non MOTION PASSES D. NON-PUBLIC HEARING IT S - None. E. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS - E-1. PLANNING COMMISSION COM TTEE REPORTS-None. E-2. PLANNING COMMISSION COMME S- None. E-3. DISCUSSION ITEMS FOR FUTURE ME INGS- None. F. PLANNING ITEMS F-1. CITY COUNCIL ACTIONS FROM PREVIO%MEING - None. F-2. CITY COUNCIL ITEMS FOR NEXT MEETING-None. F-3. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS FOR NEXT MEETING hone. (0--pc„07O8) � PC Minutes July 22,2003 Page 4 The following tion was made after action on Non-Public Hearing Item No. D1: A MOTION WAS MAD Y SHOMAKER, SECONDED.BY STANTON, TO MOVE PUBLIC HEARING..ITEM NO. B-2. ( UAL REVIEW AND MONITORING REPORT.—DOWNTOWN PARKING MASTER PLAN)TO ECEED NON-PUBLIC HEARING ITEM NO. D-2. (RECONSIDERATION OF ENVIRO NTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 00-021 POSEIDON SEAWATER DESALINATION PLANT), THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Davis, Scandura, Stanton, Koka , homaker, Dingwall, Ray NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED AGENDA ITEMS WILL BE LISTED IN THEIR ORIGINAL O ER A. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Ron Van Blarcom, Poseidon Resources, spoke in opposition to Non-Public Hearing Item No. D-2 (Reconsideration of Environmental Impact Report No. 00-02/Poseidon Desalination Plant) and discussed the proposed project's timeline, including permit streamlining and mandatory.processing deadlines. John Erskine, Poseidon Resources, spoke in opposition to Non-Public Hearing Item No. D-2 (Reconsideration of Environmental Impact Report No. 00-02/Poseidon Desalination Plant) discussing "Roberts Rules of Order" and circumstances related to the appeal process including Rule 36, case law and court proceedings. The Commission asked Mr. Van Blarcom to explain the difference between directory versus mandatory processing dates. Larry Porter, Ocean Outfall Group, spoke in support of Non-Public Hearing Item No. D-2 (Reconsideration of Environmental Impact Report No. 00-02/Poseidon Desalination Plant) and discussed activity related to the Orange County Sanitation District (OCSD) outfall (discharge).pipe. Don McGee, Ocean Outfall Group, spoke in support of Non-Public Hearing Item No. D-2 (Reconsideration of Environmental Impact Report No. 00-02/Poseidon Desalination Plant) and discussed impacts associated with build-out and traffic. Maria Kutscher, Huntington Beach, spoke in opposition to Non-Public Hearing Item No. D-2 (Reconsideration of Environmental Impact Report No. 00-02/Poseidon Desalination Plant) and discussed the affects of reverse osmosis. Rich Kolander, Huntington Beach, spoke in opposition to Non-Public Hearing Item No. D-2 (Reconsideration of Environmental Impact Report No. 00-02/Poseidon Desalination Plant) and discussed improvements in technology and praised staffed and consultants for their work on the proposed project. (03p=0722) PC Minutes July 22, 2003 Page 5 Gino Rapagna, Huntington Beach, spoke in opposition to Non-Public Hearing Item No. D-2 (Reconsideration of Environmental Impact Report No. 00-02/Poseidon Desalination Plant), describing the project as environmentally sound with improved technology. Pat Clynes, Huntington Beach, spoke in opposition to Non-Public Hearing Item No. D-2 (Reconsideration of Environmental Impact Report No. 00-021Poseidoh Desalination Plant) and discussed the benefits of new technology. Mark Bixby, Huntington Beach, spoke in support of Non-Public Hearing Item No. D-2 (Reconsideration of Environmental Impact Report No. 00-02/Poseidon Desalination Plant) and discussed in-lieu fees and drawing intake water downstream from the AES plume. Michele Revelle, Huntington Beach, spoke in opposition to Non-Public Hearing Item No. D-2 (Reconsideration of Environmental Impact Report No. 00-02/Poseidon Desalination Plant) and discussed how the proposed projects revenue can support City services. Jan Vandersloot, Ocean Outfall Group, spoke in support of Non-Public Hearing Item No. D-2 (Reconsideration of Environmental Impact Report No. 00-02/Poseidon Desalination Plant) and voiced concerns about the City's water source being produced by private industry, and it's projected profit. Doug Korthof, Seal Beach, spoke in support of Non-Public Hearing Item No. D-2 (Reconsideration of Environmental Impact Report No. 00-02/Poseidon Desalination Plant) and voiced concems.related to permit requirements for the AES power plant; mortality in the outfall pipe, and promised technology. Eileen Murphy, Bolsa Chica Land Trust, spoke in support of Non-Public Hearing Item No. D-2 (Reconsideration of Environmental Impact Report No. 00-02/Poseidon Desalination Plant) voicing concerns about negative impacts to ocean life. Mike Revelle, Huntington Beach, spoke in opposition to Non-Public Hearing Item No. D- 2 (Reconsideration of Environmental Impact Report No. 00-02/Poseidon Desalination Plant). Bunker Hill, Huntington Beach, spoke in opposition to Non-Public Hearing Item No. D-2 (Reconsideration of Environmental Impact Report No. 00-02/Poseidon Desalination Plant). John Scott, Huntington Beach, spoke in support of Non-Public Hearing Item No. D-2 (Reconsideration of Environmental Impact Report No. 00-02/Poseidon Desalination Plant) voicing concerns related to air,and water quality. He urged the Commission to keep the review period open. Nancy Donovan, Huntington Beach, spoke in support of Non-Public Hearing Item No. 13- 2 (Reconsideration of Environmental Impact Report No. 00-02/Poseidon Desalination Plant) voicing concerns about water quality. Dr. Scott Jenkins, Poseidon Resources, spoke in opposition to Non-Public Hearing Item No. D-2 (Reconsideration of Environmental Impact Report No. 00-02/Poseidon Desalination Plant). He provided credentials and explained the methods of data collected included within the study on salinity. (03p=0722) _ PC Minutes July 22,2003 Page 6 Billy Owens, Applicant with Poseidon Resources, spoke in opposition to Non-Public Hearing Item No. D-2 (Reconsideration of Environmental Impact Report No. 00- 02/Poseidon Desalination Plant) and explained why the project is needed. He also emphasized that environmental testing done by qualified independent consultants classified the.project's affects on marine fife as non-significant, therefore.not harmful. Commissioner Dingwall addressed speakers providing supportive testimony during Oral Communications on the proposed Poseidon project, stating that if approved, Huntington Beach residents will not receive drinking water from Poseidon, only increased pollution within our storm drain channels and ocean waters. He also cited past examples of environmental disasters before informing the public of his decision to deny Poseidon's request for entitlement. A MOTION WAS MADE BY DINGWALL.TO SUSPEND TEMPORARY RULES OR PROTOCOL THAT WOULD PREVENT THE COMMISSION FROM RECONSIDERING CERTIFICATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 00-02 (POSEIDON SEAWATER DESALINATION PLANT). The Commission asked Commissioner Dingwall to elaborate on the rules he was referring to. The City Attorney explained that the Commission functions under the adopted Protocol and "Robert's Rules of Order." COMMISSIONER DINGWALL MODIFIED HIS MOTION BY REQUESTING THAT RECONSIDERATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 00-02(POSEIDON .SEAWATER DESALINATION PLANT) BE PLACED ON THE AUGUST 12, 2003 AGENDA. Staff informed Commissioner Dingwall that the item was already listed as D-2 on tonight's agenda. B. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS -PROCEDURE: Commission Disclosure Statement(s), Staff Report Presentation, Commission Questions, Public Hearing, Discussion/Action. B-1. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 02-04/COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 02-05(POSEIDON SEAWATER DESALINATION PLANT-CONTINUED FROM JULY 8, 2003 WITH PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED): Applicant: Poseidon Resources Corporation Request: To construct a 50 million gallons per day seawater desalination plant including a 10,120 sq.ft. administration building, a 38,090 sq. ft. reverse osmosis building, a 36,305 sq. ft. product water storage tank, and miscellaneous accessory structures on an 11 acre lease area. The proposed improvements include up to four miles of water transmission lines in Huntington Beach, one mile of which will be within the Coastal Zone, to connect. to an existing regional transmission system in Costa Mesa. The project also includes perimeter landscaping and fencing along Newland Street and Edison Avenue. Location: 2-1730 Newland (east side, south of Edison Avenue) Pro ect Planner: Ricky Ramos, Associate Planner STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Motion to: A)"Approve Conditional Use Permit No. 02-04 and Coastal Development Permit No. 02-05 with staff recommended findings and suggested conditions of approval"; B) "Approve CEQA Statement of Findings and Fact with a Statement of Overriding Considerations"; and C) °Approve the Mitigation.Monitoring and Reporting Program." Ricky Ramos, Associate Planner, provided an overview of proposed revisions to / the recommended conditions of approval received by the Commission following (03p=0722) PC Minutes July 22,2003 Page 7 the July 8, 2003 meeting. He identified late communication and also explained that because proposed revised conditions from Chairperson Kokal and Commission Dingwall were submitted late, staff was not able to respond in writing. A MOTION WAS MADE BY DAVIS, SECONDED BY.DINGWALL, TO CONSIDER BY STRAW VOTE STAFF'S RECOMMENDATIONS ON THE PROPOSED CHANGES TO CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 02- 04/COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 02-05 PROVIDED BY COMMISSIONER'S DAVIS AND SCANDURA. No vote was taken. Commissioner Scandura confirmed his acceptance of staffs recommendations to his proposed changes. A STRAW VOTE MOTION WAS MADE BY DAVIS, SECONDED BY DINGWALL, TO ACCEPT A PROPOSED CONDITION STATING THAT SHOULD THE CITY BE SUED, POSEIDON WILL INDEMNIFY FOR ALL LEGAL EXPENSES INCURRED BY THE CITY OR ITS AGENTS OR EMPLOYEES, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Davis, Scandura, Stanton, Kokal, Shomaker, Dingwall, Ray NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION APPROVED Discussion ensued on Commissioner Davis' proposal to add a condition that the CUP shall expire on April 1, 2011. The Commission voiced concerns about Poseidon piggybacking onto the AES CUP permit that was approved years earlier for what was considered a non-conforming use. The City Attorney substantiated a written opinion as to why staff denied the recommendation to include the condition. She also explained that the April 1, 2011-expiration date discussed refers to the AES NPDES permit, not conditional use permit. Staff explained how entitlements are associated with the land, not owner or operator. Staff also discussed a change within the EIR Errata and also shown on Attachment No. 1.25, condition No. 18 that discusses what will happen if the project definition changes in scope because AES ceases to operate. The Commission discussed the possibility of AES being able to prolong its existence by including water production on its list of future selling points. Commissioner Davis requested a meeting with the City Attorney, applicant and associated consultants to discuss points of authority or establish a legal dialogue relative to his request for the added condition. (03p=0722) PC Minutes July 22,2003 Page 8 The Commission reminded staff and the public that the CEC entrainment/ impingement study may produce cause for radical changes to the AES plant and/or its cooling system, and suggested that the City Attorney consider a "sunset clause" with an expiration date. The Commission referenced Attachment No. 1.25, conditions No. 18-21 that are applicable to this discussion. A MOTION 111(AS MADE BY STANTON, SECONDED BY DAVIS,TO CONTINUE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 02-04JCOASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 02-05(POSEIDON SEAWATER DESALINATION PLANT)WITH PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED TO TUESDAY, AUGUST 12, 2003, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Davis, Scandura, Stanton, Kokal, Shomaker, Dingwall, Ray NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION APPROVED B-2. ANNUAL REVIEW AND MONITORING REPORT—DOWNTOWN PARKING MASTER AN: Applicant: City of Huntington Beach Planning Department Request: An al review of the Downtown Parking Master Plan addressing building activity een June 1, 2002 and June 1, 2003 Location: Downtown Specific Plan area nerally bounded by Pacific Coast Highway, Sixth Street, Acacia Avenue and Se nd Street) Project Planner: Wayne Carvalho The City of Huntington Beac lanning Department requests Planning Commission review of the Dow wn Parking Master Plan Annual Review and Monitoring Report. a The revision and update of the D town Specific Plan (DTSP)also referred to as the "Village Concept"was ado din April of 1995 and became effective in June of 1995. As part of the revisions, a shared parking ncept was prepared for the downtown core area of Main Street referred as the Downtown Parking Master Plan (DPMP). o An update to the DPMP was approved by the Ci Council in November 2000, with final certification by the California Coast Commission in January , 2002. e The DPMP includes provisions that an annual review an monitoring report be completed. - 4 The report shall be forwarded to the Planning Commission, ' Council and the Executive Director of the California Coastal Commission. The review and monitoring report contained herein includes anal is between June 1, 2002 and June 1, 2003. Commissioner Shomaker excused herself from action on the item due to a potential conflict of interest. Wayne Carvalho, Associate Planner, discussed the Downtown Parking Master Plan (DPMP) Annual Review while providing PowerPoint slides depicting major projects affecting parking downtown, including two new developments (Koury (03p=0722) ' , ' PC Minutes July 22,2003 Page 11 NEIGHBORHOOD IMPROVEMENTS: The ommission asked staff to expand on activity related to Sidewalk and Curb Repla went(CDBG). Dave Webb, City Engineer explained how the one-time improve nts would be completed for those enhancement areas qualifying for CDBG fun 'ng. ARTERIAL I ROVEMENTS: The Commission ked staff to expand on activity related to the Beach/Edinger Improvements, Ga ield @ D.O. 2 Channel (west of Brookhurst) and Magnolia Sidewalk Lighting—Pacific Coast Highway to Hamilton. TRAFFIC IMPROVEME S: The Commission asked staff expand on activity related to the Newland& Hamilton Signal Installation d Upgrade Signal Timing (TSCOUP). SEWER IMPROVEMENTS: The Commission asked staff to expa on activity related to Slip Lining and the Edison Lane Sewer. DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS: The Commission voiced concerns about drain a problems causing water to pond and incubate viruses in the parking area o the Wetlands and Wildlife Care Center at Newland Street and Pacific Coast =)'Naat� y Staff explained how upsizing storm drain lines and rebuilding the Pump Station would manage the drainage problems in that area. A MOTION WAS MADE BY RAY, SECONDED BY SC DURA, TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 1584, APPROVING GENERAL PLA ONFORMANCE NO. 03-01 AND FORWARD TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR INAL CONSIDERATION, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Davis, Scandura, Stanton, Kokal, Shomaker, R NOES: Dingwall ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION APPROVED D-2. RECONSIDERATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 00-02 (POSEIDON SEAWATER DESALINATION PLANT): A request by Commissioner Davis to reconsider EIR No. 00-02 previously certified by the Planning Commission on July 8, 2003. Location: 21730 Newland (east side, south of Edison Avenue) Project Planner: Ricky Ramos, Associate Planner No staff presentation was made. (03P=0722) - �� PC Minutes July 22,2003' Page 12 A MOTION WAS MADE BY DAVIS, SECONDED BY DINGWALL, TO RECONSIDER ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 00-02 (POSEIDON SEAWATER DESALINATION PLANT) DUE TO INACCURATE INFORMATION PROVIDED BY THE APPLICANT AT THE JULY 8, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, Commissioner Davis stated his request for reconsideration of the EIR was based on two reasons, including receipt of inaccurate information provided by Poseidon during the July 8, 2003 meeting claiming that salinity levels recorded near the AES outfall pipe location show a variation of plus or minus 10 percent when figures recorded within the EIR show a variation of plus or minus 5 percent; and, inconsistent data reported/recorded related to how many gallons of water AES pumps, on average, for approximately the past 20 years and the °worst case scenario" model used to report circulation averages. He also stated his intent was to question these two items only, and not to revisit the entire document for adequacy. Staff provided an overhead slide demonstrating salinity levels calculated over the past 20 years. The City Attorney stated that approving the request opens the entire EIR for reconsideration. Certain Commissioners provided opinions on why the item was worthy of reconsideration. Others discussed why it would be appropriate to deny the request for reconsideration and forward to the City Council for final approval. Discussion ensued on how either decision would affect the Mayor's appeal of the Planning Commission's certification of the EIR on July 8, 2003. Staff discussed the mandatory processing deadlines and requested that the Commission provide clear direction to staff about what type of information will be expected if the request for reconsideration is approved. Staff also reminded the Commission that action on the Conditional Use Permit and Coastal Development Permit cannot be taken if the request for reconsideration is approved. Staff and the Commission discussed the option of denying the request and forward to the City Council with minute action that describes concerns related to incomplete or inaccurate information provided by the applicant. The City Attorney informed the Commission of staffs recommendation to deny the request and forward to City Council with minute action. She also advised against any discussion of the applicant's alternative to seek a court decision on processing deadlines.: (03p=0722) PC Minutes July 22,2003 Page 13 A MOTION WAS MADE BY DAVIS, SECONDED BY DINGWALL, TO RECONSIDER ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 00-02 (POSEIDON SEAWATER DESALINATION PLANT) AT THE AUGUST 12, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Davis, Kokal, Dingwall, Ray NOES: Scandura, Stanton, Shomaker ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION APPROVED THE CHAIR CALLED FOR A 10-MINUTE RECESS. Staff requested that the Commission provide a collective list of issues for staff to respond to at the August 12, 2003 meeting. The Commission requested an independent consultant be hired to verify the concems relayed herein. Staff stated that MBC Applied Environmental Sciences is the reporting agency on information published by the Califomia Energy Commission relating to AES plant activity. Also, the firm is qualified to respond to marine biology issues, and that the process of soliciting contracts from another outside agency maybe.cumbersome. and not timely. A MOTION WAS MADE BY DAVIS, SECONDED BY SHOMAKER, FOR STAFF TO PREPARE RESPONSES TO THE FOLLOWING ISSUES: 1) CONTRACT AN INDEPENDENT CONSULTANT TO VERIFY SALINITY LEVELS AND DILUTION MODELS PROPOSED IN EIR NO. 00-02; 2) PROVIDE GENERAL SALINITY INFORMATION ON THE SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA BIGHT AND HOW IT AFFECTS HUNTINGTON BEACH AND AREA SEA ORGANISMS; 3) CONTRACT AN INDEPENDENT CONSULTANT TO VERIFY MODELING RELATED TO OCEAN INTAKE THAT IS DISCHARGED BY THE ORANGE COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT; AND, 4)VERIFY AES PUMP FIGURES, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Davis, Scandura, Stanton, Kokal, Shomaker, Dingwall, Ray NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION APPROVED Discussion ensued regarding public policy and jurisdiction issues. The Commission made reference to California Coastal Commission letter 10A dated February 20, 2003 that provides detailed information on public policy. (03pcm0722) PC Minutes Juty 22, 2003 Page 14 A MOTION WAS MADE BY KOKAL, SECONDED BY RAY, DIRECTING STAFF TO PROVIDE INFORMATION ON PUBLIC POLICY ISSUES TO HELP INFORM THE PUBLIC AND COMMISSION MEMBERS HOW TO UNDERSTAND ITEMS OUTSIDE THE SCOPE OF THEIR JURISDICTION, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Kokal, Dingwall, Ray. NOES: Davis, Scandura, Stanton, Shomaker ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION FAILED E. PLANNING C MISSION ITEMS A MOTION WAS M BY DAVIS, SECONDED BY DINGWALL, TO CONTINUE PLANNING COMMISSI ITEMS E-1, E-2 AND E-3 TO AUGUST 12, 2003 BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Davis, Scandura, nton, Kokal, Shomaker, Dingwall, Ray NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED F. PLANNING ITEMS F-1. CITY COUNCIL ACTIONS FROM PREVIOUS MEET G—None reported. F-2. CITY COUNCIL ITEMS FOR NEXT MEETING—None re ed. F-3. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS FOR NEXT MEETING—No reported. ADJOURNMENT: Adjourned at 11:10 p.m. to the next regularly scheduled Plann' g Commission meeting of August 12, 2003. HZ:HF:ri APPROVED BY: Howard Zelefsky, Secretary k6n Davis, Chair (03p=0722) PC Minutes August 12,2003 Page 4 AGENDA ITEMS WILL BE LISTED IN THEIR ORIGINAL ORDER A. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Chris Stanley, Wetlands Village, spoke in opposition to Public Hearing Item No. B-1 (Poseidon Seawater Desalination Plant). He thanked the Commission for reconsidering certification of the EIR and voiced concerns regarding the project's negative impacts to the community. Joey Racano, Ocean Outfall Group, spoke in opposition to Public Hearing Item No. B-1 (Poseidon Seawater Desalination Plant), voicing concerns about the proposed project's effects on the Little Shell Wetlands, brine content levels and intake/outfall pipe entrainmentlimpingement. He also discussed the July 2002 Clean Water Act Waiver related to sewage dumping and the Orange County Sanitation District (OCSD). Stefanie Warren, Surfrider Foundation, spoke in opposition to Public Hearing Item No. B-1 (Poseidon Seawater Desalination Plant), voicing concerns related to entrainment and impingement. Lou Baker, Huntington Beach, spoke in support of Public Hearing Item No. B-1 (Poseidon Seawater Desalination Plant). He discussed drought insurance, brine as a preservative, and how AES, Poseidon and OCSD should consider other options for a joint venture to ensure water production through the proposed facility. John Earl, Huntington Beach, spoke in opposition to Public Hearing Item No. B-1_ (Poseidon Seawater Desalination Plant). He discussed water as a human right, and voiced concerns related to public notification. B. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS -PROCEDURE: Commission Disclosure Statement(s), Staff Report Presentation, Commission Questions, Public Hearing, Discussion/Action. B-1. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 00-02 (POSEIDON SEAWATER DESALINATION PLANT): Applicant: Poseidon Resources Corporation Request: To analyze the potential environmental impacts associated with the implementation of the proposed project. This EIR was certified by the Planning Commission on July 8, 2003 and then on July 22, 2003 the Planning Commission voted to reconsider this item. Location: 21730 Newland (east side, south of Edison Avenue) Project Planner: Ricky Ramos, Associate Planner Ricky Ramos, Associate Planner, made a presentation to the.Commission. A MOTION WAS MADE BY DAVIS, SECONDED BY KOKAL, TO INCORPORATE AND CONSIDER ALL PROJECT-RELATED INFORMATION OR TESTIMONY RECEIVED TO DATE (MAY 27, JUNE 3, JULY 8, JULY 22, AND AUGUST 12, 2003) PRIOR TO VOTING ON CERTIFICATION OF EIR 00- 02, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Davis, Scandura, Stanton, Kokal, Shomaker, Dingwall, Ray NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED (03p=0812) �� 2j PC Minutes August 12,2003 Page 5 THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED: Ron Van Blarcom, Poseidon Resources, spoke in support of the item. He discussed the applicant's August 7, 2003 response to issues raised by the Surfrider Foundation on August 5, 2003. He also discussed projects cumulative impacts and how they relate to California Coastal Commission (CCC), North America Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), etc.. He stated that the CCC has not taken a formal position on this request. Mike Revelle, Huntington Beach, spoke in support of the item referencing population growth, a reliable water source and future drought issues. He also discussed salinity levels in the outfall area. Robert Harrison, Huntington Beach, spoke in support of the item referencing water quality testing programs, thermal elevation of discharge water, brine levels and plant conditions, described as clean, quiet, and environmentally friendly. Ken Maylone, Huntington Beach, spoke as a business representative for Operating Engineers Local 12. Although not opposed to the project itself, the engineers do have concerns related to harmful environmental elements and private industry profiting from a public commodity. Marty Earlebaugh, Huntington Beach, spoke in support of the item due to a state water crisis and population growth. Michele Revelle, Huntington Beach, spoke in support of the item and the EIR, stating the project will have a minimum effect on the environment. John Scott, Huntington Beach, spoke in opposition to the item. He discussed the global water market and stated that the applicant was partnered with two (2) major water corporations. He also described drinking water as a commodity and basic human right and voiced concerns related to quality of life, air quality and the possible effects on sea life. He asked the Commission to seek State guidance. Jan Vandersloot, Ocean Outfall Group, spoke in opposition to the item. He discussed the California Energy Commission (CEC) Surf Zone Water Quality Impact Report by KOMEX, and urged the Commission to postpone decision until the report findings could be considered. He also discussed the AES discharge plume and information related to other desalination facilities(Long Beach, California; Tampa Bay, Florida). He asked the Commission to add a condition to widen Newland. Joey Racano, Ocean Outfall Group, spoke in opposition to the item and discussed the July 2002 Clean Water Act Waiver related to sewage dumping and the Orange County Sanitation District(OCSD). He voiced concerns regarding information provided by the Irvine Ranch Water District(IRWD) about lead compounds in water pipes, membrane material at a desalination plant in Tampa Bay, Florida, and how Poseidon's product will not be used in Huntington Beach. John Earl, Huntington Beach, spoke in opposition to the item, calling the EIR an independent evaluation that communicates ideas requested by developers. He urged the Commission to consider the rights of those who depend on the ocean / (03p=0812) PC Minutes August 12,2003 Page 6 environment (natural resources). He also stated that the EIR does not address privatization issues. Lary Porter, Ocean Outfall Group, spoke in opposition to the item, voicing concerns related to contamination (bacteria, buoyant constituents and pesticides and pharmaceutical material.found with the intake and outfall pipes.) Billy Owens, Poseidon Resources, spoke in support of the item. He addressed concerns heard by previous speakers about production problems at a desalination plant in Tampa Bay, Florida, misinterpreted information received by the CCC, and the KOMEX report that vindicates AES as not a contamination source. The Commission asked about cartridge filters associated with the Tampa Bay, Florida desalination plant. Mr. Owens explained that filter water is exposed to air and organisms can grow there. He continued by stating that organisms need to be removed earlier in the process. The Commission asked about the cost of water to the wholesaler. Mr. Owens responded that the cost was approximately $830 per acre-foot. The Commission asked about the Metropolitan Water District's subsidy. Mr. Owens responded that the MWD's subsidy was approximately$250 per acre- foot The Commission asked about the cost of bottled water. Mr:Owens responded that it is about $1.5 million per acre-foot. WITH NO ON ELSE PRESENT TO SPEAK, THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Discussion ensued about increased water prices and the City not being a recipient of the desalinated water produced by Poseidon. Commissioner Davis stated that the applicant has produced information on salinity levels, and AES average daily pumping that he finds to be reliable. He questioned legal issues related to the CEQA process and adding a condition of approval that requires AES to provide Poseidon with a maximum of 20% of the water.pumped during electricity production, and a finding that suggests certain mitigation measures are unnecessary. Discussion ensued about what environmental impacts are considered significant and insignificant by CEQA. Kevin Thomas, RBF Consulting, discussed the concept of"betterment", a term used by CEQA to reduce an undesirable effect. He discussed the Commission imposing conditions that mitigate impacts to protect ocean water quality, but qualified that the project was not identified as causing significant marine biological impacts. Therefore, there is no basis for requiring mitigation measures. The Commission asked about the ocean water's"dead zone" and voiced concerns about the impact from salinity levels and pipe height from the ocean floor for dilution purposes. (03pcm0812) 7�X PC Minutes August 12,2003 . Page 7 The Commission asked about bringing an existing use into conformance when. zoning laws change. Staff replied that only the portion of the existing use that ties into the new use must be in conformance. Staff further explained that AES is a conforming use within a non-conforming structure. The Commission and staff discussed scenarios related to the existing land lease agreement between the applicant and AES. The Commission discussed the strength of the AES discharge plume, and normal and worst-case scenarios related to salinity levels within the plume and how variations affect organisms and plant fife. The Commission discussed the possibility of Poseidon applying independently for a stand-alone, water production facility. A MOTION WAS MADE BY DAVIS, SECONDED BY SCANDURA, TO CERTIFY EIR NO. 00-02 AS ADEQUATE AND COMPLETE IN ACCORDANCE WITH CEQA REQUIREMENTS BY APPROVING RESOLUTION NO. 1582. The Commission discussed the large volume of project-related material and detail to review, and the difficulty in understanding overlapping jurisdictions and environmental impact issues that do not fall within the scope of the EIR. The Commission suggested that the issue of entrainment and impingement were not adequately addressed in the EIR. It was requested that the Commission delay decision until it has had adequate time to review findings within.the KOMEX report and allow various waterlstate agencies to review related material and concur with the findings of the EIR before certifying it as adequate. The Commission discussed the importance of public trust and how Huntington Beach as the lead agency on this proposed project has a responsibility to the community. The Commission suggested considering alternatives to desalination to produce potable drinking water and alternative siting (a plant location that provides the least amount of environmental impacts). The Commission discussed growth inducing impacts, including the number of gallons of drinking water produced daily, whether or not the water product should be identified as "replacement"water, and issues related to the contract with the Rancho Santa Margarita District for production of 25 million gallons of drinking water per day. It was also mentioned that 14,000 homes are planned to be built in areas surrounding Rancho Mission Viejo, that CEQA requires growth inducing impacts.be considered, and a question as to where the remaining 25 million gallons of drinking water produced daily will end up. Discussion ensued about restoration of the area designated as wetlands, and how CEQA guidelines state that public hearings gather new information that should be considered within the EIR. The Commission voiced concerns about the EIR not identifying potential impacts to the environment through increased electrical usage. (03p=0812) _ PC Minutes August 12,2003 Page 8 It was suggested that Commissioner Davis withdraw his motion to recertify the. EIR until the City, in concert with other agencies (CEC, CCC, etc.) can evaluate the project as a whole and include data collected from other agencies relative to the proposed project. Staff described the CCC's report on desalination as a broad policy document that should be used as a guidance tool only. Staff also cautioned the Commission about their role in private vs. public water ownership matters, and state agency jurisdiction. Kevin Thomas explained how the growth inducing, entrainment/impingement, wetland and energy production impacts identified by the Commission as significant were considered insignificant by expert consultants, and that an EIR is designed to evaluate prospective development at a given point in time, per circumstance, and with existing conditions. He also suggested that the Commission hear from Elaine Archibald for comments about the KOMEX Report. Elaine Archibald approached the podium to inform the Commission that she had read the KOMEX Report, and that nothing in the document contradicts the Sanitary Survey or water quality data provided in the Poseidon EIR. She read excerpts identifying four(4) conclusions found in the report including sub-thermal incline water intake, bacteria concentration during the intake/outfall process, land based sources of bacteria significant to contamination, and sanitary sewer source connections. The Commission requested that they, along with staff, be given time to review the KOMEX report, along with the CCC's report on desalination prior to making a decision on the adequacy of the EIR. The Commission made the following disclosures: Commissioner Ray spoke with Billy Owens (Applicant), Jim Adams, Lena Hayashi, Joe Geever and Marco Gonzales (Surfrider Foundation), Linda Moon, Larry Porter, Tom Luster and Allison Dittmar(CCC). Commissioner Dingwall had no disclosures to make. Commissioner Shomaker spoke with Vic Leipzig (Poseidon Resources). Chair Kokal spoke with various CCC representatives, Billy Owens.(Applicant), and responded to email correspondence. Commissioner Stanton spoke with Billy Owens (Applicant), and several members of the public. Commissioner Scandura had no disclosures to make. Commissioner Davis spoke with John Erskine, Vic Leipzig, Larry Porter, members of the public and responded to email correspondence. Commissioner Stanton called for the question: (03p=0812) ��G PC Minutes August 12,2003 Page 9 A MOTION WAS MADE BY DAVIS, SECONDED BY SCANDURA, TO CERTIFY EIR NO. 00-02 AS ADEQUATE AND COMPLETE IN ACCORDANCE WITH CEQA REQUIREMENTS BY APPROVING RESOLUTION NO. 1582, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Davis, Scandura, Stanton, Shomaker NOES: Kokal, Dingwall, Ray ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED B-2. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 02-04/COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 02-05(POSEIDON SEAWATER DESALINATION PLANT- CONTINUED FROM JULY 22, 2003 WITH PUBLIC HEARING CLOSEDI: Applicant: Poseidon Resources Corporation Request: To construct a 50 million gallons per day seawater desalination plant including a 10,120 sq. ft. administration building, a 38,090 sq. ft. reverse osmosis building, a 36,305 sq. ft. product water storage tank, and miscellaneous accessory structures on an 11 acre lease area. The proposed improvements include up to four miles of water transmission lines in Huntington Beach, one mile of which will be within the Coastal Zone, to connect to an existing regional transmission system in Costa Mesa. The project also includes perimeter landscaping and fencing along Newland Street and Edison Avenue. Location: 21730 Newland (east side, south of Edison Avenue) Proiect Planner: Ricky.Ramos, Associate Planner A MOTION WAS MADE BY STANTON, SECONDED BY SHOMAKER,TO CONTINUE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 02-04/COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 02-05(POSEIDON SEAWATER DESALINATION PLANT)WITH PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED TO AUGUST 26, 2003, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Scandura, Stanton, Kokal, Shomaker, Dingwall NOES: Davis, Ray ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED Commissioner Dingwall confirmed that he will distribute a copy of the KOMEX report on CD-Rom to the Commission and staff. B-3. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 03-081TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 16490NARIANC . 03-10 (BEL AIR RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT): Applicant: Bill Holman, Land Company Request: CUP: To construct 104 residential units on a site with de differential of three feet or greater and retaining walls two feet high or greate aximum 7 feet high). TTM: To subdivide 17.89 acres of land into 106 numBeize lots and nine (9) lettered lots for residential development purposes. The subdivisio o includes one 4.01-acre parcel to be dedicated for park purposes and one 1.36-a emnant lot for ongoing soil remediation VAR: To-allow a 10-foot building se ation in lieu of the minimum required 15-foot building separation. Location: 1880 thard ' (03p=0812) _ 5 Y i e r 5 v y iSEP. 16 2003 i !; T!,L rF: HU TP IG +ON OF SN- gavtN. Donaven 1003 SEp 148M Los Patos Avenue HuntingW&fieach, CA 92649 714/ 840 749.6 ndonavennfea.net September 13, 2003 Mayor Connie Boardman Members of the City Council 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Regarding: Poseidon Desalination Plant Dear Mayor Boardman and City Council Members: Having just read the draft report Seawater Desalination and the California Coastal Act from the California Coastal Commission,August, 2003, I felt it necessary to bring to you some of the concerns which I personally feel regarding the establishment of private desalination plants along the California coast. I. Use of public resources All of the facilities, whether public or private, can be growth inducing. The Poseidon plant which has been requested in Huntington Beach would use 50 to 100 million gallons per day of seawater. An important question for Huntington Beach is what will the city gain from accommodating the Poseidon desalination plant. Other questions which arise are the following: Do we want our coastline and ocean water used for a proprietary facility with no gain to the City of Huntington Beach? And do we want to allow proprietary interests to have control over one of our most important resources? Studies are underway to determine the effect of desalination power needs on the electric grid of the state. II. Multinational trade restrictions and rules "Multinational corporations are at the forefront of the drive to privatize public serving water systems around the country and in the world." (*P. 23, see below) Some of the current international trade agreements have the potential to allow these corporations to disregard local rules and regulations. Poseidon Resources, has international partnerships with a number of companies including Suez and U. S. Filter which is a subsidiary of 1 Vivendi, a French firm which has just purchased 45,000 acres of farmland in the Imperial Valley with water rights totaling approximately 250,000 acre-feet per year. This represents 8% of the water use of San Diego County. It is well to remember that under world trade agreements"California's phase-out of MTBE was successfully challenged as a-barrier to free trade or investment by Methanex Corporation which is now seeking $970 million in damages" from the State of California *P 26 Multinationals could interfere with compliance with CEQA as well as other local laws. The international trade agreements give a tribunal of international corporate representatives control over the disagreements many international corporations might have with local regulations. There is no appeal from their decisions. III. Private vs. public desalination facilities Currently there are 12 desalination plants along the California Coast with a total capacity of 2.75 MGD. In addition there are some fairly small plants located on offshore platforms with capacities ranging from 2 to 30 thousand gallons per day. Public, government, and non-profit facilities account for 719,000 gallons per day while private, proprietary facilities for 1,598,000 per day. There are 16 desalination plants proposed for the coast in addition to the'two proposed by Poseidon. The 2 proposed by Poseidon are by far the largest of all of them. Most of the other proposed plants are planned for public agencies and even the Poseidon plant proposed for Carlsbad is joint with the San Diego Water Authority. The Huntington Beach plant stands alone as being one of the largest and also being a private facility. Public facilities seem to have some immunity from the international trade agreements which private companies do not have. It seems then that public facilities have a leg up over the private from the point of view of environmental regulation and international trade agreements. *Page numbers quoted above are from the Draft Report"Seawater Desalination and the C.al fvrniu Coastul Act,".Cali fornia Coastal Commission, August, 2003. Thank you for taking the time to read this. I believe it is a very important subject for our city. Sincerely, e< Copy to: Huntington:Beach Planning Commission 2 x,,y� �. r ry F'� `V T t(S Y. iST i tY: s ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 00-02 Poseidon Seawater Desalination Plant E I R NO. 00-02 o Analyzes potential environmental impacts from development of: ✓_ a 50 MGD desalination plant on 11 acre lease area at AES property ✓ up to 10 miles of water transmission lines to connect to regional system ✓two off-site booster pumps in Irvine and unincorporated Orange County ® Documents potential impacts in nine issue areas ® Evaluates four alternatives to the original project BACKGROUND May 2001 —NOP circulated for 30 days June 2001 —Public scoping meeting held Sept 2002— Draft EIR circulated for 45 days Mar 2003— Response to comments completed Summer 2003—Planning Commission conducted hearings and certified the EIR APPEAL Planning Commission's certification of the EIR appealed based on inadequate - analysis of the project's impacts relative to ocean water quality, marine biology, growth inducement, and the adjacent wetland. 2 ANALYSIS ® Ocean Water Quality and Marine Biology ✓ Analysis based on hydrodynamic model,watershed sanitary survey, and marine biology analysis, among others ✓ Watershed sanitary survey conducted to identify all potential sources of contamination to source water ✓ Source water model looked at possible constituents of source water at AES ✓ Model looked at worst-case scenario and considered discharges from Santa Ana River,Talbert Marsh,OCSD, and AES outfall. ANALYSIS ® Ocean Water Quality ✓Receiving water model looked at mixing and dilution of concentrated discharge during worst-case and average conditions .,'Modeling was reviewed and verified by Dr. Stanley Grant ANALYSIS • Growth Inducement ✓ Focused on relationship between new supply and demand projections for Orange County and surrounding area ✓ EIR concludes that much of product water will be allocated to replace existing imported supplies that will be lost ✓ Product water is <1% of total supply for South Coast Region and <8% of total supply for Orange County ✓ Product water not enough to keep pace with long-term projected growth ANALYSIS • Adjacent Wetland ✓EIR considers potential impacts in regards to spill of product or byproduct water, noise, lighting, air quality, urban runoff/stormwater, erosion, and nesting birds ✓Buffering provided by existing concrete containment berm considered 4 ANALYSIS ® EIR complies with the requirements of CEQA: ✓Analyzed potential impacts ✓Analyzed alternatives which may lessen/avoid impacts ✓Identified mitigation measures to address significant impacts RECOMMENDATION - ® Staff recommends certification of EIR No. 00- 02 because: Complies with requirements of CEQA ✓Adequately analyzes project impacts -. Potentially significant impacts have been eliminated or substantially lessened ✓Unavoidable significant impact found acceptable due to overriding considerations END OF PRESENTATION OCZ ATTACHMENT 4 Ramos, Ricky From: Tim Geddes [timgeddes@msn.com] Sent: Tuesday, August 16, 2005 10:53 PM To: rramos@surfcity-hb.org Subject: Poseidon REIR Comments Ricky, Please note the correction in the first paragraph. I meant to say Hamilton and not Banning (too much Banning Bridge on the mind) . Tim Tim Geddes 21802 Windsong Circle Huntington Beach, CA 92646 (714) 962-5924 timgeddes@msn.com Ricky, It was pleasure meeting you this afternoon, and I appreciate the time and effort you extended in discussing my concerns regarding the Poseidon REIR. I pointed out my favorite example of the REIR's inadequacy, namely the shameless way it treats the necessity of installing its water transmission line (Appendix G) from the plant site up Newland, and across Hamilton to Brookhurst (and subsequently up Brookhurst to Adams) . As we discussed, and you researched, the REIR makes no mention of the necessity of changes made in the original EIR in order to deal with the Poseidon pipeline having to "get around" the OC Sanitation District 108" sewer line going north/south on Bushard. At the intersection of Bushard and Hamilton, it is estimated that the OCSD pipe is trenched more than 20 feet deep. The damage done by this misinstallation, which had precipitated heavy litigation, is well-known (caused especially by the extensive dewatering necessary to install the pipe as well as the heavy equipment impacts and the trenching involved) . Any documents dated April 5, 2005 should have both known about this major negative impact and should have specifically addressed it with impacts and mitigation strategies. The Poseidon REIR totally ignores this major topic in its Appendix G. This, naturally, is unconscionable and presents prima facie evidence that this part of the REIR is inadequate. That the REIR (Appendix G) does not address this salient source of negative impacts does not absolve the applicant from the responsibility of dealing with this obvious and perhaps intentional oversight before the vote on the REIR by the City Council. The failure of the REIR to deal with such a well-known and potentially disastrous source of negative impacts precludes any consideration of the REIR being certifiable because the resulting impacts and mitigation measures are not even mentioned. It would be impossible to attach conditions (under a CUP) to such a massive undertaking without any impacts and mitigation steps (reflecting the true circumstances) to condition. It would be, in my opinon, irresponsible to allow the City Council to vote on a project that is so inadequate in dealing with direct impacts to residential neighborhoods in our city. You must agree that we are not talking about the normal installation of up to a 48" water line with no impediements or problems associated with it. Also unmentioned by the REIR (and Appendix G) is the potentially disastrous collision of projects on Hamilton between Newland and Magnolia with the projected clean-up of the Ascon site. The water i transmission line along Hamilton would go right along the berm that holds in the Ascon hazardous materials. Major truck traffic, clean-up and construction activities would potentially be conducted during the Poseidon water transmission line installation along the northern boundary of the site. The DTSC and the Responsible Parties conducting the clean-up have indicated that there will be no "interference" with their activities tolerated during the clean-up which is projected to go on for many months (up to two years) . This is the State of California talking (which obviously trumps any local jurisdictions) . Again, this is an unconscionable (and perhaps deliberate) oversight in an EIR purporting to deal with real impacts and genuine mitigation strategies. Please produce from either Public Works or the QC Sanitation District an accurate representation of the sewer pipe and its installation facts as it goes up Bushard and traverses Hamilton. Please endeavor to discover exactly how deep the pipe is set as it crosses Hamilton and what the best practices mitigation steps would be to install the projected Poseidon water transmission line "around it" . The OCSD people are naturally very touchy about anything else potentially- affecting the job they have messed up to begin with. I believe there is an engineering formula for how much separation is necessary between pipes of that size that cross each other. That would also be useful to know. Please also check with any of the written responses to the REIR that might bear on this topic (remember it must specifically address the points that I have made) . Please also check with the applicant to determine what responses they intend to make regarding this obvious deficiency in their REIR documents. If the applicant decides to not respond (in effect to "shine it on") , then the staff has a duty to inform the City Council that the applicant is not being responsive and acting in good faith. I am sure that you would agree that what I have presented to you are not nebulous concerns but real "brick and mortar" impacts that must be addressed satisfactorily before the REIR is considered by the City Council. Please look into my requests, and get back to me if you have any further questions. I look foward to hearing from you soon. Thank you again for being responsive to my concerns. Tim Geddes 2 ' Page 1 of 2 Bazant, Denise From: Fikes, Cathy Sent: Thursday, July 28, 2005 11:25 AM To: Bazant, Denise Subject: FW: Vote NO on Desalination -----Original Message----- From: Paul DeMers [mailto:paul@themediamaster.com] Sent: Thursday, July 28, 2005 11:08 AM To: city.council@surfcity-hb.org Cc: Pat Dapkus; Cathy Fikes Subject: Vote NO on Desalination July 28, 2005 Dear Council People, We do not need another "loss-leader"for our fair city. We have a polluted ocean, an over-priced, unfinished, un-used athletic field, corrupt City Officials, illegal aliens, an aged AES power plant and historical and mystical closed beaches to worry about. Please vote NO on this water desalination project. We don't need the problems, costs, excuses or added air/water pollution. Above all,we do not need the attention that failure will bring o our town. You want tourism dollars to fill the Hotels? Why would anyone want to come to the beaches of Huntington Beach when they smell like crap and are posted for contamination? What half-wit event planner or tour coordinator is going to want the potential for lawsuits by selling huge blocks of tourists on the quality of our beaches? Let's see. I'm planning on booking 500 Corporate executives for a meeting/family vacation package. Where should I send them? Huntington Beach? Newport Beach? Laguna Beach? Huuuuummm. Huntington is the boondoggle capital of the Coast. It is also the West-most Industrial City with fine power plants,wonderful smelling treatment plants and now, the best defunct desal plant on the Coast. Wow! I'm going to book these folks for Huntington! Not! You are spending money trying to entice visitors to our City and you want to further pollute the very reason they would come here? What are you thinking? Don't be stupid! Poseidon is thinking you are as dumb as a post. Their"water treatment" project is as much of a joke as is their history and concept. Please prove them wrong. Drive a stake into the heart of the beast before we need to do it for you. Move on to more important issues. The facts of the matter speak for themselves; Poseidon tried to build a desal plant in Florida and they failed. The construction was not as required. The funding 7/28/2005 Page 2 of 2 .4 was not secure. The ideas were flawed. The concept was banlrupt before they even started. Then, Poseidon relaxed on the fact that they were only the brokers in the deal and that everything that went wrong was the fault of some other company. They continue to shift blame for their failure but try to focus attention on their successes. If a broker is not responsible for the loss, why would they be responsible for a success? Poseidon has shown no interest in exposing their problems. They have protected the problem discovery process and disclosures within a contracted "proprietary information" clause in their contracts. Litigation has been worthless. Their filters clogged as soon as the machines were activated. They will not disclose the design features that failed. Why would they? They remain unmoved in their pursuit of our money. Florida has had to pay millions to close their plant. The plant has never worked at capacity. The few gallons of water produced were not spec'd as contracted and the cost per gallon produced would never have been acceptable if disclosed at the initial proposal stages. The environmental stability of our coast is already a joke. Millions of gallons of shit are already being pumped into our ocean every hour of the day and you wonder why we don't want some foul company to come in here to make it worse? We are stuck with a low-quality, non-responsive Government water treatment plant on our backside. Why do we need another open sore to make matters worse? The high concentrations of effluents will pollute the water, kill the ocean and cost us millions when it fails... and we don't need this idea anyway. Cut back on the nightly, gutter soaking, algae-producing over watering programs. Concervation would be more than enough to supplement the amounts being used now. Build small retention dams in the Santa Ana River. Allow that runoff water to be filtered and reinserted into the groundwater system. Build small dams up stream and in the mountains to conserve water for fire protection and wildlife. Restrict the purchase and use of automatic watering systems that spill over sidewalks and streets. Las Vegas has done this with great results. Require new land use permits to use removed/replaced premium soild instead of the clay substrate now used. The clay dries out, will not hold water and will not permit plant seedlings to root and hold because of the dry, dense structure. Water sheets off dry clay, wasting the majority of the very material that Poseidon wants to "make". VOTE NO ON POSEIDON I VOTE NO ON DESALINATION 1 Paul, Judi and Corey DeMers 5422 Caliente Drive Huntington Beach 92649 714.846.0982 7/28/2005 Dear Council.Members: ®ear Council Members: RECEIVED 1 am opposed to Poseidon's plans for a Desalination am opposed to Poseidon's plans for a Desalination Plant in SEHB. Plant in HB. Do no support this project. JU( 2 ,72()05 CITY OFHU41NGTONdEAOf, We already have the AES Power Plant, the Sewage Our city already has the AES Power PlafDtel{an TIONOFFICE Treatment Plant, the NEST Toxic Dump Site, and a the Sewage Plant that dump 750,000,000 gallons City Maintenance Yard in our neighborhood. of waste into the ocean at Huntington Beach daily. -�� �3 �,�},�, „�,,� �, uw �,°., �0�-IVED tl�fED Poseidon's plan will make our ocean dirtier and - No more industrialization of our neigh jeopardize Huntington Beach's tourism industry. - No more pollution for our neighborhood! JUL 2 _7 ?005 Name b�\510 �-�e Y` CITY`U�HUl�ilivulu�� N Patti aaen l ��iti111 f��l Dry Name 21912StarfireLn. ' Iiuntmgtn l3eh.,CA 9264 � 41D NOFFICE' 6 Address Address `.' g�{�/zD �1% Signature (�� S nature .�lOr1iL _.......5 ,.:. �,T 1� Dear Council Members: Dear Council Members: I am opposed to oseidon's ns for a Desal' on I am o os to Poseidon's plans for a Desalination Plant in SEHB. SST S Plant in HB. Do 4support this project. N© We already have the AES Power Plant, the Our city already has the AES Power Plant and Treatment Plant, the NEST Toxic Dump Site, and a the Sewage Plant that dump 750,0009000 gallons City Maintenance Yard in our neighborhood. of waste into the ocean at Hu tington Beach daily. YUe �,nC�uc�c1 �e r - No more industrialization of our neighborhood! 2e.ar5 J '. Poseidon's plan will ma cl our ocean irtier and - No more pollution for our neighborhood! jeopardize Huntington Beach's tourism ift�J;Y, L) Name \opteet) C�IVV�� Name 20 JUL 2 8 05 Address _:._ ..... _._. ,ITY 1� ru t JUL 2 7 2005 .Address � [[ � AD t T 1ATN�� . _..) CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH Signature ADMINISTRATION OFFICE 'f/F ' /J/jJ7 ,G/l [ j. ---- TIM GEDDES 21802 Windsong Circle Huntington Beach, CA 92646 (714) 962-5924 tinigeddes("u,msn.coni To: Huntington Beach City Council July 28, 2005 Re: Poseidon Questionnaire (Poll) &Presentation of Findings Dear Mayor Jill Hardy and City Council Members:,, In June 2005, a Poseidon Resources-backed poll was conducted (by Kelton Research and M4 Strategies) to ostensibly gauge public support for Poseidon's desalination plant project. The self-serving results of this poll were published in a local newspaper mis- characterized as "news". This touched off a firestorm of criticism aimed at both Poseidon and the local newspaper in question. Poseidon initially resisted releasing both the poll questions and the analysis that led to the conclusions reported in the article. It is my understanding that this material was recently given to members of the City Council. Eventually, Council member Don Hansen provided this information upon request to members of the Southeast Huntington Beach community, most particularly to the Southeast Huntington Beach Neighborhood Assn. (SEFIBNA), which naturally has a major interest in this issue. I have served on the SEHBNA Executive Board for the last few years and have been active in area civic affairs. While my remarks in this communication may be shared by many in my part of the city, they are entirely my own. I have reviewed both the Poseidon Questionnaire and the "Presentation of Results"that constituted the analysis of the findings. As a former public relations executive, specializing in public affairs and governmental relations, I am well acquainted with the motives and modus operandi of these particular polls. They contain seemingly innocuous but leading questions designed to point largely uninformed respondents toward supportive conclusions and away from negative responses or, in many instances, the real issues of the case. The analysis of this slanted questionnaire then makes wholly subjective assertions that are not based upon a thorough and balanced treatment of how respondents would answer if they were in possession of the facts or reasoned arguments on both sides of the issue. The analysis is then"dressed up" with interesting but inconclusive demographic information that is designed to give the appearance of fair and honest professional research. Nothing could be further from the truth. Poseidon's questionnaire is built upon the false premise of a water shortage facing Huntington Beach. You will notice from the results of Question#1 of the poll (dealing with the biggest problems facing the city today) that "water shortage" (as differentiated from water quality) is not even mentioned. The questionnaire then compounds its initial false premise by implying in its questions that desal water from Poseidon's `water treatment"plant would be available to and even intended for the citizens of Huntington Beach. This is false and misleading. The property tax benefit alluded to in Question# 10 is not qualified in any way, and none of the "accountability measures" alluded to in Question# 11 are spelled out at all. The "Support for Desalination" section brazenly and shamelessly concludes with Question#12 dealing with support for"politicians who bring a desalination water treatment facility to Huntington Beach." It is obvious that this question Letter to Huntington Beach City Council, page two 7-28-05 and the bogus analysis following the questionnaire are designed to provide "cover" for City Council members who are intended to vote for Poseidon's project. With no instructive attempts to deal with all of the issues surrounding the construction of a desalination plant in Huntington Beach, and with the questionnaire's misleading premises, it would be false and unjustified to give this self-serving poll any currency or credibility whatsoever. The "Council Impressions" section is enlightening in a ironic way. It clearly shows that the poll respondents are not familiar with their elected representatives on the City Council. Over half of the respondents were "not familiar" at all with each of the seven Council members. With three Council members, this unfamiliarity topped 70%. With the "Don't know/refused" category factored in, the unfamiliarity index rose to at least 60% for all Council members, with three of them(Hansen, Bohr, and Coerper at 76%, 80%, and 82% respectively) not registering with over three quarters of those surveyed. And this is supposed to reflect the allegedly informed and involved Huntington Beach electorate? This section, if anything, underscores the crying need for a `well-informed" City Council to represent and even protect the interests of Huntington Beach citizens who are not aware of what is at stake with major issues in their city. In the "Poll Overview/Findings"page, it is stated in no uncertain terms that the "Residents of Huntington Beach overwhelmingly support desalination(75%)"; a bogus claim based upon the bogus data of a bogus questionnaire. On the contrary, I suspect that the residents of Huntington Beach, at least the ones polled in this questionnaire, know little or nothing about the issues of desalination or the plans for Poseidon Resources to build a desalination plant in our city. They certainly know next to nothing about the drawbacks or negative impacts of the project. Would a grasp of the other side of the "desal argument" (not just unaided open responses) influence the responses cited in the poll? I definitely believe that they would. As I have stated, the findings of this poll are more than suspect, they are grossly misleading. To extrapolate any kind of"overwhelming" public support for this project from this "research"is dangerously overreaching. As was stated previously, one of the motives for conducting a self-serving poll like this is to offer "cover" for any Council member to approve the project based upon the poll's "findings". Now that the modus operandi of Poseidon Resources and its agents has been exposed, it is incumbent upon the members of the City Council to disregard or even decry the results of this deceptive effort. I urge you not to give this document any credence whatsoever. Sincerely, Tim Geddes Page 1 of 1 Bazant, Denise .From: Fikes, Cathy Sent: Monday, July 25, 2005 4:10 PM To: Bazant, Denise Subject: FW: "Surf City" or industrial beach (Desalination Plant) -----Original Message----- From: mariaepiccolo@aol.com [mailto:mariaepiccolo@aol.com] Sent: Thursday, July 21, 2005 10:08 PM To: city.council@surfcity-hb.org Cc: sehbna@yahoogroups.com; hbindy@latimes.com; Pat Dapkus; Cathy Fikes Subject: "Surf City" or industrial beach (Desalination Plant) Dear Huntington Beach City Councilmembers: While I do not profess to be an expert on the desalination plant I can tell you that I, as a resident of southeast Huntington Beach, am saddened to see the deterioration of the neighborhood I live in and cannot imagine what it will be like for my one and two-year old sons in the coming years, especially if the city council approves the desalination plant. For the last 4 years my husband and I have been unable to enter the sea near where we live because every time we go to the beach at Magnolia it is flagged as being unsafe due to the bacteria levels. While no conclusive evidence confirms the power plant's system is at fault it seems a no-brainer that the power plant is the culprit (funny how other nearby beach cities, who do not have power plants in their city, do not have this constant bacteria problem). My residential neighborhood sits between the county's sewer plant and the desalination plant. I wonder if any of you live in southeast Huntington Beach, and if you did, would you truly give serious consideration to a company that has burned its bridges and broken its promises made to other city's that mistakenly made their deal with this devil. We often have visitors come from the east coast and every single one of them asks about the ugly power plant which is visible from our back yard. I wonder if you are in denial about the tourists coming to our city not noticing the "Unsafe to Swim" signs less than a mile from where they are paying hundreds of dollars a night to vacation? You are each in a position where you can be heroes to our neighborhood and the city at large by declining once and for all the desalination plant or, in the alternative, being remembered five years from now as the group who is responsible for the deterioration of the city's air, beaches and surrounding neighborhoods because you could not take your eyes of the golden buck the desalination plant was holding in front of you, blinding you to the better good of the city you were voted in to serve. I will leave you with one question, and ask that each of you seriously consider this: Is your future vision of Huntington Beach one of industry (think San Pedro) or that of "Surf City", the tourism attraction (think Laguna Beach). I know which one I prefer to live in. Doesn't it make sense to have the City make money on tourism as opposed to the desalination plant. You can't have it both ways. Thank you for considering my concerns and I pray that you will make the right decision for the City, for me and most especially for the future of my babies. 7/25/2005 ®ear Council Mem ers Dear Council Members: 1 ahiiopposed to Po serdon's,plans for a Desalination p am opposed to .Poseidon's plans for a Desalination Plant m SEH :� Plant in SEHB. We already have tpe AES Power Plant, the Sewage We alread Y::have the AES Power Plant, the Sewage Treatment Plant, the NESI 'Toxic pump Site, and,a Treatment Plant' the NESI Toxic Dump:Site, and a MaintennceVaCety rd in our,neighborhood. City Maintenance Yard yin over neighl orho - No rr>lore industrialmzation of our neighb®rhood! No more industrialization of.our neighborhood!, _..�® more pollution for our neighborhood! - No more pollution for our.neighborhood! RECEIVE[. Name RECEIVED Name .ciz,�j� � y y/ JUL 2 6 2wo AddressL 1 C � 4� II!I2 6 2005 Address 4A YOF HUN'llvu}-UN 3k ,v� � 5_ ylW4 DMINISTRATION OFFII(' , ( mil p CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH �`.1J ' V ADMINISTRATION OFFICE Signature Signature G ? Dear Council Members: 1 aim opposed to Poseidon's plans for.a Desalination / c d AJ001-6-w '-v Plant in SEI �. " Vl/e°already:haee the AES Powee' Plaeat, the sewage �, a JUL 2 6 2005 'Treatment P1ant, the NESI Toxgc Demp site, and.'a CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH zit j/ Maintenance Yard in our reighborhood ADMINt RATION OFFICE S endustriaaatm000ur neighborhood!No x ®r No more.pollut dinfor our nemghborhood. /at n ..Name .' F lit Vat.. r Y ysj Address Signature lilfir' ��"��° �C4��1�@� Rk9�Q�.6" Ierse (� pp �0 .r + �V,e/ f i yk k `� Q am ! "poset�' to'YP�16 �a�on` p�ae�a fora ®esale�cat�on' G,��,/-s- ��- ��'_j',a-�ir�^'/r�a vim ` EC: IVY® Punt't ier�{ H x: lv�, �' 22 ` N, P yQh`�d'�g/l�7f6, �'P�enV ,, O ' �' �-. (-{, tom. Vile amready have''thll,e qi� P,, er Plant, the Se�►a e l/`� JUL 25-2005F'ie t HUNTING �re�:n' a Ala ' tll� ���°,`��X9C llll®8Bn1� �pte� an�.a O �tVv TON 9EACr "` ,t //� (� (,,C (j o l� d�` P.4l,NiSTRATIQN QFFICE [� ` C i".', iln e�aan�e Yard Nn our neig.hb orl_aoodm Y / " J 1 f 1� { lr� V 4 t t f j ( ' - 1 y ''' 1 1 - r L 14-^.-1'S 5L"'A•4rtr� TiI �' /gyp".. ,:�.�- l� ;`r No ;nroore And a�I �►�ioi� d gur neag1borhoodl / Q / x /J�c ra /� '>. No `more po 1.llut7.eoq for bur "ea9 -.hoods (:�,>(e— (r�,/ 7" 6 40 f addres1.s �: �'�-, !.t � L� ������1. ' _ _ .. . __ h�ih ©� , �h, I �'/ I ADMINiSTAgTIpN OFF b ICi SigmL.a#Hare 4 MA /. � � ; ,,�-�:—�,:, , re I ',,�_--,�.,,_.— . , — — .. _ '' ii� ,, 4� - �4 ' . �� , — �a�aA' Qaaln,�sl iWaberso - —�,;;�r-,r-.�',-���,-', ,,!�����,:����,.�,�:�7�,',����,:��",�:,���`,';��.� , ,��'t , —, I >w,-:-- - —, �. -,�;[— :" � -"';,:��—�:�, Y �. �! r t '� r n ,r Zr , , j , S i w �.�' !.;a n 'fir.;:' �� 1' f 1. r w a ,,.. ..... ,: ., .,, ca' �►n` #ans�_fo ®eaalanaaaonJ ,Deaa' �o ancel Mem ers: ` q arxappoed to Poi d s �.I 1" r a Pant in S z,. .,�. 1. ,,, used I Roseedon s, lens fora ®es 6�ela eon. :, �� 1: r} '� 1. ny�� , r, tt t._ , i,, ., - ,a - ,d. �.. t Y ti,,,,, �� .e.:: e a e I ., �:P�ar .. ���a ® n a o thi:: ®'ect ale°ead gee h;e,AES owre "P��,arat , h ► I „� ;: R� v. r pp .�,_;. r �,..,,. ,,o ....,u .,.a.;p .� i ..., /� ,..... 7 1�� F..^C 1 1 S t ;;g;®at ®n :Ala t .th,e.�� Sl Toxic Du— S e a. d ,,.,,'. , <. , . :MAR—n. .. qq" 2., ...... - ......I (y��.:: ....:� �.... ... R� �.-$ S :... ,w.S p ....,: .a.,... .R,! i." r t .,r :•rt 5� ,ta �. dr �.� } t€ .,e .-:. ...,,,: ;, , ,:,..,t :t ,.. z. , i I. a ntenano �a d:m�.. o�ae::nea � o.rho,od. ®8a@t~ oaty ��cad�/ tpaa �e DES Pow�e�° Plao�t and .at. a. . .. .. a l� r _. �a �. 1 ...... .. ,.._-.; .. - . -. .: t. I ..L is-:.L4 ,f `A t9..... �,. ..,..., ,.,... .,.,,,. ..:,,.. 1. ..{ 7 the e e�Pla.ea A ',,7 j ._ at � , �o o�® o,� g c� I do �-�, , N�, s .,.t. .�,.,. 1 .. '.i .':,.1 t k S s.. 4 2.. r w � �, 4 c :�. �. si �.� .;,�. �, 41t �, c# ., ..�..: .....-4,x *....., . �� ... tie �..>. c t: ., W. S za' t 4 n'' ,, t tin 1 O e ���Q a► a .,. a ::. a� t ,' t. �`� h a �:,, ore ... tra ���atao o ; .nea hor�mood9., A � n n n�, n _. P!®:ia1 a t� �. ,. .4! 9 9 .. Y .,F _,..,. S-.... r.e.l , ,__ '�,.. s .,.. .r• I.. t ,_._.i; :iv .. ':..P G 3 -,1 J "c n t .. ! .I r.. f, ..._. t . . , ..,,.,..:. r ,./y ,::,"., h ,1 ..�, k .y:, r. ..::'� ;i: ",.': ® ur h' o:!.! Y.fi' 73 „5. ( �B ...�::. :':� ":Y.., .,'.n C'. �'. .v. N, .�m®re,; ollutAo�n„f r o,. ne 1a rh ... d y .,�. �� � ,� ,,., F .. 11lll . 4,s �.-. �,. ..- .� ,'l�, .��, o n.. ;., n,. it k o. r >i se d a wr h u ocean.:.d rt a and. —� 7 ,ti .,,:; .. :, n ....: � , r .�_: II J s� �.„ .,. ,:_ :, ..1, , a.,�.. -a, . 7,I -.,. e. �,., r;x ,: 1! ^ ,,.,::�. a d, ;r. ,^ �. ,. �u � } x.. ,krs, �: ,_), eoardaze, :unk�n on�-;6�ea 'h s touris II .du... ,�, ��//'A .:.,F . , �. m,e,;, ///) r: `('�4_ :. .� a r �,�� �; fit . �:,, - RIM ,- :.i .,.4.,t r-44111 t. ,d n ll,f.] ,.. I t - i" ..; r , x =. z „, :::.� .5,,. 1 a t �,:., .:.�,. ,:..:... , l �:r,; ��... I ... I �.. +(.h III'l'�iu,h lYt al'.. 1. YLLZ f ��qq\Q Adl .. i,:.: (� t� i-...-^' r. t n:.r � :.fit.,}i .S,, ` et ... Ill �.. , 1 ,,...... ( I F. .� 5 ,.5., N ...r.. .�...,. ...,... <.. '.t ,:.. ,,.... 1 .'A...n.,. r.1..._ J ,., L 1 1' t. .. ,:.� .11�:, 1 ;, i y . .,, r ,;..,. r.. _1. ., , v..i,... ...: r A,p " Y •: , a,: r i dP�.'ss rt �,. .k �. �� ,::�,.,. Y 4 , „ , _ ,� '` H ., :�.� i , © INI:ST . . r. .,:t , �r N C� R1 :. ,.,: . Sa �. w�.. r �; ., , 11 1-11 J i - x. �i. r r - �,., 05. , rye s' �' .�.,�. � �� v , .. .,. ..,.. , �i.. ,�.:. , -:c,,, r, s. �. ,c. 7 t, r. , ,.,,, y,,. ,, x �r .;c .� , ;. a;,i dy�f{.�.-.'t:.':.,u$c•ti.:?,,•kk.� _�:h�>9:{1 �..����..".a.__.t:.J,......:.�u�.w� • William Goodfellowp IffHuntington 1381 Au to Ci oh' .•, �,Beac CA 92646-7539 M W Goodfellow 11't 1,2 1"97 f / ' n �v TL/•�j /�q�//J�a u a t ( 11", ' f S, d. t Www.h- bdesalfacts.or_ The s i On Desalination Plant is ®n r Huntington Beach Poseidon, an out-of state corporation with a record of failure at Tampa Bay, Florida, wants to build the largest U.S. desalination plant in H.B. next to the AES power plant. The FIB City Council will vote on this issue later this summer. Why this is bad for FIB: 0 • Desalinated ocean water is 2 to 4 times more expensive for rate payers. • Poseidon's ONLY desalination plant, in Tampa Bay, Florida, has been a huge and costly failure for the taxpayers—three years after it was "completed." • Pont aii for'ePle Coi'poi.atius e's zcarb tag. call'! rvat� conservation is already working in California and ocean desalination is not needed in our area. • Huntington Beach will NOT receive any water from the project. This auxiliary water supply will encourage urban sprawl elsewhere in Orange County. • If there is a desalination plant, it should be located closer to the areas it would serve. Poseidon will use techniques that increase rather than minimize ocean pollution. • The project will disrupt local neighborhoods in SEHB, and Costa Mesa with construction of a 10-mile long pipeline. The AES power plant, already a pollution making dinosaur that needs to be shut down, will be enshrined. , • Property taxes from the desalination plant will be lost if the plant is sold to a public agency. Poseidon is a broker, not an operator. ® At this point, Poseidon Inc. has NO known buyers for the water. Located in a redevelopment area, it will be eligible for bond financing that would require taxpayers to.pay the interest onl r8 .i • .�'inCtRnnThP Pose-don.SreL: reca9 - � Eti4 Wr ^n discourage tourism, thus harming our local economy. The public will LOSE control over a publicly owned water resource to a private corporation that is responsible to stockholders, not to the public. Water privatization is a growing concern world wide that has increased profits for a few, but has failed to serve the public well. • Under international treaties, the public could lose the right to hold a multinational operator of the plant accountable for pollution control. • Go to our web site at www.hbdesalfacts.org for much more information, including reports,studies and news articles on desalination and general water issues. 'let WHAT YOU AN DO: . Contact your 1­113 City Council. ;JU1 2 The will be voting on Poseidon. Let our voice be hearth c,n of Z�G Y 9 y Ht�ly r 1N( ire�} , E-mail address: city.counc1l(a_surtcity-hb.org ADM1N15TgArla�,aFFrC Or write to: H13 City Council, 2000.Main Street, FI13, CA 92646 y Another reason to stop Poseidon: Experts Fear Marine Disaster in Desalination. By Wendy Frew, Environment Reporter June 27, 2005, from The Sydney Morning Herald, Australia The construction of a desalination plant on Sydney's coastline could be disastrous-f'or the area's aquatic life, with one expert likening the facility's giant intake pipe to a vacuum cleaner Critics of a State Government proposal for a large desalination plant, to turn sea water into drinking water, are most concerned about the large amount of greenhouse gases associated with a plant's energy use. However, overseas research has shown the greatest sin le ecological problem associated with a plant's operation is the death of marine organisms sucked into:rts equipment. "You are basically sticking a vacuum cleaner out in the ocean to pull the water in for the2 ant ," said 5-soci?te Professor Greg Leslie, a.water expert at the Ur*ersity of I'vj'v1i. The Premier, Bob Carr, on Tuesday called for expressions of interest for the construction of a desalination plant that would be built somewhere on.Sydney's coast if the city's dams fell below 30 per cent of capacity. As of Thursday, the dams were at,37.9 per cent. The plant could provide as much as 500 megalitres of drinking water a day, or a third of Sydney's water supply. Engineering experts said a desalination plant's intake pipe also represented a maintenance nightmare because seaweed and barnacles would have to be removed from screens inside the pipe and because of the shorter lifetime for equipment in contact with sea water and the highly"aggressive"pure water produced by the plant. Designing an intake pipe that would minimise these problems would be one of the most difficult parts of construction and could represent as much as 20 per cent of the capital cost of the entire plant, a December 2004 report by the Texas Water Development Board said. "Environmental impacts associated with concentrate discharge have historically been considered the greatest single ecological impediment when siting a seawater desalination facility," the report said. "However, recent analyses have noted that marine life impingement and entrainment associated with intake designs were greater, harder-to-qualify concerns and may represent the most significant direct adverse environmental impact of seawater desalination." This view was backed up by the former deputy director of the Californian Department of Water Resources, JCn= "'ii 7ton, who naw works for t1 a environment advocacy group Planning and Conservation. He told a conference in Monterey last year that conservation should be California's main water option because it had "10 times as much potential as desalination" and.none of the environmental damage. 'Virtually everything that comes into a desalination plant is killed," a report on the conference quoted Mr mton as saying. Another challenge would be the dispersal of brine waste. By some estimates, the larger of the two plants being considered by the Carr Government would add 1.5 billion litres of brine a day to the ocean. A Total Environment Centre campaigner, Leigh Martin, said it was reasonable to assume this would change marine habitats. However, the chief executive of the industry group the Australian Water Association, Chris Davis, said a plume of brine emanating from a plant could be broken up by the strong ocean currents along Sydney's coastline. From the Sydney Morning Herald in Australia http://www,smh.com.au/news/nation al/experts-fea r-marine-disaster-in-desa lination/2005/06/26/1119724531138.htmi Page 1 of 1 Bazant, Denise < .. From: Dapkus, Pat Sent: Thursday, July 14, 2005 2:01 PM To: Bazant, Denise Subject: FW: POSEIDON -----Original Message----- From: KAY MYLOD [mailto:kaymylod@hotmail.com] Sent: Thursday, July 14, 2005 7:10 AM To: CITY.000NCIL@SURFCITY-HB.ORG Cc: Pat Dapkus; Cathy Fikes Subject: POSEIDON 7/14105 DEAR COUNCIL MEMBERS. AFTER THE ARTICLE IN THE wave TODAY REGARDING BACKGROUND ON POSEIDON, I DO NOT SEE HOW ANY OF YOU FOR LEGITIMATE REASONS COULD VOTE FOR POSEIDON. THEY DO NOT SEEM TO HAVE ANY CUSTOMERS AND WE DO NOT NEED THE WATER. THIS COMPANY IS A FAILURE AND, I DO BELIEVE WE CITIZENS WOULD HAVE OUR DOUBTS WHY ANY OF YOU WOULD VOTE FOR THIS FIASCO. LET US SEE WHAT HAPPENS. KAY MYLOD, HUNTINGTON BEACH,CA KAYMYLODghotmail.com 7/14/2005 . S '7 4''e-1.f��i'. I e s a' _ ZY-�'���;���'_�-,,,"--�,'�:.--'�I���.�-1,..�-��,'--I�'-;--.''r I,�-�.�,-w-..r,"-�.,"."'"��--�-,z..-.:�;�.;._--�-.;.,,'--..-,;'��-',"-..j'-,���.-�',�7�-i''�S��,�;,i��.�----,.'�-�'�7 1*-":,''�,.',I�,-.'".'­"-�I,,.,.---��'i---,��;-��'I-�-..�,`�.-�-,--.���.�_4---.--�-..-..:-..l-�-'"-.,,%,'��--J.�"�-�'�"'_-,,-,­,"ftli,3�-,-,,�1,""-1'-.Zz�.,',-�.--.—�:;;�:'"!�,.��-"��.;--�;i-.-�Q-;:._Ii'*'1.7'rA,:f1.1,--'''",�,-'�-,4-,����,.-I,:"':.,i1�'V"'-�%-,.�";,.-,.-�F,'-�"---�".�---'§*-','.,.-:'.��,'"�..I",-,�-.',��l,'�-,�.'7�,'.�-'L I,�'.,�..�-...-.!.��'—..���*,�'',:�.��'.'..,-,,-���-,".�.�r�r�i-"'�-.eF"�'�:....:!'��;-._-1-�-..�.Y",,�.,-,;..�-�%�--�_"�:..�.'-�,l.,"l--.-:�,��-�',���-'"-�"�'--�-�."��,;,-.'���-1.�--..���,z'",:-,�.".-.�!-­,"�-..-.I�'-r.�.,-.�-I 1.."-.:,�,�.',.;�'�:*;-"-"-'-.".',-,"%"4.'-�-"i-",-,;�t-,,,�".r,-"'-.---..'��-,m-1',,-�,�?-���,-,-�j.'���--:���"-,-,'��,-,:,�,-�-.I.-:-.-1�,��,-L-.��%�.�--,.,-,-',',;;"'�,f�:;,��!.-,,!: p Dear Councal Members. a / S p kh �Y � 4. ' z -. .T i /-e C I� ( 1��j 1 am opposed to Poseidon's plans for a Desalanataon D6)5/-c���Y rPlant en HB.; Do no support thas pr®,ect.' i -y, P / ° F -,''.�.�R,, 26;16) �- Our coty already has $he£�1ES IPowe" Plant and 7/ the Sewage,.Plar t that dump 75®,00®,U0l Qga9lons ti a of wras#e enfa the ocean at Hurntington eacti a�atly. k 7 t ,a: _ .f R,:: Poseidon's plan well mnakeY our ocean drr#ler and k. I. L f. f ,eopardoze l�untongtora Beach's: tourism endustry E ,gym .!d_C.So vt.a CoYtce�/✓11 c. abokt- � - inailu dl. E 1 e,v�, y-�y �o��- ow c� 'p�dua�esY, .�;, `� y Name Y, �. �r r I . �> j rr -- Addre55 �l 1 U�. R' C.GYo55 5 + �-1 aim - ".- S e,�.�l a�clD - Signature L, ,. i d UJ ( to Dear Councrl Nleenbers: - n Y t - - C?° d 1 �'/ 1 i� * Af W �f�a �Irtln Ohs .g i" u `a a ®.: v .a r` 01Y _ y.F __yam 1� ('( F S ;L t k ", F �� f cean_ d F ff .J 2 . h. L Name u G� 1 ,2�/u.� f 1. j } i 4 l .. F 'S Address a 0 19 6-etil�a o a -✓ L ; s Signature C ° -i .. �. .... - .�. r 5 �.. ... I I � .". 1� . I . Poseidon Contacts - July Support Support Support Against Against Against Poseidon Letters E-mails Postcards Letters E-mails Postcards Total 7/7/2005 1 6 7 7/11/2005 9 9 7/14/2005 1 1 7/18/2005 2 36 38 7/19/2005 1 1 114 116 7/20/2005 1 120 121 01 0 2�--1 191127nII. 292 Page 1 of 1 Bazant, Denise From: Dapkus, Pat Sent: Tuesday, July 19, 2005 1:09 PM To: Bazant, Denise Subject: FW: Poseidon Desalination Plant -----Original Message----- From: tcirac [mailto:tcirac@socal.rr.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 19, 2005 12:32 PM To: city.counciI@surfcity-hb.org Cc: Pat Dapkus; Cathy Fikes Subject: Poseidon Desalination Plant We are opposed to the Poseidon Desalination Plant being built anywhere along our Huntington Beach coastline. The beach is Huntington's most valuable asset. Surely we can adequately fund our city without building something that would make our coastline ugly and possibly lower water quality. Please vote against this plan. Terry & Lisa Cirac Huntington Beach Residents i i 7/19/2005 i 1 ,; - t` '3 ®ear,Counclf Members• f < n ' ; -' 1 ',',`,a-,';­1.'f'":�-%�-,'.,---..,��;� m o osed to Pose�don's� lens for a Desal�nat�on Pp p Plant in SE . . ' ' r r� .W ` r y ti° { 7 rt ..`fit ;{. *` .. . We already have the AES Power Plant, the Sewage e,/, L, 'I' 1,�1� Treatment Plant, the-iVES1 Toxic Dump Srte, and'a / c - -,:�;�.-',--.'.���,.�:�-*";"�-��,��� ......�!� ,-. -�, -� . ,' , .'. -.-, .-.- - ` � .. . .... -'.'t G Ci#y Maintenance Vaud on:our neoghbortood. i ��� �('� No more tedustnalizateon of our neeghborhood� rK `� I ^ No more pollution for our neigh, orhoo l�- It I/ Z S N a me fF "J" s 1. 2 2 l z'c I ,4/QE i .... lt/ �" A �. Address` N',r3 C�i9 ' z6 5 1 .... 6 ' Y�tl 1 '.[ 4. J Segnature , k L 0� !::: 7. . t _ ) Y 71 F I _ 1 -..:. .. ':.. ...:i. �. :�''...�... �: �.. ..S f 1 .. 4 .l 1... .I. . I..PI...- '-r3��.�- .-\�-I'�)-.'Y..�.I \ - _ . . , f ,k r y _n J . , } Y {f Dear Council Members: (, 1. L Ci! ` F" ! k a _ �-e 1 am opposed to Poseidon's plans for a Desalination { _ t kry r S �� i Plant :A SEHB. 4 �"ii�� s k +, t ) ^Y C Y a k -,/ 1Ne already have the AES Power Plant, ;the Sewage �r ` "� Treatment Plan#, the iVESt Toxic Dump Site, and a ' } City Main#e, a - Yard sn our neighborhood; i 4 1-C ^`> ry= ... 1 "I C ,, r I /\t V ; ' 1 R . 4 ; i - Name, k ` "s1e 0QVrI �_ r �� h Address, G - . 3 , l 3 ' ,"-.�-M...�---,:-����-."_.,;.,''i-.,.-i--�7�-!��-���lf���-- Q r, . Signature 11 f� 3i�9 j .. - - - 3-.:: - .0 w,*-. Message _ Page 1 of 1 Bazant, Denis From: Dapkus, Pat Sent: Monday, July 18, 2005 8:53 AM To: Bazant, Denise Subject: FW: Poseidon -Whitehead -----Original Message----- Frown: Alfred Whitehead [mailto:Alfred@perb.ca.gov] Sent: Sunday, July 17, 2005 11:25 AM To: city.council@surfcity-hb.org Cc: Pat Dapkus; Cathy Fikes Subject;: To the Mayor and members of the City Council, My wife and I have been a residents of this city since 1965 living at the same address, 21671 Impala Ln. I was a fire Captain for Los Angeles County Fire Dept for 30 years and then the General President of the International Assoc. of Fire Fighters, Washington DC for 18 years representing 98% of all paid fire fighters in the United States and Canada. The reason for giving you this account of my history is that where ever I have spoken and given speeches I have always mentioned where I was from and what a wonderful city I lived in. I might add I commuted for the 18 years I was in Washington DC, Both of my children were raised here and own homes with in one mile of me and now my grand kids are going to school here. I am asking each and every one of you to resist the project and vote against the proposal by Poesidon to build a desalinization plant in our area, what a horrible idea. The city of Costa Mesa and the Edison Co.were able to say no to Poesidons plans for a pipe line under their right of way. Forgetting about the loss of value to our homes in the area think about the eye sore of having a plant next to the beach for not just the loyal residents of this city but the visitors from all over the world that all of us want to keep coming and to share the jewel of the Pacific coast, Surf City USA, Please just say NO. Alfred K Whitehead 21671 Impala Ln. Huntingto Beach, CA 92646 18 I 7/ 2005/ i f Page 1 of 1 Bazant, Denise From: Dapkus, Pat Sent: Monday, July 18, 2005 8:54 AM To: Bazant, Denise Subject: FW: Poseidon -----Original Message----- From: tyk hb [mailto:tykhb@hotmail.com] Sent: Saturday, July 16, 2005 2:30 PM To: city.council@surfcity-hb.org Cc: Pat Dapkus; Cathy Fikes Subject: Poseidon Please do not allow the building of the Poseidon desalination plant on our shore. You know better than I of the imbalances and harm they will do. Do your job and get them out of here! T. Kallin 33 year resident of H.B. 7/18/2005 i Dear Council Members: Dear Council Members: 1 am opposed to Poseidon's plans for a Desalination I am opposed to Poseidon's plans for a Desalination Plant in HB. Do no support this project. Plant in SEHB. Our city already has the AES Power Plant and We already have the AES Power Plant, the Sewage the Sewage Plant that dump 750,000,000 gallons Treatment Plant, the NEST Toxic Dump Site, and a of waste into the ocean at Huntington Beach daily. City Maintenance Yard in our neighborhood. Poseidon's plan will make our ocean dirtier and - No more industrialization of our neighborhood! jeopardize Huntington Beach's tourism industry. - No more pollution for our neighborhood! Name Name Mr.Caeeur5teaer 9252 Cris iaa Dr. h a Haatiaetoa Beac►,CA 92646.8318 Address Address Signature Signature Dear Council Members: Dear Council Members: I am opposed to Poseidon's plans for a Desalination I am opposed to Poseidon's plans for a Desalination Plant in SEHB. Plant in SEHB. We already have the AES Power Plant, the Sewage We already have the AES Power Plant, the Sewage Treatment Plant, the NEST Toxic Dump Site, and a City Maintenance Yard in our neighborhood. Treatment Plant, the NEST Toxic Dump Site, and a City Maintenance Yard in our neighborhood. - No more industrialization of our neighborhood! - No more industrialization of our neighborhood. - No more pollution for our neighborhood! - No more pollution for our neighborhood! NameLL)J dam( � ' Name 4 a Address C'( Address :z/�U/ v�ii .�i✓ Signature Signature Dear Council Members- ..v.r.mv.m .r...m..m....v• I am opposed to Poseidon's plans for a Desalination I am opposed.to Poseidon's plans for a Desalination Plant in SEHB. Plant in SEHB. We already have the AES Power Plant, the Sewage We already have the AES Power Plant, the Sewage Treatment Plant, the NEST Toxic Dump Site, and a Treatment Plant, the NEST Toxic Dump Site, and a City Maintenance Yard in our neighborhood. City Maintenance Yard in our neighborhood. - No more industrialization of our neighborhood! - No more industrialization of our neighborhood! - No more pollution for our neighborhood! - No more/pollution for our neighborhood! Name ! n �J n r Name Address i' t� �l J Address N. Signature i Signature Dear Council Members: Dear Council Members: I am opposed to Poseidon's plans for a Desalination I am opposed to Poseidon's plans for a Desalination Plant in SEHB. Plant in SEHB. We already have the AES Power Plant, the Sewage We already have the AES Power Plant, the Sewage Treatment Plant, the NEST Toxic Dump Site, and a Treatment Plant, the NEST Toxic Dump Site, and a City Maintenance Yard in our neighborhood. City Maintenance Yard in our neighborhood. No more industrialization of our neighborhood! - No more industrialization of our neighborhood! - No more pollution for our neighborhood! - No more pollution for our neighborhood. Name Name # J\hS.A 111C11CJC 51CLICr OWL _ 9252 Cluistiue Dr. �7- (,� 1.lunliligtn Beach,CA 926�4t . Address J Z ( Address Signature Signature beaif Council Members: Dear Council Members: 1 am opposed to Poseidon's plans for a Desalination I am opposed to Poseidon's plans for a Desalination Plant in SEHB. Plant in HB. Do no support this project. We already have the AES Power Plant, the Sewage Treatment Plant, the NEST Toxic Dump Site, and a Our city already has the AES Power Plant and City Maintenance Yard in our neighborhood. the Sewage Plant that dump 750,000,000 gallons of waste into the ocean at Huntington Beach daily. - No more industrialization .of our neighborhood! Poseidon's plan will make our ocean dirtier and - No more pollution for our-;Ieighborhood! jeopardize Huntington Beach's tourism industry. Name /' d i�S i41 L-L- -0nr°i�c NameJe. " ) J) Address 51 C' t-I ►`��S ?"� � = -c�ti i3 61 t-� 12— `f G Address Signature � //,� '! / �( .3 `II' y�� _ t Signature Dear Council Members: Dear Council Members: 1 am opposed to Poseidon's plans for a Desalination 1 am opposed to Poseidon's plans for a Desalination Plant in SEHB. Plant in SEHB. ' + We already have the AES Power Plant, the Sewage We already hav he AES Power Plant, the Sewage Treatment Plant, the NEST Toxic Dump Site, and a Treatment Pla t, the NEST Toxic Dump Site, and a City Maintenance Yard in our neighborhood. City Maintenance Yard in our neighborhood. - No more industrialization of our neighborhood! - No more industrialization of our neighborhood! - No more pollution for our neighborhood! - No more pollution for our neighborhood! Name Name �C..�%14�\ ��''1�Y ��-�C�. G�'t �\1�1 i 1 �-''•�. VIr1�1 ..��{(l G�i Address a Address <� . Signature �, Sigma ure uear t:ouncei onemuerto: Dear Council Members: 1 am opposed to Poseidon's plans for a Desalination I am opposed to Poseidon's plans for a Desalination Plant in SEHB. Plant in SEHB. We already have the AES Power Plant, the Sewage We already have the AES Power Plant, the Sewage Treatment Plant, the NEST Toxic Dump Site, and a Treatment Plant, the NEST Toxic Dump Site, and a City Maintenance Yard in our neighborhood. City Maintenance Yard in our neighborhood. - No more industrialization of our neighborhood! - No more industrialization of our neighborhood! - No more pollution for our neighborhood! - No more pollution for our neighborhood! Name Name nCA a o c Address L Address -> , Z 17 4 Signature Signat I 1(��I?alle,1611 Dear Council Members: Dear Council Members: I am opposed to Poseidon's plans for a Desalination 1 am opposed to Poseidon's plans for a Desalination Plant in SEHB. Plant in SEHB. We already have the AES Power Plant, the Sewage We already have the AES Power Plant, the Sewage Treatment Plant, the NEST Toxic Dump Site, and a Treatment Plant, the NEST Toxic Dump Site, and a City Maintenance Yard in our neighborhood. City Maintenance Yard in our neighborhood. - No more industrialization of our neighborhood! - No more industrialization of our neighborhood! - No more pollution for our neighborhood! - No more pollution for our neighborhood! Name Z15/+ Gn1 t o Z Name Address / 3 4// G`{ fc s h e 4d Address Z aL Z T OA ) . Signature Y•_ D Dear Council memaers: Dear Council Members: I am opposed to Poseidon's plans for a Desalination I am opposed to Poseidon's plans for a Desalination Plant in SEHB. Plant in SEHB. We already have the AES Power Plant, the Sewage We already have the AES Power Plant, the Sewage Treatment Plant, the NESI Toxic Dump Site, and a Treatment Plant, the NEST Toxic Dump Site, and a City Maintenance Yard in our neighborhood. City Maintenance Yard in our neighborhood. - No more industrialization of our neighborhood! - No more industrialization of our neighborhood! - No more pollution for our neighborhood! - No more pollution for our neighborhood! Name n Name �i�S� 0hrc�. /.'lcdy :t-�K.cr Address Address , V Signature Signature Dear Council Members: Dear Council Members: I am opposed to Poseidon's plans for a Desalination I am opposed to Poseidon's plans for a Desalination Plant in SEHB. Plant in SEHB. We already have the AES Power Plant, the Sewage We already have the AES Power Plant, the Sewage Treatment Plant, the NEST Toxic Dump Site, and a Treatment Plant, the NEST Toxic Dump Site, and a City Maintenance Yard in our neighborhood. City Maintenance Yard in our neighborhood. - No more industrialization of our neighborhood! - No more industrialization of our neighborhood! - No more pollution. for our neighborhood! - No more pollution for our neighborhood! Name Fnmt Name A L C,<✓/�J G /`t tiJ c- Ml Gateah dDr Hxntinyton Beach,GA 9.d646 Address ) Address � 3 L/� (���5 ���,, .%�,�, � p•f�. Signature Signature ` 2,4-- i/Yn..Y �YV.unYuu nanY.saw v•v- Dear Council Members: 1 am opposed to Poseidon's plans for a Desalination , 1 am opposed to Poseidon's plans for a Desalination Plant in SEHB. Plant in SEHB. We already have the AES Power Plant, the Sewage We already have the AES Power Plant, the Sewage Treatment Plant, the NEST Toxic Dump Site, and a 'treatment Plant, the NEST Toxic Dump Site, and a C City Maintenance Yard in our neighborhood. City Maintenance Yard in our neighborhood. - No more industrialization of our neighborhood! - No more industrialization of our neighborhood! - No more pollution for our neighborhood! - No more ollution for our neighborhood! Name Name �� / FRAIVCJS FOO, M.D. ` TLC MEDICAL GROUP Address Address 10188 ADAMS AVE _IUaTINGTON..BF_ACH, CA 92646 Signature Signature° �. ��.�� Dear Council Members: Dear Council Members: I am opposed to Poseidon's plans for a Desalination I aim opposed to Poseidon's plans for a Desalination Plant in.SEHB. Plant in SEHB. We already have the AES Power Plant, the Sewage We already have the AES Power Plant, the Sewage Treatment Plant, the NEST Toxic Dump Site, and a Treatment Plant, the NEST Toxic Dump Site, and a City Maintenance Yard in our neighborhood. City Maintenance Yard in our.neighborhood. - No more industrialization of our neighborhood! - No more industrialization of our neighborhood! - No more pollution for our neighborhood! - No more pollution for our neighborhood! Name Percy&Joyce Sh Nameer 9361 Folkstone Cir Huntington Beach,CA 92648 7959 l^ Address Address Cam- Signature �'�� Si a Dear Council Members: near Vouncn ereemwers: I am opposed to Poseidon's plans for a Desalination 1 am opposed to Poseidon's plans for a Desalination Plant in SEHB. Plant in SEHB. We already have the AES Power Plant, the Sewage We already have the AES Power Plant, the Sewage Treatment Plant, the NEST Toxic Dump Site, and a Treatment Plant, the NEST Toxic Dump Site, and a City Maintenance Yard in our neighborhood. City Maintenance Yard in our neighborhood. - No more industrialization of our neighborhood! - No more industrialization of our neighborhood! - No more pollution for our neighborhood! - No more pollution for our neighborhood! Name Ro,5S L: A - I GI.�p ��� Name Address / Ch ) / 5 T/ y/ �-�-L� � Address "16 1�� I Signature - Signature f Dear Council Members: Dear Council Members: 1 am opposed.to Poseidon's plans for a Desalination I am opposed to Poseidon's plans for a Desalination Plant in HB. Do no support this project. Plant in SEHB. Our city already has the AES Power Plant and We already have the AES Power Plant, the Sewage the Sewage Plant that dump 750,000,000 gallons Treatment Plant, the NEST Toxic Dump Site, and a of waste into the ocean at Huntington Beach daily. City Maintenance Yard in our neighborhood. Poseidon's plan will make our ocean dirtier and - No more industrialization of our neighborhood! jeopardize Huntin to Beach's tourism industry. - No more pollution for our neighborhood! . Name ---__ Name 0 , A A R A 4 Nk c, P, ►'TA F-C E R 4�f 9062 A11611A Address _ t " �n, . g Address T a� g yf' �� tl 1VT f(ve t7451 1 O►V 1� C C !� Signature :.: �, u:i �C,` `1�1�s Signature `x .�c� �t l�,vv►oaf)I/ y Dear Council Members: Dear Council Members: I am opposed to Poseidon's plans for a Desalination 1 am opposed to Poseidon's plans for a Desalination Plant in SEHB. Plant in SEHB. .We already have the AES Power Plant, the Sewage We already have the AES Power Plant, the Sewage Treatment Plant, the NEST Toxic Dump Site, and a Treatment Plant, the NEST Toxic Dump Site, and a City Maintenance Yard in our neighborhood. City Maintenance Yard in our neighborhood. - No more industrialization of our neighborhood! - No more industrialization of our neighborhood! - No more pollution for our neighborhood! - No more pollution for our neighborhood! Name N� � ^ � Name 1l/t,�-:L L �, �,� � hiuv�/► [.el/V � L11N`E` Address 1 4,v i/;vy 7oV (3E A c FI , �'ri `. Y�> Address - c:I Signature Signature � rL Dear Council Members: Dear Council Members: I am opposed to Poseidon's plans for a Desalination 1 am opposed to Poseidon's plans for a Desalination Plant in SEHB. Plant in SEHB. We already have the AES Power Plant, the Sewage We already have the AES Power Plant, the Sewage Treatment Plant, the NEST Toxic Dump Site, and a Treatment Plant, the NEST Toxic Dump Site, and a City Maintenance Yard in our neighborhood. City Maintenance Yard in our neighborhood. - No more industrialization of our neighborhood! I - No more industrialization of our neighborhood! - No more pollution for our neighborhood! - No more pollution for our neighborhood! Name Name Address cc,/ 0�� (��(,�- Address Signature Signature - ` Dear Council Members: Dear Council Members: 1 am opposed to Poseidon's plans for a Desalination I am opposed to Poseidon's plans for. a Desalination Plant in SEHB. Plant in SEHB. We already have the AES Power Plant, the Sewage We already have the AES Power Plant, the Sewage Treatment Plant, the NESI Toxic Dump Site, and a Treatment Plant, the NEST Toxic Dump Site, and a City Maintenance Yard in our neighborhood. City Maintenance Yard in our neighborhood. - No more industrialization of our neighborhood! - No more industrialization of our neighborhood! - No more pollution for our neighborhood! - No more pollution for our neighborhood! Name Joe- ��� K��� Name 9�%11 Coo/r1�c� 1 J Address Address14/ Sigma re Signature _ Dear Council Members: Dear Council Members: I aim opposed to Poseidon's plans for a Desalination 1 am opposed to Poseidon's plans for a Desalination Plant in SEHB. Plant in SEHB. We already have the AES Power Plant, the Sewage We already have the AES Power Plant, the Sewage Treatment Plant, the NEST Toxic Dump Site, and a Treatment Plant, the NEST Toxic Dump Site, and a City Maintenance Yard in our neighborhood. City Maintenance Yard in our neighborhood. - No more industrialization of our neighborhood! - No more industrialization of our neighborhood! - No more pollution for our neighborhood! - No more pollution for our neighborhood! Name •6" Name Address � � � � �. /3 AL4 q TA V `f`= Address ,�.% ->< �`� � '�e Signature / Signature � � �� Page 1 of 2 Ramos, Ricky From: Kelley, Jason Sent: Wednesday, August 03, 2005 7:30 AM To: Ramos, Ricky Subject: FW: Latest EIR on desalinzation -----Original Message----- From: Lou deBottari [mailto:debottari@worldnet.att.net] Sent: Tuesday, August 02, 2005 10:49 PM To: Kelley, Jason Cc: Orange County Register Subject: Re: Latest EIR on desalinzation realize that it past the time for.comments but I feel that the people should know about a facility in the Virgin Islands. It was not mentioned in the appendices. The dialogue that was raised then is being repeated today. The facility was to be constructed in an area where the water was brackish. The people against the project were concerned about the added salt that would be deposited into the waters. Shades of your hearings. The project went forward and after some time of operation the brackish water became clear ocean water, with sea life returning to the lagoons as it was before. Development ruined the area. Based on that facility I predict that Huntington Beach will have far fewer "closed beach days" if the facility is constructed. l would have made many more constructive comments but I figured my comments would placed in the circular file. predict that if the facility is allowed to go forward, in time the facility will be run by hydrogen, with the power generated with solar cells located in the desert and the power put on the grid , removed at the facility . This process will provide the facility with an inexpensive power source without pollution. This will happen and Huntington Beach should show its mettle and move out on this project before another agency offers an area.. Lou deBottari 10091 El Capitan Drive Huntington Beach, CA 92646 714-962-0802 The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing. -----Original Message ----- From: Kelley Jason To: 'Lou deBottari' Sent: Monday, August 01, 2005 11:39 AM Subject: RE: Latest EIR on desalinzation The following link, provides the latest info. 8/3/2005 f Page 2 of 2 http://www.ci.huntington-beach.ca.us/citydepartments/planning/major/p seidon.cfm -----Original Message----- From: Lou deBottari [mailto:debottari@worldnet.att.net] Sent: Friday, July 29, 2005 6:12 PM To: jkelley_@surfcity-hb.org Subject: Latest EIR on desalinzation Where do I find the PDF file on the latest supplement to the EIR on the proposed desalinization facility. What is the last day to make written comments? Lou deBottari The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing. 8/3/2005 r Page 1 of 1 i t . Bazant, Denise From: Dapkus, Pat Sent: Monday, August 01, 2005 8:59 AM To: Bazant, Denise Subject: FW: No desalination Plantl! -----Original Message----- From: Dan Ciscel [mailto:danciscel@verizon.net] Sent: Sunday, July 31, 2005 4:48 PM To: city.council@surfcity-hb.org Cc: Pat Dapkus; Cathy Fikes Subject: No desalination Plant!! Council Members, I am writing this e-mail to express my emphatic protest against the Poseidon desalination plant proposed in Southern Huntington Beach. We already have to deal with noise, air, and eye pollution coming from the Edison plant. We have had to put up with the construction of the new sewer line on Bushard. You have closed our neighborhood schools. Maybe it is time for someone else to shoulder a burden or two? By the way, I vote! Believe me when I say I will check the results of all votes concerning this issue and will do my best to campaign against anyone ignoring the will of the residents in Southern Huntington Beach. Stop dumping on South HBI Dan Ciscel 21151 Banff Ln. Huntington Beach, Ca 92646 714-536-1849 8/1/2005 Coasndi Fm(bilabers 1 aen, opsed to ®season°s p9as nor a sa9ina#ion POa�+t an,.SEO.10�, @Ne already have the AESP®wer'P'0an#, #0a9 Seeage 'B'rea#alaen# oa'lan#, $he 610E�0 �'oxac ®up Sete, aroc8 a City"Maintenarnce Yardln our nei hb Drhoud No!rv�ore �ndustroaHiMlon ®f OU neaghborhooe�® No' more pbj btaon for-our ne-ghbor0too�0y PBaee . °Adders S�gnat�ar �� GNU ./ 0RANGE COUNTlf 2 Park Plaza,Suite l00 "b-viuc California q26l4'59O4 / ������l��� ��0������ ' � yboocg4g�76224% °��g4g476�44S°nn�onxxox6cmg —~— / � � � � EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN oaTHE Bumm AuguetS. 2005 a�,o�m�m 1 � m*n=�a��^ AUG . � �UU� ^m�°a�m=«p ' `°� °,° masbmgto"llu*m ^xo�� The Honorable Jill Hardy ^~X HU�O0 IO o�«m MAYOR, CITY ` '' Thomas Phelps ' [V(�0UD O�p m»"° 2000 Main Street ~ — w' �^''QS /m°*t,Phelps amm��ur Huntington Beach, CAQ2648 IMMEDIATE PAST CHAIRMAN Stephen Bone President Dear Mayor Hardy: The Robert mwerm*"ratio" rmamnmn On behalf of the (]range County Business Counoi|, it is our honor to endorse the Dan Miller Senior Vice President- proposed Huntington Beach Water Treatment Facility. E"mIv"en/=»m^licAffairs The Irvine Compaq As you know, Poseidon Resources is working to build o state-of-the-ort seawater VICE CHAIRMAN, desalination facility in Huntington Beaoh, co-located on the grounds of the AES ADVOCACY Ron DiLuigi power plant. Their advanced filtration system will meet and, in many cases, exceed President.~'~~Coinnualit),Benefit water quality and environmental requirements. St . VICE CHAIRMAN, The Huntington Bench Water Treatment Facility will not only environment the aDvinonent EVENTS VV Frank o.Ayala and provide an alternative water source for Orange County vesidentm, but will have 6eneralillanager numerous benefits for the citizens of Huntington Beach. Some of these benefits ,50"mm"CaliforniaGas Conipan), include: VICE CHAIRMAN, a Local drought-proof supply of water; Blake Anderson GeOrange Count),neralAlanager, = $1.8 million per year in property tax; VICE CHAIRMAN, ° $500.UOO annual payments in sales tax; RESEARCH aCOMMUNICATIONS Linda Martin Executive Vice 0 $5O.O0U per year contribution to the City of Huntington Beach in utility tax; GenerafAlanager PorterNovelli VICE CHAIRMAN, ° During nonatruction, tens of millions of dollars in local expenditures to onaote STxATu /u,mnpINv 675joba; Gregory Lynch Operations Director, m"m"Cisco�yslerns �California 0 Oinyot high+magetaxpaying jobs and 275 indirect jobs during construction VICE CHAIRMAN, period; WvmTvxCEm,^LO,MEN` wm Stephens ° The creation of 18 full-time jobs and 322 indirect 'obs, once facility is in Senior 111ce President, internal Affairs operation; and The Boeing ContPany uM«moVEsmFF 0 Best of all, it will be of no cost to the city or taxpayers! PRESIDENT aCEO We��om�, e urge you to consider the numerous benefits of the Huntington Beach Waterom«�n�noopm�m�T Treotnnent Faoi|ity, and approve this project — for Huntington Beach and Orange pUBux^nam County! /"mmm� VICE PRESIDENT, Resp ommm,uenx ~ ) INVESTOR RELATIONS Mike Noonan VICE PRESIDENT, ECommca Stan (]fte||8. President and CEO WOms mz�mmn��' Paul Garza,Jr. ORANGE COUNTY BUSINESS COUNCIL VICE PRESIDENT, FINANCE aADMINISTRATION oancttem,�m 5HAP|NG ORANGE COUNTT'S ECONOMIC FUTURE Dear Council Members:',," 1 amp t o Poseidon's plans for .a Desalination Plant in SEFIS ����,��fe . alre a n ady-leave the.AES PowerPlant, the age Tretme nt, the NEST Toxic,.D ite, and a: City Maintenace ei,ghborhood. No more i rialozat�on°of ou,r,ner hood! o TY Address ` AD AT OPNINGTONBEACH oFFICE Signature Bazant, Denise From: Dapkus, Pat Sent: Wednesday, August 10, 2005 11:46 AM To: Bazant, Denise Subject: FW: Stop the Desalination Plant in HB!!!!!!!! -----Original Message----- From: austin brown jmailto:austinb@paulfrank.com] Sent: Tuesday, August 09, 2005 6:41 PM To: city.council@surfcity-hb.org Cc: Pat Dapkus; Cathy Fikes Subject: Stop the Desalination Plant in HB!!!!!!!! Dear Council Members, I am opposed to Poseidon's plans for a Desalination Plant in SEHB. I have been a resident of HB all of my life of 31 years, and strongly oppose this plan. We already have the AES Power Plant, the Sewage Treatment Plant, the NESI Toxic Dump Site and a City Maintenance yard in our Neighborhood. -No more industrialization of our neighborhood! -No more pollution for our neighborhood! Whomever votes for this plan, I will vote against in the next election. All the best Austin Brown 703 Alabama Street. i Dear Ceu+ncit Members � for a Desalinaton1 am oo Pe plans o o Plant in HB. Donot support.thrs protect Cur:city already has the AES Power Plant and the Sewage_Ptant that'dump 750,000bo gallons 4 of waste into the :ocean at„Huntington Beach `claity. Poseidon`s plan`wilt i irtier and jeopardize Huntington' Beach's tourism Indus:Ir AUG � � 2005 Nam HUNilNGoNB�q Stacie � � 20792 Spin rV STRATIOH OFF GE Huntin.9ton Beach CA 92646l�/t'S2Y'�� ' Address Signature -7 Dear Council Vlernners. 1 am oppased to Poseidon's Plant in HB. Puns fora Desali�i Do not suppot{ this protect ; � Our city already has the AES Power.P AU� the Sewage p9ant that dum lard TlUNTtNGTON BEACH of waste into the ocean`at Hunt n9oon B� ��N� Ftcfr each daily. ... " Poseidon's plan will - make our ocean dirtier and ,eopartliae Huntington Beach`s tourism rntlUs' ty. ,� r (�' Address I Gk TO ta �'� �,i L✓C•�`-��� I'��(i��V1�'i �II�A�`\r t 1''�• \ � I��, �� r 1 . a 4� t��'�1 � ��!1`�1 ��Ci VG'�l�i V L % �' -�`Ci irko It up i "L�_ j; ``j T�ru VtS 1�Y'��v,ck Ucs kL SA - L -- ; ---- - f SMEN b l 4 A,UG r 5 20,n August 9, 2005 Dear Council Members, I am opposed to Poseidon's plans for a Desalination Plant in SEHB. We already have the AES Power Plant, the Sewage Treatment Plant,the NEST Toxic Dump Site and a City Maintenance yard in our Neighborhood. -No more industrialization of our neighborhood! -No more pollution for our neighborhood! Julie Way 282 Santo Tomas Ave. Costa Mesa, CA 92627 AJv 4 ' Gil Thought you'd find this interesting. It is the time line for the Tampa Bay Desalination Plant As you can see it only runs one week every month until Oct 2006. Poseiden is the cause of the problem. Tampa hasn't been able to correct the mistakes Poseiden caused at the site yet. In Oct 2006 they will have a test to see if they have fixed it yet. This procedure Poseiden used at Tampa is the some procedure they have planned for HB If it didn't work to get 25 million gallons at Tampa Bay why would our City Council vote that their EIR is adequate for 50 million gallons here? Beats me? Eileen Murphy 201 21 sr Street HB CA 92648 i TAMPA SAY WATER 727 791 2379 05113 '05 13:05 N0.504 11/1.( 2535 Landmark Drive,Suite 211,Cecrwater,FL33761-3930 Phone:727.795.2355/Fax:727.791.2388/SinCam:513.7010 ' vnvw,Kmpolwywoler,org T"PA BAY4W WATER 5uppk*s Y{,1l1 le Tee Pe(- -Project Schedule Spring 2001 Perrnitting complete ' Augu-,L 2001 Construction began November 2002 Obtained final operating permits March 2003 Initial plant start-up May 2003 Ran first acceptance test Octobez 2003 Covanta Tampa Bay files for bankruptcy after failing succegsful completion of the plant. February 19,2004 Plant placed in standby mode to evaluate and fix design and construction deficiencies;plant runs for one week per month March 2004 Pampa Bay Water seeks proposals from qualified teams to tcvamp the plant and operate it long-tern November 2004 Tampa Bay Water board of directnrs approves agreements with American Water-Pridesa to Rnlve design and construction deficiencies January 31,2005 large—scale pilot testing begins; June 2005 board to consider NPDHS minor permit modification application September 2005 Complete design of remedied plant . October 2005 Commence construction October 2000 Complete plant rernediation and run acceptance test 5/12/05 1 . Page 1 of 1 Bazant, Denise From: Dapkus, Pat Sent: Friday, August 12, 2005 8:32 AM To: Bazant, Denise Subject: FW: Re Poseidon -----Original Message----- From: Lora Wood [mai Ito:lwood56@yahoo.com] Sent: Thursday, August 11, 2005 9:44 PM To: pdapkus@surfcity-hb.org Subject: Re Poseidon We are Southeast HB residents who are absolutely against the building of the desalination plant. The reasoning seems to be that since we already have the sewage plant, and AES, another plant should be no big deal. We've had our share of plants in this area. You'd never attempt to get away with this in the Seacliff area. NO POSEIDON!!! Stan and Lora Wood Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page the pollution. I would hope that you would take into consideration what this plant would do to the ecology, how the pollution would effect the beaches and what effect this plant would have on the residents who have paid good money to live here. Nancy McEntire Westworks Mortgage (714) 567-4150 direct line (714) 242-1854 fax (800) 815-9372 ext.150 email: nmcentire@westworksmtg.com 2 Bazant, Denise From: Dapkus, Pat Sent: Friday, August 12, 2005 2:20 PM To: Bazant, Denise Subject: FW: Proposed Poseidon Desalination Plant -----Original Message----- From: cgbastian@beckman.com [mailto:cgbastian@beckman.com] Sent: Friday, August 12, 2005 8:01 AM To: city.council@surfcity-hb.org Cc: Pat Dapkus; Cathy Fikes Subject: Proposed Poseidon Desalination Plant Dear City Council Members: We are writing to voice our concern over the proposed Poseidon Desalination Plant. As a home owner in Huntington Beach for over 20 years, we are concerned with the City Council's decision to consider the construction of an industrial site that will further damage the beauty of our coastal.community. And, it is our understanding that none of the water from this plant would even serve.the needs of Huntington Beach! Even if the proposed plant would serve a portion.of our water needs - WHY HERE? HB has already been the sacrificial Iamb to provide electric power and sewage treatment for the County. The cost is high and we believe that we've paid our share. The Newport Beach City Council would never approve the construction of an industrial eyesore on Pacific Coast Highway, so why will HB? Newport Beach has been successful in maintaining high property values and tourism by beautifying their community. In Newport Beach efforts.to install greenbelts along PCH, efforts to keep their beaches free of trash and debris and efforts.to enforce beautification regulations on both the residents and companies is evident. The coast line IS the single biggest attraction Huntington Beach has to offer. Where shopping malls can provide a temporary lure, people will always be. attracted to visit or purchase homes in an attractive coastal community. Yet, a drive down Pacific Coast Highway in HB highlights the AES plant spewing smoke and the increased sprawl of the OC Sanitation District's ugly concrete scrubber units, over a serene ocean view. Moreover, the OC Register has been filled with articles about the pollution off of our beaches. And in response we'll let Poseidon build an ugly treatment plant that will spew MORE refuse into the ocean? More and more of our well-educated friends are declining to join us on the beach in Huntington for the day -- "it's too polluted for our children". They are i opting to go to Corona Del Mar instead. Perception is reality. The City Council needs to place the beautification of our coast line as a #1 priority to avoid heading in a direction that will be impossible to turn around. I don't think any resident wants HB to have a reputation for being polluted and an ugly place to visit or live. We urge you to NOT let Poseidon or any other industrial endeavor build within eye-sight of the beach. Do NOT open the door for any additional pollution on our beach. Steve and Cheryl Bastian 10052 El Capitan Drive Huntington Beach, CA 92646 714-963-5831 2 Bazant, Denise From: Dapkus, Pat Sent: Friday, August 12, 2005 11:57 AM To: Bazant, Denise Subject: FW: Poseidon Desalination Plant -----Original Message----- From: Nancy McEntire [mailto:NMcEntire@westworksmtg.com] Sent: Friday, August 12, 2005 10:33 AM To: city.council@surfcity-hb.org Cc: Pat Dapkus; Cathy Fikes Subject: Poseidon Desalination Plant I am totally against this plant being built so close to my home. I have lived in Southeast Huntington Beach for over 30 years. I can hear the steam towers from the AES plant from my home and it is pretty loud. I have already survived the sewage pipe catastophy and can't say enough how angry I am over that plan that had to be stopped because of poor engineering and planning. Now here's another disaster waiting to happen. I have read the articles and the plan. I just can't understand how the City Council can ever consider this plan. Do you live in Huntington Beach? Obviously none of the City Council live in Southeast Huntington Beach or they wouldn't even consider this plant. I already live next to a sewage plant and have to live with the odors . that float my way. My home is sinking thanks to tearing up the street behind my home and not taking in to consideration what would happen to the land and home after pumping out the water and shaking my home with the ground breaking that took place for months. Now I have cracked sewage pipes in the streets. That project had to be stopped because of that. Now you want to build a plant to supply water for another city or county? I love living in Huntington Beach. My friends like to come over and visit my home and go to the beach. I won't even go in the water at fhe beach anymore because it is contaminated. I grew up on these beaches and I can't even let my daughter go in the water because of the.pollution from the sewage plant. Now you want to add some more pollution? Who is going to go to the beach? Even the residents know better. We like to visit the beach but none of us go in the water. If we do it is down near Sunset Beach. Everyone I know won't surf anymore at Brookhurst or Magnolia because of 1 Jill Hardy Mayor, Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street ''-``�= Huntington Beach, CA 92648 �1!jf Dear Jill, I am writing to voice my concerns over the desalinization plant Poseidon is proposing to build in Huntington Beach. I am strongly opposed to this plant. I am hoping that you vote against ANY approvals for this plant because the risks far out-weigh the very limited benefits as follows: Benefits - Increased tax dollars. But for how long? If a government agency takes over, that goes away. Risks - Environment o What effect is the brine going to have on sea life? Can we afford to have dead fish washing up on our beaches, scaring tourist dollars and the sales taxes they generate away? o Will the brine increase bacteria levels? Will we have beach closure problems that could affect the city's image and tourism? o How strong will the stench be that the brine creates? Have you ever smelled trapped sea water in a tide pool? The brine is returned back to the sea and we typically have on-shore winds. Do we want to constantly be smelling something much like back bay residents do in Newport Beach? - Quality of Life o Health ■ Swimming in the ocean. Will it be safe? ■ Air. Will breathing that stinky air cause respiratory problems or headaches? Even if it doesn't, it will not be pleasant. ■ Added noise and air pollution the plant will create through normal operations. o Economic ■ How many people will visit for the day or stay overnight if. • Beaches are closed due to high bacteria. • They have to swim along with dead fish in the water. • They can't tolerate the stench that permeates the city. You may think that some of my points seem far fetched and want me to prove them. I ask that you PROVE to me that they will NOT be true. This plant would be 10 X bigger than any other on the California coast and 2 X bigger than any other in the country. There is no real world data to back up claims that a plant this size will not affect the environment. Tampa Bay's plant is half the size at full capacity, but due to all it's problems has not run long enough to gather meaningful data. Don't let Huntington Beach be Poseidon's guinea pig. The water is not for HB, it is for South County. So let Dana Point or San Clemente build a plant to support their people. Why should we shoulder all of the risks for almost no rewards? If nothing else, wait for a plant this size to be built somewhere else and let the data from that plant PROVE with real data, not commissioned and biased "studies" and "reports", that there are no adverse affects to the environment. HB is finally garnering an ideal image and we are truly becoming a resort-type destination. HB is a great place to visit and a better place to live. Let's not ruin a good thing. If you are going to support this plant, I would like you to personally respond back to me with the reasons for your support. Sincerely, Scott Bradshaw Concerned Resident of Huntington Beach 21301 Lochlea Lane Huntington Beach, CA 92626 Page 1 of 1 Bazant, Denise From: Dapkus, Pat Sent: Wednesday, August 17, 2005 11:19 AM To: Bazant, Denise Subject: FW: Poseidon Dasalination Plant -----Original Message----- From: Doug Clemens [mailto:dclemens@mdsconsulting.net] Sent: Wednesday, August 17, 2005 8:11 AM To: city.council@surfcity-hb.org Cc: Pat Dapkus; Cathy Fikes Subject: Poseidon Dasalination Plant Dear City Council Members: Please DO NOT approve the Poseidon Desalination Plant. The Southeast part of the city has suffered enough with pipeline projects and their associated property damage, traffic congestion, delays and safety hazards due to detours. Constructing a major pipeline up Brookhurst Street would be a major traffic disaster for months. Just the current curb and pavement reconstruction project at the intersection of Brookhurst &Adams creates a traffic nightmare at rush hour.We have lived in Southeast Huntington Beach for 40 years and we do not want yet another major disruption to our lives with another pipeline project. We still have to face the resumption of the Bushard sewer project once they figure out how they botched the job in the first place and how to resume it without further mistakes. Thank you for your consideration. Doug Clemens 9902 Silver Strand Drive Huntington Beach, CA I 8/18/2005 Proposed Poseidon Desalination Plant Page 1 of 1 Bazant, Denise From: Dapkus, Pat Sent: Wednesday, August 17, 2005 12:46 PM To: Bazant, Denise Subject: FW: Proposed Poseidon Desalination Plant -----Original Message----- From: Roger Harrington [mai Ito:roger@christmasevents.com) Sent: Wednesday, August 17, 2005 12:15 PM To: city.council@surfcity-hb.org Cc: Pat Dapkus; Cathy Fikes Subject: Proposed Poseidon Desalination Plant Dear City Council: We live in the vicinity of Atlanta and Newland, so we get to see the smoke billowing from the existing (AES)plant every day of our lives -a REAL attractive sight! No one to date has explained to me what is contained in this smoke screen belching daily from AES.We would sure like to know what effect this pollution has on the nearby residents! Can someone answer this question? Is this pollution tested? If so,when and how often? I have been told of a sale of a residence that fell through, as the potential buyers did not want to live so close to a plant that pollutes the air on a daily basis. The city and its council have done a very poor job of letting its citizens know what affect this constant billow of pollution might have on its nearby residents. With all of the problems created by the existing AES facility, we certainly do not want a second monstrosity adding to the pollution of the air we breathe and as an additional blight that would be visible from our beaches. Roger A. Harrington 8322 Varas Circle Huntington Beach, CA 92646 E'-mail: roger@christmasevents.com Phone:(800)375-XMAS(9627) FAX:.(714)969-9650 P.O.Box 8126 Huntington Beach,CA 92615-8126 Web site: www.christmasevents.com 8/18/2005 Bazant, Denise From: Dapkus, Pat Sent: Wednesday, August 17, 2005 3:34 PM To: Bazant, Denise Subject: FW: Desalination Plant -----Original Message----- From: Ramirez, Baudelio [mailto:bramirez@cra.lacity.org] Sent: Wednesday, August 17, 2005 1 :58 PM To: city.council@surfcity-hb.org Cc: Pat Dapkus; Cathy Fikes Subject: Desalination Plant Honorable Council Members, My.name is Baudelio Ramirez, a long-time resident of our distinguished city. I live at 8341 Varas Circle in HB and after reading available information in regards to the proposed Poseidon Desalination Plant, I want to express my total opposition to such project in our beautiful city. In order to protect our costal environment and our city, I urge you to oppose the Poseidon I 1 4 4 1 ncvL-1 v 1-L- G;: ' Dear Council Members: `• `�` � Dear Council Members. ,� AUG 18 2005 f u, �a� Iamo ' 1 am opposed to Poseidon's plans f r n opposed to Poseidon's ns for a Desal�nat�on cl�o�It�i'�IQU'T'0���t�r' P Plant in HB. Do no'6unpg� thi�A9bY�iSt,I ION OFFICE. a Plant in HB. Do no suppo this project. lq/.� f>w/°��y 1r��cicur vct•. -f'ti ...: /.-,v... � �;� Gru•✓f�/Pd'-� , Our city already has the AES Power Plant and Our city already has-the AE Power Plant and the Sewage Plant that dump 750,0009000 gallons the Sewage Plant.that dump 75%0000000 gallons of waste into the ocean at Huntington Beach daily. of waste into the ocean at Huntington Beach daily. Poseidon's plan will make our ocean dirtier and Poseidon's plan will make our ocean dirtier and jeopardize Huntington Beach's tourism industry. jeopardize Huntington Beach's tourism industry. Name MARie)i t�� rLESi�`� '1�5 L. ;� s �, Name �✓ � C /��•cc �� Address �371 �., cx Address c� Af G1 A r �(� ' it iUi >=A Signature la,Kc.� /HpRov,�Hear lv� /4N Signature ; q 1�JI `rRATIOhf"UFE'ICE ✓G� /��,HvRRTION �1 P :Dear Council Members: 1 am opposed to Poseidon's plans for a Desalination Plant in HB. Do not support this project Our city already has the AES Power Plant and the Sewage Plant that dump 750,000,000 gallons of waste into the ocean at Huntington Beath daily. lE Cl;)S/►J 6- ISCT-X-LAVt Poseidon's plan will make our ocean dirtier and jeopardize Huntington Beach's tourism in tIV C , ELF Name k A R R P\ , M v.N0-9AUG 7 c 1 6 ;Jy Address � Z l��{�G-�(� �1 fZC�Aj F NISTRATIEALH NUNiINGTpN B I /r 11 i I v.l� I N (J G 0 ec i1� C N I t tQ FtE V l� �}" V�f� ��" .} .Signature JOHN OPSAHL STEAM-REFRIGERATION-AIR CONDITIONING PIPEF.,ITTERS AND APPRENTICES Business Representatives President - VINCENT BURR OF THE UNITED ASSOCIATION OFTHE UNITED STATES AND CANADA GEORGE M.VASOUEZ,JR. PAUL EVANS Business Manager/Fin.Sec'y-Treas. r"J HANK FIKSE ARTHUR GUZMAN ADAM KAVIC Assistant Business Manager--^'�- .h / CHUCK LOZANO TERRY MARTIN JOE SCAVO 18355 SOUTH FIGUEROA STREET,GARDENA,CA 90248-4217 DON TANAKA Bus.Mgr./Fin.Sec.Treas Office(310)660-0035 Finance Office(310)660-0042 Fin.Office Fax(310)660-0361 Refrigeration Office(310)660-0045 S.F.Appren.(310)323-4475 S.F.Dispatch(310)660-0049 Dispatch Fax(310)329-2465 August 12, 2005 A G I ?r 2005 Jill Hardy Gq 07 . Office of the City Council �,•. ' 1e�1r L,, 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Re: Poseidon Resources Desalination Project Dear Mayor Hardy: Local Union 250 represents Craft Workers that live and work in Huntington Beach as well as the entire Southern California area. On behalf of those members and their . families, I am informing you that we are in full support of the proposed Desalination Project. This project will no doubt create hundreds of construction related jobs. However, the project goes well beyond creating jobs during construction. This is an opportunity for Huntington Beach to be the first in the county to have the .vision to move forward with its own Desalination Plant. Our area is dependent upon the Coloradc.River and.Northern California for the mmiority.of our water supply.. We all know how difficult that process can be especially in drought years. This is an opportunity to supply at least a small portion of our own water. We urge you to step forward in support of this project and negotiate the best deal in a Development Agreement for the citizens of Huntington Beach. Sincerely, George M. Vasquez, Jr. Bus. Mgr./Fin. Sec'y-Treas. GMV/db opeiu#537/afl-cio ® 25 Page 1 of 1 Bazant, Denise From: Dapkus, Pat Sent: Monday, August 15, 2005 12:35 PM To: Bazant, Denise Subject: FW: Poseidon Resources Desalination Project -----Original Message----- From: Kim Taylor [mailto:Kim@ironworkers433.org] Sent: Monday, August 15, 2005 12:22 PM To: city.council@surfcity-hb.org Cc: Pat Dapkus; Cathy Fikes Subject: Poseidon Resources Desalination Project August 15, 2005 Mayor and Councilmembers: Local Union#433 represents Craft Workers that live and work in Huntington Beach as well as the entire Southern California area. On behalf of those members and their families I am informing you that we are in full support of the proposed Desalination Project. This project will no doubt create hundreds of construction related jobs. However, the project goes well beyond creating jobs during construction. This is opportunity for Huntington Beach to be the first in the County to have the vision to move forward with its own Desalination Plant. Our area is dependent upon the Colorado River and Northern California for the majority of our water supply. We all know how difficult that process can be especially in drought years. This is an opportunity to supply at least a small portion of our own water. We urge you to step forward in support of this project and negotiate the best deal in the Development Agreement for the citizens of Huntington Beach. Sincerely, Piedmont Brown Business Agent Ironworkers Local#433 8/15/2005 /UG 1 2005 r.Jfil'Gi}cult r. ity Glr tGG It's time to get on the bus, paddle out, drop in, dive in -- whichever phrase works for you on the desalination project. Water has been and will be a concern for us living in this converted desert we call Southern California. Our population continues to grow not only here but in the states that the Colorado River actually runs through. We will have our supply from the Colorado River cut-- the only questions are when and by how much. There are very successful desalination plants being used around the globe and some that have had problems. We can't just bury our heads in the sand for fear that we may be hurt. This is much too pressing of an issue for our community as a whole and individually -- for our families and our children's families. The naysayers point to problems of a plant in Florida, or point to the troubles with the city's sports complex. The point is that mistakes are made, and we can stop or learn from them to produce a better outcome. Stopping generally gets you nowhere! The environmental impact is negligible; the revenues for the county and city are promising. This would be a local project with local controls. This is a win-win for the city of Huntington Beach. So lets do the research and be prudent but definitely move on and do the responsible thing for the generations to come. Chris Hammond Huntington Beach Resident I I i a .. ' r Dear Editor: i t ir(Jii( `; ,Ity In this time of state and municipal budget shortfalls, dwindling water supplies, and divisive politics, it's like drinking a long, tall glass of water on a hot day to see the plans of some very knowledgeable people taking shape. I recently had the opportunity to learn quite a bit about water in Southern California. What I was most surprised about is how low our water supply is and that it would take many years of more than average rain fall to catch up. We must find new sources of water for the future. I would like to personally congratulate the boards of directors and staffs of Orange County Water District and the Orange County Sanitation District on their foresight in developing the Groundwater Replenishment System (GWRS) to refill Orange County's groundwater basin. Using recycled water innovatively like this is one of keys to successfully managing our water supply. Another bright and shining example of ingenuity is the proposed Huntington Beach Water Treatment Facility, which will take the salt out of our very abundant supply of ocean water to make it drinkable. This water will be extremely high quality and the effects on the local beaches will be so miniscule as to be undetectable, as evidenced by the studies done by esteemed scientists at Scripps Oceanographic Institute. With all of us "regular guys" doing our part to conserve water, and our local water agencies/companies doing their part to increase and improve supplies, we will have plenty of water to support our way of life here in Orange County. Don MacAllister Huntington Beach Resident �\O ERpTy� International Bf-otherhood of ��p�;� moo Local Lodge 92 BOILERMAKERS • IRON SHIP BUILDERS BLACKSMITHS • FORGERS & HELPERS EDWARD J. MARQUEZ , EDWIN R. RICHARDS Business Manager/Secretary Treasurer President U t YROOP49RQ��„OP Business Representative 2260 South Riverside Avenue • Bloomington, California 92316 (909) 877-9382 • Fax (909) 877-8318 August 15, 2005 v. Mayor Jill Hardy Office of the City Council /��Iv 6 2005 ` 2000 Main Street ;r` �Gf jti r:• Huntington Beach, CA. 92648 RE: Poseidon Resources Desalination Project Dear Mayor Jill Hardy: Boilermakers Local 92 represents Craft Workers that live and work in Huntington Beach as well as the entire Southern California area. On behalf of those members and their families I am informing you that we are in full support of the proposed 'Desalination Project. This project will no doubt create hundreds of construction related jobs. However, the project goes well beyond creating jobs during construction. This is an opportunity for Huntington Beach to be the first in the County to have the vision to move forward with its own Desalination Plant. Our area is dependent upon the Colorado River and Northern California for the majority of our water supply. We all know how difficult that process can be especially in drought years. This is an opportunity to supply at least a small portion of our own water. We urge you to step forward in support of this project and negotiate the best deal in a Development Agreement for the citizens of Huntington Beach. Sincerely, Business Manager Boilermakers Local 92 a � �. e (�'d 'S � >. "��"'"£Y fb .�: ++I d �i {re�ti r&� s�s r �ayit,�f t(s y�• . 1 +`^ d c d ybr„m ,�1 v r ,e r.(^^;�",,y�'.�'t.?t��puv �t��""tg4�Pi'''"�4A��";Jtn"' yF•7 ifi{:tV/1��t #e��,.rt5���i,L.�(hma�� y�aty.�tt� 4! { s It r�D Y: k� �►� �1 b :1� 111"� t';">{kr a ii 'krin}u i "�r 5 r tl'{� y Wt : V!i•'C.s t sir+.a`,.'�, r't S� �i eta 1•,`rR r s. SST' ",� Y`�+ 7 `� :� ,� ��M }• .� a^ry`�� �y?r 'wdf a1 `�"�ikt'z � P Fa'9`wif ^�u'' 7v '1 ,,�v�•` •�1�e 1� a eE � .6+t c� s ,� q?� -:;'Y.•a :an t ++ w �v zqY c .y U a S '>�.a. re`�'rE �� b� '+,y4z. "4A ",d�' aHTl ,Q IS',y' r{� It. ib •�ti u+ nF� Anl�C"�"> ehF?r"�s+k Ci4.rf x rh M1,aab t�F'Sr ti!' yµ i`*•?,�rlvy'r4 m r�'�p'SVkli"t,'di :,�' a� �k a. 17F T ©ttIh u5F-�Ie�r"akFJtY ac""i��t^,!wi 9y.v agh�'elle�i ly a;'dr"rd�t'�'a��'+'`n'°�h'x'"�a'Cl�lrhies'a�+1l�avt��h'"F��„Ue%xySx`ti Ai1w.rE3(sK.+t�"j�i `%tyen iN4"4tGt,•�iV IAOn U;Uj uQ Te O r�5'ar 1r�1uz 4_:s t Q Qe�all�n al 9?Lw1 YCIy¢l'`rq rLld� e t s 7 wn a •kada (aka 0° Y!i.G`s"`tr Sr n? cw ir.+ �,,+i ,-. 1 x r yYki,'�'4N M T�n ?�4, Ekir,'�a•r if `•iiQs� }u 7 Ma�' x '.di of wasterrinto t �emimce�aq ip i �nt�n' tar p a ffll• �611 � �y A F z s� ' i rraa b �. rA" �tYr yl ," �� �a� r L ■ 3 Y .�n. k ` h p*sh h e iidC! U v ttjl t.�{7 y �oseidon sr playN2nllinr�'akeTo„�ur�gceanrd ,bra '� � {�;k'., 1 vl! Al 1`vc �dkle.V rtiuV l k.:r,£{:.Ftla >nnYtr C,ryn�4tY r�eyi '+ + 4 "'�'1�'� py, r1x1i''af "t1 �`£ .VGA 1 r' (SaA +c 1M1.iYe k'u : �+ � �■, t��� a a,. tw F��eopardize�Hunt�'ng#on,�Beach�s;I��o�r�sm�j�ndus��,y�������� ,�bf�, r k �a r Irzr417$ „'�c.� crY>, tytixtwzvy = r� e z r e �;i�i�. t h a t x f■y� r is lzt Ya. �.�,v Y�$.-{r'r•UA14� y,�.,,.h`� rx�v" iGh,��,�Wx `+a krk NV��lri`t�F'�r r m,..V pr�'ni,�xi>k��`r#eta� �,J °' G ................ SitSc� �' r x�£ �.. 1•F , d �v #'" 0 f V oh a a x'r.�r+*�,i 14a�� +N r,d•.r"w� .� pf S fr.A� t F. h rP"!, R q t4 c r 1 r L r 3 1 v 7 r4 r ti xY M � _�rJ�r� t�VT tj�x +r '•`' xd AddressPF JJ 1� f aY `�x �9 l kr (yN ^q 4h/5 adna vt �y�� N 7�p IV + �. e r ry i i #sr v 5�>•s r >r 't£ h (x,l y k lty,�'wt4x t�r,��}l l�7ATIQ� DF� Pit . J'AJ t of}, y+`v5 7 rbY `4C i}eIV C l.: �� 4, TM�rkr�t r� - 1 r ,� � P ,,, �34..� u�r t >r r rk X.�J,L a^a�,�,'7�'`�`°kk,�'5��,�><rY" •�,yl 49. ""_____ .__..__.. ..�.. { t t r P r, ,p....!....... r...�;,,_'A'"r'I s •.... t,�� r S'����sti:'r£y�`P��G�r �3,r v e Page 1 of 1 f Bazant, Denise From: Dapkus, Pat Sent: Tuesday, August 02, 2005 3:15 PM To: Bazant, Denise Subject: FW:AGAINST the Poseidon Desalination Plant Proposal -----Original Message----- From: Susie Haasch [mailto:susiehaasch@verizon.net] Sent: Monday, August 01, 2005 5:07 PM To: city.council@surfcity-hb.org Cc: Pat Dapkus; Cathy Fikes Subject: AGAINST the Poseidon Desalination Plant Proposal Dear HB City Council - My wife and I are opposed to locating this project in Huntington Beach. We also don't feel desalination is the way to satisfy growing water requirements. We are rather in favor of reducing consumption. We don't want to see the neighborhoods torn up for extended periods of time -as was done with the fiasco with the sewers on Bushard street. In short, this is a very, very, very, very bad idea and we are against it. Sincerely, Richard and Susan Haasch 8932 Satterfield Drive Huntington Beach, CA 92646 8/2/2005 Dear Council Members: Dear Council Members: I am opposed to Poseidon's plans for a Desalination I am opposed to Poseidon's plans for a Desalinatioi Plant in SEHB. Plant in SEHB. ,z 1dee ""V/r+ We already have the AES Power lant, the Sevq e We already have the AES Power Plant, the Sewage Treatment Plant, the NEST Toxic Dump Site, and a Treatment Plant, the NESI Toxic Dump Sitd9, Ei&&WE[ City Maintenance Yard in our neighborhood. City Maintenance Yard in our neighborhood. AUG -- 2 200 - No more industrialization of our neighbo" - No more industrialization of our neighJJA91* 1 0A(3TONr; - No more pollution for our neighborhood! 1vED - No more pollution for our neighborhooQPMINISTRATIUNUFP AUG - 20057-E✓ nJ vi rvz` Name // CITY 0FI.Olq Name VO/leA�INSTRATIONOFFI_ACJJ 6�- Address Address �� '164a�j ?�l 411,� -C, e Si nature Signature ~ ` Nt. sT,'c.c. � Mc w�-tk r b Dear Council Members: Dear Council Members: am opposed to Poseidon's plans for a Desalination Plant in SEHB. I am opposed to Poseidon's plans for a Desalination Plant in HB. Do not support this project We already have the AES Power Plant, the Sewage la.�� 01. I'�rUX-U,plac�"�s1,�.��' �c 'c�LLLq,"QCQ�,, i,��ct,�e Treatment Plant, the NESI Toxic Dump Site, RIWEIVED Our city already has the AES �ower Plant and le'.u.� City Maintenance Yard in our neighborhood. the Sewage Plant that dump 750,000,000 gallons AUG - 2 2005 of waste into the ocean at Huntington Beach daily. g �a�'t Chi %�CQ.� uxt �,..�4�C11n� V bAQCZ -',kV.Q. at - No more industrialization of our nei hbgll#�plgUr�ATiO�oFBICAE Poseidon's Ian will make our ocean dirtier and - No more pollution for our neighborhood! p J � jeopardize Huntington Beach's tourism in11W8(VE[` Name 136cQ Name . ���,� AUG 2 Address a f 7 C-cece- n J 144-.� GC� Address $ `��1 1�cSY1Ca.d- e/L1Lirnb! , rlb�v oFF, Signature r_ CIR q)4 4(.9 W I t 2,�' Dear Council Members: Dear Council Members: �l/LLIjT>°A I am opposed to Poseidon's plans fora Desalination ' pp p � I am opposed to Poseidon's plans for a Desalination Plant in HB. Do no support this project. ? Plant in HB. Do not support this project Our city already has the AES Power Plant and '$ Our city already has the AES Power Plant and the Sewage Plant that dump 750,000,000 gallons the Sewage Plant that dump 750,000,000 gallons of waste into the ocean at Huntington BREAFAV49. of waste into the ocean at Huntington Beach daily. Poseidon's plan will make our ocean direr ar�dZO05 Poseidon's plan will make our ocean dirtier and jeopardize Huntington Beach's tourismyip lmW 41v 8LAGH �- jeopardize Huntington Beach's tourism ��s± / 004 ) nADMINISTRATION OFFICE Name 6( e/l 0 04J lep 155 ` Name - Y `r/ � y AUGa�r� .� Loos Address g4i1 BrCA�va-Ae, CIrC�,.e� �it 4(e urn Ts F; Addressys�- ��/t Signature Q Signature Jew- �0 rlUT s v P PD►2T Pos��D�'s µg �IG,n.s � � �����2i�1 . V) %.LSe- a A w �., ' t 5y,aKxx'yty 4r ^x�, 4 ' 'Rw. M �.- ' >,x d sR �i k ro.. ar :ix d is bFu� t•. .iam •.. d ik '` .ri'anS`Fixr.He,,' i,�. 4 i y t v r L ✓9r '� ' a .ph.,,.d, fR.."..W 'f jA:' �� .i' .. M '.1 •�; J y� x1 Message Page I of I Bazant, Denise From: Dapkus, Pat Sent: Tuesday, August 09, 2005 9:35 AM To: Bazant, Denise Subject: FW: Stop the Desalination Plant in HB!!!!!!!! Importance: High -----Original Message----- From: Jacqueline Tolley [mailto:jackiet@PDIRECT.com] Sent: Tuesday, August 09, 2005 9:09 AM To: city.council@surfcity-hb.org Cc: Pat Dapkus; Cathy Fikes Subject: Stop the Desalination Plant in HB!!!!!!!! Importance: High Dear Council Members, 1 am opposed to Poseidon's plans for a Desalination Plant in SEHB. We already have the AES Power Plant, the Sewage Treatment Plant, the NESI Toxic Dump Site and the City Maintenance yard in our Neighborhood. -No more industrialization of our neighborhood! -No more pollution for our neighborhood! Regards, Jacqueline Tolley I I I Tall Oak Irvine, CA 92603 8/9/2005 Page 1 of l Bazant, Denise From: Dapkus, Pat Sent: Tuesday, August 09, 2005 9:18 AM To: Bazant, Denise Subject: FW: Poseidon HB -----Original Message----- From: Jessica Collins [mailto:JessicaC@PDIRECT.com] Sent:Tuesday, August 09, 2005 9:15 AM To: city.council@surfcity-hb.org Cc: Pat Dapkus; Cathy Fikes Subject: Poseidon HB Dear Council Members, I am opposed to Poseidon's plans for a Desalination Plant in SEHB. We already have the AES Power Plant, the Sewage Treatment Plant, the NEST Toxic Dump Site and a City Maintenance yard in our Neighborhood. -No more industrialization of our neighborhood! -No more pollution for our neighborhood! Jessica Collins 16312 Nassue Lane Huntington Beach, CA 92649 8/9/2005 Page 1 of 1 Bazant, Denise From: Dapkus, Pat Sent: Tuesday, August 09, 2005 8:33 AM To: Bazant, Denise Subject:FW: desalination plant- Chejoka -----Original Message----- From: Nart [mailto:nartc@aaa-action.com] Sent: Tuesday, August 09, 2005 7:51 AM To: city.council@surfcity-hb.org Cc: Pat Dapkus; Cathy Fikes Subject: desalination plant Chejoka Dear Council Members, I purchased my home here 15 years ago and I have witnessed many changes in this city and so far so good. However, I do not like what I'm reading about this proposed desalination plant. I'd rather see that land developed into another residential or commercial project. I don't think we need more beach closures and street closures, we've had enough of those. Thank you, Nart Chejoka 942 11 th St. 8/9/2005 Bazant, Denise From: Dapkus, Pat Sent: Monday,August 08, 2005 6:06 PM To: Bazant, Denise Subject: FW: Opposition of the Desalination Plant in HB -----Original Message----- From: Andreas Herr [mailto:andreas@anthem-magazine.com] Sent: Monday, August 08, 2005 5:51 PM To: CITy.council@surfcity-hb.org Cc: Pat Dapkus; Cathy Fikes Subject: Opposition of the Desalination Plant in HB Dear Council Members, I am opposed to Poseidon's plans for a Desalination Plant in SEHB. We already have the AES Power Plant, the Sewage Treatment Plant, the NEST Toxic Dump Site and a City Maintenance yard in our Neighborhood. -No more industrialization of our neighborhood! -No more pollution for our neighborhood! Thank you for your time, Andreas Herr 10176 Falcon Avenue Fountain Valley, CA 92708 2 Page I of I Bazant, Denise From: Dapkus, Pat Sent: Monday, August 08, 2005 6:02 PM To: Bazant, Denise Subject: FW: Stop the Desalination Plant in HB!!!!!!!! FYI -----Original Message----- From: Tynan, Ian [mailto:itynan@kforce.com] Sent: Monday, August 08, 2005 5:26 PM To: city.council@surfcity-hb.org Cc: Pat Dapkus; Cathy Fikes Subject: Stop the Desalination Plant in HB!!!!!!!! Dear Council Members, I am opposed to Poseidon's plans for a Desalination Plant in SEHB. Although I live in Long Beach, I am regular to Huntington Beach since it's the only quality beach in the local area. To ADD this would not make sense and only further effect the scenery, pollution, traffic And the eco system for some water which is CONSIDERABLY more expensive. The local council CAN NOT benefit from this..... Also I understand that the water wouldn't even be provided to HB anyway...... They already have the AES Power Plant, the Sewage Treatment Plant, the NESI Toxic Dump Site and a City Maintenance yard - DO THEY NEED MORE? Please do not allow this to happen.... Ian Tynan 4815 Pearce Ave, Long Beach, CA, 90808 8/9/2005 Bazant, Denise From: Dapkus, Pat Sent: Tuesday,August 09, 2005 10:06 AM To: Bazant, Denise Subject: FW: the Desalination Plant in HB!!!!!!!! -----Original Message----- From: Matt Aziz [mailto:matta@compuexpert.com] Sent: Tuesday, August 09, 2005 9:56 AM To: city.council@surfcity-hb.org Cc: Pat Dapkus; Cathy Fikes Subject: the Desalination Plant in HB!!!!!!!! Dear Council Members, I am opposed to Poseidon's plans for a Desalination Plant in SEHB. We already have the AES Power Plant, the Sewage Treatment Plant, the NESI Toxic Dump Site and a City Maintenance yard in our Neighborhood. -No more industrialization of our neighborhood! -No more pollution for our neighborhood! Regards, Ayad Aziz CompuExpert/GoGamer Sales 9074 Mallard Ave. Fountain Valley Ca, 92708 P.S. I live on Garfield and Magnolia, so don't fry to disregard my vote because I am 100 yards away from Huntington Beach. I do all my shoppinging and dinning in Huntington, as well as enjoying our"clean Ocean"when it's not red from all the pollution that we don't do anything about. i E EIVE� JV I o AUG - 8 2005 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH - �J" ^v ADMINISTRATION OFFIC P0 &)'I was Wo�►�A CJIF�I��f �5 it 1 tunas SID � 00 MINA\s x I amxopposed to Poseidon's plansfordD�sa�ll<nat�atI� Plant �n HB. w Do nsuppo�r# ti't�spr�t � � ma- Our city.already has the AfSorean ands , the Sewage Plant thattdurr>tp 75OMG0101 © Ions f r f of waste into the ocean a# Hun#fRE- rig#oa_ B+eachscla�ly. = � - Poseidon s -plan w>tlt:make our ocean��r#ierr:and� -��� `t �eopard>Ize Hun#�ngton WAS Beacr�sm �nustry: � cia s_to"` ems' �� ►'�� �fiE(:���U11C� fi . "��x ����n' - �s�'f ame Ceno�atcbnn�;+u �i� .Ve hbo �a w y F y 9712 Clearbrook Dr. Huntington Bch,CA 92 * s t3 Y, r } 9661 Clearbrook Drive Huntington Beach,CA 92646-8020 Phone(714)963-3829 dweave@earthlink.net I VS AUG a 8 2005 City Of huntrngpQn City counoii o f ; ct Huntington Beach City Council 2000 Main Street P.O.Box 190 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 August 5,2005 I am definitely opposed to the proposed desalination plant in HB. 1 do not support this project and urge you to cast a"No"vote H B's tourism is expanding because of it's lovely environment. We enjoy the beautiful beaches and ocean. Say"NO". Sincerely, Richard Weaver Desalination proposal Page 1 of 1 Bazant, Denise From: Dapkus, Pat Sent: Monday, August 08, 2005 9:59 AM To: Bazant, Denise Subject: FW: Desalination proposal -----Original Message----- From: Nissen, Christopher [mailto:Christopher.Nissen@ ngc.com] Sent: Friday, August 05, 2005 2:37 PM To: city.council@surfcity-hb.org Cc: Pat Dapkus; Cathy Fikes Subject: Desalination proposal Dear Council Member, My wife and I are opposed to the proposed water desalination plant. We feel that the city of Huntington Beach should not be involving itself in a project of this nature with a company with a not so stellar track record with this type of project. This type of project is best left to a public agency such as the county water department. Thank for your time. Sincerely.Christopher and Loretta Nissen Christopher Nissen Weld Shop Dept. 2B2T/W2 X24476 8/8/2005 Poseidon Desalination Plant Page 1 of 1 Bazant, Denise From: Dapkus, Pat Sent: Monday, August 08, 2005 10:00 AM To: Bazant, Denise Subject: FW: Poseidon Desalination Plant -----Original Message----- From: gail kawata [mailto:gailkawata@teamworkmedia.com] Sent: Friday, August 05, 2005 8:36 AM To: city.council@surfcity-hb.org Cc: Pat Dapkus; Cathy Fikes Subject: Poseidon Desalination Plant Dear Council members in favor of the poseidon desalination plant - I'm writing to hopefully persuade you to vote against this project. I have lived in HB for 30 years and have continually asked the city to clean up the "dump" at Hamilton and Bushard. I know its too expensive but it must be done. Now I'm fighting against a desalination project that has failed previously in Florida. The City of Costa Mesa and the Edison Company do not want.the pipeline under their property and we do not want the pipeline running through Bushard or Hamilton. The ocean in Huntington Beach is dirty and polluted already. Having a plant release debris and kill fish life will only increase the pollution and filth in our water. You must look for other sources for tax revenue. Southeast Huntington Beach is not an "industrial area". Its bad enough that we look at the.AES plant and the sewage plant. This is enough. Please vote No on desalination. I'll see you at the council meetings. Gail Kawata 8/8/2005 Page 1 of 1 Bazant, Denise From: Dapkus, Pat Sent: Monday,August 08, 2005 9:01 AM To: Bazant, Denise Subject:FW: Desalination Plant -----Original Message----- From: donrobertson [mailto:drobertson2@socal.rr.com] Sent: Saturday, August 06, 2005 11:40 AM To: city.council@surfcity-hb.org Cc: Pat Dapkus; Cathy Fikes Subject: Desalination Plant Why would we want a plant that is of no benefit to our city and has not proven to be effective in other areas? We vote no on the Poseidon Desalination Plant. It is wrong for Huntington Beach. Don and Lillie Robertson 8/8/2005 Page 1 of 1 Ramos, Ricky From: Kathy Keenan [ktkeenan@socal.rr.com] Sent: Tuesday, August 09, 2005 12:26 PM To: rramos@surfcity-hb.org Subject: poseidon In the orange county register(local section) dated Wed. 813105 there was an article about red tide. Very interesting and somewhat informative and possibly important, as far as what we are doing to our ocean for the wrong reasons. We have no zooplankton to eat the phyto-plankton, therefor our beaches are somewhat less desirable when we have red tide, do you think it could possibly have anything to do with the fact that so much water, nutrients, zooplankton, fish get sucked into the power plant. We also have had quite a few years now of high ocean pollution levels. Its seems to me that there has to be a better way to help progress than by destroying our natural environment. Everyone really needs to step back and think about our environment and what all this progress is doing to it. We do not need Poseidon, not only that, but you also should be trying to figure out a way to get our electricity without destroying the natural balance of life. Its time to stop, take a breather and find alternative ways of gaining what we humans need(or want) at the expense of Mother Nature. Kathy Keenan 8/10/2005 Bazant, Denise From: Dapkus, Pat Sent: Thursday, June 16, 2005 9:07 AM To: Bazant, Denise Subject: FW: deslinization plant -----Original Message=---- From: Hardy, Jill Sent: Wednesday, June 15, 2005 7:29 PM To: Dapkus, Pat Subject: FW: deslinization plant -----Original Message----- From: "Naomi Lorenzini" <naomi@lorenzini.com> Sent: 6/15/05 4:19:12 PM To: "jhardy@surfcity-hb.org" <jhardy@surfcity-hb.org> Subject: deslinization plant Hi, My name is Naomi and I live close to the AES plant and wanted to let you know that I would be unhappy if the desalinization plant was approved. All the research and the people who have built them before show that it's not a good idea. All the money they are spending to talk hb into this also shows it's a bad idea. Please vote no. We should spend the money on conserving if anything. Also can the city offer solar power incentives so we can get more natural energy and eventually not need the AES plant. That beach area could be so beautiful. Thank you, Naomi II i I i 1 i Page 1 of 1 Hatfield, Brian From: Elahraf@aol.com Sent: Friday, August 19, 2005 11:23 PM To: CITY COUNCIL Cc: hbindependent@latimes.com; info@ocwd.com; givey@mwdh2o.com; mtchuman@mwdoc.com; Dapkus, Pat; Fikes, Cathy Subject: Voting no on PER is the right thing to do Dear members of the City Council: Poseidon has built a 25 mgd facility in Tampa. It is still not operational. Should not that fact make you reject an EIR that is also inadequate? The EIR does not address the impact on an obsolete and environmental non conforming AES plant. A historical non-performance combined by a deficient EIR adds insult to injury. The right thing to do is to vote no on PER. Thank you for your consideration. Dr. Amer EI-Ahraf 21572 Kanakoa Lane Huntington Beach, CA 92646 963-3292 8/25/2005 Proposed Poseidon Desalination Plant Page 1 of 1 Hatfield, Brian From: Roger Harrington [roger@christmasevents.com] Sent: Wednesday, August 17, 2005 12:15 PM To: CITY COUNCIL Cc: Dapkus, Pat; Fikes, Cathy Subject: Proposed Poseidon Desalination Plant Dear City Council: We live in the vicinity of Atlanta and Newland, so we get to see the smoke billowing from the existing (AES) plant every day of our lives - a REAL attractive sight! No one to date has explained to me what is contained in this smoke screen belching daily from AES. We would sure like to know what effect this pollution has on the nearby residents! Can someone answer this question? Is this pollution tested? If so, when and how often? I have been told of a sale of a residence that fell through, as the potential buyers did not want to live so close to a plant that pollutes the air on a daily basis. The city and its council have done a very poor job of letting its citizens know what affect this constant billow of pollution might have on its nearby residents. With all of the problems created by the existing AES facility, we certainly do not want a second monstrosity adding to the pollution of the air we breathe and as an additional blight that would be visible from our beaches. Roger A. Harrington 8322 Varas Circle Huntington Beach, CA 92646 E-mail: roger@christmasevents.com Phone: (800)375-XMAS(9627) FAX: (714)969-9650 P.O. Box 8126 Huntington Beach, CA 92615-8126 Web site: www.christmasevents.com li 8/25/2005 I Page 1 of 1 Hatfield, Brian From: Elahraf@aol.com Sent: Friday, August 19, 2005 11:09 PM To: CITY COUNCIL Cc: mtchuman@mwdoc.com; hbindependent@latimes.com; Dapkus, Pat; Fikes, Cathy Subject: Vote " NO" on the Desal Proposal Honorable Mayor and the City Council: I urge you to vote " NO" on Poseidon's EIR. As a lead agency , you have a responsibility to reject an inadequate EIR that did not address the impact of a 10 mile long pipe line through our city streets or the growth inducing effects of the project among other things. In advance, thank you for being responsive to our community's interest in a clean and safe environment. Mrs. Lorraine EI-Ahraf 21572 Kanakoa Lane, Huntington Beach, Ca 92646 (714) 963-3292 �I ,I 1 8/25/2005 i Page 1 of 1 Hatfield, Brian From: Elahraf@aol.com Sent: Friday,August 19, 2005 11:45 PM To: CITY COUNCIL Cc: mtchuman@mwdoc.com; hbindependent@latimes.com; Dapkus, Pat; Fikes, Cathy Subject: Please VOTE NO on PER Honorable Members of the HB City Council: As a young person, I am concerned about my future in a city threatened by environmental deterioration caused by projects like Poseidon. The EIR must be rejected as it does not address a number of significant issues. One example is the lack of addressing the issue of energy cost appropriately. That is particularly important in view of the fact that Southern California's electric rates are the third highest in the nation .Additionally , Southern California Edison has declared that it will not provide Poseidon with discounted rates. Who would then provide Poseidon with lower energy rates ? The tax payers through public subsidy? The confidence of the citizens of HB in their elected officials is at stake. Please vote no on PER. Hadeel EI-Ahraf Home address; 21572 Kanakoa Lane , City of Huntington Beach, CA 92646 i 8/25/2005 Hatfield, Brian From: Nancy Donaven [ndonaven@fea.net] Sent: Saturday, August 20, 2005 8:27 AM To: CITY COUNCIL Cc: Dapkus, Pat; Fikes, Cathy Subject: Poseidon EIR The REIR you will be studying on Monday, August 22nd, needs to be redone. Numerous agencies and environmental organizations have pointed out major problems with this document. I believe that you must vote against this REIR for 2 important reasons: 1. It is inadequate for a project of its size and complexity. 2. The City has not really awakened its citizenry to what is being planned at the AES site (i.e. sending out notices in water bills, for one thing) . It has been my experience that when people are told about this plan they do NOT like it! Sincerely, Nancy Donaven 4831 Los Patos Ave Huntington Beach, CA 92649 1 Hatfield, Brian From: Joey Racano boeylittleshell@yahoo.coml Sent: Saturday, August 20, 2005 8:17 AM To: CITY COUNCIL Cc: Dapkus, Pat; Fikes, Cathy Subject: Desal Plant in HB Hi folks- With respect, I ask that you turn this project down. It is wrong for our city. Thank you Joey Racano "Polite conservationists leave no mark save the scars upon the Earth that could have been prevented had they stood their ground. " -David Ross Brower Want to save the world but not sure exactly how to go about doing it? Get a copy of my book ( 'An Activist's Almanac' ) . NOW AVAILABLE IN PAPERBACK! Order yours at www.printmybookonline.com let's save the world! Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs i I ,I 1 i I Page 1 of 1 Hatfield, Brian From: Angeli Leggitt[aleggitt@socal.rr.com] Sent: Saturday, August 20, 2005 10:04 PM To: CITY COUNCIL Cc: 'Michael Leggitt'; Dapkus, Pat; Fikes, Cathy Subject: Poseidon Desalination Plant- NO FOR HB, please! Dear Honorable Huntington Beach City Council Members, As residents of Huntington Beach, we are completely opposed to the proposed desalination plant to be built at Newland and PCH—it is bad for the environment, our tourism, and our city. Please do not allow our shore and beaches to be destroyed. Thank you in advance for all you can do to prevent this issue from occurring. Sincerely, Mike and Angeli Leggitt 20887 Cabrillo Lane Huntington Beach, CA 92646 (714) 536-2128 8/25/2005 Page 1 of 1 Hatfield,Brian From: KAY MYLOD [kaymylod@hotmail.coml Sent: Monday, August 22, 2005 11:02 AM To: CITY COUNCIL Cc: Dapkus, Pat; Fikes, Cathy Subject: August 22 Study Sessin on poseidon To the city council: In the name of all that is honest, good for the city's infrastructure and honoring the people of this city, VOTE NO ON poseidon EIR request. I still cannot see how this whole mess got as far as it did. Someone, somewhere has to have some common sense to see what a calamity this is. KAYMYLOD@hotmail.com 8/25/2005 Page 1 of 1 Hatfield, Brian From: papagoof@copper.net Sent: Monday, August 22, 2005 12:06 PM To: CITY COUNCIL Cc: Dapkus, Pat; Fikes, Cathy Subject: Poseidon - Papagoof I, and my family are very concerned about the proposed Poseidon Project. We feel that there are to many problems and potential problems with this project to even consider going ahead. This city does not need the problems associated with Poseidon that other cities have had, there is to much danger to our ocean and beaches. We would be taking all the risks and problems for little or no benefits. For this and many other reasons we hope that you will not approve this project. 8/25/2005 Page 1 of 1 Hatfield, Brian From: Ricbutton@aol.com Sent: Monday, August 22, 2005 11:35 AM To: city.council@surfcity-hb.org. Cc: Dapkus, Pat; Fikes, Cathy Subject: poseidon desalination plant- Button PLEASE vote NO on the poseidon desalination plant. 1. aes plant in operating on 24/7 on 50's technology- pre EPA on a temporary conditional use permit that is due to expire 2. aes plant intake/discharge pipes are very close to the beach off Newland street 3. ASCON waste dump thank you, ric button 8642 hatteras dr. huntington beach, ca 92646 (714) 969-9030 please let me know if attending the study session tonight will help in stopping the Poseidon disaster. 8/25/2005 Hatfield, Brian From: Irene.Atkinson@cmelic.com Sent: Monday, August 22, 2005 11:45 AM To: CITY COUNCIL Cc: Dapkus, Pat; Fikes, Cathy Subject: Poseidon Meeting -Atkinson Dear City Council Members, Since I have to work today, I cannot attend today' s study session on the Poseidon Desalination Plant Proposal. Please have the integrity look at this study with what is best for Huntington Beach and its residents. I have lived in Huntington Beach since 1970 and have seen the residents of the city have to protect the city from the local government's poor choices in the past. From the information I have from concerned neighbors, this desalination plant will not be beneficial to the city. If there are redeeming merits to this project, please email these to me. If not, please stop all plans for this project. Respectfully, Irene Atkinson 1 Hatfield, Brian From: Jane M Rothrock Omrothrock@verizon.net] Sent: Monday, August 22, 2005 10:59 AM To: CITY COUNCIL Cc: Dapkus, Pat; Fikes, Cathy Subject: Poseidon Project- Rothrock Dear HB City Council Members, I have read about this proposed Poseidon Project, and I am deeply concerned! Why would we want something else to cause tearing up of our streets, more pollution to our air and ocean, and potential for loss of tourism?? This city is changing fast enough! ! Please say no to this. I do not care about profit to an out-of-state corporation with a bad record! ! Thank you for your consideration. Jane M. Rothrock 1842 Park Street HB, 92648 i 1 I Page 1 of 1 Hatfield, Brian From: Shirley [sswagerty@socal.rr.com] Sent: Monday, August 22, 2005 9:03 AM To: CITY COUNCIL Cc: Dapkus, Pat; Fikes, Cathy Subject: Oppose Poseidon - Swagerty Dear City Council, We oppose the plans for a Poseidon Desalination Plant. Much more research is needed and there are two basic issues. The first issue to resolve is whether HB needs a desalination plant...what are the benefits as well as the detriments? The second issue is only needed if those questions produce a positive result...that is to research the best company to build and operate the plant. What we know about Poseidon's track record is not good and we are not convinced a desalination plant is needed in HB. Thank you, Shirley and Patrick Swagerty 8/25/2005 Page 1 of 1 Hatfield, Brian From: Therese Hart[bnthart@iname.com] Sent: Sunday, August 21, 2005 11:24 PM To: CITY COUNCIL Cc: Dapkus, Pat; Fikes, Cathy Subject: Poseidon Desalination Plant- Hart Please do not approve the Desalination Project. We are sick and tired of having our streets and neighborhoods in the South-East Part of the city torn up. Besides, there are live gas and oil lines to be crossed with possible dire consequences. A concerned citizen. L.C. Hart 10062 Theseus Dr. Huntington Beach, 92646 8/25/2005 Page 1 of 1 Hatfield, Brian From: brianinhb@yahoo.com Sent: Monday,August 22, 2005 7:28 AM To: CITY COUNCIL Cc: Dapkus, Pat; Fikes, Cathy Subject: Desalination Plant- Brian I learned yesterday about the City Study Session today (monday 8-22-05). 1 have had some concerns about the desalination plant, but never thought I had enough information to make an informed decision. You have made it for me by scheduling the meeting for resident input at 4:00 pm on a Monday. Most people work and this might as well be 11:00 am. What this tells me is you really don't want input, you just want to be able to say you sought it before you do what you want. This also tells me the project is not in my best interest. The scheduling of this meeting at this time is very suspect. Brian Start.your._davwith Yahoo!_=make_it_your home page 8/25/2005 Page 1 of 1 Hatfield, Brian From: Phil Callahan [pcallahan@socal.rr.com] Sent: Sunday, August 21, 2005 10:37 PM To: CITY COUNCIL Cc: Dapkus, Pat; Fikes, Cathy Subject: No to Desalination Plant-Callahan Dear City Council members, I have lived in our fair city for the past 24 years. We have made great progress cleaning up what was, when I was growing up in Pasadena, a lovely beach with oil fields surrounding it. We are preserving the Bolsa Chica for future generations of people and wildlife to enjoy. South East Huntington Beach is too industrialized now. We have a serer reclamation plant, a former oil field which is now a toxic waste city (under clean-up) and a two smokestack power plant. That's enough. South East Huntington Beach residents do not need another major industrial plant of any kind located here. Let alone one with a dubious record in previous plants. We have too much at stake here. The Coastal Commission has stated that the study by Poseidon is flawed. That's a big red flag. I'm concerned about: The beaches The ocean Our citizens The wildlife, The potential for industrial accidents adversely effecting our beaches and water, tourism. Depreciated home values I urge you to vote no on this proposed plant. South County can locate the plant next to the old San Onofre plant. S.E. Huntington is over burdened now by industry. We don't need more. Please vote NO. Thanks, Phil Callahan 714.962.8083 pcallahan@socal.rr.com 8/25/2005 Page 1 of 1 Hatfield, Brian From: WaltBobbie@aol.com Sent: Sunday, August 21, 2005 3:26 PM To: CITY COUNCIL Cc: Dapkus, Pat; Fikes, Cathy Subject: Poseidon Desalination Plant- Page What in the world is becoming to our city? Who's idea was this? It would threaten our property values, our health and our ocean. If approved, this would run right by my house which was harmed by the AES trenching on Brookhurst. This would be horrible!!! PLEASE VOTE NO if the council cares at all for our city and the people that live here. Bobbie Page 9952 Effingham 8/25/2005 Page 1 of 1 Hatfield, Brian From: PARS11@)aol.com Sent: Saturday, August 20, 2005 3:08 PM To: CITY COUNCIL Cc: Dapkus, Pat; Fikes, Cathy Subject: desalination plant- Moshiri We would like to join with more and more residents of Huntington Beach in protesting the building of the desalination plant. Residents of Orange County, muchless Huntington Beach, have NEVER been asked to conserve water in any fashion. Why would we undertake the building of such an operation? The only thing it does for sure is ensure that the city's#1 eyesore, AES, continues to function. MWD states that we will have enough water without ANY conservation measures until 2030. That doesn't mean that we shouldn't use our water wisely, but there is nothing wise about the Poseidon project. Our streets will be torn up AGAIN, South Huntington Beach will receive yet one more piece of industry, and we will get not ONE drop of the water. We don't need this project. Poseidon has a poor record of completing it's promises. Let them take the great experiment elsewhere. Mr. & Mrs. Michael Moshiri 8802 Dorsett Dr. Huntington Beach, CA. i 8/25/2005 Page 1 of 2 Hatfield, Brian From: Nancy Koch [nancy@1 talltrees.com] Sent: Saturday, August 20, 2005 1:15 PM To: CITY COUNCIL Cc: Dapkus, Pat; Fikes, Cathy Subject: oppose desalination plant- Koch August 20, 2005 Due to childcare I can't attend Monday's meeting. Here are my comments: Hi my name is Nancy Koch. And I am here today representing myself, my husband, a HB native, my 51/2 year old son, who we hope will grow up in HB and my friends and neighbors. We live in a housing track near the intersection of Newland and Hamilton Streets in SE HB. We are opposed to the construction of a desalination plant near our neighborhood. When we moved to our home almost three years ago, we were aware that within a 5 minute walk there was an electrical power plant emitting pollutants into our air daily, a toxic waste dump, that Edison Park and Kettler School both our neighborhood park and school had methane gas under ground with the potential of explosion and that powerful electrical power lines were running overhead close by. We chose to live in South East HB anyway. One reason is, we love enjoying our beach and its marine life, which is in walking distance, with our son. Although, we have already lost our neighborhood school in the past year, we have chosen to remain, please vote in opposition to the desalination plant and 8/25/2005 Page 2 of 2 save our beach and its marine life. Don't make me add another negative to my list. Thank you 8/25/2005 Page 1 of 1 Hatfield, Brian From: Petter Hennum [petter.hennum@verizon.net] Sent: Monday,August 22, 2005 8:46 PM To: CITY COUNCIL Cc: Dapkus, Pat; Fikes, Cathy Subject: Poseidon Desalination Plant-Hennum We are a family of 3 strongly opposed to the Poseidon project. We hope our voice will be heard Tone, Vita, and Petter Hennum 1015 Park street If problems NVIth me e-mail use: PhennumC homlaH.com 8/25/2005 Hatfield, Brian From: Jeff Stapleton beffstapleton@verizon.net] Sent: Saturday, August 20, 2005 12:27 PM To: CITY COUNCIL Cc: Dapkus, Pat; Fikes, Cathy Subject: desalination plant-- Poseidon Stapleton Council Members, If the proposed desalination plant does not pollute, and increases the tax base I 'm all for it. I live in the area, and I don't even think it will be noticed next to the power plant. Get it going, we can use the money, Jeff Stapleton � 1 i I i i Hatfield, Brian u , From: Scott Toth [sweetchops@earthlink.net] Sent: Monday, August 22, 2005 5:36 PM To: CITY COUNCIL Cc: Dapkus, Pat; Fikes, Cathy Subject: Poseidon-Toth > We are strongly opposed to the Poseidon Desalination Plant. Please > do not bring it to Huntington Beach or our neighborhood! > Alice & Scott Toth > 21871 Oceanview Lane > Huntington Beach CA 92646 1 Hatfield, Brian From: Joseph Ongie flongie@socal.rr.com] Sent: Monday, August 22, 2005 4:32 PM To: CITY COUNCIL Cc: Dapkus, Pat; Fikes, Cathy Subject: Desalination Opposition-Ongie Dear Council Members; We are opposed to Poseidon' s plans for a Desalination Plant in Huntington Beach. Do not support this project. Our city already has the AES Power Plant and the Sewage Plant that dump 750,000,000 gallons of waste into the ocean at Huntington Beach daily. Poseidon's plans will make our ocean dirtier and jeopardize Huntington Beach's tourism industry. Do not approve this unconscionable scheme. Joseph and Joan Ongie 9411 Mokihana Dr. Huntington Beach, CA 92646 j 1 I Page 1 of 1 Hatfield, Brian From: Louray Arnott [louray@socal.rr.com] Sent: Tuesday, August 23, 2005 8:11 AM To: CITY COUNCIL Cc: Dapkus, Pat; Fikes, Cathy Subject: NO to Poseidon pipeline-Arnott Huntington Beach City Council, I am a registered voter and a long time resident of Huntington Beach. I am opposed to the Poseidon pipeline through southeast Huntington Beach. We already have the UGLY AES power plant, the Sewage Treatment Plant, the NESI Toxic Dump Site and a City maintenance yard and this is ENOUGH. We (my family and every other HB resident I have talked with) are against any more industrialization and more pollution for our neighborhood and DO NOT WANT the Poseidon pipeline! Your job is to represent the people of Huntington Beach and it appears you forget that at times. You may forget but we won't forget at the next election! Best Regards, Louray Arnott 8/25/2005 Page 1 of 1 Hatfield, Brian From: NRPKSG@aol.com Sent: Tuesday,August 23, 2005 10:32 AM To: CITY COUNCIL Cc: Dapkus, Pat; Fikes, Cathy Subject: Desalination Plant- Barnes Honorable Mayor Jill Hardy City Council Members: Please stand by your campaign promises and protect our homes and health. We do not want a Desalination Plant. We feel it is wrong for Huntington Beach. Tampa Bay has been a huge and costly failure. We have come to a time in our life that our taxes can no longer go for useless and unwanted waste. We must put tax money to the best advantage for our city. The Desalination Plant is not one of them. We are no longer the Beautiful City of Huntington Beach. We are now just Huntington Beach. Tearing up our streets to put in pipe line is not one of the projects I would use our Tax money on. But tear up our streets to put the beautiful back in Huntington Beach I would vote for. We need to clean up Slater Slums, clean our streets, wipe out graffiti which is on every side street now. Bring our school's back to being number one in the area. Have you looked at the trash by the curbs in our City or the bus stops? Take a look at some of the side walks down Golden west and Heil? We don't all live on Ocean Front property are my tax dollars any less important? Thank you for letting me tell you about some of my concerns. Huntington Beach has been our home for thirty years. M. N. Barnes 8/25/2005 Page 1 of 1 Hatfield, Brian From: MARLENE SHINER [Mshiner5C msn.com] Sent: Sunday, August 21, 2005 7:53 PM To: CITY COUNCIL Cc: Dapkus, Pat; Fikes, Cathy Subject: Poseidon Desalination Plant Proposal Dear Council: I sent in a post card a few weeks ago to let you know I am opposing the Poseidon Desalination Plant. I am angry that you are even considering this proposal. Our city is in a financial mess and you want to bring the Poseidon Plant here to make matters worse? Haven't you looked at the mess in Tampa Bay with that desalination plant and it's still not resolved!! Your decisions in the past (look at the amount of money that the sports area cost our city--the one across from the library--I live in Huntington Beach and it looks like my kids will never be able to play there because it costs too much!! Look at our schools; Fountain Valley School District is selling two school sites and our city cannot purchase them to save the ball fields and Huntington Beach City School District is facing the same problem!! Keep our beaches and ocean clean by not adding the plant in Huntington Beach. Please hear our voices--WE DO NOT WANT THE POSEIDON DESALINATION PLANT IN HUNTINGTON BEACHiiiiiiiiiiiiiijiijlii Thank you for listening and I trust that you will not allow this to happen. Let take care of our city with what we have and not make further problems for us to deal with in the future. Let's focus on improving our coastline and Pacific City area--as well as the Brookhurst/Adams area. Do what is right for Huntington Beach and vote against the Poseidon Plant. Sincerely, Marlene Shiner Parent of 3 children in HBCSD and proud homeowner in Huntington Beach 8/25/2005 Page 1 of 1 Hatfield, Brian From: HankCochrane@aoi.com Sent: Tuesday,August 23, 2005 1:23 PM To: CITY COUNCIL Cc: Dapkus, Pat; Fikes, Cathy Subject: Poseidon - Cochrane No on Poseidon! Hank Cochrane Resident 8/25/2005 Hatfield, Brian From: Pamela Leonard [PLeonard@innout.com] Sent: Tuesday, August 23, 2005 1:36 PM To: CITY COUNCIL Cc: Dapkus, Pat; Fikes, Cathy Subject: Desalination Plant Proposal Dear Council Members: I .have lived in HB for over 15 years and am a current resident. I am against the Desalination Plant. I feel it may harm our beaches as well as our tourism. Our streets have been torn up enough for the pipe replacement under Bushard and given this unproven technology, I feel we are gambling on a water source that threatens our standard of living and possibly our pocketbooks should they need financial assistance. I also feel that the resale value may be compromised on our homes. Please vote NO on this project. Residents do not support it. Sincerely, Pamela Leonard 10172 Beverly Drive Huntington Beach, CA 92646 714-968-9649 1 Page 1 of 1 Hatfield, Brian From: Chris St. Hilaire [csthilaire@impactjuries.com] Sent: Tuesday, August 23, 2005 2:40 PM To: Dapkus, Pat Subject: Support for desalination I am a Huntington Beach resident and support the proposal to build a desalination plant. It's good for our city and we need the new tax base. John Trommald i i I i 8/25/2005 i Page 1 of 1 Hatfield, Brian From: Chris St. Hilaire [csthilairel 1 @yahoo.com] Sent: Tuesday,August 23, 2005 2:44 PM To: Dapkus, Pat Subject: Desalination I am a resident of the City of Huntington Beach for the last 10 years and support the project that Poseidon is proposing. I know the Chamber of Commerce supports it too. Heather Trommald Resident Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com �I i 8/25/2005 Page 1 of 1 Hatfield, Brian From: Kathy LaBelle-Melgoza [obeachyo@yahoo.com] Sent: Sunday, August 21, 2005 12:17 PM To: CITY COUNCIL Cc: Dapkus, Pat; Fikes, Cathy Subject: poseidon desalination - LaBelle I am opposed to Poseidon's plans for a Desalination Plant in HB. DO NOT SUPPORT THIS PROJECT! Kathy D. LaBelle Melgoza 8091 Indianapolis Ave. HB 92646 374-6978 Kathy Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com i 8/25/2005 Hatfield, Brian From: Barbara [uezor@earthlink.net] Sent: Tuesday, August 23, 2005 5:55 PM To: CITY COUNCIL Cc: Dapkus, Pat; Fikes, Cathy Subject: poseidon - Barbara I am a homeowner living across the street form the proposed de-sal plant. There was a homeowner's meeting earlier this month giving both pro and con for the plant. After hearing both sides and reading articles in several newspapers, I am AGAINST having this happen. I do not trust Poseidon's track record and I feel they were giving false promises regarding the impact this plant would have on the immediate area, the community, the coastline and the ecological impact. I think this would have a devastating impact on my immediate community, the city as a whole,the animal life, the ocean ph and future tourism that this city depends on. Please vote NO on this plant Barbara Williams 21851 Newland st HB, Cal i I i i 1 Hatfield, Brian From: Pamela Leonard [PLeonard@innout.com] Sent: Tuesday, August 23, 2005 1:36 PM To: CITY COUNCIL Cc: Dapkus, Pat; Fikes, Cathy Subject: Desalination Plant Proposal - Leonard Dear Council Members: I have lived in HB for over 15 years and am a current resident. I am against the Desalination Plant. I feel it may harm our beaches as well as our tourism. Our streets have been torn up enough for the pipe replacement under Bushard and given this unproven technology, I feel we are gambling on a water source that threatens our standard of living and possibly our pocketbooks should they need financial assistance. I also feel that the resale value may be compromised on our homes. Please vote NO on this project. Residents do not support it. Sincerely, Pamela Leonard 10172 Beverly Drive Huntington Beach, CA 92646 714-968-9649 I 1 Hatfield, Brian From: gary chiang [cutehb@yahoo.com] Sent: Tuesday, August 23, 2005 10:20 PM To: Dapkus, Pat Subject: Poseidon Desalination Project- Chiang I am a resident of Huntington Beach and I am opposed to Poseidon Desalination Project in HB. Please do not support this project. Truly, Gary Chiang 9361 Lawton Drive Huntington Beacg, Ca 92646 714-963-7875 Yahoo! Mail Stay connected, organized, and protected. Take the tour: http: //tour.mail.yahoo.com/mailtour.html i I 1 i - i Page 1 of 1 Hatfield, Brian From: C. L. Stapleton [cindystapleton@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, August 24, 2005 7:05 AM To: CITY COUNCIL Cc: Dapkus, Pat; Fikes, Cathy Subject: Desalination plant-Poseidon - Stapleton Dear Council and staff, I am writing as a Southesast resident who opposes the Poseidon desalination plant. I am opposed to the plant for the following reasons: As a resident in the area, I don't want more pollution in our homes. We have enough black soot from AES as it is. Everyday,we can go outside, wipe off our patio furniture, and there is a fine dust of black soot on it. Is this what we're breathing? i i I'm angry that our southeast community (if the plant is approved)will be once again, faced with months on end with our streets being ripped up and our streets closed. Haven't we dealt with enough with the new sewer pipes (that was a huge mess in this part of town). Our streets were closed for months. I'm also angry, that once again, our area of Huntington will be faced with the blight of an ugly plant along PCH. It doesn't seem that anyone cares how intrusive or invasive the AES plant is...after all, it's a 'NIMBY' thing, isn't it? The Poseidon company has a shady history, at best. i After their debacle in Florida, shouldn't we be wary?It's not as if we haven't had our share of shady contractors. Our Sports Complex isn't even resolved, and we want to take on another 'situation'??? Is this Huntington's legacy--to do business with companies than can't deliver? Or, is it o.k. because a proposed plant (that won't even benefit us with more water) is not in our pristine Downtown, or on the North side i with the higher end Seacliff homes?? Why are we being seduced by empty promises by this company? The promise of money being infused in our city? Well...just my guess,but if the project is as successful as the project in Florida, we won't be seeing a dime of any revenues. Just ripped up streets and litigation. Oh...and the old finger pointing. To approve this project, this accident-waiting-to-happen is a mistake in my opinion. The Southeast residents are already dealing with the Ascon cleanup. Don't impose more havoc on our lives, and quality of living. Sincerely, Cindy Stapleton 8/25/2005 i - i Page 1 of 1 Hatfield, Brian From: Ricbutton@aol.com Sent: Wednesday,August 24, 2005 3:33 PM To: city.council@surfcity-hb.org. Cc: Dapkus, Pat; Fikes, Cathy Subject: no on poseidon desalination plant- Button please take note of newspaper article in the orange county register, state/region section page 12 dated wed. 8/24/2005 on the 5 tons on anchovies sucked into the cooling pipe at san onofre power plant thank you again for your attention, ric button 8642 hatteras dr. huntington beach, ca 92646 (714) 969-9030. I i i i I i 8/25/2005 i Page 1 of 1 Ramos, Ricky From: Dapkus, Pat Sent: Thursday, August 25, 2005 9:00 AM To: Bazant, Denise; Ramos, Ricky Subject: FW: poseidon -----Original Message----- From: ROBERT ELEY [mailto:eley75@verizon.net] Sent: Wednesday, August 24, 2005 7:42 PM To: city.counciI@surfcity-hb.org Cc: Pat Dapkus; Cathy Fikes Subject: poseidon I worked at the Edison Plant( now aes )for 30 years and unless my memory fails me I konow that we had a pipe that went from the plant to the old dessal plant at Ward and Ellis. The deal unit was removed a long time ago bbut as far as I know the pipe is still in the ground. Fron the looks of the pictures of the new proposed pipe the old pipe is about the same size. It mifgt be worthwhile to check this out. Robert Eley 19621 Lexington Lane Huntington Beach eley75@verizon.net i I 8/25/2005 i ATTACHMENT 5 Recirculated Environmental Impact Report (REIR) No . 00 =02 1', L ............ i I. ww.i'x> #e� d.. �v, $ Pam•_ A d \ Z4 y{ ' ltill irk 2 I „ <! AVIR i .. yf -,., nmw..«ma'uem_.. SfR.. a x..w u� e atx�..w F uce*PoY �, v...e aft sK« �.�.s:+w<rBe m.w<-a+a _•• Seawater Desalination Facili ty BACKGROUND ® Poseidon Resources Corp. is proposing to construct a 50 MGD seawater desalination facility on an 11 acre lease area within the AES generating station property at PCH and Newland qp CI! ZIS .,.�yn /� F y�q r."' , -� °' Cp��rf, ���� 4t�•yY �`s.� � � 6�-, �e"� ..,. �'�..� s •Y �� x1i�.2// � �`�� , �!! � ., �. i"vw��k�eY k� �f "�r f� v `4`t ;� it + • Includes four miles of water transmission lines within the city of Huntington Beach BACKGROUND 0 Entitlement applications include a Conditional Use Permit and Coastal Development Permit subject to City Council action after certification of the Draft REIR. • Design Review Board reviewed the proposed design, colors, and materials and recommended approval with minor modifications. BACKGROUND • Dec. 2003 City Council denied certification of the EIR and identified three issues to be resolved : 1 . Impingement and entrainment impacts 2. Potential growth inducing impacts 3. Compatibility of the desalination facility's product water • REIR prepared in response to City Council direction and circulated for public review in April/May 2005. OVERVIEW • Impingement and Entrainment Impacts ✓ Original EIR assumed 100% mortality from existing AES once through cooling water system; therefore desalination facility will not result in additional impacts. ✓ Draft REIR added a desalination feed water intake study which concludes that the project impacts in regards to impingement and entrainment are not anticipated to be significant: ■ Impingement - desalination facility will not cause any additional impacts because organisms will not be exposed to further screening prior to entering the facility's pretreatment system ■ Entrainment observed mortality — • 94.1% for HBGS • 1 .2% added by desalination plant at flows of 507 mgd and 4.6% at flows of 127 mgd ✓ Comment letter received from National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) on Draft REIR actually notes assumption of 100% mortality from existing AES once through cooling water system is appropriate, consistent with EPA and NOAA's National Marine Fisheries Service assumptions. Ir OVERVIEW • Potential Growth InducingImpacts ✓ Original EIR looked at the nominal contribution of the desalination facility to the regional water supplies: ■ Project would add less than eight percent of the existing water supply in Orange County and slightly over one percent of the existing water supply in the South Coast Region ✓ Draft REIR added a growth assessment and general plan evaluation which supports conclusion in original EIR of less than significant impacts related to growth inducement. ■ 7 of 12 identified planned new residential development projects of 500 dwelling units or more have water sources independent of desalination facility ■ Even if project were relied upon to serve a new development of 500 dwelling units or more it would not foster growth in excess of that already projected in planning documents OVERVIEW • Compatibility of the desalination facility's product water: ✓ Original EIR touched upon the compatibility of the facility's product water with existing potable water supplies delivered through the regional distribution system. ✓ Draft REIR added disinfection byproduct formation study and distribution system corrosion control study. New mitigation measures also incorporated to reduce impacts to less than significant. OVERVIEW * Other issue areas in the REIR: ✓ Mitigation measures identified for Geology/Soils, Seismicity/Faulting, Liquefaction, Water Quality, Noise, Public Services/Utilities, Aesthetics, Construction Related Impacts ✓ Unavoidable significant impact identified in regards to temporary, short-term construction related emissions of Nox ✓ City Council may still approve the project if a Statement of Overriding Considerations is adopted OVERVIEW * Other enhancements in the REIR: ✓ New section on interaction between AES and desalination facility ✓ Analyzed more project alternatives including alternative design (different method of desalination, seawater intake collection, discharge location) and reduced facility size • Comments : ✓ Received 52 comment letters ✓ Response to Comments with Errata prepared and distributed 9 CONCLUSION ✓ Draft REIR incorporates changes in analysis and reports in response to Council direction ✓ Complies with requirements of CEQA ✓ Adequately analyzes project impacts END OF PRESENTATION ATTACHMENT 6 1 Response to questions raised at the August 22, 2005 City Council study session on the seawater desalination project (REIR): The following questions are discussed below. 1. Would a public entity be subject to the same requirements as Poseidon Resources Corporation? 2. What are the alternatives that AES has to meet the new 316(b) rules? 3. Is dry cooling a good option for the AES site? 4. During heat treatment,how much water is taken in from ocean? Said another way, how much water is being recirculated through the condensers? 5. How many days in the year are Units 3 and/or 4 operating? 6. Are land-based turbines anticipated for this project? What are land-based turbines? 7. What are the City's requirements for Asbestos removal/abatement? How is it regulated? 8. Did the REIR incorporate the findings of the AES 316(b) Entrainment and Impingement Study required by the California Energy Commission? 9. Who will purchase the water? 10. What are other water agencies doing with respect to desal? Please see the Conditional Use Permit/Coastal Development Permit City Council Staff Report for responses to the other questions raised at the study session. 1. Would a public entity be subject to the same requirements as Poseidon Resources Corporation? No - The DREIR provides an "Alternative Ownership" alternative in Section 7.3 and notes (at page 7-10) that a "public entity would first need to negotiate with the applicant or otherwise obtain lease rights to the site." If a California water district obtained the necessary property interest in the site by condemnation or negotiation and chose to construct a seawater desalination facility, the City would not have any permitting authority whatsoever if the boundaries of the water district included the City of Huntington Beach. In fact, the water agency could build a seawater desalination facility on the site even if the City changed the zoning to preclude such a use. In addition, the public entity would complete and certify their own EIR on the project. The EIR could be certified by the public entity over the objections of the City. The California Attorney General explained how the City's building permit and zoning powers are suspended when it comes to the location and construction of water facilities by certain public water agencies referred to in the statute as "local agencies". (See, 78 Ops. Cal. Atty. Gen. 31 (1995).) For purposes of this exemption, "Local agency" is defined in Government Code section 53090 as "an agency of the state for local performance of governmental or proprietary function within limited boundaries. The basic rule for such "local agencies" is the same as the rule for private parties seeking to build projects in the City —permits are required. That rule is set forth in Government G:\Ramos\Poseidon Two\RCA Related\08-22-05 Response(EIR).doc Code section 53091(a): "Each local agency shall comply with all applicable building ordinances and zoning ordinances of the county or city in which the territory of the local agency is situated." However, subsection (d) of Government Code section 53091 provides the first exemption to the basic rule: `Building ordinances of a county or city shall not apply to the location or construction of facilities for the production, generation, storage, treatment, or transmission of water, wastewater, or electrical energy by a local agency." A similar exemption for zoning ordinances is found in subsection (e). "Zoning ordinances of a county or city shall not apply to the location or construction of facilities for the production, generation, storage, treatment, or transmission of water." One California Court has directed that this exemption is to be narrowly construed, explaining that it does not apply to administrative offices — it only applies to the types of facilities described in the statute . (City of Lafayette v. East Bay Municipal Utilities District 16 Cal.App.4th 1005 (1993).) However, in the case of a seawater desalination facility, the plain words of the statutory exemption apply. The City would have no building permit or zoning authority over the project if a local agency, as defined by Government Code Section 53090, was constructing it. Moreover, some water districts generally have the "statutory authority"to construct pipelines in public streets and rights of way outside of the complete control of the City. For municipal water districts like MWDOC, this right is codified in Water Code section 71695 which provides: "A district may construct works along and across any stream of water, watercourse, street, avenue, highway, canal, ditch, or flume, or across any railway which the route of the works may intersect or cross. Such works shall be constructed in such manner as to afford security for life and property, and the district shall restore the crossings and intersections to their former state as near as may be, or in a manner so as not to have impaired unnecessarily their usefulness." (See, State of California v. Marin Municipal Water District(1941) 17 Cal. 2d 699, 711-712 where the court upheld a this statute.) A similar right is shared by County water districts and codified in Water Code section 31060. As explained by the California Supreme Court many years ago in In re Johnston (1902) 137 Cal. 115, 120, the only limitations which may be imposed upon the statutory authority of public water agencies are those imposed through the California Constitution or by the California Legislature. "When the sovereign authority of the state, either in its constitution or through its legislature, has created a right and expressed and defined the conditions under which it may be G:\Ramos\Poseidon Two\RCA Related\08-22-05 Response(EIR).doc enjoyed, it is not within the province of a municipality where such right is sought to be exercised or enjoyed to impose additional burdens or terms as a condition to its exercise." Consequently, if a California Water district was permitting, constructing and operating this project, the City would have limited control over the installation of any pipelines in City streets if the public agency in question deemed those pipelines necessary to connect the seawater desalination facility to the regional water distribution system. In addition,the public entities are exempt from taxes and will not provide tax revenue benefits as a private entity would. 2. What are the alternatives that AES has to meet the new 316(b) rules? The 316(b) final rule identified five alternatives that a power plant may use to achieve compliance with the requirements for best technology available for minimizing impingement/entrainment impacts: a) Reduce flow commensurate with a closed-cycle recirculating system, or demonstrate that its design intake velocity has been reduced to 0.5 feet per second or less. Implementation of a closed-cycle recirculating system would satisfy the requirements for both impingement and entrainment. A reduction in velocity would satisfy the requirement for impingement only, and additional studies regarding entrainment would be necessary. b and c) Demonstrate the existing cooling intake structure meets applicable performance standards, or that is will modify the system to meet performance standards with design/construction technologies, operational measures, and/or restoration measures. d) Install and properly maintain a rule-specified and approved design and construction technology, such as a cylindrical wedgewire screen, screening size appropriate for the size of eggs/larvae/juveniles in the vicinity, etc. e) Request approval for a site-specific, different technology. As shown above, there is a wide range of possibilities that AES has to comply with the new 316(b) rule. AES is currently in the process of working with the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) to determine the appropriate compliance measure, as part of the NPDES permit renewal process. 3. Is dry cooling a good option for the AES site? While dry cooling would eliminate or reduce the need for cooling water at HBGS (many dry cooling systems still require up to 200,000 gallons per day of water), dry cooling systems typically result in an increase in noise generation and decrease in efficiency of electricity generation (which leads to an increase in air emissions as GA\Ramos\Poseidon Two\RCA Related\08-22-05 Response(EIR).doc compared to wet cooling systems).' This increase in noise and lack of comparable efficiency is due to the operation of large cooling fans, which cool fins/tubes conveying recirculated water. In addition, cooling towers typically associated with dry cooling systems are larger than typical wet cooling systems (due to a complex network of ducts, tubes, headers, and fans), requiring more land and resulting in additional visual impacts to surrounding receptors. There is a limited amount of land available on AES-owned property available for the footprint necessary for a dry cooling system. Although the precise footprint and height of a potential dry cooling structure at HBGS cannot be determined without detailed engineering analysis, a comparison of wet and dry cooling technology indicates that a dry cooling structure would require a footprint about 2.2 times larger and 1.9 times higher than a wet cooling structure to obtain comparable heat rejection.2 Examples of dry cooling proposals are provided below: • Duke Energy - Morro Bay Power Plant: As part of the modernization effort for this power plant, dry cooling was analyzed as an alternative to wet cooling. Dry cooling at the Morro Bay Power Plant would have required a structure with a footprint as large as two football fields and a height of 110 feet. This represents a 92 percent increase in volume and 74 percent increase in land area over the wet cooling alternative proposed as part of the modernization effort.3 Although the wet cooling alternative would require two stacks with a height of 145 feet, a dry cooling structure would have an increased visual impact in regards to visual mass and prominence along the coast. The proposed electrical production of the modernized Morro Bay plant (1,200 megawatts) is larger than HBGS' output (880 megawatts), but provides insight as to the increased prominence of dry versus wet cooling. • Catoctin Power, LLC — Frederick County, Maryland: A comparison between wet and dry cooling for a new 600 megawatt power plant concluded that a dry cooling structure would be 400 feet long by 200 feet wide by 130 feet high. A wet cooling structure would be 500 feet long by 50 feet wide by 65 feet high. The wet cooling structure's stack height would be 160 feet.4 As stated above, the visual mass of dry cooling is increased in comparison to wet cooling. Moreover, the construction of a dry cooling system at the AES power plant would require that the plant cease producing electricity for a substantial amount of time (likely months), resulting in potential impacts to the electricity supply grid. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/316b/technical/ch4.pdf 2 Burns, J.M. and W.C. Micheletti, "Comparison of Wet and Dry Cooling Systems for Combined Cycle Power Plant", Utility Water Act Group, Washington, DC, November 4, 2000. s http://www.duke-energy.com/businesses/plants/own/us/western/morrobay/community/ 2002052201.asp a Catoctin Power, LLC, "Wet& Dry Cooling Comparison", 2003. G:\Ramos\Poseidon Two\RCA Related\08-22-05 Response(EIR).doc 4. During heat treatment, how much water is taken in from ocean? Said another way, how much water is being recirculated through the condensers? The REIR discusses heat treatment in section 4.1, page 4-7. Heat treatment is needed to mitigate the bio-fouling of the cooling water system with marine organisms that attach themselves to structures in the water. When the generating station conducts a heat treatment, the flow is reversed and water is withdrawn from the discharge side of the cooling water systems and discharged out the intake point. Only a very small amount of additional water is withdrawn from the ocean during this process (the exact amount is not known by AES). The water already in the cooling system is retained and re-circulated within the generating station condensers (by closing gates that regulate the discharge flow of water)rather than being discharged. This allows the water to heat up to a level (within permitted limits)that organisms are detached from the cooling water piping and eventually discharged back into the ocean through the intake structure. The heat treatment process is allowed (within specific conditions) under its permits and the water used is always within the limits of its permits. The process does not require the generating station to increase the velocity or volume of water beyond its normal or permitted limits. For example, if the station had 10 million gallons inside the cooling water system at the time it chose to heat treat, it would capture this quantity of water by closing various gates in the system surrounding the condensers and re- circulate this water for 6 to 8 hours in this contained area before discharging into the ocean out the intake pipe. As stated in the REIR the desalination facility will not take source water during heat treatment process from the generating station. 5. How many days in the year are Units 3 and/or 4 operating? Units 3 and 4 operated 54% of the time in 2004. 6. Are land-based turbines anticipated for this project? What are land-based turbines? Land-based turbines (as referred to by citizens at the study session), are gas-driven turbines used for power generation. Some industrial projects use turbines to self- generate their own electricity using natural gas. The proposed Seawater Desalination Project does not propose any land-based turbines at the site. The DREIR clearly states that the project will be purchasing power from the California power market(see page 5.6-12 of the DREIR). 7. What are the City's requirements for Asbestos removal/abatement? How is it regulated? Pursuant to the Planning and Building and Safety Departments' Policy Memo PP-79 (Demolition Permit Procedures)the applicant must obtain a building permit to demolish the three existing unused fuel storage tanks and the interior portions of the containment berm. The Building and Safety Department will require the applicant to submit plans and procedures as necessary to demonstrate that the demolition work will G:\Ramos\Poseidon Two\RCA Related\08-22-05 Response(EIR).doc be conducted without creating a hazardous condition. The applicant is also required to notify the South Coast Air Quality Management District(SCAQMD) of the demolition 10 days before commencing and prior to issuance of a demolition permit. As indicated on page 5.8-1 of the REIR, the insulation material of the existing fuel oil storage tanks may contain asbestos, although there is no certainty that this is the case. The potential that the tank insulation may contain asbestos is not based on direct sampling, but stems from the fact that at the time these tanks were built 50 years ago asbestos insulation was frequently used for thermal protection of fuel oil tanks. If asbestos insulation were found, the asbestos itself would not be attached directly to the walls of the tank but would be contained in special containment cloth that isolates it from direct contact with the workers removing it and from spreading outside of the construction site/tank perimeter. If asbestos is present, the demolition permit cannot be issued until the applicant provides the city a copy of the completed Asbestos Removal Notification form submitted to SCAQMD and a Clearance Letter from the asbestos removal contractor certifying the completion of the removal of asbestos containing materials. If found to be present, the asbestos insulation will be properly removed and disposed of at a landfill specifically designed for hazardous materials. Prior to demolition the applicant is also required to obtain a tank-cutting permit from the Fire Department to ensure that the tanks are clean to avoid fire danger during demolition. The Fire Department will also require the applicant to dispose off any contamination in the tanks pursuant to Fire Specification No. 431-92. Prior to issuance of grading permits the applicant is required to submit a Remedial Action Plan for Planning, Public Works, and Fire Department approval to ensure that the soil is cleaned to an acceptable standard. 8. Did the REIR incorporate the findings of the AES 316(b) Entrainment and Impingement Study required by the California Energy Commission? The Original EIR assumed 100%mortality of organisms entrained and impinged by operation of the existing AES cooling water intake system and concluded, therefore, that operation of the seawater desalination facility would not result in any additional entrainment or impingement impacts (because the only feed water for the desalination facility was water that had been used for cooling and that was being discharged from the cooling water system). (Note that in Comment 1 j of the REIR comment letter received from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and in Comment 2-w of the REIR comment letter received from the California Coastal Commission, both of these agencies acknowledge that an assumption of 100% mortality is the standard approach.) As directed by the City Council in December 2003, the REIR disregarded the "standard approach" and included additional information and analysis regarding the potential entrainment and impingement impacts of the project. Based on the information in the G:ARamos\Poseidon TwoARCA Related\08-22-05 Response(EIR).doc REIR, (primarily the Intake Effects Study included in the REIR as Appendix T) potential entrainment and impingement impacts were found to be less than significant. The AES Huntington Beach LLC Generating Station Entrainment and Impingement Study prepared for the California Energy Commission, dated April 2005, (the "CEC Study") was entered into the record of proceedings for Recirculated Environmental Impact Report (REIR)No. 00-02 by Conner Everts at the August 22, 2005, City Council Study Session on the REIR. Conner Everts is the Executive Director of the Southern California Watershed Alliance, one of several private organizations that joined together to provide comments (Comment 15) on the REIR. At the study session Conner Everts repeated comments included in Comment 15-z, that the CEC Study should have been included in the REIR and that there are "significant differences in the scope of the analysis and the relevant information contained in the [CEC Study] as compared to the [Intake Effects Study] provided in the REIR." The Intake Effects Assessment, dated November 17, 2004, was prepared by TENERA Environmental, one of the co-authors of the CEC Study. In fact, Appendix A of the Intake Effects Study is a summary of the "Six-Month Data Report for the AES Huntington Beach Generating Station Entrainment and Impingement Study Submitted to the California Energy Commission on March 30, 2004"by both TENERA Environmental and the other author of the CEC Study, MBC Applied Environmental Sciences. We would note that MBC is the City's marine biology sub-consultant for the REIR. Appendix B of the Intake Effects Study provides additional data from the surveys completed from March 8 through July 22, 2004. The Intake Effects Assessment was prepared based on six months of the very same data that is included in the CEC Study, and was supplemented by entrainment mortality data collected from within the AES cooling system via pump. Moreover, it was prepared by one of the co-authors of the CEC Study using the same analysis methods. The difference is that the Intake Effects Study uses the data and analysis methods to determine the potential entrainment and impingement impacts of the desalination project, while the CEC Study focuses on the entrainment and impingement impacts of the AES Generating Station. Even though the final CEC Study information was not available for public review at the time that the Draft REIR was completed(see, Response to Comment 2-u) and despite the fact that the CEC is still seeking comments and has yet to finalize the CEC Study, the information provided by Conner Everts is not significant because it does not change any of the conclusions in the REIR regarding the potential entrainment and impingement impacts of the project. Instead, the information in the CEC Study that has now been made available supports and corroborates the information and conclusions in the Intake Effects Study. Finally, as a result of Conner Everts submitting a copy of the CEC study at the study session, staff consulted with CEC staff regarding its status, because as noted above and G:\Ramos\Poseidon Two\RCA Related\08-22-05 Response(EIR).doc in the Response to Comments, it was the City's understanding that this report was still a draft and not public information for general consumption. In fact, as late as August 1 lth, the City had been notified by the CEC that the study was not final and not public information. However, on August 25 CEC staff stated that the report was now public information. CEC staff also stated that the report does not represent the position of the CEC. 9. Who will purchase the water? Water agencies in Orange County, such as the Municipal Water District of Orange County (MWDOC) and its member agencies (including the City of Huntington Beach) are the intended customers for this water. Additional information is provided within the Responses to Comments on the DREIR (Response No. 32c). Response 32c also refers to Response 2as. The following is a pertinent portion of Response 2as: "The commentator criticizes the DREIR for "lack of certainty" about where the water produced by the project will be used. CEQA Guidelines Section 15144 recognizes that "foreseeing the unforeseeable is not possible" and directs that "an agency use its best efforts to find out and disclose all that it reasonably can." At page 6-13 of the DREIR, it is clearly stated that the water produced by the project will be "delivered only to existing regional or local water purveyors in Orange County" and that because "no water supply agreements have been executed with water agencies in Orange County, the precise locations/uses where desalinated water would be allocated are not known." 10. What are other water agencies doing with respect to desal? The following table (Table 6-4, PROPOSED DESALINATION FACILITIES ALONG THE SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA COAST, from the Draft Recirculated EIR) provides information regarding other large-scale seawater desalination proposals along the southern California coast. Additional water agencies currently studying seawater desalination(outside of Southern California) include Marin Municipal Water District (construction of a 10 MGD facility), Monterey Peninsula Water Management District/City of Sand City (planning phase), East Bay Municipal Utility District(planning phase), California American Water(northern unincorporated Monterey County -planning phase), and Pajaro-Sunny Mesa Community Services District (northern unincorporated Monterey County - planning phase), among others. G:\Ramos\Poseidon Two\RCA Related\08-22-05 Response(EIR).doe PROPOSED DESALINATION FACILITIES ALONG THE SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA COAST Purpose,and Public or Maximum Operator/Location: Status: Private: Capacity: City of San Buenaventura - Municipal/domestic Not known Not known - Public Long Beach - Research 300,000 gpd/ Design phase - Public 335 AF/yr. - Municipal/domestic 10 million Long Beach - Public gpd/ Planning 11,000 AF/yr. Los Angeles Department of - Municipal/domestic 10 million Water and Power - Public gpd/ Planning 11,000 AF/yr Municipal Water District of - Municipal/domestic 27 million Orange County/Dana Point - Public gpd/ Planning 30,000 AF/yr. Poseidon - Various 50 million Recirculated Resources/Huntington - Private gpd/ Draft EIR Beach 55,000 AF/yr. under review San Diego County Water - Municipal/domestic Authority/San Onofre - Public TBD Planning Nuclear Generating Station San Diego County Water - Municipal/domestic 50 million Authority/South County - Public gpd/ Planning 55,000 AF/yr. San Diego County Water - Municipal/domestic 50 million Authority & Poseidon - Public/private gpd/ Planning Resources/Carlsbad 55,000 AF/yr. - Municipal/domestic 20 million U.S. Navy/San Diego - Public gpd/ Planning 22,000 AF/yr. West Basin Municipal - Municipal/domestic 20 million Water District - Public gpd/ Planning 22,000 AF/yr. Source: Seawater Desalination and the California Coastal Act,California Coastal Commission,March 2004. G:\Ramos\Poseidon Two\RCA Related\08-22-05 Response(EIR).doe RCA ROUTING SHEET INITIATING DEPARTMENT: Planning SUBJECT: Certify Recirculated Environmental Impact Report No. 00-02 Seawater Desalination Project COUNCIL MEETING DATE: RCA ATTACHMENTS STATUS Ordinance (w/exhibits & legislative draft if applicable) Not Applicable Resolution (w/exhibits & legislative draft if applicable) Attached Tract Map, Location Map and/or other Exhibits Not Applicable Contract/Agreement (w/exhibits if applicable) (Signed in full by the City Attorne ) Not Applicable Subleases, Third Party Agreements, etc. Approved as to form by City Attorne ) Not Applicable Certificates of Insurance (Approved by the City Attorne ) Not Applicable Financial Impact Statement (Unbudget, over $5,000) Not Applicable Bonds (If applicable) Not Applicable Staff Report (If applicable) Attached Commission, Board or Committee Report (If applicable) Not Applicable Findings/Conditions for Approval and/or Denial Not Applicable EXPLANATION FOR MISSING ATTACHMENTS REVIEWED RETURNED FORYWDED Administrative Staff Assistant City Administrator (Initial) VIC City Administrator Initial City Clerk ( ) EXPLANATION FOR RETURN OF ITEM Only)(Below Space For City Clerk's Use RCA Author: RC:SH:MBB:RR NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that on Tuesday, September 6, 2005 at 6:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, the City Council will hold a public hearing on the following planning and zoning items: ❑ 1. RECIRCULATED ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 00-02 (SEAWATER DESALINATION PROJECT): Applicant: Poseidon Resources Corporation Request: To analyze the potential environmental impacts associated with the implementation of a proposed 50 million gallons per day seawater desalination project. Location: 21730 Newland (east side, south of Edison Avenue) Project Planner: Ricky Ramos, Associate Planner ❑ 2. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 02-04/COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 02-05 (SEAWATER DESALINATION PROJECT): Applicant: Poseidon Resources Corporation Request: To construct a 50 million gallons per day seawater desalination project including a 10,120 sq. ft. administration building, a 38,090 sq. ft. reverse osmosis building, a 36,305 sq. ft. product water storage tank, and miscellaneous accessory structures on an 11 acre lease area. The proposed improvements include up to four miles of water transmission lines in Huntington Beach, one mile of which will be within the Coastal Zone, to connect to an existing regional transmission system in Costa Mesa. The project also includes perimeter landscaping and fencing along Newland Street and Edison Avenue. Location: 21730 Newland (east side, south of Edison Avenue) Project Planner: Ricky Ramos, Associate Planner NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that Recirculated Environmental Impact Report No. 00-02 for Item No. 2 was processed and completed in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act. It was determined that Item No. 2 would have a significant environmental effect and, therefore, an environmental impact report is warranted. The Recirculated Environmental Impact Report is on file at the City of Huntington Beach Planning Department, 2000 Main Street, and is available for public inspection and comment by contacting the Planning Department, or by telephoning (714) 536-5271. NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that Item No. 2 is located in the appealable jurisdiction of the Coastal Zone and includes Coastal Development Permit No. 02-05 filed on January 22, 2002, in conjunction with the above request. NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Coastal Development Permit hearing consists of a staff report, public hearing, City Council discussion and action. The DADocuments and Settings\esparzap\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Fi1es\0LK61 E\050906.DOC City Council's action on Item No. 2 may be appealed to the Coastal Commission within ten (10) working days from the date of receipt of the notice of final City action by the Coastal Commission pursuant to Section 245.32 of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance and Section 13110 of the California Code of Regulations, or unless Title 14, Section 13573 of the California Administrative Code is applicable. The Coastal Commission address is South Coast Area Office, 200 Oceangate, 10th Floor, Long Beach, CA 90802-4302, phone number: (310) 570-5071. ON FILE: A copy of the proposed request is on file in the City Clerk's Office, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, California 92648, for inspection by the public. A copy of the staff report will be available to interested parties at the City Clerk's Office on Thursday September 1, 2005. ALL INTERESTED PERSONS are invited to attend said hearing and express opinions or submit evidence for or against the application as outlined above. If you challenge the City Council's action in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City at, or prior to, the public hearing. If there are any further questions please call the Planning Department at 536-5271 and refer to the above items. Direct your written communications to the City Clerk Joan L. Flynn, City Clerk City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street, 2nd Floor Huntington Beach, California 92648 (714) 536-5227 DADocuments and Settings\esparzap\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK61 E\050906.DOC MR ;z D MEETING DATE: September 6, 2005 DEPARTMENT RECEIVED SUBJECT: REQUESTING: DATE Planning 8/18/05 Recirculated Environmental Impact Report No. 00-02 & Conditional Use Permit No. 02-04/Coastal Development Permit No. 02-05 (Seawater Desalination Project) TODAY'S DATE August 18, 2005 VERIFIED BY ADMININSTRATION: APPROVED BY: ��` Paul tmery Deputy City Administrator 8/18/2005 3:13 PM NOTICEOF NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that Item No. ,2, PUBIKHEARING is located in the ap- BEFORE THE CITYCOM pealable jurisdiction of the Coastal Zone and OF THE CITY OF includes Coastal Devel- PROOF OF PUBLICATION HUHTNTONBEACH opment Permit No. 02- MOTICE IS HEREBY 05 filed on January 22, GIVEN that on Tuesday, 2002, in conjunction September 6, 2005 at with the above request. 6:00 p.m. in the City NOTICE IS HEREBY CALIFORNIA) ouncil Chambers 2000 GIVEN that the Coastal STATE E OF V/1 Mein Street, Huntington Development Permit Beach, the City Council hearing consists of a will hold a public hearing staff report, public on the following planning hearing, City Council ) ss. and zoning items: discussion and action. COUNTY OF ORANGE ) L31.ENV RECIRCULATED The City Council's action ENVIRONMENTAL IM- on Item No. 2 may be _PACT REPORT NO.00-02 appealed to the Coastal (SEAWATER DESALINA- Commission within ten TION PROJECT): Appli- (40) working days from cant: Poseidon Re- the date of receipt of I am a Citizen of the United States and a sources Corporation the notice of final City Request:To analyze the action by the Coastal resident of the County aforesaid; I am potential environmental Commission pursuant to impacts associated with Section 245.32 of the over the age of eighteen years and not a the implementation of a Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordi- party to or interested in the below entitled proposed 50 million nance and Section 13110 gallons per day seawater desalination project. Of the California Code of Location:21730 Newland Regulations, or unless matter. I am a principal clerk of the (east side, south of Title 14, Section 13573 Edison Avenue) Project Of the California_ Ad HUNTINGTON BEACH INDEPENDENT, Planner: Ricky Ramos, ministrative Code is Associate Planner applicable. The Coastal a newspaper of general circulation L32. CONDITIONAL USE Commission address.is PERMIT NO. 02-04/ 200th Coast a 10threa Of printed and published in the City of POASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 02-,05 Floor, Long Beach, CA Huntington Beach County of Orange (SEAWATER DESALINA- 90 number: (3 0) phone > > TION PROJECT): Appli- number: 31 570-5071. State of California and that attached cant: Poseidon Re- ON FILE: copy of the � sources Corporation_Proposed request is on fiyequest: To construct a 'file in the City Clerk's Notice is a true and complete copy as 50 million gallons per Office,2000 Main Street, day seawater desalina- Huntington Beach, Cali- was printed and published in the tion project including a fornia 92648, for in- 10,120 sq. ft. adminis- spection by the public. Huntington Beach issue of said tration building,a 38,090 A copy of the staff sq. ft. reverse osmosis report will be available building,a 36,305 sq. ft. to interested parties at newspaper to wit the Issue(s) of: product water storage the City Clerk's Office tank, and miscellaneous on Thursday September accessory structures on 112005. an 11 acre lease area. ALL INTERESTED The proposed improve- PERSONS are invited to ments include up to four attend said hearing and miles of water trans- express opinions or mission lines in Hun- submit, evidence for or tington Beach, one mile against the application of which will be within as outlined above.If you AUGUST 25 2005 challenge the City i the Coastal Zone, to connect to an existing Council's action in court, regional transmission You may be limited to system in Costa Mesa. raising only those issues The project also includes 'You or someone else perimeter landscaping -raised at the public and fencing along New- gearing described in this land Street and Edison notice, or in written ., Avenue.Location:21730 correspondence deliv- I declare, under penalty of perjury, that} Newland (east side, ered to the City at, or south of Edison Avenue) ,prior to, the public the foregoing is true and correct. Project Planner: Ricky Bearing.If there are any Ramos, Associate Plan- further questions please ner call the Planning De- NOTICE IS HEREBY partment at 536-5271 GIVEN that Recirculated and refer to the above Executed on AUGUST 25,2005 Environmental Impact items. Direct your Report No. 00-02 for written communications at Costa Mesa, California. Item No. 2 was. pro- to the City Clerk cessed and completed in ,accordance with the Joan L.Flynn, California Environmental City Clerk Quality Act. It was City.of determined that Item No. Huntington Beach ` would have a sigpifi- 2000 Main Street, Signature cant environmental 2nd Floor Huntington effect and,therefore,an Huntington Beach, environmental impact. California 92648 report is warranted.The' (714)536-5227 Recirculated Environ Published Huntington mental Impact Report is Beach Independent Au- on file at. the City of gust 25,2005 084-215 Huntington Beach Plan-' Icing Department, 2000 Main Street, and is, available for public; inspection and comment - by contacting the Plan- ning Department, or by telephoning (714) 536- 5271. �41e�enme fn ` THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH The document you are viewing contains additional information that is not possible to produce electronically. For information on how to locate this document for viewing , please contact or visit the City Clerk's Office for assistance . 2000 Main Street 2nd Floor — City Hall Huntington Beach CA 92648 (714) 536-5227