HomeMy WebLinkAboutInitial Study/IP05-322 Negative Declaration for the Bolsa Ch ov
O �
0
IFO�0 NOTICE OF INTENT TO ADOPT
A NEGATIVE DECLARATION
In compliance with section 15072 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines and
the County of Orange Procedures, notification is hereby given to responsible agencies, trustee agencies,
interest groups and the general public, that the County of Orange shall adopt the attached Negative
Declaration (ND)File Number IP05-332.
PUBLIC REVIEW:
The proposed ND is being circulated for public review. The dates of this review are noted in the ND.
The attached ND may be adopted by the County of Orange and become final unless written comments
or an appeal on its appropriateness or adequacy are received by the office listed below by 4:30 p.m. on
the ending date of the public review period.
CONTACT PERSON: Jerry Mitchell PHONE: (714) 834-5389
PUBLIC MEETING(S)/HEARINGS ON PROJECT:
The proposed project will be reviewed for approval by a decision-maker listed below.
DECISION MAKING BODY: County of Orange Board of Supervisors.
DATE: To Be Determined. TIME: To Be Determined.
LOCATION OF PUBLIC MEETING/HEARING: See location map below.
In the event that there is no ND attached to this notice, the ND and supporting attachments are
available for review at the offices of the PDS/Environmental Planning Division, Room 321, 300 North
Flower Street, Santa Ana, CA 92703.
LOCATION MAP OF MEETING/HEARING: GENERAL PROJECT LOCATION MAP
5an Bernardino
= Los Angeles 3N
00 171h STREET O 0
ti Gc
CIVIC CENTER DRIVE Riverside
PLANNING COMMISSION AND
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
HEARING ROOMS
JO BULLDING 10
b®
rn 10 CIVIC CENTER PLAZA F
a
m SANTA ANA,CALIFORNIA
SANTA ANA BLVD V
3rdSTREETru
w y z \
O
1 st STREET
Project
couNry of ORANGELocation ez
H.G.OSBORNE MIU) G ® PUBLIC PARKING V PLUX PARKING
3DO NORTH FLOV*R STREET AWA ANA,CALIFORNIA STRUCTURE ® ACCESS Pacific 0cean
ZONINO ANMINISTRATOR.ROOM&10 San Diego
SL8DNtSION COMMITTEE,ROOM&10
SITE PLANNING-ROOM 344 MAP NOT TO SCALE
. RA YAmS
INTRODUCTION •:-
0 Newsletter of Environmental Investigation and Cleanup Program, Naval Weapons Station Seal
Beach,July 2002. http:,`twww.efdsw.navfac.navy.mil/environmental/pdfisbn10207.pdf
0 Initial Study for the Action Memorandum/Remedial Action Plan (AM/RAP) for a Non-Time
Critical Removal Action at Installation Restoration (IR) Site 7, Station Landfill, Naval Weapons
Station (NAVWPNSTA) Seal Beach, California, Naval Weapons Station Seal Beach, October 2,
2003. http://www.dtsc.ca.gov/OMF/Seal Beach%Seal-Beach-Site7 CEQA IS.pdf
0 Negative Declaration for the Action Memorandum/Remedial Action Plan (AM/RAP)for a Non-
Time Critical Removal Action at Installation Restoration (IR) Site 7, Station Landfill, Naval
Weapons Station (NAVWPNSTA) Seal Beach, California, Naval Weapons Station Seal Beach,
October 14,2003.
http://wtivNv.dtsc.ca.gov/OMF".Seal—Beach//Seal-Beacb-Site7 CEQA dNegDec.pdf
0 Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) Number 06059CO231H, Federal Emergency Management
Agency(FEMA),revised February 18, 2004.
0 Addendum to Archaeological Resources Protection Plan for Installation Restoration Sites 4,8,9,
SWMU 56 at Naval Weapons Station,Seal Beach, Orange County, California, February 1995.
0 Cultural Resources Inventory and Survey Report for the Naval Weapons Station (WPNSTA) Seal
Beach, California, May 2000.
1.5 Entitlements and Regulatory Permits
RDMD has received Proposition 13 Funding for$1.3 million to construct a wetlands treatment system for
the Bolsa Chica Channel. The project being constructed by these funds shall demonstrate the capability
of contributing to sustained, long-term water quality or environmental restoration or protection benefits
for a period of 20 years, shall address the causes of degradation, rather than the symptoms, and shall be
consistent with water quality and resource protection plans prepared, implemented, or adopted by the
State Water Resources Control Board, the local regional water quality control board, and the California
Coastal Commission.
Permits that are expected to be required include:
1) Clean Water Act Section 404 permit for dredge or fill of wetlands or waters of the U.S.,
2) Clean Water Act Section 401 Water Quality Certification from Regional Water Quality Control
Board,
3) Streambed Alteration Agreement from California Department of Fish and Game(CDFG),and
4) California Coastal Commission Coastal Development Permit. Orange County expects that the
construction of the water intake and return pipes will be minor within the jurisdictional area of the
Bolsa Chica Channel and that the Clean Water Act's Section 404 Nationwide Permit#7 Outfall,
will be appropriate for the project. (While projects located on the Naval Weapons Station Seal
Beach would not be subject to local or state coastal development requirements, the California
Coastal Commission (CCC) serves in an advisory and review role for projects proposed on
federal lands within the coastal zone boundary. Federal projects within coastal zone boundaries
would require submittal of an application to the CCC for preliminary Coastal Development
Determination on an individual project basis. However, final project approval resides solely with
the U.S.Department of the Navy.)
1.6 Determination
Sections 3.0 and 4.0 of this IS present a detailed analysis of the potential environmental impacts of the
proposed project. Section 4.0 includes specific mitigation measures to reduce potential project impacts to
a less-than-significant level. In accordance with §21080(c)of CEQA, this IS supports the conclusion that
County of Orange,Resources and Development Management Department(RDMD) February 2006
5289/13olsa Chica Channel—Constructed Wetlands Project IS Page 1-3
INTRODUCTION •:•
the proposed project does not have a significant adverse impact on the environment after incorporation of
specified mitigation. Therefore,a Mitigated Negative Declaration will be prepared for public circulation.
County of Orange,Resources and Development Management Department(RDMD) February 2006
5289Bolsa Chica Channel—Constructed Wetlands Project IS Page I-4
PROJECT DESCRIPTION ❖
2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
2.1 Project Location
Bolsa Chica Channel is a regional flood control facility located along the border of the cities of
Huntington Beach, Seal Beach, and Westminster. The terrain is very flat and low-lying, allowing tidal
influence approximately three linear miles up into the channel system. Two tributary channels, the
Anaheim-Barber City and Westminster channels, flow into the Bolsa Chica Channel. The Naval
Weapons Station Seal Beach is located adjacent and west of the channel. The Orange County Flood
Control District right-of-way easement from the U.S. Navy will be used to construct the wetlands
treatment system parallel and adjacent to the Bolsa Chica Channel. Preliminary discussions with the U.S.
Navy have indicated that the preferred location for the wetlands system would be in the southeastern
corner of the weapons station property,where the Bolsa Chica Channel is intersected by the Westminster
Channel and takes a 90-degree bend to the west. Please reference Figure 2-1 (Regional Map) for the
location of the Channel and Figure 2-2 (Vicinity Map) for the location of wetlands treatment system
facilities.
2.2 Project Objectives
The project objectives are to reduce pathogens, metals, and pesticides in Anaheim Bay and Huntington
Harbor in the short-term,and to restore and maintain the beneficial uses of Anaheim Bay and Huntington
Harbor in the long-term.
2.3 Environmental Setting
The proposed project would be built within the southeastern area of the 5,256 acres of the Naval Weapons
Station Seal Beach, which is managed by the U.S. Navy. The designated land use for this area is
agriculture and is used to cultivate row crops. Currently, lima beans, cactus, and other crops are grown at
the site. The surrounding land uses are diverse in nature. North of the site is surrounded by various U.S.
Navy uses. Land uses to the south consist of a mix of low- and high- density residential uses, and some
public facilities, adjacent to the Bolsa Chica Channel, under the jurisdiction of City of Huntington Beach.
A similar mix of residential and commercial uses lie to the east adjacent to the Bolsa Chica Channel. To
the west lie the dedicated 920 acres of wildlife preserve and other military functions.
2.4 Project Description
The wetland system will take flow with a pipeline running at least 2,000 meters (1.25 miles) from the
channel upstream of the Anaheim-Barber City Channel and downstream of Westminster Avenue. The
intake point will be upstream of the tidal prism, and the wetlands will be designed as a fresh water
system. Constructing the wetland treatment system for flow upstream of the tidal prism will exclude the
two tributary channels that enter Bolsa Chica Channel further downstream. The intake point has been
selected to be located slightly upstream of the inflow from the Anaheim-Barber City Channel to mitigate
any impacts of totally removing dry weather flow from the channel. The Anaheim-Barber City Channel
flow is larger than the flow being removed for treatment in the proposed wetlands. As indicated, the
intake point was chosen to be just above the area impacted by the tidal prism,and the channel between the
point where the flow is removed for treatment and the return point is regularly in contact with tidal
waters. Impacts to in-stream habitat will be evaluated as part of this CEQA document. The proposed
project would not expand the land area for an existing land use, or otherwise interfere with the movement
of wildlife species, or with established wildlife corridors or wildlife nursery sites. Riparian vegetation
between the intake and outfall facilities may be affected as the amount of water in the Channel will be
County of Orange,Resources and Development Management Department(RDMD) February 2006
5289Bolsa Chica Channel—Constructed Wetlands Project IS Page 2-1
M = M
INTRODUCTION
,' Cz \ T t ir�� 'per s— "' ^`• -.J\,� �..�_.t s # E` ' x_ ' 'i l f
1 4`
y 3
i
r,r/�
ir"MN
I "V '' � � = z""'i` �' ,r, zro. c 3-'ro` x t fly ✓ :.
BOLSA
!�.,,1> b, ,✓ A,� ,.,: "`°z` �ti�?�7 � �'�� �,8 ""�..� �,.r v x s 'r '`7,~z r l� .....
I+���lr. "{t a i' �. �`"•c y i 8�; a f'r- '" rs � ''" t�.� ,,� � � ^+ ens "� r." 4�'�„ !
f!/rY`j'v � /J ✓'� l � 9 +r r n w2�` ;eR „; A.. �.>� z ,ems a�" e ,z ry, � ...+� __
r .+,.f"r" ,,..,`x � ``..,,� �y ;,• F_ It-y ,� �'a x < � x x :.� 4' r ;* 'r�6*r,. ,\., j i,r �
/ ,„ ,• ,:.�,,zr 3 r„ ,: i" n r Jai r ,s ...�... ---'^`�,:,,..Y.i
—
_Y+`
---
:-
.. ro
t
Q x
" r ✓ -,'� rAZ ,s. �/�/�.,�^ ` $fir K ,r„d" � a`�4�� i 'ti` += C ,� � L ei+, ,� I I
®l sStl
I fit." � z" fi� .^.X' w .' N g
MJhO`L��aa a :tsrt"P aF/r „; " �.b r'`rr's n :; '�/ „r" ,a >;x ' w `,'a. �, '" Or
piar '.F ".�' 1: 1
". Z ... r�jz Iv G,
Er k
Q
�" .;,
g''a,:
3mv. ✓ "*#,,.fir fs }'
'e 03 d .�, Mx C ,S .''xr" "'^.,*a '�'». a �/t? 1 e--.
r x `"' $ z ` ."g�`ai --1.',°a
y f ,`S,j 1 t 1� i Ems, t }
3r"" 'w '^a ";a ro r M r0 _".7 s '';Y` ,✓..a_`�.t a »s{ .11 4»-1 S#t,-_FL._�.I 1'vEILiW`W
3 -ee r , un� t 6,& �a.,p? f t a.. �x/„:= %i�t v' *'s
°'� , s�"r t pros r. ~~.n f'f �„�`' `�i
''"�
", ro ,r.w .r<�,v k,,, „" „ .^.ah"a,r` ..,:?u+.' r'_:?'; %:,. 4,.n>rt ,r .. ."roi _ .,°i£Y '„s.�6' n"s ',%"•r -- ^-r'w�sw`
Figure 2-11
Regional Map
County of Orange,Public Facilities and Resources Department February 2006
5289!$olsa Chica Channel-Constructed Wetlands Project IS Page 2-3
INTRODUCTION
,k
�.�,..�4µ^z �,�«;
r, ti,°,� `,a ',1 ,��✓;p. `s'�'",{ .tmt "`
-e^a '� 'i:`
x P„�.a„a a.'�" '�
��,•..,� .k", ,+.r��a. ����g j/ ,ci,.`'�,< �, �,�,? 3y.- ,����y {�' `�a t +rz r�,y ,,, >p2 � r,�S: ,:'�HaP.tr � �*}�HAT�ftS� *'� ..
f`M Yry Diversion Structure
Intake and
t' .' r"'
S_ ,, r Pumping Station
3*rrY P`�e;.v M1 'a` y -�.' ,r t PumpingMil
"` ` r ;y.-
„Az
,`:a ✓ 'a�"' d v^ A' @f S. k,� xY Cff n r a y k dr x.- ,r
_.
i a
a ,£ r r ,���,
`k� xxw�� - :a � P *�a "r,'� s �i�` �`bti� �,,��`��' vev3'"�L w..✓ �:f "'r y�`'�'4 �P .ems
Influent
BOLL�'
� � Pipeline 4'
V ra ,
C Cbx
7lt+ e �da' KZY
I
`�, "✓ bvsrss �.` k.P ';+k ,� ixd
`'r e ✓ q `t" '. ,y a° t ` ' - "
r; x.. �.._-...�
a �, f �usira�ss
Constructed
^r �'' 'a
74; •-'s'<`+ ''' .`�
vy v$,« t k
� � Wetlands
�,[L9CF�AD�EN:
a:.x. =. i'.
.,9n r 'a ;+, t *tom '.v �. A q r k"✓. A 'zn„a h W.w R ,.
'xHFANT
Effluent
x k
L341Nt
Pipe
ine
: [�e l
✓r�Matra �' '`,» ; ���ts> 'w�� �. ,-y�.�� � r w`"'_s .w..-� e�-. � ��k z�
d ^.z"'��' r', H ;;a�� `x „; ,=f.�, , k»4 k r
"> r s, L_,_ CIRC�tla_11CD
7 ;TM �" , y §aw# .. :> Y + d'°d"t
Y'%K L a p. { ',.'s°3,.6rf„ 'S'y?f3, g4. .i C lf. A v` v �,,fi'•. >. t?'SkLYr.Alilt ,.�:
xa'+h'r-s ,- s
"i,. � a�`��, rm,a �' mn'�,. r•, p w �
z
,y+', 6;,; .; N E'f r W�;..--,., Tv
t ` 'Cy +' I ;,UDr2L'. H til? lc c
.� f. ikra
'
-,.§.a.„r'����',' 4.�`,,;:�` m✓`�..��;„k�a.�.� �.. .:.s'� t�.1,. .�F��.�.. '�...�.d� ��k ': ,xr..3 {-� i !' t—.,�sCCii�+rah �!"i �..�._._ ��:�._._ L 11 �i kc`iil '.�.R;l I �.
Figure 2-2
Vicinity Map
County of Orange,Public Facilities and Resources Department February 2006
5289/Bolsa Chica Channel—Constructed Wetlands Project IS Page 2-4
o'• PROJECT DESCRIPTION ❖
Figure 2-2 (Vicinity Map)illustrates the system components for the FWS wetlands alternative. Access to
the influent pump station and wetlands would be required for maintenance purposes. The pump station
would be accessed through existing County right-of-way along the Channel. A new fenced area would be
provided around the pump station for security. The vegetated wetland would require access through the
Naval base as it is within the base fence.
A FWS wetland would be planted with either cattail (Typha angustifolia or T. latifolia),hardstem bulrush
(Scirpus acutus), and/or common reeds (Phragmites australis). Bulrush is a common native wetland
plant and most likely to be selected for the Bolsa Chica Channel wetlands as it is a very robust and
resilient wetland plant. Flow would enter the wetland through an inlet structure and flow through:
1. a deep(>3 ft),open water segment for settling solids,prior to
2. a dense stand of vegetation, followed by
3. an open-water unvegetated zone,then
4. another vegetated zone,
5. an unvegetated reaeration zone, and finally
6. a last stand of vegetation,before
7. discharge through a modified discharge structure.
Planted zones in the constructed wetland will be 18 inches deep,while the open-water areas will be 4 feet
deep. During the winter months, the water depth can be increased by 6 inches (2 feet deep in planted
areas, 4.5 feet in open water areas) to enhance removals at cold temperatures by increasing the pond
detention time. The open water zones will reduce short-circuiting and will allow natural aeration to
increase the dissolved oxygen level.
Mosquito control is necessary for the FWS wetland alternative as there are water surfaces exposed to the
atmosphere. Early discussions with the Orange County Vector Control District will be important for this
alternative.
Although there is concern over mosquito outbreaks for the FWS constructed wetland alternative,wetlands
can be designed and maintained to keep mosquito populations to a minimum. Mosquito control strategies
for the FWS wetland alternative would include:
• Minimizing hydraulically static areas. The wetland bottom will be graded to avoid ponding of
water in isolated areas.
a Controlling water level. Drawdown of the water surface in the wetland can eliminate habitat for
many mosquitoes and can be timed for key periods during the mosquito life cycle.
a Deep-water zones. The open water zones that are 3 to 4 feet deep will help maintain plug flow by
mixing and redistributing water flowing from shallow planted areas where short-circuiting may
occur and also enhance wind-driven waves and water disturbances that are not favorable to
mosquito egg laying and can drown immature mosquitoes. Open water zones will not be
included around the perimeter of the wetlands so as not to increase the potential for short-
circuiting. Open water zones also create access for natural mosquito predators such as
mosquitofish (Gambusia affinis), which feed on immature mosquitoes. Sunfish (Lepomis spp.)
and stickleback (Gasterosteus spp.) are two additional species of fish that can be added to the
wetland to enhance mosquito control.
s Steep wetland side slopes. The side slopes of the wetland should be as steep as possible (from
2.5:1 to 4:1, horizontal:vertical) and free of vegetation to minimize mosquito populations. Steep
slopes reduce the amount of emergent vegetation coverage, allow better access to immature
mosquitoes by aquatic predators, and favor environmental factors such as wave action that
decrease mosquito survival. Steep sides also limit the amount of ponded water created by
operational fluctuations in water level. The aspect ratios of side slopes should be compatible with
County of Orange,Resources and Development Management Department(RDMD) February 2006
5289Bolsa Chica Channel—Constructed Wetlands Project IS Page 2-5
Oo C�
U �
0
��lrFOg��e DATE POSTED: March 6, 2006
DATE FINAL: April 5, 2006
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
PLANNING&DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARMENT.
300 N.FLOWER STREET
P.O. BOX 4048
SANTA ANA,CALIFORNIA 927024048
In accordance with Orange County Board of Supervisor's policies regarding implementation of the California Environmental
Quality Act, the County of Orange has conducted an Initial Study to determine whether the following project may have a
significant adverse effect on the environment. On the basis of that study,the County of Orange hereby finds that the proposed
project will not have a significant adverse effect on the environment and does not require the preparation of an Environmental
Impact Report because the proposed project:
❑ has or creates no significant environmental impacts requiring mitigation;or
® will not create a significant adverse effect, because the Standard Conditions described in the initial study have
been added to the project.
The environmental documents, which constitute the Initial Study and provide the basis and reasons for this determination are
attached and hereby made a part of this document.
Project Title:Bolsa Chica Channel Constructed Wetlands.
File No: IP05-322
Location: Located within southeastern area of Naval Weapons Station Seal Beach,near Seal Beach,Huntington Beach and Westminster.
Description:The objectives of the project are to reduce pathogens,metals,and pesticides in Anaheim Bay and Huntington
Harbor and to restore and maintain its beneficial uses through wetland construction. Please see ND for a more detailed
description.
Project Proponent or Applicant: County of Orange
Division/Department Responsible for Proposed Project:Resources&Development
Management Department.
Address: 300 N.Flower St.,Santa Ana,CA 92703
CEQA Contact Person-Jerry Mitchell Telephone: (714)834-5389
NOTICE: The Negative Declaration may become final unless written comments or an appeal is received by the office listed
above by 4:30 p.m. on April 5, 2006. If you wish to appeal the appropriateness or adequacy of this document, address your
written comments to our finding that the project will not have a significant adverse effect on the environment: (1)identify the
environmental effect(s), why they would occur, and why they would be significant, and(2) suggest any mitigation measures
which you believe would eliminate or reduce the effect to an acceptable level. Regarding item(1)above,explain the basis for
your comments and submit any supporting data or references.
Dated: a' Si ed
"� Y;A�
NOTE: This document and supporting attachments are provided to the general public for review. This is an information document
about environmental effects only. Supplemental information is on file and may be reviewed in the office listed above. The
decision-making body will review this document and potentially many other sources of information before considering the
proposed project.
INITIAL STUDY/IP05®322
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
FOIE TIDE
BOLSA CIIICA CHANNEL
CONSTRUCTED WETLANDS PROJECT
COUNTY OF ORANGE, CALIFORNIA
® Lead Agency:
County ®f Orange
Resources and Development Management Department
300 North Flower Street
Santa Ana, CA 92703
Prepared by:
UltraSystems Environmental
100 Pacifica, Suite 250
Irvine, CA 92618
Telephone (949) 788-4900
FAX(949) 788-4901
For:
BROWN AND CALDWE]LL
400 Exchange, Suite 100
Irvine, CA 92602
Telephone (714) 730-7600
FAX (714) 734-0940
i
February 2006
INITIAL, STUDY/IP05®322
NEGATIVE DECLAMATION
FOR THE
BOLSA CHICA CHANNEL
CONSTRUCTED WETLANDS PROJECT
COUNTY OF ®MANGE, CALIFORNIA
Lead Agency:
County of Orange
Resources and Development Management Department
300 North Flower Street
Santa Ana, CA 92703
Prepared by:
UltraSystems Environmental
100 Pacifica, Suite 250
Irvine, CA 92618
Telephone (949) 788-4900
FAX (949) 788-4901
For:
DROWN AND CALDWELL
400 Exchange, Suite 100
Irvine, CA 92602
Telephone (714) 730-7600
FAX(714) 734-0940
February 2006
• CONTENTS •:°°
CONTENTS
Pa e
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Document Purpose and Scope 1-1
1.2 Project Background and Overview..................................................................................1-1
1.3 Statutory Authority . ....... . . .................................................................................1-2
1.4 Incorporation by Reference.............................................................................................1-2
1.5 Entitlements and Regulatory Permits ..............................................................................1-3
1.6 Determination..................................................................................................................1-3
2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
2.1 Project Location...............................................................................................................2-1
2.2 Project Objectives............................................................................................................2-1
2.3 Environmental Setting.....................................................................................................2-1.
2.4 Project Description..........................................................................................................2-1
3.0 ENVIRONMENTALT CHECKLIST FORM
3.1 Introduction......................................................................................................................3-1
Environmental Factors Potentially Affected....................................................................3-3
Determination..................................................................................................................3-4
3.2 Completed Checklist........................................................................................................3-5
Environmental Analysis Checklist...................................................................................3-6
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
4.1 Land Use and Planning....................................................................................................4-1
4.2 Agriculture ......................................................................................................................4-1
4.3 Population and Housing...................................................................................................4-2
4.4 Geology and Soils............................................................................................................4-3
4.5 Hydrology and Water Quality..........................................................................................4-5
4.6 Transportation/Circulation.............................................................................................4-7
4.7 Air Quality.......................................................................................................................4-9
4.8 Noise..............................................................................................................................4-12
4.9 Biological Resources ....................................................................................................4-14
4.10 Aesthetics.......................................................................................................................4-18
4.11 Cultural/Scientific Resources......................................................................................4-19
4.12 Recreation......................................................................................................................4-21
4.13 Mineral Resources.........................................................................................................4-21
4.14 Hazards..........................................................................................................................4-21
4.15 Public Services...............................................................................................................4-24
4.16 Utilities and Service Systems........................................................................................4-25
Mandatory Findings of Significance..............................................................................4-27
County of Orange,Resources and Development Management Department(RDMD) February 2006
5289Bolsa Chica Channel-Constructed Wetlands Project IS Page 14
CONTENTS°
APPENDICES
A URBEMIS 2002 Construction Emission Estimate
FIGURESFi Figure Pa e
2-1 Bolsa Chica Channel Regional Map..........................................................................................2-3
2-2 Project Vicinity Ma 2-4
TABLES
Table Page
4-1 Maximum Daily Construction Emissions................................................................................4-11
4-2 Sensitive Receptors Within '/4 Mile of the Project Site ...........................................................4-12
4-3 Results of Literature Review: Special Status Species ............................................................4-15
4-4 Results of Onsite Biological Assessment: Floral and Faunal Compendium ..........................4-16
4-5 Metals Removal and Projections and Loading Limits.............................................................4-22
County of Orange,Resources and Development Management Department(RDMD) February 2006
5289Bolsa Chica Channel—Constructed Wetlands Project IS Page 1-ii
INTRODUCTION
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Purpose of the Initial Study
Y
The County of Orange, Resources and Development Management Department (RDMD) is preparing this
Initial Study(IS) to evaluate the potential environmental impacts that would result from construction and
operation of a wetlands treatment system to divert and treat urban runoff(dry weather flow) from the
Bolsa Chica Channel. This IS has been prepared in accordance with the requirements of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the Guidelines for Implementation of the California
Environmental Quality Act(State CEQA Guidelines), for the purpose of analyzing the direct,indirect,and
cumulative environmental effects of the proposed infrastructure improvements (proposed project). The
State CEQA Guidelines are codified as §15000 et seq. of the California Code of Regulations(CCR).
1.2 Project Background and Overview
The Bolsa Chica Channel drains into the Anaheim Bay-Huntington Harbor complex with the Seal Beach
National Wildlife Refuge and the Sunset Aquatic Park seaward of the channel's end. These receiving
waters are currently on the Clean Water Act's Section 303(d)list of impaired water bodies. Anaheim Bay
is listed as impaired for copper, dieldrin,nickel and PCBs from unknown sources. Huntington Harbor is
listed as impaired for these same pollutants in addition to pathogens from urban runoff/storm sewers.I
These constituents, along with wetland protection and restoration,are the primary water quality concerns
for the Anaheim Bay-Huntington Harbor-Bolsa Chica Watershed Management Areas (WMA). All the
listings are ranked as low priorities by the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board
(SARWQCB).
RDMD has received Proposition 13 Funding for$1.3 million to construct a wetlands treatment system for
the Bolsa Chica Channel. The grant funding requires demonstration of the capability of contributing to
sustained, long-term water quality,environmental restoration, and/or protection benefits for a period of 20
years; shall address the causes of degradation, rather than the symptoms; and shall be consistent with
water quality and resource protection plans prepared, implemented, or adopted by the State Water
Resources Control Board(SWQCB)and the California Coastal Commission.
Beneficial uses for the receiving waters of Bolsa Chica Channel include:
• Water contact recreation,
• Non-contact water recreation,
• Wildlife habitat,
• Rare,threatened or endangered species spawning,reproduction and development,
• Marine habitat,
® Navigation for Outer Anaheim Bay and Huntington Harbour-Sunset Bay,
® Preservation of biological habitats of special significance for Anaheim Bay's Outer Bay and the
Seal Beach National Wildlife Refuge, and
® Estuarine habitat for Anaheim Bay-Seal Beach National Wildlife Refuge.
1/ Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board, CWA Section 303(d) List of Water Quality Limited
Segment,2002. http:-'/tvww.waterboards.ca.tov/tmdl/docsi2002reg8303d]ist.pdf
Z/ Email from Mary Anne Skorpanich,Watershed Planner,County of Orange,on June 7,2005.
County of Orange,Resources and Development Management Department(RDMD) February 2006
5289Bolsa Chica Channel—Constructed Wetlands Project IS Page 1-1
•:• PROJECT DESCRIPTION ❖
reduced. However, the water flows in the Channel are expected to fluctuate so little that effects on any
riparian habitat will be inconsequential. The Average Dry Weather Flow data from 1995 to 2001 for the
Bolsa Chica Channel at Westminister Boulevard was 1.3 cubic feet per second. The Bolsa Chica Channel
is not an essential fish habitat and no migratory fish will be affected. The constructed wetland will
provide habitat for many wetland organisms. Riparian vegetation and water in the Channel between the
intake and outfall may be affected on a miniscule level. However,no adverse impacts to the movement of
wildlife would occur due to development of the proposed project.
Components of the wetland treatments :stem for the Bolsa Chica Channel will include the following:
P Y g
• A diversion structure,upstream of the tidal prism,to divert dry weather flows from the channel of
the wetland treatment system while not adversely impacting the high or storm flow capacity of
the channel. The location of the diversion structure is just upstream of the convergence with the
Anaheim-Barber City Channel because shifting the diversion downstream would potentially incur
problems with tidal flows.
• An intake screening system to keep trash and debris from entering the wetlands.
• A pumping station to raise the water from the channel to the elevation of the adjacent land to the
west of the channel. The pump station will include two pumps for reliability.
• A force main/pipeline to convey the Channel water to the wetlands, because the wetlands will be
located in the southeast corner of the Naval Weapons Station property, a distance of at least 2,000
meters(1.25 miles)from the diversion structure.
• An integral detention zone prior to the vegetated section of the wetlands to pre-treat the water and
settle solids that could otherwise decrease the effectiveness of the wetland system.
• A vegetated wetlands system to polish the water.
Treated fresh water will be returned to the Bolsa Chica Channel at a point downstream of the wetlands
system. There are two alternatives for the wetland system; a free water surface (FWS) system or a
subsurface flow(SF)system.
Free Water Surface(FWS)Wetlands System
In a FWS wetland, the water surface is exposed to the atmosphere. The bed contains emergent aquatic
vegetation, a layer of soil to serve as a rooting media, and inlet and outlet structures. The FWS wetland
typically consists of a basin or channels with the intended flow path through the system being horizontal.
The soil is hard-packed and provides a 12-foot barrier between the groundwater and surface water. The
general procedure to determine the potential need for a liner to prevent groundwater contamination, used
by the California Department of Transportation, is whether a separation of less than 3 meters or 10 feet
between the surface water and groundwater will occur. A liner is not necessary to protect groundwater.
In this case, groundwater level is more than 15 feet deep. FWS wetlands are shallow to allow vegetation
to grow (typically 1 to 1.5 ft). Therefore, they are not tolerant to large fluctuations in water depth.
Parameters for design consideration for wetland systems include biochemical oxygen demand (BOD),
total suspended solids(TSS), ammonium,nitrate,phosphorus, temperature, and metals.
Heavy deposits of solids at the head of some constructed wetlands have overwhelmed the oxygen transfer
capability and resulted in plant die-off. For this reason, a settling area will be included for the FWS
wetland system to settle much of the solids coming into the system. Two parallel wetland cells are
proposed as multiple cells have the advantages of providing greater flexibility in design and operation,
and of enhancing the performance of the system overall by decreasing the potential for short-circuiting.
County of Orange,Resources and Development Management Department(RDMD) February 2006
5289/Bolsa Chica Channel—Constructed Wetlands Project IS Page 2-2
INTRODUCTION d-
1.3 Statutory Authority
This IS has been prepared in accordance with the requirements of CEQA,and the State CEQA Guidelines,
codified in the California Code of Regulations(CCR),Title 14,Chapter 3, §15000 et seq.,for the purpose
of analyzing the direct, indirect, and cumulative environmental effects associated with the proposed
project.
According to §15063(a)of the State CEQA Guidelines, "Following preliminary review,the Lead Agency
shall conduct an Initial Study to determine if the project may have a significant effect on the
environment." If, as a result of the IS,the Lead Agency finds that there is evidence that any aspect of the
proposed project may cause a significant environmental effect,the Lead Agency shall further find that an
Environmental Impact Report (EIR) is warranted to analyze environmental impacts. However, if on the
basis of the IS, the Lead Agency finds that the proposed project will not cause a significant effect on the
environment, either as proposed or as modified to include the mitigation measures identified in the IS, a
Negative Declaration or Mitigated Negative Declaration shall be prepared for that pending action.
§15063(d)of the State CEQA Guidelines identifies specific disclosure requirements for inclusion in an IS.
Pursuant to those requirements,an IS includes the following:
® A description of the project, including the location of the project;
a An identification of the environmental setting;
® An identification of environmental effects by use of a checklist, matrix, or other method,
provided that entries on a checklist or other form are briefly explained to indicate that there is
some evidence to support the entries. The brief explanation may be either through a narrative or a
reference to another information source such as an attached map, photographs, or an earlier EIR
or negative declaration. A reference to another document should include, where appropriate, a
citation to the page or pages where the information is found;
® A discussion of ways to mitigate any significant effects identified,if any;
® An examination of whether the project is compatible with existing zoning, plans and other
applicable land use controls; and
® The name of the person or persons who prepared or participated in the preparation of the IS.
1.4 Incorporation by Reference
Pursuant to §15150 of the State CEQA Guidelines, this IS incorporates by reference all or portions of
other technical documents that are a matter of public record. Those documents either relate to the project
or provide additional information concerning the environmental setting in which the project is proposed.
Where all or a portion of another document is incorporated by reference, the incorporated language shall
be considered to be set forth in full as part of the text of this IS.
The information contained in this IS is based, in part, on the following related technical studies that
include the project site or provide information addressing the general project area:
® City of Huntington Beach General Plan Land Use Map, City of Huntington Beach Public Works
Department, April 2001. http:--w-"-w.ci.huntinaton-beach.ca.us/citydepartmentsr 21anning!gp!
(Although the Naval Weapons Station is located in the City of Seal Beach,the proposed project is
located in the southeast portion of the Station. The City of Huntington Beach adjoins this comer
of the Station, and the City of Huntington Beach General Plan Land Use Map was used to
identify land uses that would be the most sensitive to environmental changes.)
County of Orange,Resources and Development Management Department(RDMD) February 2006
5289Bolsa Chica Channel—Constructed Wetlands Project IS Page 1-2
PROJECT DESCRIPTION ❖
mowing, levee maintenance, and safety concerns. Furthermore, the side slopes of levees and
berms should adequately support movement of vehicles used for mosquito control along the top
of the levee.
® Use of larvicides. B. thuringiensis israeliensis or Bti and Methoprene are two larvicides that are
commonly used for mosquito control. Both are very specific to mosquito larva, short lived in the
environment, and very effective. Mosquito management can be accomplished through surface
spray application by vector control.
Subsurface Flow(SF)Wetlands System
In a SF wetland,the excavated basin or channel is filled with a porous media,usually rock or gravel in the
U.S.,and the water level is maintained below the top of the rock or gravel. If necessary, a liner is used to
protect the groundwater. The same vegetation is planted in a SF wetland as a FWS wetland, and the
vegetation is planted in the upper part of the gravel media. Media depth typically ranges from 1 to 2 feet.
Similar to the FWS wetland, the SF wetland will include a settling area at the head of the constructed
wetlands to deposit heavy solids prior to entering the vegetated sections. The SF wetland will also
include two parallel cells to decrease the potential for short-circuiting.
A SF wetland would be planted with the same species as the FWS wetland, either bulrush alone or a
combination of bulrush, cattails, and reeds. Flow would enter the wetland through an inlet structure and
flow through:
1. a deep(>4 ft), open water segment for settling solids,prior to
2. a dense stand of vegetation, followed by
3. discharge through a modified discharge structure.
The entire media bed of the SF wetland will be planted. Water depth will be 2 feet and the media bed will
be 2.5 feet deep.
Comparison Between the FWS and FS Wetlands Systems
The FWS wetland is expected to meet fecal coliform and dissolved metals water quality objectives
(WQO). The lower cost of construction for a FWS wetland allows for a larger wetland treatment area and
longer detention time, which is key for fecal coliform removal. Due to funding limitations, the SF
wetland vegetated treatment area is not expected to treat fecal coliform to the desired WQO with the same
design flow as the FWS wetlands system. The SF wetland can only meet the WQO for fecal coliform
with a reduction in treatment flow capacity.
Generally speaking, the FWS wetland is more cost effective as the design flow reaches and exceeds
approximately 1.0 mgd through the wetlands treatment system to incorporate treatment. Although the
mosquito control issue of the FWS wetland alternative is of major concern to the County RDMD, the
FWS system is more cost effective and there are mosquito control strategies known to be effective in
FWS systems. For these reasons, the County has selected the FWS wetland system as the proposed
project. The FWS wetland system has been rejected and has been removed from further consideration.
Funding for this project has been provided in full or in part through an Agreement with the State Water
Resources Control Board (SWRCB)pursuant to the Costa-Machado Water Act of 2000 (Proposition 13)
and any amendments thereto for the implementation of California's Nonpoint Source Pollution Control
Program. The contents of this document do not necessarily reflect the views and policies of the SWRCB,
County of Orange,Resources and Development Management Department(RDMD) February 2006
5289Bolsa Chica Channel—Constructed Wetlands Project IS Page 2-6
IPROJECT DESCRIPTION ❖
nor does mention of trade names or commercial products constitute endorsement or recommendation for
use.
County of Orange,Resources and Development Management Department(RDMD) February 2006
5289/13olsa Chica Channel—Constructed Wetlands Project IS Page 2-7
❖ ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM ❖
3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
3.1 Introduction
1. Project title: Bolsa Chica Channel—Constructed Wetlands Project
2. Lead agency: County of Orange,Resources and Development
Management Department(RDMD)
300 North Flower Street
Santa Ana,CA 92703-5000
Mailing Address:
Post Office Box 4048
Santa Ana,CA 92702-4048
Initial Study#IP05-332
3. Project contact person and phone Mary Anne Skorpanich,Watershed Planner,
number: 714/834-5311
4. Project location: Bolsa Chica Channel is located along the border of the
cities of Huntington Beach, Seal Beach, and
Westminster. The Naval Weapons Station Seal Beach is
located adjacent and west of the channel. The wetlands
system would be in the southeastern comer of the
weapons station property, where the Bolsa Chica
Channel is intersected by the Westminster Channel and
takes a 90-degree bend to the west. Please reference
Figure 2-1 (Regional Map) for the location of the
Channel and Figure 2-2 (Vicinity Map) for the location
of the wetlands treatment system facilities.
Sources of Information: See Section 1.4
5. Decision Maker: County of Orange Board of Supervisors
6. Project Applicant&address: County of Orange,Resources and Development
Management Department(RDMD)
300 North Flower Street
Santa Ana,CA 92703-5000
7. General plan designation: Bolsa Chica Channel is a regional flood control facility
and the area where the constructed wetlands are
proposed is within Planning Area 5 of the Naval
Weapons Station Seal Beach.
County of Orange,Resources and Development Management Department(RDMD) February 2006
5289Bolsa Chica Channel—Constructed Wetlands Project IS Page 3-1
❖ ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM ❖
8. Zoning: Bolsa Chica Channel is a regional flood control facility
and the area where the constructed wetlands are
proposed is within Planning Area 5 of the Naval
Weapons Station Seal Beach.
9. Description of project:
See Section 2.4
10. Surrounding land uses and setting:
See Section 2.3
11. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or
participation agreement):
• U.S.Army Corps of Engineers
• Naval Weapons Station Seal Beach
• California Department of Fish and Game
• Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board
• City of Seal Beach
• California Coastal Commission
Permits that are expected to be required include:
1) a Clean Water Act Section 404 permit for dredge or fill of wetlands or waters of the U.S.,
2) a Clean Water Act Section 401 Water Quality Certification from Regional Water Quality Control
Board,
3) Streambed Alteration Agreement from California Department of Fish and Game(CDFG),and
4) California Coastal Commission Coastal Development Permit. Orange County expects that the
construction of the water intake and return pipes will be minor within the jurisdictional area of the
Bolsa Chica Channel and that the Clean Water Act's Section 404 Nationwide Permit#7 Outfall, will
be appropriate for the project. Orange County will go to the California Coastal Commission for a
preliminary Coastal Development Determination.
County of Orange,Resources and Development Management Department(RDMD) February 2006
5289/13olsa Chica Channel—Constructed Wetlands Project IS Page 3-2
❖ ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM ❖
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by the proposed project. The
factors involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" are indicated by the
checklist on the following pages.
❑ Aesthetics ❑ Agricultural Resources ❑ Air Quality
❑ Biological Resources ❑ Cultural Resources ❑ Geology/Soils
❑ Hazards and Hazardous ❑ Hydrology/Water Quality ❑ Land Use/Planning
Materials
❑ Mineral Resources ❑ Noise ❑ Population/Housing
❑ Public Services ❑ Transportation/Recreation ❑ Traffic
❑ Utilities/Service Systems ❑
Mandatory Findings of
Significance
County of Orange,Resources and Development Management Department(RDMD) February 2006
5289Bolsa Chica Channel—Constructed Wetlands Project IS Page 3-3
❖ ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM ❖
3.2 Completed Checklist
The following IS checklist presents a summary of the potential environmental impacts that could result
from development of the proposed project. Detailed explanations for each of the checklist responses are
provided in Section 4.0. Potential sources of impact are categorized under one of four column headings:
• Potentially Significant Impact: A checkmark indicates that there is sufficient evidence that an
effect would be significant, or that further analysis within an EIR is required to make that
determination.
• Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated: A checkmark indicates that that it can be
reasonably concluded that a potentially significant effect would be avoided or reduced to less than
significant through the implementation of one or more mitigation measures,as specified.
• Less Than Significant: A checkmark indicates that it is clear,based upon the project characteristics
and the affected environment, that the project's impact would be less than significant. No further
analysis within an EIR is required.
• No Impact: A checkmark indicates that it is clear, based upon the project characteristics and the
affected environment, that this project would have no effect with respect to the checklist topic in
question. No further analysis within an EIR is required.
County of Orange,Resources and Development Management Department(RDMD) February 2006
5289Bolsa Chica Channel—Constructed Wetlands Project IS Page 3-4
❖ ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM ❖
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS CHECKLIST
&trial Study_Number IP05-322 for the Bolsa Chica Channel
Constructed Wetlands Project
Potential Less than Less than
ISSUES&SUPPORTING DATA SOURCES: Significant Significant w/ Significant No Impact
Impact Mitigation Impact
1. LAND USE&PLANNING. Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established community? ❑ ❑ ❑
b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan,policy,
or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over
the project (including, but not limited to the ❑ ❑ ❑
general plan, specific plan, local coastal program,
or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of
avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation ❑ ❑ ❑
plan or natural community conservation plan?
2. AGRICULTURE. Would the project:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or
Farmland of Statewide Importance(Farmland),as
shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the ❑ ❑ ❑
Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of
the California Resources Agency, to non-
agricultural use?
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, ❑ ❑ ❑
or a Williamson Act contract?
c) Involve other changes in the existing
environment, which, due to their location or ❑ ❑ ® ❑
nature, could result in conversion of Farmland to
non-agricultural use?
3. POPULATION&HOUSING. Would the project:
a) Induce substantial population growth in an area,
either directly (for example, by proposing new
homes and businesses)or indirectly(for example, ❑ ❑ ❑
through extension of roads or other
infrastructure)?
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing,
necessitating the construction of replacement ❑ ❑ ❑
housing elsewhere?
County of Orange,Resources and Development Management Department(RDMD) February 2006
5289Bolsa Chica Channel—Constructed Wetlands Project IS Page 3-5
❖ ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
Potential Less than Less than
ISSUES&SUPPORTING DATA SOURCES: Significant Significant w/ Significant No Impact
Impact Mitigation Impact
c) Displace substantial numbers of people,
necessitating the construction of replacement ❑ ❑ ❑
housing elsewhere?
4. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the project:
a) Expose people or structures to potential
substantial adverse effects, including the risk of
loss,injury,or death involving:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as
delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo
Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the
State Geologist for the area or based on other ❑ ❑ ® ❑
substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer
to Division of Mines and Geology Special
Publication 42.
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? ❑ ❑ ® ❑
iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including ❑ ❑ ® ❑
liquefaction?
iv) Landslides? ❑ ❑ ❑ 10
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of ❑ ❑ ® ❑
topsoil?
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is
unstable, or that would become unstable as a
result of the project, and potentially result in on- ❑ ❑ ® ❑
or off-site landslide,lateral spreading,subsidence,
liquefaction or collapse?
d) Be located on expansive soils,as defined in Table
18-1-B of the California Building Code (2001), ❑ ❑ ® ❑
creating substantial risks to life or property?
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the
use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater ❑ ❑ ❑
disposal system where sewers are not available
for the disposal of wastewater?
5. HYDROLOGY&WATER QUALITY. Would the
project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste ❑ ❑ ❑
discharge requirements?
County of Orange,Resources and Development Management Department(RDMD) February 2006
5289/Bolsa Chica Channel—Constructed Wetlands Project IS Page 3-6
❖ ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM ❖
Potential Less than Less than
ISSUES&SUPPORTING DATA SOURCES: Significant Significant w/ Significant No Impact
Impact Mitigation Impact
b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or
interfere substantially with groundwater recharge
such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer
volume or a lowering of the local groundwater ❑ ❑ ❑
table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-
existing nearby wells would drop to a level which
would not support existing land uses or planned
uses for which permits have been granted)?
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of
the site or area,including through the alteration of
the course of a stream or river, in a manner, ❑ ❑ ® ❑
which would result in substantial erosion or
siltation on-or off-site?
d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of
the site or area,including through the alteration of
the course of a stream or river, or substantially ❑ ❑ ❑
increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a
manner, which would result in flooding on- or
off-site?
e) Create or contribute runoff water which would
exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm ❑ ❑ ❑
water drainage systems or provide substantial
additional sources of polluted runoff?
f) Have a significant adverse impact on groundwater
quality or otherwise substantially degrade water ❑ ❑ ❑
quality?
g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area
as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary ❑ ❑ ❑
or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood
hazard delineation map?
h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area
structures, which would impede or redirect flood ❑ ❑ ❑ ID
flows?
i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of
loss,injury or death involving flooding,including ❑ ❑ ❑
flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or
dam?
j) Inundation by seiche,tsunami,or mudflow? ❑ ❑ ❑
County of Orange,Resources and Development Management Department(RDMD) February 2006
5289Bolsa Chica Channel—Constructed Wetlands Project IS Page 3-7
❖ ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM ❖
Potential Less than Less than
ISSUES&SUPPORTING DATA SOURCES: Significant Significant w/ Significant No Impact
Impact Mitigation Impact
6. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would
the project:
a) Result in an increase in traffic, which is
substantial in relation to the existing traffic load
and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a ❑ ❑ ® ❑
substantial increase in either the number of
vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on
roads,or congestion at intersections)?
b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a
level of service standard established by the county ❑ ❑ ❑
congestion management agency for designated
roads or highways?
c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns,including
either an increase in traffic levels or a change in ❑ ❑ ❑
location that result in substantial safety risks?
d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design
feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous ❑ ❑ ❑
intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm
equipment)?
e) Result in inadequate emergency access? ❑ ❑ ❑
f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? ❑ ❑ ❑
g) Conflict with adopted policies, plan or programs
supporting alternative transportation (e.g. bus ❑ ❑ ❑ ED
turnouts,bicycle racks)?
7. AIR QUALITY. Would the project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the
applicable air quality plan? ❑ ❑ ❑
ED
b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute
substantially to an existing or projected air quality ❑ ❑ ❑
violation?
c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase
of any criteria pollutant for which the project
region is non-attainment under an applicable ❑ ❑ ® ❑
federal or state ambient air quality standard
(including releasing emissions, which exceed
quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)?
County of Orange,Resources and Development Management Department(RDMD) February 2006
5289Bolsa Chica Channel—Constructed Wetlands Project IS Page 3-8
❖ ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM ❖
Potential Less than Less than
ISSUES&SUPPORTING DATA SOURCES: Significant Significant w/ Significant No Impact
Impact Mitigation Impact
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant El ❑ ❑
concentrations?
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial ❑ ❑ ® ❑
number of people?
8. NOISE. Would the project result in:
a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise
levels in excess of standards established in the ❑ ❑ ❑
local general plan or noise ordinance, or
applicable standards of other agencies?
b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive
ground borne vibration or ground borne noise ❑ ❑ ❑
levels?
c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise
levels in the project vicinity above levels existing ❑ ❑ ❑
without the project?
d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in
ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above ❑ ❑ ® ❑
levels existing without the project?
e) For a project located within an airport land use
plan or, where such plan has not been adopted,
1 within two miles of a private or public airport or El El Elpublic use airport, would the project expose ED
people residing or working in the project area to
excessive noise levels?
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private
airstrip,would the project expose people residing El El Elor working the project area to excessive noise
levels?
9. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly
or through habitat modifications, on any species
identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special
status species in local or regional plans, policies, ❑ ❑ ® ❑
or regulations,or by the California Department of
Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Services?
County of Orange,Resources and Development Management Department(RDMD) February 2006
5289Bolsa Chica Channel—Constructed Wetlands Project IS Page 3-9
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM ❖
Potential Less than Less than
ISSUES&SUPPORTING DATA SOURCES: Significant Significant w/ Significant No Impact
Impact Mitigation Impact
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian
habitat or other sensitive natural community
identified in local or regional plans, policies, ❑ ❑ ® ❑
regulations or by the California Department of
Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Services?
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on Federally
protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of
the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited ❑ ❑ ❑
to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through
direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption,
or other means?
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any
native resident or migratory fish or wildlife
species or with established native resident or ❑ ❑ ❑
migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of
native wildlife nursery sites?
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances
protecting biological resources, such as a tree ❑ ❑ ❑
preservation policy or ordinance?
f) Conflict with provisions of an adopted Habitat
Conservation Plan, Natural Community ❑ ❑ ❑
Conservation Plan, or other approved local,
regional,or state habitat conservation plan?
10. AESTHETICS. Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect a scenic vista? ❑ ❑ ❑
b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including,
but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and ❑ ❑ ❑
historic buildings within a state scenic highway?
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character ❑ ❑ ❑
or quality of the site and its surroundings?
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare,
which would adversely affect day or nighttime ❑ ❑ ❑
views in the area?
11. CULTURAL/SCIENTIFIC RESOURCES,Would
the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a historical resource as defined in ❑ ❑ ® ❑
Section 15064.5?
County of Orange,Resources and Development Management Department(RDMD) February 2006
5289Bolsa Chica Channel—Constructed Wetlands Project IS Page 3-10
❖ ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM ❖
Potential Less than Less than
® ISSUES&SUPPORTING DATA SOURCES: Significant Significant w/ Significant No Impact
® Impact Mitigation Impact
b) Cause a substantial adverse changed in the
significance of an archaeological resource ❑ ❑ ® ❑
pursuant to Section 15064.5?
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique
paleontological resource or site or unique ❑ ❑ ® ❑
geologic feature?
d) Disturb any human remains, including those ❑ ❑ ® ❑
interred outside of formal cemeteries?
12. RECREATION. Would the project:
a) Increase the use of existing neighborhood and
regional parks or other recreational facilities such ❑ ❑ ❑
that substantial physical deterioration of the
facility would occur or be accelerated?
b) Include recreational facilities or require the
construction or expansion of _ recreational ❑ ❑ ❑
facilities, which might have an adverse physical
effect on the environment?
13. MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known
mineral resource that would be of value to the ❑ ❑ ❑
region and the residents of the state?
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally
important mineral resource recovery site ❑ ❑ ❑
delineated on a local general plan, specific plan,
or other land use plan?
14. HAZARDS. Would the project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through the routine transport,use,or ❑ ❑ ® ❑
disposal of hazardous materials?
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through reasonably foreseeable
upset and accident conditions involving the ❑ ❑ ® ❑
release of hazardous materials into the
environment?
County of Orange,Resources and Development Management Department(RDMD) February 2006
5289Bolsa Chica Channel—Constructed Wetlands Project IS Page 3-11
r
°:• ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM ❖
Potential Less than Less than
ISSUES&SUPPORTING DATA SOURCES: Significant Significant w/ Significant No Impact
Impact Mitigation Impact
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or
acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste ❑ El ® ❑
within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed
school?
d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of
hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to
Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a ❑ ❑ ❑
result, would it create a significant hazard to the
public or the environment?
e) For a project located within an airport land use
plan or, where such plan has not been adopted,
within two miles of a public airport or public use ❑ ❑ ❑
airport,would the project result in a safety hazard
for people residing or working in the project area?
f) For a project within the vicinity of private airstrip,
would the project result in a safety hazard for ❑ ❑ ❑ El
people residing or working in the project area?
g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere
with an adopted emergency response plan or ❑ ❑ ❑ ED
emergency evacuation plan?
h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk or
loss, injury or death involving wildland fires,
including where wildlands are adjacent to ❑ ❑ ❑
urbanized areas or where residences are
intermixed with wildlands?
i) Include a new or retrofitted storm water treatment
control Best Management Practice (BMP), (e.g.
water quality treatment basin, constructed ❑ ❑
treatment wetlands),the operation of which could
result in significant environmental effects (e.g.
increased vectors and odors)?
15. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the project:
a) Result in substantial adverse physical impacts
associated with the provision of new or physically
altered governmental facilities, need for new or
physically altered governmental facilities, the
construction of which could cause significant
environmental impacts, in order to maintain
acceptable service ratios, response times or other
performance objectives for any of the public
services:
rCounty of Orange,Resources and Development Management Department(RDMD) February 2006
5289Bolsa Chica Channel—Constructed Wetlands Project IS Page 3-12
r
❖ ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM ❖
Potential Less than Less than
ISSUES&SUPPORTING DATA SOURCES: Significant Significant w/ Significant No Impact
Impact Mitigation Impact
i) Fire protection? ❑ ❑ ❑
ii) Police protection? ❑ ❑ ❑
iii) Schools? ❑ ❑ ❑
iv) Parks? ❑ ❑ ❑
v) Other public facilities? ❑ ❑ ❑
16. UTILITIES&SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the
project:
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the
applicable Regional Water Quality Control ❑ ❑ ❑
Board?
b) Require or result in the construction of new water
or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of ❑ ❑ ® ❑
existing facilities,the construction of which could
cause significant environmental impacts?
c) Require or result in the construction of new storm
water drainage facilities or expansion of existing ❑ ❑ ❑
facilities, the construction of which would cause
significant environmental effects?
d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve
the project from existing entitlements and ❑ ❑ ❑
resources, or are new or expanded entitlements
needed?
e) Result in a determination by the wastewater
treatment provider,which serves or may serve the
project that it has adequate capacity to serve the ❑ ❑ ❑
project's projected demand in addition to the
provider's existing commitments?
f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted
capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste ❑ ❑ ® ❑
disposal needs?
g) Comply with federal, state and local statutes and ❑ ❑ ❑
regulations related to solid waste?
MANDATORY FINDINGS
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade
the quality of the environment, substantially
reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife population
to drop below self sustaining levels, threaten to
eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce ❑ ❑ ® ❑
' the number or restrict the range of a rare or
endangered plant or animal, or eliminate
important examples of the major periods of
California history or prehistory?
County of Orange,Resources and Development Management Department(RDMD) February 2006
5289Bolsa Chica Channel—Constructed Wetlands Project IS Page 3-13
❖ ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM ❖
Potential Less than Less than
ISSUES&SUPPORTING DATA SOURCES: Significant Significant w/ Significant No Impact
Impact Mitigation Impact
b) Does the project have possible environmental
effects, which are individually limited but
cumulatively considerable? ("cumulatively
considerable" means that the incremental effects ❑ ❑ ❑
of an individual project are considerable when
viewed in connection with the effects of past
projects,the effects of other current projects, and
the effects of probable future projects.)
c) Does project have environmental effects which
will cause substantial adverse effects on human ❑ ❑ ❑
beings,either directly or indirectly
DETERMINATION:
Based upon the evidence in light of the whole record documented in the attached environmental checklist
explanation,cited incorporations and attachments,I find that the proposed project:
COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a negative declaration (ND) will be
prepared pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Article 6, 15070 through 15075.
COULD have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case
because the mitigation measures have been added to the project. A negative declaration (ND) will be ❑
prepared pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Article 6, 15070 through 15075.
MAY have a 'gnificant effect on the environment,which has not been analyzed previously. Therefore, ❑
an enviro en 1 impact report(EIR)is required.
Signa e:
' Planner: Jerry Mitch 1
Environmental Plann g Division
Telephone:(714)834-5389
' NOTE:AII referenced and/or incorporated documents may be reviewed by appointment only,at the County of
Orange Resources&Development Management Department,300 N.Flower Street,Santa Ana,California,
unless otherwise specified. An appointment can be made by contacting the CEQA Contact Person identified
above.
Revised 2-5-03
County of Orange,Resources and Development Management Department(RDMD) February 2006
5289/13olsa Chica Channel—Constructed Wetlands Project IS Page 3-14
❖ ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION ❖
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
This section contains the supportive information utilized by the County of Orange RDMD in its role as
Lead Agency to derive the preliminary conclusions presented in Section 3.0 (Environmental Analysis
Checklist). For ease of reference, each environmental issue is enumerated the same as in Section 3.0 and
categorized under one of the same four column headings: Potentially Significant Impact, Less than
Significant with Mitigation Incorporated,Less than Significant Impact,or No Impact.
4.1. LAND USE AND PLANNING
a) Would the project physically divide an established community?
Project Impacts: No Impact. The proposed project would not significantly expand existing land uses,
improve undeveloped land, or otherwise physically divide the community. There are residential uses to
the south and east of the proposed project, but the proposed project would not create a physical divide
between these two areas. The proposed project is located at the southeast boundary of the Naval
Weapons Station, so no military communities would be adversely affected. Therefore, no adverse
impacts to land use and planning would occur due to development of the proposed project.
b) Would the project conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an
agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan,
specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of
avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?
Project Impacts: No Impact. According to the City of Seal Beach General Plan, the proposed project is
located in Planning Area 5- Naval Weapons Station, Wetlands and Wildlife Refuge.' According to the
Navel Weapons Station Seal Beach Master Plan document the Navy owns Planning Area 5, and the land
use designation is primarily military uses. There are no residential, commercial, public or recreational
uses in this area. The proposed project would replace 20 acres of the existing agricultural uses, and will
not conflict with any land use policy or regulation. No adverse impacts would occur.
c) Would the project conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural
community conservation plan?
Project Impacts: No Impact. The proposed project would be built on a site that is being used for
cultivating row crops. There is no habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan that
includes the proposed project area. Therefore, the proposed project does not conflict with any applicable
habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan. No impacts would occur.
4.2. AGRICULTURE
a) Would the project convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide
Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland
Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency,to non-agricultural
use?
Project Impacts: No Impact. The proposed site is used to cultivate row crops, but it does not fall under
either of the categories of Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance
'/ City of Seal Beach,General Plan,Land Use Element—Planning Areas,pg LU-33,December 2003.
County of Orange,Resources and Development Management Department(RDMD) February 2006
5289/13olsa Chica Channel—Constructed Wetlands Project IS Page 4-1
❖ ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION ❖
(Farmland). Prime Farmland is defined as the best combination of physical and chemical features able to
sustain long-term agricultural production.2 Unique Farmland consists of lesser quality soils used for the
production of the state's leading agricultural crops.3 Farmland of Statewide Importance is similar to
Prime Farmland but with minor shortcomings, such as greater slopes or less ability to store soil moisture.4
The proposed project site is located in Planning Area 5- Wetlands and Wildlife Refuge (Naval Weapons
Station Seal Beach Master Plan, 1980, Figure IV). The Navy owns Planning Area 5, and the land use
designation is military uses. The Navy can convert this land to another use without loss of agricultural
lands to non-agricultural uses. The surrounding area is low intensity use/open space and is Explosive
Safety Quantity Distance (ESQD) arc constrained. Therefore, development of this project would produce
no adverse impacts.
b) Would the project conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act
contract?
Project Impacts: No Impact. The project site and surrounding areas are neither zoned for agricultural use
nor do they fall under a Williamson Act contract. The proposed project site is located in Planning Area 5-
Naval Weapons Station, Wetlands and Wildlife Refuge. The Navy owns Planning Area 5, and the land
use designation is military uses. The Navy can convert this land to another use without loss of
agricultural lands to non-agricultural uses. Therefore,no adverse impacts to agricultural resources would
occur due to development of the proposed project.
c) Would the project involve other changes in the existing environment, which, due to their
location or nature,could result in conversion of farmland,to non-agricultural use?
Project Impacts: Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project would not contribute significantly
to the conversion of farmlands to non-agricultural use. The proposed project site is located in Planning
Area 5-Naval Weapons Station,Wetlands and Wildlife Refuge. The Navy owns Planning Area 5, and the
land use designation is military uses. The Navy can convert this land to another use without significant
loss of agricultural lands to non-agricultural uses. The development of the proposed constructed wetlands
is to improve water quality in the Bolsa Chica Channel and other water bodies downstream. The
proposed project does not include any other changes to the environment that would convert farmlands to
non-agricultural use. Although some small amount of current agricultural activity will be lost due to
conversion to wetlands, it is not deemed as significant because of the small acreage amount and the
interim nature of the agriculture as a temporary use until other military uses are required.
4.3. POPULATION AND HOUSING
a) Would the project induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for
example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through
extension of roads or other infrastructure)?
Z/ California Department of Conservation Division of Land and Resource Protection, Farmland Mapping and
Monitoring Program Survey Area 2002,pg 5,December 2002.
s/ California Department of Conservation Division of Land and Resource Protection,Farmland Mapping and
Monitoring Program Survey Area 2002,pg 5,December 2002.
4/ California Department of Conservation Division of Land and Resource Protection,Farmland Mapping and
Monitoring Program Survey Area 2002,pg 5,December 2002.
County of Orange,Resources and Development Management Department(RDMD) February 2006
5289Bolsa Chica Channel—Constructed Wetlands Project IS Page 4-2
❖ ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION ❖
Project Impacts: No Impact. The proposed project would not generate population growth directly or
indirectly, because the proposed project would not develop new housing or new businesses. The
proposed project would not construct infrastructure or provide services intended to support increased
population growth. Therefore, no adverse impacts to population and housing would occur due to
development of the proposed project.
b) Would the project displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the
construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
Project Impacts: No Im act. The proposed project would be built on an existing military base with an
J .� � P P p J g ry
interim use as agricultural lands. There are no residential buildings or facilities to support human
occupation on the proposed site. Therefore, the implementation of the proposed project would not
displace housing, and therefore,would not necessitate the construction of replacement housing elsewhere.
No adverse impacts to population and housing would occur due to development of the proposed project.
c) Would the project displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere?
Project Impacts: No Impact. The proposed project does not involve construction of any residential or
commercial buildings. The proposed site is used for agricultural uses and the replacement of this use
would not displace any housing or in any way require people to move from the project area to another
area. The construction of replacement housing would not be necessary. Therefore, no adverse impact
would occur.
4,4. GEOLOGY AND SOILS
a) Would the project expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects,
including the risk of loss,injury,or death involving;
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo
Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other
substantial evidence of a known fault? (Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special
Publication 42)
Project Impacts: Less Than Significant Impact. Table 4 from the 1997 Edition of Special Publication
42,5 updated as of May 1, 1999, lists the California cities affected by Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault
Zones. The project site, as part of the City of Seal Beach, is listed in Table 4. However,the project does
not propose the construction of buildings or other habitable structures that have a potential of posing a
risk of loss, injury, or death of people, in an event of a seismic activity. Therefore, the impacts would be
less than significant.
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?
Project Impacts: Less Than Significant Impact. According to the City of Seal Beach General Plan: the
fault capable of generating an earthquake of significance is the Newport-Inglewood Fault.b Since the
proposed project does not result in construction of buildings or any other habitable structures, any impacts
5/ California Geological Survey, Special Publication 42, Cities and Counties Affected by Alquist-Priolo
Earthquake Fault Zones, May 1999.
6/ City of Seal Beach,General Plan,Safety Element-Geologic Hazards,pg S-36,December 2003.
County of Orange,Resources and Development Management Department(RDMD) February 2006
5289/13olsa Chica Channel—Constructed Wetlands Project IS Page 4-3
❖ ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION ❖
from seismic ground shaking would be less than significant. The excavation for the wetland will not
destabilize the channel wall due to distance and shallow cuts.
iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction?
Project Impacts: Less Than Significant Impact. According to City of Seal Beach General Plan, the
proposed project site is situated in an area susceptible to liquefaction. However, because the proposed
project would not construct new residences or buildings, the proposed project would not present
substantial new risk to people or structures due to seismic-related ground failure. Therefore, any impacts
from liquefaction would be less than significant.
iv) Landslides?
Project Impacts: No Impact. According to the City of Seal Beach General Plan,the proposed project site
is not susceptible to landslides.' Furthermore, the proposed project site is flat and development of the
proposed project would not alter the existing topography. Therefore, no adverse impact would occur to
people or structures due to landslides.
b) Would the project result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?
Project Impacts: No Impact. The proposed project would replace existing agricultural land and would be
planted with vegetation. As a result, there would be no increase in the exposed soil surfaces that would
result in additional soil erosion. Therefore, no impact to the soil would occur due to development of the
proposed project.
c) Would the project be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would
become unstable as a result of the project,and potentially result in on-or off-site landslide,
lateral spreading,subsidence,liquefaction or collapse?
Project Impacts: L ss Than i ific n Im act. The proposed project is not located on unstable soil. The
Ie S grt a p p p p J
project does not include any load bearing or vertical structures. As such,the proposed project would not
affect the stability of the soil nor would it result in on-or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence,
liquefaction, or collapse. The area has past experience with subsidence from water pumping or oil
extraction. However, no water pumping or oil extraction will occur. Therefore, less than significant
impacts to soil stability would occur due to development of the proposed project.
d) Would the project be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform
Building Code(1994),creating substantial risk to life or property?
Project Impacts: Less Than Significant Impact. According to the USGS soil survey report for the area,9
the soils at the proposed project site have a moderate shrink-swell potential. Because the proposed
project would not construct any new buildings, the proposed project would not present new risks from
collapse and expansion of soils compared to the existing land use. Therefore, no adverse impacts would
occur due to the proposed project.
7/ City of Seal Beach,General Plan, Safety Element- Geologic Hazards,pgs S-49 and S-51,December 2003.
s/ City of Seal Beach,General Plan,Safety Element-Geologic Hazards,pg S-53,December 2003.
s/ U.S,Geological Survey,Soil Survey of Orange and Western Part of Riverside Counties, California, an Interim
Report,pg 140b1,June 1976.
County of Orange,Resources and Development Management Department(RDMD) February 2006
5289/13olsa Chica Channel-Constructed Wetlands Project IS Page 4-4
❖ ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION ❖
e) Would the project have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or
alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of
wastewater?
Project Impacts: No Impact. Operation of the proposed project would not generate wastewater.
Therefore, the operation of the proposed project would not require the use of septic tanks or alternative
wastewater disposal systems, and no adverse impacts would occur due to development of the proposed
project.
4.5. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
a) Would the project violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements?
Project Impacts: No Impact. The proposed wetlands project is integral to improve the water quality of
the existing dry weather flows in the Bolsa Chica Channel and downstream water bodies. The long-term
objective of the proposed project is to maintain and restore beneficial uses in Anaheim Bay and
Huntington Harbor. Therefore, the proposed project is being designed to help meet water quality
standards. The proposed project would have a beneficial impact on water quality. Therefore,no adverse
impacts would occur.
b) Would the project substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially
with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a
lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing
nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned
uses for which permits have been granted)?
Project Impacts: No Impact. The proposed project would divert dry weather flows from the Bolsa Chica
Channel, treat those flows in a constructed wetlands system, and return fresh water back to the Channel.
No use of groundwater supplies is proposed and no adverse impacts to groundwater recharge would
occur. The level of the local groundwater table would not be affected, and wells supporting existing or
planned land uses would continue at the same level of production as without the proposed project.
Therefore,no impact would occur.
c) Would the project substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area,
including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner, which
would result in substantial erosion or siltation on-or off-site?
Project Impacts: Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project would not substantially alter the
existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or
river, which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site. Flow from upstream of the
Anaheim-Barber City Channel and downstream of Westminster Avenue would be diverted to the
wetlands system. This would not result in substantial erosion or siltation as the wetlands treatment
system would have an integral detention zone and vegetation to prevent substantial movement of soils.
Therefore,less than significant impacts would occur.
d) Would the project substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area,
including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase
the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on-or off-
site?
County of Orange,Resources and Development Management Department(RDMD) February 2006
5289Bolsa Chica Channel—Constructed Wetlands Project IS Page 4-5
❖ ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION ❖
Project Impacts: No Impact. The proposed project would not alter the existing drainage pattern of the
site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river,or substantially increase the
rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner that would result in flooding on- or off-site. Flow from
upstream of the Anaheim-Barber City Channel and downstream of Westminster Avenue would be
diverted to the wetlands system and returned to the Channel, so the amount of dry weather flows would
remain the same. The system would not be operated during storm flows, nor would it impede flows
through the channel during storms. Thus, project operation would not cause flooding on- or off site.
Project construction also would not cause flooding on-or off-site as the Channel would not be altered and
construction would not generate nor require the introduction of large quantities of water. No adverse
impacts would occur.
e) Would the project create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of
existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources
of polluted runoff?
Project Impacts: No Impact. The proposed project would not exceed the capacity of existing or planned
storm water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff. The amount of
water would remain the same as the wetlands treatment systems would not create or generate substantial
amounts of water. Bioaccumulation is not expected to be a problem due to scheduled maintenance and
monitoring. The wetlands treatment system would reduce water pollution, and not be a source of
additional polluted runoff. No adverse impacts would occur.
f) Would the project otherwise substantially degrade groundwater quality?
Project Impacts: No Impact. The proposed project is being designed to have a beneficial impact on water
quality. The proposed project would reduce pathogens, metals, and pesticides in Anaheim Bay and
Huntington Harbor by using a constructed wetlands treatment system. Semi-volatile organic
contaminants will be particle-bound through vegetation. Vascular plants stabilize substrates and limit
channel flow, allowing suspended materials to settle. Filtration and chemical precipitation through
contact of the water with the substrate and litter grants chemical transformation. Microorganisms and
plants will break down and/or transform pollutants. Suspended pathogens settle and die off naturally and
through predation. Metals removal in wetlands is due to plant uptake, adsorption, complexation, and
precipitation. Metals will accumulate in the wetland system, but they should not pose a threat to the
habitat or to the long-term uses of the site as long as the system is properly designed and managed.
Furthermore, accumulated metals do not move appreciably through soil. The proposed project would
improve water quality and thus,would have no adverse impact on groundwater quality.
g) Would the project place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a
federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard
delineation map?
Project Impacts: No Impact. The proposed project does not involve construction of any habitable
buildings or other structures. The Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) for this area10 indicates that the
residential areas located south and east of the Channel is Zone X, or areas with 0.2 percent annual chance
flood;areas of one percent annual chance flood with average depths of less than one foot or with drainage
areas less than 1 square mile; and areas protected by levees from one percent annual chance flood. The
FIRM zone for the Naval Weapons Station is not shown on the map as it is military land and thus, not
t0/ Federal Emergency Management Agency, Flood Rate Insurance Map, Orange County, California and
Incorporated Areas,Panel 231 of 550,Map Number 06059CO23I H,map revised February 18,2004.
County of Orange,Resources and Development Management Department(RDMD) February 2006
5289Bolsa Chica Channel—Constructed Wetlands Project IS Page 4-6
❖ ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION 4-
incorporated by any local jurisdiction. Nonetheless, the adjacent Navy property is currently used for
agricultural purposes, and is not developed with residential or other inhabited land uses. Therefore, no
adverse impacts would occur.
h) Would the project place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures, which would
impede or redirect flood flows?
Project Impacts: No Impact. As discussed in section g), above, the proposed project would not be
located within a designated 100-year flood hazard area. The FIRM map for the area indicates that the
residential areas are Zone X, which has a low probability of flood hazard. For the Naval Weapons
Station, the flood probability is not presented. Regardless, the proposed project would not construct any
structure that would impede or redirect flood flows. Thus,no adverse impacts to flood flows would occur
due to development of the proposed project.
i) Would the project expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death
involving flooding,including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam?
Project Impacts: No Impact. The proposed project would not increase population, as no habitable
structures or buildings would be developed; no additional loss of life would occur due to flooding as a
result of the failure of a levee or dam.
j) Would the project be subject to inundation by seiche,tsunami,or mudflow?
Project Impacts: No Impact.
Seiche. A seiche is an oscillation of a land-locked water body, such as a lake. The proposed project site
is not situated near a land-locked water body. The proposed project would not generate substantial risk
relative to the existing land uses because the proposed project would not construct new residences or
buildings,or any other structure or facility that would be inundated. Therefore,no impact would occur.
Tsunami. A tsunami is a large ocean wave associated with a seismic event. The proposed site is located
approximately three miles inland from the Pacific Ocean. According to the Naval Master Plan, 1980,
Figure IV,the project is outside of the 100-year tsunami range. Therefore,no impacts would occur.
Mudflow. The risk of inundation by mudflow is related to the risk from inundation by landslide. The
/ proposed project will be located on a level site and is not susceptible to any landslides. No adverse
impacts would occur.
4.6. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION
a) Would the project cause an increase in traffic,which is substantial in relation to the existing
traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either
the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at
intersections)?
Project Impacts: Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project does create a use that would
generate or induce traffic activity subsequent to completion. There would be some additional traffic
during construction. Delivery of material will require approximately six delivery trucks for the
development of pipe, pump station, electrical panels, planting soil, and other miscellaneous purposes.
Heavy equipment expected for the construction, maintenance, or operation of the facility will be the
scraper and/or dozer. The equipment will be brought to the site on large wheeled trailers and the
County of Orange,Resources and Development Management Department(RDMD) February 2006
5289Bolsa Chica Channel—Constructed Wetlands Project IS Page 4-7
❖ ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION 4-
contractor will be required to repair any damage to the base. The most suitable gate for temporary
equipment access is at Edinger Avenue where the Bolsa Chica Channel crosses beneath the road. The
construction site will have a small trailer and portable bathroom facilities that will be serviced twelve
times during the construction period. The maintenance crew will enter daily in two or three pick-up
trucks. However, the impacts would be for a short time, and the additional traffic due to construction
would be relatively small. Traffic impacts would be less than significant.
b) Would the project exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard
established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or
highways?
Project Impacts: No Impact. The proposed project would not generate increased traffic during operations
other than maintenance of the wetlands. Maintenance will require entrance once per month by a two-man
inspection and minor maintenance team in a small County truck. Once per year a small maintenance team
will thin vegetation as necessary, clean out the pump station sump, check sediment deposits in the fore
bay of the wetlands and repair berms as necessary. Major maintenance would include the removal of
accumulated material from the fore bay;this would occur once every five years or less often. A mosquito
abatement technician will inspect the site and remedy problems if necessary. County personnel will
monitor the influent and effluent periodically to determine performance of the wetlands. The additional
traffic trips due to maintenance would be so few that they would not be noticeable by level of service
standards. Therefore,no impacts to traffic would occur due to development of the proposed project.
c) Would the project result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in
traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks?
Project Impacts: No Impact. The proposed project would not result in any change to air traffic patterns,
either in the number of daily flights or in the creation of a safety risk to air traffic. During operations,
resident staff with locally acquired materials and supplies will perform maintenance activities. The
constructed wetlands would be located in an area that is relatively flat, and the wetlands, during both the
construction and operational phases, would not present a hazard to arriving or departing aircraft.
Therefore, no adverse impacts to air traffic patterns would occur due to development of the proposed
project.
d) Would the project substantially increase hazards due to a design feature(e.g., sharp curves
or dangerous intersections)or incompatible uses(e.g.,farm equipment)?
Project Impacts: No Impact. The proposed project would not result in a change in the existing roads nor
would it create new roads or intersections. The wetland will be built by excavating local soil into low
berms to contain the water and vegetation. The berms will be wide enough for inspection and
maintenance vehicles. Berms will have wide slopes of 2.5 feet horizontal to I foot vertical, which is flat
enough to protect them from farm equipment. Bollards will be used to protect any critical flow diversion
or influent/effluent structures and to direct farm equipment away from the berms. Thus, the proposed
project would not increase hazards due to a design feature or incompatible uses, and no adverse impacts
from transportation hazards would occur.
e) Would the project result in inadequate emergency access?
Project Impacts: No Impact. The proposed project would not impair emergency access. The main access
roads that would be used during the construction period would be the existing right-of-way(ROW) along
the Bolsa Chica Channel. Therefore, the proposed project would not block any roads commonly used by
the public and no adverse impacts to emergency access would occur due to development of the proposed
County of Orange,Resources and Development Management Department(RDMD) February 2006
5289Bolsa Chica Channel—Constructed Wetlands Project IS Page 4-8
❖ ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION ❖
project. In regards to the Naval Weapons Station, the proposed project area is currently used for
agriculture and is not heavily populated. Other roadways would be used to provide emergency access to
the more populated portion of the Naval Weapons Station.
f) Would the project result in inadequate parking capacity?
Project Impacts: No Impact. Operation of the proposed project would not induce growth that could result
in substantially more vehicles, eliminate parking spaces, or otherwise result in inadequate parking
capacity. The main access roads that would be used during the construction period would be the ROW
along the Bolsa Chica Channel. Thus,no adverse impacts to parking would occur due to development of
the proposed project.
g) Would the project conflict with adopted policies,plans,or programs supporting alternative
transportation(e.g.,bus turnouts,bicycle racks)?
Project Impacts: No Impact. The proposed project would not conflict with policies supporting alternative
transportation, including the goals, objectives, and policies of the Circulation Element (pp. C-1 through
C-62) of the General Plan. The additional traffic that would occur during the proposed project during
operations would be low, and the number of maintenance trips that would be taken by alternative
transportation modes would be extremely small, if any. Nonetheless, the proposed project would not
conflict with adopted policies, plans and programs supporting alternative transportation. No adverse
impacts to alternative transportation would occur due to development of the proposed project.
4.7. AIR QUALITY
The project site is within the South Coast Air Quality Management District(SCAQMD) and is subject to
SCAQMD construction and operation emissions thresholds used to assess impacts on regional air quality.
The SCAQMD is responsible for preparing a regional Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP)to improve
air quality in the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB). The AQMP includes a variety of strategies to
accommodate growth,to reduce the high levels of pollutants within the SCAB,to meet State and federal
air quality performance standards, and to minimize the fiscal impact that pollution control measures have
on the local economy.
a) Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality
plan?
Project Impacts: No Impact. In general, a project is inconsistent with the applicable SCAQMD AQMP if
it is inconsistent with the employment and/or population forecasts identified in the Growth Management
Chapter of Southern California Association of Government's Regional Comprehensive Plan and Guide
(RCPG). This is because the Growth Management Chapter forms the basis of the land use and
transportation control portion of the AQMP. Therefore, a project needs to be evaluated to determine
whether it would generate population and employment growth and, if so, whether that growth would
exceed the growth rates forecast in the AQMP.
The proposed project would create new wetlands to improve the quality of dry weather flow and would
not alter the projections of employment and/or population forecasts identified by SCAG. The proposed
project conforms to the SCAQMD's AQMP. Therefore,no impact would occur.
b) Would the project violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing
or projected air quality violation?
County of Orange,Resources and Development Management Department(RDMD) February 2006
5289/Bolsa Chica Channel—Constructed Wetlands Project IS Page 4-9
❖ ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION 4-
Air quality impacts are usually divided into short-term and long-term. Short-term impacts are typically
the result of construction or site grading. Long-term impacts are associated with the build-out condition
of the proposed project.
Short-Term(Construction) Impacts: No Impact. Air pollutant operations emissions would result from the
use of construction equipment for the installation of the pipeline as well as construction of the wetlands. In
addition, vehicular use by construction employees traveling to and from the proposed project site would
generate air emissions during the construction phase. It is not anticipated that the number of construction
�\ workers needed for this project would be great. Due to the use of the site for agricultural activities,it is
likely that the number of workers would be greater during some periods than others. In addition, farming
equipment to prepare the land for cultivation would generate similar air emissions as construction
equipment due to the use of diesel engines and the disturbance of the soil, creating dust. Therefore,
impacts due to the construction of the proposed project would be similar to that already been generated
onsite,and thus would result in no impacts.
Long-Term(Operational)Impacts: No Impact. The proposed project would construct wetlands in an area
currently used for agriculture. Implementation of the proposed project would not directly produce air
emissions and would not generate population changes that could indirectly result in air emissions.
Therefore,operation of the proposed project would have no long-term air quality impacts.
c) Would the project result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria
pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or
state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative
thresholds for ozone precursors)?
Project Impacts: Less Than Significant Impact. According to the website maintained by California Air
Resources Board (CARB), the proposed project is in a State or national non-attainment area for ozone,
fine particulate matter (PM2.5), and small particulate matter (PM,o) as of the year 2003.11 The AQMP
includes performance standards aimed at reducing these high levels of pollutants within the region. In
general, if the environmental analysis shows that an individual project is consistent with the AQMP
performance standards, the proposed project's cumulative impact is considered less-than-significant. If
the analysis shows that a project does not comply with the standards, then cumulative impacts are
considered to be significant,unless there is other pertinent information to the contrary.
Construction Emission Inventory
Construction air emissions can be distinguished as either on-site or off-site. On-site air pollutant
emissions during construction would principally consist of exhaust emissions from off-road heavy-duty
diesel powered construction equipment, as well as fugitive particulate matter from earthwork and material
handling operations. Off site exhaust emissions would result from workers commuting to and from the
job site, as well as trucks delivering building materials and equipment to the construction site,and hauling
of construction debris and soils for disposal.
Emissions of criteria pollutants from construction activities were estimated using the construction module
of URBEMIS 2002 (Appendices A). For the purposed of the modeling, it is assumed that two pieces of
heavy equipment(scraper and dozer), an excavator, and a backhoe will be operated at the same time as a
worse case assumption. Equipment exhaust emissions were determined using the URBEMIS 2002
default values for horsepower and load factors. The option of soil import/export was used to represent
1/ California Air Resources Board(CARB)accessed from: hqp://www.arb.ca.gov/desig/adm/adm.htm
County of Orange,Resources and Development Management Department(RDMD) February 2006
5289/Bolsa Chica Channel—Constructed Wetlands Project IS Page 4-10
❖ ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION ❖
the truck material deliveries to the site, with a worse case assumption of two round truck trips per
construction day. The default value for recreational land use worker commute trips was used to estimate
the emissions associated with worker commute.
Estimated emissions of reactive organic gases (ROG), oxides of nitrogen (NOX), carbon monoxide (CO),
nd PMio from the proposed project construction are shown in Table 4-1 (Maximum Daily Construction
Emissions)and are compared to SCAQMD's thresholds of significance.
Table 4-1
Maximum Daily Construction Emissions
Pollutant Emission(lbs/day)
Design Phases ROG NOx CO PMio
Equipment Operation 9.79 66.32 78.45 2.71
Fugitive Dust -- -- -- 20.00
Truck Delivery Trips 0.09 1.69 0.35 0.05
Worker Commute Trips 0.08 0.10 2.06 0.01
Total 9.96 68.11 80.86 22.77
SCAQMD Significance Thresholds 75 100 550 150
Significant Impact? No No No No
As shown in Table 4-1,maximum daily emissions would be below the SCAQMD significance thresholds
for all criteria pollutants. Therefore, air quality impacts associated with construction of the proposed
project would be temporary and less than significant.
Although construction impacts would be less than significant, the project construction contractor shall
follow applicable SCAQMD rules in regard to construction emissions.
As discussed in section b), above, construction of the proposed project would not result in any significant
air quality impacts. Therefore, the proposed project would not contribute to a cumulatively considerable
net increase of criteria pollutants, and less than significant impacts would occur due to construction of the
project. Operation of the proposed project would not increase the air emissions in the area, and less than
significant long-term air quality impacts would occur.
d) Would the project expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations?
Project Impacts: No Impact. Sensitive receptors include persons who would be more susceptible to air
pollution than the general population. Examples of sensitive receptors include children, athletes, the
elderly, and the chronically ill. Examples of land uses where substantial numbers of sensitive receptors
are often found are schools,parks,recreational areas,and medical facilities. Sensitive receptors within 1/4-
mile of the project site are listed in Table 4-2 (Sensitive Receptors Within '/4-Mile of the Project Site).
Table 4-2
Sensitive Receptors Within'/4-Mile of the Project Site
County of Orange,Resources and Development Management Department(RDMD) February 2006
52891Bolsa Chica Channel—Constructed Wetlands Project IS Page 4-11
❖ ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION 4-
Sensitive Receptor Location
Grace Lutheran Private Elementary 16081 Waikiki Lane,Huntington Beach,CA 92649
School (Formerly Haven View
Haven View Park Southeast of project site;corner of Edinger and
Waikiki Lane
Robinwood Park East of the project site; southeast comer of McFadden
Avenue and Pelican Lane
Robinwood School East of the project site; southeast corner of McFadden
Avenue and Pelican Lane
Single-family residences are east and south of the proposed project site. However, the proposed project
would have no operational air quality impacts. Some air quality impacts are likely during the
construction period, but since agricultural equipment is currently being used on the site, additional air
quality impacts during the construction period would be less than significant. Therefore, the proposed
project would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. No adverse impacts
to sensitive receptors would occur due to development of the proposed project.
e) Would the project create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people?
Project Impacts: Less Than Significant Impact. Use of construction vehicles (i.e., diesel exhaust)would
generate airborne odors. These odors would be isolated to the immediate vicinity of the construction site
and activity. After completion of construction of the proposed project, odors from the proposed project
would not differ from those from the surrounding land uses. Because odors generated by construction
would be short-term,the proposed project would result in less than significant adverse impacts.
4.8. NOISE
Sound is mechanical energy transmitted by pressure waves in a compressible medium such as air. Noise
can be defined as unwanted sound. Sound is characterized by various parameters that include the rate of
oscillation of sound waves (frequency),the speed of propagation,and the pressure level or energy content
(amplitude). In particular, the pressure level has become the most common descriptor used to
characterize the loudness of an ambient sound level. The decibel (dB) scale is used to quantify sound
intensity. Because sound pressure can vary by over one trillion times within the range of human hearing,
a logarithmic loudness scale is used to keep sound intensity numbers at a convenient and manageable
level. Since the human ear is not equally sensitive to all frequencies within the entire spectrum, noise
measurements are weighted more heavily within those frequencies of maximum human sensitivity in a
process called"A-weighting,"written as dBA.
Sound is recorded among several factors. One such factor is the "equivalent continuous noise level"
(Leq), a measure of sound energy averaged over a period of time. It is referred to as the equivalent
continuous noise level because it is equivalent to the level of a steady sound, which, over a referenced
duration and location, has the same A-weighted sound energy as the fluctuating sound. Leqs' for periods
of one-hour, during the daytime or nighttime hours, and 24 hours are commonly used in environmental
assessments.
Another such factor, is the "Community Noise Equivalent Level" (CNEL). CNEL is a noise
measurement system introduced by the State, with particular emphasis on airport noise. CNEL can be
measured using ordinary dBA readings and it is the measure of the average noise environment over a 24-
hour period, adjusted to an equivalent level to account for the lower tolerance of people to noise during
County of Orange,Resources and Development Management Department(RDMD) February 2006
5289/13olsa Chica Channel—Constructed Wetlands Project IS Page 4-12
❖ ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION ❖
evening and nighttime periods relative to the daytime period. Residential development within the State is
generally discouraged in the 60-65 CNEL noise impact area.
a) Would the project result in exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of
standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards
' of other agencies?
Project Impacts: No Impact. The proposed project would construct wetlands and new pipelines on
existing agricultural land, and the operation of the proposed project would not generate greater noise level
than what is currently generated. Applicable noise standards would not be exceeded by the proposed
project. Therefore,no impact would occur.
b) Would the project result in exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne
vibration or groundborne noise levels?
Vibration is sound radiated through the ground. The rumbling sound caused by vibration is called
groundborne noise. The ground motion caused by vibration is measured as particle velocity in inches per
second and is referenced as vibration decibels (VdB). Typical outdoor sources of perceptible
groundborne vibration are construction equipment and traffic on rough roads.
Project Impacts: No Impact. Operation of the proposed project would not generate groundborne
vibration. However, during the construction period, the proposed project would require some trenching
and filling, which could potentially cause vibration impacts. The adjacent roads on the east and south of
the project are principal roads and already carry a significant amount of traffic. Furthermore, some
agricultural equipment is often used on the site currently. Therefore, any additional impacts due to
generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels would be less than significant.
Although groundborne vibration could exceed thresholds of significance at sensitive receptors, the
vibration would be intermittent and short-term. Therefore,no impact would occur.
c) Would the project result in a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the
project vicinity above levels existing without the project?
Project Impacts: No Impact. The proposed project would construct wetlands and new pipelines on
existing agricultural land. Once the improvements are constructed, the proposed project would not
generate additional traffic volume and the stationary noise sources would be the same as without the
proposed project. Thus, no adverse impacts to ambient noise levels would occur due to development of
the proposed project.
d) Would the project result in a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise
levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project?
Project Impacts: Less Than Significant Impact. Construction of the proposed project would generate
intermittent noise levels on and adjacent to the project site. But the proposed project is adjacent to busy
roads that carry high levels of traffic. Furthermore, existing agricultural practices on the site employ
farming equipment that presently generates some noise. Therefore, noise levels generated during the
construction phase of the proposed project would be less than significant.
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been,
within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people
s residing or working in t he project area to excessive noise levels.
County of Orange,Resources and Development Management Department(RDMD) February 2006
5289/13olsa Chica Channel—Constructed Wetlands Project IS Page 4-13
❖ ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION ❖
Project Impacts: No Impact. The proposed project is not within two miles of a public or a public use
airport nor is it located within an airport land use plan. Furthermore, the proposed project would not
construct new residences or businesses that would increase the number of people in the project area.
Therefore,the proposed project would not generate significant noise levels for people residing or working
in the project area relative to the current land use. No adverse impacts from airports would occur due to
development of the proposed project.
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people
residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?
Project Impact: No Impact. There are no private airstrips in the vicinity of the project area. Therefore,
no adverse impacts from airstrips would occur due to development of the proposed project.
4.9. ]BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
a) Would the project have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat
modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in
local or regional plans,policies,or regulations,or by the California(Department of Fish and
Game or U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service?
Project Impacts: Less Than Significant Impact. In March 2004, U1traSystems Inc. prepared a general
biological assessment for the proposed project. The study consists of two parts: (1) a literature review,
and(2)an onsite general biological site assessment.
Literature Review. A compilation of special status plant and wildlife species recorded in the vicinity of
the site was derived from the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) Natural Diversity
Database (CNDDB). Additional special status plant species found on or near the site were derived from
the California Native Plant Society's (CNPS) Electronic Inventory of Rare and Endangered Vascular
Plants of California database. Any designated critical habitats for endangered or threatened species were
also noted.
Review of the scientific literature found 20 special status species that could potentially occur in the
vicinity of the proposed project. The results of the review are presented in 'fable 4-3 (Results of
Literature Review: Special Status Species Potentially Occurring in the Vicinity of the Project Site).
Although some of the species in Table 4-3 have no formal status, impacts to these species could be
potentially significant. Ten of the 20 species are plants and ten are animals.
County of Orange,Resources and Development Management Department(RDMD) February 2006
5289/Bolsa Chica Channel—Constructed Wetlands Project IS Page 4-14
ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION ❖
Table 4-3
Results of Literature Review:
Special Status Species Potentially Occurring in the Vicinity of the Project Site
pjq,
P1,
W _$chiiifffic Name ",09 owwa
Plants
Astragaluspyenostachyus var. Ventura Marsh milk-vetch FE SE IB Low
lanosissimus
Atriplex serenana var. Davidson's saltscale None None IB Low
davidsonii
Calystegia sepium ssp. Santa Barbara moming-glory None None IA Low
binghamiae
Centromadia parryi ssp. Southern tarplant None None IB Low
australis
Cordylanthus maritimus ssp. Salt marsh bird's-beak FE SE IB Low
maritimus
Lasthenia glabrata ssp.coulteri Coulter's goldfields None None IB Low
Nama stenocarpum Mud nama None None 2 Low
Nemacaulis denudata var. Coast woolly-heads None None 113 Low
denudata
Sagittaria sanfordii Sanford's arrowhead None None IB Low
Suaeda esteroa Estuary seablite None None IB Low
Wildlife
Athene cunicularia Burrowing owl None CSC N/A Low
Charadrius alexandrinus Western snowy plover FT CSC N/A Low
nivosus
Passerculus sandwichensis Belding's savannah sparrow None SE N/A Low
beldingi
Phrynosoma coronatum Coast(San Diego)homed None CSC N/A Low
blainvillei lizard
Polioptila californica Coastal California FT CSC N/A Low
californica gnatcatcher
Rallus longirostris levipes Light-footed clapper rail FE SE N/A Low
Rynchops niger Black skimmer None CSC N/A Low
Sterna antillarum browni California least tern FE SE N/A Low
Sorex ornatus salicornicus Southern California None CSC N/A Low
saltmarsh shrew
Microtus califomicus stephensi South coast marsh vote None CSC N/A Low
County of Orange,Resources and Development Management Department(RDMD) February 2006
1211/Bolsa Chica Channel—Constructed Wetlands Project IS Page 4-15
❖ ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION ❖
Notes for Table 4-3:
The following acronyms are used to describe"Status":
FT: Listed or proposed for listing as Threatened under the federal Endangered Species Act(federal ESA). Reference 50 CFR
17.11 for listed animals,50 CFR 17.12 for listed plants,and various notices in the Federal Register for proposed species.
FE: Listed or proposed for listing as Endangered under the federal ESA. Reference 50 CFR 17.11 for listed animals,50 CFR
17.12 for listed plants,and various notices in the Federal Register for proposed species.
FC: Federal candidates for listing and Threatened or Endangered under the federal ESA. Reference 58 CFR 188:5 1 144-5 1 190,
September 30,1993.
SE: Listed by the State of California as Endangered under the California Endangered Species Act(CESA). Reference 14 CCR
670.5.
ST: Listed by the State of California as Threatened under the California Endangered Species Act(CESA). Reference 14 CCR
670.5
CSC: California Species of Special Concern
. 113: Plants from"List 1 B,'considered by CNPS to be"rare,Threatened,or Endangered in California."
2: Plants from "List 2," considered by CNPS to be `rare, Threatened, or Endangered in California, But More Common
Elsewhere."
:Potential for Occurrence:
Low=Low potential for occurrence-No recent or historical records exist of the species occurring in the project area or its immediate
vicinity(within approximately 5 miles)and the diagnostic habitat requirements strongly associated with the species do not occur in the
Project area or its immediate vicinity.
Moderate=Moderate potential for occurrence-Either a historical record exists of the species in the project area or its immediate
vicinity or the diagnostic habitat requirements associated with the species occur in the Project area or its immediate vicinity.
High=High potential for occurrence-Both a historical record exists of the species in the project area or its immediate vicinity and
the diagnostic habitat requirements strongly associated with the species occur in the project area or its immediate vicinity.
Onsite General Biological Site Assessment. A general biological assessment was conducted by
U1traSystems Senior Biologist Gregg Miller, and U1traSystems Biologist Jennifer Weiland on March 11,
2005 to assess the existing on-site conditions, and the potential for sensitive biological resources on or
adjacent to the project site. This assessment included a visual survey of the project site and adjacent
lands. Field notes were taken on the general biological conditions of the site with particular focus on
sensitive biological resources including habitats that may support special status plant and wildlife species.
The project area is bordered by urbanized and developed land to the north, east and south. Agricultural
land on the Naval Weapons Station lies to the west. The vegetation within the project site consists of 1)
plowed agricultural fields, 2)bare dirt banks of the Bolsa Chica Channel, and 3) gravel road. The project
site has no native vegetation communities and is highly disturbed. The site does not contain designated
critical habitat nor does the site contain significant habitat for special status species.
A list of species observed during this survey is reported in Table 4-4 (Results of Onsite Biological
Assessment: Floral and Faunal Compendium).
Table 4-4
Results of Onsite Biological Assessment:
Floral and Faunal Compendium
Scientific Name Common Name
Anas platyrhynchos Mallard
Anas cyanoptera Cinnamon Teal
Mergus serrator Red breasted merganser
Ardea herodias Great blue heron
Columba livia Rock dove
Charadrius vociferus Killdeer
Mimus polyglottos Northern mockingbird
County of Orange,Resources and Development Management Department(RDMD) February 2006
5284111olsa Chica Channel—Constructed Wetlands Project IS Page 4-16
❖ ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION 4-
The project would not affect federally or State listed or proposed threatened and endangered species,nor
designated or proposed critical habitat. The dry weather flow channel is not an essential habitat for fish
and fish arenot expected to inhabit a cattail marsh. The project will not attract Burrowing Owls due to the
hard packed berms that would prevent them from digging into the soil. Furthermore, there are no beach
ground squirrel colonies that inhabit the area to provide the opportunity for the owls to roost their
burrows.
b) Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other
sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans,policies,regulations,or by
the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service?
Project Impacts: Less Than Significant Impact. Section a), above, addresses potential impacts to
sensitive habitats identified by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife
Service. The Seal Beach National Wildlife Refuge to the west of the site consists of a complex ecological
system critical to numerous species. Because the proposed project does not include new development or
an expansion of the land area for an existing land use, operation of the proposed project would not have a
substantial adverse effect on any sensitive natural community. Riparian vegetation between the intake
and outfall facilities may be affected as the amount of water in the Channel will be reduced. However,
the water flows in the Channel are expected to fluctuate so little that effects on any riparian habitat will be
inconsequential. Stream gage records show that the minimum daily flow in the Bolsa Chica Channel
upstream of the confluence with the Anaheim-Barber City Channel is approximately 0.23 cubic feet per
second. The minimum daily flow in the Anaheim-Barber City Channel before confluence with the Bolsa
Chica Channel is approximately 1.20 cubic feet per second. Therefore, at low flow conditions, the
constructed wetlands would remove 16 %of the flow in the downstream channel. The channel is shallow
and is not an essential fish habitat. As such,the impacts would be less than significant.
c) Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as
defined by §404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool,
coastal,etc.)through direct removal,filling,hydrological interruption,or other means?
Project Impacts: No Impact. A search conducted on April 13, 2005, using the "Basic Wetlands Mapper"
of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, determined that the project area does not include any federally
protected wedands.12 This was not verified with field delineation. The National Wildlife Refuge to the
west of the project site has some emergent herbaceous wetlands. The proposed project would have no
adverse impact on those wetlands. The Channel contains Waters of the U.S. that would be subject to
§404. Nonetheless, no adverse impacts to federally protected wetlands would occur due to development
of the proposed project.
d) Would the project interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or
migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife
corridors,or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?
Project Impacts: No Impact. The proposed project would construct wetlands on a portion of land used
for growing row crops. The proposed project would not expand the land area for an existing land use, or
otherwise interfere with the movement of wildlife species, or with established wildlife corridors or
wildlife nursery sites. The Bolsa Chica Channel is not an essential fish habitat and no migratory fish will
be affected. The constructed wetland will provide habitat for many wetland organisms. Riparian
72/ U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service,Basic Wetlands Mapper,accessed from: https://mapper.tat.fws.gov
County of Orange,Resources and Development Management Department(RDMD) February 2006
5289/13olsa Chica Channel—Constructed Wetlands Project IS Page 4-17
❖ ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION ❖
vegetation and water in the Channel between the intake and outfall may be affected on a miniscule level.
However, no adverse impacts to the movement of wildlife would occur due to development of the
proposed project.
e) Would the project conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological
resources,such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?
Project Impacts: No Impact. The proposed project would not expand the land area for an existing land
use. Moreover, no trees exist on the site that will have a potential to conflict with a tree preservation
policy and policies mentioned in the Open Space/Recreation/Conservation Element of the City of Seal
Beach General Plan. No adverse impacts to biological resources would occur due to development of the
proposed project.
f) Would the project conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan,
Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat
conservation plan?
Project Impacts: No Impact. For a discussion of the potential impacts to habitats, reference sections a)
and b),above. For a discussion of potential impacts to wildlife corridors,reference section d),above. For
a discussion of local policies, reference section e), above. Regarding Natural Community Conservation
Plans and Habitat Conservation Plans, the proposed project would not conflict with such plans because
the proposed project would not expand the land area for an existing land use, or induce growth. Thus,no
adverse impacts to habitat conservation plans would occur due to development of the proposed project.
4.10. AESTHETICS
The visual environment of a project area is comprised of both the built environment features (including
development patterns, buildings, parking areas, and circulation elements) and natural features (such as
hills, vegetation, rock outcroppings, drainage pathways, and soils). Views are characterized by visual
quality,viewer groups and sensitivity,duration, and visual resources. Visual quality refers to the general
aesthetic quality of a view, such as vividness, intactness, and unity. Viewer groups and sensitivity
identify who is most likely to experience the view and what are the associated sensitivities of the viewer
(sensitivity receptor) and the land use. Examples of high-sensitivity land uses are residences, schools,
playgrounds,religious institutions, and passive outdoor spaces such as parks,playgrounds, and recreation
areas. Duration of a view is the amount of time that a particular view can be seen by a specific viewer
group. Lastly, visual resources refer to unique views, views identified in local plans, views from scenic
highways,or views of specific unique structures or landscape features,including distinct groups of mature
trees.
a) Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?
Project Impacts: No Impact. The proposed project would be adjacent to residential properties to the east
and south of the project. The construction of wetlands would not obstruct scenic vistas. The wetlands
would be at grade and replace the existing agricultural land uses. No adverse impacts would occur.
b) Would the project substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to,
trees,rock outcroppings,and historic buildings within a state scenic highway?
Project Impacts: No Impact. The proposed project is not located within a scenic highway or near a
historic building. Therefore, the project does not have the potential to damage any scenic resources. The
County of Orange,Resources and Development Management Department(RDMD) February 2006
5289/13olsa Chica Channel—Constructed Wetlands Project IS Page 4-18
❖ ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION ❖
project would be developed on an agricultural land and there are no significant trees or rock outcroppings
that would be disturbed. No adverse impacts would occur.
c) Would the project substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site
and its surroundings?
Project Impacts: No Impact. The proposed project would be comprised of subterranean and at-grade
elements that would not degrade the existing visual character. As the area is being used for agricultural
purposes, the quality of the site and its surroundings are not pristine nor appear to be undisturbed. The
introduction of the constructed wetlands will not be inconsistent with the visual character of the area.
Therefore,no impact would occur.
d) Would the project create a new source of substantial light or glare, which would adversely
affect day or nighttime views in the area?
Project Impacts: No Impact. The proposed project would not result in construction of buildings or other
structures above the ground. The proposed wetlands would consist of some vegetation and a few
underground inlet and outlet structures.. Therefore, no adverse impacts from light or glare would occur
due to development of the proposed project.
4.11. CULTURAL/SCIENTIFIC RESOURCES
a) Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical
resource as defined in §15064.5?
Project Impacts: Less Than Significant Impact. State CEQA Guidelines §15064.5 discusses general
criteria for determining impacts on the environment. A project is typically found to have an impact on a
historical resource if it causes a change in an otherwise eligible property that would prevent its inclusion
in the National Register of Historic Places. It is possible that buried historic resources could be
uncovered during project grading and construction. However,the parcel of the project site was pedestrian
surveyed from February I"—12tb, in 1999 and no historical resources were found on the potential wetland
project site.13 Only three archaeological sites on the Naval Weapons Station Seal Beach are on file.14
Site ORA-298 is located on Hog Island north of Perimeter Road approximately 1.75 miles from the
project location. Site ORA-322 and ORA-1118 are located in the area directly southeast of Gate 1 along
Kitts Highway and is approximately 2.5 miles away from the project location. Although such discovery
is an unlikely event,the potential for a project impact on historic resources must be considered potentially
significant at this time. However,the following Standard Conditions (SC)would reduce any significance
on historic resources to less than significant impact.
SC-1 Retain a qualified archaeologist to monitor the site during the initial stage of any further
grading to identify any uncovered historic resources, archaeological resources, or human
remains; minimize damage to them; and ensure that appropriate recommendations are
made for their treatment and disposition.
13 / Cultural Resources Inventory and Survey Report for the Naval Weapons Station (WPNSTA) Seal Beach,
California,May 2000.
14! Addendum to Archaeological Resources Protection Plan for Installation Restoration Sites 4,8,9, SWMU 56 at
Naval Weapons Station,Seal Beach,Orange County,California,February 1995.
County of Orange,Resources and Development Management Department(RDMD) February 2006
5289Bolsa Chica Channel—Constructed Wetlands Project IS Page 4-19
❖ ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION ❖
SC-2 Include the project archaeologist in a pre-grading meeting to increase the project
workers' awareness of the potential for uncovering historic resources, archaeological
resources,or human remains,and to explain the procedures to follow if any are found.
b) Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an
archaeological resource pursuant to§15064.5?
Project Impact: Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed site has already been graded and heavily
disturbed due to agricultural activities. However,any new ground-disturbing activity has the potential to
unearth previously unidentified archaeological resources. In an unlikely event that a previously
unidentified archaeological resource is exposed during construction of the proposed project, applying the
standard procedures recommended in(a)above to archaeological resources would reduce any significance
to less than significant impact. .
c) Would the project directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or
unique geologic feature?
Project Impacts: No Impact. The proposed site has already been graded and heavily disturbed due to
agricultural activities. However, any new ground-disturbing activity has the potential to unearth
previously unidentified paleontological resources. In an unlikely event that a previously unidentified
paleontological resource is exposed during construction of the proposed project, the following standard
conditions would reduce any significance on historic resources to no impact.
SC-3: During any subsequent grading operations, a qualified paleontologist shall be retained to
perform periodic inspections and salvage fossils that are exposed. Frequency of
inspection should be adjusted according to rate of excavation and quality of materials
being excavated. The paleontologist shall be provided with grading plans and schedule
prior to commencement of grading, and shall be allowed to divert or direct grading in the
area of an exposed fossil in order to facilitate evaluation, and, if necessary, salvage.
Some collection of matrix samples may be necessary for laboratory processing through
fine screen,due to the small size of some of the fossils present.
SC-4: All fossils collected shall be prepared and identified by a qualified paleontologist. They
shall then be donated to a suitable institution with a research interest in the materials.
d) Would the project disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal
cemeteries?
Project Impacts: Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed site has already been graded and heavily
disturbed due to agricultural activities. However, any new ground-disturbing activity has the potential to
unearth previously unidentified human remains. In an unlikely event that a previously unidentified
human remains is exposed during construction of the proposed project, the certified archaeologist will
stop work and notify the County Coroner. Once it is determined to be a historic site and not a crime
scene, the Most Likely Descendant (Native American representative already determined) will be notified
to monitor and advise regarding any further cultural resources work involving the gravesite. Typically,
the remains and associated gravesite objects are removed if they cannot be avoided and left in place, and
then these are repatriated to the Native American group. Applying the standard procedures recommended
in (a) above to any uncovered human remains would reduce any potential significant impacts to less than
significant.
County of Orange,Resources and Development Management Department(RDMD) February 2006
5289Bolsa Chica Channel—Constructed Wetlands Project IS Page 4-20
❖ ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION ❖
4,12. RECREATION
a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other
recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur
or be accelerated?
Project Impacts: No Impact. The proposed project would not result in an increase in, or in future induce
population, which would add burden to the existing recreational facilities. Therefore, project operation
would not increase the use of existing parks or other recreational facilities, and no adverse impacts to
recreation would occur due to operation of the proposed project.
b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of
recreational facilities,which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment?
Project Impacts: No Impact. As discussed in section a), above, project operation would not include
recreational facilities or require the construction of recreational facilities. Thus, no adverse impacts to
recreational facilities would occur due to development of the proposed project.
4.13. MINERAL RESOURCES
a) Would the project result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would
be of value to the region and the residents of the state?
Project Impacts: No Impact. The proposed project would be built on a site that is being used for
cultivating row crops, and is not being used for mineral resource recovery. Therefore, the project would
not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and
the residents of the State. No adverse impacts would occur.
b) Would the project result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource
recovery site delineated on a local general plan,specific plan or other land use plan?
Project Impacts: No Impact. As discussed in section a)the proposed project would be built on a site that
is being used for cultivating row crops. No evidence of any locally important mineral resource has been
found on the site. Therefore,no adverse impacts would occur.
4.14. HAZARDS
a) Would the project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the
routine transport,use,or disposal of hazardous materials?
Project Impact: Less Than Significant Impact. Project operation will not involve hazardous materials,
substances, or wastes as defined by Code of Federal Regulations, Title 49, Section 171.8 and by
California Code of Regulations, Title 22, Section 66261.122. According to the City of Seal Beach
General Plan,no major oil pipelines pass through the City of Seal Beach.15 The project would not involve
routine transportation or disposal of hazardous materials.
A prime objective of the wetlands project is to remove metals from the flow in the Bolsa Chica Channel
to decrease potential toxicity in the downstream waters at Anaheim Bay and Huntington Harbor. The
'51 City of Seal Beach,General Plan,Safety Element—Hazardous Materials,pg S-22,December 2003.
County of Orange,Resources and Development Management Department(RDMD) February 2006
5289/Bolsa Chica Channel—Constructed Wetlands Project IS Page 4-21
❖ ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION ❖
metals are removed in the wetlands through precipitation, adsorptions and uptake. The metal removals
expected for the wetlands will be on the order of 1 microgram per liter(µg/1)for cadmium and chromium;
2-3 µg/l lead and nickel; 10 µg/1 for copper and 50 µg/l for zinc. If a worst case condition is assumed
where all of the metals are deposited in the initial stages of the wetlands on solely 2 acres (equivalent to
0.8 hectares), the loading rates range from approximately I kilogram per hectare for the year (kg/ha-yr)
for cadmium and chromium to approximately 80 kg/ha-yr for zinc. A relative comparison can be made to
the USEPA regulations for applying metals in sludge to land for agricultural applications. The
regulations are codified in 40 CFR Part 503 metal limits in sewage sludge applications. The limits range
from 1.9 kg/ha-yr for cadmium to 140 kg/ha-yr for zinc. Assuming that exclusively 2 acres of the 13-acre
wetland is utilized, the loading rate is approximately half of the allowable rate for agricultural land under
Part 503. The regulation has cumulative loading rates ranging from 39 kg/ha for cadmium to 2800 kg/ha
for zinc. The critical cadmium value would indicate a projected utilization of close to 35 years.
Table 4-5
Metal Removal Projections and Loading Limits
Projected Projected 40 CFR 503 40 CFR 503
Removal Loading Loading Limits Loading Limits
µg/1 kg/ha-yr(1) kg/ha-yr kg/ha
Cd 0.8 1.1 1.9 39
Cr 1.0 1.4
Cu 11.6 16.5 75 1500
Pb 2.4 3.3 15 300
Ni 1.5 2.2 21 420
Zn 57.9 82 140 2800
1) Based on the initial 2 acres of wetlands only
Soil monitoring is the best protection for the Naval Weapons Station against unexpected build-up of
contaminant concentrations. If contaminants increase toward unacceptable levels, they will be removed
from the site. Soil will be removed before it is classified as hazardous so that it can be disposed as
ordinary landfill cover material.
As is the case with any project, construction activities related to the proposed project could result in
accidents involving hazardous materials. To minimize potential hazards, the construction phase of the
proposed project would adhere to the Best Management Practices (BMPs) and policies stated in the
Safety Element- Hazardous Materials(pp. S-27 through S-29). With adherence to these regulations, the
construction phase of the proposed project would have less than significant impacts.
b) Would the project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through
reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous
materials into the environment?
Project Impacts: Less Than Significant Impact. As discussed in section a), above, project construction
and operation would not pose a significant risk through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident
County of Orange,Resources and Development Management Department(RDMD) February 2006
5289/Bolsa Chica Channel—Constructed Wetlands Project IS Page 4-22
❖ ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION ❖
conditions involving the release of hazardous materials. Therefore, a less-than-significant impact would
occur.
c) Would the project emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous
materials,substances,or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?
Project Impacts: Less Than Significant Impact. Grace Lutheran Private Elementary School lies within a
quarter mile of the proposed project. However,the project would not emit hazardous emissions or handle
hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances,or waste. As discussed in section a),above,project
construction and operation would not pose a significant risk from hazardous materials. Therefore, the
impacts would be less than significant.
d) Would the project be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials
sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it
create a significant hazard to the public or the environment?
Project Impacts: No Impact. The proposed project is located on a Navy Weapons Station that is included
on the Department of Toxic Substances Control's Hazardous Waste and Substances Site List (Cortese
List)prepared by the California Environmental Protection Agency,pursuant to Government Code Section
65962.5. However, the proposed wetlands would be built on existing agricultural land and as such,pose
no significant hazards. The proposed pipelines would be located in Site 4 (perimeter road) that has been
identified as one of the sites for the Navy's Installation Restoration (IR) program. According to a Navy
report,16 Site 4 Area Of Potential Concerns (AOPCs) IA and 2A present a minimal potential risk to the
environment. The IR Site#4 has been closed and all contaminated soils have been removed. There are no
land use restrictions for this area. Therefore,no impact would occur.
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan, or, where such a plan has not been
adopted,within two miles of a public airport or public use airport,would the project result
in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area?
Project Impacts: No Impact. The proposed project is not within two miles of a public or a public use
airport nor is it located within an airport land use plan. As such,the proposed project would not be within
the Runway Clear Zone for an airport and would not construct new residences or businesses that would
increase the number of people in the project area. The proposed project would not generate greater safety
hazard for people residing or working in the project area relative to the current land use. No adverse
impacts from airports would occur due to development of the proposed project.
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety
hazard for people residing or working in the project area?
Project Impacts: No Impact. The proposed project would not be in the vicinity of a private airstrip.
Furthermore, the proposed project would not construct new residences or businesses that would increase
the number of people in the project area. Thus, the proposed project would not generate a greater safety
hazard for people residing or working in the project area relative to the current land use, and no adverse
impacts from an airstrip would occur due to development of the proposed project.
16/ U.S. Navy, Southwest Division, Action Memorandum/Non-Time Critical Remedial Action Plan at the Naval
Weapons Station, Seal Beach, California Site 7—Station Landfill (Draft), September 2003.
(http://www.sbeach.navy.mil/Programs/Enviromnental/IR/Reading_Room/Read_SB/SB_Fact/SB_Site7_AM-
RAP-D_2003-9.pd f)
County of Orange,Resources and Development Management Department(RDMD) February 2006
5289/13olsa Chica Channel—Constructed Wetlands Project IS Page 4-23
❖ ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION ❖
g) Would the project impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted
emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
Project Impacts: No Impact. During construction of the proposed project, detours, street closures, and
increased traffic are expected to be minimum because the construction vehicles and equipment would
primarily be using the perimeter roads along the Bolsa Chica Channel,which are not typically used by the
public. However, prior to construction of the proposed project, consultations and communication with
emergency service providers and school officials would ensure that emergency response and evacuation
plans would not be impaired. Therefore,no impact would occur.
h) Would the project expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death
involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or
where residences are intermixed with wildlands?
Project Impacts: No Impact. According to the City of Seal Beach General Plan, no portion of the City of
Seal Beach is located in the Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone.17 Furthermore, the proposed project
does not involve any activity that would initiate any fire related hazard. Therefore, no adverse impacts
from wildland fires would occur due to development of the proposed project.
i) Include a new or retrofitted storm water treatment control Best Management Practice
(BMP), (e.g. water quality treatment basin, constructed treatment wetlands), the operation
of which could result in significant environmental effects(e.g.increased vectors and odors)?
Project Impacts: Less Than Significant. Although the proposed project is to construct and operate a
water treatment wetlands, the proposed project would divert water from an existing storm water channel
at a specific location and return the water further downstream. The channel currently serves as a regional
flood control facility, and as such, is already subject to variable water levels throughout the year. The
proposed wetlands may be a new source of vectors or odors. Nonetheless,mosquito control strategies are
described as part of the FWS project. For the SF project, mosquito populations would not increase as
water levels would be below the rock or gravel media. The proposed project also includes open water
(unvegetated) zones for both the FWS and the SF systems. This allows natural aeration to occur, which
increases the dissolved oxygen level, which is required for aerobic (oxygen consuming) organic matter
decomposition. If all oxygen is depleted, further organic matter decomposition occurs anaerobically,
which results in a "rotten egg" smell. Therefore, the proposed project is designed to minimize the
creation of increased odors resulting in a less than significant impact.
4.15. PUBLIC SERVICES
Would the proposal have an effect upon,or result in a need for new or altered government services
in any of the following areas:
a) Fire protection?
Project Impacts: No Impact. The proposed project would not construct new housing or businesses, or
induce population growth that would require additional fire protection services. Therefore, no adverse
impacts would occur.
"/ City of Seal Beach,General Plan,Safety Element—Fire Hazards,pg S-63,December 2003.
County of Orange,Resources and Development Management Department(RDMD) February 2006
5289113olsa Chica Channel—Constructed Wetlands Project IS Page 4-24
❖ ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION ❖
b) Police protection?
Project Impacts: No Impact. The proposed project would not construct new housing or businesses, or
induce population growth. Therefore, project operation would not require additional police protection
facilities and services. No adverse impacts would occur.
c) Schools?
Project Impacts: No Impact. The proposed project would not construct new housing or businesses, or
induce population growth. Therefore, project operation would not increase student enrollment in the
project area or result in a need for new schools or expanded school capacities. No adverse impacts to
schools would occur due to operation of the proposed project.
d) Parks?
Project Impacts: No Impact. The proposed project would not construct new residences or buildings, or
induce population growth. Therefore, project operation would not increase the need for parks. No
adverse impacts to parks would occur due to operation of the proposed project.
e) Other public facilities?
Project Impacts: No Impact. Other public facilities include libraries, social services facilities, and health
care facilities. The proposed project would not construct new residences or buildings, or induce
population growth. Therefore, project operation would not increase the need for other public facilities.
No adverse impacts to public facilities would occur due to operation of the proposed project.
4.16. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
a) Would the project exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional
Water Quality Control Board?
! Project Impacts: No Impact. The proposed project would not result in construction of new housing or
businesses, or induce population growth. Accordingly, project operation would not generate additional
wastewater that could exceed wastewater treatment requirements. Project construction also would not
exceed wastewater treatment requirements. Therefore,no adverse impacts to wastewater treatment would
occur due to development of the proposed project.
b) Would the project require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater
treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause
significant environmental effects?
Project Impacts: Less Than Significant Impact. As discussed in section a), above, project operation
would not generate additional wastewater, and project construction would not generate significant
additional wastewater, if any. Regarding water for drinking and other uses, operation of the proposed
project would not require additional water because the proposed project would not result in construction
of new housing or businesses, or induce population growth. Construction of the proposed project could
result in temporary increases in water use; however, it is expected that existing water treatment facilities
would be adequate to service any short-term increases. Thus, existing water and wastewater treatment
facilities would be adequate, and less than significant impacts to these facilities would occur due to
development of the proposed project.
County of Orange,Resources and Development Management Department(RDMD) February 2006
5289Bolsa Chica Channel—Constructed Wetlands Project IS Page 4-25
❖ ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION ❖
c) Would the project require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage
facilities or expansion of existing facilities,the construction of which could cause significant
environmental effects?
Project Impacts: No Impact. The proposed project would not induce growth or otherwise result in a need,
for further improvements to storm water drainage facilities. No adverse impacts to storm water drainage
facilities would occur due to development of the proposed project. One of the primary goals of the
proposed project is to improve the quality of the existing storm water. Therefore,no impact would occur.
d) Would the project have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing
entitlements and resources,or are new or expanded entitlements needed?
Proiect Impacts: No Impact. As discussed in section b), above,project operation would not require any
additional water supplies,and project construction would not require significant additional water supplies.
No significant adverse impacts to water supplies would occur.
e) Would the project result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which
serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected
demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments?
Project Impacts: No Impact. As discussed in sections a) and b), above, the proposed project would not
generate additional quantities of wastewater. Thus, the wastewater treatment provider would have
adequate capacity to serve the proposed project's demand, and no significant adverse impacts to the
wastewater treatment provider would occur due to development of the proposed project.
f) Would the project be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate
the project's solid waste disposal needs?
Project Impacts: Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project would not improve undeveloped
land, construct new housing or businesses, or induce population growth. Thus, operation of the proposed
project would not generate solid waste or require additional solid waste management facilities and
services, and would not conflict with the objectives or policies of Orange County's County Integrated
Waste Management Plan (CIWMP). Sediment will be periodically removed from the basin to preserve
the treatment volume and capacity. The accumulation will be tested periodically and sediment will be
removed before any sediment accumulates contaminants to the degree that it becomes classified as
unacceptable for county landfills. The material is expected to be valuable to the landfills as daily cover
and will not decrease landfill capacity. Thus, less than significant impacts to landfill capacities would
occur due to development of the proposed project.
g) Would the project comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to
solid waste?
Project Impacts: No Impact. As discussed in section f), above,the proposed project would comply with
the Orange County's CIWMP. Thus, the proposed project would comply with statutes and regulations
related to solid waste, and no adverse impacts to statutes and regulations related to solid waste would
occur due to development of the proposed project.
County of Orange,Resources and Development Management Department(RDMD) February 2006
5289/Bolsa Chica Channel—Constructed Wetlands Project IS Page 4-26
❖ ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION ❖
MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially
reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop
below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the
number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate
important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory?
Project Impacts: Less Than Significant Based on the preceding analysis,the proposed project would not
have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or
wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to
eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered
plant or animal, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory
with the inclusion of standard conditions employed by this project. Therefore, no adverse impacts to the
above-referenced issues would occur due to development of the proposed project.
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable?
("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are
considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects,the effects of other
current projects,and the effects of probable future projects)?
Project Impacts: No Impact. The proposed project would be constructed on agricultural land and would
not generate significant new environmental impacts. Based on the preceding analysis, the proposed
project would not directly or indirectly induce development activities that, in combination with the
proposed project, have the potential to produce cumulatively significant environmental impacts.
Therefore, no cumulatively considerable adverse impacts would occur due to development of the
proposed project.
c) Does the project have environmental effects, which will cause substantial adverse effects on
human beings,either directly or indirectly?
Project Impacts: No Impact. The proposed project would improve the quality of the storm water and as
such, any impacts on human beings would be beneficial. Therefore,no adverse impacts to human beings
would occur due to development of the proposed project.
County of Orange,Resources and Development Management Department(RDMD) February 2006
52891Bolsa Chica Channel—Constructed Wetlands Project IS Page 4-27
❖ APPENDICES ❖
Appendix A
URBEM IS 2002 Construction Emission Estimate
County of Orange,Resources and Development Management Department(RDMD) February 2006
5289Bolsa Chica Channel—Constructed Wetlands Project IS Appendix A
Page: 1
11/03/2005 7:21 PM
URBEMIS 2002 For Windows 8.7.0
File Name: G:\00 Open Projects\5289 Brown & Caldwell - Bolsa Chica Channel Contructed Wetlands Project\Air
Project Name: 5289 -Bolsa Chica Wetlands
Project Location: South Coast Air Basin (Los Angeles area)
On-Road Motor Vehicle Emissions Based on EMFAC2002 version 2.2
SUMMARY REPORT
(Pounds/Day - Summer)
CONSTRUCTION EMISSION ESTIMATES
PM10 PM10 PM10
*** 2007 *** ROG NOx CO SO2 TOTAL EXHAUST DUST
TOTALS (lbs/day,unmitigated) 9.96 68.11 80.86 0.00 22.77 2.75 20.02
AREA SOURCE EMISSION ESTIMATES
ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10
TOTALS (lbs/day,unmitigated) 0.12 0.00 0.78 0.00 0.00
OPERATIONAL (VEHICLE) EMISSION ESTIMATES
ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10
TOTALS (lbs/day,unmitigated) 0.35 0.19 1.96 0.00 0.18
SUM OF AREA AND OPERATIONAL EMISSION ESTIMATES
ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10
TOTALS (lbs/day,unmitigated) 0.48 0.19 2.74 0.00 0.18
r
f
Page: 2
11/03/2005 7:21 PM
URBEMIS 2002 For Windows 8.7.0
File Name: G:\00 Open Projects\5289 Brown & Caldwell - Bolsa Chica Channel Contructed Wetlands Project\Air
Project Name: 5289 -Bolsa Chica Wetlands
Project Location: South Coast Air Basin (Los Angeles area)
On-Road Motor Vehicle Emissions Based on EMFAC2002 version 2.2
DETAIL REPORT
(Pounds/Day - Summer)
Construction Start Month and Year: April, 2007
Construction Duration: 3
Total Land Use Area to be Developed: 13 acres
Maximum Acreage Disturbed Per Day: 2 acres
Single Family Units: D Multi-Family Units: 0
Retail/Office/Institutional/Industrial Square Footage: 0
CONSTRUCTION EMISSION ESTIMATES UNMITIGATED (lbs/day)
PM10 PM10 PM10
Source ROG NOx CO SO2 TOTAL EXHAUST DUST
++* 2007*+*
Phase 1 - Demolition Emissions
Fugitive Dust - - - - 0.00 - 0.00
Off-Road Diesel 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 0.00
On-Road Diesel 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Worker Trips 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Maximum lbs/day 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Phase 2 - Site Grading Emissions
Fugitive Dust - - - - 20.00 - 20.00
Off-Road Diesel 9.79 66.32 78.45 - 2.71 2.71 0.00
On-Road Diesel 0.09 1.69 0.35 0.00 0.05 0.04 0.01
Worker Trips 0.08 0.10 2.06 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01
Maximum lbs/day 9.96 68.11 80.86 0.00 22.77 2.75 20.02
Phase 3 - Building Construction
Bldg Const Off-Road Diesel 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 0.00
Bldg Const Worker Trips 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Arch Coatings Off-Gas 0.00 - - - - -
Arch Coatings Worker Trips 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Asphalt Off-Gas 0.00 - - _ - - -
Asphalt Off-Road Diesel 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Asphalt On-Road Diesel 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Asphalt Worker Trips 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
1 Maximum lbs/day 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Max lbs/day all phases 9.96 68.11 80.86 0.00 22.77 2.75 20.02
Phase 1 - Demolition Assumptions: Phase Turned OFF
Phase 2 - Site Grading Assumptions
Start Month/Year for Phase 2: Apr 107
Phase 2 Duration: 2.5 months
On-Road Truck Travel (VMT) : 80
Off-Road Equipment
No. Type Horsepower Load Factor Hours/Day
1 Excavators 180 0.580 8.0
1 Rubber Tired Dozers 352 0.590 8.0
1 Scrapers 313 0.660 8..0
1 Tractor/Loaders/Backhoes 79 0.465 8.0
Phase 3 - Building Construction Assumptions
Start Month/Year for Phase 3: Jun 107
Phase 3 Duration: 0.5 months
SubPhase Building Turned OFF
SubPhase Architectural Coatings Turned OFF
SubPhase Asphalt Turned OFF