Dana Pointy*U$
: • :4j •
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
Regional Wastewater Treatment System
Aliso Water Management Agency
August 1975
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION IX
1OO CALIFORNIA STREET
SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 941J1
SEP 3 1975
To the Interested Public:
The Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Aliso Water
Management Agency Regional Wastewater Treatment System, is hereby
submitted for your information. The statement has been prepared in
compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (P.L.
91-190), and subsequent regulations prepared by the Council on
Environmental Quality and the Environmental Protection Agency.
Upon the Council on Environmental Quality's receipt of this
Final Environmental Statement, a 30-day period for council review
will commence. After 30 days, EPA may make a grant offer for Phase
I of the project.
Sincerely,
De Falco, Jr.
agional Administratoi
Enclosure
-------
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
D-EPA-24011-CA
ALISO WATER MANAGEMENT AGENCY
REGIONAL WASTEWATER TREATMENT SYSTEM
Prepared by: U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Pacific Southwest Region IX
100 California Street
San Franc isco/xCA 94111
Responsible Official:
aul De Falco, Jr. /
Regional Administrator
-------
SUMMARY
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
DRAFT
FINAL
Prepared by:
(X)
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Pacific Southwest Region IX
San Francisco, California 94111
1. Type of Action:
Administrative
2. Description of Project:
The purpose of the Aliso Water Management Agency (AWMA)
project is to implement a local or regional wastewater
treatment and disposal system to eliminate the existing
water quality problems in the various systems and pre-
vent future problems. Various alternatives are consid-
ered, from one regional system to the expansion of the
various individual systems, as well as comparing the
effects of land disposal for reclamation with the
effects of ocean discharge.
The applicant proposed construction of alternative 2G,
a regional system with central treatment and ocean dis-
posal of wastes with some reclamation during the summer.
In the draft EIS, LPA proposed for additional analysis
modified alternative 1A, a regional disposal system
with local treatment. Final determination of the
appropriate alternative was deferred until after com-
pletion of the comment portion of the impact statement
process.
During the comment portion of the impact statement pro-
cess, problems were identified with both of the favored
alternatives, and there was not enough time within the
time constraints of the process to resolve all of the
issues involved. Therefore, EPA currently supports a
phased project as the proposed project. The phased
project will consist of three construction phases, and
a planning effort to resolve the issues which are not
-------
resolved in this EXS. The planning effort will take the
form of a Facilities Plan addendum and environmental
impact report. The issues which must be resolved are
that of treatment concept for the upper Aliso Creek
area, treatment plant site, air quality mitigation
measures, and sludge treatment and disposal. The
Facilties Plan addendum and environmental impact report
will undergo environmental review by EPA and if necessary
a supplemental EIS will be prepared.
Phase I will include the Aliso Creek ocean outfall,
onshore and offshore portions; and the North Coast
Interceptor. These project elements were included
in both of the alternatives favored in the draft EIS.
In addition, Phase I will include the expansion of the
South Laguna treatment plant and minor modifications to
the plant as proposed in alternative 1A in the draft EIS.
Phase II of the project will consist of sludge treat-
ment facilities for the South Laguna treatment plant.
Prior to construction of Phase II facilities, the
Facilities Plan addendum and environmental impact report
must be sufficiently complete to resolve all the technical
and environmental issues related to sludge treatment and
disposal.
Phase III will consist of construction of facilities for
the upper Aliso Creek area. It has not yet been decided
whether to serve the upper Aliso Creek area through
a satellite concept using existing treatment plants with
disposal through a treated effluent line, or through a
system involving a treatment plant serving the entire
upper Aliso Creek area. The appropriate site(s) for
serving the upper Aliso Creek area have also not been
determined. The Facilities Plari addendum and environ-
mental impact report, which must be completed prior to
Phase III construction, will resolve these issues.
Impacts of Projects:
All projects will involve construction and its associated
environmental impacts. Construction will take place at
treatment plant sites, along roads and streams, and for
ocean disposal alternatives, on the beach and the ocean
floor off Aliso Creek. Construction will involve noise,
dust, traffic disruption, and inconvenience.
Operation of any alternative will involve environmental
impacts. Energy will be consumed, occasional odors may
occur, and receiving waters will be affected by the
i-2
-------
effluent. In the case of land disposal, the receiving
waters are streams and groundwater; in the case of
ocean disposal, the ocean will be the receiving waters.
The statement indicates that on a year-round basis the
ocean is the most tolerant receiving water.
All alternatives will involve secondary air quality
impacts associated with the population growth which
they accomodate. Measures will be implemented to miti-
gate this impact. Possible mitigation measures include
nonextension of utilities to undeveloped areas, high
density cluster development, car pooling, buses, housing
to serve the GSA facility, and two park-and-ride con-
cepts. The time constraints involved in the EIS did
not allow determination of the appropriate mitigation
measures. This issue is unresolved at present; however,
it will be resolved prior to any construction of Phase
III facilities. Resolution will be insured by limiting
the use of the Phase I outfall in the grant contract.
4. Alternatives:
Seven alternatives were considered: local treatment
and a regional outfall (1A); central treatment and a
regional outfall (2E); reclamation (3C); drainage of
the upper area through San Diego Creek Basin (4A);
stream discharge for the upper area (4C); central
treatment and a regional outfall with some upper basin
reclamation to relieve summer peak flows (2F); and the
alternative of taking no action. Subsequently, 2F was
modified to alternative 2G to take advantage of natural
drainage patterns.
5. Dates Available to CEQ and the Public:
Draft: February 14, 1975
Final: S£p g 1975
6. Distribution List Attached.
i-3
-------
LIST OF PARTICIPANTS
The Draft and Final Impact Statements for the Aliso Water Management Agency
Project were prepared under the auspices of the Air and Water Programs
Division, Environmental Protection Agency Region IX. An interdisciplinary
EPA staff team was supported by the independent consulting firms of
Chapman Phillips Brandt Reddick and Associates, Inc. and Don Owen Associates.
The following persons participated in the development of this Environmental
Impact Statement.
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
EIS COORDINATOR Jim McGrath
SECONDARY IMPACTS Jim McGrath
Peter Perey
AIR QUALITY IMPACTS Fred Leif
CHAPMAN PHILLIPS BRANDT REDDICK
PROJECT COORDINATOR Michael Brandman, PhD
URBAN GROWTH ANALYSIS Richard E. Ramella
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSTS Theodore J. Reynolds
Niall Fritz
Susan E. Nilsen
AIR QUALITY IMPACTS Gary M. Allen
ARCHAEOLOGY N. Nelson Leonard III
PALEONTOLOGY Carol Stadum
BIOLOGY Michael Brandman, PhD
J. Edward Guilmetter, Jr.
GRAPHICS COORDINATOR Steven J. Malefyt
TYPING COORDINATOR Ronald Smebye
DAN OWEN ASSOCIATES
PRINCIPLE IN CHARGE Langdon W. Owen
PROJECT COORDINATOR James R. Cofer
SENIOR SANITARY ENGINEER Robert C. Gumerman, PhD
COMMUNITY RELATIONS MANAGER Lawrence H. Buxton
-------
AWMA EIS DISTRIBUTION LIST
FEDERAL AGENCIES
Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C.
Office of Legislation,
Congressional Affairs Division
Office of Federal Activities
Office of Public Affairs
Office of Public Affairs, Region IX
Council on Environmental Quality
722 Jackson Place, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20006
Assistant Secretary, Program Policy
Attn: Office of Environment Project Review
Department of the Interior
Washington, D.C. 20240
Department of Health, Education and Welfare
Region IX
50 Fulton Street
San Francisco, CA 98102
Department of Housing and Urban Development
San Francisco Area Office
One Embarcadero Center, Suite 1600
San Francisco, CA 94111
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Sacramento District
650 Capitol Mall
Sacramento, CA 95814
U.S. Department of Transportation
450 Golden Gate Avenue
San Francisco, CA 95814
U.S. Department of Commerce
Attn: Dr. Sidney Galler
Commerce Building, Room 2816
Washington, D.C. 20230
U.S. Geological Survey
345 Middlefield Road
Menlo Park, CA 94025
-------
Operational Planning Staff
General Services Administration
PBS
Mail Slot 30A
525 Market Street :
San Francisco, CA 94105
Department of the Army
L.A. District Corps of Engineers
P.O. Box 2711
Los Angeles, CA 90053
STATE AGENCIES
The Resources Agency
1416: Ninth Street
Sacramento, CA 95814;
California SWRC Board
1416 Ninth Street
Sacramento, CA 95814
California State Air Resources Board
1709-11th Street
Sacramento,, CA 958,14
California State Department of Fish and Game
1416 Ninth Street
Sacramento, CA 95814
State of California
Department of Public Health
2151 Berkeley Way
Berkeley, CA 94704
State of California
Department of Parks and: Recreation
P.O. Box 2390
Sacramento, CA 95811
State, of California
Council on Intergovernmental Relations
1400 Tenth Street
Sacramento, CA 95814
State of California
Office of Intergovernmental Management
Attn: Mark Briggs
1400 Tenth Street
Sacramento, CA 95814
11.1-2
-------
State Land Division
Attn: Ed Chatfield
16600 "L" Street
Sacramento, CA 95814
California State Department of Fish and Game
350 Golden Shore
Long Beach, CA
LEGISLATORS
Honorable John Tunney, U.S. Senate
Attn: Mr. Ward Wardman
450 Golden Gate Avenue, Room 17432
San Francisco, CA 94102
Honorable Alan Cranston
U.S. Senate
Room 2102 NSPB
Washington, D.C. 20510
Governor of California
Sacramento, CA 95814
Honorable Andrew Hinshaw
U.S. Congress
Washington, D.C.
ECOLOGY GROUPS
American Institute of Planners
San Diego Section
285 Moss Street No. Ill
Chula Vista, CA 92011
Coastal Area Protective League
P.O. Box 313
Corona Del Mar, CA 92624
Beach Action Group
Box 99214
San Diego, CA 92109
Buena Vista Audubon Society
Box 776
Vista, CA
Citizens Coordinate Century-3
1549 El Prado
San Diego, CA 92101
iii-3
-------
The Laguna Greenbelt* Inc.
P.O. Box 1611
Laguna Beach, CA 92652
Environmental Crisis Bulletin
435 Canyon
SolahO Beach, CA 92075
Environmental Council of Fall brook, Inc.
44 Hi 11 crest Lane
Fall brook, CA 92028
Environmental Development Council
401 Bank of America
1 City Boulevard West
Orange, CA 92668
Escondido Citizens Ecology Committee
Box 223
Escondido, CA 92025
Tri-County Conservation League
20131 Shorewood Circle
Huntington Beach, CA 92646
Totuava Bay Association, South Laguna
25311 Mainsail Drive
Dana Point, CA 92629
Friends of the Earth
P.O. Box 16177
San Diego, CA 92116
Pro Environment People
2111 Crestview Drive
Laguna Beach, CA 92651
Irvine Tomorrow
3572 Carmel Avenue
Irvine, CA 92664
Izaak Walton League
5406 West Third Street
Santa Aha, CA 92603
S.L.C.A.
31558 Summit
South Laguna, CA 92677
California Roadside Council, Orange County Group
1306 Olavista
San Clemente, CA 92672
iii-4
-------
Saddleback Coordinating Council
P.O. Box 357
El Toro, CA 92630
San Diego Audubon Society, Inc.
3942 Hughes Court
San Diego, CA 92115
San Diego Ecology Centre
P.O. Box 16177
San Diego, CA 92116
San Eli jo Alliance
P.O. Box 82
Solano Beach, CA 92075
31791 South Coast Highway
South Laguna, CA 92677
Citizens' Town Planning Association
P.O. Box 1132
Laguna Beach, CA 92651
Sierra Club
San Diego Chapter
Box 525
San Diego, CA 92112
Sierra Club
North County Group
P.O. Box 2481
Escondido, CA 92025
Sierra Club-Orange County Group
1314 Skyline Drive
Fullerton, CA 92631
Village Laguna
500 Broadway
Laguna Beach, CA 92651
American Cetacean Society
San Diego Chapter
4405 Arizona Street
San Diego, CA 92116
Center for Environmental Education
6401 Linda Vista Road
San Diego, CA 92111
iii-5
-------
Citizens to Save Open Space
5635 Tamres Drive
San Diego, CA 92111
Common Cause
P.O. Box 6000
La Jolla, CA 92037
Environmental Action Council
P.O. Box 99114
San Diego, CA 92109
Environmental Law Society of San Diego, Inc.
P.O. Box 99154
San Diego, CA 92109
Irvine Tomorrow
18051 Butler
Irvine, CA 92664
The Nature Conservancy
3923 Lament Street
San Diego, CA 92109
San Diego Chamber of Commerce
233 A Street
San Diego, CA 92101
San Diego County Floodplain Technical Committee
5377 Redding Road
San Diego, CA 92115
San Diego County Wildlife Federation
P.O. Box 1029
San Diego, CA 92112
San Diego Gas and Electric Company
Director of Public Relations
P.O. Box 1831
San Diego, CA 92112
Center for Regional Environmental Studies (CREST)
San Diego University
5402 College Avenue
San Diego, CA 92115
Center for Urban and Human Development
U.S. International University
8655 Pomerado Road
San Diego, CA 92124
iii-6
-------
Scripps Institution of Oceanography
University of California, San Diego
P.O. Box 109
San Diego, CA 92037
American Institute of Architects
233 A Street
San Diego, CA 92101
Conservation Call
3942 Hughes Court
San Diego, CA 92115
Environmental Education Clearinghouse
P.O. Box 2422
San Diego, CA 92112
Environmental Quality Control Committee
of the County Republican Central Committee
2520 San Marcos Avenue
San Diego, CA 92104
Students for Environmental Awareness
University of San Diego
Alcala Park
San Diego, CA 92110
Government Information Office
(Environmental Information)
202 C Street
San Diego, CA 92101
San Diego County Medical Society
Environmental Health Committee
P.O. Box 3949
San Diego, CA 92103
Human Ecology
San Diego High School
12th Avenue and Russ Boulevard
San Diego, CA 92101
Ecology Action
San Diego University
202-1/2 Physical Sciences Building
5402 College Avenue
San Diego, CA 92115
Committee for Legal Environmental Action
and Research (CLEAR)
California Western School of Law
3902 Lomaland Drive
San Diego, CA 92106
iii-7
-------
CONCERNED INDIVIDUALS AND ORGANIZATIONS
Environmental Coalition of Orange County
206 West 4th Street, Suite 316
Santa Ana, CA 92701
League of Women Voters
c/o Jeanette Turk, President
15271 New Castle Lane
Huntington Beach, CA 92647
League of Women Voters
c/o Judith Swayne
1159 Noria
Laguna Beach, CA 92651
GUARD
c/o Lyn Harris Hicks
3908 Ariana
San Clentente, CA
Citizens Direction Finding Commission
County Administrative Building
515 N. Sycamore, Room 106
Santa Ana, CA
Joseph Tasker Edmiston
Southern California Coastal Coordinator
Sierra Club
2410 Beverly Boulevard
Los Angeles, CA 90057
Coalition of Neighborhood Associations (CONA)
c/o Mr. Harry Jeffrey, President
2065 San Remo Drive
Laguna Beach, CA 92651
Citizens Town Planning Association
c/o Mr. Bill Vernor, President
1305 La Mirada
Laguna Beach, CA 92651
Adele Drewitz
25256 Pike
Laguna Hills, CA 92653
Marian Parks
233 Morning Canyon
Corona Del Mar, CA 92625
Roberta S. Greenwood
725 Jacon Way
Pacific Palisades, CA 90272
iii-8
-------
Society for California Archeology
1400 I Street Extension
Petaluma, CA 94952
Archaeological Research, Inc.
1643 Monrovia
Costa Mesa, CA 92627
Santa Ana Watershed Planning Agency
P.O. Box 2678
Attn: Mr. Robert E. Moore, Manager
Riverside, CA 92506
Dr. Stephen Murray
Biological Sciences Department
California State University, Fullerton
800 State College Boulevard
Fullerton, CA 92634
Mrs. J. E. Murley
American Association of University Women
1733 Candlestick Lane
Newport Beach, CA 92660
Dr. Don B. Bright
Biology Department
California State University, Fullerton
800 State College Boulevard
Fullerton, CA 92634
Ms. Sally Spurgeon
California Coastal Alliance
17731 Palmento Way
Irvine, CA 92664
American Association of University Women
c/o Jean Brotherton
3144 Bonn Drive
Laguna Beach, CA 92651
Town Hall Association
P.O. Box 842
San Juan Capistrano, CA 92675
Capistrano Beach Community Association
P.O. Box 27
Capistrano Beach, CA 92624
Kathy Drocco
32916 Avenue Descanso
San Juan Capistrano, CA
iii-9
-------
United South Orange Coast Communities
P.O. Box 375
Dana Point, CA 92629
J. Edward Guilmette, Jr., President
Appolmage, Inc.
7204-10 Pacific Coast Highway
Newport Beach, CA 92660
Ms. Elsie Kroesche
Open Space Action Group
254 B. Cabrillo Street
Costa Mesa, CA 92627
PUBLIC AGENCIES
State Department of Water Resources
P.O. Box 6598
Los Angeles, CA 90055
Commanding General
U.S. Marine Corps Base
Camp Pendleton, CA 92055
State Department of Parks and Recreation
1350 Front Street
San Diego, CA 92101
Orange County Water Pollution Department
P.O. Box 1978
400 Civic Center Drive West
Santa Ana, CA 92702
Orange County Planning Commission
Attn: Mr. Ron Yeo
500 Jasmine
Corona Del Mar, CA
Orange County Air Pollution Control District
1010 South Harbor
Anaheim, CA 92801
Orange County Health Department
P.O. Box 355
Santa Ana, CA 92702
State Department of Public Health
1449 West Temple Street
Los Angeles, CA 90026
iii-10
-------
Orange County Harbors, Beaches and Parks District
1901 Bayshore Drive
Newport Beach, CA 92662
Orange County Planning Department
400 Civic Center Drive West
Santa Ana, CA 92701
Mr. Victor C. Andrews, President
Coastal Area Protective League
P.O. Box 313
Corona Del Mar, CA 92624
Ecology Action Councils
California State University, Fullerton
800 State College Boulevard
Fullerton, CA 92634
Ecology Action Councils
University of California
Irvine, CA 92664
Izaak Walton League
5406 West Third Street
Santa Ana, CA 92603
League of Women Voters of Orange County
2409 N. Orange Avenue
Costa Mesa, CA 92627
Attn: Mrs. Alex Price
Open Space Action Group - Project 21
20342 Acacia Street
Santa Ana, CA 92707
Attn: Mr. Reed Flory
Planning and Conservation League
226 Park Avenue
Laguna Beach, CA
Attn: Mr. William Wilcoxen
Project 21
24592 Overlake Drive
El Toro, CA 92630
Attn: Mr. Bob Snyder
Mr. Dan Langton
Santa Ana College
17th and Bristol
Santa Ana, CA 92706
-------
Sea and Sage Audubon Society
Orange County Chapter
P.O. Box 1779
Santa Ana, CA 92702
Sierra Club and Orange County Health Planning Council
10322 Brightwood Drive
Santa Ana, CA 92705
Attn: Mr. Verlyn N. Jensen
Zero Population Growth
Orange County Chapter
P.O. Box 596
Orange, CA 92669
Mrs. H. T. Read
California Roadside Council
Orange County Group Area Representative
1306 Olavista
San Clemente, CA 92672
Environmental Development Council
Orange County Chamber of Commerce
401 Bank of America
1 City Boulevard West
Orange, CA 92668
Mr. Nathanial Lamm, Chairman
Orange County Environmental Education
Advisory Council
Orange County Department of Education
14404 Civic Center Drive West
Santa Ana, CA 92701
Mr. Ralph Kaiser, Secretary
Orange County Coast Association
2701 Fairview Road
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
Marine Sciences Program
Orange County Department of Education
1104 Civic Center Drive West
Santa Ana, CA 92701
Marine Studies Institute
1104 Civic Center Drive West
Santa Ana, CA 92701
Dr. Stephen Murray
Department of Biological Sciences
California State University, Fullerton
800 State College Boulevard
Fullerton, CA 92634
iii-12
-------
Avco Community Developers, Inc.
3 Monarch Bay Plaza
Laguna Niguel, CA 92677
Attn: George L. Hamill
Dana Point Citizens for Action Association
P.O. Box DF
Dana Point, CA 92629
Attn: Harris Angell
Emerald Bay Community Association
600 Emerald Bay
Laguna Beach, CA 92651
Attn: Merline L. Dake, Secretary-Manager
Laguna Niguel Homeowners and Community Association
801 Glenneyre Street
Laguna Beach, CA 92651
Attn: Jack E. Cressman, AIA
Three Arch Bay Association
5 Bay Drive
South Laguna, CA 92677
Attn: Waldo Drake, Chairman of
Architectural Committee
State Division of Highways
District 7
P.O. Box 2304 - Terminal Annex
Los Angeles, CA 90054
Attn: A. K. Hashimoto
CEEED
620 Newport Center Drive, Suite 322
Newport Beach, CA 92660
Attn: Mr. Gilbert Ferguson
Southern California Association of Governments
1111 West Sixth Street, Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90017
California Regional Water Quality Control Board
6154 Mission Gorge Road, Suite 205
San Diego, CA 92120
Southeast Regional Reclamation Authority
City of San Juan Capistrano
P.O. Box 967
San Juan Capistrano, CA 92675
iii-13
-------
South Coast Regional Zone Conservation Commission
666 East Ocean Boulevard, Suite 3107
P.O. Box 1450
Long Beach, CA 90801
Alexander Bowie, Incorporated
Attorney at Law
610 Newport Center Drive, Suite 500
Newport Beach, CA 92660
Aliso Water Management Agency
27281 Aliso Creek Road
Laguna Niguel, CA 92667
Irvine Ranch Water District
P.O. Box D-I
Irvine, CA 92664
Emerald Bay Service District
600 Emerald Bay
Laguna Beach, CA 92651
City of Laguna Beach
505 Forest
Laguna, CA 92652
South Laguna Sanitary District
31652 Second Avenue
South Laguna, CA 92677
Supervisor Riley
Attn: Scott Ferguson
P.O. Box 687
Santa Ana, CA 92702
Mr. Dick Mayer
Los Angeles Parks District
155 Washington Boulevard
Los Angeles, CA
Regional Planning Commission
320 W. Temple Street
Los Angeles, CA 90012
Moulton-Niguel Water District
27281 Aliso Creek Road
Laguna Niguel, CA 92677
El Toro Water District
401 Civic Center Drive West
Santa Ana, CA 92702
iii-14
-------
Los Allsos Water District
P.O. Box 156
El Toro, CA 92630
Chapman Phillips Brandt Reddick
Environmental Systems Research Group
17835 Sky Park Circle, Suite H
Irvine, CA 92707
iii-15
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SUMMARY i-1
PARTICIPANTS ii-1
DISTRIBUTION LIST iii-1
TABLE OF CONTENTS iv-1
LIST OF EXHIBITS v-1
LIST OF TABLES vi-1
1.0 INTRODUCTION/DESCRIPTION OF THE PROBLEMS 1-1
\
1-1
1-1
1-3
1-3
1-5
1-6
1-6
1-7
1-7
1-8
1-8
1-8
1-9
1-11
1-12
1-12
2-1
2-1
2-1
2-2
2-2
2-3
2-3
2-4
2-5
2-5
2-5
2-6
1.1
1.1.1
1.2
1.2.1
1.2.2
1.2.3
1.2.4
1.2.5
1.2.6
1.2.7
1.3
1.3.1
1.3.2
1.3.3
1.3.4
1.3.5
2.0
2.1
2.1.1
2.1.2
2.1.3
2.1.4
2.1.5
2.1.6
2.1.7
2.1.8
2.2
2.3
BACKGROUND
Relationship to Other Projects
EXISTING WASTE WATER TREATMENT
AND THEIR PERFORMANCE
Moulton-Nicjuel Water District
South Laguna Sanitaj^y District
Los Alisos Water District
El Toro Water District
Cit^of Laguna Beach
Emerald Bay Service District
Irvine Ranch Water District
DESCRIPTION OF THE PROBLEMS IN
WATER TREATMENT FACILITIES
South Laguna Sanitary District
City of Lajuna Beach
El Toro Water District
Los Alisos Water District
Moulton-Niguel Water District
in Orange County
FACILITIES
EXISTING WASTE
DESCRIPTION OF THE EXISTING ENVIRONMENT
GEOGRAPHIC SETTING
Introduction
Ali so Creek Watershed
Irvine Ranch Coastal Area
San Diego Creek Watershed
Laguna Canyon Watershed
Salt Creek Watershed
Laguna Beach and South Laguna
San Juan Creek Watershed
TOPOGRAPHY
GEOLOGY
Beach Watersheds
iv-1
-------
2.3.1 General 2-6
2.3.2 Topography • 2-6
2.3.3 Stratigraphic Description 2-7
2.3.4 Geologic Processes 2-9
2.3.5 Mass Movements 2-10
2.3.6 Structure 2-10
2.3.7 Mineral Resources 2-11
2.3.8 Geologic Constraints 2-11
2.4 SOILS 2-12
2.4.1 General Soils Map of Orange County 2-12
2.4.2 Soil Characteristics 2-13
2.4.3 Soil Interpretations - 2-14
2.4.4 Agricultural Soils 2-15
2.5 HYDROLOGY 2-16
2.5.1 Surface Water 2-16
2.5.2 Ground Water 2-21
2.6 METEOROLOGY 2-22
2.6.1 Climate 2-22
2.6.2 Air Resources 2-23
2.7 OCEANOGRAPHY 2-24
2.7.1 Coastal and Sub-marine Physiography 2-24
2.7.2 Water Characteristics 2-25
2.7.3 Nearshore Circulation • 2-26
2.7.4 Sedimentation Characteristics 2-27
2.8 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 2-28
2.8.1 Terrestrial Biology 2-28
2.8.2 Marine Biology 2-38
2.9 ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES 2-43
2.9.1 Introduction 2-43
2.912 The AWMA Region 2-44
2.9.3 Description of the Archaeological Sites 2-45
2.9.4 Density of Archaeological Sites 2-45
iv-2
-------
2.10 PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES 2-46
2.10.1 Introduction 2-46
2.10.2 Previous Work 2-46
2.10.3 Fossil Zones of Primary Concern 2-47
2.10.4 Site Locations 2-47
2.10.5 Geologic Formations 2-48
2.11 LAND USE 2-50
2.12 WATER SUPPLY AND ITS QUALITY 2-51
2.12.1 Metropolitan Hater 2-51
2.12.2 Water Quality2-53
2.13 POPULATION AND WASTE WATER FLOWS 2-58
2.14 INSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORK AFFECTING
THE ENVIRONMENT 2-59
2.14.1 Moulton-Niguel Water District 2-59
2.14.2 South Laguna Sanitary District 2-59
2.14.3 El Toro Water District 2-60
2.14.4 Los Alisos Water District 2-60
2.14.5 Irvine Ranch Water District 2-61
2.14.6 City of Laguna Beach2-61
2.15 NOISE 2-62
2.16 HISTORICAL RESOURCES 2-62
2.16.1 Historical Background 2-62
2.16.2 Historical Landmarks 2-64
3.0 WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT ALTERNATIVES
AND THEIR PRIMARY IMPACTS 3-1
3.1 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ALTERNATIVES 3-1
3.1.1 Alternative 1A - Local Treatment,
Regional Disposal3-1
3.1.2 Alternative 2E - Central Treatment,
Regional Disposal3-4
3.1.3 Alternative 3C - Reclamation 3-5
3.1.4 Alternative 4A - Partial Regional System
with Stream Discharge in Upper Aliso Creeks Area 3-6
3.1.5 Alternative 2F - Regional Treatment, RegionaT
Disposal with Upstream Reclamation 3-6
3.1.6 Alternative 4C - Intermittent Stream Discharge
from the Upper Aliso Area 3-7
3.1.7 Alternative 2G - Modified Alternative 2F 3-8
iv-3
-------
3.2 PRIMARY IMPACTS OF ALTERNATIVES 3-8
3.2.1 Alternative 1A - Local Treatment, Regional
Disposal 3-8
3.2.2 Alternative 2E - Central Treatment, Regional
Disposal 3-16
3.2.3 Alternative 3C - Reclamation 3-22
3.2.4 Alternative 4A - Partial Regional System with
Stream Discharge in Upper Aliso Creek Area 3-23
3.2.5 Alternative 4C -Intermittent Stream Discharge
from the Upper Aliso Area3-25
3.2.6 Alternatives 2F and 2G - Regional Treatment,
Regional Disposal with Upstream Reclamation 3-25
3.2.7 No Project Alternative3-26
4.0 SECONDARY IMPACTS OF PROJECT ELEMENTS 4-1
4.1 INTRODUCTION - THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN
PUBLIC UTILITIES 4-1
4.2 DYNAMICS OF GROWTH 4-1
4.2.1 County Dynamics 4-1
4.2.2 Aliso Area Growth Dynamics 4-3
4.2.3 Growth Rate Analysis 4-4
4.3 FUTURE DEVELOPMENT .PROSPECTS 4-8
4.3.1 Population Projections 4-8
4.3.2 Formal Land Use Planning 4-9
4.3.3 Availability of Utilities . 4-10
4.3.4 Regulatory Programs 4-12
4.3.5 External Stimuli 4-15
4.3.6 Social Attitudes 4-15
4.3.7 Conclusion4-15
4.4 ROLE OF THE PROJECT 4-15
4.4.1 Introduction 4-15
4.4.2 Variation by Alternative 4-16
4.5 IMPACTS OF DEVELOPMENT 4-18
4.5.1 Air Quality 4-18
4.5.2 Water 4-22
4.5.3 LaTid" 4-23
4.6 POTENTIAL MITIGATION MEASURES . ' 4-23
4.6.1 Summary of Mitigation Measures Evaluated
by the Applicant 4-24
iv-4
-------
4.6.2 Additional Measures 4-24
4.6.3 Economic Impact of Potential Mitigation
Measures 4-25
4.7 OPTIONS AVAILABLE TO EPA 4-28
4.7.1 Fund the Project as Proposed by the Applicant 4-28
4.7.2 Fund the Project as Proposed by the Applicant
if the Applicant Agrees to Implement Mitigation
Measures Within Their Legal Authority 4-28
4.7.3 Construct a Regional System, -Treat the
Upper Aliso Area Hastes Locally, Require
Mitigation 4-28
4.7.4 Don't Participate in the Project Since it
Will Facilitate Growth Which Will in Turn
Have a Significant Air Quality Impact
4.7.5 Construct a Regional System with a Smaller
Outfall (or other portions)4-28
5.0 SELECTED ALTERNATIVE 5-1
5.1 PROPOSALS IN THE DRAFT EIS 5-1
5.2 PUBLIC REVIEW AND THE SELECTION PROCESS 5-1
5.2.1 Alternative Selection and Plant Site Location 5-1
5.2.2 Mitigation Measures 5-2
5.3 PROPOSED PROJECT 5-3
5.3.1 Introduction 5-3
5.3.2 Phase I 5-3
5.3.3 Phase II 5-4
5.3.4 Phase III 5-4
5.4 UNRESOLVED ISSUES AND PROCEDURES FOR RESOLUTION 5-5
5.4.1 Treatment Concept 5-5
5.4.2 Treatment Plant Site 5-5
5.4.3 Mitigation Measures 5-5
5.4.4 Sludge Treatment and Disposal 5-6
5.4.5 California Coastal Zone Conservation
Permit 5-6
6.0 UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT 6-1
7.0 RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN LOCAL SHORT-TERM USES OF THE
ENVIRONMENT AND MAINTENANCE AND ENHANCEMENT OF
LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY 7-1
7.1 INTRODUCTION 7-1
iv-5
-------
7.1.1
7.1.2
7.2
7.2.1
8.0
8.1
8.2
8.3
8.4
8.4.1
8.4.2
8.4.3
9.0
9.1
9.2
9.3
9.4
9.5
9.6
0.0
Construction
Operation
INFLUENCES OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT UPON GROWTH IN THE
IN THE AWMA AREA
Impacts on Land Value
IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENTS
OF RESOURCES
LAND USE COMMITMENTS
ENERGY REQUIREMENTS
WATER RESOURCES
SCIENTIFIC RESOURCES
Pal eon to logical Resources
Archaeological Resources
Biological Resources
PUBLIC INPUT
COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE DRAFT EIS
CHRONOLOGY
COMMENTS ON THE PLANT SITE AND ALTERNATIVES
COMMENTS RECEIVED AT THE PUBLIC HEARING
REQUIRING A RESPONSE
COMMENTS RECEIVED DURING THE DRAFT EIR
REVIEW PERIOD REQUIRING A RESPONSE
COMMENTS RECEIVED DURING THE DRAFT EIR
REVIEW PERIOD NOT REQUIRING A RESPONSE
BIBLIOGRAPHY
7-1
7-2
7-2
7-3
8-1
8-1
8-1
8-2
8-3
8-3
8-4
8-5
9-1
9-1
9-1
9-3
9-5
9-11
9-168
10-1
APPENDIX A - ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
PREPARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT STATEMENTS A-l.
APPENDIX B - ALTERNATIVE MITIGATION PLANS TO REDUCE
POTENTIAL ADVERSE AIR QUALITY IMPACTS IN
THE AWMA AREA B-l
APPENDIX C - SAN DIEGO REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL
BOARD REQUIREMENTS C-l
APPENDIX D - CALIFORNIA COASTAL ZONE CONSERVATION
COMMISSION REQUIREMENTS D-l
iv-6
-------
LIST OF EXHIBITS
INTRODUCTION/DESCRIPTION OF THE PROBLEMS
1-1 Regional Location Map
1-2 County Location Map
1-3 AWMA Member Agencies
1-4 Existing Facilities (Map)
1-5 Existing Facilities (Diagram)
DESCRIPTION OF THE EXISTING ENVIRONMENT
2-1 Seismic Index Map
2-2 Agricultural Land
2-3 Vegetation Communities
2-4 Wildlife Habitats
2-5 Endangered Habitat Types
2-6 Historical Variations in the Occurrence and Extent of Kelp
Beds between Laguna Beach and Dana Point
2-7 Marine Life Refuges
2-8 Existing Land Use
2-9 Noise Contours
WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT ALTERNATIVES AND THEIR PRIMARY IMPACTS
3-1 Alternative 1A (Map)
3-2a Alternative 1A (Diagram)
3-2b Alternative 1A - Modified (Map)
3-2c Alternative 1A - Modified (Diagram)
3-3 Alternative 2E (Map)
3-4 Alternative 2E (Diagram)
3-5 Alternative Sites Regional Treatment Facility
3-6 AWMA Proposed Regional Treatment Plant Site
3-7 Area North of Proposed Plant Site
3-8 Area South of Proposed Plant Site
3-9 Aliso Creek Channel Adjacent to Proposed Regional Treatment Plant
3-10
3-11
3-12
3-13
3-14
3-15
3-16
3-17
3-18
3-19
3-20
3-21
3-22 Service Road Alternative Alignments
v-1
Alternative 3C (Map)
Alternative 3C (Diagram)
Alternative 4A (Map)
Alternative 4A (Diagram)
Alternative 2F (Map
Alternative 2F (Diagram)
Alternative 4C (Diagram)
Alternative 2G (Map)
Alternative 2G (Diagram)
Dilution Contours
Regional Treatment Plant
Regional Treatment Plant
View from West Side of Aliso Creek
View from East Side of Aliso Creek
-------
SECONDARY IMPACTS OF PROJECT ELEMENTS
4-1 Cities and Urbanization in Orange County
4-2 Pattern of Urbanization within AWMA
4-3 Existing Land Use
4-4 Existing Zoning
4-5 Land Values
4-6 Existing Water Distribution Facilities
4-7 Existing Facilities (Waste Water Treatment)
4-8 Orange County Alternative Population Forecasts
4-9 AWMA Alternative Population Forecasts
4-10 Projected Wastewater Flows
4-11 Adopted Land Use
4-12 Proposed Land Use
4-13 Basic Planning Categories-1983 Land Use Element
4-14 Arterial Highways
4-15 New Freeway Construction Affecting Region
4-16 External Stimuli
4-17 Present Traffic Flow into AWMA
v-2
-------
LIST OF EXHIBITS
INTRODUCTION/DESCRIPTION OF THE PROBLEMS
1-1 Regional Location Map
1-2 County Location Map
1-3 AWMA Member Agencies
1-4 Existing Facilities (Map)
1-5 Existing Facilities (Diagram)
DESCRIPTION OF THE EXISTING ENVIRONMENT
2-1 Seismic Index Map
2-2 Agricultural Land
2-3 Vegetation Communities
2-4 Wildlife Habitats
2-5 Endangered Habitat Types
2-6 Historical Variations in the Occurrence and Extent of Kelp
Beds between Laguna Beach and Dana Point
2-7 Marine Life Refuges
2-8 Existing Land Use
2-9 Noise Contours
WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT ALTERNATIVES AND THEIR PRIMARY IMPACTS
3-1 Alternative 1A (Map)
3-2a Alternative 1A (Diagram)
3-2b Alternative 1A - Modified (Map)
3-2c Alternative 1A - Modified (Diagram)
3-3 Alternative 2E (Map)
3-4 Alternative 2E (Diagram)
3-5 Alternative Sites Regional Treatment Facility
3-6 AWMA Proposed Regional Treatment Plant Site
3-7 Area North of Proposed Plant Site
3-8 Area South of Proposed Plant Site
3-9 Aliso Creek Channel Adjacent to Proposed Regional Treatment Plant
3-10 Alternative 3C (Map)
3-11 Alternative 3C (Diagram)
3-12 Alternative 4A (Map)
3-13 Alternative 4A (Diagram)
3-14 Alternative 2F (Map
3-15 Alternative 2F (Diagram)
3-16 Alternative 4C (Diagram)
3-17 Alternative 2G (Map)
3-18 Alternative 2G (Diagram)
3-19 Dilution Contours
3-20 Regional Treatment Plant View from West Side of Aliso Creek
3-21 Regional Treatment Plant View from East Side of Aliso Creek
3-22 Service Road Alternative Alignments
v-1
-------
SECONDARY IMPACTS OF PROJECT ELEMENTS
4-1 Cities and Urbanization in Orange County
4-2 Pattern of Urbaniza.tion within AWMA
4-3 Existing Land Use
4-4 Existing. Zoning
4-5 Land Values
4-6 Existing Water Distribution Facilities
4-7 Existing Facilities (Waste Water Treatment)
4-8 Orange County Alternative Population Forecasts
4-9 AWMA Alternative Population Forecasts
4-10 Projected Wastewater Flows
4-11 Adopted Land Use
4-12 Proposed Land Use
4-13 Basic Planning Categories-1983 Land Use Element
4-14 Arterial Highways
4-15 New Freeway Construction Affecting Region
4-16 External Stimuli
4-17 Present Traffic Flow into AWMA
v-2
-------
LIST OF TABLES
INTRODUCTION/DESCRIPTION OF THE PROBLEMS
1-1 Existing Facilities/Performance
1-2 1973 Average Treated Wastewater Characteristics
DESCRIPTION OF THE EXISTING ENVIRONMENT
2-1 Watershed Systems of the AWMA Area
2-2 Slope AnalysisBreakdown for the AWMA Area
2-3 Maximum Probable Earthquakes and Seismic Shaking Characteristics
2-4 Geologic Constraints on Population Growth in the AWMA Region
2-5 Specific Soil Properties of the AWMA Area
2-6 Land Capability Classification and Limitations to Development
2-7 Federal Air Quality Standards 1973
2-8 California Air Quality Standards 1973
2-9 Selected Characteristics of Offshore Water
2-10 Orange County Natural Biotic Communities
2-11 Biotic Communities
2-12 Declining species of Birds Expected to Frequent the AWMA Region
2-13 Marine Life Refuges
2-14 Existing Land Use-Orange County/AWMA
2-15 Analysis of Metrpolitan Water District Water Supplies
2-16 Blending of Colorado River Water and State Project Water
2-17 Range in Values of Analysis of Colorado River Water 1963-1972
2-18 Population and Wastewater Flows
2-19 Summary of Governmental Authority
WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT ALTERNATIVES AND THEIR PRIMARY IMPACTS
3-1 Projected Mass Emissions (Pounds Per Day) to Ocean
3-2 Anticipated Subsequent Dilution and Total Reduction in Coliform
Organisms for the Aliso Creek Ocean Outfall
3-3 Comparison of Alternative Sites
3-4 Alternative Site Information AWMA Regional Wastewater Treatment
Plant
SECONDARY IMPACTS OF PROJECT ELEMENTS
4-1 Demographic/Building Trends
4-2 Housing/Employment
4-3 Population Growth within AWMA
4-4 Orange County 1970 Census
4-5 Breakdown of Maximum Portion to Member Agencies of the Total
Capacity of the Proposed AWMA Facilities
4-6 Member Agency Outfall Capacity - California Coastal Zone Conser-
vation Commission
4-7 Surface Runoff Pollution Coefficients
4-8 Land Use Acreage
4-9 Surface Runoff Pollution from Existing Land Uses
vi-1
-------
4-10 Surface Runoff Pollution from Adopted Land Uses
4-11 Surface Runoff Pollution from Proposed Land Uses
4-12 Summary of Surface Runoff Pollution
IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENTS OF RESOURCES
8-1 Energy Expenditure for Pumping Raw Sewage Up Grade as
Designated in Project Alternative 1A
8-2 Energy Expenditure for Pumping Raw Sewage Up Grade as
Designated in Project Alternative 2G
8-3 Energy Expenditure for Pumping Raw Sewage Up Grade as
Designated in Project Alternative 4A
8-4 Energy Expenditure for Pumping Raw Sewage Up Grade as
Designated in Project Alternative 2E and 2F
8-5 Energy Expenditure for Pumping Raw Sewage Up Grade as
Designated in Project Alternative 3C
vi-2
-------
-------
INTRODUCTION/DESCRIPTION OF PROBLEMS
1.1 BACKGROUND
The Aliso Water Management Agency (AWMA) was established on March 1, 1972
by the execution of a joint powers agreement in accordance with Article 1,
Chapter V, Division II, Title 1 of the Government Code, State of California.
The Agency has seven members: The Moulton-Niguel Water District, the South
Laguna Sanitary District, the Irvine Ranch Water District, the El Toro Water
District, the Los Alisos Water District, the City of Laguna Beach, and the
Emerald Bay Service District. The jurisdictional boundaries of each dis-
trict is shown on Exhibit 1-3.
AWMA is a legal entity created, operating, and functioning in response to
the needs for a regional body to plan, construct and operate facilities
for a water management program within the Aliso Valley Watershed Basin and
related contiguous areas. Included in the management programs are the col-
lection, transmission, treatment and disposal of wastewater; the reclamation
of wastewater; and the use of reclaimed wastewater for beneficial purposes.
The member agencies of AWMA comprise an area of Orange County encompassing
approximately 48,905 acres extending from Dana Point on the southeast coast
to the southeasterly city limits of the City of Corona del Mar (Exhibits
1-1 and 1-2). The agency boundaries extend northerly from the coast 15
miles inland to the foothills of the Santa Ana Mountains in Northern El
Toro. The entire service area lies between the Santa Ana River basin on
the northwest and the San Juan Creek watershed on the east.
1.1.1 Relationship to Other Projects in Orange County
There are two related Facilities Planning Areas in Southern Orange County
which merit discussion; the South East Regional Reclamation Authority (SERRA)
area and the Irvine Ranch Water District (IRWD) area.
1.1.1.1 South East Regional Reclamation Authority (SERRA)
SERRA is located directly to the south of AWMA (Exhibit 1-2) and is made
up of the cities of San Clemente and San Juan Capistrano, the Santa Margarita
Water District, the Moulton Niguel Water District's Improvement District
Number 3, the Dana Point Sanitary District and the Capistrano Beach Sani-
tary District.
From 1969 through 1972 a series of projects were undertaken in the SERRA
area which tied all members except San Clemente into a regional system
with a regional sewage treatment plant. Through the existing Dana Point
outfall, treated wastewater is currently being discharged.
The Dana Point outfall does not have sufficient hydraulic capacity for
long-range flows; indeed, existing flows are now pumped. Further, the
outfall terminates in shallow water near the mouth of the Dana Point Har-
bor. Consequently, a project to replace the existing outfall was formulated
1-1
-------
! ' ft pi ." A - V ' '• }.,V v\
•:^Y;fe>@i_;..^
f . !»-»< ^-—-- . J
j^'"^?Str ^^>:^-.
,. .
KATUriUL fAKH *":.'tS\ \;:
. ( Vli
Exhibit 1-1
-------
Fultorton
'Orange
E
^^^TllSt
Irvine Lake
Disneyland
IRVINE RANCH
WATER DISTRICT
Garden G
rove^K/
Santa
3
Costa
.^J^PHuntingtgi
Mesa^B^
Irvine
UC4
V'
ALISO WATER
MANAGEMENT AGENCY
SOUTH CAST REGIONAL
RECUMMATION AUTHORITY
Laguna
3
Beach
Point
COUNTY LOCATION MAP
PACIFIC OCEAN
Exhibit 1-2
-------
and is the subject of an EPA environmental impact statement which was cir-
culated for comment on March 28, 1975.
1.1.1.2 Irvine Ranch Water District (IRWD)
IRHD is a water district located almost entirely within the boundaries
of the Irvine Company's land holdings (see Exhibit 1-2). IRWD was initial
ly created to secure a water supply for irrigation and domestic use. With
changes in the California Water District law, IRWD began to provide sewer
service after specific authorization by electors of the district in March,
1965. Part of the Irvine Ranch Water District lies within the boundaries
of AWMA.
The IRWD currently has a 5.0 mgd treatment plant and reclamation system.
The treatment plant was funded partially by EPA's predecessor agency with
a grant dated July 15, 1969. Part of the reclamation system, the Rattle-
snake outfall from the plant to Rattlesnake Reservoir, was also funded with
EPA assistance in the form of a grant offer dated June 25, 1974.
The IRWD is considering adding an additional 5 mgd of treatment capacity
since their service area is being developed by the Irvine Company and flows
are increasing rapidly. The State of California has instructed the IRWD
to prepare a Facilities Plan for their entire service area to determine
optimum long-term solutions for water quality problems. This Facilities
Plan and an EIR, required under the California Environmental Quality Act
are currently nearing completion and it is anticipated that the IRWD will
hold a public hearing on the Facilities Plan and EIR on about August 1,
1975.
The Facilities Plan and EIR will be eligible for Federal and State grants
as a "Step 1" project (advance planning). However, it has not yet been
.determined whether design and construction (Steps 2 and 3) of any facili-
ties will be eligible for State or Federal funding. Should it be deter-
mined that facilities are eligible, the entire project will be subjected
to an environmental review by EPA. At that time, EPA will decide whether
or not to prepare an EIS on the project. Since the likelihood of funding
is speculative at present, it is premature to consider the effects of the
project in this EIS.
1.1.1.3 Relationship to the AWMA Project
Several comments on the draft EIS indicated that a single EIS should have
been prepared to cover the entire southern portion of Orange County, which
is largely undeveloped. Since the South County area is expected to urban-
ize rapidly, and since sewerage services can play a significant role in
urbanization, this is a logical suggestion and EPA's EIS regulations recog-
nize that individual projects can have fairly minor environmental effects
while leading to a significant cumulative effect. However, EPA has decided
that an overall EIS is not the ideal approach in the current situation.
First of all, all of the three projects are in different stages. The Aliso
project proposed the initial'consolidation of six agencies with sanitary
1-2
-------
\
\
\
N
EMERALD BAY
SERVICE DISTRICT
Legend
IRVINE RANCH
WATER DISTRICT
LAGUNA BEACH
WATER DISTRICT
SOUTH LAGUNA
SANITARY DISTRICT
LOS ALISOS
WATER DISTRICT
EL TORO
WATER DISTRICT
MOULTON NIGUEL
WATER DISTRICT
Exhibit 1-3
-------
responsibilities. In the SERRA service area,, regionalization is about 80
percent completed. And in the Irvine Ranch area, current facilities are
adequate and it is not certain whether new facilities will be eligible for
grant funds. Secondly, Aliso is under the time constraints of the California
Coastal Zone Conservation Commission and NPDES permit requiring timely upgrading
of the system (see Appendix C and D). Finally, both the AWf-IA and the SERRA
projects have been determined to have significant environmental impacts
in and of themselves. Consequently, an EIS was prepared for each project.
Consideration was given to preparing a joint EIS on the two projects, but
this approach was rejected because of timing problems. The EISs were coor-
dinated internally within EPA and with the AWMA and SERRA consultants; in-
formation developed for the AWMA EIS was used in the SERRA EIS and vice-
versa.
1.2 EXISTING WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITIES AND THEIR PERFORMANCE
1.2.1 Moulton-Niguel Hater District
1.2.1.1 Moulton-Niguel Water District - Improvement District No. 1A
Moulton-Niguel Water District Improvement District No. 1A contains approx-
imately 8,200 acres of land and is located on the southerly portion of the
Moulton-Niguel Water District (Exhibit 1-3). It ranges from approximately
one mile to seven miles inland from the coast and is adjacent to and nor-
therly of South Laguna Sanitary District and easterly of the City of Laguna
Beach. This area is commonly referred to and has the postal address of
Laguna Niguel.
Improvement District No. lA's wastewater treatment facilities consists of
a local inland plant and capacity in a jointly owned local plant located
along Aliso Creek approximately one mile inland from the ocean. These
facilities are jointly owned by the Moulton-Niguel Water District Improve-
ment Districts Nos. 2A and 3A as well as the South Laguna Sanitary District.
The District's inland plant is a secondary treatment plant consisting of
an activated sludge process which is patented by Chicago Pump and is known
as a rapid block type. The present treatment capacity of the plant is
0.5 million gallons per day (Table 1-1). Various facilities existing in
the plant were built for future expansion to a capacity of 2 million gal-
lons per day. The District's flow is conveyed to the plant by a combina-
tion of pumping stations and gravity sewers terminating in a gravity sewer
feeding the plant.
One of the existing major pumping stations located just south of the El
Niguel Golf Course along Crown Valley Parkway and Pacific Island Drive must
be rebuilt. The sewage flow is accumulated at this point and pumped via
Crown Valley Parkway with the option of bypassing the 1A plant and down
Aliso Creek.
Plant effluent is conveyed to four oxidation ponds. These ponds serve
as holding reservoirs for reclaimed water which ultimately is pumped to
the Laguna Niguel Golf Course. Proposals and negotiations are underway
to develop additional areas for the use of reclaimed water to enhance and
1-3
-------
TABLE 1-1
EXISTING FACILITIES/PERFORMANCE
FACILITY
DESIGN
CAPACITY
(MGD)
AVERAGE
FLOW
(MGD)
TREATMENT
PROCESS
METHOD OF FINAL
DISPOSAL
Effluent Sludge
OPERATIONAL
PERFORMANCE
& CONDITION
TREATMENT PLANTS:
M-N WD Improvement
District No. 1A
0.5
0.13
Secondary (Activated Reclamation
Sludge and Rapid Bloc)
Diverted to South
Laguna Treatment
Plant
.Satisfactory, now, but not
usable during rainy season
.Not economically feasible for
expansion
.Waste reclamation is satis-
factory
M-N WD Improvement
District No. 2A
0.35
Secondary (Activated
0.05 Sludge Evaporation
and Rapid Bloc)
Evaporation Local Drying .Satisfactory, now, but not econ-
Beds omically feasible for expansion
.Waste reclamation is satisfact.
.Does not have aeration in ponds;
not usable during winter mos.
South Laguna Sanitary
District - MNWD
0.80-
3.2 1.14
Secondary (Activated Ocean
Sludge)
Landfill
. Satisfactory now
.Overall operational problems;
not adequate flexibility
.Solids handling needs improv.
. Effective capacity proposed to
be modified to 2.5 MGD to
meet waste discharge require-
ments and nitrification require-
ments (State Coastal Comm.)
Los Alisos Water
District
4.0
1.04
Secondary (Activated Reclamation
Sludge and Rapid Bloc)
Landfill
.Satisfactory now, and no
modifications will be necessary
after construction of regional
facilities
. High quality effluent
.Unsatisfactory winter storage
El Toro Water District
4.0
2.12
Secondary (Activated
Sludge)
Reclamation Landfill and . Satisfactory now, and also
Agricultural after construction of regional
use facilities
.High quality effluent
. Secondary treated effluent pro-
hibited for discharge into San
Diego Creek
. Unsatisfactory winter storage
City of Laguna Beach
4.0
1.81
Primary
Ocean
Landfill
. Unsatisfactory now
-Outdated, inadequate treatment
facilities
. Primary treatment only
. Poor quality effluent
OCEAN OUTFALLS:
Aliso Creek Outfall
3.2
1.6-2.2
Ocean
.Under Interim NPDES Permit
until completion of AWMA
outfall
. Inadequate capacity
. Too shallow to meet ocean plan
Laguna Beach Outfall
4.0
1.8-3.5
Ocean
. Unsatisfactory now
.NPDES application is currently
being reviewed by EPA and
RWQCB
.Too shallow to meet ocean plan
-------
Newport
Beach
Legend
......... RAW SEWAGE INTERCEPTOR
^— LAND OUTFALL
OCEAN OUTFALL
nmmmmmmi FORCE MAIN
A PUMP STATION
d SECONDARY TREATMENT PLANT
A PRIMARY TREATMENT PLANT
Dana Point i
Exhibit 1-4
-------
LAWD PLANT
4.0 MGD
3
ROSSMOOR PLANT
4.0 MGO
IIBI
8"/0.5 MGD
4"/4.2 MGD-6.6MGD
33"/23.5 MGD
18"/4.5 MGD
MNWD 2A PLANT
0.35 MGD
30"-33"/ 15.5-20 MGD
(•(•(•(•(•I
MNWD 1A
I PLANT
0.5 MGD
1
21"
15"
12"
10"-20"
IIIIIBIBI
CITY OF LAGUNA
BEACH PLANT
2.0 MGD
10"-18"
JOINT
MNWD-
SLSD PLANT
3.2 MGD
18"/2.5MGO
IBIBIBIIIIMHBI
EXISTING FACILITIES
Exhibit 1-5
-------
stimulate open space conservation. Contracts with Orange County and AVCO
Community Developers for reclaimed water have been executed. Effluent chlo-
rination facilities are provided both before and after the oxidation ponds.
The sludge is aerobically digested and dried on a series of drying beds
at the plant site.
In addition to the inland plant, Improvement District No. 1A has treatment
and disposal capacity at the South Laguna Sanitary District treatment fa-
cilities in Aliso Creek. Moulton-Niguel Water District Improvement District
No. 1A owns 0.7 million gallons per day capacity in the facility. This
facility is further described later in this chapter.
1.2.1.2 Moulton-Niguel Water District - Improvement District No. 2A
The Moulton-Niguel Water District Improvement District No. 2A has an area
of approximately 1,225 acres and is located in the north central portion
of the Moulton-Niguel Water District extending from the San Diego Freeway
southerly approximately 1.5 miles and lying adjacent to and south of the
El Toro Water District. This community is referred to and has a postal
address of the Laguna Hills.
The MNWD 2A wastewater treatment plant provides secondary treatment of wastes
with activated sludge process and the Chicago Pump patented Rapid Block
System. It has a capacity of 0.35 million gallons per day designed for
expansion to an ultimate size of 1.35 mgd (Table 1-1). Raw sewage is pumped
to the plant. Reclaimed water is pumped to several evaporation ponds for
ultimate disposal. The sludge is conveyed to sludge drying beds after being
aerobically digested.
Reclaimed water is of good quality and is sufficient for irrigation for
agricultural use. Improvement District No. 2A has previously contracted
with a surrounding landowner for use of the reclaimed water for irrigation
of. field crops. Two additional uses are being investigated. Consideration
is being given to development of a greenbelt barrier completely surrounding
the plant. The greenbelt could be used for a park and the reclaimed water
from the plant would be used to irrigate the park. Consideration is also
being given to the construction of a dam and lake on Aliso Creek just north-
westerly of the plant site. The lake could have a twofold purpose: first,
flood control and secondly, recreation with a park surrounding the lake.
The reclaimed water would replenish the lake and irrigate the greenbelt
area around the park.
This plant was constructed in 1965. At the present time, the plant can
be bypassed utilizing the pumping station to pump incoming sewage to the
interceptor down Aliso Valley to the joint South Laguna Sanitary District
Moulton-Niguel Water District treatment facilities near the mouth of Aliso
Creek.
1-4
-------
1.2.1.3 Moulton-Niguel Water District - Improvement District No. 3A
The Moulton-Niguel 3A plant is a 0.5 mgd treatment plant constructed in
1967 and located west of Interstate Highway 5 at Oso Creek (Exhibit 1-4
and 4-7). The plant effluent is utilized entirely for golf course irriga-
tion with no discharge. The plant is located within the boundary of the
South East Regional Reclamation Authority and will not be considered in
this EIS. The treatment plant, however, is interconnected with those in
improvement districts No. 1A and 2A by way of an interceptor (Exhibit 4-
7). This pipeline was installed as a safety feature for overflows from
these plants during emergency conditions. If this were to occur, discharge
of effluent would proceed through the Dana Point outfall.
1.2.2 South Laguna Sanitary District
The South Laguna Sanitary District contains approximately 2,700 acres and
is located along the coast adjacent to and southerly of the Moulton-Niguel
Water District extending inland approximately one mile (Exhibit 1-3).
On the northwest of the South Laguna Sanitary District is the City of Laguna
Beach. To the south is Dana Point and the recently constructed Dana Point
Harbor. The South Laguna Sanitary District constructed and owns one-half
of the capacity of a secondary wastewater treatment plant constructed near
the mouth of Aliso Creek. Of the one-half capacity owned by Moulton-Niguel
Water District, 0.7 mgd each is owned by Improvement Districts Nos. 1A and
3A and 0.2 mgd by 2A, as previously stated. The South Laguna Sanitary Dis-
trict has the option to terminate service to Moulton-Niguel Water District's
1.6 mgd capacity upon giving 18 months advance notice (Table 1-1). Total
capacity of this plant is 3.2 million gallons per day. The plant is a sec-
ondary activiated sludge treatment plant. Ultimate disposal is through
an ocean outfall.
The ocean outfall is located off the coast at Aliso Creek and was constructed
in 1953. The land portion of the outfall which passes through the Laguna
Beach Golf Course is 15 and 21-inch pipe. The ocean portion extends approx-
imately 1,800 feet from the coast and is 18-inch concrete cylinder pipe.
The discharge is at a depth of 60 feet. The diffusers are 80 feet long.
Both primary and waste activated sludge are conveyed into two sludge thickener
tanks, then to a purifax conditioning unit and sludge drying beds.
The first 1.6 mgd plant was constructed in 1968 and expanded to 3.2 mgd
in 1969. The treatment plant site has been master planned for expansion
to a capacity of 10 mgd. The ability to expand the existing sites to this
capacity is questionable.
In the past, proposals have been considered for use of reclaimed water
for irrigation of the Laguna Beach Golf Course just south of the plant
along Aliso Creek. In addition, the County of Orange has investigated
the potentials of developing a perimeter greenbelt and open space park
along Aliso Park and Aliso Creek to the north of the plant. The reclaimed
water could be used for potential beneficial uses such as irrigation of
greenbelt areas.
1-5
-------
1.2.3 Los Allsos Water District
The Los Alisos Water District is located in the northern portion of the
Aliso Water Management Agency (Exhibit 1-3). It is approximately one and
one-half miles east of the El Toro Marine Corps Air Station and to the north
of and adjacent to the El Toro Water District and contains approximately
5,380 acres. The major residential area of the Los Alisos Water District
is in the southerly portion of the District and is referred to as Lake Forest.
The Los Alisos Water District treatment plant provides secondary treatment
of wastes utilizing a series of three oxidation ponds, plus additional
headwork facilities. The initial capacity of the plant, constructed in
1964, was 0.5 mgd. Recently the capacity has been expanded to 4.0 mgd (Table
1-1). The headworks and other plant facilities have a capacity for an addi-
tional 1.5 mgd. A portion of the treated wastewater flow from the treatment
plant goes through a series of aeration and treatment lagoons to settling
and naturation ponds for reclamation. From the ponds, the reclaimed water
passes through the chlorine contact chamber and is pumped to the Irvine
Ranch property where it is utilized by the Irvine Company for irrigation
of agricultural lands. In addition, the District has a connection to one
of the Irvine Company's irrigation pipelines which conveys the reclaimed
water to the Laguna Reservoir located along Laguna Canyon Road approximately
two miles south of the San Diego Freeway and three miles directly west of
the Los Alisos Water District treatment plant.
The Los Alisos Water District has leased land from the Irvine Company northwest
of the plant site on which the District is proposing to operate a land spray
irrigation system. The District has also considered use of the reclaimed
water for park irrigation along Serrano Creek adjacent to and southerly
of Trabuco Road. There is an extensive agricultural development in the
northerly portion of the District and the District has authorized the trans-
mission of reclaimed water to these areas for use as irrigation water.
In addition, consideration has been given to the use of reclaimed water
for replenishment of manmade lakes located in the Lake Forest development.
The District has transported effluent to grading contractors in the area
for use in earth moving projects.
1.2.4 El Toro Water District
The El Toro Water District is located approximately two miles directly
south of the El Toro Marine Corps Air Station and is adjacent to both the
Los Alisos Water District and the Moulton-Miguel Water District (Exhibit
1-3). The area of El Toro Water District is approximately 4,750 acres.
There are basically two separate communities within the District, separated
by the San 'Diego Freeway. On the southwest is the community of Rossmoor
Leisure World, commonly referred to as Laguna Hills. On the northeast is
the community of El Toro.
Rossmoor Sanitation, Inc., presently provides all collection, treatment
and disposal services within the El Toro Water District through a service
agreement. In early 1971, the El Toro Water District undertook the necessary
legal proceedings to become a servicing agency, and on June 30, 1972, adopted
1-6
-------
a resolution authorizing the issuance of general obligation bonds for the
construction of sewage, collection, treatment and disposal facilities.
The Rossmoor wastewater treatment facilities utilize a pre-aeration reservoir
ahead of the treatment plant headworks facilities which includes selecto
strainers and metering facilities.
The plant has a rated capacity of 4.0 mgd (Table 1-1). The activated sludge
treatment process occurs in the pre-aeration reservoir. The remainder of
the plant is a circular compartmentalized chamber consisting of the aeration
unit, the contact unit and the clarifier. Waste sludge from the system
is thickened, chemically treated and partially dewatered in the sludge
concentrator and hauled to a site for land reclamation.
The reclaimed water from the plant is stored in a forty acre-foot reservoir
just west of the plant located on the Leisure World Golf Course. The effluent
is chlorinated in a contact chamber adjacent to and southerly of the plant.
Effluent is then pumped to several large rainbird sprinklers on undeveloped
lands within and outside the district for spray irrigation. Rossmoor Sani-
tation, Inc., also leases 200 acres of agricultural lands from the Irvine
Company where the reclaimed water is used for irrigation.
1.2.5 City of Laguna Beach
The City of Laguna Beach is the only incorporated community within the
Aliso Water Management Agency and encompasses approximately five square
miles of land fronting the Pacific Ocean. The city is bounded on the south
by the South Laguna Sanitary District and extends northerly a distance of
approximately four and one-half miles to the northerly limits of the Aliso
Water Management Agency. The initial sewage system serving the City of
Laguna Beach was constructed in 1923 and has been modified several times
since the initial construction. At the present time, the existing treatment
plant, owned and operated by the City of Laguna Beach, is a primary treatment
plant with a rated capacity of 2 mgd (Table 1-1). This plant is currently
being expanded to a rated capacity of 3 mgd, with ferric chloride and polymer
treatment. The final effluent from the wastewater treatment facilities
is discharged through a 3,200 foot-long ocean outfall terminating at a water
depth of approximately 80 feet. Sludge treatment consists of digestion,
followed by drying of digested sludge on drying beds at a remote site from
the wastewater treatment facility.
1.2.6 Emerald Bay Service District
The sewage facilities presently serving the Emerald Bay Service District
consists primarily of a collector system and pumping stations which ultimately
discharge into the existing facilities of the City of Laguna Beach. The
waste generated within the service district is treated and disposed of through
the Laguna Beach Facilities through a contract with the City of Laguna Beach.
1-7
-------
• J.2.7 Irvine Ranch Water District
The Irvine Ranch Water District is located in the northwestern portion
of the Aliso Water Management Agency area (Exhibit 1-3). The total area
of the Irvine Ranch Water District includes approximately 67,850 acres.
However, only 8,560 acres lies within the boundaries of the Aliso Water
Management Agency. This area is currently in a rural, undeveloped condition
with a negligible population.
Wastewater facilities on this portion of the IRWD are nonexistent; however,
inasmuch as the lands are a portion of the drainage area of the Aliso Watershed
the IRWD elected to be a member in order to participate in the overall planning
of the regional sewage facilities.
The waste that is generated by the few homes within this portion of the
IRWD is handled through septic tank facilities.
1.3 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROBLEMS IN EXISTING WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITIES
Table 1.2 summarizes the 1973 average treated wastewater characteristics
for the six treatment plants within the AWMA area. The information given
for total suspended solids and BOD is1 based on available data. Data collection
methods may frequently vary but it is believed the analyses shown are represen-
tative of existing performance.
1.3.1 South Laguna Sanitary District
Until recently, the South Laguna Sanitation District (SLSD) treatment plant
was frequently loaded at or beyond the capacity for which it was designed,
and compliance with water discharge requirements was not achieved. This
situation was caused by variable discharges from the frequently overloaded
upstream Moulton-Niguel plants. Not only were discharge requirements violated,
but the hydraulic capacity of the outfall became over taxed.
With completion of the sewage treatment plant in San Juan Capistrano and
operational improvements in the M-NWD and SLSD plants, most of the above
problems were temporarily solved. Currently, an average discharge of 1.8
mgd of wastewater is treated at the SLSD plant; 0.8 mgd is collected from
the M-NWD sewerage system and transported to the plant via a trunk line.
The treated effluent is discharged through a 1,800 foot ocean outfall which
terminates in 60 feet of water.
SLSD system is experiencing the following problems:
1. South Coast Beach Interceptor
Leakage from the South Coast Beach Interceptor has posed serious pollution
problems over the past decade. The interceptor is currently being replaced
because of its deterioration, leakage, and cracking due to the generation
of hydrogen sulphide gas, which has been attacking the existing facility
since its installation in the mid-1950's.
1-8
-------
2. Solids Handling
The existing SLSD plant uses the purifax process to stabilize their sludge.
This process has not been reliable and odors from drying beds have been
a problem. This sytem is also costly and fairly inflexible, and is not
a good basis for any further plant expansion. In addition, the sludge drying
beds are located fairly close to Aliso Creek and could be inundated by flood-
ing, or sludge could wash into the creek during heavy rains.
3. The Design and Placement of the Ocean Outfall
The SLSD ocean outfall violates the State Water Resources Control Board
Water Quality Control Plan, Ocean Haters of California, adopted on July
6, 1972. The existing outfall is too short (1,800 feet), lacks a terminating
diffuser system, and terminates in too shallow a depth of water (60 feet).
It not only violates the required dilution ratio of 100/1, but it is a po-
tential hazard to the health of bathers at Aliso Beach. Studies of ocean
currents in the vicintiy of the outfall indicate that during certain portions
of the day, currents are essentially shoreward. Ocean beaches and waters
in the area are heavily used for water contact sport activities, as well
as both commercial and sport fishing. Effluent discharge also presents
a potential threat to marine biological resources and reserves within a
few thousand feet of the outfall.
The land portion of the outfall is also unsatisfactory. Poor construction
practices (use of a caulking compound which has swollen from water absorption)
has cracked many of the joints along the line. This in turn has led to
infiltration and occasional overflow of the lines.
4. Effluent Quality
Use of the SLSD plant to treat M-NWD's Plants 1A and 2A's sludge has interfere
with efficient operation of the SLSD plant. The plant is too small to be
able to handle the fluctuations in flow volumes and strengths which have
resulted from this sort of operation. Consequently, effluent is of poor
quality. Coliform violations have also been detected, although this is
an operational problem.
1.3.2 The City of Laguna Beach
The treatment system for the City of Laguna Beach has experienced the followin
problems.
1. Condition of the Treatment Plant
The City's treatment plant was constructed in 1932, and the useful life
of a treatment plant is generally calculated to be twenty to thirty years.
As is to be expected, the treatment plant is not in good shape, and because
of its age, replacement parts are very hard to obtain. The treatment plant
has not been well maintained lately, and is in generally dilapidated condition
1-9
-------
TABLE 1-2
1973 AVERAGE TREATED WASTEWATER CHARACTERISTICS
Total % Total
Suspended Suspended % BOD
Treatment Plant Solid mg/1* BOD mg/1* Solid Removal* Removal*
Los Alisos 22.0 24.0 91 89
Rossmoor Sanitation 7.0 6.4 97 97
Moulton-Niguel 1A 26.0 20.3 98 89
Moulton-Miguel 2A 24.1 24.3 94 87
South Laguna 52.1 17.7 90 94
City of Laguna Beach 109.0 157.0 56 25
*Federal Environmental Protection Agency Standards for Secondary Treat-
ment Wastewater Discharge
Biological Oxygen Demand - A minimum removal of 90%, according to
the Coastal Zone Commission. Depending upon the initial concentration,
the following EPA requirement may govern:
(1) The arthmetic mean of the values for effluent samples collected
in a period of 30 consecutive days shall not exceed 30 milli-
grams per liter.
(2) The arthmetic mean of the values for effluent samples collected
in a period of seven consecutive days shall not exceed 45
milligrams per liter.
Suspended Solids - According to the EPA:
(1) The arthmetic mean of the values for effluent samples collec-
ted in a period of 30 consecutive days shall not exceed 30
milligrams per liter.
(2) The arthmetic mean of the values for effluent samples collec-
ted in a period of seven consecutive days shall not exceed
45 milligrams per liter.
(3) The arthmetic mean of the values for effluent samples collec-
ted in a period of 30 consecutive days shall not exceed 15%
of the arthmetic mean of the values for influent samples col-
lected at approximately the same times during the same period
(85% removal).
1-10
-------
2. Solids Handling
The anaerobic digestion at the plant is not adequate because of the limited
capacity and the poor condition of the equipment. Thus, when the sludge
is pumped into "drying lagoons," it is still putrescent. Odors and insects
result, and leaching or runoff of pollutants is possible.
3. Ocean Outfall
The Laguna Beach ocean outfall violates the State Water Resources Control
Board Water Quality Control Plan, Ocean Maters of California adopted on
July 6, 1972. The existing outfall is too short (3,200 feet), and terminates
in too shallow a depth of water (80 feet). It not only violated the required
dilution ratio of 100/1, but also endangers the health of bathers at the
Main Street Beach. During a typical adverse current, "with the current
direction being inshore during the day, the minimum time of travel into
the area of intensive recreational use of a float released 2,450 feet off
Laguna Beach would be about 1.3 hours." Ocean beaches and waters in the
area are heavily used for water contact sports activities, as well as both
commercial and sport fishing. Effluent discharge also presents a potential
threat to marine biological resources and preserves within 2,000 feet of
the outfal 1.
The Laguna Beach outfall is also located within approximately 2,000 feet
of the Heisler Park Ecological Reserve, an area of Special Biological Signifi-
cance. The Department of Fish and Game is concerned about potentially toxic
levels of chlorine and the attendant impact on the reserve.
4. Effluent Qualtiy
The quality of the Laguna Beach effluent was shown earlier in Table 1-2.
It can be seen that this effluent is not satisfactory, and must be improved
considerably to meet secondary treatment standards. The Laguna Beach plant
violates even its less stringent primary requirements for both suspended
solids and coliform. The ongoing modifications may improve the effluent
some, but the treatment plant is over its hydraulic capacity during seasonal
peaks, and thus cannot operate properly.
1.3.3 El Toro Water District
The Rossmoor Sanitation Inc. treatment plant, which serves the El Toro
Water District, has been having trouble disposing of their effluent. Four
different customers use Rossmoor's effluent, but not on a year-round basis.
Demand for irrigation water is very low during the winter months, and Rossmoor
must store most of the effluent. Operational problems, both in the treatment
system and in the reclamation systems have allowed treated effluent to get
into the stream course in the past. This represents a minor source of nutrient
inflow to Newport Bay, and a potential health hazard to recreationists using
the stream or Bay who may be exposed to sewage borne pathogens. The Rossmoor
treatment plant effluent does not currently meet the sulfate and boron incremen
tal limitations which are required in their NPDES permit to protect the
groundwater (SWRCB, 1975).
1-11
-------
1.3.4 Los Allsos Mater District
No serious problems now exist in the Los Alisos system. However, like
Rossmoor, they anticipate problems with storage as their service area grows
or if neighboring Irvine Ranch, which uses their effluent, undergoes devel-
opment.
Salinity requirements have been added to the discharge requirements for
LAWD. These requirements will not take full effect until 1977, but unless
the area obtains a water supply with fewer salts, the effluent will violate
these requirements. LAWD is currently in violation of the incremental limita-
tions for dissolved chloride and sulfate as established in the NPDES permit
(Appendix C).
1.3.5 Moulton-Niguel Water District
The Moulton-Niguel Water District, Improvement Districts Nos. 1A and 2A
both produce an effluent which is usually of acceptable quality. Although
not hydraulically or organically overloaded, these plants are restricted
in operational flexibility by their basic design, which is the rapid block
process. It is doubtful that the quality of either plant could be signifi-
cantly improved through operational changes, as each is operated correctly
and according to the basic design criteria.
1-12
-------
-------
-------
2.0 DESCRIPTION OF EXISTING ENVIRONMENT
2.1 GEOGRAPHIC SETTING
2.1.1 Introduction
The Aliso Water Management Agency service area lies on the Pacific Slope of
Southern California (see Exhibit 1.1) and comprises 48,905 acres in the
south-central portion of Orange County (see Exhibit 1.2). The Agency has a
frontage of approximately 15 miles along the coastal area between Corona del
Mar and Dana Point and extends northeasterly inland approximately fifteen
miles to the northeasterly limits of the Los Alisos Water District (see Ex-
hibit 1.3). The area is easily accessible by way of the San Diego Freeway
(Interstate 5) which traverses the northerly portion of the area. In addi-
tion, the Pacific Coast Highway (California Route 1) runs along the southerly
limits of the area adjacent to the Pacific Coast. The facilities of the
Atcheson, Topeka & Santa Fe Railroad, running between Los Angeles and San
Diego, pass through the area following the approximate alignment of the San
Diego Freeway. The El Toro Marine Corps Air Station lies one mile westerly
of AWMA and is adjacent to El Toro and Los Alisos Water Districts.
The Aliso Water Management Agency is divided into eight separate watershed
areas. Table 2-1 indicates watershed acreage, percent of total watershed
area, and percent of the AWMA area.
TABLE 2-1
Watershed Systems of the AWMA Area
Name of Number Percent of Percent
Watershed of Acres Total Watershed of AWMA
Aliso Creek 19,995 87% 40.8
Irvine Ranch Coastal
Area 8,700 - 17.8
San Diego Creek 6,500 7% 13.3
Laguna Canyon 5,800 100% 11.8
Salt Creek 4,450 98% 9.1
Laguna Beach 2,150 - 4.4
South Laguna Beach 850 - 1.7
San Juan Creek 500 0.4% 1.0
48,905 100.0
The major portion (over 40%) of the AWMA service area drains into the Aliso
Creek which traverses the Study Area in a southwesterly direction from the
northerly boundary of the Los Alisos Water District. Smaller portions of
the AWMA service area fall within the watershed systems of San Diego Creek,
Laguna Canyon, Salt Creek and San Juan Creek. The Irvine Ranch Coastal,
Laguna Beach and South Laguna Beach drainage areas each represent a series of
sub-watershed zones draining directly to the ocean from the first west-east
n'dgeline.
2-1
-------
Although the major portion of the AWMA service area is generally moderately
hilly, the study area may be divided into three major topographic areas:
1. The coastal zone with alluvial fans and terraces. Much of the
population resides within this narrow band and is represented by
the communities of Emerald Bay, City of Laguna Beach, South Laguna
Beach, and Laguna Miguel.
2. Stream valleys and flood plains, which include AlisOj San Diego,
Laguna and Salt Creeks, and other smaller tributaries.
3. Hilly region of the coastal and Santa Ana Mountain Foothills, with
extremely rough terrain found in the Irvine Ranch Coastal area,
Laguna Canyon and lower Aliso Canyon.
The remainder of this section and Section 2.1.5 Hydrology describes each of
the watershed areas in some detail.
2.1.2 Aliso Creek Watershed
The Aliso Creek Watershed System lies entirely within the south central por-
tion of Orange County. Aliso Creek originates in the lower slopes of the
Santa Ana Mountains, and flows in a southwesterly direction for approximately
20 miles to the Pacific Ocean, just south of Laguna Beach. The stream drains
an area of approximately 23,000 acres within Orange County and is bounded on
the northeast by hilly coastal uplands and on the southeast and northwest by
rolling coastal uplands. Land forms range in elevation from sea level to
about 2,300 feet above mean sea level in the Santa Ana Mountains. Stream
gradients range from an average of about 25 feet per mile upstream of the
ocean to about 125 feet per mile near the source of the creek. The stream is
well defined and contains short reaches of channel improvements. Vegetation
in the watershed varies considerably. In the higher regions there is dense
growth of chaparral, scattered brush and grasses while in the lowlands
coastal sage and grasses predominate.
Aliso Creek has three major tributaries: Wood Canyon (2,752 acres) and
Sulphur Creek (5,952 acres) in the lower watershed and English Canyon (1,792
acres) in the upper watershed.
Runoff in the basin is very erratic with almost no flow for many months at
a time. Climate and watershed area characteristics are not conducive to
continuous flow; therefore, little streamflow occurs except during and
immediately following rains. Runoff increases rapidly in response to rain-
fall excess.
2.1.3 Irvine Ranch Coastal Area
The Irvine Ranch Coastal Area represents a series of north-south trending
canyons originating on the San Joaquin Ridgeline and all individually
draining into the Pacific Ocean. This area extends along the coast from
the city limits of Corona del Mar to the western city limits of the City
of Laguna Beach. The total drainage area represents over 8,700 acres and
2-2
-------
ranges in elevation from' sea level to about 1,000 feet above mean sea level
along the San Joaquin Ridge. Vegetation is represented primarily by coastal
sage scrub and chaparral, with grass cover near the coast.
The major canyons include: Buck Gully, Los Trancos, Muddy, Moro and Emerald
Canyon. Water flow in the canyons is ephemeral and runoff increases rapidly
in response to excessive rainfall.
2.1.4 San Diego Creek Watershed
Only 7% of the 96,000 acre San Diego Creek Watershed lies within the AWMA
service area. The total drainage area is bounded on the northeast by hilly
coastal uplands (within AWMA), on the southeast and southwest by rolling to
steep coastal uplands (within AWMA), and on the west by level alluvium. The
entire watershed area ranges in elevation from sea level at Newport Bay, to
about 1,700 feet above mean sea level in the Santa Ana Mountain foothills.
The stream gradients in the AWMA area reach 25 feet per mile. The stream
channel is well defined over its entire length. Vegetation in the AWMA area
is represented by a dense growth of coastal sage scrub, chaparral, scattered
brush and grasses in the northern portion and urbanized landscaping and
eucalyptus rows in the south. Citrus tree development has occurred exten-
sively in the Serrano Creek watershed north of Trabuco Road.
The major tributary to San Diego Creek in the AWMA area is Serrano Creek
which comprises almost 50% (about 3,200 acres) of this portion of the water-
shed. In addition, San Diego Creek makes its origin near the intersection of
Trabuco Road and El Toro Road, making up the remaining 3,200 acres.
Runoff from the watershed is very erratic with almost no flow for many months
at a time. Climatic and drainage area characteristics are not conducive to
continuous flow, therefore streamflow occurs during and immediately follow-
ing rains. Runoff increases rapidly in response to rainfall excess.
Until recently, percolation to the creek from the Rossmoor Treatment Plant
spray-irrigation disposal maintained some flow in the portion of the creek
just downstream of the plant. Spraying has recently been abandoned due to
the potential pollution of Upper Newport Bay.
2.1.5 Laguna Canyon Watershed
Canyon, from its headwaters in the San Joaquin Hills to the mouth of
the Pacific Ocean, drains an area of some 5,800 acres. The entire watershed
area lies within AWMA and is bounded by the rolling hills of the San Diego
Creek watershed to the north., the steep canyons of the Aliso Creek water-
shed to the east, the rough and steep terrain Irvine Ranch Coastal area to
the west and the Pacific Ocean to the south.
The watershed (see plate 1) is oriented with its long axis roughly north,
about 6 miles in length and averages about 1.4 miles in width. The highest
elevation in the basin is 1,063 feet. About 80 percent of the area in the
basin consists of rugged hills: the remainder consists of. well-defined
canyon floor and the coastal plain. Vegetation in the watershed varies
2-3
-------
considerably. In the higher regions there is a dense growth of chaparral,
scattered brush and grasses while in the lowlands coastal sage and grasses
predominate. Laguna Canyon also contains several endangered plant species
and the unique marsh habitat of the Laguna Lakes.
The total fall of Laguna Canyon from its headwaters to the ocean is 450 feet,
.with an average fall of 67 feet per mile.
The only significant tributary to Laguna Canyon is the East Fork of Laguna
Canyon (about 2 000 acres) located along El Toro Road.
As with most other creeks in Orange County, runoff in Laguna Creek is very
erratic. Existing flood control facilities consist of a shallow lagoon in
the uppermost reach of the watershed and an improved channel in the lower
reaches which extends for 2 miles to the Pacific Ocean. Urban runoff in this
channel maintains somewhat a flow of water during the dry season.
2.1.6 Salt Creek Watershed
The Salt Creek Watershed area located in the southeast portion of the AWMA
service area consists of approximately 4,550 acres, roughly bounded on the
west and northwest by the Miguel Hills, on the east and southeast by the ridge
of Salt Creek and Trabuco/San Juan Creek watersheds, and on the south by the
Pacific Ocean between Dana Point and Monarch Bay. Only a small portion of
the watershed in its southeastern corner lies outside the AWMA area. For
the most part, the drainage area is defined by natural ridgelines which clearly
. form major watershed boundaries.
The topography of the area is dominated by rolling hills, with hillsides
varying from mode"rate inclines to 50+ percent slopes, and several stream
courses interlacing the area. Elevations range from sea level to 936 feet
atop Niguel Hill and 700 feet along the Trabuco-San Juan Watershed divide.
Vegetation is comprised primarily of overgrazed grassland with only remnants
of the coastal sage community east of Arroyo Salada.
The Salt Creek Watershed consists of several branch tributary streams, in-
cluding Arroyo Salada and San Juan Canyon (not the San Juan Creek located
adjacent to San Juan Capistrano). About 50% of the Laguna Niguel drainage
area ultimately drains into Salt Creek. The total length of the main Salt
Creek Stream is about four miles.
The Salt Creek Watershed is the smallest watershed system in the AWMA
service area. Runoff characteristics are similar to other watersheds of the
area,-except that this drainage system will probably display even more
erratic patterns of flow and is dryer for longer periods throughout the year.
Salt Creek and San Juan Canyon are well defined water courses, with relatively
steep canyon sides.
2-4
-------
2.1.7 Laguna Beach and South Laguna Beach Watersheds
The Laguna Beach and South Laguna Beach Watersheds represent about 6% of
the AWMA service area. Their combined 3,000 acre drainage area is very
similar to the Irvine Ranch Coastal Watershed with the exception that ex-
tensive residential growth has occurred along the coast and into the hills
above the communities of Laguna Beach and South Laguna. Elevations reach
up to 900 feet on the ridgelines separating these drainage areas from Aliso
Creek and Laguna Canyon Watershed Systems.
2.1.8 San Juan Creek Watershed
Although the San Juan Creek Watershed comprises over 110,000 acres in South-
eastern Orange County, only 500 acres or 0.4% is represented in the AWMA
service area. Most of the terrain is sloping hillside east of the Salt Creek
Ridge!ine divide. Elevations extend from 600 feet atop the ridge down to
about 250 feet. No defined tributary system exists; only a series of easterly
trending gullies cut the broad slope. The entire area is covered with annual
grasses.
2.2 TOPOGRAPHY
The general topographic features of the Aliso Water Management Agency were
described in Section 2.1, Geographic Setting. This section summarizes an
analysis of the slope characteristics for each watershed and their relation-
ship to future urbanization. The analysis is based on information derived
from the North American Rockwell Natural Resources Study prepared for the
County of Orange and soils data supplied by the U.S. Soil Conservation Ser-
vice, Orange County.
Table 2-2 describes the slope analysis breakdown for the AWMA area. About
57% of the area represents slopes over 31% in grade and can generally be
classified as undevelopable. 11% of the AWMA area is represented by slopes of
16 to 30% and could be developed, but with some difficulty. Only 32% of the
AWMA region has slopes in the 0 to 15% range, which could be easily developed;
however, most of these lowland areas have already been urbanized. Develop-
ment in these areas will be discussed in more detail in Sections 2.11, Land
Use and 4.0, Secondary Impacts.
Based upon the above topographic analysis, future urbanization in the AWMA
region will probably fill the remaining low lying areas with higher densities
and develop the foothills (16 to 30% slopes) with low density and clustered
units. The vast majority of the area will remain in natural open space.
Additional development constraints (to be discussed in the following section
of this chapter), such as geologic faults, landslides, flood plains, sensi-
tive ecologic areas, etc., will probably demand that more than 75% of the AWMA
region be left in natural open space.
2-5
-------
TABLE 2-2
SLOPE ANALYSIS BREAKDOWN
FOR THE AWMA AREA
Name of Watershed
Aliso Creek Watershed
Irvine Ranch Coastal
Laguna Beach
Laguna Canyon
Salt Creek Watershed
San Diego Creek Watershed
San Juan Creek Watershed
South Laguna Beach
Total Figures for Water-
shed Systems of AWMA Area
0-15%
Slope
% of
Acres Area
5,987
1,044
1,505
1,160
1,558
4,225
30%
12%
70%
20%
35%
65%
510 60%
16-30%
Slope
Acres
2,993
696
290
1,300
% of
Area
15%
8%
5%
20%
+31%
Slope
Total
Acres
Acres Watershed
10,975
6,960
645
4,350
2,892
975
500
340
55%
80%
30%
75%
65%
15%
100%
40%
19,
8,
2,
5,
4,
6,
955
700
150
800
450
500
500
850
15.989 32% 5,279 11% 27.637 57% 48.905
2.3 GEOLOGY
2.3.1 General
The AWMA region lies in the southeastern part of Orange County. It is also the
most southeasterly portion of the large geologic province known as the Los
Angeles Basin. The rock formations found within this area were deposited in a
trough called the Capistrano Embayment. There have been many periods of sub-
mergence when fairly thick marine sediments accumulated. These periods were
followed by slow uplifts which resulted in the deposition of nearshore sedi-
ments and finally continental deposits, with erosional features being developed
on the uplifted surface. The probable basement rock in this locale is the
crystalline plutonic complex that is exposed in the higher parts of the Santa
Ana Mountains. This complex is not exposed within the area of study.
2.3.2 Topography
Topographically, the area can be divided into three provinces. Along the
northerly boundary there is a narrow band of low, rounded hills. These are
the outer expression of the foothills of the Santa Ana Mountains. South of
these hills lies a portion of theElToro Plain which has been formed by the
outwash material from the mountains. By far the largest portion is the re-
mainder which is made up of rather steep-sided hills and well-eroded valleys
of the San Joaquin Hills. The soil mantel on the hills is normally very thin,
but some of the large valleys can have up to 200 feet of soil deposited within
them. This topography continues to the ocean, which is the southerly boundary
of the area.
2-6
-------
2.3.3 Stratigraphic Description
There are numerous geologic formations exposed within the boundaries of the
agency. These have been mapped by California Divison of Mines and Geology
and appear in their 1973 Report Number 15. By far the greater percentage
consists of rather weakly cemented marine deposits which may have small areas
of more resistant rocks incorporated within them. The oldest formation that
has been mapped is a medium- to coarse-grained sandstone and grit that con-
tains stringers of conglomerate and clay. This has been named the Silverado
Formation and is dated geologically in the Paleocene Epoch. There are only
minor outcrops of this rock, chiefly in the western section making up about
1% of the AWMA area. This formation has been mined extensively in the Santa
Ana Mountain foothills.
In ascending order the next series of rocks is the Vaqueros-Sespe Formations,
which make up about 7% of the AWMA area. These consist of beds of buff, red,
white, or green sandstones and gritty conglomerates. In places these beds
become very well cemented, forming the steeper cliffs seen along Laguna Can-
yon Road, especially in the area north of the El Toro Road intersection.
These two formations are extremely similar, lithologically, and are often
mapped together as Vaqueros-Sespe, undifferentiated. The Sespe is somewhat
older, having started in the Upper Eocene Epoch, continuing perhaps through
the Oligocene, and terminating in the Lower Miocene Epoch. The Vaqueros
has been placed in the Upper Oligocene and Lower Miocene by some workers.
There has been some intrusion of diabasic and andesitic igneous dikes and
sills into these formations. These intrusions are located west of Laguna
Canyon Road. Both of these formations are easily excavated and serve as
good fill material.
Next in the sequence of rocks is the Topanga Formation, representing over 25%
of the AWMA area, primarily in the San Joaquin Hills. The formation is fairly
widespread north of the City of Laguna Beach and also outcrops along the nor-
therly boundary of the agency. Like the Vaqueros-Sespe, it contains well
cemented horizons on the east side of Laguna Canyon below the El Toro Road
intersection and the cave areas in Temple Hills. It is composed of medium-
to coarse-grain sandstones and grit, with some rather extensive conglomerate
beds. Incorporated within this unit are some welded-tuff volcanic ash beds
which are very resistant to erosion. Generally, this formation is found north
of the City of Laguna Beach, between Laguna Canyon and Aliso Creek. The
Topanga has been placed in the Middle Miocene Epoch. The Topanga Formation
would require hard continuous heavy duty ripping and probable moderate blast-
ing in sandstone. It serves as poor to fair fill material, depending on the
percentage of large blocks derived from ripping and/or blasting.
The next formation to be noted is the well known, but controversial Middle
Miocene Epoch San Onofre Breccia, which makes up about 5% of the AWMA area,
and occurs primarily in the south coastal area. Lithologically, this unit
varies from a very coarse earthy breccia containing rocks up to 10 feet or
more in size, to fine weak sandstones, and even lenses of fine-grained dia-
tomaceous shales and silts. These variations can take place in remarkably
short lateral or vertical distances. The coarse breccia phase is believed
to have been formed by submarine lands!iding or the sliding of continental
(land formed) deposits into an existing marine environment. The rocks making
2-7
-------
up the breccia are glaucophane schists of the Catalina type, and obviously came
from the west. In some areas, the breccias are generally well cemented and
form the prominent sea bluff south of Laguna Beach and at Dana Point. Some
of the cementing may be attributed to highly siliceous submarine volcanic
emanations that may have been occurring during the depositional period of the
breccias. This formation is generally located near the mouth of Aliso Creek
south to Dana Point. Smaller outcrops are noted further inland, and recent
work indicates that this unit may be more widespread than previously thought.
At places, interbedded with the San Onofre Breccia is the next unit of the
geologic column. It has been named Monterey Shale and consists of beds of
diatomite, sandy silts, sandstones, and limestones. The limestones are highly
fossiliferous in some localities, containing pectens, clams, and bryozoans.
The main outcrops of Monterey Shale are found west of Aliso Creek, extending
westerly and northerly of the area of El Toro Road. Some of the silty shales
are highly diatomaceous and very light weight. Small outcrops are found along
the northern boundary, and at places on the Tustin Plain where a limestone
phase is found just under the soil surface. Monterey Shale is placed in
the Middle Miocene Epoch.
Above the Monterey Shale lie two formations which are similar in lithology.
These are the Pliocene sediments named the Capistrano and Miguel Formations.
They are fine-grained interbedded silts and sands, with lenses of conglomer-
ate occurring occasionally. The Capistrano has a fairly well-defined zone
of limestone concretions near the base. In the northern portion of the area,
the predominate outcrops are of the Oso Member of the Capistrano Formation.
This consists of a poorly cemented white- to light-grey sand of remarkably
even size. This sand is highly susceptible to erosion and is forming a bad-
land type of topography at various places. The Pliocene Miguel Formation has
fairly coarse conglomerates within it, which help in distinguishing it from
the Capistrano. These two formations are found primarily in the rolling area
east of the middle reaches of Aliso Creek in the central area, Salt Creek
in the southern area, and Trabuco Creek on the east. They also outcrop ex-
tensively in the northeast portion of the agency. Here the silty shales are
interbedded with the sands of the Oso Member. Some of the dark green shales
are well indurated where they have not been weathered.
The Monterey, Miguel, and Capistrano Formations, combined, make up about 42%
of the AWMA region, primarily in the eastern half of the area. All of these
bedrock units are readily excavated. They all also represent fair to good fill
material; however, Monterey and Capistrano material may require some special
compaction effort. Landsliding, erosion and expansive top soils are also
characteristic of these bedrock units.
Occurring particularly along the present coastline, and otherwise generally
scattered throughout the area, are the youngest of the geologic units. These
are identified as the Quaternary (Pleistocene) terrace deposits. There are
three types of deposits here. The first is marine terrace material which
represents a beach type of deposit with perhaps some lagoonal deposits inter-
bedded. These were deposited on wavecut terraces, indicative of periods when
the sea level was higher than at the present time. The second type of terrace
is found further inland. They represent what originally was old depositional
2-8
-------
surfaces of the outwash fans from the mountains. Subsequent regional uplift
or tilting has given rise to greater velocities in the existing streams, thus
allowing the streams to cut down into the deposits, leaving these stream
terraces perched above the present stream beds or capping the mesas between
drainage courses. The third type of terrace is found near the present coast
and is formed of a combination of marine terrace material and colluvium or
outwash material from the adjacent hills. All of these terraces consist of
beds of rounded cobbles and pebbles, coarse sands, and reddish, earthy ma-
terial. Some beds have been slightly tilted or deformed, indicating that they
have been in existence since the Lower Pleistocene Epoch.
Recent alluvium is found in most of the creekbeds excepting the steep upper
reaches and depths from 20 to 100 feet. The alluvium consists of gravel,
sand and loam which were washed from the valley walls and accumulated in the
streambeds.
Terrace and alluvial units make up about 20% of the AWMA region and are
easily excavated. Some alluvial deposits may be good sources of sand and
gravel, but none reach the proportions of those found in Arroyo Trabuco or
San Juan Canyon.
2.3.4 Geologic Processes
Stream and marine wave erosion during the Pleistocene Epoch cut into under-
lying bedrock. Subsequently, sporadic uplift combined with a gradual world-
wide lowering of sea level resulting in the elevation of these surfaces above
the level of active erosion and their preservation to the present day.
Beginning about 15,000 years ago, sea level began to rise again. Aliso,
Arroyo Trabuco and San Juan Creeks formed broad, alluviated valleys that cut
several hundred feet deep in the sedimentary bedrock of the surrounding,
steep-sided, rounded hills.
Continental and marine terrace deposition took place during the Pleistocene
Epoch and consist of silt, sand, gravel and rubble. Terrace deposits are
stream, marine and non-marine cover in origin.
Extensive terrace deposits are found parallel and adjacent to the coast.
Smaller erosional remnants of the terrace deposits are scattered at higher
elevations throughout the hills of the AWMA region.
Outside of the flood plain areas, erosion has been the dominant geologic
force acting in the past few thousand years. The uplifted, relatively weak
sedimentary bedrock of the Monterey and Capistrano Formations has been in-
cised by intermittent streams, forming small steep-sided valleys. The
characteristically rounded hills are the result of erosion and a combina-
tion of climatic and geologic factors.
Significant in the geomorphic process has been the generally deeply weathered
and moderately to highly fractured nature of the bedrock in the eastern por-
tion of the AWMA area. Even where fresh, the bedrock typically possesses
rather poor strength characteristics. It is the weak physical state of the
2-9
-------
of the bedrock in combination with infrequent intense rainstorms that saturate
the bedrock and raise groundwater levels that cause the majority of the bed-
rock landslides in the area. Structural features of the bedrock, particularly
bedding, jointing and shear zones, undoubtedly contribute to the potential
for slope failure in some areas. Wherever planar surfaces in the bedrock
(such as bedding) are inclined in an unsupported manner out-of-slope, a
natural surface of potential failure exists.
2.3.5 Mass Movements
Many of the landslides present in the AWMA region are probably quite ancient,
dating back several thousand years. They probably occurred during a more
humid period or periods when sea level was lower and local streams were
actively .downcutting their channels. These older slides present a subdued
hummocky topography in contrast to more recent slides where bedrock is fre-
quently exposed in paged scraps and where the topography is more blocky and
irregular.
Relatively few landslides or suspected landslides in the general area have
been investigated in detail, but it does appear that many of the older slides
have not moved in many years and have become naturally stabilized. Those
which have been investigated in detail were confirmed to be landslides or were
shown to be erosionally related features.
Landsliding in the area is due primarily to faulting and secondarily to over-
steepening caused by erosion of the arroyos. All other landslide areas are
superficial slumps or creep zones.
2.3.6 Structure
Not unlike the rest of the Pacific Coast, this area has been subjected to
considerable tectonic stress and strain. A detailed mapping of this area
appears in Report 15 Geologic (1973) by California Division of Mines and
Geology. This is particularly noted in the area to the west of Laguna
Canyon, where a complex of northwesterly trending faults have been mapped
in the older rocks. The Pelican Hill and Shady Canyon Fault Zones originate
in this area. In the younger rocks to the east the tectonic forces are ex-
pressed by more or less gentle folding and warping. These fault zones pro-
bably limit the development over about 5% of the AWMA area, primarily in the
southwestern area. The area north of the San Diego Freeway is devoid of
faults. There are undoubtedly faults in the eastern portion that have been
obscured due to the relative incompetency of the sediments. There is a
regional system of rather steeply dipping jointing in the younger rocks.
This accounts for the "blocky" appearance of material on some erosional
surfaces. In many cases, these joints have been filled with deposits of
gypsum or calcite by water percolating through the formations.
Although presently there are no obvious zones of seismic activity within
thejuagency area, there are surrounding zones which have been, active in re-
cent: time. The most important of these is the Newport-Inglewood zone of
deformation to the southwest. Movement along this point is believed to have
beerti responsible for the earthquake of 1933. This quake caused considerable
2-10
-------
property damage throughout Long Beach, Compton, and western Orange County,
as well as more than 100 deaths. The partial destruction of the San Juan
Capistrano Mission in 1812 has been attributed to movement on the Christian!to?
Fault, located to the northeast of AWMA. Since this event occurred long before
the advent of scientific instruments to properly locate and record seismic
disturbances, it is conjectural that the Christianitos was responsible and
this fault has been considered to be inactive. However, in January, 1975, tv/o
small earthquakes were recorded which are believed to have originated on the
Christianitos Fault near Trabuco Canyon. The epicenters were not precisely
located, but they were estimated to have been at a depth of 3 and 4^ miles
with magnitudes of 3.8 and 3.3 on the Richter Scale, respectively. No sur-
face disturbance has been discovered, although the earthquakes were of suf-
ficient strength to have caused visual surface evidence. The Christianitos
Fault can now be considered potentially active.
Groundshaking may also be initiated by seismic and fault activity outside of
the southern Orange County region. The Elsinore, Whittier, San Jacinto, and
San Andreas Faults have in the past, and probably will in the future, impact
the AWMA area. Table 2-3 describes the potential effect of these faults
on the geologic units of the AWMA region. The Table also gives the average
distance of each fault from the AWMA area and Exhibit 2-1 indicates the loca-
tion of each fault.
2.3.7 Mineral Resources
The geology exhibited within the boundaries of the Aliso Water Management
Agency is fairly typical of the coastal areas of Southern California. Eco-
nomically, the only resource being obtained within the boundary at the present
time is sand and gravel (Site 128 on California Division of Mines and Geology
Report Number 15, 1973). Many of the major oil companies have done extensive
studies in the area, but have failed to bring in any producing wells. Com-
mercial clay deposits occur just north of the area and may also occur within
the boundary. The State of California Division of Mines and Geology Report No
15, 1973, indicates additional areas containing mineral resources, primarily
within the Moulton Ranch Planning Reserve. These are:
Site Number 43 - Diatomite Deposits
Site Number 62 - Lime Deposits - mined before 1953
Site Number 73 - Phosphate Beds
Site Number 93 - Borrow Site
2.3.8 Geologic Constraints
Table 2-4 summarizes the geologic constraints on urbanization in the AWMA
area. These figures are only approximations and may be inaccurate to 15%.
Approximately 401^ of the AWMA area will be limited to urbanization by geo-
logic constraints. This represents about 19,502 acres, primarily occurring in
the San Joaquin Hills to the north and the Laguna HiTls to the south.
2-11
-------
TABLE 2-3
MAXIMUM PROBABLE EARTHQUAKES AND SEISMIC SHAKING CHARACTERISTICS
Important
Regional
Faults
Cristianitos
Newport-
Inglewood
Elsinore
Whittier
San Jacinto
San Andreas
Approximate
Distance to
AWMA
(miles)
3-4
to
Newport Bay
20±
53*
Maximum
Magnitude
(Richter)
of
Historic
Earthquakes
Maximum
Probable
Earthquake
Magnitude
(Richter)
Considered
to be poten-
tially active
6.3 6.6
(1933)
5.5 7.2
(1938)
3.2 6.8
(1971)
7.1 7.5
(1940)
(Seven quakes
of M greater
than 6.0 since
1918)
6.5 7.7
(1948)
Estimated (1)
Maximum
Base Rock
Acceleration
(g)
0.21
0.24
0.21
0.14
0.10
Estimated (2)
Maximum
Ground
Acceleration
(g)
0.35
0.40
0.30
0.20
0.20
Predominant (3)
Period of
Base Rock
Motion
(Seconds)
0.3
0.35
0.3
0.4
0.5
Probable
Duration
Strong
Shaking
(Seconds)
19
30
22
40
46
(4)
of
-
(1) Schnable and Seed, 1972
(2) Matthiesen, et al, 1972
(3) Seed, et al, 1969
(4) Geological Survey Circular 672, 1972
-------
property damage throughout Long Beach, Compton, and western Orange County,
as well as more than 100 deaths. The partial destruction of the San Juan
Capistrano Mission in 1812 has been attributed to movement on the Christianitos
Fault, located to the northeast of AWMA. Since this event occurred long before
the advent of scientific instruments to properly locate and record seismic
disturbances, it is conjectural that the Christianitos was responsible and
this fault has been considered to be inactive. However, in January, 1975, two
small earthquakes were recorded which are believed to have originated on the
Christianitos Fault near Trabuco Canyon. The epicenters were not precisely
located, but they were estimated to have been at a depth of 3 and 4^ miles
with magnitudes of 3.8 and 3.3 on the Richter Scale, respectively. No sur-
face disturbance has been discovered, although the earthquakes were of suf-
ficient strength to have caused visual surface evidence. The Christianitos
Fault can now be considered potentially active.
Groundshaking may also be initiated by seismic and fault activity outside of
the southern Orange County region. The Elsinore, Whittier, San Jacinto, and
San Andreas Faults have in the past, and probably will in the future, impact
the AWMA area. Table 2-3 describes the potential effect of these faults
on the geologic units of the AWMA region. The Table also gives the average
distance of each fault from the AWMA area and Exhibit 2-1 indicates the loca-
tion of each fault.
2.3.7 Mineral Resources
The geology exhibited within the boundaries of the Aliso Water Management
Agency is fairly typical of the coastal areas of Southern California. Eco-
nomically, the only resource being obtained within the boundary at the present
time is sand and gravel (Site 128 on California Division of Mines and Geology
Report Number 15, 1973). Many of the major oil companies have done extensive
studies in the area, but have failed to bring in any producing wells. Com-
mercial clay deposits occur just north of the area and may also occur within
the boundary. The State of California Division of Mines and Geology Report No
15, 1973, indicates additional areas containing mineral resources, primarily
within the Moulton Ranch Planning Reserve. These are:
Site Number 43 - Diatomite Deposits
Site Number 62 - Lime Deposits - mined before 1953
Site Number 73 - Phosphate Beds
Site Number 93 - Borrow Site
2.3.8 Geologic Constraints
Table 2-4 summarizes the geologic constraints on urbanization in the AWMA
area. These figures are only approximations and may be inaccurate to 15%.
Approximately 40%+ of the AWMA area will be limited to urbanization by geo-
logic constraints. This represents about 19,502 acres, primarily occurring in
the San Joaquin Hills to the north and the Laguna Hills to the south.
2-11
-------
TABLE 2-3
MAXIMUM PROBABLE EARTHQUAKES AND SEISMIC SHAKING CHARACTERISTICS
Important
Regional
Faults
Cristianitos
Newport-
Ingle wood
Elsinqre
Whittier
San Jacinto
Approximate
Distance to
AWMA
(miles)
3-4
17-
to
Newport Bay
20-
21*
43-
Maximum
Magnitude
(Ri enter)
of
Historic
Earthquakes
Considered
to be poten-
tially, active
6.3
(1933)
5.5
(1938)
3.2
(1971)
7.1
(1940)
(Seven quakes
of M greater
Maximum
Probable
Earthquake
Magnitude
(Richter)
6.6
-
7.2
6.8
7.5
Estimated (1)
Maximum
Base Rock
Acceleration
(g)
0.21
0.24
0.21
0.14
Estimated (2)
Maximum
Ground
Acceleration
(g)
0.35
0.40
0.30
0.20
Predominant (3)
Period of
Base Rock
Motion
(Seconds)
0.3
0.35
0.3
0.4
Probable (4)
Duration of
Strong
Shaking
(Seconds)
19
30
22
40
than 6.0 since
San Andreas
53±
1918)
6.5
(1948)
7.7
0.10
0.20
0.5
46
(1) Schnable and Seed, 1972
(2) Matthiesen, et aU 1972
(3) Seed, et al, 1969
(4) Geological Survey Circular 672, 1972
-------
SAN BERNARDINO
TORRANCE
HUNTINGTON BEACH S COSTA MESA
NEWPORT BEACH
'LACUNA BEACH
Earthquake Epicenters
4.0-4-4
4.5-4.9
>5.0
:SANCLEMENTE
SEISMIC INDEX MAP
Exhibit 2-1
-------
TABLE 2-4
GEOLOGIC CONSTRAINTS ON POPULATION
GROWTH IN THE AWMA REGION
Percent of AWMA Number of
Area Acres
Excavation Constraints 30 14,626
Mass Movements 20 9,751
Fault Zones _5_ 2.438
TOTAL 55 26,815
Minus Overlap 15 7,313
TOTAL GEOLOGIC CONSTRAINTS AREA 40%+ 19,502
2.4 SOILS
2.4.1 General Soil Map of Orange County
The Soil Conservation Service under the auspices of the United States De-
partment of Agriculture is responsible for the classification and distribu-
tion of information about soils in the United States. A general Soils Map
of Orange County was published in 1966 (currently under revision) by the Soil
Conservation Service which offers delineation of different geographic areas
and shows the general pattern of soils which occur within each area. Each
area on the map is made up of one or two extensive soils, usually similar in
major soils characteristics. Included within these areas are minor areas of
contrasting soils. Each of these areas on the map is called the soil associa-
tion and is named for the major soils it contains.
The General Soils Map is useful for providing information about soil resources
of communities, districts, or counties. This information can be used for
preliminary planning for agriculture, urban, engineering, watershed, recrea-
tion or wildlife development. For example, it can be used to identify areas
of "prime" agricultural land, areas which may have severe restrictions for
septic tank filter field, or places where expansive soils may be a problem
in constructing roads or for building foundations. Collectively, soil asso-
ciation characteristics may be used to predict the location and density of
future land uses in the AWMA region. Further discussion of this concept is
presented below in Section 2.4.3.
2-12
-------
2.4.2 Soils Characteristics
Soils of the AWMA region are characteristic of the Southern California
Coastal Plain physiographic area. The United States Department of Agri-
culture, Soil Conservation Service is currently preparing revised Soil Survey
for the Orange County area and categorizes the area into 13 Soil Associa-
tions. These soils associations are basically representative of the coastal
and foothill areas of the Southern California Coastal Zone. Table 2-5 indi-
cates each soil association occurring in the AWMA area and its specific prop-
erties and characteristics.
The soil associations may be further categorized to reflect the general
characteristics of soils derived from different geologic units. Four basic
"super-associations" occur in the AWMA region.
2.4.2.1 Soils on Recent Alluvial Fans and Plains
These include well-drained permeable soils located on nearly-level, to
gently-sloping (1 to 5 percent slope) alluvial fans and plains. The Cor-
ral i ties (ciAB), Mocho-Sorrento (MM-sb-B) and Sorrento-Mocho (sb-MM-A)
Associations are derived from these geologic units and represent approxi-
mately 12.5% of the AWMA area.
2.4.2.2 Soils on Older Alluvial Fans and Terraces
These soils are well-drained with moderate-to-slow permeability, located on
gently-to-moderately sloping (0 to 9 percent slope) alluvial fans and ter-
races. The Bicknell (Bu-BC), Botella (Bk-BC), Huerhuero-Aliso (He-AM-BD2),
and Marina-Garey (Mg-Gd-BC) Associations are derived from these geologic
units and represent approximately 16% of the AWMA area.
2.4.2.3 Soils on Marine Sediments
These soils are well-drained, moderately deep and moderately alkaline to
slightly acid with medium-to-slow permeability. The Altament-Diablo (An-Dl-
E2 and An-Dl-F2), Newville (Nn-EF-2) and San Andreas-San Benito (Se-SF-FG2)
Associations are derived from this geologic unit and represent approximately
66.5% of the AWMA area.
2.4.2.4 Miscellaneous Types
These include beaches (sand and gravel), riverwash (barren alluvial land
subject to frequent changes), rough broken land (RB, steep land broken by
numerous intermittent streams with chaparral and other similar vegetation),
and terrace escarpments (TY, steep even fronts of alluvial terraces). Uses
of these soils include recreation and urban purposes (beaches); groundwater
recharge and construction materials (riverwash); and wildlife and watershed
(rough broken land and terrace escarpments). They represent about 5% of the
AWMA area.
2-13
-------
TABLE 2-5
SPECIFIC SOIL PROPERTIES OF THE AWMA AREA
Percent of
Soil AWMA Percent
Assoc. Area Slope
ci-AB
MM-sb-B
sb-MM-A
Bu-BC
BK-BC
HE-AM-BD2
Mg-Gd-BC2
An-Dl-DE2
An-Dl-F2
Nn-EF2
Se-Sf-F62
RB-TY
.5
7.0
5.0
5.0
.5
10.0
.5
5.0
30.0
1.5
30.0:
5.0
0-5
2-5
0
2-9
2-9
2-9
2-15
2-9
9-30
30-50
'15-50
30-75
Capability
Unit
IIIs4
Ilel
1-1
Ilel
Ilel
IVe3
IIIs4
IVe5
VIe5
VIel
Vllel
VHIel
Perm- AWH
eability Capacity
Rapid
Mod.
Mod.
Mod.
Mod.
Slow
Clay pan
Very
Slow
Mod.
Slow
Slow
Slow
Mod.
Varies
3-4.5
10-12
10-12
7.5-8.5
10-12
2-3.5
7.5-815
5,0-7.0
5.0-7.0
3.0-5.0
3.0-6.5
Varies
Runoff
Slow
Med.
Slow
Med.
Med.
Med.-
Rapid
Med.
Med.-
Rapid
Rapid
Med.-
Rapid
Very
Rapid
Rapid
Erosion Depth to
Potential Fertility Bedrock
None
SI i ght to
Moderate
None
Slight to
Moderate
Slight to
Moderate
Med. -
High
Mod. -
High
Mod.
High
Med.-
High
Very
High
Very
High
Low
Med.
High
Med.
High
Low
Med.
High
Low
Low
High-
Med.
High-
Med
Med.
Med.
Very
Low
60+
60+
60+
60+
60+
10-
20"
60+
20-
40"
20-
40"
20-
40"
20-
40"
0-
10"
Shrink-
Swell
Poten.
Low
Mod.
Mod.
Low
Mod.
High
Low
High
High
High
Mod.
Low
Hy-
drol.
Grp.
A
B
B
B
C
D
A
D
D
D
C
D
-------
2.4.3. Soil Interpretations "
The General Soil Map shows^ the general pattern of dominant soils for Orange
County. Several interpretations can be made of these soil association map
units for general land planning purposes. These interpretations are based on
soil characteristics and qualities and predictions for the major soils within
the mapping unit as to their behavior for a specific purpose. All interpre-
tations are based on a soil depth of five feet or less than five feet where
bedrock is encountered at a lesser depth.
The soil association map units for th AWMA Region are interpreted into several
.different groupings and are noted in Table 1. Some of these are shown in the
Index of Soil Mapping Units and Interpretive Groupings in the SCS 1966 report.
All ratings are very general and not suited for on-site planning. Some of
the more important groupings are analyzed below to their relationship in pre-
dicting future urban growth in the AWMA area. Probably the most important
classification is that of land capability.
2.4.3.1 Land Capability Classification
The Land Capability Classification provides a comprehensive compilation of
characteristics similar for a number of soil associations which can be used
for preliminary planning in agriculture, urban, engineering, watershed, re-
creation or wildlife development. These classifications are further broken
down into sub-groups based on some of the characteristics described in Table
2-5 (refer to SCS, 1966, General Soils Report).
The capability groups do not take into account major alterations of the land
that would change slope, depth or other characteristics of the soils.
Class I soils have few limitations, the widest range of use, and the least
risk of damage when used. Soils in other classes have progressively greater
.natural limitations. In the AWMA Region, approximately 6,300 acres (13
percent) are Class I and II soils, suitable for permanent cultivation, with
Tittle or no alterations necessary. There are about 7,800 acres (16 percent)
of Class III and IV soils. Crops may be cultivated on these soils for only
short periods of time, and intense conservation practices are necessary.
Classes VI-VII cover about 32,200 acres (66 percent) of the watershed, not
suitable for agricultural use. Class VIII is about 2,400 acres (5 percent)
of the watershed, unsuitable for cultivation or grazing use, and may be
steep, shallow, rocky, severely eroded, or subject to periodic stream over-
flow.
In general, the Land Capability Classifications reflect land suitable for
intense urbanization. Classes I through IV, or 29% of the AWMA area, are
capable of supporting urban land uses according to today's grading and con-
struction practices sensitive to the natural terrain. This figure is based
primarily on the slope, runoff, and erosion characteristics of the region.
71% of the area displays slopes over 15% in grade and over 66% of the AWMA
area have slope characteristics of 30% and above. Low density development
and clusters of high density development may occur in areas displaying slopes
in excess of 15%., Above. 30%, mass grading would be necessary to accommodate
2-14
-------
future urban growth. Due to the environmental sensitivity of the governmental
agencies having jurisdiction in the AWMAarea, approval of land uses involving
mass grading would probably be denied. Table 2-6 categorizes the percent
coverage of each Soil Class in the AWMA area and assigns a value of limita-
tion to intense urban development.
2.4.3.2 Erosion Potential
AIT soils occurring in the AWMA area have erosion hazards of differing de-
grees. Over 65% of the AWMA area has soils with high to very high erosion
potential.
Soils with the highest erosion potential occur on rough-broken land and
terrace escarpments along the coast.
Erosion (including soil failures) is quite severe in numerous locations of
the hillside portion of the AWMA area. Several factors working in combina-
tion are responsible for this condition. These factors include:
1. Climate - Sparse rainfall, uneven distribution throughout the
year, results in relatively sparse vegetation with little sta-
bilizing influence. Over-grazing has also contributed to this
condition. Although rainfall is low, sporadic intense storms
with high erosion potential are not uncommon.
2. Bedrock Type - Sedimentary formations (Capistrano, Monterey, Miguel)
within the planning area are weak and highly susceptible to erosion
and slope failure. Their generally fine grain size and low inter-
granular strength contribute to their high credibility. Rainfall
. and bedrock masses consisting of broken blocks of bedrock are also
susceptible to erosion (and are indicative of the need for correc-
tive grading).
3. Soil Type - Bedrock generally weathers to a highly expansive, rela-
tively impermeable clayey soil with a high tendency to "creep"
downslope when saturated. This feature, in combination with steep
topography, is chiefly responsible for the large number of soil
failures.
Because the residual soils are rather thin on the steeper slopes, natural
soil failures are generally shallow and do not present a stabilization prob-
lem of. nearly the same magnitude as even the smaller landslides.
2.4.4 Agricultural Soils
2.4.4.1 Regional
Southern Orange County is lacking in prime agricultural soils of Class I and
II. These soil types are limited in this area to alluvial and major creek
flood plain (see Exhibit 2-2). Over 40% existing agricultural crop land in
Orange County, however, occurs in the south. More than 70% of the 170,000
.acres of prime agricultural fosils have been converted to urban uses, primarily
in northern Orange County, making the southern portion an important agricul-
tural area.
2-15
-------
Agricultural Land
iji Prime Agricultural Soils Class (I&ID
5jj^ Existing Agricultural Cropland
Agricultural Preserves
Pacific Oceai
Source: Orange County Progress Report, Volume 10
Exhibit 2-2
-------
Soils of the coastal hills and foothills of the Santa Ana Mountains are
developed on marine and sediments and have been generally used for grazing
of livestock. Almost all southwestern Orange County is covered by range
land soils.
2.4.4.2 The AWMA Region
The AWMA area contains representative soils of the Southern California
Coastal Plain. Valley alluvium and terrace covered by sandy loam soils are
representative of most valley and canyon floors. These soils are considered
prime agricultural soils and represent about 13% of the AWMA region. About
50% of the area covered by these soils has been under cultivation for a number
of years.
Much of the hillside areas of the region are represented by Al tamont-Diablo
clay soils. While the inherent fertility is medium to high, the high erosion
hazard of the steep slopes renders them unsuitable for cultivation. They are
well suited for pasture or range land and have been used as such for at least
a century. These soils represent about 35% of the AWMA area.
A portion of the AWMA Region has been set aside as an Agricultural Preserve
under the guidelines established by the Williamson Act. About 95% of the area
within this preserve, however, is not suitable for agricultural development
and has been placed in the preserve status primarily for future planning pur-
poses. Only about 5% of the preserve is capable of producing crops and repre-
sents only about 1% of the entire AWMA Region. Much of the remaining 12% of
prime agricultural soils have been eliminated by or are currently being planned
for urbanization.
2.5 HYDROLOGY
2.5.1 Surface Water
2.5.1.1 Aliso Creek
The Aliso Creek Watershed is drained by Aliso Creek and its tributaries.
This drainage system begins in the foothills of the Santa Ana Mountains and
from there Aliso Creek flows in a southwesterly direction for a distance
of approximately 18 miles. It enters the ocean at Aliso Beach just north of
South Laguna. From the Creek's source, at the northwesterly corner of the
watershed at elevation 1,500 feet, the Creek and its tributaries flow through
a steep canyon carved in an exposed rock formation covered with little or no
soil. From there to the San Diego Freeway, the Creek flows through a some-
what wide alluvium filled valley planted with citrus groves. After crossing
under the freeway, the Creek meanders through an open rolling plain until it
reaches the Miguel Hills close to the sea. From here the Creek has cut a
steep canyon down to the ocean.
Before 1900, Aliso Creek only had running water during the rainy months of
November through March. At the turn of the century, the cultivation of citrus
occurred in the upper reaches of the watershed, while the lower, drier water-
shed was devoted to cattle grazing as well as dry farming. To irrigate the
2-16
-------
orchards, water was retrieved from the underground water basin1through wells.
The Metropolitan Water District line was installed to accommodate farming and
the increasing pressures of urbanization. Because of the increase1 of urbani-
zation and its supportive facilities along with farming in upper Aliso Water-
shed, there is now a yearly minimal flow down Aliso Creek. In Lower Aliso
Creek there is now standing water which used to be a seasonal occurrence.
Three types of storms produce precipitation in the area: general winter storms,
thunderstorms and general summer storms (including tropical cyclones). Most
past flooding has been caused by high-intensity rainfall associated with general
winter storms characteristic of the area. Floodflow stages can rise from nearly
dry streambeds to extreme flood peaks in a matter of hours.
During floods, the mountain reaches of the tributaries and of the upper Creek
are heavily laden with debris. On leaving the steeper mountain section, the
Creek loses its sediment transporting power and the debris load is dropped
except for the fine material which is moved farther downstream. This is where
the Creek enters the more open valleys with potential spreading grounds.
Damaging floods occurred in the study area in 1916, 1927, 1937 and 1969.
The largest flood of record along Aliso Creek occurred in February, 1969.
Severe storms occurred in Orange County in 1862, 1884, 1923, 1938 and 1952.
However, no information could be obtained for these storms concerning the
severity of the damage in the study area.
The Orange County Flood Control District has maintained a stream gaging
station on Aliso Creek from 1932 to the present. The gaging station is located
just upstream from the Second Street bridge. To supplement the records from
the gaging station, newspaper files and historical documents were searched
for information concerning past floods. These records have aided in the
development of an understanding of floods that have occurred on Aliso Creek.
The most devastating floods of record in the study area occurred in January
and February of 1969. Monetary losses from the January flood were estimated
at $336,000 and from the February flood at $604,000. Most of the damage
from the January and February floods were in bridge and road washouts and
inundation of several resort dwellings along Aliso Creek. Water supplies
and beaches were contaminated from high runoff and damage to the South Laguna
Sanitation District. Some agricultural and utility damage also occurred.
Around the San Diego Freeway, where urbanization has occurred, surface water
is directed through the use of flood control channels or heavily landscaped
streambeds (such as through Leisure World). In the lower part of the Creek
below the freeway, the reduced gradient causes the storm waters to overflow
the shallow creek banks, leaving the fine sediment. In extreme floods, the
water which leaves the streambed washes the valley topsoil down to the ocean,
thus replenishing beach sand at Aliso Beach.
.Presently, there are no flood control dams or structures to impede the flow
of surface water to the ocean. There are pressures from interest groups to
leave Aliso Creek in a natural state and to preserve it as a regional recrea-
tional amenity that would allow unlimited access from the ocean to Cleveland
National Forest.
2-17
-------
2.5.1.2 Salt Creek , .......
The Salt Creek Watershed is drained by Salt Creek and several branch tribu-
taries including Arroyo Salada ,and San Juan Canyon (not the San Juan Creek
located adjacent to San Juan Capistrano). The length of Salt Creek is approx-
imately 4 miles from its outlet at Pacific Ocean to its headwaters just north
of San Juan Capistrano. The entire Salt Creek drainage area consists of
approximately 7.1 square miles.
The drainage area is roughly bounded on the west and northwest by the Miguel
Hills, on the east and southeast by the ridge Salt Creek and Trabuco/San Juan
Creek watersheds, and on the south by the Pacific Ocean between Dana Point and
Monarch Bay. For the most part, the study area is defined by natural ridge-
lines which clearly form major drainage boundaries.
The topography of the area is dominated by rolling hills, with hillsides
varying from moderate inclines to 50 percent slopes, and several stream
courses interlacing the area. The relief ranges from sea level to several
hundred feet.
The area is bisected generally from north to south by Crown Valley Parkway,
a major arterial highway which crosses many of the natural watercourses.
The culverts that were installed as part of the road construction are, in
most cases, adequate for an ultimate drainage system.
Pacific Coast Highway, extending across the southwest portion of the drainage
study area, produces no major drainage problems, as it has been adequately
crossed by various culverts in the vicinity. The only major drainage course
crossing Pacific Coast Highway in the Laguna Miguel area is Salt Creek, which
at present passes underneath and is enclosed in a concrete culvert to its
outlet at the Pacific Ocean. Other than the underground culvert at Coast
Highway, Salt Creek is unimproved from there to its origin above San Juan
Capistrano.
In the upper reaches of Salt Creek (Bear Brand Ranch), the creek passes through
well defined steep sided canyons encompassing approximately two square miles
of drainage area.
At least 50 percent of Laguna Miguel drainage area ultimately drains into
Salt Creek. Within Laguna Miguel the Creek has been extensively altered
because of grading operations for future residential and golf course use.
The grading has been extensive and is readily apparent from Pacific Coast
Highway. Cut and fill operations were conducted to minimize off-site dis-
posal of surplus materials. As a result the cut material was deposited in
low areas along streams and on top of layers of permeable sand covered drainage
courses.
Thus, there is the potential hazard of extensive erosion and siltation into
the ocean if a heavy rain occurred. As a preventative measure, a siltation
basin was installed in Salt Creek at Pacific Coast Highway. It is gunnite
2-18
-------
lined and acts as an overflow weir. The siltation basin is a temporary
mitigative measure until the drainage system, culverts, storm drain pipes
and final sedimentation basins are completed when final grading activities
are accomplished.
Arroyo Salada is a tributary to Salt Creek, draining much of the area im-
mediately west of Crown Valley Parkway in the southern portion of Laguna
Niguel. For most of its length, Arroyo Salada passes through the El Niguel
Country Club private golf course; the grassed swale provides adequate drain-
age for the ultimate development of the surrounding hills. In addition,
several of the culverts under Crown Valley Parkway have outlets at the
side of the golf course, and will not require extension as long as Arroyo
Salada is left as an open swale.
San Juan Canyon, a tributary to Salt Creek in the upper watershed area, is
presently unimproved. Because of the relatively steep canyon sides and the
well defined watercourse, this canyon may also be left in its natural state
depending on the adjacent development. San Juan Reservoir is a privately-
owned, spring-fed storage pond for the watering of cattle which graze in the
area, and as such it has no effect on storm flows.
To date there is little information on floods within the Salt Creek water-
shed. Because there was no development within this area there was nothing
man-made to damage, thus no records.
2.5.1.3 Laguna Canyon
Laguna Canyon watershed drains the area known as San Joaquin Hills and flows
in a southerly direction down Laguna Canyon to the Pacific Ocean. The drain-
age area of Laguna Canyon and its tributaries is about 8 square miles.
The upper part of the watershed has a small discontinuous channel which opens
into a larger continuous channel near El Toro Road. This channel merges at
the Big Bend (mile 2.1) and into a concrete lined channel extending to the
Pacific Ocean. This channel has been extended in a series of short reaches
since construction began in 1928.
Development in the Canyon ranges from dense settlement at the mouth of the
Canyon (the original City of Laguna Beach) to sparse development in the
area at the upper limit of the watershed. Most of the commercial develop-
ments are in the lower part of the canyon. Residential development is pre-
dominant in the area between Woodland Drive and El Toro Road on the west
side of Laguna Canyon Road. Beyond El Toro Road there is very little devel-
opment. Leisure World has developed within the northeast section of the
watershed.
Several areas in the lower part of the canyon can be considered as either
completely developed or very nearly so, and this development, as well as
development in other areas, has extensively encroached upon the 100 year
flood plain.
2-19
-------
Records of flow stages and discharges have not been kept, and information
on past flooding is limited to historical accounts and the memories of those
persons witnessing the event.
Existing flood control facilities in the study reach consist of a shallow
lagoon in the uppermost reach of the watershed and an improved channel in
the lower reaches. These lagoons are called the Laguna Lakes or "Las Lagunas"
and are the only known examples of natural lakes remaining in Orange County.
The flood control capacity of Laguna Lakes is very small and does not materially
affect the flood control of the area. The improved channel, consisting of both
open and covered concrete lined trapezoidal and rectangular sections, extends
from the Big Bend at about mile 1.9 to the ocean. Construction of this chan-
nel, which has been piecemeal, began in 1928 with the construction of a section
through the downtown area from the Pacific Ocean to Forest Avenue. The latest
section, completed in 1968, extends northward to mile 1.9. The channel improve-
ments, in general, have been extended upstream to keep pace with develop-
ment. The channel has been designed for the 25-year frequency flood and will
be inadequate for the 100-year frequency flood or the Standard Project Flood.
Many of the homes in the area are surrounded by low masonry fences with specially
designed openings that may be closed off during a flood, leaving the fenced
area as an island within the flood plain. The Orange County Flood Control Dis-
trict proposed that a dam be constructed at El Toro Road; however, funds were
never authorized for its construction.
The Army Corps of Engineers also did a study for Laguna Canyon in 1972 and
found that the average annual damage that would be caused from a flood did
not warrant the cost of installing flood control devices. Their recommenda-
tions were that flood plain management be used by the Orange County Flood
Control District.
In addition to agricultural land in the flood plain of the study reach, the
following are subject to flooding: the main business area of downtown Laguna
Beach, the sewage treatment plant, and numerous commercial and private struc-
tures extending to El Toro Road. Also, the Coast Highway (California State
Highway 1) at the lower limit of the study area, will be inundated.
Thirty bridges span the streambed or the improved channel in the study reach.
Most of the bridges are small and provide access to property beyond the
streambedj and only four can be classified as major structures. These are the
Forest Avenue (Third Street) bridge, the Laguna Canyon Frontage Road Bridge,
the Woodland Drive bridge, and the Canyon Acres Drive bridge. In addition to
the sections covered by bridges, the channel is covered in several places for
considerable distances, including the last 0.'21 mile through the business
section of Laguna Beach. This covered channel, or culvert, acts as a bridge
for two major crossings, Beach Street and the Coast Highway (California State
Highway 1). There is another major crossing at El Toro Road which consist of
two 3-foot diameter corrugated metal culverts and at Laguna Canyon Road (above
El Toro Road) consisting of a 2-foot by 4-foot concrete culvert.
Recent large floods occurred in Laguna Canyon on February 6, 1937; March 1
to March 3, 1938; February 173 1941; January 19-27, 1969; and February 22-26,
1969. Exact rates of floodflow are not available; however, historical data
2-20
-------
indicate that the 1937, 1939 and 1941 floods resulted in extensive damage to
homes, primarily due to erosion and undercutting.
Flood damage that would result from recurrence of major floods would be sub-
stantial. Extensive damage has been caused by past floods to commercial
buildings and private dwellings. Consequently, the probability exists that
the intermediate Regional Flood and the Standard Project Flood would cause
substantially greater damages because of their greater depths and higher
velocities and the continuing development in the area.
Main flood season for Laguna Canyon is from December through March. Storms
occurring during these winter months last for several days, are widespread,
and produce the greater floods. However, floods caused by intense local
thunderstorms may occur at any time of the year.
Duration of floods is very short on the study reach of Laguna Canyon. Stages
would rise from streambed to extreme flood peaks in about 4 hours from the
beginning of rainfall. The floodwaters would remain on the flood plain for
about 2 hours after cessation of rainfall.
Hazardous conditions would occur during large floods as a result of the
rapidly rising streams, high velocities and deep flows.
Flood damage prevention measures consist of the locally constructed flood
control channel from the Pacific Ocean to mile 1.9 at the Big Bend. Other-
wise, no other county or federal flood control projects are authorized or
proposed in the study area. The occupancy of the flood plain is controlled
to some degree by subdivision regulations and zoning ordinances which require
Planning Commission approval of new developments.
2.5.2 Groundwater
Groundwater quality is generally determined by the time of contact with the
percolated rainwater from the soil and by the types of different geological
formations contacted. As previously mentioned in the geological section, the
formations in the Study Area are mostly of marine origin and thus contain more
salts and ocean-related minerals than formations of continental origin. This
is especially true for the southern portion of the watershed which is charac-
terized by highly mineralized groundwaters. Descriptive names like Sulphur
Creek in the lower watershed and Salt Creek to the south of the Aliso water-
shed indicate ground water quality.
In general, the Aliso groundwater basin is high in total dissolved solids and
chlorides with a high percentage of sodium and would be classed doubtful in
quality for irrigation water. The estimated capacity of this ground water
basin is 9,000 acre-feet and has been suggested as a potential storage basin
as a result of a previous study made in 1961 by Engineering Science, Inc.
More recently, the Orange County Flood Control District prepared a study on
the Aliso basin between the San Diego Freeway and Trabuco Road. This report
confirmed much of the data contained in the 1961 report and indicated that one
could safely assume that a minimum of 1,000 AF annually could be percolated
and withdrawn by pumping in the upper portion of the basin. Agricultural
2-21
-------
uses require approximately 3-5 acre feet per acre per year of farmland. So
at 1,000 acre feet minimum that would support 3,000-5,000 acres minimum of
agricultural used within the upper watershed.
Combining this with proper management of the lower portion of the Basin, the
usable storage capacity of the total Basin could be increased. Additionally,
groundwater recharge could be produced.
As stated above, the water basin as it exists today, is not suitable for
agricultural uses because of the high salinity of the water. There are
plans by AWMA to remove the saline water and replenish with secondary
treated IDS supplies that would be reclaimed by the existing plants of the
Los Alisos and Rossmoor Sanitation Districts.
After the basin had been drafted for approximately three years, either rain-
fall or tertiary treated effluent would be discharged into the basin for a
flushing action. It is estimated that there are about 50,000 tons of cur-
rently accumulated salt in the basin. This accumulation of salt would have
to be reduced to something on the order of 20,000 tons before the water coming
out of the groundwater basin would meet an agricultural purpose requirement.
After the first ten years of operation, essentially when enough salt has
been removed and the tertiary treatment process is in operation, the dis-
tribution system would be incorporated into the greenbelt irrigation system
for the Aliso Greenbelt area.
The Aliso Creek Greenbelt concept as outlined in the UCI-SACC study team final
report on August 1974, is for a recreational corridor in Aliso Creek stretch-
ing from the ocean to Cleveland National Forest. The corridor would consist
of natural, naturalistic low intensity and high intensity recreation areas.
The higher the use the higher the water requirements would be. An example
of high intensity recreation would be public parks and golf courses.
It is the objective of the Aliso Water Management Agency, through proper water
management, to maximize the use of this natural storage capability. This will
be accomplished through properly planned and controlled upgrading of the water
stored in the basin. Controlled pumping and percolation of reclaimed water
out of and into the basin for further use is one of the agency's goals.
2.6 METEOROLOGY
2.6.1 Climate
The study area has a climate typical of the Southern California coastal plain
with mild summers and winters. Freezing temperatures occur infrequently with
a duration of only a few hours. Generally, the majority of the precipitation
can be expected to occur during a four-month period from November through
March with mean seasonal precipitation varying from 12 inches at the coast
to 21 inches in the foothills. The average daily temperature at El Toro
Marine Corps Air Station is 60.2 degrees Fahrenheit with a high monthly
average temperature of 69 degrees Fahrenheit recorded in July and a low
average of 50.9 degrees Fahrenheit in December. The relative humidity varies
2-22
-------
from an average monthly low of 65 percent in February to a high of 75 percent
in August, with a yearly average relative humidity of 71 percent. Evaporation
records from the Irvine Railroad Station average 59.75 inches per year for
the period from 1946 to 1954, with a low and high monthly average of 2.5
inches in January and 7.96 inches in July, respectively. The lowest yearly
evaporation recorded was 56.33 inches in 1949 and the highest was 68.58
inches in 1953. The prevailing wind is westerly with light to moderate
velocity.
2.6.2 Air Resources
2.6.2.1 Introduction
In the assessment of any air pollution problem, one consideration must be
meteorology. Any analysis of air pollution must inevitably concern itself
with the medium into which the pollutant is disgorged.
The medium is, of course, the atmosphere. The basic question is always:
to what extent do the pollutants concentrate? The obvious answer is that the
degree of concentration is a function of the dispersion characteristics of
the atmosphere.
Local air quality depends primarily upon the dispersion of the pollutants
released from within and surrounding the AWMA area. Temperature inversions
and land-sea breezes affect the dispersion of pollutants and are factors in
determining air quality. Inversion layers combine temperature variations with
altitude to present an'adverse meteorological condition and intensifies the
air pollution problem by limiting dispersion of the pollutants.
In the South Coast Air Basin, air quality is an interaction of meteorological
factors with both primary and secondary pollutants. The best known and most
severe air pollution problem is photochemical smog. This pollution problem
results from a chemical reaction between reactive hydrocarbons (RHC) and
nitrogen oxides (NOX), which occurs in the presence of sunlight.
Temperatures generally decrease with altitude in the lower atmosphere (1 -
11,000 feet). At lower altitudes (ground level or within the first few thou-
sand feet of ground level), the temperatures may decrease less rapidly than
the prevailing rate or in some cases the temperature will actually increase
with height. An increasing temperature with altitude creates the inversion
condition. When an inversion persists, the vertical transport of pollutants
upward is hindered. The inversion may be a few hundred feet to a few thou-
sand feet high. Throughout the South Coast Air Basin, 90% of the days have
a persistent inversion layer at heights of 200 to 500 feet during the late
summer and fall months. Little or no data is available documenting the
variation of inversion heights and inversion strengths as a function of
location in the South Coast Air Basin.
2-23
-------
2.6.2.2 Air Quality
The AWMA area is located in the South Coast Air Basin. The Orange County
Air Pollution Control District (OCAPCD) is responsible for controlling and
enforcing regulations upon stationary sources of pollution within Orange
County, while the State of California Air Resources Board is charged pri-
marily with controlling motor vehicle emissions.
Despite the fact that the entire County has been designated a critical air
area by the State Air Resources Board, air quality and emission levels for
the whole County do not represent an accurate estimate of the air quality
and emission levels in this area of the County. The AWMA region is quite
varied in topography and meteorology, which results in differences in air
quality throughout AWMA..
Air quality data is collected by the Orange County Air Pollution Control
District. Of the seven air monitoring stations located throughout the
County, three stations are situated in or around the AWMA area and can
provide a viable indication of the air quality in the AWMA area (See Table
2-7 and 2-8). The El Toro air monitoring station has been monitoring all
types of primary pollutants for a longer period of time than the other two
monitoring stations. The air monitoring station located at the San Juan
Capistrano City Hall has monitored only ozone levels since August, 1973.
The third air monitoring station is located in Laguna Beach and has provided
data on primary pollutant types since April 1974.
{''->••
While Laguna Beach experienced low levels of oxidant in 1974, the El Toro
air monitoring station recorded the second highest oxidant levels out of
the seven stations operating in Orange County. The maximum hourly average
at El Toro was .48 ppm, while the highest level in Orange County was only
slightly higher at .54 ppm. Air quality can therefore be characterized
as deteriorating with greater distance from the coast.
2.7 OCEANOGRAPHY
2.7.1 Coastal- and Sub-marine Physiography
The ocean environment off AWMA region is part of the Southern California
Bight. The Bight is the open embayment of the Pacific Ocean extending ,
from Point Conception (north of Santa Barbara) to Cabo Colnett (south of
Ensenada, Mexico). ,Its western boundary is roughly defined by the
California Current. The Bight is in a region of extensive faulting.
The topography'of the ocean floor off the Orange County coastline is charac-
terized by a variety of sub-marine features including basins, islands rising
above the sea 'surface, canyons and flat regions. No notable sub-marine ,
features exist; in the Aliso-Dana Point region. Along most of the coast north
of Newport Bay, the shelf is about six miles wide. South of the Bay, the
shelf width averages two to three miles. The 120 foot isobath (depth of
proposed outfall terminus) varies from 6,600 feet to 11,600 feet offshore.
2-24
-------
TABLE 2-7
FEDERAL STANDARDS
AIR QUALITY FOR 1974
AIR MONITORING STATIONS
POLLUTANT
OXIDANT
(Ozone)
NITROGEN
DIOXIDE
(N02)
CARBON
MONOXIDE
/ f*/~\\
(CO)
SULFUR
DIOXIDE
(S02)
SUSPENDED
PARTICULATE
MATTER
HYDROCARBONS
(Corrected for
Methane)
FEDERAL
AIR QUALITY
STANDARDS
0.08 ppm
1 Hr. Avg.
0.05 ppm
Annual Avg.
9 ppm
8 Hr Avg.
35 ppm
1 Hr Avg.
0.14 ppm
24 Hr Avg.
0.03 ppm
Annual Avg.
75 ug/m3
AGM 3
260 ug/m3
24 Hr Avg.
0.24 ppm
3 Hr. Avg.
(6-9 a.m.)
DATA
FORMAT
Days ]•
Max. '
Annual
Avg.
Days
Max.
Days
IvlixT
Annual
Avg.
AGM 3'
% Over 4'
Max.
Days
Max.
Anaheim Costa Mesa
73/.31 93/.27
8/14 24/18
0/17 0/23
0/.04 0/.03
94 64
0%/223 0%/181
178/4
(9 mo.)
La Habra El Toro
163/.54 133/.48
(10 mo.)
59/25 0/6
(9 mo.)
0/33 0/8
(9 mo.)
0/.03 0/.02
(8 mo.)
115 69
1%/273 0%/188
175/2
(9 mo.)
Santa Ana
Los Alamitos Canyon
123/.34 7/.14
(10 mo.) (1 mo.)
5/13
(8 mo.)
0/19
(8 mo.)
0/.03
(8 mo.)
100
0%/229
158/8
(9 mo.)
San Juan County
Capistrano Laguna Beach Wide
97/.31 68/.20 218/.54
'(11 mo.) (9 mo.)
0/9 66/25
(9 mo.)
0/13 0/33
(9 mo.)
0/.02 0/.04
(8 mo.)
69
0%/203 .2%/273
259
(11 mo.)
AIR POLLUTION EPISODES
Pollutant' Criteria (ppm/time) Stage Episodes Declared
Oxidant
Sulfur
Dioxide
Carbon
Monoxide
0.20/1 hr
0.40/1 hr
0-50/1 hror
0.20/24 hr
40/1 hror
20/12 hr
1
2
1
1
37
2
0
0
1. Days - Number of days standard exceeded.
2. Max. - Highest value over averaging time.
3. AGM - Annual Geometric Mean.
4. % Over - Percent of samples over criterion.
(Federal Ambient Air Quality Standards are not danger levels.
These are levels required to protect public health with an
adequate margin of safety.) •
-------
TABLE 2-8
CALIFORNIA STANDARDS
AIR QUALITY FOR 1974
AIR MONITORING STATIONS
POLLUTANT
OXIDANT
(Ozone)
NITROGEN
DIOXIDE
(N02)
CARBON
MONOXIDE
(CO)
SULFUR
DIOXIDE
(S02)
SUSPENDED
PARTICULATE
MATTER
LEAD
^ t^AL^
(PARTir.UI ATF1
CALIFORNIA
AIR QUALITY
STANDARDS
0.10 ppm
1 Hr. Avg.
0.25 ppm
1 Hr. Avg.
10 ppm
12Hr.Avg.
40 ppm
1 Hr. Avg.
0.10 ppm
24 Hr. Avg.
0.50 ppm
1 Hr. Avg.
60 ug/m3
AGM 3.
100 ug/m3
24 Hr. Avg.
1.5ug/m3
30 Day Avg.
DATA
FORMAT
Days ]•
Max. ...
Days
Max.
Days
Max.
Days
Max.
AGM 3.
% Over 4-
Max.
Months 5-
Max.
Anaheim
61 /.31
12/.37
3/12
0/17
0/.04
0/.08
94
46%/223
11 Mo.
3.76
Costa Mesa
67/.27
•-,
1/.30
6/15
0/23
0/.03
0/.14
64
17%/181
6 Mo.
3.89
La Habra
141/.54
t
. . 7/.32
37/22
0/33
0/.03
0/.15
115
64%/273
9 Mo.
3.67
r\i t \ \\
El Toro
118/.48
(10 mo.)
6/.S3
(3 mo.)
0/4
(9 mo.)
0/8
(9 mo.)
0/.02
(8 mo.)
0/.04
(8 mo.)
69
24%/188
3 Mo.
2.15
nwiNi iwiiiiivj w i r-\ i iv/iv<-r
Santa Ana
Los Alamitos Canyon
112/.34 5/.14
(10 mo.) (1 mo.)
3/.50
(1 mo.)
2/11
(8 mo.)
0/19
(8 mo.)
0/.03
(8 mo.)
0/.18
(8 mo.)
100
50%/229
(10 mo.)
5 Mo.
4.85
San Juan
Capistrano Laguna Beach
79/.31 53/.20
(11 mo.) (9 mo.)
3/.S2
(9 mo.)
0/8
(9 mo.)
0/13
(9 mo.)
0/.02
(8 mo.)
0/.08
(8 mo.)
69
16%/203
(10 mo.)
5 Mo.
2.76
County
Wide
194
20/.50
37/22
0/33
0/.04
0/.18
37%/273
AIR POLLUTION EPISODES
Pollutant Criteria (ppm/time)
0.20/1 hr
Oxidant
0.40/1 hr
Sulfur
Dioxide
Carbon
Monoxide
0.50/1 hr or
0.20/24 hr
40/1 hr or
20/1 2 hr
Stage Episodes Declared
1 37
2 2
1
1. Days - Number of days standard equalled or exceeded.
2. Max. - Highest value over averaging time.
3. AGM- Annual Geometric Mean.
4. % Over • Percent of samples over criterion.
5. Months - Number of mon ths standard equalled or exceeded.
(California Ambient Air Quality Standards are not danger levels.
These are levels required to protect public health with an adequate
margin of safety.)
-------
A rough, useful classification of the shoreline in this area is rocky and
sandy. In general, rocky shorelines were shaped by erosional processes,
whereas sandy beaches backed by deltas, alluvial fans, or mudflats are
depositional. Sandy shorelines backed by cliffs were influenced by both
processes; i.e., erosional on a long-term basis, but with short-term depo-
sitional characteristics.
The AWMA coastal region is characterized by all three shoreline types.
However, the greater portion of the shoreline is erosional in nature.
Northwest of Aliso Beach, the coastline is rocky with numerous small pocket
beaches frequently interrupted by rock outcroppings. These are most fre-
quently found in Laguna Beach. The greater portion of the shoreline is ;
backed by escarpments rising to heights of 30 to 130 feet.
There are three marine life refuges in this area: South Laguna Beach, Niguel,
and Dana. A significant portion of the shoreline has been dredged, filled,
or reshaped for the development of ports, harbors, marinas, jetties, and for
other developmental purposes.
2.7.2 Water Characteristics
The water characteristics of the AWMA offshore waters are summarized
in Exhibit 2-10.
TABLE 2-9
SELECTED CHARACTERISTICS OF
OFFSHORE WATER
Surface 180 Feet 270 Feet
Temperature (°C)
Salinity (o/o)
Density (gm/cm3)
Dissolved Oxygen (mg/1)
Max
Min
Max
Min
Max
Min
Max
Min
Dissolved Phosphate (mg/1) Max
Min
21
16
33.7
33.7
1.0248
1,0238
12
9
0.06
0.03
14
11
33.7
33.4
1.0260
1.0252
7
6
0.20
0.16
Ammonia - N (mg/1)
Nitrate - N (mg/1)
Max
Min
Max
Min
0.01
0.16
0.2
0.4
2-25
-------
Table 2-9 (Continued)
Dissolved Silica (mg/1)
Transparency (m)
Surface 180 Feet 270 Feet
Max
Min
Max
Min
0.6
0.4
1
15
2.8
1.4
Temperatures of the coastal waters vary significantly more than in open
ocean. This is due to relative shallowness of the water and, to some
extent, the mixing of fresh waters from the land or because of upwelling.
The density of seawater and its vertical distribution is important to the
stratification of marine waters and is determined by the temperature and
salinity of the waters. During summers the temperature decreases more sharply
with depth resulting in a stronger stratification of the water than during
winter months when the thermocline sinks to greater depth or may be des-
troyed by the winter mixing of the water.
2.7.3 Near Shore Circulation
In the offshore waters of the AWMA region, currents are complex and quite
variable in direction. Longshore components (southeasterly currents and
northwesterly counter-currents) are predominant. These are part of the
North Pacific Ocean's system of currents.
The major circulation pattern in the North Pacific Ocean is a wind-driven,
clockwise gyre that encompasses the entire North Pacific. The California
Current is the name given to the eastern limb of this gyre and is character-
ized by a meandering, diffused current flowing southeastward past the states
of Washington, Oregon and California, and Baja California. There is no true
western boundary to this current, but more than 90 percent of the south-
eastward transport is within 450 miles of the coast of California. North
of Point Conception, California, the California Current has a mean speed of
approximately 30 ft/min (0.30 knots). South of Point Conception, the
California Current becomes more diffused, and the inshore portion turns north-
ward to flow through the channel islands and to become the nearly permanent,
counterclockwise Southern California Eddy. The inshore portion of this eddy
is called the Southern California Countercurrent. Surface speed in the
countercurrent averages from lOft/min to 20 ft/min (0.10 knot to 0.20 knot).
The flow pattern is complicated by the presence of small eddies within the
channel island region and fluctuates seasonally. The countercurrent is
.swiftest in the fall and early winter when the winds are from the south-
east. In spring and early summer, winds from the northwest strengthen the
California Current and weaken the countercurrent.
Very near to the California coast, local currents are influenced primarily
by a combination of wind, tide, and local topography. The total current
is ordinarily the sum of its components which include wind, tide, and
perhaps large-scale ocean circulation.
2-26
-------
Wind-induced currents, which are superimposed on the tidal motion, usually
have a strong diurnal character resulting from local wind patterns. There-
fore, short-term observations of currents near the coast often vary in both
direction and speed as a result of the combined wind-induced and tidal
motions.
An important consideration in the analysis of nearshore surface currents
is the presence of absence of a thermocline, a layer of water which sepa-
rates warmer surface water from colder and denser deep water. Speed and
direction of currents above the thermocline are usually controlled almost
wholly by wind, especially when the thermocline is strong. When wind blows
across a body of water, surface currents are induced which have a direction
similar to that of the wind. The magnitude of the current speed depends
on wind velocity and duration, the orientation and characteristics of the
adjacent coastline and the depth of the thermocline. When the thermocline
exists at a relatively shallow depth, surface waters may be accelerated rapidly
by the wind. When a weak thermocline exists at relatively greater depth, the
wind must move a greater volume of water and the induced current speeds are
slower. Under these conditions, effects of tidal action are more evident
above the thermocline and surface and subsurface water masses tend to move
more as a unit. Nearshore currents below the thermocline are governed
primarily by tidal movement. Subsurface currents should, therefore, theore-
tically be onshore and upcoast during flood tide and offshore and downcoast
during ebb tide.
Tides along the California coast are of the common mixed type, where two
unequal high tides and two unequal low tides usually occur during a 25-
hour period. In the eastern North Pacific Ocean, the tide wave rotates in
a counter-clockwise direction with the result that the tide occurs progres-
sively later in the day proceeding northwards along the coast. As a result
of this rotation, flood tide flows upcoast and ebb tide flows downcoast.
Close to shore, tidal currents generally parallel the coast, quadridiurnally
reversing direction with the change of tide.
Added to the sum of tidal and wind influences, the larger-scale ocean cir-
culation offshore also influences currents near the coast, although its
effect is not as strong. A final variable is the result of topography of
the ocean bottom and the shoreline.
Current studies conducted off Aliso Creek beach show that longshore currents
predominate with only occasional currents directed shoreward at angles
approaching 45 degrees relative to the coastline. The speed of surface
currents measured off Aliso Creek beach typically ranged from less than
0.01 knot (0.01 ft/sec) to 0.5 knot (0.9 ft/sec) with an average of 0.13
knot (0.22 ft/sec).
2.7.4 Sedimentation and Characteristics
The offshore sediments of the AWMA region are generally sand or sandsilt
combinations. They are low in calcium carbonate and consist principally of
grains of sand and silt recently derived from adjacent beaches on the shore-
line. Beach sand recharge has decreased over the years due to flood control
2-27
-------
procedures and reduced stream flows. The South Coast Regional Coastal Com-
mission has recommended that the following watershed areas in the AWMA dis-
trict remain in their natural state: San Joaquin Hills Canyon, Upper Laguna
Canyon and Aliso Creek.
2.8 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
The wildlife areas within the boundaries of the Aliso Water Management
Agency encompass a large fraction of the relatively undisturbed habitat
associations that still remain in Orange County. Specific site surveys have
been conducted in El Toro, Laguna Niguel, Moulton Ranch, Capistrano Valley,
Colinas de Capistrano and the San Joaquin Hills. Since on-site analysis and
standardized species check lists have been prepared for these locations,
there will be no attempt to duplicate these studies for the AWMA district.
Rather, a general description of the major terrestrial and marine environ-
ments will be provided with greater detail being allocated to those areas
deemed unusually sensitive.
The terrestrial section will deal with the flora and fauna of the four major
biotic communities to be found in this area:' e.g., Coastal Sage Scrub,
Grassland, Riparian Woodland and Cismontane Rural and Urban. Wastewater
management policies have their greatest terrestrial influence within the
Riparian communities. Reference will'be made to the South Coast Regional
Commission recommendations concerning watershed management and restoration.
*,
Information concerning the Marine Biology of the AWMA district has been
obtained from the Dawson studies of the Allan Handcock Foundation (1959,
1965), a study of Ocean Outfall Locations in Southeastern Orange County
(1972) and Marine Biological Conditions in the Vicinity of Dana Point
(Lowery & Associates, 1973). Comparisons will be made of Intertidal Flora
and Fauna, Benthic Flora and Fauna, Kelp (Macrocystis), Phyto-Plankton and
Fisheries.
2.8.1 Terrestrial Biology
2.8.1.1 Regional
The Aliso Water Management Agency lies within the coastal hills of southern
Orange County. Biologically, the coastal hills region encompasses a range
of Upper Sonoran terrestrial habitats from coastal sage scrub to Littoral
marsh. Since the region is a typical section of the Southern California
coast, it represents an ecological community that is much like the coastal
hill areas southward for several hundred miles.
The Orange County Planning Department finds that approximately 50% of the
County is covered by natural vegetation, with most of this occurring in the
northeastern and southern portions of the County. Exhibits 2.3 and 2.4 show
the distribution of the biotic, or vegetative communities in Orange County
and Exhibit 2-11 gives the number of acres and percent each community repre-
sents of the total County acreage and open space acreage.
2-28
-------
VEGETATION COMMUNITIES
•SACi.ESC.RvjB
A
CHAAMSE
CHAPARRAL
OAK-
4 CUt.TlVA.TBD
RIPARIAN
(/v\A70R AREAS ONLY)
<' R.OAD PROVIDED FOR
CSEE TOWR A^AP FOR
•xhibit 2-3
Souret: Th« Physical Environment of Orange County
-------
Wildlife Habitats
Upland Birds, Large & Small Mammals
Upland Birds & Small Mammals
Small Mammals
Waterfowl & Waterbirds
Marine Life Refuges
Source: Orange County Progress Report, Volume 10
Exhibit 2-4
-------
TABLE 2-10
\
' ORANGE COUNTY NATURAL BIOTIC COMMUNITIES
Community # Acres % of County % of 0. Space
Grassland'" 77,796 15.22 29.66
Coastal Sage Scrub 126,548 24.76 48.25
Chaparral ;• 18,165 3.55 6.92
Oak Woodland \ 6,028 1.18 2.29
Pine Woodland 2,371 .46 .90
Riparian Woodland 24,649 4.82 9.39
Freshwater Marsh 1,600 .31 .61
Coastal Salt Marsh 1,729 .34 .65
Lakes, Reservoirs 1,743 .34 .65
262,229 50.98
Coastal sage scrub and grassland represent the most abundant biotic commun-
ities in Orange County. More than 75% of the Grassland Community occurs in
an area encompassing the San Joaquin and coastal hills south of Laguna Canyon
and north of the San Diego Freeway at La Paz Road and southeast to the San Diego
County line. The remaining 25% occurs in the foothills bordering the north
and southeastern mountains of the County. Several large patches of coastal
sage scrub occur in the coastal hills grassland areas. However, most scrub
vegetation occurs in the central San Joaquin Hills south to Aliso Canyon.
The extensive tributary system of the County make riparian woodland the third
most abundant biotic community, although these areas are considerably de-
graded due to intermitent stream flow during the summer months. Laguna
Canyon, Aliso Canyon, Salt Creek, Oso Creek, Arroyo Trabuco, and San Juan
Creek represent major riparian woodlands of the southern region. These
bands of vegetation provide ecological corridors of the Santa Ana Mountain's
Cleveland National Forest.
Fresh water marsh is very limited in occurrence in Orange County and almost
nonexistent in the southern region. Marsh communities of the area are meager
in terms of species diversity and abundance, and only appear in their isolated
springs or on the margins of reservoirs, including Sulphur Creek Reservoir
(now known as Niguel Lake) in the Laguna Niguel, Laguna Lakes and Watershed,
El Toro Reservoir and Lake Forest.
Although cismontane rural vegetation is not indicated on the Orange County
Vegetation Community Map, row and field crops, orchards and eucalyptus
windbreaks in the AWMA district are an important addition to the biotic
communities of the County. They provide cover and habitat for wildlife
and enhance the quality of the environment especially on the perimeter of
natural open areas.
2-29
-------
Cismontane urban vegetation has replaced natural grassland or cismontane
rural vegetation in San Juan, Oso, Aliso, Laguna Canyon and Arroyo Trabuco
Valleys and along the coastal terrace. More recently with the rapid rate of
land conversion of agricultural lands to urban, development has taken place
in the hillside areas. Coastal sage scrub and grassland are now the primary
vegetation types being converted to urban use; however, incorporation of
native trees and shrubs within the urban landscaping can enhance the wildlife
capabilities of surrounding grassland and scrub areas.
The relationship of Coastal Sage Scrub and Grassland Communities to the
Riparian Communities of Aliso, Oso, Laguna, "San Juan" and Salt Creek Can-
yons creates an environment suitable for a wide variety of terrestrial verte-
brates. All of these creeks serve as interconnecting wildlife corridors and
would enhance the quality of nearby surrounding grassland and coastal sage
scrub habitats.
The AWMA Region lies within an area described as habitat suitable for up-
land birds and small mammals by the Orange County Planning Department (see
Exhibit 204). The Conservation Element (1973) also recognizes the area as an
important deer habitat. Nearly all the undeveloped locations in this area
serve as wildlife habitat for larger mammals, smaller mammals and upland
birds, representing about 25.4% of the total habitat available in the
County. 16.0% of the total County habitat available to waterfowl and marsh
birds is represented by the riparian and fresh water "pond" habitats in the
area.
Exhibit 2-12 gives the approximate number of acres, percent of total site
each community occupies, and the percent of each Orange County natural
biotic community occurring in the AWMA area.
TABLE 2-11
BIOTIC COMMUNITIES
% of County
Community # Acres % of Site Natural Community
Grassland 9,780 20 12.6
Coastal Sage Scrub 12,720 26 10.1
Riparian 2,200 4.5 8.9
Freshwater "Pond" 240 0.5 7.1
Cismontane Urban-Rural 23,470 48
Chaparral 490 1.0 2.7
TOTAL 48,900 100.0%
2-30
-------
2.8.1.1 Grassland Community
2.8.1.1.1 Flora
Grassland is a dominant biotic community in the AWMA area and is usually
restricted to soils of high clay content. Originally, the grasslands of
California were composed of perennial bunch grasses. The grassland com-
munities have been utilized as open range land for more than a century,
resulting in almost complete destruction of the native grassland species.
Large areas of coastal sage scrub were also converted to grass areas by
early settlers. Before extensive grazing, probably over 50% of the pre-
sent grassland existed as coastal sage. Now, these areas maintain a
dense vegetative covering dominated by weedy, non-native annuals such as
Black Mustard (Brassica m'gra), Wild Barley (Hordeum leporinum), Chess
Grasses (Bromus, sp.) and Fescue Grass (Festuca myuros). Wild Artichoke,
or Milk Thistle (Silybum marianum) appears in dense stands mainly on the
northeast portion of the site.
A wide assortment of wildflowers occur in variable distribution throughout
the Grassland Community. Most wildflowers ;are rapid growers, shooting up
out of the soil in a matter of a week or two when the weather is satisfac-
tory. When the weather becomes hot and dry, they disappear with the same
rapidity. The distribution of annuals has been well documented in (A
Checklist of Orange County Flowering Plants, (Boughey, A.S., 1968, Univer-
sity of California, Irvine).
2.8.1.1.2 Fauna
Aside from its history, the Grassland Community is natural in terms of
plant-animal interactions, although it may contain more introduced and
naturalized species than those native to the area. The grassland community
is a valuable food source for many animals; it is important to seed eating
birds and those that feed on flying insects. Rodents and rabbits are also
seed eaters and are preyed upon snakes, raptors, and mammalian predators.
The grasses are also an important food source for animals from adjacent
plant communities. Many species utilize other communities for nesting ,
activities and refuge and the grassland community as foraging habitat.
The predominant fauna (greatest biomass) of the grassland community are
the rodents. The most common varieties are the California Ground Squirrel
(Otospermophilis beecheyi) and mice (Perognathus spp.). Pocket Gopher
(Thomonys bottae) signs are also commpn throughout the cultivated and
and naturalized grassland.
I
Representing the most common avifauna are Mourning Dove, Western Meadowlark
and the House Finch. The abundance of prey in the form of small birds and
mammals supports a variety of raptors (vultures, eagles, hawks, falcons,
and owls). The raptors require vast areas of grassland or scrub as foraging
territory and the AWMA planning area represents a large county segment of
suitable territory for these species. Urban development, occurring in ran-
dom sections of the County, can disrupt the territorial boundaries of raptors,
2-31
-------
especially if that development is close to prime nesting areas. Since rap-
tors are an essential limiting factor in the control of rodent populations,
it is important that their territory be protected from excessive urban
pressure.
Common reptiles are the Western Fence Lizard (Uta stansburiana). Gopher Snake
(Pituophis eatenifer) and the Red Diamond Rattlesnake (CrotaTus ruber) (this
species is becoming less common because of urban pressures).Amphibians
are not common to the grassland community unless it is adjacent to a stream
or reservoir.
Mule Deer are a common visitor to the undisturbed grassland community as
are Coyote, Grey Fox and Bob Cat although these animals are more cautious
in their habits. Since these animals cover tremendous amounts of terri-
tory during their foraging activities, it is important to recognize the im-
portance of community corridors. The blending of a grassland and riparian
community would be considered.an ecotone. The organisms that colonize these
are common to both communities along with a number of versatile species that
have a tendency to colonize such transition areas. This tendency has also
been described as the zonation effect. But whatever the terminology, one
can expect to find the greatest amount of species diversity and population
numbers within these zones. The National Audubon Society strongly recommends
the preservation and planting of zonation areas to upgrade the habitats avail-
able to wildlife suffering from urban pressures.
2.8.1.2 Coastal Sage Scrub Community
2.8.1.2.1 Flora
The Coastal Sage Scrub Community encompasses approximately 28% of the AHMA
area. Much of the San Joaquin Hills, the hills above Laguna Beach, and
the area throughout Laguna and Aliso Canyons provide examples of this coastal
sagebrush. The dominant shrub, California Sagebrush (Artemisia californica),
appears in dense stands. Sawtooth Goldenweed (Haplopappus squarrosas), and
California Buckwheat (Eriogonum fasciculatum), two major subdominants, appear
scattered throughout the community and occur in high concentrations on its
periphery. Turkey Mullein (Eremocarpus setigerus), a low, grey herbacious
plant, occurs in wide expanses along the periphery of the Coastal Sage
Scrub community mainly on its western boundary.
The Coastal Sage Scrub Community usually serves as an excellent wildlife
habitat. The diverse floral component of the community can result in an
equally diverse faunal component although urban and grazing pressure
have substantially reduced the Coastal Sage Scrub Community within the AWMA
area.
Areas adjacent to Serrano Creek (El Toro) exhibit typical native wildlife
populations characteristic of scrub communities. Pure stands of sagebrush
and buckwheat support comparatively reduced numbers of vertebrates, since
dry soils are typically compacted and foot diversity is reduced. On the
other hand, Prickly Pear Cactus associations, north facing slopes and
arroyos that exist along the San Joaquin Hills, Laguna Canyon and Aliso
Canyon can provide adequate habitats for a mixed and stable variety of
native vertebrates.
2-32
-------
The avifauna for the scrub community, is represented by California Quail,
Western Roadrunner, Cactus Wren, Loggerhead Shrike, Brown Towhee, Common
Bushtit and the California Thrasher. Common Reptiles are the Western
Whiptail (Cnemidophorus tigris) and the Coachwhip (Masticophis flagellum).
The blacktailed hare (Lepus caliform'cus) and the Brush Rabbit (SylviVaus^
brachmani) are common.TnT rodents are represented by the Pacific Kangaroo
Rat (Pipodmys agi,lis), Desert Woodrat (Neototna lipida) and the Deer Mouse
(Peromyscus man icu1 atus).
Undisturbed areas of Coastal Sage Scrub habitat are now scarce in the coas-
tal hills. They are subject to damage by vehicles and by too heavy pedes-
trian use, as well as the larger threats posed by housing developments.
There are some excellent sites in the San Joaquin Hills (Pelican Hill being
one).
True chaparral communities do occur in association with the Coastal Sage
Scrub and can be identified by the presence of Chamise (Adenostoma fascicu-
latum), Toyon (Photi nla arbuti foli a) and Scrub Oak (Quercus dumosa). Cha-
parral is one of Southern California's most fascinating plant communities.
It is a unique vegetation type. There are only four other places in the world
where vegetation comparable to coasta-l chaparral is found. It is a dense,
well-developed habitat type, growing in a rather inhospitable region and
exhibiting unique adaptations for survival.' It is part of our cultural,
as well as our natural, heritage. In this report, however, the chaparral
has been grouped with the coastal sage scrub since the habitat and animal
associations are quite similar.
Two bird species are endemic to coastal sage scrub and chaparral, the
California Thrasher and the Wrentit. (Endemic means native to a region
or habitat type and not found elsewhere.)
At present, chaparral is relatively abundant. This is a good time to
designate large areas for preservation. The acreage for each would have
to be extensive (1,000+ acres) in order to support the larger mammals which
reside there. The South Laguna Hills have choice areas of chaparral.
2.8.1.3 Riparian Communities
2.8.1.3.1 Flora
The AWMA district contains approximately 16% of the undeveloped riparian
and freshwater pond habitat in Orange County. The South Coast Regional
Coastal Commission has designated the, San Joaquin Hills and Canyons, Laguna
Lakes and Watershed, Aliso Creek and Watershed and the South Laguna Hills
as priority areas that must be protected from intensive development. The
quality of the riparian habitat in these areas is dependent on the avail-
ability of water and its inaccessibility to human influence.
Stream flow augmentation during periods of summer drought has been pro-
posed by AWMA and would utilize secondary and tertiary treated wastewater.
This concept has been endorsed by the California Department of Fish and
Game and the South Coast Regional Coastal Commission. Live stream flow
2-33
-------
throughout the year has the potential to increase the species diversity
and productivity of riparian habitats.
The intermittent streams usually carry just enough subsurface water to
support scattered patches of Mule Fat (Baccaris viminea), Mugwort (Artemesia
douglasiana), Tree Tobacco (Nicotiana glauca), Horehound (Murribium vulgare),
and a few individuals of Arroyo WillowsTSaTix, spp.). Other important
herbacious species include Graphalium, Brassica, Erodium, and a variety of
annual grasses. With a slight increase in topography away from the stream,
riparian vegetation is quickly replaced by grassland.
Riparian communities with continual stream flow display large canopy pro-
ducing trees. Cottonwoods (Populus fremonti), California Sycamores (Platanus
racemosa), and California Black Willows (Salix goodingii) are dominant trees
that require good stream flow in order to survive. The survival of these
species ensures the availability of habitat for predatory birds so essential
for the balance of rodent populations. When stream flow is maintained it
will be possible to transplant these trees into presently degraded riparian
habitats.
The lack of tall, full riparian, woodland trees, and insufficient amounts
and duration of running water have caused the riparian community to be low
in plant species diversity and stratification. The condition of low faunal
diversity has resulted. The occurrence of dense stands of Mule Fat, Mug-
wort, and Tree Tobacco limits the total variety of wildlife species possible,
but does allow populations of a few species to flourish.
Water is a limiting factor in wildlife distribution, and animals are often
concentrated where it occurs. All of the larger predators of the region
are found around the reservoir margins and live streams. Various species
of amphibians are restricted to the freshwater habitat and waterfowl and
marsh birds will utilize the reservoir for refuge and foraging activity.
2.8.1.3.2 Fauna
Riparian fauna is perhaps the most diversified of all the associations when
adequate habitat and water are available. Sections of Serrano Creek and
Aliso Creek that remain moist throughout the year express maximum wildlife
diversity. Several amphibians, salamanders and frogs such as the slender
salamander (Batrachoseps spp.) and the Pacific Tree Frog (Myle regilla)
are restricted to the moist micro-environments occurring along creeks and
reservoirs. Rodent diversity is somewhat reduced on the steep slopes of
ravines, but the California Mouse (Peromyscus cal iform'cus) and Dusky-
footed Woodrat (Neotoma fuscipes) are well represented.
Bird diversity and activity is correspondingly greater within the Riparian
Community since available habitats, food and nesting sites are maximal when
compared to grassland and coastal sage scrub. Large covies of Quail are
to be found in thickets of poison oak and foraging in nearby open fields.
Several other ground-dwelling birds such as the Ground Dove, Horned Lark,
and the Rufous-sided Towee also prosper here while in the upper tree canopy
predator species of Red-tailed Hawk, Marsh Hawk and Sparrow Hawks can
2-34
-------
occasionally be observed nesting. One endangered species, the Peregrine
Falcon (Falco peregrinus), is probably an infrequent visitor to the
riparian areas of the AWMA district.
Riparian woodland is extremely scarce in the coastal zone. It is also
endangered because the canyons are so desirable for housing developments.
There are still several choice canyons in the AWMA area, notably Moro,
Emerald, Los Trancos, Aliso in the San Joaquin Hills.
2.8.1.3.3 Southern Oak Woodland
The Southern Oak Woodland is found chiefly inland and is rare in the coas-
tal zone. It is often associated with the Riparian Woodland Community
and is therefore included,in acreage represented by this community. This
community is found in upper Wood Canyon along Aliso Creek, in Willow and
Camarillo Canyons which drain into Laguna Canyon, in the middle and upper
reaches of Los Trancos, Moro, and Emerald Canyons, and in Shady Canyon.
Plant species include the Coast Live Oak and Engleman Oak (Quercus
agrifolia and Q. engelmanii), and the California Walnut (Juglans cali-
form'ca) "as the dominant trees. Sumacs (Rhus sp.) are the main shrubs.
Amphibians include several more species of salamander than are found in
chaparral, like the Arboreal Salamander (Aneides lugubris). The reptiles
are similar. Birds are numerous. Most of the species found in coastal
sage scrub and chaparral are here. Hawks, owls, and ravens nest here. In
addition, migratory passerines (perching birds) use the oak woodlands en
route. Several species come to breed, such as the Warbling Vireo (Vireo
gilvus) Northern Oriole (Icterus galbula), and Western Wood Pewee (Conto-
pus sordidulus).
2.8.1.4 Rare and Endangered Species
2.8.1.4.1 Fauna
Society has acknowledged both on the federal and state level its respon-
sibility to protect and preserve wildlife species threatened with extinc-
tion. The Federal Endangered Species Preservation Act of 1966 and the
California Endangered Species Act of 1970 defined such species and auth-
orized measures to protect them. Lists of endangered species were drawn
up and are periodically updated. As of January 1974, there are several
birds on the federal and state rare and endangered species lists which
reside in or frequent the AWMA Region.
The AWMA area is ornithologically important because of the role it plays
in the lives of a number of rare and endangered species of birds, as well
as several birds fast approaching the endangered status. A pair of
Golden Eagles are known to nest in the vicinity of lower Aliso Creek and
appear to be permanent residents of the AWMA region. During the spring
of 1975 a pair of immature eagles were observed in addition to the
adults; however, it is not known whether these are transitory or off-
spring of the adult breeding pair. In 1974, the California Fish and Game
2-35
-------
Commission extended full legal protection to Golden Eagles as well as the
Osprey and White-tailed Kite which have also been observed in AWMA.
These species are not considered rare or endangered, but their declining
populations warrant special attention.
The endangered Peregrine Falcon and Brown Pelican may be infrequent visi-
tors to the area. Prairie Falcons have been observed more regularly in
the area and have been considered threatened by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service. These rare species may be approaching the endangered status.
The Bel dings Savannah Sparrow has recently been added to the California
Fish and Game's endangered status and may occur in isolated habitats along
the AWMA coast. The Yellowbilled Cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus), indicated
as rare by the California Fish and Game Commission, may also frequent the
area during its migration flights and is primarily restricted to the Riparian
woodland community.
Twenty avian species which have been observed or can be assumed to fre-
quent the area are exhibiting rapid population declines and limited
distribution. These species appear on the 1973 edition of the Audubon
Society Blue List (See Table 2-12). All of these rare, endangered, or
threatened species except for the small passerines, require vast areas
in order to maintain themselves. The area most of the AWMA area repre-
sents is an important foraging habitat for the birds of prey, representing
a significant portion of their total foraging territory.
Although no reptiles occurring in this locality are included in the Cali-
fornia Department of Fish and Game listing of California's Endangered
Species and Rare Fish and Wildlife, Southern California populations of
Southern Alligator Liazrd, California Legless Lizard, Rosy Boa, Orange
Throated Whiptail and Ring-necked Snakes are considered threatened due to
heavy collection pressure by amateur naturalists and commercial pet dealers.
There are no amphibians occurring within the AWMA region that are con-
sidered rare or endangered although the Large Blotched Salamander, Southern
Slender Salamander and the California Canyon Tree Frog population are
considered threatened in Southern California. None of the mammals or
rodents occurring within AWMA area are considered rare or endangered,
however, the numbers of larger carnivores are declining rapidly over much
of the region.
2.8.1.4.2 Flora
At the present time, rare and endangered plant species are not given legal
protection such as that extended to animal species. Essentially, the
same arguments, however, can be made for preservation of the necessary
habitat to sustain threatened plants as can be made for animals. It is
part of man's responsibility for stewardship and it is a necessary step
in understanding the complicated natural systems which are found on the
earth. Such preservation may yield practical benefits not now anticipated.
A species lost through man's carelessness by technological solutions. Man
does not (and never will) possess enough knowledge to consciously choose
extinction over other alternatives.
2-36
-------
TABLE 2-12
DECLINING SPECIES OF BIRDS
EXPECTED TO FREQUENT THE AWMA REGION
, Endan-
Rare gered
Brown Pelican
Black-crowned Night Heron
White-faced Ibis
Sharp-shinned Hawk
Cooper's Hawk
Red-shouldered Hawk
Swainson's Hawk
Ferruginous Hawk
Marsh Hawk
Prarie Falcon
Peregrine Falcon
Sparrow Hawk
Yellow-billed Cuckoo
Barn Own
Burrowing Owl
Purple .Martin
BewickVs Wren
Western Bluebird
Mountain Bluebird
Loggerhead Shrike
Bell's Vireo
Gray Vireo
Yellow Warbler
Bel ding's Savannah Sparrow
Pelecanus occidental is
Nycticorax nycticorax
Plegadis chihi
Accipter striatus
Accipter cooperii
Buteo lineatus
Buteo swainsoni
Buteo regal is
Circus cyaneus
Falco mexicarius
Falco peregrinus
Falco spaverius
Coccyzus americanus
Tyto alba
Speotyto cunicularia
Progne subis -
Thryomanes bewickii
Sialla mexicana
Sialia curruoides
Lanius ludovicianus3
Vireo bellii
Vireo vicinior
Dendroica petechia
Passerculus sandwichenis
beldingii
Rare*1
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
1 Listing of California's Endangered and Rare Fish a.n,d Wildlife adopted
by the California Fist) and Game .Commission, :May .21, 19.71..
2A'Udubon Sociiety Blue List
3
Observed
-------
The California Native Plant Society has prepared a list, by county, of the
native plants which appear to be rare or endangered. In Orange County,
there are six endangered species, all of which grow in the coastal zone.
Three are in the same Genus (Dudleya) of the Stonecrop family.
1. Cardamine gambelii - Common name, Bittercress. Grows in
coastal sage scrub and chaparral.
2. Chorizanthe chrysaacantha - Grows only in Orange County on
ocean bluffs in coastal sage scrub.
3. Cordylanthus maritimus - Common name, Bird's Beak. Saltmarsh
plant found only in this habitat.
4. Dudleya multicaulis - Common name, Live Forever. Grows in coastal
sage scrub and chaparral. Grows in hills of Laguna Beach. Also
found in the Santa Monica area.
5. Dudleya stolonifera - Found only in Laguna, Willow, and Aliso
Canyons.
6. Dudleya viscida - Grows in coastal sage scrub in San Juan
Capistrano area.
2.8.1.4.3 Endangered Habitat Types
An endangered habitat type is as real an entity as an endangered species.
In many cases, loss of habitat is the prime cause for the decline in num-
bers of a species to endangered status. Preservation of critical habitats
means protection of potentially endangered species. It is preventative
medicine, and is far easier to apply at the endangered habitat stage than
at the endangered species stage. In recognition of this situation, the
State Legislature passed the Ecological Reserve Act in 1968 to protect
rare or endangered wildlife or aquatic organisms or specialized habitat
types by authorizing the acquisition of land and water areas as Ecological
Reserves.
Of the eight major habitat types in the south coast zone, only one is
abundant in Southern, California, the chaparral community. Six are rare
in an undisturbed state: coastal strand, coastal sage scrub, riparian
woodland, oak woodland, saltmarsh and freshwater marsh. One is close to
extinct, natural grassland. Freshwater and saltwater marshes are our
rarest and most endangered habitat types.
An endangered habitat priority list has been compiled from many sources,
including the Los Angeles County Environmental Resource Committee Report,
the California Coastline Preservation and Recreation Plan (1971), the Cali-
fornia Comprehensive Ocean Area Plan (Appendix LX), and recommendations
from experts in the fields of Biology, Ecology and Conservation.
The following Priority Areas occur in the AWMA region:
2-37
-------
N
ENDANGERED HABITAT TYPES
SO. ANAHEIM BA
S1. GOLDEN WEST
PONDS
BS. BOLSA BAY
HABITA
SAND SUPPLY
B3. NEWPORT MARINA
a*. UPPER NEWDORT
•Lun^s AND BIG CANYON
EB. SAN JOAQUIN
BB. PELICAN
E7. SAN JOAQUIN
EB. LAC
BB
3O. ALISO CREEK
3B
RANGE
COUNTY
PRIORITY
SITES
HABITATS
AIMO
SUPPLY AREAS
33. SAN
Exhibit 2-5
-------
Pelican Hill - Coastal sage scrub. Favorite local field trip site for
school groups. Good example of unspoiled coastal sage scrub. Area of
unusual geological and archaeological interest.
San Joaquin Hills - Riparian woodland, oak woodland, coastal sage scrub.
Chaparral, grassland. Several undisturbed canyons which are choice habi-
tats. Los Trancos, Moro, and Emerald-Boat, Shady and Willow Canyons are
exceptionally fine, unspoiled areas. One or more endangered plant species.
At least several canyons and the hills between should be preserved as
natural areas.
Resident deer herd.
Open spaces on surrounding hills are fine hunting grounds for the large
birds of prey.
Laguna Lakes and Watershed - Freshwater marsh, grasslands, coastal sage
scrub adjacent to one lake. Good bird habitat. Flora includes several
uncommon aquatic species.
Aliso Creek and Watershed - Riparian woodland, coastal sage scrub, cha-
parral, grasslands. Very rich habitat, varied flora. Several endangered
plant species. Many water-associated bird species in lower creek.
South Laguna Hills - Coastal sage scrub and chaparral outstanding.
Wood Canyon - Oak woodland. Part of the watershed of Aliso Creek (#30).
An oak-wooded canyon, rare in the coastal hills.
Niguel Lake (Sulphur Creek Reservoir) - Freshwater marsh.
Approximately 60% of the AWMA area represents unique or endangered.habitat.
Current trends in environmental concern and sensitivity will limit growth
in these areas to very low densities, and in many critical habitats no
development will be allowed.
2.8.2 Marine Biology
The marine biology of the AWMA is currently subject to heavy urban pres-
sure in the form of tide pool collecting and waste water discharge. The
scientific value of the coastal sections of the AWMA district has been >
emphasized by the creation of marine life refuges in the Laguna Beach,
Aliso Beach and the Salt Creek areas. The South Coast Regional Coastal
Commission has recommended that an additional refuge be dedicated along the
coastal area of the San Joaquin Hills between Newport Beach and Laguna
Beach.
Information sources have already been cited in the introduction to the
Biological Resources Section. Analysis will be limited to five categories:
Intertidal Flora and Fauna, Benthic subtidal Biota, Kelp Populations,
Phytoplankton and Fish Populations. Discussion will be centered on Aliso
Beach and vicinity, the location of the proposed AWMA ocean outfall.
2-38
-------
2.8.2.1 Intertidal Flora and Fauna
The diversity of the intertidal and near subtidal flora and fauna of any
area, in terms of the number of species and their abundance, depends on
the interaction of many factors. The nature of the substrate is probably
the most critical. Hard rock always supports more luxuriant biota than a
substrate which is friable, while a friable but solid substrate supports
more than cobbles, travel or sand. The surface topography also has an
important effect in that the presence of tide pools increases the luxuriance
by comparison with areas where tide pools are lacking. Sand beaches contain
quantities of plants and animals of small size, even unicellular, which
normally descend below the surface during low tide periods. The total
productivity of such sandy areas is low by comparison with the rocky areas
of intertidal and immediate subtidal. It should be appreciated that there
are marked seasonal variations in the quantity of plants and animals pre-
sent in both the rocky and sandy areas of the intertidal and near subtidal.
In the vicinity of large urban populations, various factors are operating
which depress the quantities of plants and animals which occur in the inter-
tidal and immediate subtidal. The most immediate of these factors is "people
pressure" due to collecting by investigators, the large-scale depredations
when large school classes are taken to the. beach and the indiscriminate
general trampling by the merely curious. Air pollution components have been
shown to have an inimical effect on-the intertidal flora. Effluent discharges
have often been blamed for changes in flora and fauna although direct proof
is lacking that they are responsible; other than in very close proximity
(10m.) to the actual outfall.
At the mouth of Aliso Creek where it meets the sea, a sandy beach and a
fishing pier mark the site of the well-developed recreational facility of
Aliso Beach. The beach is of coarse sand with a steep surf scrap. The
reefs to the north and south of the beach are used for fishing and there is
considerable slaughter of mussels and other shell fish for bait. These
reef areas are characterized by large blocks of stone covered with curtains
of yellowish-green Enteromorphora.
The surf pounds heavily against these formations, causing the movement of
large quantities of sand which has a pronounced effect on the marine flora
and fauna. Sandy channels at the base of the blocks are lined with
Gracilariopsis andersonii. In the surf grass region sparse populationsjof
red algae (Laurencia) exist while filamentous diatoms inhabit the higher
shallow tide pools. There are numerous barnacles and sea urchin and star-
fish remaining. In summary, it can be stated that the Aliso Beach area is
subject to heavy people predation and the remaining biota i.s quite unre-
markable.
Just north of Aliso Beach is an area named Goffs Island that is more repre-
sentative of the marine life along tihe AWMA coastline. The substrate is
composed of broken concrete slabs and reinforced concrete bulwarks which
lessen the force of the waves and maintain a small sandy beach. The
stripped shore crab (Pachygrapsus crassipes) and the purple sea urchin
(Strongylocentrotus purpuratus) cause considerable damage to algae growths.
2-39
-------
The high intertidal region supports a fine series of the common brown
algae (Pelvetia, Hesperophycus, Halidrys, Egregia, and Eisenia). Rocky
pools support red algae (Gelidium and theheavily grazed Prionitis) and green
algae (Ulva, Enteromorpha, and Chaetomorpha). Extensive "meadows" of these
also form on top of mussels in flat areas. Many warm shallow pools contain
the jointed corallines, particularly Corallina and some Bossiella. There
are heavy, dense turfs of Lithothrix occupying large areas of the mid-
intertidal platforms, and lower down it completely dominates concrete
blocks on the sheltered side of the large reef. The naturally occurring
reef rock is heavily occupied by Halidrys, other brown algae, and other
corallines. The outer, surf-exposed sheer face supports a large mussel
population and great quantities of common red algal species (Laurencia,
Erythrocystis, corallines) as well as brown algae (Egregia and Eisenia)
and numerous tufts of the less frequent green, Derbesia. At times the
kelp beds offshore at this location are especially apparent.
The diversity of the marine life in this area is a close approximation
of the natural state of a relatively undisturbed intertidal habitat along
the AWMA coastline. It is recommended that this area be considered a repre-
sentative coastal community for any future coastal impact studies.
2.8.2.2 Benthic Subtidal Biota
The submarine coastal .topography of Southern California differs markedly
from most other parts of the world because the continental shelf is very
narrow here. It has a width of approximately one mile off Aliso Beach.
The area under study has a bottom composition of soft sand with increasing
amounts of rocks adjacent to headlands and points.
North (1971 a) attempted to update the work of the Alan Handcock Foundation
Studies (1959, 1965 b) and the Southern California Coastal Water Research
Project Report (SCCWRP 1973) by studying the benthic biota of the Aliso
Beach sewer outfall and other locations.
Previous studies have shown that between Newport and San Diego, the rela-
tively narrow shelf was occupied by an outer zone characterized by the
Amphiodia community, in which several species of the brittle-star genus
Amphiodia occur.
Inshore and in shallower water several associations occur in various parts
of Southern California. The Diopatra ornata association occurs in areas
where kelp, broken rock, gravel and shells are prominent. A second asso-
ciation dominated by Northria (a polychaete worm) and Tellina (a clam)
occurs particularly on sandy bottoms. It should be appreciated that,
unlike most terrestrial associations where the fauna often occur in rela-
tively precise numbers, subtidal communities or associations characterized
by particular animal species are much more imprecise so that they are often
regarded as too subjective for any purpose of classification.
The most recent work by North tended to collaborate earlier findings of
population density and made note of high numbers of Listriolobus recorded
within the sampling areas. All stations sampled demonstrated a high
2-40. .
-------
amount of species diversity which may be interpreted as indications of a
normal benthic community, relatively free of pollutant materials.
2.8.2.3 Kelp Populations (Macrocystis pyrifera)
There has been a considerable decline in kelp beds off the AWMA district's
coastline from 1950 to 1960. At present there are only a few isolated
patches of macriocystis off the coast of Laguna Beach, and their survival is
in considerable doubt. The ecology of kelp beds has been described in con-
siderable detail by North (1971 b) and the economic benefits of kelp bed
resources has been studied by North and Hubbs (1968).
It is presently impossible to pinpoint the cause of the disappearance of
kelp off the Orange County coastline, but a popular hypothesis places the
blame on warmer ocean temperatures as the cause of the decline. The
effects of discharged wastes on kelp has been studied by North (1964).
Although no definitive conclusions were reached, the study does seem
to indicate that ocean discharge does not have a serious impact on the
surfival of Macrocystis. Exhibit 2-6 provides a visual summary of the
decline of kelp.
2.8.2.4 Phytoplankton
i
The phytoplankton are the major primary producers in Southern California
ocean waters. Phytoplankton serve as the base of the marine food chain
and in this sense are critically important when one considers biological
concentration of toxic wastes and tolerance limits of nutrient levels.
Numerous studies have been conducted on the cyclic nature of phytoplankton
populations. The results are summarized in the SCCWRP report of 1973. No
attempt will be made to summarize the data at this time. However, it must
be noted that ocean outfalls displacing primary effluent and digested sludge
have been shown to exert a pronounced localized effect on phytoplankton
growth cycles.
Studies, other than those described in the SCCWRP report, have not been
attempted along the coastline of the AWMA district. However, the new •
Federal and State Ocean Discharge Requirements are expected to reduce the
levels of nutrient enriched wastewater that is discharged to the ocean.
2.8.2.5 Fish Populations
Although innumerable publications are available dealing with some aspect
of fish, fishing or fisheries in Southern California, general summary
compilations oriented with respect to the present type of study are rare.
The recent SCCWRP Report (1973) gives an excellent general summary of
existing information as it applies to the Southern California Bight.
Regarding the fish populations reported from the immediate vicinity of
Aliso Beach, the best summary of data is, understandably, in the posses-
sion of the Department of Fish and Game, and we acknowledge with thanks
the opportunity to consult their manuscript sources.
2-41
-------
0 I 2
Stct. Wilas
1958
(96!
196?
1970
Historical variations in the occurrence and extent of kelp beds
between Laguna Beach and Dana Point (North, 1972).
Exhibit 2-6
-------
If one considers the area within a radius of three miles of Aliso Beach, •
one can consider the fish populations in a number of broad categories, as
follows:
Pelagic species. These are species characteristic of deep ocean waters
and only some have the habit of entering the immediate coastal waters.
Albacore and Blue-fin rarely come within 10 miles of the coast except
occasionally in late summer (September). Pelagic species found most fre-
quently off Dana Point include Jack Mackerel, Pacific Mackerel, California
Barracuda and the Northern Anchovy.
Bottom-living species on sandy bottoms. Such habitats are characterized
by Grunion, Corbina, various Croakers and Surfperches.
Rocky inshore bottoms, including kelp beds. Such habitats are exceedingly
diverse in the number of species which occur because of the widely diverse
conditions which prevail, particularly in the presence of kelp. Species
found include numerous Rockfishes, Cabezon, Basses and Perches.
Fish populations are significant as recreational and commercial resources
and, from the aspect of public health, may serve to transmit to man unde-
sirable materials through man's consumption of seafood. There are several
hundred coastal marine fishes listed for the State of California as occurring
in shallow water (i.e., less than 300 feet). The diversity of fish popula-
tions found at any one place or time is related to a large number of factors,
such as depth, bottom relief, substrate, etc. It is therefore difficult to
discuss fish populations other than in general terms because of the complex-
ities of diversity and of food preference and availability. The presence
of kelp improves offshore values although no fish specie's associated with
the Southern California kelp beds seems to be completely dependent on the
kelp for survival.
Elements of all these habitats and types are the target of sport or com-
mercial fisheries in the Dana Point area and represent an economic re-
source on the order of $500,000 per annum.
2.8.2.6 Marine Life Refuges
Major portions of the shoreline in the AWMA study area have been desig-
nated by the State Legislature as Marine Life Refuges. The impact of
human actions on important shorelife has been considerable in the past and
has thus prompted the above legislation. Exhibit 2-7 shows the relation-
ship between the preserved areas and proposed ocean outfall line alterna-
ti ves.
In reviewing the importance of these preserved rocky shore regions in
light of the effects of an ocean outfall, the following factors should
be considered:
1. Ocean outfalls have already operated for several years in these
regions without apparent adverse effects.
2-42
-------
Exhibit 2-7
ff*^ * JL " ./••*/2l«^1^ 'v"-: //£rr^^^^*5£7"' li-'i\^
point WS>k^l^1/?;:-\^ s
;t- ?-:; LL.
^.-••!l»'n«'Kia\-.VJ1f/ III
ffi
LU
Li.
-------
2. Human molestation of marine life in the area has already taken
a considerable toll.
3. Continued preservation of the refuges is considered very impor-
tant and protection should be encouraged.
4. In a report entitled "An Evaluation of the Health of the Benthic
Marine Biota of Ventura, Los Angeles, and Orange Counties,"
February 1972, prepared by Rimmon C. Fay, Ph.D. and Associates,
for the Southern California Association of Government, Dr. Fay
notes that these refuges are presently not particularly productive
of marine life.
TABLE 2-13
MARINE LIFE REFUGES
Newport Beach/
Irvine Coast
Laguna Beach
South Laguna
Niguel-Dana
Point
Doheny Beach
Poppy Ave. in Newport 2,800
Beach to Northern
Limits of Laguna Beach
McKnight Drive to 5,725
Aster Street
South of Aliso Pier 2,700
to Eagle Rock Way
South end of Three 12,000
Arch Bay to Dana 3,500
Point
Doheny State Park 6,400
200
600
600
1,200
1,200
600
10905
10904
10906
10911
10907
10908
The San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board has tentatively identified
the Marine Life Refuges as areas of "special biological significance." In
these areas, natural water quality conditions are to be maintained and wastes
are to be discharged at a sufficient distance to maintain natural water qua-
lity.
2.9 ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES
2.9.1 Introduction
The coastal province of Orange County has been inhabited by Man for thousands
of years. Relatively sedentary populations existed six to eight thousand
years ago. Throughout the total prehistory of this region Man lived from
natural food yields; agriculture was not introduced until the arrival of
2-43
-------
the Spanish in the late eighteenth century. Terrestrial resources, partic-
ularly plant foods, played a major role in the diets of these people. Seed
bearing plants and other resources populate in the coastal sage community
were emphasized.
Early lifestyles focused almost exclusively upon gathering of food re-
sources; little hunting or fishing was practiced. Camps tended to be
located in the rolling terrain of the foothills or along the coastal ter-
race; each camp reflected a similar range of activities. This type of
settlement persisted until 500 to 1000 A.D. During this time, trends
toward population growth and increased cultural complexity were develop-
ing. A greater range of resources was exploited and the utilization of
those previously acquired was intensified. These changes brought about a
gradual de-centralization of activity. Temporary camps were founded in a
variety of resource zones to take advantage of seasonal abundance. Sea-
sonal sites were also utilized during times of stress when populations
probably lived in small household units. The settlement pattern of later
peoples consisted of a basecamp and a variety of seasonal campsites.
Historically, coastal Orange County was occupied by the Gabrielino and
Juaneno Indians. Aliso Creek was the dividing line between these two
peoples.
Archaeological sites are the remnants of human activity. They represent
location used repeatedly or areas of short term intensive use. Sites
represent, for the most part, a significant amount of activity rather than
an isolated event.
Archaeological sites are non-renewable; once disturbed, losses cannot be
replaced. Most archaeological deposits are very susceptible to destruc-
tion. They tend to occur on the surface and are limited in depth; few
deposits will exceed three to four feet. A great deal of the knowledge to
be gained from these sites is derived from the association of objects and
the frequency of objects per unit volume; therefore minor disturbances may
result in great losses.
2.9.2 The AWMA Region
The Aliso Water Management Agency (AWMA) includes foothills of the Santa
Ana's, the eastern extreme of the coastal plain, the San Joaquin Hills and
the coast from Newport Beach to Dana Point. A full range of aboriginal occu-
pation sites may be found within this district. Approximately 150 archaeo-
logical sites have been recorded within AWMA.
Data concerning archaeological sites in this region has been compiled since
the 1930's; however, the bulk of recorded sites have been submitted during
the last five years. Environmental impact reporting has stimulated syste-
matic archaeological reconnaissance. A number of archaeological surveys
have been conducted within AWMA in connection with EIR's. The data derived
are of two types: systematic coverage yielding the location of a high per-
centage of the archaeological resources or a general reconnaissance yielding
an impression of the archaeological resources (but not necessarily the loca-
tion of a high percentage of the sites). Despite the lack of complete
2-44
-------
coverage of the region and the variability in reporting of those areas
covered, AWMA is one of the better recorded regions within Orange County.
With the exception of several small canyons between Newport Beach and
Laguna Beach, current site distributions are representative of varying
site densities within AWMA. Probably 70 to 75 percent of the archaeolog-
ical sites have been recorded within this area.
2.9.3 Description of Archaeological Sites
Archaeological sites fall into several general categories defined by the
extent of use, time period of occupation, and the associated features of
the environment. Middens, deposits composed usually of a variety of occu-
pation waste, occur in low lying areas along streams or on the coast; they
may also be found on knolls in the foothills, along ridges, or in associa-
tion with rockshelters. Shellfish remains are common in many midden sites,
though they may be absent in early villages or later camps not associated
with the use of littoral resources. The most common complex of tools in early
campsites and later multi-purpose temporary camps in the coastal sage com-
munity is the millingstone association: grinding tools, large hammering and
chopping tools, and large waste flakes of stone. Other sites representing
more limited use are surface scatters or shallow deposits of manufacturing
waste and a few stone tools, pictograph sites not associated with middens,
and bedrock grinding stations not associated with deposits. All of these
limited use sites are probably associated with the later occupations of this
region and may be found throughout the region. Cemeteries are also present;
these are special features associated with base camps. Such camps may be
found in the foothills of the Santa Ana's near Aliso or Serrano Creeks, the
margin of the coastal plain, the upper, open region of Aliso Creek in the
San Joaquin Hills, the western extreme of the San Joaquin Hills, and along
the coastal strip. Temporary camps or processing stations may be found
throughout the lands included in AWMA.
2.9.4 Density of Archaeological Sites
High site density occurs in several areas of AWMA. The western extreme of
the San Joaquin Hills exhibits a number of sites probably associated with
populations based in and about the Newport Beach-Irvine area. Laguna Creek
and Aliso Creek dominate the San Joaquin Hills; over one-half of the recorded
archaeological sites within AWMA occur within these two drainage systems and
q.y;er one-third occur in Aliso Creek drainage. The upper regions of these
drainages within the San Joaquin Hills display a large number of sites, the
immediate coastline also exhibits numerous campsites. The final area of
high site density is the Lomas de Santiago drained by Serrano and Aliso
Creek. The Glenn Ranch district, systematically surveyed by Archaeological
Research, Inc., exhibits a very high,density of remains.
Two areas of low site density exist. , One, the Irvine property, probably con-
tains a number of temporary camps as yet unrecorded. The other region is
the north/south ridge from the Mission Viejo region to Dana Point and the
western slope of this ridge (included portions of El Toro, Laguna Hills,
Moulton Ranch, Laguna Niguel, and Bear Brand, and all of the Colinas
2-45
-------
district). Field work on the Moulton Ranch found that nearly all archaeo-
logical resources were within the western and central portion of this prop-
erty; additional work on the Colinas and portions of the Bear Brand proper-
ties support this trend, since only one site was recorded. Archaeological
sites become frequent within this corridor only within 1/2 mile of the
ocean. This is probably the only region within AWMA that displays a low
site density.
2.10 PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES
2.10.1 Introduction
The Aliso Creek Watershed and the geographic area it affects, contains
one of the most important paleontological regions in the United States;
local paleontologists have indicated that this is the richest Miocene
strata in the western half of the United States. The exposed and under-
lying sedimentary rock units represent over 100 million years of deposition.
Most of this deposition has occurred in a coastal or marine environment
with the fossils representing terrestrial, shore, and ocean dwelling ani-
mals and plants.
2.10.2 Previous Work
Paleontologists researching this area have begun to uncover fossils whose
potential scientific value is great. Dr. Lawrence G. Barnes, Curator of
Vertebrate Paleontology of the National History Museum of Los Angeles
County, has recently directed fossil salvage teams in the region and has
stated that this is a classic locale for Miocene Epoch and more recent
fossils. Dr. Barnes has made several reconnaissance surveysin the Lake
Forest-El Toro-Laguna Hills area and during every survey, fossils were
observed. Fossil bone is exposed in the road-cuts and stream-banks through-
out the area.
Most fossil sites, especially bone beds, are unknown until they are un-
covered during excavation or grading. During the excavation for a housing
tract in Lake Forest in 1973-74, the remains of thousands of vertebrate
fossils were recovered. It will be years before this site (locally called
Pecten Reef) will be fully evaluated, but the most important discovery to
date were the remains of crocodiles, previously believed extinct in this
hemisphere for millions of years. This site was known before grading al-
though its full potential was not realized until most of the valuable
paleontological information was lost.
Another site, also a type locale and "classic" fossil deposit, is the
Rancholabrean fossil accumulation in Costeau Pit near Leisure World. The
pit was an ancient spring which drained into Aliso Creek roughly along the
present Alicia Parkway. Dr. Wade E. Miller begain to salvage this site in
the middle 1960's. Hundreds of bones and teeth from saber-tooth cats,
lions, giant ground sloths, mammoths, camels, horses, dire wolves, and other
Rancholabrean animals which include four classes and twenty-eight families
of vertebrate animals were recovered (Miller, 1971). Similar accumula-
tions may be discovered in the Aliso drainage system as scattered bones and
teeth of Late Pleistocene vertebrates have been found throughout this region.
2-46
-------
Loel and Corey (1932) surveyed the Lower-Middle Miocene fossils in this
area. From their survey they named many new species of marine inverte-
brates which are used by economic paleontologists as guide fossils. The
fossil locales, where the new species were first described, are considered
type locales and their locations are included in their report.
2.10.3 Fossil Zones of Primary Concern
The most important fossil zone which must be carefully monitored and exca-
vated trends generally southwest to northeast across the Aliso drainage
system. It is shown on the attached map and is observed as exposures of a
white, sandy-limestone "reef-like" structure containing abundant marine
invertebrates, notably Chiamys (Lyropecten) crassicardo Conrad. This Middle
Miocene deposit is irregularly interbedded with unconsolidated buff-colored
marine sand which contains abundant vertebrate (terrigenous and marine) and
invertebrate fossils, microfossils, and petrified wood. The limestone
"Reef" is presently included in the fossil-rich Monterey Formation. The
rich variety of fossils is evident not only by the "reef" but in roadcuts
such as the one on Moulton Parkway which the county road department had to
spray with tar recently because so many shells, bones and shark teeth were
falling onto the road that people were stopping to collect. This not only
created a traffic hazard but also affected the stability of the roadcut.
Exceptionally rich accumulations of marine mammals occur throughout the
area. Large bone beds are found on the Fury Ranch, Glenn Ranch, Moulton
Ranch, and the Irvine Ranch. It appears that the Upper Miocene-Lower
Pliocene Capistrano Embayment may have been a sheltered bay similar to
Scammon's Lagoon on the west coast of Baja California which is a calving
area for California grey whales. Not only are whale fossils abundant but
also fossils of dolphins, porpoise, sea cows, seals, sea lions, fish, sea
birds and myriads of shark teeth. Six-inch-long Carcharodon shark teeth
have been recovered from the grading screens of the El Toro Materials sand
quarry on El Toro Road near the Glenn Ranch.
2.10.4 Site Locations
To list and describe every known fossil site in the Aliso drainage system
would be inadequate because the entire area contains fossils in varying
degrees of abundance and many sites will be discovered during future grading.
There are, however, references which do contain the locations of most known
sites and are listed below:
1. Vedder, J.G.; R.F. Yerkes; and J.E. Schoellhamer, 1957 GEOLOGIC
MAP OF THE SAN JOAQUIN HILLS-SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO AREA, ORANGE
COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. U.S.G.S. Oil and Gas Investigation Map
OM-193.
2. Loel, Wayne and W.H. Corey, 1932, THE VAQUEROS FORMATION, LOWER
MIOCENE OF CALIFORNIA. Unjv. Calif. Press Berkeley, Vol. 22,
No. 3, pp. 31-410, pis. 4-65. December 31, 1932.
2-47
-------
3. Locality Catalogue, Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County.
4. Morton, Paul K.; Russel V. Miller; and Don Fife, ms., GEOLOGY
OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. Calif. Div. Mines and Geology
(to be published soon).
2.10.5 Geologic Formations
A brief review of the geologic formations and the fossils they contain has
been included as a general reference. The oldest formation exposed is the
Paleocene Silverado Formation (Tsi) which represents a time when the county-
area was covered with a marsh. Commercial clay deposits on Piano Trabuco
and near Cook's Corner are mined from this formation and contain low-grade
coal with wood fossils, twigs, leaves, sparse marine mollusks, e.g.,
Turn'tell a pachecoensis Stanton, and occasional shark teeth.
The overlying Eocene Santiago Formation (Tsa) contains continental and marine
conglomerates and sandstones. Fossils from this formation are extremely
rare and if found should be salvaged and preserved. In 1971 a large avocado-
like fossil tree was recovered from the Irvine Dump and is displayed at
Chapman College in Orange.
The Miocene Epoch formations are very thick and contain the most diverse
fossil assemblages within the Aliso Watershed. The undifferentiated
Vaqueros-Sespe Formation (Tvs) represents a time when the land was sub-
siding and the sea was innundating the area, producing the ancient Santa
Ana Bay which is discussed by Loel and Corey (1932). Where geologists are
able to differentiate between the older, terrigenous Sespe Formation (Ts)
and the younger, marine Vaqueros Formation (Tv), the Sespe is a red sand-
stone containing no fossils and the Vaqueros is a buff sandstone containing
abundant marine fossils. Fairly large exposures of Ts and TV occur west
of Laguna Canyon on Irvine Ranch land. The Loel and Corey sites are located
within this area. Marine invertebrate fossils include Area santana Loel &
Corey, Dosinia santana Loel & Corey, Turritella inezana santana Loel &
Corey, Chlamys (Macrochlamis) magnolia (Conrad), and Rapana vaquerosensis
(Arnold) imperial is (HertleTn & Jordan). Shark teeth, fish and marine
mammals bones, and petrified wood are also found throughout the Vaqueros
Formation and Vaqueros-Sespe Formation.
The Topanga Formation (Tt) is considered a Middle Miocene shallow-water
marine formation which interfingers with the San Onofre Breccia Formation
(Tso), an accumulation of landslide rock-debris. Fossils are rarely found
in the breccia and those that have been recovered are the same species found
in the Topanga Formation. The limestone "reef" previously mentioned may
belong within the Topanga Formation or that it may represent a local tran-
sition between the shallow-water Topanga Formation and the deep-water
Monterey Formation. The same invertebrate fossil present in the "reef" are
also found in the Topanga Formation. Extensive microfossil research will
eventually resolve the age of the "reef" but it is included here because of
the fossils it contains. The marine invertebrates include Territella
ocoyana Conrad, Turn'tell a ocoyana topangensis Merriam, Turritella
2-48
-------
temblorensis Wiedey, Chlamys (Lyropecten) crassicardo Conrad, Cancellaria
da Hiana Anderson, Ocenebra topangensis Arnold, Bittium topangensis
(Arnold^), Miltha santaecrucis Arnold, dementia (Egesta) pertenuis (Gabb),
Chione temblorensis (Anderson") and Balanus sp. Several echinoids are pre-
sent, most important of which are the button sand dollars, Vaquerosella sp.
Abundant whale bones and other marine vertebrate bones and teeth are found
throughout the formation. Petrified wood and some shore-dwelling terri-
genous fossils are also present.
The Santa Ana Bay extended far inland during the Middle Miocene Epoch,
about 15 million years ago. Deep-sea silt, volcanic ash, and diatomite
compose the Monterey Formation (Tm) and the Puente Formation, La Vida
Member (Tplv), which overly the Topanga Formation. The fine-grained,
laminated Monterey Formation is widely exposed on the Moulton Ranch and in
Leisure World and undoubtedly unlies most of El Toro. It is highly fossil-
iferous and fish scales, bones, teeth, shark teeth, mammal remains, seaweed
and leaf imprints, and several mollusk species are common. A small exposure
of the Puente Formation, La Vida Member, trends across Aliso Creek east of
the Christianitos Fault. Fish scales, bones, and some crabs have been
found at this site. Vertebrate fossils, except fish debris, are not common
in the white diatomite.
Toward the end of the Miocene Epoch the sea began to retreat and the land
was covered with a shallow, receding sea. The sandstone formation repre-
senting this is the Capistrano Formation, one of the most important
formations in the Aliso Watershed. The formation contains abundant marine
mammal bones which in places litter the ground. The formation contains
lenses of conglomerates, limestone, and siltstone with some invertebrate
marine shells. The lower part of the formation is the Oso sand member.
This extends throughout the Aliso drainage area and the El Toro Materials
sand quarry operates in the member. Many important fossils of turtles,
sturgeon and other fish, sea mammals, sharks, and birds have been recovered
with disarticulated bones of terrestrial animals apparently washed into
the sea. Within the Capistrano Formation, near its contact with the under-
lying Monterey Formation, is found a narrow bed of phosphate cobbles or
nodules. Apparently the abundance of phosphate has been favorable for the
preservation of fossils, as the cobbles are scattered between excellent
fossil bones of marine mammals and petrified wood. Dr. Barnes has stated
that these phosphate beds should be preserved and that it would be advan-
tageous to construct observation pits over these beds for educational
purposes. The thickest phosphate-bone bed is found in the east side of
the Moulton Parkway road-cut directly north of La Paz Road. It is LACM
locality 7136.
Overlying the Capistrano Formation is the grey, silty Pliocene Miguel
Formation. This marine formation contains local concentrations of fossil
sea shells and some vertebrate material have been recovered. Any fossil
concentrations should be salvaged carefully and all vertebrate material
should be collected for study. A large accumulation of sea shells is
exposed by a stream which flows by La Paz Road, about 1/4 mile up the
stream from the intersection of La Paz Road and Moulton Parkway. Similar
fossil accumulations may be discovered during future excavations.
2-49
-------
The Quaternary terrace and alluvial deposits blanket the Aliso drainage
system and are thickest in the Saddleback Valley upon which El Toro is
built. Fossils that occur here are disarticulated bones of "Ice Age" or
Rancholabrean animals which lived in the velt-like environment of the
Pleistocene. Local accumulations of bones should be expected, similar to
the deposits of Costeau Pit (Miller, 1971). Mammoth bones have been col-
lected from many of the drainage areas including Aliso Creek and Salt
Creek. Mammoth tusk and bone were collected on Dana Point in 1937 and it
is highly possible that more bone will be found.
2.11 LAND USE
The predominant land use in the AWMA area is low intensity agriculture.
There are approximately 35,000 acres devoted to the grazing of cattle and
seasonal dry farming of cereal grains. There are also approximately 540
acres of citrus and avocados, the primary cattle grazing areas can be
found on the Moulton Ranch southerly of Leisure World, and on the coastal
hills of the Irvine Ranch between the cities of Laguna Beach and Newport
Beach. The citrus and avocado producing areas can be found in the north-
easterly area of the AWMA region in the foothills of the Santa Ana Moun-
tains north of the Community of El Toro.
The first community to develop in the region was Laguna Beach, situated on
the coastline at the mouth of Laguna Canyon. The San Joaquin Hills serve
as a back drop for the city. In addition to providing spectacular views
of the ocean and shoreline, these hills tend to isolate the community from
other urban areas in Orange County and provide Laguna Beach with a unique
environmental setting.
Laguna Beach is the only city in Orange County which does not have a boun-
dary line contiguous with another city. It is not bisected by, nor even
conveniently serviced by a freeway, and it is one of the few cities in
Orange County which does not have a regional shopping center within its
boundaries. The City does draw tourists from all over the world by its
reputation as a cultural and recreation center.
Commercial and tourist commercial land uses have extended along the Pacific
Coast Highway for almost the entire length of the city. Limited commer-
cial, industrial and residential uses have extended northward along Laguna
Canyon Road for several miles. Otherwise, Laguna Beach is characterized by
single family housing which has crept into the hills and canyons behind the
commercial core of the City. The same pattern of land use, commercial
along with the Coast Highway with residential uses spreading into the hills,
continues to the south of Laguna Beach through the unincorporated community
of South Laguna.
Low Density residential uses are located on both sides of the Coast High-
way through the communities of Three Arch Bay and Laguna Niguel. There is
one community shopping center servicing the southern portion of the AWMA
region. Residential development spreads inland through Laguna Miguel, along
Crown.Valley Parkway for approximately five miles.
2-50
-------
s
Legend
Single Family Residential
Multi - Family Residential
Commercial
Industrial
Public
Open Space
Exhibit 2-8
LLJ
X
LU
-------
TABLE 2-14
EXISTING LAND USE
ORANGE COUNTY/AWMA
RESIDENTIAL
Low density (single family)
High density (multiples)
COMMERCIAL
INDUSTRIAL
PARKS AND RECREATION
AGRICULTURE
Citrus and avocados
Grazing and dry farming
OTHER OPEN SPACE
TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES
OTHER
AWMA
Acres
4,631
1,520
647
150
782
540
540
35,000
5,000
635
48,905
% ,
9.5
3.1
1.3
.3
1.6
1.1
1.1
71.6
10.2
1.3
100.0%
Orange
Acres
84,947
15,404
12,713
12,552
11,920
53,210
53,210
275,093
8,881
36,103
510,823
County
%
16.6
3.0
2.5
2.5
2.3
10.4
10.4
53.9
1.7
7.1
100. o;
-------
The County of Orange has recently constructed a regional civic center in
La.guna Miguel at the intersection of Crown Valley Parkway and Alicia Park-
way. Further to the north is the General Services Administration Building
located on a 91 acre site.
Development in the coastal region of AWMA has generally followed the shore-
line (and the Pacific Coast Highway) and then extended inland along the
arterial highways - Laguna Canyon Road and Crown Valley Parkway.
Development in the inland, or northern part of the AWMA region has occurred
along the corridor of the San Diego Freeway and then extended along the ar-
terial s which connect with the freeway. The area on the South side of the
San Diego Freeway is generally known as Laguna Hills. The focal point of
Laguna Hills is Leisure World. Leisure World, located at the intersection
of El Toro Road and the San Diego Freeway is a senior citizens community
of 2,420 acres. By Orange County standards, Leisure World is a fairly high
density residential community. It is a planned community complete with
recreational facilities, hospital, professional center and a shopping cen-
ter designed and constructed to service the region.
Across the freeway from Leisure World is the Community of El Toro. 'It is
characterized by single family detached housing with the exception of com-
mercial and professional land uses which have developed along El Toro Road.
To the West of El Toro is the planned community of Lake Forest, a recrea-
tion oriented, predominately single family residential area. A railroad
Tine bisects El Toro, running parallel to the San Diego Freeway approxi-
mately one mile to the north.
2.12 WATER SUPPLY AND ITS QUALITY
2.12.1 Metropolitan Water
2.12.1.1 Introduction
All AWMA member agencies receive their water supply through the Colorado
River Aqueduct system constructed and operated by the Metropolitan Water
District of Southern California. The Municipal Water District of Orange
County is a member agency of the Metropolitan Water District and repre-
sents the Los Alisos Water Distirct, the El Toro Water District, the
Mpulton-Miguel Water District and the Irvine Ranch Water District on the
MWD Board of Directors.
The Coastal Municipal Water District is a member agency of MWD and repre-
sents the City of Laguna Beach, the area- of the South Laguna Sanitary
District and the Emerald Bay Service District on the Metropolitan Water
District Board of Directors.
Water demands of agencies in the AWMA area vary depending upon the land
use patterns, extent of development and amount of irrigated agricultural
land in each agency. Sources of water vary throughout Orange County;
2-51
-------
however, all municipal and industrial demands of the agencies within the
AWMA area are served with water imported from the existing facilities of
the Metropolitan Water District, because of limited groundwater supplies.
2.12.1.2 Aqueduct Systems
Imported Metropolitan water is delivered to the AWMA area via two main
systems: the Santiago Lateral-Aqueduct system and the East Orange County
Feeder No. 2 - Tri-Cities Transmission Main system and Coastal Trans-
mission Main.
2.12.1.2.1 Santiago Lateral-Aqueduct System
The Santiago Lateral is a Metropolitan owned and operated pipeline ex-
tending from the Santiago control tower on the lower feeder in Santa Ana
Canyon, 7.4 miles to Santiago Reservoir above Irvine Park. From this point,
the Lateral provides water to the Santiago Aqueduct, which carries the
water to the El Toro area.
The Santiago Aqueduct is a joint powers agreement line which begins on the
Santiago Lateral near Irvine Park and extends approximately 16 miles to
Cherry Avenue in the El Toro area. The line has a nominal capacity varying
from 92.9 cfs in the initial reaches to 10.5 cfs* in the El Toro Water
District. The Santiago Aqueduct Commission composed of Los Alisos Water
District and El Toro Water District owns the transmission main, with eight
other agencies having capacity rights.
2.12.1.2.2 East Orange County Feeder No. 2 - Tri-Cities Transmission
Main System
The East Orange County Feeder (EOCF) No. 2 is a joint powers constructed
facility owned jointly by Metropolitan and 11 Orange County water agencies
and is operated by Metropolitan. The line delivers water treated at the
R. B. Diemer Filtration Plant in Yorba Linda, 25 miles southerly to its
terminus at San Joaquin Reservoir, northeast of Newport Beach. Nominal
capacity of the line varies from 310 cfs in its initial reach to 90 cfs.
The cities of Orange and Anaheim, the East Orange County Water District,
and the Irvine Ranch Water District take water directly out of EOCF No. 2.
The Moulton-Niguel Water District, Santa Margarita Water District, and por-
tions of Irvine Ranch Water District require further transmission of the
waters to the areas of demand. This is provided by the Tri-Cities and
Aufdenkamp Transmission Mains. Both these lines extend southeasterly from
Barranca Road and Jeffrey Road in the Irvine Ranch area of Orange County,
at the end of Reach 3 of EOCF No. 2.
The Tri-Cities Transmission Main is a joint-powers agreement line owned by
Moulton-Niguel Water District, Irvine Ranch Water District, Orange County
Water Works District (OCWWD) No. 4, and Tri-Cities Municipal Water District,
and is operated by Tri-Cities Municipal Water District. The line, and a
*cfs = cubic feet per second
2-52
-------
branch off it called the Eastern Transmission Main, delivers the 45 cfs
capacity which M-NWD owns in EOCF No. 2 into the Moulton-Miguel Water
District. Santa Margarita Water District leases a portion of the OCWWD
No. 4 capacity in both the Tri-Cities and Eastern Transmission Mains.
The Aufdenkamp Transmission Main is a line constructed under a joint
powers agreement extending from EOCF No. 2 near Barranca and Jeffrey to
Laguna Beach. MWDOC owns 14 cfs in a reach extending approximately five
miles southeasterly from Barranca and Jeffrey. Santa Margarita has an
option to purchase this 14 cfs capacity as a means of delivering its
capacity in EOCF No. 2 further towards its district's service area. De-
mands on East Orange County Feeder No. 2 and Tri-Cities and Laguna Canyon
Transmission Mains are presently well below capacity.
The El Toro Water District and the Los Alisos Water District receive raw
water through a connection to the MWD Santiago Lateral. The water is then
transported through the Santiago Aqueduct to water filtration plants oper-
ated by each separate district. The water is filtered and chlorinated
prior to delivery to the consumer.
The Moulton-Niguel Water District receives water from the Metropolitan
Water District through a connection at the coastal junction on the East
Orange County Feeder No. 2. This is a treated water having been filtered
and chlorinated by MWD at their Robert Diemer Filtration Plant in Yorba
Linda. The water is then transmitted to the district through the EOCF No. 2
and the Tri-Cities Transmission Main traversing the central portion of the
District.
The water for the City of Laguna Beach and the consumers residing within
the South Laguna Sanitary District is delivered through the facilities of
the South Coast County Water District and is secured from the Metropoli-
tan Water District through two sources. The first is through a connection
to the Orange County Feeder owned by MWD in the Corona del Mar area of the
City of Newport Beach. The water is then transmitted through a jointly owned
facility of the Laguna Beach County Water District and the South Coast
County Water District for the distribution within the City of Laguna Beach
and the community of South Laguna. This water has also been filtered and
chlorinated at the Diemer Filtration Plant. The second connection, recently
constructed, connects to the East Orange County Feeder No. 2 at the coastal
junction and transmits water to the two agencies through a newly constructed
line in Laguna Canyon.
ir>.
2.12.2 Water Quality
2.12.2.1 Colorado River Water
Table 2-15 sets forth the analysis of the Colorado River water for the
fiscal year of the Metropolitan Water District ending on June 30, 1972,
and as set forth in their 34th Annual Report.
2-53
-------
TABLE 2-15
METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT
Analysis of Metropolitan Water District Water Supplies*
Average for Year Ending June 30, 1972
Constituent
Silica
Iron
Calcium
Magnesium
Sodium
Potassium
Carbonate
Bicarbonate
Sulfate
Chloride
Nitrate
Boron
Fluoride
Total Dissolved Solids
Total Hardness as CaC03
Total Alkalinity as CaC03
Free Carbon Dioxide
Hydrogen Ion Concentration pH
Electrical Conductivity
Color
Turbidity
Temperature
* mg/1 = milligrams per liter
**Average for month of June 1972
Colorado River Water State Project Water
**
Symbol
Si02
Fe
Ca
Mg
Na
K
Co3
HC03
so4
Cl
N03
B
F
C02
PH
ECx!06
@25°C
J.T.U.
OF
Natural
7.5
0.06
87.0
33.0
113.0
5.0
0.0
149.0
330.0
100.0
0.9
0.11
0.4
751.0
353.0
122.0
1.0
8.2
1.3
63.0
Softened
7.4
0.01
34.0
15.0
213.0
5.0
1.0
145.0
330.0
107.0
0.9
0.11
0.4
786.0
147.0
121.0
1.0
8.3
1,170.0
5.0
0.3
63.0
Natural
8.7
0.05
40.0
17.0
45.0
3.0
0.0
121.0
104.0
45.0
0.6
0.10
0.4
324.0
170.0
99.0
2.0
8.0
1,280.0
3.0
2.6
67.0
Fi 1 tered
8.5
0.01
40.0
17.0
47.0
3.0
0.0
121.0
104.0
48.0
0.2
0.10
0.4
329.0
170.0
99.0
2.0
8.2
547.0
4.0
0.2
67.0
-------
2.12.2.2 State Project Water
It is the current plan of MWD to modify or add to its delivery system those
facilities which will permit delivery of a blend of 50 percent State Pro-
ject water and 50 percent Colorado River water in almost all portions of
the District by 1976. It is further planned to increase the amount of
State water to 75 percent in 1987 - 1988 and to about 80 percent in the
year 2000. The MWD Box Springs Pipeline can be used to introduce State
Project water to the lower feeder upstream of the Diemer Plant. This will
furnish the same 50 percent blend to the Santiago Lateral which is the
principal supply for the Santiago Aqueduct serving the Los Alisos Water
District and the El Toro Water District. There are no provisions to soften
the water carried in the Lower Feeder.
Both the Lower Feeder and the Yorba Linda Feeder deliver water to the
Diemer Plant. Upon implementation of the enw plan, the Yorba Feeder will
carry the 50 percent blend, whereas otherwise it would have only State
Project water. The Diemer Plant feeds the East Orange County Feeder No. 2,
the principal source of water to the residents within the Moulton-Niguel
Water District, South Laguna Sanitary District, Emerald Bay Service Dis-
trict and the City of Laguna Beach, and the Irvine Ranch Water District.
This plan of MWD's assumes that the total dissolved solids content of
Colorado River water will be 750 ppm while that of State Project water will
be 250 ppm. In this event a 50 percent blend would result in a product
water with a content of 500 ppm. Table 2-15 indicates the proposed time-
table and quality of water to be available as a result of this blending.
TABLE 2-16
BLENDING OF COLORADO RIVER
WATER AND STATE PROJECT WATER
PERCENT OF BLEND Blend Quality
Year State Project Colorado River ppm
1973-74 0 100 750
1976-77 50 50 500
1985-86 55 45 475
1986-87 . 55 45 475
1987-88 75 ' 25 . 375
1990-2000 80 , 20 350
While information presented above has been based upon a plan prepared by
MWD, it is of interest to consider variations in water quality that may
2-54
-------
occur in future years from the two sources. It has been noted that the
water of the Colorado River is tending to contain more salts each year.
Some have predicted that the salinity of this water may become as high as
1000 ppm by the year 1986 unless measures to control this salinity are
taken in the Colorado River Basin.
The quality of State Project water will be greatly influenced by the con-
struction of the Peripheral Canal in the Delta area. While the Canal is
needed to enhance the quality of State Project water, there is much politi-
cal oppositon that makes timing of the construction of the Canal uncertain
at present.
Table 2-15 shows the analysis of MWD water supplies for the year ending
June 30, 1972. It can be seen that a 50 percent blend of the natural water
from the two sources would result in a product water with 538 ppm of dis-
solved solids while the softened water would have 557 ppm.
Table 2-17 gives the range and values for certain constituents of Colorado
River water in a ten year period of 1963 through 1971.
TABLE 2-17
RANGE IN VALUES OF
ANALYSIS OF COLORADO RIVER WATER
1963-1971
Natural
Constituent
Min. Max.
Total Dissolved Solids 668.0 779.0
Total Hardness 322.0 364.0
Chlorides 86.0 113.0
Sulfates 290.0 335.0
Sodium 96.0 116.0
Calcium 82.0 96.0
Magnesium 28.0 34.0
Fluoride .4 .5
Iron .04 .06
pH 8.2 8.4
Electrical Conductivity 1,055.0 1,220.0
Softened
Min.
693.0
127.0
92.0
290.0
158.0
31.0
12.0
.4
.01
8.3
1,120.0
Max.
805.0
216.0
118.0
335.0
214.0
55.0
19.0
.5
.02
8.5
1,290.0
2-55
-------
With the arrival of State water in Southern California and its blending with
the water from the Colorado River, the Metropolitan Water District will be
able to deliver to its consumers a water of higher quality than that pre-
sently being served. This is especially true in the degree of hardness
which is a major consumer concern to the residential and industrial user;
blending will reduce the total dissolved solids thus improving the quality
of reclaimed water. There are no major water producing areas contained
within the boundaries of the Aliso Water Management Agency and it is not
anticipated that any other major domestic water supply will be forthcoming
in the near future.
Present water requirements in the AWMA area are now approximately 16.5
mgd. This existing requirement represents approximately 8.3% of the avail-
able water capacity for the AWMA area.
2.12.2.3 Underground Water Supply
As stated above, all municipal and industrial demands of the agencies within
the boundaries of the Aliso Water Management Agency are served with water
imported from the existing facilities of the Metropolitan Water District.
The reason for this importation is due to the fact that, with the exception
of small areas along Aliso Creek and in Laguna Canyon, the area is void of
any major water bearing stratum that could be used for domestic purposes.
However, there is reported to be a potential underground storage basin in
the magnitude of 9,000 acre-feet within the Aliso Valley. This fact is
set forth in a report prepared for the San Juan Capistrano Soil Conser-
vation District in 1961 by Engineering Service and more recently confirmed
by the Orange County Flood Control District ina report dated June 1972.
Through proper management this limited underground storage basin can be
utilized to the maximum benefit of the area. The use of this potential
storage basin has been discussed previously.
When the early settlers came to the El Toro area, they were aware of the
fact that there was a limited amount of groundwater available. The water
was of such quality and quantity that some agricultural and residential
development was permitted to take place. However, the availability of this
supply was limited and, as a result, development of the area was restricted.
In addition to the low volume of water available in the immediate area,
the quality of the water in some areas was poor. The total dissolved
solids of the water that was stored in the underground water basin was
high and even approached the limits where the water was not suitable for
agricultural purposes. Some water of higher quality was obtained from
springs that were located on side tributaries to Aliso Creek. However,
although this water was much higher in quality and usable for domestic
purposes, the supply was quite limited and was only adequate to meet very
small demands such as cattle facilities and a few residential homes.
In the lower reaches of the Aliso Creek, actual artesian groundwater con-
ditions exist. In addition thereto, the groundwater levels in the lower
reaches of the Aliso drainage basin are quite shallow. This is probably
2-56
-------
due to the geological conditions existing at the mouth of Aliso Creek
thus forcing the groundwater in the basin to surface at this point. His-
torical information available relative to the water conditions in the Aliso
Canyon indicates that the water in the lower portion of the basin was not
fit for human consumption and, in many instances, even thelivestock would
not use this water for watering purposes. It should be noted that there
still exists numerous wells within the Aliso Basin while are used for
agricultural purposes when adequate water is available, however, the ex-
tensive agricultural demand is supplemented with imported water.
The underground water conditions in the San Diego Creek, into which a
portion of the El Toro and Los Alisos Water Districts drain, also has a
history of limited water supply in the upper reaches of the drainage basin
in the vicinity of the two districts. Westerly and downstream from the two
districts, there is a known recharge area which provides storage facilities
for underground water. The San Diego Creek then passes westerly through
the Irvine Ranch and discharges into the upper Newport Bay. The underground
basin through which San Diego Creek passes within the Irvine Ranch Water
District provides a source for irrigation waters and the quality of this
water must be maintained.
Another underground basin exists beneath Laguna Canyon. The size, config-
uration, and location of this basin has never been determined, although
historically underground water has been important to the community of
Laguna Beach. Springs, and later wells, provided almost the entire supply
of water for over 50 years, until 1927. At that time, the population num-
bered nearly 3,000 and the importation of water began. Today, there are
at least three wells which are still in use within Laguna Canyon.
At the present time, there is no evidence of any major underground water
supply in the coastal areas within the Irvine Ranch Water District and the
South Laguna Sanitary District. This area is served with imported water
and no production wells for domestic purposes are known to exist.
2.12.2.4 Wastewater Recharge Supply
None of the existing treatment plants in the AWMA area directly discharge
effluent for recharge back into the groundwater basins. Rossmoor Sani-
tation, Inc., Los Alisos Water District and Moulton-Niguel Water District
Improvement District No. 1A supply all or part of their treated effluent for
irrigation and indirect recharge while the other member agencies of AWMA
utilize an ocean outfall as a method of final disposal.
Rossmoor Sanitation, Inc. reclaims its entire capacity of treated effluent.
Part of the 1.9 mgd of reclaimed water is stored in a reservoir located on
the Leisure World Golf Course while the Lion Country Safari development
northwest of the treatment plant is furnished water for its lakes.
The remaining amount of treated effluent is pumped to several large rain-
bird sprinklers on undeveloped lands within and outside of the district
for spray irrigation. Rossmoor sanitation also leases 200 acres of agricul-
tural lands from the Irvine Company where the reclaimed water is used for
irrigation.
2-57
-------
The 1.062 mgd of effluent treated by the Los Alisos Water District is
settled out in a secondary settling pond and then goes to the maturation
ponds. From the ponds, the reclaimed water passes through the chlorine con-
tact chamber and is pumped to the Irvine Ranch property where it is utilized
by the Irvine Company for irrigation of agricultural lands. In addition,
the district has a connection to one of the Irvine Company's irrigation
pipelines where the reclaimed water is conveyed to the Laguna Reservoir
located along Laguna Canyon Road approximately two miles south of the San
Diego Freeway and three miles directly west of the Los Alisos Water Dis-
trict treatment plant.
Improvement District No. 1A of the Moulton-Niguel Water District is the
only other agency which indirectly returns the treated effluent to the
groundwater basin. The 0.35 mgd of effluent is conveyed to four oxidation
ponds after the activated sludge treatment process. These ponds serve as
holding reservoirs for the reclaimed water which ultimately is pumped to
the Laguna Miguel Golf Course and used for irrigation.
2.12.2.5 Surface Water Supply
Prior to the commencement of major development in the early 1960's in
the Moulton-Niguel, El Toro, and Los Alisos Water Districts, the Aliso
Creek usually would dry up during the summer period withonly a small amount
of runoff realized in the upper portion of the drainage basin near the
community of El Toro. This surface water was generally fed by springs in
the upper drainage area and for some time was actually used for domestic
pruposes. In most cases, the water generally percolated underground during
the summer months prior to reaching the Moulton-Niguel Water District.
However, since the major development activity has taken place within the
three districts, runoff within the Aliso Creek is being experienced
throughout the year. This runoff condition has been created by the ur-
banization of some of the drainage area and has, in turn, resulted in
greater runoff during the winter months. During the dry summer months
there is continued irrigation of the lawns and planted areas in the devel-
oped portions of the drainage basin, wh.ich, in turn, creates a continual
runoff into Aliso Creek during the summer months.
2.13 POPULATION AND WASTEWATER FLOWS
The U.S. Bureau of Census estimated that 1,410,386 people lived in Orange
County in 1970. The Population Research Unit of the California Department
of,,Finance estimated that as of January 1, 1974 Orange County's popula-
tion grew to 1,646,314, an increase of 16% since 1970.
Annual rates of growth in Orange County between 1950 and 1965 averaged
slightly more than 12%. Since that'period of rapid growth, the average
annual rate of growth has decreased to slightly greater than 4%.
The pattern of growth in the past 20+.years originated in the north
County. After approximately 1965, southward flow of development began to
be felt in the AWMA area. As a result, the population estimates of all the
2-58
-------
member agencies of AWMA are shown in Table 2-18 in relation to the corres-
ponding average wastewater and per capital flows.
2.14 INSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORK AFFECTING THE ENVIRONMENT
Following is a brief description of the entities which entered into the
joint powers agreement forming the Aliso Water Management Agency.
2.14.1 Moulton-Niguel Water District
The Moulton-Niguel Water District was organized in November 1960 pursuant
to the California Water District Law (Section 34,000 etc., of the Water
Code, State of California). The District serves nearly 24,000 acres, 21,345
of which are within the Aliso Water Management Agency. The District is
governed by a Board of Directors consisting of seven members, each elected
at large by qualified voters in the district. The General Manager is
appointed by the Board of Directors.
The District was formed to finance and construct joint water transmission
facilities connecting to the Metropolitan Water District. The water
supplied by the Metropolitan Water District would meet the domestic re-
quirements of both the Moulton-Niguel Water District and other public
entities in the area.
As the area grew, the District recognized the necessity for developing a
good overall sewage system. Subsequent modification of the California
Water District law permits the financing, construction, operation and
maintenance of sewage facilities by California water districts. The Dis-
trict has constructed and is now operating a complete sewage system, with
the exception of an ocean outfall.
2.14.2 South Laguna Sanitary District
The South Laguna Sanitary District comprises some 2,700 acres lying adja-
cent to and south of the City of Laguna Beach. The District is governed
by a five man Board of Directors elected at large and managed by a General
Manager who serves at the pleasure of the Board.
The South Laguna Sanitary District was formed on December 7, 1947 under
the Health and Safety Codes of the State of California Sanitary District
Act of 1923. The sole purpose of the formation of the District was to
provide sanitary sewage facilities meeting the needs of the existing and
growing community. As a result of the formation of the District, a success-
ful bond election was held and the sewage facilities were built in 1953. .
In recent years the Moulton-Niguel Water District has entered into an agree-
ment with the South Laguna Sanitary District for the joint construction and
use of sewage treatment and disposal facilities of the South Laguna Sani-
tary District.
2-59
-------
TABLE 2-18
POPULATION AND WASTEWATER FLOWS
43
CM
O CD
Agency
Los Alisos Water Dist.
El Toro Water District
Moulton Niguel Water Dist.
1-A Plant
2-A Plant
South Laguna Plant
Total
South Laguna San. Dist.
City of Laguna Beach
TOTALS
i i
0. •—
2,500
19,130
(5,260)
(2,540)
7,800
4,870
15.7001
50,000
(U 5^-*
•POO
l/)i— CD
to LI- s:
*^p *^**
i.
. 01 0
CT-P r--
2> <0 o^
< 5-—
0.14
1.06
(0.07)
__
(1.07)
1.14
a. 49
1.72
4.55
00
o
i. a.
a* CD
o. *^^
0 S
^^ o
en •—
r-U-
56
55
-_
—
146
101
no
91
CL. i—
•o i
0)
•P C
to o
£ *r™
•r— 4^
•P (0
.CO i—
LU 3
9,700
33,900
--
—
12,700
10,300
22,000
88,600
CO
(O ^E
3 0
OJ U-
CT)
(O S— ^~^
S- tt) 0
> (O 21
< 5>-'
1.04
2.12
(0.13)
(0.05),
(1.14)3
1.32
.803
1.81
7.09
0 0
0
s. a.
QJ CD
CL "~*
«* 3
r^ o
i— U-
107
63
--
--
104
78
82
80
Does not account for transient population. City of Laguna Beach figures will
include Emerald Bay Service District.
^Estimated by member agencies based upon occupied service connections:
LAWD
ETWD
MNWD
SLSD
Average
Pop/du
3.4
2.3
3.75
2.8
1/1/74
8,573
32,878
11,877 1
9,200
1/1/75
10,826
34,890
13,628
11,400
Average
9,700
33,900
12,700
10,300
The City of Laguna Beach estimates 18,000 people for 9 months and 35,000 people
for 3 months, for a yearly average of 22,000.
3Flows for the period 7/1/74 through 6/30/75.
-------
2.14.3 El Toro Water District
The El Toro Water District was organized in September 1960 pursuant to
the California Water District Law (Section 34,000 etc., of the Water Code
of the State of California). It is governed by a Board of Directors con-
sisting of five members, each being elected at large by qualified voters
of the District.
The District was formed to finance and construct joint water transmission
facilities from an existing Metropolitan Water District line to the District
and adjacent districts. The District is bounded by the Los Alisos Water
District on the north and the Moulton-Niguel Water District on the south.
The District was formed primarily to import water to supplement ground-
water supplies.
As growth took place within the District, it became necessary to construct
sewage collection, treatment and disposal facilities to keep in step with
the rapid development in the area. The District at that time elected not
to enter into the areas of sewage collection, treatment and disposal. As
a result, a private company was formed to meet this need. The formation of
this private company, Rossmoor Sanitation, Inc., was accomplished with the
approval of the Board of Directors of the El Toro Water District. While
existing sewage facilities are privately owned within the District, the .
District has, from time to time, particpated in major sewage studies carried
on by adjacent districts in order to be appraised of the regional planning
that was taking place.
As a result of these recent studies, the El Toro Water District in 1971
took the necessary steps to exercise the sewering powers afforded them
under the California Water District Law. In early 1972, the Board auth-
orized thepreparation of an engineering report to include facilities for
the treatment and disposal of municipal and industrial wastes.
On June 30, 1972, the District held a public hearing and adopted a resolu-
tion authorizing the issuance of $10 million dollars of general obligation
bonds to finance major sewage facilities. The Board of Directors elected
to join in the formation of the Aliso Water Management Agency and have since
actively participated in the regional planning of the Aliso Valley Water-
shed basin.
2.14.4 Los Alisos Water District
The Los Alisos Water District was organized in October, 1960, under pro-
visions of California Water District Law (Section 34,000 etc., of the Water
Code of the State of California). The District is governed by a Board of
Directors consisting of five members, each being elected at large by quali-
fied voters in the District. The General Manager is responsible for the
overall supervision and management of the district and is appointed by
and responsible to the governing board.
2-60
-------
The District was formed primarily for the purposes of financing and con-
structing joint water transmission facilities from existing Metropolitan
Water District lines to the District and adjacent agencies.
Following the arrival of water within the District, the Board of Directors
recognized their responsibility to meet the sewage needs of the developing
area and elected to proceed with the financing, construction, maintenance
and operation of needed sewage facilities. These facilities were first
constructed in 1964 and have been expanded and approved to meet the grow-
ing needs of the District. In the past, the District has particpated in
numerous studies with adjacent districts in order to be appraised of
regional planning that is being carried out in the southerly portion of
Orange County. It was these reports, the first of which was prepared in
August 1963 and the most recent in September 1970, which suggested that a
regional agency should be formed to plan and construct joint facilities.
Through the analysis of these reports, the Board of Directors elected to
actively particpate in the Aliso Water Management Agency. The District
has been authorized to issue $16 million dollars in general obligation
bonds to finance their needed local and regional facilities.
2.14.5 Irvine Ranch Water District
Irvine Ranch Water District was formed in January 1961 pursuant to the
California Water District Law (Section 34,000 etc., of the Water Code of the
State of California), for the purpose of securing a supplemental water
supply for irrigation and domestic use from Metropolitan Water District of
Southern California. The total area of the Irvine Ranch Water District
includes approximately 67,850 acres. However, only 8,560 acres lies with-
in the boundaries of the Aliso Water Management Agency. This acreage is
basically that portion of the District which drains southerly to the Pacific
Ocean. The District is governed by a five member Board of Directors, each
of whom must be a qualified voter in the District. A general manager is
appointed by and responsible to the Board of Directors. The Irvine Ranch
Water District is also acting under the California Water District law to
provide sewage facilities within the developed portions of the District.
The area of the District contained within the boundaries of AWMA is pre-
sently undeveloped. However, inasmuch as the lands are a portion of the
drainage area of the Aliso Watershed and areas logically related thereto,
the Board of Directors of the Irvine Ranch Water District elected to be
a member of AWMA in order to participate in the overall planning of the
regional sewage facilities.
2.14.6 City of Laguna Beach
The City of Laguna Beach is the only incorporated area within the boundaries
'Of^the Aliso Water Management Agency., The City is governed by five city
councilmen elected at large on an alternating two year basis. A city mana-
ger, is appointed by and responsible to the city council.
Since the initial installation of sewage facilities in 1923, the financing,
construction, operation and maintenance of the facilities have been assumed
2-61
-------
by the City of Laguna Beach. The city council, recognizing the problems
confronting the City of Laguna Beach and their sewage treatment and disposal
facilities and recognizing the advantages of regional planning, have elected
to participate in the Aliso Water Management Agency.
2.15 NOISE
The AWMA area is subject primarily to vehicular noise along the circulation
system and to intermittent aircraft noise from operations at the El Toro
Marine Corps Air Station. Noise contours or zones of influence are deter-
mined relative to different sources of noise. For the ground transporta-
tion elements, criteria developed by the U.S Department of Housing and
Urban Development are used to determine the distances from roadways and
railways within which noise conflicts with residential use may occur.
The contours of the Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) are used to
describe the aircraft noise environment around aircraft operations. The
El Toro MCAS is located adjacent to the northwesterly boundary of the AWMA
area, but its aircraft overflights have an impact upon the AWMA area.
These CNEL noise contours, then, describe the magnitude of the noise levels
in the AWMA area and are used to develop criteria and procedures to ensure
land use compatibility for all future development in the AWMA area.
For instance, the California Airport Noise Regulations restrict residential
uses including single-family and multiple-family dwellings of standard
construction within an airport noise impact boundary. Although these
regulations do not apply to military airports, the criteria developed
therein can be used to evaluate land use in the vicinity of El Toro MCAS
relative to aircraft noise compatibility.
Of importance to the AWMA area are the aircraft overflights along runways
34R, 25R and 25L. Runway 34R generates a noise corridor through the AWMA
area that will have the most significant impact upon future residential
growth. The ultimate effect of these continued aircraft operations at El
Toro MCAS will be as a constraint upon future urbanization.
2.16 HISTORICAL RESOURCES
2.16.1 Historical Background
'i<-',
The AWMA area has experienced many human activities of historic signifi-
cance during the various periods that man has inhabited the region. In
al^l of Orange County, no one area has recorded more historical occurrences
than within the land area known as the Irvine Ranch.
Within the AWMA area, historical background can be categorized into four
periods: the prehistoric, the Spanish period comprising the mission and
rancho periods, the Anglo pioneer period after 1848, and the industrial
period (ca. 1950 et. seg.).
2-62
-------
TABLE 2-19
SUMMARY OF GOVERNMENTAL AUTHORITY
1 - Decisive or strong impact
2 - Significant impact
3 - Moderate or minor impact
* - Impact rating if outside
funding sources used
Environmental Protection Agency
U.S. Soil Conservation Svc.
Corps of Engineers
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Svcs.
Calif. Coastal Zone Conservation Comm.
State Water Resources Control Board
Department of Water Resources
Air Resources Board
State Dept. of Fish & Game
State Division of Highways
State Division of Beaches & Parks
State Department of Public Health
Calif. Dist's. Securities - Div. of
State Treas.
Regional Water Pollution Control Boards
South Coast Regional Coastal Comm.
S.C.A.G.
Orange County Transit District
O.C. Harbors, Beaches & Parks Dist.
O.C. Flood Control District
O.C. Air Pollution Control District
O.C. Board of Supervisors
O.C. Planning Commission/ Dept.
O.C. Road Department
O.C. Health Department
City of Laguna Beach
O.C. Building Department
_j
1
Q.
a.
^
o
i— i
g
_D
^j
^c
LU
1 —
O
LU
_,
Q£
Q.
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
CO
LU
t— 1
o Hi
P £ 0
O£ fy [i
< 0
Du DC LU
LU 1- 0
OC Z5 to
0- - i— i 3E
LU a: i— ce.
*-* O O LU
> j— z> a. CD
LU < ex: z
a; _i i— LU 1-1
=3 CO ZJ Q
a: CD z to z
>-i LU O CO Z>
LU CC. O <-H LU
X X
X
X
X X
X X
X X
X
X
X X
X
X
XX X
X X
X
X
X X
X X
X
X
X X
X X
X
X
X
•
Z 0
o o
5 § |
o to •=> y
a: Q CD 3
O. C£. LU <
§: § " |
Z LU •
Z 1— 13 ff
f-> CO CJ
Q Q rf
Z 1— Z <•
Z) LU «C fl
LU CO _J ^
XX 1*
x 1
X 1
x x r
XX |
XX 1
X 2,
\
3
^
2
1
X ll
'I
XXI"
i
2
2I
3
X ll
X 1
1
31
X 2.
x 2!
-------
Newport
Beach
V- i ~f -X* ' ' - i\ .
Laguna BeacHw..
Dana Point i
Exhibit 2-9
SOURCE: BOLT BERANEK AND NEWMAN, INC JULY, 1972
-------
Man's presence in the area may go back to the late Pleistocene (ca. 20,000
B.C.) or earlier. Further intensive research is required to ascertain this
possibility.
However, it can be surmised that the Native Americans occupied and utilized
the area without interference until about 1770. Aliso Creek was the terri-
torial boundary between the Gabrielino Indians to the north and the Juaneno
Indians to the south. Linguistically the two groups were quite diverse,
but culturally they had many basic similarities. Dwellings consisted of
tule mats on the pole frames. Many villages had small earth-covered sweat
houses. The subsistence base was comprised of marine resources, acorns,
seeds and small mammals. Many archaeologists estimate that between the years
2500 B.C. and 1800 A.D. over two hundred Indian camps were established on
what was to become known as the Irvine Ranch.
The first Spanish contact for the region began with Portola's expedition of
July 1769. It was at this time that the Spanish probably met the Juaneno
at the various areas of future Capistrano Mission, Trabuco Mesa, and Tomato
Springs.
Soon afterwards, "missionization" of the populations began to ensue, in-
troducing European conditions into the region. Eventually, the Native
American or Gabrielino Indian societies of what is now Orange County dis-
integreated through forced removal to the missions, introduced diseases and
the general demoralization which accompanied the Spanish Conquest. Those
Indians who survived the mission period (ca. 1770-1834) became dependents
of the Rancheros who proliferated during the Rancho period (1834-1848).
Such dependents worked as vaqueros and domestics on the huge ranches.
In the early 1830's and 1840's the Ranches had reached their highest
development dependent upon cattle raising for the economic livelihood.
It was during this period that early Californians like Jose Sepulveda
(grantee of Rancho San Joaquin), Juan Avila (grantee of 'Rancho Niguel and
several other ranches), and Jose Maria Acura and Isidor Oliveras, who
occupied "ungranted" land which stretched from Rancho Niguel to the ocean,
acquired ownership of the land in southern Orange County. Rancho San
Joaquin later passed into the hands of James Irvine in 1868.
Rancho Niguel, which was originally granted to Juan Avila in 1842 by
Governor Juan Alvarado, occupied an area east of Laguna Canyon and west
of El Camino Real near El Toro. In 1868, the Rancho was sold to C.B.
Dawson and finally, in 1875, to Lewis F. Moulton. Out of the purchase
of the Rancho and by adding surrounding acreage, L.F. Moulton developed
the ranch into 26,000 acres. It was situated between Laguna Canyon and
Salt Creek, south from El Camino Real to the ocean. Laguna Niguel and
Leisure World are a part of the old Moulton Ranch.
Several developments in the AWMA region mark what is referred to as the
American Period (after 1848). The coming of the stagecoach line, the coming
of squatters on the San Joaquin ranch; the establishment of a school at
the intersection of Niguel Road and Laguna Canyon, the bee industry,
2-63
-------
the hauling of water from the Laguna Canyon, and homesteading are all
examples of activity during the American Period.
2.16.2 Historical Landmarks
In 1969, the Orange County Planning Department published a Historical
Landmarks study as part of their county wide General Plan Program. In
addition to this document, a "Travelers Guide to Historical Sites of the
Irvine Ranch (Northern Half)" was prepared in 1919 and appeared in The
Rancho San Joaquin Gazette. In combination these two documents provide
a detailed listing of significant historical and natural landmarks of the
AWMA region. The Archaeological/Historical Resources Map provides the
location of the following landmarks:
*OCPD Site - Portola's Trail crosses the northern portion of the
Study Area
OCPD Site - 68 Moro Canyon Indian Site
OCPD Site - 69 Home of the Pageant of the Masters, Laguna Beach (1921)
OCPD Site - 70 Laguna Beach Art Gallery (1929)
OCPD Site - 71 Laguna Stage Coach Stop
OCPD Site - 72 Arch Beach~Boom Town (1886)
OCPD Site - 73 Goff Island Indian Site, South Laguna Beach
**IR Site - 10 El Toro Cemetery (1884)
IR Site - 11 Canada de Los Alisos (1842)
OCPD Site - 77 Jose Serrano Adobe (1856)
OCPD Site - 78 St. Georges Episcopal Mission (1890's)
OCPD Site - 79 Leisure World Marine Deposit
OCPD Site - 80 The Stage Coach Stop
OCPD Site - 81 Seacow Skull Discovery Site
* OCPD = Orange County Planning Department
**IR = Irvine Ranch
2-64
-------
-------
3.0 WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT ALTERNATIVES
3.1 DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ALTERNATIVES
Five viable project alternatives were formulated and are described in some
detail below. A sixth alternative, although unfeasible because of violation
to public health codes and SRWQCB regulations is also described. The alterna-
tive of "no action" is discussed in order to compare the effects of the viable
alternatives as they relate to the operation of the current wastewater system.
Two modes of communication were devised to facilitate comparison of the various
alternatives. A topographic map with schematic representation of facilities is
presented. Then a schematic diagram shows each alternative. Estimated 1995
flows and sizes of all proposed facilities and expansions are also provided on
the schematic. A comparison of the schematic diagram with the topographic map
schematic demonstrates the relationship between the existing facilities and
each proposed alternative.
3.1.1 Alternative 1A - Local Treatment, Regional Disposal
This alternative represents an extension of the current treatment practices
and methods combined with regional outfall facilities for cases where reclaimed
wastewater from inland plants cannot be successfully discharged to the land.
It maximizes the reclamation potential of the Los Alisos, El Toro and Moulton-
Niguel Water Districts treatment plants.
This alternative requires the enlargement of local plants, construction of a
regional effluent transmission main and a north coast interceptor and ocean
outfall. The use of two existing short, shallow ocean outfalls and the
Laguna Beach treatment plant would be terminated and the South Coast Interceptor
would be replaced. Capital cost of this alternative is estimated to be $37.9
mi 11i on.*
3.1.1.1 Wastewater Treatment Plants
As part of the overall improvements to the Los Alisos Water District treatment
plant, the plant is currently being expanded to a capacity of 4.0 mgd. This
expansion is included in as a part of alternative 1A.
The Rossmoor Sanitation, the treatment plant serving the El Toro Water District,
will be expanded to a capacity of 6.5 mgd.
The Moulton-Niguel Water District No. 2A plant will be expanded for a capacity
of .85 mgd.
The Moulton-Niguel Water District No. 1A plant will be expanded to a capacity
of 2.5 mgd.
*Detailed cost analysis can be found in the 1974 Project Report prepared by
Don Owen and Associates.
3-1
-------
Newport
Beach
S8F
w<
-^- :f-4 f' .
v»tv • ' -
•:-A
g^/-^r--:- kv .^:\^^,o.:.- .
[H 'VW
' Vl^C- :->-,''L^V' 1 1 ' \ UM"?. V
'. • . . j f, - j*~ '.'-I'-
Legend
......... RAW SEWAGE INTERCEPTOR
o__ LAND OUTFALL
OCEAN OUTFALL
" « FORCE MAIN
A PUMP STATION
(g) ABANDONED TREATMENT PLANT
SECONDARY TREATMENT PLANT
Dana Point
Exhibit 3-1
-------
Project Alternative 1A provides
maximum reclamation potential
of secondary treated effluent
through expansion of the LAWD
ETWD, and MNWD treatment
plants and provides impoved treat-
ment and disposal from the IRWD,
EBSD, City of Laguna Beach and
SLSD by expansion of the existing
South Laguna treatment plant
and construction of a new North
Coast Interceptor and deep ocean
outfall. Unreclaimed effluent
generated during the rainy season
from the upper Aliso treatment
plants will pass down a land out-
fall through Aliso Valley to the
ocean outfall.
4.0
MGD
6.5
MGD
NORTH COAST INTERCEPTOR
MNWD 4A
PLANT
1.8 MGD
1.3
MGD
18"
0.9
MGD
IBIBIWIIII^
SOUTH COAST INTERCEPTOR
Exhibit 3-2a
ALTERNATIVE 1A
-------
A new activated sludge (secondary) treatment plant with a capacity of 1.8 mgd
would be constructed in the Moulton-Niguel Water District and would be known
as Improvement District 4A. This plant would be located at the northerly side
of Aliso Valley at the westerly extension of Aliso Creek Road. This area to be
served is now called the Moulton Ranch and is presently undeveloped. There-
fore, construction of the facilities would be deferred until about 1978.
Addition to the existing treatment facilities of the Aliso Creek plant of the
South Laguna Sanitary District is also included in this alternative plan. The
plant will be expanded to a capacity,of 5 mgd. In addition, expansion of sludge
facilities would be required. The expansion would be adjacent and easterly of
the existing site, at an elevation requiring a lift of about 40 feet. The
plant would serve South Laguna Sanitary District as well as the North Coast
Area.
3.1.1.2 Outfalls
The northern most reach of the outfall system would connect the Los Alisos
Water District plant to the Rossmoor Sanitation, Inc. plant. This reach would,
in part, follow the San Diego Creek and cross under the San Diego Freeway.
Below the Rossmoor Sanitation, Inc. plant the next reach would include a pumping
station and force main in Moulton Parkway to convey the treatment effluent from
the two plants over to the Aliso Creek drainage area. A gravity flow portion of
the pipe then continues in Moulton Parkway to Aliso Creek.
Where Aliso Creek meets the proposed extension of Alicia Parkway, southerly of
Moulton Parkway, the outfall from the Moulton-Niguel Water District Plant 2A
would join the Los Alisos-El Toro. Below this point of juncture, the outfall
would follow the general alignment of Aliso Creek.
The Upper Sulphur Creek outfall would utilize an existing interceptor owned by
Moulton-Niguel Water District and would convey water to the Aliso Creek plant
for treatment. Below the South Laguna Sanitary District, the outfall would
extend from the Aliso treatment plant to the Coast Highway, following the stream
bed alignment. Construction of the reach would be limited to summer and dry
periods and the final design should incorporate flood protection facilities.
The ocean outfall would extend from the Coast Highway, under the beach and off-
shore to 180 feet. At the end of the outfall would be a diffuser of 1,200 feet
in length. Total estimated length of the outfall and diffuser on the ocean
bottom would be approximately 8,200 feet. The outfall pipe diameter would be
48 to 54 inches. (See Section 4.3.4 for a discussion on Coastal Commission
restrictions.)
3.1.1.3 Interceptor and Pump Stations
The Salt Creek Pump Station No. 2 and force main would be constructed in 1975
near the Coast Highway at Salt Creek. The force main would extend up Salt Creek
to the existing Arroyo Salada Pumping Station.
The Arroyo Salada Pumping Station and force main is an existing facility that
extends from the southerly boundary of the Moulton-Niguel Water District along
or adjacent to the Crown Valley Parkway, to the vicinity of Paseo del Niguel.
3-2
-------
The South Crown Valley Trunk Sewer Unit No. 2 is an existing 12-inch pipe
extending from the end of the Arroyo Salada force main to Paseo del Ville near
Hillhurst Drive. A parallel line would be needed to increase the capacity to
2.2 mgd.
The South Crown Valley Trunk Line Sewer Unit No. 1 is an existing pipe gravity
line extending from the terminus of Unit 2 to the vicinity of Niguel Road and
Crown Valley Parkway. A parallel line will be needed to increase the capacity
along this portion. From that point a portion of the line extends along
Sulphur Creek adjacent to and westerly of Crown Valley Parkway. The line then
extends northerly to the Moulton-Niguel Water District 1A point.
The Salt Creek pump station No. 1 force main and gravity sewer are existing
facilities located in the Monarch Bay area. The pump station is located near
the beach at Monarch Bay. The force main and gravity sewer extends to Crown
Coast Drive to La Senda Place and through Three Arch Bay. There is no addi-
tional capacity needed in this reach.
The South Coast Interceptor sewer and tunnel is a facility consisting of an
existing tunnel excavated in the bluff material about 75 to 100 feet from the
shoreline and extending from La Senda Place in Three Arch Bay to Aliso Creek.
The existing sewer in the tunnel has deteriorated and is being replaced. A
portion of the interceptor extends from the tunnel portal at Aliso Creek to the
Aliso Creek pump station. This line is in good condition and would not be
replaced.
Aliso Creek Pump Station and Force Main is an existing facility owned by the
South Laguna Sanitary District. The pumping station is located on the west
side of Aliso Creek about 700 feet inland from the Pacific Coast Highway. It
extends from the pumping station in an easement in a private road to the vicinity
of Ben Brown's Restaurant. From there it crosses the Laguna Beach Country Club
Golf Course and continues adjacent to Aliso Creek to the Aliso Creek treatment
plant.
3.1.1.4 Alternative 1A Modified-Local Treatment, Regional Disposal
In Chapter 5 of the Draft EIS EPA made several modifications to Alternative 1A
and proposed the alternative for additional consideration (Exhibits 3-2b and c).
Two modifications were made in Chapter 5. First, expansion of Moulton-Niguel
plants 1A and 2A was not proposed because experience with the 'rapid bloc' sys-
tem used in those plants indicated that expansion was not desirable. Also,
the proposed Moulton-Niguel Improvement District's 4A plant would be con-
structed to serve the entire Moulton-Niguel Water District. Second, construc-
tion of the Sulphur Creek interceptor and the Moulton-Niguel 4A plant would be
deferred until needed. All other features of Alternative 1A modified are
identical to those of Alternative 1A.
Subsequent to publication of the Draft EIS, AWMA decided to postpone construc-
tion of the Sulphur Creek interceptor, regardless of the final alternative
selected. In addition, EPA's rejection of the regional plant site left the
entire issue of a treatment plant for the Moulton-Niguel Water District
unresolved (see Chapter 5). Therefore, Alternative 1A modified should merely
be viewed as a slight modification of alternative 1A in order to avoid expand-
ing the inflexible 'rapid bloc' plants at Moulton-Niguel Improvement District's
1A and 2A.
3-3
-------
Newport
Beach
• '\ i'V^-M- ''. v ,4
Legend
South Laguna\* *5
......... RAW SEWAGE INTERCEPTOR
^•^ LAND OUTFALL
OCEAN OUTFALL
FORCE MAIN
PUMP STATION
ABANDONED TREATMENT PLANT
SECONDARY TREATMENT PLANT
Dana Point —.V
Exhibit 3-2b
-------
As with Project Alternative 1A,
Alternative 1A-Modified provides
maximum reclamation potential
of secondary treated effluent in
the upper, middle, and lower
Aliso Valley. This alternative,
however, consolidates reclama-
tion in the middle Aliso Valley
into one sub-regional MNWD
treatment plant and phases out
two smaller plants. This alterna-
tive also provides improved treat-
ment and disposal from the
IRWD, EBSD, City of Laguna
Beach and SLSD by expansion of
the existing South Laguna treat-
ment plant and construction of a
new North Coast Interceptor and
deep ocean outfall. Unreclaimed
effluent generated during the
rainy season from the upper
Aliso treatment plants will pass
down a land outfall through Aliso
Valley to the ocean outfall.
LAWD PLANT
ROSSMOOR PLANT
MNWD 2A PLANT
8
SULPHUR CREEK
INTERCEPTOR
MNWD 1A PLANT
18"-24"
4.7 MGO
• 18"
• 2.2 MGD
I,
5 22 MGD
5.0 MGD
o
CITY OF LAGUNA BEACH PLANT
59 5.9
MGD 24,, MGD
NORTH COAST INTERCEPTOR
JOINT
MNWD-SLSD PLANT
18"
0.9
MGD
IBIBIBlllll^
SOUTH COAST INTERCEPTOR
Exhibit 3-2c
ALTERNATIVE 1A
MODIFIED
-------
3.1.2 Alternative 2E - Central Treatment. Regional Disposal
Alternative 2E represents a concept of central treatment within the AWMA area.
None of the individual existing inland treatment plants would be operated
except for water reclamation purposes. Central treatment of the raw sewage
would occur at a new central sewage treatment plant which would be located
approximately 1,800 feet north of the existing South Laguna Sanitary District
plant. Capital costs for this alternative are estimated to be $27.7 million.
Raw sewage from the upper Aliso area would flow towards Aliso Creek where
raw sewage from Moulton-Niguel Water District Improvement District 2A would
join the conveyance system on its course to the central treatment plant. The
existing treatment plant at M-NWD 1A would be completely abandoned. This
pipeline would follow Aliso Creek on the east side to its junction with
Sulphur Creek.
In the Salt Creek service area, flows would be pumped northward to the
Sulphur Creek drainage area. In order to carry raw wastewater from the
Salt Creek service area to the Sulphur Creek drainage area, existing pipe-
lines would have to be paralleled and new pumping facilities would have to
be constructed.
At the confluence of Sulphur and Aliso Creeks the raw sewage flows from
Los Alisos Water District, Rossmoor Sanitation Inc., Moulton-Niguel Water
District Improvement District 2A would be combined with the flows conveyed
by the Sulphur Creek service area and interceptor sewer and would be conveyed
down Aliso Creek to the regional plant.
The North Coast Interceptor would convey wastewater from Irvine Ranch Water
District, Emerald Bay Service District and the City of Laguna to the regional
treatment plant. Provisions would also be made to divert, when necessary, a
portion of the flow to the existing South Laguna Sanitary District treatment
facilities. The interceptor will begin at a pumping station located in Morro
Canyon between the Pacific Coast Highway and the ocean. From Aliso Creek and
Pacific Coast Highway, the North Coast Interceptor will turn up Aliso Creek
following a path parallel to the existing force main from the existing Aliso
Creek pump station. Flow will be under pressure to the regional treatment
facility.
The South Laguna Sanitary District treatment facility operates using the
activated sludge process and has a design capacity of 3.2 mgd. The effective
capacity of this facility will be decreased to 2.6 mgd to meet the waste
discharge requirements set by the State ocean standards and the Coastal
Commission's requirements for nitrification. It is planned to eliminate all
sludge treatment facilities at this facility and discharge sludge to that
portion of the North Coastal Interceptor which continues up to Aliso Canyon
to the regional plant inflow and pumping station.
The regional treatment facility will provide secondary treatment using the
conventional activated sludge process or modifications thereof, such as
step feed and re-aeration. The plant will have an initial capacity of 16.0
mgd. The outfall will originate at the regional treatment facility and will
consist of three reaches, similar to those for Alternative 1A. Second stage
construction will involve the expansion of the regional treatment facility
3-4
-------
Newport
Beach
-
•->•
Legend
...... RAW SEWAGE INTERCEPTOR
—^ LAND OUTFALL
OCEAN OUTFALL
'"'•« ««i FORCE MAIN
A PUMP STATION
(g) ABANDONED TREATMENT PLANT
(J SECONDARY TREATMENT PLANT
REGIONAL SECONDARY
TREATMENT PLANT
Dana Point
Exhibit 3-3
-------
Project Alternative 2E provides
consolidation of wastewatertreat-
ment to a regional facility in lower
Aliso Valley. Existing inland
plants will continue to operate for
reclamation during demands for
irrigation water. Untreated sewage
will bypass the LAWD, ETWD,
and MNWD plants, through a rew
sewage interceptors transporting
the sewage to the regional plant.
Effluent disposal will be accom-
plished through a newly construc-
ted ocean outfall.
LAWD PLANT
ROSSMOOR PLANT
36"/9.2 MGD
kUl
MNWD 2A PLANT
SULPHUR CREEK
INTERCEPTOR
MNWD 1A PLANT
21"-24"/2.5 MGD
REGIONAL PLANT
19.5 MGD
CITY OF LACUNA BEACH PLANT
1.3
MGD
16" 15" "i00 16" 18"
IIIIHIBI
NORTH COAST INTERCEPTOR
4
i
24"/2.5 MGD
S • 54"-48719.5 MGD
2.5 MGD Al6"/1.17 MGD
^^ JOINT MNWD-SLSD PLANT
ks ^^^^
Ik i
18"/1.75 MGD
SOUTH COAST INTERCEPTOR
Exhibit 3-4
ALTERNATIVE 2E
-------
from 16 mgd to 24 mgd which, when combined with the South Laguna plant, will
provide a total treatment capacity of 26.6 million gallons per day. The
treatment would take place at this location and discharge into the outfall
system which is also sized for 26.6 mgd in the 1975 construction.
Four alternative sites in the Alisq Valley (Exhibit 3-5) near the existing SLSD
plant were considered. The preferred site and the existing SLSD plant site are
shown on Exhibit 3-6. About 17 acres of land are required for the proposed
16 mgd treatment plant. This 17 acres would also provide space for expansion
to 24 mgd in most locations.
Site 1 is located immediately southeast of the existing SLSD plant. The site
is in a small canyon with ground elevations ranging from about 60 feet above
sea level at the SLSD plant to about 160 feet above sea level at the eastern
edge of the site. The maximum area available without extensive earthwork is
approximately 5 acres.
Site 2 is the preferred site located approximately 1500 feet north of the
existing SLSD plant (Exhibit 3-6). The proposed site is approximately 17 acres
in size. Ground elevations range from about 50 feet above seal level to the
southern end to about 75 feet above sea level on the eastern edge of the site.
The present channel of Aliso Creek runs through the proposed site (Exhibits 3-7
to 3-9).
Site 3 is located approximately 1.5 miles upstream of the existing SLSD plant
and about 0.25 miles south of the Wood Canyon confluence with Aliso Creek. The
site is located along the eastern edge of Aliso Creek with Ground Elevations
of about 80 feet above sea level.
Site 4 is located about two miles upstream of the existing SLSD plant and
0.25 miles upstream of the Wood Canyon confluence with Aliso Creek. The site
located on the north side of Aliso Creek with ground elevations of 100 to 150
feet above sea level.
3.1.3 Alternative 3C - Reclamation
Alternative 3C represents a concept of broad scale wastewater reclamation
within the Aliso Water Management Agency area. The objective of this alterna-
tive would be to eliminate dependence on ocean discharge and utilize the
treated effluent for reclamation and irrigation purposes. Whatever excess
treated effluent could not be used for these purposes would be disposed of in-
to the Aliso Creek thereby enabling the stream flow to convey the effluent to
the ocean.
To provide a high quality effluent, this alternative would utilize two
advanced wastewater treatment facilities and would introduce tertiary processes
such as denitrification, chemical clarification, carbon absorption and chlori-
nation. Capital costs of this alternative are estimated to be $43.3 million.
The collection system and plant site locations would be very similar to those
described in Alternative 2E. Major variations would be the degree of treat-
ment, the need for an ocean outfall, and construction of an extensive network
of land outfalls and pump stations for reclamation in the Upper Aliso Watershed.
3-5
-------
Dana Potat
Exhibit 3-5
-------
PAGE NOT
AVAILABLE
DIGITALLY
-------
I
s:
CO
AREA NORTH OF PROPOSED PLANT SITE
-------
§
I
CO
AREA SOUTH OF PROPOSED PLANT SITE
-------
m
x
3;
5;
•Si
CO
AREA NORTH OF PROPOSED PLANT SITE
-------
CO
I
00
AREA SOUTH OF PROPOSED PLANT SITE
-------
m
x
3;
5;
rit
CO
AREA NORTH OF PROPOSE-D PLANT SITE
-------
m
x
w
I
00
AREA SOUTH OF PROPOSED PLANT SITE
-------
X
5;
CO
to
ALISO CREEK CHANNEL ADJACENT TO
PROPOSED REGIONAL TREATMENT PLANT
-------
Newport
Beach
l^^^Q^i!
OY. .'„ -'ft '/fv" &»•
iyic«
Legend
.i.mi.i. PAW SEWAGE INTERCEPTOR
^••M LAND OUTFALL
OCEAN OUTRftLL
i " FORCE MAIN
A PUMP STATION
(g) ABANDONED TREATMENT PLANT
SECONDARY TREATMENT PLANT
REGIONAL A.W.T. PLANT
Dana Point
Exhibit 3-10
-------
maximum reclamation potential
of tertiary treated effluent through
the construction of a new regional
advanced wastewater treatment
plant. The new plant to be located
in lower Aliso Valley would
enable the treated effluent to be
utilized throughout the Aliso
watershed for recharge to the
groundwater basin, discharge to
Aliso Creek with continued stream
flow to the ocean, discharge to
recreational lakes, and irrigation.
Excess effluent would be dis-
charged to Aliso Creek during the
dry season, and to the existing
SLSD ocean outfall during the
rainy season. This system would
serve all of the agencies except
the North Coastal area which
would utilize its own independent
.advanced wastewater treatment
for disposal through reclamation
and stream-flow within the Irvine
Ranch Water District drainage
areas.
REGIONAL
A.W.T. PLANT
16 MGD
LAWD PLANT
30"
ROSSMOOR PLANT
1878 MGD^ggl
Ml^
MNWD2A PLANT
• SULPHUR CREEK
| INTERCEPTOR
O—
MNWD1A PLANT
0.8
MGD
JOINT MNWD-SLSD PLANT
CITY OF =
LAGUNA BEACH PLANT = 18'/16.1 MGD
4.8
MGD
16.1
MGD
18"
24"/5.9 MGD
II
SOUTH COAST
INTERCEPTOR
Exhibit 3-11
ALTERNATIVE 3C
-------
The North Coast Interceptor would not be constructed under this alternative;
instead a reclamation project would be located in the North Coast service area.
Effluent from the North Coast service area would be treated at a new plant to
be constructed near Morro Canyon. The Morro Canyon plant would have an acti-
vated sludge plant and then have the same tertiary processes described for
the main plant in Aliso Valley. This project, instead of requiring a pipeline
from the regional plants down to the coast and then for ocean outfall, would
rely upon the existing outfalls of the South Laguna treatment plant and the
Laguna treatment plant to discharge tertiary treated effluent during periods
of time when the water could not be utilized. There would be no new ocean
outfall.
3.1.4 Alternative 4A - Partial Regional System with Stream Discharge in
Upper Aliso Creek Area
Alternative 4A separates the AWMA area into essentially two service areas. The
Upper Aliso service area would be independent of the lower All so and the coastal
areas. The concept would be similar to Alternative 1A except that the Los
Alisos and El Toro Water Districts' flows would be combined into a tertiary
treatment process with bio-stimulant removal and discharged into the San Diego
Creek.
This alternative would enable the facilities in the lower Aliso and coastal
areas to be reduced in size and capacity. This would also reduce the size of
the ocean outfall from 29 mgd to 17 mgd.
The advanced wastewater reclamation facilities to be constructed for the Upper
Aliso service area would be essentially the tertiary processes described in
Alternative 3C. Other aspects of the North Coast Interceptor and South Coast
Interceptor would remain the same as those described in Alternative 1A. Capital
costs for this alternative are estimated to be $39.7 million.
3.1.5 Alternative 2F - Regional Treatment, Regional Disposal with Upstream
Reclamation
Alternative 2F represents a consolidation of treatment through the construction
of a regional wastewater treatment plant. Wastewater will be collected from
the total area and treated at.a central plant using an activated sludge process.
Alternative 2F is essentially the central treatment and outfall project pro-
posed as Alternative 2E except for the addition of 4 mgd of wastewater recla-
mation in the Upper Aliso area to provide for irrigation of greenbelts through-
out the Aliso Valley. Capital costs for this alternative are estimated to be
$27.4 million.
This alternative involves a trade-off of wastewater reclamation in the Upper
Aliso reaches with the summer population flow of the coastal communities of
Laguna and South Laguna. During the summer months the summer population uses
the central treatment facilities and the outfall facilities of the lower reach,
while wastewater reclamation for irrigation can be performed in the Upper
Aliso service area. During the winter periods (when rainfall creates a problem
with wastewater reclamation) the summer population of Laguna and South Laguna
is not present and the facilities of central treatment and ocean discharge are
available for the Upper Aliso service area.
3-6
-------
jH- ,->'a'-\r-'--"-^u^ ^"^^C^Sc• ^ I-
NORTH COAST
INTERCEPTOR
SOUTH COAST
INTERCEPTOR
legend
I
RAW SEWAGE INTERCEPTOR
LAND OUTFALL
OCEAN OUTFALL
n mini FORCE MAIN
A PUMP STATION
0 ABANDONED TREATMENT PLANT
3 SECONDARY TREATMENT PLANT
A A.W.T. PLANT
hibit 3-12
-------
Project Alternative 4A would
enable the upper Aliso area to
provide independent disposal
through the construction of an
advanced wastewater treatment
plant and land outfall. Treated
effluent would be utilized in the
upper Aliso and Irvine Ranch area
for man-made recreational lakes,
irrigation and other miscellaneous
urban uses throughout most of
the year, with excess effluent to
be discharged to San Diego Creek.
Dislocation of the upper Aliso
area, enables the local and
regional treatment facilities in the
lower Aliso and coastal areas to
be reduced in size and capacity.
Excess treated effluent from the
SLSD and MNWD plants not used
for irrigation would pass through
a pipeline in lower Aliso Valley to
the ocean outfall.
LAWD PLANT
ROSSMOOR PLANT
A.W.T. PLANT
10.0 MGD
MNWD2A PLANT
1270.7 MGD
3.8 MGD
MNWD 4A
PLANT
10.0 MGD
CITY OF LACUNA BEACH PLANT
1.3
MGD
15J™16"
11 •MUM 11
5.9
I 24"
Hill
24"
NORTH COAST INTERCEPTOR
MNWD1APlMN-|
18"-24"/4.7 MGD
18-/2.2 MGD
S 18"/2.2 MGD
2.2
MGD
JOINT MNWD-SLSD PLANT
5.9
i IMIHN*
MGD
12"
0.9
MGD
B 18"/1-5 muu it ^
• iVIBlHIBIBIIini^
SOUTH COAST INTERCEPTOR
Exhibit 3-13
ALTERNATIVE 4A
-------
•tf-r- )--^ j */:3
if~->v- " T^y *
I /• .,. , V .—» -'^ ••«' » ^ / ,- X
- -
'
& - ^
•4S-P& 1 - •»
) -> 4
' te&g
- vrw
I
(4 .
V-. . ,
I
NORTH COAST
INTERCEPTOR
legend
***_rSR ,
IpLA^rl '
?l '- i ""A
J v V '
South Lagun^K^fxJ J' ^>^" §/
^P>i'Kl ' #:rr 7 "J
v/»
v
I
RAW SEWAGE INTERCEPTOR
LAND OUTFALL
OCEAN OUTFALL
mi FORCE MAIN
A PUMP STATION
g) ABANDONED TREATMENT PLANT
J SECONDARY TREATMENT PLANT
A.W.T. PLANT
SOUTH COAST
INTERCEPTOR
-
/
'. ', ]
- W ,'.
Dana Point _....
' -
[hibit 3-12
JOOO 4000 1000
~" Capistrano
Beach'
-------
Project Alternative 4A would
enable the upper Aliso area to
provide independent disposal
through the construction of an
advanced wastewater treatment
plant and land outfall. Treated
effluent would be utilized in the
upper Aliso and Irvine Ranch area
for man-made recreational lakes,
irrigation and other miscellaneous
urban uses throughout most of
the year, with excess effluent to
be discharged to San Diego Creek.
Dislocation of the upper Aliso
area, enables the local and
regional treatment facilities in the
lower Aliso and coastal areas to
be reduced in size and capacity.
Excess treated effluent from the
SLSD and MNWD plants not used
for irrigation would pass through
a pipeline in lower Aliso Valley to
the ocean outfall.
LAWD PLANT
ROSSMOOR PLANT
A.W.T. PLANT
10.0 MGD
MNWD 2A PLANT
1270.7 MGD
3.8 MGD
MNWD 4A
PLANT
10.0 MGD
1.3
MGD
CITY OF LAGUNA BEACH PLANT
15 5.9
..MGD „ .X-^MGD
i lii^iiiiM i • i •^X)^HIIB i • i
NORTH COAST INTERCEPTOR
MNWD1APMJN1
18"-2474.7 MGD
18"/2.2 MGD
S 18-/2.2 MGD
2.2
MGD
JOINT MNWD-SLSD PLANT
12"
0.9
MGD
B 18'71.5 MGD
mmlm\m\
SOUTH COAST INTERCEPTOR
Exhibit 3-13
ALTERNATIVE 4A
-------
IKl ~-*v ^v
TSU ••• *\ 'V;-, ,
I'
Laguna Beach i
NORTH COAST
INTERCEPTOR
- K<5n>,
'-. •
-.•»• •O-''.: I
.V. P, \. T ' ~
\ ^ MWITJIA',
k \v'SLW Os
^ .
& / i-w
'^^
legend
r^iP^rw!
/-^BEUfl
South Laguna^ll
RAW SEWAGE INTERCEPTOR
LAND OUTFALL
OCEAN OUTFALL
i FORCE MAIN
A PUMP STATION
(g) ABANDONED TREATMENT PLANT
3 SECONDARY TREATMENT PLANT
A A.W.T. PLANT
SOUTH COAST
INTERCEPTOR
I
I
. ~
/ "r 1Nt "
-
V\
\ '
rJ • .
Dana Point _.,-£^
[hibit 3-12
iu
-------
Project Alternative 4A would
enable the upper Aliso area to
provide independent disposal
through the construction of an
advanced wastewater treatment
plant and land outfall. Treated
effluent would be utilized in the
upper Aliso and Irvine Ranch area
for man-made recreational lakes,
irrigation and other miscellaneous
urban uses throughout most of
the year, with excess effluent to
be discharged to San Diego Creek.
Dislocation of the upper Aliso
area, enables the local and
regional treatment facilities in the
lower Aliso and coastal areas to
be reduced in size and capacity.
Excess treated effluent from the
SLSD and MNWD plants not used
for irrigation would pass through
a pipeline in lower Aliso Valley to
the ocean outfall.
LAWD PLANT
ROSSMOOR PLANT
A.W.T. PLANT
10.0 MGD
MNWD 2A PLANT
1270.7 MGD
3.8 MGD
MNWD 4A
PLANT
10.0 MGD
1.3
MGD
CITY OF LACUNA BEACH PLANT
1.5 5.9 5.9
ID
HUB I
NORTH COAST INTERCEPTOR
MNWD1AP
All
18"-24"/4.7 MGD
18'7 2.2 MGD
mi 18"/2.2 MGD
2.2
MGD
JOINT MNWD-SLSD PLANT
24" ^ 18
• !•!
1.5 MGD 12"
0.9
MGO
SOUTH COAST INTERCEPTOR
Exhibit 3-13
ALTERNATIVE 4A
-------
•~v*r * ^'•f
Laguna Beach „,.,;„..
NORTH COAST
INTERCEPTOR
legend
m.i.t.ii RAW SEWAGE INTERCEPTOR
I-— LAND OUTFALL
OCEAN OUTFALL
l> ii FORCE MAIN
A PUMP STATION
ABANDONED TREATMENT PLANT
SECONDARY TREATMENT PLANT
A.W.T. PLANT
Ixhibit 3-12
7000 4000 | MOD
South Lagunai;
SOUTH COAST
INTERCEPTOR
*s
-•*, -^1 • !.«.".! *
San ClementeV^BJ^^
•
-------
Project Alternative 4A would
enable the upper Aliso area to
provide independent disposal
through the construction of an
advanced wastewater treatment
plant and land outfall. Treated
effluent would be utilized in the
upper Aliso and Irvine Ranch area
for man-made recreational lakes,
irrigation and other miscellaneous
urban uses throughout most of
the year, with excess effluent to
be discharged to San Diego Creek.
Dislocation of the upper Aliso
area, enables the local and
regional treatment facilities in the
lower Aliso and coastal areas to
be reduced in size and capacity.
Excess treated effluent from the
SLSD and MNWD plants not used
for irrigation would pass through
a pipeline in lower Aliso Valley to
the ocean outfall.
LAWD PLANT
ROSSMOOR PLANT
A.W.T. PLANT
10.0 MGD
MNWD 2A PLANT
12-/0.7 MGD
3.8 MGD
MNWD 4A
PLANT
10.0 MGD
18"-24"/4.7 MGD
18"/2.2 MGD
S 18"/2.2 MGD
1.3
MGD
16"
CITY OF LAGUNA BEACH PLANT
1.5 5-9
III^NlillHIB
NORTH COAST INTERCEPTOR
24" 24"
IIIIBIHI
MNWD1APLBN1
I
JOINT MNWD-SLSD PLANT
SOUTH COAST INTERCEPTOR
Exhibit 3-13
ALTERNATIVE 4A
-------
f
I v' x " •• Y '
R% ' - \ -"
; •"
•
w-
vv« >
- -^'
YV-P'^^V .<' 2
I-;, I ) ••IX'J;. k! ^
y.~ r
i™
, LAWD
' PLANT
K m vmMW&Sm**-
I:iw^.|t^^fe'- ?
asfe,'..,, „... -" 7 v. '•- "^ • / (* x- • 1 i *'^.,JSi ^^""sj\ ri--iiS^y-ck /" * $ -^ir\ J9
/Wp\ i . tf^JX*
^•>^g*, /
Rwc
. vport
Beach
J~
SEfci'l
x3^As-
-.'.:"*
x-wy
Laguna Beach ,,,
NORTH COAST
INTERCEPTOR
:. •',
MNWD2A(,«
ftXtfT }-^
/ '-
#'»-..<• •
IVL.
-'^•'
/
, MNWD 1A
PLANT
•• *«
"' \~Aif V'' 'f •
]
•
*
J •"
*
- \ -.^.-^
1 I -i
jjrbm {
legend
m
Wi
•
I
'•'• RAW SEWAGE INTERCEPTOR
LAND OUTFALL
OCEAN OUTFALL
mm FORCE MAIN
PUMP STATION
ABANDONED TREATMENT PLANT
SECONDARY TREATMENT PLANT
A.W.T. PLANT
South Laguna^
SOUTH COAST
INTERCEPTOR
4
'
^
.
.
'
^
,
&
*% M$<
r
-*%}> •'
«•»*• —-x ff(f
•-- " - '""'' -'
~" Capistrano
Beach" -,.
•!•' •
ill
(hibit 3-12
-------
Project Alternative 4A would
enable the upper Aliso area to
provide independent disposal
through the construction of an
advanced wastewater treatment
plant and land outfall. Treated
effluent would be utilized in the
upper Aliso and Irvine Ranch area
for man-made recreational lakes,
irrigation and other miscellaneous
urban uses throughout most of
the year, with excess effluent to
be discharged to San Diego Creek.
Dislocation of the upper Aliso
area, enables the local and
regional treatment facilities in the
lower Aliso and coastal areas to
be reduced in size and capacity.
Excess treated effluent from the
SLSD and MNWD plants not used
for irrigation would pass through
a pipeline in lower Aliso Valley to
the ocean outfall.
LAWD PLANT
ROSSMOOR PLANT
A.W.T. PLANT
10.0 MGD
MNWD 2A PLANT
1270.7 MGD
3.8 MGD
MNWD 4A
PLANT
10.0 MGD
18"-24"/4.7 MGD
18"/2.2 MGD
S 18"/2.2 MGD
M3GD
CITY OF LAGUNA BEACH PLANT
S.9
IIIIBIBI
NORTH COAST INTERCEPTOR
MNWD1APIWJT
JOINT MNWD-SLSD PLANT
SOUTH COAST INTERCEPTOR
Exhibit 3-13
ALTERNATIVE 4A
-------
s*
Kffe^ : r4 P
f -V ^ • . ^
/ f*i;
•?• •'•».* I
1
v^. /„-•
•>HSP^ > •
•jfeCv iPv$
Viewport
Beach
-•
:
.g§!
LAGUtyl
-.V i
^
/ "/
M%*^
k \,./^uAflT, ;
^Vr..™ .
-•-3*^V ^
--;^
Laguna Beach Ls,
NORTH COAST
INTERCEPTOR
. MNWD 1A
'PLANT
i
•
i • j
., •
i
V ^
, "/ •
f -- V;.
• |>- .-. •
m S
>#SL&
'
legend
I
'•'•'• RAW SEWAGE INTERCEPTOR
LAND OUTFALL
OCEAN OUTFALL
ii mm FORCE MAIN
PUMP STATION
ABANDONED TREATMENT PLANT
SECONDARY TREATMENT PLANT
A.W.T. PLANT
South Laguna;
SOUTH COAST
INTERCEPTOR
Oft "41
TJ» i
(SB
?
r
" '• 3 s- "~.
J4»'- ?"
Ii. ' ' '"«-
/--^:
€apistrano
Beach"'%
**o,
m
.
LU
I
xhibit 3-12
-------
Project Alternative 4A would
enable the upper Aliso area to
provide independent disposal
through the construction of an
advanced wastewater treatment
plant and land outfall. Treated
effluent would be utilized in the
upper Aliso and Irvine Ranch area
for man-made recreational lakes,
irrigation and other miscellaneous
urban uses throughout most of
the year, with excess effluent to
be discharged to San Diego Creek.
Dislocation of the upper Aliso
area, enables the local and
regional treatment facilities in the
lower Aliso and coastal areas to
be reduced in size and capacity.
Excess treated effluent from the
SLSD and MNWD plants not used
for irrigation would pass through
a pipeline in lower Aliso Valley to
the ocean outfall.
LAWD PLANT
ROSSMOOR PLANT
A.W.T. PLANT
10.0 MGD
MNWD 2A PLANT
1270.7 MGD
3.8 MGD
MNWD 4A
PLANT
10.0 MGD
1.3
MGD
._.,
16
„,. MGD
15 fe. 16
CITY OF LACUNA BEACH PLANT
1.5 5.9 5.9
ID
HimI
NORTH COAST INTERCEPTOR
ma i • i
3.0 MGD 4V |
JOINT MNWD-SLSD PLANT
MNWD1APUJN1
18"-24"/4.7 MGO
18"/2.2 MGO
S 1B"/2.2 MGD
2.2
MGD
B 18"/1.5 MGD 12"
BIBlBIBI
0.9
MGD
SOUTH COAST INTERCEPTOR
Exhibit 3-13
ALTERNATIVE 4A
-------
-
'
~ •'
s>?fe^-.sr yK£r<
i tW *il
-^f ' ^
I
• r-
•-
,
Legend
i.i.<... RAW SEWAGE INTERCEPTOR
—^— LAND OUTFALL
OCEAN OUTFALL
i FORCE MAIN
A PUMP STATION
(g) ABANDONED TREATMENT PLANT
d_ SECONDARY TREATMENT PLANT
% A.W.T. PLANT
REGIONAL' SECONDARY
TREATMENT PLANT
Dana Point r-.
Exhibit 3-14
-------
Project Alternative 2F provides
consolidation of waste water treat-
ment to a regional facility in the
lower Aliso Valley and advanced
wastewater reclamation and
ground water recharge in the uper
Aliso area. The existing inland
plants would continue reclama-
tion of secondary treated waste-
water for irrigation during periods
of demand. Untreated sewage
would pass down Aliso Valley by
a raw sewage interceptor to the
regional treatment plant and then
to the ocean outfall for final
disposal. This alternative enables
the regional facility to be sized at
a lower capacity because of the
high summer reclamation de-
mands in the upper Aliso area
traded off with increased summer
and wastewater generation in the
coastal area.
LAWD PLANT
A.W.T. PLANT
4.0 MGD
16*/3.5 MGD
15V3.5 MGD
ROSSMOOR PLANT
MNWD 2A PLANT
'=§
?••
• «s
*• >•
iu" •<•>
Uj ™ <•>
5! SULPHUR CREEK
INTERCEPTOR
REGIONAL
TREATMENT PLANT
16 MGD
i
E 16
0.8
CITY OF LAGUNA BEACH PLANT
1.3
MGD
1.5
,. MGD
5.9
MGD
5.9
MGD
16" 18" jf^. 24" Iff1 S
IIMI • I «(y) ^illiiHUi | B|M||||H I i
NORTH COAST INTERCEPTOR
MNWD 1A PLANT
24"/2.5 MGD
2172.5 MGD
S 24V 2.5 MGD
1.5
MGD
JOINT MNWD-SLSD PLANT
II
18"/1.75 MGD
SOUTH COAST INTERCEPTOR
Exhibit 3-15
ALTERNATIVE 2F
-------
Project Alternative 4C provides
independent disposal of secon-
dary treated effluent in the upper
Aliso area through the construc-
tion of a land outfall to San Diego
Creek. Reclamation for irrigation
purposes would be maintained as
long as the demand occurs. Dislo-
cation of the upper Aliso area
enables the local and regional
treatment facilities in the lower
Aliso and coastal areas to be
reduced in size and capacity.
Excess treated effluent from the
SLSD and MNWD plants not used
for irrigation would pass through
a pipeline in lower Aliso Valley to
the ocean outfall.
LAWD PLANT
ROSSMOOR PLANT
MNWD 2A PLANT
1270.7 MGD
3.8 MGD
MNWD 4A
PLANT
10.0 MGD
CITY OF LAGUNA BEACH PLANT
1.3
MGD
....
16
1.5
„„ MGO ..
15 fc. 16
5.9
IIIIBIHIH X 1MIIIIHI
NORTH COAST INTERCEPTOR
MNWD1APLA)
18"-24"/4.7 MGO
18V 2.2 MGO
35 18"/2.2 MGD
3.0 MGD A MOD
JOINT MNWD-SLSD PLANT
5.9
24" «» 18
= 1871.5 MGD 12"
i m m i • i • i
SOUTH COAST INTERCEPTOR
Exhibit 3-16
ALTERNATIVE 4C
-------
During the second stage of construction in 1985, a 4mgd advanced wastewater
treatment plant would begin to provide tertiary treatment in the Upper Aliso
area. This tertiary treatment facility would be essentially the same as
described in Alternative 3C and would involve the operation of the Los Alisos
and El Toro Water Districts' plants.
An additional feature of this alternative would allow the effluent flows
that were coming out of the tertiary plant to flow down Aliso Creek and be
put into groundwater storage in the Aliso Basin of approximately 9,000 acre-
feet storage capacity. This basin at the present time has more than 2,500
ppm TDS in groundwater and is not useable for even agricultural purposes.
An objective of this alternative would be to remove the highly saline water
from the basin and replenish with secondary treated lower TDS supplies from
the tertiary plant. In the early stages of the project, three pumps would
be installed in the lower portion of the Aliso groundwater basin and approxi-
mately 3 mgd of water would be removed and discharged to the ocean through
the ocean outfall. During this period of time, available aquifer capacity
can be obtained and the Aliso groundwater basin would be overdrafted. After
the basin had been drained for approximately 3 years, either rainfall or
tertiary treated effluent should be discharged into the basin for flushing.
It is estimated that there are about 50,000 tons of currently accumulated salt
in the basin. This accumulation of salt would have to be reduced to something
on the order of 20,000 tons before the water coming out of the groundwater
basin would be of sufficient quality for agricultural purposes. Three wells
and a short pipeline would be installed to take these waters to the treatment
plant so it could be combined, bypassing the treatment process, and put into
the outfall. These have been included in part of the cost estimate of this
project. After the first ten years of operation, essentially when enough
salt has been removed and the tertiary process is in operation, these same
wells and distribution system would be incorporated into the greenbelt irriga-
tion system for the Aliso Greenbelt area.
3.1.6 Alternative 4C - Intermittent Streat Discharge from the Upper Aliso Area
As with Alternative 4A, Alternative 4C represents a concept of separating
the AWMA area into essentially two service areas. The Upper Aliso service
area would be independent of the lower Aliso and the coastal areas. Effluent
from the two upper plants would be stored in existing facilities. During
winter months when demand for reclaimed water is at a minimum, excess effluent
would be intermittently discharged to San Diego Creek. Discharge would coincide
with maximum stream flows and dilution and would also coincide with minimal
public recreational use of the Creek. This concept would enable the facilities
in the lower Aliso and Coastal areas to be reduced in size and capacity.
This would also reduce the size of the ocean outfall from 29 mgd to 17 mgd.
Exhibits 3-7 and 3-8 prepared for Alternative 4A may also be used to describe
Alternative 4C. The only variation occurs in the utilization of an advance
wastewater treatment plant in the 4A alternative. Other aspects of the North
Coast Interceptor and South Coast Interceptor would remain the same as those
described in Alternative 1A. No estimate was made of the cost savings of
this alternative compared to Alternative 4A.
3-7
-------
Project Alternative 4C provides
independent disposal of secon-
dary treated effluent in the upper
Aliso area through the construc-
tion of a land outfall to San Diego
Creek. Reclamation for irrigation
purposes would be maintained as
long as the demand occurs. Dislo-
cation of the upper Aliso area
enables the local and regional
treatment facilities in the lower
Aliso and coastal areas to be
reduced in size and capacity.
Excess treated effluent from the
SLSD and MNWD plants not used
for irrigation would pass through
a pipeline in lower Aliso Valley to
the ocean outfall.
LAWD PLANT
ROSSMOOR PLANT
MNWD 2A PLANT
1270.7 MGD
3.8 MGD
MNWD 4A
PLANT
10.0 MGD
1.3
....
16
1.5
..„ MGO „.
15 ^ 16
HUM i
CITY OF LAGUNA BEACH PLANT
5.9
NORTH COAST INTERCEPTOR
MNWDIAPLAf
18"-2474.7 MGO
18"/2.2 MGO
~ 18"/2.2 MGD
JOINT MNWD-SLSD PLANT
.
MGD
SOUTH COAST INTERCEPTOR
Exhibit 3-16
ALTERNATIVE 4C
-------
During the second stage of construction in 1985, a 4mgd advanced wastewater
treatment plant would begin to provide tertiary treatment in the Upper Aliso
area. This tertiary treatment facility would be essentially the same as
described in Alternative 3C and would involve the operation of the Los Alisos
and El Toro Water Districts' plants.
An additional feature of this alternative would allow the effluent flows
that were coming out of the tertiary plant to flow down Aliso Creek and be
put into groundwater storage in the Aliso Basin of approximately 9,000 acre-
feet storage capacity. This basin at the present time has more than 2,500
ppm TDS in groundwater and is not useable for even agricultural purposes.
An objective of this alternative would be to remove the highly saline water
from the basin and replenish with secondary treated lower TDS supplies from
the tertiary plant. In the early stages of the project, three pumps would
be installed in the lower portion of the Aliso groundwater basin and approxi-
mately 3 mgd of water would be removed and discharged to the ocean through
the ocean outfall. During this period of time, available aquifer capacity
can be obtained and the Aliso groundwater basin would be overdrafted. After
the basin had been drained for approximately 3 years, either rainfall or
tertiary treated effluent should be discharged into the basin for flushing.
It is estimated that there are about 50,000 tons of currently accumulated salt
in the basin. This accumulation of salt would have to be reduced to something
on the order of 20,000 tons before the water coming out of the groundwater
basin would be of sufficient quality for agricultural purposes. Three wells
and a short pipeline would be installed to take these waters to the treatment
plant so it could be combined, bypassing the treatment process, and put into
the outfall. These have been included in part of the cost estimate of this
project. After the first ten years of operation, essentially when enough
salt has been removed and the tertiary process is in operation, these same
wells and distribution system would be incorporated into the greenbelt irriga-
tion system for the Aliso Greenbelt area.
3.1.6 Alternative 4C - Intermittent Streat Discharge from the Upper Aliso Area
As with Alternative 4A, Alternative 4C represents a concept of separating
the AWMA area into essentially two service areas. The Upper Aliso service
area would be independent of the lower Aliso and the coastal areas. Effluent
from the two upper plants would be stored in existing facilities. During
winter months when demand for reclaimed water is at a minimum, excess effluent
would be intermittently discharged to San Diego Creek. Discharge would coincide
with maximum stream flows and dilution and would also coincide with minimal
public recreational use of the Creek. This concept would enable the facilities
in the lower Aliso and Coastal areas to be reduced in size and capacity.
This would also reduce the size of the ocean outfall from 29 mgd to 17 mgd.
Exhibits 3-7 and 3-8 prepared for Alternative 4A may also be used to describe
Alternative 4C. The only variation occurs in the utilization of an advance
wastewater treatment plant in the 4A alternative. Other aspects of the North
Coast Interceptor and South Coast Interceptor would remain the same as those
described in Alternative 1A. No estimate was made of the cost savings of
this alternative compared to Alternative 4A.
3-7
-------
Beach
M ;;.- s
x * ' -: •'. '"
•
. ,
Vv^
%
;
,
-•\4.v'->- - &
'• ,
' ''
.,
1 ri
t '?
/ i J~-' 3 f]
' ^^K^i&aiSl
1 ?" • T.^^% .^*^Si*'x.f V
f
'
' J
' >
•
-^,' '/.;..-• -: •
*£*<:•
tit E
- - ±\- "
i (til: -
'' ; '
Legend
,. . . . RAW SEWAGE INTERCEPTOR
—i— LAND OUTFALL
OCEAN OUTFALL
iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiin FORCE MAIN
A PUMP STATION
0 ABANDONED TREATMENT PLANT
(J SECONDARY TREATMENT PLANT
A A.W.T. PLANT
Dana Point >.-.~«
3
REGIONAL SECONDARY
TREATMENT PLANT
Exhibit 3-17
i
-------
Project Alternative 2G AWMA
Proposed Project provides an
efficient system of raw sewage
transmission from the upper
Aliso area to the regional treat-
ment plant. Although the concept
of this alternative is virtually the
same as Project Alternative 2F, it
takes advantage of the natural
division between the Aliso and
San Diego Creeks drainage basins.
Double-pumping is eliminated,
thus conserving valuable energy
resources and increasing the
reliability and efficiency of the
operating facilities.
247 4.1 MGD
LAWD PLANT
A.W.T. PLANT,
4.0 MGD
1673.5 MGD
15'/3.5 MGD
ROSSMOOR
PLANT
'2.6
MGD
S 2073.4 MGD
18"/3.4 MGD
I $ 27"/ 8.6 MGD
il.
MNWD2A PLANT
of SULPHUR CREEK
. INTERCEPTOR
8ll
3!
REGIONAL
TREATMENT PLANT
16 MGD
1.3
MGD
1.5
... MGD
CITY OF LACUNA BEACH PLANT
16'^ 18"
5.9
MGD
k. •" 10
iapiiiiBiHi
NORTH COAST INTERCEPTOR
MNWD1A PLANT
2472.5 MGD
2172.5 MOD
24V 2.5 MGD
JOINT MNWD-SLSD PLANT
1...
SOUTH COAST INTERCEPTOR
Exhibit 3-18
ALTERNATIVE 2G
-------
3.1.7 Alternative 26 - Modified Alternative 2F
Alternative 2G modified Alternative 2F slightly to take advantage of natural
terrain. After completion of the 1973-1974 project report, it was determined
that Alternative 2F could be modified slightly to avoid 'double pumping' of
wastes.
Both LAWD and ETWD serve lands which naturally drain to both Aliso and
San Diego Creeks. Currently, flows from the Aliso Creek portion of the
service area are collected and then pumped over the ridge into the San Diego
Creek Basin. It was determined that these flows could be collected directly,
rather than be pumped into San Diego Creek Basin and then pumped back into
Aliso Creek Basin. This would save a substantial amount of 'double pumping'.
3.2 PRIMARY IMPACTS OF ALTERNATIVES
The following sections will describe the primary impacts of the foregoing
alternatives. The discussion will focus on construction impacts, operational
impacts, and the reliability of each alternative. Construction impacts will
be avoided when describing impacts common to several alternatives.
3.2.1 Alternative 1A - Local Treatment, Regional Disposal
3.2.1.1 Construction Impacts
3.2.1.1.1 Aliso Creek Interceptor
The pipeline components of the regional wastewater system will create short-
term impacts due to construction. Project construction will consist primarily
of the trenching, laying and back-filling of interceptors and outfalls, the
construction of pumping stations, and the construction of a regional treat-
ment plant.
The Aliso Creek Interceptor extends approximately 51,600 feet from the regional
treatment plant to the Los Alisos treatment plant in Sec. 21, T65, R8W. The
interceptor route goes up Aliso Creek canyon to the Moulton Parkway, then
follows the parkway and streets to El Toro and Los Alisos treatment plants.
In the lower reaches the interceptor will be constructed in gradually sloping
bottom lands used for grazing and dry farmed cereal grains. Assuming a 24-foot
wide construction lane, approximately 19,750 feet of grassland (10.9 acres)
will be destroyed. There will be a reach of 10,400 feet transversing agricultural
habitat.
The Aliso Creek Interceptor would be located adjacent to Aliso Creek and
would follow the creek from the regional treatment plant to Moulton Parkway
where it would then follow the alignment of Moulton Parkway to the northwest
for approximately 13,400 feet where it would reach the intersection of El Toro
Road. The Interceptor would then follow El Toro Road northerly for approxi-
mately 1,400 feet to a point where the interceptor would leave the roadway
alignment and continue to the El Toro Water District's treatment facilities.
3-8
-------
The traffic volumes along these major roadways currently range from S.,000
(Moulton Parkway) to 16,000 (El Toro Road). With upcoming improvements and
extensions of these roadways and the continued addition of people and vehicles,
these roadways will generate increasingly higher traffic volumes.
The -Aliso Creek Outfall will be constructed in a variety of terrain types and
activity areas., each posing different problems. Starting at the regional
treatment plant, the outfall will cross approximately 4,000 feet of grassland
type. The lower section of Aliso Creek canyon is narrow and the creek has
been channelized. The length of this reach to the Pacific Coast Highway is
5,000 feet. As a result of channelization, the creek here is a relatively
sterile habitat.
The construction of Aliso Creek Interceptor will involve six stream crossings,
two on San Diego Creek and four on Aliso Creek. Consequently, the construction
of Aliso Creek Interceptor would result in a disruption of riparian habitats
at these six locations. The extent of the disruption, either temporary or
permanent, would depend on the kind of construction that would occur at those
particular locations. Construction would also provide the potential for erosion
and creek siltation. A permit from the Department of Fish and Game is required
for in-stream work. Coordination with the Department will insure mitigation
of impacts.
The lower section of Aliso Creek is na'rrow and the creek has been channelized.
A country club and golf course occupy both sides of the canyon floor. The
creek will be used as the pipeline route along this portion of the system.
Excavation will occur in the bed of the stream channel. The length of this
reach to the Pacific Coast Highway is approximately 4,000 feet. As a result
of channelization, the relatively sterile creek habitat will not be affected
as significantly as in the upper reaches of the Aliso Creek.
3.2.1.1.2 South Coast Interceptor
The South Coast Interceptor is not under construction by the applicant. This
interceptor is being constructed almost entirely in the Coast Highway. The
traffic disruption that has been associated with this project should be
indicative of the inconvenience of construction to local residents.
3.2.1.1.3 Sulphur Creek Interceptor
The Sulphur Creek Interceptor will be constructed in roads and streets and
through a golf course, and will requine two pump stations. There will also
.be one stream crossing, with attendant impacts on stream habitat.
3-9
-------
3.2.1.1.4 North Coast Interceptor
The North Coast Interceptor will be constructed along approximately 35,000 feet
of the Pacific Coast Highway from Morro Canyon to Aliso Creek where it will
then follow Aliso Creek to the regional treatment plant. The existing traffic
flows along the portion of Pacific Coast Highway which will be affected by
construction activities range between 21,000 to 35,000 daily. These volumes
of traffic will be impacted more significantly at certain locations than
others. Since the precise alignment of the North Coast Interceptor along the
Pacific Coast Highway has not yet been determined, the disruptions of traffic
flows cannot be estimated or discussed in relation to their specific location
along the highway.
3.2.1.1.5 Land and Ocean Outfall
The outfall will be tunneled under Pacific Coast Highway and laid in a deep
trench across the beach to the ocean. The outfall will be buried beneath the
ocean floor approximately 2,100 feet seaward from the beachline. The buried
reach will be covered with large rocks which will protrude above the ocean
floor starting at the point where ocean depths reach 20 feet.
The final reach of the outfall will not be buried. The pipe will be laid on
the ocean floor at a minimum depth of 50 feet increasing to 170 feet at the
terminal diffuser.
During construction of the outfall facilities, the Aliso Beach Staging Area will
require a fenced area of 150 feet wide by 700 feet long. Construction
equipment will be located in the public parking area, thereby limiting the
public parking capacity for a period of approximately six months. Construction
time would be scheduled during the months from October through May in order to
avoid, as much as possible, the majority of beach visitors. Nevertheless,
construction of this stretch will interfere with public use of Aliso Beach
and the Aliso Beach public fishing pier. The steepness of the beach (20 percent)
and the small width (50 yards) will compound the impacts.
The 8,700 foot alignment of the ocean outfall would be permanently committed
to use for disposal purposes. Large rocks covering the outfall trench through
the ocean depths of 20 to 50 feet will protrude above the ocean floor. An
artifical reef approximately 1,600 feet long will be formed. Construction of
the outfall would also introduce a permanent artificial structure to the ocean
and an additional surface on which attached marine forms may grow.
Outfall construction will involve some dredging in order to establish the
trench for the outfall bed. Backfill will also be required. It is very
unlikely that the dredge spoil will involve any contaminants, since the sediments
are exclusively stream deposited sediments and there is no industry in the area.
3-10
-------
Construction operations will, however, cause temporary turbidity. Further-
more, marine life will be impacted. Intertidal flora and fauna, as well as
benthic subtidal biota, within the construction area, will be destroyed
directly by dredging. Also, benthic subtidal biota and fishes will be
affected by construction noise, although these effects will probably be
local, both in time and place. Whether the noises produced will attract or
divert fishes is not known. Vibration perception among invertebrates is not
fully understood, but the patterns of sound appear to be more important than
either the intensities or specific frequency characteristics of sound. This
is also true of fishes. The turbidity of the water and the general disrup-
tion of the area will affect phytoplankton to an unknown degree. Upon the
completion of construction activities, it may be expected that the area will
be repopulated by flora and fauna which were not destroyed or disturbed
within one year. As kelp is not present off of the Aliso Beach, construction
will have no short-term effects.
3.2.1.1.6 Treatment Plants
The South Laguna Sanitary District, Moulton Miguel Plants 1A, and 2A, the
El Toro plant and the Los Alisos plant will all need to be expanded under
this alternative. All construction will take place on existing sites, but
wiTl involve noise, traffic increases, dust, and other normal construction
impacts.
3.2.1.2 Operational Impacts
3.2.1.2.1 Ocean Discharge Impacts
The impact of the AWMA. ocean discharge depends ultimately upon the assimilative
capacity of the marine environment. This assimilative capacity cannot be
accurately determined, consequently it is difficult to predict fully the envi-
ronmental impacts of ocean discharge. However, a discussion of the environ-
mental impacts of primary treatment will be presented in comparison with
secondary treatment.
Pollutants of general environmental concern resulting from the discharge of
effluent into the ocean are floatable arid settleable solids, toxic and per-
sistent metals and organics, and pathogens.
Floatable solids are those solids, or clumps of solids such as grease, oils,
gas and a variety of particulates which are lighter than water. These masses
can be borne on shore by wind or current. Since they are unsightly and often
contain high levels of bacteria and chlorinated hydrocarbons, they are a ;
potential health hazard as well as an aesthetic disturbance. Floatable solids
will"be significantly reduced when treatment is upgraded from primary to
secondary levels.
Toxic materials, most notably heavy metals and persistent chlorinated hydro-
carbons, are of long-range concern. Both of these materials can be concen-
trated in the ocean, in the biological chain. Data from the Southern California
Coastal Water Research Project (SCCWRP) indicates that there are significant
depositions of particulates, heavy metals, and chlorinated hydrocarbons in the
vicinity of ocean outfalls—particularly if the sewer system serves a significant
3-11
-------
industrial area. The solids themselves can be toxic if not well stabilized,
hydrogen sulfide odors were pronounced in some areas. However, solids are
more generally seen as an indicator of other toxic materials. Both heavy
metals and toxic hydrocarbons tend to be absorbed onto sediments. Thus they
are relatively stabilized in the marine environment—although they can still
be available to organisms.
The SCWRRP study also showed that both hydrocarbons and heavy metals are
concentrated in the marine food chain. High concentrations of DDT were found
in sand crabs, mussels, and the dover sole in the vicinity of the outfalls.
To a lesser extent, lead concentrations were found in sand crabs. The exact
nature of concentration into the food chain and the overall marine significance
is hard to predict, since larger ocean fish feed in much larger areas than
benthic fauna or bottom fish such as the dover sole. Thus, they may not con-
sume species with high concentrations of metal or hydrocarbons in sufficient
quantity to further concentrate the materials. No reductions in game fish
catches have been noticed in the Southern California Bight, indicating that
all effects are sublethal, and do not affect reproduction.
Diseases of marine vertebrates are noticeably higher in the vicinity of ocean
outfalls. Whether this is a result of pathogens in the sediments, or from
reduced resistance, is hard to determine at this time.
The previous discussion indicates that the discharge of primary effluent, at
some level, results in significant harm to at least localized marine biological
communities. Insufficient research has been done to establish accurate and
exact treatment parameters to prevent these effects—indeed considerable
controversy exists on the subject. However, it can be noted that most of the
impacts are associated either directly or indirectly with the discharge of
settleable solids. Reductions in solids can be expected to reduce both heavy
metals and hydrocarbons which usually absorb to solids or are heavy enough to
settle out. Secondary treatment increases removal of settleable solids from
roughly 50 to 60 percent to roughly 90 to 95 percent. In the case of
Laguna Beach, secondary treatment would reduce suspended solids from about
150 milligrams per liter to 30 milligrams per liter or less.
Most of the materials found in wastewater are also found in ocean water--
though at greatly reduced concentrations. This indicates that dilution may
be a critical parameter in determining environmental impact. If so, the
impact of the discharge can be mitigated considerably since the dilution and
dispersion of the effluent can be regulated through design.
The length of the diffuser (600 feet) enables the discharged effluent to achieve
a high rate of dilution. A computer analysis predicted that with 2.0-inch
diameter diffuser ports, spaced at 12-foot intervals, discharging at a velocity
of 10 feet per second at a depth of 175 feet (the average depth of the pro-
posed discharge), an initial dilution of 290:1 would occur with the effluent
field remaining submerged at a depth of approximately 85 feet for average sum-
mer conditions and an initial dilution of 620:1 with the effluent field remain-
ing submerged at a depth of approximately 20 feet for average winter conditions.
The computer analysis for "subsequent dilution" predicted additional dilution
after the effluent field has reached equilibrium with the surrounding sea water
3-12
-------
TABLE 3-1
PROJECTED MASS EMISSIONS (POUNDS PER DAY) TO OCEAN
PERIODS
Constituent
TDS
Hardness
Chlorides
Sulfates
Fluoride
Magnesium
Copper
Zinc
Iron
Calcium
Sodium
Potassium
Bicarbonate
Nitrate
Boron
Phosphate
Lead
Selenium
Chromi urn
Cadmium
Arsenic
ifercury
Nickel
Silver
Ammonia
1975-80
127,000
61 ,400
25,200
34,400
73
6,700
24
24
9.7
11,570
23,140
2,310
41 ,500
2,440
73
3,650
4.8
3.7
0.5
1.0
0.86
0.12
0.24
0.37
244
1980-85
140,000
67,400
27,600
38,100
95
8,720
31.7
31.7
12.7
15,060
25,376
3,012
54,076
3,170
95
4,760
6.3
4.8
0.63
1.27
1.1
0.16
0.32
0.47
317
1985-90
151,000
74,000
34,400
28,300
113
10,400
37.7
37.7
15.1
15,100
29,640
3,590
60,040
3,780
113.2
5,660
7.5
5.7
0.75
1.51
1.32
1.51
0.38
0.57
377
1990-95
175,200
85,800
39,900
32,800
131
12,040
43.8
43.8
17.5
17,500
34,400
4,160
69,600
4,380
131.3
6,570
8.8
6.6
0.88
1.75
1,53
1.75
0.44
0.66
438
3-13
-------
for various times and distances away from the point of discharge assuming a
current speed of 0.2 feet per second.
"Subsequent dilution" values range from 1.0:1 to 30:1 for times after discharge
of zero to 10 hours respectively. Total predicted reduction in coliform
organisms for the same times after discharge range from 620:1 to 6,060,000:1
respectively; this reduction includes the initial dilution based on winter
conditions of 620:1, subsequent dilutions indicated above and reduction in
coliform organisms assuming a TgQ (rate of coliform bacteria disappearance) of
4 hours.
During the "current studies," no currents were detected moving directly onshore.
However, assuming a direct onshore current could occur and an average speed of
about 0.2 feet per second, and assuming the effluent field might reach the
water surface during a period of isothermal conditions in the water column,
it would take approximately 8 hours for the effluent field to reach a point
1,000 feet from the shore. At this point a subsequent dilution of approxi-
mately 23 to 1 would be achieved with a total predicted reduction in coliform
organisms of approximately 1,800,000 to 1. Exhibit 3-19 shows calculated con-
tours of subsequent dilution as a percent of initial dilution for the case of
an onshore current.
The short term impacts would be minimized by the extreme initial dilution of
290:1 and the "subsequent dilution" of the effluent on entering the sea. On
the other hand, the long term and cumulative impact, especially the biological
and sedimentary impacts, cannot be assessed accurately at this time because:
(1) present data are limited and monitoring programs in the vicinity of the
disposal site are not available; and (2) experimental observations on the
nature and kinetics of very slow reactions at extreme dilution are lacking.
In summary, the initial dilution of waste water with sea water from the ocean
outfall would meet the requirements of the State Water Quality Control Board
and the State Plan for the ocean waters of California. These requirements
establish a dilution factor of 100:1 at least 50 percent of the time. In
effect the initial dilution rate of 290:1 provides a substantially higher ratio
of dilution relative to the existing requirements.
3.2.1.2.2 Land Discharge
Alternative 1A would involve reclamation of a sizeable amount of water in the
Upper Aliso Service Area. In this option, the groundwater basins would be
the receiving waters. When groundwater basins are charged sufficiently, the
rising groundwater would cause streamflow, and thus the streams would be
impacted as wel 1.
For groundwater, nitrates, pathogens and trace organics are the pollutants of
chief concern. Heavy metals will absorb onto the soils where the wastewater
is reclaimed. Uptake of heavy metals into food crops is not a concern,
although sufficient build-up of heavy metals can ruin a soils productivity.
This is not likely to occur with domestic sewage.
Nitrates, unlike heavy metals and phosphates, pass through soils in water.
Nitrates can accumulate in groundwater and render it unfit for drinking.
3-14
-------
-o
>
O
-n
O
-1200'
Diffuser
75*
50%
25%
ALISO
Exhibit 3-19
T
0 2090
DILUTION CONTOURS
-------
TABLE 3-2
ANTICIPATED SUBSEQUENT DILUTION AND TOTAL REDUCTION IN COLIFORM
ORGANISMS FOR THE ALISO CREEK OCEAN OUTFALL
Time After
Discharge
(hours)
Distance From
Discharge Point
(feet)
Width of
Effluent Field
(feet)
Subsequent
Dilution
(ratio to 1)
Total Predicted
Reduction3
(ratio to 1)
-0-
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.5
0.7
1.0
2.0
3.0
5.0
7.0
10.0
-0-
72
144
216
360
504
720
1440
2160
3600
5040
7200
130
150
175
200
250
310
400
760
1180
2200
3400
5500
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.2
1.4
1.7
2.2
4.2
6.6
12
19
30
620
660
740
860
1 ,180
1,610
2,470
8,280
22,300
135,000
665,000
6,060,000
Includes an initial dilution of 620 to 1, the subsequent
dilution indicated and reduction in coliform organism
assuming a TgQ of 4 hours
-------
Nitrates can be present in rising groundwater to the extent where they can
cause eutrophication of streams and estuaries. In the case of the AWMA
agencies in the upper Aliso Creek area, the actual impacts will depend on
reclamation practices. If irrigation practices are carefully controlled,
most of the nitrates can be taken up and used by vegetation. In any case,
nitrates are not a critical concern in the upper Aliso area. Groundwater
basins are very small and are not used for domestic supply. Further, the
contribution of nitrates from the treatment plants is much less than the
contributions from agricultural practices and urban runoff. It cannot be
said that wastewater is causing eutrophication in Newport Bay.
Pathogens are a potential problem in reclamation. Pathogens are bacteria and
viruses that cause diseases that can be found in sewage effluent. Pathogens
of concern include hepatitis and polio viruses and various bacteria which
cause disease. Pathogens are reduced through treatment and disinfection
and are reduced or eliminated by passage through soils. Pathogens are
usually not a problem in the groundwater, but can be a problem with uncon-
trolled runoff from irrigated areas. Indeed, this is the current water
quality problem from the Rossmoor treatment plant.
Trace organics can be a concern with groundwater recharge. Trace organics
refer to complex organic chemicals which can be found in sewage, although
they are more frequent in industrial waste than domestic sewage. These
complex compounds are not broken down by conventional waste treatment and can
even be created by chlorinating domestic sewage. Some of these compounds are
known to be carcinogenic and some are suspected mutagens. Further, there is
no convenient or inexpensive method of monitoring these compounds on a daily
basis. The State of California's Department of Health strongly discourages
recycling sewage through groundwater because of the danger of trace organics.
As a rule of thumb, they feel that no more than five percent of the water in
a groundwater basin should be sewage effluent if the groundwater is to be
used for domestic supply. Trace organics are probably not a major problem with
reclamation in the AWMA area as long as virtually all domestic drinking water
is imported.
Reclamation of wastewater for either expanded agricultural purposes or green
belt irrigation will cause substantial changes in habitat. These are not
beneficial or adverse effects unless they affect a rare habitat, rather they
are changes. Areas which are now natural chapparal would be changed to either
irrigated agriculture, which does provide some wildlife habitat, or irrigated
greenbelt. Irrigated green belt would be a wildlife habitat similar to that
found in existing riparian areas.
3.2.1.2.2 Energy Consumption
Operation of this alternative is estimated to require 227 x 10 kilowatt-hours
over the 20 year planning period.
3.2.1.3 Reliability
Any increase in the number of components within a system decreases the
reliability of the total system operating properly. Conversely, an increase
in the number of components within a system decreases the significance of the
3-15
-------
failure of one component. In the case of Alternative 1A, the number of treat-
ment plants would result in more frequent upsets than with a central treatment
plant. Yet the water quality impact of the failure of one treatment plant
would be minimized by the dilution with other plants effluent. The probability
of upset is greatest with this alternative, while the impact of upset is the
least.
3.2.1.4 Compatibility with Reclamation
Total reclamation for a year 2000 flow of 20 mgd would require over 10,000
acres of land plus facilities for water storage of over 5,000 acre feet of
water. An ultimate flow of 30 mgd would require over 15S000 acres of land for
irrigation and over 10,000 acre feet of storage. If flows are less than this,
land requirements would be reduced in direct proportion to flow reductions.
No detailed analysis has been made of potential users of reclaimed water or
market areas. However, since both Los Alisos Water District and El Toro Water
District are now having trouble disposing of their effluent on a year-round
basis, it is extremely unlikely that a year-round market can be found for
these volumes of effluent. Consequently, an ocean outfall to provide fail-safe,
year-round disposal would be an essential element of any reclamation project.
Although total reclamation is probably impossible, partial reclamation is pos-
sible and desirable, and each alternative will be evaluated for compatibility
with future reclamation.
Reclamation depends upon distribution of water for reclamation to potential
customers, which in turn depends upon using available static head to distribute
with minimal pumping and a pipeline system separate from domestic water to get
effluent to potential users.
Unless pumping is held to a minimum and some sort of distribution system exists,
reclaimed water will not be able to compete with potable water supplies, which
rely on an existing distribution system.
Alternative 1A would be very compatible with reclamation since the available
head of the upstream flows is retained through local treatment, and the use
of an effluent line provides the backbone of an effluent distribution system
for reuse.
On the other hand, i_f it is ultimately determine that substantial deminerali-
zation or advanced treatment to remove viruses and/or trace organics is essential
to reclamation, Alternative 1A would sacrifice economies of scale and make such
treatment more expensive. Alternative 1A, the basic water supply for the area
could be demineralized. Under this option, economies of scale would be obtained
and head would not be lost.
3.2.2 Alternative 2E - Central Treatment, Regional Disposal
3.2.2.1 Construction Impacts
3.2.2.1.1 Interceptors
3-16
-------
All interceptors for this alternative would be the same as for Alternative 1A
except that they would convey raw sewage rather than treated sewage. The con-
struction impacts would be virtually identical.
3.2.2.1.2 Treatment Plant
This alternative would require a new treatment plant to be constructed. Four
sites have been considered, by AWMA (Exhibit 3-5) and Site 2 is proposed as be-
ing the most suitable location (Exhibit 3-6). The cost of constructing inter-
ceptors, outfalls, sludge pipelines, and sewer pipelines as well as the cost
of power to pump the wastewater to the treatment plant, was computed to com-
pare the alternative sites (Table 3-3). This comparison indicates that
alternative Site 2 is the least costly for pipelines and pumping. Other
factors were also considered, these included: the extent of site prepara-
tion, plant operation, future plant expansion, flood control and proposed
land use (Table 3-4).
Site 1 would require costly cut and fill and could only accommodate a 10 mgd
plant. It has the advantage of a relatively secluded location, thus limiting
the overall visual impact from within and surrounding the Aliso Creek Open
Space and Conservation Corridor. However, when the site is in view, the
impact will be severe. The relatively location, large fill slopes and
cut scars on the canyon walls will accentuate the presence of the plant.
Sites 3 and 4 are located deeper within Aliso Canyon. Because of the broad
and gentle curving nature of the canyon, these sites are highly visible. They
may disrupt the continuity of recreational or open space uses within the Aliso
Creek corridor, impacting the corridor visually and functionally. Further-
more, these sites place the regional treatment plant too far away from the
SLSD plant for combined operations to be possible, as compared to sites 1 and
2 which facilitate combined operations.
TABLE 3-3
COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVE SITES
RELATIVE COSTS - $1000's
ALTERNATIVE SITE
Cost of Pipelines
Aliso Creek Interceptor
North Coast Interceptor
Land Outfall
Sludge Line - SLSD Plant
Raw Sewage Line - SLSD Plant
Cost of Pumping (20 years)
TOTALS
RELATIVE COSTS
$1045
$ 760
$ 380
$ 163
$ 915
$1931
3-17
-------
TABLE 3-4
ALTERNATIVE SITE INFORMATION AWMA REGIONAL WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT
Site Preparation
Plant Operation
Future Plant Expansion
Flood Control
CO
I
00
Proposed Land Use*
1
Extensive cut
and fill req'd
Combined opera-
tion with SLSD
plant
Not sufficient
area for pro-
posed plant
Site above
flood plain
Category 4.2
Quasi-Open
Space
ALTERNATIVE SITE
3
Fill req'd
minimal cut
Combined opera-
tion with SLSD
plant
Sufficient area
for expansion
to 24 mgd
Required chan-
nelization of
Aliso Creek &
Protective
Work
Category 5.4
Open Space
Fill req'd
minimal cut
Separate opera-
tion with SLSD
plant
Sufficient area
for expansion
to 24 mgd
Require pro-
tective works
for design
storm
Category 5.3
Recreation Use
Fill req'd
minimal cut
Separate opera-
tion with SLSD
plant
Sufficient area
for expansion
to 24 mgd
Require pro-
tective works
for design
storm
Category 5.3
Recreation Use
Proposed school
site
*County of Orange, Land Use Element, Amendment 3-74
-------
The site which AWMA has selected, site 2, would result in environmental trade-
offs. The visual impact would be less than that of sites 3 and 4, and possibly
site 1, owning to its location in the narrow portion of the canyon which re-
stricts views (Exhibits 3-20 and 3-21). In response to concerns expressed
regarding future hiking, riding, and bicycle trails along Aliso Creek, AWMA
has directed its engineers to provide an equestrian trail and a hiking-bikeway
trail system along the western edge of the 2-G plant site. This 50 to 65 foot
wide trail system, which would replace the plant service road originally planned
for this area, would cover three of the site's 17 acres. The trail system
could include the ranch road along the western edge of Aliso Creek. The
proximity of the SLSD treatment plant will consolidate the over-all intrusion
of these facilities into the Aliso Creek Corridor. This is also true of site 1,
but site 2 will be on the canyon floor and will not require the extensive grad-
ing involved with the development of site 1.
The principal adverse impacts of this site are the channelization of a portion
of Aliso Creek and the destruction of an archaeological site. A meander of
the creek exists on the northern third of the site and a diversion channel is
proposed to cut off this meander. The channel must commence off site and will
continue along the present creek bed through the site. Buried rip-rap is to be
used and the new water course would be able to carry a Standard Project Flood,
thus protecting the treatment plant from this hazard.* An archaeological site,
Ora 397, is recorded within the boundaries of the proposed plant site. It is
adjacent to Aliso Creek about half way through the project site. This one-
third acre site appears to have been a temporary encampment and further investi-
gation will be necessary to determine its significance. Construction activities
could destroy the site and any artifacts contained within it; however, AWMA has
indicated that they will attempt to preserve as much of the archaeological site
as is possible and that they will coordinate construction with a qualified
archaeologist who will be aided in any salvaging which is necessary.
If a regional treatment plant capable of serving the projected AWMA area popula-
tion is to be constructed in Aliso Canyon, then site 2 appears to be the best
location, both environmentally and cost/benefit wise. Impacts such as noise,
dust, increased erosion and increased traffic normally associated with construc-
tion can be expected irrespective of the treatment plant location. Because of
the remoteness of these sites, relatively few people would be inconvenienced.
3.2.2.1.3 Treatment Plant Access Road
The construction and operation of the regional treatment plant will require the
construction of an access road. Because of topological and land use constraints,
access alternatives have focused on northerly or southerly approaches along
Aliso Creek.
*Also, AWMA will acquire another 11 acres subject to inundation during a
Standard Project Flood of 22,000 cubic feet per second flow. AWMA is
willing to make this area available for greenbelt corridor uses.
3-19
-------
TABLE 3-4
ALTERNATIVE SITE INFORMATION AWMA REGIONAL WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT
ALTERNATIVE SITE
1
Site Preparation
Plant Operation
Future Plant Expansion
Flood Control
00
Proposed Land Use*
Extensive cut
and fill req'd
Combined opera-
tion with SLSD
plant
Not sufficient
area for pro-
posed plant
Site above
flood plain
Category 4.2
Quasi-Open
Space
Fill req'd
minimal cut
Combined opera-
tion with SLSD
plant
Sufficient area
for expansion
to 24 mgd
Required chan-
nelization of
Aliso Creek &
Protective
Work
Category 5.4
Open Space
Fill req'd
minimal cut
Separate opera-
tion with SLSD
plant
Sufficient area
for expansion
to 24 mgd
Require pro-
tective works
for design
storm
Category 5.3
Recreation Use
Fill req'd
minimal cut
Separate opera-
tion with SLSD
plant
Sufficient area
for expansion
to 24 mgd
Require pro-
tective works
for design
storm
Category 5.3
Recreation Use
Proposed school
site
*County of Orange, Land Use Element, Amendment 3-74
-------
The site which AWMA has selected, site 2, would result in environmental trade-
offs. The visual impact would be less than that of sites 3 and 4, and possibly
site 1, owning to its location in the narrow portion of the canyon which re-
stricts views (Exhibits 3-20 and 3-21). In response to concerns expressed
regarding future hiking, riding, and bicycle trails along Aliso Creek, AWMA
has directed its engineers to provide an equestrian trail and a hiking-bikeway
trail system along the western edge of the 2-G plant site. This 50 to 65 foot
wide trail system, which would replace the plant service road originally planned
for this area, would cover three of the site's 17 acres. The trail system
could include the ranch road along the western edge of Aliso Creek. The
proximity of the SLSD treatment plant will consolidate the over-all intrusion
of these facilities into the Aliso Creek Corridor. This is also true of site 1,
but site 2 will be on the canyon floor and will not require the extensive grad-
ing involved with the development of site 1.
The principal adverse impacts of this site are the channelization of a portion
of Aliso Creek and the destruction of an archaeological site. A meander of
the creek exists on the northern third of the site and a.diversion channel is
proposed to cut off this meander. The channel must commence off site and will
continue along the present creek bed through the site. Buried rip-rap is to be
used and the new water course would be able to carry a Standard Project Flood,
thus protecting the treatment plant from this hazard.* An archaeological site,
Ora 397, is recorded within the boundaries of the proposed plant site. It is
adjacent to Aliso Creek about half way through the project site. This one-
third acre site appears to have been a temporary encampment and further investi-
gation will be necessary to determine its significance. Construction activities
could destroy the site and any artifacts contained within it; however, AWMA has
indicated that they will attempt to preserve as much of the archaeological site
as is possible and that they will coordinate construction with a qualified
archaeologist who will be aided in any salvaging which is necessary.
If a regional treatment plant capable of serving the projected AWMA area popula-
tion is to be constructed in Aliso Canyon, then site 2 appears to be the best
location, both environmentally and cost/benefit wise. Impacts such as noise,
dust, increased erosion and increased traffic normally associated with construc-
tion can be expected irrespective of the treatment plant location. Because of
the remoteness of these sites, relatively few people would be inconvenienced.
3.2.2.1.3 Treatment Plant Access Road
The construction and operation of the regional treatment plant will require the
construction of an access road. Because of topological and land use constraints,
access alternatives have focused on northerly or southerly approaches along
Aliso Creek.
*Also, AWMA will acquire another 11 acres subject to inundation during a
Standard Project Flood of 22,000 cubic feet per second flow. AWMA is
willing to make this area available for greenbelt corridor uses.
3-19
-------
REGIONAL TREATMENT PLANT
View from West Side of Aliso Creek
150 Feet Above Site
Exhibit 3-20
-------
REGIONAL TREATMENT PLANT
View from East Side of Aliso
Creek 150 Feet Above Site
Exhibit 3-21
-------
3.2.2.1.3.1 Northern Alternative
There are three variations of this alternative. One alignment would coincide
with the proposed Aliso Creek Road between Alicia Parkway and Aliso Creek Beach
as shown on the Orange County Master Plan of Arterial Highways (MPAH). Another
alignment would be on the eastern and southern side of Aliso Creek (Exhibit 3-22),
along the present interceptor route. In either case, the road would be of all
weather design -- a 20-foot paved surface in a 50-foot right-of-way. A third
alternative, currently proposed by AWMA, is to re-grade the existing dirt road
which traverses the western side of the canyon along an alignment almost
identical to the MPAH route. However, the surface would only be oiled to con-
trol dust. Aliso Creek would be crossed twice by temporary earth fill bridges.
At the completion of construction this road would be abandoned and the bridges
removed. When the plant is built, access will be from Pacific Coast Highway via
a private 20 foot wide, 1,500 foot long paved road through the Laguna Beach
Golf Course. A permanent easement and approximately 20 foot wide right-of-way
was acquired by the Moulton-Miguel Water District on July 19, 1971.
3.2.2.1.3.1.1 Environmental Considerations
The environmental variables in the area of the northern alternative have been
thoroughly researched and mapped during the development of the Master Plan for
Moulton Ranch. Analysis of these variables for both variations indicates that
the eastern route would result in the least disruption of biological resources
and natural processes; however, the AWMA proposed route and construction tech-
niques will greatly reduce the impacts of a permanent road.
3.2.2.1.3.1.2 Economic Considerations
Analyzing economic factors also leads to a conclusion that the eastern route
is the better selection. Since the route already contains AWMA facilities, a
right-of-way would not have to be purchased as it would for the western route--
a substantial savings. Construction costs would also be substantially less
for the eastern route because a bridge would have to be built across Aliso Creek
from the western route to provide entry into the treatment plant.
3.2.2.1.3.1.3 Cultural/Scientific Considerations
The western route would encroach on more acres identified in the Moulton Ranch
General Plan (MRGP) as having a potential for scientific resources particularly
of archaeologic interest.
3.2.2.1.3.1.4 Planning Considerations
The western route, the proposed extension of Aliso Creek Road, has been desig-
nated as a major arterial highway in the Orange County Master Plan of Arterial
Highways (MPAH), as amended March 1973, but it should be noted that there is a
growing concern in favor of abandoning the segment of the proposed extension
between the foot of Sheep Hills and Aliso Creek Beach. Also, the Moulton Ranch
General Plan (MRGP) recognized a need to provide linkages between communities
while retaining the environmental integrity of the area or providing an interest-
ing aesthetic experience and proposed a circulation element called a scenic loop.
The segment of the Aliso Creek Road extension between Alicia Parkway and the
foot of Sheep Hills is identified as a part of the scenic loop circulation sys-
tem in the MRGP.
3-20
-------
Northern Alternative
-Western Alignment
W.
Northern Alternative
-Eastern Alignment
Regional Treatment Plant
ROADWAY RIGHT OF WAY
Northern
alignment
(Western)
Southern Alternative
*
Northern
alignment
(Eastern)
ROADWAY RIGHT OF WAY
Exhibit 3-22
SERVICE ROAD ALTERNATIVE ALIGNMENTS
-------
3.2.2.1.3.2 Southern Alternative
The southern alternative would also be coincidental with the proposed Aliso
Creek Road extension to Aliso Creek Beach. A narrow access road to the
existing treatment plant already exists in this alternative alignment and it
would have to be widened to accommodate the needs of this project.
3.2.2.1.3.2.1 Environmental Considerations
The widening will cause little disruption to the natural environment but would
have a significant impact on the man-made environment. The existing road
passes through a golf course and is adjacent to tourist facilities and a hotel.
The construction of the road and the treatment plant would not pose significant
long-term environmental threats to the users of these facilities, but they would
be a source of irritation, degraded air quality, and noise during the construc-
tion stage.
3.2.2.1.3.2.2 Economic Considerations
The existing access road is very narrow and additional right-of-way would have
to be purchased. The total construction costs would be much less—the route
is shorter.
3.2.2.1.3.2.3 Planning Considerations
As previously noted, this alternative is coincident with the planned arterial
highway alignment shown in the MPAH, but in all liklihood this segment will never
be built because of the growing concern over its location in an environmentally
sensitive area.
An overview of various factors involved leads to the conclusion that the eastern
alignment of the northern alternative would be the best solution for access to
the regional treatment plant.
3.2.2.1.4 Land and Ocean Outfall
Construction impacts for this portion of Alternative 2E would be identical to
the impacts of Alternative 1A.
3.2.2.2 Operational Impact
3.2.2.2.1 Discharge Impacts
Since all effluent would be discharged to the ocean, the impacts would be the
same as for Alternative 1A except that there will be no impacts from land
discharge.
3.2.2.2.2 Energy Consumption
Operation of this alternative is estimated to require 203.3 x 10 kilowatt-hours
over the 20 year planning period.
3-21
-------
3.2.2.3 Reliability
Alternative 2E would involve only one treatment plant. Further, the size of
the treatment plant would give it some ability to resist treatment upsets.
Thus, Alternative 2E would have the fewest number of plant upsets of any
alternative. However, the impact of any one upset would be greater than the
impact of any upset with Alternative 1A.
3.2.2.4 Compatability with Reclamation
Alternative 2E envisions abandoning upstream plants in favor of central treat-
ment. Head would be lost in draining effluent to a central treatment plant.
Reclamation would still be possible by using upstream plants on a "stripping"
basis where they only treat enough water to supply reclamation demands.
Moulton Miguel Water District's Plants 1A and 2A currently operate on this
basis.
Alternative 2E is less compatible with reclamation than 1A because it lacks
a treated line to provide distribution of treated effluent. Unless advance
treatment and distribution similar to Alternative 3C is instituted, recla-
mation would probably be limited to the existing reclamation areas currently
served by Moulton Miguel, Los Alisos and El Toro Water Districts.
3.2.3 Alternative 3C - Reclamation
3.2.3.1 Construction Impacts
3.2.3.1.1 Interceptors
In Alternative 3C the Aliso Creek, Sulphur Creek and South Coast Interceptors
will be identical to Alternative 1A. The North Coast Interceptor will go in
the opposite direction to a new plant site, but will involve virtually the
same construction impacts.
There will be two new interceptors with Alternative 3C, both to convey treated
effluent. The major outfall would parallel the Aliso Creek Interceptor up-
stream to the Los Alisos Plant, and then would continue up El Toro Road to a
disposal area. A treated line would also be constructed in the Irvine Ranch
area to dispose of wastes from Irvine Ranch and Laguna Beach. No route was
selected for this alternative, but it would probably follow a natural drainage
course. Thus its construction impacts would be those of construction along
an ephemeral stream.
3.2.3.1.2 Land and Ocean Outfall
No new facilities would be constructed. The existing Laguna Beach and South
Laguna Beach outfalls would be used to dispose of desalinization brines and
flows which could not be reclaimed.
3.2.3.1.3 Treatment Plants
An advanced wastewater treatment plant would be constructed in the same site
as foir Alternative 2E. Although the size would be reduced, the additional •
3-22
-------
treatment units would result in a plant area and construction impacts about
the same as for Alternative 2E. In addition, a new treatment plant would be
built in the Irvine Ranch area. No site has been proposed for this alternative,
but all sites would be essentially undeveloped or agricultural lands.
3.2.3.1.4 Access Roads
The access road described for Alternative 2E would be required for this
alternative.
3.2.3.2 Operational Impacts
3.2.3.2.1 Discharge Impacts
All effluent will be discharged to the land. The impacts will be similar to
those detailed for Alternative 1A except that the effluent will receive a
higher level of treatment. This should substantially reduce the problems
from pathogens and nutrients when the treatment plants are operating properly.
Advance waste treatment does not remove trace organics.
3.2.3.2.2 Energy Consumption
Operation of this alternative is estimated to require 1,520 x 10 kilowatt-
hours over the twenty year planning period. Increased power consumption is
related to advanced treatment and greatly increased pumping.
3.2.3.3 Reliability
Although there are more units within each plant, there are only two treatment
plants. The total number of units thus is about the same as with Alternative
1A, and the frequency of failure is expected to be about the same. However,
the impact of each failure would be greatest in this alternative. Alternative
3C does not provide access to an ocean outfall for periods of plant upsets, and
the land environment is far more sensitive to the discharge of inadequately
treated effluent than is the ocean. Land discharge of inadequately treated
effluent would result in a hazard to the public health from pathogens.
3.2.3.4 Compatability with Reclamation
Alternative 3C is expressly designed for reclamation and has access to the
largest number of potential reclamation sites. Demineralization of effluent
would make reclamation a virtual certainty since reclaimed effluent would be
a valuable commodity. The loss of head involved in draining upper Aliso
Creek flows to the coast and then pumping flows back inland involves costs
which somewhat lessen the advantage of this alternative, nevertheless, this
alternative is the most compatible with long-term reclamation.
3.2.4 Alternative 4A - Partial Regional System with Stream Discharge in
Upper Aliso Creek Area
3.2.4.1 Construction Impacts
3-23
-------
3.2.4.1.1 Interceptors
All interceptors would be similar to those proposed for Alternative 1A except
for the Aliso Creek Interceptor, which would be somewhat shorter.
3.2.4.1.2 Land and Ocean Outfall
The land and ocean outfall for Alternative 4A would be similar to those proposed
for Alternative 1A except that they would be slightly smaller, since capacity
for the Upper Aliso area would not be provided. This would reduce the con-
struction impacts slightly.
3.2.4.1.3 Treatment Plants
A regional treatment plant to serve the lower Aliso area would be constructed,
just as in Alternative 1A. The upper treatment plants would also be expanded
as in Alternative 1A, except that a new tertiary treatment facility would be
needed. This could be constructed on a new site, or adjacent to the Rossmoor
plant.
3.2.4.1.4 Access Road
No new access road would be required with this alternative.
3.2.4.2 Operational Impacts
3.2.4.2.1 Discharge Impacts
t
3.2.4.2.1.1 Ocean Discharge
The impacts of ocean discharge would be similar to those described for
Alternative 1A except the volume of discharge would be reduced.
3.2.4.2.1.2 Stream Discharge
Stream discharge from the Upper Aliso area would be practiced when there was
no demand for reclaimed water. Advanced treatment would remove nutrients and
pathogens, but not trace organics. This stream discharge would not represent
a significant contribution to any known water supplies at present, but could
represent a potential problem.
3.2.4.2.2 Energy Consumption
Operation of this alternative is estimated to require 3.2 x 10" kilowatt-
hours over the twenty year planning period.
!
3.2.4.3 Reliability
The number of units in this alternative is nearly at a maximum, thus the
probability of unit failure is high. The water quality impact of a failure
is low in the lower area, relatively high in the upper area.
3-24
-------
3.2.4.4 Compatability with Reclamation
Alternative 4A would encourage, virtually force reclamation in the upper Aliso
Creek area. A demineralized effluent would be a valuable product and would
almost certainly be used by agricultural users.
Reclamation in the lower Aliso area would be possible using the effluent from
Moulton-Miguel Water District Plant's 1A and 4A and the treated line outfall.
Thus Alternative 4A is as compatible as Alternative 1A in the lower Aliso
Creek area and more compatible in the upper Aliso Creek area.
3.2.5 Alternative 4C - Intermittent Stream Discharge from the Upper Aliso Area
This alternative is identical to Alternative 4A except that storage is proposed
to minimize stream discharge, and only secondary treatment would be used.
Storage would limit stream discharge to periods when there is running water
in the stream to provide dilution of waste flows. The impacts of this alterna-
tive are identical to Alternative 4A except in two respects.
3.2.5.1 Streat Discharge
There would be a discharge of nutrients and pathogens with Alternative 4C. This
discharge would be timed to avoid recreational users. The impact of this
occasional discharge of nutrients would not have a significant impact on water
quality, but the occasional discharge of pathogens would be a potential health
hazard.
3.2.5.2 Reliability
Again, the reliability of this alternative would be similar to that for
Alternative 4A except that the impact of failure would be even more pronounced.
3.2.5.3 Compatability with Reclamation
Alternative 4C is similar to Alternative 4A except that in order to reduce
costs, no advanced waste treatment is included. This reduces the market-
ability of effluent considerably. Other than this factor, Alternative 4C is
the same as Alternative 4A. The reduced marketability of the effluent means
that Alternative 4C is probably only slightly better than Alternative 1A in
terms of compatibility with future reclamation.
3.2.6 Alternatives 2F and 2G - Regional Treatment, Regional Disposal with
Upstream Reclamation
These alternatives are almost identical to Alternative 2E except for provisions
for upstream reclamation during summer months. This would allow a reduction in
the size of the downstream plant and a net reduction in overall costs. The
impacts of this alternative are virtually identical to those of Alternative 2E
except for a slight increase in power consumption from 203.3 x 10& to 237.7 x
due to advanced waste treatment in the upper area at a later date.
Alternative 2G is idential to Alternative 2F except for a slight decrease in
power costs.
3-25
-------
3.2.6.1 Compatability with Reclamation
Alternatives 2F and 2G are virtually the same as Alternative 2E except that
2 mgd of summer reclamation on a "skimming" basis is planned as part of the
project.
3.2.7 No Project Alternative
If no project is constructed, the problems detailed in Chapter 1 would not be
solved. Less than satisfactory treatment would continue at Laguna Beach and
South Laguna Beach; poorly diluted effluent would be discharged in relatively
shallow water; and the systems in the Upper Aliso area would remain unreliable.
Since the chief primary impacts associated with project construction are those
of construction, which are short term; and those of ocean discharge; the no
project alternative is not felt to be appropriate. The no project alternative
would continue the discharge of greater quantitites of pollutants at lesser
dilution than any of the alternatives considered.
3-26
-------
-------
4.0 SECONDARY IMPACTS OF PROJECT ELEMENTS
4.1 INTRODUCTION—THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PUBLIC UTILITIES AND DEVELOPMENT
The major issue in this project is whether or not the project, by stimulating
or accommodating urban development creates more environmental problems than
it solves. Answering this question is fairly complex, because although
public utilities play a role in urban development, that role is not always
or chiefly causative. It is possible that utilities cause urbanization in
a direct sense. But they can also encourage development, drawing it more to
one area than another. Public utilities might also facilitate development,
making it easier, or merely accommodate urbanization that is caused by other
factors. The lack of public utilities can deter development, making initial
costs higher or decreasing densities. Finally, the lack of public utilities
can prevent development, if certain utilities are absolutely necessary. It
will be one of the tasks of this chapter to determine where on this continuum
between cause and prevent that the Aliso project lies.
The availability of some public utilities plays a major role in determining
whether or not urbanization occurs. The lack of transportation access is an
absolute barrier to development, while overload transportation facilities
represent a partial barrier. Water supply and sometimes sewers can also
deter development, especially if there is insufficient (or poor quality)
groundwater, or if septic tanks will not work. In all of these cases, the
lack of facilities prevents or deters urban growth.
It is far more difficult to establish whether or not public utilities have a
causative role in urban development. Many examples exist including the
coastal areas of Aliso where an adequate supply of utilities existed and
development did not take place. One of the few ways that utilities can play
a causative role is in their impact on assessed values. Anything that in-
creases assessed values, like public utility construction, increases taxes.
Any increase in taxes makeslow intensity agriculture like cattle grazing less
profitable, and thus makes urban development an attractive alternative.
In this chapter the issue of development and public utilities will be
examined in some detail. The historical causes of growth in the project
area will be determined. Then the factors affecting future land use patterns
and population growth will be examined.
The role of sewer and other public utilities in these growth patterns will
be an important area of investigation. After the past dynamics of growth
and the future prospects are determined, the environmental impacts of the
land use patterns and population growth, and potential methods to mitigate
those impacts will be evaluated. This information will help guide local and
EPA decision making, both on this project and on future activities.
4.2 DYNAMICS OF GROWTH
4.2.1 County Dynamics
For the past twenty years, Orange County has experienced rapid population
growth. From a population of approximately 700,000 in 1960, the County
4-1
-------
has grown to 1,656,300 in 1974, an increase of approximately 70,000 persons
per year. Since 1970 the population has increased by an additional 273,360,
a slightly slower annual increase of about 55,000. Table 4-1 shows these
annual increases.
Initially population growth in Orange County was a 'spill over1 from
Los Angeles County. But the development of freeways and'the increasing
population allowed establishment of local employment, by 1960 the employ-
ment base was 165,000 jobs and by 1965 it reached 293,000.
The original 'spill over1 effect, the extensive freeway network, and the
policies of the Irvine Company established the character of Orange County.
The initial growth of Orange County as 'bedroom communities' necessitated
an expansive freeway network to get these people to their jobs. Both of
these factors encouraged competition by cities for commercial and residential
development. As a result, no single city dominated the economic and com-
mercial development of the County. Meanwhile, during the 1950's the Irvine
Company's policy was to retain their land in agriculture and only develop
those ranch lands immediately adjacent to existing urbanization. The effect
of this policy was to put a halt to 'leapfrog1 development, and confine
development to the northern part of the County.
It took a major event to alter this pattern of development—but this major
event occurred when the San Diego Freeway was completed in 1959. The
freeway improved access through the Irvine Ranch to such an extent that
commuting became a possibility and the development of Southern Orange
County began. The new community of Laguna Niguel was approved by the County
in 1960, and was quickly followed by Rossmoor Leisure World, Mission Viejo,
and other developments. Southern Orange County continued to grow, and
began to account for a relatively large share of the County's growth, as
shown by this chart! of new residential units:
1968
1969
1970
1971
Southern
Orange
County:
Rest:
Southern
Orange
County:
Rest:
10179 (42.1%) 10828 (32.5%) 6133 (26.2%) 10949 (35.0%)
13546 (57.1%)
1972
14537 (35.0%)
21966 (66.9%) 17275 (73.8%)
1973 1974
11002 (38.9%) 7709 (48.5%)
20299 (65.0%)
21127 (65.0%) 17269 (61.1%) 8158 (51.5%)
1
Construction Summary, Security Pacific Bank. Southern Orange County is con-
sidered that area southwest of the Newport Freeway, including the cities of
Costa Mesa, Irvine, Laguna Beach, Newport Beach, San Clemente, San Juan
Capistrano, and Tustin.
4-2
-------
1964
1965
1966
1967
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
T^9
1 ••^-••»
i increase due to
increase in popu
Authorize^ building permits
™"" Populatio
5.00
-------
1950
Population
216,224
1960
Population
703,925
8
HI
O
1968
Population
1,300,000
1973
Population
1,646,314
Exhibit 4-1
s
DC
UJ
t
O
-------
Economic factors have played a major role in this development. As shown
by Tables 4-1 and 4-2, population increases due to migration are related
almost directly to job formation, which in turn is sensitive to general
economic conditions. The line showing job formation reflects the defense
and aerospace cutbacks in 1964-66 and 1970-71. The decreasing rate of
population growth also reflects this economic impact, although the economic
effect does not entirely account for the drop. This migration decrease
probably reflects the overall decrease in migration to California. The
population did increase following the economic surge of 1972-73, indicating
that there is a relation between economic conditions and population growth;
however, the relation can be overriden by larger demographic trends.
Construction of housing, measured by building permits issued, has generally
followed job formation—at least until 1973. As can be expected in a
traditionally volatile economic sector, general economic fluctuations are
magnified in their impact on housing. The fluctuation in housing also re-
flects over-and under-building. The impact of over-building can be seen
in the 1964-68 building. Despite these fluctuations, the general trend
of housing construction following job formation can be discerned—except
when general economic conditions interfere. This trend can be seen in the
fluctuations since 1970, which reflects the overwhelming force of the
effective interest rate. The climb in interest rate and consequent fall
in housing since 1973 is a national trend, although in terms of job
formation, Orange County has not been hit hard by the current recession.
The preceeding discussion illustrates the significance of economic con-
ditions. Unfortunately, general economic trends, and the attendant demo-
graphic projections were examined, which project, on a County-wide basis,
what population will occur if certain assumptions are made regarding birth
rate and State-wide immigration. Implicit in all of these projections are
rough order assumptions about economics; areas with a stable employment base
are expected to absorb most of the population increases. All projections
indicate that Orange County's population will continue to grow. However,
where this new population locates within Orange County depends on a variety
of localized physical and economic conditions (as we have seen with the
case of the San Diego Freeway). Geography (topography and climate), and
the availability of public utilities—especially roads and water, the lack
of which can prevent development—both help determine the location of popu-
lation. Similarly, land must be available and relatively cheap. It is
these physical and economic factors that will be examined next.
4.2.2 Aliso and Growth Dynamics
Table 4-1 establishes the baseline population growth for the entire County,
while Table 4-3 relates this to population growth in the AWMA area.
Exhibit 4-2 and Table 4-3 indicate that within AWMA, growth has occurred in
two geographic areas—the coast and the inland valley. Growth in the
inland valley has been very rapid recently, while coastal growth has been
relatively slow.
In the Irvine Ranch area along the coast there has been practically no
growth in the last ten years. It can be assumed that this is a result of
4-3
-------
PAGE NOT
AVAILABLE
DIGITALLY
-------
/ f
-------
TABLE 4-3
POPULATION GROWTH WITHIN AWMA
COASTAL SECTOR
1
City of
Laguna Beach
South Laguna
Laguna Niguel
1960
1968
1970
1973
Increase
over 1960:
9,288
Not available
14,550
14,851
13,410
2,000
3,357
5,696
9,847
Percentage
of Increase:
INLAND SECTOR
El Toro Laguna Hills
1,722
Not available
4,357
6,196
1 1 Q '
I I O.i
23,516
1058.3%
500 Est.
8,517
12,078
19,542
1
1960 Census, 1970 Census, O.C. Progress Report, 1968 Special Census-Orange County,
1973 State of the County Report, Orange County Forecast and Analysis Center.
the Irvine Company's policy about gradual development of their land, maintain-
ing agricultural productivity for as long as possible. Virtually all of this
area is in an agricultural preserve, although preserve status has been cancelled
on part of the area.
The City of Laguna Beach has also experienced moderate growth, from 9,288 in
1960 to 14,550 in 1970 and 14,991 in 1974. In general, the rate of develop-
ment along the coastal area of AWMA has been much slower than in the rest of the
County.
Growth along the San Diego Freeway in the El Toro area has been significant in
the last 15 years. New communities emerged fairly rapidly after the initial
construction of the San Diego Freeway.
4.2.3 Growth Rate Analysis
To account for these baseline patterns, freeway construction, water supply
changes, sewerage facilities, assessed value and recreational trends as well as
social attitudes were examined to try to determine the complex of factors
determining the overall growth rate.
4-4
-------
\
Legend
Single Family Residential
Multi-Family Residential
Commercial
I Industrial
Public
I Open Space
Exhibit 4-3
-------
\
\
Legend
Agricultural
Planned Community
Single Family Residential
1 Multi-Family Residential
Commerical
I Industrial
Exhibit 4-4
-------
4.2.3.1 Circulation
Freeway access, is very important in that development is impossible if there
is no access; development is unlikely if access is not convenient and
timely. The latter point 'can be illustrated by envisioning a 'commuting
radius1 around an individual's home. This reflects the amount of time an
individual is willing to spend commuting. This 'commute radius' depends
upon freeway access because a commuter can travel further by freeway than
by normal roads in any given length of time. Thus, the initial construction
and subsequent widening of the San Diego Freeway meant that many more people
could live in the AWMA area and have an acceptable 'commuting radius1 than
before the freeway. ,
The freeway, constructed in 1959 and expanded in 1969, has been very important
in the growth of AWMA in the El Toro area—indeed we can say that it played
a facilitative role (although its effect on land values probably can be said
to be causative). On the other hand, transportation to the coastal area has
been less than convenient. Pacific Coast Highway is fairly congested and has
many stops along its route. The proposed coastal freeway has been dropped
from serious consideration. Through roads, such as Laguna Canyon Road, have
only limited capacity. Access is available so it cannot be said that growth
is prevented; however, it is clear that the existing roads deter development
in Coastal AWMA.
Freeways (and all,public improvements) also stimulate growth through their
effect on land values. Freeways increase the value of land, both adjoining
and surrounding the freeway. Motorists and their demand for services impact
adjoining areas heavily and stimulate service oriented development. But
improved access also raises the value of surrounding land. These changes
begin when a freeway route is adopted and lands take on a more favorable
long-term value, increased land value increases taxes, making it harder for
landowners to profit from land-intensive ventures like agriculture. This
economic effect increases development pressures over and above those created
by improved access.
4.2.3.2 Assessed Value
Assessed values, shown in Exhibit 4-5, provides a good illustration of this
economic effect. However, any sort of physical improvement increases the
development pressure and the entire process is circular. An upward trend in
land values can already be seen in the Aliso area, particularly near freeway
interchanges where development pressures are most intense. The assessed
value for the developed land north of the AWMA area is not indicative of
assessed value trends, but rather of potential profits.
4.2.3.3 Water Supply
Water supply was investigated because the lack of sufficient water can
prevent development, especially when groundwater is of poor quality as it
is in the AWMA area. Exhibit 4-6 shows the water supply lines serving the
AWMA area. With the exception of the Irvine Ranch and the steeper slopes
in central Aliso, the entire AWMA area has water. Tri-Cities Transmission Main was
4-5
-------
LAND VALUES
AREA
1
2
3
4
ACRES
157.92
262.09
418.73
53.27
Exhibit 4-5
0 MOO 4000 I HX» I BOOO KOOOft
ASSESSED V.
PER AC.
$ 3,668.56
$ 1,100.00
$ 4,541 .38
$67,920.00
MARKET V.
PER AC.
$ 14,674.00
$ 4,400.00
$ 18,165.52
$271 ,683.00
©
-------
4.2.3;1 Circulation
Freeway access, is very important in that development is impossible if there
is no access; development is unlikely if access is hot convenient and
timely. The latter point can be illustrated by envisioning a 'commuting
radius' aroilhd ah individual's home. This reflects the amount of time an
individual is willing to spend commuting. This 'commute radius' depends
upon freeway access because a commuter can travel further by freeway than
by normal roads in any given length of time. Thus, the initial construction
and subsequent widening of the San Diego Freeway meant that many more people
could live in the AWMA area and have an acceptable 'commuting radius' than
before the freeway. .
The freeway, constructed in 1959 and expanded in 1969, has been very important
in the growth of AWMA in the El Toro area—indeed we can say that it played
a facilitative role (although its effect on land values probably can be said
to be causative). On the other hand, transportation to the coastal area has
been less than convenient. Pacific Coast Highway is fairly congested and has
many stops along its route. The proposed coastal freeway has been dropped
from serious consideration. Through roads, such as Laguna Canyon Road, have
only limited capacity. Access is available so it cannot be said that growth
is prevented; however, it is clear that the existing roads deter development
in Coastal AWMA.
Freeways (and all.public improvements) also stimulate growth through their
effect on land values. Freeways increase the value of land, both adjoining
and surrounding the freeway. Motorists and their demand for services impact
adjoining areas heavily and stimulate service oriented development. But
improved access also raises the value of surrounding land. These changes
begin when a freeway route is adopted and lands take on a more favorable
long-term value, increased land value increases taxes, making it harder for
landowners to profit from land-intensive ventures like agriculture. This
economic effect increases development pressures over and above those created
by improved access.
4.2.3.2 Assessed Value
Assessed values, shown in Exhibit 4-5, provides a good illustration of this
economic effect. However, any sort of physical improvement increases the
development pressure and the entire process is circular. An upward trend in
land values can already be seen in the Aliso area, particularly near freeway
interchanges where development pressures are most intense. The assessed
value for the developed land north of the AWMA area is not indicative of
assessed value trends, but rather of potential profits.
4.2.3.3 Water Supply
Water supply was investigated because the lack of sufficient water can
prevent development, especially when groundwater is of poor quality as it
is in the AWMA area. Exhibit 4-6 shows the water supply lines serving the
AWMA area. With the exception of the Irvine Ranch and the steeper slopes
in central Aliso, the entire AWMA area has water. Tri-Cities Transmission Main was
4-5
-------
LAND VALUES
AREA
1
2
3
4
ACRES
157.92
262.09
418.73
53.27
Exhibit 4-5
0 1000 4000 | 8OOO | DODO MOOOH
ASSESSED V.
PER AC.
$ 3,668.56
$ 1,100.00
$ 4,541 .38
$67,920.00
MARKET V.
PER AC.
$ 14,674.00
$ 4,400.00
$ 18,165.52
$271 ,683.00
®
-------
•ff
Hi
East Orange County
Feeder No.2
m
T; IftaV'S... f |
®fe
*
li
I,/
Newport
Beach
Legend
o
•
Exhibit 4-6
Transmission Main-Major
Transmission Main-Minor
Filtration Plant
Pumping Station
Reservoir
Dana Point',.,-,
-------
constructed in 1962 while the Eastern Main was constructed in 1963-64 by
Moulton-Niguel Water District. The Aufdenkamp Main was constructed in 1971
and the Santiago Aqueduct in 1963. The Eastern Orange County Feeder No. 2
was constructed in 1964. It can be seen that the first water projects
followed the first developments (which presumably used groundwater) and
facilitated the following developments.
4.2.3.4 Sewerage Facilities
Sewerage service in the AWMA area has generally followed initial housing
construction, although it has generally anticipated long-term growth (shown
in Exhibit 4-7). Thus the initial sewerage service accommodated already
existing growth, and facilitated continuation of those growth patterns. The
initial system for the City of Laguna Beach was constructed in 1923, the
system for South Laguna Beach in 1968-69. Moulton-Niguel's plant 1A was
constructed in 1963-64, the 2A plant in 1965. The Rossmoor Facility was
constructed by the developer of Leisure World in 1963-64 while the Los Alisos
facility was constructed in 1964. In 1968 the first effort at regionaliza-
tion was made, tying the Moulton-Niguel plants to the South Laguna Branch
plant and outfall. This project also included an interceptor along Aliso
Creek which is not yet at or near capacity, although it is too small to
accommodate flows from Los Alisos and Rossmoor. This project has not re-
sulted in rapid growth, although individual trunks have facilitated growth.
4.2.3.5 Social Factors
Ultimately, residential growth in an area is caused by an economic condition
which creates a demand for housing, physical conditions which allow an area
to absorb that demand, and economic pressures or social attitudes that
render an area acceptable or desirable to live in. The economic and physical
conditions have been discussed above, and it seems appropriate to determine
whether it is economic pressures or social attitudes that predominate in
making the AWMA area acceptable or desirable.
Economic pressures occur when the cost of housing near communities exceeds
the cost of housing in more remote areas. However, it appears that this is
not the case in the AWMA area. The average cost of housing is as high or
higher in the AWMA area, and since the area is remote, transportation costs
are significantly higher. It may be surmised that social attitudes play a
key role in the development in the AWMA area.
To begin with, Table 4-4 establishes the social characteristics of the exist-
ing population as of 1970. It can be seen that the new communities differ
considerably from the established communities and are remarkably homogeneous
in nature. With the exception of Rossmoor Leisure World, the new communities
are occupied by fairly young, affluent people with families. They are
relatively well educated, and the number that make over $15,000 per year
greatly exceeds the number below the poverty line. They are predominately
white, as is the entire County.
In attempting to analyze the existing social make-up of the community to
determine the motivating factors behi;nd the influx of people, one is
hampered by the scarcity of data.
4-6
-------
Newport
Beach
Legend
Gravity Sewers
Force Mains
• Pump Stations
D Wastewater Treatment Plant
Dana Point
\. • San Clements
V- ^
'" ^
Exhibit 4-7
i
-------
TABLE 4-4
ORANGE COUNTY 1970 CENSUS
=»*=
Capistrano
Dana Point
Laguna Beach
Laguna Hills
Laguna Niguel
Mission Viejo
San Clemente
San Juan Capistrano 4.5
South Laguna
Orange County
Anaheim-Santa Ana
z
o
3
1
^
3-
^«
<~t*
fD
3.0
2.0
1.8
0.2
0.7
1.1
2.9
4.5
1.1
2.7
2.7
3
CL
fD
-s
__l
00
32.2
33.6
20.6
7.5
35.0
44.1
27.2
32.9
17.9
36.8
36.8
oo
c+
o
o^
^"s.
52.0
57.5
61.3
24.7
57.9
54.1
55.4
54.8
60.4
56.2
56.2
*•
QJ
3
Q.
O
<
fD
-s
15.8
8.9
18.0
67.8
7.1
1.8
17.5
12.3
21.7
6.9
6.9
fD
-s
rf
— j
—i.
f-fi
C^
73
Qi
d-
-j.
O
339
343
216
390
413
524
309
340
195
342
342
1C
o
c:
CO
fD
3"
O
«~J
Q.
2.97
2.91
2.19
1.83
3.22
3.75
2.64
3.02
2.21
3.21
3.21
^
fD
O>
-5
t/t
"T"
•
OO
*
71.1
81.9
84.4
82.0
91.1
92.8
78.8
70.5
85.9
70.5
c:
3
rt>
3
•a
o
*•<
fD
CL
2.3
5.8
4.6
4.8
5.7
2.8
5.1
4.3
7.3
5.4
s
3-
H-
fD
O
O
_^
~^
OJ
-5
68.7
74.7
73.6
58.8
58.1
s:
0
-5
O
C
{•+
(/)
.u.
CL
fD
6.9
19.9
17.1
23.8
25.0
fD
-S
C^
^^
6.5
5.5
5.1
1.2
4.2
1.8
8.7
8.7
9.4
5.2
a>
CL
^.
c:
' 3
i_i
3
O
O
3
fD
10,976
11,698
12,208
11,176
14,894
14,714
9,557
11,437
13,033
12,245
o
s^
c
fD
3
fD
O>
3
to
26.9
31.6
38.3
26.9
49.4
47.7
26.6
30.7
41.4
33.7
-------
Very little analysis of migration within Orange County has been done, although
some good data on movements between counties exists. Information in this
chapter is gathered from Orange County Progress Reports as well as contacts
with the staffs of Orange County's Planning and Transit Departments, and con-
tacts with several of the developers in the area. The most detailed source
used is the survey work done by developers in Mission Viejo, the City of
Irvine, and Laguna Niguel. These surveys were designed to determine why new
homeowners had moved to the area. A general study by the Southern California
Association of Governments, census data, and observations by those who have
worked on general migration and transportation studies were also used.
Despite the variety of sources used, a consensus on motives emerges. It seems
that people have been moving to Southern Orange County because it is an
attractive area, rather than moving away from another area which is unattrac-
tive. Orange County does not contain any cities which people are fleeing to
avoid crime, center city decay, or racial tensions. Both Orange County as a
whole and Southern Orange County have few non-whites; thus racial tension is
not a significant factor. However, more than 75% are opposed to low or middle
income housing for less affluent whites or non-whitesJ From the observed
data, it appears that the following factors are the social factors involved
in Southern Orange County's growth, in order of their importance:
1. Exclusiveness and amenities of the developments.
Many of the developments in Southern Orange County are planned and
executed on a large scale. They include many recreational and social
amenities such as green belts, swimming pools, local shopping centers,
and local schools. Respondents have said they liked the 'country club1
atmosphere; others cite the 'overall planning of community' as major
reasons for their move.
2. Environmental amenities of the area.
Chief among the environmental amenities were open space and proximity
to the ocean. The desire to live near the ocean is a trend discerned
by SCAG in their more general study. A feature that also attracts
people is the ocean's tempering effect on the climate. Summers in
the AWMA area are cooler and winters are warmer, than in the inland
portions of Orange and Los Angeles Counties. The topography of the
area is also appreciated, since the terrain of rolling hills provides
a contrast to the vast plains that have been developed. Although
mentioned less frequently than others, better air quality was also
cited as an important environmental amenity.
Community Profile of Irvine, Calif., University of North Carolina, Center
for Urban and Regional Studies, 1974.
4-7
-------
3. More single family housing available.
This was mentioned as a factor, but is more a perceived phenomenon
than a reality. There is more housing available elsewhere in the
County, but the rest of the County is considerably larger. There is
a good supply of housing available in a small area in AWMA. What is
probably more significant is that there is a greater variety of hous-
ing available. Much of northern Orange County was developed with
small tract homes, built in one or very few styles. Housing in the
Southern County, because it is more expensive, has provided house-
hunters with a wider variety of choices within a development. This
has led to a 'buy up' phenomenon in Mission Viejo, where a sub-
stantial number of houses are sold to existing residents who desire
a nicer home.
4. Some people move to be near their friends.
This is a phenomenon that has been observed before in American
migrations. This is reflected in the AWMA area by people actually
locating near friends, also in locating in a community of peers.
This, and economic exclusivity, helps account for the cultural
homogeneity of the newer communities.
4.2.3.6 Conclusion
The overall economic health of the County, freeway access, and the 'exclusiveness'
of the area have been the major factors in past growth in the AWMA area. The
initial construction and subsequent widening of the San Diego Freeway are the
key events opening up Southern Orange County to absorb development pressures.
4.3 FUTURE DEVELOPMENT PROSPECTS
Establishing what has happened in the past -- and why -- can be done much more
accurately than the future can be projected. To estimate what will happen in the
future for our purposes of evaluation, the existing dynami.cs will be used as a
base pattern. Factors which may affect this pattern, including current land use
planning, availability of utilities, and various regulatory activities will be
examined. Various population projections will also be presented and analyzed.
4.3.1 Population Projections
As the last section showed, there is a general pattern of migration from .
Los Angeles County to Orange County. By virtually all accounts this pattern
wiljl;' continue and may even accelerate. Various population projections will be
presented (Exhibits 4-8, 9, 10), first on a County-wide basis and then in the
AWMA;.area. On a County-wide basis it is felt that the E-0 and D-100 projec-
tions establish the 'most likely to occur' range unless significant economic
and governmental policy changes take place. These projections are developed
by the Department of Finance and are used by the State and EPA for planning
purposes. However, when these population projections are broken down from
County level to district level, considerably more uncertainty is introduced,
as can be seen in the larger spread in the AWMA projections. Thus, we feel
4-8
-------
ORANGE COUNTY ALTERNATIVE POPULATION FORECASTS
,580,000)
,420,000)
(655,000)
(216,000)
1950
1960
1970 73
1980
1990
2000
D/E 2A (SCAG)
1,914,000
2,240,000
2,560,000
D-100 (DOF)
1,970,500
2,465,000
2,811,000
E-0 (DOF)
1,900,500
2,195,000
2,378,000
1970-73 STRAIGHT LINE
(COUNTY ESTIMATE)
1,953,000
2,487,000
Exhibit 4-8
-------
YEAR1970
1975
1980
1985
1990
1995
2000
PROJECTED POPULATION BY AWMA MEMBER AGENCIES
E-O
Modified Orange County
Agency
Los Alisos W.D.
EIToroW.D.
Moulton-Niguel
South LagunaSan
City of Laguna 2
Irvine Ranch W.D.
TOTALS 50,000 120,400 157,900 174,000
1. These figures are based upon State Water Resources Control
Board data, but they have been proportially increased to reflect
the State Department of Finance projected E-O totals.
2. Includes Emerald Bay Service District.
Exhibit 4-9
1970
2,500
19,100
7,800
4,900
15,700
^MM^HB
1985
12,546
49,833
18,060
13,918
26,043
^-^•™-—
1995
16,453
65,355
23,685
18,253
34,154
^™^™^^"
2000
18,131
72,019
26,100
20,114
37,636
m^fnni^^m
1985
40,000
40,000
41 ,300
17,300
19,100
6,000
1995
53,000
51 ,000
64,000
25,400
20,400
11,000
2000
58,700
58,000
72,800
30,000
21 ,000
14,500
163,700 224,800 255,000
AWMA ALTERNATIVE
POPULATION FORECAST
-------
30
25
20
£15
10
1970
YEAR
Flow Rate
1975
1980
1985
1990
1995
2000
PROJECTED WASTEWATER FLOWS
(Average Daily Flow-MGD)
E-O Population
Agency gal/cap/day 1970 1985 1995 2000
Modified Orange County
1985 1995 2000
LAWD
ETWD
MJSIWD
SLSD*
CLB*
IRWD* .
100
84
87
87
87
87
0.25
1.61
0.68
0.42
1.37
—
1.18
3.94
1.48
1.15
2.14
—
1.55
5.12
1.96
1.51
2.82
—
1.71
5.71
2.15
1.67
3.10
—
4.00
3.36
3.59
1.51
1.66
0.52
5.30
4.28
5.57
2.21
1.77
0.96
5.87
4.87
6.33
2.61
1.83
1.26
TOTALS
4.33 9.89 12.96 14.34
14.64 20.09 22.77
*Does not include summer population flows
PROJECTED
WASTEWATER FLOWS
Exhibit 4-10
-------
more comfortable with the county-level projections, realizing that the level
of growth in AWMA depends on localized factors, and not entirely on the
County's growth. We will turn our attention to factors in the AWMA area
impacting on population location.
4.3.2 Formal Land Use Planning
One of the factors affecting population location is formal land use planning.
Exhibit 4-11, compiled from County, City, and landowner general plans illu-
strates formally adopted land use elements to the Orange County General Plan
in the AWMA area. Barring action to retard development by regulatory agencies,
areas within this developable region will continue to develop to the limits
of their zoning (or more), guided chiefly by housing economics and access-
ability. It should be noted that zoning has not restricted development in the
AWMA area in the past. Although state legislation requires that zoning now
be consistent with land use plans, land use plans may be amended three times
each year. It is probable that developing plans, rather than zoning, will
guide and control development.
Local governments ultimately have 'complete' control of land use decisions.
The general plans noted in Exhibit 4-12, Proposed Land Use, should provide
the technical basis for these decisions. The planning map represents a com-
posite of three different plans: Orange County's The 1983 Land Use Element
which governs most of the AWMA area, the City of Laguna Beach's General Plan,
and the Irvine Company's Coastal Community Plan. The Irvine Plan is a pre-
liminary indication of how this land will develop, although it must be
developed under the direction of the County which has land use planning
authority over the area.
These land use plans are not absolute, however, nor should they necessarily
be absolute. The Orange County Land Use Element, is ". . . designed to
provide a policy framework within which decisions, both private and public,
can be made concerning the physical development of the County." The plan is
designed with flexibility in mind; partly because there is no County-wide
consensus on growth and development, and partly because effective planning
must be a dynamic process. Flexibility is provided by using policy direction,
rather than inflexible maps, and by allowing up to three amendments to the
plan each year. In the AWMA area, where large landowners predominate and
intend to phase development of their land, the general plan does not repre-
sent a barrier to growth, but rather a tool to guide growth. (It should be
noted that air quality does not receive major emphasis in land use planning,
although other physical and environmental constraints do. There are no air
quality elements in California land use plans.)
An example in the AWMA area of the intended flexibility of land use planning
in Orange County can be seen in the designation of Planning Reserves and
Preserves. Planning Reserves are areas where no formal plan is presented as
a part of the County land use element. Rather, these are areas where planning
is currently underway, and such planning is accomplished through coopera-
tion between private land owners and county planning staff. As shown on
Exhibit 4-13, there are three planning Reserves in the Aliso area, the Laguna-
Aliso, South Coast, and Northern El Toro Planning Reserves. In 1974, Orange
4-9
-------
\
\
Legend
\
-
-' jff Ti _
\
Single Family Residential
Multi - Family Residential
Commercial
Industrial
Public
Open Space
Exhibit 4-11
-------
\
\
\
Legend
Single Family Residential
Mult! - Family Residential
Commercial
Industrial
LU
0)
Q
LU
Exhibit 4-12
-------
County amended its Land Use Element to include planning that had been com-
pleted for these areas. The South Coast Planning Reserve (also known as
Bear Brand Ranch) was approved for a density of 2.09 dwelling units per acre
and an ultimate population of 6256. The Northern El Toro Planning Reserve
was approved for a density of 3.3 d.u./acre and an ultimate population of
22,892. Laguna-Aliso was approved for a density of 4.6 persons per acre,
with a projected population of 46,664.
The 1983 Land Use Element also includes areas designated as Planning Preserves.
These areas are identified as essentially open space, and are areas "...
where development is not expected nor encouraged to. occur during the next ten
years." An 11,677 acre area of the Irvine Ranch within.the AWMA area has been
designated as a planning preserve. However, it is not the intent of the Irvine
Company to keep this area in open space or agriculture permanently. They
have already cancelled the preserve status on part of their land, although they
cannot develop this land for about 8 and 1/2 years unless they pay a sub-
stantial tax penalty. It will require final approval to the County before
any land use plan for the area is adopted, but the Irvine Company has prepared
a plan that is undergoing review internally and with a review group which in-
cludes members of the responsible governments as well as citizens groups with
an interest in land use. This draft plan has been included in Exhibit 4-12,
but may be altered considerably before implementation. In any case, imple-
mentation is at least four or five years away, and probably eight to ten years
away. The plan proposes a fairly low density, with an ultimate population of
55,350.
The City of Laguna Beach has also prepared a General Plan with a Land Use
Element that anticipates an ultimate population of 20,000. The City is very
interested in maintaining its 'village1 character and expanding its tourist
industry. It has oriented its plan to controlling residential development
and maintaining and expanding tourist-oriented commercial areas, expecially
along the Coast Highway.
4.3.3 Availability of Utilities
4.3.3.1 Transportation
The last section showed that the San Diego Freeway has dominated development
trends in the AWMA area. It is expected that this trend will continue,
expecially if the proposed mass transit corridor, which parallels the freeway,
is adopted. Within AWMA, arterial roads will play an important role, and the
existing and projected arterials are shown in Exhibit 4-14. The construction
of several of these roads represent key events in the future growth of AWMA.
The growth of Upper Aliso. (Northern El Toro) will be stimulated by the com-
pletion of El Toro Road widening, now under construction. The poor condition
of El Toro Road has been acting as a deterrent to development. The rate of
growth in the upper El Toro area will also depend on construction of local
arterials and the extension of Canada Road; however, these can be constructed
by developers and do not represent a significant deterrent.
Development in central AWMA (Moulton Ranch) depends to some extent on road
construction. In order to develop the western part of the ranch, it will be
necessary to extend Oso and Alica Parkways. Aliso Creek Road would facilitate
development, but the lack of this road alone would surely not deter development.
4-10
-------
m
x
w
PLANNING RESERVE AREAS
1. Bolsa Chica
2. Laguna-Aliso
3. South Coast
4. Northern El Toro
URBAN AREAS
PRESERVE AREAS
BASIC PLANNING CATEGORIES - 1983 LAND USE
-------
Legend
Major
Primary
Secondary
Commuter
Existing Proposed Proposed
a For Development
Thru 1979
eeeeec
eeeeee
eeeeeee
eeeeeeee
Exhibit 4-14
0000 MpOOfl
3n*
-------
..^....^ ^ ^,. , , v,' ... %
/:. ' ' -S>sNiW^/ •/' • ,"-yx:::.-•,,••.•• /'
j>i'm,- v« .v-v •/^.^••.•
:^/:-y^^---'-^-:. .^ •_ .;•.''•: ",•. X, •.-••- .,<
fefe5^-.;?>y'•: x^i-:^,
w^^^p^^PW
Dana
Exhibit 4-15
-------
Local arterials, including Wood Canyon Road and Alta Laguna Boulevard will also
be needed to facilitate development in the western part of Moulton Ranch. If
this road network is not built, or is delayed, development in the area will be
prevented and development in the eastern part of the ranch will probably
increase.
The possible upgrading of Laguna Canyon Road to freeway status would be a very
important event in the future development of coastal AWMA. As noted previously,
poor transportation has acted as a deterrent to urbanization in coastal AWMA,
and construction of freeway access would facilitate development.
Future development of the Irvine Ranch depends very heavily on road construc-
tion. If no arterials are constructed, development would be prevented every-
where except in the immediate vicinity of the Coast Highway. No road construc-
tion in the Irvine Ranch is proposed for the next five years.
4.3.3.2 Water
The existing water system can be seen in Exhibit 4-6. It is evident that water
is available to virtually all areas except Irvine Ranch, Bear Brand Ranch,
and the very northernmost parts of AWMA. The existing facilities have adequate
capacity to maintain short term growth. In addition, there are two projects in
the active planning stage. There is a possibility of paralleling the upper
part of the Eastern Transmission Main with the 16 cfs line to serve Moulton-
Niguel Water District. There is also a possible project to parallel the
Santiago Aqueduct to serve Moulton-Miguel Water District, and the Santa
Margarita Water District in nearby SERRA.
4.3.3.3 Sewers
The existing sewer lines can be seen on Exhibit 4-7. Almost all facilities are
now adequate, but are approaching capacity. Interceptor sewers are more
important than treatment plants in determining urbanization patterns, especial-
ly where an ocean outfall or adequate storage exists. When a treatment plant
with storage or an ocean outfall is overloaded, it does not represent a serious
public health hazard, and consequently, building bans are rarely instituted and
growth is not impacted. When a sewer interceptor is overloaded it represents
a serious health hazard, and can deter growth almost immediately.
The existing system for Moulton-Niguel and South Laguna is not now deterring
development, but is approaching capacity and may deter urban growth in the
near future. The South Laguna Treatment Plant can treat 2.5 mgd of sewage and
achieve a nitrified effluent, or it can treat 3.2 mgd and achieve secondary
standards. The interceptor leading into the treatment plant can accommodate
3.9 mgd of flow. Current flow at the treatment plant is about 2.2 mgd, flow
in the interceptor line is about 1.3 mgd.
In the upper AWMA area, both El Toro and Los Alisos Water District have adequate
capacity in their treatment plants for some time to come. El Toro's current
flows average 2.7 mgd, Los Alisos flows average 1.062 mgd. Both treatment
plants are rated at 4.0 mgd. However, both districts have been having trouble
disposing of their effluent without it reaching the local creeks. Rossmoor
Sanitation District, which serves the El Toro Water District, is currently
under a cease and desist order for discharge into San Diego Creek. They feel
4-11
-------
that they have solved their problems, but if the problems continue, it is
possible that a building ban would be instituted which would stop development
immediately. This discharge does not represent as serious a health hazard
as an overflowing interceptor, but does represent a potential health hazard.
Los Alisos doesn't have any immediate problems which might lead to a building
ban, but unless some major effort is made, or development slows, both treat-
ment plants will be overloaded and development will be deterred within the
next three to five years.
The existing treatment plant for the City of Laguna Beach is periodically
overloaded due to fluctuations in flow. This has not acted as a deterrent to
growth except in the immediate vicinity of the treatment plant.
4.3.3.4 Other Utilities
Other utilities, such as schools, fire protection, police protection and so
forth are affected by urbanization. However, these utilities customarily do
not stimulate or deter development, so no detailed examination of trends was
made.
4.3.4 Regulatory Programs
Regulatory programs, especially those developed under the Clean Air Act and
those developed under the Coastal Conservation Act, will affect development in
the AWMA area. Obviously, construction permitted by the cities and the County
as part of their general planning function will have a large effect on AWMA's
urban growth. Review of indirect sources of air pollution and certain elements
of the Transportation Control Plan, developed under the Clean Air Act Amend-
ments of 1970 (Section 110), will affect urbanization in the AWMA area. This
Act, and why a Transportation Control Plan was needed are described in Section
4-5. Under regulations to review indirect sources of air pollution, permits
are required to construct projects which generate mobile source activity to
insure that such projects do not interfere with the attainment of air quality
standards. The Transportation Control Plan, designed to reduce automobile
traffic throughout the Basin, may act to direct development away from newly
developing areas and back towards filling the existing urbanized areas. It is
not possible to quantify the net impact, but it does appear that these pro-
grams will deter sprawling development in fringe areas such as Aliso.
The'Coastal Conservation Commission has planning authority over a large portion
of the AWMA area and permit authority over a smaller area, including this
project. The Commission's planning effort is in its final stages, as indicated
on the publication of their Preliminary Control Plan in early 1975. It is
anticipated that the eventual plan will require that the immediate shoreline
be kept in open space, that new traffic generators will be discouraged -- at
least until such time as the existing traffic problems are resolved, and that
development on hillsides and valley's near the coast be carefully planned to
prevent environmental damage and maintain scenic views. If the State Legis-
lature creates an agency to implement the plan, this plan could have a major
effect on the location and density of future growth in a large portion of the
AWMA area. It has already had a noticeable effect in deterring Coastal
development within the AWMA.
4-12
-------
On June 20, 1973, the California Coastal Zone Conservation Commission granted
the Aliso Water Management Agency a permit to construct and operate an ocean
outfall. Two of the conditions of the permit related to the maximum capacity
and the utilization of the outfall capacity by the AWMA member agencies. These
permit conditions are as follows:
1. The facilities shall be constructed with only the capacity reasonably
necessary to satisfy appropriate engineering standards, and in no
event shall such capacity be greater than that reasonably necessary
to serve a permanent population derived from an E-0 population pro-
jection to the year 2000 plus commercial and industrial needs for
the area, seasonal population increases, infiltration, and peak flows
as determined by the State Water Resources Control Board.
2. The maximum portion of the total capacity of the facilities that can
be used by any of the member agencies of AWMA shall be determined
by that proportion of total capacity assigned to that member agency
in Table 4-5 with appropriate adjustments among the member agencies
for the capacity necessary to service the respective seasonal popu-
lations, commercial and industrial needs, infiltration, and peak
flows as determined by the SWRCB pursuant to Condition No. 1.
On April 30, 1975, the Executive Officer of the State Water Resources Control
Board, in response to the permit condition requirement, recommended that the
Aliso Creek outfall be designed for a minimum peak daily flow of 42.1 mgd to
accommodate an E-0 population projection to the year 2000 and 50-year pro-
jected needs for commercial, industrial, and seasonal population. The
Executive Officer further stated that if the outfall is to be designed to also
limit commercial, industrial, and seasonal population flows to the projected
year 2000 levels rather than the 50-year outfall life, then a minimum peak
design capacity of 36.7 mgd is indicated.
TABLE 4-5
Agency
Santa Ana Mts. County Water Dist.
Los Allsos Water District
El Toro Water District
Moulton-Niguel Water District
South Laguna Sanitary District
City of Laguna Beach
Emerald Bay Service District
Irvine Ranch Water District
TOTAL
Capacity
Average Flow (mgd)
(Proposed by AWMA)
1.0
5.5
5.5
12.9
3.2
4.4
0.2
3.0
35.7
Proportion
of Total
Capacity
.028
.154
.154
.361
.090
.123
.006
.084
1.000
4-13
-------
The staff of the California Coastal Zone Conservation Commission notified the
Aliso Water Management Agency on May 30, 1975 that the lower flow of 36.7 mgd,
indicated in the State Water Resources Control Board's letter, represented the
intent of the Coastal Commission permit and that the allocation of the capacity
among the AWMA member agencies would be in accordance with the capacity pro-
portions contained in Condition No. 1 of the permit. The member agency
capacities as determined by the Coastal Commission are as shown in Table 4-6.
TABLE 4-6
MEMBER AGENCY OUTFALL CAPACITY
CALIFORNIA COASTAL ZONE CONSERVATION COMMISSION
Agency Average Flow (mgd) Peak Flow (mgd)
Santa Ana Mts. County Water District .59 1.03
Los Allsos Water District 3.23 5.56
El Toro Water District 3.23 5.56
Moulton-Niguel Water District 7.56 13.25
South Laguna Sanitary District 1.89 3.30
City of Laguna Beach 2.58 4.51
Emerald Bay Service District .13 .22
Irvine Ranch Water District 1.76 3.08
The member agencies of the Aliso Water Management Agency have expressed
concern that the outfall capacity as indicated by the Coastal Zone Conservation
Commission, is less than what is expected and AWMA is considering appealing to
the California Coastal Zone Conservation Commission for reconsideration of
the outfall size limitations. AWMA is presently making a determination of the
minimum outfall capacity necessary by each member agency to accomplish the
water quality objectives of the regional wastewater system and to protect .
against the possible need to construct, in the near future, a costly second
ocean outfall system. The current Coastal Commission permit requires that con-
struction on the Aliso Creek Outfall must be initiated by October 18, 1975.
To nTe~et this construction date, the Aliso Water Management Agency is proceeding
on .t'He following schedule: advertise for construction bids on August 22, 1975;
open'bids on September 25, 1975; award construction contracts on September 30,
1975; and, initiation of construction contract on October 14, 1975.
4-14
-------
4.3.5 External Stimuli
As noted earlier, regional economics play a profound role in growth within
AWMA and the entire County. There are several developments of regional
import within and near the AWMA area (Exhibit 4-16). First, there is the
Irvine Regional Center, a financial center development near the San Diego
Freeway just north of AWMA. This Center has already been established, and
is currently growing. The rate of growth of this center obviously depends
on complex economic factors beyond the scope of this report, but the center
will represent a potential place of employment for people now living in
AWMA as well as an employment center which will draw people to the AWMA area.
Second, there is a proposal to construct the East Irvine Industrial Complex
adjacent to the Irvine Center. This development would also be a center of
new employment, but because of the high cost of local housing and the
'exclusivity1 of the communities, it is unlikely that a substantial number
of these employees would live in AWMA.
4.3.6 Social Attitudes
The last section demonstrated that social attitudes are of critical importance
in determining the rate at which AWMA grows. Some recent trends indicate that
those social factors which affect the growth of Southern Orange County may be
in flux. First, there is an increase in multi-unit construction County-wide.
This may be in part an economic response to inflation in housing costs, or may
reveal a trend to smaller families, and more families without children.
Second, there is a national trend of rising suburban crime which may slow the
flight of people seeking a safer community. Third, the noticeable worsening
of air quality in the Southern County area, may degrade its attractiveness.
However, the above discussion indicated that most of the attraction will retain
its exclusiveness for some time yet. It appears likely that people will still
want to move to Southern Orange County, the major question is how many people
will be able to afford to.
4.3.7 Conclusion
Unless substantial changes in governmental policies occur, the AWMA area will
continue to absorb a significant amount of Orange County's population growth.
At the County level, the actual level of population growth depends on general
economic conditions, which cannot be predicted. The areas within AWMA, which
absorb population, the amount of population absorbed, and the manner in which
population is absorbed, depends on governmental policies and actions. In
particular, land use planning and regulation, and extension of public utilities,
including sewer trunks, water trunks and roads, will all play a critical role
in determining the urban form as AWMA develops.
4.4 ROLE OF THE PROJECT
4.4.1 Introduction
As stated in the introduction, one of the goals of this chapter is to determine
where along the continuum between cause and deter that the Aliso project lies.
We have seen in previous discussions that utilities have, and will continue
to have an effect on the location and magnitude of urbanization within a sub-
region. Sewerage is not now playing a major role in the location of develop-
ment because sewers are not now a deterrent to development. However, should
4-15
-------
.
\ '•
?•• . > .- - V •
/ E,W\ /^^ 1
• ' \; v 1 ^J'iji/ •• "\4
/' \ S^:V^ - - ~ ' " *
-^ ( }
.,(",
,
5<& \
r
'East Irvine
Industrial Complex
•••."fri
i -
• 'I •'
• • •' ! ' «'; -i? - >• /~-Jl' : -17
' V/- r • Tfc^ .-• ' », -:V
'•"f- / • •{:$ ^ ' "J ll*':i' P
».s •/.' ' "rt'/ ifT \. N •- ' v -T, w-r r~. •, --1 iir • jf ?
pi ? - -. 1! *M
^
Corona Del Mar
State Beach
'{
Proposed State
Parks (Irvine Coast)
i::.V<
-------
this project not be built, sewers will become a deterrent in various areas
in AWMA within the next two to five years.
A particular problem in evaluating the exact role of sewers in development
is that there are alternatives to public sewers. An area can be developed
at densities suitable to the use of septic tanks, or developers can con-
struct private systems for apartment buildings or entire tracts. Although
septic tank use can be observed in the nearby Santa Margarita Water District,
septic tanks are not a real alternative in AWMA because of opposition by the
Regional Water Quality Control Board and the County. Should septic tank use
be allowed, the net population of AWMA would not be reduced much. (There
are 40,000 acres undeveloped in AWMA. Assuming half the area is suitable for
septic tanks, and developed on half acre lots, you could have 20,000 houses,
or about 80,000 more people for a total of about 175,000.) Privately
developed systems can be observed in AWMA at Rossmoor Leisure World and also
in Coastal Malibu. Private systems require higher costs for developers, and
thus houses. It is not anticipated that this cost would ever exceed $2,500,
which is about 5-10% of the cost of housing in the AWMA area. This would
have some deterrent effect, but since housing is already expensive, and the
attraction of the area is its exclusiveness, it is not anticipated that there
would be a significant effect.
In the absence of Federal funding for the project, it is likely that the AWMA
member agencies would construct the project on their own, although probably
without the City of Laguna Beach. This might increase costs as much as
$800 per unit, again a relatively small cost to affect housing economics.
However sewerage service is provided, it will add to the assessed values of the
AWMA properties, and thus will directly increase developmental pressures. How-
ever, the earlier discussion of assessed values showed that the potential gains
from development were much higher than the costs in increased assessed value
to install the basic improvements which make development possible. It is felt
that these potential gains are behind development as the driving force and the
role of assessed value increases on taxation is relatively small.
Conclusion
The AWMA regionalization project is causative of urban growth to a very slight
degree through its effect on assessed values. If constructed as proposed, it
will facilitate development within the AWMA area, although not to the same
extent as provision of roads. Finally, if no regional project is built,
sewerage will become a partial deterrent to urbanization within five years.
4.4.2 Variation by Alternative
There is no distinction in secondary impacts associated with the sizing of
elements since AWMA intends to construct all alternatives with the same
capacities. However, alternatives will vary in role to some extent, depend-
ing on whether the upper Aliso Creek area is drained by a treated line inter-
ceptor or by a raw sewage interceptor. Provision of service by raw sewage
interceptor opens up a corridor along the interceptor for urbanization. With-
in this corridor, residences and subdivisions can connect directly to the
4-16
-------
interceptor at minimal capital cost, namely, that of constructing lines and
a connection fee to cover a share of capital costs for treatment and transport.
Provision of service by a treated effluent line would require users to treat
wastes, prior to connection, or transport wastes to an existing treatment
system; as well as pay a connection fee. Either of the latter options would
involve significantly more initial capital cost for a developer. Consequently,
a raw sewage interceptor gives a greater economic impetus to urbanization than'
does a treated effluent interceptor.
4.4.2.1 Alternative 1A
Alternative 1A would involve treated effluent lines, consequently, its secondary
impacts would be less than those of a raw sewage line. All existing trunk
sewers would provide a margin for increased urbanization within Los Alisos
Water District, El Toro Water District, Moulton-Niguel Water District Improve-
ment Districts No. 1A and 2A, Laguna Beach, Emerald Bay Service District, and
South Laguna Sanitary District. Urbanization within the Irvine Ranch Water
District, most of the Moulton Ranch, Glenn Ranch, Whiting Ranch and Rancho
de Los Alisos would require construction of new interceptor facilities.
4.4.4.2 Modified Alternative 1A
The secondary impacts of modified Alternative 1A would be virtually identical to
those of Alternative 1A.
4.4.2.3 Alternative 2E
Alternative 2E would involve the construction of a new raw sewage interceptor
along the length of Aliso Creek. As previously discussed, such a line would
have greater secondary impacts than a treated line and would essentially provide
a backbone facility for the development of the Moulton Ranch. All existing trunk
sewers would provide a margin for increased urbanization, as with Alternative 1A.
New facilities would still be needed for Irvine Ranch Water District, Glenn
Ranch, Whiting Ranch, and Rancho de Los Alisos.
4.4.2.4 Alternative 3C
Since Alternative 3C would also provide a new raw sewage interceptor along
Aliso Creek, its secondary impacts would be virtually identical to those of
Alternative 2E. The increase in costs associated with this alternative would
also increase the tax burden on undeveloped lands and further increase develop-
ment pressures.
4.4.2.5 Alternative 4A
Alternative 4A would provide a new raw sewage interceptor along only part of
Aliso Creek, but the interceptor would be long enough to serve the Moulton
Ranch. Consequently, the secondary impacts of Alternative 4A are virtually
identical to those of Alternative 2E.
4-17
-------
4.4.2.6 Alternative 4C
The secondary impacts of Alternative 4C are virtually the same as those of
Alternative 4A. Because Alternative 4C is slightly less expensive, it would
have a slightly less tax-related effect on developmental pressures.
4.4.2.7 Alternative 2F
The secondary impacts of Alternative 2F are virtually identical to the secondary
impacts of Alternative 2E.
4.4.2.8 Alternative 26
The secondary impacts of Alternative 2G are similar to the secondary impacts of
Alternative 2E with one exception. Alternative 2G would provide a new inter-
ceptor sewer in the upper Aliso Creek area to avoid pumping sewage into the
San Diego Creek Basin and then back into the Aliso Creek Basin. This would
provide for urbanization, possibly in the Glenn Ranch/Whiting Ranch/Rancho de
Los Alisos area.
4.4.2.9 No Project
Unless AWMA built the project without Federal assistance, the no project
alternative would begin to retard development in 3 to 5 years.
4.5 IMPACT OF DEVELOPMENT
4.5.1 Air Quality
The impact on air quality is the secondary impact which has received the most
attention on this and other sewer projects in Southern California. A discussion
of the impact on air quality should be prefaced by some background information.
Documentation of a harmful relationship existing between air pollution and the
health of the public has been generally unobtainable except during periods of
intense pollution such as occurred in London in 1952 and on several other
occasions and in Donora, Pa., in 1948. One reason that little hard data is
available is that air pollution levels have increased gradually and consequently
the impact on mortality has been impossible to measure adequately.*
Because of the importance of determining the minimal levels of pollution which
may create or aggravate health problems of the public, many studies relating
to specific elements of air pollution are being conducted.
*"Cardiovascular Deaths and Air Pollution in Charleston, S.C." Cecil F.
Jacobs, M.D., MPH, and Bettye Anne Langdoc, AB, Health Services Report,
September 1972.
4-18
-------
A study conducted by the Department of Physiology, McGill University, Montreal
exposed normal subjects, smokers and nonsmokers, to 0.37 or 0.75 ppm of ozone
for two hours in an environmental chamber. Two hours of intermittent exercise
in such atmosphers of ozone produced major changes in the lung function tests.
The total lung capacity was not significantly affected, but the residual volume
increased. This increase indicates an early effect in the small airways.*
Other studies indicate that excess delayed death and/or chronic diseases are
related to air pollutants. In cities where the N0(2) level is high, there
are more deaths from emphysema. Adverse bronchitis reactions seem to be
related to S0(4) and S0(2). Coronary artery diseases have some relationship
to oxides of nitrogen and carbon monoxide.
The mounting evidence of the effects of exposure to air pollution led to the
Clean Air Act Amendment of 1970, which established a national program for clean,
healthful air across the United States. Pursuant to this law, EPA promulgated
the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for those pollutants of major
national health significance. Primary standards were established to protect
human health from long-term exposure, and significant harm levels were estab-
lished to protect people from short-term exposure.
In order to achieve these standards, States were required to submit implemen-
tation plans that would provide for the attainment of these standards by 1975,
or by 1977 if specific justification for the longer period was accepted by EPA.
For strategic purposes in developing implementation plans, the law instructed
states to divide their territory into Air Quality Control Regions. These
regions were established in areas where meterological and topographic conditions
made the emissions of pollutants in any one area of region-wide significance.
The State of California did not submit a totally approvable State Implementation
Plan for the Los Angeles Intrastate Air Quality Control Region (LAAQCR).
Because of this failure, and litigation, the EPA promulgated a Transportation
Control Plan (TCP) for the State of California (November 12, 1973) which
included a specific strategy for the LAAQCR in order to correct certain defi-
ciencies in the California State Implementation Plan.
2"-
In the Metropolitan Los Angeles Intrastate Air Quality Control Region, the best
known and most severe air pollution problem is 'smog,1 which consists primarily
of photochemical oxidants.
This pollution problem results from a chemical reaction between reactive hydro-
carbons (RHC) and nitrogen oxides (NOX), which occurs in the presence of sun-
light. The control strategy for oxidants in the LAAQCR is focused on reducing
*"Pulmonary Function in Man After Short-Term Exposure to Ozone," Milan
Hazucha, M.D., et al, Arch Environ Health, Vol. 27, September 1973.
4-19
-------
reactive hydrocarbons, since NOX control alone would not provide sufficient
reductions of oxidants. This is due to the regenerative role of NOX in the
reaction, as well as production of NOX during normal biological processes.
Under the adverse meteorological conditions which are necessary to produce
high oxidant concentrations, the LAAQCR is virtually a closed basin. Hydro-
carbon emissions are nearly directly proportional to oxidant concentrations
under these conditions. Consequently, the air quality control strategy
developed for the area was 'basinwide' in scope.
The technical basis for EPA's basinwide strategy can be found in "The Tech-
nical Support Document for the Metropolitan Los Angeles Air Quality Control
Region Transportation Control Plan Final Promulgation," available for review
in EPA's Los Angeles office. This document begins with observances of the
nature of the air quality problem, and relates the problem to emissions of
reactive hydrocarbons. The strategy uses a 'worst case' situation, which is
an effort to eliminate meteorology as a variable by using an oxidant concentra-
tion observed during severely adverse meteorological conditions. The strategy
then presents an inventory of emissions, including both stationary and mobile
sources. Based on the 'worst case' determination and its relationship to the
emissions inventory, a determination of the allowable emissions was made.
This, in turn, allowed the determination of the emissions reductions neces-
sary in order to meet the standard, using the proportional technigue referred
to as 'rollback.1 The stationary RHC emissions in the base year (1970) are
estimated to be 255 tons/day, and the mobile RHC emissions are estimated to
be 1346 tons/day. Allowable emissions have been calculated to be 112 tons/day
of RHC; this is the maximum average emission rate consistent with attainment
of the oxidant standard. Various stationary source controls and emission
controls upon mobile sources will reduce the emission to an average of
558 tons/day--which still must be reduced by 446 tons/day to assure attainment
of standards. Given the current and projected status of mobile source emis-
sion control strategy, it appears that the only method available to achieve
the required emission reductions that are necessary involves controlling
vehicle usage, measured in terms of vehicle miles travelled (VMT).
The TCP for the LAAQCR sets forth a strategy to achieve these additional
emission reductions necessary for the attainment of primary air quality
standards by 1977 if all proposed measures are enforced. The source type
controls include catalytic converter retrofit on older light duty vehicles,
a mandatory inspection and maintenance program, organic solvent controls and
vapor recovery systems on fuel storage and transfer operations. Exclusive
bus lanes, a carpool program, and a parking management program are included
as transportation-type controls, and are expected to provide a 14-31%
reduction in VMT. As a final control step, gasoline rationing is provided
which would provide the final reductions in emissions necessary to attain the
standards.
The preceding discussion revealed that in the short-term, air quality standards
in the LAAQCR can only be met by controlling vehicular usage, measured by VMT.
Thus, the following discussion will use VMT as the basic parameter to evaluate
the effects of the project. But in addition to short-term solutions, long-term
4-20
-------
solutions are needed. Long-term solutions will probably require mass transit
development and local land use planning that recognizes air quality as a
valid planning constraint. Such a planning effort, commonly referred to as
Air Quality Maintenance Planning (AQMP), is now in the conceptual stage. EPA
has published guidelines for the States to develop plans to insure the mainte-
nance of air quality standards, and to prevent serious air quality degradation.
The State of California is considering institutional mechanisms to implement
these plans, and it is likely that they will become a reality within the next
year or so. We will give a brief discussion of the urban form of the AWMA
area, and how this form will affect AQMP.
4.5.1.1 VMT Increases
i
i
The Aliso area is an automobile dependent area, as indicated by Exhibit 4-17,
and will in all likelihood remain so. Any increases in population in such an
area will also increase VMT. Preliminary VMT estimates were made for develop-
ment in the AWMA area using 3.82 vehicle trips per day per capita and 7.98
miles per trip as the average. These estimates were then verified using
Orange County Rapid Transit District's raw data from their upcoming South
County Study. These estimates indicate that current VMT in the AWMA area is
about 2,620,000 miles per day. Using the Orange County modified growth rate,
a 1985 population of 163,700 will travel 4,990,000 miles per day, an increase
of 2,370,000 miles per day. (Approximately 200,000 additional gallons of
gasoline per day will be required by this VMT increase.) A 1985 E-0 popula-
tion of 120,400 would travel 3,670,000 miles per day, an increase of 1,050,000
miles per day.
Even assuming that all of these new people are currently residents of the
LAAQCR, there will still be a net increase in VMT. The South County Study,
and other raw data developed by OCTD, indicates that people in the AWMA area
travel about 30% further per week than people elsewhere in the County. (260
miles per week on the mean, compared to 200 miles per week on the mean for the
entire County.) Thus we can conclude that there will be a substantial traffic
increase that accompanies growth in the AWMA area, an increase that would not
occur if that growth occurred elsewhere in the County where automobiles are
used less.
4.5.1.2 Urban Form
The secondary impacts of this growth on urban form can only be discussed in
general terms at this time. Yet our earlier discussion of future growth
prospects indicated that the AWMA area would continue to grow in a 'leapfrog'
manner unless there are changes in governmental policies. As shown by the
recent study, "The Costs of Sprawl," urban sprawl is fairly costly in
environmental and energy terms, although it clearly provides social amenities
which most homeowners desire. Energy costs for transportation in the AWMA
area are particularly high because the commute distance is greater than the
County average, and because with the exception of the El Toro area, the lack
of a well-balanced supply of shopping areas leads to longer shopping trips.
Unless some mitigation steps are taken, this trend will continue, and densities
in the area does not appear consistent with the long range changes in urban
form that are needed to attain and maintain air quality standards.
4-21
-------
K
( ,
""•I I
Legend
8,000 j Represents vehicles per 24 hours
Dana Point J *«-*-,/*_ ^,
Exhibit 4-17
i™
-------
4.5.2 Water
4.5.2.1 Quantity
Development of an area usually involves an increase in impervious surfaces,
which in turn increases the quantity of runoff. Studies of urbanized areas
indicate that stormflow can increase by 1.2 to 5 times from urbanization.
No detailed study of the AWMA area has been made to determine the overall
impact of urbanization on storm flow, but it is not felt that the increases
will be significant. About 82% of the soils in the AWMA area are fairly
impervious, with slow to very slow infiltration rates. Thus, urbanization
will not substantially increase impervious surfaces. The County's ambitious
open space plan for the area also indicates that the net increases in storm
flows will not be significant. If warranted on a smaller scale, individual
developments could be planned to maximize retention of pervious surfaces,
but it is not felt that this is necessary on an area-wide basis.
4.5.2.2 Quality
Urbanization also increases the pollutants such as biological oxygen demand
(BOD), nitrogen and phosphorous which are found in storm runoff. Streets and
curbs in urbanized areas collect runoff and pollutants like detritus, lead
from auto emissions, and oils and grease. An estimate of mass emissions
(Comprehensive Water Quality Central Plan for the San Diego Basin, SWQCB,
1974) from urbanization can be seen in Table 3-1. Table 4-7 indicates the
pollution generation characteristics of various land uses. While natural open
space produces as much Total Dissolved Solids (TDS) as industrial and com-
mercial uses -- and more than residential -- the quantities of Biological
Oxygen Demand (BOD), nitrogen and phosphorous are significantly lower. Agri-
cultural uses are roughly comparable to recreational uses in this respect.
In order to provide a reasonably accurate estimation of the amount of these
pollutants which will result from the existing, adopted, and projected land
uses, the land uses presented in Section 2.11 and summarized in Table 2-14
were re-distributed into categories of similar pollution production.
TABLE 4-7
SURFACE RUNOFF POLLUTION COEFFICIENTS*
Land Use TDS BOD Total N Total P
Residential 400 30 12 2.0
Commercial, Including rnn /,n 19 -, n
Nonwater Service 5UU ^u '^ l
-------
TABLE 4-8
LAND USE ACREAGE
Land Use Existing Adopted Proposed
Residential1 6,396 21,977 26,439
Commercial, Including Nonwater 77Q2 , ,n73 , ^.3
Service //y '>4U/ ljb^
Industrial 2594 1,6845 1.6845
Public Recreation and Similar Uses 5806 1,4687 2,0008
Dry Farming 17.1169 3,48210 0
Citrus and Truck Farming 2.44511 0 0
Natural Open Space 21,330 18,887 17,258
TOTAL 48,905 48,905 48,905
Includes single- and multi-family.
y
Includes 75 acres of Public (institutions).
Includes 230 acres of PUblic (institutions).
Includes 145 acres of Public (sewerage facilities).
Includes 165 acres of Public (sewerage facilities).
Includes 3 golf courses (380 acres) and 2.5 acres of Parks/1000 p-p.,
population based upon 2.5 occupants/du and 5 du/acre.
Includes 3 additional golf courses (400 acres) and Parks calculated as
above.
Q
Includes another 3 golf courses (300 acres) and Parks calculated as
above.
Q
Based upon 35% of total AWMA acreage which contains Class III and IV soils.
Based upon 40% of the IRWD area being in this use.
Based upon 5% of the total AWMA area which contains Class I and II soils
and which has not been urbanized.
-------
TABLE 4-9
SURFACE RUNOFF POLUTION FROM ADOPTED LAND USES*
Land Use
Residential
Commercial,
Include Non-
Water Service
Industrial
Public Recreation
and Similar Uses
Dry Farming
Citrus and Truck Farming
Natural Open Space
*in tons per year
TDS
1,279.2
194.8
71.23
72.5
2,139.5
305.62
5,865.75
TABLE 4-10
SURFACE RUNOFF POLLUTION FROM ADOPTED
land Use
Residential
Commercial ,
Include Non-
Water Service
Industrial
Public 'Recreation
and Similar Uses
Dry Farming
TDS
4,395.4
351 .75
•463.1
183.5
435.25
BOD
95.94
15.58
3.89
5.22
171.16
36.68
63.99
LAND USES
BOD
329.66
28.14
25.26
13.21
34.82
Total N
38.38
4.67
1.55
4.35
85.58
36.68
21.33
*
Total N
131.86
8.44
10.10
11.01
17.41
Total P
6.4
0.39
0.16
0.15
6.85
1.83
3.2
Total P
2,1.98
0.70
1 ,01
0.37
1.39
Citrus and Truck Farming - -
Natural Open Space 5,193.93 56.66 18.89 2.83
*in tons per year
-------
• TABLE 4-11
SURFACE RUNOFF POLLUTION FROM PROPOSED LAND USES*
Land Use TDS BOD Total N Total P
Residential 5,287.8 396.59 158.63 26.48
Commercial
Including Non
Water Service 381 30.48 9.14 0.76
Industrial 463.1 25.26 10.10 1.01
Public Recreation
and Similar Uses 250 18 15 0.5
Dry Farming - -
Citrus and Truck Farming - -
Natural Open Space 4,745.95 51.77 17.26 2.59
*in tons per year
Table 4-12 provides a summary of the amount of runoff pollutants which have
been projected for the AWMA region. The total increase from existing land uses
to proposed land uses is 13%. This figure is largely a reflection of the
quantity of TDS in the runoff and does not indicate the significant increases
in phosphorous and BOD which will accompany urbanization. Phosphorous in run-
off will increase approximately 49% with the implementation of adopted land use
plans and another 11% if proposed plans are approved. The total increase from
existing to proposed land uses is 64%. Similarly, BOD will increase the most
by 24% with the realization of adopted land uses. An increase in BOD 33% is
projected with development of all adopted and proposed land uses (Exhibits
4-11 and 4-12).
TABLE 4-12
SUMMARY OF SURFACE RUNOFF POLLUTION*
Land Use
Existing
Adopted
Proposed
TDS
9,928.6
10,587.7
11,127.9
BOD
392.5
487.8
522.1
Total N
192.5
197.64
210.1
Total P
19
22.3
31.3
Grand
Total
10,532.6
11,282.6
11,891.4
*in tons per year
-------
It does appear somewhat incongruous that the coefficients for total dissolved
solids are higher for open space than for agriculture, since agriculture is
responsible for many of the salinity problems in southern California. It is
assumed that the different coefficients obtained are related to the relative
permeability of soil and resulting velocity at which water runs off. Most of
the salts added by agriculture are leached into the groundwater or drain off
underground and consequently are not reflected in runoff coefficients.
Further, there is considerable variation in the data, particularly for IDS
and the figures shown are clearly estimates, subject to refinement when better
information is available.
4.5.3 Land
Development in the AWMA area will devote 40-50% of the remaining open space to
urbanized land. This represents a commitment of a land resource, as well as
a long-term reduction in wildlife habitat. Review of recent County planning
efforts indicates that the more valuable wildlife areas will receive priority
consideration for open space, but a net loss of habitat is anticipated and
cannot be avoided.
Presently, undeveloped lands within AWMA are almost entirely privately owned.
As lands become developed, public ownership of property will increase through
road and park dedications increasing access and recreational areas available
to the public. This may be viewed as a public benefit resulting from develop-
ment. However, the beneficial aesthetic and psychological effects of open
space are also important. The balance between these two divergent open space
functions is not quantifiable and the significance attached to these functions
is based upon value judgments. There will be a loss in wildlife habitat.
AWMA is responding to a situation which has been created by local governments.
There are the agencies with control over land uses and which have authorized
urban uses for much of AWMA. It is the realization of such policies which
will reduce open space and alter the environment. The major portion of AWMA
for which no urban uses have been designated belongs to The Irvine Company.
The future of this large coastal area will be the subject of the Second
Amendment, 1975, to the Orange County General Plan Land Use Element as well
as the Coastal Commission's Development Plan. At that time, it will be
determined if urbanization will take place and, if it does, where and in what
form. It will be at that time that the value judgments will be made about
the remaining open space. In the past, the rate of growth has been much
slower along the coast than it has been in the rest of Orange County. This
is due to inflated land values and limited access along the Pacific Coast
Highway.
4.6 POTENTIAL MITIGATION MEASURES
Since the secondary impact on air quality is the most significant impact, most
of the following measures will be aimed at mitigating this impact. Measures
evaluated by the applicant will be presented as well as those evalued by the
EPA. The question of mitigation, and especially the eventual implementation
of any proposed measures is more a question of policy than technical analysis.
Therefore, the following discussion will be in fairly general terms.
4-23
-------
4.6.1 Summary of Mitigation Measures Evaluated by the Applicant
1. High density cluster residential development with neighborhood shopping
centers rather than low density development with regional shopping centers.
This option could reduce VMT in three ways: (a) shorter trips, (b) in-
creased utilization of transit, and (c) shopping by bicycle or walking.
It is estimated that this could reduce VMT by 311,000 miles per day. This
option could not be implemented by the applicant, but would take action by
local general purpose governments.
2. Encourage Commuter car pooling. Some carpooling is now done in the AWMA
area (about 5% travel in carpools). It is estimated that commuter car
pooling could provide for 25% of all commute trips, resulting in a VMT
reduction of 394,000 miles per day.
3. Encourage use of buses. The Orange County Transit District feels that as
many as 7% of the trips in the AWMA area could be diverted to buses. It
is estimated that this would result in a VMT reduction of 201,000 trips
per day. This would have to be done by the general purpose governments
and the OCTD, and will probably be done as a part of EPA's Transportation
Control Plan.
4. Construct a new town around the GSA facility. If a town, oriented towards
serving the GSA facility and towards reducing automobile traffic were
constructed, the applicant estimates that it could reduce VMT by 574,000
miles per day or more. This would require a coordinated effort by land-
owners, local and Federal governments, as well as a change in the attitude
of the local population which is opposed to low or medium cost housing.
5. Park and ride for beach users. The applicant estimates that this would
result in a VMT reduction of 32,000 miles per day during the summer.
This would have to be implemented by general purpose governments or a
transit district.
6. Park and ride for the Laguna Beach Art Festival. A limited version of this
option is now operated by the City of Laguna Beach. The applicant esti-
mates that this would result in a VMT reduction of 9,400 miles per day
during the Festival.
4.6.2 Additional Measures
EPA's Transportation Control Plan contained several measures aimed at reducing
traffic (VMT). Parking supply management, either directly, or through sur-
charges on parking is one of these methods. (EPA does not require parking
surcharges, but it is an option available to local governments in the AWMA area.)
Parking management is required to relate parking supply to areawide VMT. Com-
puter carppoling, and mass transit encouragements, discussed above, are also
part of the TCP.
One of the transportation controls which will be implemented as part of the
TCP, carpooling appears to have the most effectiveness in the AWMA area.
However, this option was listed low in the South County Study's poll of mode
4-24
-------
preference and has been abandoned by most of those who have tried it. Other
than the applicant's estimates of the possible VMT reductions from car pool-
ing, no attempt was made to quantify VMT reductions, although these measures
are estimated to achieve a VMT reduction of 14-31% basin-wide.
Since utilities do play an important role in development, controlling utility
extension is presented here as an additional option for consideration. Control
of water and sewer extensions could be accomplished by the member agencies of
AWMA, so institutional problems are minimal. This could be very important
in controlling growth in areas without critical utilities, but relatively
ineffective in areas which now have utilities. One method of controlling
'sprawl' within areas that have utilities could be to institute a density re-
quirement prior to extension of service, even if that extension does not require
a major new trunk sewer.
Control of arterial highway construction is another method of utility extension
control, but cannot be done by the applicant. To implement this strategy, the
local general purpose government--the County—would have to agree to this option.
This would be very effective in Northern El Toro, Bear Brand Ranch, Ivine Ranch
and western Moulton Ranch, but ineffective elsewhere.
A related benefit of any form of utility extension control would be to increase
density in already developed areas. This in turn would increase the potential
for mass transit, car pooling, and other measures which need density to work
well.
The development of work centers within and near AWMA represent both an
opportunity and a potential threat to the environment in and near AWMA. The
Irvine Industrial Center and the full utilization of the GSA facility could
provide jobs for AWMA residents and reduce the overall travelling distances
for commuters. If carefully structured, the AWMA communities and the new
centers could be easily linked by buses or shuttle buses, further reducing
VMT. However, this would require innovative local planning to insure that a
substantial number of future employees of these facilities reside within AWMA,
and in a form conducive to reduced commute travel by automobile. At present
there is no indication that this will be done, and there is massive resistance
within the AWMA communities to housing policies which would make this possible.
This remains an option for local government, possibly through the Air Quality
Maintenance Planning effort, but prospects at this time are not good.
The above options for mitigating the air quality impacts of development with-
in AWMA are presented in general terms in order to solicit public comment on
the measures. We are extremely interested in public opinion on the accept-
ability or desirability of these measures.
4.6.3 Economic Impact of Potential Mitigation Measures
The Orange County Transit District is conducting a number of studies and pro-
grams aimed at meeting the needs and demands for public transportation. The
major studies are: (1) Alternate Rapid Transit Corridor Study concentrating
on regional needs; (2) Special Bus Needs Study to determine immediate and
short-term transit needs; (3) Park and Ride Freeway Bus System Study has been
4-25
-------
completed and operations will commence in June, 1975; (4) Dial-a-Ride
Expansion Study; (5) market studies to monitor the transit needs and attitudes
of Orange County residents. Buses cost about $64,000 each to acquire and
about $70,000 annually to operate and maintain.
Park and Ride systems, while they can make a substantial contribution to
mitigating air quality impacts and conserving energy, have substantial capital
operating and maintenance costs. Acquisition of large parking areas is required
if facilities do not exist or cannot be utilized. A rule of thumb is one acre
of land for each 110 cars. This provides sufficient space for shelters, bus
loading and bus layover areas, as well as car parking areas. After the
parking sites are obtained, bus-related costs include purchase of buses, fuel,
oil, driver wages, insurance and taxes besides other maintenance costs. The
Orange County Transit District projects a County-wide need of 163 buses by
1980 which would result in vehicle costs of over $6 million. Only a portion
of this total, on the order of 10%, could be attributed to serving the needs
of the AWMA region. Annual operating costs are forecast by the OCTD to be
$1.10 per vehicle mile by the end of this year with a 10% annual escalation
thereafter if the inflationary trend continues. This implies a rate of $1.77
per vehicle mile in 1980. For the entire County, OCTD forecasts a $10 million
operating cost in 1980. Therefore, under the previous assumption, AWMA would
account for about $1 million of this total. Under the present fare concepts
(average fare of $.75 in 1980), the fare box revenues would pay only about 22%
of the annual operating costs.
A significant opportunity to reduce the costs and some of the impacts of
urbanization is in changing the pattern of residential development from sprawl
type configurations to cluster type designs. Two obvious sources of air pol-
lution in the residential sector are residential heating and automobiles. High
density cluster developments require less energy for heating, and, if well
planned, stimulate more efficient automobile use. Compared with low density
sprawl communities, cluster developments generate about 45% less air pollution.
In terms of total investment costs, clusters cost 44% less than the typical
low density sprawl pattern of development. The largest portion of these
savings is attributable to reduced costs for roads and utilities, which cost
about 55% less in high density communities. Also, lower total costs are
likely to be incurred by local governments due to economics of scale.
Furthermore, a low-density sprawl is the most expensive community to create
and operate. Total capital costs (exclusive of land and financing charges)
average approximately 80% higher than hioh density housing ($58,502 per
housing unit compared to $27,025). Approximately 74% of the difference, or
$16,000, are construction costs, with another $4,000 for utilities and $1,500
for roads. Construction costs are extremely important, because they account
for approximately 64% of the total capital costs in each community, and these
costs vary as much as 100% among communities (The Real Estate Corporation,
Costs of Sprawl).
School costs are generally the second largest cost component in a neighbor-
hood, but these do not vary appreciably among communities. Utility costs are
next in magnitude and generally show the greatest variation between community
types. For high-density cluster designs, the utility costs are about 8% of
the total compared with 13% for low-density sprawl designs. Transportation
4-26
-------
costs are next in scale, but road costs are less sensitive than utility costs
to variations in development patterns. Open space and public facilities
costs are a small component of total costs (4-7%) and, in any case, vary only
moderately among community types. Long-term operating and maintenance costs
are approximately 12.7% higher for sprawl type communities than for cluster
•designs (The Real Estate Corporation, Costs of Sprawl).
'As stated at the outset, the goal of the mitigation strategies is the improved
air quality. It is apparent that mobile emission controls, even catalytic
converters, will not reduce total emissions sufficiently to satisfy the ul-
timate standards of the Clean Air Act, particularly if motor vehicle usage
continues the rate of growth experienced during the past ten years. The
goal then must be accomplishd primarily through VMT reduction plans.
To reduce VMT on an emergency basis, rationing is probably the most effec-
tive technique, but may be politically unacceptable. The measure most widely
discussed at present is the gasoline tax increase. In opposition to this
measure, it is frequently argued that it would be too regressive, imposing
the greatest hardship on the poor and those who need the automobile as a
means of transportation to and from work through higher costs for gas.
An additional driving disincentive would be a tax, or an increase, in parking
rates. This type of measure was actually included in the EPA Implementation
plan for Los Angeles. The reductions in VMT which would accompany parking
rate increases have been studied in San Francisco. During the 1970-71 fis-
cal year, a 25% tax was imposed on all parking operations in downtown San
Francisco. Although many parking lot operators, trying to gain a competitive
edge, did not pass on the tax increase to their customers, and although many
drivers shifted their parking patterns, parking further from their destinations
and walking to save the parking rate increase, analysis of the data after two
years of operation still indicated a strong decline in parking utilization
with increase in price. The price elasticity of demand for parking space
varied between -.5 and -1.5.*
This relatively large elasticity suggests a draconian measure to reduce
available parking space altogether. A parking strike in Pittsburgh in 1972
closed about 90% of the downtown parking facilities. However, the absentee
rate of those employed downtown remained essentially constant. This indi-
cates an increased usage of alternate modes such as public transit and car-
pooling. During this time, theatres experienced a 60-70% decline in patronage
which suggests that people are willing to use alternate modes for work com-
muting, if necessary, but not for recreational purposes.
Carpools represent a promising technique for VMT reduction. They require
virtually no capital expenditure, and they provide more convenience than
scheduled bus service. Since the energy crisis of 1973-74, some governmental
agencies have explored this alternative, and some computerized data bases
have been established to locate partners with similar origins and destina-
tions. Some employers in downtown areas have provided subsidized parking as
an incentive for carpools. Reserved lanes on freeways for carpools have been
discussed, but to date they have been implemented only on an emergency basis.
These costs are highly variable and not absolutely necessary, but should be
more than offset by the savings in energy, parking, and the maintenance of
individual cars.
*Note: A -1 elasticity means that as price increases (say 20%), use decreases
in exactly the same porpdrtion (20%); a -1.5 means if price is up 20%,
use is down 30%. 4.37
-------
4.7 OPTIONS AVAILABLE TO EPA
4.7.1 Fund the Project as Proposed by the Applicant
In this option we would assign higher priority to the water quality problem
and limit our actions on secondary impacts to the economic disincentive of
the SWRCB's funding limitation. The outcome of this alternative would be
an improvement in surface and ocean waters, and an increase in VMT.
4.7.2 Fund the Project as Proposed by the Applicant if the Applicant
Agrees to Implement Mitigation Measures Within their Legal Authority
The probable mitigation measures within the applicant's legal authority are
nonextension of water and sewer services to new areas until an AQMP indicates
that this would be consistent with the strategy to achieve air quality stan-
dards. This alternative would solve water quality problems, and would limit
to some extent the increases in VMT. It would also encourage higher density
in existing urban areas.
4.7.3 Construct a Regional System. Treat the Upper Aliso Area's Wastes
Locally, Require Mitigation
This option is oriented towards eliminating the interceptor down Aliso Creek
which facilitates development. The upper areas of AWMA could be served by
either increasing their storage capacity, or by constructing a treated
water line to the new ocean outfall. The Regional Boards would object to
this option unless the treatment plants had access to an ocean outfall.
Both of these alternatives would increase costs by $5-10 million. They
would have the benefits of eliminating the need for a new site and a new,
possibly growth inducing road. They would also be superior alternatives for
achieving reclamation in the future, sincenohead would be lost in draining
effluent down into Aliso Valley.
4.7.4 Don't Participate in the Project Since it will Facilitate Growth Which
Will in Turn Have a Significant Air Quality Impact
If there is no EPA participation, it likely that applicants will construct a
regional system with their own money, probably without the City of Laguna Beach
if all necessary permits can be obtained. The system that will probably be
somewhat smaller and the increased costs may deter development slightly. But
the water quality problems from Laguna Beach's discharge would not be solved,
and there would not be any mitigation of the air quality impact. In this
option, air quality and water quality impacts would be maximized; therefore
this course of action is not recommended unless the applicants refuse to im-
plement mitigation measures, the Coastal Commission may revoke their permit.
4.7.5 Construct a Regional System with a Smaller Outfall
(or other portions)
This option would be aimed at using sizing as a growth constraint, and in
effect this has been done by the Coastal Commission. However, this option
4-28
-------
would have no effect on growth until the facilities are near capacity, and
even then the applicants could construct small land disposal systems on
their own. This option is more of a policy statement about who should pay
for growth than an option which would mitigate the effects of growth. It
could have the beneficial effect of forcing reclamation once facilities
•are near capacity.
4-29
-------
-------
5.0 SELECTED ALTERNATIVE
5.1 PROPOSALS IN THE DRAFT EIS
The draft EIS for the AWMA project deferred selection of a proposed project
and proposed two alternatives for further consideration; Modified Alter-
native 1A which embraced a satellite treatment concept with regional dis-
posal, and Alternative 2G (also referred to as Alternative 2F modified)
which featured regional treatment and disposal.
Modified Alternative 1A proposed to continue operation of the upstream
treatment plants at Los Alisos and Rossmoor, disposing of their effluent
through a treated line. Flows from Moulton-Niguel would be treated at the
existing South Laguna Treatment plant until the flows justified construct-
ing a new treatment plant. Laguna Beach's treatment plant would be abandoned
and a new treatment plant would be constructed on the site of the South
Laguna treatment plant. Excess effluent would be disposed of in a new
ocean outfall.
Alternative 2G would involve abandoning upstream treatment plants except
for minor reclamation during summer months, construction of a raw sewage
interceptor along Aliso Creek, a new regional treatment plant on a site
in Aliso Canyon, and ocean disposal through a new outfall. Laguna Beach's
treatment plant would be abandoned and Laguna's waste would be transported
to the new regional plant by interceptor as in Alternative 1A.
The draft EIS also listed a number of mitigation proposals without specific-
ally proposing or committing to any of them. The purpose of deferring
alternative selection and mitigation proposal selection was to allow the
public and interested local, state and federal agencies to affect the
decision making by providing new information and analysis of the public
acceptability and policy implications of the alternatives.
5.2 PUBLIC REVIEW AND THE SELECTION PROCESS
5.2.1 Alternative Selection and Plant Site Location
The review process indicated that there were serious problems with the
treatment plant site under Alternative 2G. In addition, the review pro-
cess indicated that there was strong support for reclamation, and that
even if total reclamation was not possible, the alternative most consistent
with future reclamation should be given serious consideration.
Comments at the public hearing held by EPA on the AWMA project indicated
very strong opposition to the regional treatment plant site because of
aesthetic disruption of a valuable open space and recreational corridor.
Because of public concern over dwindling open space, the County of Orange
has designated the Aliso Creek corridor a high priority area for retention
as natural and recreational open space. AWMA was willing to donate ease-
ments through the plant site for equestrian, bicycle and hiking trails,
as well as landscape the plant site to provide continuity with the creek
5-1
-------
atmosphere. However, the public and the County Planning Commission were
still concerned about the aesthetic disruption of the area by a 30 acre
treatment plant and channelized stream bed in a narrow part of All so
Creek Canyon.
Comments by the public and co-ordination with the Department of Interior,.
the National Historic Advisory Council and the State Historic Preservation
Officer revealed that there were valuable archaeological resources in the
Aliso Creek area, potentially qualifying the area for inclusion in the
National Register of Historic Places. Further analysis revealed that the
Aliso Creek interceptor could probably avoid all archaeological sites, but
the treatment plant for Alternative 2G would directly affect one of the'
archaeological sites. The public, local archaeologists, and the State
Historic Preservation Officer's staff all expressed concern over this
potential impact and stressed the need for analysis of additional treatment
plant sites.
Review of the EIS also revealed that the regional treatment plant site would
involve encroachment into the flood plain of Aliso Creek. Extensive
grading of the plant site area and realignment and channelization of
Aliso Creek would be necessary to utilize the site. Even with these
modifications, the plant site would be exposed to some flood hazard.
Executive Order 11296 requires federal leadership in avoiding the develop-
ment of flood plains. Consequently, additional analysis of plant sites
not in the flood plain area would be necessary prior to approval of the
regional plant site.
Because of these three problems, EPA informed the Aliso Water Management
Agency on May 6, 1975 that the plant site for Alternative 2G was unaccept-
able. This action virtually eliminated Alternative 2G from further consid-
eration.
5.2.2 Mitigation Measures
There were fewer comments dealing with the various mitigation measures
than with the plant site. Agencies responsible for air quality uniformly
supported the concept of mitigation, but not necessarily specific measures.
Most commenters realized the institutional problems involved in encouraging
AWMA ~ which does not have general purpose governmental authority -- to
provide for mitigation. Most of the measures discussed were clearly •
beyond the legal authority of AWMA. According to AWMA's counsel, even the'
nonrextension of interceptors « which had initially appeared to be within
AWMA's legal authority — would be difficult or impossible to accomplish.
The County of Orange is the general purpose government with authority over
land use and transportation decisions within most of the AWMA area. The
County appeared to be somewhat interested in the concept of mitigation.
and meetings were begun with the County and landowners by AWMA. To date,
however,, these meetings have not resulted in any firm commitments for any
sJiort- or long-term vehicle use reduction measures.
5-2
-------
5.3 PROPOSED PROJECT
5.3.1 Introduction
Through the review process EPA discovered that there were plant site
problems with Alternative 2G and effectiveness problems with Alternative
1A (refer to comment letters by AWMA and the Moulton-Niguel Water District).
As a result, neither of the two favored alternatives was completely accept-
able.
The rejection of Alternatives 1A and 2G left the project with a need for
more engineering and cost-effectiveness analysis. EPA determined that
trying to accomplish this analysis within the framework of an EIS was not
desireable.
Selection of appropriate mitigation measures resulted in a very time con-
suming process which did not fit easily within the time constraints of
an EIS. Further, the effectiveness of all of the mitigation measures
depends in large part on the degree of support the measures have with local
regulatory agencies which will be responsible for their implementation.
In other words, the procedure for implementation of mitigation measures
could be counterproductive to the goal of reducing automobile reliance.
Nevertheless, it was clear that an initial project which combined the
acceptable portions common to both Alternatives 1A and 2G could and should
be built. A phased project along this line was suggested by AWMA and
is proposed here.
5.3.2 Phase I
With consideration given to the urgency of the existing problem at Laguna
Beach and the time constraints involved in outfall construction, EPA
supports a Phase I AWMA project which will provide for a regional ocean
outfall, and an expansion at the South Laguna treatment plant to allow
abandoning the Laguna Beach treatment plant; solving the two immediate
problems. Phase I consists of:
1. The Aliso Creek Outfall, Ocean Portion; from the Pacific Coast
Highway extending approximately 7,500 feet offshore.
2. The Aliso Creek Outfall-Onshore Portion extending from the Pacific
Coast Highway to the existing South Laguna Treatment Plant.
3. The North Coast Interceptor would be constructed to serve the
City of Laguna Beach and Emerald Bay Service District. An exist-
ing 8-inch diameter gravity main would be utilized to transport
wastewater from the Emerald Bay pump station to the Laguna Beach
pump station. From the Laguna Beach pump station to the Coastal
Treatment Plant, capacity would be provided for future use by the
Irvine Ranch Water District.
5-3
-------
4. A Coastal Treatment Plant constructed adjacent to the existing
South Laguna Treatment Plant. Designed for an initial liquid
capacity of 4.2 mgd and an ultimate capacity of 7.6 mgd.
5. Modifications to the Existing South Laguna Treatment plant which
will increase the flexibility and effectiveness of the treat-
ment plant but will not increase the capacity of the treatment
plant.
Other than the phasing of the project and the initiation of planning efforts
aimed at producing mitigation, no mitigation measures are included as part
of Phase I. Phase I involved no actual increases in treatment capacity
at the SLSD Plant (which also serves MNWD 1A and 2A, see Section 1.2.2).
Phase I also only gives a minor capacity increase to the City of Laguna
Beach. This capacity will also serve the Emerald Bay Service District.
Mitigation measures would be required prior to use of the outfall by any
other of the AWMA member agencies as a condition on the grant offer.
5.3.3 Phase II
Phase II of the project will consist of sludge facilities for the expanded
South Laguna treatment plant. Determination of appropriate facilities will
be made as part of the facilities plan addendum, but construction of
sludge facilities can proceed prior to final resolution of the mitigation
measures.
5.3.4 Phase III
Since the treatment concept and treatment plant site(s) for the upper
Aliso Creek area are unresolved at this time, Phase III will consist of the
necessary facilities planning studies and construction of facilities
for the upper Aliso Creek area, as well as implementation of mitigation
measures necessary to minimize the impacts of urbanization in the upper
Aliso Creek area.
A facilities plan addendum will be prepared for the upper Aliso Creek area,
co-ordinated through the State Water Resources Control Board to determine
the most cost-effective solution for the area. A supplemental EIR dealing
wi.th environmental impacts will be part of this addendum, and the project
will be subject to environmental review by EPA under the National Environ-
mental Policy Act. If this environmental review indicates that there are
significant, unmitigated impacts, the Phase III project will involve an
addendum to this EIS.
The facilities plan addendum will also deal with the eventual method of
sludge disposal for the entire AWMA area, including the existing South
Laguna Treatment plant's sludge. Final determination of sludge disposal
is not possible at this time due to unresolved siting issues. The analysis
of sludge treatment and disposal will necessarily involve consideration of
energy recovery and composting, as suggested in comments on the draft EIS.
5-4
-------
Mitigation measures will be required in order to obtain EPA grant funds for
the Phase III project. Prior to approval of the Phase III project, commit-
ments to implement mitigation measures must be obtained from those entities
with authority to implement such measures. At the time of any grant offer
on Phase III, limitations on use of the ocean outfall established under the
Phase I grant contract can be modified as appropriate.
5.4 UNRESOLVED ISSUES AND PROCEDURES FOR RESOLUTION
5.4.1 Treatment Concept
It has not yet been decided whether to serve the upper Aliso Creek area
through a satellite concept using existing treatment plants with disposal
through a treated effluent line, or through a system involving a treatment
plant serving the entire upper Aliso Creek area. It is proposed to use the
facilities planning addendum process, including an EIR supplement, to resolve
this issue. As noted in Chapter IV, if a semi-regional concept is adopted
involving new raw sewage interceptors, such a concept would have greater
secondary impacts than would a concept involving treated effluent interceptors.
Accordingly, additional mitigation measures would be expected with such a
concept. The variation in secondary impacts according to concept should
affect decision making in the facilities plan supplement.
5.4.2 Treatment Plant Site
Rejection of the regional plant site has left the location of any alternative
sites an unresolved issue. Again, it is anticipated that the facilities
plan addendum proposed would provide the mechanism for resolving this issue.
The Aliso Water Management Agency will be expected to use a careful site
screening process to avoid selecting a site with serious environmental
problems.
5.4'.3 Mitigation Measures
AWMA and most of its member agencies have passed a resolution encouraging
those with implementation authority to undertake mitigation measures
(See Appendix B). AWMA also intends to take a more active role in planning
to insure mitigation and careful co-ordination between water quality and
air quality decisions. In addition, AWMA has begun to meet with the County
of Orange and landowners within the district to try to insure eventual
adoption of mitigation measures. Such activities are not in themselves
adequate mitigation, but do appear to establish a program which will event-
ually arrive at mitigation.
It is anticipated that the facilities plan addendum, and EIR, and continuing
meetings by AWMA with the County and landowners within AWMA will be the
mechanism by which mitigation measures will eventually be implemented.
In the interim, use of the outfall will be restricted by grant condition to
the existing South Laguna treatment plant and its Phase I expansion until
satisfactory mitigation measures are implemented or scheduled.
5-5
-------
5.4.4 Sludge Treatment and Disposal
Elimination of the regional treatment plant site has left the ultimate
nature of sludge disposal as an unresolved issue. The South Laguna treat-
ment plant site is a fairly poor site for sludge treatment and;drying be-
cause of the recreational corridor and the restricted road through' the
golf course. However, an alternate site cannot be selected without further
study.
It is anticipated that the Facilities Plan Addendum prepared for the upper
Aliso Creek area will resolve the issue of sludge treatment and disposal
method as well as the proper site for treatment and disposal. Consider-
ation will be given to energy recovery and composting for agricultural
reuse, as suggested in comments received on the EIS.
5.4.5 California Coastal Zone Conservation Commission Permit
AWMA has received a construction permit from the Coastal Commission,
however, AWMA is dissatisfied with some of the conditions attached to the
permit. The permit included limitations on discharge of ammonia and on
the overall size of the outfall. AWMA intends to seek modification of the
permit on both grounds.
AWMA has already been scheduled for hearing on amendment of the ammonia
requirement. Meeting of the 2 mg/1 ammonia requirement requires additional
air. Air is provided by electric blowers, and thus the ammonia requirement
involves additional capital costs and energy consumption. AWMA questions
whether the benefits to the environment of a lower ammonia discharge
outweigh the environmental costs of increased power consumption. This issue
will be resolved before the State Coastal Commission in a hearing process.
As discussed in Chapter 4, AWMA is also dissatisfied with the capacity
limitations in the ocean outfall. AWMA has not yet scheduled a hearing
date before the Commission. This issue will either be resolved through a
hearing before the Coastal Commission, or by AWMA accepting the existing
permit and beginning construction on the ocean outfall. The time schedule
for this decision is discussed in Chapter 4.
5-6
-------
-------
6.0 UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT
The beneficial and adverse impacts of the proposed project are both short-
and long-term in duration and effect. The long-term adverse impacts are
mostly indirect. Primary impacts of the proposed project result from con-
struction and operation of the facilities. The primary unavoidable impact
of the proposed project is the commitment of land to the placement of facil-
ities. Of primary significance will be the need for approximately 12 acres
on which to locate the regional treatment plant. These primary impacts are
described in greater detail in Chapter 3.
The construction activities will cause short-term unavoidable impacts by
creating noise, air and dust pollution from mechanical construction equip-
ment, obstructing traffic, disrupting the marine environment, disturbance
of archaeological sites, changing the landscape, interfering with business
and recreational activities, and posing safety, fire, flood and erosion hazards.
The operational processes of the proposed project will result in long-term
unavoidable impacts which for the most part, are beneficial since they will
improve upon existing conditions or prevent future adverse impacts which could
result from the continued utilization of the existing methods of wastewater
treatment.
Operational impacts include an increased utilization of water through the
direct use of the water supply, an increased consumption of energy, ground-
water recharge by treated effluent, the dilution and dispersion of wastewater
effluent entering the marine environment, and the production of waste sludges.
Aside from those unavoidable impacts associated with the proposed project as
a whole, there are those unavoidable impacts which can be defined in somewhat
more specific terms as they apply to the major components of the system.
The following impacts are unavoidable, but temporary and will be mitigated by
time or be reduced to a very low level of significance.
Aliso Creek Interceptor:
-Temporary destruction of surface vegetation in 10.9 acres of grassland,
5.7 acres of agricultural and 0.05 acres of riparian and cover types.
Aliso Creek Outfall:
-Temporary destruction of approximately 2 acres of grassland type surface
vegetation.
-Interruption of country club activities.
-Scenic degradation.
-Risks of flooding, erosion and siltation.
-Reduction of beach recreation capacity.
-Temporary destruction of approximately 1 acre of marine habitat and
its organisms.
6-1
-------
Sulphur Creek Interceptor:
-Temporary destruction of grasslands.
-Interruption of traffic.
-Appearance and noise of pumps.
North Coast Interceptor:
-Interference with traffic and roadside businesses.
-Scenic degradation.
Regional Treatment Plant:
-Destruction of vegetation.
-Soil compaction and dust from construction of roads,
-Flood and erosion hazards.
-Fire hazard.
6-2
-------
-------
7.0 RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN LOCAL SHORT-TERM USES OF THE ENVIRONMENT AND
MAINTENANCE AND ENHANCEMENT OF LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY
7.1 INTRODUCTION
The proposed wastewater treatment project has been designed with long-term
productivity in mind. Consequently, several adverse impacts which are un-
avoidable, yet temporary in duration, emanate from the construction and opera-
tion of the project facilities. These impacts produce secondary and indirect
effects which are long-term. In a sense, the impacts resulting from the con-
struction and operation of the proposed project are trade-offs for the long-
term productivity of the AWMA area. These long-term indirect effects can be
categorized according to their source - construction and operation processes.
7.1.1 Construction
The project will accommodate and encourage land use changes in the agricultural
open space areas of the region. There will be a reduction of open space due to
direct and indirect project impacts. The regional treatment plant will occupy
approximately 12 acres of land. The change of agricultural land to residential
or industrial use will cause a major reduction in open space. Wildlife will
decrease in numbers and some species requiring large areas of continuous open
space will disappear.
The short-term impact due to the construction of the project's facilities will
improve the quality of wastewater effluent, thereby maintaining the highest
possible quality of groundwater and marine water.
Coliform concentrations which have previously violated the acceptable stan-
dards of the Orange County Health Department will be corrected through the
construction of the new outfall facility.
The existing primary treatment process at the City of Laguna Beach's treat-
ment plant is not capable of meeting the Water Quality Control Plan for the
ocean waters of California. The age and condition of the plant and the diffi-
culty of obtaining replacement parts for much of the equipment raises severe
questions on its ability to remain in effective service. The replacement of
this facility by the proposed regional ocean outfall will insure the mainte-
nance of the marine environment and eliminate the possibility of physical
failure and pollution of the ocean and beaches.
The long-term impact of ocean outfall discharge cannot be assessed accurately
because present data are limited and monitoring programs in the vicinity of
the outfall are not available. In addition, experimental observations on
the nature and kinetics of very slow reactions at extreme dilution are
lacking.
The long-term productivity of the individual treatment plants within AWMA
will not be efficient. For example, without any improvements to the Rossmoor
treatment facilities to advanced wastewater treatment or completion of the
proposed project in 1977, land disposal of effluent from this plant will become
over-taxed in the late 1970's.
7-1
-------
The commitment of water to the operation of the project facilities will 'be an
unavoidable impact. However, the construction of the upper Aliso tertiary
treatment plant in Phase II (1985) of the proposed project will enhance the
long-term productivity of a high quality treated water to be made available
for reclamation and groundwater recharge.
7.1.2 Operation
The continued maintenance and operation of the proposed regional facilities
will require the consumption of energy (237 x 10(6) kilowatt-hours) in order
to meet the wastewater reclamation requirements of the Regional Water Quality
Control Boards. This commitment of energy consumption is a tradeoff for the
long-term maintenance of growth in the area.
The effect of the construction of the tertiary treatment plant in the Upper
Aliso area in 1985 will not only be to reclaim and recharge wastewater but the
central treatment plant and ocean outfalls would be reduced in capacity by
5 MGD. This would reduce the amount of effluent discharged into the ocean which
would have to be diluted and dispersed.
This treatment plant would remove the highly saline water in the Upper Aliso
basin and replenish it with secondary treated lower TDS supplies that would come
out of the tertiary plant. It is estimated that this process would take 10
years of groundwater recharge in order to eliminate enough salt from the
basin to enable the recharged groundwater to be utilized for agricultural
purposes.
The generation of population into the region will occur at an unforeseen
rate, but it can generally be forecast at certain periods throughout the
next 25 years. The project's capacity can be expanded to accept a popula-
tion greater than the E-0 projections, but not greater than the modified
Orange County projections. The operational flexibility of the proposed
project can meet the requirements for wastewater treatment whereas the
existing treatment facilities cannot easily be expanded to meet the same
requirements.
7.2 INFLUENCES OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT UPON GROWTH IN THE AWMA AREA
As discussed in Section 4.2, there are several land uses, land use policies,
economic trends and other factors which influence growth. The proposed pro-
ject can be considered a factor which, in conjunction with the policies, the
existing environment and the multitude of other factors, would further in-
duce and introduce population and economic growth into the AWMA area.
The pattern of urbanization usually moves outward from the border between the
urban and rural landscape where it becomes economically advantageous to con-
tinue development. The proposed regional wastewater treatment plant will not
only improve the level of wastewater treatment for the existing population,
but it will establish the framework for defining the areas within AWMA
available for future development. The wastewater treatment system then be-
comes another criterion for determining population growth. In recent years,
regulatory and planning agencies have been exerting a greater influence in
7-2
-------
controlling growth by relating such matters as air pollution and open space
to land use plans. While this trend,will remain, efforts are also being made
to control land use through limitations of capacity permitted to be provided
by utilities such as water and sewage.
Since it was realized that the introduction of the proposed wastewater treat-
ment facilities would generate a regional increase in population over a long
period of time, population projections were forecast in order to determine the
extent of treatment facilities that will ultimately be needed by the population
that will exist within the AWMA area. However, the proposed project will not,
by itself, be the final determinant of the ultimate regional population. Many
other factors will have an impact upon the AWMA region and final approval of
land use development plans will come from the proper governmental and/or
regulatory agency.
In fact, pressures outside of the AWMA area will have an effect upon the
development of the AWMA area. The Irvine Industrial Complex-East and the
Irvine Regional Center will have tremendous growth inducement upon the AWMA
area. Decisions made outside the influence of the AWMA area are creating
growth pressures which can only be reacted to and not necessarily modified or
altered by the AWMA members.
The AWMA region offers relatively vacant land that can be used to provide a
new living environment better than already existing areas of the county.
Through the development of planning reserve areas (e.g., Laguna-Aliso, South
Coast and Northern El Toro Planning Reserves), a more efficient utilization
of resources such as energy systems and modes of transportation is realized.
The proposed project will encourage development to take place within these
planning reserve areas since the wastewater system will be made available
prior to development. The project's facilities will strengthen the Planned
Community zoning regulation of the areas within AWMA by insuring the long-term
commitment and productivity of the proposed land uses.
The indirect effect of the proposed project is its generation of population.
By generating population the proposed project creates impacts upon air quality
and the other environmental and urban systems. The encouragement of develop-
ment due to the regional wastewater system will cause further commute dis-
tances, thereby producing air quality and transportation problems.
Based upon both the Orange County's Modified Growth Rate and the SCAG E-0
series of population projections the standards for hydrocarbons and oxides
of nitrogen will be far exceeded in 1985. Unless the mitigation measures
related to air quality in Chapter 4 are implemented, the ambient air quality
will be the only major long-term adverse effect produced by the short-term
uses of the environment.
7.2.1 Impacts on Land Value
The proposed project will create impacts on land values throughout the region
in much the same way that transportation corridors do. Land values fluctuate
7-3
-------
with proximity to freeways. Growth in this portion of the County has typically
followed the San Diego Freeway because it provides economic benefits in terms
of reduced travel times, due to easy access.
Access to the regional wastewater facilities will be a major factor for
locating development since the costs of connecting with the wastewater system
would be less expensive closer to a tie-up point in the system. Consequently,
land values will appreciate throughout the region.
The coastline property of the Irvine iCompany has experienced no growth in
the last 10 years. In general, the rate of growth has been much slower along
the coast than it has in the rest of Orange County. This is due to an in-
flated rate of land values which will make any future development along the
coastline high priced. Since no regional sewage treatment interceptors or
plants currently exist north of the City of Laguna Beach, the proposed North
Coast Interceptor will provide the backbone to service development within
the Irvine Ranch Water District. Therefore, the land values in this area
will increase.
The areas along the Aliso Creek which are primarily vacant now will increase
in value although planning policies will maintain the Aliso Canyon as a
regional greenbelt corridor.
The City of Laguna Beach will not be affected by the proposed project in
terms of either induced population growth or the relative increase in land
values. Laguna Beach has placed a population limit of 20,000 residents and
therefore will only need an upgraded wastewater system to meet the health
standards.
Overall, escalated land values will render future acquisition of parks and
recreation lands, as described in Section 2.8.2 more difficult to achieve.
Recreation demands for the area will increase as development proceeds, how-
ever, lands suited for these needs will diminish.
7-4
-------
Is)
-------
8.0 IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENTS OF RESOURCES
8.1 LAND USE COMMITMENTS
The environmental changes produced by the implementation of the proposed
project occur as a result of alterations to the physical environment in the
form of a commitment of land. The regional treatment plant will occupy 12
acres, permanently changing open space to an industrial land use. If the
proposed project is implemented the indirect effects of the project will not
become committed due to the existence of wastewater infrastructure. The
governmental and regulatory agencies will determine the patterns of develop-
ment. This means thalt there wouldn't necessarily be a reduction of open space
or a change of agricultural land to residential or industrial uses.
The major irreversible environmental changes will be indirect. The urbani-
zation of the AWMA area will be an irreversible environmental change that
will insure a long-term comrnitment to planned communities such as the South
Coast, Laguna-Aliso and Northern El Toro Planning Reserve Areas.
8.2 ENERGY REQUIREMENTS
The energy requirements of the proposed project will reduce the available
energy supply. Each proposed wastewater treatment alternative will irretrie-
vably reduce this energy supply. The primary effect of the proposed project
on energy supplies will center on electrical energy required to pump waste-
water from sources to the wastewater treatment plant. Comparatively, some
alternatives will utilize more energy than others, but this irretrievable
commitment of resources must be considered as an unavoidable impact that
will enhance the long-term productivity of the region. The following table
shows the energy requirement for each alternative.
ENERGY
ALTERNATIVE REQUIREMENTS
(kilowatt-hours)
1A 227 x 10(6)
2E 203.3 x 10(6)
2G 230.39 x 10(6)
3C 1,520 x 10(6)
4A 205.2 x 10(6)
4C N/A
2F 237.7 x 10(6)
Since one of the primary commitments of the proposed project is the irre-
trievable use of energy, the amount of energy expended by each alternative
for pumping raw sewage through the system is an important consideration in
evaluating the relative impacts of the laternatives. The following tables
(Tables 8-1 through 8-5) provide a quantitative energy expenditure break-
down for pumping raw sewage upgrade at each pump station.
8-1
-------
TABLE 8-1 Energy expenditure for pumping raw sewage up grade as designated in Project Alternative 1A.
PUMP STATIONS
PRESSURE HEAD^feet)
PERIODS (KW-HR/YRx 106)
Static Friction
Salt Creek - to Aliso PS
- to Arroyo Salada PS
Arroyo Salada - with Salt Creek
- without Salt Creek
Aliso Creek - with Salt Creek
- without Salt Creek
Rossmoor - location as in Alt. 2F
Morro Canyon
Emerald Bay
Broadway
Bluebird
TOTAL
125
60
150
150
65
65
120
150
90
30
100
20
20
15
15
10
10
20
6
4
10
15
Total
145
80
155
155
75
75
145
156
94
40
115
1975-8O
0.24
O.13
O.40
0.15
0.31
0.19
2.53
0.11
0.13
0.47
1 .36
1981-85
0.33
0.18
0.66
0.25
0.41
0.24
3.35
O.26
0.21
0.52
1 .51
1 986-90
0.43
0.23
0.86
O.40
0.53
0.31
3.93
O.40
0.30
0.57
1 .65
1991-95
0.51
0.28
1 .11
0.56
O.65
0.39
4.49
O.55
0.40
O.63
1 .80
with Salt Crk PS to Aliso PS
830
100
930
5.30
6.84
8.21
9.59
with Salt Crk PS to Arroyo
Salada PS
765
100
865
5.32
6.93
8.25
9.65
-------
8.0 IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENTS OF RESOURCES
8.1 LAND USE COMMITMENTS
The environmental changes produced by the implementation of the proposed
project occur as a result of alterations to the physical environment in the
form of a commitment of land. The regional treatment plant will occupy 12
acres, permanently changing open space to an industrial land use. If the
proposed project is implemented the indirect effects of the project will not
become committed due to the existence of wastewater infrastructure. The
governmental and regulatory agencies will determine the patterns of develop-
ment. This means that there wouldn't necessarily be a reduction of open space
or a change of agricultural land to residential or industrial uses.
The major irreversible environmental changes will be indirect. The urbani-
zation of the AWMA area will be an irreversible environmental change that
will insure a long-term commitment to planned communities such as the South
Coast, Laguna-Aliso and Northern El Toro Planning Reserve Areas.
8.2 ENERGY REQUIREMENTS
The energy requirements of the proposed project will reduce the available
energy supply. Each proposed wastewater treatment alternative will irretrie-
vably reduce this energy supply. The primary effect of the proposed project
on energy supplies will center on electrical energy required to pump waste-
water from sources to the wastewater treatment plant. Comparatively, some
alternatives will utilize more energy than others, but this irretrievable
commitment of resources must be considered as an unavoidable impact that
will enhance the long-term productivity of the region. The following table
shows the energy requirement for each alternative.
ENERGY
ALTERNATIVE REQUIREMENTS
(kilowatt-hours)
1A 227 x 10(6)
2E 203.3 x 10(6)
2G 230.39 x 10(6)
3C 1,520 x 10(6)
4A 205.2 x 10(6)
4C N/A
2F 237.7 x 10(6)
Since one of the primary commitments of the proposed project is the irre-
trievable use of energy, the amount of energy expended by each alternative
for pumping raw sewage through the system is an important consideration in
evaluating the relative impacts of the laternatives. The following tables
(Tables 8-1 through 8-5) provide a quantitative energy expenditure break-
down for pumping raw sewage upgrade at each pump station.
8-1
-------
TABLE 8-1 Energy expenditure for pumping raw sewage up grade as designated in Project Alternative 1A.
PUMP STATIONS
PRESSURE HEAD_(feet)
PERIODS (KW-HR/YRx 106)
Static Friction
Salt Creek - to Aliso PS
- to Arroyo Salada PS
Arroyo Salada - with Salt Creek
- without Salt Creek
Aliso Creek - with Salt Creek
- without Salt Creek
Rossmoor - location as in Alt. 2F
Morro Canyon
Emerald Bay
Broadway
Bluebird
TOTAL
125
60
150
150
65
65
120
150
90
30
100
20
20
15
15
10
10
20
6
4
10
15
Total
145
80
155
155
75
75
145
156
94
40
115
1975-80
0.24
0.13
0.40
0.15
0.31
0.19
2.53
0.11
0.13
0.47
1 .36
1981-85
0.33
0.18
0.66
0.25
0.41
0.24
3.35
0.26
0.21
0.52
1 .51
1 986-90
0.43
0.23
0.86
0.40
0.53
0.31
3.93
0 . 40
0.3O
0.57
1 .65
1991-95
0.51
0.28
1.11
0.56
O.65
0.39
4.49
O.55
0.4O
0.63
1 .80
with Salt Crk PS to Aliso PS
830 1OO
930
5.30
6.84
8.21
9.59
with Salt Crk PS to Arroyo
Salada PS
765 100
865
5.32
6.93
8.25
9.65
-------
TABLE 8-2 Energy expenditure for pumping raw sewage up grade as designated in Project Alternative 2G.
PUMP STATIONS
PRESSURE HEAD (feet)
PERIODS (KW-HR/YR x 106)
Static Friction
Salt Creek - to Aliso PS
- to Arroyo Salada PS
Arroyo Salada - with Salt Creek
- without Salt Creek
Aliso Creek - with Salt Creek
- without Salt Creek
Morro Canyon
Emerald Bay
Broadway
Bluebird
LAWD PS
ETWD PS
TOTAL
125
60
150
15O
65
65
150
90
30
100
105
120
20
20
15
15
10
10
6
4
10
15
15
20
Total
145
80
155
155
75
75
156
94
40
115
120
140
1 975-80
0.24
0.13
0.40
0.15
0.31
0.19
0.11
0.13
0.47
1 .36
0.63
0.99
1981-85
0.33
0.18
0.66
0.25
0.41
0.24
0.26
0.21
0.52
1 .51
1 .06
1 .09
1 986-90
0.43
0.23
0.86
0.40
0.53
0.31
0.40
0.30
0.57
1 .65
1 .27
1 .25
1991-95
0.51
O.28
1.11
O.56
0.65
0.39
O.55
0.40
0.63
1 .80
1 .46
1 .42
with Salt Crk PS to Aliso PS
with Salt Crk PS to Arroyo
Salada PS
935
870
115
115
1050
985
4.39
4.37
5.64
5.73
6.80
6 .%
8.00
8.06
-------
TABLE 8-3 Energy expenditure for pumping raw sewage up grade as designated in Project Alternative 4A.
PUMP STATIONS
PRESSURE HEAD (feet)
PERIODS (KW-HR/YR x 1
Static Friction
Salt Creek - to Aliso PS
- to Arroyo Salada PS
Arroyo Salada •>• with Salt Creek
•* without Salt Creek
Aliso Creek - with Salt Creek
- without Salt Creek
Morro Canyon
Emerald Bay .
Broadway
Bluebird
MNWD-4A Plant -. Influent
125
60
150
150
65
65
150
90
30
1OO
50
20
20
15
15
10
10
6
4
10
15
10
Total
145
8O
155
155
75
75
156
94
40
115
50
1975-80
0.24
0.13
0.40
0.15
O.31
O.19
0.11
0.13
0.47
1 .36
0.52
1981-85
0.33
0.18
0.66
0.25
0.41
0.24
0,26
0.21
0.52
1 .51
O.81
1986-90
0.43
0.23
O.86
O.40
0.53
O.31
0.40
0.30
O.57
1 .65
1 .05
1991-95
0.51
0.28
1.11
0.56
0.65
0.39
0.55
0.40
0.63
1 .80
1 ,30
TOTAL
with Salt Crk PS to Aliso PS
760
90
850
3.29
4.30
5.33
6.40
with Salt Crk PS to Arroyo
Salada PS
695
90
785
3.27
4,39
5?37
6,46
-------
TABLE 8-4 Energy expenditure for pumping raw sewage up grade as designated in Project Alternative 2E & 2F,
PUMP STATIONS
PRESSURE HEAD (feet)
PERIODS (KW HR/YR x 106)
Static Friction
Salt Creek - to Aliso PS
- to Arroyo Salada PS
Arroyo Salada - with Salt Creek
- without Salt Creek
Aliso Creek - with Salt Creek
- without Salt Creek
Rossmoor - location as in Alt. 2F
Morro Canyon
Emerald Bay
Broadway
Bluebird
TOTAL
125
60
150
150
65
65
12O
150
90
30
100
20
20
15
15
10
10
20
6
4
10
15
Total
145
80
155
155
75
75
145
156
94
40
115
1975-80
0.24
0.13
0.40
0.15
0.31
0.19
2.92
0.11
0.13
0.47
1 .36
1981-85
0.33
0.18
0.66
0.25
0.41
0.24
3.87
0.26
0.21
0.52
1 .51
1 986-90
0.43
0.23
0.86
0.40
0.53
0.31
4.53
0.40
0.30
0.57
1 .65
1991-95
0.51
0.28
1 .11
0.56
O.65
0.39
5.18
0.55
0.40
0.63
1 .80
with Salt Crk PS to Aliso PS
with Salt Crk PS to Arroyo
Salada PS
830
765
100
100
930
865
5.69
5.67
7.36
7.45
8.81
8.85
10.28
10.34
-------
TABLE 8-5 Energy expenditure for pumping raw sewage up grade as designated-in Project Alternative 3C.
PUMP STATIONS
Salt Creek - to Aliso PS
•*• to Arroyo Salada PS
Arroyo Salada - with Salt Creek
- without Salt Creek
Aliso Creek - with Salt Creek
- without Salt Creek
Rbssmobr - location as in Alt. 2F
Morro Canyon
Emerald Bay
Broadway
Bluebird
Regional Plant - Influent
RECLAMATION PUMPING
Aliso drainage
North Coastal drainage
TOTAL
PRESSURE HEAD (feet)
PERIODS (KW-HR/VR x 1 Q6)
with Salt Crk PS to Aliso PS
with Salt Crk PS to Arroyo
Salada PS
Static
125
60
150
150
65
65
120
150
90
30
100
50
Friction
20
20
15
15
10
10
20
6
4
10
15
10
Total
145
80
155
155
75
75
145
156
94
40
115
60
1100
600
1975-80
0.24
0.13
-Q.40
0.15
O.31
O.19
2.92
0.11
O.13
0.47
1 .36
1 .97
18.5
5.68
1981-85
0.33
0.18
0.66
0.25
0.41
0.24
9.87
0.26
0.21
0.52
1 .51
2.74
32.1
6.15
1 986-90
0.43
0.23
O.86
O.40
0.53
0.31
4.53
0.40
O.30
0.57
1 .64
3. 01
40.1
6.55
1991-95
O.51
0.28
1 .11
0.56
0.65
0.39
5.18
0.55
0.40
0.63
1 .80
3.96
50.9
6.94
880
815
110
110
269O
2625
31 .84
31 .82
48.35
48.44
58.47
58.51
72.08
72.14
-------
It is important to note a few different aspects of these tables to compare
the impact of different components of the alternatives. First, the total
energy expenditure of each alternative utilizing the Salt Creek Pump Station
as it pumps sewage to the Aliso Creek Pump Station would be lower, but almost
equivalent if the alternatives were to be constructed with the Salt Creek
Pump Station pumping sewage to the Arroyo Salada Pump Station.
Although the energy expenditures will be approximately equivalent, the dif-
ference in pressure heads is substantial. If the Salt Creek pump station
was constructed to pump to the Aliso pump station the pressure head would be
145 feet as opposed to 80 feet for the Arroyo Salada pressure head.
Secondly, Alternatives 2F and 2E were combined in one table because the re-
quirements were approximately the same for the pumping facilities. The
energy expenditure for the advanced wastewater treatment portion of Alter-
native 2F is coincidental with the energy requirement expenditure of land
reclamation in Alternative 2E.
From the standpoint of energy expenditure, Alternative 2G, compared to
Alternatives 2E and 2F, would be the most cost effective. Alternative
2G eliminates double-pumping in the Upper Aliso area. Alternative 2G would
therefore conserve valuable energy resources and increase the reliability
and efficiency of the operation of the facilities. From the standpoint of
pumping alone, Alternative 2G would, by 1995, save approximately 3,898,000
kilowatt-hours.
Population growth in an automobile dependent area will result in an increase
in Vehicle Miles Travelled (VMT). Population growth made possible by com-
pletion of the proposed project may result in 2,370,000 miles per day of
additional automobile travel, and 200,000 gallons per day of additional
gasoline consumption.
8.3 WATER RESOURCES
The function of the wastewater system is to produce an environmentally com-
patible wastewater that can be reclaimed or discharged into the land and
marine environment. The commitment of constructing the wastewater facilities
results in an irreversible use of the marine environment for dilution and
dispersion of effluent and the use of the land for irrigation and groundwater
recharge. This commitment results in an irreversible impact upon the exist-
ing marine water and groundwater systems. However, the advanced technology
of the proposed project will produce an effluent that will be highly compatible
with the natural ground and ocean waters. As an example, the water discharged
into the Upper Aliso basin will improve the quality of the highly saline
groundwater, thereby retrieving the groundwater as a usable future resource.
8-2
-------
8.4 SCIENTIFIC RESOURCES
8.4.1 Paleontological Resources
The Aliso Creek Watershed and the geographic area it affects, contains one of
the most important paleontological regions in the United States. To list and
describe every known fossil site in the Aliso drainage system would be in-
adequate because the entire area contains fossils in varying degrees of abun-
dance and many sites will be discovered during grading. It is inevitable that
sites will be uncovered during the construction of the project; consequently
there are certain recommendations that will reduce the impact, when possible,
and provide a plan for the preservation and salvage of fossils in danger of
destruction. The paleontologists make the following recommendations:
1. A qualified paleontologist must be given the opportunity to survey the
area to be graded or developed as far as possible in advance of the
grading date.
a. A qualified paleontologist should be a scientist who has completed
at least his B.S. in paleontology and has commenced advanced work in
paleontology, has worked in the county and is familiar with the
regional fossils and geologic formations, and who is acknowledged
by other paleontologists in Southern California.
This statement has been added to emphasize the necessity of having
a skilled paleontologist on the site. In the past, unqualified
consultants such as archaeologists and soil engineers have made
decisions which have led to the destruction of great fossil accu-
mulations. Similarly, a paleontologist who is present during
grading must have had broad field experience in surveying and
salvaging fossils.
2. Because of the abundance of fossils within the Aliso drainage area, a
paleontologist must be given the opportunity to be present during all
grading and excavation. The paleontolgist should be permitted to remove
any fossils, using proper recovery techniques, and using a paleontolo-
gical salvage team, if necessary.
At all times developers and grading crews must respect the scientific
significance of the paleontologist's work and cooperate with the paleon-
tologist and salvage teams to recover maximum scientific information
about the prehistory of the area.
3. Paleontological specimens and data must be placed in a public institution
such as the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County, Geology De-
partment of UCLA, Geology Department of Chapman College, or Geology
Department of UCR. These specimens and data must be available to
anyone who wishes to research and study them.
4. When possible, fossil sites should be preserved. Often greenbelts or
parks can be developed upon fossil sites thus preserving them, and in
some cases, actually incorporating a display of the fossils "in situ"
8-3
-------
for school children to observe. If large bone beds are discovered, con-
sideration should be given to establishing a wind-sun shelter under
which an on-going dig could be made by scientists and college students
in the county. This would have great appeal to tourists as well as
students. Several such parks have been established in the United States
that utilize fossil sites and on-going digs, notably Dinosaur National
Monument, Agate Springs, La Brea Tar Pits, and Dinosaur State Park
(Connecticut).
5. If any fossils are found in this area, a paleontologist must immediately
be notified. Dr. Lawrence G. Barnes, Natural History Museum of Los
Angeles County (213) 746-0410; Mr. Jack Mount, Geology Department,
University of California at Riverside (714) 787-3440; and Carol J.
Stadum, Huntington Beach High School (714) 536-2514, will be able to
provide assistance.
8.4.2 Archaeological Resources
Given the distribution of known archaeological sites and the probable loca-
tion of those yet to be recorded, it is very likely that construction can
adversely affect archaeological resources. Surveys on the Moulton Ranch
indicate numerous sites in areas likely to exhibit middens representing
long-term occupations. These substantial deposits present greater mitigation
problems than other types of sites.
While the AWMA project may not be the causal element of population increases
within this district, it is an important component of urban growth. Indirect
or secondary effects of increased development will be far-reaching. The San
Joaquin Hills are a unique feature of Orange County; the archaeological com-
plexes here and in the northern El Toro district are also unique. The site
density for most areas of AWMA exceeds that of other areas of Orange County
with the exception of the coastline and areas about marshes. Increased
disturbance of archaeological remains by development is inevitable in all areas
of AWMA excepting the eastern margin. In this region the few sites, several
of which are very important, may be more easily incorporated into residential
planning than the other regions where sites are numerous.
In order to reduce the possibility of archaeological resources becoming irre-
trievable, archaeological reconnaissance should be undertaken to mitigate
possible adverse impacts of proposed construction. Once specific locations
or specific alternatives have been established a systematic survey should be
made to assess the impact of construction. Field reconnaissance is necessary
since not all areas have been thoroughly investigated, particularly with re-
gard to buried deposits. Indirect effects may be partially mitigated by
long range planning for the district as a whole. With regards to archaeolo-
gical resources, high density development should be focused in those parts
of El Toro, Laguna Hills, Moulton Ranch, Laguna Niguel, Bear Brand, and
Colinas that exhibit low site density. Programs of archaeological salvage
and protection should be instituted for the remainder of lands within AWMA.
A great many archaeological sites are located in steep or rough terrain, areas
best suited for open space. Sites in other areas should be incorporated into
plans with as little disturbance of the deposits as possible. Considering
8-4
-------
the number of sites being destroyed in Orange County and elsewhere in Southern
California, archaeologists would prefer that sites be protected in open space
or covered over, leaving the remains intact for possible future study. Des-
pite previous development, lands within AWMA still exhibit a wide range of
archaeological resources, sites that are uniquely important to an under-
standing of Orange County prehistory.
8.4.3 Biological Resources
The San Joaquin Hills, which comprise almost 60% of the AWMA area, are com-
prised of several unique and/or endangered habitat types occurring in the
Southern California coastal zone. In addition to displaying a diverse flora,
the coastal hills' environment provides suitable habitat for many rare and
threatened faunal species or populations. The AWMA project itself will have
negligible primary impacts upon these terrestrial biological resources.
Secondary impacts, however, created by population growth and housing devel-
opments will have significant effects on these resources. A detailed field
analysis should preceed any development and a complete biological resource
survey should be included as part of the planning process.
Several endangered habitat types occurring in the AWMA area have already
been identified and are listed in the Coastal Land Environment prepared by
the California Coastal Zone Conservation Commission (1974).fn the past,
loss of habitat has been the prime cause for the decline in numbers of
species to endangered status. Preservation of sensitive habitat types in-
corporated with proper conservation measures provides protection of potentially
endangered species. Therefore, unique and/or endangered habitat types should
be recognized and conserved early in the planning process before additional
growth in the AWMA area occurs.
8-5
-------
l_l
-------
9.0 PUBLIC INPUT
9.1 COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE DRAFT EIS
A public hearing on the draft EIS for this project was held on March 25,
1975, in Laguna Niguel. As expected, concern was expressed over potential
growth inducement and many people supported reclamation concepts. In
addition, the plant site emerged as an item of great public concern. This
concern prompted the EPA to reject the Aliso Canyon plant site location.
In this chapter, all comments received on the EIS will be presented, fol-
lowed by EPA's responses to each comment. First, a chronology of public
participation will be presented. Then comments dealing strictly with the
plant site issue will be summarized. A section summarizing comments re-
ceived at the public hearing will follow. Finally, all written comments
received on the EIS will be reproduced, followed by summaries of the com-
ments and EPA's responses.
9.2 CHRONOLOGY
The Final Environmental Impact Report for the Aliso Water Management Agency
Project prepared under the guidelines established by the California Environ-
mental Quality Act of 1970 (Chapter 1433, Statutes of 1970, Public Resources
Code, Section 2100-21150) had considerable public and governmental input.
The following chronology of events and written comments outlines the public
hearing process of the AWMA Project.
CHRONOLOGY OF EVENTS
Mar 1, 72 Aliso Water Management Agency Established
Sep 1, 72 Completion of the AWMA Project Report prepared by Boyle
Engineering
Sep 1, 72 Completion of the AWMA Environmental Impact Study prepared
by Jones and Stokes Associates, Inc.
Apr 23, 73 Permit approval for the construction of the AWMA ocean out-
fall by the California Coastal Zone Conservation Commission,
South Coast Region
Jun 20, 73 Permit approval for the construction of the AWMA ocean out-
fall by the California Coastal Zone Conservation Commission.
Dec 27, 73 Environmental Opportunities Workshop on the AWMA Draft EIR
held at the South Laguna Sanitary District Offices
Feb 22, 74 Completion of AWMA Project Report prepared by Don Owen and
Associates
Mar 26, 74 Public hearing for the AWMA Draft EIR in the City of Laguna
Beach Council Chambers
9-1
-------
Apr 23, 74 Continued public hearing for the AWMA Draft EIR at the
Irvine Ranch Water District
May 2, 74 Meeting with the Environmental Protection Agency and State
Water Resources Control Board to receive comments on the AWMA
Draft EIR and Project Report
May 7, 74 Final Public Hearing for the AWMA Draft EIR at the City of
Irvine City Council Chambers
May 28, 74 Public Hearing for the AWMA Draft EIR by the Orange County
Planning Commission
Jun 7, 74 Orange County Board of Supervisors passes Air Quality Reso-
lution
Jun 12, 74 City of Laguna Beach passes Air Quality Resolution
Jun 26, 74 Completion of the AWMA Final EIR
Nov 4, 74 NPDES (Waste Discharge Requirements) Permit for AWMA approved
by the California Regional Water Quality Control Board, San
Diego Region
Feb 75 Completion of the EPA Draft EIS for the AWMA Project
Feb 75 Completion of the AWMA Draft EIR prepared by Clean Water
Consultants
Mar 25, 75 Public Hearing for the EPA Draft EIS held at the GSA facil-
ity on the Moulton Ranch
Apr 75 The State Water Resources Control Board, in compliance with
the Coastal Commission permit conditions, recommended
outfall design capacities for the AWMA Project
Apr 3, 75 Public Hearing for the AWMA Draft EIR held at the Orange
County Planning Commission Chambers
May 6, 75 EPA finds the Alternative 2-G regional treatment plant site
is unacceptable and determines that EPA grant funds will be
made to AWMA only if measures are developed or prepared to
resolve the proposed level of development and the inconsis-
tency with the Clean Air Act
Jun 16, 75 Completion of AWMA Final EIR as prepared by Clean Water
Consultants
9-2
-------
Several issues surfaced either during public hearings or by written communi-
cation on the ElR between December 1973 and November 1974. These include:
I. Growth Inducing Impacts
A. Air Quality
B. Water Quality
1. Surface water
2. Ground water basins
3. The marine environment
C. Loss of Open Space (in particular the Aliso-Laguna Greenbelt area)
D. Loss of Archaeological and Paleontological Resources
II. Cost/Benefits of each Alternative, particular emphasis on reclamation.
III. Description of marine habitat and wildlife along the ocean outfall
alignment.
IV. Monitoring and maintenance of raw sewage interceptors and pump stations
in unpopulated areas.
To the extent possible, these issues have received additional consideration
in this EIS.
9.3 COMMENTS ON THE PLANT SITE AND ALTERNATIVES
The following individuals and organizations supported Alternative IA, for
the most part, on the plant site issue:
Michael Lynd; California Coastal Zone Conservation Commission; Don Ferguson;
William Suddaby; U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service,
River Basins Office; Santiago Heights Property Owners Association; the Laguna
Greenbelt Inc. (James Oil ley, Harry Jeffrey, Elinor Davis and Betty Heckel as
members); Roberta Thayer and Linda Harrington, American Association of Uni-
versity Women, Laguna Beach; City of Laguna Beach (Roy Holm, Mayor; Carl
Johnson, vice mayor; Charlton Boyd, Jon Brand, and Phyllis Sweeney, Council-
members); Chas Dunway; Sierra Club, Orange County Group; E. Hoffman; David
Baker; H. M. Anderson; Helen Gregory; Margaret Baggs, Mrs. R. H. Bain; Mr.
and Mrs. Richard Brandwine; Desomount Club; Bill Sues, Mary Sues, Jim
Mamer, Candice Mamer; Debbie Neumann, Dee Dee Challis, Lisa Hartley, James
Searby, Brent Lowe, Mike Briggs, Alex Warrick, Randy Landon, Dwight Miller,
Mary Ann Ottmer, Carey Conklin; Kurt Westguard, Beth Reilly, Matt Muiphine,
Melody Berryhill, Marcia Daley, Candee Cullen, Carol Moffat, Patty Rodriguez,
Darrell Faccio, Garry Dometriotes, Norman Clark, Sherry Garcia, Karen Krause,
Marina Van Gores, Gary Suffin, Susan Vincent, Nona Arman, Steve Modiano,
Pat Joseph O'Hara, Richard Fireberg, Paul Kohut, Jennifer Moskowitz, Bridget
Hoff, Cherrell Digframe, Steve Tat, Tom Van Luchene, Heidi Burkhardt, Fre
Hollister, Alan Gilbly, and Fary Langenheim, Laguna Beach High School;
Carol Thompson; Helen Brockmeier; Henry Weber of California Garden Clubs;
W. H. Vernor, Citizens Town Planning Association; Dorothy Woods; Lloyd Johnson,
Ray Moose; Elsie Moose; Ralph Netzley; Edna Netzley; E. E. Ayrns; Virginia
Gray; La Vina Vos; D. Bresnahan; John N. Daniel, Sherry Stephens of Laguna
9-3
-------
Beach Junior Women's Club; Carmen Perry and Bill Ives of Irvine Teachers
Association; Joan Petty of Orange County League of Women Voters; Alvin
Wienie; John Daniel; G. H. Kirkpatrick, Laguna Citizens Town Planning
Association; Tom Alexander and Ron Chi 1 cote, Temple Hills Community Associa-
tion (or 92 individuals and 15 organizations).
Foothill Communities Association, Inc., and Ron Yeo objected to a site in
Aliso Canyon, although they did not specify an alternative site.
The Orange County Planning Commission had serious problems with the site for
Alternative 2G and tended to favor Alternative 1A, but they desired more
analysis.
The State Department of Parks and Recreation's State Historic Preservation
Officer, the Department of the Interior, the Advisory Council on Historic
Preservation, Marian Parks and Roberta Greenwood all objected to plant loca-
tions which would directly affect any of the valuable archaeological sites in
Aliso Valley. Alternative 2G would have been located on an archaeological
site, and the site would have needed to be at least partially excavated.
William Leak of Village Laguna favored an interim A solution, using the con-
cept of Alternative 1A, but delaying construction of treatment plant capa-
city to the maximum extent possible.
Lorell Long of the South Laguna Civic Association favored Alternative 3C
for reclamation reasons. (Several of those who favored Alternative 1A
also favored Alternative 3C).
Roscoe Poland of the San Diego Audubon Society and Margaret Carl berg, Chuck
Greening, Gerald Podolak, Harry Jeffrey and Dale Secord of the Environmental
Coalition opposed any Federal funding for the project without drastic revi-
sions.
The following individuals and organizations favored Alternative 2G:
The California Regional Water Quality Control Board, San Diego Region;
the Orange County Chamber of Commerce; H. L. Remmers, Moulton-Miguel
Water District; the Aliso Water Management Agency; the Saddleback Area Coor-
dinating Council; Robert Price of Leisure World Community; Assemblyman Robert
Badham; State Senator Dennis Carpenter; Robert Moore of the Santa Ana Water-
shed Planning Agency, Bob Miller; V. P. Baker, Los Alisos Water District;
Warren Wilson, Rancho Mission Viejo; Hugh Walker, El Toro Water District;
G. W. Ferguson of Orange County Council for Environment of Excellence,
Full Employment and a Strong Economy through Planned Development (CEEED);
D.L. Langton, Santa Ana College; Clark McDermed, South Laguna Sanitation
District; Ralph Kiser, Orange County Coast Association; Clay Mitchell,
South Laguna Sanitation District; Jeff Lodder, Mission Viejo Company; William
Thrash, Presley Corporation; and Thomas Swanson, Emerald Bay Service Dis-
trict (or 23 individuals and 17 agencies and organizations.
9-4
-------
9.4 COMMENTS RECEIVED AT'THE PUBLIC HEARING REQUIRING A RESPONSE -••
California Garden Clubs, Inc., Dr. Henry M. Weber - -
Laguna Greenbelt, Inc., Dr. Harry P. Jeffrey
Los Alisos Water District, Mr. V. P. Baker
State Water Quality Control Board, Mr. Ladin H. Delaney
CEEED, Mr. G. W. Ferguson
Orange County Coast Association, Mr. Ralph C. Kiser
Mr. Alvin Wiehle - .
South Laguna Sanitary District, Mr. Clay N. Mitchell
Ms. Abigail H. Alderman
City of Laguna Beach, Mr. Roy W. Holm, Mayor; Ms. Phyllis Sweeney,
Council woman
'San Clemente Citizens, Ms. Dorothy Fuller
The Environmental Coalition, Inc., Mr. Dale A. Secord
Laguna Greenbelt, Inc., Mr. Michael A. Schley
SUMMARY COMMENTS
Dr. Henry M. Weber
California Garden Clubs, Inc.
1. This project is a first step in the destruction of thousands of acres
of potential agricultural land. Therefore, with a food crisis already a
reality, no action should be taken until Assembly Bill 15 has had adequate
consideration by the State Assembly.
R-l. Approximately 13% of the AWMA'area, or 6,358 acres, contains prime
agricultural soils. These soils are almost exclusively located on valley
and'-canyon floors and many areas, such as Laguna Canyon, have already been
urbanized. For a more complete discussion, see Section 2.4.4, Agricultural
Soils and Chapter 4.0, 'Secondary Impacts of the Project in the Final EIS.
Dr. Harry P. Jeffrey
Laguna Greenbelt
1. Although AWMA argues that this project will not induce growth because
other modes of sewage treatment, such as septic tanks, could be used,
it is absurd to expect a large population to utilize these methods without
drastic effects upon the environment. Also, the State Department of
Health has strict regulations governing the issuance of permits for septic
tanks' and only-a few permits are granted annually.
R-l. On the contrary, many permits for septic' tanks are issued. As
for the other alternative methods of sewage disposal and their impacts
upon the environment, please' refer to Section 4.4 of the EIS.
* ' - • --' ' * \ ' ' •
2. Population growth -is t'he: criteria on which AWMA is based. If it
weren't for population growth, this project would probably not be con-
si dered.
9-5
-------
R-2. Problems currently exist which need to be solved. The scope of
the solution depends upon projected population growth.
3. The projected population size and the proposed treatment capacity
in the EIS are unclear.
R-3. This information in the EIS has been clarified in Section 4.3.4 of
the Final EIS..
4. SCAG, the Orange County Planning Commission, and the California
Coastal Zone Conservation Commission have all proposed lower densities.
R-4. Only the Coastal Commission has made such a proposal and only for
the portion of AWMA over which it has authority. The County of Orange
has adopted an LUE which would locate more people within AWMA than pro-
jections serve. Refer,to Exhibits 4-8, 4-9, and 4-10 in the Final EIS.
5. The stationary emissions from the AWMA sewage treatment plant in-
cinerator will contribute significantly to air pollution.
R-5. Particulate emissions are not the air quality problem. Particulate
emissions are controllable with devices currently available.
. V. P. Baker
Los Alisos Water District
1. In 1968, the Los Alisos Water District held an election and a bond
for 15 or 16 million dollars which was approved by 99.76% of the voters.
The people in this district favor the AWMA project.
R-l. The Los Alisos Water District is a California Water District. Water
districts of this type restrict voting to land owners, irregardless of
residency and the number of votes each land owner has is based upon the
assessed value of his property. Therefore, the election does not neces-
sarily indicate the desires of the people who reside within the district.
Ladin H. Delaney
State of California
California Regional Water Quality Control Board
. . San Diego Region
In the interest of regionalization, the regional board supports Alternative
2-G, not only for reasons of economy, but also for the reliability of opera-
tion. The board feels that the system which is adopted should be adequately
sized in order to minimize the direct economic costs and environmental dis-
ruptions involved with construction.
R-l. Please refer to .the EIS for a discussion of the comparative reliability
of the alternatives. The maximum capacity of the project has been dictated
by the Coastal Commission (Section 4.3.4 of the Final EIS).
9-6
-------
G. W. Ferguson
CEEED
2. The growth of Orange County has continued unabated at 60 to 70,000
people per year. This is a fact of life. These people are not coming from
outside of the state, but are our own children. They are the result of a
national population increase. As children become adults, they will need
houses, water, sewage service, and roads in order to lead their own lives.
R-l. Population growth within Orange County is actually about 50,000 people
per year. Of this total, 30,000 to 40,000 people are migrating into the
County, mostly from other areas of the state.
Ralph C. Kiser
Orange County Coastal Association
1. It is not factual to say that growth can be reduced by eliminating
regional wastewater treatment systems. Smaller private systems may be
built and the result would be an ultimate increased cost to the residents
and taxpayers.
R-l. These higher costs are a partial deterrent to development.
Alvin Wiehle
South Laguna
2. Today there are many unsold homes available in the county. Further-
more, the old growth rate and development pattern may change in the future
and projections cannot be relied upon. My question is why is either alter-
native 2G or 1A needed?
R-l. The existing problems described in Chapter 4 of the EIS need to be
solved. The scope of the project is affected by population projections,
not the need for the project.
Clay N. Mitchell
President, South Laguna Sanitary District
1. The regional plant proposed in Alternative 2G can be completely con-
cealed from view within the canyon by heavy landscaping. We have been
discussing the use of California Holly, Toyans, Sycamores and Torrey Pines -
all native plants - for landscaping. Also, adequate room for bicycle and
riding trails, etc., will be provided.
R-l. This indicates the willingness of the applicant to try to make the
project consistent with the recreational use of Aliso Creek.
9-7
-------
Abigail H. Alderman
1, We can attempt to .improve a situation, but may discover that the solution
has caused even greater problems than we ever envisioned. There was a case
in Japan where methyl mercury was discharged with the sewage effluent. It
was absorbed into the food chain and eventually crippled people.
R-l. It has been our goal throughout this in-depth study to consider all
eventualities. Using the knowledge and tools we now have available, and
taking into consideration the area involved, we feel confident that there
will not be any future problems of any consequence. The cited example in
Japan was, indeed, serious. However, with the knowledge that there are no
heavy metals in this case, and with other safeguards taken, such a dilemma
will not occur here.
Roy L. Holm
Major of Laguna Beach
1. The City of Laguna Beach favors alternative 1A if modified so that
the proposed treatment plant is located not in Woods Canyon, but in a
more environmentally acceptable area.
R-l. Alternative 1-A has been modified. The treatment plant 'is now
proposed to be located adjacent to the GSA facility at Moulton Miguel
1A site as one of the alternatives.
2. We would have expected a more complete evaluation of the process
of reclamation.
R-2. The discussion of reclamation has been expanded (see Section 3.2.1.4),
3. We would also like to suggest a more complete treatment of the
question of air quality.
R-3. The EIS discusses current air quality and the impacts of urbaniza-
tion in terms of traffic generation and consistency with the State Imple-
mentation Plan (SIP). No verifiable model is available to actually
predict future air quality. So discussion necessarily is limited to
compatibility with SIP control strategy. ,
!
4. We've been repeatedly told by 4 members of AWMA that they\will build
the 2G alternative in any event. If this is the case, what happens then
to Laguna's sewage problem if these agencies go their own way?
R-4. If AWMA goes against EPA's recommendations, there will be no federal
grant. This will unfortunately affect Laguna Beach. The City;will still
be required to meet NPDES requirements.
9-8
-------
Phyllis Sweeney
Laguna Beach City Council
1. The City of Laguna Beach is opposed to and views with great concern
any plan that would wipe out the Aliso Creek Corridor. The dollar loss
of the destruction of Aliso Creek is not considered or addressed in the
EIS in relationship to Alternative 2-G.
R-l. The existence of a regional treatment plant in Aliso Canyon would
not prevent recreation within the corridor; instead, it would change the
character of the recreational experience. We do not feel it is possible
to quantify this in monetary terms.
Dorothy Fuller
San Clemente Citizens
1. The AWMA EIS does not adequately discuss the SERRA project. Accord-
ing to Federal regulations, both these projects should be considered con-
currently, as the primary and secondary impacts of one project affect the
other one.
R-l. The EIS has been modified to discuss the relationship of the AWMA
and SERRA projects and the reasons for separating the projects into two
EISs.
The intent of these regulations is clearly to insure that impacts are not
considered piecemeal when the overall impacts are significant. However,
the secondary impacts of each project are significant and has caused the
EPA to prepare impact statements and seek methods to minimize those
impacts. This is the desired course of action and would not be made more
effective by considering the projects in one document.
Dale A. Secord
1. J would suggest that the scope of the project itself be limited.
Each alternative serves basically the same purpose. Each is the same
size. The EIS should consider reducing the size of facilities and cutting
segments of interceptors.
R-l. Section 4.3.3.3 describes the relative effects of various sewerage
facilities. EPA feels that the original size of facilities is relatively
unimportant in determining development patterns. On the other hand,
the location of facilities, particularly interceptors, does affect urban-
ization patterns. This is a valuable comment on segmenting interceptors
and was taken into consideration in the determination of final mitigation
measures.
2. Another possible alternative is the staged construction of facilities.
For example, you could have a phased development over the next 10 years,
adding sections on a pre-arranged schedule.
9-9
-------
R-2. This is basically what 1-A (modified) proposes to do.
3. I think that the Federal government should not grant any money to
this project since some members of AWMA are California Water Districts.
Voting in these districts, for the board of directors or for bonds, is
not by popular vote. This situation can be changed and AWMA certainly
has the power to try to implement a revision of the voting pattern.
R-3. This concept would certainly improve the long-term accountability
of California Water Districts. However, it shows little promise as a
mitigation for the short and medium term impacts of urbanization. Further,
the water district is a creation of the State of California and State
action would be required to change the system.
4. AWMA cannot really implement the mitigation measures proposed in
the EIS, only general purpose governments can. However, in June of 1974,
both the Orange County Supervisors and the Laguna Beach City Council
passed resolutions recognizing that attempts by AWMA to solve water
quality problems would or could cause air quality problems which might
have to be alleviated by land-use controls. This is your opportunity
to work with these governments to implement the suggested alternatives
or mitigation measures put forth in the EIS.
R-4. Chapter 5.0 of the Final EIS describes the selected wastewater manage-
ment alternative for AWMA. As noted in this chapter, the Final Mitigation
Plan for AWMA will be addressed at the Phase III level of the total project.
Sections 5.2.2 and 5.3.3 discuss this subject in detail.
5. I suggest that additional mitigations are needed, that the County
of Orange be required to have an air quality element to the General
Plan.
R-5. The Air Quality Maintenance Plan to be formulated for the South
Coast Air Basin will provide the necessary mitigation measures and serve
as the air quality element for the General Plan.
6. I think that if the EPA wants to be forceful, they should require
the County of Orange to adopt a growth policy for at least the southeast
county, AWMA and SERRA. Such a policy has been discussed for about
two years, but nothing has been done. I also think that lower income
housing should be provided in the AWMA area as a condition of grant appro-
val, especially since the Federal government is to become a major employer
of low to moderate income workers.
R-6. Refer to R-4.
Michael A. Schley
Laguna Greenbelt
1. We are concerned about the validity of AWMA decisions, they may
be in violation of the California Political Reform Act, particularly
Chapter 7, Article 1, entitled "Conflict of Interests."
R-l. Administration of the California Political Reform Act is the respon-
sibility of the State of California and is beyond the authority of the EPA.
You should address your comments on this matter to the Attorney General of
the State of California.
9-10
-------
9.5 COMMENTS RECEIVED DURING THE DRAFT EIR REVIEW PERIOD REQUIRING A
RESPONSE
United States Federal Agencies
Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service - March 31, 1975
Department of the Interior, Office of the Secretary - April 23, 1975
Federal Energy Administration - March 13, 1975'
Federal Energy Administration - March 16, 1975
General Services Administration - March 25, 1975
State of California Agencies
Assemblyman, 74th District, Robert E. Badham - March 25, 1975
California Coastal Zone Conservation Commission - April 14, 1975
Resources Agency of California - June 9, 1975
State Water Resources Control Board - April 17, 1975
County of Orange Agencies
Orange County Environmental Management Agency - March 28, 1975
Orange County Health Department - March 31, 1975
Orange County Planning Commission - March 25, 1975
City of Laguna Beach
City of Laguna Beach, City Council - April 9, 1975
Quasi-Public Agencies
Aliso Water Management Agency - April 10, 1975
Moulton Niguel Water District - March 25, 1975
Moulton Niguel Water District - April 10, 1975
Private Interest Groups
The Environmental Coalition, Inc. - March 19, 1975
Foothill Communities Association - April 2, 1975
Laguna Beach Taxpayers' Association - March 14, 1975
Laguna Beach Taxpayers' Association - March 25, 1975
Laguna Greenbelt, Inc. - March 3, 1975
Laguna Greenbelt, Inc. - March 25, 1975
League of Women Voters of Orange County - March 25, 1975
Santiago Heights Property Owners' Association - March 26, 1975
Sierra Club, Los Angeles Chapter - April 15, 1975
Society for California Archaeology - April 16, 1975
South Laguna Civic Association - March 25, 1975
Village Laguna - March 25, 1975
Private Individuals
Mr. & Mrs. Richard A. Brandwine - March 21, 1975
Ms. Marian Parks - April 11, 1975
Mr. Ron Yeo - March 7, 1975
9-11
-------
UNITED STATES
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR #3 $
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
River B.-r,in ''l!"1-:-:;
24000 Avi'.-. ! •-'!
U^uiia NLuci, C.; 92577
March 31, 1975
Regional Administrator
Environmental Protection Agency
Region IX
100 California Street
San Francisco, CA 94111
Dear Sir:
As a result of the March 25th public hearing held at the Laguna
Miguel Federal Building on the Regional Wastewater Treatment System,
Aliso Water Management Agency, we now submit the following comments
on the proposed project.
The aforementioned meeting, held to clarify areas of confusion and to
receive public input, compared favored project alternatives 1A and 2G
(2F modified). Both alternatives will engender serious harm to the
biologic resources of Aliso Creek and its tributary area. This will
be due primarily to construction of plant site(s) and alignment(s) of
interceptor and land outfall pipelines along the creek channel.
We agree with your assessment that alternative 1A will have less serious
secondary impacts on the biologic resources of the area. Clearly, alter-
native 2G is highly growth inducing and development oriented which will
be much more damaging to this fragile environment. On this basis, we
recommend alternative 1A be the selected plan.
However, we wish to point out that losses of wildlife habitat will occur
with either alternative. Losses under alternation 1A are much less in
scope. Continued coordination during the remaining planning process on
issues such as pipeline location, creek crossings, plant siting and other
site specific measures is needed to implement necessary wildlife mitiga-
tion measures.
Should alternative 2G be selected, a wildlife mitigation plan designed
to replace both primary and secondary losses incurred should be adopted
as an integral part of the project.
9-12
-------
- 2 -
We appreciate this opportunity to comment on this project. Please
advise us of significant planning changes.
Sincerely,
M. S. Zschomler
Field Supervisor
MSZrgr
cc: R, 0., RBS, Portland, OR
9-13
-------
SUMMARY COMMENTS
Fish and Wildlife Service
Department of the Interior
2. Losses of wildlife habitat will be less under Alternative 1A than
under Alternative 2G. Specific measures relating to proper site are
necessary to implement wildlife mitigation measures.
R-l. These are addressed in the specific EIR for the construction phase
of the project authored by CWC, February 1975.
9-14
-------
United States Department of the Interior ,:^ /j 6 7
OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY -1^
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20240 . .... • "'*••'
ER-75/154 flpp o • .•• -c
REGIONAL inJARiNG CLE»
-------
high potential for unrecorded sites to exist also. Consequently,
the project area should be surveyed by a competent, professional
archaeologist as soon as possible. The final statement should either
document that such a survey has been conducted or contain definite
commitments to have such an investigation conducted. Such a commit-
ment could be made by changing the word "should" to "will" in the
first, second, fifth, sixth, and eighth sentences in the second
paragraph on page 8-5.
Since the project area contains a wide range of archaeological
resources uniquely important to an understanding of Orange County
prehistory, as stated in the draft statement, a detailed set of
guidelines and procedures should be developed and instituted to
identify, preserve, and protect as many of these resources as possible.
All aspects of all alternatives entailing land modification should
be surveyed by a professional archaeologist. Any significant cultural
resources which are identified should be described and evaluated for
their National Register of Historic Places potential. If any sites
meet the criteria for nomination, as set forth in title 36 CFR 800.10,
they should be nominated to the National Register, and compliance
with title 36 CFR 800.4 should be documented.
The surveys and evaluations should be made early in the planning
stages of the project so that the results of the evaluation and,
thus, the potential impacts of the various alternatives upon signi-
ficant cultural resources can be incorporated into the decisionmaking
process for selecting the best alternative and for developing final
designs for the project. Other aspects being equal, we recommend
the alternative that will have the least impact on cultural resources
be selected.
Measures that will be implemented to mitigate the adverse effects of
the project on cultural resources should be fully described in the
appropriate section of the final statement. These measures should
be designed to preserve the greatest amount of information and material
from the archaeological resource base. Therefore, if sites with
National Register potential are found to exist in the development
areas, there should be mechanisms for deciding whether or not a
redesign or relocation of the development might be more appropriate
than salvage excavation. There should be serious consideration given
to preservation of such resources as opposed to merely salvage.
Copies of any archaeological reports obtained should be made available
to the Arizona Archaeological Center, National Park Service, P.O.
Box 49008, Tucson, Arizona 85717, in accordance with section 3(a) of
Public Law 93.-291.
9-16
-------
The draft statement is fairly comprehensive, presenting six alternative
plans for collection, treatment, and disposal of sewage within the
AWMA area. It is obvious that all of the alternatives would preclude
mineral development in the immediate vicinity of the 15 to 20 miles
of new sewer lines and the 12 or more acres that will be occupied by
a new treatment plant. However, it appears that mineral resources
in the area have been adequately assessed and would not be adversely
affected by any of the alternatives. The effects of slope instability
and fault-related earthquakes are also discussed (pages 2-11 to 2-13),
but no estimation of possible damage to new facilities is presented.
An attempt should be made to do this.
Several impacts regarding potential recreation ramifications should be
discussed in greater detail in the final EIS, particularly regarding
the growth-facilitating impacts of the proposed project.
The EIS notes that both construction and operation will adversely
affect recreation activities, but the degree to which these activities
will be affected is never made clear. We suggest that the final EIS
quantitatively reflect the impact of facilitated growth on existing
recreation facilities, particularly accessible public beach areas.
Specific Comments
Description of Existing Environment—The geology section contains many
technical inaccuracies. A good reference for geologic formation names
is in the Geological Survey bulletin 1200. Suggested word changes are:
P. 2-7. 1st par., line 6, "is" for "would be"
last par., line 1, "is" for "would be"
P. 2-8, 2d par., line 9, should be "welded-tuff"
3d par., line 2, should be "Breccia"
line 11, should be "glaucophane
schists" (no capitals)
line 12, "In some areas" should be
substituted for "At times"
P. 2-9. 1st par., line 5, should be "pectins"
line 4, "in some localities" should
be substituted for "at times"
last par., line 3, should be "terrace"
P. 2-10, 1st par., line 1, should be "marine terrace"
(same in line 12)
6th par., line 1, should be "marine terrace
deposition"
9-17
-------
Geologic time and formation name corrections on pages 2-7 to 2-10 should
be: ,
Paleocene Epoch, Sespe-Vaqueros Formations, Topanga Formation,
Lower Miocene Epoch, San Orofre Breccia, glaucophane schists,
Monterey Shale, Upper Miocene Epoch, Capistrano and Niquel
Formations, Oso Member, terrace, and marine terrace.
Minor discrepancies exist between geologic ages, given on pages 2-7 to
2-10 and on pages 2-54 to 2-56. For example, the oldest formation in
the area is given as the Paleocene Silverado formation on page 2-7,
but as the Cretaceous Williams formation on page 2-54. The Topanga
formation is given as Lower Miocene on page 2-8 (paragraph 2), whereas
it is given as Middle Miocene on page 2-55 (paragraph 2). The Monterey
Shale is given as Upper Miocene on page 2-9 (line 13), but is identified
with Middle Miocene on page 2-55 (lines 8-10 from bottom).
i
The sum of the areas covered by the 9 or 10 formations described in
section 2.3.3 is 165 percent, indicating that one or more of the
figures may be in error. Possibly the area occupied by the Sespe-
Vaqueros formations was intended to be given as 7 percent instead of
72 percent (page 2-7).
j
The term "Neogene," used on page 2-52 (paragraph 2), was not used
previously in the discussions of stratigraphy; it would be helpful
to identify the term as equivalent to Miocene and later.
Wastewater Management Alternatives-—The proposed ocean outfall off
South Laguna, as shown on the maps (for example, exhibit 3-1 for
alternative 1A), is depicted as approximately 4,000 feet long, whereas
the text gives its length as 8,700 feet (page 3-12, paragraph 2).
Page 3-9, Section 3.2.1^ Alternative 1A, - Local Treatment, Regional
Disposal—Last paragraph on page 3-10 indicates that the lower Aliso
Creek section is channelized, and the resultant relatively sterile
habitat will not be affected as significantly as the upper stream
reaches. Without proper planning, construction methods, and plant
operation, the possibility exists that the entire creek could become
a sterile ecosystem. The statement' should thoroughly discuss specific
impacts alternative 1A would have on fish and wildlife resources and
habitat in the upper reaches of Aliso Creek.
Unavoidable Impacts.of the Proposed Project—Page 6-1, section 6.0,
acknowledges temporary destruction of vegetation. It is asserted that
mitigative measures would reduce impacts to a very low level. However,
no mention is made of how these impacts would be reduced, except by
9-18
-------
passage of time. We conclude that there is no contemplated positive
loss-reduction plan for surface vegetation destroyed. Further,
vegetation loss is not correlated with wildlife habitat values affected.
The statement should discuss whether these areas will be revegetated
and what loss-reduction measures will be implemented.
Relationship Between Local 'Short-Term Uses of the Environment and
Maintenance and Enhancement of Long-Term Productivity—As section 7.2.1
of the EIS indicates, the proposed project will cause land values to
increase throughout the region, a situation which renders future
acquisition of park and recreation lands such as those described in
section 2.8.2 more difficult to achieve, yet all the more necessary
to accommodate the recreation demands of the increased population.
This indirect and unavoidable impact should be recognized in the
final EIS.
Alternative Mitigation Plans to Reduce Potential Adverse Air Quality
Impacts in the AWMA Area—Appendix B-21, mitigation plan 5, discusses
a park-and-ride transit system to recreation beaches. The implementa-
tion of such a plan might increase beach use, as well as that of
tidepool areas. Since existing marine life reserves often suffer
overuse and misuse as a function of visitation above the ecosystem's
carrying capacity, and since enforcement of "no collecting" rules is
usually lax, the potential addition of a greater number of users
could pose a hazard to the integrity of the ecosystem. This mitigation
plan, although reducing atmospheric emissions, does pose other problems
which should be recognized in the final EIS.
Sincerely yours,
Deputy li—i- ; Secretary of the Interior
9-19
-------
SUMMARY COMMENTS
Office of the Secretary
United States Department of the Interior
1. We suggest that a more detailed study of the effluent impacts on
marine life from all ocean outfalls be presented. With regard to your
project plans, both the short-term and the long-term impacts of effluents
upon marine life within and about the marine life refuges and the more
general coastal area should be noted. Although you have presented a
plan that improves existing conditions, we feel it is important to note
that there will be continuing effects upon every level of marine organisms
in the outfall areas.
R-l. As noted in Section 3.2.1.2.1 of the Draft EIS, there is a limited
amount of information which will allow exact prediction of effluent
impacts. Research work is continuing and may result in future limitations
on discharge. Consequently, compatability with reclamation is being
stressed. An ongoing monitoring program is part of the AWMA Project, see
the NPDES Permit in Appendix C of the Final EIS.
2. There should be detailed elaboration on the "temporary destruction
of approximately one acre of marine habitat and its organisms" from
the Aliso Creek outfall, including possible repercussions from this
consequence. Exhibit 2-7 could have been more clearly detailed and
could have recognized principal currents in the outfall area.
R-2. The Draft EIR prepared by Clean Water Consultants in February
1975 for the applicant directed itself toward the primary construction
impacts of the AWMA Project. We have amended the Draft EIS, Sections
2.7.3 and 3.2.1.1.5, however, in response to the above comments.
3. There appears tc have been no archaeological survey or investigation
directly associated with this project. As pointed out in the Draft
EIS, the project area is very rich archaeologically and historically.
The Final EIS should either document that such a survey has been conducted
or contain definite commitments to have such an investigation conducted.
Any significant, cultural resources which may be identified should
be described and evaluated for their National Register of Historic
Places potential.
The surveys and evaluations should be made early in the planning stages
of the project so that the results of the evaluation and, thus, the
potential impacts of the various alternatives upon significant cultural
resources can be incorporated into the decision making process for
selecting the best alternative and for developing final designs for
the project. Other aspects being equal, we recommend the alternative
that will have the least impact on cultural resources be selected.
Measures that will be implemented to mitigate the adverse effects of
the project on cultural resources should be fully described in the
9-20
-------
appropriate section of the final statement. These measures should
be designed to preserve the greatest amount of information and material
from the archaeological resource base. There should be serious con-
sideration given to preservation of such resources as opposed to merely
salvage.
R-3. A field reconnaissance has been conducted and coordinated with
representatives of the State Historic Preservation Office. The results
appear in the Draft EIR (February 1975) prepared by Clean Water Con-
sultants for the construction aspects of the AWMA Project. EPA rejected
the treatment plant site in Aliso Canyon, partly because of archaeolo-
gical impact. EPA will continue to coordinate with the SHPO.
As AWMA develops new alternative plans for facilities, on-site archaeo-
logical investigations will be conducted previous to any finalization
of those plans. Mitigation measure programs will be coordinated with
representatives of the Arizona Archaeological Center, National Parks
Service, and the Archaeological Research Unit of the University of
California, Riverside.
4. There has been no attempt in the Draft EIS to describe the effects
of slope instability and fault-related earthquakes on possible damage
to the new facilities.
R-4. Thorough on-site geological and soils engineering investigations
have been made for Alternative 2G and presented in the Draft EIR (February
1975) prepared by Clean Water Consultants. Construction will comply
with all minimum standards set forth in Chapter 70 of the Uniform Building
Code as new alternative plans for facilities develop. The applicant
will consider all geologic and soils constraints and will comply with
all local, state and Federal requirements.
5. Several impacts regarding potential recreation ramifications
should be discussed in greater detail in the final EIS, particularly
regarding the growth-fad litating impacts of the proposed project.
R-5. A full, in detail discussion of recreation and the impact of future
populations on recreational facilities did not appear to be a significant
issue in the total perspective of the AWMA Project. Therefore, this
topic was omitted for the sake of brevity. A complete and thorough
analysis of the recreation potential and limitation of the region are
presented in the Recreation Element and Preliminary Coastal Plan prepared
by the California Coastal Zone Conservation Commission.
6. The EIS should thoroughly discuss specific impacts Alternative
1A would have on fish and wildlife resources and habitat in the Upper
Reaches of Aliso Creek.
R-6. There will be very little direct impact. The construction phases
of the project will be coordinated with the California Department of
Fish and Game. A more thorough discussion is presented in the Draft
9-21
-------
EIR (February 1975) prepared by Clean Water Consultants for the construc-
tion phase of the AWMA project. Secondary impacts will depend on the
level of retention of open space, which is a County responsibility.
7. There is no contemplated positive loss-reduction plan for surface
vegetation destroyed. Further, vegetation loss is not correlated with
habitat values affected. The EIS should discuss whether these areas
will be revegetated and what loss-reduction measures will be implemented.
R-7. AWMA intends to coordinate all construction plans with the California
Department of Fish and Game. Measures will be taken to revegetate
all areas disturbed and to avoid, wherever possible, significant habitat
and/or plant species.
8. As section 7.2 of the EIS indicates, the proposed project will
cause land values to increase throughout the region, a situation which
renders future acquisition of park and recreation lands such as those
described in Section 2.8.2 more difficult to achieve, yet all the more
necessary to accommodate the recreation demands of the increased popula-
tion. This indirect and unavoidable impact should be recognized in
the final EIS.
R-8. So noted in the Final EIS in Section 7.2.1.
9. Appendix B-21, mitigation plan 5, discusses a park-and-ride transit
system to recreation beaches. The implementation of such a plan might
increase beach use, as well as that of tidepool areas. Since existing
marine life reserves often suffer overuse and misuse as a function of
visitation above the ecosystem's carrying capacity, and since enforcement
of "no collecting" rules is usually lax, the potential addition of
a greater number of users could pose a hazard to the integrity of the
ecosystem. This mitigation plan, although reducing atmospheric emis-
sions, does pose other problems which should be recognized in the final
EIS.
R-9. As in R-5, a thorough analysis of the recreation and its potential
impacts on natural resources was presented in the Recreation and Coastal
Land Elements and the Preliminary Coastal Plan prepared by the California
Coastal Zone Conservation Commission. Also, the intertidal and beach
habitats between San Clemente and Emerald Bay were surveyed by Dr. Peter
S. Dixon in May and June of 1972. He concludes that the minimal algal
flora and associated animal life occurs in those areas subject to maximum
human use. The situation between Goff Island near Laguna Beach and
Laguna Lido/Laguna Royale near South Laguna demonstrates this most clearly.
The total biomassatthe two ends of the range, furthest away from the
parking area at Aliso Beach, is far greater both in quantity and diversity
than it is on the two reefs in close proximity to the parking area.
In view of the impacts of the mass curiosity regarding the subtidal
and intertidal, "one can only be thankful that the peak low tides in
this area occur during the night or very early morning during the summer
months when there is likely to be greatest interest in the marine environ-
ment. Peak tides occur during the day only in the winter months when
pressure is likely to be minimal for climatic reasons."
9-22
-------
Due to the physical ownership, inaccessibility or lack of adequate parking
facilities near the shoreline, much of the intertidal zones of the AWMA
region are flourishing. Most of the inaccessible areas will remain in good
condition, however, the areas already damaged are already experiencing
heavy recreational use. Those areas that are now accessible, but are re-
ceiving little use because of parking limitations, would experience heavier
use by implementing a Park-and-Ride transit system.
Only continued protection of the intertidal zone will increase its chances
for survival. Besides designating areas as marine life refuges as described
in Chapter 2.8 of the EIS, the California Superintendent of Public In-
struction and the Department of Fish and Game have developed guidelines
to conserve tide-pool resources. Today, state legislation requires a
permit from the Department of Fish and Game to take tide-pool organisms.
Only those county education offices which adopt plans to conserve tide
pool life and which employ a staff biologist to conduct the program can
qualify. Uninformed adults and tourists remain the major enforcement
problem.
9-23
-------
/t 1
Ernest E. Sligh, Director, ;Einrir0Wjntal Ipact .March 13, 1975
Division, FEA, Washlngtoa,-,^ "
Eugene W. Standley, Director,
Development Programs Dovfelon,
Review of Draft Errvirotioental Impact Statement for Aliso
Water Management Agency, dated February 14, 1975
This is in response to your February 24, 1975 request for comments on EPA's
Aliso Hater Management Agency's Draft Environmental Impact Statement.
From tiie viewpoint of energy consumption, the major concern is the secondary
effect of projected Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Increases, resulting from
population growth in an automobile dependent area. As noted in the statement,
completion of the proposed project may result in 2,370,000 miles per day of
additional automobile travel in the area. This would amount to approximately
200,000 gallons per day of additional gasoline useage.
Although the mitigative measures indicated in the Statement for reducing VMT
may be important for the conservation of fuel, further analysis of the economic
impacts should be done. In particular further explanation of Sections 4.6.1.1
and 4.6.1.3 should be given. . . .
A description of alternative sources of power in the event of interruption
should be included in the Statement. A description of possible ecological
and economic damage caused by prolonged power curtailment should also be given.
As indicated in the statement the primary effect, of .the proposed project on
energy supplies will center on.electrical energy required to. punp waste water
from sources to ocean outfalls.
In addition to fuel consumed, the statement should indicate that this generation
of power will result in approximately 109^.000 Ibs of particulates,, 1,065,000 Ibs
of SO (with 0.57. S oil), 27,240 Ibs of hydrocarbons, and 1,426,000 Ibs of N02
to berreleased into the air over the life of the project.
Eugene W. Standley
Copy furnished:
EPA, Region IX, Mr. F. Covingtqn
100 California St.
San Francisco, CA 94111
9-24
-------
SUMMARY COMMENTS
Federal Energy Administration
March 13, 1975
I. The secondary effect of projected Vehicle Miles Travelled (VMT)
is a major concern relative to energy consumption. Additional gasoline
usage will amount to 200,000 gallons per day of additional gasoline
usage.
R-l. So noted in the Final EIS.
2. Alternate sources of power should be described. A description
of possible economic and ecological damage caused by prolonged power
curtailment should be included.
R-2. The State of California Water Resources Control Board requires
standby power to all treatment plants and pump station facilities.
AWMA fully intends to comply with this requirement. In many cases several
alternative electrical substations may be utilized and in others local
generators powered by gasoline or kerosene will be available.
Potential impacts due to power failures depend on the source of the
failure and the facility in question. If both sources of power fail
at the treatment plant level, the worst case situation would be disposal
of primary treated sewage (without disinfection) into the outfall.
If all sources of power failed at an interceptor pump station, raw sewage
would be discharged into the stream water drainage system or natural
drainage course. A potential health hazard could be created and short-
term impacts on the biota of the drainage course would also result.
3. The primary effect of the proposed project on energy supplies will
be the electrical energy required to pump wastewater from sources to
ocean outfalls.
R-3. So noted in the Final EIS.
4. This generation of power will result in approximately 109,000 Ibs
of particulates, 1,065,000 Ibs of SO(2) (with 0.5% S oil), 27,240 Ibs
of hydrocarbons, and 1,426,000 Ibs of NO(2) to be released into the
air over the life of the project.
R-4. So noted in the Final EIS, but these figures will vary as power
usage varies with the alternatives.
9-25
-------
FEDERAL ENERGY ADMINISTRATION ApR - fi
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20461
REGION DC
APR i 6 1^/5 OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT ADMINISTKAWK
FEA. 75-55
Mr. Paul De Falco, Jr.
Regional Administrator
Environmental Protection Agency
100 California Street
San Francisco, California 94111
Dear Mr. De Falco:
This is in response to your request for review and comment on the
draft environmental impact statement for the Aliso Water Management
Agency Regional Wastewater Treatment System, Orange County, California.
Our comments are presented according to subject.
Energy Consumption
The major concern is the secondary effect of projected Vehicle Miles
Traveled (VMT) increase resulting from population growth in an auto-
mobile dependent area. As noted in the statement, completion of the
proposed project may result in 2,370,000 miles per day of additional
automobile travel in the area. This would amount to approximately
200,000 gallons per day of additional gasoline usage. Although the
mitigative measures indicated in the statement for reducing VMT may
be important for the conservation of fuel, further analysis of the
economic impacts should be done. This additional explanation could
be incorporated in sections 4.6.1.1 and 4.6.1.3 which discuss miti-
gating measures associated with transportation.
The primary effect of the proposed project on energy supplies will
center on electrical energy required to pump wastewater from sources
to ocean outfall.
Alternative
A description of alternative sources of power in the event of inter-
ruption should be included. A description of possible ecological
and economic damage caused by prolonged power curtailment should be
given. :
9-26
-------
-2-
We hope these comments will be helpful in the preparation of the final
environmental statement and in your further consideration of this
project.
Sincerely
jer W. Sant
Assistant Administrator
Energy Conservation and Environment
cc: Eugene W. Standley
EEA, Region IX
9-27
-------
SUMMARY COMMENTS
Federal Energy Administration
April 16, 1975
1. Further analysis is needed of economic impacts of the mitigation
measures which have been suggested to reduce VMT.
R-l. Refer to Section 4.6.3 in the Final EIS.
2. Alternate emergency sources of power should be discussed. A des-
cription of possible ecological and economic damage caused by prolonged
power curtailment should be included.
R-2. See R-2 in a letter received from the FEA on March 13, 1975.
9-28
-------
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION
Public Buildings Service
Washington, DC 20405
REGIONAL"I.IJ.A;u.:.-, c:^;nK
MAR 9 5 1975 APR C 1975
REGION IX
Mr. Paul De Falco, Jr.
Regional Administrator
Environmental Protection Agency
100 California Street
San Francisco, California 94111
Dear Mr. De Falco:
We have reviewed the draft environmental impact statement dated
February 14, 1975, for the Aliso Water Management Agency Regional
Wastewater Treatment System. The following comments are offered
for your consideration in the preparation of the final environmental
impact statement for this action.
1. Discussion of the fourth mitigation measure, proposed
construction of a new town around the Federal Building
at Laguna Miguel (p. 4-23 and Appendix B-rl5 to B-21),
contains some dangerous generalizations and misstatements,
in addition to the obvious errors of calling GSA the
"Government Services Administration" and omitting the
footnote to which the asterisk on page B-15 refers.
The Regional Office of GSA was not contacted for input
to this statement, nor for updating of information
contained in our own final impact statement on occupancy
of the Federal Building, which was published in April 1974.
Neither GSA nor EPA can say at this time whether or not
most of the employees who will be working in the Federal
Building in the future are now working in the Los Angeles
area. As regards housing, GSA with the cooperation of
the Department of Housing and Urban Development certainly
does plan to develop the necessary housing at the
appropriate cost level and within a reasonable commute area,
The housing situation even today is not so unfavorable
that any employees in our building are forced to commute
50 miles to work.
Keep Freedom in Tour Future With U.S. Savings Bonds
9-29
-------
2. You have oversimplified the social and economic implications
of your proposed planned community and have apparently
ignored the good faith proposals made by GSA regarding
mitigation of possible adverse impacts connected with
occupancy of the Federal Building.
If you would like additional information, please contact Arthur 0. Barton,
Regional Commissioner, Public Buildings Service, GSA at (415)556-0882.
Sincerely,
r
y* Director
Environmental Affairs
9-30
-------
SUMMARY COMMENTS
General Services Administration
1. Information on page 4-23 and Appendix B-15 to B-21 needs to be
updated to reflect the April 1974 final impact statement on occupancy
of the Federal Building.
R-l. The information on the GSA facility appearing on page 4-23 has been
deleted and added to an updated and expanded discussion in Appendix B,
pages 12 and 13.
2. The social and economic impacts of the proposed planned community
have not been fully addressed. This proposal does not take into account
the GSA's proposals for mitigating adverse impacts connected with the
occupancy of the Federal Building.
R-2. The new community plan was an option presented by the applicant.
EPA does not endorse this concept; however, we have updated the dis-
cussion in the Final EIS.
9-31
-------
STATEMENT 3Y ASSEMBLYMAN ROBERT E. BADHAM
To be delivered March 25, 1975
As the 'Assemblyman representing the Aliso Water Management
Agency, which lies completely within the 74th Assembly District,
and because of my previous work with the Assembly Water Committee,
I am acutely aware of the three-year planning process of the
Agency's Regional Wastewater Treatment system, as well as the
rapidly escalating costs. The Environmental Protection Agency
states that sewage facilities do not control growth. These
facilities are to provide service for the approved land use
within the AWMA area. The delays in construction are costing
the taxpayers approximately one-half million dollars each month
in terms of increasing construction costs.
The proposal by the Aliso Water Management Agency to
construct Plan 2-G has the lowest total cost and the lowest
operation and maintenance cost which will be borne by the Orange
County taxpayers. Fu^^feher, the proposed project is in compliance
with the State of California Basin Plan.
The overwhelming majority of residents have expressed their
will, both in obligating themselves financially through the
authorization of general obligation bonds and by public community
endorsement.
J.-J i'j /?>H. y(v\ c.;-;- i7:tt.'t
The people have spoken. The Aliso Water Management Agency's
Regional Wastewater Treatment Facilities should be constructed
now, without further delay.
#####
9-32
-------
SUMMARY COMMENTS
Assemblyman Robert E. Badham
I. The majority of residents, by authorizing general obligation bonds
and by public community endorsement, have expressed support for the AWMA
regional wastewater treatment system.
R-l. Several of the bonds went by property holder vote, not popular vote.
Members of AWMA are one of two types of water districts: county munici-
pal, or California.
County or municipal water districts: only residents may vote and each
resident has one vote. Laguna Beach, South Laguna Sanitary District,
and the Emerald Bay Service District are all of this type.
California water districts: only landowners may vote, residency is not
a prerequisite, and the numbers of votes each landowner has is based
upon the assessed value of his property. The Moulton-Niguel Water Dis-
trict, Los Aliso Water District, El Toro Water District, and Irvine Ranch
Water District are so organized.
9-33
-------
STATE OF CALIFORNIA • EDMUND G. BROWN JR., Governor
CALIFORNIA COASTAL ZONE CONSERVATION COMMISSION
1340 MARKET STREET, 2nd FLOOR
SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94102
PHONE: (413) 337-1001
April 14, 1975
Mr. Paul De Falco
Regional Administrator
Environmental Protection Agency
100 California Street
San Francisco, California 94111
Gentlemen:
We are responding to your letter of February 14, 1975, requesting
comments on the draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Aliso
Water Management Agency, Regional Wastewater Treatment System.
Detailed comments on the EIS are enclosed. It should be emphasized
that the following comments are from the staff and have not been
formally acted upon by the Commission; but although these reflect
only the views of the staff, the comments result from a comparison
with adopted Commission plan policies and previous permit actions of
the Commission*
Because of our concern over the rate and distribution of rapid
population growth in Southern Orange County and its impact on the
resources of the coastal zone, the Coastal Commission limited the size
of the Aliso Ocean Outfall when we gave it a construction permit in
Junef 1973. We remain concerned about the potential for rapid popula-
tion growth in the AWMA service area; at least encouraged or accomo-
dated by and to some extent stimulated by the regional project. EPA
has begun to come to terms with this problem and proposes measures to
mitigate the impacts. The Coastal Commission supports measures to
mitigate the entire impact of the Aliso project, and feels that the
mitigation measures should be clearly indicated in the final EIS.
The Coastal Commission prefers the modified Alternative 1A to
Alternative 2G because it avoids further commitment of open space in
Aliso Canyon and because it does not include any new sewer interceptors•
The South Coast Regional Commission has identified Aliso Canyon and the
surrounding area that remains undeveloped as an important wildlife habi-
tat and open space resource of the coastal zone. As such it deserves
protection.
However, before this alternative is implemented, a firm commitment
to mitigate all air quality impacts is needed. No Federal funds should
be expended to subsidize urban expansion unless firm commitments are
obtained from local governments to at least mitigate, if not eliminate,
the environmental impacts of such urban expansion on coastal resources.
In terms of how mitigation measures should be enforced, the Commission
9-34
-------
Mr* Paul De Falco
Apri], 14, 1975
page two
staff has found that a continuing degree of control is necessary to
provide for unforeseen changes in circumstances. This is particularly
true in an area impacted by so many different governmental agencies and
under such development pressure as the AWMA service area* The staff
would suggest that no new hookups to the sewer system be permitted
until the mitigation measures have been specifically approved and all
of the affected governmental agencies have formally agreed to them.
The authority to stop further hookups in the event that the agreed to
mitigation measures are not implemented may also be necessary.
Detailed Comments on the Aliso ECS
1, Maintenance of Aliso Creek and Aliso Canyon as coastal open
space,^watershed, and wildlife habitat is a high priority of the Coastal
Commission's Regional Plan for the AWMA area. Therefore, we feel that
the alternative selected should not require any additional treatment
plant sites within Aliso Canyon, Similarly, any alternative should not
require road construction in the Canyon,
2, We remain concerned about the size of the project because of
the impact on coastal resources such as air quality, wildlife habitats,
agricultural lands, scenic areas and coastal recreation areas and access
to them from major population increases in Southern Orange County,
Methods are tentatively proposed to mitigate the air quality impacts of
the project, but the sizing of the various elements is never made clear,
A graphic representation of the total treatment, interceptor, and out-
fall capacity of the various alternatives would make it possible to
compare the secondary impacts of the alternatives on coastal resources—
as well as demonstrate consistency with the Coastal Commission8s
restriction on the sizing of the Ocean Outfall, At the present time,
the EES does not make it clear the terms of the Commission permit will
be complied with. Since the project will increase VMT in an area
where decreases in VMT are needed to prevent the degradation of coastal
air quality as well as energy conservation goals adopted by the Coastal
Commission, the alternative with the least VMT increases should be
selected. In addition, mitigation measures to reduce VMT increases
should be required. This would be an important first step in developing
an Air Quality Maintenance Plan that should be required as a condition
to grant approval.
We are particularly interested in the concept of non-extension of
trunk sewers. Additional analysis of this measure is needed. Speci-
fically, the wildlife, recreational, and most importantly, the
agricultural potential of various areas where development is planned
should be assessed as well as additional pressures on coastal access
routes and beaches. Extension of sewers, water supplies and roads into
these areas would not be consistent with Coastal Commission planning
and with the urgent need to achieve air quality standards. Non-extension
9-35
-------
Mr. Paul De Falco
April114? 1975
page three
could also prevent the snowballing effect of improvements, discussed
in the impact statement. Initial improvements tend to financially
force development of an area—particularly if funded by improvement
districts. Avoiding this could prevent committing resource areas to
urbanization and preservation of the remaining coastal resources of
the area.
Sincerelyf
E.tfACK SCHOOP, AIP
Chief Planner
9-36
-------
SUMMARY COMMENTS
California Coastal Zone Conservation Commission
1. The sizing of the various elements of each alternative should
be made clear. This would aid in comparing the secondary impacts
of the alternatives upon coastal resources, as well as compliance
with the terms of the Coastal Commission permit.
R-l. Refer to expanded discussion on consistency with conditions
in Chapter 3 and 4 of the Final EIS.
2. We are particularly interested in the concept of non-extension
of trunk sewers. Additional analysis of this measure is needed.
R-2. An expanded discussion on the secondary impacts of each alter-
native has been added to Chapter 4.0 of the Final EIS.
9-37
-------
CL*'-IRE T. DEDRICi:
HXKXXDEUB
SECRETARY
Depa iment of Conservation
Depa tmenl of Fiih and Gam*
Depa tmenl of Navigation and
Ocean Development
Oepo iment of Porks end Recreation
Depo tmenl of Water Resources
EDMUND G. J3SOWN JR.
XIQffiDSlCXKEJSSJSMX
GOVERNOR OF
CALIFORNIA
A 68
THE RESOURCES AGENCY OF CALIFORNIA
SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA
OFFICE OF THISECRETARY
RESOURCES BUlOJmO
1416 NINTH STREET
95814
Air Retourcet Board
Colorado Rlv«r Board ,
Son Francisco Bay Conservation and]
Development Commission
Stot« Lands Commission
State Reclamation Boor4
Stal* Water Resources Control. Board
Regional Water Quality Control Board|
JUN 91975
Mr. Paul De Falco, Jr.
Regional Administrator
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency r .
100 California Street - -
San Francisco, California 94111 _^~ ~.:
Dear Mr. De Falco:
The State of California has reviewed the "Draft Environmental Impact Statement:
Regional Waste Water Treatment System, Allso Water Management Agency", which was
submitted to the Office of Planning and Research (State Clearinghouse) in the
Governor's Office In accordance with Part II of the U. S. Office of Management
and Budget Circular A-95 and the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969.
The State's review was coordinated with the Departments of Commerce, Conservation,
Pish and Game, Pood and Agriculture, Health, Navigation and Ocean Development,
Parks and Recreation, Transportation, and Water Resources; the Air Resources Board;
the Coastal Zone Conservation Commission; the Colorado River Board of California;
the Solid Waste Management Board; and the State Water Resources Control Board.
The State's general comment is presented below, and specific comments as they
relate to the various areas of concern are attached.
In general, the report needs more information on various areas of concern such as
description and impacts, air resources, solid waste, planned facilities, geology,
cultural resources, and fish and wildlife. The attachment will elaborate on some
of these areas of concern.
Sincerely,
CLAIRE T. DEDRICK
Secretary for Resources
Attachment
cc: Director of Management Systems
State Clearinghouse
Office of Planning and Research
lUOO Tenth Street
Sacramento, California 9581^
(SCH Ho. T5030U8)
9-38
-------
Specific Comments on the
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
Regional Waste Water Treatment System
Aliso Water Management Agency
These comments on the specific areas of concern are an integral part of the
State's comments.
Description and Impacts
The description of the existing waste water treatment facilities of the Los
Alisos Water District is not up to date. The District is now bypassing the
activated sludge units and is using a series of three oxidation ponds for
treatment of the sewage. Because these ponds provide better treatment, the
District does not plan to use the activated sludge process again soon.
The impact of Alternative 3C on the ground water basin is not similar to
that of Alternative 1A, since there will be more reclamation and discharge
to Aliso Creek in the dry season. The impacts of Alternatives 2F and 2G are
not at all similar to Alternative 2E. Alternative 2E would have limited
reclamation and Alternatives 2F and 2G would have extensive reclamation proj-
ects. In the last two alternatives, the ground water basin would be recharged
with reclaimed sewage effluent, which would be coupled with ground water
extraction in the lower portion of the Aliso ground water basin.
In general, the impact of waste water disposal on the ground water in all
the alternatives is not adequately described.
Cultural Resources
The Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) fails to adequately identify
and evaluate the cultural resources within the area of the undertaking's
potential impact, as is required by the National Historic Preservation Act of
1966 and Executive Order 11593.
Because an assessment of the cultural resources must be provided prior to
Federal Agency decision concerning an undertaking, we endorse the statement
on page 8-5 of the EIS that a "field reconnaissance is necessary since not
all areas have been thoroughly investigated, particularly with regard to
buried deposits. Once specific locations or specific alternatives have been
established, a systematic survey should be made to assess the impact of
construction. Therefore, indirect effects may be partially mitigated by long-
range planning for the District as a whole".
Survey reports prepared by qualified archeologists, architects, and historians
providing information and recommendations regarding cultural resources in the
project area should be coordinated with Parks and Recreation. Consultation •
with the State Historic Preservation Officer is recommended, in accordance
with the Advisory Council Procedures pursuant to 36 CFR Part 800.
9-39
-------
Fish and Wildlife
The EIS is inadequate in its presentation of three major areas in regard to
fish and wildlife.
In the first Instance, the BIS is inadequate in its discussions of both the
project Impacts on fish and wildlife resources and public use disruption
resulting from restricted parking near the Wildlife Conservation Board's pier
at Alloo Reach during construction. Tb be considered adequate, each project
alternative should include a more thorough discussion of impacts relative to
acreage disturbed, habitat type, and dependent wildlife. The EIS should also
better describe the percentage of area presently used for parking at Aliso
Beach that will be needed for equipment parking during project construction.
Second, the EIS fails to discuss, for all alternatives, mitigation of project
impacts to fish and wildlife from pipeline crossings of Aliso Creek and from
construction of the Regional Treatment Plant within the flood plain of Aliso
Creek. Mitigation measures such as the following should be discussed for all
alternatives:
1. Disposal of project effluent through watersheds and streams for
maintenance and enhancement of existing riparian vegetation.
2. Disposal of project effluent through watersheds and creeks for
reestablishment (Aliso Creek mouth) or enhancement (Upper Newport
Bay) of coastal wetlands.
Cost information should be included where it affects feasibility of implementation.
Last, the EIS fails to give complete consideration to an alternative that we
believe would be beneficial to fish and wildlife yet still economical and prac-
tical for the project sponsor, the separation of the Aliso Water Management
Agency (AWMA) into two service areas. The upper, or easterly, service area,
would Include Los Alisos and El Toro Water Districts. Their combined effluent,
if adequately treated, could be introduced into San Diego Creek. This would
benefit fish and wildlife through the enhancement of stream end riparian habi-
tat. Another positive benefit would be the potential for enhancement of
estuarine habitat within Upper Newport Bay. In addition, part of the effluent
could be introduced into Aliso Creek, thereby enhancing riparian vegetation in
its upper reaches.
The lower, or westerly, service area would include the Moulton-Niguel Water
District and South Laguna Sanitary District and the City of Laguna Beach.
Moulton-Niguel's effluent could be introduced into Aliso Creek near each plant.
The City of Laguna Beach and South Laguna Sanitary District could pump their
effluent directly into the middle reaches of Aliso Creek or to a regional
treatment plant, thence to Aliso Creek. Such use of adequately treated
effluent, rather than piped conveyance to the ocean, would provide benefits
to fish and wildlife by enhancement of stream and riparian habitat as well
as development of an coastal wetland at the mouth of Aliso Creek.
Air Resources
The Air quality impact of the proposed project was extensively discussed in
the EIS. The present air quality in the AWMA area is among the worst in the
State, has a high potential for adverse conditions, and is a serious problem.
9-40
-------
The EIS points out that "... the solution seems to lie in reducing the total
vehicle miles traveled (VMT) within AWMA." The Air Resources Board (ARE)
agrees with this conclusion. However, this would necessitate land use plan-
ning and development of alternative transportation models, which are not
within the power of AWMA to implement. AWMA has some power, however, to par-
ticipate in enforcing implementation strategies.
The EIS presents six mitigation measures and associated implementation strat-
egies, which, if implemented, would reduce projected VMT. These measures are
promising proposals and need to be developed and appropriately implemented so
that the proposed regional waste water treatment and disposal system will not
adversely affect air quality.
The project needs to comply with all environmental laws. 40 CFR 35.925-14
(published 2/11/74) states that sewage collection systems "... will comply
with all pertinent requirements of the Clean Air Act and other applicable
Federal, State, and local environmental laws and regulations." This may be
done through the implementation of the previously mentioned mitigation mea-
sures.
In the next two years the ARE, in cooperation with local government, will
participate in the development of an air quality maintenance plan for those
areas in which growth and development are projected to prevent either the
attainment or, if attained, the maintenance of the national, ambient air qual-
ity standards in the next ten years. The air quality impact of the Allso
project on the jurisdictions in the AWMA needs to be mitigated. Air quality
considerations, such as the proposed mitigating measures, must be integrated
with the local land use and regional transportation planning to demonstrate
that attainment and maintenance of the standards will not be interfered with
by the proposed project. To limit detrimental air quality to the area, this
project needs to be conditioned along the lines of the clean water grant con-
ditions now being worked out among the State Water Resources Control Board,
EPA, and ARB. This is necessary if government is to carry out its responsi-
bility in protecting the public health from the continued effects of polluted
air as well as polluted water.
Solid Waste ^
No mention is made of the method of disposal of sludge that will be produced
by this project. The quantity of sludge and the impacts related to sludge
disposal should be assessed, and such action should be coordinated with the
local agency responsible for solid waste management.
The disposal of solid wastes generated during the construction phases of
this project should also be discussed. We recommend that all such wastes be
disposed of properly within the project area or in an approved solid waste
disposal site.
-3-
9-41
-------
Planned Facilities
The lilS contains all information required by the State Water Resources Control
Board Environmental Impact Report and Public Participation Guidelines of July
1973. However, several points in the report are unclear. These relate primar-
ily to planned facilities and resulting secondary impacts. Specific comments
and questions are set forth below:
ii
1. The recommended Alternative 2G envisions the construction oC a new
regional plant Just north of the existing South Laguna Sanitary
District plant. To avoid disturbing the land along Aliso Creek, the
applicant is urged to evaluate Alternative 1A (modified), which calls
for expanding the existing facilities to handle 10.2 MGD.
2. Page 3-18, Service road — Is it necessary to construct a service road
with a 50-foot right of way along Aliso Creek between the proposed
regional treatment plant and the Alicia Parkway? The possible second-
ary impacts, such as land development, along the proposed road should
be discussed.
3. The recommended Alternative 2G (Exhibit 3-13) shows a raw sewage
interceptor, sized at 20 MGD, extending down Aliso Creek to the pro-
posed regional treatment plant, designed for 16 MGD. The secondary
impacts produced by such an oversized interceptor traversing unde-
veloped land should have been directly addressed.
4. Energy Conservation — The amount of energy required by each alterna-
tive has been adequately covered. However, no mitigation measures
to reduce energy consumption have been put forth pursuant to Amend-
ments to the State Guidelines, Appendix F, dated December 26, 1974.
For example, if the sludge is to be digested anaerobically, consid-
eration should be given ,to using the gas that is generated for heat-
ing the digester and providing energy for pumps.
, ji
As a funding agency, the State Water Resources Control Board reserves the right
to make further comments on the EIS prior to granting an approval, pursuant
to the Clean Water Grant regulations.
Geology '
The general geologic, seismic, and soils information given may be adequate for
the regional environmental impact statement. However, construction should not
be allowed until a thorough on-site geological soils engineering investigation
of the site is made.
We recommend that: complete detailed geologic and soils feasibility of speci-
fic sites be demonstrated. Construction should comply with the minimum stan-
dards set forth in Chapter 70 of the Uniform Building Code.
It is also recommended that the geologist and engineer making the investiga-
tion clearly identify his work and attach his signature and state registration
or certificate number.
-4-
9-42
-------
SUMMARY COMMENTS
The Resources Agency of California
1. The description of the existing waste water treatment facilities
of the Los Alisos Water District is not up to date. The District is
now bypassing the activated sludge units and is using a series of three
oxidation ponds for treatment of the sewage. Because these ponds provide
better treatment, the District does not plan to use the activated sludge
process in the near future.
R-l. So noted and incorporated into Chapter 1.2.3 of the Final EIS.
2. The discussion of comparative water valuation potentials of each
project alternative is unclear. Also, the impacts of ground water
quality by recharge with sewage effluent in all alternatives is not
adequately described.
R-2. The discussion on water reclamation has been expanded in the
Final EIS in Section 3.2.1.4.
Predicting the precise impact of reclamation on groundwater is extremely
complex and depends upon accurate knowledge of groundwater quality,
hydrology, and the various sources of pollutants and salts. Existing
information on the various sources of salts was not sufficient to
allow accurate prediction of the effects of reclamation. Estimates
could be made of the amounts of various salts introduced into the
groundwater by the various alternatives, but unless overall salt loads
are known, resultant groundwater quality cannot be predicted. The
groundwater basins are fairly small and already contain high levels
of salt from past irrigation. Because of this, and the lack of present
or potential domestic use of groundwater, detailed assessments of
groundwater quality impacts are not felt to be necessary.
3. The Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) fails to adequately
identify and evaluate the cultural resources within the area of the
undertaking's potential impact as is required by the National Historic
Preservation Act of 1966 and Executive Order 11593.
Because an assessment of the cultural resources must be provided prior
to Federal Agency decision concerning an undertaking, we endorse the
statement on page 8-5 of the EIS that a "field reconnaissance is necessary
since not all areas have been thoroughly investigated, particularly
with regard to buried deposits. Once specific locations or specific
alternatives have been established, a systematic survey should be made
to assess the impact of construction. Therefore, indirect effects
may be partially mitigated by long-range planning for the District
as a whole."
Survey reports prepared by qualified archaeologists, architects, and
historians providing information and recommendations regarding cultural
resources in the project area should be coordinated with Parks and
Recreation. Consultation with the State Historic Preservation Officer
is recommended, in accordance with the Advisory Council Procedures
pursuant to 36 CFR Part 800.
9-43
-------
R-3. A field reconnaissance has been conducted and coordinated with
representatives of the State Historic Preservation Office. The results
appear in the Draft EIR (February 1975) prepared by Clean Water Con-
sultants for the construction aspects of the AWMA Project. EPA rejected
the treatment plant site in Aliso Canyon, partly because of archaeologi-
cal impact. EPA will continue to coordinate with the SHPO.
4. The EIS is inadequate in its discussions of the specific impacts
of each alternative on the fish and wildlife resources and public use
disruption at Aliso Beach Pier during construction.
R-4. The EPA EIS deals primarily with the secondary impacts of the
AWMA Project. Since the construction of the ocean outfall is common
to all the alternatives, the specific impacts are discussed in the
Draft EIS (February 1975) prepared by Clean Water Consultants for the
construction of the regional treatment facilities.
5. The BIS fails to discuss, for all alternatives, mitigation of
project impacts to fish and wildlife from pipeline crossings of Aliso
Creek and from construction of the Regional Treatment Plant within
the flood plain of Aliso Creek. Mitigation measures such as the following
should be discussed for all alternatives:
1. Disposal of project effluent through watersheds and streams for
maintenance and enhancement of existing riparian vegetation.
2. Disposal of project effluent through watersheds and creeks for
reestablishment (Aliso Creek mouth) or enhancement (Upper Newport
Bay) of coastal wetlands.
R-5. Alternative 3C did consider reclamation and would have involved
stream discharge which would have benefited riparian habitat. Stream
discharge is opposed by the San Diego Regional Water Quality Coastal
Board unless nutrients are removed. Nutrient removal increases treatment
costs from about $200-300 per million gallons to $600 or more per million
gallons; well over the cost of potable water in the area. Such increases
can only be justified where significant wildlife habitat depends on
discharge. Future habitat in Aliso Creek depends largely on imple-
mentation of the County's open space plan.
6. The EIS fails to give complete consideration to an alternative
that we believe would be beneficial to fish and wildlife yet still
economical and practical for the project sponsor, the separation of
the Aliso Water Management Agency (AWMA) into two service areas. The
upper, or easterly, service area, would include Los Alisos and El Toro
Water Districts. Their combined effluent if adequately treated, could
be introduced into San Diego Creek. This would benefit fish and wildlife
through the enhancement of stream and riparian habitat. Another positive
benefit would be the potential for enhancement -of estuarine habitat
within Upper Newport Bay. In addition, part of the effluent could
be introduced into Aliso Creek, thereby enhancing riparian vegetation
in its upper reaches.
9-44
-------
The lower, or westerly, service area would include the Moulton-Niguel
Water District and South Laguna Sanitary District and the City of Laguna
Beach. Moulton-Niguel's effluent could be introduced into Aliso Creek
near each plant. The City of Laguna Beach and South Laguna Sanitary
District could pump their effluent directly into the middle reaches of
Aliso Creek or to a regional treatment plant, thence to Aliso Creek. Such
use of adequately treated effluent, rather than piped conveyance to the
ocean, would provide benefits to fish and wildlife by enhancement of
stream and riparian habitat as well as development of a coastal wetland
at the mouth of Aliso Creek.
R-6. EPA agrees. This alternative was considered in Alternatives 4A
and 4C; however, such a practice was opposed by the Santa Ana Regional
Water Quality Control Board. See number 5, above.
7. No mention is made of the method of disposal of sludge that will be
produced by this project. The quantity of sludge and the impacts related
to sludge disposal should be'assessed, and such action should be coordinated
with the local agency responsible for solid waste management.
R-7. Final sludge treatment and disposal methods have not been determined
because of the siting problem. Refer to Chapter 5 of the Final EIS
for further discussion.
8. The disposal of solid wastes generated during the construction
phases of this project should also be discussed. We recommend that
all such wastes be disposed of properly within the project area or in
an approved solid waste disposal site.
R-8. Environmental impacts of the construction phases of the AWMA
Project are discussed in a Draft EIS (February 1975) prepared by Clean
Water Consultants.
9. The recommended Alternative 2G envisions the construction of a
new regional plant just north of the existing South Laguna Sanitary
District plant. To avoid disturbing the land along Aliso Creek, the
applicant is urged to evaluate Alternative 1A (modified), which calls
for expanding the existing facilities to handle 10.2 mgd.
R-9. Alternative 2G has been rejected by the EPA and a facilities plan
addendum is proposed to determine the appropriate solutions for inland
AWMA (See Chapter 5.0 of the Final EIS).
10. Is it necessary to. construct a service road with a 50-foot right
of way along Aliso Creek between the proposed regional treatment plant
and the Alicia Parkway? The possible secondary impacts, such as land
development, along the proposed road should be discussed.
R-10. Since the regional treatment plant site in Aliso Valley was re-
jected by EPA, the service road proposed has been deleted from the
project.
9-45
-------
II. The recommended Alternative 2G (Exhibit 3-13) shows a raw sewage
interceptor, sized at 20 mgd, extending down Aliso Creek to the proposed
regional treatment plant, designed for 16 mgd. The secondary impacts
produced by such an oversized interceptor traversing undeveloped land
should have been directly addressed.
R-ll. Although Alternative 2G has already been rejected by EPA, this
interceptor was sized to provide for servicing the AWMA area to 1995.
The regional treatment plant site was to be expanded to a capacity of
2.4 mgd in 1985. The secondary impacts for this sizing is discussed
in Chapter 4.0.
12. The amount of energy required by each alternative has been adequately
covered. However, no mitigation measures to reduce energy consumption
have been put forth pursuant to Amendments to the State Guidelines,
Appendix F, dated December 26, 1974. For example, if the sludge is
to be digested anaerobically, consideration should be given to using
the gas that is generated for heating the digester and providing energy
for pumps.
R-12. Final sludge treatment and disposal methods have not been determined
because of the siting problem. Refer to Chapter 5 of the Final EIS
for further discussion.
13. The general geologic, seismic, and soils information given may
be adequate for the regional environmental impact statement. However,
construction should not be allowed until a thorough on-site geological
soils engineering investigation of the site is made.
We recommend that: complete detailed geologic and soils feasibility
of specific sites be demonstrated. Construction should comply with
the minimum standards set forth in Chapter 70 of the Uniform Building
Code.
.It is also recommended that the geologist and engineer making the inves-
tigation clearly identify his work and attach his signature and state
registration or certificate number.
R-13. So noted. These investigations have already been carried out
and are discussed in the Draft EIR (February 1975) prepared by Clean
Water Consultants for the construction aspects of the AWMA project.
AWMA will continue to comply with all the above requirements.
9-46
-------
STATE OV^CALIFORNIA—THE RESOURCES AGENCY
/I
EDMUND G. BROWN JR.
RBffiQCDCKESSSS, Governor
STATE WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD
DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY CONTROL
ROOM 1015, RESOURCES BUILDING
1416 NINTH STREET • SACRAMENTO 95814
APR 171975
Mr. William F. Wolfson
Aliso Water Management Agency
27281 Aliso Creek Road
Laguna Niguel, CA 92677
Dear Mr. Wolfson:
ID) l c EI X1
APR 1 8 1975
1
ALISO WATER
MANAGEMENT AGENCY
Enclosed are additional comments that lately were received on the
draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) on the Aliso Water
Management Agency Regional Wastewater Treatment System. These
comments should be addressed in the amendment to the draft EIS
pursuant to the State and Federal Guidelines.
We hope these comments are helpful to you in finalizing the EIS.
The following comments relate only to that portion of the draft
EIS that deals with water quality.
Options Available to EPA
Any one of the funding options (4.7.1, 4.7.2,. 4.7.3) are acceptable.
However, implementation of option 4.7.3 (treat Los Alisos1 and El
Toro's wastes locally) will require modification of Los Alisos1
facility. This is because its aerated lagoons now under construction
will not produce an effluent that meets secondary treatment standards.
Sewers (4.3.3.3)
We disagree with the statement that overloading of a treatment.piant
with storage or an ocean outfall "does not represent a serious public
health hazard." Overloading of a plant may cause uncontrolled
discharge of raw sewage from manholes. Chronic violations of waste
discharge requirements can result in sewage connection prohibitions.
El Toro Water District
The description of the problems associated with the Rossmoor facility
(Sec. 1.3.3) needs some minor clarification. Rossmoor has had
difficulty disposing of its effluent without violating waste discharge
requirements, even during the dry season. The improperly controlled
wastewater disposal to San Diego during last year's dry season led
this board to adopt a cease and desist order. Disposal and storage
problems at Rossmoor are expected to increase as waste flows increase.
9-47
GD
RECYCLED PAPER
-------
Mr. William F. Wolfson - 2 -
This Board generally agrees with the statement regarding the effect
of Kossmoor's discharge to San Diego Creek.
Rossmoor does not meet the sulfate and boron incremental limitations
which are required to protect the groundwater. Ocean disposal
eliminates the need for dissolved mineral limitations.
Los Alisos Water District
The statement (1.3-4-) that the dissolved mineral requirements do
"not take.effect until 1977" is not strictly correct. Dissolved
mineral incremental limitations became effective on March 1, 1975>
and the discharger is now in violation of chloride and sulfate.
Blended Water Supply (2-61)
The date cited for the arrival of 50/50 blend water must be considered
tentative. This blend will produce a better quality of reclaimed
wastewater.
Sincerely,
Farouk T. Ismail, Ph.D.
Environmental Specialist
9-48
-------
SUMMARY COMMENTS
State Water Resources Control Board
Division of Water Quality Control
April 17, 1975
1. Option 4.7.3 (treat Los Alisos and El Toro's wastes locally) will
require modification of Los Alisos' aerated lagoons as they will not pro-
duce an effluent which meets secondary treatment standsrds.
R-l. If blending with other effluent does not allow the ocean discharge
to meet secondary requirements, the Los Alisos treatment plant will be
modified.
2. Treatment plant storage overloads may cause uncontrolled discharge
of raw sewage from manholes. Chronic violations of waste discharge re-
quirements can result in sewage connecting prohibitions.
R-2. Where adequate storage capacity exists, sewage does not discharge
from manholes. EPA is not aware of any ocean discharges which chronically
violate discharge requirements where connection prohibitions have been .
instituted. The City of San Diego is an example of a chronically over-
loaded plant with no connection prohibition.
3. Rossmoor has difficulty dispersing effluent without violating waste
discharge requirements, even during the dry season. A cease and desist
order was issued during last year's dry season because of improperly con-
trolled wastewater disposal to San Diego Creek. Rossmoor's disposal and
storage problems are expected to increase as waste flows increase. Ross-
moor currently is in violation of the sulfate and boron incremental limi-
tation specified in the NPDES permit.
R-3. Note changes in Section 1.3.3.
4. Dissolved mineral incremental limitations became effective March 1,
1975 for the Los Alisos Water District. The District is now in violation
of chloride and sulfate incremental limitations.
R-4. Note changes in Section 1.3.4.
5. The date of arrival of 50/50 blend water is tentative. The blend
will produce a better quality of reclaimed water.
R-5. Agree.
9-49
-------
UIMXV OF
H. G. OSBORNE
DIRECTOR
MURRAY STORM
ASSISTANT DIRECTOR
REGULATION
ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT AGENCY
REGULATION DIVISION
400 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE WEST
SANTA ANA, CA. 92701
TELEPHONE: 834-2626
AREA CODE 714
MAILING ADDRESS
P.O. BOX 418
SANTA ANA, CA. 92702
March 28, 1975
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Region IX
100 California Street
San Francisco, CA 94111
Subject: Draft EIS for the AWMA regional wastewater treatment
system.
Dear Mr. De Falco,
Thank you for the opportunity to review the Draft EIS for the Aliso
Water Management Agency (AWMA) regional wastewater treatment system.
There are two inaccuracies in the EIS with regard to air quality that
need to be pointed out:
1. On page 2-28 the EIS says "...the proposed project is located
in an area of the County where the current peak concentrations
of oxidants are about 50% of those in the northwestern portion
of Orange County."
The AWMA area is quite varied in topography and meteorology,
resulting in differences in air quality throughout AWMA.
While Laguna Beach experienced low levels of oxidant in 1974,
the El Toro air monitoring station (also in AWMA) recorded
the second highest oxidant levels out of the seven stations
operating in Orange County in 1974. The maximum hourly
average at El Toro was .48 ppm, while the highest level in
Orange County was only slightly higher at .54 ppm.
2. In Appendix B of the EIS a crude model was used to calculate
the so called "worst case" concentrations resulting from
automobile emissions in 1985.
The model used is extremely limited and unrealistic. Further-
more, a quick check of the calculation shows that the results
9-50
-------
are on the order of 25 to 50 times too high, depending on
the selection of emission factors.
Even if the model does not predict problems with air quality
in 1985, the air quality data collected at El Toro indicate
that an air quality problem already exists! Air quality
standards for oxidant, nitrogen dioxide, hydrocarbons, and
lead were all exceeded.
I agree with the EIS's conclusion that the developing urban form in
the AWMA area is inconsistant with the attainment and maintenance
of air quality standards. For this reason, all feasible measures
that will mitigate the air quality impacts of development should be
implemented.
Sincerely yours,
M. STORM, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR
Environmental Management Agency
Regulations Division
By; / ' UUMA A 6UA/
Martin Kay0
Air Pollution Control Engineer
9-51
-------
SUMMARY COMMENTS
Orange County Environmental Management Agency
Regulation Division
I. On page 2-28, the EIS says "... the proposed project is located in
an area of the County where the current peak concentrations of oxidants are
about 50% of those in the northwestern portion of Orange County." This is
inaccurate. The AWMA area is quite varied in topography and meteorology,
resulting in differences in air quality through AWMA.
R-l. The text has been corrected in Chapter 2.0 of the Final EIS.
2. The model used in Appendix B is extremely limited and unrealistic.
Furthermore, a quick check of the calculation shows that the results are
on the order of 25 to 50 times too high, depending on the selection of
emission factors.
R-2. The model has been deleted from Appendix B.
9-52
-------
UPSITY" OF
A IMG I
IX
.'QsniiH'75
HEALTH DEPARTMENT
JOHN R. PHILP, M.D.
HEALTH OFFICER
SANTA ANA OFFICE
645 NORTH ROSS STREET
SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA 92702
TELEPHONE: 634-3131
Mailing Addro**t P. 0. Bo* 355
Santo Ana, California 92702
ANAHEIM OFFICE
1011 SOUTH EAST STREET
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA
TELEPHONE: 776-5551
Mai liny Addn**: P. 0. Bo* 355
Santa Ana, California 92702
March 31, 1975
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Pacific Southwest Region IX
100 California Street
San Francisco, CA 94111
Attention: Mr. Paul De Falco, Jr.
Regional Administrator
Subject: Draft Environmental Impact Statement D-EPA-24011-CA,
Aliso Water Management Agency
Dear Sir:
As requested this Department has reviewed the subject draft document and
offers the following comments for your consideration in the preparation
of the final report.
1. While this Department recognized that under adverse hydrologic
conditions the outfalls at Aliso Beach and Main Beach Laguna
may constitute a potential threat to the health of bathers,
Health Department monitoring which has been performed on a weekly
basis during the past 4 years does not reveal contamination in
the water contact areas of either of these beaches that might be
attributed to the ocean outfalls. Violations of California Ocean
Water Contact Sports Standards have occurred at these beaches but
have been closely associated with surface water runoff, occurring
during and after rainstorms.
2. On page 1-2 the report refers to the Moulton Niguel Water District
Improvement District 3A facility. As the 3A facility is inter-
connected to the Moulton Niguel Water District 1A and South Laguna
Sanitary District facilities, which are AWMA members, it is
recommended that more information be included in the report re-
garding the relationship of the 3A plant to this project.
3. It should be noted that Rossmoor Sanitation Inc. is not presently
providing treated effluent to the Lion Country Safari Development
as stated on page 1-6.
9-53
-------
4. The report states on page 1-2 that the sludge generated at the
Moulton Niguel Water District 1A facility is dried in a series
of drying beds at the plant site. It is this Department's
understanding that this process is accomplished only at the
South Laguna Sanitation District facility.
5. According to the U.S. Geological Survey Map, San Juan Capistrano
Quadrangle, the elevation of Niguel Hill is 936 feet and not 800
feet as stated in the report.
6. It is unclear, based on the information provided on page 2-66
and 2-67 how the population within the AWMA area was determined
as depicted in Table 2-19.
7. The report states on page 2-71 and 2-72 that CNEL contours are
used to describe the magnitude of noise levels in the AWMA area
attributable to aircraft from the El Toro Marine Corp Air Station.
Yet, Exhibit 2-9 which is based on a Composite Noise Rating study
(CNR) is included in the report. As a noise study has been
recently conducted establishing CNEL contours (Bolt, Beranek &
Newman, Inc., CNEL Contours for MCAS El Toro, July, 1972), it is
recommended that it be substituted in the report as Exhibit 2-9.
It should also be noted on page 2-72 that overflights along
Runway 07R&L are also of importance to the AWMA area.
8. The statement on page 3-16 that "It cannot be said that wastewater
is causing eutrophication in Newport Bay." does not appear to be
relevant in this discussion nor has it been established that
wastewater is not causing eutrophication in Newport Bay.
9. It is recommended that under IMPACTS OF DEVELOPMENT, Air Quality,
that the report list not only the amounts of pollutants projected
to be emitted, but also the health effects of these pollutants if
they cannot be reduced to the levels specified in the report to
meet air quality standards.
10. In the environmental impact statement summary it is stated that
mitigating measures will be implemented to lessen air quality
impacts. However in the report the only mitigating measure offered
which can be controlled by the applicant is to limit the extension
of services to undeveloped areas. It is therefore recommended
that more information be submitted regarding the practicality and
method of implementing such a measure.
11. The report states on page 4-25 and 4-26.that the water quality
problems from Laguna Beach's discharge would not be solved and
there would be no mitigation of air quality impacts if the
Environmental Protection Agency does not -participate in the project.
This statement appears to be an assumption that local and state
authorities would have no control over the applicants proposal and
therefore does not appear to be valid.
9-54
-------
12. In Appendix B page B-22 it is suggested that Route I become a
toll road and the income collected could be used to subsidize
buses.
This strategy does not appear to be practical as Route I is a
major transportation corridor between beach cities. Further
this idea would be in conflict with the South Coast Regional
Planning Commission's concern of maximizing access to the coastal
areas for the people of Southern California.
This Department appreciates the opportunity to review this report. If there
are any questions regarding these comments please feel free to contact me at
(714) 834-5532.
Very truly yours,
Environmental Health Engineering Specialist
Division of Environmental Health
HGS/ED/se
9-55
-------
SUMMARY COMMENTS
Orange County Health Department
1. Violations of California's Ocean Water Sports Standards at Aliso
Beach and Main Beach during the past 4 years have been caused by surface
water runoff during and after rainstorms.
R-l. We agree, however, this is not within the scope of the EIS.
2. What is the relationship of the Moulton Niguel Improvement District
3A plant to the MN District 1A and South Laguna Sanctuary District
facilities?
R-2. This interconnection is explained in Section 1.2.1.3 of the Final
EIS.
3. Rossmoor Sanitation does not presently provide treated effluent
to Lion Country Safari.
R-3. So noted in the Final EIS, Section 1.2.4.
4. Sludge drying beds are used only at the South Laguna Sanitation
District facility, not at the Moulton Niguel 1A facility.
R-4. This has been rechecked and Facility 1A does have and uses sludge
drying beds.
5. According to the U.S. Geological Survey Map, San Juan Capistrano
Quadrangle, the elevation of Niguel Hill is 936 feet, not 800 feet as
stated.
R-5. So noted.
6. How was the population within the AWMA area, as depicted in Table
2-19 determined?
R-6. This has been noted in Table 2-18 (formerly 2-19 of the Draft
EIS) of the Final EIS.
7. Information from the Bolt, Beranek S Newman, Inc., July 1972 study
should be substituted for the Composite Noise Rating study used to de-
termine in CNEL contours in Exhibit 2-9.
R-7. A new exhibit is provided as 2-9 in the Final EIS.
8. It has not been established that wastewater is not causing eutro-
phication in Newport Bay.
R-8. EPA has reviewed available information in eutrophication in Newport
Bay. Since the treatment plants are tributary to San Diego Creek this
is a valid concern. The statement (on page 3-16) is correct.
9-56
-------
9. The Air Quality impact section should discuss the heath effects
of pollutants which cannot be reduced sufficiently to meet air quality
standards.
R-9. See Section 4.5.1 for an expanded discussion of health effects
of air pollution.
10. Please discuss the practicality and methods of implementing air
quality mitigation measures.
R-10. Chapter 5.0 of the Final EIS describes the selected wastewater
management alternative for AWMA. As noted in this chapter, the Final
Mitigation Plan for AWMA will be addressed at the Phase III level of
the total project. Sections 5.2.2 and 5.3.3 discusses this subject
in detail.
11. Pages 4-25 and 4-26 appear to assume that local and state authorities
have no control over AWMA's proposal.
R-ll. This statement assumed that all permits had been obtained. Text
has been changed to indicate this.
12. Transforming Route I into a toll road is not practical, and would
conflict with the South Coast Regional Planning Commission's goal of
maximizing public access to the coastal areas.
R-12. We agree.
9-57
-------
UIMTY OF
TELEPHONE: 834-20SO
AREA CODE 714
B 0. BOX 4108
400 CIVIC CENT.ER DRIVE WEST
SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA 92701
PLANNING COMMISSION
March 25, 1975
United States Environmental
Protection Agency
Region IX
100 California Street
San Francisco, CA 94111
Attention:
Gentlemen:
Mr. Paul DeFalco, Jr.
Regional Administrator
SUBJECT: Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Aliso
Water Management Agency Regional Wastewater Treatment
System
The following comments represent the response of the Orange County
Environmental Management Agency (EMA) and the Orange County Planning
Commission to the Draft EIS on the above project.
1. Alternatives 1A and 2G should be assessed and compared in rela-
tion to their effects on current and future development of the
AWMA area. Would Alternative 1A serve to satisfy the Regional
Water Quality Control Board directive to improve the quality
of sewer effluent? Does Alternative 2G go beyond what is required
and thus result in facilitating earlier development of the
•Moulton Ranch? It is not clear what population capacities are
to be served by the various alternatives, an inadequacy which
needs clarification. What would be the impact of these
Alternatives on land use policies of the County of Orange?
2. The report fails to address directly the existing and projected
quality of the streams, groundwater, and nearshore waters under
present and planned alternative waste treatment and disposal
practices. This perceived deficiency in the EIS might be
described as a failure to assess fully the total water quality
situation at present, alongside the anticipated positive
environmental impacts of each of the .AWMA alternatives. Order
No. 74-72 from the San Diego Regional Water Quality Control
Board, which outlines 'Water Discharge Requirements for .AWMA
Ocean Outfall" should be included in the EIS.
9-58
-------
March 25, 1975
Page Two
3. There exists possible severe conflicts between the location of
the facilities necessary for this project and the Open Space and
Conservation Element and the Land Use Element of the Orange County
General Plan, specifically with regard to Aliso Creek, which has
been designated as one of the top two open space priority areas
in the County. The Aliso Creek corridor has received a great deal
of attention by both the Environmental Management Agency, the
Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors and through
adoption b$ the latter of the "Forest to the Sea" report as an
interim guide for development of Aliso Creek as an open space/
greenbelt corridor.
The outstanding scenic, scientific and educational values of Aliso
Canyon (particularly, the north-facing slope vegetation) has re-
cently been recognized as being of State-wide importance. In
its Landscape Preservation Study for the Southwest Mountain and
Valley Province, the California Department of Parks and Recreation
identified that site (delineated on the attached) as Priority
Area Number 18 of some 45 sites of the Province warranting
acquisition and preservation by that Agency. This fact should
also be pointed out in the EIS.
AWMA intends to prepare Environmental Impact Reports for specific
facilities in accordance with the California Environmental
Quality Act as it pertains to discretionary authorizations for
these facilities from the County of Orange. Nevertheless, as
this overall EIS and project constrains the locations of specific
facilities to the degree identified in the Draft EIS, we believe
that this EIS must be expanded upon significantly to evaluate
the environmental impacts and alternatives of the location of
the facilities. As proposed, all alternatives will have signi-
ficant adverse environmental effects upon Aliso Creek. We
question why all alternatives are based on development of
facilities in the creek. We recommend, therefore, that the EIS
be expanded upon to evaluate alternative sites for the AWMA
facilities in Laguna Canyon, Salt Creek or any other locations
within the AWMA area. We strongly believe that each alternative
presented should be also evaluated for its viability in an
alternate location.
Further, these alternative locations, as well as all the Aliso
Creek locations noted in the Draft EIS, must be far more
thoroughly evaluated as to their environmental impacts and
mitigation measures. The Draft EIS is inadequate in this regard.
In addition, the impact of treatment plant location in any of
the designated greenbelts or open space corridors (i.e. Woods
Canyon,Aliso Creek), should be assessed with regard to their
long-range impacts on the recreation corridor.
In addition, in narrow portions of Aliso Creek such as the area
designated for location of the Regional Treatment Plant, con-
struction of the plant, the road and :the necessary flood pro-
9-59
-------
March 25, 1975
Page Three
tection works may not be physically practical. We suggest that
consideration be given to this problem in weighing Aliso Creek
against alternate locations for the AWMA project facilities.
4. The impact of vehicular roadway along the creek alignment should
be assessed. Is it required? Are stream crossings necessary?
5. How would the quality of surface waters flowing into Aliso Creek
be affected by the alternatives?
6. The Air Quality Mitigation Plans presented in the Draft EIS
could have significant ramifications for land use planning in
Orange County. This point should be expanded upon to reveal more
clearly to all concerned parties that if required by the
Environmental Protection Agency, there would be severe impli-
cations and possible resistance in Orange County. The impacts
of these mitigation measures needs to be spelled out. What are
the costs of the new buses recommended? What are the costs and
operating requirements of "Park and Ride" parking areas? What
is the impact on area population projections and the effect on
land prices if a new low income type community were developed
near the Federal GSA buildings? What are the-impacts of these
measures on Orange County's development policies, standards,
„ land use planning and current land use? Tremendous impacts on
transportation systems are possible, and we believe these should
be identified and evaluated by the EPA and the County prior to
a commitment to approve this project.
/
7. Justification for using the figure "115 gallons, of sewerage per
person per day" should be provided.
8. An assessment of the original investment in the two (2) plants
to be abandoned if Alternative 2G is selected should be included
in the cost figures in order to determine a true cost comparison
with Alternative 1A. Under Alternative 1A no plants would be
abandoned and thus the money expended to date for these plants
would be utilized in continuing use of the plants -- this would
appear to be a more efficient use of expended funds as opposed
to abandoning the plants which have already been paid for.
To the extent that the listed alternativesha^fe been evaluated, we
concur with the statements in the EIS that Alternative 1A as slightly
modified has "fewer secondary impacts", is "superior for achieving
reclamation in the future", is "the most cost effective in terms of
energy expenditure", and "maximizes the reclamation potential of the
Los Alisos, El Toro and Moulton Niguel Water Districts Treatment
Plants". However, we believe that additional factors should be
evaluated as they relate to Alternatives 1A (modified) and 2G (2F
modified) as outlined in the itemized statements above, supplemented
with consideration and evaluation of alternative project locations
within the AWMA area.
9-60
-------
March 25, 1975
Page Four
Thank you for providing the County with the opportunity for review-
ing the Draft EIS on this very important project.
Sincerely, .
Shirley L. Grindie, Chairman
Orange County Planning Commission
SLGrth
Attachment
9-61
-------
SOUTHWEST MOUNTAIN AND VALLEY PRESERVATION STUDY
. £>^,'«. :, ^VrP ••;£•' • v'"~ •''
-&fe-i%A vfe^fe J -7. .4
fe§g2^-^:\^i|:^.;/i/
SOUTHWEST MOUNTAIN AND VALLEY LANDSCAPE PRESERVATION STUDY
Figure 2
9-62
-------
SUMMARY COMMENTS
Orange County Planning Commission
2. Alternatives 1A and 2G should be assessed and compared in relation
to their effects on current and future development of the AWMA area.
It is not clear what population capacities are to be served by the
various alternatives.
R-l. Sizing has been clarified in Chapter 3. An expanded section
has been added to Chapter 4 regarding alternatives and their secondary
impacts.
2. The report fails to address directly the existing and projected
quality of the streams, groundwater, and near shore waters under
present and planned alternative waste treatment and disposal practices.
Order No. 74-72 from the San Diego Regional Water Quality Control
Board, which outlines "Water Discharge Requirements for AWMA Ocean
Outfall" should be included in the EIS.
R-2. Order No* 74-72 has been included as an appendix in the Final
EIS. It is extremely difficult to predict the actual quality of
streams, groundwater and near shore waters because of the varied
sources of pollutants. Agricultural and urban runoff contribute
significantly to problems in streams, groundwater and near shore
waters. An analysis of the impact of runoff from various rural and
urban land uses has been added to Section 4.5.2.2 of the Final EIS.
The San Diego comprehensive basin plan includes estimates of relative
contributions from these sources.
3. The EIS should be expanded to evaluate alternative sites for
the AWMA facilities in Laguna Canyon, Salt Creek or any other locations
within the AWMA area. As proposed, all alternatives will have signifi-
cant adverse environmental effects upon Aliso Creek.
R-3. 1. The initial commitment of the original treatment plant
site will involve adverse effects (creek realignment and
scenic disruption). This treatment plant site has been
eliminated from consideration.
. 2. To the extent physically practical, alternate sites have
been considered. The recreational, scenic, and wildlife
values of Aliso Creek have been given major consideration.
Refer to amended Chapter 3.
4. The impact of vehicular roadway along the creek alignment should
be assessed.
R-4. Discussion of roadways expanded in Chapter 3.
9-63
-------
5. How would the quality of surface waters flowing into Aliso Creek
be affected by the alternatives?
R-5. There would be virtually no effect on Aliso Creek. The effect
on San Diego Creek would be a reduction in flow and nutrients.
6. The Air Quality Mitigation Plans presented in the Draft EIS
could have significant ramifications for land use planning in Orange
County. This point should be expanded upon to reveal more clearly
to all concerned parties the nature of these possible implications.
R-6. The conceptual mitigation plans proposed in this EIS are attempts
to minimize the air quality impacts which will result from the urban-
ization of the AWMA region in accordance with the land use patterns
currently approved by Orange County government. The purpose of the
AWMA project is to enable present sewerage to be properly treated and
to provide sufficient treatment capacity to meet the demands which
will occur as adopted County land use plans are implemented. The
principal ramification of these mitigation plans upon Orange County
land use planning is to highlight the fact that adequate consideration
of air quality impacts was not given when the present General Plan
was adopted and that now specific direction must be given to the form
which developments take if air quality standards are to be achieved
and maintained as required by law.
The primary impact which will result from such mitigation measures
is a reduction in the amount of air pollution generated within the
AWMA region. Secondary impacts are diverse and no attempt can be made
within this EIS to deal comprehensively with them. However, some economic
impacts can be discussed further and Section 4.6.3 has been added to
the EIS.
The intent of the proposed "new town" around the GSA facility is not
to provide low income housing, but to create lower income housing than
is currently being planned. This would enable more of the people who
will be working in the GSA offices to live in the area. This would
also result in a more balanced community, rather than an upper income
suburb.
Any plan which will reduce air pollution by reducing the VMT may result
in the overbuilding of arterial highways. However, this situation
is largely avoidable since many of the roads eventually needed in AWMA
have yet to be built. Therefore, those roads can be re-evaluated
before being constructed to reflect any changes necessary.
High density cluster residential development with neighborhood shopping
centers is consistent with the goals of the Land Use Element of the
Orange County General Plan and land use planning practices in various
urbanized sections of the County. This type of residential development
is typically seen in the County's more urban locales in close proximity
to commercial, educational, cultural and institutional land uses and
major transportation corridors.
9-64
-------
According to the Orange County Planning Department, duplexes, triplexes,
apartments, condominiums and townhouses are to predominate within high
density areas. High density dwelling units may range from 6.5 to 18
units per gross acre with an area per unit standard of 2,400 to 5,000
square feet. Furthermore, these residential densities are flexible
to the extent that the maximum number of permitted dwelling units need
not be evenly distributed over the entire development area. The County
Land Use Element, in fact, encourages cluster housing and planned unit
development when it is found that this type of development will better
preserve the natural terrain and the open character 'of the County.
Even so, a detailed analysis should be undertaken for each development
site to ensure its compatibility with existing and proposed land uses
within both the AWMA region and the County as a whole.
7. Justification for using the figure "115 gallons of sewerage per
person per day" should be provided.
R-7. Figures have been recomputed in accordance with CC criteria using
existing per day per capita for residential use.
8. An assessment of the original investment in the two (2) plants
to be abandoned if Alternative 2G is selected should be included in
the cost figures in order to determine a true cost comparison with
Alternative 1A.
R-8. We agree. More work is needed on the upper Aliso area. The
plants are not abandoned, however, but retained for development of
summer reclamation potential.
9-65
-------
4
':." ,,,-K,TFR xf\>Gl/#X
cov
April 9, 1975
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Pacific South West Region IX
100 California Street
San Francisco, California 94111
Attention: Paul DeFalco, Jr.
Dear Mr. DeFalco:
We are pleased to submit for your consideration several comments regarding
the draft EIS #D-EPA-24011-CA - Aliso Water Management Agency. We wish to
summarize our oral presentation and present additional information in this
letter.
We concur with the EPA staff that the information regarding Alternative 1A
as modified, is weak and should be given far more study and consideration.
At this time we favor Alternative 1A modified which provides for an expansion
of the South Laguna plant and we oppose any plant site in the Wood Canyon area.
We recommend that any future plant expansion be located in the vicinity of the
G.S.A. (Ziggeraut) facility. Studies made by our consultant since the March 25
hearing show that contrary to statements made by Don Owens (AVWA consultant),
differences in capital costs to the City of Laguna Beach between Alternatives
1A and 2G are insignificant.
In our opinion, Alternative 2G will destroy the central portion of one of the
last remaining undeveloped canyons in this area. The Aliso Creek Corridor has
been designated by the Orange County Board of Supervisors as an area "to be
preserved." It was pointed out at the hearing by those who favor Alternative
2G that this corridor has already been "blocked." We would suggest that the
golf course development which exists is compatible with the natural undeveloped
canyon, whereas the proposed treatment plant is very incompatible and more
suitable in an industrial area.
The sludge disposal from a large regional plant as proposed in Alternative 2G
will be .a major problem. At the AVMA hearing on the EIR for the construction
details of the project which was held on April 3, it was revealed that the
access road from the proposed regional plant in Aliso Creek to the North was
deleted. It was also revealed that no land costs for the regional plant were
included in the cost estimates for the plant. The result of this is that if
Alternative 2G is constructed, approximately 60 cubic yards per day of sludge
will be required to be trucked through the golf course to Pacific Coast Highway
for disposal. In our opinion, it would be far better to construct Alternative
1A since the sludge disposal requirements will be much less.
9-66
505 FOREST AVE. • LAGUNA BEACH, CAL. 92651 • TEL. (714) 494-1124. 546-4856
-------
U. S. Environmei 1 Protection Agency ^ April 9, 1975
Attention: ,,Paul DeFalco, Jr. Page 2
The Aliso Creek Interceptor is a major element of the AIWA project. Under
Alternative 1A, it will be carrying treated effluent rather than raw sewage as
in Alternative 2G. If Alternative 2G is constructed and an earthquake ruptures
the interceptor, a potential environmental threat from raw sewage would occur.
As pointed out in the EIS, the interceptor line proposed in Alternative 2G
would act as a collector sewer, thus spurring development along Aliso Canyon.
It is claimed that the project should be cost effective and that Alternative 2G
is the most cost effective of the two. We wish to strongly point out that this
claim is in our opinion greatly in error since no monetary value has been
designated for the destruction of the central portion of Aliso Canyon and the
rerouting of Aliso Creek. The recreational value of Aliso Creek has not been
considered. The creek has a definite monetary value which will greatly increase
during the next 25 years.
There are several general comments regarding the AVMA project which concern us.
One of these is the cummulative effect of the AIWA project, the SERRA project,
and the Irvine Ranch Water District Rattlesnake Creek project. These three
projects when considered together will provide for a population of more than
three times the existing population in the South part of Orange County and this
will greatly affect the air quality in this area. The EIS has several mitigation
plans. Unfortunately, neither AIWA nor any agencies in AIWA is in a position to
enforce any of the mitigation measures. We would, therefore, recommend that the
mitigation measures be discounted and that the project be scaled down and/or
modified to reduce the impact rather than depending on the mitigation plans to
reduce the impact.
Thank you very much for the opportunity to comment on this important project.
We feel that this proposed project, which will be the largest public works
project in Southern Orange County, will have a great significance in our lives
and we are very appreciative of your concerns in trying to reduce the adverse
environmental impacts of these changes.
Very truly yours,
ROY W. HOLM, Mayor CARL E. JOHNSON, Vice Mayo:
CHARLTON BOYD, Ccfaicilman X'xdQN S. BRANDT Councilman /
PHYLLIS SWEENEY, Councilwoi
9-67
-------
SUMMARY COMMENTS
City of Laguna Beach
I. The City of Laguna Beach will similar capital costs for either
Alternative 1A or 2G.
R-l. We agree. The costs are similar, however, the annual operating
costs are higher in Alternative TA.
2. Alternative 2G will have major sludge disposal problems.
R-2. Final sludge treatment and disposal methods have not been determined
because of the siting problem. Refer to Chapter 5 of the Final EIS for
further discussion.
3. No monetary value has been placed on the present and future recreation
value of Aliso Creek. Because of this omission, we believe that it is a
great error to claim that Alternative 2G is more cost effective than Al-
ternative 1A.
R-3. Existence of a regional treatment plant would not prevent recreation;
instead it would change the character of the recreational experience. We
do not feel it is possible to quantify this in monetary terms.
4. Since the proposed mitigation measures are not enforceable, the pro-
ject should be scaled down or modified to reduce the impacts.
R-4. Chapter 5.0 of the Final EIS describes the selected wastewater manage-
ment alternative for AWMA. As noted in this chapter, the Final Mitigation
Plan for AWMA will be addressed at the Phase III level of the total project.
Sections 5.2.2 and 5.3.3 discuss this subject in detail.
9-68
-------
I
ALISO WATER
MANAGEMENT
AGENCY
^t 92677
744-834-2500
fiSl
April 10, 1975
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region IX
100 California Street
San Francisco, California 94111
Attention:
Gentlemen:
Mr. Paul DeFalco, Jr.
Regional Administrator
Subject: Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the
Aliso Water Management Agency, Regional Waste-
water Treatment System
The Board of Directors of the Aliso Water Management Agency urge the
Environmental Protection Agency to take an affirmative position in the selection
of alternative Concept 2-G as the most cost-effective regional wastewater treat-
ment system which would result in desirable environmental impact effects to the
extent practicable on the area basis.
The AWMA Board of Directors further urge the EPA to bring a halt to
the three year planning treadmill and approve the grant offer for the Aliso Water
Management Agency project on the basis of alternative Concept 2-G. AWMA finds
the description of Alternative 1-A soallusive and fluid that it has been impossible
to properly evaluate the impacts of the concept. In the opinion of AWMA, the
physical feasibility and environmental acceptability of Concept 1-A has not been
demonstrated by the Environmental Protection Agency.
The following comments are directed to specific areas of comparison
between the two concepts under consideration by EPA.
1 . Planned Population
The AWMA project is being designed with a maximum ocean outfall size
to serve a permanent population derived from an E-0 population projection to the
Year 2000. The maximum design size is being established by the State Water
& $00 Waft)
tM Siay y'fMMte&lutiict • tftvinr Zitanr/i Walet Qu/ur/
,Mo,,aoH-J\fy,iff°)talet SVilW • SToutA SKaguita Sam/a >y
9-69
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region IX
April 10, 1975
Page Two
Resources Control Board and is a limitation on the AWMA outfall pursuant to the
permit issued by the Coastal Zone Conservation Commission. Since both alterna-
tive Concepts 1-A and 2-G have the same ocean outfall size and capacity limita-
tion, there would appear to be no difference between growth inducing character-
istics of the alternative projects.
The contention that the raw sewer interceptor along Aliso Creek
proposed in Concept 2-G would be more growth inducing than the treated outfall
line proposed in Concept 1-A has not been substantiated. AWMA notes that an
18-inch diameter interceptor sewer line in the Aliso Creek area has existed
since 1968, with no evidence of induced growth. Expansion of wastewater treat-
ment facilities by the year 1985 is contemplated in both concepts. Whether the
expansion is made at a regional treatment plant (Concept 2-G) or at several
separate plants (Concept 1-A) would make little difference. The difficulties
of obtaining permits, EIR approvals, funding, etc., would be the same under
either concept.
Concept 2-G is responsive to growth and not growth inducing and
should be accepted by the Environmental Protection Agency.
2. Cost-Effectiveness
Studies conducted by AWMA and EPA indicate that Concept 2-G has a
lower construction cost than Concept 1-A and would have significantly lower
operating costs than Concept 1-A. At a time when power consumption is receiving
so much attention, AWMA is astonished to find EPA suggesting a concept which
would require 12,000,000 to 24,000,000 kilowatt hours more power over the next
twenty years than would Concept 2-G. The additional power consumption in Con-
cept 1-A would require 27,000 to 54,000 additional barrels of oil for power
generation and at present rate schedules would cost the AWMA agencies $300,000
to $600,000 more in operating costs. AWMA notes that in the evaluation of
annual cost, no escalation of power costs were used. Concept 1-A, as estimated
by EPA, would have operating costs 20 to 30 percent higher than Concept 2-G.
If EPA had projected the anticipated escalation in power costs, then the addi-
tional operating costs of Concept 1-A would exceed projected operating costs of
Concept 2-G by an even greater percentage. Concept 2-G is the most cost-effective
concept and is more responsive to the national program for energy conservation.
3. Concept 2-G Treatment Plant Site
AWMA is concerned about the environmental impacts of the proposed
regional plant site in Concept 2-G and has been working very hard to mitigate
adverse impacts from the construction of the treatment facilities. Several
comments have been submitted to EPA recommending Concept 1-A because it would
9-70
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region IX
April 10, 1975
Page Three
involve the construction of a 10 mgd regional plant in the canyon above the
existing South Laguna plant and therefore would not disturb the land along
Aliso Creek. The South Laguna site had long been AWMA's preferred plant site
and the Moulton-Miguel Water District had purchased the site in anticipation
of constructing a treatment facility. Soils investigations of the South Laguna
plant site, however, have identified extensive landslide areas which present a
construction limitation of the ultimate plant size of about a 10 to 12 mgd
capacity. This size plant would not accommodate the anticipated 1985 flows,
and additional treatment plant capacity would have to be constructed at other
locations. An additional concern of the South Laguna site is the cost of pump-
ing wastewater up to the plant. Plant layouts indicate that a 12 mgd plant
would have to be stairstepped up the canyon and the intake works would be at
about elevation 160, or 100 feet higher elevation than the plant site proposed
in Concept 2-G. A plant layout of a 12 mgd regional wastewater treatment plant
at the South Laguna site is presented in Attachment A.
The EPA-EIS suggests that a future plant could be constructed in
the Moulton-Niguel 4-A service area along Aliso Creek adjacent to the General
Services Administration Building. EPA has made no attempt to evaluate the
environmental impacts of this future plant site. It is the opinion of AWMA
that this plant site would have more adverse impacts than the Concept 2-G pro-
posed site. The 4-A site would be further into the proposed greenbelt recrea-
tion development area. The operation of this remote treatment plant, with the
problems of sludge handling and cost to pump the wastewater to the plant, would
complicate the operation of wastewater treatment facilities and add an additional
wastewater treatment facility in the Aliso Creek greenbelt area.
The County of Orange has suggested that AWMA consider a plant site
along Aliso Creek located immediately north of the proposed plant site. The
County contends that the northerly site would not require the channelization of
Aliso Creek and would remove the plant from the narrow canyon area of Aliso Creek.
AWMA has not proposed the northerly site for two reasons. One, it would separate
the proposed regional plant site from the existing South Laguna plant by approxi-
mately 0.7 miles which would complicate the operation of the plants as a single
regional plant. Secondly, it would locate the regional plant in the Horseshoe
Bend area which is proposed as a major recreation nodal area. AWMA believes that
the impacts of the treatment plants require that the new plant and the existing
South Laguna plant be located as close together as physically possible. Shown
on Attachment B is the plant site proposed by the County and the AWMA proposed
plant site. Concept 2-G attempts to minimize the impacts of the existing South
Laguna and new regional treatment plants in the Aliso Creek area.
9-71
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region IX
April 10, 1975
Page Four
4. Recreational Corridor
Concern has been expressed that the proposed regional plant site in
Concept 2-G would destroy the integrity of the hiking and equestrian trails and
bikeways proposed as a future greenbelt corridor along Aliso Creek. AWMA has
directed the engineers to redesign the regional treatment plant to provide for
an equestrian trail and a hiking-bikeway trail system along the western edge of
the plant site. This trail system would be 50 to 65 feet in width and would
utilize about three acres of the 17 acres proposed for the plant site and would
eliminate the plant service road along the western edge of the plant site. In
addition to the three acres in the plant site, the trail system could also
utilize the ranch road along the western edge of Aliso Creek. AWMA will acquire
property rights to about 11 acres adjacent to the plant site which would be
inundated under a standard project flood condition of 22,000 cubic feet per
second flow in Aliso Creek past the plant site. AWMA has expressed a willingness
to make this area available for greenbelt corridor uses. A copy of the land-
scaping plan which shows the proposed trail system is presented in Attachment C.
A cross-section of a typical trail system is presented in Attachment D. Concept
2-G does provide for the proposed recreational corridor.
5. Access Road
Substantial misunderstanding and confusion has been asserted to exist
over whether there will be an access road to the regional plant in Concept 2-G
and whether or not the road would be growth inducing. First, AWMA is not pro-
posing to construct a permanent access road through the three mile reach of Aliso
Creek from the General Services Administration Building to the regional plant.
AWMA is proposing that the contractor constructing the treatment plant use the
existing ranch road located along the westerly side of Aliso Creek for access
during construction. This would require the contractor to install two temporary
crossings over Aliso Creek. The ranch road would be used only by the contractor
and would not be open to public access. After completion of the plant construc-
tion, the contractor would remove the creek crossings and restore the creek area
to its original condition. Thereafter, access to the plant would be from the
Pacific Coast Highway by means of a private access previously acquired by the
Moulton-Miguel Water District. AWMA is proposing to construct a permanent road
between the South Laguna plant and the new regional plant. The road-would have
a 20 foot paved section and would be 1500 feet in length. The road would be used
by the AWMA plant operating personnel.
Between the Pacific Coast Highway and the South Laguna plant, access
would be through the Laguna Beach Golf Course development. A permanent easement
and right-of-way approximately 20 feet in width was acquired from Mr. and Mrs.
Brown .by the Moulton-Niguel Water District on July 19, 1971. The access was
9-72
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region IX
April 10, 1975
Page Five
acquired for the purposes of access to a sewage treatment plant and the road
would not be open to public access. Adequate access to the treatment plants
in Concept 2-G has been provided and private landowners have been compensated
for any impacts of the road access.
6. Wastewater Reclamation
Support for Concept 1-A has been suggested by some interests in the
belief that the concept would be more compatible for future wastewater reclama-
tion development. AWMA does not agree with this contention. The AWMA member
agencies have been operating wastewater reclamation programs for a number of
years and plan to continue these programs at existing plants and through the
implementation of the regional wastewater treatment facilities proposed in
Concept 2-G. The ocean outfall is the same size under both alternatives (size
limited by Coastal Zone Conservation Commission); therefore the pressures to
expand wastewater reclamation programs will be the same under both alternative
concepts.
Reclamation and conjunctive use of water supplies will be continued
by AWMA under Concept 2-G.
Summary
The Aliso Water Management Agency wishes to express their apprecia-
tion to the Environmental Protection Agency for the professional manner in which
the Environmental Impact Statement (Draft) was accomplished and for this opportunity
to make comments on the alternative concepts under consideration. AWMA urges EPA
to approve Concept 2-G as the most cost-effective and environmentally responsive
alternative. We know you are aware of the tremendous impact the delay of project
approval has had upon the costs of the project. Escalation of construction costs
during the three year planning program has resulted in an almost two-fold increase
in the estimated costs of the regional treatment facilities. Further delays in
project approval is not warranted.
The Aliso Water Management Agency Board of Directors request the
Environmental Protection Agency to conclude these proceedings and thereupon act
affirmatively with the State Water Resources Control Board on the funding of the
project on the basis of alternative Concept 2-G.
Very truly yours,
firman
Cors
WATER MANAGEMENT AGENCY
9-73
-------
SUMMARY COMMENTS
Aliso Water Management Agency
1. Since both Alternative Concepts 1-A and 2-G have the same ocean out-
fall, and therefore the same capacity limitation, there is no difference
in the growth-inducing characteristics of these two alternatives. 2-G's
raw sewer interceptor along Aliso Creek is not more growth-inducing than
1-A's treated outfall line. An 18-inch interceptor line has been in the
Aliso Creek area since 1968 and has not induced growth.
R-l. EPA does not contend that interceptors induce growth, however, they
do facilitate urbanization by making subdivision less expensive. The
existing interceptor did not result in urbanization because of adverse
economic conditions and a lack of roads.
2. Concept 2-G is the most cost-effective alternative. In comparison
to concept 1-A, it has lower construction costs, significantly lower opera-
ting costs, and would require 12 to 24 million kilowatt hours less over a
12 year period. Concept 1-A would have operating costs 20 to 30% higher
(or more, if power costs increase) and would require that 27,000 to 54,000
additional barrels of oil be consumed to generate the greater power needs
of this concept.
R-2. Concept 2-G is the most cost-effective alternative under AWMA's
assumptions. However, these assumptions do not quantify environmental
costs, lost opportunities, and flexibility. If the assumptions made in
formulation of the AWMA proposal are not accurate, the most flexible pro-
ject will be the most cost effective.
3. The 4-A site suggested in the EIS would have more adverse environmental
impacts than the 2-G site. The 4-A site would be further into the proposed
greenbelt recreation area. The site's remoteness would cause problems of
sludge handling and increase the cost of pumping wastewater to the plant.
R-3. The 4-A site has already been disturbed by the GSA building. There
is no problem with archaeological sites and the site benefits in terms of
static head for future reclamation.
4. AWMA has not proposed a site immediately north of the proposed plant
site because the 0.7 mile distance between this northerly site and the
existing South Laguna plant would complicate consolidation of operations
of the two plants. The northerly site suggested by the County of Orange
is in the Horseshoe Bend area, which is proposed as a major recreation
node.
R-4. EPA does not endorse a treatment plant in Horseshoe Bend, but has
included the site in an expanded discussion of sites. Refer to Section
3.1.2 in the Final EIS.
9-74
-------
5. In response to concerns expressed regarding future hiking, riding,
and bicycle trails along Aliso Creek, AWMA has directed its engineers
to provide an equestrian trail and a hiking-bikeway trail system along
the western edge of the 2-G plant site. This 50 to 65 foot wide trail
system, which would replace the plant service road originally planned
for this area, would cover three of the site's 17 acres. The trail
system could include the ranch road along the western edge of Aliso
Creek.
AWMA will acquire 11 acres subject to inundation during a Standard
Project flood of 22,000 cubic feet per second flow in this area.
AWMA is willing to make this area available for greenbelt corridor
uses.
R-5. The EIS has been amended to reflect these changes. Refer to
Section 3.2.2.1.
6. During plant construction, the contractor will use the existing
private ranch road from the GSA Building along the westerly side of
Aliso Creek. Two temporary creek crossings will be installed. These
will be removed and the creek restored to its original condition fol-
lowing completion of construction.
When the plant is built, access will be from Pacific Coast Highway
via a private 20 foot wide, 1,500 foot long paved road through the
Laguna Beach Golf Course development. A permanent easement and approximately
20 foot wide right-of-way was acquired by the Moulton-Niguel Water
District on July 19, 1971.
R-6. The EIS has been amended to reflect these changes. Refer to
Section 3.2.2.1.3.1.
7. AWMA plans to continue its wastewater reclamation programs at
existing plants and at the facilities proposed in Concept 2-G. Since
the ocean outfall will be the same size for Concepts 2-G and 1-A,
both alternatives would experience the same pressures for expansion
of wastewater reclamation programs.
R-7. The static head, physical location, usefulness of treated line
for partial distribution in Alternative 1A appear to offer more com-
patibility to continual future reclamation.
9-75
-------
March 25, 1975
Moulton Miguel
27500 La Paz Road, Laguna Miguel
California 92677, Phone 831-250'
1
Mr. Paul De Falco, Jr.
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Pacific Southwest Region IX
100 California Street
San Francisco, California 94111
Attention: Mr. James McGrath
Gentlemen:
For the record my name is Les Remmers, Vice-President of the Moulton
Miguel Water District. This agency, as well as other member agencies
within the Aliso Water Management Agency, has embarked upon a program
of providing long-range water and sewerage facilities at the lowest
possible cost. In order to accomplish this goal the Board of Directors
held a general obligation bond election in June 1968. The total amount
of authorization was $26.7 million. The qualified voters, mostly
homeowners within Laguna Miguel, Mission Viejo and Laguna Hills,
overwhelmingly approved the issue by 76.8 percent. Through the years
these residents and taxpayers have continued to support, both by
endorsements and through their tax dollars, programs that are vitally
needed to upgrade water and sewerage service.
The Aliso Water Management Agency's proposed wastewater treatment Plan 2-G
represents the most economical and environmentally acceptable of all the
alternatives suggested by the Environmental Protection Agency, as well as
the Aliso Water Management Agency.
Through the economics of regionalization brought about by incremental
cost savings and federal and state assistance the local taxpayers can,
through their local elected officials, implement the State Basin Plan
which will improve the environmental quality in our area.
On behalf of the Board of Directors of the Moulton Miguel Water District
and their residents and taxpayers, may I respectfully request your
approval of the All so Water Management Agency's Plan 2-G.
Sincerely,
MOULTON MIGUEL WATER DISTRICT
/
/
H. Les Remmers
Vice-President
CJK:slh
/
9-76
-------
SUMMARY COMMENTS
Moulton Miguel Water District
March 25, 1975
1. The qualified voters in the Moulton Niguel Water District over-
whelmingly approved a June 1968 general obligation bond election
authorizing the MNWD to issue $26.7 million in bonds to provide long-
range water and sewerage facilities.
R-l. The issue of "qualified voters" was raised at the public hearing
on this project. In California water districts, "qualified voters"
are determined by land ownership, in direct proportion to ownership.
Thus, approval of bonds by qualified voters does not necessarily denote
popular support. Within AWMA, in the Moulton Niguel Water District,
the majority of the land is undeveloped. The bond election in 1968
did receive popular support.
9-77
-------
April 10, 1975
27500 La Paz Road, Laguna Miguel
California 92677, Phone 831-2500.
United States
Environmental Protection Agency
Pacific Southwest Region IX
100 California Street
San Francisco, California 94111
Attention:
Regarding:
Mr. Paul De Falco, Jr.
Regional Administrator
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
Regional Wastewater Treatment System
Aliso Water Management Agency
Mr. James McGrath, Project Evaluator
Gentlemen:
The Moulton-Niguel Water District would like to offer the following comments in
response to the draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the ATI so Water
Management Agency (AWMA) project.
One of the basic concepts in implementing the regional AWMA project and the
incentive to the Moulton-Niguel Water District and other member agencies to
participate was the premise that the costs to any agency for participation
in the project would be less than the costs of the agency proceeding on its
own.
In order to justify the Moulton-Niguel Water District's participation in the
regional wastewater treatment plant, the District finds it essential to have
a site where at least eight million gallons per day (mgd) of treatment plant
capacity can be constructed for the Moulton-Niguel Water District in con-
junction with a regional facility for joint operations. Otherwise, it is not
economically feasible for the District as to either capital costs or operation
and maintenance costs.
Based upon the detailed wastewater treatment plant estimate by VTN, dated
March 20, 1975, of $10,806,340 for a 12 mgd plant, and $12,280,770 for a 16 mgd
plant; a 4 mgd share of a 16 mgd plant is $3,070,000, and a 4 mgd share of a
12 mgd plant is $3,602,000.
The water reclamation feasibility study prepared by Brown and Caldwell for the
Moulton-Niguel Water District in July of 1973, in response to the Environmen-
tal Protection Agency's (EPA) concern relative to expansion of the Improvement ,
District No. 1-A and Improvement District No. 2-A's water treatment plants,
9-78
-------
United States
Environmental Protection Agency
April 10, 1975
Page Two
estimated the cost (ENR-2250) for a 4 mgd plant to be $5,591,000, with annual
operating costs of $370 per million gallons of water treated. Brown and
Caldwell's estimate for a 16 mgd plant was $11,841,000, compared to VTN's
estimate of $12,280,770, and the estimated annual operating costs for an
18.6 mgd plant of $97 per million gallons of water treated.
The site back of the existing plant, beside being geologically hazardous, with
half the surrounding slopes being designated as landslide areas (see attached
map), cannot accommodate the capacity of the City of Laguna Beach, the Irvine
Ranch Water District, and the South Laguna Sanitary District, plus Improvement
District No. 1-A of the Moulton-Niguel Water District. Therefore, a 4 mgd
additional plant would be required for Improvement District No. 1-A and a
4 mgd plant required for Improvement District No. 4-A, the most suitable site
would be where all plant operations could be consolidated, which is the pro-
posed regional plant site. To gravity from Improvement District No. 1-A, a
joint plant with Improvement District No. 4-A would have to be either at the
horseshoe bend area (environmentally undesirable) or at the proposed regional
plant site of Alternative No. 2-G, or two separate 4 mgd plants.
In addition, the restricted alternative No. 1-A site varies in elevation from
160 feet at the top of the usable ground to 40 feet at the bottom of the usable
area. The plan developed for the site in March 29, 1973, and attached hereto,
still had to utilize lands within the Aliso Valley on both sides of the existing
South Laguna/Moulton-Niguel plant in order to meet the capacity requirements for
the prior project which had envisioned the expansion of Moulton-Niguel Water
District's Nos. 1-A and 2-A plants at their existing site. This alternative
subsequently was determined to be undesirable due to the type of treatment method
utilized at those locations.
With the proposed Alternative No. 1-A treatment works spread over a 100 foot
variation in elevation, additional pumping will be required to reach the head
works for all participants.
Due to the landslide areas, no cuts can be made in the toe of the slopes and
drainage from further up the canyon will have to be accommodated through the
proposed plant site.
Environmentally, people utilizing a trail system or facilities in the floor
of the Aliso Valley would view and face a 100 foot vertical scarring and
observe the treatment works terraced down over a 120 foot vertical line, plus the
disruption of the valley; compared to Alternative No. 2-G's site with an average
width plant site of 400 feet horizontally transversing the valley, which can
be shielded effectively by use of trees and the triple buffer adjacent to and
within the area to be set aside for the mountains to the sea's trail system.
9-79
-------
United States
Environmental Protection Agency
April 10, 1975
Page Three
The cost of two 4 mgd plants at $5,591,000 each totals $11,182,000. As this
cost includes items for expansion, the costs could possibly be reduced by
$1,000,000 each by elimination of the provisions for expansion to $4,591,000
per plant for a total of $9,182,000, compared to the cost of two 4 mgd
increments of a plant of 16 mgd capacity totaling $6,140,000, or a total
additional cost to the Moulton-Niguel Water District of $3,042,000 to
$5,042,000, compared to its potential grant for treatment capacity of approxi-
mately $716,000.
Minimum site development costs per treatment plant site would range between
$650,000 and $1,000,000 for each additional plant site.
To meet the restrictive sizing of the ocean outfall, the Moulton-Niguel Water
District will need to develop a total capacity for reclamation or other dis-
posal of approximately 4 mgd. This 4 mgd capacity plus the total capacity of
Los Allsos Water District and El Toro Water District in the summer, will
provide a total ultimate reclamation potential of 15 mgd which at a use of
3 acre feet per acre per year is adequate to supply between 3,000 and 3,500
acres of fully irrigated parks and greenbelts.
Therefore, the regional site, to be economically viable under alternative
No. 1-A must have a minimum size of 18.8 mgd including the present plant rated
at 2.6 mgd. This includes 4.4 mgd for the City of Laguna Beach, 3.0 mgd for
the Irvine Ranch Water District, 0.2 mgd for the Emerald Bay Services District,
3.2 mgd for the South Laguna Sanitary District, and 8.0 mgd for the Moulton-
Niguel Water District.
In further response to my comments made at the EPA public hearing, relative
to the approval of the Moulton-Niguel Water District's bond issues in 1968,
I would like to advise you that on an assessed value basis, the bond issues
carried by a 98.4 percent.
At that time, developed homes represented approximately 30 percent of the
total assessed value of the sewer improvement districts. Assuming the total
1.6 percent no vote represented the 30 percent of the homeowners, the total
homeowner vote equates to 94.7 percent in favor of the project. Based upon
the assessed values of the land for the homeowners, only 84 homeowners out
of 2,930 voted against the bond issue. The District must conclude from these
figures that the homeowner populace of the District stands fully behind the
proposed bond issues for the District's sewer projects.
In conclusion, although some variations of Alternative No. 1-A may be
feasible, the alternative of utilizing the limited area available as the
9-80
-------
United States
Environmental Protection Agency
April 10, 1975
Page Four
wastewater plant site back of the existing plant seems completely unfeasible
both economically and environmentally, as it precludes establishment of
the most cost effective treatment system unless both sites are ultimately
developed.
Alternative No. 2-G still provides for utilization of the existing Los Alisos
and El Toro Water Districts' capacity throughout the Aliso Valley to the extent
of the capacity of these present plants totaling approximately 7 mgd. This is
adequate to develop approximately 1,500 to 2,000 acres of irrigated parks and
greenbelts. Development of this demand for use should take over 10 years, and
covers more than the initial planning period for this phase of treatment works.
The selection of Alternative No. 2-G with the treatment plant at the proposed
regional plant site can be compatibly incorporated into the environmental
element of the lower Aliso Valley, particularly when this represents 17 acres
out of a total of 6,000 acres of greenbelts, parks, and open space, and
continue to provide flexibility to accommodate future decisions relative to
the maximum reclamation potential and treatment plant capacity. Further,
and extremely important to maintaining the viability of a regional project,
is retention of a project with the minimum cost impact to the agencies which
will be contributing approximately 80 percent of their share of the cost of
the facilities from local taxpayers'funds.
Again, this agency must emphasize the urgency of moving ahead immediately,
to prevent further delays, which have already resulted in cost increases of
approximately $8,000,000 (eight million) for the Ocean Outfall, Regional
Plant, and Aliso Creek Interceptor.
Sincerely,
MOULTON-NIGUEL WATER
H. Les Remmers
Vice President
Board of Directors
WFW/HLR:rfh
Enclosure
9-81
-------
SUMMARY COMMENTS
Moulton Miguel Water District
April 10, 1975
1. Participation in a regional wastewater treatment plant with capacity
of less than eight million gallons per day (mgd) could not be justified
by the Moulton-Niguel Water District as it would be economically unfeasi-
ble.
R-l. The current flow from MNWD is 1.4 mgd. Rate of growth cannot
be accurately predicted. Thus, cost effectiveness depends on having
facilities which are appropriately sized. Where the rate of growth
cannot be accurately predicted, flexibility is highly desirable.
2. The site behind the existing SLSD plant is geologically hazardous,
and is too small to accommodate a plant large enough to serve the City
of Laguna Beach, the Irvine Ranch Water District, the South Laguna Sanitary
District, and Moulton-Niguel Water District Improvement District No.
1-A.
In order to permit gravity flow from both Improvement Districts No.
1-A and 4-A, a regional plant would have to be located at either Horseshoe
Bend or the Concept 2-G site. The alternative is for each Improvement
District to have its own 4 mgd plant.
R-2. True, it cannot accommodate all flows, but it can accommodate
all flows until MNWD flows develop to where they need a treatment plant.
This flexibility is viewed as highly desirable.
3. The site behind the existing SLSD plant was determined to be un-
desirable because of the site's topographic constraints. The planned
expansion of the existing South Laguna/Moulton-Niguel plant was based
on plans to expand the existing Moulton-Niguel Water District's Nos.
1-A and 2-A plants. This alternative was discarded because of the type
or treatment used at the latter plants.
r
R-3. EPA envisions treating all M-NWD flows upstream when and if the
undeveloped areas do develop to a sufficient degree. The eventual solution
for the MNWD depends upon the outcome of the Facilities Plan addendum
(See Chapter 5.0 of the Final EIS).
4. Because the Alternative 1-A treatment plant is spread over a 100-
foot variation in elevation, additional pumping will be required for
all participants to reach the head works.
R-4. True, but this would be comparable to pumping back upstream for
future reclamation.
5. Concept 2-G's plant site would be more aesthetically pleasing,
as it could be shielded by landscaping. Alternative 1-A would disrupt
the valley and be more visually intrusive.
9-82
-------
R-5. It is a value judgment as to which is more disruptive. The
comments received on the project are more concerned about use of
the valley bottom in Aliso Canyon.
6. Because of the restrictive sizing of the ocean outfall, the
Moulton-Niguel Water District will need to develop a 4 mgd capacity
for reclamation or other disposal.' In order to be economically
viable, the regional plant in Alternative 1-A must have a minimum
size of 18.8 mgd.
R-6. EPA anticipates treating all MNWD upstream, reducing the regional
site under Alternative 1-A to 10.8 mgd. Capacity for flows from
IRWD are not needed at this time and may never be needed. It is
true that it would be cheaper for MNWD to treat 8 mgd in a 18.8
mgd treatment plant than in an 8 mgd treatment plant. This must
be balanced against head loss for future reclamation purposes and
adverse primary and secondary impacts (See R-3).
7. The Moulton-Niguel Water District's 1968 bond issue was opposed
by only 84 homeowners out of 2,930 homeowners voting. On an assessed
value basis, the bond issues carried by 98.4%.
R-7. It appears that the bond issue met with popular support.
9-83
-------
/0
ENVIRONMENTAL COALITION OF ORANGE COUNTY, INC.
2OB W. 4TH ST..SUITE31B, SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA 927O1
March 19, 1975
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Attn: Hearings Office, HE 118
Region IX
100 California Street
San Francisco, Ca 94111
RE: The Aliso Water Management Agency Project Federal EIS
Gentlemen:
This transmittal letter is to acknowledge that Dale A Secord
ha a been given authority by the Board of Directors of the
Environmental Coalition of Orange County, Inc. to speak on
behalf of the organization.
The Environmental Coalition has made its position on this
issue rather clear in previous written and oral comments.
Please consider the attached written comments and our repre-
sentative's (Dale A Secord) oral comments at the March 25,
1975 public hearing in your deliberations.
Sincerely,
Environmental Coalition
Board of Directors
Herb Baasch
(absent)
1st District :
2nd District : Margaret Carl berg 'Tlla/a/tit
3rd District : Chuck Greening
4th District : Gerald Podolak
5th District : Harry Jeffrey
9-84
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL COALITION OF ORANGE COUNTY, INC.
2O6 W. 4TH ST..SUITE31B, SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA 927O1
March 24, 1975
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Attn: Hearing Office, HE 118
Region IX
100 California Street
San Francisco, Ca 94111
RE: D-EPA-24011-CA Draft EIS on Aliso Water Management Agency
Hearing Officers:
Please consider the attached critique and evaluation of the
draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Aliso Water
Management Agency project.
The Environmental Coalition will submit additional materials
at a latter date.
Sincerely,
Dale A Secord
Executive Director
Environmental Coalition
9-85
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL COALBTION OF ORANGE COUNTY, INC.
2O6 W. 4TH ST..SUITE316, SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA 927O1
March 24, 1975
Paul DeFalco, Jr.
Regional Administrator
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region IX
100 California Street
San Francisco, Ca 94111
RE: Draft Environmental Impact Statement D-EPA-24011-CA
Aliso Water Management Agency
Dear Mr. DeFalcb:
The Environmental Coalition of Orange County, Inc. requests the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) deny the Clean Water Grant
requested by the'Alison-Water Management Agency (AWMA). We urge
the EPA to consider all environmental and social impacts in
their determinations - too often considerations are limited to
economics.
The EPA should be commended in its attempt to surface and assess
the significant environmental effects which would result from
the Federal government's action (i.e., possible financial
support). The decision by the Regional EPA Administrator can
only be as good as the information provided to him upon which
to. oase that Judgemental decision. Unfortunately, tne Federal
draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the AWMA regional
wastewater treatment system is inadequate and insufficient in
many respects.
PROCEDURES
Because of the complexity and importance of this proposed
project the Environmental Coalition urges that the public
hearing scheduled for March 25, 1975 in Laguna Niguel be con-
tinued to allow greater public participation in the planning
process. Section 6.40 of the Environmental Protection Agency's
Interim Regulations for the preparation of environmental impact
statements (Federal Register, Vol 38, No 11) suggests that the
Agency actively solicit comments.from all concerned and affected
groups and individuals. Because of the size of AWMA (approxi-
mately 48,905 acres) we would suggest that additional hearings
be held in Laguna Beach and El Toro.
"*A>
The Enviconment&l Coalition would like to request that the
record remain open after the close of the public hearings so
that additional written comments may be obtained. We would
suggest a JO day time period for additional written comments.
9-86
-------
AWMA EIS
CONTENT OF THE DRAFT SIS
The body or content of the draft EIS is incomplete. Section
6.32(g) of the EIS Guidelines requires a discussion of problems
and objections raised by other Federal, State and local agencies
and by interested persons. In the draft EIS this previous
public imput is summarized in a page and a. half. This section
of the draft EIS does not adequately summarize the comment!? and
suggestions made during the review process of AWMA environmental
impact report prepared under the guidelines established by the
California Environmental Quality Act of 1970. The review and
actions of other responsible agencies (i.e., public agencies
involved in carrying out or approving the project) are not
discussed. It is hoped that the Final EIS will address some
of these previous comments, reviews and actions as well as
describing the disposition of the Issues surfaced (e.g., revision?.
to the proposed project to mitigate anticipated impacts or
objections).
Although, the Federal EIS Guidelines do not require a section
on cumulative effects, Section 6.20(a)(3) does discuss this
aspect of significant environmental effects for determining
when to prepare an impact statement. The Guidelines state,
"The total expected environmental impact of precedent-setting
actions and individually small but cumulatively large actions
shall be identified and considered fully. If the Agency is
taking a number of minor, environmentally insignificant actions
that are similar in execution and purpose, especially when
they are taken during a limited time span and in the same
general geographic area, the cumulative environmental impact of
all of these actions, may be significant."
In addition, Section 6.32(a) of the Guidelines requires a
statement of other relative planning. According to the section
the'EIS is to "Describe the recommended or proposed action,
its purpose, where it is located, its time setting, and its
interrelationship with other projects or proposals." (emphasis
added)."To prevent piecemeal decisionraaking, the project
shall be described in as broad a context as possible. The
relationship to other projects and proposals shall be discussed,
including: not only other Agency activities, but also those of
other Governmental and private organizations."
The EPA has already approved Federal Clean Water Grants for
Irvine Ranch >vater District's (IRY/D) Rattlesnake outfall a^ci
is prsently considering a grant application for the Southeast
Regional Reclamation Authority (SERRA). The cumulative
adverse impact of the secondary affects of the three projects
has never been addressed or considered.
9-87
-------
PAGE 3
AWMA EIS
In addition, the draft EIS does not address the relationship
of this proposed action to other Governmental agencies and
private organizations. There is little discussion of the
relationship of the proposed AWMA project with the permit
application granted by the Regional and State Coastal Zone
Conservation Commission of California.
The EIS does not contain any statement of other relative plan-
ning by other governmental agencies. There is no discussion of
the relationship of this proposed project with the relative
planning of the County of Orange (General Plans and South East
Orange County Transportation Study, Laguna Greenbelt Study
and the Aliso Creek Study), of the City of Laguna Beach and
of the California Coastal Zone Conservation Plan.
The impact of construction is not adequately covered by this
Federal draft EIS. We are aware that AWMA has prepared their
own "Construction Impact draft SIR under CEQA Guidelines but
we consider that draft EIR inadequate. Section 6.57 of the
EIS Guidelines describes the extent or the contents necessary
for wastewater treatment facilities.
The Environmental Coalition considers this Federal draft EIS
and jflTWMA's draft "Construction Impacts" report inadequate for
the Corp of Engineers approval of activities under Section 103
of the Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act (PL 92-
532) and Section 404 of the Federal Water Pollution Control
Act (PL 92-500).
DISTRIBUTION LIST
1 . The AWMA draf-t-EIS distribution list incorrectly lists
agencies, organizations and individuals under improper
categories.
2. After comparing Table 2-20 (Summary of Governmental Author-
ity) with the distribution list it is significant that
several important agencies were apparently not sent a copy
of the draft EIS for review. These agencies include: U.S.
Fish & Wildlife Services, SCAG, Orange County Transit
District, O.C. Flood Control District, O.C. Air Pollution
Control District, O.C. Board of Supervisors, and O.C.
Road Department. Section 6.23 of the EIS Guidelines
requires the draft EIS to be sent to all appropriate State
and local agencies.
CLARIFICATION OR ELABORATION OF INFORMATION
There are numerous areas within the draft EIS that require
an elaboration or clarification.
1. pp. 2-67, Table 2-19: Date of data should be provided and
total .AWMA per capita flows should be shown.
9-88
-------
PAGE 4
AWMA EI3
2. pp. 2-68, Section 2.14.1
pp. 2-69, Section 2,. 14.3
pp. 2-70, Section 2.14.4
pp. 2-71, Section 2.14.5
The term "qualified voters" should be clarified. It should
be pointed out that voting for the Board of Directors and for
authorization of bonds is done by an assessed valuation of
land and not by popular vote.
3. Exibits 3-2, 3-4, 3-6, 3-8, 3-10, 3-11, 3-13
The schematic diagrams for the alternatives shows the 1995 flows
and sizes for the proposed facilities. The ultimate or maximum
flows or capacity should also be provided. Also, it is not
clsar whether the flows are average or peak flows.
4. pp. 4-8: The statement that "more than 75$ are opposed to
low or middle".income housing for less affluent whites or non
whites" should be documented.
5. Exibit 4.8: It would be helpful if a second graph and table
showing alternative population forcasts for the AWMA .area was
included.
6. Exhibit 4-9: It is not clear whether the wastewater flows
are average or peak flow. Also, it is not clear what the nota-
tion "Ultimate Population Reflected on Adopted General Plans"
is suppose to designate. The entire graph should be redone
using a daily per capita flow of 100 gpd.
7. pp. 4-15: The April 16, 1973 date refers to the South Coast
Regional Coastal Zone Conservation Commission approval. That
decision was appealed and the State Coastal Commission on June
20, 1973 after accepting the appeal modified the Regional permit
to subject AWMA to capacity limitations.
8. pp. 4-15: The Irvine Regional Center is discussed in Section
4.3.5 and shown on Exhibit 4-14. This has not been established
nor is it currently growing. The City of Irvine has approved
pre-annexation zoning only.
9. pp. 4-19: It is not clear whether the emissions of 558
tons/day of RHC for various stationary source controls and
emission controls upon mobile sources takes into account the
latest delays in implementing exhaust standards by EPA.
10. pp. 8-1: The data on energy requirements should indicate
the time period considered, (i.e., ten years or 20 years);
QUESTIONABLE ASSUMPTIONS
1. pp. 4-20 and Appendix B: The analysis of vehicle miles
travelled (VMT) Increases is based on some highly questionable
assumptions.
9-89
-------
PAGE 5
AWMA EIS
The factor of 7.98 miles per trip is apparently Incorrect.
B
.(H-^G) 5.76:; miles 6.92 miles 8.36 miles 10.99 miles
(0-0) 4.82 5.54 6.44 8.5?
(0-W) 7.24 8.33 9.69 12.15
(H-W) 9.12 10.49 12.21 15.31
(H-S) 3.09 3.50 4.08 5.j1
Average b.24 miles 7.2 miles 8.15 miles 10.43 miles
A = 1967 data, LARTS Study
B = Gal Trans, 1971
C = Straight line projections to 1985 assuming Col B currently
used in 1975
D = Straight line projections to 1985 assuming Col B as 1971
data only
Thus instead of 7.98 miles per trip the calculation should use
either 8.15 or 10.43 miles per trip. Using the 3.82 trips per
capita and the three average trip allocations of 7.98, 8.15 and
10.43 miles the daily per capita VMT would be 30.5. 31.3 and
39.9 miles. The means of the commuter mileage for the AWMA
area as indicated in Table 4.4 would also support the higher VMT.
The traffic generation factors generated in Appendix B are not
applicable for the AWMA area. These are regional approximations.
As pointed out on pp. 4.21 of the draft EIS, "The South County
Study, and other raw data developed by OCTD, indicates that
people in the AWMA area travel about 30$ further per week than
people elsewhere in the county."
This questionable principal assumption of miles per trip clouds
the accuracy of all the VMT and air quality calculations.
2. pp. 5-1: There have been no cost-effective analysis done
to support the statement that Alternative 2F is the most cost-
effective alternative over a 20-year period.
3. Exhibit 4-9: The Aliso WMA has consistently attempted to
obtain greater capacity by exagerating population forcasts,
commercial and industrial needs for the area, seasonal popula-
tion increases, infiltration and peak flow. The facilities
shotiiid be constructed with a capacity reasonably necessary to
satisfy appropriate engineering standards.
Infiltration; A'WMA apparently is requesting a 15 gallon per
person per day for infiltration. This is absurd! The 1972
AWMA £reject Report stated, "Since the pipe Joints in use today
are water tight, infiltration should be minimal at joints;
however, some amount of Infiltration is experienced at manholes,
not only from groundwater but also from surface water period-
ically in areas where manhole covers are in streets." (pp. 53).
9-90
-------
PAGE 6
AWMA EIS
The question of the amount of infiltration experienced at the
manholes is addressed in the Project Report for SERRA (pp IV -
41, 42). That report stated there was no correlation between
precipitation and maximum daily flows during 1970 and during
1968-69, a wet year when precipitation totalled 159.2$ of the
mean, only 3 days of peak sewage flow coincided with rainstorms.
Industrial/Commercial; It is understood that AWMA is requesting;
additional capacity for industrial and commercial wastewater
flows. Only a few industrial plants are presently located
within, or are planned for, the AWMA area.; None of these
plants fall into the category of wet-process industry, using
and discharging large volumes of water. The principle contri-
bution of the few industrial plants connected to the participa-
ting agency sewer systems is sanitary sewage. Volumes of liquid
industrial wastes discharged to the sewer system are minor,
amounting to only a fraction of the sanitary sewage flow gener-
ated within the same buildings. Industrial and commercial waste
discharges have virtually no effect upon the quantity and flow
patterns of the total sewage flow within the AWMA area.
Seasonal; Exhibit 4-9 indicates that there would be a .constant
seasonal wastewater flow of about 3 mgd. The State WRCB staff
recommended certain seasonal flows for two segments of AWMA's
service area. In the area of South Laguna, the staff had used
seasonal flows of 0.33 mgd by 1985 and 0.41 mgd by 1995. In
the area of the City of Laguna Beach, the staff had allowed
seasonal flows of 1.63 mgd by 1985 and 2.16 mgd.by 1995. AWMA
petitioned the State WRCB for a Review of the staff determina-
tions. Subsequently the Laguna Beach seasonal allowances were
increased to 2.15 ragd and 2.76 mgd, respectively.
Domestic; AWMA is apparently requesting a domestic (excluding
commercial and industrial) flow of 100 gallons/day/dapita.
Table 2-19 of the draft EIS shows population and wastewater
flows. The per capita flow for the entire AWMA area is 91.5
gpcd for the resident population and 93 gpcd with transient
population Included. These per capita flows include infiltra-
tion and commercial/industrial flows and are not strictly
domestic wastewater flows. These flows are supported by prev-
ious data within the 1972 Project Report. According to page
28 or the 1972 report a flow rate of 92 gpcd was experienced
in 1972 (population, 66,150 and average dry weather flow of
6.10 mgd). Domestic wastewater flows without industrial,
commercial and infiltration should be about 60-70 gpcd.
The State WRCB has allowed a per capita flow of 87.4 gpd (this
apparently includes domestic, commercial, industrial and infil-
tration flows).
The Final EIS should address these factors of wastewater flows.
Also, EPA should eliminate funding for capacity in excess of
that reasonably necessary to satisfy appropriate engineering
standards.
9-91
-------
PAGE 7
AWMA EIS
ALTERNATIVES
1 . It would be helpful if:.there was a table cross referencing
alternative designations in the Federal draft EIS, previous 1972
AWMA Project Report..and EIR and 1974 AWMA Project Report and EIR.
2. According to Section 6.32(d) of the Federal EIS Guidelines
the draft EIS must, "Develop, describe, and objectively weigh
alternatives to any proposed action which involves significant
tradeoffs among the uses of available environmental resources.
The analysis shall be structured in a manner which allows
comparisons of: (1) Environmental and financial cost differences
among equally effective alternatives, or (2) differences in
effectiveness among equally costly alternatives. Where practi-
cable, benefits and costs should be quantified or described
qualitatively in a way which will aid in a more objective
judgement of their value. Where such an analysis is prepared,
it shall be appended to the statement."
There is no analysis of the benefits and costs of the environ-
mental and financial differences of the suggested alternatives.
Thus the reviewer cannot easily Judge the relative desirability
of the alternatives. It is hoped that'this deficiency will be
remedied in the Final EIS.
3. The EIS Guidelines also require "The analysis of different
courses of action shall include alternatives capable of substan-
tially reducing or eliminating; any adverse impacts, even at the
expense of reduced project objectives." (Emphasis added).
It appears that all the alternatives are based on a design
population range of 170,000 to 250,000. The prima facie evidence
of secondary effects on air quality indicates that no alternatives
have been considered to substantially reduce or eliminate the
adverse impacts. We would urge that additional alternatives
which have facilities with reduced capacities or elimination of
extensions of some of the interceptors be evaluated.
4. The EIS Guidelines also requires the specific alternative of
taking no action be evaluated. The extent of such an evaluation
is limited to a short paragraph (pp. 4-25) under the Chapter
titled "Options Available to EPA".
5. The wastewater reclamation alternative 3C is incomplete and
inadequate. Maintaining existing beneficial uses of water and
the limited supply available for importation at a rising cost
requires the reclamation or reuse of water instead of simply
treating and disposing of water after a simple use. Reclaimed.
wastewater presently has a variety of benefical uses. Reclaimed
uses have expanded from mainly crop irrigation to include parks,
greenbelts, golf course irrigation, industrial processes and
cooling, recharging groundwaters and recreational water supply.
The Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972
encourage wastewater management which results in construction of
revenue-producing facilities for wastewater reclamation. The
9-92
-------
PAGE 8
AWMA EIS j "
v
Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act states that it is the
intention of the California Legislature that the State undertake
all possible steps to encourage development of water reclamation
facilities so that reclaimed water may be made available to help
meet the growing requirements of the State, and directs the State.
Water Resources Control Board to give added consideration to
grant applications for wastwater treatment facilities which will
provide water reclamation reuse.
There is support for wastewater reclamation from those who oppose
pollution and those who view water as a limited resource in terms
of economic value. The attitude of the public on use of reclaimed
water is rapidly changing. A recent opinion survey in the Marin
Municipal V/ater District (Ref: California SWRCB News & Views,
Vol VI, No 1) showed that approximately 65 percent of the people
said that they would have no concern using reclaimed wastewater
for nonconsumptive uses and that a suprising 25 percent of the
people stated that they would have no problem accepting reclaimed
water for domestic and drinking purposes.
Other wastewater reclamation alternatives were not evaluated.
The draft EIS alternative 3C is based on utilizing two advanced
wastewater treatment facilities with tertiary processes such as
denitrification, chemical clarification, carbon absorption and
chlorination.
We would urge that other schemes involving wastewater reclamation
to serve existing developed areas be evaluated. These alterna-
tives should strive to meet the project objectives (eliminating
water pollution and improving water quality) while substantially
reducing or eliminating the adverse secondary impacts (increased
VMT and degradation of air quality). Pressure pipe treatment
(e.g., IRWD Rattlesnake outfall) or land treatment methods (see
attachment) should be addressed for each of the five service
areas (north coast, lower aliso creek, salt creek, middle aliso
creek and upper aliso creek).
Each alternative should be discussed in relationship to the long
range goals of the 1972 Amendments to the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act.
1977 Goal: minimum of secondary treatment
1983 Goal: achieve "best practicable waste treatment tech-
nology" and body contact water quality
1985 Goal: zero discharge of pollutants
MITIGATION
One of the problems with most of the mitigation measures suggested
in the draft EIS is their enforceability. All the potential
mitigation measures evaluated by the applicant are lofty.
Unfortunately, they require implementation by general purpose
governments, a transit distirct and voluntary efforts of residents.
The applicant has control over several potential mitigation
measures including but not limited to the following:
- 9-93
-------
PAGE 9
AWMA EIS
1. Original size of facilities (outfall, interceptors and treat-
ment plant).
2. Location of interceptors.
3. Staged construction of proposed facilities.
4. Future extension of both water and sewer trunks and mains.
5. Immediate revision of method of voting procedure for the
Board of Directors for the four California Water Districts
to assure a popular vote.
Potential mitigation measures suggested by the applicant could
possibly be facilitated by requiring as a condition of approval
that the general purpose government within six months of approval
complete the following:
1. Prepare an Air Quality element for their General Plan.
2. Limit construction of arterial highways within AWMA to reduce
VMT. All arterlals now shown on the Master Plan of Arterial
Highways be removed.
3. Alter the land use element of the General Plan to provide
high density cluster residential development with neighborhood
shopping centers rather than low density development with
regional shopping centers.
4. Prepare a parking management plan for the GSA facility and
all other facilities within AWMA which would have over 1000
parking spaces.
5. Adopt a growth policy for the AWMA area consistent with the
E-0 projections.
6. Subsidize low and moderate income housing in the AWMA area.
APPENDIX B
The air quality analysis is inadequate. As mentioned earlier
in this paper the validity of the average trip length of 7.98
miles is questionable. Air quality data should be generated for
both 1985 and 1990. The emission calculations should be revised
to reflect recent EPA delays in implementing exhaust emission
standards.
SUMMARY
1. The public hearing should be continued at other locations
within the AWMA area and the record should be kept open for
a 30 day period after the close of the public hearings.
2. The EIS should address and evaluate cumulative effects of
this and other similar proposals in the general area.
9-94
-------
PAGE 10
AtfKA EIS
3. The draft £13 should be sent, immediately, to all appropriate
State and local agencies.
4. Revise the analysis of VMT and air quality to incorporate a
more accurate estimate of average trip distance.
5. Address the factors of domestic, industrial, commercial,
seasonal and infiltration factors of wastewater flows.
6. Analyze benefits and costs of the environmental and financial
differences of the suggested alternatives.
7. Evaluate alternatives capable of substantially reducing or
eliminating any adverse impacts.
8. Explore other wastewater reclamation alternatives.
9. Demand implementation of mitigation measures within the
authority of the agency.
10. Push for other mitigation measures to be implemented by a
general purpose government.
11. Correct and expand the air quality analysis.
1. The Environmental Coalition recommends that EPA immediately
adopt a mandatory policy of denying federal clean water grants
where secondary effects would contravene federal or state
environmental standards. Prior to issuance of clean water
grants the applicant would have to revise the project or
implement mitigation measures to substantially eliminate the
adverse secondary effects.
2. The Environmental Coalition recommends that the geographical
area within the Jurisdiction of the Southeast Regional•Recla-
mation Authority (SERRA), the Aliso Water Management Agency
(AWMA) and the Irvine Ranch Water District (IRWD) be designa-
ted for 208 planning.
3. The Environmental Coalition requests the EPA deny the Aliso
Water Management Agency clean water grant application.
Sincerely,
Dale A Secord
Executive Director
•Lnvironmental Coalition
End.
9-95
-------
SUMMARY COMMENTS
Environmental Coalition of Orange County, Inc.
2. The record should remain open 30 days after the close of the public
hearings so that additional written comments may be obtained.
R-l. The record remained opened well into June. Sufficient hearings have
been held over the life of the project to establish the nature of public
concerns.
2. The EPA has already approved Federal Clean Water Grants for Irvine
Ranch Water District's (IRWD) Rattlesnake outfall and is presently con-
sidering a grant application for the Southeast Regional Reclamation Authority
(SERRA). The cumulative adverse impact of the secondary effects of the
three projects has never been addressed or considered.
R-2. A section on the relationship 'of the AWMA project to other projects
has been added. The impacts of the AWMA project by itself are significant,
and the EPA has tried to establish mitigation measures accordingly.
3. There is little discussion of the relationship of the proposed
AWMA project with the permit application granted by the Regional and State
Coastal Zone Conservation Commission of California.
R-3. Chapter 4 has been amended for'clarification of permit application
guidelines and the CCZCC permit has been placed in the Appendix.
4. The EIS does not contain any statement of other relative planning by
other governmental agencies.
R-4. See 4.3.4 and 4.3.2.
5. The Environmental Coalition considers this Federal draft EIS and AWMA's
draft "Construction Impacts" report inadequate for the Corps of Engineers
approval of activities under Section 103 of the Marine Protection, Research
and Sanctuaries Act (PL 92-532) and Section 404 of the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act (PL 92-500).
R-5. Possible discussion of construction impacts was edited in the interest
of brevity as the secondary impacts have been the chief concern. Discussion
of regional treatment plant location and construction of the ocean outfall
has been expanded in Chapter 3.0 of the Final EIS in response to public concern.
A detailed Draft EIR on the construction impacts of the AWMA Project was..pre-
pared in February 1975 by Clean Water Consultants. The report was later,,
finalized in.time. ?
&.: The AWMA draft EIS distribution list incorrectly lists agencies,
organizations and individuals under improper categories. Several important
agencies were apparently not sent a copy of the draft EIS for review.
These agencies include: U.S. Fish S Wildlife Services, SCAG, Orange County
Transit District, O.C. Flood Control District, O.C. Air Pollution Control •
District, O.C. Board of Supervisors, and the O.C. Road Department.
9-96
-------
R-6. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services received through the Depart-
ment of the Interior.
SCAG - see pages ii-13
OCTD - overlooked
OCFCD - overlooked
OCRD - overlooked
APCD - see pages 11-10
Supervisor Riley received a copy.
7. Pages 2-67, Table 2-19: Date of data should be provided and
total AWMA per capita flows should be shown.
R-7. So noted in the Final EIS.
8. The schematic diagrams for the alternatives shows the 1995 flows
and sizes for the proposed facilities. The ultimate or maximum flows
or capacity should also be provided. Also, it is not clear whether
the flows are average or peak flows.
R-8. All flows are average. "Ultimate" flows are impossible to
determine.
9. The statement that "more than 75% are opposed to low or middle
income housing for less affluent whites or non-whites" should be
documented.
R-9. The statement is from a survey conducted in the spring of 1973
by the Center for Urban and Regional Studies of the University of
North Carolina. Both the cities of Irvine and Fountain Valley were
included in the survey.
10. It is not clear whether the wastewater flows are average or
peak flows on Exhibit 4-9. Also, it is not clear what the notation
"Ultimate Population Reflected on Adopted General Plans" is supposed
to designate. The entire graph should be redone using a daily per
capita flow of 100 gpd. It would be helpful if a second graph and
table showing alternative population forecasts for the AWMA area
was included.
R-10. All flows appearing in Exhibit 4-9 are average flows. Exhibit
4-9 has been modified using 90 gallons per person per day. A new
Exhibit, patterned after Exhibit 4-8 in the Draft EIS shows alternative
population forecasts for AWMA and its member agencies.
9-97
-------
21. On page 4-29: It is not clear whether the emissions of 558 tons/day
of RHC for various stationary source controls and emission controls upon
mobile sources takes into account the latest delays in implementing exhaust
standards by the EPA.
R-ll. The emission figures do assume reductions. The direction of controls
is still appropriate.
12. The data on energy requirements should indicate the time period con-
sidered (i.e., ten years or twenty years).
R-12. 20 years.
23. Page 4-20 and Appendix B: The analysis of vehicle miles travelled
(VMT) increase is based on some highly questionable assumptions.
The factor of 7.98 miles per trip is apparently incorrect.
Instead of 7.98 miles per trip the calculation should use either 8.15
or 10.43 miles per trip. Using the 3.82 trips per capita and the three
average trip allocations of 7.98, 8.15 and 10.43 miles the daily capita
VMT would be 30.5, 31.3 and 39.9 miles. The means of the commuter mileage
for the AWMA area as indicated in Table 4.4 would also support the higher
VMT.
The traffic generation factors generated in Appendix B are not applicable
for the AWMA area. These are regional approximations. People in the
AWMA area travel about 30% further per week than people elsewhere in- the
county."
This questionable principal assumption of miles per trip clouds the accuracy
of .all the VMT and air quality calculations.
<
> , .
R-13. We believe that the use of 7.98 miles/trip is justified in present
VMT calculations. Use of 7.98 miles/trip and 3.83 trips/capita give a
weekly per capita VMT of 213.5. The South County Study arrived at 260
mile/week/vehicle which is a VMT per capita of about 130. Thus, we have
used a high VMT estimate.
Projections of future VMT based on assumed increases in miles/trip are
highly speculative. Cost of fuel and EPA's own TCP may alter current
trends. The significant factor is still the fact that South County travels
30% more.
14. There have been no cost-effective analysis done to support the state-
ment that Alternative 2F is the most cost-effective alternative over a
20-year period.
R-14. This analysis was done in project report. Subsequent analysis
was presented at public hearing on March 25, 1975.
9-98
-------
25. The facilities should be constructed with a capacity reasonably
necessary to satisfy appropriate engineering standards, rather than exag-
gerated needs.
R-15. See Table 4-9 and 4-10 which has been modified to reflect the CCZCC
permit requirements.
16. Infiltration: AWMA apparently is requesting a 15 gallon per person
per day for infiltration. This is absurd'.
R-16. No infiltration allowances are needed or recommended by EPA.
17. The final EIS should address Industrial/Commercial, Seasonal and
Domestic factors of wastewater flows. Capacity in excess of that reasonably
necessary to satisfy appropriate engineering standards should not be funded.
R-17. Flows in excess of E-0 projections will not be funded. See discussion
of CCZCC permit for Maximum Flow in Chapter 4 of the Final EIS.
18. There is no analysis of the benefits and costs of the environmental
and financial differences of the suggested alternatives.
R-18. Cost effectiveness analysis was presented and was in the project
report, not repeated for brevity.
19. Additional alternatives which have facilities with reduced capacities
or elimination of extensions of some of the interceptors should be eval-
uated.
R-19. This was the purpose of introducing modified Alternative 1A.
20. The EIS Guidelines require that the specific alternative of taking
no action be evaluated.
R-20. The No Project Alternative was discussed in the Draft EIS in
Section 3.2.7. A no project alternative would result in declining quality
of effluent and continued pollution of the near shore waters.
21. The air quality analysis is inadequate. The validity of the average
trip length of 7.98 miles is questionable. Air quality data should be
generated for both 1985 and 1990. The emission calculations should be
revised to reflect recent EPA delays in implementing exhaust emission
standards.
R-21. Note that analysis has been dropped. No reliable model fo esti-
mating air quality exists. Therefore, EPA used VMT which provides an
analysis of consistency with control strategy.
9-99
-------
22. Each alternative should be discussed in relationship to the long
range goals of the 1972 amendments to the Federal Water Pollution Control
Act.
R-22. A discussion of reclamation consistency with this Act has been
added to the Final EIS (See Section 3.2.1.4).
9-100
-------
h 4 5
P. 0. BOX 261
FOOTHILL COMMUNITIES ASSOCIATION, INC. TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA 92680
April 2, 1975 ---:
—J
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ^> \-^
Hearings Office, HE 118 ' ^, .5
Region IX • ts= z
100 California St.
San Francisco, Ca. 94111 <-" x
Gentlemen:
Our association is aware of the far reaching impacts of the Aliso Water
Management Agency's proposed waste treatment system. Although the members
of our organization reside outside of the AWMA boundaries, the facilities
nonetheless will have secondary impacts on our area, particularly in terms
of facilitating population increase in southern Orange County with resultant
increase in traffic which in turn will degrade air quality in the already
overburdened South Coast Air Basin and may necessitate additional freeways
which would impact our area.
We are aware of the necessity of some wastewater treatment facility improvement
due to the problems with the Aliso Beach and Laguna Beach ocean outfalls and
the outdated Laguna Beach treatment plant. We hope that whatever alternative
the EPA choses to fund for AWMA will solve these problems but also meet the
following criteria:
1) it will have the least secondary impacts of all the alternatives,
especially in relation to its ability to indirectly affect popula-
tion growth;
2) no major construction (ie. a waste treatment plant) would be allowed
in a greenbelt corridor such as the Aliso Creek or Laguna Greenbelts,
including Woods Canyon, but would be required to be located outside
these areas which are such valuable recreational and scenic natural
resources for Southern California;
3) stringent measures be required of AWMA, the County of Orange and any
other regulatory agencies involved to mitigate the secondary impacts
of the proposal. Those of particular value appear to.be mentioned in
the EPA's very excellent EIS: clustering of residential development
with neighborhood shopping centers to reduce VMT, and strong emphasis
put on development arid use of regional transit systems. The former
would require policy changes on the part of the Orange County Board of
Supervisors, and we would urge the EPA to impress upon the Board the
necessity of making such changes and encouraging this type of development,
9-101
-------
Ve thank you for the opportunity to comment on this project and hope you will
carefully consider our suggestions.
Yours truly,
yZ*J(r*-"
iomas Lenhart
President
P.S. Foothill Communities Association is an organization with a membership
of approximately 1000 families in the north Tustin area of Orange County.
9-102
-------
SUMMARY COMMENTS
Foothill Communities Association, Inc.
1. No major construction should be permitted in greenbelt corridors such
as Aliso Creek or Laguna Greenbelt, including Woods Canyon, as these areas
are valuable recreational and scenic natural resources.
R-l. Sections 3.1.2 and 3.2.2.1.2 in the EIS have been amended to reflect
these comments.
2. AWMA, County of Ornage, and other involved regulatory agencies should
be required to mitigate secondary impacts. EPA should urge the Orange
County Board of Supervisors to make necessary policy changes in order to
encourage clustering of residential and neighborhood commercial development.
R-2. Chapter 5.0 of the Final EIS describes the selected wastewater manage-
ment alternative for AWMA. As noted in this chapter, the Final Mitigation
Plan for AWMA will be addressed at the Phase III level of the total project.
Sections 5.2.2 and 5.3.3 discusses this subject in detail.
9-103
-------
Organized November 1947, to co-operate in bringing about the greatest possible economist, eoniistent with efficiency, in expenditure! of Public Fundi.
LAGUNA BEACH TAXPAYERS' ASSOCIATION, INC.
P. O. BOX 404 LAGUNA BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92652
Mr. Paul De Palco March 14, 1975
Director, and
Mr.. Covington
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, IX
100 California Street
San Francisco, Calif. 9*4-111
Gentlemen:
Enclosed please find the response concerning the Federal
Environmental Impact Statement for the AWMA, Aliso Water
Management Agency of Orange County, Cal.
While we were not selected on the distribution of these
E.I.S reports, we feel that we should have beenl The
Laguna Beach Taxpayers' Assoc. Inc. is one of the oldest
established organizations in Orange County, since 19^7 «
We noted several organizations on the distribution list
received two copies, and many are not incorporated also
mentioned on this list.
We have requested time to present our public prepared
statement at the scheduled EPA public hearing on March 25 »
1975 to be held at the Federal GSA Building 2*100 Avila Rd.
Laguna Niguel, Cal. from Dr. Mack Wesner, Clean Water
Consultant, 2232 S.E. Bristol St. Suite 210, Santa Ana,
Calif. 92702. We 'have also sent Dr. Wesner our response
as he was listed as a consultant for this project.
If necessary, we wish to also make this request from you
in order that the L.B.T.A. will be given time to make the
prepared statement concerning this report at the above
scheduled meeting.
Thank you,
Sincerely,
JAMES C. YANCEY
President JY/mwm
9-104
-------
PAGE 1.
10
s
FORWARD,
THIS REPORT FROM THE LACUNA BEACH TAXPAYERS' ASSOCIATION, INC. IS A RESPONSE TO
THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT PREPARED FOR THE REGIONAL WASTEWATER
TREATMENT SYSTEM OF THE ALISO WATER MANAGEMENT AGENCY KNOWN ASi A W M A.
IT IS INTERESTING TO NOTE THAT ONE HUNDRED AND FIFTY-SIX VARIOUS GROUPS WERE
SELECTED FOR THE DISTRIBUTION OF THIS E.I.S., MANY OF WHICH ARE NOT WELL
ORGANIZED OR INCORPORATED? HOWEVER, THE LAGUNA BEACH TAXPAYERS' ASSOC. INC.
SINCE 19^7 AND BEING ONE OF THE OLDEST ESTABLISHED ORGANIZATIONS IN ORANGE
COUNTY WAS NOT SELECTED TO RECEIVE THIS NOTIFICATION AND COMPILATION OF
ENVTRNOMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENTSI WE WISH TO KNOW WHY?
BECAUSE THE L.B.T.A., THE LAGUNA BEACH TAXPAYERS' ASSOCIATION, INC. WAS FORMED
IN 19^7 TO COOPERATE IN BRINGING ABOUT THE GREATEST POSSIBLE ECONOMIES, CONSIS-
TENT WITH EFFICIENCY IN EXPENDITURES OF PUBLIC FUNDS, WE ARE CERTAINLY CONCERNED
NOW WITH THIS INTENSIVE AWMA-EPA-HUD FEDERAL PROJECT WHICH WILL COST THE ENTIRE
TAXPAYING PEOPLES OF ORANGE COUNTY AS WELL AS PEOPLE FROM ALL OVER AMERICAl
THE TAXPAYERS WANT TO KNOW WHY SUDDENLY, WE ARE SUBJECTED TO FEDERAL £ STATE
SUPER AGENCIES SUCH AS AWMA-EPA-HUD? QUITE SOMETIME AGO, THE CITY'OF LAGUNA
BEACH & ITS CITIZENS VOTED FOR A SEWER BOND OF $500,000. WHICH WOULD ACCOMMODATE
A POPULATION OF APPROXIMATELY 30,000 POPULATION FOR ADEQUATE SEWERAGE"DISPOSAL
SYSTEMS. THIS BOND HAS NOT BEEN RETIRED. ... .WE ARE STILL PAYING TAXES FOR THISI
LAST YEAR, THE CITY OF LAGUNA BEACH DOWNZONED ALL R-3t R-2, AND C-l L>k)S
DISCRIMINATELY FOR THE SOLE PURPOSES TO PRESERVE THE VILLAGE ATMOSPHERE, THE
AESTHETIC QUALITIES OF LIFE HERE, AND UNDER GOVERNMENT CODE 65858 FOR THE BENEFITS
OF PUBLIC HEALTH, SAFETY AND WELFARE. AT THE SAME TIME, THIS CITY APPROVED OF THE
AWMA-EPA-HUD PROGRAMS TO INCREASE THE POPULATION, POLLUTION OF AIR & WATER QUALITIES
WHICH THE L.B.T.A. FEELS IS A DEFINITELY ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT TO THE FUTURE
OF OUR BEAUTIFUL CITY OF LAGUNA BEACHl IT REPRESENTS ALSO A CONFLICT OF INTERESTI
i
Si
53 *
c gj s.
2 ~ s1
^
O M
-1 ©
5 Q i
I!
22*
>1 I
I O |
K> • 7*
-------
ON NOVEMBER 15, 197^, THE CITY OP LACUNA BEACH PUBLISHED A NOTICE TO INTERESTED CITIZENS
THE CITY'S PROPOSED GENERAL PLANo IT STATED THAT AT THE PRESENT TIME STATS LAW REQUIRES
EACH CITY TO ADOPT A MINIMUM OF NINE ELEMENTS OF A GENERAL PLAN» THESE NINE ELEMENTS
MUST CONSIST OF A TEXT AND DIAGRAMS WHICH TOGETHER COMPRISE AN OFFICIAL STATEMENT CF THE
CITY POLICY REGARDING-. FUTURE-CHARACTER AND QUALITY OF DEVELOPMENT IN THE PLANNING AREAS.
THE NINE ELEMENTS ARE LISTED AS FOLLOWS?
1« LAND USE ELEMENT TEXT, ADOPTED FEBRUARY 16, 1972. NO STATEMENTS CONCERNING JUST
COMPENSATION FOR DOWNZONING, RSZONING, OR THE TAKING OF PRIVATE PROPERTY RIGHTS
FOR SUCH PUBLIC PURPOSES. REFERs U.S. CONSTITUTIONAL ARTTCLES V AND XIV.
2o TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION ELEMENT,. ADOPTED APRIL, 197^» ALL FIVE MEMBERS OF THIS
COMPREHENSIVE CITY-APPOINTED COMMITTEE FOR THESE FLANS WERE NOT QUALIFIED ENGINEERS8
3. HOUSING ELEMENTo ADOPTED OCTOBER 20 197^. ALL MEMBERS OF THIS CITY-APPOINTED COMMITTEE
WERE PROPONENTS OF THE HUD PROGRAMS! NO OPPOSITION WAS PERMITTED, AND THE LoB.T.A.
EoI.Ro RESPONSE WAS NEVER RESPONDED BY THIS CITY THROUGH AN ADDENDUM REGARDING THIS!
b. CONSERVATION ELEMENT„ ADOPTED OCTOBER 20 197^o THE L.BoT.A, RESPONDED TO THIS REPORT
ON SAID DATE BY PRESENTING A 25 MINUTE FACTUAL REPORT AND 22 COLORED-SLIDES OF THE .
BLIGHTED HUD REPOSSESSED HOMES IN THE LoA» AREAS AS ADVERTISED BY HUD IN THE SUNDAY
LoAo TIMESp SEPTEMBER 26„ 197^8 LATER AT A SUBSEQUENT PUBLIC HEARING THE L.BoT.A.
INQUIRED IF THE CITY COUNCIL HAD ORDERED AN ANALYSIS OF OUR FACTUAL DOCUMENTATIONS.
THE CITY COUNCIL ADMITTED THEY HAD NOT REQUESTED SUCH AN ANALYSIS & RESPONSE!
£ 5o OPEN .SPACE ELEMENT„ ADOPTED NOV. 210 1973,- AMENDED JUNE 12, 197^o ALL FIVE MEMBERS OF
•g THIS CITY-APPOINTED COMMITTEE WERE PROPONENTS OF THE OPEN SPACE CONCEPTS. ONE MEMBER
MR. HARRY WILMTS, OWNER OF THE RIVIERA HOTEL COMPLEX AT 825 So COAST HOTo LAGUNA BEACH.
GAINED A ZONING VARIANCE A A CONSTRUCTION PERMIT WITHOUT THE REQUIRED ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT REPORT AFTER SUCH EoIoR. WAS REQUIRED0 AND CONSTRUCTED FIVE ADDITIONAL HOTEL
UNITS WITHIN 10000 YARDS OF THE BEACH FRONT 1 HE OPPOSED ALL OWNERS CF OPEN SPACE LANDS
WITHIN THE LAGUNA GREEN BELT FROM USING THEIR LANDS TO IMPROVE THEIR INVESTMENTS! THE
L.BoT.A, REPORTED THIS INCIDENT TO THE CAL. COASTAL ZONE COMMISSION DIRECTLY, AND THEY
DID NOTHING TO RECTIFY THE DISCREPENCIES IN THIS INSTANCE. THIS WAS A DEFINITE CONFLICT
OF INTEREST. THE CITY ISSUED THE PERMITS WITHOUT AN E.I.R. TO MR. HARRY WILLATS!
60 NOISE ELEMENT, ADOPTED OCT. l60 197^. NO ENGINEERS WERE CONCERNED WITH THIS DOCUMENT!
7° SCENIC HIGHWAYS ELEMENT, IN PREPARATION.
80 SEISMIC SAFETY ELEMENT. IN PREPARATION.
9. PUBLIC SAFETY ELEMENT, IN PREPARATION,,
ADDITIONAL SOCIAL NEEDS ELEMENT PROGRAMS ARE BEING CONSIDERED, AND THE ECONOMIC ELEMENTS,
PARKS AND RECREATION ELEMENT, AND HISTORIC PRESERVATION ELEMENTS ARE INCLUDED FOR THE FUTURE.
THE L.B.T.Ao ASKS? "HOW CAN LOCAL OFFICIALS IGNORE THE FACTUAL STATEMENTS PRESENTED WHICH
•'• SHOW THAT SOME OF THESE ELEMENTS OF THEIR GENERAL PLAN ARE A DEFINITE THREAT TO THE
ENVIRONMENT? IS IT LEGAL FOR THIS CITY TO ADOPT SUCH MEASURES UNDER ADVERSE E.I.R. RESPONSES?
-------
PAGE i-li ITEM 2. THE PURPOSES OF THE ALISO WATER MANAGEMENT AGENCY, AWMA PROJECT IS TO
IMPLEMENT A LOCAL OR REGIONAL WASTEWATER TREATMENT AND DISPOSAL SYSTEM TO ELIMINATE THE
EXISTING WATER QUALITY PROBLEMS IN THE VARIOUS SYSTEMS & PREVENT FUTURE PROBLEMS. ETC.
THE APPLICANT HAS PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION OF MODIFIED ALTERNATIVE 2F, A REGIONAL SYSTEM WITH
CENTRAL TREATMENT AND OCEAN DISPOSAL OF MOST WASTES, ALTHOUGH THERE WOULD BE SOME RECLAMATION
DURING THE SUMMER. EVALUATION OF SECONDARY IMPACTS INDICATES THAT ALTERNATIVE LA, A REGIONAL
DISPOSAL SYSTEM WITH LOCAL TREATMENT MAY BE PREFERABLE, ALTHOUGH MORE EXPENSIVE. ETC.
L.3.T.A. RESPONSES!
THE PRESENT SEWERAGE TREATMENT SYSTEMS ARE UNDER AN UNRETIRED BOND WHICH WAS TO ADEQUATELY
PROVIDE FOR A POPULATION GROWTH TO APPROXIMATELY 30,000. THE PRESENT POPULATION IS APPROX-
IMATELY 15,000 PEOPLE, SUMMER APPROXIMATELY 20,000 IN LACUNA BEACH. THE L.B.T.A. FEELS THAT
AN EXPANDED SEWER-WATER TREATMENT SYSTEM UNDER AWMA WOULD NOT ALLEVIATE PROBLEMS, BUT CREATE
NEW ONES. THE AWMA SYSTEMS WOULD PROVIDE FOR A TREMENDOUS POPULATION EXPANSION IN THIS AREA
WHICH IS ALREADY CONSIDERED ONE OF THIS NATION'S GREATEST SMOG AREAS. ALSO THE WATERSHED
GREENBELTS WOULD BE THREATENED WITH THIS EXPANDED PROGRAM BY AWMAI LACUNA BEACH HAS ALREADY
ADOPTED A "NO-GROWTH" POLICY BY DOWNZONING, AND RESTRICTING NEW DEVELOPMENTS. THEIR ENVIRON-
MENTALIST CONSTITUENTS INCLUDING VILLAGE LACUNA (mentioned as a recipient of this E.I.S. is,
adamantly opposed to increasing the population facilities). THIS ENTIRE AWMA POPULATION-INCRSA
FACILITATION WOULD CERTAINLY BE IN CONFLICT WITH THIS CITY'S GENERAL PLAN APPROVALSl
ITEM 3. ALL PROJECTS WILL INVOLVE CONSTRUCTION AND ITS ASSOCIATED ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS.
CONSTRUCTION WILL TAKE PLACE AT TREATMENT PLANT SITES, ALONG ROADS AND STREAMS, AND FOR
OCEAN DISPOSAL ALTERNATIVES, ON THE BEACH AND THE OCEAN FLOOR OFF ALISO CREEK. ETC.
L.B.T.A. RESPONSES:
ALL CF THESE ADMISSIONS WITHIN THIS PHRASE ARE CERTAIN ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL HAZARDS TO THIS
LOCALS, TO THE ROADS, STREAMS, AND THE OCEAN FLOOR OFF ALISO CREEK.
DUE TO THE ORIGINAL INTENTIONS OF THE GENERAL PLAN CONCEPTS FOR LACUNA BEACH, AS REQUIRED BY
THIS STATE, IT IS INCONCEIVABLE THAT SEWERAGE, WASTE WATER OR OTHER POLLUTANTS AS WILL PREVAIL
THROUGH CONTINUED AND INCREASING CONSTRUCTION WOULD BE PLANNED WITHIN THIS AWMA PROJECT I THE
ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS UPON OUR BEAUTIFUL ALISO GREENBELTS & ALISO CREEK AND ALISC BEAC
WILL BE PERMANENTLY ERODED UNDER SUCH PLANNING. AS A LIFE TIME RESIDENT OF LACUNA BEACH AND
NATIVE OF ORANGE COUNTY, I CAN CERTAINLY JUSTIFY THIS PREDICTION.
PAGE 1-1. BACKGROUND. THE ALISO WATER MANAGEMENT AGENCY AWMA, WAS ESTABLISHED ON MARCH 1, 19
BY THE EXECUTION OF A JOINT POWERS AGREEI'ZNT IN ACCORDANCE WITH ART. 1, CHAPTER V, DIV.ll,
TITLE 1 OF THE GOVERNKENT CODE, STATE OF CAL. THE AGENCY HAS SEVEN MEMBERS: THE MOULTON-
NIGUEL WATER DISTRICT, THE S. LACUNA SANITARY DIST., THE IRVINE RANCH WATER DIST., THE EL TORC
WATER DIST., THE LOS ALISOS WATER DIST., THE CITY OF LACUNA BEACH. & THE EMERALD BAY SER. DIST.
AWMA IS A LEGAL ENTITY CREATED, OPERATING, AND FUNCTIONING IN RESPONSE TO THE NEEDS FOR A
REGIONAL BODY TO PLAN, CONSTRUCT AND OPERATE FACILITIES FOR A WATER MANAGEMENT PROGRAM WITHIN
THE ALISO VALLEY WATERSHED BASIN AND RELATED CONTIGUOUS AREAS. INCLUDED IN THE MANAGEMENT
PROGRAMS ARE T'-'E COLLECTION, TRANSMISSION, TREATMENT AND DISPOSAL OF WASTE WATER; THE RECLA-
MATION OF WASTEWATERi & THE USE OF RECLAIMED WASTEWATER FOR BENEFICIAL PURPOSED.
L.B.T.A. RESPONSE: (INCLUDING MAPS. COUNTY LOCATION MAP & REGIONAL LOCATION MAP.)
-------
PAGE ^0
L.B.ToAo RESPONSES CONTINUEDg(PAGE 1-1. BACKGROUND, )
PLEASE REFER TO U.S. CONSTITUTIONAL ARTICLE IV. SECTION 3s "NSW STATES MAY BE ADMITTED BY THE
CONGRESS INTO THIS UNION? BUT NO NEW STATE? NOR ANY STATE BE FORMED BY THE JUNCTION OF TWO
OR MORE STATES, OR PARTS,.OP.STATES, WITHOUT THE CONSENT OF THE LEGISLATURES OF THE STATES
CONCERNED AS TOLL AS OP-THErGONG«ESS."
U.S. CONSTITUTIONAL ARTICLE VI STATESs "THIS CONSTITUTION,, AND THE LAWS OF THE UoS, WHICH
SHALL BE MADE IN PURSUANCE THEREOF? AND ALL TREATIES MADE, OR WHICH SHALL BE MADE, UNDER THE
AUTHORITY OF THE UNITED STATES, SHALL BE THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND? AND THE JUDGES IN EVERY
STATE SHALL BE BOUND THEREBY,, ANY THING IN THE CONSTITUTION OR LAW'S OF ANY STATE TO THE
CONTRARY NOTHWITHSTANDING." ETC."
YOUR MAP CONCERNING REGIONAL LOCATIONS UNDER EPA FEDERAL REGIONAL COUNCIL IX, AND THE FRC IX,
THE AWMA ARE QUESTIONABLE CONSTITUTIONAL STATES WHICH HAVE BEEN FORMING WITHIN THE STATES8
THE L.BoToA. WISHES FULL DOCUMENTATIONS CONCERNING THE ORIGINATION OF SUCH FEDERAL REGIONAL
COUNCILS, ALL TEN OF THEM WHICH ARE STATES FORMED WITHIN ALL 50 STATES NOW! THESE F.R.C.'s
ARE DICTATING ABSOLUTE CONTROLS OVER LOCAL, COUNTY AND OTHER.LESSER GOVERNMENTAL BODIES
UNDER SUCH PROGRAMS SUCH AS THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY MAY FORM FOR SUCH PROGRAMS!
THE STATE ATTORNEY GENERAL HAS STATED PREVIOUSLY BY LETTER TO THE L.B.T.A. THAT NO GOVERNMENTAL.
AGENCY CAN DICTATE OR CONTROL OTHER GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES. AWMA-3PA-HUD AND THIS STATES
ENVIRONMENTAL AGENCIES ARE IN CONFLICT WITH THAT RULING NOW! THE LEGALITIES AS ARE STATED
WITHIN THIS EoloSo ARE NOT SUBSTANTIATED, AND THEIR EXACT RULES ARE NOT REPORTED AS TO THE
EXTENT OF THEIR AUTHORITIES„ WHICH APPARENTLY VIOLATE THE U0S. CONSTITUTIONAL ARTICLES IV & VI8
WHILE THE CITY OF LAGUNA BEACH FLOUNDERS WITH THE GENERAL PLAN CONCEPTS, MOST OF WHICH ARE
INCONSISTENT AND HAVE NOT CONFORMED TO THE DUE PROCESS OF" LAW PROCEDURES, AND AWMA HAS BEEN
FORMED TO SUBROGATE LOCAL POWERS, THE PEOPLE OF THIS STATE VOTED RECENTLY TO RETAIN THE POWER
TO VOTE UPON FEDERAL LOW-INCOME HOUSING PROJECTS & RELATED PROGRAMS WHEN THE MONIES FOR SUCH
PROJECTS ARE FROM GENERAL TAXES!! HAS THIS REFERENDUM BEEN CONSIDERED CONCERNING AWMA PROGRAMS?
REFERg TABLE 1-1i CITY OF LAGUNA BEACH. OPERATIONAL PERFORMANCE & CONDITIONS UNSATISFACTORY
NOWB OUTDATED, INADEQUATE TREATMENT FACILITIES, PRIMARY TREATMENT ONLY, POOR QUALITY EFFLUENT.
L.BoT.A. RESPONSES REFERRING AGAIN TO THE BONDED INDEBTEDNESS OF $500,000,, WHICH HAS NOT
BEEN RETIRED UNTIL 1984, AND WHICH IMPROVEMENTS OF LOCAL SEWERAGE SYSTEMS WAS TO PROVIDE
ADEQUATELY FOR A POPULATION OF 30,000, IT IS NOT CONSISTENT TO THE AWMA REPORTS AS MENTIONED.
IT IS ALSO STATED WITHIN THIS REPORT THAT THE SEWERAGE SYSTEMS WILL CONTINUE TO BE EMPTIED
INTO THE OCEAN AT ALISO CREEK TRIBUTARY TO THE SEA. WITH ADDITIONAL POPULATION PROVISIONS
AS ARE PLANNED, THERE CERTAINLY IS NO CONSISTENCY TO INCREASING ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT THROUGH" OCEAN DISPOSAL SYSTEMS SUCH AS ARE PROPOSED BY AWMA UNDER THIS NEW SYSTEM.
THE LoB.ToA, BELIEVES THAT IF INLAND CITIES MUST DEPEND ON ALTERNATIVES FOR THEIR SEWERAGE
DISPOSALS, THERE IS NO CONSTRUCTIVE REASON WHY COASTAL CITIES SHOULD BE PERMITTED TO USE
THE OCEAN FOR SEWERAGE DISPOSALS. THIS CONTENTION HAS A LOGICAL CONCLUSION THAT ADDED SEWERAGE
DISPOSAL INTO, THE ••OCEAN,-ADDED POPULATION FACILITIES THROUGH AWMA WASTEWATER TREATMENT
SYSTEMS WILL ONLY CREATE MORE BURDENSOME PROBLEMS UPON LOCAL CONDITIONS AS PREVAIL ACCORDING
TO THE REFERENCE GIVEN ON TABLE 1-1. TH2RE WILL BE NO APPRECIABLE ADVANTAGES WHATSOEVER QN
TO INCREASE SEWERAGE-WATER TREATMENT FACILITIES FOR INCREASED POPULATION PROGRAMS IN THIb REGION,
THIS REFERENCE ENCOMPASSS3 PAG3 l-li SECTIONS 1.2 THROUGH PAGE 1-11.
-------
PAGE 5.
PAGE 2-1 THROUGH 2-25« DESCRIPTION OF EXISTING ENVIRONMENT. TOPOGRAPHY. GSOLOGY.
L.B.T.A. RESPONSES»
IT CAN BE SAFELY STATED IN THESE CATAGORIES THAT THE WATERSHED AREAS ARE AN INTEGRAL FACTOR
TO BE CONSIDERED WHEN PROPOSING TO DISPOSE VASTS AMOUNTS OF SEWERAGE AND WA5TEWATERS INTO
' THESE COASTAL AND INLAND AREAS AS INDICATED THROUGHOUT THESE REPORTS IN THIS E.I.S.
PRIOR TO THE SEWERAGE TREATMENT SYSTEMS IN LACUNA BEACH AND THE SOUTH LACUNA AREAS, WHEN
THE POPULATION WAS LESS, WE HAD CEPTIC TANKS, AND CESSPOOLS. WHILE THIS SYSTEM WAS NOT
INADEQUATE IN MOST CASES, IT PRESENTED.PROBLEMS TO SOME DEGREE FOR THE TAXPAYERS HERE
WHO WERE OP THE MEDIUM AND LOW-INCOME BRACKETS WHEN THE GENERAL SEWERAGE TREATMENT PLANS
WERE CONSUMMATED FOR THIS CITY. MANY PROPERTY OWNERS WERE INDEBTED 32YOND THEIR ABILITIES
TO PAY FOR THE CITY'S NEW SEWERAGE SYSTEMSj HOWEVER, IT WAS COMPULSORY AND REGARDLESS OF
THESE FINANCIAL ADVERSE IMPACTS, EACH OWNER PAID THEIR FAIR SHARE OF THESE COSTS. WHEN
OUR PROPERTY TAXES WERE AT LEAST J$% LESS, UNTIL 1972, OUR SEWERAGE SERVICES WERE PROVIDED
THROUGH OUR PROPERTY TAXES. THIS WAS EQUITABLE DUE THE FACT THAT EVERYONE HAD ALREADY PAID!
WHEN THIS CITY WAS ABOUT TO ADOPT. THE FEDERAL HOUSING & URBAN DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM CN MARCH 1,
1972, THEY INSTITUTED SEPARATELY SEWER SERVICE TAXES. THIS HAS BEEN INCREASED PROGRESSIVELY
AND NOW THIS CITY PROPOSES -TO MORE THAN DOUBLE THESE EXORBITANT SEWER SERVICE CHARGES AT THIS
«P DATEI
£ LAST FALL, AWMA's CARL KYMLA ISSUED AN ULTIMATUM TO THE CITY OF LAGUNA BSACH, EITHER JOIN
«> AWMA OR PAY THE $200,000 •.THICK WAS GRANTED THIS CITY THROUGH AWMA, & FACE A 32,000 DAILY FINSl
MR. KYMLA ISSUED A COST ANALYSIS TO THE L.B.T.A. WHICH SHOWS THAT THE TAXPAYERS -','CULD FAY
$10.80 ANNUALLY UNDER A MAXIMUM FEDERAL-STATE GRANT,.FOR THEIR SEWERAGE SERVICES THROUGH AWKA,
OTHERWISE THE CITIZENS OF THIS CITY WOULD PAY $111.00 ANNUALLY PER UNIT. AT THE PRESENT TIME,
WITHOUT ANY IMPROVEMENTS FROM AWMA, AND WHILE-THIS CITY HAS JOINED AWMA, THIS CITY IS ASKING
THE PROPERTY OWNERS FOR AN INCREASE OF $6.33 PER MONTH PER UNITI THE L.B.T.A. FEELS THAT
THERE IS NO JUSTIFICATION FOR THESE SUR-TAXES FOR OUR SEWERAGE SERVICES WHEN OUR PROPERTY
TAXES HAVE BEEN INCREASED AT LEAST 35# AND IN SOME CASES UP TO 150?$ OF THE ASSESSED VALUATIONS.
WE HAVE NOT BEEN PERMITTED DUE PROCESS OF LAW' PUBLIC HEARINGS, OR RESPONSES TO CUR STATEMENTS
THROUGH LETTERS REGARDING THE S3WER & TRASH SERVICE EXORBITANT INCREASES. WE HAVE NCT BEEN
GRANTED A REFERENDUM BY THE A'WMA AS REQUIRED BY CALIF. LAWS NOW WHEN FEDERAL PROJECTS AS
ARE NOW PLANNED BY AWMA-EPA-HUD WITHIN OUR AREA FOR THE LOW-INCOME FEDERALLY SUBSIDIZED PEOPLE1
FURTHERMORE, OUR FINE WATERSHED AREAS WILL BE RUINED IF CLUSTER-HUD-LCW-INCCME-HIGH-DSNSITY
CONSTRUCTION IS PERMITTED WITHIN THESE FLOOD PLAIN ZONES AS SO DESIGNATED ALREADY BY THE ORANGE
COUNTY BOARD OF ENGINEERS, SANTA ANA, CA. NO PHYSICAL CONDITIONS ARE RELATED WITHIN THE ABOVE
REFERENCES AS TO THE NEGATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS UPON TH2SS WATERSHED AREAS, FLOOD PLAIN
ZONES, AND OPEN SPACE LANDS. THE L.B.T.A. BELIEVES. THAT THE CITY OF LACUNA BEACH MUST REMAIN
CONSISTENT TO THEIR AVOWED OPEN SPACE, NO-GROWTH, GREEN BELT, LOW PROFILE LAND DEVELOPMENT
CONCEPTS, AND THEIR APPROVED POPULATION LIMITATION FOR 20,000 MAXIMUM WITHIN THESE AREAS NOW!
-------
PAGE 60
L.B.ToAo RESPONSE TO E.I.So FOR AWMA CONTINUSDs
THE L.B.T.A. HAS PRESENTED VOLUMES OF LETTERS SHOWING THAT OUR COSTS ARE THE HIGHEST I.N THIS
STATE WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THE CITY OF SAN FRANCISCO WHICH ACCOUNTS BOTH CITY & COUNTY RECORDS.
THE L.B.ToA. SENT EAWCfF THE 26 CITIES THE ENCLOSED REFERENCE FOR RESPONSE CONCERNING .EACH
CITY'S REVENUES IN ORANGE' COUNTY. SVERY CITY IN ORANGE COUNTY RESPONDED TO THESE QUESTIONNAIRES
EXCEPT THE CITY OF LA HABRA, FULLERTON AND PECULIARLY LAGUNA 3SACH8 '
Tl?l LoB.T.Ao MADE A ViiHY CUWnF^fEflEWSTYErAlS«.LY5IS "FROM THIS CITY'S LIST OF PROPERTY OWNERS, OF
THE INCOMES FROM SEWER SERVICES AND TRASH. THIS WAS AS FOLLOWS WHICH DOES NOT INCLUDE COKMERCIAL
ACCOUNTS AND 96 UNITS WHICH WERE NOT CODED8 (1973 REPORT) THESE SERVICES HAVE BEEN INCREASED AGl
SEWER SERVICE MONTHLY INCOME? $370857.?5 REFUSE MONTHLY INCOMEi $15,050,, 25
ANNUAL SEWER SERVICE INCOME* $1*5^»293•00 ANNBAL REFUSE INCOME* $1300603oOO
THE COMBINED INCOMES FROM REFUSE & SEWER SERVICES ARE A VERY LOW ESTIMATES $64-3,896.00 ANNUALLYJ
ENCLOSED FOR YOUR INSPECTION IS THE ANNUAL STATEMENT WHICH ACCOMPANIES OUR PROPERTY TAX BILLS8
PLEASE NOTE? REFUSE DISPOSAL,, SEWAGE COLLECTION & TREATMENT. AND WATER DISTRIBUTION SYSTEMS
ARE COMBINED IN THE COST ANALYSIS FROM THE ORANGE COUNTY-.TAX COLLECTOR'S COMPILATION & REPORTS!
30 ACTUALLY, WE ARE PAYING DOUBLE TAXATION NOW SINCE JANUARY 1, 1972 FOR REFUSE & SEWER SERVICES!
AWMA WILL CERTAINLY CREATE ADDITIONAL TAXATIONS UPON LOCAL GOVERNMENTS WITH THEIR SEWER AND
•tfASTEWATSR PROGRAMS WHICH ARE PLANNED TO ACCOMMODATE AT LEAST AN ADDITIONAL 230,000 BY THE
YEAR 2000 IN THIS AREAS
«P THE L.BoT.A. QUESTIONS THE PROBLEM SOLVING ASPECTS OF THIS ENTIRE PROGRAM BY AWMA AT THIS TIMS?
=; ESPECIALLY, WITH REGARD TO CONTINUING THE SEWERAGE DISPOSAL SYSTEMS INTO ALISO-OCEAN TRIBUTARY?
0 WE ALSO QUESTION THE ENTIRE PLANNING FOR CONTINUED POPULATION EXPANSION ON A LARGE SCALE, WHILE
URBAN SPRAWL HAS BEEN THE.PRIMSCONDITION WHICH IS STRONGLY OPPOSED BY SUCH^ENVIRONMENT PRCTECTIO)
AGENCIES? ALSO URBAN~SPK£WL, AIR AND WATETTlSUATirY^POLLUTION,, AND HIGH~UETSf3TYY DEVELOPMENT HAS
JOIL_BJ1N ..STRQNCnGY~lJPl?USED~BY~THB CITY~DF"'LAGUNA~^BSACH AND~ALL OF THE CONSTITUENTS LISTED AS
^gECIPpNTS"'OF THIS E.I.S.I WHAT ISi THE ABSOLUTE ENVIRONMENTAL BENEPITr~NDW^mEN~^'llEjLTZ3_™^
~ OF THESE AGENCIES AND THEIR SUPPORTERS HAS REV5RST5D"~TH2IR ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTlUITTDSrnj&NS'
' V7HAT GUARANTEES ARE THERE UNDER THESE REVERSALS FOR FUTURE PROPOSALS, AND ASSURANCES THAT CUR
AIR & WATER AND LAND-USE ENVIRONMENTS WILL ACTUALLY NOT SUFFER UNDETERMINABLE ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT REVERSES? WE NEED ABSOLUTE ANSWERS TO THESE VERY IMPORTANT QUESTIONS NOW!
PAGE 2-128 2»3o6 STRUCTURE REFERENCE IS GIVEN TO GEOLOGIC STRESSES & STRAINS IN THIS REGION.
L.B.T.A. RESPONSE! . . . .
3VSN THE IMMINENT DOCTOR RICHTER OF GAL TECH LABORATORIES OF PASADENA DOES NOT HAVE ALL THE
REASONS, ANALYSIS, CAUSES AND DETERMINATIONS CONCERNING SEISMIC QUAKES AND PERTINENT DATA.
IT IS THEREFORE UNREASONABLE WE FEEL TO GIVE ANY GREAT CREDITS TO SPECULATIVE ANALYSIS IN
THIS FIELD OF SCIENCES! IT CAN BE SAFELY SAID, HOWEVER, THAT SINCE SOUTHERN CALIF. IS
VULNERABLE TO SEISMIC TREMORS FREQUENTLY, THAT CONSTRUCTION HAS TAKEN ISSUE TO THESE CONDITIONS
' ESPECIALLY IN THE L.A7'-AREAS "'WHERE HIGH-RISE BUILDINGS HAVE SEEN CONSTRUCTED WITH SUCH SAFETY
PRECAUTIONS IN MIND, CERTAINLY, SUCH WOULD BE THE CASE WITHIN THE AWMA REGIONAL PLANNINGI
INCLUSIVE COMMENTS COVER MAPS AND CHARTS & SOIL ANALYSIS THROUGH PAGES 2=26'.
-------
PAGE 7. L.B.T.A. RESPONSES TO S.I.3. AWMA DRAFT ENVIRONMENT IMPACT STATEMENT.
PAGE 2-26 THROUGH PAGE 2-72. INCLUSIVE OF METEOROLOGY, OCEANOGRAPHY, TERRESTRIAL BIOLOGY .
MARINE LI?E REFUGES. PALSONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES . LAND USE. WATER QUALITY. POPULATION AND
WISTEWATER FLOWSVSUMMARIES OF GOVERNMENTAL AUTHORITY. PERCEIVED NOISE LEVEL CONTOURS FOR
EL TORO FOR FLIGHT OPERATIONS.
L.B.T.A. RESPONSES! CLIMATIC CONDITIONS CONCERN EVERYONE IN SOUTHERN CALIF. THE AIR
QUALITY IS CONDITIONAL PRIMARILY DUE TO HYDROGEN BOMB TESTING IN THE NEVADA PROVING GROUNDS I
THIS FACT WAS REVEAL QUITE SOMETIME AGO BY A NOTED PROFESSOR OF NUCLEAR PHYSICS. HE REVEALED
THAT INTENSIVE NUCLEAR TESTING OF THE VARIOUS ATMOSPHERIC & UNDERGROUND MISSL23 HAVE CREATED
A HEAVY BELT AROUND OUR EARTH. IN BASINS SUCH AS IN SOUTHERN CALIF. WHERE CLIMATIC CONDITIONS
ARE MILD AND WINDS DO NOT DISSIPATE THESE NUCLEAR RADIATION PARTICLES QUICKLY, THE SECONDARY
PROBLEMS OF CAR EMMISSIONS POSES A THREAT TO OUR AIR AND WATER QUALITIES. THE L.B.T.A. HAS
STUDIED THIS THEORY.PERIODICALLY AND WE BELIEVE THIS CONDITION IS ABSOLUTELY TRUE, AFTER A
NUCLEAR TEST EITHER AT U.S. AF BASS AT VANDENBURG OR IN NEVADA, ESPECIALLY WHEN OUR AIR IS
STILL, WE CAN DEPEND UPON SEVERAL DAYS OF INTENSIVE SMOG AND AIR POLLUTION CONDITIONS. THIS
FACT WILL CONTINUE AND BE INCREASED IF AWMA-EPA-HUD PERSIST UPON BRINGING MORE POPULATION TO
ORANGE COUNTY. ADDITIONAL AUTOMOBILES, SEWERAGE INCREASES, REFUSE INCREASES, SCHOOL INCREASES,
GENERAL RELATIVE COLLATION OF ALL FACTORS INVOLVED WITH SUCH ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGES, WILL SURELY
NOT ALLEVIATE THE PRESENT ADVERSED ENVIRONMENTAL AIR AND WATER CONDITIONS PREVAILING.
WITH RESPECT TO SEISMIC PROBLEMS IN THE FUTURE, IT CAN BE DETERMINED FROM PREVIOUS EARTHQUAKES
THAT IT WOULD BE DANGEROUS TO GROUP LARGE POPULACE IN HIGH-DENSITY-HIGH-RISE STRUCTURES WITHIN
THIS VULNERABLE AWMA AREA ANYTIME IN THE FUTURE. THE LOW-INCOME STRUCTURES HAVE IN THE PApg'W
BEEN CONSTRUCTED UNDER LESSER STANDARDS DUE TO INCREASED COSTS CONNECTED WITH CONSTRUCTION^"*
DUE TO DELAYS CAUSED BY CITIES. COUNTIES, THE STATE AND FEDERAL GOVERNMENTS FOR ADDITIONAL " "
STUDIES, E.I.R.'S ETC., THIS PROBLEM WILL PREVAIL EXTENSIVELY IN THE FUTURE IN ORDER TO KEEP
COSTS AT A MINIMUM IN ORDER TO PROVIDE HOUSING FOR THE LOWER INCOME PEOPLE COMING INTO ORANGE
COUNTY. IT IS LOGICAL NOT TO EXPECT LUXURIES IN THE HOUSING CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRIES NOW, WITH
LAYERS OF GOVERNMENT REDUCING THE POTENTIALS OF LOW-COST CONSTRUCTION FOR SUCH PERSONS WHICH
AWMA-EPA-HUD HOPE TO PROVIDE ADEQUATE HOUSING NEEDS FOR THESE PERSONS IN THE FUTURE!
THEREFORE, HOW CAN IT BE CONCLUDED NOW THAT THE AIR A:JD *AT£R QUALITIES AND THE CONSTRUCTION
COSTS BE SATISFIED WITH THESE ANALYSIS AS PROVIDED WITHIN THESE PAGES OF THIS E.I.S.?
HOW CAN IT BE DETERMINED THAT BY INCREASING FACILITIES FOR AWMA PROJECTS IN THE FUTURE THAT
ALL THESE PROBLEMS WILL NOT BE INCREASED, RATHER THAN BE SOLVED UNDER THE TERMS GIVEN IN THIS
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STUDY?
IT HAS BEEN DETERMINED BY SCIENCE THAT A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF VEGETATION IS MANDATORY TO THE
SURVIVAL OF MANKIND. WITH THE PLANNED INCREASES OF SEWERAGE DISPOSALS, WASTEWATER DISPOSALS,
ENCROACHMENTS UPON PRIMS FARMING LANDS 'WITHIN THE WATERSHED AREAS, PLUS ALLEVIATION OF THE
CERTAIN VITAL VEGETATION CHARACTERISTICS WITHIN THESE LANDS, HOW CAN AWMA MAINTAIN A POSITION
THAT THEIR SUPER-AGENCY CAN SOLVE OUR SURVIVAL?
WITH INCREASING COSTS OF WATER, AND OTHER VITAL UTILITIES, TAXPAYERS WILL DISREGARD THE USES
WHICH ARE VITAL TO PUBLIC HEALTH, SAFETY AND WELFARE. WATER IS ESSENTIAL NOT ONLY FOR THE
PRESERVATION OF CUR EARTH AND DOMESTIC USES, LAWNS, WATERING WILD ANIMALS & INSECTS WHICH ARE
A PART OF OUR ECOLOGICAL SYSTEMS, BUT WITH INCREASED COSTS TO THOSE TAXPAYERS, WATER WILL BE
USED SPARINGLY. OTHER UTILITIES PROVIDE HEALTHFUL ESSENTIALS TO MANKIND, BUT GOVERNMENTAL
-------
PAGE 8.
INVOLVEMENTS INTO LOCAL, COUNTY AND SUBSIDIARY CONTROLS WILL PRICE THESE ESSENTIAL COMMODITIES
BEYOND THE FINANCIAL CAPACITIES OF EVEN WEALTHIER USERS. IT GOES WITHOUT FURTHER ANALYSIS
WHAT UNHEALTHY CONDITIONS WILL PREVAIL FOR EVERYONE IF THIS TRAGEDY CONTINUES. ALREADY PEOPLE
ARE WITHOUT JOBS. OUR SOCIAL SECURITY SYSTEMS ARE ALMOST BANKRUPT. OUR YOUNG MARRIEDS CANNOT
AFFORD HOUSING, OR MEDICAL CARE, *OR THE BARE ESSENTIALS. HOW CAN AWMA SOPHISTICATED SEWERAGE
DISPOSALS SYSTEMS, WITH POPULATION EXPANSION PROGRAMS AIM TO REDUCE THESE PROBLEMS IN THIS E.I.3.?
THE FLORA AND FAUNA WILL DRY UP1 THE WILD ANIMALS, SQUIRRELS, RACOONS, 3EAVERS, DEER, CPPOSSUMS,
SKUNKS, AND THE AMPHIBIANS WILL DISSAPPEAR EVENTUALLY IP THE FEDERAL & STATE GOVERNMENTS DO NOT
ALLOW LOCAL CITIES TO CONTINUE THEIR TRIED AND PROVEN DEMOCRATIC PLANNING FOR THESE CREATURES
OF OUR EARTH. THE 13^ PAGE COMPREHENSIVE STUDY JUST RELEASED BY THE COUNCIL FOR THE ENVIRONMENT,
ECONOMY, EDUCATION DEVELOPMENT IN ORANGE COUNTY HAS PROVEN THESE FACTS TO THE ORANGE COUNTY
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS.
THE ENDANGERED HABITAT TYPES AS ANALYZED FROM PAGE 2-^2 CHART WILL CERTAINLY SUFFER PERMANENT
DAMAGES UNDER PRESENT PLANNING BY AWMA.
THE MARINE BIOLOGY ALREADY HAS DECREASED DUE TO POLLUTION IN OUR LOCAL OCEAN WATERS. FISH ARE
CONTAMINATED AND UNFIT TO EAT NOW. WHAT WILL HAPPEN BY THE YEAR 2000^ WITH MORE POPULATION?
THE LAND USE PLANNING PAGE 2-57 ILLUSTRATES CORRECTLY THE INTENSITY OF AGRICULTURE IN ORANGE
COUNTY. ALREADY MUCH OF THIS VALUABLE FARMING LAND HAS BEEN INNUNDATED BY DEVELOPMENT. IT
IS INCONCEIVABLE TO THE MEMBERS OF THE LAGUNA BEACH TAXPAYERS' ASSOC. INC. WHY THE CITY OF
LACUNA BEACH RESTRICTS CERTAIN LAND DEVELOPMENT ON OTHERWISE NON-FARMING LANDS KNOWN AS THE
SYCAMORE HILLS IN THE LAGUNA CANYON NOW, AND WITH APHORISM, IT QUICKLY APPROVES OF THE AWMA
CONCEPTS TO" PROVIDE A GREAT POPULATION INCREASE AND CONSTRUCTION & DEVELOPMENT ON PRIME FARMING
LANDS WITHIN THIS SPHERE OF INFLUENCE I ON ONE HAND THIS ENTIRE PLAN PRETENDS TO PROVIDE FOR
THE FUTURE & ALLEVIATE PENDING PROBLEMS, MILE ON THE OTHER HAND, AND WITHIN PAGES 2-5? THRU
PAGE 2-?2 RELATES TO PLANS TO USE PRIME FARMING LANDS FOR PUBLIC PURPOSES IN THE FUTUREl
PAGE 2-72i HISTORICAL BACKGROUND. THE AWMA AREA HAS EXPERIENCED MANY HUMAN ACTIVITIES OF
HISTORIC SIGNIFICANCE DURING THE VARIOUS PERIODS THAT MAN HAS INHABITED THE REGION. IN ALL OF
ORANGE COUNTY, NO ONE AREA HAS RECORDED MORE HISTORICAL OCCURRENCES THAN WITHIN THE LAND AREA
KNOWN AS THE IRVINE RANCH.
L.B.T.A. RESPONSE!
TO PUT THE R-SCORDS. STRAIGHT, REFER TO-PAGE. 1-11 AWMA WAS ESTABLISHED ON MARCH 1, 1972 SO IT
CAN 3E STATED THAT AWMA WAS NOT IN THIS AREA OR HAS EXPERIENCED MANY HUMAN CHANGES OF SIGN-
IFCANCE FOR- SUCH DURATIONS AS THIS STATEMENT DOES IMPLY I IT ALSO CAN BE SAFELY STATED THAT
NOT ONLY THIS SOUTHERN CALIF, AREA HAS RICH HISTORICAL SIGNIFICANCE, BUT THE ENTIRE U.S.A.
SHOULD 3E INCLUDEDI THE SPANIARDS, THE CHINESE^, THE MEXICANS, THE AZETC INDIANS, AND THE
MANY MIXES OF NATIONALITIES PROVIDE THE HISTORICAL BACKGROUNDS OF THIS AREA, NOT AWMAl
CERTAINLY AWMA PROVISIONS FOR INCREASED POPULATIONS PLUS FACILITIES FOR SAME WILL NOT ENHANCE
THESE HISTORICAL PRESERVATIONS I
PAGE 3-1.1 ALTERNATIVE LA-LOCAL TREATMENT. REGIONAL DISPOSAL:; THIS ALTERNATIVE REQUIRES THE
SNLARG2M2NT~OF~LOCAL PLANTS, CONSTRUCTION OP A REGIONAL 2FFLUENT TRANSMISSION MAIN AND A NORTH
COAST INTERCEPTOR AND OCEAN OUTFALL. THE USE OF TWO EXISTING SHORT, SHALLOW OCEAN OUTFALLS
-------
PAGE 9.
PAGE 3-1 CONTINUED! (INCLUSIVE OP PAGES 3-1 THRU PAGE 4-2.)
A^ THE LACUNA BEACH TREATMENT PLANT WOULD BE TERMINATED AND THE SOUTH COAST INTERCEPTOR WOULD
BE REPLACED. CAPITAL COST OF THIS ALTERNATIVE IS ESTIMATED TO 3E $37-9 MILLION.
L.B.T.A. RESPONSEi
NO MENTION HAS BEEN MADE REGARDING THE PRESENT $500,000. SEWER BONDS WHICH ARE NOT RETIREDl
ALSO WHAT WOULD THE ALTERNATIVE PROGRAM HAVE BEEN CONCERNING THE CITY OF LAGUNA BEACH HAD THEY
NOT ELECTED TO JOIN AWMA SEWER-WASTEWATER SYSTEMS IN 1972?
ALSO WHY SHOULD LOCAL TAXPAYERS, ALREADY BURDENED WITH COSTLY ACQUISITIONS SUCH AS MAIN BEACH
WHICH COULD EXCEED $16 MILLION DOLLARS FOR PUBLIC USE, AND THE RECENTLY ACQUIRED CRESCENT BAY
LOTS FOR $550,000. WITH BOTH PERPETUAL MAINTENANCE PROBLEMS FOR ONLY 6,000 PROPERTY TAXPAYERS
OF LAGUNA BEACH, BE SUBJECTED NOW TO PROVIDE EVER INCREASING POPULACE EXPANSION SYSTEMS THRU
AWMA-EPA-HUD WITH INCREASING TAXES & SUR-TAXES FOR NO PROVEN ADVANTAGES FINANCIALLY OR
PHYSICALLY OR ECOLOGICALLY OR ENVIRONMENTALLY TO THIS ENTIRE REGION?
THIS REPORT HAS ELIMINATED THESE VERY COSTLY FACTORS WHICH CONCERN LOCAL TAXPAYERS NOW AND
IN THE FUTURE. WE ARE A MINORITY ALREADY FACED WITH EXORBITANT TAXATION PROBLEMS. AWMA PROJECTS
HAVE NOT PROVIDED SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE WITHIN THIS ENTIRE E.I.S. TO SHOW CAUSE THAT THEIR FLANS
ARE WORKABLE OR WILL ALLEVIATE THE PROBLEMS THEY HAVE POSED»
WHY SHOULD LOCAL PROPERTY OWNERS PROVIDE FOR PUBLIC FACILITIES WHICH WILL ULTIMATELY COST US OUR
LIFE'S INVESTMENTS IN LAND AND FINANCES?
._ WHY SHOULD THE CITY OF LAGUNA BEACH DOWNZONE OUR PROPERTIES DISCRIMINATCRILY NOW, WHILE APPROVING
^ OF AWMA-EPA-HUD PROGRAMS INCONSISTENT TO LOCAL APPROVAL? THIS E.I.S. DOES NOT RESPOND TC THESE
- AND SO MANY OTHER PERTINENT QUESTIONS? IS SIMPLY HAS GENERALIZED DESCRIPTIVELY THE REQUIRED
. . E.I.S. ELEMENTS. AS TAXPAYERS LOCALLY & NATIONALLY WE DESERVE AN IN-DEPTH ANALYSIS OF THESE
BASIC COSTSI
NOTE* IT IS DIFFICULT TO FOLLOW SUCH PAGING WITHIN THIS E.I.S. MANUAL! WE REFERRED TO 2-72,NOWi
PAGE 4-2 DYNAMICS OF GROWTHt FOR THE PAST TWENTY YEARS, ORANGE COUNTY HAS EXPERIENCED RAPID
POPULATION GROWTH".FROM A POPULATION OF APPROXIMATELY 700,000 IN I960, THE COUNTY HAS GROWN
TO 1,656,300 IN 1974, AN INCREASE OF APPROXIMATELY 70,000 PERSONS PER YEAR. SINCE 1970 THE
POPULATION HAS INCREASED BY AN ADDITIONAL 273.360, A SLIGHTLY SLOWER ANNUAL INCREASE OF ABOUT
55,000. ETC.
INITIALLY POPULATION GROWTH IN ORANGE COUNTY WAS A 'SPILL OVER' FROM L.A. COUNTY. BUT THE
DEVELOPMENT OF FREEWAYS AND THE INCREASING POPULATION ALLOWED ESTABLISHMENT. OF LOCAL EMPLOYMENT,
BY I960 THE EMPLOYMENT BASE WAS 165,000 JOBS AND BY 1965 IT REACHED 293,000.
PAGE 4-5 CIRCULATION! FREEWAY ACCESS IS VERY IMPORTANT IN THAT DEVELOPMENT IS IMPOSSIBLE IF THERE
IS NO ACCESS, AND DEVELOPMENT IS UNLIKELY IF ACCESS IS NOT CONVENIENT AND TIMELY.
L.B.T.A. RESPONSES!
THE RECENT NO-GROWTH POLICIES APPARENTLY ARE INTERMITTENT TO THE AWMA-EPA-HUD PROJECTS TO COME.
WITH SUCH DELAYS FOR PLANNING PURPOSES, CONSTRUCTION COSTS ARE PRICING THE AVERAGE BUYER OUT OF
ORANGE COUNTYl BECAUSE OF THE ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF THE FEDERAL HUD SECTION 23
REPOSSESSED PRIVATE HOMES IN THE L.A. AREAS NOW, PEOPLE ARE GROWING EVER CONCERNED THAT THIS
IRREPLEVIA3LS CONDITION WILL SOON PREVAIL HERE UNDER THE AWMA-EPA-HUD PROJECTIONS WITHIN THIS E.I.S
-------
PAGE 10 o
IT CAN BE AGREED THAT PRESENT PROPOSALS CONCERNING GAS & OIL SHORTAGES AND CONCURRENT TAXATION
TO CURTAIL SUCH USEAGES, WILL ALLEVIATE THE NEED FOR ADDITIONAL CORRIDORS,, FREEWAYS, SURFACE
STREETS,, EVEN BIKE TRAILS . PEOPLE HAVE TO WORK. THIS ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUE HAS CAUSED MANY
PEOPLE TO MOVE AWAY FROM CONGESTED AREAS IN SEARCH OF EMPLOYMENT. WHILE AWMA-EPA-HUD KAY
INTEND TO PRO VIDE ••GOVERNMENT EMPLOYMENT , AND SUBSIDIES FOR WELFARE AND HOUSING , THERE IS A
CERTAIN CONSIDERATION WHICH MUST BE ACCOUNTABLE AND THAT IS THAT SUCH SUBSIDIES ARE PROVIDED
ULTIMATELY THROUGH INCREASED TAXATION. WHEN LOCAL PEOPLE ARE OVER-TAXED , WITHOUT EMPLOYMENT,
WITHOUT BARE NECESSITIES,, & GOVERNMENT CONTINUES ITS COSTLY INCREASES FOR MORE SUBSIDY PROGRAMS,
THE ENVTRONEMTAL ISSUES WILL BE SECONDARY TO THE PREDICTABLE ECONOMIC BANKRUPTCY IN ORANGE •!
COUNTY, AND PERHAPS NATIONALLY! HUNGRY PEOPLE ARE DANGEROUS AND DESPERATE, ' WHEN ETHNIC GROUPS
ARE DISPLACED B WHEN THE LESS INTELLECTUALS ARE RESTLESS DUE TO JOBLESSNESS , THE PUBLIC POLICE,
JUVEKILS FACILITIES, THE GENERAL BUSINESS CONDITIONS WILL SUFFER ADVERSELY. WHY HASN'T THIS
E.I.S. TAKEN THESE VERY VITAL CONSIDERATIONS INTO ACCOUNT?
•CROWDING AND INTEGRATION WILL CERTAINLY CREATE MORE PROBLEMS THAN AWMA HAS PREDICTED IT CAN SOLVES
PAGE b~6, SEC. ^.2. 3° 2 ASSESSED VALUE 8 THE ASSESSED VALUE FOR THE DEVELOPED LAND NORTH OF THE
AWMA AREA IS NOT INDICATIVE OF ASSESSED VALUE TRENDS, BUT RATHER OF POTENTIAL PROFITS.
L.3.T.A. RESPONSES
BECAUSE THIS IS A VITAL ISSUE WITH LOCAL TAXPAYERS, ESPECIALLY THOSE WHOSE PROPERTIES HAVE BEEN
INDISCRIMINATELY DOWNZONED LAST YEAR IN LACUNA BEACH, THIS IS A VERY INADEQUATE ASSESSMENT OF
PROPERTY VALUES WITHIN THIS AWMA DISTRICTS ASSESSED VALUATIONS HAVE TAKEN A DIP DUE TO THE
ECONOMIC TRENDS? HIGHER INTEREST & COLLATERAL REQUIREMENTS BY LENDING INSTITUTIONS, QUESTIONABLE
UNCONSTITUTIONAL DOWNZONING, AND LAND-USE RESTRICTIONS WITHOUT DUE PROCESS OF LAW, OR JUST
COMPENSATION FOR THE TAKING OF PRIVATE PROPERTY RIGHTS NOW FOR PUBLIC PURPOSES, WHAT HAPPENS IN
CASES WHERE OWNERS ARE STILL PAYING MORTGAGES & THEIR DOWNZONED MULTI-UNITS ARE DESTROYED BY
FIRE, OR OTHER NATURAL CAUSES? WHAT ABOUT THE INSURANCE LIABILITIES INVOLVED IN DEVALUED DOWN- -•
ZONED AREAS? WHO IS LIABLE WHEN DISASTERS STRIKE CONDOMINIUM APARTMENT COMPLEXES? WHO GETS TO
REBUILD THEIR UNITS, WHO DO NOT? THESE AND MANY OTHER FACTORS, PLUS THE DENIAL BY THIS CITY TO
OWNERS TO DEVELOP, WHILE PROPERTY TAXES CONTINUE TO RISE DURING MORATORIUMS? ETC. ETC,
THIS PHASE OF THIS E.I.S. HAS SADLY SKIPPED MANY IMPORTANT FACTORS CONCERNED WITH LOCAL PROPERTY
VALUATIONS 8
PAGE ^=6 4.2.30^0 SEWERAGE FACILITIES 8 SEWERAGE SERVICE IN THE AWMA AREA HAS GENERALLY FOLLOWED
INITIAL HOUSING CONSTRUCTION, ALTHOUGH IT HAS GENERALLY ANTICIPATED LONG-TERM GROWTH. ETC.
THE INITIAL SYSTEM FOR THE CITY OF LACUNA BEACH WAS CONSTRUCTED IN 1923, ETC.
L.3.T.A. RESPONSES
NOTHING HAS BEEN MENTIONED CONCERNING THE UPDATING OF OUR SEWER FACILITIES THROUGH THE $500,000
BOND WHICH IS TO RETIRE 198^8 THIS WOULD SERVE A POPULATION OF APPROXIMATELY 30 „ 000 IN LAGUNA
BEACH, WHILE AWMA SEEMS TO INDICATE THROUGHOUT, THAT LACUNA'S SEWER SYSTEMS ARE INADEQUATE,
THE LAGUNA BEACH TAXPAYERS0 ASSOC . INC. BELIEVES THIS IS MERELY AN ASSUMPTION TO FORCE THIS CITY
THIS IS CERTAINLY A CONSPIRACY IF WE MUST CONTINUE TO BELIEVE THAT THE CITY WANTS NO-GROWTH
-------
PAGE 11.
L.B.T.A. RESPONSES CONTINUEDi
AND AT THE SAME INCREASES OUR SEWER SERVICES SUR-TAXES OVER 100% NOW, ALSO REQUIRES THAT WE
CONTINUE TO PAY FOR A SEWERAGE BOND UNTIL 1984- WHICH WAS TO HAVE ADEQUATELY PROVIDED FOR A
POPULATION OF DOUBLE THE EXISTING POPULACEl PLEASE ANSWER THESE QUESTIONS & PROVIDE A LEGAL
POSITION AND OPINION FOR THESE CONTROVERSIAL FACTORS.
PAGE 4-7, 4.2.3.5, SOCIAL FACTORS! ECONOMIC PRESSURES OCCUR WHEN THE COST OF HOUSING NEAR
COMMUNITIES EXCEEDS THE COST OF HOUSING IN MORE REMOTE AREAS. HOWEVER, IT APPEARS THAT THIS IS
NOT THE CASE IN THE AWMA AREA. THE AVERAGE COST OF HOUSING IS AS HIGH OR HIGHER IN THE AWMA
AREA, AND SINCE THE AREA IS REMOTE, TRANSPORTATION COSTS ARE SIGNIFICANTLY HIGHER. IT MAY BE
SURMISED THAT SOCIAL ATTITUDES PLAY A KEY ROLE IN THE DEVELOPMENT IN THE AWMA AREA.
L.B.T.A. RESPONSEi
THE ECONOMIC PRESSURES ARE CERTAINLY SIGNIFICANT WITHIN THIS AWMA AREA AS ANYWHERE IN THE U.S.A.
AT THIS TIME. MANY PEOPLE ARE WITHOUT JOBS. IT CAN HARDLY BE CONSIDERED THAT AWMA IS A REMOTE
AREA EITHERI REMOTE TO WHAT? WE HAVE ALL FACILITIES WHICH LARGE CITIES HAVE! AND PERHAPS OUR
ETA'S TO AIRPORTS & SHOPPING AREAS ARE EQUAL TO LARGER COMMUNITIES! THE FACILITIES ARE HERE,
BUT THE INTERUPTIONS OF PLANNING FOR FUTURE HUD CITIES IS SOMETHING OF A CHOATIC NATURE, WHEN
PRACTICAL FACTORS ARE SUMMED TOGETHERI DEVELOPMENT IN ORANGE COUNTY HAS HALTED BECAUSE OF
SUCH IMPROVISED PLANS BY FEDERAL GOVERNMENT FOR THE ULTIMATE PURPOSES OF INTEGRATING OUR
PEACEFUL LOCALE. PLANS TO MOVE VAST NUMBERS OF NON-ORANGE COUNTY RESIDENTS INTO OUR AREAS ARE
Y» THE INGREDIENTS FOR A VERY NEGATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT HERE IN THE FUTUREI EVEN THE ETHNICS
H DO NOT WANT TO BE FORCED TO INTEGRATE. THEY ARE PROUD PEOPLE AS ANY OTHER PEOPLE. THEY DO
01 NOT DESERVE TO BE EXPLOITED ANYMORE THAN WE DESERVE TO BE EXPLOITED TO PAY FOR THIS CONSPIRACYl
THE L.B.T.A. PREFERS STRAIGHT LANGUAGE FOR TH1 IPITOME OF BETTER UNDERSTANDING I WE ARE NOW
COMPELLED TO PAY FOR AWMA SCHEMING, LET'S HAVE THE FULL RAW FACTS WITH FULL DETAILS NOW!!!
IT CAN BE ASSUMED HOWEVER, FROM THE CHART 4-4 THAT THE UNEMPLOYMENT RATE PREVAILS WITH THE
ETHNIC GROUPS. THEY ALSO HAVE A HIGHER ADA IN LOCAL SCHOOL SYSTEMS BECAUSE THEY HAVE LARGER
FAMILIES, ISN'T THIS A FACT?
THE POVERTY RATE IS ALSO THE HIGHEST APPARENTLY IN THESE CATAGORIES IS IT NOT?
SO WITH THESE FACTS EXPOSED NOW, CAN AWMA-EPA-HUD SAFELY PREDICT THAT THESE PROBLEMS WILL BE
SOLVED BY PROVIDING MORE FACILITIES WITHIN THIS AREA AND CROWDING PEOPLE ALREADY UNEMPLOYED,
AWAY FROM ORANGE COUNTY, AND CAUSING OUR TAX RATES TO SOAR IN ORDER TO PROVIDE GREATER PUBLIC
POLICE, FIRE, JUVENILE HOMES, PROBLEM CENTERS, FOR THE LESS EDUCATED & SUBSIDIZED GROUPS?
WHAT PROBLEMS AS SUCH CAN THIS AWMA-EPA-HUD PROGRAM SOLVE UNDER THE TERMS LISTED WITHIN THIS S.I.R?
PAGE 4-9, 4.2.3.6. CONCLUSIONt THE OVERALL ECONOMIC HEALTH OF THE COUNTY, FREEWAY ACCESS, AND
THE 'EXCLUSIVENESS' OF THE AREA HAVE BEEN THE MAJOR FACTORS IN PAST GROWTH IN THE AWMA AREA. THE
INITIAL CONSTRUCTION AND SUBSEQUENT WIDENING OF THE SAN DIEGO FREEWAY ARE THE KEY EVENTS OPENING
UP SOUTHERN 0?J^NGE COUNTY TO ABSORB DEVELOPMENT PRESSURES.
PAGE 4-9, 4.3 FUTURE DEVELOPMENT PROSPECTS i ESTABLISHING WHAT HAS HAPPENED IN THE PAST, AND WHY,
CAN BE DONE MUCH MORE ACCURATELY THAN THE FUTURE CAN 3E PROJECTED.
T ~Q *p A RFSPONS**11
THE'CONCLUSION is NOT SPECIFIC! MANY QUESTIONS ARE POSSIBLE WITH SUCH A BROAD STATEMENT. IF
-------
PAGE 12 o
LoB.ToAo RESPONSES CONTINUEDt
SUCH A COSTLY FEDERAL PROGRAM IS TO ABSORB OUR VERY ECONOMIC BALANCE WITHIN ORANGE COUNTY
DUE TO SUCH REMOTE PLANNING, THERE MUST ESSENTIALLY BE A GOAL, AN ABSOLUTE & ULTIMATE GOAL,
IN ORDER TO BASE THE FEASIBILITIES OF SUCH TAX EXPENDITURES IN THIS AWMA AREA IN THE FUTURE!
THESE STATEMENTS AS FUTURE DEVELOPMENT PROSPECTS ARE INADEQUATE IN THAT THEY ARE GENERALIZED,
NOT SPECIFIC! THE TOTAL NATIONAL ECONOMIC PICTURE HAS NOT BEEN CONSIDERED AT THIS TIKE CR
IN THE FUTURE, AND WHILE THIS IS MERELY SPECULATIVE,, A CERTAIN TREND THROUGH ANALYSIS OF SUCH
COMPARABLE PROJECTS OVER THE U.S.Ao IN THE PAST A3 PRECEDENTS SHOULD BE USED IN THIS STUDYt
ON JUNE 230 2b0 1972, A SPECIAL SYMPOSIUM ON NEW TOWNS WAS HELD AT U.C.I. I WAS INVITED TO
ATTEND THESE INFORMATIVE SESSIONS I IT WAS INVALUABLE INFORMATION, ALTHOUGH IRRELATIVE TO
THOSE DAYS TO LEARN THAT THESE EASTERN NEW TOWNS WHICH WERE FEDERAL HUD PROJECTS WERE NOT
WORKING! EACH PHASE OF THESE PROGRAMS WAS AIRED DURING THESE INFORMATIVE SESSIONS. WHILE
A GREAT EXPRESSION WAS VOICED THAT THE LOW-INCOMES NEEDED HOUSING, IT WAS STRESSED THAT THIS
WAS NOT THE WORKABLE SOLUTION TO SUCH NEEDSJ
AT THIS TIME, THE PICTURE BECOMES COMPREHENSIVEI AWMA PLANS SUCH A FEDERALLY SUBSIDIZED NSW
TOWN APPARENTLY UPON THE PRIME FARMING LANDS WITHIN THE AWKA-GSA AREAS SOONo AWMA SHOULD
RSSSARCH THE NSW TOWNS & THEIR UNWORKABLE PROGRAMS CONCERNING8 RESTON, VIRGINIA AND JONATHAN,
MINNESOTA BEFORE WE GO BANKRUPT WITH TAXATION WHILE EXPERIMENTATIONS CONTINUE UNDER AWMA HEREI
PAGE 4°10s FORMAL LAND USE PLANNINGA BARRING ACTION TO RETARD DEVELOPMENT BY REGULATORY AGENCIES,
AREAS WITHIN THIS DEVELOPABLE REGION WILL CONTINUE TO DEVELOP TO THE LIMITS OF THEIR ZONING
(OR MORE), GUIDED CHIEFLY BY HOUSING ECONOMICS AND ACCESSABILITYo IT SHOULD BE NOTED THAT
ZONING HAS NOT•RESTRICTED DEVELOPMENT IN THE AWMA AREA IN THE PAST. ALTHOUGH STATE LEGISLATION
REQUIRES THAT ZONING NOW BE CONSISTENT WITH LAND USE PLANS, LAND USE PLANS MAY BE AMENDED THREE
TIMES EACH YEARo IT IS PROBABLE THAT DEVELOPING PLANS, RATHER THAN ZONING, WILL GUIDE AND
CONTROL DEVELOPMENTo
L.B.T.Ao RESPONSES
THIS ENTIRE STATEMENT IS INADEQUATE AND INACCURATE AND INCONSISTENT WITH THE LOCAL ZONING
AND DOWNZONING PRACTICES OF LACUNA BEACH WHICH IS WITHIN TH3 AWMA AREA! THE SYCAMORE HILLS,
RANCHOS PALOS VERDES ESTATES HAS BEEN COMPLETELY STOPPED FROM THEIR LAND USE RIGHTS WITHOUT
A SUSPENSION OF THEIR PROPERTY TAXES0 BUT INCREASING DAILY COSTS DUE TO THESE RESTRICTIONS!
THE PROPERTY OWNERS 0? MACCHU PICHU LANDS WITHIN THE CITY LIMITS, THE OWNERS OF MANY OTHER
MAJOR PROPERTI3S IN LAG-UNA, PLUS ALL OWNERS OF PROPERTIES OF R-3P R-2 AND C-l ZONED LANDS
HAVE BEEN STOPPED FROM USING THEIR PROPERTIES AS ZONED! NO PROPERTY OWNER, HOWEVER, HAS
HAD DUE PROCESS OF LAW IN COURT, OR JUST COMPENSATION OFFERED FOR THE TAKING OF HIS PRIVATE
PROPERTY RIGHTS FOR THESE PUBLIC PURPOSESI
ALSO NOT MENTIONED WITHIN THIS FORMAL LAND USE PLANNING ARE THE CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS
WHICH ULTIMATELY COULD COST THE TAXPAYERS EXORBITANT CLAIMS WHEN THE COURTS MUST AWARD THESE
RESTRICTED AND DEFAULTED PROPERTY OWNERS THEIR JUST COMPENSATIONS FOR THEIR LAND USE RIGHTS! '
TO CONTINUE RESPONSE THAT LOCAL GOVERNMENT ULTIMATELY HAVE 'COMPLETE' CONTROL OF LAND USE
DECISIONS IS ALSO ERRONEOUS! THE SCAG AND CALIF» COASTAL ZONE COMMISSION, THE 0,C. SUPERVISORS,
THE LAFC, THE FEDERAL AND STATE GOVERNMENTS NOW HAVE FINAL CONTROLS OVER OUR LAND USE DECISIONS!
30 THIS STATEMENT IS ENTIRELY FALSE AND A THOROUGH REPORT CORRECTING THESE STATEMENTS SHOULD
-------
PAGE 13.
L.S'.T.A, RESPONSE CONTINUED!
ACCOMPANY THE ADDENDUM ON THIS CATAGORYl
THE 1983 LAND USE ELEMENT WHICH GOVERNS MOST OF THE AWMA AREA, THE CITY OF LAGUNA BEACH'S :t
GENERAL PLAN, ETC. IS TOO BRIEF FOR COMPREHENSION! THE CITY OF LAGUNA BEACH HAS NOT COMPLETED
ITS GENERAL PLAN, ALSO THE PRESENTED PROPOSALS AS ADOPTED VARIOUS DATES SINCE 1972 ARE NOT
FEASIBLE IN THAT NON-PROFESSIONALS HAVE COLLATED THESE'DOCUMENTS FOR THE CITY OF LAGUNA BSACHl
ALSO SEVERAL OF THESE E.I.R.'S HAVE BEEN OPPOSED AND THE CITY NEVER RESPONDED OR CCRRSCTED
"THEIR STATEMENTS FOR FUTURE CONSIDERATION AND LEGAL PURPOSES 1 THEREFORE, SUCH PROJECTIONS
CONCERNING THE LAND USE ELEMENTS ARE INCONSISTENT AND INACCURATE.
THE L.B.T.A. WOULD APPRECIATE INFORMATION CONCERNING THE OWNERSHIPS OF THE LANDS WHICH THE
AWMA HAS PLANNED FOR INTENSIVE FUTURE DEVELOPMENTS WITHIN THESE WATERSHEDS. WILL THE OWNERS
BE FORCED TO SELL TO PUBLIC AGENCIES FOR THE PURPOSES OF PROVIDING HUD CITIES FOR THE LOW-
INCOME SUBSIDIZED PEOPLE?
ARE THESE LANDS CURRENTLY UNDER THE WILLIAMSON ACT, AND AGRICULTURAL PRESERVE PROGRAMS?
HAVE THE OWNERS OF THESE LANDS BEEN PROPERLY NOTIFIED OF THE FUTURE POTENTIALS WHICH THEIR
LANDS HAVE BEEN DESIGNATED UNDER THESE LAND USE PROGRAMS BY AWMA-EPA-HUD?
WHILE SOME IRVINE COMPANY LANDS ARE UNDER AGRI-PRESERVE STATUS, THE AWMA PROPOSED WATERSHED
LANDS WITHIN ALISO VALLEY HAVE NOT BEEN MENTIONED WITHIN THIS E.I.S. WHAT ARE THESE STATUS1?
PAGE 13, SEWERSt THE EXISTING SEWER LINES CAN BE SEEN ON EXHIBIT 4.?. ALMOST ALL FACILITIES
ARE NOW ADEQUATE, BUT ARE APPROACHING CAPACITY. ETC.
L.B.T.A. RESPONSE!
THIS STATEMENT CONTRADICTS TABLE 1-1 WHICH MENTIONS THAT THE LAGUNA BEACH SEWERAGE DISPOSAL
SYSTEMS ARE INADEQUATE, OUTDATED FACILITIES WITH POOR QUALITY SFFLUSNTl
PLEASE CORRECT THE CONTRADICTORY STATEMENTS. 'WHICH IS CORRECT & HOW WAS THE FACT DETERMINED?
PAGE 4-lAi 4.3.3.4- OTHER UTILITIES! OTHER UTILITIES, SUCH AS SCHOOLS, FIRS PROTECTION, POLICE
PROTECTION & SO FORTH ARE AFFECTED BY URBANIZATION. HOWEVER, THESE UTILITIES CUSTOMARILY DO NOT
STIMULATE OR DETER DSVELOPftENT, SO NO DETAILED EXAMINATION OF TRENDS WAS MADE.
L.B.T.A. RESPONSEt
THESE ARE VERY COSTLY UTILITIES, ACTUAL PUBLIC FACILITIES TO ALL AREA PROPERTY OWNERS! THE
TRENDS ARE THAT DEVELOPMENT MUST PROVIDE ADEQUATELY FOR THESE NEW FACILITIES, THEREFORE, MORE
CONSIDERATION IN THIS E.I.S. SHOULD HAVE BEEN GIVEN TO THESE AREAS OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
UPON THE AREAS WITHIN AWMA PLANNING HERE. ARE DEVELOPERS IN THE FUTURE REQUIRED TO PROVIDE
CERTAIN LANDS FOR THESE FACILITIES PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTING HOMES? HOW MUCH OF THESE BURDENSOME
COSTS FOR SUCH PUBLIC FACILITIES GOING TO BE A PART OF THAT AREAS COSTS? WILL THESE COSTS BE
ANOTHER GENERAL TAXATION FOR ALL ORANGE COUNTY PROPERTY TAXPAYERS TO SUPPORT THESE FACILITIES?
LOW-INCOME, WELFARE FAMILIES AS PROPOSED IN THE AWMA PROJECT WILL CERTAINLY NOT BE FINANCIALLY
SOLVENT TO ABSORB SUCH MAJOR UTILITY COSTS IN THE FUTURE. HAS ANY COST ANALYSIS BEEN DETERMINED
APPROXIMATELY HOW MUCH ADDITIONAL TAX REVENUES GENERALLY WILL BE NEEDED TO OFFS2T THESE FACILITIES?
WHILE TRENDS NEITHER STIMULATE OR DETER SUCH FACILITY rtEQUIKSMSNTS, THESE ARE CERTAINLY A MAJOR
FACTOR TOWARD PLANNING WITHIN AN UNDEVELOPED PRIME FARMING AREA SUCH AS AWMA PROPOSES NEAR THE
-------
00
PAGE 1*4-.
L.B.T.A. RESPONSES CONTINUED...
0.3, A., ZIGARRAT FEDERAL GOVERNMENT FACILITY WITHIN THE LAGUNA-NIGUEL AREAI
PAGE 4-14, 4.3.4. REGULATORY PROGRAMS i REGULATORY PROGRAMS , ESPECIALLY THOSE DEVELOPED UNDER
THE. CLEAN AIR ACT AND THOSE: DEVELOPED UNDER THE COASTAL CONSERVATION ACT, WILL AFFECT DEVELOPMENT
IN THE AWMA AREA. OBVIOUSLY, CONSTRUCTION PERMITTED BY THE CITIES AND THE COUNTY AS PART OF THSIF
GENERAL PLANNING FUNCTION WILL HAVE A LARGE EFFECT ON AWMA's URBAN GROWTH.
L.B.T.A. RESPONSE!
..ON PAGE 4-10,- 4.3.2. FORMAL USE PLANNING .ON LAND .DEVELOPMENT STATES THAT LOCAL GOVERNMENTS
ULTIMATELY HAVE 'COMPLETE' CONTROL OF LAND USE DECISIONS. THIS STATEMENT CONTRADICTS THE ABOVE
-STATEMENT MADE UNDER REGULATORY- PROGRAMS, AND MY STATEMENT PREVIOUSLY THAT SCAG , THE COASTAL
ZONE COMMISSION, LAFC, THE ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, ETC. ALL HAVE ABSOLUTE CONTROLS
OVER LOCAL PLANNING AND CONSTRUCTIONl PLEASE CLARIFY YOUR STATEMENTS REGARDING PAGE 4-14 ,4. J. 4 . ?
PAGE 4-16, 4.3.7 CONCLUSIONt UNLESS SUBSTANTIAL CHANGES IN GOVERNMENTAL POLICIES OCCUR, THE
AWMA AREA WILL CONTINUE TO ABSORB A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF ORANGE COUNTY'S POPULATION GROWTH.
AT THE COUNTY LEVEL, THE ACTUAL LEVEL OF POPULATION GROWTH DEPENDS ON GENERAL ECONOMIC CONDITIONS
WHICH CANNOT BE PREDICTED. THE AREAS WITHIN AWMA, 'WHICH A BSORB POPULATION, THE AMOUNT OF
POPULATION ABSORBED, AND THE MANNER IN '//HIGH POPULATION IS ABSORBED, DEPENDS ON GOVERNMENTAL
POLICIES AND ACTIONS. IN PARTICULAR, LAND USE PLANNING & REGULATION, AND EXTENSION OF PUBLIC
UTILITIES, INCLUDING SEWER TRUNKS, WATER TRUNKS AND ROADS, WILL ALL PLAY A CRITICAL ROLE IN
DETERMINING THE URBAN FORM AS AWMA DEVELOPS.
L.B.T.A. RESPONSE:
THIS ENTIRE STATEMENT IS QUITS FACTUAL IN ESSENCE, HOWEVER. THE BASIC MYSTERIES CONCERNING WHY
THE CITY OF LACUNA BEACH IS PREPARING FOR POPULATION EXPANSION, CHARGING EXORBITANTLY FOR OUR
SEWER SERVICES WHEN THEY ARE ALREADY PAID THROUGH PROPERTY TAXES, AND THEIR NO-GROWTH, DOWNZONING
AESTHETIC -VILLAGE LACUNA STORIES, CERTAINLY CONTRADICT THE FUTURE PROGRAMMING BY AWMA IN THIS SIS!
THE REAL PROBLEMS ARISE WEN OVER TAXATION OF ESTABLISHED COMMUNITIES OF LESSER TAX BASES, -.NO
GROWTH, AND SMALL POPULACE ARE REQUIRED TO SUBSTANTIALLY SUBSIDIZE A FUTURE POPULATION PROGRAM
WHICH DOES NOT SHOW AN ABSOLUTE POSITIVE POTENTIAL. EXAMPLES! THE NEW CITIES OF RESTON, VA . ,
AND JONATHAN, MINN. WERE ABSOLUTELY COSTLY FLOPS. THESE HAVE COST AREA TAXPAYERS SMALL FORTUNES
• FOR NO" ADVANTAGEOUS" PUR POSES I 'WHY CAN'T SUCH PROJECTS AS PRECEDENTED THERE SERVE AS FUTURE
PLANNING EXAMPLES FOR THIS AWMA PROGRAM HERS? WHY MUST ALL PROPERTY TAXPAYERS SUBSIDIZE
EXPERIMENTAL" PROGRAMS SUCH AS THIS" A'.VMA PROJECT, SIM'PLY TO PROVIDE FEDERAL & STATS 'GRANTS TC
BE SQUANDERED OVER MORE OF THE SAME UNWORKABLE NEW HUD EXPLOITATIONS?
WHY MUST THE LOW-INCOME PEOPLE, THE ELDERLY, THE LESS EDUCATED PEOPLE, THE ETHNICS * THE POOR
VULNERABLE TAXPAYERS BE EXPLOITED CONTINUOUSLY FOR SOCIALISTIC PROGRAMS 'WHICH HAVE NCT PROVEN
EQUAL VALUE FINANCIALLY OR ..PHYSICALLY?
WHY MUST OUR ECOLOGICAL BALANCES OF NATURE BE SUBMITTED PERMANENTLY NOW THROUGH AWMA PROJECTS
FOR THESE UNWORKABLE SOCIALISTIC SCHEMES WHICH BRING MORE PROBLEMS & PEOPLE INTO THIS AREA
WHICH IS ALREADY SUFFERING FROM ECONOMIC DEPRESSION, SMOG PROBLEMS, OCEAN POLLUTION & AIR
PROBI FMS*'
IT IS ABSOLUTELY STATED ABOVE THAT NEW SEWERS, WATER TRUNKS & ROADS WILL BE A FART OF THIS
-------
PAGE 15.
L.B.T.A. RESPONSES} CONTINUED PAGE 4-16 4.3.?.i
AWMA PROJECT I THESE ARE CRITICAL FACTORS WEN CONSIDERING THAT THIS AREA IS PRIME FARMING
LANDS. WHY NOT BUILD HUD COMMUNITIES ON NON-FARMING LANDS AND PRESERVE OUR PRECIOUS FARMING
LANDS THROUGH YOUR ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION LEGISLATION?
THE REASON WHY LEVEL LANDS ARE BENEFICIAL IS THAT IT IS LESS COSTLY TO DEVELOP THE LOW-INCOME
HIGH-DENSITY-COMMUNAL APARTMENTS ON LEVEL GROUND ISN'T THAT THE BASIC REASON WITH AWMA PROJECTS?
BUT PRESENT COSTS FOR DEVELOPMENT AREN'T ANY LONGER CHEAPI 30 NOT ONLY IS PUBLIC LAND LOST
FROM THE TAX ROLLS, BUT THE TAXPAYERS ARE BURDENED ADDITIONALLY TO SUBSIDIZE COSTLY HOUSING
FOR THE LOW-INCOMES SUBSIDIZED ON WELFARE & GOVERNMENT PAYROLLS! IS THIS THE WAY TO RESPECT
THE INDIVIDUALS SUPPORTING THE ECONOMIES? HOW LONG CAN A SMALL GROUP OF LAGUNA BEACH PROPERTY
. TAXPAYERS CONTINUE TO PAY FOR THESE EXORBITANT PUBLIC FACILITIES IN THE FUTURE? THIS E.I.S.
DOES NOT ATTEMPT TO EXPLAIN THESE VERY VITAL ISSUES DOSS IT? WHY? THERE ARE MANY PROPERTY
OWNERS, ELDERLY AND WITH LOW-INCOMES TOO IN LACUNA BSACHI ARE THESE PEOPLE GOING TO LOSS
THEIR HOMES OVER THIS PROGRAM THROUGH AWMA & THIS CITY'S TAXATION PROGRAMS? WE DESERVE ANSWERS 1
PAGE 4-17, 4.4 PARAGRAPH TWO IN PARTi ALTHOUGH SEPTIC TANK USE CAN BE OBSERVED IN THE NEARBY
SANTA MARGARITA WATER DIST., SEPTIC TANKS ARE NOT A REAL ALTERNATIVE IN AWMA. BECAUSE OF OPPOSITION
BY THE REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD AND THE COUNTY. SHOULD SEPTIC TANK USE BE ALLOWED,
THE NET POPULATION OF AWMA WOULD NOT BE REDUCED MUCH. (THERE ARE 40,000 ACRES UNDEVELOPED IN
AWMA. ASSUMING HALF THE AREA IS SUITABLE FOR SEPTIC TANKS, AND DEVELOPED ON HALF ACRE LOTS,
^ YOU COULD HAVE 20,000 HOUSES, OR ABOUT 80,000 MORE PEOPLE FOR A TOTAL OF 250,000.) etc.
^ L.B.T.A. RESPONSE:
THE CITY OF LACUNA BEACH HAS SAID NOTHING OF THEIR APPROVAL OF THIS POPULATION EXPANSION WITHIN
THEIR APPROVED AWMA DISTRICTI SEPTIC TANKS WERE ALWAYS USED PRIOR TO THE SEWER TREATMENT
PROJECT IN LACUNA BEACH. THE OCEAN WAS NEVER POLLUTED, ANT) FISH WERE EDIBLE THEN! THE L.B.T.A.
FEELS THAT UNLESS ALTERNATIVES TO TREAT SEWERAGE FROM THIS ANTICIPATED POPULATION OF 250,000
PEOPLE WITHIN THE AWMA DISTRICT OTHER THAN OCEAN OUTFALL SYSTEMS, WE CAN SURELY PREDICT AN
ABSOLUTE ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT IN CUR COASTAL WATERS. THE WATERSHED DETERRANTS FRCfc
ADDITIONAL ROADS, PAVED SHOPPING CENTERS, FREEWAYS, SIDEWALKS, ETC. WILL IN THEMSELVES FC5E A
MAJOR HAZARD TO THE OCEAN'S ENVIRONMENTAL BALANCE AT ALISO CREEK TRIBUTARY INTO THE SSA WITH
AWMA'S NEW CITY BY THE GSA, ZIGARRAT BUILDING. WHY HAVEN'T THESE VERY IMPORTANT ITEMS BEEN
INCLUDED IN THIS E.I.S.? THEY.ARE CERTAINLY INEVITABLE BECAUSE THE DRAINAGE CHANNEL IS NOT
COMPLETED BELOW THE ZIGARRAT, AND THE NATURAL WATERSHED CANALS ARE ALREADY TERRIBLY ERODEDl.
ALISO BEACH IS ONE OUR MOST LOVELY BEACHES AND VIEWING POINTS IN LACUNA BEACHl "WHY THIS AREA
BE THREATENED NOW WITH THIS COSTLY, UNWORKABLE NSW CITY PROJECT UNDER AWMA-EPA-HUD?
PAGE 4-1? THRU PAGE 4-22i 4.5.2.2. QUALITYi URBANIZATION ALSO INCREASES THE POLLUTANTS FOUND
IN STORM RUNOFF. STREETS & CURBS IN URBANIZED AREAS COLLECT RUNOFF AND POLLUTANTS LIKE
DETRITUS, LEAD FROM AUTO EMISSIONS, & OILS AND GREASE. ETC. THESE STATEMENTS CONFIRM MY
PREVIOUS RESPONSES CONCERNING AWMA'S PROJECT E.I.S.
4.5.3. LAND« DEVELOPMENT IN THE AWMA AREA WILL DEVOTE 40-50# OF THE REMAINING OPEN SPACE TO
URBANIZED LAND. ETC.
L.B.T.A. RESPONSE!
THIS STATEMENT ALSO CONFIRMS MY QUESTIONS PREVIOUSLY, WHY SHOULD PRIME FARMING LANDS BE
-------
PAGE 16. •
L.B.T.A. RESPONSEESi
UTILIZED FOR URBANIZATION WHEN OTHERWISE NON-FARMING, HILLY TERRAINS ARE DENIED DEVELOPMENT
BECAUSE OF THEIR AESTHETIC OPEN SPACE QUALITIES, OR THE SQUIRRELS. TARRANTULERS, RODENTS,
BIRDS & BEES, FLORA & FAUNA ARE DISTURBEDl THIS REASONING IS RIDICULOUSl WHAT ABOUT THE
FUTURE FOOD SUPPLYING AREAS? WITH MORE PEOPLE IN ORANGE COUNTY, MORE FOOD MUST BE PROVIDED
FROM THE FIELDS I INSTEAD OF TAXING FARMERS INTO DEVELOPMENT OF THEIR LANDS, WHY NOT PROVIDE
TAX RELIEF IN ORDER TO ALLOW THEM TO PRODUCE FOR THE PUBLIC'S HEALTH, SAFETY AND WELFARE?
NOTHING WAS MENTIONED TO PRESERVE SUCH PRIME LANDS FOR FARMING, INSTEAD OF AWMA USING NON-
FARMING LANDS FOR URBANIZATIONI
PAGE 4-22, 4.6.1i SUMMARY OF MITIGATION MEASURES EVALUATED BY THE APPLICANT! HIGH DENSITY
CLUSTER RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT WITH NEIGHBORHOOD SHOPPING CENTERS RATHER THAN LOW DENSITY
DEVELOPMENT WITH REGIONAL SHOPPING CENTERS. THIS OPTION COULD REDUCE VMT IN THREE WAYS«
(A) SHORTER TRIPS, (B) INCREASED UTILIZATION OF TRANSIT, AND (C) SHOPPING BY BICYCLE OR
WALKING. IT IS ESTIMATED THAT THIS COULD REDUCE VMT BY 311,000 MILES PER DAY. THIS OPTION
COULD NOT BE IMPLEMENTED BY THE APPLICANT, BUT WOULD TAKE ACTIONJBY LOCAL GENERAL PURPOSE
GOVERNMENTS.
L.B.T.A. RESPONSES!
WHO EVER DID THEIR SHOPPING AT SUPER MARKETS ON BICYCLES? I WOULD SUGGEST THAT ANY MEMBER
OF THIS AWMA TEAM TRY THIS RIDICULOUS MODE OF LIFE STYLE FIRST BEFORE SUGGESTING THAT OTHERS
f DO IT ON A PERMANENT BASIS I
£ HIGH DENSITY CLUSTER RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT IS A VERY INCOMPATIBLE METHOD CF LIVING HAPPILY
0 ON A PERMANENT BASIS I PSYCHOLOGISTS HAVE THEIR MOST COMPLEX BAStS WHERE SUCH PROBLEMS ARE
BROUGHT TO THEM BY PERSONS WHO ARE LIVING OR HAVE LIVED WITHIN SUCH TIGHT QUARTERS WITH ALL
ETHNIC GROUPS COMPACTED TOGETHER. DIVORCES ARE AT THEIR HIGHEST LEVELS IN SUCH QUARTERS.
JUVENILE DELINQUENCY AS PARENT DELINQUENCY IS THE HIGHEST LEVELS WITHIN SUCH TIGHT LIVING
COMPLEXES. THE TRANSFER & MOVING RATES ARE THE HIGHEST IN SUCH HIGH DENSITY QUARTERS. WHY
ADD TO THESE MAJOR ADVERSITIES SIMPLY TO ACCOMMODATE THE CROWDS WISHING TO LIVE BY OR NEAR
THE SEA? IT IS TIME THAT PEOPLE WERE GIVEN THEIR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS AGAIN, THEIR FREEDOMS
TO SELECT PLACES WHERE THEY ARE HAPPIEST, WHERE THEY ARE SATISFIED, RATHER THAN FORCE PEOPLE
INTO COMMUNAL LIVING COMPOUNDS! IS THIS THE SIGNIFICANCE OF GOVERNMENT CODEi 65858?
PEOPLE TEND TO ESCAPE SUCH ENVIRONMENTS, WHICH-ARE PSYCHOLOGICALLY CRAMPING TO THEIR STYLES,
. AND. THEY .TAKE TO-THE ROADS. IN GREATER NUMBERS SIMPLY TO EXPEND THEIR EMOTIONS! ..THEY DRINK
ALCOHOLIC DRINKS MORE PREVALENTLY, THEY CREATE NUISANCES TO BRING ATTENTION TO THEIR PLIGHTS,
.THEY ARE GENERALLY MISFIT PEOPLE IN A SOCIETY AROUND THEM WHICH IS COMFORTABLE SUCH AS MOST
PEOPLE ARE IN SINGLE FAMILY DWELLINGS WITH THE AFFRANCHISEMENTS OF PROPER LIVING CONDITIONS.
THEREFORE, THE ESTIMATION CF REDUCED VMT'S BY 311,000 M.P.DAY IS ASSUMPTIOUSI
A NSW TOWN NEAR THE GSA, ZIGARRAT AS PROPOSED UNDER SUBSEQUENT PLANS LISTED IN THE AWMA
PLAN BOOK B-15 THRU B-17 WOULD BE A VERY EXPENSIVE SPECULATIVE SCHEME TO APPEASE THE LOW-
INCOME PEOPLE'WHO-WOULD BE EMPLOYED BY THAT FACILITY. IT WOULD HARDLY WARRANT CONSTRUCTION
CF A NEW CITY, WITH ITS COSTLY AMENITIES UNDER SUCH LOOSELY PROGRAMMED AWMA REPORTS.
THE SAME REFERENCES ARE GIVEN AS FOLLOWSi
PAGE ^-23. ITEM b. CONSTRUCT A NSW TOWN AROUND THE GSA FACILITY. IF A-ICMK*~GHIENTED
SERVING THE G$A FACILITY AND TOWARDS REDUCING AUTOMOBILE TRAFFIC WERE CONSTRUCTED, THE
TOWARDS
-------
PAGE 17.
L.3.T.A. RSSPONSESs CONTINUED FROM PAGE ^-2J, ITEM ^i
APPLICANT ESTIMATES THAT IT COULD REDUCE VMT BY 57^,000 MILES PER DAY OR MORE. THIS WOULD
REQUIRE A COORDINATED EFFORT BY LANDOWNERS, LOCAL AND FEDERAL GOVERNMENTS, A3 WELL AS A
CHANGE IN THE ATTITUDE OF THE LOCAL POPULATION WHICH IS OPPOSED TO LOW OR MEDIUM COST HOUSING,
L.B.T.A. RESPONSESi
THE FACT THAT AWMA PROPOSES A NEW TOWN AROUND THE GSA, ZIGARRAT FACILITY AT AN EXORBITANT
TAXATION ALREADY TO LOCAL PROPERTY TAXPAYERS, WITHOUT THE DETAILED ITEMIZATION OF THE VERY
COSTLY AMENITIES, SCHOOLS, FIRS & POLICE PROTECTION SERVICES, PUBLIC FACILITIES FOR HEALTH,
BIKE ROUTES, JUVENILE AUTHORITIES, RECREATIONAL FACILITIES, ETC. PLUS THE COSTLY GENERAL PLAN
CONCEPTS! THE TRANSPORTATION ELEMENTS, THE PUBLIC UTILITIES, GAS, WATER ELECTRICITY, SEWERS,
REFUSE COLLECTION & DISPOSAL AREAS, THE ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS UPON THE GREEN BELTS,
THE OPEN SPACES, THE FLOOD PLAIN ZONES & ERODED CANALS & NEEDS FOR MORE FLOOD CONTROL CHANNELS,
THE AIR, SOIL AND WATER POLLUTION PROBLEMS AND THE ULTIMATE POLLUTION TO ALISO CREEK TRIBUTARIES
TO THE SEA ARE NOT THOROUGHLY EXPLAINED OR ITEMIZED THROUGHOUT THIS S.I,3.1 {
THE ENTIRE PRIME FARMING LANDS AROUND THE ZIGARRAT, THE GSA FACILITY WILL BE TOTALLY INNUNDATED.
FOR ROADWAYS, FREEWAYS, BIKE ROUTES, PAVED SIDEWALKS ETC.
WHEN THE CITIZENS & TAXPAYERS ARE SUBJECTED TO THESE COSTLY ITEMS FOR THE BETTER WAY OF LIFE,
WE HARDLY CAN BE CATALOGUED AS OPPOSED TO LOW OR MEDIUM COST HOUSING 1 THAT STATEMENT IS FAR
FROM THE TRUTH IN THE AWMA AREA... WE WOULD APPRECIATE KNOWING WHERE YOU OBTAINED THIS INFORM-
ATION TO MAKE SUCH A GENERALIZED STATEMENT? WE ARE NOT OPPOSED TO HOUSING THE POOR, OR MED I UK '
«> INCOME PEOPLE IF THIS MIGHT BE ASSUMEDl WE FEEL THAT THERE ARE MANY PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN :
- THIS LOW AND MEDIUM CATSGORYl PEOPLE SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO SELECT THEIR OWN MODE OF LIVING-,
- THEIR OWN FINANCIAL ARRANGEMENTS FOR HOUSING, AND NOT BE PROVIDED WITH GOVERNMENT WELFARE
& HOUSING SUBSIDIES AT THE EXPENSE OF OTHER PROPERTY TAXPAYERS I PROUD,- PEOPLE ARE FOUND ONLY
WHERE PEOPLE ARE FREE TO CHOOSE, LIVE WHERE THEY WISH, WORK WHERE THEY WISH, AND EARN THEIR
OWN LIVINGS. WELFARE ONLY BREEDS MORE CONTEMPT AGAINST THE ESTABLISHMENT WHICH SUPPORT THEM I
A FINE REFERENCE TO THIS STATEMENT CAN BE FOUND ON PAGES 79 THRU Q3 IN THE MARCH 1975 ISSUE
OF THE READER'S DIGEST. THIS REVEALING DOCUMENTATION CONCERNING FIDEL CASTRO'S CONTROLS OF
CUBA IS ENTITLED! "CUBA'S NEW LOOK", BY TED MORGAN, A PRIZE WINNING REPORTER! WHILE AMERICAN
STANDARDS WOULD PROBABLY NEVER REACH SUCH A SUB-STANDARD LEVEL AS CUBA, THERE IS MERIT TO THE
WORK PROGRAMS IMPLEMENTED NOW IN CUBA. THERE IS NO UNEMPLOYMENT THERE, AND INDUSTRIALIZATION
HAS REACHED A ZENITH AGAIN. OUR WELFARE, GIVEAWAY PROGRAMS ARE CREATING THE NATIONAL DEFICITS
WHICH COULD ULTIMATELY BE OUR END. MORE SUBSIDIZED PROGRAMS WILL CERTAINLY NOT ELIMINATE THE
POVERTY LEVELS IN AMERICA, BUT CREATE ADDITIONAL ONES IN THE FUTURE.
MENTAL HOSPITALS WILL BE NECESSARY FOR MANY FRUSTRATING, HELPLESS INDIVIDUALS IF THE ECONOMIC
CONDITIONS WORSEN. SOCIALIZED MEDICINE, WITHOUT MALPRACTICE INSURANCE CERTAINLY PRESENTS A
BLEAK PICTURE FOR EVERYONEI
PAGE J*-23 AND 4-24, ^.6.2, ADDITIONAL MEASURES; A RELATED BENEFIT OF ANY FORM OF UTILITY
EXTENSION CONTROL WOULD BE TO INCREASE DENSITY IN ALREADY DEVELOPED AREAS. THIS IN TURN WOULD
INCREASE THE POTENTIAL FOR MASS TRASIT, CAR POOLING, AND OTHER MEASURES WHICH NEED DENSITY TO
WORK WELL. THE DEVELOPMENT OF WORK CENTERS WITHIN AND NEAR AWMA REPRESENT BOTH AN OPPORTUNITY
& A POTENTIAL THREAT TO THE ENVIRONMENT IN AND NEAR AWMA.
L.B.T.A. RESPONSES!
-------
PAGE 18.
RESPONSES CONTINUEDs
INCREASED DENSITY IS OPPOSED BY THE CITY OF LACUNA BEACH, YET THEY HAVE APPROVED OF THE AWMA,
THE L.B.T.A. WOULD APPRECIATE LEARNING WHY THE CITY OF LACUNA BEACH OPPOSES DENSITY & POPULATION
INCREASES IN LACUNA BEACH, YET HAS APPROVED OF THESE HIGH DENSITY STANDARDS SET BY THE AWMA
IN THE OPEN SPACES, GREEN BE~LT AREAS, FLOOD PLAIN ZONES & ON PRIME FARMING LANDS WITHIN THIS
SPHERE OF INFLUENCE? OVER CROWDING PEOPLE IN COMMUNES WON'T SOLVE PROBLEMS, BUT GREAT?NEW ONES8
PAGE ^-25. ^o?0^0 DON'T PARTICIPATE IN THE PROJECT SINCE IT WILL FACILITATE GROWTH WHICH WILL IN
TURN HAVE A SIGNIFICANT AIR QUALITY IMPACT; IF THERE IS NO EPA PARTICIPATION, THE APPLICANTS
WILL CONSTRUCT A REGIONAL SYSTEM WITH THEIR OWN MONEY, PROBABLY WITHOUT THE CITY OF LACUNA BEACH.
L,B.T.Ao RESPONSES?
TO THIS MEASURE, WE WOULD FINALIZE OUR OPINIONS THAT THERE WOULD BE LITTLE NEED FOR AN INDEPENT-
ENT SEWER-WASTEWATER FACILITY TO BE CONSTRUCTED BY THE AWMA, BECAUSE LOCAL SEWER SYSTEMS
FACILITIES WOULD CONTINUE TO PROVIDE LOCAL PROPERTIES8 AS HAS BEEN STATED WITHIN THIS E.I.S...
THE INCREASING OF UTILITIES WOULD NECESSITATE THE CREATION OF NEW POPULACE REQUIREMENTS, OTHERWISE,
THERE WOULD BE VERY LITTLE NEED TO CHANGE PRESENT SEWER TREATMENT FACILITIES IN ORDER TO RETAIN
THE CITY OF LACUNA BEACH'S AGREED POPULATION MINIMAL GOALS! AWMA-EPA-HUD PROGRAMS HAVE BEEN
UNPOPULAR BECAUSE THEY INTEND TO ENCOURAGE A MASSIVE POPULATION EXPANSION PROGRAM WITHIN THIS
AREA FOR NO APPARENT ADVANTAGES EITHER TO LOCAL ECONOMY, OR THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRAMS" RETINUE!
PAGE 5-1 p 5.0, 5-1 THRU 6=28 ALTERNATIVE 2FL DOWNSTREAM CENTRAL TREATMENT WITH MINOR
RECLAMATION UPSTREAM. IT HAS BEEN DETERMINED THAT THIS ALTERNATIVE IS THE MOST COST-EFFECTIVE
ALTERNATIVE OVER A 20 YR. PERIOD AT THE DESIGN POPULATION RANGE OF 1?00000 TO 250„000,
PAGE 5-2, ALTERNATIVE lAs COSTS FOR EXPANDING LOS ALISOS' & EL TORO°S TREATMENT PLANTS HAVE BEEN
ELIMINATED SINCE THESE TREATMENT PLANTS HAVE ALREADY BEEN EXPANDED, THESE CORRECTIONS REDUCE
THE ESTIMATED COST OF ALTERNATIVE 1A BY ABOUT $8 MILLION.
L,B.T,A, RESPONSES
IF THESE ALTERNATIVES HAVE REDUCED THE AWMA COSTS $8 MILLION, HOW MUCH IS THE TOTAL BILL?
THE L,3.T.A0 WOULD ALSO APPRECIATE LEARNING WHY THE CITY OF LACUNA BEEN HA3 RECENTLY ASSESSED
EACH PROPERTY TAXPAYER OVER 200# OF THEIR EXORBITANT SEWER SERVICE CHARGES IF SUCH ALTERNATIVES
ARE SO ECONOMICAL FOR THE AWMA? ALSO WHY DID CARL XYMLA LAST FALL CALCULATE THAT BY THIS CITY'S
JOINING THEN WITH AWMA THAT EACH INDIVIDUAL PROPERTY TAXPAYER W©ULD PAY ONLY $10080 ANNUALLY?
THE L.B.T.A. REITERATES ITS OPINIONS THAT THE SEWERAGE OUTFALL AS PROPOSED BY AWMA WILL SURELY
CREATE MORE IRREVERSIBLE PROBLEMS BY THEIR OCEAN OUTFALL AFTER THE POPULATION EXPANSION REACHES
FULL CAPACITIES HERE. WE ALSO FEEL THAT DUE TO THIS CITY'S ESTABLISHED OPPOSITION TO POPULATION
EXPANSION WITHIN LACUNA BEACH AND ITS SPHERE OF INFLUENCE, THAT THE AWMA JOINT POWERS
AGREEMENTS ARE A CONFLICT OF INTEREST WITH THEIR PREVIOUS ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRAMS & GENERAL PLANS.
. PAGE .6-1. . UNA'VOlDX-BgE_'IlWCIfS;'pF THE PROPOSED PROJECTi OPERATIONAL IMPACTS INCLUDE AN INCREASED
UTILIZATION OF'WATER THROUGH "THE DIRECT USE OF THE .VATER SUPPLY,
-------
L.3.T.A. RSSPONSESi PAGE 6-li
THIS STATEMENT IS ABSOLUTELY TRUEl THE UNAVOIDABLE EFFLUENTS & POLLUTANTS ENTERING THE 3SA,
SERENELY REFERRED AS THE MARINE ENVIRONMENT, WILL ELIMINATE THE UNDER SEA PLANT LIFE AS WELL
AS THE ECOLOGY BALANCES, FISH, AND WATER PURIFICATION REGENERATION NATURALLY. CONTINUOUS
MAJOR DISCHARGES CAN POLLUTE MILES OF OUR OCEAN CURRENTS, THEREBY CREATING IRREVERSIBLE DAMAGE
ULTIMATELY TO OUR COASTAL WATERS. DRAINAGE FROM THE VALUABLE WATERSHED WHICH WILL 3S COVERED
WITH PAVEMENT SOON, WILL PRESENT A SECONDARY PROBLEM ON THE SURFACE TO THE FLOOD CHANNELS
THROUGH THE ALISO VALLEY. OIL, GREASE & OTHER COMMON WASTES PERTINENT TO TRAFFIC i VEHICLES
WILL SOON POLLUTE THE ENTIRE ALISC VALLEY. RECLAMATION OF SUCH WATER WOULD BE USELESS AND
THEREBY INCREASE A SECONDARY PURIFICATION PROGRAM OF GREATER MAGNITUDE EVENTUALLY TO AVOID
THESE DISASTERS.
PAGE 7-1 CONSTRUCTIONi- THE PROJECT WILL ACCOMMODATE & ENCOURAGE LAND USE CHANGES IN THE
AGRICULTURAL OPEN SPACE AREAS OF THE REGION. THERE WILL BE A REDUCTION OF OPEN SPACE AREAS OF
THE REGION. THERE WILL BE A REDUCTION OF OPEN SPACE DUE TO DIRECT & INDIRECT PROJECT IM^fcCTS.
THE REGIONAL TREATMENT PLANT WILL OCCUPY APPROXIMATELY 12 ACRES OF LAND. _THS CHANGE OF AGRI-
CULTURAL LAND TO RESIDENTIAL OR INDUSTRIAL USE WILL CAUSE A MAJOR REDUCTION IN OPEN SPACE.
1/ILDLIFS WILL DSGRSASS IN NUMBERS & SOME SPECIES REQUIRING LARGE AREAS OF CONTINUOUS OPEN SPACE
WILL DISAPPEAR.
L.3.T.A. RESPONSES!
vo THIS STATEMENT IS ABSOLUTELY TRUEl WE ASK AWMA. THE SPA. AND HUD NOW; IS THIS ENTIRE PROJECT
L V-/ORTH THESE g3SMAN5NT NfiCATI VS! 5N VI AONfcS'NT'AL IMPACTS TO THIS BEAUTIFUL ALISC VALLEY? ARE THE""
w "^ESTIMATED LOSSES OF WILDLIFE FOR THIS PROJECT WORTH THE RISKS INVOLVED? THE L.B.T.A. HARDLY
AGREES WITH SUCH PHILOSOPHY WHICH IS ESTIMATED COULD OBLITERATE THE NATURAL RESOURCES CF ALI3~C
"VALLEY FOREVER. MUCH OF THIS OPEN SPACE HAS ALREADY BEEN CONSUMED. THE WILD ANIMALS HAVE BEEN
DRIVEN FROM THEIR GROUNDS BY MAJOR DEVELOPMENT IN THE SADDLEBACK VALLEY AREAS ALREADY. THSRS
/ARE MANY HIGH-DENSITY DEVELOPMENTS ALREADY WITHIN THIS AREA NOT'RENTED! WHY NUJSTTHIS NATURAL
^BEAUTY BE DESTROYED NUW BY TMSSa UtN^KSUEJJENTED PROGRAMS FOR THE SAKS OF GAINING FEDERAL & STTTS^
IP RANTS? ~~"'
PAGB 7-2 OPERATIONi THE CONTINUED MAINTENANCE & OPERATION OF THE PROPOSED REGIONAL FACILITIES
WILL REQUIRE THE ."CONSUMPTION OF ENERGY 9237 x 106 KILOWATT HOURS) IN ORDER TO MEET THE WA3TE-
WATER RECLAMATION REQUIREMENTS OF THE REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARDS. THIS COMMITTMENT
OF ENERGY CONSUMPTION IS A TRADEOFF FOR THE LONG TERM MAINTENANCE OF GROWTH IN THE AREA.
L.B.T.A. RESPONSES!
BECAUSE THERE IS SUCH A CRITICAL ENERGY SHORTAGE NOW & PREDICTED TO REMAIN, THERE IS HARDLY ANY
JUSTIFICATION TO ADD TO THESE SHORTAGES THROUGH THIS QUESTIONABLE, SPECULATIVE ADVENTURE BY
AWMA TO PROVIDE A NEW HUD CITY AROUND THE GSA FACILITY SIMPLY FOR EXPERIMENTATION PURPOSES 1
PAGE 7-3, INFLUENCES OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT UPON GROWTH IN THE AWMA AREAi THE PATTERN OF
URBANIZATION USUALLY MOVES OUTWARD FROM THE BORDER BETWEEN TH3 URSIN AND RURAL LANDSCAPE WHERE
IT BECOMES ECONOMICALLY ADVANTAGEOUS TO CONTINUE DEVELOPMENT. ETC.
L.B.T.A. RESPONSES!
-------
PAGE 20.
L.B.T.A. RESPONSES CONTINUEDi
THE CITY OF LAGUNA BEACH HAS OPPOSED URBAN SPRAWL AS INDICATIVE BY THEIR NO-GROWTH POLICIES.
THE L.B.T.A. WOULD APPRECIATE A REPORT SHOWING WHEN THIS CITY APPROVED OF THESE URBAN SPRAWL
PLANS THROUGH AWMA?
PAGE 7-4, 7-5» IMPACTS ON LAND VALUE THE PROPOSED PROJECT WILL CREATE IMPACTS ON LAND VALUES
THROUGHOUT THE REGION IN MUCH THE SAME WAY THAT TRANSPORTATION CORRIDORS DO.
THE CITY OF LAGUNA WILL £fi NOT BE AFFECTED BY THE PROPOSED PROJECT IN TERMS OF EITHER INDUCED
POPULATION GROWTH OR THE RELATIVE INCREASE IN LAND VALUES. LAGUNA BEACH HAS PLACED A POPULATION
LIMIT OF 20,000 RESIDENTS AND THEREFORE WILL ONLY NEED AN UPGRADED WASTEWATER SYSTEM TO MEET
THE HEALTH STANDARDS.
L.B.T.A. RESPONSES!
THE IMPACTS CONCERNING THE PROPERTY OWNERS OF LAGUNA BEACH ARE THE EXORBITANT, UNREALISTIC
SEWER SERVICE SUR-TAXES PLACED UPON EACH OF THE APPROXIMATELY 6,000 PROPERTY OWNERS. THIS
SEWER TAX WILL ULTIMATE LOWER THE VALUES OF PROPERTIES ALONG THIS COASTAL REGIONAL AND WITH
INCREASED TAXATION COULD BANKRUPT EACH PROPERTY OWNER WITHIN THE LOW AND MEDIUM INCOME BRACKETS!
IS THIS THE PROPOSED GOAL DESIGNED BY THE AWMA-EPA-HUD SEWERAGE TREATMENT PROGRAM?
PAGE 8-1 IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENTS OF RESOURCESt THE MAJOR IRREVERSIBLE
ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGES WILL BE INDIRECT. THE URBANIZATION OF THE AWMA AREA WILL BE AN IRREVER-
SIBLS ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGE THAT WILL INSURE A LONG TERM COMMITMENT TO PLANNED COMMUNITIES SUCH
AS THE SOUTH COAST, LAGUNA-ALISO AND NORTHERN EL TORO PLANNING RESERVE AREAS.
L.B.T.A. RESPONSES!
THIS IS AN UNDERSTATEMENT IN VIEW OF PRECEEDING FACTS PRESENTED THROUGHOUT THIS E.I.S.I
THE ENERGY COMMITMENTS OF SUCH A PROPOSED PROJECT ARE IRRETRIEVABLE USEAGE OF THESE VITAL
RESOURCES PLUS THE LAND INNUNDATION WHICH SHOULD BE PRESERVED FOR FUTURE FOOD NEEDS FOR THE
PEOPLE.
PAGE 8-2 WATER RESOURCESi THE COMMITMENT OF CONSTRUCTING THE WASTEWATER FACILITIES RESULTS IN
AN IRREVERSIBLE USE OF THE MARINE ENVIRONMENT FOR DILUTION & DISPERSION OF EFFLUENT & THE USE
OF THE LAND FOR IRRIGATION & GROUNDWATER RECHARGE. THIS COMMITMENT RESULTS IN AN IRREVERSIBLE
IMPACT UPON THE EXISTING MARINE WATER AND GROUNDWAT2R SYSTEMS.
PAGES 8-3 THRU 9-1, SCIENTIFIC RESOURCES TO PUBLIC INPUTt UNIQUE AND/OR ENDANGERED HABITAT
TYPES SHOULD BE RECOGNIZED & CONSERVED EARLY IN THE PLANNING PROCESS BEFORE ADDITIONAL GROWTH
IN THE AWMA AREA OCCURS.
CHRONOLOGY OF EVENTS LISTED»
L.B.T.A. RESPONSESt
WITH THESE FINAL ARGUMENTS WHY SUCH A SERIOUS WASTEWATER-SSWSRAGE TREATMENT FACILITY SHOULD BE-
REGARDED, PLUS PUBLIC INPUT, OF WHICH THE L.B.T.A. HAS PARTICIPATED, WE CONCLUDE OUR EXAMINATION
OF THIS LENGTHY ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR THE AWMA. WITH THE SUMMARY STATEMENTS!
1. THE CITY OF LAGUNA^BEACH HAS MAINTAINED A NO-GROWTH POLICY NOT ONLY WITHIN THESE CITY LIMITS
II«Y"••!,'•»?!•• OJWTEW TfttfTS
-------
PAGE 21.
CONCLUSIONSt
THE TAXPAYERS ARE ASKING AWMA, SPA AND HUD THESE QUESTIONS:
1. HOW MUCH FEDERAL AND STATE MONEY HAS THE CITY OF LAGUNA 3EACH RECEIVED TO DATE?
2. HOW MUCH FEDERAL AND STATE MONEY WILL THE CITY OF LAGUNA 3EACH RECEIVE ANNUALLY?
3, HOW MUCH FEDERAL AND STATS MONEY WILL THE CITY OF LAGUNA 3EACH RECEIVE FOR 3SWSR SYSTEMS?
^. HOW MUCH FEDERAL AND STATE MONEY HAS THE CITY OF LAGUNA BEACH RECEIVED FOR SEWER SYSTEMS?
5. HOW MUCH MONEY DOES THE FEDERAL/AND OR/ STATE REQUIRE THE CITY OF LAGUNA 3SACH TO PAY
TOWARD THE AWMA SEWER SYSTEMS? ANNUALLY?
6. HOW MUCH MONEY DOES THE FEDERAL/AND OR/STATE REQUIRE THE CITY OF LAGUNA 3SACH TO CHARGE
EACH HOUSEHOLD FOR THEIR SEWER SERVICES?
7. WHAT IS THE PERCENTAGE WHICH THE CITY OF LAGUNA BEACH IS REQUIRED TO PAY FOR SEWER SYSTEMS
AS SUPPLIED NOW BY THE ALISO WATER MANAGEMENT AGENCY?
vo
£ THE LAGUNA BEACH TAXPAYERS' ASSOC. INC. WISHES TO REQUEST A DIRECT REPLY WITHIN 30 DAYS TO
01 THE QUESTIONS ABOVE STATED TO THE AWMA.
THIS ASSOCIATION FURTHER WISHES TO THANK YOU FOR THE CONCISE ENVIRONMENTAL I.VIPACT STATEMENTS
WHICH HAVE BEEN COMPILED FOR PUBLIC RESPONSES. WE TRUST THAT OUR RESPONSES WILL BE BENEFICIAL
ALSO THAT OUR QUESTIONS WILL IN TURN BE ANSWERED THROUGH AN ADDENDUM FROM THE AWMA.
THIS REPORT WAS COMPILED AND THE RESPONSES HAVE BEEN SUPPLIED BY SEVERAL PROFESSIONALS
AND MEMBERS OF THE LAGUNA BEACH TAXPAYERS' ASSOC. INC. IN ORDER THAT THE L.3.T.A. EXECUTIVE
SECRETARY, MARIE WARE MAYER COULD COMPILE AN ADEQUATE RESPONSE TO THIS SPA, FEDERAL
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT COMPILATION.
L.3.T.A. EXECUTIVE SECR S^RY^/RESPONDENT
-------
SUMMARY COMMENTS
Laguna Beach Taxpayer's Association
March 14, 1975
1. There is a joint action by AWMA-EPA-HUD to construct a new com-
munity within this City's sphere of influence.
R-l. At this time there is no firm plan by AWMA, EPA or HUD to con-
struct a new community in the AWMA area. Refer to Moulton Ranch
Plan approved by the County which was financed privately. HUD is
considering in general terms some sort of low cost housing (objection
should be directed to HUD). This new community concept was given
consideration in the EIS as a method to mitigate the air quality
impact.
2. The Laguna Beach Taxpayer's Association, Inc., was not selected
to receive this notification and compilation of environmental impact
statements. We wish to know why.
R-2. Attempts were made to make the EIS distribution list as compre-
hensive as possible. Some organizations were inadvertently missed.
3. A sewer bond of $500,000 which would accommodate a population
of approximately 30,000 population for adequate sewerage disposal
systems, has not yet been retired.
R-3. The City of Laguna Beach's treatment plant is a substandard
treatment plant and must be upgraded or the City will be subject
to expensive fines (See Table 1-2 for comparison of treatment plant
performance with requirements).
4. Is it legal for this City to adopt general plan elements if
they have adverse environmental impacts?
R-4. The resolution of this issue rests with the local government.
5. An expanded sewer-water treatment system would not alleviate
problems, but create new ones. Air and watershed problems would
result.
R-5. See Response 3. The EPA has attempted to integrate the air
and water problems by proposing mitigation measures.
6. The adverse environmental impacts upon our beautiful Aliso green-
belts and Aliso Creek and Aliso Beach will permanently be eroded
under such planning.
R-6. Soil erosion and runoff will be controlled through such programs
as re-seeding.
9-126
-------
7. Your map concerning regional locations under EPA Federal Regional
Council IX, and the FRC IX, the AWMA are questionable constitutional
states which have been forming within the states.
R-7. These are not states but administrative agencies subject to
the authority of the State of California.
8. Added sewerage disposal into the ocean, added population facil-
ities through the AWMA wastewater treatment systems, will only create
more burdensome problems upon local conditions as prevail according
to the reference given in Table 1-1. There will be no appreciable
advantages whatsoever to increase sewerage-water treatment facilities
for increased population programs in this region.
R-8. Section 3.2.1.2.1, Ocean Discharge Impacts, discusses the rami-
fications of ocean disposal of liquid wastes produced within the
AWMA region. Table 3-1 and 3-2 and Exhibit 3-14 describe the projected
mass emission and dilution characteristics of ocean discharge. These
factors not only meet but exceed the existing requirements set by
the State Water Quality Control Board and the State Plan for the
ocean waters of California. Thus the characteristic pollution problems
related to the existing ocean disposal of primary or low grade secondary
treated effluent will be reduced substantially.
9. At the present time, without any improvements from AWMA, and
while this city has joined AWMA, this city is asking the property
owners for an increase of $6.33 per month per unit. The LBTA feels
that there is no justification for these sur-taxes for our sewerage
services when our property taxes have increased at least 35% and
in some cases up to 150% of the assessed valuations. We have not
been permitted due process of law, public hearings, or responses
to our statements through letters regarding the sewer and trash service
exorbitant increases.
R-9. The Federal Water Pollution Act Amendment of 1972 required
that users of sewer systems pay for services rendered. Property
taxes are not allowable to pay for these user charges although they
can be used for initial capital costs. Federal and State grants
will defray about 80% of these costs. The past increases in property
taxes remain a local issue.
If AWMA does not develop a solution to waste water management problems
of the region, the City of Laguna Beach will be required to provide
a solution to their local water problems, at even a greater capital
cost to the residents. In addition, many public hearings were held
to discuss these issues.
20. The LBTA believes that the City of Laguna Beach must remain
consistent to their avowed open space, no-growth, greenbelt, low
profile land development concepts, and their approved population
limitation for 20,000 maximum within these areas now. Property
9-127
-------
devaluations have occurred now with this city's downzoning ordinances;
however no property taxes have been reduced. Instead, property taxes
and utilities, sewer and trash charges have all been increased due
to the proposed land-use schemes pending with AWMA-EPA-HUD.
R-10. See Response #1. Congress has determined (PL 92-500) that
protection of water resources warrants additional tax revenues.
11. AWMA will certainly create additional taxations upon local govern-
ments.
R-ll. Bringing Laguna Beach's sewerage system up to the required
levels of performance will involve substantial increases in costs.
Regionalization of services within AWMA will keep these increases
to a minimum.
12. We question the planning for continued population expansion
on a large scale, while urban sprawl has been the prime condition
which is strongly opposed by such environment protection agencies.
R-12. See Chapter 4 in the Draft EIS. Controlling development is
the responsibility of the local government; however, the EPA will
attempt to mitigate impacts which arise from development.
15. Even the imminent Doctor Richter of Cal Tech Laboratories of
Pasadena does not have all the reasons, analysis, causes and deter-
minations concerning seismic quakes and pertinent data. It is therefore
unreasonable we feel to give any great credits to speculative analysis
in this field of sciences.
R-13. Section 2.3.6 outlines the geologic structure within the AWMA
area and the major Southern California fault zones which affect it.
14. Climatic conditions concern everyone in Southern California.
The air quality is conditional primarily due to hydrogen bomb testing
in the Nevada proving grounds. In basins such as in Southern California,
where climatic conditions are mild and winds do not dissipate these
nuclear radiation particles quickly, the secondary problems of car
emissions poses a threat to our air and water qualities. After nuclear
test either at U.S. AF Base at Vandenburg or in Nevada, especially
when our air is still, we can depend upon several days of intensive
smog and air pollution conditions.
R-14. There is no known relationship between nuclear testing and
smog in Southern California. The effects of these testings are not
within the scope of the EIS and are not applicable to the primary
or secondary impacts of the project being considered.
15. Additional automobiles, sewerage increases, refuse increases,
school increases, general relative collation of all factors involved
with such environmental changes, will surely not alleviate the present
adversed environmental air and water conditions prevailing.
9-128
-------
R-15. See Response #12.
16. How can it be determined that by increasing facilities for AWMA
projects in the future that seismic safety (air and water quality)
problems will not be increased, rather than be solved under the terms
given in this environmental impact study?
R-16. Air quality will suffer from developments, but water quality
will benefit from project - refer to mass emissions in the EIS.
17. It has been determined by science that a certain amount of vege-
tation is mandatory to the survival of mankind. With the planned
increases of sewerage disposals, wastewater disposals, encroachments
upon prime farming lands within the watershed areas, plus alleviation
of the certain vital vegetation characteristics within these lands,
how can AWMA maintain a position that their super-agency can solve
our survival?
R-17. The bulk of the state remains vegetated and large open space
areas will be retained within AWMA. The AWMA project is intended
only to resolve water quality problems.
18. The endangered habitat types analyzed from page 2-42 chart will
certainly suffer permanent damages under present planning by AWMA.
R-18. The AWMA project itself will have negligible primary impacts
upon terrestrial biological resources. Population growth and housing
developments will significantly affect these resources. See Section
8.4.3 for suggestions for minimizing impact. ^
19. The marine biology already has decreased due to pollution in our
local waters. Fish are contaminated and unfit to eat now. What
will happen by the year 2000 with more population.
19. Refer to R-8.
20. Why should local property owners provide for public facilities
which will ultimately cost us our life's investments in land and
finances?
\
R-20. Refer to R-3, R-9, and R-10.
21. Why should the City of Laguna Beach downzone our properties
discriminately now, while approving of AWMA-EPA-HUD programs incon-
sistent to local approval?
R-21. This topic is not within the scope of this EIS.
22. There is a very inadequate assessment of property values and
assessment value trends within Laguna Beach. This section of the
EIS has sadly skipped many important factors concerned with local
property valuations.
9-129
-------
R-22. Laguna Beach is not expected to develop rapidly because of
the City's land use and growth policies; however, the remainder of
AWMA is projected for rapid growth. The orientation of the invest-
igation of assessed values centered on the causes and secondary impacts
of growth, primarily in the Aliso Valley.
23. AWMA seems to indicate that Laguna' s sewer systems are inadequate.
The Laguna Beach Taxpayers' Association Inc. believes this is merely
an assumption to force this city into this federal program in order
to pay for increases in the proposals for populace in the future.
R-23. Refer to R-3, R-9, and R-10.
24. The citizens of Laguna Beach are currently paying for a tax
bond which will expire in 1984. This land was supposed to have ade-
quately provided for a population of double the existing. populace.
Why do we need additional sewer services over and above these.
R-24. Refer to R^-3. Congress requires that those who benefit pay
for the sewerage service.
25. Plans to move vast numbers of non-Orange County residents into
our area are the ingredients for a very negative environmental impact
in the future. Even the ethnics do not want to be forced to integrate.
They are a proud people as any other people. They do not deserve
to be exploited anymore than we deserve to be exploited to pay for
this.
R-25. The relative number of "ethnic" groups are so small as to
not play a significant role in the County or AWMA.
26. The conclusions related to the courses of growth on page 4-
9 are not specific. Many questions are possible with such a broad
statement. The total national economic picture has not been considered
at this time or in the future.
R-26. Only generalized statements are possible. It is not possible
to predict economic trends in Orange County and the U.S.
27. To continue response that local government ultimately have
plete' control of land use decisions is also erroneous. The SCAG
and California Coastal Zone Commission, the O.C. Supervisors, the
LAFC, the federal and state governments now have final controls over
our land use decisions.
R-27. Local government includes SCAG and the Coastal Zone Commission.
Only counties and cities can approve development plans, state and
federal governments have no veto authority.
28. What portion of the privately owned Aliso Valley are lands currently
under the Williamson Act and agricultural preserve programs? While
some Irvine Company lands are under agri-preserve status, the AWMA
9-130
-------
proposed watershed lands within Aliso Valley have not been mentioned
within this EIS. What is their status?
R-28. Within the Aliso Creek watershed, there are only 114.35 acres
in agricultural preserve status. Notice of non-renewal was filed
in 1971 for 32.57 acres. A request for cancellation is also on file
for this acreage.
«
29. The statement on page 13 contradicts Table 1-1 which mentions
that the Laguna Beach Sewerage Disposal system are inadequate, outdated
facilities with poor quality effluent. Which is correct?
R-29. These statements refer to sewerlines as opposed to treatment
plants. Examine Section 4.7 and this becomes clear.
30. Since development must provide adequately for new utilities
and public facilities more consideration should have been given to
the environmental impact in the EIS.
R-30. Planning is a local responsibility. EPA's responsibility is
to review and determine the role of a sewerage project.
31. Formal use planning or land development states that local govern-
ments ultimately have 'complete' control of land use decisions.
This statement contradicts the above statement made under regulatory
programs, and my statement previously that SCAG, the Coastal Zone
Commission, LAFC, the Orange County Board of Supervisors, etc., all
have absolute controls over local planning and construction.
R-31. All of these agencies have some effect on land use. Local
governments, (including the Coastal Zone Commission) have the most
direct effect.
32. Why must all property taxpayers subsidize experimental programs
such as this AWMA project, simply to provide federal and state grants
to be squandered over more of the same unworkable new HUD exploitations?
R-32. Refer to R-l.
33. Septic tanks were always used prior to the sewer treatment project
in Laguna Beach. The ocean was never polluted, and fish were edible
then. The watershed deterrants from additional roads, paved shopping
centers, freeways, sidewalks, etc., will in themselves pose a major
hazard to the ocean's environmental balance at Aliso Creek.
R-33. Refer to secondary water impacts in Section 4.5.2 and the
general discussion of septic tanks in Section 4.4.
34. Instead of taxing farmers into development of their lands, why
not provide tax relief in order to allow them to produce for the
public's health, safety and welfare?
9-131
-------
R-34. The Williamson Act, also known as the California Land Conserva-
tion Act of 1965, is a method of preserving agricultural land. The
Act enables the County Board of Supervisors to stabilize taxes on
agricultural lands in return for an owner's guarantee to keep his
land in agricultural use for an agreed-upon length of time. The
landowner's participation in this tax relief program is on a voluntary
basis.
35. High density cluster residential development as proposed in
the EIS is a very incompatible method of living happily on a permanent
basis. Psychologists have their most complex cases in persons who
are living or have lived within such tight quarters, with many ethnic
groups compacted together.
R-35. In July, 1974, the Center for Urban and Regional Studies,
University of North Carolina, published the results of a nationwide
new community survey. Residents of these new towns, which contain
a wide variety of housing types and densities, were asked to rate
their homes, neighborhoods and quality of life. Their responses
were compared to the responses of residents from a less planned,
"typical" southern California residential community. When asked
"overall - is this a very good place to live?" the survey results
were:
All Residents
Single-Family Home Residents
Townhouse/rowhouse residents
Apartment residents
Control
Community
48.3
56.1
50.0
16.7
13 New
Communities
59.0
61.3
60.0
49.2
36. When the citizens and taxpayers are subjected to costly items
for the "better way of life," we hardly can be catalogued as opposed
to low or medium cost housing. That statement is far from the truth
in the AWMA area ... we would appreciate knowing where you obtained
this information to make such a generalized statement?
R-36. The "generalized statement" is from a survey conducted in
the spring of 1973 by the Center for Urban and Regional Studies of
the University of North Carolina. Residents of Irvine and Fountain
Valley were asked whether homes for each type of family listed below
would greatly improve, improve, not affect, harm, or greatly harm
their neighborhood. The following table indicates the proportions
of respondents who said that housing for such families would "greatly
improve," "improve" or "not affect" their neighborhoods:
9-132
-------
Fountain
Irvine Valley
Low income (under $5000/yr) white families 17.5 27.8
Low income (under $5000/yr) black families 14.9 20.7
Moderate income ($5000-10,000/yr)
white families 52.4 54.7
black families 45.0 45.2
Low and moderate income families require low and moderate priced
housing. If the local population is opposed to such housing, they
are, at the very least, indicating that they don't want it in or
near their neighborhoods.
37. The existing sewerage facilities would continue to provide for
the populace of Laguna Beach. The expansion of utilities would neces-
sitate the creation of new population demands on local government
and community services.
R-37. Refer to R-3.
38. If Alternative 1A and 2F have reduced the AWMA costs $8 million,
how much is the total bill?
R-38. Refer to the updated discussion in Chapter 3.
39. Oil, grease, and other common wastes pertinent to traffic and
vehicles will soon pollute the entire Aliso Valley. Reclamation
of such water would be useless and thereby increase a secondary purifi-
cation program of greater magnitude eventually to avoid these disasters.
R-39. Refer to Section 4.5.2. Increased traffic is not expected
to have a significant impact on water quality.
40. Why must natural beauty be destroyed now by these unprecedented
programs for the sake of gaining federal and state grants?
R-40. AWMA's purpose is not to obtain federal and state grants.
AWMA's purpose is to implement a treatment and disposal system which
will eliminate water quality problems and prevent future water quality
problems. Federal and state grants will ease the burden on local
taxpayers.
41. There is hardly any justification to add to these energy shortages
by the construction of a regional wastewater management system.
R-41. The expenses of energy consumption in order to protect water
quality is warranted.
9-133
-------
42. When did Laguna Beach approve of plans for urban sprawl through
AffMA?
R-42. Urbanization is occurring outside of Laguna Beach, but within
AWMA.
43. The impacts concerning the property owners of Laguna Beach are
the exorbitant, unrealistic sewer service sur-taxes placed upon each
of the approximately 6,000 property owners. This sewer tax will
ultimately lower the values of properties along this coastal region
and with increased taxation could bankrupt each property owner within
the low and medium income brackets. Is this the proposed goal designed
by the AWMA-EPA-HUD sewerage program?
R-43. The purpose of the AWMA project is to implement a wastewater
treatment system and disposal system which will eliminate the existing
water quality problems in the various systems and prevent future
problems. The cost necessary to achieve this are thought to be justi-
fiable.
44. How much federal and state money has the City of Laguna Beach
received to date?
R-44. The "Annual Report of Financial Transactions for Cities of
California" from the State Controller's Office records that during
the past seven years, the City of Laguna Beach has received federal
and state grants, including revenue sharing, as follows:
Fiscal Year Federal State
45.
1973-74
1972-73
1971-72
1970-71
1969-70
1968-69
1967-68
How much federal
$205,530
185,438
57,547
and state money will
$510,572
34,545
71,039
190
53,000
63,078
48,959
the City of Laguna Beach
receive annually?
R-45. Because federal and state revenue programs are highly dynamic,
it is impossible to predict future revenue available to the City
of Laguna Beach from these sources.
46. How much federal and state money will the City of Laguna Beach
receive for sewer systems?
R-46. Preliminary figures suggest that the City of Laguna Beach
may contribute $1,150,000 to AWMA and receive $4,130,000 in federal
and state funds.
9-134
-------
47. How much federal and state money has the City of Laguna Beach
received for sewer systems?
R-47. According to available figures, since 1971, the City has received
$302,000 in federal and state funds for local sewer facilities.
48. How much money does the federal and/or state require the City
of Laguna Beach to pay toward the AWMA sewer systems? Annually?
R-48. The City's dollar requirement for participation in AWMA has
not yet been finalized. Preliminary figures indicate that the City's
total share will be approximately $5,280,000. However, the City
will only finance about 20% ($1,150,000). Federal and state funds
will be used to finance about 80% of the City's total share.
49. How much money does the federal and/or state require the City
of Laguna Beach to charge each household for their sewer services?
R-49. Charges for sewer service are determined by the local agency,
and authorized by the Public Utilities Commission. Charges are based
on water consumption.
50. What is the percentage which the City of Laguna Beach is required
to pay for sewer systems as supplied now by the Alisq Water Management
Agency?
R-50. There are no services presently being supplied to the City
by AWMA.
9-135
-------
Organized Novombor 1947, to eo-oporato in bringing about tho greatest po-5'ble economies, consistent with efficiency, in crapondituros o{ Public Funds.
P. O. BOX 404 LAGUNA BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92652
March 25„ 1975
ToAo PUBLIC STATEMENT
Federal Environmental Impact Statement,, EIS issued by the EoP0A
for the AWMA6 Aliso Water Management Ageneys Sewer & Planned
Community Development in thj/s Aliso Valley»
Federal EoPoA0
Federal Building„ The Ziggurat
2^00 Avila Road
Laguna Niguelp California
SUBJECT s
QUESTIONS
-^ ~ -
Has the Federal Environmental Protection Agency cdhsidQred the negative
environmental impact implications in this entire E0IoS0 that this planned
community development0 and the increases for sewer services0 schools„ public
utilitieso homes0 polic© & fire protection facilities0 on these prime farm°
ing lands will ultimately cause additional air and water pollution and
contaminate the ocean which is below this valuable watershed area?
Has the State Attorney General responded to the EPA for the Laguna Beach
Taxpayers" Assoc<> Inc0 requests of Feb0 l^p 1975 under the State°s authority
of Government Codess 12600 through 12612 to investigate this entire EPA
planned community development and to protect the valuable environmental :.
qualities of this prime farming land & the flood plain zone & watershed areas?
The State Califo Coastal Zone Commission has just released its initial reports
concerning the General Plans for this State and the land-use proposals„
One of these CoCoZoCo proposals embraces protection of prime farming lands„
also the prevention of further "Urban Sprawl0 such as this EPA proJQCt ,
proposes0 And to use existing community facilities„ severs„ utilities„ etc»
rather than extend the population into urbanization
Has the Califo Coastal Zone Commission presented the Federal Environmental
Protection Agency and the AWMA with this proposed State Land~Us<§ General Plan?
Isn't it a California law that a referendum must be presented to the voters
when such a Federal & State low=income housing community development project
is planned and to be financed by public tax funds?
What is the actual chronological legal history of the Federal Envirnomental
Protection Agency?
Doesn't the EoPoAo actually usurp the authority of other governmental agencies
such as City.Planning Commissions„ City Councils„ County planning Commiesions
and The Board of Supervisors & their local responsibilities?
We will appreciate your prompt reply to all of these questions I
Thank you
Sincerely
MARlE WARE MAYER
Executive Secretary
Respondent to this EIS
9-1,36
-------
SUMMARY COMMENTS
Laguna Beach Taxpayer's Association
March 25, 1975
1. The planned community development will place increased demands
on community services, and will cause loss of prime farming lands,
and create additional air and water pollution.
R-l. See response #1 to EIS comments to LBTA, March 14, 1975.
2. Has the State Attorney General contacted the EPA relative to
the Laguna Beach Taxpayers' Association's request that the Attorney
General investigate the planned community development?
R-2. NO.
3. Has the California Coastal Zone Commission presented EPA and
AWMA with the proposed State Land Use General Plan, which seeks to
protect prime farm lands and prevent urban sprawl?
R-3. The draft EIS was coordinated with the State CCZC. See Chapter 4
of the EIS.
4. Does California law require that a referendum be presented to
the voters when a publicly financed low-income housing project is
planned?
R-4. Comments regarding California law should be directed to the
Attorney General.
5. What is EPA's chronological legal history? Does EPA usurp the
authority of local agencies.
R-5. EPA was formed by Reorganization Plan #3 of 1970, effective
December 2, 1970. EPA was formed as a new independent agency from
several functional groups in the Department of the Interior and
other agencies. EPA's authority extends only to the regulation of
air pollution, water pollution, noise, solid wastes, pesticides,
and radiation. EPA cooperates with local agencies in regulating
these areas.
9-137
-------
COWM. CrIMTER
THE LAGUNA GREENBELT. INC. H.4R 7 jlj l»6 -'iH 75
a non-profit corporation Box 1611, Laguna Beach, California, 92652
March 3, 1975
Mr. Frank M. Coviagtaa
US 3PA
100 California St.
Saa Francises, Calif. 94111
Re: Draft EIS •« the Alias
Water Management Project
Dear Mr. Coviagtoa,
Our Board is workiag ea aa analysis for yaur hearing on March 25.
We will have a formal Board statement for the hearing.
However, at this time, I would like to call your attention to
a possible factual error on p. 2-65 regarding the uadergrouad supply
ia the Laguaa Caayoa Watershed. Contrary to your statement which
allows no underground water supply, I v/ould note the following f acts;
1) the wells ia the area supplied the Sown «f Laguna
Beach for fifty (50) years with its water - uatil
the population approached 3,000 ( around 1925). So,
•ae can claim that there is a basic supply for 3000
people, if flushed and reclaimed.
2) there are operating wells in the area now. Harry
Hodges has had two wells on his property in the
Canyon and his neighbor has one.
I do not think the local water board, which took over from the old
Skidmore Company areund 1926 has been sufficiently regardful of the
basic supply in the area. If thay h*d, they v/ould have bought up the
entire watershed at thtt t-inz -.Then the laad could have been had for u.
vary nominal price.
I am enclosing some data in confirmation of the above rr
fc
Sinter3ly yours,
President
end: MKLOTutflDUii OF vrATb!R RlSOURCE DATA RiiLHIVAST TO LAGUIIA CAiTCN
•VATTiiRSffcJD PR3SSRVATIOX (Dec. 9, 1972)
9-138
-------
SUMMARY COMMENTS
Laguna Greenbelt Incorporated
2. The wells in the area supplied the town of Laguna Beach for fifty
(50) years with its- water - until the population approached 3,000 (around
1925). There is a basic supply for 3,000 people, if flushed and reclaimed.
There are 3 operating wells in the area now.
R-l. Section 2.12.2.3 of EIS modified to reflect this comment. This
doesn't alter the basic conclusion of the EIS since imported water must
still be relied on in the area.
9-139
-------
Statement of Jam*a W. Dilley, President of The Laguna Gr'eenbelt
Fort EPA Hearing, Laguna Miguel, March 25, 1975
; ' '
From the very inception of this project, we have proceeded on the simple assumption
that a water project should be for water. YJe have steadily appraised the Aliso Water
Management Agency's Project in light of this simple assumption.
1. True Water Conseration, as mandated by the State Law for this Project, necessitates
the saving of the residual water supply in the two watersheds, the Aliso and Laguna,
that are encomoassed by this Project. This residual supply supported Laguna Beach
for fifty years, until 1927 when the population reached 3,000 persons. And yet AYtMA
has elaborately contrived a project that is based on the destruction of these
watersheds.
2»%Full Tiastewater Reclamation, as mandated by the State Law for this Project, neoesaita-
the best of tertiary systems,! a natural terticry system above and beyond the chemical
tertiary process* And yet AKMA has stopped short with a secondary treatment systea
and we have, been told that a fully tertiary system would necessitate "too much land"
that would have to be purchased or leased or coned for the project.
3. The Laguna Greenbelt, consisting essentially of these two watersheds, the Aliso and
the L&guna, is absolutely vital for a valid water project under the State guidelines.
The greenbelts around the European cities developed as a result of local water boards
saving their local and immediate watersheds. And yet AY01A has consistently ignored
The Laguna Greenbelt and this simple logic of a water board undertaking to save its
immediate watersheds with their immediate water resources and water possibilities.
4. In fact, A?'MA has gone to great lengths to accomplish the destruction of its local
watersheds. The enormous and grotesque sewage treatment plant on vital flood plain
and. water recharge'land, the growth inducing raw sewage interceptors, the growth
inducing roads, and the whole overlaid by an enormous structure of mumbo-jumbo, are
all elaborate and grotesque contrivances that can only result in the destruction of
its own immediate water lands.
5. More flagrantly yet, ATOIA has consistently used the Moulton Development Plan Map as
the Land Use Map for the project and they have consistently cited the Chapman, Brandt,
Phillips, Reddick Study for the Moulton Ranch in their bibliographies. In their
hearings of 1973 and 1974, this flagrancy was steadily called to their attention.
And yet they persisted, even after official plans' had been adopted by the county and
the city recognising the Greenbelt.
6* As previously pointed out, in our Memorandum of June 10, 1974, they have not fulfilled
theirs committments that kr. Kymla made for them in behalf of the feasibility and
adequacy of the project, the definition of watershed planning areas and the saving of
those- from price escalations. In fact, they have opposed us as we undertook to save
the lands in the interim by toning holes and have appeared against us in county
toning hearings. (Re: Greenbelt Resolution on A741A, November 6, 1972).
We appreciate this EPA Report. It has come ailong way in correcting the gross destructionM
of water resources and '.vater possibilities inherent in the AT11A project. We would hope •
that when the final project is matured under' the wise guidance of EPA and for th« benefit
of the people that the final project would mandate the preservation of these two vital
watersheds of the Laguna Greenbelt. A water prolect should be for water.
9-140
-------
SUMMARY COMMENTS
The Laguna Greenbelt, Incorporated
1. The AWMA project will destroy the residual water supply in the
two watersheds, the Aliso and Laguna, that are encompassed by the
project. State law mandates the protection of such residual supplies.
R-l. The project will not destroy the residual water supply, rather
urban growth facilitated by the project will effect runoff quality
and quantity and recharge patterns. (See amended Section 4.5.2).
It is not felt that these changes are significant. The EIS has been
amended to include additional information on the ground water of Aliso
and Laguna Canyons.
2. Tertiary treatment, for full wastewater reclamation, is mandated
by State law. AWMA proposes only a secondary treatment system.
R-2. Tertiary treatment is not necessary; in addition, there are problems
with reclaimed water distribution at this time.
9-141
-------
League of WDmenXfoters of Orange County
Statement to EPA rei federal EIS for Aliso Water Management
Agency (AWMA) proposed regional wastewater project, Mar. 25i
1975. "by Joan Petty, Planning Chairman
The League of Women Voters has been active for some time
in the field of water quality. We are very concerned by the
violation of public health codes and water quality board regu-
lations by the South Laguna Sanitary District and Laguna Beach
ocean outfalls and the potential nutrient flow from the Ross-
moor Sanitation Plant into Newport Bay and seek a remedy for
these conditions. The proposed Aliso Water Management Agency's
regional waste disposal plant does, however, raise the following
concerns:
1. We are concerned that AWMA's proposal locates a region-
al plant in a recreation and open space conservation area.
Aliso Creek has been designated as a recreational corridor
stretching from the mountains to the sea. Our members have
been active in the Aliso Creek Study Teams and we are concerned
that the integrity of this corridor be maintained. The partiic-
ular portion of the corridor chosen for the site is a rather
narrow canyon with steep walls. It seems doubtful that there
is adequate width at that location to accommodate the plant
and the hiking and equestrian trails and bikeways that are
planned. The prospect of an access road to serve the plant
complicates the problem further. Are there not other site
alternatives?
EPA's recommended alternative, 1-A, which does not
necessitate construction of a regional plant, would seem
preferable.
2. Our second area of concern is that intensification of
uses in the AWMA area will impact the air quality of the south-
eastern portion of Orange County. The secondary impacts of
deteriorating air quality which will be brought about by in-
creased vehicle miles traveled are described well in the EIS.
We question the workability, however, of several of the pro-
posed mitigation measures, especially on a voluntary basis.
For instance, the increased bus service represents a substan-
tial capital outlay.
Administrative means must be found to ensure that
adequate and effective mitigation measures are implemented.
EPA must impose requirements upon the local agencies involved
and set up review processes whereby progress can be assessed.
-------
igueof WDmen\t)ters of Orange
Statement to EPA re AWMA EIS, March 25, 1975, page 2
A basin-wide air quality maintenance plan and traffic
control plan must be formulated in order to ensure that no
further deterioration of air quality is brought about as a
result of proposed development. Development plans should be
carefully studied for their efforts in reducing the rate of
growth of vehicle miles traveled.
Until such a plan has been adopted, water and sewer
service should not be extended to new areas and highway con-
struction in the undeveloped areas should not be permitted.
Low- and moderate-income housing and mass transit must be
provided, and cluster residential development should be
encouraged.
We are considering, today, the use of federal funds for
the relief of a serious violation of state and federal water
quality standards. Under no circumstances should the use of
these funds be allowed to contribute, directly or indirectly,
to a problem and subsequent violation of similar air quality
standards. We recommend, then, that the EPA grant funds to
AWMA only after adequate mechanisms have been set up to re-
quire local agencies involved to implement mitigation meas-
ures as prescribed by EPA.
Thank you for this opportunity to comment upon this
proposal.
9-143
-------
SUMMARY COMMENTS
League of Women Voters of Orange County
1. Any proposed plan should remedy the potential nutrient flow from Ross-
moor Sanitation Plant into Newport Bay, and the violation of public health
codes and water quality board regulations by the South Laguna Sanitary Dis-
trict and Laguna Beach ocean outfalls.
R-l. The potential nutrient flow from Rossmoor is not a significant con-
cern. Refer to page 3-16 of the Draft EIS.
2. AWMA's proposed regional treatment plant location in a narrow, steep
sided portion of the Aliso Creek recreation corridor would seem to pre-
clude room for planned hiking, equestrian, and biking trails. Other sites
should be explored.
R-2. Refer to expanded discussion of sites in Section 3.1.2 and 3.2.2.1.2
of the Draft EIS.
3. Many of the proposed air quality mitigation measures are based on
voluntary actions, and therefore have questionable workability. Adminis-
trative means must be found to ensure that air quality mitigation measures
are adequate and effective.
R-3. Chapter 5.0 of the Final EIS describes the selected wastewater manage-
ment alternative for AWMA. As noted in this chapter, the Final Mitigation
Plan for AWMA will be addressed at the Phase III level of the total project.
Sections 5.2.2 and 5.3.3 discusses this subject in detail.
9-144
-------
ANT1AGO
/I 3
EIGHTS
Property Owners Association
26 March 1975
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
100 California Street
San Francisco, California 9U111
Attn: Jim McGrath, Environmental Specialist
Dear Mr. McGrath:
We were unable to attend the public hearing on EIS D-EPA-2U011-CA for the AWMA
Regional Wastewater Treatment System which was held on 25 March. We have, however,
had an opportunity to completely read this Draft EIS and wish to register our com-
ments on this project at this time. First, we would like to compliment the authors
of this EIS for an excellent job -- having read the EIR prepared on this project
last year under the direction of AWMA, there is no question but what the entire
subject has been more thoroughly evaluated and fairly discussed without the built-in
bias apparent in the first EIR.
After evaluating the alternatives presented, it is our opinion that if a Regional
Wastewater Treatment System is needed at this point-in-time, that Alternative 1A slightly
modified, best meets the desires of all interested and concerned entities. Except
for the location of the proposed Moulton Niguel Treatment Plant ^A in the Woods Canyon
area, Alt. 1A seems to be the least damaging from an environmental standpoint, yet
satisfies the requirements to meet the San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board's
sewage effluent quality requirements.
We would therefore recommend that EPA consider funding Alternative 1A with reloca-
tion of the MN hA treatment plant (preferably upstream towards the GSA building)_.
Further, inasmuch as both the City of Laguna Beach and the County Board of Supervisors
have adopted resolutions which indicate their acceptance of instituting land use con-
trols to mitigate air pollution and achieve air quality standards, we would strongly
encourage EPA's influence and advice towards enacting the mitigation measures proposed
in your EIS. We would encourage representation on this matter at the Board of Supervi-
sors so that they may realize the seriousness of the situation and take appropriate action
to achieve adequate land use controls.
Sincerely,
c_ / /
^ <.*<
P.S.
Howard A. Faul
President
Santiago Heights Property Owners Association is comprised of approximately 150
members residing in the East Orange (City of Orange) area in county territory.
We have been actively involved through Supervisor Clark's offAce in countywide
issues and are most interested in the growth of the Moulton Ranch area of Orange
County.
9-145
-------
SUMMARY COMMENTS
Santiago Heights Property Owners Association
2. The proposed Wood Canyon treatment plant site as outlined in Alter-
native 1A unmodified is incompatible with the natural environmental
conditions of Aliso Canyon.
R-l. Alternative 1A has been modified. The treatment plant is now
proposed to be located adjacent to the GSA facility or at the existing
Moulton Niguel 1A site.
9-146
-------
/I 61
SIERRA CLUB
OFFICE OF THE SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA ' ' "'•''.'lift
COASTAL COORDINATOR
2410 Beverly Boulevard, Suite 2 rTf?/) • ''/"i
Los Angeles, California 90057 ' J ' J
(213)382-5793
April 15, 1975
Mr. Paul De Falco, Jr.
Regional Administrator
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Pacific Southwest Region IX
100 California Street
San Francisco, California 94111
RE: Aliso Water Management Agency, Regional Wastewater
Treatment System; File No. D-EPA-24011-CA
Dear Mr. De Falco:
This letter represents the comments of the Sierra Club staff on the Draft
Environmental Impact Statement for the Aliso Water Management Agency's
Clean Water grant application, and our recommendations as to the ultimate
project which should be approved for Federal funding.
As noted in the EIS the AWMA project area contains important natural and
open space resources that are threatened by the current population trends
for southern Orange County. Exhibit 4-1 and 4-10 show in graphic form
the trend of suburban sprawl. Air quality data show the relationship be-
tween development patterns and air pollution. Auto dependent suburban
development is rightly singled out as a major contributor to air quality
deterioration through the increase in vehicle miles traveled (VMT). Al-
ready some health related standards are being exceeded within the project
area, but the pollution is vastly smaller than the heavily developed north
western section of Orange County. We suggest the primary reason for this
healthy air is the predominance of low intensity agriculture and the coastal
location with consequent favorable meteorological conditions.
Given the population distribution and projected increases in southern
Orange County, only regulatory action will prevent the gradual filling-in
between the emerging developments on former Irvine Ranch properties to
the northwest of AWMA, the El Toro area, and the San Juan Capistrano and
San Clemente developments. Key to this "fill-in" process is the land in
the AWMA and how it is developed, and a key to the development process is
sewage facility improvement and the role of the Environmental Protection
Agency in influencing the regulatory action of other agencies. Exhibit
4-10 (which we found a useful compilation of various development proposals)
describes "proposed land use" for the AWMA project area. With the excep-
tion of the beach strip and two canyons proposed for state acquisition in
the Irvine Coastal Project, the proposed land use pattern shows a full
build-out along the coastline, significant build-out in the Moulton-
Niguel area, and a continuation of the rather intense development of El Toro.
Public parks, steep slopes, and generally inferior building sites on rug-
ged terrain will be all that remains of a once significant open space and
9-147
-------
MR. PAUL DE FALCO, JR
April 15, 1975 Page Two
recreational resource. Although the EIS does a reasonable job of asses-
sing the contribution of sewerage facilities to growth and development,
the consequences, in terms of air quality, land use, recreational areas
lost, and loss of open space, are only to be inferred from the various ex-
hibits in section 4. Notwithstanding the failure to make such impacts ex-
plicit, the implication is clear—unless checked Orange County, and the
region, will lose most of its significant coastal related open space. !_/
We view this situation as a tragic, and unnecessary, loss. Not only will
such development destroy much of the ambience sought by residents, but it
will lead to more traffic problems, which in turn must be solved by free-
ways (rapid transit is generally not feasible to serve less dense suburban
areas) which will in themselves bring further pressure, either for second
generation higher intensity development, or for further "fill-in" of re-
maining parcels. Projecting public recreation areas vs. expected population
one finds a dirth in park land by Orange County's own standard in the south
Orange County region, and this does not take into account the loss to in-
land residents who may wish to enjoy the coastal values for which the Laguna
Beach area is famed.
We do not believe the Environmental Protection Agency has the option to
watch as a disinterested observer as the environment is thus degraded.
Reading the policy of Congress in the National Environmental Policy Act of
1969 directing all agencies to "utilize a systematic, interdisciplinary
approach which will insure the integrated use of the natural and social
sciences and the environmental design arts in planning and in decision-
making which may have an impact on man's environment" in conjunction with
the policy of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972
that: "it is the national policy that areawide waste treatment manage-
ment planning processes be developed and implemented to assure adequate
control of sources of pollutants in each State" it is clear that Congress
intended the EPA to administer its Clean Water grant program consistent with
the environmental goals of NEPA and other statutes.
An even more immediate concern to the Environmental Protection Agency should
be the eventual impact of the AWMA project area developments upon the at-
tainment of health related air quality standards in the South Coast Air Basin.
The EIS concludes that traffic increases, with consequent increases in air
pollution, will occur with the expected growth in the AWMA area that would
not occur if that growth occurred elsewhere where automobiles are used less.
Indeed, the conclusion of the EIS is that ambient air quality will degraded
so as to constitute a "major long-term adverse effect" (p. 7-4).
]_/ We find the treatment of open space resources, recreation, and the
aesthetic qualities of the region cavalier in the extreem. To say that with
40-50 percent of open space permanently removed from this region as a result
of AWMA area development (4-22), and then to conclude that the only long-term
adverse impact is air pollution (7-4) seems to equate all land uses as of
equal environmental and ecological value, a premise that is patently unsupport-
able, and for which the only justification in the EIS is a conclusionary phrase
on page 7-4 that the additional population will live in a relatively better
9-148
-------
MR. PAUL DE FALCO, JR
April 15, 1975 Page Three
Combining the Environmental Protection Agency's obligations under NEPA,
the Clean Air Amendments of 1972, and the Federal Water Pollution Control
Act Amendments of 1972, we believe significant changes must be made to
the recommended project alternative, in fact, neither of the two recom-
mended alternatives is adequate.
We support the development of a regional wastewater management system that
emphasizes reclamation of wastewater, sized for a population total in the
AWMA area that will be distributed in such a manner as not to violate the
health related standards for air quality, and consistent with the adopted
"Intensity of Development" policies of the South Coast Regional Commission
(the agency created by the California Coastal Zone Conservation Act of 1972
to formulate regional coastal zone.(i.e., five miles inland or to the
highest point of the nearest coastal mountain range) planning policies).
None of the alternatives exactly addresses these concerns. The Reclamation
option, Alternative 3C, is still sized for a population between 170,000 and
250,000. Based upon the Southern California Association of Governments
series E-0 projections, which were adopted as an interim guide by the South
Coast Regional Commission, the year 2000 wastewater flow would be about 20
MGD rather than the 29 MGD total sized capacity for Alternative 2E. This
lower capacity figure is much more in keeping with the subregional recom-
mendations of the South Coast Regional Commission (Irvine and Laguna Area
subregions 11 and 12, see South Coast Regional Commission, Intensity of
Development Element, pp. 49-51, adopted January 6, 1975).
Even if the capacity is scaled down, as we recommend to a maximum of 20
MGD, and the reclamation option is chosen, there will still remain the
question of controlling development, that will under series E-0 levels
by 1985 exceed health related standards for hydrocarbons and oxides of
nitrogen (p. 7-4). Therefore, the EPA should implement option 4.7.2,
modified both as to reclamation and ultimate size as recommended above,
so that any grant would be expressly conditioned upon an agreement by
the applicant to implement mitigation measures within their legal authority.
Nonextension of water and sewer services until the Air Quality Management
Plan indicates that this would be consistent with the strategy to achieve
health related air quality standards should be required of the applicant,
with a continuing review by the EPA so as to ensure compliance with such
an agreement. In effect what is suggested is the implementation of both
options 4.7.2 (modified for size and reclamation) and option 4.7.2 which
is aimed at using sizing as the only growth restraint.
*
This recommended option would have a marginal increase in energy usage,
although this is mitigated by the beneficial aspects of concentrating
development and thus partially offsetting the energy usage. It would also
have a higher capital cost than other options. The combined benefits of
reclamation, controlled growth, and reduced air pollution, we believe clearly
offsets the additional cost. Considering that the development proposed will
environment, which is what was said about the initial Orange County suburban
development.
9-149
-------
MR. PAUL DE FALCO, JR
April 15, 1975 Page Four
aim at the relatively affluent who are drawn by "the 'exclusiveness1 of
the area" (p. 4-9) the additional cost factor is not as important as it
would be if low income developments were proposed. One of the serious
problems with this EIS is the failure to fully cost out the benefits from
controlled population growth and reclamation, thus it could be that on
balance, even from a cost effectiveness standpoint our recommendations
should be implemented. But we do not understand the EPA's mandate to be
concerned strictly with the lowest cost options to the exclusion of con-
sideration for EPA's other regulatory functions, i.e., its obligations
under the Clean Air Amendments of 1972. Begining with the consideration
of the AWMA project, the Agency should implement a policy of denying
Federal clean water grants were secondary effects (such as air pollution,
traffic generation, etc.) would conflict with Federal or State environ-
mental standards. Prior to the issuance of clean water grants the
applicants should be made to revise their projects or implement mitigation
measures to substantially eliminate the adverse secondary impacts.
Si
JOSEPH TASKER EDMISTON
Southern California
Coastal Coordinator
Sierra Club
cc: Army Corps of Engineers
Calif. Coastal Zone Conservation
Commission
Calif. State Water Resources
Control Board
Environmental Coalition of
Orange County, Inc.
Environmental Defense Fund
Natural Resources Defense Council
Sierra Club Legal Defense Fund
South Coast Regional Commission ;
9-150
-------
SUMMARY COMMENTS
Sierra Club
2. The secondary impacts on air quality, land use, loss of recreational
areas and open space need to be more fully assessed. Greater emphasis
should be placed on the loss of significant coastal related open space.
R-l. Section 4.5.3 of the EIS has been amended to more fully assess these
impacts.
2. Noen of the alternatives exactly addresses reclamation of wastewater,
sized for a maximum population in AWMA that will be distributed so as to
not violate health standard for air quality and which is consistent with the
adopted policies of the South Coast Regional Commission
R-2. Please refer to amended Section 4.3.4 in the Final EIS.
3. The question of controlling development still remains. We suggest the
implementation of Option 4.7.2 in Chapter 4.9 of the Draft EIS (modified
for size and reclamation) and using sizing to restrain growth.
R-3. Please refer to Chapter 5 of the Final EIS.
4. "A cost/benefit alalization of controlled population growth and recla-
mation should be included in the EIS."
R-4. Controlled population growth in the South County area would probably
increase population densities in the North County, reduce sewerage costs in
the South County, and reduce air pollution from automobiles to some degree.
Accurate analyses of the exact changes would be extremely difficult, and
the costs would be almost impossible to quantify.
The costs of reclamation raise the cost of the reclaimed water above the
existing potable supplies. To compete with potable water, reclaimed water
would need subsidy price support. To be sure, the cost of existing supplies
is artificially low because of State and Federal subsidies. But subsidizing
reclaimed water would simply encourage further inefficient use of water
supplies.
Since about 85% of California's water supply is used for agricultural use,
conservation practices in agricultural areas hold more promise than recla-
mation. Conservation can be encouraged by eliminating or reducing subsidies,
but an overall analysis of this option is beyond the scope of this EIS.
9-151
-------
725 Jacon Way
Pacific Palisades, California 90272
April 16, 1975
Mr. James McGrath
Environmental Protection Agency
100 California Street
San Francisco, California
Dear Mr. McGrath:
I wish to register certain comments, opinions, and sug-
gestions regarding D/EIS D-EPA-2U011-CA, Aliso Water Management
Agency, Regional Wastewater Treatment System. These statements
are addressed solely to the archaeological element in this report.
Section 2.9 is inadequate, basically, for lack of a systematic
survey of the area to be affected by the proposed construction. It
does not fulfill the various requirements for inventorying cultural
resources; see pp. 9-12 of Appendix I of the SCA publication en-
closed.
Section 3.1*. 2 also fails for lack of recommendations on the
mitigation of anticipated adverse impacts. This is inevitable, to
some degree, because the survey and inventory have not been com-
pleted; without an adequate data base on which to make environmental
assessment, such conclusions are not possible. Specific alternatives
which should be addressed in this section include the preservation of
sites, where possible, by the realignment or adjustment of facilities,
or the fully funded excavation of jeopardized sites according to
accepted standards of professional practise.
Mr. Nelson Leonard, who has performed some preliminary recon-
naissance of certain areas within the AWMA project area, informs me
that there are most assuredly site complexes which are eligible for
the National Register of Historic Places. They are among the most
important and significant localities remaining extant in Orange
County, and encompass the full range of archaeological resources, both
chronologically and culturally. I would advise that you obtain a
consultation in accordance with the Advisory Council Procedures set
forth under 36 CFR 800. You might also want to investigate the ap-
plicability of the Moss-Bennett Bill (Public Law 93-291, 5/21*/7i*),
towards the funding of any required excavations.
Sin
cerely
Mrs. Roberta 3. Greenwood
Chairman, Environmental Policy Committee
9-152
-------
SUMMARY COMMENTS
Society for California Archaeology
1. A systematic archaeological survey and cultural resource inventory
has not been conducted in the area to be affected by construction.
R-l. This survey has been conducted and is included in the EIR prepared
specifically for the construction aspects of the AWMA project.
2. An adequate archaeological data base is needed in order to fully
explore specific alternatives which could preserve or excavate pits.
R-2. EPA will mitigate by avoidance, or if not possible, by excavating.
Will arrive at memo of agreement with Advisory Council to that end.
EPA will continue to coordinate archaeological impacts with the advisory
counsel and will eventually arrive at a memorandum of agreement to
that end. EPA has rejected the Aliso Creek Canyon Plant site in part
because of archaeological impacts. All future sites will carefully
consider and try to avoid archaeological- sites.
9-153
-------
. 17
NON-PROFIT ORGANIZATION • BOX 668
SOUTH LAGUNA, CALIFORNIA 92677
March 25, 1975
Environmental Protection
Agency
Region IX
100 California Street
San Francisco, CA 94111
Attn: Paul deFalco
Dear Sirs:
The Board of Directors of the South Laguna Civic Association has
reviewed and analyzed the EIR for the AWMA facility for the soujfthern
Orange County region. While we support the concept of regional
management of wastewater, we do not feel that this approach should
necessarily adversely affect our existing resources.
We cannot support the construction of a facility within the Aliso
corridor. With existing facilities that could more efficiently be
utilized if upgraded, there is no need to introduce a new faciltiy
within a bioligically sensitive area. The Aliso Creek corridor
has been recognized by both the County of Orange and the State Coastal
Commission as an environmentally significant area. We find this
project inconsistent with their planning policies, and therefore
feel that alternative III-C is a more acceptable proposal.
We are well aware that southern Orange County falls within the: critical
air basin established by the ARE; we are also aware that partially
due to this designation the population figures for granting criteria
for the AWMA project have been revised downward to comply with an
E-0 projection for this basin. We agree with this approach. The
State Coastal Commission has also conditioned the size of the
outfall in AWMA's permit to comply with this standard, as well as
stipulating that population limitations among participants in AWMA
would not be transferable.
We now understand that A'WMA has petitioned SWRCB to revise the
projections upward and to transfer limitations among member districts.
We feel thattno approval should be granted to this project unless
and until it is definitely determined that it is in full compliance
with all conditions imposed upon it by other agencies. Specifically,
we believe that this project must comply with the conditions set by
the State Coastal Commission.
9-154
-------
Along the same line, we would suggest as a policy, that the EPA
granting administrator should not approve a project if the secondary
impacts of that project conflict with federal or state environmental
standards, unless those impacts have been significantly mitigated.
Finally, it seems to us a sad commentary on our ability to utilize
advanced technology that so much is being spent on a system which
is far from innovative and wasteful of our water resources as well
as our energy resources. We should not have to simply choose
between mediocre alternatives; and as a community that will
probably be most affected by this project (since the outfall and
the treatment plant are within our area) we would hope that a more
serious consideration could be given to a tertiary treatment/reclama-
tion system.
oard of Directors
9-155
-------
SUMMARY COMMENTS
South Laguna Civic Association
1. AWMA should not be permitted to revise its population projections
upward, or to transfer limitations among member districts, nor receive
project approval until it is determined that the project is in full
compliance with all conditions imposed on it by other agencies, es-
pecially the State Coastal Commission.
R-l. Reference discussion in Chapter IV on size of facilities/Coastal
Commission consistency.
2. A tertiary treatment/reclamation system should be considered.
R-2. The draft EIS indicated that there are unresolved public health
questions with reclamation at this time. This discussion has been
revised to indicate relative consistency with future reclamation.
9-156
-------
PUBLIC HEARING - MARCH 25, 1975 - ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR AH SO WATER MANAGEMENT AGENCY PROJECT
Environmental Protection Agency there's no need to ask what that means.
Virtually every citizen in the country knows it's ->n agency for the protection
of the environment. We believe most citizens also think the EPA is charged
with fostering decisions which reflect the greater concern for the long-range
effects of recommended actions rather than the short-term.
With this in mind, VILLAGE LAGUNA suggests that perhaps there is another alter-
native which has not been considered. We'll call it "Interim A". The Laguna
Beach treatment plant is the one plant in the agency which has been declared
inadequate and incapable of being made so. If this be the case, the Laguna
Beach plant could continue treatment as now, pumping the effluent to 3' South
Liguna plant which was expanded to give the additional treatment necessary to
bring the combined effluent of the two jurisdictions up to current ocean dis-
charge standards.
We suggest sn interim project so that adequate planning can.be realized. Why
provide for waste treatment for the open range land of the Irvine Ranch Water
District between Lagun'i Beach and Newport Beach before the land use of that
area has been determined? Why plan for- the construction and expansion of a
pl-int of present day technology in the most sensitive, constricted neck of
Aliso Canyon? Why not, instead, use "Interim A" so that the land uses may
become known rather than guessed at; so that the plant sites may be located
so ss not to destroy the terminus of the Aliso Creek Corridor: so that time
r.ay be bought to accomodate the technology which would allow the "Interim A"
effluent and the effluent from all the other plants in the agency to go to an
eventual new plant for tertiary treatment?
Such a plant could be located much further inland. This would mean pumping
some partially treated wat.er inland but this would be no more costly than
pumping fully treated water inland to gain the greatest benefit from agri-
cultural irrigation. If it is cost-effective to punp water from the Colorado
river and from Northern California it should be reasonable to pump it from
any point in the county to any other point.
Finally, we urge that whatever alternative or modified alternative or com-
bination of alternatives .the EPA recommends for funding, a condition be attach-
ed requiring composting of all sludge, whether at scattered sites or at a
central facility. Methodology is tried and proven, equipment is available and
it can be a profit-making venture. We are sure the EPA realizes that the re-
source, sludge, is too valuable to be squandered in land-fills or incinerated,
that composting removes any objections to sludge use and that it should be re-
turned to its source, the land. It's time society stopped burying its mess like
a cat or diluting it in the ocean nnd started cleaning it up instead.
If proper planning is realized the area encompassed by this agency can stay
relatively free of those industries producing heavy metal pollutants, use of
the wrong kind of water softerers can be controlled and the area can remain -
an ideal one for tertiary treatment and sludge recovery.
Wm. W. Leak, Vice-Chairman
500 Broadway
Laguna Beach, Ca. 92651
9-157
-------
SUMMARY COMMENTS
Village Laguna
1. EPA should consider the alternative of continuing -treatment
at the Laguna Beach plant and pumping effluent to an expanded :Sout!h
Laguna Plant for additional treatment or bring effluent up to ocean
discharge standards.
R-l. In standard secondary treatment, the settled sewage solids
play an important role in .providing food and micro-organisms in -a
process which biologically breaks down pollutants. 'Removal of 5sse!titTle-
able solids at the .existing Laguna Beach STP would prevent efficient
operation of this process. Further, this alternative would not 'reiliueve
the disposal problems at the upstream treatment plants.
2. -An interim project would allow time for adequate planning of
undeveloped land. Technological advances in treatment methods maj
occur in the meantime.
R-2. Extensive planning 'in the AWMA area has been -done. Whether
or not this is "adequate" is ultimately a consideration for locall
government.
3. If an interim plant were located farther inland, partially ^treated
water would need to be pumped inland, but this would be no more •cosfciy
than pumping fully-treated water inland.
R-3. Correct. See expanded discussion on reclamation in final OS..
4. EPA should condition the project to require composting of add
sludge.
R-4. Final sludge treatment and disposal methods 'have not been 'deter-
mined because of the siting problem. Refer to Chapter 5-of the finra'd
EIS for further discussion.
9-158
-------
_
* / y
^~J-^-
/o o
KBGION.IX
j&f-
^
/. J /^JLL-
^t^^-x A
-f^—t*
/
x»^t^-
9-159
-------
.oZ
l~e-^- *->—
/=^e-JLfO
, , /
9-160
-------
SUMMARY COMMENTS
Mr. and Mrs. Brandwine
1. The huge plant capacity will encourage extremely dense development,
which cannot be accomodated because of seasonal tourism.
R-l. The member agencies of AWMA comprise an area of Orange County
encompassing approximately 48,905 acres, extending from the coast 15
miles inland to the foothills of the Santa Ana Mountains. Seasonal
tourism primarily affects the coastal areas. Whether or not such
seasonally-affected areas can accomodate additional development, and
to what degree, is a determination of local government. AWMA's planned
capacity reflects current land use plans, rather than causing them.
2. Aliso Canyon should be preserved as a scenic area.
R-2. Factors which influence the final selection of treatment plant
sites included capital and maintenance costs, efficiency considerations,
future expansion room, and land use plans. The treatment plant and
facilities as proposed in Alternative 2G would be near any trail system
that might be constructed along Aliso Creek. An expanded discussion
on the impacts and mitigative measures of this plant is presented in
Section 3.1.5 and 3.2.2.1.2.
3. No ocean discharge should be permitted, as the nutrients cause
sea urchins to increase, and in turn, kill kelp beds which serve as
fish breeding grounds.
R-3. The advanced technology of the proposed project will produce
an effluent that will be compatible with the natural ground and ocean
waters. Refer to Section 3.2.1.2 of the EIS. It has been theorized
that there is a relationship between wastewater effluent and prolifera-
tion of sea urchins, but a firm link has never been established. The
nutrient contribution of wastewater to the ocean is relatively minor
compared to direct inputs from atmospheric nitrogen, land runoff, and
bottom upwelling. Nutrients may become of concern in localized areas,
consequently, discharge sites should avoid areas of rich productivity
like Dana Point. In addition, reclamation is encouraged as a beneficial
use of nutrients, and treatment levels will be increased and dilution
improved to reduce the effects of nutrients on the marine environment.
9-161
-------
MARIAN PARKS , „ ,',". .' .. _' ^
233 MORNING CANYON '-' ' -' ' v ' fv ' '"' : ' ; ' ~ *
CORONA DEL MAR, CALIFORNIA 92625
A en ill "! •-- ^4 '
II \\ ;4 y I'o iiii
^-
-------
SUMMARY COMMENTS
Marion Parks
2. You have on file my references and comments regarding the Aliso
Water Management Agency project, addressed to Ms. Judy Gimler, November 4,
1974.
I protest the allocation of public money in the form of a grant to
this project until complete survey and test excavation for archaeology
heritage are performed.
R-l. The documents referenced refer to an earlier EIR prepared by
Jones and Stokes for the applicant. Our updated EIR prepared by Clean
Water Consultants was circulated in February, 1975, and dealt much
more specifically with the direct impacts on archaeological resources.
Refer to R-l, and 2 of Summary Comments, Society for California Archaeo-
logy.
9-163
-------
RO*i
March 1, 1975
Paul De Falco, Jr. Regional Administrator
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Region IX
100 California St.
San Francisco, CA. 94111
Re: Aliso Water Management Agency
Regional Wastewater Treatment System
Dear Mr. De Falco:
After reviewing the Draft EIR, I recommend that it be
considered inadequate until the following items are
addressed:
1. Planning Considerations
a.Include a map indicating the general plan
designation.
b. Discuss conflict of uses within conser-
vation and open space catagories.
c. Include discussion of impact upon master
plan of scenic highways.
d. Discuss conflicts with open space, re-
creational activities, and goals of
"Aliso Creek- Forest to Sea" Report,
and the open space element of the general
plan.
II. Physical Considerations
aTDiscuss the problems of physically ac-
comodating a regional facility, access
road, bike trail, horse trail, natural
creeK flood plane, within a very narrow
valley. Sections graphically illustrat-
ing the impact on change of land form
and creek modification is necessary.
b. The physical constraints of Wood Canyon
should also be addressed.
c. Dual use or underground facilities.
III.Access Road
9-164
-------
Mr. De Falco
March 1, 1975
Page 2
a. Discuss the number of bridges required
along the creek.
b. Discuss conflict with recreational
activities.
IV. View Analysis
a. Discuss the conflicts and proposed
mitigation of irreversable loss of
scenic qualities within a conservation
corridor as viewed from vista points
above.
Without these discussions it is difficult to assess
the ability of maintaining any integrity within one
of Orange Counties most valuable and critical scenic
and recreational corridors.
Very truly yo
AIA Architect
Member, Orange County Planning Commission
RY/jg
9-165
-------
SUMMARY COMMENTS
Ron Yeo, AIA
1. A map indicating the general plan designation is needed.
R-l. Exhibit 4-10 has been modified to show adopted General Plan: Plans
for Irvine Ranch are shown separately.
2. The proposed uses conflict with conservation and open space elements,
and with the goals of "Aliso Creek-Forest to Sea" report.
R-2. The locating of a treatment plant in Aliso Canyon would appear to
be in conflict with some of the goals and policies of these documents.
However, such a use would appear to be consistent with the existing zoning
and the Land Use Element. It was the intent of the L.U.E to incorporate
the Open Space and Conservation Element's goals and policies into its
pattern of land use designations. The proposed regional treatment plant
site is situated within 5.3 and 5.41 Open Space designations. Utilities
are a compatible use within the 5.3 category and also in 5.41 when "... Ab-
solutely required for public safety, health and welfare." (Orange County
General Plan L.U.E., March, 1975, page 24.). Therefore, it is felt that
only the Orange County Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors can make
a determination as to whether or not a conflict exists between these
elements and if there is a conflict, provide a definite resolution.
3. How will the proposed project affect the Scenic Highway element?
R-3. The AWMA project should affect the Scenic Highways Element only if
two circumstances occur. First, a regional treatment plant as proposed in
Alternative 2G would have to be constructed. Second, the Aliso Creek
Scenic Highway would have to be built. At this time, there is some ques-
tion as to the desirability of such a primary arterial located in Aliso
Canyon. Nevertheless, if it were constructed, the treatment plant would
force the highway to be constructed through this narrow portion of the
qanyon at potentially great environmental or monetary costs. The con-
struction could be accomplished by (1) cutting into the west canyon wall,
which would result in extensive cut slopes; (2) filling the canyon bottom
to raise the level to the road to where the canyon would be wider, but
this may expose the treatment plant to flood hazards; (3) a combination of
cutting and filling; or (4) modifying the proposed location of the
treatment plant in order to leave moreroom for the highway. The impacts
upon Aliso Creek caused by this proposed scenic highway are greater than
the impacts of the treatment plant.
4. Please discuss the problems of physically accomodating a regional
treatment plant and all proposed recreational facilities in a narrow
valley. Cross-sections showing proposed creek modification and terrain
alteration are necessary.
R-4. An expanded discussion of these implications of the regional treat-
ment plant site has been added to Section 3.1.2 and 3.2.2.1.2 of the EIR.
9-166
-------
5. Please discuss physical constraints of Wood Canyon.
R-5. So noted. Site 4A has been moved to the GSA Facility or the MNWD
1A site.
6. Please discuss dual use of the recreational corridor or the possi-
bility of underground facilities.
R-6. See comment 5 by AWMA. Most utilities will be underground.
7. How many bridges will be required along the creek?
R-7. No permanent bridges will be required. See comment #6 by AWMA.
8. Please discuss the impacts and mitigations of loss of scenic
qualities of the creek when viewed from vista points above.
R-8. Refer to R-4.
9-167
-------
9.6 COMMENTS RECEIVED DURING THE DRAFT EIR REVIEW PERIOD
NOT REQUIRING A RESPONSE
UNITED STATES FEDERAL AGENCIES
Department of Transportation, Federal Highway
Administration - March 28, 1975
STATE OF CALIFORNIA AGENCIES
Air Resources Board - April 11, 1975
California Regional Water Quality Control Board
San Diego Region - April 1, 1975
Department of Transportation - February 21, 1975
State Lands Division - March 7, 1975
State Water Resources Control Board,
Division of Water Quality - March 28, 1975
State Water Resources Control Board,
Division of Water Quality - April 3, 1975
COUNTY OF ORANGE AGENCIES
Orange County Chamber of Commerce - March 28, 1975
CITY OF LAGUNA BEACH
City of Laguna Beach, City Manager - April 21, 1975
QUASI-PUBLIC AGENCIES
El Toro Water District - no date
Laguna Beach High School, Natural History/
Coastal Class - March 19, 1975
Laguna Beach High School, Natural History/
Coastal Class - March 20, 1975
Laguna Beach High School, Natural History/
Coastal Class - March 20, 1975.
Orange Coast County Coast Association - March 25, 1975
Santa Ana Watershed Project Authority - March 25, 1975
PRIVATE INTEREST GROUPS
American Association of University Women -
May 1, 1975
Bricklayers Local No. 22 of California - no date
California Garden Clubs, Inc. - March 16, 1975
Citizens' Town Planning Association - March 19, 1975
Desomount Club - March 22, 1975
Guard - March 25, 1975
Irvine Teachers' Association - March 24, 1975
9-168
-------
PRIVATE INTEREST GROUPS, CONTINUED
Junior Woman's Club - March 18, 1975
Laguna Beach Taxpayers' Association, Inc. -
March 14, 1975
Professional Community Management, Inc. -
March 18, 1975
Saddleback Area Coordinating Council - March 19, 1975
San Diego Audubon Society, Inc. - April 12, 1975
Sierra Club, Angeles Chapter, Orange County Group-
April 8, 1975
Temple Hills Community Association - March 23, 1975
The Laguna Greenbelt, Inc. - March 19, 1975
PRIVATE INDIVIDUALS
Mrs. H. M. Anderson - April 14, 1975
Mrs. P. H. Braun - March 31, 1975
Mrs. Margaret Baggs - April 12, 1975
Mr. David W. Baker - April 18, 1975
Mr. Helen F. Brockmeier - March 21, 1975
Mr. John N. Daniel - March 16, 1975
Mr. Chas. J. Durway - April 9, 1975
Mr. Don Ferguson - April 4, 1975
Mrs. Helen P. Gregory - March 26, 1975
Mrs. Betty Heckel - March 19, 1975
Mrs. Betty Heckel - April 3, 1975
Mrs. Betty Heckel - April 5, 1975
Mr. Michael Lynd - March 31, 1975
Mr. & Mrs. Bill Ines - March 25, 1975
Mr. & Mrs. Jim Marner - March 25, 1975
Mr. Lloyd A. Johnson - March 13, 1975
Dr. Ray M. Moose - March 16, 1975
Mr. William Robert Suddaby - April 1, 1975
Mrs. R. M. Thompson - March 24, 1975
Mrs. Gerald A. Woods - March 17, 1975
9-169
-------
ARIZONA
CALirOKMIA
NEVADA
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION I*»»<*«A((
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION A-M.CAH •*«<«.
REGION NINE *n F
450 Golden Gate Avenue, Box 36096 ft3 5
San Francisco, California 94102
March 28, 1975
. IH REPLY REFER TO
9ED
Mr. Paul De Falco, Jr.
Regional Administrator
Environmental Protection Agency
100 California Street
San Francisco, California 94111
Dear Mr. De Falco:
We have reviewed the Draft Environmental Impact Statement
for the Aliso Water Management Agency Regional Wastewater
Treatment System and find the discussion of transportation
to be adequate. Also, Exhibit 4-13 reflects the California
Department of Transportation's current plans for new or
revised freeway interchanges in the area. Therefore, we
have no comments to offer.
We appreciate this opportunity to review the subject Draft
EIS.
Sincerely yours,
E. Hawley
Regional Administrator
9-170
-------
StntS of California The Resources Agency
/g Cj o
Memorandum • . " ° °
To : Honorable Ronald Robie, Director Date ' April 11, 1975
Department of .-Water Resources • _
1416 Ninth Street .... Subject: Regional Wastewater
• Sacramento, CA 95814 Treatment System-. ..
Aliso Water Mangmt Ag
Attention: Mr. Ken Fellows San Diego/Los Angeles/
. San Bernardino Counties
. .. ..:. , .. .: SCH. No. 75030448 .
From : Air Resources Board " •'•••» /v***^ It
' William C-. Lockett, Chief |..\.(v \3 .1^? , -. . . .
., Evaluation and Planning .-"':•'' '•• - .'^*•"•"• ^^ . ""
The proposed Aliso Water Management Agency (AWMA) project consists
of the implementation of.a regional wastewater. treatment and dis-
.posal system designed to eliminated existing water quality problems
and prevent future problems in the Agency's jurisdictional bound-
aries. AWMA is responsible for the planning, construction, and
operation of facilities for a water management program within the
.Aliso Valley Watershed Basin and related contiguous areas. The
AWMA ^encompasses approximately 48,905 acres of Orange County. ,
The environmental impact statement (EIS) evaluates several alter-
natives relative to environmental effects. The applicant favors
a regional system with central treatment and ocean disposal of most
wastes. The proposed project, if not built, would act as a deter-
rent to the development and urbanization of various areas within
the AWMA. The option of no alternative or controlling utility
extensions are choices which need to be considered following the
comment portion of the EIS process.
The air quality impact of the proposed project was extensively
discussed in the EIS. The present air quality in the AWMA area
is among the worst in the State, has a high potential for adverse
conditions, and is a serious problem. The EIS points out that
"... the solution seems to lie in reducing the total vehicle miles
traveled (VMT) within AWMA." The Air Resources Board (ARE) agrees
with this conclusion. However, this would necessitate land use
planning and the development of alternative transportation models
which are not within the power of AWMA to implement. AWMA has
some power, however, to participate in enforcing implementation
strategies.
The EIS presents six mitigation measures and associated implementa-
tion strategies which, if implemented, would reduce projected VMT.
These measures are promising proposals and need to be developed
and appropriately implemented so the proposed regional wastewater
treatment and disposal system will not adversely affect air quality.
The project needs to comply with all environmental laws. 40 CFR
35.925-14 (published 2/11/74) states that sewage collection systems
9-171
-------
Mr. Robie ;'-2- April 11, .1975
"... will comply with all pertinent requirements of the Clean Air
Act and other applicable Federal, State, and local environmental
laws and regulations." This may be done through the implementation
of the previously mentioned mitigation measures.
In the next two years the ARB, in cooperation with local government,
will participate in the development of an air quality maintenance
plan (AQMP) for those areas in which growth and development are pro-
jected to prevent either the attainment or if attained the maintenance
of the national ambient air quality standards in the next ten years.
The air quality impact of the Aliso project on the jurisdictions
in the AWMA needs to be mitigated. Air quality considerations,
such as the proposed mitigating measures, must be integrated with
the local land use and regional transportation planning to demon-
strate that attainment and maintenance of the standards will not be
interfered with by the proposed project. In order to limit detri-
mental air quality to the area,"this project needs to be conditioned
along the lines of'the clean water grant conditions now being worked
out between the State Water Resources Control Board, EPA, and ARB.
This is necessary if government is 'to carry out its responsibility
in protecting the public health from the continued effects of
polluted air as well as polluted water.
cc: J. McGraph, EPA
F. Broadhead, Coastal Commission
R. Walsh, SWRCB
9-172
-------
, .. /; 4 a
Jftemoranclu'sii -rCHIVED ... , . -.
A REGION .IX ; • , . i-'-v,.>.-•:••.
To : MR. LARRY WALKER . ,. „ ., .u .#"* APR'L 1' 19?5
STATE WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOA^D" H II Ul HP
SACRAMENTO
From : California Regional Water Quality Control Board
San Diego Region
6154 Mijsion Gerga Road —Suite 205, San Diego, Calif. 92120
Subject: REVIEW OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT,
SCH No. 753CM8 FOR ALISO WATER MANAGEMENT
AGENCY, REGIONAL WASTEWATER TREATMENT SYSTEM,
I.D. No. 7^-o8if1, F.Y. 1974-75
STAFF OF THIS REGIONAL BOARD DOES NOT CONCUR WITH
COMMENT No. 1 IN YOUR MARCH 28, 1975 MEMO ON THIS
SUBJECT. As A MATTER OF FACT, STAFF SUPPORTED THE
2G ALTERNATIVE AT THE PUBLIC HEARING ON THE.EIS ON
MARCH 25, 1975-
LADIN H. DELANEY
SENIOR WATER QUALITY CONTROL ENGINEER
LHD:LVR
cc: MR. ROBERT H. LEWIS, CHIEF
DIVISION OF PLANNING AND RESEARCH
EPA, REGION IX
ATTN: MR. JIMMCGRATH
CRWQCB, SANTA ANA REGION (8)
ATTN: MR. MIKE COONEY
Anso WATER MANAGEMENT AGENCY
ATTN: MR. WILLIAM F. WOLFSON
STATE COASTAL COMMISSION
ATTN: MR. FRANK BROADHEAD
9-173
-------
STATE OF CALIFORNIA—BUSINESS. AfD. TRANSPORTATION AGENCY
Edmund G. Brown Jr.,
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DISTRICT 7, P.O. BOX 2304, LOS ANGELES 90054
Mr. Paul De Falco, Jr.
United States Environmental
Protection Agency
Region IX
100 California Street
San Francisco, CA 94111
February 21, 1975
07-Ora-General
07102 - 910002
Dear Mr. De Falco:
We have reviewed the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for
the Aliso Water Management Agency Regional Wastewater Treatment
System. We find that the proposal has no slanlfleant Impact on
State Transportation plans or on the State Highway System.
f
Sewer line crossings of State Highways will be reviewed at the
time applications for permits are submitted by the Water Manage-
ment Agency.
Very truly yours,
Programs & Budgets Branch
C3 O
-=o r- .;;
O
OJ
c_n
rn '-
9-174
-------
STATE L/NDS Division
3007 - }£;h ST-irfT ,; .
SACRAMENTO, CALIF. S5514 /f 3
March 7, 1975
File Ref.i 8D-75-2-11*
Aliso Water Management Agency
27281 Aliso Creek Road
Laguna Miguel, CA 92667
.- • .
Gentlemen:
SUBJBCTt :BB Ho.: ;
Regional Waatewater Treatment System
Aliso Water Management Agency
This Division has reviewed the subject Draft BIS and has
determined that a portion of the area underlying the proposed project
is presently under lease to South Laguna Sanitary District, P.R.C.
Ho. 899.9, dated March 1, 195^.
If will be-necessary for you to make application to the
State Lands Commission for a lease to cover additional occupancy of
State land. Application Form 52.1 is enclosed for your convenience.
Your cooperation and. early response will be appreciated.
Very truly yours,
C. R. KIRKS
Supervisor,
Land Transactions
/cap
End. i . Form 52.1
txf: United States Environmental Protection Agency
Region IX
100 California Street
San Francisco, CA 9^111
Attention! Mr. Paul De Falco, Jr.
Regional Administrator
bcc: P.R.C. 899=9
Alan C. Scott
9-175
-------
Memorandum
To
From
iX
Robert H. Lewis, Chief COMM. CENTER
Division of Planning and Research ' _
APR ? i222PH'75
Dot*
Subject;
Larry F. Walker
Division of Water Quality
3 1975
Review of Environmental
Impact Report, SCH
No. 74031822 for Aliso
Water Management Agency.
Regional Wastewater TreM-
raent System, I.D. No. w
74-0841, F.Y. 1974-75
This office has reviewed the draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR)
of subject project dated March 20, 1975. The Division of Water
Quality with concurrence of the California Regional Water Quality
Control Boards, Santa Ana Region and San Diego Region, hereby
presents preliminary comments on the draft EIR.
This draft EIR contains all information required by
the State Water Resources Control Board Environmental
Impact Report and Public Participation Guidelines of
July, 1973. However, several shortcomings were discovered
that'relate to planned facilities and resulting secondary
impacts. These are as follows:
Comment; The proposed project envisions the construction
of a new regional plant just north of the existing South
Laguna Sanitary District plant. To avoid disturbing the
land along Aliso Creek, the applicant is urged to evaluate
an alternative that calls for expanding the existing
facilities to handle 10.2 MOD.
Comment; Location map - Is it necessary to construct a
service road with a 50-foot right of way along Aliso
Creek between the proposed regional treatment plant
and the Alicia Parkway? The possible secondary impacts,
such as land development, along the proposed road should
be discussed.
As a funding agency the State Water Resources Control Board reserves
the right to make further comments on subject report prior to granting
and EIR approval pursuant to the Clean Water Grant regulations.
Should you have any questions regarding this review, please contact
Wayne Brown at (916) 322-4940.
SURNAME
RC8 I29Q (8-09»
9-176
-------
Robert H. Lewis
Page 2
2.c: : EPA, Region IX
Attn: Jim McGrath
CRWQCB, Santa Ana Region (8)
Attn: Mike Cooney
CRWQCB, San Diego Region (9)
Attn: Ladin Delany
Aliso Water Management Agency
Attn: William F. Wolfson
9-177
-------
Sfato ot California
Memoran
REGION !X
To , Robert H. Lewis, Chief HflR 3 j |Q 48 fiH '?5
Division of Planning and Research
State Water Resources Control Board
MAR 2 8 -97S
Larry F. Walker
From : Division of Water Quality
Subject: Re view of Environmental
Impact Statement, SCH
No. 7530448 for Aliso
Water Management Agency,•
Regional Wastewater Tred»-
ment System, I.D. No.
74-0841, F.Y. 1974-75 .
This office has reviewed the draft Environmental Impact Statement
(EIS) of subject project dated March 12, 1975. The Division of
Water Quality with concurrence of the California Regional Water
Quality Control Boards, Santa Ana Region and San Diego Region,
hereby presents preliminary comments on the draft EIS.
This draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) contains
all information required by the State Water Resources
Control Board Environmental Impact Report and Public
Participation Guidelines of July, 1973. However, several
points in the report are unclear. These relate primarily
to planned facilities and resulting secondary impacts.
Specific comments and questions are set forth below:
Comment; The recommended alternative 2G envisions the
construction of a new regional plant just north of the
existing South Laguna Sanitary District plant. To avoid
disturbing the land along Aliso Creek the applicant is
urged to evaluate Alternative 1A (modified) that calls
for expanding the existing facilities to handle 10.2 MGD.
Comment: Pg. 3-18, Service road - Is it necessary to
construct a service road with a 50-foot right of way
along Aliso Creek between the proposed regional treatment
plant and the Alicia Parkway? The possible secondary
impacts, such as land development, along the proposed
road should be discussed.
Comment; The recommended alternative 2G (Exhibit 3-13)
shows a raw sewage interceptor, maximally sized at 20 MGD,
extending down Aliso Creek to the proposed regional
treatment plant, designed for 16 MGD. The secondary
impacts produced by such an oversized interceptor traversing
undeveloped land should have been directly addressed.
SURNAME
•ACS 129Q <«•«»>
9-178
-------
Robert H. Lewis
Page 2
Comment: Energy conservation - The amount^ of energy
required by each alternative has been adequately
covered. However, no mitigation measures to reduce
energy comsumption have been put forth pursuant to
Amendments to the State Guidelines, Appendix F, dated
December 26, 1974. For example, if the sludge is to
be digested anerobically, consideration should be given
to using the gas that is generated for heating the
digester and providing energy for pumps.
As a funding agency the State Water Resources Control Board reserves
the right to make further comments on subject report prior to
granting an EIS approval pursuant to the Clean Water Grant regulations,
Should you have any questions regarding this review, please contact
Wayne Brown at (916) 322-4940.
cc: EPA, Region IX
Attn: Jim McGrath
CRWQCB, Santa Ana Region (8)
Attn: Mike Cooney
CRWQCB, San Diego Region (9)
Attn: Ladin Delany
Aliso Water Management Agency
Attn: William F. Wolfson
State Coastal Commission
Attn: Frank Broadhead
9-179
-------
OFFICERS
Chairman of the Board
Gordon Olson
Knobbe, Martens, Olson, Hubbard & Bear
President & General Manager
Lucien D. Truhitl
Vice Chairman
Fred Cahtrell
Alpha Beta Acme Markets, Inc.
Vice Chairman
Richard J. Smith
Hunt-Wesson Foods, Inc.
Treasurer
Eugene V. Kadow
Fountain Valley Land .Co,
Chairman. Executive Committee • -
Robert W.Clifford
• • " *. "' A*! California,,
DIRECTORS
Sandy Berwick
Real.'Estate Broker
Stan Botelho
General Telephone
Fred Cantrpll
Alpha Beta Acme Markets. Inc.
J. Wylie Carlvle
County of Orange Recorder
Robert W. Clifford
Air California
James W. Decker
Southern California Gas Company
Ron Dommguez
Disneyland Park
Werner Escher
South Coast Plaza
Charles Ferguson
Avco Financial Services
Mike Gallic
M-G Disposal Systems, Inc.
Kenneth E. Hag an
Attorney at Law
Robert E. Hanson
Arthur Young & Company
Richatd Hart
Richard Hart & Associates
Clyde M. Haugan
Delco-Remy Div. CMC
Richard Holmcjren
Holmgien & Sawyer
Fpnton E. Jones
West Orange Countv Municipal Court
Gotdon Jones
Tlw livme Company
Eugene V. Kadow
Fountain Valliy Land Co.
Carl Kiiichet
C
-------
RESOLUTION IN RESPONSE TO FEDERAL EPA
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT REGARDING
ALISO WATER MANAGEMENT AGENCY
REGIONAL WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITIES
WHEREAS/ it is the policy of the Orange County Chamber of
Commerce to review planning, economic and environmental issues
which have a significant effect on Orange County, and
WHEREAS, there exists a need for a regional wastewater treat-
ment system to serve the existing and future populations of
southern Orange County within the Aliso Water Management Agency
service area, and
WHEREAS, the City of Laguna Beach, the Moulton-Niguel Water
District, the Los Alisos Water District and the El Toro Water District
are currently mandated by the State Water Resources Control Board
to improve the treatment processes at existing sewage treatment
facilities, and
WHEREAS, the Aliso Water Management Agency's Regional Waste-
water Treatment project has been three years in the planning stages,
and
WHEREAS, the concept of the Aliso Water Management Agency's
Regional Wastewater Treatment system has received the approval of
the Southern California Association of Governments, the Orange
County Planning Commission, the County of Orange Board of Supervisors,
the San Diego and the Santa Ana Regions of the California Water
Quality Control Board, and the Regional and State of California
Coastal Zone Conservation Commissions, and
WHEREAS, the economy of Orange County can be positively stimu-
lated by increased employment, and
WHEREAS, the implementation of the Aliso Water Management Agency
project will provide overall environmental benefits as well as needed
employment, and
WHEREAS, there is a continuing escalation of construction costs
at the rate of one and one-half percent per month for wastewater
treatment facilities, and
WHEREAS, Aliso Water Management Agency Plan 2-G appears to be
the most practical and most effective method to accomplish waste-
water treatment both in consideration of costs and environmental
impacts of all of the alternatives,
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Orange County Chamber of
Commerce supports the construction of the Aliso Water Management
Agency's regional wastewater treatment facilities known as Plan 2-G
and urges the Environmental Protection Agency and the State Water
Resources Control Board to commence construction of facilities at
the earliest possible time.
Adopted by: Orange County Chamber of Commerce/ Attested
Board of Directors Lucien D. Truhill
March 27, 1975 President & Gen. Mgr
9-181
-------
A'
April 21, 1975
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region "DC
100 California Street
San Francisco, California 94111
Attention: Mr. Paul DeFalco, Jr.
Regional Administrator
Gentlemen:
Subject: Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the
Aliso Water Management Agency (AWMA), Regional
Wastewater Treatment System
A letter dated April 10, 1975 was addressed to your office by Carl J. Kymla,
Chairman of Aliso Water Management Agency, indicating that the Board of
Directors of AWMA were urging the Environmental Protection Agency to take •
an affirmative position in the selection of Alternative Concept 2-G as the
most cost-effective regional wastewater treatment system which would result
in desirable environmental impact effects to the extent practicable on the
area basis.
At the AWMA Board of Director's meeting on April 16th, this letter was dis-
cussed after the fact. The Board was asked to approve the letter which was
done by five affirmative votes, one abstention and one negative vote. A
motion was made by the Laguna Beach Director to notify EPA of the results
of the vote. This motion was defeated on a six to one vote. It was the
opinion of the Laguna Beach City Council that EPA should be aware of the
facts regarding the letter and the results of the votes on the two motions.
Very truly yours,
ALFRED R. THEAL
City Manager
ART:as
9-182
505 FOREST AVE. • LAGUNA BEACH, CAL. 92651 • TEL. (714) 494-1124, 546-4856
-------
/ <-'
The Board of Directors of the El Toro Water District
has approved the Aliso Water Management Agency Plan 2G and
has adopted a plan of works incorporating this regional plan.
Based or. studies made by the District's Engineer, the
Board has found that Plan 2G provides the most cost effective
method of handling the District's waste water. There will
be a substantial saving to the District for future pumping
costs, sludge disposal and treatment with the regional plant.
In addition, Plan 2G enables the District to reclaim a
significant amount of waste water which will be put to
beneficial uses in the area.
During periods when reclaimed waste water cannot be
beneficially used, the plan affords the District an economi-
cal and efficient method of disposing of its waste water.
9-183
-------
LAGUNA BEAChTHIGH SCHOOL
625 PARK AVENUE, LAGUNA BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92651 (714)494-8546
21
DONALD G. HAUGHT. Principal
THOMAS LaVERN DUGGER. Asst. Principal
RICHARD D. HOLUSTER, Asst. Principal
March 19, 1975 !';-;cio>. i:-;
EPA, Hearings Office • •
HE 118, Region IX
100 California Street
San Francisco, California 9^111
Dear Sirs:
Please enter this letter in the Hearing Record.
After studying natural history of the coastal region we have come to
the realization of the great importance that the open space around
Laguna Beach plays in the environment of the coast. We fail to see
the value of a gigantic sewage treatment plant in Aliso Canyon. The
toll of natural destruction would be enormous in this area. Vie feel
the proposed money would be better spent if it were used to update
the present sewage treatment plants, bringing them up to standards
comparable to today's technology.
We need to preserve more of our natural resources, not only for our
personal pleasure and existence, but for the future generations who
will have the same understanding, likes, and dislikes which we have.
For this reason we lend support for the EPA proposal that can assure
smaller and dispersed plants, and which emphasizes agricultural ir-
rigation and a clear stream system flowing to the ocean.
Sincerely, the undersigned members of the Natural History /Coastal
class, Laguna Beach High School
9-184
-------
AGUNA BEAChTHIGH SCHOOL
25 PARK AVENUE. LACUNA BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92651 (714)494-8546
/I24
DONALD G. HAUGHT. Principal
THOMAS LaVERN DUGGER. Asst. Principal
RICHARD D. HOLUSTER. Asst. Principal
March 20, 1975
MAR 2 5 1975
REGION IX
EPA, Hearings Office
HE 118, Region IX.
100 California Street
San Francisco, California
Dear Sirs:
Please enter this letter in the Hearing Record.
It was,, brought to our attention recently that a plan to build an
enormous sewage plant in Aliso Canyon, a plan to be presented at
a public hearing on Tuesday, March 25.
We are appalled that such a monstrosity is even considered. Such
a plant could only encourage increased development in the coastal
area which is already heavily populated. We support the Laguna Green-
belt and the ideals of conservation which allows an area to be set
apart in its natural state.
If it is essential that we plan expansion of sewage treatment plants,
then the EPA proposal for scattered, smaller plants is preferable.
The decision might best be made directed by our conscience, not our
bankbooks.
Sincerely, the undersigned members of the Natural History/Coastal
class, period 2, Laguna Beach High School
9-185
-------
LAGUNA BEAChTHIGH SCHOOL
625 PARK AVENUE. LAGUNA BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92651 (714)494-8546
i
DONALD G. NAUGHT. Principal
THOMAS LaVERN DUGGER. A3St. Principal
RICHARD D. HOLLISTER. Asst. Principal
March 20, 1975
EPA, Hearings Office
HE 118, Region IX
100 California Street
San Francisco, California
Dear Sirs:
Please enter this letter in the Hearing Record.
We would like to express bur view on the enormous water treatment
plant planned for Aliso Canyon. This would be an excessive waste
of money and misuse of land because smaller, more efficient dis-
posal plants could do the same work at a smaller cost and without
the waste of this valuable land.
We are only a part of a group, students, citizens and others, who
feel as we do and who have the intelligence to see the importance
of saving this beautiful canyon bottom from total destruction.
Haven't we done enough damage already? •.
Sincerely, the undersigned members of the Natural Hi story /Coastal
class, period 1, Laguna Beach High School
(XA.,C,v£
9-186
-------
PHONE 962-6661
Gotutfy GoadJ
18582 BEACH BOULEVARD . SUITE 224
HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA . 92648
March 25, 1975
OFFICERS
Edwin "Ted" Finster . President
William Webb First Vice President
Jack Feehan Second Vice President
Willard Jordan Treasurer
Ralph C. Kiser Secretary
STATEMENT BEFORE ALISO WATER MANAGEMENT AGENCY
DIRECTORS
Dr. Daniel G. Aldrich, Jr.
Robert Badham
Hancock "Bill" Banning, III
Jack Barneh • ': ^ .^rj>o
Ted Bartlett
Cap Blackburn
Don Byrnes
J. Wyllie Cartyle
Robert Clifford-- -, - - Q-
Wimam Coulter" "'" '.' 't " .
James-W.'Decker'- V
Jack Feehan < '-" -:" .
Edwin Finster ;.>--; '
William Foster
Judge Selim S. "Bud" Franklin
Jack Hammett -' •
E. F. Hlrth
Roy Holm
Willard T. Jordan
Edward Just
Ralph C. Kiser .
Carl Kymla
William Lusk
Randy McCardle
George McCracken
Robert McCurdy
Donald Mclnnis
John Macnab
Doreen Marshall
Stephen Michalec
Lorna Mills :,.-,• • • .-.r
0. W. "Pete" Moore
R. I. "Cuba" Morris
Hugh Mynatt
Paul Presley
H. L. Remmers
0. W. "Dick" Richard
Theo Robins, Sr.
Kenneth Sampson
Robert SheHon
Dr. Donald D. Shipley
Thomas Stadlinger
J. Leslie Steffensen
Richard Stevens
John Vibert
Raymond Watson
William "Bill" Webb
Robert N. Weed
C. E. "Bill" Woods
Nick Ziener
The Orange County Coast Association represents all of the coastal
communities from Seal Beach to San Clemente in Orange County and has
dedicated itself to'the economics and environment of our coastline for
over sixty years.
The association supports the regional wastewater treatment facilities
as. proposed by the Aliso Water Management Agency.
It is-not a factual statement in our opinion, to say that growth for an
area can be reduced by eliminating regional wastewater treatment systems.
Limited expansion of treatment facilities does not represent a deter-
rent to development because smaller individual private systems may still
be built. The result would be an ultimate increased cost to the local
residents and taxpayers along the coastline.
The Coast Association feels that the regional system with its deep
ocean outfall and high level of treatment will have no detrimental effect
on the ocean environment.
- - The Orange County.Coast Association hereby endorses regionalization
of sewerage facilities as proposed by the Aliso Water Management Agency
and supports the most economical and cost effective plan.
For Executive Committee
Orange County Coast Association,
Ralph C;
Secretary
RCK/hg
9.187
-------
SANTA^ANA WATERSHED
PROJECT A LSTHQRITY
COMMISSION FOR THE PROJECT AUTHORITY
CARL B. MASINGALE. CHAIRMAN. AND RAY W. FERGUSON (CBMWD)
ROBERT L. CLARK AND AUGUST F. LENAIN (OCWD)
JACK A. BEAVER AND LLOYD D. YOUNT (SBVMWD) .
HOWARD A. HICKS AND JOHN M. MYLNE. JR. (WMWD).
MANAGER
ROBERT E. MOORE
TREASURER
MARILYN A. THOMPSON
March 25, 1975
Environmental Protection Agency
100 California Street
San Francisco, California 94111
Attention: Hearing Officer; Aliso Water Management Agency Project
Gentlemen:
In Santa Ana Watershed Planning Agency's role as basin contractor
for Basin 8, we became familiar with and followed the development
of the programs and plans of the Aliso Water Management Agency.
These plans involved both basin 8 and 9 water supplies, waste
collection, treatment and disposal, as well as regionalization
across this boundary. Their interface with the water quantity
and quality aspects were of prime concern to SAWPA as we developed
the Santa Ana plan.
With respect to the environmental soundness and consistency with
Title III planning, the following points should be made with
respect to the AWMA recommended plan:
1. The AWMA concept of water resource utilization is
consistent with the basin plans insofar as quantity
and quality considerations are concerned.
2. The AWMA concept of regionalization of water resource
facilities is consistent with State and Federal
planning guidelines.
3. To the extent that these cpncepts and considerations
can incorporate environmental concerns and show
intent to mitigate environmental compromises we
believe the AWMA recommended plan to be environmentally
sound.
Total Water Quality Management — SAWPA's Commitment to the Community
9-188
-------
Environmental Protection -2- March 25, 1975
Agency
Taken as a whole we believe the AWMA plan to be compatible
with and complimentary to the clean water programs of the
Southern California area.
Within the context of amplifying and executing the basin plans,
then, we believe the Environmental Impact Statement under
consideration at this hearing is accurate and complete.
Very truly yours,
!».'..•' • • '• ' .
SANTA ANA WATERSHED PROJECT AUTHORITY
Robert E. Moore
Manager
REM:map
9-189;
-------
?.R May 1,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
San Francisco, California
Dear Sirs; ...
Our Land Use Study Group would like to offer some comments
on.the proposed Aliso-Water Management Agency project.
We are concerned that tne project is planning for too much
growth and should be scaled down to a more reasonable population
density for this area. The area of land within this district
should be designated for 208.Planning.
We would like to see many of the elements of plan 1A
adopted, rather than 2G, as we feel that more of the waters tied.
in Aliso Canyon would be preserved. Instead of the lar^e treatmeitt
plant facility in iliso Canyon we would favor expansion of the
existing facilities in the areas Bast of Laguna Beach. Although
we realise tuere is little room for expansion of the Laguna
Plant in Laguna Canyon, the facility snould.be improved, parti-
cularly lengthening the sewage discharge pipe into the ocean.
One of the secondary effects we fear in tiie treatment plant
in Aliso Canyon is the possibility of sludge over-flow during
the rainy season. Another is the tremendous amount of water
which would bave to be re-piped back to other areas. We would
also lii'.e to see more possible wastewater reclamation alternatives.
The mitigation measures are good but we question whether .ttie.y can
be enforced.
Sincerely yours,
9-190
-------
•flflKMERS LOCAL 1 22 Of CALMIA—
(714) 531-3132 • 1605 NORTH HARPER STREET . SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA 92703
WILLIAM H.-MEIER
FINANCIAL SECRETARY
ft BUSINESS AQENT
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
ALISO WATER MANAGEMENT AGENCY
.SEWAGE FACILITY
To t'he members of the board I want to thank you for this opportunity
to speak to you.
One of my greatest concerns, is the unemployment problem with the
construction workers in Orange County. We have been delt some very
hard blows due to Prop9sition 20. We have been put in a position
by 'the Federal Government to create more employment with the minorities
and this takes money to train them for the productivity that they
must give their employers and now we have a situation where we
cannot build.in Orange County.
.Thev people that you are denying employment to are not people that
are coming from other states but you are talking about people who
are. native Californians and born right here in Orange County. We
have educated them. .Their parents, many have been transients, but
they have paid taxes in Orange County and now you are denying these
people the right to live in Orange County and the right to work in
Orange County. '
I .know it has been said numerous times that skilled tradesmen in
Orange County are highly paid. We are highly paid because we are
seasonal workers. We are at the mercy of the economy, EPA, weather
.conditions, poor conditions of the jobs, interest rates, etc. The
construction worker that has health, welfare and pension, they are
.only covered when they are working.
The cut in construction caused by Proposition 20 has left a scare
on the construction worker for the next 20 years because the hours
that a skilled transman worksstoday are the pensions that he will
get 2.0 years from now. There will be a decline in those hours which
will once again put the senior citizen on a fixed income with a
/ position versus the economy and )
9-191
-------
CALIFORNIA GARDEN CLUBS, I
Official Publication: "GOLDEN GARDENS"
ri zt
: *v
C
Laguna
92653
..
REGIONAL HEARING CLERK
MAR 2 0 1975
i
I REGION IX
For Hearing scheduled at Federal Bldg0fl 2l(.000 Avila Rdoj
Laguna Miguel- Galo on Tuesday March 25 0 19?5o
SUBJECT; Alis© Wastewater Management Projecto
Gentlemeng
The massive program as proposed by the Aliso Wastewater
Project is not realistic in relation to th® problems of
the following subjeets in minds
today0 with
l°This project is a first step leading to the destru@tion of many
thousand ©f acres of potential agricultural ©rop landsp an item
d©serving of top priority0 with a food crisis already a r®ality0
A moratorium should be declared on any a©ti©n that entails loss of
such land until the proposed legislation by Assemblyman) Charles
Warren (AB #15>) has had adequate consider at ion0
2°The ©reaping pollution ©f th© air in spite of all thej elaborate
and ineffieient remedies^ sk©uld be ©au&e to delay asssy !su@h
as thisp sisa©® the next step will be large real ootat® c
3° Near saturation of the prases^, highways with traff i© and the
comitaat nois® and ©onfusion0
4° Exp®ri®saee shows that su©h developments incr©as© the: already
excessive taxes of those persons already lining her®0 ;
5° He®dHess ©spenditur® ©f energy and m aterials that had better
be directed else^3her©0
6- Jobs and use ©f materials that this operation w@uld produce' had
far better be expended in the already assisting slBas and blighted
areas of the incorporated communities t$i©r© streets^ schools^ firo»
fighting facilities,, hospitals^, s®^e2?s0 wat®r0 ad infiraitura now
ar© available in l©cati©M wher© treansp@rtation to ^©ifkp et©0$ is
a minor p5?@blemo |
i
7° The losg ©f the Aliso and Lagmsa watershed with the :sceni@
values n©w re©ognized by such gr@ups as the Laguna Greenbelt
should receive adequate ©onaideration0 Many ©omraunities in th©
parts of country where thes® values have be©n lost are TOW finding
it neesssiiry to spesad millions of dollars to recreate^ ;if possible^
just su©h natural amenities0
Signed= Henry M
bmw
Chairman Environment Preservatioa0
_
Interested partie¥
9-192
-------
post office box 1132, laguna beach, California
REGIONAL HIOAR1NG CLERIC
MAR 2 0 1975
REGION DC
19 March 1975
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Attn: Hearings Office, HE 118
Region IX
100 California Street
San Francisco, Ca 94111
Gentlemen:
We have reviewed the Draft ElS on the Aliso Water Management
Agency Proposal for a Regional Wastewater Treatment System
and submit the following Comments:
Our Organization supports EPA1a Alternates 1 - A and 3-C,
in view of their far greater sympathy for the environment.
We strongly approve of the Mitigation Measures called for
by EPA in corollary to any proposed system.
We recognize the need for improvement and upgrading of our
local wastewater.management system, but we feel that the pro-
posed AWMA plan is conducive to encouraging development and
with it .the consequent further deterioration of our local
Air Quality. Little-concern is shown by AWMA in preservation
of Open Space, which is another vital factor in maintaining
air quality.
Appreciation to.EPA for their,fine efforts in bringing to
the public awareness of concerns in connection with the pro-
posed. AWMA Project.
Sincerely,
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
CITIZEN'S TOWN PLANNING ASSOCIATION
W. H. Vernor, Jr.
President
9-193
-------
MAR 21. 19/5
REGION IX
Naiuie
PRESIDENT
James G»lliver
1223 S. Palm Ave.
San Gabriel, Ca. 91776
VICE PRESIDENT fc MEMBERSHIP
George Peters rmiv
120 E. Rose EPA
La Habra, Ca. 90631
1260 Cliff Dr., Laguna Beach, Ca. 92651
March 22, 1975
, Hearings Office
HE 118. Region DC
100 California St.
SECRETARY
Dorothy Millunchick
11722 Darlington Ave., Apt. 2San Francisco, Ca. 94111
Los Angeles. Ca. 90049
TREASURER
Eugene Brand
81 W. Calaveraa St.
Altadena, Ca. 91001
MEMBER-AT-LARGE
Frances Cramer
766 Obispo Ave.
Long Beach, Ca. 90804
OUTDOOR CHAIRMEN
Yvonne Ash
6956 Goodland Ave.
No. Hollywood, Ca. 91605
Ray & Frances Comport
104 Spindrift Dr.
Portuguese Bend, Ca. 90274
INDOOR CHAIRMAN
Lorayne French
8715 E. Hermosa Dr.
San Gabriel, Ca. 91775
Concerned Officer
Desomount Club urges that the sewage treatment plant on Aliso
Creek be limited to site ] (with modifications ) and site 3.
These two areas would :
1. Minimize the usurpation of land designed for the Aliso
and Laguna Greenbelts important to
a. recreation
b. wildlife
c. open space
d. geological and archaeological values.
EDUCATION DIRECTOR, HONORARY
Roland C. Ross
388 Dearborn St.
Pasadena, Ca. 91104
2. Preserve
the Aliso and Laguna watersheds.
tertiary treatment
CONSERVATION CHAIRMAN
Evelyn Cayman
1260 Cliff Dr.
Laguna Beach, Ca. 92651
PARLIAMENTARIAN
Jason Walker
19511 Sunken Trail
Topanga, Ca. 90290
HISTORIAN
Kenneth Fitt
1105 S. 4th St.
Alhambra, Ca. 91801
PUBLICATION CHAIRMAN
Toni Steele
5114 W. 133rd St.
Hawthorne, Ca. 90250
EDITOR DUSTINGS
Dorothy Levy
22246 Victory Blvd., F-323
Woodland Hills, Ca. 91364
CO-EDITOR DUSTINGS
Ruth Kempton
841 Hauseman St.
La Canada, Ca. 91011
We ''support as the only acceptable method
which would :
1> Conserve the water enabling the recharging of aquifers
and the recharging of aquifers
2. Provide a clear stream flow to the ocean.
Xhe 17 acre-site 3 in providing for projected growth is encourag-
ing a density of development which already is responsible for a
deteriorating air quality.
We oppose channelization as seriously disrupting wildlife and -
plant habitats and destroying natural scenic landscapes.
This decision will affect the quality of life for thousands of
citizens in this coastal area.
Respectfully yours,
Evelyn Cayman, Conservation Chairman
9-194
-------
oc
Ul
X
5
I
oc
Ul
Ul
(/)
Ul
£
Ul
p
O
Ul
o
Ul
cc
CD
V)
O
ui
s
Q
S
csl
9
Z-
o
OL
CM
CO
Si
oc
2
I
UJ
1
o
oc
<
00
o
o>
m
REfiSGWAl, HKARINCJ GLERIt
MAR 2 5 1975
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Paul DeiPalco, Jr. Regional Administrator
-100 California Street^
San Francisco, California
Dear °fficials:
.Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the
draft environmental impact statement for the
proposed regional wastewater treatment system
of the Aliso Water Management Agency of Orange
County.
GUARD supports proposals for establishment of
regional reclamation systems for recycling of
wastewa.ters.
The GUARD committee which reviewed the draft
statement offers the following comments.
Section 3.2.1.2.1 is.to us a disappointingly
inadequate assessment of ocean discharge impacts.
Consideration must be given to cumrnulative effects ,
not ;.only of these proposed discharge lines but of
thosa of adjacent areas, because of the tremendous
predeicted:growth of this southern California
megalopolous from San Diego to Los Angeles, the
fastest population growth area of-the nation.
Especially, assessment should be considered of
the Southeast Regional Reclamation Authority plans.
Our experience has been that installation of ocean
outfall lines encourages later enlargement of those
lines, and also leads to contract arrangements with
inland areas for discharge of inland sewage, in
a spiral of environmental degradation which is
difficult to halt, once it has begun.
The pollution of theGreat Lakes, major rivers,
the Mediterranean Sea, and uncontrollable sludge
threatening New York's coast, are foundation
enough for our request that tertiary reclamation
is the only environmentally ^acceptable system for
southern California's preciaus coastal area.
GUARD applauds the vision of the people of San Clermte
in providing tertiary treatment and use of recycled
wastewater, and asks that all future regional
reclamation systems follow that lead, and meet quality
standards of the Coastal Conservation Commission.The
impact statement should at least assass theproposals1
efficiency ija, adhering to /tho^e standards.
Sincerely
Lyn
lairma
JARD
9^195
-------
President
Carmen Perry
First Vice President
Judy McCoy
Second Vice President
Errol Allan
Seeyeitflry
Julia Chaussee
Treasurer
Deloris Roberts
Irvine Teachers Association
March 24, 1975
EPA Hearing Office
HE 118, Region IX
100 California Street „
San Francisco , California
Dear Sir:
94111
The Irvine Teachers 'Association supports the Laguna Greenbelt's goal
to preserve vital Laguna and Aliso watersheds. The Aliso Wastewater
Management Project Proposal to build a large disposal plant with
considerable outfall would mar this natural watershed. As educators
we realize the importance of an environment suitable for the future
of our children. Consequently, we are committed to the Greenbelt's
goals of preserving natural watershed areas with an accent on agri-
cultural irrigation and clear streams flowing to the ocean. We urge
that existing disposal stations be utilized and if necessary expanded
rather than see new ones built in what is now scenic open space.
Sincerely,
armen Perry, President
IRVINE TEACHERS ASSOCIATION
CP rsbi
190! East 17th Street, Santa Ana, 'California 92T01 (714) 542-3292
9-196
-------
... _____________ A 7
JUNIOR WOMAN'S CLUB
Laguna Beach, California
March 15, 1975 ^ :r, T
en > m
Environmental Protection Agency
Hearings Office " •
HE 118
Region IX .
1 00 California. Street
San Francisco, California 94111
Re: ALISO WASTE WATER
MANA&EIJENT PROJECT
Gentlemen:
We eqncur with The .Lacuna Greenbelt, Inc8 in
supporting the alternative proposal which your agency
has worked out for this project.
We reject the proposal of 1 enormous, ugly
treatment plant and favor the smaller, dispersed plants,
accent on agricultural irrigation and a clear stream •
system' flowing to the ocean. In summary, we feel this
project should be compatible with the Greenbelt and
preserve its natural environment.
Very Truly Yours,
'
/••••
~ "
(Mrs.) JSheTTy Stephens
Chairperson,
Conservation Committee
Laguna Beach Junior Woman's Club
AW: aw
9-197
-------
Organized November 1947, to co-operah^, bringing about the greatest possible eeonomiei, coK_*ent with efficiency, in eipendituret of Public Funds.
IAGUNA BEACH TAXPAYERS' ASSOCIATION, INC. /f 5
P. O. BOX 404 LAGUNA BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92652
Mr. Paul De Falco March 1^, 1975
Director, and
Mr. Covington
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, IX
100 California Street
San Francisco, Calif. 9^111
Gentlemen:
Enclosed please find the response concerning the Federal
Environmental Impact Statement for the AWMA, Aliso Water
Management Agency of Orange County, Cal.
While we were not selected on the distribution of these
E.I.S reports, we feel that we should have beenl The
Laguna Beach Taxpayers' Assoc. Inc. is one of the oldest
established organizations in Orange County, since 19^7-
We noted several organizations on the distribution list
received tv/o copies, and many are not incorporated also
mentioned on this list.
We have requested time to present our public prepared
statement at the scheduled EPA public hearing on March 25,
1975 to be held at the Federal GSA Building 2^00 Avila Rd.
Laguna Niguel, Cal. from Dr. Mack Wesner, Clean Water
Consultant, 2232 S.E. Bristol St. Suite 210, Santa Ana,
Calif. 92702. We have also sent Dr. Wesner our response
as he was listed as a consultant for this project.
If necessary, we wish to also make this request from you
in order that the L.B.T.A. will be given time to make the
prepared statement concerning this report at the above
scheduled meeting.
Thank you,
Sincerely,
JAMES C. YANCEY
President JY/mwm
9-198
-------
A13-'-'--'-' '•'••''W
"'w,-, ~n -, .s.'i f
LEISURE WORLD - LACUNA HILLS REGIONAL^^NG CLERK
MAR 2 0 1975
REGION IX
March 18, 1975
Ref: Admin. #75-59d
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (3)
Attn: Hearings Office HE-118
Region IX
100 California Street
San Francisco, California 94111
Subject: Draft Environmental Impact Statement
D-E. P. A. - 24011-CA
Aliso Water Management Agency
Regional Wastewater Treatment System
Gentlemen:
The official Leisure World Community comprised of approximately 18,000
adults has supported the concept of a regional treatment system to serve
the Saddleback area in support of A.W.M.A. since it was initiated by the
California Regional Water Quality Control Board, San Diego Region, back
in early 1972. Most recently the community's official representatives
supported by its technical staff and a knowledgeable committee of competent
engineers who are also residents of the community, have reviewed the Draft
Environmental Impact Statement prepared by U.S. E. P. A.
All parties involved in the preparation of this document are to be congratulated
on its completeness, particularly with reference to the associated environ-
mental impacts involved. It is clear that all alternates to provide a safe
economical method of treating sewage wastes with final disposal to the ocean
have been carefully considered, including the many associated enviro.nme.ntal
impacts involved.
In behalf of this community this is to advise you of its endorsement of Aliso
Water Management Agency's recommendation of the construction of Modified
Alternate 2-F, which includes a gravity interceptor flowing from the El
Toro Area, along Aliso Creek, to Moulton Parkway as it provides a regional
system with central treatment and ocean disposal of most treated wastes.
However, we are advised and could concur, after evaluation of secondary
q-199
HIUS, CALIrOffhnA
post orncf HOX ???o. IACUNA HIUS, CAitfOftwX 91653-if.IEPHONE IAREA 7u) 637-3550
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 3/18/75
Attn. : Hearings Office HE-118 Page 2
impacts, that Alternate 1-A may be acceptable, providing a grant would
be available for the higher construction cost of this alternate.
We are greatly concerned over the increased costs of the project due to
inflation, etc., caused by delays over the past few years. We sincerely
hope a suitable grant can now be awarded to help solve a critical problem
we now have and to help solve future problems.
Very truly yours,
Robert L. Price
Administrator
RLP/nrh
9-200
-------
AI20
^e/'ji'O'A :\
CO MM. CENTER
P.O. BOX 357 • 61 tORO • CAllf.
MAR 25
March 19, 1975
REGION ix
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (3)
Attention: Hearings Office HE-118, Region IX
100 California Street '
San Francisco, Ca. 941H
Subject: Draft Environmental Impact Statement D-EPA-2JW)11-CA
Aliso Water Management Agency
Regional Waste Wate'r Treatment System
Gentlemen:
The Saddleback Area Coordinating Council representing the preponderance of
existing unincorporated communities to be served by the proposed regional waste
water treatment system has monitored with great concern the development of
proposals which are now being heard by your agency. Our representatives have
reviewed the draft environmental impact statement prepared by/for you.
The Executive Board of SACC has listened to presentations made by the Aliso *
Water Management Agency. It has considered the impact of the AWMA proposed
facilities construction upon the trails system and open space programs initiated
and sponsored by SACC over the past three years.
It is clear to us that the upgrading of our sewage treatment facilities is a
matter of necessity. It is also clear to us from an economic viewpoint that one
alternative proposal stands out clearly as the most desirable. From an ecological
viewpoint however it is far from acceptable; with certain tradeoffs a palatable
resolution may be achieved.
The Executive Board of SACC, sitting in an extra-ordinary session March IS, 1975,
voted unanimously in favor of endorsement of Modified Alternative 2-G (itself a
further modification of Alternative 2-F), with the following provisos:
That the AWMA acquire sufficient usable level ground to the west of their
proposed creek bed re-location site to provide for the full triple trail system
parallel thereto (a description of that trail system is found in the Aliso Creek
Study Team Report of 1974). Further, that a perpetual easement be provided to
the County of Orange for public transit of the area in the use of the trails.'
That the area of the narrows in the Aliso Creek Channel (canyon) immediately
downstream of the existing facility remain fully accessible for trail usage
and unimpeded by road, structure or other improvement.
That a limiting factor be exercised with regard to the establishment of a
maintenance road to these facilities so that it may be used by emergency
vehicles only (except during the period of construction of the new facilities).
9-201
-------
Page 2
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (3)
March 19, 1975
We are addressing this to you to express both the public awareness of the need
for upgrading our sewage treatment facilities and its recognition of a sincere
desire to provide open space amenities to succeeding generations. We ask that
you consider these factors in the entirety in providing a grant sufficient to
enable the task to be accomplished with immediacy and adequacy.
Respec;
Bohay,
SADDLEBACK AREA
COUNCIL, INC,
Copies to:
SACC Review Board
Aliso Water Management Agency
Orange County Aliso Creek Task Force
H. G. Osborne, County of Orange
Director, Environment Management Agency
9-202
-------
REGIONAL HEARING CL.KKK
APR 1 5 1975
REGION DC
SAN DIEGO AUDUBON SOCIETY, INC.
BRANCH OF THE NATIONAL AUDUBDN SOCIETY
3942 Hughes Court
San Diego, Ca. 92115
12 April 1975
File No. D-EPA-24011-CA
Environmental Protection Agency
Region IX
100 California Street
San Francisco, Ca. 94111
Att'n: Hearing Officer, HE
118
This Society opposes EPA participation in the proposed Aliso Water Management Agency
Wastewater Treatment System propject, primarily because it would be growth-inducing
in ah area that urgently needs growth stabilization at the very least.
The projected increase in vehicle traffic alone is sufficient reason for EPA not to
participate. This, particularly because the indications are that nothing is really
going to be done, in the apprent future, to reduce vehicle emissions, or to bring about
truly non-polluting vehicles.
Even a scaled-down project should be postponed until whatever coastal authority and
policy comes out of the present coastal commission's recommendatios and the State
Legislature's reactions to those recommendations, goes into effect.
(^\~^) Sincere!
V_/2o<3-c^ufc.
Roscoe A. Poland
Conservation Committee
9-203
-------
SIERRA CLUB _; \ v "
ANGELES CHAPTER . :v"v ,VNTER
ORANGE COUNTY GROUP ^ij M53H{
9#32 Harriet Lane
Anaheim, California 92704
April «, 1975
EPA
Hearings Office, RE 11$, Region IX
100 California Street
San Francisco, California 94111
Gentlemen:
The Laguna Greenbelt is important to t he people of Laguna. It is
also very important to the rest of Orange County.
We, in Orange County, are already hopelessly entangled in the
problems of congestion, pollution, noise, and crime - all evils of too
much growth, too fast. Such "progress" makes the rich richer, and the
general public poorer, both spiritually and environmentally. It is
past time to hold the line against the exploitation of our natural re-
sources by a relative few and give highest consideration to what is best
in t he long run for the majority. When we err, let us err on the side
of restraint, and leave some environmental decisions for those who will
follow.
With these thoughts in mind, t he Orange County Group of the Sierra
Club goes on record in favor of any proposal that would insure the
integrity of the Laguna Greenbelt. Since the preservation of the La-
cuna and Aliso watersheds is vital to the whole concept, any worthwhile
plan should guarantee these agreas full protection. The large treatment
plant and outfall is not acceptable for several reasons. It is too ex-
oensive, it is not needed, and, most important, it would serve to in-
duce further development of the Greenbelt.
We, therefore, support the EPA proposal which in our mind comes the
closest to assuring the above, and urge anyone with the public interest
in mind to do likewise.
Sincerely yours,
,
Herb Baasch, Conservation Chairman
Orange County Group
Angeles Chapter
Sierra Club
HB : ji
9-204
-------
TEMPLE HBLLS COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION
1940 SAN REMO DR., LACUNA BEACH, CA. 92651 TELEPHONE 497-2218 « 494-5383
March 23, 1975
Director
Federal Environmental Protection Agency
San Francisco, California
Dear Director!
The Temple Hills Community Association opposes any plan
which would destroy the basic residual water supply of the Laguna
Greenbelt and its two watersheds--Aliso and Laguna Canyon water-
sheds. We support a coupling of open space preservation with
maximum water conservation.
In our opinion this objective can best be assured through
several small dispersed treatment plants which would enhance agri-
cultural irrigation and would provide a clear stream flowing to the
ocean. We are opposed to the establishment of a gigantic treatment
plant. Not only do we feel that this would be unnecessarily costly
but it would destroy the quality of our environment.
Sincerely
Tom Alexander
Chairman
Ron Chilcote
Coordinator
9-205
-------
THE LAGUNA 6REEN6ELT, INC.
REGIONAL HEARING —.IRK
MAR 2 1 1975
... REGION LX
'
a non-profit corporation Box 1611, Laguna Beach, California, 92652 n.'fi 7| JJf co f-M '
March 19, 1975
For: AWMA Project Hearing,
Maroh 25
US Environmental Protection Agency
Region IX
100 California Street
San Francisco, CA 94111
Gentlemen,
The Laguna Greenbelt, Inc., appreciates this opportunity to comment
on the Draft EIS prepared by EPA on the Aliso Water Management Agency
Proposal for a Regional Hiastewater Treatment System.
Following our review of the EIS prepared by AKUA on its project, we
expressed a number of concerns that have been further justified by the
EPA draft document. Two of these major concerns are:
a) Deterioration of Air Quality due to encouragement of
further growth and development, appreciation of land
values and generation of more VMTj
b) Physical impact of construction of proposed treatment
facilities in the Aliso and Laguna Greenbelts. AWMA
chooses to ignore the faot of the designation of these
areas as Open Space in the Open Space and Conservation
Elements of the General Plans of Orange County and the
City of Laguna Beach.
Recognizing the need for improved wastowater management in this araa,
we strongly support consideration of two of the alternatives suggested
by the EPA Draft EIS:
Ideally, the advanced tertiary treatment system outlined by
alternative 3-C is most desirable in terms of minimizing adverse
environmental effects. However, its associated high cost and
large new plant requirements make this choice somewhat less
attractive.
With a more conservative approach calling for expansion of
existing treatment facilities, Alternative 1-A is felt to be far
more sympathetic to the environment than the ATfMA Plan.
Tie would hope the EPA in its ensuing studies would opt for a combination
of best features of 1-A and 3-C, aimed at maximum reclamation, land treatmeit
snd recycling of pollutants. Elimination of ocean outfalls and replacement
by clear stream outflow are vital goals for achievement. Greater emphasis
on land treatment and agricultural irrigation can facilitate this objective
and provide economic gains as well. We also support the various mitigation
plans suggested by EPA as a corollary to their alternatives.
Inoonolusion, we commend EPA on their in-depth study of our wastewater
management problems. Their EIS can help to inform the public of dangers
9-206
-------
LAGUNA GREENBELT. INC.
a non-prof it corporation Box 1611, Laguna Beach, California, 92652
Tot EPA
For Hearing. Maroh 25, 1975
p. 2
inherent in funding unrestricted, development-inducing major public works
at a time when if* need to consider how to maintain our environmental
quality while satisfying our other basic needs.
Supplementary data will be submitted at the Hearing.
Sincerely yours,
By/
.';
l\J. yUt^^U BOARD OF TRUSTEES
James W. Dilley I TEE LAGUNA GREENBELT, INC.
President /
9-207
-------
REGIONAL^HKARING CLERK
APR 4 1975
REGION DC /
9-208
-------
/ -
j>7Wteiune:
RECEIVED
BSGIONAL HEARING CLEStK
APR 8 1975
BEXHONJX
9^209
-------
*s4*^-*s
<*^
A Q o
/0*+-&
9-210
-------
2 4 \S1 ' -T Via Puerta
**'*"* Laguna Hills, California 92653
March 21, 1975
Environmental Protection. Agency
Hearings Office, HE 118, Region. IX
100 California Street
San Francisco, California 94111'
Gentlemen: '
I have long been a supporter of the La,-
guna Oreenbelt, with the conservation of nat-
ural resources included strongly in its values;
and 1 "believe in the urgency of preserving the
Allso and Laguna Water sheds. .-n
For these reasons I \vish to express my '
view in favor of the alternative E?A proposal
on 'the Aliso Vvastev.'ater Manageiuent Project.
which would assure the preservation of. these.
watersheds, would include smaller, dispersed
treatment plants in place of the formerly-
proposed . single large treatment plant., and
would place emphasis upon agricultural irri-
gation' and a clear stream s.ya.t.em^. flowing to
the sea.
Thank you for adding my letter to those
filed in the formal hearings (to take place
March 25) if it is at all possible to do so.
Yours very truly,
Helen F. Brockmeier
9-211
-------
1355 Terrace rfay
Lnguna neach, California 92651
frarch 16, 1975
iii'A, Hearings Office
Ilti 118, Region IX
100 California Street
oan if'rancisco, California .94111
Gentlemen:
The Aliso and Lsguna Canyon Watersheds will go on the market next
week. Unless sufficient support for the KFA propose 1 is shown, the basic
and residual water supply of these lynds will undoubtedly be destroyed.
I am writing to ask you to urge the Aliso wastewater Management i'rogect
to support the preservation of our dwindling natural resources.
Maintaining the present condition of these immediate watersheds of
the Laguna Greenteelt Area is vital. The situation will be made much worse
by construction in Aliso of an enormous 3/4 mile long treatment plant
with its costly outf .-• 11 system. Current levels of oollutents in our coastal
waters necessitates plcns for clear stream systems flowing to the ocean.
Possible agricultural irrigation with wnsteweter products represents the
kind of positive direction we must pursue in our struggle to preserve
rather than destroy ourselves. An equj.lly basic concern in this struggle
worth mentioning rngy be the increasingly rare opportunity of on investment
thc'.t would further the preservation of the beauty that this land affords
us in open space.
It seems to me that construction of smaller and more dispersed
treatment plants would assure adequate conservation of the Laguna and Aliso
water resource.
Very truely jours,
John N. Daniel
9-212
-------
f
f
c_n
-------
dfas%
"*•
9-214
-------
s? - /•?-—. // v •—T~~/'- - XX/7
^^^?-x^^r-^-N J^^€ ^t-
-^ ^C^zft^-*/
C/^-C-x^
fr^s^y^-t^(
9-215
-------
-flit
"
nA****
9-
^^w*-^ sCl*^,
9-216
-------
BETTY HECKEl
290 Dolphin Way
Uguna B..ch, CA 92*51
/- 1 i
3-19-7 ?
;?e:;eral Environmental Protection
B Office HE 118, Kepi on IX
100 California St.
San Francisco CA 94111
Gentlemen.
The Alioao Wastewnter Management intend^ to build p tic- i cot
plant 3/4 mile long in the Alirac Canyon,with the treM-3 v\nter
fcing i ^to the ocean.
I vvisb to. object to tbig' projectrb cau;: e it v.oul; i- locricj
• i f) the Alisae and Laguna watersbeds,witb . tbeir .^r-i.-'ic ?n3
residual water supply, .. . •'. ,,.'......, P,..v
. .' the treated'water, would go into tbe' oce.an,f;,;.Auc^ Y.ilT
pollute tbe ocean, ,,..' r.1.., ;•'
tbe treated water is needed for irripation,
if not for irrigation-, i t sbould go >rck to r . . icultui tf i
l&nd,becaUfee it comes rfiilee from Colornt^Pf^o.' \-> ulcj It-
used over "fipaioj Toi^'A
there should be. small treatm6oti.plao:ts s^at'l; ~. i~d r-;rcur.c'f
to ;se<>ure irrigation in tbe c'o-ufttry floe* " J'-
• . -:'•'• • .; '. •"; HC'
I wipb-t.-p Soptiorli tbe FPA prep'oeal, thr, t e;?,n- ^.:: rrbO'c^ (t be
reservation of tbe watershed areas '-ptt^ 'prevcn'f-"' 't'^ve- encnrour
treatment nlant in Aliso with an outfall into tbe ocean.
U f(
9-217
-------
BETTY HECKEL f) 4 7
290 Dolphin Way
Laguna Beach. Co. 92651 '
U. St. Environmental Protection Ageo^ 7 II 57 AiM7r
Region IX J Nn 'J
100 California St.
Sao Praocisco CA
Dear Mr.de Palco Jr.
Tbaok you for the most inter sting environmental impact
statement,wbicb I read very careful and attended one bearing
here as well.
May I suggest, to build several small plants instead
of tbe planned giant plant 3/4 mile long in Aliso Canyon.
Tbe small plants could accomodate tbe surrounding agricultur-
al areas better by irrigating tbf1 surrounding acres witb
tbe reclaimed water,insteadvlending it off into tbe ocean.
Tbis kind of operation will be higher money wise,yet
saving tbe ocen from runoff water and irrigate agricultural
land sbould be more important to be considered.
By all means I wish to object strongly against tbe
location of tbe giant plant* if really approved, in tbe
Aliso Canyon. Tbe Aliso canyon,tbe moot scenic valley
in Orange County, is part of a greenbelt corridor, wbicb is
supposed to be connected witb tbe Cleveland Forest. How
can such marvelous plan be accomplished, when a 22 acres
plant 3/4 of a mile oog will be located io tbe proposed
greenbelt area ?
Very truly
-~"
9-218
-------
BETTY HECK&
290 Dolphta Way
Laguno Beach. Co. 9265l
U.3.r;'nvironmeotal Protection Agency
Attn: Hearings Office
HE 118, Region IX, AO CLERK
100 California St. CLERK
Sao Francisco CA 94111 APR g 1975
REGION DC
Dear Agency members.
Re: Waste Watt r Plant in Aliso Creek,Scutb Ir-
After another hepring before tbe AWtdA Board of directors
I wisb to object rr.ore strongly against tbe location
of tbis plant 3/4 of a mile long
in tbe greenbelt area, which will be connected
wit'1 tbe Cleveland Forest ,accorfli ng to tbe General FIFO.
The existing Golf Course is in aanger, becau1 e a
8(:rvice road bas to be built around or tbrour.b the
Gblf Course.
Tbe slugtfe murt be bauled awa.y daily from Fei t-i 1 iiser
plants or be- brought to tbe dump by 20 ton trucks,
between 3-10 times a c'ay.
Tbe County of Orange Environmental Management Aftncy in
Santa Ana bad 7 other sites , f.i.Salt Creek,sue^er-- ted,
wbicb seem mere suitable.
9-219
-------
r'LN'TEK
fttru
30
9-220
-------
ft 81
9-221
-------
SL,
1^' *
MAR 19 1975
9-222
-------
RAY M. MOOSE, M.D.
783N VIA LOS ALTOS
LACUNA HILLS, CALIFORNIA 92653
3/16/75.
To: The Federal EPA,
San Francisco, Ca. Re:
The EPA Hearings on Aliso Wastewter
Management Project, March 25th,
Dear Sirs:
We the undersigned, seeing the ever increasing need
for conserving the resources in our county, urge you to:
!• Support the Laguna Qreenbelt in its far sighted con-
servation efforts, specifically the preservation of two vital
immediate watersheds, the Aliso and Laguna Watersheds.
2. Support the EPA proposal that can assure the above and pre-<
vent the enormous treatment plant (3/U mile long)' in Aliso and
the costly outfall system.
smaller
3« Support the EPA proposal that can assure/and dispersed plants,
accent on agricultural irrigation and a clear stream system flowing
to the oceon.
Signed:
9-22?
-------
:^T :V r;.p-&
WILLIAM ROBERT SUDDABY ^c J "~5 * '£
128 CEDAR WAY COMM CtNTtR
LACUNA BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92681
.7 IU29W75
April 1, 1975
'Environmental Protection Agency
1000 California Street
San Francisco, California
Dear Members:
I strongly support Alternate Plan 1A for
the All so Canyon sewage plant. It is an area
of much natural beauty in my community to be
valued and cared for in the greatest degree
possible.
Most sincerely,
9-224
-------
MRS. R. M. THOMPSON
3IZ5I BROOKS ST.
SOUTH LACUNA, CALIF.
92677
#£=-//?.
/ Xf
r'i c '.: •• •'.'> \ i X.
COVtt Crlf
24 3 joPM1 75
/o
9-225
-------
~z£«- _J
•C^Lto ^TK^G-i'
^_4^o /ZfL-£~ <:*->••.
ix
x^1
>* -T^L*^. -
t.-*^- <2
c7 i/
-^ <^--
, ^_
9-226
-------
MRS. GERALD A. WOODS
137 C AVEN1DA MAJORCA
LACUNA HILLS, CALIF. 92633
/112
< ('
/x
RECEIVED
REGIONAL HEARING CLERK
MAR 2 0 1975
REGION IX
&&L
oL<^ fr^fi*^^
,;?—-/
f ^*~ j^=*- —^ r- / ',
^feLL^-J^^
^ 4!—C' ^^^^ /^
UA\>bi~Ir
&
(&~t
dE=
i^x^^ >^^^
1- , izJ&<£*«.* a~k-
^^i^JlAMvU^l^ C*
9-227
-------
-------
BIBLIOGRAPHY
GENERAL
Aliso Water Management Agency Strategy Report, 1973.
Aliso Water Management Agency, 1972. Transcript of Hearing held October
11, 1972.
_, December 27, 1973. Environmental Opportunities Workshop
Public Hearing Transcript.
_, March 26, 1974. Public Hearing Transcript, City of Laguna
Beach Council Chambers.
, April 23, 1974. Public Hearing Transcript.
_, May 7, 1974. Board of Directors Adjourned meeting and Public
Hearing.
Allen, C.R. et al, 1965. Relationship between Seismicity and Geologic
Structure in the Southern California Region. Bull. Seismological
Society America, Vol. 55.
Applied Soil Engineering, 1963. Geologic Reconnaissance Bear Brand
Property (Job A63908).
"A Traveler's Guide to Historical Sites on the Irvine Ranch, Northern
Half," The San Joaquin Gazette, 1919.
Bank of America. Focus on Orange County.
Boyle Engineering, 1972. Aliso Water Management Agency Project Report.
, 1968. Engineering Plan and Report on Revised Plan of Works
of Irrigation, Distribution, Pumping and Storage Facilities for
Moulton-Niguel Water District No. 1 (Water).
, 1972. Engineering Plan and Report on Revised Plan of Works
of Sewage Collection, Treatment, and Disposal Facilities for Moultoni.
Niguel Water District No. 1A (Sewer).
_, 1974. Engineering Plan and Report on Revised Plan of Works
of Sewage Collection, Treatment, and Disposal Facilities for Improve-
ment District No. 1A (Sewer) for Moulton-Niguel Water District.
, 1972. Engineering Plan and Report on Revised Plan of Works
of Sewage Treatment and Disposal Facilities for Moulton-Niguel Water
District No. 3A (Sewer).
, 1972. Engineering Plan and Report on Seasonal Water Storage
Facilities for Moulton-Niguel Water District No. 4 (Water).
_, 1972. Engineering Plan and Report on Water Distribution,
Pumping and Storage Facilities for Moulton-Niguel Water District
Improvement Districts No. 4-1, 4-2, and 4-3 (Water).
10-1
-------
, 1972. Engineering Plan and Report on Plan of Works of Sewage
Disposal Facilities for Moulton-Niguel Water District No. 4A (Sewer).
, 1972. Engineering Plan and Report on Plan of Works of Sewage
Collection, Treatment, and Disposal Facilities for Moulton-Niguel
Water Districts Nos. 4A-1, 4A-2, and 4A-3 (Sewer).
, 1974. Engineering Plan and Report on Revised Plan of Works
of Sewage Collection, Treatment and Disposal Facilities Improvement
Distriqt No. 5A (Sewer).
, 1972. Engineering Plan and Report on Plan of Works of Sewage
Collection, Treatment and Disposal Facilities for Moulton-Niguel
Water District Improvement District No. 5A (Sewage).
, 1972. Engineering Plan and Report on Water Distribution,
Pumping, Local Storage, and Seasonal Storage Facilities for Moulton-
Niguel Water District Improvement District No. 5 (Water).
, 1973. Feasibility Report for Water Quality Improvement
Projects, Santiago Lateral Service Area.
, 1963. Preliminary Sewerage Survey for the El Toro, Los
Alisos and Moulton-Niguel Water Districts.
Brown and Caldwell, 1973. Water Reclamation Feasibility Study and Prepara^
tion of Design Guidelines for Moulton-Niguel Water District.
California Air Resources Board, 1970. California Air Quality Data, Vol.
II, No. 5.
,. 1973. California Air Quality Data, Vol. V, No. 1, 2, 3.
• , 1973. New Vehicle Standard Summary.
, 1971. South Coast Basin Implementation Plan.
California Coastal Zone Conservation Commission, 1975. Preliminary
Coastal Plan.
.California Department of Employment, County Industrial Registrar, Orange
County Real Estate in 1967.
California Division of Highways, 1972. Air Quality Manual - Motor Vehicle
Emission Factors for Estimates of Highway Impact on Air Quality.
California Department of Human Resources Development, 1973. Employment
by Industry for Census Tracts and Statistical Areas in Orange County
(INCOM Report 111-71).
, 1973. Employment by Industry for Cities in Orange County
(INCOM Report 11-71).
10-2
-------
, 1970. Estimated Numbers of Wage and Salary Workers in Non-
Agricultural Establishments, by Industry, Anaheim-Santa Ana-Garden
Grove (1950-1967).
California Division of Finance. Population Research Unit, 1974. Population
Estimates of California Counties, 1971-1974.
California Department of Water Resources, 1964. Crustal Strain and
Fault Movement investigation: California Department of Water Re-
sources. Bull. 116-2.
California Division of Mines and Geology, 1973. Gee-environmental Maps
of Orange County, California * Preliminary Report 15.
_, 1974. Geology and Engineering Geologic Aspects of the San
Juan Capistrano Quadrangle, Orange County, California, Special
Report 112.
...' , 1974. Geology of the South Half of the El Toro Quadrangle,
Orange County, California. Special Report 110.
, 1973. Urban Geology. The Resources Agency, Bulletin 198.
California Employment Development Department, Employment Data and Research,
.-• ..1974. Area Manpower and Review-Midyear Summary (Anaheim-Garden
Grove-Santa Ana Statistical Region).
_, 1974i Orange County Labor Market Bulletin (issued monthly).
,,1974. Orange County Manpower. 1972-1975.
, 1974. Report of Major Employment Opportunities, Orange
County (issued monthly).
, 1974. Wage and Salary Workers in Non-Agricultural Establishments,
by Industry. Anaheim-Santa Ana-Garden Grove Metropolitan Area:
Pt. A: 1966-1973.
California Regional Water Quality Control Board, San Diego Region, 1969.
Addendum No. 2 to Resolution 67-R33.
, 1970. Addendum No. 3 to Resolution 67-R33.
, 1967. Resolution 67-R-33.
California Regional Water Quality Control Board, San Diego Region, 1972.
Resolution Concerning the Need for Immediate Faction for Planning
and Construction of Water Quality Control Facilities for the Aliso
Creek and Laguna Creek Drainage Basins.
10-3
-------
_, 1974. Waste Discharge Requirements for Aliso Water Manage-
ment Agency Ocean Outfall, Order No. 74-72.
,1974. Waste Discharge Requirements for the City of Laguna
Beach Ocean Outfall, Order No. 74-98.
_, 1974. Waste Discharge Requirements for South Laguna Sanitary
District Ocean Outfall.
California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Santa Ana Region, 1973.
Rossmoor Sanitation, Inc., Cease and Desist Hearing - Order No.
74-160.
California Regional Water Quality Control Board, 1974. Waste Discharge
Requirements for Rossmoor Sanitation, Inc., Order No. 74-5.
California State Resources Agency of California, 1973. Guidelines for
the Preparation and Evaluation of Environmental Impact Reports
Under the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970.
, 1965. An Investigation of the Fate of Organic and Inorganic
Wastes Discharged into the Marine Environment and their Effects
on Biological Productivity.
, 1972. Guidelines for Technical Reports and Monitoring Programs.
, Notice of Proposed Designation of Areas of Special Biological
Significance by the State Water Resources Control Board and Notice
of Public Hearing.
_, 1971. Water Quality Control Plan (Interim) San Diego, Basin
9.
, 1971. Water Quality Control Plan (Interim) Santa Ana River,
Basin 8.
, 1972. Water Quality Control Plan for Ocean Waters of California,
Chapman, Phillips, Brandt, Reddick and Associates, Inc., 1974. General
Plan for Glenn Ranch.
, 1974. General Plan for Rancho de Los Alisos.
_, 1974. General Plan for Rancho Serrano.
_, 1974. General Plan for Moulton Ranch.
, 1974. Moulton Ranch Noise Element; Irvine, California.
City of Irvine, 1973. Census Enumeration - Final Report.
, 1973. Community Profile - Spring 1973.
10-4
-------
, 1974. Housing Implementation Plan - Phase One.
, 1973. Employee Survey of Irvine Industrial Complex West.
Council on Environmental Quality, 1974. Interceptor Sewers and Suburban
Sprawl.
County of Orange, 1973. Orange County Local Park Code.
Danielian, Moon, Sampieri and Ilg, 1973. Orange County General Plan,
Capistrano Valley Area 1983 Land Use Element.
Don Owen Associates, 1974. Project Report, Aliso Water Management Agency
Regional Wastewater Treatment Facilities.
Fay, E. C., 1972. Southern California's Deteriorating Marine Environ-
ment, Center for California Public Affairs.
Fay, Rimmon C., 1972. An Evaluation of the Health of the Benthic Biota
of Ventura, Los Angeles and Orange Counties prepared for the Southern
California Association of Governments.
Federal Home Loan Mortgage Bank, 1964-1974. Monthly Newsletter.
Federal Highway Administration, 1972. Noise Standard and Procedures
for Implementing Section 109. Title 23, U.S.C.
Galloway, W. S., W. E. Clark, and J. S. Kerrick, 1969. Highway Noise"-
Measurement, Simulation and Mixed Reactions. Highway Research
. Board,. National Cooperative Highway Research Progress Report 78.
Geolabs-California, Inc., 1974. Preliminary Grading Plan Review #1,
Golf Course Hill, Laguna Niguel, Orange County, California.
, 1973. Soil Engineering and Geological Planning Report for
Golf Course Hill, Laguna Niguel, Orange County, California.
Highway Resources Board, 1971. "Highway Noise, A Design Guide for Highway
Engineers," National Cooperative Highway Research Program Report
117.
Hinton, L., 1971. Seashore Life of Southern California. University
of California Press, Berkeley.
Inman, Douglas L. and Richard Baush, 1973. The Coastal Challenge.
Inter-Company Correspondence from Jim Saivar to Don McMullen, May 17,
1974. Avco Community Developers Inc. Subject: Laguna Niguel Buyers
Profiles, April-December, 1973.
J. D. Drachman Associates, June 1974. East Irvine Transportation Study.
10-5
-------
Johns, R. H., 1973. A Profile of Southern California Geology, and Seis-
micity of Los Angeles Basin, A.A.P.G. Annual Meeting Guide Book.
Jones and Stokes, 1974. Alternative Mitigation Plans to Reduce Poten-
tial Adverse Air Quality impacts in the AWMA area.
Los Angeles County Air Pollution Control District, 1973. Emission Factors
for the Average Gasoline Powered Motor Vehicle in Los Angeles.
Lowry & Associates and Engineering Science, Inc., 1966. Wastewater
Disposal and Reclamation for the County of Orange, California.
1966-2000.
Lowry & Associates, 1974. Amendment to Environmental Impact Assessment
of SERRA Water Disposal, Orange County, California.
, 1974. Project Report for Waste Water Disposal System for
SERRA (3 volumes).
Magoon, Orville, 1973. Use of Earth Resources Technology Satellite
(ERTS-I) in Coastal Studies.
Mearns, A. J., M. J. Allen and M. J. Sherwood, 1973. An Otter Trawl
Survey of Central Orange County Coast, Southern California Coastal
Water Res. Project Tech. Report TM 200.
Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, 1972. Report for
the Fiscal Year July 1, 1971 - July 30, 1972.
Miller, Wade E., Pleistocene Vertebrates of the Los Angeles Basin and
Vicinity (Exclusive of Rancho La Brea), Bull, of the L.A.C.M. of
Nat. Hist. Science No. 10.
Mission Viejo Employment Location Analysis, Mission Viejo Company.
Mission Viejo Homebuyers Survey; Advertising and Buyer Survey, to December
1970.
Moulton-Niguel Water District, 1974. Amended Rules and Regulations of
Moulton-Niguel Water District for Water and Sewer Service.
National Academy of Sciences, Waste Management Concepts for the Coastal
Zone.
North, W. F., 1972. A Marine Biological Survey of Central Orange County
Near Three Sewage Outfalls.
Orange County Administrative Center, Forecast and Analysis, 1974. The
INCOM Project: Employment by Industry for Sub-Sectors of Orange
County.
10-6
-------
Orange County Air Pollution Control; District, 1973. Profile of Air
Pollution Control, 1972.
Orange County Department of Building and Safety, Summary of Building
Activity in the Unincorporated Areas of Orange County (issued monthly).
Orange County Noise Ordinance No. 2700 and No. 2715, November 13, 1973.
Orange County Planning Commission, October 11, 1972. Transcript of
Proceedings.
Orange County Planning Department, 1969. Historical Landmarks, Orange.
County.
, 1972. Interim Open Space and Conservation Elements of the
Orange County General Plan.
, 1968. Land Use Issues in Orange County.
, 1973. Orange County General Plan 1983 - Land Use Element
(Interim).
, 1973. Orange County General Plan (Map).
__, 1972. Orange County Progress Report. Vols 3-11.
Orange County Planning Department, People, Policy and Growth: A New
Direction? Orange County Population Growth Policy and Development .
Strategy Study, Summary Report Phases 3 and 4.
. 1973. State of the County.
_, 1973. The Proposed Master Plan of Riding and Hiking Trails
for Orange County.
, 1973. The Scenic Highways Element of the Orange County
General Plan.
Orange County Transit District, 1972. Special Bus Needs Study.
, 1974. Dial-A-Ride Analysis.
, 1974. South County Study.
. Alternative Transit Corridor Study.
Osborne, H. G., Chief Engineer, O.C.F.C.D.A., 1968. "Urban Problems in
Maintaining the Physical Environment, Water Pollution Control Back-
ground, Orange County, California" unpublished data.
10-7
-------
Public Utilities Commission, 1973. California Gas Report.
Pollution Research and Control Corporation, 1972. Air Quality Study
Aliso Water Management Agency Area.
Periera, William L. and Associates, 1969. Master Concept Plan, Moulton
Ranch.
Public Comments on 'Aliso Water Management Agency Enviornmental Report
Study1 1973.
Powell, W.R., 1974. Inventory of Rare and Endangered Vascular Plants
of California. California Native Plant Society, Special Publication
No. 1.
Real Estate Corporation, 1974. Costs of Sprawl. Environmental Protection
Agency.
Reish, D.J., 1972. Marine Life of Southern California. Long Beach,
California.
Ricketts, E. F., Jr., Calvin and J. W. Hedgpeth, 1970. Between Pacific
Tides. Stanford, California. 4th Ed.
Round, F.E., 1972. The Biology of Algae, Edward Arnold. London, 2nd
Ed.
Saddleback Area Coordinating Council and the University of California,
Irvine, 1974. Aliso Creek - Forest to the Sea.
Security Pacific Bank, Research Department;. A Community Guide to Orange
County.
, Estimated Population Increase in Orange County, 1939-1974.
, Homebuilding in Orange County; Number of New Housing Units
Authorized for Construction in Orange County, 1946-1974.
, Monthly Construction Summary.
, Monthly Summary of Business Conditions in Southern California.
_, Quarterly Economic Report.
, 1970. The Southern California Report: A Study of Growth
and Economic Stature.
Seed, H. B. and I. M. Idriss, 1969. "Influence of Soil Conditions on
Ground Motions During Earthquakes," Jour, of Soil Mech. and Found.
Div., ASCE, Vol. 95.
10-8
-------
Seed, H. B., I. M. Idriss, and F. W. Keifer, 1968. "Characteristics
of Rock Motions During Earthquakes," Jour, of Soil Mech. and Found.
Div., ASCE, Vol. 95.
Sharp, R. P., 1972. Geology, Field Guide to Southern California. Wm.
C. Brown Company Publishers, Dubuque, Iowa.
Southern California Edison, 1974. Southeastern Division and Orange
County Land Use Study.
South Coast Regional Commission, 1974. Marine Environment Element.
, 1974. Preliminary Intensity of Development Element.
, 1975. Preliminary Powers, Funding and Government Element.
, 1974. Recreation Element for the South Coast Region.
, 1974. The Coastal Land Environment in the South Coast Region.
, 1974. The Energy Element for the South Coast Region.
, 1974. The Geology Element for the South Coast Region.
Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), 1974. SCAG Devel-
opment Guide: Growth Forecast Refinement; Progress Report 74-2.
Transcript of a Meeting Between AWMA, U.S. CPA and SWRCB on May 2, 1974.
U.S. Census, 1950, 1960, 1970.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX, 1973. Technical Report
No. EPA-909/9-73-001; "The Aliso Water Management Agency Study;
An Investigation of Selected Sewage Treatment Facilities in Orange
County."
U.S. EPA. Project Files of Official Communications on AWMA project
(3 volumes).
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1973. Compilation of Air Pollutant
Emission Factors.
_, 1973. Supplement No. 1 for Compilation of Air Pollutant
Emission Factors.
United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservaton Service, 1966.
Report and General Soil Map, Orange County, California. Personnel
of Soil Conservation Service, Tustin, California.
United States Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, Environmental Data Service, Climatological Data,
Summary 1972.
10-9
-------
United States Department of the Interior, 1972. United States Energy,
a Summary Review.
United States Library of Congress, 1970. The Economy, Energy and the
Environment, Joint Economic Committee, Congress of the United States,
U.S. Government Printing Office.
United California Bank, "1975 Forecast"
Urban Mass Transportation Administration, 1974. Characteristics of
Urban Transportation Systems. •
VTN, Inc., 1968. Land Use Plan and Cost Analysis Study of the Torrey
Webb Property.
Water Resources Engineers, 1973. Newport Bay Recommended Water Quality
Management Plan.
AIR QUALITY
American Automobile Association. Planning Criteria for Bikeways.
California State Department of Transportation, 1971. 1967 Origin and
• ••• • Destinations Survey. LARTS Base Year Report.
California State Resources Agency, 1972. Air Pollution Control in Cali-
fornia, 1971 Annual Report.
, 1972. Motor Vehicles Emission Data. Unpublished.
"Data Pertaining to Present Characteristics of the Central Areas of
Major Cities." Highway Research News. July 1973.
Hazucha, Milan, M.D., et al, September 1973. "Pulmonary Function in
Man After Short-Term Exposure to Ozone." Arch Environ Health,
Vol. 27.
Jacobs, Cecil F. M.D., MPH, and Bettye Ann Langdoc, AB, September 1972.
"Cardiovascular Deaths and Air Pollution in Charleston* S.C."
Health Services Report.
Levinson, H.S., and F. H. Wynn, 1962. Some Aspects of Future Transportation
in Urban Areas.
National Committee on Urban Growth Policy, 1969. The New City. Praeger
Publishers, New York.
Orange County Transit District, 1974. County-Wide Research Study.
Public Law 91-608, 91st Congress, H. R. 19436, December 31, 1970. Title
VII, Part B, Section D.
10-10
-------
U.S. EPA, 1973. Compilation of Air Pollution Emission Factors.
, 1973. Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors. Second
Edition, Publication No. AP-42.
Wilbur Smith and Associates, 1961. Future Highways and Urban Growth.
ARCHAEOLOGY
Archaeological Research, Inc., 1973. A Final Report on the Scientific
Resources Survey for the Moulton Ranch.
Irwin, Charles N., 1974. Laguna Canyon Archaeological Survey.
Leonard, N. Nelson, 1973. Archaeological Reconnaissance of the Rancho
San Juan Capistrano Development.
, 1974. Archaeological Resources of Proposed Development
West of San Juan Capistrano (a parcel of Bear Brand properties).
_, 1974. An Archaeological Reconnaissance of Parcel 2 of the
Bear Brand Ranch.
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Abrams, Leroy and Roxana S. Ferris, 1960. Illustrated Flora of the
Pacific States. Vol. IV. Stanford University Press. Stanford,
California.
American Ornithologist's Union, 1957. Check-List of North American
Birds, 5th ed. Baltimore, Maryland. American Ornithologist's
Union.
Bakker, E., 1972. An Island Called California. University of California
Press, Berkeley, California.
Brockman, C.F., 1968. Trees of North America. Golden Press, New York.
Brown, V., and G. Lawrence, 1965. The California Wildlife Regions.
Naturegraph Publishers, Healdsburg, California.
Brown, V., H. Weston and J. Buzzell, 1973. Handbook of California Birds.
Naturegraph Publishers, Healdsburg, California.
Burt, W.H., 1964. A Field Guide to the Mammals. Houghton Miff!in Company,
Boston Massachusetts.
California Resources Agency, 1972. At the Crossroads. Fish and Game
Commission, Department of Fish and Game. Sacramento, California.
10-11
-------
Collins, B.J., 1973. Key to Coastal and Chaparral Flowering Plants of
Southern California. California State University Foundation, North-
ridge, California.
Dawson, E.Y., 1971. The Cacti of California. University of California
.Press, Berkeley, California.
Grilles, S. J., 1971. Ferns and Fern Allies of California. University
of California Press. Berkeley, California.
Head, W. S., 1972. The California Chaparral on Elfin Forest. Naturegraph
Publishers, Healdsburg, California.
Hoffman, R., 1955. Birds of the Pacific States. Houghton Mifflin Company.
Boston Massachusetts.
Hutchinson, J., 1967. Key to the Families of Flowering Plants of the
World. Clarenden Press, Oxford.
Ingles, L.F., 1965. Mammals of the Pacific States. Stanford University
Press. Stanford, California.
Jaeger, E. C. and A. C. Smith, 1971. Introduction to the Natural History
of Southern California. University of California Press, Berkeley,
California.
Martin, A. C., H. S. Zim, and A. L. Nelson, 1951. American Wildlife
and Plants, A Guide to Wildlife Food Habits. Dover Publications,
Inc. New York.
Martin, Alexander C. 1972. Weeds. Golden Press. New York.
Munz, P. A., 1972. California Spring Wildflowers. University of California
Press, Berkeley, California.
Munz, P. A. and D. D. Keck, 1973. A California Flora with Supplement.
University of California Press, Berkeley, California.
Murie, 0. J., 1954. A Field Guide to Animal Tracks. Houghton Mifflin
Company, Boston, Massachusetts.
Petersen, R. T., A Field Guide to Western Birds. Houghton Mifflin Com-
pany, Boston Massachusetts.
Petersen, P. V., 1970. Native Trees of Southern California. University
of California Press, Berkeley, California.
Raven, P. H., 1970. Native Shrubs of Southern California. University
of California Press, Berkeley, California.
10-12
-------
Robbins, C. S., B. Brunn, and H. S. Zim, 1966. Birds of North America.
Golden Press, New York.
Santa Barbara Botanic Gardens, 1969. Native Plants for Southern California
Gardens. Leaflets of the Santa Barbara Botanic Garden, Vol. 1,
No. 12.
Smith, R. L., 1966. Ecology and Field Biology. Harper and Row, Publishers,
New York.
Stebbins, R. C., 1966. A Field Guide for Western Reptiles and Amphibians.
Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston, Massachusetts.
U.'S. Department of the Interior, 1973. Threatened Wildlife of the
United States. Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife, Washington,
D. C.
, Conservation Bulletin No. 1, Fish and Wildlife Service,
Attracting and Feeding Birds.
Zim, H. S. and A. C. Martin, 1950. Flowers. Golden Press, New York.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORTS
Boyle Engineering, 1975. Draft EIR for Zone Change 73-18, Dana Point.
, 1973. Draft EIR for South Laguna Sanitary District Beach
Interceptor Sewers.
, 1973. Draft EIR for South Laguna Sanitary Master Plan.
Chapman Phillips Brandt Reddick, 1974. Draft EIR for Northern El Toro
Planning Reserves.
Community Science Technology Inc., 1973. Draft EIR for Laguna Hills
Business Center. ..
Culp/Wesner/Cult, 1974. Draft EIR for the Irvine Lake Pipeline and
Future Treatment Facilities.
, 1975. Draft EIR for Construction of Regional Wastewater
FacTRties for AWMA.
Environmental Data Research, 1974. Draft EIR for Glenn Ranch.
Envista, 1974. Draft EIR for Tract 8780.
Envista, 1974. Final EIR on Irvine Industrial Complex-East.
J. L. Webb Planning, 1975. Draft EIR for Sea Village, South Laguna Zone
Change.
10-13
-------
Jones and Stokes Asso., Inc., 1974. Final EIR for ATiso Water Management
Agency Regional Wastewater Treatment Project.
Jones and Stokes Asso.,,.Inc.. and Boyle Engineering, 1973. Draft EIR
for Aliso Water Management Agency.
_, 1972. Aliso Water Management Agency Environmental Support
Study.
Marsh, Gordon and Patrick O'Brien, 1974. Environmental Impact on the
Plants and Animals of Laguna Canyon by the Construction of Flood
Control Alternatives.
Newport Investments, Inc., 1973. Sycamore Hills Planned Community District
Regulations and Draft EIR.
Orange County Environmental Management Agency, 1975. EIR on Flood Control
Alternatives in Laguna Canyon.
Richard Tevig and Assoc., 1973. Draft EIR for SERRA Waste Water Disposal.
Toups Inc., 1974. Draft EIR for Colinas de Capistrano.
Ultrasystems, Inc., 1974. Draft EIr for Laguna-Niguel, Tracts 7885
and 7479.
, 1974. Draft EIR for Laguna-Niguel, Tract 7885.
_, 1974. Draft EIR for Laguna-Niguel Area B.
, 1974. Draft EIR for Laguna-Niguel Area G.
U.S. EPA, 1975. Draft Environmental Impact Statement, Southeast Regional
Reclamation Authority Ocean Outfall.
, Region II, 1974. Draft Environmental Impact Statement for
the Central Service of the Ocean County Sewerage Authority in Ocean
County, N.J.
, Region III, 1974. Draft Environmental Impact Statement;
Valley Forge Area Wastewater Treatment Facility, Chester County,
PA.
U.S. General Services Agency, 1974. Final EIR for the Proposed Occupancy
of the North American Rockwell Facility at Laguna NigueT, California.
VTN, Inc., 1973. Draft EIR for Laguna-Niguel, (2 volumes).
, 1973. Draft EIR for Laguna-Niguel, Area A.
, 1973. Draft EIR for Laguna-Niguel, Area E.
10-14
-------
,1975. Draft EIR for a Zone Change at Moulton Parkway and
La Paz Roa d.
Westec Services, Inc/James A. Roberts Assoc., 1974. Final EIR for Irvine
Center.
GEOLOGY AND PALEONTOLOGY
Arnbld',' R., 1906. Tertiary and Quaternary Pectens of California. U.S.G.S,
Prof. Paper 47.
Downs, Tl, 1955. "A Fossil Sea Lion from the Miocene of the San Joaquin
Hills, Orange County, California." Bull. So. Calif. Acad. Sci.
,1968. Fossil Vertebrates of Southern California. Univ. .
Calif. Press, Berkeley and Los Angeles.
Howard, H., 1968. Tertiary Birds from Laguna Hills, Orange County,"
•''"Science, Los Angeles Co. Museum, No. 142.
Ingle, J. C., 1962. Paleoecology, Sedimentation, and Structural History
of the Late Tertiary Capistrano Embayment, Orange.County, California.
unpubl. Master's Thesis, Univ. Southern California.
Klemme, N., and L. Fife, 1973. "Geology of the Upper Aliso Creek Area," v:
Guidebook to the Tertiary of Eastern Orange and Los Angeles Counties,
California. South Coast Geol. Soc'. pp. 41-46;
Loel, W. and W. H. Corey, 1932. The Vaqueros Formation, Lower Miocene
of California. Univ. Calif. Press, Berkeley.
Merriam, C. W., 1941, "Fossil Turritellas from the Pacific Coast Region
of North America," Bull, of Dept. Geol. Sci., Univ. of California,'
Vol. 26, No. 1, pp. -214.
Miller, W; E., 1971. "Pleistocene Vertebrates of the Los Angeles Basin
and Vicinity (Exclusive of Rancho La Brea)," Bull, of the L.A.C.M.
of .Nat. Hist. & Science, No. 10.
Morton, P. K., V. Miller and D. L. Fife, 1973. Preliminary Report,
Geo-environment of Orange County, California. Cal. Div. Mines
and Geol., Spec. Report 15. .
, Geology of Orange County, California. Cal. Div. Mines and
Geol.
Vedder, J. G., R. F. Yerkes and J. E. Schoellhamer, 1957. Geologic
Map of the San Joaquin Hills - San Juan Capistrano Area, Orange
County, California. U.S.G.S: Oil and Gas Invest., Map OM-193.
10-15
-------
Woodford, A. 0., 1970. Geologic Guidebook: Southeastern Rim of the
Los Angeles Basin, Orange County, California, Newport Lagoon - San
Joaquin Hills, Santa Ana Mountains, AAPG SEPM BEG Pacific Section
Field Trip.
, 1972. Geologic Guidebook to the Northern Peninsular Ranges,
Orange and Riverside Counties, California. National Association
of Geology Teachers and South Coast Geological Society.
, 1954. "Geology of Southern California." Historical Geology,
California Division of Mines.
, 1925. "The San Onofre Breccia." Geol. Sci., Univ. Calif.,
VbTn5, No. 7.
Woodring, W. P. and W. P. Popenoe, 1945. Paleocene and Eocene Stratigraphy
of Northwestern Santa Ana Mountains, Orange County, California.
U.S.G.S. Oil and Gas Invest. Prelim. Chart 12.
Yerkes, R. F., et al, 1965. Geology of the Los Angeles Basin, California -
An Introduction. U.S.G.S. Prof. Paper 420-A.
HYDROLOGY
Boyle Engineering and Lowry & Associates, July 1972. Study of Ocean
Outfall Locations in Southeasterly Orange County.
California State Water Resources Control Board, San Diego Region, 1974.
Comprehensive Water Quality Control Plan for the San Diego Basin.
Feth, L. H., 1973. Water Facts and Figures for Planners and Managers.
Koebig & Koebig, Inc., 1961. Scope of Work for Comprehensive Conservation
Planning Project in the Aliso Watershed.
Orange County Harbors, Beaches, and Parks District, 1973. Silt Removal -
Upper Newport Bay.
Orange County Planning Department, 1971. A Plan for the Aliso Creek
Watershed.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1972. Flood Plain Information for San
Diego Creek and Peters Canyon Wash.
, 1973. Flood Plain Information for Aliso Creek.
, 1970. Flood Plain Information for San Juan Creek.
U.S. EPA, 1972. Guidelines for Erosion and Sediment Control Planning
and Implementation.
10-16
-------
VTN, 1971. Master Plan of Drainage for the Laguna-Niguel Area.
, 1973. Salt Creek Sedimentation Study.
OCEANOGRAPHY
Brooks, N.H., 1960. "Diffusion of a Sewage Effluent in an Ocean Current."
Proceedings, First International Conference on Waste Disposal in
the Environment. Permagon Press, N.Y.
Brown and Caldwell, 1974. Oceanographic Aspects of Aliso Creek Ocean
Outfall.
California State Resources Agency, 1969. Interim Report on the Study
of Beach Nourishment Along the Southern California Coastline.
Hyperion Engineers, 1957. Ocean Outfall Design.
Pearson, E. A., 1956. An Investigation of the Efficacy of Submarine
Outfall Disposal of Sewage and Digested Sludge. California State
Water Pollution Control Board Publication No. 14.
Rawn, Bowerman and Brooks, 1960. "Diffusers for Disposing of Sewage
in Sea Water." Journal of the Sanitary Engineering Division, American
Society of Civil Engineers.
10-17
-------
-------
APPENDIX A
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
PREPARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT STATEMENTS
-------
MONDAY, APRIL 14, 1975
WASHINGTON, D.C.
Volume 40 • Number 72
PART III
ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION
AGENCY
Preparation of Environmental
Impact Statements
Final Regulations
A-l
-------
16814
RUL1S AND REGULATIONS
Title 40—Protection of Environment
CHAPTER I—ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION AGENCY
[PEL 327-5]
PART 6—PREPARATION OF ENVIRON-
MENTAL IMPACT STATEMENTS
Final Regulation
The National Environment^ Policy
Act of 1969 (NEPA), implemented by
Executive Order 11514 of March 5, 1970,
and the Council on Environmental
Quality's (CEQ's) Guidelines of Au-
gust 1,1973, requires that all agencies of
the Federal Government prepare de-
tailed environmental impact statements
on proposals for legislation and other
major Federal actions significantly af-
fecting the quality of the human en-
vironment. NEPA requires that agencies
include in their decision-making process
an appropriate and careful consideration
of all environmental aspects of proposed
actions, an explanation of potential en-
vironmental effects of proposed actions
and their alternatives for public under-
standing, a discussion of ways to avoid
or minimize adverse effects of proposed
actions and a. discussion of how to re-
store or enhance environmental quality
as much as possible.
On January 17, 1973, the Environ-
mental Protection Agency (EPA) pub-
lished a new Part 6 in interim form in
the FEDERAL REGISTER (38 FR 1696), es-
tablishing EPA policy and procedures for
the identification and analysis of envi-
ronmental impacts and the preparation
of environmental impact ^statements
(EIS's) when significant impacts on the
environment are anticipated.
On July 17, 1974, EPA published a no-
tice of proposed rulemaking the FED-
ERAL REGISTER (39 FR 26254). The rule-
making provided detailed procedures- for
applying NEPA to EPA's nonregulatory
programs only. A separate notice of ad-
ministrative procedure published in the
October 21, 1974, FEDERAL REGISTER (39
FR 37419) gave EPA's procedures for
voluntarily preparing EIS's on certain
regulatory activities. EIS procedures for
another regulatory activity, issuing Na-
tional Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES) discharge permits to
new sources, will appear in 40 CFR 6.
Associated amendments to the NPDES
operating regulations, covering permits
to new sources, will appear in 40 CFR
125.
The proposed regulation on the prep-
aration of EIS's for nonregulatory pro-
grams was published for public review
and comment. EPA received comments
on this proposed regulation from envi-
ronmental groups; Federal, State and
local governmental agencies; industry;
and private individuals. As a result of
the comments received, the following
changes have been made:
(1) Coastal zones, wild and scenic
rivers, prime agricultural land and wild-
life habitat were included In the criteria
to be considered during the environmen-
tal review.
The Coastal Zone Management Act
and the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act are
Intended to protect these environmen-
tally sensitive areas; therefore, EPA
should consider the effects of its projects
on these areas. Protection of prime agri-
cultural lands and wildlife habitat has
become an Important concern as a re-
sult of the need to further increase food
production from domestic sources as well
as commercial harvesting of fish and
other wildlife resources and from the
continuing need to preserve the diversity
of natural resources for future genera-
tions.
(2) Consideration of the use of flood-
plains as.required by Executive Order
11296 was added to the environmental
review process.
Executive Order 11296 requires agen-
cies to consider project alternatives
which will preclude the uneconomic,
hazardous or unnecessary use of flood-
plains to minimize the exposure of fa-
cilities to potential flood damage, lessen
the need for future Federal expenditures
for flood protection and flood disaster
relief and preserve the unique and sig-
nificant public value of the fioodplain
as an environmental resource.
(3) Statutory definitions of coastal
zones and wild and scenic rivers were
added to § 6.214 (b).
These statutes define sensitive areas
and require states to designate areas
which must be protected.
(4) The review and comment period
for negative declarations was extended
from 15 days to 15 working days.
Requests for negative declarations and
comments on negative declarations are,
not acted on during weekends and on
holidays. In addition, mail requests often
take two or three days to reach the ap-
propriate office and several more days for
action and delivery of response. There-
fore, the new time frame for review and
response to a negative declaration Is
more realistic without adding too much
delay to a project.
(5) Requirements for more data in the
negative declaration to clarify the pro-
posed action were added in § 6.212(b).
Requiring a summary of the impacts
of a project and other data to support
the negative declaration in this docu-
ment improves its usefulness as a tool to
review the decision not to prepare a full
EIS on a project.
(6) The definitions of primary and
secondary impacts in § 6.304 were clari-
fied.
The definitions were made more spe-
cific, especially in the issue areas of in-
duced growth and growth rates, to reduce
subjectivity in deciding whether an im-
pact is primary or secondary.
(7) Procedures for EPA public hear-
ings in Subpart D were clarified.
Language was added to this subpart
to distinguish EPA public hearings from
applicant hearings required by statute or
regulation, such as the facilities plan
hearings.
(8) The discussion of retroactive ap-
plication (| 6.504) was clarified and
abbreviated.
The new language retains flexibility in
decision making for the Regional Admin-
istrator while eliminating the ambiguity
of the langauge in the interim regulation.
(9) The criteria for writing an EIS if
wetlands may be affected were modified
in § 6.510(b).
The new language still requires an EIS
on a project which will be located on
wetlands but limits the requirements for
an EIS on secondary wetland effects to
those which are significant and adverse.
(10) A more detailed explanation of
the data required in environmental as-
sessments (§ 6".512) was added.
Requiring more specific data in several
areas, including energy production .and
consumption as well as land use trends
and population projections, from the ap-
plicant will provide a more complete data
base for the environmental review. Doc-
umentation of the applicant's data will
allow EPA to evaluate the validity of this
data.
(11) Subpart F, Guidelines for Com-
pliance with NEPA In Research and De-
velopment Programs and Activities, was
revised.
ORD simplified this subpart by re-
moving the internal procedures and as-
signments! of responsibility for circula-
tion in internal memoranda. Only the
general application of this regulation to
ORD programs was retained.
(12) The discussions of responsibilities
and document distribution procedures
were moved to appendices attached to the
regulations.
These sections were removed from the
regulatory language to improve the read-
ability of the regulation and because
these discussions are more explanatory
and do not need to have the legal force
of regulatory language.
(13) Consideration of the Endangered
Species Act of 1973 was incorporated in-
to the regulation.
EPA recognizes its responsibility to as-
sist with Implementing legislation which
will help preserve or improve our natural
resources.
The major issues raised on this regula-
tion were on new and proposed criteria
for determining when to prepare an .EIS
and the retroactive application of the
criteria to projects started before July 1,
1975. I n addition to the new criteria1
which were added, CEQ requested the ad-
dition of several quantitative criteria for
which parameters have not been set.
These new criteria are being discussed
with CEQ and may be added to the regu-
lation at a future date: Changes in the
discussion of retroactive application of
the criteria are described in item 8 above.
EPA believes that Agency compliance
with the regulations of Part 6 will en-
hance the present quality of human life
without endangering the quality of the
natural environment for future genera-
tions.
Effective date: This regulation will be-
come effective April 14, 1975.
Dated: April 3, 1975.
RUSSELL E. TRAIN,
Administrator.
FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 40, NO. 72—MONDAY, APRIL 14, 1975
A-2
-------
RULES AND REGULATIONS
1681',
Subpart A—General
Sec.
6.100 Purpose and policy. '
6.102 Definitions.
6.104 Summary of procedures for Imple-
menting NEPA,
6.106 Applicability.
6.108 Completion of NEPA precedures be-
fore start of administrative action.
G.110 Responsibilities.
Subpart B—Procedures
6.200 Criteria for determining when to pre-
pare an environmental Impact state-
ment.
6.202 Environmental assessment.
6.204 Environmental review.
6.206 Notice of intent.
6.208 Draft environmental Impact state-
ments.
6.210 Final environmental Impact state-
ments.
6.212 Negative declarations and environ-
mental Impact appraisals.
6.214 Additional procedures.
6.216 Availability of documents.
Subpart C—Content of Environmental Impact
' Statements
6.300 Cover sheet.
6.302 Summary sheet.
6.304 Body of statement.
6.306 Documentation.
Subpart D—EPA Public Hearings on Impact
Statements
6.400 General.
6.402 Public hearing process.
Subpart E—Guidelines for Compliance With
NEPA In the Title II Wastewater Treatment
Works Construction Grants Program and the
Areawlde Waste Treatment Management Plan-
ning Program
6.500 Purpose.
6.502 Definitions.
6.504 Applicability.
6.506 Completion of NEPA procedures be-
fore start of administrative actions.
6.510 Criteria for preparation of environ-
mental Impact statements.
6.512 Procedures for Implementing NEPA.
6.514 Content of environmental Impact
statements.
Subpart F—Guidelines for Compliance With NEPA
In Research and Development Programs and
Activities
6.600 Purpose.
6.602 Definitions.
6.604 Applicability.
6.608 Criteria for determining when to pre-
pare environmental Impact state-
ments.
6.610 Procedures for compliance with NEPA.
Subpart G—Guidelines for Compliance With NEPA
In Solid Waste Management Activities
6.700 Purpose.
6.702 Criteria for the preparation of envi-
ronmental assessments and EIS's.
6.704 Procedures for compliance with NEPA.
Subpart H—Guidelines for Compliance With
NEPA In Construction of Special Purpose Fa-
cilities and Facility Renovations
6.800 Purpose.
6.802 Definitions.
6.804 Applicability.
6.808 Criteria for the preparation of envi-
ronmental assessments and EIS's.
6.810 Procedures for compliance with NEPA.
EXHIBITS
1. (Page 1.) Notice of Intent Transnilttal
Memorandum Suggested Format.
(Page 2.) Notice of Intent Suggested
Format.
1. Public Notice and News Release Suggested
Format.
S. Negative Declaration Suggested Format.
4. Environmental Impact Appraisal Sug-
gested Format.
5. Cover Sheet Format for Environmental
Impact Statements.
6. Summary Sheet Format for Environmental
Impact Statements.
7. Flowchart for Solid Waste Management
Program Operations.
Appendix A—Checklist for Environmental
Reviews.
Appendix B—Responsibilities.
Appendix C—Availability and Distribution
of Documents.
Authority: Sees. 102, 103 of 83 Stat. 854
(42U.S.C. 4321etseq.)
Subpart A—General
§ 6.100 Purpose and policy.
(a) The National Environmental Pol-
icy Act (NEPA) of 1969, implemented by
Executive Order 11514 and the Council
on Environmental Quality's (CEQ's)
Guidelines of August 1, 1973 (38 PR
20550), requires that all agencies of the
Federal Government prepare detailed en-
vironmental impact statements on pro-
posals for legislation and other major
Federal actions significantly affecting
the quality of the human environment.
NEPA requires that agencies include In
the decision-making process appropriate
and careful consideration of all environ-
mental effects of proposed actions, ex-
plain potential environmental effects of
proposed actions and their aternatives
for public understanding, avoid or mini-
mize adverse effects of proposed actions
and restore or enhance environmental
quality as much as possible.
(b) This part establishes Environmen-
tal Protection Agency (EPA) policy and
procedures for the Identification and
analysis of the environmental Impacts of
EPA nonregulatory actions and the prep-
aration and processing of environmental
impact statements (EIS's) when signifi-
cant impacts on the environment are
anticipated.
§ 6.102 Definitions.
(a) "Environmental assessment" Is a
•written analysis submitted to EPA by its
grantees or contractors describing the
environmental impacts of proposed ac-
tions undertaken with the financial sup-
port of EPA. For facilities or section 208
plans as denned in S 6.102 (J) and (k),
the assessment must be an Integral,
though identifiable, part of the plan sub-
mitted to EPA for review.
(b) "Environmental review" is a for-
mal evaluation undertaken by EPA to
determine whether a proposed EPA ac-
tion may have a significant Impact on
the environment. The environmental as-
sessment is one of the major sources of
information used in this review.
(c) "Notice of Intent" is a memoran-
dum, prepared after the environmental
review, announcing to Federal, regional,
State, and local agencies, and to Inter-
ested persons, that a draft EIS will be
prepared.
(d) "Environmental Impact state-
ment" is a report, prepared by EPA,
which identifies and analyzes in detail
the environmental Impacts of a proposed
EPA action and feasible alternatives.
(e) "Negative declaration" Is a written
announcement, prepared after the en-
vironmental review, which states that
EPA has decided not to prepare an EIS
and summarizes the environmental Im-
pact appraisal.
(f) "Environmental impact appraisal"
is based on an environmental review and
supports a negative declaration. It de-
scribes a proposed EPA action, its ex-
pected environmental impact, and the
basis for the conclusion that no signifi-
cant impact is anticipated.
(g) "NEPA-associated documents"
are any one or combination of: notices
of intent, negative declarations, exemp-
tion certifications, environmental impact
appraisals, news releases, EIS's, and en-
vironmental assessments.
(h) "Responsible official" is an Assist-
ant Administrator, Deputy Assistant Ad-
ministartor. Regional Administrator or
their designee.
(i) "Interested persons" are Indi-
viduals, citizen groups, conservation or-
ganizations, corporations, or other non-
governmental units, including applicants
for EPA contracts or grants, who may
be interested in, affected by, or techni-
cally competent to comment on the en-
vironmental impacts of the proposed
EPA action.
(j) "Section 208 plan" is an areawide
waste treatment management plan pre-
pared under section 208 of the Federal
Water Pollution Control Act (FWPCA),
as amended, under 40 CFR Part 126 and
40 CFR Part 35, Subpart F.
(k) "Facilities plan" is a preliminary
plan prepared as the basis for construc-
tion of publicly owned waste treatment
works under Title n of FWPCA, as
amended, under 40 CFR 35.917.
(1) "Intramural project" is an in-
house project undertaken by EPA
personnel.
(m) "Extramural project" is a project
undertaken by grant or contract
§ 6.104 Summary of procedures for im-
plementing NEPA.
(a) Responsible official. The respon-
sible official shall utilize a systematic, in-
terdisciplinary approach to integrate
natural and social sciences as well as
environmental design arts In planning
programs and making decisions which
are subject to NEPA review. His staff may
be supplemented by professionals from
other agencies, universities or consult-
ants whenever In-house capabilities are
Insufficiently interdisciplinary.
(b) Environmental assessment. En-
vironmental assessments must be sub-
mitted to EPA by its grantees and con-
tractors, as required in Subparts E. F, G,
and H of this part. The assessment is
used by EPA to decide if an ETS is re-
quired and to prepare one if necessary.
(c) Environmental review. Environ-
mental reviews shall be made of pro-
posed and certain ongoing EPA actions
as required in § 6.106(c). This process
shall consist of a study of the action to
Identify and evaluate toe environmental
impacts of the action. Types of grants,
contracts and other actions requiring
study are listed in toe subparts following
FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 40, NO. 72—MONDAY, APRIL 14, 1975
A-3
-------
16816
RULES AND REGULATIONS
Subpart D. The process shall Include a
review of any environmental assessment
received to determine whether any sig-
nificant Impacts are anticipated, whether
any changes can be made in the proposed
action to eliminate significant adverse
Impacts, and whether an EIS Is required.
EPA has overall responsibility for this
review, although its grantees and con-
tractors will contribute to the review
through their environmental assess-
ments.
(d) Notice of intent and EIS's. When
an environmental review indicates that
a significant environmental impact may
occur and the significant adverse Impacts
cannot be eliminated by making changes
In the project, a notice of intent shall be
published, and a draft EIS shall be pre-
pared and distributed. After external co-
ordination and evaluation of the com-
ments received, a final EIS shall be pre-
pared and distributed. EIS's should be
prepared first on those proposed actions
with the most adverse effects which are
scheduled for earliest implementation
and on other proposed actions according
to priorities assigned by the responsible
official.
(e) Negative declaration and environ-
mental impact appraisal. When the en-
vironmental review indicates no signi-
ficant Impacts are anticipated or when
the project is changed to eliminate the
significant adverse impacts, a negative
declaration shall be issued. For the cases
In Subparts E, F, G, and H of this part,
an environmental impact appraisal shall
be prepared which summaries the im-
pacts, alternatives and reasons an EIS
was not prepared. It shall remain on file
and be available for public inspection.
§ 6.106 Applicability.
(a) Administrative actions covered.
This part applies to the administrative
actions listed below. The subpart refer-
enced with each action lists the detailed
NEPA procedures associated with the ac-
tion. Administrative actions are:
(1) Development of EPA legislative
proposals;
(2) Development of favorable reports
on legislation Initiated elsewhere and not
accompanied by an EIS, when they relate
to or affect matters within EPA's pri-
mary areas of responsibility;
(3) For the programs under Title II of
FWPCA, as amended, those administra-
tive actions in § 6.504;
(4) For the Office of Research and De-
velopment, those administrative actions
in § 6.604;
(5) For the Office of Solid Waste Man-
agement Programs, those administrative
actions hi § 6.702;
(6) For construction of special pur-
pose facilities and facility renovations,
those administrative actions in § 6.804;
and
(7) Development of an EPA project In
conjunction with or located near a proj-
ect or complex of projects started by one
or more Federal agencies when the
cumulative effects of all the projects will
be major allocations of resources or fore-
closures of future land use options.
(b) Administrative actions excluded.
The requirements of this part do not ap-
ply to environmentally protective regu-
latory activities undertaken by EPA, nor
to projects exempted in § 6.504, § 6.604,
and § 6.702.
(c) Application to ongoing actions.
This regulation shall apply to uncom-
pleted and continuing EPA actions ini-
tiated before the promulgation of these
procedures when modifications of or al-
ternatives to the EPA action are still
available, except for the Title n con-
struction grants program. Specific appli-
cation for the construction grants pro-
gram is in §6.504(c). An EIS shall be
prepared for each project found to have
significant environmental effects as de-
scribed in § 6.200.'
(d) Application to legislative propos-
als. (1) As noted in paragraphs (a) (1)
and (2) of this section, EIS's or negative
declarations shall be prepared for legis-
lative proposals or favorable reports re-
lating to legislation which may signifi-
cantly affect the environment. Because
of the nature of the legislative process,
EIS's for legislation must be prepared
and reviewed according to the proce-
dures followed in the development and
review of the legislative matter. These
procedures are described in Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) Circu-
lar No. A-19.
(2) A working draft EIS shall be pre-
pared by the EPA office responsible for
preparing the legislative proposal or re-
port on legislation. It shall be prepared
concurrently with the development of
the legislative proposal or report and
shall contain .the information required
in § 6.304. The EIS shall be circulated for
internal EPA review with the legislative
proposal or report and other supporting
documentation. The working draft EIS
shall be modified to correspond with
changes made in the proposal or report
during the internal review. All major al-
ternatives developed during the formu-
lation and review of the proposal or re-
port should be retained in the working
draft EIS.
(i) The working draft EIS shall ac-
company the legislative proposal or re-
port to OMB. EPA shall revise the work-
ing draft EIS to respond to comments
from OMB and other Federal agencies.
(ii) Upon transmittal of the legisla-
tive proposal or report to Congress, the
working draft EIS will be forwarded to
CEQ and the Congress as a formal leg-
islative EIS. Copies will be distributed
according to procedures described in Ap-
pendix C.
(iii) Comments received by EPA on
the legislative EIS shall be forwarded to
the appropriate Congressional Commit-
tees. EPA also may respond to specific
comments and forward its responses with
the comments. Because legislation under-
goes continuous changes in Congress be-
yond the control of EPA, no final EIS
need be prepared by EPA.
§ 6.108 Completion of NEPA procedures
before starting administrative action.
(a) No administrative action shall be
taken until the environmental review
process, resulting in an EIS or a nega-
tive declaration with environmental ap-
praisal, has been completed.
(b) When an EIS will be prepared.
Except when requested by the respon-
sible official in writing and approved by
CEQ, no administrative action shall be
taken sooner than ninety (90) calendar
days after a draft EIS has been distrib-
uted or sooner than thirty (30) calendar
days after the final EIS has been made
public. If the final text of an EIS is filed
within ninety (90) days after a draft EIS
has been circulated for comment, fur-
nished to CEQ and made public, the
minimum thirty (30) day period and the
ninety (90) day period may run con-
currently if they overlap. The minimum
periods for review and advance avail-
ability of EIS's shall begin on the date
CEQ publishes the notice of receipt of
the EIS in the FEDERAL REGISTER. In ad-
dition, the proposed action should be
modified to conform with any changes
EPA considers necessary before the final
EIS is published.
(c) When an EIS will not be prepared.
If EPA decides not to prepare an EIS
on any action listed in this part for
which a negative declaration with en-
vironmental appraisal has been prepared,
no administrative action shall be taken
for at least fifteen (15) working days
after the negative declaration Is issued to
allow public review of the decision. If
significant environmental issues are
raised during the review period, the deci-
sion may be changed and a new environ-
mental appraisal or an EIS may be pre-
pared.
§ 6.11Q Responsibilities.
See Appendix B for responsibilities of
this part.
Subpart B—Procedures
§ 6.200 Criteria for determining when
to prepare an EIS.
The following general criteria shall be
used when reviewing a proposed EPA
action to determine if it will have a
significant impact on the environment
and therefore require an EIS:
(a) Significant environmental effects.
(1) An action with both beneficial and
detrimental effects should be classified
as having significant effects on the en-
vironment, even if EPA believes that
the net effect will be beneficial. However,
preference should be given to preparing
EIS's on proposed actions which, on bal-
ance, have adverse effects.
(2) When determining the signifi-
cance of a proposed action's impacts,
the responsible official shall consider
both its short term and long term effects
as well as its primary and secondary
effects as defined in § 6.304(c). Particu-
lar attention should be given to changes
in land use patterns; changes in energy
supply and demand; increased develop-
ment in floodplains; significant changes
in ambient air and water quality or noise
levels; potential violations of air quality,
water quality and noise level standards;
significant changes in surface or ground-
water quality or quantity; and encroach-
FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 40, NO. 72—MONDAY, APRIL 14, 1975
A-4
-------
RULES AND REGULATIONS
16817
ments on wetlands, coatstal zones, or fish
and wildlife habitat, especially when
threatened or endangered species may be
affected.
(3) Minor actions which may set a
precedent for future major actions with
significant adverse Impacts or a number
of actions with Individually Insignificant
but cumulatively significant adverse Im-
pacts shall be classified as having sig-
nificant environmental Impacts. If EPA
is taking a number of minor, environ-
mentally Insignificant actions that are
similar in execution and purpose, during
a limited time span and in the same
general geographic area, the cumulative
environmental impact of all of these
actions shall be evaluated.
(4) In determining the significance of
a proposed action's Impact, the unique
characteristics of the project area should
be carefully considered. For example,
proximity to historic sites, parklands or
wild and scenic rivers may make the
Impact significant. A project discharging
into a drinking water aquifier may make
the Impact significant.
(5) A proposed EPA action which will
have direct and significant adverse ef-
fects on a property listed in or eligible
for listing In the National Register of
Historic Places or will cause irreparable
loss or destruction of significant scien-
tific, prehistoric, historic or archaeolog-
ical data shall be classified as having
significant environmental impacts.
(b) Controversial actions. An EIS
shall be prepared When the environ-
mental impact of a proposed EPA action
is likely to be highly controversial.
(c) Additional criteria for specific
programs. Additional criteria for vari-
ous EPA programs are In Subpart E
(Title n Wastewater Treatment Works
Construction Grants Program), Subpart_
P (Research and Development Pro-
grams), Subpart G (Solid Waste Man-
agement Programs) and Subpart H
(Construction of Special Facilities and
Facility Renovations).
§ 6.202 Environmental assessment.
Environmental assessments must be
submitted to EPA by Its grantees and
contractors as required in Subparts E,
F, G, and H of this part. The assessment
Is to ensure that the applicant considers
the environmental Impacts of the pro-
posed action at the earliest possible point
in his planning process. The assessment
and other relevant information are used
by EPA to decide If an EIS Is required.
While EPA is responsible for ensuring
that EIS's are factual and comprehen-
sive, it expects assessments and other
data submitted by grantees and contrac-
tors to be accurate and complete. The
responsible official may request addi-
tional data and analyses from grantees
or other sources any time he determines
they are needed to comply adequately
with NEPA.
§ 6.204 Environmental review.
Proposed EPA actions, as well as on-
going EPA actions listed to § 6.106(c),
shall be subjected to an environmental
review. This review shall be a continu-
ing one, starting at the earliest possible
point In the development of the project.
It shall consist of a study of the pro-
posed action, including a review of any
environmental assessments received, to
Identify and evaluate the environmental
Impacts of the proposed action and feas-
ible alternatives. The review will deter-
mine whether significant impacts are
anticipated from the proposed action,
whether any feasible alternatives can
be adopted or change? can be made In
project design to eliminate significant
adverse impacts, and whether an
EIS or a negative declaration is re-
quired. The responsible official shall de-
termine the proper scope of the environ-
mental review. The responsible official
may delay approval of related projects
until the proposals can be reviewed to-
gether to allow EPA to properly evaluate
their cumulative impacts.
§ 6.206 Notice of intent.
(a) General. (1) When an environ-
mental review indicates a significant im-
pact may occur and significant adverse
impacts cannot be eliminated by making
changes in the project, a notice of Intent,
announcing the preparation of a draft
EIS, shall be Issued by the responsible
official. The notice shall briefly describe
the EPA action, its location, and the Is-
sues involved (Exhibit 1).
(2) The purpose of a notice of intent
Is to involve other government agencies
and Interested persons as early as possi-
ble In the planning and evaluation of
EPA actions which may have significant
environmental impacts. This notice
should encourage agency and public In-
put to a draft EIS and assure that en-
vironmental values will be identified and
weighed from the outset rather than
accommodated by adjustments at the
end of the decision-making process.
(b) Specific actions. The specific ac-
tions to be taken by the responsible offi-
cial on notices of Intent are:
(1) When the review process Indicates
a significant impact may occur and sig-
nificant adverse impacts cannot be elim-
inated by making changes In the project,
prepare a notice of intent Immediately
after the environmental review.
(2) Distribute copies of the notice of
intent as required in Appendix C.
(3) Publish in a local newspaper, with
adequate circulation to cover the area
affected by the project, a brief public
notice stating that an EIS will be pre-
pared on a particular project, and the
public may participate in preparing the
EIS (Exhibit 2). News releases also may
be submitted to other media.
(c> Regional office assistance to pro-
gram offices. Regional offices will provide
assistance to program offices In taking
these specific actions when the EIS orig-
inates in a program office.
§ 6.208 Draft EIS's.
(a) General. (1) The responsible offi-
cial shall assure that a draft EIS Is pre-
pared as soon as possible after the release
of the notice of Intent. Before releasing
the draft EIS to CEQ, a preliminary ver-
sion may be circulated for review to other
offices within EPA with Interest In or
technical expertise related to the action.
Then the draft EIS shall be sent to CEQ
and circulated to Federal, State, regional
and local agencies with special expertise
or jurisdiction by law, and to Interested
persons. If the responsible official deter-
mines that a public hearing on the pro-
posed action Is warranted, the hearing
will be held after the draft EIS Is pre-
pared, according to the requirements of
§ 6.402.
(2) Draft EIS's should be prepared at
the earliest possible point in the project
development. If the project involves a
grant applicant or potential contractor,
he must submit any data EPA requests
for preparing the EIS. Where a plan or
program has been developed by EPA or
submitted to EPA for approval, the re-
lationship between the plan and the
later projects encompassed by its shall
be evaluated to determine the best time
to prepare an EIS. Whenever possible,
an EIS will be drafted for the total pro-
gram at the initial planning stage. Then
later component projects included in the
plan will not require individual EIS's un-
less they differ substantially from the
plan, or unless the overall plan did not
provide enough detail to fully assess
significant impacts of individual projects.
Plans shall be reevaluated by the re-
sponsible official to monitor the cumula-
tive Impact of the component projects
and to preclude the plans' obsolescence.
(b) Specific actions. The specific ac-
tions to be taken by the responsible of-
ficial on draft EIS's are:
(1) Distribute the draft EIS accord-
Ing to the procedures in Appendix C.
(2) Inform the agencies to reply
directly to the originating EPA office.
Commenting agencies shall have at least
forty-five (45) calendar days to reply,
starting from the date of publication in
the FEDERAL REGISTER of lists of state-
ments received by CEQ. If no comments
are received during the reply period and
no time extension has been requested. It
shall be presumed that the agency has
no comment to make. EPA may grant
extensions of fifteen (15) or more calen-
dar days. The time limits for review and
extensions for State and local agencies;
State, regional, and metropolitan clear-
inghouses; and interested persons shall
be the same as those available to Federal
agencies.
(3) Publish a notice in local news-
papers stating that the draft EIS Is
available for comment and listing where
copies may be obtained (Exhibit 2), and
submit news releases to other media.
(4) Include in the draft EIS a notice
stating that only those Federal, State,
regional, and local agencies and Inter-
ested persons who make substantive com-
ments on the draft EIS or request a copy
of the final EIS will be sent a copy.
(c) Regional office assistance to pro-
gram office. If requested, regional offices
will provide assistance to program offices
in taking these specific actions when the
EIS originates in a program office.
FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 40, NO. 72—MONDAY, APRIL 14, 1975
A-5
-------
16818
RULES AND REGULATIONS
§ 6.210 Final EIS'o.
(a) Final EHB's shall respond to an
substantive comments raised through
the review of the draft £13. Special care
should be taken to respond fully to com-
ments disagreeing with EPA's position.
(See also § 6.304(g).)
Ob) Distribution and other specific
actions are described In Appendix C. If
there is an applicant, he shall be sent a
copy. When the number of comments on
the draft EIS is so large that distribution
of the final EIS to all commenting en-
tities appears impractical, the program
or regional office preparing the EIS
shall consult with OFA, which will con-
sult with CEQ about alternative arrange-
ments for distribution of the EIS.
§ 6.212 Negative declaration and envi-
ronmental impact appraisals.
(a) General. When an environmental
review indicates there will be no signifi-
cant impact or significant adverse im-
pacts have been eliminated by making
changes'in the project, the responsible
official shall prepare a negative declara-
tion to allow public review of his decision
before it becomes final. The negative
declaration and news release must state
that interested persons disagreeing with
the decision may submit comments for
consideration by EPA. EPA shall not
take administrative action on the proj-
ect for at least fifteen (15) working days
after release of the negative declaration
and may allow more time for response.
The responsible official shall have an
environmental impact appraisal sup-
porting the negative declaration avail-
able for public review when the negative
declaration is released for those cases
given in Subparts E, F, G, and H.
Ob) Specific actions. The responsible
official shall take the following specific
actions on those projects for which both
a negative declaration and an impact
appraisal will be prepared:
(1) Negative declaration, (i) Prepare
a negative declaration immediately after
the environmental review. This docu-
ment shall briefly summarize the purpose
of the project, its location, the nature
and extent of the land use changes re-
lated to the project, and the major pri-
mary and secondary impacts of the
project. It shall describe how the more
detailed environmental impact appraisal
may be obtained at cost. (See Exhibit 3.)
(ii) Distribute the negative declaration
according to procedures in Appendix C.
In addition, submit to local newspapers
and other appropriate media a brief news
release with a negative declaration at-
tached, informing the public that a de-
cision not to prepare an EIS has been
made and a negative declaration and en-
vironmental impact appraisal are avail-
able for public review and comment (Ex-
hibit 2).
(2) Environmental impact appraisal.
(i) Prepare an environmental impact
appraisal concurrently with the negative
declaration. This document shall briefly
describe the proposed action and feasible
alternatives, environmental Impacts of
the proposed action, unavoidable adverse
Impacts of the proposed action, the re-
lationship between short term uses of
man's environment and the maintenance
and enhancement of long term produc-
tivity, steps to minimize harm to the en-
vironment, irreversible and irretrievable
commitments of resources to implement
the action, comments and consultations
on the project, and reasons for conclud-
ing there will be no significant impacts.
(See Exhibit 4.)
(ii) Distribute the environmental im-
pact appraisal according to procedures
in Appendix C.
§ 6.214 Additional procedures.
(a) Historical and archaeological sites.
EPA is subject to the requirements of sec-
tion 106 of the National Historic Preser-
vation Act Of 1966, 16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.,
Executive Order 11593, the Archaeologi-
cal and Historic Preservation Act of 1974,
16 U.S.C. 469 et seq., and the regulations
promulgated under this legislation. These
statutes and regulations establish en-
vironmental review procedures which are
independent of NEPA requirements.
(1) If an EPA action may affect prop-
erties with historic, architectural,
archaeological or cultural value which
are listed in the National Register of His-
toric Places (published in the FEDERAL
REGISTER each February with supple-
ments on the first Tuesday of each
month), the responsible official shall
comply with the procedures of the Ad-
visory Council on Historic Preservation
(36 CFR 800), including determining the
need for a Memorandum of Agreement
among EPA, the State Historic Preserva-
tion Officer and the Advisory Council. If
a Memordandum of Agreement is exe-
cuted, it shall be included in an EIS
whenever one is prepared on a proposed
action. See § 6.512(c) of this part for
additional procedures for the construc-
tion grants program under Title n of the
FWPCA, as amended.
(2) If an EPA action may cause ir-
reparable loss or destruction of signifi-
cant scientific, prehistoric, historic or
archaeological data, the responsible offi-
cial shall consult with the State Historic
Preservation Officer in compliance with
the Archaeological and Historic Preser-
vation Act (P.L. 93-291).
(b) Wetlands, floodplains, coastal
zones, wild and scenic rivers, fish and
wildlife. The following procedures shall
be applied to all EPA administrative ac-
tions covered by this part that may af-
fect these environmentally sensitive
resources.
(1) If an EPA action may affect wet-
lands, the responsible official shall con-
sult with the appropriate offices of the
Department of the Interior, Department
of Commerce, and the U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers during the environmental
review to determine the probable impact
of the action on the pertinent fish and
wildlife resources and land use of these
areas.
(2) If an EPA action may directly
cause or Induce the construction of build-
Ings or other facilities in a floodplain, the
responsible official shall evaluate flood
hazards in connection with these facili-
ties as required by Executive Order 11296
and shall, as far as practicable, consider
alternatives to preclude the uneconomic,
hazardous or unnecessary use of flood-
plains to minimize the exposure of facili-
ties to potential flood damage, lessen the
need for future Federal expenditures for
flood protection and flood disaster relief
and preserve the unique and significant
public value of the floodplain as an-;en-
vironmental resource. ,
(3) If an EPA action may affect coastal
zones or coastal waters as defined in Title
III of the Costal Zone Management Act
of 1972 (Pub. L. 92-583), the responsible
official shall consult with the appropriate
State offices and with the appropriate
office of the Department of Commerce
during the environmental review to de-
termine the probable impact of the
action on coastal zone or coastal water
resources.
(4) If an EPA action may affect por-
tions of rivers designated wild and_ scenic
or being considered for this designation
under the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act
(Pub. L. 90-542), the responsible official
shall consult with appropriate State
offices and with the Secretary of the
Interior or, where national forest lands
are involved, with the Secretary of Agri-
culture during the environmental re-
view to determine the status of an
affected river and the probable impact
of the action on eligible rivers.
(5) If an EPA action will result in the
control or structural modification of any
stream or other body of water for any
purpose, including navigation and drain-
age, the responsible official shall consult
with the United States Fish and Wild-
life Service (Department of the Inte-
rior) , the National Marine Fisheries
Service of the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (Depart-
ment of Commerce), the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers and the head of the
agency administering the wildlife re-
sources of the particular State in which
the action will take place with a view to
the conservation of wildlife resources.
This consultation shall follow the pro-
cedures in the Fish and Wildlife Coordi-
nation Act (Pub. L. 85-624) and shall
occur during the environmental review
of an action.
(6) If an EPA action may affect
threatened or endangered species defined
under section 4 of the Endangered Spe-
cies Act of 1973 (Pub. L. 93-205), the'
responsible official shall consult with the
Secretary of the Interior or the Secre-
tary of Commerce, according to the
procedures in section 7 of that act.
(7) Requests for consultation and the
results of consultation shall be docu-
mented in writing. In all cases where
consultation has occurred, the agencie?,
consulted should receive copies of either
the notice of intent and EIS or the nega-
tive declaration and environmental ap-
praisal prepared on the proposed action.
If a decision has already been made to
prepare an EIS on a project and wet-
lands, flocdplains, coastal zones, wild
FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL 40, NO. 72—MONDAY, APRIL 14, 1975
A-6
-------
RULES AND REGULATIONS
16819
and scenic rivers, fish or wildlife may
be affected, the required consultation
may be deferred until the preparation of
the draft EIS.
§ 6.216 Availability of documents.
(a) EPA will print copies of draft and
final EIS's for agency and public dis-
tribution. A nominal fee may be charged
for copies requested by the public.
(b) When EPA no longer has copies
of an.EIS to distribute, copies shall be
made available for public inspection at
regional and headquarters Offices of
Public Affairs. Interested persons also
should be advised of the availability (at
cost) of the EIS from the Environmental
Law Institute, 1356 Connecticut Avenue
NW., Washington, B.C. 20036.
(c) Lists of EIS's prepared or under
preparation and lists of negative decla-
rations prepared will be available at both
the regional and headquarters Offices
of Public Affairs.
Subpart C—Content of Environmental
Impact Statements
§ 6.30.6 Cover sheet.
The cover sheet shall indicate the
type of EIS (draft or final), the official
project name and number, the respon-
sible EPA office, the date, and the sig-
nature of the responsible official. The
format Is shown In Exhibit 5.
§ 6.302 Summary sheet.
The summary sheet shall conform to
the format in Exhibit 6, based on Ap-
pendix I of the August 1, 1973, CEQ
Guidelines, or the latest revision of the
CEQ Guidelines.
§ 6.304 Body of EIS.
The body of the EIS shall identify, de-
velop, and analyze the pertinent issues
discussed in the seven sections below;
each section need not be a separate
chapter. This analysis should Include,
but not be limited to, consideration of
the impacts of the proposed project on
the environmental areas listed in Ap-
pendix A which are relevant to the proj-
ect. The EIS shall serve as a means for
the responsible official and the public to
assess the environmental Impacts of a
proposed EPA action, rather than as a
justification for decisions already made.
It shall be prepared using a systematic,
interdisciplinary approach and shall In-
corporate all relevant analytical dis-
ciplines to provide meaningful and fac-
tual data, information, and analyses.
The presentation of data should be clear
and concise, yet Include all facts nec-
essary to permit independent evaluation
and appraisal of the beneficial and ad-
verse environmental effects of alterna-
tive actions. The amount of detail pro-
vided should be commensurate with the
extent and expected Impact of the ac-
tion and the amount of Information re-
quired at the particular level of decision
making. To the extent possible, an EIS
shall hot be drafted In a style which re-
quires extensive scientific or technical
expertise to comprehend and evaluate
the environmental Impact of a proposed
EPA action.
(a) Background and description of the
proposed action. The EIS shall describe
the recommended or proposed action, Its
purpose, where it Is located and its time
setting. When a decision has been made
not to favor an alternative until public
comments on a proposed action have
been received, the draft EIS may treat
all feasible alternatives at similar levels
of detail; the final EIS should focus on
the alternative the draft EIS and pub-
lic comments indicate is the best. The
relationship of the proposed action to
other projects and proposals directly af-
fected by or stemming from it shall be
discussed, including not only other EPA
activities, but also those of other govern-
mental and private organizations. Land
use patterns and population trends in
the project area and the assumptions on
which they are based also shall be In-
cluded. Available maps, photos, and art-
ists' sketches should be incorporated
when they help depict the environmen-
tal setting.
(b) Alternatives to the proposed ac-
tion. The EIS shall develop, describe,
and objectively weigh feasible alterna-
tives to any proposed action, including
the options of taking no action or post-
poning action. The analysis should be
detailed enough to show EPA's compara-
tive evaluation of the environmental im-
pacts, commitments of resources, costs,
and risks of the proposed action and
each feasible alternative. For projects
involving construction, alternative sites
must be analyzed In enough detail for
reviewers independently to judge the rel-
ative desirability of each site. For alter-
natives involving regionalization,. the
effects of varying degrees of regionaliza-
tion should be addressed. If a cost-bene-
fit analysis Is prepared, It should be ap-
pended to the EIS and referenced in the
body of the EIS. In addition, the reasons
why the proposed action is believed by
EPA to be the best course of action shall
be explained.
(c) Environmental impacts of the pro-
posed action. (1) The positive and nega-
tive effects of the proposed action as it
affects both the national and Interna-
tional environment should be assessed.
The attention given to different environ-
mental factors will vary according to
the nature, scale, and location of pro-
posed actions. Primary attention should
be given to those factors most evidently
affected by the proposed action. The fac-
tors shall include, where appropriate, the
proposed action's effects on the resource
base, Including land, water quality and
quantity, air quality, public services and
energy supply. The EIS shall describe
primary and secondary environmental
impacts, both beneficial and adverse, an-
ticipated from the action. The descrip-
tion shall Include short term and long
term impacts on both the natural and
human environments.
(2) Primary impacts are those that
can be attributed directly to the pro-
posed action. If the action is a field ex-
periment, materials introduced Into the
environment which might damage cer-
tain plant communities or wildlife species
would be a primary impact. If the action
involves construction of a facility, such
as a sewage treatment works, an office
building or a laboratory, the primary Im-
pacts of the action would Include the
environmental impacts related to con-
struction and operation of the facility
and land use changes at the facility site.
(3) Secondary impacts are Indirect or
Induced changes. If the action involves
construction of a facility, the secondary
impacts would include the environmental
impacts related to:
(i) induced changes in the pattern
of land use, population density and re-
lated effects on air and water quality
or other natural resources;
(11) increased growth at a faster rate
than planned for or above the total level
planned by the existing community.
(4) A discussion of how socloeconomic
activities and land use changes related
to the proposed action conform or con-
flict with the goals and objectives of ap-
proved or proposed Federal, regional,
State and local land use plans, policies
and controls for the project area should
be included In the EIS. If a conflict ap-
pears to be unresolved in the EIS, EPA
should explain why it has decided to
proceed without full reconciliation.
(d) Adverse impacts which cannot be
avoided should the proposal be imple-
mented and steps to minimize harm to
the environment. The EIS shall describe
the kinds and magnitudes of adverse
impacts which cannot be reduced in se-
verity or which can be reduced to an ac-
ceptable level but not eliminated. These
may include water or air pollution, un-
desirable land use patterns, damage to
fish and wildlife habitats, urban con-
gestion, threats to human health or other
consequences adverse to the environ-
mental goals in section 101 (b) of NEPA.
Protective and mitlgative measures to
be taken as part of the proposed action
shall be identified. These measures to
reduce or compensate for any environ-
mentally detrimental aspect of the pro-
posed action may include those of EPA,
its contractors and grantees and others
involved in the action.
(e) Relationship betwen local short
term uses, of man's environment and the
maintenance and enhancement of long
term productivity. The EIS shall de-
scribe the extent to which the proposed
action involves tradeoffs between short
term environmental gains at the expense
of long term gains or vice-versa and the
extent to which the proposed action fore-
closes future options. Special attention
shall be given to effects which narrow
the range of future uses of land and
v/ater resources or pose long term risks
to health or safety. Consideration should
be given to windfall gains or significant
decreases in current property values
from implementing the proposed action.
In addition, the reasons the proposed
action is believed by EPA to be justified
now, rather than reserving a long term
option for other alternatives, including
no action, shall be explained.
(f) Irreversible and irretrievable com-
mitments of resources to the proposed
action should it be implemented. The
EIS shall describe the extent to which
fEDERAL REGISTER, VOL 40, NO. 72—MONDAY, APRIL 14, 1975
A-7
-------
16820
RULES AND REGULATIONS
the proposed action requires commit-
ment of construction materials,.person-
hours and funds to design and imple-
ment the project, as well as curtails the
range of future uses of land and water
resources. For example, induced growth
in undeveloped areas may curtail alter-
native uses of that land. Also, irreversi-
ble environmental damage can result
from equipment malfunctions or indus-
trial accidents at the project site. There-
fore, the need for any irretrievable and
significant commitments of resources
shall be explained fully.
(g> Problems and objections raised by
other Federal, State and local agencies
and by interested persons in the review
process. Final EIS's (and draft EIS's if
appropriate) shall summarize the com-
ments and suggestions made by review-
ing organizations and shall describe the
disposition of issues raised, e.g., revisions
to the proposed action to mitigate an-
ticipated impacts or objections. In par-
ticular, the EIS shall address the major
issues raised when the EPA position dif-
fers from most recommendations and
explain the factors of overriding impor-
tance overruling the adoption of sugges-
tions. Reviewer's statements should be
set forth in a "comment" and discussed
in a "response." In addition, the source
of all comments should be clearly iden-
tified, and copies of the comments
should be attached to the final EIS.
Summaries of comments should be at-
tached when a response has been excep-
tionally long or the same comments were
received from many reviewers.
§ 6.306 Documentation.
All books, research reports, field study
reports, correspondence and other docu-
ments which provided the data base for
evaluating the proposed action and al-
ternatives discussed in the EIS shall be
used as references in the body of the
EIS and shall be included in a bibli-
ography attached to the EIS.
Subpart D—EPA Public Hearings on EIS's
§ 6.400 General.
While EPA is not required by statute
to hold public hearings on EIS's, the re-
sponsible official should hold a public
hearing on a draft EIS whenever a hear-
ing may facilitate the resolution of con-
flicts or significant public controversy.
This hearing may be in addition to public
hearings held on facilities plans or sec-
tion 209 plans. The responsible official
may take special measures to involve in-
terested persons through personal con-
tact.
§ 6.402 Public hearing process.
(a) When public hearings are to be
held, EPA shall inform the public of the
hearing, for example, with a notice in the
draft EIS. The notice should follow the
summary sheet at the beginning of the
EIS. The draft EIS shall be available for
public review at least thirty (30) days
before the public hearing. Public notice
shall be given at least fifteen (15) work-
ing days before the public hearing and
shall include:
(1) Publication of a public notice in a
newspaper which covers the project area,
identifying the project, announcing the
date, time and place of the hearing and
announcing the availability of detailed
information on the proposed action for
public inspection at one or more locations
in the area in which the project will be
located. "Detailed information" shall in-
clude a copy of the project application
and the draft EIS.
(2) Notification of appropriate State
and local agencies and appropriate State,
regional and metropolitan clearing-
houses.
(3) Notification of interested persons.
(b) A w.ritten record of the hearing
shall be made. A stenographer may be
used to record the hearing. As a mini-
mum, the record shall contain a list of
witnesses with the text of each presenta-
tion. A summary of the record, including
the issues raised, conflicts resolved and
unresolved, and any other significant
portions of the record, shall be appended
to the final EIS.
(c) When a public hearing has been
held by another Federal, State, or local
agency on an EPA action, additional
hearings are not necessary. The respon-
sible official shall decide if additional
hearings are needed.
(d) When a program office is the origi-
nating office, the appropriate regional
office will provide assistance to the origi-
nating office in holding any public hear-
ing if assistance is requested.
Subpart E—Guidelines for Compliance
With NEPA in the Title II Wastewater
Treatment Works Construction Grants
Program and the Areawide Waste Treat-
ment Management Planning Program
§ 6.500 Purpose.
This subpart amplifies the general EPA
policies and procedures described in Sub-
parts A through D with detailed proce-
dures for compliance with NEPA in the
wastewater treatment works construction
grants program and the areawide waste
treatment management planning pro-
gram.
§ 6.502 Definitions.
(a) "Step 1 grant." A grant for prepa-
ration of a facilities plan as described in
40 CFR 35.930-1.
(b) "Step 2 grant." A grant for prepa-
ration of construction drawings and
specifications as described in 40 CFR
35.930-1.
(c) "Step 3 grant." A grant for fabri-
cation and building of a publicly owned
treatment works as described in 40 CFR
35.930-1.
§ 6.504 Applicability.
(a) Administrative actions covered.
This subpart applies to the administra-
tive actions listed below:
(1) Approval of all section 208 plans
according to procedures in 40 CFR
35.1067-2;
(2) Approval of all facilities plans ex-
cept those listed in paragraph (a) (5) of
this section;
(3) Award of step 2 and step 3 grants,
if an approved facilities plan was not re-
quired;
(4) Award of a step 2 or step 3 grant
when either the project or its impact has
changed significantly from that described
in the approved facilities plan, except
when the situation in paragraph (a) (5)
of this section exists;
(5) Consultation during the NEPA re-
view process. When there are overriding
considerations of cost or impaired pro-
gram effectiveness, the Regional Admin-
istrator may award a step 2 or a step 3
grant for a discrete segment of the proj-
ect plans or construction before the
NEPA review is completed if this project
segment is noncontroversial. The.remain-
ing portion of the project shall be evalu-
ated to determine if an EIS is required. In
applying the criteria for this determina-
tion, the entire project shall be con-
sidered, including those parts permitted
to proceed. In no case may these types of
step 2 or step 3 grants be awarded unless
both the Office of Federal Activities and
CEQ have been consulted, a negative
declaration has been issued on the seg-
ments permitted to proceed, and the
grant award contains a specific agree-
ment prohibiting action on the segment
of planning or construction for which the
NEPA review is not complete. Examples
of consultation during the NEPA review
process are: award of a step 2 grant for
preparation of plans and specifications
for a large treatment plant, when the
only unresolved NEPA issue is where to
locate the sludge disposal site; or award
of a step 3 grant for site clearance fo'r a
large treatment plant, when the unre-
solved NEPA issue is whether sludge from
the plant should be incinerated at the
site or disposed of elsewhere by other
means.
(b) Administrative actions excluded.
The actions listed below are not subject
to the requirements of this part:
(1) Approval of State priority lists;
(2) Award of a step 1 grant;
(3) Award of a section 208 planning
grant;
(4) Award of a step 2 or step 3 grant
when no significant changes in the facil-
ities plan have occurred;
(5) Approval of issuing an invitation
for bid or awarding a construction con-
tract;
(6) Actual physical commencement of
building or fabrication;
(7) Award of a section 206 grant for re-
imbursement;
(8) Award of grant increases when-
ever § 6.504(a) (4) does not apply;
(9) Awards of training assistance un-
der FWPCA, as amended, section 109(b).
(c) Retroactive application. The new
criteria in | 6.510 of this subpart do not
apply to step 2 or step 3 grants awarded
before July 1,1975. However, the Region-
al Administrator may apply the new cri-
teria of this subpart when he considers it
appropriate. Any negative declarations
issued before the effective date of this
regulation shall remain in effect.
FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 40, NO. 72—MONDAY, APRIL 14, 1975
A-8
-------
RULES AND REGULATIONS
16821
S 6.506 Completion of NEPA procedures
before start of administrative actions.
See 5 6.108 and § 6.504.
§ 6.510 Criteria for preparation of en-
vironmental impact statements.
In addition to considering the criteria
In § 6.200, the Regional Administrator
shall assure that an EIS will be prepared
on a treatment works facilities plan, 208
plan or other appropriate water quality
management plan when:
(a) The treatment works or plan will
Induce significant changes (either abso-
lute changes or increases in the rate of
change) in industrial, commercial, agri-
cultural, or residential land use concen-
trations or distributions. Factors that
should be considered In determining if
these changes are significant include but
are not limited to: the vacant land sub-
ject to increased development pressure
as a result of the treatment works; the
increases in population which may be
induced; the faster rate of change of
population; changes In population den-
sity; the potential for overloading sew-
age treatment works; the extent to which
landowners may benefit from the areas
subject to increased development; the
nature of land use regulations in the af-
fected area and their potential effects
on development; and deleterious changes
in the availability or demand for energy.
(to) Any major part of the treatment
works will be located on productive wet-
lands or will have significant adverse
effects on wetlands, including secondary
effects.
(c) Any major part of the treatment
works will be located on or significantly
affect the habitat of wildlife on the De-
partment of Interior's threatened and
endangered species lists.
(d) Implementation of the treatment
works or plan may directly cause or in-
duce changes that significantly:
(1) Displace population;
(2) Deface an existing residential
area; or
(3) Adversely affect significant
amounts of prime .agricultural land or
agricultural operations on this land.
(e) The treatment works or plan will
have significant adverse effects on park-
lands, other public lands or areas of rec-
ognized scenic, recreational, archaeo-
logical or historic value.
(f) The works or plan may directly or
through induced development have a
significant adverse effect upon local am-.
blent air quality, local ambient noise
levels, surface or groundwater quantity
or quality, fish, wildlife, and their natu-
ral habitats.
(g) The treated effluent is being dis-
charged into a body of water where the
present classification is too lenient or is
being challenged as too low to protect
present or recent uses, and the effluent
will not be of sufficient quality to meet
the requirements of these uses.
§ 6.512 Procedures for implementing
NEPA.
(a) Environmental assessment. An
adequate environmental assessment must
be an integral, though Identifiable, part
of any facilities or section 208 plan sub-
mitted to EPA. (See § 6.202 for a general
description.) The information in the fa-
cilities plan, particularly the environ-
mental assessment, will provide the sub-
stance of an EIS and shall be submitted
by the applicant. The analyses that con-
stitute an adequate environmental as-
sessment shall include:
(1) Description of the existing envi-
ronment loithout the project. This shall
include for the delineated planning area
a description of the present environmen-
tal conditions relevant to the analysis of
alternatives or determinations of the
environmental impacts of the proposed
'action. The description shall include, but
not be limited to, discussions of which-
ever areas are applicable to a particular
study: surface and groundwater qual-
ity; water supply and use; general hy-
drology; air quality; noise levels, energy
production and consumption; land use
trends; population projections, wetlands,
flpodplains, coastal zones and other en-
vironmentally sensitive areas; historic
and archaeological sites; other related
Federal or State projects in the area; and
plant and animal communities which
may be affected, especially those contain-
ing threatened or endangered species.
(2) Description of the future environ-
ment without the project. The future
environmental conditions with the no
project alternative shall be forecast, cov-
ering the same areas listed in § 6.512
(3) Documentation. Sources of infor-
mation used to describe the existing en-
vironment and to assess future environ-
mental impacts should be documented.
These sources should Include regional,
State and Federal agencies with respon-
sibility or interest in the types of impacts
listed in § 6.512(a) (1) . In particular, the
following agencies should be consulted:
(i) Local and regional land use plan-
ning agencies for assessments of land
use trends and population projections,
especially those affecting size, timing,
and location of facilities, and planning
activities funded under section 701 of
the Housing and Community Develop-
ment Act of 1974 (Pub. L. 93-383) ;
(ii) The HUD Regional Office if a proj-
ect involves a flood risk area identified
under the Flood Disaster Protection Act
of 1973 (Pub. L. 93-234) ;
(ill) The State coastal zone manage-
ment agency, if a coastal zone is affected;
(iv) The Secretary of the Interior or
Secretary of Agriculture, if a wild and
scenic river is affected;
(v) The Secretary of the Interior or
Secretary of Commerce, if a threatened
or endangered species is affected;
(vi) The Fish and Wildlife Service
(Department of Interior), the Depart-
ment of Commerce, and the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers, if a wetland is
affected.
(4) Evaluation of alternatives. This
discussion shall include a comparative
analysis of feasible options and a sys-
tematic development of wastewater
treatment alternatives. The alternatives
shall be screened with respect to capital
and operating costs; significant primary
and secondary environmental effects;
physical, legal or Institutional con-
straints; and whether or not they meet
regulatory requirements. Special atten-
tion should be given to long term Im-
pacts, Irreversible impacts and induced
Impacts such as development. The rea-
sons for rejecting any alternatives shall
be presented In addition to any signifi-
cant environmental benefits precluded
by rejection of an alternative. The anal-
ysis should consider, when relevant to
the project:
(i) Flow and waste reduction meas-
ures, including infiltration/inflow reduc-
tion;
(ii) Alternative locations, capacities,
and construction phasing of facilities;
(iii) Alternative waste management
techniques, includign treatment and dis-
charge, wastewater reuse and land ap-
plication;
(iv) Alternative methods for disposal
of sludge and other residual waste, In-
cluding process options and final dis-
posal options;
(v) Improving effluent quality through
more efficient operation and mainte-
nance ;
(vi) For assessments associated with
section 208 plans, the analysis of options
shall include in addition:
(A) Land use and other regulatory
controls, fiscal controls, non-point source
controls, and institutional arrange-
ments; and
(B) Land management practices.
(5) Environmental impacts of the pro-
posed action. Primary and secondary
impacts of the proposed action shall be
described, giving special attention to un-
avoidable impacts, steps to mitigate ad-
verse impacts, any Irreversible or Irre-
trievable commitments of resources to
the project and the relationship between
local short term uses of the environ-
ment and the maintenance and en-
hancement of long term productivity.
See § 6.304 (c), (d), (e), and (f) for an
explanation of these terms and examples.
The significance of land use Impacts
shall be evaluated, based on current
population of the planning area; de-
sign year population for the service area*
percentage of the service area currently
vacant; and plans for staging facilities.
Special attention should be given to in-
duced changes in population patterns and
growth, particularly if a project involves
some degree of regionalization. In addi-
tion to these items, the Regional Ad-
ministrator may renuire that other anal-
yses and data, which he determines
are needed to comply with NEPA, be
included with the facilities or section
208 plan. Such requirements should be
discussed during preapplication con-
ferences. The Regional Administrator
also may require submission of supple-
mentary information either before or
after a step 2 grant or before a step
3 grant award If he determines It la
needed for compliance with NEPA. Re-
quests for supplementary information
shall be made In writing.
(6) Steps to minimize adverse effects.
This section shall describe structural and
FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 40, NO. 72—MONDAY, APRIL 14, 1975
A-9
-------
16822
RULES AND REGULATIONS
nonstructural measures, if any, in the
facilities plan to mitigate or eliminate
significant adverse effects on the human
and natural environments. Structural
provisions include changes in facility de-
sign, size, and location; nonstructural
provisions include staging facilities as
well as developing and enforcing land
use regulations and environmentally
protective regulations.
(b) Public hearing. The applicant shall
hold at least one public hearing before a
facilities plan is adopted, unless waived
by the Regional Administrator before
completion of'the facilities plan accord-
ing to § 35.917-5 of the Title n construc-
tion grants regulations. Hearings should
be held on section 208 plans. A copy of
the environmental assessment should be
available for public review before the
hearing and at the hearing, since these
hearings provide an opportunity to ac-
cept public input on the environmental
issues associated with the facilities plan
or the 208 water quality management
strategy. In addition, a Regional Admin-
istrator may elect to hold an EPA hear-
ing if environmental issues remain un-
resolved. EPA hearings shall be held
according to procedures in § 6.402.
(c) Environmental review. An envi-
ronmental review of a facilities plan or
section 208 plan shall be conducted
according to the procedures in § 6.204
and% applying the criteria of §6.510. If
deficiencies exist in the environmental
assessment, they shall be identified In
writing by the Regional Administrator
and must be corrected before the plan
can be approved.
(d) Additional procedures. (1) His-
toric and archaeological sites. If a facil-
ities or section 208 plan may affect prop-
erties with historic, architectural,
archaeological or cultural value which
are listed in or eligible for listing in the
National Register of Historic Places' or
may cause irreparable loss or destruction
of significant scientific, prehistoric, his-
toric or archaeological data, the appli-
cant shall follow the procedures in
§6.214(a).
(2) If the facilities or section 208 plan
may affect wetlands, floodplains, coastal
zones, wild and scenic rivers, fish or
wildlife, the Regional Administrator
shall follow the appropriate procedures
described in § 6.214(b).
(e) Notice of intent. The notice of in-
tent on a facili/us plan or section 208
plan shall be issued according to § 6.206.
(f) Scope of E/S. Jt is the Regional
Administrator's responsibility to deter-
mine the scope of the EIS. He should
determine if an EIS should be prepared
on a facilities plan(s) or section 208 plan
and which environmental areas should
be discussed in greatest detail in the EIS.
Once an EIS has been prepared for the
designated 'section 208 area, another
need not be prepared unless the signifi-
cant impacts of individual facilities or
other plan elements were not'adequately
treated in the EIS. The Regional Ad-
ministrator should document his decision
not to prepare an EIS on Individual
facilities.
(g) Negative declaration. A negative
declaration on a facilities plan or sec-
tion 208 plan shall be prepared according
to § 6.212. Once a negative declaration
and environmental appraisal have been
prepared for the facilities plan for a cer-
tain area, grant awards may proceed
without preparation of additional nega-
tive declarations, unless the project has
changed significantly from that de-
scribed in the facilities plan.
§6.514 Content.of environmental im-
pact statements.
EIS's for treatment works or plans
shall be prepared according to § 6.304.
Subpart F-r-Guidelines for Compliance
With NEPA in Research and Develop-
ment Programs and Activities
§ 6.600 Purpose.
This subpart amplifies the general
EPA policies and procedures described
in Subparts A through D by providing
procedures for compliance with NEPA
on actions undertaken by the Office of
Research and Development (ORD).
§ 6.602 Definitions.
(a) "Work plan." A document which
defines and schedules all projects re-
quired to fulfill the objectives of the
program plan.
(b) "Program plan." An overall plan-
ning document for a major research area
which describes one or more research
objectives, including outputs and target
completion dates, as well as person-year
and dollar resources.
(c) "Appropriate program official."
The official at each decision level within
ORD to whom the Assistant Administra-
tor delegates responsibility for .NEPA
compliance.
(d) "Exemption certification." A cer-
tified statement delineating those ac-
tions specifically exempted from NEPA
compliance by existing legislation.
§ 6.604 Applicability.
The requirements of this subpart are
•applicable to administrative actions
undertaken to approve program plans,
work plans, and projects, except those
plans and projects excluded by existing
legislation. However, no administrative
actions are excluded from the additonal
procedures in § 6.214 of this part con-
cerning historic sites, wetlands, coastal
zones, wild and scenic rivers, floodplains
or fish and wildlife.
§ 6.608 Criteria for determining when
to prepare EIS's.
(a) An EIS shall be prepared by ORD
when any of the criteria in § 6.200 apply
or when:
(1) The action will have significant
adverse impacts on public parks, wet-
lands, floodplains, coastal zones, wildlife
habitats, or areas of recognized scenic
or recreational value.
(2) The action will significantly deface
an existing residential area.
(3) The action may directly or through
induced development have a significant
adverse effect upon local ambient air
quality, local ambient noise levels, sur-
face or groundwater quality; and fish,
wildlife or their'natural habitats.
(4) The treated effluent is being dis-
charged into a body of water where the
present classification is being challenged
as too low to protect present or recent
uses, and the effluent will not be of
sufficient quality to meet the require-
ments of these uses.
(5) The project consists of field tests
involving the introduction of significant
quantities of: toxic or polluting agricul-
tural chemicals, animal wastes, pesti-
cides, radioactive materials, or other
hazardous substances into the environ-
ment by ORD, its grantees or its con-
tractors.
(6) The action may involve the intro-
duction of species or subspecies not
indigenous to an area.
(7) There is a high probability of an
action ultimately being implemented on
a large scale, and this implementation
may result in significant environmental
impacts.
(8) The project involves commitment
to a new technology which is significant
and may restrict future viable alterna-
tives.
(b) An EIS will not usually be needed
when:
(1) The project is conducted com-
pletely within a laboratory or other fa-
cility, and external environmental effects
have been minimized by methods for
disposal of laboratory wastes and safe-
guards to prevent hazardous materials
entering the environment accidentally;
or
(2) The project is a relatively small
experiment or investigation that is part
of a non-Federally funded activity of
the private sector, and it makes no sig-
nificant new or additional contribution
to existing pollution.
§ 6.610 Procedures for compliance with
NEPA.
EIS related activities for compliance
with NEPA will be integrated into the
decision levels of ORD's research plan-
ning system to assure managerial con-
trol. This control includes those adminis-
trative actions which do not come under
the applicability of this subpart by as-
suring that they are made the subject
of an exemption certification and filed
with the Office of Public Affairs (OPA).
ORD's internal procedures provide de-
tails for NEPA compliance.
(a) Environmental assessment. (1)
Environmental assessments shall be sub-
mitted with all grant applications and
all unsolicited contract proposals. The .
assessment shall contain the same In-
formation required for EIS's in § 6.304.
Copies of § 6.304 (or more detailed guid-
ance when available) and a notice of the
requirement for assessment shall be In-
cluded in all grant application kits and
attached to letters concerning the sub-
mission of unsolicited proposals.
(2) In the case of competitive con-
tracts, assessments need not be sub-
mitted by potential contractors since the
NEPA procedures must be completed be-
fore a request for proposal (RFP) Is Is-
sued. If there is a question concerning
FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 40, NO. 72—MONDAY, APRIL 14, 1975
A-10
-------
RULES AND REGULATIONS
16823
the need for an assessment, the poten-
tial contractor should contact the official
responsible for the contract.
(b) Environmental review. (1) At the
start of the planning year, an environ-
mental review will be performed for each
program plan with Its supporting sub-
structures (work plans and projects) be-
fore Incorporating them Into the ORD
program planning system, unless they
are excluded from review by existing leg-
islation. This review Is an evaluation of
the potentially adverse environmental ef-
fects of the efforts required by the pro-
gram plan. The criteria in § §.608 shall be
used in conducting this review. Each pro-
gram plan with its supporting substruc-
tures which does not have significant ad-
verse impacts may be dismissed from fur-
ther current year environmental consid-
erations with a single negative declara-
tion. Any supporting substructures of a
program plan which cannot be dismissed
with the parent plan shall be reviewed
at the appropriate subordinate levels of
the planning system for NEPA compli-
ance.
(i) All continuing program plans and
supporting substructures, including those
previously dismissed from consideration,
will be reevaluted annually for NEPA
compliance. An environmental review
will coincide with the annual planning
cycle and whenever a major redirection
of a parent plan is undertaken. All
NEPA-associated documents will be up-
dated as appropriate.
(il) All approved program plans and
supporting substructures, less budgetary
data, will be filed in the OPA with a no-
tice of Intent or negative declaration and
environmental appraisal.
(ill) Later plans and/or projects,
added to fulfill the mission objectives
but not Identified at the time the pro-
gram plans were approved, will be sub-
jected to the same NEPA requirements
for environmental assessments and/or
reviews.
(Iv) Those projects subjected to en-
vironmental assessments as outlined In
paragraph (a) of this section and not
exempt under existing legislation also
shall undergo an environmental review
before work begins.
(c) Notice of intent and EIS.
(1) If the reviews conducted accord-
Ing to paragraph Cb) of this section re-
veal a potentially significant adverse
effect on the environment and the ad-
verse impact cannot be eliminated by re-
planning, the appropriate program offi-
cial shall, after making sure the project
is to be funded, issue a notice of intent
according to § 6.206, and through proper
organizational channels, shall request the
Regional Administrator to assist him in
the preparation and distribution of the
EIS.
(2) As soon as possible after release of
the notice of intent, the appropriate pro-
gram official shall prepare a draft EIS us-
ing the criteria In Subpart B, § 6.208 and
Subpart C. Through proper organiza-
tional channels, he shall request the Re-
gional Administrator to assist him in the
preparation and distribution of the draft
EIS.
(3) The appropriate program official
shall prepare final EIS's according to
criteria In Subpart B, § 6.210 and Sub-
part C.
(4) All draft and final EIS's shall be
sent through the proper organizational
channels to the Assistant Administrator
for ORD for approval. The approved
statements then will be distributed ac-
cording to the procedures in Appendix C.
(d) Negative declaration and environ-
mental impact appraisal. If an environ-
mental review conducted according to
paragraph (b) of this section reveals that
•proposed actions will not have significant
adverse environmental impacts, the ap-
propriate program official shall prepare a
negative declaration and environmental
impact appraisal according to Subpart B,
§ 6.212. Upon assurance that the program
will be funded, the appropriate program
official shall distribute the negative dec-
laration as described in § 6.212 and
make copies of the negative declaration
and appraisal available in the OPA.
(e) Project start. As required by § 6.
108, a contract or grant shall not be
awarded for an extramural project, nor
for continuation of what was previously
an Intramural project, until at least
fifteen (15) working days after a nega-
tive declaration has been issued or thirty
(30) days after forwarding the final EIS
to the Council on Environmental Quality.
Subpart G—Guidelines for Compliance
With NEPA in Solid Waste Management
Activities
§ 6.700 Purpose.
This subpart amplifies the general pol-
icies and procedures described in Sub-
parts A through D by providing addi-
tional procedures for compliance with
NEPA on actions undertaken by the Of-
fice of Solid Waste Management Pro-
grams (OSWMP).
§ 6.702 Criteria for the preparation of
environmental assessments and EIS's.
(a) Assessment preparation criteria.
An environmental assessment need not
be submitted with all grant applications
and contract proposals. Studies and in-
vestigations do not require assessments.
The following sections describe when an
assessment is or is not required for other
actions:
(1) Grants, (i) Demonstration proj-
ects. Environmental assessments must
be submitted with all applications for
demonstration grants that will involve
construction, land use (temporary or
permanent), transport, sea disposal, any
discharges into the air or water, or any
other activity having any direct or in-
direct effects on the environment ex-
ternal to the facility in which the work
will be conducted. Preapplication .pro-
posals for these grants will not require
environmental assessments.
(il) Training. Grant applications for
training of personnel will not require
assessments.
(iii) Plans. Grant applications for the
development of comprehensive State,
Interstate, or local solid waste manage-
ment plans will not require environmen-
tal assessments. A detailed analysis of
environmental problems and effects
should be part of the planning process,
however.
(2) Contracts, (i) Sole-source con-
tract proposals. Before a sole-source
contract can be awarded, an environ-
mental assessment must be submitted
with a bid proposal for a contract which
will involve construction, land use (tem-
porary or permanent), sea disposal, any
discharges into the air or water, or any
other activity that will directly or Indi-
rectly affect the environment external
to the facility in which the work will
be performed.
(ii) Competitive contract proposals.
Assessments generally will not be re-
quired on competitive contract proposals.
(b) EIS preparation criteria. The re-
sponsible official shall conduct an -en-
vironmental review on those OSWMP
projects on which an. assesment Is re-
quired or which may have effects on the
environment external to the facility in
which the work will be performed. The
criteria In § 6.200 shall be utilized in
determining whether an EIS need be
prepared.
§ 6.704 Procedures for compliance with
NEPA.
(a) Environmental assessment. (1)
Environmental assessments shall be sub-
mitted to EPA according to procedures
in § 6.702. If there is a question concern-
ing the need for an assessment, the po-
tential contractor or grantee should con-
sult with the appropriate project officer
for the grant or contract.
(2) The assessment shall contain the
same sections specified for EIS's in
§ 6.304. Copies of § 6.304 (or more de-
tailed guidance when available) and a
notice alerting potential grantees and
contractors of the assessment require-
ments in § 6.702 shall be included in all
grant application kits, attached to letters
concerning the submission of unsolicited
proposals, and included with all RFP's.
(b) Environmental review. An envi-
ronmental review will be conducted on
all projects which require assessments
or which will affect the environment
external to the facility in which the work
will be performed. This review must be
conducted before a grant or contract
award is made on an extramural project
or before an intramural project begins.
The guidelines in § 6.200 will be used
to determine if the project will have any
significant environmental effects. This
review will include an evaluation of the
assessment by both the responsible offi-
cial and the appropriate Regional Ad-
ministrator. The Regional Administra-
tor's comments will include his recom-
mendations on the need for an EIS. No
detailed review or documentation Is re-
quired on projects for which assessments
are not required and which will not affect
the environment external to a facility.
(c) Notice of intent and EIS. If any
of the criteria In § 6.200 apply, the re-
sponsible official will assure that a notice
FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 40, NO. 72—MONDAY, APRIL 14, 1975
A-ll
-------
16824
RULES AND REGULATIONS
of intent and a draft EIS are prepared.
The responsible official may request the
appropriate Regional Administrator, to
assist him in the distribution of the
NEPA-associated documents. Distribu-
tion procedures are listed in Appendix C.
(dyNegative declaration and environ-
mental impact appraisal. If the environ-
mental review indicated no significant
environmental impacts, the responsible
official will assure that a negative decla-
ration and environmental appraisal are
prepared. These documents need not be
prepared for projects not requiring an
environmental review.
(e) The EIS process for the Office of
Solid Waste Management Programs is
shown graphically in Exhibit 7.
Subpart H—Guidelines for Compliance
With NEPA in Construction of Special
Purpose Facilities and Facility Renova-
tions
§ 6.800 Purpose.
This subpart amplifies general EPA
policies and procedures described in Sub-
parts A through D by providing detailed
procedures for the preparation of EIS's
on construction and renovation of spe-
cial purpose facilities.
§ 6.802 Definitions.
(a) "Special purpose facility." A build-
Ing or space, including land incidental to
its use, which is wholly or predominantly
utilized for the special purpose of an
agency and not generally suitable for
other uses, as determined by the Gen-
eral Services Administration.
(b) "Program of requirements." A
comprehensive document (booklet) de-
scribing program activities to be accom-
plished in the new special purpose facili-
ty or Improvement. It includes architec-
tural, mechanical, structural, and space
requirements.
(c) "Scope of work." A document
similar in-con tent to the program of re-
quirements but substantially abbreviated.
It is usually prepared for small-scale
projects.
§ 6.804 Applicability.
(a) Actions covered. These guidelines
apply to all new special purpose facility
construction, activities related to this
construction (e.g., site acquisition and
clearing), and any improvements or
modifications to facilities having poten-
tial environmental effects external to the
facility, including new construction and
improvements undertaken and funded by
the Facilities Management Branch,
Facilities and Support Services Division,
Office of Administration; by a regional
office; or by a National Environmental
Research Center.
(b) Actions excluded. This subpart
does not apply to those activities of the
Facilities Management Branch, Facili-
ties and Support Services Division, for
which the branch does not have full fis-
cal responsibility for the entire project.
This includes pilot plant construction,
land acquisition, site clearing and access
road construction where the Facilities
Management Branch's activity is only
supporting a project financed by a pro-
gram office. Responsibility for consider-
ing the environmental impacts of such
projects rests with the office managing
and funding the entire project. Other
subparts of this regulation apply depend-
ing on the nature of the project.
§ 6.808 Criteria for the preparation of
environmental assessments and EIS's.
(a) Assessment preparation criteria.
The responsible official shall request an
environmental assessment from a con-
struction contractor or consulting archi-
tect/engineer employed by EPA if he is
involved in the planning, construction or
modification of special purpose facilities
when his activities have potential en-
vironmental effects external to the facil-
ity. Such modifications include but are
not limited to: facility additions, changes
in central heating systems or wastewater
treatment systems, and land clearing for
access roads and parking lots.
(b) EIS preparation criteria. The re-
sponsible official shall conduct an en-
vironmental review of all actions involv-
ing construction of special purpose
facilities and improvements to these fa-
cilities. The guidelines in § 6.200 shall be
used to determine whether an EIS shall
be prepared.
§ 6.810 Procedures for compliance with
NEPA.
(a) Environmental review and assess-
ment. (1) An environmental review shall
be conducted when the program of re-
quirements or scope of work has been
completed for the construction, improve-
ment, or modification of special purpose
facilities. For special purpose facility
construction, the Chief, Facilities Man-
agement Branch, shall request the assist-
ance of the appropriate program office
and Regional Administrator in the rer
view. For modifications and improve-
ments, the appropriate responsible
official shall request assistance in making
the review from other cognizant EPA
offices.
(2) Any assessments requested shall
contain the same sections listed for EIS's
in § 6.304. Contractors and consultants
shall be notified in contractual docu-
ments when an assessment must be
prepared.
(b) Notice of intent, EIS, and negative
declaration. The responsible official shall
decide at the completion of the environ-
mental review whether there may be any
significant environmental impacts. If
there could be significant environmental
impacts, a notice of intent and an EIS
shall be prepared according to the pro-
cedures in § 6.206. If there may not be
any significant environmental impacts,
a negative declaration and environmental
impact appraisal shall be prepared ac-
cording to the procedures in § 6.212.
(c) Project start. As required by
§ 6.108, a contract shall not be awarded
or construction-related activities begun
until at least fifteen (15) working days
after release of a negative declaration, or
until thirty (30) days after forwarding
the final EIS to the Council on Environ-
mental Quality.
EXHIBIT 1
NOTICE OF INTENT TRANSMITTAL MEMORANDUM
SUGGESTED FORMAT
(Date)
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
(Appropriate Office)
(Address, City, State, Zip Code)
To All Interested Government Agencies and
Public Groups:
As required by guidelines for the prepara-
tion of environmental Impact statements
(EIS's), attached Is a notice of intent to
prepare an EIS for the proposed EPA action
described below:-
(Official Project Name
and Number)
(City, State)
If j'our organization needs additional In-
formation or wishes to participate In the
preparation of the draft EIS, please advise
the (appropriate office, city, State).
Very truly yours,
(Appropriate EPA Official)
(List Federal, State, and local agencies to be
solicited for comment.)
(List public action groups to be solicited for
comment.)
NOTICE OP INTENT SUGGESTED FORMAT
NOTICE OF INTENT ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION AGENCY
1. Project location:
City
County _._..__
State 1-
2. Proposed EPA action;
3. Issues Involved:
4. Estimated project costs:
Federal Share (total) $..
Contract $ Grant $ Other $.
Applicant share (if any):
(Name) $.
Other (specify) $-
Total $.
5. Period covered by project:
Start date:
(Original date. If project covers
more than one year)
Dates of different project phases:
Approximate end date:
6. Estimated application filing-date:
EXHIBIT 2
PUBLIC NOTICE AND NEWS RELEASE SUGGESTED
FORMAT
PUBLIC NOTICE
The Environmental Protection Agency
(originating office) (will prepare, will not
prepare, has prepared) a (draft, final) en-
vironmental Impact statement on the follow-
ing project:
(Official Project Name and Number)
(Pxirpose of Project)
(Project Location, City, County, State)
FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 40, NO. 72—MONDAY, APRIL 14, 1975
A-12
-------
RULES AND REGULATIONS
16825
------------------------------------------ B. Summarize Assessment.
(Where EB3 or negative declaration and en- 1. Brief description of project: ___________
vlronmental Impact appraisal can be ------------------------------------------
obtained) 2. Probable Impact of the project on the
This notice Is to Implement EPA's policy envlronment: .................... --------
of encouraging public participation In the
decision-making process on proposed EPA
ZKSS
EXHIBIT 3 ------------------------------------------
4. Alternatives considered with evaluation
NEGATIVE DECLARATION SUGGESTED FORMAT of each : ________ __________________________
(Date) — ........ ----- ................ - ........ -
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY §. Relationship between local short-term
uses of man's environment and malnte-
""( Appropriate" Office")"" dSctt.^!^ enhancement ol long-term pro-
Address, City, State, Zip 6. Steps to minimize harm to the envlron-
Code) ment: ___________________________________
Asencies and "T^'S^S^^'SSSSrVbST'cSi:
mitment of resources: _______ .. ........ ____
As required by guidelines for the prep- -------------------------------------------
aratton of environmental Impact statements 8. Public objections to project, if any, and
(EES's), an environmental review has been their resolution: ______ . __________________
performed on the proposed EPA action ------------------------------------------
below: 9. Agencies consulted about the project: —
(Official Project Name and -----------------------------------------
Number) State representative's name: __________ .
Local representative's name: ___________
------------------------ Other: ................ _ ..............
(Potential Agency c. Reasons for concluding there will be no
Financial Share) significant impacts.
" (Project Locatianl'city," (Signature of
County, State) appropriate official)
(Date)
------------------------ EXHIBIT 5
(Other Funds Included)
COVER SHEET FORMAT FOR ENVIRONMENTAL
PROJECT DESCRIPTION, ORIGINATOR, AND IMPACT STATEMENTS
PURPOSE (Draft, Final)
(Include a map of the project area and a ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
brief narrative summarizing the growth the
project will serve, the percent of vacant land ~ ~~ "~
the project will serve, major primary and "(b^CTlbeVltfe"orp"roject"pian"and"give
secondary Impacts of the project, and the Identifying number)
purpose of the project.) Prepared by: ____ .............
The review process did not indicate slg- (Responsible Agency Office)
niflcant environmental Impacts would re- Approved by
suit from the proposed action or significant ' "(Responsible Agency'offlcial^
adverse Impacts have been eliminated by
making changes In the project. Conse- ~ (Date)
quently, a preliminary decision not to pre-
pare an EIS has been made. EXHIBIT 6
This action Is taken on the basis of a SUMMARY SHEET FORMAT FOR ENVIRONMENTAL
careful review of the engineering report, IMPACT STATEMENTS
environmental Impact assessment, and
other supporting data, which are on file in / >
the above office with the environmental 1m- J '
pact appraisal and are available for public ' '
scrutiny upon request. Copies of the environ- ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
mental Impact appraisal will be sent at cost
on your request. (Responsible Agency'offlce)"
Comments supporting or disagreeing with ... , „ ,,«,^,v „„.,
this decision may be submitted for consider- *• Name°r af lon- <°»«* °™>
atlon by EPA. After evaluating the com- < Administrative action.
ments received, the Agency will make a final < . ' J^gis}**1/8 action.
decision; however, no administrative action 2- Brief description of act on Indicattag what
will be taken on the project tor at least s*atf . ) *™ particularly
fifteen (16) working days after release of affected.
the negative declaration. a- Summary of environmental Impact and
adverse environmental effects.
Sincerely, 4 Llst alternatives considered.
------------------------ 5 ^ jfor draft statements) List all Federal
(Appropriate EPA Official) state, and local agencies and other
EXHIBIT 4 comments have been requested.
b. (for final statements) List all Federal
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT APPRAISAL ctate. and local agencies and other
SUGGESTED FORMAT sources from, which written com-
A. Identify Project. ments have been received.
Nam* of Applicant: ___________________ 6. Dates draft statement and final state-
Address: __________________________ ... ment made available to Council on En-
Project Number: ______________________ vlronmental Quality and public.
fEDERAL REGISTER, VOl. 40, NO. 72— MONDAY, APRIL 14, 1975
A-13
-------
16826
RULES AND REGULATIONS
EXHIBIT 7
MWHART FOR OSHMP
MtttWMI in PirUMIMIM I' W lit It »nmm 9N C»WW WWff
JSSJf
APPENDIX A
CHECKLIST FOB ENVIRONMENTAL BEVIEWS
Areas to be considered, when appropriate,
during an environmental review Include, but
are not limited to, the Items on this check-
list, based on Appendix II of the CEQ guide-
lines for the preparation of environmental
Impact statements which appeared in the
FEDERAL REGISTER August 1, 1973. The classi-
fication of items is not, mandatory.
I. Natural environment. Consider the Im-
pacts of a proposed action on air quality,
water supply and quality, soil conservation
and hydrology, fish, and wildlife populations,
fish and wildlife habitats, solid wastej?dis-
posal, noise levels, radiation, and hazardous
substances use and disposal. .•
II. Land use planning and management.
Consider the impacts of a proposed action-.ori
energy supply and natural resources develop)!;
ment; protection of en'-ironmentally critical
areas, such as floodplains. wetlands, beacheq
and dunes, unstable soils, steep slopes and\
aquifer recharge areas, coastal area land use;
and redevelopment and construction In
built-up areas.
III. Socioeconomic environment. Consider
the impacts of a proposed action on popula-
tion density changes, congestion mitigation,
neighborhood character and cohesion, low
Income populations, outdoor recreation, In-
dustrial/commerclal/resldentlal development
and tax ratables, and historic, architectural
and archaeological- preservation.
APPENDIX B
RESPONSIBILITIES
I. General responsibilities, (a) Responsible
official. (1) Requires contractors and grantees
to submit environmental assessments and re-
lated documents needed to comply with
NEPA, and assures environmental reviews are
conducted on proposed EPA projects at the
earliest possible point In EPA's decision-
making process.
(2) When required, assures that draft EIS's
are prepared and distributed at the earliest
possible point in EPA's decision-making
process, their Internal and external review is
coordinated, and final EIS's are prepared and
distributed.
(3) When an EIS is not prepared, assures
that negative declarations and environmental
aj5»raisals are prepared and distributed for
tlroS^ actions requiring them.
(4)'Consults with appropriate officials
identified in § 6.214 of this part.
(5) Consults with the Office of Federal
Activities on actions Involving unresolved
conflicts with other Federal agencies.
(b) Office of Federal Activities. (1) Pro-
vides EPA with policy guidance and assures
that EPA offices establish and maintain ade-
quate administrative procedures to comply
with this part.
(2) Monitors the overall timeliness and
quality of the EPA effort to comply With this
part.
(3) Provides assistance to responsible offi-
cials as required.
(4) Coordinates the training of personnel
involved in the review and preparation of
EIS's and other NEPA-assoclated documents.
(5) Acts as EPA liaison with the Council
on Environmental Quality and other Federal
and State entities on matters of EPA policy
and administrative mechanisms to facilitate
external review of EIS's, to determine lead
agency and to improve the uniformity of the
NEPA procedures of Federal agencies.
(6) Advises the Administrator and Deputy
Administrator on projects which Involve more
than one EPA office, are controversial, are na-
tionally significant, or "pioneer" EPA policy,
when these projects have had or should have
an EIS prepared on them.
(c) Office of Public Inquiries. Assists the
Office of Federal Activities and responsible
officials by answering the public's queries on
the EIS process and on specific EIS's and by
directing requests for copies of specific docu-
ments to the appropriate regional office or
program.
(d) Office of Public Affairs. Analyzes the
present procedures for public participation,
and develops and recommends to the Office
of Federal Activities a program to Improve
those procedures and increase public partic-
ipation.
(e) Regional Office Division of Public
Affairs. (1) Assists the responsible official or
his designee on matters pertaining to nega-
tive declarations, notices of intent, press
releases, and other public notification pro-
cedures.
(2) Assists the responsible official or his
designee by answering the public's queries
on the EIS process and on specific EIS's, and
by filling requests for copies of specific docu-
ments.
(f) Offices of the Assistant Administrators
and Regional Administrators. (1) Provides
specific policy guidance to their respective
offices and assures that those offices estab-
lish and maintain adequate administrative
procedures to comply with this part.
(2) Monitors the overall timeliness and
quality of their respective office's efforts to
comply with this part.
(3) Acts as liaison between their offices and
the Office of Federal Activities and between
their offices and other Assistant Administra-
tors or Regional AdminIstrators on matters
of agencywlde policy and procedures.
(4) Advises the Administrator and Deputy
Administrator through the Office of Federal
Activities on projects or activities within
their respective areas of responsibilities which
involve more than one EPA office, are con-
troversial, are nationally significant, or
"pioneer" EPA policy, when these projects
have had or should have an EIS prepared on
them.
(g) The Office of Legislation. (1) Provides
the necessary liaison with Congress.
(2) Coordinates the preparation of EIS's
required on reports on legislation originating
outside EPA. (See § 6.106(d)).
(h) The Office of Planning and Evaluation.
Coordinates the preparation of EIS's required
on EPA legislative proposals. (See § 6.106
(d)).
II. Responsibilities for Title II Construc-
tion Grants Program. (Subpart E). (a) Re-
sponsible official. The responsible official for
EPA actions covered by this subpart Is the
Regional Administrator.. The responsibilities
fEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 40, NO. 71—MONDAY, APRIl 14, 1975
A-14
-------
RULES AND REGULATIONS
16827
of the Regional Administrator In addition to
those In Appendix B.I. are.to:
(1) Assist the Office of Federal Activities
In coordinating the training of personnel In-
volved in the review and preparation of
NEPA-associated documents.
(2) Require grant applicant? and those who
have submitted plans for approval to pro-
vide the Information the regional office re-
quires to comply with these guidelines.
(3) Consult with the Office of Federal
Activities concerning works or plans which
significantly affect more than one regional
office, are controversial, are of national sig-
nificance or "pioneer" EPA policy, when
these works have had or should have
had an EIS prepared on them.
(b) .Assistant Administrator. The respon-
sibilities of the Office of the Assistant Admin-
istrator, as described in Appendix B.I, shall
be assumed by the Assistant Administrator
for Water and Hazardous Materials for EPA
actions covered by this subpart.
(c) Oil and Special Materials Control Divi-
sion, Office of Water Program Operations,
coordinates all activities and responsibilities
of the Office of Water Program Operations
concerned with preparation and review of
EIS's. This includes providing technical as-
sistance to the Regional Administrators on
EIS's and assisting the Office of Federal Ac-
tivities In coordinating the training of per-
sonnel Involved in the review and preparation
of NEPA-associated documents.
(d) Public Affairs Division, Regional
Offices. The responsibilities of the regions'
Public Affairs Divisions, in addition to those
in Appendix B.I, are to:
(1) Assist the Regional Administrator In
the preparation and dissemination of NEPA-
associated documents.
(2) Collaborate with the Headquarters
Office of Public Affairs to analyze procedures
In the regions for public participation and
to develop and recommend to the Office of
Federal Activities a program to improve those
procedures.
III. Responsibilities for Research and De-
velopment Programs (Subpart F). The
Assistant Administrator for. Research and
Development, in addition to those responsi-
bilities outlined in Appendix B.I(a), will
also assume the responsibilities described in
Appendix B.I(f).
IV. Responsibilities for Solid Waste Man-
agement Programs (Subpart G). (a) Respon-
sible Official. The responsible official for EPA
actions covered by this subpart is the Deputy
Assistant Administrator for Solid Waste
Management Programs. The responsibilities
of this official, In addition to those in Appen-
dix B.I(a), ire to:
(1) Assist the Office of Federal Activities
In coordinating the training of personnel
involved In the review and preparation of
all NEPA-associated documents.
(2) Advise the Assistant Administrator
for Air and Waste Management concerning
projects which significantly affect more than
one regional office, are controversial, are na-
tionally significant, or "pioneer" EPA policy.
V. Responsibilities for Special Purpose
Facilities and Facility Renovation Programs
(Subpart H).
(a) Responsible official. The responsible
official for new construction and modification
of special purpose facilities is as follows:
(1) The Chief, Facilities Management
Branch, Data and Support Systems Division,
shall be the responsible official on all new
construction of special purpose facilities and
on all Improvement and modification proj-
ects for which the Facilities Management
Branch has received a funding allowance.
(2) The Regional Administrator shall be
the responsible official on all improvement
and modification projects for which the
regional office has received the funding
allowance.
(3) The Center Directors shall be the re-
sponsible officials on all improvement and
modification projects for which the National
Environmental Research Centers have re-
ceived the funding allowance.
(b) The responsibilities of the responsible
officials, in addition to those in Appendix
B.I, are to:
P) Ensure that environmental assessments
are submitted when requested, that envi-
ronmental reviews are conducted on all proj-
ects, and EIS's are prepared and circulated
when there will be significant impacts.
(2) Assist the Office of Federal Activities
In coordinating the training of personnel
involved In the review and preparation of
NEPA-associated documents.
APPENDIX C
DISTRIBUTION AND AVAILABILITY OF DOCUMENTS
I. Negative Declaration, (a) The respon-
sible official shall distribute two copies of
each negative declaration to:
(1) The appropriate Federal, State and
local agencies and to the appropriate State
and areawide clearinghouses.
(2) The Office of Legislation, the Office of
Public Affairs and the Office of Federal
Activities.
(3) The headquarters EIS coordinator for
the program office originating the document.
When ^the originating office Is a regional
office and the action is related to water qual-
ity management, one copy should be for-
warded to the Oil and Special Materials Con-
trol Division, Office of Water Program Oper-
ations.
(b) The responsible official shall distribute
one copy of each negative declaration to:
(1) Local newspapers and other local mass
media.
(2) Interested persons on request. If It Is
not practical to send copies to all Interested
persons, make the document available
through local libraries or post offices, and
notify individuals that this action has been
taken.
(c) The responsible official shall have a
copy of the negative declaration and any doc-
uments supporting the negative declaration
available for public review at the originating
office.
II. Environmental Impact Appraisal, (a)
The responsible official shall have the envi-
ronmental impact appraisal available when
the negative declaration is distributed and
shall forward one copy to the headquarters
EIS coordinator for the program office origi-
nating the document and to any other Fed-
eral or State agency which requests a copy.
(b) The responsible official shall have a
copy of the environmental impact appraisal
available for public review at the originating
office and shall provide copies at cost to per-
sons who request them.
in. Notice of Intent, (a) The responsible
official shall forward one copy of the notice
of Intent to:
(1) The appropriate Federal, State and
local agencies and to the appropriate State,
regional and metropolitan clearing houses.
(2) Potentially Interested persons.
(3) The Offices of Federal Activities, Pub-
lic Affairs and Legislation.
(4) The headquarters Grants Administra-
tion Division, Grants Information Branch.
. (5) The headquarters EIS coordinator for
the program office originating the notice.
When the originating office is a regional office
and the action Is related to water quality
management, one copy should be forwarded
to the Oil and Special Materials Control Di-
vision, Office of Water Program Operations.
IV. Draft EIS's. (a) The responsible official
shall send two copies of the draft EIS to:
(1) The Office of Federal Activities.
(2) The headquarters EIS coordinator for
the program office originating the document.
When the originating office is a regional of-
fice and the project is related to water qual-
ity management, send two copies to the Oil
and Special Materials Control Division, Of-
fice of Water Program Operations.
(b) If none of the above offices requests
any changes within ten (10) working days
after notification, the responsible official
shall:
(1) Send five copies of the draft EIS to
CEQ.
(2) Send two copies of .the draft EIS to
the Office of Public Affairs and to the Office
of Legislation.
(3) Send two copies of the draft EIS to
the appropriate offices of reviewing Federal
agencies that have special expertise or juris-
diction by law with respect to any impacts
Involved. CEQ's guidelines (40 CFR 1500.9
and Appendices n and III) list those agencies
to which draft EIS's will be sent for official
review and comment.
(4) Send two copies of the draft EIS to the
appropriate Federal, State, regional and
metropofltan clearinghouses.
(5) Send one copy of the draft EIS to
public libraries In the project "area and in-
terested persons. Post offices, city halls or
courthouses may be used as distribution
points if public library facilities are not
available.
(c) The responsible official shall make a
copy of the draft EIS available for public
review at the originating office and at the
Office of Public Affairs.
V. Final EIS. (a) The responsible official
shall distribute the final EIS to the follow-
ing offices, agencies and Interested persons:
(1) Five copies to CEQ.
(2) Two copies to the Office of Public
Affairs, Legislation and Federal Activities.
(3) Two copies to the headquarters EIS
coordinator for the program office originating
the document.
(4) One copy to Federal, State and local
agencies and Interested persons who made
substantive comments on the draft EIS or
requested a copy of the final EIS.
(6) 'One copy to a grant applicant.
(b) The responsible official shall make a
copy of the final EIS available for public
review at the originating office and at the
Office of Public Affairs.
VI. Z.e0isZatit>e EIS. Copies of the legisla-
tive EIS shall be distributed by the responsi-
ble official according to the procedures in
section IV(b) of this appendix. In addition,
the responsible official shall send two copies
of the EIS to the Office of Federal Activities
and the EIS coordinator of the originating
office.
[FR Doc.75-9553 Filed 4-11-75; 8:45 am]
FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL 40, NO. 72—MONDAY, APRIL 14, 1975
A-15
-------
APPENDIX B
ALTERNATIVE MITIGATION PLANS TO REDUCE
POTENTIAL ADVERSE AIR QUALITY IMPACTS IN THE
AWMA AREA
-------
ALTERNATIVE MITIGATION PLANS TO REDUCE
POTENTIAL ADVERSE AIR QUALITY IMPACTS IN THE
AWMA AREA
Introduction
The first step is determining the number of automobile trips that will be
generated within AWMA. For a project of this nature, with the limited
information available, the most reliable parameter of trip generation is the
forecasted population. Using data from recent traffic engineering studies*
on specific residential projects in or near AWMA, we can predict that the daily
trips per capita and trip length factors will be 3.82 trips per capita and
7.98 miles respectively. The derivation of the trip generation factor is based
on traffic engineering analysts' correlation of density types with predicted
trips per dwelling unit as follows:
Low density: 12 trips per unit
Medium density: 10 trips per unit
High density: 8 trips per unit
Since these density types have an average occupancy rate as follows:
Low density: 3.5 persons per unit
Medium density: 2.5 persons per unit
High density: 2.0 persons per unit
the average per capita trip generation rates according to density types are:
Low density: 3.4 trips per capita
Medium density: 4.0 trips per capita
High density: 4.0 trips per capita
Then, from the zoning summary presented in a previous section we can de-
duce that approximately 30% of the total future population will live in low
density areas, and the remaining 70% in medium to high density areas.
Therefore, an average trip generation per capita for the AWMA area would be:
(.3) x (3.4) + (.7) (4) = 3.82 trips per capita
*Source: Herman Kimmel and Associates, Traffic Engineering Study
for Moulton Ranch General Plan, 1973 et al.
B-l
-------
There are no specific data on trip lengths for various destinations in the
southern Orange County area. Cal Trans has provided the best available
information. A 1967 regional origin and destination survey revealed the
following trip lengths for the indicated purpose:
Home-Other (H-0): 5.76 miles*
Other-Other (0-0): 4.82 miles
Other-Work (0-W): 7.24 miles
Home-Work (H-W): 9.12 miles
Home-Shop (H-S): 3.04 miles
Average for all trips: 6.24 miles
Cal Trans Transportation Planning Department currently uses the following:
H-0: 6.92 miles
0-0: 5.54 miles
0-W: 8.33 miles
H-W: 10.49 miles
H-S: 3.50 miles
Average for all trips: 7.2 miles
Using a straight-line projection of these trends we can predict the follow-
ing trip lengths for 1985:
H-0: 7.33 miles
0-0: 6.13 miles
0-W: 9.21 miles
H-W: 11.61 miles
H-S: 3.87 miles
Average for all trips: 7.98 miles
These factors appear to correlate reasonably well with what might be ex-
pected in the AWMA area. For example, the average distance from AWMA
origin to the most significant employment center, the Irvine Industrial
Complex, will be 11- 12 miles.
Orange County Modified Growth Rate (Worst Case)
Relating these data for the Orange County Modified Growth Rate Forecast
for AWMA produces the following computations: (1985 is selected as the
sample year because it is assumed that emission standards will largely
be realized by that time).
*Source: LARTS Study, LART Base Year Report, 1967 Origin and Destinations
Survey, Cal-Trans, 1971.
B-2
-------
Trip Generation (1985)
w y Y
X2 = Trips/Capita = 3.82
Xj = Projected Population = 163,700
= (163,700) x (3.82)
= 625,334 Trips
VMT = Y X3
X3 = Trip Length =7.98 miles
= (625,334) x (7.98)
= 4,990,165.3 miles
NOTE: Diesel trucks comprise an insignificant component and are not
included in this analysis.
E-0 Growth 1985
A similar analysis for the SCAG E-0 series population projections reveals
the following:
Y = y y
I A-i AO
= (120,400) (3.82)
= 459,928 trips generated
VMT = Y X3
= (459,928) (7.98)
= 3,670,225.4 miles
The land already committed to specific uses within AWMA based on approved
developer plans and the GSA facility will have the following effect:
V — Y Y
Y - AI A2
= (95,000) x (3.82)
= 362,900 trips
VMT = Y X3
= (362,000) x (7.98)
= 2,895,942 miles
B-3
-------
VMT MITIGATION PLANS
Mitigating the potential adverse air quality is obviously a problem of
reducing the vehicular miles traveled. Reducing the emissions through an
emission control program is important, but, as has been demonstrated,
the total VMT will overcome the beneficial effect of reduced emission rates.
Digressing for a moment on this point, experience to date with exhaust
control systems on automobiles indicates that the government emission
control programs alone may not be totally effective on either a short-
term or a long-term basis. The principal difficulty is ensuring that the
exhaust control systems are properly maintained.
Although the schedule for implementation may be delayed for a year or
so*, EPA requirements on reducing vehicle emissions are proceeding.
Fortunately, there are unmistakable trends today indicating in the future
that smaller cars and smaller engines will be utilized. This trend plus ,
some of the new engine technology that is being demonstrated currently,
such as the Honda stratified-charge engine, provide reasonable indication
that the EPA requirements will indeed be met.
The opportunities for reducing VMT lie in land use planning and develop-
ment of alternative transportation models. Life style is often blamed for
the emergence of the automobile as the dominant mode of transportation, and,
in a sense, this is true, but if it were not for the low density sprawl
pattern of residential development it probably would not have developed
into such a significant component. The geometry of the low density sprawl
pattern produces inordinately long travel distances to and from work, shop-
ping and other destinations. The following mitigation plans are presented
with the obvious need for VMT reduction, but is should be pointed out
that none of these are within the power of AWMA to implement, it can only
encourage:
Mitigation Plan 1
High density cluster residential development with neighborhood shopping
centers in lieu of low density residential development with regional
shopping centers.
VMT Analysis
Based on the Orange County modified Growth Rate, approximately
98,100 people will be added to the area by 1985. This is the
segment of the AWMA population whose travel characteristics
will have to be modified in order to affect a VMT reduction.
*Already the original 1976-(CO and HC) and 1977-(NOX) standards slipped
one year respectively and relaxed interim standards for CO and HC
specified for 1975 model vehicles.
B-4
-------
Based on local traffic engineering studies which project an
ownership rate of 0.62 cars per capita*, there will be 60,822
cars added to the AWMA area by 1985.
An assumption critical to this analysis must be made on how
much of this new population will live in cluster-type develop-
ment. Obviously, while it could vary over a wide range, the
trend in development site design in southern Orange County is
toward cluster types (e.g., Mission Viejo, Rancho Serrano, et al).
To be conservative we've selected to use a factor of 40% although
the actual percentage is likely to be much higher.
The trips that will be affected by the cluster concept are
those whose destination are for business, shopping, social,
and recreational purposes. While a specific origin-destination
study was not available, studies** in other areas indicate that
approximately 55 percent of daily trips are for these purposes.
The average car in low density sprawl patterns operates within
a radius of 6.6 miles (based on the previous trip length factors).
In a cluster design the average distance would be approximately
3.5 miles for business, shopping, social and recreational purposes.
VMT Reduction
Trips =Xj_ X2 X3
X2 = Trips/capita =3.82
X, = Population Affected
= (98,100) (.4) = 39,240
X3 = Bus, Shopping, Social, Rec. = .55
= (39,240) (3.82) (.55)
= 82,443.24 say 82,443
= Mileage Reduction X Trips
= (6.6 - 3.5) x Trips
= (3.1) (82,443)
= 255,573.3 Miles
*Reciprocal of the 1.613 persons per car average for Orange County.
**Source: Wilbur Smoth and Associates, Future Highways and Urban Growth,
1961.
B-5
-------
Mitigation Plan la
Plan la is not a different suburban design concept but an analysis of a
beneficial consequence likely to arise because of the cluster development
pattern - the increased usage of regional transit systems.
A survey* recently conducted by OCTD on attitudes affecting the use of
public transportation showed that while public transit is viewed as safer,
more relaxing, and less expensive, it is also perceived as less simple and
less convenient to use. But the survey also indicated that Orange County
residents desire a modal mix, so it seems reasonable to assume that if the
service was frequent and within a close proximity of the commuter's home and
destinations that the usage would increase.
VMT Analysis
35 percent of total trips occurring in the AWMA area will be
for the purpose of commuting to and from work.**
The average commuting distance to nearby employment centers
(e.g., the Irvine Industrial Complex) will be approximately
12 miles.
Less than one percent of Orange County commuters currently use .
the regional transit system.***
Studies of urban trip generation have found a close relationship
to exist between car ownership, population density, and mode of
travel****, and while the AWMA area travel characteristics do
not correlate precisely with those studied by Levinson and Wynn
it does seem reasonable to assume a modest increase in regional
transit usage if cluster designs are employed and the level of
transit service is adequate. The Levinson and Wynn studies
indicate that at a 3.82 trips per capita per day rate the use of
transit systems would be approximately 17%. To reflect area
characteristics and life styles, we will use a conservative
increase to 6% which is in line with some preliminary indications
of a survey currently being conducted by the Orange County
Transit District.
*Source: OCTD, County-Wide Research Study, November 1974.
**Source: Herman Kimmel and Associates, Traffic Engineering Study
for Moulton Ranch General Plan, 1973.
***Source: Orange County Transit District.
****Source: H. S. Levinson and F. H. Wynn, "Some Aspects of Future
Transportation in Urban Areas," 1962.
B-6
-------
VMT Reduction
Work commuting trips = X
,
X3 = .35 (% commuting)
X^ = 3.82 (trips per capita)
= 39,240 (Population)
trips = 52,463.9 say 52,464
Trip reduction = 52,464 x .06
= 3147.8 say 3148
VMT reduction = 3248 x 12
= 37,776 miles
Mitigation Plan Ib
This Plan like the previous one is not a different design concept but a
consequence likely to arise from the imposition of cluster development
as a major mitigation strategy in the AWMA area. Cluster designs with
neighborhood shopping facilities are likely to encourage the use of
bicycles and walking as alternative travel modes for some shopping needs.
Recent trends in cluster designs incorporating extensive bicycle pathways
reinforce this as a real possibility.
VMT Analysis
Area traffic studies predict that approximately 14 percent of
the trips occurring in the AWMA area will be for the purpose
of shopping.*
Studies of trip generation indicates that pedestrian trips and
other travel mode trips, e.g., bicycle, increase as the travel
factor increases and the number of destinations within walking
distance increases.** Levinson and Wynn estimate based on a
trips per capita per day rate of 3.82, the percentage of uses
of these alternate modes could be as high as 42.8 percent.
Again, to be conservative but reflective of area trends and
life styles, we will employ a factor of 21.4 percent, although
a much higher factor is likely to be realized.
*Source: Traffic engineering study for Moulton Ranch, Kimmel and
Associates, 1973.
**Source: H. S. Levinson and F. H. Wynn, "Some Aspects of Future
Transportation in Urban Areas," 1962.
B-7
-------
VMT Reduction
Shopping Trips = X, X2 X-
X. = % of total trips for shopping purposes = .14
X? = trip generation rate per capita = 3.82
Xj = population = 39,240
= (39,240) (3.82) (.14)
= 20,985.6 say 20,986
Trip reduction = (Shopping Trips) x (% usage of ped. & bicycles)
= 20,986 x .214
= 4,491
VMT reduction = (Trip reduction) x (Mileage reduction)
= (4,491) x (3.87)
= 17,380.2 miles
Summary of Mitigation Plan 1 '
The encouragement of cluster development in the AWMA area can have a
significant beneficial effect in reducing the total vehicular miles travel-
led and consequently in reducing potential air quality problems. Even the
previous conservatively based analyses predict that a savings of on the order
of 310,730 vehicular miles travelled can be realized. Imposing this
residential pattern in the AWMA area is obviously a necessary component of
the total solution but it must be emphasized again that dictating and en-
forcing any type of land use regulations is not within the purview of AWMA.
Regardless of the perhaps minimal power of AWMA to participate in enforcing
implementation strategies, the following are presented:
Implementation Strategies:
Rezone low density residential areas to high density residential
with extensive open space.
Subsidize low income residential cluster development with state
and federal grants.
Require large residential developments to include neighborhood
shopping centers.
Require developers of large residential areas to include bicycle
paths throughout the development with focus on the shopping area.
B-8
-------
Advertise the health, recreation and energy conservation benefits
of bicycling on television and in schools.
Mitigation Plan 2
The automobile, so firmly entrenched in the lifestyle created by low
density residential sprawl patterns, is a virtual necessity for most com-
muting and shopping. One attractive possibility for reducing the frequency
of usage, especially in view of the recent fuel shortage and threat of
future recurrence, would be to encourage the use of commuter car pooling.
The greatest opportunity would seem to be with work commuters and this
strategy could be applied to the entire AWMA work force, not just the
incremental addition from this point in time.
VMT Analysis
There is a scarcity of data upon which to base a performance
prediction for commuter car pooling. Car pools are currently
operated on a limited basis by a few large industrial companies
and a few public agencies. But because people seem more receptive
to energy and money conserving alternatives now, a few assumptions
can confidently be made.
Car pools would average 3 persons per car* (non car pool
cars average 1.2 persons per car).
The average one-way trip length for work commuting (e.g.
to the nearby employment center at the Irvine Industrial
Complex) would be 12 miles.
25% of all commuters would use the car pool system.
35% of trips occurring within AWMA are for work commuting
purposes.
VMT Reduction
Work Commuting Trips = X. X« X,
X3 = % of trips for work commuting = 35%
Xp = trip generation rate per capita =3.82
Xj = total population O.C. mod. growth rate proj.= 163,700
Trips = 218,866.9 say 218,867
*Source: Orange County Transit District Survey Preliminary Indications.
B-9
-------
Trip Reduction
The vehicle occupancy rate of 1.2 persons per vehicle implies
(218,867) x 1.2 = 262,640.4 person trips
a figure that would remain constant. If 25% of these persons could be
reduced, or in other words, if 25% of all commuters would use car pools,
then
(262,640.4) x (.25) = 65,660.1
person trips would be in car pools. At the assumed occupancy rate, 3
persons per car would mean 21,886.7 vehicle trips. The remainder of the
total person trips, 196,980.3, would continue at the average occupancy of
1.2, for a total of 164,150.25 vehicle trips. Therefore, the total under
this scheme would be 186,036.95 daily vehicle trips, say 186,037.
The trip reduction that could be realized then, would be:
218,867 - 186,037 = 32,830 trips
VMT Reduction = Trip reduction x average commuting distance
= (32,830) x (12)
= 393,960 miles
Summary of Plan 2
Car pools represent a promising technique for reducing VMT. They require
virtually no capital expenditure, and they provide more convenience than
scheduled bus service. According to our analysis, a savings of on the
order of 394,000 miles travelled may be possible. But to realize such a
savings would require a program of both incentives for a car pooling and
disincentives for solo driving.
Implementation Strategies;
Computers would be used to establish a data base, facilitate
data handling, and locate partners for similar sources and
destinations.
Cost would be free to all drivers in the program.
Companies in the private sector would be encouraged to assist
employees in forming car pools by distributing lists to each
employee of 10 fellow employees living near them.
Car pool autos would receive preferential parking treatment.
Car pool autos would get parking spaces free.
B-10
-------
Parking would be limited either by increasing fees for non car
pool cars or by limiting available spaces at places of employment.
Reserved lanes on the freeway could be established for car pools.
Modify building codes to reduce parking space to building size
ratios.
Mitigation Plan 3
Another opportunity to reduce VMT would be to modify the behavior of
commuters and shoppers concerning the use of .public transit systems.
Because of the dependence on automobiles as the primary travel mode, the
United States is virtually the only area in the world (with the exception
of Sweden) that exhibits a daily ratio of public transportation passengers
to auto passengers of less than 1:1*. The reasons for this also include
a complex interaction of social and economic factors, but the point is,
that if most of the world's population is conditioned to use public transit
systems then perhaps, assuming adequate and timely service, Orange County
residents and AWMA residents, in particular, can be encouraged to use public
systems.
VMT Analysis
At a trip generation rate per capita of 3.82, approximately 17% of the
person's trips could be predicted to be on a public transit system.**
The Orange County Transit District estimates that 7% would be more
realistic for a saturated bus system in the south county area.***
VMT Reduction
Trips reduction = X, Xp X3
Xo = % of transit usage = 7%
X« = trip generation rate per capita = 3.82
Xj = population = 163,700
Trips = 43,773.38 say 43,773
*Source: "Data Pertaining to Present Characteristics of the Central
; Major Cities, Highway Research News, July 1963.
**Source: H. S. Levinson and F. H. Wynn, "Some Aspects of Future
Transportation in Urban Areas," 1962.
***Source: Preliminary indications from the OCTD South County Survey.
B-ll
-------
VMT Reduction = (Trips) x (Weighted average trip length for both commuters
and shoppers)
= (43,773) x (4.6)
= 201,355.8 miles say 201,356
Implementation Strategies:
The use of a "bus land only" land on local freeways. This could
include use of "wrong way" bus lanes.
Limit parking by space limitations or increased fee.
Reduce or eliminate bus fare.
Provide "park-and-ride" systems where regular bus service would
be impractical such as in steep, hilly areas.
"Dial-a-ride" service would be provided in areas where regular
bus service would be difficult to implement.
Modify building codes to reduce parking space to building size
ratios.
This alternative would require approximately 130 buses for the
AWMA area by 1977. This is based on the premise that 15 percent
of the commuters would ride buses to work and the buses have a
capacity of 40 (a peak capacity of 5,000 passengers). Presently
Orange County transit has 108 buses for the whole county and is
adding 44 more. There are seven "dial-a-ride" buses in La Habra
and a grant to obtain 67 more (15 - 19 passenger).
Mitigation Plan 4 - Reduction of VMT's by Planned Development Around
GSA Facilities
In 1971, the General Services Administration (GSA) exchanged government
property for the North American Rockwell (NAR) building. Beginning in
September 1974 and extending over several years, the GSA will move 4,000
employees into the building. Because of environmental reservations ex-
pressed by the EPA about the proposed use of the facility by low-grade
employees who may not be able to afford to live in the AWMA area and
controversy over the nature of the transaction, GSA has decided to use
the center initially for record storage and to phase ultimate utilization
of the facility with mass transit which could mitigate the air quality
impact of employee commuting. Presently, only about 250 employees are
working in the building, most of whom commute from the Los Angeles area
although low-cost housing is available in Santa Ana and Costa Mesa. In
regards to the future work force, no determination has been made as to where
these employees will be transferred from.
B-12
-------
GSA has predicted that approximately 40 percent of the eventual employees
will be of GS2 - GS6 pay levels with annual salaries of between $5,682
and $11,668. A standard multiplier of 2.5 times yearly salary is used
to determine the amount a person can normally afford to pay for a house.
Thus, 40 percent of the GSA employees could not afford houses costing
more than $25,000. There is virtually no housing of this type in the
AWMA area and tentative plans do not call for the development of this
priced housing by the private sector. Therefore, GSA with the coopera-
tion of the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) intends to
provide some housing in the AWMA area which can be afforded by GSA em-
ployees by the time the work force reaches 1,200. If such housing is
not provided - either by the public or private sector - a large number of
employees will be forced to commute from outside AWMA, probably 20 to
30 miles and perhaps further.
Unique opportunities for reducing VMT connected with this project are
possible and realistic. Short-term opportunities such as carpools and
busing will reduce the VMT outside AWMA. Both of these methods will not
completely eliminate the need for an average 40 to 70 mile round trip
commute to the AWMA area and the GSA facility.
The long-term opportunity primarily entails the design and construction
of a new town around the GSA facility. A new town could ultimately house
approximately 40,000 people. This represents about 33 percent and 25
percent of the predicted population for the entire AWMA area for 1985
assuming E-0 growth and modified growth respectively. This also repre-
sents 65 percent and 40 percent respectively, of the predicted new growth
planned in the area. The reduction in miles driven in AWMA during the
build-up period to 40,000 is not discussed since the time period cannot
be predicted.
This alternative, proposed by the applicant, considers housing probably
in the form of a new town, located near the GSA Building. The new town
would be a moderate to high density mix of single family, cluster and
multiple family residences. A greenbelt-type layout could be used to
consolidate residential, commercial and industrial components, provide
aesthetic variety and provide corridors for the bikeway system. Essen-
tial to the new town concept, service industries, stores and light pri-
mary industries would be located within the community. Extensive bike-
ways could connect residential areas, shops and industry, including the
GSA Building. Other transit could include a combination of mini buses,
regular buses, and elephant train buses (for rush hour peak loads).
VMT Analysis
Information is extremely limited on bicycle trip generation
characteristics in the United States. Information is more
readily available from Europe where trip generation rates for
bicycle trips are high, ranging from 10 percent of all person
trips to a high 43 percent in Rotterdam, Holland.* The GSA
*Source: Planning Criteria for Bikeways, American Automobile Association.
B-13
-------
new town would be somewhat analogous since destination in
both cases would be within a short radius. This considered
with the planned incorporation of an extensive bikeway system
make a bicycle trip factor estimate of 15 percent of all work
commuting trips seem reasonable.
The total work force in the new town would be approximately
10,000 persons.
There will initially be approximately 1,500 employees at the
GSA facility with a gradual buildup to a maximum of 4,000 in
several years.
Most of the employees to be moved or hired persently live
outside of Orange County and AWMA.
No point in the community will be more than 3.5 miles away
from the GSA facility.
The total maximum population of the community is 40,000.
There will be 24,799 automobiles in the city (assumes an
ownership rate of 1.6 persons per car).
Approximately 35 percent of the total city work force will use
public transportation.
The balance of the community's work force (8,500 persons) will
drive to and from work an average of six miles per day with
each one carrying 1.2 persons.
Figures do not include shopping trips.
Trip generation rate per capita for this density would be 4.
Commute distances in AWMA are based on previously noted average
of 11.61 miles per trip, rounded off to 12.
VMT Reduction
From Bicycle Usage:
Trip reduction = X, X« X3 X^
X4 = % bicycle use = 15%
X3 = % work commuter trips = 35%
X« = trip generation rate per capita = 4-0
X = population = 40,000
B-14
-------
= (40,000) x (4.0) x (.35) x (.15)
= 8400 trips
VMT reduction = trips x commuting distance
= (8400) x (12)
= 100,800 miles
From Public Transit Usage:
Trip reduction = X, X? X3 X.
X. = % public transit use = .35
X- = % work commuter trips = 35%
Xp = trip generation rate per capita =2.5
Xj = population = 40,000
= (40,000) x (4.0) x (.35) x (.35)
= 19,600 trips
VMT reduction = trips x commuting distance
= 19,600 x 12
= 235,200 miles
Individual Automobile Usage:
Trips = xl X2 X3 X4
X. = bicycle use = 15%
X3 = % work commuter trips = 35%
X? = trip generation rate per capita = 4-0
X, = population = 40,000
= (40,000) x (4.0) x (.35) x (.15)
= 8400 trips
B-15
-------
From Public Transit Usage:
Trip reduction = Xj X2 X3 X^
X^ = % public transit use = .35
X3 = % work commuter trips = 35%
X2 = trip generation rate per capita = 2.5
X, = population = 40,000
= (40,000) x (4.0) x (.35) x (.35)
= 19,600 trips
VMT reduction = trips x commuting distance
= 19,000 x 12
= 235,200 miles
Individual Automobile Usage:
Trips = Xj X2 X3 X4
X. = % auto use = .5
X~ = % work commuter trips = 35%
Xp = trip generation rate per capita =2.5
Xj = population = 40,000
= (40,000) x (4.0) x (.35) x (.5)
= 28,000 trips
VMT reduction =trips x reduced commuting distance (12-3.5)
= 28,000 x 8.5
= 238,000 miles
B-16
-------
Summary, this new town surrounding the GSA facility would be a significant
step in reducing VMT in the AWMA area, on the order of 574,000 miles
daily, not to mention the consequent reduction in basin-wide VMT of
approximately 167,000 miles daily.
NOTE: Until a planned community or housing near the NAR facility is
constructed, the projected 4,000 employees will be forced to commute a
30 to 70 mile round trip per day. Eighteen of these miles will be in
AWMA. This represents 60,000 VMT per day for AWMA alone. Eighty-five
'percent car pooling with three persons per car would reduce this figure
to 30,600 VMT per day (total 70 mile round trip without car pooling is
233,330 VMT per day and 119,000 miles with car pools). It is estimated
that it would require 44 busses at 45 people per bus to replace 1,653
automobiles which represent 50 percent of the NAR work force. Buses
would reduce'the VMT per day in AWMA (18 mile trip) by about 30,000
VMT per day.
Implementation Strategies:
Use of federal programs such as the Title VII, urban growth and
new community acts of 1970*»2 to acquire land or low cost loans
to the private sector for development of a model community as
described above.
Low interest loans, subsidies, inexpensive transportation to
induce workers to move to the new community.
High parking costs, reduced parking to induce residents to use
alternative means of transportation.
Resolution by County Board of Supervisors.
Commitment by landowners and developers.
Mitigation Plan 5
.Public recreation opportunities abound along the AWMA coast, and are a
major seasonal traffic generator, especially on weekends. Establishing a
park-and-ride transit system could not only significantly reduce beach-
going VMT but also reduce congestion. The system would feature large
inland parking areas, perhaps at the Orange County Airport and/or the
intersection of Interstate 5 and Interstate 405. Beach-goers would park at
these areas and shuttle buses for the remainder of their journey.
1. Public Law 91-608, 91st Congress, H. R. 19436, December 31, 1970.
Title.VII, Part B, Section D.
2. National Committee on Urban Growth Policy. The New City. New York:
Praeger Publishers, 1969.
B-17
-------
VMT Analysis
Predicting VMT reduction for a park-and-ride system is difficult
at best because of the scarcity of base data relating to the
numbers of beach destined cars and their occupancy rates. Cal
Trans is currently conducting a study that may shed some light
on this but the results are not yet available.
Based on visitations at Newport Beach and Laguna Beach though,
it seems reasonable to assume approximately 20,000 daily visitors
and an occupancy rate of 3 persons per car. This implies a
daily influx of approximately 6,667 cars.
Most of the beach visitors would come from within a 50 mile
radius with a conservative average of 20 miles.* The park-and-
ride system would reduce the trip length for users by approximately
12 miles depending on the location selected, and the specific
beach destination.
Assuming convenient parking and excellent service, 20 percent of
the influx might use the park-and-ride system, or about 1333
cars.
VMT Reduction
Trips = Xl X2
X« = 2 (two-way trip)
X1 = average influx = 6,667 cars
= (6,667) x (2)
= 13,334
VMT (without park-and-ride) = (trips affected) x (reduced trip length)
i
= 13,334 x 20 miles
= 266,680 miles
*According to the Orange County Road Department, the average recreational
trip length is 25 miles.
B-18
-------
VMT reduction (with park-and-ride) = (trips affected) x (reduced
trip length)
= (13,334) x (.2) x (12)
= 32,001.6 miles say 32,002 miles
Implementation Strategies:
Make Route 1 a toll road similar to Monterey's 17-mile drive with
passes for residents. Toll road income would be used to subsidize
buses.
Charge high fees at beach parking lots.
Provide free parking at the park-and-ride lots.
Bus fare should be very low or free.
Initiate a contract for bus services with Orange County Transit
District (OCTD). (At present OCTD does not have buses available,
but they are expanding their fleet.)
Mitigation Plan 6
A beneficial application of the park-and-ride system could be for reducing
the automobile use created by Laguna Art Festival.
The Laguna Art Festival in Laguna Beach is an annual summer event within
the AWMA area. Its history dates back over 40 years. The festival normally
runs for 40 to 45 days in July and August and draws over 200,000 people
per season.* Visitors arrive almost exclusively by automobile with the
greatest influx occurring on weekends. This increase in local traffic is
a significant contributor to local air quality problems and occurs when
Laguna Beach's population is nearly doubled by summer residents. The limited
number of access routes and the deficiency of parking in Laguna Beach should
aid in establishing a park-and-ride bus service from the periphery of the
area.
VMT Analysis
A daily average of 4700 people are attracted to the Art Festival
which implies a vehicular influx of 1568 cars.
All art festival visitors arrive via either State Highway 1 or
Laguna Canyon Road driving 15 miles round trip from major free-
way connectors. This accounts for approximately 27,750 vehicle
miles per day in the AWMA area.
«
*Source: Laguna Beach Chamber of Commerce.
B-19
-------
Park-and-ride lots will be located at the junction of Interstate 5
and Laguna Canyon Road, and possibly at the junction of State
Highway 1 and State Highway 73.
The usage rate by art festival destined visitors would probably
be high because of the local parking deficiencies surrounding
the festival area. It seems likely that on the order of 40%
would use the system.
VMT Reduction
Trips affected = Xj X? X3
X- = % park-and-ride users = .4
X2 = 2 (two-way trip)
Xj = average influx - 1568
= (1568) x (2) x (.4)
= 1254.4 say 1254
VMT reduction = (Trips affected) x (reduced trip length)
= (1254) x (7.5)
= 9,405 miles per day of art festival or
399,713 miles per season
NOTE: The shuttle buses would add VMT themselves, but the amount is not
considered significant compared to the reduction benefit.
Implementation Strategies:
Limit the number of parking spaces available in the vicinity
of the festival.
Increase the cost of parking in and near the festival area.
Provide low cost or free bus service from parking areas.
Initiate a contract for bus service with the Orange County Transit
District. (At present OCTD does not have available buses,
but they are expanding their fleet.)
B-20
-------
APPENDIX C
SAN DIEGO REGIONAL WATER QUALITY
CONTROL BOARD REQUIREMENTS
-------
CALIFORNIA REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD
SAN DIEGO REGION
ORDER NO. 74 - 72.
NPDES NO. CA0107611
WASTE DISCHARGE REQUIREMENTS
FOR
ALISO WATER MANAGEMENT AGENCY
OCEAN OUTFALL
THE CALIFORNIA REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD, SAN DIEGO REGION (HEREAFTER
BOARD), FINDS THAT:
1. THE AL.ISO WATER MANAGEMENT AGENCY (AWMA) SUBMITTED A REPORT OF WASTE
DISCHARGE DATED JUNE 28, 1974 IN APPLICATION FOR A NATIONAL POLLUTANT
DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM PERMIT FOR A PROPOSED DISCHARGE.
2. AWMA PROPOSES TO DISCHARGE UP TO 18.5 MILLION GALLONS PER DAY (MGD)
OF TREATED; DOMESTIC SEWAGE CONTAINING POLLUTANTS INTO THE PACIFIC
OCEAN, A NAVIGABLE WATER OF THE UNITED STATES, FROM A NEW REGIONAL
OCEAN OUTFALL TO BE LOCATED OFFSHORE OF THE MOUTH OF ALI SO CREEK IN
ORANGE COUNTY.
3. AWMA IS AN AGENCY WHICH WAS FORMED DURING EARLY 1972 TO PROVIDE REGIONAL
SEWERAGE FACILITIES FOR A MAJOR PORTION OF THAT PORTION OF SOUTHEAST
ORANGE COUNTY LYING WITHIN THE SAN DIEGO WATER QUALITY CONTROL REGION.
MEMBER AGENCIES OF AWMA AT THE PRESENT TIME ARE THE Los ALISOS WATER
DISTRICT, EL TORO WATER DISTRICT, MOULTON-NIGUEL WATER DISTRICT, SOUTH
LAGUNA SANITARY DISTRICT, EMERALD BAY SERVICE DISTRICT, IRVINE RANCH
WATER DISTRICT, SANTA; ANA MOUNTAINS COUNTY-WATER DISTRICT, AND THE
CITY OF LAGUNA BEACH.
4. PRESENTLY, THE CITY OF LAGUNA BEACH.DISCHARGES APPROXIMATELY 1.8 MGD
OF PRIMARY EFFLUENT .INTO THE PACIFIC OCEAN VIA AN OCEAN OUTFALL. THE
CITY .OF LAGUNA: BEACH. HAS APPLIED .FOR-A NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE
ELIMINATION SYSTEM PERMIT FOR THEIR EXISTING DISCHARGE.
5. PRESENTLY, .THE SOUTH LAGUNA SAN.ITARY DISTRICT DISCHARGES APPROXIMATELY
1.4 MGD OF SECONDARY EFFLUENT INTO THE PACIFIC OCEAN VIA AN OCEAN
OUTFALL. THE WASTEWATER UNDERGOES TREATMENT IN A 3.2 MGD CAPACITY
TREATMENT PLANT JOINTLY OWNED BY THE SOUTH LAGUNA SANITARY DISTRICT
AND THE MOULTON-^NlGUEL WATER DISTRICT. THE SOUTH LAGUNA SANITARY
DISTRICT'S EXISTING DISCHARGE is REGULATED BY ORDER No. 74-42, A
NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM PERMIT ADOPTED BY
THIS REGIONAL BOARD ON SEPTEMBER 16, 1974.
C-l
-------
ORDER No. 74-72
6. IN ADDITION TO THE ClTY OF LACUNA BEACH FACILITIES AND THE SOUTH LAGUNA
SANITARY DISTRICT/MOULTON-NIGUEL WATER DISTRICT JOINT FACILITIES,
INLAND SECONDARY WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANTS, LOCATED WITHIN THE
AWMA SERVICE AREA AND UTILIZING LAND DISPOSAL OF EFFLUENT, ARE
PRESENTLY OPERATED BY THE MOULTON-NIGUEL WATER O.ISTRICT (2 FACILITIES,
SERVING THE 1-A AND 2-A IMPROVEMENT DISTRICTS), THE LOS ALISOS WATER
DISTRICT, AND ROSSMOOR SANITATION, INC. THE ROSSMOOR SANITATION,
INC. FACILITIES ARE LOCATED WITHIN THE BOUNDARIES OF THE EL TORO
WATER DISTRICT. WASTEWATER FROM BOTH MOULTON-NiGUEL WATER DISTRICT
INLAND FACILITIES CAN BE CONVEYED TO THE SOUTH LACUNA SANITARY
DISTRICT'S OCEAN OUTFALL FOR DISPOSAL.
7. THE MOULTON-NiGUEL WATER DISTRICT PLANS TO ABANDON ITS TREATMENT
PLANT SERVING IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT 2-A ANO USE THE TREATMENT PLANT
SERVING IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT 1-A FOR" WASTEWATER RECLAMATION PURPOSES.
USE OF THE CITY OF LAGUNA BEACH'S TREATMENT PLANT AND OCEAN OUTFALL
AND THE SOUTH LAGUNA SANITARY DISTRICT'S OCEAN OUTFALL WOULD BE
DISCONTINUED. AWMA WOULD CONSTRUCT A NETWORK OF PIPELINES AND PUMP
STATIONS, A NEW REGIONAL 16.0 MGD CAPACITY SECONDARY TREATMENT PLANT,
AND A NEW- REGIONAL OCEAN OUTFALL. UPON COMPLETION, ESTIMATED BY
AWMA AT APPROXIMATELY THE END OF 1975, .THE NEW FACILITIES WOULD BE
UTILIZED IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE EX I STING SOUTH LAGUNA SANITARY
DlSTRICT/MOULTON-NlGUEL WATER DISTRICT JOINT TREATMENT PLANT TO
PROVIDE SEWERAGE WITHIN THE AWMA SERVICE AREA.
8. THE NEW REGIONAL TREATMENT PLANT WOULD BE CONSTRUCTED ADJACENT TO
ALISO CREEK, JUST UPSTREAM FROM THE SOUTH LAGUNA SANITARY DISTRICT/
MOULTON-NIGUEL JOINT TREATMENT PLANT, THE NEW REGIONAL TREATMENT
PLANT WOULD TREAT RAW WASTEWATER FROM ALL OF THE AWMA SERVICE AREA
EXCEPT THAT PRESENTLY SERVED BY THE SOUTH LAGUNA SANITARY DISTRICT'S
SOUTH COAST INTERCEPTOR. EFFLUENT FROM THE NEW REGIONAL TREATMENT
PLANT WOULD BE DISCHARGED THROUGH THE NEW REGIONAL OCEAN OUTFALL.
9. THE NEW; REGIONAL OCEAN OUTFALL WOULD BE CONSTRUCTED OFFSHORE OF THE
MOUTH or ALISO CREEK. THE OUTFALL WOULD BE APPROXIMATELY 7000 FEET
LONG AND TERMINATE IN APPROXIMATELY 170 FEET OF WATER AT A POINT
33°29'52" NORTH LATITUDE AND 117°46T09" WEST LONGITUDE. FINAL
SIZING OF THE PROPOSED OUTFALL HAS NOT BEEN COMPLETED, ALTHOUGH
PRESENT PLANS CALL FOR A CAPACITY IN THE RANGE OF 25 HGD.
10. THE EXISTING SOUTH LAGUNA SANITARY DISTRICT/MOULTON-NIGUEL WATER
DISTRICT JOINT TREATMENT PLANT WOULD SERVE THE AREA TRIBUTARY TO THE
SOUTH LAGUNA SANITARY DISTRICT'S SOUTH COAST INTERCEPTOR. THE PLANT
WOULD BE USED TO TREAT A MAXIMUM OF ONLY 2.5 MGD, RATHER THAN THE
3.2 MGD PRESENT DESIGN CAPACITY. EFFLUENT WOULD BE DISCHARGED INTO
THE NEW REGIONAL OCEAN OUTFALL.
C-2
-------
ORDER No. 74-72
11. THE EXISTING FACILITIES OF THE LOS At-1 SOS WATER DISTRICT AND THE
ROSSMOOR SANITATION DISTRICT WOULD BE USED IN CONJUNCTION WITH A
PROPOSED ADVANCED WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT TO PROVIDE WASTEWATER
FOR RECLAMATION IN INLAND AREAS ON DEMAND.
12. THE STATE WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD ADOPTED THE*WATER QUALITY
CONTROL PLAN. OCEAN WATERS OF CALIFORNIA. ON JULY 6, 1972. THIS
PLAN CONTAINS WATER QUALITY OBJECTIVES FOR THE FOLLOWING PARAMETERS
IN ORDER TO PROTECT THE BENEFICIAL USES OF THE PACIFIC OCEAN:
(A) BACTERIA
(a) PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS
(c) CHEMICAL "
(D) BIOLOGICAL "
(E) TOXICITY
(F) RADIOACTIVITY
13. THE BENEFICIAL USES OF THE PACIFIC OCEAN INCLUDE INDUSTRIAL WATER
SUPPLY, RECREATION, AESTHETIC ENJOYMENT, NAVIGATION, AND PRESERVATION
AND ENHANCEMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE, AND OTHER MARINE RESOURCES
AND PRESERVES.
14. EFFLUENT LIMITATION, NATIONAL STANDARDS OF PERFORMANCE, TOXIC AND
PRETREATMENT EFFLUENT STANDARDS, AND OCEAN DISCHARGE CRITERIA
ESTABLISHED PURSUANT TO SECTIONS 208(8), 301, 302, 303(o), 304, 306,
307 AND 403 OF THE FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ACT AND AMENDMENTS
THERETO ARE APPLICABLE TO THE DISCHARGE.
15. THE BOARD HAS NOTIFIED THE DISCHARGER AND INTERESTED AGENCIES AND
PERSONS OF ITS INTENT TO PRESCRIBE WASTE DISCHARGE REQUIREMENTS FOR
THE PROPOSED DISCHARGE AND HAS PROVIDED THEM WITH AN OPPORTUNITY FOR
A PUBLIC HEARING AND AN OPPORTUNITY TO SUBMIT THEIR WRITTEN VIEWS
AND RECOMMENDATIONS.
16. THE BOARD IN A PUBLIC MEETING HEARD AND CONSIDERED ALL COMMENTS
PERTAINING TO- THE DISCHARGE.
17. THIS ORDER SHALL SERVE AS A NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION
SYSTEM PERMIT PURSUANT TO SECTION 402 OF THE FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION
CONTROL ACT, OR AMENDMENTS THERETO, AND SHALL TAKE EFFECT AT THE END
OF TEN (10) DAYS FROM THE DATE OF ADOPTION.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, THE ALISO WATER MANAGEMENT AGENCY, IN ORDER TO MEET THE
PROVISIONS CONTAINED IN DIVISION 7. OF THE CALIFORNIA WATER CODE AND REGULATIONS
ADOPTED THEREUNDER AND THE PROVISIONS OF THE FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL
ACT, AND REGULATIONS AND GUIDELINES ADOPTED THEREUNDER, SHALL COMPLY WITH THE
FOLLOWING:
C-3
-------
ORDER No., 74-72
A. EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS
1.. THE DISCHARGE THROUGH THE OCEAN OUTFALL OF AN EFFLUENT CONTAINING
POLLUTANTS IN EXCESS OF THE FOLLOWING LIMITS IS PROHIBITED:
TABLE A
CONSTITUENTS
5-DAY 20° c BIOCHEMICAL
OXYGEN DEMAND
SUSPENDED SOLIDS
pH
MONTHLY^/ V/EEKLYJ=/
AVERAGE AVERAGE MAXIMUM
LBS,
M,G/L5/
LBS/DAY^
UNITS
TABLE B
30^
4630
3
4630
45
6940
45
6940
50
7720
50
7720
(WITHIN RANGE 6-9)
NOT To BE
EXCEEDED MORE THAN
UN i TS
MG/L
LBS/OAY
MG/L
LBS/DAY
ML/L
JTU
50$ OF TIME
10
1540
1.0
154
0.1
50
DAILY
MAXIMUM
15
2310
2.0
309
0.2
75
CONSTITUENTS
GREASE AND OIL
FLOATiNG PARTiCULATES
SETTLEABLE SOLIDS
TURBIDITY
2. THE GEOMETRIC MEAN OF THE NUMBER OF FECAL COLIFORM BACTERIA IN SAMPLES
OF THE EFFLUENT DISCHARGED THROUGH THE OCEAN OUTFALL SHALL NOT EXCEED
200 PER 100 MILLILITERS FOR ALL SAMPLES COLLECTED IN A PERIOD OF 30
CONSECUTIVE DAYS, OR 400 PER 100 MtLLILITERS FOR ALL SAMPLES COLLECTED
IN A PERIOD OF SEVEN CONSECUTIVE DAYS.
NOTE: MG/L = MILLIGRAMS PER LITER
L3S/OAY = POUNDS PER DAY
ML/L = MILLILITERS PER LITER
JTU = JACKSON TURBIDITY UNITS
A LIST OF ALL FOOTNOTES REFERENCED WILL BE FOUND FOLLOWING
THE LAST PAGE OF THE WASTE DISCHARGE REQUIREMENTS SECTION.
C-4
-------
No. 74—72
3.
THE TOTAL COL I FORM BACTERIA IN ANY SAMPLE OF THE EFFLUENT DISCHARGED
THROUGH THE OCEAN OUTFALL SHALL NOT EXCEED 1000 PER 100 MILLILITERS.
5.
PRIOR TO JULY 1, 1978, THE ANNUAL ARITHMETIC MEAN TOTAL CONCENTRATION
OF CADMIUM, CHROMIUM, COPPER, LEAD, NICKEL, ZINC, COBALT, AND OTHER
HEAVY METALS SHALL NOT EXCEED 2.0 MG/L AND THE TOTAL CONCENTRATION OF
SAID METALS SHALL NOT EXCEED 5.0 MG/L AT ANY TIME.
THE DISCHARGE THROUGH THE OCEAN OUTFALL OF AN EFFLUENT CONTAINING
POLLUTANTS IN EXCESS OF THE LIMITS ESTABLISHED BY THE STATE WATER
RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD'S WATER QUALITY CONTROL PLAN, OCEAN WATERS
OF CALIFORNIA. TABLE B, IN THEIR PRESENT FORM OR AS THEY MAY BE
MODIFIED, IS PROHIBITED AFTER JULY 1, 1978. HOWEVER, PROVIDED IT
CAN BE CONCLUSIVELY DEMONSTRATED BY THE DISCHARGER THAT THE TREATMENT
PROCESS REQUIRED BY WATER CODE SECTION 13379(A AND B) PLUS SOURCE
CONTROL WILL NOT RESULT IN COMPLETE COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING
LIMITS BY JULY 1, 1978, THE STATE BOARD MAY ALLOW ADDITIONAL TIME
FOR COMPLIANCE NOT TO EXCEED JULY 1, 1983. PRESENTLY, THE LIMITS
ESTABLISHED BY TABLE B OF THE OCEAN PLAN ARE AS FOLLOWS:
CONSTITUENTS
AR.SEN i c
CADMIUM
TOTAL CHROMIUM
COPPER
LEAD
MERCURY
NICKEL
SILVER
UNITS
MG/L
S/DAV
MG/
LBS/DAY
MG/L
LBS/DAY
MG/L
LBS/OAY
MG/L
S/DAV
LBS/DAY
MG/L
LBS/OAY
MG/L
LBS/DAY
MG/L
LBS/DAY
MG/L
LBS/DAY
NOT To BE
EXCEEDED MORE THAN
DAILY
50% OF TIME MAXIMUM
0.01 0.02
1.54 3.09
0.02 0.03
3.09 4.63
0.005 0.01
0.77 1.54
0.2 0.3
30.9 46.3
0.1 0.2
15.4 30.9
0.001 0.002
0.15 0.31
0.1 0.2
15.4 30.9'
0.02 0.04
3.09 5.17
C-5
-------
ORDER Mo. 74-72
NOT To BE
EXCEEDED MORE THAN
UNITS
MG/L
L8S/OAY
MG/L
UBS/DA*
MG/L
LBS/DAY
MG/L
LBS/OAY*
. MG/L
LBS/DAY
MG/L
LBS/DAY
TU
PCJ/L
50$ OF TIME
0.3
46.3
0.1
15.4
0.5
77.2
1.0
154
40*0
6170
0.002
0.32
1.5
NOT TO EXCEED THE
DAILY
MAXIMUM
0.5
77.2
0.2
30.9
1.0
154
2.0
309
60.0
9260
0.004
0.62
2.0
LIMITS
CONSTITUENTS
ZINC
CYANIDE
PHENOLIC COMPOUNDS
TOTAL CHLORINE RESIDUAL'
AMMONIA (EXPRESSED .AS
NITROGEN)
TOTAL IDENTIFIABLE
CHLORINATED HYDROCARBONS
TOXICITY. CONCENTRATION
RADIOACTIVITY
SPECIFIED IN TITLE 17,
CHAPTER 5, SUBCHAPTER 4,
GROUP 3, ARTICLE 5,
SECTIONS 30285 AND 30287 OF
THE CALIFORNIA ADMINISTRATIVE
CODE.
B. RECEIVING WATER LIMITATIONS
1. THE DISCHARGE THROUGH THE OCEAN OUTFALL SHALL NOT CAUSE THE.FOLLOWI NG
LIMITS TO BE EXCEEDED OUTSIDE OF THE INITIAL DILUTION ZONE6*/:
NOTE: TU = TOXICITY.UNITS
PCl/L = PlCOCURIES PER LITER
C-6
-------
ORDER No. 74-72
CONSTITUENTS
GREASE AND OIL
FLOATING PARTICIPATES
TOXICITY
RADIOACTIVITY
MG/DRY
WT/M2
TU
PCl/L
CONCENTRATION NOT To BE
EXCEEDED MORE THAN
50$ OF TIME 10# OF TIME MAXIMUM
10.0 20.0
1.0- .1.5
— 0.05
NOT TO EXCEED THE LIMITS SPECIFIED
IN TITLE 17, CHAPTER 4, SUBCHAPTER 4,
.GROUP 3, ARTICLE 5, SECTIONS 30285
AND 30287 OF THE CALIFORNIA ADMIN-
ISTRATIVE CODE;
2. THE DISCHARGE THROUGH THE OCEAN OUTFALL SHALL NOT CAUSE CONCENTRATIONS
OF COLIFORM ORGAtUSMS WITHIN A ZONE BOUNDED BY THE SHORELINE AND A
DISTANCE .OF 1,000, FEET FROM THE SHORELINE OR THE 30-FOOT DEPTH CONTOUR,
WHICHEVER IS FURTHER FROM THE SHORELINE, AND IN AREAS OUTSIDE OF THIS
ZONE USED FOR BODY-CONTACT SPORTS, TO EXCEED THE FOLLOWING:
(A) A MOST PROBABLE NUMBER OF 1000 PER 100 ML (10 PER ML) IN
MORE THAN 20 PERCENT OF THE SAMPLES AT ANY SAMPLING STATION
IN ANY 30-DAY PERIOD; OR A MOST PROBABLE NUMBER OF 10,000
PER 100 ML (100 PER ML) IN ANY SINGLE SAMPLE WHEN VERIFIED
BY A REPEAT SAMPLE TAKEN WITHIN 48 HOURS.
(a) A LOG MEAN MOST PROBABLE NUMBER OF FECAL COLIFORM ORGANISMS
OF 200 PER 100 ML, OR A MOST PROBABLE .NUMBER OF FECAL
COLIFORMS OF 400 PER 100 ML IN MORE THAN 10 PERCENT OF THE
TOTAL SAMPLES DURING ANY 30-DAY PERIOD; AS DETERMINED BY
MULTIPLE TUBE FERMENTATION PROCEDURES AND BASED ON A
MINIMUM OF NOT LESS -THAN. FIVE SAMPLES. FOR ANY 30-DAY PERIOD.
3. THE DISCHARGE THROUGH THE OCEAN OUTFALL SHALL NOT CAUSE THE CONCEN-
TRATION OF TOTAL COLIFORM ORGANISMS IN ANY AREAS WHERE SHELLFISH MAY
BE HARVESTED FOR HUMAN. CONSUMPTI ON TO EXCEED THE FOLLOWING:
A MEDIAN MOST PROBABLE NUMBER OF 70 PER 100 ML WITH NOT
MORE^THAN.-10 PERCENT OF THE SAMPLES EXCEEDING A MOST
PROBABLE NUMBER OF 230 PER 100 ML.
NOTE: MG/M^ = MILLIGRAMS PER SQUARE METER
MG DRY WT/M = MILLIGRAMS DRY WEIGHT PER SQUARE METER
C-7
-------
ORDER No. 74-72
4. THE DISCHARGE THROUGH THE OCEAN OUTFALL SHALL NOT CAUSE:
(A) FLOATING PARTICULATES OR GREASE AND OIL TO BE VISIBLE AT ANY
LOCATION;
(a) AESTHETICALLY UNDESIRABLE DISCOLORATION ON THE OCEAN SURFACE
AT ANY LOCATION;
(c) THE TRANSMITTANCE OF NATURAL LIGHT OUTSIDE OF THE INITIAL
DILUTION ZONE7-' TO BE REDUCED BY MORE THAN ONE STANDARD
DEVIATION FROM THE MEAN DETERMINED FOR UNAFFECTED WATERS
DURING THE SAME PERIOD;
(D) THE DISSOLVED OXYGEN CONCENTRATIONS OF WATERS OUTSIDE OF THE
INITIAL DILUTION ZONE"/ TO BE DEPRESSED MORE THAN 10 PERCENT
FROM CONCENTRATIONS WHICH OCCUR NATURALLY;
(E) THE pH OUTSIDE OF THE INITIAL DILUTION ZONE-^ TO BE CHANGED
MORE THAN 0.2 UNITS FROM THE pH WHICH OCCURS NATURALLY?
(F) THE RATE OF DEPOSITION OF INERT SOLIDS AND THE CHARACTERISTICS
OF INERT SOLIDS IN OCEAN SEDIMENTS,TO BE CHANGED SUCH THAT
BENTHIC COMMUNITIES ARE DEGRADED^-';
(G) THE DISSOLVED SULFIOE CONCENTRATION OF WATERS IN AND NEAR
SEDIMENTS TO BE INCREASED BY MORE THAN ONE STANDARD DEVIATION
FROM THE MEAN DETERMINED UNDER NATURAL CONDITIONS;
(H) THE CONCENTRATIONS OF HEAVY METALS, CYANIDE, PHENOLIC COMPOUNDS,
TOTAL IDENTIFIABLE CHLORINATED HYDROCARBONS AND RADIOACTIVITY
IN SEDIMENTS TO BE INCREASED BY MORE THAN ONE STANDARD DEVIATION
FROM THE MEAN DETERMINED UNDER NATURAL CONDITIONS;
(l) - THE CONCENTRATIONS OF ORGANIC MATERIALS IN MARINE S'EDIMENTS TO
BE .INCREASED ABOVE THOSE WHICH WOULD DEGRADED* MARINE LIFE;
(j) NUTRIENT MATERIALS IN CONCENTRATIONS THAT WOULD. CAUSE OBJECTION-
ABLE AQUATIC GROWTHS OR DEGRAOE'^^/ INDIGENOUS BIOTA;
(K) MARINE COMMUNITIES INCLUDING VERTEBRATE, INVERTEBRATE, AND
PLANT SPECIES TO BE DEGRADEDi2/; OR
(L) ALTERATION OF NATURAL TASTE, ODOR, AND COLOR OF FISH, SHELLFISH
OR OTHER MARINE RESOURCESUSED FOR HUMAN CONSUMPTION.
C-8
-------
ORDER Mo. 74—72
C. PROVISIONS
1. THIS ORDER is ESTABLISHED ONLY FOR A WASTE DISPOSAL OPERATION AS
HEREINBEFORE DESCRIBED AND A WASTE DISCHARGE VOLUME NOT IN EXCESS
OF 18.5 MGO.
2. NEITHER THE;TREATMENT NOR THE DISCHARGE OF POLLUTANTS SHALL CREATE
A POLLUTION, CONTAMINATION OR NUISANCE..AS DEFINED BY THE CALIFORNIA
WATER COD'E.
3. BYPASSING OR DIRECT DISCHARGE OF TREATED-OR UNTREATED:-LIQUID OR
SOLID WASTES TO ANY INLAND WATERCOURSE IS PROHIBITED.
4. ODORS, VECTORS AND OTHER NUISANCES OF SEWAGE OR SEWAGE SLUDGE ORIGIN
BEYOND THE/LIMITS OF THE TREATMENT PLANT SITE ARE PROHIBITED.
• 5. ALL WASTE TREATMENT AND DISPOSAL FACILITIES. SHALL BE. PROTECTED
AGAINST A 100-YEAR-FREQUENCY FLOOD AS DEFI NED BY THE ORANGE COUNTY
FLOOD CONTROL AGENCY.
6. THIS ORDER INCLUDES ITEMS 1, 2, 4'AND 5 OF THE ATTACHED "REPORTING
REQUIREMENTS."
7. THIS ORDER INCLUDES ITEMS 1, 2, 3,.-4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 AND 11 OF
THE ATTACHED "STANDARD PROVISIONS."
8. THIS ORDER INCLUDES THE ATTACHED "GENERAL MONITORING AND REPORTING
PROVISIONS."
9. ;THE DISCHARGER SHALL COMPLY WITH THE-MONITORING AND KEPORTING
PROGRAM CONTAINED . IN THIS ORDER,
10. THE DISCHARGER SHALL COMPLY WITH THE FOLLOWING TIME SCHEDULE TO
ASSURE COMPLIANCE WITH EFFLUENT LIMITATION A.5 OF THIS ORDER:
COMPLETION REPORT OF
TASK DATE .. COMPLIANCE DATE
BEGIN STUDY TO^ DETERMINE 6-1-75 6-15-75
FEASIBILITY OF COMPLIANCE
PROGRESS REPORT ON STUDY TO 3-1-76 3-15-76
DETERMINE FEASIBILITY OF COMPLIANCE
COMPLETE STUDY TO DETERMINE 12-1-76 12-15-76
FEASIBILITY OF' COMPLIANCE AND
PREPARE REPORT
C-9
-------
ORDER Wo. 74-72
COMPLETION REPORT OF
TASK DATE COMPLIANCE DATE
SUBMIT REPORT TO'REGIONAL BOARD l-rl-77 :..
DEVELOP PLAN FOR COMPLIANCE 3-1-77 3-15-77
• . . BEG'IN IMPLEMENTATION OF PLAN r '-\~::7-1-77'..'-. ••. 7-15-77
... ' «v
PROGRESS REPORT ON IMPLEMENTATION 1-1-78 -1-15-78
OF PLAN'FOR COMPLIANCE . .
..:...- FULL COMPLIANCE 7-1-78 ' 7-15-78
THE ALIso WATER MANAGEMENT AGENCY SHALL SUBMIT To THE BOARD ON/OR-
BEFORE EACH COMPLIANCE REPORT DATE, A REPORT OF COMPLIANCE OR NON-
.' •-' COMPLIANCE WITH THE SPECIFIC TASK. IF NONCOMPL I ANCE IS BEING
REPORTED, THE REASONS FOR SUCH NONCOMPLIANCE SHALL BE STATED, PLUS
AN ESTIMATE OF THE DATE OF COMPLIANCE.., THE ALISO WATER MANAGEMENT
AGENCY SHALL NOTIFY THE BOARD BY LETTER UPON RETURN TO COMPLIANCE
WITH THE TIME SCHEDULE.
11. THIS ORDER EXPIRES SEPTEMBER l, 1979, AND THE ALIso WATER MANAGEMENT
AGENCY MUST FILE A REPORT OF WASTE DISCHARGE IN ACCORDANCE'WITH
TITLE 23, CALIFORNIA ADMINISTRATIVE CODE, NOT LATER THAN 180 DAYS IN
ADVANCE OF SUCH DATE, AS APPLICATION FOR' ISSUANCE OF NEW WASTE DISCHARGE
REQUIREMENTS.
12. IN THE EVENT OF ANY CHANGE IN CONTROL OR OWNERSHIP OF LAND OR WASTE
DISCHARGE FACILITIES PRESENTLY OWNED OR CONTROLLED BY THE ,D ISCHARGER,
THE DISCHARGER SHALL NOTIFY THE SUCCEEDING OWNER OR OPERATOR OF THE
EXISTENCE OF THIS ORDER BY LETTER, A COPY OF WHICH SHALL BE FORWARDED
.; TO THIS.BOARO. •• ' " . ' ., ../ .
13. THIS ORDER DOES NOT RELIEVE THE DISCHARGER OF THE RESPONSIBILITY TO
. OBTAIN OTHER NECESSARY LOCAL, STATE, AND FEDERAL PERMITS TO CONSTRUCT
•.'..•.....V FACILITIES NECESSARY .FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THIS ORDERJ NOR DOES THIS
ORDER PREVENT IMPOSITION OF ADDITIONAL STANDARDS, REQUIREMENTS, OR
CONDITIONS' BY ANY OTHER REGULATORY AGENCY.
I, LEONARD BURTMAN, EXECUTIVE OFFICER,:DO HEREBY CERTIFY THE FOREGOING is A FULL,
TRUE, AMD CORRECT COPY OF AN ORDER ADOPTED BY THE CALIFORNIA REGIONAL WATER QUALITY
CONTROL SOASO, SAN DIEGO REGION, ON. NOVEMBER 4, 1974.
LEONARD BURTMAN
EXECUTIVE OFFICER
C-10
-------
CALIFORNIA REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD
SAN DIEGO REGION
FOOTNOTE REFERENCES FOR WASTE DISCHARGE REQUIREMENTS OF ORDER No. 74-72
(NPDES PERM17-Ho. CA0107611) - ALI SO WATER MANAGEMENT AGENCY OCEAN OUTFALL
1. THE MONTHLY AVERAGE SHALL BE THE ARITHMETIC MEAN, USING THE RESULTS
0'~ ANALYSES OF ALL SAMPLES COLLECTED DURING ANY 30 CQNSECUTIVE
CALENDAR DAY PERIOD..
2. THE WEEKLY AVERAGE SHALL BE THE ARITHMETIC MEAN, USING THE RESULTS
OF ANALYSES OF ALL SAMPLES COLLECTED DURING ANY SEVEN CONSECUTIVE
CALENDAR DAY PERIOD.
3. THE PAILY MAXIMUM SHALL BE DETERMINED FROM THE RESULTS OF A SINGLE
3RA3 SAMPLE OR FROM THE RESULT OF A SINGLE COMPOSITE SAMPLE COLLECTED
OVER A PERIOD OF 24 HOURS.
4. THE ARITHMETIC MEAN OF BOD AMD SUSPENDED SOLIDS VALUES, BY WEIGHT,
FOR EFFLUENT SAMPLES COLLECTED IN A PERIOD OF 30 CONSECUTIVE
CALENDAR DAYS SHALL NOT EXCEED 15 PERCENT OF THE ARITHMETIC MEAN
OF VALUES, BY WEIGHT, FOR INFLUENT SAMPLES COLLECTED AT APPROXIMATELY
THE SAME TIMES DURING THE SAME PERIOD.
5. THE DISCHARGE RATE IN POUNDS PER DAY IS OBTAINED FROM THE FOLLOWING
CALCULATION FOR ANY CALENDAR DAY:
N
DISCHARGE RATE (LBS/DAY) = 8.34 -^cr Q. C ,
• N -^ *
1 '
IN WHICH N IS THE NUMBER OF SAMPLES ANALYZED IN ANY CALENDAR DAY.
Q, AND C, ARE THE FLOW RATE (MGD) AND THE CONSTITUENT CONCENTRATION
(MG/L) RESPECTIVELY, WHICH ARE ASSOCIATED WITH EACH OF THE N GRAB
SAMPLES WHICH MAY BE TAKEN IN ANY CALENDAR DAY. |F A COMPOSITE
SAMPLE'IS TAKEN, C, IS THE CONCENTRATION MEASURED IN THE COMPOSITE
SAMPLE, AND Q, IS THE AVERAGE FLOW RATE OCCURRING DURING THE PERIOD
OVER WHICH SAMPLES ARE COMPOSITED.
6. THE INITIAL DILUTION ZONE SHALL BE AS DEFINED IN THE WATER QUALITY
CONTROL PLAN. OCEAN WATERS OF CALIFORNIA. ADOPTED BY THE STATE WATER
RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD ON JULY 6, 1972.
7. I3!D
3. IBID
9. laic
10. DEGRADATION SHALL BE DETERMINED BY ANALYSIS OF THE EFFECTS OF WASTE '
DISCHARGE ON SPECIES DIVERSITY, POPULATION DENSITY, GROWTH ANOMALIES,
DEBILITY, OR SUPPLANTING OF NORMAL SPECIES BY UNDESIRABLE PLANT AMD
AMIMAL SPECIES.
11. !S;D
12, !310
13. 1310
C-ll
-------
APPENDIX D
CALIFORNIA COASTAL ZONE CONSERVATION
COMMISSION REQUIREMENTS
-------
' itabjrt F. Roortey, Ph.D., Chairman
Russell Rubley, Vice-Chairman
Jamas A. Hayes, State Representativa
W. J. Carpenter, Executive Director
Temporary Addresr
925 Harbor Plaza, Second Floor
P'°* Box 1U50
Long Bsach, California 90301
Teljphonsr. (213) 4384201.
RESOLUTION OF APPROVAL AND PERMIT
Application Number: P-2-21-73-29
Name of Applicant: Alis'o Water Management Agency
27281 Aliso Creek Road, Laguna Niguel, California 92677
Permit Type:
Standard
j { Administrative
}| Emergency
Development Location: Aliso Beach, Aliso Canyon, and adjacent
to the shoreline from Dana Point to Laguna Beach
Development Description: An ocean outfall, pumo stations, a
portion of the north coast interceptor line? a portion of
"Reach A" Xand outfall line, "North" Coast" and "South Coast"
interceptor lines and associated construction of the Aliso
Water Management Agency in the coastal zone permit area.
Commission Resolution:
I, The South Coast Regional Coastal Zone Conservation Commis-
sion finds that the proposed development:
A. NiiS/will not have a substantial adverse environmental
or "ecological effect in that:
Short term adverse environmental effects of boTtsrbr.anstrtcsn-
D-l
-------
Resolution of Approval and Permit
will be minimal in view of the net environmental gain
.associated with construction and operation of the system.
The deep ocean outfall is designed to •minimize'adverse
ecological effects. v. '•
B. , Is/is not consistent with the findings and declarations
jet forth in Public Resources Code Sections 27001, and
27302 in that:
It will aid in the preservation of the present coastal
'''-' * -%'•'• . ' • •"• . •.' • . - '-
zone resources for future maintenance planning.
C. Is subject to the following other resultant statutory
provisions and policies: - -
Requirements of State Water Resources Board
D. SSjz&sxsmfc. consistent with the aforesaid other statutory
0 provisions and-policies in .that: ---0 -• - ,, .„.;.-•',..,.
•.. -..: State Water Resources Board and County requirements
• '
-.- •• -have- been-complied with. - ;: .... •. .. •..- -.-. . ....• •
E. The following language and/or drawings clarify and/or
facilitate carrying out the intent of the South Coast.
Regional Zone Conservation Commission:
Maps, reports, documents and EIR on file with the
commission. - -. .. . • ... .-•...-
D-2
-------
Resolution of Approval and Permit
II. Whereas, at a public hearing held on April 16, 1973
(date)
at Long Beach •
~ '. . .. . ~ ~ (location) rTrT;.-...'
by a 8 to __i____V. vote hereby approVes
the application for Permit Number P-2-21-73-29 J pursuant
to the California Coastal Zone Conservation Act\of 1972, sub-
ject ,to the following conditions imposed pursuant" to the
Public Resources Code'Section 27^03: that Aliso Water Management
Agency does hereby declare its intention to utilize the following
design criteria for Its Regional Treatment Plan, and all
additional treatment facilities constructed to utilize the land
outfall and ocean outfall for discharge of effluent: '
(a) Dissolved oxygen concentration shall be not less than 2 MG/lj
(b) C6ncentration"of ammonia-nitrogen shall not be greater than
2 MG/1; and (c) The removal of 5-day bio-chemical oxygen demand
(BC-Dp shall be'not less than 90% of the raw sewage (BODc)
concentration.Appropriate sensors shall be installed which shall
be connected to recorders to provide a continuous record of the
concentration of oxygen, and ammonia in the effluent delivered
to the ocean which, records shall be-made available, upon request,
to the California Regional v/ater Quality Control Board—San Diego
Region. •
III. Said terms and conditions shall be perpetual and bind all
future owners and possessors of the property or any part
thereof unless otherwise specified herein.
IV. Section 560 of the Regulations of the California Coastal Zone
Conservation Commission specifies that no structure or area of
land or water shall be used or occupied in the manner authorized
by the permit or in any other manner until the Executive
Director has issued a Certificate of Compliance with the terms
and conditions of the permit.
V. The grant of this permit is further made subject to the.fol-
low Ing:
A. That this permit shall not become effective until a copy
thereof has been returned to the South Coast Regional
Conservation Commission upon which copy all permittees have
acknowledged that they have received a copy of the permit
and understood its contents. Said acknowledgement should
be returned within ten working days following issuance of
this permit.
B. That upon completion of the activity authorized by this
permit the permittee(s) shall promptly complete the "Notice
of Completion" and file it with the Executive—n-U-^t-.or, of.
this Regional Commission.
D-3
-------
C. That said development to be commenced on or before
120 days from'the date of issuance o.f.this permit
VI. Therefore, said Permit (Standard,
Number p-2-21-73-29 is hereby granted/dsodbexic for the above
described development .only, subject to the above conditions
''' "' ..and subject to "all terms and provisions; of "the Resolution of-
Approval by the South Coast Regional Conservation Commission.
VII. ".'Executed, at Long''Beach "• -1 California"on]behalf of
' the South' Coast Regional Conservation Commission on • .• "' '
\ '•" April 23 ,1973 ^ . ";..': . \,. ' ^ • '• :
Executive Director
D-4
-------
gCALIFORNIA COASTAL ZONE CONSERVATION COMMISSION
• 540 MARKET STREET. 2nd FLOOR
SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 9410?
(415) 557-1001
July 3, 1973
Mr. vJllllaa F. Wolf son
Aliso Hater E^rggacent Agency
27234 Aliso- Orsek Boad
a l&gual,. CA 92&T7 . APPML HO. 29-7?
Itear i-Ir, Wolf sons.
(h. Juna 20* 1973f bj a TOto of 11 in faror, nons agrjinsfc, ths California
Coastal Zono Consenrauion CocsaLssian granted tha application of tho Aliso VJat
Ageacy to parfora tha developaexifc 03 scribed in tho attached Sta£f
Thia persjifc is linritad to the aboro-dascribsci davclopnjent and is cubjact to
2iai coc/ditions- contained in tbo
any activity axtthoriaed by ths pozrait shall tolcs piaco? you smst
to thia office and to tha Sotrth Coast SagLonal Coaaisoion cifrics copies or t^iis
statsGerrt vdth your signatura acleaowledglag that jrou hare nsceived It cind undarstood
its contsata* • .
Please note that TOCO, conplatioa of the activitioa axithoriasd you nrast prcnptly
ccuaplate the Rotica of CkKrolation and file it with the Bxscutiva Director of ths
E. BCDC7ITS
E>3cutiv» Director-
j South Coast-
J-!r. A- Bovda
Tha ts-idarsigaed porsittee acJcar.-ilsdgaa rocaipt of tha C.n'll foraia Coastal 2tons Conservation.
COCTHJ. ssion pernit- coverad by Appeal !Io» 29-73 and fully understands its contents
including ?1I conditions imposed.
D-5
-------
Market St., San Francisco (415j 557-lOOi
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
PERMIT
APPLICATION:
DECISION 0?
REGIONAL COMMISSION:
APPELLANT:
DEVELOPMENT
LOCATION:
DEVELOPMENT
DESCRIPTION:
PUBLIC HEARING:
Appeal No. 29-73
60th Day: 6/29/T3
Aliso Water Management Agency (AWMA),-
Permit approved by the South1 .'Coast Regional
Commission.on April.16, 1973 subject to conditions.
Orange County Environmental Coalition, Dale Secord.
At Aliso Creek in the County of Orange.
A land outfall from the proposed AWMA Aliso Creek "
Regional Water Pollution Control Plant southerly '
through the bed of Aliso Creek and through a tunnel
i>or Pacific Coast Highway. Across ,the beach, the
outfall will be buried to a depth of approximately
25 to 30 feet. The ocean outfall will be permanently
buried to'a water depth of approximately 50 feet
~fb~r~¥pproxlinately 2,100 feet offshore where it
will be constructed on the ocean floor. The
outfall, will extend to a-water depth of approximately
200 feet, approximately 7,000 feet offshore.
June 6, 1973, at Monterey. . .-
STAFF RECOMMENDATION; The staff recommends that the Commission approve
the permit on the basis that it will not have substantial adverse -•
environmental or ecological impacts and is consistent with the findings
and declarations of the Coastal Zone Conservation Act of 1972^; subject
to the conditions below. ' . .
STAFF ANALYSIS. '" ;'."'•".'.':.''''' . V: '•'': ' : • .-•' . ;. v..' '
1. General Considerations. The overall plans of the AWMA, of which
the land and ocean outfalls covered in this permit application are only
3 small portion, are complex, extensive, and will have substantial
impacts, on development both within and outside the permit area.
Moreover, many factors in the overall.development are not yet re-
solved. Ordinarily, the staff would be reluctant to recommend approval
of a major project under such circumstance, at this early stage in the
Commission's planning, but in this instance there are other consider-
ations that lead to the recommendation for approval..
2. Status of Water Quality. The treatment plant and outfall of
the
-------
city of Laguna Beach are outdated and under a "cease and desist" orde~r*
from the Regional.Water Quality Control Board. The city has received
grant funds and an exemption from the South Coast Regional Commission
to make temporary repairs, but-these will be inadequate in the long run
to meet water quality standards. The other inland plants are reaching
their ultimate capacities. The RWQCB has required the area to solve
its waste treatment problems in 197^ and the lead time, for such large
projects necessitates that a decision be .made quickly. The State Water
Resources Control Board and the ayironmental Protection Agency have; •;•
taken the position, in which the staff concurs, that regional solutions
to sewage treatment problems are preferred. ; The RWQCB had approved . __..
the proposed project. The appellants agree that new facilities with V'
additional capacity must be constructed, but they question the size of
the facility and the necessity for immediate action. ;;:''-;>•.-.:•- • .•^-r^:'.-':-:'z:•--.'
' •' •.".*" , • . " • • •'• • . • .'"•••-••-' . .' '!'':•'••,» " .'•""••.' ;.'_«"•*•"'••.•*"••". . • - !•• . -
-' . • • • - - ' •' *-' " ,-'"•'"''•''•• " ' •-.:--•• _ .••*•'••'..• r : ' '-_._•'. ^ • -•.,.*. i . ', „, .
3. Planning Issues. New waste-treatment facilities can help en- :
fcourage population growth(on. the assumption that without adequate :v;,'r \
sewers and waste-treatment plants, residential construction will be made
impossible or at least will ba delayed for some time).'.- On the other . ,.. ..
hand, building inadequate facilities means increased costs, if the - . ';
facilities later have to be added onto or replaced,, In this., application>
much of the cpaacity is designed to serve areas inland .from the coast, •-
but high population growth in these areas would affect the coast. .;;> '
The area of this proposal has been designated as a critically-im-'.
p-acted area with regard to air pollution. There is thus a concern that ,
new sewer construction, by providing for increased population will have
the unintended result of increasing air pollution in an area with an
already-severe smog problem. Both the State Water Quality Control .: • . ''•"„'
•Board and the EPA- are studying, the proposed AWMA project in relation; to .
their grant programs^ and the results of these studies may have an im- .
portant impact on design, of-the project; Because of the high cost;" of-..
preparing detailed engineering plans for such a large system, and be- ^
cause of the uncertainties • of governmental approval, the applicant does
not yet have detailed plans for the outfall design.'V:;;-•';'X.-',rv^<.;':v' V.;--'^:•••''/•'•"
4. Population. The 1970 census population"pfT the area was slightly
less than 50,000 persons, the AWMA has proposed, with the concurrance
of SCAG and Orange County, that the facilities be designed for an
ultimate population of about 230,000. This figure is based on a
population projection to the year 2000. Due to the designation of •
the area as a critical air pollution area, however,the state and federal
governments will only grant funds for a capacity based on a lower
population projection to the year 199^* or a population of about
1^4.000. Neither the state nor the federal grant programs prohibit
construction of greater capacities, but they do represent a policy of not
encouraging such growth. ... ' ..:. . .-;'.' .•• ..'• • .'
-------
3. No transfer, sale, or lease of the- capacity assigned to any
member agency of AWP4A by Condition'No. 2 shall be made from one member
agency of AWHA to another member agency without the prior approval of
the South .Coast Regional Coastal Zone Conservation Commission or its
successor, and in the event of no such successor, such approval shall
be obtained from the SWRCB or its successor. . ;.• ' ~:. ,: ; ; - ••••••:
4. .The contracts between the AWMA and its member agencies .shall
contain a provision prohibiting any transfer, sale, or. lease, in . .-;":•.,
violation of the provisions of Condition No. 3. ;^;:^;-r•:;;/>;;:;' .,-.-..^-iV-Vy:
5. The land traversed by the facilities between the proposed AWMA
Aliso Creek Regional Water Pollution Control Plant and the: low tide line
shall be restored to substantially its present condition by the applicant
. after construction. ''••• •:;•'• '••• •>/.'•'••;'•'•.•".,": T V^:•;.•/:;-:-.C;-^•/'•V;^-:^.Sw/:V-:;;^>;:'':^;jr^.::- •-';-:.-:
6. Vegetation, including trees, shrubs, and grasses, in:the area
considered-in Condition No. 5 that is removed or destroyed or otherwise
substantially damaged during the construction of the facilities shall be
replanted by the-applicant..'' • .-" '.•• .;•'.':-...''/'.-.'. .. '%:^ ^v..;-/^ .',:•:••.':'•:--.'].••".
7. The applicant shall design and construct the facilities in such.
a manner as not to significantly increase the rate of erosion or the area
.considered in Condition- No-;- 5 or to create or increase flood'control'.
"problems in Aliso Creek and its flood plain. ':-;-;; ;/.V:V =;;":. •• • . j\ • . '
8. The applicant shall design and construct the facilities in a
manner so as not to expose the facilities to damage from the waters of •'••'
Aliso Creek. :: •.-.;-• v;v •:>•;<;;:, .-.••,•.•; ..•;•'.•• •'-•'- -.'/:•'--• •••••.•. -:X',;-:> .^;;•;-•;.'-'^•'.':^Ko;.^'::^/.;.-.,•; .'•,
9. At least 60 days prior to calling; for bids for construction of
the facilities and restoration of the area arter construction, .the V \ •
applicant shall submit its detailed plans to the South Coast Regional '
Coastal Zone Conservation Commission. The Regional Commission shall, '•
within 60 days from receipt of the plans, determine whether they are : . ;•
adequate to fullful Conditions 5, 6, 7, and 8. If the Regional ' -• .
Commission has not acted within 60 days after submission of the plans,
the applicant will be free to proceed with construction. ! . . . :
10. The applicant shall accomplish the environmental mitigation
measures specified on pages 35 and 36 of the Aliso Water Management •
Agency Environmental Impact Report (Draft) dated September 1972 prior
tOj during, or immediately following completion of construction of the
facilities. All such requirements, including those listed in
Conditions No. 5, 6, 7, and 8, shall be accomplished prior to the issuance
of a Certificate of Completion for the construction of the facilities.
11. The applicant shall require that the contractor av?arded tha
contract for the construction of the facilities shall provide a faithful
performance bond in the amount of 100 per cent of the estimated
amount of the contract price. ^,7
-------
The appellants suggest that the tnajcirnum capacity funded By grants
also "be the maximum design capacity of the outfalls. Although recognizing
the impacts of population growth on air quality and on coastal resource.
the staff also recognizes that initial construction for an underestimated
population capacity would also increase the costs to the taxpayers for •
subsequently-needed facilities, and for this reason the staff proposes .
that a population projection to the year 2000 and not 199^ be used,
5. Construction in the Bed of Aliso Creek, Ordinarily, the staff
would not recoosiend construction of any major facility in a stream bed
because of the potential for adverse environmental impacts, particularly
when detailed plans have not been prepared. But Aliso Creek is an
intermittent stream and a utility easement with a 27-inch outfall al-
ready exists in the creek. And the recommended conditions require that
plans for.the proposed facility be approved by the South Coast
Regional Commission before construction, to insure that there will be no
significant adverse environmental impacts.
Recommended Permit Conditions for Appeal Number 29-73.
' • . ' •• '' ' - . " ' • ' '•••'•";"'••" » • • • '.."•"
1. The facilities shall be constructed with only the capacity
reasonably necessary to satisfy appropriate engineering standards, and
in no event shall such capacity be greater than that reasonably necessary
to serve a permanent population derived from an E-0 population projection
to the year 2000 plus commercial and industrial needs for the area,
seasonal population increases, infiltration, and peak flows as determined
by the Statester Resources Control Board. .
• • f\ . . ' •' . '.. , • -•'.•".
2. The maximum proportion of the total capacity of the facilities
that can be used by any of the member agencies of AWMA shall be determined
by that .proportion of total capacity assigned to that member agency in
'Table I with, appropriate adjustments among the member agencies for the
capacity necessary to service the respective seasonal populations, .
commercial and industrial needs, infiltration, and peak flows as
, determined by the SWHCB pursuant to Condition No. 1. . . .
.. . '• '.:•'.. --.- -.. •.:•••;. Table I . .-. . ';.''/:• -.:•;' •' .'•-•• • • '.'•' ,'•-•• ••,••".'.. •• .
.:'.;-. . Capacity .Proposition
Average Flow (MGD) of Total
Agency : '••: (Proposed by AWMA) Capacity
Santa Ana Mountains County . . . ;
Water District . 1.0 .028
Los AliscsWster District 5.5 .154
El Toro Water District . 5.5 [15^
Noulton-Nlguel Water District 12.9 .361
South iaguna Sanitary District 3.2 ,090
City of Laguna Beach A.*l .123
Emsraid Bay Service District 0.2 .006
Irvine Ranch Water District . 3.0 .
Total 35.7 1.000
D-a
-------
12f The applicant shall comply with all conditions established by
the South .Coast Regional Coastal Zone Conservation Comm-is-slon att- its-
meeting of April 16, 1973 for Permit No. 29-73.
13. If the applicant does,not diligently commence construction of
the facilities within 2 years of the date that the State Coastal
Zone Conservation Comaission approves this permit, this permit shall
automatically expire. • .
14. 'This permit does not commit the Coastal Zone Conservation
Commission to approving any other developments or to planning decisions
based on population figures referred to herein.
D-9
-------
CALIFORNIA COASTAL ZONE CONSERVATION COMMISSION 666 E. Ocean Blvd.
SOUTH COAST REGION Long Beach, CA
Robert F.Rconey.P*.D.. Chair™ ' Kail: P.O. BOX lU50
Ri^ell Rubley. Vice-chairman wng Beach, CA QO
James A. Hayes, Stata Representativs (213)^36-^201
II, J. Carpenter, Executive Director • (71^)8^6-061*8
RESOLUTION OF APPROVAL AND PERMIT
Application Number: P-4-17-73-779 •
Name of Applicant: Aliso Water Mangement Agency
27231 Aliso Creek Rd., Laguna Niguel . 92677 '__
Permit Type: 1 X j Standard • .
| | Administrative
| j Emergency
Development Location: Laguna Beach and South Laguna, Coast
Highway and Aliso Creek Road
*
Development Description: "North Coastal Interceptor Sewer"
Commission Resolution: '
I. The South Coast Regional Coastal Zone Conservation Commis-
sion finds that the proposed development:
A. Uoddj/will not have a substantial adverse environmental
or ecological effect in that:
it redirects sewage to a new sewage treatment plant.
D-10
-------
B. Is/±sanadx consistent with the findings and declarations
set forth in Public Resources Code Sections 27001, and
__ 27302 in that: ,
it does not hinder preservation of coastal zone re-
sources -for future planning purposes. . '
C. Is subject to the following other resultant statutory
provisions and policies:
approvals from the 'County of Orange, -the Water Quality
Control Board, Water Resources Control Board, SCAG, State
Lands Commissions, Corps of Engineers and The City of
Laguna Beach • .'
D. IS/JCSXHB&.consistent with the aforesaid other statutory
provisions and policies in that:
':••.approvals have been grante'd by all but the State Lands
Commission and the Corps of Engineers. .
The following language and/or drawings clarify and/or
facilitate carrying out the intent of the South Coast
Regional Zone Conservation Commission:
on file -with .the Regional Commission.
D-ll
-------
II. Whereas, at a public hearing held on July 9, 1973
(date )
at _ Long Beach
• (location) ~~
by a _ 9 to 0 w/3 abs. vote hereby appro ves/j
'
_
the application for Permit Number ' F-4-17-7 3-779'' pursuant
to the California Coastal Zone Conservation Act .'of 1972, sub-
ject to .the '.following conditions imposed pursuant' to the
Public Resources Code Section 27^03:
* -
that the applicant limit the capacity of the North _
Coastal Interceptor Sewer necessary to serve an estimated
-- population of -37,100 in the year 2000 plus commercial and
industrial needs for the area, seasonal population increases.
infiltration, and peak flows as determined by the State
Water Resources Control Board.
III. Said terms and conditions shall be perpetual and bind all
future owners and possessors of the property or any part
thereof unless otherwise specified herein.
IV. Section 560 of the Regulations of the California Coastal Zone
Conservation Commission specifies that no structure or area of
land or water shall be used or occupied in the manner authorized
by the permit or in any other manner until the Executive . .
Director has issued a Certificate of Compliance with the terms
and conditions of the permit.
V. The grant of this permit is further made subject to the fol-
lowing: '
A. That this permit shall not become effective until the verifi-
cation has been returned to the South Coast Regional
Conservation Commission upon which copy all permittees have
acknowledged that they have received a copy of the permit
and understood its contents. Said acknowledgement should
be returned within ten working days following issuance of
this permit.
B., That upon completion of the activity authorized by this
permit the permittee(s) shall promptly complete the "Notice
of Completion" and file it with the Executive Director of
this Regional Commission.
D-12
-------
C. That said development to be commenced on or before
two. years after effective date -of approval
t •*
VI. Therefore, said Permit (Standard,
Number P-4-17-73-779 is hereby gratited/&sw±s3' for the above
described development only, subject to the above conditions
and subject to all terms and provisions of the Resolution of
Approval by the South Coast Regional Conservation Commission.
VII. Executed at _ Long Beach • . , California on behalf of-
the South Coast Regional Conservation Commission on
July 1? , 197 3 _ . - . - ---- '•
M. J. Ci
Executive Director
D-13
------- |